RASMUSSEN STUDY

Dr. RAY. I will be happy to comment on that. As you know, this study has been under way for nearly 2 years now. It is beginning to reach the end of its present phase. Some of the preliminary results are becoming clear.

The schedule looks forward to a first draft to be available in April which will be circulated for comment, and we hope perhaps a final report by the month of June. One result that I think is very important and that I should mention is the discovery that that combination of events which is most feared, a loss of coolant accident followed by a failure of the ECCS system to function, turns out to have a probability of about one in 10 million reactor operating years. That is a very, very low probability indeed. It is much less than the probability to be attached to a large number of kinds of catastrophic accidents that are possible in other areas.

Furthermore, the consequences of such an accident, if one should occur, with the type of requirements that we have at the present time for siting and operating procedures and so on, the consequences of such a combination of circumstances would be very, very much less than the speculative results that have previously been brought out. The consequences would be in the same general area as those attending a crash of a large commercial jet airplane.

The details of exactly how these probabilities are arrived at will be in the report which is soon to be made public.

Chairman PRICE. I think you said in your statement that the chance of a core melting was about one in a million per year for each reactor.

Dr. RAY. For the core melting, itself, yes.

Chairman PRICE. Without objection the remarks made by Dr. Ray at the National Press Club yesterday will be included as part of the record at this point.

[The information furnished follows:]

REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY DR. DIXY LEE RAY, CHAIRMAN, U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB,

WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 21, 1974

Gentlemen and ladies of the press, you do me considerable honor to invite me here today to speak on a subject that is uppermost in everyone's mindENERGY. Energy dominates the news. On this first day of the Second Session of the 93d Congress, energy is the Number One topic of attention-and of worry.

No edition of a daily or weekly newspaper, no copy of a news magazine is complete without its energy story column, comment or speculation. Radio and television utilize goodness knows how many kilowatt hours of electric power to broadcast the latest chapter of modern American's breathtaking cliffhanger. We might call this melodrama the "Perils of the Poor Old Automobile." Will gasoline be rationed? Or will it not? Is the fuel crisis a phony?the product of greed? of stupidity? of neglect? Given the spate of information and comments from many quarters-is there anything new that can be added? Not really.

However much the present situation seems to have caught us by surprise, it has been anticipated by thoughtful, knowledgeable people for many years. It is truly a problem worldwide in dimension. At the risk of sounding like a cockeyed optimist or foolish pollyanna, it may well be that we are fortunate

that political and other considerations have forced the crisis upon us earlier by some 10-15 years than it would have otherwise arrived. It was inevitable. Modern society runs on fossil fuels-natural gas, oil and coal. When these materials are burned to release their long dominant chemical energy as heat for industry, transportation, and a myraid of personal uses, they are used up. Their replacement, if indeed it should occur at all, would require millennia. The supplies--though more deposits can surely be found—are limited and finite. Even if the rate of use of fossil fuels were to remain steady, and it rises each generation, we know that the "Fossil Fuel Age" will stretch over no more than a total of 300 to 500 years. Two of these centuries are already behind us.

The energy question is readily divided into two distinct but overlapping problems. First, what can be done now-in the immediate future and over the next 2-5 years to provide the necessary fuels to avoid economic and domestic collapse or severe hardship? And second, how can we work ourselves out of reliance on fossil fuels to use of other energy sources without losing the many real advantages that modern civilization has to offer?

In the first category fall the many initiatives now being taken or planned by the Federal Energy Office under the able leadership of Bill Simon. Efforts to cut back on consumption, and to conserve such fuels as we have available are already underway and making a contribution. The President has proposed a strenuous effort "Project Independence" to use presently developed technology and known processes to increase our domestic fuel supplies. This important program is also a responsibility of the Federal Energy Office. Working with private industry, the Federal Government could provide stimulus through. financial incentives such as guaranteed product price, loan guarantees or direct loans, priority allocations of resources such as construction materials and water, and legislative actions such as streamlining environmental review, and regulatory procedures for first generation plants. It is anticipated that implementation of such actions could result in substantial production of coal, synthetic fuels-both gas and liquid, and oil from shale.

The model of the synthetic rubber program from World War II shows us how Government and industry can work together to apply known technology and bring a product to market. Some hard decisions and difficult choices will have to be made. Becoming self-sufficient in energy will be neither easy nor comfortable, but it can be done.

The real problem is the long-term one. While providing for today's needs, while making sure that the wheels of industry keep turning and our industrial economy remains strong-we must not let short term responses blind us to the crucial necessity of beginning NOW the greatly expanded research and development effort that will eventually lead us out of the fossil fuel age. The way this can be achieved is detailed in the report "The Nation's Energy Future" presented at his request to President Nixon on December 1, 1973. Time does not permit a summary of the many recommendations arising from the thoughtful discussions and initiatives proposed by the more than 400 persons who helped to prepare this report. Let me instead highlight some of the program objectives and funding recommendations in the area of energy resources other than fossil fuels. For more detail, I refer you to the report itself.

SOLAR ENERGY

The goal of the solar energy effort is to exploit the sun and wind in order to provide a renewable, economically competitive and environmentally acceptable energy supply for domestic consumption.

The program objectives over the next five years include the following:

1. To determine, through pilot applications, the effective use of solar thermal energy for heating and cooling of buildings ;

2. To use solar thermal energy for electric power generation through operation of a pilot plant of about 10 megawatts;

3. To use wind power for electric power generation by construction and op eration of individual windmills of less than 100 kilowatts and a windmill farm of 10 megawatts;

4. To determine the technical feasibility of producing electric power from ocean thermal gradients by laboratory-scale testing of prototypes and fullscale testing of necessary components;

5. To determine the capability to produce economically competitive photovoltaic cells by laboratory experimentation and development of mass production concepts; and

6. To demonstrate by pilot plant operation the economic feasibility for conversion of wastes to fuels and the use of biota as fuel for power plant operation. Solar energy is virtually inexhaustible and is inherently clean. Successful research and development should ultimately lead to the capability to reduce the demand for fuels and power to heat and cool homes and commercial buildings by 30%.

Solar thermal, wind, ocean thermal gradients, and photovoltaic systems used to produce electric power could be used in decentralized or centralized applications depending on economies of scale. The potential exists for providing a large proportion of the electric power needs for the Nation from solar conversion stations without storage systems. However, the realization of economical storage system will substantially increase overall applications of solar energy, Bioconversion is possible today, but it is not economically attractive. Converting wastes to fuels needs to be demonstrated on a large scale, and the use of biota as fuel is in the early study stages.

The objective is to develop proof-of-concept experiments that will allow program management to concentrate at an early date on those technologies which show the most promise toward providing the Nation's energy requirements. It should be possible at the end of the five-year program to predict the complete range of the beneficial effects and the extent of application and utilization of solar energy. The dollar level recommended for the five-year solar energy effort is $200 million.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

The goal of the geothermal program is to exploit natural sources by developing and demonstrating the technology that would allow commercial production of electrical power and other energy uses in environmentally acceptable ways. The five-year program objectives include the following;

1. To increase present knowledge of the location, nature, and extent of the Nation's geothermal energy resources;

2. To identify and resolve the environmental, legal, and institutional barriers to geothermal resource utilization;

3. To advance, through technology development, the operational efficacy and efficiency of relevant components, devices, and techniques as required to achieve practical resource utilization; and

4. To accelerate, through demonstration plants, the commercial production of electricity from geothermal resources.

The five-year effort will greatly enhance the industrial capability to locate and evaluate geothermal resources, to identify and solve the environmental problems associated with geothermal developments, to clarify institutional and legal issues involved in geothermal energy utilization, and to upgrade the existing technology available for geothermal development and utilization, including power generation and heat applications.

The present program is designed to stimulate the commercial production of at least 20,000 MW (e) by 1985 from various types of geothermal resources (equivalent to an oil consumption rate of approximately 0.7 million barrels of oil per day) plus important additional fuel savings through use of geothermal energy for such non-electric purposes as space heating and air conditioning, extracting minerals, and desalinating brines.

The five-year program is a coordinated effort toward meeting all objectives for four types of geothermal resources and preparing for prompt demonstration of energy production from two other types. Each type of resource poses special problems in location and distribution, reservoir analysis, environmental hazards, energy conversion and utilization and in the severity of and solution time of technical questions involved in bringing the resource to on-line production. Each experimental facility will, therefore, be a flexible test bed for research and engineering development as well as for demonstrations of electrical generation and the other uses of geothermal heat. The proposed five-year budget for geothermal energy development is $185 million.

FUSION

The program goal in controlled fusion is to guarantee the nuclear option in the long range by developing the technology necessary for a fusion reactor to provide an inexhaustible, economically competitive, inherently safe, and environmentally acceptable supply of energy for domestic consumption.

Program objectives over the next five years include the following:

1. To conduct theoretical, computational, and experimental studies in the body of knowledge that predicts the behavior of thermonuclear fusion experiments and the operating characteristics of fusion reactors;

2. To develop the technology necessary to perform fusion research;

3. To investigate, develop, and establish the feasibility of low-density closed (TOKAMAK), high density closed (theta pinch), and open (mirror) magnetic confinement systems as a basis for practical fusion power generation;

4. To investigate, develop and establish the feasibility of laser fusion as a basis for practical fusion power generation; and

5. To develop the engineering base, qualify materials, develop components, and conduct engineering studies necessary for the design, construction, and operation of prototype, demonstration, and commercial fusion power reactors. Fusion power systems are being developed primarily for electric power generation. Since the fuel supply for fusion is effectively infinite and its safety and environmental features are very attractive, fusion power reactors could eventually become the primary source of electric power for the United States. Because fusion power plants have the potential for high-temperature operation, they would be attractive for combining with industrial and municipal systems that could utilize the rejected heat. Examples of potential applications are numerous: basic manufacturing processes, water desalination, mineral and fossil fuel processing, space heating, and air conditioning, to name a few.

The commercialization of fusion power reactors would occur at the time of the successful operation of a fusion demonstration reactor. The goal of the projected program is to begin operation of this system by 1995. Fusion reactors could be producing commercial electric power in the first decade of the next century and by 2020 could add a substantial amount of energy input to our electrical system. The proposed five-year budget for fusion research and development is $1.45 billion.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Now what is the contribution of the present generation of nuclear power reactors? Nuclear power is now generating 25 million kilowatts, which is 51⁄2 percent of the Nation's electricity. A good deal of heat and emotion and not a little controversy also are being generated. What are the problems and what are the facts? Right now there are:

42 Nuclear power reactors licensed to operate

56 Under construction

101 Planned

Here is the forecast of nuclear electric generating capacity, projecting from where we stand at this time:

It is not expected that the total number of fission plants in the U.S. will rise above 1000. We anticipate that by the end of this century breeder plants will gradually take over a larger share of electricity production. Hopefully at some time in the next century, these plants will all be replaced by fusion reactors and by central generating stations running on solar power.

In the future the contribution that nuclear power can make is tremendous. But is it tolerable?

There have been CHARGES that nuclear power plants are dangerous.

Here are the FACTS: Nuclear power plants emit radiation; but how much do they emit in comparison with other things? The estimated average annual whole body radiation dose in the U.S. in 1973 indicates that 44 millirem come from cosmic rays, 40 from rocks, soils, and building materials; and 18 millirem are already inside our bodies. Global fallout gives us 4 millirem; 2.6 comes from occupational activities; 75.6 from medical activities; 0.003 from nuclear power in 1970; and 0.425 millirem is projected from nuclear power in the year 2000.

Fact Number 2 is that radiation can cause cancer. Ralph Lapp has estimated the cumulative deaths attributable to radiation-induced cancer up to the year 2000. There are 200,000 from natural background radiation, 100,000 from medical X-rays; 7,200 from jet airplane travel; 6,800 from weapons fallout; and 90 from nuclear power plants. The total estimated cancer deaths from all causes in the same time period is 20 million.

The conclusion to be reached from the above is that the risk is so small as to 'be negligible.

Another charge is that nuclear power plants may have accidents. We feel that the chances of a serious accident happening at a nuclear plant are very small. Just what are the risks in operation of a nuclear plant?

To answer this question, we initiated about a year and one half ago a study to provide a quantitative assessment of these risks. We were fortunate to have Professor Norman Rasmussen of MIT agree to direct this study. We expect to have a draft report for internal review soon and to distribute it for external comment in the late spring. The final report of the study should be published this summer.

Although the study is not completed, I would like to share with you some significant points we have learned thus far because they do much to put nuclear safety into better perspective.

The melting of a nuclear reactor core is not an extraordinarily large accident, as some have believed, but is comparable to other accidents such as large jet crashes or the failure of large concrete dams.

In the safety design of nuclear power plants, it is postulated that if a large pipe in the reactor ruptures, a loss of coolant accident, or LOCA as we call it, can occur. This establishes the need for emergency core cooling, or ECCS (a now famous term that most of you have heard), to prevent the core from melting. Should ECCS not operate, then the core would melt and release a very large amount of radioactivity. However, it is incorrect to assume that this will cause an accident far larger than that of other of man's endeavors. The reason that core melting is not such a large accident is that nuclear power plants have many other safety features that would prevent the bulk of the radioactivity from being dispersed in the environment.

Our study is predicting that the chance of core melting is about one in a million per year for each reactor. If I may use an analogy you might appreciate—and this is according to Hoyle-this probability compares with the chance of getting two poker hands in a row of four of a kind while playing five card draw. Another way of looking at this is that it has about the same chance per year as a person has of being struck by lightning.

Since, as I have already said, the core melting accident compares in size with that of the failure of large dams and large jet crashes, it is possible to compare the risks involved in all three types of accidents by comparing their respective chances of happening.

With a chance of one in a million per year of a core melt accident in each nuclear power plant, we can project that, for the approximately 100 reactors that are expected to be operating in the next few years, the chance of such an accident for all 100 reactors will be about one in ten thousand per year. As you know, there are a number of large jet crashes each year, and they can be said to have at least one chance per year for future years. Thus, if we compare the annual average risk from nuclear power plants and air travel, the risk from air travel accidents is about ten thousand times that of nuclear plant accidents.

For dams, the chance of failure is one in ten thousand and with 600 dams installed, the chance that there will be one failure per year is one in ten. Thus the risks from accidents in dams is about a thousand times larger than for nuclear power plant accidents.