Soviets did note the fact that TMI had a containment and their reactors did not. They have not started a new RBMK 1000 since that time. All new starts have been PWRs with containments. Contrary to Flavin’s assertion, steam explosions or superheat explosions have been considered seriously by reactor safety experts at least since the Rasmussen report of 1975. They are now believed less likely to occur than Rasmussen thought, notwithstanding the Chernobyl accident. Although the 1000-ton cover plate of the Chernobyl reactor was probably lifted by the pressure of steam, this was not a steam explosion in the sense used in the West-it was not a superheat explosion. Although the driving force at Chernobyl was steam, it has no relevance to the probability of the superheat explosions we consider. One important way to make a technology safe is to record and analyze every malfunction, because a combination of separate malfunctions occurring simultaneously can lead to an accident. But the mere totaling of recorded malfunctions, which Flavin emphasizes, tells us little. Such totals may only reveal that the recording authorities have been active, as they are increasingly in the United States. It is similar to damning an automobile because the state has demanded an increased number of inspections. In one respect, however Flavin is correct. Present analysis suggests that a core meltdown, or a partial core meltdown, is likely to occur once in every 5000 to 10,000 reactor-years. Many experts believe it is even less likely. as a result of recent safety improvements, but analysis has not justified this confidence. Such estimates suggest that with the I 0 0 reactors present in the United States there might be an accident once every 50 years. This probability, however, refers to an accident with the consequences of Three Mile Island: no immediate casualties, even among the plant workers, and a negligible increase in cancer incidence in the area, comparable to the effect of smoking one or two cigarettes in a lifetime. Our ability as a nation to cope calmly and efficiently with industrial accidents will determine our future as an industrial society. In this respect, I note that it took us six years to restart the undamaged and uncontaminated TMI unit I, whereas the Soviets decontaminated and restarted Chernobyl units 1 and 2 within six months. Chernobyl does bring to light some questions about nuclear safety that the nuclear industry would do well to ponder-and possibly answer. A 1985 study group of the American Physical 1052 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 21. NO. 11. 1987
Society documented claims that the consequences of accidents in many scenarios are smaller than previously believed. These claims, however, depend in part upon the expectation that radioactive iodine would be released in particulate form and would coagulate and deposit inside the containment, even though the containment may fail at a later time. Yet it is reported that 80% of the Chernobyl iodine measured in Sweden was gaseous. The release conditions are different; at Chernobyl it was almost a dry release. But this needs careful argument and documentation. Although Chernobyl throws little light on the probability of superheat explosions in a light-water reactor, it raises the question of whether, or in what fractions of accidents, such an explosion can occur. Finally, there is the human factor. In 1975 Rasmussen argued-and the accident at Brown’s Ferry (part of TVA) supported his argument-that operators, as thinking human beings, can find ways that were not analyzed to mitigate accidents. However, at Three Mile Island the operators thought hard but made the wrong decision and turned a malfunction into an accident. At Chernobyl it became clear that oper-
ators can, and will if it is convenient for them, break rigid safety rules. With an RBMK the effect was catastrophic. I believe that the design of light-water reactors makes such rule-breaking less serious, but I know of no detailed study. Flavin is also correct in his “motherhood” statement that “there must be greater preparation for the consequences of the inevitable failures.” But it would be wrong to evacuate people when it is unnecessary, such as when a dose of only 1-5 rem is anticipated. It also would be wrong and counterproductive if undue emphasis on nuclear accidents prompted society to revert to more dangerous technologies such as burning coal. Flavin’s argument applies with much greater force to most technologies other than nuclear power, whether they involve grade-crossing accidents as the coal train comes rumbling past, or the midair collision of two loaded aircraft. Any institute that claims to watch the world should pay special attention to this.
Richard Wilson is Mallinrkrmfr Profeww U I rhe Deparrmenr of Pliy.wcs and Energy and Eni,ironmenral Polirv Center ai Harvard Univerrirr of Physics
Estuaries and coastal waters need help By Howard Levenson For years, our marine environments estuaries, coastal waters, and the open ocean - have been used extensively by coastal communities and industries for the disposal of various wastes. The term disposal includes two types of activities: dumping and discharging. Dumping occurs when wastes, such as municipal sewage sludge, certain industrial sludges and slurries, and
1 Jclk II II q- 2- @ II I
1
\I
f; Howard Lpvenson
dredged material, are transported by ships or barges to designated marine sites and dropped overboard. Discharging involves the release of wastewater from municipal and industrial facilities through pipelines. Historically, marine waste disposal has been relatively cheap and has solved some short-term waste-management problems; however, its conseauences include a general trend toward ehronmental degradation, particularlv in estuaries and coastal waters. A repkt on “Wastes in Marine Environments,” released by the congressional Office of Technoloev Assessment (OTA), documents thgtrend in detail (I). The report concludes that, without additional protective measures, the next few decades will witness new or continued degradation in many estuaries and some coastal waters around the country, even in some that exhibited improvements in the past. The extent of current degradation varies greatly around the country. High levels of organic chemicals, metals,
and disease-causing microorganisms have been found in many areas, along with excess nutrients and low oxygen levels. Areas that have reported human illness from eating contaminated shellfish are now prohibited or partially restricted. Contamination of fish with toxic metals and organic chemicals is severe enough in some areas to prompt government warnings or restrictions on fishing or consumption. Most attention has focused on well-documented problems in the Northeastern United States (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay and the New York Bight), Southern California, and Puget Sound. Serious effects, however, also have occurred or are beginning to occur in the less publicized (and less studied) Gulf of Mexico and along the southern Atlantic Coast. These effects have been observed primarily in estuaries and coastal waters, as opposed to the open ocean. This is not surprising, considering that estuaries and coastal waters have borne the brunt of marine waste-disposal activities. In addition, such waters are particularly susceptible to problems because many marine organisms use them during critical parts of their life cycles (e.g., for spawning or nursery habitat), and the physical and chemical features of many estuaries cause pollutants to be flushed slowly or to actually become trapped. In contrast, the open ocean has exhibited few adverse effects from waste disposal - partly because ocean water can widely disperse most wastes, but also because relatively few wastes have been deposited there. More research is needed to determine if long-term damage to open-ocean resources will occur. Although it is difficult to ascertain cause and effect relationships, enough evidence exists to conclude that the pollutants in question include disease-causing microorganisms, oxygen-demanding substances, particulate material, metals, and organic chemicals. When disposal activities are viewed at a national level, industrial and municipal pipeline discharges are at least as important as dumping in contributing these pollutants and damaging marine resources. About one-fourth of all wastewater generated by municipal sewage treatment plants in the country is discharged into estuaries and coastal waters. More than 1300 large industrial facilities discharge directly into these waters, and thousands more empty their wastewater into municipal treatment plants. Large amounts of dredged material, and smaller amounts of sewage sludge and industrial wastes, are dumped overboard at designated marine sites. Although not classed as a disposal ac-
tivity, runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas contains large amounts of certain pollutants that ultimately enter marine waters in large quantities. In fact, runoff is considered the leading cause of degradation in some water bodies. Of course, the importance of a particular type of disposal or runoff varies greatly from area to area. Other activities, such as filling of wetlands, channeling of rivers, and overharvesting, also affect marine waters and resources. Interestingly, much of the public debate about marine waste disposal has focused on the current practice of dumping sewage sludge or on the proposed incineration of hazardous wastes at sea; however, the most damaging activities generally do not involve either of these activities. For example, ocean incineration has not yet been used as a waste management option, and its future is hazy (2). Sewage sludge is dumped in only one location - the New York Bight, about 12 miles from shore-and thus is really a regional issue, Moreover, all sludge dumping is being moved to a site in the open ocean, approximately 106 miles from shore.
Management efforts ?kio statutes form the basis of most federal regulatory efforts to combat marine pollution: the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The MPRSA regulates the dumping of wastes in coastal and openocean waters, whereas the CWA has jurisdiction over pipeline discharges in all marine waters, wastes dumped in estuaries, and (theoretically) runoff. Many people consider that the passage and implementation of these two acts and their ensuing amendments established a statutory structure sufficient to protect the nation’s waters from pollution. Indeed, the pollutant-control programs under the CWA and the dumping criteria and permitting procedures under the MPRSA have helped reduce the amounts of pollutants entering marine waters. For example, the construction or upgrading of municipal sewage treatment plants (toward which the federal government has contributed more than $44 billion during the past 15 years) has led to increased oxygen levels and decreased nutrient levels in some estuaries and coastal waters. However, these provisions have not protected some estuaries and coastal waters from degradation. Only partial implementation has been achieved to date, and the prospect of ever achieving full implementation and enforcement is doubtful. Even with total compliance,
which is unlikely, existing regulations would not be sufficient to maintain or improve the health of all estuaries and coastal waters. Current programs do not adequately address all important toxic pollutants; current programs do not adequately address runoff. Thus pipeline discharges and urban runoff will increase as population and industrial development expand in coastal areas. Federal resources for municipal sewage treatment are declining, and the ability of states or communities to fill the breach is highly uncertain. The projection of continued or increasing degradation is of great concern because estuaries and coastal waters are among the most important of all marine environments with respect to their commercial resources, recreational uses, and ecological roles.
Policy options The OTA report describes actions from a two-tiered set of options that could help maintain or improve the health of estuaries and coastal waters. First, the present system of controls should continue to be implemented to provide a consistent, minimum level of protection. The present system also could be enhanced. For example, deficiencies in the coverage of toxic pollutants could be addressed within the structure of existing CWA programs. Second, additional management that provides the flexibility to address sitespecific problems should be developed in many areas to supplement current programs, even though such a program would be difficult to implement. In fact, the federal government and some states have already established water body management programs to attack site-specific problems that cannot be handled by existing programs and regulations. Two of the best-known examples are the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. In addition, Congress named several other water bodies for possible management action in the 1987 Water Quality Act. This site-specific approach requires a great deal of cooperation among the many responsible local, state, and federal agencies, as well as the intimate involvement of the public, yet it appears very promising. However, state and federal programs still do not exist for most estuaries and coastal waters. A critical link is missing: a systematic framework for deciding when and how to provide additional, site-specific management for estuaries and coastal waters. Developing such a framework to supplement current programs is now appropriate. It could be based on a version of the water quality approach, an Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 21, No. 1 1 , 1987 1053
approach embodied in the CWA but not yet generally applied to estuaries and coastal waters. An expanded version could include a focus, on additional measures of environmental health, such as habitat quality. Such a framework would involve identifying the water bodies that need additional management, establishing site-specific goals and evaluating progress, and developing management plans and deciding if a national program to coordinate such development is necessary. Some observers may contend that we already have sufficient statutory authority to develop and implement site-specific water body management where needed. Indeed, many of the major components of a framework for identifying troubled water bodies and devel-
oping management plans already exist in numerous institutional forms; these include the Water Quality Act of 1987, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the EPA’s internal planning initiative on near-coastal waters. Although the Water Quality Act focused primarily on the issue of federal funding of municipal treatment plant construction, it also formally authorized EPA’s ongoing National Estuary Program and mandated a program to identify toxic hot spots. Thus major new legislation may not be needed. Instead, the issue at hand is whether the relevant provisions will be used effectively, both environmentally and economically. If we are to develop a cost-effective framework that is both flexible and systematic, we need to overcome bureaucratic inertia and
move toward consolidation and integration of these sometimes disparate efforts. Without such movement, future decades will likely reap a sorry and bitter crop - more degradation in our estuaries and coastal waters. Howard Levenson is an analyst at the congressional Ofice of Technology Assessment. He was the project director of the report “Wastesin Marine Environments.”
References (1) “Wastes in Marine Environments”; Office of Technology Assessment. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1986; OTA-0-334; GPA stock no. 052-0030 1062-3. (2) “Ocean Incineration”; Office of Technology Assessment. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.,1986; OTA-O313: GPO stock no. 052-003-01046-1.
Environmental division news Report porn the ACS meeting in New Orleans The Division of Environmental Chemistry for the first time won the best large division award of the ACS for 1986. At the Sept. 29 dinner of the Divisional Officers Group (DOG), annual awards were presented to recognize the best small, middle-sized, and large divisions of the ACS. Plaques were presented to the following people of the environmental division: Don Johnson, chairman; Dean Adams, chairmanelect; Gordon Bellen, secretary; Clarence Haile, treasurer; and Robert Jolley, programming. The division was cited for bringing new members to the society and for its programming, its cooperation with other divisions in support of cosponsored symposia, and its financial health. The immediate past chairman, Roger Minear, was recognized for his contributions to the division and to the activities that helped place the division in the winning spotlight.
Awardees The Division of Environmental Chemistry gives out several awards to honor outstanding papers presented at ACS meetings. For example, an award of excellence recognizes graduate students for papers, presented before the division at a national meeting, that are outstanding both in content and in manner of presentation. The award of excellence consists of a certificate, a check for $500, and an invitation to attend the division dinner, traditionally on Tbesday evening of the meeting. 1054 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 21,No. 11, 1987
Three students were honored for their excellent papers presented in New Orleans: Allen I! Davis of the University of Delaware for his paper “Anodic Dissolution of Lead Sulfide Single Crystal in Simple Electrolyte Solutions”; Wen H. Pan of Portland State University for his paper “A SteadyState Analysis of Unpolluted Tropospheric HO, Chemistry”; and Frank M. Dunnivant of Clemson University for his paper “Aqueous Solubility and Henry’s Law Constant Data for PCB Congeners for Evaluation of Quantitative Structure-Property Relationships.” The Division of Environmental Chemistry also awards a certificate of merit to authors for their first papers presented at a national ACS meeting. At the division dinner in New Orleans, five certificates of merit were awarded for outstanding papers presented at the previous ACS meeting in Denver. The recipients were Jennifer Field (with E.M. Thurman) of the U.S. Geological Survey for her paper, “Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonates in GroundwaterPotential for Co-Isolation with Humic Substances”; Steven B. Hawthorne (with David J. Miller) of the University of North Dakota Energy Research Center for his paper, “Comparison of Supercritical Fluid Solvents for the Extraction and Recovery of PAHs from Environmental Solids”; Geneva M. Omann (with Larry A. War) of the Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation for her paper, “Spectrofluorometric Analysis of Cell Responses”; Angel L. Rivera of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, for his paper, “Analysis and Planning of Integrated Waste Management Systems”; and Thomas H. Row (with Cynthia M. Kendrick) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for his paper, “The Oak Ridge Model: A Case Study in Waste Management Trends.”
E S t T editors Russell F. Christman, editor of ES&T since 1975, received two certificates of appreciation at the evening dinner. The first certificate, for service to the field of environmental science, was presented by Ellen Gonter, head of the awards program of the Environmental Division. The second certificate, for service as editor of ES&T, was presented by Michael Bowen, director of the ACS Books and Journals Division. William H. Glaze of the the University of California at Los Angeles will become editor of ES&T effective Jan. 1, 1988. Richard Zepp of EPA in Athens, Ga. is the new editor of EnvirofACS, the divisions’s newsletter that is issued before the spring and fall ACS national meetings. The former editor of the newsletter, Alan Elzerman, is on sabbatical at the Colorado School of Mines until next June. Program chairman Robert Jolley of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory noted that there were 11 symposia on environmental chemistry in New Orleans and that 15 symposia are scheduled for the Toronto meeting next June. He welcomes comments on symposia and the increasing number of them.
