or a glass-like substance and permanent disposal of such material in salt mines. I would like to point out that these and other improved fuel reprocessing technologies already in use offer such a reduction in the volume of high-activity waste from nuclear systems that even with the currently projected nuclear power growth rate, such processed waste from nuclear plants, accumulated between now and the year 2000, will only be comparable in volume to the amount of highactivity waste we have successfully managed in our operations to date. So we are confident and optimistic about the future of waste management in the nuclear power field, and we hope you share some of this confidence and optimism. WASTE MANAGEMENT But now, as I stated I would in opening my remarks, let me extend my thoughts to a more general consideration of nuclear power's effect on waste management and environmental pollution, and for a moment speak more broadly of the atom's possible future role in these areas. As this subcommittee well knows, because of its deep involvement in studies relating many of the natural sciences to man-made problems, we are in the midst of what might be called an "ecological revolution" in our scientific and social thinking. SYSTEM STUDIES With what seems to be a sudden burst of insight, almost everyone from nuclear physicists and microbiologists to urban planners and international bankers are thinking and talking about "systems." In fact, it is getting increasingly difficult these days to argue a subject without someone interjecting a totally irrelevant point and then proving how relevant it might be if we think broadly enough. So at the risk of going a little beyond the immediate concern of this subcommittee, let me inject some far-out thinking on how the extended use of nuclear energy might affect us environmentally. ENERGY Basically, human beings have progressed through the acquisition and application of two things-knowledge and energy. Today we are experiencing an incredible growth-an explosion-and as AEC Chairman I always use that word hesitatingly-an explosion in both knowledge and energy. But in the use of energy we have just begun to tap the possibilities because we have just begun to tap the vast potential of the atom. The fullest development and application of abundant and very economic nuclear energy could have the most dramatic effect on our lives-possibly revolutionizing the way we use our water and air, grow our food, extract and use our raw materials, manufacture our products, recycle our waste, build our cities, and live our daily lives. NUCLEAR POWER While there is not time to sketch out the way all of this might come about, let me catalog some of the things that nuclear power could accomplish economically as it becomes both more available and cheaper. Generate electricity at competitively decreasing costs. Desalt seawater and brackish water. Pump up vast amounts of underground water for agricultural use in some areas of the world. Manufacture steel via electric furnaces. Produce ammonia and phosphorus fertilizers. Process magnesium at the cost of today's aluminum. Economically extract the variety of chemicals in seawater brine. Produce pipeline gas from coal. And ultimately supply general purpose industrial heat. No doubt the members of this subcommittee have heard of the studies on agroindustrial energy centers that have taken place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These studies have concentrated on the way in which large nuclear centers in tropical coastal areas might use nuclear power to desalt seawater and produce fertilizer to support highly scientific farms-food factories and produce large yields of crops on previously unproductive land. An extension of this concept can be carried out to affect our thinking on the use of very cheap nuclear power in more developed areas-in industrialized and urban regions. RESOURCE RECOVERY If the cost of nuclear power can be reduced low enough it becomes, in effect, an abundant raw material with which to perform large-scale alchemy on other materials. It may give us a new dimension of control over our environment by allowing us to economically recycle much of our solid waste, to relieve nature of much of the intolerable burden we have placed on her—and now on ourselves by returning to her in such large amounts, so rapidly, and often in unabsorbable form, the materials we have borrowed and used. Or in simpler and less euphemistic terms-it may let us economically eliminate much of our pollution and junk. In addition, there is the important consideration that in the not-toodistant future the increasing demand for source materials in a highly industrialized world, with a better living standard for all people, will require that we recycle material as well as search farther and dig deeper for new natural resources. I should also add at this point that in the future, when we think in terms of the fullest, most productive use of cheap nuclear energy, the excess heat from the reactor cooling system, now considered somewhat of a liability, will no longer be totally in excess or a liability. It should become in large part a great asset-an important form of energy used productively for industrial processing, space heating, and perhaps for other uses we cannot foresee now. NUPLEX CONCEPT Some members of this subcommittee may be familiar with the futuristic concept of the nuplex that I have included in many of my talks during the past year or so. For those of you who are not, I might briefly explain this idea, which brings into play the thinking of many people in the nuclear field and combines them in a single concept-an ideal toward which we might aim in the future. Basically, the nuplex is a large industrial complex, separate from any urban area, which has as its energy heart a very large nuclear power station-one most likely containing one or more multithousand megawatt breeder reactors and its own fuel recycling facility. The cheap electricity and heat made available by this nuclear system would allow the surrounding complex to perform a variety of industrial miracles. Waste in many forms would be taken in from outlying areas and recycled into essentially new raw materials. SYNTHETIC MATERIALS These would be combined with other natural resources to supply the industrial and manufacturing plants. Able to draw on massive amounts of cheap energy and using highly sophisticated technologies, these plants could turn out the new products of the day. These products would include a great variety of new plastics, solvents, ceramics, metals, and alloys. They might allow us to perform a new level of alchemy-to literally build new materials to specification-new substances like special high- and low-temperature metals for use in extreme space environments, special metals or plastics that are ideal for surgical implantation in the new field of "spare-parts" medicine, or materials that are best for long-lived operation at the bottom of the sea. The range of possibilities perhaps defies the imagination. But of more interest to this subcommittee, I believe, is not what comes out of the nuplex, but what doesn't. This is an industrial complex from which rises no forest of chimneys to pour forth smoke and fumes. Nor does it spew out streams of waste into the nearby rivers and lakes. What it does not use it returns to nature in a most controlled and acceptable form. And this would be an important factor in its economics. A clean environment would be an end product of the nuplex just as important as all the goods and services it produces. The widespread use of the nuplex concept would virtually eliminate the eyesores of the cities and countryside the junkyards, the incinerators and the vast landfill heaps of trash and garbage. More of our land, lakes and waterways could serve our growing recreational needs. Another environmental benefit that would accrue from the nuplex concept is the separation of the city from heavy industry. It might allow us to build new cities designed primarily for human beingsfor their comfort, convenience, commerce, and culture-the type of urban centers that city planners dream of as we in the nuclear field work with our ideal concepts of the agro-industrial centers and the nuplex. CONCLUSIONS While all these thoughts are perhaps far out at a time when we are battling current environmental problems I think they are worth holding up and considering as long-range goals. And I offer them in that context. I know that the work of this subcommittee, and of the other committees in Congress that are so involved in bringing science and tech nology to the public service in the most constructive way, will make a significant contribution to our future progress. We must all work together in this common goal of making science serve the common good. Scientist, engineer, administrator, legislator, industrialist, and educator-we all have a tremendous new level of responsibility in this new and at times awesome age. But if we are willing to make some sacrifices, to cooperate, to listen to and learn from each other, and then move ahead in a concerted effort, we may be able to arrive at a future that offers us both a clean environment and a clean conscience. And this would be a most rewarding combination of goals. Thank you for inviting me to meet with you today. I will be pleased to try to answer any question. HAZARDOUS WASTES Senator SPONG. Thank you, Dr. Seaborg. In the radioactive waste disposal field certain types of waste are completely contained so that they are not released into the environment. Do you anticipate other types of waste that should be looked into to determine if similar practices should be employed? Dr. SEABORG. Do you mean waste in other fields? Senator SPONG. Yes. Dr. SEABORG. Other then the nuclear field and the radioactive field? Senator SPONG. No, we mean in both. Dr. SEABORG. We try to contain, in the nuclear field, as much of the waste as we possibly can, and when it is necessary to release anything to the environment to do it in a controlled manner so that it is released at a concentration which is well below the limit where it might be harmful. I should think that this concept could be applied to other areas as well as those involving radioactive materials. DISPERSION Senator SPONG. In the radioactive waste disposal field low-level wastes are dispersed into nature under careful control and management so as to minimize their impact on the environment and man. This practice of dilution and dispersion is also practiced in the physical and chemical waste fields and has been for a greater length of time. Do you believe that the control of these physical and chemical wastes is adequate to preserve the quality of the environment? Dr. SEABORG. No, I don't think so. I think there are a number of situations where there is dispersal of waste to the environment that could be reduced. There certainly is room for improvement in that area. ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT Senator SPONG. Do you believe that the work of the Atomic Energy Commission on the movement of radioactive waste through the environment is applicable to physical and chemical materials? Do you feel that this experience is being utilized? Dr. SEABORG. Well, some parts of our expertise in this field, I suppose, could be transferred to the field of moving nonradioactive waste. 95-825 0-68-4 There are of course some aspects of the moving of radioactive waste that are unique to the field of radioactive substances, such as the need to shield the materials to introduce shielding in the containers to protect from the radiation. This is an aspect of our expertise that wouldn't transfer directly to the movement of other materials. However, it is possible to use nuclear techniques to investigate means of diminishing the release of the pollution products to the atmosphere. For example, at our Brookhaven National Laboratory we are using sulfur isotopes in order to study the distribution of sulfur dioxide as a pollution product from the burning of coal, so that, by learning more about its distribution, we can perhaps arrive at better ways of controlling it. PRESIDENT'S SOLID WASTE STUDY Senator SPONG. Does your agency participate in the study of waste disposal practices being conducted by the President's Office of Science and Technology? Dr. SEABORG. Yes, we are. Senator SPONG. What do you consider the contribution that the Atomic Energy Commission can make to this study? Dr. SEABORG. Well, we probably have had as much experience in managing waste disposal as any agency and I would imagine that our experience at our plants and in connection with our regulatory process would be of use in such a study. RECOVERY AND REUSE Senator SPONG. Are any productive uses presently being made on any of the waste from the atomic energy used? Dr. SEABORG. Yes; there are uses for a number of the fission products, like cesium 137, strontium 90, and promethium 147 as heat sources. The source of these products at the present time exceeds the requirements for them, but we can foresee a time in the future when there will be quite extensive use of these products. It is possible to capitalize on their attribute of emitting radiations, either using the radiation directly or, in larger quantities, using them in devices that we refer to as SNAP devices, systems for nuclear auxiliary power, in which the heat of radioactive decay is converted to a more useful form, such as the electrical form, for possible uses in long-lived portable sources of electrical energy. Senator SPONG. Thank you very much, Dr. Seaborg. We appreciate very much your being here. There is a possibility we will submit some additional questions to you in the course of these hearings. Dr. SEABORG. Thank you. We would be glad to respond to them. Senator SPONG. Is Professor Fuller here? Professor Fuller, we are very pleased to have you with us. I understand that you do not have a prepared statement. STATEMENT OF PROF. R. BUCKMINSTER FULLER, ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Professor FULLER. I have no prepared statement but this year I did give the keynote opening talk to the American Medical Association. Their general theme for this year's series of conferences was "What |