Without objection, these will be placed at the end of the testimony in the printed record (p. 387). The total list of statements is as follows:

Technical Appraisal Task Force on Nuclear Power, James F. Fairman, Chairman.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, H. R. Searing, chairman of the

board.

American Gas & Electric Service Corp., Philip Sporn, president.
American Farm Bureau Federation, Charles B. Shuman, president.
Foster Wheeler Corp., E. W. Mills, president.

Wolverine Electric Cooperative, Michigan, John N. Keen, manager.
Metals & Controls Corp., J. Ottmar, vice president and general manager.

General Public Utilities Corp., E. W. Morehouse, vice president.
Koppers Co., Inc., W. F. Munnikhuysen, chairman of the board.

The Dow Chemical Co., John J. Grebe, director, nuclear and basic research.
Pioneer Service & Engineering Co., Fred C. Kellogg, president.

Atomic Law Institute, Bigelow Boysen, director.

Power Reactor Development Co., Walker L. Cisler, president.
Spencer Chemical Co., Kenneth A. Spencer, president.

Middle South Utilities, Inc., E. H. Dixon, president.

Commonwealth Edison Co., Willis Gale, chairman.

General Electric Co., F. K. McCune, vice president, atomic products division. Yankee Atomic Electric Co., William Webster, president.

Consumers Public Power District, Columbia, Nebr., R. L. Schact, general manager.

Wilson & Earl, management analysts.

We also have copies available to the Commission.

Representative PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation in connection with the matter that Senator Dworshak brought up. I think that we would be laboring under a very false impression if we thought that the British were concerned with the development of electric energy through atomic power solely for their own consumption. I think Britain has her eyes set on world leadership in this field. I think that is what we should be thinking about. Evidently Britain thinks it is important to be first. They believe there is some importance of being first, regardless of the type of reactor.

Mr. STRAUSS. The British are no less anxious than we are to see that third nations do not attain an atomic-weapon capability and that, therefore, will have some bearing on their consideration of the sale of reactors of the Calder Hall type without exercising great discrimination as to the purchasers.

Representative PRICE. We certainly hope so. We also note that from the past history of nations, when nations start to scramble for markets, they put aside caution.

The CHAIRMAN. We hope to hear the two other Commissioners this afternoon.

We will recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Cole, do you have any further questions to ask Mr. Strauss? Representative COLE. I have nothing further.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe Dr. Libby is our next witness.

Dr. LIBBY. Senator Pastore on last Tuesday asked that we consider the proposal of Mr. Murray. I have a statement on that, Mr. Chairman, if it please you, which I will read.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Dr. LIBBY. The plan by Commissioner Murray differs relatively little from the announced Commission plan. Mr. Murray wants three different reactors built: an advanced water reactor, a natural uranium heavy water reactor, and a gas-cooled reactor.

Now, as to the first of these, we have several pressurized water reactors now being built in addition to Shippingport. Under construction is the reactor of the Consolidated Edison Co., of which 140,000 kilowatts will be nuclear electricity. At various stages of planning are the 134,000 kilowatt Yankee Atomic Electric Co. reactor and the 20,000 shaft horsepower, merchant-ship reactor.

Now, closely associated to the pressurized water is the boiling water. This is at variance with the pressurized-water pipe as exemplified by the plant of 3,000-kilowatt reactor at Vallecitos, Calif., of the General Electric Co., and the very much larger 180,000-kilowatt reactor of Commonwealth Edison to be built at Dresden, Ill. Both of these are

under construction.

Also, in the design and planning stage is the 22,000-kilowatt plant of the Rural Cooperative Power Association at Elk River. A number of such reactors are likely to be sold and built abroad. This we heard this morning from the Chairman's statement.

Now, the second of Mr. Murray's reactors is the natural uranium, heavy-water, moderated reactor. This has been particularly highlighted in the Commission's third-round invitation. It was made clear in that invitation that, if no proposal from industry was forthcoming in a reasonable period of time, the Commission itself would undertake to build this reactor.

Therefore, I think it is apparent that the Commission has indicated its interest in this reactor type. The third-round invitation constituted a policy statement in this respect.

Now, this leaves only the gas-cooled reactor as a point of major difference. Our British friends have undertaken a major program in this field. It seems to the majority of the Commission that we can well rely upon their experience and thus gain something from the very large sums they are spending now on this reactor type.

We have given them so much and have helped them in so many ways, including important help in the gas-cooled reactor itself; why shouldn't we cooperate in this manner?

Therefore, the present Commission policy is to limit its work in this field to small-scale research and development activities. In the planning stage by Aerojet-General Corp. is a gas-cooled reactor experiment to be built at Arco to add to our technology in this area.

Thus, it is clear that in 2 of the 3 cases there is no difference in the objectives and, in the case of the heavy-water, natural-uranium reactor, the only difference is one of timing. It is apparent that in terms of kilowatts of thermal or electric power to be produced, in terms of the size of each project, and in terms of reactor types, the Commission is carrying forward a positive and well-planned program of reactor development.

The Commission is of the opinion that industry should be given a full opportunity to take up the third-round invitation and that the country has everything to gain by allowing industry to do so.

Now, reactors are built by men, and the difficult technical problems which remain to be solved in most of the reactor types require men of outstanding technical ability for their solution. These men are in very short supply and are mainly in the employ of industry and the universities. The question is, as I see it, how can we get them to work on our problems?

The proposal Mr. Murray favors, one of Government ownership entirely, has a potential or possible weakness in it, in that it assumes that the best technical people can be hired away from industry, either directly or through normal contractual arrangement with industry. Now, I think this is a fallacy, for highly gifted technical manpower is industry's most scarce and valuable asset. On matters of defense and in time of war, industry responds completely. The contributions made by industry in the development of the warlike atom have been indispensable and the country could not have proceeded without them.

However, there is no similar motivation operating on the peaceful use of the atom and when we advertise for bids on the development of these enormously difficult new atomic power types, we cannot expect industry to tell its best people to drop the important jobs they are doing for the development of new processes which pay large dividends and which the industries employing the highly skilled technical people are accustomed to earn.

We cannot expect industry to tell these men to come to work on atomic power projects without some substantial profit return on the contract. This type of contract the Government does not write. The only hope seems to be that industry will see that it itself should undertake, in a partnership arrangement with the Government, a serious attack on the problems of atomic power. This it is now doing.

If it does not continue to assign its technical manpower to the job, then in all probability the job either will not be done or will be delayed by years, for it is true that there exist technical jobs which only the very best men can do, and it is true that reactor types can fail for the lack of the attention of properly skilled men.

The Commission feels every attempt should be made under the American system of industrial initiative to make industry a full partner in the atomic energy program. If this cannot be done, then we stand ready to turn to the next best course which is Government projects.

I feel sure Mr. Murray's proposal is less desirable because it recommends a less desirable course first. The Government incurs a power deficit when it builds its plants on sites where firm power is required and is a necessity, and the experimental power these plants furnish has to be supplemented by firm power purchased from the normal source.

In other words, the power produced in these plants may be valued at little more than dump power. Therefore, a plant which might be built and incorporated, as the Shippingport plant, in a large commercial network with variable power demands, would, if built at Oak Ridge or at Hanford, where firm power is an absolute necessity, create a deficit of many mills per kilowatt-hour. This, over the lifetime of the plant, might amount to as much as the cost of the entire structure.

In other words, the $100 million estimate that Mr. Murray makes for the construction of each of these 3 plants may well have to be doubled in terms of the cost of firmed power before the project is over. Loss of this magnitude is a serious weakness of his plan.

The same plant, if built at a location which would allow its incorporation into a commercial power grid in a partnership arrangement with the power company, might save the taxpayers round $100 million in deficit financing. It is true, of course, that building the plants at laboratory sites and planned sites does avoid the difficulty about the preference clause. However, the Commission so far in its operations under the first and second round has had relatively little difficulty in doing business with both the public and private power groups. It seems likely that this will continue into the third round.

The final point about the Government undertaking directly the development and construction of the full-scale prototype plants is that the Government is not under compulsion to make the economies that private industry as a full partner would be.

Therefore, it is not as likely, it seems to me, that Government construction of a full-scale plant would demonstrate economical atomic power as quickly as would construction under a full partnership of business and Government.

We can expect the economical type of atomic power to be developed first under the compulsion and incentives normal to construction and operation by business.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that complete your statement?

Dr. LIBBY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, about the only difference I see, according to your statement here, and Mr. Murray's-is that you have included everything except the gas-cooled-type reactor, dual type like the British are using?

Dr. LIBBY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Referring to the second page of your statement, what do you consider a reasonable period of time? That is the point that has worried me somewhat on this development of reactors. Dr. LIBBY. You mean under the third-round invitation? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; under the third round.

Dr. LIBBY. Well, I will have to make my own individual estimate. You realize that our only temporary restriction in the third round is that the plant be completed by June 30, 1962. We have to figure for a type like the heavy water moderated natural uranium reactor where would be a cutoff date so that the plant could be completed by June 30, 1962.

I would estimate that we have a year to go. Now, that may not be a firm or correct estimate, but something of that order. We have come to no firm decision on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, in effect, Doctor, you are making the statement that if this reasonable time does not prove sufficiently effective in solving your problems in developing these reactors, you are willing to accept Mr. Murray's statement?

Dr. LIBBY. I should think if we do not receive a proposal that our third-round announcement set, that we would go ahead in a reasonable time. I would think that would mean something like a year, but that, of course, would have to be determined by a careful study, bearing in

mind the one date set in the invitation was June 30, 1962, for production of power, for the completion of the plant.

The CHAIRMAN. You also referred to what you can get in the way of information on gas-cooled dual-type reactors from the British since they are building this type. Can you elaborate on that to the extent as to how much information?

Dr. LIBBY. We have a provision in our bilateral that says when either party indicates a serious interest in a reactor which the other one is building, we have permission for transfer of information.

Representative PRICE. May I ask a question there? Is that not contingent upon your being engaged in such a project.

Dr. LIBBY. Yes, sir. It depends on our declaring that we are ready to go ahead on such a project.

Representative PRICE. If you are not going ahead with a gas-cooled project, how are you going to get the information?

Dr. LIBBY. If their experience looks good, Mr. Price, we want to build one. We can call on their know-how at that time.

Representative PRICE. You would have to start from scratch and build one then?

Dr. LIBBY. Yes.

Representative PRICE. In order to get the information you have to actually be conducting that type of project.

Dr. LIBBY. That is our present wording of the treaty.

Senator ANDERSON. You have to be building one before you ask them for any information on how to build it?

Dr. LIBBY. Yes; but in this day of declassification of atomic power, I don't think there would be any difficulty about getting enough information to know whether their reactor is a success.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has the bilateral agreement been in effect, Doctor? I do not recall the date.

Mr. FIELDS. I believe it is in the summer of 1955, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that, since having that experience, you are getting all the information that is necessary to build a gascooled-type reactor? Do you feel that you are getting all the information necessary from the British at the present time?

Representative PRICE. Is it not a fact that you are getting no important information at all on the gas-cooled reactor?

Dr. LIBBY. The information we are getting from the British is not very special or detailed, as I understand it, at this time.

Senator ANDERSON. Is that responsive to his question? He asked, Are you getting anything at all from the British on their gas-cooled reactor? Since the agreements in 1955 have we had any information from them?

Dr. LIBBY. We have had visits back and forth, but I don't believe the amount we have gotten is anything much more than is in the general newspapers.

You see, there is quite a revolution in atomic power, I think we will all recognize, in the declassification of it that is going on. Now, I do believe that, just as in the case of our Shippingport plant, there will be enough information available to everyone about the Calder Hall types so that we will be able to come to a good opinion about the practicality of it and then, as I understand the wording of our bilateral, when we choose to proceed to build such a plant, the terms of