234 



(4) Long-term capital loans to cover part of the cost of con- 

 struction. 



(5) Long-term assurance by the United States that reprocessing 

 of used fuel would be available to the joint program reactors 

 under terms comparable to those offered to nuclear power reactor 

 operators in the United States. 



Selection among the proposals was to be made by a U.S.-Euratom 

 reactor board according to the following criteria : 



(1) The extent to which the proposed nuclear powerplant was 

 expected to approach conventional power costs at the time of its 

 completion, and its potential for subsequent improvement. 



(2) The extent to which the project would draw upon the funds, 

 materials and services available for the joint program. 



(3) The extent to which the proposal would contribute to the 

 advancement of nuclear power technology and to a diversity of 

 plant types and designs. 



(4) The extent to which the project would contribute to a strong 

 and competitive atomic equipment industry in the United States 

 and Europe. 



In addition, Euratom would consider the need to arrive at a reason- 

 able geographic distribution of the projects among the member states 

 of the Community. 254 



The invitation made it clear that information was expected in return 

 for the inducements, specifying that : 255 



... In return for the benefits received, the participants in the program will be 

 required to make available information developed on the design, plans, and 

 specifications, constructions and operating costs, operations and economics. 



However, the participants were not obliged to disclose manufactur- 

 ing "know-how" or techniques. Subsequent experience indicated that 

 European companies tended to treat as commercially confidential 

 much information that in the U.S. domestic nuclear power program 

 would have been freely published. 



The response to the first invitation was disappointing. Although 

 letters of interest were received from six Euratom utilities, by the 

 deadline of the invitation only one proposal was in hand. The Joint 

 Committee became concerned and questioned AEC Commissioner 

 Floberg, after his visit to the Euratom countries in 1959, about reports 

 that European business was disgusted and worried about Euratom. 

 In his reply, Floberg carefully distinguished between Euratom and 

 the governments of its member states and their business sector. The 

 governments remained optimistic. It was the utilities, said Floberg, 

 whose interest had waned. He attributed this changed attitude to a 

 number of factors : 256 



The fact of 50 million tons of coal on the surface of the ground and the fact 

 of a $5 or so drop in the price of coal in Europe, and the fact of reduced shipping 

 rates on American coal to Europe, and the fact of oil discoveries in the Sahara, 

 and the fact' of what they call stability in the Middle East . . . and the fact 

 of new sources of natural gas to Europe — have all accumulated together with the 

 failure of the rate of power consumption to increase at the predicted rate, to 

 change the attitude toward the urgency of nuclear power in Europe. There just 

 is not any question about that. 



a* Ibid., p. 27. 

 a* Ibid., p. 22. 



** U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearings, AEC Authorizing 

 Legislation, Fiscal Year 1961, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., I960, p. 101. 



