Page 2391 - 1970S

The nuclear garbage issue was

highlighted in 1973 when it was re–

ported that more than 500,000 gal–

lons of highly radioactive waste

liquid had leaked from storage

tanks at the Hanford facility near

Richland, Washington. Fortunately,

the escaped waste did not reach the

water table about 150 feet below the

tank or the Columbia River. The

radio-nuclides apparently only pen–

etrated downward about 45 feet be–

low the tank.

Because Hanford has been in the

business of producing plutonium for

thirty years, it has been estimated

that there is more radioactivity

stored there than would be released

during an entire nuclear war. In a

nuclear war, such a site may prove

to be an inviting target. Seventy-five

percent of the nation's nuclear

wastes are stored at Hanford. Sorne

of this highly radioactive waste

is

plutonium, with a half life of 24,000

years. (That means that 24,000 years

from now, half of that plutonium

will still exist!) Plutonium is so

deadly that only a few rnillionths of

a gram will cause cancer.

The 500,000 Year Headache

The nuclear waste problem of

power plants, as compared to the 90

million gallons of highly radioactive

waste now stored at the Hanford,

Idaho Falls, and Savannah, Geor–

gia, AEC sites, is presently small.

However, as nuclear power sites

in–

crease in the coming decades, the

problems will grow, and the amount

of commercial waste will increase

dramatically. What can be done

with it?

The problem is a gargantuan

headache to al! nations that are

using nuclear reactors, or plan to do

so. Britain, France, West Germany,

South Korea, Mexico, Spain, ltaly,

India, Bangladesh and many others

are involved.

At this time, burial still seems the

answer of choice. But there are

problems with this, too. So incred–

ibly potent are the wastes that they

must remain sealed off from man's

environment for as long as 500,000

18

years - or for roughly 20,000

human generations! Bequeathing

such an awesome legacy to future

generations constitutes a profound

ethical and moral dilemma.

All told, the Atomic Energy Com–

mission says tbat about 3,000 metric

tons of nuclear wastes will be pro–

duced annually by the year 2000.

The nuclear wastes removed from

the 30 tons of spent fuel produced

annually by the standard one rnil–

lion kilowatt power plant can be

compressed into 60 cubic feet, as–

serts the AEC.

Put it another way, a 1,000 mega–

watt plant produces in one year as

much radioactivity in waste as

about a 20-megaton nuclear bomb.

By the end of the century, the an–

nual waste from the estimated 1,000

U. S. plants would be roughly

equivalent to 20,000 megatons. ln–

credibly, this would be the radio–

active equivalent of one million

Hiroshima-type nuclear bombs!

What then does the future hold

for the peacetime use of nuclear en–

ergy?

Present thinlúng envisions clus–

ters of nuclear power plants in care–

fully located nuclear complexes with

fue! fabrication plants, processing

plants and waste handling equip–

ment all located at a central spot.

This cluster development , also,

would facilitate the safety aspect of

nuclear energy. One major draw–

back to the idea of "nuclear parks,"

however, is that power losses in

transmission of the energy to the

cities where the e!ectrical energy is

consumed would be enormous. New

ways to transport the energy with–

out the subsequent power drain

would have to be found.

Sorne future nuclear plants will

probably be located offshore, where

tbere

is

enough ocean available to

neutralize the problem of thermal

pollut ion caused by nuclear plants.

Since most nuclear plants today are

the water cooled LWRs (light water

reactors), the time is coming when

there will not be enough feasible

reactor sites on inland rivers. No–

body, it seems, wants to be living

next door to a reactor plant, and this

cuts down the site options available.

The Perilous Atom and Man

Like tire, atomic energy can be a

demon or an angel. On the one

hand, there

is

the angelic promise of

more and more electrical energy to

make life more comfortable and to

raise the world's present standard of

living. But there is the devilish risk

that either accident or sabotage can

eventually cause a serious catas–

trophe. If just one serious nuclear

accident or act of sabotage were to

occur, it would become so politically

volatile an issue that it could spell

the demise of peacetime uses of

atomic energy. As Dr. Edward

Teller, pioneer in nuclear research,

has said, "The nuclear industry

could be wiped out by one acci–

dent." The question we must contin–

ually reassess is: How can officials

and scientists make sure that the

benefits derivable from nuclear en–

ergy always far outweigh the risks?

Dr. Hans Alfven, a 1970 Nobel

Prize Laureate. has said: "The reactor

constructors claim they have devoted