GOVERNMENT
AEC Faces Decision on Light-Water Reactors Coal industry lobbyists strongly oppose any delay in AEC decision that these reactors are of "practical value" The Atomic Energy Commission has come face to face with the problem of deciding when to stop subsidizing the development of civilian nuclear power reactors. Pressured by coal interests, whose product competes directly with nuclear fuels for power plants, AEC has gathered and must now digest a myriad of financial, technical, and social factors to come to a decision. Coal producing and mining groups would like AEC to make an affirmative decision soon. Those who would like subsidies to continue, mainly the makers of nuclear-power equipment, would like the decision postponed for several years, some forever. AEC sits squarely in the middle. It is bound by the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision. Under the act, whenever any particular type of reactor has been sufficiently developed for commercial use, AEC must declare this type of reactor to be of "practical value." When and if this is done, AEC's licensing procedures change; these changes prohibit AEC from subsidizing this type of reactor. The current controversy centers on some type or types of light-water nuclear-power reactors. Today there are 10 of these reactors in operable condition in the U.S. In December 1963, Jersey Central Power and Light Co. unveiled plans to build a light-water, nuclear-power plant of more than 500 m w ( e ) . capacity. The company says that the plant would be fully competitive with fossil fuels. Also, it would be built without any government assistance. Jersey Central's announcement stuck in the coal industry's throat. On May 14, 1964, the National Coal Policy Conference, the National Coal Association, and the United Mine Workers of America filed a joint petition with AEC urging that this type of reactor be declared of practical value. At a recent AEC hearing, Jersey Central took a refreshingly neutral viewpoint. Jersey's spokesman, vice president John E. Logan, stated, "I 32
C&EN
FEB.
8,
1965
TESTIFIES. Joseph E. Moody, president of the National Coal Policy Conference, in commenting on the nuclear-power plants asked the AEC "How long shall the subsidy road last . . .?"
am not here as an advocate for or against such a determination." Mr. Logan explained that his company's view is that " . . . a finding of practical value would be appropriate under existing legislation for the type of pressurized- and boiling-water reactors offered to Jersey Central by Westinghouse and General Electric . . . ." Jersey Central's opinion is that the statutory distinction between commercial and noncommercial licenses should be eliminated. "We believe, however," Mr. Logan went on, "that what the Commission needs is information and not more opinion from industry on which to base its decision." Information may be needed, but the hearing produced mostly opinion. Oddly enough, much of this opinion came in indirect fashion from AEC officials. Joseph E. Moody, president of the National Coal Policy Conference, repeatedly referred in his testimony to statements by AEC officials which proclaimed the competitiveness of nuclear plants. The words of no less an official than Commission Chairman Glenn T. Seaborg were used to make the coal industry's point. Speaking at the Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy last summer, Dr. Seaborg said, " . . . nuclear power is
now in a position to offer competition for an appreciable share—perhaps as much as half—of the new steam-electric capacity to be added to the U.S. utility network in the decade or so ahead." In conclusion, Mr. Moody claimed that "the only possible explanation for not making the finding would be a rejection by the Commission of its own statements and of the statements of manufacturers and utilities that nuclear-generated power is now competitive with coal-generated power. If the Commission now rejects those statements, the country and the industries affected are entitled to know it— for then the utilities will purchase coalfired plants whose practical value is well known." In general, those who oppose a finding of practical value claim that not enough information is available to make such a finding. As an example of this lack of data, Henry C. Nickel, general manager of Allis-Chalmers' atomic energy division, pointed to fuel cycle costs. Mr. Nickel stated that until the first core of a power reactor has been expended and reprocessed it is impossible to state what the fuel cost will be. Mr. Nickel suggested that any finding of practical value be postponed for "at least several years."
