Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1970. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: During the course of hearings held by the Joint Committee on May 9, 1969, concerning legislation which would authorize the Atomic Energy Commission to make peaceful nuclear explosives available to domestic and foreign users for practical applications, a member of your Department testified in favor of the legislation. Mr. Herman Pollack stated: "Once the terms of Article V of the Nonproliferation Treaty come into effect, the United States will be obligated to take appropriate steps to insure that the potential benefits from peaceful nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon states party to the treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis, with charges for such services to be low as possible." I and other Committee members were amazed to learn that the Bureau of the Budget had severely reduced the Atomic Energy Commission's program for civilian applications of nuclear explosives (Plowshare) just as implementation of the Treaty appears imminent. The AEC's request for $22.9 million for its Plowshare program was reduced to $8.0 million in the President's budget submitted to the Congress. Could you please inform this Committee of your view of the possible impact on United States international relations when we must inform signatories of the Nonproliferation Treaty who wish to obtain nuclear explosive services that those services will be essentially unavailable. Would this constitute a breach of the treaty which could provide an excuse for a claimed release by signatories from the restriction against developing of nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes? As a minimum, could the non-availability of nuclear explosive services be construed as a breach of faith? I would appreciate a reply as soon as possible as we are holding authorization hearings on the Plowshare program on March 5, 1970. Sincerely yours, CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1970. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of February 27 to Secretary Rogers concerning the FY 1971 budget for the Plowshare program and its impact on U.S. international relations has been referred to me for reply. As you know, Article V of the NPT states that "Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that... potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear weapons States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis, and that the charge. . . will be as low as possible." It will be recalled that the United States representative at Geneva stated in March 1967 to the ENDC certain principles relating to nuclear explosion services and later said that Article V of the NPT is in accord with those principles. The first principle was, in part: "... if and when peaceful applications of nuclear exposives which are permissible under the Test Ban Treaty prove technically and economically feasible, nuclear-weapon-states should make available nuclear explosive services for peaceful application" (emphasis added). (Hearings, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Non-Proliferation Treaty, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part I (1968), p. 12). It would be difficult in our view to maintain that Article V of the Treaty removes our discretion to determine what level of funding should be devoted to the research and development of Plowshare applications. This discretion was reflected in Chairman Seaborg's testimony on Article V of the NPT: “We will continue to conduct, within the limitations of available funds, an active program to develop nuclear explosive devices particularly suited for peaceful applications and to develop the technology for using nuclear explosions in a variety of peaceful applications." (Emphasis added.) (Hearings, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Non-Proliferation Treaty, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part 1 (1968) p. 108.) The Department is convinced that the reduction forced by budgetary pressures in the funds available for the Plowshare Development Program would not constitute a breach of the Treaty or a failure to live up to our undertakings thereunder and could consequently not provide an excuse for a claimed release by signatories from the restriction against development of nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. Moreover, we do not believe that such a reduction could properly be construed as a breach of faith. I hope the above comments will be helpful in the deliberations of your Committee. Sincerely yours, H. G. TORBERT, Jr., Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. MELVIN LAIRD, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of the Army's Corps of Engineers have had a cooperative program in the field of nuclear explosive excavation since December 1961. Other cooperative ventures have been in slope stability studies and on matters pertaining to the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission. The President's budget for Fiscal Year 1971 contains no request for funds for any excavation research by the Atomic Energy Commission. The cessation of excavation experiments for the forthcoming year must, of necessity, affect certain Department of Defense activities. We would like to know which activities will be affected and to what extent. We would appreciate having this information by March 5, 1970, at which time we plan to hold authorization hearings on the AEC's Plowshare Program. Sincerely yours, CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Secretary Laird has asked me to reply to your letter of February 27, 1970, concerning the nuclear excavation research program and the Fiscal Year 1971 budget. As you have noted, the Department of Defense has worked extensively with the Atomic Energy Commission on various applications of nuclear excavation research, including the study of alternatives for a new Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal, the construction of harbors, and the development of water resources. These efforts have been highly productive in increasing our knowledge of excavation technology and have indirectly made important contributions to defense effects research as well. We had been looking toward further excavation tests to augment our data base. As you know, the program would also have provided for the development of a higher yield device needed for some excavation purposes. While we would have benefited from the continuation of the nuclear excavation program, cessation of these activities appears consistent with other recent budgetary actions. The Army's study effort on applications of nuclear excavation will continue in FY 1971 despite suspension of cratering tests. Should nuclear excavation experiments not be pursued in years beyond FY 1971, however, it would be necessary to reconsider the desirability of continuing studies on civil applications. Sincerely, CARL WALSKE, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy). Representative PRICE. Before Mr. Kelly begins, I understand Commissioner Thompson wants to make a brief introductory comment. STATEMENT OF THEOS J. THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Dr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before you, representing the Atomic Energy Commission. This has been a very interesting year in regard to the Plowshare projects. We still have in progress in Colorado a trial on the Rulison project. We have other matters of interest which will develop through the afternoon. But, basically we are faced in the Plowshare program with the same budgetary problems which have occurred in all branches of the Federal Government. These have been, of course, reflected in the Plowshare program and are part of the President's efforts to blunt the inflationary trend. POSITIVE BENEFITS TO MANKIND In addition, there are real misunderstandings on the part of the public in regard to the positive benefits that can accrue to mankind through the uses of nuclear energy. They do not understand fully the precautions that are taken to protect the public from adverse effects. The Plowshare program is really but one of our major programs that have been centrally affected by these problems of public acceptance and fiscal support. Probably at no time since the inception of the Commission has there been such a need for public understanding of the benefits of this type of program. At no time has there been such a need for better ideas. New challenges have been raised. And we in the Atomic Energy Commission, and those interested in this program, must meet them. In this connection, I am very much impressed with the will that people like John Kelly and the Plowshare people of our two nuclear laboratories have to meet these problems. They are a little discouraged perhaps, but in no sense are they defeated, nor are they fundamentally disheartened. They believe in the program in which they are working, and it is important that we hear their message. SOVIET PLOWSHARE PROGRAM One of the things that I think is of interest-and we will talk about it a little bit later in the day after the two formal presentations—is that we have had a very interesting technical exchange with the USSR on the dates of February 12 to 17. We can talk some more about that after our more formal exchanges. In addition, in Vienna at this very time there is a Panel meeting of the IAEA on "The Use of Nuclear Explosives for Peaceful Purposes." That meeting is running the entire week, the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th of March. We and the Soviets have sent strong delegations there, our best men. From the reports I have, the Soviets are discussing quite frankly the developments of their program. Some of these discussions are even now appearing in It is fortuitous that we are appearing before you at a time when things are developing so rapidly in this field. I think the order that you have suggested is an excellent one. I I would like to introduce John Kelly, Director of the Division of Nuclear Explosives. Then you have invited Dr. Michael May to testify. Then perhaps we can come back and discuss some aspects of the Soviet program that have been reported in Vienna. I would like to introduce now Mr. Kelly, who is a great believer in this program. As a Commissioner I have come to know him. This is a man who really believes in what he is doing, and I think rightly so. Representative PRICE. Mr. Kelly. STATEMENT OF JOHN KELLY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the authorization request for the Commission's Plowshare program. Before going on, let me point out that Plowshare does cut across several agency borders and, as usual, we have people with us from several of these agencies. I would like particularly to introduce Lt. Col. Thomas Nelson from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with whom we have been working in the direction of the nuclear excavation program, canal-studies work. We have in the back Mr. J. Wade Watkins from the U.S. Bureau of Mines, with whom we work in these cooperative experiments, such as Rulison and Gasbuggy. In addition to Dr. Michael May, the Director of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory-Livermore, we have Dr. Fred Holzer, the Deputy Director of the LRL's Plowshare Division. The primary objective of the Plowshare program is to gain an understanding of nuclear-explosions phenomenology and how to apply this knowledge to specific civilian applications in the industrial, public works, and scientific areas. Funds for field experiments for these applications are normally included in the underground engineering, excavation, and scientific categories in our budget. For fiscal year 1971 we are requesting authorization for $8 million for operating expenses. This is a decrease of $6.5 million from the fiscal year 1970 operating estimate. Within the $8 million for fiscal year 1971, the large majority is for work in the underground engineering area. Specifically, $1.3 million is for a test of a nuclear explosive designed for underground engineering. This test is crucial to the development of a viable and dynamic underground engineering program and, should the test be successful, it would permit underground engineering applications to proceed on a more meaningful basis. We are requesting $100,000 to conclude Rulison, and $1 million to allow the Commission to embark with private industry on other joint underground-engineering experiments. Also included in our request is $300,000 to support the detailed definition of such projects. The reviews and analyses in this projectdefinition activity are essential to the proper discharge of AEC safety responsibilities. The remaining $5.3 million provides for supporting research and development effort. Although no funds are being requested to conduct excavation or scientific field experiments, funds are included in the research and development category to continue some scientific and technical work in our laboratories on these applications. With the small continuing effort in excavation, we hope to pursue the development of nuclear excavation technology by analyzing previous work and by devoting additional effort to our explosive design. We are also hopeful that our laboratory investigations will lead to new, fundamental explosive-design concepts which will enable us to make, recover, and identify the superheavy elements-beyond 104 which some current theory predicts to exist in so-called islands of stability in the region to, and possibly even beyond, the predicted element 118. Although it is not possible this year, we are hopeful that funds will be made available in the near future to support studies of basic underground-engineering phenomenology. The need for phenomenological data, such as the effect of water on chimney size, is vital to most of the underground-engineering applications. And while such information probably can be obtained in connection with other field experiments, it cannot necessarily be done as efficiently nor on a time scale to be of the maximum usefulness. EXCAVATION FUNDS DISALLOWED BY BOB Representative PRICE. Will you explain what past effort will be nullified by having all funds for excavation experiments and projects disallowed by the Bureau of the Budget for fiscal year 1971? Mr. KELLY. Clearly, there is the disallowing or the hiatus brought about by no cratering experiments being planned in that fiscal year. It brings with it the delay of at least 1 year in scheduling or planning or designing crater experiments. In addition, of course, and probably somewhat more painful, is the fact that we will lose some of the people. We will have to disband the team of people who have been working in designing these cratering experiments. Representative HOSMER. You are talking about the scientific community? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir; about the engineers and scientists. Mr. KELLY. Primarily at the LRL Livermore Laboratory. Representative PRICE. You mean you will lose most of this scientific team that you have? Mr. KELLY. We will lose a great many of them. Representative PRICE. Who are assembled at this time? Mr. KELLY. Yes, sir; to me that is the hardest part of this hiatus. RESUMING EXCAVATION PROJECTS Representative PRICE. With no excavation tests scheduled for fiscal 1971 and with the possible loss of key laboratory staff members, how long would it take to put together and carry out a good excavation program if you get the go-ahead in fiscal 1972 or later? |