.^^^^ °' 00.\

NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 888

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Bureau of Standards

Nuclear Science Education Day

QC

100
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards^ was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology,

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United

States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system

with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce. The Institute consists of the Office of Measurement Services, the Office of Radiation Measurement and the following Center and divisions:

Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Center

for Radiation Research: Nuclear Sciences; Applied Radiation — Laboratory Astrophysics^ —• Cryogenics - — Electromagnetics - — Time and Frequency ". THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; provides

advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and

distributes standard reference materials. The Institute consists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials, the Office of Air and Water Measurement, and the following divisions:

Analytical Chemistry — Polymers — Metallurgy — Inorganic Materials — Reactor

Radiation — Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of

technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), codes and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies upon jrequest. The Insti- tute consists of the following divisions and Centers: Standards Application and Analysis — Electronic Technology — Center for Consumer

Product Technology: Product Systems Analysis; Product Engineering — Center for Building

Technology: Structures, Materials, and Life Safety; Building Environment; Technical Evaluation and Application — Center for Fire Research: Fire Science; Fire Safety Engineering.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effec- tiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition, and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within

the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for automatic data processing

equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Institute consists of the following

divisions: Computer Services — Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination and

accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference Data System and

a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum

accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Qffice consists of the following

organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data — Office of Information Activities — Office of Technical

Publications — Library — Office of International Relations — Office of International Standards.

^ Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

= Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
09 STAKBARDS

hltiRABr

MOV 2 6 Wb

Nuclear Science Education Day

-t.t^"^'' ' %si Y^^ n^ <^'^^

Proceedings of a Conference held at the » W 5 7 3 5

National Bureau of Standards az> . B ^ ? Gaithersburg, Md., November 29, 1973 / 9 "? 5

Edited by

F. J. Shorten

Institute for Materials Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Sponsored by

The American Nuclear Society

(Washington Chapter)

and

The National Bureau of Standards

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary

James A. Baker, III, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assisianf Secretary for Science and Technology

(j S . NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

Issued November 1975
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-600081

National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 888

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note 888, 95 pages (Nov. 1975) CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1975

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, I).C. 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.46:888). Price $1.65 (Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing).
DISCLAIMER

"Apart from the Welcoming Address by Dr. Ambler,

the comments expressed in the various invited

papers represent the views of the authors of

the papers or their organizations, and do not

necessarily represent the views of the National

Bureau of Standards."

PREFACE

A Nuclear Science Education Day was presented at the National Bureau of Standards

on November 29, 1973. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to high school

science teachers and outstanding students on:

1. The various research and development aspects of the application of nuclear

energy,'

2. The interrelations between man, the environment and nuclear energy,

3. Present research frontiers in the use of nuclear techniques and nuclear energy,

4. Career and educational opportunities in nuclear science.

Attendees were teachers, students and special guests from Northern Virginia, the

District of Columbia and Maryland, The affair was co-sponsored by tne National Bureau of

Standards and the Washington Section of the American Nuclear Society. The Program Com- mittee consisted of the following:

Dr. Robert Carter, NBS Liaison, National Bureau of ' Standards

.

Dr. Dick Duffy, ANS Liaison, University of Maryland.

Dr. George Ferguson, Master of Ceremonies, Howard University.

Dr. Bobby Leonard, Program Coordinator, Catholic University and Institute for

Resource Management, Inc.

Dr. Arthur Randol III, Finance Coordinator, Potomac Electric Power Company.

Mr. Fred Shorten, Arrangements Coordinator, National Bureau of Standards.

Financial support for the meeting was provided by:

Babcock and Wilcox Company

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Bechtel Corporation

Combustion Engineering Company

General Electric Company

Nuclear Associates International

NUS Corporation

Pickard, Lowe, and Associates

Potomac Electric Power Company

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

After the program sessions were completed, a tour of the National Bureau of Standards

Research Nuclear Reactor and associated laboratories Tffas conducted by the reactor staff.

ABSTRACT

These proceedings are a collection of invited papers given at the Nuclear Science

Education Day Conference held on November 29, 1973 at the National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, MD. The program was sponsored jointly by the ANS (Washington Chapter) and

the NBS for secondary school science teachers and outstanding science students in the

Washington area. Four main topics are covered: research and development in nuclear

energy applications; man, environment and nuclear energy; nuclear science frontiers; and career opportunities in nuclear science.

Key words: Biology; career; ecological; electricity; energy; environment; fusion; medicine;

nuclear; power; radiation; reactor; research; utilities.

TATLE OF cn[.TBrrs

Preface v

Abstract vii

Welcoming Address xi

Nuclear Science Day - Welcome xiii

Nuclear Power: Everyone's Involved 1

Energy Research and the Electric Power Research Institute 13

The Role of the Public in the Evaluation Process 34

Assessing Environmental Effects, the Risk and Bengifit Concept.

Ecological Monitoring Techniques

Radiation Utilization in Medicine and Biology

Advanced Concepts in Applied Nuclear Science

38

46

50

62

Projected National and Regional Manpower Needs for Environmental and Nuclear Scientists. . ''

Educational Opportunities at Institutions of Higher Learning 81

WELCOMING ADDRESS

Dr. E. Ambler

(Deputy Director, Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.)

I'm happy to welcome you as teachers and students to the National Bureau of Standards

for two reasons. First, let me mention a personal point of view. I have two boys, one

13 years old in Pyle Junior High School and one 15 in Walt Whitman High School. The fine

teaching they are getting in science and other subjects has done a lot for them. So, in return, I'm glad to do anything I can to make your stay pleasant and profitable.

Then, secondly, as deputy director of a scientific institution, I can say that we

at NBS are happy you've come. The connections between the educational community and the

Bureau are very close -- they've always been close. Many of our staff are sent back to universities for courses and training of various types, many of our staff teach at local

universities, and we have strong interactions with school programs. For example, our summer program is very strongly related to high school students. We help in such activities

as the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, the U.S. Mathematical Olympiad, and we try to establish contacts with you to exchange ideas about education and about science in general.

Your meeting here today is particularly timely, I think. Nuclear technology is something everyone is concerned with these days because of the energy crisis. And while

it is true that nuclear power will not help us a great deal this winter, nevertheless.

in the long term, we can see that nuclear technology and coal technology are going tc be exploited in order to insure that this country is going to be independent as far i

:o

- ^ . as energy sources are concerned

The Bureau of Standards is deeply involved in nuclear technology and has been ever

since nuclear science was discovered back in 1931. The Bureau was involved in an interesting way through its cryogenics program, which provides an example of how science is really

one subject, and one area of speciality tends to relate to another in unexpected ways. It was NBS cryogenics scientists who succeeded in distilling liquid hydrogen and producing a sufficient concentration of heavy hydrogen to enable Harold Urey at Columbia University

to make a positive identification, spectroscopically , of deuterium. Of course, you know

that deuterium in its chemical compound, heavy water, now plays an important role in many reactors.

Many of you have read that when the nuclear energy age dawned, Albert Einstein wrote

to the President suggesting that an atomic bomb should be built. Well, probably what

isn't so well known is that the first man that President Roosevelt turned to was the

Bureau Director, at that time Lyman Briggs, and the Bureau was involved in the planning

of the Manhattan Project. Enough of the historical involvement, although I think it is important to consider these aspects because science is an evolving subject and it is good

to know where our roots are planted.

The most fully developed alternative to fossil fuel as an energy source is nuclear

energy, but even the supply of nuclear fuel used in the present power reactors is limited.

A new class of reactors called breeder reactors is being developed. As you know, breeder

reactors will produce more fissionable material than they use, thus greatly increasing

our fuel resources. Here again the Bureau is helping to develop this new class of reactor

by providing data and standards of radiation fields that will enable these reactors to be

better designed and more efficient. You will probably see some of this work on a tour this

afternoon at the research reactor, where a good deal is being done.

We have extensive programs in radioactivity, like the work we do to develop standard

reference materials. The range of SRM applications is broad. For instance, they are used

to aid the monitoring of the environment with respect to nuclear reactors. This helps

with water pollution control. But other radioactivity SRM' s are used in the medical field

for radio pharmaceutical standards and for X-ray and other exposure standards essential

to diagnosis and treatment.
You will learn much more about the nuclear field from the conference today. You will

explore in depth both the benefits and the problems associated with nuclear technology.

Because of the impact that nuclear technology may have on our lives, it is important that

the consequences be communicated to the general public and widely understood so that people

can evaluate the risks and benefits and make the trade-offs that are going to be necessary

in the future. I think you as science teachers and students have a very important function

to perform. I think that the future voting public^are going to have to be called upon to make decisions about how much nuclear power will be developed, where it will be located,

and what the effect on the environment will be. We cannot make these decisions unless we are informed. So I think this seminar is particularly important and particularly timely,

and we at the Bureau of Standards are very pleased that you have come here to join in this

activity. I hope you enjoy it, I hope you benefit from it, and I hope you have a successful day. Thank you very much.
NUCLEAR SCIENCE DAY - WELCOME

D. Duffy

(University of Maryland, College Park, Md .

)

The aim of the American Nuclear Society is to provide the advancement of science and

engineering relating to the atomic nucleus. We are well aware of the controversy over the

applications of nuclear reactions, particularly nuclear power plants; there is similar concern over chemical power units, such as automobiles and fossil fuel utility operations.

Nevertheless, financial commitments have been made, and the nuclear efforts of the U.S. will

be a major influence in the country's energy program and in related scientific and industrial endeavors.

In view of this, the American Nuclear Society has sponsored many meetings to help

acquaint teachers and students with both the scientific basis of the nuclear field and

with the applied activities. Consequently, the Washington Section of the American Nuclear

Society and our host, the National Bureau of Standards, with the financial help of local

industrial groups, have arranged a Nuclear Science Day.

The following comments relating to electrical power stations will lay some basis for

the presentations to follow and will indicate the large scale effort and hence sizeable

financial investments involved in nuclear work.

Now fossil fuels are supplying most of the electrical power of the United States. For example, a large coal fired plant near Shiprock, New Mexico on the Navajo Indian

Reservation produces about the same amount of power as one of the reactors at the Calvert

Cliff station or the planned Douglas Point facility. Such coal plants have provided much

of our central station power for years, and hence, have general public acceptance. Nevertheless, these fossil fuel operations are now becoming a part of the environmental discussion, and this plant, even though in a very remote area, is the subject of criticism

because of its local strip mine and the fumes from the stacks. The cooling pond limits

thermal pollution to the property, but, of course, precious water is consumed in evaporation.

It should be noted that a coal plant releases some radioactive materials because of the

uranium, thorium, and potassium in rocks, and hence coal, and the environmental analyses

for a coal plant must consider these nuclear problems.

Most of the nuclear efforts of the U.S. relate directly or indirectly to the fission

react ion

.

NUCLEAR FISSION REACTION

U 235 + NEUTRON

PU 23 31

|U 233

f

Q

*- FISSION + 2.5 NEUTRONS -ENERGY

PRODUCTS

.^ 1 1.5

1/3 TO ELECTRICITY)

REST TO HEAT SINK]

U 235 + NEUTRONS CHAIN CONTAINUES ~ CONTROL (BORON) - REACTOR MATES. OCCURS IN NATURE

7% U 23 5 NATURAL URANIUM <99.3% U 238

-ISOTOPE TARGETS

U 238 PU 239 L TH 232 U233
This nuclear fission reaction depends on the three long lived nuclides in nature, namely-, U 235 (which fissions) and U 238 and Th 232 that can be converted in a reactor to fissionable nuclides, Pu 239 and U 233. Many industrial and medical applications of radioactive

materials, e.g., Co 60 for radiation therapy and Tc 99m for diagnostic procedures, are based on neutrons from this reaction. The engineering problems are the well known ones

of the radioactive fission products, that must be confined, and the heat rejection, as in

conventional plants.

To apply this reaction, the uranium fuel must be assembled.

A fuel unit for a nuclear reactor contains about 150 tubes, about 1/2 inch in diameter

and 15 ft. long filled with uranium oxide; about 200 such assemblies nested together in a pressure vessel constitutes the core of a reactor. Control is by boron containing assemblies,

perhaps a 100, fitting into the fuel units. The pressure vessel maybe 40 ft. high and 15 ft. in diameter and weighing 500 tons contains the reacting mass and the water coolant and

moderator

Hot water from the pressure vessel may go to a steam generator about the same physical

size as the pressure vessel. All this equipment which holds the fission products is further

confined in a containment structure so as to prevent any releases of radioactive materials

to the public. The turbine receives the steam and produces electricity with the reject

heat to a sink, e.g., a cooling pond. In the U.S. something like 175 of these large reactors

are now under construction or planned. In addition, much nuclear activity related to nonpower, e.g., industrial and medical isotopes. All this effort must be supported by research

and development in nuclear science and this talent must be a product of your educational

efforts in science. It is hoped that this Science Day program will add to your lore of

nuclear knowledge and benefit your educational activities.
NUCLEAR POWER: EVERYONE'S INVOLVED

J. L. Liverman

(U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. )

It is a personal pleasure for me to have this opportunity to participate in Nuclear

Science Education Day, since I have spent nearly half of my life as a student and a teacher.

I look forward to every opportunity to meet with students and especially with those who

have a clearly demonstrated interest in science and who have become outstanding science

students. Continue your accomplishments! Our country's future may well rest in your hands

and sooner than you think. I will return to this point later.

The American Nuclear Society and those organizations that have shared in sponsoring

this program also deserve a special word of praise for their efforts to promote an understanding of the energy problem generally, and more especially of nuclear energy. Educational experiences such as you are enjoying today are absolutely essential if you are to understand what nuclear energy is about and how it plus all other available energy sources

must be used to supply our demands.

I understand that later today Dr. Victor Bond of Brookhaven National Laboratory is to dis- cuss research in nuclear medicine and its use in the diagnosis and treatment of many human

diseases. Nuclear energy also has been useful in tracing sources of environmental pollution, for providing electrical power for use in space, for stimulating gas production (by

nuclear explosions), as a power source for heart pacemakers, and for other exciting applications. Later Dr, Glenn Graves, a scientist from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, plans

to discuss research in fusion which unlike fission will join atoms together rather than

split them apart. Both processes yield energy, but we only know how to capture that from

fission--in the fission reactor--a use of nuclear energy that almost everyone is talking

about but which very few really know much about. It is in this area that I want to spend most of my time.

Before I discuss nuclear energy, however, it is important to put in perspective for

you the whole energy problem as we are now facing it and to describe briefly the energy

R&D planning exercise in which I have been involved for the past five months. Why do we

have an energy problem? One of the reasons is that the U.S. with less than 67, of the

world's population uses 35?o of the energy consumed in the world. That sounds impressive,

but when those figures are translated into real life uses, an energy shortage becomes

quite personal. The billions of BTU' s consumed in the U.S. in 1970, for example, supplied

power and heat to some 60 million homes; powered 110 million vehicles; produced 1000 lbs.

of steel, 2000 lbs. of food, and 60 lbs. of cloth for every man, woman and child in the

country. In all, our energy use is equivalent to approximately 80 slaves per person. Of course, we can and we will find ways to cut back on energy consumption and plug up any waste. But that alone is not enough as you are certainly aware from the reduced speed

limits just imposed and the still imminent gas and fuel shortage being projected. Our problem is basically a demand that exceeds supply. This is shown graphically in Figure 1 which

is taken from a staff study for the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the U.S. Congress.

In view of the marked shortage on imports brought about by the Arab embargo we clearly

must ask "what are our energy options--both supply and demand--at this time?" The issues

will become clearer from a look at Figure 2 taken from the same JCAE report which shows

the sources of our energy and their end use patterns in 1970. A major portion of our oil

goes into transportation, but important amounts also move into industrial and commercial

use with somewhat less being used for home heating, and central station power generation.

Natural gas moves in a major way into industrial and commercial channels and home heating

with somewhat less going to generate central station power. An important point here is that there have been large recent shifts toward use of these two now "in-short-supply"

resources in central station power generation because of their cleanliness as compared to coal

.

Perhaps against this backdrop the recent Presidential announcements concerning shift1
ing from gas and oil to coal for the central station power use and for industrial and com- mercial use where possible makes more sense. Also the reason for slower speeds on the highway and more car pooling then begins to make more sense as a quick response, short term measure

Clearly we must assess the state of our own natural resources. Coal is abundant but

it is dirty and creates problems when mined and transported and burned. Domestic oil and

gas that can be obtained just by drilling is very limited even though relatively large

quantities exist in shale and off-shore areas but the methods for obtaining it are either

not well developed or legal issues constrain the use of these sources. Hydroelectric sources

are already contributing near their maximum and, while this source is important in some local

regions, its input to the total energy requirement of the nation is sorely limited. We find

the contribution from nuclear stations at this point minimal although the promise for much

larger contributions during the next five years is very good. Nuclear will contribute a much larger percentage by 1990. Power from fusion, geotihermal, solar, wind, bioconversion,

ocean gradients and other specialized sources are not yet adequately developed and cannot contribute very much in the short term.

We have looked at our energy demands, at our current use patterns and at our resources

for solving our own problems so let us return once again to the question "What are our op- tions, and what do we do at this time ? Clearly we must reach a stage of self sufficiency

such that a threat of reduction of our imports cannot be used as an instrument of blackmail

to cause us as' a nation to do things we would not condone at other times. Operating within

that constraint we must determine how best to use the resources we have. We must explore

at least the following options and, if they are not fully available, to take the steps

necessary to make them available:

1. Continue to import from dependable sources.

2. Reduce our needs and conserve our resources;

3. Increase the production of oil and gas;

4. Substitute coal for oil and gas where possible;

5. Guarantee the nuclear option; and

6. Exploit other potential energy sources.

But earlier I have mentioned that many of these options are not immediately available

to us. You as students who have excelled in science know that one of the best insurance

policies for keeping old options open and for creating new options is research and development. It is on that basis then I believe that the President on June 29 directed the Chair- man of the AEC to do three things:

1. To prepare by September 1, 1973, recommendations for a $100 million increased

spending on Energy R&D for FY 1974.

2. To prepare by December 1, 1973, a 5-year $10 billion R&D program on energy.

3. As part of the $10 billion program, to recommend specific funding for FY 1975.

Many hundreds of people have been involved in this exercise and I am most thankful that

December 1 is right around the corner.

The first exercise for FY 1974 finally turned out to be a $115 million program with

emphasis as shown in Figure 3.

In the $10 billion program about $3.7 billion will go for coal, oil and gas research;

$5.9 billion for nuclear research, and an additional $400 million for solar, geothermal and

miscellaneous areas such as conservation. The R&D programs are aimed directly at making

available the large coal supplies, the yet untapped gas and oil reserves, and the full,

rapid development of nuclear energy, as well as to explore solar and geothermal energy and

to insure all possible conservation measures. In the short term, the R&D aims at making it possible to shift the use pattern from oil to coal as rapidly as possible, particularly
from oil and gas to coal for generating electricity.

An area of R&D which I have not mentioned before because it falls outside the $10

billion exercise but which is terribly important, is the environment--both ecological and

health aspects. It is in fact the health effects and environmental impacts that cause the

greatest concerns of the public for all energy forms, particularly nuclear. With fossil

fuels the concerns are with S0„, NO , CO, hydrocarbons, trace metals, particulates and waste

heat. With nuclear power the public is concerned about the release and disposal of radioactive materials and with waste heat. All are important, but nuclear seems of greater

public concern, perhaps for historical reasons related to its introduction into society as

a secret weapon used for destructive purposes. It is difficult to reorient thinking towards

its peaceful and beneficial uses.

Some people still believe that the internals of reactors are kept secret for security

reasons, while in fact, reactor technology is open and available to the public. However,

the technical aspects of nuclear technology are complex, and thus many non-scientific people

are prone to avoid the subject. That is why it is important for you, your teachers, and

others to find ways of explaining nuclear technology in understandable terms and to move

from the emotional into a reasoned sphere.

Lately, nuclear power has been in the news locally. Baltimore Gas & Electric has

built a plant at Calvert Cliffs, VEPCO has several nuclear plants, and PEPCO plans to build

one nearby. The President has asked for speedier development of nuclear power in the face

of energy shortages, while others have asked for a moratorium 'on nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not a novelty; in 1951 a few light bulbs were illuminated by power

from an experimental reactor in Idaho. In 1957, the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in

Pennsylvania began producing electricity for consumers. Today, (Figure 4) there are 37 nuclear plants which can provide the electricity needs of nearly 10 million people. There

are another 57 reactors under construction and 89 planned. Nuclear power now supplies 5%

of the Nation's electricity, but according to estimates, it is expected to supply 207o by

1980, and about 50% by 1990.

I don't want to give a crash course in reactor technology, but perhaps the visualization offered by Figure 5 would help. (Slide) A nuclear fission reactor is a type of

furnace that uses uranium fuel instead of coal, oil or gas. Uranium-235 atoms are split

(or fissioned), releasing heat energy and subatomic particles called neutrons which strike

and fission yet other U-235 atoms, creating a chain reaction. The heat from this reaction

turns water into steam, which is used to drive a turbine to make electricity. Incidentally,

it would take 3 million pounds of coal to equal the energy locked inside just one pound of

uranium fuel . The amount of heat created in the reactor core is regulated by control rods

which can be moved up or down between the fuel rods. These rods contain material that act

as a brake on the chain reaction; that is, when a rod is in the core it absorbs neutrons

and prevents them from causing fissions and turns off the reactor.

As I mentioned earlier, present-day reactors rely on the fissionable Uranium-235

isotope for fuel, but this isotope represents less than 17o of the total energy available

in uranium. That is why the AEC is working on a breeder reactor which can turn abundant

(but non-fissionable) U-238 into a useful fuel, thus unlocking about 70% of the energy

available in uranium and extending useable uranium fuels for centuries. The AEC, TVA , and

Commonwealth Edison are cooperating in a top-priority pirogram to build the first Liquid

Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) .demonstration project at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I hope

that each of you has an opportunity to visit the Breeder Exhibit that is on display in the

lobby.

Briefly, the LMFBR would work this way: All of the neutrons released in a chain

reaction do not strike U-235 atoms, so, by carefully arranging fissionable U-235 and

surrounding it with a blanket of nonf issionable uranium (U-238) in a reactor, engineers

can direct the unused neutrons at the U-238 atoms. When a neutron enters the nucleus of

a U-238 atom it transforms it into U-239 which eventually decays to become Plutonium-239--
a fissionable material that can be used to fuel other reactors. Once this is achieved to the degree that more fuel is produced than consumed, it is said that the reactor is "breeding."

It is also imperative that we realize that R&D of any kind cannot go forward in isolation. Too often in the past R&D has become the victim of tunnel vision, of ' single-purposedness,' or parochial interest. Technologies were developed and research went forward without regard for an amalgam of social need, priority, interdisciplinary overlap, or environmental impact. But, with the environmental awakening of the late sixties, the inter-related

and inter-dependen,t nature of the various segments of the scientific community came into

focus. We can now see that scientists or engineers cannot perform effectively if isolated

from related disciplines or from the public community; their work may not be directed to society's needs, their knowledge may be incomplete and their potential contributions may

be ignored if not understood and accepted by people. My title as it appears on the programAssistant General Manager for Biomedical and Environmental Research and Safety Programs--is

a mouthful (even the abbreviation is unpronounceable: AGMBERSP) , but it does show the reality

of this inter-relationship.

The AEC spends nearly $1.5 billion a year conducting R&D. In some 30 laboratory facilities across the Nation, 25,000 scientists and engineers, including chemists, physicists,

mathematicians, biomedical and environmental specialist, and engineers from many fields,

work on nuclear R&D. Their efforts do not go on in isolation or in a haphazard fashion--

there are focal points toward which lines of investigations are directed and for which bits

and pieces of information from many projects help provide answers. One of these is the

question--is nuclear energy a safe, economical, environmentally-acceptable way to generate

electricity? The answer to that question cannot come from a closed-end process. It is an open-ended, on-going question which must, as Figure 6 shows, look in many diverse directions for answers.

What I want to emphasize this afternoon is that there are no easy or simple solutions

to the energy dilemma we face. The problem cannot be solved by the wave of a one-answerwand. Nuclear power isn't the complete answer. It is clear that we as a nation must attempt

to balance our energy equation by using all possible sources of energy in as meaningful a strategy as we can devise. This view in fact is what is behind the President's proposal

to convert the AEC into an Energy Research and Development Administration and make it re- sponsible for the development of an adequate, safe, clean energy whatever its source. With

that concept I fully agree. But let me return to nuclear energy.

If the breeder reactor is developed and researchers find a practical route to fusion,

the spectre of a future energy shortage will pass, but when we think carefully about energy

problems, we can see that they are very complex. Let's just take one example--the facet

of timing. There are very short-term problems of what to do today and tomorrow; mid-range

problems running well into the next century. Just sorting out all of these different parts

of the problem is no easy task; the solutions of the problems will require all of the ingenuity of all of us for a long time.

All too often when something goes wrong, as it has in the energy field, the scene

that follows is a frenzy of finger-pointing and name-calling. For some strange reason we demand a scapegoat, but this seldom serves a constructive purpose. Today we have so many

scapegoats among us, it seems that there are more blamees than blamers. We blame the

government, we blame business, we even blame entire segments of society. Unfortunately,

we frequently overlook the fact that these groups reflect us as individuals and are no wiser or more ignorant than we are. As once said through the wisdom of "Pogo", "We have

met the enemy and they are us."

The energy and environmental circumstances that we face today demand that each and

everyone of us becomes aware of what the facts are, of what action is needed, and how each

of us can help. There is no time for irresponsible behavior or scapegoating.

As I mentioned earlier, nuclear power is no secret. At the AEC we are determined to

4
make widespread unbiased information about nuclear energy available in many forms-- films,

speakers, booklets, workshops. Incidentally, I understand that many of the teachers in

this audience took part in a workshop on energy and the environment that we co-sponsored

recently with the University of Maryland. I hope you continue to make use of such information resources, because, while experts can formulate energy policies and engineers can

find the needed technologies, unless people comprehend, acceptance won't come easy.

I firmly believe that achieving public understanding of nuclear energy is a number

one priority--the importance of nuclear power in our Nation's energy game plan over the next few decades means we cannot afford the luxury of tolerating the nonsense and rais- conce^jtions about nuclear power that are being fed to the public from some sources. For

example, if someone unfamiliar with nuclear power hears only from critics who paint horror

stories of the hazards of radiation from nuclear plants, there's no wonder that that person might become hesitant about nuclear power. This nonsense must be put in perspective.

The public must know that radiation is a part of the natural environment; that, for

example, anyone who takes a jet flight from New York to San Francisco receives ten times

the radiation exposure that he would have received from nuclear power plant operations in

this country. Why? Simply because of the increase of cosmic radiation at higher altitudes.

Figure 7 shows a few other comparisons of radiation exposures that aren't too often thought

about. As you can see, nuclear power doesn't rank very high as a source of radiation.

As I am confident, that given an opportunity to learn the facts Americans can and

will demonstrate common sense about nuclear power. That is why I so strongly support programs such as today's, where students and teachers have an opportunity to meet face to face with experts of varying views in some cases, but with a sense of responsibility as

a common denominator.

There's an ancient Chinese curse that goes "may you live in interesting times."

There's no doubt that we are living in an interesting time--a complex time--but an exciting

time. Crises aren't really catching up with us; we are simply becoming more alert to the

world around us. This awareness, coupled with a research and development capability never before equalled in history, gives us an opportunity to create the quality of life we all want. But before R&D can move forward, before the public can decide wisely, we need accurate

maps--accurate inf ormation--realistic criteria, in short, we need the kind of awareness

that comes only from education.

I believe that the challenge in teaching science today is not the making of scientists.

It lies in making science intelligible, and credible, to the great majority of students who

do not intend to become scientists. Science has modified and tempered and powered the modern world. It affects everything we do and use. It should be understood by all citizens.

The story of science is the history of man, from his first attempt to make a fire to his

first footstep on the moon. If teachers convey even a fraction of this meaning of science,

I believe more young people will reject the emotional criticism of science that is so fashionable today.

Not every student will end up loving science-- that is not necessary--but everyone

should at least be encouraged to try to understand more of our complex world, to the end

that we can better care for the earth and its resources.

You individually and collectively can make major contributions toward seeing tha.t our nation survives the present crisis! How? By bringing reason and judgment to the way

we face the crisis. We can have the energy we desire and the healthy human environment we must have if we but put our mind to the task'. Please do just that for it's the only Earth

we' 11 ever have.
90

"SUPPLY/DEMAND"

(JCAE "OPTION EXERCISE 7-A " 3-73)

B/D OIL EQUIVALENT vs YEARS

90

80

70 —

o

60

50

40

30

20

10

80

70

60

50

SOL.— 40 i

30

COAL

20

10

LOWER '48 OIL

70 1.... 1 i I i L

75 80 85 YEAR

90 95 2000

Figure 1.
01u

•H

<s|z =.cs|H.
WHAT ARE OUR ENERGY OPTIONS NOW?

1. To REDUCE OUR NEEDS AND TO CONSERVE WHERE POSSIBLE;

2. To INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GASj

3. To SUBSTITUTE COAL FOR OIL AND GASj

^. To GUARANTEE THE NUCLEAR OPTIONj AND

5, To EXPLOIT OTHER POTENTIAL ENERGY SOURCES.

PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVES

1. To PREPARE BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1973^ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

A $100 MILLION INCREASED SPENDING ON ENERGY R & D FOR

1974.

2. To PREPARE BY DECEMBER L 1973, A 5 YEAR $10 BILLION

R&D PROGRAM ON ENERGY.

3. As PART OF THE $10 BILLION PROGRAM TO RECOMMEND SPECIFIC

FUNDING FOR FY 1975.

ACCELERATED ENERGY PROGRAM

$100 Million "Add on" Exercise

Coal m.5

Petroleum and Natural gas 1.8

Geothermal 7.0

Solar 1.0

Nuclear

Fission 7.0

Fusion 7.3

Conservation 6.4

Environmental

Control Technology 11.7

Effects 5.7

Other

$115.0

Figure 3
>- o o o O o o o o H- «3- o o Tt u 00

CO

CM o < 5 < ID (» to CM a.

in OT

CM in o^ to < < o u- j^ C3 _i > § Z < s < 5

?" < O O

^^

c. 5 o

t-

— 0£<

LU 5oz O < 1 u

Z) < Zz K

U z a. < o ffi Q.
on

o

I—

u

c^

rs2:E2SEZIZS,< I

'<^k-^''rr'i''-^^^'T^^^

;''vV'^*":iv?^.'=-'t:">^'''j^. 1mmmm&

3

00

fefe^'b?t^1^c.^U^.^rf.V'i':/^6,tU't^vj.^di;r^^

2*^

u>

10
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

0^sm^^

mMPROFESSIONS

LAW

FINANCE

PLANNING

etc.

POLITICAL

REALITY

PROBLEMS %^'

RELEVANT ^

^^^^^^

SOCIETAL ^ ACCEPTANCE

GOALS

Science In the Service of Man

Figure 6.

11
ro CD ^

CDcc

sec H3

lllu

coo

o<

(OOC

CD

E

CD O)

^-Q -"^ a.X

CD

CJD

CO

CO

CO

5

00 CD

GO

CSJ CO «!d- V

CD

CJ

O

00

CD "CJ

S c cu .9-- E

g .2SE

.S -C5 -o CO

»— CI O t

CD

cu O CO X

CJ) DC LU

CO

CO -TQ

TD CZ

CO CO

Qi CO

-a .^

'O -o

CD

CD

$2 CD CD O r— CNI

Q_-

>< j_ j_ "^ CD CD

03 2

CO ^

I CD) c:CO CD E^

72 "o CD

QJ

(-1 D

rrCI e—

CD

- =rn

I CO

o Q- o-

^- S c^ f^

ID Q- CD CD o 3 "cj "o

CO o ^

_^ u_ CD i^

(D

o

Vi CO

CO

^^ °

q: e^

d f— o

-CJ 1= o_

ro ro °

QC iZ CD.

12
ENERGY RESEARCH

AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

R. L. Loftness

(Electric Power Research Institute, Washington, D.C.)

The Articles of Incorporation of the Electric Power Research Institute define the

broad purpose of the Institute as follows:

"To promote, engage in, conduct and sponsor research and development

with respect to electricity production, transmission, distribution

and utilization, and all activities directly or indirectly related

thereto."

The creation of EPRI stemmed from a number of considerations and was preceded by sev- eral activities that established the charter for its activities and its organizational structure. The concept of forming such an institute, with projected annual budgets in the $200

million range and an expected professional staff of 200 engineers, scientists and administrators, does not spring into being overnight. Such a concept is based upon experience, a sense of need, and careful study.

For many years the electric utilities, both public and investor-owned, have individually supported research and development programs. Many have joined forces to support

specific projects, particularly in nuclear power. The investor-owned utilities have supported general R&D programs through the Edison Electric Institute and, in 1965, the Electric

Research council was created for the purpose of funding R&D programs with support from

federal, state, municipal, cooperative and investor-owned utilities.

Although the "energy crisis" has only recently attracted widespread public attention,

primarily as a result of threatening shortages of fuel oil and gasoline, the potential for

such a crisis has been long familiar to those charged with delivering energy to the public

and those who contemplated the disparity in the growth rates in the curves of energy supply

and energy demand. The impending crisis was apparent not only to those directly concerned

with energy production but also to officials of the government. A federal report on "Energy

Research and Development and National Progress", published in 1964, outlined the issues but

did little to accelerate either energy R&D or national progress. Later in the 1960's, a growing public concern over the quality of the enviromient led to restrictions on the use of

electric power plants whether hydro, nuclear, or fossil fuel. Not surprisingly these circumstances led to a pressing sense of need that a greatly expanded program to develop new

and better methods for the generation, transmission, distribution, and utilization of electric

power was essential.

The next step in the planning for this program was an assessment of the scope, direction,

and priorities for the R&D effort. In the summer of 1970, the Electric Research Council es- tablished a Research and Development Goals Task Force of 17 utility executives and a Working

Group of 28 utility engineers, to formulate such a program. With the assistance of other

experts from the Electric utilities, associations, government agencies, equipment suppliers,

universities and research organizations, this Task Force prepared a report "Electric Utilities Industry Research and Development Goals Through The Year 2000", that was published in June, 1971. The 30-year program suggested in the report represented an average annual R&D

cost of $1.1 billion to be borne by the utilities, manufacturers and the government.

In its report, the R&D Goals Task Force also suggested that the Electric Research

Council initiate an in-depth study to determine the best organization to implement the ex- panded research effort. This latter study led to the incorporation of the Electric Power

Research Institute as a not-for-profit corporation in the District of Columbia in March

1972. By the end of 1972, Dr. Chauncey Starr, formerly Dean of Engineering at the University

of California at Los Angeles, had been selected as the first president of EPRI.

13
EPRI Organization

The establishment of EPRI was, therefore, the culmination of dedicated efforts over a period of years by utility executives and engineers. These efforts provided EPRI a charter

for the scope of its activities, an initial set of program priorities, some 70 on-going projects derived from the programs of the Electric Research Council and the Edison Electric

Institute, and, importantly, a mechanism for funding the expanded R&D program. EPRI is indebted to all the individuals who participated in these efforts and these same managerial

and engineering talents from the utility industry continue to have a vital role in the opera- tion of the Institute.

The past ten months, during which EPRI has been transformed from an organization on paper to an organization in fact, can best be described as a period of transition--a period

devoted to recruitment of senior personnel, selection of office facilities, transfer of

operating functions, and review of key program areas. Under the direction of Dr. Starr and

with the help of the members of the Board of Directors and the Advisory Council and the

staff of the Electric Research Council and the Edison Electric Institute, much has been

accomplished. Senior personnel joined EPRI during the summer months, the headquarters facility in Palo Alto and the office in Washington were activated in September, personnel and

operating functions were transferred from the ERC and the EEI, and reviews were conducted

in reactor safety, fusion, and coal conversion programs. Much remains to be done.

Organizationally, EPRI is governed by a 15-man Board of Directors. This board is comprised of 10 executives representing the investor-owned utilities and 5 from the public

utility sector--including The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American

Public Power Association, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Department of the Interior.

(Fig. 1) . The present chairman of the board is James E. Watson, manager of power for TVA

and the vice-chairman is Shearon Harris, president and chairman of the board of Carolina

Power and Light Company.

To assure the EPRI programs properly reflect the interests of the general public,

>.i,ibers of the 25-man Advisory Council include seven from state regulatory commissions who

ere designated by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and others

representing a broad spectrum of professions outside the utility industry. (Fig. 2).

Serving as temporary chairman of the Council is Emilio Q. Daddario, former Connecticut

congressman and past chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Developnt , who is now senior vice president of the Gulf and Western Group. The Council held

etings in June and September and will continue to do so on a quarterly basis.

mem

w

me

me

Overall responsibility for the operations of EPRI rests with the president, Dr. Chauncey Starr. Reporting to the president are the directors of the four technical divisions as well as the directors for administration and the Washington office. (Fig. 3).

The nuclear systems division (Fig. 4) under Dr. Milton Levenson, includes groups on nuclear

safety, nuclear engineering and operations, and nuclear materials. Dr. Richard Balzhiser

directs the activities of the fossil fuel and advanced systems division (Fig. 5) which will

encompass a fossil fuels group responsible for programs for the direct use of fossil fuels

as well as conversion technologies such as coal liquefaction and gasification; and an advanced systems group that is in charge of electro-chemical and electromechanical conversion

and storage systems and the development of new energy sources--including fusion, solar and

geothermal energy. The energy systems, environment and conservation division (Fig. 6),

under Dr. Sam Schurr, is concerned with energy supply and demand studies, environmental

impact studies, energy conservation, and systems planning and simulation. The fourth technical division, the transmission and distribution division (Fig. 7), for which a director

has not yet been announced, covers all aspects of transmission and distribution development

including bulk power substations and system security and control.

The staff of EPRI is expected ultimately to reach a level of about 200 professionals;

about half will be permanent employees and about half will be engineers and scientists on temporary assignment from their regular positions with universities, industry, utilities,

research institutes and the government. It is expected that this "temporary" staff will

14
provide a continuing influx of technical and managerial expertise, practical operating ex- perience, and planning judgment. In addition, EPRI will employ, as the Electric Research

Council and the Edison Electric Institute did in the past, a number of technical advisory

committees who will provide advice and counsel on the technical merit of specific programs

as well as on program direction and priorities. A senior Research Advisory Committee of

about 15 members will provide advice on the over-all program, and 4 divisional committees

will serve each of the technical divisions. These divisional committees will be served, in

turn, by about 10 task forces and 30 sub-committees. Members of these committees will be

based on nominations from the electric utilities.

EPRI Programs

The broad purpose of EPRI is to maintain an overview of, and participation in, all

technical areas relating to electric power production, transmission, distribution and

utilization, and to provide options that will enable the utility industry to move in a timely fashion in both traditional and new technologies.

In order to utilize available funds most effectively, cognizance will be needed of

other' on-going programs of the government and industry. As appropriate, cooperative programs will be jointly planned and managed with other organizations. EPRI' s research and

development program will be conducted largely on a contract basis, taking advantage of

expertise and facilities wherever they exist--at universities, industrial laboratories,

utilities, or government centers. As needed, EPRI may sponsor and operate one-of-a-kind

test facilities that are not otherwise available.

The relative funding emphasis for the R&D programs for 1973-1974 is given in Fig. 8. Nuclear and fossil fuel programs each receive 27% of the budget, advanced systems, IS/i, transmission and distribution, 20%, and systems analysis about 107c,. The estimated availability of funds for the R&D program over the next few years is given in Fig, 9. Contributions to EPRI are based on an equivalent kilowatt-hour charge--0.067 mills/kwh in 1973,

0.10 mills/kwh in 1974 and a projected 0.125 mills/kwh in 1975 and 0.15 mills/kwh in 1976.

The contribution levels for the year 1975-1976 are being used as planning levels but remain

to be approved by member utilities. Fig. 10 also indicates two other aspects of the EPRI budget. Utilities may withhold twenty percent of their contribution to EPRI to fund local

R&D of their own choosing and, in addition, about $21 million represents the annual con- tribution of the utility industry to the liquid metal fast breeder reactor demonstration

plant program.

In addition to the projects taken over by EPRI from the ERC-EEI program, EPRI also

has, as an initial basis for its program planning, the report prepared by the Electric

Research Council's R&D goals Task Force. This report established four priority ratings

for R&D programs ranging from -"critically important" to "desirable". Among the projects

rated critically important were: The achievement of the commercial fast breeder nuclear

reactor by the mid-1980' s; coal gasification; establishment in five to eight years of the

scientific feasibility of power from controlled fusion; rapid improvement of the technology and equipment for the control of power plant stack emissions; development of better

methods to utilize or dissipate waste heat; greatly improved methods for the underground

transmission of large blocks of power; development of equipment to improve the environment including the electrochemical batteries and other components for electric transportation, and exploration of ways for the more efficient use of electric energy.

In general terms, the research and development goals identified in the R&D Goals Task

Force report were:

- To produce, transmit and distribute electric energy in a manner compatible with a healthy and pleasant environment,

- To satisfy the increasing demands for electricity,

- To serve customers reliably,

15
- To keep the price of electricity as low as possible within a framework of adequate

environmental protection and reliable service,

- To minimize the drain on natural resources,

- To increase the efficiency of the use of electric energy, and

- To facilitate the use of electricity to solve environmental problems.

Starting from this set of priorities and these objectives, it is now the responsibility of EPRI to formulate a greatly expanded R&D program that will not only answer the needs

of the electric utilities but will also bear a proper relationship to the programs of the

federal government and industry. In a programmatic sense, EPRI has a running start from

the prior planning efforts of the ERC and the EEI as well as from the R&D projects that

have been transferred to EPRI from these two organizations. These former ERC-EEI projects,

involving an annual funding level of about $20 million, make up the bulk of the list of

current EPRI projects given in Figures 10-13.

During the months of active existence of EPRI, a number of new projects have been

initiated and a part of each bi-monthly meeting of the Board of Directors is devoted to the review of new project proposals. Some of the new projects have been of a program sur- vey and planning nature, for example, studies were made during the summer months of the

light water reactor safety program, of the fusion program, and of the coal conversion program. These reviews have included an assessment of federal and industry programs and the

relationship of EPRI projects to those programs to avoid duplication of effort and to make

certain that projects of interest to the electric utilities receive proper emphasis.

EPRI is not alone in its study of energy R&D needs and much can be derived from the

energy R&D studies that have been completed (Fig. 14) and from those currently in process

(Fig. 15). In fact, members of the EPRI staff - Drs. Starr, Levenson, Balzhiser, and

Hill - have participated actively in a number of these past and present studies.

Of particular importance at present are two studies of the federal energy R&D program being conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission. One study, completed in September,

recommended that $115 million be added to the current $886 million federal energy R&D

budget. (Fig. 16). The AEC is also in the midst of another study to formulate plans

for a $10 billion, five-year, energy R&D program. In this intensive study, the AEC has

solicited program suggestions from industry and has received over 1100 proposals. These

proposals are being considered by sixteen technical review subpanels--panels corresponding

to the topics listed in Fig. 16. In addition, there are four workshop groups, comprised

of outside experts who will make separate program recommendations. An overview panel,

consisting of senior officials from various departments of the government will also review

the program submissions and make recommendations. The chairman of the AEC, Dr. Dixie Lee

Ray, has the responsibility of preparing the final report to the President. Finally, within the Executive Office of the President, the report will be scrutinized by the Office of

Energy Policy and its Energy R&D Advisory Council as well as the Office of Management and

Budget

In addition to the energy planning activities of the executive branch of the government, there is an equally intense activity in the legislative branch. The list of twentyfour legislative proposals concerning the organization of energy R&D activities, given in

Fig. 17, dates from September of this year. A number of additional bills have been introduced in the Congress since that time. Nor do these bills represent all the legislation

of importance to utility operations--many others concerning land use, off-shore drilling,

environmental regulations, plant siting, uranium enrichment, etc., have also been introduced and have tangential impact on energy R&D.

The conclusions reached in the energy R&D studies of the executive branch as well as the implementation of this activity through the legislative proposals under consideration,

will have a significant influence on the planning of program and projects for EPRI. The

16
staff of EPRI will continue to work closely with the various federal agencies in laying out programs both of a cooperative and a complementary nature.

Through their support of EPRI, the electric utilities have undertaken to carry their

share of the national energy R&D responsibility. The task is complex and the solutions are difficult, involving all sectors of our society and with major implications affecting our established way of life. In the past, the electric utilities have always met the challenge

to serve the public. The creation of EPRI has been their response to the challenge of the

present--and the future.

17
EPRI

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

James E. Watson - Tennessee Valley Authority

Shearon Harris - Carolina Power & Light Co.

Robert F. Gilkeson - Philadelphia Electric Co.

Robert W. Gillette - PUD of Grant County, Washington

Jack K. Horton - Southern California Edison Co.

Charles F. Luce - Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

John M. McGurn - Virginia Electric and Power Co.

William G. Meese - The Detroit Edison Co.

Robert V. Phillips - The City of Los Angeles, Water & Power

P. H. Robinson - Houston Lighting & Power Co.

Thomas C. Shirley - National Rural Electric Cooperative Ass'n.

Shermer L. Sibley - Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

L. F. Sillin, Jr. - Northeast Utilities

Stephen A. Wakefield - U. S. Department of the Interior

Frank M. Warren - Portland General Electric Co.

Figure 1.

18
George I. Bloom

Harold Brown

Erwln D. Canham

Charles C. Coutant

Emllio Q. Daddario

Joseph L. Fisher

Thomas L. Kimball

James F. Mauze

W. D. McElroy

Martin Meyerson

Pat Moran

Bruce C. Netschert

William A. Nierenberg

Arthur L. Padrutt

Ruth Patrick

Charles H. Pillard

Elvis J. Stahr, Jr.

Arthur C. Stern

Joseph C. Swidler

John P. Vukasin, Jr.

Henry C. Wallich

John G. Winger

Marvin R. Wooten

EPRI

Advisory Council

- Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

- California Institute of Technology

- The Christian Science Monitor

- Oak Ridge National Laboratory

- Gulf and Western Engineering Group

- Resources for the Future ^

- National Wildlife Federation

- Missouri Public Service Commission

- University of California, San Diego

- University of Pennsylvania

- Arkansas Public Service Commission

- National Economic Research Associates, Inc.

- Scripps Institution of Oceanography

- Wisconsin Public Service Commission

- The Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia

- International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

- National Audubon Society

- University of North Carolina

- New York Public Service Commission

- California Public Utilities Commission

- Yale University

- The Chase Manhattan Bank

- North Carolina Utilities Commission

Figure 2,

19
2O

I-<N<Oo

a.

LU 2 CO

Ul i o c: 1 1- UJ o 2

01O

O

-J z < D _i o 5 CC

CEo

u.2 2 1 O 1 1-<

CCo UJ

CC 1-

X ^ u

UJ < w 00 2 u. 2 cc i< D Q

5"

0- <

c3

PORATION&

BOARD

CR3TARY

ii CEO

1-u 5 

UJ

!/l CC 2 1-cc <ii Q § "

cc

Q

Li. " H

H

DH < il^ o E Z

UJD

cc

cc<

CJ

lU

cc0-

1-

V)u

cc £ 1- o cc O

h-Q< £|5 ^2> O CC Si

ccC 2

UJ

g

O g5"

cco

oc5

ccDXo

toI

01

-1 _l UJ < " O 2

Hi

D

J

OO

i^ ._-

-J

M

UJ > D </5

cco

1-

cc

UJ

00X

u.

n o N UJ _l UJ o <

UJ

ccQ

_J<

CQ

UJ u. >O

CC

^- < ^ o o L__ M 2 * is<"

Sec

UJ Ul si

cc zo o

UJ

CE

012

Ul>

UJ z a s

(U3

•H

20
o

CO>Q

CC

lUo

a.<

UJozE

a.

ai c

LU

rr zo

CC< o

LU z

LiJ >

111 rr LUI _l -1 o o 2 Z

!3< OC CC ()

LUH

H

U < L'J 5

oc

Q <

LU

-I

CJ <T 32

ea rr

EAR

RING riONS o

UJ

CCQ 3 i LU Z u a- H zo

LU < >H CC

LU

u < t

CO LU CC CC < n u

-1oDz <

21
o

CO>Q

CO

IS

LU>

(AQ

UJO

21<>a<

_i

LU3

CO

COO

ccQ.

LU

-1O

UJ

>-O (/) X LU UJ (J z tn

UJ

D z

CC8"

UJ

1-

>-

</) Q

UJo<>a<

ccO

t-o

UJEQ< zo _

u.

ELECTROMECHANICAL (4)

ENERGY

CONVERSIONS STORAGE

UJ >. D 1/5 ^ Q

_l UJD< oKQ

UJXN

_l<

ca

LU* CC

ELECTRO- CHEMICAL 13)

FUEL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES 12)

"---

tn_i

UJ

U-

-1O

u. co1-u

UJ

ccQ

(-< 1 Q 3 O '^ a TM M U

ci

Q It: S o fS i :; o O m _ m^ c c e E - li^ c i: " 3 c O = o , So ^

:| z

f, -A% -l J3 O S E =! a o c E o ^ CO o a E o Q (15 —

013

00

-H 3 C 8 3 =

ci " nj o < O

-C . . - j; c o £ 5

jn ra o 6 •- CO '^ a "^ > (J :3 - <U CT

.? o ? c s S

u. 5 I u

H o r e" O C/J o >

i.Q

£C

— £2S H}i£t;

22
EPRI TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION DIVISION

TRANSMISSION

D1STR13UTI0N DIRECTOR

TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

SECURITY

& CONTROL

BULK POWER

SUBSTATIONS

Figure 6.

EPRI ENERGY SYSTEMS, ENVIRONMENT & CONSERVATION DIVISION

ENERGY SYSTEN-S, ENVlRONfwIENT & CONSERVATION

DIRECTOR

S.H. SCHURR

ENERGY

SUPPLY

STUDIES

ENERGY

DEMAND

STUDIES

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT

STUDIES

ENERGY

CONSERVATIONN

SYSTEM

PLANNING 2. SIMULATION

Figur-e 7

23
EPRI Budget Distribution 1973-1974

Nuclear Programs 27%

Fossil Fuel Programs 27%

Advanced Systems 16%

Transmission and Distribution 20%

Energy Systems, Environment 10%, and Conservation

Figure 8.

EPRI Estimated Fund Availability 1973-76

1973 1974 1975 1976

Contribution Factor (mills/kw-hr) 0.0667 0.100 0.125 0.150

Funds (at 85% attainment) 69 107 141 178

(in millions of dollars)

Less Local R&D Support (20%)

Less IMFBR Contribution

Funds Available to EPRI

Figure 9.

-13 -20 -27 -34

-20 -21 -21 -21

39 65 91 121

24
EPRI Approved Projects

Nuclear Safety

RP-132-1 Steam-Water Mixing Combustion Engineering

RP-132-2 PWR Flecht Set Westinghouse

RP-132-4 PWR Blowdown Heat Transfer General Electric

RP-132-5 PWR Loss of Coolant Combustion Engineering

RP-132-7 PWR Loss of Coolant Heat Transfer Babcock and Wilcox

RP-132-8 PWR Transient Critical Heat Flux MIT

RP-132-9 PWR Putap Characteristics Combustion Engineering

RP-132-10 Cold Water Steam Mixing Westinghouse

RP-132-11 Two Phase Flow Battelle Northwest Lab.

RP-204-0-0 Analysis of Reactor Safety Intermountain Technologies

Research

Nuclear Engineering and Operations

RP-72 Use of Plutonium in Water -Reactors General Electric and

Westinghouse

RP-84 Use of Plutonium in HTGR Gulf General Atomic

RP-118 Plutonium Recycle Optimization Nuclear Fuel Services

RP-130 Nuclear Reactor Core Benchmark General Electric

Data

Nuclear Materials

RP-131 Nuclear Fuel Densif ication Battelle Northwest Lab.

PN-82 Welding Research Council Welding Research Council

Subscription

Figure 10.

25
EPRI Approved Projects

Fossil Fuels

RP 39 Stack Plume Opacity Stanford Research Inst

& Public Health Serv.

RP 123 Solvent Refining of Coal Southern Services

RP 138 Clean Fuel Demo Plant LURGI

RP 200-0-0 Boiler Combustion Modifications Esso Research & EPA

RP 202-0-0 Effects of Coal By-Products in Soil Radian Corp.

RP 203-0-0 Economics of Low-BTU Coal Gassif icat ion TVA

RP 206-0-0 Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes Univ. of Michigan

RP 207-0-0 Coal Catalysis Study Libby Laboratories

PN 101 Stack Gas Information Center Battelle Memorial

Institute

PN 108 Definition of Combustion and Pollution Institute of Gas

Problems With Low BTU Gas Technology

Advanced Systems

RP 92 Superconductors in Large Synchronous MIT

Machines

RP 97 AVCO MHD AVCO

RP 110 MHD Atmospheric Pollution Stanford Univ.

RP 114 Fuel Cell Research Pratt & Whitney

RP 96 Controlled Fusion University of Texas

RP 108 Controlled Fusion ' Cornell University

RP 113 Controlled Fusion Princeton University

RP 115 Fusion Reactor Design Gulf General Atomic

RP 109 Load Leveling Battery ESB Company

RP 116 Lithium-Sulphur Battery Atomics International

RP 127 Solid Electrolyte Battery TRW

RP 128 Sodium Sulphur Battery General Electric

Figure 11.

26
EPRI Approved Projects 1973

Transmission & Distribution

RP 68 UHV Transmission General Electric

RP 104 HVDC Transmission Bonneville Poi^er Adm.

RP 106 Kilowatt-hour Standard S. R. Houghton

RP 119 Mechanical Performance of Alcoa Research Lab.

Multiple Conductors

RP 129 Ecological Influence of Westinghouse and Penn

.

Electric Fields State University

RP 133 Electrochemical Treeing In Cable Phelphs Dodge Cable & Wire

RP 134 Coupling Capacitor Transformer National Bureau of

for Metering Standards

RP 78-1 Underground Transmission Westinghouse

RP 78-2 Gas Dielectric Cable Insulation MIT

RP 78-3 Cable Joint Simplification Anaconda Wire and Cable

RP 78-4 Polymeric Paper Cable Insulation Minnesota Mining & Man.

RP 78-6 Resistive Cryogenic Cable General Electric

RP 78-7 Superconducting Cable System Linde Div. -Union Carbide

RP 78-9 Cross-Linked Polyethylene Cable Phelphs Dodge Cable & Wire

RP 78-10 Synthetic Laminar Insulated Cable General Cable Corp.

RP 78-11 Cryogenic Cable Insulation Stanford University

RP 78-12 750 KV Synthetic Tape Cable Phelphs Dodge Cable & Wire

RP 78-13 Nitrogen Cryogenic Cable Underground Power Corp.

RP 78-14 345 KV Capacitive Graded Joint Phelphs Dodge Cable & Wire

RP 78-15 Simplified Splice for Extruded Elaftimold Div.

Insulation

RP 78-16 3-Conductor Compressed Gas Cable High Voltage Power Corp.

RP 78-17 Evaluation of High Ampacity G&W Electricity Specialty

Potheads Corporation

RP 78-18 DC Cable Okonite Co.

RP 78-19 550 KV Cable at 800 KV Forced Westinghouse

Cooled

Figure 12.

27
Figure 12 (continued)

EPRI Approved Projects 1973 (continued)

RP 78-20 Detecting and Mapping Underground Stanford Research Institute

Obstacles

RP 78-21 Convective Cooling of Pipe-Type University of Illinois

Cable

RP 78-22 Superconductivity in Thin Films Stanford University

RP 78-23-0 Forced Cooling Test Program Jerome UTE

PN 20 Controlling Biological Deteriora- Oregon State University

tion of Wood

PN 37 Systems Analysis of Underground Arthur D. Little

Transmission Installation Methods

PN 38 Optimization & Guide to the Design ITE Imperial Corp. & Use of Gas Insulated Transmission

Systems

PN 57 DC Prototype Link General Electric

PN 60 New Methods & Chemicals to Control U. S. Department of

Tree Growth Agriculture

PN 68 Underground Electric Power Trans- EDAW

mission Systems Environmental

Impact Study

PN 110 Reduction of Losses in AC Super- Stanford University

conducting Lines

PN 111 An Extruded Dielectric Cable General Electric

PN 112 Development of Extruded Solid Di- General Cable

electric Underground Transmission

Cables Rated at 138 KV through

345 KV

PN 113 A New Class of Additives to Inhibit General Electric

Tree Growth in Solid Extruded

Cable Insulation

System Security and Control

RP 90-3 Security Assignments (simulation International Business

approach) Machines

RP 90-4 System Equivalents Systems Control

RP 90-7 Long-Term System Dynamics General Electric

(digital simulation)

RP 90-8 Long-Term System Dynamics University of Missouri

(hybrid simulation)

28
EPRI Approved Projects 1973

Energy Systems

RP 208-0-0 Development of a National Energy General Electric

Evaluation System for Electric

Power R&D Planning

RS 1-0-0 APS Conference on Energy American Physical Soc.

SN 114 Handbook of Energy Conservation EPRI & United Kingdom • Electricity Council

Research Center

Environment

RP 49 Cooling Water Discharge John Hopkins Univ.

RP 74 EPRI-NCA Air Pollution Research Haxelton Lab., and

Bituminous Coal Res.

RP 98 Biological Effects of Exposure to John Hopkins Univ.

High Intensity Electric Fields

RP 102 ASTM Air Quality Evaluation ASTM

Methods

RP 103 Environmental Effects of Herbicides West Virginia University

RP 117 Trace Elements in Urban Aerosols American Petroleum Inst. and NYU

RP 122 Trace Elements in Combustion Battelle Columbus

Systems

RP 201-0-0 Interaction of Sulfuric Acid Haxelton Labs.

Mist and NO

RP 205-0-0 Analysis of S0„ Criteria JRB Associates

Figure 13.

29
Selected Completed Studies Related to Energy R&D

1. Energy and the Environment: Electric Power--Council on Environmental Quality, 1973

2. Energy Conservation--Of f ice of Emergency Preparedness, 1972

3. An Inventory of Energy Research--National Science Foundation, 1973

4. Systems Analysis Needs in Electric Power Systems--National Science

Foundation, 1973

5. Energy Research Needs--Resources for the Future, 1971

6. The U.S. Energy Problem--Inter-Technology Corporation, 1971

7. Electric Utilities Industry R&D Goals through the Year 2000--

Electric Research Council, 1971

8. Survey of Research--Electric Research Council, 1971

9. Energy R&D and National Progress--Interdepartmental Energy Study

Group, 1964

Figure 14.

30
Selected Current Studies Related to Energy R&D

1. Energy R&D Study--AEC and other Federal Agencies

2. FPC Energy R&D Task Force Study--Federal Power Commission

3. OST Energy R&D Study--Of f ice of Science and Technology

4. Energy-Related Regulatory Study--AEC and other Federal Agencies

5. U. S. Energy Outlook--Nat ional Petroleum Council

6. The Energy Policy Project--Ford Foundation

7. National Fuels and Energy Policy Study--Senate Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs

8. Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alternate Sources of

Electrical Energy--AEC

9. Corps of Engineers Energy Task Force Study

Figure 15,

31
Federal Energy R&D Programs

FY74

President'

Increment

FY74 (in Millions FY74

Budget of Dollars)

1.0

Total

7.3 8.3

61.4 11.0 72.5

1. Resource Assessment

2. Mining - Coal and Shale

3. Fuel Transportation, Distribution

and Storage

4. Energy Transportation, Distribution

and Storage 3.3 3.2 6.5

5. Coal and Shale Processing and

Combustion

6. Conversion Techniques

7. Enhanced Recovery of Oil and Gas

8. Geothermal

9. Solar

10. Fission Reactors

11. Fusion Reactors

12. Conservation

13. Advanced Automotive Systems

14. Environment

15. Multidirectional Research

16. Energy Systems Analysis

TOTALS

Figure 16.

78.0 38.7 96.7

5.8 4.0 9,8

7.1 1.8 8.9

4.1 7.0 11.1

12.2 1.0 13.2

517.0 7.1 524.1

91.4 7.3 98.7

9.2 7.3 16.5

16.7 6.0 22.7

85.0 17.4 102.4

4.4 0.6 5.2

5.3 1.5 6.8

886.7 115.0 1003.4

32
1973 Legislative Proposals for Energy R&D

1. A Council on Energy Policy--H.R. 921

2. A Corporation to Develop Synthetic Hydrocarbon Fuels--H.R. 220

3. Research for a National Power Grid--H.R. 1110

4. A Commission on Fuels and Energy--H.R. 1894

5. A Federal Power Research and Development Prograrn--H. R. 4997

6. Research and Development for Automobile Propulsion--H. R. 5929

7. A National Energy Research and Development Act--H.R. 6038

8. Establishment of Mining and Mineral Research Centers--S. 263

9. A National Minerals and Materials Processing Institute--S . 453

10. A Corporation to Develop New Energy Sources--S. 454

11. A National Energy Resource Development Act--S. 1162

12. A National Fuels and Energy Conservation Policy--S. 2176

13. A National Energy Resources Advisory Board--S. 419

14. Electric Appliance Ef f iciency--S . 1327

15. Research into Possible Uses of Solid Wastes from Coal--H.R. 2110

16. Geothermal Research--H.R. 4413

17. Development of Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships--H.R. 4217

18. A Energy Development and Supply Commission--H. R. 6194

19. A Joint Committee on Energy--H.R. 6313

20. Energy Reorganization Act--H.R. 9090

21. A Department of Energy--H.R. 9974

22. National Energy Research Center--H.R. 9133

23. Solar and Geothermal Energy--H.R. 9671

24. Coal Gasification Development Corporat ion--H. R. 9691

Figure 17.

33
THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC

IN THE

EVALUATION PROCESS

G. Charnoff

(Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, D.C.)

Nuclear power has often been characterized as unique among industrial activities. Un- like other regulated industrial activities, it has been subject to pervasive regulation from

its inception in 1954 as a non-governmental endeavor.

It is fashionable currently to malign the Congress as an inept institution of government. To its enormous credit however, the Congress anticipated the contemporary energy

crunch. It stimulated and provoked the development of the only important source of energy

available to us other than fossil fuel. But it also, from the beginning, recognized the

risk benefit calculus of nuclear power. It, therefore, provided for a comprehensive system

of safety regulation involving multiple levels of safety reviews.

It was in 1954 that Congress terminated the exclusive governmental monopoly of atomic

energy established in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act allowed

the private ownership of nuclear power plants subject to license by the Atomic Energy Commission. Recognizing the complexity of such plants, Congress provided for two licensing

reviews of such plants. In order to construct a nuclear power plant, the proposed owner must seek and obtain a construction permit from the AEC. The permit is granted only after

a detailed technical review of the proposed design of the plant and after approval of the

principal architectural and engineering criteria. Upon completion of the plant, a second

and more detailed review is required before an operating license is issued authorizing fuel

loading and operation of the plant. Four crude but quantitative measurements of the ex- tensiveness of the AEC safety reviews are:

a. It takes applicants more than one year of effort by teams of engineers and

scientists to prepare the safety analysis reports which accompany the applications for construction permits and operating license;

b. The safety analysis reports which are contained in standard 8-1/2 by 11 looseleaf notebooks require three to four feet of shelf space;

c. The AEC safety review by its multidisciplinary staff requires fourteen to eighteen months to complete; and

d. The AEC safety analysis report is typically about three-quarters of one inch

thick.

To assure that the regulatory staff is adequately comprehensive and highly qualified.

Congress in 1957 established the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. This Committee

is popularly known by its acronym as the ACRS . It is composed of highly reputable and

recognized experts from academia, industry and AEC's research laboratories. performing

much like a Ph.D. dissertation panel, ACRS reviews each application for a construction permit and for an operating license. Cognizant members of the regulatory staff and the applicants are questioned intensively by the ACRS on selected aspects of the design and plant

construction. It provides its advice on each application to the Commission in a written

report which, by law, is required to be made public. Thus, the Congressional scheme provides two highly competent technical reviews of each nuclear power plant prior to construction and two more such reviews prior to operation of each such plant.

As a further safeguard, and in recognition of the public's profound interest in atomic

energy. Congress provided for a mandatory third level of review at the construction permit

stage at a public hearing by an atomic safety and licensing board. The licensing board is composed of one lawyer member, who serves as chairman, and two engineering or scientific

members. At the operating license stage any interested member of the public can request

34
and obtain a hearing by a licensing board to consider the specific matters he wishes to controvert

.

With rare exceptions, the public hearings, in the period up to 1970, were essentially

public education exercises. Virtually all construction permit and operating license applications were uncontested.

In 1970, the tumult witnessed elsewhere in the 1960's in American society caught up

to AEC's public licensing proceedings. Opposition to license applications became the rule

rather than the exception. Trial procedures and litigation tactics which had been developed and refined in other areas of legal controversy to determine factual matters were

applied to test the validity of scientific and engineering judgment. Public intervenots

used extensive prehearing discovery procedures and sought to conduct cross examination

with respect to many of the myriad of technical decisions affecting the siting, design,

and safe operation of nuclear power plants. AEC hearing processes and licensing boards,

having been schooled in uncontested cases and civility, were initially unable to cope

with the strains of the jungle warfare experienced in other areas of challenge to the

establishment

.

Coincidentally , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia paralyzed the

entire process for more than a year. In July, 1971, the Court rendered its famous Calvert

Cliffs decision. Liberally interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) , the

Court made all environmental matters appropriate for review by the AEC in connection with

its review of construction permit and operating license applications. Formerly, the AEC's

jurisdiction was limited to radiological health and safety matters. As a result of the

Calvert Cliffs decision, the AEC had to take into account such matters as thermal effects

of condenser cooling discharges, aesthetics, effects on wildlife, etc. In the summer of

1972, I litigated allegations that a once-through cooling system would destroy mysis relicta and that a natural draft cooling towejr would cause significant adverse impacts on migrating birds which would impact on the cooling tower.

In any event the combined effect of public intervenors' opposition to nuclear plants

and the Calvert Cliffs case, which gave the opponents unlimited issues to raise, was a stalemate of the licensing process. It was a deadlock which, at least, temporarily re- warded the opponents of nuclear power and which delayed the availability of power generation from a number of power plants.

Thoughtful observers began questioning the role of public intervenors and the purpose

of public hearings in a decision-making process involving many highly sophisticated nuclear

safety and environmental matters. Do public intervenors represent the public interest or just a small sector of the public? Do the electric companies represent a larger segment of

the public interest which is vitally interested in a reliable, safe, and economic supply of

energy? Are complex technical matters best resolved with the aid of lawyers skilled in the

adversary process? To what extent should such technical matters be left to the experts?

How do we keep the experts honest and aware of conflicting opinion? Have we overly com- plicated the decision-making process? And so on.

Alfred Marshall once wrote, "Government is the most precious of human possessions,

and no care can be too great to be spent on enabling it to do its work in the best way."

He warned that government "should not be set to work for which it is not specially qualified

under the conditions of time and place."

Based on the experience of the last three years, we may reasonably inquire whether

the AEC public hearing process is not an example of a governmental task for which it is not specially qualified. In a decade of mounting public concern for environmental protection,

a decade of retreat from representative democracy in favor of maximum public participation

in decision making, it is clear that we have succeeded in constructing issues which pose

incompatible demands on our decision makers. One prominent observer of the political evo- lution in America, Aaron Wildavsky, Dean of the Graduate School of Public Policy at the

University of California at Berkeley, recently wrote that "the incompatibility of policy

35
demands is a manifestation of a more general withdrawal of sovereignty from government in

America .

How has the AEC reacted to the different and fast changing demands placed upon it? Dean Wildavsky warned that governments faced with incompatible policy demands will push

form over substance. While such a charge cannot yet be fairly leveled at the AEC, it is clear that the AEC has tended to avoid making some fundamental policy decisions, wherever

possible

Attorneys for license applicants and for public intervenors have urged definition

of the role of public intervenors. Is it the role of public intervenors to bring facts in

their possession to the decision makers within the AEC or is it their role through extensive

discovery and cross examination to perform a de novo review of both the license application

and of the performance by the AEC staff of its regulatory responsibilities? A recently con- cluded hearing spent several days considering a contention by an intervenor that the AEC'

spot or selective inspection procedure is inadequate although no allegation and no evidence was presented attempting to show that the facility at issue was not properly constructed.

Most public intervenors opt for the second formulation of their role. I believe the first

and more limited formulation is more appropriate.

In the summer of 1972, the AEC restructured its rules of practice. The new rules

appeared to tilt in favor of the more limited formulation of the role of public intervenors.

Members of the public who wish to participate as parties in AEC public hearings are re- quired to file a petition for leave to intervene. The petition, to be acceptable, is re- quired to set forth specific contentions, the bases for the contentions and a supporting

affidavit. Thus it appeared that public intervenors would have to demonstrate at the outset that they have some information to present to the decision makers which warrants holding a public hearing.

In practice, however, the new regulations have not been applied with any rigor by the

AEC staff or by AEC licensing boards. While a petition without any contentions or a petition simply alleging that the proposed plant will be unsafe or environmentally unacceptable

will be denied, the AEC apparently will grant a petition if it alleges that some portion of

a plant is unsafe in some respect or that a portion of the plant will cause some environmental concern. Thus AEC has accepted a contention that the cooling towers at a proposed

plant will cause a hazard to the public health and safety. AEC will say that such a con- tention only minimally meets the requirements of the new regulatio'ns but it will grant the

petition on the basis of such a contention. The requirement of a "basis" for each con- tention has been ignored by the AEC.

More recently in two different and apparently conflicting Atomic Safety and Licensing

Appeal Board Decision, the Commission has approached this central issue. In one case the

Appeal Board stated that a public intervenor urging denial of a license has the burden of

going forward with evidence to support his contention. This is less of a requirement than

the burden of proof which is imposed on license applicants. Presumably, if an intervenor

cannot or does not go forward with evidence on his contention, then the license applicant

need not meet his burden of proof. This requirement of going forward is a reasonable one

and would distinguish between those public intervenors who have some fact or expert judgment to offer for consideration by the ultimate decision makers and those public intervenors

who seek to prevail only by delay. However, within weeks after that decision, the Appeal

Board in another case wrote that a public intervenor can proceed solely by cross examination of the witnesses presented by the Applicants and the Regulatory Staff. We are left

to wonder at the role of public intervenors.

The failure of the Commission to give its licensing boards definitive guidance on this matter is quite serious. Because they are professionally fearful of being reversed

on appeal and because the reversal of a restrictive ruling on the role of an intervenor

could invalidate a favorable ruling on the licensing of a plant, the licensing boards and

applicants' attorneys tend to be overly liberal in construing the role of intervenors.

The consequence of all this is protracted proceedings which are costly to applicants and

36
to the public interests served by them.

While citizen input in a free society is obviously pertinent to the location and the

need for a power plant, it is not clear to me that protracted public proceedings serve any

public interest. Although Dostoevsky in Notes from the Underground observed that "man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and, perhaps, like a chess player, loves only the process of the game, not the end of it," those of us who have participated in AEC proceedings

have yet to perceive that a cost-benefit evaluation of the public hearing process justifies

protracted proceedings. Definition of the role of the public intervener is essential to disciplining a process which has so many variables to consider. Similarly, it is clear to me that, as a society, we cannot afford to iterate and reiterate the same contentions with

respect to each power plant that is proposed for construction and operation as if each

plant was the first of a kind. We are challenged, therefore, to find means to fairly incorporate in each case past deliberations and decisions on the same matters. To some ex- tent public interveners must be compelled to accept responsibility for decisions in prior

cases which were litigated by the public interveners.

Two weeks ago. Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, stated

in her speech to the Atomic Industrial Forum and the American Nuclear Society that:

"We do have an energy crisis and public acknowledgment of this fact

is the necessary prelude to decisive action. In taking decisive

actions, however, there are no easy answers and certainly no absolutes - no guaranteed solutions."

Decisive actions are required if we are to avoid making inaction a decisive action. As science teachers in an age of ecological concern, you have a splendid opportunity to teach

your students the maxim espoused by Dr. Barry Commoner. He contends, as you know, that

ecologically speaking, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Ecologically speaking, inaction is an action and has consequences. If we are to avoid the evils of the "papa knows

best" system, the public must be allowed to participate in decision making. On the other

hand we cannot countenance a system which disregards expert and competent opinion in favor

of the uninformed fear mongers; we should attempt to distinguish those issues on which the

public should be heard from those where only expert judgment should be applicable. The

public intervener's role should be distinguished in the two situations. In any event, it should be clear that the role of the public intervener is to present facts in his possession

or judgments to the decision maker; it is not to deadlock the decision making process by

redoing the whole staff review process.

37
ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, THE RISK AND BENEFIT CONCEPT

B. E. Leonard

Institute for Resource Management-, Inc., Bethesda, Md

and

Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Geologists have concluded that the earth was formed more than 3 billion years ago. Since the advent of primitive man some 1.8 million years ago, he has steadily increased his

domination over his environment and life on earth. Now man faces the serious possibility

of extinction by the destruction of the very environment that has supported his rise to evolutional supremacy. Man requires air, water and organic food subsistence such as meat

and plants to survive. All animals (including man) (fauna) and plants (flora) depend

directly or indirectly on energy from the sun. All organisms require nutrients also.

Animals obtain their energy from food substances whereas plants and phytoplankton procure

theirs from the sun by photosynthesis. In Figure 1 we see a simplified nutrient - energy

diagram. Here we see a chain linkage arrangement related to the flow of nutrients and

energy through the ba^sic ecological system including man. So, obviously it is possible to alter or destroy a link in a biological community which is not a direct source of food for man but which, if destroyed, will result in the loss of a food source. Another thing we

see is that plants are an essential part of any food chain and of life itself, irrespective

of the Oxygen-Carbon dioxide cycle between animals and plants.

We know that, primarily since the industrial revolution, man has continually degraded

his environment. From an ecological viewpoint, man has been degrading his American land areas since the Pilgrims first landed on the American shores. At that time they viewed

from their ships an expanse of endless, fully developed forests. Now in the Eastern one- third of the United States over 707„ of all land is in various stages of recovery from

manipulations by man. It takes tilled land areas fifty to one hundred years to return to its initial fully developed forest state.

Industry, agriculture and mining have played major roles in altering our ecological

environment

The basic criticism to be levied at both industry and agriculture is that no con- sideration has been given to the fact that all of our air, water and land resources are limited and unless restoration is undertaken at the same time that our resources are used

then there will be a steady degradation.

Let us dramatize our need for concern for our environment with an example of how man

can cause the earth to die as depicted by Dr. Jacques Cousteau. The ocean occupies 70 per

cent of the earth's surface. If the oceans of the earth should die - for example from the

deposition of a thin polluting organic and/or oily film - it would be the final as well as greatest catastrophe for man and all the other animals and plants with whom man shares this

planet. The thin film would of course cut off most of the supply of oxygen and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and cause death to most oxygen and carbon dioxide consuming flora

and fauna in the ocean.

We quote as follows:

"To begin with, bereft of life the ocean would at once foul. Such a colossal

stench born of decaying organic matter would rise from the ocean wasteland that it would of itself suffice to drive man back from all coastal regions. Far harsher

consequences would soon follow. The ocean is earth's principal buffer, keeping bal- ances intact between the different salts and gases of which our lives are composed

and on which they depend. With no life in the seas the carbon dioxide, content of

the atmosphere would set forth on an inexorable climb. When this C0„ level passed

a certain point the "greenhouse effect" would come into operation: neat radiating

outwards from earth to space would be trapped beneath the stratosphere, shooting up

38
sea-level temperatures. At both North and South Poles the icecaps would melt. The oceans would rise perhaps 100 feet in a small number of years. All earth's major

cities would be inundated. To avoid drowning one third of the world's population

would be compelled to flee to hills and mountains, hills and mountains unready to receive these people, unable to produce enough food for them. Among many other con- sequences of the death of the oceans the surface would become coated with a thick

film of dead organic matter, affecting the evaporation process, reducing rain, and

starting global drought and famine.

Even now the disaster is only entering its terminal phase. Packed together on various

highlands, starving, subject to bizarre storms and diseases, with families and societies totally disrupted, what is left of mankind begins to suffer from anoxia-lack of

oxygen-caused by the extinction of plankton algae and the reduction of land vegetation.

Pinned in the narrow belt between dead seas and sterile mountain-slopes man coughs

out his last moments in unutterable agony. Maybe thirty to fifty years after the ocean has died the last man on earth takes his own last breath. Organic life on the

planet is reduced to bacteria and a few scavenger insects."

Perhaps this is an overly-exaggerated picture of what can happen on our earth, but I am hopeful that it does stimulate some concern.

Let's now look at nuclear and conventional power plants. Figure 2 shows an early

generation nuclear power plant located at Oyster Creek, New Jersey. I am showing this

figure to illustrate that both nuclear and conventional power plants have direct contact with the environment. Here we show the configuration for this particular power plant

which has a cooling channel that provides a source of water for the reactor coolant system.

This is called a once-through type nuclear reactor plant as far as the coolant system is concerned. Approximately 450,000 gallons of water per minute flows through this plant as

a source of coolant. In addition, there is an additional 760,000 gallons per minute flowing through a by-pass channel to provide dilution such that as the channel continues out

and enters into the bay on the coast of New Jersey the water is diluted and consequently

proportionally decreased in temperature. We also see, of course, that there are other means in which it has contact with the environment. It has a stack which emits gaseous

effluents with some of these effluents being radioactive. Each of these pathways to the

environment are also therefore pathways to man himself and to our ecological cycles that we have in the environment.

Congress, as a result of a national environmental interest, passed an act in 1969 - the National Environmental Policy Act. I want to read a section of this so that you can clearly see the wording and the interest that is specified in this bill. Part of the text goes as follows:

"...it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practical

means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve

and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the

Nation may;

"(1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

"(2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and

culturally pleasing surroundings;

"(3) attain the widest range of beneficial use of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended

consequences

;

"(4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national

heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports

diversity and variety of individual choice;

"(5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit

high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and

"(6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum

39
attainable recycling of depletable resources."

In 'other words the resources that we can renew we should maximize utilization, for

example, timber is a resource we can restore by planting new trees as trees are cut - this

is a renewable source. The second aspect of part (6) above is that wherever possible with

depletable resources - and fossile fuels are examples of depletable resources - we should

provide for recycling. But unfortunately we cannot recycle fuels once they are consumed

so that fossile fuels are a depletable resource. Clearly as specified in NEPA then, we have an obligation to consider our environment. It also must be clear that this is going

to involve an extremely complicated task of making decisions and judgments regarding what

is best in terms of use of our national resources and in particular providing energy for our nation with a fair consideration of the environment.

A method called cost-benefit analysis has been used to some extent to assist this

task. The cost-benefit, analysis is a relatively new concept to the average individual - at least on a formal basis. This technique has been applied for some years by scientists

at the National Science Foundation to assist in the decision-making for allocating our public funds for public welfare. The average individual frequently both consciously and

subconsciously weighs the various trade-offs available in instances in a broad range of cases from the brand name of suit he wears to how he will spend his vacation. Usually the

trade-offs for individuals are monetary cost versus the personal and family benefit to the

individual. It is recognized that this technique - the cost-benefit analysis technique - may eventually have to be applied to many other socio-technical systems other than associated with our environment as our life on this earth becomes increasingly more complex.

There is scepticism, however, by many as to whether the complex factors effecting our society can ever be assigned numerical values to the extent that they can be used to guide

decisions regarding the degree of control that should be optimumly exercised over various

socio-technical systems. Certainly one can argue that it will be undesirable to apply the

cost-benefit concept to trivial questions such as, for example, whether a tree should be

removed in a city park to provide space for a water fountain. There are also political and

emotional aspects in most sociological decisioni making that, in many instances, would nulify

any quantitative conclusions obtained by a cost-benefit analysis.

The idea of the method is to weigh all benefits against all costs (and risks) to determine the most desirable alternative. First letfs look at the various combinations of

benefits and costs that can be experienced. Not all things benefit or cost all people in

the same way in our society. There are socio-technical systems which adversely effect

individuals but benefit large population groups. An example is condemnation of an individuals land for new highway construction. On the other hand, private ownership of handguns for the protection of the individual does cause thousands of deaths to the general

population each year. Then, individuals can benefit at the expense of the public. Snow

skiing is a simple case where both the costs in terms of risk of injury and the benefits

are shared by the same individual.

Here we come to another fundamental question in cost-benefit analysis. Should we apply special considerations to whether a cost (risk) is voluntarily or involuntarily imposed. For example, do we have the right to require an individual to use a safety belt on an airplane when it only involves risk to hi5iself. Our society has determined that we do

have that right. Yet there is no law against stock car racing, or smoking or mountain

climbing. Another point is that our society is not always consistent.

NEPA therefore requires the consideration of environmental aspects associated with

all areas of our society - nuclear and conventional power sources being no exception.

Let's look at what ways a nuclear power plant can provide benefits and impose costs

or risks - in other words, what factors enter into an environmental cost-benefit analysis

for power plants.

A nuclear power plant has impact on the environment in the sense that

40
1. It requires land at the plant site itself - both nuclear and conventional power plants

consume in some cases up to 4,000 acres of land - so that this is a large consumption of

land. It requires, in many cases, many miles of transmission lines also.

2. It emits effluents, chemical effluents from both the conventional and nuclear plant.

From a nuclear plant we also have radiological emissions, although from a fossile fuel

plant we have natural radioactivity contained in the coal being emitted also. And finally

we have thermal emission, in the sense that the coolant water that is ejected is always at elevated temperatures.

3. It consumes water - even with a closed loop system with coolant towers, for examples,

both a conventional and a nuclear plant will consume on the order of thousands of gallons

per minute of water.

4. It generates large amounts of waste and thus creates waste disposal problems.

5. It causes social and economical effects within the community.

So we see that we have these direct effects. Now, the next question is, in what way

can these contacts with our environment effect the ecology of the environment locally,

regionally or nationally. Professor Jenson will discuss this in considerably more detail,

but as we showed in Figure 1, the nutrient and energy flow diagrams, the basic source of

energy being transferred into two plants by the process of photosynthesis. We pointed out that through the chain man is a recipient of those nutrients and energy from many links.

We also indicated a breakage in this chain could lead to very serious consequences. For example, without plant life there would be no actual food chains directly to man, so that we are directly dependent on this link in the chain. The point I am making is that there

are these linkages which exist on a local, national and worldwide scale. In the selection

of a power plant site, one has to consider the ecology of the site and examine how the

ecological chains operate in the site region. In particular we need to know where, for

example, the ecology is presently being strained, and if the construction of a plant at that site could have a disastrous effect on the site.

With NEPA and in particular with the present requirement that a complete and thorough

cost-benefit analysis study be performed for the construction of each nuclear power plant

before the license for construction is issued and before the license for operation is issued,

then extensive studies are being performed of the effects on the environment as a proposed

nuclear power plant site. Figure 3 shows in diagram form the various pathways for radiation

exposure of organisms other than man. The gaseous effluents contain radioactive material.

This again is an earlier generation plant which emits considerably more than the present

generation, but we do see the pathways that both gaseous and liquid effluents can follow

to escape from the plant. In each analysis it has to be demonstrated that the amounts and

the concentrations that are involved are completely safe within safety factors on the order

of 100 as related to what we consider acceptable environmental levels.

In Figure 4 we show the various pathways to man for the same plant. The point I am making with these illustrations is that these analysis are made and very carefully examined

to determine the various ecological pathways not only for radiation but for chemical effluents

as well - with the end result being the determination of any adverse effects to the environment .

The A. E.G. then asks, in the Environmental Report that has to be submitted, that sev- eral basic questions be answered. One being "Is the electrical energy really needed now?"

I must clarify that because of the point that was made by Dr. Lawson that a plant has to be

planned 10 years before actual electricity is realized. The utility has to demonstrate without any doubt whatsoever, that, according to realistic projected energy demands, this plant

is needed and therefore it should be constructed. Secondly, the A. E.G. asks "What are the

environmental costs in the construction of the plant?" Thirdly, "What are the benefits?"

I have mentioned some of the environmental costs. To balance the costs, the benefits that

are bonified in the cost-benefit analysis are 1.) the electrical capacity 2.) the direct

41
steam capacity, 3.) the tax income for the local area, 4.) increased jobs, 5.) land which

is developed into recreational areas within the site itself and lastly 6.) a program of

site ecological development instituted and financed by the utility company.

What are some of the basic problems in applying this cost-benefit analysis? One

fundamental problem is that it is extremely difficult to try to balance various factors

when they basically do not have common units. For example, the electrical capacity can

be quantified in terms of megawatt hours of electricity. Land consumption is quantified

in acres, effect on marine life in the environment quantified in pounds of fish destroyed,

so that it is difficult in doing the cost-benefit analysis to come up with an equation.

Ideally we would like to have everything in the same units instead of apples and oranges,

for example, and thus be able to equate the two. The last, but most important problem,

is developing a method of evaluating the environmental effects that extrapolates to the

long range effects on the ecological systems that are involved. Professor Jenson will

discuss how we look at this problem.

42
NUTRIENT AND ENERGY FLOW

SUN AIR WATER

LAND

HERBIVOROUS

INSECTS -BIRDS -MAMMALS

CARNIVOR

INSECTS-BIRDSCHEMICAL

NUTRIENTS

PHYTOPLANKTON AND PLANTS

VOROUS

ZOOPLANKTON

^^

TACEA \

WATER

SIMPLIFIED FLOW SYSTEMS

FOR WATER AND CHEMiCAlS

Figure 2.

43
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR

ORGANISMS OTHER THAN MAN

Ovstpr CrfH?k Station

Liquid Fffluents

Gaseous Effluents

Figure 3.

44
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO MAN

Fuel Transportation

Figure 4.

45
ECOLOGICAL MONITORING TECHNIQUES

B. Jensen

(Charles County Community College, La Plata, Md .

Today with all eyes and ears focused for the first time on environmental control it becomes more and more important that we as teachers and students work together, armed with

a good foundation and knowledge of the field of science so glibly talked about today and

yet so little understood. I am of course referring to the study of ecology. Ec'ology is the realm of those who choose to look into the many facets of both physical and biological

science as they would a diamond, and in so doing bask in the interplay that is constantly

going on. The interactions of plants, animals, soil, water, light, temperature and inbred

instinct or behavior makes for the most complex of studies. The environmental factors

which are optimum for one species may be disastrous to another and no single factor acts

alone. We can be guilty of both under simplifying the study of ecology or over simplifying

it, but the most important thing for us to do is to develop an understanding of the basic

concepts of ecology and with this knowledge we can then make some value judgements as to the effect of any large scale disturbance of a delineated ecosystem. Our interest today

is in the techniques which we can use to study the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on and around areas which will be used for nuclear energy production.

Before any definite construction plans can be made for a power plant of any kind,

it is imperative that studies be made to determine the existing ecosystems at and surrounding the proposed site. Years ago, the main conditions studies were the engineering feasibility and the economic restraints. Todays industries must go far beyond yesterday and

commit themselves to a quantum jump in the way they examine, interpret, and preserve the

existing ecosystems and control the adverse effects which building a nuclear facility is bound to have in an area.

In approximately 2-2 1/2 years between site selection and ground breaking, a fantastic

amount of work must be done in order to determine the ecological relationships both in the

water from which the reactor draws its coolant and on the land which may be affected by any

materials discharged into the air.

In developing an ecological monitoring program for a reactor site, a systematic

approach must be taken to insure all necessary parameters are examined. In order to do

this, two things must be considered.

First, the site characteristics must be identified, i.e., is this site located on an ocean or estuary, on a fresh water lake or river, is it in the south, east, northwest, etc.,

or on a reservoir in a southwest desert area. Each has its built in set of characteristics

which make it and its flora and fauna unique.

Second, the type of generating and cooling system must be considered since the three

or four major cooling systems each have built in operational and construction problems. A once through cooling system must be treated in one way, a closed cooling system with towers

or a cooling pond in others. As soon as these are decided upon, it is then necessary to list all of the potential impacts which can occur from the beginning of construction to operation, and indicate where these impacts will occur on the site, or possibly several

miles away.

At this point, for each impact it is important to identify the significant pollutants

which will be released into the environment such as heat, chemicals, radionuclides, etc.,

and the changes their release will have on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the site. All construction activities such as earth moving, siltation, dredging

must be examined to postulate impacts.

Once these impact areas are identified they can be separated into physical and biological parameters and a rationale developed for a monitoring program in each.

46
Any biological monitoring program must be constructed around the use of indicator

species. These must be carefully selected as to their abundance, life cycle, ability to concentrate heavy metals, toxic substances, or isotopes and their sensitivity to changing

environmental factors. A clear picture must be established as to their place in the eco- system. Once the indicator organisms, terrestrial or aquatic, are selected the monitoring

plan can be designed. The techniques and equipment can be prescribed that will give the most accurate and reliable data when used in the proper collecting sequence and time schedule.

The number of man hours and cost of monitoring is important to know for each monitoring

technique. It is just as important to know what not to monitor as it is to know what to monitor. A wrong judgement early in a program can lead to an enormous cost with little

valuable information gained.

The first step in an ecological assessment is to look at the entire site area, noting

first the edaphic or soil factors such as structure, nutrients, pH, water holding capacity,

etc. and second, the climatological factors both of the past and present. In aquatic monitoring, we use the water itself as the base of our ecosystem and must check all of the

chemical and physical parameters operating in this media. These abiotic or non-living

factors set the stage upon which all life plays.

In order to obtain enough information on the climate, records must be checked back

20-30 years and this long term meteorological data compared with a complete set of data

developed over the years before construction. A meterological tower is usually the first

monitoring system constructed on the site.

A soil scientist must do a complete analysis of all soil types which exist on the

site and should indicate their usefulness to support plant life and form natural wildlife

habitats. The soil studies must include drainage patterns, erosion and siltation rates of

the soil types and their ability to absorb water. If drainage patterns are going to be

changed due to construction, it is important to see how these changes will affect specific

ecosystems, i.e., will they fill in existing marshes or swamps, deposit silt on forest

floor to the extent it would kill the trees, or cause wash out areas where the soil cannot absorb the excess water as it runs off paved surfaces. All of these can be potential . disasters and reactor sites must be designed to prevent this happening.

Aerial photography with good color resolution or infra red can give the first break

down of a terrestrial ecosystem to establish or delineate the major plant associations and habitat areas, i.e., marsh, swamp, pine forest, open field and hardwood forest. Ground

proof or truth is then obtained by doing quadrat analyses or transects depending upon the

type of habitat to be studied. In most cases random sampling of 1/100 acre quadrats are taken in each habitat. The number of quadrats will vary according to the size of the

habitat. Every species of plant will be identified in each quadrat, recorded, then a specimen of each species collected, marked and pressed for reference. Generally speaking,

50-100 quadrats will suffice per habitat and the compilation of the number of different

species and their frequency will give a good picture of the plant associations existing

at present. The general health of the ecosystem can very easily be assessed by studying

these plant associations, since these are the producers which provide the food directly

or indirectly for all of the animal inhabitants. A study of this intensity will almost

always reveal the presence of the major plant species as well as any which are rare or endangered. The field work must begin in early spring and continue through the fall to give a true picture of the flora.

Natural ambient salinity must be established both in the air and soil so that any

tests made after the reactor goes into operation will be interpreted against a natural air

salt deposition base line. As it is possible, plots of natural and cultivated plants should

be established at prescribed distances from the power source to determine growth rates before and after initial start up.

Certain types of plants such as lichens, mosses, ferns and Spanish moss tend to con- centrate isotopes in their tissues naturally since they absorb most of their nutrients

from the air. These must be carefully collected and analyzed for natural radiation levels

47
and a monitoring program carried out both pre and operational. Radiation meters called

thermal luminescent dosimeters placed in the areas where the plants are collected check

the ambient radiation and from these data a comp'arison can be made to see if there is any

biomagnif ication.

Faunal studies must be started at the same time the floral studies are begun and

these are first made on a qualitative basis to see the numbers of species in the major

consumer levels, i.e., herbivores and carnivores. It is very important at this time to establish food chains and webs and select certain animal species at each trophic or energy level, which will tend to concentrate any radiation or toxic materials as they go through the process of eating or being eaten.

Once the basic studies are made, it is extremely important to go back and begin

population studies of indicator species both plants and animals, to determine whether

they will be able to move into the surrounding areas where construction begins and become

established there or whether they will be completely eliminated from the reactor site

and its environs." It is necessary to understand normal population fluctuations as they occur seasonally and yearly in plants and animals and not make snap judgements when the

first changes are observed.

Assessments must be made as to the effect of heat released into the atmosphere from

cooling towers to see if this will produce enough change in atmospheric moisture or rainfall to affect terrestial habitats.

At the present time infinitely more work has been done on aquatic monitoring techniques

since it has been the main practice to use a once through cooling system where water was

taken from a river, used for cooling the turbines, condensers, or the reactor itself and

returned at a temperature greater than the receiving water. The monitoring techniques used

to establish base line aquatic abiotic data are generally those used for hydrological studies

such as current patterns and velocity and general physical and chemical parameters.

Once we begin to examine the living organisms in an aquatic monitoring program the

work becomes very complex. The first problem is to determine exactly what the resources

are that we must be most concerned with because it is virtually impossible to deal with

each species. If we are looking at a site in a shellfish area, then the benthic or bottom

organisms must be studied in great detail. It is important to collect and identify the

species and abundance of algae that serve as their food source and check their primary productivity with an increase in temperature. The bottom itself must be sampled by using an eckman or peterson grab or a biological sled to collect the bottom surface organisms. These

can then be sorted by hand or floated out.

The numbers and species of organisms will be a very good indicator of the bottom con- ditions since deep or toxic sediments will immediately limit the variety of species able to exist there.

The pelagic or moving fauna must be sampled to determine both the productivity of the

waters for algae and the small animals and fish that graze on this "grass of the sea". It

is important to determine whether or not water is being taken into the power plant from a spawning area, and if it is how much of the total flow is taken in. Only a portion of the

water containing eggs and larva must be taken in at any one time to insure the reproductive

capacity and survival of the species from those remaining.

It should be quite obvious that I am barely touching the surface of biological monitoring in this short time but there are a few thoughts I would like to leave with you.

The National Environmental Studies Program has set up a task force of 12 people from

the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. who are working together with scientists from Battelle

Memorial Institute, Richland, Washington to develop national standards and techniques for

aquatic and terrestrial monitoring at nuclear power plant sites. This kind of far sighted

project should, when completed, save utilities from making costly mistakes in setting up

48
monitoring programs and should assure a standard, complete and continual assessment of the

ecosystems

.

It is very possible to provide the energy we need while we protect and, in many cases, improve some ecosystems if we plan carefully and follo^^; through with the changes indicated

from our studies. A whole new field of technical and professional training will be necessary

to carry out these environmental impact studies and it certainly offers an exciting challenge

to young people interested in biological sciences today. We are no longer just talking about

the environmental problems, but we are doing something about them. In the word "we" I am including scientists, educators and industrialists working together for the good of all.

49
RADIATION UTILIZATION IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY

V. P. Bond

(Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York)

The uses of radiations in biology and medicine are myriad, and it is difficult indeed

to even begin to do justice to them in the short time available. The term "radiation utilization" in the present context is taken to include the application of radioactive isotopes

as tracers or otherwise, as well as the use of "external" radiations such as x-rays, gamma

rays, electrons, and other accelerator-produced radiations such as fast neutrons, protons,

pions, etc. I shall arbitrarily divide radiation uses into five categories, namely, 1) radioactive isotopes used as tracers in biomedical research; 2) radiation biology; 3) diagnostic x-ray; 4) nuclear medicine, and 5) radiotherapy.

Radioactive Isotopes in Biomedical Research

This subject is enormous indeed. The principles involved are rather obvious. It is possible to substitute for a nonradioactive atom such as iron in a chemical or biochemical

compound, a radioactive form of iron. Neither the compound nor the body, so to speak,

"knows" that the substituted compound is any different from the normal e.g., it acts (with rare exceptions) exactly as does the normal compound. Thus, if the material is administered

to a biological system, it will distribute within that system in a manner identical to that

of the normal compound. The only difference, of course, is that one can find precisely, by means of the radiations emitted, where the compound has gone, either in the entire body,

organs, cells, or biochemical compounds. This extremely valuable and powerful tool has been

used to advantage in virtually every aspect of biomedical science. The amount of information gained has been great indeed. Our knowledge of biochemistry, physiology and medicine

has taken several quantum jumps forward since the introduction of the use of radioactive

tracers in biology and medicine.

Radiation Biology

The^erm radiation biology conjures up in the minds of most the study of the effects

of radiation in biological systems, and this indeed does constitute a sizable fraction of

the work in radiation biology. This is an important area. And while we have learned a great deal about the genetic and somatic effects of radiation, there is still a great deal more to be learned. The approaches developed in studying the effects of radiation have had

a profound impact in toxicology in general. It has stimulated a much closer examination of

the shapes of dose-effect curves, detailed examination of what might be the effects at low

doses and dose rates, and the long term (over many years as opposed to hours or weeks)

effects of toxic agents. These concepts are now carried over into the study of a number of

potentially harmful agents, including some drugs., and potentially harmful agents released

into the environment.

Radiation biology, however, includes much more than just a study of the effects of

radiation. It represents the interface among several different disciplines, including

physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. It was obvious from the start that, in order to understand the effects of radiation, it v/as necessary to know more about the biology of the

systems involved. Thus, in the course of studying radiation, a great deal of very basic

information has been obtained at the biochemical, cellular, organ and whole-animal levels.

In fact, whole new areas of endeavor have either had their origin in radiation biology, or have been greatly stimulated in their development by radiation biology.

Often it is forgotten where these areas of endeavor did in fact originate. As examples,

consider organ transplants. Definitive and successful work in this area was done in connection with radiation, namely substitution of injected bone marrow as a method of treatment of

large-dose whole body radiation exposure, in which the bone marrow and thus the blood cells

can be severely and even fatally depressed. After much work it was shown clearly that the

transplanted marrow "takes" and grows in the recipient. Bone marrow transplants have been

and are used now in human beings. This was followed by transplant of kidneys, which,

50
although originally involving whole body radiation to depress immune response and thus the

possibility of rejection, is now frequently done by means of immune-suppressing drugs. The

kinetics of normal cell proliferation, of a number of organs in the body, was ^studied initially in radiation biology in order to understand the effects of radiation. Radioactive

isotopes, particularly tritiated thymidine which goes selectively to DNA in the cell nucleus,

has been used world-wide in this connection. There are now organized groups in this field,

and a separate journal. Similarly, radiation biology stimulated the detailed study of the

kinetics of tumor cell proliferation. The studies have revolutionized our concepts of how

tumors grow, and this in turn has changed decidedly our ideas with respect to radiotherapy

and other forms of tumor therapy.

The field of immunology, while developing in its own right over the years, received

a large impetus from radiation biology. Radiation affects not only the body's capability

to respond in terms of antibody production, but also severely depletes the population of

lymphocytes which play an important role in immunity. Extensive studies in both of these

areas, using radiation, has contributed enormously to our understanding of immune processes. And of course, radiation biology has played a very large role in the continuing

effort to transform radiotherapy from an empirical approach to one based on a sound understanding of the time course of events in the tumor and normal tissue as the treatment is applied

.

Thus radiation represents a powerful investigative tool. A widespread approach to the study of biological functions is to perturb a system and to observe the effects of

the perturbation and the recovery from it. Radiation is a unique, clean agent that can

be applied precisely and quantitatively, and thus it has been widely used in this connection.

Diagnostic X-rays

Almost everyone has had x-rays taken for some reason, and is broadly familiar with

the process. The approach obviously allows one to obtain information on internal organs

that connot be obtained otherwise. It is a very widely used and necessary tool in medicine.

There have been made and are being made a large number of improvements with respect

to equipment, types of radiation, and x-ray film, to increase the quality of the image.

Also, considerable effort is being made, through use of image intensif iers , reduction of

size of field and other approaches to obtain the same amount or more diagnostic information with less radiation dose to the patient. Among the interesting new approaches now being considered is the use of particles such as protons to take radiographic pictures.

A highly monoenergetic beam of protons is used. In a homogeneous medium, all such protons

will come to a stop at precisely the same depth. However, even small differences in density in the medium traversed, such as those that occur in soft tissue, will "spread out"

the beam. Determining where the protons come to rest will reflect even rather small

changes in density. This approach allows the possibility of visualizing soft tissue

structures, which can be seen only vaguely or not at all in the usual x-ray films. The

dose to the patient can be very small.

Nuclear Medicine

Nuclear medicine can be narrowly or broadly defined. In the present context I shall

use it to indicate primarily the use of radioactive isotopes in diagnostic and therapeutic

procedures. First, with respect to therapy, radioactive isotopes have not lived up to original expectations. In some instances, and the thyroid is a classic example, radioactive iodine can be made to localize to a very large degree in the gland. Thus, a large

radiation dose can be delivered to the thyroid with relatively little dose to other organs.

This approach allows one to treat certain cases of hyperthyroidism, and some types of

thyroid cancer. Other, less attractive uses of injected isotopes in therapy can be cited;

however, suffice it to say that the uses of isotopes for these purposes are limited and

far fewer than originally contemplated.

51
The use of radioactive materials in diagnostic procedures, however, represent a com- pletely different story. There are a number of "blind spots" in the body that cannot be

evaluated easily or at all by the use of diagnostic x-rays and/or other techniques. In- cluded among these are such organs as the parathyroid, the pancreas and the thyroid.

Through the use of radioactive isotopes, it has been possible to obtain information that

cannot be obtained in other ways. Initially, nuclear medicine was limited almost entirely

to the use of iodine for evaluation of the thyroid. However, the rate of progress has been

phenomenal, and nuclear medicine now represents one of the most rapidly growing areas in

medicine

The objectives of nuclear medicine can be characterized as follows:

1) To study and quantify dynamic processes, e.g., heart and lung function.

2) To measure the size of physiological compartments or pool. By tagging

procedures one can determine, for example, the plasma volume, the blood

volume and the red cell mass.

3) To measure the functional capacity of organs. The rate of uptake of certain

isotopes of labeled compounds in organs, such as iodine in the thyroid, provides a quantitative measure of the functional condition of the organ.

4) To delineate morphology. As an example, iodine can be given which localizes

in the thyroid. By means of collimation and imaging procedures, a "picture"

of the organ can be made which allows one to determine if there are abnormalities in its structure.

As illustrations of what can be done, several figures are provided. Figure 1 is an image of the thyroid made with the isotope techniques using 99"^ (above) and a new isotope

I-*-^ below. Technetium-99m, developed at Brookhaven, is very widely used in nuclear medicine. The lower image, obtained with 1-123 is better than that obtained with technetium

because the characteristics of the rays emitted are more suitable for detection purposes.

In Figure 2, are shown images of the kidney and the adrenal, both clearly visualized. The

adrenal is visualized with iodine-labeled cholesterol; the kidney with a mercury compound.

Figure 3, shows a visualization of the liver, spleen and bone marrow obtained by injecting

a technetium-99m labeled sulphur colloid. The distribution is abnormal in this disease;

normally there is minimal uptake of radioactivity below the hips. In Figure 4, the easily

seen "brighter" spots on the spine indicate the location of metasteses from a cancer of

the breast. Visualization was obtained by means of radioactive flourine.

In Figure 5 is illustrated one of the newer approaches in nuclear medicine, fluorescent scanning of the thyroid. In this procedure, no radioactivity is administered to the patient. Rather, the source shown in the Figure, americium-241 , is directed at the

thyroid, and the 60 keV gamma rays from the source excite fluorescent radiation from iodine.

These radiations are collimated and processed in the detector to form the image of the

thyroid shown in Figure 6. It is pointed out again that information obtained and represented in Figures 1 through 6 would be, difficult if not impossible to obtain by other means.

Another approach being vigorously pursued in nuclear medicine is to utilize new isotopes and compounds to obtain more information, but to reduce the radiation dose to the

patient for the same amount of information. As an illustrative example, consider radioactive isotopes of iodine whose half-life is measured in many days, versus a short-lived

isotope of iodine whose half-life is measured in hours. Both radioactive isotopes will go

to the thyroid, and provide the required information. However, the time required to obtain

the information is measured in minutes to at most hours. With the long-lived isotope, however, the patient continues to receive radiation exposure over many days. With the shortlived isotope, the exposure falls to near zero shortly after the required information is obtained, and the radiation exposure is correspondingly reduced. Figure 8 shows a new approach used at Brookhaven, i.e., the incorporation of a very short-lived (20 minutes)

isotope, C-11 into the compound dopamine. It is obvious from the figure that the dopamine

52
does localize in the adrenal. Thus, the organ can be visualized with minimal dose to the

patient

.

Radiotherapy

Radiotherapy has played and continues to play a central role in the treatment of

malignancies, in conjunction with other approaches such as surgery, chemotherapy and per- haps immunotherapy. In a large percentage of tumors, radiotherapy is the approach of

choice. Obviously the objective of radiotherapy is to obtain the maximum dose to the tumor,

with minimum dose to normal structures that must be irradiated to some degree in the course

of therapy. As noted above, radiobiology has contributed enormously to our understanding

of tumor cell kinetics and changes that occur in the tumor and normal tissues in the course

of treatment.

Newer approaches to radiotherapy involving accelerator-produced beams will be discussed briefly; however, first one fact about some tumors and some radiobiological principals need to be discussed. It is known that, even in very small tumors, areas of

reduced oxygen supply exists. Thus, some fraction of the cells are hypoxic, and the

presumption is that the^e cells can continue to proliferate if the oxygen supply is brought

back to normal. The radiobiological principles are the following: If cells are rendered

severly hypoxic and then irradiated with conventional x-or gamma radiations, the hypoxic

cells are protected to a substantial degree, up to as much as a factor of three. This means that it can require as much as three times the dose to kill these cells as compared

to normally oxygenated cells. However, with exposure to other more exotic types of radiation, hypoxia protects cells to a much lesser degree. These are so-called "high linear

energy transfer", or high LET radiations and include fast neutrons, stripped heavy ions

accelerated to very high energies, and negative pi mesons. With high LET radiations the

individual packets of energy are laid down in tissue with a much closer spacing than with

conventional or low LET radiations, and it is this property that makes radiations not only more effective per unit dose, but apparently insensitive, with respect to their degree of

effect, to the oxygen content of the cells exposed.

These properties of tumors and the radiobiological principles allow one to attack

two major problems in radiotherapy and both are being actively pursued. Consider Figure

8, in which so-called "depth-dose" curves are given for a number of radiations. Consider

first only the two upper curves, for conventional Cobalt-60 radiation and the high LET neutron radiation. Imagine that the tumor is located at the peak of the series of lower

curves, at about 10 g/cm"^ (about .10 cm) deep in tissue. With Cobalt-60 radiation hypoxic

cells would be protected; with neutrons they would be protected to a much lesser degree. Fast neutrons have now been tried rather extensively by Dr. Mary Catterall at the Hammersmith Hospital in London, and the results to date are quite promising. A great deal of

enthusiasm has been generated in the radiotherapy community to use fast neutrons, and a number of machines have been or are being set up for this purpose in the United States

and in other countries. *

Now consider a second problem in radiotherapy, as exemplified by the upper curves

for Cobalt-60 and neutron radiation. With both, for a given dose to the tumor, one must accept a higher dose to much of the intervening normal tissue. This severely limits the

total dose that can be given to the tumor, because of resulting unacceptable damage to normal tissue. The unfavorable ratio can be improved by multiport or rotational techniques;

however, the situation is still not optimal.

The series of lower curves (for protons, helium ions, neon ions and negative pi mesons)

obviously are much better than Cobalt-60 or neutron in this respect, i.e. for a given dose

to the tumor, it is necessary to accept a great deal less radiation in the normal tissue.

This in principle should allow one to give a higher dose to the tumor with a corresponding

increased probability of control.

A last consideration is pointed out. Among the group of lower curves, those for

protons, helium ions and neon ions are essentially "lov; LET", i.e. like Cobalt-60 radiation,

53
in the sense that hypoxic cells exposed to these radiations are protected. Thus the advantage of these beams lies only in an improved depth-dose pattern; they have no advantage

with respect to high LET characteristics such as a neutron beam has. The exception is pi munus mesons. These particles interact in tissue over most of their length as do protons, helium ions and neon ions. However, at the end of their range, they are captured,

principally by nitrogen and oxygen atoms in the tissue. A "nuclear explosion" results

with the local production of alpha particles, fast neutrons and heavier recoil nuclear

fragments, all of which represent high LET radiations. The net result is that, with

negative pi mesons, one obtains markedly improved depth-dose. Also, at the tumor site, one has high LET radiation, and thus the capability of ameliorating the problem associated

with hypoxic cells. No facility now exist's suitable for the application of pi mesons in radiotherapy. However, facilities are bei-ng built at Los Alamos, New Mexico, at Stanford

University in California, in England, in Vancouver, Washington, and near Zurich, Switzerland,

These beams should become available over the next couple of years.

"Evidence is becoming available indicating that hypoxic cells in tumors may not be

the only reason, at least in some human tumors, that high LET radiations appear to be more effective than conventional radiations. This is academic to a degree, however, since fast

neutron therapy appears to be superior to treatment with conventional radiations, whatever

the reasons may be.

54
E.B. 53 9

99m

TcO:

I23j

10.5%

Figure 1. Image of the thyroid made with isotope techniques using 99 (above)

and a new isotope 1^^^ (below)

.

55
Fig 2.— Right adrenal scan on patient 2, four days following administration of radio- cholesterot. Kidney localization was per- formed with ''"Hg-chlormerodrm setting the pulse height analyzer of the scanner for the '"Hg photon peak. Patient was then re- scanned on the same x-ray film without

being moved and with the pulse height analyzer reset to the 365 kiloelectron volt pho- ton peak of "'I. Views obtained from the back.

Figure 2. Images of the kidney and the adrenal.

56
c

•r4 (0 4JooMM

COE

<uco •

1-1 T3 O C ^

a. _c m CL

r—i » 3

IJ en

4)> 'D

•H 0) I—<

r~t0)

01

X

x: 03 u -H

M-1 e O a^o c 1 o e

•r^ 3

4-1 • H

(IS 4-) N <D H C 1—1

J=

CDU 3 <D > CD

01

1-1 3

Ml

57
Figure 4. Visualization, obtained by means of radioactive flourine, of bone

metasteses of tlje spine from a cancer of the breast.

58
DETECTOR

COLLIMATOR

SOURCE

COLLIMATOR

„ SHUTTER .

60 KEV

GAMMA RAY

28.5 KEV

K^ X-RAY

THYROID LOBE

Figure 5. Fluorescent x-ray scanning of the thyroid.

59
A. FLUORESCENT B. FLUORESCENT

Figure 6. Image of thyroid formed from induced fluorescent x-rays from non-radioactive iodine in the thyroid. The induced x-rays are collimated and

processed in the detector.

CT>

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

i

TISSUE DISTRIBUTION OF C DOPAMINE

% UPTAKE/gm OF "c DOPAMINE

2 HOURS AFTER i.v. INJECTION

%.

%

^CARRIER FREE

WITH CARRIER

1

L

i u

HI. I

ADRENAL ADRENAL

MEDULLA CORTEX

KIDNEY LIVER LEFT

VENTRICLE

Figure 7. Organ distribution of C-11 incorporated into the compound dopamine.

60
2.5

2.0

1 r

Neutrons

i2 1.0

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

2

Penetration distance, g/cm

Figure 8. Depth-dose distribution patterns for some conventional and newer radiation beams used for the treatment of cancer.

61
ADVANCED CONCEPTS IN APPLIED NUCLEAH SCIENCE

G. A. Graves'^

(National Science Foundation, Washington, DC)

I would like first to say that it's my pleasure to be here to talk to you participants

in nuclear science education today about some concepts which might really be called "advanced nuclear science". I would like to thank both the Washington section of the American

Nuclear Society and the Bureau of Standards for this opportunity. I think it's appropriate

that both organizations sponsor these activities in nuclear science and that this meeting

is held in a place like the NBS auditorium because the NBS has done many things in the

service of nuclear science while also serving the broader interests of the nation.

Vrhat I intend to do today is to concentrate upon a subject which has been in the news

a lot recently. That is the subject of nuclear fusion. The reasons for its publicity

will become clear shortly. But I want to disabuse you of any illusions you have about

fusion, as well as tell you of its promise and potentiality, right at the beginning. Because

whether you say "nuclear fusion", or use other terms commonly applied to this subject such

as "controlled thermonuclear reactions" or CTR", or prefer still more vivid descriptions

like "bottling the power of the sun", it can be said that you are speaking of one of the

most intellectually exciting quests of the human spirit and a quest potentially most re- warding for mankind. For nuclear fusion reactions, if developed and utilized in all their

potential forms, offer mankind the promise of nearly limitless energy. At this time of

year and in this place, with the shortages of today, that prospect has extra meaning for us.

Fusion reactions offer to produce energy from one of the most common materials in

nature - water - and from only a very tiny constituent of that water - deuterium - which is

a hydrogen atom that occurs only about once per 6500 ordinary hydrogen atoms in water. Yet this small abundance gives to every gallon of water the energy potential of about 300

gallons of gasoline. That would be energy sufficient to last the world for more than a thousand million years, in contrast to only a few decades of supply offered (even at present

rates of consumption) by all the world's oil and only a few centuries at most offered by all

its coals and some other less-accessible fossil fuels. Furthermore, a nuclear fusion source might provide energy with greatly reduced environmental consequence and greatly reduced

safety concern.

This is not to say that this source is here now, nor to say with any certainty that

it can ever be here. It will definitely not be here for a long time. Many of you here

in this room may have the opportunity to work on its development as scientific professionals

after you have completed high school, college, and graduate work. You may even have worked

in this field, if that should be the direction your inclination takes you, for many years

before the first economically competitive nuclear fusion reactor is ever built. And if that should be the direction in which your irtclinations take you, I hope that you will only

be stimulated and not discouraged by this challenge, and that you will find the work exciting and worthwhile.

1 I would like to outline what I am going to do. I am going to show you a short film

first - a very popular film. It has been produced by the National Science Foundation; it

outlines some things on fusion that I won't have to repeat. Then I'm going to talk on some

of the technical problems of confining plasmas and make some comparisons between energy

extraction from fission and fusion. Later I will show you brief glimpses of increasingly

complicated and technical aspects of fusion. By the end of the talk I hope you will have

some feeling for what fusion may be and have some perspective on its difficulties.

On loan from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of the University of California,

Los Alamos, NM.

62
I want to touch on something which is sometimes a tender point around the country

these days. That is the context in which nuclear fusion so often comes up, where it Is treated as "the answer" for mankind "now". That is not the case. I want further to make

it clear that the fact that fusion was selected for discussion here is not meant to discredit alternate energy systems or any of the other things the United States is now doing

or must do to respond to the problems of the present. Because you people, as well as any

other group in the country who are concerned about the matter, are going to have to recognize that the increased use of nuclear fission reactors and the burning of coal for energy

production is an inevitability of our time. 1 do not think that is necessarily undesirable.

It is a step that goes toward the utilization of our more abundant resources, in place of

using limited, depletable, and actually-diminishing oil and gas as we do at the present.

Oil and gas have other much-more-essential uses than the production of heat and should be

saved for them.

I think you should realize that neither the present nor the coming energy sources

need be unsafe nor environmentally unacceptable. A little consideration will probably

show all of you that every resource we wring from the earth and every energy conversion

that we accomplish, including nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, geothermal energy, solar

energy, etc. , invokes some kind of potential environmental concern or degradation, or

at least gives some cause for concern. We hear much concern about nuclear fission in

this regard. Nuclear fission systems are new. They are the first energy systems that

have been thoroughly investigated. They check out very well in environmental and safety

regards in the minds of most people and they may look even better when the comparable

data for other energy systems are completely in. It is true that nuclear fusion seems likely to be superior to nuclear fission in some respects. But we can not take advantage

of any of its impending improvement until we have it, and we will not have it for a long

time at best. Meanwhile, nuclear fission systems will go ahead producing power economically

and safely, reducing the load on our fossil fuels and helping to conserve them. To illustrate the degree of savings involved, one and one-half tons — a miere 1 1/2 tons — of

uranium-235 fissioned in a nuclear reactor can produce a million kilowatts of electricity

for a year. And that modest fuel consumption relieves us of the necessity of annually

mining and burning 3 million tons of coal, or consuming 16 million barrels of oil, to do

the same job. In other words, a single nuclear reactor can save us about two days' present

coal consumption or about one day's present oil consumption.

Well, what is the source of nuclear energy? We can say that nuclear energy comes

from rearrangement of the nuclei of atoms, in response to some stimulating event, into a more stable configuration.

Now all energy release throughout nature generally results from some change leading

toward a more stable configuration. You have all seen examples, but you may not have

thought of them in these terms. For example, you know that the downward motion of a clock's

weight can release energy to operate its pendulum, and that falling vjater drives a hydroelectric power plant, or that heat may be obtained vrhen you put a chem.ical into solution or burn something. In all these cases, something gets more stable, and energy is released.

Nuclear energy is analagous to these processes, in that it comes from an approach to greater

stability, but it is from a different source, the atomic nucleus, and it is of a quite

different magnitude.

The physicist likes to express stability of a nucleus in terms of something called its

"binding energy per nucleon." (Nucleon is just a general term for the neutrons and protons

which comprise the nucleus.) Binding energy is something that can be measured; it tells

how strongly nuclear matter is held together. These measurements show that the greatest

binding energy per nucleon occurs for nuclei of intermediate atomic weight; that is atomic

weights between forty and a hundred. The binding energy is very much less than this for

the nuclei of both the heaviest atoms and the lightest atoms. These facts suggest that,

under the right kind of stimulus, nuclei of either heavy or light atoms might be induced

to turn into the intrinsically-more-stable nuclei of greater binding energy. And if and

when these nuclei so change, or transform, there should be energy release. And this does

occur

.

63
In the case of the fission of the heavy nucleus, uraniuin-235 , the stimulus for transformation can be the absorption of a neutron even one of negligible energy. When fission

occurs, the nucleus splits into two separate nuclei of interm.ediate mass. In the transformation, a very tiny bit of the total original mass of the uranium nucleus disappears - about a tenth of one percent - and is converted, exactly as Einstein's E = Mc^ equation of

mass-energy equivalence would predict, into energy. Most of this liberated energy is

manifested as kinetic energy of motion of two new nuclei produced by the fission. And as these nuclei slow down within a very short distance in the medium containing the uranium

fuel, they deposit their kinetic energy in the fuel and it appears as heat. A much smaller

amount of energy in another form, the "energy of radiation", comes from fission in the form

of neutrons and gamma rays; this also eventually is deposited in the reactor as heat.

Fission of U-235 is the common process of most of the commercial power reactors of the

world, which from features of their construction are usually called "light water reactors"

or "urn's."

Uranium-238 is another and much more common nuclear constituent of naturally occurring

uranium; it is one hundred and forty times more abundant than U-235. It too can fission.

But unlike the U-235, it requires the absorption or capture of a neutron of significant

energy to start its fission process going; the neutrons needed are called "fast" neutrons.

The fission of U-238 does not occur very readily in the light water reactors, which have

few fast neutrons, so we have to develop a completely new type of reactor in order to take

advantage of the very much greater part of the uranium energy that is potentially available

to us through the use of U-238. And this is the stimulus -behind the development of "fast"

reactors" in this country. ("Fast breeders" and "fast reactors" are terms used nearly

interchangeably; both require fast neutrons.) Fast reactors are very important to us because they offer to multiply our uranium energy potential by roughly fifty to a hundredfold. (They would not multiply it by exactly 140-fold because process inefficiencies

prohibit fissioning every atom and because L\«JR's do fission a little bit of U-238.) With

fast reactors, uranium already mined by the year 2000 might completely supply the needs of

the fission power industry for another century.

Now let us return to fusion. Fusion is similar to fission in one sense, because it also involves nuclear reactions which end up with "particles" that have a stronger binding

energy per nucleon than they had in their original form, but in fusion the original con- stituents mostly join together, rather than dividing. Like fission, this results in

energy being released because mass disappears in the process. The energy is carried by

the motion (kinetic energy) of the final particles; these particles get stopped in a manner

similar to, though not exactly identical to, the stopping of those that come out of the

fission reaction. There are some differences between fission and fusion. One would have,

for example, for the same energy production, about ten times as many neutrons produced in

a fusion reactor as are produced in a fission reactor. There would be a lesser number of

original gamma-rays, but as neutrons themselves are capable of producing various gammarays, it is a mistake to assume, as many people do, that fusion would be completely free

of environmental consequence, or from short-term or long-term radioactivity.

I would like to touch on one or two aspects of fusion and its energy potential by

discussing the candidate fusion reactions you have just seen in the film. Figure 1 lists

essentially all the conceptual reactions. We will talk only about the top two. They are listed here in the order of increasing difficulty. By difficulty, I mean the temperatures

required for initiation of the reaction, for the "stimulus" behind thermonuclear reactions

is the collision of nuclear particles through their own thermal motion, which must over- come the electrical charge repulsion which tends to keep them apart. In the left hand

column of Figure 1, you see we are dealing with extreme temperatures, from 100 million to two billion degrees. (We'll return later to the role of temperature in making the reaction

go.) Both of the first two reactions on this figure are hydrogen isotope reactions.

("Isotopes" are differing nuclei of the same chemical element.) The second reaction, the

deuterium, or D-D reaction, is the most abundant potential energy source referred to in

the film-. We can get deuterium from the sea (or any other body of water). If we could

use it in the D-D fusion reaction, we would have an energy potential of 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water (yet nearly 99.99% of the water we started with would

64
remain unchanged)

.

The upper reaction of Figure 1, the D-T reaction, has a lower temperature "threshold" - that is, it should be easier to produce - than the D-D reaction and it is the one through

which fusion will most likely first be demonstrated. The "T" there stands for tritium - that's a hydrogen nucleus vjhich contains 3 particles, two neutrons and a proton. Tritium

does not occur naturally. It is weakly radioactive and has about a twelve year half-life,

so it disappears on you whether or not you use it. It would need to be produced as needed,

and it could be produced in fusion reactors by neutron reactions with lithium. A neutron

comes from the D-T reaction, so it is possible (or it looks possible) to produce a fusion

reactor containing lithium in the material surrounding the reaction zone and in which that

neutron can be used to regenerate the tritium needed to continue the operation.

Our potential tritium supply, though derivable mainly from lithium, represents through

the D-T reaction a very large energy resource, for lithium is fairly abundant. The thing

to keep in mind is that nuclear reactions are about a million times more energetic per event than chemical reactions. So one can afford to expend unconventional amounts of

energy to obtain nuclear fuels. He may utilize ores, rocks or seawater having just one

part in thousands or one part in tens-of-thousands of the material desired. Even though

the rest, which is the bulk of material, might be waste, the economics of ore utilization

can be 'favorable because the eventual energy return from nuclear reactions is so great.

The ordinary nuclear fuel uranium (if used in fission breeder reactors) or the nuclear

fuel tritium, (if derived from lithium and usable in fusion reactors) would provide an energy resource greatly exceeding that of all the fossil fuels of the world. The gain

over fossil supplies would be at least a hundredfold in either case. The potential gain

from the availability of D-D reactions would be very much greater still.

The problem with making a fusion reaction go is the fact that one has to bring the two reacting nuclei very close together before it can occur, and pushing nuclei together is difficult. This could be done in an accelerator, but it is not efficient and one could not

get much energy yield from the small currents. One way being considered is to heat the

material and then to rely on its thermal motion to cause enough collisions per unit time

to sustain the reaction. The nuclei of the hot material tend to randomly strike one another

from time to time. But their mutual charge repulsion (the Coulomb forces) would require

that the material be "heated" very much - i.e., that the nuclei have very great energy of

motion - before they are able to undergo 'those reacting collisions with any frequency.

The degree of heating required for these reactions to work was expressed in millions of

degrees of temperature at the left of Figure 1. Since no solid medium can survive those

temperatures, we have been led to consider the two general approaches to nuclear fusion

(and four pathways) shown in Figure 2. These approaches do not require a material to con- tain the reaction. (There is at least a third non-material confinement method, which works

in nature - the gravity of the sun holds a fusion system together, but we can't use that

here on earth.

Various fusion machine concepts seek to employ magnetic fields to hold the reacting

material away from walls. There are three approaches, all coming under the general name

of Magnetic Confinement: they are the tokamak, the theta pinch, and the mirror machine.

An alternate concept is to produce a reaction which is so brief that it has occurred and

its effects have been dissipated before any deleterious contact with the walls has been

made. This is sometimes called "Inertial Confinement". It is the idea behind the concept

labelled "laser-pellet fusion," also known as "laser-induced fusion." The focus of today's

presentation will be on magnetic fusion, but I may later give a quick summary of the status

of laser pellet fusion.

Magnetic Confinement Fusion seeks to restrain energetic (hot) particles by magnetic

fields, as said before. The purpose is both to confine and contain the reaction and to prevent reacting particle loss. Any loss of particles is bad. It lowers reaction

efficiency, it cuts down on operating temperatures, and it produces other problems in handling the particles that get away, especially since these are capable of generating contamination which might quench the reaction.

65
Magnetic confinement is possible because, at the high temperatures involved, all

material undergoes a complete dissociation into free charges (electrons and ions) to form a "plasma", and charged particles don't cross magnetic field lines. But there are

also problems, because magnetic fields don't restrain particles which travel along field

lines. Leakage is always possible in any system that involves discrete magnets, because

there are alx-jays some field lines which leave the system and provide potential leakage

paths. So an element of all magnetic approaches, indeed a hallmark of magnetic fusion

work, is the construction of very complicated magnet assemblies to try to twist and turn

the magnetic fields in such a way that they offer no ready path for a charged particle

to escape.

A second problem confounding any simple approach to preventing loss is that the

collective behaviour of charged particles in a magnetic field is not like that of "isolated"

charged particles. It might be so if there were only a- hundred or even a hundred thousand

particles, but in cases like we are talking of here, with 10-'-^ or 10-^'^ particles per cubic

centimeter, the plasma material takes on a new character all its own. It does not act like

single particles at all. Rather it acts a little bit like a fluid under pressure within a system with soft deformable walls - i.e., acts somewhat like water in a hose made of soft

weak rubber, where the water resembles a plasma and the rubber resembles the confining

ability of a magnetic field. Any incipient bulge in the wall (field) may grow until there

is a rupture and a fluid (plasma) loss. Thus, collective behaviour of plasma tends to introduce new kinds of instabilities and losses - there are pressure reactions against the

magnetic field back and forth - and the problems of confining plasma and sustaining an equilibrium reaction within it are very, very difficult.

Experi .ental research configurations illustrating attempts at stable confinement are seen

in the ST Tokamak (Fig 3) at Princeton and in the theta-pinch experiment (Fig 4) known as the Scyllac at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. These have similarities but they are

two different approaches. One of them has a very high magnetic field - the Scyllac, for

example, will produce an intense magnetic field by discharging a four story bank of con- densers into what is essentially a small single-turn-coil located near the man in the

figure. The magnetic field created by that single turn discharge will squeeze and compress

the plasma or gas, shocking it, ionizing it, heating it, and then doing work upon it; but

the hot plasma is only confined for a very short time, at present a few millionths of a second. In the tokomak, stability is helped by the induction of a very high current discharge through the plasma around the ring, but magnetic fields and plasma densities are very much lower than in Scyllac, while confinement times, though still short, are about

100 times longer.

To oversimplify the central problem of fusion, we may state that it is to get a plasma

hot and confine it while it reacts; we must invest energy in doing that, but we hope to get

energy return from the reactions produced. Quantitative ways of expressing the confinement

criteria needed for energy "breakeven" (energy out = energy in) are shown in Figure 5. The

product of particle density and time of confinement is the thing that is important; on sound

theoretical grounds, that product must be something like 10 (particles per cubic centimeter times seconds of confinement) before one can hope to get more energy out than is used

in establishing the reacting conditions. Figure 5 shows that present technology is about

two orders of magnitude - that is, a factor of 100 - below achieving this critical value

for "breakeven" which is sometimes called "satisfying the Lawson Criterion." There are

two regimes in the figure. For the DT reaction, the breakeven prospects are seen to be

slightly simpler than they are for the DD reaction, which corresponds to the difference

in temperature requirements discussed earlier. (Temperatures enter through the Figure's

technical term "Kiloelectron volts"; multiply that by 11,000,000 to get the associated

reaction temperatures in degrees Kelvin.) Experimental devices have achieved all values

of the three parameters (confinement time, particle density, and temperature) appropriate

to breakeven individually, but- in combinations of no more than two at a time. In some cases, we've gotten plasma hot enough (like the 100 million degrees that was achieved in the Liver- more "Baseball" mirror machine experiment) , we have been able to confine plasma in some cases for times long enough to be of interest, and we have sometimes generated sufficient

particle densities but we haven't been able to do those three things simultaneously.

66
Though the net effect is to be about a f actor-of-100 away from breakeven, and still

requires a lot of improvement, we have made great gains from earlier times. The two most

promising approaches - the two machines that come closest to this overall goal - are quite

different. One is the tokamak class of machine, which is a Russian concept now being widely

studied in this country and, in the thinking of some, the most promising fusion approach.

The other, providing a higher pressure, higher magnetic field arrangement, is the Scyllac

machine discussed earlier. There is evidence that both machines offer a scaleup in performance for a scaleup in size. Mirror machines offer interesting research possibilities

but, because of particle loss, may offer less prospect for development into commercial

reactors.

In a fusion system, there are many many attendant complexities beyond attaining con- finement. We have to find ways, for example, to be able to inject the material which

constitutes the plasma we're going to burn. We also have to develop ways to extract its

spent products. We need a means of heating to initiate the reaction. Each one of these

tasks requires a technology of its own. We will probably use cryogenic (very low temperature) super-conducting magnetic field coils to provide the needed magnetic field strength;

development in this area is still required. There will be questions of removing the heat,

regenerating the needed tritium, etc. These last tasks will be accomplished outside the

plasma through a surrounding structure (Figure 6) nicknamed "the blanket." There are also

problems of nuclear radiation damage, as well as many other complex technical and engineering problems.

How does one get the (heat) energy out? A quick look at Figure 7 shows the amounts

and two sources of energy in the DT reaction. Helium carries some of the energy, which

can be deposited in the plasma and prove useful in keeping the reaction going. Neutrons

carry the rest (about 14 MeV out of an original 17.6 MeV) , most of which leaves the plasma

and must be collected in the blanket. There is a possibility of adding some further

system energy through additional neutron reactions out in the blanket. Neutrons move

freely through magnetic fields, and can readily leave the magnetically-confined hot plasma

region to experience scattering and deposition of their energy in the blanket, as well as generating (breeding) more tritium there. Surrounding the blanket there must be a large

shield to protect the magnet coils from nuclear radiation and its heating effects, and

there must also be a provision to pump coolant through the system and utilize the heat

acquired to produce power. The basic system requirements of fusion powerplants are shown

in Figure 8. Such powerplants would have rather conventional heat exchangers, similar to those in wide use today. That is, heat from the device would make steam, which would

drive a turbine, which would spin a generator to make electricity.

Figure 9 shows that the D-D fusion reaction yields energy-carrying neutrons and

atoms similar to the energy-carriers from the D-T reaction. The principles of energy

extraction from these two fusion systems would therefore be similar, but there are enough

significant differences in the amount and distribution of energy that each fuel cycle will

likely require its own reactor design to take its pecularities specifically into account.

How would proposed systems look under more serious attempts at powerplant engineering?

There are a great variety of answers; Figure 10 shows a portion of one concept. It is a tentative arrangement of a segment of a (United Kingdom) tokamak reactor concept. An interior configuration of a part of the reactor torus (ring) near the plasma region is

shown. Such designs must cope with problems of pumping coolant in magnetic fields, providing protection to the magnetic field coils, supporting the structure, withstanding

large atmospheric and magnetic pressures, and rendering all elements of the system

accessible as necessary to replace them. Keep that in mind as you look at Figure 11, which

symbolizes the full torus whose existence as a complete, operating and fully-engineered

ring is necessary to provide a fusion energy source for the power system. Lastly, Figure l'^ gives one (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) impression of what a combined tokamak

reactor and powerplant might look like. The reactor alone, within the shield at the left,

would be approximately the width of a football field and would be coupled as shown with

very large steam turbines and power producing equipment of the sort described earlier.

Other magnetic confinement powerplant engineering concepts, while quite different in detail,

67
would be similarly complex.

Though success is not automatically assured, in the opinion of many experts it is

possible to project the high livelihood of success for an experimental demonstration of

"scientific feasibility", perhaps around 1982 if everything goes well. That is, we may

by then get as much energy out of some one of the'se machines as we put into it, for a single operational pulse. Ultimately one will want to produce this energy in a rapidly

repetitive way and to get more energy out than he puts in. That development will require

a series of large and expensive "plasma test reactors", "experimental power reactors", etc. Consequently prototype power reactors providing some significant electrical output probably

will not likely be available any earlier than 1990 and possible only by the year 2000. But

at some time near then, if we are lucky, we may have a large-sized fusion power system

which works and, following that, it would seem likely we would have many more.

Let's now speak about the other general fusion approach which is being pursued:

this is "laser-induced" fusion. That area also has complicated implications and I'll

only briefly discuss them. I mentioned that it isn't always necessary to work with a magnetic field. That idea occurred to people who designed and studied lasers some time

back. Let us imagine that you can take a very tiny pellet containing fusion fuel material - we typically think of something smaller than the head of a pin - and selectively heat the

pellet material on its outer surface by use of an intense pulse of laser light (Figure 13)

If a layer of heated material is abruptly vaporized, violently expanded and driven rapidly

away from the pellet, enormous reaction forces should suddenly squeeze the pellet and also

give the pellet a very hot core. Then, in that extremely hot, but exceedingly tiny, highly

compressed pellet (compressed by a factor-of-a-thousand or more from its initial state,

compressed in fact, by a factor-of-a-thousand beyond the normal density of a solid) one might expect a fusion reaction to occur. This would take place very, very rapidly and

would liberate energy in the form of neutrons and hot plasma particles, even as it blew

the pellet apart. But if that pellet explosion were made to take place in a well-designed

and sufficiently large cavity, the shock energy on the wall - which might be equivalent

to just a few pounds of explosives - might easily be confined with present containment

technology so that the energy which was produced could be extracted. A conceptual arrangement for doing this is indicated in Figure 14.

This kind of fusion process requires us to produce temperatures essentially as high

as those needed for magnetic confinement. To attain this, the pellet material would need

to be compressed to densities anywhere from 100 to 10,000 times that of a solid. That

would require laser energies and powers af least 10 to 100 times greater than those of

presently existing lasers, so much equipment development is needed and is being pursued.

Now what has been done so far? There have been temperatures attained which were perhaps a tenth of those ultimately required. There is good evidence that interesting

compressions have taken place in some experiments. There have been some neutron yields,

but they may not signify true thermonuclear yields in the sense described above, where

surf ace-driven-compression initiates internal reactions to create the principal plasma

heating. Rather, they may have resulted from a simpler, more uniform heating throughout

the pellet's volume. If so, their ultimate energy output will be limited and the further

laser refinements now already sought in some laboratories, may be required before system

performance advances. These questions as to our true status are yet to be resolved.

There is an analogue for the "Lawson criterion" for laser fusion, which says that one need provide a certain relationship between the density obtained in compression and

the radial size of the compressed pellet; that product must also be near lO-*-^ (for density

in g/cm-^ and radius in cm. ) The energetics are such that this should be attained more

easily if one starts with a small pellet and goes to a very high compression than vice

versa

How would one achieve laser fusion in the plant engineering sense? Since lasers of

the high powers required don't really exist, and for other reasons, it is likely that one must irradiate the pellet by many lasers and from many directions simultaneously to provide

68
the necessary energy. But the laser pulses involved occupy only a fraction of an inch in

space, they move at the speed of light, and they have to arrive at the pellet with true simultaneity from all directions. Severe problems of phasing and control will likely

require that all these laser pulses start from one original laser source, whose light

output will have to be split, controlled, and amplified in intensity in numerous beams,

somewhat in the manner suggested by Figure 15.

For a reactor system, the power generation cavity must have a means of non-destructively absorbing energy from a continuing series of energy pulses or small "blasts", as well as a means of converting the absorbed energy to heat. One proposal (Figure 16) is

to use a "wetted-wall" cavity for this, in which some interior liquid surface could be

vaporized and blo^'jn away by each pulse but immediately replenished. (But most of the heat

would take place in liquid behind the wall.) The system would have to be refined to permit the relatively rapid injection of pellets (several per second) on a continuing basis,

and assure that these would be unerringly struck by new laser pulses.

Clearly laser fusion systems, like magnetic confinement systems, would have to be

complex. But this is true for nearly all energy-producing technologies, and both government laboratories and industry are pursuing this technology to gain a better understanding

of its possibilities. The list of some of fusion's potential advantages provided by

Figure 17 rem.inds us of why this is done. In reading this, it should be kept in mind,

that fusion is not here yet, nor would it be free of environmental implications. Its difficulty, cost, and (at best) long time to payoff would make it unwise for the government to put all its energy research and development dollars into this area alone. However,

it is intended to pursue it as rapidly as we prudently can while taking account of our other needs.

This whole presentation has given you only a quick look at the subject of fusion

power. I hope it will not give you the impression that we are never going to succeed, for we are centainly going to try. But I hope you'll also realize that there is a long way to

go. X\Je must not say "fusion is coming, so we can forget about those nuclear fission

reactors and that smoky coal." We are going to need all our current energy sources, and

for a long time. Though we are diligently pursuing alternatives, like solar, fusion, and

geo-thermal energy, the fact remains that only nuclear fission power and coal offer to provide any substantial relief over the next 10-15 years from the scarcity of gas and oil.

I. Summary of Film "To Bottle the Sun"

This film relates world energy use to impending shortages and to the future needs of undeveloped societies. It points out the abundant energy in the process which powers the

sun, which is the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei, and offers an introductory

description of the search underway for a method to permit utilization of sun-like fusion

reactions here on earth.

Solid materials can not cope with the hundred million degree temperatures required.

One approach is to seek a non-material "magnetic bottle" shaped in such a way as to confine the mixture of electrons and ions, a "plasma", into which the reacting material would

dissociate at the temperatures involved. Toroidal, or doughnut-like, shapes are among the more promising "bottles" in this regard. Alternate methods, including laser fusion and

direct energy conversion schemes are mentioned. The film points out that this research is an early phase of a difficult scientific endeavor in which effort is internationally

shared.

This five minute 16 mm film was produced by the National Science Foundation (in coop69
eration with the USAEC and Princeton University) as part of its Search: Encounters with

Science series. It is available on a rental or sale basis through Doubleday-Multimedia,

1371 Reynolds Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92705.

70
FUSION REACTIONS

TEMPERATURE REQUIRED FUSION REACTION ENERGY RELEASED

-lOO.OOO.OOO* (lOkeV) D + T -^ He** + n 17.6 MeV

-500,000,000" (50keV) D + D<^«'!"

T + p

3.3 MeV

4.0 MeV

-1,000,000,000° (100 keV) D + He' -^ He"* + p 18.3 MeV

-2,000,000,000° (200 keV

)

p + Li®— He' + He"* 4.0 MeV

Figure 1. The Candidate Fusion Reactions

APPROACHES TO FUSION POWER

^HHH,^ /^^ MIRROR

TOKAMAK

THETA PINCH

LASERPELLET

Figure 2. Approaches to Fusion Power

71
Figure 3. Early Princeton Research Tokamak.

Figure 4. Toroidal Sector of LASL Research Scyllac

BREAK EVEN PLASMft COHDITICNS FOR THERMONUCLEAR FUSIO tI llawson Cfiteflon

Ti = 100 MUIION DiGtEES

V-> r<»ru«

2 I

.OK

^cC = lo" ^ FYtMDC Macfil

.001 - O '"'"'• """

10' lO" lo" lO" to" 10' ID" lO"

OINSIlr-COHflHEMfNT TIM! PtODUO Figure 5. Plasma Conditions for Fusion "Breakeven"

72
BASIC REACTOR CONFIGURATION

COOLANT WUT'

MAGNET COIL (?)

COOUNT

OUTUT'

Figure 6. Simplified Reactor Energy Extraction Concept

D + T + E,N — He+no+EouT

DEUTERIUM

FROM

WATER

INPUT

ENERGY

10 kev

NEUTRON

TRITUM BRED

FROM LITHIUM

STABLE

HELIUM

RELEASED

ENERGY

il7.6 Mev)

GAIN- IM^Mt ^ 2000

10x10'

Figure 7. The D-T Fusion Fuel Reaction

V1^U

^'

->--• '-\<-

Figure 8. The Basic System Components of Fusion Powerplants

73
DEUTERIUM FUEL CYCLE

DEUTERIUM

FROM

WATER INPUT

ENERGY

40 kev

STABLE HELIUM.

A NEUTRON.

TRITIUM. RELEASED

HYDROGEN ENERGY

3.27 OR

4.03 Mev

GAIN

4x10'

100

40x10^

Figure 9. The D-D Fusion Fuel Reactions

llW^-'iSifc-i

Figure 10. Segment of a Tokamak Reactor Blanket

Figure 11. A Tokamak Reactor Torus

74
FLIBE STORAGE AND SPARGING

UNITS Figure 12.

HELlUW

~ STEAM

HEAT EXCHANGER

HELIUM BLANKET COOLANT SYSTEM

A Tokamak Reactor Powerplant Concept

rioi Expanding

Plasma mploding

DT fuel E,

Figure 13. The Basic Laser Fusion Interactions

PELLET

INJECTION

LIIHIUW BLANKET

CAVITY LASER BEAM

Figure 14.

BEAM

TRANSPORT

Conceptual Laser Fusion Interaction Chambers

75
'l5fili«I01(

RfACIOB

PEUET c*»iir i INJfCTOR BIANKEI

f<CK«NeEli

^w y:.

..-f -^ ^

^

10 CONVENIIOdH. STEAM PlANT

10

REMOVAl SrSTEM

.f kj IITKIU*!

Figure 15. Symbolic Laser Fusion Reactor Concept

fr

P£li£T CNJECTIOtI

- l>0mu9.«CTTED IMIX -HAW nUUSUW V£SS£L

- WMtR STI«JCn»UU._ mU. AICFLOW BAFTLE

Figure 16. "Wetted Wall" Cavity Reactor System

Figure 17.

ADVANTAGES OF FUSION POWER:

1. FUEL SUPPLY PLENTIFUL. COST LOW

2. NO COMBUSTION PRODUCTS, VERY

LITTLE RADIOACTIVE WASTE

3. LOW RADIOACTIVITY. REDUCED

ASSOCIATED DANGERS

4. NO CHANCE OF RUNAWAY

6 NO DIVERSION OF WEAPONS - GRADE MATERIALS

6. HIGH EFFICIENCIES. POSSIBILITY

OF DIRECT CONVERSION

Some Potential Advantages of Fusion Power

76
PROJECTED NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MANPOWER NEEDS

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS

R. L. Murray

(North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.)

The speakers who preceded me have provided a great deal of backpround information on

our needs for energy production with environmental protection and have indicated some of

the research that has to be done.

When we talk about careers and manpower needs in nuclear science and environmental

science, it is important to make some clear distinctions between different types of work

and the amount of scientific background required.

I believe the best way to approach this matter is to describe several typical jobs

that we are sure will need to be filled in the future. For each I'll try to answer these

questions: .

"•

"How much training in science is required?"

"What other skills or knowledge are important?"

"What is the nature of the work?"

"Who employs people for this type of work?"

Dr. Duffy will answer the important question later, "Where can one get the necessary

education?"

I am going to take a somewhat broader viewpoint and include jobs in which people

function as technicians, technologists, engineers, and scientists. I do so because it provides a larger perspective of the career opportunities for graduating high school

students with a good science background.

Health Physics Technician

There is a growing need for workers with skills in the area of radiation protection.

As you know, the operation of nuclear reactors is accompanied by the production of high

energy radiation - especially neutrons and gamma rays. The fission process also yields

isotopes that emit penetrating radiation by radioactive decay. Very strict rules govern

the allowed exposure of plant personnel and the amount of radioactive materials that are present in the air or water discharged from a power reactor plant. Measurements of radiation by special detectors must be made frequently at many places in and near the plant.

Health physics technicians ctieck the" electronic instruments, make surveys or periodic measurements, and analyze and report the important data that assures protection of the public.

Graduates of high schools who take a year or so of additional training in electronics are excellent candidates for additional on-the-job training that will qualify them for the position of health physics technician. There are relatively few technical institutes yet that

specialize in training people in this area, but the increase in demand for health physics

technicians is very likely to encourage more schools to develop programs.

Reactor Operator

High school or technical institute graduates with an inclination toward science and

mathematics, and who have interest in the behavior of mechanical and electrical equipment

are excellent candidates for the special training that leads to positions as nuclear reactor

operators. After a rigorous period of instruction to gain appreciation of how a reactor

works, they spend several weeks at a small reactor such as at our university, gaining firsthand experience. Their next assignment is to a reactor simulator, which has all the meters

and controls of a real reactor. Finally they get to operate a power reactor under guidance

and, after taking the very difficult tests administered by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,

receive the highly prized operators' license, which certifies as to their qualifications.

77
Environmental Scientist

I am quite familiar with the career of a young man who is working in the environmental

area. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in biology, doing a research thesis

on chemical effects in animals. He worked for a cou-ple of years on the staff of a local

governmental council that did planning for a group of counties. One of his assignments was

to bring together interested citizens in the community and technical people to decide what

should be done to preserve the quality of the environment -- water, air, disposal of wastes,

power, etc. More recently he has moved to an organization that provides studies and advice

on environmental effects, e.g., the impact of new industry on the ecology of North Carolina's

coasts. He had a good basic technical background, but on the job was required to learn

quickly about the very complicated interaction of our society, resources, and technology.

He has kindly identified several of the categories of environmental workers, as follows:

(a) field biologist , who collects data on the types and numbers of plants and

animals that exist in an area that may be affected by a project, e.g., a water resource development. With a college degree in biology, this technician

is able not only to identify species but to interpret probable trends in the

ecology

(b) environmental planner, who tal<es an overview of the interaction of the topography

and ecology with the social advantage to be gained from the proposed urbanization

of a region. A desirable education for such a person combines biology, sociology,

political science, and urban planning.

(c) resource planner , who investigates the detailed physical and biological aspects

of the project, seeking to resolve conflicts, find alternatives that minimize

impact, and to develop reports to governmental agencies. The education required

includes that listed in (b) , with some experience in engineering desirable, and

especially an appreciation of the relation of cost and benefit.

Nuclear Engineer

I'd like to describe the work of one of our former students in a power company based

in North Carolina. He had received a degree in engineering and later took a year of postgraduate study in nuclear engineering. The utility has been engaged for the last several

years in the design, construction, testing, and operation of a series of nuclear power

plants. This young man served as nuclear engineer and technical assistant to the plant

superintendent. His responsibilities included in the preparation of the test and operation

procedures, in close cooperation with the reactor manufacturers design group, following

the installation of the equipment, carrying out the measurements on nuclear, mechanical,

and electrical equipment, and helping analyze the results to see how well the performance

agrees with predictions. I'm sure he would tell us that getting a large and complex reactor

"on line" was a demanding job, but an exciting, challenging, and rewarding experience. As time goes on, he will undoubtedly move up into management since he has a fine personality,

works well with people, and is able to make good decisions.

The Research Scientist

A week or so ago, one of the former graduates of our university came back to give a seminar on his work at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, one of the AEC' s national research

facilities. He was doing the basic and applied studies required in the development of the

controlled fusion reactor. As many of you know, fusion is a nuclear process for which two hydrogen isotopes are combined in an electromagnetic machine at temperatures in the millions

of degrees to yield tremendous energy. In his investigation he had to use and extend knowledge from almost every branch of science and technology physics (including mechanics, heat,

electricity, magnetism, atomic, and nuclear), chemistry (including reactions, bonds, and

kinetics), mathematics, and engineering (chemical, electrical, mechanical, materials, and nuclear). For success in such work, the ideal preparation would be a bachelor's degree in

78
a science such as physics, or the reverse arrangement. As we move into the last quarter of

this century, the demand for energy is almost certain to result in increased employment of

highly qualified people in fusion research and development.

The principal sources of career opportunities for technicians and engineers are the

electric utilities and nuclear reactors manufacturers, while those for scientists are in

the federal laboratories and in a few industrial organizations. At this time, the demand

for engineers is rising significantly. In a study reported by the magazine NEW ENGINEER,

Feb. 1973, the demand for BS graduates in 1973 was predicted to be up 427=, over that for

1972. Conversations with recruiters who have come to our campus so far bears out this

estimate, with the demand for nuclear engineers well exceeding the supply, especially at the B.S. and M.S. levels. Typical starting salaries are $12,000 per year and $15,000 per

year respectively.

The U. §. Atomic Energy Commission has developed some estimates of future needs for

manpower by the U. S^ utilities for the period 1972-1982." The total need for additional

plant operations, headquarters, and plant technical personnel is about 9,000 for this

period. The total additional for maintenance, technicians, and security personnel is another

6,500. These numbers do not include the need by state and federal government, reactor manufacturers, or universities.

Employers of Nuclear Scientists and Engineers

The organizations that are hiring more people at the present are electrical utilities

that have nuclear power programs in beginning stages or under way. Examples in the Southeast are:

Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, N.C. Potomac Electric Power Company, Washington, D.C

Virginia Electric Power Company, Richmond, Va

.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Ga

.

Florida Power Corp., St. Petersburg, Fla.

The companies that design and market nuclear reactor systems hire nuclear engineers,

especially bachelor's graduates with excellent academic records, and those with advanced

degrees. Examples are:

Babcock and Wilcox Co., Lynchburg, Va

,

Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa. Combustion Engineering, Windsor, Conn. General Electric Company, San Jose, Calif.

Gulf General Atomic, San Diego, Calif.

Atomics International, Canoga Park, Calif.

Other employers are: Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Newport News,

Va.; the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C, and its National

Laboratories: Oak Ridge; Argonne, near Chicago; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Brookhaven,

near New York City; Savannah River, Aiken, S.C; and others.

Several years ago, there was a great deal of publicity about under-employment among

engineers. The cutbacks in the space program did indeed release many aerospace engineers.

In the same magazine cited before, engineering unemployment rate in 1972 was only 1.87„,

well below the national total. My guess that 1.5% is a more realistic picture at present.

If young people are to take advantage of the opportunities in science and engineering that

* "Utility Staffing and Training for Nuclear Power" U. S. Atomic Energy Commission,

June, 1973.

79
exist now and will be available in the future, it is important that they realize that the

situation has changed greatly in recent years. As we look toward solutions of the shottterm energy crisis and the long-term energy problem, it is certain that technology will

play an increasingly important role and that increasing numbers of well-trained and welleducated people will be required.

80
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

D. Duffy

(University of Maryland, College Park, Md .

)

The nuclear offerings for training and for research at colleges have increased greatly

and a wide variety of courses and equipment are now available. The following comments will

summarize the extent of these offerings; the nuclear fields covered; the equipment at colleges; and finally present a few figures relating to production of graduates. Nuclear

graduates are needed to help staff the widening nuclear program of the country concerning

the life and physical sciences and engineering.

Nearly every school of size has a nuclear course. These are more in the basic courses,

as nuclear physics, with fewer in the specialized fields, such as nuclear medicine or reactors,

U.S. COLLEGES WITH v NUCLEAR COURSE

Atomic & Nuclear Physics 257 Nuclear Reactor Matls. 57

Radio & Nuclear Chemistry 152 Nuclear Reactor Fuel 3.8 Processing

Health Physics & Radio- 136

biology Fusion Reactors 50

Nuclear Technology 148 Radioisotope Uses ', 105 ,

''

,

Radiation Safety 74

The physical basis for nuclear work is the effect of ionizing radiations on materials.

The radiations include, generally; photons, electrons, nuclei, and neutrons. The effect

may be the reactor of a gamma ray with the gas or scintillator of a detector, e.g., in

medical work or around an industrial plant. However, the effect of most interest industrially is a neutron on uranium, or fission, which is the fission reactor. The related

educational disciplines are physics, chemistry, the life sciences, and engineering.

NUCLEAR EDUCATION

Scientific Basis Discipline Concerned

Radiations through Materials Physics

Photons Engineering

Electrons Chemistry '

Neutrons (U & Th) Biology

Nuclei Agriculture

Medicine

To support this nuclear education a variety of equipment is available; a tabulation

o f major equipment at colleges and some comments on their design and use follow:

81
U.S. COLLEGES

Research Reactors

Low Power Reactors

Subcritical Reactors

Reactor Simulators

Neutron Isotopic Sources

Gamma Ray Sources

WITH

NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT

34 Accelerators

19 Hi-Voltage 101

114 Linear 24

30 Circular 46

182 Neutron Generat ors 96

62

Radiation Detection

As in all fields, measurements are necessary. The geiger counter, and related gas detectors, and scintillators are in all nuclear laboratories. With these, scalers and

analyzers, which are computing devices, tabulate and record the events from the detectors

Scintillators are much used in the life sciences, e. ' system is measured.

where a tracer isotope in a living

Recently more sensitive solid state devices, such as Si detectors, whose crystals

must be kept at liquid nitrogen temperatures, have appeared. These and the related Ge(Li)

detectors have been used for only the last ten years. The signal from these detectors is processed in a computer arrangement and a plot obtained. With the scintillator or Ge(Li)

detectors a spectrum of the different energies which identifies the components, versus

the relative signal of each, which gives the amounts or the elements, is obtained. The

gamma rays might be from a neutron irradiated paper. Recently the Ge(Li) detectors provide superior resolution of the energies, and hence the elements, and allow identification

of many more elements, e.g., in rocks and ores.

Radiation Sources

Isotopic . A variety of sources of the several radiations are available. Radioactive

decay sources are the simplest. An encapsulated source in a shield, often lead, is used.

Gamma rays from Co 60 (perhaps as much as 2000 curies) is much used in biological studies

and in chemical processes. Neutrons from the reaction of the alpha particles of a decay

source, such as Pu, on Be are much used in laboratories. Most schools have at least one source with 15 gms of Pu yielding 10 n./sec. For more neutrons a small amount of Cf 252

is attractive. Five milligrams emits about 10 neutrons/sec. Shielding of concrete,

paraffin, or glass is needed. Water may be used with the source in a small tank. A Ge(Li)

detector often serves to sense the gamma rays.

Accelerators . Electrical devices have been sources of radiation since the 1930' s. The Van de Graaff has a moving belt to create a charge (much like one's hair does on a dry day). Potentials to 5 x 10° volts are achieved, and electrons, x-rays, and other

radiations can be produced. Most are for physics research. A related machine is a Cockroft Walton, which uses condenser-transformer arrangements. Linear accelerators,

which can be considered as using a smaller potential many times, are in many laboratories.

Neutrons can be made with these machines, and a generator with the equivalent of

150,000 volts can give lO-*--*- n./sec for research. There a variety of circular accelerators

with the cyclotron being probably the best known. These expensive and large machines can give energies to an equivalent of 500 x 10 volts. Although most have served physics

research, many are contributing to tne life sciences, e.g., manufacture of radioactive

tracers and for tumor treatment.

82
Reactors. The most efficient producer of neutrons is a reactor. A 10 kw reactor

yields 10^-^ n./sec. These are sizeable machines with heavy shields for personnel protection. With some reactors, water, 15 to 20 ft., is the top shield, and experiments are easily done around the reacting core. The energy goes to heat. About 3 kgm of U 235 is used. When such a facility is at power, a blue Cerenkov glow is visible. A related model

is an enclosed design. The operator at the console must be licensed by the AEC. Another

enclosed model is the Arganaut, such as at the Univ. of Washington. For these, the samples

must be placed near the core through beam holes.

Sub-criticals . As a training device for reactors, sub-critical system of about

2500 kgms of natural uranium ($40/kgm) and a neutron source are popular. The radiation

level is low and little shielding is needed. All reactors need much radiation detection

equipment for measurements. Most sub-criticals have been cylindrical with water. Some

have been with concrete tanks. Graphite is also used.

Equipment Layouts. The equipment arrangement to support some of these irradiation

devices is extensive. A beam experiment for a reactor may have a variety of shielding

and detector designs. The target area for an accelerator is sizeable. X-ray spectrometers

analyze x-rays in an analogous way to the effect of a prism on light. A pneumatic system

can transfer a capsule containing a sample, e.g., hair, to a neutron field around a source. After irradiation, the sample is counted. Not all the equipment in a nuclear laboratory

involves radiations, e.g., a heat transfer loop may train nuclear engineers and provide

data for designing power reactors.

Life Sciences

The life sciences receive much attention, e.g., agriculture and medicine. The use

of x-rays is common in diagnosis. Most hospitals have a Co 60 source, e.g., 2,000 curies

may be used to irradiate a tumor for a few minutes, perhaps 10 or 20 times. Linear accelerators have been applied to medicine, as has betatrons, which are circular accelerators.

Animals provide much basic data and pilot human procedures. Radioactive Fe , Cr , or

Tc may be injected into a rat's heart. Blood cell life, blood volume, and organ scanning,

such as a liver, may be the aim. The radioactive material for injection may come from an isotope generator with Mo"", made in a reactor, which gives To"^ for use in the animal.

The animal's blood may be sampled daily after injection for weeks to get red cell life.

Also a scan with a scintillator to outline the localized radioactive isotope may be made.

A plot of intensity versus positions is made of an animal or a person. Thousands of such scans are made in the U.S. annually for thyroid, brain, liver and bone disorders.

Training

Many students are trained with this nuclear equipment. The levels range from technicians to operate equipment, e.g., x-ray machines and reactors, to Ph.D. graduates for

teaching and research. As an illustration, the number of nuclear engineering graduates,

which means primarily those who will v.'ork with nuclear reactors is sizeable: namely,

125 Ph.D., 350 M.S. and 300 B.S. annually. The Bachelor level is increasing, which

reflects the demand of the nuclear power field. The graduates of the many other fields

where some nuclear knowledge is required is high but less well identified nuclearly.

83
U.S. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING

DEGREES & ENROLLMENT

Degrees 1965- 1966- 1967- 1968- 1970- 1971-

1966 1967 1968 1969 1971 1972

Ph.D. 118 136 116 152 140 124

M.S. 280 303 306 333 375 381

B.S. 138 181 256 291

Enrollment 1966 1967 1968 1969 1971 1972 (Fall)

Ph.D. 519 619 809 663 630 577

M.S. 627 739 749 671 810 857

B.S. 863 1011 1207 1434 1360

Summary

Much supp.ort for the equipment and students has come from the AEC, N.S.F., N.I.H.,

and industry. A variety of equipment and courses is available in colleges and related

laboratories to assist in training in the nuclear field. My impression is that the U.S. has more such training opportunities than foreign countries. Nuclear training is at all

levels, and the emphasis is on quality. To prepare oneself for such training, the high

school student should study mathematics and science, e.g., physics and chemistry. English

should not be neglected because ideas are of little use if not transmitted. In conclusion,

the employment opportunities of the nuclear field are good, and educational programs with

nuclear equipment are available.

84
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U .S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. FUKLK ATION OR KI-;PORT NO. NBS TN-888

2. Gov't Acccs.sion No.

4. TITLt: AND SUBTITLl-: Nuclear Science Education Day

Proceedings of a Conference held at the

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Md. , November 29, 1973

3. Recipient's Acce.s.sion No.

5. Publication Date November 1975

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. Performing Organ. Report No. Frederick J. Shorten

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Proicct/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Gram No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

The American Nuclear Society (Washington Chapter) and

The National Bureau of Standards

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Num.ber: 75-600081

16. ABSTRACT (A 2 00- word or less factual summary of most si^ilicant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

These proceedings are a collection of invited papers given at the Nuclear Science

Education Day Conference held on November 29, 1973 at the National Bureau of

Standards, Gaithersburg, MD. The program was sponsored jointly by the ANS

(Washington Chapter) and the NBS for secondary school science teachers and outstanding

science students in the Washington area. Four main topics are covered: research

and development in nuclear energy applications; man, environment and nuclear energy;

nuclear science frontiers; and career opportunities in nuclear science.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Biology; career; ecological; electricity; energy; environment; fusion; medicine;

nuclear; power; radiation; reactor; research; utilities.

18. AVAILABILITY Q Unlimited

I

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Qxj Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing-office

Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C13- 4b:»aa

I

I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 221^1

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

95

22. Price

$1.65

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS JOURNAL OF RESEARCH reports National Bureau

of Standards research and development in physics,

mathematics, and chemistry. It is published jn two sections, available separately:

• Physics and Chemistry (Section A)

Papers of interest primarily to scientists working in these fields. This section covers a broad range of physical and chemical research, with major emphasis on standards of physical measurement, fundamental constants, and properties of matter. Issued six times a

year. Annual subscription: Domestic, $17.00; Foreign,

$21.25.

• Mathematical Sciences (Section B)

Studies and compilations designed mainly for the mathematician and theoretical physicist. Topics in mathematical statistics, theory of experiment design, numerical analysis, theoretical physics and chemistry, logical design and programming of computers and computer

systems. Short numerical tables. Issued quarterly. Ahnual subscription: Domestic, $9.00; Foreign, $11.25. DIMENSIONS/NBS (formerly Technical News Bulletin) —This monthly magazine is published to inform

scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and technology, with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine highlights and reviews such

issues as energy research, fire protection, building tech- nology, metric conversion, pollution abatement, health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing. Annual subscription: Domestic, $9.45; Foreign, $11.85.

NONPERIODICALS Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and

industrial practice (including safety codes) developed

in cooperation with interested industries, professional

organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of confer- ences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such

as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists,' mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides

quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide

program coordinated by NBS. Program under authority

of National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical

Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS

by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth

St. N. W., Wash. D. C. 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical infor- mation developed at the Bureau on building materials, compo'nents, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete

in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under pro- cedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of the standards is to establish nationally

recognized requirements for products, and to provide

all concerned interests with a basis for common under- standing of the characteristics of the products. NBS

administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing organizations. Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding stand- ards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). Consumer Information Series;—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas

of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustration? provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological

marketplace.

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper

copy or microfiche form.

Order NBS publications (except NBSIR's and Biblio- graphic Subscription Services) from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402. BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey

bibliographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service A literature survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $20.00; foreign, $25.00.

Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual subsciiption: $20.00. Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature

survey issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $20.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the pre- ceding bibliographic services to National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Electromagnetic Metrology Current Awareness Service Issued monthly. Annual subscription: $100.00 (Special rates for multi-subscriptions). Send subscription order and remittance to Electromagnetics Division, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colo. 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK

.qvUTiga,

'^76-A9l^