Improvements leading to attainment of this goal would derive from the Test This program was a direct outgrowth of consideration by the AEC and the Maritime Administration of the various civilian maritime nuclear program options shown on the chart. These options, and I shall read them for the benefit of the committee, are as follows: CHART 3 CIVILIAN MARITIME NUCLEAR PROGRAM OPTIONS The government-industrial participants in civilian maritime nuclear propulsion programs have a choice of the following options, or combinations thereof, depending on the policies, relative priorities, and availability of funds: a. b. C. d. Proceed with a nuclear shipbuilding program immediately where current Leadership by shipowners - nuclear industry - Maritime Administration Proceed with a ship prototype where reactor technology is adequate for a first Leadership by shipowners - nuclear industry - Maritime Administration Proceed with the research and development program including the construction Leadership by AEC - nuclear industry Support by Maritime Administration - shipowners Proceed with a research and development program where major technological Leadership by AEC - nuclear industry Support by Maritime Administration - shipowners The Government-industrial participants in civilian maritime nuclear propulsion programs have a choice, we believe, of the following options, or combinations thereof, depending on the policies, relative priorities, and availability of funds: (a) Proceed with a nuclear shipbuilding program immediately where current pressurized water technology is adequate. If this option were adopted, we believe that leadership should be by shipowners, the nuclear industry, and the Maritime Administration, with support by the AEC. (b) Proceed with a ship prototype where reactor technology is adequate for a first step only but that operational experience is needed. Here again leadership would be by the shipowners, the nuclear industry, and the Maritime Administration, with support by the AEC. The third option would be to (c) proceed with the research and development program, including the construction of a land-based test facility, where current technology must be advanced to achieve the required performance, reliability, economy, and safety. In this case the leadership would be by the AEC in cooperation with the nuclear industry, and supported by the Maritime Administration and the shipowners. The fourth option would be to (d) proceed with a research and development program where major technological and economical advances are necessary, and build a land-based test facility after significant advances have been made. Again the leadership would be by AEC and the nuclear industry, and supported by the Maritime Administration and shipowners. Again I point out that the choice could be a combination of any one, two, three, or four of these options, depending on the availability of funds, the policies, and the relative priorities. These options recognize that the technical feasibility of the use of pressurized water reactors for ship propulsion has been successfully demonstrated and that the main questions to be resolved relate to (a) whether improved designs of pressurized water reactors specifically for the civilian maritime application can be achieved within the required performance, costs, reliability, and safety envelopes; and (b) whether, if attained, these characteristics, plus potential improvements, would be sufficient to assure reasonable economics for merchant marine application. The Commission believes that a research and development program concentrating on the problems unique to maritime application can result in significant improvements which will make these applications more attractive in future years. Encouragement of cooperative arrangements between Government and industry was recognized to be an important part of the total development and demonstration program, on the basis that such arrangements would reduce Government expenditures and provide maximum incentives for effectiveness in cost reduction in a program whose basic objective is strongly economics oriented. Our advanced civilian maritime program for fiscal year 1967 covered studies, primarily, and costs are estimated at about $100,000. We have proposed to continue such efforts in fiscal year 1968 at a spending level of $100,000. However, our program plan noted that when agreement has been reached on the Department of Commerce objectives and requirements, and if it is determined that the benefits from the program are worth the cost involved, the more extensive research and development program mentioned previously would be in order, probably requiring a land-based test facility, in order to achieve the significant improvements. Many of the questions on the civilian maritime reactor program that require resolution are not at all unlike those of the civilian nuclear power program, particularly in view of the recent large-scale commitments being made by the utilities to the light-water-reactor plants. Therefore, it was not unusual that the JCAE hearings last year devoted considerable attention to the relationship between the civilian nuclear power program and the civilian maritime reactor program. We believe that our experiences in the development of the civilian power reactor program for central station application have provided valuable lessons which are applicable to the civilian maritime applications. After considerable investment in selected technologies, the Comission encouraged the construction and operation of a number of demonstration plants with a significant variety of reactor concepts, sizes, and specific designs. With subsequent experience from some of these demonstration plants, it was found that many were undertaken without sufficient bases of technology and engineering, thus still requiring the need for extensive development, design, and proof-test programs, and much additional expense in modifications and general support for these plants; in addition, support for a number of reactor concepts has been terminated. This, and other information pertinent to the civilian nuclear power program, has been summarized in a recent publication identified as "The 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the President on Civilian Nuclear Power." This report discusses background and status of the remarkable advances that have taken place in the promise of nuclear power and its acceptance by the U.S. utility industry as a new source of electrical energy. This report also notes that the trend in the Commission's civilian power reactor development program is toward advanced reactors, called advanced converters and breeders, which utilize nuclear fuel resources more efficiently while producing economical electric power. For a number of reasons, these advanced reactor concepts appear to be of the type which would not be of interest to nearterm civilian maritime applications, although some of the technology, if successfully developed, could be of interest in the long term. Continued operating experience by the AEC, the reactor manufacturers, and the utilities with initial demonstration and experimental nuclear power plants, and commitments to larger size light-water reactor demonstration plants have provided the necessary impetus for commitments by industry on a competitive basis to large scale lightwater utility units. As of May 12 of this year, there were 13 central station nuclear powerplants operating in the United States and 48 under construction or under contract. The industry appears to be at a highly committed state. These developments have come about through engineering advances, through experience with the earlier plants, through the manufacturing advantages of standardization of sizes and repeat orders, and, very importantly, through an even larger increase in the unit size of power plants than was previously antici pated. These effects of size on projected economics and related procurements are best indicated by noting that in 1962 the total amount of domestic nuclear electric power, operational or contracted for, was 1,150 megawatts electrical with the average unit size of 72 megawatts electrical. As of May 12, 1967, the nuclear electric power operational or contracted for had increased to over 34,000 megawatts electrical; of this, over 26,000 megawatts electrical were ordered since January 1966 with an average unit size of over 800 megawatts electrical. In addition, no new orders have been placed for light-water nuclear plants of size less than 400 megawatts electrical since 1962 in the United States. I think I can best illustrate the significance of this by the next chart. To help put this situation in proper perspective, the Savannah propulsion plant itself, which is rated about 22,000 shaft horsepower, has the equivalent rating of about 17 megawatts electrical. On the chart in front of you now, I have tried to indicate the current trend in reactor size. The figures which I quote are a bit more current than those shown on the chart. The numbers I quoted previously are as of May 12 rather than as of April 10 when the chart was made up. But, basically the point we are trying to illustrate is that the nuclear powerplants ordered in 1965, 1966, and 1967 are in the extremely high power region, with an average rating of about 800 megawatts electrical. In 1957, when the Savannah was authorized, we also had authorized during those years very small electrical powerplants, demonstration units. Actually there were two approximately 17 megawatts electrical powerplants authorized during the 1957 and 1958 period. One happened to be the bonus boiling water reactor plant in Puerto Rico, actually a plant with about the same electrical rating in equivalent shaft horsepower as the Savannah's. But basically my point is that since 1962 there have been no light-water plants sold with a rating of less than 400 megawatts electrical. The utility interests are primarily in the larger sized plants in order to achieve economics from the larger size. The lower star in the 1965 column of the chart is a 330 megawatts electrical reactor for a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant, a cooperative project with the Public Service Co. of Colorado and the General Dynamics Corp. to be built in the State of Colorado. We believe that this trend toward larger sized plants is important when considering that recent studies on utility needs have identified that there could exist a market between 1965 and 1980 of approximately 300 steam-electric plants with a capacity of less than 100 megawatts electrical. Thus, the industry, the utilities, and the Commission have concluded that at this lower end of the size spectrum, the economic application of small-size nuclear powerplants does not appear to be competitive with fossil-fueled electric generating plants in the United States. However, there continues to be interest in the smaller nuclear powerplants for specialized applications and for overseas civilian power use. Many studies on the technical and economic factors and the potential of small nuclear plants for central station use have been conducted by commercial organizations and by the AEC. Based on these studies it appears that there is no small nuclear powerplant available today that can be competitive with the fossil fired plants for commercial applications in the United States. Although the studies identified potentially economic systems, these were dependent on successful accomplishment of research and developmental programs coupled with optimization of plant features (similar to that which would be possible through the Commission's research and development program indicated in the upper line of chart 2) and successive multiple orders of identical plants. As was indicated during the previously mentioned JCAE hearings, these size and cost related factors become even more significant when examining the civilian maritime nuclear power program. Unlike central station plant trends, civilian maritime propulsion plant sizes are restricted by shipboard application to a practical limit below 150,000 shaft horsepower, or about 110 megawatts electrical equivalent. Information made available to the AEC on actual maritime ship construction indicates the the range of general interest in the United States is in much smaller powerplant sizes. As you recall, the nuclear propulsion plant on the Savannah is 22,000 shaft horsepower or about 17 megawatts electrical. Thus, it appears that since the reactor plant sizes for maritime application are well within the range of the small central station nuclear plants, the conclusions thus far reached on the competitive outlook of small nuclear plants in the United States appear generally applicable to the civilian maritime applications. My remarks have been presented for background for consideration in your present meetings. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission is |