14

WASTE INVENTORY

Senator EAGLETON. The AEC has maintained a complete inventory and log of radioactive materials from underground reserves through enrichment and use to disposal. It provides a model for overall mineral resources monitoring and control.

Can this experience be incorporated in a national materials policy, regarding other materials which have a potential for environmental danger, as suggested by Senator Boggs?

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe the intent here is to see whether or not it would be possible to maintain an inventory of materials which have been utilized in some way and moved into some part of the biosphere, where they might eventually become a hazard to the environment. The idea would then be to be sure that one knows where these materials exist.

In our particular case, we do keep inventories, of course, of our materials that we have disposed of, and, if they are fissile materials, we keep, indeed, a very, very close inventory on very small quantities, at least down to one-gram quantities. If they are radioactive, we do keep, as has been indicated in my earlier testimony, very close tabs on what form this material is in, where it is located, and what type of material it is, and we monitor, as Mr. Belter has indicated, and as my testimony has indicated.

It is somewhat questionable to me whether or not this type of inventory is economically feasible with the very large masses of material that would be generally involved in a disposal program.

We certainly would like to make available to the commitee, to Senator Boggs and to anyone else interested, all of the capabilities we have, and the methods we use to do this, if this is your desire. However, I do have to indicate that it is probably a little expensive for normal utilization.

I might also say that we have a materials program which makes an inventory, or makes a best estimate on a continuing basis, of the available reserves of uranium. We keep track of those who are drilling holes for uranium exploration, and they turn in their findings to the Atomic Energy Commission.

These are compiled, and recorded, and, in this sense, we even try to keep some tabs on where the uranium is located before it is orig inally mined. In this sense, we would therefore have some ideas on where, let us say, uranium-not only where it can be mined, but where it could be released to the biosphere by any conceivable sort of operation that one might get into at some future time.

I think that summarizes it.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL

Senator EAGLETON. As you know, the President recently created a Council on Environmental Quality, and it is my understanding that the AEC is not a member of this Council.

In light of your extensive experience in waste management and disposal, what provision has been made for your participation in the

Mг. THOMPSON. To my best knowledge, there is no present provision for us to have membership on the Council, although it would

seem

Mr. BELTER. At the time when membership of the Council was being considered, as I recall, the Atomic Energy Commission's position was that we would have liked to have been a member of the Council, but our suggestion was not accepted for some reason.

Our comment on the proposed formation of the Council was that we would be very pleased to serve as a national member of that Council. Senator EAGLETON. On Tuesday's hearings, Senator Baker made a rather intriguing observation, that went on at some length. I won't read the entire excerpt to you. What I will do, or the committee will do, is Xerox the extracts from the record and send them to you for your written answer for the record.

(The remarks of Senator Baker, extracted from Tuesday's session, and Mr. Thompson's response follow :)

[Senator Baker to Secretary Finch :]

"I think your biggest bet and bluest chips ought to be based on what is to follow, and what is to come. Just as an example, there is a man in the scientific community for whom I have very great respect who 'soars' with me on occasion about the future. He has pointed out to me that by the utilization of existing, known, nuclear technology we probably could build, say, a 12,000-megawatt power center in New York City, and with that on site we could produce the entire electrical requirements for Manhattan Island. We would have enough heat left over from that process to provide all the water supply for Manhattan Island, by distillation of waste and distillation of the waters of the East and Hudson Rivers. We would also have enough heat left over from that process to melt the ice and snow from the principal thoroughfares of New York City.

"He points out that New York uses something over a billion gallons of water a day-1.2 billion gallons is the estimate I have here. They discharge about 8 million tons of solid waste per year, and they use about 700 megawatts of electricity.

"It seems to me that an approach of this sort, that is, the utilization of single approach to the problem of waste disposal, would not incidentally solve New York's chronic water problem and would solve the problem of a chronic shortage of electricity, and alleviate the threat of brownout, to say nothing of a blackout. "It would do things that we never have been able to do before, and would fit neatly into the concept of the objectives of the Council for Environmental Quality established by the President.

"But, you see, that costs money, too. Just as all of us have been railing against the shortage of resources, I rail against the shortage of national treasure to undertake an experimental project of this magnitude, that might in fact solve all of the environmental problems of that area.

"So, finally and tortuously, the question: Would you think it possible to undertake an examination of a project as futuristic as the one I have just tried to describe, or some other project of a similar bold type, that might try, no matter how massive it might be, to meet all of the problems of environmental control, not just one of them at a time?”

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

(See exhibit entitled, "Weldon Spring Plant," previously submitted, p. 1051.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I might return for a moment, if I might, to the Weldon Spring matter. I would like to make one short statement here, and that is that I am informed that there is, as far as we know, no dispute between HEW and the AEC.

The Army, the AEC, and the General Services Administration have so far been involved in discussions in regard to the Weldon Springs site, Mr. Perge, who is a member of our Operational Safety Divi

sion, might be able to answer some of these questions today, although perhaps it is just as well, if you are short on time, to postpone this and we will try to supply these in writing.

It is up to you.

Senator EAGLETON. I would prefer it later

Mr. THOMPSON. Fine.

Senator EAGLETON. Because my knowledge of the area and the problems contained therein is general and vague; Congressman Hungate has a very specific knowledge on it. It is in his Congressional District, and I would prefer it in writing to me, Senator Symington, and Congressman Hungate.

(See p. 1051 for information subsequently submitted.)

Senator EAGLETON. We have a statement from Senator Boggs, which will be made a part of the record.

(The statement of Senator Boggs follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. J. CALEB BOGGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mr. Chairman, the many statements and answers that we have received during these four days of hearings will help each of us, I know, assess the problem of solid waste disposal. I know I express the opinion of the subcommittee when I thank each of the witnesses for their time and efforts.

In addition, I wish to give my personal thanks for the many comments on the amendment that I offered, to create a National Commission on Materials Policy. I believe it is fair to say that not a single witness objected to the need for such a policy investigation, although they objected to the mechanism to achieve it. In each case, it was argued that this study could be handled through the President's Environmental Quality Council or delegated among various departments.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to express the opinion that the witnesses may have misinterpreted the thrust of the amendment, which you and many members of this subcommittee have cosponsored.

It was not our intention in submitting this amendment to assume the functions of the Bureau of the Mines, or to siphon authority from the Office of Science and Technology. Rather, the commission concept grew from the realization that we as a nation needed a fresh look, a fresh look from the outside, to properly evaluate the numerous aspects of our nation's materials use and reuse.

If we as a nation take a hard look at our material requirements and use, we can, in effect, catch a lot of problems of environmental degredation before these problems occur, I believe. To state it another way, if we look at the materials process, and seek preventatives to pollution caused by materials, I believe that we will develop a more effective and rational process toward environmental enhancement, than seeking just to clean wastes from our environment.

If I may quote from the study, "Toward A National Materials Policy," on this point: "It is of the utmost importance that, from the initial stages of production of materials through their ultimate use and disposal, we conduct our operations and activities in such a way as to minimize pollution of air and water and to avoid despoilation of the environment, both physical and biological." In arguing against creation of such a commission, a witness for the Department of the Interior, told us that “adequate authority already exists to conduct such studies," as a commission might conduct. The Office of Science and Technology told us that "we do need a national materials policy, and we do need to understand on a materials balance basis how our needs for materials relate to potential supply." If these two statements are true, I can only conclude that insufficient interests exists for a study leading to such a policy. If insufficient interest exists within the Executive departments, the Congress should authorize an independent group to conduct such an examination.

Practically every witness urged the subcommittee to look on the solid-waste disposal problem from a broad perspective, not a closeup of old cans and rusty cars. That is precisely what a National Commission on Materials Policy would seek to do, not limiting itself to mining or another single discipline.

One witness, for example, said that the Government proposed to examine a definition of materials, then parcel out studies to the "appropriate agencies."