-

Government. Energy. and ;\Iaterials (GE::\t) Affairs

John Graham

Over the past several years, the politics of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) has been tied to one crucial vote after another on Capi­tal Hill. As this is written in mid­November, another vote on the proj­ect is likely to occur during the lame-duck session of the 97th Congress, and, by the time this ma­terial is published, the fate of this controversial project may have been sealed. A majority vote in the House of Representatives to cancel the proj­ect could be fatal; a sustaining vote to continue the project will guaran-

56

tee it life only until another vote is taken next year.

There is a strange political para­dox about CRBR. President Jimmy Carter sought to kill it, but a large body of his own party, joined annu­ally by the Republicans voting in a bloc, stayed his hand and continued the project. Now, President Ronald Reagan strongly supports CRBR, but a large number of conservative Republicans, joined by the most lib­eral Democrats, stand ready to strike it down every time they have a chance to vote on the matter.

Whatever the outcome of the next vote, Capitol Hill support for Clinch River has gradually eroded from a very solid majority to something that now appears to be roughly an equal division on this issue.

The history of CRBR has been clouded by many debates both in­side and outside the nuclear com­munity. The project was conceived a dozen or so years ago at a time when the first waves of public de­bate over nuclear power were just beginning to break on these shores. At that time, there was a very close

JOURNAL OF METALS· January 1983

supportive bond between the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Joint Congressional Committee on Nucle­ar Energy, and the nuclear-energy community (industry, academia, and American Nuclear Society), and a demonstration breeder was then, as now, considered to be a vital ele­ment in the future of nuclear power.

The breeder gives fission power es­sentially an unlimited future, and breeding technology is well established. It has been demonstrated in this country in small R&D plants dating back to the earliest days of the

JOURNAL OF METALS· January 1983

peaceful atom, and it has been dem­onstrated abroad in medium-sized plants. Without the breeder, the fission-power option is one of short­term. The only fissionable isotope oc­curring in nature-uranium 235-is relatively rare, but a breeder can produce a net gain in fissionable isotopes-plutonium 239.

There was never any notion with­in the original groups named above that the breeder would not be deployed. The only question at that time was "when?" and "how?" Our first commercial power reactors were

built by the light-water converter­reactor (LWR) industry, which grew up around the nuclear-Navy subma­rine program. It was generally con­ceded that the L WR phase of the fission-power industry, given pluto­nium recycle in LWRs, would en­dure for 50 years or so, to be followed by some mixture of L WRs and breeders. The future scheme would be designed to burn all the plutonium as it was produced and separated from the spent fuel. Thus, the system (the nuclear-fuel cycle) would be in balance, and there

57

would be little or no excess plutoni­um stored around the country.

That was the ideal. In practice, things have been quite diverse. At the onset of breeder planning, there was an enormous hassle within the nuclear community over breeder designs, over when we should com­mit the first plant to demonstrate the generation of electricity for a major utility grid, and over a num­ber of lesser issues such as who would build the first breeder, where it would be built, etc.

Sometime in the late 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission decided on a breeder approach that I have always called "The Best of All Pos­sible Worlds." These decisions were not handed down all at one time, but in reasonable sequence, the old AEC decided that the nation "had time" to take an approach that would test all components before a plant would be built to generate electricity. Thus, the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was first committed as a program that was fully funded by the government. It is now in op­eration on the Hanford, Washington, reservation. It's an R&D breeder, but it does not generate electricity.

When the decision to build FFTF was made, many people within the nuclear community felt this was an unnecessarily long and circuitous route to the real breeder, and these same people generally argue today that, had we gone directly to CRBR, it would now be in operation.

Then came the argument over who would build the plant and where it would be built. Westinghouse, Gen­eral Electric, and Atomics Interna­tional mounted an enormous lobby as each sought to win the contract to build the plant. At this point the question of an appropriate design be­came a major issue. Westinghouse, with pressurized water reactor experience, proposed the "loop" sys­tem for the liquid-metal heat-trans­fer medium, and General Electric, with its boiling-water concept, offered to build a "pool" type breeder. At the end of the contest for the government contract, Westing­house was given the "lead" role for a "loop" design, but both GE and AI were given subcontracts to participate in this grand design to demonstrate both breeding of pluto­nium and love and affection among reactor vendors. This last item, obviously, was wishful thinking, yet an element of the old quarrel over "loop" and "pool" (it's the same word spelled backward) is still devisive within the nuclear engineer­ing community. France, for example, has gone forward with the "pool"

58

concept; thus, the "pool" advocates sometime argue that the Clinch Riv­er design is not the best possible one.

If this attempt by the government to merge the reactor vendors into one happy group weren't enough, the AEC also decided to bring both the public and the private power companies into the system. Apparently believing the old adage that three is a lucky number, the agency set up a three-pronged management group composed of the government, investor-owned Commonwealth Edi­son, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the last two having heavy nuclear power-reactor experience. The entire nuclear power industry was also to be included in the project, arid the original plans called for this industry to foot half the bill for the demonstration breeder.

The site for the plant was finally selected on Clinch River within the Oak Ridge national reservation, from which the 375 megawatt electric fa­cility would feed into the TV A grid.

That was the grandiose plan, which obviously involved too many programs, too many companies, and too many managers. The federal government, eventually, assumed most of the management control and the major financial responsibility-a sizable undertaking since the projected costs have escalated many-fold in the ensuing years.

The project's politics ran into trou­ble when the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy was disbanded by Congress, and nuclear­energy programs were scattered among a number of oversight com­mittees, many of which have been

(and are) under the leadership con­trol of the liberal wing of the Demo­cratic party. At about the same time, the Atomic Energy Commis­sion was cut up into a regulatory agency-the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-and an energy agency that eventually was ploughed into the Department of Energy.

The fate of the demonstration breeder was not well served by any one of these historicai events. In the same evolutionary period, the repro­cessing of spent fuel-an obligatory function if bred plutonium is to be separated so that breeders. can be­come a reality-was pushed by the federal government as a national priority. The companies that in­volved themselves in what they believed would become a lucrative industry took a bath at the hands of the U.S. government, which first urged them on, and then cut them off. These activities surrounding reprocessing have also had serious repercussions on the planning for any breeder commitments.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commis­sion, a relative newcomer on this scene, has also involved itself in these matters in such a way that has further delayed the breeder program. It embarked on a long and complex program called GESMO for short, which means "Generic Envi­ronmental Study of the use of Mixed Oxide fuels." This program has af­fected all matters related to breeder reactors.

The Carter administration set CRBR back by at least four years, and enabled the anti-nuclear lobby to move from a foothold, to a bridge­head, to a command position on the

OAK RIDGE

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTO

PLANT SITE , TO KNOXVillE

JOURNAL OF METALS· January 1983

Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project Money Spent By State Through October 31, 1982

Dollars In Millions

Alabama 9.5 Maryland 0.6 Oregon 3.5 California 512.9 Massachusetts 9.4 Pennsylvania 303.7 Connecticut 1.7 Michigan 0.7 Rhode Island 0.1 D.C. 0.6 Minnesota 2.4 Tennessee 164.8 Florida 0.1 Missouri 2.3 Texas 12.9 Georgia 4.3 Montana 0.1 Utah 0.9 Idaho 1.8 New Jersey 182.2 Virginia 0.1 Illinois 18.9 New Mexico 0.2 Washington 21,0 Indiana 14.4 New York 28.6 West Virginia 0.1 Iowa 0.4 North Carolina 6.6 Wisconsin 5.5 Kansas 0.4 Ohio Kentucky 0.2 Oklahoma

feature of breeder reactors in this country.

In the first place, Jimmy Carter was not convinced that the United States would ever need a breeder reactor. His advisers convinced him that there is a great deal more natu­ral uranium in the ground-along with the rare fissionable isotope­than the nuclear industry claims, and they oversold the value of renewable resources vis-a-vis the generation of electricity. The advis­ers also told the President that the current generation L WRs can be made much more efficient in fuel consumption, and the administration established a highly regarded con­cept called the extended burnup program. The idea with the Carterites was to extend the life of the vital L WR energy option as far into the future as possible, and then gradually phase out the fission option as solar-and perhaps fusion-would take over.

Congress, however, had another opinion on these matters, and it stayed the CRBR execution, at least for four years. The core support on Capitol Hill for the demonstration breeder is among the moderates in both parties, who, until just recently, have voted in a majority in both houses for the continuation of CRBR and other advanced nuclear programs.

In the Senate, the core vote is centered in the Energy Committee and is shared about equally among moderate Democrats and Republicans, so it matters little which party is in control. Republican Senators James McClure (Idaho) and Pete Domenici (New Mexico) join Democrats Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Washington) and

JOURNAL OF METALS· January 1983

27.9 Foreign 4.2 0.3 Total$1,343.3

Bennett Johnston (Louisiana) to manage advanced nuclear issues. In the 97th Congress, a conservative Republican group, led by Senator Gordon Humphrey (New Hampshire), has joined the liberal Democrats, led by Senator Dale Bumpers (Arkansas) and supported by Senator Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts), in a move to kill CRBR. The Senate is now almost equally split on this issue, and majority leader Howard Baker (Tennesee) is hard pressed to hold a majority vote in support of the proj­ect that is planned for his home state.

The Clinch River debate in the Senate presents some strange bedfel­lows. Senator Humphrey, who repre­sents the "New Right," is backed by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, which is supported by the Coors family-the name made famous by their beer. Coors' money also helped elect Ronald Reagan president. Meanwhile, the liberal democratic senators use essentially the same argument as Humphrey, and much of their external support comes from the Natural Resource Defense Council-a staunch leader in the environmental movement. Thus, it is a strange thing indeed to find the Heritage Foundation and NRDC on the same side of any argument.

In the House, continued support for Clinch River was once centered in the Science & Technology Com­mittee, where the moderate Demo­crats and the Republicans voted in a bloc for Clinch River. But the Re­publican bloc came apart in the 97th Congress. A splinter group of young freshmen Republicans in Science &

Technology is led by Rep. Claudine Schneider (Rhode Island), who be­fore coming to Congress listed her occupation as "antinuclear activist." They have made the demise of CRBR their legislative priority. Schneider, personally, does not fit into the conservative mold, but she and her supporters argue the same party line: We don't need the breeder, and, in these days when the government cannot afford social program, why should the taxpayer be burdened with this questionable technology?

Today, the real strength in the House for Clinch River is within the conservative wing of the Democratic party and among the Republican "boll weevils." This means that the core support is in the South, or in the Sun Belt, and is among congress­men who strongly support such oth­er things as a strong national de­fense posture and preeminence for America in the world of high technology.

Democrat Tom Bevill (Alabama), who chairs the Appropriations Sub­committee on Energy and Water Development, generally heads this group so far as the continued sup­port of Clinch River is concerned.

During the Carter years, the nu­clear community supported Clinch River as a symbol of the survival of nuclear power. When Reagan was elected, this binding symbolism gen­erally vanished, and some of the old squabble within the community over the best design concepts has resur­faced. Now, the general concensus within the community is that too much time has been lost already; accordingly, the nation should move quickly to finish the CRBR project­to gain hands-on experience with the proposed demonstration plant. The fight over designs can await the next plant commitment.

A big argument used by the anti­nuclear lobby is that Clinch River is a "technological turkey." This is a flip expression. It has caught the fancy of the press, because it takes only two words to make a very bold and crushing statement. Breeder ex­perts have been fighting against this quick, look-in conclusion for years, and they are increasing their argu­ments in these last days before the next vote on the project. The CRBR design is considered sound within the engineering community, and it has been updated continually across the years. Indeed, it incorporates some significant new approaches to breeder core-design technologies. Nonetheless, the engineers' argu­ments are seldom heard, since they must compete against the loud howl-

59

ing of the breeder opponents who are now moving in for the kill.

Meanwhile, other industrialized countries, notably France, Japan,

, and Russia, have moved dramatically toward full commitment to a breed­er economy. Our allies-France and Japan-are now urging this country to move ahead expeditiously to com­plete Clinch River, because they rec­ognize that the technological under­pinning for these kinds of advanced programs are international in scope and cannot survive in isolated na­tional environments.

So, we come down to the next vote on Clinch River, and it's in the hands of the politicians. The issue will be raised when the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill comes to the floor of the House. Tom Bevill, who will manage the bill on the floor, is now testing the political winds in the light of the last elections. It is his job to sell his entire package of appropriations to Congress. If he and his associates think that their chances for success will be enhanced by waiting for a vote in the 98th Congress, they will move for a new continuing resolu­tion (they are now operating under one), and the next vote on Clinch River will be bound over until next year. If, however, they think their chances are best in the lame-duck session, they will go to the floor with

(Continued from page 53)

flaw criticality); environmental effects; time­dependent behavior; relationship between processing, mechanical properties, and de­sign.

Submit 300- to 500-word abstracts to Kathy Greene, ASTM Publications Depart­ment, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Penn­sylvania 19103; telephone (215) 299-5414.

Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth

Abstracts are due by April 18, 1983 for the Symposium on Automated Test Meth­ods for Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth, sponsored by the American Socie­ty for Testing and Materials, November 7 -8, 1983 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Contributions should address the degree to which experiences with the development of automated techniques conform to existing standards, or with acceptably good test practices, or should suggest ways in which standards could be amended.

Submit 300- to 500-word abstracts to Kathy Greene, ASTM Publications Division, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylva­nia 19103; telephone (215) 299-5414.

60

their bill sometime in December. Success in the house during the

lame-duck session, will surely mean success for CRBR in the Senate, and the project will be continued for at least one more year. Defeat in the House does not necessarily mean de­feat in the Senate and in the confer­ence committee, but it will make project recovery extremely difficult.

If a vote to stop CRBR funding is actually voted this year, a fast move in the next Congress will surely be made to resurrect the project. However, the project cannot go for­ward very long without funds, and new attempts to bring it back to life cannot be made over and over in the same manner as attempts to kill the project have been carried out.

Thus, the fate of CRBR probably hangs on the next House vote, which may come before you read this. For what it's worth at this late date, the nuclear engineering experts-the ones who are best informed on these matters-support the continuation of Clinch River. The American Nucle­ar Society supports it; the National Society of Professional Engineers supports it; the American Associa­tion of Engineering Societies sup­ports it; the American Society of Me­chanical Engineers supports it; and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers supports it. That accounts

for approximately one million engin­eers.

These engineers are anxious to get on with this program, and they believe that the American public has been given some very bad advice by detractors of this and other impor­tant programs that are designed to keep this nation in the forefront of advanced technologies.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Graham, Wash­ington Representative, American Nuclear Soc­iety, 2029 K Street, Suite 501 A, Washing­ton DC 20006.

Mr. Graham receiv­ed a bachelors de­gree in naval science

from the University of North Carolina and a masters degree in the history of ideas from the University of Florida.

He spent 12 years as a naval officer, during which time he was an intelligence specialist, and Italian linguist, and a mem­ber of the diplomatic corps. Almost 10 years of his professional career has been spent in Italy. At the American Nuclear Society, Graham has served as director of publications, and as editor of Nuclear News. As Washington representative, he provides liaison with both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, with foreign embassies and trade associations, and with other educational and professional societies.

Materials Testing I tions, unusual metallographic preparations Abstracts are due by March 15, 1983 and techniques, and general metallography. for Materials Testing Technicians to be Submit 100- to l50-word abstracts to Derek held November 24-25, 1983 in Osnabruck, O. Northwood, Department of Engineering West Germany. The meeting will cover Materials, University of Windsor, Windsor, the mechanical testing of materials rang- Ontario, 'Canada N9B 3P4; telephone (519) ing from sample selection to the evalua- 253-4232. tion and analysis of results. Conference language is German.

Submit abstracts on registration forms available from Meetings Secretary, Deutsche Gesellschaft fUr Metallkunde e.V., Adenauerallee 21, D-6370 Oberursel, West Germany; telephone 0671/40 81.

Metallography

Abstracts are due by January 15, 1983 for the Sixteenth Annual Technical Meeting of the International Metallographic Society to be held July 27-28, 1983, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Topics are sought on metallography of corrosion and corrosion-related failures, metallography and chemical analysis of pro­tective coatings and surfaces, metallography in the oil and gas industries including on-site failure analysis, microstructure-property re­lationships, microstructure-fracture correla-

Metals and Minerals Processing Abstracts are due by January 15, 1983 for a symposium on "Metals and Minerals Processing" to be held in conjunction with the 1983 Summer National Meeting of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, August 28-32, 1983, Denver, Colorado. Pa­pers are invited in the area of extraction and refining of materials from minerals. Both high- and low-temperature processes will be considered along with topics relat­ed to fundamental principles involved in metals and minerals processing. Papers dealing with the results of recent research investigations, new plant practices, or other novel methods will be emphasized.

Submit abstracts up to 200 words and a "proposal to present" form (available from AIChE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, New

(Continued on page 67)

JOURNAL OF METALS· January 1983