The Chemical World This Week
CARTER REJECTS PLUTONIUM AS NUCLEAR FUEL President Carter's pronouncements on the future of U.S. nuclear energy and nuclear nonproliferation policy have left the fast breeder reactor and plutonium reprocessing in the lurch. In doubt now are more than $2.5 bil lion worth of public and private nu clear projects. In his statements at the White House on April 7, Carter clearly re jected plutonium as a nuclear fuel of the future. Carter's reason is simple: Plutonium is the stuff that nuclear weapons are made from, and he doesn't want it to fall into the wrong hands, or into any more hands than now have it. Carter declares that it will be Administration policy to deemphasize the commercial breeder reactor (which uses and produces plutonium) and avoid completely reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to obtain the plutonium contained therein. Ironically, on the same day that Carter made his thoughts known, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists ad vised the Energy Research & Devel opment Administration that the U.S. should not foreclose the fast breeder reactor as a potential energy source. Although Carter says that he will not terminate "as such" ERDA's Clinch River breeder reactor in Ten nessee near Oak Ridge, he does say that "we will restructure the U.S. breeder program to give greater pri ority to alternate designs of the breeder, and to defer the date when breeder reactors would be put into commercial use." But since the whole
point of the Clinch River reactor was to demonstrate commercial breeder technology, Carter's decision puts the future of the $2 billion program in limbo. Carter also believes that the U.S. nuclear industry can get along just fine without reprocessing plutonium. Referring to the now half-finished $500 million Allied-General Nuclear Services plant at Barnwell, S.C., Carter warns that the plant "will re ceive neither federal encouragement nor funding for its completion as a reprocessing facility." Allied Chemical, a 50-50 partner in the Barnwell plant with General Atomic Corp., believes Carter's deci sion is shortsighted and points out that utilities can get 50% more elec tricity from plutonium than they can from uranium. An Allied spokesman says the firm believes that the plant still is valuable as an international reprocessing center, and it should be used together with other nations rather than "put them in confronta tion with the U.S." Nuclear industry reaction pre dictably was negative. Carl Walske, president of the Atomic Industrial
Taconite disposal plan upheld by state court
Reserve Mining's plans to build a land disposal site for its taconite tailings moved a step closer to reali zation last week when the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling ordering state agencies to issue construction permits. The state at torney general has decided not to appeal that decision to the U.S. Su preme Court. Dispute and litigation over what Reserve Mining should do with its taconite tailings have been going on for at least eight years. The company, owned by Armco Steel and Republic Steel, mines taconite at Babbitt, Minn., and ships it 47 miles to Silver Bay, on Lake Superior. There, it separates iron oxide from the lowgrade ore, then dumps the waste rock—some 67,000 tons per day— into the lake. The practice came under fire be cause the tailings contain asbestoslike fibers, some of which apparently find Carter decision puts future of Barη welt their way into municipal water I supplies in the area. The health im reprocessing plant up in air 6
C&EN April 18, 1977
Forum, warns that Carter's plutoni um proposals "are mortgages on our energy future. There is much more energy available from plutonium than from our coal deposits." Walske also notes that because nations such as France, West Germany, and Japan plan to go ahead with plutonium re processing and breeder reactors, "our domestic sacrifice appears to be for naught." On the other hand, environmen talists opposed to nuclear energy are cheered by the President's stand, al though some believe he didn't go far enough. "Clinch River," says Friends of the Earth, an environmental in terest group, "in its present, or altered form, is a symbol of a full speed com mercialization program, whether it is termed experimental or not." Nuclear critic Ralph Nader wasn't nearly so charitable as some other environmentalists and criticized Carter sharply for not addressing what he believes to be safety prob lems with existing nuclear power plants. Observes Nader of Carter's nuclear policy: "It represented a pullback from positions he took in the election campaign." D
plications are unclear, but asbestos fibers are known to be carcinogenic when inhaled. Minnesota, together with Wiscon sin and Michigan, took the company to court. In 1974 a U.S. circuit court of appeals ordered Minnesota and Reserve Mining to agree on a land disposal site, but didn't set a date to stop the lake dumping. Following further court action (C&EN, Aug. 23, 1976, page 16), Reserve Mining pro posed a disposal site 7 miles inland from Silver Bay. The company would build a 5.8-square-mile basin, using coarse tailings to construct dams. Fine tailings would be pumped to the basin by pipeline. There would be no discharge to Lake Superior or its tributaries. The project would cost about $350 million. The state's Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency refused to issue permits, on grounds that the site presented en vironmental and safety problems, and suggested another location farther
