Mr. DAVIS. May I explain more fully? They are constructing their facility, in which they will carry out the test, but they are going to put in place things like the reactor vessel and some of the equipment and test it first nonnuclear, and then use the same equipment later on hot. This is actually done partially to accelerate the schedule because they had originally planned to carry out these same tests but in a different location. Senator GORE. When I asked if it was not in a state of suspension, I was referring to the reported lack of clearance by the safety committee. At least is there not a contested hearing under way as to the safety of this reactor? Mr. STRAUSS. There is a hearing in progress, Senator. The Commission has given a license to construct, not to operate, and construction is going ahead with no suspension or delay as far as the Commission is aware. Senator GORE. You have given a construction permit? Mr. STRAUSS. That is right. It is not in suspension in any way. Senator GORE. But do you not have a condition that a license for operation will not be given until safety requirements are met? Mr. STRAUSS. That was a condition we established when we gave the license to construct and it has nothing to do with the construction license. Senator GORE. Then it is a conditional matter. Mr. STRAUSS. It is not a suspension, Senator. Senator GORE. Well, maybe I should have said "conditioned” instead of "suspension." You and I have some difficulty with the meaning of words. Mr. STRAUSS. It is not a condition having anything to do with the construction. Senator GORE. But with its operation. Mr. STRAUSS. Solely with its operation. Senator GORE. Then, the third one according to your report today shows a completion date 1 year later. Mr. DAVIS. On consumers. I mentioned this morning that we have had over a year's delay in the completion of the sodium-reactor experiment because of technical difficulties and this is one reactor where we surely need the experience of the reactor experiment before we are really on sound ground to proceed with a large plant. I believe a year is certainly a justified delay in this case. Senator GORE. I am not being critical about this. I am trying to test the quality of optimism which we had presented to us last year and again this year. I surely hope that the optimism this year is on sounder foundation than the optimism of last year. I will go now, if you will refer to the chart, to the second round. Last year you listed 7 reactors, by testimony this morning, you have eliminated from those 7, 3. Mr. STRAUSS. That is right. Senator GORE. That leaves 4; that is, 4 of the 7. Now, are there any additions to the second round? Mr. STRAUSS. No, Senator. There have been some projects which have come in between the second and third round. The period or the time of the second round has elapsed. Senator GORE. That brings us to the third round about which Congressman Holifield questioned you this morning. How definite a proposal have you had in response to the third round? Mr. STRAUSS. The time has not elapsed for the presentation of definite proposals but I read this morning certain communications from responsible American industries indicating that third-round proposals would be made by them. This statement also indicates. interim proposals that have been made by the New England Power Co., the Duke, Virginia-Carolina Combine, and various other companies. Senator GORE. I was interested this morning in the portion of the letter from Mr. Sporn and others which was read by Congressman Holifield. As he read the letter the proposal was not to construct a large-scale or even an intermediate-size reactor by 1962, but rather to construct a small prototype by 1962 which if sufficiently successful might be the basis for a proposal to build a large-scale reactor or thereafter. Now, in view of your announcement that submissions on the third round apply to reactors to be completed by 1962, I wondered if that would meet your test. Mr. STRAUSS. I think there again we have a matter of definitions. I do not regard a 15,000 electrical kilowatt reactor as small. I regard it as intermediate, Senator. This, again, is a matter of opinion. Senator GORE. I understood you to say earlier today that the Argonne would produce up to 10, and that you regarded it as very small. Mr. STRAUSS. It is a 5,000-kilowatt reactor, and I said it was small. I do not believe that I said "very small." Senator GORE. I withdraw "very." Mr. STRAUSS. Thank you. With your permission, since you are quoting from the record of the committee, might I call your attention to another report of the Joint Committee issued in early 1953, dated December of 1952, which asks this question on page 39: "Why is there no atomic powerplant in existence or under construction today?" and which, at the outset of the report, calls attention to the fact that there is no major project whose purpose is to achieve a reactor directly advancing industrial power, and to invite your attention to the fact that everything that we have testified to has occurred in the intervening 4 years, which accounts for the enthusiasm that I have for the program. Senator GORE. I for one, and I am sure all members of the committee, respect your enthusiasm and your ability to present an interesting point of view, in an interesting and engrossing manner. Now at another part of your statement you referred to 18 civilian nuclear power reactors. I believe it is on page 21, Mr. Chairman. On page 21 of your statement today you say: As to power reactors, it is significant that as 1957 opens there are underway in various stages of construction, discussion, or negotiation plans for at least 18 civilian nuclear powerplants in the United States to come into operation not later than 1962. Now I find almost a verbatim sentence in a statement you made on December 11. I will read from that, on page 6: There are plans in various States of discussion or negotiation for at least 18 civilian nuclear powerplants in this country to come into operation by 1962. Were you referring to the same 18 in both statements? Mr. STRAUSS. I was referring to the same 18 but this morning I think I changed my testimony to read 19. In other words, in my oral testimony I added one plant beyond those which were in the prepared testimony sent to the committee yesterday or the day before. Senator GORE. I believe, Mr. Chairman, your memory may be slightly in error. I will read the second sentence in your statement of this morning: These projects include the 17 listed as of January 2, 1957, at pages 54 and 55 of section VIII of the written testimony and the project announced by Northern States Power Co. on February 8. So the addition you made this morning or in your testimony this morning, I believe I recall was the Northern States Power Co. announced on February 8. Mr. STRAUSS. You have the advantage over me; you have the transcript of my remarks, and I will gladly accede to you the correctness of this arithmetical tabulation, because I do not have the testimony. I will be delighted to read you the list of these plants and companies, and you can tabulate them yourself. Senator GORE. You may be sure, Mr. Chairman, that I wish no advantage, and on the contrary feel that I am at a great disadvantage in exchanges with you, an expert, and administrator of this powerful program. I did find it a matter of interest that you will use almost verbatim language in referring to 18 reactors to come into production in 1957. Mr. STRAUSS. No, sir; that is not right. Senator GORE. Excuse me-1962. But one of those about which you spoke in December was only announced by the Power Co. itself on February 8. That is just a matter of curiosity to how you knew about that. Mr. STRAUSS. They had come and talked with us about it. We have an obligation to keep you fully and currently informed, and a conversation of that sort I think is a material matter. Senator GORE. Would you mind informing the committee if 1 of these 18 reactors is for a merchant ship? Mr. STRAUSS. It is, sir. Senator GORE. How many of these 18 are in fact to produce nuclear power for civilian use. Mr. STRAUSS. Let me look at the list, and answer your question19, sir. Senator GORE. Nineteen of these? Mr. STRAUSS. I mentioned 19 this morning, and I still think that my recollection of using the figure 19 is correct recollection, and I will be glad to read them off to you. I had this paper before me when I testified and it is possible that my tongue slipped and I said 18, but 19 was the figure I intended to give, and perhaps some of those who are sitting here with me will bear me out. Representative COLE. I can bear you out. You said 19, and I made a correction in the manuscript. Mr. STRAUSS. Thank you, sir. Senator GORE. Then you are listing as a civilian power reactor a reactor to propel a merchant vessel? Mr. STRAUSS. Is there any other definition that you can give it? It certainly is not a military power reactor, Senator. This is a vessel for peaceful civilian use, and I did not know any other classification under which to put it. Senator GORE. Well, Mr. Chairman, you declined to classify a reactor that would produce plutonium and power as a reactor to produce civilian power. Mr. STRAUSS. No; I declined to classify it as a reactor for exclusive civilian purposes. You and I seem to have a great deal of difficulty on definitions, and I regret it. But I will attempt to make this as clear as I can. A reactor which is primarily erected to produce weapons material is not by my definition-and I concede that it is a personal definition-a reactor for exclusive civilian use. A reactor to power a merchant vessel is in my opinion, Senator, a reactor for exclusive civilian use. I said civilian power, Senator GORE. I did not say civilian use. electric power. Mr. STRAUSS. For civilian power, I regard that as a reactor for civilian power. Senator GORE. Electric power? Mr. STRAUSS. Yes, sir. Senator GORE. Even though it is used to propel a turbine and a propeller to move a ship? Mr. STRAUSS. That is right, sir. Senator GORE. Then that is not to produce electric power to be used by the people of the United States in their homes and in their factories, you would not say that? Mr. STRAUSS. Senator, I beg your pardon. I was not attentive to your question at that moment. Senator GORE. Perhaps my question was entirely superfluous. I was inquiring if you would go so far, as I am sure you would not, to say that a merchant ship reactor is for the purpose of producing civilian electric power to be used by the people of the United States in their homes and in their factories? Mr. STRAUSS. With that final qualification, that it is to be used in their homes and factories, I could not make that distinction or that statement. That is, of course, a refinement of the definition beyond the point that I had taken. Senator GORE. I would like to get back to this question of whether it is 17, 18, or 19, and perhaps it is not important. But neither I nor my staff can count up quite that way. If you will refer to page 54 and 55 in section 8 and count, I believe that you will find that there is some point in the number I used. It is taken from your own records. Mr. STRAUSS. Senator, if this would assist in getting ahead with the hearing, I will gladly strike out one of these numbers and settle for 18 or 17. I think that they are substantial figures. I have a list of them here. I am unable to reach your total, and you are unable to reach mine, and we could get together on it after the hearing if you wish or I can read the names off to you. Senator GORE. It would not take long for you to count the 17, or 18, or 19. Will you count them? Mr. STRAUSS. I had read the list that I have here before me, sir. It begins of course with the six plants that we testified would come onstream, we expected, within this calendar year. Under construction, discussion, or planning, are the following: The Power Reactor Development Corp.'s plant in Detroit, 100,000 kilowatts. The Yankee Electric Co.'s plant at Rowe, Mass., 134,000 kilowatts. The Commonwealth Edison Company of Illinois, 180,000 kilowatts. The Florida Power Corp., 200,000 kilowatts. The New England Electric Co., 200,000 kilowatts. The Pacific Power & Light Company Associates have not yet communicated an amount. The Pacific Gas & Electric Co., in the telegram which I read this morning, gave the figure of 200,000 kilowatts, and the American Gas & Electric and associated companies, if you will recall, cited 13,000 kilowatts for the initial plant, and 200,000 kilowatts for the objective plant. 18. While I may be wrong about this, I total 19, but I will settle for Senator GORE. You said in your statement that you referred to the 17 on page 54 and 55, and there are 17 there according to my count. Well, with a view of eliminating some of these 19 or it may be 18 in the spirit in which you suggest, I suggest that you might also eliminate Middle South Utilities. How firm is that reactor proposal? Mr. STRAUSS. They simply stated that they planned to build it at their own expense. Senator GORE. Was it a press release? Do you have anything more than a press release? Mr. STRAUSS. We do not. Senator GORE. But you count that as a reactor? Mr. STRAUSS. I count it as a projected reactor; yes, sir. If I omitted it, it would be an act of omission for which I would not care to be responsible. Senator GORE. Let us see how you count it. I think it is something more than a remote possibility as you interpret it in your state ment. I will read it, on page 21, your statement read this morning: As to power reactors, it is significant that as 1957 opens there are underway in various stages of construction, discussion, or negotiation— and I want to compliment you on your ability to tie words together in a most meaningful way— plans for at least 18 civilian nuclear powerplants in the United States to come into operation not later than 1962. This Middle South Utilities reactor on which you have had nothing but a press release, you have included that one. |