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 M E T A L
FAST BREEQER REACTOR
PROGRAM

VOLUME V

Volume I Section 1 Summary

Section 2 Background
Section 3 LMFBR Program

Volume II Section 4 Environmental Impact of the LMFBR Fuel Cycle

Section 5 Economic, Social and Other Impacts

Volume Ill Section 6 Alternative Technology Options

Volume IV Section 7 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts

Section 8 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Section 9 Short Term Benefits and Long Term Losses
Section 10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Section 11 Cost-Benefit Analysis

VOLUME V APPENDIX COMMENT LETTERS 1-25 A N D RESPONSES

Volume V I Appendix Comment Letters 26-38 and Responses

Volume VI1 Appendix Comment Letters 39-66 and Responses

Ths document is
b~ KLY LEASABLE
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
’ - .lthoriz ng Offkid
lie: 67 /?-L1zoo7 DECEMBER 1974

NOTICE
’Il~isreport was prepared a s a n 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 A g r i c u l t u r e ..................... 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 W i l f r e d Beaver .................................. V.3-4

4. R . I. Price. U.S. Coast Guard ...................................

AEC Response t o R . I. P r i c e .....................................
V.4-1
V.4-2

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

AEC Response t o K . W . Boer ...................................... V.5-11

6 . J . G . Speth. Natural Resources Defense Council .................. V.6-1

AEC Response t o J . G . Speth ..................................... V.6-42

7 . Richard Dai fuku ............................ ..................... .

V 7-1
AEC Response t o Richard Daifuku .................................
,

V.7-26

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

AEC Response t o Gaylord and I l e n e Younghein ..................... V.8-142

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

AEC Response t o Richard Wilson .................................. V.9-3

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

AEC Response t o Roy Dycus ....................................... V.10-4

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

AEC Response t o R . J . Chamberlin ................................ V.11-4

. L . D . DeNike. Zero Population Growth ............................ V.12-1

AEC Response t o L . D . DeNike ....................................
12
V.12-22

. H . L . Barrows, U.S. Dept . of A g r i c u l t u r e ........................ V.13-1

AEC Response t o H . L . Barrows ...................................
13
V.13-2

14 . James J . Barker ................................................. V.14-1

AEC Response t o James J . Barker ................................. V.14-2

15 . Hami 1t o n Treadway ...............................................

AEC Response t o Hami 1t o n Treadway ...............................
.
V 15-1
.
V 15-9

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

i
 CONTENTS (Continued)

. W . C . Guyker. Allegheny Power Service Corp ..................... V.17-1

AEC Response t o W . C . Guyker ...................................
17
V.17-3

18. Leonard F . C . Reichle. Ebasco Services. I n c ....................

AEC Response t o Leonard F . C . Reichle ..........................
V.18-1
V.18-17

19 . Michael T . Carter. e t a1 .......................................

AEC Response t o Michael T . Carter e t a1 ........................
v.19-1
v.19-9

20 . Dean E . Abrahamson ............................................. v.2 01.

AEC Response t o Dean E . Abrahamson ............................. V.20-57

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

AEC Response t o John C . Sheppard ...............................
v.21-1
V.21-4

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 ................................
v.22-1
V.22-16

23 . Neva Dawkins ...................................................

AEC Response t o Neva Dawkins ...................................
V.23-1
V.2 32.

24 . Jon Legakes ....................................................

AEC Response t o Jon Legakes .................................... V.24-1
V.24-5

25 . Chauncey Kepford ...............................................

AEC Response t o Chauncey Kepford ...............................
V.25-1
V.25-33

ii

....
 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. An index t o these l e t t e r s indicating the number assiqned t o
each l e t t e r a n d other pertinent information i s provided in Table V-1.

These comment l e t t e r s were systematically and comprehensively analyzed in the prep-

aration of the Final Environmental Statement t o identify and cateqorize the points
raised. This analysis served t o identify ten major topics of concern, which are
listed in Table V-2 along with the assigned number of the l e t t e r ( s ) in which each
topic appears. Further examination of each topic identified about a dozen major
issues, which reappeared throuqhout most of the l e t t e r s . The procedure followed in
addressing the issues in the Final Statement has been t o s t a t e 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 AEC are c i t e d , the name of the
commenter o r 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 t h i s 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.

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 t h e 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
( o r , 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 a r e more acceptable (e.g., lower r i s k ) alternatives available f o r
the generation o f e l e c t r i c i t y or which could be made available, when
needed, through adequately supported research and development proqrams.
Projected growth i n e l e c t r i c generating capacity and e l e c t r i c energy use
i s overstated and will n o t materialize. Also, practical energy conserva-
tion measures could and should be taken, which would make development of
the LMFBR option unnecessary.

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 o r 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, t o comment or otherwise be
involved i n the preparation of the Draft and Final Statements. One of the e a r l i e s 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 t o
submit suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the Draft Statement.
Twenty five l e t t e r s were received in response to t h i s notice. These have been
identified i n footnotes throughout the Statement as "Predraft Letters" and assiqned
l e t t e r numbers as shown on Table V-3. These l e t t e r s are available for examination
a t the AEC Public Document Room, 1717 H S t . , N.W.. Washington D.C.

In accordance w i t h CEO guidelines, a Draft Statement was issued on March 14, 1974.
The public and government agencies were requested t o submit comments within 45 days.
(As noted e a r l i e r , Volumes V t h r o u g h VI1 of the Final Statement contain a l l the so-
called "Comment Letters'' t h a t were received on the Draft 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. I t i s t o be noted t h a t while
direct replies were sent o n l y t o those persons submitting comment l e t t e r s on the
Draft Statement, the procedure employed t o ensure incorporation i n the Final
Statement of views expressed i n these comment l e t t e r s was also applied t o the Pre-
Draft l e t t e r s and t o 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.

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 c a 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 AEC t o s o 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 l e t t e r s on the Draft Statement (item 3) are reproduced herein. The purpose
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 f u l l compliance with the l e t t e r and
s p i r i t of NEPA and CEO guidelines.

V . 1-3
 Table V-1

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Conunent
L e t t e r 140. Conunent e r Organization -
Date

1. Bessie Simon Ido A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 3/17/74

2. Velniar W. Davis U.S. Dept. o f A g r i c u l t u r e 3/25/74
3. W i 1f red Beaver No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 3/30/74
4. R. I.P r i c e U.S. Dept. o f Transportation 4/15/74
5. K. W. Boer Uni v e r s i t y o f Del aware 4/8/74
6. J. G. Speth Natural Resources Defense
Counci 1, Inc. 4/16/74
7. Richard Daifuku No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/11/74
8. Gaylord & I l e n e
Young he i n No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/15/74
9. Richard W i 1son Harvard U n i v e r s i t y 4/16/74
10. Roy Dycus S h i r l e y ' s Enterprises Undated
11. R. 3. Chamberlin A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co.
It i t e r nat iona 1 4/17/74
12. L. D. DeAike Zero Population Growth 4/17/74
13. H. L. Barrows U.S. Dept. o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,
A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Service 4/ 22/ 74
14. James J. Barker No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/22/74
15. tiami 1t o n Treadway No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/15/74
16. John T. Edsall Harvard U n i v e r s i t y 4/21/74
17. W. C. Guyker A1 legheny Power s e r v i c e Corp. 4/22/74
18. Leonard F. C. Reichle Ebasco Services, Inc. 4/22/74
19. Michael T. Carter, e t a1 No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/22/74
20. Dean E. Abrahamson Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. 4/ 2 4/ 74
21. John C. Sheppard Washington State U n i v e r s i t y 4/23/74
22. Diane Tegtnieier, e t a1 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
23. Neva Dawkins No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/24/74
24. John Legakes No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/24/ 74
25. Chauncey Kepford No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/26/74
26. Barry J. Sniernoff Hudson I n s t i t u t e 4/26/ 74
27. Donald P. Geesarrian U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota 4/26/74
28. Lloyd K. iilarbet C o a l i t i o n f o r Safe Power 4/2 4/ 74
29. W. Donham Crawford Edison E l e c t r i c I n s t i t u t e 4/26/74
30. Russell H. B a l l 140 A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/24/74
31. R. 1. P r i c e U.S. Dept. o f Transportation 4/23/74
32. Robert W. Freedman No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/2 5/74
33. Samuel H. Nelson I n s t i t u t e f o r Environniental
Studies 4/26/74
34. Norval E. Carey General Atomic Conipany 4/29/74
35. Hami 1t o n Treadway No A f f i l i a t i o n L i s t e d 4/2 5/ 74
36. W i l l i a m J. C a h i l l Consolidated Edison Company 4/29/ 74
37. Theodore B. Taylor I n t e r n a t i o n a l Research &
Technology Corporation 4/2 9/ 74
38. J. G. Speth Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. 4/2 9/ 74
39. Edward A. Pryzina Minnesota P o l l u t i o n Control
Agency Undated

V.1-4
 Table V-1 (cont.)
Comment
Letter No. Comnen ter Organization Date
I_

40. Unsigned Environmental Action of

Colorado 4/26/74
41. Gerald M. Schaflander Consumers Solar Electric
Power Corporati on 4/29/74
42. Wilson Clark and
Mark Messing Environmental Policy Center 4/26/74
43. Thomas G. Ayers Breeder Reactor Corporation 4/25/74
44. James A. Oppold Tennessee Val ley Authority 4/29/74
45. George L. Edgar Morgan, Lewis and Bockius ,
Counselors a t Law 4/29/74
46. John W. Anderson, J r . East Tennessee Development
District 4/ 29/74
47. Richard A. tlenderlight State of Tennessee, Office
of Urban and Federal Affairs 4/26/74
48. Char1 es Custard U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education & Welfare 4/2 9/ 74
49. Robert A1 1en Karasek Massachusetts Institute of
Techno1ogy 4/ 28/7 4
50 John Claydon No Affiliation Listed Undated
51. Malcolm F. Baldwin Envi roninental Inipact
Assessment Project 5/1/74
52. Sidney R. Galler U.S. Dept. o f Commerce 4/ 3 O/ 74
53. She1don I-leyers U.S. Environmental
Protect i on Agency 5/5/74
54. R. Balent Atomic International Division,
Rockwe 11 In terna t i onal 4/26/74
55. Gene I. Rociilin arid University of California,
John P. tfoldren Berkeley 4/30/74
56. Ronald W. Pederson State of New York, Dept. of
Environmental Conservation 5/3/74
57. John L. Menke No Affiliation Listed 5/6/74
58. C. R. Lewis No Affiliation Listed 5/10/74
59. Charles Brawman f4o Affiliation Listed 5/7/74
60. Dr. John Huber No Affiliation Listed 5/13/74
61. Carol Denson No Affiliation Listed 5/6/74
62. Royston C. Hughes U.S. Dept. of the Interior 5/20/74
63. T. A. P h i l l i p s U.S. Federal Power Commission 5/16/74
64. P. M. Murphy General Electric Company 5/15/74
65. Robert A . Karasek Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of
Technology 5/ 24/ 7 4
66. Charles Custard U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education & Welfare 6/4/74

V.1-5
 Table V-2

INDEX FOR PRINCIPAL TOPICS APPEARING I N COMMENT LETTERS

Topic Comment L e t t e r No.

1. Safeguards 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

2. Safety 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. Transportation Accidents 16, 22, 25, 32, 38, 42, 44, 47, 51,
53, 55, 64

8. Cost-Benef it Analysi s 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

9. Energy S t r a t e g i e s 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

10 Miscel 1aneous
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 2, 7, 19, 21, 22, 38, 42, 43, 46,
48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 62, 65

c) Sociopol it i c a l Impacts 19, 22, 38, 40, 48, 49, 56, 62, 65

V.1-6
 Table V-3
PREDRAFT COiW-1ENT LETTERS

Pred ra f t
Letter No. Conunent e r Organization -
Date
1. J. G. Speth Natural Resources 8/14/73
Defense Counci 1 (NRDC)
2. J. Landis Gulf General Atomic 9/24/73
Company (GGA)
3. R. C. Axtinan Princeton University 9/25/73
4. T. B. Cochran and Natural Resources 10/3/73
J. G. Speth Defense Counci 1 (NRDC)
5. E. A. Farber University of Florida 10/16/73
6. L. 0. DeNike Zero Population Growth 10/31/73
(ZPG)
7. A. R . Tamplin Natural Resources 11/1/73
Defense Counci 1 (r4RDC)
8. J. H. Anderson, Jr. Sea Solar Power, Inc. 11/G/73
9. 0. F. X. F i n n Geothermal Energy I n s t i t u t e 11/10/73
10. A. R. Tarnplin Natural Resources 11/13/73
Defense Counci 1 (NRDC
11. J. Legakes No Affiliation Listed 11/17/73
12. E. A. Farber University of Florida 11/19/73
13. P. Tebow No Affiliation Listed 11/?O/73
14. R. I. Goldsmith Syracuse University 11/20/73
15. J. G. Speth Natural Resources 11/20/73
Defense Counci 1 (i4RDC
16. T. E. Cochran Xatural Resources 11/20/73
Defense Council (iiRDC
17. G. Lewis No Affiliation Listed 11/21/73
18. W . H. I.iillerd aiid Center f o r Science i n 11/21/73
A. J . Futsch the Public Interest
19. J . G. Speth Natural Resources 12/4/73
Defense Council (i4RDC)
20. T. B. Cochran Natural Resources 12/5/73
Defense Counci 1 (NRDC)
21. T. B. Cochran Natural Resources 12/5/73
Defense Counci 1 (NRDC)
22. J . G. Speth Natural Resources 12/21/73
Defense Counci 1 (NRDC)
23. A. R. Tamplin Natural Resources 12/26/73
Defense Council (NRDC)
24. T. A. Milne No Affiliation Listed 1/2[i/74
25. J. H . Anderson, Jr. Sea Solar Power, Inc. 3/23/74

V. 1-7
v.l-1
v.l-2
v . 1-4

Lf-
 V.l-5

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSION
W A S H I N G T O N . O.C. 2 0 5 4 5

me 3 1 1974
M s . Bessie Simon
Route 1
O j a i , California 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

t h e *Atomic Energy C o r n i s i s o n ' s D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e
L i q u i d 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 r e s p o n s e 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 i s e n c l o s e d f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n .
This l e t t e r p r o v i d e s 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 p r e p a r i n g t h e D r a f t Statement, t h e AEC c o n s i d e r e d t h e e x t e n s i v e
s u g g e s t i o n s of t h e N a t u r a 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 p r e p a r i n g t h e F i n a l Statement we took i n t o account
t h e i r l a t e r s u g g e s t i o n s , 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 t h e l i g h t water r e a c t o r (LWR) program, we have
c o n s i d e r e d s a f e t y and a l l o t h e r i s s u e s s e p a r a t e l y , b o t h i n l i g h t of t h e
e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e LIJR Program and i n d e p e n d e n t l y f o r t h e LMFBR Program.
Throughout t h e l o n g h i s t o r y of AEC r e s e a r c h and development on n u c l e a r
r e a c t o r programs t h e r e has been t h e utmost e f f o r t t o i n s u r e t h e s a f e t y
of the p u b l i c and of t h e employees involved.

Some of your comments r e f e r t o growth of p o p u l a t i o n and growth i n t h e

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 b o t h h i g h and l o w estimates of
f u t u r e growth w i t h o u t a d v o c a t i n g e i t h e r as such. For example, r e f e r e n c e
14 l i s t e d on page 10.3-3 of t h e F i n a l Statement u s e s a n ' a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
t h e Nation might r e a c h a s t a b i l i z e d , no-growth p o p u l a t i o n by t h e y e a r
2050. This assumption is a form of c o n s e r v a t i s m 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 f o r c e . On t h e o t h e r
hand, t h e e l e c t r i c l o a d p r o j e c t i o n s used f o r t h e y e a r 2020 may be h i g h e r
t h a n some p e o p l e would a d v o c a t e , b u t o u r u s e of t h e h i g h e r f i g u r e i s a
form of c o n s e r v a t i s m which t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a f a i r l y h i g h estimate as t o
the number of e l e c t r i c p l a n t s needed a t t h a t time and c o n s e q u e n t l y a
p r o b a b l e o v e r s t a t e m e n t of t h e environmental impact p o t e n t i a l .

I n r e a d i n g your l5:ter as a whole i t is observed t h a t your c h i e f concern

is s a f e t y . The AEC s h a r e s t h a t concern b o t h because of t h e 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 d e s i g n e d f o r r e l i a b l e
 V .1-6

Ms. Bessie Simon 2

and economical o p e r a t i o n o v e r 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 o p e r a t i n g p e o p l e a t t h e p l a n t s i t e and
t h e y must b e s a f e a t each f u e l h a n d l i n g and p r o c e s s i n g s t e p . We are
a t t e m p t i n g 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 e d t h a t do n o t meet o u r safety-in-depth philosophy. Nuclear powerplants
are d e s i g n e d on a f a i l - s a f e b a s i s w i t h e x t e n s i v e p r o v i s i o n s f o r c o n t i n -
g e n c i e s and combinations of c o n t i n g e n c i e s . Assurances t o t h e p u b l i c a r e
b a s e d on c o n c e p t s of s a f e t y unprecedented i n modern i n d u s t r y . Nonetheless,
some r i s k w i l l remain. T h i s r i s k i s v e r y small and we a r e determined t o
make i t even smaller. D

We hope t h i s l e t t e r is r e s p o n s i v e t o your concerns. Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e

LMFBR Program is a p p r e c i a t e d .

Sincerely,

u s s i s t a n t General 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 e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 v.2-1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20250

March 2 5 , 1974

Mr. James L. Liverman

A s s i s t a n t General Manager
* € o r Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs
U. S . Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear M r . Liverman:

Examination of t h e environmental s t a t e m e n t on t h e L i q u i d Metal F a s t

Breeder Reactor Program r e v e a 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 N a t i o n ' s c a p a c i t y f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . These f a c t o r s
are w a t e r and l a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r o p e r a t i o n of t h e LMFBR. According
t o t h e impact s t a t e m e n t , a 1,000 MWe p l a n t can b e 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 c o o l i n g l a k e s . With
a w e t c o o l i n g tower t h e water requirement is expected t o b e approximately
1,400,000 gpd f o r a model 1,000 MWe p l a n t .

It h a s been e s t i m a t e d t h a t by t h e y e a r 2000 a s much a s 400,000 Mwe of

LMFBR c a p a c i t y could b e i n s t a l l e d i n t h e U. S . T h 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 l a n d 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. I n r e l a t i o n t o a g r i c u l t u r e ' s u s e of
l a n d 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 l a n d w a s used f o r c r o p s 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 c a p a c i t y , t h e r e f o r e , amounts t o 3 p e r c e n t and
8 p e r c e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y of c u r r e n t l a n d i n c r o p s 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 c o u l d b e 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 c o n c l u s i o n about t h e impact of a LMFBR

program upon a g r i c u l t u r e would b e r a t h e r premature. The a c t u a l impact
w i l l have t o b e e v a l u a t e d 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 s a y
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 l a n d and water are withdrawn from a g r i c u l t u r a l
p r o d u c t i o n . T h i s c o m p e t i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d and
p r o p e r l y accounted f o r when e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n t s i t e s .

Sincerely,
 v.2-2

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

Mr. Vehar W. Davis

Deputy D i r e c t o r
Environmental S t u d i e s
United S t a t e s Department of A g r i c u l t u r e
Economic Research S e r v i c e
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Mr. Davis:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of a r c h 25, 1974 commenting o n t h e A t o m i c

Energy Commission's D r a f t E n v i r o w e n t a l Statement o n t h e L i q u i d ?fetal
F a s t B r e e d e r Xeactor (LKFBR) 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 respoi3se t o t h e many comments r e c e i v e d . A copy
o f t h e Final Statement i s e n c l o s e d f o r your information.

I n your comments i t w a s noted t h a t water and l a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f u t u r e

LMFBRs c o u l d 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 p o s s i b l y 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
e s t i m a t e d l a n d requirement of o n e m i l l i o n acres would b e a n upper l i m i t
f o r t h e 400,000 >RJe of UlFBR c a p a c i t y p r o j e c t e d t o be i n s t a l l e d i n t h e
U.S. by t h e y e a r 2000, s i n c e t h i s estimate is based on each 1,000 We
LMFBR h a v i n g a 500 a c r e s i t e and a 2,000 acre c o o l i n g pond. Realisti-
c a l l y , most 500 acre s i t e s would probably c o n t a i n two o r more 1,000 :Me
LMFBRs and many LNFBXs would u s e c o o l i n g towers r a t h e r t h a n c o o l i n g 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 e p r e s e n t
o n l y 0.3 p e r c e n t of t h e l a n d p r e s e n t l y used f o r c r o p s i n s t e a d of t h e 3
p e r c e n t n o t e d i n your comments.

With a w e t c o o l i n g tower, t h e water requirement f o r a 1,000 m e LMFBR

would be 14,000,000 gpd i n s t e a d of 1,400,000 gpd. I f 50 p e r c e n t of t h e
400,000 ;We of CIFBR c a p a c i t y i n t h e y e a r 2000 were t o u s e w e t c o o l i n g
towers, a t o t a l of 2,800 m i l l i o n gpd of water would be r e q u i r e d . T h i s
would r e p r e s e n t about f o u r p e r c e n t of t h e water p r e s e n t l y used f o r
i r r i g a t i o n and about two p e r c e n t of t h e water p r o j e c t e d t o be r e q u i r e d
f o r i r r i g a t i o n i n t h e y e a r 2000.
 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 e v a l u a t e d on a s i t e

s p e c i f i c basis. .\t t h e l o c a l l e v e l t h e l o c a t i c 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 l a n d and water are withdrawn
from a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n , and such withdrawal would be considered
and p r o p e r l y accounted For when e v a l u a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n t sites.

W e t r u s t t h e above i n f o r m a t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t l y r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e
p o i n t s you r a i s e i . Thank you 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.

Sincerely,

Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosure:
F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 v.3-l

.
fi .H p e n n i n g t o n
l b s e s s r n e p 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 E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s e a r c h
u .s titornic E n e r g y Commiss i o n
t / a s h i n g t o n , D .C 20545 MhtQ4 3 4 19 1 q
Dear s i r :
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 w h i c h you a s k e d f o r comments on t h e L i q u i d M e t a l Fost B r e e d e r
R e a c t o r Progrcm Draft E n v i r o n m e n t a 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 b e y o n e the t h e l h i t s you s e t .

Acting 23 c h a i r m a n of t h e mnroe C o u n t y (iVi3c.) E n v i r o n a n e n t s 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 f o u n d t h a t t h e IddFBR hogram was forraed t o & e v e l o p a bread

t?
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
w h i c h 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 ) .
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 p l a n t s u s i n g a similar uranium-plut-
onium f u e l c y c l e , b u t you have not O Q n V i i ~ C e dmnp 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
e n e r g y and f o s s 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 w h i c h c a n 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 o d 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;

could 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. T h i s 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 n

page 2

We a r e c o n v i n c e d 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 g a s and l i p i d p e t r o l e u m s h o u l d b e 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 b e 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
w o r d s , 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 b e e n 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 n e e d s w e l l beyond t h e n e x t c e n t u r y , s o t h a t t h e c h o i c e
b e t w e e n 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 c u r b t h e 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 d o n e , 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 and 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 m s n n e r .

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 h a v e 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 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 p o x e r p l c n t o p e r a t i o n b e f o r e 1980. It vi11 b e l i m i t e d

by t h e e v e n 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
b e c b u s e p l u t o n i u m i s much more v a l a u b l e a s a b r e e d e r f u e l t h a n
as a LVR f u e l . T h i s 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 . I f b r e e d e r u s e i s n o t i n i t i c t e d (<iswe a r e
h o p e f u l o f ) u t i l i t i e s would c ? e c i d e t o u s e t h e p l u t o n i u n i 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 r o m 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
o n , 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 h e made on t h e 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 s n d 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 i p g 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 i g h t
 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 i s 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 g d s e o u s w s t e s . The

r a d i o a c t i v e gas r e m o v a l 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

from 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 g a s e o u s wastes. Your book of A p r i l
1972 -ui!?BR Deinonstration '11s b e e n 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 r o m 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 a n d r e c y c l i n g p r e s e n t ,
p r o b l e m s as t h e LpllFBR progrm 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 u n d e r
y o u r h p o s e d d e a d l i n e b u t I p r o m i s e t o a d d t o it i f t h e r e is s t i l l
a n y t i m e l e f t t o do s o . You h a v e n o t shown me t h a t t h e P r o g r a n i s
s a f e , .vi11 n o t p r e s e n t p r o b l e m s 2nd a c t u a l l y i s n e e d e d .

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
b u t my members and m o s t e v e r y o n e I h a v e s p o k e n 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 c e m e n t
t h e a r g u m e n t s of e n v i r o n m e n t z l i s t s e v e r y w h e r e 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 h a v e b e e n b u r i e d u n d e r a n a v a l e n c h e of e n e r g y
"CriSiS" propaganda v h i c h v e f i n d hard t o b e l i e v e . T h e r e has beeeen
l i t t l e c h z n g e 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
y e a r s 2nd y e t p r i c e s h z v e r i s e n , ?{e h a v e b e e n " b l i n d e d " b y p r o -
f e a s i o n & l p e o p l e lvho had b e e n 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 . S a v e t h e t a x p s y e r s money a n d 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 r o m 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.'.lilfred Beaver
418 E. w . i n S t . s p a r t a , vii.
$-q b !I-G
 n
v. 3-4

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

DEC 3 1 1974

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:

Thank you f o r y o u r l e t t e r of March 30, 1974 commenting o n t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's D r a f t E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e n e n t o n t h e L i q u i d lfetal
F a s t B r e e d e r R e a c t o r (LXFBR) Program. The S t a t e m e n t h a s b e e n r e v i s e d
w h e r e 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 , a n d 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 y o u r 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 l e t t e r f o r s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s t o y o u r
comments.

W e u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n c e r n you h a v e 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 y o u r t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o make y o u r v i e w s known t o us. We
h o p e 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 a n s w e r
a n y r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n s you may h a v e and a l l e v i a t e a t l e a s t s o n e o f
y o u r 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 e m e n t of t h i s c o u n t r y ' s e n e r g y p r o g r a m , and t h a t LXFBR's c a n b e b u i l t
a n d 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 e n v i r o n m e n t .
Thank you f o r y o u r 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.

Sincerely ,

W - G
h

J es L. Liverman

(9
A i s t a n t G e n e r a l Yanager
f o r Biomedical and Environmental
R e s e a r c h 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
Comments
2. F i n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 v .3-5

Enclosure 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c C o m e n t s by Y r . W i l f r e d Beaver

#I. Comment:

"...there are environmental dangers i n h e r e n t i n t h e LNFBR f u e l c y c l e 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 , waste management and t h e
problems of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . "

AEC Response:

The AEC r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h i s concern i s s h a r e d by many o t h e r p e o p l e and

o r g a n i z a t i o n s . However, i t is o u r b e l i e f a f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n
and s t u d y of a l l r e l e v a n t i s s u e s , c u l m i n a t i n g i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s
Environmental S t a t e m e n t , t h a t such concerns are n o t 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 s e a r c h and
development e f f o r t is r e q u i r e d , w e a r e convinced t h a t t h e s e e f f o r t s w i l l
be s u c c e s s f u l and t h a t LPFBRs can be 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 environment. A f u l l d i s c u s s i o n 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 s e a r c h 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 c o n c l u s i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n S e c t i o n s 4 and 7 of t h e e n c l o s e d S t a t e n e n t .

#2. Comment:

"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 energy s o u r c e s suc,h as s o l a r energy and

f o s s i l fueJ.s. We s u p p o r t h y d r o e l e c t r i c dams and power g e n e r a t o r s which
c a n s u p p l y e l e c t r i c i t y . 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 h a s
g i v e n u s t o use."

AEC Response:

Your s u p p o r t of a l t e r n a t i v e energy s o u r c e s s u c h as s o l a r energy and f o s s i l

f u e l s is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , and t h e AEC a g r e e s t h a t a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t t o
d e v e l o p a l l v i a b l e energy s o u r c e s is w a r r a n t e d i f t h e Nation is t o m a i n t a i n
i t s economic growth. t i e v e r t h e l e s s , as you w i l l see from examination of
S e o t i o n 6 of t h e S t a t e m e n t , i t is o u r b e l i e f t h a t development of t h e LITBR
is a n e s s e n t i a l element of t h e program f o r meeting t h e N a t i o n ' s energy
needs. We do n o t f e e l t h a t i t is p r u d e n t 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
s u c h a s s o i a r energy which r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h and development
t o b r i n g t o t h e ' p o i n t 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 e g a r d l e 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 i n c i p l e . Similarly, those
t e c h n i q u e s whic!. are a l r e a d y 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,
S e c t i o n 66.3.4 s t a t e s ,

"Even though an a b s o l u t e i n c r e a s e is e x p e c t e d , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of
t o t a l electric capacity e t t r i b u t a b l e t o conventional 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 t h e p r e s e n t 15% t o about 7% i n 1990."
 V .3-6

With r e g a r d t o f o s s i l f u e l s , o i l and g a s 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 g e n e r a t i o n . Although the Nation's c o a l r e s o u r c e s a r e very l a r g e
t h e y cannot be r e l i e d upon as t h e s o l e s o u r c e of e l e c t r i c i t y g e n e r a t i o n ,
s i n c e i n t h a t event t h e s e l a r g e r e s o u r c e s would b e exhausted i n less t h a n
a c e n t u r y 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 S e c t i o n 11.4.1.1.2). Finally, with
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 S e c t i o n 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 s p e c t s of e l e c t r i c a l energy g e n e r a t i o n .
In p a r t i c u l a r , n o t e Table 11.3-1 and F i g u r e 11.3-1 i n which c o a l is
d e p i c t e d as causing by f a r t h e l a r g e s t number of f a t a l i t i e s , n o n - f a t a l
I n j u r i e s and o c c u p a t i o n a l man-days l o s t of a l l s i x systems considered
( c o a l , o i l , g a s , LWR, LMFBR, and BTGR) and t h e LMFBR t h e l e a s t .

83. Coment:
"We s u p p o r t t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n of o u r c o a l r e s e r v e s as a second l i n e of d e f e n s e
and 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 vast d i s t a n c e s . The u s e
of c o a l " s l u r r y " o r s l u s h c o a 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 i n s t e a d of gambling on n u c l e a r r e c y c l i n g
programs I'

AEC Response:

The AEC a l s o s u p p o r 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, r e c o g n i z e s they w i l l be needed along w i t h o t h e r energy
s o u r c e s t o meet t h e Nation's energy requirements. T h e i r u s e is r e f l e c t e d
i n t h e t a b u l a t i o n of p r o j e c t i o n s of domestic c o a l consumption i n S e c t i o n
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 s h a r p l y
i n c r e a s e d 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 n e x t 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, man-
- B -
power, water, and ca i t a 1 may render a t t a i n m e n t of t h e h i g h e r p r o j e c t i o n s
e.g., 1.5-1.9 x 10 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
p i p e - l i n i n g is d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6A.2.1.3.2.2. A s noted t h e r e i n , a
r e c e n t a r t i c l e (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 c o a l - s l u r r y 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 n c l u d i n g 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 t o n s of c o a l p e r
year. I'

#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 g e n e r a t i o n needs well beyond t h e next 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 f o s s i l power g e n e r a t i o n w i l l be made on economic
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 t i o n c o n t r o l , i n t o account.''
 v.3-7

AEC Response:

Though o u r i n - p l a c e c o a l r e s e r v e s are a d e q u a t e f o r t h e s t a t e d purpose, t h e

u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e s e r e s e r v e s i n an economically c o m p e t i t i v e , s a f e , and
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e manner t o p r o v i d e o u r new e l e c t r i c a l
g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y o v e r t h e next f o u r decades h a s haen c o n s i d e r e d
u n r e a l i s t i c by every s t u d y group of which we a r e aware. The Ford
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 c o n t i n u e s on a t r a c k
of r a p i d growth i n energy, n u c l e a r 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
c o n s e r v a t i o n could c u r t a i l m e n t of n u c l e a r power growth b e t a k e n s e r i o u s l y "
( E x p l o r i n g Energy Choices, A P r e l i m i n a r y Report of t h e Ford F o u n d a t i o n ' s
Energy P o l i c y P r o j e c t , p. 28, 1974). I n t h e long term, of c o u r s e , 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 u n i v e r s a l l y a g r e e d t h a t t h e y
w i l l b e e s s e n t i a l l y d e p l e t e d w i t h i n a few c e n t u r i e s a t most.

85. Comnent:

"It is s e r i o u s enough t h a t w e now have t h e LWR f u e l c y c l e w i t h o u t 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 r e c y c l e 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 b e f o r e 1980. I t w i l l be l i m i t e d by t h e even g r e a t e r danger of
t h e LMFBR i n t o t h e power economy because plutonium i s much more v a l u a b l e
a8 a b r e e d e r f u e l t h a n as a LWR f u e l . "

AEC Response:

The AEC r e c o g n i z e s t h e p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous p r o p e r t i e s of plutonium

w h e t h e r used as a f u e l i n LWRs o r LMFBRs. Experience t o d a t e i n h a n d l i n g
plutonium a b LMFBR 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 is
d i s c u s s e d i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t i n S e c t i o n s 4.3 and 4.4, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
I n a d d i t i o n , e n g i n e e r i n g f e a t u r e s ( f i l t e r s , e t c . ) f o r reducing t h e
release of plutonium from t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s are a l s o d e s c r i b e d . S i m i l a r
i n f o r m a t i o n is given i n S e c t i o n s 4.2 and 4.5 f o r LhIFBK power p l a n t s and
f o r transporation. D e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n concerning plutonium t o x i c i t y
is p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.7 and Appendix 1 I . G of t h e F i n a l Environmental
S t a t e m e n t and i n AEC r e s p o n s e s t o t h e comments of t h e Environmental
P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Environmental Impact Assessment P r o j e c t , and N a t u r a l
Resources Defense Council on t h i s s u b j e c t . I t is b e l i e v e d t h a t pluton-
ium can b e s a f e l y used and c o n t a i n e d through a p p r o p r i a t e e n g i n e e r i n g
measures, such as t h o s e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e d S e c t i o n s of t h e
F i n a l Statement and t h e appendices r e f e r r i n g t h e r e t o ,

#6. Comment:

Another p o i n t of concern i s of reactor gaseous wastes. The r a d i o a c t i v e

It

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

 V . 3-8
n

remove v i r t u a l l y a l l f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s from t h e primary system cover g a s . . .

.
r h e r e are ever p r e s e n t 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 a n e n a b l e

t o e n g i n e e r i n g s o l u t i o n s . These matters are d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4 , as
are t h o s e 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 o p e r a t i o n of
LMFBRs and t h e LXFBR f u e l c y c l e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e d e s i g n of t h e L!IF'BR
p a r e r p l a n t r a d i o a c t i v e w a s t e p r o c e s s i n g systems i s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n
4 . 2 . F i s s i o n p r o d u c t s would be removed from t h e primary system cover
g a s by u s e of HEPA f i l t e r s , c h a r c o a l f i l t e r s and c r y o g e n i c d i s t i l l a t i o n
columns. It i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e "dangers" o r r i s k s of m a i n t a i n i n g
c o n t r o l o v e r gaseous wastes have been reduced t o a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s .
 V.4-1

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING ADDRESS:

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

400 SEVENTH STREET SW
WASHINGTON. D C. 20590
PHONE: (202) 426-2262

15 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 S a f e t y Programs
A t a n i c Energy C m i s s i o n
Washington, D. C. 20545

Dear M r . Liverman:
T h i s is i n r e s p o n s e t o y o u r l e t t e r o f 14 March 1974 a d d r e s s e d t o M r .
M a r t i n Convisser concerning t h e Draft Environmental Statement, WASH-1535-
Liquid M e t a l F a s t Breeder Reactor Program.

The Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n h a s reviewed t h e m a t e r i a l s u b m i t t e d . We

have no comments t o o f f e r nor do we have any o b j e c t i o n t o t h e program.

The o p p o r t u n i t y t o review t h i s d r a f t s t a t e m e n t i s a p p r e c i a t e d .
 V.4-2 n

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

n
 .5-1

UNI V ERSIT Y OF DELAWARE

N E W A R K . D E L A W A R E
1 9 7 1 1

I N S T I T U T E OF ENEROY CONVERSION
K. W. B O E R , D I R E C T O R A p r i l 8, 1974
P H O N E : 3Oa738-848!

Office of 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 Environmental Research
and S a f e t y Programs
US A t o m i c E n e r g y 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 . T a m p l i n f r o m t h e N a t u r a l
Resources Defense Council, 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 Draft
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 LMFBR P r o g r a m , P a g e A . 5 - 3 4 : "The o u t -
l o o k a p p e a r s t o be 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 an econ-
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 a n d o f s e v e r a l NSF
s o l a r energy workshops, I f e e l t h a t t h e above s t a t e m e n t can be m i s i n t e r -
p r e t e d a n d 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 k n o w l e d g e i t i s t h e f e e l i n g o f t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g
m a j o r i t y , i f n o t t h e consensus o f t h e s o l a r energy s p e c i a l i s t s i n t h e
f i e l d of s o l a r energy conversion i n t o e l e c t r i c i t y , t h a t techno-economic
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 a n d d e v e l o p -
m e n t 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 . Several industrial
o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e a l r e a d y i n v o l v e d and s p o n s o r i n i t i a l c o m m e r c i a l i z a t i o n .
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
sponsorship.

Although 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 can be b u i l t which can compete 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 , the majority of t h e photovoltaic s p e c i a l i s t s are
convinced 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 production 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
large scale t e r r e s t r i a l use. 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
group o f s p e c i a l i s t s e s t i m a t e d a modest market 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 decades from 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 r o m o t h e r f o r m s o f e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n ,
as e . g . n u c l e a r energy has taken almost t h r e e decades t o o p e r a t e i n
e x c e s s 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 h a n d 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
energy.
 V.5-2 n

Office of the Assistant

G e n e r a l Manager
A p r i l 8 , 1974
P a g e Two

U s i n g 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 ( 5 0 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 meters of 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 20% of such houses. 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
product, e . g . photographic f i l m i s a l s o produced annually i n similar
quantities.

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

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 3 / y e a r
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

production r a t e i s estimated t o run such a p l a n t profitably)--many

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 well conceivable t h a t such 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 from 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 r o m
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 r o m 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
5 0 M i l l i o n kW i n s t a l l e d .

I t i s with deep concern t o p o i n t out t h a t such p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s

with high p r o b a b i l i t y only i f s u f f i c i e n t funds a r e planned 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 . Research 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 w h i c h i s j u d g e d d e s i r a b l e a n d b y i t s
e x p e r t s very probably techno-economically f e a s i b l e .

But t o t h e b e s t o f my k n o w l e d g e , 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 e n d
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 energy conversion t o e l e c t r i -
c i t y i s a v a l i d contender t o h e l p a l l e v i a t e t h e energy shortage within
the '80's.

Sincerely yours,

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 1 9 7 3 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

The Innovator’s Magazine JUL 1973

L

The
solar house
and its
portent 394
K. W. B6er
 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 control-
ling 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 tons, and other vegetation 10 billion tons per year.
high noon on an area of 35 km X 35 km equals the These processes use about 10% of the COz of the at-
total peak capacity of all existing power plants com- mosphere, which corresponds to about 130 g carbon
bined. Obviously there is enough solar energy to sat- fixed per m2 year. With an average solar irradiation
isfy our energy demands. Even if we continue to in- of about 10 million Btu/mz year this carbon fixation
crease our demand to the ultimate saturation level rate corresponds to an average of 0.5% solar conver-
estimated a t 45 kW per capita (22 times the current sion efficiency.
level), and even if the U.S. population increases to Hydroelectric power also exhibits a low solar ener-
500 million people, only 0.3% of the solar energy im- gy conversion efficiency. A typical hydroelectric
pinging the U.S. would be needed to fill the resulting plant’s water reservoir (Philadelphia Electric Co.’s
gigantic demand. 512,000 kW Conowingo Plant) has an area of 13.4
Because of solar irradiations fluctuating nature at square miles (2). It produces yearly about 3 billion
the earth’s surface, only these modes that have an kWh, although the solar radiation on this area is 68
easy means of energy storage can satisfy the consum- billion kWh/year. Furthermore, the water teeding the
er. Photosynthesis is the classical example: fossil reservoir is collected from an area estimated to occupy
fuels yield the benefit of millions of storage years 27,000 square miles (2);hence the solar conversion et-
while about 70 billion tons of carbon is fixed by assi- ficiency of such a hydroelectric plant is less than
milation in forests ( I ) . Phytoplankton fix 40 billion .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 wind-
mills are most useful when energy storage facilities
are feasible.
Many newer concepts are currently being dis-
cussed 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 (:{) in-
volves 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 fo-
cusing, 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 conven-
tional rotary equipment for electric energy conver-
sion 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. It would convert solar energy into electric ener-
gy 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 inter-
face 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

Power Demand, N.J. Ave. Demmd with
Summer Dav Supplem. Solar
12M 6am 12N 6pm
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
U
roof joists
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 con-
version system that may have early market accep-
tance.
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
V .5-6
( 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 ener-
gy 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
12M country, as periods of high insolation are.closely cor-
related to periods of high power demand. It is there-
fore 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 incen-
tives, power utilities might subsidize a solar conver-
sion system. Such incentives may include reduced
I
capital need via peak shaving and power they could
call on demand from a distributed source of low vul-
nerability 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 sin-
gle family house can exemplify the main principles
involved, and it is also sufficiently small and inex-
pensive to allow for early experimental verification of
various alternatives.
Figure 1 shows for an average summer day a typi-
cal 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 ener-
gy 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 commu-
nication 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 oper-
ation (one possible failure in 10 years, or 99.97% reli-
ability). Maintenance of a relatively large minimum
charge in the battery decreases the depth of the
charge/discharge cycle and increases the life expec-
tancy of batteries.
In principle, these two concepts-peak shaving
and power on demand-can also be applied to ther-
mal energy conversion. Storing thermal energy and
disconnecting electrically powered auxiliary equip-
ment (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 main-
taining 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 ex-
change t o the living space of the house. For the pro-
posed 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 in-
crease 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 es-
tablished 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 ra-
diation 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 perfor-
mance.
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-
power
ullllty
,I
!
Ian range light heater
fixed installation
dcjac equipment
I
- L
aux heate(
heat I
exchanoe
12KF
I
75°F heat bat::
tery
base pump ''OF secondary
heat ieseivoir
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. direc-
tor 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.
CHEMTECH JULY 1973 397
 v. 5-8
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 t h e main floor and a possibility of adding two
more bedrooms a t second floor level. The garage will
be used as a n exhibition area. Its 45" roof will con-
tain 24 panels, 4 X 8 f t each (Figure 1). Six addition-
al flat plate thermal collectors will be placed in the
south wall of the house for heat boosting during win-
ter. 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
T h e 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 elec-
trode 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 characteris-
tic such a s 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
398 CHEMTECH JULY 1973
,
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 devel-
oping a IO+ year CdS/CuZS solar panel for roof de-
ployment 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 t h a t make
use of heat of fusion will be utilized. The base reser-
voir 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 har-
vested energy.
T h e first cost of the solar system can only be esti-
mated after we know its "seize," which can be deter-
mined from a systems analysis for seize optimization.
Such analysis is complex because it includes daily
averages of insolation for different seasons, perfor-
mance as influenced by thermal and electrical energy
harvesting, systems definition, price of the different
components of the system, storage capacity optimi-
zation, load analysis and a number of factors related
to different interface incentives, which are usually
difficult to quantize. Optimization needs to be per-
formed with respect to the overall earning capacity
of the system, hence it involves the other factors of
the economic analysis mentioned above and there-
fore requires iteration.
A few estimates for specific solar thermal systems
are available and are used as a basis for the first ite-
 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 Figure 6. Flat plate collector panels for thermal (left
CdS/CuZS solar cell with 4.3% conversion efficiency background) for electrical (foreground) and for electric/
thermal (right background) solar energy harvesting. The
small panel (righl foreground) produces 12.6 volt at al-
ration of the proposed solar house system. Most,de- most l amp. The other two panel assemblies produce
1lOvolt at 700 mA
veloped is the Lof/Tybout estimate (7),which indi-
cates that for a climate comparable to Dela-
ware's, system seize should provide about 50% of the
needed energy from the solar harvesting. This esti-
mate has been extended for a thermal/electric har-
vesting 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 sys-
tem is rather low, and, for reasons of market ac-
ceptance 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) a t about
$l/ft2. For protection and telltale $0.15/ft2 is as-
sumed. The cost to produce collector panels includ-
ing installation is estimated (8) a t $1.35/ftz. Credit
for unnecessary plywood and roof shingles and their
installation is estimated a t $0.70/ft2. Additional
thermal equipment is estimated a t $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 ther-
. -
6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8
mal storage estimated a t $900 and the cost of the pm. . Noon a.m.
electric power processing unit. Using 50% dc with
control switching and individual inverters for refrig-
Figure 7. Electric energy output of the electric/thermal
eration systems plus 3 sets of 9 kWh lead acid bat- solar panel of Figure 6 on ( a ) a clear summer day. ( b ) a
teries at $28/kWh to be acquired in year 1, 6, and cloudy summer day, and ( c ) a partially cloudy winter day
11, one estimates a leveled process equipment cost at the end of January. The overshoot in (c) between
for electric power of $850. Against this cost we apply clouds is due to additional light reflected from clouds

CHEMTECH JULY 1973 399

 V.5-10
a credit for the cost of a n oil heater and tank plus in-
stallation minus the cost of a n electric heater to
maintain base storage a t 70°F during inclement win-
ter weather. This cost differential is estimated at
$520 credit. 4
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 approxi-
mately 80 million Btu’s of useful thermal energy. With
a 6% overall electric conversion efficiency and an av-
erage 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. It 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 optimiza-
tion. 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 a n im-
pact on the national energy budget before the end of
Copyright 1 9 7 3 by the American Chemical Sociely and reprlllled b y pt?rtn#ss#oii
. -
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 es-
tablish 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 acknowledgecount-
less 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
Electric Co.. 1971. p 35.
(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.,
1972. p 106.
( 6 ) Palz. W., Besson. J., Nguyen Duy. T., and Vedel, J.. Ninth IEEE Pho-
tovoltaic Specialists Conf.. 1972. p 91.
(7) Ldf. G. 0. G.. andTybout. R. A.. N a t u r . 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, N o . GI-34872,Dee. 31, 1972.
(11) Murphy, J. J.. Chem. Technol.. August 1971.487.
nl the c o p y r ~ q owner
l~
 V.5-11

UhiiTED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY Cob1 F4 ISSION
W A S H I N G T O N . D.C. 20545

E C 3 1 1974

M r . K. W. B'der
D i r e c t o r , I n s t i t u t e of Energy Conversion
U n i v e r s i t y o f , Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19 7 1 1

Dear M r . Bger:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 8, 1974 commenting on t h e

s t a t e m e n t on page A.5-34 of t h e Atomic Energy Commission's D r a f t
Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor
(LMFBR) Program,

"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 energy h a s l i t t l e
p o t e n t i a l as an economic major s o u r c e 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 h a s reviewed your l e t t e r and b e l i e v e s t h a t i t does n o t b a s i c a l l y

c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p o s i t i o n taken i n t h e D r a f 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 s o u r c e of
e l e c t r i c i t y . We do have some r e s e r v a t i o n s on s e v e r a l of your o t h e r
p r o j e c t i o n s , covering t h e growth r a t e of s o l a r energy u t i l i z a t i o n as
a s o u r c e of e i e c t r i c i t y and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n i t can make t o t h e
N a t i o n ' s e l e c t r i c a l supply i n t h e 1 9 8 0 ' s . You are a p p a r e n t l y pro-
j e c t i n g t h e s e o p t i m i s t i c estimates on t h e b a s i s of i n d i v i d u a l home
i n s t a l l a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g conversion of e x i s t i n g homes. We do n o t
believe t h a t conversion to solar p o w e r i s p r a c t i c a l f o r e x i s t i n g homes
because of t h e a s s o c i a t e d high c a p i t a l c o s t s and t h e p r e e x i s t e n c e of
i n s t a l l e d h e a t i n g and l i g h t i n g equipment. It is most l i k e l y t h a t
s o l a r equipment w i l l b e l a r g e l y confined t o new housing and w i l l . b e
i n t r o d u c e d q u i t e g r a d u a l l y , p r o g r e s s i n g from t h o s e areas where i t i s
most c l e a r l y s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r areas as t h e y become c o m p e t i t i v e and
as t h e 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 a c c e p t s your estimates and concedes t h a t 50 m i l l i o n

k i l o w a t t s could be i n s t a l l e d i n "less t h a n 20 y e a r s from today," t h i s
would amunt t o less t h a n 5% of t h e p r o j e c t e d c e n t r a l s t a t i o n c a p a c i t y
for t h a t tins period. AlthoFgh t h a t c e r t a i n l y would n o t be an i n s i g -
n i f i c a n t amount, i t could n o t be considered a G j o r s o u r c e of e l e c t r i c a l
ene r gy .
M r . K. W. Bger 2

P l e a s e r e f e r t o S e c t i o n 6A.5.5 of t h e enclosed F i n a 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 ? r e s e n t and p r o j e c t e d a p p l i c a t i o n s of s o l a r
energy as s e e n by a number of groups i n c l u d i n g NSF/NASA, Subpanel I X ,
and t h e MITRE Corporation.

I n a d d i t i o n , w e would l i k e t o n o t e t h a t CdSfCu S s o l a r cells may n o t b e

2
a v i a b l e source upon which t o b u i l d a l a r g e scale p h o t o v o l t a i c e l e c -
t r i c a l g e n e r a t i n g i n d u s t r y . T h i s is so p a r t l y because t h e adequacy of
t h e supply oflyadmium t o s u p p o r t a l a r g e scale i n d u s t r y i s n o t
established,,- and p a r t l y because t h e environmental i m p l i c a t i o n s a r e
n o t f a v o r a b l e . CdS/Cu S s o l a r cells a r e of i n t e r e s t mainly because
2
they are p r o j e c t e d t o u l t i m a t e l y have t h e lowest c o s 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 c o n s o l a r c e l l s , which
5
a p p e a r t o be t h e p r a c i c a l material €or p h o t o e l e c t - r i c a p p l i c a t i o n ,
c o s t up t o $200,00O/m f o r space a p p l i c a t i o n s , t r a n s l a t i n g t o a t o t a l
c a p i t a $ / c o s t of $2,000,000/KWe. For t e r r e s t r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s , esti-
mates - have been made t h a t c a p i t a l c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g c o l l e c t o r s ,
energy s t o r a g e , and power c o n d i t i o n i n g equipment might be about
$5,00O/KWe average i n t h e y e a r 2000 and t h a t t h i s c o s t might f a l l t o
$2,50O/KWe average by t h e y e a r 2020. The study i n d i c a t e d 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 f o u r i n
t h e y e a r 2000 and a f a c t o r of 1.7 i n t h e y e a r 2020.

We t r u s t t h e above d i s c u s s i o n p l a c e s our r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h e
p o t e n t i a l of s o l a r energy i n t h e proper p e r s p e c t i v e . Thank you f o r
your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR program and your informed comments.

Sincerely,

/5phud&
J es L. Liverman
W s i s t a n t General Manager f o r
Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs

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

-11 See S e c t i o n 6A.5.7.2 i n t h e F i n a l Statement

-21 MITRE Corporation Report, MTR-6513, "Systems Analysis of S o l a r Energy
Programs," December, 1973
 0
V.6-1

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

l710 N STREET,N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C.20036
I 202 783-5710
Pab Alto Ofit New YorL Ofict
664 HAMILTON AVENUE 16 April 1974 1J WEST 441h STREET
PAL0 ALTO. CALIF. 94301 NEW YORK. N.Y.10036
41s 327-1080 212 869-0150

W. H. P e n n i n g t o n
D i v i s i o n o f B i o m e d i c a l and
Environmental Research
U. S . A t o m i c Energy Commission
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. 20545

D e a r Mr. Pennington:

E n c l o s e d are t h r e e c o p i e s of comments w e h a v e p r e p a r e d
r e g a r d i n g t h e d r a f t environmental impact s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e Liquid
Metal F a s t B r e e d e r Reactor (LMFBR) Program and are s u b m i t t i n g t o
you f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e n o t i c e a t 39 Fed. Reg.
9 6 9 2 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T h e s e comments c o n c e r n V o l u m e 11, P a r t 2 , S e c t i o n
4.G.5 ( p a g e s 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 l u n g p a r -
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 s p o n s e t o t h e s e comments i n
t h e f i n a l impact statement.

Sincerely,

J. G. Speth

JGS/ket

I
 V.6-2 n

Na?.im! Rem: rces Definse Council, Inc.

1710 N S'TP.EET. N.'%'.
D.C. 20036
WASHIXGTO:~,
202 783-5710
Polo A h 0fi:r ,
6 6 4 HhKlLTON AVFNUE
PAL0 A1 TO, CALI; OA3l)I

415 327-1080
NRDC Comnents on WASH 1 5 3 5

D r a f t Environmental Statement

Liquid Metal ' F a s t Z r c e d e r Reactor P r o g r a m

Re : Volume 11, P a r t 2 ; S s c t . i o n 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. C o c h r a n

Introduction

On 13 Nov. 1 9 7 3 , a n l 2 6 Dec. 1 9 7 3 , w e s u b m i t t e d f o 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 i v e 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 , 1 9 7 4 , 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
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 , "
c.

D e f e n s e C o u n c i l , 1 3 Nov. 1373.
N a t u r a l !~csc~urces

n
 - 2 -

s t a n d a r d s t h a t x o u l d be 115,000 f o l d more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n t h e

p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s when i n s o l u b l e a l p h a - e m i t t i n g h o t p a r t i c l e s were

involved.' I n s u p p o r t of t h i s p e t i t i o n and f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e

D r a f t EIS, w e s u b m i t t e d 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

b a s i s f o r t h e r e q u e s t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e s t a n d a r d . 4

Upon r e c e i p t of c o p i e s of t h e D r a f t E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact

S t a t e m e n t w e w e r e a p p a l l d d a t t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h i s problem i n

S e c t i o n 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 p a g e s are s h a l l o w , s e l f - s e r v i n g and n o t

s u p p o r t i v e of t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d on page 4.G-103 t h a t t h e averagd

lung d o s e i s a p p r o p r 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 p a r t i c l e s . F o r example, one of t h e r e ' f e r e n c e s (No. 23)

i s o n l y an a b s t r a c t . A p p a r e n t l y , t h e AEC w a s o n l y i n t e r e s t e d i n a

s t a t e m e n t made i n t h e a b s t r a c t , n o t i n w h e t h e r t h e e x p e r i m e n t was

v a l i d or a d e q u a t e , 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 e x p e r i m e n t s . However,

as w e s h a l l show l a t e r , t h e e x p e r i m e n t s a s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e 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 .

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

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

3/ NRDC, " P e t i t i c n t o Amend R a 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 As T h e y

Apply To Hot P a r t i c l e s ," Before t h e EPA and ?.EC, N a t u r a l Resources
Defense C o u n c i l , 1 4 Feb. 1974.

-Hot
4/ Tamplin, A r t h u r R. and Thomas B. C o c h r s n , ____-
P a r t i c l e-
R a d i a t i o n S t a n d a r d q for
s , N a t u r a l Resources Defense C o u n c i l , 1 4 E'eb. 1 3 7 4 .

-5 / -Ibid, ~ p 2. 7 - 2 8 , an2 Tamplin, A r t h u r R . , L e t t e r t o Liverman, Et. cit.

-6/ Lushbaugh, C . C . , e t a l . , A r c h . of' Dexmatol.ogy, Vol. 8 6 , O c l - . 1962,

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 p r e c a n c e r o u s l e s i o n i n

t h e palm o f a mechanic. The Lushbaugh a r t i c l e i s s i g n i f i c a n t b e c a u s e

it demonstrated 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 . As an example o f

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

mention i s made of t h e Lushbaugh a r t i c l e , b u t r e f e r e n c e 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 s u p p o r t

t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d on page 4.G-103. W e s a y seemingly because

this 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,

et al., s t a t e that
.
similar lesions are produced in t h e l u n g by

h o t particles :

"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
s u b s e q u e n t 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 d o s e o f
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
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 v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t
o b s e r v e d f o r plutonium i n t h e lung."' .
: *

The Hot P a r t i c l e Hazard

C o n s i d e r i n g 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 A E C ' s b u d g e t of $100 m i l l i o n f o r b i o m e d i c a l r e s e a r c h , i t i s

i n d e e d a s a d 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 b e n e c e s s a r y f o r

u s t o p r e s e n t o u r a n a l y s i s of t h e " P a r t i c l e Lung Dose E f f e c t . " *

W e s h a l l t h e n 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 d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e s e pages have

l i t t l e r e l e v a n c e 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 Physics , Vol. 1 8 , 1370 , p . 4 0 6 .

 V.6-5

- 4 -

s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n on page 4.G-103 t h a t , " t h e preponderance

of t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e u s e o f an average l u n g d o s e 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 b e

conservative.

* * * * * + *

IV. 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 p u r p o s e of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o examine t h e . a s s u m p t i o n s

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 l p n a - e m i t t i n g p a r t i c u l a t e s s u c h as

aerosols of'PuO2. The a s s u m p t i o n s a r e i n t r o d a c e d through a

review o f b a s i c d e f i n i t i o n s o f r a d i a t i o n d o s e and t h e f a c t a r s

used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e d o s e . .
. .
A, The Dose E q u i v a l e n t
.
When an X-ray or t h e r a d i a t i o n e m i t t e d by a r a d i o n u c l i d e

passes t h r o u g h . t i s s u e it t r a n s f e r s e n e r g y t o t h e c e l l s i n
.F
. -_.-- -

-Tamplin
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
and Cochran, 0~ c i t . , pp. 11-34. The
of our r e p o r t ,
next footnote,
t h e r e f o r e , becomes number 17, which c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e number i n
our r e p o r t . Some f o o t n o t e s w i l l r e f e r t o O_E, tit. which o c c u r r e d
e a r l i e r i n t h e r e p o r t . These are l i s t e d below:

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 R a d i o l o q i c a 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 , B a s i c R a d i a t i o n 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 a n . 1 5 , 1 Y 7 1 , p . 1 0 6 .
 V.6-6

these tissues. T h i s e n e r g y produces c h e m i c a l changes i n

the m o l e c u l e o f t h e cells: f o r example, such a chemical

change c o u l d b e a m u t a t i o n i n a gene. The r a d i a t i o n d o s e

is a c t u a l l y a measure of t h e e n e r g y 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 . The b a s i c . u n i t of d o s e i s t h e

rad (one r a d r e p r e s e n t s t h e a b s o r p t i o n o f 1 0 0 e r g s o f

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

(high e n e r g y X-rays) , beta particles (electrons) , and' alpha

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 , while 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 o f t h e e f f e c t w a s n o t t h e same p e r r a d . For

I

example, i t w a s found t h a t 1 0 0 r a d o f a l p h a r a d i a t i o n would

produce r o u g h l y 1 0 t i m e s as many c a n c e r s as 1 0 0 r a d o f

X-rays. Moreover, i t was found t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e s p e c i a l

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

a l p h a p a r t i c l e s from radium17 . To account f o r t h e s e d i E f e r e n c e s

i n t h e magnitude o f t h e o b s e r v e d e f f e c t s a t t h e same absorbed

dose i n r a d , t h e maximum p e r m i s s i b l e d o s e l i m i t s a r e g i v e n

in r e m r a t h e r t h a n r a d .
The MPLD i s g i v e n i n r e m i n T a b l e s I and 11. The

-
17/
the
I C R P P u b l i c a t i o n 11, " A Review of t h e R a d i o s e n s i t i v i t y of
T i s s u e s i n Done," Perqemon P r e s 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 E q u i v a l e n t (DE) . The DE i s o b t n i n e d

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

to c o r r e c t f o r t h e s e o b s e r v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e magnitude

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

e f f e c t w i l l b e t h e same f o r a g i v e n 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 o r 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 f a c t o r s a r e employed.

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

i n p r o d u c i n g 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

radiation. 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 a c c o u n t s f o 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 .p r.g a n .

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

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

d e t e r m i n e d by u s i n g a QF=10 (to a c c o u n t 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 o f 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 a c c o u n t f o r 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)
19
.
A DE=50 r e m from X-rays o r Pu-239 would t h u s i n d u c e t h e same

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

would b e 5 0 r a d w h i l e t h a t from Pu-239 would be o n l y 1 r a d .

.
-
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. This QF
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. Although the irradiation of
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
I
and 11. Ideally, the DF should be determined by the ratio
of the observed effects in an organ following uniform and
nonuniform radiation of the tissue with the same radionuclide;
for example:
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
and MPC, for this radionuclide, are greatly in Error. 20
*

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

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

-
20/ This applies as well to other
in insoluble particulate form.
alpha-emitting actinides

...
 V.6-9

- 8 -

Before t u r n i n g t o t.e b i o l o g i c a l Lata it is appropriate 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 a r o u n d 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 f u n d a m e n t a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t n e e d t o b e

a n s w e r e d 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 b y

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 a n a l p h a p a r t i c l e w i t h a n e n e r g y o f 5 . 1 MeV.

T h i s p a r t i c l e h a s a r a n g e ( p r o d u c e s b i o l o g i c a l damage) o f o n l y

some 40-45 ti (0.004 cm) 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 o f
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 r a d i u s - . 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 t h e 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 , ' w i t h a volume t h a t

is 1 / 8 the t o t a l v o l u m e ) . 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 T a b l e 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., the skin. 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 a n g e 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 l u t o n i u m

 V.6-10

- 9 -
\1

p a r t i c l e i r r a d i a t i o n of deep r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u s 2 1 . The

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! s u c h a p a r t i c l e in the, l u n g u s i n g Geesaman's l u n g

mudel**. The dose r a t e to t h e e n t i r e o r g a n i s g i v e n i n

column 2 of T a b l e 111 for comparison. From Table I11 i t 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 l u n g

dose from the sartle p a r t i c l e v a r i e s by more t h a n 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 o r c a l c u l a t e s i t on the b a s i s of the t i s s u e

exposed,.

TABLE I11

. R a d i a t i o n Dose Rate Du@ to a Pu-239 P a r t i c l e

(1 u i n d i a m e t e r , 0.28
e

Soft Lung
Tissue Entire T i s s u e 25 Closest 26
Irr a d i ated2 Organ Irradiated 20 Alveoli

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

Dose R a t e
( r e d y r1 730,000 0.0003 4008 11,000

21/ Geesaman, Donald P . , A n A n a l y s i s 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-
c

Respiratory Tissue, UCRL-50387 and UCRL-50387 Addendum,

Lawrence Livermore L a b o r a t o r y , Livermore, C a l i f . , 1 9 6 8 .
 V.6-11

*' - 10 -
It would t a k e 5 3 , 0 0 0 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 1 5 rem/yr t o t h e e n t i r e (1000 g) l u n g . 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

4 0 0 0 rem/yr28. Thus, as Table 111 i n d i c a t e s , these p a r t i c l e s

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

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 u n i f o r m
..
irradiation? 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 h a n , at less t h a n one? In

the r e m a i n d e r of t h i s s e c t i o n , we review the g u i d a n c e , or

more a p p r o p r i a t e l y l a c k of g u i d a n c e , f o r d e a l i n g w i t h thio
0

hot p a r t i c l e problem.

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

23/ Langham, W r i g h t H., The Problem of Larga A r e a P l u t o n i u m

C o n t a m i n a t i o n , U . S. Dept. of H.,=E. W., P u b l i c Health
S e r v i c e s , Seminar P a p e r N o . 002, Dec. 6 , 1 9 6 8 , p. 7.

. -2 4 / 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," N u c l e a r News, June 1971, p. 71.
25/ Geesaman, Donald P . , UCRL-50387, pp. 13, 15. Based on
Geesaman's model f o r a l u n g a t o n e - h a l f 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 = 1000 g.

20/ This iissuines t h a t t h e r a d i a t i o n field of the 53,000

p a r t i c l e s do n o t overlap.
 V.6-12

- 11 -

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

I t i s 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 g u i d a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o n o n u n i f o r m i r r a d i a t i o n o f 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 s u c h a s i n s o l u b l e p l u t o n i u m

particles. I n i t s P u b l i c a t i o n 9 , t h e ICRP s t a t e s :

... I n t h e meanfime t h e r e i s n o c l e a r 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 a b s o r b e d 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
g r e a t e r o r i e s s t h a n t h e r i s k r e s u l t i n g f r o m 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 l u n g . 2 9

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 n o g u i d a n c e 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 , h e n c e

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

particles.

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 u s e d 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 of t h e gonads. T h e r e a r e some cases i n
w h i c h c h o i c e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t volume o r a r e a i s
v i r t u a l l y meaningless. For example, i f a s i n g l e
particle of radioactive material fixed i n e i t h e r lung
o r 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 e v e n a v e r o n e c c b i c
c e n t i m e t e r may h a v e l i t t l e t o d o w i t h t h i s c a s e . 3 0

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

t h e 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 f r o m a

-
29/ c i t . , p.
ICRP P u b l i c a t i o n 9 , 02. -- 4.

-
30/ NCRP R e p o r t N o . 39, O
.J cit.,
-- pp. 79-80.
-
 V.6-13

- 12 -
paper b y P r o f e s s o r D o n a l d P. G e e s a n a n :

So t h e r e i s a h o t p a r t i c l e p r o b l e m 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 problem i s n o t
u n d e r s t o o d , and t h e r e i s n o g u i d a n c e a s 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 testimony
i n J a n u a r y o f t h i s y e a r b e f o r e t h e J o i n t Committee o n
A t o m i c E n e r g y , U . S . C o n g r e s s . [ a ] D r . K . Z . Morgan
i s o n e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' t w o members t o t h e main
C o m m i t t e e of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Commission on R a d i o -
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 a n y o n e ; a n d h e i s d i r e c t o r of
Health P h y s i c s D i v i s i o n a t Oak R i d g e N a t i o n a l L a b o r a -
t o r y . I q u o t e : " T h e r e 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 , a n d 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 a r e s o
i m p o r t a n t . D. P. G e e s a n a n a n d T a m p l i n h a v e p o i n t e d
out r e c e n t l y t h e p r o b l e m s o f p l u t o n i u m - 2 3 9 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
such a p a r t i c l e of high s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y i n h i s lungs."
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
---inquiry 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 , " F o r some r e a s o r . o r
o t h e r t h e p a r t i c l e p r o b l e m 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 o n e of t h e s e
days. W e a r e ' n o t much f u r t h e r a l o n g o n t h e b a s i c
q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a g i v e n amount of e n e r g y d e l i v e r e d
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 b e t t e r or w o r s e €or t h e r e c i p i e n t . This i s 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 y o u i n h a l e a s i n g l e p a r t i c l e . " [ b l H e w a s .
correct: t h e p r o b l e m 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 E l e c t r i c a l Power
Phase 2 . Testimony p r e s e n t e d a t Hearings b e f o r e the J o i n t
Committee o n A t o m i c E n e r g y , 9 1 s t C o n g r e s s , 1 9 7 0 .
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C a t U . s. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e .
[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 : Environmental E f f e c t s
of P r o d u c i n q E l e c t r i c a l Pcwer , P h a s e 2 . Testiniony 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 E n e r g y ,
9 1 s t C o n g r e s s , 1 9 7 0 . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C.*, U. S. Governrncnt
Printing Office.
 V.6-14 n

2 13 -
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
Research C o u n c i l r e p o r t of 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 P a r t i c l e s . [ c ] The f i r s t
s e n t e n c e r e a d s , "The p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d d u e t o a i r -
borne radioactive p a r t i c u l a t e s i s probably the least
understood of t h e hazards a s s o c i a t e d with a t o i i c
weapons t e s t s , 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 , a n d 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 . Finally
l e t m e q u o t e D r s . S a n d e r s , Thompson, a n d B a i r f r o m a
paper g i v e n b y them l a s t O c t o b e r . [d] D r . B a i r a n d
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
oxide i n h a l a t i o n experiments. "Nonuniform i r r a d i a t i o n
of t h e l u n g f r o m 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 i s
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 ) , a n d a l p h a - i r r a d i a t i o n is more
carcinogenic than beta-irradiation. The doses r e q u i r e d
€ o r a s u b s t a n t i a l t u m o r i n c i d e n c e , a r e v e r y h i g h , how-
ever, i f measured i n proximity t o t h e p a r t i c l e ; and,
a g a i n , t h e r e are n o d a t a t o e s t a b l i s h t h e low-incidence
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 n o g e n e r a l
t h e o r y , o r d a t a on w h i c h t o base a t h e o r y , w h i c h w o u l d
- _ p e r m i t extrapolation of the high incidence portion of
t h e curve i n t o t h e l o w incidence region.'' I a g r e e and
I s u g g e s t t h a t i n such a c i r c u m s t a n c e . i t is a p p r o p r i a t e
t o view t h e s t a n d a r d s w i t h extreme c a u t i o n . 3 1

IC] U. S . NAS-NRC S u b c o m m i t t e e , 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
Particles. R e p o r t o f t h e Subcommittee on I n h a l a t i o n
H a z a r d s . Committee o n 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
R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. 1 9 6 1 . P u b l i c a t i o n
848. NAS-NRC/PUB-848, 1 9 6 1 .
L

[d] S a n d e r s , C.L. , R.C. Thompson, a n d W . J . B a i r , "Lung

. C a n c e r : Dose R e s p o n s e S t u d i e s w i t h R a d i o n u c l i d e s . "
In: Inhalation Carcinogenesis. Proceedings of a Biology
D i v i s i o n , Oak R i d g e 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 , O c t o b e r 8-11, 1 9 6 9 . M.G.
Hanna, J r . , P. N e t t e s h e i m , a n d J.R. G i l b e r t , eds.,
U. S . A t o m i c E n e r g y Commission Symposium Series 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 .
pp. 285-303. (CONF-691001).
* .*.
31/ Geesaman, Donald P. , " P l u t o n i u m 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 , 1 3 7 0 ,
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 S u b c o m m i t t e e o n A i r a n d 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 , 2 n d ~ c s s i o n ,
A u g u s t 5 , 1 9 7 0 , p p . 1530-1532.
 V.6-15

, - 14 --
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 o f D r . A . B. Long:

.. t h e r e i s a n 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 b u r d e n and the maximum
permissible a i r concentration bring ... the public
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, B i o l o s i c a l D a t a R e l a t e d t o Cancer Risk from I n s o l u b l e

Plutonium P a r t i c l e s

W e h a v e 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 intense but localized radiation. 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- o r o r g a n f a t a l .

W e s a i d t h a t t h e available 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

t h a 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 e r r o r .

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 o c a 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 w h e t h e r 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

particles c o n s t i t u t e a unique r i s k . Geesaman c o l l e c t e d

and a n a l y z e d t h e p e r t i n e n t e x p e r i m e n t s , and w h a t f o l l o w s
 V.6-16

,, - 15'-
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 t h e , "Geesaman h y p o t h e s i s . I'

A The Geesaman H y p o t h e s i s

Dr. Roy E. A l b e r t and c o - w o r k e r s p e r f o r m e d 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 r a t s k i n 34-36

A l b e r t ' s s t u d y of radiation-induced carcinoma 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 i g h - d o s e car-

cinogenic situation. A s k i n a r e a of 2 4 c m 2 was e x p o s e d

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 -
(I

tion. The d o s e r e s p o n s e c u r v e s are r e p r o d u c e d 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 l a r g e , -c1-5 t u m o r s per r a t b y 80 weeks p o s t

exposure. I t w a s n o t e d b y 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 ) . Since t h i s

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

34/ A l b e r t , R . E . , F . J . B u r n s , and R.D. Heimbach, "The

e f f e c 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 o n 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 . - 3 0 , 1 9 6 7 , pp. 515-52 .
-
35/ A l b e r t , R.E., F . J . B u r n s , and R.D. Heimbach, " S k i n damage
and t u m o r 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, 1 9 6 7 , pp. 525-5:

-
36/ A l b e r t , R . E . , F . J . B u r n s , and R . D . IIeimbach, ."The
a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n 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,
1 9 6 7 , pp. 5 9 0 - 5 9 9 . n
 V.6-17

*
- 16 -

d e p t h i s n e a 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 g e r m i n a l

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 b e a c r i t i c a l

r e g i o n i n t h e observed carcinogenesis. The s u g g e s t i o n g a i n 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 n o n - u l c e r o g e n i c

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

r a t i o (1/2000-1/4000) w i t h t h e n u d e r o f a t r o p h i e d h a i r

f o l l i c l e s . Thus t h e c a r c i n o g e n e s i s i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t
..
w a s r e G a r k a b l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e d o s e 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 . When e x p o s u r e s 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 roughly 1 m~ s c a l e ,

geometrical e f f e c t s w e r e o b s e r v e d : 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 the s i e v e geometry was s u p p r e s s e d a t Zoses of

1700 r a d b u t n o t a t d o s e s o f 2300 r a d . The r e d u c t i o n , however,

w a s a g a 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 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 i n c i d e n c e

.of c a n c e r w a s o b s e r v e d a f t e r i n t e n s e l o c a l d o s e s of r a d i a t i o n ,

and t h e c a r c i n o g e n e s i s was p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e damage o r

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 i s s t l e ,

the hair follicles.

 V.6-18

- 17 -

8,

7-
B 0.75mm
e 1.40mm 6-
0 1.65 mm (suppl . doto)

-
2 - . -
-
0 -
I I 1 I 1 I 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Surfoce dose - krod Dose at 0.27 mm - krod

Fig. 1. T u m o r incidence with respect to
s u r f a c e dose a t 60 w e e k s ior three
penetration d e p t h s of electrcns.
Fig..2. T u m o r incidence w i t h respect to
the dose at a depth of 0.27 n m i n
the s k i n at 80 mccks i o r t h r e e
penetration depths of e l e c t r o n s .

Source of F i g u r e s : A l b e r t , R. E., Res. --

e t a l . , Radiation - 30,

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

Geesaman, UCRL-50387 Addendum, Cp. -

cit., 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 a n d 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 experiments. Even a t e l e v a t e d 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 a n d Glucksmann i n d u c e d

-5 sarcomas/lOo c m 2 . i n r a t s
37
.
A f e w r e s u l t s for r a b b i t s , s h e e p , a n d s w i n e were

o b t a i n e d a t H a n f o r d 38-41. Despite 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 a n d 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
90Sr and 32P,'1 B r i t . J. Cancer - 1 6 , 1 9 6 2 , p p . 72-86.

-
39/
rats
Boag, J.W. a n d A. G l u c k s m a n n , " P r o d u c t i o n of c a n c e r s i n
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, a n d 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 o n R a d i o b i o l o g y held i n Carnbric?ge,
14-17 A u g u s t 1 9 5 5 . E d i n b u r g h , O l i v e r a n d Boyd, 1 9 5 6 , pp. 476-479.

40/ George, L.A. a n d 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

t h e s k i n , " Hanford A t o m i c Products O p e r a t i o n , Biology
R e s e a r c h A n n u a l R e p o r t f o r 1 9 5 6 , HW-47500, 1 9 5 7 , pp. 1 3 5 - i 4 1 .

-
41/ G e o r g e , . L . A . 11, R . L . P e r s h i n g , S . M a r k s , a n d L.K.
Bustad, "Cutaneous fibrosarcoma 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 , Biology
R e s e a r c h A n n u a l Report f o r 1 9 5 9 , €IN-65500, 1 9 6 0 , pp. 68-69.

42/ Ragan, H.A., W.J. C l a r k e a3d L . K . Bustad, " L a t e e f f e c t s

of s k i n i r r a d i a t i p n
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
,I1

Report for 1 9 6 5 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 - -

43/ K a r a g i a n e s , M.T., E.B. Iloward a n d 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 A n n u a l 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 a n d M e d i c i n e , V o l . I , B i o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e s , BN~:L-71.1,
1 9 6 8 , pp. 1.10-1.11
 V. 6-2r)

- 19 -
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 r a d f r o m 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 w h i c h 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

after intense radiation i n s u l t . A g a i n , 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 e n h a n c e d t u m o r i n c i d e n c e does o c c u r

after very high doses.

Intense l o c a l i z e d radiatior. o f t h e subcutaneous 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 b y Pu-239 h a s also been

shown t o c a u s e a h i g h f r e q u e n . c y of c a n c i r i n d u ~ t i o n ~ ~ - ~ ~ .

Now w h a t a r e 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 is: 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 ) is 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 ?igh

d o s a g e , t h e c h a n c e o f it b e c o m i n g 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 loe4. T h i s n a s become known as t h e "Geesaman

hypothesis. 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 , i t 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

-
44/
and
S a n d e r s , C . L . and T . A . J a c k s o n , " I n d u c t i o n of M e s o t h e l i o m , l s
Sarcomas From ' H o t S F o t s ' o f P u 0 2 A c t i v i t y , " H e a l t h P- !-~ysics,
V o l . 2 2 , N o . 6 , J u n e 1 3 7 2 , p p . 755-759.

-
45/ L i s c o , Herman , - et - 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 , Radioloqy
'I
-- ,
V o l . 4 9 , N o . 3 , S e p t . 1 9 4 7 , p p . 361-363.
 V . 6-21

- 20 -

s e n s i t i v e to s u c h 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

~ . particle

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

the h i s t o l o g i c a l examination of the l e s i o n , the authors

s t a t e , "The a u t o r a d i o g r a p h s showed precise c o n f i n e m e n t 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 b a s a l arees o f t h e e p i d e r m i s , whexe . .
e p i t h e l i a l c h a n g e s 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

present. 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 ,

t h e r e f o r e , seemed o b v i o u s . A l t h o u g h the ' l e s i o n w a s m i n u t e ,

t h e c h a n g e s 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 c o u r s e , r&sed '

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 In

t h i s case , l e s s t h a n 0 . 1 ug of Pu-239 produced precancerous

c h a n g e s 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 very intense. There is ever? r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t a

smaller q u a n t i t y o f ' Pu-239 would h a v e p r o d u c e d s i m i l a r c h a n g e s .

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

.
p a r t i c l e 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 o f 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/ L u s h b a u g h , C.C. and J . Langham, 01. c i t . , pp. 4 6 1 - 4 6 4 .
L
 V. 6-22

- 21 -
published i n 1962. 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 s o 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 l u t o n i u m 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

suggest t h a t i n s o l u b l e plutonium p a r t i c l e s could 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 e v e n g r e a t e r t h a n 1/1000

per p a r t i c l e . I n o t h e r w o r d s , 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 s e c o n d case o f p l u t o n i u m p a r t i c l e i n d u c e d c a n c e r i s

t h a t of M r . Edward G l e a s o n . H e w a s not associated with

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 u n l o a d e d ,

r o t a t e d and r e l o a d e d a c r a t e t h a t w a s c o n t a m i n a t e d by t h e

l e a k i n g c a r b o y of Pu-239 s o l u t i o n w h i c h it c o n t a i n e d . He

s u b s e q u e n t l y d e v e l o p e d an i n f i l t r a t i n q s o f t t i s s u e s a r c o m a

on the l e f t palin w h i c h 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 .

A l t h o u g h this case is n o t as cledi: c u t a s t h e case o f t h e

p l u t o n i u m w o r k e r , t h e r e i s an overwhelming m e d i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y

t h a t h i s c a n c e r was i n d u c e d by p l u t o n i u m . Mr. Gleason’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 lead to a lawsuit,

47/ Vanderbeck , Z.W., “ P l u t o n i u m i n P u n c t u r e !bunds; ’ IIW-GG172,

G n f o r d L a b o r a t o r i e s O p e r a t i o n , J u l y 2 5 , 19GO.
 V. 6-23

- 22 -
Edward G l e a s o n , e t a1 v . NUMEC. This s u i t w a s eventually
\

settled out-of-court. 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 b y o n e o f 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 .

T h e s e 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

particles o f f e r a unique carcinogenic 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 o f 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 / l O O O ) o f Secon?ing

cancerous.

C . R e l a t e d Lung ExDeriments
6

The s k i n e x p e r i m e n t s with a n i m a l s a r e r e m a r k a b l e i n t h a t

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 p r o d u c e ? f r e q u e n t c a r c i n o g e n e s i s .

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

unity. 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

development could occur i n lung t i s s u e . W h i l e a number o f ,

r a d i o a c t i v e substances have been used t o induce lung cancqrs

i n mice and r a t s 4 * , it. i s 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 . , " R a d i o g e n i c 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 ,
H a f n c r Pub1 i s h i n g Coinpany, I n c . , V o l . 4 , 1964, pp. 2 5 1 - 3 0 3 .
-L_---- _I__-
 V. 6-24 n

- 23 -
--
The work o f L a s k i n , e t a l l t h o u q h n o t s p e c i f i c a l l ;

involving deep r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e , does demonstrate a source

intensity-response curve .for lung tissue4'. 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 o b s e r v e d t o a r i s e 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 s p o n s e ( 7 p e r c e n t )

. even a t 0 . 0 0 8 u C i b u r d e n , and a s l o w , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 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 t h r e e orders of m a q n i t u d e

e

in t h e source i n t e n s i t y . C o r r e s p o n d i n g 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 r a d t o 1 C 6 r a d
50
.
A n i m a l s w e r e f o l l o w e d u n t i l d e a t h a n d i t was o b s e r v e d t h a t

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 a c c u m u l a t c d dose associated w i t h a , ' .

cancer w a s 1 4 0 0 r a d . For an a c c u m u l a t e d 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 . Cember

f o r t i f i e d g l a s s beads (0.3 u diameter) w i t h s e v e r a l microcuries

of S r - 9 0 , 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

rats. Tumors were o b s e r v e d i n 7 o f 23 a n i m a l s . In a s e c o n d

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

49/ L a s k i n , S . , M. K u s c h n e r , N . N e l s o n , B. A l t s h u l c r , J.H.
H a r l e y and M. D a n i e l s , "Carcinoma of t h e l u n s i n r a t s e x p o s e d
L

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 , I 1 J . N a t l . C a n c e r I n s t . -31 ,
1 9 6 3 , p p . 219-231.

SO/ A l t s h u l e r , B . , " D o s i m e t r y from a l ? u l o 6 - c o a t e d p l a t i n u n

p e l l e t , " - R a d i a t j . o n R e s . 9- , 1958 , pp. 626-632:
 V . 6-25

- 24 -
l

a b u r d e n r a n g e of 0 . 5 u C i t o 50 u C i 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

f l u c t u a t e d between 0.04 and 0 . 3 51

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 of c a r c i n o g e n e s i s . S e v e r e damage

a n d 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 s52-54. Expasure w a s to

p a r t i c u l a t e s o f 0.25 u o r 0 . 5 u m e d i a n d i a m e t e r ; 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 h a d 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

appeared i n conjunction with s e v e r e lung i n j u r y . Since 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 ' a n c e r i s a

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

-
51/ Cember, H. , 02. G.
-
52/ B a i r , W . J . , J . F . P a r k , a n d fq. J . C l a r k e , "Long-term
s t u d y o f inhaled plutonium i n dogs ,I1 Rattelle 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 , 1 9 6 6 (AD-631 6 9 0 ) .

53/ P a r k , J . F . , W . J . C l a r k e a n d 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
A n n u a l R e p o r t € o r 1 9 6 7 t o t h e USAEC D i v i s i o n of Biolocjy a n d
M e d i c i n e 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/ Park, 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 -I~ l t h. ~Physics,
--i--ela ~ ~ ~ s ~
Vel. 2 2 , N o . 6 , J u n e 1 9 7 2 , p p . 803-1319.
 V.6-26

- 25 *

I
t i m e , s i n c e t h e pathological rcsponse is 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 a b o u t

the m a g n i t u d e oE t h e r e s p o n s e a t smaller b u r d e n s . The smallest

b u r d e n ( a t d e a t h ) i n a dog s h o w i n g l u n g c a n c e r was 0 . 2 uCi.

P r e s u m a b l y t h i s would c o r r e s p o n d t o a p a r t i c l e b u r d e n of

about lo7 particles. 4 B u r d e n s w h i c h are s m a l l e r b y o r d e r s of

m a g n i t u d e may s t i l l i n d u c e 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 a n d s o f t t i s s u e s ,

c o r r e s p o i i d t o a r i s k p e r p a r t i c l e i n t h e ' n e i g h b o r h o o d of

1/1000 t a . 1 / 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

VI . 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 b e e x p e c t e d 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
U

a c t i v i t y p e r p a r t i c l e i s r e d u c e d so i s t h e d o s a g e t o t h e

surrounding t i s s u e . Indged , a t s u f f i c i e n t l y small 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 , o n e 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 u n i f o r m i r r a d i a t i o n . The s t u d y
P

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 d o s e r e s p o n s e c u r v e as t h e dosage

exceeds 1,000 r e m
55
. (See F i g u r e 2 ) . This 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 m u s t o c c u r b e f o r e t h i s

unique carcinoqenic response occurs. T h e e x p e r i m e n t s of

-
55/ Albert, R.E., e -t -al, R
- adiation R e s . -
3 0 , 0 2 . --
c i t . , pp. 515-5211,
F i q u r e 7 ; r c p r o d u c c d i n Gccsaman , UCI<L8-50387 Addcndum, O - ,
ciC.
p. _
__
p. 2.
 V . 6-27

- 2.6 -
Laskin, et G I i n d i c a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t carcinoqenic response

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
of l u n g ti..,=.,c u e56 . 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

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 of one y e a r 57 . It therefore

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 g u i d a n c e t h a t this e n h a n c e d 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

r e m / y r o r 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 G i v e a Dose o f
58
1 0 0 0 r e m / y e a r t o the S u r r o u n d i n g Lung T i sc s u e

P a r t i cl e P a r t i c l e D i a m e t e r ( u )5 9
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 ) 0.14 . 0.8 0.12

1 / 2 max i n f l a t e d ( 6 8 a l v e o l i ) 0.07 0.6 0.09

C l o s e s t 20 a l v e o l i 0 *02 0.4 0.06

-
56/
L
Laskin, -
et -
al, 0 2 . G.
57/
L Geesaman, Donald P . , UCRL-50387, 02. G.,
p . 11.

58/
- c
Ibid
_
0 .

-
e.,
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. p. 7 .
 V. 6-28 n

- 27 - I

As s e e n . f r o m T a b l e I V , u s i n g Geesaman's l u n g 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 d o s e o f 1 0 0 0 rem/yr t o i r r a d i a t e d l u n g

tissue. F o r p u r p o s e s 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 b u r d e n w e w i l l u s e 0 . 0 7 pCi from l o n g h a l f -

l i v e d ( g r e - l t e r t h a n o n e y e a r ) i s o t o p e s as t h e l i m i t i n g

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, throughout
i
t h e r e m a i n d e r 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 i m p l y a p a r t i c l e

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
e

in l u n g t i s s u 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 d o s a g e 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 l u n g

tissue. F o r 2 3 9 P u 0 2 , s u c h a p a r t i c l e would b e 0 .G u i n d i a m e t e r

and c o n t a i n 0 . 0 7 pCi. I t would c a r r y a r i s k o f i n d u c i n g l u n g c a n c s r

of 1 / 2 0 0 0 .
0
P a r t i c l e s l a r g e r t h a n t h i s , would c o n t a i n more pCi and

d e l i v e r larger dosages t o t h e surrounding 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 . This implies t h a t 2 p a r t i c l e s

i n t h e l u n g ( a s l i t t l e a s 0.14 p C i ) c o F r e s p o n d s t o r i s k f r o m u n i f o r m
i r r a d i a t i o n of t h e l u n g by 1 6 , 0 0 0 pCi.

* * * * * * * . .

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 r o c e e d t h r o u g h tli i s s e c t i o n , 4. G . 5 , p a g e s 4 . G - 8 9

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 .

P a q c s 4.G-89 t o 9 0 . These p a g e s p r e s e n t background o r g e n e r a l n

m a t e r i a l for which l i t t l c conmcnt is n e c e s s a r y . IIowcver two
 V . 6-29

- 28 - ~

i m p o r t a n t s e n t e n c e s a p p e a r 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 i g h 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 c a n
g r e a t l y a m e l i o r a t e the outcome. However , a d e q u a t e 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 lete e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y carcinGgenesis. "

Iie f i n d t h i s l a s t p o i n t t o b e i n c r e d i b l e . T h e r e i s an

abundance of e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e 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 d o s a g e s c a n c e r i s a f r e q u e n t , a l m o s t

i n e v i t a b l e occurrence. I n f a c t , it i s t h i s e v i d e n c e t h a t we have

u s e d &ove t o s r g u e € o r t h e e n h a n c e 3 risk of h o t p a r t i c l e s . In

a d d i t i o n t o t h e e x p z r i m e n t s t h a t we r e f e r e n c e d , T a b l e 4 . G . 2 on paga

4.G-97 p r e s e n t s d a t a from a n o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t i n which a h i g h frequr.ncy

of c a n c e r d e v e l o p e d f o l l o w i n g 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 d o s a g e .

Pages 4 . G - 9 1 t o 92. We have p r e v i o u s l y mentioned t h e l a c k

of g u i d a n c e from ICRP ( s e e page 11) 2nd h a v e a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e

NCR? o i ' f e r e d n o g u i d a n c e 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 froin ICRP

P u b l i c a t i o n 1 4 , i t i s 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,

w h i l e t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Task Group may b e w o r t h n o t i n g , i t i s i m p o r t a n t

c
t o n o t e t h a t i t i s o n l y an o p i n i o n and i s t o t a l l y u n s u p p o r t e d i n I C R P

Publication 1 4 . Considering t h i s i n 1974, it 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 o f t h a t r e p o r t , a d e q u a t e sup-

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 f o r t h c o m i n g . 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 h a v e emerged t o s u p p o r 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-a p p e a r s t o b e 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
d o s e and t h e t i m e of occurrence! of m a l i g n l n c i c s i n a n i m a l s :
 V.6-30

- 29 -

t h e h i g h e r t h e d o s e ( o r i n case o f i n t e r n a l emitters, t h e
d o s e r a t e ) 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
a p p e a r . T h i s phenomznon i s f r e q u e n t l y u s e d t o i n v o k e 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 f o r m a t i o n f o l l o x i n g a low d o s e
may b e s o g r e a t t h a t it e x c e e d s t h e n o r m a l l i f e s p a n e v e n
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 d o s e . '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 c o n c e p t 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 o f e x p e r i m e n t s

i n which t o o few a n i m a l s 'were e x p o s e d a t t h e l o w e r d o s a q e s .

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 t i m e when an

a n i m a l d i e s w i t h an o s t e o s a r c o m a n a y 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 b e c a u s e t h e a c t u a l t i m 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 i s i n d i c a t e d t o some e x t e n t
b y f i n a l o s t e o s a r c o m a 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 d o s e - - i f it i s s t i l l i n t h e o n c o g e n i c range--
t h a n a f t e r a small o n e . 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
a n i m a l d y i n g w i t h an o s t e o s a r c o m a 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 r a d i u m
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
a n amount t h a t g i v e s a low tumour y i e l d . I n other wmds, 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
c h a n c e of s e e i n g a tumour e a r l i e r i s a l s o g r e a t e r . Some o f
u s t e n d t o c o n f u s e 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, c h a n g e s 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 i n d u c e 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 , a n d , as a c o n s e q u e n c e , 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 our data. T h e c o n c e p t o f l a t e n t p e r i o d changincj
w i t h 3 o s e h a s n e v e r made v e r y good s e n s e t o m e b e c a u s e 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 i t . " 6 o

-
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," X a d i a t i o n- -Induced Cancer (Proceedings of a
Symposium, P.theris , Greece, 2 8 A p r i l - 2 Piay, 1969 , O r g a n i z e d b y
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Atomic E n c r q y Agency i n C o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h t!ie
World I I e a l t h - 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
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 , T a b l e 4 . G . 2 1 on page 4.G-97. The c o n c e p t

of o v e r k i l l o r w a s t e d r a d i a t i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d h e r e and i t i s s t a t e d ,

"Such a c o n c e p 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 terms of 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 r o d u c i n g c a n c e r 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 would increase a s the a c t i v i t y increased, thereby
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 w a s t e d on d e a d
c e l l s . One e x p e r i m e n t showing t h i s e f f e c t was r e p o r t e d
by P a s s o n n e a a l r 1 7 u s i n g S r - 9 0 b e a d s on r a t s k i n . " 6 1 , 6 2

The c o n c e p t 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 h e 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 e x p e r i m e n t o f Passonneau i s q u i t e s i m i l a r t o the e x p e r i m e n t s

of Al'uert which w e r e d i s c u s s e d h o v e . (See p a g e s 1 5 - 19 above).

The d a t a i n T a b l e 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 i 9 h d o s a g e w i l l p r o d u c e 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 experiments 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 b e a d and p l a t e s t u d i e s o f T a b l e 4 . G . 2 1 . A s we stated

on page 1 6 above:
c
"When e x p o s u r e s 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
r o u g h l y 1 mm s c a l e , g e o m e t r i c a l e f f e c t s w e r e o b s e r v e d ; n o s t
. .

-
61/ R e f e r e n c e #1, U . S . N a t i o n a l Acadeny of S c i e n c e s - National
Research C o u n c i l . The e f f e c t s c n p o p u l a t i o n s o f e x p o s u r e t o l o w
l e v e l s of ionizing radiation. R e p o r t o f t h e A d v i s o r y Committee on
t h e B i o l o g L c a l E f f e c t s o f I o n i z i n g R a d i a t i o n s . Washington, D . C.
(1972).
.
-
-0

62/ Reference # 1 7 , Passoneau, e t a l . , "Carcinogenic E f f e c t s of DiL'fusu

and P o i n t - S o u r c o Beta I r r z d i a t i o n o n Rat S k i n : F j nal. Summary, "
AEC Document -ANL-49 32 , 1952.
A\
 V .6-32

- 31 -
; 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 geometry w a s
s u p p r e s s e d a t doses of 1 7 0 0 R , b u t n o t a t doses of 2 3 0 0 R.
The r e d u c t i o n , however , was a g a 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 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

A c t u a l l y i f one c h o o s e s t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e b e a d s 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 u C i / b e a d 1 cancer/46 b e a d s o r p a r t i c l e s

75 u C i / b e a d 1 cancer/61 beads or p a r t i c l e s

30 u C i / b e a d 1 c a n c e r / l 0 7 beads o r p a r t i c l e s

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 thnt's

not the issue here. The b e a d s 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 i g h d o s e l e a d s t o c a n c e r . There i s no

r e a s o n f o r d o u b t i n g t h a t the cancer i n d u c t i o n w i t h t h e s e bead:;

also r e l a t e s t o atrophied 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 f o o t n o t e are:

"Akin t o t h i s c o n c e p t i s t h a t of ' o v e r k i l l ' of s i n g l e

c e l l s close 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 g
(or o t h e r t i s s u e ) may y i e l d d o s e r a t e s close t o t h e p a r t i c l e
which can be h i g h enouqh s u c h t h a t e v e n 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 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 w i t h i n a g i v e n 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 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 r e p r o d u c e and w i l l n o t l e a d t o c a n c e r . "

*However, t h e p r e s e n c e 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 may be r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a c e l l u l a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
can e x p r e s s i t s e l f a s a c a n c e r . This p o s s i b i l i t y requires
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 development of a f i b r o t i c

l e s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g t h e h o t p a r t i c l e i s t h e s u y g e s t e d 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 e x p o s u r e of mamrnalian
s k i n and l u n g t i s s u e c ~ m n o i i l yr c s u l % s i n c a n c e r s . Tissue
i n j u r y and d i s t u r b a n c e a r e a p r i m a r y c o n s e q u e n c e o f
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 o b s e r v e d 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 siinple
p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y between s k i n c a r c i n o m a s 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 r u d e sense t h e a v a i l a b l e o b s e r v a -
t i o n s are c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e . i d e a o f an i n j u r y - m e d i a t e d
carcinogenesis. 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 , c o m p r i s e s a p r i m a r y pathway of
carcinogenesis T h e inducti.or: of s a r c o m a s 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 i p o - e ( B r u e s ,
et is i n d i c a t i v e t h a t s u c h a mechanisni zxis!-.s.
P r e s u m z b l y 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 b y 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 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 the survivinq mitotic fraction,
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 j u r y - m e d i a t e d c a r c i n o g e n e s j - s i s . n u g g e s t i v e l y d e s c i - i p -
tive. 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 a n a l o g o u s 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 t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s
and c r e a t e 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
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 o n p a g e 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 p u r p o s e of o u r comments

e
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

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 i t l e a d s t o g r e a t l y e n h a n c e d

risks when h o t p a r t i c l e s a r e i n v o l v e d . Any d e c i s i o n , s u c h as t h a t

63/
- Geesaman, Donald P., UCRL-50387, Addendum, sp. c i t . , p p . 6-7.

64/
- 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,
and 7 1 . R r u b e . 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 K e i i i c a l R e s e a r c h D i v i s i o n Annuzl Report
f o r 1367 , A N L - 7 4 0 9 , 151-155 , 1 9 6 7 .
 V. 6-34

- 33 -
b e i n g made r l a t i v e t o t h e LMFBR, must t a k e t h i s e n h a n c e d r i s k

f r o m h o t p a r t i c l e s i n t o account. 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 of

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 s a y t h a t Geesaman6' performel

an a n a l y s i s s i m i 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 d o s e t o i n d i v i d u a l c e l l s and t h e n made e s t i m a t e s o f

t h e c a n c e r r i s k b a s e d upon t h e s e c e l l u l a r d o s a g e s . Geesaman, as

d i s c u L s c d &ove,
.
sug5zsLeG t h a t , when t h e dose frcjn a p a r t i c l c to

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 ,
..
s u c h 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 u n i q u e

carcinogenic r i c k -- a r i s k s i m i l a r t o t h a t p o s e d by a d i s r u p t e d

h a i r follicle. 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

criticism i s nade:
U

"The r e s u l t s of t h i s work c a n be q u e s t i o n e d on many g r o u n d s

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 t u m o r s i n r a t s k i n
t o t u m o r s 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 c e l l s a r e at. t h e b a s e of t h e follicle i n
the 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 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

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

P
section.

comes from a n i m a l e x 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 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 u s t o w a i t u n t i l

w e h a v e t h e human c o r p s e s .

65/
I Geesaman, Donald P . UCRL-50387, Addendum, %
0 -
cit.
 V.6-35

- 34 -
M o r e o v e r , 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 a n i m a 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 r e c a n c e r o u s

l e s i o n i n human s v f t t i s s u e c a u s e d by a p l u t o n i u r n p a r t i c l e . As

w e i n d i c a t e d on p a g e 2 1 a b o v e , i f we had u s e d 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 h a v e h a d 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 the

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

( s e e p ~ g e3 ) 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

l e s i o n s i n t h e l u n g 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 . There is l i t t l e reason t o d c S k t h a t

s u c h a l e s i o n would d c v e l o p i n t h c human l u n g a?d t h e n p r o g r e s s into

a cancerous growth.

F i n a l l y , i t i s 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 l u n g
c a n c e r p e r 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 r o m e x t e r n a l
r a s i a t i o n . I'

I t 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

statement. Dean and Langham, f o r examp$e, made n o m e n t i o n of t h i s

f a c t i n t h e i r article. I n f a c t , t h e d a t a of S s n d e r s that i s r e f e r e n c e d
67
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 .

P a q e s 4 .G-98 and 1 0 1 . Here a g a i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t s of Richmond

are m e n t i o n e d , b u t a g a i n n o m e n t i o n i s made.of t h e s i m i l a r i t y

--
61/ 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. ,
" C a r c i n o g c n i c i k y o f I n h a l c d ~ ~ l u t o n i u m - 2 3from
8 C r u s h e d Miczosphercs I "
P a c i f i c N o r t h w c : s t L a b o r a t o r j . c s Annual R e p o r t i 3 7 2 ; P a r t 1 13NWL-1'75O :
28 (1373).
 V. 6-36

.'
L

.
.
- 35 -
b e t w e e n t h e l u n g l e s i o n s produced i n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n 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.

It is stated,

" I n t h e e x p c r i m z n 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
a n d , 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 o f 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 b y t h e c i l i a , and
by macrophage e n q u l f m e n 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 . blacrophage engulZn-.enL

of t h e partic!.cs ~50"s o c c u r , b u . 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 n o t 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 t h e s e 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 c e l l s or b y c y t o t o x i c e f f e c t s on

macrophages. 6 8 The d i s c u s s i o n following t h e above q v o t e,(d s t a t e -

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 p a g e i s a flagrant example

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 e m e n t .

.'
I t i s a n 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 budget, t h a t i s r e q u e s t i n g funds €or a multi-

b i l l i o n d o l l a r LMFBR P r o g r a m , 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 .

-
6 8/ Sanders, C.L. and R . R . Adec, H e a l t h Phys&~, Vol. 1 8 , 1 9 7 0 ,
pp. 2 9 3 - 2 9 5 .

n
 V . 6-37

- 36 - ,

Near t h e t o p of t h i s p a g e , 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 l e u k e m i a i s a r e l a t i v e l y r z r c o c c u r r e n c e i n
e x p e r i m e n t a l a n i m a i s a d m i n i s t e r e d p l u t o n i u m 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 o f a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f an o r g a n
( 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 r o u b l e s o m e
as l o n g a s t h e a v e r a g e d o s e i s low."

T h e r e h a v e b e e n n o e x p e r i m e n t s w h e r e i n 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 b o n e 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 " plutonium 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 , a s t h e AEC lx~ovrsl 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 b o n e growth ( a s m P J . 1 p o r t i o ! i o f the orcIi7n). As a

result, a s d i s c u s s d above ( s e e pages 5-5) , k t i s 5 tircss m r e

e f f c c t i v g i n p r o d u c i n g b o n e c z n c e r t h a n i s r a d i u m which i s more e v e n l y

distributed. This 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 , grGssly

misleading.

C o n s i d e r i n g what h a s a p p e a r e d e x l i e r i n t h i s s e c t i c n ani? a l s o

w h a t 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 c o n f u s e d b y ' t h e f o l l o w i n g

statement on t h i s p a g e :

"NO clear c u t l o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f 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 d o s e can b e drawn from t h e p r e s e r i t d a t a . "

W e would i n a q u a l i t a t i v e s e n s z 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 e m p h a s i z e 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 l e a d s t o a n e n h a n c e d r i s k o f c a n c e r ( a s much a s

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 t i m e s t h a t of u n i f o r m i r r a d i a t i o n ) .
F o l l o w i n g 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 m i c r o s p h e r c 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 , very 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 l e s s damaging. I'

We h a v e p r e v i . o u s l y di.scusscc1 b o t h of these e x p c r i m c n t s ( s e e pngcs 3 I

I I

V . 6-38
- 37 -
30-31, 3 4 - 3 5 ) . As 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 c x p e r i -

rnents d o n o t s u g g e s . t a r e d u c e d r i s k for h o t p a r t i c l e s . Quite the

c o n t r a r y , t h e y s t r o n g l y s l l p p o r t o u r a n a l y s i s of a n enhanced r i s k f o r

h o t particles.
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 as j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e c o n c l u d i n g remark of t h i s s e c t i o n :

" C e m b e r 2 2 c o n c l u d e s 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 u n i f o r m l y 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 fact, h e d i d n o t so conclude. Cember c o n c l u d e d :

"Expcrin>,znts with rats h a v e shown t ? i a t radiozctive sub-

s t a n c e s deposited i n t h e l u n g c m l e a d to puinionary
neoplc?sia. R a d i a t i o n s from S 3 5 , S r 9 0 - k . 9 0 , and ~ c l d 4c l . i c i t e d
b r o n c h o g e n i c 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 e x p e r i m e n 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 u n i q u e c a r c i n o g e n i c
h a z a r d due t o t h e T n t e n s c c o n c c n t r z L i o n of a b s o r b e d
e n e r g y i n t h e l u n g t i s s u e i,qmediately s u r r o u n d i n g an
inhaled radioactive particle. "70

The m a j o r 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
"
particles i n t h e lung. The 1 4 4 C e w a s i n t r o d u c e d admixed w i t h

s t a b l e C e as e i t h e r 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

diameter (0.5 u3). 144Ce emits a b e t a p a r t i c l e of 0.275 MeV and

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. The r a t e of

e n e r g y l o s s f o r t h e s e b e t a p a r t i c l e s i n t i s s u e i s a b o u t 0 . 2 Kev/u

compared t o some 9 4 Kev/u € o r p l u t o n i u m 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 h a v e t o b e sone 5 0 0 t i m e s

~
t h a t of t h e 2 3 9 P u i n o r d e r t o d e p o s i t t h e same e n e r g y 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 l p h a p a r t i c l e s . Moreover, s i n c e t h e QF

f o r a l p h a 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

( 1 0 ) x ( 5 0 0 ) o r 5 , 0 0 0 times t h a t o f 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 . S i n c e t h e l i m i t i n g a c t i v i t y o f a 239Pu02

p a r t i c l e i s 0 . 0 7 p C i , a h o t p a r t i c l e of 1 4 4 ~ ~ would
~ 1 3 have t o

c o n t a i n more t h a n 350 pCi. A f 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 d a y s ) a h o t p a r t i c l e would have t o c o n t a i n some 5 0 0 pCi.

The g e o m e t r i c mean d i a m e t e r of t h e p a r t i c l e s i n t h e s e e x p e r i -

ments tias 1 micr-on.

.
The h i g h 9 s t e x p o s u r e g r o u p rcc:eived 5 0 uCi

of 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,

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 d i a m e t e r i s o n l y 5 pCi.

I n o t h e r words, t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s d i d n o t i n v o l v e h o t p a r i i c l e s a s

d e f i n e d above. The c a r c i n o g e n e s i s o b s e r v e d i n t h e s e C e m b e r

e x p e r i m e n t s , which w a s c o n s i d e r a b l e , was r e l a t e d t o h i g h t o t a l and

r a t h e r uniform organ dosage ( 1 , 0 0 0 - 30,009 r a d ) .

F o l l o w i n g t h e mention of t h e C e r h e r e x p e r i m e n t s , t h i s

s t a t e m e n t i s made:

"The d a t a of Grossman, c t a 1 . , 2 3 i n d i c a t e a seeming d e c r e a s e

i n t h e tumor i n c i d e n c eas well a s i n c r e a s e d s u r v i v a l w i t h
f o c a l s o u r c e s 02 210Po on i r o n o x i d e p a r t i c l e s . " 7 1

As w e mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s r e f e r e n c e i s o n l y t o an a b s t r a c t .

The AEC seemed t o b e more i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a n i n

t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e experiment.

71/ Grossman, e t a1.23 refers t o t h e a b s t r a c t : Grossman, R . N . , J.B.

L i t t l e and W.P. O'Toole, "Role of Carrier P a r t i c l e s i n t h e I n d u c t i o n 0:
B r o n c h i a l Cancer i n Hamsters by 210Po Alpha P a r t i c l e s , " -
Rad. --
Res. - 47:1-. '
( 1 9 7 1 ) . W e do n o t 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 h e s c
e x p e r i m e n t s was published. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n i n t h c dbstractr. war;
s u f f j c i c n t t c c l c q c n s t r a t c 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 .
 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 e x p o s u r e i n v o l v e d 0 . 2 uCi

of 2 1 o P o a b s o r b e d on 3 mg o f f e r r i c o x i d e c a r r i e r p a r t i c l e s

(98% < 0 . 7 5 u ) . A l l o w i n g a d e n s i t y o f 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 . The

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. Again,

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

( 2 , 2 5 0 t o 4 5 , 0 0 0 rem) and a g a i n , t h e s e l a r g e d o s a g e s p r o d u c e a h i g h

i n c i d c n c i ? of cancer.

Followinrj t h e 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

appears :

" S a n d e r s , 2 4 a s 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 r u s h e d : ~ i c r o s p i ~ e r,e sa 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 r e s u l t s i n a n
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 cells involved. T h i s conclusi.cn w a s based o n 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 h a v e 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 a n i m a l s . ''72

The c o n c l u s i o n o f S a n d e r s is n o t j u s t i f i e d b y t h e e x p e r i m e n t

described i n the referenced article. Sanders 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 were n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s$pdy. The c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i s

j u s t i f i e d by t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t t h e e x p o s u r e s t a n d a r d s

f o r p l u t o n i u m may be much t o o h i q h ( a t l e a s t 1 0 0 times t o 0 h i g h )

e v e n 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 u n i f o r m d o s e of 1 5 r e m d o u b l e d t h e n a t u r a l i n c i d e n c e of l u n g

-
72/ Sanders r e f e r s t o Sandci-s , C . L . , " C a r c i n o g e n i c i t y o f 1 n h n l c 3
Plutonium-2 3 8 f rorn Crushed M i c r o s p h c r c s , P a c i i i c N o r t h w e s t Lr?bor-
.
'I

a t o r i e s Annual R e p o r t 1372, P a r t 1 C W L - 1 7 5 0 : 2 8 ( 1 9 7 3 )
 V . 6-41

- 40 -

cancer I n t h e exposed r a t s . A worker i s allowed 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 c o u l d a c c u m u l a t e t h i s d o s e i n

10 years. 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 c o u l d b e made c o n c e r r , i n g 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 h u n d r e d h o t p a r t i c l e s . If this

were s o , t h e s e p a r t i c l e s c o u l d h a v e been p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for thz

obscrvcd cmcers .
-
Paqe 4 .G-103. Heire we f i n G the c o i i c l u s i c i n rcac!:ed in this

section:

"Therefore, t k L e c o i l c l u s i o n 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 a v e r a g e l u ~ ydosn 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 c o n s e q u e n c e s a n d may well
be c o n s e r v a t i v e . "

As we h a v e i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , t h e r c is n o 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 a s h o t p a r t i c l e s are c o n c e r n e d . In fact,

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 f r o m o u r c o n c l u s i o n s , o n e 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 carry greatly enhanwd cancer risks. 73 Islore-

o v e r , t h e experiment of Sanders suggests t h a t t h e r i s k estinates

f r o m the B I E R R e p o r t t h a t d i g e r e u s e d i n t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t may b e

s e r i o u s 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 e v e n when hot p a r t i c l e s a r e

n o t invalved. .

-
73/ Richmond, C . R . , et al. , 01.. cit.
 V.6-42

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

Mr. J. G. Speth
N a t u r a l Resources Defense Council, I n c .
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 D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder
Reactor (LNFBR) 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 r e s p o n s e t o t h e many comments r e c e i v e d , and a COPY of t h e Final S t a t e -
ment is enclosed for your i n f o r m a t i o n . The o t h e r e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s l e t t e r
p r o v i d e s r e s p o n s e s t o t h e v a r i o u s p o i n t s you r a i s e d , p r i m a r i l y on p a r t i c l e
l u n g 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 t r u s t t h e enclosed 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 concerns.

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e UIFBR Program is a p p r e c i a t e d .

Sincerely,

v
s i s t a n t General Manager f o r
Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures:
1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments
2. Final Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 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):

" I n 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 p a p e r o f Lushbaugh, - e t . &. , 6 w h e r e i n a s i n g l e
p a r t i c l e or' p l u t o n i u m produced a p r e c a n c e r o u s 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 b e c a u s e i t
d e m o n s t r a t e d 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 p a g e s of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , no
m e n t i o n 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 ) s e e m i n g l y t o
s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d on page-4.G-103. We s a y s e e m i n g l y
b e c a u s e 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 a r g u m e n t s ; f o r example,
Richmond, e t a l . , s t a t e t h a t s i m i l a r l e s i o n s a r e 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 s u b s e q u e n 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 d o s e of r a d i a t i o n a t a
h i g h d o s e 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 p l u t o n i u m 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 plutonium 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 p a p e 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 p l u t o n i u m produced a p r e c a n c e r o u s 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 " T h e i r ( t h e tisscle changes o b s e r v e d ) s i m i l a r i t y t o known
c a n c e r o u s e p i d e r m a l e y t o l o g i c c h a n g e s . . .I t . When used by a p a t h o l o g i s t , t h e
t e r m " p r e c a n c e r o u s " means o b s e r v a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o b s e r v e d i n o t h e r
p r e c a n c e r o u s t i s s u e s : c h a n g e s 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 f o r m s ,
h y p e r c h r o m a t i s m and o t h e r c h a n g e s 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 d o e s n o t mean t h a t a m a l i g n a c c y 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 c a n c e r
were n o t s e e n . That s u c h 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 i s w e l l known; c o n v e r s e l y t h e y c a n a l s o p r o c e e d t o d e g e n e r a t e and
so a r e 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 . However, d e g e n e r a t e s t e r i l e and dead c e l l s do n o t p a r t i c i -
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 c h a n g e s b e i n g t r u l y p r e c a n c e r o u s and b e i n g s i m i l a r t o s u c h
changes.

The c h a n g e s 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 r e c a n c e r o u s
c h a n g e s . The p l u t o n i u m i n t h e l u n g w a s i n t h e form of 180 !Jm d i a m e t e r
 V.6-44

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 s o a s
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 l u n g . ( O b v i o u s l y , 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 b e n e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e . ) The c h a n g e s a r e s t a t e d
a s b e i n g c o n s i d e r a b l y less t h a n would n o r m a l l y be e x p e c t e d from t h e same
q u a n t i t y of p l u t o n i u m d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e l u n g , and n o v h e r e i n
t h e p a p e r are t h e c h a n g e s 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 c a n c e r o u s .

2. NBDC Comment ( p p .-~

27-28):

"Pages 4.G-89 t o 90. T h e s e p a g e s p r e s e n t background o r g e n e r a l

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 a p p e a r on page 4.6-90:

' F o r 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 c a n g r e a t l y a m e l i o r a t e t h e outcome. liovever, 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 w h e t h e r a s i r r i l a r
s i t u a t i o n exists f o r late e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y
carcinogenesis.'

"We 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 . T h e r e 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 t h a 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 high dosages, cancer i s a f r e o u e n t , almost 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 h a v e 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 . In addition 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 , T a b l e 4.G.2 on p a g e 4.G-37
p r e s e n t s d a t a from a n o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t i n which a h i g h f r e q u e n c y of
c a n c e r developed follorzing 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 i s a n

abundance Qf e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s 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 i F h d o s a z e s c a n c e r is a f r e a u e n t , a l m o s t i n e v i t a b l e
o c c u r r e n c e . " T h e r e i s no d o u b t t h a t r a d i a t i o n c a n 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 w h e t h e r t h e number of i n d u c e d 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 e n e r g y is c o n c e n t r a t e d i n a spa11 t i s s u e
v o l u n e o r i f i t i s d i s t r i b u t e d u n i f o r m l v t h r o u e h o u t a l l of t h e o r q a n .
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 i s
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 i s r e f e r r e d t o by t h e XRDC a s t h e "Geesarran h v q o t h c s i c . " The
e x a m i n a t i o n 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 e v i d e n c e 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 h y p o t h e s e s i n v o l v i n R 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 interact:ions i n t h e c e l l could a v l y .

"....
We would a l s o s u b m i t t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e c a n c e r o u t c o n e a t
high doses as .a f r e q u e n t , a l n o s t i n e v i t a b l e o c c u r r e n c e ' ' (emphasis
 V.6-45

added) is u n j u s t i f i e d . I t 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 r e s t r i c t h i s f i e l d of i r r a d i a t i o n t o a s s m a l l a volume a s
p o s s i b l e . H e m i n i m i z e s t h e f i e l d volume s o a s t o r e d u c e 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 .

R e g a r d i n g T a b l e 4.G.21, i t s h o u l d 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 l e s s e r
r i s k a s 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 b e e n d e l e t e d from t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n 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 9 2 . We h a v e p r e v i o u s l y mentioned t h e l a c k of

g u i d a n c e 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 g u i d a n c e i n t h i s r e g a r d . In the quotation
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 c l e a r t h a t t h e
a u t h o r s , a n 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 w o r t h n o t i n g , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t
i t i s o n l y a n o p i n i o n and i s t o t a l l y u n s u p p o r t e d i n I C R P
P u b l l c a t i o n 1 4 . C o n s i d e r i n g 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
f o r t h c o m i n g . 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 a n d
o u r r e p o r t h a v e 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 k n o w l e d g e a b l e 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 r g a n d o s e t o b e a c c e p t a b l e i n t h e a b s e n c e
of any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e non-uniform d o s e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s more
hazardous.

It i s c e r t a i n t h a t members o f t h e ICRP and NCRP h a v e b e e n 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
experimental evidence.

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 :

' T h e r e 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
d o s e 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
animals: t h e h i g h e r t h e d o s e ( o r i n t h e case of i n t e r n a l
emitters, t h e d o s e r a t e ) 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 i s f r e q u e n t l y u s e d t o
i n v o k e 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 required t o permit cancer formation following a
 V.6-46

low d o s e may b e s o g r e a t t h a t i t e x c e e d s 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
c o n c e p t 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 e x p e r i m e n t s
i n which t o o few a n i m a l s were exposed a t t h e l o w e r d o s a g e s .
According t o D r . F i n k e l :

' A f t e r a l a r g e d o s e of r a d i a t i o n t h e p o i n t i n time when a n

a n i m a l d i e s w i t h a n o s t e o s a r c o m a may a r r i v e s o o n e r , b u t
t h i s i s not n e c e s s a r i l y because-the a c t u a l t i m e elapsing
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 d o s e i s
l a r g e . W e 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 e o s a r c o m a 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--if i t is
s t i l l i n t h e o n c o g e n i c range--than a f t e r a o s t e o s a r c o m a a t
a n y p a r t i c u l a r t i m e w i l l b e much g r e a t e r i f i t h a s
r e c e i v e d a n amount t h a t g i v e s a low tumour y i e l d . In
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 o f d y i n g w i t h tumour
i s g r e a t e r , t h e c h a n c e of s e e i n g a tumour e a r l i e r i s a l s o
g r e a t e r . Some of u s t:end t o c o n f u s e 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 e n d 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 , c h a n g e s
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 i n d u c e a tumour
i n s t e a d o f 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 t u n o u r s t h e r e w i l l b e , and a s a conse-
quence, 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 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 is how I i n t e r p r e t o u r d a t a .
The c o n c e p t o f l a t e n t p e r i o d c h a n g i n g w i t h d o s e h a s n e v e r
made v e r y good s e n s e t o m e b e c a 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 . ' %I1

AEC Response:

The r e f e r e n c e d statement d o e s 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, T a b l e 4 . G . 2 1 on page 4.G-97. The c o n c e p t of

o v e r k i l l o r w a s t e d r a d i a t i o n i s 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," R a d i a t i o n - I n d u c e d Canc-e2 ( P r o c e e d i n g s of a Symposium, A t h e n s ,
Greece, 28 A p r 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 H e a l t h 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

'Such a c o n c e p 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 terms of a c t i v i t y ) t h e less
e f f e c t i v e i t would b e i n p r o d u c i n g 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 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 c e l l s . iment showing t h i s
e f f e c t was re gp:&Sd by Passonneau One u s i n g Sr-90 b e a d s
on r a t s k i n . '

"The c o n c e p t o f 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 o u r a n a l y s i s
o f t h e 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 p a r t i c l e .

"The experiment of Passonneau i s q u i t e s i m i 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. (See p a g e s 15-19 above.)
The d a t a i n T a b l e 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 e x p e r i m e n 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 T a b l e
4.G.21. As w e s t a t e d on page 1 6 above:

'h3ten e x p o s u r e s 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 r o u g h l y 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 o b s e r v e d ;
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 siippressed a t d o s e s 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 a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by atro-
phied h a i r f o l l i c l e s . '

" A c t u a l l y , i f one c h o o s e s t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e b e a d s 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 1 cancer146 beads o r p a r t i c l e s

75 pCi/bead 1 c a n c e r 1 6 1 beads o r p a r t i c l e s
30 pCi/bead 1 cancer1107 b e a d s 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

C o u n c i l , " 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
Ionizing Radiation." 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).

62Reference 1 7 , Passoneau, e t a l . , " C a r c i n o g e n i c 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: F i n a l Summary," AEC Dcturnent
ANL-4932, 1952.
 V.6-48

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 l e s s 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 b e a d s d e m o n s 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 d o s e l e a d s t o c a n c e r . There
i s no r e a s o n f o r d o u b t i n g 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
b e a d s 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 e x p e r i m e n t s of A l b e r t et 5:. and t h a t of Passonneau a r e 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 s o 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 d o s e and volume i r r a d i a t e d were n o t s i n i l a r .
R e g a r d l e s s , b o t h 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 a n "overk.il1"
on c e 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 e x p e r i m e n 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 f o r p r o d u c t i o n 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 e x p e r i m e n t a 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 o f c a n c e 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 l o n g w i t h o L h e r s 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
b e i n g 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
u n w a r r a n t e d ; i t h a s been a v a i l a b l e a s 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 o s no g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e by t h e s c i e n t i f i c community.

W e v o u l d 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
e x p e r i m e n t 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 a s 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 . T h i 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 e n v i s i o n e d by
t h e t24X w i t h t h e r e s p o n s e b e i n g mediated by some f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n t h e
s i m p l e 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 i s 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 h a z a r d o u s when s p r e a d t h r o u e h o u 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 i s 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 f o r m a t i o n t h a n a r e more numerous l e s s r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c l e 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 c o n c e p t i s t h a t of " o v e r k i l l " of slnp,?e c e l l s

close t o the particle. A single p a r t i c l e i n the l u n i (or
 V.6-49

o t h e r t i s s u e ) may y i e l d d o s e r a t e s c l o s e t o t h e p a r t i c l e
which c a n be h i g h enouy,.h s u c h t h a t e v e n 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 w i t i i i n a g i v e n r a d i u s , d e p e n d i n s upon
t h e a c t i v i t y of t h e 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 r e p r o d u c e anu w i l l n o t l e a d t o c a n c e r . *

*Hovevfr, t h e p r e s e n c e 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
c a n 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 d e v e l o p s i t n t of =. f i b r o t i c
l e s i o n s u r r o u n d i n g the h o t p a r t i c l e i s t h e s u g g e s t e d mechanism of
carciaogencsis A s Geesamzn s t a t e d :
i
'Summing u p , i n t e n s e r a d i a t i o n e x p o s u r e 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 r e a p r i m a r y 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 a r e o b s e r v e d i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h
carcinogenesis. Albert h a s ex?iibited a simple proportion-
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 . n j u r y 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 a r e cnnmat-
i b l e w i t h t h e i d e a of a n i n j u r y - m e d i a t e d 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 . Since tissue
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 ,
c o m p r i s e s a p r i m a r y 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 s a r c o m a s 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 (Rrues, et al.17> i s i n d i c a t i v e that 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
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 m e d i a t e d by r a d i a t i o n -
i n d u c e d 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 in the surviving mitotic fraction.

'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
a n a l o g o u s 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

c r e a t e 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 to F e r p a r t i c l e c a n 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 p u r p o s e 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 i s 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 i n v o l v e d . 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 a c c o u n 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 io t h i s
D r a f t Statement: is o n e of i t s most s e r i o u s f l a w s . "

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 d o 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 a s a p r o v e n 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
hypothesis h a s gained l i t t l e acceptance during 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 e v i d e n c e 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 the argunents presented. P r e s e n t e x p u r i n e n t a l eviclence ( s e e
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 " a r e 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 u q i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d i n t i s s u e .

63Geesaman, Q o n a l d ?. , UCRL-50387, Addendum, 9. c i t ., p p . 6-7.

6 4 ~ r t i e s ,e t a l . , r e f e r s t o E r u e s , A. M . , II. Auerback, G. X, D e ?ache,
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 R e s e a r c h D i v i s i o n Annual Xeport f o r 1967,
A!L-7409 , 151-155 , 1967.

7. L W C Comment ( p p . 33-34):

"Page &:G-36. I t 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 nperformed

~~
a z a n a l y s i s similar t o t h a t of Dean and Langham.6G The l a t t e r
c a l c u l a t e d t h e d o s e 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 b a s e d upon t h e s e c e l l u l a r d o s a g e s . Geesaman,
as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , s u g g c s t e d 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 l u n g would p o s e
a unique carcinogenic r i s k -- a r i s k similar t o that posed by a

65Geesaman , Donald P. UCRL-50387, Addendum, 9.

G.
66Dean, P. N. and h'. H. Langham, " T u m o r i p e n i c i t y of S m a l l !lighly
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 , 1 9 6 9 , pp. 79-84.
 V.6-51

disrupted h a i r f o l l i c l e . Hevertheless, regarding both analvses

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 c a n b e q u e s t i o n e d o n many

g r o u n d s 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 a r e
a t t h e b a s e of t h e f o l l i c l e i n t h e r a 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 o u r 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 f r o n a n i m a 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 ~ o u l d 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 .
i
"Moreover, i t 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
t h i s s e c t i o n a r e t o a n i n a l d a t a and s t r a n y , e l y , n o 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 p l u t o n i u m p a r t i c l e . As
we i n d i c a t e d on page 2 1 a b o v e , 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 1/200iJt h a t w e a s s u n e d . 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 d e m o n s t r a t e d
t h a t h o t P a r t i c l e s p r o d u c e l e s i o n s i n t h e l u n g of h a m s t e r s t h a t
a r e similar t o t h a t o b s e r v e d by Lushbaugh i n human s o f t t i s s u c .
T h e r e i s l i t t l e r e a s o n t 2 doubt t h a t s u c h a l e s i o n would d e v e l o p
i n t h e human l u n g and then p r o g r e s s into a c a n c e r o u s groirth.

" F i n a l l y , i t i s s t a t e d a s f a c t on t h i s p a g e o f t h e i l r a f t
E n v i r o n m e n t a l 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 l u n g
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
external radiation.

"It would b e of c o n s i d e r a b 1 . 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 example, raade n o m e n t i o n 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 a n d e r s t h a t 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
~onclusion.67'~

67This i s r e f e r e n c e 3 4 , c i t e d on p a g e 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 I n h a l e d 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 1 9 7 3 , 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 h a v e b o t h s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d ,

indeed, 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 “ t o compute t h e p r o b a h i l i t v t h a t e a c h 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 d o s e - r e s p o n s e s 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 m e r e l y a s s u m p t i o n s . ” On t h e o t h e r hand
t h e XKDC s t a t e s t h a t Geesaman ” s u g g e s t e d 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 ,
s u c h a d i s r u p t e d t i s s u e rnass I n t h e l u n g would p o s e 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 . Obviouslv
a s s u m p t i o n s 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
their validity.

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 a p p r o a c h , 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 r e ; ) o r t e d 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 c a n be o u e s c i o n e d s i n c e b o t h make a s s u m F t i o n s
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 r e l i e s 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 i o m e d i c a l and g e i i e r a l h e a l t!i c o n s e c u c n c e s r e s u l t j - n c . from
a v a r i e t y of r a d i a t i o n e x P o s i r e so1irccc. Hovever, a s di-pciissed i n t!:e .I!’C
r e s p o n s e s t o t h e EP.! Comment L e t t e r , 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 e x p o s u r e can be m a d e o n l v when
comparabl e r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d i n s e v e r a 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 s w i c i e , .
are g e n e r a l l y r e c o E n i z e d . 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 i n o n e
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 orzan i n anotkcr s p e c i e s i s clearly a
p r o c e d u r e 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 involved.

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 l u n g a n a l o g o u s t o :he
rat s k i n h a i r f o l l i c l e , and c o m p a r a b l e 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 i m i l a r r e s u l t s b e i n g o b s e r v e d 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 u s e o f t h e . Geesaman h y p o t h e s i s h a s r e c e n t l y b e e n 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 concludes :

"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 s i m i l a r e x p e r i m e n t s c a r r i e d o u t by H u l s e ( 1 9 6 9 ) u s i n g mice.
H e found o n l y e p i d e r m a 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 b e p e c u l i a r t o t h e r a 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 c a n e x i s t i n t h e e x t r a p o l a t i o n from r a t
s k i n t o human l u n g t i s s u e . "

It i s 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 b a s i n g . 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 l u n g upon r e s u l t s o b s e r v e d 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 c a n n o t b e v e r i f i e d i n mouse and o t h e r r a t s k i n
studies.

The NRDC a c a t e m e n t t h a t Lushbaugh r e p o r t e d "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 c a u s e d by a ? l u t o n i u m 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 a d d r e s s e d i n r e s p o n s e 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 q u o t e d s t a t e m e n t r e g a r d f n g 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 u n g 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 s u m p t i o n s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , s o l e l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e of i l l u s t r a t i o n , .
i f t h e a s s u m p t i o n s of t h e Dean and Langham model a r e used ( c e l l d i a m e t e 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 a s a
f u n c t i o n of d o s e ) , and assuming a 570 gram l u n g w i t h a c e l l d e n s i t y of
u n i t y , one c a n c a l c u l a t e t h a t t h e l u n g c o n t a i n s some 2 . 2 x 1011 c e l l s ,
and t h a t a d o s e of 1500 r a d s h o u l d r e s u l t i n 22,000 tumors ( g i v e n 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
d o s e - r e s p o n s e curve from t h e A l b e r t rat skin s t u d y shows a n a p p a r e n t
t h r e s h o l d a c a b o u t 700 r a d , u s i n g t h e Dean and Langham a s s u m p t i o n s ,
and t h e f o u r t h power law ( " t h e tumor p r o b a b i l i t y r i s e s a s t h e f o u r t h
power o f t h e d o s e t o a maximum a t 2000 r a d . . . " ) , a d o s e of 400 r a d s h o u l d
r e s u l t i n 11.1 tumors p e r a n i m a l . 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 d o e s n o t conform t a t h i s p r e d i c t i o n .
The o n l y X-ray e x p o s u r e of t h e human l u n g 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 l u n g d o s e 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 o b s e r v e d 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 e x p o s u r e o f t h e l u n g 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 e x p e r i m e n t s of Richmond a r e

 V.6-54

12

mentioned,,but a g a i n no mention i s made of t h e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e

l u n g l e s i o n s produced i n t h e s e experiments 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.

"It is s t a t e d ,

'In t h e experiment of Richmond, e t al.', quoted above, 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 of 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 i n t h e a l v e o l i .
Movement of i n h a l e d p a r t i c l e s is known t o occur v i a movement by t h e
c i l i a , and by macrophage engulfment.'

"The AEC is 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 and a s s o c i a t e d deep

r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e a r e n o t c i l i a t e d . Macrophage e n r u l f n e n t of t h e
p a r t i c l e s does o c c u r , b u t how t h i s r e l a t e d t o limp, c l e a r a n c e i s n o t
understood. ?fore s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e h o t p a r t i c l e problem is t h e
measured l o n g 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 e x c e s s of 500
d a y s ) i n t h e l u n g , which may be r e l a t e d t o t h e engulfment of t h e s e
68
p a r t i c l e s by e p i t h e l i a l c e l l s o r by c y t o t o x i c e f f e c t on macrophages.
The d i s c u s s i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e above quoted s t a t e m e n t a g a i n d i g r e s s e s
into the irrelevanc issue overkill."

-
AEC Response:

The e x p e r i m e n t s 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

d e s c r i b e d by Lushbaugh have been d3.scussed i n t h e AEC r e s p o n s e 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 l e a d t o c a n c e r . The s t a t e m e n t i n t h e D r a f t S t a t e n e n t t h a t
movement o u t of t h e l u n g s does occur was p o o r l y worded and does n o t appear
i n t h e 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 o u t of
t h e l u n g s d o e s o c c u r 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 e g i o n s of t h e r e s p i r a t o r v
tree.

9. hTDC Comment ( p . 36) :

"Near t h e t o p of t h i s page, t h e 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 r a r e o c c u r r e n c e i n
e x p e r i m e n t a l animals a d n i n i s t e r e d plutonium may s e r v e a s 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 organ
( t h e marrow) t o a h i g h dose is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l v t r o u b l e s o n e a s
l o n g a s t h e a v e r a g e dose is lot^.'
I

68Sanders, C. L. and R. R. Adee, I i e a l t h P h y s i c s , Vol. 1 8 , 1970, ?p. 233-395.

 V.6-55

13

"There h a v e b e e n no e x p e r i m e n t s w h e r e i n 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. As t h e ALC knows, o n l y "so1ul)le" o r
" s o l u b i l i z c d " p l u t o n i u m 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 r e o v e r ,
as t h e ACC knows, t h i s p l u t o n i u m i s 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 ;.ortion 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 p a g e s 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 r o d u c i n g bone c a n c e r t h a n i s 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 E n v i r o n m e n t a l ImFact S t a t e m e n t i s , t h e r e f o r e ,
g r o s s l y misleading. 'I

AEC Response :

T h e s e comrnerits a r e c o n f u s i n g b e c a u s e i t i s n o v h e r e i m p l i e d i n the d i s c t i n s i o n
i n t h e Draft S t a t e m e n t t h a t we were d i s c u s s i n y , 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 l u t o n i u m 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 v e l 1
be d u e t 3 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 0 s t e o g e n i . c s a r c o n n c o u l d
be t h e s u r f a c e c e l l s l i n i n g t h e m i n e r a l i z e d bone s o t h a t t h e c o m p a r i s o n
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 a s t h e i n d e x . P l u t o n i u m
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 a v e r a g e s k e l e t a l d o s e .
The v e r y r a r e o c c u r r e n c e of l e u k e m i a a s a r e s u l t o f p l u t o n i u m 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 r g a n . 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 d o c s 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 s u c h a l c c a l i z e d d o s e d o e s n o t ?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 t s r e p o r t Xo. 2 i n 1 9 6 1 , when d i s c u s s i n g 9 0 S r ( p a r a g r a p h
4 . 2 . 3 , notes: "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 i g h d o s e o f r a d i a t i o n may m a r k e d l y
l o w e r t h e i n c i d e n c e of l e u k e m i a . 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 d o s e t o t h e bone marrow, t h e a v e r a g e d o s e j.s a more
m e a n i n g f u l i n d e x of h a z a r d t h a n t h e maximum h e a l d o s e 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 d o s e may b e l e s s h a z a r d o u s t h a n
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 e x p e r i m e n t s i n which ''hot p a r t i c l e s "

h a v e i n d e e d b e e n 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
( " T o x i c i t y of P l u t o n i u m i n ?lice", H e a l t h Phys. 8 : 565-579, 1962) and
R o s e n t h a 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 P o l y m e r i c P l u t o n i u m i n Y i c e , " In: Delayed E f f e c t s of Bone-
S e e k i n g R a d i o n u c l i d e s ( C . W. ?fays, !J. s. s. Jee, F.. D. L l o y d , B. J . S t o v e r ,
J . €1. Douglierty, and G . X. T a y l o r , e d s . ) , p p . 3 7 1 - 3 8 4 , U n i v e r s i t y of l i t a h
P r e s s , 1969) i n j e c t e d p o l y m e r i c 239Pu i n t o mice. The Pu a g p , r e p a t e s W C K ~
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 a n d L i n d e n b a n ' s a r t i c l e ) . Interestinziy,
 W.6-56

14

t h e i n c i d e n c e of l e u k e m i a 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

p l u t o n i u m 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. " C o n s i d e r i n g what h a s a p p e a r e d e a r l i e r 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 c a n n o t h e l p b e i n g c o n f u s e d 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 c l e a r 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 o f uniform

v e r s u s f o c a l d o s e can b e d r a m 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 l e a d s t o a n enhanced r i s k o f c a n c e r (as rnuch as
100,000 tines t h a t o f uniform i r r a d i a t i o n ) .
i
"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 t a p p e a r s from t h e 238Pu02 n i i c r o s p h e r e 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 90Sr t h a t , i n t h e extreme s i t u a t i o n of a
single, very active particle, t h s focal radiation is
c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s 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 e x p e r i m e n t s ( s e e pages

3 , 30-31, 34-35). As we indicated i n these discussions, these
e x p e r i m e n 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 h e y s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t o u r a n a l y s i s of a n enhanced
risk f o r hot particles."

AEC Response :

The " d a t a " 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 c a n c e 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 c a n c e r
f o r m a t i o n f d r m u l a t e d by Geesnan and m o d i f i e d 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 e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . T h i s h a s been d i s c u s s e d
earlier.

11. NRDC Comment (pp. 3 7 ) :

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 c o n c l u d i n g remark of t h i s s e c t i o n :

'Cember22 c o n c l u d e s 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 t h a n i s t h e u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d source."69
 Y. 6-57

It
Cember's e x p e r i m e n t s could 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 a c t ,
h e d i d n o t so conclude. Cember concluded:

'Experiments w i t h r a t s have shown that r a d i o a c t i v e s u b s t a n c e s

d e p o s i t e d in t h e l u n g con l e a d t o pulmonary n e o p l a s i a . R a d i a t i o n s
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 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 experiments d i d n o t confirm t h e e x i s t e n c e of a
unique c a r c i n o g e n i c hazard due t o t h e i n t e n s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of
abcorbed energy in t h e lung t i s s u e immediately surrounding an
i n h a l e d r a d i o a c t i v e p a r t i c l e . 70

AEC Response:

The q u o t a t i o n from Cember g i v e n by t h e 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

e x p e r i m e n t e r 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 e a s t from b e t a m i t t e r s . I f one r e a d s f u r t h e r ir, t h e Cember
a r t i c l e , we f i n d t h e € o l l o w i q s t a t e m e n t : "Furthermore, t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l
r e s u l t s imply that t h e c a r c i n o b e n i c i t y of a g i v e n m o u n t of absorbed
r a d i a t i o n e n e r g y increases up t o a p o i n t , as t h e absorp;ion of t h e e n e r z y ,
low-level, c o n t i n u o u s exposure of t h e t o t a l l u n g may be more c a r c i n o g e n i c
t h a n t h e same m o u n t of e n e r g y d e l i v e r e d a c u t e l y t o a r e s t r i c t e d volume of
tissue." We do nor: b e l i e v e t h a t t h e statemen: i n t h e I ) r c f t E w i r o m . e n t a 1
Impact Statement can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being g i v e n "with c o 3 s i d e r a b l e
i n a c c u r a c y . 'I

12. NRDC C o m e n t (pp. 37-38):

"The major t h r u s t t h e Cember a r t i c l e d e a l s w i t h 144Ce p a r t i c l e s

i n t h e lung. The Pi4Ce w a s i n t r o d u c e d admixed w i t h s t a b l e 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 d a u g h t e r product
144Pr emits a b e t a of 3 MeV. The rate of e n e r g y loss for t h e s e
b e t a p a r t i c l e s i n t i s s u e I s about 0.2 Kevlu compared t o some
94 Kev/u f o r plutonium a l p h a p a r t i c l e s .

"This d i f f e r e n c e in energy loss p e r micron i n d i c a t e s that t h e a c t i v i t y

of t h e 144Ce emitter would have t o be some 500 times that of t h e 239Pu
in o r d e r t o d e p o s 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 h a p a r t i c l e s . Moreover, since t h e QF f o r a l p h a p a r t i c l e s i s 10, t h e
I4'Ce a r t i c l e s m i l s t have an a c t i v i t y (10) x (500) o r 5,000 t i m e s that
of a 299Pu02 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 , S i n c e t h e 1 2 q i t i n g
a c t i v i t y of a 233Pu02 p a r t i c l e is 0.07 pCi, a h o t p a r t i c l e of 144CeC13
would have t o c o n t a i n more t h a n 350 pCi. A f t e r c o r r e c t i n g for t h e h a l f -
l i f e of 144Ce (288 d a y s ) a h o t p a r t i c l e would have t o c o n t a i n some 500 p c i .

7oCember22, &. e&., pp. 289-290.

 W.6-58

16

I 1The geometric mean diameter of t h e p a r t i c l e s i n t h e s e experiments

was 1 micron. The h i g h e s t exposure group r e c e i v e d 5 0 p C i of 144Ce i n
30 ug of CeF3. Allowing a d e n s i t y of 6 g / m 3 f o r t h e CeF3, t h e
b e t a - a c t i v i t y p e r p a r t i c l e of 1 u diameter i s o n l y 5 pCi. I n o t h e r
words, t h e s e experiments d i d n o t i n v o l v e hot p a r t i c l e s as d e f i n e d above,
The c a r c i n o g e n e s i s observed i n t h e s e Cember experiments, which w a s
c o n s i d e r a b l e , was r e l a t e d t o h i g h t o t a l and r a t h e r uniform organ
dosage (1,000 - 30,000 rad)."

AEC Response:

The d i s c u s s i o n 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 r e c e n t 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 t a n d a r d s f o r p a r t i c u l a t e a c t i n i d e elements. The Tamplin-Cochran
d e f i n i t i o n of a "hot p a r t i c l e ' ' i s a r b i t r a r y . There i s no e x p e r i m e n t a l
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r u s i n g 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 w i t h beta-gamma e m i t t i n g 144Ce p a r t i c l e s .

13. NRDC C o m e n t (pp. 38-39):

"Following t h e mention of t h e C e m b e r experiments, t h i s s t a t e m e n t is made:

'ma d a t a of Grosman, e t d.,23 i n d i c a t e a seeming d e c r e a s e i n

t h e tumor i n c i d e n c e as w e l l as i n c r e a s e d , s u r v i v h l w i t h f o c a l
source. o f 21%o on i r o n o x i d e p a r t i c l e s . 71
I1
As we mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s r e f e r e n c e i s o n l y 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 in t h e c o n c l u s i o n than i n t h e v a l i d i t y
of t h e experiment.

I n t h e s e e x p e r k n e n t s , t h e h i g h e s t exposure involved 0.2 p C i of 210Po

I1

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 i n v o l v e
8
2 x 10 p a r t i c l e s a t 0.8 p diameter. The a c t i v i t y p e r p a r t i c l e would
t h e n be o n l y 1. x pCi. Again, t h i s experiment does n o t i n v o l v e
h o t p a r t i c l e s as d e f i n e d above. It r e p r e s e n t s r a t h e r uniform i r r n d f a t i o n
of t h e l u n g t o h i g h dosage ( 2 , 2 5 0 t o 45,000 r e m ) and a g a i n , t h e s e l a r g e
dosages produce a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of cancer.''

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 I n d u c t i o n of Bronchial
Cancer i n Hamsters by 210Po Alpha P a r t i c l e s , "Rad. Res. 47: 253 (1971). Ve
d o 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 h e s e experiments was p b l j s h e d .
The i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n 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 h e r e , r e g a r d l e s s of i t s o v e r a l l v a l i d i t y .
 V.6-59

17

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 R e s e a r c h S o c i c t y

X e e t i c g i n 1 9 7 1 and a t t h e Iianford E i o l o g y Symgosium ( 1 9 7 2 ) . In addition,
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 ,a~s ~a r e s u l t of h i s s t u d i e c ; w i t h s o l u b l e 238Pu d e r i v c d

from cruslicd m i c r o s n h e r e s , a r r i v e s a t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s p r e a d i r i f
t h e d o s e v o r e uniforcily 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
d u e 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!. Thfs
c o n c l u s i o n i'as b a s e d 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
animals * ''72

"The c o n c l u s i o n of S a n d e r s i s n o t j u s t i f i e d by t h e e x I \ e r i i i e n t describec!
i n the referenced z r t i c l e . Sanders i n d i c a t e s t h a t hot 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 i s t h a t t h e e x p o s u r e s t a n d a r d s f c r r l u t o n i u m
i ~ a ybe ~ l u c 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 ) e v e n vhcn h o t
p a r t i c l e s a r e n o t i n v o l v e d . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t a u n i f o r m d o s e
of 1 5 rcm d o u b l e d t h e n a t u r n l i n c i d e n c e of l u n g 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 d o s e e a c h 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 1 0 y e a r s . It 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 s p e r i m e n t and t h e n i g n o r e
its implications.

One f u r t h e r p o i n t c o u l d be n a d c 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 e x p o s u r e s
d i d n c t i n v o l v e a f e v hundred h o t p a r t i c l e s . I f t h i s vere s o , t h e s e
p a r t i c l e s c o u l d h a v e been p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e € o r t h e o b s e r v e d c a n c e r s . "

AEC Res?=:

S a n d e r s b a s e d 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 e x p e r i m e n t

vas comprised o f e x t r e n e l y s m a l 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 t h r o u g h o u t t h e l u n g g i v i n c a n o r e u n i f o r m 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 e x p e r i m e n t w i t h 230Pu02 p a r t i c l e s .

77
S a n d e r s , 2 4 r e f e r s t o S a n d e 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
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).
 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 F f e c t - J e than t h e
non-uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of dose t h a t o c c u r r e d w i t h 25gPu02 and i n o t h e r
experiments w i t h p a r t i c u l a r e 238Pu02. Sanders n o t e s i n h i s s t u d y w i t h
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 r e s e n 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 c o n c e n t r a t e d w i t h
h e m o s i d e r i n - l i k e g r a n u l e s l o c a t e d i n p e r i b r o n c h i o l o r and p e r i v a s c u l a r
areas of t h e lung. lIowever, most of t h e lung c a n c e r s observed i n t h e
experiment d i d n o t a p p e a r t o o r i g i n a t e i n t h e s e a r e a b u t i n s u b p l e u r a l
r e g i o n s . F u r t h e r , 80% of t h e r a d i a t i o n dose was d e l i v e r e d w i t h i n t h e
f i r s t f o u 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 l u n g was h i g h l y d i s p e r s e d . T h e r e f o r e , Sanders a t t r i b u t e d t h e 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 t h e l u n g t i s s u e .
I n o t h e r e x p e r i t r e n t s i n which r a t s i r h n l c d 238Pu02 o r 2 3 9 ~ u ~p 2a r t i c l e s ,
lung burden e q u i v a l e n t t o those r e t a i n e d f o r l o n g t i n e s i n t h e expcritnent
w i t h t h e crushed microsphere 238Pu, d i d c o t c a u s e l u n g c a n c e r i n 77 r a t s
observed f o r about 6G0 days.*

Sanders c a l c u l a t e d an average dose of: 32 r a d s o r 320 r e m t o t h e lungs of

t h e 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 i n c i d e n c e of lung cancer.
Because t h i s IS t h e lowest d o s e a t which lung c a n c e r h a s been observed i n
e x p e r i m e n t a l animals, b e c a u s e t h e r e were less t h a n 100 r a t s i n t h e e::periii;ent,
b e c a u s e t h e r e s u l t s are on o n l y one animals s p e c i e s , and because experiments
which w i l l p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o t h e r e p r o d u c i h f l i t y of t h e s e
r e s u l t s are n o t y e t complete, i t is premature t o s p e c u l a t e upon t h e
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 a n d a r d s .

"Page 4.G-103. Here w e f i n d t h e c o n c l u s i o n reached i n t h i s s e c t i o n :

' T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o n c l u s i o n is t h a t t h e przpanderance of t h e e v i d e n c e
i n d i c i i t e s t h a t t h e u s e of an average lung dose is 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 m y w e l l b e c o n s e r v a t i v e .

"As w e have i n d i c a t e d above, t h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n

so f a r as h o t p a r t i c l e s are concerned. I n f a c t , w h i l e none of 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 supports our contention t h a t hot p a r t i c l e s carry Breatlv
enhanced c a n c e r risks .73 Koreover, t h e exp'riment of Sanders suggcsts
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

*C. L. Sanders and G. E. Dagle, "Studies of Pulmonary C a r i n o g e n e s i s i n Rodents

f o l l o w i n g I n h a l a t i o n of T r u l s u r a n i c Compounds, '' 13: E-xperimental R e s p i r a t o r y
C a r c i n o g e n e s i s and Bioa,say (J. F. Park and E. Karbe, e d s , ) , Proceedinns
of a Symposium h e l d a t t h e B a t c l l c - S e a t t l e Research C e n t e r , June 23-26, 1974,
S e a t t l e , Washington.

73H&mond, C. R., e t al, 9. G.

 V.6-61

19

D r a f t Statement may be s e r i o u s 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

h o t p a r t i c l e s are n o t involved,"

AEC Response:

The c o n c l u s i o n of t h e NRDC i s t e n a b l e o n l y i f we a c c e p t one p a r t i c u l a r

hypothesis €or t h e i n d u c t i o n of c a n c e r by r a d i a t i o n - - t h e Geesarnan h y p o t h e s i s
as m o d i f i e d by Tamplin and Cochran, i n p r e f e r e n c e t o a number of o t h e r p o s s i b l e
h y p o t h e s e s and t h e d i r e c t r e s u l t s from animal experiments.

The F i n a l Statement c o n t a i n s r i s k estimates based on anfmal e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h

t r a n s u r a n i u m e l e m e n t s a s 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 1150, t h e p e r c a p i t;l c o n s u m p t i o n or e l e c t r l c poi/zt- ~ P S

 n
v.7-4

Source o f i o n i z i n z Averaze a n n u a l e x p o s u r e !!umber o f d e a t h s

radiation i n m i lli rems p e r year

?-lq

177
 r

I t prcscnt, c i v i l i a n u:,cs of ncrclcar p o \ / c r a r c r c s t r i c t c d to

t h e .rrcncr,?tlon n f elcctrici:~. In lllC7, thn use o f n u c l c 7 r 'c1s1

V.7-6
 c Y t - c: L C - .
c
.-
C
C.
.-
f
1
C
-
F
L
c
L
c
.--
0
u- C ci
c'
C
u . c. .-
.,
C L
L .L-
c
L
.
L r; ; "
n,
r. c.
L-
C c:
- 4' .-
+J L
C T t- 1' 7
L C C C
L L c :
t C t C.
C C'
.-c 7 1'
-r.
-
7 \. I.. 7
x.
:
L? c C
c;
--C.
c
C
ln G
c 7
-
l-4 1
-.
+J C
.-
F C'
1. 6 4 c
c c.
. C
-
c
i +I
c J C! L- 4 _.
.-
C A
4, ? L? C c
C
.-
' I
;
Le C (1 4 , C C
r.
c
7
C
c
-. .- c
C
--
L
.-u
1
L L 5 +: C
-
+J
c' L 1 .
.-
c
r,.
ri
L

[?
I
c
.-
L'
c'
L-,
1-
C
c
e
C .-.
L? t'
.--
t
c:
c c, r.
r.
C .-
+' C
L
c u
L.
L
C
L'
-t . C
c
:'
1
z c L
.
IJ CJ
-. r C C
-. L?
r-
c
Lf
.
11 c
r
c
17
c
c >:
I
..
C'
7
c I u
1
-- 7
C c
P..
c -
C
-. C
C
L .-
C'
.-
L?
u
c -I 7
.
.--
!.J
I C
c. c
+I
r: bl c
L L
c'
C
--L r: .-
C
.-c ?
L CJ
u
c
- .-
c \ c c L.1
5
-.
k.. L
c'
r;; T
C
r.
C' c,
L
C
C'
1..
c
I.
+'
f_. C r c! c c
c, lJ L 4-1 L-
I
v.7-3
v.7-9
V.7-10

I
v.7-I1
 r
V .7-13

r
 v.7-I4

radioactive material rcleascd to the c n v i ronricnt 1mci1rl

V.7-15
 .-> .-
u- c' 17 U C 7.
C c Li c L
f: c G
c
.- -
4.J C'
L' U c L
c c Tc
'
L
C t I-
trr u -
.--
C Ll t C
I C
c c L t
>
-
u
c;
c --r
-t.:
c C c
.-
7
T
I C
L L'
C -
L" 4J c
C'
-c, c
-
C
I 51 c r.
C c L C.
L
L*
.
C LJ @ ry
I
L' C
.-
A
1" r. V
C: c
3.
C
L
u-
i
K
t
.-r .--
c
L c
.--
C E
.
c C'
u
.-
Ti
L .-c
-
r;
i: +-
a .-ffl .-uC C
Li T
c
a
C
C
r \
?
U- t. L c
C I
T
.-
C
c
.-
E
V T rc L
L? T C c
c 6 T-
.-
2 c
C %- '7 CL 6
W L 4 L
I L 6 r
u
c'
.-
C
-
U tJ C
c C c c-
r 0 -.
+ I
L C'
rJ L 4J
r -E C V
c' C
0 C'
.-
L .-a
L
2
K
.-
K
u
c' r?
.
-
A
C r':
u 4-J T r. c
.
II cc
-
r.
r
r: L
c
.-- .-
r-:
c- L' t
C c!
-
c C
.-
I
c
+J
L
C C L
7
C
.--
+ J
c L' C L C V
CI
-. r: L C
r . c
-. C C' C
7
..
V.7-17
 I c L t - L
C
4-
-r
4-'
C
v. .-
C
C
c
r.
C
C
C
T a
L
t.
-
5 .-
r
C r- :
E
c.
LJ +I LT
,!c C C
E L C v\
C C 7
L L' L.
C. c c
.
T L T
c C 1
r. .. u
.-
R L1
L 1-' u
--
f.
C: -.. v:
.->
S
C 4
.-0
-
I
4J . c
L'
C
.- r.c
C LJ
.-
LJ
.-
r-
-c' r: Ll
.- .-c
41 L7
L? C
.-
i
L C
.-..
I--
4'
-.
< 4J c
T
c
L
Ll
.-
-P. c;
L
C'
I
u
L:
c
c .c
:
7:
c
i
C
i/
C
U u rI
r
C
c
.
3 L?
I c' C'
c' I
L
(?' --
>.
.-.
L
c_
L-
--..
4-J C
.-.-
.-.
?
-
c1
.-. Ea
c-
J.J

I J
C'
c
- -- _
c,
.-
S
Ll C
r;
-.-
ac
- 11 U
t c c
.-c c-
L?
C
.-
U
1'. ./
L' ' c
-L
c
L
.-
L
r c
c
.-
r
. .
I
c'
.-c;
7 n
L
.
-:
L
'
.-
-.
42 Ll
,-.
L
:- 4 9 c
E'
L7 -.
c r. a .-
.-c.
J J
c
.-.
CJ
v:
C
I
 t L? T C C
E t 1
ri I JA
r \
.-L
t'
I.'
v1 C'
c:
L o c
c c L
x c T. c
". L L c 5'
c
L
<

. - u c -
-
- 1 '
.-
L ?
C
; c
C
V

T
C
K
Z
C
C
Q
T
C
'
.- C L L ' . - L L.
U
C
-c
.
d
ai c
L c
r. >>
L
.-.
- .-
> L
> o u : _ ' c
c\
C
.-
r.. .-
C
u r-
L
x ---
P -
r c c
cn (r .- L
C -
7
r
r;
C L
.-
c U
I c' l? a,
h c. C C
+J L C
7
c7 a
L CJ C
C C
C r
.-
C'
r.
V r- C
c C
.-
U
.-
7
L c ' -
.-E
U 7
K
- L! h c - C'
c: c 0' c u
c - L1 7
f r : c cc
.-u
h
.-c m
-
I
c .-
ce.
-.
V
C'
' C
u: E T c
c U
K
v)
m .-C! L
L7
L
.-
c
u
2 c! 0
' 4- c c o m
.-
c
L L a*
-.
r 73 U 2- c
c
L
u u c CJ
c >
/
C -7-
u-
7
< 4- L' C I 7 a
L C c L
I . c: r.
V.7-20
V. 7-2
c n v i ronrwnt.
V. 7-23
V. 7-24
 v. 7-25

c
 V.7-26

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY C O M M I S S I O N
W A S H I N G T O N . D.C. 2 0 5 4 5

&KC 3 1 1974

Richard Daifuku
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. Your concerns regarding nuclear plant reliability were not
discussed in the Draft Statement. One purpose of the L W B R Program is
t o demonstrate L W B R 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 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,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 V. 7-27

Enclosure 1

AEC S t a f f Kesponse t o S p e c i f i c Con-ments by Nr. R i c h a r d Daifuliu

1. Comment ( p a g e 1 1 ) :

.
"It w a s c l a i m e d t h a t I , . t h e d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e o f r a d i o a c t i v e
materials a c c o u n t s f o r less t h a n one hundred m i l l i o n t h o f 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 . . ' Then q u a n t i t i e s of
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 . I t was t h e n s t a t e d t h a t "It i s
i n e v i t a b l e t h a t some o f 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."

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 w a s t e . C u r r e n 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 a n k l e a k s a r e 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 o f c o m n e r c i a l h i g h - l e v e l w a s t e management. When s h o r t - t e r m
l i q u i d s t o r a g e is p a r t of t h e commercial w a s t e management p l a n , c o r r o s i o n
r e s i s t e n t a l l o y s w i l l b e used f o r t h e p r i m a r y c o n t a i n m e n t 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 a n k s 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 b e 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 c o u l d go u n d e t e c t e d w i l l a l s o b e v e r y low ( t h e l e a k
w i l l b e t r a p p e d 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 e x t r e m e l y s m a l l . A n a l y s e s of p o s s i b l e p a t h s t o t h e h y d r o s p h e r e
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 h a z a r d r e s u l t e d .

2. Comment ( p a g e 1 1 ) :

"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 reactor accident ."
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 e q u i r e m e n t s which must b e m e t are set f o r t h i n
t h e t e x t o f t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t 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 a p p r o a c h , 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 r e d u c e d t o a c c e p t a b l e
levels. The e x p e r i e n c e o f 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 , s u c h a s 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. I t may
 V.7-28

be p o i n t e d o u t a g a i n h e r e t h a t no member of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c has been

k i l l e d o r i n j u r e d as a r e s u l t of a r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t .

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 a n

e x p l o s i o n of steam i n a n e x p e r i m e n t a l 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 p r o d u c t i o n r e a c t o r
i n England malfunctioned, a l l r e a c t o r s a f e g u a r d s f a i l e d , and 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 (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 s p r e a d o v e r a 400 m i l e area, c o n t a m i n a t i n g
milk and v e g e t a b l e s . The l a t t e r [ e x p l o s i v e a c c i d e n t w i t h c o o l a n t
d u c t plugged] i s 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 l a n t i n 1966. The San Onofre n u c l e a r power p l a n t , which i s
n e a r t h e Western White House, was s h u t down due t o a n a c c i d e n t j u s t
b e f o r e P r e s i d e n t Nixon p r a i s e d i t on t e l e v i s i o n . "

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 e a s e d from t h e containmenr. The San Onofre
"accident" w a s a minor m a l f u n c t i o n 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 v e r y l i t t l e e f f e c t on o p e r a t i o n . The Fermi
i n c i d e n t is d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l i n t h e r e s p o n s e t o Comment 8 and i n
t h e t e x t i n S e c t i o n s 4.2.7.5 and 4.2.7, Annex C. It should a l s o b e noted
t h a t the 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 metallic f u e l ,
completely d i f f e r e n t from p r e s e n t o r planned U.S. n u c l e a r power p l a n t s
w i t h r e s p e c 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 e a s e . SL-1, an e a r l y
p r o t o t y p e m i l i t a r y r e a c t o r , experienced a m a l f u n c t i o n of a t y p e which
would n o t b e p o s s i b l e i n any c u r r e n t power r e a c t o r .

4. Comment (page 1 2 ) :

"An atomic e x p l o s i o n i s n o t p o s s i b l e i n c u r r e n t l i g h t w a t e r r e a c t o r s ,
b u t a m a l f u n c t i o n of t h e r e a c t o r w i t h simultaneous f a i l u r e of s a f e -
guards 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 s a f e g u a r d s 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 a n LMFBR r e a c t o r
core. The m u l t i p l i c i t y of l i n e s of d e f e n s e i n c u r r e n t n u c l e a r power
p l a n t s i s s o great a s t o make t h i s p r o b a b i l i t y v a n i s h i n g l y small.
C a p a b i l i t i e s t o a c h i e v e comparable o r improved l e v e l s of s a f e t y are
addressed i n S e c t i o n s 4.2.7.4 and 4.2.7.5 i n t h e F i n a l Statement. The

.
 V . 7-29

a c c i d e n t c i t e d is a d d r e s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 7 .

5. Comment (page 1 2 ) :
If
In a 1000 megawatts p a r e r r e a c t o r , t h e r a d i o a c t i v e m s t e r i a l r e l e a s e d
t o t h e environment would approximate t h a t r e l e a s e d i n t h e e x p l o s i o n
of a 50 megaton bomb."

Response :

A l l r e a c t o r s are b u i l t w i t h 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
p r o d u c t s t o t h e environment. These b a r r i e r s are t h e n u c l e a r f u e l ,
i t s c l a d d i c g , t h e r e a c t o r v e s s e l and primary c o o l i n g system, and t h e
p l a n t containment b u i l d i n g . The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e s c a p e through a l l
of t h e s e 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 e v e n t , a r e l e a s e of r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l
approximated by t h a t produced i n a 50 megaton bomb would simply n o t
be p o s s i b l e .

6. Comment (page 1 2 ) :

"Even i f t h e n u c l e a r f i s s i o n i s s h u t down promptly upon f a i l u r e of

c o o l i n g , 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 c o n t i n u e s t o g e n e r a t e
h e a 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 f u e l . For a r e a c t o r of 1000
megawatts or more, molten f u e l would breach n o t o n l y t h e r e a c t o r
containment s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e p r e s e n t d e s i g n s , b u t would melt through
t h e s t r u c t u r e and s t e e l c a s i n g , and down i n t o t h e e a r t h . T h i s would
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 r a p p e d w i t h i n t h e f u e l are g a s e s . A t t h i s p o i n t , a t l e a s t , t h e
gaseous p o r t i o n of t h e r a d i o a c t i v e wastes would be r e l e a s e d t o t h e
o u t s i d e air."

Response :

The p o s s i b i l i t y of enough molten f u e l r e a c h i n g t h e bottom of the r e a c t o r

vessel t o b r e a c h i t is v e r y remote because of t h e many s a f e t y f e a t u r e s ,
i n h e r e n t and designed. If, however, i t i s a r b i t r a r i l y assumed t h a t
normal c o o l a n t 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 , i n c l u d i n g a l l
decay h e a t r e n o v a l systems, and t h c t no emergency measures were t a k e n t o
p r o v i d e c o o l i x g , i t would be p o s s i b l e t h a t r t o l t e n material would eventu-
a l l y e s c a p e i n t o t h e ground. The number of simultaneous major f a i l u r e s
which must be assumed however p u t t h i s e v e n t f a r o u t s i d e r e a s o n a b l e
cons i d e r a t ion.
 4

7. Comment (page 13) :

"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 a c c i d e n t r e s u l t i n g i n widespread
d i s p e r s i o n of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes is h i g h e r i n some types of b r e e d e r
r e a c t o r s t h a n i n l i g h t water r e a c t o r s used today ... .I'

Response :

There are many i n h e r e n t f e a t u r e s i n t h e LMFBR t h a t reduce t h e p o t e n t i a l

f o r c e r t a i n types of a c c i d e n t s 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 i n c l u d e t h e l a r g e margin from b o i l i n g i n t h e c o o l a n t
(500-600°F), low p r e s s u r e of t h e system, and t h e thermal c a p a c i t y of t h e
c o o l a n t ( s e e S e c t i o n 4.2.7.4 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t ) . Both LWRs and
LMFBRs have d e s i g n f e a t u r e s t o p r e v e n t t h e o c c u r r e n c e of a c c i d e n t s and
t o m i t i g a t e a c c i d e n t consequences i f one should o c c u r . 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 a c c i d e n t i n e i t h e r t y p e of system i s c o n s i d e r e d
extremely s m a l l .

8. Comment (page 1 3 ) :

'I... an e x p l o s i v e a c c i d e n t is p o s s i b l e i f a c o o l i n g d u c t becomes
plugged. The l a t t e r i s p r e c i s e l y what happened t o D e t r o i t ' s E n r i c o
Fermi Power P l a n t i n 1966. The r e a c t o r was an advanced iMFBR. A
p i e c e of metal blocked t h e l i q u i d sodium c o o l a n t , causing p a r t i a l
m e l t i n g of a few f u e l a s s e m b l i e s . Some r a d i o a c t i v e gas escaped
w i t h i n t h e p l a n t , a l t h o u g h none was d e t e c t e d o u t s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g .
While they analyzed t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s , t h e o p e r a t i n g s t a f f h e s i -
t a t e d f o r a month t o probe f o r t h e s o u r c e of t r o u b l e and scope
of damage f e a r i n g t h a t an e x p l o s i o n 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 c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d from t h e meltdown
( F a b r i c a n t and Hallman, 1971) . ' I

Response :

E x t e n s i v e 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 c o o l a n t a t t h e h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i a l
c o o l a n t blockage. This work h a s shown t h a t a l t h o u g h 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 t h e c o o l a n t which might l e a d t o
p a r t i a l v a p o r i z a t i o n of t h e c o o l a n t and some i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e i n t h e
c o o l a n t d u c t , t h e e x t e n t and rate of t h i s energy t r a n s f e r would n o t be
of such magnitude as t o c h a r a c t e r i z e i t as an e x p l o s i o n . I n t h e c a s e of
Fermi, c o o l a n t blockage w a s followed by f u e l m e l t i n g and a consequent
-
d e c- r e a s e i n energy p r o d u c t i o n r a t e . Although t h e r e was some u n c e r t a i n t y
f o l l o w i n g t h e p a r t i a l meltdown as t o t h e b e s t way t o proceed w i t h 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 e x p l o s i o n w a s n o t a major concern.
See S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 7 , Annex C f o r a more complete d i s c u s s i o n of t h e Fermi
incident.
 V. 7-31

F u t u r e LMFERs w i l l b e d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t blockage of c o o l a n t c h a n n e l s
i n t h e core through t h e u s e of s t r a i n e r s and o t h e r e n g i n e e r i n g f e a t u r e s
(see S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 7 . 4 ) ; experiments and a n a l y s e s ( c i t e d i n S e c t i o n
4.2.7.6.4) have shown t h a t eve? f o r l a r g e flow b l o c k a g e s , on t h e o r d e r
of 80-90% of t h e t o t a l c c o l a n t flow through a subassembly, o n l y v e r y
minor t e m p e r a t u r e rises w i l l r e s u l t , as c r o s s flow of c o o l a n 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 h e a t t o p r e v e n t
e x c e s s i v e o v e r h e a t i n g o r flow i n s t a b i l i t y .

9. Comment (page 19) :

"Emphasis should b e p l a c e d on energy c o n s e r v a t i o n and on t h e

development of e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y sound energy s o u r c e s . "

R e s pons e :

The AEC a g r e e s t h a t a n a t i o n a l e f f o r t on energy c o n s e r v a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y ,

as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6C of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t . However, w h i l e recog-
n i z i n g t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n measures have r e c e n t l y had an i m p o r t a n t impact
r e s u l t i n g i n reduced energy usage, i t i s a l s o r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e e x t e n t by
which c o n s e r v a t i o n measures may a l t e r 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 u n c e r t a i n . 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 l o n e , d e s p i t e i t s n e c e s s i t y , should n o t be r e l i e d on t o
completely o f f s e t t h o s e f a c t o r s which l e a d t o i n c r e a s e d energy usage.
It i s i n t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t w e b e l i e v e t h e developnient of a l l e n v i r o n -
m e n t a l l y sound energy s o u r c e s i s n e c e s s a r y along w i t h c o n s e r v a t i o n
p r a c t i c e s . These s o u r c e s , 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 a g e n c i e s
are already supporting work in t h e s e areas ( s e e S e c t i o n 6 ) . Howe-ier, f o r
t h e several r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , i t does n o t appear
t h a t o u r energy r e q u i r e m e n t s can b e s a t i s f i e d (even assuming a s u c c e s s f u l
c o n s e r v a t i o n program) w i t h o u t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of and c o n t r i b u t i o n from
s e v e r a l energy s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e LHFBR. I t 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 t h e LMFBR would l e a d t o o u r b e i n g unable t o meet
p r o j e c t e d 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 h e L i c u i d ffe t d F a s 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 t h e following p a p e r s t o be

e n t s r e d i n t o t h e 3nvironmental Impact S t a t e m m t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o
the l i g u i d metal f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r . Along w i t h o u r s t a t e t m n t s ,
p r e p a r e d s e p a r a t s l g and i n two s e p a r a t e f o l d e r s , I am a l s o sending
along l i t e r a t u r e derogatory t o t h e LNFBR, a l s o m a t e r i a l i l l u s t r a t i n g
the hazards of t h e p r o l i f e r a t i n g u s e of plutonium, which i s t h e
c h i e f f u e l of t h e f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s .

Some of t h i s m a t e r i a l i s of n a t i o n a l conc$rn and some p e r t a i n s t o

o u r 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 in-
s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s , I havs n o t i n c l u d e d m a t e r i a l p u t o u t by t h e 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 h e g r a v e s t c o n c s m s about t h e safety of t h e f e s t b r e e d e r

r e a c t o r s , and cannot too s t r o n g l y urge o u r government t o n o t
proceed w i t h t h e i r dev?loprnsnt and use. There a r e s a f e r a n d ' s a n e r
forms of energy t h a t can be dsveloped- one might be o u r 300 t o
1000 y e a r supply of coal.

With d m p e s t concern. - 3
 V.8-2 n

Background X a t e r i a l Cpposing t h e Liquid ! % t a l

F a s t B x o d e r Reactor and t h e Flutonium Iconomy
t o be o n t s r e d into t h e environmental impact
statement a g a i n s t t h e LI4FBR

A ril 15, 1974

8 e n e and Gay o r d Younghein
3900 Cashion P1.
Oklahoma C i t y , Ckla, 73112
405-946-6368
 V.8-3

1. L e t t e r d a t e d March 18, 1974 from Barry Smirnoff (Hudson I n s t i t u t e ) t o

(addressee o m i t t e d ) concerning c u r r e n t LWR's.

2. Unknown s o u r c e , i n f o r m a t i o n concerning F u e l F a c i l i t i e s (General E l e c t r i c

Company, Kerr-McCee C o r p o r a t i o n (Cimarron F a c i l i t y ) , Green Bay X-Ray
.
S e r v i c e , Inc , Green Bay, Wisconsin.

3. Letter from Kerr-McGee Nuclear C o r p o r a t i o n , March 7 , 1974 t o M r . R . G .

Page, Chief of M a t e r i a l s and 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 of
L i c e n s i n g , 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 C o r p o r a t i o n , M r . W. J. S k e l l e y ,
D i r e c t o r R e g u l a t i o n s and C o n t r o l , Kerr-McGee C e n t e r , Oklahoma C i t y ,
Oklahoma on February 14, 1974, concerning p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y of Cimarron
Facility.

4. Not Man A p a r t , A p r i l 1974.

(a) "Marianas Trench Linked To A-Plants"
(b) "Green Thumbs Vs . F a s t Breeders"

5. "Science Conquers A l l , ' I Johns Hopkins Magazine, November 1973.

6. I l e n e Younghein, "A G r i m F a i r y T a l e - Or Is I t , " The Oklahoma Observer,

Janclary 25, 1974.

7. Richard Lewis, The Nuclear Power R e b e l l i o n , B u l l e t i n of Atomic S c i e n t i s t s ,

pages 5-25.

8. S c i e n c e and Public A f f a i r s , "Need f o r Breeder R e a c t o r s , I 1 A p r i l 1974,

page 30.

9. "Atom P l a n t Passes T e s t , ' I D a i l y Oklahoma, September 29, 1973.

10. J. K. F r e n k e l , 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 , N e w s l e t t e r , Volume 1, number 5 ,
March 1974.

11. A l l e n L. Hammond, "Breeder R e a c t o r s : Marvel o r Menace ?'I Harpers,

pages 30-34, January 1973.

12. Amory B. L w i n s , "The Case A g a i n s t The F a s t Breeder R e a c t o r , "

B u l l e t i n of t h e A t o m i c S c i e n t i s t s , March 1973, pages 29-35.

13 1 N a t u r a l Resources Defense C o u n c i l , I n c . , "Report Conclused

P r e s e n t R a 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 f o r Plutonium 100,000 T h e s
TOO Lax To P r o t e c t P u b l i c , " News Release, February 1974.
14. " S c i e n t i s t Warns of Bootleg A-Bombs ,I1 Oklahoma C i t y Times, March 1974.

1s. Roger Rapoport, "Catch 24,400 ( o r , Plutonium Is My F a v o r i t e Element) ,'I

Eco-Catastrophe, San F r a n c i s c o , pages 54-66, 1971.

16. Poisoned Power, "How R a d i a t i o n From Atomic Energy Programs Gets To

You," pages 60-61.
 v. 8-4

17. P e r i l s of t h e P e a c e f u l A t o m , "Don't Bother Running," pages 134-135.

18. "Hanford's R a d i o a c t i v e Leak -

A "Disgraceful" Accident," U.S. N e w s &
World R e p o r t , September 10, 1973.

19. "Goodbye, Colorado," Harpers, A p r i l 1974.

20. Anthony R i p l e y , "Law Group C a l l s f o r F a r S t r i c t e r Safeguards on R a d i a t i o n

from Plutonium," The New York Times, Sunday, February 17, 1974.

21. Donald P. Geesaman, "Plutonium and t h e Energy Decision," B u l l e t i n of

t h e Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , pages 33-36, September 1971.

22; New Yorker, r e : Plutonium T o x i c i t y , December 1973.

23. Map shoving p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and l o c a t i o n of Kerr-McGee Plutonium

Plant.

24. "The Plutonium Challenge.," *Task Force Against Nuclear P o l l u t i o n ,

no d a t e .

25. J a c k Shepherd, "The Radiant Nucleus," I n t e l l e c t u a l D i g e s t pages 20-22,

March 1973.

26. W. J. B a i r and R. C. Thompson, "Plutonium: Biomedical Research,"

S c i e n c e , pages 7150721, February 2 2 , 1974.

27. "Plutonium and t h e 'Hot P a r t i c l e Problem," and "Environmental Group

Proposes a Draconian Answer , ' I S c i e n c e , pages 834-835, March 1974.

28. "Hot Water Problem.. .A tom f r e t s over A E C ' s r a d i o a c t i v e o v e r s i g h t s , "

The N a t i o n a l Observer, January 5 , 1974.

29. H. P e t e r Metzger, The Atomic E s t a b l i s h m e n t , "Radioactive Waste: The

Moyse T h a t Roared, pages 148-151.

30. Articles
(8) Environment A p r i l 1972
@) Environment July/August 1973.

31. "Two More Bodies Found i n Enid: T o l l Now Four," D a i l y Oklahoma, October
1 2 , 1973.

32. L e t t e r t o t h e A t o m i c Energy Conmission, Tuesday October 9, 1973, from

Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Younhein, Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma.
33. 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 r e c t o r a t e
of Regulatory O p e r a t i o n s , Region 111, l e t t e r d a t e d January 11, 1974.
 V .8-5

34. Material o b t a i n e d from P u b l i c Records from G u t h e r i e L i b r a r y :

L e t t e r d a t e d March 1 2 , 1973 from Richard Chitwood t o W . I. S k e l l e y
D i r e c t o r of R e g u l a t i o n and C o n t r o l , r e : Environmental Report f o r
Cimarron Plutonium P l a n t .
AEC I n s p e c t i o n Report d a t e d February 12-16, 1973, r e " Liquid
E f f l u e n t , P a r t 111, Plutonium P l a n t , from AEC I n s p e c t i o n Report
June 1 8 - 2 2 , 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 R e g u l a t o r y O p e r a t i o n s , AEC
N o t i f i c a t i o n of a n I n c i d e n t , from G . H. Bedinger, G. W. Roy, and
R. H. Engelken.
L e t t e r f r o Kerr-McGee, d a t e d A p r i l 1 7 , 1973 t o AEC Richard
B. 'Chitwood , Chief , T e c h n i c a l Support Branch, D i r e c t o r a t e of
L i c e n s i n g , o r i g i n a t o r Ceorge F. P a r k s , E x e c u t i v e Vice P r e s i d e n t
L e t t e r f r o m R . B. Chitwood, C h i e 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 l a n 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 , A d m o n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e s
Branch, Off i c e of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
L e t t e r from W . J. S k e l l e y t o AEC.
(1)-G u t h e r i e D a i l y Leader, F r i d a y , March 9, 1973. Kerr-McGee R e p o r t s
Minor F i r e .
(j) L e t t e r t o Parker S . Dunn, Vice P r e s i d e n t , Nuclear O p e r a t i o n s , Kerr-
McGee from Harold L. P r i c e , D i r e c t o r Of R e g u l a t i o n s .
V.8-6
 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. The integrated plant cold run
has been delayed further as a result of tests carried out on the U"
Calciner-Airveyor System following recent modifications. Issuance of
the Operating License is not expected until July or August 1974.

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. The reinventory, which was conducted from March 1 through 11,
resulted in finding most of the plutonium MUF.

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. The unaccounted for
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.

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

M a t e r i a 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 e a s e 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 items numbered 1 and 2
by March 1 , 1974.
O u r r e p l y has taken t h e form o f a substantial revision
t o t h e s e c u r i t y p l a n . A r e v i s e d p l a n f o 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 t n 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. we do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t
t h e r e q u e s t f o r e x c e p t i o n 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 1 0 C F R 2.790(d).
P l e a s e l e t me know i f you have a d d i t i o n a l comments.

WJS :m l . . . .
A t tachme n t
 v.3-9

t h a t tiz enclosures t o your letters of January 5 ,

;.;2 : 1 . ? ~ 22stablish2d
1E74 a n d Jawary 25, 1974 coniain inforcation of a i y p ~specified in
15 CF?, 2.79?(a). Accordingly, pursuant t o k c t i o n 2.790(d), your
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 s h a 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 i q i l s r rzasons, we are withhalding t h e enclosures t o this letter from
public disclosure..

Sincerely,

R: G. Pa&!, Chief
13ateri a 1s and P1 a n t Protection
Branch
Directorate of Licensing

Enclosures :
1. Aiditional questions on
Kerr-3cGee Pu Physical
Protection Plan
2. Additional Questions on
&rr-XcG?s U Physical
Prot2ction PI 3n

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 deter-
mine 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 melt-
down. They tried to build a reactor down there
on the bottom side of the earth, and the lid sim-
ply fell off. Dummies..'
T h e 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 g o 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
V.3-10
team of researchers to the site to determine if it
will be feasible to mine the radioactive residue
ling "la Tern!" So I left, trying to figure out by
myself what they were so excited about.
at the bottom of the Trench. Vice President Breeders? Brceders? Fast ones?? Maybe a
Elmer Curie joked with reporters, :'The stuffs
nearly as potent now as i t ever was."
bonanza for the cattle business'? But 1 suddenly
remembered that Les Amis de la Terre are wor-
. The Center for Atlantis Studies, in a related
press release, confined their comments to one
ried by overpopulation and that they translated
and published an American book called "La
'sentence: :'We told you so." A call was placed Bombe P." SO I decided to ask "Le Planning
to Friends of the Earth's office in San Francisco Familial,'' a nice group which gave contracep-
for comment, but all this reporter could get from tive information to my girl friend. They proba-
the person who answered the phone w a hysteri- bly are also interested in overpopulation, and
cal laughter. surely they are more accessible than these high-
brow ecologists at Les Amis.
A short-haired young lady in blue jeans .
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
Fair Is the Wind From France surely a big menace. Something must be done.
The young lady, who has some knowledge of
Green Thumbs human biology, helped me to guess what the
problem is about. Breeders, fast ones . . . prob-
vs; - ably a kind of mutant who breeds faster than
ordinary human beings . . . bad . . . very bad.
Fast Breeders 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."
Thursday last month, I went to the information The story went to the ears of journalists.
meeting of "Lrs Amis de la Terre." hoping I What a scoop for them! Five-centimeter head-,
would get good advice for my gardening. I en- lines o n the front pages: "Fast Breeding Mut-
tered a rather small room where people were ; ants! Beware!" Latent racist feelings arose,
excitedly discussing the plans for a new action. pushing our beloved Minister of the Interior and
They were heatedly accusing mysterious entities his police into organizing a nalionwide mutant-
called "EDF" and "CEA" of hushing-up the hunt: cars stopped on the roads by search pat-
seriousness of the situations. Puzzling words rols, compulsory blood-tests, third-degree ques-
like "millirems," "periods," "transuranian tioning. . . Everybody a suspect! 1984!
alpha-emitters" were exchanged. Taking ad- Today, a friend who works in a lab told me
vantage of a lull in the discussion, I asked: something from which I gather that there may be
"What are.you guys talking abbut?" some connection between "breeders" and nuc-
"Breeders, fast breeders." lear energy. Maybe I made a mistake? But d o
And the abstruse discussion went on. These not tell anyone. I might very well end up in jail
,
crazy people were so engrosed in their "breed- ' if "they" discover that 1 am at ttie origin of all
e n " that it was- useless t o try extracting from . this fuss(
them any tip about gardening; they were forget- '.
- Jules Sibiragou (P.c.c. Pierre Samuel)
 V.8-11

UNITCD STATES
AT0 X IC EN E i? S Y C 0
8
'4 ivl I SS ION
WASHINSTO%. D.C. 20543

. . . .
.
. I
.

Kerr-l!c%? I:ticlxr 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 subaiital 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 subnittal
'for tk physic21 prarection of ths u r a n i u m plant located a t the
Cinarrm F 3 c i l i t y . .
O u r revizr; id2ntifie.J 3 nc:hr of ~ p ~ i r e ~ e onf t 10 s CFF? 73.50, 73.50,
73.70, and 73.7i bhich ? r e c o t ad?ql:?!.tely addressed i n your security
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 detail with repre-
s e n t a t i v s s o f y m r s t a f f . These i t e o a r e listed i n Enclosures 1 and
2 u s i n g t ? e fornat of Enclosure 4, o f our general l e t t e r s e n t t o licensees
on FIove;;l%r 25, 1973. Enclosure 1 ccntains our comments and questions
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 security p l a n .
Me r~qu2sttint 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 security 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 security plan by
blarch 6, 1974. I f w2 do not receive your reply by March 1 , 1974, i t
nay bc necessary f o r us t o supplensnt your security plans w i t h amencl-
mnts t o your licenses.
In y c J r reply, any requcst f o r an gxception from a s p e c i f i c requircaent
i n t h e r q u l a t i o n s PUS^ be submitted separately from the security plan.
A detailed 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 suitable f o r p u b l i c
disclosure; hwtvir, the d e t a i l s o f a l t e r n a t i v e 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.
 V.8-12
Prom JolinsHopkins 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 c e 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
-most damage.
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.
W n d Low: It is usually impractical
to worry beforehand about interference;
if you have none, someone will supply
.some for you.
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 obvi-
ous wrong way, it is often wiser to
choose the wrong way so as to expedite
’ subsequent revisions.
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.
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 formu-
lated 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 indi-
cates that you have been busy.
3. Before studying a subject, first un-
derstand 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 experi-
mental data:
a. Items such as Finagle’s Constant
and the more subtle Bougerre Factor
(pronounced “bugger”) are loosely
grouped, in mathematics, under con-
stant variables, or if you prefer, variable
constants.
b. Finagle’s Constant, a multiplier of
the zero-order term, may be character-
ized as changing the universe to fit the
equation.
c. The Bougerre Factor is character-
ized 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 character-
istic of dropping the subject under dis-
cussion 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 mov-
ing 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
N e w h d e r s - 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 genera-
tion, 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
B ates Georgia Dee Beam. the Wizardess
rom the West. She arrived with a grand
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
. want, Georgia?' he said. "My Lord,
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
.IO THE OKLAHOMA OBSERVER, JANUARY 25,1974
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
t h h g 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 200,000years. An amount the size
of your Christmas turkey could kill
everyone in the land You must be ex-
tremely 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 in-
stead 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 i n
about 200,000 years another Columbus
will come along and discover it.
 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"
From the altitude where airliners pass over the region, the Endless 4
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 t s cast h.:vk. 1 N O x r r s
of level farinland near thc \ i:la~cof 3lcrho;ykit in \\')omi!lg
County were staked nul iir i 767 Cur :i l>;.:,)ri. .:c. ::apii~int. c' :
this site, the Pcnnsy1v:inia E1ccti.i~C,>I:I~VI;!.5r:hsitliar) of GLT-
;I

era1 Public Utilities Corporation. i>rop:>scd11) 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 NUCLEAR-POWER REBELLION
would demonstrate for the first tiinc the commercial application of
the Liquid Mctal Fast Brccdcr Rcactor to clectric-power produc-
tion. A second-gcncration fission rcactor wliicli the AEC had de-
veloped 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 reac-
tion 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. T h e 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 ura-
nium-235 undergoing fission in the fucl rods. Hence it is capable
of brccding mcve f u ~ than
l it consumes.
With the brccdcr rcactor, the nuclear-power industry could look
forward to the extension of an economical fucl supply from de-
cades 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 ques-
tioned the impact of every technological innovation since the elec-
<
tric light.
Possibly because the summers are pleasant and the autumns are
(3
I
A
long and warm, with mountains illuminated by glorious foliage of ul
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. It had no relation t o
the needs of Wyoming County, and its environmental impact W ~ S
considered only by the people who lived there.
 6 / THE NUCLE\R-rO\VER RLBCLLIOS
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 require-
ments for the twenty-first century, and were not impressed by the
AEC‘s visions of the atomic future. The demonstrator served in-
terests 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 consid-
ered evacuable in the “unlikely event’’ (as they were always
saying) of a nuclear emergency.
What kind of an emergency would that be? Some people be-
lieved 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 nith 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.
1
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 un-
likely 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 de-
scribed 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 b e regarded with less optimism.
But W y s ~ i f i gCcuztj. deai!y rirct the F%ib:ic Heaitii Service cri-
teria 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 re-
marked, “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 en-
ergy to the Tunkhmncck l!igh Scl1col a!iditorium, and had gath-
ered 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 re-
actors 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.
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.
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 ex-
pressed 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
problems. Indeed, I found that the folk of the Endless Mountains 5"
d
v
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 pur-
veyed 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 con-
cerned about the future of their community, nation, and humanity.
10 / THE N U C L E ; \ R - P O \ V E R 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 at-
torney; 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 house-
wives, hlrs. Angela Rinehimer and Mrs. Betty Tewksbury.
The Challenge
The discussion that evening at Tunkhannock revealed the basic
confiict between a cnnc~rnedcitizenry and 8 tech~ica!estab!ish-
ment. The citizens questioned the right of an establishment to im-
pose 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 demo-
cratic 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 credibil-
ity 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 I1
working for a company or a government ngcncy and depending on
it 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 A E C s radiation standards:
Do you think any h u m a n being has the right to set a radiation stand-
ard 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 against
a g ~ 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 s”
d
that would loose massive radiation from the reactor core over the m
countryside. The inquiry had received a reply: There were no
measures to protect nuclear-power plants per se from a missile at-
tack.
Discussion followed on that point. Should nuclear reactors, es-
pecially 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 A E C s Division of Technical Information, to tell all about nu-
clear 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-
 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 be-
came more formalizcd and terse. Membcrs of the committee said
that utility public-rclations people who had initially catered to in-
quiries 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 nu-
clear 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 get-
ting 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 re-
sponse 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. I
In its formal statcment to the Senate Sclect Committee, the Citi-
zens Committec for Environmental Concern asserted:
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 clcc-
tricity from hydroelectric facilities in Canada that would have no
environmental impact on anyone and which arc assets to the devel-
opment of that country? What if the peoplc prefer increased re-
search into the production and transmission of electricity from har-
nessing 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 develop-
ment of magnetohydrodynamic power? We submit that the power
industry needs to be washed and hung o n 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 environ-
ment 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-
I4 ,’ ruI: S U C L E A R - P O U ’ C R 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 con-
cerned 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 melt-
down. \
nie likelihood of the fuel core becoming hot enough to mclt
through its containment had been studicd for years. Several esti-
mates of the magnitude of the disaster resulting from a meltdown
Aiiotlicr Kiirrl I ~ JI I I C / 15
had cnicrgcd, all indicating that the radiation cffcct \VI , 1 1 l f l tat anal-
ogous to the clctonation of a nuclcnr bomb ncnr an irili:ll)ifcfI 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 lrcac-~r
tor, a forerunner of the larger one \r.hich the E ~ . i ; l l ~ l i ~ , t 1 ~ e n t
wanted to construct and demonstrate at 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 radioac-
tivity, 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.
<
By inserting a specially designed periscope into the inicrior of the Q
reactor, a piece o f crumpled metal about eight inchcs I o i ~ gwas dis- I
N
covered. This picce of metal was part of one of thrcc iirconium 0
plates, which had been fastened to the cone at thc bottoili o f the re-
actor to guide the sodium flow. These plates were not pllrt of the
original design and had been hurriedly added at the I ~ \moment,I
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 inci-
dent and was able to enlighten everyone. What happcnccl was due
to vibration and pressure. One o f 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 offan 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.
16 1 T H E SL‘CLT:AR-PO\VER REBELLION
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 re-
actor 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, n o m a 1 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 reac-
tors lo prcvent a meltdown and the dispersal of massive radioac-
AiiotIicr Kind of Fire 1 17
c
tivity outside the plant has bccn in dcvclopment for sekcral years.
At this writing, none has proved acceptable to the AEC. A princi-
pal difficulty is that stcnni prcssurc building up inside an overheat-
ing 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 contain-
ment 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 b e devised-one that will satisfy all conditions- s”
N
nuclear-reactor construction should be stopped. d
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 i x i s n hazard to the population” and that it rcpresents “an anti-
democratic disfrancliiscrnent” of citizens in several respects. It ex-
poses 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-
18 / THE SL'CLE \K-PO\\'LR REBELLION
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, 11hether 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 h e likes the
risk to his life, whether he enjoys disfranchisement for an enter-
prise 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 o n each dollar lost"
This inadequate amount of nuclear-disaster insurance protec-
tion, he explained, is provided under the Price-Anderson Act of
1957 nhich limits total liability to $582 million for any single nu-
clear-plant disaster. Through three pools, private insurance com-
panies provide the reactor licensee with $84-million worth of
property insurance and $82-million worth of liability insurance
for one location. F o r liability in excess of $82 million, the AEC
would indemnify the licensee u p 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 l u t e
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
7
N
It was unbelievable that serious consideration was being given to N
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 plu-
tonium is the order of the amount required to produce lung cancer.
Any-just any-mishap in handling the ton quantities of pluto-
nium associated with fast-brerdcr reactors can compromise the future
of countless generations of humans.
Wave of the Future
I n the fall of 1970, the Mcshoppcn brecder \vas being con-
sidered 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
20 / THE SUCLEAR-POWER 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 partici-
pating 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 A E C 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 through-
out the power industry as a result of this policy. The electric-util-
ity 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 nu-
clear 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.
Anorher Kind of Fire / 21
Radialion Emissions
While the radiation 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 re-
actor 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 ex-
tensive public forum for debate than had the hearings of the Con-
gressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on the environmen-
tal 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 cs’
the vicinity” of a breeder, addressing the query to Milton Shaw, Fo
w
the AEC‘s forceful, gung-ho director of the Division of Reactor
Development and Technology, who had been pushing breeder de-
velopment 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 pro-
gram 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 REUELLION
plants on thc grounds they prcscnt 3 radiation hazard simply is un-
founded. .
Of the seventeen comnicrcinl powcr rcactors licensed for opcra-
tion 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 radio-
active 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 permissi-
ble 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 ra-
diation 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 sacri-
fice. 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 main-
tained 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 radia-
tion that escaped up the chimney in the exhaust gases f r ~ r r 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 w
the benefit of cheap power. From the Establishment’s point of N
P
view, the benefits far outweighed the risks-except for people liv-
ing 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 is-
sues 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, nota-
bly Gofman, Tamplin, and Sternglass, the concerned citizens re-
garded the proliferation of nuclear-powr plants as hazards of
health and property. Suppofzd by the AEC, the Establishrrlent in-
sisted 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
24 / TIIE SUCLEAR-I’O\VER REBELLION A t i o h . r Kind of Fire 1 25
c
they issued. abetted 5 y the AEC’s amazingly clumsy counterpro- The first dcinonstration Liquid Mctal Fast Brccder Rcactor did
paganda, \wrrisd many thousands of people. not come to Meshoppen, after all. It was designated for another
\\’hat \I as happening in Pennsylvania also was occurring spon- part of Appalzchia, in the forested, mountain wilderness of Ten-
taneously in a dozcn other statcs in the East, the Midwest, and the nessee. There, the wave of the future was destined to break late
\\’est. Citizens in small groups were contesting atomic-power in the 1970s, far from the “madding crowd” of environmentalists.
plants 211 o t t r thc coxntry. But the basis of it was opposition, not There was a rebellion against atomic energy in the land. I t was
to technology per sc, but to the imposition of a new and hazardous a protest unprecedented in the history of technology.
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 at-
tacked 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 F
nuclear bomb, emitting huge doses of radiation over a wide area. 03
I
The Pennsylvania Congressman cited a section of the AECs re- Fo
ul
actor-licensing code stating that an applicant is not required to
provide design features or other measures “for the specific pur-
pose 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: .
S c * . in the face of all this. we learn that Pennsylvania has bcen se-
lected 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 ex-
periment 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 prob-
ably eliminate the largc and hcavily populatcd section of the United
Srates as a habitable region.
 V .8-26
on the basis of self-reliance, i.e., with minimum ref-
erence to and dependence on assistance from DC. It
was felt that a study of this theme should be car-
ried 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 tech-
nology to development. There is rather a need of
social organization to promote the efficient utiliza-
tion 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 utiliza-
tion 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 coopera-
tion, 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 co-
operation between LDC. Scientists are urged to con-
tribute ideas to bodies, such as the U.N. Develop-
ment Program ( U N D P ) , which are prepared to de-
vote 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 develop-
ment 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 sci-
ences rather than to the development and applica-
tion of technology to fields of importance for de-
velopment-need to be changed. Both basic and
applied research have to be relevant to national re-
quirements as identified jointly by scientists, plan-
ners 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 bring-
ing such changes about, and help to educate and in-
fluence their colleagues in both LDC and DC in this
Htflard.
Role 01 Scientist# in Promoting the Sell-reliant
80
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 dis-
persed 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 tech-
nologies 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 dpotcntinl
for such low emissions is ncliicvcd, i n prncticc-.
everywhere in the world. Estrildisliiiiciit of n world-
 ' .. ,
,..I... ~. ".1

1:: .lillr 1:eM Pr,

clean bill of P .
I :he Atomic
a-mission fol- Q
d .

klahoman lcarned

J a m c ~D o n a h u e . a rep-

Cuntiiiued l h r r P a g e Oiie sincc it went into opcrution

pany is required to docu- in early 11365.
ment the incir!mt. along A l l of thc incidcn1.i a r r
\ v i 1h decontamination
cfforts, far review b y AEC docurien: .

I
peraonnel dcring routine
inspections.
Donaghuc s a i d Kerr-
McGee complied with that
le.
He said lrakages and put to rest any ienrs That
spills of radioactive mate- the plutonium nitrate pra-
rials a r e "inirly common" duced at the Kcrr-McCcc
ni..xinri >:-n facilities a s plant could cause a nucle-
: k ~ i;uri.-McCec p 1 a n t a r explosion.
~'ll:'n coniuine:'.; rupture. Hc said extra prrcaii-
-n- tions a r e taken Lo keep tils
Inmination is c c x c i i i r d on nuclear waste in small
i l i z plant site ihcre is no containers "so it won't go
d:.r.zer."
He saidDonaghue
the Cimarron
said. critical."
" W E 'r e satia!:zd t h a t
Facilitv has had several Xerr-McGee took adequate
such l i a k s -
or spllls - precautions in the -area said. -
 v .13-28
c
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 t o ex-
ceiding!y smirll machine sun bullets shooting off electrons from
Jtoms tviiich are ieft char?;<dor 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 num-
bers 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.
yu,
1
."< dx:ernil raoiation. a roentgen or R defines the amount of
,;iiz;:im ano ssrves as a unit of meastirement. About 600R to
the i>.,ia:?body fatal to man and domestic animals. About
~ 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
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-con-
suming 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.
[ (in dogs, rats). I n general, bone deposition i s more effective in
\ children and young animals than in adults.
The allowable dose is sometimes misunderstood to be innocu-
ous. However, it is not reasonable to assume a "threshold" by
which, for examplz, ,493 was okay and .51R was harmful.
\, ting the radiation exposure, and for other cancers 10-20 years.
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 COGSnot m ~ k e much difference whether these occur
in one or i: m:n/ ,ndividuals. There is repair of some of the ra-
diation 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-
for Energy Alternatives
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 h a v e been derived from study-
ing 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.
i
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. f o r example, in-
soluble 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 ra-
dium. 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-
row cavity and producing loss of blood cells and osteosarcoma
The delay in onset of leukemia i s 5-10years after accumula-
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 ex-
pected to occur. Or consider the radium dial painters who point-
ed their brushes with their tongues, absorbing significant amounts
of radium, and some of whom developed leukemia in 5-10 yean,
bone cancer in 5-15 years.
Human aspects. Although the scientific and military aspects of
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 expand-
ing nuclear technology, inevitably precautions will be fewer,
people less highly selected, and fission products and plutonium
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 i t ) 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 i p
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 inexhaus-
.
tible energy source. .tainted with potential sideeffects that, if
uncontrolled, could spell disaster." We are changing our nation-
al 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 commit-
ment 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 ra-
diation. National Academy of Science, November 1972; in-
cludes 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 M A 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 dis-
cussions at area churches. A two day energy symposium at Shawnee
Mission South High School involved four of us rotating with rep-
resentatives 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 committee on methane digestion from waste met twice with
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 re-
port 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
soon.
The MACEA newsletter should not be a report only from
Kansas City. We would like to regularly feature articles concern-
ing activities in each area we represent. Since we have not been re-
ceiving 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 news-
letter 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.
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 posi-
tion 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'
pp. 834-835.
2. "Floating Nuclear Plants: Power from the Assembly Line,"
Science, Vol. 183, No. 4129, pp. 1063.1065.

I
1
Alien L. Hnmmond
BREEDER REACTORS:
5\P ‘ MARVEL OR iMENACE?
The case for rethinking a national commitment that could lie a national disaster
#
A T ONE TIME, Americans
tained ample energy with a
technology no more sophisticated
ob. that with this technology, “a total
than an ax. Now we depend increas-
ingly on electricity generated in cen-
tral 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 ura-
nium-fueled nuclear * w a n t s ;
many more are under construction.
But neither coal nor uranium can sup-
ply our energy needs indefinitely.
Uranium particularly is in short sup-
ply; 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 sophisti-
cated technologies to power our in-
dustries 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 re-
sources 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 re-
actor, a new and complex type of
nuclear reactor that will bum plu-
tonium 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, abun-
dant electric power with less pollu-
tion 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 unprece-
dented 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. ilammond, a phvricist a n d writer, i.s mi.
~
rendy rrsrarrh news rdiror o/ S v i v n i v . the.
journul o/ the A n i r r i r n n A.\sovintron /,ir t h c
io Aduancrntrnr u/ Scivnvr.
W.8-30
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.
A T ISSUE HERE is the way in
which we as a society are to
make decisions about our techno-
logical future. As in the struggle over
the supersonic transport, the tradi-
tional methods for making these
decisions are inadequate; the con-
ventional 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 commit-
ment 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~illiorii n fctlc~rcilfunds on
clevcloping the l)rcetler, more t1i;in
ih Leiiig spent for rescnrcli on dl
otlrcr types of energy togctlicr. In ii
iiic~sagcto Coiig~essi n J U U C 1971.
I’rcsidcilt Nismonralletl the 1)rcedt.r
PUBLIC ISSC‘ES
“our best hope for meeting the na-
tion’s growing demand for econom-
ical clean energy.” The utility indus-
try has pledged niore than 9230
million to help build a demonstration
power plant powered by a breeder re-
actor; 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 govern-
ment 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 pro-
gram 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 m o v e is :I lawsuit
filed against tlic AE:C !iy the Scien-
tists’ Institute for l’ut~lic.Infornintion
( S I P I ) , 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- it. 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 it need only prcpzrt- suclr
stntcnicnts on a pIant-by-!)l:1~1:.picce-
niral hisis. \\*it11 t l i z iit*lil of :In
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lcliitrict
~ i ~ i ~ i . c n v i r o i i i n c ~fcc!c.r;~l ist
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 : ~ -w: ~o tn
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 tlir jd;:t- ir! $(’\ t . r . ; ~ l
~ii~ir~)iiIii[,Iit~il V;IW~. ,\.< of \tivt%!ii.
1ic.r. :I ~ I ~ ~ r i s i()II
o i itlw C ; I . G ~ \v:!- !*[*TI,!-
Ill:,
w
yeais. If AEC pr6jection’s for the com-
niercial use of breeders prove cor-
rect, these reactors will be producing ’
;is much os 80,000 kilograms of plu-
tonium 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 man-
kind. 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 plu-
tonium instead of fissionable ura-
nium a s a nuclear fuel, we will extend
our energy resources ancl obviate the
need for costly separation facilities
to process the uranium. A s a result,
the AEC claims, plutonium consti-
tutm an almost iriexltaustible fuel.
plutonium is also among the
most toxic substances known to man.
Experiments have shown that trace
amounts induce lung cancer in nni-
mats. Federal health standards recom-
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 han-
dling, storing, and shipping to pre-
vent such quantities from coming
together. Not the least of the prob-
lems posed by plutonium is its radio-
activity; the radioactive half-life, or
decay period, of plutonium is about
L
24,000 years, so that the contamina-
tion of an environment with pluto-
nium by whatever means would be
essentially permanent. Both the pro-
jected 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 ma-
terial make tlie clelinte over the merits
of tlic Iirc-der ;I significant one.
T II . E(: on
clence IS CONFIDENT
plutonium that
fueldepen-
will
nrescmt no irrcmetlial)lc difiiculties:
its top oflicials are apparently un-
wavi:ring in thcir liclief that the
I)rwilcr is the Iicst solution to our
energy proIiIi.ms. 1htt this conviction
ant1 t l t e AKC’s GISC for tlte Ijrceder
scim to clcpencl oii the tacit assuriip-
SI
V.8-31
tion that some form of nuclear energy
is inevitable. In essence, the AEC’s
atrgumentsare threefold: ( 1) we must
have the breeder and have it quickly,
if 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 not-
withstanding, 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 in-
deed 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 re-
serves of this mineral are located.
Independent studies of uranium re-
serves have questioned the AEC’s
findings and have indicated that suf-
ficient 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 $20
Iiillion in tlie nation’s power bill over
ii fifty-yeor period. Several nuclear
experts who Iinve looked closely at
the design to which the AEC is com-
mitted are dubious that the breeder
will in fact perform as economically
as claimed. A recent study by Re-
bources for the Future, a reputable
nonprofit group in Wasliington, D.C.,
indicates that the breeder is likely
to be a far more expensive source of
electricity than present nuclear power
plants. The relative attractiveness of
tlie breeder will also depend in part
on tlie eifort and money espencled to
tlevc-lop nnd irnprow other sources
of energy.-
The AtC’s third argument is an
c-iivironiiiental one: breeders will
eliniinnte the air pollution that fossil
fuel Iilarrts would cause; tliey will re-
duce wnste heat ancl tliernial pollu-
tion coiiipircd to present types of
nuclear power plants; ;d they will
further rl-tlucc tlie release of trace
anlotints of riitlionctivity into the en-
virwtment. l’lic~scare siil~st:uitial:ill-
v;uitnge$. t d i e n 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~it1of 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 r i i l c t l ortt. JYltilc
the clt;uicc*sof 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
iii I i v a r i i i p at I h - f l i c w l x . \I.iryl;iiicL !>y
iiiviiiIiw5 [ B f t h I~’ i i i c i r i ti( G~iiwriitd Sci.
twti+. ;I IListoii grtuip. a i i J It! w i ~ i t -of
t i l l . AI.:(:*^ tls\.ll .:lrc*t, l.Kllf.l t5. m, AEC
Ii:i* ;itliiiitttvl 111;it i v d i i c t i i u i < iii powr
l l ~ ~ t ld~ ~1 1~1 1 t t 1 t 20 W,~I~III I I K I Y LIP rc-
iliiirr.il 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 ~i w i i I I I c x i f v . I ~ i t w l c rr w c t o r s
iii;i\ II:I\C - f i l l ~ I. i l l i ~ ~ t i1I\ :i c ~ l i l t ~ l i l s .
III~BIC
 V . 8-32 n

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

r 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 com-
pared to breeder development.
Thanks to the AEC’s yFirs of ef-
fort, 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 Iirlwlvr rciictors. A h y 1111-
clrar t.xprrts agree witli 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 i m 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 ir-
responsible IO rush a h r n d withorit
:awful study and prilJic cIc1i:ite: we
~voultlbe unwise to bnrter our long-
:erm futurc for short-term Fain,
ivhether political, economic. or envi-
ronmental.
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
‘rrortoo high. We iiirist free oiirwlvcs
roiii the narrow vision of t!ic past
tncl ;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-
:iin IO rt~:illoe:itc t1w n w i i r e z s :uid
cyiw !lit% iiiforiii:ilicvi tll:it rolilil n
wovittc :I I u G i s for srIc.11 ;I p\licv.
34
t is loiig 11;i.t tiiiic tliat \W tlitl. [3
 V.8-33

I a I I I E DREEDEII

;thg
ciiiothzr irresponsi-
Illc high adventure i n technology
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
tliot is now being built around the
country.
Nuclear reactors exploit the pro-
cess 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 fis-
sionable iiiciterials are limited; hence
nuclear reactor fuel will eventually
lie in short supply-exactly when de-
pends on the extent of the‘ deposits
of Iiigh-grade uranium ore. A pos-
&le solution to this impending short-
age is t o have nuclear reactors artifi-
cially breed new fuel for themselves
by convertinn “fertile” materials,
10
such as tlie more plentiful u&u_m;
238 and the element )thorium, into
fissionable materials G i i i I i G l pluto-
nium; 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
a 1 0 1 i i of~ uranium consumccl. Breeder
rc;ictori. ;is tlicir name implies, are
niorc t4icicnt at the conversion pro-
cess 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
 V.8- -34
li;ut h- twtvtliiiply m ; i I l at a
Ill.i!
tlic iirt probability will
,.ll pI.ltit.
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>IcproJucts m d plutonium re-
111,1~ ,d .ixd AippeJ to a fuel‘repro-
ccZziiig phnt. The riidioactive waste
i.- tIit*nto bc shipped to a depository
ic,r ~oiig-tmiistorage, while the plu-
loiliuiii is refabricated into reactor
fda i i t 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 equi-
valent) of such wastes will have ac-
cumulated 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 reposi-
tories that, like the pyramids, will
outlast our present culture as monu-
ments to our use of nuclear energy.
T o BE SURE,
technological problems
amenable to solution, at least
are
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 nu-
clear 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 ~ amounts
ll from industrial stock-
piles, it seems likely that J black
iii;iikt*t for plutoniuin will tlevelop,
i h wliicli the AEC’s
. i n .i*wlc.iiicrit I\
O N II experts nprcc. Moreover, it 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 clan-
destine plutonium market will be con-
sidera 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 con-
sequences for the future. It is also
fair to say that, while AEC spokesmen
often talk about including the en-
vironmental 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 unaccept-
able costs in environmental damage,
health hazards, and social chaos.
W HAT ALTERNATIVES the
to
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
A M O R Y B . LOVINS
.- ,)sL>dliquid metal fast breeder reactor
plant a t Oak Ridge, Tenn., looks
:.
..-..;idn
:>:.d bargain for the taxpayer. The mem-
. i,: under'standing already executed by the
c Atomic Energy Commission,, t h e 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 t h e money to
..-:.: :my cost overruns,
a !:::; 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 : civ'nich they can subtract their prepara-
and the value of any services they
:rcsdent's Energy Message to Congress,
;. i571, specified: "Industry should play t h e
- r. :> in [demonstration projects] . ..
but
-. :: .Tt can help by providing technical lead-
. i sharing a portion
. ; ~ 7 . by of the risk for costly
-..:rstion p!ants." Yet this plan has been aban-
-
i. !or the government, through t h e AEC, is
e '
: '3 .',
.. ; .:::to assume three-fifths or more of t h e cost
. .... I.. ,..e risk. The utilities' contribution of a
r.c L,! 2 biilion dollars (the limit of their lia-
'. f -
:'. the project) sounds like a lot of money
n o m that the investor-owned electric
I e appoint a nonexecutive watchdog committee
h-ve a total valuation of $105 billion (1971),
.. LX
8 '
. s!re~dycommitted themselves (in orders
. ..-:tis:x a i the start of 1972) to $31 billion for
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 t o $127 billion for t h e
fuel and operating budgets t o run them. Compared
with these staggering investments, t h e utilities'
token contribution of 5250-odd million for a sup-
posedly revolutionary project of "proven feasibil-
ity" bespeaks a reluctance that should give this
committee (JCAE) pause.
The AEC is trying to accept on t h e taxpayers'
behalf an open-ended commitment to escalating
costs and unlimited indemnities, while the util-
ities 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 t h e proposed contract, t h e public will have
no way of knowing what the five participants are
doing, and t h e detailed management of t h e project,
funded mainly by t h e Treasury, will pass forever
out of public control. Annual or even weekly hear-
ings before this committee could not repair the
public damage wrought by a defective contract.
Principles of sound management demand, there-
fore, that t h e Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
insure that t h e Congress
either increase t h e directness of public con-
trol over t h e 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 t h e Project
Management Corporation (PMC) and t h e Breeder
Reactor Corporation (BRC) be minuted, other ad-
ministrative actions be properly recorded, and all
these records be made currentiy available to t h e
public:
of both technical and lay members of t h e public, free
of connection with t h e nuclear community and re-
quired 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 demonstra-
tion 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 se-
curity 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 demonstra-
tion 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. It is opaque (so that all adjustments
and maintenance must rely on hard-to-develop in-
struments [ 1, p. 11731 rather than on direct in-
spection), and it freezes unless kept at nearly the
boiling point 6f water.
The core of the reactor contains not 100-odd kilo-
grams (as in a LWR) but roughly a ton of pluton-
ium-239-a radiological poison so toxic that if prop-
erly 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 con-
trol 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 “re-
sulting in the release of fission products from the
reactor [2, p. E8201. Somewhat less severe acci-
dents “may lead to various degrees of core melting
and disruption, and corresponding releases of fis-
sion 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 life-
time 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 t o 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 t h a t 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.”
Accidmt Potentid
Neither the Joint Committee nor m y other h.:. .
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 s k 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 p x c r n l . the brccdcr.: ::x’..’
more dnngerous [thnn present rcictors!, :!nJ c::: .
plnns to dcvclop breeders should be r w k e d Ir.1.
The nccidcnt potcntinl of fnst b:.c-AXr~
unprecedented scope for thc sort of 1
 v.3-37
,i,.t)rttdonly 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-
~ , ~ ~ tto c da radioactive waste tank [GI, in which
!bl> core of a h r g e 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 com-
plex and difficult breeder reactor program.
[CCS Hcarings
The AEC’s Bethesda hearings on emergency core-
cooling systems provide ample evidence that t h e
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 contin-
ued to license hazardous reactors, but has tried to
conceal news of t h e 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 r y to build
aircraft.
Largely because the AEC has not been candid
about present reactor safety problems, w e a r e
unable to trust t h e AEC’s assessment of breeder
sdety, even were it not t o depend on human falli-
I
oility in every stage of design, construction, opera-
. .
tion 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 hypothet-
ical accidents” [l, p. 12211. The Bethesda record
shows how flawed such models can be. “The analysis
of postulated accidents,” says t h e AEC, “involves
numerous assumptions which are difficult to quan-
tify” (2, p. E10261.
March 1979
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 r c “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 t h e previous summer.
Elaslic Stendards
Recently, the AEC h a s decided that rupture
of reactor pressure vessels is not, after all, incred-
ible. Radiation exposure standards long held to be
safe have been suddenly reduced by as much as two
orders of magnitude. As reactor sizes have quad-
rupled 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.
J u s t a s human e r r o r will always make it impossi-
ble to prevent serious accidents as fast breeders
proliferate-and as necessarily less-skilled opera-
tors 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 t h e AEC has its way, will in-
crease 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 com-
prehend 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 plu-
tonium t o a private. bomb factory [lo]. Safeguards
administered by mightier bodies than the AEC
have failed to halt bank robberies, aircraft hijack-
ings and the black market in heroin. The incentive
to steal and sell fissile plutonium will be much high-
er, and so will t h e stakes ill].
No amount of electricity is worth the risk t h a 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 solu-
tion: it may be soluble on paper, but i t is not sol-
uble by fallible men.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 31
 V. 8-38
The third main problem in this category of “fal-
libility problems” restricts t h e development not
only of breeder reactors but also of all fission tech-
nology. Unlike safety and plutonium security, how-
ever, it is first a moral problem, and is likely to be
deferred because its consequences a r e 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 r e no more satisfactory in the
long run than any other temporary solution yet pro-
posed. As the director of the AEC’s Division of
Waste Management and Transportation has said:
“[Nlone of the suggested long-term solutions to
t h e 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 t h e wis-
dom 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 t h e needed millennia. The problem is one of
which we have had no experience, and no respon-
sible geologist, however expert, will ever be able
to give the sort of guarantee required.
Even the low-plutonium wastes from light-water
reactors a r e 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 t h e 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 t h e 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 can-
not be incurred. The AEC has evaded honest discu!;-
sion of these three problems, assuriny: us instead
that all a r c or will be solvcd-k)ut providing no cvi-
dence of it. We can no IonKcr take such bland as-
surances on faith, and this cornmittec should not
32
n
do so either. We a r e s u r e that if this committee’s
faith in t h e AEC proves stronger than its desire to
protect t h e public interest, its statements and vot-
ing record will be very critically exzmined when the
faults of t h e 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 invest-
ment of several billion dollars now and some half a
trillion dollars over t h e next three decades-ap-
pears to rest in the two secalled “cost-benefit anal-
yses” prepared by t h e 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 t h e 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 re-
view. Consideration of alternatives often is inade-
quate.”
We urge this committee to subject the AEC cal-
culations to critical independent examination be-
fore relying on documents that a r e a waste of the
taxpayers’ money and the reader’s time. The more
glaring deficiencies of t h e AEC “anilyses” include
t h e use of a 7 per cent discount rate rather t h a n
t h e standard 10 p e r cent, thus infloting the “bene-
fits” by a factor of four (indeed, an interest rate
well over 10 per cent would be more appropriate
for a speculative project): ignoring most environ-
mental and some safety costs: ignoring accidents:
and underestimating capital costs. Sensitivity anal-
ysis is grossly inadequate.
More generally, i t is an abuse of economics to pre-
tend to do a cost-benefit analysis for any technolo-
g y 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 uncertain-
ties about capital costs, for example, that iitilitics
could tolerate a very considernblc rise in the iir-
anium price, perhaps a factor of t h w c to ten. If this
is not true-if nuclcnr utilitics will KO out of hllsi-
ness (due to the compctition of co:iI) if 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:it
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
 V .8-39
‘ ledge, we could do a great deal more with less ener-
\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 “develop-
ment 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 con-
tinues.
It is unfortunate that most AEC estimates of re-
serves merely extrapolate past production rather
th3n using t h e estimation techniques standard in
economicgeology. The results of this error are es-
pecially misleading because the domestic uranium
market is so soft that producers a r e seldom bother-
ing to prove suspected reserves. Elementary calcu-
lations tend not to support t h e 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 t h e “pen-
alty.”
Perhaps t h e most fundamental flaw in t h e AEC‘s
cost-benefit analyses, if not in its entire program “to
maximize exploitation of the energy latent in nu-
clear sources” [l6], is its naive acceptance of pro-
jections showing continued rapid exponential
growth in electric demand. As far as we can deter-
mine, the AEC has not made much of a n effort t o
study critically who is supposed to use all this elec-
tricity for what purposes. The AEC’s defense [2,
p. E11171 t o this charge is:
Increased usage of electricity has been projected in stu-
dies not only by the electric utility industry but also by
industry associations [i.e.,the same sources] and govern-
ment agencies [viz. the FPC. a breeder-booster which es-
.
sentially 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 re-
quiremen ts.
This buck-passing is lazy and unsatisfactory.
\\‘e should like to propose to this committee the the-
sis-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-
€CY*
This is not the occasion to propose all the ele-
ments of a rational power policy. Yet we a r e dis-
mayed to note that the AEC seems unable to supply
a single reference t o 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
t h e subject in accordance with the thinking of
“concerned citizens.”
Each of the ORNL papers proposes workable
ways t o reduce our national energy budget sub-
stantially 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 elec-
trical energy relates t o our total economy and to jobs
in that economy. . . .
Or with the demonstrably false remark that t h e
extra energy will be needed for recycling and vari-
ous anti-pollution measures.
We propose instead a more careful attention to
the distinction between demand and need, to t h e
impact of promotional rates and practices, and to
the logic of two remarks made recently t o this com-
mittee by Shaw [l, pp. 1070, 12121:
People have to think twice before they commit them-
selves to rapid electrical power growth.
The resolution of an imbalance between supply and de-
mand 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 t h e 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 t h e
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 ex-
pects U.K. electric demand t o rise by only 3.5 t o
5.0 per cent per year over t h e next decade, several
percentage points lower than previously fore-
cast. 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 w e should do instead,
bearing in mind “the many unknowns concerning
.
both t h e needs of this country.. and t h e 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 en-
ergy sources E 1, p. 11061. We think most of t h e
split is between the AEC’s employees and clients
and others concerned with energy problems.
March 1973 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ss

Here is the consensus as it looks from outside the
AEC;
0 We should devote a t least as much effort t o find-
ing 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 in-
superable problems, fusion would probably be far
preferable to fission. At least one of the several ap-
proaches 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 t h e 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 t h a t t h e
..
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 r e so impressive
that t h e . . . Program should proceed as rapidly as tech-
nological 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 prac-
tice. Second, if fysion turns out to be fairly clean, it
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 deu-
terium-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 mat-
ter.
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, w r t l y 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 t o be
.
worthy of investigation. . .Study of the economic trade-
..
offs for [modular solar heat collectors] . appear[s]
.
worthwhile. , . [Such collectors, hooked to t h e 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:
.million
. . in our opinion the [proposed] authorization of $15
for solar energy research and development is
premature. We believe that priorities for energy research
34
v. 8-40
and development programs should first be evaluated
by t h e 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 a s 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 to
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 t o 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 considera-
tions taking all costs. .. into account.
Our first line of defense against both depleticn
and pollution from energy conversion must be to
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 tech-
nologics” 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 r e 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 t e r n a t i v e s available a t t h e t i m e
[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 breed-
ers and fossil fuel can possibly be of use in this
century, and if this committee then uses its con-
siderable 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 its 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 t h e
hearings on the two Atomic Energy Acts and on the
1965 renewal of Price-Anderson. In view of t h e
gravity of the decision on breeders, today’s hear-
ings a r e premature-not only because we should
not be talking about fast breeders until t h e 18-
year-old structure of the AEC is overhauled, b u t
also because, for no good reason we can see, this
committee is participating in a needless stampede
that effectively excludes public discussion of t h e
most important issue ever to come before you.
Witnesses in this hearing should have had sev-
eral months to prepare their testimony-not 16
days, which is a disservice and a discourtesy to t h e
. Nation. Notice of these hearings should have been
‘publicized with all t h e machinery a t this commit-
tee’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 t h e 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; t h e
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 pro-
moters. We urge this committee to proceed instead
with the wisdom, calm and balanced deliberation
which the people of this Nation expect.
NOTES
1. J o i n t Committee on Atomic Energy Hearings, AEC
Authorizinrr Lenislation. FY 1973, Feb. 22-23, 1972 ( P a r 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-basisaccidents
which the AEC is obliged to consider but which it considers
unlikely. The hypothetical effects, however, a r e somewhat a t
variance with blanket assurances given elsewhere; for example,
.
“[Ilt is concluded t h a 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 i n s p o r t a t i o n 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.” spon-
sored by AEC Office of Safeguards and Materials Management
(WASH-1147). Oct. 27-29. 1969. p. 179.
12. “Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Waste Manage-
ment Facilities.” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, report 4451,
UC-70 (1970). p. 3-58/9.
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 draft
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 heat-
ing and cooling- testimony presented t o 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.
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,
F e b r u a r y 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 r e l e a s e d todcq7 by t h e N a t u z ~ lResourccs ..

Defc::st C o u n c i l c c n c l u d e s t h i z t 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 i n z i i e q u a t e 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 i u t o n i u m from. t h e n u c l e e r power and weapons
industries. The r e p o r t r e c o r m e n d s t!int c u r r e n t ocandz-rds be lowered by
f a c t c r o f i15,OOO.
P i J L o n i L n , perha7.s tSe most P o t e n t r c s b i r n t o r y z z z c i x ~ ~
- .
k!:c;wn,
e ~ is
~L'C<..;L.; 13 :.iicloa:~: r e a c t o r s . . 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 p 1 u t o n i . m i n t n e n e a r futr:rc a s r e a c t c r f u e l , sup-
".
pkrnerlzinq u r a x i m . 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
o r . i t e d S t a t e s i s e x p e c t e d t o reocr, 10 m i l l i o n pounds j. t.he y e a r 2 0 0 0 . '
E. w l n u t o 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
h a l f of p l u t o n i t i n , i s t h e equiva!.ent.of 300 m i l - l i 6 n l u n g c a n c e r d q s e s .

As A r e s u l t 05 t h e r e p o x t , tl;e X a c u r n l Rescurccs D c f e n s c C o u i i c i l
' (NFDC) t o d a y f o r m a l l y p c t i t i o n e d w e A X i t r d ' t h e Eiivi~roiimei?ta1P 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 f o r pl.utonJ.un t h a t a r e
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. E o t i i t h e mC
a::d A??> ;re r e s p o n s i b l e f o x s e t t i n g sr.i;ndards v i ~ i c hp r o t e c t t h c p u b i i c
Era;.: r a ? i a t i o n hazards.
 v .8-43

T h e 50 p a g e 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 T h o m a s B. C o c h r a n . I n re-
l e a s i n g t h e i r r e p o r t , T a m p l i n e n d 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
extremely l i k e l y , indeed almost c e r t a i n , t o lead t o lung
c a n c e r i n t h e e x p o s e d i n d i v i d u a l s . Such e x p o s u r e s h a v e 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 , C o l o r a d o .
Moreover, i t h a s b e e n shown t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a r o u n d t h e Rocky
F l a t s f a c i l i t y h a s a l s o b e e n c o n t a m i n a t e d 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 c o n s e q u e n c e m e n b e r s of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c
have also been exposed t o t h i s material.

"These e i p o s u r e s i n v o l v e d m i n u t e p a r t i c l e s o f p l u t o n i u i i
o x i d e ( P u O 2 ) . T h e s e p a r t i c l e s c a n b e c o n c l o d q e d i n the. d e e p
r e s p i r a t o r y t i s s u e w h e r e , 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 o r l o n g e r . During 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 reason t h e y are called h o t p a r t i c l e s -- that
is, r a d i o l c g i c a l l y i n t e n s e . . ' W h i l e 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 o f Pu-239 o x i d e i n t h e l u n g o f . a n a v e r a g e man w i l l 2e-
- l i v e r a d o s e o f o n l y 0 . 3 m i l l i r e m > p e r y e a r when a v e r a g e d o v e r
t h e e n t i r e lung, 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 c o m p a r i s o n t h e sane t i s s u e
would r e c e i v e a d o s e 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 b a c k -
ground r a d i a t i o n . W e b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s h i g h l y n o n - u n i f o r m !lot
particle i r r a d i a t i o n poses a unique c a n c e r r i s k -- that, for
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 p a r t i c l e s , t h e r i s k of c a n c e r f r o m a s i n g l e h o t p a r t i c l e
in the lung s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d e q u z l t o one c h a n c e . i n 2 , 0 0 0 .
As a r e s u l t , we a r e 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 a r e 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 l u t o n i u i n
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 , t w o . e m p l o y e e s of t h e A E C , D o n a l d P . Geesaman*
and A r t h u r R. T a m p l i n h a v e b e e n 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 m o d i f y 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 e x p o s u r e s when hot ; ? & r t i c l e swere i n v o l v e d . They
a r g u e d , b a s e d upon a n 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-
gcrous. A l t h o u g h t h e AEC h a s - n e v e r b e e n a b l e t o p r e s e n t a
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 h e . i n t e r v e n i n g s e v e n y e a r s , t h e a g e n c y h a s n o t moved t o c h a n g e
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 a g e n c y h a s b e e n
motivated l a r g e l y by t h e h o p e 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 because of 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 e x p o s e d i n d i v i d u a l s .

* G e e s m a n 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 M i n n e s o t a , X i n n e a p o l i s , F l i n n e s o t a .
 U .8-44

-3-

" N c v c r t h c l e s s , s e v e n years seems long enough. S i n c e

p l u t o n i u m 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 e x p a n d i n g i n t o p l u t o n i u m recycle and
p r o m o t i n g t h e f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r , which b r e e d s p l u t o n i u n i ,
we f e e l 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 r e m a i n a n 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
standards.

Gus S p e t h , a spokesman f o r NRDC, s a i d t h a t h i s o r g a n i z a . t i o n s t r o n g l y

opposes c o n t i n u i n g w i t h g o v e r n m e n t p l a n s t o use p l u t o n i u m a s f u e l i n e x -
i s t i n g r e a c t o r s a n d t o develo:, t h e f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r u n t i l t h e p l u t o i l i u r ,
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 energy crisis b l i n d u s t o t h e f a c t t h a t plutonium poses unprccc-
dented h e a l t h r i s k s . Sinply p u t , plutonium is probably t h e n o s t dangerous
substance known. The AEC h a s b e e n aware of t h e h o t p a r t i c l e problem f o r
s e v e r a 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 l u t o n i u m s t a n d a r d s h a s yet t o be a d d r e s s e d . Despite these condi-
tions, f e d e r a l e n e r g y p o l i c i e s c a l l f o r p l u t o n i u m becoming a major e n e r g y
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
f e d e r a l p r o g r a n s to commercialize p l u t o n i u m are e x t r e m e l y p r e m a t u r e . I'

Dr. T a m p l i n 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
a b s e n c e 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 ,
California. I n 1 9 6 9 , h e along w i t h h i s c o l l e a g u e a t LlU, D r . J o h n PI.
Gofman, s t r o n - J l y criticized t h e AEC 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 , s a y i n g
t h a t they w e r e a t l e a s t 10 tiiaes t o o high. 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 a n d a t w o - y e a r s t u d y b y 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 r e d u c e d i t s e x p o s u r e 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 1 0 0 , 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, c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g e x p o s u r e 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
w i d e l y 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 .

Dr. C o c h r a n 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 F e l l o w . 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 i e s e a r c h
Associate a t R e s o u r c e s 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 r o n m e n t Program. 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
Reactcr: An Economic and E n v i r o n m e n t a l C r i t i q u e , t o b e p u b l i s h e d b y
ktF n e x t month.
. 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 .
NRDC i s a n a t i o n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a 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
in Washington, 3 . C . , Mew York, and P a l o A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a .

C o p i e s of R e p o r t A v a i l . 2 b l e

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
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 e a c h .
 r

0 V .8-45

TERRORIST THREAT SEEN

WASHIKGTON (AP) -
One terrorist with a soft-
ball-size supply of pluton-
ium 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 safe-
guards on fissionable ma-
terials, especially a s the
United States increases
production of nuclear pow-
er because of the energy
shortage.
should do something about
it," Lnpp said.
The testimony was pre-
sented t o a Senate Govern-
ment Operations subcom-
mittee which is consider-
ing a bill to reorganize the
Atomic Energy Commis-
sion by transferring its de-
velopmental functions to a
new Energy Research and
Development Administra-
tion.
Sen. Abraham A. Ribi-
coff, D-Conn., subcommit-
tee chairman, suggested it
might bc wise for the AEC
to commission Taylor or
some other expert to build
such a crude atomic bomb,
W
and equipment required to ' sands simply by placing
design the bomb a r c rendi- highly conccntraled parti-
ly available. The explosive clcs in ii building's cooling
device could be built in a system.
matter of weeks, he added. "The use of nuclcar en-
Such a bomb could wipe ergy to generate elcctric
out the U.S. Capitol o r the power a t rates now proj-
World Trade Center in ected by the AEC would
New York, he said. result in very largc domes-
The physicist said even tic and foreign flows of
smaller quantities of plu- materials that can be used
tonium or u r a n i u m-233 to make nuclear weap-
could be used to kill thou- ons,'' Taylor said.
0

' Taylor, chairman of the just to prove that it could

board of International Re-
s e a r c% and Technology
'
Corp., said there is no evi-
dence that plutonium has
been stolen, although ihere
have been unexplained dis-
appearances of the materi-
al essential for a nuclear
explosion. I)
Dr. Ralph Lapp, who
was involved in the Man-
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 avail-
able in libraries.
Taylor said the informa-
tion, nonnuclear materials
\-

ment of the atomic bomb,

said some of Taylor's esti-
mates are exaggerated.
,,.:"Wit's that simple (to
?,build 'a, nuclear bomb) L 4v
then t h e g o v e r n m e n t

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 o f 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 n a r k 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 11. 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
boxcs fed the b l u e . and it was nearly three 'hours bcforc fi-tCtTlC17
' broLeht the firc under controi.
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=
and % u r n 4 S 20 m;i;lit)fi worth. pluiim:~m.i<luwph Itd.kui;2 ;+afl
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:; o f I)aivcr, il \viis thc bcKiiiniiiI! ( I ! ' niciiiiir r..tiili in
d I ' ( ' I',iiiy 1 ; 1 1 i ~ l~ I I I * I (i i *t . t , i i l i * i \ t \ iiir i i i I ' i q i i ( * i i i , I .I*.IL;I~-
tlir o l t ~ i t ~ i i A
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 ~ ~:+ . II I,lit-
I;:~
fully hiddcii froin public view.
Yiiicc 1944 tlicrc h ; i w hccn I41 rccordcd a t w i i c sciciicc f:i::ili-
ties. and cautiocs pulilic health officials prcdict ;:rtrithcr 400 ::i900
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 fiii for construction sitcs and the ra8ii;ltion
ICWIS in some of t h IIIIUSCS ~ bit11i on top o f t t i ; h \v:I:.~c ait: si) high 4"
P
that residents are iio..v hcing cvncuatcd. AEC-s:inctionca nilclcar 01
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 ~ in sPuerto Rico.
They hzve seriot:sly t'lcvatcJ iodine I31 I~*velsin IJtah niilk and
killcd off deer rid Tis!! ne:ir Buffiilo. .+\rid now t\bo top cxpcrts pre-
dict 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 l o s t
obvious is the faci tii:,t tlic 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

. Roger Rapopori
i deal with accidents is almost non-existent. The AEC's solutions to
Photograph hy Carl lwaski
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 .
Not only does the AEC control the scientific talent involved in'
.
'
'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 pllulion.
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
Catch 24.400 (or. Pluronirotr 5 My Favorirr Elenrenr J 57
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 congrcs-
sional 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"
(non-riidioactive) areas of the plant. <
As in the case of the Santa Barbara oil disaster, tcc!inology to
4;
'
P
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 d r u m
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 full-Iik ol' asphslt.
and many years from now, when the roadbed w a r s aw;!y, the hot
plutonium \\ill bc cxposcd. to containinate unborn genzntidns.
After the May I I fire. local scientists a1 ated wiih 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 contami-
nation 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

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 A E C 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 escap-
ing 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 occur-
ring (background) particles that also emit alpha radiation. Dr.
t< :.
Catch 24.400 (or. Pluronirim Is My Fovorire Elentenf) s9
Arthur R. Tamplin, an expert on the physiological crrccts of radia-
tion 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 aver-
age 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”
aJ
P
of plutonium in Dcnver, he believes far more remains to be dis-
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 ( O X ) . says i: is now making
an “independent ;tr.alysis” of Rocky Flats con::imination. Two
A E C 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 meas-
urements of contamination. While stating that he will not judge the
DO Roger Rapoporr
case until 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
A E C publicists cnpablc of first-rate fiction. In the official agency
haoklct “USAEC--What It IS. 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 con-
struction fill 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 pol-
lute 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
Catch 24.400 (or..Plutoniurn Is My Favorite Element) 61
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 radia-
tion pollution in their area. But even if the AEC should lose this
batt!e, it still has the wider war to t h i n k of. For it 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 con-
struction. 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 kill 3-100 people,
injure 43,000 and ciiuse S7 hillion damage in a b:id accident.
The AEC has a flock of experts dcvoted t u 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”
P
bombers accidentally dropped nuclear weapons on Palornares, U
Y
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 l e r x n t . . . . The repota-
tion of plutonium as a toxic material pcrhaps !ias contributed more
than any other thing to m y being supported in 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 . Roger Ropoprt Cotch 24.400 (or.Plutonium I s My Fovorlte Element j 63
- . .-

to quell growing public concern about nuclear fallout. but after the
32,000 extra cancer deaths each year, they are calling for a ten-fold
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed, the concern diminished and
reduction in present radiation exposure limits.
financial support for the lab waned.
The insurgent scientists, Drs. John Golman and Arthur Tam- As head of the Livermore Biomedical Lab ar.d an associate
plin of the Biomedical Division of the AEC's Lawrence Radiation
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 Y
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

64 Roger Rapoport
tion.
. neptunium and a chartcr member of the nuclear power fan club,
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
Corrh 24,100 (or. Plutonium Is My Fovorirr Eentent 6S
U.S. Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollu-
,In December the AEC staff in Washington issued a nine-page
critiquc of thc California scicntists' call for tougher radiation stand-
ards. and said there was nothing ncw in the Gofnian-Tamplin paper,
that the data was inconclusive and the report should hkivr: been pub-
lished 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
scientific establishment snuhbcd them. On January -10, 1970 Phillip 4
Abclson, editor of infltiintial Science magazine. co-dibcoverer of '
03
I
'f
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 _I
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.
If 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~isntistswait 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 plu-
tonium off the scorched floors and reminding all that thc plant is o
bulwark of national defease. Over 3000 employees are glad to have
I
66' Roger Rapopori

their jobs and some of them write letters to local newspapers sug-
gesting 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 M. C. Esche
articlc quoted a Rocky Flats worker complainicg that he had leuke-
mia 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 A E C is
also spending another S75 million to double Rocky Fiats produc-
tion 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 cn
only two ways for it to end: Either the AEC's power is shut otf, ox v1
the Rocky Flats area becomes a plutonium mine. N

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.

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.
1
Much much worse is the iithnlatiori of nuclides
which. emit a!p!ia particles. Once inhaled, the radio-
nuclide can he distributed along the lining of the
respiratory tract and thcre irradiate those cells espe-
cially 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
) vcry iiilcnsc sourccs of alpha
pl11tciiii:in B u ~ ~ I s arc
particlcs.
60
IIOW RADIATION FROXI ATO\lIC F V C 9 G Y PXCCR.\>lS GETS T O YOU
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. -
It is tllis “hot” pnrticle
plutonium-239 that makcs the contemplated, future,
widespread use of this radionuclide as a fuel in the
nuclcar-clcctricity-gcncrationplants such an unmiti-
gated 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 gen-
erations of huinans for 100,000 to 200,000 years.
1\4n11ufnctitre of
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 de-
livered to a particular tissue.
These points are strcsstd t’c‘c;~iiscct) :!-.: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:cciwith
. .
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.
A lot rniglit havc bccii le adabout 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
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.
I Thc m a x i m u m permissible dose of plutonium 238 in
thz bodies of atomic workers is two billionths of a
& r a 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
\
of 2T2 pounds of plutonium.
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 rcac-
tor 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 shicld-
ing adds weight, a distinct disadvantage either in a
ncrchant or a military vcsscl. Leakage ratcs of radioac-
tivity 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
fucl 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
[]listhreat, 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

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
t o 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
I 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
Tanks under construction at Hanlord.
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.
V.8-55
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. .. , inatisrials arc 1)cing licltl nt six privately
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, radio-
activity 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
Wash. railroad tank car fullOf ra-
-
dioactive 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 t o 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]
c s1iir;igc tanks :iw 00 I? 30
~ I I I I S Ch
y r w s old. Corriisinii w . i s c i t ( d as tlic
prii1i;:hlr ciinw of llir inmL rccriit \pill\.
Otlicr spills .of rntIiri;ictivc w:i\tc h:i\.c
taken pl;icc 21 I l i c h l o n i i c Eiicrgy Coni-
inissiiiii’s iiistall.itioii i i i ’ a r S;ivnnnali I l i v -
c’r, s. c.
Lo\v-luvc4 rndiiitioii w;istcs hive
1c;iktd froin ~IIIIIIH ;it llic Natioiiiil Ilc-
a c ~ wTcsiiiig Stiltion i i Itlalin ~ ~Falls,
Itla., ;id rat1io;ictivity lins I)ccn tlc-
t w t ( * t l i n griiiiiidw~it~ iii~ rtli;it ;ircii.
111 addition to slrilagc ;it t l i c tlirce
(:overiiincnt iiist;iII:itir,iis, r;irlionctive
owned sites. Thcsc are sitwitcd 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 pro-
duces about 400 gallons of h i g h - l e \ d
waste. This w i l l reduce to 2 cubic feet
of solid ii-attcr, weigliiiig 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 diffi-
cult, however, to find nil 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. b u t the discovery of vent
holes and the p)>sibility 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 E i i r r g y
Coinmissioii.
Atomic l i m e bomb. AIL*wwII~IP. tlic
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
iii 1945, bnt oiie Illat Iiolds iiniiic.iisc po-
tentiid for serious ~roiiIiIci i s i t i s shipped
awl stored across tile iintioii.
h’ihody argiics w i t h tlic tlicorctical
Iiaz;ird prtwiitctl I i y tlic i i s c d iilrclcar
..
tn:iteri;il.
1 I IC disqwx*iiiciit I)ct\vvc>ii t 1 ir At nin-
ic Encrgy Coinniission a i d i t s Tril ics rrii-
tcrs on jiirt Iiow ~iiiidir . c d tl.iirjyr rsisfs
riglit now-and \vli;it IO (io ; i h t it.
U. 5. NEWS 6 WORlO REPORT. Sopi. 10, I973
 V.8-56
...
-YE, COLORADO 1 *
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 testi-
fied (it very nearly did), “liundreds
of square miles could be involved in
radiation exposure and involve clean-
I.
Tile result is the nation’s Iiigliest level.
of carbon-nionoxide pollution.
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 n l o u e g r o u r ~ d near
,
tlie airport’s north-soutli flight pat-
tern. 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
IW
v .8-57

16 L 1

Law Group Calls for Far Stricter Safe

,Flcl~,,Th,Pi,rTO,~TIA,,
i c cuncontrolled re-
States IS fuelcd wit11 u f ~ n ! l ~ ~ ' I a b o r a r o rin
nnd coolcd by water. Stlll In aIactiDns in'the presence of the
WASHISGTON, Feb. 1 G I n ~5.1-oillion devclopmcnt pro-'
move with major implica- graql of the commission Is tilcihcat "nd ~ " c s s u r er.rneratcd by
tion, for nation's nuclear nrs! jieneration, liquid-sodium-1"' aton'ic-bonib LriLXcrlng
e n e r a prop,ram, tiie National /COO: :d uranium reactors t!latlPlosion. tiny Particles Inhaled in-
Resources Council llaS,arc designed t o "brced' plut0-1
lnillrn Ivell as generate elec-lto the lungs emit l l c a v ~radla-

radiation hazards should be':&bs. rile hydrogen bomblsources council's peLition Was
.llS,OOO timer more strinzent, efject.
t h e public interest law group - - - ~ - ---
nuclew fusion,lbased described p l u t o n i ~ l 8 5
-
has recommended in petitions
to the commission and the En- I

vironmental Protection Agency.

. A commission spokesman
raid that the reporter would be
@en "fUll and VeCf careful 'HE N E W Y O R K T I M E S , SUNDAY: FEBRUARY 17, 1974
consideration." There was no
immediate comment from the
cneironmeutal agency.
Plutonium, which spontane-
ously catches fire " not proper-
lypresen.ed*has been described "one of the most potent cancer! "It's time they stopped increase costs of building end
Producing agents known to ting bait and started fishing on operating ule breeders,
*s "fiendishly toxic" by 0' 1"
I
man:' I[ was prepared by for- this p:ojlern,*- he
scientists. One of its co-dis- mer A.E.C. biophysicist, ~ 1 . .Ar- hope they will seriously .oWe Dr, Tamplin said that the aim
coverers, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg. thur R. Tamplin. and a nuclear address was not to ,.price reactors
~

former chairman of the com- I physicist. Dr. Thomas B. Co+- lhisproblem and see if they cdn Of health.
busf?css but protect public
mission, has said he does not ran. handle it."
disagree with that description. Led Successful Fight The study on which the re- He added, "We would hope
tions for radiation levels we would not get into POlcniiC

raid, "At this time, outside the -...--.,

national defense program, tliere

New Gcncrallon
Thr prticnt ,yne:ation of I
 V.8-58
PLUTONIUM
AND THE ENERGY DECISION
In our social climate of aggressive change, tech-
nology has evolved t o a special station. As a
catalyst of change. t e c h n o l o p 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
t h e 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 promo-
tional 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. con-
trary 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
n
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 p a v e r .
7he lulure and fhe substance ot lhe lission pro-
918171is the breeder reactor. and the repiesenta-
tive fuel ol the breeder is plutonium." Donald
P. Geesaman is J physicist who has bcen asso-
ciated 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 de-
coupling and promotional bias must be rccoznized
as defects in the present relationship b s w c n so-
ciety 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 large-
ly confined to the electrical sector of thc rncrqy
market. During this century the electric utility in-
dustry 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.~iciwlntion. F ~ . c i t i ~of- t I-+ inr ru-
si611 the indcstry has begun to fecogiiiic the dis-
tinction 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
f \ V . 8-59
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. u h a t 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 h a d 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
t h e 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 de-
termination 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 nu-
clear 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 i n d u s t n , 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 con-
straint 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. T h e future and thc suh-
stance of the fission program is the breeder reactor,
and tlie representative fuel of the breeder is plu-
c"niu"*
\
PIuton'ium is a n element virtually nonesistcnt in
#he earth's natural crust: for all practical purposes
At is of man's doing. It has several long-lived iso-
"There arc many fhings abouf r J d k i i O n cx-
posurc wc do nof undersfand. and fhcrc will
confinuc lo b c unccrfainfrcs unlil heallh physics
can providc a cohcrcnf fhcory 01 r a d i J f f o n dam-
age. This i s why some 01 fhc basfc rcscarch
sfudics 01 fhe AEC are so imporfanf. D. P.
Geessrnirri a n 0 Tamplin nave pornfed ouf re-
ccnfly fhe problems o/ plufonium-239 parficlcs
and fhe uncer:ainfy ol f h e risk l o J man who
carries such a parficle of high specific acfivily
in his lungs." ( K . 2. M o r g a n , Tesfimony pre-
senfed a f Hearings belore Joinf Cornmilfee on
Alornic Energy, 9 l s 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 t o 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;
but is that enough for societ:.. or even utili"115s to
judge by rcsponsibly when considering the conjec-
tured priniary energy source of the future.
If the liquid metal fast breeder reactor is devel-
oped 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 pluto-
nium forms aerowls of micron-sized pnrticulstcs.
\\:hen lost into uncotitrollcd air thcse particulates
can remain s ~ ~ s ~ ~ c n cfor
l c cal significant timc, and if
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-
 V. 8-60
<
* tense tissue exposure. T h e lung cancer risk asso-
\ ciated with these radiologically unique aerosols is
! unknown t o ordcrs of magnitude. Present pluto-
nium standards are certainly irrelevant and prob-
ably not conservative. Even so, the fact t h a t under
present standards, the permissible air conccntra-
tions are about one part per million billion is a
‘ their own rights, b u t they are now implicit in t h e
commentary on plutonium’s potential as a pollu-
/ tant. Its insolubility and long half-life make the
continuing resuspension of particulate c m t a m i n a -
tion another unresolved concern of serious propor-
tions.
?’ Nor is plutonium contamination an academic
- question. I n May 1969 the most costly industrial
! 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 study b y a.n
independi n t party, E. A. AIartell, revealed t h a t off
site Pluto: ium contamination was two t o 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 t h e source of
this a n o r . ous contamination a5 wind blown plu-
tonium E;: had leaked from openly stored barrels
of contanil ated oil. T h e plutonium involved in
the fire TVZ largely conrained a n d apparently WIS
not impli?at-d in the off-site contamination. Sever-
theless, * t is; 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 a n d similar facilities.
. And there is little comfort r o be found in t h e ir-
responsible nastq disposal practices which were re-
vealed by the investigation after the fire. T h e leak-
age of pluti niiim from the contaminated oil led t o
an u n c o n t r - J e d source of plutonium which was
some orders of magnitude larger than the integrated
effluent loss during t h e 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 its human significance.
Is present society so psychically stable, so civillv
\docile t h a t it can have its mer:): addiction hased
on R material whose ratlioloqicnl tosicity is such t h a t
a few ounces might cause a million undetected a n d
h e m c d i a b l c fotnl injuries? :\ comp!es and sophisti-
cated socicty must bear the burtlcns of vulnerabilitv
a n d constraint that are inherent in its tcchnalogics.
implicit in the prcscnt nuclear industry is the
production of fissiona\>lcninteria1. 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-
clear weapons during World War 11. T h a t mysti-
q u e has bccome illusory. T h e main practical im-
passe t o iiuclcar weapon manufacture was perfect-
ing and implementing the expensive technologies
for manufacture of fissionable material. Gaseous
diffusion enrichment of uranium and reactor !)reed-
ing of plutonium were major industrial projects in
nuclear power industry. A reactor of even the pres-
e n t generation will produce some 250 kilograms
of plutonium per year, and since the amount neces-
sary for a n explosive device is described by Thco-
dore Taylor a s “a few kilograms,” the substantial
weapon capability of one commercial reactor can b e
inferred.
By t h e year 2000 plutonium-is conjectured to b e
7
a major energy source with a n annual production
in excess of 100 tons. Can these quantities b e
handled without internal subversion? Underworld .
involvement i n t h e transportation industry is
legendary, a n d 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 opera-
tion, was unable t o account for sis per cent (100
kilograms) of the highly enriched uranium t h a t
passed through its piant: and a t a recent s a i e g a r d s
symposium the director of t h e AEC’s Office of
Safeguards a n d Materials Management observed
t h a t “we have a long way to go to get into t h a t
happy land where one can measure scrap effluents,
products, inputs a n d discards t o a one per cent
accuracy.”
[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 m a n y 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 delitery 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 firm to an-
other i n the same California city 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 ~ - c o i i c ithnt the report on / h e Tiajrrnna di-
version was entitled: “ l m d v e r t c n t esporl o j special nu-
clenr materials.” Ed. iYote ]
\\‘hen plutonium commonly esists, t h e 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, a s 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, if 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 p o w r s , 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
Unlcss fusion rcnctor Icasibility is dcrnonstratcd
in ttic near Iuturc, the commitmcnt \vi11 tic made to
liquid met nl fast brcctlrr rcactors fuclcd tiy plu-
tonium. Sincc fusion rcactors arc presently spccula-
tivc, the decision lor liquid metal fast brccdcr re-
.actors should tie nnticipatE,!. CozsiiIciiiiE the
cnorinouj ccoiiornic inertia involvctl in thc commit-
.nent, it 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

away. This capability makes nuclcar disarmamcnt
seem remote, and is part of the responsibility of
accepting the nuclear economy.
Since the Eisenhower administration the ex-
change of pcaceful nuclcar technology has been a
componcnt of our forcign policy. T h e peaceful atom
has bccn internztionally promoted \vith enough ef-
fect.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.
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, indus-
try 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 so-
ciety 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
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 full scale fission program, t h e radio-
active waste will soon become so enormous that a total poisoning of c u r planet is possible. Under
s u c h conditions safety margins. which are acceptable in other fields. are inadequate. It is not evi-

.
dent 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 (is-
sion 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 t h e 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 it 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 if a national effort of the s a n e kind a s the Apollo pro-
gram were made, fusion energy would be available in a comparable time. If this is achieved. the
I
fission reactor, especially the breeder, will be of interest only as a danger which must bc elimi-
nated as soon as possible.
Tho views expressed here are shared by many competent physicists. They are basically differ-
ent from those on which present policy is based. A n importan: decision about the futuro energy
p o k y O f (he United 'States -
and o f 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 i s twciity-four h i m a ‘1;iy. \\’itliiii
91ch a fr.qiiic\vork9 it \vtiuIil I*. vasily
inore tliAi~.iiIt 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
1
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.”
, 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 i z c d in one g; lcry,” hc said. “Tliis
mfcguards agail. . t ~ o m e o n c 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. Tlic most
iulncrahle place is the nitrrtc point, ’
where tlic plutonium comes out of t h e
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 ic iisul in prcscnt conimcrcial
raci!m. dtlioiigli the companies that
“11 it I i : i w ;I great deal of it in rcscrvc.
llis rc:i.‘ui for this is t h a t pliitonilim
i nnc iiic m i s t toxic siibstances
rcr k i i ~ j w i i iii the world. Cobra vcn-
’ ot closed,, and has ncvcr bccn closed.
in is niiivii~~rvnear as toxic as 11111-
iniirni w y i ( . i i i l e d in an aerosol. You
,,
BIIIOl l ~ ~ i:iii d 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-
toiiiiiiii i l l a t riitcrs t l i c Iihiot1strc;iiii
lows tlic pat11 of calciiiiii. Scttliiifi in
IHIIICS, ir gives’ off short-range alldin
ix~rtitlcs,a foriii of rntlirrnctivity, a i d
tlicsc cffcctivclp dcstroy tlic aliility o f
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 i c owiclc is a fluffy yellow-
green powder. It can he fine enough to
he inlialcd. T l i c 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 t h a t 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 lip 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
.lie rcpro’ccssctl iiraiiiiini is sct aside.
’he uraiiiiim that gcics into powcr rc-
c t o r ~is ncw tiraniurn. Tlic rcsult of all
lis is that two economic lines a r e mov-
gct iiitli IIIC tirigiii:iI cIi:iiii, r,.;tctit
rwdy 111 rr1ir;It tlic IirIIccrc Allll p r ,
(Iiicc w r i i iiiorc iiliitoiiiiiiii. ]i(.c2,.
tlii. fiwitiiiiiig Iiliitwiiiiiii p i i s o i i t In,,!
rstra iieiitr(1ns ; i n t i l ~ ~ ~ ; i i itIicrc
sc ic
liigli p r ~ i p i r t i ~ ~oifi frriiic u - 2 3 ~
the rrnctor ctirc, tlic Iirccilcr m;l:
irwc jiliitoniiiiii iliac it IISCS tip. Ti::,
fill-
rrtic:ilIy, tiic hrcrdcr can m a k c f o r
tiiiirs Iicttcr iisc of iirariiiiin tIi,ln p r c
eiit-d~y rrnctors. Morcovcr, it cot.
iisr as fertile iiiatrrial tlic t w o Iibini!
i t l or so of lcftovcr U-2:
~ J i o u ~ n i toiis
that 1ias hccn scparatctl from U-2:
since thc military wcapniis program i.
gall. I~rcctlcrsi r c vai-iciusly cooled :
salt, sodiiiiii, Iicliuin ; a n d tiicy h v c
fiiic set of nnmcs: the Molten-S:
13 rcctlc r I< cnct or, t lie Lit1i i id- Li c :
Fast Mrectlcr licactor, tlic Gas-Coo;
Fast Ilrcctlcr Rc;ictor. T l i c Gcrn:.
have one c~llctlSKEAK. 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 it 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 tiinc comes tlic figcircs for wor
’
low of plutoiiiiiiii will hc not so mui
ncrcrscd as multiplied. So will I;
~rohabilitiesof t h e clanrlcstine nini!
hcture of atoiiiic honihs.
Whcrc is plutonium now-(lint :
, ~lutoniuinowncd hy private coiiipnicr:
’n greatly varying aniniints, it is in Ha:
ord, Washington; \Vest Valley, Se
f o r k ; 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 lias ritltlcn around ti
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.cr cargo fillet1 up tlic hcd space, and t i
plutoniiiiii, tile last thing on, w a s IIC..
I ;:; ‘
,
< . 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;
ments of about fifty kilograms. l’ii
~
‘I
. toniuni-uranium fucl p e 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
u V .t3-63
 We ch l l e n z e any s c i e n t i s t , i n d e p e n d e n t o r g o v e r n z e n t
employed, any a ? p o i n t c d 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 c a n a c c e p t a
f a s t - b r e e d e r , p l u t o n i y m b a s e d economy when t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s
a b o o t p l u t o n i u n have been o f f i c i a l l y a t t e s t e d t o .
1. The a l ? h a r a 2 i a t i o n g i v e n o f f by p l u t o n i u m i s 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 y e a T s 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
inhalation. 1
3. Once i n t h e body, p l u t o n i u m is e l i m i n a t e d s o s l o w l y
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
~ be t h e r e 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 p l u t o n i u m t h a t c a n be a c c u m u l a t e d i n a n a d u l t w i t h o u t
p r o d u c i n g undue r i s k t o h e a l t h , h a s b e e n s e t a t 0.5f&/,;1..'cXZ
microgram ( A microgram i s o n e - m i l l i o n t h of a grarnt$motuncl
-
5. According t o t h e Atomic Energy Comnlission t h e r e w i l l be
an u n a v o i d a b l e l o s s r a t e of 1 3 0 25 i n h a n d l i n g plutoniuin. 2
6 . The t o n s of p l u t o n i u m t o b e p r o d u c e d by f a s t - b r e e d e r
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 s u p p l y
l i G h t water r e a c t o r s w i t h new f u e l . These s h i p m e n t s will
be s u b j e c t t o highway a c c i d e n t s a n d h i j a c k i n g s 2 and
d i v e r s i c n r'o? hex-made bombs. 3
7. Plutonium h a s a h a l f - l i f e of 24,360 y e a r s a n d w i l l t a k e
500,000 y e a r s t o d e c a y t o a n i n n o c u o u s l e v e l . 1
8 . The c u r r e n t p l u t o n i u m i n v e n t o r y of 600 k i l o g r a m s is
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
2000.2
1. " F l u t o n i u n , " a n A.3.C. publ.ication.
2 . " S c i e n c e , " (L'L:!!j), A p r i l 9, 1971, pp 143-146
3. " f h e 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
. 305 1ii.Zh S t r k e t
Moorestovm, N. J. 08057

E'rJE'RGY4 fourth in a series by Jack Shcphcrd
-- . d
b wIT
NUCttus
In 1970 [)I John W Cnlmon took on the
Atomic Fnrf!Jy Commission owr nuclear power
He ond Dr Aithur R. Toniplm. o collmgue ot the
lowrenre Uod~otionloborotory in Ltmmore.
. blifornio. choigcd the ACC with risking "gene
cide" by opbvoving do,ngcrous levels of rodio
. ocftwty from ~ w c e l unuclmr
l 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 32.000odditionol concer
deoths o vmr
0.&fmon hod waked on the entrre M o n
hotlon Prctect from its lnceptton untfl 1944. He
holds Ph D. ond M D degrees ond hos done
s p x d wcrk tn coronory h w t disease. In 1965.
k w m o 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
Did
your
calcul;itions o n r;tdio;ictivity levels indi-
C B ~ Cthat there could he radiation deniage
down t i i irlmost zero dos;ige'!
V.8-65
'. I
in Uwcxki In I%? th. milk ~4ini;dwuI n c t w d W20.MN) c;iirccrs. l h c i1iily thing we
ShL>Wtyf11h11 UhIll IIhlk \ W S IX'lml ' c l ~ ~ l ~ R . * l W ~ . don't I n o w is Iicrw IO cliniiiiate 11. So we
os I3 Cxdrinn 1n11,I I wilh rndt<wrlliic(tom loll
wt It woso put~ltchmlth x o r l ( l d Utoh dls~ol,
arc forced t o live with it.
w n t d to imlxiund llw mllk Tlic Fnlcrol Rodto. Q: Whit1 ahiiut the cut1iul;llivc effects
lion Council ond thc AtC freltd of radiatiun frcitii tii;in.ni;idc >ourcc\'!
"This w t of thing wos w r y hod lor their Gofnian: All o f our \ludic> arc o n the
imoge. ' so* Or. & l m n "Thc F d v o l Rodlo- cutiiul;itivc cffccts o f ritdi:ition. And that
tton Councd in 115own tnlmncol woy. got out 01 it
by JUSI roisng the toleiante levcls for rodio- cuniulaiive issue represents the higgest
d i n c . which sGddmly trtome solcr by o foclor uncertainty in the size of our estimate.
01 truce Thcir lustificotion wos tho1 if they It works this way. We kncrw that if you
rorsed thc tolcronce, lhcn thcy could my this irradiiite now. you don't have any cffccts
milk lhot was cnritominolcd wos octeptoble.'
The AEC oskcd Dr. Golmon to help set up o
in terms of lcukcmi;i o r ciincer f o r about
long.ronge reseorch prolect 01 the Lowrence five o r ten ycars. Then the effects build
lob on the lmpoct of rodionuclide relmse upon up. and you get so m m y cases per 1oO.ooO
the biosphere people per year from the irradiatton. We
In 1969. the AEC oskcd his os5ociote 01 the d o not know whether [ h i t radiation will
lob. Arthur Tomplm. In olnlyre Dr Ernest Stern.
gloss' published colculoiions tho, atmospheric lirst the rest o l the lifc o f th;it population.
nvcleor tests in Neboh hod causcd 400.000 whether i t will 1;tst for 30 years o r 20 years
inlont deolhs from lollout. While Dr. Tomplin o r whatever. And that's the essence of the
ogreed thot Dr Sterngloss hod roised on impor. cuniulativeeffect. I f the radiation you get
tont qucslion. his own colciilolions indicoled thot
now liists the rest of your life. then it. plus
probably 4.030 infonlb d i d AEC wonted Dr
Tomplin to puhli5h hi.. Inticlsrn d Dr. Sterngloss everything d t e r i t , accuniulittes.
but to tuck t t y t 4.000 ~ s l ~ m o lInc some other Q: I f that's so. then the danger from
publicoton Dr Tomplin r c l u d , and lighting lowdose r;rdi:tt ion.. .
broke out belween Livcrmorc ond Woshington
Or. Golmun's persoool light wrth the AEC
...
Golmon: Getseven worse. If i t should
begon when he wps scheduled to give o tolk turn out that the effect 1;tsts the whole
before the Institute for Electrical ond Electronic liletinie rather than the .XI years we esti-
Engineers. As he tells it. "My personol resmrch mated originally. then o u r numbers would
In the lob wos on low-dose rodiotion. chromo- 60 up. T h e 32.000 we published could
some inpry ond concer I begon bringing up to reach 104,ooO deaths from cancer per
dote my own thinkmg on the mognitude of this
concer problem. And I rmlized thot it hod to be year for the allowable amount of radia-
20 ttmes as big os onybody hod thought. So I tion because of some of the unknowns in
gove o very low-key, ertremely conciliotory p- duration of effect.
per. suggesting that we ol the AEC should r e When we started reporting this stuff, in
consider the rodlotion stondords with o view to
October 1969, there weren't as many ani-
tightening them ot leost tenlold k o u s e 01 the
possibility of increosed concers m d leukemios mal studies available. Now all those avail-
"As o result d thot paper. the AEC immedi- able point to a straight-line relationship
otely lounched o vitriolic ottock both on me per- between size of dose and cancer inci-
SCnOlly ond on my credibility."
dence. T h e animal data that have become
Dr. Golmon begon expanding his reseorch
and speoking o u t on rodiotron hozords. He ond available in the last two years Kave pushed
Dr. Tomplin wrote two books together. Now. way down into the low-dose region. and
Dr. Gofmon hos shifted from the Lowrence lob the linearity is holding up very well in
bock to reseorch ond teaching in hrkeley. He every animal study.
:ontlnu.s to speok out 01 public hmrings. and
here, on'nucleor power...
Q: What does "pushed down" mean?
Gofrnan: Well. the Iirst set of experi-
Gofmin: Yes. And we illso considered nients ;tv;iilahlc years ; i p i c m i p t r e d r d s
the anic)unts thc AEC is Icg;illy ;illowed t o t11;tt hail no rdiaticin with rats th;il I d
give us iind h u n d th;it the d;ini;igc wciuld SO r d s . S o yciii cotrlil say'lrow m m y ciiii-
be bad. Now they say they never plan to ccrs you'd get when you hat1 iiii incrciiicnt
give us the amount they're lcgnlly allowed of .SO rads. Since then. in ;iililition t i i hav-
10 give. But if thcy really hclieved whxt ing t h e zero rads and 50.they've dime a
they're saying. they would lower the legal series at 4 0 rads and 30 r x l s :mil 20 rads.
amount by a great factor. and now there are sood enough numhers
Q:Aren't we getting some natural back- to show cancer at even 10 rads. A n d the
ground radiation all the time? line o n the chart is straight.
Cofnion: T h e rough figure around the T h e Atom Bomh C;tsunlry Commission
country for hackground radiation from has published. within the last two years.
natural suurces is as high iis 200 millirads evidcnce on the H i r ~ i s h i n i ~ r - N ~ t g ~ peo-
ts~lki
in Colorado from the rocks and the high- ple that provcd lineiirity down to as low
e r clev;ition. down to 100 millirads. Nut- ;IS 20 r;ids, which is live tiilics lower than
oral radixticin in the United States is . their other studies. In other words. it was
probably rcspinsihle each year for ahout proptirt iond.
.... .: , .-.+
99-8'11

u e r c p i n g 111) for tlic salt Ixds i n
Lyons. k i i i \ ; i \ . a s ;I diiiiipiiig grtiuiid. nut
the American S;ilt C~mili.iiiy\ v x h 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;rlhriisof w t e r . AEC g:;iveup o n
Lyons. hut n o 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 nu-
clenr-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 astronom-
ical invenlorics th;in do the nuclear pow-
er plants. I recently testified hcfore the
South Carolinii 1egisl;iture ahout the re-
processing plant in Darnwcll. B;irnwell
w i l l process five m e t r i c tons of spent
nuclear,fuel per day. The long-lived radio-
active \.'asre. after processing. will remain
at Bari,u.ell hctwcen five and ten years.
assumkg optimistically that some fed-
eral repository can he developed. which
is very much i n douht. This radioactivity
in Barnwell i s about 15 times as much as
a// the Iission-product radioactivity pro-
duced in a// atmospheric weapons tests
in o l l t i m e hy the combined testing of the
U.S. and USSR. What might happen i f
only 1 percent of this radioactivity inven-
tory 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 little 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
V.8-67
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 ilriiihiiiy i i u r p w h . T h e
kiss t o ~igriculiiireIroni 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 danger-
ous 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 tech-
nological 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 to-
day 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 conse-
quences 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. w e
don't have ;iltern;ttives now. and the nu-
clear progriini hiis monientuni.
Gofman: Right. There's ii treiiicndous
momentum Iwc;iuse 1111 the energy re-
search mid development went into fis-
sion. They consider that they ;ire ready to
go. I don't. But they have tremendous
push. There is S40 billion i n private mon-
ey sunk i n the nuclear-fission npproach
right now. You don't gel a SJC-billion in-
dustry 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 fis-
sion iis the ideal power source.
Q: %\ha't altern;itives d o you see?
Cofnian: I think we ought to explore
sevcrd options: s c h r power. geothcrnid.
m;ignet~ihytirc~lyn;In,ics. Synthetic gas
could e x t e n d 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
niillion- ;I piti;incc coiiip;ircd I < I nucIe;ir
- ftir variotn \ o h r prolcct\.
The h;i\ic prtihlcni i\ replacin,!! ;I work-
ing. 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 \ o h r pliints
in live years and shift most o f our econ-
omy 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 ener-
gy 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 un-
leashing would have t o lie 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: Until 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 d o 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 radia-
tion dose and disease. Nuhody warned
the uraniuni miners in the 1940s o r '50s
about lung cancer. O n l y 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 will he written i n the
I9Nh.
Gofnian: Unfortun;itely. that's right.
These death\ will Ius[ lie a1iaurtir.d iis part
of the ctist/henel'it\. We'll n c r d tlic p w e r
so much thiit irradiation and deaths
of plmit workers will he an acceptable
cost. 191
 V.8-68
Plutoni uni: B ion.re d i ca1 Rcs e;Prch
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 as havc bccn cniploycd on lunar mis-
the production of powcr durini thc sions, on c:omniunications satcllitcs. in
next scvcral dccadcs bccausc of its kcy hcart pacc-niakcrs, and proposcd for
role in fucling brccdcr rcactors and powering artificial hcnrts. Plutonium-
becausc of its uscfulncss as a hcat 238 is also an alpha-cniittcr and has B
murce in various thcrnioclcctric powcr half-lifc of S6.4 ycars. Thc hcavicr iso-
ryrrenis. This is a frightcning prospcct topes of plutonium will bccomc morc
to somc, who would charactcrizc plu- abundant as thcy arc produced in
tohium as "thc most toxic substance brccdcr rcactors. Of thcsc. 2i0Pu and
known to man.'' Plutonium, in ccriain Cr2Pu arc long-livcd alpha-cniittcrs and
forms, is indccd a vcry toxic substancc; should not diffcr in any csscntial bio-
but its hazardousncss is not casily com- logical rcspcct from 9 ' u . Plutonium-
pared to that of othcr substanccs. pri- 241 is il rclativcly short-livcd (13.2-
marily bccausc of lack of information ycar half-lifc) bcta-cniittcr and is of
conccrning thcsc othcr substanccs with primary intcrcst as thc parent of amcri-
which plutoniuni might bc compared. ciuni-241. an alp1i;i-cniittcr t1i;it accu-
The toxicity of plutonium has bccn mulatcs in tissucs and constitutes a
of conccrn sincc milligram quantitics hazard comparablc to plutonium.
were first produccd in thc Oak Ridge Plutoniurrr is a chcmically "difficult"
m c t o r , stariing late in 1943. I n Fcbru- elemcnt. It will form compounds in
ary 1944. I 1 milligrams wcrc allocatcd solution cxhibiting valcnccs of 1-3, +4.
for studics in rats. Sincc that timc, bio- +S, or +6. The +4 statc is most com-
bgical studics with plutsnium havc oc- monly cncountcrcd undcr physiological
cupied thc attcntion of incrcasing num- conditions. whcrc it is always com-
bcn of scicntists in the United Statcs plcxcd in some fashion. Wcakly coni-
.and abroad. Much has bccn learned pl&d P u ( I V ) will hydrolyzc in ncar-
PbOUt the toxicology of plutonium- ncutral solutions, forming a polymcric
more than is known about most other hydratcd oxide of variable composition.
hazardous elements (I). Plutonium dioxide (PuO,) is prob-
ably thc most important compound of
plutonium, bccausc of its dcsirablc
Chemical and Physical Properties propcrtics for usc as a nuclcar fucl.
of Biomedical Interest Plutonium rrictal oxidizcs rcadily and
PuO, is the compound most likcly to
The most common isotopc of plu- be cncountcrd following accidcntal rc-
tonium, "OPu, has a 24,390-ycar half- Icasc. Thc bchavior of P u 0 2 in thc bio-
. life and cmits cncrgctic alpha particlcs logical milicu may vary grcatly dc-
(5.11 to 5.16 mcgnclcctron volts). It pcnding upon such factors as exact
k used as a fisrionablc matcrial in chcmical composition and particlc sizc
explosive nuclcar dcviccs and as. a fucl and shapc-factors dctcrmincd by thc
h nuclcar powcr rcactors. Anothcr iso- conditions undcr which thc oxidc par-
COpc. "8Pu, is urcd as a hcat source ticks arc forrncd. Thc "biological vari-
in thcrmoclccuic powcr dcviccs. such ability" whic:h toxicologists likc to
blamc,for thc lack of prccision in thcir
Dr. Drlr i s manincr or. and Dr. 'Ihompwn a animal toxicity data is oftcn. compli-
u a R acicnti\t In. Ihc b i d o w dcpwimcni of h i - catcd by "chcniical variability" in stud-
(CltC'B Pacldc h'orihrrbi Lrbwalortcn. Wchland.
Wmhlnpion Yp311. ics with plutonium.
m R U A R Y 1974
llirfory of Ihiiirdicnl
Rcscrrcli OII I'liifoniiini
Thc firht I)ionrcclic;~lstutlics 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
I I the Univcrsity of Chicago and.
~ C ~ : U at
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 plu-
tonium injcctcd into thc blood was dc-
posited principally in bonc and livcr,
that plutonium was not apprcciably
absorbcd from thc pstrointcstinal tract
whcn givcn orally. that it 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 spc-
cics and ostcosarconia was idcntilicd as
a possiblc long-tcrm conscqucncc of
plutoniuni dcposition. By 1949 a CD-
hcrcnt piclurc had cmcrgcd of thc bio-
logical 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 cxcrc-
tion of phtonium following injcction of
known quantitics. In 1945 and 1946
thc L o s 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 plu-
tonium cxcrction data obtaincd provide
thc principal basis upon which pluto-
nium 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 plu-
tonium 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 in-
tcrnally dcpositcd radionuclidcs, ap-
proxiniaicly 50 pcrccnt of this rcscarch
bcing conccrncd with plutonium and
othcr transuranium clcnrcnts. This in-
creased funding has rcsultcd not only
91s
 V .1)-69

plutonium nitrntc in I-day-old. rab

(14). Thc human infant might be cx-
pcctcd to show lcrs cnhnnccmcnt of
absorption, since his intcstine is more
Fig. 1. The dislribu- fully dcvclopcd at birth than is that of
[ion of plutonium in
bcacles that have in- thc rat.
haled PuO,. [Data Inhalation is a more probable rautc
from Park cf at. ( 6 ) ] of significant plutonium c'cposition in
man, CIS borne out by cxpcricncc in tCc
nuclcar industry ( I S ) . T h c fraction of
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 P ' 1 0 . 1 1 inhalcd plutonium that.will bc dcpos-
limo a l k t exposure fycarsl itcd and rctaincd in the lung will dc-
pcnd in a complcx mmncr upon the
physical and chcniical propcrtics of thc
from concern for thc futurc utilization In this brief historical survcy we have spccific matcrial inhalcd, and upon Ihc
of plutonium. but also from thc rcali- neglectcd many smallcr projccts as wcll rcspiratory charac!cr;stics of thc pcnon
ration that more nunierous d a h arc as substantial contributions from othcr who inhalcs thc plutonium. Plutonium
requircd froni larger animals studied countries. Studics in thc Unitcd King- acrodynamically capablc of reaching
ovcr ,longer pcriods of h i e . Currcnt dom havc bccn closcly coordinafcd thc alvcolnr rcgions of thc lung will
interest centcrs on thcsc larger cxpcri- with cfforfs in thc Unitcd Statcs and bc largcly rctaincd in thc lung or sys-
mcntal efforts. . have madc significant contributions, tcmically rcdihtributcd within the body.
Studies with injcctcd plutonium in particularly in rcgard to plulonium Entry of plutonium ihrough wounds
bcaglc dogs. initiated at the University binding at thc niolccular lcvcl in blood has occurrcd in industry. Dcpcnding
of Utah in 1952. wcre cxpandcd i n thc and bone. Frcnch and Russian rcscarch upon thc nature and quantity of pluto-
1960's to includc niorc animals at lowcr cBoris havc bccn substantial and arc nium dcpositcd a n d thc location of thc
exposure Icvcls. and to includc animals becoming more widcly known, as is also wound, thc plutonium may bc sloughcd
exposed to otbcr transuraniuni elcmcnts n growing effort by the Germans and off with damagcd tissuc, accumulate in
(5). Studies at Batfcllc's Pacific North- Japanese ( I ) . regional lymph nodcs, be largcly trans-
west Laboratorics, Richland, Washing- located !o othcr tissues, or remain in
ton, on the long-term effects of inhaled situ.
plutonium dioxide, involving an initial Routes to Mnn Plutonium docs not easily pcnctnte
-65 dogs exposed in the late 19SO's, wcre physiologic membranes. Its limited
expandcd in 1970 and 1971 t o include Plutonium has found its way to man, biological transportability makcs plu-
a n additional 120 dogs exposcd to lowcr in readily measurablc quantities, only tonium a poor candidate for accumula-
doses of polydispcrse aerosols of through occupational exposure, whcre tion along environrncntal food c h i n
"OPuO... and 120 more dogs arc cur- the rcute is usually direct-by ingcs- pathways. The absorption of plutonium
rently being exposed to '38Pu02 (6). tion. inhalation, or by way of a Pluto- from soil through the root system of
Coordinated with this effort is a study nium-contaminated wound. These di- plants is vcry limited. Discrimin3tion
of inhaled monodisperse plutonium rect routes of entry will be considcrcd factors (concentrntion-in-plent/concen-
aerosols in beaglcs at the Lovelace first; the possibilities for plutonium tration-in-soil) are of the order of IO-'
Foundation for Medical Education and reaching man through a more gencral to (16). If thc plant is eaten by
Research in Albuquerque, New Mcxico contamination of his environment wilt man, less than 10-4 of thc plutocium
(7). A third part of this effort is under thcn be examined. is absorbed from thc intcstine (12):
way at the Los Alamos Scientific Labo- Alpha radiation from plutonium on or if first caten by an animal, which is
ratory where different numbers of micro- the skin surface does not pcnctrafe 10 in turn consunled by man, two gasvo-
spherical particlcs containing different the sensitive basal layer of the epithc- intestinal absorption factors of lo-'
amounts of 218Pu and x9Pu arc dc- lium. Absorption of plutonium through must be applied.
posited in the lung capillaries of ham- {he skin occurs only to a very slight If plutonium is to reach man via
sters (8). The practical occupafional degree, and probably only whcn thc environmcntal routes. physical transpoR
problem of plutonium-contaminatcd skin is damagcd ( I J ) . Ingested pluto- seem; more likely than biological trans-
wounds is bcing studied in beagles at nium is poorly absorbcd from the gas- port. Thus, plutonium in the soil might
Colorado State University ( 9 ) . trointcstinal tract; only 0.002 pcrccnt bc rcouspcndcd and either dcpositcd on
Of special interest is thc continued of a 0.01N nitric acid solution of plu- food or dirccfly inh.alcd by man. Graz-
surveillance of human beings who have tonium(1V) nitratc was absorbcd whcn ing animals, inhaling ncar soil level.
been exposed occupationally to Pluto- fed lo rats and pigs (JZ). Infrcqucntly might bc particularly pronc to such up-
nium during thc past ncarly 30 years. cncountcrcd chemical forms may bc takc of rcsuspcndcd plutonium. The
This activity. undcr thc title of thc U.S. absorbcd to a grcntcr extcnt. A fcw many complex vnriablcs involved in
Transuranium Registry. is Coordinated tenths of a pcrccnt of ingcstcd pluto- such physical redistribution of cnviron-
by thc Sianford Environnicntal Hcnlth nium citratc is abborbcd; up to 2 pcr- nienfel piutoniunl tvould sccni to defy
Foundation with thc coopcration of ccnt of hcxavalcnt plutonium corn- pnranictric cvnluation. Sonic informa-
Battcllc's Pacific Northwot Lnboratorics pounds or chclntc coniplcxcs may bc tion has bscn obfaincd, hcrwcvcr. from
nnd Los hlanios Scicntific Laboratory absorbcd (13). Very young rats show thc obscrvntion of actunl cxpnsurc situ-
and with data bcinr:- supplicd
.. by othcr an cnhanccd gnstrointcstinnl absorp- ations following ficld tcsts or nccidunts
participating laborntorics ( 1 0 ) . tion of pluloniuni; 0.25 pcrccnt for involving pluloniuiii. Jnckr:ibhits in-
716 SCILNCII. VOL. 182.

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~oniumcompounds,
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.
Systernic distribrrtion of plutonium
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 bc-
havior 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, pluto-
nium is prone to hydrolyze at physio-
logical pH. Such "polymeric pluto-
nium." 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 spc-
cics, including man, is shown in Fig. 3.
Plutonium in blood is associatcd with
the iron-binding protcin. transfcrrin
( 3 0 ) ; thc stability of this complcx cx-
na
-
V.8-71
Tahlr I . Conccntrntion of plutonium In ti$wpI half-tirnc of about 8 ycars ( 3 1 ) . h s c d
InLrn nl n i i t r q v y Ii,,ni n humnn brinr: c r p o d
occupnlionally l o tho tlrrnrni. [Dnta tram on cxtrapolntion of d:ita from scvcrnl
&'chon ct d. (Z.C)] animal spccics. a hsl[-timc of 40 ycais
Pluloniwn has bccn c\tinia!cd for thc rctcntion
Tirsuc (picocuricf of plutonium in thc livcr of man (24).
m m ) Doric. Plirloniurn circirl~tingin blood
Lymph nodrr as a transferrin complcx is prcfcrcn-
Carina 61 tially dcpositcd on thc cndostcd surfaces
Intrapulrnonnty 20
of bonc whcrc i t is in a good posilion
Hrlnr 12
tlcpatic 1 0.18 to irradiafc tlic cclls which arc thc prc-
LMng sunicd sitcs of canccr induction (33).
Plcurn ond subpleurn 0.52 Dcpcnding upon thc ratc ol growth and
Pxcnchyrnn 0.009 rcmodcling of thc parlicular bonc, plu-
Other tonium may rcniain on f h c bonc sur-
Lumbar vertcbrm 0.34
fib 0.10 face, it may bc buricd by apposition of
Livcr 0.04 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-
plains the long timc that plctonium re- 'gratc through thc bonc marrow (34).
mains in blood. Bccausc of its migration to less scnsitivc
Livcr. About onc-third of infravc- sites, thc critical pcriod for cxposurc
nously injcctcd plutonium citratc is dc- lo bonc-dcpositcd pluroqium may bc a
positcd in thc livcr of bcaglcs ( 3 1 ) . limitcd onc and may bc much shorter
This plutonium i s initially dcpositcd in thc young. growing animal than in
quite uniformly in thc hcpatic cclls thc aduli. An autoradiogram illustrating
( 3 2 ) . Within thcsc cclls ,it is associatcd thc dcposition of plulonium in bone is
with thc iron-binding protcin. fcrritin, shown in Fig. 4. .
and is accumulatcd in lysosomcs. Ovcr Mcasilrcd half-timcs for gross rctcn-
3 pcriod of ycars thcrc is a tendcncy tion of plutonium in bonc havc ranged
for agzrcgation of plutonium within rc- from about a year in mice, to scvcral
ticulocndo!hclial cclls and for comprcs- ycars in rats and rabbits, and to more
sion of thc oldcr, plutonium-ladcn cclls than IO ycars in dogs (24, 2 6 ) . A half-
by rcgcncrating arcas of fhc livcr ( 3 2 ) . time of 100 ycars has been estimatcd
During thc first 1000 days aftcr injcc- for retention of plutonium in the skcle-
tion, any loss of plutonium from thc ton of man ( 2 4 ) .
livcr sccms to bc balanccd by an sinput Other risnrrs. T i s s u e other than liver
of plutonium translocatcd from bone. and bonc account for abcut 10 percent
Beyond 1000 days, thc amount of plu- of thc total plutonium in man 1 year
tonium in the liver decreases with a artcr intravcnous injcction of plutonium
citratc, according to the rathcr meager
data obtrincd from human bcings ( 4 ) .
100 Studics in scvcral animal spccics havc
al givcn no indication, howcvcr, that tis-
n o Human being
sues olher than livcr. bonc. and lung
-
U
0
0 accumulatc sufficient plutonium io be
of critical conccrn ( 2 6 ) .
-
.-
U
.c IO Excretioti. Probably thc most extcn-
0 sive Qiological data on plutonium are
E those rtlatcd to its cncrction in urinc
and fcccs. This is bccausc analysis of
-
-3
0
cxcrcta is the most scnsitivc indicator.
--a
0
and in many cascs thc only indicator.
.-'2 LO of thc prcscncc of plu:oniimi in thc
body. In thc cvnluatioii of human sys-
m
2
.-" tcnlic dcposition of plutoniuni, thc fol-
.-c lowing equation has usunlly bccn cm-
ploycd:
I?
0.1
0 I 10 15 20 25 30 I5 Initial intake =
dnily urinary cscrction/0.002 I-."
Days a l t e r Injection
whcrc t is the timc in days sincc intake
Fig. 3. Rctcnlion of plutonium in the blood
nftcr i n t r n v c n o u s 'iiriccrion of plutonium. (3). Total cscrction is cstinratcd to bc
( I V ) citrntc. [Modificcl from Durbin (4)) nbout 5 pcrccnt during thc first 20 Jays
SCII!NCII. VOL. I S 1

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 plu-
toniuni csposurc. hlany workcrs cx-
poscd to plutoniuni havc bccn g r k t l y
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 ~ n s u r a n i ~ ~ ' , ~ ~ c g iwas
s t r ycstablislhd
in 1965 to rnkiiniirc the-biological and
mcdical inbr::iation obtainablc from
cxboscd w o ~ h r r s ( 1 0 ) . 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 plu-
tonium dcpositcd on bone surfaccs, or
rclcascd from bonc into thc marrow.
At lower doses of plutonium, effects
o n 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 kilo-
gram 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
1m R U A R Y 1914
V.8-72
ous. iiitr;ipcritonc;il, or oral dniiiiktra-
lion ( 3 9 ) . Uy d l of thcsc routcx, bonc
.x?rconins wcrc iiiduccd whcn thc avcr-
agc radiation closcs in bonc wcrc as
low as 30 to 70 rads ( 4 0 ) . Prom t h o c
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 pcr-
ccnt pcr rad'for niicc, aiid 0.06 pcrccnt
pcr rad for rats. Thcsc nunibcrs, it
should bc cmpliasizcd. rclatc to thc av-
cragc 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 inci-
dcncc f i y r c s is thc findiiig in the Utah
studics that plutonium-~39 is fivc to
AL.Ld. . Icn tinics niorc toxic than radium-226
on thc basis of thc samc total cncrgy
Fig. 4. Autoradiograph showing dcpo\i[ion
of pluloniuni on thc surfacc of a bonc dclivcrcd to bonc ( 5 ) . This diffcrcncc
rpiculc of a bcnglc. 1 day aficr injcc- is attributablc to thc morc hazardous
[ion of plutonium(1V) citrate. [Courtcsy localization of plutoniuni on bonc sur-
of w. s. s. .lee] faces. Thc surfacc-to-volumc ratio in
trabccular bonc of man is about half
that in thc bcaglc. Since plutonium is
of ostcosarcomi. In Table 2 arc shown dcpositcd initially on bonc surfaccs, its
thc data on bone tumor incidcncc in conccntration at thcsc surfaccs in man,
thc bcaglcs studicd at thc Univcr- rclativc to thc avcragc conccntration
sity of Utah (36). Thc incidcncc of in total bonc, should-bc twice that in
bonc sarconia is high in all groups of thc dog. Thc ratc at which surfacc dc-
dogs for whom complctc data arc avail- posits bccamc buricd by apposition of
able. With dccrcasing dosc the time to ncw bonc in the 1.5-ycar-old dogs of
tumor appcarancc incrcascs. Grcat intcr- thc Utah study was probably tcn tinics
cst ccntcrs on thc dogs in thc lower dosc that to be cxpcctcd in adult man. Both
groups, injcctcd in the latcr part of the of thcsc factors would suggcst a grcater
cxpcrimcnt, and only now approaching toxicity of plutonium-rclativc to ra-
thc point whcn thcy might bc cxpcctcd dium-in nian than in thc dog ( 4 1 ) .
to dcvclop tumors. Thc comparison with radium is im-
Studics in rodcnts havc also indicatcd portant bccausc of thc abundancc of
ostcosarcoma as thc most scnsitivc data on thc toxicity of radium in hu-
effcct of plutonium injection (37,38). man bcings. Thcsc data scrvc as thc
In studics of many hundreds of rats, basis for all cvaluations of thc hazards
Russian workers havc rcportcd ostco- of intcrnally dcpositcd bonc-sccking
sarcoma induction aftcr inhalation, in- radioactive elcnicnts in human bcings.
tratracheal, subcutaneous. intracutane- 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
.
injcctcd DO5 Sarcomar/
(microcurie/ (No.) dcaths Mean timc from Rads io
kilogram) exposure io
skeleton*
._ - .
death Ivcnn)
2.9 . 9 119
iiji2
-.-
4.1 _.""
dam
0.9 1 12 3.6 1300
0.30 12 12/12 4.5 600
0.095 I2 10/12 1.2 310
0.0411 13 9/13 8.5 190
0.016t 13 4/12

,. - _ .
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 cx-
posurc bccausc of plutonium-induced
pulnionary insuflicicncy. Twenty-two
dogs that survivcd morc than 1600 days
had malignant lung tumors. Thc csti-
matcd initial alvcolar dcposition in the
dogs with lung tunion was 0.2 to 3.3
niicrocurics o r 0.003 to 0.05 micro-
curie 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 d a 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 haz-
ard 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 inhala-
tion to niorc solublc forms of pluto-
nium, 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 in-
volved. Inhaled insoluble plutonium
will niost probably rcsult in lung tu-
mors; 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 it\ toxicity in cxpcriii1cnt;il niiininls,
v. 8- 73
thcrc has bccn n continuiny. cllort & siibwlilcnily ndoptcd by both thc ICi:.l’
dcvclop coiintcrnicnwrcs for trcntnicnt nnd thc Nntion;il Council on Rndi;ltion
or coiit:iniinnfcrl iiiclivithinls. Dy far flic Prntcction (NCKI’);tnd has pcrsihtcd
niost cffcctivc of tlicsc proccdurcs tins to thc prcscnt day ( 8 ) .
bccn tlic surgical rcnioval of tissucs Thc 40-nanocuric limit for plutoni-
ndjnccnt to contaniinatcd wounds. For um, as originally dcrivcd, was bascd
thc rcnioval of systcniically distributcd upon thrcc major asumptions: (i) that
plutonium. thc only clinically approvcd coniparison with the limit of 100 nano-
proccdurc is that involving ndniinistra- curics for radium is Zcccptablc a s a
tion of the chclating agcnt, dicthylcnc- standard; (ii) that bonc, which is thc
triamincpcntaacitic acid (DTPA). Thc critical organ for radium, may also bc
DTPA forms a vcry stablc chclntc coni- considcrcd thc critical organ for plu-
plcx with phitoniiim which is thcn cx- toniuni: and ( i i i ) that comparative cf-
crctcd in urinc ( 4 2 ) . fccts of radium and plutonium on thc
Scvcral hundred ~ C O P I C have bccn bonc of animals can bc meaningfully
trcatcd with DTPA following incidcnts cxtrapolatcd to man. An evaluation of
of plutonium contamination; thc DTPA the 100-nanocuric limit for 22ORa
is usually adniinistcrcd by a scrics of would bc bcyond thc scopc of this arti-
intravcnous injcctions or by inhalation. clc. Suficc it to say that no radiation
Rcnioval of about SO pcrccnt of the cxposurc limit is bcttcr supportcd by
plutonium that would othcnvisc bc rc- human data on dose-cllcct relationships
taincd is probably an cxccptionally good than thc limit of 100 nanocurics for
rcsult (43). Much bcttcr rcsults arc ob- radium ( 4 5 ) .
taincd in animal cxpcrimcnts, whcrc With rcgnrd to the sccond a m - p -
larger DTPA doscs can be cmploycd tion, it is clcar from animal studics :;-it
and the timing of trcatment optimizcd bonc cannot bc always considered ~c
(44). critical organ for plutonium. The cx-
Inhalcd, insoluble plutonium is not posurc of livcr. lung. and lymph nodcs
clfcctivcly mobilized by DTPA trcat- must also be considered.
mcnt, nor by a widc variety of physio- In thc case of bone, whcrc compari-
logicnlly activc materials that havc bccn son with radium is Icgirinialc, can the
tcstcd ( 4 2 ) . Pulmonary lavagc-irriga- comparativc cllccts mcasurcd in ani-
tion of thc lung with physiological sa- mals bc cxtrapolatcd to man? The
line solution-has rcmovcd as much ICRP and NCRP assumc ; h t plutonium
as SO pcrccnt of thc plutonium dc- is five timcs morc hazardous th-n r:.di-
posited in lungs of rau. dogs, and ba- um, because of its morc hazardou; Ic-
boons ( 4 2 ) ; when uscd in one human calization in bonc. Rcsults from do2
being with lung-dcposited plutonium, studics at thc University of Utah i;di-
thcrc was evidence of some plutonium catc that this factor falls in the r z q
rcmoval (7). . of S to 10. There is rcason to bclicvc
that the factor would be higher in man.
bccausc of man’s lower bone surface
Evaluation of H a r t & and ?ea iclativc to total bonc volumc, and
Exposure Limik bccausc of man3 slowcr turnovcr of
plutonium from bonc surfaces. From
n e ’ first attempt to evaluate the this Iinc of rcasoning one would con-
hazardous effects of plutonium in man cludc that thc 40-nanocuric limit for
and to cstablish cxposurc limits was plutonium i s scvcralfold “less safc” for
made in 1944. On the basis of thc ac- bonc than thc 100-nanocuric liniit for
ccptcd pcrniissiblc body burdcn of 100 raditini.
nanocurics for radium. and with the Comparison with radium is not ap
muniption of equivalent toxicity for prcrprinte when the critical orgin is
cqual energy dcposition by radium and other than bone. In the case of lung.
plutonium. a value of 300 nanocurics if onc follows thc customnry apprc3cS
was dcrivcd is 3 pcrniissiblc body bur- of limiting cu;upiticnd;y in:urrcd ndi-
den of plutonium. A s cspcrinicntal evi- ation dLws 10 15 rr‘m (GJ) pcr y r x ,
dence on plutonium toxicity w u ac- the mxxiniiini Fcrr.iiss3S:c lung d s y s i t
cumulated. this early limit was revised becomes 16 nanosurics. or 0.016 nano-
downward until. in 1949, a confcrcncc curic pcr gram of lung. This conccntra-
bctwccn Dritish. Canadian, and Anicri- tion may bc coniparcd with a lcvel of
can rcprcscntntivcs at Chalk Rivcr, On- I nanocuric pcr grain of lung. which
tario. initiated discussions that led to sccnis not t o sliortcii the survival tinic
an iiitcrnntioii;illy ncccptcd pcrniissihlc of n hc;iglc dog (Fis. 5 ) . The iii;irsin
hody biirdcii of 40 nanociirics. l h i s of s t f s t y is less t1i:iii tot;illy wasstirins
v;~hic for riccrrprt/iorinl c.~~ii~.vrtrc \vas h i u i i w of ilic ;il~so~iccof clatn for
SClliNCR, VOL. 1115

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 niiich mora
mtriclive liniit \vouId ha dcrivcd th;in
I ~biisrdI QII d ~ s cIO 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 bud 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~pationalcsposurc and cxposurc of
thc p n c r a l population. A major prob-
Lm is the basic contradiction of a sys-
tcm 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 distri-
bution of dosc, or the cficct of very
high doscs to vcry small volumcs of tis-
l
cue, to handle the problom in any othcr
way.
It should be notcd that coniniittcc
.of thc ICRP and NCKP arc continu-
ally rcvicwing permissible cxposurc
Emits for plutonium and other radio
ouclidez. We arc membcrs of bot
&csc committccs; it is our persona
rim that plutonium cxposurc limits
will bc changcd within thc next fcw
yean, in thc direction of tightcncd con-
trol-that .is. lowered permissible cx-
posurcs; 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 plu-
tonium 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
ifplutonium wcrc a problcni for a fcw
FEBRUARY 1914
V.8-74
= Ilk-‘ “LJ
im 1m Moo
Survivrl lune ( d r y s rflrr2aposure)
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 dc-
rivcd from plutonium. an agc whcn
tcns of thousands of pcoplc may bc
w,ilking our strccts with cardiac assist
dcviccs powcrcd 6 y -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 inten-
sive 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 possi-
blc clTccts of plutonium in man. Wc
should also takc advantage of acci-
dentally cxposcd cnvironnicnts to lcarn
all wc can, in a real-life situation, about
the niovcmcnt of plutonium in the bio-
sphcrc.
More data o n ’ toxicity arc rcquircd
from studics of animals cxposcd to the
lowcr amounts of plutoniuni that ap-
proach thosc now considcrcd safc for
man; such data arc nccdcd for P widcr
varicty of plutonium isotopcs and com-
pounds. Wc arc too dcpcndcnt upon
data from rodcnts and bcaglcs which
may-and in a11 likelihood do-posscss
pccularitics in thcir handling of plu-
tonium 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 ttmor 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 ma-
tcrials that arc prcscnt in such small
quantities, SO invisiblc and mystcrious
in thcir ection. wliilc at thc .same
tinic
so rcadily dctcctablc. This same com-
bination of widcsprcad conccrn. scicn-
tific acccssibility. and small bulk. should
provc uniqucly advanlagcous for thcir
futurc control. Thc kcy to this control
is grcatcr kiiowlcdgc-knocvlcd:c tlm
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 w r o -
, tiitus Blrnirnrr. Kiclolw~d, I V e c A L i ~ r o r ~1971.
.
puhli3hcd in llralrl! l%pJ. 12, 511 11972): D.
J . Siovcr and W. S. 5. Jec. EA.. Radiobiol-
UEY 01 I’ir,rot,it,t,t (1. w. rrcTr. s:lit L J ~ C
City. Uiah, 1972): J, N. Stannard. Ed.. I l n n r l -
l o o k nl &,rprrliiim~ral Pharntarolopy. Ura-
n i r m . rlwo,ti#t#t8 and rhc Trnnr-Plsronrc &IC-
nrcnrr. in prcss.
2. I. C. Hamilton. R~diolo#y49, 325 (1947); K .
0. SCOII. D. 1. Axclrod. 11. Fnhcr. 1. F.
Crowlcy..J. G. Hamilion. .I. D i d . Cl#r;u. i i 6 ;
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.
301 (1956).
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. UII.
10. 1. A. NOICWS; and C. E. Ncwton. Jr.. ihid..
P. W87.
11. W. I t . Langhnl. ibld. 1, 172 (1959).
12. M. H. Wcckl. 1. Kalz. W. D. OaLlcy. J. E.
DallOtl. L. A. GCOIFC, L. K. DUslad. R. C.
7hompron. H. A. Kornbcrg. Radior. Res. 4.
3.19 (19561.
11. D. W. Daxicr and M. F. Sullivan. Ilralrh
ri,gr. 21. 185 (1972).
14. 1. E. Dallou. Proc. Sot. E x p , Bdol. Mrd. 98.
126 (1958)
 v.0-75

plill. a O:Opi!y,\-
ci\: c'n Icavc from the I.EC'; L::r:cncc Lnbr,rn:ory a t
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 l o r v,atcr-xolcd reactor: cy 3 factor
or 100.)
I?cspitc i t s s m l l s i x , the NRDC bar scored somc

E:nvironmentd Group Proposes a 3rnconia.x Answer

hcco:ding to a position papci' p r c p i c d by T a q l i n
and SXDC phjsicir: Thcr,iar E. Cochran. picjent s!an-
duds sct Ihc niaxim:Jr.? ~crmissibicr a d i ~ t i o ndosc to a
n u c l c x worker a t 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 pub-
lic 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 coniy 0.016 mic:ocuric of plutor.ium
oxide dust, or abou: S3,OOO acrcsol particlci.
Using f i ~ u r c rprcseotcd i n 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 t a m S rcm to
. thc wholc body is I i n 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.
T h e Acldcmy's repoit. however. did net dcal with
'- :hc hot-p~rticlcprob!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
vlrrly out of pro2or:mn OI the o ~ ~ i adose l l 1i.c). deliver
'
lo the cnlirc lung. Tti\ hy?othcsis i s b x c J i n 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 i n a "ralirc-
thc l.tba;A;ory 1351 ).car and is now on
.
the facul!y oi thc Univcrrity of Xiinncrola.
Gccsarnm calcuhicd ihr: i f one wcrc :3 inhale thc
ollowcd .53,0D0 piutoni,lm p;iri:clcs ( f o r a n ovcrail iung
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 a r j i ~ r a r i l ypick 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 parti-
cles-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 c m i c r casi is clcariy linkcd to plu-
toniuni cxposuic. :iitliough rcvcral hundred worlcrr
h a w 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 a t lo\vcr Icvsis. Thc A E C is supporting ncw
bcnplc rludics with much lower ICVCIS of crposure. but
lhcy s t i l i have a Ions timc to rila.
In ihc alxsncc of cauni:iA- sor;xii. ianinc or uthcr-
wisc, tlic X!IDC i s I ~ L i l vi o c.:countzr the samc rc,ts:-
m c c from thc :adiAtisn skr.dArJc cs:.ab!ishmcnt 11121 Isd

, Cccnm:n mt!:~>>tcd,cariics
L risk of bciwccn I In 1000 n r d I in ;O.GOO of cJusinC
 V.8-76
9

,. e A town frets over A E C S radioactive

..
1
oversights.
. BY i ~ i ~ i a rJ.n k n o u e t t e . tected by the state health department in us; The trltlum problem w3s an unuscai
FBOM BROOilFIELD, COU). Aprll. The department’s monthly water and UnprcUctable incident, but, it CCE-
sampllng a t Walnut Crcek, which flows cerns us very much because if you C ~ Z
‘*If I’d known about that plant In 1969 fFom the plant to the rcservoir, rcvcaled have one incident you can have another.”
’ trliat I know about It now, I’d never have abnormally high levels of tritium. Slck says he believes that the every-
morcd here,” Hank S:ovall said one night Aceordin: to calculations released by day ,operations at Rocky Fln:s are very
::a: long ago. “I thought thls was a quiet the Dow Chsmical Co. after the tritium safe, bat he remains eoticcrncd aSout liz-
i.’:lC town, with good servlccs. And It Is. spill Was announced, a Broomfieid resi- schcduied aiid undetected rc!eases C:
i;iU I never realized my family and I’d be
dent drinking the clty’s water for one year radioactive, waste. AEcther unschcdo!ed
tirinking radioactive garbage.” would receive about 2s much radiation as release-iast Octobcr-produced plutonicr;
Stovall, a productlon cneineer and a person flying from Denver to New York, levels of 235 picocuries Fer litcr of wa:i-:
:ather of SIX, was one of about two dozen or about one-iifth the radiatlon he would in Walnut Crcek, just above the reservo:r.
Broomfield residents who crowded into receive from wearin; a radium-dial wrist The health standard for plutonium :r,
the basement of the Mamie Doud Eisen- watch. But some scientists a r c nct re- drinking water is 1,GOO picocuries. “We’ve
hower Public Library one fall evening assured by such calculations. noting that also found traces of strcntium 90 acd
to attend a City Councli meeting. t h e new source of tritium is in addition one classified isotope, but ln sma:i
“That plant” is the Rocky Flats Plant. to other radiation a person recelves. amounts,” he says.
tan Atoniic Energy Commlssion (AEC) fa- The appearance of strontium 90 sur-
clllty that has been run on contract by the KO Deductions ’

prised the Rocky Flats personnel tecaus2

Dow Chcmlcal Co., slnee It was built In Normal “background” levels of trltium their operations don’t routineiy include it.
1951. I t Is also the source of the town’s a r e about 1,000 picccuries per liter of “Untll the tritium episode we cnly ana-
contamin.tted water, a fact that Broom- water.in this part of the country. When lyzed our effluents for plutonium raGio-
fleld ccddcnts dlscovered In mid- state inspectors found levels of 30,OCO plco- activity because that’s our bag, that’s
September. Curies on April 24. and 3 million picocuries what we deal with he,fe.” says AEC
More disconcerilng to some resldents on May 24, they aleitcd the AEC and spokesman Jim Nicks. But now we’re
was the‘::liscovery that the AEC didn’t Dow of their findings. Rocky Flats per- monitoring Walnut creek and the settling
even r c A e tliere was radioactive leak- sonnel replied that they didn’t make or ponds dally for all radionuclldes.”
.age untU the state found it. process any tritium a t the plant and
couldn’t possibly be the source. Dow’s Reaction
Uneasy From the Start But they were, according to later verlfl- Yet another surprise to the AEC was
The Rocky Flats plant Is the country’s cation by both the state and the AEC. the presence oi radioactive contamhan:s
only A E S facllity for processing pluto- State and Federal officials add, however, -including tritium and strontium 9C-in
nlum, a hlghly toxlc. radioactive sub- that the permissible safety level for trl- a landfill off the plant site that wasn’t
stance wlfh a half-life of 24.000 years. supposed to contain any nuclear waste.
(The half-life of a substance is the time The AEC says it has no explanation for
requlred for half of its radioactive atoms Coping thls situation, Which was discovered by
the State after the tritium incident.
to disintegrate to a nonradioactive form.)
The plant’s 3,000 employes manufacture To some, the tritium release itself is
nuclear $warheads and bomb triggers for tium in drinking water was one mliiion not as disturbing a s the way the AEC and
the Defenst Department, and they reproc- picocuries, and the highest level found in Dow dealt with it:
ess and wcover the valuable and danger- the town’s reservoir was 23,000. v On Sept. 14, four days before 8 ti.?
ous plutoiium from the scrap of other Tnese reassumices did little tt cal.7. tr:;ium rc:cxc \*:as ?r.nr?unccrl by tke
AEC facilities. the residents of Broomfield. Sales of bot- state heaith department. but nearly five
Broom3eld residents have felt uneasy tled water a t the local Safeway super- months after the department first told
about Rocky Flats from the beginning be- market more than quadrupled, and sup DOW it suspected tritium contamination.
cause the four-square-mile site runs along plies were sold out for several days after Dow issued a press release lauding tke
the westcrn slde of the town of 13,000 the Sept. 18 annouccement. Demand has company‘s successful “environmentai
persons. The plant has also given some fallen somewhat since then, and it is LOW monitoring program.”
concern to residents and public Officials about double what it was in middeptem- v When presscd for an explanation by
ln Boulder. 11 miles north, and in Denver, ber. “Can I deduct the price of bottled Republican ‘Rcp. Donald Broizman, who
8 miles southeast. But a s Broomfield’s water from my municipal water bill?” represents the Broomfie:d area. the AEC‘s
City manager, George DiCiero. puts it: one resident quipped. ‘.‘No,” replied a city Washington headquarters as late a s S e g
“We have the dubious distinction of being official, smiling. tember denied any responsibility for tke
hlt flrst by iinything escaping.;’ “Our first reaction.” DiCiero says, tritium release.
“Was that the AEC shouldn’t be emitting v Some Koeky Flats officials sug-
Tritium in the Wafer e. any radioactivity above natural back-
Broomfield’s d!stinction has been ground levels. And if their safety proce- gested publicly that the tritium release
.earned on niore than a dozen occasions dures had worked, this situation really was the result of sabotage, although r.5
In the past 22 years, although three inci- shouldn’t have occurred. But the AEC evidence has been citcd.
dents a r e referred to most often by resi- didn’t even know it was r e l e s i n g tri- v Afier a search of records, Rocky
dents. One is a plutonium fire in May tium, and ‘wasn’t equipped to test for it. Flats officials concluded that the pluto-
1969 which led to the contamination of It was t h e state t h a t first picked it up. nium wastc that contained tritium hzd
several acres of land around the site and The spill occurred in April and May, but come from the Lawrence Liverrnxe
caused damage estimated a t between $15 it took them until mid-September to con- L a b o r a t o r y in California, and ti.eY
mllllon and $75 million. Another is the firm t h a t there was evcn something blamed that AEC installation for not warz-
accldental release of plutonium waste into wrong. J u s t imagine if it had been a ing them of this fact. Llvcrmore spo:xs-
Broomfleld’s Great Western Rescrvolr. serious discharge. That after-the-fact men said they assumed all the trltium had
just east of the plant, in October 1972. testing procram just isn‘t good enough.” been removed and thus didn’t boCler W
The accldrnt now on everyone’s mlnd, Robert Siek, the sta!e’s director of
and a principal to2ic of concern a t re- occupational and radiolo~lealhealth, says:
cent City Council meetings Is the reicase “We were confident thcre was no hcalth
7- --
of tritium, a radionctive hydrogen isotope, hazard to thr people of Broomfield. Our
into 3 e local ariiiking wa:er last cpring. real worry was for the potential of P
Broomfield’s problems were first de- health hazard that thls Incident showed

.... ~
 V.8-77

!
rewrt that the plutonlui~. had once con- city werc biril: on lsndfiii rsn;arr.ina:?d doli': do something to coriect :h's sil-nt!on
talned It. v ~ i t k cr$niiim-,~!r.o !ailin;sl. If y02':e thc:. we and Sur kids n l l l cmtinuc 13
drii!X 2nd use t h i s !v.ntcr. and :,pray it on
o x l:i'.vx. And if thnt gces o n for vcrv
Icn: :hen the town of Dioo:x:ield aiid its
p c o 3 : ~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.''
-~

I. Rocky Flats v:ould no^ be :oilo:ved at

other AEC Iaciiitks, 'Curnc: Culling'
' The Rocky Fkts PI:ln'., W h k t 3lreodg
"Anytime yoc k3ve a dull a n d (!an-
geroiis iob beicx done in :0L31 secrecy;
:hc pcople doing t h a t ]OD s r e going t o
cut corners:* says Metzger.
The Brwmfleld cocncil h a s ' VQted
! by th? end of lsir;, t h c Iaci::::~ 'svill hc stll- unnnixoiisly to send a l c r w to the AEC
.
I containcd and.. ~. . - s!! Wastes
i t wi!l recsc:?
! and haul them to AT'C l x m l !qrix:s in
~~
de!r.~;.o:zp that the agency bui:d- :hC
retcn:iu:i reservoir 3nd divcrt the crc'e):
j other stdtes. 'The A E C :!so 2:nris to buy imniedi3tci?. Th2y 3150 asked tbat no
, 4.070 acres aroiind i?ocky Fiats 1'1 create ore r.?dioaclive '.vase be r e l e x c d from
the Rocky Flats P13nt.
 145 THE ATOMICESTADLtSIISlENT
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 oc-
curred attests to its special nature. It was a plutonium fire, and the
problem was not so much dcstruction as it was radioactive con-
tamination.
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 oc-
currcd 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 ~
The day after the fire, Robcrt Hollingsworth, the general manager ‘
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 glove-
box liner itself was made out of six hundred tons of combustible
RADlOXCTlVL W A Y ? - : fllf MOUSE ?!!,I.? RGARE2 :.?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
a Scnate commission, rcquestcd and reccivcd the funds needed to <
rcstore Rocky Flats to full operation. In rctrospcct, it is tcmpting to f”
v
spcculate how many of these contributing causes would cvcr have 03
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 negli-
gence in failing to have some of thcsc basic things at these installa-
tions? 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.
 150 THEATOMICESTABLISHMENT
w r y infen.re r ~ n c h mby 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.237It 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.23sThc 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, ex-
pressing 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 radio-
activity.”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: THEMOUSETHATROARED 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 some-
thing not true, that thc National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had
examined his Idaho opcration and found it safe. Ginkcl never men-
tioned the fact that the NAS had rcviewed AEC radioactive-waste-
disposal practices for years and roundly condemncd not only the <
Idaho operation but AEC atom dumps everywhere they existed!
5”
u
W
4 THE “SUPPRESSED’ 1966 REPORT OF
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
THEEXISTENCE of the NAS reports bccamc known, but nobody out-
side 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 prac-
, tices 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 con-
tained in Seaborg’s r e s p o n ~ 9and
~ ~ in two unsigned AEC ‘staff
 V. 8-80

Tho Atoinic illorgy Comtnisnion id11 hovo t o p r a p n r o m o n v i r o n o n t n l

impzct 3tai.ornont on t h o L i q u i d i i o t n l P 3 t Era !dx- Hmnctor progrim.
This was o r d n r o d by n t h r e a jud[:o c o u r t o f a p p o n l s i n t h o 1 l i 3 % r i c t
of Co!.utnbia, r o v a r s i n g a lowor c o u r c 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, a p p e l 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 p n s s o d boyorid t h o 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 o f ~ O ~ O U ~ C O w S h
, croas
ono ~ u r ; > o s oof t h o I J a t i o n a l ! h v i r o m o n t n l P o l i c y Act, und ) r which
+.pact s t a t o m o n t s 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, b o f o r o comrriitmcnt t o tochnology that h a s
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 b o f o r o c o n s i d :i-Jing t h e
p o s s i S l a n d v s r s o 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 a n i n 2 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 . " kviromcnt 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
b a s n r a p o r t o d , 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 h e C o l o . Committoe f o r Ehvironmontnl I n f o r m a t i o n . March 16.
P l u t o n i i m i s ono of t h s n o s t t o x i c c h o n i c , ? l s known t o man. Martell
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 o f plutonium t h a t "approach
nnd oxcood onc t o n t h o f a p i c o c u r i o p o r p u b i c motcr." Tlii3 lovol
i s h i z h o r t h a n t h o A t o n i c 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 l o v i a l i o p l u t o n i u m c o n t a m i n s t i o n , tho A%C p l n n s 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 a n n t t m p t t o o x t z n d 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 h o u s i n g dov?lopaionts a r o r a p i d l y s x t a n d i n g
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 ,
 15-Inch Deluge
Tops 1040 Mark
S e t in Sopulpa
Rr J o n ? X i s
Two more bodies IVCN!
found in tiic a\*:;rli~'q tlood-
w a t e r s eiiaul:iiig nnrih
central Oklahoma Thurs-
d,-ay, bringin:: to foiir the
n!imbc; Of p e r c m r klll.d
iv?-caonty nrca.
q Thursday. (Staff Photo b y AI McLau?hiinl
Enid a!onc.
All four oi Ihr drad w r e
locared near thcir homes
Full ?age o f Picturcr on
P a g e 6. Othei Pictures and
Stories on Pager 4 , I I , 16.
him from C n i - wipe G u t a !!cci:ig cnluni:i ___-__
0 persons bcinz 01 :rrarii armor. ir. t h e Brookside nrcn of
Lir attacks o:i .-.:r, rhe naval war, Syria
Cairo suhurhs nml I ~ r n e i rcporled ,:,in.
s nor!hern dcl- IIIC~~IC vrrrions of a battie
of[ the Syrian coast. The
in sources said Grcck Zlerrhant ?Jnr:il~~ Kay Swartwood and Edgar
States !cas prc- Aliiustry said a i Israeli :'ante I>oniicli, 45.
n d a y to rush gunbo;u sank one of its Searchers round Donnc!l
munition to Is- ships, klllm,o tv:o Crew.. some s:s I>IocI~sfroin his
mrn. home, undnr a anchcrl O u t
bridge. Voluiitrrrs froin
itli? said >:gyp- ~ : a r ~ vFriday morning.
fhe s>ri;in command re. I'hil!ips Univrrsily located
~ n c h r dIariher
tI!c girl's body nrar her
___--
mi peninsula :o Continurd o n Pago 2. Col. I
home, but reported no
trace of hcr mother. still
IONS 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 bc-
gan.
wnsiiIscrcm (AP)
I'rczldont N x o n believes
h~ h i s a free hand in
cbrmhint: , i ncw vice prcai-
d e n t and rued not continc
t~:mscil to selecting
"cxcta!xr" witnout 19i6
~ ~ ~ c s ~ l c : ~ambitions,
t ~ : ~ l
\ v h ~ i c I I ~ A S C sources re-
Under the 25th Amend-
mcnt lo the Constitution,
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 eticcatiw liaison of-
Sh<* h.\gc! Srott did not
chin* bill s h ~hasn't
I w r m ! tits cnst yrf.
'i'hc tlct. 20 r.it?ip;iicn
i n ~ ~ In Itw
f u t u I ~ r : ~ l ~cflnr?
- ratilicd in 19Ci. i i i x o n ' 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-
:I
gress members t o su::cst
they should be the Prrsi-
dent's partncrs i n naming
a new vice prcs:dvnt.
One Piixcn asswiatc rni-
phasized 1 ii e President
lee!s he can a c t "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
_-
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 o f Or. .;,
Don Ilnrric. tiic Okinhonin
Cily ilrnltst who I S :r!icr;iI
chairman l i r thc h i n d -
rai-rr.
. . -. . . .
 c
.A. ,c a p c c k d :a hit early r o d tops hy h 6 i c q d e r
Soulh and cast 01 the Cnutinued From r a x e One
r ..,I

Friday. T h u r s d a y and rcscue hit arcas. Ponca City war ‘*.auld forego choosing a
Upsticam. readings at I:IU!CL wcrc out looking lor
bracing lor n crest on the nominee who might prove
Okcene indrcalcd t h e ram- scores a! others re.mrted Canlinurd rrum Page One
paging ri*ier should crest still missing. Arkansas River of more a strong contender for the given out. An exception Tile Hall gala schedulef
near 17 Ice1 in Dovar and 14 o 1 o r s t s along I-:5 than live feet above flood 1976 G 0 P presidential might b e a n answer 10 a lor 8 p.m. Ort. 20 u-iil lei
b.c nca:ig t i ~ r creet O G ~of !*'we caught b e t w c e n stage by Sunday. nomination. a limitation state Dcparlment of Edu-
i:s banks do~rnstream at flondrd low >PIS on ncarly Downstream, Rilslon urged upon the President catiun request lor ils use
Guthrie and Perkins late e w r y strctch above watcr. lo s c r w a spccilird edu-
was warned lo expcct lour by many Dema-rain In
Friday morning. Simlinr ronditionz w r e re- cational function. he said.
F n m w r s and pcrsons ported on thc riighway lent of flooding as the Congress. "I haven't given pcrm~s.
d n a c 10 11w rirrr tram lor +wl!,cm Xnnaas. swell hits ovcr t h e wcck- "I would not limit the sion for any use of t h e
I ~ o v c rdnnvrinlrcam t o ncar School ggmnssiums and end. Prcsident's o p t i o n 5 In iisl," he saia. He alzo said
:lit K ~ ; < ! n r ~ c Rcservoir churches in i'onhawa v;:'ere The U.S. Army Corps 01 seeking a 6UCCesSor." War- he knew 0: no rcqucst lor
XPTC v:nwx? to m o w ani- XI up ;IS eniergrncy ccn- use 01the list.
~rrals and machincry tti tcrs for stranded travcl- Enpinccrs ollice in Tulsa r e n replied, undrrscoring
prepared for a heavy rise t h e description 01 Nixon's Dr. I l a n i r said 7hu:s-
iilr:ic of rafrty ahovc the
I

crs. day IT was ,,,It sure r:h.re

cxpectcd llood levels. 111 I;l:ickwcll. the raginp in the *,sntcr volume at attitude as exprrsscd by tho :tnmri lur tho nt:~ll:ng
>lrana.liiic, ihr Cliikas- C 11i k a s k i a River v;as Keystone Like. whcre the ' other associR1Ca: were obtalncd. bur h o rnid
kia awl tiic Salt Fork 01 slniidiiic at 33 iccl end rtill Canadian and Arkansas The Prcsidcnt's distaste response to the :na!iinc
the Arkansas in Ihe Blark- rising Thursday. as scvcr- inect, when the deluge hits <
un Sunday. for sclccting a c:iretaker
ai rrrillmlr wcrc .Itill un- J
A mr!n spokesman said candidate came so011 allcr

arcnuntrd lor, according
to JroItCc.
?dorr than 101 homes
and tmsincsscs wcrc de-
slruyrd VI' heavily dam-
aged Ly the ' ~ i i l e r . :inti
lhan I1 l c r t above Iloud h o x s and Natio:ial Guard
s l i i ~ e .s1:infIin~ at nn rsti- hdirciplrrc W L ' ~c r i s s-
m:itcd 28 !crt a t 3 p.m. Ex- rrosrine the a r e a search-
act m r : ~ $ u r w w n t s were in: I n r the slrandcd and
imims4blc h c c L c s c the injurcd.
t gauge The highway p;ilro! said
- rwxly cvcry Ray County
tcr w:ts road.. cxccut . lor US. 60
rcp?.ctr~riIo c r w t at an !n- end U S. li7. wx inondat-
r:cdil)lc 34 rm - morc cd and impaasahlc.
1h:in 16 Ice1 :)hove flood Kumcrous hridcrs. In-
sta:c-rarly F r i k i y mora- cluding a railroad hridce
:nc. on I1.S. 64. a r r c icpl,t-lcd
'i'otik:,wa policc rcpartcd washcri out (mr datmgcd.
ncht-iy two dnrrn p ~ r s o n s and travcl ,%is discour-
h:id bccn pluukrd from nerd.
Jury YrCSiIfS
spread support ror the ~ O V -
somc Zj,Ooi) cubic Iect of t h e repurling o! a strong ernor among lcachers in
wa1r.r pcr srcond was undcrcurrerit 01 bipnrlisan his nnlicipatcr~ campaign
bring relcased Irom the opposition to John B. Con- lor re-clection n c x t year.
rcicrvoir Thwsrlay and a nnlly, who is regarded a s a 1Ie said the Ccnr:-al TC- Cenlinecd ~ - r o n trn;e ch
much iarger rclcdsr. per- sponse also has been good ries.
haps a s high a s 70,000 cu- leading potcntial contend- but h e was not in a pusi- b
bic Icct per second. was er lor the 19i6 COP noml-
I n"It
c m u:.cally rmrpa
18 and 4013i;es
lion to cs:ima:e tlic turn-
beirg considered lor near nation. One congressional out. The Xyriad Arena c a n tiye jc:ors lor r a d i t r i
midnight Thursday. sourcc made a Ilat predic- sent 12,ooO. unit1 I:ia)r:s a g w e on 3
The s p l k r s m a n said t h e tion that a Connally nnmi- ?he ercnf will m a r k I? u h o u-ill sit as jc:o:r I
kuge rclease m s not dcli- nation would be rejcctcd Go%.IIail's 43rd birthday. thc CJSP." O u r n s raid.
iiitdy ~ c latct Thursday. by the Senate. The convmtion Oct. 18 O!:m. x n n y or :he ni
and that corps oiricials As duscribed by ~ P S D and 15 at Uie Xlgriad is CY- t ~ r slor jury :t-rilce iu
\vould re-cvalilate thc situ- ciatcs, Kixon's approach l a pcclcd to altract ?O.ooO rrtilrnrd by t t r ixr: olfic
ation Friday morning. t h c scarch lor a n k n r w state teachers. u i l h ii nn1i:ion !hot e
__
F a i r to partly cloudy succcssnr would be wholly person cailcd r.0 longr
skicj. a r c prcdirtcd lor the consistrnt v i t h m a k i n g
Chrisfmas Tree
l i w s a? that address. ,
slate F n d a y . with aftcr- Coimaily his l i e d choicc But there U C T C GO whor
noon highs mostly In the Thc l o r m r r Dcmncratic
10s. Oklahoma City is rorc- Xovrrncr of Tcxas who bc-
cast lo bc mild and nnrtlv r a m c n Rcyublican in Nab'
Is Ihe only man Nixon has
ticire laudcd ~ x h l i c i y as \VASHIliGTOS (AI') - >ldW "Thissaid. was higbly dil ,
cminrntly qualified l o be A 4O-loot Colorado blue
president. spruce arrived on the El- lurbing lo me and I dit
Nixon. in linding a re- lipsr brhiod the \Vhile cusscd if u-ilh Ihr olhe
placrmcnt ror Agnrw. had HOUSC 10 b r i mjudzcs
Thursday as the dis:rirt t h r r r and in a
dwide
pruple
cnllrd on R e p u b l I c a n iww. and a i r limp nrrma-
 -
v .3-83

u /' 7 T u o 3 . Oct. 9 , 1973

3900 C m h i o n 21.
Oklahoma C i t y , OlclC, 73112

Ato0;nic Lmrzy Conitnission

.
,/'

Yasiiing t o n D. C ,,'
/

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
..:.
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
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
coacqt yqrssants. It i s a p p r o p y i a t o a f T i r n i a t i t i v o a c t i o n I n r o -
s-,?c:ct 50 t h o p u ' a l i c 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 i x ? - c s s o d w i t h 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
i n o p o c c i o n Z c p o r t s of t h s Cirnmron f a c i l i t y and t h o , r o l a t o d ' A S E cor-
Tesnondonce with t h e ilerr-IkGoo C o r p ,

As:a conscquozce of t h i s r e v i e w , w e o f f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g a d i i i t i o n a l
commcn-lary :

1. !$e a ~ fcu 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 t y p o p i c t u r o or' a v r o l l conducted o p e r a t i o n a t
C5marron; orio t h a t h o l d no u n u s u a l s a f t g 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 . t h a t thog r o -
p o r t o d 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*
I n that; r e p o r t I J O n o t o d 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 t h a t s i x p r m i o u s l y r e , o r t o d v i o l a t i o n s !.iCI'a ' '

- 9 r t h e r ; . on page 8, u n d e r l i m -P
'
s t i l l uni-ssolvod. 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 -
J-,

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 o n f o r c i n g 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 lfires (:.:arch 5;
18, 1972) and s o v e r a l e x c o s s i v o oxposuros 02
5 , 1973 and Xov.11, 1972.)
%is s i t u a t i o n s o o m s 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 lhave botwcen t e l l i n g t h e p u b l i c t h o u n v a r n i s h e d t x t h
.md .prorr,otii?g n u c l e n r power. !4xilo t h e i r L n s p o c t i o n r o p o r t s 1 2 ' 8 ~ 8
.
c m d i d a j o u t t h o s n f o t y c o n c i i t i o n s , t h o 7 v e r S a l l g seemoa t o ba
p r o t o c ti n g Ke r r-XcG c o
2, *:Ii-o c o n t e n t ?f t h e news s t o r y t o J i m Reid o f t h o D a i l y Oklchocla
of 3 e 2 t . 29, 1973 by y o u r 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 C o r n . 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 p r o b a b l y ltp. ? h i d ' s r o a s o n a b l c c o n c l u s i o n , b a s o d on r ~ h n th o
WXJ told,, i t I2.;-/03 3-n o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n tha2 does n o t c o r r c t l a t o
:,roll with tho ~ ? ~ : - x crodn.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
-?o=.t;. Tilo ;"act t h r l ; sorno v i o l a t i o n s WOPO in:;;.vod was b u r i o d
t h o on& o f t h o sI.d;-;': tkoroi'orc, i;ho.load lii:" :dl1 tor.5 t o '
. . . . -,. c-. . k
~8 1 3 slmtsd i>i>;3*
 \I. 8-84 n

2"

' -q:rthor, 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 Iow l s v o l of radioactivity. 'Ilict necms t o c o n f l i c t w i t h v o r b a 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 b o i n g 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 R i v o r . ) ,

mser:horo i n t h e s t o r y , c o n f u s i o n i s a g a i n c r o n t o d 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 p l u t o n i u m i n t h o 55 -&a:llon d r u m was s o small t h a t i t c o u l d
/

not; go c r i t i c a l . 'do r o s o n t Chat t y p o o f 3mO~co s c r o c n nows, or t o

s u ~ g o s t . t h a 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 i n a d o q u a t o shielding/
. s e p z - n t i o n t o minimize n o u t r o a , a c t i o n . 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 ' n u c l o o r 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 ~ gt o K o r r McGee s t a k e s : "You p r o p e r l y p o i n t o u t
t h a 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 p r o c o d u r e s . 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 t h a r o u g h l y and q u a n t i t a k e l y
a a 1 y m 7
Consoquently, i n view o f y o u r 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 n o t 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
t h a t 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,

F u r t h o r , 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 i n -
d i c a t e t h a t t h o maintononce of , a c c u r a t e d a t a a t t h o g l o v e 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 o f p l u t o n i u m , 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 i m p o r t a n t .
Again, ne do n o t r i n d 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 p l u t o n i u m wasto. C-ono Vith t h o Yind x,ny
a p p l y 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 l o n g
r a n g o cumulative m p o c t , which iis t h o o n l y r a t i o n a l . w n y t o vio;j s o
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 c m i s s i o a
m u s t b o viewed w i t h a l a m . -4 99.79 $.contai,z;r,mt o f P i u t o n i u n , r ' o r
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 i g h t 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

3.
. ..
2 .

4. Xo n o t o J s o r i o u s conceptual oversight i n l i c o n o o i*oquironisnr;s Tor

t h o z d c h u i c n l staff, i. 0. r o d u n d m c g o r n j a d i l y s v a i l n ' 3 l o 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 i k t r i c -
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 c o z c o p t u a 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 s n t i c l p a t 5 n G
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 c o n s o s u o n t l y 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 suporvlzion t o n n i n z i a n b o r n
p r o d u c t i o n L i d s a f o t g w i t h managament t y p o o f i n e x p o r i m c o d workers
113 p r o d u c t i o n p e r s o n n e l .

6. .hot!ior conccpt t h a t you n e e d t o c o n s i d c r i s one t h c t has 5 c x l

found t o b o 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 r o n g onougii t o i n -
s i s t on e i t h e r saro p r o d u c t i o n o r no p r o d u c t i o n , n o p r o d d c t i o n -
n o aay. T n i s 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 / l a b o r - n a n a g e n o n t r e l a t i o n s . Lince
. I
t h e r ' o r c m n 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 yelacions. Further, d i o n an o n l i g h c e n e d p o l i c y p r e v a l i s ,
anot'ner'posizive I'orco may appoar-- a good u n i o n w i l l c ' n a a t i s o 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 ,

I n 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 , w a 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 r e c o r d . This t h e r e f o r e r a i s e s d o u b t s as t o ; < e r r
PicGee's c b i l i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d a i d 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.

7. \lo v o r a a?;pallod Sy t h o many v i o l a t i o n s and p o r s o n n e l ejirnosures

' . . documcn-lod i n yc;ur x p o r t s . I n viow o f t h e over-exposures t o
plU.Loni.cn, we conclude t h a t 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. I t i s a shAnro t h a t p e o n i e so o f t e n ha73 fo
.
bo ~ c o t , e ) c t o c ffron t h o s e c h a r g e d to p r o t ~ c tthGno
3. it hzs noli. becono s o vo?y obvious a2-g >:a re&=.ed tfio t o l o p-h o n e
c a l s f r o m t h e monymous w o r k e r s a t t h e p l u t o n i u m 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 r o p o r t - words a r t c r word5, arid n o
i r q r o v e n c n t occurod. Apparontlg i t ~ 2 . s "no b i z doc3,'' t o nmage-
nicnt. . I n . v i e w of a l l o f t h e f o r o g o i n s , t h e workers c a l l o d U S 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 p o m r l o s s m s s .
.go I n trould ap,poar, i n s p i t 0 o f 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 i t 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:.
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
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 L l c s n s i a g ,
i n t h o i r 1ot:or o f Xay 12, 1973, is s t i l l try:Fg t o o b t a i n ro32onsos
 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 a n n o c t o f t h o I h v i r o m o n t d
I n p a c t Statcmont. S i n c o 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 a s s u m o t h a t t h o D i r o c t o r a t o c o u l d 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 s u c h :id o c i s i o n would havo t o bo bnsod.
11. T h c r c i s ovidonco, i n t h o P u b l i c Rocords, o f tho p a t c n b l z c k of
good f a i t h on t h o p 2 r t o f 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 knoif t h z f ' a c t s . It appears t h a t 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
c o n c e a l i'roin t h o p u b l i c t h a t i t Tins m a n u f a c t u r i n g a h i g h l y , c a r -
cinog;.,nic and p o r s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l . F o r oxor,iplo, i n t h o i r lotcer
of + r i l 17, 1973 t o t h e AEC D i r o c t o r a t o o f L i c e n s i n g ; f i r s t
paragraph. D , . "lkuabver, wo b e l i e v e t h a t some of t h e i n f o m a t i o n
r o q u o s t e d s h o u l d n o t bo i n o l u d c d i n t h o o n v i r k o n n e n t n l Foport, m.d
r o q u o s t y o u r c o n s i d r 3 r a t i o n of o u r p r o p o s a l t o omit tho i t o m s d i s c u s s -
ed bolow fron o u r submittal.. Tho i t o m s o f i n f o m a t i o n which Korr
McGoo ob J o c t s t o h a v i n g i n o l u d o d i n t h o onviroinontnl r o p o r t a r o
t h o s e i t o c l s i n d i c a t e d by t h e following l i s t e d q u o s t i o n s o f your
l o t t o r o f biarch 12:
1. Purposo of 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-
. .
a n c e of a p l u t o n i u m p l a n t i n t h e &@.or,?
2. Xavo t h o r o b e e n &?'J l o c a l g r o u p s a c t i v o l y s u p p o r t i n g 02
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 ?

3e Have you h o l d arty p u S l i c m e e t i n g s or h e a r i n g s f o r tho

p u r p o s e 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. Alternatives (a) md(b)
1. . D i s c u s s t h o consequonces o f shUttii>g p l ~ down.
t
2. UDscuss the i . n p a c t o f . .....
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 q u o s t i o n s a r o p r o 9 e r s u b j S c 2 z
fo A:?culyy i n an c n v i r o m n t d . s t u d y . 'i%o j . m ? o x i ? 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
P l o a t . :,io r e a l i z o t h a t . . ..
t h o onvirorncntal i n p a c t ,of the o p o r a t i o n o f t'no C i n n r r o n P l u t o n i c n
Howevor wo v o u l d p r c i " r t o f u m i s h such
infor:nat;ion t o t h o Co;;:r:.ission by c ~ c p a r a t o , priv:LYa c o x a x i c a t l o n s
r s t h o r than h a v i n g it r'.:-.:,ludod i n a p u b l i c rc^ ',:id. ? l o a 3 0 lot Q S
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.,~.:. t h e 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 w o u l d . x i l l i n g ;o m d c s t h o info?.:: '.on r o q u o s t o d by -Ll;oso
g u o s t ~ o n 3avail.
J

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
X e r r HcGoo Gorp. "

C o n s o q u c n t l y , 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 F c d o r o l C o u r 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 h a v o b c o n a d v i s o d o r t h o o;ciaconco o r tho
dnnzoTs oi' havi&;; a p l u t o n i u r n 21ant i n t h o i r m i d s t , 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 i d 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 a n y 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 h e 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 M d 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 R o c o r d s a t Gut'hrTo, Ckla. The AEC has been p a r t o f
tho i n f o A m c toi n p r o b l om, n o t wi t h s tm d i q t h e exc 011n n t c o n c cp t
of p u b l i c r o c o y d s . C o n s o q u o n t l y , h a d i t no5 b e o n t h o c o i n c i d e n c e
of b - : i n g c a l l e d 3y t h e anonymous 1 ~ 0 r k o r 3 ,we and t h e p u b l i c would
a t i l l b e 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 , h o w e v e r 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 m u s t rospong!.
I n view of K o r r XcGeo's l a c k or" good f a i t h torao.rds kho c o r n u n i t y
and i t 3 p u b l i c heait'n, i t s l n c 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 a p ? o a r t o be i n t h e ? u S l i c i n t o r o s t t o rovoka t h e h
plutonium l i c m s e . Wo woulC: h o p e this c o u l d be a c c o n p l i s h o d
through t h e 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 w h m a t h o
Xavi;"omontal I n p o r t h e a r i a will b a h o l d ,fez tha Plu'coniun
P l a n t at . tlm Cimamon Zacili-&ge.
 v. U-d8 n

UNITED STATES

A T 0 MI C EN E RGY CO M MISS ION

WABHINOTON. D . C . 20145

JAN 1 1 1974

Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Younghein

3900 Cashion Place
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7 3 U 2

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_concerningthese 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 ques-
tions and comments raised by your letters. With respect to the other
matters in your letters not covered by our inspection report, we have pre-
pared answers which we believed to be responsive to your concerns. This
information is provided as Enclosure 3.

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 pro-
vide 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 con-
cerned 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. Again, as you have noted,
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;

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. When Commission rules are violated, we will
take appropriate action to achieve full compliance.

I truet this letter and the enclosed information will be of assistance to

you.
Sincerely,

Regional Director
Directorate of Regulatory Operations
Enclosures: Region I11
Enclosures 1 thru 3 7 9 9 . Roosevelt Road
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
I
 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: An incident of a leaking plutonium waste drum allegedly

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
to. In general, unsafe working conditions with respect to the spill clean-
ups were alleged.

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. The leak occurred from a
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 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. During the course of the investigation it was established that
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.

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. All decontamination was conducted under the super-
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 alle-
gation of unsafe working conditions.
 V.8-91

- 2 -

Allegation No. 2 : Two employees were "recently given letters of reprimand

-
for having left the site in a contaminated condition." No date of this
occurrence was furnished as a part of the allegation. Concern was ex-
pressed 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. The offsite areas visited
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.

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. K-M performed no thorium proces-
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. Prior to license termination,
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.
 .!INCLOSURE 2

U. S. ATONIC ENERGY COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS

REGION I11

..ROInsF t i o n Report No. 070-925/73-05

RO I n s p e c t i o n Report No. 070-119:3/73-06

Lkensee: Kerr-PIcGee Corporation

Kerr-McGee Building
Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma 73102

Cimarron F a c i l i t y Licenses No. SNM-928

Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma and No. SM-1174
Priority: I
Category: A ( 1 )

Type of Licensee : S p e c i a l Nuclear M a t e r i a l

Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced

Dates of Inspection: September 17 - 21 and 26, 1923

June 18 - 22, 1973
e
Dates of Previous I n s p e c t i o n :

flfl&iZ
K. R. R i d g w a r 2 u- r-7 3
A5P
‘Principal Inspector:
(Date)

Accompanying I n s p e c t o r : 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
 '4.8-93

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Enforccment A c t i o n ( L i c e n s e SNM-1174)

The f o l l o w i n g v i o l a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be of Category I s e v e r i t y :
. 10 CrFR 20.103 s t a t e s t.hat "No l i c e n s e e s h a l l p o s s e s s , u s e 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 s u c h a manner a s t o c a u s e 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 p o s s e s s e d
by t h e l i c e n s e e i n a n a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n i n e x c e s s of t h e l i m i t s
s p e c i f i e d i n Appendix B y T a b l e I, of t h i s p a r t . " The l i m i t s a r e based
, upon e x p o s u r e t o t h e s p e c i f i e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s f o r f o r t y hours i n a n y
. . p e r i o d of s e v e n c o n s e c u t i v e days.

C o n t r a r y t o t h e above, d u r i n g t h e week o f 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 o v e r f o r t y h o u r s , 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 f o l l o w i n g v i o l a t i o n s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be of Category I1 s e v e r i t y :
'A. a .
C o n d i t i o n 27 of L i c e n s e SNN-1174 s t a t e s , "Nuclear p o i s o n s used f o r
s e c o n d a r y n u c l e a 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
R a s c h i g r i n g s and t h e u s e of s u c h r i n g s shall be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e
proposed ANS s t a n d a r d , "Use of B o r o s i l i c a t e - G l a s s Raschig Rings a s a
Fixed Neutron Absorber i n S o l u t i o n s of F i s s i l e M a t e r i a l , " p u b l i s h e d i n
t h e Nuclear E n g i n e e r i n g B u l l e t i n , 4 - 3, November 1965, by t h e American
N u c l e a r S o c i e t y . T h i s 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 e g a r d i n g
. use of n u c l e a r p o i s o n s on page 21, Appendix A of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . "

C o n t r a r y t o t h i s t h e r e q u i r e d i n s p e c t i o n s i n t h e proposed November 1965

s t a n d a r d and t h e s u b s e q u e n t l y approved ANSI s t a n d a r d N16.4-1971 have n o t
been carried out. O n l y one i n s p e c t i o n of t h e rings h a s been made s i n c e
p l a n 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s of
t h e standards. (Paragraph 1 8 )

B. C o n d i t i o n 28 of L i c e n s e SNM-1174 s t a t e s , "This l i c e n s e d o e s 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 e x c e p t a5
may be a u t h o r i z e d p u r s u a n t t o 10 CFR 71."

S e c t i o n 71.10 of 1 0 CFR 7 1 s t a t e s t h a t a n exemption t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s

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 p e r m i t t e d 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 d e f i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 71.4(q), to a
carrier f o r t r a n s p o r t i s accomplished i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of a s p e c i a l p e r m i t , which has been i s s u e d by t h e Department of Trans-
portation and is i n e f f e c t on J u n e 30, 1973.

- 2 -
 V.8-94

On two o c c a s i o n s t h e s p e c i a l DOT p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s g o v e r n i n g t h e s h i p -
ments were n o t f u l l y a d h e r e d t o i n t h a t wastes s h i p p e d 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 e c e i v e d on J u l y 11,
. 1973, was made i n a "Poly Y a n t h e r , " DOT SP 6272 package, which h e l d 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 . T h i s shipment t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t comply w i t h 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 7 1 i n t h a t a g e n e r a l l i c e n s e w a s n o t
s e c u r e d t o c o v e r t h e s h i p m e n t , which c o n t a i n e d t h e waste drum o f contami-
nated l i q u i d .

In a second case t h e shipment r e c e i v e d on J u n e 5 , 1973, was made i n a

"Super T i g e r , " DOT SP 6400 package. When t h e "Super T i g e r " package
a r r i v e d a t t h e b u r i a l s i t e it h e l d t h r e e drums which c o n t a i n e d l i q u i d s .
.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 n o t
.comply w i t h t h e terms of t h e l i c e n s e n o r 10 CFR 7 1 S e c t i o n 71.12(b) i n
that t h e i n n e r p a c k a g e s 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 d r o p t e s t
r e q u i r e m e n t s s p e c i f i e d by p a r a g r a p h 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 t a t e s 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
P l u t o n i u m P l a n t i n a c c o r d a n c e 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 c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix A of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n d a t e d March 3 ,
1969, and s u p p l e m e n t s d a t e d August 28, 1969, J a n u a r y 2 and 1 2 , 1970.

Appendix A s p e c i f i e s t h e N u c l e a r Group o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e w i t h
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
experience requirements f o r t h e s e p o s i t i o n s .

C o n t r a r y t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Appendix A o f l i c e n s e SNM-1174 t h e
l i c e n s e e , 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 N u c l e a r M a n u f a c t u r i n g Group and t h e P h y s i c a l S c i e n c e 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 L i c e n s e and S a f e t y
O f f i c e r p o s i t i o n w i t h a n employee whose e x p e r i e n c e d o e s n o t meet t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f 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 f o r m a l l y r e p o r t e d t o t h e Commission. ( P a r a g r a p h 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 c a u s e t o be

made s u c h s u r v e y s a s may be n e c e s s a r y f o r him t o comply w i t h t h e r e g u l a -
t i o n s i n t h i s part."

C o n t r a r y t o t h e hbove, no o f f s i t e s u r v e y s were performed on A p r i l 1 7 ,

. 1972, t o e v a l u a t e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of two c o n t a m i n a t e d employees l e a v i n g
the Cimarron P l u t o n i u m P l a n t on t h a t d a t e . ( P a r a g r a p h 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 s e v e r i t y :

A. Condition 18 of License Sm-1174 s t a t e s , "The l i c e n s e e 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 e c t i v e n e s s
of t h e a c t i o n s taken following each one-hour tornado warning taking i n t o
account t h e types of o p e r a t i o n s 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 v a u l t and remaining o u t s i d e t h e v a u l t following t h e one-hour warning

."
a c t i o n s , number of persons involved, time required t o complete t h e a c t i o n s
- and improvements i n d i c a t e d
' r
Contrary t o t h i s , on May 24, 1973, and June 4, 1973, one-hour tornado
alerts were received by t h e l i c e n s e e and t h e required management a p p r a i s a l s
. 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 c e n s e e maintain r e c o r d s
of t h e results of surveys r e q u i r e d by 10 CFR 20.201(b).

Contrary t o t h e above, r e c o r d s were not maintained of t h e r e s u l t s of

surveys f o r contamination on t h e s o l i d waste s t o r a g e t r a i l e r p r i o r t o
c o a t i n g w i t h p a i n 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. The l i c e n s e e f a i l e d t o provide required v a l v e p r o t e c t o r s f o r UF6

.
c y l i n d e r s i n storage.

The l i c e n s e e has obtained a d d i t i o n a l valve p r o t e c t o r s and has

I n s t r u c t e d personnel on t h i s l i c e n s e requirement.

2. In two cases, t h e l i c e n s e e s t o r e d f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l w i t h i n 1 2 f e e t of
a c o n c r e t e donut storage a r r a y c o n t r a r y t o posted s a f e o p e r a t i n g l i m i t s .

The l i c e n s e e has r e v i s e d t h e posted l i m i t so t h a t s t o r a g e w i t h i n 12

f e e t of t h e a r r a y is permitted i f t h e o u t e r r o w of c o n t a i n e r s i n t h e
donut a r r a y do not c o n t a i n f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l . Employees have been
reinstructed.

3. The licensee s t o r e d a c o n t a i n e r of f i s s i l e material i n an unauthorized

location. ..

The s i t u a t i o n was immediately c o r r e c t e d and employees r e i n s t r u c t e d

in the c o r r e c t s t o r a g e of f i s s i l e materials. .

-4 -
 V.8-96

4. The l i c e n s e e s t o r e d s e v e r a l overloaded p e l l c t b o a t s 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 h e c o r r e c t s t o r a g e of t h e s e boats.

5. Containers of s t o r e d high enriched material were unlabeled a e t o

the f i s s i l e content.
The c o n t a i n e r s were counted and properly l a b e l e d . Employees were
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.

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 t h e number of permitted c o n t a i n e r s was
exceeded and t h e minimum spacing l i m i t between c o n t a i n e r s v i o l a t e d .
The c o n d i t i o n was c o r r e c t e d .

2, The l i c e n s e e f a i l e d t o p o s t Glovebox 3.A t o show t h e q u a n t i t y of

fissile material p r e s e n t .

The glovebox s t a t u s s h e e t was posted,

The above items are considered resolved.

Unusual Occurrences

A. On J u l y 18, 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e informed Region I11 by telephone of t h e

exposure of a n employee t o about 1.3 times t h e 40-hour MPC f o r a i r b o r n e
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of s o l u b l e plutoniun during the period J u l y 8 -
1 4 , 1973.
The exposure occurred a t a s l o t box i n t h e general l a b o r a t o r y a t t h e
Plutonium P l a n t . Bioassay samples showed no d e t e c t a b l e uptake of
plutonium. The t e l e c o n was confirmed by a w r i t t e n r e p o r t dated J u l y 31,
1973, submitted t o t h e Commission pursuant t o 1 0 CFR 20.405(a)(l).
(Paragraph 23)

B o On J u l y 18, 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e informed Region 111 by telephone of con-

taminated a i r samples from s e v e r a l l o c a t i o n s i n t h e plutonium l a b o r a t o r y
€or t h e period J u l y 3 - 4 , 1973. Involved employees were r e s t r i c t e d
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 d e t e c t a b l e uptake of plutonium. The l i c e n s e e concluded
from h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t t h e a i r samples were n o t 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 n o t occur. Analyses, bioassay r e c o r d s , and
l i c e n s e e e v a l u a t i o n s were reviewed d u r i n g t h e i n s p e c t i o n . (Paragraph 24)

-5-
 v .8-97

C. ‘On A p r i l 1 7 , 1972, a n 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 g l o v e 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 w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e l y c h e c k i n g t h e m s e l v e s for
c o n t a m i n a t i o n . When l e a v i n g t h e p r o c e s s a r e a , t h e o p e r a t o r found he was
c o n t a m i n a t e d . Surveys of t h e two maintenance men when t h e y r e t u r n e d t o
t h e p l a n t r e v e a l e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n on hands, f a c e , ’ h a i r , and p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s .
S e v e r a l s p o t s of c o n t a m i n a t i o n were found i n a p e r s o n a 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 . U r i n e and
decal samples showed no d e t e c t a b l e u p t a k e of plutonium. ( P a r a g r a p h 2 5 )

D. On August 18, 1973, l i q u i d was d i s c o v e r e d l e a k i n g from a s t a t i o n a r y t r a i l e r

v a n used f o r waste s t o r a g e a t t h e plutonium l o a d i n g dock. The s o u r c e of
the leak w a s o n e of f o u r 55-gallon drums c o n t a i n i n g l o w - l e v e l , p l u t o n i u m
waste which s u p p o s e d l y 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. Decontamination of t h e t r a i l e r and r e p l a c e m e n t of con-
t a m i n a t e d g r a v e l b e n e a t h t h e t r a i l e r t o o k 11 d a y s . There was no p e r s o n a l
C o n t a m i n a t i o n and no release o f f s i t e . (Paragraph 26)

Other S i g n i f i c a n t F i n d i n g s

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 g i v e n 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 r e p a r i n g t o proceed w i t h 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 l a n t w a s l i m i t e d t o w a s t e r e c o v e r y and
m a i n t e n a n c e work. The ceramic and p e l l e t l i n e s were e x p e c t e d to
s t a r t up i n November 1973.

3: L i c e n s e SNM-928 h a s been amended t o lower t h e uranium p o s s e s s i o n

limit. (Paragraph 6)

4. No l i c e n s i n g a c t i o n h a s been t a k e n on f a c i l i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n and
p e r s o n n e l changes. (Paragraph 2 ) _-’

5. Waste h a n d l i n g a t t h e Plutonium P l a n t .was reviewed. No problem a r e a s

other t h a n w a s t e s o l i d i f i c a t i o n were d e t e c t e d . ( P a r a g r a p h s 1 9 , 20, and

B. S t a t u s of P r e v i o u s l y Reported Unresolved Items

%, The N u c l e a r S a f e t y O f f i c e r and t h e L i c e n s i n g and R e g u l a t i o n s O f f i c e r

r e q u i r e d i n Appendix A and Appendix B have n o t y e t been r e p l a c e d w i t h
q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l . 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 c o n t i n u :
t o be performed by BNW c o n s u l t a n t s . ( P a r a g r a p h s 3 and 8)

- 6 -
 V.8-98

2. 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/

30 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
I
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.

4. A Change Review Request (CRR) form has been used informally in connec-
tion with facility changes. The CRR system requires a criticality,
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.

A formal procedure for administering the CRR system has been drafted
and is circulating for approvals. (Paragraph 7)

5. Technical support in the area of radiation protection was previously

questioned. The licensee has not as yet considered improvement in
this area.

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. The following Individuals
were present during the interviews:

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. F r a n c e , 111, L i c e n s e and S a f e t y O f f i c e r
R. J, Adkisson, C o n t r a c t R e l a t i o n s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
R. L. Kiehn, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Efaintenance
J. V. Narler, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Plutonium P l a n t
D. Rhodes, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Uranium P l a n t
B. J. Buntz, Manager, E n g i n e e r i n g and T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e
R. J a n k a , Manager, A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Accounting
A. W. Norwood, Manager, H e a l t h P h y s i c 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 t a k e n on p r e v i o u s 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 a p p e a r e d t o have been implemented.
He a l s o remarked t h a t e v i d e n c e had n o t been g i v e n t o c o n f i r m t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n
had b e e n g i v e n t o employees concerned w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s o p e r a t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n s .
The l i c e n s e e 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 r e c o r d e d a s
material c o v e r e d i n s h i f t s a f e t y m e e t i n g s .

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 a p p a r e n t v i o l a t i o n s a s l i s t e d i n t h e
Enforcement A c t i o n s e c t i o n had been d e t e c t e d and t h e s e were r e v i e w e d .

The recent l e a k a g e of d i l u t e p l u t o n i u m w a s t e 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 v a n was d i s c u s s o d . 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 a p p e a r e d t o b e p r o p e r and t h e c l e a n u p 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 w a s t e had n o t been t h o r o u g h l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e p a s t a s l e a k a g e s ,
had r e o c c u r r e d . 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 t u d y h e i n g
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 w i t h u r e a formaldehyde,
a s t u d y s h o u l d b e made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e q u i r e d mixing of t h e two components
before and a f t e r a d d i n g 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 s h o u l d 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 , The l i c e n s e e a g r e e d t o t h i s and s t a t 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 i n s p e c t o r s r e q u e s t e d 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 h e h a s e x p e r i e n c e d 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 p r o g r a n .
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 t h e y had
not r e c e i v e d f e e d b a c k 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
p r o b l e m s t h a t had been s u b m i t t e d , 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 a d v i s e d that management s h o u l d review t h e i r h e a l t h p h y s i c s

s t a f f i n g , s i n c e s t a f f i n g i n a d e q u a c i e s a p p e a r t o b e a c a u s e of s u r v e y r e c o r d
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 s u r v e y s .
 V.8-100

11. P r e v i o u s l y Reported Unr_esolved Items

I a m P e l l e t Shipping Container I n s p e c t i o n s l
A p r o c e d u r e had been d r a f t e d t o s c h e d u l e p e r i o d i c i n s p e c t i o n s of t h e

1 p e l l e t s h i p p i n g c o n t a i n e r s a s r e q u i r e d by a l i c e n s e c o n d i t i o n . The
procedure s p e c i f i e s the:

I . (1) Frequency o f i n s p e c t i o n s .
I
, (2) C o n t a i n e r s t o be i n s p e c t e d .

- (3) Void l e v e l p e r m i t t e d .
. ..
,.
,'* ' (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. S o l u t i o n Vacuum C l e a n e r M u f f l e r

The i n s p e c t o r observed t h a t a CRR had been s u b m i t t e d 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 b e i n g reviewed by
BNWL.

I T h e r e are no f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s on t h e above matters.

I
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 r e c e i v e d 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 . A c t i v i t y d u r i n g t h e i n s p e c t i o n
was l i m i t e d t o c l e a n u p 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 production run.

13. Tornado Warnings

During 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e r e c e i v e d two one-hour t o r n a d o a l e r t s on May 24
and J u n e 4 . These n o t i f i c a t i o n s were r e c o r d e d i n t h e g u a r d s ' s D a i l y Log
S h e e t and i n t h e O p e r a t i o n s Log. No r e c o r d of t h e management's e v a l u a t i o n
o f t h e f a c i l i t y ' s t o r n a d o a l e r t p r o c e d u r e s and a c t i o n s f o l l o w i n g a n a l e r t
was a v a i l a b l e a s r e q u i r e d 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 e v a l u a t i o n had been documented b u t i t had been l o s t . The
brief n o t a t i o n s of t h e a l e r t s i n t h e l o g book were n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a
p r o p e r e v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o c e d u r e s and a c t i o n s t a k e n . F a i l u r e t o document
e v a l u a t i o n s i s c o n s i d e r e d a v i o l a t i o n of C o n d i t i o n 18 of L i c e n s e SNM-1174.

- 13 -
 v .8-101

This c o n d i t i o n s u p p l e m e n t s t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g u s e 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 a n d a r d r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e l i c e n s e c o n d i t i o n s h a s s i n c e been r e v i s e d
and i s s u e d a s a n American N a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d s I n s t i t u t e s t a n d a r d , ANSI
N16.4-1971 which h a s been a d o p t e d a s a n a c c e p t a b l e p r o c e d u r e i n
R e g u l a t o r y Guide 3.1. The r e q u i r e d 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 a n d a r d were more r i g o r o u s t h a n 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 a n k
. .
''
' (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 o f t h e Rings

(1) m e c h a n i c a l c o n d i t i o n (broken, c r a c k e d or c h i p p e d r i n g )

(2) Boron c o n t e n t

The f r e q u e n c y of i n s p e c t i o n s i n t h e proposed s t a n d a r d was s t a t e d a s "at

* f r e q u e n t i n t e r v a l s " while 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
minimum of o n c e e v e r y 13 months i n t h e approved s t a n d a r d . An e x a m i n a t i o n
of t h e r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y o n e R a s c h i g r i n g i n s p e c t i o n had been
, m a d e ( F e b r u a r y 28, 1972) s i n c e t h e a p p r o v a l of L i c e n s e SNM-1174 on
A p r i l 6 , 1970. T h i s i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a t " f r e q u e n t i n t e r v a l s " a s
r e q u i r e d n o r was t h e r e any r e c o r d of a n a l y s i s f o r boron c o n t e n t .

19. Waste H a n d l i n g P r o c e s s

a. Liquid Waste ?

L i q u i d wastes from t h e P l u t o n i u m P l a n t are s e p a r a t e d 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 e a m which d i s c h a r g e s

i n t o two s a n i t a r y l a g o o n s 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

a n d f l o o r d r a i n s i n t h e change rooms and d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n rooms, and
- a s i n k i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y d i s c h a r g e 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 a n k s which a r e sampled and r e l e a s e d t o t h e
s a n i t a r y l a g o o n s when c o n t e n t c o n c e t r a t i o n s a r e below t h e d i s c a r d
l i m i t of o n e t e n t h hiPC o r 4.0 x lo-? P C i / m l .

- 15 =
 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 s a n p l c d i n a t a n k and d i s c h a r g e d a l t e r n a t e l y t o
two 6,000 g a l l o n underground t a n k s when t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s below
MPC ( 4 . 0 x u C i / m l ) . The underground t a n k s 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 w a s t e s are below HPC b e f o r e d i s c h a r g e
i n t o t h e Plutonium Holding Pond.
(4) J i q u i d P r o c e s s 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 a r e c o l l e c t e d i n g e o m e t r i c a l l y f a v o r a b l e t a n k s and
a n a l y z e d b e f o r e t r a n s f e r t o n o n - g e o m e t r i c a l l y f a v o r a b l e hold t a n k s .
The p l u t o n i u m 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 a n k s i s 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 a r e f u l l t h e y 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 w i t h u r e a
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.

b. S o l i d Wastes

S o l i d wastes c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l s a r e c o l l e c t e d i n
packages and a r e c o u n t e d i n t h e v a u l t by t h e c u s t o d i a n . Recoverable
material i s r e c y c l e d t o t h e s c r a p p l a n t . U n r e c o v e r a b l e w a s t e s a r e
packaged i n 55 g a l l o n drums f o r o i f s i t e s h i p m e n t . S o l i d w a s t e 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 , a r e t e m p o r a r i l y 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 , b u t w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i o n a r e a u n t i l s u f f i c i e n t
material i s a c c u n u l a t e d t o w a r r a n t a p i c k up by N u c l e a r E n g i n e e r i n s
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
P e r m i t (SP) 6400, o r "Poly P a n t h e r , " DOT SP 6272 a u t h o r i z e d 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 N u c l e a r C e n t e r ,
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 s i t e s .

A review of s h i p p i n g r e c o r d s f o r s o l i d wastes s h i p p e d 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 p l u t o n i u m had been s h i p p e d .
One hundred s e v e n t y f i v e drums were s h i p p e d t o Morehead and 152 drums
were s h i p p e d t o S h e f f i e l d .

20. Low L e v e l P l u t o n i u m Waste Leaks

a. S o l i d i f i c a t i o n Process

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 r o c e s s

, t o remove plutonium-americium from p r o c e s s w a s t e s . Wastes were d i s -
. charged i n t o a p l a s t i c l i n e d h o l d i n g pond when t h e C o n c e n t r a t i o n was
below MPC (4 x uCi/ml). Subsequent t o t h i s d a t e , l i q u i d p r o c e s s
wastes were s o l i d i f i e d In u r e a 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

- 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 w a s t e
t a n k s ore located, The d i l u t e ( l e s s t h a n 0.03 g/l plutonium) w a s t e
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 b a g s . 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 a b o u t 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 . The m i x t u r e is s t i r r e d
a n o t h e r f i v e m i n u t e s . 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 . It i s t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d t o
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.

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 o f 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 l e a k e d

t h r o u g h t h e bottom of t h e t r a i l e r and c o n t a m i n a t e d a 2 1 1 2 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 d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n 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 i n c o m p l e t e 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 d u e 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 v e n d o r s . 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 . Urea
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 t s
v i s c o s i t y increases with age.

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:

(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) R e q u i r e s u p e r v i s o r y i n s p e c t i o n b e f o r e moving drumo froin Room

80-2 t o t h e s t o r a g e van.

(e) Add a b s o r b e n 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 a n y r e m a i n i n g
liquids.

( f ) C a r e f u l l y lower s t i r r i n g r o d i n t o t h e drum t o p r e v e n t p u n c t u r i n g
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 i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e w r i t t e n

L i q u i d Waste S o l i d i f i c a t i o n P r o c e d u r e , KM-NP-37-2, R e v i s i o n 1,
d a t e d May 2, 1972, and p r e s e n t l y i n u s e . D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h
employees d i s c l o s e d t h a t t h e r e c o r n e n d a t i o n s were p a r t i a l l y b e i n g
followed.

(2) Leaks of A p r i l 2 4 and May 7 , 1973

On two o t h e r o c c a s i o n s 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 r e c o r d e d . On A p r i l 24, 1 9 7 3 , t h e l o a d i n g
d o c k was c o n t a m i n a t e d by l e a k i n g drums. On Flay 7 , 1973, r o u t i n e
s
s u r v e s d e t e c t e d c o n t a r n i n a t i o n l e v e l s up t o 10,000 d/m p e r
60 c m on t h e ground under t h e t r a i l e r , L i c e n s e e r e c o r d s show
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 w a s t e . 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 e x p o s u r e s of o f f s i t e
releases resulted.

L i c e n s e 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 e a r l y i n 1973 a l m o s t e v e r y
drum of s o l i d i f i e d w a s t e 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 v a r y i n g 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 w a s t e t a n k by vacuum
t r a n s f e r . Cement and Sorb-All were t h e n added t o t h e t c p of t h e
drummed s o l i d w a s t e t o a b s o r b a n y r e m a i n i n g l i q u i d s . T h i s was
done b e f o r e moving t h e drums t o t h e t r a i l e r .

Each b a t c h of w a s t e 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 o f s m a l l volumes.

On J u n e 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 T i g e r " package had been r e c e i v e d from K-14. The
l i q u i d was s u b s e q u e n t l y s o l i d i f i e d and t h e drums b u r i e d a t
the Morehead s i t e .

- 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 t h e

NECO S h e f f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , Nuclear C e n t e r , i t was n o t e d from r e c o r d s
that on J u l y 11, 1973, a shipment of s o l i d w a s t e s had been r e c e i v e d
from K-M w i t h 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 P a n t h e r " 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 c o n t a i n i n g t h e
drums was b u r i e d . According t o NECO r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s no problems
were e n c o u n t e r e d i n e i t h e r of t h e s e b u r i a l s .
C o n d i t i o n 28 of L i c e n s e SN'M-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 t h e 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 e x c e p t a s may be a u t h o r i z e d p u r s u a n t t o 10 CFR 71."

S e c t i o n 71.10 of 10 CFR 7 1 s t a t e s t h a t a n exemption t o t h e r e q u 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 p e r m i t t e d when d e l i v e r y o f
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 d e f i n e d 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 r o v i s i o n s of a s p e c i a l p e r m i t , which h a s been i s s u e d by
t h e Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and i s i n e f f e c t on J u n e 3 0 , 1973.

On t h e two s p e c i f i e d o c c a s i o n s t h e s p e c i a l DOT p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s
g o v e r n i n g t h e shipments were n o t f u l l y adhered t o i n t h a t wastes
r e c e i v e d 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 was made i n a "Poly P a n t h e r , " DOT SP 6272 package,
which c o n s i s t e d of one w a s t e 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 . T h i s shipment, t h e r e f o r e , d i d
n o t comply w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 71.10 and a l s o 71.12 of
10 CFR 7 1 i n t h a t a g e n e r a l l i c e n s e was n o t s e c u r e d t o cover t h e
shipment, which c o n t a i n e d a t l e a s t one w a s t e drum of contaminated
liquid.

I n t h e second case, t h e shipment was made i n a "Super T i g e r , " DOT

SP 6400 package, t h e "Super T i g e r " a r r i v e d a t t h e b u r i a l s i t e i t
h e l d t h r e e drums which c o n t a i n e d l i q u i d s . T h 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 license n o r 10 CFR 7 1 , . S e c t i o n 71.12 i n that the
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 not m e e t t h e drop t e s t
r e q u i r e m e n t s s p e c i f i e d by p a r a g r a p h 173.393(g) of t h e DOT r e g u l a t i o n s .

(3) Leak of August 18, 1973

S e e p a r a g r a p h 26 for d e t a i l s .

21. S o l i d i f i c a t i o n P r o c e s s T e s t i n g and E x t e n t of P r o c e s s Use

The licensee is c u r r e n t l y c o n d u c t i n g l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s t o a s c e r t a i n t h e
cause of "weepage, I' "breakdown" and " n o n s o l i d i f i c a t i o n : of t h e u r e a

- - 19

I
 V. 13- 106
n

fotmldchyde - waste m i x t u r e s . Cold t e s t s were made w i t h v a r y i n g ammonium

n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and m i x t u r e s of aounonium and sodium n i t r a t e s o l u t i o n s .
The t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s o l u t i o n s w i t h ammonium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s above 7
m o l a r f a i l e d t o s e t up and i n a l l c a s e s weepaee was o b s e r v e d . 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 e q u i r e d from 1 0 t o 30 m i n u t e s t o
h a r d e n and a f t e r 1 0 d a y s t h e c o n t e n t s were s t i l l s o l i d . Cold t e s t s on
s u l p h a t e s a l t s o l u t i o n s and h o t t e s t s performed on a c t u a l w a s t e s o l u t i o n s
from t a n k s 184 and 185 c o n t a i n e d v a r y i n g amounts of l i q u i d s a f t e r s e t t i n g
e few d a y s .

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 w a s 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 s e t up and remain s o l i d . P l a n t tests
w e r e , t o be conducted t o c o n f i r m t h i s p r o c e s s change.

T e s t s were c o n d u c t e d w i t h cement a s t h e s o l i d i f y i n g a g e n t w i t h and w i t h o u t

Sorb-All added.

P r o t e c t i v e Packaging I n d u s t r i e s ( P P I ) , a s u b s i d i a r y of NECO s u p p l i e d a n o t h e r
r e s i n f o r t e s t i n g . T h i s r e s i n was e l i m i n a t e d by K-M b e c a u s e i t s water
h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y was much l e s s than UF and i t d i d n o t s e t up p r o p e r l y . A
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of PPI was c o n t a c t e d by Region I11 t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on
t h e u s e of UF a s a s o l i d i f y i n g a g e n t and t o d e t e r m i n e i f any o t h e r of t h e i r
c u s t o m e r s were e n c o u n t e r i n g s i m i l a r 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 t h o u g h PPI had s o l d t h e i r T i g e r - l o c i n t e g r a t e d r a d v a s t e system t o
a b o u t n i n e n u c l e a r power s t a t i o n s , none of them a s y e t have produced any
s o l i d i f i e d waste w i t h t h i s s y s t e m . The P a l i s a d e s r e a c t o r w i l l b e t h e f i r s t
t o p r o d u c e 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 t e . An

i n t e g r a t e d s y s t e m of p r o p o r t i o n i n g meters combine t h e f l o w s of w a s t e and
UF. 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
is added w i t h a d d i t i o n a l mixing p r i o r t o d i s c h a r g e . I n i t i a l l y t h e wastes
were d i s c h a r g e d i n t o l i n e d open t r e n c h e s and c o v e r e d . Now t h e l i q u i d
wastes a t Morehead a r e p r e c o n c e n t r a t e d and s o l i d i f i e d w i t h UF i n t o 55
g a l l o n drums which a r e b u r i e d .

NECO and PPI do n o t have a n y o t h e r known u s e r s of UF b u t s t a t e d t h a t

Hittman N u c l e a r and Development C o r p o r a t i o n (HNDC), a s u b s i d i a r y of
Hittman C o r p o r a t i o n w a s a l s o u s i n g UF a s a s o l i d i f y i n g a g e n t .

The P P I 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 c o u l d i n p a r t b e 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 a d d i n g t h e c a t a l y s t , and t h a t t h e b a t c h 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 c o n t a c t e d by t h e Region I11 i n s p e c t o r t o

d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t of t h e i r l i q u i d w a s t e 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 t h e y had s o l i d i f i e d about 8 , 0 0 0 g a l l o n s of
b o t h BWR w a s t e s (25 w e i g h t p e r c e n t sodium s u l p h a t e ) and PWR w a s t e s ( 1 2
w e i g h t p e r c e n t b o r i c a c i d ) i n t o 1500 g a l l o n , 114 i n c h t h i c k s t e e l tanks
. i n s i d e of a s i x - i n c h 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 b u r i e d .
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 t h e y
' h a v e had no problems w i t h l i q u i d i f i c a t i o n of t h e m i x t u r e s , b u t had done
much e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n 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
p r o p e r mix r a t i o of w a s t e and UF.' The " D C system i s 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 n u c l e a r s t a t i o n s . A t p r e s e n t t h e " D C
m i x i n g s y s t e m i s s t a t i o n e d on a t r u c k and t a k e n t o t h e s o u r c e of t h e w a s t e
where t h e s o l i d i f i c a t i o n o p e r a t i o n i s c a r r i e d o u t . 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 w a s t e s .

22. F i n a l C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n s R e l a t i n g t o S o l i d i f i c a t i o n P r o c e s s Problem
Resolution

F o l l o w i n g 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 c o n t a c t e d 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 . The i n s p e c t o r
was informed t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s were b e i n g t a k e n :
'
,a. , W a s t e s o l u t i o n s are t o b e n e u t r a l i z e d w i t h sodium h y d r o x i d e t o remove
: . ammonium gas.

b. The n h t r a l i z e d w a s t e w i l l b e d i g e s t e d f o r 8 h o u r s t o e l i m i n a t e more
of the ammonia.

C. The r a t i o of w a s t e of UF w i l l be d e c r e a s e d from 3 : l t o 2 : l .
a

d. The mixer b l a d e w i l l be m o d i f i e d t o p r e v e n t c u t t i n g t h e l i n e r .

e. The c o n t e n t s of each drum w i l l b e i n s p e c t e d 5 d a y s 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 p o l y e t h y l e n e f r e e s t a n d i n g

liner.

g. 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 inspection before use.

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 r o c e s s problem. ,

- 21 -
 V.8-108

REPORT DETAILS

Part I1 ( R a d i o l o g i c a l P r o t e c t i o n )

P r e p a r e d by ’ ‘* 7
-. Jr,:;,
. ,

dJ’
A = Finn
Reviewed by .sT,k(c[k,
L. F i s h e r

23. Reported Overexposure t o A i r b o r n e R a d i o a c t i v i t y

By t e l e p h o n e 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 a n
a p p a r e n t o v e r e x p o s u r e of a n i n d i v i d u a l t o a i r b o r n e plutonium had o c c u r r e d
a t t h e e a s t s l o t box i n t h e g e n e r a l l a b o r a t o r y (Room 1 2 9 ) . I n a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h 1 0 CFR 2 0 . 4 0 5 ( a ) ( l ) , a w r i t t e n r e p o r t d a t e d J u l y 31, 1973, w a s sub-
m i t t e d t o t h e Commission s t a t i n g t h a t , based on a i r s a m p l e s , a n employee
had been exposed t o a c o n c e x i t r a t i o n of 2.6 x 10-12 m i c r o c u r i e s p e r m i l l i l i t e r
during t h e period July 8 - 1 4 , 1973, a s averaged o v e r 40 h o u r s . This i s
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 ,
- T a b l e I , Column 1, ( 2 x m i c r o c u r i e s p e r m i l l i l i t e r ) . Urine samples
t a k e n a f t e r t h e e x p o s u r e showed no u p t a k e of plutonium. P r e v e n t i v e 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, h a s been t a k e n and
t h e employee h a s 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 o f h i s e x p o s u r e .
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 p r o b a b l e c a u s e
of t h e i n c i d e n t was f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w p r o c e d u r e s . 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 i c t a d h e r e n c e t o p r o c e d u r e s which s p e c i f y t h a t
no m a t e r i a l may be removed t h r o u g h t h e s l o t and t h a t p a p e r l i n i n g t h e
I

bottom of t h e box must be f r e q u e n t l y r e p l a c e d w i t h c l e a n p a p e r . L a b o r a t o r y

p e r s o n n e l have been r e i n s t r u c t e d i n p r o p e r 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.

The r e p o r t e d o v e r e x p o s u r e c o n s t i t u t e s noncompliance w i t h 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
restricted areas.

2 4 . Unusual Occurrence

On J u l y 18, 1973, t h e l i c e n s e e informed Region 111 by t e l e p h o n e 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 e x p o s u r e s
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 p l a c e d 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. F e c a 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 u p t a k e 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 p e r m i n u t e

p e r t o t a l sample. U r i n e samples a n a l y z e d by t h e l i c e n s e e ' s T e c h n i c a l
Center were, w i t h two e x c e p t i o n s , l e s s t h a n 0.4 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e
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 e x c e p t i o n s were 0.4
d i c i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e p e r l i t e r and 0.7 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e
. per liter.

&.e of t h e a i r samples was s u b j e c t e d 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 a b o u t 80% americium 241 and 20% plutonium
239. These p r o p o r t i o n s r e p r e s e n t . s c r a p r e c o v e r y t y p e m a t e r i a l r a t h e r t h a n
, t h c t y p e of m a t e r i a l used i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y rooms where t h e h i g h a i r
' camples were i n c u r r e d . These rooms i n c l u d e t h e M e t a l l o g r a p h y L a b o r a t o r y ,
the Dark Room, t h e S p e c t r o g r a p h i c L a b o r a t o r y , and t h e Dry P r e p a r a t i o n
Laboratory.
. ..
, ' - i i r ; t o r a d i o g r a p h s 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 s h a p e 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 u n i f o r m d i s t r i b u t i o n
of a c t i v i t y o v e r t h e e n t i r e s u r f a c e .
T h e r e was no c o n t a m i n a t i o n i n t h e rooms h a v i n g h i g h a i r .samples. A i r
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
Game p e r i o d .

The l i c e n s e e c o n c l u d e d , on t h e b a s i s of t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e h i g h a i r
' s a m p l e s 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
10 CFR 20.

A review of l i c e n s e e r e c o r d s of a i r s a m p l e s , s u r v e y s , and b i o a s s a y s , and

i n s p e c t i o n of a u t o r a d i o g r a p h s s u b s t a n t i a t e d l i c e n s e e c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t t h e
\. a i r samples were n o t v a l i d .

25* P e r s o n n e l Contamination Occurrence

On A p r i l 1 7 , 1972, a n o p e r a t o r and two m a i n t e n a n c e men became c o n t a m i n a t e d
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 c e r a m i c a r e a . The m a i n t c -
n a n c e men l e f t t h e p l a n t s i t e . A few m i n u t e s l a t e r , t h e o p e r a t o r d i s c o v e r e d
t h a t he was c o n t a m i n a t e d d u r i n g a r o u t i n e s e l f - s u r v e y , and n o t i f i e d h e a l t h
p h y s i c s p e r s o n n e l . Upon r e t u r n i n g t o t h e p l a n t , t h e m a i n t e n a n c e men were
w r v e y e d by h e a l t h p h y s i c s and found t o b e Contaminated. Contamination
l e v e l s on h a n d s , h e a d , and f a c e were g r e a t e r t h a n 100,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s
, p e r m i n u t e p e r 60 s q u a r e c e n t i m e t e r s . Nasal smears ranged up t o 160
d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e . I n a d d i t i o n , v a r y i n g l e v e l s of c o n t a m i n a t i o n
were found on p e r s o n a l c l o t h i n g b e l o n g i n g t o t h e t h r e e employees. Con-
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 i n c l u d e d 1 , 0 0 0 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e on t h e door o f t h e l o c k e r
room, up t o 20,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e on a p a i r of c o v e r a l l s h a n g i n g
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 m i n u t e on s a f e t y g l a s s e s , and

- 23 -
 V.3-110

2,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e on t h e time c l o c k . S e v e r a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n
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 p e r minute were found i n t h e p e r s o n a l c a r
u s e d by t h e niaintenance men.

The c a u s e of t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n was a t t r i b u t e d t o g l o v e f a i l u r e . The c a u s e

of t h e s p r e a d of c o n t a m i n a t i o n 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
m a i n t e n a n c e men t o make a d e q u a t e p e r s o n a l s u r v e y s b e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e work
area and t h e p l a n t . The men r e p o r t e d l y surveyed t h e i r hands and shoe c o v e r s
b e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e w e t c'eramic a r e a , b u t t h e y d i d n o t s u r v e y t h e i r h e a d ,
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 s u r v e y t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e
l o c k e r room a f t e r removal o f t h e i r p r o t e c t i v e c l o t h i n g . E x i s t i n g w r i t t e n
p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d ( a s a minimum) s u r v e y of hands e a c h time a f t e r removal
of hands from glovebox g l o v e s ; s u r v e y of hands, f o r e a r m s , 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 s h o e c o v e r s b e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e a s s i g n e d
:work a r e a ; s u r v e y of shoe c o v e r s a f t e r r e a c h i n g t h e e x i t s u r v e y 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 n o n r a d i a t i o n a r e a ; and s u r v e y of
s h o e s a f t e r removal of s h o e c o v e r s . P o r t a b l e s u r v e y i n s t r u n e n t s a r e pro-
v i d e d 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 r o c e s s i n g a r e a , a t t h e process a r e a e x i t s u r v e y 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 r e a l l p a s s e d e n r o u t e from t h e w e t c e r a m i c a r e a t o
the plant exit.

- A c t i o n t a k e n i n c l u d e d d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n of t h e a r e a and of t h e i n d i v l d u a l s .
U r i n e and f e c a l samples t a k e n from t h e i n d i v i d u a i s showed no u p t a k e of
p l u t o n i u m . 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 p e r m i n u t e
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 p e r
m i n u t e p e r 24-hour sample and f o l l o w u p samples were l e s s t h a n 0 . 1 d i s i n -
t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e p e r 24-hour sample. The two maintenance men were
g i v e n l e t t e r s of reprimand f o r f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w w r i t t e n p r o c e d u r e s and
p l a n t p e r s o n n e l were a d v i s e d of t h e o c c u r r e n c e .

T h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t e x p o s u r e s . 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
c o n t a m i n a t i o n s u r v e y s were n o t made b e c a u s e 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 a u t o m o b i l e used by t h e employees. The l i c e n s e e
was a d v i s e d 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 c o n t a m i n a t i o n l e v e l s i n
u n r e s t r i c t e d a r e a s c o n s t i t u t e s noncompliance w i t h 1 0 CFR 2 0 . 2 0 1 ( b ) .

26. P l u t o n i u m Waste Leak, AuPust 18, 1973

Packaged s o l i d waste is s t o r e d i n a t r a i l e r van a t t h e l o a d i n g dock o u t s i d e

' t h e p l u t o n i u m b u i l d i n g ( i n s i d e t h e f e n c e d y a r d ) w h i l e a w a i t i n g shipment t o
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 i s used f o r s t o r a g e o n l y . T h i s u s e
is a u t h o r i z e d by L i c e n s e C o n d i t i o n 31 (Amendment 1 t o t h e l i c e n s e ) .

A t 7:55 a.m. on August 18, 1973, a h e a l t h p h y s i c s t e c h n i c i a n d i s c o v e r e d

l i q u i d d r i p p i n g from t h e t r a i l e r . The l i q u i d was found t o be l e a k i n g

- 24 -
 v .8-111

from o n e of f o u r 5 5 - g a l l o n 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 s u p p o s e d l y been s o l i d i f i e d w i t h u r e a formaldehyde.

The area a r o u n d t h e t r a i l e r was e s t a b l i s h e d a s a c o n t a m i n a t i o n c o n t r o l

area. D e c o n t a m i n a t i o n e f f o r t s were begun i m n e d i a t e l y and c o n t i n u e d o v e r
a p e r i o d of 11 d a y s under t h e c o n s t a n t s u p e r v i s i o n . of h e a l t h p h y s i c s
p e r s o n n e 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 r a i l e r was d e c o n t a m i n a t e d . T i r e s and o t h e r removable p a r t s of t h e
t r a i l e r were packaged a s c o n t a m i n a t e d waste. Contaminated g r a v e l and
d i r t were removed from u n d e r n e a t h 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
c o n t a m i n a t i o n . The removed material was packaged a s c o n t a m i n a t e d w a s t e .

C o n t a m i n a t i o n l e v e l s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g were g r e a t e r t h a n 1,000,000 d i s i n t e -
g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e p e r 60 s q u a r e 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 u n d e r n e a t h t h e t r a i l e r . T r a i l e r t i r e s were g r e a t e r t h a n 100,000
d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e . According t o h e a l t h p h y s i c s t e c h n i c i a n s
i n v o l v e d i n t h e s u r v e y s , c o n t a m i n a t i o n 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 t h a n 500 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r minute s m e a r a b l e and l e s s t h a n
30,000 d i s i n t e g r a t i o n s p e r m i n u t e d i r e c t r e a d i n g p r i o r t o f i x i n g w i t h
p a i n t . However, no r e c o r d s were made of t h e s e r e a d i n g s . F o l l o w i n g
e x t e n s i v e d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n , t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d a r e a s were c o a t e d w i t h r e d
o x i d e p a i n t and two l a y e r s of g r a y p a i n t . T h e r e was no d e t e c t a b l e con-
tamination subsequent t o p a i n t i n g t h e s u r f a c e s .
*

' I n d i v i d u a l s d o i n g t h e d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n 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 ,
r u b b e r g l o v e s , head c o v e r i n g , and f u l l f a c e r e s p i r a t o r s .

No p e r s o n n e l c o n t a m i n a t i o n o r e x p o s u r e 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 e n v i r o n s . A i r samples were t a k e n
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 d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n . 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 m i c r o c u r 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 r a i l e r , t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ranged from
1.2 x m i c r o c u r i e s p e r m i l l i l i t e r t o 8.6 x microcuries per
m i l l i l i t e r . MPC f o r s o l u b l e p l u t o n i u m i n r e s t r i c t e d areas i s 2 x
microcuries per m i l l i l i t e r . .

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 c o n t a m i n a t i o n l e v e l s
prior t o covering 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. Items a-e - Refer to inspection report. (Enclosure 2)

2, -
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 rea-
sonable 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. In
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. During tornado alert periods the plu-
tonium is stored in a concrete vault.

3. -
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 trans-
portation accident.

October 9 , 1973 Letter

1. Item 1 - Discussed in our letter.

2. Items 2 and 3 - With respect to the misleading information that ap-

peared 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. We regret that the referenced news
story stated that Kerr-McGee had received a clean bill of health as
a result of our recent inspection.

The news story's statement concerning criticality resulted from the

reporter's questioning whether the waste drums could explode. We view
this as a logical question answered logically and reported fairly.

3, Items 4, 5 and 6 -
This matter was addressed in our November 2 meet-
ing 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. For exampLe,
ICRP Publication 2 , "Report of Committee I1 on Permissible Dose for
' Internal Radiation," states: ". .
.occupational exposure for the work-
ing 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 com-
monly accepted in other present day industries."

5. Item 8 - No comment necessary.

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
'Plant. On the basis of these discussions with top management, we
are confident that appropriate corrective measures will be taken at
the Cimarron Plant to assure the safety of plant operations and com-
pliance with the Operating License. However, we will continue to
monitor these matters with an augmented inspection program and will
take other actions as necessary and appropriate.

7. Items 10, 11, and 14 - The AEC has undertaken an environmental review
of the Kerr-McGee Cimarron facility. A s yet, no date has been sched-
uled f o r 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. A s soon as the draft environ-
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 prepara-
tion 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.
W.3-114
V.8-115
V.8-116 n

n
V.8-117
V.8-llU

n
 V.8-120

q-.
\ -,,:can30
. ?io 8.1 r o q u i r o sanagor coiiduct an a n n u a l intornail
L'l

;-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

ikc to
V r..-
ii.S. .ltomic &orgy Cornnission, !.!as'ninG;ton D.C. 20545
G ocurncnt Roorn C o o r d i n a t o r
Xoon 016 I i c g u l a t o r y (may bo 616 m.)
t o l o p h o n o 301-973-7333 for docunents.
 V .8-I2I

#.

From A ZC, Frank Ib!alonc, C h o i f , Adm. S a r v i c o s 3rnnch

Cffico of Administration
. a

Idccnso IJo. SN1 1174 ihonclmont No. l*!PP-1

.3.1 1.isasuronants e n d Y t a t i s t i c a1 Cont 1.01s .

i’hc l i c m s o r , shall dctarmlno tho U235, U233 and o r Pu c o n t a n t
of 3.11 r o c : ? i p t s , shipmonts i n t o n t i o n o . 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 C o n d i t i o n
6.2. iicnsurcmcnts n o n o t r c q u i r o d 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 v a l u e 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 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 p o r i o d

zxcocd.s t h o l s r g e r o f ( a ) 1.5 l r i l o ~ r n m sBf Plutonium o r (b) 5;1
ac?d.itions t o plutonium i n proc83ss f o r t h o p o r i o d , o r ( c ) t h o cunul-
p of .
crtivo S4UF oxcccds i t s L L ~ I U Ffor p s i x months p o r i o d , t h e l i c o n s a o
s h e l l p r o m p l y n o t i f y t h o Rogion 3 O f f i c a , and shall t z k a 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 p r e v i o u s 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. 1 9 7 3
t i ..d p o r i o d .
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 L i c o n s i n g , USAEC W3.sh. 20545 witha copy t o Fbgion 3, Offic:,
of U i r r i c t o r z t e 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 ; t h e l i m i t s of
c r r o r f o r o m h corapanent, t h e cumulative m a t o r i a l unaccounted f o r g .
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 .
T n i s r 3 p o r t shall b e s u b m i t t e d w i t h i n s i x t y days a f t e r t h o l a s t
p r o d u c t shipment i s made.
x+*A3:+;n”+x+k
June 8,1973
To i30yco G r i o r , Region 3, 799 R o o s a v s l 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 i o i n s p e c t i o n conducted subsoquont t o t h e fir3 which occur-
od :!t o u r vlutonium- :>lnnton Piarch 5 , 1973.

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 c n c l b s c d 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 o f pronriot:i.ry i n f o m a t i o n , w o do w i s h t o o b j o c t t o
c :rtri$itonls ;..rit!.lin t h o r c n o r t becauso o f i m p l i c a t i o n which can
b q clr?.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 : ; j c c 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 r o a t m e n t . ‘.Ph?y seem t o bo couched i n pti.ilonophiccd
].:rnps.@o t o t h g 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 t h o 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 ,
t h o roquiroments of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s and sound busineos judgomont,
 v .8-122
I

Cotmonts on Rolbort d a t o d Nay 21, 1973

.. . .* .

, I ~ C. 1.v .!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 ' a
n 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 - s u b ; : : i t t o d - - - :;nd t h o r o c o i p t 02 t h e r o 3 u l t s . 'I
, . iiL & i d i k i o n a 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 r o n t m o n t n b r t h o dogreo o f oxposuro.,
!-eL ./
il, i" 2. "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 t h o day following
t h e occuronce ' I .
O u r i,icrliccil c0nsulti:nt iJSS n o t i f i o d i n accordsnco wit'n p r o -
/fl!'\. ccdur3s p r o v i d c d by t h a t c o n s u l t ' m t and a v a i l a b l o f o r i n -
:\ spoc7;ion.
t r c attiion t p r o c edu r o s.
3 z r l i 9 r i n s p e c t i o n would n o t hnvo a l t e r e d o u r c u r r e o n t

30'( 3rocc:luro would n o t r e q u i r o tho

ciuring bag-out o p e r a t i o n s . '' 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

I n r o t r o s p o c t , t h o us6 o f r e s ? i r a t o r y p r o t e c t i o n d u r i n g bng-
.r( 111 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* .
. 4. ""ta c o n t i n u o u s room a i r m o n i t o r c h a r t was a l l o w o d 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 p r o c o d u r o s i n
offoct. 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
ic' "'
p r o c c i u r o 3 had boon f o l l o w a d . Ziowovor, w o do n o t h e l i o v o the,
-4

' . !.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 -

i n s prompt t r o a t m o n t of porsonnol nor af'foctod t h e o v o n t u a l
o-.;'>osuro n o r sffoctod t h o o v a n t u a l body burddn of o q o s o d
. pcrso.m~t3.3.

fhs r,e c t i o n r c? o r t No 0 7 0- 1193/7 3- 04

GK' 6
,< i),-rl;2 " ?Yo ;-,roviqj.on was mado t o c o u n t t h o ~ m p l o sl o c e l l y .
T h o ~ oi s no l o c a l cr7.po.bility f o r m a m u r i n g plutonium.

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

If
'I

bocn : . l i i O l O body countod t o d o t o n n i n e t h o s x t m t of l u n g 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 p l u t o n i u m i s o t o p i c p e r s o n t a g o s
h:d not bocn doC.:mnj.nod. ''
':his n d d i t i o n o l i n f o r n i a t i o n would h a v s 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 3r. 1;oil- 'd3.1d and Dr. liogor Caldwoll o f U of T i t t s b u r g h
*,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 nand with Rogio:i 3. A witOon r o g o r t hao n o t boon
r o c l o v o d f r o m t h e t l o n s u l t a n t as y e t .
 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 v o G s t a t i o n s m p l e s
doinwiiicl from t h o s t a c k . R e s u l t s havo n o t y o t beon o b t a i n e d .
k'1utoniui:i l e v o l s i n samples tzkon by Roeion 3 a t t h e snmplo l o c -
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 r o o f of t h e X Ray

a b 1o p1.u tonium a c t i v i t y .
b u i ' . d i n g j u s t S.S. o f t h o plutonium p l a n t . ' i i o s o shotrodno . d e t e c t -

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,': c o n t n n i n a t a d t o about 100,000 dpm p e r 100 cm2 alpha.
About 2 rmolis of continuous decontamination was r o q u i r o d 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 d s g r e e and wore mor0 r o a d i l y docontaminatod.
Sons c o n t a m i n a t i o n had boen t r a c k o d 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 p r o d u c t i o n a r o a s of
t h e b u i l d i n g was ' ~ 8 sr 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 t h e b a s i s o f a i r
snnplos c o l l e c t e d ov=r a 14 h 6 u r p e r i o d which i n c l u d o d 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
o s t a b 3 i s h e d 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. S s n t 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 qr, c a i v2 ,o..d ,uan, t i ..
r e,-.....--.,-
.. ,...
,C
.I
l March
..J..* ..
13.
x*,i-d,. d k , r .nr-rrx

GUTIIRIE DAILY LEAD'CR, F r i . Narch 9, 1973

K a r r PlcGoc Reports Piinor Fire.
.:.<~I*ZI I-IcSso Corp announc2d F r i d z y 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 ~ ot o the p l a n t as a r o s u l t o f ' o,
minor f i r ? a t t h o 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 p r o c o s s i n g
op3rc Lion?, . y n d - r O s u l t a ( l . :in co;ub~i::kion of ii:Io I.r:,n-Lo , l i l t i 3 : ~ ; t l i . c k
contc.minstcd two rooms of t h e p l a n t . It i s b o l i o v e d t h a 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 f u n c t i o n o d 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 , t h . r conpmy s a i d .
i~~~.;ft-~I.;~S~-~I.;iSC.:~

Lpnlic n t s 1 ; h v i r o n o n i ; a l ftoport
U S h : X ~)ocl.:ctNo 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 c o p i e s .
D i s c u s s i o n and F i n d i n g by t h e REG ( ~ o c l t s t - ~70-1193)
~O i ) i V i S i O n Of
L i c . > n s i n g A i3C Helz.ting t o C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Suspension pending
NEPA i k v i r o m o n t a l Review f o r K e r r NcGoo, Cirnarron Plutonium P l m t .
Nov. 29, 1971
 V.8-124
n

to F a r k c r S . h n n , Vico Prosidonb, Nuclear O p e r a t i o n s

K o r 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 r o q u i r o d
t o furnish t o t h o Coinnission b c f o r c Oct. 19, 1 9 7 1 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 a n y r e a s o n s , w i t h su3:orting
f n c t u d s u b x i 3 s i 0 n why, w i t h r o f w a n c o t o t h e c r i i c r i a i:
Para. 2 o f 2zci;ion X, L o u r Liconn3s Y U 3 1010 c o v c r i n c o n c r a t i o n s
a t your Scquoyaii Urclniurn h c x n f l o r i d o Product k l a n t G d k l.;
~

1174 c o v z r i n g 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 di 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 3 s a p p r o p r i a t e .
Harold L. P r i c c , D i r e c t o r of
Regu 1at ions

F e d Q r a l R e g i s t o r Vol. 36 No. 175 T h u r . S o p t 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 '?'HEPLUTONIUN 3 C O N O h Y

Senrg David Thoreau has s a i d , "The c o s t of a t h i n g i s t h e amount

of what I c a l l life which i s r e q u i r e d t o be exchanged f o r i t , i m -
m e d i a t e l y o r i n t h e long run.'' We should consid.:r t h i s quotation
very c a r e f u l l y , e s p e c i a l l y a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e l i q u i d metal f a s t
b r e e d e r r e a c t o r (LZFBR) and t h e plutonium economy. Iam s u b m i t t i n g

t h i s p a p e r t o p o i n t o u t some of t h e 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 h e f 3 s t b r e e d s r r e -
actor.
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 e a s e d a d r s f t environmental s t a t e m e n t on
t h e l i q u i d metal f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r progrsm p r e d i c t i n g t h a t f u l l
s c z l e u s e o f t h e b r e s d e r 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 c h a l l e n g e t h i s conclusion snd Irish t o 3 o i n t o u t t h e following
r e a s o n s why t h e b r e e d e r would have s e v e r e adverse e f f e c t s on t h e
environment, t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e and even o f 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 s c u s s w i t h you f e e l i n g s ,

impressions, 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

o r bnd environment. A f t e r a l l , human emotions a r e 8 s r e a l and a s
1

legitimate as the logarithmic scale.

I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e A.E.C. can be o b j e c t i v e on
t h i s isaue. % e r e h a s been p r e s s u r e on t h e A.4.C. f o r a long
time t o d i v i d e t h s i r s a f e t y f u n c t i o n s from t h e i r promotional and

o p e r a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s w i t h t h e r e s u 7 t of more b e l i e v a b l e , f a i r and
independent judgements. "th P r e s i d ~ n tFixon pushing f o r self s u f -

f i c i e n c y i n energy by 1983, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e A.3.C. officially

would t a k e a p o s i t i o n c o n t r a r y t o t h e exprzssed wishes o f t h e
 V.8-126

2,
president. P r e s i d n n t s come and go, b u t we may b t ying t o l i v e
w i t h t h e f a s t b r e e d e r f o r a long time. Dr. Richard Carpenter,
with t h e Znvironmental C o m i s s i o n o f t h e E a t i o n a l .Acsdemy o f Science,
speaking on April 5 a t an Oklahoma U n i v e r s i t y energy l e c t u r e , s ? i d
t h a t t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e A . X . C . ‘was very low due t o t h i s !_ack
of d i v i s i o n o f f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I t i s indeed i n -
comprehensible t o me how two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s could be spent pre-
p a r i n g an environmental r e p o r t and n o t f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t envir-

onmental damage from t h e LYLFBR.

Having .spent about s i x months and probably a hundred d o l l a r s on
r e s e a r c h on plutonium, s p e c i f i c a l l y , and t h e f a s t breeder, i n c i d -
e n t a l l y , my conclusion would be j u s t t h e opDosite. B u t , perhaps,
I look’on p?utonium a s a t h r e a t t o l i f e and h e a l t h and n o t necess-
a r i l y as a source of Sbundant energy,
It h a s been about s i x months now s i n c e we were t o l d o f a l e a k o f
plutonium n i t r a t e v a s t e a t t h e Kerr IlcGee Cimarron Plutonium Fuel
F a b r i c a t i o n P l a n t a t C r e s c m t , 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 t h e F a s t F l u x Reactor a t ;!znford, ifash. I t 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

m i l e s from o u r home, and t h a t t h i s extremely hazardous s t u f f had

l e a k e d from a drum, o v e r t h e t r u c k bed, and unto t h e ground. ‘l”hus,
were we r u d e l y i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e p e a c e f u l atom and some of i t s

drawbacks ,
Through t a l k i n g t o employees of t h e p l a n t , and A.Z.C. inspectors,
reading t h e A.Z.C. p u b l i c r e e c o r d s a t t h e Guthrie Library, and
through communications by phone and l e t t e r s t o A.X.C. officials,
we have l e a r n e d t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p l a n t has been b e s e t with l e a k s ,
f i r e s , a c c i d e n t s , and v i o l a t i o n s o f r e g u l a t i o n s . Ide a r e aware
of f o u r leaks o f r a d i o a c t i v e waste c o n t a i n j n g p’utonium, two fires,
 V.8-127

3.
one i n which seven employees were exposed t o a i r b o r n e plutonium,
s e v e r a l glove-box i n c i d e n t s , a case of two employees l e a v i n g t h e
p l a n t contaminated, a s h i p m n t of plutonium rsaching Crescent on
t h e bock of a f l a t - b e d t r u c k , h e l d i n only w i t h a chain, t h e p l a n t
o p e r a t i n g 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
p e r i o d of less t h a n f o u r years.
We a r e deeply concsrned t h a t t h i s p l a n t w a s l o c a t e d i n our m i d s t
with p r a c t i c a l l y no p u b l i c awareness, t h a t i t i s i n tornado a l l e y ,
t h a t t h e r e a r e 863,000 people v i t h i n a 50 mile r a d i u s o f t h e p l a n t ,
t h a t i t i s i n a Zone 2 earthquake area, t h a t i t i s a unique a r e a
w i t h a low a l t i t u d e j e t stream o f 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
a

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 t h e f a s t breeder a s a main
source of power. With t h e 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.

Anyway, a s a person l i v i n g close t o a plutonium p l a n t , I know
what i t I s t o l i v e v i t h f e a r . Fear. based not o n ignorance, but on
l

a knowledge of the f i e n d i s h l y t o x i c and p e r s i s t a n t n a t u r e o f p l u t -

onium. '+!hen w e 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 t h e f i s h k i l l t h a t occured
o n . t h e Cimarron c l o s e t o t h e p l a n t . I wonder about the record f l o o d
they had i n October, and what has happened t o t h e l i q u i d i n t h e
lagoons. I wond3r about t h e many o i l m l l s i n t h e v i c i n i t y and

t h e huge underground gas s t o r a g e area n e a r 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 r e p o r t s o f t h o l a s t L e a k . I chink
about t h e s t J r k l y dead t r e e s j u s t n o r t h of t h e pl-snt, of p l a n t per-
 4.

personel who check t h e w e l l s i n t h e v i c i n i t y , and the s t a t e ' s

chief r a d i o l o g i s t , D r . Dale Nchard s a y i n g t h a t o u r s t a t e has no
i n s t r u m e n t s t o measure plutonium. Dr. A r t h u r Tamplin h a s s a i d

t h a t p a r t i c l e s t o o s m a l l 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 i n s t r u m e n 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 l u n g s . We no l o n g e r
go n i c n i c i n g o r f i s h i n g n e a r b y on t h e Cimerron River, o r t a k e
n a t u r e photographs on a f r i e n d ' s a c r e a g e s e v e r a l m i l e s from t h e
plant.
Death i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y f e a r f u l t o me, but a lingering daath
o f l u n g 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 s p r e a d s on che n a t u r e o f 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 r o n o r t i o n . Secsuse
a

of t h e l o n g t i m e 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 n c i d e n c e o f c a n c e r , t h e r e c o u l d 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 .
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 o f 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 s c u s s e d . a television
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

o u r l o c s l p l a n t and how p o o r l y g u a r d e d 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 r o u n s 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. V i t h o u r p o p u l a t i o n of o v e r 200 m i l l i o n , t h e r e are bound

t o b e some kooks, c r a c k p o t s and m a l c o n t e n t s who j u s t might t r y it.

Making bombs would b e 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

u s e d i n n u c l a a r p l a n t s , b u t would be much xora s i r ! p l e w i t h t h e

p'utonium t u e l f o r t h e f a s t b r e e d e r . 'de h a v s l ? a r ? e d t o o u r sorrow

t h a t h y j n c k i n g o f plnnes, an unheard o f c o n d i t i o n 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.

I n I r e l a n d today i f p l u t o n i u m 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 w i t h 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 c o n d i t i o n i n g 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 e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s of
h a v i n g a n o t h e r c o u n t r y o b t a i n plutonium from u s by und3rground
operatims. Any p ' u t o n i u m f a c i l i t y , v h e t h e r i t i s a f a s t b r e e d s 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 s u c h a s i t t i n g duck i n time o f x a r , o r i s s o v u l n e r a b l e

t o sabotage o r blackmail. T h i s c o u l d c a u s e unthinkable human m i s s r y .

What h o s p i t a l o r d o c t o r i s g o i n g t o t r s a t a p e r s o n o r zny number
o f p e o p l e c o n t a n i n a t e d w i t h plutonium. Talk about f e w !
Plutonium m d r a d i o a c t i v e w a s t e s come and go from t h e C r e s c m t
#

P l a n t by Dlane and t r u c k . If t h e c o u n t r y is p r o d u c i n g 10,000,000

l b s . a year b y t h e y e e r 2000, t h i s m a t s r i a l w i l l be c r i s s c r o s s i n g
t h e c o u n t r y i n e v e r i n c r e a s i n g amounts. Ilobody anycrhere w i l l

b e safe from an e x t r e m e l y s e r i o u s a c c i d s n t . T h i s i s bscoming a n

i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e r n of airline p i l o t s and s t e w r r d e s s e s . Perhaps
wo would be l u c k y and n o t have a p l a n e c r a s h i n v o l v i n g plutoni!;n,

b , l t i t i s e x t r e m e l y f o o l h a r d y t o depend on good l u c k f o r e v 3 r . It

i s l u c k y t h a t t h e 1 9 b 9 , ~ 7 ~ , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0f i r e t h e Rocky F l a t s Plutonium
P l a n t d i d n ' t burn t h r o u g h t h e roof and c o n t a m i n a t e thousands o f
acras. I t i s n o t so l u c k y t h a t o f f s i t e c o n t a m i n a t i o n due t o
contmninated o i l has i n c r e a s e d t h e a i r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of p ' u t o n i u m
around t h e p l a n t t o above t h e A.S.C. acceptable standards.
I n 1966, t h e E n r i c o F s m i F a s t S r e e d a 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 t h o t t h e p l m t i s permanently s h u t d o m ,

a t a loss of ~ 1 ~ 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . What i s t o b e done w i t h t h a t r a d i o a c t i v e

c o n c r e 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 them. I n 1961, t h e 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 t h e Hew fork Times, Russia r e c e n t l y had some kind of
a c c i d a n t with the!ir f a s t breeder. Flecause of t h e high h e a t of a
f a s t b r e e d s r r e a c t o 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 e g u l a r reac5ors a s l i g h t e n i n g i s t o l i g h t s n i n g bugs.
Without t h e v a s t o u t l a y of money from t h e f e d 3 r a 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 y e a r s ago. It is
h i g h l y i r o n i c t h a t we art3 now setting up a s y s t e m of f u t u r e s l a v e r y ,

becsuse we a r e ? l a c i n g i n bondage f u t u r e g s n e r s t i o n s t o look a f t e r

our r a d i o a c t i v e 1.13stes. Tn" seem. t o have two choice3, t h a t o f con-
densing t h e v a ; t e s i n t o extremely h o t r z d i o a c t i v e chunks, o r less
concentrated and more bulky l i q u i d wastes. :le have y e t t o d e v i s e
a c o n t a i n e r t o c o n t a i n t h i s s t u f f for v8ry long. Consider t h e
rciserable record at t h e 4'a.nford f a c i ' . i t y which has only been s t o r i n g
wastes f o r 30 years. The l a s t l e a k of 115,000 g a l l o n s wasn't ?is-
covered f o r 51 days. Plutonium w a s t s s s t s y r a d i o a c t i v e f o r a
q u a r t e r of a n i l l i o n years. It :trould be n i c e i f we could j u s t dump
i t i n t o t h e 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 h e p o s z i b i i i t y o f l e a k i n g i n t o u?dsrground :mter, e a r t h -
qu::kes, radioacLive m a t e r i a l g e t t i n g i n t o t h e atmosphere o r food
chain. If ths -orice of p e r p e t u z l guardianship o f -.rastes were includ-
ed in t h e p r i c e of n u c l e a r power, i t would be indeed hizh.
Have you e v 3 r seen a K 3 P OUT FOREVZ3 sign. Due t o t h e long
p e r s f s t a n c e 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 s e n t u a l l g nertnanent. Dr. Jo'hn Copman
 v.a-131

7.

has s a i d , "1,knufacture o f plutonium 23, s n ts widespread u s e i 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.".
S i n c e t h e w i d e s p r e a d use of t h e LMP'q vrould have s e r i o u s sid.3
e f f e c t s , I se9 i t as s i m i l a r t o drug a d d i c t i o n . Would o u r s o c i e t y

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 a c c i d e n t . O r would we have become s o dependant on

t h i s type of Dower t h a t we would b e f o r c e d t o c o n t i n u e even though

the p o p u l a c e 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 r o p h e - 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 r e e d e r ,

Yow can any s e m i t i v e p e r s o n o r s o c i e t y j u s t i f y tnlring t h e s e

k i n d s of chances w i t h l i f e on e a r t h . Ferhaps m a n ' s f a t : i l f l a w hzs

bean the s i z e of h i s b r a i n . If h e were mor8 i n t a l l i g e n t , h e c o u l d
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 h e cou d n l t have b r o u g h t t o f r u i t i o n t h i s n!.;htmarish possib-
ility. Terhens p l u t o n i u m i s m a n l s vay o f se- f - d a s t r u c t i n g becPuse

of t h i s f a t a l f l a w .
If we v a l u e t h e d s m o c r a t i c form of govsrnment, w e s h o u l d consid-
e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f 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 D r o t e c t i o n t o k e e p i t from g . . t t i n g i n t o
the lrrrong hands. Freedom will be T o r e and rr.ore r e s t r i c t e e , and
p e o p l e w i l l be t o l d l e s s and l e s s about what t h e i r govornment i s
doing .
I w i s h t o u r g e my government t o change i t s p r i o r i t i e s from t h e
f a s t b r e s d : 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- s u c h ns
 V.8-132 '

a o l a r , t i d a l , wind, geothermal, p o s s i b l y f u s s i o n , and, i n t h e

meantime, making every e f f o r t towards c l e a n i n g up o u r coal. We
ahould a l s o ' embark on a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y 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 p a p e r 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 b r e e d e r r e a c t o r program.

The pyimary t h e s i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e 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 w e l l 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 p r o c e d u r e i s n o t
s t r u c t u r e d t o n r o v i d e 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 o v e r an
adequate p e r i o d of t i m e t o d e a l w i t h such monumental e t h i c a l m a t t e r s .
Further, t h i s t h e s i s w i l l point out the various a t t i t u d e s , forces- at-
work snd o u e s t i o n a b l e 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 o f t h e i r p e r s o n n e l t o b e u n q u a l i f -

ied t o make i m p o r t a n t 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 w e l l
being

The a u t h o r h a s a n e n g i n e e r i n g background- u n d a r s t s n d s ana a p p r e c i a t e s

h i g h technology. He a s k s 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

h i g h e r 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 . T h e y 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 c o n s c i e n c e , 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 r u t h s t h a t .we t h e keys t o und3rstandin.g t h e

m o t i v a t i o n s 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 c o n t r o v e r s e r y , md i n d a t s r m i n i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r ob-
jectivity. 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 s e n s e approach

t o d e a l i n g w i t h seemingly ovsrpowering e x y e r t o p i n i o n s ;
1.
 V.8-134

1. P e r p e t u a l l y P e r f e c t Performance o r PPP - Xany nuclear s c i e n t i s t s , \

e n g i n e e r s 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 n u c l e a r s a f e t y systems and procedures.

2. Nature abhors p e r p e t u a l l y p e r f e c t human performance ( ?!ature iibhors

P e r f e c t i o n ) o r VJBP - ?!any e n v i r o n m s n t a l i s t s and a few key n u c l e a r s c i e n t -
i s t s a r e a c u t e l y awzre o f human f a l l i b i l i t y a s w e l l as a wide range o f
random v a r i a t i o n s i n n a t u r a l phenomena t h a t c h a l l e n g e s n u c l e a r s a f e t y .

Perpetual Parfection- A Closer Look

The PPP concept has a c o n v i w i n g image of r e a l i t y - c r s a t e d , p r o p e l l e d and

p e r p e t u a t e d by a powerful s e t o f f o r c e s vhich, by our t r a d i t i o n a l v a l u e s

a r e a s a c c e p t a b l e a s " f r e s h apDle p i e w i t h i c e cream." Consequsntly few

citizens 993 t h e F a u s t i a n a s p e c t s i n t h e p a c t t h a t t h e s e f o r c e s have w i t h

n u c l e a r power: e s g e c i a l l y w i t h plutonium f u e l dsvelo?ment. Let us i d e n t -
i f y znd d e s c r i b e t h e e f f e c t o f some of t h e s e f o r c e s :

332
The h i g h l y educeted p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a k e a n a t u r a l and honest p r i d e i n t h s i r
s c i e n t i f i c , engineering, and t e c h n i c a l d i s c i p l i n e . I t i s indeed such
Drofessional p r i d e and t e c h n i c a l i n g e n u i t y 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 p r o g r e s s . 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 s o p h i s t i c c t e d , r e q u i r i n g genius o r n e a r
g e n i u s t a l e n t , a f a l s e s e n s e o f t h e i r i n f a l l a b i l i t y has davdoped. Con-

s e a u e n t l y i t i s almost p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i x p o s s i b l e f o r any S u t a few peoole

i n t h e n u c l e a r f i e l d t o conceive t h a t they c a n ' t angineer a p e r f e c t sol-

.
u t i o n t o any t h r e a t - t h a t t h e i r c a r e e r s a r e n ' t i n t h e h i g h e s t s s r v i c e t o

mankind

Is i s a case of i n d i v i d u a l s who, h i s h l y e t h i c a l and moral i n conventional

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 i n c a p a b l e of r e c o g n i z i n g

t h e i r own d e g r e e o f t u n n e l 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 s o e x t e n d s through t h e e n t i r e sgstsm, from t h e J o i n t

Congressional. Committee on E u c l s a r Z m r g y , t h r o u g h t h e A X and t h e m a n -
u f z c t u r ? r s o f n u c l e a r powsr systems. The f ' a b r i c s t o r s 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 t o c k h o l d e r s ,
yes, even e d u c i t o r s 2nd w r i t e r s o f e d u c a t i o n a 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 v a l u e

systsm: all i m p o r t a n t 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 r o u s i n g 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 t h e 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
m e n t a l 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 t h r e a t : to t h e i r j o b 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 p e r s o n a b l e , communfty-

minded l e a d s r s , f r i s n d s , and n e i g h b o r s . T h i s i s t h e e f f e c t o f ego and
i t i s a very r e d f o r c e behind PPP concepts,

Economic Nomenturn

-4 v a s t i n v e s t m s n t of f e d e r a l f u n d s i n r e s s a r c h and development o v e r
severF.1 decades i n n u c l e a r power i s i n v o l v e d a s we11 as 4.0 b i l l i o n i n
private copital. 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 o f t h e ~ ? u t o n l u mf a s t b r s e d o r yoactor. ! J i t h 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 r e s s u r ? , t h e r e i s a predoxinant motivating
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 o u r
i n d u s t r i a l p r o g r e s s and economic a f f l u e n c e .

&ery;y C r i s i 0 'igndrone .
The d e v e l o p i n g s h o r t a g e of c l e a n c o n v e n t i o n a l energy r e s o u r c e s i s obvious.
We make assumptions w i t h o u t much thought, however, t h a t o u r p r e v i o u s r a t e s
of growth i n e l e c t r i c power consumption, d o u b l i n g e v ? r y t e n y e a r s , a r e
v a l i d and c m and should be s u s t a i n e d . 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 v a l u e s 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 p r o g r e s s .

Consequently, i n a c r i s i e a t n o s p h e r e , t h e clear-headed r e a s o n i n g and

publ-ic d e b a t e 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 h a s i n h e r e n t p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d s u n l i k e

m y t h i n g o u r s o c i e t y h a s experienced.

g g s i n One !3as&t

Cleansing of c o n v e n t i o n a l c o a l mining, p r o c e s s i n g and b u r n i n g o 9 e r a t i o n a UI

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 , h a s

been postponsd by l a c k of economic m o t i v a t i o n 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, h a s t o l 3 r a t e d such a l o n g s t a n d i n g
s c a n d a l i n c o a l mine s a f e t y as h a s the U.S.A. F u r t h e r , i t h a s Seen r e -
p e a t e d , 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 t h e problems o f c o a l a r e o f 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 u n c h a r t e d a r e a s of pl.utoniiim powsr. It i s

4.

___ ___ ~ _ 1 - - - - - -- - -
__
 V .U-l37

almost l u d i c r o u s t o r e l a t e t h e l o n g rcnge h a z a r d s of p , u t o n i u m 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
better. 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
c h e a p e s t c o a l and tEri;l. go f u l l speed ahead. Vith c o a l 1.18 Ci’a inprovise
b e t t e r t e c h n i q u e s very r a p i d l y - - no b i g d s s l .

Let u s exsmine now t h e common s s n s e c ~ s efor 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 r u t h . The e n k i r e h i s t o r y of hunan endeavors con-
ir
~ t i t u t s s ~ r ~ f u t a testimony
ble t o this. I t i s , i n f a c t , i n t h e more com-
p l e x a r o a s of technology t h a t t h e b e s t e v i d s n c e e c i s t s . F o r , example,

man h a s n e v e r 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 spacecraft. F a i l u r e s have f r e r u e n t l y occured i n t h e

c o n c e o t u a l i z a t i o n , d s s i g n , 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, t h o s e c o n v e n t i o n a l 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 metal

fast breedor reactor.

An Age o f Innocence

I n 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

o f man’s s y s t m s hcd consecusnces t h a t v e r e a c c e p t a b l e . ?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 , c h e con-
sequonc-s were tr:..gic t o b e 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 i n v o l v e d , l i a b i l i t y was l i m i t e d , che vreckaze vr;‘s c l e a n e d

up i n a ma5ter of days, b u s i n e s s as u s u a l p r e v a i l e d s h o r t l y n 3 a r 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 i s k s 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 o f t h e more i n n o c ? n t 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 , s o t h a t " l e a r n h g from m i s t a k e s " was a v i a b l e approach,
Consequently, s l l t h s f o r c e of ego, e t c . 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 t e c h n i c 8 1

s k i l l i s o f t e n s u x m i s i n g l y i n a d e q u a t e becsuse o f v o i d s o f 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 the nuclear
age e

The consequences o f one' m a j o r f a i l u r e , o r t h e l o n g 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. Small

t r a c e s nay be dangerous. Thousznds t o m i l l i o n s o f p e o p l e may be a f f e c t e d

o b v i o u s l y 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 p e r i o d . Further,
n o t 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, b u 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 o f a n ounce o f p l u t -
onium 239 c m c a u s e c m c e r and i t remains hazardous f o r o v e r 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

f o r c e d t o a c c 3 p t 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 t u d y 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 t c n d a r d s may b e 115,000
times t o o lax.

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 t h a n

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 o f n u c l o c r 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

fission ;!owever, w i t h i n a y e a r o r s o t h o P l a n doveloped i n t o a t e c h n i c n l
6. .
 r
V.8-139

d e b a c l e and w a s scrapDed. The r e a l i t y cnme t o l i g h t l n r , ; e l y bec.:use

an amateur o r non-nuclear e x p e r t , t h e Kansas S t a t e G e o l o z i s t , asked

enough unanswerable q u e s t i o n s .

Again i n July 1973, t h e A 9 C o r d e r e d t e n n u c l e a r power plants t o reduce

o p e r a t i n g paver because of unresolved hazayds i n f u e l and c o r e s a f e t y .
The whole t o p i c of s a f e t y i n emerggncy c o r e c o o l i n g systsms M ~ a
Sg a i n

brought t o l i - ; h t l a r g e l y by e f f o r t s o u t s i d e o f t h e -492 t o p rriancgement,

and t h e n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r y .

'The saga of r a d i o a c t i v e w a s t ~ l e a k a g eof hundreds o f thousands o f g a l l o n s

a t Eanford, !:'esh., i s a s t o r y of A S C I S poor management. Further, as
demonstrated i n t h e AEC monthly r e c o r d o f o p g r a t i o n s and by an account
i n t h e Val1 S t r e e t J o u r n a l o f tisg 3, 1973, che o p e r a t i o n o f new l a r g e r
n u c l e e r power p z a n t s i s p - a g u e d w i t h d e f i c i e n c i e s i n d e s i g n , q u a l i t y
of m a t e r i a l a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n , ~ l u bs l u n d e r s i n ope a t i o n . The e i g h t e e n
oldest nuclear Y l m t s were a b l e 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 h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e plutonium f u e l f a b r i c ? t i o n f a c i l i t y
n o r t h o f Oklahcma C i t y , t h e AZC i n s p e c t i o n r m o r c s on f i l e i n p u b l i c
r e c o r d s c l e a r l y do:urr,ents fires, s p i l l a g e s , l e a k a g e s , worker ov9r ex-
posure, r e g u l a t o r y v i o l a t i o n s , l o s s s s o f plutonium - i n t e r accounted
f o r - end l a c k of management conc3rn.

NAP (Iu'eture Abhors ? e r f e c t i o n ) , is a l s o a t work i n t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n ,

o r g a n i z a t i o n , and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , l e g i s l a t i v e and
r e g u l a t o r y n h a s e s of n u c l e a r power. F u r t h e r , a l l t h e PYPC' ' 2 e r f e c t
P e r p e t u a l ?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.
 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 t h i t s t u n n e l 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 . Ironiczll:?, the
informed r e m o n s i b l e c i t i z e n h a s had t o seek p r o t e c t i o n from t h o s e
chargee? w i t h t h e m i s s i o n 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 a c t i o n .

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 ? 21P: 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 T h i r d Law o f P h y s i c s ( i.e.

f o r every a c t i o n t h e r e i s an e q u a l and o p p o s i t e r s a c t i o n ) "For evnvry
p o t s n t i a . 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 . " Or, "the
g r e a t e r p o t s n t i a l f o r good, t h e g r e a . t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r evil.''

h'uclear power and e s p e c i a l l y the LXFBR i s t h s 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 l e a n , 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 , w a t e r ,
food, h i g h i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y , h i g h e r i n c i d e n c s o f l u n g snd bone m n c e r ,
c o l d d e r k homes snd dead a p p l i a n c e s bec*iuse o f 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 u n s a f e t h a t a l l b r e e d e r

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 s g r n c e could b e f a l l

a l l associated w i t h 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 2 r e . Q t e r p o t e n t i a l good from hi <:h1-:1 s p e c i : ? l & ~ d e x n e r t knowledgo,
8.
 V. 8-1 41

t h e g r e a t e r t h e p o t e n t i a l harm from " t u n n e l - v i s i o n " ,and s h o r t s i ; ; h t -

edness. The r i s k 8 a r e j u s t t o o g r e a t . l)r. Zohn Gofman s a i d , ' '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.

N o m a n Cousins s a i d i n t h e Saturday Fieview/?iorld o f October 2 3 , 1973,

"Governn?ents a r e n o t b u i l t t o p e r c e i v e l a r g e r t r u t h s . Only peo l e
can p e r c e i v e g r e a t t r u t h s . 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 h s ... "

Dr. Alvin Xeinburg, D i r e c t o r of C a k Ridge N a t i o n a l Laboratory, h a s

acknowlLdged t h e v a l u a b l e c o n t r i b u a i o n of d i s s a n t i n g non-e-:perts t o
b e t t e r nuclear safety. F u r t h e r , he s a i d , "Amateurs have always been
t h e g r e a t Xessiahs o f t h e 'dorld. "

Only t h e ? e o n l e a r 3 capable of und3rstnnding t h e human and moral

aspects that a r e t h e g r e a t e r t r u t h s . 3 u t , t h e missing i n g r e d i e n t
Jn r e a c h i n g 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 n d u s t r y , and t h e many v e s t e d i n t s r e s t s hava besn

hi:;hlg s e c r e t i v e , and,only r e c e n t l y , somewhet more open, b u t s t i l l n o t

frank.

' h e E a t i o n a l Znvironment& 9rotecfuion Act, hoi-rever, dencnds ' f u l l n u b l i c

disclosure. With such g i g a n t i c economic p o l i t i c - 1 , p r o f e s s i o n a l , govern-
mentalrand e n e r g y - c r 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-
r a c y end i t s people f u n c t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n such a h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l

issue 8s ~'utonium f u e l ? !{e t h i n k t h e p e o p l e c m . Ye must, o r f a c o

t h e 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

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

KC 3 f 1974

I l e n e H. and Gaylord A. Younghein

3900 Cashion P l a c e
Oklahoma C i t y , Oklahoma 73112

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Younghein:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 15, 1974 c0rmnentir.g on t h e Atomic

Energy Cominission's D r a f t Environmental Statement f o r 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 S t a t e m e n t i s enclosed for your i n f o r m a t i o n . AEC
responses t o your cormnehts are a l s o enclosed. More d e t a i l e d i n f o r -
mation concerning your comments and concerns on Plutonium T o x i c i t y
is p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.7 and Appendix 1I.G of t h e F i n a l Statement.

The attachment t o your l e t t e r t i t l e d "A Case Against t h e F a s t Breeder

Reactor and t h e Plutonium Economy," e x p r e s s e s concern o v e r a number of
LMFBR s a f e g u a r d s - r e l a t e d m a t t e r s :

(1) t h e adequacy of c u r r e n t s a f e g u a r d s ; ( 2 ) t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t
plutonium might b e s t o l e n by e r r a t i c i n d i v i d u a l s o r f o r e i g n
a g e n t s ; (3) t h e r e l a t i v e e a s e of making bombs w i t h LMFBR f u e l ;
(4) t h e t h r e a t of plutonium b e i n g used a s a r a d i o l o g i c a l weapon;
(5) t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y of n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s t o a c t s of war; and
( 6 ) t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t f u t u r e s a f e g u a r d s 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 i n d i v i d u a l s .

Your concerns have been c a r e f u l l y considered i n p r e p a r i n g r e v i s e d s a f e -

guards i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e F i n a l Statement. Please s e e S e c t i o n 7.4.7.6
f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o your f i r s t area of concern; S e c t i o n 7.4.3 f o r
your second; 7.4.6 f o r t h e t h i r d ; 7.4.5.1.2 f o r t h e f o u r t h and S e c t i o n
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 S e c t i o n 5.4.2.
 V. 8-1 43

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR Program and comments on WASH-1535 are

appreciated.

Sincerely,

s i s t a n t General Manager
f o r Biomedical And Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures:
1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Ccmments
2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 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). The probability of leaks will thus be very
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~hthe cost of disposal may be high relative to the
quantity of wgste, the quantity of waste is small.
 V.8-145

2. Coculient

(page 7 of e n c l o s u r e - Sone Larger T r u t h s ) :

The Hanford waste tank l e a k s were c i t e d as a n example of MC's poor
management.

Response:

It w a s a n t i c i p a t e d from t h e 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 a d i o a c t i v e waste l e a k s from t h e
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 h e
s o i l c o n d i t i o n s and t h e d r y 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 e a k s i n t h e s o i l immediately a d j a c e n t t o t h e
l e a k . The l e a k s from t h e Hanford waste t a n k s have n o t r e s u l t e d i n t h e
exposure of any member of t h e p u b l i c . 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 p u b l i c w i l l be 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.

3. Comment

LMFBR S a f e t y (page 6 of e n c l o s u r e - Some Larger T r u t h s ) :

"The consequences of one m a j o r . f a i l u c e , or t h e long range
c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s of numerous sua11 i n c i d e n t s i n t h e
plutonium a g e are ruind boggling."

Response :

The p u b l i c consequences of a l l U.S. n u c l e a r power r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t s which

have o c c u r r e d have been minor. A f u n d a n e n t a l requirement of d e s i g n ( s e e
S e c t i o n 4.2.7.3) i s that any single f a i l u r e which n i g h t occur should n o t
r e s u l t i n a s e r i o u s r i s k t o t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y . The consequences
of lower p r o b a b i l i t y , more s e r i o u s a c c i d e n t s t h a t have been p o s t u l a t e d t o
o c c u r , even h y p o t h e t i c a l ones, would n o t be i n any s e n s e "mind-boggling"
(see S e c t i o n s 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 n o t g r o s s l y change r a d i a t i o n s a f e t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , as compared w i t h
c u r r e n t water-cooled r e a c t o r s ; t h i s p o i n t is addressed i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.4.

4. Comment

(page 7 of e n c l o s u r e - Some Larger Truths):

"Again i n J u l y 1973, t h e AEC ordered t e n n u c l e a r power p l a n t s t o
r e d u c e o p e r a t i n g p a r e r because of unresolved hazards i n f u e l and
c o r e s a f e t y . The whole t o p i c of s a f e t y i n emergency c o r e c o o l i n g
systems w a s a g a i n brought t o l i g h t l a r g e l y by e f f o r t s o u t s i d e of
AEC t o p management and t h e n u c l e a r power industry.''
 V .8-\46

3 .

Response :

On August 24, 1973 t h e AEC imposed temporary o p e r a t i n g l i m i t a t i o n s on t e n

n u c l e a r 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 d a t a
from t h e r e a c t o r m m u f a c t u r e r , following B r e v i e v 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 n o t imposed because of any unresolved h a z a r d s but a s an
added p r e c a u t i o n 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 t u d i e d . The
c a l c u l a t i o n s themselves model c o n d i t i o n s which assume many c o i n c i d e n t f a i l u r e s
of a wide v a r i e t y of o p e r a t i n g and s a f e t y systems. Many a d d i t i o n a l " s a f e t y
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 p o s s i b l e
u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Tho! August 24 o r d e r is a good example of t h e A E C ' s v e r y
c a u t i o u s p r a c t i c e of providing a d d i t i o n a l margin whenever any u n c e r t a i n t y
is d i s c o v e r e d and does n o t r e p r e s e n t a r e f l e c t i o n on t h e s a f e t y c o n d i t i o n
of t h e r e a c t o r s involved.

5. Comment

(page 5 of e n c l o s u r e - A Case k a i n s t ) :
"In 1966, t h e E n r i c o Fermi F a s t Breeder n e a r D e t r o i t had a n e a r
meltdown w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e p l a n t is permanently s h u 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 a d i o a c t i v e
pyramid? C e r t a i n l y , i t i o n ' t . improving t h e environment ' j u s t s i t t i n g
there. '

Response:

The Fermi' i n c i d e n t i s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e F i n a l Statement i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.5

and i n d e t a i l i n 4.2.7, Annex C. This a c c i d e n t , while i t d i d l e a d t o a
l e n g t h y and c o s t l y shutdown, v a s r e p a i r e d and w a s n o t t h e cause of t h e

.
p l a n t f i n a l l y being t a k e n o u t of service. The p l a n t is now being
decommissioned

6. Comment

(page 6 of e n c l o s u r e - A Case Against):

"In 1961, t h e experimental f a s t b r e e d e r a t Idaho F a l l s blew a plug
sending 3 men t o a gruesome d e a t h . According t o t h e New York Tines,
Russia r e c e n t l y had some kind of a c c i d e n t w i t h t h e i r f a s t breeder."

Response :

The a c c i d e n t r e f e r r e d 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 a n Army l i g h t water experimental r e a c t o r , n o t a f a s t b r e e d e r
r e a c t o r . This a c c i d e n t r e s u l t e d from a n o p e r a t o r a c t i o n t*ich, though
s e r i o u s l y improper, would n o t have r e s u l t e d i n an a c c i d e n t a t any
o t h e r r e a c t c r i n e x i s t e n c e i n t h e c o u n t r y a t t h e time, or b u i l t
s i n c e . Although t h i s w a s t h e most s e r i o u s a c c i d e n t which h a s e v e r
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 g e n e r a l p u b l i c . The Russian "accident" is more
 V. 8- 147

p r o p e r l y c a l l e d a m a l f u n c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r sub-system; i t l e d t o
a steam g e n e r a t o r sodium-water r e a c t i o n . UIFDR systems are designed
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).

7. Comolent

(page 6 of e n c l o s u r e - A Case Against):

11
Because of t h e high h e a t of b r e e d e r s and t h e g r e a t t o x i c i t y of plutonium,
f a s t b r e e d e r s are t o r e g u l a r r e a c t o r s as l i g h t n i n g is t o l i g h t n i n g bugs."

Response:

T h i s analogy, a l t h o u g h c o l o r f u l , does n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e sinilari-

t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between UfFBKs and LhTKs. Some comparisons of t h e s e
r e a c t o r t y p e s are p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.4 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e y e n t .
It is shown t h e r e i n t h a t , d e s p i t e some d i f f e r e n c e s i n f e a t u r e s , each
r e a c t o r t y p e is designed f o r s a f e o p e r a t i o n w i t h f u l l r e c o g n i t i o n of a l l
i t s i n h e r e n t p h y s i c a 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 n e g a t i v e void c o e f f i c i e n t s , and they u s e high p r e s s u r e c o o l a n t . L F B R s
have p o s i t i v e void c o e f f i c i e n t s b u t use l o w p r e s s u r e c o o l a n t . I n b o t h
cases t h e o v e r a l l power c o e f f i c i e n t is n e g a t i v e , a s s u r i n g an i n h e r e n t
r e s i s t a n c e t o r e a c t i v i t y t r a n s i e n t s . Thus, t h e s a f e t y of b o t h LMFBRs and
LWRs is on a comparable and f u l l y a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l .

8. Comment

A l t e r n a t i v e Energy Sources (pages 4 and 5 of e n c l o s u r e

Some L a r p e r Truths):
-
"Cleansing of c o n v e n t i o n a l c o a l mining, p r o c e s s i n g and burning
o p e r a t i o n s 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, or c o a l
g a s i f i c a t i o n , has been postponed by l a c k of economic m o t i v a t i o n and
r e s e a r c h funding. Almost no modern n a t i o n , f o r example, h a s
t o l e r a t e d such a longstanding s c a n d a l i n c o a l mine s a f e t y as h a s
t h e U.S.A. F u r t h e r , i t has been r e p e a t e d , i f n o t more 80, i n
uranium mining,

"The i r o n y i s t h a t t h e problems of c o a l are o f t i n k e r - t o y 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. It is almost l u d i c r o u s t o relate t h e long range hazards of
plutonium t o t h o s e of c o a l , however, coal should be o n l y a n i n t e r i m
t o something s a f e r and b e t t e r . General Motors h a s announced, p e 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 t h e 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 big
deal."

Response:

Ae i n d i c a t e d on p. A.2-65 of t h e D r a f t Statement, c u r r e n t p l a n s c a l l f o r
spending a b o u t $2.2 b i l l i o n over t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s on r e s e a r c h and
d e v e l o p u e n t i n v o l v i n g t h e mining, combustion, and conversion of coal.
 V. 8-1 48 n

Current estimates of r e c o v e r a b l e , proven r e s e r v e s of c o a l i n t h e U.S.

range from about 150 b i l l i o n t o n s t o about 400 b i l l i o n t o n s . Though
some c o a l now c l a s s i f i e d as p a r t of t h e more u n c e r t a i n " r e s o u r c e base"
w i l l be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e " r e c o v e r a b l e r e s e r v e " c a t e g o r y i n t h e f u t u r e
as p r i c e s r i s e and e x p l o r a t i o n broadens, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t i f our
energy growth r a t e remains h i g h , our c o a l supply would l a s t as long as
o u r uranium s u p p l i e s .

Aside from environmental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e r e s o u r c e b a s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

c o a l - f i r e d e l e c t r i c a l energy g e n e r a t i o n and e l e c t r i c a l energy g e n e r a t i o n by
LMFBRs are n o t comparable. The LMFER r e s o u r c e b a s e 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 , w h i l e our c o a l r e s o u r c e s may be d e p l e t e d w i t h i n one c e n t u r y ,
i f r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e i n c r e a s i n g s h a r e s of n o n - e l e c t r i c a l and, indeed,
non-energy demands.

Though t h e 1J.S. underground coal-mine s a f e t y r e c o r d i s n o t y e t e q u a l 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 n a t i o n s , t h e r e c o r d h a s improved
s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e passage of t h e 1969 Coal Mine Health and S a f e t y A c t .
Bureau of Mines r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e number of f a t a l i t i e s p e r m i l l i o n
( n e t ) t o n s of c o a l mined has d e c l i n e d from 0.43 i n 1970 t o 0.22 i n 1973, a
r e d u c t i o n of almost twofold. The number of n o n f a t a l i n j u r i e s p e r m i l l i o n
t o n s mined, hobever , d e c l i n e d by only 2% d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d . This
s a f e t y r e c o r d improvement has been accompanied by a d e c r e a s e i n deep-mine
p r o d u c t i v i t y ( t o n s 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
N a t i o n a l Materials P o l i c y of t h e N a t i o n a l Academy of Sciences and N a t i o n a l
Academy of Engineering has r e c e n t l y made t h e f d l o w i n g recommendation:

"The Coal Mine H e a l t h and S a f e t y A c t of 1969 s h o u l d b e

t h o r o u g h l y and promptly reviewed w i t h r e g a r d t o i t s e f f e c t s on
t h e h e a l t h and s a f e t y of t h e miners. Its p r o v i s i o n s should be
v i g o r o u s l y enforced w i t h t h e a i m of a c h i e v i n g s u b s t a n t i a l
r e d u c t i o n s i n underground mine a c c i d e n t r a t e s . The F e d e r a l
government should s u p p o r t i n c r e a s e d r e s e a r c h and development
i n t h e t e c h n o l o g i e s of economic underground mining and improved
h e a l t h and s a f e t y . " *

It has been found t h a t l a r g e - s c a l e r a p i d i m p r o v i s a t i o n i n t h e c o a l

i n d u s t r y i s , i n f a c t , d i f f i c u l t . Examples i n c l u d e t h e q u i t e slow r a t e s of
i n t r o d u c t i o n , t o d a t e , of automated deep-mine continuous e x t r a c t i o n
s y s t e m s , of t h e 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) c o a l g a s i f i c a t i o n . A s t h e pace of
R&D and of technology t r a n s f e r q u i c k e n s , i t i s hoped t h a t t h i s l a r g e
i n d u s t r y w i l l , i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e , b e a b l e t o i n c o r p o r a t e improved tech-
nology more r a p i d l y .

*Man, Materials, and Environment, p. 115, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,

(1973).
 V . 8-149

The G e n e r a l Motors s t a c k g a s s c r u b b e r s 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 o p e r a t i o n s i n c e :larch 1974. The u n i t ' s c a p a c i t y
of 40 XW is o n l y one-tenth t o o n e - t h i r t i e t h 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 s c r a b b e r system c o s t i s e q u i v a l e n t t o ac a d d i t i o n a l $10 p e r
ton of coal, a n i n c r e a s e of about 402. While t h i s small e x p e r i m e n t a l
p r o t o t y p e 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 o v e r a l o n g e r
p e r i o d of t i n e w i l l be r e q u i r e d 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 . Such r e s u l t s may be forthcoming from t h e j o i n t GM-CPA
s t u d y t o r e f i n e t h e p r o c e s s and t o reduce t h e c o s t s . I t is a l s o noted
that t h e i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t i n c u r r e d 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 c o s t is undoubtedly a small f r a c t i o n of
t h e i n c r e m e n t a l c o s t of a u t i l i t y ' s p r o d u c t ( e l e c t r i c a l energy) t h a t
i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c u r r e n t stack-gas scrubbing systems.
0 v.9-1

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CYCLOTRON L A 8 O R A T O R V
CAMERIDQE. MASS. 021 38
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

April 1 6 , 1974

.
U S. A t o m i c Energy Commission
ATT: The S e c r e t a r y '

Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear S i r :
I have r e c e n t l y r e c e i v e d a copy of t h e d r a f t
Environmental S t a t e m e n t f o r t h e LMFBR program.
T i m e , and a r e c e n t f a m i l y problem, p r e v e n t my commenting
i n d e t a i l . However, I f i n d 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 s c u s s i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e n u c l e a r systems
t o t h e b r e e d e r , no mention i s 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 v s . 6 5 % of U.S. r e a c t o r s ) a s used
by O n t a r i o Hydro. There e x i s t a number of p a p e r s i n c l u d i n g
o n e b W. B e n n e t t 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 w h i c h would n e a r l y breed.
With t h e i n c r e a s e d 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 i n c r e a s e d c o s t of t h e LMFBR, t h e s e U/Th c y c l e s
must be c o n s i d e r e d 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 t h e f u t u r e - by which t i m e f u s i o n may
work.
Second, t h e hazard of d i v e r s i o n of plutonium t o c r i t i c a l
u s e s i s g r e a t e r f o r an LMFBR t h a n f o r o t h e r systems. The
r e c e n t book by W i h l r i c h and Taylor ( B a l l i n g e r Press, A p r i l 1 9 7 4 )
emphasizes this. There seems o n l y a small i d s c u s s i o n of n u c l e a r
p a p s , whereby t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s l i m i t e d . Y e t t h e s e 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-

T h i r d , no mention i s made, o r r e s p o n s e g i v e n , t o t h e two

o b v i o u s economic problems of LMFBR; one i s t h d s o d i u m 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 h e a t exchanger i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t . Heat exchangers
u s u a l l y l e a k arid a l e a k h e r e would s h u t down t h e p l a n t . This
p r e s e n t l y keeps PFR ( D o b e r a y ) o f f l i n e . Maybe t h e s e problems
are n o t a s bad a s they would a p p e a r t o a n o u t s i d e r - but t h a t
should b e c a r e f u l l y e x p l a i n e d , s i n c e t h e y a r e s o o b v i o u s .

I hope t h e s e comments a r e h e l p f u l .

Yours s i n c e r e l y ,

Richard Wilson
P r o f e s s o r of P h y s i c s

RW: j k
 v.9-3

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COM M ISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 5 5 5

P r o f e s s o r Richard TJilson
Department of P h y s i c s
Harvard U n i v e r s i t y
Cambridge, X a s s a c h u s e t t s 02138

Dear P r o f e s s o r Wilson:

Thank you f o r y o u r l e t t e r of A p r i l 15, 1974 commenting on t h e Atonic

Energy Commission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e L i q u i d :!eta1
F a s t B r e e d e r Xeactor (LXFCR) Program. The S t a t e n 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 comments r e c e i v e d , and a copy
of t h e F i n a l Statement is e n c l o s e d f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n . This l e t t e r
responds t o t h e s p e c i f i c i s s u e s you r a i s e d .

With r e g a r d t o your concern about a l t e r n a t i v e n u c l e a r s y s t e m s , t h e AEC

d i d n o t d i s c u s s c e r t a i n s y s tens, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e CAXDU (Canadian-
Deuteriun-Uranium) c o n c e p t , b e c a u s e i t w a s decided t o linit t h e treat-
ment of a l t e r n a t i v e n u c l e a r t e c h n o l o g i e s i n t h e Statement only t o
s y s t e m now o p e r a t i n g o r c o n s i d e r e d promising and c a p a b l e of p e n e t r a t i n g
t h e U.S. n u c l e a r 20i.721: market. The izEC h a s , of c o u r s e , o v e r t h c y e a r s
e v a l u a t e d and conducted r e s e a r c h on a n u d e r of r e a c t o r c o n c e p t s , 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 n o t w a r r a n t i n g f u r t h e r s u p p o r t .
The Heavy !Jater Cooled and ?!oderated Reactor concept h a s 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 c a t e g o r y . >!evertheless, r e - e v a l u a t i o n s of
v a r i o u s r e a c t o r c o n c e p t s are o c c a s i o n a l l y conducted as new developments
o c c u r o r new i n f o r m a t i o n becones a v a i l a b l e , and i n t h e c a s e 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 a t t h a t t i m e t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n of ICV. p l a n t s
(of t h e CMUXJ type) i n t h e U.S. d u r i n g t h e n e x t decade does n o t merit
s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . "he r e a s o n s f o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n are sunmarized
below, and a copy of t h e e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t is e n c l o s e d f o r your infonna-
tion.

The e v a l u a t i o n concluded t h a t t h e r e a p p e a r 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 d e l a y t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n 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 w i t h similar economic and l i c e n s i n g s t r u c t u r e s . K e v e r t h e l e s s ,
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 h e s e r e a s o n s U.S. u t i l i t i e s have n o t
chosen IW& and are n o t e x p e c t e d t o do so i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e . 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
i n c l u d e s problems r e l a t i v e t o containment d e s i g n ( n o t e n t i r e l y compatible
w i t h t h e e x i s t i n s L. S. r e g u l a t o r y approach) , t r i t i u m p r o d u c t i o n and
release (due t o t h e u s e of heavy water as t h e c o o l a n t ) , and emergency
 v.9-4

c o r e c o o l i n g ( t h e Reonetry and o r i e n t a t i o n of HllR c o r e s 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 L i g h t 'later Reactors (LI\Ts) p r e v a l e n t i n t h i s
country, and would r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s 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 c o o l i n g ) . The economic f a c t o r s n i t i g a t i n g a g a € n s t !I!JRs i n c l u d e
h i g h e r c a p i t a l c o s t s ( s e v e r a l p e r c e n t o r more r e l a t i v e t o L!I'Rs), and
h i g h e r f u e l c y c l e and deuterium c o s t s ( s e e e n c l o s u r e 1).

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 - t h e y a r e , under

t h e assumptions i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t , 170% more e f f e c t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t
t o uranium r e q u i r e n e n t s t h a n LVRs, and about 402 more e f f e c t i v e than t h e
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 b e improved c o n s i d e r a b l y o v e r
p r e s e n t v a l u e s and, as you n o t e d , t h e HWR can b e designed f o r n e a r l y
break-even b r e e d i n g on t h e Uranium 233-Thorium f u e l c y c l e . This f u e l
c y c l e is a l s o u t i l i z e d by t h e HTGR, which is now e n t e r i n g t h e commercial
area as an advanced c o n v e r t e r , and by t h e L i g h t Water Breeder Reactor
(LWBR), which is under development by t h e AEC as d i s c u s s e d i n t h e
e n c l o s e d Environmental Statement. A major problem i n s u c c e s s f u l achieve-
ment of b r e e d i n g i n a ChVnU t y p e r e a c t o r would be t h e requirement f o r low
f u e l burnup t o p r e v e n t f i s s i o n product poison accumulation i n t h e r e a c t o r .
R e s u l t i n g power c o s t s would be i n c r e a s e d 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 b e a t
p r e s e n t . The economics of CANDU r e a c t o r s is d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h e
e n c l o s e d r e p o r t , where t h e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s € o r n o t p u r s u i n g HWRs
are examined i n more d e t a i l .
With r e g a r d t o your comment r e g a r d i n g t h e hazard of d i v e r s i o n of
plutonium t o c r i t i c a l u s e s , t h e AEC recognizes t h a t t h e s a f e g u a r d i n g
of n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l i s 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. W e b e l i e v e t h e s e problems can b e s o l v e d , and t h e s u b j e c t is
d i s c u s s e d at l e n g t h i n S e c t i o n 7 of t h e e n c l o s e d Statement, which has
been e x t e n s i v e l y r e v i s e d i n response t o comments r e c e i v e d on t h e D r a f t
Statement. P l e a s e see S e c t i o n 7.4.6 f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e
comparative s a f e g u a r d s a s p e c t s of 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 and
S e c t i o n 7.4.9.4.2 f o r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s a f e g u a r d s a s p e c t s of n u c l e a r
parks.

Your o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g"...two obvious economic problems of LMFBR;

one, t h a t sodium is opaque and a b o l t dropped down would b e l o s t t o
s i g h t ; and two, t h a t t h e sodiumlsteam h e a t exchanger is very i m p o r t a n t ,. ..
II

have b o t h been c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e F i n a l Statement.

These matters are indeed recognized as problem a r e a s , b u t b o t h a r e
b e l i e v e d amenable t o e n g i n e e r i n g s o l u t i o n . Th*.y a r e d i s c u s s e d i n
S e c t i o n s 4.2.3 and 4.2.7 of t h e F i n a l Statement.
 v. 9-5

We hope that the above information and the enclosures are sufficiently
responsive to the points you raised. Thank you again for your comments
and for your interest in the LMFBR Program.

Sincerely, h

for Biomedical and Environmental

Research and Safety Programs

Enclosures:
1. Evaluation of the Potential of
H e a v y Water Reactor Plants in
the United States (Phase 2)
2. Final Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (WASH-LS35)

.
 V.9-6

ENCLOSURE 1
APR 5 1974

EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL OF

HEAVY WATER REACTOR PLANTS I N THE U N I T E D STATES (PHASE 2)

1. INTRODUCTION

The following discussion provides the d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s of an evaluation of

t h e p o t e n t i a l of Heavy Water Reactor (HWR) p l a n t s i n t h e U.S. Initial

thoughts r e s u l t i n g from t h i s cvaluation were d r a f t e d on December 1 2 , 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 r a n s m i t t a l have been addressed. Additional discussions with

knowledgeable engineers r e p r e s e n t i n g the manufacturer, a r c h i t e c t - e n g i n e e r ,

u t i l i t y and n a t i o n a l laboratory p o i n t s of view, a s w e l l a s the r e s u l t s of

ttie review of c o s t s e n s i t i v i t y and f u e 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 t h e Canadians. There appear t o be no

fundamental t e c h n i c a l problems t h a t might delay t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of

such p l a n t s i n Canada. The four SO0 MWe Pickering p l a n t s ( o p e r a t i n g

with D 0 moderated and cooled r e a c t o r s ) a r e r e p o r t e d t o be achieving

2
high p l a n t f a c t o r s . Because of a v a l i d U.S.-Canadian Cooperative

Program Agreement the U.S. has p o t e n t i a l access t o the e x i s t i n g

technology.

9
 v.9-7

-2-

2.2, TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN INTRODUCING HWR PLANTS I N TKE UNITED STATES

2.2.1. LICENSASILITY

During the p a s t several y e a r s the designs of l i g h t water r e a c t o r (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 l a n t design is d i f f e r e n t from t h e 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 t h e HWR

design. While a precise evaluation of changes which would be needed t o

a l l o w the Canadian HWR p l a n t s t o be licensed i n the U.S. is not possible,

a number of major design i s s u e s can be foreseen:

2.2.1.1. The containment design probably would n o t be acceptable.

For i n s t a n c e , the four e x i s t i n g 500 MWe Pickering r e a c t o r s have a

j o i n t containment t a r r i e r which does n o t appear t o s a t i s f y t h e c r i t e r i o n

of b a s i c a l l y passive containment of a double ended p i p e r u p t u r e a c c i d e n t

hypothesized f o r U.S. plants. Instead, f o r t h i s maximum a c c i d e n t ,

containment over-pressure would be prevented by a c t i v a t i o n of a veGting

valve i n a pipe leading t o a vacuum and quenching building. A vacuum

pump which is normally i n operation t o maintain a vacuum i n t h i s b u i l d i n g

would have t o be shutdown t o prevent r e l e a s e of p o s s i b l e f i s s i o n .

products t o the atmosphere. Reportedly, t h e c r i t i c a l vent valve h a s

been o p e r a t i o n a l l y t e s t e d 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 testing it a t f u l l s i z e under p r o t o t y p i c conditions of t h e

h y p o t h e t i c a l accident.
 V.9-8 n

- 3-

2.2.1.2. T r i t i u m r e l e a s e is of concern i n the LWR p l a n t s where a

major portion or i t s generation is due t o the minute q u a n t i t i e s of

D20 i n the p r i m a r y c i r c u i t cooling water. I n HWR p l a n t s t h i s appears

t o be a much more s e r i o u s 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. Relatively

high p a r t i a l pressure of t r i t i u m i n D20 i n c r e a s e s 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 t s d i f f u s i o n through t h i n

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.

2.2.1.3. The e x i s t i n g HWR p l a n 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 i n g l e f a i l u r e

.)

c r i t e r i a and redundancy requirements which have evolved f o r t h e U.S. ,

LWR p l a n t s .

2.2.1.4. A g r e a t d e a l of a n a l y s i s and research and .development h a s

been undertaken i n the U.S. t o demonstrate the adequacy of Emergency

Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) i n LWRs. Since HWR c o r e s have a d i f f e r e n t

geometry and are o r i e n t e d h o r i z o n t a l l y t h i s e f f o r t would n o t be f u l l y

applicable. Additional. ECCS analyses undoubtedly would be necessary

for HWRs and might l e a d t o R6D requirements a d p l a n t design changes.

9
- __ ~ - ___ ._.
 v .9-9

-4-

2.2.2. SIZE EXTRAPOLATION

The l a r g e s t o p e r a t i n g HWR u n i t h a s a 505 MWr n e t c a p a c i t y and 750 XWe

Bruce KWR u n i t s . a r e under construction. So f a r the Canadians have n o t

committed a l a r g e r p l a n t , whereas the U.S. LWR manufacturers have s o l d

s e v e r a l 1300 MWe p l a n t s .

There appears t o be no fundamental o b s t a c l e which would prevent s i z e

i n c r e a s e s of the HWR and i t h a s been reported t h a t conceptual design

I

of a high capacity p l a n t i s i n progress. Nevertheless, the Canadians

have opted f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of e i g h t 750 MWe u n i t s r a t h e r than f o r

c o n s t r u c t i o n of fewer l a r g e r capacity u n i t s a t the Bruce s i t e .

The HWR header c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e f u e l i n g scheme p r e s e n t problems

which i t i s probably p r e f e r a b l e t o minimize through c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

multi-unit plants. In-core pressure tubes must be i n d i v i d u a l l y f e d

w i t h coolant i n such a way as n o t to i n t e r f e r e with equipment a c c e s s

for on-line r e f u e l i n g performed a t both ends of the core. To t h e

first approximation, f o r a capacity i n c r e a s e from 750 t o 1300 MWe, t h e

area of the head forging would i n c r e a s e about 70 percent, s u b s t a n t i a l l y

i n c r e a s i n g the complexity of the r e a c t o r .

2.2.3. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

The e x i s t i n g HWR p l a n t s a r e optimized f o r Canadian l a b o r and c a p i t a l

cost conditio:is and a r e designed f o r maximum s i m p l i c i t y 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 e a c t o r with

s l i g h t l y enriched f u e l . I f U.S. manufacturers would decide now t o

adopt t h e D 0 cooled and moderated Canadian design, they would t r y t o

2
minimize changes i n the proven p l a n t . However, s i n c e the r e a c t o r s

would have t o be s a l e a b l e , i t appears major design changes would be

necessary t o make these p l a n t s more economically competitive under

U.S. conditions.

Thus, very l i k e l y , U.S. manufacturers would a g a i n o p t f o r s l i g h t

uranium enrichment which would remove t h e severe c o n s t r a i n t s f a c i n g

the Canadians i n the use of neutron absorbing core c o n s t r u c t i o n

materials. This design s t e p would tend t o reduce c a p i t a l c o s t s by

simplifying construction, f a c i l i t a t i n g improvement of steam

c o n d i t i o n s (thereby reducing c a p i t a l c o s t s of t h e conventional p a r t

of t h e p l a n t ) , and by making i t e a s i e r t o e x t r a p o l a t e power c a p a c i t y

t o the h i g h l e v e l o f f e r e d by LWR manufacturers.

2.2.4. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are a d d i t i o n a 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. Because of l i m i t e d worldwide s a l e s the cumula-

t i v e o p e r a t i n g experience of HWR p l a n t s w i l l remain small f o r a consider-

a b l e time. Thus, t h e r e may be l i n g e r i n g concerns a s 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 r e s p e c t to: (a) A s e r i o u s i n c i d e n t with the on-line

 v.9-11

- 6-

r e f u e l i n g system. It can be p o s t u l a t e d t h a t a f a i l u r e of t h i s system

w i t h e p a r t i a l l y e x t r a c t e d f u e l element would be very s e r i o u s and

c o s t l y because of p o t e n t i a l presence of f i s s i o n products and

unaccessibility, (b) An i n c i d e n t involving a c o s t l y major l o s s of

D20 (although insurance might be a v a i l a b l e for p r o t e c t i o n 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. Resultant operating c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e

d i f f e r e n t from those with which U.S. u t i l i t i e s are familiar. Although

. t h e r e probably a r e ways t o 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 a n 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 a n t f a c t o r s . A

determination of whether HWR p l a n t f a c t o r s h i g h e r than achieved by

l i g h t water p l a n 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 i n s p e c t i o n requirements f o r t h e p l a n t s .and t h e i r

r e f u e l i n g systems) requires e x t r a p o l a t i o n t o U. S. c o n d i t i o n s and

accumulation of much more o p e r a t i n g experience than now a v a i l a b l e .

3. ECONCMIC CONSIDERATIONS

3.1. CAPITAL COSTS (EXCLUSIVE OF D20)

Aa discussed i n Section 2.2.2.. i t i s necessary t o compare the Bruce-

P i c k e r i n g HWR now o f f e r e d by Canadians, w i t h the advanced LWRs now

o f f e r e d i n the U.S. For such a comparison, the c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l

 v .9-12
n

-7-

(HWR excess cost: r e l a t i v e t o LWR) p e r k i l o w a t t 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

t h e g r e a t e r HWR r e a c t o r and p l a n t complexity and lower c o n s t r u c t i o n

e f f i c i e n c y 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 t o the upgrading needed t o

s a t i s f y U. S. standards and regulatory requirements (based on estimated

costs of r e c e n t upgradings c a r r i e d o u t i n LWR p l a n t s ) , (c) 80 $/KW

due t o t h e p l a n t s i z e discrepancy (based on t h e 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

e q u i v a l e n t LWR p l a n t size difference). Thus, t h e t o t a l estimated

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 t h e HWR p l a n t ,

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 i g u r e of 145 $/KW given i n Reference 2, transmitted

by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (See Table 1,

Approximate Comparative Cost Data f o r 1980 Operation, i n the a t t a c h e d

Appendix 2). This reference nentions, b u t does n o t include i n t h e

total, any allowance f o r construction conditions i n t h e U.S., and f o r

t h e required p l a n t upgrading t o s a t i s f y U.S. q u a l i t y assurance and

Regulatory needs. On the other hand, f o r ,the

.
HWR p l a n t i t does include
heavy water and one h'alf i n i t i a l f u e l inventory. c o s t s , probably about

40 $/KW*

Although the above estimated c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l s are based on the b e s t

a v a i l a b l e d a t a , such l a r g e t o t a l c o s t d i f f e r e n c e s p e r u n i t capacity
 V.9-13

-8-

do not properly r e f l e c t the p o t e n t i a l of HWR plants i n the U.S.

To make a more v a l i d comparison, a detailed desigii and c o s t estimate

of an optimized high capacity p l a n t , s a t i s f y i n g a l l U.S. require-

ments and conditions, is necessary. Without i t , however, i t i s possible

to weigh several b a s i c considerations which include: ( a ) the inherently

l a r g e r s i z e of HWR plants! (b) t h e i r g r e a t e r design complexity; and

( c ) , t h e presence of additional systems required f o r handling D20.

Taking i n t o account these f a c t o r s , and prevailing U.S. conditions,

the present judgment is t h a t ultimately there would remain a c a p i t a l

cost penalty of several percent o r more, equivalent to a t l e a s t 0.5

mil l s k w - h r .
3.2. FUEL CYCLE AND D20 COSTS

In making an economic comparison of HWR and LWR r e a c t o r f u e l c o s t s ,

one can consider that the cost of D20 separation i n heavy water

p l a n t s b a s i c a l l y o f f s e t s the c o s t of uranium separation i n l i g h t

water plants. Thus, 8 broadly defined HWR p l a n t f u e l cycle c o s t

can be obtained by lumping the D20 i n t e r e s t charges with the f u e l

co8ts. On t h i s basis, the HWR-LWR f u e l cycle c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l

remains small f o r a r e l a t i v e l y wide range of assumptions.

It can be assump3 t h a t the near-term uranium clre p r i c e s and the c o s t

of separative work w i l l increase, favoring the HWR plants. A t the

eame time the D20 c o s t s may a l s o be expected t o rise, somewhat counter-

balancf ng t h i s e f f e c &.
 V .9-14
n

-9-

A8 p a r t of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n , the oak Ridge National Laboratory s t a f f

was requested t o perform f u e l cycle c o s t s e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s . The

p r i c e of uranium o r e , s e p a r a t i v e work and D20, as w e l l as the f i x e d

charge r a t e s were varied o v e r a wide range of values. The r e s u l t s

of t h i s a n a l y s i s a r e presented i n Table 2 of Appendix 1. The

b e s t present judgment f o r conditions which might p r e v a i l 10 y e a r s from

nora.-points t o p r i c e s of 15 $ / l b U 0
3 8 ' 50 $/$, 90 $/Kg of D20

(see Appendix 3 f o r comments on D 0 production c o s t s ) , and*a

2
16 percent y e a r l y i n t e r e s t charge. Under these circumstances, as

seen i n Table 4 of Appendix 1, HWR p l a n t energy c o s t s might be 2.60

mills/KW(e), versus 2.53 mills/KW(e) f o r a LWR. It may be concluded

t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d 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

developing in these f u e l c y c l e 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

utilization. I n t h e course of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n , the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory has supplied g r o s s comparative e s t i m a t e s of f u e l u t i l i z a t i o n

for p r e s e n t LWR, EIWR and High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) p l a n t s . The

r e s u l t s are l i s t e d i n Table 5 of Appendix 1. It i s seen t h a t t h e heavy

water p l a n t s may be considered n e a r l y 170 percect more e f f e c t i v e with

r e s p e c t t o uranium requirements than t h e l i g h t watex p l a n t s , b u t only

about 40 percent more e f f e c t i v e than the FITGR.

 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 t h e

Canadian design, they probably would be forced by economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

-
e0 switch t o a s l i g h c l y enriched system, with a poorer uranium u t i l i z a t i o n

factor. Fuel u t i l i z a t i o n of all t h r e e r e a c t o r systems considered (ma,

LWR and HTGR) can be improved considerably over the p r e s e n t v a l u e s 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 p r e s e n t l y under deveI.opment

in the U.S. I n the near term i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e 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 t o i n c r e a s e due t o

i n c r e a s e d o r e p r i c e s and changes i n o t h e r f u e l cycle c o s t s . However, t h i s

t r e n d probably w i l l evolve from geonomic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s 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 .

5. OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS AND SUMMARY REVIEW

This review i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n of HWR p l a n t s i n the U.S. during

the next decade does n o t m e r i t s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Wnadian HWR n u c l e a r

p l a n t s of c u r r e n 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 e c h n i c a l q u e s t i o n s , including s a f e t y -

licensing issues. This e f f o r t would s e v e r e l y t a x t h e a l r e a d y extended

.U.S. manufacturing and t e c h n i c a l manpower r e s o u r c e s i n t h e 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 c y c l e c o s t advantage ( a s d e f i n s d

S e c t i o n 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
n

-11-

charges would be considerably higher than f o r p l a n t s being o f f e r e d by

U.S. manufacturers. Indeed, f o r the next 10 year period, t h e r e 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 n e g l e c t s the a n t i c i p a t e d HWR-LWR c a p i t a l c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l .

The v a l i d i t y of the conclusions is r e i n f o r c e d by t h e Canadian experience

in marketing HWR p l a n t s o u t s i d e of t h e i r country. Except f o r those

countries where s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s such as the s i m p l i c i t y of t h e
natural uranium fuel cycle make HWR p l a n t s a t t r a c t i v e , t h e r e have been no

major HWR p l a n t sales. For example, following a r e c e n t review of a v a i l -

able o p t i o n s the B r i t i s h r e p b r t e d l y have again n o t s e l e c t e d t h e HWR CANDU

reactor. Although t h e B r i t i s h have devoted a considerable development

Q

e f f o r t t o the steam generating heavy water r e a c t o r (100 MWe SGHWR), i t is

5

understood they have concluded t h a t d i r e c t e x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h i s system

.to a 1000 MWe p l a n t is n o t t e c h n i c a l l y j u s t i f i a b l e .

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 t h e Consolidated Edison Company of New York,

Inc., is a t t a c h e d a s Appendix 2. It n o t e s (paragraph 2,' page 2, of t h e

l e t t e r from W. W. Lowe t o L. H. Roddis) t h a t i f t h e i r c o s t e s t i m a t e s a r e

even approximately r i g h t , CANDU technology could n o t produce economically

competitive power f o r the'U.S. market, u n l e s s p l a n t s are b u i l t i n Canada,

with the low c a p i t a l f i x e d charge r a t e s . t y p i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o government-

owned f a c i l i t i e s in Canada.
 .V .9-17

While t h e HWR p l a n t s 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 p o i n t

of view than the c u r r e n t l y commercial LWR p l a n t s , t h e U . S . p r e s e n t l y ha3

adequate a l t e r n a t i v e s without recourse t o the HWR r e a c t o r . One of these,

t h e HTGR system, p r e s e n t l y is favored by U.S. u t i l i t i e s because of

p o t e n t i a l a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s , including consonance with d i r e c t c y c l e

power e x t r a c t i o n and h e a t r e j e c t i o n through dry cooling systems.

For the'long term (beyond 10 y e a r s ) , 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

e v e n t u a l l y 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 p o s i t i o n would r e q u i r e d r a s t i c changes i n the o v e r a l l

s i t u a t i o n such as: ( a ) major disappointment i n t h e HTGR system, o r

(b) a major reduction of D 20 production c o s t s by some process (e.g. laser

technology) which would n o t s i m i l a r l y reduce t h e c o s t of uranium separation.

Under such circumstances a reevaluation could be i n 0rde.r. First it

would be necessary t o develop an optimized design and c o s t e s t i m a t e of a

"R p l a n t f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h e U.S. This would r e q u i r e a major design

e f f o r t with Canadian cooperation by a U.S. n u c l e a r p l a n t manufacturer.

The extensive involvement of t h e AEC r e g u l a t o r y s t a f f would a l s o b e needed

to a s s u r e that t h i s design could be l i c e n s e d i n t h e U.S.

For t h e near tenn, t h e r e remains the p o s s i b i l i t y of a cooperative e f f o r t

with t h e Canadians t o b u i l d HWR p l a n t s i n Canada, and t o c o n t r a c t f o r t h e

long-term U.S. purchase of the energy from these p l a n t s . P l a n t s could

 V .9-18

b e b u i l t i n Canada according t o e x i s t i n g designs, p o s s i b l y under

r e l a t i v e l y favorable c a p i t a l c o s t conditions. The U. S. could perhaps

o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l energy a t a reasonable c o s t , and t h e Canadians would

achieve g r e a t e r economic b e n e f i t s than would be p o s s i b l e from d i r e c t

sales of uranium ore. Such a n arrangement was proposed l a s t summer by

Acres, Ltd., and r e p o r t e d l y was tabled by t h e Ontario l e g i s l a t u r e .

Some U.S. u t i l i t i e s are understood t o have made c o n t a c t s with the

Canadians t o b r i e f l y explore t h e above p o s s i b i l i t y . However, no

i n d i c a t i o n of s e r i o u s u t i l i t y i n t e r e s t i n such a n arrangement was found.

One u t i l i t y , l o c a t e d on t h e Canadian border, h a s r e p o r t e d 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 n v e s t i g a t i o n 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 h e r e q u e s t of the Division of Reactor Research and Development,

AEC, energy c o s 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

p r e s s u r i z e d 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 a s b a s i s ) . This memo d e s c r i b e s those e s t i m a t e s and p r e s e n t s

cost s e n s i t i v i t i e s f o r s e l e c t e d items, such as uranium, s e p a r a t i v e

work and heavy water c o s t s .

1. Data Sources

Data f o r l i g h t - w a t e r r e a c t o r f u e l c y c l e s were based on t y p i c a l

PWR mass balances using r e c y c l e of s e l f - g e n e r a t e d plutonium.

Equilibrium cycle c o s t s were c a l c u l a t e d .

CANW d a t a a r e based on c u r r e n t n a t u r a l uranium f u e l cycle, w i t h

no reprocessing of the s p e n t f u e l . (Canadian c o s t . e s t i m a t e s

i n d i c a t e l i t t l e o r no economic i n c e n t i v e f o r plutonium r e c y c l e

under n e a r - t e r n conditions.) Reactor c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o s t s

data were derived from References 4 through 7.

2. Base Fuel Cost Estimate

The f u e l c y c l e c o s t s were estimated f o r PlJR and CAiiDU-PHW p l a n t s ,

u s b g a base s e t of c o s t parameters. The base values and energy

costs a r e presented i n Table 1 f o r p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n s , and i n

Table 2 f o r estimated upper values during the next decade.

 -2-

3. Heavy Water Cost

In a d d i t i o n t o the n u c l e a r f u e l c o s t s , the heavy s a t e r r e a c t o r has

costs a s s o c i a t e d 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 t h e following c o s t e s t i m a t e s :

D20 Inventory ($80/kg; 14%/year): 0.88 mills/kWh(e)

D20 Upkeep ($80/kg) : 0.16 mills/kWh(e)

T o t a l D20 c o s t 1-04 mills/kWh(e)

4. Discussion of Results

4.1 LWR Costs

The c o s t s c a l c u l a t e d 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 c u r r e n t l y being experienced by u t i l i t i e s

o p e r a t i n g LWRs. The d e t a i l e d breakdown i n Table 1 allows for

conveniently e s t i m a t i n g 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

3 8
and s e p a r a t i v e work, which are the two c o s t s most l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e
in the' f u t u r e .

* Losses p l u s e q u i v a l e n t l o s s r a t e 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 t o be i n agree-

ment with Canadian estimates. For i n s t a n c e , Reference 8 s t a t e s

without giving d e t a i l , "The f u e l performance has been g e n e r a l l y

up t o expectations, and has confirmed t h e estimated c o s t of

0.9 mills/kWh."

The c o s t a s s o c i a t e d 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 c o s t f o r heavy water (based on Division of Production and
M a t e r i a l s Management s t a f f e s t i m a t e s ) and higher i n t e r e s t r a t e s

p r e v a l e n t i n the U.S.

Estimated c o s t s of U.S. production of heavy water are i n t h e range

35 t o 40 d o l l a r s p e r pound ($77-88/kg). Cost d a t a i n References

4 through 8 use heavy w a t e r costs i n t h e range $O-SS/kg. These

v a l u e s appear unreasonably l o w f o r f u t u r e c o s t s us.ing c u r r e n 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. .

Since the heavy water charges ( a t $8O/kg) c o n t r i b u t e more to CANDU

energy c o s t than does t h e f u e l c o s t , t h e c o s t of heavy water production
i s a key v a r i a b l e i n t h e t o t a l c o s t of energy from CANDU r e a c t o r s .
 v.9-22 n

5. SensitivLty Analysis

The sens8tivTig of t e t a l cost te tb valces, rasc.3 f o r c e r t a i n c o s t

v a r i a b l e s were studied. The v a r i a b l e s included:

u308 p r i c e
Separative work p r i c e

Heavy water p r i c e

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

2
same f o r W20 and D20 p l a n t s .

6. Fuel U t i l i z a t i o n

Table 5 p r e s e n t s 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

o b t a i n e d ' f o r r e c e n t designs sf HTGR, CANDU-PHW, and LWR. Plutonium

r e c y c l e has beeu as-8 f o r a l l the p l a n t s , although a t present

t h e f u e l of CANW p l a n t s is not reprocessed. This g i v e s a

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f u t u r e energy p o t e n t i a l of the plutonium and

U-235 remaining i n the discharged f u e l .

 V.9-23

Table 1. Cost Parameters and Energy Costs

for PWR and CANDU-PHW Power Plants
(Present Cond i t iens )

PWR CANDU

-
-~

. 'Basis 'mifIs/kH%(eJ Basis m i 1Is/kh'h ( e )

DIRECT COSTS
Fuel Fabrication $SQ/kgU 0.48
Fuel Shipping 0 0
Fuel Reprocessing 0 0
Uranium Feed $ 8/1b - 0.33
Separative Work 8 0
. UtO, + UF, Conv. 0 8
Plutoniurr Credit 0 0

Subtotal 1.38 0.81

INTEREST COSTS 14%/year

Fabricat ion 0.0s 0.07

-
Shipping 0 0
Reprocessing 0.83 0
Uranium Feed 0.12 0.05
Separative Work '8.11 0
U,O, .+ UF, Conv. 0.Q2
- -
0
Plut oniun 0.10 0
Subtotal 7
0.37 -
0.12

TOTAL 1.75 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 SensitiviLy Parameters
During Next Decade)

Basis M i 11s /Kwh ( e ) Basis M i l l s /Kwh ( e )

Direct Costs

Fabrica t ion $75/kgU 0.26 $30/kgU 0.48

Shipping $lO/kgU 0.03 0
Reprocessing S4O/kgU 0.14 0
U308 Feed $15/lb. 0.81 $15/lb. 0.62
Sep. Work $5O/SWu 0.65 0
U308 -> UF6 Conv. $2.50/kgU 0.05 0
P l u t . Credit
Subtotal ,
$9.30/gm
- 0
1.94
-
1.10
0

.
Interest Costs (16%/year)
Fabr ica t i o n .06 08
0
.
Shipping 0
0
.
Reprocessing 03
U308 Feed 26 .ll
Sep. Work 17 0
u30S +
U F ~Conv. .02 0
.11
- -
. .
Plutonium
Subtotal . 59 19
T o t a l Fuel 2.53 1.29
 V.9-25

-7-

Table 3. Sensitivity of LWR and CANDU

Costs to Selected Parameter Values

Parm e t e r Mills/kh% (e)

CANDU

-
PWR -
Fue 1 D2O
-
Total

1. U,O,, Price, S/lb

8l
* 1s
58
1.75
2.23
4.64
0.93
1.26
2.93
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.97
2.30
3.97
100 8.08 5 .30 1.04 6.34

2. Separative Work Price, $/SW

3
1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97
* 350
6 1.98 0.93 1.04 1.97
75 2.38 0.93 1.04 1.97

3. Heavy Water Price, $/kg

25. '1.75 0.93 0.33 1.26

50 1.75 0.93 0.65 1.S8
1.75 0.93 1.04 1.97
100 1.75 0.93 1.30 2.23

4. Fixed Charge Rate, %/year

10 1.64 0.90 0.79 1.69

*'14
18 1 1.75
X.86
0.93
0.96
1.04
1.29
1.97
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 f o r 1984 Conditions)

-A
Case
-
Case B
U308 Cost, $/lb. 8 15
sw Cost, $/SWu 36 50
D20 Cost, $/kg 80 90

Interest Rate, %/year 14 16

h e 1 Plus D20 C o s t s , mills/kwh(e)

- - - -
Case A Case B
PWR CANDU PWR CANDU

Fuel 1.75 0.93 2.53 1.29

D2O 0 1.04 0 1.31

Total 1.75 1.97 2.53 2.60

 1 V.9-27

Table 5. Comparative Fuel U t i l i z a t i o n

CANDU-PHW HTGR LWR

(Pu Assumes (U233 Assumes (Pu Assunes
Re cyc le1 Re cycle ) Recycle )

U 0 Requirements, ST/MW(e)
-3-8
x n i i i a i Core 0.246 395 .548

Annual Feed * 0.065 .089 .179

N e t 30-Y ear .
2 205 3.065 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 r e d u c t i o n of D 0 c o s t s has the p o t e n t i a l t o

2
make the D20 r e a c t o r system a t t r a c t i v e i n the U.S. and t h e r e f o r e , t h i s

i s s u e was c a r e f u l l y evaluated with the h e l p o f the Division of

Production and M a t e r i a l s Management s t a f f . The conclusion i s

that the projected D20 c o s t s f o r the 1980-1985 period are 25 t o 40

percent h i g h e r than t h e 1968 c o s t s , i.e., about $35 t o $40 p e r pound.

h e s e costs could be higher than a n t i c i p a t e d s i n c e power c o s t s

c o n s t i t u t e 50 t o 60 percent of t h e production c o s t s i n the Savannah

River type D20 p l a n t s .

A t p r e s e n t , t h e r e is no U.S. D20 production c a p a c i t y f o r p o s s i b l e D20

nuclear plants. Production f a c i l i t i e s , t h e r e f o r e , would have t o be

b u i l t and t h e s e could be p u t on l i n e i n about four years. If built in

the near f u t u r e , they would most probably be of the H2S - H20 exchange
type p r e s e n t l y operated a t Savannah River.

I n t r o d u c t i o n of modifications and improvements t o D20 production p l a n 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 s k y 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 l a n t , a l s o based on the H2S - H20 exchange process, and ended up

with an unworkable system r e q u i r i n g complete renovation which w i l l

' 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 o f a breakthrough i n

 V .9-29

D 0 s e p a r a t i o n technology using a l a s e r technique. Laboratory e f f o r t s a r e

2
in p r o g r e s s on D20 and uranium separation techniques using l a s e r technology
(see, f o r i n s t a n c e , statement of Exxon Nuclear Company during Phase XI

h e a r i n g s on Uranium Enrichment before the J o i n t Committee on Atomic

Energy, October 3, 1973 and P r e s s Release R-496 of November 28, 1973) and

a v e n t u a l i y t h e s e e f f o r t s could have some a p p l i c a t i o n t o l a r g e s c a l e

D20.separation techniques, b u t t h i s i s n o t a s e r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e a t t h i s

time.

La t h i s c o n t e x t i t is s i g n i f i c a n t t o note t h a t l a b o r a t o r y c e n t r i f u g e
Separation experiments were i n progress n e a r l y 20 y e a r s ago and t h e r e

s t i l l i s ' n o commitment i n the U.S. t o a l a r g e s c a l e uranium s e p a r a t i o n

p l a n t of t h i s type. Thus, a n t i c i p a t i o n of a d r a s t i c reduction of D20

costs through new separation techniques appears u n r e a l i s t i c a t this

time.
 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 t h e

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, 1 9 7 2 , pages 317-353.

4. L. W, Woodhead, e t a l . , "Commissioning and Operating Experience

with Canadian Nuclear-Electric S t a t i o n s , " A/CONF. 49/P/148.
5. D. L. S. Bate, e t a l . , "Costing of Canadian Nuclear Power Plants,I1
A/CONF. 49/P/149.

6. R. G. Hart, e t a l . , "The CANDU Nuclear Power System: Competitive

f o r t h e 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 t a t i o n s , " AECL-4357, January 1973.
 v.10-1

ENTERPRISES
SHIRLEY'S
nouic a BOX izir
mLUL R 1 0 0 t . OCOROIA 30513

A s s i s t a n t General Manager
f o r Eioraedical and Environment&l
Research and S r f e t y P r o g r m s '
US kton:ic Energy Cormission
Washington,D.C. 20545

Dear S i r :
I wish t o thank you f o r t h e f i v e books of d r a f t s of e n v i r o m e n t -
a1 s t a t e t i e n t s on LEIFBI!. I was a p p a l l e d a t t h e scope, and I do n o t have
t h e r e s o u r c e s t o r e k u t i n such magnitude. A l e t t e r w i l l have t o s u f f i c e .
If t h e U C i s planning t o b u i l d t h e 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 h e p r o t e s t of m i l l i o n s ,
because I have found no one o u t s i d e t h e U t i l i t i e s Coripanies and Govern-
ment Agencies, who want t h i s much rcdis.tionalhazarc1 i n F r o x n i t i t y t o
t h e i r f r i e n d s and loved one.
D r . Ray s t e t e d t h a t nuclear p l s n t s and f a c i l i t i e s were n o t e t -
t r a c t i v e targets f o r saboteurs cnd b l t c l n i a i l e r s , I disagree. One sur-
f a c e t o s u r f a c e miss16 snuggled i n t o our land piece by piece and a h e d
a t a UIFEiR o r t h e hihh-level wastes s t o r a g e f s c i l i t y could bring devast-
a t i o n t o t h e e n t i r e e z s t e r n seabozrd. Is it a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l a
n u c l e a r c a t a s t r p p h y h a s t o 88 occur t o convienee t h e E C t o do vhat t h e
c i t i z e n s u a n t ? Not t o o p e r a t e n u c l e a r p o l x r p l a n t s .
Fore peo9le died l a s t yezr than l i v e babies ;,ere born, t h e TVk
had s u r p l u s e l e c t r i c i t y , t h e y made f i f t y - s i x n i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s s u r p l u s ,
y e t they a r e building c x l L a t t l n g on t h e g r i d , n u c l e a r p l a n t s l i k e we
were i n a population explosion. T h i s can only b e n e f i t i n d u s t r y , n o t
persons.
I a m enclosing a copy of m y s t z t e n e n t on t h e Licensing of t h e
Sequoycah P l m t - As I wish i t included i n my s t z t e n e n t on t h e LXFBR
Environnental Hearing.
You gentlemen a r e o p e r a t i n g from a p o s i t i o n of c r e d u l i t y - C r k e ,
sabottige,kidrlapping,bltic;~ail,are ever i m r e a s i n g . The consequences t o
t h e p e r p e r t r a t o r s a r e completely disregarded by tken. They do n o t care.
This w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t of b o i l i n g water by nuclear r c z c t o r s by
more d i f e n s e of r z d i o l o g i c a l m s t e s , more defense of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 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.
I n a t r u e Democracy you would have t h e people v o t e 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 t h e
r e s u l t s a r e n o t i n doubt.
F i r , anything t k t so t h r e a t e n s t h e environrient and people, t h a t
f i v e books h a s t o be d r a f t e d t o present f a c t s t o t h e people should n o t
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

D i r e c t o r a t e of Licensing
U. S. Atonic Energy Comiission
Washington, D. C. 20545
DOCkPt NOS. 50-327
and 50-328
A p r i l 17, ,1074
Subject: Se$!uoyah Nuclear P l a n t s
Units 1 and 2

Gentlemen: .
If t n e l a w of the l a n d t r i e d each of you f o r murder i f any
person died from any circumstance r e s u l t i n g from t h e o p e r a t i o n of
t h i s p l a n t , you could not g r a n t ' a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e Sequoyah Nuclear
Power P l a t , i f you believed:
A. That a C-130 a i r c r a f t c a r r y i n g m i l i t a r y equipment was going to
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 n u c l e a r bonbs Yould c r a s h i n t o t h i s p l a n t
or
C. A meteor would r u p t u r e the h e a r t of t h e r e a c t o r o r
D. A Laember o f t h e Symbionese Liberation Army was aiming a s u r f a c e
t o s u r f a c t missile from any p o i n t w i t h i n a t h i r t y - f i v z irlile r a d i u s ,
and deaanding t h e USA t e n d e r 500,000,000 d o l l d r s t o t h e poor
or t h e y 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 c o n t a i n e r of t h e r a d i o l o g i c a l
w a s t e - a d i f t h e i r b l a c l a m i l w a s n o t n e t , would r e l e a s e and
poison a inzjor x a t e r supply of a l a r g e c i t y . You would n o t
g r m t t h i s l i c e n s e . Put t h i s you do n o t believe. So you will
g r a n t t h i s permit even i f each person t h a t i s capable of w r i t i n g ,
s e n t 8 l e t t e r of p r o t e s t . You s t i l l would g r a n t t h i s permit:
Gentlenen, I wish t o go on r e w r d saying t h i s . i s t h e g r e a t e s t
fraud p e r p e t r a t e d on t h e Aiierican people, you gentlenen of t h e 1-ZC
have never t o t a l e d t h e c o s t of thousands of y e a r s man&ging h i g h
l e v e l r&dio;ctive -..astes, t h e c o s t s of r e b u i l d i n g 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 h a r e n o t added t h i s i n t o t h e costs of t h e o p e x t i o n s of
n u c l e a r power p l a n t s . If you hhd, you would h.Lve t o r e v e a l 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 g r a n t 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 w h x worse
and gorse, decieving and being decieved."
 V.10-3

ENTERPRISES
SHIRLEY'S
~ O U T Ca BOX lair
l L U C RIDOC, OCOROIA SMlS

We a r e being decieved, you a r e l i c e n s i n g Trojan Yorses

f i l l e d x i t h hidden enemies of t h e American c i t i z e n s . The f i n a l
e n v i r o n r u m t d statement f o r Sequoyah Nuclear P l a n t s 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 c o s t s o f
KWH a r e l e s s than 2 c e n t s per KhX) ny l a s t e l e c t r i c b i l l shows I
paid .3.8 p e r iCk?I-this shows beyond a doubt only i n d u s t r y - d i l l r e c i e v e
b e n e f i t s , n o t US.
Not one person have I asked -;ants n u c l e a r power p l a n t s
l i c e n s e d . Never in our h i s t o r y hLve so few ixposed t h e i r way upon
so many xho were p r o t e s t i n g - I guarantee .&hen t h e n u c l e s r c r i s i s is
over, t h e n m e s of men who l i c e n s e n u c l e a r p l a n t s 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 n o t b i o l o g i c a l l y adaptable t o radiLtion-yet by t h i s
vary a c t you tibsolutely a s s u r e more r a d i h t i o n ;;ill Le forced upon
.
me and ny f e l l o w 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
You i n t h e environmental statement r e f u s e t o consider a
Class 9 a c c i d e n t from happening y e t the m i l i t a r y had t o discharge
men i n t h e n u c l e a r s e c t i o n f o r d r u g s , I r e f u s e t o b e l i e v e you vould
f e e l s a f e w i t h a p o t srcoker E t the c o n t r o l s of Fequoyah, all t h i s
t o b o i l xater-
You w i l l grmt t h i s operating permit, overeveryones p r o t e s t ,
but I ain going t o do a l l i n my pok-er t o hcve t h e Price-inderson n c t
repealed-then k-e w i l l s e e 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
Shirley's Enterprises
Route 2 , Box 121F
Blue Ridge, Geogia 30513

Dear M r . Dycus:

Thank you for your l e t t e r commenting on t h e Atomic Energy Commission's

D r a f t Environmental 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 Environ-
mental 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 .

Your l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s t h e b e l i e f t h a t n u c l e a r 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 s a b o t e u r s and b l a c k m a i l e r s , and e x p r e s s e s concern over
t h e magnitude of t h e c o s t s of e f f e c t i v e s a f e g u a r d s . . S a f e g u a r d s - r e l a t e d
concerns similar t o your own have been e x p r e s s e d i n a number of o t h e r
l e t t e r s commenting on t h e D r a f t Statement. You may wish t o review t h e s e
l e t t e r s and t h e AEC r e s p o n s e s t h e r e t o which are appended t o t h e F i n a l
Statement. The M C t a k e s t h e s e concerns s e r i o u s l y , and has g r e a t l y
expanded t h e scope and depth of t r e a t m e n t of t h e s u b j e c t of s a f e g u a r d s
i n t h e F i n a l Statement. With r e g a r d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r concerns
you mentioned, p l e a s e see S e c t i o n 7 . 4 3 f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o
t h e AEC's p r e s e n t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e n a t u r e of t h e t h r e a t a g a i n s t
n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s , and S e c t i o n 7.4.9 f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e
c o s t s of f u t u r e s a f e g u a r d s measures.

It is recognized t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l add t i o n a l e f f o r t w i l l be r e q u i r e d
t o develop and implement t h e t y p e of xpanded s a f e g u a r d s program t h a t
w i l l be n e c e s s a r y - i f plutonium comes i n t o widespread commercial use.
This would occur w i t h t h e advent of plutonium r e c y c l e i n L i g h t Water
R e a c t o r s , anti with t h e l a t e r i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e LMFBR. However, t h e r e
is ample t i m e t o develop t h i s program, and t h e AEC i s c o n f i d e n t t h a t an
adequate l e v e l of s a f e g u a r d s 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 s u g g e s 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 D r a f t S'atement i s a measure o f t h e t h r e a t posed by
t h e LMFBR, and t h a t t h e LMFBR " . . . s h o u l d 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 S t a t e m e n t s , t h e AEC h a s made e v e r y
e f f o r t t o exclude extraneous information. Unfortunately, t h e
c o m p l e x i t y of t h e s u b j e c t and t h e 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 r e c l u d e s b r i e f p r e s e n t a -
tion. W e are h o p e f u l t h a t your r e a d i n g of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t w i l l
a l l e v i a t e some of t h e c o n c e r n s you have e x p r e s s e d .

Thank you a g a i n f o r y o u r comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e

LMFBR Program.

Sincerely,

&.LJ es L. L i erman
s i s t a n t G e n e r a 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 e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
-

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
U.S. AC
- E hm Cmnission
Washington, D.C. 20545

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. Since I received the 5 v o l ~ ast the end of March and
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 l a t e s t technological achievemnts in the nuclear field, I
assembled as much recent l i t e r a t u r e on the subject that time wuld
@t. I did this not only f o r knmledge, but t o g a h perspective
on the subject m a t t e r by diversifying my sources of i n f o m t i o n .
My ammlts an your en-tal statf=m?nt w i l l be grouped into
two basic categories: (1)the contents and structure of your
material presented and (2) my evaluation of the IMFBR program fran
an allocation of resources viewpint.
(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. It is inevitable
that i n any system rrechanical/human breakdowns w i l l occur, but t o
single out this particular program a s being innately more susceptable
to mishaps than the LkJR nuclear system or w3cGR system wuld seem
inappropriate.
technological documentation, especially that related t o nuclear
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.
The econanics presented, especially related to a l l tentative fuel
axts, was excellent. A consideration, hmever, is the potential
 v. 11-2 n

April 17, 1974

Page 2

e l a s t i c i t y of energy demand relative t o price. Recent supply cutbacks precipita-

ted by the Arab embargo has indicated a willingness i n the consurrer to r e s t r i c t
energy consumption where feasible t o 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 a s 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 a s the LMFBR,much less urgent. Current proved
domestic fossil fuel and U308 reserves, a t current consumption rates, could l a s t
the United S t a t e s w e l l into the 2 1 s 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" .
(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 i s 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 i n i t e energy reserves but question whether or not an agency such a s yo^ s,
which has access to far greater financial/manpow=r resources than any other or-
ganization 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. Various forecasts
indicate that corrnrercial reactors of this type should be available by the year
2000, b u t m s t l i k e l y 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, a s 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 ultimate,
fusion energy teclmology which apparently could l i e 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 h n e f i t e d 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.
n
 r

April 17, 1974

Page 3

I would g r e a t l y appreciate f u r t k r correspondence on your developwnt activities,

especially in the fusion area, and w i l l continue t o familiarize myself w i t h
all aspects of nuclear technology.

Richard J a J s Chamber1i-n
special Projects Analyst

RJC: jk
 V.11-4

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COM M ISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C. 20545

M r . Richard James Chamberlin

Special P r o j e c t s Analyst
A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Company
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Division
515 South Flower S t r e e t
BOX 2679-T.A.
La5 Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a 90051

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 1 7 , 1974 commentinR on t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid P!etal
F a s t Breeder Reactor (LYFBR) Program. The Statement has been revised
where a p p r o p r i a t e 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 f o r vour information. Please see the
o t h e r enclosure t o t h i s l e t t e r f o r s p e c i f i c resnonses t o your c m e n t s .

We a p p r e c i a t e your taking t b e time t o make your views known to u s and

hope that t h i s response and t h e enclosures answer any remainine questions
you may have. Your favorable comments on t h e documentation of technol-
o g i e s , t h e p r o b a h l i s t i c treatment of seauences of events, and t h e
treatment of economics a r e a l s o anpreciated. I n regard t o p r o h a b i l i s t i c
treatment of a c c i d e n t s , p l e a s e refer t o Section 4.2.7 of t h e F i n a l State-
ment f o r a d i s c u s s i o n 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 t h e 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 t o Specific Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 V.11-5

ENCLOSURE I

AEC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CO'C.fEXTS

BY ILR. RICiWRD J. CtLL'IDERLI:?

1. Coamrent:

"The economics p r e s e n t e d , e s p e c i a l l y r e l a t e d t o a l l t e n t a t i v e f u e l

e l a s t i c i t y of energy denand r e l a t e d t o p r i c e . ...

c o s t s w a s e x c e l l e n t . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n , however, is t h e p o t e n t i a l
per c a p i t a energy
consumption i n t h e U.S. could begin t o l e v e l o f f . That o c c u r r e n c e
a l o n e could make t h e need f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e energy s o u r c e , s u c h
as t h e LMFBR, much less urgent."

Response:

Your p o i n t on e l a s t i c i t y of demand is w e l l taken and t h e N a t i o n ' s

recent e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e energy crisis i s a case i n p o i n t demon-
s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e e l a s t i c i t v i n demand. Experience
since t h e e a s i n g of t h e crisis however, p o i n t s t o a n o t h e r facet of
this e l a s t i c i t y vs. p r i c e equation. With t h e passage o f time, t h e
p u b l i c , as w e l l as t h e economy i n g e n e r a 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 t e n d s t o rise a g a i n c l o s e r t o t h e
o r i g i n a l l e v e l r e p r e s e n t i n g 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. Very o f t e n
a d j u s t m e n t s are made i n o t h e r areas of t h e o v e r a l l l i v i n g s t a n d a r d
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
c o n s e r v a t i o n measure which is n o t backed by continuous s t r i n g e n t
enforcement measures or c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d by actual energy s h o r t a g e s
is n o t l i k e l y t o b e as f u l l y e f f e c t i v e as one might l i k e .
It should be noted t h a t r e d u c t i o n s i n t o t a l energy demand do n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y imply corresponding r e d u c t i o n s i n electrical energy demand.
I n f a c t , r e l a t i v e l y a c c e l e r a t e d e l e c t r i f i c a t i o n may result. Energy
c o n s e r v a t i o n may emphasize t h e use of a v a i l a b l e and s n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
a c c e p t a b l e energy sources. Conservation of h i g h l y mobile f o s s i l f u e l s
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. I n g e n e r a l , optimum a l l o c a t i o n of f u e l r e s o u r c e s and
minimization of environmental impact may r e q u i r e i n c r e a s e d electri-
f i c a t i o n and commensurate i n c r e a s e of c e n t r a l s t a t i o n power g e n e r a t i o n
u t i l i z i n g abundant, c l e a n f u e l s , Thus, while t h e AEC f u l l y endorses
a s t r o n g energy c o n s e r v a t i o n program and b e l i e v e s t h a t i t c a n r e s u l t
i n a p p r e c i a b l e energy s a v i n g s and a reduced rate of increase i n p e r
c a p i t a energy consumption, i t does n o t b e l i e v e 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 c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s is a prudent c o u r s e
f o r t h e Nation t o take. The AEC c o n t i n u e s t o f e e l t h a t developnent
of promising energy technology o p t i o n s i n c l u d i n g t h e LXFIIR should
 V.11-6
n

c o n t i n u e so t h a t t h e Nation h a s a l l t h e e l e c t r i c enei-gy g e n e r a t i o n
o p t i o n s 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 S e c t i o n 11 f o r a n a l y s e s of t h e i m p a c t of energy
c o n s e r v a t i o n measures on t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a s p e c t s of t h e LMPBR.
This s e c t i o n examiiies t h e 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 p r o j e c t i o n s . Energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s
f o r t h e s t a n d a r d c a s e s were d e r i v e d 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 e n d s of p o p u l a t i o n , GNP, t o t a l energy demand, and e l e c t r i c a l
energy demand ( S e c t i o n s 2 and 1 1 ) . A d d i t i o n a l c o s t - b e n e f i t case9
were computed f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e b a s e energy demand p r o j e c t i o n .
I n terms of t h e y e a r 2020 energy demand, t h e a l t e r n a t e c a s e s c o n s i d e r e d
v a r i a t i o n s of a twenty-percent i n c r e a s e and d e c r e a s e , and a f i f t y -
p e r c e n t d e c r e a s e . The l a t t e r case is i n d i c a t i v e of a p r o j e c t e d
energy demand assuming s u c c e s s f u l energy c o n s e r v a t i o n measures. It
should be noted t h a t t h e c a s e s examine t h e c o s t - b e n e f 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 g e n e r a t i o n economics, The cases do n o t i n c l u d e
i n c r e m e n t a l costs or b e n e f i t s r e s u l t i n g from mechanisms n e c e s s a r y to
r e d u c e 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 t h e economy.

You are a l s o r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n 6C f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of v a r i o u s
energy c o n s e r v a t i o n 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 s e r v e s , a t c u r r e n t

consumption rates, could l a s t t h e United S t a t e s w e l l i n t o t h e 2 1 s t

d e g r e e t h a t f o r e i g n energy producers ...

c e n t u r y w i t h o u t p r e c i p i t a t i n g e x c e s s i v e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s . To t h e
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 s e r v e s 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 l a s t w e l l i n t o t h e 2 1 s t

c e n t u r y i f consumption were suddenly t o l e v e l o f f a t c u r r e n t rates.
There is no e v i d e n c e , however, t h a t t h i s is happening, and i t i s n o t
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. The rise i n o i l and c o a l p r i c e s began b e f o r e t h e Mid-east
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 n c r e a s e s and forced r e d u c t i o n
i n U.S. petroleum consumption. Uranium s e l l i n g f o r about $6 per
lb. U308 a y e a r ago is s e l l i n g today a t $15 p e r l b . U308 f o r
d e l i v e r y i n 1980. Such i n c r e a s e s 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 o c c u p a t i o n a 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 g e n e r a l
e s c a l a t i o n and o t h e r f a c t o r s p e c u l i a r t o t h e i n d u s t r i e s involved.
You are r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n s 6A.1.1.2 and 6A.2.1.2 of t h e F i n a l
Statement f o r d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of c o a l and 'uranium r e s o u r c e
availability.

n
 V.11-7

In any e v e n t , i t is clear t h a t t h e s e i n d u s t r i e s a r e p r e p a r i n g f o r
i n c r e a s e d , n o t l e v e l o r decreased, energy demand. E x p l o r a t i o n f o r
o i l , g a s and uranium i n t h e U.S. (and t h e rest of t h e world) w i l l
probably reach a l l t i m e highs t h i s y e a r , 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 r e s o u r c e s , such as t h e o i l s h a l e s . I n t h i s
c o n t e x t , t h e L r e e d e r ' s c a p a b i l i t y t o p l a c e ail upper l i m i t o n t h e
t o t a l amount of n a t u r a l uranium r e q u i r e d t o s u p p o r t a n expanding
n u c l e a r power economy seem worthy of emphasis.

3. Comment :

I)... I do n o t q u e s t i o n t h e need f o r a n a l t e r n a t i v e system t o extend

our f i n i t e energy reserves b u t q u e s t i o n whether o r n o t any agency such
as y o u r s which has f a r g r e a t e r f i n a n c i a l nanpower r e s o u r c e s t h a n any
o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h i s k i n d i n t h e world, should c o n c e n t r a t e
so h e a v i l y on what could be termed a n i n t e r m e d i a t e technology," a l s o
'I... your s t a t e m e n t and v a r i o u s o t h e r AEC documents I have r e c e i v e d
i n d i c a t e s u b s t a n t i a l p r o g r e s s i n l a s e r - f u s i o n technology. Various
f o r e c a s t s i n d i c a t e t h e commercial r e a c t o r s of t h i s t y p e should be

given appropriate p r i o r i t y ...

a v a i l a b l e by t h e year 2000 b u t most l i k e l y could be a v a i l a b l e sooner
should n o t massive r e s o u r c e i n j e c t i o n s
b e a t least evenly d i v i d e d between t h e r e l a t i v e l y proven L>CFBR and
the more u n c e r t a i n , y e t ultimate, f u s i o n energy technology which
a p p a r e n t l y could l i e i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e . "

Response:

I n answer t o t h e f i r s t p a r t of your comment, t h e LMFBR is n o t b e i n g

developed as "an i n t e r m e d i a t e technology." The U F B R , when i t is
s u c c e s s f u l l y developed and proves t o be economically c o m p e t i t i v e and
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e , 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 o u r f u t u r e e l e c t r i c a l enerqy requirements f o r c e n t u r i e s .
The U C B R would only become a n " i n t e r m e d i a t e technology" i f an e n e r w
technology o p t i o n s u p e r i o r t o i t both economically and from an environ-
m e n t a l s t a n d p o i n t is developed. A number of c a n d i d a t e t e c h n o l o q i e s
have been proposed, i n c l u d i n g thermonuclear f u s i o n , s o l a r , and geo-
thermal energy as w e l l as o t h e r s which might have t h e s e p o t e n t i a l
a t t r i b u t e s and t h e s e have been reviewed i n S e c t i o n 6. However, t h e i r
s u c c e s s f u l development remains t o be demonstrated and u n t i l one o r
more of t h e s e t e c h n o l o e i e s become e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e d e s i n n a t i o n of t h e
LPfFBR as an i n t e r m e d i a t e technology i s n o t w a r r a n t e d , e x c e p t i n t h e
b r o a d e s t of tine scales.

In o r d e r t o respond ;to t h e second p a r t o f your comment, a b r i e f d i s -

c u s s i o n of t h e n a t u r e of R6D programs and t h e i r funding a t d i f f e r e n :
s t a g e s of development is r e q u i r e d . It should be noted t h a t L'lFBX
technology is much more advanced t h a n t h a t of f u s i o n (which i n c 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 f u s i o n ) . While t h e AEC f i r s t proved t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of n u c l e a r
 v.11-8

b r e e d i n g i n t h e 1950's and a d e m o n s t r a t i o n b r e e d e r p l a n t is n m b e i n g
designed and b u i l t f o r o p e r a t i o n i n t h e e a r l y 198O's, c o n t r o l l e d
thermonuclear f u s i o n is y e t t o be demonstrated on a l a b o r a t o r y s c a l e .
The more advanced e n g i n e e r i n g s t a g e of UIFBR technology r e q u i r e s
g r e a t e r amounts of funding f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of f u l l s i z e demon-
s t r a t i o n p l a n t 3 and test f a c i l i t i e s , whercas R&I: on n u c l e a r f u s i o n ,
b e i n g more i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y s t a g e , r e q u i r e s a commensurately lower
l e v e l of funding i n o r d e r t o allow i t s development t o proceed a t a n
optimum rate. As r e s e a r c h and development advances i n b o t h areas,
funding of LMFBR w i l l g r a d u a l l y d e c l i n e and funding f o r f u s i o n X&D
w i l l i n c r e a s e and s u r p a s s t h e annual e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r LMFBX. Even-
t u a l l y , i f b o t h programs are c a r r i e d t o s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n , t h e
total e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r each should b e comparable. To i l l u s t r a t e t h i s
t r e n d , you are r e f e r r e d t o WASH-1281, "The Nation's Energy Future,"
December 1973. Tables 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 on pages 30-32 g i v e t h e
recommended e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r each technology program f o r t h e 1975-1979
time p e r i o d f o r o p e r a t i n g , equipment and c o n s t r u c t i o n o b l i x a t i o n s .
You will n o t e t h a t i n t h i s f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d (which r e p r e s e n t s j u s t the
e a r l y s t a g e s of t h e f u s i o n program) t h e recommended funding f o r f u s i o n
R&D increases from 31% ($145 m i l l i o n vs. $447 m i l l i o n ) of t h e L I F R R
funding t o 80% ($406 m i l l i o n vs. $506 m i l l i o n ) . The t o t a l c o s t s f o r
developing t h e UVBR are e s t i m a t e d t o l i e i n t h e same r a n g e ($8-10
b i l l i o n ) as t h e t o t a l e s t i m a t e d cost f o r developing e i t h e r one of t h e
two c a n d i d a t e s f o r thermonuclear f u s i o n (magnetic confinement or laser
fusion).
 v.12-1

/
-

D r . James L. Liverman
A s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r
Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y 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 i n v i t e d comments on t h e d r a f t
Environmental Statement f o r t h e Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder
Reactor program (WASH-1535).
My comments t a t e t h e form of a paper
e n t i t l e d , U A n t i s o c i a l I n t e r v e n t i o n s Againat t h e Proposed
.
Liquid K e t a l Fact Breeder Reactor Program ( P r o v i s i o n a l Cost
Estimateo) If Please r e p r i n t i t and my appenged a r t i c l e ,
"3adioactive Malevolence, I' i n t h e f i n a l d r a f t of t h e Environ-
mental Statement.
Permiseion t o r e p r i n t " h a i o a c t i v e Malev-
o l e n c e U has been requested from Samuel H. flay, Eiiitor of
--
Science Public A f f a i r e , and your o f f i c e should r e c e i v e
t h a t permission i r i r e c t l y from hin. D r . Thomas B. Cochran
a l s o p l a n s t o append t h e a r t i c l e t o h i e commente. It I s
immaterial t o me whether i t should a c c o q a n y my cornr?ents o r
h i s i n t h e f i n a l Environmentel Statement, b u t I P e e l it is
extremely v i t a l t h a t i t be include&.

Very t r u l y yotv'B,

a, TL?C4L
Enclosure 8 L. Douglas DeNibe, Ph.D.
Vice-Pres i d e n t

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

L I Q U I O M'ETAL FAST BREEUER REACTOR PROGRAM

(PROVISIONAL COST ESTIMATES)

L. DOUGLAS DeNIm; Ph.D.

A p r i l , 1974

Summary

This p a p e r w a s s u b m i t t e d a s a n i n v i t e d commentary on the

dra.ft Environmental S t a t e m e n t ( E S ) f o r t h e Liquid Metal F a s t
Breeder R e a c t o r 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 c o u n t r y
etemming from a n t i s o c i a l a c t s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e e ! t o t h e n r e s e n c e o f
a subs t a n t i a l mixed L M F B I " 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 r e a s o n s f o r t h e n e g l e c t of v i o l e n t a n 3 coer-
c i v e behavior i n t h e draft a r e c o n s i d e r e d , 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 t h a t e a c h
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 t h a n 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 i n d u s t r y .
Of a t o t a l e s t i m a t e d burden of $1,687,705 760,000, r o u g h l y
$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 e x a c t a t o l l
of $130 b i l l i o n , a n 3 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 c o s t about $1 t r i l l i o n .
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
t h e d r a f 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 1 0 8 s e s from a c c i d e n t 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 i f more o p t i m i e t l c
p r o s p e c t s d o n o t emerge from d e t a i l e d study, t h a t the LMFBR and
n s o o c i z t e d LWR r e a c t o r programe be halit In abeyance.
 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 t h e d r a . f t
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t f o r t h e p r o p o s e d 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 t h e c i o l l a r
a n d 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 t h e 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 t h e U n l t e d S t a t e e . I n v i e w o f the s t a r t l i n g l y h i g h magnitudes
o f the f i g u r e s 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 fi n a l Envlronmental Statement ( E S ) include thoroughly 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
terrorism, o r c r i m i n a l i t y i e diminishing. The e v i r l e n c e 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 c r l m e h a v e 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 t h e D e c l a r a t i o n of I n d e p e n ? e n c e , t h e
L'nFted S t a t e s has b e e n I n v o l v e d i n shooting wars d u r i n g 16% of it6

years. S i n c e t h e end of WorlR War 11 a n d t h e a i l v e n t o f n u c l e a r weap-

ons, t h e U.S. h a s b e e n i n v o l v e d i n s h o o t i n g wars ( F o r e a a n d I n d o c h i n a )
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 over t h e d i v i 6 i o n
o f n l a n e t a r y r e s o u r c e s , a n d 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 t h e o u t l o o l . 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 o f 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 o m i s s i c n is t h a t the LMFBR nrogram
 V . 12-4
n

- 2 -

is deemed t o i n v o l v e no hazards a d a i t i o n a l t o t h o s e a s s o c i z t e d w i t h
l i g h t - w a t e r r e a c t o r s (LWRs). I n view of t h e p l u t o n i u m basis of t h e
LMFBR f u e l - c y c l e and t h e admitted s p e c i a l flangers of plutonium, such
Q s u g g e o t i o n would a p p e a r i n a p p l i c a b l e . Moreover, t h e a n t i c i p a t e d
c o s t s of m a l e v o l e n t 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
n e v e r been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p u b l i c i n any o f f i c i a l government p u b l i -
cation. 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 , end warfare 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 D l a n t s 1s a d d r e s s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time, t o t h e a u t h o r ' s bnow-
ledge, in the present study.
Another h y p o t h e s i e t o e x p l a i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h i o t o p i c i n the
? r a f t E3 l e t h a t t h e e v e n t s t o b e d e a l t w i t h a r e "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 m a 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
b e s t a v a i l a b l e basis even i n the a b s e n c e of d e t a i l e d t h e o r y which
would p e r m i t more p r e c i s e p r e d i c t i o n . It i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o base
D r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e s on a s s u m p t i o n s which would r e c e i v e wide a c c e p t -
a n c e a8 r e a s o n a b l e o r c o n s e r v a t i v e , and t h e n t o e x p l o r e 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 m a d i f i c a t i o n a i n t h e assumptiona.
The major theme of t h i s p a p e 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 e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e s of l ? 7 r e l y e v e n t s , and t h e i r C o s t s , compel
t h e c o n c l u s i o n That t h e t r u e p r i c e of f i s s i o n - q e n e r a t e d e l e c t r i c i t y
i s v a s t l y h i g h e r t h a n 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 h y p o t h e s i s is t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h o s t i l e a c t s

i s n o t t h e c o n c e r n o r a r e a o f e x p e r t i R e of t h o s e p r o p o s i n g t h e LMFBR
program, b u t 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 b o d i e s
s u c h a s t h o s e 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 d e v e l o p f o r e c a s t s ,
9
 V. 1 2 - 5

- 3 -

c r r a n g e s of f o r e c a s t s c o n t i n g e n t on vHrlous aesumptiona, f o r
inclusion in the f inal d r a f t e
A f o u r t h viewpoint i s t h a t s u f f i c i e n t s a f e g u a r d e 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 b e a p p l i e d w i t h an ongoing, p o s t hoc approach,

a s 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 estimation. I n t h l e c o n t e x t i t l e well t o n o t e that a

8ingle il e l i b e r a t e r a d i o c o n t a m i n a t i o n i n c l i t e n t c o u l d permanently
e v a c u a t e a rnaJor metropolis. It t h u s r e p r e s e n t s a Class of' e v e n t e
which i s b e s t ciealt w i t h on a t o t a l - p r e v e n t i o n b a s i e . Ample prec-
e d e n t 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 a r e a i e c u s e e d i n my p a p e r of t h a t name, which i s a t t a c k e d
a s an appen8ix (1). These i n c l u d e t h e n o t i o n 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 w h i l e t h e problem i s b e i n g 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 i n c r e a s e d
s a f e g u a r d s and underground siting, r e l i a n c e on human n a t u r e a n d s o c i a l
s c i e n c e , 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 8 d e q W t e i n s u r a n c e coverage,
an? t h e o b j e c t i o n t h a t o t h e r power s o u r c e s a160 p r e s e n t risfts. All
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
principle: 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,
a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s t o i t , should be ? r e s e n t e d 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. Society,
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 b e helit hoetaqe t o t h e i r u n q u a n t i f l e d optimism.
The e s t i a a t e s which f o l l o w a r e q u a n t i f i e d , and t h e i r e s s i i n p t i o n s
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 t h e o r y o r

in practice.

Warfare
I t w i l l be assumed t h a t f o r t h e n e x t c e n t u r y 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 i d e n c e 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 b e
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 t h i s c o u n t r y ) a g a i n s t U . 3 . nuclear industry w i l l
be t o t a l l y prevented. F o r t h e remaining t e n y e a r s p e r hundred, it
i s assumed t h a t a n n u a l l y , a s i n g l e 1000 m e ( m e g a w a t t - e l e c t r i c a l )
nilclear power r e a c t o r is ii l r e c t l y rleetroyed by c o n v e n t i o n a l explos-
i v e s (bon%Fng, rnisslles); a second l e eabotaged, r e e u l t i n e ; i n melt-
?own; and i n d e p e n d e n t l y , a s i n g l e large American m e t r o p o l i t a n 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 - i s p e r e l o n o f 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 . L e t u s f u r t h e r assume
t h a t once F e r c e n t u r y , a s i ~ g l ef u e l - r e p r o c e s s i n g 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 r a d i o -
a c t i v e waste s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y (RSSF) i s e x p l o e i v e l y d e s t r o y e d and
i t s c o n t e n t s d i s p e r s e d b y 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 b e
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-
i z e d i n Table 1.
This p e r h a p s 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 o f t h e assumptions ss c?escribed above. Moreover, t h e l i e t e d
c o s t s d o n o t presuppose t h e use of n u c l e a r weanone by o u r 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 e x p e n d i t u r e s for fiecontam-
i n n t l m (whqre noeslble) a n d l a t e r entombment and monitoring of rup-
 V.12-7

- 5 -

t u r e d 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 r o p e r t y damage, p e r c e n t u r y , 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 warfare i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h nuclear f i s s i o n
energy p r o d u c t i o n ( p r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e s )
It em Cost
T o t a l l o s e of twenty 1000 MWe n u f l e a r $ 10 b i l l i o n
power p l a n t s 0 '$500 m i l l i o n each
C i v i l i a n p r o p e r t y damage from p a r t i c u l a t e 100 b i l l i o n
and v o l a t i l e r a d i o n u c l i d e r e l e a s e s from
t e n exploded r e a c t o r s , p l u s d i a a e t e r a e r v i c e s
and r e l o c a t i o n expenses 8 $10 b i l l i o n p e r e v e n t
C i v i l i a n p r o p e r t y damage from v o l a t i l e 4 b i l lion
r a d i o n u c l i d e r e l e a s e s from t e n power r e a c t o r
meltdowns, 8 $400 m i l l i o n p e r event
Rebuilding OR new s i t e s 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 11ian p r o p e r t y ti amage r e s u l t a n t from

e x p l o s i v e d i s p e r s i o n of r a d i o e c t i v i t y a t
one n u c l e a r f u e l r e p r o c e e8 ing p l a n t , 10 b i l l ion
plutonium f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , o r RSSF

T o t a l m i n i m u m war-related costs $424 b i l l i o n

1, . R a d i o c o n t a n i n a t i o n a t the s i t e s i s aseumed t o p r e c l u d e
ealvage and re-uee of r e a c t o r components.
2. P r e d i c a t e d on a f l e p r e c i a t e a ( a c t u a l market v a l u e ) e a t i m a t e
of r e a l p r o p e r t y p e r c a p i t a of $12,000, and average d i e p l a c e d
p o p u l a t i o n of 2.5 m i l l i o n pereono p e r event. The e s t i m a t e l a
c o n s e r v a t i v e i n t h a t no l o a e of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o r commercial
i n v e n t o r i e e is assumed. I n a c t u a l i t y , r a d i o c o n t a m i n a t i o n would
o f t e n p r e c l u d e s a l v a g e o r r e s a l e of such goods. An a d d i t i o n a l
c o n s e r v a t i v e f a c t o r i s t h e d i s r e g a r d o f nationwide d . i s r u p t i o n s
t o be expected from t h e l o s e o f Pey c i t i e s , e . g , , New YorF o r
Washington, D. C.
 v. 12-8

- 6 -

Te r r o r i s m
Small groups of p o l i t i c a l e x t r e m i s t s , o r even inflividuale,
a r e c a p a b l e 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 t e m p o r a r i l y 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 i n c u r r e d

throvgh evacuation, temporary q u a r t e r i n g expenses, i d l e d p r o d u c t i v e
c a p a c i t y , n e g l e c t , and u n c o n t r o l l e d f ires. Containere of long-lived
n u c l i d e s such ae plutonium could be blown up by c o n v e n t i o n a l 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 . A l e a k y c o n t a i n e r o f plutonium-oxide
powder could be a t t a c h e d c o v e r t l y t o t h e u n d e r c a r r i a g e of a p u b l i c
t r a n s i t v e h i c l e , and d i s s e m i n a t e h i g h l y c a r c i n o g e n i c p a r t i c l e s
a l o n g a known r o u t e i n a c i t y . One pound of plutonium 239, e v e n l y
d i s p e r s e d , c o u l d bring t h r e e equare m i l e e of l a n d up t o t h e contam-
i n a t i c n l e v e l (0.35 m i c r o c u r i e p e r e q u m e meter) s e t by t h e AEC f o r
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a n ' e x t r a o r d i n a r y n u c l e a r occurrence' f o r trans-
u r a n i c a l p h a e m i t t e r e ( R e g u l a t i o n 140.84). Some e x p e 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 2, 35 t i m e s l e s e , o r a n even lower v a l u e (2).
About f i f t e e n pounds o f Pu-239 o r 22 pounds of 239Pu02 would e u f f l c e
f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a crude atomic bomb (3).
Table 2 summzrizes t h e r e a e o n a b l y 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 n u c l e a r power i n d u e t r y 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 t h e c o u n t r y which t h e y are a t t e m p t i n g
t o e v e n t u a l l y t a p e over and run. However, s u b v e r s l v e e a l i g n e d w i t h
a f o r e i g n enemy would be under n o such f e l t r e s t r a i n t . Moreover,
t h o s e who d i s p e r s e r a d i o n u c l i d e s could g r e a t l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e t h e
d u r a t i o r . o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e i r deeda.
 V.12-9

-7-

century. Once a g a i n , conservatism u n i l e r l i e s t h e b a s e s f o r t h e

e s t i m a t e s i n Table 2. It l e assumed t h a t i n d u s t r i a l s a f e g u a r d s
succeed i n y e v e n t i n g a l l a t t e m p t s 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 s a b o t a g e d u r i n g 96 o u t of e a c h 100 years. In
t h e remaining f o u r y e a r s , sabotage-meltdowns a r e assumed t o o c c u r
a t t h e r a t e of one p e r year. Two m a j o r American m e t r o p o l i s e s , or
t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t , a r e assumed t o be contaminated t o e v a c u a t i o n l e v e l 8
by t e r r o r i s t s each century. Two o t h e r major urban a r e a s , one each
f i f t y yeapa, a r e assumed d e s t r o y e d by n u c l e a r weapons c o n s t r u c t e d
o r i t i v e r t e d by t e r r o r i s t s . Once p e r c e n t u r y , a f u e l - r e p r o c e s s i n g
p l a n t , PFFP, o r RSSF i s assumed t o be e x p l o s i v e l y d e s t r o y e d by
terrorists. Smaller e x t r e m i s t a c t s o f r a d i o c o n t a m i n a t i o n and o t h e r
a s s a u l t s on n u c l e a r 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 t h e f o l l o w i n g summary.

Table 2.
C o s t of United E t a t e s r e a l p r o p e r t y damage, p e r c e n t u r y , i n p r e s e n t
dollare, a t t r i b u t a b l e t o terrorism i n Interaction with nuclear f i s s i o n
energy p r o d u c t i o n ( p r o v i s i o n a l estimates)

-
Item -
cost
T o t a l l o s e of f o u r 1000-We n u c l e a r $ 2 billion
power p l a n t s @ $500 million each
C i v i l i a n p r o p e r t y damage from v o l a t i l e
r a d i o n u c l i d e r e l e a s e e from f o u r power
r e a c t o r meltdowns, 8 $400 m i l l i o n p e r event
.
1 6 b i l l ion

Rebuilding on new s i t e s of two major

American m e t r o p o l i s e s abandoned due t o 60 billion
t e r r o r 1 s t rad i o c o n t amina t 1on
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
m a j o r American m e t r o p o l i s e s d e s t r o y e d 60 billion
by p r i v a t e l y c o n s t r u c t e d o r p u r l o i n e d
n u c l e a r weapons Gp $30 b i l l i o n each
 v.12-10
n
- 8 -

Table 2 (concluded

C i v i l i a n p r o p e r t y damage r e s u l t a n t from
e x p l o s i v e r l i s p e r e i o n of r a d i o a c t i v i t y a t $ 10 billion
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 ,
p l u t o n i u m f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t , o r R93F
J

S m a l l e r e x t r e m i e t alesaults i n v o l v i r g
radioac t i v i t y , i n c l u d i n g A ec ontaminat i o n 100 m i l l i o n
c o s t s , @ $1 m i l l i o n p e r annum

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

-
Crime
I n c o n t r a s t t o t e r r o r i s t s ' underlying d e s i r e f o r p o l i t i c a l
change, the m o t i v a t i o n o f 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. Thus c r i m i n a l s would s e e b c o n t r o l o v e r r a d i o a c t i v e
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 s e c u r e n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e from
l a w enforcement a g e n c i e s .
Table 3 p r e s e n t s i n summary form p l a u s i b l e minimum d o m e s t i c
c o e t s from a c e n t u r y o f 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 i n d u s t r y . On E9 page 4-5-15, it i s e n v i s i o n e d that, ae p a r t
of t h e 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 vehicle. The b e y aeswnption u n d e r l y i n g
t h e c o s t summary of Table 3 i s t h a t one s u c h s i z a b l e 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-
s e q u e n t l y a t one o r more unbnown l o c a t i o n e . A t a l a t e r date, the
assumption i s made t h a t i t w1l:L be used t o e v a c u a t e through r a d i o -
c o n t a m i n a t i o n a sinrgle major Arnericnn m e t r o p o l i s . It l e f u r t h e r
assumed t h a t t h i s e v e n t c o n v i n c e s 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 o y n P i c a t e 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
criminals. This r e s u l t s i n a d ? ~ l t l o n a ln a t i o n a l c o e t s due t o b l a c k -

_ _ ~ ~ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~~ -- - _-
 v.12-11

- 9 -

mail, h i g h e r law-enforcement c o s t a , and i n c r e a s e d r e q u i r e m e n t s for

r a d i o a c t i v e m o n i t o r i n g and d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n of $500 m i l l i o n p e r year.
These c o s t s , a l l o f which c o u l d stem from a s i n g l e sizable d i v e r e i o n ,
are g i v e n in t a b u l a r form: .

Table 3
A d d i t i o n a l c o s t s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s economy, p e r c e n t u r y , i n
present dollars, 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 interaction with
n u c l e a r f i s s i o n energy p r o d u c t i o n ( p r o v i s i o n a l e s t i m a t e e )
Item Cost

576 be;. Pu e q u i v a l e n t 0 $lo/g $ 5.76 million

R e b u i l d i n g on new s i t e of one major
American m e t r o p o l i s abandoned due t o 30 billion
c r i m i n a l r a d i o c o n t a m i n a t i o n 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 50 b i l lion
8 $500 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r

A r l a i t i o n a l a n n u a l c o s t s of e x t o r t i o n
payments, i n c r e a s e d law-enforcement
expend i t u r e s , i n c r e a s e d r a d i o a c t i v e 50 b i l l ion
mon 1t o r 1ng and d ec on t amina t 1on
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 4b 130,005,760,000

GeoDol i t l c a l R a m i f i c a t i o n s
Given t h e m u l t i - n a t i o n a l u s a g e o f f i s s i o n power p l a n t s , t h e
p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p r e s e n t Nuclear N o n - P r o l i f e r c t i o n T r e a t y w i l l n o t
p r e v e n t f o r e i g n n3.t i o n s from c o v e r t l y e t o c * p i l i n g plutonium and
other radioactive materials. 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 s u b s t a n c e o 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 a n a l o g o u s t o t h e p r e s e n t w e l f a r e payment
syetem i n t h i s c o u n t r y . Unr?er t h i s eystem, t h e h a v e s d o n a t e rt
c e r t a i n amount of t h e i r w e a l t h t o the have-nots, Lest the have-nots
commit l a r c e n y ana o t h e r c r i m e s t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r m a t e r i a l wants.
 v.12-12
n

- 10 --
S i m i l a r l y , poor n a t i o n s , p o s s e s s e d of t h e means t o evacuate
o r d e s t r o y Wnohington, D.C. c o n v e n i e n t l y 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 p r o c u r e
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 t h e United S t a t e s .
It may b e c o u n t e r e d that America's n u c l e a r a r s e n a l could iiemoliah
a n y s m a l l e r n a t i o n p o s i n g such a c h a l l e n g e . Yet it is e q u a l l y
c e r t a i n t h a t t h e nerve c e n t e r of t h i s n a t i o n , 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 s u c h 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 o f power among a l l o r g a n i z e d groups
which have a c c e s e t o t h e i r use a6 weapons. Table 4 summarizes
reasonable international-related c o s t s t o the 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-
b a s e d energy economy.

Table 4

A d d i t i o n a l c o s t s t o t h e United S t a t e s economy, p e r c e n t u r y , 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 generated
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 c o n c e a l a b l e , s t o r a b l e , and t r a n s p o r t a b l e 'u l t r a t o x i c m a t e r i a l s
w i t h long-lived b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y
Item Cost

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 nations, $800 b i l l i o n
0 $8 b i l l i o n p e r y e a r

Adflitions t o U.S. a r s e n a l n e c e s s a r y t o
d e t e r u n l i m i t e d r a d i o n c t i v e e x t o r t ion 100 b i l l i o n
from o t h e r n a t i o n e , Q $1 b i l l l o n p e r y e a r
A d d i t i o n a 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 a c c o u n t i n g 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 100 b i l l i o n
and data a n a l y e i s ; @ $1b i l l i o n p e r y e a r
Total international-related costs $ I trillion
 V. 12-13

- 11 -
Table 5
Summary of p e r - c e n t u r y 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 i n f i u e t r y , i n p r e s e n t d o l l a r s

-
Item -
cost
Warfare $ 424,000,000,000
Terrori s m 133,700,000,000

Crime 130,00~,760,000
International adJustnents 1,000,000,000,000

Grand t o t a l (minimum)

Discuss ion
The f o r e g o i n g e s t i m a t e s a r e 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 p r o v e t o be t o o hlgh. Because o f t h e v a r i o u a con-
s e r v a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g them, and due t o o m ~ s s i o n sof some
c o e t s , t h e y a r e a l m o s 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 I n c l u d e d i n t h e 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 t h
d e f e c t s r e s u l t a n t from r a d i a t i o n exposure; (B) C o s t s of F r o v i d i n g
a d e q u a t e uncontzmlnated food,' water, and manufactured goods i n a
geogranhy which must accommosate t o numerous l a r g e and omall areas
of r a d i o c o n t a m i n a t i o n . (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 n v e r a g e
c i t i z e n of a d a p t i n g t o s u c h a n environment, and t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n of
yet' f u r t h e r d i s r u n t i v e inciilents. (D) The r e d u c e d e f f i c i e n c y and
qualit17 of governance t o be e x p e c t e d when c i v i l s e r v a n t s and legis-
l a t o r s work u n a e r the s p e c i a l t h r e a 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 c o r r u p t , l n g 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 e n t i o n s 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 o f 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 r e p r o c e s s i n g 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 y e a r 2020 could be
borne by a l e s s e r sum. O n e ' c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n Is that t h e t r u e c o s t
of fiesion-dependent e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y i s probably
double whct i t has been thought t o be. Another i m p l i c a t i o n i s
t h a t t h e $50 b i l l i o n d i s c o u n t e d n e t c o s t s a v i n g expected from ths
W B R program over t h e 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 t h e 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 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 p r e s e n t study,
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 y e a r s , an average of one $10 b i l l i o n
mishap e v e r y n i n e years.

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 s c u s s i o n

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 d r a f t of the Environmental Statement on t h e
l i q u i d metal f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r program.
2. Unless s u c h a d i s c u s s i o n can be founded upon premises that
a r e b o t h more d e f e n s i b l e and c o n s i d e r a b l y more o p t i m i s t i c t h a n t h o s e
which have been employed h e r e i n , t h e LMFBR program and i t s a s s o c i a t e d
expansion of LwRs should be p l a c e d i n abeyance. Such a ouspenslon
should be l i f t e d only upon t h e c l e a r a t t a i n m e n t of massive r e d u c t i o n s
i n t h e 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 l a G t i n g h e a l t h damage r e s u l . t i n g from
exposure t o i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i o n .
 V.12-15

References

1. DeNibe, Lo Do R a d i o a c t i v e Malevolence. Science a

P u b 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 P u b l i c Health. Paper
4 e l l v e r e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, A p r i l 1970, p. 1-16?.
T a m p l i n , A. R., & Cochran, T. B o R a d i a t i o n Stanctarde
for Hot P n r t i c l e e . P o e i t i o n paper, N a t u r a l 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 1 4 , 1974; "Homemane A-Bomb
P e r i l Cited, I' Washington, D.C. Star-Newe, A p r i l 7, 1974.

D r . Lo Douglne DeNibe
Vice-Pres l d e n t
Zero P o p u l a t i o n 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 pre-
vented at acceptable cost in a world committed
to fission energy. The conclusion generated by
available evidence and theory is that w e must
look elsewhere for primary power sources. For
the near future, some will disparage the clear
indications that society is too immature io ac-
commodate 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.
T h e toxicity and persistence of radioactive sub-
stances has radically altered the power balance be-
tween large and small social units. It is now pos-
sible 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 atroci-
ties 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 other-
wise. Evildoers will learn that alpha and beta emit-
ters, while deadly in the environment, require only
lightweight shielding which would present no prob-
lems of bulk to thieves. Even spent reactor fuel and
high level waste, which emit gamma rays and re-
quire massive shielding, could be seized in pre-pack-
aged 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 ra-
diation hazard, deliberately misled concerning the
nature of their hijacking assignment, or fanatical
for their cause could assume risks of radiation ex-
posure inconceivable to a n 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 indus-
try, several incidents have already occurred despite
extraordinary precautions:
e I n August 1971, a n 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 mil-
lion 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 I n 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 tempo-
rary possession of a nuclear station in Argentina.
e I n 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 sur-
veillance. Moreover, no screening program will ob-
viate the fact that during transient intervals nor-
mal 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 demon-
strated 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
since 1 SO. For the over 60-year’ age group, how-
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 as-
sumed for the observed increase in both cases, esti-
mates 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 rela-
tive 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 ar-
bitrarily 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-
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 rela-
tive 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 leu-
kemia in the over-60 age group is consistent with
the concept that incidence results from a n accumu-
lated effect. Two points should be emphasized how-
ever. Although the rate of incidence of leukemia is
increasing, the factors quoted are statistically
weighted and the probability of a n individual con-
tracting 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 ra-
dioactive causes. Some doubt must therefore exist
that hitherto assumed negligible quantities of ra-
diation are not, in the long term, biologically in-
significant. Thus there is a need to clarify the sig-
nificance of prolonged exposure to low-level radia-
tion 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
 v. 12-15
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 con-
tinue 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 en-
ergy. 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 sys-
tems 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 suf-
ficient to contaminate tens of thousands of cubic
miles of water in excess of permitted AEC tolerance
levels.
The greatest concentrations of long-lived radio-
nuclides are stored in near-surface “tank farms”
near fuel reprocessing plants. Conventional bomb-
ing of such areas would contaminate them suffi-
ciently 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 util-
izing his radioactive wastes for warfare. The pres-
ence of plutonium-239 in stored reprocessing wastes
dictates that it be isolated from the environment
for about 250,000 years. On the conservative as-
sumption of one, two-year war per century in a
given locality, plutonium-bearing wastes will re-
main 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 main-
tained 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 nu-
clear power stations would involve incendiaries
&-idexplosives. Plausible approaches exist so that
determined insurgents could destroy a nuclear pow-
er plant without even entering it. For example,
a logical target would be the cooling system, spe-
cifically 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 cool-
ing pipes could travel unimpeded to the screen-well
located close to the power plant, where their de-
tonation 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 sec-
ret 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 else-
where.’ 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 ex-
ceeding 100 pounds.
Underworld fabrication of atomic bombs is more
difficult and less likely than the simple use of
stolen plutonium as a contaminant. Plutonium-ox-
ide 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 radio-
active levels, or 3 square miles to the level used by
the AEC in determining a n “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 e v a ~ u a t i o n . ~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 govern-
ments. One can imagine the plight of a n administra-
tion 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, wa-
ter a n d 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 dam-
age 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 per-
son 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 pre-
sents 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
18
materials. Even a n extremely loyal employee might
surrender top secret information were he, she or a
family member to be abducted by ruthless crimi-
nals. 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 fabrica-
tion 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, monu-
mental.
Pxychosocial Aftermath
One immediate evacuation-related problem, fol-
lowing a large radioactive spill, would be the eva-
cuees’ 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 facili-
ties, 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 necessi-
tate bypass transportation routes, new water sup-
plies and sources of agricultural commodities.
Never before have large inhabited zones sud-
denly 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 con-
tinuing headaches.
 v. 12-20
Objections and rejoinders to the above are as
follows :
1. The limited value of quantitative studies. T o
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’icence.
1 a safe distance. Even these expensive measures
Precision in such studies is precluded by two basic
considerations.
The number, motivation and capability of nu-
clear 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 pre-
cautions versus adversaries undeterred by the pos-
sibility of capture, irradiation or even death? If
it is possible, can it be rendered essentially impos-
sible at a sustainable cost to industry and society?
T h e most promising approach to answers appears
to be gaming analysis, in which offensive and de-
fensive 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-
Coolliil: towers, I’rricli Ilottotii titiclciir power p l r ~ r i t i n I’ronsylvrtnia.
n
ing illicit acts by employees or interlopers. How-
ever, sophisticated attacks by aircraft could be op-
posed 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
would not protect against military attacks.
The adequate safeguarding of radioactive ship-
ments 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 ra-
diation following a major accident. Because of the
shortage of top-quality geologic formations, under-
grounding 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 under-
ground reprocessing and fuel fabrication facilities.
I n their absence, the hazards associated with long-
distance transport of spent fuel would remain. If
several power reactors were concentrated under-
ground 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.
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 what-
ever 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 per-
cent of fission products still might leave following
rupture through elevator shafts, stairwells, air con-
ditioning 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 rup-
tured, 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, cir-
cumstances 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 psy-
chological profiles might be constructed to identify
potential nuclear criminals. Such profiles have been
of some value in screening possible airline hijack-
ers 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 rec-
ord ignores the automatic multiplication of mal-
feasance 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 esti-
mates 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 U S . high-
way 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 in-
ternational 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 can-
cers, 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 pro-
vided only by nuclear fission. Granted that a long-
term power source is indispensable, potentially in-
finite 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 n o t e d t h a t t h e assumptions used i n t h e assessment are o f f e r e d

w i t h o u t j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r f o u n d a t i o n . A wide range of assumptions would
b e e q u a l l y d e f e n s i b l e , i n c l u d i n g some t h a t would r e s u l t i n n e g l i g i b l e
c o s t s . P r o j e c t i o n s i n t o t h e f u t u r e are tenuous even when based on
copious h i s t o r i c a l d a t a . When t h e d a t a i s s p a r s e o r , as i n t h i s case,
p r a c t i c a l l y n o n - e x i s t e n t , any p r o j e c t i o n i s q u a l i t a t i v e and h i g h l y
uncertain. I t is "oncluded t h a t such p r o j e c t i o n s should n o t b e i n c o r -
p o r a t e d i n t o c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , and t h i s p o l i c y w a s followed i n
p r e p a r i n g 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 h e consequences of f u t u r e a n t i - s o c i a l
acts p r e c l u d e s t h e i r use i n c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , t h e development of
f u t u r e AEC s a f e g u a r d s w i l l t a k e i n t o account t h e need t o p r o v i d e l e v e l s
of 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 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 t h a n acts of war. S e c t i o n 7 . 4 . 8 of t h e F i n a l
Statement d e s c r i b e s i n d e t a i l t h e approach t o development of f u t u r e
safeguards.

P r o t e c t i o n , o f U.S. n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s a g a i n s t w a r t i m e a t t a c k i s t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e d e f e n s e e s t a b l i s h m e n t and t h e armed f o r c e s . While
such an a t t a c k x i g h t o c c u r , i t is n o t p o s s i b l e ' 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 o c c u r r e n c e . A s p o i n t e d o u t i n S e c t i o n 7 . 4 . 4 . 1 of
t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , i t is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e 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 i n c r e m e n t a l e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g
from n u c l e a r f a c i l i t y damage.

We a p p r e c i a t e your i n t e r e s t i n AEC s a f e g u a r d s a c t i v i t i e s and t h e LMFBR

Program, and t r u s t t!iat t h e F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t , which c o n t a i n s
an expanded d i s c u s s i o n of s a f e g u a r d s m a t t e r s , w i l l a l l e v i a t e your concerns
on t h i s s u b j e c t.
Sincerely,

M J mes L. Li erman
W s i s t a n t General Manager
- L
f o r Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y 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

A p r i l 22, 1974

Mr. J. L. Liverman
Biomedical and Environmental ’ 6

Research and S a f e t y Programs

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

Dear M r . Liverman:

This is i n response t o your l e t t e r of March 1 4 t o D r . Fred H.

T s c h i r l e y r e g a r d i n g t h e D r a f t Environmental Statement, WASH-1535,
Liquid Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor Program.

The g e n e r a l t o n e i n many sectid,ns o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t l e a v e s one

w i t h t h e impression t h a t s t e p s ” c a n be t a k e n t o p r o t e c t t h e
environment. Y e t , l i t t l e i s s a i d r e g a r d i n g t h e s p e c i f i c s t e p s
that - w i l l b e taken. One s p e c i f i c example of t h i s appears on
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 t a t e m e n t showed s p e c i f i c a l l y . w h a t i s
going t o b e done t o p r o t e c t t h e environment.

Sincerely,

/
I’ , - . ,

H. L. Barrows
Acting Assistant A d m i n i s t r a t o r
N a t i o n a l Program S t a f f
 V.13-2 n

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
W A S H I N G T O N , D.C. 20545

3 1 1974

M r . H. L. Barrows
Acting Assistant A d m i n i s t r a t o r
N a t i o n a l Program S t a f f
A g r i c u l t u r a l Research S e r v i c e
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 D r a f t Environmental s t a t e m e n t 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 r e s p o n s e 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 e n c l o s e d f o r your i n f o r m a t i o n .

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 r e g a r d i n g t h e s t e p s t h a t be t a k e n t o p r o t e c t t h e e n v i r o n -
ment, i t should b e n o t e d t h a t s t e p s t a k e n 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 o f 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 t y p e of c o o l i n g system s e l e c t e d . I n
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:

"Each W B R power p l a n t w i l l b e l i c e n s e d a c c o r d i n g t o 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 l e c t r i c
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 P r e l i m i n a r y S a f e t y A n a l y s i s Report (PSAR) and an' "Appli-
cant's Environmental Report -- C o n s t r u c t i o n P e r m i t Stage."
The PSAR must c o n t a i n e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e proposed p l a n t 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 h e a l t h and
s a f e t y of t h e p u b l i c . The Environmental Report must i n c l u d e
d e t a i l e d a n a l y s e s 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 t L 2 d p o i n t s o f s a f e t y and e n v i r o n u e n t a l impact.''
 V.13-3

M r . H. L. Barrows 2

Thus, i t i s s e e n t h a t t h e measures t h a t be t a k e n t o p r o t e c t t h e
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 .

W e hope t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n t l y r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e p o i n t s you
r a i s e d . Thank you a g a i n f o r your c o m e n t s and for your i n t e r e s t i n
t h e LMFBR Program.

eL
Sincerely,
A

s L. Liverman
General Manager
f o r Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosure :
F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
0 V.14-1

J A M E S 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 MEMBER
N d u r Tschnol~y A.N.S., A.1.Ch.E.. A.C.S.
kat and Mass Transfer A.A.A.S.. N.Y.A.S..
Isotope Separation Tau Beta Pi
Thoretical and Economic Analyua Sigma Xi, Phi Lembde Upsilon

A p r i l 2 2 , 1'974
O f f i c e of t h e A s s i s t a n t General :;anagar
Biomedical a i d Gnvironnental P.ssearcli and S a f e t y Programs
U.S.A.E.C.
I:'ashington, D. C , 2 0 5 4 5 R e : ?AS!-I-1535

Dear S i r s :
1. I t h i n k i t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t more time v3s n o t 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
h u r r i e d and n o t as complete a s I would l i k e them t o be.
2. I t h i n k it i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n o f urariiun
r e S 3 u r c e s was d i s m i s s e d s o 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
c a n f u n c t i o n 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 s u s 2 e c t t h a t t h e uranium r e s o u r c e s oI' t h i s ; l a t i o n 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 e s t i m a t e s . Since l a r g e r r e s o u r c e s
would have a n important b e a r i n g on t h e econonic c r o s s o v e r t i c e ,
a l e s s f r e n e t i c schedule f o r LFIF3R deve1o:;nent c o u l d 5e adopted
i f it c o u l d be shown t h a t more uranium e x i s t s w i t h i n c u r b o r d e r s .
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 ( o r cheaper) e l s e v h e r e in t:ie riorl?,
we c a n n o t 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 c o u l d s t o c k p i l e here i n t h e U.S. ;
t h e r e b y conserving our uranium r e s o u r c e s . P r o j e c t Iniicpendence
i s n o t incompatible w i t h s t o c k p i l i n g ; i n f a c t , I t h i n k q u i t e t h e
reverse is true.
3 . I b e l i e v e 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 c o n p a r i s o n w i t h 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 n o t make s e n s e t o me, e i t h e r . The d o s e r a t e s
and t h e dose f r o n t h e p l a n t s shculd i n c r e a s e , whereas t k a t f r m
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 n o t a s e i i s j b l e d i r e c t i o a
i n which t o move, i n my o p i n i o n , and a more e c o n o r i c d i s t r i b u t i o n
of d o s e s 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 A p r i l 22, 1974 commenting on t h e A t o m i c

Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Xetal
F a s t Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) Program. The Statement has been revised
where a p p r o p r i a t e In response t o t h e nany c o m e n t s received, and a copy
of the F i n a 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 s e c t i o n s 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 D r a f t Statement. This i n f o r n n t i o n
has been augmented i n t h e F i n a l Statement and w i l l be found in s e c t i o n s
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 p o i n t s , w e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e f o r e i g n 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 h e a v i l y 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 t h e U.S. I s , of course,
uncertain. Based on t h e information c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e , however, w e
b e l i e v e i t is a t least prudent t o pace LMFBR development on t h e 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 t o be environmentally and economically
unacceptable.

With regard t o your conuaent on dose rates, i t was not our i n t e n t i o n t o

o b t a i n uneconomic andlor unreasonably l o w r a d i a t i o n dose rates. Rather,
model LMFBR p l a n t r a d i o a c t i v e waste management systems were described
which are thought t o be economically feasible and r e a l i s t i c and t o pro-
duce r a d i a t i o n doses t h a t would be as l o w as p r a c t i c a b l e . Use of nuclear
energy c e n t e r s wgdd g r e a t l y reduce t h e r a d i a t i o n dose due t o t h e
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n segment by t h e t r a n s p o r a t i o n of s p e n t f u e l between reactors
and reprocessing p l a n t s , and of f r e s h f u e l from f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s t o
reactors.

n
 V.14-3

Mr. James J. Barker 2

We hope t h i s infortiation i s adequately responsive t o your comments.

Your i n t e r e s t i n the LMFBR Program is appreciated.
Sincerely,

i e s L. Liverman
General Manager
for Biomedical and Environmental
Research and Safety Programs

Enclosure:
Final Environmental Statement,
U E B R Program (WASIl-1535)

I
 Subjecti 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 ~tc S t a te:ncn t !AKE-? 535

Centlenen I .

?%cvlous coainitnunts ? r e v e n t PB f r m being presetit a t the hearing on

21: X y i l 137h. I s F a l 1 bc o u t o f t h e c o u n t r y u n t S 1 a?nut ?.6 !~!ay 1?7b,
At t h a t time I shall 5 2 glaii t o f u r n i s h 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
prD&ram

Yours v z r y t r d y ,

Hanil ton Trca!!way

 V.15-2

Comments on Draft Enviromental Impact Statemect , UASH-1535

1, Statement o f Scope of Comments
The d r a f t Environmental Im2act Statement, h e r e i n a 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 & c i s i o n o f t h e U.S. Gourt of
fp
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 Public Information, Inc.
v Atomic Znerzy Conmission, dated 1 2 June 1973. The Court's o?inion is
not conoletely c l e a r as t o &+at i t expected the e w i r o m e n t impact statement
t o cover acd a c c o m l i s h . I n its swmary s'atenent, t h e Court says:
n
....
Taking i n t o account t h e magnitude of t h e ongoing Pederal investment
i n t h i s Drogram, t h o c o n t r o v e r s i a l environnental e f f e c t s a t t e n d e n t upon f u t u r e
widespread dealoyment of breeder r e a c t o r s should t h e program f u l f i l l present
expectations, tho a c c e l e r a t e d 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 r e a t i o n of a v i a b l e , c m g e t i t l v e breeder
reactor electric eper3T industry, a n d t h e 7anner in which investment i n this
new technolozy i s l i k e l y t o r e s t r i c t f u t u r e a l t e r n a t i v e s , we hold t h a t t h e
Commission's pro,mn comes within both t5e l e t t e r a n d ssirit of S e c t i o n 132(C)2/
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 t h e r e t o is ? r e s e n t l y r e p u i r e d l l e y ' k e draft EIS does not provide
that.

I n its opinion it recognizes many f a c t o r s including s i z e a b l e 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 h e 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 yt.hat these n i l 1 be less harmful than e x i s t f n g fossil f u e l
g e n e r a t i c g p l a n t s , t h e slowing d o m o f t h e devoloynent o f o t h e r nen technologies
and t h e controversy surrounding t h e commitment t o Dursue, he LYE2 pro,pam as
a s o l u t i o n t o t h e enerry s u p l y p r o b l e m o f t h i s :&ife enphasizing
t h a t i t h a s not Ln i t s opin:on quzstioning t h e wisdon or' t h e ?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 i s c l o s u r e t o
t h e pu3llc and t o o t h e r e n t i t i e s within t>v governnent o f a l l e n v i r o m e n t a l
e f f e c t s l i k e l y t o stzm f r o n 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 h e l i n i t e d time a v a i l a b l e f o r revfew and conments

i t is d i f f i c u l t f o r it to be d i g e s t e d 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. This
is necessary before a f i n a l draft is issued i f i t is to accomplish t h e objec-
t i v e s of I D . ; azd t h e Court's Oecision,

-
~ ~
~ ~

J 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
y
hereinaTlter r e f e r r e d t o a s ?T3?A
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 s u b s t i t u t e d v i s i o n and ,,resight for

20/20 h i n d s i z h t . It is t h e e f f e c t s t h t c a n be foreseen by looking a t t h e
consequences o f tod2y'n a c t i o n s and t h e a l t e r r 3 t i v r s t h ~ r c t owhich must be
emmined an4 h e l d up to y b l i z Inmeic:Yns. :;T'.h t r o d u c c d a b z a u t i f u l tool
i n t o t h e planning ?recess f o r Federal ?ro,nrammingr. T h a t it has been hmored
more i n t h e breach than i n I t s u s e docs not l e s s e n its e f f e c t i v e n e s s and
importance nhen pronerly USEL. "tie h e a r t of t h a t p l a n r i n g process is t h e
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h s a l t e r r l a t i v e s . "?-at i n v e s t i s t i o n rr,ust 're as t h o r o w h
as t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and f o r n u l a t i o n of t h e pro,cram which the Agency seeks
to implenent. "he cosz-'cenefit amlysis p o v l d e s a basis €or e v a l u a t i n g t h e
progran and t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e r e t o . 3st z n s l y s i s t d c e s a c e n t r a l ? s i t i o n
i n t h e EIS. I n o r d e r t h a t oqe m y review t h e c o s t b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s it x u s t
be presented in a ncnncr whlch T e r n i t s t h e r e v i c u e r t o sit i n t h e za3e Fosition
as t h o s e who made t h e a n a l y s i s . He n u s t be a b l e t o f o l l o v it step-by-step
so that he can ;sscss t h e reasons f o r t h c conclusions reached on each e l c w n t
and also d e t o r n i n e whether any e l e x e n t s bave keen o n i t t e d o r have been given
too l i t t l e o r t o o auch c o n s l l e r a t i J n . 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 d e t a i l e d trerrtncnt as t h e ?ro,gan t h o 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 r e c o g n i m
t h i s n e e d . 2 It f2ll.5 s h o r t of t h a t o b j e c t i v e o r has f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t t h e
information i n a manner which r e a d i l y demonstrates t h e d e t a i l e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n
given t h o nany a l t e r n a t i v e s . AS previously noted within t h e t i n e l i m i ' b t i o n s
a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s can n o t t o reviewed i n detail. Our comxents K i l l , t h e r e f o r e ,
be c o n f i m d to one o f t h e s e t o denlonstrate what should be done with r e s p e c t
to each b e f o r e a final ZIS is issued.
The d r a f t EXIS seems t o c o n t a i n many a s s u n p t i o n s which may o r nay not have
been evaluated I n d e t a i l b e f o r e t h e y bcamc concluslons on which t h e d r a f t
was b s e d . T'e r.un3ar of those a s s u s p t i o n s throughout t h e t e s t i s e x t r e m e f j
l a r g e . Corrnents can o n l y be made on sone of t h e s e so t b t t h e i r status may
be c l a r i f i e d i n t h e final &aft. It is hoped t h a t comaents of o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d
parties w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y d i v e r s i f i e d t n t h i s r e s p e c t t o cover s u b s t a n t i a l l y
a l l o f t h e s e assumptions so that t h e final 3I3 w i l l provide greater c l a r i t y
with respect t o each.

.
There are many conclusions &awn i n t h e report seemingly as t r u i s m and
often without f a c t u a l support ?::ore c a r e f u l cross-referencing would h e l p
clear up sone of tho problems i n t h i s r e s p e c t when t h e final &aft is ?reFred.
Other s u s g o s t t o n s h e r e i n w i l l a l s o h e l p c l a r i f y t h i s a s p e c t of t h e problem i n
t h e final draft.

The most glarin,p example of a misleading conclusion i s t h e s t a t e n e n t i n

t h e summar that f o s s i l f u e l e d p l a n t s burning c o a l , 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 h e t r u t h . It is c o r r e c t t h a t t h e
p u l v e r i z e d c o a l cyclone f u r m c e has Seen brought to a high s t a t e o f devclocnent
and commercial operation. It, however, is i x a p b l e a t ? r e s e n t of burning
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 a s h 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
p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l e f f e c t L v e l y t o t h e s t e a x ,oenorators is s t i l l i n p r o g e r s .
It is conclusions of t h i s type irhich have l e a d t h o preparrrs o f t h i s &-aft
t o adopt p r o j c c t h n s th35 f a l l s h o r t of r e a l i t y i n t e s t i n g t h e L"1Fi33 program
under t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t by IT3F.L
 V.15-4
n

-3-

2, The Purpose of t h e EIS

This br€nys u s t o t h e c o r e of t h e problen. Is i t t h e purpose o f t h i s

3I.S t o analyze t h e e f f e c t of t h e LW33 ? r o g a R on t h e envirotim-mt? Is i t
t h e o b j o c t i v e t o d e t e r o i n e t h e s l a c e o f t h e LI‘!E3? i n the z i x of future
sources o f e l e c t r i c enerTj? Is t h i s a n assessment o f its’ e n v i r o n r e n t a l imyict
as a r e s e a r c h and development o r o j e c t o r is i t a n ansessnent of t h e environ-
mental i n p a c t of t h e dcveloyaent o f a new i n c h s t r i a l complex?
I n one way o r a n o t h e r t h e ?IS s e e m t o a t t a c k all o f t h e s e questions.
It apDears u n f o r t u n a t e l y t o ? ? w a s t r a i g h t l i n e from t h e assum?tion t h a t t h e
b r s e t e r r e a c t o r i s t h e mjor long t e r n s o l u t i o n to our energy su?ply t o t h e
conclusion t h a t it is t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n t o t h o s e rroblexs. This Assunnption
and conclusion a r e t h e ones whlch g i v e t h e Tost t r o u b l e . Actually t h e breeder
r e a c t o z is one o f a mix o f e n e r g conversion :levices xhich w i l l c o n s t i t u t e
t h e lon:: range s o l u t i o n t o our em?= needs. Tke 31s s:7oulO have been ?re-
pared t o h ~ l ?more accuristely pinnoint i t s p o i n t o f e n t r y and e x i s t i n t h e mix.
I n s t e a d it s&a?tsw i t h t h e assurn$ion t h a t tk.a t h e sche3,ules e s t a b l i s h e d ir.
1963, prior t o t h e ar?option of TZn.i, are still coctrolling. Those f i e c i s i o n s
and t h e c o m i t n e n t s l a s e d thereon kave not been t e s t e d by t h e s t a n d a r d s i n -
posed by lZ?A. “?-atn u s t be one o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e f i n a l d r a f t of t h e
21% XASH 1535 dDes n o t accomplish t h i s .

The LYiW proagan is s t i l l a r s s e a r c h a n d developnent proDgram. Its p l a c e

I n t h e supp1.y of t h i s c o u n t r j ’ s energy needs should be d c t e r n i n e d by a cost-
b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s c o m F r i n g i t with each and every energy profiuction and con-
v e r s i o n r e s e a r c h and d e v e l o y e n t ?yobmn I n a manner t o ? e m i t t h e evaluation
o f t h e place, if any, of e w h i n t h e complexities of t h e n i x both with r e s p e c t
t o t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s of each becominz a c e r t a i n t y a t some Toint i n t i n e and
t h e i n t e r n a l r s t e of r e t u r n t o t h e economy which each will generate. The
e v a l u a t i o n o f +,he a v a i l a b i l i t y o f e x h as t o t i n e n u s t also take i n t o account
t h e n a t i o n a l g o a l of e n e q g s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y at a n 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. g e t e r n i n s t i a n o f
t h e i n t e r n a l r a t e of . r e t u r n or’ e a c h r e s e a r c h and developregt ? r o , p n should
l e a d t o t)?e n o s t economical use of our rec.3urces considering Coth t h e ir.tar-
nalized a n 3 e x t e r n a l k a d c o s t s 5”nnrated b-7 each. ??lis I s sound ecCnmicS.
It reduces t h e ?rohzbilit:r of a ?cistake In tF.e ?lannIsg process t h a t would
be economically c a t a s t r o p h i c In t h e y e a r s ahead. It is not only 7 o s s i b l e b u t
probablo t h a t when t h i s e v a l u a t i o n is nade, s a n s foregone conclusions, Lx.32
may f i n d i t s b l a c e I n b o l n t 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 eand less c o s t l y . T h i s i s not t o say
that t h e L Y f b r ?rozram r a y hdve no p l a c e i n t h e Cwelo2rnent o f e n e r r - supvly
sources in t h i s country, b u t it does s a y t h a t its ?lace should be d e t e r n i n e d
I n a n o r d e r l y manner making use of t h e b e s t t o o l s now a v a i l a b l e f o r t h a t
purpose.

3. Assumptions
-.
a. Load E s t l n a t e s

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. The @)recasts used
i n t h e s t u d y a r e +aken from 3 ? r e v i o u s p r o j e c t i o n made by A X . 2 As i n d i c a t e d

US\%, Vuclear Power 1973-2000, 3 e n o r t i-I.4SH-l139(p), 1 2 / 7 .

n
 v. 15-5

-4-

ft is, l i k e , ny o t h e r s , based on Drojec+ons 0- energy use 9)9r a p i h and

p o p u l a t i o r . . y A s shown i n ?Lyre ?.l-la i t i s or" t h e exDonoztia1 forn.
This i s s u b j e c t t o connidcrablc question. Long range growth is nore l i k e l y
t o follow a curve of t h e fon? o f
K
y a l + m E F(x)

which is -tho well known S curve where t h e value of y becomes asym;?totfc t o

some l i n i t I.; a t szne f u t u r e time X . 3 e r e a r e zood r a s o n s uhy t h e grcKth
of t h e use of e l e c t r i c i t y s k o u l d 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 y a r 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 ? r e d i c t i o n t h e a u t h o r nade i n l a t e 1926 i n a
study f o r t h e I l l l ~ o l sCo-.T.erc; Z m a i s s i o n . T h r e t s a l s o good reason to
b e l i e v e t h a t avsrage p s r c a p i t a uscige xlil a l s o a??rolch a r.aximun l e v e i by
t h a t t i n e . It is sngeested t h z t t h e mex:mu~ s y s t e x cn-city requ5red t o
meet t h i s co-untry's :e?k "?and a t t h a t t i n e ~ 1 1 13a i n t h o o r d e r 05 ki?39 t o
4500 GiSavat.ts. Zrice e l ~ s t i c i + y.r.zy k r i z g t h i s l i n L t as l o w as 3750 S i = & -
uatts. n e s e re3uc.i req1:irer:ents 9ioould subs t a n t i a l l y al'fcct the mix o f
energy cosv3rsion Tethocis required t c meet, t h e dcjnzn2s. C n t h e o t h s r hand,
if a c o z p l e t e e l e c t r i c econony u l t i m t e l y shakes o u t o f t h e present energy
s i t u a t i o n , t h e Taxinurn system c a p a c i t y r e q u i r e z e n t s could reach 2,000 t o
10000 Gigawatts Sy 2020. I n t h a t event it m y be d e s i r a b l e t o speed up t h e
f u s i o n r e s e a r c h ?ro,mn i n oroferencc t o concentrating )ion on a more i n t e r -
mediate a?proach. It r a y a l s o be desirzble t o s?eed '-lp o t h e r o ? t i o n s , such
as IS33. It is, t'nerefore, d e s i r a h l e that t h e 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 t h e r t k n t h e s i n g l e load ??ojcction used
i n t h e draft statenent.
b. The Outlook f o r F o s s i l %els

The f u t u r e n i x of fossil f u e l s is i m s c a w b l y i n e r r o r , It a s s m e s
t h a t t h e use o f n a t u r a 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 yi r x r e a o e
until about 1900 b3rSz-e declirizg. This is d o u b t f u l . An end use c o n t r c l
policy is now evolving f o r t h i s Frecious ratural zesource. Snlightenea
conservation Shoi:l2 so03 Treclucie ? t s sse as a :Tiler f u e l i x l u ? i n g e l e c t r i c
generation. % t u r a 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 i t s r o l e i n t h e g e n e r a t i o n of e l e c t r i c i t y t h e r e a f t e r should 3e
negligible.

There shoulc! zlso be a gradrial d e c l i n e i n t h o use cf o i l t o g e n e r a t e

e l e c t r i c i t y . Zcorionizs, y c z c c i t y , p r e f e r e n t i a l x e s an2 t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes
should reduce i t s role i n energy cor,vcrsion n i x r a p i d y a f t e r 1970.
This l e a v e s c o a l as t h e p r i n c 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 t h e I o n 5 r u n . As soon cs t h e prcs;nt a r t i f i c i a l l y inJuccd
s h a r t a g e of t h i s abundsnt f u e l shakes o u t i t s a v a i l a - s i l i t y and c o s t w'~11 nake
it t h e most s i g n i f i a a r , t r"0:isil f u e l source ir. t h e g c n c m t i o n o f electr!.c!.t;.,
provided we s o l v e s p e a d i l y t k e ?robI.exs of clean coa'zustion. ?ive t o s i x
massive c o a l fuele.3 g c ~ e r a t i r iconnlexes
~ 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. Cnse a new ZenerztLon o f
p o l l u t i o n f r e e p 1 a r . t ~are b J l t t o ZroAuce e l e c t r i c i t y f r o r . m a l i t s use in
t h e g e m r a t i o n n i x wtll e x p a d ranlrll;rz 3 . z t expznsion i s c r s e n t i a l t o e:!er;y
 V.15-6

salf-;::f ? . c % e w y :n t F i s w u n t r y . “5.e a n t l a b i l i t y o f a new ger?eration

of c o a l f u e l e d ener,g conversion ?l?-r.tsis nuch c l o s e r than tk draft ZIS
assumes. It is tho fallurc t o exa.r,ine t h o r o u c h l y the r,osition of c o d i n
t h e mix which l e a d s to J questionahlo conclusion i n t h e c o s t - b z c e f 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 u n f o r t u m t e l y buried i n t h e cost-benefit
technique used i n t h e d r a f t ZIS.

C. Energy Sources Fix ’ -

The s c v e n l assuzptioris t h a t l e a d t o t h e f i n a l conclusion r e z a r d l n g
t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e 3733 i n t 5 e e?.erzy mix a r e t h e nost q u e s t i c n a b l e of a l l .
The assux.nptions used :.n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s B r e Dicked u? and used without o c r i c u s
re-e:ani.ution. ?Yo corxidsrrrtion is glven t o t h e n r o b b i l i t y of %cea.Lijex-
panded use o f c c a l i f r e s a r c : ? and hvelocment results i n both lower c o s t
s t e a m g e n c n t i o n facil?.ties a x d 1o:ic-r c o s t c o a l gradaction. Yo c o n s i d e r a t i o n
I s given t o t h e 7ossi’t;:lit:r o f l o c e t i n g l a r ~ ee l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i n g com;?lexeo
i n t h e ,great c o a l f!.elds x i t h eithei- cxtizi hlzh volt3,:c k C o r 32 tra::szlssion
c o r r i d o r s to t h - ? load c z n t s r s a l t h o u g h t h e s e seem to bc a l o n g t h e more 2roFjlSle
a l t e r n a t i v e s . :G!ost i n ; o r k n t , hovevnr, i s t h e f a i l u r e . t o t e s t t h i s r e s e a r c h
and d e v e l o m e n t ?~oject, i.e. t h a i!<?3, s g s i n s t t h e o t h e r r e s e a r c h ard
development p r o j e c t s t o d e t e m i n e t h e p l w e o f . e a c h i n t h e futuro energy nix.
This is what t h e final ZIS must f o c u s uFon. 3y m y o f i l l u s t r a t i o n t h e
remainder o f t h e s e cozments w i l l ’ focus on one o f t h e s e r e s e a r c h 2nd develop-
ment pro,mns which is now xuch nearer t o commercid operatLon than t h e C b ! ? 3 3 .
‘It must be emphasized a t t h i s voint thzt a s s u n p t i o n s and conclusions
which consider t b t n u c l e w g e n e r a t i o n 5 3 t h e o n l y v i a b l d a l t e r r a t i v e i n t h e
electric energy m i x and t h a t t h e only question t o be resolved i n t h e c o s t /
b e n e f i t anrlysis is how nuch w i l l be sup-,lied by EE?X f u e l e d g e n e r a t i n g
p l a n t s are h i g h l y questionable.

It is a l s o Important to p o i n t out h e r e t h a t t h i s hypothesis and t h e

conclusions reached provide no solution f o r t h e i s n e d i s t e ener3T problen,
do not consider t h e stirrulus of t h e realignment of f u e l prices on s o l v i n g
t h e i a m d i a t e p r o b l e m znd fail t o r e c o g i z e t h e a f f e c t of a s o l u t i o n t o the
immedizte prDblems o n t h e lor,t: range nix o f energy convsrsion methods. These
f a c t o r s should be f u l l y considered i n t h e final draft o f t h e EIS.

4. A Viable Xesearch and Developnont A l t e r n a t i v e - Fluidized-3ed Combustion

Of a l l of t h e r e s e a r c h and development pro,-ms now i n one s t a g e o r

a n o t h e r o f in?lementatlon t h e f l u i d b e d - k e d furrace and s t e m g e n e r a t o r is
t h e most advanced. Xost o f t h e r e s e a r c h work has bezn cornpletcd and t h e ex-
perimental f u r r a c e Pas been operated s u c c e s s f u l l y uc3er l a b o r a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s
demonstrating capibil.it;r t o meet t h a a i r m l l u t i o n e n i s s r o n limitations
u t i l i z i n g high s u l f u r high 3tu c o a l as 3 fuel. A prototype u n i t is under
constructio2. :oncept1xil d e a i s s o f a s t e m ,venerator c o r n y F b l e i n s i z e t o
t h e proposed exFerimental U:I??Z inr,tall3t:Gn a r e avxilableeJ %e XIS g i v e s

.
o n l y 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 i a t c n e n t re5ardir.g
its passlbilitf e.,cu*l ’ Th-. fluidized-kcd combustion ?roapn is much f i i i r t h o r
advanced t h a n t h e L81:W9 ya,mn. If Zivo:: a p p r o p r t a t e caphdsis at t h l s tine
In t h e r e s e a r c h and develo?ncnt nicture t h e first brei! scala stam g e n e r a t o r
could be i n f u l l c o m e r c i a 1 o p e r a t i o n p r i o r t o 13% and a whole new Seneration
 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 3tu

bituminous c o a l l o c a t e d in t h e m j o r c o d srod'xing a r e a s near t h e mines
could be c o n t r i b u t i n z t o t h e ener;y s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y g o a l s of t h i s country
by t h e mid-19?0°'s. I t i s nccordin7ly necessary .chat t h e f i n a l SIS inciulle
a new c o s t / b e n c f i t a n a l y s i s c o m p r i n g these ?ro,gmns. .
This is t h e only 31D Dro,mrn now n e a r i r g 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 t h e dcwnmrd treed i n t h e c o s t o f steam
g e n e r a t o r s f o r t h e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y indastry. It is a l s o t h e only one which
is l i k e l y t o involve a mintmun o f salfur reaoval o r o b l e n s i n t5e s t a c k 72s
because a l n o s t a l l sulfu-r is removed i n t h e f u r r a c e be;'-. Fly ash rexoval
and c o a l c l e a n i n g pro5lep.s a r e niniTise2. 3y l o c a t i n g l a r z e generatiRg
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 i s rccluced and ash d i s ? o ~ a l
and s u r f a c e 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 .

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 detail on a year 3j yezr ' a s i s 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. k-
s t e a d of d i s c o u n t i c g c x h of t h e c o s t s en3 b e n e f i t s e n t e r l n = t h e future s t r c a n
a t a n 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 f u t u r e ,
t h e intermil r x t e 05 r e t u r n should. b=! c a l c u l a t e d f o r each proogrm f r o n ths
cornp l e t e@: 'ax o f c o s t s and b e n s f i t s f o r each y c i r i n t h e ?erioc! f r o n 1974
t o 2020. ~ c ph r o g z m 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
t h i s method of eeononic evaluatioc. PIISxi11 give a r e l a t i v e r?a%ionel
p r o f i t a S i l i t y r a n k i n g 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; t h e s e c r i t i c z l v a r i a b l e s through a range o l
o p t i m i s 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 t u r n valiies f o r each ?ro,rraJ. If each i s fc11.y documen+,ca
t h e final rankin,o o f each ?roga.x both a s 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 b e,:; .-llI+L%ateda n & t h e ?~crohybiliky
o f a g r o s s e r r o r i n t3:p choice w i l l be 1essaned.J'Tk.s infonation thus
developed s5onld provide c o n F r i s o n s of these 3?tD y o g w ~ swhich can be
readily evaluated bj a l l ? a r t i e s .

The i n t e r z a l r a t e o f r e t u r n is deterrrSr.ed by c a l c u l a t i n g t k a t 21s-

count r a t e a t wh:ch t h e ? r e s e n t value of t h e 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 . t h e c?iscorint r i t e a t which t h e d i f f e r e n c e
between ?resent value of t h e c o a t s and t h e p r e s e n t 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 m i s t a k e can be d i s a s t e r o u s
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 h e 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 t h c r e a r e s e v e r a l o t h e r r e s c s r c h and devnlo?mnt a l t e r n a t i v e s

which may a l s o be c o n p e t i t i v e a s t o t i n e , ccononics and e n v i r o n i e n t a l
risks an3 burdens, each such p r o j e c t s5ould t e evaluated i n t h e .sane manner
and by t h e samc techniques as suggested i n zaragra?h 4 a'tove f o r t h e
f l u i 2 i z e . l - 2 4 conbustion o f high s . i l f u r , 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 i s today almost t o + a l l y lackin;.

6. The Fir21 31s

The forezoing recomzndations a r e d i r e c t e ? t o t h e nrep3ration o f a f i r a l

E I S which w i l l nrovi2e t h e ,ouidanca sought by +he court. I t 1s r e a l i z e d tkat
t h e recoincen3ed c o s t / b c n s f i t teckr,iGue i s 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 the prepration
of such s t u 3 l t . s . T5:osc g u i z e l i n e s 7 . 3 ~?rcvlGe a s a T f i c i e n t l y a c c u r z t e r z -
s u l t f m the ? f i r n x e of issu1r.e a c o n s t r u c t i 3 n pw-qnit n h e r e t b e a l t e r z a t i v e g
under consideration are -a>ble o f cross-ccr.wrasion without probable L ~ r g c
s c a l e oversizb,ts. such is not t h e s i tuatior, :n preFaarin3 cost/Denefit s t u d i e s
o f energy conversion research and develo?xent prograzs wbere t h e o n l y t h i n s i n
connon i s 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 , e c o m n i c s ar,d ?roLable f r u i t f o n . Thlis d t f f e r e n t tech-
niques a r e e s s e n t i a l t o F ~ G ~ Ua Cmeanir;gful
~ r c - s u l t . The c o s t b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s
p l u s t h e cnviroznenta,l. r i s k s and burdens acalysis rscoa?,ended h e r e i n would
then meet tFi2 needs o f t h i s ; u r t i c u l a r Z S . The JiS would then proviB5 t h e
i n f o r n a t i o n uhfch i s necessary t o ?,omit t h e r,ublic, through its e l e c t e d ar.d
appointed r e F r e s e n h t i v e s , t o c h t e m i n e t h a t n i x o f energy s u p ? l y syste3.s
I t considers most d e s i r a b l e and a o s t l i k e l y t o x e e t t h i s ccuntry's en;rm
r e q u i r e x e n t s 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 s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . This is t h e question which ? P A
provided thn means of answerizg but i n r e s S o n 3 n g t o ?E?A it i s e s s e n t i a l
that one use t h e c o r r e c t t o o l s , i n t h i s case t h e 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 c o w e r s i o n research and Cevelo?-
ment ?ro,mns i n a manner t 9 permit t h e i r evaluation on t h e Insis of nzitional
priorities.

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 l e t t e r s of A p r i l 1, and A p r i l 2 i which p r o v i d e d

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 S t a t e m e n t
on t h e L i q u i d Metal F a s t Breeder R e a c t o r (LMFBR) 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 comments
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 i s e n c l o s e d f o r y o u r 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 l e t t e r p r o v i d e s 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 i s a p p r e c i a t e d .

+.r-
Sincerely,

tnes L. Liverman

i s t a n t G e n e r a l 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
Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 V.15-10

ENCLOSURE I

AEC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS

BY M R . HAl-IILTOEJ TREADWAY

1. Comment:

The D r a f t Environmental Statement does n o t comply with t h e U.S. Court of

Appeals opinion regarding t h e necessary scope and depth of t r e a t m e n t of
t h e LPfFBR Program, i t s environmental impact , and a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e r e t o .

Response :

Although the AEC a p p r e c i a t e s t h e 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 t h e p r e p a r a t i o n 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 D r a f t Statement does n o t
provide d e t a i l e d 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 . The AEC has made every e f f o r t i n t h e D r a f t
Statement t o set f o r t h a l l r e l e v a n t 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-
y e a r s of AEC and AEC c o n t r a c t o r a c t i v i t i e s and t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s of
approximately $1,800,000. W e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e D r a f t Statement w a s an
extremely comprehensive examination of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d 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 w i t h
t h e N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t of 1969 and r e s u l t i n g government
g u i d e l i n e s and c o u r t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of environmental
statements. A t t h e same t i m e , t h e AEC recognizes t h a t many q u e s t i o n s
were submitted on t h e D r a f t Statement ( s e e Appendix t o t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t ) .
W e have attempted t o answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s as completely as p o s s i b l e i n
the response t o t h e s e l e t t e r s and through a p p r o p r i a t e r e v i s i o n s t o t h e
text of t h e F i n a l Statement. We hope t h a t a reading of t h e material
t h e r e i n w i l l s a t i s f y you t h a t our e v a l u a t i o n s have been complete and f u l l y
responsive t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d .

2. Comment:

"The c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s provides a b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i n g t h e program

and t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e r e t o . That a n a l y s i s t a k e s a c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n
in t h e E I S . I n o r d e r t h a t one may review t h e c o s t b e n e f i t a n a l y s 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 p o s i t i o n a s those who made t h e a n a l y s i s . H e must b e a b l e t o f o l l o w
i t step-by-step s o t h a t he can a s s e s s t h e reasons f o r t h e 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 c o n s i d e r a t i o n . "

Response:

The assumptions, major r e s u l t s , and f i n d i n g s r e s u l t i n g from p a r a m e t r i c

s t u d i e s of important f a c t o r s and conclusions have been included i n
Section 11.2. The AEC f e e l s t h a t t h e bases f o r conducting t h e c o s t -
b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s h v e ;:e3pr1 tliJreu(;lL . presented and t h a t reviewers
have a l l r e l e v a n t information a v a i l a b l e .

n
 V.15-11

- 2 -

3. Comment:

' I . . .a m i s l e a d i n g c o n c l u s i o n i s t h e s t a t e m e n t i n t h e summary t h a t f o s s i l

f u e l e d p l a n t s burning c o a l , o i l and gas are f u l l y developed."

Response :

We a g r e e t h a t a s u c c e s s f u l outcome of c u r r e n t R&D i n t h e areas of pre-,

co-, and post-combustion c o a l t r e a t m e n t and of f l u i d i z e d - b e d combustion
and b i n a r y c y c l e development w i l l l e a d t o f u t u r e f o s s i l - f u e l e d power
p l a n t s t h a t w i l l b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more e f f i c i e n t and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
a c c e p t a b l e t h a n t h e average p l a n t of t h i s t y p e now i n o p e r a t i o n . (See
S e c t i o n 6A.2.1.3 f o r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p o i n t . ) It s h o u l d b e n o t e d ,
however, t h a t t h e c o m p e t i t i v e 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 cost-benefit analysis was not pessimistic. 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 c o n s e r v a t i v e l y low. The h i g h e s t c o a l c o s t u t i l i z e d i n
t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s (50.9 c e n t s / m i l l i o n Btu a f t e r t h e y e a r 2005)
i n t h e D r a f t Statement is about 10 c e n t s / m i l l i o n Btu less t h a n t h e
March 1 9 7 4 average c o a l c o s t . *

F o s s i l f u e l e d power p l a n t p e n e t r a t i o n i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t s t u d i e s w a s
c o n s t r a i n e d t o a l e v e l h i g h e r t h a n would b e 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 u n c o n s t r a i n e d n u c l e a r - f o s s i l c o m p e t i t i o n . It
is improbable, a t l e a s t a t t h i s p o i n t i n t i m e , t h a t f u t u r e t e c h n o l o g i c a l
improvements could compensate f o r t h e a c c e l e r a t i n g h i g h c o s t of f o s s i l
fuels .
4. Comment:

"The E I S should have been prepared t o h e l p more a c c u r a t e l y p i n p o i n t i t s

( t h e LMFBR's) p o i n t of e n t r y and e x i t i n t h e m i x . Instead i t starts with
t h e assumption t h a t t h e t i m e s c h e d u l e s e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1966, p r i o r t o t h e
a d o p t i o n 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
r e s e a r c h and development program. Its p l a c e i n t h e s u p p l y of t h i s
c o u n t r y ' s energy needs s h o u l d be determined by a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s
comparing i t w i t h each and e v e r y energy p r o d u c t i o n and c o n v e r s i o n
r e s e a r c h and development program.. . I '

Response :

A s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 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 h e LltFBI: and t h e timing as t o when i t w i l l b e needed f o r e n t r y
i n t o t h e energy economy. These are t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of uranium r e s o u r c e s
and t h e 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 t e c h n o l o g i e s 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 e x p l o r a t i o n 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 h i g h grade uranium r e s o u r c e s , and assuming $ning of low g r a d e r e s o u r c e s

* E l e c t r i c a l \ ! o r l d , J u l y 15, 1 9 7 4 , p. 8.
 V. 15-12 n

- 3 -

such as s h a l e is environmentally as w e l l as economically u n a c c e p t a b l e ,

t h e n d e p l e t i o n of u s a b l e uranium reserves could occur by t h e end of t h e
century--unless a b r e e d e r r e a c t o r economy is e s t a b l i s h e d .

Thus, t h e r e is a real need on t h i s b a s i s n o t t o d e l a y t h e LMFBR.

S i m i l a r l y , as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 6 and 11, t h e r e is no a s s u r a n c e t h a t
environmentally a c c e p t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e energy s o u r c e s 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 n u c l e a r f u s i o n w i l l be a v a i l -
a b l e when needed ( i f a t 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 p r e c l u d e continued
r e l i a n c e on non-breeder r e a c t o r s . The c u r r e n t s t a t u s of t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i e s
and experience i n developing new complex energy s o u r c e s s t r o n g l y 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 n o r f u s i o n 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 c e n t u r y , i f then. Some
t i m e a f t e r t h a t , i f t h e s e t e c h n o l o g i e s are s u c c e s s f u l , i t may become
f e a s i b l e t o "phase out'' b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s . In t h e meantime, as d i s c u s s e d
i.n t h e enclosed F i n a 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 N a t i o n ' s energy requirements are t o b e m e t .

With r e g a r d t o your comment on c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s e s , i t is n o t f e a s i b l e

t o compare r e s e a r c h and development programs i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f 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 s u c c e s s f u l commercial
i n t r o d u c t i o n of an a l t e r n a t i v e energy p r o d u c t i o n system w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e
j u s t i f i e d c o s t d a t a and allow t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s procedure t o
determine t h e e x t e n t and r a t e of i n t r o d u c t i o n 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 p r o d u c t i o n m i x . This w a s done
f o r a l l e x i s t i n g energy production systems i n c l u d i n g f o s s i l f u e l s , c o n v e r t e r
r e a c t o r s , and h y d r o e l e c t r i c power and f o r t h e LMFBR based upon s e v e r a l
p r o j e c t e d d a t e s of i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n and upon i t s expected c o s t s . The
r e s u l t s a r e provided i n S e c t i o n 11.2. As d i s c u s s e d above, o t h e r a l t e r -
n a t i v e energy production systems a r e n o t p r o j e c t e d t o be i n t r o d u c e d 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 c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e r e s u l t s
of t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , n o r a r e t h e r e sound p r o j e c t i o n s of c o s t
d a t a a v a i l a b l e f o r them. They t h e r e f o r e w e r e n o t t r e a t e d i n d e t a i l .
However, a segment of t h e p r o j e c t e d energy demand i n t h e p e r i o d through
2020 w a s r e s e r v e d f o r u n s p e c i f i e d energy p r o d u c t i o n system t o account
f o r contributions from.unspecified sources.

5. Comment:

"The f u t u r e mix of f o s s i l f u e l s i s i n e s c a p a b l y i n e r r o r . I t assumes t h a t

the u s e of n a t u r a l gas t o g e n e r a t e e l e c t r i c i t y w i l l g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s e
u n t i l about 1980 b e f o r e d e c l i n i n g . This is d o u b t f u l . An end use c o n t r o l
p o l i c y is now evolving € o r t h i s p r e c i o u s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e . Enlightened
c o n s e r v a t i o n should soon p r e c l u d e i t s u s e as a b o i l e r f u e l i n c l u d i n g
e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n . N a t u r a l gas should probably cease t o b e used f o r
t h i s purpose by 1980 and i t s r o l e i n t h e g e n e r a t i o n of e l e c t r i c i t y
t h e r e a f t e r should be n e g l i g i b l e .
 V.15-13

- 4 -

There should a l s o be a g r a d u a l d e c l i n e i n t h e u s e of o i l t o g e n e r a 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 u s e s and t e c h n o l o g i c a l
changes should reduce i t s r o l e i n energy c o n v e r s i o n 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 D r a f t Statement c o n c e r n i n g use of

n a t u r a l gas (somewhat less t h a n a 10% i n c r e a s e 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 s u p p o r t e d
by s e v e r a l of t h e r e f e r e n c e s l i s t e d i n t h a t c h a p t e r . The a g g r e g a t e of
t h e s e f a c t o r s t e n d s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e most l i k e l y f u t u r e r o l e of o i l
and g a s i n e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t i o n would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r a p i d
d e c l i n e i n new p l a n t s f u e l e d by o i l o r g a s , b u t t h a t e x i s t i n g and planned
p l a n t s would c o n t i n u e t o u s e t h e s e f u e l s o v e r t h e i r normal l i f e t i m e s .

The AEC a g r e e s t h a t n a t u r a l gas and o i l a r e p r e c i o u s and scarce r e s o u r c e s

which have much g r e a t e r v a l u e i n u s e s o t h e r t h a n a s 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 . We a l s o s u p p o r t as r a p i d a c o n v e r s i o n as p o s s i b l e of e x i s t -
i n g and planned e l e c t r i c g e n e r a t i o n c a p a c i t y from t h e u s e of t h e s e f u e l s
t o a l t e r n a t i v e s . In f a c t , r e d u c t i o n i n t h e u s e of n a t u r a l g a s and o i l as
f u e l s f o r e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t i o n i s now a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y , a s s t a t e d by t h e
P r e s i d e n t i n h i s energy message t o 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 c a p a c i t y from gas and o i l t o c o a l is n o t a
simple t a s k , n o t only t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y b u t from t h e viewpoint of o b t a i n i n g
a s s u r e d s u p p l i e s of c o a l which can be burned i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y
a c c e p t a b l e manner. The phasing o u 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 b e a g r a d u a l p r o c e s s which is n o t amenable t o sudden
s h i f t s , even when s e v e r e 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 . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s changeover i s a n e c e s s a r y
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 e x t e n t .

The f u t u r e mix of f o s s i l f u e l s is u n c e r t a i n , depending upon how q u i c k l y

t h e changes can be made. However, t h e mix assumed i n Chapter 9 w a s
intended t o s e r v e more o r less as a n a r b i t r a r y r e f e r e n c e mix on which
t o b a s e t h e cumulative impact c a l c u l a t i o n s , and t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of
Chapter 9 v i s - a - v i s t h e n e t impact of t h e b r e e d e r economy are n o t
a f f e c t e d by t h e assumed r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of c o a l , o i l , and n a t u r a l
gas.

6. Comment:

"Once a new g e n e r a t i o n of p o l l u t i o n f r e e p l a n t s a r e 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 t s u s e i n t h e g e n e r a t i o n mix w i l l expand r a p i d l y .
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 g e n e r a t i o n of c o a l f u e l e d enerRv c o n v e r s i o n

p l a n t s is much c l o s e r t h a n t h e d r a f t EIS assumes."

Response:

As was i n d i c a t e d on pp. A.2-41 and A.2-42 of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , t h e r e

is a g e n e r a l consensus t h a t many of t h e new developments r e l a t e d t o
''a new g e n e r a t i o n of c o a l - f u e l e d energy conversion p l a n t s " c a n b e
o p e r a t i n g commercially by 1980, and c e r t a i n l y by 1985. C o n s i d e r i n g
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 n e c e s s a r y 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 e a r l i e r t h a n 1980. F i n a l l y , i t i s clear t h a t
c o a l can b e burned i n a m ~ r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e way t h a n i t h a s
' been i n t h e p a s t ; though " p o l l u t i o n free p l a n t s , " mentioned on p. 4 of
your l e t t e r of A p r i l 15, 1974, are d i f f i c u l t t o e n v i s i o n , a t l e a s t i n
t h i s century.

7. Comment:

"There are good r e a s o n s why t h e growth of t h e u s e of e l e c t r i c i t y s h o u l d

b e g i n t o approach some l i m i t i n t h i s c o u n t r y about t h e y e a r 2020." The
peak demand w i l l depend on assumptions i n p o p u l a t i o n growth and o t h e r
factors." 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 e x p l o r e 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 t h a n t h e s i n g l e l o a d
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 b a s e energy demand p r o j e c t i o n

is d e s c r i b e d f u l l y i n S e c t i o n 1 1 . 2 . 3 of t h e F i n a l Statement. (The
model d i d i n c l u d e 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
p o p u l a t i o n w i l l r e a c h a s t a t i o n a r y l e v e l i n a b o u t 70 y e a r s . ) In
a d d i t i o n t o t h e b a s e 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 c u r v e s were analyzed. The c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l v s i s h a s been p e r -
formed o v e r a r a n g e of +20 t o -50 p e r c e n t of t h e b a s e case e l e c t r i c a l
demand i n t h e y e a r 2000. The r e s u l t a n t e l e c t r i c a l energy r e q u i r e m e n t s
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
t h e y e a r 2 0 0 0 , and between 13.8 t o 33 t r i l l i o n Kwh i n t h e y e a r 2020.
The lowest energy demand p r o j e c t i o n i s commensurate w i t h s u c c e s s f u l
energy c o n s e r v a t i o n as d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 6C.6 i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t .
This c a s e corresponds q u i t e w e l l t o t h e low c a p a c i t y 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 l e t t e r .

8. Comment:

The f l u i d i z e d - b e d f u r n a c e l s t e a m g e n e r a t o r 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 t h e LNFBR, and can meet a l l primary and
secondary a i r p o l l u t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s when using high-Btu, high-sulfur c o a l .

Accordingly, t h e fluidized-bed combustion program deserves a h i g h e r

p r i o r i t y , amounting t o a crash e f f o r t t o complete development of t h e
v a r i o u s concepts under study. I f this is done, a l a r g e demonstration
unit could be operating by e a r l y 1976, and t h e f i r s t l a r g e commercial
u n i t s could be i n o p e r a t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h e d bituminous c o a l f i e l d s by
1978 ( l e t t e r of 4/25/74) o r p r i o r t o 1980 ( l e t t e r of 4/15/75).

Response :

A summary of t h e fluidized-bed combustion concept is presented i n S e c t i o n

6A.1.2.3 of t h e F i n a l Statement, where i t is i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e c h n i c a l
f e a s i b i l i t y has been demonstrated, t h a t t h e process can u t i l i z e low-made
c o a l s , t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r l a r g e reductions i n SOx and NO emissions is
s i g n i f i c a n 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 e l e c t r i c a l - e n e r g y generation is concerned, an a d d i t i o n a l
major advantage, r e l a t i v e t o conversion of c o a l t o f u e l o i l o r t o power
(low-Btu) gas, is t h a t t h e c y c l e ( c o a l mine t o bus b a r ) e f f i c i e n c y i s
s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved by avoiding t h e i n e f f i c i e n c y of converting c o a l
in a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l processes, which is t y p i c a l l y about 30%.
Work i n t h i s a r e a is a c t i v e and r a p i d l y a c c e l e r a t i n a . The Subpanel V
r e p o r t , t i t l e d "Coal and Shale Processing and Combustion Energy R6D
Report," October 274 1973, prepared a s a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o WASH-1281
( r e f . 47 of the D r a f t Statement), notes t h e following:

a. This program is one of the major a l t e r n a t i v e s .

b. Such b o i l e r s w i l l meet a l l environmental standards.

C. Projected u l t i m a t e thermal e f f i c i e n c i e s are promising: 40%

(atmospheric system) and 47% (pressurized system).

d. The U.S. balance of payments would b e improved i n t h e l i k e l y

event t h a t t h i s technology w e r e exported t o f o r e i g n c o u n t r i e s ,
e s p e c i a l l y those with poor q u a l i t y c o a l reserves.

e. Limestone and dolomite for s u l f u r acceptance during cornbustion

of high-sulfur c o a l s is a v a i l a b l e in l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s through
most of t h e U.S.

f. Federal funding involvement is necessary, and an " a c c e l e r a t e d l

o r d e r l y program" was estimated t o r e q u i r e (through Fiscal Year
1980) a t o t a l of $368 m i l l i o n , 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 c a p t u r e a t l e a s t 25% of t h e

market f o r new c o a l b o 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 c a p a c i t i e s of 3000 MWe i n 1985 and
40,000 M We i n t h e year 2000. Using a common-basis c o s t i n g
procedure, i t w a s estimated t h a t f o r a 600 MJe p l a n t o p e r a t i n g
a t a 70% load f a c t o r , t h e c a p i t a l c o s t and e l e c t r i c a l energy
generating c o s t of a fluid-bed b o i l e r p l a n t would approximate
85% and 931, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e corresponding c o s t s of a
conventional-boiler power p l a n t .

h. The primary b a r r i e r s t o implementation are: sorbent regeneration

and s u l f u r recovery, f o r t h e system v a r i a n t s involving regenera-
. t i o n ; demonstration of high-temperature, high-pressure p a r t i c u l a t e -
removal technology f o r pressurized systems; and demonstrating the
o p e r a b i l i t y on a l a r g e s c a l e of t h e i n t e g r a t e d b o i l e r systems.

A National Fluidized Bed Program has been e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e O f f i c e of

Coal Research (Dept. of t h e I n t e r i o r ) . Because of i t s concern with SOx
and NOx emissions c o n t r o l , t h e E.P.A. recommended a F i s c a l Year 1975
program i n t h i s area t o t a l l i n g $9.75 million,. In a d d i t i o n , t h e I n t e r i o r
Department's Office of Coal Research recommended f o r F i s c a l Year 1975 a
sum of $34.0 m i l l i o n f o r i t s Direct B o i l e r Combustion Propram. This
program includes development of atmospheric fluidized-bed b o i l e r s
( u l t i m a t e l y t o 800 Mll'e), of pressurized fluidized-bed b o i l e r s ( t o 500
We), and supportive l a b o r a t o r y and process-development-unit research.
The t o t a l funding f o r F i s c a l Year 1975 should, t h e r e f o r e , be 43 t o 44
m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , an i n c r e a s e of about 140% beyond t h e FY 1974 t o t a l of
$14.2 million. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e I n t e r i o r Department (EnerPv Research
Program of t h e U.S. Department of t h e I n t e r i o r D r a f t , Februarv 1974)
p r o j e c t s a t o t a l funding requirement i n t h e s u b j e c t a r e a f o r t h e next
f t v e years (FY 1975 through FY 1979) of $342.4 m i l l i o n . Thjs fundinp,
i-S provided, compares favorably with t h e $368 m i l l i o n recommended by
$+panel V f o 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 t h e procram
plan recommended w i l l lead t o fluid-bed b o i l e r power p l a n t s becominR
an important c o n t r i b u t o r t o t h e Nation's e l e c t r i c a l power generation
capacity i n t h e 1980's, though probably t h r e e t o four g e a r s l a t e r than
suggested i n your l e t t e r s . This does not i m p l y t h a t o t h e r energy
generation systems, including nuclear f i s s i o n r e a c t o r s , w i l l not a l s o
be needed.
9. Comment:

'"The important t h i n g i n t h i s cost-benefit a n a l y s i s is t h a t i t can b e

completed i n d e t a i l on a year by year b a s i s so t h a t each assumption and
each conclusion can b e reviewed, a l t e r n a t e s considered and t h e optimum
 V.15-17

- 8 -

mix determined. ...

The i n t e r n a l r a t e 'of r e t u r n s h o u l d b e c a l c u l a t e d f o r
each program from t h e complete stream of c o s t s and b e n e f i t s f o r each y e a r
i n t h e p e r i o d from 1974 and 2020."

Response :

The AEC W B R Program i s 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 t h e J o i n t Committee on Atomic Energy. D e t a i l e d
c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s e s of t h e ETFBP, Program have been prepared.* The
Final S t a t e m e n t , which a l s o i n c l u d e s c o s t - b e n e f i t s t u d i e s . c o n t a i n s t h e
rate of r e t u r n (% 15%) f o r t h e W B R Program under b a s e c o n d i t i o n s i n
S e c t i o n 11.2.3.3.3.

*1, USAEC -
C o s t - b e n e f i t Analysis of t h e 1J.S. Breeder R e a c t o r Program
WASH-1126 ( A p r i l 1969).
2. US.\EC - U p f l n t r d (1071)) C o s t Rc?_cfit ' , n n l v s i s of t h e U.S. Breeder Reactor
Program I U S l i - l l d 4 (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

A s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r Biomedtical and Environmental Research and S a f e t y Programs

U . 9. Atomic Energy C o m i e s i o n
Washington, D. C . 20545

Dear S i r ,
. I have been examining t h e D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Xetal
F a s t Breeder Reactor Program, and I have t h e f o l l o w i n g comments t o o f f e r .
The s e v e r a l v 3 l u s e s of t h e d r a f t s t a t e m e n t - o f f e r an i m p r e s e i v e l y wide range of
i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e LMFER and on a l t e r n a t i v e froms of ensrgy production, p r e s e n t
and p o t e n t i a l . However, i n my opinion, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s s o presented a s t o be
s l a n t e d i n f a v o r of t h e LKFER and a g a i n s t p o s s i b l e 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
b r e e d e r 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 p o l l u t i n g , 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 w i t h t h e
enormous t o x i c i t y of plutonium. There i s u n i v e r s a l agreement t h a t it i s one of

.
t h e moat t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s known. Moreover t h e r e c e n t r e p o r t by Arthur R . Tamplin
and Thomas B Cochran on " E a d i a t i o n Standards f o r H o t P a r t i c l e s " ( N a t u r a l Resources
Defense Council, Yashington, D. C . , Feb. 14, 1974) produces s t r o n g evidence t h a t
t h e p r e s e n t t o l e r a n c e s t a n d a r d e for plutonium and o t h e r s i m i l a r alpha e m i 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 p e r m i s s i b l e lung burden should
be reduced by s. f a c t o r of 115,000. I would not claim c m p e t e n c e t o pass any
judgment on t h & s e x a c 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 c a n c e r i n a small r e g i o n 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 h i g h l y p e r s u a s i v e .
More r e e e a r c h i s obviously needed, b u t t h e v i s e c o u r s e , i n t h e absence of d e f i n i -
t i v e i n f o r m t i o n (which w i l l t a k e a l o n g time t o o b t a i n ) i s t o assume t h a t t h e

aocordbngly .
danger i s v e r y r e a l , ar.d make our s t a n d a r d e of r a d i a t i o n exposure much more s t r i c t

A l i q u i d metal f a s t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r of about 1000 MWe c a p a c i t y w i l l c o n t a i n

something of t h e o r d e r o f a t o n of plutmium-239. The p o t e n t i a l cancer-inducing
doae, f o r i n h a l e d 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 o r d e r
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 t h e r e a c t o r must b e
k e p t r i g o u r o u s l y out of c o n t a c t w i t h t h e o u t s i d e world, m d e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t h e

T
b i o h e r e . Furthermore t h i s must b e t r u e , n o t only while t h e p l u t o n i u z i s i n t h e
r e a c or, b u t 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 r e p r o c e s s i n g
p l a n t s , and d u r i n g t h e l o n g p e r i o d , of t h e o t d e r of hundreds of c e n t u r i e s , t h a t
w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r b e s t o r a g e of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes. Since t h e h s l f l i f e of plu-
tonium-239 i s a p p r o x i E a t e l y 24,000 y e a r s , aad s i n c e s a f e storfige must be over a
p e r i o d of a t l e a s t 20 t i m e s t h e h a l f l # f e , t h e r e q & i r e d period i s around h a l f a
m i l l i o n y e a r e . T h i s i s of t h e o r d e r of a g e o l i g i c a l spoch; two o r t h r e e p e r i o d s
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 d u r i n g t h e l a s t h a l f m i l l i o n y e a r s . The f a c t i s t h a t
t h e problem of s t o r a g e of r a d i o a c t i v e 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 , b u t none t h a t i s r e a l l y safe o r s a t i s f a c t o r y , even f o r t h e p e r i o d s
of about 700 y e a r s t h a t w m l d b e r e q u i r e d f o r e t o r a g e o f r a d i o n u c l i d e s such a s s t r o n -
tiw90. I c o n s i d e r it i r r e s p o n s i b 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 a n t s , when t h e problem of s t o r a g e of wastes i s s t i l l unsolved,
and t h e r e i s no r e a l s o l u t i o n i n s i g h t .
Apart from s t o r a g e , t h e problems of s a f e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of m a t e r i a l s r i c h i n
plutonium i n v o l v e s a l l s o r t s of hazards. These a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e d r a f t environ-
mental s t a t e m e n t , but t h e y a r e played down i n a manner t h a t I conQider d e c e p t i v e .
The hazards a r e of two g e n e r a l kinda ; ( 1 ) o r d i n a r y human c a r e l e s s n e s s , and ( 2 )
t h e f t and s a b o t a g e . As t o ( 1 ) I t h i n k it i s only r e a l i s t i c t o f i g u r e on a substan-
 V.16-2

T o A s e i s t a n t General Manager, A.E.C. 2

t i a l amount of c a r e l e s s n e s s and e r r o r i n t h e h a n d l i n g of t h e s e m a t e r i a l a . 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
o p e r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e n e x t f i f t y y e a r s , a s 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 m a t e r i a 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 m a t t e r of r o u t i n e , t h e number of
mistakes w i l l g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s e . Last y e a r more t h a n l l 5 , O O O g a l l o n s of h i g h l y
r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l leaked out of one of t h e s t o r a g e tanka a t Hanford, and t h e
l e a k was n o t discovered f o r more t h a n 50 days. There had been o t h e r s e r i o u s l e a k s
at t h e fianford p l a n t b e f o r e 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 n u c l e a r energy i s s t i l l i n an e a r l y s t a g e , 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 t h a n it i s today. To e r r i s human,
b u t when t h e e r r o r s i n v o l v e leakage of plutonium t h e y become simply i n t o l e r a b l e .
As t o p o i n t ( 2 ) above, I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e h a z a r d s 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 t h a n t h e D r a f t B n v i r o m e n t a l Statement admits. We l i v e i n an
e r a o f war and v i o l e n c e . 3sbotage of a n i n t a c t n u c l e a r power p l a n t may be d i f f i c u l t
'
t o c a r r y out, b u t 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 r c u n a t a n c e s 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 r e c e n t l y k i l l e d 18 people i n a
n o r t h e r n 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 b e l i e v e f o r e r u n n e r s of many o t h e r 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 d e t e r m i n e t i o n t o b r a i n themselves h i g h l y i n t h e necessary t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s
t h a t w i l l e n a b l e them t o d e a l w i t h t h e s p e c i a l problems fnvolved i n a t t a c k i n g
n u c l e a r power p l a n t s .
The dangers of t h e f t of p l u t o n i u a d u r i n g shipment w i l l a l s o be extremely s e r i o u s .
The plutonium f r o n e b r e e d e r r e a c t o r w i l l he much more enriched t h a n i n r e a c t o r s of
t h e t y p e c u r r e n t l y i n u a e , and it could be made i n t o weapons grade m a t e r i a l w i t h
only a moderate m o u n t 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 e x p e r t 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 e x p e r 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 l a n d e s t i n e manufacture
of n u c l e a r weapons. If t h i s prospect i s r e a l , it i s indeed a p p a l l i n g .
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, although it g i v e s a
g r e a t d e a l of information about a l t e r n a t i v e forms of energy production, t e n d s t o
p l a y down t h e i r e i g n i f i c a n c e 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, c o a l can provide f o r o u r eergy needs f o r q u i t e a long time t o come.
I t s mining and i t s u s e must be s u b j e c 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 , b u t we must
be prepared i n any c a s e f o r a r i s e i n t h e c o s t of energy i n t h e y e a r s t o come.
While r e l y i n g t e m p o r a r i l y on c o a l , a s w e l l a s what o i l remains, we s h m l d push ahead
w i t h t h e utmost v i g o r on development of n u c l e a r f u s i o n , s o l a r energy, geothermal
energy, and o t h e r techniques t h a t a r e l e s s p o l l u t i n g t h a n n u c l e a r 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 c o n s e r v a t i o n , and e f f i c i e n c y i n
t h e u s e of energy. The b r e e d e r r e a c t o r should probably c o n t i n u e , as one r e s e a r c h
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 i d e r e d only a l a s t , r a t h e r d e s p e r a t e 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 n o t b e l i e v e f o r a moment t h a t a l l a l e e w i l l f a i l .
I enclose t h e page p r o o f s of an a r t i c l e on t h e hazards of n u c l e a r f i s s i o n power
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 j o u r n a l "Environmental Conservation".
It d e a l s i n more d e t a i l w i t h some of t h e p o i n t s I have discuspedd i n t h i s l e t t e r .
Yours s i n c e r e l y

-
4
John T . E d s a l l , M. D .
Profesaor of Biochemistry, Emeritus
I apologize f o r my perso% t y p i n g i n t h i s l e t t e r . I am a t o u t t o leave f o r Europe
and had t o t y p e it while my s e c r e a a r y i s away.
0 V.16-3

32

Hazards of Nuclear Fission Power and the Choice of Alternatives

JOHN T. EDSALL,M . D . (Harvard), Mem. Nat. Acad. Sciences c'I..ic c.';:, ,>J 1
' A
-.-
tl+L
, ,
..-3
Presidenr. VI Inrernarional ConRress of Bioc/runiisrry;
S W d L \ ' I

Professor of Eiocliernistry, BiOkJgiCalLaborarories of Harvarrl Utriversity, \,

Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachuserrs 02138, U.S.A.

ENERGY NEEDS A N D NUCLEAR FISSION I belong to the latter school. 1 shall argue here the
case against building more nuclear fission-plants, and
Power from nuclear fission has been widely regarded in favour of energy conservation and the development
as the chief future source of energy. The progressive of alternative sources of energy. I shall try to make no
depletion of the world's supply of oil, and still more of claims that are not justified by known facts; but the
natural gas, is now in sight; and the continued utili- reader should be aware, from the beginning, of my
zation of coal on a large scale presents formidable point of view.
technical and ecological problems. These issues have Eminent scientists are to be found on both sides of
been sharpened by the partial cut-off of oil supplies to this controversy. Thus Glenn Seaborg (as indicated
Europe and the United States from the Arab countries by his statements while he was Chairman of the U.S.
in October and November 1973. Voices urging a rapid Atomic Energy Commission) favours the building. of
development of nuclear fission power are becoming nuclear tission power-plants as a major source of
more numerous and urgent. At the same time, those energy; Hannes AlfvCn (1972) opposes it. Ordinary
who are primarily concerned with human health, and citizens ask how it is possible for supposedly objective
with the protection of the environment from contami- scientists to draw opposite conclusions from the same
nation, are increasingly alarmed by the hazards of set of facts. Some people have learned to distrust
pollution from nuclear fission. The conflict has become science, and scientists, because of such disagreements,
particularly acute in the United States, where the but in doing so they misunderstand the nature of the
per caput consumption of energy is far higher than problems.
anywhere else in the world, but similar issues are soon A decision on building nuclear power-plants cannot
bound to arise in other countries. be made intelligently without the knowledge of a great
People who stress the need for a vast programme of many scientific facts, but it is essentially a political and
nuclear fission-plants, for example in the United States, social decision. The range of relevant facts is enor-
point out that the consumption of electric power in mous; it encompasses not only data from physics,
that country has been doubling every decade for the chemistry, biology, engineering, and meteorology, but
last 30 years. They forecast a continued doubling in also other less 'hard' data from the whole realm of
each of the two coming decades, regard this increase human history and experience. Reliable scientific data
of power consumption as an essentially irresistible are essential for making wise decisions, but, the relative
trend, and claim that nuclear fission is the only importance of different categories of facts is a matter
agency capable of meeting the need. Their opponents of judgment, where honest men can differ passionately.
claim that the hazards of large-scale nuclear fission My own judgment concerning the hazards of nuclear
operations are intolerable, that there are other forms power is deeply influenced by my general estimate of
of energy production-solar energy, geothermal human nature and behaviour, and by my reading of
energy, and quite likely nuclear fusion-that could be history. People have to operate nuclear power-plants,
developed to supply needed energy with far less pollu- no matter how much automation we introduce.
tion than nuclear fission would involve. They also People are forgetful, often they are irresponsible, and
point out that the people of the United States use quite a few of them suffer from deep-seated irrational
energy with great extravagance, and that the use of tendencies to hostility and violence. One need\not be
energy can be substantially reduced, in many ways. a student of psychoanalysis to be aware of these facts;
without the sacrifice of vital needs. 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
ofsocial orders that had seemed stable and enduring-
resulting in the periodic recurrence of dark ages in
which the level of technology declines and communi-
cation 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 nar-
rowly 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.
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 main-
tain 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
D r 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.
33
THE BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL HAZARDS
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 estima-
ted,.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 back-
ground 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 n
effects of various types of radiation, hut for present purposes we
can treat the rem and the rad as roughly equivalent.
 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 at 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 at very low levels from the observed
effects at 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. (assum-
ing 3.6 million births per year) received this dose, the
report estimates that, at 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 assump-
tion 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 misunderstand-
ing. 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 e r a / . (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 discus-
sion 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 radio-
activity 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 evalua-
tion 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 at
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, at 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 maxi-
mum 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 radio-
active 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 develop-
ment.
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 pro-
ducts.
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 1O1O curies, where I curie denotes
3.7 x 1Olo nuclear disintegrations per second. These
quantities are so huge that the radioactivity must be
c3
V.16-7
36
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 repre-
sent 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 struc-
ture to melt and collapse. This would probably lead to
the release of intolerably large amounts of radioactiv-
ity. 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 M r 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 wit-
nesses 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 pos-
sible causes of loss-of-coolant accidents, on the some-
what peculiar ground that, once the Commission had
postulated the occurrence of such an accident,
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 man-
ner 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 it 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 consider-
ations 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
Q
37

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 pro-
duces more fuel than it consumes, and holds out the
prospect of providing mankind with practically unli-
mited 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.
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 out-
side 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.
Fantastic suggestions have been put forward. 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 radio-
active 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 suggest-
ed burying the radioactive wastes in the ice of Antarc-

__
The hazards of the present reactors will be multiplied tica, where their heat would cause them to melt their

C
m a n y f o l d ~--_nthe __
breeders; an explesion
----
way down until they hit bottom (Zeller et a/., 1973);
--.in a - f y t
~ Ii hI s e d e r could make t3ousandS of square miles(iunn- but in fact we do not know what will happen to the ice
.aabitable for many years, and could endanger the lives of Antarctica over the next half-million years, and
and health of millions of people. Yet the AEC has must regard the safety of the scheme as highly dubious.
proposed that as many as 2,000 such breeders may be Actually, there is as yet no proper solution to the
built and in operation in the United States by the problem of radioactive wastes, and there is none in
year 2020. As is pointed out in a searching critique by sight. To urge a huge development of nuclear fission
Lovins (1972), the projected breeder system by 2020 reactors, when this problem remain unsolved, seems to
would require dairy 100 railway cars loaded with me highly irresponsible.
casks of spent fuel, on their way to and from reproces-
sing plants (see also Tinker, 1973). The radioactivity of
the spent fuel at the time of shipment from the reactor HAZARDS OF THEFT AND SAROTAGE
site, after a cooling-off period of 30 days, would be
some 500 million curies for the fuel of a single reactor. Apart from the ever-present dangers of accident and
The risks of accident during shipment, between the carelessness, the fissionable material in these reactors.
reactor and the processing plant, add another alarm- and that contained in the shipments of radioactive
ing dimension to the problem of nuclear safety. wastes, is vulnerable to theft and sabotage. We live
in an era of violence, war, and widespread revo-
lutionary activity; there I S no indication today of the
THE DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES 'longevity of social institutions' that Weinberg (1972)
postulates as an essential component of the 'Faustian
There is, in fact, no safe place known for the storage bargain.' The recent wave of aerial hijackings h a \
of the radioactive wastes that are produced in such terrifying to many people, but its hazards are trivial
huge quantities by reactors of the present type, and 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 para-
dise.' 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, at 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 bom-
bing 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 /-.
What, t h e n m w e do about the 'energy crisis'? In
fJh&
.
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 avail-
able, 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, com-
bined 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 pro-
gramme unacceptable.
There is no fully satisfactory solution to this prob-
lem. Every possible choice carries its attendant evils,
and we must therefore aim at the choice that mini-
mizes 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 at 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
39
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 at 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.
/ '
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 kilo-
watt 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 fund-
ing. If it can be successfully used on a large scale,
it would undoubtedly be the least polluting form o f
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.1G-11
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, at 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.
A t 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 genera-
tions. 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 ana-
lyzed 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, induc-
tion 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 plu-
tonium-239, are likely to be even more hazardous.
Storage of radioactive wastes, away from all risks of
environmental contamination, in order to be accept-
able 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 develop-
ed: notably solar energy and probably nuclear fusion,
where intensive research gives high promise of ade-
quate 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
ALFV~N H., (1972). Energy and Environment. Science and
Public A.fairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists),
28(5), PP. 5-8.
BEIR REPORT(1972). 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 - ,, /;.'----..
Council, Washington, D.C.: 217, pp. .-
7
'
EDSALL.J. T. (1972). Nuclear Energflwith a reply b ; , y ' V S , x /
A. M. Weinberg]. Science, 178, p. 933. L. .2_1
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.
 V. 16-12

41

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\ovRGOFMAN,J. W. & TAMPLIN,
A. (1972). Epidemiolog$!
/ dies 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.
h I ~trraticalStatistics arid Probability. Effi~ctse/
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.
NSF/NASA ENERGYPANEL(1973). Solar energy as u ---
National Resource. Report obtainable from the Depart- --.-
stu-
(US), 68, PP. 1931-7.
STERNGLASS, E. J. (l972a). Environmental radiation and
human health. Pp. 145-232 in Le Cam et a/. (q.v.).
STERNGLASS, E. J. (19726). Low-level Radiation. Ballantine
+ Books, New York: x -1- 214 pp.
TINKER,J. (1973).
‘9
Breeders: risks Man are not run.

\3
New Scieniist, 57, pp. 473-6.
HICKEL, W. J. (1972). Geothermal Energy. Report ‘obtain-
able from the U.S. Government Printing Office,’ but TOMPKINS, E. A., H A ~ M I L T OP.NM.
, & HOFFMANN, D. A.
(1972). Infant mortality MLhrq,..nuclear power ’
author has so far been unable to obtain a copy.
HIRST,E. & MOYERS, J. C. (1973). Efficiency of energy use
reactors. Pp. 279-89 in Le. Cam et al. (q.v.). r-
in the United States. Science, 179, pp. 1299-1304., U.S. ,ATOMICENERGYCOMMISSION (1957). Theoretical L*“ Uh
Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in ...-- - --
HOFFMAN, A. R. & INGLIS,D. R. (1972). [Review of) ‘Low- Large Nuclear Power Plants. A report of 32 typed
Level Radiation’ by E. J. Sternglass. Science and pages with 9 appendices: not a publication, though
Public Afairs (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), the author has been able to obtain a copy personally.
B ( I O ) , pp. 45.52.
WEINBERG, A. M. (1972). I institutions and nuclear
HOLDREN.J. & HERRERA, P. (1971). Energy. The Sierra
Club, San Francisco & New York: 252 pp.. illustr.
energy. Science, 177&*:i.
’ ./
.
-.. . -... .-- .e-; ;t
ZELLER,E. J., SAUNDERS, D. F. & ANGINO,E. E. (1973).
LAPP, R. E. (1973). The ultimate blackmail. New York Putting radioactive wastes on ice: a proposal for an I

Times Magazine, 4 February. international radionuclide depository in Antarctica. I

LE CAM,L. M., NEYMAN, J. & SCOTT, E. L. (Eds) (1972). Science and Public Afairs (Bulletin of the Atomic ,
Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Scientists), 29(1). pp. 4-9 and 50-52.
 V.16-13

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC E N E R G Y COMMISSION
W A S H I N G T O N , D.C. 2 0 5 4 5

BLC 3 1 1974
John T. E d s a l l , M.D.
P r o f e s s o r of Bioclieidstry , Emeritus
The B i o l o g i c a l L a b o r a t o r i e s
Harvard U n i v e r s i t y
16 D i v i n i t y Avenue
Cambridge, Massachrrsetts 02138

Dear D r . E d s a l l :

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 21, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid ?:eta1
F a s t Breeder Reactor (UlFBR) 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 the 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 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
i n f o r m a t i o n concerning your comments and concerns on Plutonium T o x i c i t y
is p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.7 and Appendix 1 I . C of t h e F i n a l Statement.

Your l e t t e r and t h e a t t a c h e d a r t i c l e , "Hazards of Nuclear F i s s i o n Power

and t h e Choice of A l t e r n a t i v e s " express concern over t h e hazards of
t h e f t of materials r i c h i n plutonium, and t h e hazards of sabotage of
f a c i l i t i e s o r t r a n s p o r t c o n t a i n i n g such m a t e r i a l s . AEC s a f e g u a r d s have
been e f f e c t i v e i n p r e v e n t i n g such acts i n t h e p a s t , and, notwithstanding
a p o s s i b l e growth i n t h e i n t e n s i t y of t e r r o r i s t and o t h e r i l l e g a l a c t s ,
i t is b e l i e v e d t h a t s t r e n g t h e n e d s a f e g u a r d s measures can b e developed
and implemented t o assure t h e s z c u r i t y of f u t u r e commercial f u e l c y c l e s
such as t h e LIFBR. S e c t i o n 7.4 i n t h e F i n a l Statement has been ex-
t e n s i v e l y r e v i s e d i n response t o many s a f e g u a r d s - r e l a t e d comments
received. It is hoped t h a t your c a r e f u l reading of t h i s s e c t i o n , as
w e l l as of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n S e c t i o n 5 . 4 . 2 on t h e s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l
impacts of f u t u r e s a f e g u a r d s , 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 t h e LllFBR Program and comments on WASH-1535 are

appreciated.

Sincerely,

u s i s t a n t General Manager
f o r Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures :
1. AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LHFBR Program (IJMH-1535)
 V.16-14

ENCLOSURE 1

AEC S t a f f Response To Comments By John T. Rdsall. M.D.

1. Comment (page 2):

A l t e r n a t i v e Energy Sources

The s i g n i f i c a n c e and promise of a l t e r n a t i v e sources of energy are played

down i n an u n j u s t i f i a b l e way; c o a l can provide our energy needs f o r some
time.

Response :

As discussed i n the "Perspectives" s e c t i o n of Section 6 of t h e enclosed

Final Statement, the AEC believes t h a 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 i t s a b i l i t y t o supply s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of energy in t h e
time period under consideration. Each option is thoroughly t r e a t e d
in Section 6 , which has been revised t o r e f l e c t t h e comments received
on t h e Draft Statement. Possible increased w a g e of c o a l , aa suggested
in the l e t t e r , is a l s o discussed i n Section 6 , as are t h e s e v e r a l o t h e r
technologies mentioned.

2. Comment (page 2):

A l t e r n a t i v e Energy Sources

Other energy a l t e r n a t i v e s should be developed and a program of energy

conservation should be i n s t i t u t e d ; widespread use of t h e breeder on a
commercial b a s i s should be considered only as a l a s t r e s o r t .
Response :

The energy requirements of t h i s Nation are so l a r g e and pressing t h a t

no s i n g l e method c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f o r meeting our needs, nor any
system expected t o become a v a i l a b l e by the end of t h i s century, is
completely adequate t o do t h e job. All of t h e technologies o f t e n men-
tioned as 'lsolutionsl' t o the energy crisis, such as s o l a r energy,
geothermal energy, nuclear fusion, and even t h e breeder r e a c t o r , f a l l
into t h i s category. It w i l l take the combined c o n t r i b u t i o n s from a l l
these energy sources plus t h e more conventional systems such as f o s s i l
fueled power p l a n t s t o s a t i s f y our e l e c t r i c i t y requirements. The
Atomic Energy Commission believes t h a t t h e LNFBR is the most promising
energy source i n terms of i t s 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 t h e r e l a t i v e l y near term time period r e l i a b l y ,
s a f e l y , economically, and i n an environmentally acceptable manner. For
this reason t h e AEC has provided s u b s t a n t i a l support t o LMFBR develop-
ment, b u t i t recognizes t h a t o t h e r energy supply systems are a l s o
required and supports t h e i r development.

The o b j e c t i v e of t h e 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.
0
V.16-15

A t t h e t i m e t h i s is achieved, a c t u a l deployment of t h e LTfFBR o r any otlicr

energy o p t i o n s then a t t h e p o i n t of commercial u s e f u l n e s s 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. The d e c i s i o n s on
which o p t i o n s t o use w i l l then be made by t h e e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y .
i n d u s t r y based on t h e t e c h n i c a l , economic and environmental s i t u a t i o n
p r e v a i l i n g a t t h a t t i n e . As with p r e s e n t e l e c t r i c a l production, i t is
a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e w i l l be a mix of technologies used i n t h e f u t u r e
t o g e n e r a t e power.

3. Comment (from e n c l o s u r e ) :
UlFBR Plant S a f e t y

The l e t t e r o o t e s t h a t a n enclosed a r t i c l e d e a l s i n more d e t a i l w i t h p o i n t s

i n t h e letter. On page 33 of t h e a r t i c l e i t is s t a t e d : "I b e l i e v e t h a t
t h e c o n f i d e n t advocates of t h e s a f e t y of n u c l e a r power-plant b a s e t h e i r
confidence t o o narrowly on t h e s a f e t y t h a t is p o s s i b l e t o achieve under
t h e most f a v o r a b l e circumstances, over a l i m i t e d period o f t i m e , w i t h
a c o r p s of h i g h l y t r a i n e d and d e d i c a t e d personnel. I f w e t a k e a l a r g e r
view of human n a t u r e and h i s t o r y , I b e l i e v e t h a t w e can never e x p e c t
such c o n d i t i o n s t o p e r s i s t over c e n t u r i e s , much less over m i l l e n i a . "

Response:

The g e n e r a l approach towards a s s u r i n g t h a t n u c l e a r p l a n t s are s a f e is

summarized i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.3. As is e v i d e n t from t h i s s e c t i o n , and
o t h e r s e c t i o n s of t h e F i n a l Statement, care is taken t o a s s u r e t h a t
any p o s s i b l e r i s k s r e l a t e d t o n u c l e a r r e a c t o r s are k e p t 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 t h e r s o c i e t a l r i s k s . A s d i s c u s s e d
i n S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 7 . 5 , a key a s p e c t of design is t h e requirement t h a t t h e
p l a n t b e a b l e t o s a f e l y w i t h s t a n d a c c i d e n t s , even though e x t e n s i v e
measures are taken t o prevent a c c i d e n t s from occurring. C e r t a i n l y
these practices do not reflect a narrow v i e w of t h e s a f e t y t h a t can
and is b e i n g achieved.

4. Comment (from e n c l o s u r e ) :
LMFBR P l a n t S a f e t y
On page 37 of t h e enclosed article i t is s t a t e d : "The hazards of t h e p r e s e n t
r e a c t o r s w i l l b e m u l t i p l i e d many-fold i n t h e b r e e d e r s ; an e x p l o s i o n i n a
f a s t b r e e d e r could make thousand o f s q u a r e m i l e s u n i n h a b i t a b l e f o r many y e a r s ,
and could endanger t h e lives and h e a l t h of m i l l i o n s of people."

Response :

We are aware of no i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h i s statement. A more d e t a i l e d

camparision of b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s and LWR's is contained i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.4
of t h e Final Statement. A d i s c u s s i o n o f e x p l o s i o n p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e
b r e e d e r is i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.8. The r e c e n t l y i s s u e d d r a f t r e p o r t of t h e
reactor s a f e t y s t u d y headed by Dr. Norman Rasmussen of XIT shows t h a t major
reactor a c c i d e n t s , i f they occur, would not l e a d t o t h e d i r e consequences
t h a t people have been l e d to b e l i e v e . I t a l s o shows such a c c i d e n t s as h i g h l y
u n l i k e l y events.
 V .16-1 6 n

5. Comment (pages 1 and 2) :

Radioactive Waste Management

I t w a s s t a t e d t h a t "the problem of s t o r a g e of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes is s t i l l

unsolved" and t h a t i t i s " i r r e s p o n s i b l e t o p l a n a huge system of f u t u r e
n u c l e a r f i s s i o n pcwar p l a n t s , when t h e problem o f s t o r a g e of w a s t e s i s
s t i l l m s o l v e d , and t h e r e is no r e a l s o l u t i o n i n s i g h t . " Concern o v e r
t h e probable r e s u l t s of human c a r e l e s s n e s s w a s e x p r e s s e d and t h e exper-
i e n c e w i t h t h e Hanford w a s t e s t o r a g e t a n k l e a k s a s an example of t h e
consequences of human c a r e l e s s n e s s 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 i g h - l e v e l waste c a l l s 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 d e s c r i b e d
i n S e c t i o n 4.6.3.1 i n t h e F i n a l Statement. The AEC b e l i e v e s t h i s t o b e
a s a f e and r e l i a b l e system for waste s t o r a g e . A t t h e same t i m e , a
comprehensive a n a l y s i s of p o s s i b l e u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l a l t e r n a t i v e s i s
b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t . There are enough promising u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l s concepts
p r e s e n t l y b e i n g e v a l u a t e d t h a t t h e p r o s p e c t s f o r developing an a c c e p t a b l e
u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l method w i t h i n a p e r i o d measured i n decades i s probable.
The t i m e r e q u i r e d f o r development and implementation of most of t h e s e
concepts h a s been e s t i m a t e d t o b e i n t h e range of 20 t o 30 y e a r s . Thus,
s a f e methods f o r h a n d l i n g and s t o r i n g t h e s e h i g h - l e v e l wastes w i l l be
provided for and t h e implementation' of concepts for u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l is
i n sight.
Regarding t h e Hanford waste t a n k l e a k s , t h e IIanford s i t e was o r i g i n a l l y
s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e of t h e s o i l c o n d i t i o n s and t h e d r y desert c l i m a t e 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 e a k s i n t h e s o i l i m e d i -
a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e l e a k . The l e a k s from t h e Hanford waste t a n k s ,
a l t h o u g h r e c e i v i n g wide p u b l i c i t y , have n o t r e s u l t e d i n exposure t o any
member of t h e p u b l i c . 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 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 ) :

T r a n e p o r t a t i o n Accidents

The problem of o r d i n a r y human c a r e l e s s n e s s i n t h e s h i p p i n g of m a t e r i a l s

r i c h i n plutonium is n o t d i s c u s s e d p r o p e r l y i n t h e F i n a l Environmental
Statement f o r the'LMTBR Program. Many people w i l l b e i n v o l v e d i n t r a n s -
p o r t a t i o n f o r t h e LMFBR f u e l c y c l e i n t h e f u t u r e and some of t h e s e people
are going t o make Inistakes.
 V.16-17

mponee:

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 w i l l be

taken t o minimize its occurrence and t o m i t i g a t e t h e consequences of
human e r r o r i f i t should occur. I t should be noted t h a t packages for
t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n of r a d i o a c t i v e materials are manufactured and t e s t e d
t o v e r y high s t a n d a r d s , and m u s t be capable of w i t h s t a n d i n g s e v e r e
a c c i d e n t s , without r e l e a s i n g any r a d i o a c t i v i t y ( s z e S e c t i o n 4.5 of t h e
F i n a l Statement). The main o p p o r t u n i t y f o r human e r r o r i n t h e t r a n s p o r t
of t h e s e packages would appear t o b e i n s e a l i n g b e f o r e shipment. Regu-
l a t o r y s t a n d a r d s and requirements as d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix 1I.M have
been promulgated t o a s s u r e t h a t human e r r o r s do n o t l e a d 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 e g u l a t i o n s i n c l u d e
q u a l i t y assurance i n s p e c t i o n s of packages and r a d i a t i o n monitoring
p r i o r t o shipment. I n a d d i t i o n , b e f o r e d e l i v e r i n g a package t o a
carrier f o r t r a n s p o r t , t h e s h i p p e r must determine t h a t no " s i g n i f i c a n t "
loose r a d i o a c t i v e contamination is on t h e o u t s i d e of t h e package, t h a t
the r a d i a t i o n levels on t h e s u r f a c e of t h e package and a t a d i s t a n c e
of 3 f t from t h e package meet t h e s p e c i f i e d r e g u l a t o r y levels, and
t h a t t h e marking and l a b e l i n g comply w i t h t h e requirements. The
s h i p p e r a l s o must c e r t i f y i n w r i t i n g on t h e s h i p p i n g p a p e r s t h a t t h e
r a d i o a c t i v e materials are p r o p e r l y c l a s s i f i e d , d e s c r i b e d , packaged,
marked, and l a b e l e d and are i n proper c o n d i t i o n s f o r t r a n s p o r t according
t o t h e a p p l i c a b l e WT r e g u l a t i o n s .

In conclusion, it is recognized t h a t t h e problem of i n d i v i d u a l human

error cannot be eliminated completely. However, i t can b e reduced t o
a major extent, and a well-designed and r i g i d l y - e n f o r c e d system of
checks and c e r t i f i c a t i o n s , as d i s c u s s e d i n t h e F i n a l Statement, can
b e employed t o p r o t e c t t h e h e a l t h and safety of the p u b l i c .
 V.17-1

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. As a participant in the review of the Gas-Cooled Fast Breeder
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.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WASH-1535.

Very truly yours,

GCFR Program7Review Committee I

Attachment

I
 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. 'Ihe reason for this is that, as sites become
more difficult to obtain, larger unit sizes will take priority. In
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. For this reason, I feel it is
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.

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

41221 74
 v.17-3

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 5 4 5

c 3 1 1974
Kr. W. C. Guyker, Chairman
GCFR Program Review Committee
Allegheny Power S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n
Cabin H i l l , Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601

Dear M r . Guyker:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 22, 1 9 7 4 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's D r a 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 ( W B R ) 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 r e s p o n s e 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 for your i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s l e t t e r
p r o v i d e s 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 s e d .

With r e g a r d t o your comment q u e s t i o n i n g " t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g

b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s w i t h 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 i n v e n t o r y needed t o f u e l t h e s e b r e e d e r s can n e v e r b e r e c o v e r e d
i n t h e b r e e d i n g p r o c e s s , " t h e AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s o p i n i o n is unduly
p e s s i m i s t i c and n o t i n agreement w i t h t h e a c t u a l b r e e d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
of t h e LMFBR as o u t l i n e d i n t h e enclosed Statement. As d i s c u s s e d i n
S e c t i o n 11.2.2, advanced o x i d e f u e l e d L V B R s a r e expected t o have a
compound d o u b l i n g t i m e of 10-15 y e a r s , so t h a t by about t h e y e a r 2010
t h e y w i l l be a b l e t o p r o v i d e t h e f u e l t o f u l l y s u s t a i n a n e l e c t r i c a l
energy demand growing a t a rate as h i g h as 6% p e r y e a r , encompassing
all growth p r o j e c t i o n s examined i n t h e s t u d y . Advanced f u e l s w i t h
t h e i r expected s u p e r i o r performance, s u c h as t h e c a r b i d e f u e l s , w i l l
have compound d o u b l i n g times of 8-10 y e a r s , and w i l l t h e r e f o r e s e r v e
as a n a l t e r n a t i v e i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e e l e c t r i c power demand d o u b l i n g
t i m e exceeds t h a t s u s t a i n a b l e w i t h o x i d e fuels. These figures fully
r e f l e c t i n - c o r e f i s s i l e i n v e n t o r y needs and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of o t h e r
p a r t s of t h e n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e , 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 b e a b l e t o supply t h e f u e l needed f o r a
growing e l e c t r i c a l energy economy. For t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e AEC d o e s
n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e Gas Cooled F a s t Reactor w i l l p r o v i d e any major
advantage with 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 its
b r e e d i n g r a t i o is p r o j e c t e d t o b e h i g h e r t h a n t h a t of t h e LMFBR.

With r e g a r d t o your s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e CCFR should b e pursued a s a c t i v e l y

as t h e LMFBR, t h e AEC r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e GCFR h a s a p o t e n t i a l f o r h i g h
b r e e d i n g g a i n and f a v o r a b l e p r o j e c t i o n s f o r c a p i t a l c o s t . The u l t i m a t e
 V.17-4

Q
M r . W. C. Guyber 2

commercial v i a b i l i t y of t h e concept is, of c o u r s e , n o t y e t determined.

The AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t a t t b e p r e s e n t s t a g e of development i t is n e i t h e r
n e c e s s a r y nor f e a s i b l e t h a t t h e GCFR b e pursued a s a c t i v e l y as t h e LXFBR.
The GCFR p r o v i d e s a n a l t e r n a t i v e means f o r a c h i e v i n g b r e e d e r technoloTy,
and t h e d e c i s i o n h a s 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
b r e e d e r concept is t h e LWBR (See S e c t i o n 2.2.1.7 of t h e e n c l o s e d F i n a l
Statement). I n o r d e r f o r GCFR development t o proceed a t t h e same pace
as LMFBR development i t would b e n e c e s s a r y t o e i t h e r g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e
GCFR f u n d i n g , which would b e economically i m p r a c t i c a l , o r t o d e c r e a s e
LMFBR funding, which would f u r t h e r d e l a y t h e d a t e by which LMFBRs could
p r o v i d e 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
-
c o u l d , o f c o u r s e , be s e l e c t e d , b u t t h e r e s u l t s would l i k e l y be t h e same
a l e s s e n e d a s s u r a n c e 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 i g h e r p r i o r i t y concept. For t h i s r e a s o n , t h e AEC b e l i e v e s i t s c u r r e n t
approach towards GCFR developmeat, which i n c l u d e s a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of
s u p p o r t for s e l e c t e d r e s e a r c h and development t a s k s , is a p p r o p r i a t e . You
are r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n 6A,1.4.7 f o r a n e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i o n on t h e rel-
a t i v e funding and d i f f e r i n g r e s e a r c h and development approaches of t h e
LMFBR and GCFR programs.

We thank you f o r your comments on t h e s e i m p o r t a n t matters, and hope you

w i l l f i n d answers t o any f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s you may have i n t h e e n c l o s e d
F i n a l Statement. Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LNFBR and GCFR Programs is
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosure:
F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)

c
 V.18-1

EBASCO SERVICES
I N co n ~ o n ; \ ~ E n

UTILITY CONSULTANTS - 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
C A B L E AOOFIESS "EBDSCOE"

L E O N A R D F. C . R E I C H L E
VICE P R E S I D E N T
A p r i l 22, 1974

Office of the A s s i s t a n t Manager f o r

Biomedical and Environmental R e s e a r c h
and Safety P r o g r a m s
U. S . Atomic E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n
Washington, D. C. 20545

D e a r Sir:

Attached herewith f o r your consideration a r e the

p e r s o n a l c o m m e n t s of Dr. H. C. Ott on y o u r M a r c h 1974
D r a f t Environmental Statement, WASH- 1535, Liquid
M e t a l Fast B r e e d e r R e a c t o r P r o g r a m . He points out
t h a t l i m i t a t i o n s of time have prevented a s thorough a
review of all a s p e c t s a s he would have liked. E b a s c o is
in substantial a g r e e m e n t with h i s views.

Sincerely yours,

LFCR:ee
 V.18-2

Comments on M a r c h 1974 Draft

Envi r onme nt a1 State m e n t , W A SH - 15 3 5

Liquid Metal Fast B r e e d e r R e a c t o r

P r e p a r e d by

Henry C. Ott

Ebasco S e r v i c e s Incorporated
New York, N . Y.
A p r i l 2 2 , 1974
EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED

April 19, 1974

Office of the A s s i s t a n t Manager f o r

Biomedical and Environmental R e s e a r c h
and Safety P r o g r a m s
U. S. Atomic E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n
Washington, D. C. 20545

D e a r Sir:

I am attaching f o r your consideration m y p e r s o n a l c o m m e n t s

on your M a r c h 1 9 7 4 Draft Environmental Statement, W A S H - 1 5 3 5 ,
Liquid Metal F a s t B r e e d e r R e a c t o r P r o g r a m .

L i m i t a t i o n s of t i m e have prevented a s thorough a review of

all a s p e c t s as I should have liked.

Sincerely,

H e n r y C. Ott
M a n a g e r of Nuclear Technology

HC0:vb
Attachment
 V.18-4

. EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED

1. The s t a t e m e n t does s e r v e i t s intended purpose of showing that the

development of LMFBR would have a n a c c e p t a b l e e p v i r o n m e n t a l
impact. I have not had time to study Volume I 1 (Chapter 4) in
d e t a i l but i t a p p e a r s to r e p r e s e n t a v e r y thorough evaluation and
I have no q u a r r e l with i t s conclusions.

2. I a m concerned that, i n m y opinion, the s t a t e m e n t goes far beyond

the question of e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t in attempting to justify the
LMFBR as the Nation's highest p r i o r i t y -- and a l m o s t exclusive - -
e n e r g y goal. One gets the i m p r e s s i o n that LMFBR is s u r e of s u c c e s s and
by itself can solve the p r o b l e m of e n e r g y s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . I do not
question the need o r wisdom of pursuing the LMFBR. I have no doubts
about the u l t i m a t e technical s u c c e s s of the LMFBR -- p e r h a p s with
technical p e r f o r m a n c e somewhat l e s s than c l a i m e d , but s t i l l a m p l e to
justify i t s promise. I believe that t h e r e is a v e r y good chance that
s o m e d a y i t w i l l be needed t o e x t r a c t e n e r g y f r o m depleted u r a n i u m t a i l s ,
though of c o u r s e this need might be obviated by the s u c c e s s of fusion o r
s o m e o t h e r advanced technology. However, it is by no m e a n s c e r t a i n
that L M F B R s can be economically competitive -- and hence c o m m e r -
cially acceptable -- f o r s e v e r a l d e c a d e s , n o r that in the i n t e r i m s o m e
of the a l t e r n a t i v e s , c u r r e n t l y given l o w e r p r i o r i t y , m a y not be able to
contribute much m o r e to a l l e v i a t e e n e r g y s h o r t a g e s a t l o w e r cost.
Admittedly t h e r e a r e l a r g e u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r all of the a l t e r n a t i v e s --
a s well a s f o r LMFBR. N o c l e a r cut prediction c a n be made. The
p r i o r i t y f o r the LMFBR w a s s e t by judgment - - not n e c e s s a r i l y infal-
lible. The d r a f t s t a t e m e n t d o e s not provide any quantitative b a s i s f o r
the LMFBR p r i o r i t y . My c o n c e r n is that i f and when a n a l t e r n a t e
concept is shown to 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 to
o v e r c o m e p r e j u d i c e s e s t a b l i s h e d , needlessly, by the LMFBR i m p a c t
sta te me n t .
3. I a m well a w a r e that the c o u r t d e c i s i o n s in the SIP1 and C a l v e r t
Cliffs c a s e s r e q u i r e s that conside ration be given t o the e n v i r o n m e n t a l
i m p a c t of a l t e r n a t e s 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 a n a l y s e s which c o n s i d e r and balance

the e n v i r o n m e n t a l effects of the facility and the a l t e r n a t e s f o r
feducing o r avoiding e n v i r o n m e n t a l effects a s well a s environmental,
economic, technical and o t h e r benefits of the facility. The r e q u i r e d
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e not much different f r o m those f o r l i c e n s e a p p l i c a n t s '
- __ - -.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e p o r t s , f o r which the introduction to Regulatory
Guide 4.2 s t a t e s :

"The cost-benefit a n a l y s i s s h a l l , to the f u l l e s t extent

p r a c t i c a b l e , quantify the v a r i o u s f a c t o r s considered. To
the extent that such f a c t o r s cannot be quantified, they s h a l l
be d i s c u s s e d in qualitative t e r m s . 'I

Although I m a y d i s a g r e e with s o m e of the specific d e t a i l s of the c o s t -

benefit a n a l y s i s presented I don't d i s a g r e e with the g e n e r a l conclu-
s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t of the LMSBR p r o g r a m
per se. However, f o r good r e a s o n s , no r e a l a t t e m p t was made to
quantify f a c t o r s r e l a t i v e to the a l t e r n a t e s , except f o r light water
reactors.

4. \ I will a d m i t that I have a s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t in the Molten S a l t R e a c t o r ,

which I feel has s o m e unique advantages f o r solving the e n e r g y p r o b l e m
which have not been recognized in the s t a t e m e n t . It is not m y intent
t o u s e t h e s e c o m m e n t s as a sales pitch f o r MSR, a n y m o r e than I f e e l
it is p r o p e r to u s e the s t a t e m e n t a s a s a l e s pitch f o r LMFBR. How-
e v e r , I do not want the s t a t e m e n t t o f o r e c l o s e the option f o r MSR o r
f o r other alternatives. If I c r i t i c i z e m i s l e a d i n g s t a t e m e n t s which b e a r
on a c o m p a r i s o n between MSR and LiMFBR it is because of f a m i l i a r i t y
with the specific implications. I would not f e e l qualified to d i s c u s s
d i s p a r i t i e s between LMFBR and non-nuclear a l t e r n a t e s . The main
t h r u s t of m y c o m m e n t s is that LMFBR i s not the sole, c e r t a i n a n s w e r
to our energy problems - - and d o e s n ' t have to be to justify i t s develop-
ment.

5. I believe i t would be helpful to c l a r i f y the m i s s i c n of the f a s t b r e e d e r

in t e r m s of p r e s e n t needs. I d o n ' t c o n s i d e r the f a c t that the f a s t
 V.18-6

EBASCC) S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED
3

b r e e d e r can t h e o r e t i c a l l y e x t r a c t e n e r g y f r o m m o s t of the available

U - 2 3 8 a s of o v e r r i d i n g i m p o r t a n c e . F o r the s a m e r e a s o n I a m not
i m p r e s s e d by the a r g u m e n t that s u c h r e a c t o r s as HTCF., LWBR and
MSR, which utilize thorium, thereby exploit a new and extensive
energy source. Although' the d r a f t s t a t e m e n t advances this a r g u m e n t
a s the m a j o r advantage of the molten s a l t r e a c t o r I c o n s i d e r this
point a l m o s t i r r e l e v a n t compared to 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.

T h e r e i s no f o r e s e e a b l e s h o r t a g e of f e r t i l e U - 2 3 8 o r t h o r i u m f o r
m a n y generations to come. However, t h e r e is a f o r e s e e a b l e s h o r t -
a g e of the b a s i c f i s s i l e m a t e r i a l , U - 2 3 5 , needed f o r a n expanding
n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r y . R e g a r d l e s s of r e a c t o r types employed, the
growth of the f i s s i o n n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y w i l l be limited by the a v a i l a -
bility of u r a n i u m o r e . The i m p o r t a n t thing i s to c o n s e r v e u r a n i u m
ore -- not U - 2 3 8 and thorium.

Light w a t e r r e a c t o r s s u f f e r f r o m t h r e e significant defects:

a) They u s e too much u r a n i u m o r e .

b) They need too much s e p a r a t i v e work (enrichment), and

c) T h e i r t h e r m a l efficiency i s u n d e s i r a b l y l o w ; not only

a r e they d e f i c i e n t in converting f i s s i o n e n e r g y t o e l e c -
t r i c i t y but they add to the burden of d i s s i p a t i n g waste heat.

On the o t h e r hand, light w a t e r r e a c t o r plants have two i m p o r t a n t

advantages:

a) They have achieved c o m m e r c i a l s t a t u s because a t c u r r e n t

p r i c e s they a r e economically competitive with f o s s i l plants.
T h e r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y m a t u r e light w a t e r r e a c t o r i n d u s t r y
based on accumulated e x p e r i e n c e and the c o m m i t m e n t of a
s u f f i c i e n t n u m b e r of l a r g e c o m m e r c i a l units to s u p p o r t the
economic operation of plant equipment and fuel supply
facilities. Advanced r e a c t o r types m u s t compete e c o n o m -
i c a l l y with light w a t e r r e a c t o r s to become c o m m e r c i a l l y
acceptable. HTCR may be approaching c o m m e r c i a l s t a t u s .
 V.18-7

EDASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 4

b) Light w a t e r r e a c t o r s a r e f a i r l y efficient in converting

n a t u r a l o r l o w e n r i c h m e n t u r a n i u m to concentrated
fissile fuel ( p r i m a r i l y plutonium) which is e s s e n t i a l
f o r the introduction of virtually a n y of the advanced
re a c t o r type s .
T h e m i s s i o n then f o r L M F B R , o r o t h e r advanced r e a c t o r type is t o
o v e r c o m e the d e f e c t s of LWR. Specifically one s e e k s the develop-
m e n t of a r e a c t o r type which:

R e q u i r e s significantly l e s s u r a n i u m o r e than LWR.

R e q u i r e s significantly l e s s e n r i c h m e n t duty (SWU) than

LWR.

Has a significantly higher t h e r m a l efficiency than LWR,

thus r e q u i r i n g l e s s cooling w a t e r and minimizing the
amount of radioactive f i s s i o n products p e r kwh generated.

Compete economically with L W R s a n d / o r o t h e r e n e r g y

sources. One can s c a r c e l y c l a i m cheap power in the s e n s e
t h a t p r i c e s would be lower than c u r r e n t c o s t s f r o m LWR,
but, b e c a u s e one e x p e c t s economic savings f r o m r e a l i z i n g
-a, b a n d 2, above, the n e w r e a c t o r type should c o u n t e r a c t
the trend toward h i g h e r c o s t s that would r e s u l t f r o m con-
tinuing depletion of u r a n i u m r e s e r v e s . The objectives of
r e s o u r c e c o n s e r v a t i o n and d o l l a r economy a r e p r e t t y much
synonymous.

6 . The m o s t i m p o r t a n t a t t r a c t i o n of L M F B R is the capability of r e q u i r i n g

significantly l e s s u r a n i u m o r e than L W R s f o r the d e s i r e d n u c l e a r power
industry. T h i s capability is not m e a s u r e d s i m p l y in t e r m s of b r e e d i n g
gain o r doubling t i m e . A l s o of i m p o r t a n c e is the inventory of f i s s i l e
m a t e r i a l needed to get a n u c l e a r plant into operation. One finds a t s e v -
e r a l p l a c e s in the d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t the e x p r e s s i o n that
"the L M F B R has no mining and milling components. 'I The logic is m o s t
c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d in P a r a g r a p h 4 . 1 . 4 (Vol. 11, p. 4. 1-20): "The u s e
of n a t u r a l o r e n r i c h e d u r a n i u m in the L M F B R fuel cycle is . r e q u i r e d only
 V.18-8

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 5

i f the plutonium available as i n i t i a l fuel is insufficient f o r a n e x -

panding L M F B R economy. . . . . . In the projected n u c l e a r
economy d i s c u s s e d in C h a p t e r 11, sufficient plutonium is available
d u r i n g the period covered by this s t a t e m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , the
L M F B R fuel cycle h a s no mining and milling components,

I c o n s i d e r t h i s s t a t e m e n t misleading. To the extent that

plutonium available a s initial f u e l c o m e s f r o m w a t e r r e a c t o r s ---
and the l i o n ' s s h a r e d o e s in the expanding L M F B R economy d i s -
c u s s e d in C h a p t e r 11 --- that plutonium cannot be made available
without a c o m m i t m e n t f o r additional mining of U 0 In the absence
3 8'
of L M F B R s e s s e n t i a l l y a l l plutonium produced would be recycled
p r o m p t l y in L W R s ; t h e r e is nothing in the d r a f t s t a t e m e n t t o
indicate o t h e r w i s e , Thus e v e r y k i l o g r a m of plutonium diverted
f r o m r e c y c l e in L W R s would have to be replaced with e n r i c h e d
u r a n i u m to keep the L W R s in operation. W e e s t i m a t e that e a c h
\
k i l o g r a m of f i s s i l e plutonium SO diverted will r e q u i r e the n u c l e a r
i n d u s t r y to mine about 0. 2 s h o r t tons of additional U 0 and to
3 8
expend about 110 SWU of e n r i c h m e n t e f f o r t , I have been told by
A E C staff that t h e i r projections of o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work r e q u i r e -
m e n t s do take into account the added r e q u i r e m e n t s due to i n t e r r u p -
tion of plutonium recycle. I have no r e a s o n t o question the p r o j e c t i o n s .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , I f e e l the r e a d e r is m i s l e d into believing t h a t i n t r o -
duction of the L M F B R h a s e s s e n t i a l l y no i m p a c t on the demand f o r
U308 o r SWUs. At one t i m e t h e r e was a common notion that,once
LMFBRs w e r e d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e y would be adopted f o r all new plants
s i n c e all o t h e r r e a c t o r types would be obsolete. T h e r e is a b e t t e r
recognition today that b r e e d e r s a r e dependent on L W R s and that t h e r e
w i l l be a continuing need to i n s t a l l new L W R s , a t l e a s t through the
y e a r 2000, j u s t to provide initial f i s s i l e inventory f o r f a s t b r e e d e r s .

7. Although the Molten Salt R e a c t o r (MSR) cannot boast of a s l a r g e a

b r e e d i n g gain as L M F B R it h a s the significant advantage that the
r e q u i r e d inventory of f i s s i l e f u e l i s v e r y much less that that of
LWBR. A s a consequence m o r e MSRs than L M F B R s can be added
n
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 6

to the economy with a given supply of o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work.

T h i s is t r u e w h e t h e r the MSRs a r e s t a r t e d with P u f r o m LWRs
o r with e n r i c h e d U - 2 3 5 . It t u r n s out that by u s i n g P u f r o m LWRs
it would be possible t o substitute molten s a l t r e a c t o r s f o r the 400
GWe of b r e e d e r capacity of A E C ' s " m o s t likely" f o r e c a s t through
the y e a r 2000 !A with e s s e n t i a l l y no difference in d e m a n d s f o r U308
and s e p a r a t i v e w o r k (Ebasco e s t i m a t e s actually show smaller r e -
q u i r e m e n t s f o r MSR,based on 1000 MWe plants). Thus the advantage
c l a i m e d f o r m o l t e n s a l t r e a c t o r s is not the ability t o b u r n thoxiurn
but e s s e n t i a l l y the s a m e s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n r e s o u r c e u t i l i -
'
zation as L M F B R s r e l a t i v e t o light w a t e r r e a c t o r s . At l e a s t through
2000 the m o l t e n s a l t r e a c t o r is quite c o m p a r a b l e t o LMFBR in:

a) P o t e n t i a l savings i n u r a n i u m o r e r e q u i r c m e n t s .

b) P o t e n t i a l savings in s e p a r a t i v e work r e q u i r e m e n t s .

c) Improved t h e r m a l efficiency.

In addition t h e r e a r e indications that e a r l y g e n e r a t i o n molten s a l t

r e a c t o r s m a y be b e t t e r able to compete economically with light w a t e r
r e a c t o r s and hence r e a c h c o m m e r c i a l a c c e p t a n c e a t a n e a r l i e r date.
T h e p r i n c i p a l advantage of MSR is the elimination of fuel f a b r i c a t i o n
and the capability of o n - s t r e a m refueling, w h e r e a s fuel f a b r i c a t i o n
is the l a r g e s t and m o s t u n c e r t a i n component of LMFBR fuel cycle
cost. Although in the long t e r m the ability of LMFBR t o utilize U-238
w i l l probably be of i m p o r t a n c e , in the s h o r t t e r m i t i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t
to r e a c h c o m m e r c i a l acceptance.

B y extending the cost-benefit a n a l y s i s to 2020 the i m p o r t a n c e of the

a s s u m e d high b r e e d i n g r a t i o f o r the LMFBR is accentuated and the
p r o b l e m s of achieving c o m m e r c i a l s t a t u s a r e minimized. Admittedly,

11 WASH-1 139 (72)

 v .18-10

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED
7

t h e r e a r e technical p r o b l e m s which m u s t be solved before MSR could

fulfill i t s p r o m i s e . T h e s e p r o b l e m s can be solved only i f h i g h e r
p r i o r i t y is given t o developing MSR technology. The MSR c a n make R

m a j o r contribution to the n u c l e a r economy o d y i f introduced before the

f a s t b r e e d e r b e c o m e s : c o m m e r c i a l . But t h e r e i s enough uncertainty a s
t o when that might be that a p a r a l l e l e f f o r t on the development of MSR,
at a much h i g h e r I level than h e r e t o f o r e s e e m s t o be w a r r a n t e d .

9. I c o n s i d e r the d i s c u s s i o n of the benefits of LMFBR s t a r t i n g on page 1. 5 - 3

t o be quite weak. T h i s s e e m s t o be a common failing of technology a s s e s s -
ment, b e c a u s e of the difficulty of quantizing "external" benefits. I t is
difficult to d o j u s t i c e to the advantages of abundant and r e l a t i v e l y cheap
energy. In somewhat the same vein, t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l pages s t a r t i n g on
1 . 1 1 - 1 8 w h e r e the w r i t e r s have put t h e m s e l v e s on the defensive arguing
a g a i n s t s o m e w h a t vague c r i t i c i s m s of the LMFBR p r o g r a m . It is in this
d i s c u s s i o n t h a t I note a tendency to d i s p a r a g e a l t e r n a t e s r a t h e r than to
stand on the m e r i t s of the LMFBR. I p e r s o n a l l y do not c o n s i d e r LMFBR
as a shoo-in t o solve a l l the Nation's e n e r g y p r o b l e m s and I would not
c o n s i d e r a slippage of five, ten o r m o r e y e a r s t i l l the f a s t b r e e d e r be-
c o m e s competitive a s being t r a g i c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , I do f e e l the b r e e d e r
h a s enough m e r i t to w a r r a n t a vigorous e f f o r t , but not to the exclusion of
promising alternates. The d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t a t e m e n t is in no
way a n adequate evaluation of the m e r i t s of a l t e r n a t e s , but in s o m e i n -
s t a n c e s I f e e l i t h a s n e e d l e s s l y gone beyond i t s province in that d i r e c t i o n .

10. On page 1. 8-4 the d r a f t s t a t e m e n t s a y s " F u r t h e r , all f i s s i o n r e a c t o r

s y s t e m s have fundamentally the same e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s a s the
LMFBR, and hence none of t h e s e would offer any significant i m p r o v e m e n t
in that respect'! (An expanded v e r s i o n of the same conclusion a p p e a r s on
page 5-4.) It might be added that, c o n v e r s e l y , LMFBR does not n e c e s -
s a r i l y offer any s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t o v e r f i s s i o n a l t e r n a t e s . The
final page of the S u m m a r y c h a p t e r (page 1. 11-24) s t a t e s : " C l e a r l y , i n -
c r e a s e d funding f o r a l t e r n a t e options is in o r d e r , but it would not be p r o -
ductive t o allocate funds m o r e rapidly than they can be used effectively
during any given phase of development. " One hopes that this c r i t e r i o n is
applied equally to the LMFBR option and a l t e r n a t e s .
 V .18-11

EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 8

11. With r e g a r d t o the "conventional" cost-benefit a n a l y s i s of C h a p t e r 11,

I d o not n e c e s s a r i l y a g r e e with all the detailed a s s u m p t i o n s m a d e , but I
cannot d i s a g r e e with the g e n e r a l conclusions. T o my mind the s u m and
s u b s t a n c e of the a n a l y s i s is b e s t i l l u s t r a t e d graphically by F i g u r e 3. 3. 5
(page 3. - 2 2 of Appendix 111-B). By the y e a r 2 0 2 0 , under the a s s u m p t i o n s
u s e d f o r any of the many c a s e s studied, t h e r e w i l l be c o n s i d e r a b l e a c c u m -
mulated savings in e n e r g y c o s t s . One could h a r d l y e s c a p e this conclusion
i f nothing but LMFBR and t h e r m a l r e a c t o r s w e r e available, b e c a u s e i n that
time s p a n the c o s t of u r a n i u m w i l l c e r t a i n l y r i s e to the point w h e r e LMFBR
c a n compete v e r y handily with LWR. The s e v e r a l c a s e s studied v a r y nu-
m e r i c a l l y in the m a r g i n of c o s t s a v i n e s , b u t i t i s s u b s t a n t i a l in any c a s e .
Obviously the s o o n e r the LMFBR can become c o m m e r c i a l the higher the
savings. And i f h i g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e a n d / o r l o w e r c o s t can be achieved
so much the b e t t e r . The o t h e r s i d e of the coin is the c o s t of reaching
commercial status. F i g u r e 3 . 3. 5 v e r y c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s this point by
the "negative benefits" plotted f o r m o s t of the r e s t of this century. For
1987 introduction of LMFBR the r e q u i r e d outlay i s indicated a s s o m e $7
billion (discounted) plus a n o t h e r $4. 4 billion in R & D c o s t s . T h e r e is s o m e
r i s k that the e s t i m a t e d c o s t s a n d / o r t i m e t a b l e m a y be o p t i m i s t i c o r that
the projected F e r f o r m a n c e and c o s t advantages of the LMFBR m a y not be fully
achieved ia p r a c t i c e . Thus the p r i c e tag could be significantly h i g h e r o r
the benefits somewhat l e s s than p r e d i c t e d . T r u e , the r a t i o of l o n g - t e r m
benefits t o n e a r t e r m c o s t s (both discounted to account f o r t i m e l a p s e )
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. The r e a l question
is how one m a n a g e s to finance $11 biliion plus in e s t r a c o s t in the 1 9 8 0 s
o r 1990s f o r this one approach. The only obvious s o u r c e s a r e t a x p a y e r s ,
and utility r a t e p a y e r s and s h a r e h o l d e r s . A r e they willing to dig down into
t h e i r pockets now to s a v e money on e l e c t r i c bills s o m e t h i r t y y e a r s f r o m
now? Unless the full c o s t b a r r i e r is c r o s s e d , no benefits will a c c r u e . It
is going to be v e r y difficult to d i c t a t e conformance of the e n t i r e e l e c t r i c
utility i n d u s t r y to the proposed p a t t e r n . The point i s that the LMFBR
p r o g r a m is w o r t h pursuing but a s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r one m a y have t o
a c c e p t d e l a y s and somewhat l e s s e r benefits. It is in this context that i t
s e e m s p r e m a t u r e to f o r e c l o s e options f o r a l t e r n a t e s which have potential
e i t h e r as backGp f o r LMFBR o r f o r providing benefits on a s h o r t e r t i m e
span.
 V .18-12

EQASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED 9

12. It should be noted that the l a r g e s t s h a r e of the c o s t of generating

n u c l e a r e l e c t r i c i t y l i e s i n the capital i n v e s t m e n t in the plant.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the plant i n v e s t m e n t is probably the m o s t u n c e r t a i n
c o s t component f o r all plants, including light w a t e r r e a c t o r s . Con-
sequently, the e c o n o m i c . c o m p a r i s o n s a r e quite s e n s i t i v e t o the r a t h e r
tenuous a s s u m p t i o n s m a d e r e g a r d i n g r e l a t i v e plant c o s t s . I t is
l a r g e l y f o r this r e a s o n that the e c o n o m i c c o m p a r i s o n of a l t e r n a t e
advanced s y s t e m s i s a t b e s t only semi-quantitative.
13. T h e r e is p e r h a p s s o m e confusion r e g a r d i n g the meaning of "Corn-
m e r c i a l introduction. If On page 3. 5-13 we find:

"The y e a r of c o m m e r c i a l introduction is defined as the

f i r s t y e a r d u r i n g which significant n u m b e r s of c o m m e r c i a l
s i z e L M F B R s go into operation. It is anticipated that eight
c o m m e r c i a l s i z e L M F B R s w i l l go into operation d u r i n g the
y e a r of introduction and the following y e a r , s i x t e e n d u r i n g the
next two, thirty-two during the next two y e a r s , and economics
will d i c t a t e the n u m b e r s t h e r e a f t e r . I'

It is not c l e a r that the indicated r a t e of addition n e c e s s a r i l y applies

t o the c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s . It d o e s s e e m t h a t installing as many
as 56 units in the f i r s t s i x y e a r s of deployment is optimistic. It s e e m s
I
to be a f a s t e r s t a r t i n g r a t e than A E G I S " m o s t likely" c a s e of WASH-
1139 (72) and a l s o f a s t e r than the expected introduction of l a r g e H T G R s .
- -- - - - - I _ __ . -- __ I
I believe the expected LWR population would b a r e l y be a b l e t o supply
the plutonium needed t o s t a r t 56 plants on that schedule s t a r t i n g in
1987, ( a s s u m i n g the L W R s o p e r a t e a t t h e i r f o r e c a s t capacity f a c t o r )
but t h e r e would soon be a s h o r t a g e of plutonium i f the implied
a c c e l e r a t i o n of i n s t a l l a t i o n w e r e continued.

I would c o n s i d e r a n advanced 1 c a c t o r type t o r e a c h "comme r c i a l

s t a t u s " when utilities would be able to choose i t f r e e l y f o r t h e i r next
scheduled plant additions. E s s e n t i a l l y this m e a n s i t should be
economically competitive with light w a t e r r e a c t o r s . It s e e m s quite
c l e a r that a s i z e a b l e n u m b e r of e a r l y generation plants w i l l r e q u i r e
significant subsidie s.
0 V.18-13

EEASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED

14. I have a n u m b e r of m i s c e l l a n e o u s questions and o b s e r v a t i o n s , not

n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d t o the above c o m m e n t s and not n e c e s s a r i l y
affecting the conclusions of the d r a f t s t a t m e n t . On P'age 1. 1 0 - 3
t h e r e is a s t a t e m e n t that a 1000 MWe LMFBR plant would have a n
annual production of 0 . 2 8 m e t r i c tons of plutonium and 0 . 0 6 7 m e t r i c
tons of f i s s i o n products. Assuming 2500 MWt and 292 d a y s operation
(80% c a p a c i t y f a c t o r ) the annual r a t e of fissioning would be s o m e 770 kg
c o n s i s t e n t with a b r e e d i n g r a t i o of roughly 1. 3. I s u s p e c t a slippage
of the d e c i m a l point f o r the weight of fission products.

15. The d i s c u s s i o n of " e n e r g y p a r k s " ( P a g e I . 5-2 and e l s e w h e r e ) is of

c o u r s e not unique to L M F B R s . Also, while the concept h a s m e r i t s
i t a l s o h a s a h o s t of p r o b l e m s , one of which is the l i m i t e d n u m b e r of
locations with copious cooling 'water and proximity t o l o a d s . Certainly,
the expected growth of e l e c t r i c power capacity will r e q u i r e i n c r e a s e d
1
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of such concepts, not n e c e s s a r i l y f o r L M F B R s . Related
s p e c i f i c a l l y to LMFBRs is the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a typical fuel f a b r i c a t i o n
plant could handle s o m e 80 GWe of L h I F S R capacity. P a r k s of this
size a r e unlikely, s o the possible e l i m i n a t i o n of fuel t r a n s p o r t a t i o n is
not compatible with s u c h l a r g e fabrication plants. Whether s u c h l a r g e
---__~___ - - ------ -- - - -
f a b r i c a t i o n plants a r e needed f o r a n e c o n o m i c fuel cycle is not c l e a r .
It is unlikely that such l a r g e f a b r i c a t i o n plants could be justified f o r the
e a r l y y e a r s of c o m m e r c i a l L M F B R s .

16. T h e r e is a suggestion ( P a g e s 3 - 3 7 and 4-8 of 111-B) that s p e c i a l r e a c t o r s

designed f o r high plutonium production might Se d e s i r a b l e t o s p e e d the
deployment of L M F R R s i n c a s e s when insufficient LWR generated pluto-
n i u m is available. It is h a r d t o s e e that one could justify the added c o s t
and h e a d a c h e s of designing, l i c e n s i n g and building s p e c i a l r e a c t o r s f o r
this p u r p o s e r a t h e r than slowing the deployrr-ent of L M F B R s . A better
a l t e r n a t i v e would s e e m to be t o o p e r a t e e x i s t i n g L W R s a t s h o r t e r e y -
p o s u r e and p e r h a p s m o d e r a t e l y h i g h e r c o n v e r s i o n r a t i o (e. g. by lower
e n r i c h m e n t ) to gain a s i m i l a r , probably s m a l l e r advantage. The LIVR
o p e r a t o r would, of c o u r s e , have to r a i s e his p r i c e f o r plutonium s o
produced. A quite similar suggestion ( P a g e s 3-17 and 3-20 of 111-B)
 V.18-14

EBASCO S E R V I C E S I N C O R P O R A T E D 11

is that the economy might benefit a f i e r about 2010 by building LWRs

specifically to b u r n e x c e s s plutonium produced by the b r e e d e r s . When
one c o n s i d e r s that a p a r a l l e l a s s u m p t i o n is made that capital c o s t
p a r i t y between LMFBRs and LWRs has been reached by that t i m e , one
m a y a s k why anyone would consider paying the s a m e p r i c e f o r a l o w e r
p e r f o r m a n c e plant. An a l t e r n a t e s t r a t e g y would be to modify fuel
management t a c t i c s of the LMFBRs to s a v e d o l l a r c o s t s c o m m e n s u r a t e
with a reduced plutonium yield. T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r of options. Free
e n t e r p r i s e and ingenuity can be expected t o guide the choice a t the t i m e ,
and i t is pointless to t r y to p r e d i c t detailed actions s o m e 30 t o 50 y e a r s
in advance.

17. On P a g e 1. 11-22 ( a l s o 11.4-21) we find " R e g a r d l e s s of the economics

of the u r a n i u m r e s o u r c e situation, the c a s e f o r the b r e e d e r can be m a d e
on p u r e l y qualitative grounds; i t ' i s a m o r e efficient u s e r of a finite r e -
source. Taken l i t e r a l l y this i m p l i e s " b r e e d e r s a t any cost. Simi- n
lar r e a s o n i n g might s u g g e s t b y - p a s s i n g the b r e e d e r in favor of fusion.
C e r t a i n l y LMFBR i s a p r o m i s i n g concopt worthy of development, but
the e m p h a s i s and timing m a y be questioned. T h e r e i s a popular notion
that " c o n v e r t e r s " and "burncrs'l a r e i n f e r i o r . I believe i t is fair to
s a y that the introduction of r e l a t i v e l y low p e r f o r m a n c e light w a t e r
r e a c t o r s h a s proven to be amply justified (although the suggestion of
u s i n g light w a t e r a s m o d e r a t e r had e a r l i e r m e t with c o n s i d e r a b l e
resistance). In f a c t one could s c a r c e l y c o n s i d e r the proposed schedule
f o r introducing the LMFBR without having f i r s t deployed many l a r g e
LWRs. And the r e a s o n is a s much r e l a t e d to utilization of u r a n i u m
r e s o u r c e s a s i t is to d o l l a r economy. The light w a t e r r e a c t o r plants
s e t the s t a n d a r d f o r c o m m e r c i a l a c c e p t a n c e . R e g a r d l e s s of o t h e r
a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s no advanced r e a c t o r i s likely to be deployed in l a r g e
. n u m b e r s until i t can compete economically with light w a t e r r e a c t o r
plants.

18. P a g e 2-6 of Appendix 111-B indicates that "by about the y e a r 2010
the LMFBR oxide f u e l d e s i g n s , f o r a l l growth projections examined
in the study, can provide the f u e l to fully s u s t a i n a n e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y
demand growing a t the r a t e of about 6% a y e a r .
EBASCO S E R V I C E S I N C O R P O R A T E D 12

T h i s s e e m s inconsistent with the Bethe P a n e l r e p o r t 1’which

indicates a n annual yield of only 3 . 170 ( = f r a c t i o n a l yield of 0. 138 p e r
f u e l cycle 4 4. 5 y e a r s fuel cycle t i m e ) f o r oxide fuel. Presumably,
one would e x p e c t the LMFBR growth r a t e to be a s g r e a t o r g r e a t e r
,
than that f o r the t o t a l e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y demand.

19. With r e g a r d to f i s s i o n a l t e r n a t e s to LMFBR ( P a g e s 1. 11-15, 16 and

Volume I V) I offer the following o b s e r v a t i o n s . A s d i s c u s s e d previously
utilization of t h o r i u m i s not a compelling advantage. The a t t r a c t i v e n e s s
of HTGR, LWBR and MSR is d e t e r m i n e d by d e c r e a s e d demands f o r
u r a n i u m o r e and e c o n o m i c potential. I e s t i m a t e that o v e r a t h i r t y
y e a r plant life a n HTGR u s e s roughly half a s much U 0 a s a light w a t e r
3 8
r e a c t o r but about the s a m e amount of s e p a r a t i v e w o r k ; LWBR u s e s
roughly a third a s much U 3 0 8 and half a s m u c h s e p a r a t i v e work as
a light w a t e r r e a c t o r ; the molten s a l t r e a c t o r can virtually match a
n e a r - t e r m f a s t b r e e d e r in i t s i m p a c t on o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work r e -
quirements. Apparently HTGR i s e s s e n t i a l l y competitive with LWR
today and would i m p r o v e with higher u r a n i u m p r i c e s ; LKBR probably
could not compete with LWRs until higher u r a n i u m p r i c e s p r e v a i l and i t
is expected to be s u p e r s e d e d by higher pe rformarice r e a c t o r s .

Since L M F B R , G C F R a n d M S R - a r e expected t o have lower fuel cycle

costs than LWRs, t h e i r competitiveness with LWRs w i l l undoubtedly
be d e t e r m i n e d by plant i n v e s t m e n t . Although much l e s s e f f o r t h a s been
s p e n t on the development of G C F R than L M F B R , and p e r h a p s i t is fair
to s a y i t s technology l a g s that of L M F B R , t h e r e a r e r e a s o n s f o r b e -
lieving the c a p i t a l c o s t of the GCFR may be l o w e r than that of LMFBR
although t h e i r f u e l cycle c o s t s a r e expected to be comparable. Hence,
one should not conclude that c o m m e r c i a l introduction of GCFR would
n e c e s s a r i l y l a g that of LMFBR. The m o l t e n s a l t r e a c t o r is e s t i m a t e d
t o have fuel cycle c o s t s significantly l o w e r than e i t h e r LhfFBR o r
G C F R , p r i m a r i l y because fuel f a b r i c a t i o n i s eliminated. This advan-
tage is e s p e c i a l l y significant f o r e a r l y generation plants when f a s t

-1 / R e p o r t of the Cornel1 -iV-orkshops on the M a j o r I s s u e s of a National

E n e r g y R e s e a r c h and Development P r o g r a m ( D e c e m b e r 1 9 7 3 ) .
T a b l e G 1 , page G - 4 .
 V.18-16
0
EBASCO S E R V I C E S INCORPORATED
13

. *

b r e e d e r f u e l is both expensive and u n c e r t a i n of life. F o r these reasons

t h e r e is a good chance that the molten s a l t r e a c t o r csuld become com-
petitive with light w a t e r r e a c t o r s and hence c o m m e r c i a l l y acceptable
at a n e a r l i e r d a t e than e i t h e r f a s t b r e e d e r . A particular attractive
v e r s i o n of the molten s a l t r e a c t o r is one operated to e m p h a s i z e con-
v e r s i o n of plutonium to U-233, r a t h e r than m a x i m u m breeding r a t i o ,
It is a t t r a c t i v e with r e s p e c t t o both low c o s t and m i n i m u m demand f o r
u r a n i u m o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work. It could have m a x i m u m i m p a c t on
u r a n i u m r e s o u r c e s i f introduced, not a f t e r 2000, but as so011 a s prac-
t i c a b l e , which would be well before 2000 if i t s development w e r e
supported.
 UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY COMM ISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

M r . Leonard F. C. R e i c h l e
Vice P r e s i d e n t
Ebasco S e r v i c e s , I n c o r p o r a t e d
2 Rector S t r e e t
New York, New York 10006

Dear M r . Reichle:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 2 2 , 1974 t r a n s m i t t i n g comnents by

D r . Henry C. O t t on t h e Atomic Energy Cormnission's D r a f t E n v i r o n a e n t a l
Statement on t h e L i q u i d Metal F a s t Breeder Reactor (LMFBP,) Program.
The Statement has been r e v i s e d where n e c e s s a r y 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 i s e n c l o s e d f o r
your i n f o r m a t i o n .

D r . O t t ' s l e t t e r c o n t a i n e d numerous statements and comments r e g a r d i n g

t h e Molten S a l t Breeder Reactor, t h e LKFSR, and o t h e r energy techno-
l o g i e s . We were p l e a s e d t o n o t e t h a t D r . O t t f i n d s t h a t t h e D r a f t
Environmental. Statement "does s e r v e i t s i n t e n d e d purpose of showing
t h a t t h e development of LMFBR would have an a c c e p t a b l e environmental
impact". 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 l e t t e r f o r t h e AEC's
r e s p o n s e s t o D r . O t t ' s s p e c i f i c comments.

Thank you f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMFBR program.

wzL-4-
Sincerely,
I

J es L. Liverman
u s i s t a n t General Manager
f o r 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 Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
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 , I n c .

1. Comment:

''....it is by no means c e r t a i n t h a t LMFBRs can b e economically competi-

tive -- and hence commercially a c c e p t a b l e --
f o r s e v e r a l decades, n o r
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 g i v e n lower
p r i o r i t y , may n o t 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 c o m p e t i t i v e 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 a d m i t t e d l y a judgment. I t is r e c o g n i z e d t h a t new a l t e r n a t i v e
e n e r g y p r o d u c t i o n systems w i l l a l s o c o n t r i b u t e towards meeting t h e
N a t i o n ' s e n e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t s , b u t i t is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e y c a n 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 i s c u s s e d 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 B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s ) . A s n o t e d 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s 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 c o m p l e t e l y a d e q u a t e f o r t h e j o b . The AEC t h e r e f o r e e n d o r s e s t h e
development o f s e v e r a l energy-producing t e c h n o l o g i e s , as w e l l as t h e
LMFBR.
2. Comment:

"The d r a f t s t a t e m e n t does n o t p r o v i d e 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 c o n c e p t 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 a t t e m p t e d t o p r o v i d e 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 t h r o u g h t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t s t u d y 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 c o n c e r n t h a t t h e LMFBR
Environmental S t a t e m e n t 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 a n alternate concept could be a s s i g n e d 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 b e shown t o d e s e r v e
a higher priority. Y e have throughout t h e Statement made i t clear t h a t
t h e AEC f o l l o w s t h e p h i l o s o p h y 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 s h o u l d be developed f o r t h e reasons s t a t e d i n t h e p r e c e e d i n g
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, t h e r e b y e x p l o i t a new and e x t e n s i v e energy
s o u r c e . Although t h e d r a f t s t a t e m e n t advances t h i s argument as t h e major
a d v a n t a g e 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 l m o s t 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 a d v a n t a g e claimed f o r molten s a l t r e a c t o r s i s n o t t h e a b i l i t y

t o b u r n 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 l e a s t
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 s a v i n g s i n uranium o r e requ?.remen.ts.

b) P o t e n t i a l s a v i n g s i n s e p a r a t i v e work r e q u i r e m e n t s .

c) Improved t h e r m a l 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 t h e 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 o f
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 i s t s
t h e s e v e r a l b e n e f i t s ( a d v a n t a g e s ) t h e t h e MSBR c o n c e p t , and i n which i t
is seen t h a t t h e use of thorium f u e l i s o n l y one of s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l
benefits.

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 t h e d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t a t e m e n t t h e
e x p r e s s i o n t h a t ' t h e LMFBR h a s 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 t a t e m e n t m i s l e a d i n g . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t p l u t o n i u m a v a i l -
a b l e as i n i t i a l f u e l cones from w a t e r 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 i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 11 --
t h a t plu-
tonium c a n n o t b e made a v a i l a b l e w i t h o u t a commitment f o r a d d i t i o n a l mining
of U308. I n t h e absence of LHFBRs e s s e n t i a l l y a l l p l u t o n i u m produced
would b e 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 t a t e m e n t
t o i n d i c a t e o t h e r w i s e . Thus e v e r y k i l o g r a m of plutonium d i v e r t e d from
recycle in LWRs w o u l d have to b e r e p l a c e d with e n r i c h e d uranium t o k e e p
t h e LWRs i n o p e r a t i o n . "

Response :

I n d e v e l o p i n g t h e p o s i t i o n on mining and m i l l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s 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). T h i s 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 o v e r
t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r t h e 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s 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 r e q u i r e m e n t ( 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 s h o u l d b e n o t e d 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s 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 d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 11.2.
Overall c u m u l a t i v e U308 and s e p a r a t i v e work r e q u i r e m e n t s 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
 Q
V. 18-20

-3-
S e c t i o n 11 of t h e F i n a 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 h e t o t a l f u e l c y c l e w i t h t h e LMFBR
a v a i l a b l e a r e always e q u a l t o o r less than t h e requirements when t h e
LMFBR i s n o t a v a i l a b l e .

5. Comment:

"Although t h e Molten S a l t Reactor (IISR) cannot b o a s t of as l a r g e a b r e e d i n g

g a i n as LMFBR i t h a s t h e s i g n i f i c a n t advantage t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d i n v e n t o r y
of f i s s i l e f u e l is v e r y much less than t h a t of L W B R . A s a consequence
more MSRs than L:fFBRs can b e added t o t h e economy w i t h a g i v e n s u p n l v o f
o r e and s e p a r a t i v e work. This i s t r u e whether t h e MSRs are s t a r t e d w i t h
Pu from LWRs o r w i t h e n r i c h e d U-235. I t t u r n s o u t t h a t by u s i n g Pu from
LWRs i t would b e p o s s i b 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
GW e o b r e e d e r c a p a c i t y of AEC's 'most l i k e l y ' f o r e c a s t through t h e y e a r
2 0 0 d ' , w i t h e s s e n t i a l l y no d i f f e r e n c e 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 p l a n t s ) . ' '

Response :

These assumptions regarding. t h e 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 h e molten s a l t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r system can b e developed
w i t h t h e c u r r e n t l y p r o j e c t e d b r e e d i n g 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 s a l t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r
technology l a g s t h a t of t h e LZfFBR by p o s s i b l y as much as t e n y e a r s and
t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e S B R ' s lower f i s s i l e i n v e n t o r y , t h e t e c h n i c a l u n c e r t a i n t i e s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e concept p r e c l u d e f i n a l judgments such as D r . O t t h a s
o f f e r e d . I n a d d i t i o n , o n l y a minimum amount of s t u d y of plutonium-fueled
r e a c t o r s h a s been performed, so t h a t system must b e c o n s i d e r e d as more
s p e c u l a t i v e than t h e U-233-fueled ZISBR.

6. Comment:

.
", . . t h e r e are i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t e a r l y g e n e r a t i o n molten ,salt r e a c t o r s may
b e b e t t e r a b l e t o compete economically w i t h l i g h t water r e a c t o r s and hence
r e a c h commercial a c c e p t a n c e a t an earlier d a t e . The p r i n c i p a l advantage
of MSR is t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n and t h e c a p a b i l i t y of
on-stream r e f u e l i n g , 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 c y c l e c o s t . Although i n t h e 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 b e 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 c o n c e p t u a l d e s i g n s t u d i e s performed t o d a t e , both t h e molten s a l t

c o n v e r t e r r e a c t o r and t h e molten s a l t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r are p r o j e c t e d t o have
f a v o r a b l e 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 r e p o r t e d i n
ORNL-4812, t h e c a p i t a l c o s t s s h o u l d b e ' a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same as those of
l i g h t water r e a c t o r s w h i l e t h e f u e l c y c l e c o s t s could b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
lower. While t h e s e s t u d i e s are encouraging w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e molten
s a l t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r , i t is n e v e r t h e l e s s i m p o r t a n t t o recognize t h a t t h e
 V.18-21

-4 -
system i s a t a n e a r l y s t a g e of development a t p r e s e n t and t h a t t h e t e c h -
nical u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e concept p r e c l u d e a c c u r a 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 c o n t e n t i o n
t h a t f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n i s t h e l a r g e s t and most u n c e r t a i n component of LYFBR
f u e l c y c l e c o s t cannot be s u b s t a n t i a t e d b a s e d on examination of c u r r e n t
LMFBR technology. T h i s i t e m i s treated i n more d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n 11 of
the Final Statement.

7. Comment:

"By e x t e n d i n g t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s t o 2020 t h e importance of t h e

assumed h i g h b r e e d i n g r a t i o f o r t h e LMFBR i s a c c e n t u a t e d and t h e problems
of a c h i e v i n g commercial s t a t u s a r e minimized. Admittedlv. t h e r e are
technical problems which must be solved b e f o r e ?lSR could f u l f i l l i t s
promise. These problems can be solved o n l y i f h i g h e r p r i o r i t y is Riven
t o d e v e l o p i n g MSR technology. The MSR c a n make a major c o n t r i b u t i o n t o
t h e n u c l e a r economy o n l y if introduced b e f o r e t h e f a s t b r e e d e r becomes
commercial. But t h e r e i s enough u n c e r t a i n t y a s t o when t h a t might be
t h a 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 h i g h e r l e v e l
than h e r e t o f o r e seems t o be warranted."

Response:

The AEC a g r e e s t h a t problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h molten s a l t r e a c t o r technology

c o u l d b e s o l v e d more e x p e d i t i o u s l v i f h i g h e r p r i o r i t y were Riven t o t h e
program. However, t h e c u r r e n t AEC p o l i c y is t o c o n t i n u e t h e MSBQ program a s
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.
F u r t h e r , t h e AEC d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e statement t h a t " t h e molten s a l t
r e a c t o r c a n make c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e n u c l e a r economy o n l y i f i n t r o d u c e d
b e f o r e t h e f i r s t b r e e d e r 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 N a t i o n ' s thorium reserves w i t h h i g h e r u t i l i z a t i o n
e f f i c i e n c y t h a n c a n be achieved w i t h t h e l i g h t water b r e e d e r and high
t e m p e r a t u r e gas-cooled r e a c t o r s , and t h e molten s a l t b r e e d e r r e a c t o r is
c u r r e n t l y t h e o n l y thorium burning r e a c t o r concept which h a s p o t e n t i a l
f o r very h i g h thorium u t i l i z a t i o n . I n any e v e n t , t h e key. t o s u c c e s s f o r
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 c o n c e p t r a t h e r t h a n whether i t is i n t r o d u c e d a s t h e f i r s t
commercial b r e e d e 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 d e f e n s i v e arnuinp. a g a i n s t somewhat vague c r i t i c f s r n s of t h e
JiMFBR program. I t is i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n t h a t I n o t e a tendency t o d i s p a r a r e
alternates r a t h e r t h a n t o s t a n d on t h e m e r i t s , o f t h e LFrFBP,. I n e r s o n a l l y
do n o t c o n s i d e r W B R a s a shoo-in t o s o l v e a l l t h e N a t i o n ' s energv nrohlems
and I would n o t c o n s i d e r a s l i p p a E e of f i v e , t e n or more y e a r s t i l l t h e
f a s t b r e e d e r becomes c o m o e t i t i v e a s being t r a g i c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , I do f e e l
t h e b r e e d e r has enough merit t o warrant.a v i g o r o u s e f f o r t , but n o t t o t h e
 V. 18-22

-5-

e x c l u s i o n 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 e v a l u a t i o n of t h e merits of a l t e r n a t e s , b u t
i n some i n s t a n c e s I f e e l i t has n e e d l e s s l y gone beyond its province i n
that direction."

Response:

In t h e c i t e d pages of t h e D r a f t Statement t h e i n t e n t w a s t o examine argu-

ments t h a t had been r a i s e d s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e need f o r t h e LMFBR w a s
less u r g e n t t h a n b e l i e v e d by t h e AEC. I n o u r view t h o s e arguments a r e
e r r o n e o u s and i t s h o u l d n o t 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 t h e t e x t . These p o i n t s were d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n Chapter
11 (Cost-Benefit A n a l y s i s ) , of which t h e c i t e d pages provided only a
summary. With r e g a r d t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e energy
t e c h n o l o g i e s were n o t a d e q u a t e l y 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 S e c t i o n 6 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , where both t h e AEC and opposing
views on a l t e r n a t i v e t e c h n o l o g i e s are f u l l y d i s c u s s e d . It s h o u l d a l s o
be n o t e d t h a t t h e Statement does n o t s e l e c t t h e LMFBR and exclude
o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e technology o p t i o n s . The p o i n t is r e p e a t e d l y made
t h a t t h e LXFBR is b u t one of a number of energy p r o d u c t i o n systems which
w i l l be needed and t h a t oth'er f e a s i b l e systems s h o u l d b e developed, as
q u i c k l y as t h e y can, to t h e p o i n t of commercial usage.

9. Comment:

"There i s some r i s k t h a t t h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t s a n d / o r t i m e t a b l e ( o f 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 h e p r o j e c t e d performance and
c o s t a d v a n t a g e s of t h e LMFBR may n o t be f u l l y achieved i n p r a c t i c e . Thus
t h e p r i c e t a g c o u l d b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r o r t h e b e n e f i t s somewhat less
than predicted. True, t h e r a t i o of long-term b e n e f i t s t o n e a r term c o s t s
( b o t h d i s c o u n t e d t o account f o r t i m e l a p s e ) would probably s t i l l b e
s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r t h a n one ( i f t h e LHFBR is d e l a y e d ) . The r e a l
q u e s t i o n is how one manages t o f i n a n c e $11b i l l i o n p l u s . i n e x t r a c o s t
i n t h e 1980s o r 1990s f o r t h i s one approach."

Response:

The D r a f t Statement r e p o r t e d a n e t d e f i c i t i n t h e 1980's and 1990's i n an

WFBR economy. F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s h a s 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 r o d u c e d through c a l c u l a t i o n of e n d - o f - l i f e forward c o s t s of
LWRs i n o p e r a t i o n b e f o r e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e b r e e d e r . R e c a l c u l a t i o n
h a s shown t h a t i n f a c t t h e LMFBR shows b e n e f i t s from t h e y e a r of i t s
introduction. S e c t i o n 11.2.4 d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s u l t s of t h e new
calculations.

10. Comment:

"The p o i n t is t h a t t h e LMFBR program is worth p u r s u i n g b u t as a p r a c t i c a l

matter one may have t o a c c e p t d e l a y s and somewhat lesser b e n e f i t s . I t is
 V.18-23

-6-

in t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t i t seems premature t o f o r e c l o s e o p t i o n s 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 p r o v i d i n g b e n e f i t s
on a s h o r t e r time span."

Response :

Continued development of t h e LMTBR does n o t f o r e c l o s e t h e development of

o t h e r promising energy t e c h n o l o g i e s . As noted i n t h e r e s p o n s e t o Comment
No. 8 , t h e g o a l of t h e Wr'B?. program is t h e development of a v f a b l e energy
p r o d u c t i o n system o p t i o n . Whether or not t h a t o p t i o n is e x e r c i s e d 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. I n t h e r e p o r t , "The N a t i o n ' s
Energy Future,"* an i n t e R r a t e d $10 b i l l i o n energy R&D proRram w a s develobed
f o r t h e p e r i o d 1975-1979. D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s timeframe c o v e r s t h e
p e r i o d of h i g h e s t a c t i v i t y and expense f o r t h e LMFBR program, o n l y about
25% o f t h i s energy R&D budget is a l l o c a t e d t o LWBR a c t i v i t i e s . N e i t h e r
t h e amount of funding needed t o develop t h e LMFBR nor any a c t i o n s
p r e c l u d i n g e n e r g y o p t i o n s e l e c t i o n by t h e normal u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y p r o c e s s e s
w i l l f o r e c l o s e t h e 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 t e c h n o l o g i e s .

11. Comment:
It
It s h o u l d b e noted t h a t t h e . l a r g e s t s h a r e of t h e c o s t of g e n e r a t i n g
n u c l e a r e l e c t r i c i t y l i e s i n t h e c a p i t a l investment i n t h e p l a n t . Further-
more, t h e p l a n t investment is probably t h e most u n c e r t a i n c o s t c o m o n e n t
f o r a l l p l a n t s , including l i g h t water reactors. 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 e g a r d i n g r e l a t i v e p l a n t c o s t s . I t is l a r g e l y f o r t h i s r e a s o n 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 it a t i v e .
Response:

The AEC is i n agreement w i t h t h e s e comments but emphasizes the need t o

conduct major program p l a n n i n g 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 a n c e , w e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e inforination p r e s e n t e d
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 p e r h a p s some c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e meaning of 'Commercial

introduction.' On page 3.5-13 we f i n d :

"The year of commercial i n t r o d u c t i o n is d e f i n e d a s 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 o p e r a t i o n . 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 o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e y e a r
of i n t r o d u c t i o n and t h e followinR y e a r , s i x t e e n d u r i n g t h e
n e x t tw, t h i r t y - t w o d u r i n g t h e n e x t two y e a r s , and economics
w i l l d i c t a t e the numbers t h e r e a f t e r . "
-
*'*The N a t i o n ' s
Energy F u t u r e , " a r e p o r t t o t h e P r e s i d e n t of t h e 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 h e i n d i c a t e d r a t e of a d d i t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l i e d
t o t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s . I t does seem t h a t i n s t a l l i n g as many as
-
56 units i n t h e f i r s t s i x y e a r s of deployment is o p t i m i s t i c . It seems
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 i n t r o d u c t i o n of l a r g e HTGRs. I b e l i e v e
t h e e x p e c t e d LWR p o p u l a t i o n would b a r e l y be a b l e t o s u p p l y t h e plutonium
needed t o s t a r t 56 p l a n t s on t h a t s c h e d u l e s t a r t i n g i n 1987, (assuming
t h e LWRs o p e r a t e a t t h e i r f o r e c a s t c a p a c i t y f a c t o r ) b u t t h e r e would
soon b e a s h o r t a g e of plutonium i f t h e i m p l i e d a c c e l e r a t i o n of i n s t a l -
l a t i o n were continued. "

Response:

The "doubling formula'' d e f i n e d i n t h e Statement s i m u l a t e s t h e a b i l i t y of

m a n u f a c t u r e r s t o " t o o l up" f o r LEfFBR p r o d u c t i o n , and i n p r o p e r c o n t e x t i t
is used as a l i m i t i n g rate. However, t h e a c t u a l i n t r o d u c t i o n c o n s t r a i n t
a l l o w s o n l y one r e a c t o r i n t h e y e a r of i n t r o d u c t i o n , e i g h t r e a c t o r s i n t h e
f o l l o w i n g biennium, s i x t e e n i n t h e n e x t biennium, etc. A similar formula,
assuming two r e a c t o r s t h e f i r s t biennium, was used t o l i m i t HTGR i n t r o -
d u c t i o n f o l l o w i n g 1982. In t h e absence of o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t s , such a l i m i t
must b e a p p l i e d t o p r e v e n t t h e model from choosing l a r g e numbers of an
e c o n o m i c a l l y f a v o r a b l e p l a n t as soon as i t is i n t r o d u c e d .

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 r e f e r e n c e c a l c u l a t i o n s

were t h o s e g i v e n i n WASH-1139(72). S e n s i t i v i t y s t u d i e s c o n s i d e r e d 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 r o d u c t i o n as w e l l . Also, i n s e v e r a l of t h e
s e n s i t i v i t y c a l c u l a t i o n s , t h e rates of p e n e t r a t i o n of t h e v a r i o u s r e a c t o r
t y p e s were l e f t f o r s e l e c t i o n by economic p r e f e r e n c e a l o n e , 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 t h e s e cases t h e "doubling formulas" were a p p l i e d
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 b u t t h e most
a d v e r s e c o n d i t i o n s , LEIFBR's p e n e t r a t e d a t t h i o l i m i t i n g r a t e when allowed
to.

13. Comment:

"I h a v e a number of m i s c e l l a n e o u s q u e s t i o n s and o b s e r v a t i o n s , n o 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 n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t i n g t h e c o n c l u s i o n s
of t h e d r a f t s t a t e m e n t . On Page 1.10-3 t h e r e is a s t a t e m e n t t h a t a 1000 MJe
W B R p l a n t would have an annual p r o d u c t i o n of 0.28 metric t o n s of plutonium
and 0.067 metric t o n s of f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s . Assuming 2500 EKJt and 292 days
o p e r a t i o n (802 c a p a c i t y f a c t o r ) t h e annual rate of f i s s i o n i n g would b e some
770 k g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a b r e e d i n g r a t i o of roughly 1.3. I suspect a
s l i p p a g e of t h e decimal p o i n t f o r t h e weight of f i s s i o n products."

Re spons e

A review of t h e mathematics and assumptions i n v o l v e d 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 n o t i n g an e r r o r i n t h e computed
w e i g h t o f f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s . The c o r r e c t f i g u r e s h o u l d have been 0.67
metric t o n n e s and t h e F i n a l Statement h a s been modified a c c o r d i n g l y .
 V .18-25

-8-

14. Comment:

"The discussion of 'energy parks' (page 1.5-2 and elsewhere) is of course

not unique to LMFBRs. Also, while the concept has merits it also has a
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. Related specifically to LSFBRs
is the assumption that a typical fuel fabrication plant could handle some
80 GWe of LMFBR capacity. Parks of this size are unlikely, so the possible
elimination of fuel transportation is not compatible with such large
fabrication plants. Whether such large fabrication plants are needed
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
WBRs."

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 "model" plant discussed in Section 4 of
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. Plants of this
size would relate to a mature LMFBR industry, when a sufficient fuel market
exists. In earlier years plants would be sized in accordance with pro-
jected loads.

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. A better
alternative would seem to be to operate existing LWRs at shorter
exposure and perhaps moderately higher conversion ratio (e.g., by lower
 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. A quite similar suggestion (pages 3-17 and 3-20 of 111-B)
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. An alternate strategy would be to modify fuel
management tactics of the LiIFBKs to save dollar costs commensurate with
a reduced plutonium yield. There are a number of options. Free enter-
prise 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."
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. Also as you point out, the Pu-fueled LVRs utilized
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.

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 associ-
ated 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 c o m p e t i t i v e advantape i n t h e near term.

However, t h e LMFBR p r o v i d e s t h e s y n e r g i s t i c economic i n c e n t i v e of lowering
t h e f u e l c y c l e 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 r o u g h l y a mill/kwh. Later i n t h e s t u d y t h e LMFRR is c o m p e t i t i v e
i n i t s 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 c y c l e c o s t s a v i n e s t o
t h e o p e r a t i n g LWRs, T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e is a r e a l i n c e n t i v e t o deplov t h e
LMFBR i n l a r g e numbers a s demonstrated by t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s .

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 y e a r 2010 t h e

LEiFBR o x i d e f u e l d e s i g n s , f o r a l l growth p r o j e c t i o n s examined i n t h e
s t u d y , can p r o v i d e 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 t h e rate o f about 6% a y e a r ,

"This seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e Bethe Panel r e p o r t which i n d i c a t e s an

a n n u a l y i e l d o f o n l y 3.1% (+ f r a c t i o n a l y i e l d of 0.138 p e r f u e l c y c l e
4.5 y e a r s f u e l c y c l e t i m e ) f o r oxide f u e l . Presumably, one would
e x p e c t t h e LMFBR growth rate t o be a s 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 l e c t r i c a l energy demand."

Response :

The performance of t h e o x i d e f u e l e d LEIPBR d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix IIT-B

r e s u l t s from r e d u c t i o n i n d e s i g n c o n s e r v a t i s m based on t h e c u r r e n t RbD
program. S p e c i f i c d e t a i l s of r e d u c t i o n i n d e s i g n c o n s e r v a t i s m are
c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 11 of t h e F i n a l Statement. Based on t h i s informa-
t i o n , 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
a n n u a l e l e c t r i c a l growth rate of 6% a s s t a t e d i n t h e F i n a l Statement i s
valid.

18. Comment:

"Since W B R , GCFR and HSR are expected to have lower fuel cycle costs
than LWRs, t h e i r c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s w i t h LWRs w i l l undoubtedly be determined
by p l a n t investment. Although much less e f f o r t h a s been 'spent on t h e
development of GCFR t h a n LKFBR, and perhaps i t is f a i r t o s a y i t s technology
l a g s t h a t of LKFBR, t h e r e a r e r e a s o n s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h e c a p i t a l c o s t of t h e
GCF'R may b e lower t h a n t h a t of LMFBR a l t h o u g h t h e i r f u e l c y c l e c o s t s a r e
e x p e c t e d t o be comparable, Hence, one should n o t conclude t h a t commercial
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. The molten s a l t
reactor i s e s t i m a t e d t o have f u e l c y c l e 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, p r i m a r i l y because f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n is e l i m i n a t e d .
T h i s 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 g e n e r a t i o n p l a n t s when
f a s t b r e e d e r fuel is both e x p e n s i v e and u n c e r t a i n of l i f e . For t h e s e
r e a s o n s t h e r e is a good chance t h a t t h e molten s a l t r e a c t o r could becone
c o m p e t i t i v e w i t h l i g h t water r e a c t o r s and hence commerciaily a c c e p t a b l e
a t an Earlier d a t e than e i t h e r f a s t b r e e d e r . 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 o p e r a t e d t o emphasize conversion
of plutonium t o U-233, r a t h e r t h a n maximum b r e e d i n g r a t i o . I t i s a t t r a c -
t i v e w i t h r e s p e c t t o both low c o s t and minimum demand f o r uranium o r e and

\
 V.18-28

-11-

s e p a r a t i v e work. I t could have maximum impact on uranium r e s o u r c e s i f

i n t r o d u c e d , n o 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 b e f o r e 2000 i f i t s 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 y e a r s a t b e s t . Thus, t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e MSR could
v i r t u a l l y match a near-term f a s t b r e e d e r i n i t s imDact on o r e s e p a r a t i v e
work requirements o r could become c o m e r c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e 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 b r e e d e r 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 i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e molten s a l t breeder r e a c t o r i s
l i k e l y t o b e i n t h e e a r l y 199O's, assuming t h a t t h e n e c e s s a r y RCD could
be performed s u c c e s s f u l l y . With regard t o molten s a l t c o n v e r t e r s , 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 c o n v e r t e r i n a d d i t i o n
t o t h e HTCR s i n c e a b r e e d e r w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o o f f s e t dwindling uranium
reserves.
 v.19-1

P. 0 . b x 11267
Knoxvillep TN 37919
A p r i l 22, 1974
Office o f t h e Assistant General Manager f o r
Biomedical and Environmental Research and
S a f e t y Programs
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Re: WASH - 1535
Washington, D.C. 20545

Sir:
We a p p r e c i a t e the opportunity t o review and r e p l y t o
Breeder Reactor Program ( WASH -
t h e Draft Environmental Statement of t h e Liquid Ketal Fast
1535 ), dated Marrh, 1974.
The scope of t h e DES i s commendable; however, t h e following
iboints should be given f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n a
Ptueh of t h e impetus f o r r a p i d development o f t h e
l ' i q u i d Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program i s derived from
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e o u r r e n t g e n e r a t i o n of. Light Water Reactors
i s consuming uranium fuel a t a r a t e whioh can not be 000-
Tomloally maintained for l o n g e r than a few more deoadest
There has been a progressive increase, in breeder
b e n e f i t s over t h e period in whioh t h e U C oost-
b e n e f i t s t u d i e s have been conducted l a r g e l y due
t o increases i n projected c o s t s f o r uranium and
s e p a r a t i v e 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 s e c t i o n 1.11-l
The prooess of e n r i c h i n g t h e 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 f u s i o n p l a n t s , i s indeed extravabZ;ant,
not f u l l y u t i l i z i n g t h e small amounts of U-235 p r e s e n t i n
o r e , and even then r e q u i r i n g v a s t amounts of e l e c t r i c a l
energy. Consequently, t o follow t h e argument propounded i n
t h e DES, w i t h i n t h e next few decades t h e c o s t of o b t a i n i n g
and s n r i o h i n g s c a r c e uranium fuel will r e s u l t i n correspond-
i n g l y higher c o a t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e l e c t r i c a l production i n
LWB's. Xowever, r e c e n t developments and p o a s i b i l i t i e s oompli-
c a t e t h e issuet. I n t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h and development i n t h e use
of c e n t r l @ g e enrichment, both domestically and abroad ( &-
enccp, 183r 1270-1272 (1974) ), o f f e r s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
uranium s e p a r a t i o n a t a oonsiderable savings over p r e s e n t
gaseous d i f f u s i o n processes. A d d i t i o n a l l y p i t 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 t h e developmental stage techniques
0

which might n o t o n l y render both t h e gaseous d i f f u s i o n and

o e n t r i f u g e p r o c e s s e s o b s o l e t e but which might, a t t h e 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 o r e , allowing known reserves t o l a s t f o r
dsoades more. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e ABCos j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a
massive commitment t o t h e LMBPBR Program i s based on t h e issues
of minimiring c o s t s due t o procurement and enrichment o f
uranium fuel, and of n o 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 n e a r f u t u r e , t o t h e e x t e n t
t h a t j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e LMFBR Program is based on matters
of time and money, t h e n developments a f f e c t i n g sucn time-and-
money c o n s i d e r a t i o n s should be f u l l y explored, It would be
u a e f u l if t h e F i n a l Environmental Statement i n c l u d e d a d i s -
c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of c e n t r i f u g e and laser enrichment
technology f o r t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s of t h e L6FBB Programs
Although the DES does mentlon t h e P a Q t t h a t an adequate
cost-comparison a n a l y s i s s h o u l d take I n t o account f a c t o r s
o t h e r t h a n c a p i t a l and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s , f u e l c o s 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 h e r e t o f o r e con-
sidered " e x t e r n a l " t o energy-production costs, such as en-
vironmental and s o c i e t a l c o s t s , should be " i n t e r n a l i z e d " 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 " e x t e r n a l f 4 f a c t o r s were
s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d 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 S e c t i o n 8 ( A l t e r n a t l v e Teohnology Options ), wherein t h e
f e a s i b i l i t y of t h e s e o p t i o n s i s measured i n dollars-and-cents,
and i n many cases r e j e c t e d 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 " i n t e r n a l ' c o s t s were given p r i m a r y and o f t e n to-
tal c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of 'externah" c o s t s . For
example, t h e d i s c u s s i o n on *Hydrogen and Other S y n t h e t i a Fuels"
o o n t a i n s t h e argument
A t an e l e c t r i c power cost of 5 mills/kWh, t h e
power c o s t I n terms of hydrogen produced i s
a b o u t i O $ / l b H ~ rWe s u l t i n g I n 81 t o t a l c o s t ,
e x c l u d i n g labor, maintenance, and overhead
c o s t s , of 14,3$/lb H2, o r about $ 2,801 106
Btu. T h i s i s c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r than t h e c o s t
of o t h e r f u e l s ( eOg., low Btu gas can ba pro-
duced f om c o a l a t a c o s t of about 60$ t o
85$/ 108 Btu ),

Although f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g 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 n o t i n any manner accorded a monetary o r
 v. 19-3

- 3 -

otherwise q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a t u s . Such avoidance of * I n t e r n a l -

i z i n g “ c o s t s i s s y m p t o m a t i c of the e n t i r e A l t e r n a t i v e Tech-
nology Options d i s c u s s i o n , and t h i s weakness should be reme-
died i n t h e FES. I n t h i a period i n h i s t o r y , the p u b l i c i s
i n c r e a s i n g l y aware t h a t there a r e “ c o s t s “ i n energy pro-
duction b e s i d e s those r e a d on the meter o u t s i d e onees home
and p r i n t e d 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 p u b l i c would a p p r e c i a t e t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d and
oomprehensive a n a l y s i s of A l t e r n a t i v e 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 c o s t s . Section 8 of the LMFBR Program DES i s
n o t f u l l y complete without such a comprehensive cost-compari-
son a n a l y s i s .
The d i s c u s s i o n on “Conservation of EnergyM ( Section
8 C ) ab a n A l t e r n a t i v e Technology Option i s wide-ranging and
o u t l i n e s how v a r i o u s 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 d i s c u s s i o n i s
n e v e r t h e l e s s l i m i t e d i n t h a t changed n e o e s s i t a t l n g s e r i o u s
e d a p t a t i o n a i n our n a t i o n a l l i f e - s t y l e a r e n o t included, Cert-
etnlys i t would be d i f P i c u l t i f n o t impossible t o q u a n t i f y
such changes i n t h e manner t h a t o t h e r conservation measured i n
tile s e c t i o n were q u a n t i f i e d as t o p o s s i b l e savings, and some
ohanges might a t t h i s t i m e be so repugnant t o s e c t o r s of t h e
p u b l i e t h a t t h e 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, t h e 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 d e s i r a b l e
or needed, and a s e c t i o n on conservation as an A l t e r n a t i v e
Technology Option i n t h e DES provides an e x c e l l e n t opportunley
t o begin t o enumerate changes in our l i f e - s t y l e which might
now deem radical.
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 n o t as accustomed t o t h e v a s t energy resources which
are expended t o maintain t h i s l i f e - s t y l e . A scenario of f u t u r e
l i f e might Include r e s i d i n g i n much c l o s e r proximity t o o n e o s
place of employment. Replacement of t h e l a r g e l y home-isolated
entertainment c e n t e r s ( audio and v i s u a l ) by more e f f i c i e n t
p u b l i c o r semi-publio s y s t e m s 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 t h e c r i t e r i a of h e a t i n g and
cooling requirements a n d m a t e r i a l s u t i l i z a t i o n ) single-family
dwellings m i g h t be reversed i n t h e f u t u r e .
While we may now r e c o i l from t h e major changes i n our
l i f e - s t y l e which would be i n d i c a t e d 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-
 V.19-4

-4-
sider, as a s i g n i f i c a n t aonservation measure, t h e a l t e r a t i o n of
t h e l i f e - s t y l e t o which we have become accustomed. The LPIFBR
mador impact on our l i v e s
useful
-
Program DZS does n o t probe conservation measures having suoh a
. a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s s o r t might prove

The basis f o r e a r l y i n t r o d u c t i o n of LMFBR'S i s changed

i n the f a c e of a slower i n c r e a s e 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 f o r e c a s t s used i n t h e LMFBR
DES do not include those demand f o r e c a s t s which include t h e p r i c e
of e k e c t r i c i t y as a c a u s a l f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e demand f o r elec-
t r i c i t y . ( S e c t i o n 2.1.2.4) T h i s i s inexcusable i n l i g h t of r e c e n t
events. These t9xcogniged" s t u d i e s which were used i n p r o j e c t i o n
e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e LMFBE DES g e n e r a l l y conolude t h a t t h e p r i c e of
e l e c t r i c i t y does n o t i n f l u e n c e demand. "Unrecognized" s t u d i e s (1-5).
a t l e a s t by the AEC, conclude t h a t t h e p r i c e of e l e c t r i c i t y i s
a determinant of demand and t h a t p r e d i c t i o n s of f u t u r e needs
can be g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d by t h i s c a u s a l faotor. (1. D. Chapman,
T. T y r r e l l , T. Mount, " E l e c t r i c i t y demand growth and t h e 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 t h e S i e r r a Club
Conf. on Power and P u b l i c Policy, Vermont, Jan. 1972. 3. P. W.
lrIac~voy. t'Economic s t r a t e g y for developing n u c l e a r breeder reac-
t o r s * , MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Ma. 1969. 4. T. D. Hount, L. D.
Chapman, To J, T y r r e l l . " E l e c t r i c i t y demand i n t h e U . S . : an
econometrics a n a l y s 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 h e s i s , Cornel1 Univ. 1969) A comparison 4f t h e
expected demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y by the "reoognized" f o r e c a s t e r s
f o r t h e year 2000 as e x t r a p o l a t e d 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 r e d i c t a
range of 1.91-3,45 t r i l l i o n KWH, depending mainly on p r i c e
assumptions, ( e l e c t r i c i t y p r i c e doubling by 2000 u s i n g 1970
p r i c e s , a 3.38 I n c r e a s e p e r year o r a p r i c e i n c r e a s e of 19% f o r
t h e period 1970-2000) I n t h e same study t h a t t h e s e e s t i m a t e s
a r e taken from (11, a p r e d i c t i o n 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 c e
d e o l i n e of 245% from 1970-1980 and 12% each 10 y e a r s t h e r e a f t e r
u n t i l 2000 was used, which i s a very u n l i k e l y occurrence.
E i s t o r i c a l l y t h e p r i c e of e l e c t r i c i t y d e c l i n e d u n t i l
1970 when t h e f i r s t r e a l ( d e f l a t e d ) p r i c e i n c r e a s e occurred,
The p r i c e of e l e c t r i c i t y h a s been s t a b l e o r i n c r e a s i n g e v e r s i n c e
then and i s expected t o i n c r e a s e f u r t h e r due t o environmental
p r o t e o t i o n c o s t s . Aubrey J. Wagner, chairman of t h e Tennessee
Valley Authority h a s s t a t e d t h a t nTVA would be faced w i t h a n
approximate doubling of i t s revenue requirements," t o meet t h e
many environmental p r o t e c t i o n costs. ( P u b l i c 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 y e a 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 t h e y e a r s 1969-1972

was 7 . 6 5 , 6 . 8 $ , 4.2% and 2.9; r e s p e c t i v e l y . The decrease i n t h e
r a t e of i n c r e a s e over these y e a r s i s 595. WRecognized" f o r e c a s 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 c e i s a
determinant of demand growth i s supported by the simultaneous
occurrence of a decrease i n t h e r a t e of i n c r e a s e of demand and
t h e i n c r e a s e i n the p r i c e 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 h a s never i n t h e
h i s t o r y of mankind involved so many resources and committments of
l o n g term guardianship an agency i s r e q u i r e d by l a w t o examine
a l t e r n a t i v e s of which t h e basic assumption of need i s o m . It
is i n c r e d i b l e t h a t demand p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h e f u t u r e could be
examined s u f f i c i e n t l y i n l e s s than two pages o f a n DES. The
magnitude o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e "recognized" and
f%mrecognized" e s t i m a t e s should be s u f f i a i e n t p r o p e l l e n t f o r a n
agency t o examine the s t u d i e s f u r t h e r as t o the assumptions made
and whether t h e s e assumptions a r e i n f a c t s t i l l a p p l i c a b l e . A
thorough d i s c u s s i o n of t h e reasons f o r these g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n
demand p r e d i c t i o n s and t h e supporting evidence f o r t h e s e predic-
t i o n s i s t h e 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 t o a more e q u i t a b l e l e v e l . " ( S e c t i o n 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 t h e two
groups, poor a n d nonpoor, h a s , b e e n widening s i n c e the advent of
inexpensive power. "Helping t h e poor" can not be used t o j u s t i g y
t h e implementation of an LMFBR program. I n the p e r s p e c t i v e on
a l t e r n a t l v e technology o p t i o n s ( V o l . IV P - 3 ) t h e r e 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 n a t u r a l enthusham
of t h e i r proponents 9111 h i g h l i g h 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 c o l l e c t i o n
of unsupported emotional inferences. "he i n f e r e n c e t h a t n a t u r a 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 n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e , could be used
t o c h a r a c t e r i z e c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of t h e LMFBR program, as well as
o t h e 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 n o t been discovered I s a misuse of s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y .
Upon t h e implementation of t h e LMFBR Program, a number
of n u c l e a r power p a r k s have been postulated. This p a r k could
c o n s i s t of a r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , s e v e r a l n u c l e a r power r e a c t o r s ,
and o t h e r types of n u c l e a r f u e l f a c i l i t i e s . I t i s stated i n t h e
DES t h a t c e n t e r s from 10,000 MWe t o 50,000 M W e have been postu-
lated. S p e c i f i c p l a n s have already been made f o r SIX to eight
r e a c t o r s i n t h e 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 C l u s t e r i n g n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s i n parka
I s questioned on s e v e r a l grounds,
 V.19-6

- 6 -

One of the basic p o i n t s t o consider i s t h e s i t e s e l e c t i o n

procedureo I n Section 7.2,,605 i t i s s t a t e d :
Before nuclear power p a r k s c a n be constructed,
p r e s e n t n u c l e a r 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 devel-
oped f o r a p p l i c a t i o n t o such parks.
S i t e s e l e c t i o n i s q u i t e important, and judging from p a s t ex-
perience w i t h t h e LWR, s i t e s e l e c t i o n h a s been j u s t i f i e d a f t e r
t h e f a c t ; t h e 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 n u c l e a r parka. S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be
d i r e c t e d towards meteorological f a c t o r s i n r e l a t i o n t o con-
vection c u r r e n t s r e s u l t i n g from l a r g e numbers of cooling tow-
e r s t h a t would be concentrated i n n u c l e a r parks,
An appraisal ( u s i n g a systems approach o r some o t h e r
meaningful and a p p l i c a b l e t o o l ) of the environmental impact
of i n d u s t r y t h a t would be a t t r a c t e d t o t h e s e power c l u s t e r s
should be made i n t h e FES. I n Section 5.3.3 i t i s s t a t e d t h a t
a n u c l e a r park would a t t r a c t s e v e r a l l a r g e 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 i t is i m p l i e d t h a t nuclear parks would
cause e x t e n s i v e i n d u s t r i a l development. I n add1t i o n t o t h e
above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , the FES should e v a l u a t e t h e s o c i a l a n d
eoonomio impacts of t h e s e 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 r e d i c t t h e e f f e o t
of added heat t o t h e environment from i n d u s t r i e s a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h the n u c l e a r park. Thus, t h e FES w i l l have t o address i t s e l f
t o n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s a n d the a s s o c i a t e d i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s t h a t
they a t t a r o t .
A major problem w i t h a n u c l e a r 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 t h e environment i s h o t r e a l l y an anvironmental
Impact but i s i n s t e a d an index of such impact, a o t u a l impacts
a t e b e t t e r described by enumerating t h e e f f e c t s of heated d i s -
charge." The p o i n t 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 t h e index-versus-impact argument should
not be used t o J u s t i f y inadequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n of thermal .
impacts. I n a p p r o p r i a t e s i t e s e l e c t i o n 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 i o t a could be lessened.
I n Section 7.4,3.5 t h e DES d i s c u s s e s 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 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 p a r k .
The FES should a d d r e s s i t s e l f more f u l l y t o these two problem
a r e a s a n d provide suggestions t o minimize o r prevent t h e f t
and sabotage. Consideration of n u c l e a r parks as s t s a t e g l o
t a r g e t s f o r f o r e i g n powers t o a t t a c k o r f o r r a d i c a l and f a n -
a t i c groups t o use f o r attainment of t h e i r g o a l s should be
included i n the FES.
 v.19-7

- 7 -

Throughout t h e DES t h e l o c a l and r e g i o n a l e f f e c t s of

parameters such as r a d i o a c t i v e doses, l a n d use, t r a n s m i s s i o n
l i n e s , water u s e f o r h e a 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 n u c l e a r p l a n t . I f t h e n u c l e a r park concept
I s adopted, and t h e s e c e n t e r s range from 10,000 MWe t o 50,000
me i n c a p a c i t y , then t h e 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 e g i o n a l e r ' i e c t a upon t h e basis of t h e t o t a l
c a p a c i t y of t h e f a c i l i t y and n o t a s i n g l e p l a n t .
S e o t i o n 1,11.2 s t a t e s 'one of t h e p r i n c l p a l advantages
of t h e LMFBB i s t h a t i t h e l p s 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 n u c l e a r power production could
save c o n s i d e r a b l e amounts of uranium f u e l , a n d 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 i m i t e d s u p p l i e s
of f b s s i l f u e l s . These are presumably v a l i d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b u t
the r e s o u r c e consumption r e s u l t i n g d i r e c t l y from c o n s t r u c t i o n
and o p e r a t i o n may be more s i g n i f i c a n t i n i m p a c t t h a t t h e DES
would r e v e a l . Table 10.2 l i s t s t h e materials a n d e s t i m a t e d
q u a n t i t i e s t o be used i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a 1000 M W e LMFBR
p l a n t , w h i l e Table 10.3 compares production, u s e s , a n d r e s o u r c e s
of these m a t e r i a l s . The production a n d consumption f i g u r e s are
based on 1969 data which a r e o f q u e s t i o n a b l e use i n e s t i m a t i n g
p r o d u c t i o n and consumption of these m a t e r i a l s i n t h e futUr0 of
am economy expanding consumption i n a l l s e c t o r 8 ( n o t only i n
n u c l e a r energy production ). The assumption i s made i n t h e DES
t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s can produce o r o b t a i n t h e r e s o u r c e s i t
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 c o n s i d e r a b l e
amount of copper i s t o be used i n each LMFBR p l a n t ( n o t t o men-
t i o n t h a t which would be r e q u i r e d f o r t r a n s m i s s i o a l i n e s and
i n d u s t r i a l c e n t e r s n e a r t h e n u c l e a r park8 ). &sed on the 1969
figures in t h e DES, t h e annual consumptlon of copper i n t h e
U . S . i s more tnan h a l f o f t h e known r e s e r v e s i n t h e U.S. : thus,
we are faced w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of s e a r c h i n g f o r more r e s e r v e s
o r e x t r a c t i n g low-grade ore from known but p r e v i o u s l y u n p r o f i t -
able holdings. E i t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e i n v o l v e s 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 i n -
evitable, s i n c e many of t h e s e m a t e r i a l s are o b t a i n e d from o t h e r
o o u n t r i e s ( copper from C h i l e , 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.
Social c o s t s t o people l l v i n g n e a r o r working i n copper
ana. o t h e r m i n e r a l m i n e s could be i n c r e a s e d ; p u b l i c h e a l t h and
o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y would have t o be considered. Land and
water a8 r e s o u r c e s are presumed i n t h e DES t o be l i t t l e d i f -
f e r e n t from conventional power production u s e s p on t h e basis
of 1000 MWe p l a n t s 8 but f o r l a r z e r p l a n t s a n d n u c l e a r parks,
t h e DES has n o t f u l l 3 considered t h e e f f e c t . Recognizing t h a t
n u c l e a r parks would a t t r a o t i n d u s t r y t h e u s e of t h e s e r e s o u r c e s
l a complicated beyond t h e i r u s e by t h e p l a n t s alone.

Concerning f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s , i s i t reasonable t o as-

eume t h a t p r i v a t e u t i l i t i e s could raise t h e e s t i m a t e d cap1 t a l
 v.19-8

of $ 512 b i l l i o n ( through 1990 1 ? 15% o f the GKP seems a

l a r g e sum to be r a i s e d through p u b l i c f i n a n o l n g In an expanding
i n f l a t i o n a r y eoonomy,

-
B e s p e o t f u l l y submitted by

w d . CLL
Mlcheal T. Carter

/2&4M
Robert M. Cuahman

Carter Davirs

P a t r i c i a D. T y r r e l l
 v.19-9

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 5 4 5

DEC 3 1 1974

Mr. Micheal T. C a r t e r
Mr. Robert !I. Cushman
Nr. J. Carter Davis
Ms. P a t r i c i a D. T y r r e l l
. P. 0. BOX 11267
Knoxville, Tennessee 37319

Dear Hessrs. C a r t e r , Cushman, Davis

and PIS. T y r r e l l :

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 22, 1974 commenting on t h e Atonic

Energy Commission's Draft Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid ? f e t a l
F a s t Breeder Reactor (LXFBK). Program. The Statement has been revisec!
where appropriate i n response t o t h e many comnents received, and a copy
of the F i n a l Statement is enclosed f o r your information. Please see

**
t h e o t h e r enclosure t o this l e t t e r f o r responses t o your s p e c i f i c
comments.

It i s hoped t h a t t h e r e v i s i o n s t o the Draft Statement and t h e responses

in Enclosure 1 w i l l h e l p 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 t a f f Response t o Coments
2. F i n a l Environnental Statement,
UlFBR P r o g r a . (~?ASll-L535)
 v.19-10

Enclosure 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o C o m e n t s
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 t h e F i n a l Environmental Statement i n c l u d e d

a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of c e n t r i f u g e and laser enrichment
technology f o r t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s of t h e LMFBK Program."

Response:

As you s u g g e s t e d , d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of c e n t r i f u g e and
laser enrichment technology have been i n c l u d e d i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t .
The p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of advanced enrichment technology are d i s c u s s e d
i n S e c t i o n s 6A.l.l and 11.2. Discussions i n S e c t i o n 11 c o n t a i n the
t h e r e s u l t s of estimates of t h e maximum p o t e n t i a l economic impact of
advanced enrichment technology. I n terms of b a s e c a s e c o n d i t i o n s , t h e
development of an enrichment technology by 1990 which p r o v i d e s s e p a r a t i v e
work a t $5/kg, with no 2 3 5 4 i n t h e t a i l s , does n o t remove t h e i n c e n t i v e
€or t h e LIG'BR.

2. Comment (pp. 2-31:

"Although t h e DES does mention t h e f a c t t h a t an adequate cost-

comparison a n a l y s i s s h o u l d t a k e i n t o account f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n
c a p i t a l and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s , f u e l c o s 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 h e r e t o f o r e c o n s i d e r e d " e x t e r n a l "
t o energy-production c o s t s , such as environmental and s o c i e t a l
c o s t s , should b e " i n t e r n a l i z e d " 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 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 c o n s i d e r e d 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 S e c t i o n 8 ( A l t e r n a t i v e Technology
Options), wherein t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of t h e s e o p t i o n s ' is measured
i n dollars-and-cents, and i n many c a s e s r e j e c t e d on t h i s c r i -
t e r i o n , i t a p p e a r s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l " i n t e r n a l " c o s t s were givefi
primary and o f t e n t o t a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of
"external" c o s t s . For example, t h e d i s c u s s i o n on "Hydrogen axxi
Other S y n t h e t i c Fuels" c o n t a i n s t h e argument :

A t an e l e c t r i c power c o s t of 5 mills/kWh, t h e power c o s t

i n terms of hydrogen produced is about: l C c / l b I12 r e s u l t i n g
i n a t o t a l c o s t , e x c l u d i n g l a b o r , maintenance, and overhead
c o s t s , of 14.3c/lb !I2 o r about $2.30/175 Rtu. This is
considered h i g h e r t h a n t h e c o s t of o t h e r f u e l s (e.g., low
Btu gas can b e produced from c o a l a t a c o s t of about 60c t o
8 5 ~ / 1 0 63 t u ) .'I
 v. 19-1 1

- S e c t i o n A.6.4 -
"Although f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g page admits t h a t environ-
mental e f f e c t s would have t o b e c o n s i d e r e d , such e f f e c t s are n o t i n any
manner r e c o r d e d a monetary o r o t h e r w i s e q u a n t i t a t i v e s t a t u s . Such
avoidance of " i n t e r n a l i z i n g " 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 s c u s s i o n , and t h i s weakness should b e
remedied i n t h e FES."

Response :

External c o s t s have been c o n s i d e r e d in p r e p a r i n g t h e S e c t i o n on Alter-

n a t i v e Technology Options and were an i m p o r t a n t p a r t of t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t
d i s c u s s i o n s i n most p a r t s of t h a t Section. For example, i n t h e d i s c u s -
sion of t h e f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s i d e r e d , l i g h t water r e a c t o r s , a t a b l e
was i n c l u d e d on page A.l.1-74 of t h e D r a f t Statement comparing t h e 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 f u e l e d power p l a n t s . This
t a b l e i n c l u d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l 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 , o p e r a t i n g and maintenance c o s t s , and f u e l c o s t s ,
and a l s o covered o c c u p a t i o n a l h e a l t h and s a f e t y " c o s t s " ( f a t a l i t i e s and
i n j u r i e s ) , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , environmental d e g r a d a t i o n , and
o t h e r external c o s t s of t h e type i n d i c a t e d i n t h e l e t t e r . S i m i l a r l y ,
t h e HTGR s e c t i o n i n c l u d e d a t a b l e of t h i s t y p e (Table A.1.2-4 i n t h e
D r a f t S t a t e m e n t ) , and t h e c o a l s e c t i o n c a r r i e d a d i s c u s s i o n of " I n d i r e c t
o r External c o s t s " (page A.2-61 i n t h e D r a f 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

m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n mining and p r o c e s s i n g 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 b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o direct c o s t s r e c o v e r a b l e
from u t i l i t y revenue. Adoption of f u l l - c o s t p r i c i n g a t a l l s t a g e s of
t h e energy system - L e . , 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 u s e - would s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce b u t n o t e l i m i n a t e
t h e e x t e r n a l c o s t s . I n d i r e c t c o s t s were a l s o examined i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n s
of s o l a r energy and geothermal energy, which n o t e d fOK example, t h a t
certain costs of geothermal energy w i l l n o t appear i n t h e market p r l c e
of t h e products. These may i n c l u d e : (1) ground s u b s i d e n c e , ( 2 ) environ-
mental 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 l a n d
from o t h e r p o t e n t i a l uses, and (4) i n c r e a s e d seismic a c t i v i t y . Of c o u r s e ,
n o t a l l of t h e s e w i l l be p r e s e n t in e v e r y g e o t h e r a a 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 c o n t r o l l e d by
added p o w e r p l a n t equipment and would t h u s b e t - a s f e r r e d t o d i r e c t
costs r e c o v e r a b l e from p m e r revenue.

It s h o u l d b e k e p t 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

f o r e s e e in t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of technology development and o n l y become
a p p a r e n t as t h e technology is p l a c e d i n t o l a r g e scale commercial use.
 V.19-12
9
3

The degree t o which these e x t e r n a l c o s t s are recognized is a l s o a

function of the extent of awareness of the publSc as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s
an e x t e r n a l cost. Thus, f o r many decades the environmeutal consequences
of coal mining and automotive transportation were accepted as t o l e r a b l e
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 f u r t h e r i n i d e n t i f y i n g e x t e r n a l c o s t s and
i n t e r n a l i z i n g them a t an e a r l y s t a g e 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 a g e of s i g n i f i c a n t commercialization have s u b s t a n t i a l u n c e r t a i n t i e s
associated with evaluating t h e i r f u l l e x t e r n a l costs. I n any event,
some of the most profound though s u b t l e external c o s t s of a technology
can never adequately be expressed i n d o l l a r terms. For example, i t is
not possible t o apply a d o 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 c o a l
mining practices i n promoting Appalachian poverty. With these limita-
tions i n mind, i t is f e l t t h a t t h e extent t o which the c o s t s and b e n e 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 e x t e r n a l coats, is an adequate b a s i s on'which t o make comparisons
of the o v e r a l l advantages and disadvantages o f alternative technology
options.

3. Comment (p. 3):

"The discussion of Conservation of Energy i n s e c t i o n 8C is 'limited
in t h a t changes n e c e s s i t a t i n g s e r i o u s adaptations i n our n a t i o n a 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 d e s i r a b l e or needed.."
Response:

Conservation measures which would r e q u i r e changes i n l i f e s t y l e were

alluded t o as, f o r example, on page C.6-20 of Chapter 8 i n the Draft
Statement. Mora s p e c i f i c information on t h i s s u b j e c t has now been
added under Section 6C.6 i n the Final Statement, and your a t t e n t i o n
is d i r e c t e d thereto. It is shown t h e r e t h a t although some changes i n
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 s u b s t a n t i a l r e s t r u c t u r -
ing of our economy and perhaps even our landscapes. For example,
redesign of c i t i e s and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems requiring s e v e r a l decades
and b i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s would be among t h e 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 p o t e n t i a 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 a c t o r s , as w e l l as s o c i a l and energy
conservation matters.
 V.19-13

4. Comment (pp. 4-51

"Before embarking on an undertaking which has never in t h e h i s t o r y

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 t e r n a -
tives of which t h e b a s i c assumption of need i s one." "A thorough
discussion of t h e reasons f o r these g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n demand
p r e d i c t i o n s and t h e supporting evidence for these p r e d i c t i o n s is
the minimum requirement f o r s a t i s f y i n g NEPA."

Response :

The Final Environmental Statement has been modified t o include

discussions of energy demand p r e d i c t i o n s from a number of sources
and an expanded discussion of t h e techniques u t i l i z e d in t h e energy
demand p r o j e c t i o n s f o r the cost-benefit analysis. A n a d d i t i o n a l
coat-benefit c a l c u l a t i o n was made t o determine t h e e f f e c t s of a 50%
reduction in the year 2020 electrical energy demand. This reduced
electrical energy demand is i n d i c a t i v e of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d demand
assuming successful energy conservation measures.

5. Conmrent (p. 5 ) :
"'More energy w i l l b e needed t o raise t h e standard of l i v i n g of
l o w income people t o a more e q u i t a b l e l e v e l . ' (Section 2.1.2.2)
This statement is a n unsupported emotional appeal and should be
removed from the DES. The f a c t s show t h a t t h e gap between t h e
two groups, poor and nonpoor, has been widening s i n c e the advent
of inexpensive power. 'Helping t h e poor' cannot be used t o
j u s t i f y the implementation of an LMFBR program' .I'

Response:

The sentence in question has been deleted. On balance, w e agree t h a t

more energy does not n e c e s s a r i l y a s s u r e s o c i e t a l e q u i t i e s .
6. Coarment (p. 5 )

''In t h e 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 i n c e the n a t u r a l
eathusiasm of t h e i r proponents w i l l h i g h l i g h t t h e advantages of t h e
system while 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 are miniinired o r , most
likely, have not been discovered. This statement is a c o l l e c t i o n of
unsupported emotional inferences. The inference t h a t n a t u r a l
enthusiasm 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
 V. 19-14 n

from b e i n g d i s c o v e r e d , w h i l e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e , could be used t o

c h a r a c t e r i z e certaiir aspects of t h e U G B R p r o g r m , as w e l l as o t h e r
new technologies. The s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s have most
l i k e l y n o t been discovered is a misuse of s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y . "

Response :

The quoted statement on page P-3 of Chapter 8 i n t h e D r a f t Statement is

p a r t o f a paragraph e x p l a i n i n g 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
e v a l u a t e d by i t s maximum t h e o r e t i c a l p o t e n t i a l , w h i l e proven technology
is compared on t h e b a s i s of performance. Between t h e s e two l e v e l s of
m a t u r i t y a number of m i l e s t o n e s i n t h e development of a new technology
c a n b e d e l i n e a t e d . A set o f t h r e e m i l e s t o n e s is d e f i n e d on page P-4 of
t h e D r a f t Statement as a b a s i s f o r comparing alternatives. Thus, t h e
Statement a t t e m p t s t o provide an o b j e c t i v e framework f o r t h e n e c e s s a r i l y
s u b j e c t i v e comparisons which must be made among c o n c e p t u a l t e c h n o l o g i e s .

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 n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s i n parks is
q u e s t i o n e d on s e v e r a l grounds." "One of t h e b a s i c p o i n t s t o
c o n s i d e r is t h e s i t e s e l e c t i o n procedure." "...the FES w i l l have
t o a d d r e s s i t s e l f t o n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s and t h e a s s o c i a t e d indus-
t r i a l p l a n t s t h a t they attract.

In S e c t i o n 7.4.3.5 t h e DES d i s c u s s e s t h e p r o s p e c t s of t h e f t o r
s a b o t a g e a t a n u c l e a r 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 a n d / o r
s a b o t a g e could b e i n c r e a s e d a t a n u c l e a r park. The FES should
a d d r e s s i t s e l f more f u l l y t o t h e s e two problem areas and p r o v i d e
s u g g e s t i o n s t o minimize o r prevent t h e f t and sabotage. Consid-
eration of n u c l e a r parks as s t r a t e g i c t a r g e t s f o r f o r e i g n 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 t a i n m e n t
of t h e i r goals should be i n c l u d e d in t h e FXS."
Response:

Nuclear energy c e n t e 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 t h o s e r e l a t e d t o shipment
of spent f u e l , as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 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 t e and t h e t o t a l environmental k i p a c t of a n u c l e a r energy
center and any a s s o c i a t e d i n d u s t r y w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o i n d i v i d u a l review as
s t i p u l a t e d by NEPA. As noted in S e c t i o n 7.2.6.4, a n a n a l y s i s of n u c l e a r
parks is planned.
 v. 19-15

The AEC does not believe t h a t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e f t or sabotage would

b e increased a t a r u c l e w park. A s indicated i? Section 7.4.9.4.2 of
t h e F i n a l Statement, increased safeguards e f f e c t i v e n e s s could be expected
t o result from t h e consolidation of perimeter p r o t e c t i o n and response
f o r c e s made possible by the adoption of the nuclear energy c e n t e r
(nuclear park) concept. Regarding wartime a t t a c k on nuclear parks,
t h e conclusion reached i n Section 7.4.4.1, t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l e f f e c t
of t a r g e t i n g nuclear f a c i l i t i e s vould b e masked by the o v e r a l l
consequences of a massive strategic a t t a c k , is believed v a l i d whether
or not t h e nuclear park concept I s adopted.

"A major problem with a nuclear f a c i l i t y is waste heat. In

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 t h e 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." The point is w e l l 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, and t h e index-versus-impact argument should
not b e used t o j u s t i f y inadequate consideration o f thermal
impacts. I f appropriate s i t e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were formulated
and adhered to then the e f f e c t s of thermal discharge on t h e
b i o t a could be lessened."

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 t o s i t e - s p e c 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 t h e Draft State-
ment. As s t a t e d i n Section 9.1.2.1, b i o l o g i c a l impacts have not been
included f o r two reasons. F i r s t of a l l , t h e p o t e n t i a l impacts are
v a r i e d and complex and s t r o n g l y dependent upon t h e s p e c i f i c p l a n t s i t e .
Secondly, i t is presumed t h a t discharges conform t o a p p l i c a b l e state and
f e d e r a l t e g u l a t i o n s designed to p r o t e c t t h e environment.

9. Comment (p. 7):

'?able 10.2 lists t h e materials and estimated q u a n t i t i e s t o b e used

i n t h e construction o f a 1000 We LHFBR p l a n t , while Table 10.3
compares production, uses, and resourc2s of these materials. The
production and consumption f i g u r e s are based on 1969 d a t a which are
of questionable use in estimating production and consumption of
these materials i n t h e f u t u r e of an econamy expanding consumption
 V. 19-16

i n all s e c t o 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 o b t a i n 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 a c q u i s i t i o n of these materials have been neglected.".
" P o l i t i c a l ramifications a r e i n e v i t a b l e , s i n c e many of these
..
materials are obtained from o t h e r countries (copper from Chile,
o i l from U.A.R., aluminum from Jamaica, etc.). The recent o i l

."
embargoes and t h e n a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Chile's copper reserves are
prominent examples

Response:

A s waa s t a t e d on p. 1 3 i n Chapter 10 of t h e D r a f t Statement, " . . . t h e

commitment of resources t o the projected LMFBR industry does not appear
t o be appreciable o r critical.. .I' Uranium resources, which are unique
t o f i s e i o n power, w i l l be conserved with the introduction of t h e L:GBR.
Dependence 011 foreign supplies f o r metals is not unique t o the LMFBR.
On t h e o t h e r hand, the LMFBR can reduce the commitment t o imported f o s s i l
fuels.

10. Comment (pp. 7-8) :

"Concerning f i n a n c i a l resource8, is i t reasonable t o assume t h a t

p r i v a t e u t i l i t i e s could raise t h e estimated c a p i t a l of $512 b i l l i o n
(through 1990)? 15% of the GXP seems a l a r g e sum t o be r a i s e d
through public financing i n an expanding i n f l a t i o n a r y economy."

Response:

The estimated annual c a p i t a l requirements f o r fossil-fueled p l a n t s and

nuclear power r e a c t o r s 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 i v a t e u t i l i t i e s accounted f o r
7% of t h e t o t a l funds r a i s e d 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 i n a n c i a 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).
Should you have questions on these comments, of i f there
is any way t h a t we can be of assistance t o you, please contact
Mr. J . G . Speth a t NRDC i n Washington, o r me.
When i t - i s ready, I would appreciate receiving a copy o f
the: final enviornmental statement f o r the LMFBR Program.
n

enclosure I

cc: J..G1 Speth; Esq.

 v.20-2

Natural Rcsources Defcnsc Council, Inc.

15 W E S T 4 4 ~ 1 S1T R E E T
N E W YORIL, N . Y . 10036
212 869-0150

NRDC Comments on WASH 1535

Draft Environmental Statement w e s t Const o f l c c
G64 IIAh1ILTOX AV1:NIIE
Boris I. UittLcr, Esq. LiqulJ Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program PALO ALTO, CALIF. 9.1301
John T. nooth. Esq. 415 327-1080
Frcderici A. Collins. .~ Jr.. bq.
Dr. Rcne J . Duboj
Janics l3. Frinkcl. Esq.
Robert W. Gilniorc
Re: Volume I , Section 1.7.3
Hamilton F. K C ~ I I IEsq.
. Volume 111, Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3
Dr. Joshua Lcdcrbcrg
Anthony hlazzocchi
Volume 111, Section 7.4
Michael hlcIntorh Volume 111, Appendix 111-A
Dr. GiRord B. Pindl01
]din K. Rubinson. E-.
A u r a ncc RockcIel le1 Safeguards and Diversion o f Special Nuclear Materials
J. \Villarcl Roorvcl t
\Vhitncy North Seymour. Jr.. Esq
David Sive, Fsq.
Dr. Gcori;c hf. W d w e l l Dean E . Abrahamson
John €1. M a i n s . ESq.
Excculive Dircclor

Introduction
On *.uaust 1 4 , 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
1
general scope of the statement, including the safeguard and diversion problems.
In addition, over the past several years and particularly d u r i n g the p a s t months,
increasing a t t e n t i o n has been drawn t o these problem through various means,
including: testimony before the J o i n t CoKmittee on Atomic Energy;' publications

i n the general press;3 and the publication of major studies on nuclear t h e f t and

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 1 4 , 1973.

2/ Theodore B. Taylor, Remarks before the U.S. Congress, J o i n t Committee on

Ktomic Energy, January 28, 1974. Because of the general a p p l i c a b i l i t y 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/
_ _ ~ - D x m b e r 3 , 10,
Yorker,
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 r e l a t i n g t o the s a w topics,

must be known t o the AEC. These publications, and others, discuss i n some
d e t a 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 t h r o u g h which SWl might be diverted by national governments

or sub-national groups or individuals, the motivations for such diversions,
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. Hence, w2 assumed t h a t the AEC would take the opportunity afforded by

the Draft Environmental Statement on the LFlFBR t o s t a t e the findings o f these

s t u d i e s , t o respond i n d e t a 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 outline in d e t a i l the measures b e i n g taken o r
anticifated t o cope w i t h the r i s k s of diversion from the LFIFBR fuel cycle.
Upon r e c e i p t of copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statemmt !.e
were appalled a t the treatment of t h i s problem i n : Section 1.7.3, Safeguards,
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-Political 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. In a d d i t i o n , we were
profoundly shocked t o find safeguards-related matters t o t a l l y ignored i n thz
balance o f the Draft Environmental Statement, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n : Chapter 3 ,
LMFBR Program, Volume I , a chapter which purports t o s e t f o r t h the objectives
of .the e n t i r e LMFBR Program Plan, and whick includes, “A sumnary of the scope

4/ See c.g. Mason \{illrich and Theodore B . Taylor, Nuclear Theft: -

- R-i s-k s and
Sdfecjaards (a report t o the Ford Foundation Energy P g i c y S t u d i n 1 lirtger
Pi3?i-iiEf Lo., Cambridge, t h s s . , 197Cr.
C~IKI,id~ison\Alillrich, ( e d i t o r ) , -Intcrnatioral --__- ;In(! Iluclenr
- - _ _ _ _ ~ Sdfec;a.Jrd; -_-- Itidus t r y ,
Joiins Hopki ns Uriiversi ty Prsjs, C;I I tin:orc. aild I-oticlon, I ( ? l j .
 V. 20-4

-3-

and s t a t u s of each o f the studies and program plans;" Chaptct- 3 , Vo urn? I11 arid
a l l of Volume IV, b o l h t i t l e d , Alternative Techiioloqy Ogtions, and; Chapter 11 ,
Cost-'Zen?fi t Analysis of ImFlenienting the L I F B X Program, Volunie I11
While the Draft Environtnental Statenient does mention the prob erns of
preventing diversions of SNM, the problems a r e 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 f e c t s should diversions take place a r e t o t a l l y
ignored. Further, t h o Draft Statement does n o t describe studies underway which
address the various aspects of the safeguards and diversion problem. Nowhere
does the Draft Statement include even the most rudimentary description of th2

LMFBR fuel cycle including such things as the q u a n t i t i e s and chemical or physical
form of'the special nuclear materials a t each p o i n t i n the fuel cycle. No

mention i s 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 t e r n a t i v e s t o the LNFBR Prograin. r!o
mention is made i n t h o economic analyses of the costs o f safeguards programs o r
the costs which could accrue t o society should there be a f a i l u r e of the safeguards.
In s h o r t , other 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 t u a t i o n 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 f e c t s 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 E n v i r o n t w n t J l S t a t w e n t as:
 v. 20-5
G
-4-

"Certain iiiateriills present in nucledr reactor fuel cycles inus t hi3

considwed as possible targzts fot- i l l e g a l diversion arid subsequent
use i n the fabrication of nuclear explosive devices o r in disp2rsal
t o c r e a t e radiological incidznts. The p o s s i b i l i t y o f sabotage o f
f a c i l i t i e s r e s u l t i c g in radiological incidents must also b? c o n ~ i d e r e d . " ~
In another section 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 LKFBR Program, and furthzr, the
nature of the hazard i s again emphasized:
"A major difference b2tween an e l e c t r i c a l energy sys tein based on nuclear
fission and a1 ternative non-nuclear systems derives, i n the former
case, from the wid2 d i s t r i b u t i o n of f i s s i l e materials ( i . e . , plutoniiiin
or uranium) i n the econcrny. A s i g n i f i c a n t coccern regarding the use
of plutonium i s the potential f o r diversion of t h i s rratcrial f o r the
production 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, e x i s t e d i n the p a s t . lihclear p o l w r reactors are a potential
hazard t o the public in t h a t they create the means, i n theory a t l e a s t ,
of a new form of anti-social behavior."6

The Draft Statement also acknowledges t h a t i n addition t o these hazards, t h e r e

i s an international component, nanlely t o p r w e n t 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
w i t h d i F f i c u 1 t i n s t i t u t i o n a ' l aspects. Gemrally, as reactor
technology ex tends beyond the techno1 ogi cal ly soohi s t i ca tcd , pol it i ca? ly
s t a b l e countries o f the world, the international inplications of nuclear
power will require international a g r x w n t s and i n s t i t u t i o n s t o assure
t h a t the comvon good i s , inde?d, protected."7
After b r i e f l y describing the system o f international safeguards iihich i t i s
hoped will "prevent the diversion of material sui t a b l e f o r weapons production
from peaccful applications,"* the Draft Statement goes on t o recognize t h i l t the
present systems a r e 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/
- \,!,GI11535, 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 effective international safequdrds program does e x i s t a1 tiiorcgii
s i g n i f i c a n t expansion arid modi iicatiotl i s arlticipate.d as an LlirnR
economy develops, "9
.z

I t i s noteworthy t h a t the Draft Statement does n o t claim t h a t the present

international safeguards system i s adequate even f o r today's reactor econoiny,
b u t simply s t a t e s t h a t "the 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 international
safeguards program does e x i s t . " Further nowhere i n the Draft Statement i s
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 "significant expansion and modi Ficaiion."

That SNM i s present i n s i g n i f i c a n t quantities i n the LMFBR fuel cycle i s

a l s o re-cognized by th2 authors of the Draft Environmental Statement:
"In the year 2020, about 550 LMFBR e l e c t r i c a l generating s t a t i o n s
[each o f 4OOOb:w(e)], about 28 fuel fabrication plants and a b o u t
28 reproccssing plants could be in operation. In the same year,
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. The ex tent of plutoniiim product transportation between
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
6
s i t i n g practices: about 100,000 shipiwnts including highway and
r a i l ) m i g h t take place i n the year 2C20."1

The above excerpt i s the t o t a l description o f the quantities 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 t h a t these materials a r e present

i n large q u a n t i t i e s , i t i s t o t a l l y inadequate t o permit t h e 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. For t h i s material, we r e f e r the AEC t o the recent

analysis o f nuclear t h e f t p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The heavy l.ines in the schematic
diagram of the LFTBR fuel cycle depicted below indicate t h n parts o f the L I F D R

-
9/ HASH 7535, page 5-34.
I10/ \:ASH 1535, pages 7-64 2nd 7 - 4 5 .
 V.20-7

-6-

fuel cycle i n \ihich t.her-2 will be ii:dtcrials th6t cc7n b? used d i r e c t l y in f i s s i o n

:bombs. The weight o f iiiaterials requfred t o provide one crit,ical mass of f i s s i o n

explosive material wi thout e i t i i s chemical processing or isotope enrichtxnt
The q u a n t i t i e s , i n t h ? LPIFBR f u e l c y c l e a r e :
12
has a l s o been reported.

LMFBR .fuel f a b r i ca t i on i npu t Pu02 about 9 Kg

o r reprocessing o u t p u t
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 t o t a l
q u a n t i t i e s t h a t G:'wld be p r e s m t a t various places i n the LilFBli fuel cycle,
and imply extraordinarily h i g h standards o f aiateriJ1s accountability, the
quanti%ies of plutonium required t o m ~ k ea bcmb a r e very large compared with
the q u a n t i t i e s thdt \:auld required t o make a radiation w a p o n . Again f r c n

/ ~-
11/
\ i,lason \li I l r i c h sild 'iii?o:lare Taylor, op cit, F i g d r a 3-3, p a g z 48.

-
12/ N i l l r i c h and T?..,ylor, op c i t y pc?qa 55.
 V. 20-8

-7-

U i l l r ch and Taylor:'
" S u f f i c i z n t q u a n t i t i e s o-F plutonium t o cause considzrable dmage
i f widely clispwsed e x i s t a t a l l stages 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. Even a fefw
p e l l e t s o f plutonim-bearing LIIR fuel o r LIt!FBR f u e 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 s o ) t o b? usable i n a plutonium disporsal device t h a t
could s e r i o u s l y contaminate a l a r g e a r e a . C u t t h e f t of small
amounts o f plutonium from p a r t s o f t h ? f u e l cycle wher? i t i s
mixed w i t h i n t e n s e l y r a d i o a c t i v e f i s s i o n products does not appear
c r e d i b l e t o us. This 1eave.s t h e output of reprocessing p l a n t s ,
plutonium storage f a c i l i t i e s , fuel fabrication plants, fresh .
f u e l s t o r a g e f a c i 1i t i 2 s , and the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n 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 f p l u t o n i u m f o r
use i n radiological weapons. Among t h e s e , the places t h a t would
be m o s t vulnerable t o attempted t h e f t s would be t h e plutonium
load-out rooms a t reprocessing p l a n t s , where a n employe2 m i g h t
pour very small quaritities 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 a b r i c a t i o n p!an.ts, where
an employee n i i g h t s t e a l .a few f u e l p e l l e t s o r a plutonium-
bearing f u e l rod o r f u e l p i n . " l 3
Given then t h a t SliX e x i s t s i n l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s i n t h e LIlFBR f u e l c y c l e ,
t h a t were i t diverted i t could form the basis f o r the f a b r i c a t i o n of eithEr an
atomic bomb o r a r a d i a t i o n weapon, what does t h e Draft Environnent.al Statement
have t o say about those \rho might wish to 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 "n2w
6
form of a n t i - s o c i a l behavior?" On t h 2 questions associated w i t h the i n t e r n a t i o n a l
safeguards i s s u e the DraFt r e p o r t i s conipletely s i l e n t . There i s n o t a s i n g l e
word addrcssing t h i s t o p i c although the u n c l a s s i f i e d l i t e r a t u r e i s r p p l c d t :/i th
such discussion^.^^' 15' 17' l 8 As t o t h e t h r e a t o f domestic d i v e r s i o n !';e

-
13/ Mason \&!illrich and Theodore Taylor, o p c i t y pages 55-56.
-14/ B. Feld ( e d i t o r ) , Impact o f New- Technologies on t h , o Arms Race, MIT P r e s s ,
Cambridge, I4ass. , 1971.
-15/ United Nations Association of t h e U.S.A., .___ Safeguarding___.-
th? Atcm: A
~S~viet-!meric;n
_ _ _ ExchLinq?,
__- Cap!. Associa-Lion of t h e W, iiw 'iork, J u l y li172.
-16/ S h ~ l d o nI.. I-!ill.ianis, The! U.S., I n d i a , a-n d t.h ? -
Comb,~Johns H<)p!<iilSP r e s s ,
B a l t i o o r e , 1969.
 v.20-9

-8-

find only:
"The above i n f o r m t i o n r e l a t e s t o O C O major aspect o i the f u t u r e
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 . The other iiiajor aspec.t--the incl inaticn
of individuals or groups t o ztteinpt diversionary ac ts--is not readily
subject t o q u a t i t i t a t i v c description. Considering t h ? present
social/polit.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 f u t u r e
years. Also, the number of individuals vii t h t e c h n i c a l / s c i z n t i f i c
training 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 r e the objectives of the "AEC's safeguards program?" They
t o o a r e s e t f o r t h 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 s s i o n a b l e
isotopes of uranium] and other materials whoso i l l e g a l use could
c r e a t e 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 r e carried
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 q u a n t i t a t i v e 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

r e a d e r ' s iRagination. To what example can he turn, f o r history indicates t h a t

any valuable corsmodity has been stolen and i s being stolen. Again, a s i n t h 2
case of consid2ration of serious reactor accidents, the AEC seenis t o be f a l l i n g
b3Ck 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
perm tted t o happin, hence i t will not happen. How? Have f a i t h young m a n ,
have Faith.
19/
- HASH 1535, page 7-65.

2@/ \iW! 1535, pages 7 - 6 5 and 7-65.

--
--ill/ LIAS11 1535, page 1114-1.
 v.20-10
0
-9-

\-,'hatever be i n the callective mind of the AEC f o r this hypotheticdl,

perfect system which will prevent any and a l l t h e f t , the present system i s
recognized as being inadequate. I n the case of the international safeguards
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 r g e t ' [the LMFBR fuel cycle] for
diversion offered by the increased use of plutonium, indicate the need f o r
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 explicit 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. Llha t instead
i s found i s a f l a t u l e n t exposition of the "safeguards medsures presently in

place," and nary a word on what would corn, other than:

"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 AEC
safeguards objectives and program elements are be1 ieved t o
provide the broad scope and f lexi b i 1 i t y necessary f o r tiinely
developvent, placement and enforceiront of such modified or
new safeguards requirements as may be found necessary. The
program elements themselves are n o t fixed, b u t niay be strengthened
or expanded as the result of continuing in-house reviev.
Simi 1arly , whi 1e 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 e a r l i e r i n this section, a
number of areas arc currently under investigation which may
r e s u l t i n new o r modified requirements. Additional investigations,
analyses, social studies and hardware developments are anticipated. 'I2*

Nhat are the characteristics of the various ineans available to Elininate

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,
 v.20-11

-10-

gives few c l u e s , one must look elsewhere for any i n d i c a t i o n of t h e various

means a v a i l a b l e , I t i s obvious t h a t one way t o eliminate t h e hazard i s t o
e l i m i n a t e t h e " t a r g e t " - - t h a t i s t o not i n i t i a t e the LHFBR Program and a s
quickly as p o s s i b l e t o cease t h e c u r r e n t production and u t i l i z a t i o n o f s p e c i a l
nuclear m a t e r i a l s . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the AEC wishes not t o discuss
t h i s option. There a r e , hos*fever, means a v a i l a b l e s h o r t of abandonment o f
commercial nuclear f i s s i o n which could, i f not e l i m i n a t e , a t l e a s t minimize
the hazards. These include: denaturing t h e plutonium and 0th2r SNM such t h a t
even if d i v e r t e d i t i s incapable of being used i n weapons, w i t h means t h a t
would be a v a i l a b l e t o the group o r individual bent on "anti-social behavior;"
confineinent of those elements o f the LFlFBR f u e l cycle from which d i v e r s i o n is
c r e d i b l e t o a s i n g l e l o c a t i o n , t h e b a s i s f o r t h e nuclear park concept, and; a
system of physical , s o c i a l , and behavioral c o n t r o l s . As t h e f i r s t of these
methods i s t o t a l l y ignored i n the Draft Statement, and t k second mentioned only
obliquely, a f e w comments a r e i n o r d e r .

These various a l t e r n a t i v e s have been most r e c e n t l y o u t l i n e d 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 c a s e [the u t i l i z a t i o n of uranium/plutonium
f u e l cycles] then, wi-thin t h e coining decade or t W , t h 2 m a j G r
s e c u r i t y problem t h a t t h e \iorld w i l l f a c e i s how t o r;revmt t h e
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 .
"Acceptingthese preniises a s f a c t , t12 may ask whether t h e r e
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 p r e d i c t i o n of
widespread prol i-Teration of nuclodr weapocs, a r i s i n g from the
i n e v i t a b l e d i f f u s i o n o f plutonium and .th? knowledge of i t s
chemical and nuclear p r o p 2 r t i c s .
"A number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s are outlined /:ere f o r coping
w i t h th-i; problerii.. ..
I'1. The m o s t strrtightiorwa:-d IWPS O F c o p i n g with t h e
prcbl ern o f t h e prol i?era-Lilon of micl car 1:ieapot:s
would b;! f o r ti!? t c c h n o l 3 9 i c , ~ l l y - a d v a n c c d nations
t o agree t i t t h i s t i n ? t o ;orogc! til? p l u t o n i u m breeder i-e3ct:~r
 n
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, t h a t f i s s i o n energy i s
t o be regarded as an intcrii;i solution. Lloreover,
s u f f i c i e n t s t o r e s o f ordinciry and s l i g h t l y enriched
uraniuiii art. available t o carry us, via conventional
reactor sources, t hr ough the energy c r i s i s o f the
..
next decade. .
"2. 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 f e c t i v e international
agency--to insure t h a t under no reasonably conceivable
circumstances could they f a l l i n t o irresponsible hands
.
(the F o r 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 .
"3. Barring such ' p o l i t i c a l ' solutions, i t i s incumbent upon
us t o explore the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of a technical solution
t o the problem--to seek t o d w i s e a means v k r c b y the
vast s t o r e s of plutoniuiii i n c i r c u l a t i o n might be rendered
unsuitable for conversion i n t o 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
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a 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 i n t o 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
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, similar t o the heavy uraniun-238
isotopo i n t h a t i t does n o t readily undergo f i s s i o n a n d , therefore
i s n o t s u i t a b l e f o r making atonic bombs. B u t i s hzis th:! additional
property o f being a p r o l i f i c and spontineous neutron cinittcr. This
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 detonate
i n an explosive fashion.
" . . . i t should b2 possible t o design the plutonium breeder
reactors so a s t o maximize the concwtration of plutonium-240 in
the breeding process.
" I t i s doubtful whether i t ijiould he f e a s i b l e t o increase the
plutonium-240 concmtration t o a degree t h a t would render the
plutonium non-explodable. O u t such highly cl2natured plutonium
m i g h t increase the tcchnical cIifficu1t.y s u f f i c i e n t l y 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
" I t v;ould a l s o b: well b!oi.th:.ihil? t o investigate other iIimns,
b o t h physical and c h m i c a l , O F ciwaturi ng plutoniuin.. . .
 V.20-13

-1 2-

"The objective would be t o r a i s e the barricrs against the

clandestine divcrsioti c f reactor-intended plL!tcniu,il into weapons
production. The importance of the nuclear pro1 iferation p r o b l m
i s so imtiirnsc as t o requirp the greatest urgency i n fuk-cher
investigations o f the denaturing of n l u t o n i u m a s w l 1 as oiher
technical and p o l i t i c a l solutions .'Iz3

We do n o t represent the denaturing proposal f o r t h as being a solution t o the

safeguards and diversion problem, f o r 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 t h a t would diminish the hazard of a dispersal weapon.
Further, we have serious doublts as t o whether the denaturing scheme i s even
credible means t o reduce the i l l e g a l explosives problem. I t i s a scheme,
however, which i s proposed from time t o time and the AEC 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.
Another schme f o r r d u c i n g the hazards of diversion o f SNM -is t o l o c a t e
the most vulnerable elements of the LMFBR fils1 cycle a t a s i n g l e s i t e . This
concept, t h a t of the "nuclear par!<," would involve the common s i t i n g of: fuel
f a b r i c a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , several reactors , the chemical reprocessing p l a n t , and
perhaps a l s o the high-level radioactive waste managsment i n s t a l l a t i o n s . The
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 i g n i f i c a n t l y reducing the requiretfients f o r transportation
of fuel and radioactive waste and of simp1 ifyiny nuclear safeguard
problems .'Iz4

-
23/ Bernard T . i e l d , "The I4enace of it Fission Power Econotny," Sciencf and
Public A f f a i r s , April 1974, p p . 32-34.

0 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

--elaboration o r f u r t h e r 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 S N l , b u t a l s o there
a r e several other advantages. As w i t h a1 1 thi ngs , however , nucl edr parks have

disadvantageous implications. The Draft Environniental Statelnent sheds no l i g h t

whatsoever on these issues, and does n o t even contain a superficial 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 i n s t i t u t i o n a l factors--which an

ddequate Environmental Impact Statement demands. An excellent 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 .25, 26
The Draft Statement i s seriously deficient i n i t s treatment of .the one

approach t o the diversion problem which i t does purport 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 siynificat?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 essential f e a t u r e o f
the LUFBR Program. The only h i n t t h a 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 o u n d 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 security. 37 11

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
circulated For discussion a t J. conf!nncz a t t k I~loodrovIlilson I!it2rnatici;31
---r

Center for Scholars, \iaskington, D.C., June 18, 1973.

27/
- HASH 1535, :!age 7-67.
 V.20-15

-14-

Some indication of the degree t o which the atomic industry i s s e n s i t i v e t o the

diversion hazards, and the degree w i t h \:hich th2 industry i s l i k e l y to be an

e f f e c t i v e 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
February 1 , 1973, Federal Register. 28
Some of the comments received on these proposed regulations were:
" . . . i t i s c l e a r t h a t the severity of the proposed [physical
security] procedures g r m t l y exceeds any reasonable relationship
t o the public need intended t o be served. ble a r e unaware, and
we believe the industry a s a whole i s unaware, o f occurrences
of industrial sabotage which would tend to j u s t i f y thz imposition
of requirements as s t r i c t as those proposed. The Comission has
not demonstrated t h 2 need.. .or offered any j u s t i f i c a t i o n or
explandtion.. .. Certainly the pub1 i c i n t e r e s t will n o t be
served by adoption of burdensome requirements disprsportionate
t o the end s o u g h t . "
---frcm comrrent of Kerr-McGee:
and
''..-a move backward t o the types o f security practices 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 on the use
.
of armed personre1 . .and t i l ? seeming re1 iarice on such personn?l
t o protect against t h r e a t s t o the comon defense and security.. . .
To tile extent t h a t the proposed regulations.. .require an armed
confrontation between a l i c e n s e e ' s security force and potential
divertors, the proposed regulations should be aniendod. 'The
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. 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 r e as quoted i n : anon, "Sharp Industry C r i t i c i s i s o f Proposed
New Safeguard Rlrlc?s," llucl-.i\r Industry, 1l.y 1373, p p . 31-3d.
 V.20-16

-1 5-

The f i n a l Environmental Statemant must iixludc 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 t h a t a r e anticipatzd to
proceed w i t h the LMFBR w i t h o u t depending on industry participation in i m t t e r s
involving potential diversions o f special nuclear m a t w i a l s .
There is i n the Draft statement a h i n t that. the AEC i s not anxious t o
discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of coercive measures, in:posed against e i t h e r individuals
o r the industry, b u t also t h a t t h 2 necessity f o r 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 industrial s e c t o r 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 no 0th.)'
connection wi t.h or reqiiirements imposed upon thsm by thz
governinent aside from those inhsrent' in nornal industrial 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 t e d ent.ry t o nuclear tilaterial s s toraae areas, T t i i s
imposition o f security controls will represent an increas? i n
the r o l e of the Federal Government i n the private industrial
sector. The significance of this tendency v i l l , i n a l l probability,
be small because of t h ? very small f r a c t i c n o f the labor force
involved. Plevertheless, as the LMFGR program progresses and as i t
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 i v a t e ' i s beyond tha scope o f
this S.tatem?nt.
We mgst take strong exception t o this f i n a l assertion f o r the extent t o v,$ich

the existance o f 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 i x e s s i t y For bzhavioral,
 V. 20-1 7

-16-

s o c i a l , and o t k controls i s arnotig the r1;ost profound and qrave cf a71 o f the
many questions surrounding the development of the Lt4iBil Prograiii. l!ha t are the

changes, not i n technology, b u t i n our very social ii1;titi;tions t h a t may be

dictated by a decision t o proceed with the L I V B R Program? The msny reports,

and other publications of the AEC a r e 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

conimitted t o the development o f atomic energy y e t have concern f o r the dignity

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 called f o r t h this r;iilit?.ry
priesthood upon which i t i a way we a l l depend f o r 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. e 3Te
Before leaving t h i s general point, vie are obligated t o Rake on? additional
commnt. In a n Appendix t o the Draft Statmetit, passing mention i s p a d ? t o a
recent evaluation O F then existing 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 f a c i 1i 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. A number
of deficiencies or apparent deficiEncies ~ 2 r ei d e n t i f i e d , and
recommendations were made regarding corrective action. The
AEC agreed with the recommendations o f the report and has ,taken
action t o implement

31/ Alvin Heinberg, "Social I n s t i t u t i o n s nild f!uc ear Energy," Science,

?-July 1972, [ I P . 27-34.
-7-

-
32/ !.JASH 1535, page III-A-4.
 ~~

V . 20-1 8

-17-

In f a c t , the deficiencies identified by the GAO were extremely serious a;ld

were sufficient 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 t a r k and chilling 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 t h i s l a t t e r period
[1966 t o 19721 will r e s u l t i n only one conclusion: normal
industrial practice f o 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 also include a
candid and complete discussion o f the circumstances which prevail2d within
the Atonic Energy Commission through a t l e a s t the summer of 1972 and which
permitted this lax, and given the degree of the hazard, i r r c s p m s i b l e abrogation
of responsibility i n the protection o f special nuclear materials.
And what m i g h t be the r e s u l t of a successful diversion? Again r.ca find
the Draft Statement grossly deficient. Nowhere i n the Craft Statement i s i t
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 fabricate and deliver
a device intended t o 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 testing, there i s a substantial
possibility t h a t there would be no nuclear yield a t a1l.It34
T h i s statement i s unsupported e i t h e r by material includ2d i n tne Draft
Environmental Statement or included by reference. The statement i s a l s o in

-
33/ Remarks of Ralph F. Luiiib, as quoted i n : anon, "AEC Policy, S a f e y a r d s ,
Discharge Limits, Plutonium," Nuclear Industry, February 1972, pp. 19-20.
-
34/ WASH 1535, pages III-A-2 a n d . III-A-3.
 V.20-19

-18-

d i r e c t contradiction t o conclusions reached and supported by exhaustively

detailed 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 a r e r e l a t i v e l y easy t o make, assui!iing

the r e q u i s i t e nuclear i?iaterials are available. All o f t h l
information, non-nuclear materials, and equipment t h a t viol!ld be
required t o design and build a variety o f types of f i s s i o n
explosives a r e readily availabl? 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 efficiency, p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , t o t a l w ? i g h t , a n d y i e l d
o f the explosives. Under conceivable circumstances , f o r example,
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 substantial 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 t h a t would be very l i k e l y 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 t h a t
could be carried i n a n automobile. T h i s could be done using
materials and equipment t h a 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 f o r student laboratories. 1\11 types of plutonium,
highly enriched uraniiin, or uraniun-233 now used o r conteir,plated
for u s e by the ncclear iEdustry could be used f o r t h i s purpose,
a s l o n g as thzy are n o t diluted with large amounts o f n o n -
f i s s i o n a b l e 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 1e a s t tens of thousands o f .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 s o be incorpcrat,d i n t o dispersal
devices t h a t cculd containinate very large volu;n?s 07 a i r with
l e t h a l coccentrations o f susper;ded, smal 1 p a r t i c l e s of these
substances t h a t a r e exceedingly toxic i f they a r e breathed. Air
dispersal cf a f e w 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 o r enclosed industrial f a c i l i t y . " Z
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, \,vit h the added coricwfl
t h a t i t s enrichment i s obtained by cl??rnical s q m r a t i v a technlques
 v. 20-20 n

-1 9-

f u l l y described by the AtGrnic Energy Cotiimission iri i t s haildbooks. ,135

The enormit~yof the A E C ' s f a i l u r e t o 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 . Willrich, Taylor,
Hall, a n d others i s d i f f i c u l t t o comprehend. There a r e several possible

explanations: ( 1 ) i t i s possible t h a t the authors a r e siniply unaware of the

work o f Drs. Taylor, --
et a?; ( 2 ) i t i s possible t h a t the stateinent i n INSH 1535
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 c o r r e c t a n d
the studies. and conclusions o f Drs. Taylor, --
e t a1 a r e 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 c o r r e c t ,
-I

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 . I t i s our

opinion-that explanation ( 3 ) i s the more l i k e l y s i t u a t i o n f o r i t requires fewer
* assumptions and i s cofnpletely conipatable w i t h the past behavior of the A E C .
The traditional practices of the Corrnission have been t o ignore in i t s own
publications any information not favorable t o 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 t o be
et a?,
adequate unless i t d i r e c t l y joins the issues raised by Drs. Taylor, --
o f f e r s convincing evidence t h a t Taylor's conclusions and analyses a r e i n error-
i f they a r e , and o f f e r s a credible and so'cially acceptable remedy i f they a r e

--35/ D.E. H a l l , "The Adap-tability of F i s s i l e Platerials t o Ruclear Explosil.!es,"

- -. .. -
Chapter .19 i n , Robert C. Leachran and P h i l l i p A1 t h o f f ( e d i t o r s ) , Prevs::inq
-Flrrclciir T k f t--
: Gaic!olin,?s
F i i w Yoink, '1Y72, p . 2ilI.
-for lndbstry Goverment,
~ - ~ - - - _ _ _ _ -
2 n d Praager Publishsrs,
 v.20-21

-20-

not.
The treatment of the environiiiental , social, and p o l i t i c a l consequences
were there a disruptive 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 e g a l nuclear weapon, neither the
y i e l d 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 s o completely
inadeiuate. Are we t o believethat the AEC i s incapable o f imagining the
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 t h a t the AEC i s incapable of s p x i f y i ~ gt h s effocts--in terms
of property l o s s , deaths and injuries, and o f p o l i t i c a 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 d e t a i l f o r policy consid2ratiotis. bJe would remind
the Comission t h a t while the discussions o f matterr; such a s these need n o t ,
and should n o t , be a blueprint for errorists, neither a r z they a work order
for the crews t h a t would be called n t o decontaminate, recover the bodies,
and otherwise respond t o the use of a n i l l q a l explosive or radiological weapon
a t a precise time and location.
Isle can turn again i o the work o f Drs. \dillrich and Taylor f o r sonie
-insights i n t o the potential physical e f f e c t s O F thsse wapons:
_-.-

36/
-I
Iv'AW 1535, pages III-A-2 a n d III-A-3.
 v. 20-22

-ZI-

"A 'crude f i s s i o n banib' i s defincd as one rhich !us a n

excellent 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 i e l d of ds Iil:Ich as a few kilotons. Cven a 'sn,all' rluclear
explosion could cause enoiaious hdvoc. A nuclear explosion
produce: n o t only a blastvave and k d t , b u t also l e t h i 1
radiation. The e f f e c t s o i a nuclear w?apon depend on th::
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 2 n d
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 also i n a r e l a t i v e l y simple
dispersal device. P l u t o n i u m i s among the iiiost toxic substances
known. Airborne p a r t i c l e s small eRough t o b e bdrely v i s i b l e
can cause f i b r o s i s or cancer of the lung. The amounts t h a t could
pose J t h r e a t t o society a r e 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 f e c t i v e l y dispersed. I n open a i r ,
the e f f e c t s viould he more diluted 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
There a r e likewise inany discussions i n the open l i t e r a t u r e a s t o plausible
international 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 t h 2 i r potential for ' i r r e p a r a b l e ' davage,
as contrastpd v i t h the ruth more r e s t r i c t e d and nore e a s i l y
repaired daiiage of nmt conventional 9idr-s. A s with E!?? papulation
problem , however , \iif a r e i n d d n g e r o f bei ng rendered i n s e n s i t i v e
t o the p o l i t i c a 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 t e n t i o n niainly Ori the stupendous k i l l i n g 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 : I t . 1112 enkit-e St!li:li:zt.y
of this report, which w?s dis-tributed d t the -timr t h a t t h e r2cor-t was i s s u d ,
i s incorporated i n t o til$se conrrxnts as F.ppendix E .
 V . 20-23

-22-

'I Let us assu;i.:? a n ti-horn5 r.eIeasing 1,008 tiiilCS

as much er1et-y a s t h e t l - i r o ~ i i i mb3i:lb. The r a d i u s 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 n c r m s f - s a s t h e Culje
r o o t o f t h ? i n c r c a s e i n t h e bomb'; po:;Zr. A t Hii-osiiiiria
the r a d i u s O F s e v e r e d e s t r u c t i o n ';/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
b u i l d i n g u p t o a. racl-ius o f 1 0 miles. 6y t h e b l a s t
e f f e c t a l o n e a s i r i g l e bcqb could o b l i t e r a t e a l n o s t a l l
of G r e a t e r F I w 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 p e r c e n t 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 i n t e n s e burst of h e a t r a d i a t i o n from the
bomb. F a t a l btirns viere f r q u e n t up t o d i s t a n c e s of
4,000 t o 5,000 f t . e t . T h e r a d i u s o f h e a t r a d i a t i o n
i n c r e a s e s biith pc$/ier. a t a liigher r a t e than t h a t of
b l a s t , nanrely by t h e square r o o t of th? p o w r i n s t e a d
o f the cube r o o 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 t o r o f 30; i t ~ o u l db u r n
people t o dea-th over a r a d i u s of u p t o 20 m i l e s o r
more. I t i s ' too easy t o p u t clown or read n m b e r s
without underztanding t h m ; one must v i s i i a l i z e w h a t
i t would m a n i f , f o r i n s t a n c e , Chicago w i ~ ha 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 o u t
i n a s i n g l e f l a s h . ' [ k n s A . Gethe, "The Hydrogen

"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 h e s e ar,d s i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c s
has l e d us t o conrtemplate t h e consequences o f n u c l e a r 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 t h e s e weanar?s - E n --
unleashing the 11,000 w r l ~ a d snow 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 possessed by t h e S o v i e t s . Indeed,
there a r e e s t i m a t e s 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 mill-ion f o r tile Uti-itsd S t a t e s a l o n e , dep2nding on
t h e d e f e n s s ' c o s t u r e ' O F t h e v a r i c u s cjtii:?dt?s.
" I t i s understandable t h a t w2 should 'be hypnotized by t h ?
v i s i o n of such g h a s t l y p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The r i s k , how?ver, i s -that
our c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h i s a s p e c t of - t h 2 consequences of nucl ear
w a r f a r e prill lead us t o ovsrlook ano'ihsr r e s u l t o f t h e new techniqu?
of war. E s s e n t i a l l y ' i t r e s i d e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t many small o r
r e l a t i v 2 l y poor na tions, 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 a b o r f o r c e , can g a i n possession
o f n u c l e a r weapons. As t h e example o f Chim has sho!rin, a n a t i o n
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
n u c l e a r 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. The !,/arheads can nonethelnss be lduncl??d by bciiib?rS
smuggled i n t o cnmy harbors by s h i p , arid SCI o n . In ciiltlition,
poor n a t i o n s can o b t a i n nuclcar \ i ~ t ~ P Oa~s s ti b y - G r ~ d : i c t of' ti:? ;!t.o:nic
pcwer pllint; t n ~ rtw n y o f thpiil z r c now biii 1cliri;j or c , ~ f i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ - i t l ~ ~
( o r t h a t wiTI b,? titlilt 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 ,"Iiitornat.iona1 ConLrol o f C i v i l
I,luclFar Fo,;!?r,'' i { \ i l l p t i t l o f t.112 .- Atomic ___ S c i c n t ' i s t s , ticly 1 9 5 7 . 1
 V. 20-24

-23-

"Thus t h e r e seeds 1i t t l e doubt t h a t so;cle nuclear capahi 1i t y wi 11

be i n t h e hands o f th? inJjor LinderdeYEloped nrl tiotis, 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. I w i l l suggest t h a t i t c!ay bo used a s an instrumit
o f blackmail t o f o r c e t h e developed uorld t o undertake a inassive
t r a n s f e r O F wealth t o t h e 'poverty-stricken world.. ..
"I do not r a i s e the spector of i n t e r n a t i o n a l blackmail merely
t o indulge in t h e 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 h e o t h e r 'normal' d i r e c t i o n - - t h a t i s , aggression by t h e r i c h
nations a g a i n s t t h e poor. Yet two considerations g i v e a new

Regarding t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l implications of a f a i l u r e of the systems

designed t o "prevent t h e diversion of material sui t a b l e f o r weapons production
f r o m 6eaceful a p p l i c a t i o n s , " 8 we f u l l y appreciate t h a t t h e r e a r e developments

i n a d d i t i o n 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

c a p a b i l i t y being extended t o v i r t u a l l y any n a t i o n - s t a t e . I f , however, the
AEC i s arguing t h a t i t need not discuss t h e weapons p r o l i f e r a t i o n implications
o f the LMFBR on t h e grounds t h a t o t h e r d~velopments,f o r example, i n new

uranium enrichment 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 indepEndently of t h e decision t o proceed w i t h t h e LClFBR, then t h e AEC
has the o b l i g a t i o n t o f u l l y discuss these o t h e r developments in t h e F i n a l
Impact Statement .

In Conclusion
The necessity t o prevent t h e diversion of special nuclcar m a t e r i a l s

both by n a t i o n - s t a t e s 2nd by sub-national groups if one o f t h e most v2xin.j

of the environmental and social problems associated with t h e Liquid 1k:dl
Fast Breeder k a c t o r . In considering thes;l problems , David Pose r e c e n t l y

'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'icst 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. A t incre;ri ns ccs t , amre protcc tion can bz b o u g h t ,
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. B u t in dealing with i r r a t i o n a l i t y , how nuch i s
enough? No one k n o w . 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
had t o r e n ~ u n c ei t s claim t o t h a 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 , i1 l.gal u;e
i s t o 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 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 a n d other f i s s i o n
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 on, t h a t
gne will conclude t h a t Ctiannes] A l f v 2 n i s riyht--iiian cannot
i n the very long r u n ' l i v e w i t i i fission."25
Lawrence Scheinnan, another acknowledcjed expert i n safeguards wrote l a s t month:
"The United S t a t e s has always cor;ducted it s nucl e3i- b u s i ness i n
t h e frarn?worl< of f a i r l y elaborate precautionary and accountabi 1 i-ty
r u l e s . tfmviever, t h 2 experi ecce 0: t h ? h i ted S ta-tes wi t h 1 ost
o r misplaced shipments of nuclear m t w i a l during transportation,
a s well a s t h e 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 u n a c c o u n t d
for (19UF) a t p a r t i c u l a r nuclzar f a c i l i t i e s , indicates the r e a l i t y
of the problem. The N J F and tccporarily l o s t shipments niay be
purely iLccidanta1 and, a t l e a s t from a cational s e c u r i t y poin-t of
view, harmless (compare r i s k s t o publ-ic heel t,h 2nd s a f e t y ) ; b u t
they a l s o 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 . !le are
unaware of t h 2 experience of other nati an-s t a t e s , b a t i t i s not
unreasonable t o assun:? t h a t similar s i tluation; Iiavo arisen elsewhere
as we1 1.
"The EUWTOX comunity, which prides i t s e l f on one of the
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 transportation, largely
because hijacking i s n o t coimon t o the Europeali poli-tical
landscape!
"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
sought t o f i l l soine o f the lacunae i n i t s physical s e c u r i t y
systein. The inconsistency o f soil!& of the n w provisions, a n d
the resistznce of ifidustry t o v!ha-t i t regards a s f u t i l e o r
overbsaring p r o v i s i o n s , a t t e s t t o t h e c m p l e s i ty of t h ?
problelii; a t hatiti. Gth:.r n a t i o n - s t a - t o s h 3 v r ? y e t t o n!d!;e even
these f i r s t approximations t o a. solution o f t h 2 physical

-
39/ David J . Rose,"Rucle,Ir Fclectic Fcv?r," ~-
Science, 19 April 1974, p p . 351-5!1
 -25-

security issup,
"The inescapable conclusion i s that any e f f o r t t o seriously
move toward closure of Lhe r i s k cjf nuclear diversion or t h e f t
requires a l l nation-states with a s i g n i f i c a n t 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 security systems as possible,
consonant w i t h thc conti wed econoriiic viahi 7 i ty o-f peaceful
nuclear polwr. If 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. In an era o f an
a 1 leged 'energy crunch' of worldviide proportions, this would
c r e a t e a t r u l y awesome issue.Il40
Hence, knowledgeable observers, friend a n d foe of nuclear power a l i k e ,

recognize the a b i l i t y t o prevent d i v e r s i o n of special nuclear materials as

central t o the basic question of tlie acceptability 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 treated 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. Howver, the questions and issues which a r e raised by
the problem a r e n o t addressed. In sone instances the problems and hazards
a r e completely ignored; i n other instances the Convission has responded w i t h
self-serving, assertions which often a r e 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 d e f i n i t i o n , excluded a consideration O F

safeguards from the analysis of the impact of t h Lf-IFBR.
~ Although acknowledging
that 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 f u r t h e r developnent which hcts become an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n
the U.S. nuclear power p r o g r x i over the past s w e r a l y?ars i:s
t h 2 increased concern of the /"!!il%r can public about the s a f e t y

-40/
-- Lwrence Schp-im a n , "Safcguardi n y
-Affdirs,
~ -
April 1374, pp. 34-36.
 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 resulting from t h ? discharg? ~f pokier plant
cooling e:ater i n t o lakes, r i v e r s , or estu'trics; the control of
radi oac t ive e f f 1Lien t s ; the trans por i d t i on of rad i oac t ive
materials; and the storage of h i g h level radiodctive wastes.
-
These matters p a r t i c u l a r l y 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
consistent w i t h the above declaration t h a 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 t o s p e 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$ify" and t o "upgrade and strengthen" the existing programs. The AEC
a l s o acknowledges t h a t social a n d behavioral controls would have t o be a p a r t
o f the expandgd and nodified and upgraded and strengthened safeguards proyrans.
Yet i t then g02s on t o refuse t o discuss them Further, s t a t i n g blandly t h a t
this, probably the aspect of the safeguards problem of most concern t o those
concerned w i t h individual and societal values, i s outside of the scope of an
Impact Statement:
"The extent t o which the Federal Government may becoming ( s i c )
concurrently involved i n sectors of the ecorioiny no:$/ 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. There i s no consideration
given t o the economic costs of th2 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. I n ac!dition, there i s no analysis o f tbe effects--economic, soci21,

-
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 . This l a t t e r f a i l i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y puzzling i n via;/ o f the
statement i n the Draft Report t h a 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 carricd o u t , in a way
t h a t neutralizes or minimizes the consequences. 20 I1

Perhaps the AEC i s motivated i n i t s f a i l u r e t o 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 p r a c t i t i o n e r o f economic
benefit/cost analysis, t o write:
" I t i s my belief 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 1i t y
o f developing a large-scale, fission-based econc~ny. To e x p x t
i t t o d o so i s t o ask i t t o bear a burden i t cannot s u s t a i n .
This i s b x a u s e these questions a r e o f a deep ethical character.
u-

Benefi t-cost analyses c e r t a i n l y cannot solve such questions

and may well obscure them."42
We sympathize w i t h the Comiission i n i t s desire not t o b? required t o
acknowledge t h e exi stance of a safeguards and diversion problem and it s
apparent hope t h a t i t will n o t be required t o discuss the problem in the
evaluation o f the LMFBR. Ne t o o wish t h a t these problems did n o t exist and
t h a t society d i d not have t o 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 t e r n a t i v e wan5 of producing steam or I

electricity. That these considerations are new and t h a t society has y e t t o

evolve means t o cope w i t h them has been noted by th. British 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 iig 1:hi r?.gs
which f l e r o u t v a s t h ? s e c r e t o f i n s t a n t annihi'lation o f
-I_--- -.-
 V . 20-29

-28-

a l l l i v i n g t h i n g s . Time, measured only i n s h o r t y e a r s , will

disseminate t h i s sort o f knowledge ainong smaller, poorer
and less s t a b l e nations, some of which a r e ruled by adventurers
or fanatics .... In sum, doomsday f e a r s o f yesterday had no
r a t i o n a l b a s i s . Those of today have ~ l e n t y . " 4 ~
These hazards do e x i s t . Much a s we would l i k e t o ignore them, doing So will
not make them any l e s s r e a l .
We c l o s e by reminding t h e authors of t h e Final Environmental Irrpact
Statement f o r the LNFBR Program of comments by one of t h e most staunch
supporters of nuclear energy:
"Are there moral t-esponsibili t i e s t h a t we a s nuclear
t e c h n o l o g i s t s ought t o f a c e today, when t h e e n t e r p r i s e i s small
and the c o s t of e r r o r i s sniall, r a t h e r than d e f e r 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 generation when t h e e n t e r p r i s e i s huge and the c o s t
of e r r o r i n c a l c u l a b l y large? Are we doing a l l we can t o a s s u r e
t h a t future g e n w a t i o n s w i l l n o t be faced with foreclosed options
wherever we do not s e e p r e c i s e l y c l e a r and s a t i s f a c t o r y answers
t o the techno-moral questions posed by the r e l e a s e 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 e x e r t every humanly
p o s s i b l e e f f o r t t o uncover, a s s e s s , 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 d e f i c i e n c i e s can be minimized,
b u t a l s o when i t i s overwhelmingly important and t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s ,
i f unremediable, could irean catastrophe f o r t h e human r a c e . Atid
the b u r d e n of proof i s u p o n us: i t i s we who have c r e a t e d the
phoenix o f nuclear energy upon w h i c h the world w i l l probably
depend; i t i s we who must bend every e f f o r t t o v i s u a l i z e t h e
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 o u t appropriate a1 t e r n a t i v e s .11*5

-
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.

##Hi?#
APPEFIDICES hTTACHED AS PART OF THESE CO:.!PIEP!TS:

A/ Statement by TheodorE B. Taylor, Chairman of t h e Board, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Research

-
and Technology Corporation, before tlir! J o i n t Coami t t e e on Atoiriic Energy, Hearings
on F!uclear Redctor Sdfety, January 2 8 , 1374 [This A p p m l i x i s 11 pages i n length.]
B/ A summary, .___ Nuclear TIi:?ft: Risks by P!ason !*:illi-.ich and
Theodore R . T a v l o r . t h ? atinoanccinents of
p u b l i c a t i o n o f - t h e book. CThis Appendix i s 1 7 pages i n l e n g t h . ]
_C/_ Allen V . Knwse, "The Faustian Darrjain," ._-___
RCSOUTCCS, S!pternb?r 1974, p p . 1-5.
['rhis Appendix .is 5 payes i n lcngth.]
 V.20-30

-
APPEiIDIX A
-I-

-__ - ..- .. ._-- - - .-. ..- -- - -- -- -- _-

.- .. - .. .. .- -_._-- - _____
. .-

Statc-sent bay T':?odorc. 2 . Taylor

Chiiil*man - o f the R m r t ! , Internationai Research and Tc-c!inologv Corooraticn
bc.r'or.e the
J o i n t 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

t h e cpportunity tc? t e s t i f y a t these hearings on nuclear reactor s a f e t y .
The- s u b j e c 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 t a t e s 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 that ~f1.1
reduce t o an scceptable level the tfireat of d e s t r u c t i v e use c f nuile6r
m a t e r i a l s dive:-ted o r s t o l e n outrS9hi f r c n comowntc, o f nuciear D O W ~
systens'. I!-ithout much core s t r i n g e n t worl chide controls o f nuclcc?r
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 c r e d i b l c
t h a t nuclear violence may, within the next decade or t r 3 , reaclr l e v e l s
t h a t most of us would ccnsider i n t o l e r a b l e .
These concerns have bsen explored i n considerable d e t a i l '11 ;? series
o f a r t i c l e s bjr Jnhn %?l;ee i n the i.'a! YGP::-~Pl a s t Decezbcr. These will
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. !4ason'!~!i1ir5ch, Professor of 12:r a t the IJniversft,:: of
Virginia, and I hz?? a l s o m d e a study o f thSs cubjsct f o r t h ? Eri??rSy
Policy Prcject i i n 5 E t - the auspices of the Ford F o u i d a t i o i i . i t will !I?
pu5lished i i 1 Look f o : - ~ c a r l y t h i s V L ? X , under the t i t l e
E a 2 s aid SGfepinrE;.. \..'e hzve coze t o t!:c foiloxing s i x conc!usiQ!1s:

1
 V. 20-31

F i r s t , nuclear v/e~uonsarc rela t:'!rcly c a s y t o make, assuming the

r e q u i s i t e nuclcar i:iaterialL a r c available. All o f the inforioation,
non-nuclear fiisterials, 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 o f f i s s i o n explosives are r e a d i l y a v a i l -
. a b l e t h r o u g h w t t h o world. The technical ski1 Is, and resourcCs r e n u i r e d
would dcpend on the desired e f f i c i e n c y , 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 . Ur:der conceivable circunstances, :'nr exaxplz,
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 substantial amol:nt o-F h i g h explo-
sive could, within several b!eeks, s a f e l y design and build 2 crude,
transportable f j s s i o n bomb. By a !'crude, transpcrtable f i s s i o n bomb"
I m?an one t h a t ~ o u l dhe 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 c a r r i e d i n an
autonobile. T h i s could be done u s i n g rraterials and ecjuicment t h a t
could bo purchased a t a hardxare s t o r e and f r o n conxercial s u p p l i e r s cf
scien;;ific equiprent and materials f o r student laboratories. A I 1 . t y p e s
of plutoniua, hfghly enrichEd urz.nium, or uranium-233 ncn ~ i s or d COR-
teaplated f c r use by the nuclear -icdustl-y could be used f o r tliis pui-ncse,
as long as they x-e n o t d i i u t e d v;ith large m o u n t s of non-fissionab?c
w a t c r i a l s G\- m i x e d w i t h dangero:is q a n t i t i e s of g m m - r a y einitting
r a d i o i s o t o y s , S u C i i a s f i s s i o n prcducts. The exDlcsion o f such a device
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.
 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 l a r g e dornestic and foreiqli
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 extraction J f 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 r e a c t c r s i n the !jt-iitc:! S t a t e s \.:wid be aboJt 30,l;W kilogrsix i n
1930. Ey the year 2900, l i g h t lvater re?.ctors and f a s t .breFdcr r e a c t o r s
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 million kilogram i n t h e p a r 2 T X . In a d d i t i o n ,
worldwide f1ob:s of highly enriched urapiicnl Zncl uranium-233 G S S O -
ciated with h i g h tw1Deratiir-e gas c c o l d reactors or o t h e r t y x s of
reactors t h a t use t h z U233-tl~wi~~ri cycl E! may reach several htrndred
t h o u s a n d k i l o g r a m s o r nore by t h e end of t h e con'iilry.
T h i r d , t h e r e a r e ifiportsnt differences betwen d i f f e r e n t reactor
systciiis, and beiweer! d i f f ~ r e i i tp a r 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
materials they ccntain a r e inh?rently vulnerable t o tiicft o r ;/auld r e q u i r e
chemical o r physical conversion t o be s u i t a b l e f o r d i r e c t usq .,i,n.. a nuclear
explosive. In general, i r r a d i a t e d f u e l s eleirirnts are l a r g e l y -self protecting
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 l e t h a 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
s e l f n r o t e c t i ng f e a t u r e d i s a p p e a r s v:hen pllrtol>iui:l o r uran'uin-233 Pinve
been separated from f i s . s i o n 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 r e a l s o s a f e t o handle without shielding. Once these m a t e r i a l s
enter t h , o process stresms a t Sue! f a b r i c a t i o n p l ? r * t s , thev a r e generallt,
d i l u t e d , t o varyin!! dzsrees, a s i h c y ar'e incorporated i n t o f r e s h fuu2i.
As i!iis haDp?ns, the totrii w i g h t o f o b j e c t s tb?t would have t 3 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;-

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 r e a c t c r f u e l . For examole, the t o t a l
weights of several types of fuel asscnbly materials t h a t wogld hzve t o
be picked u u t o provide thieves with enough contained f i s s i o n a b l e 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
3as 'cooled rczctor (tiTGR) 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 r e a c t o r s (LI'FE9 or G C F R ) , 50-75 l h . I o f f e r
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 c y c l e s , more sho:rld
be considered than s i n p l y the types of f i s s i o n a b l e materials involved.
Important changes a f f e c t i n g opportunities 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
plants 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
8

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. Since

mid-1972, when the Fluclear Fuel Services fuel reorocessi ng Dlant shtit
down f o r exnansion and renovation, no Dlut3lliuiil has heen extracted a t
cominercial reprocessing plznts i n the rjnitcd S t a t e s . The General Electi-ic
reprocessing p l a n 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 i a t e d 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. This s i t u a t i o n vi11 change
r a p i d l y , hob:?\r.er, i f the G . E . p l a n 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 fron l i g h t water r e a c t o r s . 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 routine b a s i s , which may nst
happen u n t 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 o r be used pi-iniarily f o r M D progrsm:. After plutoni!rm
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 o l i i t a n i m D C ~
year can bc expccteci t o i'lo!.r fro;:) storage t o fuel fabricstior! plants a n d
 V. 20- 34 n

on t o scnicthing l i k e a h u n d r 2 d Dower plants. I a l s o understand t h a t a l l

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 fcbrication f a c i l i t y . StartuD fuel
for. the nw IITGI?'s noei on crtler will n o t be fahricated u n t i l the l a t e
1970's. In s h o r t , t h e r e 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 w i l l probably l a s t f o r several years, t o
be followed hy a r a t h e r sudden increase in the flows. This s i t u a t i o n ,
roughly sDeaking, appears t o hold f o r nuclear fuel cycles i n other
countries. 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.
Our fourth conclusion i s tAat, vithout e f f e c t i v e safeguards t o prevent
nuclear t h e f t , the developmnt of rillclear power ot? the s c a l e nolw i n pro-
spect will c r e a t s s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k s t o the American people a n d pecole- .
generhlly. . Individuals or groups nay attempt t o s t e a l nuclear weaoon
materials f o r 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 materials 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 e n t i r e coxvcni t.ies. Thc frequency a m i cbaracter o f
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
hehavior w j t h i n s o c i e t i e s pihere opportuni 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. A1 t h o u g h rcccni: regulatory a c t i o n s liav? s-trengtiiennd
r e q u i r c w n t s siibstzntially , 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 regulations 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 niaterials 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 r a ! i s p w t a t i on safeguards expected t o deal ~ f i lwi, ~t h
. . . * . 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
znszg7?~.J7,~=:;:t
;me guiding p r i n c i p l e a p p l y , by implication, to fixed s i t e s ? I f so,
then, I subinit, lic2nsees a r e n o t being asked t o protect these materials
even as -::ell as f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s protect t h e i r mney. If the A E C ' s
r e a l i n t e n t i o n i s t o have lice?Sces go s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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 objectives must be c l e a r l y spelled
out. C)t'ierv:isc!, t!-e adversary nature of neqstiations 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
negotiations
-.
and cause f u r t h e r delays i n the licensing procedilre. I am
.no!./ not o p t i m i s t i c about representatives a f the nuc:ear fndustry o f f e r i n g
t o go s u b s t a n t i a l l y beyonc! s a t i s f y i n g the l e t t e r o f the A E C regulations
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
lilIely t o be sut.stan.tia1.
This l e a d s ne. 'io another .important unresolvec! i s s u e concerning
safeguzrds. Eho should pay the added c o s t s of; rle:.i safeguards rieasures,
and by \chat mechanism? Present contrihutions t o the overall c o s t of
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 otiiors. The c o s t s of transp3i-.t.:tioii of concenti-.;.ted plctoniurn
or highly e c r i c h d uriliiitini, f o r e x m p l e , ? , ~ enicch '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 materials 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 c o s t s 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 i n s i g n i f i c a n t r!;e i n c o s 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 reSult of t k SailiF! ?ctioi>.
I f t h e plutoniani shipper allsorbs the costs of a really ~ o o dr~hj'sical

G
 V .20-36
n

protcction system, he rtiay have to price hiniself above his competitors

and 90 o u t of business. So r.!e have t h i s question: 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 r e f i n a l l y hornc! by t h e consumers of
nuclear e l e c t r i c 'power? I s h a l l return t o t h i s b r i e f l y l a t e r in my
s t a teriier!t .
F i n a l l y , we have concluded t h a t a system of safeguards can be deve-
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 i n t e r f e r i n g
s i g n i f i c a n t l y wi tti the c2ntinued 'rapid acvelopnent of nuclear po1iw. \/e
have suggested a guiding princ-iple, c a l l e d the "Princinle of Containxent"
for use i n designing such a system. According t o this p r i n c i p l e , the
overall object.ive o f a s a f e g u a r d s 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 e a r l y 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 ~ t h e scene i n time t o control any credible t h e f t
operation. Yeasures t h a t could be used f o r applying t h i s rx-iric'iple f a l l
i n t o f i v e broad categories: ,
..* .
1. Contaiment of nuclear n a t e r i a l s a t fixed s i t e s within physical
b a r r i e r s designed t o prevent unauthorized penetration l o n g enough t o
a1 low on-si t e o r reserve y a r d fGl.CeS capable o f dealing wi t h --t-scpc-
d i 3 l e t y p e of atteinpted t h e f t t o a r r i v e a t the scene before t!!e t h e f t
i s cornpl eted.
2. Siripaent of nuc'lcar n a t e r i a l s i n massive containers and vc?hicles
designed t o r c s ' s t p z r ~ t r a t i o n t, r a n s f e r of the shipnient t o another v s h i c l e ,
o r cmnandecri ng of the vehicle i t s e l f long enough f o r accom;inying
o r reserve g u a r d forces t o be a b l e t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y with G Z ~c m x ..-
>?c
7

t:!eft G 2 tcr/i;7t.

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 i c d control a o i n t s .
4 . Prol/ision of on-site and i n - t r a n s i t g u a r d forces f o r the mrnost?
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
a r e sounc!ea a n 3 the o f f - s i t e f o r c e s .
In a d d i t i o n , materials accounting Drocediii-es should De used a s a
backup. t o t h e akove types o f physical s e c u r i t y nieasures , t o help assure
detection of any covert diversion o f n x t e r i a l s n o t detected ,by t h o a1 arm
sys t e n s .
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 sinnly docs n o t q o a n J v l i p r c ' r i ~ ~ af ra r e!iwr,!: t o oreveqt
t h e f t s by grouns o f people ~ i t i ia t l c s s t the s k 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 okiective

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 i a t u s ifi t h e flo:.: of comercia1 Fiss-ioiiahle materials c o x s t o
an end in t h e 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 h e AX stid tlic clrclpar 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 c o n t r o l .
The nuclear ii;dustry has i m n v o v t i o n s 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 t h o AEC Fiilcl the industr\:
should d e v i s c ! and iR31W:etit Dracticahlc m v s t o resnocd t o these 0~~301'-

tunitics.
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 \ ~ ~ sslioultl
, olwi orrslv bc t l i ~ i r o ~ i ~v l ai ls s ; . s s ~ i befGre t h ? ~
a r e ii::i)lr:::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'IirJ-
 V.20-38

mcnts of concentrated plutotliui11 o x i d e 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 fabrication Dlail'iS t h a t
use t h e i r o u t p u t were next t o cacti other: F a c i l i t i e s f o r intermediate
conversion of plutotiim o r liighlv enriched ui-'animi, which a r e often
not/ located by t h e i : x e i w s , could integral Darts o f fuel reprocessing
or f a b r i c a t i o n ' f a c i l i t i e s . As' an extreme, b u t possibly gcneraily . a t t r a c -
t i v e option, - a l l fuel cycle cmponents t h a t handle f i s s i o n a b l e 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 . T h i s would n o t only reiiiove the !teed f o r transnortation o f
f i s s i o n a b l e materials over l a r g e d i s t a n c e s , h u t \/auld a l s o reduce,
through econoi:iies 3-f s c a l e , the overall costs of sa-feguards for a com-
p l e t e* fuel cycle.
As another exainpl e , it now appears 1 i(el)/ that 1-athzr massive g a m a -
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 , f o r ' r e a s o n s ,!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 storane, transr;ort,
and f a b r i c z t i o n 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 ing .
T!;ese b a r r i e r s 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 i n a l l y , I piant t o ctenl-ion a Dossihility -For nrovicling exoert Dro-
t c c t i v e secl;rity s e r v i c e s t o the n!iclcar industry -in a wa!~ t h a t would
assure g r e a t e s t practicable s e c u r i t y along w i t h an equitable
thC to
pay the added c o s t s . I f t h i s scrvice--including the required profcssional
personnel , eqiii?netit,cc:nir;unic~tions syct?;ils, a n d so on--v:ere p r o v i d e d ,
\.!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
private protpctivcl. scrvic?s vhosc c f f c c t i v e n e s s 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
only 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 k e 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 f o r c e of experts t h a t represent the .ititei*ests .and e x p e r t i s e 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 s h aiic! maintain an e f f c c t i v p i;uclear T;i3tel'ia! safyius.rd s y s t c ! n
ill .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 h c c o s t s 0-f the k i n d s o f safegLltii-tis I propose.

Third 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 g r e a t e r t h a n t h e dcll;l)- c o s t s of any
conceiv;lilc s a f e g u a r d systcni.
.t Ioplcneiitation o f . (7 hi:rlily ..effective safcguar,(s s y s t c t n ' i n t h e I.Jni tccl
S t a t e s 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 . h t l e a s t t h i r t y tmtions
now hive or at-e plannir,q t o h u i l d nuclear pzlwr r e a c t o r s . 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 l e v e l s i s amoiiCj the g r e a t e s t challenges humanity
has e v e r 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 i v i n g i n a world in which t;uclcar violence m y
becoine cormonplace. \.le haifc l i t t l e time, a n d much t o (lo. The f . i r s t
task 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 o u r own house
i n order. As we do t h i s , we rn!!~.: use a.11 the c r e a t i v e energies :.re can
mustcr t o v!ork w i t h people i n cither countries 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 g o a 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.

11

n
 V. 20-41

APPEI'jDIX B

A SUMMhRY

NUCLEAR THEFT: RISKS IWD SAFEGUARDS

by Mason W i l l r i c h and Theodore B. Taylor

T h i s book a n a l y z e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t n u c l e a r 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. n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r y

and used t o make weapons. It f i n d s t h e r i s k w i l l be "substan-

tial" u n l e s s e f f e c t i v e s t e p s a r e t a k e n 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 .
*
Nuclear energy i s r a p i d l y becoming a major s o u r c e of

~ ' e c t r i cpower i n t h e U.S. and nany o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . The

same materials, plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, t h a t

form t h e e x p l o s i v e c o r e s ' o f atomic bombs, a r e a l s o produced

and used a s f u e l i n n u c l e a r power r e a c t o r s . Within a f e w

y e a r s , t e n s of thousands of kilograms of t h e s e f i s s i o n a b l e

materials w i l l be f l o w i n g through t h e U.S. n u c l e a r power

industry. A few k i l o g r a m s of t h e s e same materials a r e

enough f o r a n atomic bomb; and a few grams of plutonium

are enough f o r a d e v i c e t h a t could c a u s e widespread r a d i o -

a c t i v e contamination.

The d e s i g n and manufacture of a crilde f i s s i o n bomb i s

no l o n g e r 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 n u c l e a r

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 d e v i c e

i s even s i m p l e r .
 V. 20-42
n

-2-

E f f e c t i v e safeguard measures a r e t h e r e f o r e necessary, s o t h a t

materials intended f o r use a s nuclear f u e l s are n o t s t o l e n and

misused by c r i m i n a l s o r t e r r o r i s t s . Based on t h e i r s t u d y , W i l l r i c h

and Taylor f i n d t h a t t h e U. S. program t o guard a g a i n s t t h e r i s k

of n u c l e a r t h e f t i s improving b u t incomplete; comparable measures

i n o t h e r n a t i o n s w i t h n u c l e a r power programs a l s o need improvement.

But t h e r e are safeguards which, i f implemented-, w i l l reduce t h e r i s k

of n u c l e a r t h e f t t o a v e r y low l e v e l -- an a c c e p t a b l e level, in the

a u t h o r s ’ judgment. They are convinced t h a t t h e c o s t s of t h e s e

s a f e g u a r d s w i l l be small compared t o t h e o v e r a l l c o s t s of n u c l e a r
.power. 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

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 , n o t t e c h n i c a l ,

i n character.

Many policymakers i n t h e energy f i e l d are o n l y vaguely aware

of t h e n u c l e a r t h e f t problem, and most o f t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c does

not know t h a t i t e x i s t s . This study i s intended t o c o n t r i b u t e t o

p u b l i c understanding oE t h e t e c h n i c a l f a c t s and p o l i c y i s s u e s in-

volved. It c o n t a i n s no c l a s s i f i e d information. Drawing from ex-

t e n s i v e u n c l a s s i f i e d d a t a , i t d e s c r i b e s i n g e n e r a l terms what materials

and s k i l l s a r e r e q u i r e d t o make crude atomic weapons; how much d e s t r u c t i o n

they could cause; where i n t h e nuclear power i n d u s t r y t h e key m a t e r i a l s

f o r such weapons a r e p r e s e n t ; and why and how c r i m i n a l s o r t e r r o r i s t s

might t r y t o s t e a l them.

How much does t h e p u b l i c need t o know about t h e r i s k s of n u c l e a r

theft? The most compelling argument a g a i n s t informing t h e p u b l i c i s

t h a 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 h e f a c t

 V . 20-43

-3-

i s t h a t a l a r g e amount of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n more t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l

t h a n t h i s s t u d y p r e s e n t s , i s a l r e a d y i n t h e p u b l i c domain.

More b a s i c a l l y , t h e 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

n u c l e a r power a r e n o t temporary; t h e y a r e a n i n e s c a p a b l e c h a r a c t e r -

i s t i c of t h e u s e of n u c l e a r energy t o meet more and more of t h e w o r l d ' s

demand f o r e l e c t r i c i t y . The p u b l i c needs t o know t h a t t h e y e a r s j u s t

ahead p r o v i d e t h e l a s t chance t o develop long-term s a f e g u a r d s .

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 b e t o o l a t e t o b e g i n

t o develop e f f e c t i v e s a f e g u a r d s a g a i n s t t h e f t .
a

On t h e b a s i s o f a n e x t e n s i v e review of p u b l i s h e d 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 c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h e x p e r t s , and c o n s i d e r -

a b l e t h o u g h t , t h e a u t h o r s conclude:

Under c o n c e i v a b l e c i r c u n s t a n c e s , a few p e r s o n s ,
II

p o s s i b l y even one p e r s o n working a l o n e , who

p o s s e s s e d a b o u t t e n k i l o g r a m s of plutonium o x i d e
and a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of chemical h i g h e x p l o s i v e
c o u l d , w i t h i n several weeks, d e s i g n and b u i l d a
c r u d e fission bomb. "

F i s s i o n e x p l o s i v e s c a n a l s o b e mads w i t h a few k i l o g r a m s of

high-enriched.uraniurn, o r w i t h uranium-233. All t h e s e materials a r e

found i n the c i v i l i a n n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r y . Besides n u c l e a r

m a t e r i a l and chemical e x p l o s i v e s , t h e o t h e r m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y f o r

making a c r u d e f i s s i o n bomb c a n b e 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 t u d e n t s .
 V. 20-44 n

-4-

People i n v o l v e d i n t h i s k i n d of c r i m i n a l e n t e r p r i s e would need

some l a b o r a t o r y and machine shop s k i l l s . They would have t o be

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

f i e d l i t e r a t u r e t h a t deals with nuclear explosives, nuclear reactor

s a f e t y , and o r d i n a r y e x p l o s i v e s . They would have t o be w i l l i n g t o

t a k e moderate r i s k s of s e r i o u s i n j u r y o r d e a t h .

"Whatever o p i n i o n s anyone may have about t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t

an i n d i v i d u a l o r v e r y small group of p e o p l e would a c t u a l l y steal

n u c l e a r materials and u s e them t o make f i s s i o n bombs, t h o s e o p i n i o n s

s h o u l d n o t b e based on a presumption t h a t a l l t y p e s o f 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 a u t h o r s say.

A "crude f i s s i o n bomb" i s d e f i n e d as one which h a s a n e x c e l l e n t

chance o f e x p l o d i n g , w i t h a p r o b a b l e y i e l d e q u a l of a t . l e a s t 100

t o n s of c h e m i c a l h i g h e x p l o s i v e , 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 . Even a "small" n u c l e a r e x p l o s i o n c o u l d c a u s e enormous

havoc. A n u c l e a r e x p l o s i o n produces n o t o n l y a b l a s t wave and h e a t ,

but also l e t h a l radiation. The e f f e c t s of a n u c l e a r weapon depend on

t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e t a r g e t a s 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

k i l l 2000 p e o p l e , m o s t l y by exposure t o r a d i o a c t i v e f a l l o u t . The

same e x p l o s i o n i n a p a r k i n g l o t b e n e a t h a s k y s c r a p e r c o u l d k i l l a s

many as 50,000 p e o p l e and d e s t r o y t h e e n t i r e b u i l d i n g .

In c r i m i n a l hands, plutonium c o u l d be a danger n o t o n l y a s raw

m a t e r i a l f o r a bomb, b u t a l s o in a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l y d i s p e r s a l d e v i c e .

Plutonium i s among t h e most t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s known. Airborne p a r t i c l e s

m a l l enough t o be b a r e l y v i s i b l e can c a u s e f i b r o s i s o r c a n c e r of t h e

lung. The amounts th7.t c o u l d pose a t h r e a t t o s o c i e t y are a c c o r d i n g l y

 V. 20-45

-5-

v e r y small. One hundred grams ( t h r e e and one h s l E ounces) o f

the s t u f f c o u l d be a d e a d l y risk t o 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 s p e r s e d .

In open a i r , t h e e f f e c t s would b e more d i l u t e d by wind and w e a t h e r ,

b u t t h e y would s t i l l b e s e r i o u s and l o n g - l a s t i n g .

I n t h e v e r y near f u t u r e , n u c l e a r materials w i l l b e c i r c u l a t i n g

in huge q u a n t i t i e s t h r o u g h t h e f u e l c y c l e s of n u c l e a r power p l a n t s .

By 1980, t e n s of t h o u s a n d s of k i l o g r a m s w i l l b e p r e s e n 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 k i l o g r a m s w i l l b e f l o w i n g t h r o u g h

civilian f u e l cycles i n other countries. 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 n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r i e s

t h r o u g h o u t t h e world r r i l l r a p i d l y i n c r e a s e .

Some p a r t s of t h e n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e s a r e 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 others. Each k i n d of n u c l e a r r e a c t o r , w i t h

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.

The most common r e a c t o r i n u s e today i s t h e l i g h t - w a t e r reactor

(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 h e 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 t h e 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 n u c l e a r weapon m a t e r i a l . However,

t h e light-water r e a c t o r d o e s 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 b e r e c y c l e d as LIJR f u e l ) . The

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

s p e n t f u e l at a r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t ; t h e r a d i o a c t i v i t y i t s e l f i s a

built-in safeguard a g a i n s t t h e € t . The o n l y p o i n t s i r t the p r e s e n t

LITR c y c l e where t h e f t o f plutonium miCht o c c u r a r e a f t e r c e p s r a t i o n

a t a fue? r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , d u r i n z s h i p n e n t t.o a :jC<)rasep l ~ l n t , or

 V. 20-46

-6-

a t the storage plant i t s e l f . Transportation, a s i n . a l l t h e f u e l

c y c l e s , i s p r o b a b l y t h e weakest s e c u r i t y l i n k .

When LWR's b e g i n t o u s e r e c y c l e d plutonium as f u e l , t h e chances

f o r t h e f t w i l l multiply. The most v u l n e r a b l e p a r t s of t h e f u e l c y c l e

w i l l be a t t h e r e p r o c e s s i n g 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 d u r i n g shipment between t h e s e sites. Completed f u e l a s s e m b l i e s

c o n t a i n i n g plutonium could a l s o be s t o l e n , b u t t h e heavy w e i g h t of

s u c h a s s e m b l i e s would make i t a d i f f i c u l t u n d e r t a k i n g .

One high-temperature gad-cooled r e a c t o r (HTGR) i s r e a d y to start

up i n 1974, as a d e m o n s t r a t i o n model; several commercial-scale IiTGR

p l a n t s are on o r d e r . I n t h e more d i s t a n t f u t u r e t h i s k i h d of r e a c t o r

may p l a y a l a r g e r r o l e . To b e g i n w i t h , t h e HTGR w i l l u s e high-enriched

uranium (which i s 90 t o 95 p e r c e n t U-235) as f u e l , and create uranium

233; l a t e r uranium 233 w i l l be r e c y c l e d 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

HTGR f u e l c y c l e p a r a l l e l i n g e n e r a l t h o s e f o r plutonium i n t h e l i g h t -

w a t e r reactor cycle. 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 c o n v e r t t o forma t h a t would b e u s a b l e i n n u c l e a r ex-

plosives. High-enriched uranium, t h e o t h e r HTGR f u e l , i s e s p e c i a l l y

vulnerable a t these points: as i t l e a v e s t h e f u e l enrichment p l a n t ,

i n t h e form of a h i g h l y e n r i c h e d uranium g a s ; w h i l e i t i s i n t r a n s i t

t o a chemical c o n v e r s i o n p l a n t ( t o be c o n v e r t e d i n t o s o l i d form); a t

t h e c o n v e r s i o n p l a n t ; nnd d u r i n g 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 a n t .

The l i q u i d r s i t a l f a s t : b r e e d e r r e a c t o r (ULF3R) i s s t i l l a t a n e a r l y

stage today. B r i t i n t e n s i v e development i s underway, and t h e I.?EJiR n a y

become t h e mainstay of n u c l e a r power p r o d u c t i o n t o v a r d t h e end of t h e

c e n t u r y b1;cauue It i s a b l e t o "breed" from common u r a n i u n more n u c l e a r

 1

V. 20-47

-7-

f u e l than i t burns. The LNFBR d r a m a t i c a l l y c s t t l n d s trhe l i E e t i i n e 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 a r e t h e same a s i n t h e

LWR c y c l e which i n c l u d e s a plutonium r e c y c l e . There i s a d i f f e r e n c e

however. The f a s t b r e e d e r ' s f u e l a s s e m b l i e s c o n t a i n a much h i g h e r

c o n c e n t r a t i o n of plutonium t h a n 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 .

The p r o b a b i l i t y of n u c l e a r t h e f t i s v e r y low, y e t i f i t d i d

happen t h e consequences c o u l d b e 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 i m i l a r t o t h e r i s k of a major a c c i d e n t

i n a n u c l e a 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 h e

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 s e p r i m a r i l y , n o t from

m a l f u n c t i o n i n g machines, b u t from m a l f u n c t i o n i n g people. The p o s s i b l e

damage from n u c l e a r t h e f t i s even g r e a t e r t h a n from t h e niaximum c r e d i b l e

reactor accident.

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

s t e a l n u c l e a r weapon m a t e r i a l s , f o r money o r f o r p u r p o s e s o f p o l i -

tical coercion. I f t h e y succeeded, t h e y could u s e t h e naterials

i n a number of ways t o t h r e a t e n g r o u p s , governments, o r whole con-

munities. It i s l i k e l y t h a t n u c l e a r t h e f t a t t e m p t s will be v e r y much

i n f l u e n c e d by t h e g e n e r a l s o c i a l and p o l L t i c a l c l i m a t e . Factors ov2r

which t h e n u c l e a r power i n d u s t r y h a s no c o n t r o l xd11, i n o t h e r words,

l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e t h e r a n g e 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
I
 V. 20-48

-8-

s a f e g u a r d requirer?.ents i n r e c e n t y e a r s , some h a s i c i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g

t o p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n have not y e t been r e s o l v e d .

I n many a r e a s p r e s e n t s e c u r i t y r e g u l a t i o n s a r e vaguely d e f i n e d .

The AEC i s now a t work d e v e l o p i n g b e t t e r g u i d e s f o r some, such as

design standards f o r a s a f e secure vehicle t o transport nuclear

weapon m a t e r i a l s . For o t h e r s , s e r i o u s a m h i g u t t i e s s t i l l remain.

I n s t i l l o t h e r areas , r e q u i r e m e n t s are p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d , b u t i n -

adequate. For example, t h e r e are no s p e c i f i c r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e

p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n of l e s s t h a n two kilograms of plutonium, even

though a s m a l l f r a c t i o n of t h a t amount i s enough t o make a r a d i o -

a .

l o g i c a l weapon. For a n o t h e r example, .the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r keeping

contact with v e h i c l e s while they carry nuclear shipnents a r e inef-

f ective .
There are no AEC o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d r e q u i r e m e n t s

for t h e p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n of n u c l e a 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 n u c l e a r power programs. Theft

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 a s 0th2r c o u n t r i e s . This w i l l b e 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 d o e s

(
,, /

a d m i n i s t e r a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l system of n u c l e a r m a t e r i a l s accountancy.

Taken t o g e t h e r , p r e s e n t U. S . s a f e g u a r d s 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 s a f e g u a r d s may e v o l v e , i f p r z s e n t

trends continue. Today, t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i n g such a

system as i t d e v e l o p s , becausa t h e AEC h a s n o t determined t h e maxi.mum

 V . 20-49

-9-

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

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 k e e p 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 d o u b l y i m p o r t a n t f o r t h e M C t o

d e v e l o p 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 c a n b e j u s t i f i e d i n pub-

lic h e a r i n g s , and t o d e v e l o p 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 s y s t e m 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 k e e p 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 c o n c l u d e . The

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

d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t n u c l e a r weapon msterials should be c a p a b l e o f

d e f e a t i n g the n a x i n u n c r e d i b l e t h r e a t t h a t can b e r e a s o n a b l y 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 . T h a t t h r e a t might i n -

volve a n . a t t a c k b y a group of p e r h a p f i v e t o t e n 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 , techniquaa 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 l o w s 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 o f n u c l e a r weapon m a t e r i a l s

o u t s i d e a u t h o r i z e d c h a n n e l s c a n be T n n e d i a t c l y decec t c d .
 V. 20-50

-10-

The s t u d y recommends:

The AEC s h o u l d d e s i g n a d e t a i l e d system of s a f e g u a r d s f o r

each of the n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e s base,d on u s e of t h e 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 s a f e g u a r d

d e s i g n s c o u l d t h a n bk e v a l u a t e d f o r c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s , t o help

d e t e r m i n e what r e q u i r e m e n t s s h o u l d be adopted f o r t h e n u c l e a r

power i n d u s t r y , what s a f e g u a r d 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 n u c l e a r t h e f t should be a c c e p t e d . )

The AEC should c o n s e r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a f e d e r a l n u c l e a r

materials s e c u r i t y s e r v i c e with t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of pro-

t e c t i n g nuclear materials subject t o s a f e g u a r -

The AEC s h o u u e v e l o p and p u b l i s h a s e t of p r o c e d u r e s f o r

t h e review of p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y plans s u b m i t t e d by i n d u s t r y l i c e n -

sees. (These p r o c e d u r e s s h o u l d p r o v i d e t h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y and t h e

p u b l i c w i t h s t r o n g a s s u r a n c e t h a t t h e s e c u r i t y p l a n s proposed by

l i c e n s e e s w i l l be a s s e s s e d t h o r o u g h l y ; t h a t s t a n d a r d s w i l l b e uni-

form and e q u i t a b l e ; t h a t a l l p l a n s 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 s c u s s i o n s w i t h 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 n u c l e a r power p r o g r a p w i t h

a view t o d e v e l o p i n g a cormon p o l i c y i n f a v o r o f e f f e c t i v e safe-

guards a g a i n s t n u c l e a r t h e f t anywhere i n t h e 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 d e m a n d s 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’ofw)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
NUMBER 44 RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, 1r.x. SEPTENBER 1973

In its original form, this stntement bore the somewhat bz imposed even iE nuclear fission were to hz used
abstrnct title, “Benefit-Cost Analysis and Unschediiled only for a fcw decades, a mcre instant in the pertinent
Events in the Nricleur Fuel Cycle.” The Atomic time scales.
Energy Cornniission had asked for comrnents on one Clearly, there are some major advantages in using
o f its docrrrtients, rioting tficit envirorrrnetrtnl statenrents nuclear fission technology, else it would not have so
for a power reuctor slio~rlrl contain a cost-benefit many wcll-intentioned . and intelligent advocates.
arinlysis which, among other things, “considers and Residual hcat is produced to a greater extent by cur-
balnnces the adverse environmeritnl egects rind the rent nuclear generating plants than by fossil fuel-fired
envirotirtrentol, econonric, technical nnd ofher benefits ones. But, otherwise, the cnvironmentd impact ot
of the facilily.” In response to the invitation, Allen V . routine operation o f the nuclear fuel cycle, including
Kneese, director of RFF’s program of stirdies in the burning the fuel in the rcactor, can very likely bi:
quality of the environment, srtbmitted the following brought to a lower level than will be possible with
remarks. fossil fuel-fired plants. This superiority may not, how-
ever, extend to some forms of other alternatives, such
AM SUBMfTTING this statement as a longtime as solar and gzothermal cncrgy, which have received
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 impor-
tant policy questions associated with the desirability of
developing a largescale, fission-based economy. To
expect it to d o so is to ask it to bear a burden it can-
not sustain. This is so becausc these questions are of
a deep ethical character. Benefit-cost analyses cer-
taidy cannot solve such questions and may well
obscurz them.
These questions have to do with whether society
should strike the Faustian bargain with atomic scien-
tists 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 sophis-
ticated ninnagment of a clnnjierous mntcrinl, csscritidly
fowvtx. The penalty of not bsiriiig this burden may
be unp:irallclrd disastrr. ‘l‘liis irreversible burtlcn would

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 tint 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 con-
ceptual basis of benefit-cost analysis
requires that the redistributional cf-
fccts of the action be, for one or
another reason, inconsequential.
Here we are speaking of hazards
that may affect hnnianity many
generations hence and equity ques-
tions 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 haz-
ards. 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. Iri 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 gov-
ernment.
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 full national discussion at a
level of scriousncss ancl 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 this t
'l'lie Join: T:conc;inic C'oiliiniticc
1 1 bz nrjpi'opi ink. ~ ~ i ~ o tpcis-
l i ~ i ~
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 w i t t i clcvclop-
iiig t ~ d ~ ~ i o l o'Tlic ~ y .w w l y chtall-
lislictl 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 think 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
discus 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 iri 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~co f fucl rock i n sorne
reactors.
Tllcrc have 1011g bccn t l c q ~,hut
~ ~ d within :!-e s c r c ~ -
s i ~ p p r c ~d(mli:h
t i t i c coiiiinunity ; i l l o u t thc atli'ciu:~~)
o f rL,:ictor 5:tfctjr r
t 11e ::Ic o n 6 c I11 pli i\I o I! c IL*YCI 1 pi :i 2
( 1'(1\ii\':\li'i\t to tlrr. ~ C ! L > ~ > of
Union of Coiiccrncd Scientists has
callcd ptiblic attention t o tlic haz-
ards of nuclcar fissiori and ;isLcd
for a iirnratoriirrn OH the con\tructiun
of I X \ V plants antl stringcrit opcrat-
ing 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 transporta-
tion of spent fucl elements and in
fucl reprocessing facilitizs. As yet,
there has bccn essentially no com-
mercial 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 suf-
ficient 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, rc-
sulting 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 t l i n i i thc rc-
Icasc of' tlic iiiors volntils fission
pruducts. Plutoniuni is onc or thz
most potent rcspirntoiy carcinaigcns
i n cxistcncc. I n 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 frxtion 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 tllilt
illL:[ c l c m 01' 011ly:L snt;~ll p L - 1 n v r -
a;:c OF this iiivciltory \\xi~i;el llc
C <i!l tflc
voI:itiIc f i h . < i o i r jirntlwt:; in c~nctrf
toi.l:iy's niiclcxr p1:ints. Or:x l c ~ : ~t ot

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 tci 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 un-
expected 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 an-
other 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 it highly for this pur-
posz. Although an illicit market has
not yct been established, its value
has been cstimatcd to be com-
pai~ibleto that of heroin (around
SS,OOO per pound). A certain nuin-
ber of people may be tcinptctl
to takc great risks to obtain it.
AEC Coinmissioner Larscn, anicing
olhers, h:is cnllccl attLntion t o this
posibility. T h i s , a Iar;:e-scalc
fission cncrgy economy coultl in-
atlvcrtently coritrihutz to tht: p r o -
1ifcr;ition of tiuclcw. weapons. 7 1 1 ~
V. 20-54
nii!:ht f;dl i n t o the. h : i i i A d c w t 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 vigi1:iricc
t or so, while t!v starch for a pcr-
and thc highcst Icvcls of quality
control, continuously and i/ide/i-
nifc[y. As the fission encrgy eco-
nomy 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 atcrial s v-i1I 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 vigi-
lance. We should recall that we
managed to incinerate three astro-
nauts in a w r y straightforward acci-
dent in an extremely high tcch-
nology 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 com-
panies had drilled the area full of
holes, and there had also been solu-
tion 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
c 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 tlic 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~:tlu p t i
thc <!:sign or surlaee stclrnsz incili-
tics intcndzcl to I a r t n Iiuclcli-L-ci years
rnancnt sitc continuss. T l i ~ s : sur-
face 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 disas-
trous and cvcn grcater tiagi'dics can
be imagined.
Just io get nn idea of the scalc of
disaster that could take placc, con-
sidcr the following scensrio. Political
factors force the feclcral govern-
ment 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~tldbe
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 mas-
sive numbers of dzaths might rc-
sult 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.
s
OMET[MES, aiialogics nr2 u l y l
t o suggcsi that ihc b11rtl;n
placet1 upon future gcncrations by
3

_-- . would only inereax ths risks innr-
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 n e r c looted already i n
ancicnt times. I n the 19.50s the
Dutch tiikcs wei-c i n fact brcachcd
by the N o r t h 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 sys-
tcni o ! ancient Persin. \ V k n Tnnier-
lane tlest!-iiyctl i t i n thz 14tl: c c n -
tury, a civiliz:ttion ciic!cJ.
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 dsinzc: tile
Parthenon \VX Otiilt. \\ic k n o w of
i i o governincat w l i o w lice \V;IS tiiorc
than an iiistant by conilurisoii with
the half-lift. of plutoniiim.
I t scents cle;ir t:int Ilicrc iiic
niariy fiii:[ors h2Ic \:;/iicIi ;I l > L ~ l i ~ : l ~ t ~
cost :iii:llyhis c:in ncvc.i c;!!>turc: iii
qu:iiitih!i\,c. cc,iiiiiic.ri,iir;i!ile tc;iii<.
I t iil<o \ c s i i i i j tiiii,L>;ili:,tic t o L,l;iiiii
that t l i i ii\icIcxr f u e l c!.c,l: \vi11 i l o i
scini ,:I iI11 c, xi I11 c IiLtr:, c,., 1 r i c n (;':
iii:t jor uii\L,licd11 Ictl i
c,)ii!tI M I I ~ i n i?i,t!r,:ii!t:(lc
4
V . 20-55
local cvc'iits, l i k e tlis fire a t tlic
Rock)- hlotiiit:iiii !\rscii:il. t o : i i i es-
ti.c~riic tlisns1c.r ::licc.tiiig nio\t of
niaiikintl. \\'lictlic.r tlicv: h:iznicls
arc wriith iiic,iiiriiig iii \,iciv (if tlic
beliefit\ achicw<I i s \ v l ~ a t Alvin
\VcinOcrg lins rL,.fL,ired 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 c a 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 ad-
dressed i s whether i t i s i n fact not
a1re:idy ' t o o late. €lavz we already
accuoiulatcd such n store ol' high-
level \ V V ; \ S ~ C that furclier adtlitioiis
ginally? \\'hilt the prcscr7t waste
(primarily from t l i t military pro-
gram plus the plL!toniuni nncl hichly
enriched uranicm contained i n
bombs antl niilitnry stockpiles) i s
b y no m e a n s 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 ac-
cuniulated from the civilian nuclc.ar
power program \vi11 contain niorc
radioLiciivity t h a n ths military w ~ t c beginning to Icarii i:iore rrboiit how
by 1980 n r shortly thereafter. 13y
2020 the radioactivity in thc niili-
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 n t i I Iorig-te r n i \vast i: s t or-
ii ;
I
age piobleni. Devcloprnsnt of a
full-scalr f i s i o n c n c q y cioiicmiy
\ r ~ u l dnclil overwtislmingly to i t . I r i
any case, i t i s ncvcr too late to
makc a decision, only latcr.
0 One of the potential benefits of
l:xinl
rcnctois arc vcry liiic 7rtnin .it , t l r i \
point. Tlicy 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 f c t y . 'l'ltc (Irciiin 'pi\\.cr
too clicnp to rnctcr" was cx;ictly
Illat.
Another near-tcrm benefit i s [ l i n t
fission plants will c o n t r i h t c t o o u r
supply during tlic cncrgy "ci ibis"
that lies alieatl for the nest d ~ a d c . .
or so. One should take note tliat
this crisis was in p x t c:iuxtl by
clclays in getting fissinn plants oil
t h e line. Also, thcrc sccms to be a
severc limitation .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 ortkr o f a decade.
Thc loiig-term advantage of fis-
sion i s that once thc breeder i s de-
veloped we w i l l have a nearly litriit-
less, although i:ot ncccsarily ellcap,
supply of energy. This is very im-
portant 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:
to copc wiih tliz ''known dcvils" of
coal. O i l sh;ilcs niid tar sands :dso
are t)ntcntially vcry large soiirccs of
cner-gy, alilioiigh thcir csploitation
will 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 h a s Ixcii or:ly
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 i o n I-iray m v c r bc :!chicvc,Ll, it;
tiori i \ t o 1)ii:ib: o i i t t i i t 1'r'c\:lit ~.:t
of l i ~ , \ i o i i rL,:ictors, I>,iii I:!I.;:L:
Llitic)i[iits 01' i*:\tiurccs iiilo (IcJiii:;
 V.20-56
t:ith t h i ciivii oiiiiiciit;il p r ~ ~ b l c i i of
is
:fosil fui.l\, ; r i i d 1Jrii.c cril~ryyat i t \
full soci;il cost, whicli \vi11 hclp to
limit tlsiiiaiid g o \ v t h . l'o~sil~lyi t
would ; r I \ o tui-ii o u t to tic (lc\ir:ililc
to use ;i liriiitctl i i i i i i i l m of lisioii
rcactors' to hui-n tlic lircsciit stocks
of plutoriiurii a n d 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 con-
tinuing 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 dis-
aster in our timr: and would be Icav-
ing a much smaller Icgacy of "per-
manent" hazajcl. On the oilier
9
11 a II d, wc \v011 I tl prt l b n l l I y 11:I vc t [ I
sun'cr tlic ~"""erlcc of I11oIc sllort-
l i v e d uircIcsii~:ibli~~ u i i \ t a i i c c * si i i tlic
cnvironriicrit i i i the ii2:ir t c m .
This stia(cgy iiiight fail to t u r 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.
 V. 20-57

UNITED STATES
ATOM I c EN ERG Y COM rv: I ss I ON
WASHINGTON. D C 20545

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 l e t t e r of A p r i l 24, 1914 t r a n s m i t t i n g comments by

t h e N a t u r a l Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on t h e Atomic Energy
Commission's D r a f t E n v i r o n n e n t a l Statement on t h e L i q u i d Metal Fast
B r e e d e r Reactor (LMFBR) Program. Thz Statement h a s been r e v i s e d where
a p p r a p f i a t e i n response t o t h e many comments r e c e i v e d . In particular,
t h e S a f e g u a r d s 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 a d d r e s s e s t h e major concerns e x p r e s s e d
by the NKDC. The e n c l o s e d 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 l e t t e r and o f f e r s s p e c i f i c responses.

The NRDC comments were v e r y h e l p f u l t o thc AEC i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of

the Final S t a t e m e n t , a copy of d i l c h is e n c l o s e d f o r your I n f o r m a t i o n .
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
appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ja e's L. Liverman
(A$s i s t a n t General Manager for
Biomedical & Environmental
Research & S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures:
1. AEC S t a f f Response t o
Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
UIFBR Program (WASB-1535)

CC: J. G. S p e t h , NRDC, w i t h e n c l o s u r e 1.
 V.20-58

Enclosure 1

AEc S t a f f Response To Comments By The N a t u r a l Resources Defense Council

1. Nature of t h e T h r e a t

--
Comment

Page 7 -"Given t h e n t h a t SXl exists i n l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s i n t h e LIIFRR f u e l

c y c l e , t h a t were i t d i v e r t e d i t could form t h e 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 t h e D r a f t
Environmental s t a t e m e n t have. t o s a y a b o u t t h o s e 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 b e h a v i o r ' ? "

Response

S e c t i o n 7.4.3 of t h e F i n a l Statement a d d r e s s e s t h i s q u e s t i o n . It i s , of
c o u r s e , n o t p o s s i b l e t o d e f i n e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e a d v e r s a r y w i t h
confidencc? and i t becomes n e c e s s a r y t o r e f l e c t t h i s f a c t i n t h e n a t u r e of
t h e s a f e g u a r d s employed. The b a s i s f o r f u t u r e s a f e g u a r d s is d e s c r i b e d i n
S e c t i o n 7.4.8,

2. F u t u r e AEC S a f e g u a r d s

Comment

Page 2 -"...we assumed t h a t t h e AEC would 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 D r a f t Environmental Statement of t h e LMFUR.. . t o o u t l i n e i n d e t a i l

..."
t h e measures b e i n g t a k e n o r a n t i c i p a t e d t o cope w i t h t h e r i s k s of d i v e r -
s i o n from t h e UIFBR f u e l c y c l e

Page 3 - "'Ihe manner i n which t h e s e d i v e r s i o n s w i l l be a t t e m p t e d t o be

p r e v e n t e d o r t h e e f f e c t s should d i v e r s i o n s t a k e p l a c e a r e t o t a l l y
ignored. F u r t h e r , t h e D r a f t Statement does n o t d e s c r i b e s t u d i e s under-
way which a d d r e s s t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e s a f e g u a r d s and d i v e r s i o n
p rob l e m . 'I

Page 8 - "A& t h e g o a l is a b s o l u t e p r e v e n t i o n of any t h e f t : 'The AEC

s e e k s t o p r e v e n t any d i v e r s i o n of n u c l e a r material and does n o t r e c o g n i z e
any q u a n t i t a t i v e limit on t h i s o b j e c t i v e . ' How t h i s g o a l of p e r f e c t con-
t a i n m e n t , of a b s o l u t e p r e v e n t i o n of t h e f t o r r e c o v e r y of SIC1 should t h e r e
be a t h e f t , is t o b e achieved is l e f t t o t h e r e a d e r ' s imagination.. . I '

Page 9 - " A t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e D r a f t Environmental Statement t h e r e a d e r

would e x p e c t t o f i n d a f u l l , c a n d i d , and e x p l i c i t d i s c u s s i o n . . . o f the
n a t u r e of t h e 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 e n g t h e n ' t h e e x i s t i n g s a f e g u a r d s program. What i n s t e a d i s found is
.
a f l a t u l e n t e x p o s i t i o n of t h e ' s a f e g u a r d s measures p r e s e n t l y i n p l a c e , ' . .I1
 V .20-59

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 c y c l e s . I t r e c o g n i z e s t h e need t o p r o v i d e 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. The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e is t o p r o v i d e mul-
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 b e
n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t t h e a d v e r s a r y ' s purpose. I n s e l e c t i n g t h e set of
c o u n t e r m e a s u r e s , o n e a i m would b e t o make t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e system
as i n d e p e n d e n t h p o s s i b l e of t h e n a t u r e of t h e a d v e r s a r y .

Where t h e p o t e n t i a l consequences o f a p a r t i c u l a r a d v e r s a r y a c t i o n sequence

are e x t r e m e , 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. I t is n o t e x p e c t e d t h a t a p e r f e c t s y s t e m ' c a n be d e v i s e d ;
hwaever, i t is n o t c o n s i d e r e d u s e f u l t o 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
s u c h 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 c o n t i n u i n g , dynamic p r o c e d u r e

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
t h e problem and e f f o r t s t o r e s o l v e it.

3. Cost of F u t u r e 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 o f 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 c o u l d a c c r u e t o s o c i e t y s h o u l d
t h e r e b e a f a i l u r e of t h e s a f e g u a r d s , "

Page 12 - "...the AEC s h o u l d 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 S t a t e m e n t 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 d e n a t u r i n g . "

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 o f t h e a d v a n t a g e s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f n u c l e a r
p a r k s , s a y n o t h i n g of t h e d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s - - i n c l u d i n g 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 f a c t o r s - - w h i c h a n a d e q u a t e Environmental
Impact S t a t e m e n t demands .'I

Response

S e c t i o n 7.4.9 of t h e Final Statement p r o v i d e s p r e l i r r i n a r y estimates of

t h e economic impact of s z f e g u a r d s on t h e UGBR f u e l c y c l e . The estimates
are n e c e s s a r i l y p r e l i m i n a r y 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
 V. 20-60

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have n o t y e t been determined. The c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e

c o s t e8 timaees are :

. The o p e r a t i n g c o s t of s a f e g u a r d s w i t h 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 b e less t h a n two percenC of t h e t o t a l o p e r a t i n g c o s t s of a
l a r g e (80,000 HWe) f u e l c y c l e module.

. The c a p i t a l c o s t s of s a f e g u a r d s eqdipment w i l l be less t h a n one

p e r c e n t of t h e LPEBR f u e l c y c l e c a p i t a l c o s t s .

. Safeguards c o s t s f o r LWR w i t h o u t plutonium r e c y c l e would b e a b o u t

h a l f of LWBR s a f e g u a r d s costs.

. The c o s t s of s a f e g u a r d i n g companents of L I F B R f u e l c y c l e s w i l l be
aomwhat g r e a t e r t h a n t h e c o s t s of s a f e g u a r d i n g cornponents of llTCR,
LWR w i t h plutonium r e c y c l e , o r MSBR, and comparable t o t h e COS:^ of
s a f e g u a r d i n g GCFR f u e l c y c l e s .

The merits of "denaturing" and n u c l e a r 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 S a f e g u a r d s are d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 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 D r a f t Statement i n c l u d e even t h e most rudi-

mentary d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e ZIFBR f u e l c y c l e i n c l u d i n g such t h i n g s as
t h e q u a n t i t i e s and chemical o r p h y s i c a l form of s p e c i a l n u c l e a r
materials a t each p o i n t i n t h e f u e l c y c l e . No mention is tlade of t h e
r e l a t i v e advantages o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s , from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of p r e v e n t i o n
[sic) d i v e r s i o n s of SPIM, of a l t e r n a t i v e s t o t h e LNFBR Program."

-
Pa& - '.'...(the D r a f t Statement) is t o t a l l y i n a d e q u a t e t o permit t h e
r e a d e r t o - a p p r e c i a t e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n , and t h e chemical and p h y s i c a l
form, of t h e SNX a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s of t h e fu(e1 cycle."

-Pape 26 - "The D r a f t Statement does n o t i n c l u d e a comparison of t h e

s a f e g u a r d s and d i v e r s i o n i m p l i c a t i o n s of a l t e r n a t i v e f i s s i o n prograris ,
a l t h o u g h t h e v a r i o u s 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

S e c t i o n 7.4.6 of t h e F i n a l Statement d i s c u s s e s t h e LMFBR and o t h e r f u e l

c y c l e s from a s a f e g u a r d s viewpoint. I n a d d i t i o n , S e c t i o n 7.4.9 examines

n
 V. 20-61

t h e economic aspects of s a f e g u a r d i n g d i f f e r e n t f u e l c y c l e s and d i f f e r e n t

n u c l e a r power g e n e r a t i o n "mixes".

It is p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h e materials i n t h e v a r i o u s p a r t s of t h e d i f f e r -
e n t f u e l c y c l e s r e p r e s e n t an a t t r a c t i v e t a r g e t i n i n v e r s e p r o p o r t i o n
t o t h e amount of p r o c e s s i n g n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n f i s s i l e r a t e r i a l i n
p u r e r c o n c e n t r a t e d form. Various p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t f o r r e d u c i n g t h e
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 t h e f u e l c y c l e 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 f e r t i l e product a t t h e r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n e
o r c o - l o c a t i o n of f a b r i c a t i o n and r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t s ) . The s e l e c t i o n
of t h e s e depends on t h e n a t u r e and d e s i g n 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 n o t l e n d i t s e l f t o g e n e r a l i z e d d i s c u s s i o n ,

All f i s s i o n systems e i t h e r u s e o r produce materials t h a t would b e u s c a b l e

in a n u c l e a r e x p l o s i v e a f t e r chemical processing. The range of d i f f i c u l t y
.of s a f e g u a r d i n g t h e v a r i o u s f w . 1 c y c l e s , a s e x p r e s s e d by t h e range of
c o s t s I does n o 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 t h e
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 S u c c e s s f u l T h e f t or Sabotage

Come n t s

Page 1 7 - "...the Statement c o n t a i n s a comment on t h e ease i n c o n s t r w t i n g

a n u c l e a r e x p l o s i v e : 'The c o n s t r u c t i o n of G workable n u c l e a r e x p l c s i v e
d e v i c e is a complex and d i f f i c u l t t a s k r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l i z e d s k i l l s and
c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s o u r c e s . 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 n u c l e a r y i e l d a t a l l . ' This
statcmeiit is unsupported e i t h e r by material i n c l u d e d i n t h e D r a f t
Environmental Statement or i n c l u d e d by r e f e r e n c e . The s t a t e m e n t 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 c o n c l u s i o n s reached and s u p p o r t e d by
e x h a u s t i v e l y d e t a i l e d r e p o r t s by p e r s o n s acknowledged t o be e x p e r t i n
t h e d e s i g n of f i s s i o n bombs."

Page 20 - "Are w e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e AEC is i n c a p a b l e of imagining t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t t h e time and p l a c e of t h e d e t o n a t i o n of a n i l l e g a l
n u c l e a r weapon i n t h e hands of a n i n d i v i d u a l o r group b e n t on ' a n t i -
s o c i a l b e h a v i o r ? ' A r e we t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e AEC is i n c a p a b l e o f
s p e c i f y i n g t h e e f f e c t s - - i n terms of p r o p e r t y l o s s , d e t a h s 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 a n a r r a y o f ' c i r c u r r s t a n c e s
a t t h e tirue ar.d p l a c e ' which would b r a c k e 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 policy considerations."
 V. 20-62

Response

The d e b a t e on whether i t is easy t o c o n s t r u c t a n u c l e a r e x l o s i o n d e v i c e

r e v o l v e s around matters of d e g r e e . There (appears t o b e g e n e r a l agrecment
t h a t , given t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h e r e q u i s i t e n u c l e a r material, t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n of an i l l i c i t e x p l o s i o n d e v i c e r e q u 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 r e s o u r c e s . Disagreement arises w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
way t h e l e v e l o r r e q u i r e d s k i l l s and r e s o u r c e s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d . This
is i m p o r t a n t because i f t h e t a s k is made t o appear t o o d i f f i c u l t , t h e
s a f e g u a r d s problem might n o t be s e e n i n i t : 3 t r u e dimension; i f i t is
made t o appear t o o e a s y , t h a t could s t i m u l a t e o v e r c o n f i d e n c e among t h o s a
who might b e encouraged t o a t t e m p t such acts. C l e a r l y , what.wou1d b e
easy f o r one man o r group might be d i f f l c u f t f o r another. The design
and implementation of t h e AEC's s a f e g u a r d s system is based on t h e premise
t h a t making an i l l i c i t n u c l e a r e x p l o s i v e €1; w i t h i n t h e r a n g e of s k i l l s
and r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o p e r s o n s o r g o u p s o p e r a t i n g o u t s i d e t h e l a w .

The d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s of arAy i l l i c i t n u c l e a r e x p l o s i o n depends on t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e of i t s d e t o n a t i o n and on i t s y i e l d .
The c i r c u m s t a n c e s are a matter of c h o i c e € o r t h e a d v e r s a r y , a s 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 t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e n u c l e a r material and t h e s k i l l s
and r e s o u r c e s GE i h e a d v e r s a r y . 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 i s c u s s e d i n a s p e c u l a t i t v e way i n S e c t i o n 7.4.5.1.1
of t h e F i n a l Statement.
6. Socio-Political Implications

Comrcent

Page I -
5 "The F i n a l Environmental Statement must i n c l u d e a f u l l and
candid d i s c u s s i o n of e i t h e r how t h e AEC proposes t o e n a c t and e n f o r c e
t h e s a f e g u a r d s program which i t c o n t e n d s wi.11 be n e c e s s a r y w i t h t h e
LMFBR w i t h o u t t h e e u p p o r t and c o o p e r a t i o n of t h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y , o r
t h e means t h a t are a n t i c i p a t e d to proceed w i t h t h e LbiFBR w i t h o u t
depending on i n d u s t r y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n matters i n v o l v i n g 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 n u c l e a r materials."

Pages 15-16 - "...the e x t e n t t o which t h e e ! x i s t e n c e of t h e LMFBR program,

which cannot, of c o u r s e , b e d i v o r c e d 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 n e c e s s i t y f o r b e h a v i o r a l , s o c i a l , and o t h e r c o n t r o l s is
among t h e most profound and g r a v e of a l l of' t h e many q u e s t i o n s surround-
i n g t h e development of t h e LMFBR Program. What are t h e changes, n o t i n

..
technology, b u t i n o u r v e r y s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t map b e d i c t a t e d by
a d e c i s i o n t o proceed w i t h t h e UlFBR Program?. 'I
 V . 20-63

Response

The Atoinic Energy Act p r o v i d e s 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 h e U.S.

governnent t o e s t a b l i s h and e n f o r c e s a f e g u a r d s r e q u i r e m e n t s on f a c i l -
i t i e s s u c h as t h o s e i n tile LPFBR program. Whereas t h i s p r o v i d e s a
mechanism f o r u n i l a t e r a l i m p o s i t i o n of t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s we are
c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o i l OE c o o p e r a t i o n by t h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y ,
which h a s 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 t h e development and
implementation o f t h e s a f e g u a r d s program.

There is ample e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e n u c l e a 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 h e need f o r a p p r o p r i a t e s a f e g u a r d s and t h a t t h e c o s t s of
s a f e g u a r d s are p a r t of t h e c o s t s of doinp, b u s i n e s s . Section 7.b.9.7
o f the F i n d . Statement d i s c u s s e s p o s s i b l e ways of d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e s e
costs. '

S e c t i o n s 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 d e a l w i t h t h e b r o a d e r a s p e c t s of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l

implications. I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h r e e t y p e s of e f f e c t s are d i s c u s s e d : (a)
e f f e c t s on employees and p o t e n t i a l employees of n u c l e a r i n d u s t r i e s ; (b)
e f f e c t s on t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n d u r i n g r o n n a l p e r i o d s a r i s i n g from
i m p l e a e n t a t i o n of s a f e g u a r d s , 2nd ( c ) e f f e c t s on the p u b l i c d u r i n g
r e c o v e r y o p e r a t i o n s f o l l o w i n g a t h e f t of n u c l e a r materials.

Plany o f t h e most s z r i o u s i s s u e s e n t a i l v a l u e 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 e c h n i c a l f a c t o r s t h a t cannot b e d e a l t w i t h i n
t h e a b s o l u t e d o l l a r s and c e n t s terms of c a s t - b e n e f i t . U n s a t i s f a c t o r y 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 o r n o n - a c c e p t a b i l i t y
of a technn?ogy, no such proof is p o s s i b l e w i t h r e g a r d t o many 02 t h e s e
i s s u e s . i h n y of them, such as t h e q u e s t i o n of s a f e g u a r d s , have s u c h
d i r e c t s o c i a l a l i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t t h e y w i l l b e t h e s u b j e c t of c o n t i n u i n g
p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n . By t h a t d i s c u s s i o n , 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 v a l u e s are r e f l e c t e d i n , t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e program.
I n i t s most- g e n e r a l a s p e c t , t h e i n t e n t of t h e Statement is t o p r o v t d e
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h a t p r o c e s s of p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e .

7. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Implications

Comment

Page 5 - "It is noteworthy t h a t t h e D r a f t Statement does n o t claim t h a t

t h e p r e s e n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s s y s tern is a d e q u a t e even f o r t o d a y ' s
r e a c t o r economy, b u t simply s t a t e s 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 s a f e g u a r d s program does e x i s t . ' Further,
 V. 210-64

n m h e r e i n t h e D r a f t Statement is t h e r e conment on t h e d e g r e e t o which

o t h e r n a t i o n s have found t h e p r e s e n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s program
a c c e p t a b l e , o r t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e r e is a c c e p t a n c e 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 m o d i f i c a t i o n ' .I'

PaEz -
- "On t h e q u e s t i o n s a s s o c i a t : e d w i t h t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s
i s s u e t h e D r a f t Report i s complete1.y s i l e n t . There is n o t a s i n g l e word
a d d r e s s i n g t h i s t o p i c a l t h o u g h t h e 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
w i t h such d i s c i i s s i o n s . "

Page 2 3 - "Regarding t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of a f a i l u r e of t h e
systems d e s i g n e d t o ' p r e v e n t t h e d i v e r s i o n of material s u i t a b l e f o r
weapons p r o d u c t i o n from p e a c e f u l a p p l i c a t i > n s ' , 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
c o u l d l e a d t o n u c l e a r weapons c e p a b l i l i t y b e i n g extended t o v i r t u a l l y any
nation-state. I f , however, t h e AEC: i e a r g u i n g t h a t i t need n o t d i s c u s s
t h e weapons p r o l i f e r a t i o n i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e L ? F B R on t h e grounds Chat
o t h e r developments, f o r example, i n new uranium enrichinent t e c h n o l o g y ,
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 i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e
d e c i s i o n to proceed w i t h t h e L!.fFBR, t h e n t h e AEC h a s t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o
f u l l y d i s c u s s t h e s e 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 s p e c t s t o s a f e g u a r d s . One r e l a t e s t o t h e

questi,on of s u b - n a t i o n a l a t t e m p t s a.t d i v e r s i o n i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . That
s u b j e c t is d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 7.4.4.2. 'The second a s p e c t is t h e pro-
l i f e r a t i o n i s s u e a d d r e s s e d by your comments. That s u b j e c t is covered
i n S e c t i o n 5.4.3.

8. The C u r r e n t SafepGards System

Comment

Page 1 7 - '"It seems t o us t h a t a n a d e q u a t e F i n a l Impact S t a t e m e n t must

a l s o i n c l u d e a candid and complete d i s c u s s i o n OF t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s which
p r e v a i l e d w i t h i n t h e Atomic Energy Commission through a t least t h e summer
of 1972 and which p e r m i t t e d t h i s l a x , and given t h e d e g r e e of t h e h a z a r d ,
i r r e s p o n s i b l e a b r o g a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h e p r o t e c t i o n of s p e c i a l
n u c l e a r materials. 'I

Response

The F i n a l S t a t e n e c t d i s c u s s e s t h e adequacy of t h e c u r r e n t AEC s a f e g u a r d s

system i n S e c t i o n 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 t h e Program f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n of S p e c i a l Nuclear

Material, Report No. B-164105, U.S. General Accoilntinz O f f i c e , Xov. 7 , 1973.
 V. 20-65

i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c i e s , o r a p p a r e n t d e f i c i e n c i e s , many of whlch were

due t o c o n d i t i o n s t h a t would be resolved by t h e r e g u l a t o r y amendments
then under review. These amendments became e f f e c t i v e March 6 , 1974, and
r e p r e s e n t a s i g n i f i c a n t s t r e n g t h e n i n g of t h e previous r e g u l a t i o n s . The
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 t u d y c a r r i e d o u t
over a p e r i o d of s e v e r a l y e a r s .
9. Appendices

Comment

Three appendices were a t t a c h e d as p a r t o f t h e comments.

Response

It is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e s a f e g u a r d s - r e l a t e d p o i n t s r a i s e d i n t h e s e
appendices have been t r e a t e d i n t h e response t o i n d i v i d u a l comments
above, o r i n t h e F i n a l Statement.
G
v.21-1

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

PULLMAN, WASHINGTON 99163
~~ ~~

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
RESEARCH DIVISION

A p r i l 23, 1974

O f f i c e of t h e A s s i s t a n t General Manager
€ o r Biomedical and Environmental Research
and S a f e t y Programs
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Washington, D. C. 20545

Gentlemen:

The AEC s h o u l d be complimented f o r i t s a t t e m p t t o p r e p a r e a NEPA environ-

m e n t a l impact s t a t e m e n t on a v e r y complex and f a r - r e a c h i n g program, t h e Liquid
Metal F a s t Breeder Program. I hope t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g comments on WASH-1535
w i l l b e 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 a p p e a r s t h a t t h e AEC h a s c o n s e r v a t i v e l y e s t i m a t e d t h e environmental
r a d i a t i o n impacts b u t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o check t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e d a t a as
summarized i n t h e TVR and UMRB (WASH-1209) s t u d i e s . S t u d i e s of t h e "Year
2000" t y p e can b e v e r y m i s l e a d i n g . B a s i c a l l y , t h e "Year 2000" s t u d i e s , which
use t h e HERMES code (HEDL-TME-71-168), are analogous t o F o r r e s t e r t y p e model-
ling -- " L i m i t s of Growth, Urban Dynamics, e t c . " .

I f one examines t h e modelling l i t e r a t u r e , i t a p p e a r s 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 o p i n i o n about how t h i n g s ought, s h o u l d , 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 . , b o t h d e a l i n g w i t h t h e same t o p i c , a r e two s u c h examples.

No model, whether i t is t h e "Year 2000" s t u d y o r "World Dynamics", are

unique r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of r e a l o r n a t u r a l systems. Models are rough approxi-
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 t h o u g h t f u l l y
c o n s t r u c t e d , may g i v e some i n s i g h t on t h e b e h a v i o r of n a t u r a l systems. Bernard
C. P a t t e n has d i s c u s s e d t h i s p o i n t a t l e n g t h i n h i s r e c e n t books.

Models have an u n c e r t a i n t y p r i n c i p l e , which i s v e r y l o o s e l y analogous t o

t h e Heisenberg u n c e r t a i n t y p r i n c i p l e . (See r e c e n t I E E E T r a n s , , Systems, Man,
Cybernetics). It is probably more r e l a t e d t o Henri P o i n c a i r e ' s (Science and
Hypothesis, p 217) o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e r e are no unique mechanisms. S i n c e
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 t h e r models of t h e TVR and UMRB t h a t may b e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . These p o s s i b i l i t i e s s h o u l d b e recognized.
 v.21-2

O f f i c e of t h e A s s i s t a n t General Manager f o r
Biomedical and Environmental Research and
S a f e t y 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 w e a t h e r , should b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e
"Year 2000" a n a l y s i s , o r a t l e a s t t h e r e s h o u l d b e 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 v e r y u n c e r t a i n . It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e
t h a t Eberhardt and Hanson (Health Phys. 1 7 , 793 (1969)), who were s t u d y i n g t h e
s i m p l e lichen-caribou-eskimo system, could n o t a d e q u a t e l y a n a l y z e t h e s y s t e m
because of a s t o c h a s t i c e f f e c t . The s i t u a t i o n i s o b v i o u s l y worse f o r t h e TVR
and UMRB systems.

When one c o n s i d e r s t h e low s u c c e s s r a t e of demographic p r e d i c t i o n s , which

have more s u b s t a n c e t h a n t h o s e 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 s h o u l d e x p r e s s some r e s e r v a t i o n s o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s about t h e "Year 2000"
s t u d i e s . S t u d i e s of t h i s t y p e are unprovalble a t one end, d i f f i c u l t t o d i s p r o v e
f o r t h o s e w i t h o u t access t o l a r g e computers, m i s l e a d i n g 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 h a s used a computer f o r a number of y e a r s

and who t h i n k s t h a t computers are v e r y useEul machines. But I t h i n k t h a t pre-
s e n t a t i o n of computer d a t a s h o u l d b e done w i t h care, n o 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. R e a c t o r Heat G e n e r a t i o n 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 a p p e a r s t o b e no s a t i s f a c t o r y d i s c u s s i o n 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 c a r b i d e s . The u s e
o f t h e s e f u e l s o b v i o u s l y w i l l r e s u l t i n v a r y i n environmental impacts. N i t r i d e
f u e l s p r o b a b l y w i l l g e n e r a t e l a r g e amounts of H4C which, i f n o t t r a p p e d , w i l l
b e r e l e a s e d t o t h e environment. S i m i l a r impacts can b e expected f o r c a r b i d e
f u e l s , though much smaller. My c a l c u l a t i o n s , which are a d m i t t e d l y v e r y rough,
a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t o x i d e f u e l s may g e n e r a t e 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 c o r e and b l a n k e t . The 1 4 carbon ~ production rate
may b e one t o t e n p e r c e n t of t h e tritium p r o d u c t i o n rate. This c a l c u l a t i o n
probably s h o u l d b e done w i t h 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 g e n e r a t i o n rate.

3. S i t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s (Vol. 11, p a r t l:, 4.2.21, P 4.2-4)

It i s my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e AEC u n d e r e s t i m a t e s t h e problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
t h e s i t i n g of any t y p e of 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 y e a r s from now.
The a c c e p t a b l e s i t e s 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. T r a n s m i s s i o n Requirements (Vol. 11, p a r t 1, 4.1.1.2, P 4.2-17)

The d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r o u t i n g of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s i s i n a d e q u a t e b e c a u s e
i t does n o t c o n s i d e r t h e l o s t t i m b e r and a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n .caused by a
p r o l i f e r a t i o n of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s and c o r r i d o r s . Here i n t h e 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 G e n e r a l Manager f o r
B i o m e d i c a l a n d 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
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 s u c h 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 R o l e 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 e c o n o m i s t s . My c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h an
e c o n o m i s t , who worked on t h e Ford F o u n d a t i o n 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 h a v e 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 h o p i n g t h a t a Ford F o u n d a t i o n e c o n o m i s t w i l l d i s c u s s t h i s a s p e c t
in greater detail.

J o h n C. Sheppard
A s s o c i a t e N u c l e a r E n g i n e e 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 L a b o r a t o r y

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

A s s o c i a t e Nuclear Engineer 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 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 l e t t e r of A p r i l 213, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic
Energy Commission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid ?fetal
F a s t Breeder R e a c t o r (UlFBR) 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 r e s p o n s e t o the! 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'or your i n f o r m a t i o n . 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 l e t t e r f o r r e s p o n s e s t o 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.

Sincerely,
-
(
/Ja( W - L es L. Liverman
h d s i s t a n t G e n e r a l ManaRer
f o r Biomedical and Environmental
Research and S a f e t y Procrams

Enclosures :
1. AEC S t a f f Responses t o Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (VAS€!-1535)
 V.21-5

EKCLGSLJXE 1

AEC S t a f f Response t o Comments

by John C. Sheppard

" B a s i c a l l y , ?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 F o r r e s t e r t y p e modeling-
"Limits of Growth, Urban Dynamics, etc."

" S t u d i e s of t h i s t y p e are unprovable a t one end, d i f f i c u l t t o

d i s p r o v e f o r t h o s e without a c c e s s t o l a r g e computers, misleadinK
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.''

Response :

An e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e purpose and scope of t h e "Year 2000" S t u d i e s is

c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 3.6.4. The KERMES model is n o t analogous t o
" F o r r e s t e r type modeling," The mcdel is a computerized a c c o u n t i n g
system f o r i n d i v i d u a l r a d i o l o g i c a l pathway e v a l u a t i o n s . The "Year
2000" S t u d i e s examine p e r t u r b a t i o n s i n t h e v a r i o u s i n u u t p a r a m e t e r s ,
w h i l e t h e b a s e case c o n s i s t s of t h e b e s t known estimates of t h e
p a r a m e t e r s , The r e s u l t s r e f l e c t t h e 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 o p e r a t i n g a l a r g e number of n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s . The s i z e of
t h e p r o j e c t e d n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e economics
d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 11 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement. Thus, t h e
s t u d y r e s u l t s are important as a n i n d i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l environ-
m e n t a l impacts. The r e s u l t s should n o t be c o n s i d e r e d an a b s o l u t e
forecast o f f u t u r e conditions.

2. Comment: (p. 2 )

" N i t r i d e f u e l s probably w i l l g e n e r a t e l a r g e amounts of I4C which,

if n o t t r a p p e d , will he released to the environment. Similar
impact can be expected f o r c a r b i d e f u e l s , though much smaller."
"The "C carbon p r o d u c t i o n r a t e [ i n o x i d e f u e l s ] pay b e one t o
t e n p e r c e n t of t h e tritium p r o d u c t i o n r a t e . T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n
probably should be done w i t h compute c o d e s , such a s ORZCEN or
ISOGEN, t o g e t a b e t t e r f i x on t h e C'' g e n e r a t i o n rate."

Response:

E f f l u e n t characteristics were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e ORZCEN code and

codes which s i m u l a t e t h e . r a d i o n u c l i d e release p a t h r a v s 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 b e examined a s p a r t of t h e f u t u r e development of t h e f u e l s .

3. Coment: (p. 2)

"It is my o p i n i o n t h a t t h e AEC u n d e r e s t i m a t e s t h e problems

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s i t i n g of any t y p e 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 y e a r s from now. The a c c e p t a b l e s i t e s may n o t be
available a t that time."
 V.2'1-6

Response:

The AEC h a s , f o r a number of y e a r s , supported r e s e a r c h 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 n u c l e a r power p l a n t s . ?€any of t h e s e s t u d i e s have been
d i r e c t e d toward o b t a i n i n g 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 a s t h e a b i l i t y of a v a i l a b l e b o d i e s of water as r e c e p t o r s
f o r n u c l e a r p l a n t waste h e a t and t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of seismic a c t i v i t y
on n u c l e a r power p l a n t s i t i n g . I n conducting t h e s e s t u d i e s , emphasis
has been p l a c e d upon a t t e m p t i n g t o understand t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e
p r o j e c t e d i n c r e a s e d demands f o r n u c l e a r power p l a n t s i t e s i n t h e f u t u r e .
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
i n c r e a s e d u s e of coooline, towers (both wet and d r y ) , c o o l i n g ponds, l o c a -
t i o n of power p l a n t s on b a r g e s i n o f f - s h o r e l o c a t i o n s , and through t h e
development of n u c l e a r energy c e n t e r s .

4. Comment: (p. 2)

"The d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r o u t i n g of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s is i n a d e q u a t e
because i t does n o t c o n s i d e r t h e l o s t timber and a g r i c u l t u r a l pro-
d u c t i o n caused by a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s and c o r r i d o r s . "

Response:

The t r a n s m i s s i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s d i s c u s s f o n you r e f e r e n c e i n your comments

was supported by a d d i t i o n a l discussioins i n t h e D r a f t Statement, The
impact of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e c o n s t r u c t i o n was g i v e n on pages 4.2-76 and
4.2-77 of t h e Draft Statement. E c o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s and r e l a t e d impacts
were d i s c u s s e d on pages 4.2-81 t o 4.2-84. S i n c e t h i s Statement does
n o t t r e a t 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 i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e
t o d i s c u s s s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s t h a t a r e unique t o a c e r t a i n p a r t of t h e
c o u n t r y , 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 b e e v a l u a t e d
i n t h e environmental s t a t e m e n t s prepared f o r s p e c i f i c p l a n t s , and w i l l
i n c l u d e t h e economic f a c t o r s and b e n e E i t / c o s t a n a l y s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
t i m b e r and a g r i c u l t u r e p r o d u c t i o n when a p p r o p r i a t e . A e s t h e t i c and
r e c r e a t i o n a l v a l u e s w i l l a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d . See S e c t i o n s 4.2.2.3 and
4.2.4.1.2 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

5. Comment: (p. 3)

"My c o n v e r s a t i o n with a n economi!st, who worked on t h e Ford

Foundation 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 . "

Response:

I n r e f e r e n c e t o 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 s c u s s i o n i n S e c t i o n 11.2 o f t h e F i n a l
Statement on t h e energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s used i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t
s t u d y . Assumptions and methodology l e a d i n g 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 e x p l a i n e d and p r o j e c t i o n s from o t h e r s o u r c e s
a r e . d i s c u s s e d . F i g u r e 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 p e r
c a p i t a energy u s e o n l y a s a n 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
w i t h s t r o n g , i n d u s t r i a l economies.
 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 state-
ment 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 a n d 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 mini-
mal, based on unavoidable or release
 v. 22-2

.lid-America Coalition for Page 2

Energy Alternatives 2/24/74

a very narrow range of accidents are considered and con-

sequences are, even then, not always explicitely evalua-
ted. As a n 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 con-
sequences of major failures that we are most concerned
with. To this concern the final impact statement
should address itself.

2 . The questions of sabotage,,terrorism and safeguards are

not fully, honestly and openly dealt with. Perhags one
of the most s e r i o u s omissions is discussion of the con-
sequences of the existance of the Retrievable Surface
Storage Facility or the Noble Gas storage facility as
a target for nuclear weapons.

3. 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.

4. The case for the LMFBF!, arid against some of the alterna-
tives, 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 p r o -
ject ions.

5. No discussion is presented of the environmental impacts,

and trade implications, if the LMiiER or any other com-
bination 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. J

6. Finally, no attempt is made to evaluate a scenario in

which a combination of alternate energy resources are de-
veloped with the S ~ optomistic
Q 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
 v . 22-3

Kid-America Coalition for

* Energy Alternatives

cycle and its alternatives are presented for risk/bene-

fit judgement.
XI. Specific Questions and Comments
WASH- 15-35
Pane No. Comment or Question

4.1-13 When the base case of the economic analysis

assumes spent fuel cooling of 120 days, and
when announced g o a l s of the AZC and industry
are to eventually lower the cooling time to
as little as 30 days, this chapter should in-
clude 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
4.2-10 With tLe forec.,;t that reactors will be lo-
cated nearer population centers than at
present, do estimates of accident a n d routine
keleade hazards take this conservatively into
account7
4-2-11 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.
4.2-18 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
4.2-27 Shouldn’t the engineering details of the active
or passive core-restraint system by spelled
out as they affect accident probabilitiss m d
consequences?
l+ 2- 157 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

0
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
 v.22-4 n

Mid-America Coalition for Page 4

' Bnergy Alternatives 4/24/74

VASH- 1535
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 d e -
tails 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 Does the lower design pressure requirenent
for tho LMr'BFL containment building ( 1 0 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)
4.2- 177 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?
4.2-795 It d o e s not seem conservative to simply p o s -
tulate that no m a j o r radioactive release c2n
occurr and hence ignore maximum possible con-
sequences. Why would the Price-Anderson Act
of 1957 be needed if the case is that coin-
pe 11ing?
4.4-2 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 credi-
ble accidents discussed.
4.4-3 In view of uncertanties expressed here, c2n
economics of LMFBR fuel reprocessing be reli-
ably predicted?
4.4-4 How can routine r e l e a s e s 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

Q
seem to be more nearly goals, rather than con-
servative,worst-case projections.

__ . . . . . ... . .
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 f u e l shipping should
be dizcussed in view of ennounced goals.
4.4-52,53 These huge increaser; in volatile fissicm p r o -
ducts for short-coole i u e l niuat be concidered
in looking at impact of shipping and rcpr-oces-
sing.
4.4-54 If short-decay time case ccmnot be meaningfully
assessed then worst case consequences s h o u l c !
be discussed. There is a consistent thene
here of simply ignoi-trig impacts of steps where
knowledge is lacking.
4.4-55 What about accident effects at 30-120 days
cooling? Why choose 780 as the shortest tiix
for estimates i..iheneven 120 cooling is the
base case assurqtion?
4.4-60-64 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 con-
servative ranges of containment.
4.4-87 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 stor-
age tanks? Consequencss of such an accident
have already been estimate2 (OWL-4451)
4.5-3 Table 4.5.7 shows almost 600 Kg of PuO, per
ti-i*clcshipment. The iiiglijzckiq irnplizations
of this should be dizcusse",, essecially sincc
shipient is plamec! i y common carriers.
4.5-25 Table 4.5.3.2. should show activities ,and
thermal power for 30 day and 120 dey c o o l e d
'fuel since these are definitely under consid-
erat ion.
4.5-48 What is the hijacking attractiveness to a t2.r-
rorist of a truck shipnient of almost 1 iiiillion
curies of 85 K r 7
4.5-55 Ilaxirnm fl.une tonpcrntures of 1475OF do not
seem conservative i, these d a y s of massive
shipments of a variety of high-energy mzter-
ials.
4.5-58 The calculation of rupture rn:irgins doe.: not
seem conservativc. Im?drities, outgassing,
 V.2'2-6

Mid-America C o a l i t i o n f o r Page 6
' Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s 4/24/74

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 high terpcraturaz. C e r t a i n l y sabotage
c o c l d expose t h e 2uC2 t o more s e v e r e con-
ditions. Coiisequences s h o u l f l be di;cu.;;ed.
I t seems l i k e a double stdridard t o l e t t h e
U02 l e a k a l i t t l e b i t , b u t t o p o s t u l a t s o r
a s s e r t t h a t pci l e a k a g e of A 0 2 w i l l e v c r
occur.
4.5-63 H e r e again, w i t h a l e s s e r !iazard t h a n Pu02
l e a k a g e i s a l l o w e d t o be p o s t u l a t e d .
4.5-73 T a b l e 4.5.5.6 l i s t ; c a t e g o r y 5 a c c i d e n t p r o b
a b i l i t i e s as low as 8 :: IC-13 p e r y e a r y e t
i n c l u d e s no p r o b a b i 1 i t . y for PuC2 r e l e a s e . A ceL-o
p r o b a b i l i t y f o r P u G 2 r e l e a s e a p p e a r s 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 e s t i m a t i o n .
Even i f s u c h l o w 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 t h e h a z a r d and
s h o u l d be e s t i m a t e d and d i c c u o s e d .
4.6-1/2 S t o r a g e o f s o l i d i f i e d h i g h l e v e l w a s t e s for
thousands o f y e a r s i s n o t described.
4-6-76 C r e d i b l e u n n a t u r a l f o r c e s (war and s a b o t a g e )
s h o u l d a l s o be p r o v i d e d f o r a n d d i s c u s ; c d .
4.6-47 Consequences o f c a s k r u p t u r e o u t s i d e a con-
t a i r m e n t b u i l d i n g chould be d i s c u s s e d .
4.6-47/48 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 ? Iiow
w o u l d a i r p l z n e c r a s h a s i n t o s t o r a g e areas b e
h a n d l e d i n a r e a s rrhich a r e all r e m o t e l y con-
trolled?
4.6-50 Yo s t a t e m e n t011 ty-pe or' compound, cont,;inel-
and s c a l t o be x s e d for i o d i n r . ; it i s n o t c -
w0rtk-y t h a t t h f ? 55 g a l . di-u-'.'-. :r.entioncd l o r
t h e o t h e r s are n o t used here.
4 6-53 "No c r e d i t i s t a k e n f o r containment p r o v i d e d
para. 2 by t h e package:: once t h e y a r e b u r i e d . " If
any a l p h a einitI:ers a r e b u r i e d , i t should bc
p r e v e n t e d t h i t t h e y become a i r b o r n e . It i::
s u g g e s t e d 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 n e u t r o n bombardment i n a r a n c t o r .
4-6-48 Hare a g a i n , where a v e r y r e r i o u v hcrzarr? ir,
i n v o l v e d , i t i s as.?u.,ied t h a t e n g i n e e r i n g w i l l
make t h e e v e n t (inel t d o m ) i n c r e d i b l e . Thi:;
a v o j lc: h o n e s t 'c:oiisideration o f real danger:-.
4.7-7 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 r e l e a z , e d , t h e p o t e n t i a l relea.-e f r o i ; ~
a s t o r a g o q i t e i.n: o c mcntioned.
 v.22-7

,Mid-Amei-icaCoalition f o r
Energy Alternatives 1+/24/74 Page 7

WASH- 15 35
PaPe No. Comment or Guestion
4.7-2 Stack releases of 1 mCi a l p h a pqticles for
1000 MWE, which might contain 1 O 0 - 1 O 9 Ci,
appear prayerfully small.
4.A-12 No consideration given to sinking of a barge.
4.2-6 The values for plutonium appear meaningless
without specifying whether it is absorbed
as a metal or a s 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
lung?
4. E-a In Table 45, more total body radiation and
tissue effects are zssigned to a - 2 3 9 after
ingestion than after inhalation. This is con-
trary to absorption data which show a l o w r e -
tention and absorption from the gut and a l -
most IOO$ retention f r o m the lung.
4.G-51 Again, over-emphasis on plutonium effects
on bone and liver, a n d insufficient consider-
ation of the inhalation of metallic plutonium
or plutonium oxide into the lung where its
biologic halflife is greater than a h w m n
l i f e time.
4. G-63 No consideration of tertogenic effects.
4.G-64 A some?rlhat cursory consiCeration only of the
possibility that linear evtra2olation
actually is too conssi-vntiva since at h i g h e r
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 sub-
ject which would be required to better eval-
uate 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
4.G-69 Estimates a r e all minimal, based on unavoid-
a b l e o r llnorrnall'
releases. There iire no
accident assumptions and their consequences.
5-7 In Figure 5.2-1 and in many other figures,
tables and discussions, a uniform presen-
tation of projections to tlle year 2020 siiouls
be mado.
5-7 Equally, if not m o r e 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 5 0 to 130 millions STU ser capita
f o r countries in the ; l J 5 O O - i 2 , O O O G N P pi'r
capita range. Two conclusions might Le
drawn: ( 7 ) ~ o u n t r i e sf a l l on different-slope
 v.22-8

#id-America Coalition for Page 8

Energy Alternatives

WASH- 15 35
Page ~ J o . Comnient or Quest ion
5-7 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, e . g . ,
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, c a n be used also to argue
that the U.S. neednot com.it itself to the
projected increase in BTU/GNP to achieve con-
tinued well be ing.
5-9 Reversal oz" electrical rate structures should
be coiisiderec! liere to alleviats burden on
poor.
5-13 Capital requirements for adequate liability
insurance s i i o u l d 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.
5-37 This impact statement does not honestly ad-
dress 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
5-32 Havirij raised the issue of less political
freedon with a Pu economy, sone discussion
of iniplications should be included.
5-33 Vi11 our nuclear energy ecoaomy be abnnc?oned
if interna t ional agreements and inst it uc ions
to assure that the cornrnon g o o d , 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.
6-1,2 Just because "reliable and precise quantita-
tive 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 1east a " P a r m c r 1imit 1ine It discussion
of releases should be included for eveyy
phase o f the f u e l cycle.
7-2 1 De fic iencie s in s ea1in6 present-day c011t ain-
ment vesselJ art3 alludod too. TIic i r r ~ p ~ t cof
t
 v. 22-51
6)
Mid-America Coalition for
* Energy Alternatives 4/2)+/74

WASII- 1 5 35
Page No. Comment or Question
7-21 such sealing problems should be discussed in
accident cases.
7-36 Why are the confinement factors f o r 13II and
1291 different? Are these adequate for the
3 0 - d a y cooled fuel cpse?
7-38 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.
7-41 What fractions of casks for LMFBR can likely
be shipped by barge?
7-42 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 s u r f a c e
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.
7-55 Sabotage is mentioned in this concept, where
i t is l e a s t credible. I i h y is it not dis-
cussed at each step of the proposed fuel cycle?
7-64 It is stated that: "The possibility of sabo-
tage of facilities resulting in radiological
incidents m u s t also be conzidered." Y6t this
is not done consistently throughout the re-
port.
7-72 What about inherent sabot3ge protection f o r
fuel cycle cornponints other th?n the reacto??
9.1-2 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?
9.1-4 If fossil fuel sy:teri capacity is increasinb
e-xponentially at ,'ear 2020, as shown in F i e -
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^ pro-
jections should extent to 2020,
9.1-19 Curies of waste whould be listed a l s o . liore
important thp.n volume.
f\
9.1-21 s Table 9. 1-1+ a r c what-
The rclcase ~ i u ~ i b e rin
ever the U C aiid tha 1fianuf3cturc=.'s decide to
engineer. ; i h y bias the LWI? in this wny rela-
tive to LIWDR?
 v. 22-10

Mid-America Coalition f o r Page 10

Energy A1 tornatives 4/24/7h

WASH- 15 35
Page No. Conunent or Question
9.1-32 Table 9.7-7. k'hy not contain the Krypton in
the LWr? and HTGR cases? Again seems to de-
liberately bias for the L!&DR.
9.1-34 Can Table 9.1-8 numbers be justified f o r 30
day cooled spent fuel 7
9.1-69 How can one clairn there will be less radio-
active releases frorn LG'i3R, except as a chosen
design objective? If the LKFSR has truly
"arrived", w h y s o many unanswered design a d
process questions alluded to earlier?
9 2-5 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 a n d w i l l always be an appr-eciablefraction
in cost-benefit analysis
10-27 Some estimate should be made o f the security-
safeguards personnel likely to be needed in
Pu-economy.
70-34 The argument about man-made artifacts is par-
ticularly 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.
10-35 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.
10-36 The minirnurri obligation to future generations
of merely maintaining records o f radioactive
waste seenis like a minimum morality indoe".
71.7-3 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 dis-
cussion: "idhather energy should be produced
and whet levcl of ericrgy consurnption is con-
sistent with ec:ononric and envirunmcncal con-.
siderations. It
7 1 1-14 How can deco~r~issioni~lgcosts bo so confi&rltly
 v. 22-1 1

Mid-America Coalition f o r Page 11

Energy Alternatives 1~/24/71&

WASH- 15 35
Page No. ' Comment or Question
11.1-4 dismissed in the face of similar uncertainties?
11.2-5 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.
11.2-8 Three-hundred and sixty-five Jay cooling is
treated a s 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.
11.2-13 A case should be r a n with optimistic i.:raiW
supply, low e n e r g y demanc? (Pactor of 2 - 3 ) ,
1997 introduction of LIDBi7, high L W B 2 capital
costs, 365 clay cooling and no carbide bel.
11.2-14 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
the L r u m ?
11.2-7 Does Tabie 11.3-5 a s s m e 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?
11.3-2 The iinpacts or^ alternative energy systems
should be compared for the c a s e 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.
1 1 -3-3 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 de-
signed and operated to make impacts negligible.
11.3-13 Table 11.3-5 assumes 20 man-rems in reproces-
sing plant, v s 20 nian-,nel;rE for the Lii2. L'kiy?
Is the 30 day cooling case assume2 here?
11.3-17 The "upper lini i. I. s" of public health effccts
for the nuclezr fuel cycles a.ssumc no seriou.5
accidents c a n occurr. Is this norn1i;l usage
of the term?
11-3-34 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?
11-3-42 If t h e s e i',italitynuT5ers 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 ?
 v. 22-1 2

Mid-America Coalition for Page 12

Energy Alternatives 4/24/74

UASH- 7 5 35
Page No. ComenL o r Question
17.4-1 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 ex-
ponential g r c l w t l i (give o r talre a token 20;')
in electricity use dominates the whole dis-
cussion.
11.4-2 A quite different lesson can be inferrec? f r o m
, e . g . , loo:; at the
the recent oil tfcrisi31t-
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 r e a l n e e d for
energy?? The report seems to uncritically
accept the historical increase1
17.4-3 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
11.4-73 Again, soems to a 5 s w e central station nee2.c
are immune to solar s p a c e heating a n d coolins.
Vhy are not wj ie2ower an2 conservation men-
tioned at t!?is point?
The concomitant benefit of developing and cx-
portins expertise in solar, wind, a n d geother-
mal 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 .
111-A- 1 Is it really contended that present safeguard;
ai-e adequzte f o r protection againct dcdicateil
g r o q J s of zuicitlzl t e r r o r i s t s and oth2:r-lo::
probab ilit j r t hrrat s ?
111-A-2 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 Y o r k e r s h o u l d be re-
ferencecl.
-
IIr A- 3 C a s e s 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 Page 13

Energy Alternatives 4/24/7lr

WASH- 15 35
Page No. Comment o r Question
III-A-~ It can be alleged that thc RSSF, NGSF, a n d
possibly high-level liquid waste storage
tanks at fuel reprocessing plants do pose
a possible new a n d significant threat to
our national security. The effects of a
high-yield nuclear wea2on completely crater-
ing, a n d dispersing in the atmosphere, the
RSSP at year 2020 should be estimated and
presented.
111-A- 4 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.
I II-A- 5 Are such dLangers as ?u weapons manufacture
and the operation oi^ a Pu black market so
credible that c!iscursing t k e n with only mi-
classifizd , zv7xilable in5ornatioii will lessen
our security?
=I-B, 2-6 What spent-fuel cooling time is assumed if
breeding by year 2010 sustains a 65 yearly e -
lectrical growth rEte?
111-B, 3-13 Increzse of only $100 aillion for a 2090 MWe
plant th3t h3.s not yet been designed does
not seem consarvative I
111-E, 3-21. Why don't Table 3 . 3 . 5 and Table 11.2-5 agree?
' III-B, 3-35 If p r o j e c t e d v a l u e s o Z s t u d y parameters r e 7 r e -
sent such a consenzus, then at least the 120-
day cooling case should have been considered
for fuel cycle impacts.
III-B, 3-41 What is the annual growth rate change to p r o -
duce only a net variation of 2oCi in projected
year-2020 demand?
111-B, 3-43 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 advan-
tage over Lk'R's for various assumed parameters.
I I r - B , 3-49 There seems to be more concern about direct
costs of 3.1iiivcntorias in relation to spent
fuel cooling tiriies than in estimates of
hazards to the e3viron;nt;nt as a function of
cooling tine.
111-B, 3-60 The figures in the reference cc?sc for fozsil
mix do not match thoss given in Table l&.l!h.
111-B, 4 - 1 1 If singlc-loop c o o l i r i ,
is Loritemplated tkcn
accident hazarciz and routiiie relc?.;e s l i o u l d
 V.22-14

.J.Iid-rlmericaCoalition for Page 14

Znergy Alternatives 4/24/7&

WASH- 1535
Page No. Comment o r C,ue;tion
111-2, 4-71 be assessed in earlier discussions.
In Table 4.5 what cooling'period f o r spent
fuel is assumed?
1x1-B, 4-12 How will environmental imj?acts vary if we
go to "very large units?"
111-B 4-78 What cooling t h e was s s s m e d for shisping
cost and re9roccssin; estimates?
111-B, 4 - 2 0 Why are fuel circle times for LlWBH s2ent
fuel shipping and reprocessing assmned to be
faster than LWK case?
111-B, 4-30 What insurance costs are rcferred to? Pow
w o u l d they d i f f e r ::ithout 2 r i c e - A n d e r s o n or
with new p l a n s u n d e r consideration?
111-B, 4-37 The energy forecast assumption of Table 4 . 7 3
seriously biases alternative. The case of
near-zero per ccrpita energy use should be
considered as w e l l .
MI-B, LI-32 Isn't there a recent trent toward higher
energy use p e r GNF increment?
111-B, 4-33 Doesn't recent data shox that total cost of
electricity is rising faster than the gen-
eral price level?
A-5 Is a l l this materials - engineering advance
really more credible than solar energy
storage 2nd collection advances7
a- 6 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?
A . 5 - 15 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 ?
A . 5-2 1 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?
A. 5-30 Is t h e 15.5$ ca;)ital char,:o consistent with
the nunibers u s e d in Section 4 of Appciidix
 'J.22-75

3kLd-America CoAition for Page 75

Energy Alternntives 4/24/74

WASH- 1535
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 con-
ditioning.
A. 6-7 Here, as elsewhere, contributions of indi-
vidual alternatives are made to look small
when compared with projected exponential
growth in electricity. If per capita en-
ergy and electricity use were held constant,
how iiqortant could wind-power be?
c. 1 - 1 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.
C. 7-6 A table should be shown summarizing the en-
ergy 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 Diane Tegtrneier

?hD, Physical Chemistry Co-chairperson, M C E A

Jack K. Frenkel
M.D., Pathology
 .
V i!2- 16

UN ITF'D STATES
A T 0 M !C EN E RIG1' C OM M !SS!0N
V ' / A n S t i I N G T O N . 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 C i t y , i f i s s o u r 1 64110

Dea.r Els. 'I'egtmeier :

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 24, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Coxnnission's D r a f t Znvironmental S t a t e n e n t on t h e L i q u i d :!eta1
Fast Breeder Reactor (Ly'lFSR) Program., The Statement h a s been r e v i s e d
whew 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 mzny c o m e n t s r e c e i v e d , and a copy
of t h e F i n 3 1 Statement is e n c l o s e d f o r your i n f o m a t i o n . Please see t h e
other e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s l e t t e r f o r r e s p o n s e t o your s p e c i f i c comrients.
A d d i t i o n a l d i s c i r s s i o n r e g a r d i n g 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.. . tlrat estimates of enviroiimental impact and h a z a r d s for

r a d i o a c t i v e r m t e r i s l s i n t h e h c ! l c y c l e are a l l m i n i n a l , based
on u n a v o i d a b l e or n o r m 1 releases.

was a d d r e s s e d i n c c n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l i n t h e D r a f t S t a t e n e n t ( s e e , f o r
e x a n p l c , ?'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 z c c i d c n t a l . r e l e a s e s i n t h e LIF3R f u e l c y c l e ) . . I d d i t i o n a l
i n f o r m a t i o n concerning a c c i d e n t s 1 r c l e a s e s of t r a i s u r o p i c 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 i s p r c s e n t c d i n Appendix 1I.G of t h c
F i l i a l S t r t m c n t . T h e ir?.pnct of s!iipping and r e p r o c e s s i n g L:iFCR f u e l f o r
c o o l i n g t i n e s s l i o r t e r than 365 d a y s :is a l s o a d d r e s s e d i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e -
ment ( s e e S e c t i o n 7.3.4 and Appendix 1I.P r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

The XACEA concerns t h a t

"The cues t i o n of s a b o t a g e , t e r r o r i s m and s a f e g u a r d s are n o t f u l l y ,

h o n e s t l y and openly d e a l t w i t h . Perhaps one of t h e r.iost s e r i o u s
o n i s s i o n s i s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e consequences of t h e e x i s t e n c e o f
t h e 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 F a c i l i t y o r t h e Xoblc Gas S t o r a g e
F a c i l i t y as a t a r g e t €or n u c l e a r weapons . ' I

have been a d d r e s s e d i n tl:e F i n a l Statement. You are r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n s

7.4.3, 7.4.4.1 and 7.4.5.2 f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e s e concerns.
 v ,2247

MS. Diane T e g t n e i e r 2

The NACEA concerns r e g a r d i n g energy demand p r o j e c t i o n s and t h e e v a l u a t i o n

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 t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t i n S e c t i o n s 6C
and 11. The F i n a l Statement c o n s i d e r s a low growth r a t e energy denand
c u r v e which r e s u l t s i n a 50% r e d u c t i o n i n t h e y e a r 2020 energy demand
compared t o t h e b a s e p r o j e c t i o n .

The LTIFBR Program proposes t o p r o v i d e t h e LEfFBR as an o p t i o n f o r t h e

g e n e r a t i o n of e l e c t r i c a l energy. A t t h i s p o i n 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 r o j e c t e d needs is promising. The e n g i n e e r i n g and
economic assumptions f o r t h e LIIFBR are n o t o p t i m i s t i c , b u t r a t h e r r e f l e c t
p r o j e c t e d LIG’CR technology. Comparative economics and environmental
inipacts were d e f i n e d 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 D r a f t
Environmental Statement ( S e c t i o n 6 i n t h e - F i n a l S t a t e m e n t ) .

E v a l u a t i o n of t h e environmental and economic impact of v a r i o u s 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 t h e LNFBR Program
Environmental S t a t e m e n t , and is t h e r e f o r e n o t d i s c u s s e d .

W e hope t h a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n and t h e e n c l o s u r e s are s u f f i c i e n t l y

r e s p o n s i v e 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 h e I2fFBR Program.

Sincerely,

u s i s t r t n t General Ihnager
for B i o n e d i c a l and E n v i r o n n e n t a l
Research and S a f e t y Programs

Enclosures:
1. MC S s a f f Response - t o
S p e t i f i c Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
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 C m n e n t s by t h e Mid-America C o a l i t i o n

€or Energy A l t e r n a t i v e s ( M A X

1. Conment (page 3):

4.1-13 When t h e b a s e case of t h e economic a n a l y s i s assumes s p e n t f u e l

c o o l i n g of 120 days, and when announced g o a l s of t h e AEC and
i n d u s t r y are t o e v e n t u a l l y lower t h e c o o l i n g t i n e ' a s l i t t l e
as 30 d a y s , t h i s c h a p t e r s h o u l d i n c l u d e i m p a c t s , r o u t i n e and
a c c i d e n t a l , f o r t h e s h o r t - c o o l i n g case, n o t j u s t t h e Euch
easier 365 day case."

Response :

The impacts of r e p r o c e s s i n g s h o r t - c o o l e d LMFBR f u e l a r e g i v e n i n Appendix

1I.P o f the F i n a l Statement. Transportation of short-cooled f u e l is
d i s c u s s g d i n S e c t i o n 7.3.4 o f t h e F i n a l Statement.

2. Comment (page 3):

4.1-19 "Why is t h e RSSF proposed o n l y t o y e a r 2000, while the NGSF is

c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t o y e a r 20201"

Response:

U s e o f t h e RSSF i s n o t proposed t o e x t e n d o n l y t~ the y e a r 2GOC. As

s t a t e d on page 4.6-27 of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , "The s t o r J g e f a c i l i t y w u i d
b e b u i l t I n modules to meet i n c r e a s i n g i n v e n t o r y r e n u i r r n e n t a . "lib- p l a n
f o r expansion t o a t o t a l o f 165 storsgie b a s i n s by t:ie year 2 O i O ~ ~ i l1 l u3s - ~
t r a t e d p r e v i o u s l y i n F i g u r e 4.6.3. Approximately li) p e r c e n t s p P r e b a s i n
c a p a c i t y would b e m a i n t a i n e d a t a l l times."

3. Comment (page 3):

4.1-23 "Table 4.1.4 seems t o assume a l i n e a r r a t e of demand f o r

d e p l e t e d 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 w i t h LMFBR growth p r o j e c t i o n s f r o n 2000
t o 2020?"

Response :

Table 4.1.4 does assume a l i n e a r rate of demand f o r d e p l e t e d 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 o p e r a t i o n by t h e y e a r 2000.
 V.22-19

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 h a n a t p r e s e n t , d o estimates o f a c c i d e n t
and r o u t i n e r e l e a s e !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 d o s e 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
a c c o u n t 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 e x p e c t e d t o b e t h e p r e d o n i n a n 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 a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e e x c e e d i n E l y small, b u t
n u m e r i c a 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 d o e s 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 e s a r e r e q u i r i n g 1 0 , 0 0 0 or
more acres e a c h . ”

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 b e 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 o f 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 e a c h r e a c t o r p l a n t
u n i t d e p e n d i n g O R 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 “ I t 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 o f 280-560 f t .
Why assume 1 7 5 f t . right-of-way on page 4.2-76? Where i s t h e
c u n i u l a t i v e 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 1 7 5 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 t h r o u g h t h e y e a r 2020 were n o t p i v e n 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 1 0 o f 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 S h o u l d n ' t t h e e n g i n e e r i n g d e t a i l s of t h e z c t i v e o r p a s s i v e
I'

c o r e - r e s t r a i n t s y s t m b e s p e l l e d o u t as they a f f e c t a c c i d e n 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 p a s s i v e ) are d i s c u s s e d i n t h e

LMFBR p l a n t accident. d i s c u s s i o n ( S e c t i o n 4 . 2 ! . 7 . 4 ) .

8. Coolnent (page 3):

4.2-157 "Even though AJX j u d g e s probabi1it:y of class 9 a c c i d e n t s t o

b e low, t h e i r environmental impact: s h o u l d b e a s s e s s e d . A f t e r
a l l , i f such b a s i c b e h a v i o r as s w e l l i n g of LNFBR f u e l and c o r e
materials can come as a r e c e n t s u r p r i s e , perhaps estimates of
a c c i d e n 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 . F u r t h e r , class
9 a c c i d e n t s ccnsequences are r e l e v e n t i n terms of s a b o t a g e and
war-related a c t s .

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 b e

a e s e s a e d u n t i l d e s i g n d e t a i l s n o t y e t a v a i l a b l e are provided.
T h i s seems t o be a n o t h e r r e a s o n t o i n c l u d e worst-case estimates
(as i n \$ASH-740) f o r class 9 a c c i d e n t s . "

Response- (To Comments 8 and 9 ) :

I t i s n o t e n t i r e l y c o r r e c t t o s a y t h a t s w e l l i n g came as a s u r p r i s e . Swell-
i n g of nietal f u e l and v o i d s i n m e t a l l i c c l a d d i n g had been observed i n t h e
1 9 5 0 ' s ; t h e n a t u r e of v o i d s i n rnetallic c l a d d i n g induced by f a s t n e u t r o n s
was observed i n t h e mid 19GOs. I t was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h e s e
v o i d s produced w i t h o u t commensurate p r o d u c t i o n of hydrogen o r hclium, b u t
t h e a p p e a r a n c e of v o i d s and a s s o c i a t e d s w e l l i n g w a s n o t a complete s u r -
prise.

HCDAs are d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 7 . 8 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , a l t h o u g h i t
is t h e A E C ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t IICDA e v e n t s are remote i n p o s s i b i l i t y . IlCDA
e v e n t s o r o t h e r e v e n t s of such a magnitude as t o produce "WASH-740 t y p e
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 s u c h e v e n t s
are c o n s i d e r e d very small. However, t h e y are d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n t h e
F i n a l Statement.

10. Comment (page 4 ) :

4.2-163 "Does t h e l.ower d e s i g n p r e s s u r e requirement f o r t h e Llfl?BR con-

t a i r n e n t b u i l d i n g (10 p s i v s 60 p s i f o r LWR's) imply a g r e a t e r
 v.22-21

s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o s a b o t a g e o r a c t s of war? (e.g., a b i l i t y o f
containment t o w i t h s t a n d shock waves from nearby chemical o r
n u c l e a r bombs).

Response :

A l l o t h e r t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l , 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 r e s s u r e 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 b r e a c h i n g
a t t e m p t t h a n a s t r u c t u r e designed f o r 60 psi p r e s s u r e . Hcwever, i t would
n o t b e p o s s i b l e t o conclude t h a t an ElFBR is i n h e r e n t l y l e s s r e s i s t a n t t o
s a h o t a g e o r a n act of war t h a n a n LiJR w i t h o u t a comparison of d e s i g n d e t a i l s ,
which i s n o t p o s s i b l e a t t h i s time because commercial I3lFBRs have n o t y e t
been designed. I n any e v e n t , i t is i n t e n d e d t h a t UEBRs w i l l b e d e s i g n e d ,
c o n s t r u c t e d and t e s t e d t o p r o v i d e a s s u r a n c e of a d e q u a t e r e s i s t a n c e t o
c r e d i b l e unusual e v e n t s , i n c l u d i n g a c t s of s a b o t a g e . Although r e s i s t a n c e
t o a c t s of war is not, a d e s i g n c r i t e r i o n , a c e r t a i n d e g r e e 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 w i t h t h e o t h e r c r i t e r i a .

11.1 C o w n t (page 4 ) :
4.2-177 "Confidence it-.t o r n a d o r e s i s t e n t d e s i g n seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
r e c e n t annauncenent of a 1 - y e a r , $150,000 s t u d y of t o r n a d o
e f f e c t s t o h e l p e s t a b l i s h d e s i g n c r i t e r i a f o r n u c l e a r 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
a b o u t tornado impact a t o t h e r s t e p s i n t h e f u e l c y c l e ? Would
30 days, o r even 365 days c o o l e d s p e n t f u e l c a s k o r r a i l car
b e immune t o d i r e c t t o r n a d o impact? Would a l i q u i d , h i g h - l e v e l
waste t a n k ? Would P d x f u e l , i n t r u c k s h i p m e n t s , remain
confined i n a tornado incident?"

Response :

Criteria fully compatible w i t h regulatory requirements for t o r n a d o resist-

ance w i l l be employed i n LIFBR power p l a n t s and f u e l c y c l e f a c i l i t i e s .
The s t u d y mentioned is an a t t e m p t t o b e t t e r d e f i n e l o c a l and r e g i o n a l
v a r i a t i o n s i n t o r n a d o 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 v e r y l o w r i s k s of a s e v e r e t o r n a d o . I t i s expected t h a t
s p e n t f u e l c a s k s and h i g h l e v e l waste tanks would x i t h s t a n d t o r n a d o
impacts. However, PuOx f u e l might n o t remain completely c o n f i n e d i n a
tornado incident.

12. Comment (page 4 ) :

4.2-195 "It does n o t seem c o n s e r v a t i v e 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 o c c u r and hence i g n o r e 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

me d i s c n s s i on r e i c r r e d t o h a s been c o n s i d e r a b l y r e v i s e d and expanded.

Extens-;vc a m 1 y s c s have been perforricd on consequences of s e v e r e
a c c i d e n t s . These are c i t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.8. The Price-Anderson
A c t w a s needed i n t h e extremely u n l i k e l y e v e n t r h o t t h e c o s t of damages
t h a t d g h t r e s u l t f r o n a s e v e r e n u c l c a r a c c i d e n t Would exceed t h a t
amount of i n s u r a n c e c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f r o n p r i v a t e s o u r c e s . Iiowever,
a s notcd l a t e i i n t h e r e s p o n s e 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 o u t i n t h e f u t u r e w i t h t h e i n d u s t r y assumin:; i t s own
risks .as t h e u s e of n u c l e a r power i n c r e a s e s .

13. Cornoents (pages 4-5):

4.4-2 "With s t a t e d g o a l of e v e n t u a l l y h a n d l i n g 3G-day cooled s p e n t

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
d i s c u s s e d throughout t h e n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e . T h e g r e a t e r t h e
i g n o r a c e of d e t a i l s of h a n d l i n g such f u e l , t h e b r o a d e r should
b e t h e scope of c r e d i b l e a c c i d e n t s d i s c u s s e d . 1 t

4.4-14 "The normal and a c c i d e n t impacts of sodium-cooled , short-decay

s p e n t f u e l s h i p p i n g should b e d i s c u s s e d i n vicw c f announced
goals.

4.4-52,53 "These huge i n c r e a s e s i n vlolatile f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s f o r siiort-

cooled fuel must be c o n s i d e r e d i n l o o k i n g a t i r l p a c t of s!d.p~~irig
and r e p r o c e s s i n g . 'I

4.4-54 I t If: short-decay t i n e case Itannot b e m e a n i n g f u l l y a s s e s s e d t h e n

w o r s t case consequences should be d i s c u s s e d . There i s a
c o n s i s t e n t theme h e r e of simply i g n o r i n q i n p o c t s of s t e p s
where knowledge i s l a c k i n g , ,' I

4.4-55 "What about a c c i d e n t e f fec1:s a t 30-120 days c o o l i n g ? IJhy

choose 180 as t h e s h o r t e s t t i m e f o r estimates when even 120
c o o l i n g is t h e b a s e case assumption?"

4.4-60-64 " S i m i l a r c a l c u l a t i o n s shoultd be made f o r 30 day and 120 day

c o o l i n g cases. !Jliy assume a 20 f o l d improvement i n p a r t i c u -
l a t e 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 s u p p o r t a d e s i r e d d c s i c n i n n a c t ,
r a t h e r t h a n l o o k i n g a t c o n s e r v a t i v e ranges of c o n t a i m e n t . ' I

4.4-87 "Accident consequences f o r 30 and 120 cooled f u e l should a l s o

b e e s t i m a t e d . Only assumes f u e l assembly breakage o r o t h e r
a c c i d e n t s i n s i d e containment s t r u c t u r e s . What about H2-02
e x p l o s i o n s i n t h e h i g h - l e v e l l i q u i d s t o r a g e t a n k s ? Conse-
quences of such an accident: have a l r e a d y 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 c o o l e d 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 l e m e n t s a r e n o t ;~andlecli n
t h e open; h e n c e , t h e r e would b e no b r e a h a p e i n t h e open. Rezardini: t;ie
q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g 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 ( w a s t e ) s t o r a g e
2
t a n k s , v a r i o u s neaps ?sone of which were n e n t i o n e d j n O%L-4451) a r e
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 c o n s e a u c n c e s were n o t d i s c u s s e d . A 2 0 - f o l d inprovement
i n p a r t i c u l a t e r e t e n t i o n c a n be j u s t i f i e d b e c a u s e o f u s e o f 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 t h a n 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 e m e n t
for additional j u s t i f i c a t i o n ) .

14.. Comment (page 4):

4.4-4 "How c a n r o u t i n e r e l e a s e s of I b e g u a r a n t e e d 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 environmental impacts d i s c u s s e d
seem t o b e more q e a r l y g o a l s , r a t h e r t h a n C o n s P r v a t i v e ,
worst-case projections."

--
Response :

T h e r e have been many t e s t s 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 over a s h o r t period w i t h streams t h a t s i m u l a t e
process cff-gas, 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
p r o b l e m s , b u 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 c a n n o t b e f o u n d , 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 s h o u l d show a c t i v i t i e s and t h e r m a l power f o r

30 day and 1 2 0 day c o o l e d f u e l s i n c e t h e s e a r e 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 b e c o o l e d 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 s u c h 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 conse-
q u e n c e s i n t h e >vent- t h a t i t i s i n v o l v e d w i t h a n e x t r e m e l y 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 c o n t z i n m e n t 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 c o o l e d f u e l and conse-
q u e n t l y s h o r t c o o l e d f u e l w i l l n o t b e s h i p p e d u n t i l adequ;te test.
i n f o r m a t i o n i s 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 c a n
 v.22-24

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 s e v e r e a c c i d e n t c o n d i t i o n s . C u r r e n t c a s k develop-
ment e f f o r t s , ( d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y i n S e c t . 7.3.4) p r o v i d e a s t r o n g
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t such c a s k s can b e designed. T h i s r e s e a r c h and
development program i s n o t complete., however, and i s expected t o
c o n t i n u e f o r a number of y e a r s a t a s u b s t a n t i a l f u n d i n p l e v e l .

16. Comment (page 5 ) :

4.4.55 Maximum f l a n e t e m p e r a t u r e s of 1475°F do n o t seem c o n s e r v a t i v e

i n t h e s e d a y s 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 b e sub:jected t o a n a c c i d e n t sequence more

s e v e r e than t h e d e s i g n - b a s i s a c c i d e n t . I n t h e case of f i r e , t h e dura-
t i o n f o r a c c i d e n t c a t e g o r y 5, was a s s m e d t o b e 2 h o u r s , f o u r times t h e
t i m e dur'ation s p e c i f i e d i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n s . While i t is t r u e t h a t r e a l
f i r e s g e n e r a l l y have a flame t e m p e r a t u r e of around 2000°F, r e a l f i r e s
do n o t 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 t e m p e r a t u r e o c c u r s approximately 30 i n . above t h e burning s u r f a c e .
Experience w i t h r e a l c a s k s t e s t e d in r e a l f i r e s have shown t h e d i f f i -
c u l t y i n maximizing h e a t i n p u t s t o t h e cask. I f t h e c a s k i s l y i n g i n
t h e p o o l of b u r n i n g l i q u i d , t h e bottom w i l l b e k c p t c o o l w h i l e t h e
t o p i s exposed t o t h e flame: The t e m p e r a t u r e 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 p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e method f o r e s t i m a t i n g t o t a l h e a t i n p u t
t o a c a s k 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 note-
worthy t h a t t h e 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 c o n t i n u a l l y c a r r y i n 8 o u t p h y s i c a l t e s t i n g ( i n c l u d i n g
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 r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e adequate.

17. Comments (pages 5-6) :

4.5-3 '!Table 4.5.1 shows almost 600 Kg of PuO p e r t r u c k shipr:ient.

2
The h i g h j a c k i n g i t n p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s sliruld b e d i s c u s s e d ,
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 t h e h i j a c k i n g 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
t r u c k 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 d o e s n o t seem c o n s e r v a t i v e .

I m p u r i t i e s , o u t g a s s i n g , e t c . can 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 i g h t e m p e r a t u r e s . C e r t a i n l y s a b o t a g e could
expose t h e PuO t o more s e v e r e c o n d i t i o n s . Consequences
2
should b e d i s c u s s e d . I t seems l i k e a double s t a n d a r d t o
l e t t h e UO l e a k a l i t t l e b i t , b u t t o p o s t u l a t e o r a s s e r t
2
t h a t no l e a k a g e of PuO w i l l ever occur."
2
 V. 22-25

4.5-63 "Here a g a i n , w i t h a lesser h a z a r d t h a n PuOz l e a k a g e is

allowed t o b e p o s t u l a t e d . "

4.5-73 "Table 4.5.5.6 lists c a t e g o r y 5 a c c i d e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s as

low as 8 x p e r y e a r y e t i n c l u d e s no p r o b a b i l i t y f o r
Pu02 release. A z e r o p r o b a b i l i t y f o r Pu02 release a p p e a r s
t o b e 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 i m a t i o n . Even
i f s u c h l o w a c c i d e n 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
h a z a r d and s h o u l d b e e s t i m a t e d and d i s c u s s e d . "

Response :

Discuspions r e l a t i v e t o t h e consequence o f s a b o t a g e of IXFBR materials

in t r a n s p o r t are p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 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 , a n i n t e r i m a s s e s s m e n t is prbvided o f t h e amount of r a d i o -
a c t i v i t y which might be r e l e a s e d t o t h e environment a s t h e r e s u l t of
h y p o t h e t i c a l s a b o t a g e a t t a c k on shipments of each o f t h e hazardous
mterials and p r o d u c t s i n v o l v e d , assuming t h e u s e of c t i r r e n t l y approved
packages. This assessment is i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e e a r l y guidavce toward
t i m e l y development of hardened packages o r o t h e r consequences-minimizing
a c t i o n s whcih may b e found n e c e s s a r y 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 o f malevolent-act ( s a b o t a g e ) releases from

materials i n t r a n s p o r t , i t is n o t clear t h a t t h i s "would dominate t h e
hazard", a s s u g g e s t e d by t h e comment on page 4.5-73. I n c e r t a i n cases,
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 s a b o t a g e a t t a c k may be v i r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e d
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 i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e , through
t h e "defense i a depth" approach, s a f e g u a r d s 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 p u b l i c w i l l b e judged
a c c e p t a b l y low. S e c t i o n 7.4.8 of t h e F i n a l Statement p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n
of t h e approach to development of f u t u r e s a f e g u a r d s .

18. Comment (page 6 ) :

4.6-112 ? S t o r a g e of s o l i d i f i e d h i g h l e v e l wastes f o r thousands o f

gears is n o t d e s c r i b e d . "

Response :

The u l t i m a t e d i s p o s a l alternatives t o t h e RSSF (covered i n S e c t i o n 4.6)

were d i s c u s s e d i n summary form I n Chapter 7 o f t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t .
The r e p o r t s r e f e r e n c e d i n Chapter 7 p r o v i d e comprehensive d e t a i l s o f
t h e a n a l y s i s i n progrdss.
__

19. Comment (page 6) :

4.6-16 "Credible u n n a t u r a l f o r c e s ( w a r - and s a b o t a g e ) s h o u l d a l s o b e

p r o v i d e d f o r and discussi5i;"- -
 V . 22-26

Response :

The F i n a l Statement h a s been modified t o d i s c u s s t h e t h r e a t and con3equences

of s a b o t a g e and w a r . I n t h i s r e g a r d , you are r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n s 7.4.3,
7.4.4 and 7.4.5 f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e s e i t e m .

20. Comment (page 6):

4.6-47 “Consequences af c a s k r u p t u r e o u t s i d e a containment b u i l d i n g

s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d . ”

Response :

R a d i o a c t i v i t y releases due t o high l e v e l waste cask r u p t u r e are n o t considered

( s e e Appendix I X . N , pages 1I.X-18 and 19 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t ) . Even a t
t h e gnd of a 2 hour f i r e , t h e h o t t e s t w a s t e would have a temperatuore of o t l y
132b F , whereas t h e w a s t e i s exposed t o t e n p e r a t u r e s of over 1600 E’ i n i t s
preparation. T h e r e f o r e , t h e w a s t e would r e n a i n s t a b l e , no d e c o n p o s i t i o n
p r o d u c t s would form t o increase i n t e r n a l p r e s s u r e s , c a n i s t e r ~ i l d w s uld
n o t c r a c k , and no release of a c t i v i t y would occur f o l l o i r i n g exposure of a
waste cask t o a f i r e . F i r e exposure i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e nost s t r i n g e n t
t e s t of a c a s k ’ s a b i l i t y t o m a i n t a i n 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 ds p i l l e d n a t e r i a l b c r c t r i v c d ? 1Iow would a i r p l a n e

c r a s h e s i n t o s t o r a g e areas b e handled i n areas which arc a l l
remotely c o n t r o l l e d ? “

Kesponse :

S p i i l e d r i n t e r i d would b e picked up w i t i i a rer.?otely o p e r a t e d V ~ C U U T I

s y s t e n and re-eiicapoulnted. xemote deco:itanination f a c i l i t i e s ( s p r a y
n o z z l e s , e t c . ) would b e u s e d t o d e c o n t a n i n a t e t h e area.

The RSSF would n o t L e i n a c o n n e r c 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 r a s h i n t o t h e RSSF is c o n s i d e r e d a n o n - c r e d i b l e a c c i d e n t .

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 b e

used f o r i o d i n e ; i t is noteworthy t h a t t h e 55 g a l . drums
mentioned f o r t h e o t h e r s are n o t used h e r e . ”

Response :

A s noted i n t h e D r a f t Statement (page 4.5-64):

n
 V . 22-27

10

" I o d i n e is assumed t o be c o n v e r t e d t o p o t a s s i m i o d i d e (KI) f o r

shipment t o a r e p o s i t o r y . The material would b e p l a c e d i n t o
c a n i s t e r s whLch woul.3, i n t u r n , b e p l a c e d i n t o i n s u l a t e d s h i p p i n g
packtzges d e s c r i b e d i n Fig. 4.5.4. I'

(Note - t h e i n s u l a t e d s h i p p i n g package is a 55 g a l . drum.)

23. Couumnt (page 6 ) :

4.6-53 ' I 1No c r e d i t is t a k e n f o r containment provided by t h e packages

para 2 once t h e y are b u r i e d . I f any a l p h a emitters are , b u r i e d , i t
shou1.d b e prever.ted t h a t they become a i r b o r n e . I t is s u g g e s t e d
t h a t a l l a l p h a e n i t t e r s be t r a n s m u t a t e l by n e u t r o n bombardment
i n a reactor."

K e s p onse :

MACEA c o x r e c t l y states t h a t n o c r e d i t is t a k e n f o r package containment

a f t e r w a s t e s are b u r i e d . A u t h o r i z a t i o n 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 i s based on a n 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 h e s i t e t o p o g r a p h i c a l , geograph-
i c a l , m e t e o r o l o g i c a l , arzl h y d r o l o g i c a 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 t h e g e n e r a l area, which demonstrate c h a t
b u r i e d r a d i o a c t i v e waste w i l l n o t m i g r a t e from t h e s i t e . The alternative
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 D r a f t S t a t e n c r t .
However, It is n o t i n t e n d e d t h a t lo:? l e v e l wastes would e v e r b e transmuted.
--
24. Cocunerit (page 6 ) :

4.6-48 'I Here again, where a very serious hazard i s involved, it is

assumed t h a t e n g i n e e r i n g w i l l make t h e e v e n t (meltdown)

i n c r e d i b l e . This a v o i d s h o n e s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of r e a l
dangers. ' I

Response:

I n f o r m a t i o n h a s been added t o t h e F i n a l Statement (pages 4 . 6 - 3 3 t o 4 . 6 - 2 7 )

t o h e l p demonscrate t h a t e n g i n e e r i n g w i l l make t h i s waste s t o r a g e a c c i d e n t
incredible.

25. Comment (pzge 6 ) :

4.7-1 " I n t h e l i s t i n g of a r e a s from which plutonium might b e

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 n o t
mentioned. I'
 V.22-28

11
Res pons e :

S e e t h e r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s o f 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 e m e n t , where t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is now p r o v i d e d .

26. Comment (page 7):

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

m i g h t c o n t a i n 10 -10 C i , a p p e a 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

physical f a c t o r s operating against s i g n i f i c a n t releass. Additional
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 o f 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 .

27. 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 b a r g e . "

R e s pons e :

P r o b a b l y tlic l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t a c c i d e n t t h a t c o u l d b e f a l l a s p e n t f u e l
c a s k c a r r i e d on a b a r g e i s 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 c a s k s s i n c e s p e e d s a r e slow a n i t h e y c a n 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 c o m b u s t i b l e m a t e r i a l s .
S i n k i n g o f t h e b a r n e and c a s k 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 i n e r i a i n t n i n low e x t e r n a l t e m p e r a t u r e s 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 s y s t e m s , 17hic!i n i g h t have b e e n e n p l o y e d , were d e s t r o y e d .
The a c t 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 i n c r e r ? s e s ( r e l a t i v e t o what i t w i l l be c a p z h l e
o f w i t h s t a n d i n g ) on t h e c a s k a n d , 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 e a k a g e . L a r g e c h l o r i n e c y l i n d e r s whose c o n t a i n m e n t c o u l d
b e e a s i l y d e s t r o y e d 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 b e e n s u n k , 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 R i v e r . The
act of s i n k i n g i s t h e r e f o r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o create l e a k s o r pose any
additional r i s k t o the public.

28. Comment (page 7):

4. E-6 "The v a l u e s f o r plutonium a p p e a r m e a n i n g l e s s w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g

w h e t h e r i t i s a b s o r b e d a; a n e t a l o r as a p a r t i c u l a r s a l t .
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 t h a n l u n g doses. But why is t h e G I d o s e even
h i g h e r t h a n t h e lung?"
 V. 22-29

12

Response :

An expanded d i s c u s s i o n of t h e a s s u m p t i o n s 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 d o s e - c o n v e r s i o n 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 m a t e r i a 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
d o s e - c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r s are based on t h e a s s u m p t i o n 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 a r e 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 referenced organs, t h e lung being a t g r e a t e s t r i s k f o r inhaled insol-
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 ( T a b l e 1I.E-4) c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e
G I t r a c t r e c e i v e s a d o s e s e v e r a l o r d e r s of m a g n i t u d e 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 d o s e t o t h e l u n g i s 1 . 7 7 E2 o r
1.77 x lo2 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 r a c 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 .

29. Comment (page 7 ) :

4 . E-8 "In T a b l e 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 r e

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
i s 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 l m o s t 1007; r e t e n t i o n from t h e l u n g . "

Response:

Again w e c a n n o 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 d o s e o f 8.96 E2 o r 8.96 x lo2 (Table 1I.E-4) o r 869 r e n / p C i ,
w h e r e a s 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 d o s e
of 1 . 0 6 E-1 o r 1 . 0 6 x 10-1 o r 0.106 r e n / p C i i n g e s t e d .

30. --
Comment (page 7):

4.G-51 $'Again, over-emphasis on p l u t o n i u m 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 m e t a l l i c
p l u t o n i u m o r p l u t o n i u m o x i d e i n t o t h e l u n g where i t s b i o l o g i c
h a l f - l i f e i s 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 e n d e d 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 u n g . 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 p l u t o n i u m r e a c h e d 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 m e t a l l i c p l u t o n i u m 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 l u t o n i u m forms p l u t o n i u m d i o x i d e . S i n c e t h e l u n e i s consic'-
e r e d t h e c r i t i c a l o r g a n a f t e r i n h a l a t i o n of p l u t o n i u m d i o x i d e , i t comes
u n d e r Compound Class Y of t h e ICW T a s k Group Lung Model; t h e recommended
 V. 22- 30

13

v a l u e of t h i s m o d e l f o r t h e bicllo$cai h a l f - l i f e i s 500 d a y s . ;Je a r e n o t

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 pliitoniurl d i o x i d e . T h 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 h a s b e e n 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 b e c a u s e d 3 y two methods: t h e m u t a g e n i c 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 h e embryo and f e t u s . The former
is c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e r e p o r t o f t h e :1ational Academy of S c L ~ r ~ c e s - ~ ! n t i o n n l
Research C o u n c i 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;:
R a d i a t i o n . T h e 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 o f 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
genetic risk. 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 e n b r y o o r f e t u s c o u l d c c c u 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
incorporated i n t o the developing tissues. T h 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 .

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 i n e a r e x t r a p o l a t i o n a c t u a l l y i s t o o c o n s e r v a t i v e since :,t
h i z h e r d o s e s 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
p a p e r on t h i s s u b j e c t vhicli would b e 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, P o p n l n t i o n ! i n t c r o y n c i t y
H y p o t h e s i s on X a d i a t i o n Induced C a n c e r , H e a l t h Phy.jics 25:
~ 9 7 - 1 0 4 , 1973.''

Response :

"lie E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t r e f e r s t o i t s dependence upon t h e :JAS-:IRC

r e p o r t o n 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 a s
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 o f tlie s i n p l e l i n e a r d o s e r e s p o n s e
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. T h a t 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 a p p r o a c h e s 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 p h i l o s o p h y ,
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 " h y p o t h e s i s .

The r e f e r e n c e r e p o r t by Saurn i n H e a l t h P h y s i c s p r e s e n t s i n d e t a i l one

approach t o d o s e - r e s p o n s e m n l y s i s :!;at is a l s o i n c l u C s d i n the BET?
 V.22-31

14

report. It is not: a new approach and t h e p a p e r does n o t show t h e c o m p l e t e

original d a t a . I f it h a d , t h c reader c o u l d j u d g e f o r h i m s e l f t h e Lr.zinr.er
i n which t h e d a t a c z n b e f i t t e d by a l n o s t c o r i p l e t c l y c o n t r a s t i n g
e q u a t i o n s w i c h c u t 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 c h o i c e . The i s s u e of
" h e t e r o ~ e n e i t y " , p e r s e , 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 h e t e r o g e n e o u s groups of e x p e r i n e n t a l a n i m a l s have n o t r e v e a i e d
any u n u s u a l r e s p o n s e s . 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 n u n b e r of z r p r e n t s
t h a t oppose h i s own L h e s i s . K i u s , a t t h i s t i n e , t5,e over;ihelminS r i e i z t i t of
t h e e v i d e n c c and t h e c o n c e r n 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
report position.

33. Comment- (page 7):

4.G-69 " E s t i n a t e s are a l l minimal, b a s e d on u n a v o i d a b l e o r 'normal'

releases. There a r e no a c c i d e n t a s s u m p t i o n s 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 n u c l c i i r Euei c y c l e , a n d 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 i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix 11.2.1. A c c i d e n 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 S t a t e m e n t .

34. 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 unitorm 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 s h o u l d b e 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 a n g e of GiP f o r a g i v e n per c a p i t a income, e . & . , a
r a n g e o f a b o u 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 c a p i t a r a n g e . Two c o n c l u s i o n s
siclit 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 i m i n i s h i n g r e t u r n s t h a t c a u s e &he
c u r v e of Z"V/G:JP t o c u r v e 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 a p p e a 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 e n e r g y 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 , c a n 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 continued w e l l being."

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 b e c a u s e
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 . (Both
comments a p p l y t o Fig. 5.2-1).

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 a n g e o f e n e r g y 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 a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same p e r c a p i t a income a r e 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 e m e n t .

35. Comment (page 8 ) :

5-9 "Reversal o f e l e c t r i c a l rate s t r u c t u r e s should be considered

h e r e t o a l l e v i a t e b u r d e n 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 e m e n t , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p r i c e
of electricity for v a r i o u s income groups is considered.

36. Comment ( p a g e 8) :

5-13 "Capital requirements f o r adequate l i a b i l i t y insurance should

b e e s t i m a t e d h e r e , as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n t i n u e d s u b s i d y by
t h e Price-Anderson A c t . Such c o s t s s h o u l d b e 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 s u c h a s t h i s one."

ResDonse:

I n s u r a n c e c o s t s s u p p l e m e n t a r y t o Price-Anderson c o v e r a g e a r e i n c l u d e d 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 S e c t i o n 11.2. The Congress r e c e n t l y p a s s e d
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 i t s
s c h e d u l e d 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 v e t o e d 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 . I t 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 b a s e d 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 . T h e r e 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 t s 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 . During r e c e n t
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 ( N u c l e a r
I n d u s t r y 5 / 7 5 , 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 p h a s i n g o v t government i n d e m n i t y were c o n s i d e r e d . However, i t is
i m p o s s i b l e a t t h i s time t o 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 e x i s 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 t e c h n o l o g y 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
i n c l u d e d . 'I

Kesponse :

T h i s i s a v a l i d concen;. I t i s 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 o c c u r 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 s b r o a d . I t is i n i p o s s i b 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. liovever, 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 c h a o s . X u c l e a r
f a c i l i t i e s a r e s a f e g u a r d e d and are a t 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 a t s u c h s i t e s . A v a l u e
j u d g m e n t Iiiust b e clade as t o w h e t h e r c o n c e r n s 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 i m p l i c a t i o 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 n v o l v e n e n 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
s y s t e m s , a r e c o n s i d e r e d 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
i n p l e m e r i t n t i o n 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 e n e r c e n c y 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 s y n o n y m u s . O t h e r t e c h n o l o g i c a l d c v c l o p n e n t s
( c o n p u t c r s , f o r e x a n p l e ) 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 .
V a r i o u s measures e x i s t i n a d e m o c r a t i c s0ciet.r t o p r e v e n t e r c s i o n s of
freedon.

38. Conncnt (page 3 ) :

5-33 "WI11 o u r n u c l e a r e n e r g y econoriy be abandoned- i f ' ' i n t e r -

n a t i m n l a s r e e r i e n t s ancl i n s t i t u t i o n s t o a s s u r e 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 s u c h a g u a r a n t e e ? I j i l d r i c h and T a y l o r ' s
book s h o u l d be r e f e r e n c e d and d i s c u s s e d . "

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 e n e r g y a g r e e -
ments 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 put 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 r o b l e n s 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 . R a t h e r t h a n 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 a p p r o a c h would b e t o a t t e n p t t o
s e c u r e a d h e r e n c e 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

17

39. Comment (page 8 ) :

6-1,2 " J u s t b e c a u s e ' r e l i a 5 l e 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 e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c y 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 e n v i r o n m e n t a l
i m p a c t s . I t m k e s a mockery o f NEPA t o i g n o r e consequences
on t h e a s s u m p t i o n 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 l e a s t 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 p h a s e of t h e f u e l cycle."

Response :

The e n k i r o n m e n t a 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 - 7 4 t o 4.5-106, 4 . 6 4 7 t o 4.6-49, h . 6 - 5 7 , 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 e q e n 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 r e s e n t - d a y 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 s h o u l d 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

vessels. T.t r e f e r r e d i n s t e a d t o jiiiificsdties i n s e a l i n g t h o s e v e s s e l s . In
t h i s r e s p e L t , t h e t r c a t n n _ n t of a c c ; d e n t s in t h e S t a t e m e n t does i n c l u d e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of c o n t t i n n e n t lcakage. Radioactive material i n s i d e t h e
c o n t s i n m c n 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 Statement (see Table 4 . 2 . 3 . 1 ) . These l e a k s
r a t e s c a n b e a r d are k e p t a c c e p t a b l y small.

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 c o o l e d 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 b e c a u s e 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
half-life). 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
 V.22-35

18

t Yi Id ; n o t i 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. C o m e n t (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 h a z a r d 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 h a z a r d ' i x r d i b l e ' a n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t can be
ignored. Thus U 0 2 and L;F2 a r e al.lowed t o e s c z p e c o n t a i n n c n t
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 . Consequences o f
w o r s t - c a s e a c c i d e n t s s h o u l d 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 . "

Response :

The i m p a c t 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 e m e n t . A n e w Section ( 4 . 5 . 7 ) discussin:: conseniicrices
(and r i s k s ) of s o x e w o r s t - c a s e a c c i d e n t s h a s been added t o t h e F i n a l S t a t e -
nen t .
43. Cornilent ( p a p 9 ) :

7-41 "\.Riat f r a c t i o n s of c a s k s f o r LEIFBR can l i k e l y be s h i p p e d by

barge?"

g%znE:

All LNFBR s p e n t f u e l s!iipping casks c o u l d b e s h i p p e d by b a r g e . Ho~~ever,

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 b e sliipped by b a r g e .

44. 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 r e q u i r e m e n t

for c o n t i n u e d hunan a c t i o n i n no way weakens t h e s a f e t y of t h e
surface 5 t o r n g e approach t o nnnageraent o f h i g h - l e v e l v a s te" i s
a n a f f r o n t t o cornton s e n s e . ' 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 r o b l e n 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 ,

a p p r o a c h e s 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
n

19

the p o t e n t i a l f o r huran e r r o r ~ o u 1 . dbe 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 S t a t e m e n t as f o l l o w s - "The AEC f e e l s t h a t i f
m a n a g c m n t t e c h n i q u e s can be tlcveloped w h i c h 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 r e q u i r e m e n t , t h e y s h o u l d be
used. ' I

45. Cormcnts (page 9):

7-55 "Sabotage i s 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 e a c h s t e p of t h e
proposed f u e l c y c l e ?

7-64 "It i s s t a t e d t ! i a t : 'The p o s s i b i l i t y of satota,?e of f a c i l -

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
considcrcd. 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 tlirouzhout
the report.

7-72 "What a b o u 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 e n 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 , S c c t i c n 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 ~ ~vtiich S f a l l v i . t h i n 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 p o i n t e d o u t t h a t s i : : n i f i c a n t a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t xi11 b e
r e q u i r e d t o c o n f i rni 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
s a b o t a G e 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 safe-
g u a r d s i . e a s u r e s 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 e v e l s .

46. Cor%ment( p a p 9 ) :

9.1-2 " F i g u r e 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 c e n t r a l 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
 V.22-37

20

C a p a c i t y C o n t r i b u t i o n , ? e r c e n t of T o t a l
I n t . Conb Pumped
-
Year --
Gas Turb. -StoraZe

19 70 5.5 1.1
19 80 8.0 3.5
J.930 7.7 4.5
2000 6.8 4.0
2010 5.5 3.3
2020 4.3 2.6

Thus, i n 2020, t h e peaking c a p a c i t y from Pumped S t o r a g e , 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 t s p r e s e n 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 e n c a p a c i t y is i n c r e a s i n g e x p o n e n t i a l l y a t

. y e a r 2020, as shc;Fm i n F i g u r e s 9.12 t o 9.13, is t h i s c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h c o a l p r o j e c t i o n s i n F i S u r e 9.1-4 t o 9.1-G? A l l projections
should extend t o 2020.

Response :

F i g u r e s 9.1-2 and 9.1-3 d e p i c t c a p a c i t y p r o j e c t i o n s , w h i l e f i g u r e 9.1-4

depicts generation projections. 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 o p e r a t e a t lower p l a n t f a c t o r s than n u c l e a r p l a n t s (because t h e
" v a r i a b l e " 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 n u c l e a r
p l a n t s ) . T h u s , even though t h e r e is an i n c r e a s e i n c o a l - f u e l e d c a p a c i t y
between 1990 and 2000, the g e n e r a t i o n does n o t i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y .
I t does i n c r e a s e a f t e r 2000.

48. C o m e n t (paze 9):

"Curies of waste should be l i s t e d a l s o . Plore i m p o r t a n t t h a n

volume. I'

Response:

Volume u n i t s were used because they do n o t change w i t h t i n e , u n l i k e t h e

r a d i o a c t i v e c o n t e n t which does. In r e s p o n s e t o your conment and o t h e r s ,
T a b l e 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.

49. Comment (page 9 ) :

"The release nurnbers i n Table 9.1-4 are whatever t h e AEC and the
manufacturer's decide t o engineer. \%Thyb i a s t h e LTJR i n t h i s way
r e l a t i v e t o UIFBR?"
 v .22-3a

21
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 , w i t h t h e

p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of n & l e gas b o t t i i n r : a t Lhr r e a c t o r . I f n o b l e 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 a b o u t 20X a t 1.NX's and 337, a t WTCF,'s. T h e Xenon r e l e a s e s
could b e reduced t o i X of t h e i r valucs i n t h e D r a f t Statemect. Table
9.1-4 now r e f l e c t s this.

50. C c m e n t (page 10):

9.1-32 "Table 9.1-7. Why n o t c o n t a i n t h e Krypton i n the,LWR a n d HTGK

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 h e LME'BR.

Response:

This t a b l e h a s 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 s p e n t

fUtZl?''

Response :

They are n o t 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 c o i i s i s t e n t w i t h 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 a d i o a c t i v e r e l c a s a s from

LMFXR except a3 a chos?n d e s i g n o b j e c t i v e ? I f t h e L'IFSR h a s
t r d y ' a r r i v e d ' , crlw so nany unanswered d e s i g n and p r o c e s s
q W 5 t i O n S alluded to earlicr?"

-
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

p r o c e s s v x i a b l c s tend t o f a v o r r a d i o n u c l i d e 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 p e r m i t s "capture" and
h a n d l i n g of t h e t r i t i u m as a n e a s i l y c o n t a i n e d s o l i d . I n o t h e 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 c o a t a i n o t h e r
radionuclides.
 V.22-39

22

The LMFBR h a s " a r r i v e d " 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 a c e d and s o l v e d 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 c a n n o t 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 t h e y
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 develop-
m e n t a l . P e r h a p s t h e key p o i n t i s 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 c a n now t u r n t o t h e i r s o l u t i o n .

53. Comment (page 1 0 ) :

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 o f c o n s t r u c t i o n

C Q S t S , t h c n a c o n s e r v a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n 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 r a t e p e r c e n t a g e
and w i l l a l w a y s 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
analysis. "

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 g c i i c r a t i n g s y s t e m s which s u p p l y a f i x e d
p o r t i o n of tli? e l e c t r i c e n e r g y denand. One c a s e has t h e L:FFBR avai3,:b;e
as an o p t i o n , t h e o t h e r docs n o t . T h e r e 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 for the d i f f e r e n t reactor types.

54. Comncnt (page 1 0 ) :

10-2 7 "Som cstirnate s h o u l d 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 b e 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 e q u i r e m e n t s i s g i v e n
i n S e c t i o n 7.4.9 o f t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t . E s t i n a t e s of numbers of
p e r s o n n e l needed are i n c l u d e d .

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 o f hiRh-leite'l
wastes i s 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 y e a r s . I t i s 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 o r 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
such artifacts.''
 V .22-40 n

23
Res p onsc :

This p o i n t h a s x r i t ; t h e a r g m s n t has bzen removed f r o q t h e F i n a l S t a t e -

nient.

56. Comment (page 10):

-
10 35 '%hat happens when a p o r t i o n of t h e hunan race d o e s n ' t d e s i r e
t h e s a f e k e e p i n g of t h e s e wastes? The q u e s t i o n of n u c l e a r
s a b o t a g e of t h e i n c r c d i b l y s p a t i a l l y c o n c e n t r a t e d RSSF and
N G S F should be addressed."

Response:

It i s assumed t h a t t h e human race w i l l a c t - r a t i o n a l l y and r e a s o n a b l y w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e s a f e k e e p i n g of n x l c a x wastes. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e q u e s t i o n
of n u c l e a r sabotage of the KSSF and IiGSF is d i s c u s s e d in S e c t i o n s 7.4.1.2
and 7.4.1.4 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

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 g e n e r a t i o n s of merely

m a i n t a i n i n g r c c o r d s 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 s e n t e n c e i n t h e Drait Statement was i n t e n d e d t o r e a d : ' I . . . o b l i g a t i o n s

a s s e d 2%t o (cr acqiL':ircd&) f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s would i n v o l v e t h e keeping
z f r e c o r d s . . . " ~ ~ - & > ~ ~5 . flt . o2 . 2n of t h e F i n a l Statement. T h i s i s n o t
a matter of m o r a l i t y . I t i s simply t h e minixurn requirement t o i n s u r e
a g a i n s t any u o s s i b 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 a c e t h e w ~ s t ei n an i n a c c e s s i b l e p l a c e . I t w i l l t a k e a h i g h t e c h n o i -
ogy t o p u t i t t h e r e and it w i l l t a k e a h i c h technology t o i n t r u d e on i t .
C e r t a i n l y a' s o c i e t y w i t h t h e 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 t o m i n t n i n r e c o r d s t o avoid i n t r u s i o n . 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 r e c o r d s i t i s h i g h l y
improbable t h a t t h e y will have t h e technology t o p e r m i t i n a d v e r t e n t
i n t r u s i o n on a waste d i s p o s a l s i t e .

58. Comnient (page 10):

11.1-3 'IA more d i r e c t c c n s i d e r n t i o a of t h e f i r s t CEQ a l t e r n a t i v e

s h o u l d be given i n d e t a i l . The idea t h a t n o 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 p r o j e c t e d 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 -
native. It, i n f a c t , forecloses the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e discussion;

n
 V.22-41

24
"Whether energy s h o d d be produced a n d w h a t l e v $ ? of enezgy
consumption is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h economic and e n v i r o n x n t a l
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .'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 i n c l u d i n g s e n s i t i v i t y cases w i t h e l e c t r i c i t y consunption
above a n d below t h e base csse p r o j e c t i o n . The F i i d S t a t e m e n t e x t e d s
t h e lover s i 4 e of t h i s range t o 502 below t h e b a s e p r o j e c t i o n of y e a r
2020 e l e c t r i c i t y use.

D i s c u s s i o n of t h e r o l e of energy i n economic growth is i n c l u d e d 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 c a n decommissioning c o s t s b e s o c o n f i d e n t l y d i s m i s s e d 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 i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 9.2. The p r e s e n t worth

of f u t u r e d e c o r u i s s i o n i n g c o s t s would be o n l y a b o u t 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 f o r f v t u r e LIiFBRs.

60. Comment- (page 11):

11.2-5 "Thc l o w energy c a s e , -20% of p r o j e c t e d 2020 usage is n o t a t all

c o n s e r v a t i v e . S l J b s t z n t i a l d e c r e a s e i n usage, ( f a c t o r s of 2-3)
sllch as t h a t p o s t u l a t e d by t h e r e c e n t Ford Foundation .itudy,
should b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o s t / b e r i c f i t analysis ."
Response:

The F i n a l SLtatenent i n c l u d e s cases w i t h e l e c t r i c i t y deiiand i n t h e y e a r

2020 which a r e 50% lower t h a n t h e b a s e case.

61. Comme2t (page 11):

11.2-8 I'Thrcc-hundred and s i x t y - f i v e day c o o l i n g is t r e a t e d as an

e x c e p t i o n i n c d s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , b u t i s t h e assumed c o o l i n g
p e r i o d i n d i s c u s s i n g e n v i r o n m e n t d impact. T h i s seems l i k e a
c o n v e n i e n t double s t a n d a r d t o h i g h l i g h t f a v o r a b l e f a c t o r s .

11.2-13 "A case should be r a n w i t h o p t i m i s t i c uranium s u p p l y , low

energy d e m n d ( 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 c o o l i n g and no c a r b i d a fuel."
 V .22-42
n

Response :

The. s h o r t e r (120 days) c o o l i n g t i m e was used a s t h e b a s s case s i n c e

t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 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 n o t 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 o n e d e s c r i b e d were r u n and i n c l u d e d i n t h e F i n a l

Statement.

62. Comment (page 11):

11.2-14 "Can a net s a v i n g s of o n l y 11%h t h e d i s c o u n t e c l 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 p r o c e s s
u n c e r t a i n t i e s o f t h e LMFBR?"

Response:
b

It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h i s 11%s a v i n g is b a s e d on a h e a v i l y ciiscountea
stream o f f u t u r e b e n e f i t s . The u n d i s c o u n t e d b e n e f i t s i n t h e b a s e c a s e
amount t o a b o u t 1 . 7 t r i l l i o n d o l l a r s , o r a b o u t 25% r e d u c t i o n i n t h e
u n d i s c o u n t e d c o s t of power. A r a t e o f r e t u r n a n a l y s i s shows t h i s t o b e
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 r a t e o f r e t u r n o n t h e R&D i n v e s t m e n t .
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 a d e q u a t e t o
j u s t i f y t h e R&D c o s t s .

63. C o m e n t (page 1 1 ) :

11.2-7 "Does T a b l e 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 u n d e r i n s u r a n c e ? 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 h i d d e n 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:

T a b l e 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 o f 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 i s c o u n t e d b e n e f i t t o b e reduced by a b o u t $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 i m p a c t s o f a l t e r n a t i v e energy s y s t e m s s h o u l d 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 t h e i-eport d e a l s w i t h t h e u n i t a n n u a l impacts of

i n d i v i d u a l g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t s and t h e r e f o r e is n o t based on any energy
growth p r o j e c t i o n . The z e r o energy growth case is d i s c u s s e d from t h e
v i e w p o i n t of energy c o n s e r v a t i o n i n S e c t i o n 6C.

65, Comment (page 11):

11.3-3 I f t h e comparison of t o t a l impacts emphasizes o n l y 'cornon or

everyday v a r i e t y risks' t h e c o n c l u s i o n is foregone since t h e
assumption is m d e t h a t t h e LJfFBR f u e l c y c l e w s b e designed
and o p e r a t e d t o nake impacts i e g l i g i b l e . "

Res p mse :

W e have a t t e m p t e d 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 w i t h b u i l d i r g and o p e r a t i n g 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 t u d y slid are b e l i e v e d t o
r e a l i s t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t t h e 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 h e designed and o p e r a t e d i n such a way t h a t r i s k s
and h a z a r d s are minimized. Any o t h e r c o u r s e would be u n a c c e p t a b l e t o
t h e AEC and t h e p u b l i c .

66. Comment (page 1 1 ) :

11.3-13 "Table 11.3-5 assumes 20 man-rems i n r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t , qs 20

man-rems f o r t h e LVR. Why? Is t h e 30 day c o o l i n g case assumed
here?"

Response:

The v a l u e s a c t u a l l y shown f o r dose r e c e i v e d i n f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g a r e 20

man-rems f o r t h z TXE'BR and 30 man-rems f o r t h e LWR. A s n o t e d i n Tables
11.3-3, 11.3-4, and 11.3-5 of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , a l l s y s t e m s dssurne t h e
same v a l u e f o r r e p r o c e s s i n g d o s e p e r u n i t of f u e l r e p r o c e s s e d , namely 1
man-rem p e r metric t o n of f u e l . S i n c e t h e U W R R r e q u i r e s p r o c e s s i n g of
o n l y m o - t h i r d s as much f u e l is t h e LWR, t h e dose i s o n l y 20 man-rems
v e r s u s 30 man-rems f o r t h e LWR. These dose rates assume a b o u t 365 days
f i s s i o n p r o d u c t decay p r i o r t c r e p r o c e s s i n g .

11.3-17 "The 'upper limits' of p t i b l i c h e a l t h e f f e c t s f o r t h e n u c l e a r

fuel c y c l e s assume no Rerious a c c i d e n t s c a n occur. Is t h i s
normal usage of t h e term?"
 9
V.22-44

27
Response:

The p u b l i c h e a l t h e f f e c t s result mostly f r o n t h e im?acts of day-to-day

o p e r s t i o n . Reaztor a.nd sewicc f a c l l i t i c s for n u c l e a r p l a n t s are desiqced
t o make t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of serio:is a c c i d e n t s very s n a l l and t o p r o t e c t the
p u b l i c from a c c i d e n t consequences. T h e r e f o r e , t h e average z o n t r i b u t i o n of
a c c f d e n t s t o p u b l i c health e f f e c t s i s p r e d i c t e d t o be, exceedingly small i n
comparlson to t h e e f f e c t s from r o u t i n e o p e r a t i o n s .

68. Comment (page 11):

11.3-34 " I f t h e !JlE'BR r e p l a c e s r e t i r e d f o s s i l c a p a c i t y a f t e r y e a r 2000,

why does t h e f o s s i l component :n F i g u r e s 9.1-2 and 9.1-3 keep
rising?"

Response :

As d e s c r i b e d 0'1 Fsges 11.3-33 and 11.3-34 of t h e D r a f t Statement, t h i s

s e c t i o n c o r s i d e r e d t h r e e s i m p l i f i e d " s c e n a r i o s " , which r e p r e s e n t a
m o d i f i c a t i o n f r o n t h e c o s t l b e n e f i t assumptions used i n S e c t i o n 11.2.
These s i n p l j - f i e d s c e n a r i o s we-e s e l e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e range of views
s u g g e s t e d by v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s , from a no-fission-energy c a s e t o a
v e r y l a r g e c o m i t n e n t t o t h a LEIFBR. The f o s s i l component shown i n
F i g c r e s 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 c a p a c i t y which
was a s s i g n e d 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 t u d i e s .

69. Comment (page 11):

11.3-42 " I f t h e s e f a t a l i t y numbers were r e a l l y credi'ole, t h e n why is

Price-Anderson n e c e s s a r y fo:: n u c l e a r and n o t f o r c o a l ? "

Response :

The b a s e s 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 i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 9 and 11

and iii t h e r e f e r e n c e d s u p p o r t i n g n a t e r i a l . Zlaese s t a t i s t i c s are supported
by t h c e x p e r i e n c e 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 h i g h p r i c e ,
i n d e e d , f o r t h e use of coal.

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 o u t , namely, r e d u c i n g energy

'needs' by cons5rvatLon and o t h e r means. Here, a s i n many
o t h e r p l a c e s i n WASH-1535, t h e presumed continued e x p o n e n t i a 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 d i s c u s s i o n . I'

9
 V.22-45

25
Response:

See r e p l i e s t o c o m e n t n 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 s o n c a n be infe;.red from t h e r e c e n t o i l

' c r i s i s ' : e.g., look a t t h e l i v e s saved by speed and mileage
r e d u c t i o n s i n a u t o t r a v e l and t h e p o t e n t i a l b e . i c f i t s from a
s h i f t t o bus, t r a F n and nass t r a n s i t . Where, i n t h i s report,
is a s e r € o u s a t t e m p t made t o d e t e r m i n e t h e ' f u t u r e ' r e a l need
for e n e r g y ? ' 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 a c c e p t the
h i s t o r i c a l increase!"

Res p ors e :

The r e f e r e n c e d s e z t i o n of t e x t d i s c u s s e s i h e impact of i n a d e q u a t e plan-

n i n g w i t h r e s u l t a n t d i s r u p t i o n s , n o t t h e impact of reduced eneryy usape.
Speed l i m i t s could have been reduced b e f o r e &he ' o i l c r i s i s ' , i f t h e
p u b l i c demanded.

72. C o m e n t (page 12):

11.4-3 llhy lclrap solnr energy r e c o v e r y w i t h f u s i o u ? One has been

denlonstrated and t h e o t h e r h a s not. One d o e s n ' t need a s many
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 h e a t i n g and
c o o l i n g of b u i l d i n g s is a p p l i e d . I f Kansas C i t y Posrer and
L i g h t p r o j e c t i o n s a r e t y p i c a l , one of t h a b i g f u t u r e f o r c e s
f o r increasing growth i n demand w i l l b e f o r e l e c t r i c a l s p a c e
h e a t i n g . 'I

Response :

On page 11.4-3 of t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , t h e energy systems were c a t e g o r i z e d

i n two broad groups, t h o s e p r e s e n t l y b e i n g use6 (such as LCP. and f o s s i l
s y s t e m s ) and t h o s e which may be a v a i l a b l e i n t h e f u t u r e . C l e a r l y , s o l a r
j
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 t h e second broad
c a t e g o r y , a l t h o u g h s o l a r c o n v e r s i o n h a s been a p p l i e d i n s p e c i a l circum-
s t a n c e s . On pages 11.4-13 and 11.4-1 of t h e D r a 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 h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g of b u i l d i n g s w a s d i s c u s s e d . By l i m i t i n g
n u c l e a r power t o 60% of t h e p r o j e c t e d e l e c t r i c i t y n e e d s , and u s i n g
v a r i a t i o n s on t h e b a s e case p r o j e c t i o n s , t h e p o s s i b l e r o l e of s o l a r shoirld
be a d e q u a t e l y covered.

73. Comment (page 12):

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

solar s p a c e hentii;g a d c e o l i n z . !.ky a r 2 n o t zindpower and
c o n s e r v a t i o n mentioced a t t h i s p o i n t ? "
 V.22-46

29
Iiespunse:

These t o p i c s a r e 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,

respcccivd?y.

11.5-17 "The c o n c o u i t a n t b e n e f i t of d e v e l o p i n g 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 t e c h n o l o g y a n d / o r equiprient

f o r tlicsc s y s t e ~ . ~ st!iat
, h a s no b e a r i n g on t h e s u b j e c t of w h e t h e r t o i i i p o r t
L : E X technology.

75. Corii:m: (page 12):

11.4-23 "'llie ' e v i d e n c e ' t h a t t h e b r e e d e r s h o u l d be viewed as r? l a s t

r e s o r t i s t h e c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e unanswered q u e s t i o n s of
s a b o t a g e 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 :

T h e s e 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 c o n t e n d e d t h a t p r e s e n t s a f e g u a r d s a r e a d e q u a t e
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 r o u p s 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 p r o b a b 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 e m e n 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 s y s t e m n i g h t n o t
be e f f e c t i v e Ggainst l a r g e , h e a v i l y a r m d f o r c e s . I t is p o s s i b l e t o
i n a g i n e t h a t s t x h a f o r c e c o u l d 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 j u d g e d t o b e h i g h l y improbable.

77. Cotlnent ( p a g e s 12-13):

1114-2 " 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 be can

predicted. The IlcPhee-Taylor series i n t h e iiew Yorker s h o u l d
be r e f e r e n c e d .
 V.22-47

30
111-A-3 "Cases of r a d i o l o g i c a l weapons use should be p o s t u l a t e d . One
need n o t w a i t t o knw by e x p e r i e n c e t h e method and circuiiistance
of use.

I1I-A-5 "Are such dangers as Pu weapons manufacture and t h e o p e r a t i o n

of a Pu b l a c k market s o c r e d i b l e t h a t d i s c u s s i n g them w i t h o n l y
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 security?"

Response :

The manufacture and u s e of i l l e g a l n u c l e a r weapons are d i s c u s s e d i n

S e c t i o n 7.4.5.1 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e n e n t . It is agreed t h a t the 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 c i r c u m s t a n c e s 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 h z AEC cannot p r e d i c t t h e s e f a c t o r s w i t h
c e r t a i n t y . However, t h e 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
S e c t i o n 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 a g r e e s 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 s a f e g u a r d s aystem h a s been and
w i l l be desigiied u s i n g t h i s premise.

S e c t i o n 5.4.2.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement d i s c u s s e s t h e problem of a

p o t e n t i a l b l a c k market i n plutonium.

78. Comments (pages 1 2 - 1 3 ) :

XXI-A-3 "It can b e a l l e g e d t h a t t h e RSSF, JGSF, and p o s s i b l y high-

l e v e l l i q u i d waste s t o r a g e t a n k s a t f u e l r e p r o c e s s i n g 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 o u r 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 i g h - y i e l d n u c l e a 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 t h e atmosphere, t h e RSSF
a t y e a r 2020 s h o u l d be e s t i n a t e d and p r e s e n t e d .

111-A-4 "If c o n v e n t i o n a l weapons d e t o n a t i o n can damage n u c l e a r

f a c i l i t i e s o t h e r t h a n r e a c t o r s , t h e n t h e consequence s h o u l d
b e e s t i m a t e d . C h e s t e r ' s s t u d i e s a t ORNL should be r e f e r e n c e d
i n t h i s context.

Response :

S e c t i o n 7.4.4.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement e x p r e s s e s t h e AEC'S b e l i e f t h a t

an enemy n u c l e a r a t t a c k l i m i t e d t o U.S. n u c l e a r f u e l c y c l e f a c i l i t i e s
is n o t c r e d i b l e , because i t would r e a v e U . S . r e t a l i a t o r y f o r c e s and
o t h e r war f i g h t i n g r e s o u r c e s i n t a c t . - C o n s i d e r i n g a n 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 h e consequences of a t t a c k on f u e l c y c l e
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.

C h e s t e 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 n u c l e a r r e a c t o r s t o n u c l e a r
a t t a c k have been r e f e r e n c e d and d i s c u s s e d . For t h e r e a s o n s t a t e d above,
 V .22-48

31
f o r e i g n enemy u s e o f c o n v e n t i o n a 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 c o n s i d e r e d c r e d i b l e , a c d e s t i m a t i o n of consequences i s n o t consid-
e r e d t o b e warranted.
-

79. Comment (page 13-14) :

111-B, "What s p e n t - f u e l coo1ir.g t i n e is assumed i f b r e e d i n g by

2-6 y e a r 2010 s u s t a i n s a 6 2 y e a r l y e l e c t r i c a l growth rate?"

Response :

F u e l c y c l e t i m e s 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 T a b l e 4.9 i n
D r a f t S t a t e m e n t . 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 b e 1 5 0 , 90 and 120 d a y s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . .

80. C o m e n t (page 1 3 ) :
.'
111-B, " I n c r e a s e o f o n l y $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 b e e n d e s i g n e d does n o t seein c o n s e r v a t i v e ! "

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 ' i f h 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 s e 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 s u p p l y s y s t e n
r e p r e s e n t s a b o u t 25% of t h e t o t a l ; t h e r e m a i n d e r 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 i v e n 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 .

81. Comment (page 1 3 ) :

111-3, why d o n ' t T a b l e 3.3.5 'and T a b l e 11.2-5 agree?"

3-21

Response:

T a b l e 11.2-5 was i n c o r r e c t ; n e c e s s a r y 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.

82. Comment (page 1 3 ) :

111-B, " I f p r o j e c t e d v a l u e s of s t u d y p a r a m e t e r s r e p r e s e n t s u c h a
3-35 c o n s e n s u s , t h e n st l e a s t t h e 120-day c o o l i n g case s h o u l d
have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d f o r f u e l c y c l e impacts."

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 p r e p r o c e s s i n g 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 i s u n l i k e l y t h a t s p e n t LHFSR f u e l c o o l e d 180 days or less w i l l b e

s h i p p e d i n c a s k s of p r e s e n t d e s i g n ( s e e S e c t i o n 7 . 3 . 4 of F i n a l S t s t e m e n t )
and t h u s t h e impact o f t r a n s p o r t i n g 180 day cooled f u e l is n o t a d d r e s s e d .

Other f u e l c y c l e impacts ( i . e . d u r i n S f u e l f a b r i c a t i o n o r waste manage-

ment) 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 n e .
~~ ~

83. C o m e n t (page 13):

111-B, "What is t h e an.iusl growth rate change t o produce o n l y a net:

3-41 v a r i a t i o n of 2 202 i n p r o j e c t e d year-2020 demand?"

Res pons e :

The a n n u a l growth r a t e v a r i e s by a b o u t 5 IO%.

84. Comen'c (page 1 3 ) :

111-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

3-43 1,Ne L>IFBR would have t o b e changed t o w i p e o u t t h e c o s t /
b e n e f i t advantage o v e r LWR's f o r v a r i o u s assuxed p a r a m e t e r s .

Res7onse :

S e c t i o a 11.2.4 c f :he F i n a l SLatenent d e s c r i b e s 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 . Even w i t h no " l e a r n i n g " t h e LIIE'BR is
competitive.

85. Comment (page 13):

111-B, "There seem t o b e more cmcern a b o u t d i r e c t c o s t s of Pu

3- 49 inventories i n r e l a t i o n t o spent f u d cooling t i m e s than i n
estima:es of h a z a r d s t o t h e environment as a f u n c t i o n of
c p o l i n g t i m e . 'I

Response:

Short-lived isotopes c o n t r i b u t e heavily t o shipping hazards s o cooiing

t i m e is i m p o r t a n t . Plutoniunl r a d i o a c t i v i t y v a r i e s l i t t l e w i t h c o o l i n g
t i m e , b u t as a v a l u a b l e material i t has high i n v e n t o r y charges.

86. Comment (page i3):

111-B, "The f i g u r e s i n t h e r z f e r e n c e case f o r f o s s i l mix do n o t

2-60 match t h o s e given i n T a b l e 4.14."
 V.22-50

33
Response :

The v a l u e s on p. 3-60 are in,correct i n t!ie Draft S t a t e m z n t ; t h e y 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):

111-B, "If s i n g l e - l o o p c o o l i n g is contcn;plated t h e n a c c i d e n t h a z a r d s

4-11 and r o u t i n e release s h o u l d b e assessed i n earlier d i s c u s s i o n s .

" I n T a b l e 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 l o o p i s n e c e s s a r y and
w a s a c c o u n t e d f o r i n t h e economic and e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s e s .

UQBR s p e n t 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 T a b l e 4.5 a r e 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 1 4 ) :

111-B, "HOV w i l l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s v a r y i f we go t o ' v e r y l a r g e

4-12 units'?"

Response :

They w i l l p r o b a b l y v a r y 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 t h r o u g h p u t 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 .

89. Comment (page 1 4 ) :

111-B, . l
JJhat c o o l i n g time w a s assumed f o r s h i p p i n g c o s t and
i

4-18 r e p r o c e s s i n g es t ima t es ? I '

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 T a b l e 4.9 of t h e
D r a f t S t a t e m e n t . LXFBR p o s t - i r r a d i a t i o n c o o l i n g t i n e w a s assumed t o
b e 120 days.

90. C o m e n t (page 14):

111-B, "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

4-20 r e p r o c e s s i n g assumed t o be f a s t e r t h a n LWR c a s e ? "
 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 c h o s e n t o m i n i n i z e s h i p p i n s c o s t s .

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 d a y s t o
e l i m i n a t e i n c r e n t e n t a 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 i n e c o n s i s t s of p r e -
a n d p o s 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 a c t u a 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 inventory c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h contained
p l u t o n i u m , 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 i n e is r e d u c e d from 10
d a y s to 5 d a y s .

91. Conrnent (page 14):

111-B, " \ h a t L n s u r a c c e c o s t s are r e f e r r e d t o ? Ifow wou1.d. they d i f f e r

4-30 w i t h o u t Price-Anderson o r w i t h 11zw p l a n s u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t l o n ? "

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 e m e n t c o v e r e d

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 e n e r g y f o r e c a s t a s s u m p t i o n of T a b l e 4.13 s e r i o u s l y

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
use should b e considered as w e l l . "

Response :

An e n e r g y &nand c u r v e 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 e n e r g y u s e p e r

4-32 G?P i n c r e m e n t ? I ' I

Response :

Yes, a n d 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 h a n

estimated i n Table 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 i n c r e a s e s 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 i n c r e a s e s , i n f l u e n c e d by t h e q u a d r u p l i n g o f f o r e i g n o i l p r i c e s
w i t h i n t h e p a s t year. This t r e n d w i l l f a v o r t h o s e systems of e l e c t r i c i t y
p r o d u c t i o n 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 c o s t s .

95. Comment (page 14):

A-5 "Is a l l t h i s materials - e n g i n e e r i n g advance r e d l y more

c r e d i b l e t h a 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 advances?

Response :

While i t would be s p e c u l a t i v e t o s a y i n whlch technology t h e p r o j e c t e d

advances are more l i k e l y to be a c h i e v e d , it h a s been shown i n t h e Environ-
m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e LXFBR is a t a more advanced s t a g e of techno-
l o g i c a l development t h a n s e v e r a l of t b c o t h e r energy s o u r c e s c o n s i d e r c d ,
such as ' s o l a r energy. Thus, t h e a n t i c i p a t e d f u r t h e r advances i n IMFDR
materials e n g i n e e r i n g r e p r e s e n t t h e consensus of v e r y d e t a i l e d program
p l a n n i n g t h a t has been undertaken i n t h e past and c o n t i n u e s t o b e
r e v i s e d as t h e 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 e x p e c t e d , i t a p p e a r s t h a t
t h o s e p r o j e c t e d f o r LXFBR n a t e r i a l s e n g i n e e r i n g r e p r e s e n t r e a s o n a b l e
e x t r a p o l a t i o n of c u r r e n t technology and p l a n n i n g , 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 t h e more s p e c u l a t i v e p r o j e c t e d
advances i n s o l a r energy technology.

96. Comment (page 14):

B-6 "Access t o a " v i r t u a l l y limitless s u p p l y of low-cost e l e c t r i c -

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
u n m i t i g a t e d b l e s s i n g . 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 consideration i n t h e
broad f o c u s t h a t t h e C l F B R i n p a c t s t a t e m e n t should a c h i e v e . "
'
Res pons e :

Although w e would a g r e e t h a t a limitless s u p p l y of low c o s t energy may

n o t be an "unmitigated b l e s s i n g " , h i s t o r y h a s shown t h a t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y
of e n e r g y is c l o s e l y l i n k e d t o a n a t i o n ' s economic growth. I t would
appear t h a t energy a v a i l a b i l i t y , assuming a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e
environment, is more o f a b l e s s i n g t h a n not. X e v e r t h e l c s s , t h e need t o
use less energy i s f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n GC, and s e v e r a l views
b o t h f a v o r i n g energy c o n s e r v a t i o n and c i t i n g i t s l i m i t a t i o t l s are
d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6C.7.
 V 22-53

36

97. Comment (page 1 4 ) :

A.5-4,6 "The t r e a t m e n t of t h e h i s t o r y and s t a t u s of s o l a r energy d e v i c e s

i s u n f a i r l y shallow. Where are r e f e r e n c e s t o r e c e n t develop-
ments such as t h e ?USA-Lewis p a t e n t e d s o l a r h e a t i n g - c o o l i n g
home system, t o name j u s t one?''

Response :

The t r e a t m e n t of s o l a r energy, a l t h o u g h b e l i e v e d t o have been a d e q u a t e i n

t h e D r a f t S t a t e m e n t , h a s 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 a d d r e s s i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l t h e
development p l a n s f o r s o l a r energy as p r o j e c t e d by s e v e r a l Qovernnent
and i n d u s t r y p l a n n i n g bodies. S o l a r h e a t i n g and c o o l i n g systems a r e
d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 6 A . 5 . 3 . 4 and 6A.5.5.
-

98. Comment (page 14):

A.5-15 ; "How can i t be s t a t e d t h a t s o l a r c o o l i n g of b u i l d i n g s would n o 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 t h o s e 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 o n page A.5-15 of t h e Draft r e f e r r e d t o t h e g e n e r p l c o n d i t i o n

t h a t b u i l d i n g s equipped w i t h 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 s o u r c e of power f o r u s e on cloudy days. In the particular situa-
t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e comment, i t is clear t h a t some r e d u c t i o n i n peak
l e v e l requirement could be d c h i e v e d , 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 c o o l i n g .

99. Comment (page 14):

A.5-21 "What could s o l a r energy c o n t r i b u t e w i t h a conmitnent of p o l i c y

a d f i n a n c i a l backing e q u a l t o t h a t b e i n g g i v e n t h e IXFER?"

Response :

It is probably t r u e t h a t w i t h 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 s o o n e r t o meeting t h e N a t i o n ' s energy r e q u i r e -
ments t h a n c u r r e n t l y a n t r c i p a t e d . However, t h e sane t h i n g cat be s a i d
a b o u t a l m o s t any t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e energy c o n c e p t , i n c l u d i n g t h e L?lFBR.
The real q u e s t i o n is n o t " w i l l money help", b u t "how c a n t h e l i m i t e d
f u n d i n g a v a i l a b l e be u t i l i z e d i n s u c h a manner as t o produce t h e g r e a t e s t
l i k e l i h o o d of s u c c e s s i n d e v e l o p i n g new energy s o u r c e s ? " A r e l a t e d i s s u e
is t h a t t h e amount o f money which can p r u d e n t l y b e s p e n t on a developing
 V . 22-54

37
t e c h n o l o n y 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
c o n v e r s i o n p r i n c i p l e s ) , as i n t h e case of s o l a r e n e r g y , o r w h e t h e r i t has
r e a d i e d t h e s t a c e of b e i n g r e a d y 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 f u n d s . I t mit,ht a l s o b e n e n t i o n e d 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 e n e r g y 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 b e 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 a r e 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 S t a t e m e n t .

100. Coiainent (page 15) :

A.5-30 "Is t h e 15.52 c a p i t a l c h a r g e 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 f i x d c a p i t a l c h a r g e r s t e used by t h e ilSF-NASA S o l a r Energy P a n e l i s

a b o u t lGZ hiG!ier t h a n t h o c h a r g e r a t e computed from economic p a r a m e t e 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 S t a t i . -
r e n t . Appeudix ILI-B used a c a s h f l o w method which e x p l i c i t l y c n p l c j s
e a c h of t h e c o s t components which a r e s o n e t i m e s combined i n t o a f i x e d
c h a r g e sate. . If i x e d c h a r g e r a t e 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 e c o n o n i c p a r a m e t e r s used t o compute t h i s d a t a a r e b a s e d on
a v e r a g e e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y financirip, d a t a f o r 1 9 7 2 , 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
w i s h 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 r a t e was
ob t n i n e 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 b e by y e a r 2000? Give

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 l e c t r i c h e a t i n g
and a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g . ' I

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 e m e n t ( S e c t i o n 6 8 . 5 . 8 ) , t h e impact of
s o l a r e n e r g y on t o t a l e l e c t r i c i t y p r o d u c t i o n i s e x p e c t e d t o b e 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 e n e r g y 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 o f 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 S t a t e m e n t 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
e n e r g y s u p p l i e d by s o l a r power r a n g e 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 l o o k 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 c a p i t a e n e r g y and e l e c t r i c i t y
u s e were h e l d c o n s t a n t , how i c l p o r t a n t c o u l d 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 b e s m a l l r e g a r d -

less of t h e b a s e of e l e c t r i c e n e r g y 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 6 A . 6 . 1 . 3 , t h e 1;SF-I~lASb S o l a r Energy P a n e l h a s p r o j e c t e d t h e ciarket
p e n e t r a t i o n , e v e n f o l l o w i n g a s u c c e s s f u l d e v e l o p n e n t prograr5, t o be o n l y
a b o u t 1;; of t o t a l e l e c t r i c a l p r o d u c t i o n by t h e year 2000. Even i f per
capi.to e n e r g y LT..SC were h e l d c o n s t a n t , which d o e s 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 o u r e l e c 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 a b o u t 19;: of o u r e l e c t r i c a l
n e e d s c o u l d be n e t i n t h e y e a r 2000 by windpower. T h i s f i g u r e c o r r e s p o n d s
t o t h e riaxinun a v n i l a b i e wind e n e r g y e s t i r i o t e d by t h e NSF-!IASh p a n e 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 .

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 -- nanely, can

w e l e a r n t o l i v e 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
c o n t i n u e d Growth of p e r c a p i t a e m r g y consumption?"

Response_:

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

m

p o i n t of a c c e p t i n g c h a n z e s i n l i f e - s t y l e s , i s 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 e n t . I t is clear t h a t sone e n e r g y
c o n s e r v a t i o n n:easures c a n b e 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 n n d c
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 i s a g o a l t o b e r e a c h e d f o r - b u t i t is n o t a p r u d e n t
b a s i s f o r p l a n n i n g t o neet f u t u r e e n e r g y needs.

104. Conr.ient (page 15):

C .7-6 "A t a b l e s h o u l d be shown s u m n a r i z i c g t h e e n e r g y s a v i n g s f o r

e a c h 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 e a c h o l t e r -
n a t i v e , s u c h as wind power. i j i t h s e v e r a l assumed e n e r g y
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 c a n b e p u t i n t r u e r
p e r s p e c t i v e and r e a l o p t i o n s d i s c u s s e d . "
 V.22-56

39
Response :

A t a b l e h a s now been i n c l u d e d i n S e c t i o n 6 C . J showing t h e energy s a v i n g s

t h a t might r e s u l t from s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e n e n t a t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n measures
proposed i n t h e s e v e r a l s t u d i e s d i s c u s s e d in t h a t s e c t i o n . P r o j e c t e d
energy c o n t r i b u t i o n s from t h e s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e e n e r s y t e c h n o l o g i e s
d i s c u s s e d a r e 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 S e c t i o n G d e s c r i b i n g
each technology. The s u b j e c t of v a r i o u s energy growth f o r e c a s t s i s
i n c l u d e d i n S e c t i o n 11.

n
 v.23-1

R 1, Box 2 6 7 , 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 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
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 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t , WASH-1535, L i q u i d
Metal F a s t B r e e d e r R e a c t o r Program, c o u l d b e d e s c r i b e d a s a b l u e -
p r i n t f o r t h e perpetual pollution o f the planet.
The S t a t e m e n t makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e s u b j e c t p r o r r a m w i l l ,
t h r o u g h f u e l c y c l e a n d t r a n s p o r t r e l e a s e s o f p l u t o n i u m - 2 3 9 and
o t h e r t r a n s u r a n i c elements , r e p e t i t i v e l y contaminate 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 u p t o h a l f a m i l l i o n y e a r s .
Known m e t h o d s 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 h u n d r e d 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
and g e n e t i c h e r i t a g e of f u t u r e generations.
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
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 c a n c a u s e
f a t a l lung cancer, s i n c e its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of i r r a d i a t i n g only a
s m a l l volume o f l u n g t i s s u e makes t h e d o s a g e a m i l l i o n t o t e n m i l l i o n
times b r g e r t h a n if d i s t r i b u t e d uniformly throughout t h e lung.
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
d i f f e r e n t i a t e between b e n i g n r a d i a t i o n a n d t h e l e t h a l r a d i a t i o n
destructive to a l l oreanic 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 o f 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 , a n i m a l f o o d c h a i n s , and a q u a t i c s y s t e m s 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 e n v i r o n m e n t o v e r t h e p e r i o d s of h u n d r e d s 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 w h i c h 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 not available.'?
C e r t a i n l y , it i s 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 r o m n o r m a l 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 -
v o l v e d 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 e x p o s u r e t o th-e c o n t a m i -
n a t e d ground s u r f a c e . " Please relate t h i s t o t h e statement t h a t
"...plant m a t e r i a l (and o t h e r food) achieves 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 - a l l o w e d 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.
 V.23-2 .

UNITED STATES
ATOM IC ENERGY C O M M I S S I O N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

Ms. Neva Dawkins

D€c 3 1 9374
Rl., Box 267
Toney, Alabama 35773

Dear Ms. Dawkins:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 24, 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal
F a s t Breeder R e a c t o r (UlFBR) 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 r e s p o n s e 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 m a t i o n .

Your concerns r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c l e l u n g d o s e e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 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 a n s u r a n i c s ) a r e d i s c u s s e d i n
S e c t i o n 4 . 7 and Appendix II.G.6 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , and i n t h e
r e f e r e n c e s provided t h e r e i n . The c o n c l u s i o n of t h e s e a n a l y s e s is t h a t
e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t o d a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e nonuniform d o s e 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 l u n g is n o t more hazardous and may be less
hazardous t h a n i f t h e plutonium were uniformly d i s t r i b u t e d . This,
t o g e t h e r w i t h 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 t a n d a r d s
s e t t i n g b o d i e s , w h i l e acknowledging t h e problem, have n o t y e t recommended
any method o t h e r t h a n t h a t employing t h e mean organ d o s e , p r o v i d e s t h e
b a s e s f o r t h e c o n c l u s i o n g i v e n i n t h e F i n a l Statement. " R a d i a t i o n c h a r t s ' '
i n t h e Statement do n o 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 o r g a n i c 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 b e b e n i g n , and because a l l
l e v e l s shown i n t h e " c h a r t s " were w e l l below l e v e l s known t o b e l e t h a l .

The sentence i n t h e D r a f t Statement

"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 v o l v e d 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 l i r e m / y e a r as a r e s u l t of exposure t o t h e contami-
n a t e d ground s u r f a c e . "

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

m i l l i r e m / y e a r * ( 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 l a n d s u r f a c e . These d o s e l e v e l s a r e much smaller t h a n 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 m i l l i r e m / y e a r ) , and are
t h e r e f o r e n o t of major s i g n i f i c a n c e .

*Page 4.3092 of t h e D r a f t Statement

+*Page 4.3-91-

n
 V.23-3

:.Is. Keva Dawkins 2

The statemeat -
".. . p l a n t material (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% 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
weight 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 s u m p t i o n s made r e g a r d i n g t h e u p t a k e of
p l u t o n i u m 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 u p t a k e p a t h v a y (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
U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada. T h i s d o e s 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 s m a l l i n t h i s case.

We h o p e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s a d e q u a t e l y r e s p o n s i v e t o your c o n c e r n s .
Thank you f o r your comments and f o r your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LYFBR Program.

w . L
Sincerely,

u.
J a . e s L. i l v e r m a n
A s i s t a n t G e n e r a l Xanager
for 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

Enclosure:
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
20 F i f t h Street
V a l l e y S t r e a m , N e w York 11581

JL/ew A p r i l 24, 1974,.

r e L .M .F . B . R . Draft Statement

Mr. W . H . P e n n i n g t o n
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 of B i o m e d i c a l a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s e a r c h
A t o m i c E n e r g y Commission
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 20545

Dear S i r :

A f t e r r e a d i n g y o u r L.M.F.B.R. Program D r a f t
E n v i r o n m e n t a 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 a s
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 very tempting economically.
S i n c e enough r e s e a r c h a n d f i n a n c e s have b e e n p u t i n t o i t s
development, we could immediately 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 a n d v e r y l i k e l y a v o i d p o s s i b l e 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 r e 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 s u c h l o n g - l i v e d ,
e x t r e m e l y d a n g e r o u s w a s t e s , 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 s p a c e , i c e -
s h e e t s , o r o c e a n b e d s a r e 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 o r s w e e p i n g 3 n e ' s d i r t u n d e r t h e r u 3 .
I t j u s t d o e s n ' t work a n d a l w a y s c a t c h e s u p w i t h you s o o n e r o r
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 a n d 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 , o r " c a n be" " i f " c e r t a i n p r e c a u t i o n s
'I

a r e t a k e n ? And how o f t e n a r e we v e r y f a r f r o m 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 e a 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 y o u r
. i n t e l l i g e n c e o r i n t e g r i t y a s a n Atomic E n e r g y 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
e n v i r o n m e n 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 a n d s t i l l t h e y
p u s h f o r 1977.

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

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 s e g m e n t t h e e x p e c t e d
l e v e l of r a d i a t i o n s e e p i n g i n t o t h e environment i s always below
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 a n d p o s s i b l e p r o b l e m s i s v e r y good on p a p e r , b u t
 V.24-2

M r . 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 Biomedical and Environmental Research
A t o m i c E n e r g y 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 s o many o t h e r
processes a n d p e o p l e t o work t h e m ; i . e . , c o m m e r c i a l l y b u i l t
a n d 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
o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l b u t f a u l t y j u d g m e n t : s e c u r i t y p r o b l e m s on a n
i n t e r n a t i o n a l s c a l e : s e c u r i t y problems on a n a t i o n a l s c a 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 groups o r i n d i v i d u a l s :
t r a n s p o r t a c c i d e n t s , p o s s i b l e t h e f t a n d 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 a n d w e s h o u l d w a i t
before w e make a n y 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 r e 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
d a n g e r o u s 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 , a n d 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 m i g h t
d e v e l o p a n 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 s o o n e r t h a n much
s a f e r a l t e r n a t i v e s c a n be d e v e l o p e d .
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 a n d e v e n 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
b a c k - u p s y s t e m when n e e d e d . E l e c t r i c i t y w o u l d be s u p p l i e d f r o m
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 p r o d u c e d w i t h s o l a r
energy. C o n v e n t i o n a l h o u s e s 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 s o l a r h e a t a n d e l e c t r i c . Where p o s s i b l e , w i n d
m u l d be u s e d t o p r o d u c e e l e c t r i c i t y , t o o .

F u e l c e l l s 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 a n d l a r g e r s c a l e 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 w o u l d t h e n be u s e d i n a r e a s w h e r e s o l a r
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 n e e d e d more d e v e l o p m e n t , s u c h a s
c a r s , t r u c k s , a n d 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 b e t t e r i n s u l a t i n g o€ homes a n d
b u i l d i n g s a n d o t h e r c o n s e r v a t i o n p r a c t i c e s . All g o v e r n m e n t
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 , shopping 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 a n d h e a t i n g , a s they
have been d u r i n g t h e r e c e n t "crisis." School programs f o r
young p e o p l e a n d o l d E m t h a t m a t t e r m u s t s t r e s s t h e n e e d € o r
l i f e s t y l e s less w a s t e f u l a n d 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 s y s t e m t h a t p o s s i b l e e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s 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 n e e d 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 e c t r i c
 V-24-3

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 of 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
A t o m i c E n e r g y Commission

production. 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 a n d c o o l i n g . S i n c e s o l a r e n e r g y c o u l d n o t be u s e d
e x c l u s i v e l y , j u s t a s no s y s t e m c o u l d , f u e l c e l l s , f u s i o n and
e v e n wind power, m e t h a n e , and g e o t h e r m a l c o u l d be d e v e l o p e d
t o make u p f o r n e a r f u t u r e s o l a r e n e r g y L i m i t a t i o n s . F o s s i l
f u e l i s a l w a y s a v a i l a b l e a s a back-up s y s t e m . With r e s i d e n t i a l
and c o m m e r c i a l - i n d u s t r i a 1 power n e e d s making u p a p p r o x i m a t e l y
6 5 per c e n t t o 70 p e r c e n t o f o u r t o k a l e n e r g y u s e d , much c o u l d
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 e v e n c o n v e r t -
i n g o l d s t r u c t u r e s , since within f i v e t o t e n years of operation,
t h e new s o l a r o r wind-energy s y s t e m s pay € o r t h e m s e l v e s i n
f u e J and e l e c t r i c 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
s y s t e m s t h a t p r o v i d e 7 5 t o 80 p e r c e n t o f home e n e r g y n e e d s
i n n o r t h e r n climates, even f o r long p e r i o d s of cloudy d a y s .
What r e m a i n s t o b e done i s mass p r o d u c e t h e s e s y s t e m s t o b e
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 FINANCE. Farmers w i t h
a n i m a l s c o u l d e a s i l y p r o d u c e enough methane from manure t o
pay f o r t h e i n i t i a l i n v e s t m e n t ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) i n a
methane g e n e r a t o r i n t h r e e o r 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 s u c k s y s t e m s a l r e a d y . With
a l l t h e e n e r g y u s e d b y 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
considerable f o s s i l f u e l savings.

The main p r o b l e m 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
producers 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 Science
F o u n d a t i o n 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 o f 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
n e e d s t o be c h a n n e l e d i n t o s m a l l and l a r g e scale solar e n e r g y
p r o d u c t i o n , s t o r a g e s y s t e m s , 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 f o r a l t e r n a t i v e e n e r g y s y s t e m s 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 y o u , 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 r o u p s 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 f u n d s , s u c c e e d i n
p r o d u c i n g f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s when n e c e s s a r y f u n d s a r e t a k e n
o u t of l a r g e r s c a l e , government f u n d e d a l t e r n a t i v e e n e r g y
p r o j e c t s b y t h e government i t s e l f . I t seems t h e n u c l e a r s y s t e m
i s t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s t o o - f a v o r e d p e t , and a l l o t h e r s y s t e m s
must s u f f e r f o r i t .

T h i s i s n o t t o i m p l y t h a t n u c l e a r r e a c t o r s must
be s c r a p p e d c o m p l e t e l y . 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
t o o many' s e r i m s p r o b l e m s c o n n e c t e d w i t h making a commitment
 v.24-4 n

Mr. W . H . P e n n i n g t o n
Assessments and C o o r d i n a t i o n O f f i c e r
Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research
A t o m i c E n e r g y Commission

t o n u c l e a r e n e r g y a s t h e prime s o u r c e of o u r e n e r g y . W e m u s t
p u t f o r t h o u r e f f o r t s i n d e v e l o p m e n t of s o l a r a n d 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
a n d e v e n m e t h a n e , w i n d a n d g e o t h e r m a l e n e r g y . Much h a s a l r e a d y
b e e n d o n e 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 a n d 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 world 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.

R e s p e c t f u 1l 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
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

M r . Jon Legakes
20 F i f t h Street
V a l l e y Stream, New York 11581

D e a r Mr. Legakes:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 2 4 , 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Conmission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e Liquid Metal
F a s t Breeder Reactor ( W B R ) Program. Tie 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 i s enclosed f o r 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 l e t t e r which provides f u r t h e r informa-
t i o n on t h e p o i n t s you r a i s e d .

Thank you f o r your t h o u g h t f u l 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 S a f e t y Program

Enclosures:
1. AEC S t a f f Response t o S p e c i f i c Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental Statement,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 V .24-6

Enclosure 1

AEC STAFF RESPOIJSE TO SPECIFIC CO?EIENTS BY MR. J O N LEGAKES

1. Comment:
"...we are n o t y e t ready t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e 1 . y w i t h such l o n g - l i v e d ,
extremely dangerous wastes... ..We a r e 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 of l o n g - l i v e d , extremely dangerous 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 r e n , and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s f o r thousands of y e a r s t o come..."

Response:

The AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e h a n d l i n g and s t o r a g e of r a d i o a c t i v e wastes w i l l

be amenable. t o e n g i n e e r i n g s o l u t i o n i n t h e s h o r t term. T h i s matter i s
d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4.6 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement, which i n d i c a t e s :

"The near-term waste management program f o r h i g h - l e v e l w a s t e

discussed i n t h i s statement assumes retrievable s u r f a c e storage
f o r s a f e k e e p i n g u n t i l a s a f e and a c c e p t a b l e u l t i m a t e s t o r a g e
method h a s been s e l e c t e d and t e s t e d . ...
C u r r e n t r e g u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t wastes o t h e r t h a n h i g h - l e v e l
wastes can be d i s p o s e d of i n commercial b u r i a l grounds, I n t h e
case of c l a d d i n g h u l l s , n o b l e g a s c y l i n d e r s , and long-lived
a l p h a - e m i t t i n g plutonium and o t h e r t r a n s u r a n i c 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 a r e going forward t o i d e n t i f y t h e most
a p p r o p r i a t e methods of d i s p o s a l f o r t h e s e materials."

F u t u r e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e d i s p o s a l of r a d i o a c t i v e w a s t e s a r e d i s c u s s e d
i n S e c t i o n 7 , where such methods as g e o l o g i c a l s t o r a g e , e x t r a - t e r r e s t r i a l
d i s p o s a l , and t r a n s m u t a t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d . The AEC b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e
n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y i s a b l e t o d e a l e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h w a s t e s being produced
by c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s , and is c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e
i n d u s t r y w i l l be a b l e t o h a n d l e t h o s e l a r g e r q u a n t i t i e s of wastes
expected t o b e g e n e r a t e d i n t h e f u t u r e .

2. Comment:
V o u r 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
is v e r y good on paper, b u t 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 p r o c e s s e s and people t o work them; i . e . ,

commercially 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 o r 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 a n 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 n d i v i d u a i s ; t r a n s p o r 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 is, t h e r e f o r e , much t o o p t i m i s t i c and w e should
w a i t b e f o r e w e make any i r r e v e r s i b l e commitments f o r n u c l e a r
energy. I '
 V.24-7

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 b e i n g

c a r e f u l l y a s s e s s e d i n t h e development of t h e LMFBR. They are d i s c u s s e d
a t l e n g t h in t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement. P l e a s e see S e c t i o n 4.2.7 f o r
a d i s c u s s i o n of r e a c t o r s a f e t y and a c c i d e n t s , S e c t i o n 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 n a t i o n a l scale, and S e c t i o n 7.4.4.2
f o r i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o sub-national a c t s in o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .

With r e g a r d t o t h e comment t h a t w e should w a i t b e f o r e making any

i r r e v e r s i b l e commitments t o n u c l e a r energy, t h e AEC does n o t b e l i e v e t h a t
any such commitment i s b e i n g made. As d i s c u s s e d i n t h e P e r s p e c t i v e s
s e c t i o n in S e c t i o n 6 of t h e enclosed F i n a l Statement, t h e LMFBR Program
is a r e s e a r c h and development program w i t h t h e g o a l of developing a v i a b l e
energy p r o d u c t i o n o p t i o n . Whether o r n o t t h a t o p t i o n is e x e r c i s e d w i l l
depend upon t h e r e l a t i v e merits of t h i s energy o p t i o n a s compared t o o t h e r
o p t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . I t is axiomatic t h a t no energy o p t i o n , LPlFBR included,
should be e x e r c i s e d i f i t is unsafe o r environmentally unsound r e g a r d l e s s
of any o t h e r advantages t h e o p t i o n might e x h i b i t . A s i n any r e s e a r c h and
development program, if t h e LElFBR does n o t meet t h e c r i t e r i a imposed upon
i t o r r e a l i z e 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 e o r i e n t e d . W B R r e s e a r c h and development t h u s i n no way r e p r e s e n t s a n
i r r e v e r s i b l e commitment t o n u c l e a r energy.

3. Comment:

"The a l t e r n a t i v e s t o b e given p r i o r i t y o v e r a l l o t h e r s are s o l a r ,

wind, f u s i o n and f u e l c e l l s . Within f i v e y e a r s a l l new houses and
even commercial b u i l d i n g s could use solar energy for 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 system when needed. Elec-
t r i c i t y would b e 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 . Within 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 could a l s o
be produced w i t h s o l a r energy. Conventional houses could b e given
tax b r e a k s f o r c o n v e r s i o n t o s o l a r h e a t and electric. Where
p o s s i b l e , wind could be used t o produce e l e c t r i c i t y , too."

"Fuel cells 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 ,

coamercial and l a r g e r scale r e s i d e n t i a l use. A l l t h e f o s s i l
f u e l s saved would t h e n b e used i n a r e a s where s o l a r energy o r

."
a n o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e needed more development, such as 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 needs

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 a p p e a 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 t a n d p o i n t . However, t h e y 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, f u s i o n power h a s n o t a s y e t
 V. 24-8

e s t a b l i s h e d 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 c o n t r i b u t e
s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e N a t i o n ' s energy r e s o u r c e s u n t i l sometime i n t h e n e x t
~

c e n t u r y (See S e c t i o n 6A.1.6). Fuel c e l l a are n o t a n independent s o u r c e

of new energy, b u t r a t h e r a more convenient o r more e f f i c i e n t conversion
d e v i c e f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of o t h e r energy s o u r c e s i n t o new and perhaps
more u s e f u l a p p l i c a t i o n s . For example, i t could be used as a means of
energy s t o r a g e 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 s o u r c e s such as t h e
solar and wind power o p t i o n s you c i t e , or a s a means of transforming t h e
energy from a f u e l s u c h as c o a l i n t o a more e a s i l y t r a n s p o r t a b l e and
mobile form. (See S e c t i o n 6B.6).

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 i g h e r t h a n c o n v e n t i o n a l
forms of e l e c t r i c power p r o d u c t i o n . Thus t h e y r e q u i r e s u b s t a n t i a l
r e s e a r c h and development t o b r i n g t h e s e c o s t s down i n t o a c o m p e t i t i v e
range. The s c h e d u l e you s u g g e s t f o r t h e u s e of s o l a r power i n home
h e a t i n g of a l l new homes and commercial b u i l d i n g s is q u i t e o p t i m i s t i c
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e high c o s t s and t h e need f o r c o n v e n t i o n a l standby f u r n a c e s
and g i v e n 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 s o c i a t e d
w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g t h i s form o f h e a t i n g €or t h e many i n d i v i d u a l states.
(See t h e Summary of S e c t i o n 6 , and S e c t i o n 6A.5).

S i m i l a r l y , t h e p r o d u c t i o n 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 a c h i e v a b l e and i n f a c t is being done on a small scale today
where c o s t is n o t a major f a c t o r , p r i m a r i l y i n s p a c e a p p l i c a t i o n s .
However, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t a t e of technology and t h e p r o j e c t e d economics
of solar power, i t i s most u n l i k e l y t h a t more t h a n a few p e r c e n t of o u r
electrical r e q u i r e m e n t s , if t h a t , w i l l . b e met by s o l a r energy b e f o r e t h e
end of t h i s c e n t u r y . Please r e f e r t o S e c t i o n 6A.5 f o r a more complete
d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p o i n t .

4. Comment:

"Enormous energy s a v i n g s c a n b e made w i t h b e t t e r i n s u l a t i n g of

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 p r a c t i c e s , A l l
government b u i l d i n g s , s c h o o l s , supermarkets, shopping c e n t e r s ,
and the l i k e could g r e a t l y r e d u c e waste l i g h t i n g and h e a t i n g ,
as t h e y have been d u r i n g t h e r e c e n 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 w a s t e f u l and many unnecessary 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 ,
electric hair d r y e r s , etc. W e a b u s e so mu& of o u r energy, i t ' s
a crime."

Response:

Your comments on t h e p o t e n t i a l for energy c o n s e r v a t i o n are w e l l taken. We

a g r e e that a l l worthwhile c o n s e r v a t i o n measures should b e implemented, and
 V. 24-9

discuss this subject in detail in Section 6C. Please note especially the
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.

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. It seems the
nuclear system is the government's too-favored pet, and all other
systems must suffer for it."

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. Other Nations have come to the
same conclusions as they have considered their future energy needs. For
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
 V.24-10

d o l l a r program i s a l r e a d y underway, You are r e f e r r e d t o P e r s p e c t i v e on

u t e r n a t i v e T e c h n d o g y n p t i o n s i n S e c t i o n 6 of t b e F i n s 1 Statement f o r
a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r e l a t i v e funding f o r d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h and
development programs.

6. Comment:

" A t t h e p r e s e n 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 w i t h making a commitment t o n u c l e a r energy a s t h e prime
s o u r c e of o u r energy. W e must p u t f o r t h o u r e f f o r t s i n develop-
ment of s o l a r and f u s i o n 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 e c h n o l o g i e s and even methane, wind and geothermal energy.
Much has 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 . Kow i t is
up 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 of making a d e c i s i o n i n f a v o r of 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 of 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 world 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."

Response:

The AEC a g r e e s w i t h your g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e energy

t e c h n o l o g i e s should b e developed. W e r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h i s N a t i o n ' s energy
requirements are of such magnitude t h a t t h e y c a n , b e m e t o n l y through a
b r o a d l y based program u t i l i z i n g a l l f e a s i b l e energy s o u r c e s . A t t h e same
t h e , i t is o u r b e l i e f t h a t n u c l e a r 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 s o u r c e 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 s o u r c e s , 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 b e c o n s i d e r e d i n
e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o s and cons of p o t e n t i a l power s u p p l i e s . There are
problems i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of n u c l e a r energy, j u s t as t h e r e a r e 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 s o u r c e s , b u t w e b e l i e v e
that these problems are s o l v a b l e . The AEC is making e v e r y e f f o r t t o
a d d r e s s and r e s o l v e t h e s e problems, and b e l i e v e s i t w i l l b e s u c c e s s f u l t o
the b e n e f i t of t h e N a t i o n ' s energy r e q u i r e m e n t s and economic growth. W e
are h o p e f u l t h a t y o c r r e a d i n g of t h e e n c l o s e d Environmental Statement w i l l
l e a d t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e b a s e s f o r t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s .
I '
/ ' /

! !
1 ,I
V. 2 5 - 2
1.25-3
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

Ill

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
W A S H I N G T O N . D.C. 2 0 5 4 5

D r . Chauncey Kepford
108 N. P e r s h i n g Avenue
York, Pennsylvania 17403

Dear D r . Kepford:

Thank you f o r your l e t t e r of A p r i l 2 6 , 1974 commenting on t h e Atomic

Energy Commission's D r a f t Environmental Statement on t h e L i q u i d 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 m a t i o n . The o t h e r
e n c l o s u r e t o t h i s l e t t e r p r o v i d e s r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s p e c i f i c p o i n t s you
raised.

Your i n t e r e s t i n t h e LMF'BR Program i s a p p r e c i a t e d .

Sincerely,

for 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
Comments
2. F i n a l Environmental S t a t e m e n t ,
LMFBR Program (WASH-1535)
 V.25-34
9
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 t h o u t a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e a v e r a g e d o s e and t h e p o p u l a t i o n
r e c e i v i n g t h e d o s e , i s m e a n i n g l e s s . F u r t h e r m o r e , 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" d o s e is r i s k y b e c a u s e 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 T a b l e 4.2.5.5, where t h e magnitude of t h e d o s e
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 d r o p o f a f a c t o r of 400. No
a v e r a g e c a n m e a n i n g f u l l y convey t h i s r a n g e 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 e x t r e m e s 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 a s 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 f o r m a t i o n . 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 w i t h t h e i n t e n t of c o n f u s i n g d a t a and t h e r e a d e r . "

Response :

A c t u a l l y , t h e man-rem d o s e h a s much more s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a n you a t t r i b u t e

t o it. 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 p o p u l a t i o n
and t h e i n d i v i d u a l d o s e s as a f u n c t i o n of d i s t a n c e from t h e s o u r c e . The
methodology i n v o l v e d is o u t l i n e d i n Appendix 4 . 1 of t h e Draft S t a t e m e n t .
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 a n g e 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 d o s e 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 a k e n 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 ) . The p o p u l a t i o n man-rem d o s e is, i n f a c t ,
used t o estimate p o t e n 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
a n d , t h e r e b y , p r o b a b l y 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 .

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. for

o u 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 i m a t e d r e s o u r c e s

of low-cost uranium w i l l be a d e q u a t e f o r s e v e r a l c e n t u r i e s . E s t i m a t e s
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 i v e n i n S e c t i o n s 6A.1.1.2 and 11.2.

0
 V.25-35

3. Comment (p. 2):

"[The AEC reactor l i c e n s i n g ] process cannot be r e l i e d upon t o approve

and a u t h o r i z e safe, r e l i a b l e nuclear paver plants. I'

Reo p onse :
As s t a t e d and explained i n Section 4.2.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement: "AEC
r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t peaceful uses of atomic energy n o t r e s u l t in
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 public." The AEC regulatory
procedure r e q u i r e s compliance with a comprehensive set of r u l e s of
procedure s a f e t y criteria, cod- and standards p r i o r t o construction,
during operating and a t decoormissioning. F u l l public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is
afforded a t public hearings. Obviously, no system can absolutely guar-
a n t e e the public h e a l t h and s a f e t y , but t h e AEC regulatory process
r e p r e s e n t s 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 p l a n t s , f o r

reasons explained. Is the reader t o supply t h e same u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n
t h i s Table t o a l l o t h e r d a t a , including projections, i n t h e Draft State-
ment?" "Not even t h e breeding r a t i o is accurately given, and t h e
'doubling t i m e ' is conveniently l e f t out."

Response:

A complete discussion of a l l r e a c t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and f u e l c y c l e c o a t s

i n the cost-benefit a n a l y s i s is included i n Section 11.2.3 of both t h e
Draft and Final Statements. The discussion of projected W B R breeding
performance has been expanded in t h e F i n a l Statement i n Appendix A of
Section 11.

5. Comment

(P. 3) *
L . I
Section 4.2.5.2.1 on thermal wastea ignores t h e s t r o n g l i k e l i h o o d of
=nuclear parks" coming i n t o existence, with 10 t o 40 nuclear. power p l a n t s
c l u s t e r e d i n a r e l a t i v e l y small area and t h e e f f e c t of t h e i r combined
thermal releases on t h e l o c a l b i o t a and local climate. The r e p o r t i t s e l f
ignores t h e impact of t h e a n t i c i p a t e d LMFBR (and LWR) thermal releases on
t h e climate of the Nation by t h e year 2020."

(P. 4)
"Section 4.2.5.4 does not e l a b o r a t e on t h e climate e f f e c t of t h e released
h e a t due to the program plan."
 V .25-36 n

Response:

The Draft Statement referenced t h e p o t e n t i a l l y s e r i o u s 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 l a n t s
Environment -
-
Research Needs," Cooling Tower
1974, AEC Critical Review S e r i e s (1974).

Such "Heat Island" e f f e c t s could be generated.bp a l a r g e group of steam-

electric p l a n t s using any h e a t source. Before such energy parks are
created, t h e AEC would analyze t h e p o t e n 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 t h e b e n e f i t of a c c u r a t e d a t a on

t h e actual p l a n t design, purports t o a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t t h e f i s s i o n
product release rate from t h e r e a c t o r , and hence, i t s , d o s e t o man.
I f indeed, t h e AEC can a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t what comes o u t of a p l a n t
when they are n o t too s u r e what goes i n ana what i t s design d e t a i l s
are, then t h e 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 e s t i m a t e s f o r release rates are based on t h e p l a n t radwaste

system described on pages 4.2-46 t o 4.2-65 of t h e Draft Statement.
The estimates, n o t p r e d i c t i o n s , were made on t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e
information to provide a b a s 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 t h e F i n a l Statement).

7. Comment (p. 4 ) :

"Section 4.2.6.3 on t h e r a d i a t i o n monitoring program must be revised

in t h e context of t h e p a s t performance of t h e AEC." "Reliance on
i s o l a t e d r a d i a t i o n d e t e c t o r s and on c a l c u l a t i o n s c a r e f u l l y avoids t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t o t h e r than t h e d e s i r e d answers w i l l be obtained.

Response:

W B R monitoring programs w i l l be based on c u r r e n t LWR programs described

i n Section 4.2.6.3 and on f u t u r e programs, as they develop. Monitoring
programs w i l l be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e regulatory concept of maintaining
p u b l i c exposure a t l e v e l s as low as practicable. Radioactivity releases
may b e so low t h a t l i m i t s of d e t e c t i o n w i l l preclude t h e i r observation i n
t h e environment. Therefore estimates of population exposure may depend
on source term measurements and environmental models.

n
 V , 25-37

8. comment (p. 5):

"The words of t h e l a s t quoted paragraph [p. 4.2-158 of t h e DES] sound

s o o t h i n g , as t h e y are supposed t o , b u t a s t h e LliR program approaches
m a t u r i t y ( o r is s a i d t o approach i t ) t h e AEC s t i l l h a s n o t f u r n i s h e d
e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a t o show t h a t t h e 1 0 CFR 100 c r i t e r i a c a n 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 t a s k s . 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 a n
a c c i d e n t exceeding t h e g u i d e l i n e s , t h e odds are t h a t i t is 1 i n 1000
f o r 1000 p l a n t s o p e r a t i n g , and 1 i n 25 over t h e i r 40 y e a r 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 a c c i d e n t is i n o r d i n a t e l y 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 a c c i d e n t w i l l occur. The o n l y remaining
q u e s t i o n s are when, where, and how bad? Will t h e LMFBR's have back-up
s a f e t y systems a s good as t h e ECCS?"

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 " a c c i d e n t s n o t i n c l u d e d i n

t h e d e s i g n b a s i s envelope s h o u l d have a n a v e r a g e r e c u r r e n c e i n t e r v a l
of a t l e a s t a thousand y e a r s f o r a l l n u c l e a r p l a n t s combined'' (emphasis
added) and " t h e r e g u l a t o r y s t a f f uses t h e s a f e t y o b j e c r i v e t h a t t h e
rfsk to t h e p u b l i c from a l l r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t s should be very small
compared t o 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 c a t a s t r o p h e s . "
Once i n a thousand y e a r s is n o t i n t h e AEC's view " i n o r d i n a t e l y 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 a c c i d e n 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 b e employed.

9. Comment (p. 6, 7):

Comments w e r e o f f e r e d o n S e c t i o n 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 r e a t m e n t of s a f e t y i s s u e s . Examples "Why is a d i s c u s s i o n of c o r e
meltdown o r disassembly n o t thoroughly d i s c u s s e d ? " ; 'I.. . l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n
i e p a i d t o t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f flow blockage and subsequent o v e r h e a t i n g ,
a8 happened a t Fermi. I'

Response :

S e c t i o n 4.2.7.3 was i n t e n d e d o n l y t o p o i n t o u t a number of g e n e r a l

f e a t u r e s of t h e LMFBR as a n a i d i n d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of
p o t e n t i a l a c c i d e n t s t r e a t e d i n later s e c t i o n s . However, i n r e c o g n i t i o n
of t h e comments r e c e i v e d , t h i s s e c t i o n h a s been e x t e n s i v e l y r e v i s e d
and expanded. S p e c i f i c s a f e t y i s s u e s are d e f i n e d and d i s c u s s e d .

"While t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s is h i g h e r i n t h e LMFBR,
as in t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of s h o r t - l i v e d i s o t o p e s , i t is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
 V 25-38

th t 1 amount of f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s t h a - coun 3 . I f they are r e l e a s e d t o

t h e environment, it is t h e b i o l o g i c a l l y a c t i v e ones which c o u n t , many are
s h o r t - l i v e d , 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 i o l o g i c a l l y a c t i v e " o r i m p o r t a n t i n terms

of dose) r a d i o n u c l i d e s is indeed i m p o r t a n t . However, i t should be noted
t h a t a l l f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s are b i o l o g i c a l l y a c t i v e t o some e x t e n t . The
i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o be c o n s i d e r e d is t h a t t h e W B R h a s 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 t s e n t i r e f u e l c y c l e t h a n o t h e r r e a c t o r
c o n c e p t s , a s d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 9 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

11. Comment (pp. 6,7):

"In r e f e r e n c e t o 'major power e x c u r s i o n s ' as t h e y are c a l l e d , are t h e

' 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 n e g a t i v e t o p r e v e n t a
c o r e meltdown? Would t h e Doppler broadening of n e u t r o n c a p t u r e c r o s 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 p r e v e n t a 'power
e x c u r s i o n , ' ' c o r e d i s a s s e m b l y , ' o r ' c o r e rearrangement'? Why is a d i s -
cussion of c o r e meltdown o r disassembly n o t thoroughly d i s c u s s e d ?

Response :

These t o p i c s are d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4.2.7.7 of t h e D r a f t and F i n a l

Statements.

12. Comment (p. 7):

"Section 4.2.7.7 c o n t a i n s a v e r y s u p e r f i c i a l d i s c u s s i o n of s e r i o u s
a c c i d e n t s where a deep and thorough one i s needed. No mention of t i m e
scales, o r sequences of p o s s i b l e e v e n t s i s made. No mention is made of
t h e p o s s i b l e e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o a b r e a c h i n g of t h e containment and t h e
consequences t h e r e o f . I'

Response:

This s e c t i o n h a s been e x t e n s i v e l y r e v i s e d . For r e a s o n s c i t e d i n S e c t i o n

4.2.7, i t i s judged t h a t e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o a b r e a c h i n g of t h e containment
are extremely remote i n p o s s i b i l i t y and t h e risks of such e v e n t s c o n s i d e r e d
so low as t o w a r r a n t t h e i r omission i n t h e F i n a l Statement.

13. Comment (p. 7 ) :

"As t h e tempo of t e r r o r i s t a c t i o n s c o n t i n u e s t o rise throughout t h e U.S.,

and t h e world, i t is n o t comforting t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e AEC i s c o n t i n u i n g
t o i g n o r e t h e 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 t u r n
t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e x c e e d i n g l y v u l n e r a b l e segments i n t h e n u c l e a r f u e l
c y c l e . I'

Kesponse:

The AEC s a f e g u a r d s program r e c o g n i z e s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a t t e m p t e d t e r r o r i s t

a c t i v i t i e s as d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 7.4.3 of t h e F i n a l Statement.

. . __ . - . .
 V.25-39

14, Comment (p. 7):

"Why w i l l recovered uranium n o t be r e c y c l e d t o LllFBR r e a c t o r s ? "

Response:

U r a n i m recovered from r e p r o c e s s i n g of s p e n t f u e l s can of c o u r s e 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 p r o c e s s e s o r c o s t s w i l l
n o t be a f f e c t e d . However, today t h e r e are about 250,000 t o n s of
d e p l e t e d uranium i n s t o r a g e as a byproduct of uranium enrichment
o p e r a t i o n s . T h i s s t o c k p i l e is p r o j e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e s e v e r a l f o l d
d u r i n g t h e rest of t h i s c e n t u r y , even w i t h r a p i d i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e
LMFBR. There a p p e a r s t o be a s l i g h t economic advantage t o u s i n g
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 f u e l - g r a d e d i o x i d e . Thus, i t a p p e a r s
l i k e l y t h a t t h e d i f f u s i o n p l a n t t a i l s s t o c k p i l e will be l a r g e l y d e p l e t e d
b e f o r e uranium from a r e p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t i s used on a l a r g e scale f o r
LMFBR f u e l . E v e n t u a l l y , of c o u r s e , a l l uranium recovered a t r e p r o c e s s i n g
p l a n t s w i l l b e recycled.

15. Comment (p. 8):

"Figure 4.5.1 is similar t o F i g u r e A.16 of WASH-1099. But some of

.
t h e l o s s e s of t h e WASH r e p o r t have c o n v e n i e n t l y been changed t o
" d i s p o s a l I'

Response:

"Loss" and " d i s p o s a l " flows b o t h r e p r e s e n t l o s s e s from t h e f u e l c y c l e ,

i n t h e sense t h a t t h e material is n o t r e c y c l e d .
16. Comment (p. 8 ) :

'?'he assumption is made t h a t t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , or r e s i d e n t

p o p u l a t i o n , is 100 f t . or more from rad-waste c o n t a i n e r s . " "Perhaps
15 f t . would b e a more r e a s o n a b l e c u t - o f f . "

Response :

T h i s assumption of 100 f e e t is n o t thought t o b e unreasonable. As noted

on page 11. 1-12 of Appendix I to Volume XI of t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t ,
d o s e s t o o n l o o k e r s (people l o c a t e d c l o s e r t h a n 100 f t . t o t h e c o n t a i n e r s )
were a l s o included.

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 y e a r s ,

a t t h e most, a couple of thousand, and g e o l o g i c a l upheavals and
climatic changes t a k i n g place in t h e 5000 y e a r t o 1,000,000 y e a r t i m e
 V.25-40

a c a l e , i t seems completely r i d i c u l o u s and i n s a n e t o commit s o c i e t y t o

a c o u r s e of a c t i o n which must b e 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 s a f e k e e p i n g f o r as l o n g as n e c e s s a r y pending t h e
development of more permanent d i s p o s a l methods. A development prop,ram
on d i s p o s a l i n c e r t a i n t y p e s of g e o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n s 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 proportions.

18. Comment (p. 1 0 ) :

"Perhaps t h e p r o j e c t e d p r o f i t s , due t o i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e b r e e d e r ,

.
should be compared w i t h t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l b e n e f i t s , t o be accrued by
the public

Response :

U t i l i t y p r o f i t s are r e g u l a t e d by government a g e n c i e s . Changes i n

power g e n e r a t i n g 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 t h e form of a l t e r e d electric energy rates.

19. ComRnt (p. 10):

" S e c t i o n 5.3.1.1 c o n t a i n s p r o j e c t e d economic r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e

u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y . No mention is made of t h e e f f e c t of t h e s e needs
on t h e rest of t h e borrowing community, nor is mention made of t h e
r e q u i r e r r e n t s of t h e i n d u s t r y after t h e y e a r 2000."

Response:

Values f o r 2020 were s h a m i n T a b l e 5.3-1 o f t h e D r a f t Statement. The

LMFBR does n o t d r a m a t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e t o t a l u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y f i n a n c i a l
r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p l a n t purchases. The LVBR does allow d e c r e a s e d c a p i t a l
e x p e n d i t u r e s 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. 1 0 ) :

"Whether o r n o t t h e u t i l i t i e s and t h e i r managers c a n g r a s p t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s

of LIJRs r e m i n s t o b e s e e n , y e t i t is s a i d t h e i n d u s t r y is approaching
[ m a t u r i t y ] . The o p e r a t i o n by t h e s e same people of LMFBRs is d i s q u i e t i n g . ' '

Responnc:

S a f e r e a c t o r o p e r a t i o n is a s s u r e d by AEC r e g u l a t o r y procedures; i t
is n o t il natter of c o n j e c t u r e . U t i l i t i e s have e s t a b l i s h e d a s a t i s f a c t o r y
o p e r a t i n g 1113 tory.
 V.25-41

21. Comment (p. 12):

"Applying s t a n d a r d s 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 o u t of t h e market."

Response :

LWR s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s have n o t e l i m i n a t e d LKRs a s v i a b l e , c o m p e t i t i v e

steam g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t s . A p p l i c a t i o n of LMFBR s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s are n o t
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 .

22. Comment (p, 12) :

"No s u b s t a n t i v e showing has been made a s t o what are t h e N a t i o n ' s energy

requirements. Many p r o j e c t i o n s have been made by t h o s e who s t a n d t o
g a i n f i n a n c i a l l y by t h e achievement of t h e p r o j e c t i o n s , and t h e s e have
been echoed by t h e government agency involved, h u t t h e s e a r e o n l y
p r o j e c t i o n s . Perhaps t h e y should be made independently of t h e energy
i n d u s t r y and t h e energy agency."

Response :

Energy p r o j e c t i o n s used i n t h e F i n a l Statement .are d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n

11.2.3 and conpared t o o t h e r energy p r o j e c t i o n s . The range of energy
p r e d i c t i o n s i n t h e F i n a l Statement h a s been expanded t o i n c l u d e a 502
d e c r e a s e from t h e base p r o j e c t i o n . ?lost of t h e s o u r c e s r e f e r e n c e d i n
S e c t i o n 11 would n o t g a i n f i n a n c i a l l y by t h e achievement of a p r o j e c t i o n .

22. Comment (p. 12) :

"If t h e r a d i o a c t i v e 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 n e a r term waste management program t h a t h a s been adopted by t h e

AEC f o r h i g h - l e v e l waste c a l l s 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 f o r
s a f e k e e p i n g a s long a s d e s i r e d . This is a s o l u t i o n t o t h e near-term
w a s t e s t o r a g e problem. *However, .having a n e a r - t e h s o l u t i o n does n o t
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 i m a t e
d i s p o s a l . A development program on d i s p o s a l i n g e o l o g i c a l f o r m a t i o n s
is going forward, which would l e s s e n s u r v e i l l a n c e and maintenance
requirements.

24. Comment (p. 13):

"Who i n s u r e s t h e d i s c h a r g e system w i l l be w e l l designed?" "And who

d e t e r m i n e s what l e v e l of damage t o t h e ' a q u a t i c ' environment a r e
ecologically acceptable?"
 V .25 -42

Response:

Each p l a n t constructed must comply with NEPA, Federal, state, and l o c a l

r e g u l a t i o n s and be s u b j e c t to review by AEC regulatory procedures.

25. Comment:

(PO 13)
,"It seems i n c r e d i b l e t h a t underground ( s i t i n g ] can be passed off because
t h e technology does not e x i s t t o go from a n 80 f o o t cavern t o a 140 f o o t
cavern. This is l i t t l e less than a f a c t o r of 2 i n linear dimension."

(PO 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 i s r a t h e r i n t e r e s t i n g . " "It
should a l s o be noted t h a t t h e adequacy of long term above-ground s i t i n g
leaves much t o be d e s i r e d , and t h a t many seals leak."

Response:

Section 7.2.6.5 i n the F i n a l Statement (formerly 7.2.6.2 i n t h e Draft

Statement) examines t h e pros and cons of underground s i t i n g as a
means of m i t i g a t i n g adverse environmental impacts. The concept is
n o t *'passed-offl'. Section 7.2.6.5 concludes t h a t ' I . . .it is d i f f i c u l t
t o f o r s e e whether t h e n e t e f f e c t a t underground s i t i n g would be of
g r e a t e r or lesser environmental impact, as compared with s u r f a c e s i t i n g . "

26. Comment (p. 14):

'I... t h e glowing words of p r a i s e for t h e r i g i d AEC r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s ,

and i n s p e c t i o n s must b e viewed i n t h e l i g h t of t h e GAO r e p o r t 'Improve-
ments Needed i n t h e Program f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n of Special Nuclear
Material', B-164105, Nov. 7, 1973. Numerous very s e r i o u s d e f i c i e n c i e s
i n t h e AEC rules and i n s p e c t i o n s were found."

Response :

The GAO r e p o r t mentioned i n t h i s comment wae discussed i n t h e Draft

Statement (page III-A-4), and is discussed i n more d e t a i l i n t h e F i n a l
Statement (Appendix 1V.A).

27. Comment (p. 15):

'I...r e p o r 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 a n t ( i n Apollo, Pa.) are disconcert-
ing. Some discussion of p a r t a c c o u n t a b i l i t i e s and p e n a l t i e s f o r f a i l u r e s
would be appropriate."
 V.25-43

10

Response :

This is a p p a r e n t l y a r e f e r e n c e t o an i n c i d e n t widely r e p o r t e d i n 1965

i n v o l v i n g a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e bookkeeping account and t h e p h y s i c a l
i n v e n t o r y of about 100 kgs. The t e c h n i c a l term f o r t h e book-physical
i n v e n t o r y d i f f e r e n c e is "material-unaccounted-for" o r MUF.

Because t h e q u a n t i t y o f n u c l e a r materials cannot b e 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 p h y s i c a l i n v e n t o r i e s is expected t o o c c u r ,
and a c c o r d i n g l y , 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 c a n a l s o r e s u l t from t h e p h y s i c a l i n v e n t o r y n o t
r e f l e c t i n g q u a n t i t i e s of material a d h e r i n g t o p r o c e s s equipment, o r from
o t h e r unmeasured l o s s e s o f t h e f t .

The MUF a t t h e Apollo, Pennsylvania p l a n t was g e n e r a t e d d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d

f r o n p l a n t s t a r t - u p in 1957 t o 1965. It was i d e n t i f i e d as a r e s u l t of
an AEC i n s p e c t i o n of t h e f a c i l i t y d u r i n g a p e r i o d of l o w i n v e n t o r y . The
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 p r o c e s s equipment, p i p i n g , f i l t e r s ,
etc.

When o b s e r v i n g a p a r t i c u l a r MUF v a l u e , t h e b a s i c q u e s t i o n arises, "1s

t h i s a r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e , 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 n v e s t i g a t i o n ? " The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n c o u l d be
based on an i n t u i t i v e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment w i t h o u t any formal evalua-
tion. The answer could a l s o be based on comparison w i t h p a s t e x p e r i e n c e .
This can b e accomplished, i n some i n s t a n c e s , by u s i n g c o n t r o l c h a r t s
m a i n t a i n e d on t h e b a s i s of an assumption t h a t p a s t e x p e r i e n c e i s a n
a c c e p t a b l e b a s i s f o r comparison, i.e., t h e p a s t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be
"In c o n t r o l ' ' . The most r i g o r o u s approach t o answering t h e q u e s t i o n is
by e v a l u a t i n g t h e MUF i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e s t a t i s t i c a l p r o p a g a t i o n of
t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 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 h e material balance. The u n d e r l y i n g 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 c a n reasonably b e 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 t o t h e c a u s e s
it3 warranted. The t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y 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 o f F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s now p r o v i d e c r i t e r i a

f o r p e r i o d i c p h y s i c a l i n v e n t o r y t a k i n g and s t a t i s t i c a l MUF e v a l u a t i o n
t h a t w i l l p r e v e n t t h e a c c o u n t i n g p r a c t i c e s t h a t permit l a r g e MUF t o go
u n d e t e c t e d o r unevaluated f o r extended p e r i o d s .

28. C o m e n t (p. 16):

"Since t h e d i v i d i n g 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 a c c i d e n t s

is a r b i t r a r y , i t might b e i l l u m i n a t i n g t o know t h e d i f f e r e n c e between
a ' c r e d i b l e ' t h r e a t and a n ' i n c r e d i b l e ' t h r e a t . "
 V .25-44

11

Response:

AB used i n t h e Environmental Statement, a ' c r e d i b l e t h r e a t ' i e -ant to

b e one whose l i k e l i h o o d of o c c u r r e n c e is e v i d e n t o r s u b s t a n t i a l , and a n
' i n c r e d i b l e t h r e a t ' is one whose l i k e l i h o o d of o c c u r r e n c e is n e g l i g i b l e .
I n both cases, p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment is used i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e assessment
o f c r e d i b i l i t y , t a k i n g i n t o account t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c e d by an adversary
i n b r i n g i n g 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 a c t o r s .
S e c t i o n 7.4.5.2.1 of t h e F i n a l Statement i l l u s t r a t e s t h e r e a s o n i n s p r o c e s s
involved i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of n u c l e a r bomb s a b o t a g e of a n u c l e a r 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 r e c o g n i z e s a n o b l i g a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e
t o examine t h e f a c t o r s which e n t e r i n t o t h e s e judgments of c r e d i b i l i t y ,
and t h a t p r e s e n t judgments may change i n t h e f u t u r e .

29. Comment (p. 1 7 ) :

"No e x p l a n a t i o n 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 y e a r 2020."

Response:

The y e a r 2020 is t h e s t u d y cut-off d a t e .

S e v e r a l comments p o i n t o u t t h e u s e o f more t h a n one c a p a c i t y f a c t o r used

f n t h e D r a f 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 f o l l o w a c u r v e similar

t o t h e "Base Loaded P l a n t " curve i n F i g u r e 11.2-36 of t h e F i n a l S t a t e -
ment. The c o s t l b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s u s e s t h e c u r v e shown as d e s c r i b e d i n
S e c t i o n 11.2.3. The c a p a c i t y f a c t o r is n o t c o n s t a n t o v e r t h e l i f e of a
p l a n t . The u s e of c a p a c i t y f a c t o r s in t h e range of 70% 80%does n o t -
.
s i g n i f i c a n t l y alter the calculations s p e c i f i c a l l y referenced i n the
cmment s

XI, Comment (p. 18):

"Table 10.3 s u c c e s s f u l l y muddles d a t a t o h i d e t h e p o r t i o n of t h e U. S.

p r o d u c t i o n t h a t is committed t o b r e e d e r (and LWR) c o n s t r u c t i o n . It
a l s o h i d e s t h e dependence of t h e U. S. o n f o r e i g n materials production."

Response:

Table 10.3 i n t h e D r a f 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 e l e m e n t a l mater-
ials.
 V.25-45

12

31. Comment (pp. 17-21) :

"[The n e g a t i v e b e n e f i t f o r t h e LMFBR s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e b r e e d e r ,
as l a i d o u t i n t h e D r a f t Statement w i l l be a f i n a n c i a l f a i l u r e . " This
c o n c l u s i o n is based on estimates of i n c r e a s e d c o s t s due t o o p e r a t i o n of
LMFBRs a t 70% c a p a c i t y f a c t o r r a t h e r t h a n 80%.

Response :

There is no r e a s o n t o expect LWR o r LMFBR p l a n t f a c t o r s t o be lower

t h a n l a r g e f o s s i l p l a n t s , Current e x p e r i e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e
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 c o a l - f i r e d p l a n t s ,
a l t h o u g h n o t as good as t h e expected 80% p l a n t f a c t o r . The a v a i l -
a b i l i t y of LWRs is expected t o improve w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and w i t h
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 a s s u r a n c e programs.
S i m i l a r l y , w e are c o n f i d e n t t h a t c a r e f u l d e s i g n and thorough q u a l i t y

.
c o n t r o l w i l l l e a d t o LMFBR p l a n t s which w i l l o p e r a t e a t h i g h p l a n t
f a c t o rs

The "extra c o s t " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o w p l a n t f a c t o r is p r o p e r l y computed

by t h e "replacement energy'' c o s t . About h a l f of t h e sales p r i c e of
e l e c t r i c i t y is c o n t r i b u t e d by c o s t s of t r a n s m i s s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
meter r e a d i n g , etc. F u r t h e r , only p a r t of t h e g e n e r a t i o n p l a n t c o s t
is s e n s i t i v e t o p l a n t f a c t o r . Today, replacement energy c o s t s t y p i c a l l y
f a l l i n t h e range 5-10 mills/kwhr (0.5 - 1 cent/kwhr). (All costs i n
t h a cost-benef i t a n a l y s i s are i n c o n s t a n t , mid-1974 d o l l a r s . C o s t s are
computed u s i n g t h e c a p a c i t y f a c t o r f o r c u r v e s d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 11.2.3).

T h e r e f o r e , i f a power p l a n t experienced a p l a n t f a c t o r of 70% i n s t e a d

of 80%, replacement energy purchased a t 1 centlkwhr would reduce
revenues by $8.7 m i l l i o n a t most, n o t $26 m i l l i o n . Furthermore, t h e
W B R cannot l o g i c a l l y be expected t o o p e r a t e a t a lower p l a n t f a c t o r
t h a n t h e LWR or f o s s i l - f u e l e d p l a n t . Thus, t h e b e n e f i t . t h e d i f f e r e n c e
between p a r e r c o s t w i t h and w i t h o u t t h e LMFBR, would n o t b e d r a s t i c a l l y
reduced by t h e p l a n t f a c t o r r e d u c t i o n assumed above.

32. Comment (pp. 21-23) :

"Pages 11.2-20 and 21. For r e a s o n s o u t l i n e d above, most of t h e s e

c o n c l u s i o n s are imaginary and w i l l undoubtedly never be r e a l i z e d .

The u n q u a n t i f i a b l e b e n e f i t s on p. 11.2-21 are e q u a l l y f a n c i f u l . ' '

Below are comments numbered t o c o i n c i d e w i t h t h i s page.

1. Our r e s o u r c e s are s c a n t y , b u t r a c i n g t o d r a g them o u t of t h e ground

w i l l n o t j u s t i f y e f f i c i e n t use,
 V.25-46
n

13

2. Is i t necessary t h a t a premium market be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r plutonium

from LWRs? Is i t necessary t o t h e economics of LWRe t h a t plutonium
be purchased a t a premium p r i c e ?

4. That t h e " v i r t u a l l y 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 b e established. There are good
reasons f o r s e r i o u s doubts.

5. Same as above (4).

6. 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 s e .

7. Could not a l l t h e s e facilities be put t o more humane uses t h a a J u s t

grinding o u t moneymaking machines to overcharge t h e poor and under-
charge t h e i n d u s t r i e s f o r t h e i r energy?
8. It has y e t to be shown t h a t any commodity o f f e r e d a t an economical
p r i c e encourages t h r i f t and conservation. Q u i t e t h e opposite is
obsarved.

9. The massive i n c r e a s e i n energy usage w i l l d r a i n t h e underdeveloped

c o u n t r i e s , among o t h e 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 a v a i l a b l e to poorer c o u n t r i e s because t h e U.S. can pay
premium p r i c e s with minor d i s r u p t i o n s , while poor c o u n t r i e s cannot
pay premium p r i c e s f o r raw materials without major economic complica-
tions. It is t h e old s t o r y of t h e r i c h g e t t i n g r i c h e r and t h e poor
g e t t i n g poorer. I n d u s t r i a l development is needed t o a f a r less
e x t e n t i n many c o u n t r i e s than food development. This statement ia
t h e Draft m u s t be considered l a r g e l y false.''

Response:

The q u a n t i f i a b l e conclusions follow from t h e r e s u l t s described i n

Section 11.2.4 based oa t h e assumptions i n Section 11.2.3.

The unquantifiable b e n e f i t s are not as s u s c e p t i b l e t o numerical evaluation

as t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o u t l i n e d i n Section 11.2.3 of t h e Draft Statement.
Horaever, t h e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s are i d e n t i f i a b l e with e a r l y i n t r o d u c t i o n
of t h e breeder. The F i n a l Statement summarizes t h e unquantifiable b e n e f i t s
with the advantageous s a f e t y and environmental f e a t u r e s of t h e breeder i n
t o Section 11.2.

Responses t o each of your comments on t h e "unquantifiable" b e n e f i t s follows,

under t h e numbering scheme used i n your comments.
 V.25-47

14

1. The e f f i c i e n t use of uranium r e s o u r c e s r e f e r e n c e d by t h e c o n c l u s i o n

r e f e r s t o t h e uranium'use c u r v e of t h e p r o j e c t e d n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y
w i t h t h e LNFDR a v a i l a b l e . As shown i n t h e F i n a l S t a t e m e n t , cumula-
t i v e uranium use w i t h t h e b r e e d e r is always less than w i t h o u t t h e
breeder.

2. I t is probably n o t n e c e s s a r y i n terms of t h e economic v i a b i l i t y of

t h e LWR i n d u s t r y f o r t h e LIJR produced plutonium t o have a premium
market. However, i t can r e s u l t i n lower LWR f u e l c y c l e c o s t s ,

4. "A v i r t u a l l y limitless supply o f 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 h e LNFBR. The
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 i s c e r n e d from t h e
r e s u l t s of t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s .

6. A l l i n t e r n a l s o u r c e s of energy are now and w i l l be r e q u i r e d i n t h e

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 w i t h i n
r e a s o n a b l e economic and environmental l i m i t s t o reduce t h e impact
on t h e b a l a n c e of payments due t o f o r e i g n o i l purchases. However,
i f n u c l e a r power w i t h b r e e d e r s is much more economic t h a n f o s s i l
f u e l e d power p l a n t s a t a time when t h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y is c a p a b l e
of p r o v i d i n g t h e t o t a l e l e c t r i c power needs of t h e Nation, it is
r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t f o s s i l power p l a n t s w i l l be g r a d u a l l y
phased o u t . T h i s would n o t occur u n t i l a f t e r t h e t u r n of t h e c e n t u r y .

7. The f a c i l i t i e s r e f e r e n c e d are geared t o produce LMFBR technology

which h a s 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 l e c t r i c power c o s t s
through 2020. UlFBR technology does n o t "overcharge t h e poor" o r
"undercharge t h e i n d u s t r i e s " . Low power c o s t s c a n s e l e c t i v e l y
b e n e f i t low-income groups who n o t only spend a l a r g e r s h a r e of
t h e i r income on energy b u t s t a n d t h e most t o g a i n 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 l a b o r - s a v i n g r e s o u r c e .

8. If n u c l e a r powered e l e c t r i c energy o f f e r s a lower c o s 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 e n e r g y , t h e f o s s i l f u e l s can b e conserved.

9. P o i n t 9 i n t h e D r a f t Statement n o t e d 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
c o o p e r a t i o n 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 n o t imply development
of i n d u s t r y which is u n r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e i r need$. The i n d u s t r y
a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y may b e p r o d u c t i o n of a g r i c u l -
t u r a l equipment and f e r t i l i z e r .
/ I

33. Comment (p. 23) :

chance of a major a c c i d e n t is ...

"Section 11.3 i g n o r e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a s e r i o u s a c c i d e n t . "
about 1 / 4 0 . . . I t
I' ... t h e
Response :

On page 4.2-158 of t h e Draft s t a t e m e n t i t is c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t " a c c i d e n t s

n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e s i g n b a s e envelope should have a n a v e r a g e r e c u r r e n c e
 V.25-48

15
x

i n t e r v a l of a t least a thousand years f o r a l l nuclear p l a n t s combined"

and "the regulatory s t a f f uses t h e s a f e t y o b j e c t i v e t h a t t h e r i s k t o
t h e p u b l i c from a l l r e a c t o r a c c i d e n t s should be very small compared
t o o t h e r r i s k s of l i f e such as d i s e a s e o r n a t u r a l catastrophes."

34. Comment (p. 24):

"Section 11.4.1 t o t a l l y ignores t h e questions fundamental t o t h e whole

energy problem. Who determines what t h e "future energy needs'' a r e ?
Who are these decision makers primarily responsible to? What is t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p ( 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 h e Draft Statement. Chapter 11 of t h e
D r a f t Statement discussed t h e projected economics of t h e LMFBR.
Evaluation of t h e LMFBR economics includes a comparison of power
c o s t savings with government R6D c o s t s . The r e s p e c t i v e c o s t s are
predicated on a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e u t i l i t y industry to supply
energy a t a rate c o n s i s t e n t with h i s t o r i c trends. Responsible and
prudent planning cannot be based on a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d energy demand
goals. Energy conservation as an a l t e r n a t i v e has not been ignored.
Q u i t e t h e contrary, energy conservation as a t e c h n i c a l alternative
and as a n important v a r i a n t i n LMFBR i n c e n t i v e is discussed in t h e
F i n a l Statement. The F i n a l Statement evaluates t h e environmental
e f f e c t s of t h e LMFBR as a v i a b l e o p t i o n f o r electric energy generation.
There is no i n t e n t to e i t h e r exclude o r understate t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r
reduced energy demand.

35. Comment (p. 25):

"A number of sweeping condemuations of solar energy are made without

t h e b e n e f i t of references. No mention is made of wind powered genera-
tors or of sea-thermal power plants." "In a d d i t i o n , no case has been
made f o r t h e n e c e s s i t y of l a r g e , c e n t r a l - s t a t i o l n power f a c i l i t i e s . "

Response : I

A d e t a i l e d discussion of t h e 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 t h e Draft
Statement. Likewise, wind power, ocean thermal gradients, t i d a l energy
and s y n t h e 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 p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o small, decentralized energy
needs (8.8. space heating and water heating).
 V.25-49

16

"The [uranium] s i t u a t i o n m y be c r i t i c a l even b e f o r e t h e b r e e d e r 1s

scheduled f o r introduction." "[The LMFBR] a l s o i s dependent f o r
i n i t i a l charge of plutonium on LWRs. Few comments on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y
of plutonium from t h i s s o u r c e have been made."

Response :

The D r a f t Statement d i s c u s s e d p r o j e c t e d uranium usage and plutonium

p r o d u c t i o n and usage f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s analyzed 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 S e c t i o n s 3.3.5 and 3.3.7 of Appendix 111-B. As pointed
o u t i n t h e D r a f t Statement, cumulative mined uranium requirements are
always reduced when t h e LMFBR is a v a i l a b l e . Requirements of plutonium
for i n i t i a l core l o a d s of e a r l y W B R s can be m e t w i t h plutonium
produced by uranium-fueled LWRs. The F i n a l Statement d e s c r i b e s
uranium and plutonium u t i l i z a t i o n i n S e c t i o n 11.2.4.

37. Connwnt (p. 26):

"The impression is given [ i n t h e f i r s t f u l l paragraph on p. 11.4-231

t h a t t h e country has l i t t l e c h o i c e o t h e r t h a n deploy thousands of y e t
unproven b r e e d e r s . I'

Response :

The quoted paragraph state8 an i n c e n t i v e f o r c o n t i n u i n g t o c o n s i d e r

t h e LMFBR as a v i a b l e electric energy g e n e r a t i o n option. The t e x t
cites t h e r e l a t i v e m a t u r i t y of t h e LMFBR i n comparison t o t h e c o n t r o l l e d
thermonuclear r e a c t o r and concludes : "Thua, f o r e c l o s u r e o r postpone-
ment of t h e b r e e d e r program while a w a i t i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e technology
e n t a i l s a c o n s i d e r a b l e r i s k : t h e Nation could end up w i t h n e i t h e r
b r e e d e r r e a c t o r s nor a n a l t e r n a t i v e source."

38. Comment (p. 26):

"That t h e AEC does not c o n s i d e r a n a t t a c k [as ap act of w a r ] c e n t e r e d

on n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s t o be c r e d i b l e is appalling."

Response :

S e c t i o n 7.4.4.1 i n t h e F i n a l Statement d i s c u s s e s t h e v u l n e r a b i l i t y of
n u c l e a r f a c i l i t i e s t o acts of war.

39. Comment (pp. 27. 28):

E f f e c t s of diminished and zero energy growth on LMFBR b e n e f i t s should

be considered.
 V.25-50

17

Response :

The D r a f t Statement c o n s i d e r e d t h e e f f e c t s of i n c r e a s e d and decreased

electric energy demand (+, 20% i n 20201 on t h e LMFBR b e n e f i t s . In
a d d i t i o n t h e F i n n l Statement c o n s i d e r s a case in which electric energy
demand is d e c r e a s e d by 50%, i n 2020, i n d i c a t i v e of s u c c e s s f u l energy
c o n s e r v a t i o n measures. The Ford Foundation p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t ,
"Exploring Energy Choices ,'I is e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r e n c e d i n S e c t i o n 11.2.3.

40. Comment (p. 28):

"TO s a y t h a t n u c l e a r and f o s s i l f u e l s compete in t h e market is n a i v e

and r i d i c u l o u s . It i g n o r e s 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
t h e p u b l i c h a s i n v e s t e d i n f i s s i o n r e s e a r c h , i t i g n o r e s t h e tremendous
s u b s i d y o f f e r e d t h e n u c l e a r i n d u s t r y by t h e P r i c e A n d e r s o n A c t , and
i t i g n o r e s t h e growing monopoly of c o a l , petroleum, n a t u r a l g a s ,
geothermal, and uranium ore areas by t h e 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 e l e c t r i c power g e n e r a t i o n market

today. The c o m p e t i t i o n w a s extended t o t h e y e a r 2020 by p r o j e c t i n g
f u t u r e c o s t t r e n d s ( i n c o n s t a n t mid-1974 d o l l a r s ) of b o t h f o s s i l and
n u c l e a r f u e l s and p l a n t s . R i s i n g f o s s i l f u e l c o s t s and l i m i t e d n a t u r a l
g a s s u p p l i e s are i n c r e a s i n g t h e c o m p e t i t i v e advantage of n u c l e a 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
t o r e c o v e r 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.

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 i n e x c u s a b l y low

c a l i b e r of i n p u t d a t a i n t h e entire D r a f t Statement. Not o n l y does
t h i s t a b l e i g n o r e 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 o v e r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d , b u t it assumes
i n i t i a l c o s t s which are lower by a c o n s i d e r a b l e margin t h a n t o d a y ' s
e s t i m a t e d costs."

Response :

A l t e r n a t i v e g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t t y p e s are compared i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t
a n a l y s i s on t h e b a s i s of c o n s t a n 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 o v e r t h e l i f e t i m e of t h e s t u d y are compared
o n t h e b a s i s of p r e s e n t worth value. As you i n d i c a t e , c o n s t r u c t i o n
c o s t s i n c u r r e n t d o l l a r s would i n c r e a s e f o r a l l p l a n t s as a f u n c t i o n
of t i m e .

The mid-1974 c a p i t a l c o s t s i n t h e D r a f t Statement are consistent with

t h e raw d a t a which you r e f e r e n c e . The c u r r e n t d o l l a r c o s t of an LWR i n
1981 would be about $560/k# comparable t o your f i g u r e of $550/)cw f o r t h e
Limerick Station. 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

w i t h 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 d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . Simi-

l a r l y , 1981 c a p i t a l c o s t s f o r a n HTGR would b e about $560/kw. This is
a b o u t 15%lover t h a n t h e $645/kw c o s t you q u o t e f o r t h e F u l t o n S t a t i o n .

However, t h e economies of scale between a 1160 M W e p l a n t (Fulton) and

t h e 1300 M We p l a n t s @ r a f t Statement assumed c a p a c i t y ) would d e c r e a s e
t h e F u l t o n c o s t t o about $590/kwe. This is o n l y 5X h i g h e r t h a n t h e
$560/kwe i m p l i e d by Table 111-B.4-4.

Reduction of c o n s t a n 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 " l e a r n i n g curve"

of a r e l a t i v e l y new i n d u s t r y are e x p l a i n e d f u l l y i n S e c t i o n 11.2.4.2
where your comments are r e f e r e n c e d .

42. Comment (p. 30):

" I n t e r e s t i n g l y , [ S e c t i o n A of Chapter 81 c o n t a i n s no mention of heavy-

water moderated r e a c t o r s , as t h e CANDU r e a c t o r s of Canada."
Response :

As s t a t e d i n The 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 S t a t e m e n t ,
"...energy systems which may have a p p l i c a t i o n i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s w i t h
d i f f e r e n t economic s t r u c t u r e s , and which have been c o n s i d e r e d b u t bypassed

discussed.. ."
i n t h e United S t a t e s i n f a v o r of o t h e r energy p r o d u c t i o n systems, are n o t
of t h i s p o i n t .
P l e a s e see t h e P e r s p e c t i v e s 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

43. Comment (p. 30):

"The p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s of t h e f u s i o n p r o c e s s dwarf t h o s e imagined b e n e f i t s

of any form of t h e f i s s i o n p r o c e s s , b u r n e r o r b r e e d e r . Why n o t spend t h e
money r e q u e s t e d f o r t h e b r e e d e r o n fusion?"

Response :

There is no g u a r a n t e e t h a t fusion vi11 ever b e a v i a b l e electric energy

g e n e r a t i o n s o u r c e , t h u s t h e r e is o b v i o u s l y no g u a r a n t e e t h a t f u s i o n w i l l
b e a v a i l a b l e i n time t o p r e c l u d e t h e LMFBR. A s ' s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,
f o r e c l o s u r e of t h e W B R o p t i o n based on t h e promise o'f e a r l y f u s i o n
development is n o t commensurate w i t h r e s p o n s i b l e , p r u d e n t p l a n n i n g t o
meet t h e N a t i o n ' s energy needs,
44. Comment (p. 31):

"For i n s t a n c e , t h e s e c t i o n [C.6 o f Chapter 81 i g n o r e s t h e i n f l u e n c e 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
p a t t e r n s . This t h e r e b y 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 w i t h t h e p u b l i c . This is a n u t t e r falsehood."

Response :

S e c t i o n 11.2 of t h e F i n a l Statement d i s c u s s e s t h e i n f l u e n c e of rates on

electric energy demand.