5. "Engineering and Economic Feasibility Study for a Combination Nuclear Power and Desalting Plant-Summary," TID 22330, Sponsored Jointly by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Office of Saline Water and ABC, December 1965.

6. R. Philip Hammond, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "Desalted Water for Agriculture," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.*

7. (a) HRH Prince Mohamed Al-Faisal, Ministry of Agriculture and Water, “Desalination Program for Saudi Arabia," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.*

(b) I. Vilentchuk, Sea-water Conversion Commission, "Desalted Water for Isiael's Agriculture," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.1

8. (a, James T. Ramey, USAEC, "The Requirements Merry-Go-Round in Government Research and Development," at Ninth Institute on Research Administration of the American University, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1964. USAEC Public Announcement S-8-64.

(b) James T. Ramey, USAEC, "The Requirements Merry-Go-Round,” at Annual Conference of Atomic Industrial Forum, San Francisco, California, December 2, 1964.

9. I. Spiewak and R. A. Ebel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "Cost Projection for Large Scale Desalting Systems with Various Types of Couplings," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.'

10. James T. Ramey, USAEC, “Policy Considerations in the Nuclear Desalination Program," at Annual Conference of Atomic Industrial Forum, November 17, 1965. USAEC Public Announcement IN-645.

11. (a) Angel M. Maqueda, National Institute of Colonization, Spain, "Economic Value of Water for Irrigation," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.* (b) Dan Yaron, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and E. Bresler, Israel Ministry of Agriculture, "Towards Economic Evaluation of the Quality of Water in Irrigation," at Water for Peace Expert Sessions.*

12. Dan Yaron, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Economic Criteria for Water Resource Development on Allocation," Department of Agricultural Economics, Rohovot, Israel, 1966: Part Two, “An Economic Approach to the Analysis of the Salinity Problem."

13. "Proposed Large Scale Combination Nuclear Power Desalting Project," Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 14, 1966, page 56.

14. R. A. Skinner, formerly of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Testimony before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, February 28, 1967.

15. J. A. Lane, "Economics of Nuclear Power," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 16, 1966.

16. "Desalting Agreement Between the United States of America, Mexico, and the IAEA," signed at Washington, October 7, 1965. USAEC Public Announcement H-223.

17. "The Report of Background Considerations and Recommendations on the Water for Peace Program," March 1967.

18. James T. Ramey, USAEC, "The U.S. Atomic Power Program," at International Conference on Reactors, Mexico City, May 2, 1967. USAEC Public Announcement S-18-67.

19. "U.S. Offers to Cooperate with IAEA in Nuclear Desalting Field,” USAEC Public Announcement G-217, September 8, 1964.

APPENDIX 26.-REMARKS

BY JAMES T. RAMEY, COMMISSIONER, USAEC, AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REACTORS, MEXICO CITY (MAY 2, 1967)

THE U.S. ATOMIC POWER PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

It is always a pleasure to come to Mexico. We receive such a cordial reception here, and have had such fine relationships over the years with our friends and counterparts in Mexico that I consider it a special privilege to take part in this International Conference on Reactors.

1 May 23-31, 1967.

May 23-31, 1967.

However, we are saddened today because of the absence of Dr. Nabor Carrillo Flores who as you know was a member of the Mexican Atomic Energy Commission and was a sponsor of this conference. He was loved and respected in Mexico, in the United States, and throughout the world for his warm personal qualities, for his leadership, and for his many contributions to the peaceful applications of atomic energy. His untimely death was a loss to the Western Hemisphere, to atomic energy generally, and it was a personal loss to me. As a token of our respect, the United States Atomic Energy Commission will present to the Mexican Atomic Energy Commission-in Dr. Carrillo's name a multichannel analyzer for research on the Mossbauer effect. We hope that this research tool, through the scientists and students benefiting from it, will serve in some measure as a living memorial to Dr. Carrillo

I am sure all of you are well aware of my country's interest in nuclear reactor development, technology, and installations. The United States now has some 100 research reactors in addition to a large number of critical assemblies. The research carried out with these reactors, and the physics and mathematics associated with research reactors, will be the subject of many of the talks you will hear throughout the conference. It is this sort of fundamental research and development which provides the foundation for an effective national program and ensures continued advances in nuclear technology.

POWER REACTOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Reactor development has come a long way since that day, twenty-five short years ago, when the world's first reactor achieved criticality under the stands of a football stadium in Chicago.

Immediately after World War II there were many predictions in the U.S. about how rapidly atomic energy would become a major power source. Many people simply were unable to visualize the magnitude of the effort that would be required to bring about competitive civilian nuclear power. It has been a long, and frequently difficult, program involving close cooperation between the universities, our national laboratories, industry and government. I would like to review, briefly, the highlights.

During the late 1940s, the AEC began its experimental power reactor program which involved relatively basic work. One outgrowth of this program was the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, which produced the world's first electricity from nuclear energy in 1951. The EBR-I also became the first reactor to successfully "breed," and it later generated electrical power using plutonium as fuel. Last summer President Johnson took note of the importance of this reactor by dedicating it as a National Historic Landmark. (1)

Other power reactor experiments in the 1950s included the Boiling Reactor Experiments (Borax) at NRTS: the Experimental Boiling Water Reactor at Argonne National Laboratory; the Organic Moderated Reactor Experiment at NRTS; and the power reactor experiments at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.

The year 1957 was significant because it marked the initial operation of a prototype-scale nuclear power plant, the Pressurized Water Reactor. This facility, at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, was developed under the guidance of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, and was the nation's first large-scale civilian nuclear reactor. The Shippingport plant brought to the civilian program some of the results of Admiral Rickover's highly successful work on naval reactor systems.

The Power Demonstration Reactor Program, begun in 1955, invited industry to join with the Atomic Energy Commisison in developing power reactors. There have been several stages in this program, and over the years it has represented a most effective partnership between the Commission, the utilities, and the reactor manufacturers in constructing and operating demonstration plants on actual utility systems. The Yankee reactor in Massachusetts represents an early example of this partnership. In a later stage, a number of relatively small reactors were constructed, with the effect of bringing in plants of a size that could be owned and operated by small distributors such as municipalities and rural cooperatives. Such projects have included the Elk River and Piqua reactors and the Bonus project in Puerto Rico.

The general arrangements were modified in 1962 specifically to encourage support of power reactors in larger sizes, above 400 megawatts electrical. This phase of the program now includes the Connecticut Yankee, and the San Onofre reactors which will go into operation this year and the proposed Malibu plant which does

not yet have a construction permit. It was this scale up in size, and the competition between the two big atomic equipment companies, which enabled atomic power plants to become competitive beginning in 1963 as discussed below.

In 1962 also, the Commission submitted to the President of the United States a report (2) on the state of the civilian nuclear prower program. That review was prepared at the request of President Kennedy, and it concentrated on basic policies. It emphasized the importance of the Commission's role in exercising positive and vigorous leadership, for two reasons to achieve the technical goals, and to assure growing participation by industry.

The 1962 report also established some specific goals for the Commission's nuclear power development program, and I will discuss these in some detail later.

In 1963 the results of all of these various reactors programs were embodied in commitments to build the Oyster Creek and Niagara Mohawk plants with favorable projected economics and without government assistance. It was becoming clear that the utility industry considered economic nuclear power to be

near.

The first large wave of nuclear announcements by utilities came in 1965, when eight central station nuclear reactors were committed, and the number of nuclear commitments has continued to grow. In 1966, 23 utilities or utility groups announced plans for 28 civilian power reactors with a combined generating capacity of 23 million kilowatts. That amounted to 55 percent of all new steam-electric plants announced by utilities during the year.

Our latest projection of the growth of nuclear power was released in June 1966. (3) At that time we estimated there would be 80 to 110 million kilowatts of nuclear electric generating capacity in the United States by 1980, and that by the year 2000 about half of our domestic power would come from nuclear energy. Current commitments by utilties have caused us to reexamine our projections, and I expect we will release some higher estimates in the near future. Needless to say we are gratifiefid that U.S. industry has developed the capability to build and offer water reactors not only in the United States but around the world.

As I recall the era of the development of nuclear power, it becomes apparent that though the Federal Government has played a leading role, much credit must go to others. The remarkable growth of the nuclear power field has been a result of the exemplary teamwork between the Commission, the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, the university and industrial contractors at our national laboratories, and the atomic equipment industry and the utilities themselves.

Among the many reasons why utilities have so readily adopted nuclear power is simply good timing-or good fortune. For several reasons utilities are now at a peak period in their building cycle and are eager to construct new plants to avoid being caught with low power reserves.

With the continued growth in U.S. population and in the electrical consumption per capita, the national demand for electricity is nearly doubling every 10 years. The current annual electric generating capacity is about 250 million kilowatts; by 1980, it is expected to be 520 million kilowatts, and by the year 2000, it will have risen to more than one and one-half billion kilowatts. Utilities are becoming interested in larger plants than ever before, and the larger the plant the more economical is nuclear power (see chart attached). The recent emphasis on avoiding further air pollution has also encouraged industry to adopt nuclear power. With the cyclic nature of utility planning, we may soon reach a plateau. And again we may not. Many observers expected a decline in announced nuclear plants this year, after the dramatic surge in 1966. But as of last week utilities had announced plans for 12 power reactors with a combined capacity of more than nine million kilowatts. During the comparable period last year, there were only five such announcements for a combined capacity of some 3.3 million kilowatts. So the 1967 rate is more than double that of last year, leading to predictions that the 1966 nuclear record will be surpassed.

But despite our progress, we still have plenty of work to do if we are to achieve the objectives we set for ourselves five years ago.

NUCLEAR POWER OBJECTIVES

Earlier, I mentioned the AEC's 1962 report to the President. Last year, the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy asked that this report be reviewed and updated. We recently completed this review and published a Supplement (4) to the 1962 Report to the President. The 1967 Supplement reconfirmed our objectives stated in the 1962 report, namely:

"The demonstration of economic nuclear power by assuring the construction of plants incorporating the presently most competitive reactor types." 2. "The carly establishment of a self-sufficient and growing nuclear power industry that will assume an increasing share of the development costs."

3. "The development of improved converter and, later, breeder reactors to convert fertile isotopes to fissionable one, thus making available the full potential of the nuclear fuels.”

4. "The maintenance of U.S. technological leadership in the world by means of a vigorous domestic nuclear power program and appropriate cooperation with, and assistance to, our friends abroad."

As we mentioned earlier, light water reactors have achieved wide acceptance in the United States and we feel that the first objective is near achievement. We lack only the successful operation of some of the large plants now under construction to complete this objective. We are, therefore, redirecting the course of our development program for the advanced reactors to pursue the third objective listed in the 1962 report. Development of these reactors will assure realization of the full potential of the latent energy in nuclear fuels. Thus the role of the Commission continues to be one of leadership-as nuclear power serves ever-wider areas in the U.S. and the world.

THE NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Since light water reactors are proving themselves, the AEC is phasing out much of its research and development on these concepts-with the major exception of safety research-to let industry continue the remaining developmental effort. The AEC now can concentrate more effort on one of the most promising applications of nuclear power-breeder reactors.

The potential of breeder reactors was apparent early in the history of the atomic energy program. By converting U-238 to plutonium-or thorium-232 to uranimum-233-we make fuel even as we burn it. We know that reactors will someday produce more fuel than they consume, and we are earnestly pursuing this technology.

We are embarking upon construction of an $87.5 million Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Richland, Washington. The FFTF will be the principal fuels and materials test facility in our liquid metal fast breeder reactor program. We have also established the Liquid Metal Engineering Center at Canoga Park, California. This installation will produce engineering data on critical components and equipment for sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors.

In addition, we are cooperating with the Euratom and the British in the development of their fast reactor programs. To date, this cooperation has worked very well and should serve to strengthen all our programs. As you are aware, European interests are represented in the SEFOR project in the U.S. and we encourage such cooperation to further spread the advantages of nuclear power to the world.

The Commission's effort to develop advanced converters has been narrowed to three approaches-heavy water moderated reactors, the high temperature gas-cooled concept, and the seed-blanket light water breeder concept. Each of these concepts has promise of higher conversion ratios than current light water reactors and can greatly extend the usefulness of our uranium resources. We are continuing cooperative efforts with both Canada and Euratom in their very excellent heavy water reactor programs, and we have embarked on a cooperative effort with one of our utilities-Public Service of Colorado-for construction of a 330 MWe demonstration gas-cooled reactor power plant. Work on the seed-blanket light water breeder, which shows promise at breeding in the light water medium, is directed toward the possibility of demonstrating the breeding potential in an existing light water reactor, such as the Shippingport reactor. An important aspect of the technology for use of light water reactors, pending development of fast breeders, is the potential for using plutonium generated in the reactors as a fuel. This recycling of plutonium into power reactors permits greater use of available fuel. The Commission has sponsored work in this area over the years in the Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor at Hanford. The Saxton reactor and the Experimental Boiling Water Reactor also are being used in this work. At the present time, AEC support is being reduced with the expectation that industry will expand its own research and development programs to make more effective use of plutonium as a reactor fuel.

REACTOR SAFETY

In any discussion of reactors, I feel it is important to mention our care for safety and our excellent safety record. The AEC and the nuclear industry have recognized the need for safety in their programs from the very beginning. Extensive efforts have been made to anticipate potential hazards, and then work out ways to avoid such hazards. This approach has paid off. As Congressman Chet Holifield, vice chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, has said:

"The atomic energy program is unique in that for the first time, a detailed regulatory system was imposed by the Government before the experience of any serious accidents prompted a demand for such regulation." For a private power reactor, the AEC's regulatory procedure begins with an informal site evaluation. The regulatory staff then reviews a detailed site description and proposed reactor design submitted by the utility. These submissions also are studied by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent committee of technical experts.

An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board then conducts a public hearing in the vicinity of the proposed project and determines whether construction should be authorized. The Commission, of course, reviews the decision.

During reactor construction, AEC inspectors visit the site. Afterward, the application for an operating license undergoes a similar review process.

The result of these procedures is a fact that pleases the Commission more than any other: Never has a civilian reactor accident caused a loss of life or endangered public health or safety.

In order to provide an increasing understanding of technical questions related to the safety of nuclear plants, the Commission conducts an extensive program of reactor safety research and development. The Reactor Safety Program comprises a number of research, development and test projects being performed by industrial contractors and AEC national laboratories at the direction of the Division of Reactor Development and Technology. The objectives of the program are to develop the technological basis for the safe design, location, construction, testing and operation of reactor plants.

The elements of the program consist of developing basic safety technology through research and development, performing engineering scale tests, and developing techniques for the assessment of the safety aspects of reactor plants. The research and development effort includes studies of fission product release and transport, metal-water reaction studies, pipe rupture, missile generation, reactor kinetics, earthquake considerations, engineered safequards technology development, pressure reduction and suppression systems, and the prevention of melting of reactor cores in loss of coolant accidents. Major facilities used in the research and development program include the Containment Systems Experiment (CSE), the Power Burst Facility (PBF), and the Loss of Fluid Test (LOFT).

The Reactor Safety Program is aimed primarily at the safety technology of water reactors. However, increasing efforts are being made on experiments concerned with the safety of gas cooled reactors, heavy water moderated organic cooled reactors and fast breeders. As the basic technology becomes more firmly established, increased emphasis must be placed on the application of the technology to design, testing, inspection, and operating criteria, standards and codes. Such efforts will even further reduce the low probability of occurrences of reactor accidents. In addition, technology is being more extensively applied to the development of advanced engineered safety features which will arrest the course of an accident or accommodate its consequences.

RAW MATERIAL FUEL RESERVES

As the nuclear industry grows, more and more nuclear fuel will have to be discovered, processed and consumed. And at some point along the way we will look to uranium-238 and thorium as major sources of energy.

Despite the promise of breeders, with the rapidly growing nuclear industry significant new ore discoveries will be needed in the 1970s to maintain sufficient reserves for long-range needs. U.S. reserves of U.Os, calculated at $8 a pound of uranium concentrates, stand at about 141,000 tons; reserves available at up to $10 a pound are estimated at about 200,000 tons. The unexpectedly high sales of reactors have made forecasting hazardous, but we believe we have reserves for about 12 years, which is normal in the minerals industry.