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

608. Memorandum From Lay to the NSC¹

Washington, December 16, 1960

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, 1959 through October 15, 1960, 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

Progress Report by the Atomic Energy Commission

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

PROGRESS REPORT BY THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON THE STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NSC 5725/1—PEACEFUL USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY—FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1959 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 1960

1. This report summarizes major developments and problem areas for the period of July 1, 1959, through October 15, 1960, in the programs implementing NSC 5725/1, “Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy”, dated December 13, 1957.

2. During the reporting period, the United States maintained its leadership in fostering peaceful uses of atomic energy and assisting the programs of other countries and international organizations in this field. This leadership was demonstrated convincingly at the Third and Fourth General Conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in September 1959 and 1960.

3. At the 1959 Conference, the United States recommended a balanced expansion of Agency activities, much of which has been incorporated in IAEA programs, particularly in technical assistance to lesser developed countries.

4. In 1960, despite the continued opposition from important neutral and Soviet Bloc countries, progress was made toward a major U.S. objective, that of the Agency fulfilling its statutory responsibility of establishing and administering an international system of safeguards to assure against diversion to military purposes of materials and facilities supplied by or through the Agency or placed under its jurisdiction. (See “International Agency”, paragraphs 21–32, and “Safeguards”, paragraphs 11–19.)

5. In nuclear power development abroad, technical problems and general education in delivered prices of fossil fuels caused stretchouts and modifications in most major programs. The U.S. domestic program has been unaffected as fossil fuel costs have been and remain relatively stable.

6. It has been recognized that competitive power will be difficult to attain in the United States. There is confidence, however, that the short-term goals of the U.S. 10-year program ending in 1968 will be achieved and that the diversity and magnitude of the U.S. reactor development effort will provide continued leadership in this area. (See “U.S. Power Development”, paragraphs 50–60.)

7. In 1960, U.S. cooperation was extended to three countries not previously associated with the Atoms for Peace program. These were Indonesia (research Agreement for Cooperation effected) and Finland and Yugoslavia, assistance to the latter two being made possible by the U.S.–IAEA agreement. (See paragraph 26.) Also, financing of work in this country in direct support of the Canadian heavy water moderated power reactor development was a significant expansion of cooperation with our Canadian ally. (See paragraph 54.)

8. Other events include the successful organization, in October 1959, along lines proposed by the United States, of the Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission (IANEC) and orderly development of its program without opposition at the second IANEC meeting in Brazil in July 1960 (Cuba not represented); increasing requests from countries and international organizations for U.S. experts and consultants (48 supplied in the reporting period); and success of the comprehensive Atoms for Peace exhibits in India and the United Arab Republic.

9. The U.S.S.R. so far has confined its own Atoms for Peace program primarily to the Soviet Bloc countries. Some aid has been given to Iraq (exchange of missions), Yugoslavia (a research reactor), Indonesia (offer of reactor and technicians) and the United Arab Republic (training and a research reactor). The Franco-Soviet agreement signed April 2, 1960 is limited largely to exchanges of scientists somewhat along the same lines of the US–USSR program.

10. There always is the possibility that the Soviet Union may add more substantial aid in the nuclear field to its current economic and technological offensive against the Free World. There are reports that the U.S.S.R. will offer to supply on attractive credit terms and with “no strings attached” (e.g., safeguards) a large power reactor to India which is in the market for such a facility.

SAFEGUARDS

11. After long consideration, the IAEA Board of Governors in April 1960 approved provisionally and referred to the Fourth General Conference, a proposed system of Agency administered safeguards. The proposed policies and procedures are acceptable to the United States and were strongly endorsed by U.S. representatives in the Board and at the September 1960 Conference.

12. During the Conference debate, at our request, eight nations went on record as favoring consultation with the United States with a view of transferring to Agency administration the safeguards provisions of their present bilateral agreements with the United States. Negotiations to accomplish such a transfer will be undertaken with the countries involved.

13. It is recognized that the Agency system, if implemented by the IAEA Board at its January 1961 meeting, is only a first step toward the goal of a comprehensive internationally administered control system that would be applicable to all types of materials and facilities where there is the possibility of diversion for military purposes. The proposed controls would apply only to reactors of up to 100 megawatts thermal power and are not applicable to facilities such as chemical processing plants or large power reactors.

14. In recognition of the evolutionary nature of the Agency system, the 15-power resolution, initiated by the United States and adopted by the Conference, provides that the Board of Governors shall report to the Sixth Conference in 1962 on the results of experience gained, as well as technological developments so that operation of Agency safeguards may be reviewed and evaluated.

15. To provide a field laboratory for the Agency procedures and to demonstrate that international inspection is not an unwarranted infringement on national sovereignty, the United States at the Fourth Conference unilaterally offered to place under IAEA inspection two research, one experimental power, and one small power reactor—all representative of the types of facilities that would be covered under the proposed Agency system. The U.S. offer was well received and a project agreement is being worked out to put it into effect.

16. At the 1960 Conference, India and the Soviet Bloc continued their strong opposition to the proposed system. A large majority of members, however, rejected a five-power resolution initiated by India which would have had the effect of emasculating the proposed system and delaying its installation. Instead, by a better than two-to-one vote, the Conference adopted the 15-power resolution which returned the safeguards document to the Board for implementation and instructed the Board to take into account the views expressed during the debate.

17. It is anticipated, however, that the Soviet Bloc, India and other neutral states will continue their opposition to proposed safeguards system during the January 1961 Board discussions and, even if passed, may not join in its application.

18. (The President was informed on October 31, 1960 of rights and sanctions available to the United States to recover reactor fuel furnished by this country in event a recipient nation failed to comply with provisions of the Agreement for Cooperation under which the material was made available.)

19. U.S. preparation for the January 1961 Board meeting will be directed toward obtaining maximum support for the proposed Agency system and for a common position among other supplier nations to apply comparable safeguards to their bilateral transactions. Should these objectives fail to be achieved, the United States must re-assess its safeguards position, taking into account both actual developments and the requirements of national security.

20. As of this date, under bilateral agreements, U.S. safeguards are applicable to 62 facilities in 23 countries. Inspections are continuing on normal schedules without incident. Materials being controlled, as of September 30, 1960 amount to more than 20, 000 kilograms of uranium fuel and 365 tons of heavy water.

21. Meanwhile, Euratom has activated its safeguards operation and inspections by three-man teams of different nationalities are proceeding. No objections have been encountered either to the inspections or the nationality of the personnel. A master inventory of materials and facilities subject to Euratom controls is being prepared.

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

22. Despite statutory and financial handicaps, the Atomic Energy Agency in the past 15 months has made significant progress in competence and in scope of its technical programs. U.S. support of the Agency was expanded. Noteworthy was the U.S. effort to encourage our bilateral partners to look to the Agency for its future Atoms for Peace assistance. To this end, four bilateral agreements were allowed to expire: Chile, Colombia, Lebanon and Pakistan.

23. Six other bilaterals expiring in 1960 or 1961 (Argentina, Brazil, Republic of China, Greece, Israel, and Portugal) were extended for only two years with a view to encouraging these countries to seek future assistance from the Agency. The same was true for a three-year extension of the U.S. agreement with the Philippines.

24. The United States continued to be the largest financial contributor to the Agency. During calendar year 1960, the United States will provide not less than half of the voluntary budget and 32.43 per cent of the assessed budget. (See paragraph 28). Other monetary support includes $192,000 worth of equipment as gifts in kind to certain member nations under the IAEA technical assistance program and $700,000 for cost-free fellowships.

25. Under a master contract negotiated with the Agency, the United States, during the reporting period, placed 12 research contracts for work costing $134,000 to be performed in other IAEA Member States.

26. These actions do not mean that the bilateral system of agreements is to be abandoned. The United States has adopted the policy of encouraging an increasing number of its bilateral partners to seek special nuclear materials and other assistance through the Agency. For those countries with which we have substantial joint programs, or in cases where political considerations dictate a preference, however, the bilateral agreement probably will continue to be the instrument of choice.

27. The US–IAEA Agreement for Cooperation, which went into force August 7, 1959, made it possible for the United States to use the Agency to provide reactors and fuel to Agency members whether or not such members had a bilateral agreement with the United States. Under this agreement, Finland and Yugoslavia will obtain, through the IAEA, research reactors and fuel of U.S. manufacture. In this connection, the United States awarded a $200,000 grant to Yugoslavia towards the purchase of its reactor and an additional $150,000 commitment for purchase of U.S. equipment.

28. Accepting the U.S. offer made at the 1959 IAEA General Conference, Agency scientists in 1960 began visits to some unclassified U.S. small nuclear power plant projects. At the 1960 IAEA meeting, the U.S. offer was extended to include additional projects in the small and medium-sized reactor field. Arrangements are being made to place Agency visits on a periodic basis. The IAEA technical staff is not large enough to permit long-term work assignments to these projects.

29. Other assistance included the offer to donate up to $50,000 worth of nuclear fuel for the Agency-sponsored Finnish reactor project; participation of 35 U.S. scientists and engineers in many fields as consultants to countries requesting them through the IAEA or as members of Agency expert panels; and continuation of the program of making a minimum of 80 cost-free fellowships for training in the United States available through the Agency program.

30. Future financing of the Agency is one of the major problems confronting the United States in its continuing effort to make the Agency a more effective instrument in dealing with international matters such as health and safety, including waste disposal; safeguards; information dissemination; etc., and for channeling U.S. nuclear energy assistance to underdeveloped nations.

31. The present system of two budgets, one termed “administrative” and supported by assessments and the other, designated “operational”, funded by voluntary contributions is inadequate and cumbersome. Voluntary contributions have not been as large as expected to the detriment of those Agency activities dependent on this source of funds. As of October 1, 1960 it did not appear that payments of other members will exceed $500,000 (the goal was $1,500,000 to which the United States contributed $500,000). This means that none of the $250,000 pledged additionally by the United States on a matching basis for contributions in excess of $1,000,000 will be used. Although pledges of voluntary contributions have increased in the past two years, the Agency faces a difficult problem in obtaining adequate support on a regular basis from those Members able to pay more.

32. The present detailed statutory supervision of Agency operations by the Board of Governors impedes efficient administration of Agency programs and often results in undue delays in obtaining nonpolicy decisions and approvals. The United States will examine the desirability of changes in the Agency Statute, revision of which will be considered at the Fifth and Sixth General Conferences in 1961 and 1962, that would contribute to solving these problems.

33. A continuing problem at IAEA General Conference is injection of political and propaganda issues, principally by the Soviet Bloc, into general debate and committee discussions. This is resented particularly by some of the scientist-delegates from other member states but no practical solution appears at hand.

34. The term of former Representative Sterling W. Cole as Director General expires in 1961. The Board of Governors will appoint the Director General for the 1962–1966 term in time for approval at the Fifth General Conference in September 1961. Although no political commitments, direct or implied, were made when Mr. Cole was chosen, the fact that he was from the “West” may lead to claims that he should be succeeded by a Soviet-oriented person. The United States contemplates seeking support among non-Soviet Bloc Members for a mutually agreed upon candidate for the Director General post.

EURATOM AND ORGANIZATION FOR EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COOPERATION (OEEC)

35. The deepening impact of economic factors that have produced a lessened urgency for nuclear power (see paragraphs 5–6) resulted in a setback in the joint US-Euratom effort to encourage European utilities to build large-scale nuclear plants in Western Europe. In the first round of invitations for plants to be constructed by the end of 1963, only one final proposal qualified for benefits of the joint program.

36. This was the 150,000 KWe project in Southern Italy for the Italian Societa Electtronucleare Nazionale (SENN). Construction is proceeding and a U.S. manufacturer will supply the boiling-water-type reactor. With agreement of all parties involved and no objection from the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, this project—already initiated under bilateral arrangements—was placed under the Euratom program.

37. Invitation for two plants, to be completed by December 1965, is to be issued shortly by Euratom, with indications that the 150,000 KW(e) project of the Baden-Wurtenberg consortium in West Germany (AKS) and the 210,000 KW(e) joint Franco-Belgian proposal (SENA) may be submitted.

38. Eurtom remains of the belief that, over the long term, nuclear power will be important in Europe. Its recent study forecast that, by 1980, the Community would require, in addition to expanded conventional output, some 40,000,000 KW installed nuclear capacity. This same study put nuclear power by 1970 at 9,600,000 KW. The 1956 “Target for Euratom” envisaged 15,000,000 KW by 1968.

39. The joint US-Euratom research and development program was cut back to limit proposals generally to work on the boiling water system. This policy will be reviewed after evaluation of proposals received for the 1965 reactors. To date, 45 projects totaling $7,800,000 have been approved by the Joint US-Euratom Research and Development Board. The United States will finance $2,200,000 of this work and Euratom the remaining $5,600,000.

40. An Additional Agreement for Cooperation with Euratom came into force July 25, 1960 which covers transfer of highly enriched fuel and U–233 contained in fuel for use in research and development projects not connected with the joint program. A perfecting amendment to the Euratom Cooperation Act to permit implementing this Additional Agreement will be submitted to the next Congress.

41. Euratom acquired, through lease, the excellent Ispra Center in Italy which will become its major research facility. The Community also made substantial progress in the use of national laboratories in Member States for research projects. Agreements are in force or being negotiated for joint or Community work at laboratories in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium.

42. There have been important developments in the area of public liability. Signed and awaiting ratification is an OEEC convention setting up to $15,000,000 of private protection as the maximum for each nuclear accident with a proviso that no state would require less than $5,000,000. Euratom staff is developing a supplement to the OEEC convention which would permit its members, unilaterally, to add government indemnity to raise the maximum liability to between $50,000,000 and $80,000,000 with the possibility that, jointly, the Euratom countries might take action to bring the total available for public claims to approximately $120,000,000.

43. There remain some problems which affect the U.S.-Euratom joint program. Among these are the recent Euratom request to lease enriched fuel inventories for the joint power reactor projects instead of purchasing them on the deferred payment plan; Euratom encouragement of the West Berlin project, BEWAG, which poses technical and political problems for the United States; and recurring friction between French and Euratom executives.

44. (The International Atomic Energy Agency continued its work on drafting public liability conventions which would have world-wide application to land based facilities and nuclear-powered ships.)

45. Euratom also has Agreement for Cooperation with the United Kingdom and Canada. The former has not resulted in any joint projects to date and discussions have tended to range over long-range programs. Canada and Euratom have established a joint board to administer a five-year $10,000,000 research and development effort on the heavy-water moderated reactor system.

46. United States expanded its cooperation with the OEEC and the latter’s European Nuclear Energy Agency, through an agreement for exchange of data on experimental high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor (DRAGON in England; the Philadelphia Electric-General Dynamics project in this country); consultative assistance to Eurochemic (the semi-governmental share-holding company now building a chemical reprocessing plant at Mol, Belgium); and to the OEEC experimental reactor project at Halden, Norway.

INTER-AMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY COMMISSION (IANEC) AND PUERTO RICO NUCLEAR CENTER

47. The new Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission (IANEC) is composed of representatives of the governments of the Organization of American States. Its statute, adopted in April 1959, sets up IANEC as a coordinating and consultative body in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

48. Several problems emerged from the two IANEC meetings and its symposium on industrial applications of nuclear energy, all held during the reporting period. Coordination of effort in training, education, and research remains the paramount need. The United States, at both IANEC meetings, committed itself to increased financial support on a bilateral basis to national centers and specialized research and training facilities when a comprehensive plan for practical development has been completed and given IANEC approval.

49. The acute lack of facilities for gathering and interchanging technical information in Latin-American countries also was demonstrated at the symposium. The United States supported resolutions adopted at the second IANEC meeting urging development of a coordinated training program and recommending revision of O.A.S. fellowship, technical assistance and other applicable programs to promote greater use of these programs in the nuclear science field.

50. The Puerto Rico Nuclear Center was strengthened during the reporting period with the completion of a small training reactor and the dedication of a large research reactor and related laboratory facilities in August 1960, and the appointment, effective July 1, 1960, of Dr. John Bugher, former Director of the AEC Division of Biology and Medicine, as Center Director. Dr. Bugher’s appointment fills the need for putting an outstanding Scientific Administrator at the head of the Center.

51. Current objectives are effective recruitment of students from Latin America, establishment of strong research programs and achieving closer relationship with the University of Puerto Rico in planning Center and University programs. Approximately 20 Latin-American students were enrolled at the Center in the 1959 academic year.

52. With respect to the concept of a cooperative Center to serve Asian countries: There has been no revival of interest in the countries which were consulted several years ago.

U.S. NUCLEAR POWER AND PLOWSHARE PROGRAMS

53. One objective of the U.S. 10-year power program has been changed by the economic factors previously noted (see paragraphs 35–39). The hope that within five years U.S. assistance and progress in our program would bring competitive nuclear power to high cost areas in friendly countries, especially in Europe, does not appear likely to be realized.

54. The U.S. effort is moving ahead. The 180,000 KW(e) Dresden plant near Chicago is in operation and attracting an increasing number of foreign visitors. The Yankee 110,000 KW(e) project in Massachusetts has gone critical. Plants in operation or under construction will raise the total U.S. installed nuclear capacity above the 1,000,000 KW(e) mark by 1964. See Appendix “A”, page 20. If other planned plants materialize, the total by 1966 would be about 1,500,000 KW(e).

55. During the past year, active negotiations were begun for at least three additional large-scale nuclear plants: the proposed 300,000 to 360,000 KW(e) plants for Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Companies and studies looking toward a 350,000 to 500,000 KW(e) project in New York State for which seven utilities are organizing a special company.

56. The first phase of a long range AEC study, completed in Fiscal Year 1960, indicates that the pressurized and boiling water and the organic moderated reactor systems, with reasonable success in programmed development effort, will meet the near-term goal of competitive power with large scale reactors in high cost U.S. areas by 1963. Also for the first time, leading reactor manufacturers are offering to build plants in the 300,000 KW range on a fixed price scale.

57. For the long range goal of competitive power in low cost areas and with smaller plants, the United States is programming substantial research and development on several advanced reactor systems. It is estimated that at least $2 billion will be required for the U.S. Government sponsored nuclear power program in the 1960’s. The bulk of the developmental work such as design, construction and operation of reactor experiments, and prototypes and general engineering will be funded by the Government. Privately financed projects are expected to add substantially to the total expenditures.

58. In addition to the U.S. work with Euratom and OEEC (See paragraphs 31–36, 41) a cooperative program entered into with Canada is expected to make substantial contributions to heavy water moderated reactor technology. Under this program, the United States will spend in this country up to $5,000,000 over a five-year period for research and development supporting the Canadian program in this field.

59. Civilian applications are assuming more importance in efforts directed at nuclear rocket propulsion (ROVER program) and at developing small, light-weight auxiliary nuclear power and heat sources (SNAP program). Last August, work heretofore carried out separately by the AEC and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was consolidated in a joint Nuclear Propulsion Office.

60. Although an experimental ROVER graphite reactor tested in July 1960 ran for five minutes at about a 90,000 kilowatt power level, an effort to develop reactors of high power, higher gas temperatures and lower weight is being pursued. The goal is to achieve three to four times more power and thrust which would increase payload capabilities.

61. Progress was made in the two approaches to small nuclear auxiliary power sources—one using heat from isotope decay and the other based on small, compact reactors. Both have been successfully demonstrated. An experimental power package for a remote weather station was completed in Fiscal Year 1960. The U.S. Coast Guard has established a requirement for unattended power sources for several types of navigational aids.

62. In the nuclear ship program, the N.S. SAVANNAH is nearing completion and sea trials are scheduled for the spring of 1961. It will use a pressurized water reactor. Longer range development of other reactor systems is being carried out but it is not considered likely that nuclear merchant ship operation will be economic in the near future.

63. Negotiations are proceeding with the United Kingdom for permission for the NS SAVANNAH to call at Southampton and Tilbury (near London) and talks have been held with other European countries. Agreement has been reached with the British except for terms of third party liability.

64. In Europe interest in nuclear ship propulsion continues high despite the present lack of economic incentive. Recently, 11 shipyards in Germany were asked by the consortium of government and private industry at Hamburg, known as GKSS, to bid on design and construction of West Germany’s first nuclear ship—to be a 10,000 horsepower “floating laboratory” powered by a 30,000 KW organic moderated reactor. Besides other German projects, mostly in the planning stage, studies are being pursued in Italy, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries.

65. Start of nuclear detonation experiments for peaceful uses (Project Plowshare) awaits decision related to negotiations on nuclear weapon tests ban. In the reporting period, cratering experiments with chemical high explosives have continued. Also, based on a technical study, the Panama Canal Company reported on April 29, 1960, that if certain preliminary experimentation should be successful, nuclear explosions could be used to build a new sea-level trans-Isthmian canal. The report urged that these experiments be conducted.

ACTIVITIES UNDER BILATERAL AGREEMENTS

66. Activities carried on under bilateral agreements continued to expand. The most notable was the increase in transfer of reactor fuel. Most of the 339 kilograms of contained U–235 (total uranium 10,998 kg) were shipped to other countries in the form of fuel elements manufactured in the United States. The total for this reporting period compares with 486 Kg of U–235 (total uranium 9,134 Kg) for all previous shipments.

67. This increase reflects the dominant position the United States has had in the sale of research and training reactors abroad since most of this fuel was for U.S. manufactured facilities. Foreign sales are dropping both in the United States and the United Kingdom, as other countries acquire the ability to design and construct reactors and as current needs are satisfied.

68. No large-scale power reactors were sold either by the United States or the United Kingdom in the reporting period. Plans of the Franco-Belgian and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Kernkraftwerke Stuttgart (AKS) groups, however, are based on U.S. designed reactors. On October 10, 1960, India invited international bidding on a 300,000 KW(e) nuclear plant for the Bombay area. Brazil has announced that invitations for 200,000 KW(e) between Rio and Sao Paulo will be issued in 1961.

69. Reflecting the adverse economic climate for nuclear power, the only group to take advantage of the special deferred fuel payment plan offered for reactors that could be completed by 1964 was the Societa Electtronucleare Italiana (SELNI), a corporation 85 per cent privately owned, with the majority held in Edisonvolta. Its 165,000 KW(e) plant, using a U.S. reactor, is to be located in the Ligurian region and will serve the Milan industrial complex.

70. Changes in civilian bilateral agreements not previously noted include the coming into force of one for power with Venezuela (signed October 8, 1958) and two for research with Indonesia and Austria, the last-named being an updating of an earlier agreement. Amendments expanding the scope of cooperation were effected with Canada, New Zealand, and Thailand. The total agreements in force now stand at 41 with 39 countries, plus those with Euratom and IAEA.

71. The Canadian amendment clarified patent arrangements, provided for sale lease or loan of special nuclear materials and heavy water and extended the duration of the Agreement for Cooperation.

TRAINING

72. Training of foreign nationals in Commission and other U.S. institutions continued to increase. During the Fiscal Year 1960, more than 1,100 persons from 52 countries participated in formal courses (260) or received on-the-job training at Commission facilities (900 estimated). Guidance on opportunities and financial assistance available in private industry and U.S. colleges and universities was given to several hundred others.

73. The training program is kept flexible to meet changing needs. The first class at the school at Argonne National Laboratory, renamed, in 1960, the International Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, entered on much more advanced courses of study. Basic work now available elsewhere was dropped in the curriculum revision.

74. The first courses, primarily for foreign students, in various phases of reactor technology and operation were completed in this reporting period at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the nuclear ship project, and the Shippingport nuclear power plant.

75. Education-and-training continued to be an important and popular phase of the Atoms for Peace program, particularly in view of the increased efforts in technical assistance through IAEA research and equipment grants for use by foreign nationals in their own countries. Facilities for basic training are improving in quality and expanding in number in the more advanced nations. The AEC program will be altered as necessary to meet changing conditions.

EXHIBITS AND CONFERENCES

76. The Commission continued, on a selected basis, to support financially international conferences and symposia. Fourteen such meetings received support between February and October, 1960.

77. Subject to approval of the United Nations General Assembly, a Third International Conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy is scheduled tentatively for 1962 or 1963. The United States has taken the position that the International Atomic Energy Agency should have a major role in this next conference.

78. Major nuclear energy exhibits in New Delhi, India, and Cairo, United Arab Republic were most successful. A total of 2,800,000 viewed the U.S. exhibit at the New Delhi World Agricultural Fair between December 11, 1959, and February 29, 1960. Eleven seminars were held there for scientists and students. An operating reactor produced a number of isotopes some of which were used in experiments performed at the exhibit. Other major exhibits planned for the remainder of 1960 will be held in Pakistan and Argentina. During 1961, major displays are scheduled for Lebanon, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela.

79. The United States continued to support the objectives and work of the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation.

REACTOR AND EQUIPMENT GRANTS

80. In December 1959, the United States terminated the AEC research reactor grant program, effective June 30, 1960. Except for several applications received just before the deadline which are being evaluated, future requests will compete with other aid proposals from the specific country involved and, if granted, be funded by country program appropriations rather than from the Atoms for Peace budget.

81. In the reporting period, grants were committed for Turkey, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia, bringing the total to 22, of which 6 have been paid following completion of the reactor projects (see paragraph 26, Yugoslavia).

82. In general, the research reactor grant effort has been a successful phase of the Atoms for Peace program. This is attested in several ways: One has been concrete results in terms of research and development activities that are beginning to accumulate as these “grants” reactors continue successful operation. Another has been the stimulation that these projects provided for nuclear research and training in the recipient countries. In most cases, the total amount invested in facilities exceeded by many times the $350,000 grant.

83. One of the more successful “grant” reactors is the Munich, Germany project which is doing important work in irradiation of elements and materials, experiments with neutron beams and reactor experiments. An Israeli team spent several months at Munich, learning how to operate and use the swimming pool reactor, the type that Israel has just completed with U.S. grant assistance. (The U.S. company that built the Israeli reactor has reported that this project has been the most successful of any of its many overseas installations.)

84. Some grant projects have encountered delays which can be charged to some extent to lack in the recipient country of proper organization for design, specification and construction and unrealistic and overly optimistic time schedules. The United States, where appropriate, is endeavoring to assist in remedying such situations. In one case (Japan) much of the delay of over a year appears to have been due to the U.S. manufacturers.

85. In some countries, there will be a problem of using these new reactors fully. The United States recommended to the IAEA that this factor be taken into account in its technical aid program.

86. Assistance in procurement of equipment is assuming added importance because of its value to lesser developed countries. U.S. grants are used to meet urgent needs ranging from integrated packages of laboratory equipment, including hot cells, to simple teaching tools needed in a radioisotopes course. These grants now are being handled in three ways: Direct by the AEC; through ICA country programs; and by U.S. grants in kind made through the IAEA. State and AEC are re-examining the methods of funding equipment grants.

87. In fiscal year 1960, the totals for all three categories of equipment grants were $1,183,000 for 19 grants to 13 countries.

AEC PARTICIPATION IN US–USSR EXCHANGES

88. A Memorandum of Cooperation was signed in November 1959 by Chairman McCone of the USAEC and Professor V.S. Emelyanov, his counterpart in the Soviet Union. This understanding is incorporated as a formal addendum to the US–USSR 1960–61 Scientific, Technical and Cultural Exchange Agreement.

89. A modest program of exchanges of visits of US and USSR nuclear scientists under the Memorandum has made satisfactory progress and is being continued. In the reporting period, there have been reciprocal visits in the fields of high energy physics and controlled thermonuclear research. An exchange of visits in the area of radioactive waste disposal is expected to take place shortly as a result of further McCone-Emelyanov talks in Vienna in September, 1960.

90. Reports of these visits, as well as technical reports developed as a result of the discussions, are being made available to the IAEA. AEC is withholding direct exchange of its technical reports with the Soviet Union until the latter begins to fulfill its reciprocal obligations in this respect.

91. Professor Emelyanov has been urging discussion of possibilities of joint US–USSR projects, especially in waste disposal and high energy physics. The United States has responded cautiously because it is felt that such developments, particularly in high energy physics, should proceed on a broader international base.

92. At a meeting in New York City on September 16, U.S. and U.S.S.R. physicists agreed on the desirability of a particle accelerator in the energy region above 300 Bev. The U.S. group (private physicists not representing the Government) recommended that other countries and areas be encouraged to participate in the studies. This possibility is under consideration. The understanding calls for channeling any joint projects, to the extent that it is possible, through the International Atomic Energy Agency.

CONCLUSIONS

93. The six years of operation of the Atoms for Peace program has contributed to U.S. foreign policy with a relatively modest expenditure. The program brought to millions of people all over the world the realization of the potential of nuclear energy for peaceful applications.

94. Our effort to share with other nations the fruits of our progress in this field and our willingness to assist others has identified the United States as the world leader in seeking to encourage the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The historic United Nations conferences in Geneva in 1955 and 1958, initiated by the United States, contributed greatly to this image.

95. The program has resulted in thousands of person-to-person exchanges between U.S. nationals and those of most of the nations of the world. There have been more than 4,700 visitors from other countries to U.S. government and private nuclear laboratories, plants, and research centers. Some 2,500 foreign nationals have received training in nuclear science and technology in the United States.

96. One of the principal objectives of the program has been achieved. The International Atomic Energy Agency began operations in October 1957 and has grown slowly but steadily in competence and prestige. It has been recognized by other international organizations as having a leading role and competence in the nuclear field.

97. The Agency has, in less than two calendar years of full operation (staffing and organization predominated the first year), achieved noteworthy success in developing its fellowship program (about 1,000 awards made). Its publications are recognized internationally, particularly its manuals in the health and safety field. It has developed the ability to program and carry out large technical conferences and its smaller panels of experts have made significant contributions in the field of public liability and adoption of pertinent international standards.

98. The IAEA has made substantial progress toward implementing one of its most important statutory functions, that of establishing and administering an international system of safeguards to assure against diversion to military purposes of material designated for civilian use. If the safeguards proposal now before the IAEA Board for implementation is adopted and supplier and recipient nations do not bypass the Agency, administration of an international system of controls in the civilian area may assist in working out a practical contribution to new efforts to reach with the Soviet Union an agreement on a safeguarded formula for nuclear arms control.

99. One major goal has not been attained, that of the Agency becoming the chief custodian and broker of source and fissionable materials. Two factors are largely responsible: One is that the basic raw material, uranium ore, a scarce item in 1953, is now a surplus commodity on the world market. The other is that economic civilian uses for large quantities of uranium, particularly in nuclear plants, have not developed as fast as had been anticipated.

100. The basic objectives of U.S. policy in the Atoms for Peace effort, set forth in NSC 5725/1, continue applicable to programs implementing that policy. Consideration should be given to updating some of the background material. Some of the specific guidelines should be studied with a view to revision as necessary to reflect changing conditions such as the lessened urgency for nuclear power, development of multilateral agencies, and the emergency of new and underdeveloped countries which are becoming full-voting members of the United Nations, the IAEA, and other international organizations.

Appendix A
CENTRAL STATION AND EXPERIMENTAL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN OPERATION, UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR CONTRACTED FOR IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF OCTOBER 19, 1960

Name and/or Owner	Location	Principal Nuclear Contractor	Type	Net Power kw(e)	Startup
Operable:
Shippingport Atomic Power Station (AEC and Dequesne Light Co.)	Shippingport, Pa.	Westinghouse Electric Co.	Pressurized Water	60,000	[illegible in the original]
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Commonwealth Elison Co.)	Morris, Ill.	General Electric Company	Boiling Water	100,000	[illegible in the original]
Yankee Atomic Electric Co.	Rowe, Mass.	Westinghouse Electric Co.	Pressurized Water	110,000	[illegible in the original]
Experimental Boiling EBWR Water Reactor	Argonne, Ill.	Argonne National Laboratory, operated by the University of Chicago	Boiling Water	4,500	[illegible in the original]
Vallecites Boiling VBWR Water Reactor, (General Electric Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company)	Pleasanton, Calif.	General Electric Company	Boiling Water	5,000	[illegible in the original]
Sodium Reactor Experiment SRE (AEC and Southern California Edison Co.)	Santa Susana, Calif.	Atomics International, a Division of North American Aviation, Inc.	Sodium graphite	6,000	1957
Being Built:
Consolidated Edison Co. Thorium Reactor	Indian Point, N.Y.	The Babcock & Wilcox Co.	Pressurized water	255,000	1961
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant (Power Reactor Development Co.)	Lagoona Beach, Mich.	Owner	Fast breeder	94,000	[illegible in the original]
Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, Sheldon Station (AEC and Consumers Public Power District)	Hallam, Nebr.	Atomics International, a Division of Forth American Aviation, Inc.	Sodium graphite	75,000	1962
Northern States Power Co. Pathfinder Plant	Sioux Falls, S. Dak.	Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.	Boiling water nuclear superheat	60,000	[illegible in the original]
Rural Cooperative Power Association and AEC	Elk River, Minn.	Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.	Boiling water	22,000	[illegible in the original]
City of Piqua and AEC	Piqua, Ohio	Atomics International, a Division of North American Aviation, Inc.	Organic cooled and moderated	11,400	1961
Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor (Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates, Inc.	Parr, S.C.	Westinghouse Electric Co.	Pressure tube, heavy water	16,950	1962
Boiling Reactor Nuclear Superheat Project (AEC and Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority)	Punta Higuera, Puerto Rico	General Nuclear Engineering Corp., a Subsidiary of Combustion Engineering, Inc.	Boiling water, internal nuclear superheat	16,300	1962
Experimental Breeder FBR–2 Reactor No. 2	NRTS, Idaho	Argonne National Laboratory, operated by the University of Chicago	Fast breeder	16,500	[illegible in the original]
Boiling Reactor BORAM-5 Experiment No. 5	NRTS, Idaho	Argonne National Laboratory, operated by the University of Chicago	Boiling water	2650	[illegible in the original]
Saxton Nuclear Experimental Reactor Project (Privately Owned)	Saxton, Pa.	Westinghouse Electric Co.	Pressurized water	3250	1961
Experimental Gas Cooled EGCR Reactor (AEC and Tennessee Valley Authority)	Oak Ridge, Tenn.	Kaiser Engineers, a Division of Henry J. Kaiser Co.—ACF Industries, Inc.	Gas cooled, graphite moderated	32,900	1961
Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 (Pacific Gas and Electric Co.)	Humboldt Bay, Calif.	General Electric Company	Boiling water	48,500	[illegible in the original]
Consumers Power Company	Big Rock Point, Michigan	General Electric Company	Boiling water	50,000	1962
Contracted For:
High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (Philadelphia Electric Co.)	Peach Bottom, Pa.	General Atomic Division, General Dynamics Corp.	Gas cooled, graphite moderated	40,000	1963

1. Source: Transmits report on implementation of NSC 5725/1, “Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy.” Confidential. 23 pp. NARA, RG 59, S/S–NSC Files: Lot 63 D 351, NSC 5725.