GOVERNMENT
PRINCIPALS. Sen. Ribicoff (left) heads Is probe of environmental contaminations. First witness, Dr. Wiesner, discussed pesticides report
arch Urged More Pesticide Research But President's science adviser rejects proposal for a federal council on chemicals Much more research is needed on the long-term effects of chemicals in man's environment before the problem can be properly evaluated. There are less data available on the long-term effects of chemicals than there are on the effects of radioactive fallout. This is the position taken by Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, President Kennedy's Science Adviser, as the Senate Subcommittee on Reorganization opened its hearings on environmental contamination problems. Committee members had little chance to question Dr. Wiesner because the hearings were hastily adjourned to permit members to take part in a debate on the Senate floor. Dr. Wiesner will be recalled later. Hearings were slated to resume last week. Witnesses were scheduled to be the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare. The subcommittee plans extensive hearings on environmental hazards. 34
C&EN
MAY
2 7,
1963
For this special probe, Sen. Abraham Ribicoff (D.-Conn.) has replaced Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D.-Minn.) as chairman of the subcommittee. The Senate group will look into all phases of environmental contamination, but the first series of hearings will be devoted to one source of contamination —pesticides-and the report of the President's Science Advisory Committee on pesticides (C&EN, May 20, page 33; for the full report, see page 102 of this issue). Potential Danger. During his term as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Sen. Ribicoff served as chairman of the Federal Radiation Council, a group concerned with the hazards of radiation and radioactive fallout. He asked Dr. Wiesner to give the committee some perspective on the pesticide problem by relating the hazards of chemicals in the environment to the effects of fallout. In Dr. Wiesner's opinion, it is impossible to make precise calculations
of the effects of fallout. Research indicates that the biological effects from nuclear testing would be minor. But, he says, the rapid increase in the use of all sorts of chemicals could become a potentially greater hazard to civilization than fallout. The reason for this is that there would be greater exposure to chemicals. This does not mean that the use of chemicals should be discontinued, Dr. Wiesner says. Great benefits are derived from the proper use of pesticides and other chemicals, he explains. What it does mean is that man must learn how to control chemicals effectively, he says. Much research must be done on the cumulative effect of chemicals absorbed in the human body. Studies show that the level of DDT absorbed in Americans has remained steady for the past decade; new British studies show that there is widespread absorption of dieldrin in the population. We must find out whether these accumulations are important or not, he adds. Another fertile field for research is the synergistic effect of chemicals on one another. This is important when it comes to setting tolerances for pesticide residues. Dr. Wiesner urged the committee to support an environmental health center proposed by the Public Health Service. Earlier this year, the House Appropriations Committee refused to appropriate funds for the center because of a dispute over its location. Such a center, Dr. Wiesner says, could provide answers for many of the questions being raised about environmental problems. Chemical Council. In view of the fact that responsibility for controlling pesticides and other chemicals is split up among a number of government agencies. Sen. Ribicoff suggests that a federal council on chemicals might be an effective way of coordinating agency activities in these areas. Dr. Wiesner agrees that much better interagency coordination is urgently needed and the problem is being actively studied. But, he says, he does not endorse the idea of a federal chemical council. He suggests that when the hearings are over the committee might have some pertinent suggestions on how to achieve better interagency coordination.
AEC Defends Fuel Processing Proposal The Atomic Energy Commission's proposal to supply spent reactor fuel for reprocessing by Nuclear Fuel Services got a thorough questioning at hearings before the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy. NFS is a subsidiary of W. R. Grace, and American Machine and Foundry owns a minority interest; it plans to build the reprocessing plant in western New York. AEC is about ready to sign a contract with NFS. Under the contract, the commission would provide the base load of fuel to be processed during the first five years of plant operation. Some committee members fear that there would not be enough spent fuel from private reactors to keep NFS going and AEC would have to channel spent fuel to NFS for many years after the five-year limit. Other members think that AEC support of NFS would create a monopoly. In addition, it is claimed that it would cost the Government more money to process its fuels at the NFS plant than in AEC plants. AEC Commissioner Robert E. Wilson agrees that it would cost a little more to process fuels at the NFS plant. He points out, though, that this would be a small price to pay to get industry into chemical reprocessing of fuel and relieve the Government of the responsibility. He also agrees that AEC might have to supply additional fuel to NFS for a few years. He told the committee, however, that AEC has made no commitments in this direction and does not guarantee
AEC Commissioner Robert E. Wilson Small price for Industry participation
the financial or technical success of the plant. As for competition, Dr. Wilson says AEC is ready to make the same kind of fuel supply agreement with any potential competitor for NFS. In his opinion, the West Coast may be an attractive site for a second fuel reprocessing plant a few years from now. At the end of the hearings, most committee members seemed convinced that the need for an industrial fuel processing plant outweighs potential disadvantages. Urgent Need. AEC has two goals in encouraging the development of a private chemical processing industry, Dr. Wilson says. One is to avoid spending money to expand government processing facilities. The other is to demonstrate as soon as practicable in a privately owned plant the economics of chemical processing of different types of fuels for privately owned reactors. This would bring to bear on this part of the fuel cycle private industry's capability for lowering costs, Dr. Wilson says. Chemical processing is an important part of AEC's program for achieving competitive nuclear power, Dr. Wilson says. Processing cost must be considered early in the conceptual design of a reactor and has a significant influence on power cost. For this reason, it is urgent that industry learn the true cost of reprocessing for different types of fuel elements, Dr. Wilson says. Present charges for fuel reprocessing are estimated from a theoretical processing plant and are not true costs, Dr. Wilson says. He points out that it would be hard to determine true costs if processing were earned out in large government plants designed primarily for other types of fuel. To bolster the NFS project, AEC will not compete for irradiated fuels from AEC licensees. To the extent the NFS reprocesses specified fuels on reasonable terms, AEC will no longer accept such fuels, Dr. Wilson says. But before AEC withdraws its processing offer it will make sure that reprocessing services for a given fuel are available at what AEC considers reasonable rates, Dr. Wilson says. NFS Views. NFS wants to start construction of the plant immediately, Thomas C. Runion, president of Nuclear Fuel Services, told the committee. If this is done, construction would be complete by April 1965, and the plant would be in operation before
the end of that year. Mr. Runion says spent fuel elements are piling up and could create a serious storage problem for AEC by the end of 1965. Mr. Runion is optimistic that the processing plant will be a success, although anticipated profits will not be high. He estimates that, with the plant operating 300 days a year, NFS will realize a return of 3.6% after taxes on its capital investment. This is a smaller return than is usually anticipated in the chemical industry for projects of this size and risk. AEC insists that charges for chemical processing must not place undue burdens on the nuclear power industry, Mr. Runion says. For this reason NFS "cut expenses to the bone"; there was no room for elaborate buildings or large staffs. However, he points out, this austerity did not extend to health or safety factors in plant design or operation. Why would two large business corporations interested in profits embark on a venture where profits are limited and there are strong elements of risk? According to Mr. Runion, both Grace and AMF want to take part in a pioneering venture. They also hope that, by exploring frontiers in technology, NSF may acquire know-how which would help it to earn a normal profit.
BRIEFS Radioactive fallout will be the subject of hearings slated to open next week before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The committee wants to know the extent of fallout contamination in food, the estimated uptake of fallout by people, and what is being done in the field of countermeasures.
The new deputy director of the National Science Foundation will be Dr. John T. Wilson, special assistant to the president of the University of Chicago. Prior to going to Chicago in 1961, Dr. Wilson was director of NSF's division of biological and medical sciences.
Dr. Robert L. Sproull, director of Cornell's Materials Science Center, will take over as director of the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency on Sept. 1. He replaces Dr. J. P. Ruina. MAY
2 7, 1963
C&EN
35
