II PROGRESS IN POWER REACTOR During 1958, 6 civilian nuclear powerplants were being built, in addition to the powerplant for the NS Savannah and 2 power reactors for export. Two additional contracts were signed for cooperative industryGovernment development of power reactors; six reactors now are under contract in this joint program. Three other proposed cooperative contract arrangements for reactors were being negotiated and one other had been proposed. Two other nuclear powerplants were under construction and one other being designed, wholly financed by private corporations. Work continued at both Government and private facilities to advance the technology of various types of nuclear reactor systems. Six Federal and one private experimental reactors were operating or being built at the end of the year. The steadily increasing scope of the program is indicated by the accompanying chart which shows the chronology of development for reactor projects already undertaken.' Developments in individual reactor technologies are described in later pages of this report. Total commitments by industrial organizations and the Federal Government for work on civilian and military power and propulsion reactors during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, will be about $650 million. About $250 million is for research and development. The remaining $400 million, of which about 60 percent is for military reactors and 40 percent for civilian, is primarily for fabrication and construction of reactor plants. During this reporting period, which included completion of the first 5-year program initially announced in 1954,8 the Commission. was appraising the progress already made on power reactor development preparatory to charting more definitive objectives for emphasis in the near future. Appraisals have been directed both to the work within the framework of the technology of an individual type of reactor, and to the overall relationship between technologies of differing types of reactors. A complete list of reactors planned, being built and operable is in Appendix 9. In two cases of evaluations of specific technologies, special task forces including representatives of the Commission, its contractors and industrial groups, have been assembled to assist in the evaluation by bringing to bear their combined experience with a particular technology. The first of these groups, assembled initially to consider the plans for the Hallam, Nebr., facility, reviewed the entire technology and program for sodium-cooled reactors. A second task force was convened in December to review the entire fluid fuels reactor program. 10 To assist reappraisal of the overall program, the Commission designated a special ad hoc committee appointed in September to review all civilian power reactor activities and accomplishments, and to make recommendations on future policy. The Committee is made up of leading men from publicly and privately owned utilities, and from industrial and academic research organizations; it is chaired by an assistant general manager of the Commission." The ad hoc committee was to submit a report in early January recommending developmental programs for various types of reactors. The Commission will appraise its own plans in the light of the report and recommendations, and expects then to review its plans for future power development with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the Congress. Also involved in the program reappraisal were a number of studies aimed at determining the best designs for large-scale reactors of technological types already well established. On September 15, for The task force on sodium-cooled reactors: G. J. Petretic, chairman, AEC C. F. Bullinger, Argonne National Laboratory J. H. DeVan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory K. W. Downes, Brookhaven National Laboratory J. A. Lane, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 10 The task force on fluid-fuel reactors: Robert W. Ritzmann, chairman, AEC Robert Avery, Argonne National Laboratory R. Beecher Briggs, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Edgar E. Hayes, Savannah River Plant Titus G. LeClair, Commonwealth Edison Co. Herbert G. MacPherson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Jack B. McKamey, Ebasco Services Francis T. Miles, Brookhaven National Laboratory Robert H. Shannon, United Engineers and Constructors Vincent A. Walker, National Reactor Testing Station 11 Members of the ad hoc committee are: A. Tammaro, chairman-AEC Assistant General Manager for Research and Industrial Development. James Black-Chairman, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Marion W. Boyer-Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. Harvey Brooks-Dean of Engineering and Applied Physics, Harvard University. Eger V. Murphree-President, Esso Research and Engineering Co. Henry D. Smyth-Chairman, Board of Scientific and Engineering Research, Princeton University. Eugene Starr-Bonneville Power Administration. Robert E. Wilson-Formerly Chairman of the Board of Standard Oil Co. of Indiana. example, in accordance with legislative authority," the Commission invited proposals for design and engineering studies to determine the design which would lead to the most economical nuclear power stations for three different reactor concepts-pressurized water, boiling water, and organic cooled. These three types are generally considered to be the most likely to achieve early economic power in the United States. The interest of the nuclear industry in these studies is evidenced by the fact that 86 proposals to make these studies were received by the closing date. Contract awards pursuant to this invitation are described in the following pages. The Commission is to report results to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy by May 1. A similar design study of the heavy water concept also was undertaken during this reporting period. The Commission is to report to the Joint Committee on this study by April 1. POWER REACTOR DEVELOPMENT Pressurized Water Reactors In the pressurized water concept, fission heat is removed from the reactor core by water pressurized at about 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) to keep it from boiling. Steam is generated in a heat exchanger through which the pressurized water passes. Experience has demonstrated that this type reactor is quite stable and can adjust to large and sudden changes in power load. Its operation does not result in unmanageable radioactivity problems. The primary disadvantages of the system are its low plant heat rate due to the saturation steam pressure and the temperature drop through the primary loop heat exchanger, the necessity for an intermediate heat exchanger, the heavy shielding required over the primary coolant loop equipment, and the high cost of the reactor pressure vessel and primary loop components. Much of the existing technology regarding pressurized water reactors stems from development of the propulsion plant for the submarine USS Nautilus. The Shippingport Atomic Power Station, which was built as a part of the Commission's experimental program, went critical December 2, 1957, and was dedicated in May 1958 as the first large-scale (60,000) ekw-electrical kilowatts) nuclear power generating station in the United States. During 1958 the Shippingport plant completed two full power tests, each of 1,000 hours duration. These runs provided 12 Authorization Act of 1958, Public Law 85-590. valuable data on core life, primary coolant radiochemistry, and primary plant radioactivity levels. (See photograph.) Shippingport Atomic Power Station, showing the completed powerplant at Shippingport, Pa., where the 60,000 ekw pressurized water reactor has been operating for more than a year. On November 22 a routine inspection of the moisture separator on the main turbine revealed a failure of the first stage separator. The separator is a part of the turbine generator unit and is used to remove moisture from the steam as it passes from the high pressure section to the low pressure section of the turbine. Its failure was in no way connected with the nuclear plant. The Duquesne Light Co., which owns the turbine generator unit, estimates that repairs to the separator will require approximately two months. Plant maintenance and nonpower tests of the reactor will be conducted during the shutdown. As of December 31, the plant had delivered a total of 156.5 million net kilowatt-hours of electricity to the Duquesne network. Further development of large-scale pressurized water systems is being undertaken in the privately financed plant of Consolidated Edison Co. at Indian Point near Buchanan, N. Y., and the plant being built by the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. at Rowe, Mass. The Yankee powerplant was the first one to be contracted for under the Commission's Power Demonstration Reactor Program of industrygovernment cooperation. The core of the Consolidated Edison reactor will contain highly |