News of the Week
PANEL UPBEAT ON NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL As public events concerning nuclear power go, it was a very polite affair. The National Academy of Sciences' forum on nuclear wastes drew a packed house last week in Washington, D.C. But, except for a couple of groups distributing antinuclear leaflets outside the door, the attenders seemed to have come not to express their own views, but to hear the opinions of the NAS roster of experts on nuclear waste disposal. That roster, it soon became apparent, was weighted somewhat toward advocates of nuclear power. On the question of whether current technology is capable of providing adequate isolation of nuclear wastes, for instance, views of the five panel members varied only from a definite
at Three Mile Island, are people likely to allow nuclear waste disposal sites to be developed, regardless of their technological safety? The forum focused specifically on the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants. It did not address either military wastes or low-level radioactive wastes, such as those generated by hospitals. The strongest statement from the panel that the technology already exists to dispose of nuclear wastes adequately came from Rep. Mike McCormack (D.-Wash.). He favors deep burial of wastes in stable geologic formations, such as salt domes, basalt, or granite. Panelists Bertram Wolfe, vice president of General Electric and general manager of that
ford University, the fifth member of the panel, did not comment on the technical feasibility of waste disposal. He did say, however, that economic considerations are not likely to put any restriction on the way nuclear wastes are handled. " We already are going forward with an orderly program" to demonstrate the feasibility of deep burial of nuclear wastes, McCormack explains. Test holes are being drilled into basalt formations at Hanford, Wash. Heaters will be placed in the holes at first to simulate the effect of thermal energy that comes from the decaying radioactive wastes on the surrounding rock. Later, actual spent fuel elements will be sealed in the holes in a retrievable manner to see how the
Participants in NAS-sponsored forum included Kenneth Arrow of Stanford, Terry Lash of NRDC, Konrad Krauskopf of Stanford, Rep. Mike McCormack, Daniel Koshiand of University of California, Berkeley, and E. Bright Wilson of Harvard
"yes" to a more uncertain "maybe, but the techniques still need to be demonstrated." Even this difference turned out not to be very great. Those panel members who think that present technology is adequate to the task of isolation also say that there is no need to rush into any system of permanent nuclear waste disposal since presently used interim storage methods are adequate for decades. Thus, the panel agreed that what needs to be done is to demonstrate the feasibility of safe, permanent disposal of nuclear wastes. The panel shied away from less technical, but perhaps equally important, questions asked from the audience: Can the public safely assume that procedures governing nuclear waste disposal are being stringently followed, or, after the accident 6
C&ENNov. 26, 1979
company's nuclear fuel and services division, and Konrad K. Krauskopf, associate dean of the school of earth sciences and professor of geochemistry at Stanford University, also believe that present technology is very likely adequate for deep burial, but they expect to find some unforeseen, but surmountable, problems once actual site development begins. Terry R. Lash, staff scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says that not enough data yet exist to assure the safe disposal of nuclear wastes. However, the technology is available to run the tests needed to generate that data, and, like the others on the panel, he calls for immediate initiation of such a demonstration program. Kenneth J. Arrow, Nobel laureate and professor of economics at Stan-
radiation coming from them affects the basalt. "The urgency in permanent disposal is one of convincing you and, as a matter of fact, me, that it is possible to do it," says Wolfe. Technically, it is feasible, he says, but the public and the industry need a demonstration as quickly as possible so that the issue can be resolved and, he hopes, nuclear power development resumed. Wolfe criticizes the government for not having done an effective job of demonstrating waste disposal. This has not happened, he believes, because responsibility for this area has not been given to a single person. McCormack, too, is concerned that demonstration projects for nuclear waste disposal have made little progress since he held hearings on the issue in 1976. D
