Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western European Integration and Security, Canada, Volume VII, Part 1

104. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Disarmament and Atomic Energy Affairs (Farley) to the Under Secretary of State (Dillon)⁰

February 15, 1960.

SUBJECT

• Euratom Program Difficulties

The US–Euratom joint nuclear power program is in serious difficulties due to the fact that only one firm reactor proposal was received in response to an invitation calling for reactors to be built by December 31, 1963. In spite of the tremendous efforts of the Euratom Commission, which has exerted great political pressures on governments and utilities, only the Italian SENN project was submitted to the joint reactor board in Brussels. Two others—the AKS German project and the French-Belgian project—remain in a very uncertain state and are still a long way from becoming firm proposals.

The Atomic Energy Commission believed that in the hearings on its general program, which are to take place tomorrow, February 16, it could not avoid giving the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy its recommendations with regard to the program. The AEC also believed that it was not possible to continue with the joint program on exactly the same basis without reference to the dates contained in the authorizing legislation.

The AEC proposed a limited program, in which we concurred, that takes account of the fact that the European utilities have been reluctant to make firm proposals, primarily because of the greatly improved energy situation in Europe. (Tab A)¹ The AEC proposal calls for acceptance of the Italian SENN project under the joint program, the termination of the 1963 phase of the program, the issuance of invitations for two reactor projects authorized for 1965 and continuation of the joint research and development program on a very reduced scale with research only on the SENN type reactor until such time as additional firm reactor proposals are received.

Ambassador Butterworth sent our proposals to Euratom on February 9 and asked for their views prior to the hearings scheduled for the JCAE on February 16. The reply by Euratom President Hirsch (Tab B) obviously reflects both haste and the keen disappointment felt by the Euratom Commissioners that our proposals could not have been more forthcoming, particularly in meeting their wishes that the emphasis in our cooperative efforts be directed to a larger extent toward research and development. The AEC and particularly Commissioner Floberg were annoyed and disappointed at the flavor of pique in the Euratom response. AEC felt that Euratom was not making a realistic appraisal of the Congressional problem faced by the AEC in presenting the results of the joint program and failed to appreciate that AEC was making what it considered to be a maximum effort. Both letters were sent by the AEC today to the CAE.

Recommendation:

I am informing you of these developments because there is a distinct possibility that during the hearings tomorrow this difference of view with Euratom will come out into the open and perhaps also be accompanied by criticism of Euratom by Joint Committee members. I think also that one of the results of the Euratom letter may have been to cool to a considerable extent Commissioner Floberg’s enthusiasm for the joint program and this may very well be reflected in these hearings. EUR and S/AE may therefore wish to call on you in the next day or two to put in a word of reason in what promises to be a very difficult situation.²

0. Source: Department of State, EUR/RA Files: Lot 70 D 315, 0.14 EURATOM Projects. No classification marking. Drafted by Hartman and Chapin.
1. Neither tab was found with the source text.

2. A February 18 letter from Farley to Butterworth reported:

   “The hearings yesterday brought far less questioning about Euratom than we expected. Anderson and Holifield took a few opportunities during Floberg’s testimony to say ‘I told you so’. Anderson also inquired whether it would be possible to use money earmarked for the Joint Program to assist the domestic industry, and mentioned not only the R & D money, but also the fuel guarantees and the EX-IM loan. Floberg did not take advantage of this questioning to suggest we might consider using this money for a cooperative research program with Euratom, but he was in no mood to invite trouble with the Committee by making new suggestions at this time.

   “We think that Floberg had a relatively easy time of it yesterday only because his testimony made no attempt to conceal the fact that the response to the reactor invitation had been very disappointing.” (Department of State, EUR/RPE Files: Lot 70 D 315, EURATOM Projects)