THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES announces a conference
THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ACCIDENT: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS April 8-10, 1980 New York City Roosevelt Hotel The conference will examine the technical, social, and ethical implications of the accident at Three Mile Island in terms of the relationships of the institutions involved, the exchange of information among the public, the press, and the technical communities, and the long-term effects on the public acceptance of nuclear power. Conference Chairs: Thomas H. Moss Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
David L. Sills Social Science Research Council New York City
For program and registration information, contact: Conference Department, The New York Academy of Sciences, 2 East 63d St., N.Y., N.Y. 10021. (212) 838-0230
Procter & Gamble Polymer Scientists We are looking for PhD Polymer Scientists with demonstrated problem-solving abilities in s t r u c t u r e / p r o p e r t y / p r o c e s s correlations and/or the characterization of solid state polymer morphology. Experience in viscoelastic, thermal and Theological properties and/or correlations of structure with mechanical and optical properties of polymers is critically important. We also welcome applications from MS degree Scientists with 4-6 years experience in the polymer industry who have the above qualifications/experience. A successful candidate will be joining a growing polymer group in Corporate R&D and will have the opportunity to apply basic polymer technology and skills to the development of new products and processes. Procter & Gamble is a company noted for employment stability. You would be eligible for a benefit package that ranks among the top 7% of 748 select companies surveyed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Benefits include Profit Sharing, Stock Purchase Plan, Hospital, Surgical, Dental and Life Insurance. Applicants must be U.S. Citizens or Permanent Resident Visa holders and should send their resumes to: Dr. T. J. Logan, Manager PhD Recruiting Procter & Gamble Company Miami Valley Laboratories P.O. Box 39175 Cincinnati, OH 45247 An Equal Opportunity Employer
24
C&ENFeb. 25, 1980
Critics blast proposed nuclear program cuts The Department of Energy carried its 1981 proposals for reduced nuclear programs into the Congressional lion's den this month and came away somewhat mauled. The House Subcommittee on Energy Research & Production, chaired by Rep. Mike McCormack (D.Wash.), held three days of hearings on the Administration's plans for its nuclear energy programs for fiscal 1981. It was not well received as pronuclear members of the subcommittee struck out fiercely at what they believe is the Administration's crippling of U.S. nuclear power. A number of nuclear projects are severely cut or completely dropped in the Administration proposals. Among them are the high-temperature, gascooled reactor (HTGR) and the gascooled breeder reactor. Both of these projects had been funded for about $25 million in 1980, but were dropped for 1981. The largest cut was taken by the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor, for which funds would be cut more than $300 million, to less than half the 1980 level. George W. Cunningham, DOE assistant secretary for nuclear programs, suffered the most abuse during the hearings. The principal reasons for the large cutbacks, he told the subcommittee, are budgetary restrictions and the loss of industrial support for large DOE projects. Rep. Barry Gold water Jr. (R.Calif.) sees the demise of these once staunchly supported programs as contributing to a potentially severe problem. "Industrial support of these programs is important," he says. "First for the breeder reactor and now for the HTGR, we first invite participation and then we back out. I am concerned about losing our credibility with industry and the utilities. When DOE starts a program, it should carry through with it." Cunningham answers that DOE is concerned with this also, and hopes to transfer some industrial support to light-water reactor programs, which do have proposed budget increases. The sharpest controversy over the Administration's proposed cuts surrounded the termination of the Clinch River breeder reactor, long a subcommittee favorite. Rep. Marilyn L. Bouquard (D.-Tenn.) labeled the proposed shutdown irresponsible and said termination of the project would set back breeder research more than a decade. McCormack calls the breeder reactor "the only hope this country has for energy self-sufficiency into the next century."
Goldwater: could lose our credibility
Cunningham says that the Administration believes breeder capacity will not be needed until the year 2020, and that construction delays and engineering changes have made the Clinch River project undesirable. "The project requires a much higher investment than could be gained from its benefits," Cunningham says. "We should drop this [Clinch River] project and begin a new design. [But] the Administration believes that now is not the time to begin a new project." A point agreed on by both sides, albeit after considerable discussion, was that the cost of closing down the Clinch River project and the cost of carrying it to its completion are almost the same. DOE's best estimate of remaining costs to finish the breeder reactor is $1.6 billion, and the estimate of termination, including some refunds to utilities for lost investments, is about $1.5 billion. The hearings coincided with announcement of President Carter's new nuclear waste disposal program, and there was some displeasure on the subcommittee about that too. A decision to spend about five years for more drilling of test holes and more comparisons of possible disposal sites was not what they wanted to hear. "The Administration plan is just a waste of time," says Rep. John W. Wydler (R.-N.Y.). "After drilling more holes, you'll just be where you are now—faced with the same tough decisions." This sentiment was echoed by Goldwater. "It's time to quit boring holes into rocks and start demonstrating the technology that has been in the works for years." D
