Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume III, National Security Policy; Arms Control and Disarmament, Microfiche Supplement

495. Memorandum From Lay to the NSC¹

Washington, September 2, 1959

SUBJECT

• Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy

REFERENCE

• NSC 5725/1

The enclosed Report by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of State on the implementation of NSC 5725/1, for the period July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959, is transmitted herewith for the information of the National Security Council.

James S. Lay. Jr.
Executive Secretary

cc: The Secretary of the Treasury

The Director, Bureau of the Budget

The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission

The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

The Director of Central Intelligence

Enclosure

Annual Progress Report by the Atomic Energy Commission

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NSC 5725/1—PEACEFUL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY

1. This report summarizes major developments during the period of July 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959 under NSC 5725/1, “Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy”, dated December 13, 1957. Many of the items relate to several sections of the policy paper; the information therefore is not keyed to specific paragraphs in the policy paper.

2. The U.S. continues to lead other nations in assisting the development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy in other countries. During the reporting period the dominant position of the United States was strengthened in a number of areas. Of particular note was the approval and initiation by the United States and EURATOM of the joint nuclear power program designed to install approximately 1,000,000 electrical kilowatts of nuclear power within the EURATOM area by 1963–1965.

3. The current coal surplus in EURATOM countries and discovery of new energy reserves has lessened the urgency for developing nuclear reactors to meet the Community’s immediate energy requirements. However, EURATOM is convinced that a large scale nuclear power program will be needed to meet long term needs and regards the joint effort as an important means of acquiring the experience essential to such a program.

4. Also, the United States announced in February a program for making enriched uranium fuel available for a limited number of power reactor projects on a deferred-payment basis. This program, while more modest than the EURATOM joint program, should help reduce the initial high costs of operating power reactors and should encourage the early construction abroad of reactors of U.S. design. Recent requests, however, from India and Spain indicate there will be continuing pressures from non-EURATOM countries for the United States to provide additional special incentives to stimulate the development of power reactor projects or to develop cooperative programs comparable to the EURATOM arrangements.

5. The EURATOM and deferred-payment programs, combined with the relatively advanced stage of U.S. technology and attractive guarantees that are being provided by U.S. manufacturers, have put the United States in the forefront of the expected limited market for selling power or power demonstration reactors to foreign countries. In the past year a pre-existing contract for the sale of a large-scale reactor to the SELNI electricity group in Italy was put on a firmer footing and a letter contract for an additional large scale reactor also was awarded to a U.S. company by the Italian SENN group. It is expected that these will be supplemented by other sales of large reactors as proposals are reviewed and approved under the EURATOM program. The award of the SENN project to a U.S. firm was particularly significant in that it was made as a consequence of competition with a number of proposals submitted by manufacturers in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada.

6. During the year, firms in the United Kingdom contracted to sell two large reactors, one to Italy and the other to Japan.

7. During the reporting period, the Atomic Energy Commission revised its domestic nuclear power development program and presented to the Congress a series of objectives which, in addition to accelerating the U.S. civilian power program, is also geared to providing the maximum support for continued U.S. leadership in this field abroad.

8. The Second United Nations Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva in September, 1958, was highly successful. The United States held a dominant role generally through the quality and number of its technical papers and impressive technical exhibits. The latter was regarded as the finest scientific exhibition ever assembled. The U.S. representative at the Second Geneva Conference proposed that a third conference of the same general character be held in another three-year period.

9. The International Atomic Energy Agency made modest progress in the past year in a number of areas. Further work needs to be done, however, to strengthen its organization, technical staff, programs and financial resources, and to increase the level of support from member countries. The expectation that the Agency will play an important role in safeguarding and distributing materials so as to assure and promote their peaceful uses still holds even though a number of states now appear adverse to submitting to Agency safeguards or working through the agency.

10. The Agency has established for itself a significant role in the exchange of atomic information and as a forum for dealing with problems of an international character, notably in the fields of health and safety.

11. During the past year, the United States continued to provide comprehensive support to the IAEA. Examples are the offer to fund the costs associated with building the Agency’s analytical laboratory in Vienna; financing half of the Agency’s operating budget; continuous advice on all Agency operations; furnishing top flight experts for various Agency symposia and advisory panels, and assisting in the planning of the Agency’s future program at the Second General Conference held in the fall of 1958.

12. Some concern has been expressed that the continued use of bilateral agreement system adopted by the member states most advanced technologically to channel and promote cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy, undercuts the role of the Agency. The bilaterals generally were in use before the IAEA was established and have been effective in the Atoms for Peace program. It does not appear that there will be major changes in this system in the immediate future. However, it is hoped that as the Agency gains stature, experience, and more support from its membership that a re-evaluation of the bilateral systems will result in the Agency taking over larger areas of cooperation.

13. Agency operations continue to be handicapped by the present unrealistic statutory relationship between the Board of Governors and the Secretariat which results in routine administrative matters, often of a minor nature, being brought to the Board for decision. The more complex problems that would be raised in any attempt at this time to revise the Agency Statute and Rules of Procedure have made it inadvisable to press for a remedy.

14. Agency safeguards were considered formally for the first time at the June Board meeting. Debate centered on general principles, and, as in the past, the opposition to safeguards was ably led by the Indian Governor. Action was deferred until the September meeting. The Soviet Union did not participate actively.

15. During the reporting period, progress was made in formulating a U.S. position for implementing the safeguards provisions in the U.S. bilateral agreements for cooperation and on IAEA safeguards proposals. This position is being developed in consultation with Western suppliers of materials and progress has been made toward achieving a common approach. To maintain an effective international safeguard system it is essential that this common front be achieved and held, particularly with respect to the sale of natural uranium which is now in world-wide surplus. [All the major uranium producers in the Free World, except France, have indicated a willingness (although commitments have not yet been made) to join in a common front if all the others do so. These same countries, including France, have joined with the United States in developing a common position regarding the specific type of safeguard procedures the International Atomic Energy Agency should develop in the near future. The agreed-upon procedures are concerned with immediate requirements and will be expanded as larger and more complex facilities materialize. The Soviet Union position, particularly with respect to applying safeguards to underdeveloped countries, is not known at this time although the USSR has claimed a “no strings attached” policy in supplying material to the Soviet Bloc.]² (Bracketed portion Conf.-DI)

16. Most of the bilateral negotiations now involve amendments to extend or modify the terms of existing agreements, which now cover most of the countries having an interest in cooperating with the United States. The cooperation provided for in these agreements is being effectively carried out, and consists mainly of exchanging or training personnel, disseminating reports, transferring materials, and exporting reactors manufactured by U.S. industry.

17. The emergence of the IAEA and various regional groups has initiated a reassessment of the bilateral program to determine whether relatively greater emphasis should be put on these multilateral institutions. The United States hopes to negotiate a general agreement with EURATOM and its member states that, insofar as possible, would transfer from the member states to EURATOM rights and obligations now contained in the individual bilateral agreements between the member states and the U.S. In addition present areas of US–EURATOM cooperation would be expanded wherever desirable.

18. Other aspects of the Atoms for Peace Program include continued leadership of U.S. firms in exporting research reactors; steady increase in special nuclear materials transferred to friendly nations (see Appendix “E”) and further expansion and specialization of training facilities available to foreign nationals (see Appendix “B”). Seventeen research reactors manufactured by U.S. firms are now in operation overseas and 16 more are under construction. In addition, five contracts or letters of intent involving foreign sale by U.S. firms of power or small-scale power demonstration reactors were executed. A total of 286 kilograms of contained U–235 has been distributed overseas for peaceful purposes and as of June 30, 1959, 238 foreign nationals were working or receiving individual training experience at AEC installations.

19. The United Kingdom atomic power program is either on or ahead of schedule and is expected to achieve the goal of 5000–6000 MW by 1966. There is the possibility that in the next year or two a new or extended program will be formulated. [Current information available on the U.S.S.R. program confirms earlier estimates that there has been slippage in the power program but Soviet capabilities in the power reactor field are advancing steadily. Although the U.S.S.R., on the basis of its over-all nuclear technology, is believed capable of building nuclear power submarines, the only verified nuclear propulsion project is the icebreaker “Lenin”, reportedly essentially complete but not yet in operation.³ The French program is developing rapidly with two gaseous diffusion pilot plants for U–235 and a plutonium separation chemical reprocessing plant now in operation. The first full-scale nuclear power plant is scheduled to come in late in 1959 or early in 1960.]⁴ (Bracketed portion Secret DI) Additionally, the French have shown interest in the centrifuge method of isotope separation, particularly its development in West Germany, and have offered to buy the German-made centrifuges—presumably for use in the French weapons program. (The centrifuge method makes U–235 production possible with a smaller capital outlay.) While German financial interests reportedly favor the sale, other German opinion is hopeful of assurance that the gas centrifuges will be used only for peaceful purposes. CONF. DI.

20. The attached Annex describes the progress made in the Atoms-for-Peace program and identifies a number of other problems that will require further study. However, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of State do not believe any revision to the NSC 5725/1 policy paper is required at this time.

Attachment

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF ANNEX TO ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

	Paragraph
I. U.S. FOREIGN PROGRAMS REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND BILATERAL ARRANGEMENTS
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)	1
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)	9
Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission (IANEC)	20
Asian Nuclear Center	21
Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC)	23
Puerto Rico Nuclear Center (PRNC)	25
Bilateral Arrangements	26
II. OTHER ASPECTS OF U.S. PROGRAM OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
New Fuel Policies	28
Safeguards to Prevent Diversion of Materials to Military Uses	29
Third-Party Liability	35
Training	38
Research Reactor and Equipment Grants	42
Conferences
Geneva Conference	44
Rome Conference and Exhibit	50
Second Inter-American Symposium	51
Tokyo Exhibit	52
Other Conferences	53
III. U.S. DOMESTIC PROGRAM
Power Reactors	54
Maritime Reactor Program	65
Plowshare Program	70
IV. SELECTED COUNTRY SUMMARIES
Canada	72
France	74
India	75
Japan	77
U.K.	78
U.S.S.R.	84
APPENDICES:	Page
“A” List of Agreements for Cooperation (as of June 30, 1959)	36
“B” Courses or Arrangements for Training in which Foreign Nationals May Participate	38
“C” Research Reactor Grants (May 30, 1956-June 30, 1959)	39
“D” Summary of Country Power Programs (in MWE’s)	41
“E” Materials Shipments to Foreign Countries (Oct. 1958 thru June 30, 1959)	42

ANNEX TO ANNUAL REPORT BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NSC 5725/1—PEACEFUL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY

I. UNITED STATES FOREIGN PROGRAM: REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND BILATERAL ARRANGEMENTS

1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Establishment of the IAEA was an outgrowth of President Eisenhower’s address before the United Nations Assembly on December 8, 1953. Agency progress to date has been primarily due to the interest and support of the United States. Its ultimate success will depend on its ability to acquire fuller support from other members through competence and effectiveness in its sphere of activities. There has been some encouraging progress in this direction during the reporting period.

2. On May 11, 1959, the Agency signed its Agreement for Cooperation with the United States permitting it to draw on the approximately 5,000 kilograms of U–235 offered by President Eisenhower in 1956. Supply agreements with the USSR (for 50 kilograms) and the U.K. (20 kilograms) were signed on the same date. Canada has donated three tons of natural uranium to the IAEA for use in the first project (a 10 MW Japanese research reactor) involving transfer of reactor fuel under Agency safeguards.

3. The Agency also decided to defer construction of a research reactor in view of the plans of Austria to make its own reactor facilities available to the Agency. Accordingly, the major share of funds involved in the previous U.S. offer to support an Agency reactor project was reallocated and will be applied to constructing and equipping the Agency’s central analytical laboratory. This laboratory is to be used to support the Agency’s statutory functions, primarily in the health and safeguards field.

4. At the Second General Conference of the IAEA, held in the fall of 1958, the Chairman of the U.S. delegation indicated that the U.S., as time and experience progressed and consistent with its existing obligations, would look to the Agency as the major institutional channel through which its international peaceful use programs would be carried forward. Chairman McCone also suggested that the Agency:

a. Inaugurate a major program of training, research, and application in the field of radioisotopes;

b. Intensify its efforts to develop international standards, codes, and regulations for the safe transportation, handling, and use of radioactive materials and the disposal of radioactive wastes; press forward with safety codes relating to reactor operation, reactor siting, and the protection of atomic energy workers; and, devote its attention to the problem of third-party liability;

c. Serve as a central coordinating body for training personnel;

d. Initiate an intensive survey of existing power reactor types and the criteria for introducing them into new areas, including the means by which the Agency could accelerate the availability of nuclear power within reasonable economic dimensions;

e. Continue to develop into a major center for the acquisition, collection, and the distribution of scientific information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. (In this regard, the U.S. suggested that future Geneva Conferences be held under Agency auspices, and that the Agency serve as the medium for freely exchanging information on controlled fusion research.)

5. The U.S. also indicated its intention to explore with the Agency the development of a program whereby specific research projects for the U.S. could be assigned to the Agency which, in turn, would develop contracts with institutions throughout the world.

6. Progress was made in these and other areas over the past year. The most notable accomplishments have been in the field of training. The Agency’s program of providing fellowships for study in the peaceful applications of atomic energy has been well received. Roughly 300 applications for Agency fellowships have been received from individuals in about 30 countries. Most of these have indicated a preference for study in the United States. The Atomic Energy Commission is intensively studying the problems associated with meeting its responsibilities in this area, including the security aspects associated with receiving Soviet Bloc applicants in Commission installations.

7. Other areas of important work and progress in IAEA activities include: stimulating radioisotope uses by providing courses and advisory missions to member states and sponsoring conferences on radioisotope applications; identifying and resolving, through expert panels and conferences, some major international problems involved in transport and handling of materials, waste disposal, and assuring adequate treatment of third-party liability, and developing a proposed system for assuring that materials used under Agency auspices are applied only to peaceful purposes.

8. It is particularly notable that at the Second General Conference, the Government of Japan announced that it was willing to have the safeguards provisions of its Agreement for Cooperation with the United States administered by the Agency when the latter can undertake this service. It is hoped that other nations will make similar declarations.

9. EURATOM. During the last year, the U.S.–EURATOM joint nuclear power program was approved and initiated, and an appropriate U.S.–EURATOM Agreement for Cooperation covering the needs of the program came into effect in February of 1959. This program is regarded as a major contribution towards the strengthening of European unity and development of close ties between representatives of European and American nuclear science and technology in advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy.

10. The major objective of the joint program is the installation, within the next four to six years in the EURATOM area, of approximately one million kilowatts of nuclear generating capacity using reactor types carried to an advanced stage of development within the United States. The current goal is to have these projects completed by December 31, 1963, except that completion of the projects may be deferred to 1965 to allow for the incorporation of reactors of a more improved and advanced design. The reactor program is to be accompanied by a ten-year joint research and development effort which will be aimed at improving the performance of the reactors involved and in realizing savings and improvements in the associated fuel cycle.

11. The research and development program, which will be carried out in both the Community and the U.S., will be financed by equal contributions from the AEC and EURATOM and is expected to cost $100 million for the first five years.

12. Invitations for the Research and Development and reactor phases of the program were issued in December of 1958 and in April of 1959, respectively. Approximately 200 proposals and letters of intent covering research or development projects have been received. These are now being reviewed by a joint U.S.–EURATOM Research and Development Board which has been constituted in Brussels to select the proposals and coordinate the administration of this phase of the program.

13. Reactor proposals are to be received by October 20, 1959. This will allow sufficient time for review and selection to permit the necessary authorizations to be obtained during the next session of Congress. It is expected that these projects initially will be screened by a Joint Reactor Board which will prepare suitable recommendations for the EURATOM Commission and the USAEC. As of May 11, five European utility groups indicated their intention to submit proposals for projects to be completed by 1963, and two concerns expressed intention to submit proposals for projects to be completed by 1965. If acceptable, these proposals should permit the goal of one million kilowatts to be realized.

14. Reactor projects selected will be eligible to receive the following special incentives which are designed to minimize the major uncertainties associated with operating nuclear power plants today:

a. AEC guarantees (for a 10-year operating period) designed to limit financial risks arising from the cost of fabricating fuel elements and from failure of the elements to meet a predetermined life;

b. A long-term assurance of an adequate nuclear fuel supply available under deferred-payment at prices offered U.S. industry;

c. An assurance for a 10-year period of a defined market for the plutonium recovered from the reactors;

d. Long-term, capital loans to cover a portion of the plant construction costs, and

e. A long-term assurance by the United States that chemical reprocessing services will be available under terms comparable to those offered U.S. reactor operators.

15. Over the past year it became apparent that the joint program, as well as other nuclear power programs in Western Europe, face a problem not anticipated a year ago. This is due to an acute over-supply of coal in Western Europe; an apparent easing of the tensions in the Middle East; discovery of new oil reserves throughout the world, discovery of sizeable natural gas reserves in the Sahara and some slowing of economic growth with consequent lowering of energy requirements. These developments have tended to temper the long-term estimates as to amount of nuclear power that will be required to meet the over-all energy deficit in Europe and to lessen the enthusiasm in some quarters for proceeding with the joint U.S.–EURATOM program on a “crash” basis.

16. The long term effect on the planning for future European energy requirements of these factors, (referred to in Paragraph 15) especially new oil and gas reserves, is difficult to appraise at the present time. Much will depend on the potential of nuclear power development to reduce power costs and on the political stability of North Africa and the Middle East. The joint U.S.–EURATOM program is regarded as an important first step to provide experience for only large-scale effect that may follow.

17. The Community made progress in other areas over the past year. Basic regulations have been published for safeguards and health physics; a draft third-party liability convention has been prepared; negotiations are under way to establish several joint research centers. The EURATOM supply agency, which will be accountable under the Treaty for all special nuclear materials, is being organized and, probably will begin operations in October 1959. Internationally, EURATOM has executed agreements with the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Negotiations are under way with Canada and Brazil. None of these agreements envision a program of cooperation as extensive as that with the United States.

18. In the months ahead, EURATOM will concentrate most of its activities on the joint program. The EURATOM Treaty, however, as well as the agreements in effect between the United States and the Community, and the U.S. and the member states of EURATOM, contemplate that there will be renegotiations to expand the areas of cooperation with EURATOM and to effect appropriate transfer of the rights and obligations in the individual agreements of the member states to EURATOM. These negotiations are expected to be initiated shortly, and to be completed during 1960. Some of the member states, notably France, have expressed misgivings about the renegotiations and have made it clear that a transfer of responsibilities that would necessitate their having to channel all of their individual cooperative activities with the United States through the EURATOM organization would be opposed. It has been explained to these States that they still will be free to deal directly with the U.S. on matters pertaining to the technical direction of their national programs and that the renegotiation is designed to take into account the responsibilities vested in EURATOM by its Treaty.

19. In anticipation of their increased responsibilities in dealing with EURATOM, the USAEC and the Department of State are augmenting the staff of the United States Mission, seven professional-level AEC staff, plus two State Department officers and an Export-Import Bank representative under the direction of a “Deputy for EURATOM Affairs” who will be a senior AEC official.

Other Multilateral or Regional Activities

20. Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission (IANEC). On April 22, the Organization of American States approved the statute of the Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission. The IANEC will serve as a center of consultation for the OAS member states and to facilitate cooperation among them in promoting the peaceful application of nuclear energy. Its major responsibilities include: Assisting member republics in coordinated planning for research and training; furthering the exchange of scientific and technical information; organizing conferences and other meetings; recommending measures to promote the training of scientists and technicians; recommending public health safeguards; requesting, when deemed advisable, the cooperation of public and private institutions in contributing to nuclear development programs in OAS countries and undertaking studies within its sphere of responsibility.

21. Asian Nuclear Center. In accordance with paragraph 38 of NSC 5725/1, the Department of State and the USAEC previously developed a plan for construction of a less costly Asian Nuclear Center, possibly to be associated with the Colombo Plan and the IAEA. A review of present conditions has indicated that the establishment of even a less costly Asian Nuclear Center is not justified at the present time. As reported previously, the Asian countries are not prepared to give such an institution sufficient financial support. Continued study will be directed toward determining whether an alternate regional scheme is technically and politically desirable. (Conf.-DI)

22. It should be noted that the Philippines hope to develop a national program which will have regional appeal. The experience with the Asian Nuclear Center has demonstrated that the successful formulation of a regional center is almost entirely dependent upon the vigor and enthusiasm with which the idea is supported by the member states involved.

23. Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). The European Nuclear Energy Agency of the OEEC continued to make progress on a number of joint projects. The design of the “Eurochemic” joint processing plant to be built at Mol, Belgium, is proceeding with substantial technical advice from the United States. In addition, in March, 12 European countries, under OEEC auspices, signed an agreement to cooperate in the U.K. “Dragon Project”, a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor to be constructed at Winfrith Heath at an approximate cost of $38 million.

24. The OEEC also has made important progress in drafting a convention to cover third-party liability. (See paragraph 36.)

25. Puerto Rico Nuclear Center. The Puerto Rico Nuclear Center was established in cooperation with the University of Puerto Rico for the purpose of offering nuclear training in the Spanish language to students from Latin American countries. Of the 182 enrollees at the Center since it began, 42 were from 18 Latin American countries. Most of those took short-term courses. Students in the full-length Nuclear Technology Courses increased from two completing the 1958–59 session to eight in the 1959–60 session now under way. It is assumed that, as more specialized nuclear facilities become available and as the Center acquires more technical stature, it will attract more students from the region. Continued study is being devoted to the question of how the United States can accelerate this process.

26. Bilateral Arrangements. The extent of U.S. participation in the Atoms-for-Peace program abroad indicated by the fact that 43 bilateral agreements are in effect with 41 countries, and the City of West Berlin. (Switzerland has two agreements.) Of these, 13 are for power and 30 for research. This is in addition to the special agreements that have been signed with EURATOM and the IAEA. An Agreement Status Table is attached as Appendix “A”.

27. It is not anticipated that a significant number of additional countries will enter bilateral agreements with the United States. The trend is to amend current research agreements to increase the amounts and enrichment of special nuclear material made available or to replace research agreements with more comprehensive power bilaterals.

II. OTHER ASPECTS OF U.S. PROGRAM OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

28. New Fuel Policies. In the past year, the United States developed a program for making enriched power reactor fuel available on a deferred-payment basis to individual countries, multilateral groups and the IAEA. This plan will serve to reduce the initial heavy costs for nuclear power plants and was designed primarily for non-EURATOM countries. It will be restricted to projects with a combined generating capacity of up to 500,000 kilowatts. To be eligible, reactor plants must be completed before June 30, 1964. In addition, the AEC will permit the lease of heavy water for use in domestic or foreign research, medical or testing reactors (previously transferred only on a sale basis), and lease of enriched uranium for foreign subcritical assemblies, exponential assemblies, and reactor experiments. These actions should contribute to foreign research and development programs.

29. Safeguards to Prevent Diversion of Materials to Military Uses. During the reporting period, the United States participated in several meetings for developing agreement among the western supplier countries on the application of safeguards to exports, to bilateral agreements, and for use by the Western Powers when these matters are considered in the International Atomic Energy Agency. Major uranium producers, without final commitment, have indicated they are prepared to apply agreed-upon safeguards if other suppliers do so.] The French are reserving on the question of applying safeguards to their bilateral activities although they have joined with the other powers in endorsing the type of system to be applied by the IAEA. ([illegible in the original] portion Secret DI–Remainder Conf. DI)

30. The U.S. policy is that safeguard procedures should be developed on an evolutionary basis (rather than in detail for all anticipated cases beforehand) with attention first devoted to the immediate (and also simpler) cases. Later procedures will be developed for the larger and more complex facilities. This approach is designed to enhance the political acceptability of necessary safeguards actions and to take full advantage of technological developments which may ease the burden of applying an adequate system to the more complex and different cases.

31. It is improbable that facilities coming into operation during the next year or two will require more than periodic visits and audits. As it looks now, the safeguard system may require resident inspectors at complex installations such as chemical processing plants. General procedures have been developed and inspections are being made for reactors up to 100 MWT.

32. The U.S. has encouraged development of a safeguards system by the International Atomic Energy Agency and has assisted the Agency by supplying comments for use in the preparation of the IAEA safeguards manual. At the suggestion of the Western Powers the proposed IAEA safeguards are being revised to assure that they conform to the “evolutionary approach.”

33. In all these discussions, we have emphasized our interest in transferring to the IAEA, wherever practicable, the administration of the safeguards rights provided by our existing bilateral agreements. Also, we are assisting EURATOM in the development of its regional safeguard system and there is a mutual interest in making it compatible with IAEA procedures.

34. Certain materials, principally uranium, are achieving the status of common articles of commerce whose supply has exceeded demand. This makes the development of a common position favoring the continued imposition of safeguards to such materials increasingly difficult. (See Paragraph 15 in Report).

35. Third-Party Liability. One of the major problems facing the Atoms-for-Peace program relates to the necessity of reaching an effective international understanding concerning (1) the extent of liability which is to apply to those who supply nuclear facilities, the operation of which can have a harmful effect on persons and property, and (2) the protection provided the general public from nuclear hazards. U.S. manufacturers wish to be assured that their risks in exporting nuclear equipment overseas will be kept as nearly as possible within reasonable levels. Lack of effective resolution of this problem could materially interfere with U.S. efforts to sell nuclear power equipment abroad and could affect adversely the U.S. participation in the Joint EURATOM-AEC program.

36. During the past year, there has been a notable increase in work on this problem. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), has prepared a draft convention for submission to its member states. Under this convention, the operator of a nuclear facility would be held absolutely liable if a nuclear accident damaging third parties occurred, but the liability would be limited to [illegible in the original] million. However, a member state could increase the liability or decrease it to a minimum of $5 million as to installations in its territory.

37. The EURATOM Commission has recommended to its Council of Ministers a convention supplementing that of the OEEC, which would raise the level of operator liability to $100 million unless a higher amount is established by a member country. There is a provision for state indemnification of the operator for liability incurred beyond a certain level of insurable risk. Provision is also made for the states of the EURATOM Community jointly to assume responsibility for compensation in cases where the damage exceeds state indemnification, by some means not yet developed.

38. Training. Training of foreign nationals in nuclear science and technology has been one of the outstanding contributions of the Atoms-for-Peace program. Since the lack of suitably trained personnel could be a major impediment to advances, in the nuclear field, the U.S. has continued and expanded an aggressive program to meet foreign requirements.

39. In addition to the increasing opportunities provided by U.S. colleges and universities, the United States encourages nuclear training of foreign nationals through AEC-sponsored formal courses of instruction, by providing individual training programs at Commission-sponsored installations, and by supplying U.S. scientists and engineers to teach and work in foreign countries.

40. Ten formal courses or arrangements for training, with a total capacity of 424, are now open under AEC auspices to nationals of other countries (see Appendix “B”). One thousand and twenty-one foreign nationals have taken advantage of these opportunities. In addition, since 1956, the AEC has helped arrange individual programs for over 800 foreign nationals. As of June 1959, [illegible in the original] foreign nationals were working and receiving individual training experience within AEC installations.

41. There is a growing need for more specialized individual training. To avoid duplicating the type of instruction available at universities and to raise the level and degree of highly specialized training offered by the AEC, the program at the International School at Argonne will be reoriented in 1960.

42. Research Reactor and Equipment Grants. The program for making grants to foreign countries for research reactor projects has made steady progress. Nineteen $350,000 grants have been awarded to date. The number of requests for reactor grants are diminishing as more countries come under the program.

43. An additional grant program for the acquisition of various types of nuclear laboratory and related equipment was initiated last year. Fifteen grants totaling $1,363,000 were approved for 12 countries. This program potentially could be of great use to the underdeveloped countries since it is flexible and can cover a variety of less costly items that may be individually tailored to country needs.

Conferences

44. Geneva Conference. The Second United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1958, was the largest scientific gathering of its kind ever convened.

45. More than a third of the 2,135 papers submitted came from the United States; and of the 722 papers selected by the U.N. for oral presentation, [illegible in the original] were from the U.S. This was more than twice as many as presented by the U.S.S.R. (99) or the United Kingdom ([illegible in the original]) and three times as many as presented by France (58). The United States was the only nation to be represented by at least one speaker in every session on the agenda.

46. The United States Technical Exhibit was an outstanding attraction and was attended by slightly over 100,000 people. The impressive array of full-sized laboratories, reactors, and thermonuclear devices operated by the scientists who built them, captured the attention of both delegates and the general public.

47. The U.S. film program excelled those of other nations in technical content and compared favorably with all others in quality of presentation. Of the 51 technical films presented by the U.N., 17 were furnished by the U.S. Additionally, in the exhibit the U.S. displayed 26 short films on specialized subjects in four language to more than 15,000 persons.

48. A Commercial Exhibit also was held in downtown Geneva during the Geneva Conference. More than 50 private U.S. companies participated with the AEC in organizing an impressive display of commercial activity in the U.S. in the atomic energy field. Of the 13 countries represented in this exhibit, the U.S. Exhibit was exceeded in size only by those of Great Britain and France and compared favorably in quality with those of all other nations.

49. At news conferences, the U.S. Delegation went on record at Geneva as favoring another large conference in 1961 and suggesting that it be held under IAEA auspices. The reaction was not favorable and in its official report, the U.S. Delegation recommended that the matter of size and sponsorship be studied further by the Department of State in cooperation with appropriate authorities. The U.S. Delegation to the Second IAEA General Conference at Vienna in September, 1958, took the position that any future conferences on nuclear science and technology of the type held at Geneva should be under IAEA sponsorship. In December 1958, the United Nations General Assembly directed the UN Secretary General and his Scientific Advisory Committee to evaluate the Second Conference with respect to the need, nature and timing of similar conferences in this field.

50. Rome Conference and Exhibit. The United States mounted an exhibit at the 1958 Rome Exposition and Congress on Nuclear Energy which included an operating low power research reactor. The display, well received by participants and public, was awarded first prize by the Congress.

51. Second Inter-American Symposium. Following the favorable response to the Inter-American Symposium on peaceful uses on nuclear energy at Brookhaven, in May of 1957, the Organization of American States, supported by a grant from Mutual Security Funds, sponsored a Second Inter-American Symposium, June 1–5, at Buenos Aires with the Argentine Atomic Energy Commission as co-host. Applications of nuclear energy to the life sciences featured the agenda and 26 of the 38 papers were presented by scientists from Latin American countries. Seventeen of the 21 OAS member states were represented among the more than 200 participants and observers.

52. Tokyo Exhibit. The USAEC presented a nuclear energy exhibit at the Tokyo, Japan, International Trade Fair, May 5–22, 1959. It featured an operating training and research reactor and an operating SNAP III thermoelectric generator.

53. Other Conferences. During the period July 1, 1958–June 30, 1959, the U.S. sponsored or participated in eight other international scientific congresses, conferences, or symposia dealing with the Atoms-for-Peace program.

III. U.S. DOMESTIC PROGRAM

54. Power Reactors. In October of 1958, the Chairman of the AEC appointed a special Ad Hoc Committee to perform an intensive evaluation of the Commission’s reactor development program. This committee permitted its report in January 1959 and set forth a number of recommendations dealing with the technical program as well as general policy. The Commission has utilized these recommendations, along with those contained in other industrial and governmental surveys, in the formulation of an updated series of objectives for its civilian power program. These objectives, as outlined by Chairman McCone in recent Congressional hearings, are:

a. To reduce the cost of nuclear power to levels competitive with power from fossil fuels in high energy cost areas of this country within 10 years;

b. To assist friendly nations now having high energy costs to achieve competitive levels in about 5 years. This assistance is to be extended mainly through clearly defined programs of cooperation;

c. To maintain the U.S. position of leadership in the technology of nuclear power for civilian use;

d. To achieve a further reduction in the cost of nuclear power in order to increase the economic benefits and extend these benefits to wider areas, and

e. To develop breeder-type reactors to make full use of the nuclear energy latent in both uranium and thorium, recognizing that U–235 alone may not be sufficiently plentiful to meet all needs over the long range.

55. In the course of civilian power reactor development, there has emerged a program under which the many reactor concepts are separable into four categories on the basis of their potential to achieve economically competitive nuclear power.

56. First category: Reactor concepts which at this time seem to offer the greatest possibility of early achievement of nuclear power costs competitive with costs from fossil-fueled plants, at least in high power cost areas of the United States and abroad. Included are pressurized-water, boiling-water, organic-cooled, and certain gas-cooled reactors. Generally, these are the systems which have evoked the greatest interest in Europe and Japan.

57. Second category: Reactor concepts which probably will not produce low-cost power in the near future, but which have potential advantages which may ultimately overcome the early lead of those of the first category. Included here are reactors which use heavy water as a moderator-coolant or as a moderator alone, the liquid-metal-cooled reactors, and some of the more advanced gas-cooled reactors.

58. Third category: Reactor types which seem at this time to offer very great potential advantages but which require extensive additional technical development before these advantages can be demonstrated or disproved. These include the more long range reactor types, such as the pebble-bed and fluidized-bed concepts.

59. Fourth category: Reactor concepts whose basic objectives and major promise lie in their potential ability to produce more fissionable material than they burn and to do so at a rate sufficiently great to allow this country’s nuclear fuel resources to keep up with the projected growth of its nuclear power demands. Such concepts would embrace the sodium-cooled, fast-breeder reactor, for the U–Pu system; and the thermal-breeder reactor for the Thorium-U–233 system.

60. Major emphasis in the immediate future will be placed on bringing the concepts in the first category above to a point where they become established as the basis of a nuclear power industry both in the United States and abroad. As the developmental and prototype program proceeds to the point where this objective is being realized, the emphasis will shift to concepts in the succeeding categories, always with the idea of placing major emphasis on those concepts which offer the greatest promise of early and outstanding success.

61. We recently reached a point in reactor development where we can be more selective in deciding which reactor concepts to carry forward into intensive and expensive hardware development, which reactors to continue under research and development, and which concepts to lay aside.

62. Thus, each major development effort in the AEC power reactor program has been analyzed or re-examined with the over-all program objectives in mind. As a result, two projects involving insufficiently developed concepts were dropped from the Power Demonstration Reactor Program during the past year and additional effort was being placed behind more promising reactor types. One of these is the heavy water moderated concept. Although not well advanced in this country, this particular reactor system is of special interest abroad because such reactors can use natural uranium and do not have to rely on expensive uranium-enriching plants. With this in mind, the AEC is working towards a more extensive cooperative program with Canada which has two heavy-water-moderated experimental reactors in operation. These reactors have provided extensive irradiation services for some of the U.S. heavy-water program activities.

63. The special interest of other countries in natural-uranium-type reactors has brought participation of other groups in the U.S. program. Representatives of Sweden, EURATOM, and the OEEC were among those taking part in a recent heavy-water design study.

64. U.S. development of the gas-cooled reactor concept, certain aspects of which has been greatly advanced by the British, is also being accelerated. Two gas-cooled power reactor projects are included in the FY 1960 program rather than one. In addition, the proposed FY 1960 program includes an advanced boiling-water prototype reactor, an experimental organic-cooled reactor, a low-temperature process heat reactor, and a small-sized power reactor suitable for use by public utilities and for the export market. The Commission feels that small power plants of 5 to 40 electrical megawatts, if proven economic, would fulfill important power requirements associated with underdeveloped foreign areas as well as supply power to isolated high-cost fuel areas within the U.S.

65. Maritime Reactor Program. Of great interest abroad and closely related to the civilian power effort is the joint AEC-Maritime Administration program for development of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. This program centers around the design and construction of the N.S. Savannah, a nuclear-powered merchant ship now under construction at the Camden, New Jersey, yard of the New York Shipbuilding Corporation. The vessel’s pressurized-water nuclear propulsion plant is being designed and fabricated by Babcock and Wilcox Co. It is to be launched on July 21 and initial operation is scheduled for the early part of 1960.

66. The Savannah is being constructed not only to acquire actual experience in the design, construction, and operation of nuclear merchant vessels, but to provide a means of identifying and resolving the many international legal and regulatory problems associated with placing such a vessel into world commerce. Third-party liability studies now in progress are directed in part toward facilitating the movement of nuclear-propelled ships.

67. Associated with the Savannah project are supporting activities such as crew training, health, safety, and environment studies, and the development and construction of servicing and repair facilities.

68. The joint AEC–MA program also includes research, development, and preliminary design work for a 60,000 deadweight-ton tanker using a boiling-water reactor plant. A longer range program to develop a marine nuclear plant consisting of a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor coupled with a closed-cycle gas turbine has been stated. This program could lead to the started construction and operation of a land-based prototype by 1963. Also under way are technical and economic studies of other reactor systems showing promise for marine use; investigations into advanced vessel designs; and development of more efficient and economic methods for constructing nuclear ships.

69. Interest in nuclear ship propulsion is strong among countries who traditionally have major shipbuilding operations. [As of this time, the only known application of nuclear propulsion in the U.S.S.R. is in the icebreaker “Lenin”.]⁵ (Bracketed portion Secret-DI)

70. Plowshare Program. The program for applying nuclear explosions to peaceful purposes is still in an early stage of development. A number of applications under study could make significant contribution to the Atoms-for-Peace program although further experimentation is required before this is an assurance. It is expected that there will be ample experimentation in the United States prior to application overseas.

71. The more promising possible peaceful uses of nuclear explosives are: civil engineering or excavation applications, recovery of natural resources (such as oil and minerals), industrial uses (such as production of power and isotopes), and in basic research investigations. Projects now underway or under such serious consideration are the following: Chariot, to get data on excavation applications; Oxcart, to obtain data on fundamental principles such as the relation between depth of burial, and physical effects such as containment of fallout; oil shales to determine the feasibility of using nuclear explosives in recovering oil from oil shales (several American oil companies have expressed a desire to participate in and contribute to this experiment); tar sands to determine the feasibility of using nuclear explosives in recovering oil from the Athabaska tar sands in Alberta, Canada (Richfield Oil Company has offered to pay for this experiment but AEC participation is contingent upon Canadian Government approval); and Gnome to obtain basic data on power and isotope production.

IV. SELECTED COUNTRY SUMMARIES

72. Canada. The Canadian program for developing natural uranium, heavy-water, power reactors has expanded and future plans have been put on a firmer footing. Construction of the 20 MWE nuclear power demonstration reactor (NPD) scheduled for operation in 1961 near Chalk River has progressed satisfactorily. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., has proposed to the Canadian Government that it proceed with the detailed design and construction of a large (200 MWE) reactor similar in design to NPD. The plant is to be built and operated by 1964 in the Ontario public utility system.

73. The Canadians also have become very interested in natural uranium, heavy-water-moderated reactors cooled either by organic fluids or heavy-water steam. A feasibility study on the organic-cooled-type has been initiated. The close U.S.-Canadian cooperation has continued and an increased cooperative heavy-water reactor program is planned.

74. France. Except for the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, France has the largest and most diversified atomic energy program in Western Europe today. The notable advances during the past year were: (Secret–DI)

a. Plutonium Production. A plutonium separation chemical reprocessing plant, has been in continuous operation at Marcoule since January 1959 after experiencing considerable difficulties. The French G–1 reactor, in operation since January 1956, produces 12 kilograms of Pu per year at design level of 40 MW thermal. The French G–2 reactor at Marcoule, which went critical in July 1958, produces 40 kgs of plutonium per year at design level of 150 MW thermal. A third production reactor identical to G–2 reached criticality early in June 1959. (Secret–DI)

b. U–235 Production Capacity. Two pilot plants each with 12 active stages are now in operation. In January 1959 construction of a full-scale separation plant at Pierrelette was initiated. This plant will have an estimated production capacity of 4 kgs of U–235 per day in 1962 and 10 kgs per day of U–235 in 1965. (Secret–DI)

c. Reactors. Electricite de France, the French National Power Company, is scheduled to complete EDP–1, the first full-scale (63 MWE) power reactor in France, late in 1959 or early in 1960. The United States has furnished fuel for several French research reactors and the French materials testing reactor during the past year.

75. India. Heavy emphasis is being put on achieving national self-sufficiency in personnel and materials. A 1,000 kw pool-type research reactor, designed and built in India and fueled by enriched uranium supplied by the United Kingdom, has been in operation 35 months. Work on India’s second reactor, a 30 MWT NRX-type test reactor, is scheduled for completion in 1959. Canada is providing technical assistance for the construction and the U.S. has provided the heavy water. (OUO)

76. While no power plants are in operation, it is planned to have a million KWE generating capacity available by 1966 from reactors using natural uranium provided by domestic sources. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission also has recently made overtures concerning a joint Indian-U.S. cooperative program involving reactors using U.S.-enriched uranium. The United States is prepared to explore this further. (OUO)

77. Japan. A 10-year comprehensive U.S.-Japanese Agreement for Cooperation came into effect during December of 1958. The Japanese also entered into a power agreement with the U.K. Japan has selected the General Electric Company as builder of a 10–MWE-type power demonstration reactor. British General Electric has been chosen as contractor for the first full-scaled power reactor (a 150 MWE advanced Calder Hall reactor).

78. United Kingdom Nuclear Energy Program. The U.K. nuclear energy program has been established on a broad basis and is one of the three most highly advanced programs in the world. Over the past year there has been substantial progress in all areas of the program with notable emphasis on the field of nuclear power. The U.K. heads all other countries in domestic nuclear power construction with approximately 300 MWE to be installed by the end of 1959; and about 1400 MWE under construction, with an additional 500 MWE station authorized for Wales with construction to begin sometime this year.

79. The official nuclear power program is either on or ahead of schedule and is expected to realize the national goal of 5000–6000 MW by 1966. There is a possibility that within the next year or two a new (or extended) program will have been formulated. Decision in this respect will be affected by (a) experience gained with the generation of reactors now operating or under construction, (b) progress made with the advanced gas-cooled reactor and other concepts under study, and (3) a further evaluation of domestic economic needs.

80. In June 1958, the U.K. Nuclear Power Plant Company, one of the UKAEA industrial consortia members, signed an agreement with the Italian Company, Agip Nucleare, for collaboration in the construction of a Calder-Hall-type 200 MW station in Italy. Another consortia member, General Electric Company-Simmons Carves Group, has contracted to build a gas-cooled power reactor plant in Japan. The UKAEA will supply fuel for these stations. Thus far, these are the only two power plants sold by the U.K., and it is becoming somewhat apparent that the commercial exploitation of nuclear power by U.K. industry overseas is beginning to be adversely affected by the lack of a reactor with a greater commercial potential than the gas-cooled type.

81. This is further aggravated by the recent programs that have been initiated by the U.S. to provide special incentives to reactors using U.S. design. The rapid commercial development of an atomic energy industry in the U.S., coupled with the liberal technological information policy of the U.S., is precipitating a considerable turning of U.K. nuclear industry to U.S. firms for commercial arrangements which will enable them to expand their export marketing output beyond that afforded by the present and foreseeable U.K. AEC program.

82. These factors have combined to bring some tensions at the political level between the United States and the United Kingdom since the British have felt that the EURATOM and deferred-payment programs have put them at an unfair disadvantage. The British have stressed the mutual interest of the U.K. and the U.S. in avoiding any subsidy race in competition in the international nuclear power market. However, it has not affected the close and varied U.S.–U.K. cooperation at the technical level. (Conf.-DI)

83. Paragraph 51 of last year’s report noted that there was a U.S.–U.K. problem in reconciling the different policies relating to the dissemination of information prevailing in the two countries. The United Kingdom has not found it possible to provide freely to the United States information of commercial sensitivity which is developed with public funds since such data normally are sold in the United Kingdom. The extent of this problem is not as great as was thought originally since the amount of data in this category is substantially less than was originally contemplated.

84. U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R.’s capabilities in the power reactor fields are advancing rapidly, and a considerable amount of original and interesting work on reactor and reactor component development has been, performed; however, no Soviet breakthroughs have occurred. Their rate of reactor construction confirms our earlier estimate that this program has slipped substantially below its original goals announced in 1956 of 2000–2500 MWE by 1960. The latest over-all estimate is that, as now projected, the U.S.S.R. will have a capacity of about 2000 MWE by 1963. Information given Admiral Hyman G. Rickover on his August 1959 trip to the Soviet Union confirmed the considerable slippage in the original goal. For example, Admiral Rickover reported that only two of the four 100 MWE boiling water reactors are under construction at Belloyarsh with operation expected in 1961. He also was told the two 210 MWE pressurized water reactors (presumably at the Voronezh station) are due for completion in 1961.

85. The nuclear power programs of the United States and the U.S.S.R. involved the same general reactor types. As in the U.S., the first large power stations will be cooled with ordinary water. The Soviets also are developing experimental power reactors up to about 50 MWE, using various coolants. However, the U.S.S.R. is concentrating on the construction of large power stations employing a limited number of reactor designs, with a much smaller effort in purely experimental reactors; while the U.S. is building smaller stations which will use a greater variety of reactor types.

86. The only firmly identified U.S.S.R. application of nuclear energy for propulsion (see Koslov statement to Rickover—footnote to paragraph 19 of Report on Page 7) is the icebreaker “Lenin” which is essentially complete. Admiral Rickover was told on his aforementioned visits that the Soviets expected the “Lenin” test to be completed by the end of 1959. With respect to the Koslov statement, it is believed that the U.S.S.R. on the basis of its over-all nuclear technology, has been capable for several years of building nuclear submarines, but no such construction has been verified. (SECRET DI)

87. A major effort is being made to increase the size, number, and variety of devices for controlled thermonuclear research. The status of Soviet work in this field is roughly comparable to that of the U.S. and the U.K.

88. In 1955, the U.S.S.R. announced a program of atomic aid to the satellites. Research reactors, cyclotrons, and equipment for research with radioisotopes are sold to the satellite countries and technical training is provided. Rumania, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, and Hungary have received 2,000 kilowatt research reactors and Communist China has received a 6,500–10,000 kilowatt reactor. All Sino-Soviet Bloc countries have membership in the Joint Nuclear Research Institute in Dubna and they may send scientists to study and work in its laboratory, which employs some of the most advanced nuclear research equipment in the U.S.S.R. (UNC)

89. The most significant programs of assistance outside the Soviet Bloc have been directed to Yugoslavia where the U.S.S.R. has assisted in the construction of a research reactor, and Egypt where a research reactor and supporting equipment have been provided. (UNC)

90. Soviet offers of technical assistance, including in some cases nuclear equipment and training have been made to numerous other non-Bloc countries including Norway, Japan, Lebanon, Australia, Chile, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Thailand, Syria, Greece, Mexico, Afghanistan, and most recently, Iraq. (UNC) Iraq has recently been offered a reactor and is hoping to obtain the machine as a gift. (Secret–DI)

91. The training and research institutes at which the U.S.S.R. will accept trainees sponsored by the IAEA have been specified. These include leading universities and research institutes. None of these installations is directly connected with the Soviet Atomic Energy Program. (Secret–DI)

Appendix “A”

DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
STATUS OF ARMAMENTS FOR COOPERATION IN THE CIVIL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY AS OF JUNE 30, 1959

Cumulative Numbers Countries	Armaments	Country	Scope of Exchange	Effective Date
1	1	Argentina	Research	July 29, 1955
2	2	*Australia	Research & Power	May 28, 1957
3	3	Austria	Research	Jul 13, 1956
4	4	*Belgium	Research & Power	Jul 21, 1955
5	5	Brazil	Research	Aug, 3, 1955
6	6	*Canada	Research & Power	Jul 21, 1955
7	7	Chile	Research	Aug 8, 1955
8	8	China, Rep.of	Research	Jul 18, 1955
9	9	Colombia	Research	Jul 19, 1955
10	10	Cuba	Research	Oct 10, 1957
11	11	Denmark	Research	Jul 25, 1955
12	12	Dominican Rep.	Research	Dec 21, 1956
13	13	Ecuador	Research	Feb 6, 1958
14	14	France	Research & Power	Nov 20, 1956
15	15	Germany, Fed. Rep.	Research & Power	Aug 7, 1957
	16	W. Berlin, City	Research	Aug 1, 1957
16	17	Greece	Research	Aug 4, 1955
17	18	Guatemala	Research	Apr 22, 1957
18	19	Iran	Research	Apr 27, 1959
19	20	Ireland	Research	Jul 9, 1958
20	21	Israel	Research	Jul 12, 1955
21	22	Italy	Research & Power	Apr 15, 1958
22	23	Japan	Research & Power	Dec 5, 1958
23	24	Korea, Rep. of	Research	Feb 3, 1956
24	25	Lebanon	Research	Jul 18, 1955
25	26	*Netherlands	Research & Power	Aug 8, 1957
26	27	New Zealand	Research	Aug 29, 1956
27	28	Nicaragua	Research	Mar 7, 1956
28	29	Norway	Research & Power	Jun 10, 1957
29	30	Pakistan	Research	Aug 11, 1955
30	31	Peru	Research	Jan 25, 1956
31	32	Philippines	Research	Jul 27, 1955
32	33	Portugal	Research	Jul 21, 1955
33	34	South Africa	Research & Power	Aug 22, 1957
34	35	Spain	Research & Power	Feb 12, 1958
35	36	Sweden	Research	Jan. 18, 1956
36	37	Switzerland	Research	Jul 18, 1955
	38	*Switzerland	Power	Jan 29, 1957
37	39	Thailand	Research	Mar 13, 1956
38	40	Turkey	Research	Jun 10, 1955
39	41	*United Kingdom	Research & Power	Jul 21, 1955
40	42	Uruguay	Research	Jan 13, 1956
41	43	Venezuela	Research	Jul 21, 1955
42	44	Viet-Nam	Research	Jul 1, 1959
SIGNED AND IN RATIFICATION PROCESS AS OF MAY 1959				Date Signed
—	45	Brazil	Power	Jul 31, 1957
43	46	Costa Rica	Research	May 18, 1956
—	—	Cuba	Research & Power	Sept 9, 1958
44	47	Iraq	Research	Jun 7, 1957
45	48	Panama	Research	Jun 24, 1959
—	—	Peru	Research & Power	Jul 19, 1957
—	—	Venezuela	Research & Power	Oct 8, 1958
SUMMARY: In effect: 31 research and 13 power agreements with 42 countries & West Berlin.
Signed: 4 research and 4 power with 3 more countries. (3 to supersede existing records).
* : Clarification armaments [Footnote is in the original.]

SPECIAL AGREEMENTS

Scope of Exchange	Status	Date
EURATOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joint Nuclear Power Program	Effective	Feb. 18, 1959
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . . . Supply of Materials, etc.	Signed	May 11, 1959
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Signed	May 22, 1959
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes, etc.	Signed	May 7, 1959
Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Signed	May 6, 1959
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Signed	May 6, 1959
Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Signed	May 5, 1959
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Effective	Aug 4, 1958
*Amendment to this agreement	Signed	May 7, 1959
West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . Mutual Defense Purposes	Signed	May 5, 1959
* Classified Agreements. [Footnote is in the original.]

Appendix “B”

COURSES OR ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRAINING IN WHICH FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY PARTICIPATE

1. International School of Nuclear Science and Engineering (Argonne National Laboratory)

2. Radioisotope Techniques Course (Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies)

3. Puerto Rico Nuclear Center (the University of Puerto Rico)

4. The Reactor Operations Supervisor Course (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

5. The Reactor Hazards Course (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)

6. Radiochemical and Counting Procedures Course (New York Health & Safety Laboratory)

7. Uranium Geology, Exploitation and Mining Training (Grand Junction Operations Office)

8. Reactor Engineer Officer Training Course—N.S. Savannah (Babcock & Wilcox)

9. N.S. Savannah Construction Observation Program (New York Shipbuilding Corp.)

10. Shippingport Power Reactor Operators School (Duquesne Power & Light Co.)

Appendix “C”

RESEARCH REACTOR GRANTS

(May 30, 1956 – June 30, 1959)

UPDATE

	Country	Type	Power (Thermal)	Mfgr	Est. Project Cost (Millions)
1.	Brazil1 Sao Paulo	Pool	5 Mw.	Babcock and Wilcox	$1.3
2.	Spain* Madrid	Pool	3 ″	International General Electric	$1.0
3.	Netherlands [illegible in the original]	Tank	25 ″	American Car and Foundry	$3.9
4.	Denmark [illegible in the original]	Tank	5 ″	Foster-Wheeler	$1.4
5.	Japan [illegible in the original]	Tank	10 ″	American Machine and Foundry	$1.5
6.	Portugal Lisbon	Pool	1 ″	″	$[illegible in the original]
7.	Venezuela Caracas	Pool	3 ″	International General Electric	$5.0
8.	Italy* Ispra	Tank	5 ″	American Car and Foundry	$5.6
9.	Greece Aghia Parasheri	Pool	1 ″	American Machine and Foundry	$[illegible in the original]
10.	Sweden Studsvik	Tank	30 ″	American Car and Foundry	$4.3
11.	Israel Rehovoth	Pool	1 ″	American Machine and Foundry	$1.4
12.	West Germany Munich	Pool	1″	American Machine and Foundry	$3.1
13.	Belgium Mol	Tank	25″2	(Centre d’Eludes de (l’Energie Nucleaire. (Nuclear Development (Associates.	$10.0
14.	China Hainchiue	Pool	1″	International General Electric	$1.0
15.	Austria Vienna	Tank	5″1	American Machine and Foundry	$4.0
15.	Norway Kjeller	Pool	10 Kw.	Norstom	$0.8
17.	Korea [illegible in the original]	Tank	300″	General Atomic	[illegible in the original]
18.	Thailand Bangkok	Pool	1 Mw.	Curtis-Wright	$0.82
19.	Viet-Nam Delat	Tank	100 Mw.	General Atomic	$0.75
918

Appendix “D”

SUMMARY OF COUNTRY POWER PROGRAMS

(Net output in Electrical Kilowatts)

Country	End of Calendar Year
	1958 (Actual)	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1970	1975
	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)	MW(e)
Belgium			10			300				550		1200
France								850				8000
Germany (West)								500				6000
Italy					320	650		1500				6000
Japan								600				7000
Netherlands								400			1200	3000
United Kingdom	300								5000–6000
U.S.S.R.					2000
U.S.	75.5	75.5	202.9	828.3	[illegible in the original]	1157.3

Appendix “E”

MATERIALS ESTIMATES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES OCTOBER 1958 THRU MARCH 1959

		URANIUM
TIME DATED	COUNTRY	KG. U–235	ENRICHMENT U–235	OTHER MATERIALS	TYPE OF TRANSACTION	PURPOSE & REMARKS
Sept. 16	Switzerland	0.661	20	—	Sale	ACN–201 Reactor U. of Geneva
Sept. 30	Canada	—	—	100 lbs. Heavy Water	Sale	AECL
Oct. 29	Switzerland	.778	20	—	Sale	ACN–211 Reactor U. of Basle
Nov. 1 Nov. 2	France	55.221	1.5	—	Lease	UO2 Powder for Alize Reactor
Nov. 3	Germany	—	—	9 tons Heavy Water	Sale	Kernreoktor
Nov. 12	Belgium	—	—	American 241 Curium 244	Gift	Research Liegr U. Milligram quantity
Nov. 19	Norway	1.304	1.5	—	Sale	Halden Reactor
Nov. 21	Denmark	4.495	90	—	Lease	Riso DR–2 Reactor
Dec. 3	Denmark	1.683	90	—	Lease	Riso DR–2 Reactor
Dec. 9	Belgium	1.986	20	—	Sale	U. of Lovanin Belgian [illegible in the original] TRIGA Reactor
Dec. 12	Brazil	5.729	20	—	Lease	Sao Paulo Reactor
Dec. 19	Spain	(a)	90	—	Sale	Fission counter material for Monclea reactor
Dec. 20	Denmark	(a)	90	—	Sale	Fission counter material
Jan. 7	Australia	4.433	90	—	Sale	Research
Jan. 14	France	0.01	99	—	Sale	Research
Jan. 14	Switzerland	0.05	20	—	Sale	U. of Basle
Jan. 19	United Kingdom	—	—	U–233	Gift	Cross section measurements
Jan. 26	Canada	3.883	90	—	Lease	McMasters U. Reactor
Jan. 26	Canada	(a)	90	—	Sale	Material for two fission counters
Feb. 10	Canada	—	—	0.5 tons Heavy Water	Sale	AECL
Feb. 12	Italy	4.356	20	—	Lease	Ispra Reactor
Feb. 20	Canada	—	—	0.5 tons Heavy Water	Sale	AECL
Feb. 25	France	1.533	3.5	—	Lease	UO2 Powder for Alize Reactor
Feb. 27	Germany	—	—	Depleted U.	Sale	Research 20 grams
Mar. 3	Italy	(a)	90	—	Sale	Ispra Flux mapping Device
Mar. 6	Canada	—	—	20 tons Heavy Water	Sale	AECL
Mar 13	France	—	—	Depleted U.	Sale	115 grams metal foil for research
Mar 23	United Kingdom	(a)	Normal	—	Enchange	Research
Apr 8	Norway	0.226	1.5	—	Sale	Halden Reactor
Apr 9	France	3.753	19.87	—	Lease	Triton Reactor
Apr 24	France	5.935	3.5	—	Lease	For ALIZE fuel fabrication
May 6	France	6.994	3.5	—	Lease	same as above
May 13	Holland	Normal U slugs	—	Lease	University of Delft
May 21	Germany	5.991	19.82	—	Lease	Siemens reactor
May 20	Canada	2.794	90.	—	Sale	Research
May 22	Canada	2.174	90.	—	Sale	Research
May 25	Japan	(a)	20	—	Lease	Fission Counter
June 3	France	2.451	3.5	—	Lease	ALIZE
June 10	France	—	—	NP–237	Gift	Research 1 mg
June 10	Denmark	—	—	NP–237	Gift	Research 1 mg
June 10	France	—	—	Depleted Uranium 500 grams	Gift	Research
June 3	France	5.339	20	—	Lease	Minerva Reactor
June 9–10–11	Belgium	3.675	90	—	Sale	BR–2 test reactor
June 12	Canada	2.052	90	—	Lease	McMaster Univ. reactor
June 12	Italy	—	—	Depleted UFo 500 grams	Sale	Research
June 6	Italy	2.332	20	—	Lease	Fuel for TRIGA
June 6	Italy	(a)	90	—	Sale	Fission Counter-TRIGA
June 15	France	6.597	20%	—	Lease	Fuel For Melusine & Triton
June 18	Israel	—	—	Am 241 NP–237	Gift	Research
June 18	Belgium	—	—	AM 241	Gift	Research
June 19	France	2.901	20%	—	Lease	Fuel For Melusine & Triton
June 19	Sweden	(a)	90	—	Sale	Material for fission counters
919

1. Source: Transmits report on the implementation of NSC 5725/1, for the period July, 1958-June 30, 1959. Secret. 46 pp. NARA, S/S–NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 5725.
2. Brackets are in the original.
3. On July 11, 1959, First Deputy Premier F.R. Koslov when at Shippingport, told Admiral Rickover that the Soviets were building nuclear powered submarines. During Rickover’s subsequent visit to the U.S.S.R. in August 1959, this subject was not mentioned, and no further Information was obtained. SECRET DI. [Footnote is in the original.]
4. Brackets are in the original.
5. Brackets are in the original.

918. Total Grants—$6,650,000

     Cost of Projects Assisted—$47,270,000

     1 Grant Paid [Footnote is in the original.]

     2 Convertible to [illegible in the original] MW. [Footnote is in the original.]

     3 Convertible to 50 MW [Footnote is in the original.]

919. (a) – amount less than 10 grams [Footnote is in the original.]