been partially investigated, but not nearly as much as they should be, if we are going to get the data which lie there ready to be obtained.

I refer specifically to Rulison where we believe the program ought to be expanded from something like $100,000 to something like $1 million in order that we can determine not only the gas production but also the extent of cracking, the extent of fracture and permeability surrounding the chimney created by the explosive.

Another area which we proposed in the supplemental programRepresentative HOSMER. That all would have to be done in cooperation with the industrial partner; would it not?

Dr. MAY. Yes.

Representative HOSMER. Or would it be solely something that the AEC would do?

AEC SPONSORED EFFORT

Dr. MAY. What I was referring to was an AEC program. The remark I am going to make has to do both with Rulison and a couple of other existing chimneys or cavities where we propose to do some more work.

In all of these cases, we propose to do a program of correlating what happened underground with calculations which will later be used to predict effects.

Now, those are general matters. They are applicable not only to the oil and gas applications but to other applications as well. I believe they are the kinds of things which the AEC and the laboratories ought to do and to fund for.

Representative HOSMER. Yes, but what I am trying to get at is this: Would the industrial partner at Rulison, for example, have to come up with some money and further agree to carry out these kinds of studies or is the idea that you are talking about something that would be fully funded by AEC?

Dr. MAY. I think it would be fully funded by AEC.

Mr. KELLY. That was my understanding.

Dr. MAY. It is fully funded by AEC in the Rulison case.

The other item, Mr. Hosmer, has to do with the Piledriver event done in granite in Nevada, and we would bear all the expenses. It is in a medium similar to that in which mining would take place.

The third area where I think we should spend some money has to do with the Salmon experiment which was shot, you will recall, in Mississippi and resulted in a freestanding cavity. What we would like to do there is pressurize the cavity and test its gas containing capability to better understand the application for gas storage.

All three of those will be AEC-funded programs. They will be programs aimed at establishing a better basis for predicting results. Representative HOSMER. I want to make certain, because some of the industrial partners are a little bit irritated that so many experimental research items are laid on the project. The actual commercialization of the thing is impeded rather than expedited.

Dr. MAY. It is true when they have to pay for it. However, in discussing this particular kind of thing with them, these are the things that they also believe ought to be done. They believe and I do, too, that these are the kinds of things that the Government ought to do.

Representative HOSMER. I wanted the record to show that clearly. Thank you.

Dr. MAY. Those are the three main areas where we are proposing to do supplemental work in addition to the budget of $8 million.

What we have detailed here in the statement before you is a supplemental program in the total amount of $10 million of which $2.9 million would come to the laboratory and the rest of it would go mainly to the Nevada Operations Office for supporting work.

Representative HOSMER. This would be in addition to and separate from the $5.1 million we were talking about earlier?

Dr. MAY. No, sir; it is included, Mr. Hosmer. Of the $10 million, $5.1 million would go toward a high-yield device development test for excavation and to feasibility studies; $4.9 million would be distributed as shown in the statement you have. It shows the general distribution between gas stimulation, storage, mining, and advanced studies.

Representative HOSMER. Thank you.

Dr. MAY. This additional money would also permit us to retain the basic strength which we have in the program.

Actually, we would plan to get some new people and let some others go. It would, I think, be the minimum that is required to take advantage of the particular opportunities which seem to be ready for

1971.

This concludes my statement.

(The full statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL M. MAY, DIRECTOR, LRL-LIVERMORE

I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy regarding the Plowshare program.

The possibility of using nuclear explosions for civilian purposes has been discussed and worked on for over thirteen years now. Nuclear explosives are a unique source of power. The peculiar challenge to the Plowshare program has been, and remains, to find ways of using the power safely-safely from the standpoint of radioactivity and also from the standpoint of what the very size of the explosion might do to people, structures and the natural surroundings. As the Committee knows, great progress has been made toward meeting some of these challenges. We have for instance developed excavation explosives leading to drastically reduced fallout levels at certain yields, and we have carried out seven excavation experiments to find out, in a few geologic media at the Nevada Test Site, what the explosives could do singly and in a group in the way of moving the ground. We have also measured what kind of radioactivity would come out and in what quantities. In another area, in the last three years, two natural gas stimulation experiments have been carried out successfully, one in a New Mexico gas field and the other in a Colorado field, and a good start has been made at evaluating the value of this technique.

On the other hand, in certain other areas, we have not progressed much beyond the invention of the concept and the preliminary discussion of its practicality. Several of these inventions and preliminary discussions took place in the very early days of the program, many of them in sessions at the Laboratory. While we knew a lot less in those days than we do now, many of the early concepts still look good and are still untested. For instance, we have done no experiment on copper leaching or on gas and oil storage.

Progress usually comes unevenly, especially in areas with as many new features as Plowshare has, but it is relevant to our situation today to say a word about the features which have slowed the program where it has been slow.

One set of factors is technical. Before mining or storing anything underground, for instance, we have to learn what explosions do underground-where

you get a so-called chimney of broken rock, for instance, and where a free standing cavity. We still don't know all about that, but we know enough to proceed to experiments in-situ. Similarly, designing clean devices requires a number of underground experiments to determine both the yield and the degree of cleanliness which can be obtained.

Another factor affecting the pace of the program is that Plowshare work must be done within the policies set up to deal with the military and political implications of nuclear explosives. Plowshare must live with secrecy. It must live with applicable international treaties. These are necessary restrictions and they have occasioned some delays. Fortunately, some changes are taking place with regards to both secrecy and international attitudes. There is a high degree of international interest in Plowshare, notably in excavation applications. As evidenced by the recent communique from Moscow, present American-Soviet technical talks show this interest to be shared by the Soviets. With respect to secrecy, the Laboratory and the Commission staff are in the process of reviewing classification policies, and I believe a great deal can be done to declassify data which the public and industry must know if Plowshare experiments are to proceed, without endangering national security. We have sent proposals to the Commission to that effect.

A related factor, which has also changed in the past two or three years, is the attitude of industry toward the practicality of utilizing underground nuclear explosions. In the beginning years of the program, industrial representatives took, quite reasonably, a very cautious attitude toward nuclear explosions for any purpose. This attitude has given way to one of active, objective, enlightened interest, backed by the investment of very significant sums of money and the time of most talented people.

A final factor affecting the progress of the program is, of course, the funding of AEC's operations. In some years this factor has been the main restraint. Other years it has not. For FY 1971, I believe the funding will be more restrictive in relation to the opportunities present than in any previous year. The overall FY 1971 funding is $8.0M. This compares with $14.5M in FY 1970 and $14.4M in FY 1969. It is the lowest funding level since FY 1961.

This reduction in funding comes at a time when we have immediate opportunities:

1) To carry out relatively inexpensive experiments utilizing shots already fired, experiments which only the AEC and its laboratories can do, and which are necessary if our basic knowledge is to keep pace with the investigations of Plowshare techniques by industry.

2) To carry the design of devices specifically made to minimize radioactivity in both excavation and gas and oil applications to the point where these devices will be widely utilizable.

3) To study the application of Plowshare to radioactive waste disposal and to geothermal power generation, both of which are immediately relevant to today's environmental concerns.

The present funding would permit no excavation experiments or excavation device tests; only one device development test for underground application; and it would cause us to cut the technical staff on the Plowshare Project at LRL to two-thirds of its present size, from about 200 to 120.

We propose a specific supplemental program which will come much closer to meeting the needs and the opportunities which have recently come to the fore. The total added cost of the program would be about $10 million. Of this sum, about $2.9 million would come to LRL.

I. Gas Stimulation

FY 1971 PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM

A. The development of an explosive of smaller diameter with less residual tritium than those which have been employed in Gasbuggy and Rulison is vital. One test is now funded in FY 1971. Several will be needed before a final version is available. We propose to do a second test in FY 1971 which would carry us much closer to the final product.

B. No geophysical exploration is presently included in the postshot Rulison program. Yet the extent of fracturing must be determined before explosion effects can be quantitatively related to the increases in gas production rates. We propose to expand the postshot program by drilling a hole alongside the chimney and extending below the shot point where fracturing and geologic effects can be studied.

42-051 0-70-pt. 2- -11

II. Gas Storage

The economics of gas storage depend directly on the pressure at which the gas can be stored. We propose to pressurize the existing Salmon cavity with air to develop knowledge about maximum pressures possible for gas storage. Leak rates and other effects would be determined.

III. Mining

A. The Piledriver experiment, 60 KT in granite, fired in 1966, is our only hard rock chimney investigated, and that only partially. Further postshot exploration of the chimney from this event would answer questions about the recovery of copper and other ores which occur in this type of rock, We propose to determine, by mining and drilling, fracture extent and density as well as permeability increases.

B. For copper leach applications, which seem among the most practical and economically promising of all Plowshare applications, knowledge of the removal of radioactivities by the leach solution is important. We will look into the possibility of moving a low yield weapons test event to a hard rock site below the water table and to begin a series of experiments involving fluid circulation in order to learn about the leachability of radioactive contaminants and other engineering problems. This will not be completed before FY 1972.

IV. Advanced Underground Engineering Studies

A. The disposal of radioactive wastes is a difficult and costly endeavor. Chimneys created by underground detonations at great depths may form a safe and economic way to solve this problem. We propose to accelerate studies relating to this use of chimneys so that some firm proposal can be evolved in FY 1971. B. Geothermal heat provides an efficient smog-free energy source for electric power generation which is already in limited use in California and Italy. Underground nuclear explosives may make the recovery of this heat economically feasible on a much wider scale. We propose to institute detailed studies of this use and to begin a preliminary site exploration and evaluation for a first experiment in this area, with the intent of coming up with a definite proposal in FY 1972.

V. Excavation

A. The existing explosive design can be improved from a standpoint of radioactivity by about an order of magnitude. It also must be extended into the higher yield range (500 KT and up) where applications become increasing attractive economically. We propose to continue the design of the excavation explosive and to test it in a contained underground experiment.

B. Requests for design, concepts, and cost estimates of potential excavation applications continue to be received. We need to maintain the capability to respond to such requests.

SUPPLEMENTAL FISCAL YEAR 1971 PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES

Representative HOSMER. Now, this kind of thing, this supplemental program, was the basis of my request for this statement of what our obligation as a nation is under article V.

There is a good deal to say for the proposition that we just can't set passively at a very, very slow pace and no pace at all in Plowshare development and meet that obligation. If we make these promises to these nonnuclears, we are under obligation to put ourselves in a position actually to supply those services within a reasonable time. The size of the Plowshare program that has been suggested by the Bureau of the Budget for fiscal 1971 certainly is nowhere near that which would be required, if indeed and in truth we do have something more than an illusory obligation under article V.

Incidentally, the State Department did send up a letter under date of March 4. Since it is an exercise paper that says nothing, I wanted something more on the record.

Dr. MAY. I might add, Mr. Hosmer, I concur completely in your remarks.

I might add, also, that it is not our basis to provide services under article V which I think we will fall behind on.

It is also our ability to keep basic knowledge in pace with what industry wants to do at home in the way of underground applications. We have to make these measurements and devise developments just to keep the laboratory and Government part of the joint enterprise up with what industry wants to do in the way of specific applications. Representative HOSMER. When we are arguing about American industry, we are arguing about budgetary matters and discretionary obligations. When we are putting it on the basis of this treaty, we are arguing about something else. As a nation, you either comply with a treaty or you don't comply with a treaty.

All of this happy talk that goes around every time somebody picks up a pen and signs that thing again and goes through another session of toasting, is utterly meaningless. These obligations under article V are only a snare, a delusion, and an illusion so far as the nonnuclears are concerned.

Representative PRICE (presiding). You may continue, Dr. May. Dr. MAY. I shall be happy to attempt to answer some questions. Representative PRICE. Dr. Thompson, do you have a report to make to the committee?

Dr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

I propose to make a few remarks concerning the visit that a team of us made to the Soviet Union, to Moscow, specifically, on the dates of February 12 to 17.

Our group consisted of 11 men including several scientists from the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Livermore. Mr. John Kelly, Dr. Fred Holzer, Mr. Nelson Sievering, and I were four of the 11 members of this delegation.

Representative HOSMER. For the record, will you supply the full names and titles?

Dr. THOMPSON. We will supply those. (The list follows:)