letters Nuclear emissions limits
DEARSIR: In “The nuclear industry and air pollution’’ (ES&T, May 1970, page 392), Rivera-Corder0 refers to “maximum allowable limits” and indicates that the releases of gaseous activation products and noble gases have varied from 0.0026% of the limit at Indian Point to as much as 28% of the limit at Humboldt Bay. Some readers may recognize that Indian Point is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR),that Humboldt is a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), and may erroneously conclude that the spread in percentage of release limits between them is typical. As Rivera-Corder0 suggests, the long gas holdup capability of PWR’Senables them to minimize gaseous releases (by the decay of the shortlived nuclides). However, it should be indicated that meteorology of the Humboldt site is relatively unfavorable. Its release limits are therefore much lower than those of most other plants of comparable size. Humboldt has also operated with a number of developmental-type fuel elements, which have made for an unusually high gaseous release. A recent Bureau of Radiological Health summary suggests that BWR’S,in general, operate at about 1% of gaseous release limits, and PWR’S at less than 0.01%. It should be noted in this connection that although both discharge tritium at less than 1% of release limits, in the PWR’Sliquid effluent 3H releases were about 100 times more than the BWR’S. It seems to me that Rivera-Corder0 has incorrectly stated the considerations for limiting the release of 10.5year half-life *jKr from fuel reprocessing plants to the atmosphere. These have more to do with the eventual buildup of worldwide background levels from the general distribution of *jKr, rather than the local dose levels in the vicinity of the reprocessing plants. Coleman and Liberace (in the Nov. 1966 issue of Radiological Health) have projected that by the year 2000, the background increase occasioned by 85Kr could be 21 mrem./ yr. and by 2050, 30-70 mrem./yr. While the problem does not appear to be immediate, it appears desirable to have some technology for s5Kr removal available and “on-line” within the next 25 years. 786 Environmental Science & Technology
It seems to me difficult to assess the air pollution implications of nuclear technology other than by comparison to that from the alternate choices for the generation of electricity. I suggest that such a comparison shows that nuclear plants produce lower environmental concentrations of obnoxious agents, relative to established protection standards, than do their conventional counterparts. Andrew P. Hull Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, L.I., N . Y . 11973
Don’t give up on the Establishment
DEARSIR: Since receiving the June issue of ES&T I have read and reread the Viewpoint by Denis Hayes (page 4611.. It seems that the organization he represents, if his editorial represents it, has given up on the “Establishment.” In fact, he concludes, “We will not appeal any more to the conscience of institutions because institutions have no conscience. If we want them to do what is right-we must make them do what is right.” This statement and previous statements, in my opinion, are not valid since they apparently are based on assumptions that: (1) No action is being taken (or perhaps no correct action); (2) Mr. Hayes’ organization knows what is “right.” The wide variety of laws and federal, state, local, industrial, educational, and informational programs, with heavy financial support through the 1960’s, I believe, disprove the first. We have intense action underway in the U S . to solve environmental problems and to satisfy the needs of the people. Admittedly, action is still segmented, but we are slowly coming around to a more coherent, ecological systems approach. Many of the things being done are “right” in my opinion. I believe it would be hard to disprove, for example, that construction of pollution control facilities is not “right.” That much constructive work is underway is shown by the Outlook section of the June issue itself. It is certainly beneficial for additional people to work on problems of our society. It seems to me, though,
that abandoning all hope on existing things, organizations, and methods is not a very constructive way to effect them. This is particularly bad, also, in my opinion, when it is implied that one organization knows the “right” way and will try to enforce it.
W. M. McLellon Fern Park, Fla. 32730 A universal index
DEARSIR: The article on “The nuclear industry and air pollution” (ES&T, May 1970, page 392). points to a basic issue that should apply to all man-caused activities that affect the environment. The author declares, “Of course, a fair comparison of the amounts of radioactivity released should consider all activities required to produce a given quantity of power.” The broader implication of this statement is that one should, in assessing the environmental effects of any human activity, consider all man-effected steps leading from the removal of a natural resource to the final execution of that activity. A good example would be the case of the electric car. The popular belief that this type of vehicle is pollution-free is based on the erroneous criterion that only the environment polluting effects associated with the actual operation of an electric car be considered in comparing with, for example, the inteinal combustion-engine car. A valid comparison can only be made by starting with the mining of the energy-bearing raw material, and accounting for all the pollution effects (chemical, thermal, physical, biological, and, perhaps, esthetic) resulting from all the processing steps that lead to the operation of the vehicle. Perhaps we might adopt as a possible universal index of pollution the “TOtal Irreversible Entropy Production” chargeable to a unit of human activity. For the automobile this would be the TIEP per mile traveled. This is basically an efficiency index, or, more relevantly, a waste index, that could ultimately be applied globally if the human race is seriously concerned with its relationship to nature. Raymond L. Chuan Atlantic Research Corp. Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626
