rately, it has been said that a 150-million-gallons-per-day plant would require approximately 10,000 miles of evaporator tubing. This is, by an order of magnitude, more tubing in a single order than even the largest tubing manufacturing company's standard costing procedures envisions. To effect full advantage of such a bulk order, it is, from a practical point of view, necessary to actually place such an order. In realistic terms, there is today no incentive for a producer of this material to develop the product availability or even to do the detailed costing exercises in order to get an accurate fix on the cost of tubing in this volume. In considering the pumps involved, we have no doubt that their design and fabrication is within the limits of current technology and capability. However, there is no production experience on such equipment in the size range we are considering and there is no cost experience. The presently active grants from Office of Saline Water to various pump manufacturers to develop designs and estimating information perform a useful and vital function. However, again we will never know the cost of one of these pumps delivered to a site ready for use until we actually place an order and see the pumps built and in service.

In very broad and general terms, to consider the current state of multistage flash distillation, I would say that we could predict within plus or minus 10 percent the cost of water from a 150-million-gallonper-day plant. Notice I say, "cost of water." You have all read in the public press releases from various agencies and organizations wherein predictions are made of water "costing" anywhere from $1.25 per thousand gallons to $0.05 per thousand gallons. We can produce water today in existing plants at a cost approximating $1.25. I feel certain that we will never produce water by the multistage flash process at a cost of $0.05 per thousand gallons. We may be able to sell water from such a plant at a cost approaching this by dint of some rather obvious accounting exercises, but the fixed charges on capital investment alone would preclude water production at cost levels this low. The point I would make here is that we feel that major cost improvements achievable through process research and development with the current process concepts have largely been made. Using current process concepts, cost improvements can and will be made through the effect of a construction learning curve, through improvements in unit equipment costs felt to be reasonably anticipated in large orders actually in hand by the manufacturers, and through the benefits expected in operational unit cost reductions in larger plants.

The foregoing, then, presents our views as to the current situation with respect to efforts to reduce the cost of desalting brackish and sea waters. A point of more immediate interest to you gentlemen, however, lies perhaps in our concept of the areas of activity of the Government and of private industry in this overall program. I stated earlier that in our opinion the major process related cost improvements in current technology have already been fairly completely exploited in the case of the distillation systems. However, an area in which great promise of significant reduction in product water cost lies is in improvement in basic process and plant concept. It is, in our opinion, possible to effect appreciable savings in product water cost by a restudy of the basic components of the dual-purpose water desaltingpower generation plant. However, such a unique approach to the

dual-purpose plant concept as envisioned here would require governmental direction for two principal reasons: (1) In all probability present power and water utility regulatory policy would have to be modified to permit the type of plant concept which would yield maximum benefit in terms of cost savings; (2) an approach as unique as that foreseen would, by virtue of its lack of precedent, undoubtedly encounter difficulties in funding from private sources. For these reasons, Government sponsorship of some type is seen as a necessity to maintain the program's momentum.

Another major consideration affecting the timing of assumption of major responsibility for the desalting program by private agencies is the degree of confidence existing in the technology of desalting. To explain this statement I believe it is necessary to consider the present status of the Government effort in desalting. The Office of Saline Water is recognized worldwide as the leader in the development of desalting technology. Therefore the course taken by Office of Saline Water will profoundly influence the course of private participation in desalting projects. If the Office of Saline Water continues to operate solely on a laboratory, pilot plant, and even demonstration plant scale, then private agencies will confine their activities to these levels. Conversely, if the Office of Saline Water adopts an aggressive stance in the promotion of a production scale plant, its lead will be followed by a broad spectrum of private industrial and local governmental units. Office of Saline Water has led the desalting program through process development and confirmation. It now remains for it to maintain this leadership through the intermediate and large-scale plant programs necessary to the economic confirmation of desalting technology.

For as long as Office of Saline Water indicates a confidence in desalting private agencies will support and follow its lead. On the other hand, for as long as Office of Saline Water refrains from moving into the large-scale plant portion of a desalting effort, private industry will temporize.

I thank you for this opportunity of appearing before your committee and assure you that we, at Catalytic, sincerely believe in the future of desalting as a practical solution to many of the world's water needs and are eager to continue our participation in this program.

Senator ANDERSON. I appreciate very much your statement, particularly this last portion, in which you point out that the Office of Saline Water must take the lead. I think it is a very excellent statement. You say that if the Office of Saline Water continues to operate solely on a laboratory, pilot plant, and even demonstration plant scale, then private agencies will confine their activities to these levels. I am glad you brought that out.

On page 6, you talk about the costs of water, and you said you feel certain that we will never produce water by a multistage flash process at a cost of 5 cents per thousand gallons. You do not think that the necessity of providing irrigation water is compelling in this, do you? If we were able to produce decent industrial supplies, that is enough for the present, is it not?

Mr. ENNIS. For the present. I think again desalting is one part of an integrated water supply program. Where the economics justify it, it is the way to go, obviously.

Senator ANDERSON. I would not want somebody to say that a desalting process is no good because it does not provide irrigation water for farmers. One witness said he did not think the price would ever get down low enough to be economical for irrigation water for farmers. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is right. But we should have an economical cost for industrial water.

Mr. ENNIS. Certainly. I think I agree with what Dr. Hammond said this morning, that as an ultimate goal, I would not say that 5 cents a thousand gallons of water is not achievable. I would say a multistage flash plan is achievable.

Senator ANDERSON. I think he believes there are great possibilities in the future. I had better put it that way. I am glad that he does and I am glad that you do.

Professor Dusbabek?

STATEMENT OF PROF. MARK R. DUSBABEK, REPRESENTING THE FLUOR CORP., LTD.; ACCOMPANIED BY L. K. OLSON

Mr. DUSBABEK. I believe that everyone here has a copy of my paper. With your permission, I shall just summarize it.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, that is very kind of you. We will put the statement in full in the record and you may summarize. I appreciate your desire to cut it down.

Mr. DUSBABEK. My name is Mark Dusbabek and I am speaking in behalf of the Fluor Corp. I have with me Mr. L. K. Olson, who is also associated with this corporation.

In preparing this paper, I had two or three main points I want to get across and I summarize these as a conclusion at the end of the paper. What I have attempted to show is the current status of the sea water plants, notably the multistage flash distillation process. It is our opinion that a process like this is well enough understood to be amenable to a fixed price, guaranteed performance type bid. On that basis, I constructed a cost estimate which indicated that a plant of about 150 million gallons a day, assuming steam from a nuclear powerplant, would result in water costing approximately 35 cents per thousand gallons. To support that position, I described the basic process and how fundamentally it is rather simple. ·

I also pointed out, however, that because it does involve fundamentals, these process steps have not been particularly studied. There are studies in greater detail in other processes, or other uses of these processes, because they were not the cost-determining factor. The plant that one would build today on the basis of these economics would not be the cheapest plant by any means. There are ways of achieving a cheaper plant by pilot planting and doing this fundamental research work on some of these phenomena.

Second, I pointed out that it is our opinion that a sea water conversion plant is enough like other chemical process plants to expect that as more plants are built and as these plants get larger, one will see a steady and almost constant reduction in plant costs and unit

water costs.

The last point I wanted to make there was that because of the basic simplicity of the distilling process, however, we did not expect the cost reduction due to these two factors, with larger and more plants, to be as dramatic, perhaps, as was experienced with the ammonia industry.

I think that summarizes what I have to say, sir. (The prepared statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MARK R. DUSBABEK, REPRESENTING THE FLUOR CORP., LTD.

My name is Mark R. Dusbabek and I am speaking on behalf of the Fluor Corp., Ltd. I have been employed by the Fluor Corp. since 1953, and during that time, I have been directly associated with all of Fluor's sea water conversion and nuclear activities. These activities included the first study performed under the auspices of the Department of the Interior of the applicability of nuclear energy to sea water distillation. That report, completed in 1957, was followed by many others for various clients. In all, Fluor has completed 21 assignments relating to 9 different sea water conversion processes, designed what is still the world's largest combination power and desalting plant, and was responsible for the design of the highly successful Point Loma plant which was subsequently moved to Guantanamo.

The Fluor Corp. is an engineer-constructor serving primarily the petroleum, chemical, and power industries throughout the free world. Our current billings, in excess of $200 million per year, make us one of the world's largest engineering. construction firms. For the past 35 years. Fluor has been engaged in the design and construction of plants which utilize the basic operations found in sea water distillation plants. The great majority of that work has been done on the basis of a fixed price with guaranteed plant capacity, performance, and product purity. It is because of this experience that we feel competent to discuss the technical and economic status of desalting plants. Furthermore, we feel an obligation to provide this committee with whatever pertinent information we may have in order that their judgments will be as informed as possible.

Our studies have shown that distillation is presently the cheapest method of . producing large quantities of fresh water from the sea. There are, of course, several variations of distillation processes from which one may choose; but, in general, all depend upon the heating, cooling, boiling, and condensing of water phenomena which have been studied extensively and are now well understood. If there are other processes which will produce cheaper water and which can be priced as definitively as the distillation process, then so much better. We will refer here only to distillation plants which are sufficiently developed to permit an accurate estimate of cost and performance.

In order to give credence to the following economic data, it is important that the basic elements involved in a distillation plant be understood. To that end we have shown three sketches which illustrate the essential processes. In figure 1 a source of heat is used to generate steam by boiling salt water. All of the salt stays in the boiling salt water while the steam is forced out of the kettle. If the steam impinges on a cold surface, as shown, it will condense into pure water. All that's needed to produce a pound of fresh water from a pound of steam, then, is a source of steam (boiling sea water) and a cold surface upon which to condense it.

Of course, when the steam condenses, it gives up heat. Figure 2 shows a way to get more than a pound of water from a pound of steam. Here the heat given 'up by the condensing steam is used to generate more steam from another pot of salt water at a slightly lower temperature. This procedure can be repeated many times and modern distillation plants could produce as much as 20 pounds of water for each pound of steam generated by the heat source. In order to make a commercial plant, means must be provided for pumping the salt water into and through the plant as well as collecting and removing the product water. But the basic processes involved in any distillation plant are as shown in figures 1 and 2. The simplicity should be obvious. Not only is the process simple, but the necessary equipment is comparable. in design, materials of construction, and size with components now being routinely manufactured.