ES&T
LETTERS Nuclear waste disposal Dear Sir: I read the Outlook article, "Nuclear waste disposal: A case of benign neglect?" which appeared in the May 1982 issue of ES&T with much chagrin. Bette Hileman has succeeded in confusing the issue of disposal of nuclear wastes to a greater extent. She has decided that the nu clear power industry is the sole source of radioactive wastes (as per her defi nitions on p. 27 3A); Τ believe it would be appropriate to point out that highlevel radwastes are also generated by the nuclear weapons program and low-level radwastes are also generated by medical facilities. The reprocessing issue is handled very one-sidedly. The statement "A possible advantage of reprocessing would occur 100 years later, when the radioactivity. . ." (emphasis mine) is very misleading. The definite and real advantages of reprocessing are the isolation of the high-level wastes ( H L W s ) , reduction in volume of the H L W s , and the reuse of the nuclear fuel as a nuclear fuel. Hasn't Hileman ever heard of mixed oxide fuels? Plu tonium isn't used only for weapons. The idea that a reprocessed fuel ship ment might be damaged or stolen dis plays a real naivete with regard to such operations. How do you move and hide several hundred tons of shipping casks? Where do you put your repro cessing plant once you've hijacked the shipment? The monetary investment in such a venture would be astronom ical; it would be cheaper and less time-consuming to mine and enrich your own uranium. Thus, the possi bility of hijacking is a ludicrous argu ment against reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The following statement regarding repositories is also very misleading: "If groundwater were to enter a salt bed repository and dissolve radioactive materials . . ." Dissolution does not occur instantaneously (as the above sentence implies). Water would have to eat through the liner, the overpack, and the canister in order to get to the vitrified material. The leach rate of such material is easily measurable only when the vitrified material is ground up into a state such that there is a maximum surface area to mass ratio. This is not a realistic representation of a contained waste. The leach rate is
also time-dependent after contact oc curs, decreasing with time after initial liquid-solid interaction. The ultimate solution to the problem of disposal of all radioactive wastes is not simple, but it is achievable. There are considerable advances being made in this area by countries all over the world, many of which are performing fuel reprocessing and vitrifying their H L W s . A balanced view of the bene fits and drawbacks of nuclear power production will assist an informed public and government in choosing the appropriate methodologies for radwaste disposal. Robert Litman Chemistry Training Instructor Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant Nashua, N.H. 03062 Dear Sir: The article "Nuclear waste disposal: A case of benign neglect?" (ES&T, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 2 7 1 275A) provided a fair and compre hensive overview of the various ques tions surrounding this volatile issue. After reading this article, other ES& Τ readers may also be interested in knowing that a means toward a so lution involving geologic repositories is, in fact, a reality. They may also be interested in knowing that the usual "confrontation" between the opposing camps has been replaced with a spirit of cooperation within that means. The means is actually a series of at least 10 standards documents that can be used for such things as uniform geologic site selection and even oper ations monitoring. The documents have been under development for al most one year through an organization known as A S T M [American Society for Testing and Materials]. To date, geologists, mining and civil engineers, utility physicists, government agencies, and academicians have contributed equally to develop these documents, which focus on rock properties for de termining the behavior of various rocks contemplated for storage of nuclear waste in underground chambers. The program began in 1981, thanks to a request and grant from the Nu clear Regulatory Commission, and has expanded into 10 documents, as of this writing, that are currently under con sideration within the A S T M fullconsensus standards development system. Amazingly, this concentrated effort has not been a major expendi ture for any of the parties involved, and it offers a unique opportunity to ES& Τ readers. Those persons inter ested in this subject have the oppor tunity to join the A S T M committee responsible for the standards and to contribute to and comment on the
draft documents. A S T M is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1898. Pamela Bateman Whiteaker ASTM Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 EPA's fiscal 1983 budget Dear Sir: After reading the guest edi torial in the August issue of ES& T, I am compelled to offer a rebuttal to Dr. DiGiano's interpretation of EPA's fiscal 1983 budget for research and development. DiGiano claims that reductions in EPA R & D funding contravene congressional mandates for achieving a clean and safe environ ment. During my seven years as a se nior manager in EPA's Office of Re search and Development I have seen clear and continuing congressional mandates—mandates to achieve en vironmental results, not to spend in creasing amounts of money. EPA's fiscal year 1983 research budget en sures the attainment of environmental results, with a reduction in resources. The program is structured to focus directly on the agency's regulatory programs and on the country's most pressing environmental problems. Specifically, we will emphasize im proving the scientific basis for permits and regulations, meeting all re search-related statutory deadlines, and providing state and local government with useful research information and technical support. While it is true that the resources for the research program have been reduced, much of this re duction was possible because mature research programs have produced the outputs for which they were originally designed. The water and energy re search programs are especially good cases in point. DiGiano stated that "a severe blow is being dealt to water quality re search." He fails to recognize that re ductions in water quality research funding reflect EPA progress and completions in a number of areas. These include: completion of the water quality criteria for the 65 priority pollutant classes, in which we have invested $25 million since 1979; the Great Lakes research program, for which $31.5 million has been spent since 1971 ; successful development of water monitoring techniques; research support to the effluent guidelines program; and demonstration projects on the land application of sludge. We oriented the water program to focus more directly on the highest priority research areas rather than on a larger number of lower priority subject areas and looked carefully at our manageEnviron. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 12, 1982
637A
ment tactics. For example, we will now be conducting our toxic pollutants re search within our in-house program since we believe it more effective to develop toxic pollutant fate and transport models in-house and use extramural research for validation activities later. DiGiano also comments on EPA's funding for drinking water research at universities. Although detailed plans for fiscal year 1983 are still being de veloped, I do not anticipate any dis proportionate reductions in drinking water research carried out by univer sities as opposed to that done by con tractors. There is certainly no change in policy in this area. DiGiano's final point relates to an alleged "phase-out mode" of EPA's university grant program. This is not true. EPA maintains its commitment to enhancing its research capability by building up, outside the federal gov ernment, expertise and dedicated professionals through a variety of mechanisms. ORD's [Office of Re search and Development] successful Exploratory Grants and Centers pro grams are representative of our ongo ing effort to carry out fundamental research in universities in support of the activities of the agency's base programs.
The Exploratory Research Centers, established at eight leading universities across the U.S. and funded through cooperative agreements, conduct basic research in areas ranging from groundwater to control technology. The Competitive Grants Program, which continues to award new grants and continuation grants to academic institutions, is the agency focal point for identifying and supporting mis sion-related basic research designed to strengthen our capability to respond to environmental problems. Even though the total resources for these programs have decreased somewhat in the past year, the percentage of ORD's re sources devoted to these activities re mains constant. In short, nationwide fiscal con straints compel us to take a hard look at EPA's entire R & D program. We focused our laboratory resources to more effectively support regulation while keeping our long-term research at a constant percentage of our overall budget. As a result, we are doing our job better—doing what needs to be done with fewer resources! Courtney Riordan Acting Assistant Administrator for Re search and Development U.S. EPA Washington, D.C. 20460
BENZENE...
safely monitored for OSHA and EPA compliance testing with CENTURY Portable Organic Vapor Analyzers. The CENTURY Organic Vapor Analyzers (OVA) offer a conven ient means for monitoring and analysis of benzene concentra tions in a wide variety of samples. With the OVA, benzene concen trations can be monitored from less than 1 ppm to the percent level. In addition, the instrument is suitable for Class I, Division 1 hazardous areas. Get laboratory accuracy — and industrial ruggedness — in a compact, portable analyzer. Contact us today for complete details. Foxboro Analytical, A Division of The Foxboro Company, RO. Box 5449, South Norwalk, CT 06856 (203) 853-1616 TWX: 710-468-3054. With Foxboro, you have ambient air analysis under control.
FOXBORO
CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CARD 638A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 12, 1982
Response to Dr. Riordan's rebuttal I am pleased that Dr. Riordan has taken the time to read and respond to my editorial. His rebuttal is a healthy sign that E P A cares about how the academic community perceives its re search program. I hope my remarks did not imply that university re searchers interpret the mandate of Congress as being to spend money without solving the problem. My point is simply that in the course of 10 years of research we learned more about the questions being asked and have come to realize that the answers are not easy. Some of the original questions have been answered but it seems that more complicated ones have taken their place, and this suggests that more re search is needed in the next 10 years. The University Centers of Excellence are very important in this effort as are the hundreds of individual researchers in other small and large institutions. Despite Dr. Riordan's comforting words, the EPA Exploratory Program is perceived as a tempting target for budget cuts because it drains funds from other EPA research programs that are closer to the regulatory pro cess. While national attention is now riveted on solving the budget deficit problem, there is no doubt that envi ronmental problems lie in wait. The academic community must continue to challenge government budget cuts in such research if the goal of improved environmental quality is to remain part of the equation used to judge the ef fectiveness of "doing more with less." Francis A. DiGiano, Professor Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, N.C. Bird cover Dear Sir: I have just received a copy of the August issue of ES&T and as usual it is impressive. Much as I en joyed the article on wildlife toxicology, the bird on the front cover is described as an adult peregrine, Falco peregrinus, when it is in fact a fledgling ~ 1 0 - 1 2 weeks old. Note particularly the down on the breast, crown, and nape as well as the buffish-brown cheeks, breast, and throat, "smear" spots on the upper breast (distinct spotting and barring in adults), and general earthy brown head and upper parts with rufous-buff tips to the forehead. Ν. Μ. Shennan 62 Manor Way Uxbridge Middlesex, UB8 2 BQ, U.K.
