the 500 kilograms which has already been authorized. The 1,000 kilograms which we have under consideration will be used principally for Euratom projects which are already underway. For example, in the fast reactor program of the Euratom Community there are two critical assemblies, one at Cadarache in France, and one at Karlsruhe in Germany, which are Euratom association projects. These projects need additional material in order for them to pursue the research and development programs which they have outlined and which we want to see go forward in the Community.

The other project which has already received most of its fuel is the Rapsodie (fast reactor) projector, also at Cadarache. The point I am making here is that these are projects which have already started. We are looking ahead to their full utilization now that they have been completed. We are looking for results to come from them which will benefit both the Euratom program and the U.S. program.

So, as to an expanded role, I hesitated because I see these major projects already in being; there will be added benefits but derived from projects already moving.

Senator GORE. I suppose I asked the question in an awkward way. The expanded role of Euratom which we are advocating is one of surveillance and inspection, and possibly to serve as a depository, a guardian, of such byproducts of nuclear powerplants as might become a dangerous source of weapon material. But this is so indefinite right now that I see you could not have taken it into consideration to meet the needs which are already at hand.

Dr. TAPE. Of course, in our program of cooperation with these countries we have tended to fold the earlier bilateral agreements into the Euratom agreement, so in the sense of an expanded role, if you will, Euratom is playing a larger role with respect to those countries within the agreement.

FUTURE PLUTONIUM AVAILABILITY

Senator JACKSON. I have just one question. At what point in time do you anticipate that the Euratom countries will have a substantial plutonium capability from their own operations? I understand you are dealing with a gap problem here right now.

Dr. TAPE. That is correct, Senator. Not only in Euratom, but in our own country here we have this period of the late sixties in which, in our case, we are getting some material from the civil power reactors. But if you look at the on-coming production from that source, it rises rapidly in the early to midseventies. The same situation will be developing in Europe. So, as you say, we expect Euratom will be able to take care of essentially all of its needs in the early seventies, and this is a gap-filling program. Like many of these Euratom programs, we know they have other ideas and proposed projects to look at. If they decide to take these on an earlier time scale, they might need additional plutonium. At the moment, these are not firm programs, and I am sure they are looking to their own supplies the same as we would.

Senator GORE. Mr. Commissioner, because there are people here from Oak Ridge and Hanford who have traveled long distances, I would like to submit to you a few questions in writing to which you can reply. (See p. 99.)

Dr. TAPE. I will be very happy to do that.

Senator GORE. Mr. Anderson?

Representative ANDERSON. I just have one question, Mr. Chair

man.

COOPERATION UNDER FAST REACTOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE PROGRAM

I realize in your statement you do make the assertion, Dr. Tape, that the results of any research achieved in Euratom are going to be made available to this country, research on fast reactors. I seem to recall-I don't want to misquote Mr. Hosmer, he is not here this morning-he had some real concern at a previous hearing we had dealing with this subject, that these people after all are pretty shrewd traders and he wondered whether or not actually they would not be tempted, for the sake of commercial advantage, to hold back perhaps some of the information they may develop in this field.

Are you absolutely assured that reactor manufacturers in this country are not going to lose out to, say, French manufacturers, British manufacturers, or West German manufacturers who may, on the basis of this help that we are giving, proceed faster than we are in this field of fast reactor developments?

Dr. TAPE. I really have no concern on this subject, Mr. Anderson. The cooperation, of course, will take place in this case with Euratom and the Euratom countries. As far as Britain is concerned, they are not in this organization, but we have a separate arrangement with Britain on their fast reactor program too.

Let me speak to Euratom. The major projects in the program in which we are interested do take place at these principal laboratories which I mentioned. The personnel at those laboratories working on these projects do not come just from that nation. In other words, it is a Euratom program, which means it has mixed nationalities working on the project: French, and German, and so on. In addition to the exchange of reports which we have going back and forth between the two of us, we also have had teams of people from our countrythere are two that have been there this year already, and a third one going soon. They spend several days really going into the program and getting firsthand information.

In addition to the teams, we actually have an American, usually at each of these installations working with them. This, to me, means that one is pretty well aware of the work that is going on and the results that are coming out. I really don't have any concern about these exchanges.

Senator GORE. Thank you very much.

Dr. TAPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Additional correspondence on this subject follows:)1

Dr. GERALD F. TAPE,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
Washington, D.C., August 28, 1967.

Commissioner, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. TAPE: Congressman Holifield, Chairman of the Subcommittee or Legislation, has asked that I submit to the Commission the attached additional questions concerning the legislative proposal to amend the EURATOM Cooperation Act of 1958 to authorize the transfer of an additional 1,000 kilograms of

1 See also app. 13, p. 209.

plutonium to EURATOM. Time limitations precluded the exploration of these questions when the subject was dealt with at the public hearing on August 24, 1967.

We would appreciate receiving your answers to these questions at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN T. CONWAY,
Executive Director.

QUESTIONS

1. Will the AEC's agreements for cooperation with EURATOM have to be amended to permit transfer of additional plutonium to EURATOM?

2. Will all of the additional plutonium to be authorized by this legislation be sold to EURATOM?

3. Please provide an unclassified estimate of the amounts of plutonium needed for civilian purposes in this country through 1970, the sources of supply, and the effect of transferring an additional 1000 kgs. to EURATOM on our own programs?

4. Which reactor operators in the United States do you believe may sell plutonium to EURATOM?

5. What is your estimate of the isotopic content of plutonium to be transferred to EURATOM by (a) the AEC and (b) private reactor operators pursuant to this authorization?

6. What capabilities do the EURATOM countries have to fabricate plutonium?

Mr. JOHN T. CONWAY,

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., September 15, 1967.

Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States.

DEAR JOHN: This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1967, in which you submitted questions concerning the legislative proposal to amend the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958 to authorize the transfer of an additional 1,000 kilograms of plutonium to Euratom.

Enclosed are our answers to these questions. If you wish additional information on this matter, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

GERALD F. TAPE, Commissioner.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING AMENDMENT TO EURATOM COOPERATION ACT OF 1958 TO INCREASE PLUTONIUM CEILING BY 1000 KGS

Question 1. Will the AEC's agreements for cooperation with Euratom have to be amended to permit transfer of additional plutonium to Euratom?

Answer. The agreements for cooperation will not have to be amended to permit transfer of additional plutonium to Euratom. This material would be transferred to the Community pursuant to Article II of the Additional Agreement for Cooperation which provides for the Commission selling to the Community such net amounts of plutonium as may be agreed and authorized. The proposed amendment to the current ceiling of 500 kilograms in the Euratom Cooperation Act would constitute the necessary authorization.

Question 2. Will all of the additional plutonium to be authorized by this legislation be sold to Euratom?

Answer. It is anticipated that the supply of any of this additional plutonium would be on a sale basis. Our discussions to date with Euratom about this material have been on the basis of straight sale arrangements to Euratom. Question 3. Please provide an unclassified estimate of the amounts of plutonium needed for civilian purposes in this country through 1970, the source of supply, and the effect of transferring an additional 1000 kgs to Euratom on our own programs?

Answer. The following amounts of plutonium are estimated to be required in the civil program, including the 1000 kgs for Euratom: 2100 kgs in FY 68; 2900 kgs in FY 69; 2700 kgs in FY 70; and 1200 kgs in FY 71. These requirements will be supplied from plutonium produced in civil reactors, that obtained under a relatively short-term cooperative arrangement with the U.K. and that produced in Commission reactors. Over this period it appears that the AEC annual production for the civil program will average about 1100 kgs. The requirements

for and the availability of plutonium are such that supplying the additional 1000 kgs to Euratom would not adversely affect the U.S. programs.

Question. 4. Which reactor operators in the United States do you believe may sell plutonium to Euratom?

Answer. Current projections indicate that Commonwealth Edison (Dresden I), Yankee Atomic Power (Yankee), and Consolidated Edison (Indian Point I) will have significant quantities of plutonium available by the end of 1970. Consumer Power (Big Rock Point), Northern States Power Company (Pathfinder) and Pacific Gas (Humboldt Bay), will possibly have relatively small quantities of plutonium available during this period. As far as we know, Commonwealth Edison and Yankee Atomic Power are the only reactor operators that have had discussions with Euratom about supplying any of this plutonium.

Question. 5. What is your estimate of the isotopic content of plutonium to be transferred to Euratom by (a) the AEC and (b) private reactor operators pursuant to this authorization?

Answer. Euratom has not specified any limitations on the Pu-240 content of the 1000 kgs. Therefore, the assay of that portion which the AEC would supply would depend on the AEC's inventory at the time of delivery. The anticipated AEC inventory over this period indicates that most of the AEC-supplied material would range in Pu-240 content from 8-12%. The plutonium available from the reactor operators will probably average about 20% in Pu-240 content.

Question. 6. What capabilities do the Euratom countries have to fabricate plutonium?

Answer. There are plutonium fabrication facilities at Euratom's Transuranium Institute at Karlsruhe and at Nukem's Alchem plant, also at Karlrsuhe. The mixed oxide fuel for the SNEAK fast critical assembly was fabricated at the latter, while the metal fuel elements for the MASURCA fast critical assembly at Cadarache were fabricated at the Transuranium Institute. There is also a plutonium fabrication facility at Cadarache in France which fabricated the first core for the Rapsodie test reactor.

EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF AEC FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN COMMUNITIES

Senator GORE. (presiding). We will now proceed to consideration of S. 2220 and H.R. 12087, dealing with extending the period of AEC-financial assistance to certain AEC communities.

We have two witnesses: Commissioner Wilfrid E. Johnson and John A. Erlewine, Assistant General Manager for Operations.

STATEMENT OF WILFRID E. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, AND JOHN A. ERLEWINE, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR OPERATIONS, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY E. A. WENDE, DEPUTY MANAGER OF THE OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE

Mr. ERLEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On July 28, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission transmitted to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy a report of the Commission's review of the need for further financial assistance to the cities of Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Richland, Wash., and the Richland School District beyond the initial 10-year period established by the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955. (See app. 14, p. 217.) Section 91 d. of the Community Act requires that not less than 6 months prior to the expiration of the 10-year period applicable to each entity receiving assistance, the Commission shall present to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy its recommendations as to the need for any further contribution payments. The report did not include a consideration of Los Alamos, N. Mex., because assistance payments to the various local entities in that community have only recently begun, and authority to make those payments will not expire until the mid to late 1970's.

The Community Act has proven to be good legislation. Under its provisions the citizens of Oak Ridge and Richland have achieved local self-government; community functions and installations have been transferred to local entities; and residential, commercial, and nonprofit properties have been sold to private purchasers. Responsibilities remaining under the act with regard to these communities lie in the area of local financial assistance.

Financial assistance payments are presently being made to the city of Oak Ridge, the city of Richland, and the Richland School District, but the authority to make such payments expires in fiscal year 1969. The Oak Ridge Hospital of the Methodist Church, Inc., has not required annual financial assistance. The period of annual payments to the Kadlec Methodist Hospital at Richland expired in September 1966 and that hospital is now operating without assistance. Accordingly, assistance to the cities of Oak Ridge and Richland and to the Richland School District constitutes the outstanding obligation.

After an intensive study involving local participation at both communities, the Commission is recommending to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, be further amended to extend to the Atomic Energy Commission the authority to make assistance payments through June 30, 1979, to the cities of Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Richland, Wash., and to the Richland School District.

In making this recommendation, the Commission recognizes the express desire of Congress that financial assistance payment be terminated at an appropriate time. Section 91 d. of the act states that, if the Commission recommends further contribution payments:

. . . it shall propose a definite schedule of such contribution payments which will provide for an orderly and reasonably prompt withdrawal of the Atomic Energy Commission from participation in and contribution toward local government.

The proposed amendment grants the Commission authority to make assistance payments to the cities of Oak Ridge and Richland and the Richland School District, but does not require such payments. The amendment also affords the Commission the flexibility to make lumpsum annual or other periodic assistance payments, to discontinue and as necessary resume the making of payments.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY TO BE CONSIDERED IN MAKING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

In addition, the amendment provides an additional criterion for determining the amount of the payments. The Commission is to consider the degree to which the communities take the necessary steps to solve their own financial problems. The new criterion involves consideration of "the tax revenues and sources available to the governmental entity, its efforts and diligence in collection of taxes, assessment of property, and efficiency of its operations." The concept of this criterion has been previously established and used by the Commission in determining just and reasonable amounts of past assistance payments. For example, in the case of Oak Ridge, the agreement between the Atomic Energy Commission and the city cites a similar criterion as a justifiable reason for the Commission to adjust the formula by which the annual assistance payments are currently computed.