REPORT FROM THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY ON THE AEC 5-YEAR POWER REACTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM On February 5, 1954, the chairman of the joint committee referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Development for review and evaluation the 5-year reactor development program proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission in response to the letter request from the committee on July 31, 1953. This program incorporates the plans for full-scale construction of an atomic powerplant known as the pressurized water reactor which will produce 60,000 kilowatts of electricity. The proposed 5-year program calls for a research and development program at a cost of $8.5 million per year, and five specific reactor development projects. These projects, their total estimated costs over the entire 5 years, and the dates for estimated completion of plants on an experimental scale are shown below: All cost estimates are conditional on annual congressional appropriations. The subcommittee has held 4 meetings reviewing this program as follows: February 5, 1954: Dr. L. R. Hafstad, AEC Chief of Reactor February 24, 1954: Dr. A. T. Weinberg, technical director, Oak March 4, 1954: Dr. C. Starr, Atomic Energy Research Division March 5, 1954: Dr. W. H. Zinn, director, Argonne National In addition the subcommittee addressed pertinent questions concern- Mr. Walker Cisler, president, Detroit Edison Co. Dr. Karl Cohen, Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratories, Inc. Dr. L. R. Hafstad, AEC, Chief of Reactor Development Dr. Kenneth Kingdon, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Mr. John R. Menke, Nuclear Development Associates, Inc. Dr. I. I. Rabi, Columbia University (chairman, GAC) Dr. C. Starr, Atomic Energy Research Division manager, North Dr. Edward Teller, University of California Dr. Charles Thomas, Monsanto Chemical Co. Dr. A. T. Weinberg, technical director, Oak Ridge National Dr. Eugene P. Wigner, Princeton University Dr. W. H. Zinn, director, Argonne National Laboratory The testimony and the letter replies are summarized briefly below. 1. Concept of the program.-The idea of setting out a specific program for reactor development is generally regarded as a sound step toward achievement of economic atomic power. Some criticism of the administrative direction of reactor development activities by the Atomic Energy Commission in the past has been expressed by witnesses and correspondents on the grounds that the Commission did not formulate a specific development program earlier on its own initiative. 2. Selection of these five approaches.-Out of the large number of possible approaches-perhaps 80 or more-the 5 particular approaches selected by the Commission for its program are generally regarded by those who have expressed their views to the subcommittee as the ones most likely to lead to economic power. There is real confidence that atomic power can be produced at a cost competitive with fossil fuels such as coal and oil within the next decade by exploring these five approaches. 3. Scale of the program.-Disagreement as to how fast each project can be pushed profitably was expressed by witnesses. On the whole, the Commission's estimate of the amount of effort which should be devoted to each project is within the range generally approved by those consulted. Strong statements have been received from all witnesses and correspondents in support of speeding up any of these projects whenever scientific and engineering findings may warrant. It was generally felt that larger budgets than those planned for these programs at this time would probably not speed up accomplishment appreciably. 4. Relative merits of the five projects.-The 5 projects were divided by most of those consulted into 3 categories: Short term, meaning ready for large experimental testing in 2 or 3 years with a good chance of mechanical success; middle term, meaning ready for testing on a large scale within 5 years; and long term, meaning ready for large experimental testing in not less than 5 years unless some unexpected technical break-through occurs during the next 5 years. The following is the listing under these categories on which most witnesses agreed: Short term -Pressurized water reactor (formerly CVR) Sodium graphite reactor (North American) Middle term-Boiling water reactor (Argonne)1 Homogeneous reactor (Oak Ridge) A description of the boiling rector experiment prepared by Dr. W. H. Zinn, Director, Argonne National Laboratory, is attached to this report. The short term approaches are thought to be least likely ever to produce competitive and low-cost atomic power and the long term most likely to do so. The consensus of opinion for achievement of economically competitive atomic power as expressed by the witnesses and correspondents is as follows: (No. 1 is most promising, No. 5 least promising.) No. 1 Homogeneous reactor No. 2 Fast breeder reactor No. 4 Sodium graphite reactor No. 5 Pressurized-water reactor Strong emphasis was placed by witnesses before the subcommittee on the enthusiasm of the participants in any project as a large factor in early achievement of the goal of economic atomic power. The proponents of each particular type of reactor proposed for pilot testing appear to have enthusiasm in the prospects for achievement of economic power by the approaches which they advocate. There is apparently little optimism about the chances of producing economic power at an early date along the route of the pressurized-water reactor. 5. Pressurized water reactor.-This is the only full-scale plant proposed by the Commission for construction at this time, although it is not as large as might be necessary to achieve maximum economy with this design. However, it is as large as is necessary to get operating experience and prove the design. Most witnesses and correspondents seem to feel that the other approaches will benefit from information and experience gained in the construction and operation of any largescale plant, including PWR. It is clearly of conservative design and has a poor long-term prospect for producing low-cost atomic power. On the other hand, it is the one approach now ready for full-scale construction as a demonstration of the generation of electricity from atomic energy. The achievement of economic atomic power by this approach will require the very greatest engineering skill, scientific ingenuity, and continuous research and study after the plant starts operating. The pressurized water reactor might also contribute substantially to carrying out the President's international cooperation proposal. It uses as fuel uranium slightly enriched in the isotope-235. With relatively minor redesign it would operate on natural uranium if heavy water were to be used as a coolant and moderator instead of natural water. Plants of this type could be built in foreign countries with United States assistance at an earlier date than the more novel plants using highly enriched fuels. Thus we believe electric power could be provided at competitive prices in many parts of the world in the next 10 years. Later on, as technology improves, possibly more efficient reactors, using enriched fuels, could also be made available. As a demonstration of the serious intent of the United States to develop peacetime uses of atomic energy for both ourselves and our allies and as a tool to help gain operating experience on a full-scale plant, the continuation of construction of one large-scale plant such as the pressurized water reactor is important. 3 CONCLUSION The proposed program is the subject of controversy not in its concept but in its estimates of scale of effort and priority of projects. This controversy is the direct result of the natural and desirable optimism of the various project proponents for their own approaches. The most serious criticism which might be leveled at this program is that it overlooks some profitable approaches completely or distorts the levels of effort unduly. No such criticism appears warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The joint committee should support the proposed 5-year program for reactor development. 2. The program as a package should be reviewed at least annually to insure that the approaches being followed are still in proper balance and that every advantage is being taken of new developments. 3. A meeting should be held with the Commission before any further action on the pressurized water reactor is undertaken in order to insure that both the committee and the Commission are in agreement on its continuation, appreciate its limitations, and have a clear conception of what it can be expected to accomplish. Approved March 17, 1954, and reported to the full committee by the subcommittee. CARL HINSHAW, Chairman of the Subcommittee. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND. JOHN W. BRICKER. JOHN O. PASTORE. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT. CARL T. DURHAM. MELVIN PRICE. Approved March 23, 1954, and adopted by the full committee. STERLING COLE, Chairman. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, July 31, 1953. Washington, D. C. (Attention: Mr. Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman.) GENTLEMEN: The joint committee is about to conclude its executive and open hearings in which it has explored some of the problems involved in definition of a Federal policy on atomic power development in private enterprise. Our hearings have made clear that the entire atomic power development problem is one of considerable complexity. With this thought in mind, it has occurred to us that there are certain steps which the Atomic Energy Commission might take during the next few months which would be particularly helpful, not only to the joint committee in its examination of these problems, but also to the many other interested parties. 1. Even though the Commission has concluded that the time has not yet arrived when "any industrial, commercial, or other nonmilitary uses of fissionable material of atomic energy has been sufficiently developed to be of practical value," as set forth in section 7 (b) of the act, it might, nevertheless, be of considerable assistance if the Commission were to prepare an estimate of the "social, political, economic, and international effects of such use" as now appear. This estimate would be helpful in our further consideration of the problem even though it is appreciated that such an estimate might be of an interim nature if the circumstances envisioned by the act have not, in fact, fully developed at this time. 2. There have been a substantial number of references by witnesses during our hearings to the indefiniteness of Commission plans for research and development in the field of atomic power components, pilot plants, and prototypes. It would seem appropriate that plans for Commission activity should be set forth in a concise manner so that all interested companies, groups, organizations or individuals can henceforth have no doubt about the Federal program under the exist ing act. I have in mind here that a 3- to 5-year program consisting of specific reasearch and development projects-perhaps including construction items-might be set forth so that others could adjust their plans accordingly. Even though appropriations are determined on a year-to-year basis, it should be possible to carry out planning and programing over a longer term. 3. As you note in your letter of June 2 (1953), policy decisions on some aspects of the nuclear power program "will necessarily be subject to revision from time to time as experience and technical progress dictate." Nevertheless, the particular policy problems are important matters in the growth of private industrial participation. Your policy decisions on these five matters would be of real interest, not only to the joint committee, but to many of the companies, groups, and individuals who have recently testified on this subject. Thank you very much for your attention to these matters. Sincerely yours, STERLING COLE, Chairman. |