GOVERNMENT
Seaborg Predicts Bright Atomic Future Uncertainty continues to cloud the U.S. nuclear picture following Administration orders this year for major cutbacks in the production of fissionable materials for nuclear weapons (CùEN, April 27\ page 21). The uncertainty has given rise to much speculation of late about what lies ahead for the nuclear and allied, industries as well as for the Atomic Energy Commission itself. To explore both the immediate and long-term ramifications of the cutbacks, Cà-EN talked to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg.
Q. Dr. Seaborg, within the past five months the Administration has ordered two major cutbacks in the production of fissionable materials for nuclear weapons. What was the reason for this? A. Before I go into the reason, I think I should first straighten out one point about the announcements of these cuts which seems to have confused some people. The cutbacks are, as you state, in the production of fissionable materials—enriched uranium, or U 2 3 5 , and plutonium—which are used in weapons. There haven't been any specific cutbacks in the bud-
gets for weapons development, testing, and fabrication. Now as to the reason for the cutbacks, as you know our stockpiles of fissionable materials have been increasing at a terrific rate. This situation cannot and should not go on indefinitely. All the cutback means is that we will slow the rate of this increase. In one sense, the cutback could be considered a credit to the AEC's efficiency of operation and production. Q. What facilities will be affected by the cutbacks? A. Five production facilities will be affected directly as well as some peripheral operations. As you know we produce plutonium at two locations, the Hanford plant near Richland, Wash., and the Savannah River plant near Aiken, S.C. Our enriched uranium production facilities are at Oak Ridge, Tenn., Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Ky. These facilities are all capable of producing comparable amounts of U 2 3 5 . Q. To what extent will production be affected at these facilities? A. Of a total of nine reactors at Hanford, counting the New Production Reactor (NPR) which is just now getting into operation, three will be shut down next vear. One will be shut
". . . our stockpiles of fissionable materials have been increasing at a terrific rate. This situation cannot and should not go on indefinitely. All the cutback means is that we will slow the rate of this increase. In one sense, the cutback should be considered a credit to the AEC's efficiency of operation and production." 30
C&EN
JUNE
15,
1964
down on Jan. 1, the second on May 1, and the third on July 1. These three all produce plutonium for weapons. Next month at Savannah River we will shut down one of the five plutonium reactors there. So the overall effect of the cutback on plutonium at both locations will be to reduce production by roughly 20%. Q. What about uranium production? A. Actually there have been three cutbacks in U 2 3 5 production. In February 1961, we served notice that we would reduce power by a thousand megawatts from the 5800-megawatt total to the three sites. This hasn't all been dropped yet—the last increment of 360 megawatts will be dropped by this July 1. President Johnson, in the State of the Union Message in January of this year, announced an additional reduction in power to about 3900 megawatts by July 1, 1965. Then, on April 20, the President announced a further cut in power to about 2900 megawatts to begin after July 1, 1965, and extending on until sometime in 1968. So what all this means is that in 1968 our production of enriched uranium will be about 509c—in terms of megawatts of power—of what it was at the beginning of 1961. Q. What will be the effect of these cutbacks on employment? A. Most of the facilities will not feel too much impact from the cutback. But Hanford is a different story. There, the cutback will mean a total reduction of about 2000 people by 1967 out of a total work force now of some 7000. You see when you eliminate three out of nine reactors then you diminish certain other operations such as chemical processing and so forth. Adding to the impact there is the fact that Hanford accounts either directly or indirectly for the employment of perhaps 80% of all the people in that area. So we are trying our best to mitigate the effects there. Q. Then the situation at Hanford is somewhat unique?
the NPR, is now in its preoperative phase and will be operated by General Electric until start-up and shakedown have been completed and its reliability has been demonstrated. It, together with related fuel fabrication operation, may then be added to the contract for the five reactors. At the same time, we're going out to another list of industrial firmssome of which are on the list mentioned previously—for expression of interest in operating the chemical separation plants and certain other facilities. Here again, we are looking for firms which, besides being very capable in operating a plant, would bring new strength to the area.
"When I first came to Washington three years ago, the problem with getting support for the development of civilian nuclear power was that people were skeptical that it would ever be economical. . . . But now we've come full circle. Now that nuclear power appears competitive, there is a tendency for some people to ask: 'If it is this good, why do you need more government money to develop it?' "
A. Yes, to some extent it is. Oak Ridge, for example, is a tremendous operation with thousands of employees, only a few hundred of which are involved in the cutback of enriched uranium production. Again, at Savannah River, only a few hundred employees are involved. While we all recognize the hardships associated with layoffs, whatever their magnitude, it is fortunate that these facilities are in a more normal community situation so that the impact can be absorbed better. The same is true of Portsmouth and Paducah. Of course, I should mention the fine cooperation shown by all these local communities in solving this mutual problem. Q. What specifically are you doing to ease the more severe impact of the cuts at Hanford? A. There we're working mainly toward diversification. The AEC and General Electric Co. have mutually concluded that transfer of contract work at Hanford to other contractors over a period of several years will be in the best interest of the Government and General Electric. General Electric itself suggested that it be replaced with a number of contractors—each to run various segments of the Hanford operation. Our thought here is to bring in industrial firms who might expand on each of the present site activities with their own private operation, which would, in turn, lead to further expansion. Q. Some people say that the way you are handling the situation at Hanford may serve as a sort of prototype or "pilot plant" for other areas where there may be cutbacks or major changes in AEC, or even Department of Defense, programs.
A. I think people are watching Hanford with interest from this point of view. We're doing a number of things there to attract contractors and bring about diversification. For example, we asked several nonprofit groups to make proposals as to how they would operate the Hanford laboratory and what they would bring in the way of diversification—what resources and plans they would bring in to further research operations in the area. Battelle Memorial Institute and HT Research Institute submitted proposals and, after evaluating both proposals, we selected the one from Battelle as the one that would better meet our over-all objectives there. We have begun contract negotiations with Battelle. Then we've gone out to a large list of industrial concerns for expressions of interest in operating the remaining five production reactors and the associated fuel fabrication areas, and to see if they can add anything in the way of diversification to the process and operation. The sixth reactor,
Q. Beyond these major steps, how else are you trying to attract new industry to the area? A. We are doing a number of smaller things. For example, we have asked firms to make proposals to take over the job of monitoring radioactivity, film processing, and things of that sort. We are suggesting that we could buy one of our main chemicals, sulfuric acid, from a company that would move in and build a production facility in the Hanford area. We are asking for a proposal in that connection. We are also contemplating asking for a proposal from a firm that might handle the laundry for the Hanford laboratory. Each of these things might bring in additional peripheral activity. We would hope that the sum total of all this will help bring in employment opportunities and add to the economy of the area. Q. Are you taking comparable steps at Savannah River? A. The impact problem isn't com-
"So, as a result of the diversified and broad program of the AEC that has evolved over the years, there doesn't seem to be any indication of the agency going out of business. Quite the opposite, I'd say/' JUNE
15,
1964
C&EN
31
parable to Hanford. Nevertheless, we have asked for expressions of interest from companies for commercial use of the shut-down reactor ( and at Hanford, too). One group is currently studying the economic and technical feasibility of using the Savannah River reactor for generation of electrical power.
NEW-RUSH-SAMPLE
Q. What, if any, immediate or long-range impact will the cutback have on industrial suppliers to these production facilities? I have in mind here such things as raw materials— uranium.
KRONIFLEX@THFP TRIS (TETRAHYDROFURFURYL) PHOSPHATE
A. There will be no changes in uranium procurement. As you know, our uranium procurement is done under contracts that were made in the early and middle fifties, when uranium was in short supply. So we are committed and we are honoring these contracts, which extend through calendar year 1966. But, since those contracts delivered more uranium than we needed—for that immediate period—we have offered a stretched-out program. Under the new program, the companies with whom we have contracts may defer delivery of material hitherto due before Dec. 31, 1966, until calendar years 1967 and 1968; at which time we will pay the same price for it as we would have paid had it been delivered before the end of 1966, but we will not need to pay—in a sense—the interest which would have accrued on this material if delivery had been taken earlier. In return for the deferral we will buy an amount equivalent to that deferred during calendar years 1969 and 1970 at lower prices based on cost of production.
VAPOR PRESSURE (at 150°C.) .05 mm Hg. FREEZING POINT -75°C. SOLUBLE IN H20 AND AROMATICS Property Summary: Unusual physicals—completely soluble in water. Vapor pressure at 150°C. is only 50 microns. Won't freeze until —75°C. Found useful as a plasticizer for polyvinyl alcohol and as a component of functional fluids. Compatible in most resin systems, particularly nitrocellulose, eel lu lose acetate and chlorinated rubber. Kroniflex THFP properties point to potential uses in adhesives, inks, pigment dispersions, resin emulsions, and as a specialty solvent; For information write:
ORG-AISriCCHEMICÀLS D I V I S I O N ^ FMC CORPORATION 633 Third Avenue, N e w York, N.Y. 10017
32
C&EN
JUNE
15,
1964
Q. What about the impact on, say, suppliers of chemicals used in the production of fissionable materials?
11!
A. ness fairly don't great
There will be some loss of busithere, admittedly. We are a big user of chemicals. But I think the impact will be very nationally.
Q. What are the possibilities of further cutbacks? A. I don't know if we have reached a leveling-off point yet. But the important thing to remember is that production of enriched uranium will start to pick up again, I'd say in the seventies—probably in the early to midseventies.
Q. What will be the reason for this? A. To meet the requirements for nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors. Civilian nuclear power now is projected to increase faster than we had previously estimated. It is ahead of the schedule we had in our report to the President in November 1962. We predicted then that there would be 5000 megawatts of civilian nuclear power on the line in the U.S. by 1970— 40,000 megawatts by 1980. This was considered optimistic at the time. People thought we were just Pollyannas—that we weren't being realistic. Now it turns out we underestimated. Q. What are your current predictions for civilian nuclear power? A. Realistic estimates now—not only by our people, but by the Federal Power Commission, and reactor manufacturers, and others—are considerably higher. The FPC staff, for example, is predicting about 68,000 megawatts on the line by 1980. General Electric thinks there will be more than 80,000 megawatts at that time. Q. What has brought about all this new optimism? A. Mainly just improvements in the development of boiling water and pressurized water reactors—they are now definitely competitive with conventional means of generating electrical power in many parts of our country and the world. A recent good example of this is the 640-megawatt plant which GE will build for the Jersey Central Power and Light Co., and which the utility predicts will operate at less than 4 mills per kwh. if the full capacity of 640 megawatts is attained. A coal-fired plant at the same site would run about 0.6 mill per kwh. higher than the nuclear plant. Q. In your opinion, then, competitive nuclear power has arrived? A. Oh, yes. It appears to have very definitely arrived. Of course, when I say this I am talking about the predicted performance of plants now being designed for operation in 1967 and 1968. But this does not mean—and I can't stress this point too strongly—that we should, therefore, curtail the program we spelled out in the November 1962 report to the President. You may recall that program had three stages: light water-converter reactors, advanced converter-type reactors, and
breeder reactors. We feel this program should go forward as planned. We should build prototypes of advanced converter reactors and breeder reactors. Q. Are you running into opposition to the program? A. Yes, a very interesting situation has evolved. When I first came to Washington three years ago, the problem with getting support for the development of civilian nuclear power was that people were skeptical that it would ever be economical. They said we'd just be putting money down a rat hole. So our problem then was to convince people that, yes indeed, nuclear power would be competitive and the country should develop it. But now we've come full circle. Now that nuclear power appears competitive, there is a tendency for some people to ask: "If it is this good, why do you need more government money to develop it?" Q. What's your answer to that question? A. We are phasing out government support of those reactor concepts which are becoming competitive in the market place. We expect industry to carry the burden of further improving these commercial reactors. Our own effort is shifting toward development of advanced converters and breeders—reactors which are required in the longer term. One of the fundamental motivations for the development of civilian nuclear power is to create an abundant, effectively everlasting source of low-cost energy. To do this, we need to perfect advanced converters and breeders. Q. There has been speculation for some time about what is ahead for the Atomic Energy Commission. This kind of talk has increased tremendously with the recent cutbacks in fissionable materials production. Some people go so far as to say now that the AEC's primary job is through, it may go out of business. Will you comment on this? A. Yes, I believe I've heard most of the rumors and stories that are circulating. As far as the AEC going out of business—nothing could be further from the truth. An important point that some people are apt not to understand is the diversity of our operation. We have a broad operation
Notes
Mixing
HIGH-MODULUS RAYON PROCESS IMPROVED WITH OAKES MIXERS
MIXING TIME REDUCED DISSOLUTION INCREASED UNIFORMITY IMPROVED FILTRATION TIME REDUCED FIBER QUALITY IMPROVED These are the results obtained with the use of Oakes Mixers in the mixing and dissolution of viscose solutions —proven beyond question in pilot plant tests. And these are the reasons why fourteen large Model 14MBH Oakes Mixers were purchased by one prominent producer of high-modulus rayon staple fiber, for inclusion in new expanded production plant facilities to boost capacity. The Model 14MBH Oakes Mixers, shown above, will each be driven by a 50 H.P. motor. In this particular case, they will be arranged on a recycle system, to greatly reduce the mixing time required and improve dissolution of the higher viscosity solutions inherent with high-modulus rayon. In other installations, the Oakes Mixer is employed in a continuous, one-pass process. This is only one application of a great many in the Chemical Process Industries where Oakes Mixers are proving their outstanding ability to produce superior results.
THE E.T. OAKES CORPORATION 26 COMMACK ROAD ISLIP, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK JUNE
15,
1964
C& EN
33
f;. '•%
*, c
*ONM - J HIS MUCH : silicone defoamer
'*.*
m % *
STOPS THIS MUCH product-wasting, time-eating, hazard-building loam ^ : *$ \ i f *x ;v
κ·:
That's, all it take^. *r. just a fS^>arts per trillion of silicone antifoam to stop m q » foaming prob lems *— pffftf ;.. -· like that. ThiJpast, total action makes4i?ow Gorning^silicones ihei most efficient, long-lasting foam controllers, ever^developed. Send for your FREE SAMPLE t o d a y . . . all we need to know is whether your foam problem is: Π oil or Π aqueous — Π food or Π industrial. We'll also send a brochure with detailed data. Write Dept. 1806, Chemical Products Division, Dow Corning, Midland, Michigan 48641. w
Dow
Corning *
34
C&EN
JUNE
15, 1 9 6 4
*& ι
amounting to about $2.7 billion a year. The actual production of fissionable material accounts for only about $0.4 billion of that, a little less after the cut. That's what is mainly affected by the cutback. As I said before, the total of the budgets for the fabrication of nuclear weapons, for the nuclear weap ons laboratories, and for testing nu clear weapons has not gone down. It has actually gone up a bit. In the next few years, I don't see a great change in those budgets. Maybe in time they will go down; I don't know. Of course, the budget for the procurement of raw materials—ura nium ore—has gone down. But this has been planned for years. On the other hand, we have the large sphere of operation in civilian nuclear power and in reactor development generally. In civilian nuclear power our budget has been consistently running about $200 million a year. Our work here alone—on advanced converter and breeder reactors—should go on for some time. In the whole area of nuclear power development—and this includes naval reactors, maritime propulsion, and space systems—we are spending per haps another $300 million a year. Use of nuclear power by the merchant marine has great potential. Our space activities—Rover, the nuclear rocket program, and SNAP (Systems for Nu clear Auxiliary Power)—have increased several fold just in the past three years. I think these programs will continue to expand over the next several years. Our budget in isotopes continues to climb as more and more uses are de veloped. I look for an expansion in our budget for Plowshare—or peace ful uses of nuclear explosives—I think this is really coming into its own. Our work in controlled fusion, the so-called Sherwood Project, should continue to grow as will our entire re search budget. In physical research, for example, our budget alone went from about $197 million in fiscal 1964 to about $220 million for fiscal 1965. Our biological research budget is going up. We are carrying on quite a pro gram in education and training and this should continue to expand. In all of these areas there is either a continuation or a gradual expansion. So, as a result of the diversified and broad program of the AEC that has evolved over the years, there doesn't seem to be any indication of the agency going out of business. Quite the opposite, I'd say.
