500 



"intriguing concept" . . . James L. Liverman, acting assistant secretary of energy for 

 environment, said the department's study of samples from the ocean floor turned up 

 "no surprises which would preclude the use of the sediments as a confinement 

 medium." (Associated Press, May 16, 1978). 



Aside from the obvious fact that a four-year, seven-million-dollar research pro- 

 gram is hardly "preliminary work," I simply do not understand how deadly radioac- 

 tive canisters that leak into an unknown environment containing very sensitive life 

 forms can be considered an "intriguing concept." Perhaps as a plot for another 

 Hollywood science-fiction horror movie, but certainly not as a viable program which 

 considers safety as a paramount consideration. And where does this latest "mad 

 scientist" syndrome suggest is the best location for "ultimate disposal?" Six hundred 

 miles north of Hawaii! "Plutonium Pollution in Paradise" might be a successful 

 movie title, but as reality, it seems more like a nuclear nightmare to a common 

 sense engineer like myself. 



Clifton E. Curtis testified on July 11, 1978, at those same committee hearings on 

 behalf of some three million people in numerous environmental groups around the 

 nation and the world. While his emphasis was on legal aspects of the problem (he 

 represents the Center for Law and Social Policy), his conclusion ends with the clear 

 statement that "Regarding radioactive waste that might be dumped on or beneath 

 the ocean floor, the necessary research activities have barely begun. Given the 

 extremely hazardous nature of radioactive wastes, their disposal into our oceans is 

 fraught with potentially irreparable consequences. Absent convincing research that 

 such adverse consequences will not occur, the current U.S. policy (dating back to 

 1970) that prohibits the use of the oceans for the dumping of radiological wastes 

 must be maintained." (Emphasis mine.) 



SPACE AND GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL 



If seabed disposal does not "provide reasonable assurance that there is no signifi- 

 cant threat to public health and safety (Deutch report, fundamental principles), 

 what other options are there? 



Fortunately, no serious consideration (to my knowledge) has been given to an- 

 other science fiction concept of sending rockets loaded with radioactive garbage into 

 deep space or, God forbid, into the sun. Rocket firings are not totally reliable, and 

 accidents could contaminate large areas of the population. And even eagerness to 

 get nuclear power plants off the waste disposal hook, cannot justify tampering with 

 the unknown processes of our local star upon which all Earth life depends. There 

 obviously is no way to predict accurately what the long-range consequences might 

 be, and we only have one test model which is not replaceable, the sun. 



Now then, if the sea and the sky are unacceptable safe places for radioactive 

 waste disposal, then all that is left is the land. But where on land, and in whose 

 back yard will it be accepted as safe? New York voters and California voters have 

 recently said emphatically, "not ours." And English and Japanese governments 

 don't have sufficient land of their own, and so must return their wastes back to the 

 U.S.A. where they came from. Aside from the political question of State approval (or 

 veto) for locating a Federal depository, is geological disposal a currently viable 

 option? See Appendix C which covers the following discussion. 



Both of these questions are addressed in the 9 June 1978 issue of Science maga- 

 zine. The title says it all: "Nuclear Wastes: The Science of Geologic Disposal Seen as 

 Weak." While Federal agencies such as ERDA have declared that the only problems 

 are "straightforward technology and engineering development," the article says "It 

 comes as a surprise, therefore, to discover now that there seems to be an emerging 

 consensus among earth scientists familiar with waste disposal problems, that the old 

 sense of certitude was misplaced. Although these scientists continue to find the 

 concept of geologic disposal attractive intuitively, some are stating explicitly that 

 the scientific feasibility of the concept remains to be established." And ". . . ac- 

 knowledgment that a secure scientific foundation for geologic disposal is still lack- 

 ing, points to an important milestone in official deliberations over radioactive waste 

 management." 



"... five USGS scientists observed: . . . some key geologic questions are unan- 

 swered, and answers are needed before the risk associated with geologic contain- 

 ment can be confidently evaluated . . . interactions are not well understood, and 

 this lack of understanding contributes considerable uncertainty to evaluations of the 

 risk of geologic disposal of high-level waste ..." (See also the Department of the 

 Interior news release of May 2, 1978: "scientists conclude that a number of potential 

 geologic stumbling blocks must first be dealt with.") 



"A panel of eminent earth scientists which has made an evaluation for EPA of 

 the state of knowledge relevant to geologic disposal has put the matter much more 

 strongly. "... We are surprised and dismayed to discover how few relevant data 



