g 801978

Ms. Munson also indicated that Jack Anderson has. written articleson "prominent scientists who have iiarned of this nuclear hazard,and lost their jobs as a result." We are not aware of anyone losinghis job as a result of criticizing the Diablo Canyon plant nor arewe aware of any articles by Jack Anderson stating this has happened.Jack Anderson's column of January 27, 1977 indicated that the planthad been criticized, which it had been, but not that the criticshad lost their jobs.

I trust you will find this information responsive to your request.

Distributi on: t enclosure:'-Q}are&„Fi1e'. Groff,

RC PDR - .E. HughesLocal PDR " " StolzEDO Reading D. P. All-isonNRR Reading E. G. HyltonLWR ¹1 File J. Yore, ASLB

The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino H. R. Denton IE (3)United States House of Representatives E. G. Case SECY Mail Facility (3)Washington, D. C. 20515 R. S. Boyd , D. F. Bunch

ELD -R. J. MattsonDear Gongressman Lagomarsino: CA (3) R. DeYoung

G. Ertter (¹4637) V. StelloI am pleased to respond to your letter of August 31, 1978 to the "

~> Z.7 ~

Secrethry of the Department of Energy.

You enclosed a letter from your constituent, Andrea Lee Munson,and requested information about her concerns. In a letter datedSeptember 25, 1978, the Department of Energy responded concerningradioactive ivaste disposal and requested that the Nuclear RegulatoryCoenission (NRC) provide you with comments concerning the DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant. Our comments are provided below.

Ms. Munson indicated that the plant was approved for operation andlies directly over a major earthquake fault. Operation of the planthas not been appr'oved and the matter is still under review by theNRC. The plant is not located on any known capable fault. It islocated about 3'/2 miles from the offshore Hosgri fault whichbecame known publicly after plant construction began. The currentissue in the Commission's review of the matter is whether the plant,after appropriate modifications, is designed to safely withstandground motions that could result from an earthquake on the Hosgrifa01t. A brief summary of the history and status of this reviewis provided in the enclosure.

DP .LWR:AD

DBVassallo

OELD

10 78 10/ 0/78

M

R d

1 /78

888,10/ /78

Sincerely,

uon

en on

10/ /78

EDO

LVGossick

10/ gf /78

jI'rlaMnn Cy..nf...0jabjn Canyon 0PM:LM fl 0PM:Ll~g

~N lear Power P ant, EG :pcm DPAlliKn

10/ t5 /78 10/ jjl /78

DPMqg)ll, ¹1

JFStoM~

10/ I(/78,0~CA

10/ a7A /78 .

mc poRM 316 (976) zCLChf 0240 Q U,~, oovcaaNMMaat plalHclaao opplccl I ~ ya 8 ~ a ~ 7 ~ n

0

'

p ~

'I

Ve

1

IIt

ENCLOSURESUf )ig1R Y

DIABLO CANTON NUCLEAR PURER PLANT

Construction permits for Units 1 and 2 of the Oiyblo Canyon NuclearPlant, located on the California coast about 12 miles from San LuisObispo, were issued in 196S and 1970 respectively. In addition tothe AEC review of the proposed site, independent reviews were per-formed for 'the AEC by the U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Coastand Geodetic Survey. Based on these investigations, the units weredesigned and constructed to withstand the maximum earthquake potentialidentified for the site at that .time (0.4g horizontal acceleration).

In 1971, the existence of a fault—noir known as the Hosgri Fault—passingabout 3.5 miles 'offshore from the pla'nt site came to light. Hhen appli-cation to the AEC (now NRC) for an operating licen'se was made in 1973,detailed investigation of the Hosgri Fault began, leading to a conclusionby the NRC and the U. S. Geological Survey that the maximum potentialearthquake ground motion at the proposed site "may be more severe thanthat for which the plant h~d been originally designed." A magnitude7.5 earthquake'n the Hosgri fault. was assumed for the purpose of design.Thus, in April of 1976, the applicant for an operating license —the PacificGas and Electric Company —was advised that the plant's seismic capabilitiesshould be reanalyzed "to determine what modifications would be necessaryto withstand the more severe ground motion (0.75g)" predicated on theexistence of the offshore fault.

As of October 1978 the applicant has completed most of the analysiswork and plans to complete the extensive modifications for Unit 1

about the end of 1978. The Advisory Comittee on-Reactor Safeguardscompleted its review in July 1978. Public hearings before the AtomicSafety and Licensing Board are scheduled to resume in December 1978to consider seismic design issues and a decision on the operatinglicense application is expected in the Spring of 1979.

I

OrrYOCW

NYLYYENAMC~DATC+

~MLc HÃtbK 518 (9-76) KRcM 0240 4 U>No OOVCYYNMIYNTPYYINYIHO OPPICCY Y ~ TO AI> 7 ~ 0

l

I

p r

'

/P

I

h

I S

1

/

/ I

1

i

4P

i~

The Honorable Robert J. LagomarsinoUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino

I am pleased to respond to your letterSecretary of the Department of Energy.

- Distributio out enclosure:Doc et File' M. GroffRC PDR E. HughesLocal PDR J. F. StolzEDO Reading D. P. AllisonNRR Reading E; G. HyltonL>lR 81 File J. Yore, ASLBH. R. Denton IE (3)E; G. Case SECY Mail Facility (3)

'R:" S. Boyd D. F. BunchELD R. J. MattsonCA (3) R. DeYoungG. Er tter (846373 V. Stello

of August 31, 19T8 to the

You enclosed a letter from your constituent, Andrea Lee MIunson,and requested information about her concerns. In a letter datedSeptember 25, 1978, the Department of Energy responded concerningradioactive >iaste disposal and requested that the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) provide you with comments concerning the Diablo.Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Our comments are provided below.

Ms. Munson indicated that the plant was approved for operation andlies directly over a major earthquake fault. Operation of the planthas not been approved and the matter is still under review by theNRC. The plant is not located on any known capable fault. It islocated about 3 1/t'2 -miles from the offshore Hosgri fault whichbecame known publicly after p'lant construction began. The currentissue in"the Commission s review of the matter is whether the plant,

~ after appropriate modifications, is designed to;safely withstandground motions that could result from an earthquake on the Hosgrifault. A bl.ief summary of the history and status of this reviewis pti'ovided in, the enclosure.

Ms. Munson'lso indicated that Jack Anderson has written articleson Nprominent'scientists who have warned of this nuc1ear hazard,and lost their "J'obs as a result." Me are not aware of anyone losinghis job as a result of"criticizing the Diablo, Canyon plant nor arewe aware of any articles by- Jack Anderson stating this has happened.Jack Anderson's column of'January 27, 1977 indicated that the planthad been criticized, bhich it had'been, but not that the criticshad lost their jobs.

I trust you will find this'information responsive tty your request.

Sincerely,(Signed)

William S. Dirchs

DPM:LlfR: 0

DBVassallo

ELDDeputy

oyNQAous .~EGCase .

DPM fo

RSBoyd

xccutive DirectorNRR

HRDenton

EQgo

LVGossick

ORRI~WNu

CRIRNAMR

3D'ATC~

rY..qg..g.</lyly C.an OO..........lear Power Plant

ZA1.:Ll<R.JI.1.....

GHylton pcm

A/ /78 .

Pfd.tLl>R..81...,.. DPH LWR..gl..

PAl.lison-...... JFSOol z----$A/ /7p 1Q/ /7o

OClL......... -.~ ~

1A / /70

NEC PORN 518 (976) hRCSK 0240 4 V 4o OOVORNMRNT HIINTIIIOORI ICCI I 44 ~ 44 ~ 4 ~ 4

0 1

1

)st

iV ~~ iA

V

It%II

ENCLOSURESUN"@RY

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Construction permits for Units 1 and 2 of the Diablo Canyon NuclearPlant., located on the California coast about 12 miles from San LuisObispo, were issued in 1968 and 1970 respectively. In addition tothe AEC review'f the proposed site, independent reviews were per-formed, for the 'AEC by the U. S. Geological Survey and the U. S. Coast .and Geodetic Survey. Based on 'these investigations, the units weredesigned'nd constructed to withstand the maximum earthquake potentialidentified for the site at that time (0'4g horizontal 'acceleration)i

In 1971, the existence of a fault—now known as the Hosgri Fault —passingabout 3.5 fniles'ffshore from the pl'ant site came to light. When appli-cation to the AEC (now WRC) for an operating license was made in 1973,-detailed. investigation of the Hosgri Fault began, leading to a conclusionby the NRC and the U. S. Geological Survey that the maximum potentialearthquake ground motion at the propose'd site "may be more severe thanthat for which the plant had been originally designed." A magnitudp7.5 earthquake on the Hosgrf fault was assumed for the purpose of design.Thus, in April of 1976, the applicant for an operating license —the PacificGas and Electric Company<-«as advised that the plant's seismic capabilitiesshould be reanalyzed "to determine what modifications would be necessary-to withstand the more severe ground motion (0./5g)" predicated on theexistence of the offshore fault.

As of October 1978 the applicant has completed most of the analysiswork and plans to'omplete the extensive modifications for Unit 1

about the end of 19?8. The Advisory Cormittee on Reactor Safeguardscompleted its review in July 1978. Public hearings before the AtomicSafety and Licensing Soard ar'e scheduled to resume in December 1978to'onsider seismic design issues and a decision on the operatinglicense application is. expected in the Spring of 1979.

orr<og&

CVANAMNW

OAT%M ~ ~ \I~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II

?CLC PORM 518 (9-76) KRCM 0240 *u.e. eovaasaedemiweso os s icccs i ~ ) ~ ace -)oo

0

N

W1

a

I~

I

:I

Department of EnergyWashington, D.C. 20545

S~P 25 ~e~s

Honorable Robert J. LagomarsinoHouse of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Lagomarsino:

This is in response to your August 31, 1978, referral of a letter thatyou received from Ms. Andrea Munson of Goleta. Your constituent opposedthe-development of nuclear power because of the risks that she perceivesto be associated with it. ~ In responding to her letter, we suggest thatyou bring the following points to her attention.

The Administration and the Department of Energy (DOE) are dealing withthe overall energy challenge including the development of those optionsthat your constituent suggested. Exploring conservation and available,probable, and possible sources of energy is the major task assigned tous. Within this context, Presid nt Carter in his National Energy Planof April 1977 and other statements has indicated the need for nuclearpower as one source of energy within our total energy mix. The manage-ment of radioactive waste is, of course, critical to the growth ofnuclear power.

While it is true that we have yet to develop a Federal repository forthe disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste from the nuclear industry,there is a well-planned program underway to develop such repositories.We expect to provide surface storage facilities for spent fuel by 1983and to begin initial waste management operations in a geologic repositoryby the late 1980's.

We appreciate Ms. Munson's concern about the disposal of radioactive wasteand assure her that this matter is receiving the highest level of attentionin the Administration and the DOE. Also as part of his National Energy Plan,President Carter directed that a review be made of the entire nuclear wastemanagement program. A task force was established in the DOE last year asa first step in this review process and their draft report was issued thispast March. With that report as a starting point, the President, onMarch 15, 1978, established an Interagency Review Group (IRG) withrepresentaives from 14 Government entities. The IRG has as its objectivethe preparation of a soon to be:issued report for the President whichwill formulate recommendations for establishing a decisionmaking andimplementing process for dealing comprehensively with the Nation'sradioactive waste.

~ I

f~ ~ IJ

Mr. Robert J. LagomarsinoSEP 25.1978

As to the Diablo power plant, this Department has neither operationalnor regulatory control of commercial nuclear power reactors. Suchresponsibilities are vested in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).We are, therefore, by copy of 'this letter, requesting the NRC toprovide you with comments concerning the Diablo plant.

If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Cubo 9 So4>dRobert D. ThorneAssistant Secretary for

Energy Technology

cc: clear Regulatory Commission

e + O

ROBERT J: LAGOMARSINQC I9TH DISTITICT.CALIFORNIA

I I I7 LONGWORTN BUILDINGWASHINGTON, D.C. 2051 5

202 225-3601

ASSISTANT RECIONAI 'WHIP

KSOgt295 of tfjt EIIiteb Statts+ouse of Beyt.edeotntibes

Knsfjitfgton, Q.C. 205l5

August 31, 1978

COMMITTEE ONINTERNATIONALRELATIONS

CVIICOMMITTCCI

INTER AMERIIOANAFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ONINTERIOR AND INSULAR

AFFAIRS

C UOCO MMITTC C C I

NATIONALFAR KS ANO INSULAR AFFAIRSSFCCIAI INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. James R. SchlesingerSecretaryDepartment of Energy1110 Independenco Avenue SNWashington, .D.C. 20545

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from my'consti-tuent, Andrea Lee Munson. As you will note, she is

quite'oncernedabout the danger of nuclear waste storage.

I would appreciate any information that you may be ableto provide.

Sincerely,

ROBERT . AGOMAR INOMember of Congress

RJL:sleEnclosure

THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS

158 La P ra LaneGoleta, California 93017August 6, 1978

Dear Congressman Lagomarsino,

I am seriously concerned about the country's ignoranceof the extreme hazards for this and hundreds of futuregenerations OF NUCLEAR WASTES. THERE IS NO SAFE WAY TOSTORE THESE NUCLEAR WASTES FROM POWER PLANTS.

'I

President Carter himself stated there was no safe method,and he is a nuclear physicist.The plutonium fires at Rocky Flats Colorado, and thevery high rate of birth defects, cancer and leukemia ofthe people living in the area —also pose extreme hazardsfor our people.

I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU AND YOUR AIDS INVESTIGATE THEDANGERS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, BEFORE SUPPORTING THEIREXISTENCE AND FURTHER CONSTRUCTION!!!

They have tried various methods of storage, includingsalt mines, only to find no method safe. YET THEY CONTINUETO PRODUCE THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTETHEY HAVE NO WAY TO STORE.

ONE EXAMPLE OF GROSS MISMANAGEMENT BY GOVERNMENT IS THEapproval of Diablo power plant for operation, when theyalso announce it has a major earthquake fault directlyunder it that would cause an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude.

Jack Anderson has carried articles on prominent scientistswho have warned of this nuclear hazard, and lost their jobsas a result. If you want to know their names and what theyhave to say on that side of the issue, I'm sure he wouldhave their names in his files and be glad to tell themto you.

I want also to say, I think you are a man of integrity, andthis seems to be a rare (I hope you'stay that way) and preciousthing in a Congressman today. Keep it up! I wish you well!

Sincerely,) .a

~A ~~cd. ~+~ ~,Andrea Lee h1unson

,;7

'~~c'.~pic ~:..<~~~~'7

~ r/«/C >)., ~'y -qc f~(,, f

/ l (can g

C~ p/I,~-< Qi

H// 5 j 3 c&q// ~f //~

1

TIII"WASIIINGTONPOST 7'1~><>«)'« -"~. >~7~ 51(1. 15

ac& Anderson andI es Whitten

California A-Plant: A.nother Disaster~It started in the quiet darkness be-

fore dawn. Two small leaks, seeminglyinsignificant, trickled down the can-

, yon wall near the-north end of thegreat earth. filledTeton Dam.

But three minutes before noon onthe fearful Saturday, June 5, 1976, the3@story dam split open, and a massivewall of water roared over the peacefulIdaho countryside. hfiraculously, only14 people died from the flood's

rav-'ges..Butover a billion dollars worthof Idaho real estate was washed away.Thousands were left homeless.

Subsequent investigations indicatedthat the dam should not have beenbuilt at all. For the Bureau of Reclama-tion knew, long before a billion gallonsof water backed up behind the dam,that it was a risky project. The geologywas tricky, the engineering dubious.But unfortunately, Washington wasmore sensitive to the lobbying for thedam than to the scientific warningsagainst it. And so the government built

~ a monster called Teton.Now a worse disaster may be in the

making on the California coast. A nu-clear power plant is nearing comple-tion near Diablo Canyon, just threemiles from an earthquake line calledHosgri fault.

. The Hosgri fault hadn't been discov-.. ered when the government issued the

construction permit in 1968. But sev-eral eminent geologists warned thatmore care should be taken to locatepossible faults in that earthquake..prone area.

In 1971, Shell Oil geologists an.nounced the discovery of the Hosgrifault. They found itby using a method,ironically, that the nuclear facility'scritics had unsuccessfully urged thegovernment to try.

Yet despite the earthquake danger,the government went ahead with theDiablo Canyon plant. It doesn't take ageologist to figure out that an earth-quake could rupture the nuclearpower plant. This could cause a radia-tion spill, with catastrophic consequ-ences.

'heconstruction of the plant couldhave been stopped in 1971, of course,before the full $ 1.2 billion was spent.Now it is too late to recover the enor-mous construction cost; the plant willsoon be ready to open. However, itstillrequires an operating license from theNuclear Regulatory Commission,which is supposed to protect the publicsafety.

The NRC is toughening its standardsto make the Diablo Canyon plant moreearthquake-resistant. But no humanengineering could guarantee thesafety of a plant on the edge of anearthquake fault.

The NRC's project manager for theplant, Dennis Allison, told us that thecommission's proposed new safety reg-ulations give some comfort "but notmuch." He acknowledged that. the site"turned out to be not such a greatplace."

Yet so much money'and effort hasbeen invested m the plant, and somany 'owerful politicians havebacked it, that there is tremendouspressure to open it. Allison said the op.crating license "probably" would begranted.

The site of the Teton Dam, accord-ing to congressional findings, is whatdoomed it, too. But the politicians whopromoted the dam and the bureau.crats who planned it have not beenheld accountable for the billion4ollardisaster. The Bureau of Reclamation,

whose mismanagement helped to pro-duce the catastrophe, has been left un-scathed.

Congress, of course, conducted its'sualinvestigations, but these didn'

perturb Reclamation CommissionerGil Stamm. He told some bureaucrats, „as we reported last year, that he"wasn't losing any sleep at night" overthe congressional inquiries.

Now we have discovered additionalevidence of his apparent nonchalanceover the dam disaster. At obscureHouse hearings, Stamm pooh poohedthe casualty count which had thenreached only ll. 'The total number ofdeaths is 11, three of which were gunshot wounds, two were suicides, one isa couple of days after the loss of thedam, the other one two weeks afterthe loss...," he reported blandly to theWater and Power subcommittee.

"There have been a number of heartattacks. I think the drownings were atotal of five, two of whom were a cou-ple of 76 and 78 years of age who werewarned by relatives in ample time butrefused to leave their home. Sometime later, when they saw the waterrising, they did choose to leave, but itwas too late. They were drowned."

It is true that the warnings reachedmost Idaho residents in. time for themto escape the flood. For this, the dambuilders deserve no credit; thousandsmight have been drowned. Stamm as-sured us that he and his agency are"extremely sensitive" to the TetonDam disaster. But if sterner measureshad been taken against the responsiblebureaucrats, the NRC might be a littleless willing to issue an operating per-mit to a nuclear plant on the rim of anearthquake fault.

Telegram-Tribune San Luis Obispo, CA January 27 1977

Diablo spokesmendispute columnist

9'ashington muckraker Jack An-derson in a column written for releasetoday likened the Diablo Canyonnuclear power project to the Teton Damin Idaho which collapsed last June,causing a billiorhloUar flood that kiUed14 persons.

~ However, a spokesman for PacificGas 5 Electric Co., which is buildingthe nuclear plant west of San LuisObispo, today said the Andersoncolumn is "extremely misleading,"

Anderson said that despite thediscovery of a potentially disastrousearthquake fault, the Diablo plantprobably will be allowed to operatebecause of tremendous political andeconomic pressure.

But Dick Davin, nuclear informationofficer for PGAE, said safety would bethe only consideration influencingfederal licensing authorities.

~ Anderson referred to the 1971

discovery of the Hosgri earthquakefault, 2'k miles offcoast of the plant. Heconceded that the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC) has

caUed for increased plant safety,requiring it to bc able to withstandalmost double the earthquake shock itwas origim~Uy designed for. "But no,human engineering could guarantee thesafety of a plant on the edge of anearthquake fault," he wrote.

Anderson quoted NRC ProjectManager Dennis Allison saying the site"turned out to be not such a greatplace."

Allison has conceded making theremark. but said he meant that PGE:E,would in retrospect have preferred asite where such costly safety measureswere unnecessary. Plant constructionbegan three years before the fault wasdiscover cd.

Davin said PGRE considered Diablo'Canyon "a very good site. V(hile we'

probably prefer si:es that have low orno seismicity (earthquake potential),that's not the case in California."

Allison denied that he told Andersonthat NRC's proposed safety standardsy've "not much" comfort. "Ithink whatwe'e doing is good enough," he said

ENERGY.ENVIRONMENTThe Central Nnlna Power Co,

,abandoned plans for a nuclear power'plant in a picturesque harbor at SearsIsland because of disagrecmcnt with,the'US. Nuclear Regulatory

Com-'issionover geological faults at the:site. The 'company said that it wouldbuild a coal-fired plant on the site, in-stead. Construction of an atmoic plantis prohibited in the United States

'above a fault which has had activeearth movcmcnt in the last 35,(Qjyears. Studies at. Scars Island re-'.

vealed a 12,000-year-old fault, be.-lieved io have bectt caused by reced-..ing glaciers.

i

h

III

1

I

AN INiDEPENDENT NEWSPAIr ER

LETTERS To THE EDITOROn Building a 1(eactor in an EartlfquaI'e 2'one

On Jan. 27, Jack Anderson's column,", briefly discussed the Nuclear Regulatory

.Commission's actions with respect to anearthquake fault that has been discov.ered near the Diablo Canyon NuclearPower Plant in California. Since I wasquoted in the column. some additionalcomments to explain what is being doneat the NRC might be of interest.

Operation of the plant is heing h«ltlup, at considerable cost, bticause theearthquake safety questions are not yetresolved. The first unit at this site was es.sentially completed early last year. It ap.pears that operation willhave been heldup about 1th years before a decision onthe operating license can be made.

The plant is located 3th miles from theHosgrl fault on a foundation of compe-tent rock. There is no reason to be con-cerned about ground rupture at theplant site due to an earthquake. IVhat weare dealing with here is a question ofredesign and modification to withstandmore severe ground shaking than wasconsidered in the original design. TheNRC staff has called for an analysis todetermine what changes may be neces-

sary so that the plant can withstand amagnitude 75 earthquake on the Hosgrifault. This is a very severe earthquakedesign basis.

The plant's owner, Pacific Gas andElectric Company, is performing this en.gineering analysis. Then the matt«r nlustbc rerviewcd in turn hy jh«. tVIIC staffand by the indcp«nd«nt Advistiry C.'ln> ~

mittee on Reactor Safcguardru In tlt«process, it will have been scrutiniznl bymany competent geologists. seismologistsand structural engineers, including inde-pendent consultants of national stature.Finally, the matter willbe considered bythe Atomic Safety and Licensing Boardat a public hearing.

It is not known, at this time, what thefinal decision will be. Ilowever, theNRC's regulations require that the plantbe designed to withstand the most severeearthquake that could be expected to oc-cur at the site. This must be demon-strated before operation of the plant ispermitted.

DENNIS ALLISON,Semor Project Mrinager,

tjs. Nuclear Regulatory Commlrelon.

Germantown, hfd.

]4

DOE: Fusion power still decades offBy Itobt'rt C. Co%en

Natural science editor of The Christian Science Monitor

Scientists at Princeton University who are working to-ward harnessing nuclear fusion to make electric powerhave intlced had a noteworthy laboratory success. But it

not the "breakthrough" or "major milestone" thats reported over the wcekcnd.

Public affairs officers for the U.S. Department ofEnergy. wluch suppot1s that research, say the DOE isboth puzzled and embarrassed at what it considers anunauthorized and overblown announcement of thePrinceton work.

At this writing, DOE was preparing a press confer-ence.tn set the Princeton achievement in perspective.Meanwhile, Jim Bishop, director of DOE's office of pub-bc affairs, explained that the Princeton work should be

'recognized as significant without going overboard andcallirtg it a "brcal'through" in which fusion has bccndemonstrated in the laboratory, as misguided early re-ports suggested.

'l'hc scientific feasibility nf igniting a self-sustainingfusion reaction in the laboratory has not yet been dem-onstrated, Mr. Bishop said. Ilowever, the Princetonachicvemcnt has greatly strengthened the judgment offusion researchers that this can be done.

Briefly. what the Princeton team has dot ~ is to con-firm that thc thcorctical basis of one particular ap-proach to fusion is on the right track. This approachuses magnetic 'forces to confine the hot reacting gas(called a plasma). The version of magnetic confinementbeing followed at Princeton and in many .ther labora-tories around the world is embodied in a machine calleda tokamak.

*Please turn to Page 8

~~~PA

'> j;E./

Model ot Tokatoa~ Fusion Test t-

Hardware for next step in fUsion research

, . ~

Iff

V,e

I,'