PAGENO="0001"
t77~~Q/ ~
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
bEPc~sjr~fl~y
EUROPEAN OVERSIGHT TRIP
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Serial D
3~q33(~
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-187 0 WASHINGTON : 1977
L~(. .Sc..12
!&UG ~ 1977
t U~RARY
RUII3ERS
GOVERNM
JUNE 1977
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
DON FUQUA, Florida
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
DALE MILFORD, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan
TIMOTHY B. WIIRPH, Colorado
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
BOB GAMMAGE, Texas
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee
WE'S WATKINS, Oklahoma
JOHN W. WYDLER, JR., New York
LARRY WINN, Ja., Kansas
LOUIS FREY, Ja., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
MANUEL LUJAN, Ja., New Mexico
CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
ELDON RUDD, Arizona
ROBERT K. DORNAN, `California
ROBERT 5. WALKER, Pennsylvania
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
JOHN L. `SWIGERT, JR., Enecutive Director
HAROLD A. GOTJLD, Deputy Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
JAMES B. WILsoN, Technical Consultant
WILLIAM `G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant
RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant
ROBERT `C. KETCHAM, Counsel
JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant
J~MES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel
REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk
MICHAEL SUPERATA, Minority Counsel
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
HOuSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Co1~nrrrrEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
Washington, D.C., June 30, 1977.
Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE,
Chairman, Com'mittee on Science and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
D~R MR. CHAIRMAN: I am forwarding herewith a report of the
recent Committee trip entitled, "European Oversight Trip." The re-
port includes a summary of findings on Committee meetings held and
a description and analysis of the Various foreign facilities visited.
Prior to departure, the Committee made a commitment to conduct a
thorough and detailed review of the program areas within the Commit-
tee's jurisdiction beyond that which had been carried out during the
authorization hearings. This includes such diverse areas as Energy,
Science, Space, Aeronautics and International Science Policy over-
sight activities. Pursuant to your instructions, that review has been
accomplished.
In preparation of this report, I wish to acknowledge the support of
the Committee staff for a job well done.
Sincerely,
JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr.,
Executive Director.
(m)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
CONTENTS
Page
Letter of trans~m~tta1 -
Introduction 1
Summary of findings
Committee meetings:
May 28, 1977:
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 5
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) -- 8
United Nations Industrial Development Organization 40
May 30, 1977: Westfield Coal Gasification Facility 42
May 31, 1977: Phénix Breeder Reactor and Waste Management
Facilities
June 1, 1977:
International Energy Aegncy 54
French Atomic Energy Commission 55
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) 58
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO)
Interpol
British CO-GAS plailt 71
European Space Agency 76
Super-Phénix Breeder Component Testing Facility 80
Solar Furnace Testing Facility 85
June 2, 1977:
High temperature gas reactors and application's 87
ERNO: Spacelab program 98
Long-term nuclear waste disposal facility 106
June 3, 1977: Paris Air Show 108
Additional material:
Background information on International Atomic Energy Agency---- 113
Transcript of International Atomic Energy Agency meeting May 29,
1977 129
(V)
PAGENO="0006"
PAGENO="0007"
INTRODUCTION
The Committee on Science and Technology has as its jurisdiction all
civilian Research and Development activity taking place in the United
States. This responsibility covers such diverse areas as Energy, Space,
Aeronautics, Science and Science Policy.
Subsequent to the completion of Fiscal Year 1978 Authorization
Hearings, the Committee conducted an oversight trip to Europe to
review parallel activity taking place in Germany, England and
France, respectively. Although the major emphasis of the trip was
placed on Energy Research and Development, generally all areas of
Committee responsibility received review. As can be seen in the Con-
tents page of this report, the Committee conducted parallel meetings
with various agencies and institutions on June 1st and 2nd. In order
to accomplish this, the members chose their participation by Sub-
committee activity and assignments.
The Committee was ably complemented by members of the Commit-
tee on Public Works and Transportation who greatly added to the
success of the various meetings. Their outstanding support and partici-
pation provided another dimension to the depth of knowledge gained
by this visit.
Members participating in the European Oversight Trip were:
Committee on Science and Technoiogq
Olin E. Teague (D-Tex.), Chairman
John Wydler (R-N.Y.)
Dale Milford (D-Tex.)
Gary Myers (R-Pa.)
James Scheuer (D-N.Y.)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Robert Dornan (R-Calif.)
Harold Hollenbeck (R-N.J.)
Committee on Public TVorlcs a'nd 7~ran~portation
John Breaux (D-La.)
John Paul Hammerschmidt (R-Ark.)
Norman Mineta/ (D-Calif.)
(1)
PAGENO="0008"
PAGENO="0009"
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Committee on Science and Technology expressed concern over
the changes in U.S. nuclear energy development policies announced by
President Carter on April 7, 1977 and in the Energy Policy Message
of April 20, 1977.
The April 7, 1977 policy change called for a halt in U.S. efforts to
use plutonium as a fuel. The announced purpose of the change was to
induce other nations to terminate their efforts to separate and cycle
plutonium and thereby limit the potential of further proliferation of
nuclear weapons. The second policy change announced on April 20,
1977 called for an indefinite deferral in U.S. efforts to build the Clinch
River Breeder Reactor demonstration plant.
As a result of these developments, the Committee decided to conduct
a thorough review of the recommended policy changes and to assess
their impact on the nation's long-range energy planning options under
its jurisdiction. This review included a European oversight trip, the
summary of findings follows:
(1) France, West Germany, and Japan do not intend to go along
with the United States' position on the Breeder Reactor program.
(2) With the discovery of the oil and gas deposits in the North Sea,
Great Britain can now afford to side with the U.S. Breeder Reactor
policy for the time being.
(3) Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency were not
consulted before the policy changes were formulated.
(4) France presently has an operating Breeder Reactor, the Phenix,
which is approximately the size of the proposed U.S. Clinch River
Project.
(5) It was the concensus of the European countries that the U.S. is
S to 8 years behind in Breeder Reactor technology and that the gap is
widening.
(6) The United States possesses the greatest amount of known
uranium reserves and therefore it is looked upon as having motives of
self-interest particularly by developing nations who must sustain high
energy growth rates with limited domestic resources of energy.
(7) Almost all foreign nations must rely on the United States for
uranium resources for light water reactors. To provide some degree of
independence, the nations feel they must press forward with the
Breeder Reactor technology and the plutonium fuel cycle.
(8) Everyone agrees with the idea of the non-proliferation goal as
expressed by the President. The issue is whether the U.S. cannot afford
to terminate technology demonstration and delay the availability of
Breeder technology.
(9) The International Atomic Energy Agency was established 20
years ago with the basic objective of safeguarding the development of
the peaceful atom and provides existing mechanisms for maintaining
safeguards through the Non-proliferation treaty.
(3)
PAGENO="0010"
4
(10) The European Community agree~ the U.S. Clinch River
Breeder Reactor program is the next logical step in the U.S. Breeder
Reactor Technology Program and this view is based on the historical
development trends both in the U.S. and foreign countries.
(11) The Europeans stressed that the world is running out of poten-
tial energy resources of oil, coal, gas and uranium. Alternative energy
sources must be developed and the pressures are greatest in countries
with limited fossil supplies.
(12) The vacillation of the U.S. policy by the Carter Administra-
tion has left leaders of foreign countries confused and apprehensive,
The February Carter position was to fund the Clinch River Breeder
Reactor Program up to $150 million. The revised Carter position of two
months later reverses that position. Both of these positions differ from
the original Ford position on the Breeder Reactor program.
(13) The nations possessing some nuclear capability will continue
to keep security and safeguards of nuclear fuel as a top priority item
in their plans.
(14) The French feel confident about Breeder technology develop-
ment and expect that development problems which are being resolved
in the normal course of a research program with Phenix will not be
encountered in the Super-Phenix operations.
(15) The U.S. agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany
has important implications for technology development of the High
Temperature Gas Reactor concepts and their ultimate commercializa-
tion.
(16) The West Germans have considerable experience with the
thorium fuel cycle which is important for the U.S. since we are inter-
ested in determining the degree of proliferation-resistance which this
cycle offers.
(17) In examining the long-term nuclear waste disposal problems,
one of the critical factors is the determination of the age and stability
of the salt formations to be used as underground storage for the
deposit.
Additional review included other subjects, the summary of findings
follows:
(1) The European Space Agency (ESA) will deliver the Spacelab
system per its schedule commitment to the U.S. for incorporation into
the Space Shuttle Transportation System.
(2) ESA has committed substantial financial support ($88 million)
to participate in the planned NASA Space Telescope Program.
(3) The Committee received an excellent briefing on the strategy for
energy transition in the 1985-1990 time period by Professor Wolfe
Haefele, Deputy Director, International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis. (Briefing included in this report.)
(4) The 1977 Paris Air Show emphasized the growing world aero-
space market by a variety of countries. As recently as 1970, the U.S.
held a dominant 80 percent share of the $28 billion global market. By
1985, the sales total is projected to grow to over $50 billion, but the
U.S. share is expected to decline to 60 percent.
(5) Considerable gasification technology has been developed in
the United Kingdom and recent actions by ERDA indicate that the
U.S. is moving toward utilization of this technology base in coal
conversion.
PAGENO="0011"
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
INTERNATIONAL AToMIc ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA)
Date of visit: May 28, 1977.
Location of visit: Vienna, Austria.
HIGHLIGHTS
Members of the IAEA are in almost unanimous agreement that the
world will need breeders and the world will have to close the nuclear
fuel cycle.
IAEA estimates that the world reserves of uranium are 4 million
tonnes, but world consumption will use up 10 million. tonries by 2025,
even with the breeder.
Nations such as Britain, France, Russia, West Germany, and Japan
must all eventually turn to the breeder, because of a lack of any other
fuel source. Developing nations are not interested in the breeder, but
rather conventional light water reactor technology.
Members of the IAEA were not involved in discussions with the
administration prior to the decision to terminate the Clinch River
Breeder Reactor Project.
REPORT
The meeting took place between officials of the International Atomic
Energy Agency and Members of the House Science and Technology
Committee and the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee.
Representing the House Committees, were Chairman Olin E.
Teague, Mr. Dale Milford, Mr. Jim Scheuer, Mr. Gary Myers, Mr.
John Hamrnerschmidt, Mr. John Breaux, and Mr. Norman Minetta.
Representing the IAEA were Mr. John A. Hall, Deputy Director for
Administration, and Members of his staff. (A full listing of IAEA
staff present is attached to this report..)
The IAEA is 20 years old and contains 110 members, 102 of whom
have signed the non-proliferation trea.ty. The organization has an
annual budget of $43 million. The staff contains 65 nationalities, with
approximately 20 percent Americans. A genera.l conference of all
members is held annually in September, and a board of Governors
(34 members) meets and approves the budget every year. The board
of Governors has been steadily expanding since the beginning of the
IAEA, and a move is now being made by several members of the
agency. to expand it further. A new chairman is selected for the board
every year. The Chairmanship is rotated among the different regions
of the world, with the exception that none of the big powers are
allowed to hold the chair.
Mr. Rurik Krymm, of France, next described the immediate and
long term prospects for nuclear power. He pointed out that at present
(5)
PAGENO="0012"
6
the world annual consumption is 6 billion tons of oil equivalent per
year (btoe), with nuclear power accounting for approximately 2 per-
cent of the total consumption (approximately 8 percent of electricity
production). By t.he year 2000 world consumption will increase to be-
tween 12 to 18 btoe, with the nuclear share between 10 and 20 percent.
Nuclear power is essential for some nations because of the fact of their
low fossil fuel resources. For example, France's fossil fuel resources
would last only 2 years, at their consumption rate; Italy's situation
is even worse. To become less dependent, France and nations similarly
situated must use nuclear power. The IAEA estimates that there are 4
million tons of uranium remaining in the western world, or 40 btoe.
Therefore, the breeder becomes very attractive, in being able to stretch
the remaining uranium resources.
Presently, Sweden has the highest installed nuclear capacity per
capita in the world. However, the light water reactor technology is
limited by its vessel technology, to a maximum of 1300 MW. The
Russians are developing a boiling water tube technology for present
use, which can be built in modules, but this is not yet available.
Therefore, to answer the declining uranium resources and the limni-
tations of LWR technology, nations such as Britain, France, Russia,
West Germany and Japan are turning to commercialization of the
breeder. Developing nations are mainly interested in light water reac-
tors, with little or no interest in the breeder.
Chairman Teague and Mr. Hall next discussed the Carter proposal
for limiting the breeder and eliminating reprocessing. Mr. Hall con-
fessed that there was considerable confusion about the Carter policy
on nuclear energy. He said that in a luncheon with Mr. Nye of the
State Department, he was told by Mr. Nye that the United States
was not against the breeder for other nations. Mr. Hall then said that
the one aspect of the Carter policy with which he was familiar and
could agree, was the legislation proposed by Mr. Carter to limit export
of nuclear materials. However, he said that the IAEA was in unani-
mous agreement that the world will need to develop breeders and the
world will have to close the nuclear fuel cycle. He further stated that
unilateral action by the United States will not delay the commercial-
ization of breeders by other nations, nor will it stop proliferation.
Mr. Hall then noted that the United States proposed several years
ago that the international community should do something about
proliferation. He said that the IAEA has great potential to answer the
proliferation problem. When asked about India, Mr. Hall defended
the IAEA by noting that the plant which was used to reprocess and
separate the plutonium was not under a safeguards system. Safe-
guards systems in India were imposed on a piece-meal basis and not
included at that particular plant.
Next, Mr. James Cameron discussed the TAEA work on estimating
uranium resources. The IAEA requires a report every two years from
each country. These figures are provided by the countries themselves.
The TAEA estimates that there are 2 million tonnes of proved reserves
and another 2 million tonnes of estimated reserves. The IAEA esti-
mates demand by the year 2000 to have used up 3 million tonnes and
by the year 2025 used up 10 million tonnes. However, if the world de-
cides not to utilize the breeder then 30 million tonnes will be required
by the year 2025.
PAGENO="0013"
7
Of the world's known uranium resources, 85 percent are in the
United States, South America, Canada, and Australia. Mr. Cameron
commented that this statistic reflects the fact that money for explora-
tion has only been spent in thes~ countries. Other favorable geological
formations are found in the south slope of the Himmalayan moun-
tains, Africa, South America, and Coreedde Lina. However, serious
problems prohibit further delineation of the world's uranium re-
sources. It is estimated that approximately $20 billion will be needed
for exploration of the world's resources. Furthermore, many nations
inhibit the issuing of exploration permits as a national policy. At
present, the IAEA is doing a world-wide bibliography study of the
world's resources.
Mr. Robert Catlan next discussed the reprocessing and waste man-
agëment activities of the IAEA. He said that the cladding now around
our spent fuel will not last forever and we must be prepared to store
the waste that we have. The United States by the year 2000 will have
accumulated 38,000 tons of spent fuels. Mr. Catlan then said that the
IAEA estimates that there will be a world capacity of 64,390 tons
of uranium reprocessing available by the year 1990.
Finally, Mr. Vladimir Shmelev discussed the IAEA's activities to
prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons materials. He
is head of the Department of Safeguards, which collects information
and inspects nuclear facilities throughout the world. Member coun-
tries send their transactional balances of nuclear materials to the
IAEA where they are processed. Follow up inspection is done by pro-
fessionals and reports are filed. Approximately 150 facthtiqs a~e re-
porting to the IAEA under the non-proliferation treaty; an equal
number report under nonproliferation guidelines. The Department
of Safeguards has an $11 million annual budget and 11 professiona.l
officers for insp~ction of facilities and development of new safeguard
items. The IAEA uses the supply of nuclear materials as its basis' of
control. The IAEA has extensive statutory authority to set up more
comprehensive safeguard activities.
PAGENO="0014"
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (ITASA)
Date of visit: May 28, 1977.
Location of visit: ITASA Site, Schloss Laxenburg, A-2361 Laxen-
burg, Austria.
ITASA: Dr. Roger Levien, Director; Prof. Wolfe Haefele, Deputy
Director; Dr. Janusz Kindler; and Prof. Ferenc Rabar.
The Committee heard talks on IIASA itself, energy, food and
water.
HIGHLIGHTS
TIASA brings together scientists from many nations having widely
differing economic, social, and political systems to consider the im-
portant problems facing mankind, and makes their findings available
to national and international decision-makers, the scientific commu-
nity, and the public.
IJASA's internal resources include about 70 scientists, the Schloss
Laxenburgh where it is housed, and an annual budget from dues of
about $6 million.
ITASA extends its activities through guest scholars, external funds,
collaborative research, catalyzed research and information exchange.
Energy
The IIASA energy study considers worldwide energy demands,
resources, and constraints for the middle range of 15 to 50 years from
now and is trying to find feasible options for energy supply using
proved or clearly feasible technology.
Oil and gas are insufficient in supply to meet world energy needs.;
All renewable resources together, except solar energy can provide only
a modest fraction of the energy needed.
Coal appears to be a solution for the medium run. Solar, fission,
fusion, and geothermal all have potential as long-run solutions.
Constraints considered included pollution, manpower, capital and
others.
Food
The IJASA effort, which is just beginning, will try to build de-
scriptive, dynamic models of the agricultural structure of selected,
representative countries. It will attempt to measure the impact of
agricultural policies on:
Production structure and input requirements;
Consumption and diet patterns;
Food prices and trade activity;
Investment;
Employment, and
Environment.
The model will connect the national models and try to evaluate the
effect of different sets of national policies on the global food situation.
(8)
PAGENO="0015"
9
The food field differs from the energy field in that there is a very
large number of primary products and technologies, foods are region
specific, and the production inputs (soil and water) are geograph-
ically bound.
Water
The water project involves five tasks, namely, examination of:
Regional water demand and management;
Interregional water transfers;
Water quality;
Regional environmental policy and management, and
Global climate.
The project is concentrating on forecasting water demand. Demand
forecasting is difficult because it is possible to substitute for water in
many industrial processes. Future technology changes are a basic
issue.
There is difficulty in maintaining interest in water problems unless
there are current water problems.
REPORT
ITASA is an international research institute founded in 1972 at the
initiative of the academies of science of 12 countries (later increased
to 17).
There are now about 95 scientists working at ITASA. The objectives
of IIASA are to focus the techniques of systems analysis on problems
of mankind in an atmosphere of international cooperation.
The research programs of IIASA are focused on:
1. Energy systems-with particular focus on the period 15 to 50
years from now when a transitiOn must occur from petroleum and gas
to more abundant energy forms.
2. Food and Agriculture.
3. Resources and Environment.
4. Human Settlements and Services.
5. Management and Technology.
6. System and Decision Sciences.
ITASA is housed in Schloss Laxenburg, former summer residence of
the Hapsburg emperors, about 15 kilometers south of Vienna (a half-
hour drive).
The budget of ITASA comes from dues of member countries, and
from charitable foundations. The U.S. dues in fiscal 1977 are $1,440,-
000, paid by NSF through the National Academy of Sciences.
The Committee has legislative jurisdiction over the National Science
Foundation which provides U.S. dues to ITASA. In part the purpose
of the visit was oversight of how this money is spent. The Committee
has legislative and special oversight jurisdiction of several matters
considered by IIASA studies-most prominently, energy research.
Another purpose of the visit was to determine how IIASA studies
might help the Committee in consideration of these matters.
Dr. LEvIEN. Having you here we thought you would be interested
in hearing a bit about the IIASA Program. I'm proud to say that we
can't tell you all `about it in this hour and a half. It would take several
times more than that to do it, so we selected some highlights. I have
PAGENO="0016"
10
spent enough time in Washington to know that Congressmen don't
just like to be talked at but like to ask questions, too. So, I hope that
you'll feel perfectly free to interrupt as we go along and askquestions.
Each of the s~eakers is well equipped to change his direction somewhat
to respond more to your interests. So, if you want more detail, if you
feel a certain aspect of the discussion should be treated in some more
thoroughness, then just raise your hand and we will be happy to
respond.
I'm going to speak first and tell you a bit about TIASA, some of
you, I hope, will have had some background information but I'll go
over it quickly just to set the perspective. Professor Wolf Haefele who
is the Deputy Director of IIASA from West Germany and the leader
of our Energy Program will tell you next about that program. Then
I've asked Professor Ferenc Rabar from Hungary, who is the leader
of our Food Program, to tell you about that, and Dr. Janusz Kindler
from Poland who is leader of our work in Water Resources to speak
about that activity. This will be a bit of a reconnaissance of IIASA.
I hope that will stimulate questions. Immediately after these talks we
will have some cocktails, at least a glass of wine, and you'll have a
chance to go into more detail with some members of the staff.
IIASA contains organizations and is made up of institutions repre-
senting Canada and the United States in North America, a group of
Western European and Eastern European countries, and Japan. 1 `d
like to begin by talking a bit about ITASA's history. (Figure 1.)
It began about 11 years ago in 1966 when the then President Lyndon
Johnson proposed the establishment of an institute to work on common
problems of developed countries. His idea was that this would serve
as a bridge between East and West. This was* before the era
Dentente and he sent his former National Security Advisor, McGeorge
Bundy to Moscow in the beginning of 1967 to see if there was interegt
in the Soviet Union in this idea. Bunday met with Jerme Gvishiani
who was the Deputy Chairman of the State Committee on Science &
Technology (and some of you may know also was Kosygin's son-in-
law), the central authority in the organization of management of
science & technology i~n the Soviet Union, very much interested in
East/West trade and negotiations. He and his associates had a very
positive response to the proposal and there then followed a series of
negotiations which extended over 5 years and engaged an ever iii-
creasing number of nations in the discussion which finally terminated
in 1972 with the conclusion at the Royal Society in London of a
charter signed by representatives of 12 national scientific oragnizations
to establish what had then been named the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis.
In the course of these negotiations, a number of very important de-
cisions were made. The first was that this would not be an inter-
governmental organization. The reason that this came up was that,
at the time, the U.S. proposed that West Germany participate in the
institute, and as a consequence the Soviet Union proposed that East
Germany participate (and at that time the U.S. did not recognize East
Germany), so as a compromise the decision was made that lIASA
should be a non-governmental organization. That inadvertent decision
was one of the key decisions in creating IIASA. What that means is
PAGENO="0017"
11
that we are an AuStrian association with membership by scientific
institutions, but the individuals that came here do not represent their
nations as they might if they were participating in TJ.N. agencies.
They come as individual scientists to work in a non-governmental
scientific environment on important issues which indeed, do have
political and substantial importance. We are therefore, an organization
of governments-different from the IAEA which you visited this
morning.
In June of 1973, scientific work began here in the Schloss. That
was the second important decision made in this period. The decision
to accept the Austrian government's offer to accomodate IIASA at
this Schloss. When the decision was made in 1972, this Schloss was
in terrible shape as some of you may have seen in the pictures in the
halls as you walked through. It had been decaying for a number of
years. The Austrian government very quickly moved at the end of
1972 to undertake its renovation, and you can see the results now. We're
exceedingly pleased with their generosity. As I mentioned to you
earlier at lunch, we pay only one Schilling a year for this institute's
use.
Last May we had the first IIASA conference which was an oppor-
tunity to sum up the accomplishments of the first three years.
To give you a sense of the membership of the institute, here's the
names of the member organizations of IIASA. (Figure 2.)
Notice that it includes in the U.S., the National Academy of
Sciences, and in the Soviet Union, the Academy of Sciences, The
German Democratic Republican Academy of Sciences and in some
places there are special committees. This past year we had three new
members-The Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden which brought the
total to 17.
Well, that's a bit about the history. You might be interested in our
organizational structure. (Figure 3.)
As a non-governmental organization, we have, first of all, a Council
which is made up of one representative of each of these national mem-
ber organizations. Its chairman is Jermen Gvishiani from the Soviet
Union, the man I mentioned to you that McGeorge Bundy had
met with. The Council meets annually, sometimes more often. It has
three Committees, the Finance Committee chairmed by Gvishiani,
Membership Committee by Kingsley Dunham. Andrei Bykov from
the Soviet Union is the Secretary. These bodies set the basic overall
policies for the Institute. When they meet, they approve ou~ budget,
they approve our research plan. But the operations of the Institute
are the responsibility of the Directorate. I am, of course, the Director,
Professor Haefele from the Federal Republic is the Deputy Director,
Oleg Vasiliev from the Soviet Union is the Second Deputy Director.
The important point for us is that these Council meetings have
taken place over the last 5 years with a great deal of harmony. I come
from a Quaker institution and the kinds of decisions that were made
in that Quaker institution in the U.S. were "sense of the meeting"
decisions. After long discussion, we would decide by the sense of the
meeting, and that's exactly the way the Council meets here at IIASA.
After our discussion, a sense of the meeting decision is taken, very few
votes. The Directorate, as I said, takes care of the year by year activi-
92-187 0 - 77 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
12
ties which are most importantly our research activities. The other
thing to say about the member organizations is that they provide the
financial support for ITASA. Each year the U.S. and the Soviet
Union give the major part-$1.4 million this year from each of them.
This is the only international organization in which both the U.S.
and the Soviet Union give the same amount. All of the other 15 mem-
ber organizations contribute this year $216,000 dollars which means
a total budget in dollars of about $6.12 million dollars. Now, the un-
fortunate decision our founders made was to set the dues in dollars,
because we spend schillings, and as you know these days when you
change a dollar you get 16.7 schillings. At the time of the foundation
of TIASA, you would get 23.18 . . . so we've had about a 30 percent
decline in the value of our contributions simply as a result of the de-
cline of the value of a dollar in relation to the schilling.
Now let me turn from these organizational matters to some of the
operational aspects of ITASA. (Figure 4.)
First, I want to emphasize what I've just said, that we are inteD-
national but non-~governmental, and especially importantly we span
both East and West. Secondly, our focus is on inter-disciplinary ques-
tions, not the pure single science aspects, but the ways in which sciences
interact are important, especially in the applied sciences. So the first
aspect of IIASA's character is important-that we are trying to cut
down barriers and boundaries . . . to cut across East/West bounda-
ries and to cut across disciplinary boundaries. Frequently, we find
that it's easier for scientists from East and West to talk when they
share a discipline, for example: an American physicist and a Soviet
physicist than for scientists from the same nation to talk when they're
from different disciplines. So, it's easier for an American physicist
to talk to a Soviet Union physicist than for an American physicist
to talk to an American economist.
IIASA's focus is given by its name. We are an international and
applied institute and we're a systems analysis institute. International
and applied means that we're interested in addressing problems of
international importance. We define 2 such kinds of problems. (Fig-
ure 5.)
The first are those which we call Global, inherently involving more
than one nation and which cannot be resolved by the actions of single
nations. Problems of the global climate, problems of ocean, more gen-
eral problems of global development coming as a result of increasing
population, forces affecting our demand for resources, energy, food
and so on. But secondly we're concerned with universal problems.
There are issues which are within national boundaries but which all
nations share, for example: the problems of designing a health care
system, an education system, a transportation network. IIASA is
interested in these issues because we can exchange information about
the solution of such problems across national boundaries.
We can exchange methodologies and particularly since we cross
East/West, political, social, and economic boundaries we have a wide
range of experience. So we undertake studies of important problems
of international character, both global and universal. Today you're
going to hear about the two global problems (the energy problem
that Professor Haefele will discuss and the food problem that Profes-
PAGENO="0019"
13
sor Rabar will discuss) and a universal problem (the problems of
water resources and management which Professor Kindler will
discuss). The second part of our name is Systems Analysis, and by
that we mean that in studying any of these problems, we attempt to
adopt a comprehensive approach. (Figure 6.)
When we study energy we're not interested in just technology of
energy, not just in the economics of energy, just in the environmental
impact of energy. WTe're interested in the interactions. We don't study
the problem the way a single discipline would, we don't study a prob-
lem the way a single bureaucracy would, but rather, we try to draw a
boundary around a problem which encompasses those aspects which
are important to the kinds of decisions we think decision-makers have
to make. You'll see this particularly when you hear Prof. Haefele talk
about the energy program, because he'll talk about not only energy
technology, but about population and its impact on energy, he'll talk
about climate and climate effects and he'll talk about economic ques-
tions. So the Systems Analysis in our title means nothing more than
a comprehensive approach drawing many pieces of a problem together
within a single boundary in order to address the issue the way the
decision-maker has to study it.
Now to do this, we've undertaken a two dimensional structure.
Rather than the usual tree network, you see in organizational charts,
we have this which is called a matrix which has two aspects. (Fig-
ure 7.)
First, these horizontal rows which are our major programs. I've
mentioned energy and food. These are interdisciplinary cross-cutting
studies looking at the problem at a long time horizon. In order to do
such studies, one needs to draw on talented people, specialists in a
wide range of disciplines. The other dimension of our matrix is pools
of people called our research areas which are specialists. For exam-
ple: In this area called resources and environment we have water re-
sources specialists, environmental specialists, agricultural specialists,
and so on. In the area of human settlements and services, specialists
in population, in urban planning and regional planning. In the area
of management technology, engineers and management specialists.
And in this last area of system and decision sciences, mathematicians
and computer specialists whose function it is to tell us about the tools
for studying complex problems. Now when we work, we draw together
a team made up of these different kinds of specialists and focus them
on a cross-cutting issue like energy or food. In addition, each of these
separate areas has its own research program and the water resources
work that you'll hear about falls in this part of our area. So we have,
from 17 nations, scientists in all these disciplines `working together in
international inter-disciplinary teams focused on these major prob-
lems. That's the effort we have under way at IIASA.
Now as compared to that effort, which is rather ambitious I'm sure
you'll agree, the resources available to use are limited. (Figure 8.)
We have 70 scientists at any time, we have this marvelous Schloss,
the library, the computer, and about 6 million dollars a year in our
basic finances.
But the important thing about IIASA is that we are not trying to
be self-contained. We're not concerned only with what goes on within
these walls. The focus of this institute is to serve as a linkage aid among
PAGENO="0020"
14
the activities underway in many separate countries. Again, as you
hear each of the people speak this afternoon you'll hear them say,
we're doing this in collaboration with a group in Hungary, we're
doing this in collaboration with a group in the Soviet Union. Its
IJASA's purpose to serve as the visible part of an international in-
visible network, to multiply these 70 scientists through many func-
tions. (Figure 9.)
For example: we call the 70 scientists the core group of IJASA.
We have around that 70 scientists already about another 10 within
the Schloss whose way is paid by their home institutions. These are
scientists from Siemens, from Shell Oil, from IBM, from the CNNRS
in Fi'ance, and so on, each of which is here on the salary of his home in-
stitution who extends our capability to work but also links us with
his home institution. In addition, each year we have about a million
dollars of money provided by outside agencies like the Ford Founda-
tion, the VW Foundation, The United Nations Environmental Pro-
gram, the Austrian National Bank, and so on. And this enables us to
hire another 15 scientists bringing our total staff to about 95 within the
Schloss. We add to this our collaborative research activity; this is
where the true amplification of IIASA's efforts occurs. In studying
coal we have about 2 people here at the Schloss, but they are linked
through an international coal task force to scientists in 4 or 5 other
countries, a far larger number than the effort within the IIASA
institution. On top of this there's what we call catalyzed research
which is going in such places as the National Center for Atmospheric
Research which was stimulated by IIASA's work but which is not
carried out closely in conjunction. The final ring in this network is
information exchange. Each year we hold about 30 or 40 conferences
here in the Schloss bringing together scientists from East and West
and increasingly scientists from North and South to exchange infoi-
mation about topics like major made hydrocarbons, like water re-
sources management, food, implications for the environment, and so
on. So the amplification of our 70 scientists is through this interna-
tional network intended to link scientific institutions in at least the
17 countries of our members but in many cases, countries outside this
group as well.
I want to turn very quickly from thisoverview of the nature of our
work to the more specific details, so let me try to summarize what I've
said very briefly here. This institution brings together scientists from
many nations having widely differing economic, social and political
systems to consider the important problems facing mankind and at-
tempts to make their findings available to national and international
decisionmakers, the scientific community, ~nd the public.
Now with the background, let's turn to the more specific issues at
hand, some of the substantive results of TIASA's work. I'd like to turn
now in particular to the energy program. This is the oldest and largest
program at IIASA. It began in 1973 with the arrival of Professor
Haefele. It has a five-year lifetime and has now reached about 3 years
through its efforts. Let me say while he is coming up here that Profes-
sor Haefela was the leader of the fast breeder reactor development
project in the Federal Republic of Germany before coming here and
Director of the Institute of Reactor Physics and Systems Analysis at
Karlsruhe.
PAGENO="0021"
15
FIGuRE 1
~ ~ ~. ~
~
u~5/us~.r~ ;SC5~t~
~1ULT1~i~t~i'I
ii E~OT~T~3:
~C~LO~ ~ ~
~ELECT~E1~ ~ ~
LDCJ~T1O~.
OC~~972' C~ARThR~ ~GNEb ~
R~5EN~TF~i1W~; CF ~Z
~nc~;t. 51)~flC
~ ~
~J~j
~ ~ ~ ~ 1~'~? ~
~i7~) ~ ~ ~
i~r i3UR~
J *
PAGENO="0022"
16
FTGURE 2
*-*~,~ ~\`.`"~\
______________ N..:
~T3E ~ C? &t~.1E~C.S,5,
!~IC~s O~$OVI~T SOCJ~1~: REPU~L1C~ ~9fl
~ COMMITT~ Fog: TH~ !NT~?3O~i,~L
i~JSTITUTE FOR /~PL1~ ~YST~.MSI ~ix$1~ C~% 1972
`TM~ COMMITTEE, FOR TI1E 1NTER~AT1oN~ !MST~TUT~
F~' I-\PPu~O SYSTEMS, ANAL~1~ O~- T~ CZEC~1o5LOy~
SOCI~U5T REFU~Lic ~72
~ FRENCH~ RSSOCJ~T1ON FORt THE DEVELOPM~NT
OF' SYSTEMS MNAL?SIS 1972
`T~1E !~C.~DEMY OF SCIEflCE$ OF TI4E GERMANt
~)EMOC~AT1~ REPUI3LIC 1972
~T:~ ~ CO1~r11Tr~..E FOR T~4E 1~TERNI'~T1O~1At.
1~4STiTUT~: FOR I~FFtiED ~VSThMs #4NJ~LYSJ~ 1~72
~ ~ ?L~4NC~< SOCJZTY FORTH~ VI~C~M~NT OF
~C1ENC~SJFE!~E5~.4L R~PU13L1C OF &ERI1J~4Y 1972
~,T4E N)~T1OMM. CENTRE. FOR CY~M~RNET!~.S I~ND
COMF~7.~J~ T~C~JJ~U~S, F~OPLE~ P.EFW3UC OF' ~UL~~1A~ 1.~'7.Z
~i:~ ~cr~o~ia I~CTh~ MY OF: SC1ENCES~,
~`N1ThD ~ThTF,~3. O~ J~M~1~JC~ 1972
~ 7N'E~ N1~TJONAL. SE!~R~t COUNC1t~.,. 3T~1~ 1972
`7*~ POLJ~H' i~C~DEt"W 0F 1ENC~S~
~ 2OYI~L ~OC1ETY UN1T~ RI~jGDOMi 172
~T~'E~ ~\tj57Rf~N I~C)~DEMY OF' ~C3ENC~S 1973
T~ HUN ~R1J~t~J ~OMM)TTEE: FOR ~PPUE~
S7E~1~3 ~MAI~YZ15 197L
`T~-~ £W~Dj5H COMM1TTEE FOP~ THE' 1~'71ZRT1ONM.
1~~UTE. .0R. ~PP!.LE~ s~r~ris ~i~js ~7.S
~ ~ ~1r~4N1~ C -.M11fl~~ ~cK TH~ ~ ~7P
1H~ N!~A7~N ~
PAGENO="0023"
17
FIGURE 3
U~~IZ~TICr~I STRUCTURE
~X~CUTIVE COMMITTEE
,j. Gv~i~1~,t~SSR) - I I A S A
COUNCIL
HNANCE COM~IITTEE SECRETARIAT
I ~: ~ J. Gvishiani (USSR), Cheirman ~
MIME ERS lIP CO~ii IITTEE - -
K. Dujh~m (UK)
Cliairn~ri ___________
DIRECTORATE
R. Levien (USA), Director
W. IUif~Ie (FRG), D2p. Dir.
0. V~sMcv (USSR), Dep. Dir.
ESEARCH r~M~SLR~
(AREAS and PROGRAMS)
FIGURE 4
`~`\
i i~'r ~ ~i o~ ~t oi~ovv,~rc~~.
~ 4)~c)
\~J ~1~2' P~iUt~t)
(~~ti~j I /~J4 c~~L ~;~L
PAGENO="0024"
~JcILiW~'\1 ~ t\~1flIt~S, ~flJT
lu r~mnous ~
~ ~t:, ~~i~i' ~
18
FIGURE 5
1~ 1~l\I'iLU ,`~ t ~ ~ ii)
~ ~ ~ ~ ()t~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GLOBI\L..
LV
çì U~iVR~I~
FIGURE 6
~J) rui~cti
PAGENO="0025"
19
L 1t~
I t1~\ ~,Q
`~/Q ~
Stht~~ ~c~n~rg
Coi~u1~r
I (i~'. Ji\ ~j
FIGURE 7
Iv~ AL x ~ (T~J~J\i t ~. i~cn i.~N
~t~S(Jt.)RC~~i
11~ ~
,
.
~I~I i'~,i~Ji~.
R~
I4Vt!
~`i
& %J1I~I~( ~ C
¶
()(~j ~
t.
liii 1.111 .~.IIIII
~ll
k~~M~U
FIGURE 8
Li br~ry
~u 110 rn~I~on I\6 cr
~tb
PAGENO="0026"
20
FIGURE 9
~i~) ~ ~ ~ ~
FIGurn~ 10
I ~ ~ ~&~~ih~" E~ct `~) ~v
tIOth~ ~L~VthJ \J)IdLt'/ dtf~~ i~'~~j
~ ~ ~ `/4\~iV~ `~O ~ `~"~
~ ~ ~Ct~i~ a~ttu~'~d a~i~1
) R~. ~ ~ s~ ~c' ~13'.t~ ~ ~
~iv t ~ ~` t~c~ ~ ~ k J~ct'.~~ ~
~ ~ v~~~twuky. ~ ~ pc~I~
Mr. M~ri~s. How do you arrive at a consensus on what to study and
what not to study?
Dr. LEVIEN. It's known as ticket balancing. I think there was a prob-
lem at the beginning of the institute as to what topics to cover. The
first director, Professor Raiffa, started asking questions among the
member organization countries as to what they were interested in. He
started out with the hypothesis that we should do studies only that
every country was interested in. He soon discovered that there was
nothing included under that heading. So, he chose, I think, a good
political strategy, which was to set up a portfolio or a ticket of topics
`~1 FOt'.t ~
(~~~1'' :~
U) LUW 1U~1T~~~
~ ~
PAGENO="0027"
21
so that every country was interested in enough of the things on that
ticket to keep their interest in the whOle institute. Essentially that has
continued. Over time we have evolved that set. It isn't necessary that
every country be interested in a topic as long as there is enough sup-
port so as to pursue it. Each year we present to our council a research
plan for the coming year. They, in turn, then approve it, usually as
a whole or suggest some revisions that might be made.
Mr. SOHEUER. What do you do with the results of the studies?
Dr. LEVIEN. We try to disseminate them in a variety of ways. First
of all, we have an extensive publication program. Secondly, we do a lot
of visitation, a lot of talking with decisionmakers. We have people
here and we try to inform them. We are now beginning a program of
communications studies, that is, ways of communicating our results
other than in the written form. We want to use slides, tape shows, TV
tapes, films, all o,f the media that we can, because we; are well aware
that the major impediment to the application of these scientific find-
ings in policy is the communications process. While I was aware of
that when I worked in the United States for RAND, and it was a
problem there, can you imagine the difficulty when you have to make
these results available to decisionmakers in 17 different countries (and
that does not include the developing world, the UN agencies or the
multinational corporations). As we reach conclusions, particularly as
in the energy study, which is now reaching its concluding stages and
which has a lot of importance, we are looking for more and more
mechanisms for communication, ways of getting the message across in
an understandable, comprehensive way in each country, not only to
the decisionmakers but to their aides, to the scientific community, and
so on. One way we do this in each country is through our collaborating
institutions. The Institute of Energetics in Leipzig in the GDR. The
Siberian Power Institute in Irkutsk, Resources for the Future in the
United States, all these institutions are aware of what we are doing.
They have free license (in fact we encourage them) to use it, embody
it in their work, and make it available to the decisionmakers in their
own country.
Mr. SOHEnER. What are you doing to get the developing world in-
volved in, not only your results, but your process? So many of the les-
sons here are of tremeiiclous application to decisionmakers in the
developing world.
Dr. LEVIEN. The Institute was founded, as I said earlier, with an
East/West axis and an emphasis on the common problems of the de-
veloped countries, but it has become very clear to all of us as we
proceed that these common problems are problems of the whole globe,
and that rather than East/West, the axis has to go North/South.
Membership in the Institute is now exclusively from the developed
countries, and it will be hard to extend the membership much beyond
that for financial and space reasons. Our emphasis has instead been
on bringing scientists from developing countries to participate in our
program. We have a financial difficulty here, however, because we are
already under severe financial limitations. We have to use our basic
resources to bring to ITASA two or three scientists from each of our
member countries. That is what they are paying for-to have par-
ticipation. We therefore have no funds with which to bring scientists
PAGENO="0028"
22
from developing countries to IIASA. We were helped by the Rocke-
feller Foundation which gave us $150,000 to start a program of bring-
ing such scientists here. We really need about $1,000,000 a year, and
that is what we are seeking to build up the participation of scientists
from these countries. Otherwise the credibility of our results will be
suspect, and in fact the results should be suspect, because it is impos-
sible for a scientist from a developed country to truly understand the
system aspects o.f the use of energy or food in these countries. So we
are trying vigorously to bring scientists from the developing countries,
but it is a financial problem right now.
Professor HAEFELE. After quite some time of reflection, we here at
this institute decided that it would be an appropriate role for the
energy project to look into the medium and long-range future of the
energy problem. The short and medium range aspects are most de-
veloped and taken care of in many countries but the long-range and
medium range orientations are not always there, specifically so be-
cause such an orientation always tends to be global in nature, and there-
fore does require the multi-nationality that we enjoy here at this in-
stitute. I will explain a little bit about how this leads together and
perhaps you will get the overall picture.
In so doing I will constantly use units. Specifically I will use the
unit one terawatt which is a thousand gigawatts or a million mega-
watts. One terawatt is equilavant to 1 billion tons of coal per year. In
order to provide you with another yardstick you recall that in the
United States your yearly production of coal is roughly .6 billion tons
of coal per year. The energy consumption of the world is today 7.5
terawatts. 5.5 out of that are based on coal on oil and gas. 3.5 out of
these 5.5 are based on oil where 1.8 is indigenous (mostly in the U.S.
and the Soviet Union), but 1.7 terawatts are coming from the OPEC
countries, mostly the Persian Gulf, and shipped around the globe over
tens of thousands of kilometers. That means already today we have
a sharply and strongly localized and centralized supply system for
oil and thereby for 50% of the energy demand of the OCED countries.
Therefore, in the forthcoming years, centralization versus de-central-
ization may be a point of debate, but one should realize that already
today we have a sharply centralized supply system.
In Figure 1 some indication is given of how much time it really took
to arrive at the situation where oil and gas are the predominant fea-
tures of the supply system. We have plotted here the market shares.
Taken together, oil and gas today make up roughly 70 percent of all
the supply. In 1850, 125 years ago, it was essentially wood that pro-
vided fOr the energy supply-on a different scale, but in terms of the
market shares, it was by far the greatest contributor. Now, the inter-
esting feature to observe here is the slope of the curve. It essentially
means that in the world it has taken 100 years to switch from one sup-
plier to the other suppliers; from wood to coal, and from coal to oil
and gas. In the United States such penetration periods were consist-
entlv 50 to 60 years and this automatically introduces the time scale
that~ we are talking about. That means we have to envision something
like a period of 15 to 50 years when we are really serious about talking
of the global energy supply system.
PAGENO="0029"
23
Figure 2 shows per capita consumption in 1971. It is useful to recall
what the per capita contribution is. The per capita consumption in var-
ious part of the world; 6 percent of the world are more enjoying than
7 kilowatts per capita, 22 percent (essentially in Europe and Japan)
have values between 2 and 7, but more than 80 countries, each with a
vote in the Tjnited Nations have a consumption of 0.2 kilowatts per
capita which is essentially 2 percent the value of the United States.
Now without sery much mathematics, just by looking at the curve,
one can conclude that this very uneven distribution, just by the laws
of the nature, would tend to become smoother. The present average
value is at 2 kilowatts per capita, but if you smooth the curve, then
it will be 2,3, 4,5 kilowatts per capita. Then the questions come up-
if that is the case., how large will the population be, can we provide
this amount of energy, and within what period?
Now energy is energy consumption, that is not a point in itself,
instead it goes along with economic growth. Only once you have econ-
omy, you have energy demand and therefore all these issues are linked
to the international development strategy of the early 70's or the new
economic order which is now so hotly debated in the United Nations
or the group of 77. Another key word is UNCTAD. All these issues
are highly political, just to recall the political debate in the United
Nations and elsewhere these days.
What are the consequences? (Figure 3.)
The consequences that are expected at close range are still very sig-
nificant. That is another language for saying that the distribution
curve for energy per capita is very uneven, and pre'sses for a change.
Now the Leontief study that has been published recently, studies two
schemes, one for the new economic order and one for the international
development strategy. We have on the average in both cases 4.6 percent
as the growth rate all over the world. The new economic order antici-
pates 7 percent per year growth rates in the developing countries. I'm
not saying that this would happen necessarily, `because most of you,
if not all of you, are aware of the intricate, immense difficulties that
go along with such an economical order. But the political pressures
will be in that direction.
Now, if that's the case, one can ask the question, how does this
reflect on the evolution of the mean value of two kilowatts per capita?
(Figure 4.)
Figure 4, I think, captures the essence of it. Now of course nobody
can predict the population growth. Whether it will be 12 `billion peo-
ple or 8 billion people or 10 billion people, nobody knows. But it is
very important that in order of magnitude considerations the last' 10
percent will be taken care of anyway. What we .are talking about are
factors of 10 to make sure which ball park we are entering. Ten or 12
billion' people doesn't make a difference in that context. If you assume
the new economical order or other schemes that have `been proposed
specifically by the developing countries, then you do come to the value
of 5 kilowatts per capita. If you do that, then you evolve from today's
7.6 terawatts into 64 terawatts or roughly a factor of 8. Now you may
say I'm pessimestic and that it might not happen. Indeed one. has to
look into these matters more carefully. I will report to you in a second
what we do about it. But for the moment the message is comparatively
PAGENO="0030"
24
clear. We have to expect an energy demand for the next 50 years, which
is a natural time horizon for our energy systems considerations, which
is on the order of 3,4, or 5 times as large if not more and let me stress
I do think these are lower figures. So if we are talking of modern en-
ergy systems, we have to take into account systems that are able to
provide dozens of terawatts not single terawatts. That is the message.
Now how can that be done? The present system is based on cheap
oil and gas and everybody (specifically the developing countries) is
enjoying it because it is cheap in capital investment. $50 per kilowatt
is the capital investment for cheap oil and gas. (Figure 5.)
Figure 5 shows that proven oil reserves are 90 billion tons or
roughly 120 terawatt years. From that curve given in Figure 4, if you
say 20 terawatts over 50 years, you get a figure of orientation that you
have to provide for a thousand terawatt years. What we have as cheap
oil is 90. Now this is oil so you add 30 percent and you have 120 hil-
lion tons of coal, instead of a thousand. Now out of these 45 have al
ready been consumed. Now there is more oil; there is undiscovered oil
and there is subeconomic oil indeed, and definitely we have to go into
it. Therefore, we are not bound to that limited value but if you take
that altogether you will have something like 300 or 350 terawatt years.
Therefore, you can see that on the present basis we will have a prob-
lem. We have to evolve into a different kind of supply by necessity
Figure 6 identifies the renewable resources where so much is talked
about (for instance, by Friends of the Earth or in the article of
Foreign Affaira "The Road not Taken" which goes into the soft op-
tions of solar power, wind power and very much stresses the point of
renewable decentralized resources). Now let's have a look at them. If
you are about to harvest all the hydropower of the world-this implies
the schemes in which all of Greenland has to be engineered for hydro-
power-you have a total of something like 2.9 terawatts. If you go to
large scale deployment of wind power facilities, the upper limit is
1,2, or 3 terawatts. Tidal power for .04, wave power, if you want to
have 1 terawatt, you have to provide a linear facility almost of the
length of the perimeter of the earth. Ocean thermal gradient within
ten kilometers of the coast line-.35 terawatts. Therefore, the renew-
able resources all have a similar thing in common: namely to be on the
scale of 1 terawatt but not dozens of terawatts. That is the message.
Energy conservation can bring you 1 terawatt and it falls in line
with the soft options, but not dozens of terawatts.
So what do you do then when dozens of terawatts are at stake?
Fortunately there is more than one option to provide, but they all
have their problems. (Figure 7.)
Coal is half an option, because 7,000 billion tons or 7,000 terawatt
years is the geologically existing amount of coal. More pragmatically
and realistically you have a thousand terawatt years of coal. But if
you do it, you have land requirements, you have the problem of work-
ing conditions, safety, CO2, and other pollutants. Another option is the
fast breeder reactor, or nuclear power based on the fast breede.r. This
could provide 200 million terawatt years. Solar essentially is infinite,
fusion is essentially the same thing as the fast breeder, contrary to
the widespread belief. It is the same ball game, probably under better
conditions, but qualitatively the same thing, that is several hundred
million terawatt years. Geothermal is not so clear. It is definitely
PAGENO="0031"
25
larger than coal but its not in the hundreds of millions of terawatt
years or like solar. That means we do have principally speaking a
number of options for the essentially unlimited supply of energy;
coal, solar, and nuclear being the most prominent ones.
Now, if that is the case, we have to master a transition. We have to
go from the present equilibrum between cheap resources ($2.00 per
barrel at production costs or even less) and demands, to one of these
options or, better, combinations of these options. That is the transi-
tion for 50 years. What the energy project is about is to identify the
transit strategies to do it. Contrary to the past~ optimization is not the
name of the game. Instead, feasibility of the transition is the name
of the game-and feasibility is characterized by constraints. So we are
strongly studying the contraints, specifically: man's impact on climate
by Dr. Williams who is here among us, risk and risk perception `by
society drawing on the IAEA (that means almost a sociological pro)-
ect), market penetrations, and capital cost requirements. These are
the four predominant constraints selecting the feasible strategies fOr
that transition for which we have 50 years to come.
Now let's have a short look at solar because. that might be a case in
point. (Figure 8.)
`Here we have identified the square kilometers that we need to
substitute for one gigawatt electric. A typical figure for European
latitudes is 2 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. In Phoenix,
Arizona, you find 5 kilowatt hours per square meter per day, better by
a factor of 1.8 or so. In this case, depending on the system's efficiency,
you need something between 80 square kilometers and 34 square kilo-
meters depending on the conditions. It is true that solar power re-
quires a lot of surface, a lot of land provided you are after a large
scale deployment of solar power, and not a marginal use on the roofs.
However, the real big problem is energy storage. The difference be-
tween summer and winter in our latitudes here in middle Europe is
7 to 1. In Phoenix, Arizona it's fortunately only 2 to 1. But in either
case, you have to go into storage. (Figure 9.)
Figure 9 `shows hydro-storage at the largest possible scale that is
available today on a global basis. That is thirty terawatt hours. in
Bratsk-ilimsk in Siberia that is the Lake Baikal area in eastern
Siberia. But what you have to have are not 30 terawatt hours, but
thousands, 10,000 terawatt hours to bridge the summer/winter cycle.
So it's a different baligame if you want to deploy solar power on a
large scale. You can't do it if you don't pi~oduce electricity for the end
use or a secondary energy carrier like a gas or a liquid. (Figure 10.)
Figure 10 shows what you are after if you do this. You have to cover
several millions of square kilometers if you want to have the global
option for these dozens of terawatts that we are talking about. In
this scheme we have 100 terawatts. We can give you the scheme for 50
terawatts. This is not impossible. I want to stress that. It is possible
in principle. The amount of land is available; you can go to a liquid
secondary energy carrier, but, it is a global activity. The present politi-
cal system doesn't necessarily permit for it easily. My point is that
you are driven into the global considerations when you want to satisfy
the global energy demand. That observation sounds fairly trivial but
the implications are significant. You have to do the same thing for
coal. Coal can provide a thousand, three thousand terawatt years, but
PAGENO="0032"
26
coal is unevenly distributed. Most of the coal is in the Soviet Union,
the United States, and China. If we now go to coal at the global scale
you have to envision a situation where perhaps the U.S. will have
to assume an OPEC function for coal-that means to distribute that
raw material all over the world in the same fashion as the OPEC coun-
tries now distribute their oil all over the world in fact a truly global
operation. Large scale uses of coal have their waste disposal problems
too. Anything that you do on a truly large scale has problems.
For instance; the CO2 problem is such a limiting case if, and I
think it is the case, you have to limit your CO2 production such that
the content of CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't double. (Figure 11.)
The case of CO2 doubling is shown on the middle curve of Figure 11.
Coal use could increase to 40 terawatts for a limited time period, but
after the~ year 2030, you have to go back down again in order not to
more than double the CO2 content of the atmosphere. What is at stake
is the residual risk of fossil waste disposal, namely melting the ice
caps due to the temperature increase caused by atmospheric CO2. So
the logical structure of residual risks is very much the same as the
case of nuclear power and other big options. Now all this wouldn't
happen globally from the very beginning. In conjunction with the
Soviet Academy of Sciences we are anticipating considerations for
the various regions of the world. I want you to study Figure 12 in
some detail-because the situation in the various world regions are
quite different. (Figure 12.)
In North America, we estimated the consumption up to the year
2025 to be 177 terawatt years. On the basis of indigenous oil and gas
you couldn't do it. You have to go into coal. In the case of the United
States, you have the possibility by enjoying your coal for yourself
alone to cover this 177 terawatt years, with 10 percent of the geological
resources, although after the year 2025 it looks different for the case
of the United States. The USSR and Eastern Europe are in even bet-
ter condition. There are 150 terawatt years estimated demand up to
the year 2025, and their oil and gas all taken together roughly make it.
You'll probably have to go into coal, but there is more coal in the
Soviet Union than the U.S. Western Europe and Japan look drasti-
cally different. They have the highest demand of 230 terawatt years.
Their indigenous resources make up for only 20 or 30 terawatt years
and all their available coal wouldn't make it either. If you now think
of the long lead times-50 years for making a change (I've shown you
the market penetration curves), it translates into the necessity to go
beyond fossil resources, and there is nothing else but nuclear or solar.
In Latin America, Africa, and East Asia the situation is similar.
In the case of OPEC they do have a surplus but not more than
150 terawatt years. The big question, politically speaking, is who gets
these 150 terawatt years of easy fuel? But it can only help to master
the transition. Only strategically placed would it make sense to con-
sume these easy fuels. Roughly speaking a thousand terawatts is the
consumption-'SOO terawatt years on existing bases and the other 500
terawatt years from a different source and this can be only solar or
nuclear. In either case, solar or nuclear will be a global undertaking.
Figure 13 shows you what we are doing about it. What I've shown
PAGENO="0033"
27
you is the zero order approximation. We have a large modeling effort
here which is not so detailed but is comprehensive. (Figure 13.)
The key word here is comprehensiveness. We take into account what
the OPEC people are telling us here in Vienna, what we get from
the Soviet Union, and from the developing countries. We are under
contract with the United Nations environmental program in Nairobi.
We are modeling the United States. The point is to be complete. We
cover the globe in a complete fashion not leaving out this or that area.
The essence of our modeling is an energy supply model identifying
technology priorities-when does electrolysis have to come in, how
soon is coal gasification necessary? What is the role of the fast breeder
in these various world regions that I've shown you? The western
Europe situation as compared with the other situations?
We repeat this modeling effort that I'm explaining now for each
world region separately.
MUSE and MEDEE are models that give us energy demand once
we have economical activities. \Toss you should realize is German,
Agnew is British, Schrattenholzer is Austrian, Grenon is French and
Zimin is Soviet. We have the resources model driving the energy sup-
ply model. We have a macroeconomic model by a U.S. citizen, an
Indian, and a German. Professor Keyfitz from Harvard provides a
model of population as an input. Dr. Zimin from Moscow has a Pi-
model which translates macroeconomic activities into energy demand.
The Impact model to study the consequences of energy in terms of
investment, materials, and environmental impacts, is done by
Dr. Kononov of the Soviet Union. So you see how truly multi-national
this modeling effort is, not only in taking care of these world regions
but a'so by the participants for this modeling effort. Figure 14
shows that we do that in strong conjunction with the Soviet Union,
which has largely decided to have logically the same approach. The
long-range planning of the Soviet Union is taking place on the same
basis: Macroeconomic model, energy demand, energy supply, resources.
Sometimes the very same models that we use here are used in the Soviet
Union because they come from the Soviet Union.
Now, if that is the case, we must then also look into the nuclear
option from that global point of view. If we talk here of this region
or that region, we cannot dismiss nuclear power, because we don't
know where the terawatt years will come from otherwise. Solar power
is definitely very expensive. This whole scheme is meant also to look
for capital availability with the time period in which we can provide
the capital. What we are after is this: to conceive a global scheme
which makes the transition from today's situation which is charac-
terized in Figure 15 to a future characterized in Figure 1G.
(Figure 15.)
What is expensive is the consumer system-the infrastructure for
consuming energy shown at the left of Figure 15. There we have the
megawatt domain and we are covering distances between 5 and 50
kilometers-say in Chicago or New York. In the secondary energy
system we have overhead lines, we have high pressure pipelines, we
have barges and railways. To serve that consumer distribution we have
power lines for electricity, we have gas handling storage, we have
refineries. They are operated in the gigawatt domain, and they are
operating between hundreds and thousands of kilometers. But they
92-1870-77-3
PAGENO="0034"
28
are served by coal fields and by gas fields, and there pipelines of a
distance of some thousand kilometers are in between, and crude oil is
transported over ten thousand kilometers__that means global dis-
tances. Solar is presently pursued at the consumer end and I think
that is wrongly so because it can only marginally help. It must come
in as a substitution for primary energy and therefore has to fit into
a different context.
What we are envisioning instead is in Figure 16. (Figure 16.)
You'd like to maintain the consumer structure to the largest possible
extent to save time, to save capital, to minimize the disturbance.
What we have to make use of is solar power, coal, and nuclear
power, but we have to do it in the terawatt domain, and we are en-
visioning the bridge of 10,000 kilometers. Instrumental to that are
islands, for instance: nuclear islands where out of solar power or
coal power or nuclear power liquid hydrogen would be produced,
or where we have fossil fuel cycle centers for provision of methane or
for methanol. On this basis we can feed the existing infrastructure
by concentrating and also adding multi-national approaches to the
new side of the coin . . . the new primary energy supplies. They are
then consistent with what we have in the infrastructure.
That is the strategic approach we have in mind, and it will be global
and multinational in nature. We hope that a year from now we have
the details of it for all the world regions including the timing of the
transition, which in some parts of the world is more pressing than in
others. Thank you.
Mr. MYERS. Are you suggesting that the end use distribution should
remain the same?
Dr. HAEFELE. Essentially, yes. For instance, what we are saying
here is that hydrocarbon liquids which are serving the transportation
sector should to the largest possible extent be maintained and served
instead by electricity. Probably Methanol should be used because it
requires less capital investment.
Mr. M~Rs. Well, if you make that assumption then you've got to
make the assumption that the developing world is also going to adopt
the same main use characteristics, which might be open to questiOn.
F
F
F ~ MARKET SHARE 0.90
~i ~~1L*.
1850 1900 1950 1975
FIGURE 1.-Energy market penetrations, world.
PAGENO="0035"
29
SO
70
-
~I 00
z so
0
~ao
o ~ OF TOTAL POPULATION
30 -73- .~ ---- ~ll --------~--+---0 -
,20 I S..
z
10
* ~
FIGUHE 2--Distribution of per capita energy consumption iii 1971.
After: Charpentier, IIASA.
ç~w~~~is i~!~J 1~.'~i'.CTS CF !~1FFE~1E?~T
~1D Ecr~:!1r~ c1~2rS
SHARE iN WORLD
GDP{%)
1970 2000
lOS NEO
ECONO~i!C GROWTH
RATE (%fa)
- lOS NEO
COUNTRIES 85 82 72
COUNTRIES 15 18 28
4.7 4.3
5.4 7.0
4.6 4.6
After W. Leontief et a!., 1976
PAGENO="0036"
30
TW
100
e6Tw
- - -----*- ~ SkWlcap
~ .~I ~ -- 3kWlcap
____ USUAL)
:
`1350. 2000 YEAR 2050 2X)G
source: [2].
POSSIBLE TARGETS FOR THE OIL RESOURCE MODEL (1 ~ t)..
IDENTIFIED UNDISCOVERED
C-)
0
0
C-)
w
C-)
0
`0
w
U,
~PRODUCED~
45
PROVEN
RESERVES 90
LOW 45
MEDiUM 90
HIGH 135
ENHANCED RECOVERY
LOW, 40% 15
U~~II~IIII:
I ENHANCED RECOVERY
HIGH, 60% 135
40% 45
60% 135
PAGENO="0037"
31
~E~EV3~t~LE E~E~Y Sf~JflCES
I
HVDRO~OWER
(GREENLAND)
2.9
(01)
MATURE
ECON. POTENTIAL: 1.1 TW
NOW UTILIZED: 13%
`
~
~
ViIrID
1-5?
.
NO BASIC PROBLEM
REGIO~1A~I
PLANNING,
STORAGE
.
-
TIDAL POj~IER
WAVE POWER
OCEAN THERMAL
GRADIENT
0.04
240 MWe INSTALLED
1 per LTO BE DEVELOPED
35,000kmI
70?
0.35° TO BE DEVELOPED
CLIMATE
ECOLOGY?
CO~.PARE: ENERGY CONSERVATION UW
*1 TW = 1 l'iV * a/a °Within 10 km from coastline
Options for unlinited energy supply'.
-
Cool
Peoerves
7 ~
Technological ?:t~tY
..ot..reat pr~se..~ ~
.o be ocveloped for large SCO1C
~f~erub~t:oniIn.
~ rcqoirecentc
CO, waste other pollution
S
L
~, :108
*
Scale fuel cycle
Storage Of fission products
:
Solar
.
To be developed for large scale
Lund C noterials requirements
Climatic disturbance?
Storage C transportation
¶usi?n
* 108
To be developed *
E~issionofr3diOnUc1idcr
Ceothermel
* 1
~
To be develcped
.
Storage of waste?
Emission of pollutants?
Earthquakes?
.
GLOi3AL
TECHN!CAL
POTENTIAL
TW5
TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY SYSTEMS
EFFECTS
PAGENO="0038"
32
3C' ST(~"TE !~! ELECT~ICfl9WS
GRID
TOTAL
GENERATION
STORAGE CAPACITY
(HYDR.OPO'~JER)
TWh
ELECTR!CIT~
DE FRA1~CE
BRATSK IL1MSK,
t"t~r~
~lL)~
AUSTRIA
ico
135
:
.
34
12
30
*
~
2
67
22
~
~
6
SYSTEM
EFFICIENCY
* !~!D DEMAND FOR SOLAR ENERGY
~~~PLY Or `1 G~'(O~AVEF~AGE POtJ~R
I______________ ___________________________
r----i
*
INSOLATION
(kWh/rn2 day)
3*** 4
5.
area
80
CO
48
`k 2~
`40
30 *
24
* 0.1
0.2
PAGENO="0039"
3~
~iECESSARYCOJTROL OF FOSSfL
Er~EiiGV CO~~S! ?T;c~J, IF
SUFFLIED 1~J Ti~E FORM OF COAL,
- TO STAY BELO'.'! CERTAI~J CO2
LEVELS N THE TROPOSPHERE
100 `1W Solar EnergyScenario
0. Davidson, D. Grether, und J. Weing~rt, 1977
After. W.D. Ncrdhaus, IIASA
*YCAR
PAGENO="0040"
.34
~0RLD EUERGY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
U~ITIL 2025 (Thy)
LOW HIGH
RESERVES/RESOURCES (Ny)
OIL GAS COAL
AMERICA
11 EAST EURO°E
~fl ~
IV AMERiCA
.
V AFRICA
EAST ASIA
VI o P E C
177.5 177.5
152.0 152.0
229,4 22934
63.8 80.6
107 9 138 0
`
24,0 30.1
3835 37 260 / 1228
78,~4 73 527 / 2709
15.3 12,4 `41.2 / 205.8
71 58 27,9 / 139.4
*
106 46,5
TOTAL
CHINA
754.6 807.6
204.8 262.4
.
. .
W 0 R L D
959.4 1070.0
310 227 57 / 4282
PAGENO="0041"
35
IIASA's MODELS OF ENERGY STRATEGIES
r -
MACROECONOMIC MODEL ___________ POPULATION
:Norman,Parikks,Rogner Keyfitz,N.N.
F'~PACT ~ f~MO~iI
L,~L~J
~___~L__~_. i.~r--~ a
IMUSt
6eau* ~MEDEE
~ je Lapi~
E T~S1~AGE~ T.-~-~---~1~ RESOURC~fl
~y~iss. Agnew, SchrattenhoIz~J Grenon, Zim~J
- ~LI L-~~~_ - - - u r
`~resentshortcut
PAGENO="0042"
36
SPI's MODELS OF ENERGY STRATEGIES
IADAPTIVE~~E1 MACROECONOMIC
IFORCOSTTRENDsI 1/OMODEL
Gersherison Gershenson
__LJ~I~J
~
CONSUMER NATiONAL GLOBAL
SYSTEMS SECONDARY SYSTEMS ~AG~,Y SYSTEM
~k<~ ~M~T ~LGW ~`~LT~ ~JTWL~
W 5-50km W l0(J-severci( 100 km "~ 1000-10000 km
NUCLEAR
D_L \~S FIELDS
P~ES~E ~ FIELD
DISTRIBUTION ~ NP ~
~ISPECIFIC CAPITAL LU~IS%~~
<~ LNCREASING('O DLETON ?~DECREASING ~
WELMM CONSTRAINTS
PAGENO="0043"
37
Dr. HAEFELE. We looked into that in great detail and the present
message is that this is the mode of development in the developing
countries. The developing countries are not developing evenly. They
a~e developing through urbanization and you have to distinguish be-
tween the agricultorat sector of developing countries on the one hand
and the other developing parts. They are developing heterogeneously,
not smoothly all at once. They are building centers of development,
`and in their case these are the cities.
In case of Pakistan you have the city Karachi where all the industry
is aggregated, a similar situation to other countries. There we studied
the characteristics-for instance the power consumption in watts per
square meter. The watts per square meter in Karachi are very much
the same as in Hanover in Germany. Now the:re is more data and more
evidence that we can give, but the message is that the mode of evolu-
tion in the `developing countries follows the same characteristics `as
ours. That means a similar ratio of electricity to gas to liquids. The
situation is different in the agricultural areas, where say biogas or wind
can take over for a while, but only to maintain and ease the present
situation-not to support their evolution into a prosperous society.
Mr. MYERS. The point I'm trying to get at is this: A large portion
of the industrialized world is dependent upon oil and natural gas. I
agree that replacing the end use capital investment would'take a long
period of time even if you wanted to do that, `but I question whether
or not the form in which they consume energy is necessarily the best
way to consume the energy. If it isn't I would guess that the develop-
ing world might `want to m'ake a conversion `before they make the origi-
nal investment. Maybe they are constrained by what's in the `market
place available to them right now. But would you expect the develop-
mg world especially in urban areas to lay pipelines for gas distribu-
tion when in fact, they may instead of `doing that just lay larger cables
for complete electrification?
,T~TT1J GW !TT::1i ___________ TW L::::r~1ii~
FIGURE 16.-Opinions for structuring a global energy system.
PAGENO="0044"
38
Dr. HAEFELE. Complete electrification is more capital intensive, and
capital availability is the driving factor, so we look for the least capi-
tal investment. For that we do have our Message model to study these
equilibriums but according to our present level of knowledge, it will
be very close to what we have. I don't think that total electrification
is cheaper or easier for them, though I do think they will live on liquid
secondary energy carriers like gasoline or methanol, partly. They will
live on electricity to some extent and on gas with secondary energy
carriers as the third possibility.
Mr. MYERS. What does that do to CO2 build up?
Dr. HAEFELE. I did mention the CO2 build up and it now depends on
what view you take. It may well be, and maybe Dr. Williams could
elaborate on that for a minute, that the CO2 problem for fossil fuels
comes out to be by far more serious than those of a nuclear base. Be-
fore ringing the alarm bell we would like to study that further to con-
vince ourselves more.
But in the last 2 to 3 years the concern has risen tremendously and
this in turn indeed would limit the consumption of fossil fuels. In that
case, you shouldn't ship methanol but `ammonia-that means a carbon-
free secondary energy carrier. Here the choices are reassuring. If you
don't want ammonia take hydrazine or there are many other liquid
secondary energy carriers that are carbon-free. That means even if
the CO2 thing comes out to be so serious as some of us expect, you are
not driven into a dead-end road. There are technological possibilities
to escape that, `although the transition is more severe in that case be-
cause then the local infrastructure has to be changed as well, and it will
be even more capital intensive.
Mr. MYERS. That is the point I was trying to get at.
Mr. SOHEUER. Are those other secondary energy sources renewable?
Dr. HKEPELE. No, you have to produce them artifically by either
solar or nuclear power, probably. a combination of these. You will be
lucky if you combine all the possible sources and you just make it.
Dr. LEVIEN. But they can be generated ad infinitum. They don't
have any inherent, limitation to the amount.
Dr. HAEFELE. Yes, you can produce them indefinitely. I think the
cleanest case logically and environmentally is hydrogen. *When you
burn hydrogen you get water, so that is the cleanest and perhaps the
asymoptotic situation-where the secondary energy carrier is hydogen.
Splitting the water could `be done in concentrated places under the con-
ditions that you determine. What you enjoy, then, in the infrastructure
in the cities is hydrogen. That would be the long-range perspective,
indeed.
Mr. Mrni~s. The chemical process of solidifying hydrogen for safe
use, I guess is a chemical-bonding process. What pollutants do you ex-
pect from that process, or are they insignificant?
Dr. HAEFErJE. Compared with what we suffer from today it is sig-
thficant. These are the NOX's that you have to expect.
Mr. MYERS. You don't think NOX is a problem?
Dr. HAEFELE. Not at the present scale and for quite some time. Should
you run in 50 or 60 or 80 years from now into a situation where that
becomes intolerable for one rea.son or the other, you still have the possi-
bility to burn hydrogen with oxygen directly in a stoichiometric for-
mula and then there is no impact whatsoever in it.
PAGENO="0045"
39
So, the impact of burning hydrogen goes along only when you burn
it in air. When you burn it with.a oxygen partner, which is of course
more expensive, but it is technically readily feasible, then there is no
impact whatsoever, after all there are rockets that do it. I'm not ad-
vertising this particular step for tommorow, I'm very much concerned
that our project doesn't promise you everything with technologies ot
the day after tomorrow. Instead we would be concentrating on tech-
nologies that are essentially available and still provide us with the
possibility to make the transition.
Dr. KRAMER. Are there any feasible technologies at this point that
would take carbon dioxide out of the air and use it to create a secondary
energy carrier? That way you could recycle the CO2 through the
atmosphere.
Dr. HAEFE.LE. We looked into that. Specifically Dr. Marchetti of our
team is doing `that. It comes into the picture at energy costs roughly
4 times as high as today. That means at $40 a barrel you can consider
even that. It's a question of capital cost in particular. The order of
magnitude is by a factor of 4 such processes become feasible.
Mr. HAMMERSCIIMIDT. What do you envision the energy cost in this
system as it would be delivered as compared to today's cost.
Dr. HAEFELE. A factor of two higher. All this flies at $25 per `barrel.
Mr. MYERS. In your analysis, have you ever given any consideration
to the energy expenditure we need to make just to develop the eaergy
facilities in the future?
Dr. HAEFELE. There have been quite a number of people who have
looked into that. The situation is essentially like this. When you con-
sider a power plant with a 30 year lifetime, in the past energy invest-
unent was worth a month or so of power operation of that plant. With
the new technologies and specifically enrichment of uranium, that
means the separative work requirements, the equivalent to `make up for
the energy investment in on the order of one year, one and a half year,
out of 30 years. That means the energy amplification factor has re-
mained between 10 and 20.
Mr. MYERS. A slightly different slant on it is what load do you put
against the present energy producing facilities to produce sufficient
energy, to produce the steel, to produce the cement and everything to
employ the new energy source?
Dr. HAEFELE. That is being studied specifically here by Dr. Kononov
as part of our modeling effort. There the question is whether we run
into limitation by that as compared to the question of capital avail-
ability. In all the computer runs that we had so far the. real limits are
rather manpower and capital but not the availability of the energy
and material investments.
Mr. MYERS. You've also in that assumed a continuing increase of
standard of living associated with the production of energy in current
facilities.
Dr~ HAEFELE. Yes, we do that with this model. If you are asking
what's the message from the computer runs that we had so far, then
it is that we have to increase the share of investments. In the U.S. we
have a total investment rate of 14 percent or so at present. Our calcu-
latioiis indicate that you have to envision 17, 18 percent investments
instead at the expense of consumption. That is the order of magnitude
that one has to envision to master these transitions.
PAGENO="0046"
THE UNITED NATIONS INDIJSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
(UNIDO)
Date of visit: May 28, 1977.
Location of visit: Vienna, Austria.
HIGHLIGHTS
UNIDO would like to serve as the broker between developing coun-
tries and industries in developed countries.
Changes in tax structure and fiscal and monetary policies are re-
quired in the structure of developing countries in order to spread the
benefits of development.
REPORT
As its name implies, UNIDO's objective is to further the industrial
development of less developed countries. Because of the Committee's
interest in international technology transfer, the Committee is con-
cerned with UNIDO.
Needs
Mr. Gouri sees two particular needs in developing countries to enable
industrial development: (1) training of potential workers, and (2)
building of an institutional structure to use technologies.
Problems
1. Technology transplantation (transfer without alteration) is not
always appropriate. Neither the giver nor the receiver is necessarily at
fault; the process just doesn't work well. The trick is to transfer tech-
nologies that are appropriate to conditions in the receiving country.
Just giving money will not accomplish this.
2. It is difficult to provide incentives to industries in developed
countries. Most companies do not want to take time to work on tech-
nology transfer unless there is something in it for them.
3. UNIDO's concerns are with industry, but its direct links are `with
governments, many of which are not much committed to TINIDO's
purposes. A better mechanism for involving industry is needed.
4. Better and more appropriate technology is needed for resource
development. For example: (1) paper technology is based on soft
wood; developing conutries have hardwoods; it would be helpful to
have a method of making paper from hardwoods, (2) developing
countries often have no coal but are able to produce charcoal; a method
of using charocal in steelmaking would be useful, (3) a better way to
make biogas is needed, (4) an improved design for simple kilns for
firing bricks is needed.
(,~NIDO activities
1. TJNIDO is building a framework. now for working as a broker
between developing countries and industries* in developed countries.
(~9) -
PAGENO="0047"
41
The idea is to know which industries are doing what and to match
them with needs in particular countries. TJNIDO would like to have
an in-house capability for assessing the potential of such matches.
2. A program has been submitted to the TJNIDO board proposing
about 40 ideas for projects. It includes, for example, development of
jojoba farming (the jojoba plant produces an oil like whale oil) and
development of the uses of palm oil.
Q ues-tions
Mr. ScHEtm~R. Population growth has a tremendous effect on de-
velopment. Population growth must be reduced in order to raise per
capita consumption. What is UMT)O doing about population?
Mr. G0URI. There are two approaches to the population problem.
One is to curb population growth, but this often involves religious
and social problems. The other is to accelerate development. It would
be helpful in this regard if the benefits of development could be more
evenly distributed. Frequently the benefits of development are cap-
tured by those who are already rich.
Mr. SCHEUER. What changes in the social structure of developing
countries are needed to spread the benefits of -development?
Mr. Gornu. Tax stracture and fiscal and monetary policies should be
changed. This is hard to do because the wealthy often control these
things. Where governments are elected it is the wealthy who support
the candidates. New approaches are needed. Cost-benefit analyses based
on money, especially, break dow in rural areas.
Documents requested
Program plan submitted to TJNIDO board.
PAGENO="0048"
WESTFIELD GASIFICATION FACILITY
Date of visit: May 30, 1977.
Location of visit: Westfield, Scotland-British Gas Test Site for
Medium High Btu Gasification.
HIGHLIGHTS
The Westfield facility is developing one of the two finalist tech-
nologies which will be used in the first U.S. coal gasification demon-
stration plant.
The plant, once a commercial "town gas" facility, has been converted
to the largest coal gasification research facility in the world.
The Westfield facility is now undergoing modifications to run the
first large scale tests of American slagging coals in coal gasifiers.
* The Westfield facility has recently `successfully completed tests
on the crucial methanation step, which is necessary to raise the quality
of coal gas to the standards of the U.S. market.
REPORT
The Westfield Center was one of two Lurgi coal gasification plants
(low and medium Btu) operated in Britain for town gas production
for approximately 14 years. The plant operated until 1974 when the
surrounding area was converted to natural gas. In 1974 the site was
refurbished as a development center for coal gasification techniques
and an agreement concluded with British Gas and 14 North American
sponsors to operate one of the four Lurgi gasifiers as a slagging bec~
gasifier.
THE WESTFIELD PLANT TODAY
The present Westfield plant contains three full size Lurgi gasiflers
which are not operating but maintained in a state of readiness, and
one experimental slagging gasifier. The Lurgi gasifiers are based on
the process developed in the 30's by Lurgi for high pressure gasifica-
tion of coal.
At the present time the plant is undergoing refurbishment to begin
new operations for the first phase of an ERDA sponsored project with
the Continental Coal Development Company which is commonly re-
ferred to as a "Technical Support Program." The plant has been rid-
ing on a previous AGA contract and completed operations in March of
this year. The new contract was announced when the Committee was
in Scotland.
The technical work that is being done for the new support program
will lead to the detailed design for a 60,000 mcf per day demonstration
plant which would utilize the slagging gasifier on caking coals. In
the past the gasifiers have only worked on brown coal and/or non-
caking coals which are common in the eastern United States.
(42)
PAGENO="0049"
43
The Westfield project undersco~res the advantage which exists for
the experiment or testing of various coals in different modes since the
equipment is in place. The transport of U.S. coals in sufficient quanti-
ties to develop reliable data is expensive, however, as is the alteration
of the Lurgi gasifiers to accept the American caking coals.
Lurgi itself has had personnel working in Scotland since few Lurgi
gasifiers are actually being operated and none, except in Westfield,
on an experimental basis. Lurgi has actually offered to purchase the
gasifiers, but British gas claims it is not interested in selling them.
The procedure of cutting the gasifier in two, removing it to fabricate
new inlet ports, and then welding it back together with a modified stir-
rer mechanism seems rather primitive. Although the persons who
briefed the Committee seemed highly confident, the degree of back-up
data and process engineering for the decision on the specific design
appeared to be very sketchy.
Companies which have been involved in the fixed. bed slaggmg gas-
ifier program are:
Cities Service Gas Co./Northern Natural Gas Co.
Continental Oil Co.
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Gulf Energy and Minerals Co.
Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co.
Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
Panhandle Eastern, Pipe Line Co.
Standard Oil of Indiana.
Southern Natural Gas Co.
Sun Oil Co.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.
TransCanada Pipelines.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
Companies involved in the Methanation Demonstration Program
which has been completed were:
Amax Coal Co.
Cities Service Gas Co.
Colorado Interstate Gas Co.
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
Continental Oil Co.
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Exxon Corp.
Gulf Oil Corp.
Natural Gas Pipeline Co.
Northern Natural Gas Co.
Pacific Coal Gasification Co.
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
Peabody Coal Co.
Rocky Mountain Energy Co.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
Transwestern Coal Gasification Co.
92-187 0 - 77 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
PHENIX LIQUID METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR AND NUCLEAR WASTE
MANAGEMENT
Name of institution: French Nuclear Industrial Center.
Date of visit: May 31.
Location of visit: Marcoule.
HIGHLIGHTS
French technical people are extremely confident about the progress
of breeder technology and feel tha1~ none of the problems encountered
in Phénix operation are unsurmountable.
French engineers would not admit to having certain technical
problems (e.g. pump vibration) which ERDA international pro-
grams group had mentioned in pre-trip briefing.
French don't expect any surprises with component behavior in scal-
ing uj~ from Phénix, 300 Mw electric, to Super Phénix, 1200 Mw
electric, even though steam generators are major departures from
Phénix design.
Although Phénix has not operated since October 1976, it is apparent
that the French took the shutdown opportunity to evaluate the con-
dition of all parts of the system after nearly 3 years of operation. This
does not seem unusual for a technology demonstration plant such as
Phénix.
In calculating the plant factor, the French do not include planned
2 weeks shutdown (every 3 mos.) so their number for running Phénix
(.82 or so) is larger than the ERDA-supplied numbers (.62-.64).
REPORT
The Science and Technology group was briefed on the history of
Phénix construction and operation experience to date. The group then
toured the facility which has been down for repairs and maintenance
since October 1976. Reactor operation will resume in July. The most
recent problem was a material failure in the secondary sodium ioop
near the secondary pump. The previous major problem was in the
intermediate heat exchanger which provides for heat transfer be-
tween the primary and secondary sodium loops. The group visited the
reactor building and control room but since the reactor was down,
there was little to learn. Certain members of the group had an oppor-
tunity to see a cut-away of the Phénix fuel rod which has the sodium
tube wound helically about the fuel element.
The French did not admit to experiencing any pump vibration
problem with primary or secondary pumps although ERDA had in-
dicated they had such a problem.
The Marcoule group has presented results of their Phénix safety
program at an international meeting. The exposure of personnel has
been well below the recommended limits and in agreement with
predicted levels.
(44)
PAGENO="0051"
45
phénix
fast neutron
reactor
Phénix is located just north of the
Marcoule establishment. The site was
opened in December 1968, and the
plant was put on load in 1974.
Phénix is a prototype power reactor
associated with a standard
turbo-alternator rated for 250 MWe.
The reactor itself is a sodium-cooled,
fast neutron breeder. It represents an
intermediary phase of development
between the Rapsodie experiment, and
the future large power reactor of this
concept. Rapsodie was the first
demonstration of breeder reactor
theory and technology, particularly with
regard to fuel and sodium coolant.
Phénix is operated by a combined
C.E.A.~E.D.F.* staff. The highly
satisfactory operation of this reactor,
since the day it was commissioned,
has encouraged the launching of a
1,200 MWe commercial reactor project,
baptized "Super~~Phénix".
Fast neutron breeder reactors like
Phénix, have a small core, and do not
emplo~I a moderator.
They Use a rich fuel, basically either
plutonium 239 or (possibly) enriched
uranium. The chain reaction is sustained
without any need of moderating the
neutrons, which are very abundant,
a high proportion of fhe mass of nuclei
being fissile.
Natural or depleted uranium (1)
elements are arranged around the core,
to form a fertile (2) "blanket". Neutrons
from the core are captured by the
uranium 238 nuclei of this blanket,
(1) This is sfsshish iw isstsps 235
1 Reactor building working floor
2 Rotary plug
3 Air-lock
4 Slab
5 Loft
6 Fuel ramp
7 Transfer arm
8 Pump
Vertical cross-section of Phenix
9 Fissile core
10 Fertile blanket
11 Neutron shield
12 Lateral biological shield
13 Primary containment
14 Double-wall containment
15 Main tank
16 Core tank
PAGENO="0052"
46
which therefore become plutonium 239. ot core volume), a highly efficient neutron reactor power stations, which
Otthe 2.9 neutrons emitted at each "coolant" is used; a liquid metal, sodium, is 42 % (net), in the case ot Phénix.
fission, one on the average sustains the This liquid metal possesses quite
chain reaction, and a little more than remarkable characteristics with regard
one produces plutonium as outlined to neutron tlux and heat. In particular,
above. its very high boiling point, 883CC, makes Moreover, test neutron reactors are
Thus, a breeder reactor produces estremely high operating temperatures capable of a 50 times greater efficiency
more fuel than it consumes, while feasible, without having to pressurize in the estraction of the energy potential
generating power. the coolant to prevent its ebulifion. of natural uranium, and are thus unique
in this respect, at present.
To remove all the thermal power This is at the basis of the very high
generated (as much as 1 MW per liter efficiency (ratio of output to input) of fast
PAGENO="0053"
47
the reactor
Phénix is of the "integrated" design,
which means thst the core, primary
sodium pumps, sod intermedisry hest
eschsngers sre all housed within a
common, outer contsinment.
The core itseit consists of fissite,
btsnket,and neutron protection
elements.
Longitudinal cross-section of Phenix
A Horrdllng sectloo 12 Atessatos
Reactor brAidIng 13 Offices
Steam gerserotor building 14 Store
0 Turbo-alternator room 15 Buffer space
Soitchyord 16 Lead castleesit
1 Speettuet hotcell 17 Opecttcelrsashieg sass
2 Haedies air lack 18 Storaoe dross
3 Tracofer ares 19 Reactesbpck
4 Puerary soxore pursp 20 Oscoedary sodicettask
S Secoedary scslicm per 21 Duerptoek
6 Steare geeerators 22 H/Naseparator
7 Steaer getreratcr rcodule disecactlieg 23 Wates ceccrtseture lee
24 Wales citccitscpptyliees
8 Steare collectors 25 coedeeser
9 Buffertank 26 LPreheaters
0 HP cheaters 27 Bcstraesforecer
11 Turbises 28 Tappisgtrasstcrmer
PAGENO="0054"
Mixed U02-PuOs is the tissile fuel, used
to s burnup.of at least 50000 MW
days/tonne, and the fertile blanket
elements are of natural or depleted
uranium oxide, It is to be noted that the
core volume is no more than 1200 cubic
decimeters, for 563 MW thermal power.
6 control rods regulate the chain
reaction in the core.
48
*The core is contained in a "primary",
central tank;
* A double-wall vessel cbntains the
primary sodium circuit and primary core
tank;
* An outer containment encloses the
first two vessels.
Considered as a unit, the above
constitutes the "reactor block".
PAGENO="0055"
49
* spent fuel processing;
* ssliditication of fissisn products.
spent fuel
processing
pilot
This pilot plant is designed for study at
the semi-industrial level of spent fuel
processing problems encountered by the
C.E.A., and is equipped with two
independent processing lines:
* a line for the processing of natural
uranium-based fuel, of a capacity of 50 kg
per day, and which is used in research
on behalf of the plants at Marcoule and
La Hague, concerning either the fuel
itself or the development of facilities;
The various atages of the chemical
process are contained in 300 m3
hotcells of stainless steel, measuring
10 a 3 a 10 metres. High density glass
ports and concrete shields afford
protection against gamma radiations
while operating the remote controlled
manipulators (in either maintenance sf
the equipmeqt in the cells, or its
adaptation).
mounted on a remote controlled pillar,
which can be driven into each hotcell
through communicating "pass-throughs".
The front area ol eacS cell floor is clear -
for passage of the manipulators - and
the process (tanks, columns, filters,
valves, etc.) is mounted against the rear
wall, all points being both clearly visible
and accessible for remote controlled
operations. Connection fittings between
vessels, in piping, etc., can all be
removed and replaced by the
manipulators.
* a line for the processing of oxide
fuels, of a capacity of 10 kg per day of
fissile material. The geometry of this
line is sub-critical throughout.
Despite their size and complexity,
both pilot processing lines are capable
of modification to suit changing
research requirements.
Thanks to its flenibility, the pilot can
be used in a wide range of radioactive
chemistry studies of an industrial
nature, and likely to obtain valuable
information in both chemistry and
technology.
The Pilot Plant Department in a research hatoells
unit attached to the Chemistry Division of
the C.E.A., and situated at Marcoule. It is
mainly active in two special fields:
rerhote handling
equipment
This is equipment of an original
design.
There'are 3 manipulators, ranging in
capacity from 10 to 50 kg and each
Hstcells of the S.F.P. pilst.
The pilot is also used in special
systematic reprocessing.
PAGENO="0056"
fission produof
solidifioof ion
Started at Saclay in 1957 and
continaed at Fantenay-nue-Ranea in
1962, denign-etudy at the eitriticatian
pracean han been dane at Marcaule
aince 1968.
Labaratary atudy tirat renutted in the
creatian at the "actiee" induntriat pitat
PIVER, in which nalutiana cantaining
tianian praducta are wined with the
ingredienta at glana-waking, and paured
with the walten glenn (at 1,100 C(inta
wetat cruciblea, in which the naliditied
wieture in nent ta dinpanat ntarnge.
Each melt chamber can be nned tar a
nerien at panrn.
Apart tram retining at the pracena
itnelt, the pilat wan nned ta imprana the
etticiency at the gee trapping nyntem.
Thin tirnt pracenn had the demerit at
being a "batch pracean". A new,
cantinuaun calcinatian pracenn hen
nince been deeelaped, an dencribed
an page 31, and will be in raetine
aperatian by 1977.
50
Shielded bank at halcella tar ntedy at
* radiaectiae elena pranedien and
lang-term beheaiaer.
PAGENO="0057"
51
Non-radioactive vitriticatian praceaa.
Pilot dinpaaal eqaipment tar radioactive glaaa blocky.
PAGENO="0058"
fncrnorator for 01000- emitter wooto cootoioiog plotooiom.
52
PAGENO="0059"
53
The tour of the Waste Management activity consisted of seeing
vitrification facilities and waste management storage with brief pre-
sentations on each. The vitrification process reduces liquid radioactive
waste into solid form. The vitrified waste is stored in lead caskets
which are sunk in concrete pits to a depth of 10 meters. Cooling air is
pumped through the pits to keep the core temperature of the lead
caskets below 650 C. The F-rench are building an industrial size plant
in Marcoule which will allow for disposal within a few years, of all
presently stored liquid waste.
CONTINUOUS PROCESS AVM FACILITY (MARCOULE)
This process associates a rotary roasting furnace at a 3 percent tilt
and turning at 30 r.p.m., with a continuous melting furnace.
The processed solution is poured in through the upper funnel with
the additives, evaporates in the upper section of the tube, the dry
residue roasting in the lower section. The calcinate flows continuously
through the lower funnel into the melting furnace, to join the simul-
taneously introduced vitrifying additives.
Final roasting and vitrification therefore take place in the melting
furnace, which has a blocked pouring spout.
Glass pouring is periodic, i.e., at 6 to 8-hour intervals, when the
glass accumulated in the furnace is sufficient. Pouring into the dis-
posal container does not involve interruption of the process at the
roasting level.
The flow-rate through the industrial AVM roaster unit is at present
40 liters per hour.
Two types of melting furnace are in use, one derived from the pot
process uses a refractory metal alloy pot heated by induction, the
other, capable of higher glass-making temperatures, employs induc-
tion in the charge itself.
Furnace capacity is in both cases about 20 kg glass per hour.
PAGENO="0060"
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (TEA)
Location: Paris, France.
Time of visit: June 1, 1977.
HIGHLIGHTS
There could be a deficit of as much as 15 percent in the world oil sup-
ply by the year 2000, according to arecent lEA study.
The U.S. policy on fast breeder reprocessing is a serious roadblock to
the plans of West Germany to build a reprocessing plant.
REPORT
After the embargo of 1973, the United States and 18 other members
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), (Australia is not a member of TEA), recognized the need to
unite in a coordinated effort to decrease dependence on foreign oil. In
order to reduce strategic and economic vulnerability the participating
nations decided to set up cooperative R&D programs and to create a
system for allocating imports in time of emergency. The percentage al-
located is to be based on consumption prior to the cut-off. Although the
TEA considers Emergency Questions, it is also concerned with supply
projections for fossil fuels, long-term cooperatives in Energy R&D and
the status of relations with producer and other consumer countries.
The TEA activities in which ERDA, NBS, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
USGS. Department of Interior and EPA have been most involved have.~
been cQnducted under the Committee on Energy R&D. This Committee
is one of five groups which comprise the working structure of TEA.
Under the chairmanship of various lead countries 15 working groups
are conducting cooperative energy R&D projects. (List attached).
The U.S. has been designated lead country for working groups in
the area of conservation, nuclear safety, ocean thermal energy conver-
sion and energy R&D strategy. The basic goal of the TEA is to orga-
nize and influence economic policies. Matters of a technical nature in
the nuclear area are reserved for the Nuclear Energy Agency. In other
areas, the TEA has assisted in the creation of mechanisms for work be-
tween countries on coal and solar energy, but prefers not to actually be
directly responsible for any harthvare development. The. Director was
of the opinion that the U.S. policy on the fast breeder reprocessing
makes it more difficult for West Germany tO proceed with its arrange-
ments to build a reprocessing plant. The TEA has recently published a
report entitled, "World Energy Outlook" which agrees with most other
projections of energy supply. That is, it projects a 3 million barrels per
day shortfall in the western world and 3 million barrels per day short-
fall in the USSR. In other words, by the year 2000 the demand will be
roughly 42 MBD to the supply 36 MBD. .
(54)
PAGENO="0061"
FRENCH ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Date of visit: June 1, 1977.
Location of visit: Paris, France.
HIGHLIGHTS
France will aclamantly'refuse to buy uranium under the condition
that they must not reprocess.
France feels that the U.S. decision to stop construction of the
breeder in the name of proliferation is contradicted by another de-
cision: to commercialize the gas centrifuge process for enriching
uranium.
France. has recently developed a new enrichment process which
practically eliminates the risk of proliferation.
REPORT
1. Safeguards are working-the community only has power within
the community. There has been no cheating. The shipload of. uranium
which went to Israel was a deception because they said the purchase
was not from Italy, but from a non-signor nation.
2. France is in full agreement with President Carter on the necessity
of non-proliferation. France has as great an interest as any other
country in non-proliferation. No interest in other countries having
weapons. The difference in. policy is how to handle the case. When it
comes to the point of trying to control reprocessing and breeder re-
actor development in other countries, France feels differently:
(a) French energy needs.
(b) Not an efficient way to stop proliferation.
President Carter has said he would "try to convince France to do
the same." France does not plan to accept, and will never accept nat-
ural uranium only on the condition that they~ do not reprocess.
(France receives it under contract up to 1979, and even afterwards, by
choice).~ France imports enriched uranium from the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
and will export what it produces to other countries.
In sum, American policy is no reprocessing, no fast breeder. To pre-
vent others from going that.~route, the sale of natural uranium is to be
on condition that there is no reprocessing and no fast breeder.
France views the issue as an international one, lessens investment.
encourages cooperation. France will sell to Belgium, Spain, Italy, Iran,
West Germany and Switzerland. If U.S. wouldn't sell-do it by itself.
France was not consulted-there was two days notice before the de-
cision was announced. Restricting the supply of enriched uranium un-
less promise of non-reprocessing-"we fight against that."
Pakistan: France is ready to drop the cont.ract if the Pakistanis de-
cidetodoso.
Giraud interprets Carter's policy as being based on the fact of nu-
clear weapons proliferation (not the common opinion) (others think
(55)
PAGENO="0062"
56
because U.S. is late with reprocessing and the fast breeder). It is
idealistic.
A weakness of the argument is the gas centrifuge. "The easiest way
by far to go to an atomic bomb . . ." "the policy makers are not nu-
clear specialists and did not realize that the highly enriched uranium
route is probably more dangerous than the plutonium route."
3. Giraud suggests different modalities: Make nuclear fueT in suf-
ficient quantities so that the U.S. can impose conditions on reprocessing
and fast breeders. It will not work because it frees countries like France
to do their own reprocessing, prospecting and enrichment.
He noted that as soon as the idea was put forth by Ford last fall, that
the U.S. would not reprocess, Iran came to France and said it wanted
to build a reprocessing plant.
Enrochemique-a plant built in Belgium by 14 countries, the plan
was to scrap the plant-but on the 16th of December 1976 after the
Carter amendment, the Belgium government decided to nationalize
the plant.
4. The supply of uranium depends on how much money is put in it.
But there isn't very much-not equivalent to our oil reserves. Respon-
sible persons and governments should act with the most likely hypoth-
esis: the physical shortage in the 1990's. Most agree except the Ford
Mitre study which thinks it will be beyond the year 2000. Why should
we use our oil reserves as soon as possible?
5. An inducing system should be used, not a denied system, to pro-
mote nonproliferation. Should not export plants or pilot plants using
sensitive technologies.
6. Should suppress any good reason for other countries to feel the
need for the sensitive technologies. To do that, enrichment services at
decent prices must be made available without unacceptable conditions.
7. After a certain time other countries will be unwilling to rely on
other countries even if fair. (Under Article 4 of the NPT they do
have the right). France has approved a process for enrichment which
cannot "in practice allow the manufacturing of highly enriched
uranium." This process makes it possible to accept dissemination with
appropriate safeguards. The French feel this fits with U.S. philosophy
of making fuel available and, on that basis, conversations have been
started with the U.S. (takes care of highly enriched uranium for
atomic bombs). This was the idea announced at Saltzburg. (Fri and
Giraud have talked about this).
8. Other drawbacks to Carter policy: (a) Spent fuel shortage is a
problem-no one knows how to store it for eternity.
(b) Uranium resources are limited in France. After a certain time,
the U.S. will become importers. "U.S. needs imports starting now."
Uranium imports will become more and more important. There will
come a time when they are more importer than producer.
France cannot depend on the cartel of Canada or South Africa.
There is only one way of overcoming that-developing the fa~
breeder: "France, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Great Britain and
everybody."
9. Plutonium is difficult-our proposal is going to be to bring spent,
fuels to reprocessing plants in the U.S., United Kingdom, France, West
PAGENO="0063"
57
Germany, Japan and others. The plutonium would stay there in the
shape of a fuel; 17% if fast breeder fuel, or 3% if for recycling-it
would be a mixture of oxides. Before letting it out it would be irradi-
ated. The only thing that would circulate would be spent fuel.
10. The Pakistan agreement was negotiated by the U.S. to limit nu-
clear proliferation-what about the exchange of arms by the IJ.S. to
Pakistan?
PAGENO="0064"
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC C00PEL&noN AND DEVELOPMENT
Place: 2 rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France.
Time: June 1, 1977.
HIGHLIGHTS
The Committee was given an overview of OECD in general and of
particular activities in environment, industry, and science policy.
Twenty environmental projects are underway in OECD.
Sixteen of the 24 member countries gave as their highest priority in
the environmental field the study of economic instruments that en-
courage good waste management.
OECD industry policy efforts are modest.
An examination of the shipbuilding industry is underway.
Study of the steel industry is beginning.
Studies of the future structure of industry are in progress.
Science policy studies underway include: how technology plays a
role in change in industry, how new technology is spurred by legisla-
tion, whether declining industries may be helped by technology, how
government policy can affect the setting up of new technologies, and
aspects of technology transfer to developing countries.
OECD's principal interest in technology transfer to developing
countries is to determine whether such transfer may have backlash
effects on OECD countries.
Findings are available on why policy-makers do not use the results
of social sciences research.
A comparative evaluation of practices in involving the public with
science `and technology decisions is in progress.
REPORT
The OECD is an organization of 24 developed countries with free-
market economies (including the U.S.) OECD was established in 1961
to replace the organization which had been responsible for administra-
tion of the Marshall Plan. Its objectives are to promote policies de-
signed to (a) promote development of the world economy (b) promote
economic development of each member country, and (c) expand fair
world trade. OECD has about 600 professional employees.
OECD has a ruling council and some 13 "directorates." Three direc-
torates of interest to the Committee on Science and Technology are (i)
Energy Policy, (ii) Environment, and (iii) Science, Technology and
industry. In addition, the International Energy Agency is a semi-
autonomous arm of OECD.
Each Directorate serves one or more committees of governmental
representatives which meet to discuss common problems, examine pos-
sible solutions, and develop recommendations for national policies.
OECD is housed in. several buildings in Paris, France.
(58)
PAGENO="0065"
59
The budget of 0EOD in 1977 is about $68 million, about $17 million
of which is provided by the U.S. through the State Department.
Under the Committee's special oversight function of "reviewing and
studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government
activities dealing with or involving nonmilitary research and develop-
ment," the Committee has interests in international technology trans-
fer and international cooperation in science and technology.
OECD has extensive activities in international cooperation in science
and technology. Many of these regard subjects for which U.S. activi-
ties fall within the Committee's legislative jurisdiction.
The purpose of the visit was to meet OECD personnel working in
relevant fields and to learn what OECD is doing in those fields.
The meeting consisted of descriptions of OECD activities given by
Dr. Roderick, Mr. Hill, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Ferne. Mr. Scheuer asked
questions and made comments.
General inforni~ation about Off CD and di~cu88ion of the E~ironment
Directorate
Dr. Roderick
OECD in General-OECD is an economic organization of 24 devel-
oped countries with market economies. Russia and other non-market
economy countries are not members. The main thrust of OECD ac-
tivity is to further economic growth of its members. The principal out~
put of OECD is recommendations aimed at getting member coun-
tries to behave a certain way The member countries can follow these
recommendations or not. OECD recommendations can stimulate goy-
ernments to act if the governments are willing. OECD has no police
force but does follow up its recommendations, with questions, for ex-
ample, to see what was done. OECD has a special category of recom-
mendations, known as "decisions," which carry more moral force.
Payments to OECD are based on gross national product, with a
ceiling of 25 percent of the total budget to be paid by any one country.
The United States provides 25 percent of the total budget.
Mr. SCHEUER. How do you make your findings known to the world ~
OECD publishes its reports. Some are given away to those who ask,
some arc sold. In general the distribution system is poor. OECD is
well-known in small member countries but not in the United States.
Reports may not be made publicly available until they are dc-restricted
by the OECD council, which may take months.
OECD Environment work-Environment efforts are supplementary
to OECD's principal objective of economic growth. The question of
how environmental factors fit into economic growth is addressed. The
Environment Directorate's annual budget is about $1 million. During
1976 the Directorate published 19,000 pages of reports. The output of
the Directorate is summarized in "OECD and the Environment"
which gives about 20 recommendations in areas such as noise, mercury
emissions and the "polluter pays" principle (each industry rather
than taxpayers should pay for cleaning up. the pollution it creates;
the cost is passed on to the consumer; this gives industry incentive to
stay clean which is not present if the taxpayer pays).
An. example of OECD action and problems with having its recom-
mendations implemented:. Three years ago OECD had a decision that
92-187 0 - 77 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
60
polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB) should be used only in closed sys-
tems. EPA was unaware of the decision three years later. When the
toxic chemicals act was passed, the United States began to clamp
down on PCB use.
Mr. SCHEUER. Do countries outside OECD (eastern bloc countries
and less developed countries) frustrate OECD environmental efforts
by ignoring them?
In general, no. The winds blow from west to east. There are no
evident effects from LDC's pollution, but some Russian pollution
blows into Scandanavia. There are indications that acid rain from SOx
pollution may be a worldwide problem.
Currently 20 environmental projects are underway in the broad
areas of: energy and the environment, cities and the environment and
industry and the enviroment. Studies cover SOx, NOx, and automo-
bile emission, for example.
A recent study in waste disposal showed that if a bottle is reused
five times, it is advantageous in every way.
Sixteen countries of the 24 members gave as their highest priority
in the environment field the study of economic instruments that would
encourage good waste disposal or recycling.
Di~cus$i&n of t1~e work of the Industm,' Division
Mr. Hill
The OECD effort in industry policy is modest. There is difficulty
in finding a common definition of industry policy because various
governments go to different lengths in the control of industry. Japan
and France go rather far, for example. A second difficulty is in dis-
tinguishing between industry policies and broad economic or trade poli-
cies. The latter have an impact on industry but are handled by other
parts of OECD.
The Industry Division serves two bodies: The Industry Committee
and a special shipbuilding Working Party.
The Industry committee is looking at short-term issues, for example,
how can industrial policy help labor policy in solving structural
unemployment.
Mr. SCIIE~JER. In the United States the structurally unemployed
are blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and the poor. Is the problem
similar in Europe with "guest-workers" and the like?
In Europe an additional group, the older workers, is affected, espe-
cially those who are not mobile.
The Industry Division may look at particular sectors of industry,
shipbuilding for example, where there is a problem of overcapacity.
At the request of the United States delegation the Division is starting
a look at the steel industry's international problems.
A project is underway on the future structure of industries. A look
at 1980 is being completed, and 1985 will be examined next. There may
be areas of overdevelopment which create trade problems. In other
areas (food manufacturing, for instance) development may be
insufficient.
Finally, the Division may. look at a broad set of policy measures.
A comparative analysis of the regional development policies of various
countries is underway with the objective of helping Portugal with its
development.
PAGENO="0067"
61
Disôussion of work in Science Policy
Mr. Bell
There has been evolution in the principal focus of OECD's science
policy efforts. In the beginning the objective was to further the use
of science and technology for growth. European countries were con-
cerned with the technology gap between the United States and Europe.
By the early 1970's there was change to concern with the style and type
of growth. That trend did not last long. In 1973 or 1~74 the energy
and economic crises turned intere~t back to growth. Current interests
are in (a) how to handle these crises, (b) the new economic equilib-
rium between developed countries and developing countries, and (c)
how to handle trade with eastern countries.
Studies underway concern:
How technology plays a role in change in industry.
How new technology is spurred by legislation.
Whether declining industries (e.g. shoemaking) may be helped
by technology.
How government policy can affect the setting up of new tech-
nologies; and
Aspects of technology transfer to developing countries (for ex-
ample, what challenges to OECD countries will technology trans-
fer induce?) The results of this study are due in fall of 1978.
Mr. SCIiEUER. What is the mission of OECD with respect to devel-
oping countries? Does it include technology transfer?
It does not include promotion of technology transfer, but rather
an examination of whether technology transfer may have backlash
effects on the economies of OECD countries.
Mr. SGHEUER. What are international groups doing to look at the
relation between population and economic development, environment,
non-renewable resources, and energy?
The most recent study was done by Leontieff for the U.N. It was
available in draft form in fall 1976. It is probably in the publishing
process now. The model assumes that as people get wealthier they will
want fewer children.
Mr. SCHEUER. This is a dangerous assumption. Sometimes it hap-
pens, sometimes not. Mexico is an example. Mexico has had success
in death-reducing programs but not in birth reduction, so its growth
rate is the highest in the world. There are three stages in population
development: (1) high birth rate and high death rate, (2) since it is
easier to get the death rate down, death rates go down but not birth
rates, (3) through the effects of industrialization, education of women,
getting men into the money economy, and urbanization, birth rates
go down. Getting from stage (2) to stage (3) is difficult. Acceptable
birth control methods are needed.
Discussion of social sciences in Science Policy
Mr. Ferne
The social science activities of the Science Policy Division have two
main thrusts: The economic dimension of science policy and the social
dimension of science policy. Along the first of these thrusts a study
PAGENO="0068"
62
re-examining the effects of old policies and gathering new informa-
tion has just begun. This study will examine, for instance: the effect
of technology on unemployment, the relation between technological
development and inflation, and the relation between research and tech-
nological development.
In the social dimension of science policy an examination of why the
results of social science research are not taken into account by policy-
makers has been completed and a report is available. Future studies
will focus on more instrumental aspects such as evaluation research
and policy sciences (where there is hope that social sciences can be
fed directly into decision-making).
A project in progress, started about a year and a half ago, examines
public involvement with science and technology decisions. The focus
is: how do various governments explain decisions to the public and
involve the public in decision-making? In Europe the main area of
study is nuclear power decisions.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED OR MADE AVAILABLE
1. "OECD and the Environment"-received.
2. Study which showed that reusing bottles is advantageous-
requested.
3. List of U.S. experts used by Mr. Bell-requested.
4. Leontieff study taking population growth into account-
requested.
5. OEOD "interfuture" group's analysis of long term models-
requested.
6. Studies of why social science research results are ignored by
policymakers-requested.
PAGENO="0069"
UNESCO
Date of visit: June 1, 1977.
Location of visit: U.S. Mission to UNESCO, 1 Rue Miollis, Paris
15e, France; and UNESCO Headquarters, Place de Fontenoy, Paris
7e, France.
HIGHLIGHTS
UNESCO spends $5 million annually for population control
education.
UNESCO has regional staffs for introducing population education?
which: help with curriculum preparation.
UNESCO believes technology transfer must be part of an inte-
grated development program.
UNESCO assists in the establishment of national science and tech-
nology information and documentation centers.
The U.N. Conference on Science and Technology scheduled for 1979
will iieed much work to be useful.
UNESCO plans to assist in preparations for the Conference by
helping countries formulate their national statements.
Political problems in UNESCO with respect to Israel appear to be
past, but freedom of the press and scientific freedom will require
vigilance.
The U.N. plans a conference on desertification in March 1978.
REPORT
UNESCO is one of about 14 specialized agencies of the United
Nations. Its activities are very broad, but current emphasis is on edu-
cation, science, and technology as factors for development. UNESCO
was established in 1946 and has over 120 member countries.
UNESCO is governed by a biennial general conference and an ex-
ecutive Board. Operations are managed by a Director General. A staff
including about 700 professional employees is located at UNESCO
headquarters in Paris.
The most recent budget of UNESCO is about $120 million, $30 mil-
lion of which is to be provided by the U.S. through the State Depart-
ment. UNESCO has been involved in political controversies regarding
(i) Israel and (ii) freedom of the press, and U.S. contributions have
been delayed.
POPULATION
Mr. Fobes said he had worked for several years in the 1960's to get
a population program into UNESCO, but it was hard to do. He was
a member of an international commission working on the population
problem, chaired by David Morse, which published a report in 1971.
At the time of that study only 10 of 30 countries visited by the com-
mission were willing to tackle population.
(63)
PAGENO="0070"
64
Mr. Scheuer said the situation appears to have changed and that all
six countries he visited recently (Kenya, Tanzania, Zaire, Nigeria,
Ghana, and Senegal) were eager to work on population control.
Assistance for countries in population control is readily available
from AID, UNFPA, and the World Bank. UNESCO believes popu-
lation control should be integrated with other features of development,
such as general education, maternal education and health care.
UNESCO spends $5 million of FPA funds annually for popula-
tion education. Another $2 or $3 million is put into media for get-
ting the message across. UNESCO believes FPA could use more money
well for regional education and communication programs.
UNESCO has regional staffs for introducing population education
based in Bangkok, Dakar, Nairobi and Santiago. These groups pre-
pare prototype curriculum materials and, upon request from a coun-
try, will send a team to train local people. UNESCO also organizes
institutes, meetings, and seminars.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DEVELOPMENT
UNESCO believes technology transfer must take place as part of
the overall process of development. In particular, trained personnel
and an adequate infrastructure are needed. A world information net-
work alone will not suffice. UNESCO encourages medium and long-
range science and technology development plans.
UNESCO has held regional conferences of ministers of science and
ministers of planning in every world region to encourage develop-
ment. A second round of these meetings is starting. The first is the
Europe and North America regional meeting.
Through UNISIST, UNESCO is encouraging countries to set up
national science and technology information and documentation cen-
ters. NSF and NTIS have assisted in this.
There was recently a demonstration in Morocco of the use of satel-
lites for communications.
uN CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Conference is scheduled for 1979, although no. firm date has
been established and it may be postponed until 1980. The location has
not been set; there are invitations from at least the United States, the
Philippines, and Australia.
In the United States, OSTP has shown an interest in the Confer-
ence and is actively working on it. The NSF. budget request for FY
1978 includes $1.2 million for U.S. planning for the Conference.
The Conference has several difficulties to overcome. Mr. Fobes said
he is opposed to such a big conference because he is not sure how they
really help. The Secretary General of the Conference, Mr. De Costa
from Brazil, wants to manage the organization himself. He reports
directly to the U.N. Secretary General and, on request, has been made
independent of the science arm of the U.N. That group is dommiated
by persons from developed countries while De Costa wants the Con-
ference to be aimed toward developing countries. He has the political
support of developing counties in this. The problem created is that
De Costa needs help to do the organization, but he doesn't have it.
PAGENO="0071"
65
UNESCO has offered and is planning to help by going into each
country and assisting in the preparation of a statement of the national
science and technology situation and what the country wants from
international cooperation. The Conference schedule requires tl~at these
country studies be completed by the spring of 1978. There are offers
from three developed countries to perform on a bilateral basis the
function UNESCO plans to perform.
UNESCO POLiTICIZATION PROBLEMS
The problems with UNESCO actions against Israel appear to be
settled. The issue of freedom of the press is still hot however. Un-
toward action on freedom of the press was narrowly averted at the
last UNESCO general conference after 13 hours of debate. Mr. Fobes
believes that freedom of science and free exchange of scientists are
issues that must constantly be watched. The International Council of
Scientific Unions is active inthese issues, as is the National Academy
of Sciences in the United States. UNESCO supports ICSU financi-
ally. Membership in UNESCO, however, is `from the foreign ministries
of countries, and national representatives tend to be more politically
aware than concerned with science.
DESERTIFICATION
UNESCO began an arid zones project 20 years ago. There will be
a U.N. Conference on desertification in March 1978.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED AND/OR RECEIVED
"Education and Population," UNESCO's Activities in 1975, Back-
ground Information-received.
"Education and Population," UNESCO's Activities in 1974, Back-
ground Information-received.
"Education and Population," UNESCO's Activities in 1973, BaOk-
ground Information-received.
"Population Education: Problems and Perspectives," Bulletin of
the International Bureau of Education, No. 193, 4th quarter 1974-
received.
"Final Report of the Committee of Experts," Meeting of Experts
Preparatory to the Second Conference of Ministers Responsible for
Science and Technology Policy in the European Region (September
15-17, 1976) -received.
"Science and Technology in the Development of the Arab States,"
Science Policy Studies and Documents, No. 41, UNESCO-received.
"Draft Program and Budget for 1975-76, UNESCO general con-
ference, 18th session, Paris 1974-received.
ECOSOC documents submitted to the U~N. General Assembly re-
garding the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology-requested.
Report of the preparations committee for the U.N. Conference on
Science and Technology-requested.
Planning documents for the March 1978 desertification conference-
requested.
PAGENO="0072"
INTERPOL
Date c~f vhnt: June 1, 1977.
Location of visit: Interpol Headquarters, 26 Rue Armenguad
92210 St. Cloud, France.
HIGHLIGHTS
Interpol currently uses technology for communicating pictures and
messages.
Interpol believes the technology currently in use for communica-
tions is appropriate. The technology must be matched to users' ability
to handle it, and the ability to pay for it, and to the amount of com-
municating to be done.
The United States could help Interpol by assisting poorer countries
in acquiring communications equipment.
The Interpol communications system would be improved by the
establishment of additional regional stations.
`Interpol is working towards computerizing its files. The United
States could help by speaking in favor of computerization and by en-
couraging member countries to provide the funds needed.
`Interpol conducts a symposium in forensic science every three years.
The next one is scheduled for early in the fall of 1978 at Interpol
headquarters.
REPORT
Interpol provides the coordination and communication channels that
the police of its 125 member nations use to make criminal investi-
gations. Interpol's chief function is to facilitate the interchange of
information about criminals and crimes. Interpol has no international
police or detective agents of its own. Each member country ~f Inter-
pol operates a national central bureau. The U.S. central bureau, which
had been in the Treasury Department, was recently moved to the
Justice Department. Interpol international headquarters are located
in the Paris suburb of St. Cloud. The staff numbers about 150.
The major national centers and the Paris headquarters are linked
by a worldwide radio network (described by GAO as "slow and out-
moded").
A large portion of the Interpol workload is involved with drug
trafficking.
Interpol is currently considering how its central files might be
computerized.
Interpol funds come mainly from member dues. In 1975 total in-
come was $2.9 million, of which $2.2 million was from dues. The U.S.
share of current dues is $214 thousand, and some back dues are owed.
U.S. dues will be handled by the Justice Department.
The Committee is interested in how science and technology can aid
in fighting crime nationally and internationally. Several days of
hearings on crime are being held by the Subcommittee on Domestic
and International Scientific Planning, Analysis and Cooperation dur-
ing June 1977.
(66)
PAGENO="0073"
67
The purpose of the visit was to meet Mr. Nepote, to learn how In-
terpol uses science and technology, and to determine how the United
States might help Interpol in the application of Science and Tech-
nology to its work.
[The testimony follows:]
Mr. NEPOTE. What is the purpose of your visit? I know you are very short of
time. I am afraid we both have the same problem.
Mr. SOHnUER. How much time do you have?
Mr. NEPOTE. I must meet a big German delegation at 3:45-in 30 minutes.
Mr. SCHETJER. You have thirty minutes. That's fine. Do you remember meeting
me with Cusack in this office five or six years ago? Now we have a special Con-
gressional committee that has no other function than to look at the narcotics
situation. I serve on that committee. I am also the Chairman of a conu~ittee of
the Congress that has responsibility for all international scientific cooperation
and all international technology transfer. It has jurisdiction over the use by
international agencies .of science and technology.
Mr. NJcPOTE. I see what you mean.
Mr. SGHEUER. And on this trip we met in Vienna with the International Atomic
Energy Agency and with UNIDO, The United Nations Industrial Development
Organization. We met with an agency in Vienna called IIASA, The International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis where they are m:aking long-run computer
estimates of the need for energy, food, what-not. This morning we just left
UNESCO. We met before that this morning with the International Energy
administration (Mr. Lanske), and with OECD.
Mr. Nn~o'rn. A lot of people, much more scientists than I am myself.
Mr. SCHEUER. Well, I am not a scientist, either.
Now I am here to see you about that mission. What can the United States do
to encourage better international scientific cooperation? Or provide better tech-
nology transfer to give Interpol a more sophisticated scientific and technological
capability to carry out its mission? Is there something that you could use in the
way of science and technology, in the field of telecommunications for example?
Could you use access to the international telecommunications satellite? Remem-
ber we met in Ghana. Before that I was in Nairobi where there was a big inter-
national conference on Intelsat, the International Telecommunications Satellite.
I understand you do not have access to that.
Mr. NEPOTE. No.
Mr. SCHEUER. Would it help you to be plugged into Intelsat? What kind of
more sophisticated telecommunications capability would you like to have? What
other kind of scientific and technological capability would you like to have?
What other scientific or technology sharing would you like to have between the
United States and Interpol or European Nations and Interpol?
Mr. NEPOTE. I will try to explain to you thy views on that. As far as Interpol is
concerned we now use technology for telecommunications and in telecommunica-
tions we have two points of concentration. One is to transmit pictures. The pic-
tures we have to transfer from one country to another in the field of international
cooperation are mainly fingerprints. We built up a system of transmission of pic-
tures by telephotography. You will see one piece of equipment functioning here.
We built up this from zero. The manufacturers who built this equipment are from
several countries in the world. The equipment should be compatible. The system
consists of buying equipment and using telephone lines for transmission. The
system works very well. For the time being the traffic is not very high. For
instance between the Buorpean countries where the traffic is the most heavy
in the world at the police level, Germans or French use this equipment once or
twice `a day for international purposes-not more. It's rather, quick. In 15 minutes
or twenty minutes you may transmit fingerprints from one country to another.
Mr. SCHEUER. How many fingerprints?
Mr. NEPOTE. The ten fingerprints for identification. Sometimes one print if
necessary. The problem is we have to encourage `the countries one by one to buy
this equipment. Now we have, I think, 12 countries equipped with this system.
It has been on the market two years or three years. The cost is `about $30,000
for one piece of equipment. After that you pay just for your telephone calls.
We hope year by year new countries will come into the network. It is obvious
that' for long distances the cost is much higher. If you transmit a fingerprint
from Tokyo to Buenos ~Aires the cost would be more since you pay on the telephone
PAGENO="0074"
68
rate. This is one problem. I think technically it is solved. It is just a question of
expansion of the system throughout the world.
The second problem is to transmit messages. I think different points must be
taken into account. When we work internationally we work as a team. Let me
take an example that, I think, will explain the problem very well to you. If you
take a very old DC-3 plane, and you put on that plane a quite modern jet engine,
it does not improve the plane. You crash because the engine is not adjusted to
the plane. We must take this point into account. You see, we have to work with
the very developed countries-United States, Germany, Japan-and practically
illiterate countries which have no techniques, no money, no technicians-nothing.
With these countries, if you give them too sophisticated equipment you lose your
money, your time, and you don't improve anything. In my experience we practi-
cally gave the money to Liberia to build up a transmitter and a receiver-the
telecommunications. Now they are ruined because they have nobody to change
a bulb when something is broken. And, point two, you must adjust your technique
to the financial possibilities of the different countries. Point three, if you think
reasonably well, you should not buy a big trunk to transport this. (Holding up a
tiny ashtray.)
Mr. NEPOTE. This example means you have to adjust your technique to the
possibilities of the users, to take all this into account. You know that our system
of telecommunications was based on this old system-morse code. One, because
in international traffic you cannot use radiotelephone due to the difference of
languages. It is out of the question. If you ask an American policeman to tele-
phone to a Frenchman they cannot understand anything, and we cannot afford
to make mistakes. So we started to use morse code and we continued to use it
for very long distances-between Paris and Tokyo. It works and it is quite enough
for the amount of traffic we have to dispatch. For the region where the traffic is
very heavy and with the countries which are more developed, I mean mainly
Europe, Canada, and the United States, we built up a radioteletype network. It
is not exactly telex. It is independent of telex. Now we have 12 countries in it.
What can the United States do to help? I think you could help in giving equip-
ment or loaning equipment to some countries which should be in the network
and which are not in the network because they have no money to buy. We may
discuss the procedures later.
Mr. SCHEUER. Which countries are they?
Mr. NEPOTE. For instance, Pakistan. I know that in Pakistan they have tech-
nicians. If they could be linked with Teheran-it is rather simp1e-~through
Teheran they could be linked with 55 countries in the world.
In the far east-Malaysia and Singapore. Because in the far east we have
Tokyo as a regional station. We work with Hong Kong, The Phillipines, India
and Thailand. We need a contact with Malaysia and with Singapore. Perhaps
we could do it through Kuala Lumpur. In South America we would like to have
Ecuador and Colombia. In Ecuador, Peru is ready to loan small equipment to
Ecuador. I don't know if they will accept it, because you know between Peru
and Ecuador things don't work very well. In any case the equipment is not
powerful enough to work reasonably well. So Ecuador is preparing to equip.
Colombia wishes to do so, but Lt is not always easty to work with the Colombians.
They `should be linked to our regional station in Buenos Aires. You also could
help some countries in Africa to build up there a regional station. Our network
is decer.tralized by region. There is one region in the far east with Tokyo as the
regional station, another one in South America with Buenos Aires. Now we are
taking steps to build up regional networks in Africa. We think that in East
Africa the problem is solved through Nairobi. In West Africa we are' pushing
The Ivory Coast, which, I think, is the most developed country in the area,
and Nigeria to `try to build up a regional station. We must have a regional station
before pushing the others to come. Having a regional station in Ivory Coast
`~neans, for example, that Ghana, Sierra Leone, Senegal, with very short distance
1~inks would work through the network. If you could help, one way or another,
ivory Coast to develop its equipment we could make a very big step and and
a~fter that push other countries in the region to join the Abidjan station.
Mr. SCHEUER. Have you been to Abidjan? le would be a lovely post. I would
like to be assigned to your regional headquarters in Abidjan.
Mr. NEPOTE. You are under contract now. Finally, I don't know if it is possible
for the United States to help these headquarters to improve its own equipment-
to buy some more equipment to improve our communications with our regional
stations. We made very great steps in the past 4 years. If you could stay one or
PAGENO="0075"
69
two days more I would bring you 100 miles south of Paris to show you our
transmitters.
Mr. SCHEUER. I want to bring our committee here in the future.
Mr. NEPOTE. Please. You ~re welcome. I will organize with your embassy a
short trip to Orleans, where we have our transmitters. Here you will see our
receivers and our system of remote control for the transmitters which are in
Orleans.
Mr. SCIIEIJER. What kind of new technology would you be interested in
acquiring?
Mr. NEPOTE. I think with this modern radioteletype we have enough technology
for our needs. The point at which we are working is to introduce a computer in
this organization. The idea to be brief, is to build up something to compare to the
NCIC, interantionally. Its created some problems because we have to take care
about the different laws and systems in different countries, but we have a working
group working on that. I hope in one year we will have built up a model of what
we would like to have. After that we will have to go to the different governments
and say, "Are you prepared to pay ?"
Mr. SCHE~JER. To raise your assessments.
Mr. NEPOTE. Yes. And at that stage the United States could help very much.
Not only in preaching in the meeting for building up th& system, but also in
pressing the different governments, mainly in Europe, in order that they partici-
pate in the system. This is another difficult aspect of this type of technology on
an international level. If you have only two or three countries you cannot benefit
from it. Suppose for instance that you had a radio network for two or three
countries. It would be no help-useless. It becomes of great use when a great
number of countries are participating. These are the two fields.
Mr. SCHEUER. How would a computer capability help you? -.
Mr. NEPOTE. Studies made in the past proved that the computer would be of
some help only if the system can be consulted by terminals from countries. Now
we have an international file. To consult this file we must receive a cable,' consult
the file, send a cable. If we had a computer we could put the file in the computer,
and with the terminal have an immediate answer.
Mr. SCHEIJER. Information as to a known trafficker?
Mr. NEPOTE. Yes. Just to inform that we have a dossier, or there is a dossier in
Germany or in United States or in Canada.
Point two is that with' a `computer we could build up some files which we
cannot build up now with a manual' system. Mainly two files: a file of wanted
persons and a file of stolen properties-cars, for instance, cameras, and so on.
The explanation is the following. If you take the European countries, it could
be expected that if you add all the persons wanted by each European country,
about one million persons are wanted-Frenchmen wanted in France, Germans
wanted in Germany, Italians in Italy, and so forth. Among this one million you
have a lot who are wanted for very petty things-things of only local interest.
You have some of those who are wanted for very important crimes~. This category,
small, very important crimes are circulated by us through the classical means,
by radio, then after that, by beautiful circñlation with photographic prints
and so on. Over this 1,000,000 persons this represents about 2,000 people;
Mr. SCHEUER. This is a very small group.
Mr. NEPOTE. A very small group which are wanted for extradition. I am quite
sure that if we had a computer, even if the people are not wanted formally for
extradition, you could build up a file of, perhaps 200,000 people for whom it is
interesting to know they are wanted by some eountry. For instance, Mr. A is
wanted in Germany. They don't ask for extradition, but it is interesting for
the Spanish or for the British or `the Americans to know that that man is wanted
in Germany for something.
Mr. SCHEUER. And why he is wanted.
Mr. NEPOTE. After that the country concerned would be in touch with the mother
countries to know the details and if they are wanted for extradition. This is one
thing we could do.
Mr. SCHEUER. Would this be of interest, for instance, for international crimes
of terrorism-nuclear theft, assassination, kidnapping, hijacking?
1~Ir. NEPOTE. Yes. The studies which have been made proved that this inter-
national sys'tem should be completely independent from any national system.
In order that each country will `put in the system what information they
would like to put. They will control what they put in the computer. So every
country is absolutely sovereign for the information which is put in the computer
abOut'its own citizens.
PAGENO="0076"
7O
Mr. SCHEUER. Could you make a copy of that report available to us?
Mr. NEPOTE. Certainly. I will send you some documents.
I introduced this question in 1972 in the general assembly of Interpol. I
will send you the report which I introduced, and the studies which were made
proved that I was right as to the potential of the computer system, which is
rather exceptional.
These are the two big fields in which we are interested in technology for the
time being. You must know that every three years we organize a symposium of
forensic science and for the top people of the big laboratories in the world. We
are doing the following. The scientists discuss problems which have not found
a good solution, and they build up a program of research which is given to
laboratories which are well equipped and which are volunteers to do research
in these different fields. Now, I think, we have 13 topics in the air. Certain of
them are taken by the ATF laboratory, some others, perhaps by the FBI. The
Americans participate in this program. In 1978 we will have our next symposium.
There they will make research reports about their work and they will see if they
must continue the research or if the question has been solved, and so on.
Mr. SCHEUER. Where will that meeting be in 1978?
Mr. NEPOTE. Right here in this building.
Mr. SCHEUER. Do you know the dates?
Mr. NEPOTE. Not yet. We know that it will be at the end of 1978, probably
October or September. We must have it not more often than every three years
because you must give time to the technology to evolve. If they meet too often
they have nothing to say. Well, these are the basic problems. I had the privilege
to give a speech in the U.S. Embassy in London about police and technology.
I will send you a copy of this speech.
Mr. SCHEUER. Pha1t would be extremely helpful. I thank you for your kindness.
We have been just exactly half an hour.
Mr. NEPOTE. I am extremely sorry we are both so extremely short of time.
Mr. SCHEUER. We will be over again and I will bring my committee along.
Mr. NEPOTE. Please. Would you have a very quick look at the
telecommunications?
Mr. SCHEUER. Yes. Thank you very much.
After the discussion between Mr. Scheuer and Mr. Nepote, Mr. Nepote took the
three guests on a brief tour of the equipment room. The equipment was a mixture
of old and new machines. Perhaps a dozen people were at work in the two rooms
which were shown. A telephotographic device was in one room. Samples of
fingerprints and a mug shot received on the equipment were seen. The quality
was excellent.
DOCUMENTS REQUE5TED
Documents Requested
1. Speech by Mr. Jean Nepote concerning police and technology made at U. S.
Embassy in London-requested.
2. Report on computerization introduced by Jean Nepote at the 1972 Interpol
general assembly-requested.
PAGENO="0077"
BRITISH CO-GAS PLANT
NATIONAL COAL BOARD-COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH LABORATORY
Date of visit: June 1, 1977.
Location of visit: Leatherhead, England.
HIGHLIGHTS
Co-Gas process, being developed at Leatherhead, is one of two final-
ist technologies for the first coal gasification demonstration plant, to be
built in the U.S.
Leatherheaci has the largest Co-Gas plant in the world.
Pressurized fluidized bed combustors, being developed at Leather-
head, can easily reduce SO2 and NO~ emissions from coal well below
required levels and can reduce capital costs by as much as 75 percent
in some parts of the plan.
REPORT
Members and staff received a briefing from senior members of the
Leatherhead Research Laboratory on their research work on fluidized
bed combustion of coal and oil, and on the Co-Gas coal gasification
process work, at Leatherhead.
In fluidized combustion, coal or oil is injected and burned in a
fluidized bed of particles of mineral matter (ash, limestone or sand).
Its characteristics enable the fuel-irrespective of its ash or sulphur
contents-to be burned efficiently at high combustion intensities,
while keeping the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides well
below any of the rigid standards which are either in force or proposed.
The relatively low combustion temperature `and the environment
in which combustion takes place minimizes the formation of corrosive
substances which attack metal surfaces in conventional plants. The
temperature of the bed is maintained by a working fluid passing
through heat transfer tubes located within the bed. These features
when coupled with the large reduction in heat transfer area that
fluidized combustion makes possible, result in an overall reduction in
plant size together with significant cost savings, and enable low quality
fuels which have hitherto been difficult to burn in conventional furn-
aces to be combusted efficiently and cleanly. In visiting the facility,
the members and staff observed retrofitting operations on the pres-
surized fluidized bed test facility at Leatherhead, which is approxi-
mately 2' x 3' and a total vessel depth of 8'.
Activities at Leatheritead
Leatherhead has been concentrating on the fluidized combustion of
coal for steam and power generation and the gasification of coal via
the Co-Gas process. The Co-Gas process would be used to produce both
substitute natural gas and oil.
(71)
PAGENO="0078"
72
Great Britain is extremely interested in developing new ways of
using its coal. It has coal reserves which are estimated to be sufficient
for 350 to 400 years of consumption. Annual production of coal in
Great Britain is `approximately 200 million tons. The average sulphur
content of this coal is approximately 1 percent.
Leatherhead operates mostly on contract income and has received
$2,890,000 in the 1976 to 1977 period. This breaks down according to
the following table:
Contract income at Leatheriwaci 1976-77
Amount
(approwimately)
Co-Gas $2, 100, 000
ERDA:
Direct 540,000
Ourtiss-Wright 140, 000
Other: United Kingdom sources 110, 000
Total 2,890,000
The staff at Leatherhead consists of 101 people, with over 80 percent
engineers `and professionals.
Leatherhead has had an extensive history of contract research on
advanced coal technology. In the past, they have done considerable
research on the combustion of coal for gas turbines for power genera-
tion. They have also done much work on the gasification of coal to
make high Btu gas for industrial and domestic use; much of this work
has been transferred to the Westfield, Scotland, facility. They have
also `done a great deal of research work on low Btu gas for power
generation. They have performed contract work on the high tempera-
ture combustion for MilD power generating systems. Much of this
work has been incorporated into the present U.S. effort; however
Leatherhead is no longer working in MilD. They have also had exten-
sive contracts in the fluidized combustion of coal and oil for steam and
power generation with minimal atmospheric pollution. Following is `a
list of projects sponsored by the United States which are being con-
ducted or have been conducted at Leatherhead:
1970-71: Fluidized combustion of coal for power generation. Sponsor:
EPA and UK NCB.
1972 to `present: Fluidized combustion of coal for combined cycle
power plant. Sponsor: OCR/ERDA.
1972 to present: Production of synthesis gas from char as a part of
the Co-Gas process for making oil and substitute natural gas from
coal. Sponsor: Co-Gas Development Co. until 1977; June 1977 on-
wards, ERDA.
Fluidized combustion research at Leatherhead
Fluidized combustion consists of two types, atmospheric combustion
and pressurized. In atmospheric combustion the uses will be for in-
dustrial boilers, power station boilers, waste disposal equipment, proc-
ess heaters, and furnaces for closed cycle gas turbines. Pressurized
systems will mainly be used for boilers and air heaters, because of the
high efficiency invoJ.ved. The work at Leatherhead has mainly been in
the pressurized combustion systems.
Leatherhead has been providing technical suppo~-t for the main
pressurized fluidized bed combustion research program which is being
PAGENO="0079"
73
conducted jointly by ERDA and the TEA. Their work goes to supple-
ment the work being done at the component testing and integration
unit at the Argonne National Lab outiide of Chicago, at the 13 MWe
pilot plant operated by Curtis Wright, and a.t the 20 MWe flexible
test facility at Grimethorpe.
Work at Leatherhea~l has helped confirm the many advantages of
fluidized lied combustion. The high rates of heat transfer, the control-
lable low combustion temperatures, the chemical reactions that t~ke
place in the bed and the ease of carrying out combustion under pres-
sure lead to the following advantages of fluidized combustion com-
pared with conventional plants producing the same amount of power:
Up to 75 percent boiler tube reduction.
Compact combustion area.
Smaller boiler volume.
Efficient operation at temperatures up to 750° Centrigrade.
Reduced fouling and corrosion of boiler tubes.
Lower capital costs.
Shorter construction period.
Reduced maintenance costs.
Simple and effective control of SO2 emissions.
Reduced NO~ emission.
A variety of power generation cycles.
Multi-fuel operation.
To date, 20 different detailed comparative costings have been carried
out by six different organizations, including consulting engineers,
boiler manufacturers aiid turbine makers in Britain and the U.S.A.
The relative cost savings are shown in the following table:
Percentage cost saving of fluidized combustion power generation compared with
conventional practice in the range 120-660 MWe:
Without sulphur emission control: Percent
Capital savings 12-20
Operational savings 10-14
With sulphur emission control:
Capital savings 14-23
Operational saving~i 12-16
Many improvements have been made in the pressurized fluidized bed
combustion boiler as a result of the work at Leatherhead. They have
improved the efficiency of fines collection, combustor burner design,
engineering construction of cyclones, and engineering contruction of
Y-boxes. In addition they have been able to make modifications to
allow for much longer runs than previously experienced.
As a follow-on to their program, Leatherhead is doing extensive de-
sign work on applications of fluidized bed combustors. For example,
in certain applications there is a case for eliminating the steam cycle
and using gas turbine for generation of all the power, where air is
passed through tubes in the bed and mixed with combustion gases be-
fore being expanded through a gas turbine. Such a scheme, with power
generating capacity of 66 MWe and incorporating a waste-heat re-
covery system of 116 MW for district heating with an overall thermal
of efficiency of about 72 percent is at present under conceptual design.
Secondly, a design study has been completed for an atmospheric pres-
sure boiler with a capacity of 200,000 lbs. steam per hour, 20 MWe
suitable for a small industrial power generating system.
PAGENO="0080"
74
The design concept is such that the boiler will be factory built,
minimizing on-site construction time. This design can be used as a
basis for a series of industrial boilers in the capacity range of 50,000-
220,000 lbs. steam pe.r hour.
Leatherhead and the Co-Gas coal gasification program
ERDA is presently in the phase one period of designing its first
coal demonstration plant. The two contenders for the final contract
are the slagging Lurgi process, being developed at Westfield, Scotland
and the Co-Gas process being developed here at Leatherhead.
The slagging fixed bed Lurgi system being developed by British
Gas is under the sponsorship of Conoco Coal Development Company.
The Co-Gas system is being sponsored by the Illinois Coal Gasification
Group. The Co-Gas pilot plant at Leatherhead is the largest Co-Gas
facility in the World.
The Co-Gas Development Company is a consortium formed in 1972
by FMC Corporation to develop a process to produce either medium-
Btu or pipeline gas and synthetic crude oil from coal. This is accom-
plished by a combination of fluidized bed pyrolysis and gasification
of the char from pyrolysis. The consortium is made up of FMC, Con-
solidated Natural Gas Company, Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Com-
pany and Tennessee. Gas Pipeline Company. In addition, Peoples
Gaslight and Coke Company and Northern Natural Gas hold options
to join the consortium.
Gasification via the Co-Gas method offers many advantages. The
gas produced has a low nitrogen content without the need to use oxy-
gen in the process. To avoid the high cost of bulk oxygen, heat is
supplied for gasification by using a separate gasifier and combustor.
Heat for the carbon-steam reaction comes from burning of char fines
with air in the combustor, A circulating stream of hot char between
the two vessels is used to carry the heat for gasification. Ash is re-
moved as a slag from the combustor.
Co-Gas also offers the advantages of being able to produce high Btu
gas without the need to gasify at very high pressures. Also hydro-
treated oil is produced either as a fuel export or as a supplementary
fuel for gas making at periods of high demaii,d. Co-Gas, finally, offers
a very high efficiency of converting coal to useful products.
The Co-Gas process represents both extensions of existing technolo-
gies and the development of new technologies. Fluidized bed gasifica-
tion has been applied for the first time to char, which is a by-product of
gasification. Cyclone combustion has been applied to the combustion
of char fines. Circulation systems have `been improved to handle gasi-
fier bed material and at higher temperatures. New technologie.s which
have been developed include a heat exchanger in a lift system, which
is modified `to handle slagging coals. Also developed is the ability to
recover heat and power from flue gases.
The primary components of the pilot plant are:
1. A gasifier in which char is fluidized and gasified by steam.
2. A cyclone combustor in which char fines, separated in the sec-
ondary dust-collecting elements of the gasification and the char-
circulation systems are burned to. provide hot gases to heat char. The
char ash is tapped from the cyclone combustor as a liquid slag.
3. A lift tube or heating tube in which char drawn from the. gasifier
PAGENO="0081"
75
is heated by the hot gases from the combustor. The hot char is then
returned to the gasifier to provide the heat to support the reaction
between the steam and the char.
The char from pyrolysis is especially good feed stock for gasifica-
tion. The use of char avoids operating problems in the gasifier. Many
coals will tend to stick together in a fluidized ga:sifier making it in-
operable. The use of char avoids the problem of tar in the make gas,
and the necessity to clean the gas and handle the same quantity of tar.
The use of char also minimizes the formation of fine particles, which
occurs when coal is introduced into a reactor at gasification
temperatures.
The calculated overall, efficiency for the Co-Gas process, including
pyrolysis as well as gasification and combustion, is 65 to 70 percent.
One of the potential problems in reheating the circulating char
with the combustor flue gas is the reaction of the carbon in the char
with the CO2 of the flue gas to form carbon monoxide. The potential
heat of the CO can be recovered and would be in a commercial plant.
However, should the process already be in balance with respect to
steam and power needs, CO formed would reduce the thermal effi-
ciency. The process has yet to be optimized with respect to such items
as the CO content of flue ga.s and the utilization of its heat value.
Attempts have been made to reduce the extent of CO formation.
This can be done by several means, one of which is the geometry of
the pilot unit which can affect the concentration, and thus, the resi-
dence time of the char in the system.
In conclusion, there are several factors which make the Co-Gas
process attractive. These include the facts that Co-Gas is a low pres-
sure process (4 to 6 atmospheres absolute), that the process uses air
rather than bulk oxygen, and that the process yields substantial quan-
tities of high value oil co-product, in addition to the pipeline quality
gas. Further, both the coal pyrolysis step and the gasifier combustor
step have been successfully demonstrated on a large pilot scale,
92-187 0 - 77 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
HIGHLIGHTS
The Spacela'b schedule as defined in the 1973 agreement with the
U.S. will be met.
ESA is participating in the Space Telescope Program.
Twenty-five percent of the ESA budget is directly related to NASA
in the form of cooperative programs.
REPORT
On June 1, 1977, representatives of the United States Congress and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) visited
the headquarters of the European Space Agency in Paris, France. The
purpose of the visit was to discuss the United States involvement in
the European Space program.
The European Space Agency (ESA) is a ten member consortium
of European countries. The members include Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom. Ireland has signed to ESA convention and
will become a member upon ratification. Austria, Canada, and Norway
have been granted observer status.
The purpose of the Agency is to provide for and to promote, for
exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among the European States
in space research and technology and their applications, with a view
to their being used for scientific purposes of operational space appli-
cations systems.
The major components of ESA are, European Space Research and
Technology Center (ESTEC), European Space Operations Center
(ESOC), European and Space Research Institute (ESRIN).
Funding for the ESA operations is provided for `by the member
nations or states. The amount of funding depends upon the gross
national product. Basically, two types of funding is required, over-
head and program funding. Each state contributes a share of the
overhead funding, while project funding is left to the discretion of
the member states. When feasible, a member nation supporting some
percentage of an ESA program will get an equal percentage of the
contracts for that program.
The primary programs that relate the United States space program
to ESA are the Spacelab and the Space Telescope. The entire Space-
lab is being developed by ESA with Germany providing 53.3 per-
cent of the funding. Consequently, the development is controlled by
a German contractor, ERNO.
The involvement in the Space Telescope is more limited. ESA plans
to provide the solar array to provide 4 kilowatts of electrical power,
the faint object camera, and 10 years of operational support.
(76)
PAGENO="0083"
Is
.~ osa
A .AIJSTRIA
S .BEI.GIUM
CII .SWITZERLAND
D .GERMANY
OK .OENMARK
I *SPAIN
F .FRANCE
CR .GREAT BRITAIN
I ITALY
NL .NETHERLANDS
US .UNITED STATES
MEMBER STATES & OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS
BUDGET 1977 487.8MAU l9lGCarry forward
535.8 M $ not Included
PAGENO="0084"
SPACELAB INDUSTRIAL TEAM ORGANISATION
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
(ESA/ESTEC)
O~.~sII P~o1.~$ D,~.ctso~ .~d
C~t~~I
Coo'd~at.o~ With NASA
~d Us~~s
DORNIER. VFW - FOI(KER F ERNO
~
~ C.~ hthitb~IiIy
P~i~ti~~g - - - S~It/Ha,d ~o~k*~p
Syst~ I~~t.g~.kh*cko(~t
0 IgW~ Th~I C~t~oI *
PRIME
CONTRACTOR
* FIXED PRICE
o COST REIMBURSEMENT
* I.S.O.
A -AUSTRIA
B * BELGIUM
CH SWITZERLAND
o -GERMANY
OK DENMARK
E -SPAIN
F FRANCE
GB -GREAT BRITAIN
I ITALY
NL NETHERLANDS
US UNITED STATES
CUSTOMER
1~°~i ~ [~:j ~
* PENDING DELETION1AOOITION.
NASA HO MF77775 II)
112476
PAGENO="0085"
79
This visit was intended to give an overview of the current activities
between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and the European Space Agency (ESA). The 1977 budget for ESA is
487.8 million accounting units or $535.8 million. (See accompanying
table.) Twenty five (25) to thirty (30) percent of this budget is di-
rectly related to NASA in the form of cooperative programs.
The largest program related to NASA is the Spacelab program. The
1977 budget is $109.8 million. This facility will be utilized on the Space
Shuttle in mid-1980. The organizational structure associated with its
development is shown in the accompanying figure. Over forty (40)
contracts with ten (10) countries have been written to develop the
system. The prime contractor being ERNO, a German-based sub-
sidiary of VFW-Fokker.
Discussions regarding the Spacelab schedule revealed that the sched-
iiles as defined in the 1972 agreement will be met.
Another very significant NASA/ESA program is the Space Tele-
scope. ESA has committed $88 million to this program. Concern was
expressed by the ESA Director that if the program was not approved
by the U.S. Congress as a fiscal year 1978 New Start, the money would
be used for other projects.
The Aerosat program, a joint ESA/FAA navigation satellite, was
recently cancelled by the House Committee on Science and Technology.
This topic was discussed in regards to the impact of that cancellation
on future NASA/ESA working relationships. Because the Aerosat
budget amounts to less than 1 percent of the total ESA budget, no
serious problems are anticipated.
International cooperation was another topic of discussion. A grow-
ing concern for international technological cooperation has developed.
ESA was asked to describe what programs they participated in that
fostered cooperation with the USSR. Mr. Gibson, the Director of
ESA, stated that ESA has always had open relations with all nations.
However, there is no active cooperative program with the USSR.
There is some participation with some of the border states on the
meteorological programs.
PAGENO="0086"
SUPEIt-PHENIX BREEDER COMPONENT TESTING FACILITY
Name of institution: Electricite de France Center at Renardieres
(EDF).
Date of visit: June 1, 1977.
Location of visit: Renardieres, south of Paris.
Activity: Steam Generator Testing for Super-Ph~nix.
HIGHLIGHTS
The team at EDF has accumulated 4000 hours testing steam gen-
erator prototypes of the Super-Phénix design. About 3000 hi's. testing
was obtained with the final design choice for the Super-Phémx (by
Babcock-Atlantique). The EDF team seems as confident as the Phénix
team at Marcoule about the progress of technology development for the
large plant.
Although the design for Super Phénix is a radical departure from
the Phénix steam generator in the sense of increased thermal capacity
(a factor of 75), the EDF team expects no surprises. The critical flow
parameters will be t.he same as their 40 megawatt prototype but the
flow volume will be greatly increased.
The CGVS (the steam generator test facility) has been used for
component testing since 1970 through the Phénix program. The team
has experience in every facet of liquid metal ioop testing.
Electricite de France, the national utility has mounted an aggres-
sive campaign to sell electricity and has a strong commitment to nu-
clear power. The goal is to achieve 70% nuclear generation of elec-
tricity by 1985. This goal corresponds to 30 GWe nuclear electric en-
ergy in 1985. Fuel oil generationof electricity will peak in 1980 and
is projected to drop off rapidly after that. Hydroelectric power is ex-
pected to reach 15% of total electric by 1985.
REPORT
The Science and Technology Group was accompanied to the EDF
Center by Andre Madubost, Director of External Affairs and
former Chief Engineer of EDF.
The S & T group was taken on a tour of the Sodium Loop Steam
Generator Testing Facility by Jean Masse, the Chief of the Facility.
He presented the history of the testing program for Super Phénix,
compared the two competing designs and summarized the progress to
date. The test instrumentation was extensive and an endurance run
was in progress. Mr. Masse summarized their experience with sodium-
water explosions and methods for removing the reaction products to
minimize damage to components in the loop. He felt they had not had
major problems with Phénix and anticipated Super Phénix would
present few surprises in view of their accumulated experience.
(80)
PAGENO="0087"
81
HIGH POWER `STEAM GENERATOR SODIUM PUMP
The development of fast-neutron breeder reactors began in France
shortly before 1960. It was soon apparent that the heat-transfer fluid
to be used in these reactors should be 1iqu~d sodium, for this metal
makes it possible to retrieve the very large amounts of heat released
in such small space as the core of a fast-neutron reactor; it can be
used at high temperatures without having to be pressurized since it
has a high boiling point; it does any major problems of aggressiveness
toward conventional structural materials; finally, it possesses attrac-
tive nuclear properties both in terms of behavior under irradiation
and its effects on nuclear reactions.
Thermal and engineering research was therefore undertaken from
the begrnrnng with a view to exploring the capabilities of this mate-
rial and determining the design requirements of the systems in which
to convey it. If the next stage, the design and construction of the
atomic pile "Rapsodie" showed that the largescale manufacture of
such systems was feasible and made it possible to develop the fuel
elements to be used in this type of reactor. The path was now clear
to initiate the planning of an experimental power plant, and the con-
struction of the "Phenix" unit (250 MW) was decided upon. One
major problem had yet to be solved, regarding the transfer of heat
from the sodium fluid to a water-steam system capable of feeding a
turbine. Preliminary laboratory tests provided the means required to
determine the size of the steam generators in which such heat transfers
were to take place, but it was still necessary to have facilities to con-
trol the quality of commercially manufactured apparatus and to ascer-
tain its performance under all the possible operating conditions con-
ceivable in a power plant, including the most extreme.
Acting in cooperation with the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique
in the development of this process, Electricite de France decided in
1967 to create a special unit designed to carry out the final adjustment
of sodium-heated generators and to test them under actual operating
conditions: this unit is the C.G.V.S. (high-capacity testing unit for
sodium-heated steam generators). The location chosen for this unit
was the Study arid Research Center at Renardieres.
Designed for the development of this particular process, the
C.G.V.S. was able to help complete the design of Phenix's steam geIl-
erators, since its construction and initial operation took place rapidly.
The programs formulated in conjunction with the Commissariat a
l'Energie Atomique and the steam generator manufacturers concern
with the equipment to be used in the 1,000 MW power plants sched-
uled immediately after Phenix.
The reason that such impressive facilities were committed to develop
the design of sodium-cooled breeder reactors is that power plants
based on such reactors are very likely to play an increasingly impor-
tant part in electric power generation: their impact is expected to be
felt by 1980.
CREATION OF THE CGVS TIMETABLE
Initial decision: 1967.
Construction and assembly on the site of loops and accessories:
1968-69.
PAGENO="0088"
82
Delivery: December 12, 1969.
Assembly of first steam generator: January-June 1970.
Initial steam generation: June 27, 1970.
Maximum capacity reached: July 31, 1970.
General tests: CGVS and steam generator: August-October 1970.
The next step: the CGVS undertook the program of tests of
Phenix's steam generator.
StTMMARY OF MAIN FEATURFJS OF CGVS
Sod%um~ Syste~m
Main Sy8ten~
1 sodium heater.
Natural-gas heater equipped with
combustion air economizer. Ca-
pacity: 50 mw. Minimum ca-
pacity: 2.5 mw. Maximum tem-
perature of sodium: 650 de-
grees C.
2 sodium mechanical pumps.
Centrifugal, single-stage, free-
level and vertical sharg. Axial
suction, lateral discharge. D.C.
variable-speed motor drive (300
to 1,500 r.p.m.). These pumps
are connected to an expansion
tank, with an overflow pipe. At
a motor speed of 1,500 r.p.m.,
the pumping capacity is 1,000
Cu. meters per hour (d0.8)
and the discharge pressure is 10
bars.
1 sodium cooling plant.
Sodium-air exchanger, receiving
air by means of motor-driven
blower. Maximum capacity: 15
nw. Minimum capacity: 3 miv.
2 mixers.
Sodium-sodium exchangers. Their
purpose is to equalize the outlet
temperature of sodium.
Auxiliary Systeme
Loading.
Worked by electromagnetic pump
primed by Argon pressure in
the storage tank. Tank capac-
ity: 143 cu. meters. Weight of
stored sodium: 100 tons.
Purifying.
By means of cold trap. Sodium
circulation is maintained by two
electromagnetic pumps operat-
ing in parallel. P ity is mea-
sured by plugging indicator.
Capacity: 16 cu. meters per
hour.
Argon system.
A manifold, which receives the
gas from a series of expanders,
maintains a neutral Argon at-
mosphere above the free levels
of the sodium.
Preheating.
By means of electric heating cable.
Its object is to obtain and main-
tain a temperature of not less
than 150 degrees C. on the ag-
gregate Sodium system.
PAGENO="0089"
8~
Water-stectim system
Steam system
First expander-desuperheater cir-
cuit.
Prepares the steam from genera-
tor for admission into the re-
heater. It includes: two pres-
sure reducing valves, one de-
superheater with water spray
and live steam injection, two
water-steam separators. Steam
pressure at superheater outlet:
167 bars. Steam pressure at re-
heater inlet: 50 bars maximum,
45 bars minimum.
Second expander-desuperheater
circuit.
Prepares the steam for admission
into condenser. It includes: two
desuperheaters and two pres-
sure reducing valves. Steam
characteristics: 565 degrees C.
-50 bars at reheater outlet; 110
degrees `C. -1 bar at condenser
inlet.
Condenser.
The condenser transfers the heat
originating in the generator to
a water-cooled exhaust system.
Steam processed: 72,200 kg per
hour. Pressure: 1 bar abs.
Water system
2 condensate electric pumps.
One in service, one on standby
with automatic startup. Capac-
ity: 100 tons per hour.
Degasifier tank.
Used to degasify condensate and
reheat it. Delivery pressure: 6
bars. Temperature: 160 degrees
1 condensate treatment plant.
Two demineralizing and filtration
units (one in service, one regen-
erating) are used for the contin-
uous treatment of condensate.
Maximum capacity: 80 cu.
meters per hr.
1 makeup water treatment plant.
One softening-demineralizing-fil-
tration plant treats the well
water stored in a reserve tank.
Maximum output: 15 cu. meters
per hour.
2 electric feed pumps.
High pressure, multi-stage
pumps; as a rule, one in opera-
tion, one on standby with au-
tomatic startup. Maximum out-
put: 105 tons per hours. Dis-
charge pressure: 200 bars.
2 H.P. water reheaters.
Water-steam exchangers. Pres-
sure: 280 bars. Temperatures in
first stage: 160 degrees C. in, 230
degrees C. out; second stage;
230 degrees C. in, 281 degrees C.
out.
PAGENO="0090"
84
Auceili~ry S7/8tem~8
Cooling 87/stem
Serves the condenser, the various
units of the plant and the water
and steam bleeds. Total volume
to be cooled: 4,625 cu. meters
per hour. Water temperatures:
inlet 40 degrees C., outlet 30 de-
grees C. Electric pumps work-
ing with two forced-draft air
coolers. The cooling water is
Sein river water, filtered and
softened.
Auxiliary steam system
One natural-gas boiler. One
electric feed pump. Saturated
steam output: `1.7 tons per hour
at 12 bars.
Plant operation and control unit.
Includes all facilities and elec-
trical circuits needed for start-
up, operation and testing,
namely: relays and automation;
metering; preheating; power
distribution. Distinctive fea-
tures: centralized facilities for
operation and control (control
room) ; elaborate automation, to
shift from one operating pat-
tern to another.
In the event of power failure, one
power supply unit (Diesel),
1,000 kva., automatically sup-
plies power to the vital compo-
nents of the ioop to place it on
safety pattern.
Steam generator testing capabili-
ties: Study of permanent oper-
ating patterns; study of startup
and shutdown procedures;
cleaning of steam generator;
study of normal transitional
conditions (load increases and
decreases); study of steam gen-
eration regulation; study of
static stability of steam generá~
tor; study of dynamic stability
of steam generator; study of
heat transfer matrix of steam
generator; predetermined scaled
quantities can be applied to
each admission value of the
steam generator, the other
values being kept constant by
regulation;
Study of violent transitions and
shocks; it is possible to submit
the steam generator to heat
shocks, on the Sodium system
side, of + 5 degrees C. per sec-
ond for a duration of 10 sec-
onds, and cold shocks of -15
degreesC. and, on the water sys-
tem side, of -1 degree C. per
second for a duration of 30 sec-
onds, as well as abrupt inter-
ruptions in Sodium supply and
water supply.
It is moreover possible, on request,
t.o perform special tests on
steam generator accessories: hy-
drogen detection system, rup-
ture dises, major gate valves,
separator.
PAGENO="0091"
HIGH TEMPERATURE SOLAR FURNACE TESTING FACILITY,
ODEiu~o, FRANCE
* HIGHLIGHTS
The High Temperature Solar Furnace at Odeillo, France, provides
a unique and important facility for solar experimentation and
demonstration.
Georgia Tech and the French National Center for Scientific Re-
search are collaborating in materials research in the high temperature
thermal energy environment of the 100 kilowatt solar funiace.
Solar research at Odeillo also includes work on solar homes, radia-
tion cooling and solar refrigeration, and heatS and electrical storage
systems.
REPORT
On May 30, 1977, Congressman Tom Harkin, accompanied by Com-
mittee staff, made a visitation to the French solar furnace located in
the Pyrenees Mountains at Odeillo, France~ The purpose of the visita-
tion was to meet with French officials and to tour the solar furnace f a-
cility. Mr. Bernard D'TJtruy, deputy director, acted as our host.
The French Centre Nationale De La Recherche Scientifique
(CNRS) solar furnace was located where the sun shines as many as
180 days a year and receives solar intensities as high as 1000 watts!
square meter at the surface. The solar furnace was completed in 1970
at a cost of $2 million. The facility includes a parabolic reflector, which
is 130 feet high and 170 feet wide, composed of 9,500 mirrors approxi-
mately 18 inches square. Because the parabolic reflector is too large to
track the sun, 63 smaller mirrors (heliostats) set in eight tiers in the
adjacent hillside are used to follow the sun and reflect its ray and pat-
allel beams onto the parabolic reflector. Each heliostat is composed of
180 mirrors, each 20 inches square, making a structure of some 25 feet
by 20 feet in size.
The solar energy incident on an area of about 23,000 square feet is
concentrated by the parabolic reflector into an area almost two feet in
diameter. Sixty percent of the total thermal energy (about 600 kilo-
watts) is concentrated in an area about one foot in diameter at the cen-
ter of the focal plane of the parabolic reflector. This configuration pro-
duces an equivalent heat generation of 1600 times the sun's thermal
equivalent at the surface of the earth.
The High Temperature Materials Division (HTMD) of the En-
gineering Experiments Station at Georgia Tech and the ONRS of
France are collaborating in a research program to study the properties
of materials in the high temperature thermal energy environment of
the 1000 kilowatt solar furnace. This work is being conducted under a
research services agreement between Georgia Tech and CNRS.
In addition to providing the necessary high temperature radiant en-
ergy environment required for the studies, the CNRS solar furnace is
(85)
PAGENO="0092"
86
uniquely suited for (1) the evaluation and development of materials
and prototype components to be used in dynamic conversion of high
temperature solar energy into electrical energy, (2) the determination
of the high temperature dielectric properties of ceramics, (3) process-
ing ultra-high purity refractory materials, (4) the determination of
the electrical performance at high temperatures of hypersonic ra-
diums and electromagnetic windows, and (5) the evaluation of mate-
rials in the high energy thermal radiation environment associated with
nuclear devices.
In addition to these studies, the CNRS Solar Energy Laboratory at
Odeillo is equipped with numerous smaller solar cencentrators for
various laboratory scale high temperature experiments. These experi-
ments can be carried out in various atmospheres or in a vacuum. It is
also possible to use the thermal energy of the 1000 kilowatt solar fur-
iiace in certain controlled atmospheres other than air. Other solar re-
search i~cTudes the design, construction and evaluation of solar heated
houses, radiation cooling and solar refrigeration, and the studies of
heat storage and electrical storage systems.
The Solar Energy Lalrnratory has a personnel staff of five teaching
researchers, seven engineers, twelve general researchers, five graduate
students, and fifteen technicians who work at the location. The labora-
tory's program is divided into four areas: energy studies, solar experi-
ments, material treatment and testing, and general studies. The solar
laboratory program has served as a center for international experi-
mentation and demonstration of solar energy systems. As mentioned
earlier, the cooperative exchange program between Georgia Tech and
the CNRS solar energy laboratory has provided unique opportunities
for scientists to study the feasibility of solar energy.
PAGENO="0093"
HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTORS AND APPLICATIONS
Location: Jülich Nuclear Center, West Germany.
Date: June 2, 1977.
KFA-Jülich-Prof. Beckurts, Dr. Engleman, Prof. Schulten,
DI Weisbrodt, Dr. Leushacke, Dr. Teuchert, DI Harth, Dr. Slemeyer,
Dr. Noack.
HIGHLIGHTS
Although some fusion research is conducted at Jiilich, the focus of
the lab's energy activity (54 percent of the total effort) is on High
Temperature Gas Reactors. The rest of the effort is about 25 percent
basic research and 25 percent environmental B & D.
The US/FRG agreement is important in the sense that it would be
a major undertaking for either West Germany or the United States to
conduct the HTGR technology development alone and such coopera-
tion could save 5 to 7 years on commercialization timetable.
EPRI has major reservations about developing a commerciahza-
tion strategy for the HTGR. It is important to note that the utilities
are jaundiced about HTGR because the initial attempt to commercial-
ize the HTGR came at a poor time, in terms of available capital.
Germany has enough coal to make it attractive to consider nuclear
heat applications for coal gasification and their major process heat
requirements.
Heat process applications are important in West Germany since 70
percent of energy requirements are projected to be for heating through
the year 2000.
Anti-growth group with major leftist support have pressed the
theme of lower energy demand since population density in FRG is so
high (1,000 people/mi2).
There has been considerable cooperation with the U.S. both General
Atomic and Oak Ridge National Lab on gas-cooled fast breeder R & D.
Tf the collaboration were escalated to prototype plant activity, the
West Germans would presumably perform fuel element R & D at
Jiilich whereas the U.S. Helium Breeder Associates would be respon-
sible for Helium component technology. This makes sense in view of
the absence of real turbomachinery expertise at Jiilich. Safety R & D
in the GCFR is being performed at the Karisruhe lab.
REPORT
Despite the promise of high fuel conversion efficiency of uranium by
use of thorium as well as inherent safety features the HTGR does not
yet have the appeal that will guarantee a significant number of utility
orders. Moreover, use of the thorium fuel cycle requires the build-up
of a supporting industrial infrastructure.
The turbornachinery expertise for High Temperature Gas Reactors
m Germany is confined to industry. Although turbines are tested at
Juheh the laboratory is not a center of excellence in turhomachinery.
There is no FRG counterpart of the NASA aeronautical labs since
the West German share of the aircraft market has never justified the
(~7)
PAGENO="0094"
88
government investment in such laboratories. It is difficult to see how
Jülich could manage component development for EITGR's without
such major in-house competence.
The operating demonstration of the AVR 15 Megawatt electric, high
temperature gas reactor is described in the following section.
Concerning the 15 MWe Experimental Nuclear Power Station in
Julich:
General
The AVR Company was founded on February 3, 1959 by a group of
15 electrical power companies for the purpose of building and setting
into operation a large scale nuclear power station employing a high-
temperature reactor. The goal of the undertaking is to gain scientific,
technological and economic knowledge which will serve as a basis for
the further development of this advanced reactor type in West
Germany.
The contract for a prototype plant in Jillich was signed with the
reactor construction firm, Brown Boveri/Krupp Reaktorbau Gmbil.
on August 13, 1959.
The electrical power production began in 1967. In 1974 the average
coolant gas outlet temperature was raised to 9500 C.
Irn~port ant technical and physical data
The listed Data represent the stationary state with a thermal power
of 46 MW and an average gas outlet temperature of 950°C (status at
1.1.1976). Full power operation is possible in a gas outlet temperature
range between 770°C and 950° C.
PROTOTYPE HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTOR
REACTOR PLANT
1. Plant data:
Thermal power 46.0 MW.
Gross electrical power 15. 0 MW.
Net electrical power 13.0 MW.
Gross efficiency 32.6 %.
2. Primary circuit:
Coolant gas helium 1, 600 m' iN.
Coolant gas pressure 10.8 bar
Blowerspeed 3.200 mis-1.
Power of the blowers 2X50 kW.
Pressure gradient 47 mbar.
Gas flowrate 13 kg/s.
Average gas temperature at steam generator outlet 155 °C.
Average gas temperature at core inlet 275 °C.
Average gas temperature at core outlet 950 °C.
3. Secondary circuit:
3.1 Steam generator:
Steam flowrate 56 t/h.
Steam outlet temoerature 505 °C.
Superheater outlet pressure 73 bar.
Feedwater temperature 115 °C.
Feedwater pressure 156 bar.
Diameter of steam generator 3.5 m.
Height 5.5 m.
Surface 1,762 m2.
3.2 Turbine-generator:
Speed of ratation 3.000 mis-1.
Power 18.75 MVA.
Power factor, cosine .8
Voltage 6.3kV.
4. Reactor core:
Core diameter 3 m.
Diameter of inner core region 1.86 m.
Height of cylindrical part 2.5 m.
Height of cone .~i m.
Height of free space above the core 1.0 m.
Number of absorçtion rods 4 m.
Diameter of rod position 1. 0 m.
PAGENO="0095"
89
PROTOTYPE HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS REACTOR, REACTOR PLANT-Continued
5. Neutron physical data:
Average thermal flux . 60. 1014 cm-2s-1.
Average fast flux (E~>0.1 MeV) . 174. 1014 cm-2s-1.
Average power density 2. 5 MW/m3.
Average power per fuel element . 52 kW/element.
Maximum power of one element 1. 66 kW/element.
Mass of fissile material:
U233 6.66 kg.
U235 35.4 kg.
Pu 239 . 22 kg.
Moderating ratio 8, 388
Ratio of fertile to fissile material 13. 6
Conversion factor . 34
6. Maximum temperatures:
Maximum fuel temperature 1, 134 °C.
Maximum fuel element surface temperature 1, 076 °C.
Maximum gas temperature 1, 030 °C.
7. Reactivity values:
Temperature coefficient of reactivity:
Cold (TM=130°C) -14. 105 1°C.
lot (TM=686 C) -4.4. 10-5 /°C.
Temperature effect (T~=130~C-686~C) -6.35 %.
Xenon poisoning 2. 70 %.
Reactivity released from Pa 233-decay after shutdown 1. 23 %.
Reactivity equivalent of the 4 absorption rods 9. 8 %.
8. Fuel element data:
Diameter of spherical fuel elements 60 mm.
Mass of 1 fuel element 200 g.
Number of coated particle in 1 fuel element (20,000-40,000)
Heavy metal in AVR-fuel elements 1 g U 235.
5 gTh232.
Heavy metal in THTR-fuel elements 1 g U 235.
10 gTh232.
Average burn-up of the discharged fuel elements 90 % fife.
15 %fima.
137,000 MWd/t
(U+Th).
9. Fuel cycling:
Number of elements in the primary circuit 110, 000
Number of elements in the core 97, 000
Graphit dummy elements 10 %.
Cycling rate (approximate) 600 Elements/d.
Charging rate of fresh fuel 60 Elements/d.
Fuel discharge 60 Elements/d.
Ratio of elements charged on the inner core region to the outer core region 2. 66:1
Maximum
Maximum
Type of element Fuel
Number of
elements in
the circuit
burnup
percent
fima
fluence
(0,1 MeV)
1021 cm-2
Carbide fuel (U, Tb) C2_ -- -
Oxide fuel (U, Th) O2_~~
Low enriched fuel U02
Feed/breed elements U02/Th 02 - - -
THTR elements (U, Tb) ~
35, 400
41, 500
1, 800
3, 000
20, 000
19. 2
15. 7
13. 0
55.0/1. 0
5.9
4. 1
2. 5
1.4
1. 2
1. 1
PAGENO="0096"
90
PAGENO="0097"
91
OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMMES
OF THE KFA
Research Main Fields Projects, Programmes and
Objectives of Research Areas of Investigation
~ HTR with Helium Turbine
Prototyp Plant tar Nuclear Prucess Heat
Nuclear Energy Transport
HTR Fuel Elements and Materials
ReprOcessing Fuel Elements
Basic Research tar HTR
Gas-cooled Breeder Reactors
Light Water and nther Reactors
NUCLEAR FUSION Nuclear Fusion Reactor Technology
SUBSTANCE Solid State Physics
CHARACTER ISTICS Surtace and Vaccum Research
AND MATER IALS Recuver ut Raw Materials & Mat. Develnpment
RESEARCH Electrochemistry
BAS IC Nuclear and Neatrun Physics
- NUCLEAR RESEARCH Nuclear Chemistry
~ Nuclear Biology and Medicine
Cell and Membrane Research
LIFE, ENVIRONMENT Envirunmental Research
AND SAFETY Nuclear Salety
Systems Analysis
HIGH-TEMPERATURE
REACTOR (HTR)
AND
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Developing
New
Technologies
Euploring
New Fields -
at Knowledge
METHODS if Data Prucessing and Mathematics
Analytic Chemical Processes
Electrunical and Physical Methods
B2-187 0 - 77 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
92
JULICH NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTRE
(KFA)
The Jülich Nuclear Research Centre, one of the
twelve major research centres in the Federal Republic
of Germany, was founded by the state of Northrhine.
Westphalia in 1956 as a joint nuclear research centre
for the state's institutions of higher education. Since
1968 the government of the Federal Republic of
Germany has been the principal partner in the
supporting corporation, KFA Jülich GmbH, providing
90% of the operational costs and necessary capital
investment, while 10 % is contributed by the state of
Northrhine-Westphalia. At the present time the
14 institutes, the joint scientific and engineering
facilities and the infrastructure employ approximate-
ly 3500, including 750 scientists. In addition, there
are some 615 other persons (fellows, students in
doctoral and diploma programmes, students in labora-
tory programmes, trainees etc.) employed by the
KFA.
It is the function of the KFA to carry out basic
nuclear research and engineering development as well
as additional work in research and engineering. This
includes the implementation of projects and
programmes in collaboration with other research
institutions and private industry, the development
and operation of major scientific and engineering
equipment as well as experimental nuclear
engineering facilities.
In addition to nuclear work, non-nuclear research
projects are carried out to an increasing degree and
are aimed particularly at the securing of energy
supplies, the advanced development of new techno-
logies and the improvement of living conditions.
The research and development work of the KFA is
supported by the major funding programmes of the
Federal Government, and in particular the Fourth
Atomic Programme and its successor, the Energy
Research Programme of the Federal Republic of
Germany. For a number of years there has been a
PAGENO="0099"
93
collaboration agreement with the European Commu-
nity concerning nuclear fusion. Close collaboration in
many research and development projects exists with
numerous research institutions and universities as well
as private industry at home and abroad. Many KFA
scientists teach at institutions of higher education in
the state of Northrhine-Westphalia.
To an increasing extent, the KFA is also entrusted
with arrangements for large-scale programmes of the
Federal Government. In particular, the non-nuclear
energy research programme and the development of
high temperature reactors are examined and
administrated b~' the KFA.
MAIN FIELDS OF RESEARCH
The KFA's main fields of research follow general
scientific policy objectives of the Federal Republic of
Germany:
* Securing energy supplies
* Development of new technologies
* Exploring new fields of knowledge
* Improvement of living conditions.
High-Temperature Reactor and
Energy-Producing Technology
From the outset it was one of the KFA's major
objectives to advance the development of nuclear
engineering. One important contribution in this area
is the work on a gas-cooled high-temperature reactor
(HTR), carried out by the KFA Jülich in collabora-
tion with private industry. The first experimental
power station based on the pebble-bed reactor
principle developed by R. Schulten, with an electrical
output of 15 megawatts, has been operated success-
fully since 1967 by AVR (Arbeitsgemeinschafts
Versuchsreaktor GmbH) in Jülich. In this reactor,
helium is heated up to 950°C, the highest coolant
PAGENO="0100"
94
temperature achieved to date in any reactor. (At the
present time a thorium high-temperature reactor -
THTR 300 - is being erected near Dortrnund by
industrial companies as a prototype.)
Development work in the high-temperature reactor is
being continued by the KFA collaboration with
industry. One key programme in this respect is the
future use of high temperature reactors for process
heat, where the first applications will be coal gasifica-
tion and the reforming of methane with steam. Under
the auspices of the KFA two projects have been
established:
1. The project "Prototype Plant for Nuclear Process
Heat", together with Bergbauforschung GmbH,
Gesellschaft für Hochtemperaturrea ktor-Techn ik,
Hochtemperatur-Reaktorbau GmbH, Rheinische
Braunkohlenwerke AG
2. The project "Nuclear Energy Transport Systema~,
together with Rheinische Braunkohlenwerke AG
The use of the HTR for power production is studied
in the KFA ~n the project "High Temperature
Reactor with Heliumturbine"(H HT). Compared with
light water reactors, the HTR offers favourable
possibilities for utilizing power station waste heat by
means of heat-power coupling processes. Several
institutes in the KFA also work on problems of the
HTR-fuei cycle, in'particular HTR-fuel elements and
their reprocessing, the study of structural materials
for high temperature reactors and the storage of
radIoactive waste products.
Nuclear Fusion
Projects in plasma physics, especially in the fields of
high-temperature plasma confinement and heating,
are carried out in collaboration with the European
Community. Work on the technology of future
nuclear fusion reactors has begun under national and
intertiationa I collaboration arrangernents~
PAGENO="0101"
95
Nuclear fusion is seen as a long-term source of energy
in the 21st century. In association with the European
community, work in the KFA is concerned with
fusion related plasma physics, in particular fusion
reactor technology. On the way to a fusion reactor,
solutions must be found to complicated physical
problems concerning plasma confinement and tech-
nical problems concerning mater~aIs. The fuel reserves
for a fusion reactor, deuterium (in water) and tritium,
which can be obtained from lithium, are practically
inexhaustible. In the KFA, there are particularly good
opportunities for progress in fusion reactor techno-
logy by means of interdisciplinary studies involving
plasma physics, reactor technology, nuclear
chemistry, solid state physics and surface physics. A
large scale experiment concerning plasmawall inter-
actions (TEXTOR) is being planned.
Properties of Matter and Material Researcti
This major field of research includes basic and app! led
research. In solid state research the main areas of
interest are research into knowledge of the atomic
properties of solids, investigation of materials and the
application of basic knowledge to technological
problems. An objective of solid state research is the
systematic development of the required know-how
for the manufacture of substances having specified
properties. The characteristic parameter of substances
are determined and the mechanisms of elementary
chemical processes are clarified in order to acquire an
understanding of the reactive properties and the
behaviour of substances and materials. Physical and
chemical aspects of materials research are covered,
giving special consideration to the development of
nuclear fuels.and reactor materials. In addition, the
applied sector includes projects in interface and
vacuum research as Well as electrochemistry, and the
advanced development of chemical and physical
techniques.
PAGENO="0102"
96
Basic Nuclear Research
The KFA's isochronous cyclotron is used to
accelerate light atomic nuclei up to 180 MeV energy
for the investigation of nuclear reactions. These
experiments complement basic theoretical work on
reaction mechanisms, nuclear structure and nuclear
fission. In the field of nuclear chemistry, major
projects include the investigation and advanced
development of techniques for the use of short-lived
radionucl ides for basic research in nuclear medicine.
Particularly close collaboration with a large number
of universities and other institutions of higher educa-
tion exists.
Life, Environment, Safety
The interdisciplinary nature of the KFA and its
substantial infrastructure offers favourable conditions
for basic and applied researchs in life sciences,
environmental problems and nuclear safety. Different
biological activities involve cell biology, neurobio-
logy, radioagronomy, analytical techniques for study-
ing environmental dangers on the ground and in the
atmosphere and the development of new techniques
in nuclear medicine. A small, fully equipped hospital
for nuclear ñiedicine is attached to the medical centre
of the KFA. Work related to systems analysis is concer-
ned with the long term securing of energy supplies,
energy demand and distribution and raw materials supply
for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Support Facilities and Infrastructure
Within the scope of the above research and development
extreme demands are continuously imposed on
instrumentation. This requires the availability of the
`latest instrumentation techniques, especially in
electronics and analytic chemistry, and special irradia-
tion techniques. Moreover, mathematical methods
PAGENO="0103"
97
and data processing techniques must be developed to
find solutions for complicated problems arising
throughout the KFA. These special methods and
techniques are an important element of the KFA's
research and development programme. Special-
purpose equipment and facilities are available to solve
many different tasks, of which only most important
ones can be named here: the two research reactors,
MERLIN and DIDO, are used as powerful sources of
radiation particularly neutrons, in many experiments
carried out by basic and applied research depart-
ments. The hot cells are used to study and process
highly radioactive objects (such as irradiated fuel
elements).
Facilities are available to decontaminate eqUipment
and to process radioactive waste for storage; low-
temperature facilities supply the laboratories with
refrigerants. The central library (195 000 volumes,
265 000 reports) assists the research and development
efforts with documentation and information.
PAGENO="0104"
ERNO (ENTWICKLUNGSTRING NORD)
June 2, 1977-Bremen, Germany
HIGHLIGHTS
The European Space Agency (ESA) and ERNO have completed
agreement on a number of descoping actions to maintain a Spacelab
development cost ceiling of 462 MATJ (million accounting units).
ESA will serve as the purchasing agent for all Spacelab hardware
which NASA purchases. ERNO would like to negotiate directly with
other countries but this has not been decided between ESA and ERNO.
To avoid the cost penalties of an extended gap in production, a de-
cision by NASA for any follow-on buys is needed in October, 1978.
Therefore, follow-on Spacelab hardware procurement will be an issue
for consideration in the NASA fiscal year 1979 budget authorization.
ERNO believes that with the descoping actions taken, the Spacelab
development cost and schedule can be maintained.
ERNO (ENTWICKLUNGSRING NORD), BREMEN, GERMANY
ERNO is part of the Zentralgesellschaft VFW-Fokker holding
group and is the prime contractor for development of the Spacelab.
Development of the Spacelab was started in 1974 and the first mission
is scheduled for 1980. ERNO is responsible for project management,
system engineering, integration and testing.
Spacelab is a manned space laboratory being developed by European
industry under the auspices of the European Space Agency (ESA).
Spacelab's missions, of 7 to 30 days' duration in orbit, are devoled to
space research, performing scientific, application, technical and tech-
nological experiments.
In the past, both unmanned satellites and manned space stations,
such as Skylab and Salyut, were lost forever (together with their
costly instruments) once the mission had ended. Spacelab, in contrast,
is re-usable, being launched, transported into orbit and brought back
to Earth by the Space Shuttle.
The Space Shuttle is the new manned space transportation system
being developed by NASA. The main element of the Shuttle, the
Orbiter, is both a rocket (for take-off) and an aircraft (for landing),
and it makes repeated journeys out into space and back again. The
orbiter, which has a huge payload bay, can carry out a great variety
of missions; on 40 percent of all its missions the Space Shuttle is ex-
pected to carry Spacelab.
Spacelab comprises either a pressurised laboratory or an instru-
ment-carrying pallet, or both together. Of modular design, the com-
ponent elements can be combined in various configurations, flexibly
meeting the requirements of each successive mission. Crew movement
between the Orbiter and the Spacelab is via a tunnel, which is variable
(98)
PAGENO="0105"
99
in length to ensure that the Orbiter's center of gravity remains in the
right place.
A portion of the pressurised laboratory carries equipment common
to all the missions for the functioning of Spacelab (computer, tape-
recorders, check-out consoles). The other portion of the laboratory and
the segments of the pallet carry the experiments themselves (furnaces,
microscopes, centrifuges, incubators and photographic apparatus iii
the laboratory; telescopes, antennas, radars, and sensors on the pallet).
Whereas the crew of the Orbiter is composed of astronauts properly
speaking, the crew of the Spacelab-up to four in number, men and
women, Europeans and Americans-are scientists and engineers. These
experts operate the experiments. They have on board the necessary
computing facilities for a first interpretation of the results obtained
and, being "on the spot," cail modify the experiments while they are
in progress and take corrective action in the event of malfunctioning.
~Because it is re-usable, Spacelab enables better use to be made of
the human and financial resources invested in space. Since it is being
developed in Europe, it provides the Europeans with the opportunity
of participating in international space activities. Above all, Spacelab
satisfies two requirements: it ensures the presence of man in space-
the importance of which has been demonstrated by expe.rience-and
it places space activities at the service of man, via meteorological mis-
sions, earth resources and environmental studies, and studies devoted
to telecommunications, biology, bio-chemistry and the development of
new materials.
PAGENO="0106"
100
PAGENO="0107"
101
The discussions of the Committee European Oversight visit to
ERNO focused on Spacelab Development and Spacelab Follow-On!
Future Projects and a tour of the Spacelab hardware and integration
facilities at ERNO.
SPACELAB DEVELOPMENT
The prime contractor for SPACELAB development is VFW-Fok-
ker/ERNO. The Spacelab tasks which ERNO is responsible for in-
clude project management, system development, integration and test,
and operations. ERNO has a number of test facilities at Bremen in-
cluding laboratories and workshops for hydraulic, pneumatic, optical
and electronic systems, and for mechanical design work; clean rooms-
one of 400 square meters of class 100,000, one of 28 square meters of
class 100, and one of 31 sciuare meters of class 10,000; vacuum cham-
bets; and other facilities for determining moments of inertia, centers
of gravity, a revolving table, etc. Recently the Spacelab Integration
Hall was completed and this will house the hard mock-up of the
Spacelab for integration studies and tests.
This year is a very important year for Spacelab. The preliminary
design review was completed in December 1976 which showed that the
Spacelab consortium could freeze the design and go ahead with
manufacture.
As a result of the preliminary design review, it was possible to esti-
mate more precisely the cost-to-completion of the Spacelab program.
This program design review, however, showed that the program as
structured, and including all the modifications and options which had
been agreed, there would be an uncommitted management reserve
margin insufficient to guarantee remaining within the agreed 120 per-
cent limit. The financing of the Spacelab programme in Europe is
governed by an Arrangement signed between the Agency and the ten
participating states and which fixes the ceiling for the programme,
but allows for the supplementary expenditure of 20 percent above this
ceiling if this proves necessary within the lifetime of the programme.
Permission to use the 20 percent requires 2/3 majority in the Board
which has responsibility for the programme; if the programme were
to require funding in excess of the 120 percent, participating states
would be able to withdraw. In order to provide a sufficient uncom-
mitted margin a number of descoping actions have been taken as will
be described later.
The management of the Spacelab development is indeed a complex
undertaking. The following chart depicts the Spacelab industrial team
organization and shows the companies and countries involved for the
various systems. Contract negotiations are mostly completed with
40 percent being fixed price and 60 percent being cost plus incentive
fee.
PAGENO="0108"
0
I-
U
`S
I-
z
0
c
0
U
0
U
`S
z
0
th
A AUSTRIA
B BELGIUM
CH SWITZERLAND
D -GERMANY
OK DENMARK
E SPAIN
F - FRANCE
GB - GREAT BRITAIN
I - ITALY
NL -NETHERLANDS
US - UNITED STATES
SPACELAB INDUSTR IAL TEAM ORGAN I SATION
EUROPEAN SI~ACE AGENCY
(ESA/ESTEC)
O~~~II P~j*~cI 0i~CIiOn ~d
C~o'dI*o,~ ~iIh NASA
a~d ~
~IE~ VFW-FOXKER/ER~O
CUSTOMER
PRIME
CONTRACTOR
:
i_
e FIXED PRICE
o COSI REIMBURSEMENT
Ø T.B 0.
NASA HCMp77775 1
PAGENO="0109"
103
A further milestone is reached within the Spacelab development
program: the integration phase for the first working model is com-
pleted with final dimensions. The so-called hard mock up serves as
pre-stage to the engineering model which will be delivered to ESA
fully operatively equipped by the end of 1978.
In the Spacelab Integration Hall the hard mock up is integrated
during different integration phases consisting of two module segments
(core and experiment module), equipped with double and single racks
as well as the upper airlock. Furthermore two pallets are provided for
integration tests.
Eleven months have passed from the delivery of the first hard-
ware-among others module structures from Aeritalia/Turin and
pallets from Hawker Siddeley Dynamics/Stevenage-up to the corn-
p1ete integration. For the first time the manufacturing sequence for
the integration of the flight unit could be verified with the hard mock
up. For carrying out these activities the air conditioning system is
switched to visible clean conditions.
Within a seven months interval, starting in April this year, NASA
astronauts together with the EIRNO team will check the interior equip-
ment in the hard mock up. This includes the selection of the colours
and the lighting. Flight-type lighting units have been installed on the
ceiling and the rear wall.
Another step is to check the supports which are important for the
activities of the future payload specialists as well as the accessibility
to the equipment. The results of the assessment through the NASA
astronauts that have experience in manned space are evaluated on the
spot so that the interior outfit of the working model constantly reflects
the latest status.
SPAcELAB FOLLOW-ON/yrn'UEE PROJECTS
ERNO is examining the future potential which Spacelab offers be-
yond the current NASA/ESA agreements with the objectives of
VIEW of the SPACELAB Integration Hall. The first working model is readily assembled, a long module consisting of two segments.
In the background a pallet model.
PAGENO="0110"
104
maintenance of the technological basis for the further development
of future technology and optimization of the economic yield there-
from, commercialization of space activities, ensuring the continuous
preservation and the extension of investments already made, and
maintaining and utilization of the recently developed know-how in
the area of manned space flight. A large team of approximately 1600
trained engineers and workers has bee.n built up and the Spacelab
consortium would like to be able to retain approximately 1100 (%)
in the future.
To pursue this objective a dedicated organization for Spacelab
future/follow-on activities has been established at ERNO and the
other major Spacelab consortium members. Under this project organi-
zation, EIRNO retains the prime contractor/head role for future proj-
ects. Presentations have been made on future potential of Spacelab to
ESA and the German ministry. ERNO is making significant company
investments. As a general guideline ERNO invests approximately
5 percent of its total resources to advanced projects and planning.
Spacelab follow-on/future projects which are being considered in-
clude follow-on production for both United States and Europe (ERNO
has agreed that ESA will serve the agent for follow-on production
sales to the United States. However, ERNO would like to negotiate
directly with other countries for the sale of Spacelab hardware);
Spacelab follow-on development; European participation in the
United States/Spacelab programs including integration contracts, and
Spacelab simulators, etc.; European Spacelab utilization programs
including integration contracts and payload/equipment development;
and space station.
Follow-on production of Spacelab hardware is heavily dependent
on NASA plans. To avoid the cost penalties of an extended gap in
production, a decision by NASA for any follow-on buys is needed in
October 1978. Therefore, any follow-on Spacelab procurement will
be an issue for consideration in NASA's fiscal year 1979 budget
request.
The ERNO Spacelab consortium will also participate as a sub-
contractor to McDonnell Douglas in the United States Spacelab
integration activities. The European Spacelab consortium will provide
support in the areas of system engineering, modification kit design,
configuration control, test and checkout, operations planning, and
logistics. The European consortium considers this direct contractual
relation with the United States prime with importance and views it as
having extension potential for participation in other activities includ-
ing verification flight instruments, tunnel, payload integration, and
experiment software.
A number of activities related to this subcontract have been com-
pleted including: McDonnell Douglas/ERNO memorandum of under-
standing (principles of subcontract) signed on May 26, 1977; state-
ment of work for European support to U.S.-rntegration contractor
agreed and submitted to NASA and ESA; ERNO Mbor rates for
U.S. support substantially decreased and agreed with McDonnell
Douglas; price for initial `79 MM support negotiated and agreed
$499,000.
The European Spacelab consortium is looking at a number of prod-
uct improvement options including: additional power/cooling capa-
PAGENO="0111"
105
bility for space processing; addition of a centrifuge for life sciences;
and increased computation capacity and improved load carrying capa-
bilities for astronomy and earth observations. Additionally, during a
number of studies performed in Europe and in the United States, on
Spacelab experiments and Spacelab missions those areas for improve-
ments and extensions have been identified: Spacelab capabilities for
extended mission durations; improvements and extension of Spacelab
subsystem performance capabilities; and extension of the common
payload support equipment.
SPACELAB PROGRAM DESCOPING
NASA has provided the following information related to descoping
of the Spacelab program: Although no formal agreement was signed
between NASA and ESA, our present understanding is that the fol-
lowing program changes are being implemented:
(a) Deletion of the Engineering Model Igloo which implies: AJl
efforts related to planning, engineering, and procurement of dedicated
equipment for the integration and test of the pallet-only configuration
of the Engineering Model are stopped.
(b) Reduction in the logistics and maintenance documentation and
the volume of additional spares.
(c) Deletion of the third set of ground support equipment, intended
to remain in Europe, from the development project.
(ci) Reduction of the scope of modification for pallet to meet worst
case thermal control subsystems.
(e) Change of responsibility of scrubber implementation NASA to
assume responsibility for all activities relative to the scrubber.
(f) Change of responsibility of installation and qualification of
Skylab optical window in adapter plate (to be done by NASA).
(g) Deletion of the Core Segment Simulator.
(h) Deletion of experiment computer operating software beyond
the present baseline.
(i) Use of two static converters for 60 Hz capability for the ground
support equipment.
(j) Cancellation of black box power reduction.
(k) Cancellation of design change to combat the magnetic field in
payload bay.
(1) Cancellation of reduction of the Spacelab water loop flow rate
to match Orbiter.
PAGENO="0112"
LONG TERM NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL FALCILITy
Date of Visit: June 2, 1977,
Location of Visit: Hanover, Germany.
HIGHLIGHTS
The safety which an undergrownd formation affords for nuclear
Waste disposal depends critically on the incidence of earthquakes in
the region, the age of the formation and its stability.
The roads used to transport the waste to the site must be safe
and secure.
The German waste storage facility was not adequately protected
from a safety standpoint.
REPORT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN BREAUX ON HIS TRIP TO THE ASSE SALT
MINE DISPOSAL SITE
One of the important issues facing our country in considering the
development of nuclear power facilities is the disposal of radioactive
waste which is the result of such nuclear facilities. One of the pro-
posals presently being considered is the possibility of utilizing under-
ground salt mines as potential storage facilities. The Energy Research
and Development Administration is presently considering as one
of their options, underground salt mines located in Southwest Louisi-
ana along the Gulf of Mexico.
The Federal Republic of Germany has concluded that considering
their high population density and their relatively rainy climate, the
disposal in underground rock salt formations ~ruara ntee them the
greatest reliability in the storage of such radioactive waste.
I visited one of these undeground salt domes and was accomnpan-
ied by a representative of the U.S. Embassy and a representative of
the Federal Republic of Germany.
The salt formations in this particular part of Northern Germany
are more than one hundred million years old and according to the
manager of the facility, guarantee an absolute, safe hydrological
sealing completely isolating the disposed wastes. In addition, this part
of Europe is supposed to be in a zone which is free of earthquakes.
And, because of the existence of large caverns in the salt domes,
storage can be accomplished at what they consider reasonable costs.
One of the key features stressed to me during my visit is that
the salt formations in this part of Germany are extremely old as
far as geological structures are concerned and are extremely stable.
The `stability of the formation is the key to determining the relia-
bility as a potential storage site for radioactive waste. The age of the
salt formations should be carefully evaluated when considering U.S.
salt dome sites.
(106)
PAGENO="0113"
107
The Federal Republic of Germany's disposal program is pres-
ently involved with low level and intermediate level wastes. The low
level radioactive wastes are packed in a 55 gallon drum which is
used as a standard container. The low level wastes are handled by
workers using cranes and lifting equipment. They are in direct con-
tact with the drums although never exposed with the waste material
itself. Intermedi~te level wastes are also stored in 55 gallon drums
but because of the higher activity can only be transported and ma-
nipulated within a shielded enviroriment~
One of my concerns from my inspection is the manner in which
wastes are physically transported to the Asse salt dome. It was ex-
plained to me that both low level and intermediate wastes are trans-
ported by rail car to a site some ten miles from the salt domes and
then lifted frOm the rail cars and placed on a truck van and trans-
ported over roads to the salt dome. The roads that I traveled were ex-
tremely narrow and winded through an inhabitated village and pre-
sented many potential problems.
In considering potential sites in the United States, transporta-
tion to and from the salt domes will have to be carefully planned and
the maximum number of safety requirements should be mandated.
The physical location of the salt dome and the manner in which it
was guarded~ in my opinion, did not seem adequate from a safety
standpoint. While the facility was surrounded by a small fence, it
did not seem to be sufficiently protected from possible violators who
would wish to do damage to the facility. In addition, the manager of
the salt dome was not aware of any restrictions on overfiying air-
craft. I would certainly feel that precautions in these areas are ab-
solutely essential.
Although no high level radioactive wastes are presently being
stored at the Asse salt mines, there are plans to do so. The present plan
is to solidify the radioactive waste into a form of glass or ceramic.
In addition, these high level wastes could not be stored in the 55 gallon
drums but only in much smaller containers because of their produc-
tion of heat. The Asse salt mines are presently undergoing tests
to determine the best method for disposal of these high level wastes
and to carefully. plot the reaction of the salt formations to the higher
temperatures. Temperature tests are presently being conducted and
the results will be forthcoming in the near future.
The final point I would like to make is that there seems to be a
great deal of cooneration between the Federal Republic of Germany
and the United States with regard to the exchange of information
on these disposal programs. Mr. Egon Albrecht who is the manager
of the Asse facility was very familiar with our ERDA programs
and has visited the United States on a number of occasions to discuss
with our scientists the progress which they are making. I think it is
absolutely essential that ERDA be encouraged to continue the ex-
chanoe of information with the Republic of Germany in order that
we might benefit from their work experience.
92-187 0 - 77 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
32D SALON INTERNATIONAL DR L'AERONAUTIQUE ET DE L'ESPACE, LE
BOURGET AIRPORT, PARIS, FRANCE-JUNE 3, 1977
HIGHLIGHTS OF VISIT
The theme of the 32nd Paris Air Show was commemoration of
the 50th Anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's historic solo flight from
New York to Paris,
This year's show illustrated the recent trend toward greater par-
ticipation in the world aviation market by ever larger numbers of
countries.
U.S. military fighters including the F-is, F-16, F-18, A-b,
YC-14. YC-iS, along with several entries from foreign countries per-
formed daily flight demonstrations.
Commercial transports from Europe and the Soviet Union em-
phasized the foreign challenge to U.S. leadership in this field.
General aviation aircraft including small commuter-types heli-
copters and special purpose aircraft such as agricultural airplanes
were displayed on the ramp at Le Bourget.
REPORT
Nearly fifty years to the day after Charles Lindbergh's historic
solo flight across the Atlantic, the 32nd Paris Air Show opened with
that intrepid event as its centerpiece. Many people feel that Lindbergh
provided commercial aviation with the bellwether it needed to be-
come viable as a mode of transportation. So it was appropriate that
his achievement was honored at the world's premier exhibition of both
civil and military aerospace technology and hardware.
Although missing the past excitement of head-to-head competition,
between U.S. and French light-weight fighters, this year's show never-
theless emphasized the continued shift toward ever greater partici-
pation in the growing world aerospace market by a variety of coun-
tries. As recently as 1970 the U.S. held a dominate 80 percent share
of the $28 billion global market. By 1985 the sales total is projected
to grow to over $50 billion, but the U.S. share is expected to decline to
60 percent.
Against these projections must be weighted the effect of a number
of uncertainties. President Carter's policies on sales of military equip-
ment could further reduce the role of the American aerospace industry
in markets outside NATO. Standardization of NATO weapons, ur~red
by the U.S., could invite Western European participation in the U.S.
domestic market. Demands for collaboration in the form of joint yen-
tures and offsets as the price for export sales may increase.
Because the total size of the market will a-row, U.S. industry will
still benefit from real growth. But. the steadily increasing European
share of world sales and the rising demands of nations outside Europe
(108)
PAGENO="0115"
109
for a bigger piece of high-technology industrialization will have pro-
found affects on the shape of the export business. This year's Paris Air
Show was a vivid illustration of the results of these trends.
The 32nd Salon Internationale de l'Aeronautique et de l'Espace,
as the 1977 Paris Air Show is officially known drew a totaL of 628 ex-
hibitors and 233 aircraft from 20 countries, an increase of 10 percent
over the previous show in 1975. Cost increases for everything from
exhibit space to meals apparently had little affect on exhibitors and
spectators.
MILITARY AIRCRAFT
One of the highlights of the show was the daily flight demonstra-
tions by various military aircraft. The USAF/McDonnell Douglas
F-15 air superiority fighter made its second show appearance. The
USAF/General Dynamics F-16, French Mirage F-i and the Swedish
Viggen, center of attention during the 1975 show, all returned for
encores. The Northrop YF-17 prototype of the Navy/McDoirnell
Douglas/Northrop F-18 provided impressive displays.
Of particular interest was the competition between the two can-
didates for the USAF Advanced Medium STOL Transport. The Boe-
ing YC-i4 and the McDonnell Douglas YC-15 demonstrated alternate
new-technology concepts for achieving ~hort-fleld operations. These
aircraft have potential for adaptation to commercial passenger and
cargo applications, particularly in U.S. and developing countries. The
Air Force is expected to pick a winner by the end of the year.
The jointly developed British/German/Italian multi-role combat
aircraft, the Tornado was flown daily at the show. Total orders for
this fighter are projected at 810 with deliveries scheduled to begin in
1979.
Israel is making a massive push to expand its aerospace export
sales. The key to this is the Kfir fighter, manufactured by Israel Air-
craft Industries and powered by G.E. engines. Two Kfirs were on
static display in conjunction with the Israeli pavilion at Le Bourget.
Another sales contest at Paris involved the market for European
early warning aircraft. The TJSAF/Boeing Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS) aircraft appeared but made no flight
demonstrations. Grumman demonstrated two E-2c's, costing about
one-fourth the price of AWACS, as an alternative for the NATO
order.
The USAF/Fairchild A-b interdiction aircraft made several im-
pressive flight demonstrations, but became involved in a very unfor-
tunate accident early in the show.
COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS
Nowhere does the threat to U.S. leadership in aviation have greater
potential consequences than in the area of large commercial transport
aircraft. TodayS 85 percent of the commercial aircraft flying in the
free world are of U.S. manufacture. The economic importance of this
can be illustrated by the fact that the sale of a single Boeing 747 is
sufficient to offset the cost of about 4 million barrels of imported oil.
In recent years, however, foreign countries, especially those in West-
ern Europe, have stepped up their efforts to compete with U.S. firms.
PAGENO="0116"
110
A decade ago, the European aerospace industries were one-tenth the
size of the U.S. aircraft industry. Today, however, they are approxi-
mately one-quarter the size of their U.S. counterpart. Aerospace em
ployment in Europe, including military and commercial production
aircraft, engines and parts, is about 425,000 (half of whom are Brit-
ish) as compared to some 925,000 in the United States. As for sales,
Europe's output increased 24 percent between 1965 and 1973. The evi-
dence of this was prominently on display at Paris. Particularly sig-
mficant are their efforts to pool their resources and talents in consortia
to challenge U.S. preeminence.
One of the most successful examples of such collaboration is the
Airbus Industrie A-300, a two-engine, wide body, seating about 250
passengers. The first foot-in-the-door to the U.S. market caine recently
when Eastern Airlines agreed to lease four of these aircraft for a trial
six-month period.
Other jointly produced transports at Paris were the VFW-Fokker
F-28, an 85 passenger conventional take-off and landing aircraft and
the VFW-Fokker 614, a very low noise short take-off and landir~g
aircraft. Also on display was the most famous European aircraft, the
Anglo-French Concorde.
The Russians made a big showing at Le Bourget of their latest civil
aircraft, all of which looked like copies of western models. Their new
four-engine wide-body the Ilyushin TL-86 made its debut outside the
Soviet Union. Of course the Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic transport was
on display again. And the new Yakov~ev Yak-42 short-haul trans-
port flew in during the show. The Soviets hope to sell this airplane
in the west.
Another international joint venture that has received much atten-
tion in recent years. nartly because of concern over technology trans-
fer, is the G.E./SNECMA ~ffort to produce a new turbo-fen engine.
At this year's show this new engine, called the 0FM56, could be seen
installed in the left outboard pod of the YC-15. The engine, which is
in the ten-ton thrust category, is considerably more ouiet and fuel-
efficient than current technology. It is under consideration as the
power plant for a host of proposed new aircraft designs.
G.E. and SNECMA announced at Paris that they would continue
their collaboration with another joint venture to produce a clipped
fan version of the CF6, to be designated the CF6-32. The new engine
with a thrust of 30,000 pounds is aimed at Boeings' proposed 7x7.
GENERAL AVIATION
The area of general aviation saw the PTeatest Participation by the
largest number of countries. The big push for a share of the interna-
tional market has brought aviation products from an ever expanding
circle of producing nations.
Eastern bloc countries including Russia, Poland and Czechoslo-
vakia are represented by a line of transnorts, military trainers, agri-
cultural cireraft and helicopters. The Polish industry was represented
by the WSK-Mielec M-15 agrit~ultural binl~ne, nowered by a Soviet-
built Ivchenko A1-25 turbofan engine. The C~eehoslovakj~ns ex-
hibited a two-seat basic trainer, the Aero L-39 A1batro~s. which is be-
ing considered by both East and West Europe as a military trainer.
PAGENO="0117"
111
The Canadian presence was strong with both the Dellavillanci
DHC-5 and DHC-7 STOL transport~s making daily flight demonstra-
tions. South An'ierican industry is making a concerted bid in the inter-
national marketplace. Embraer of Brazil flew the Xingu, a new 9
passenger, pressurized commuter. Also on display was the Bandei-
rante of which 150 have been sold throughout South America.
TLS. firms were also well represented with aircraft from Rockwell,
Gates Learjet and Cessna among those on static display at Paris.
SPACE
In recent years the Paris Air Show has been expanded to include
space. This year the Soviets had a pavilion dedicated to their space ef-
forts. For the first time they displayed their Venus soft-lander,
Venera 10. The U.S. pavilion included displays of the Space Shuttle
and a mock-up of the proposed Mars Crawler. The French National
Space agency, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) had a
large display featuring hardware from the European Ariane launcher
for which it is the program manager.
PAGENO="0118"
PAGENO="0119"
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
U.S. MISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY,
VIENNA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction-U.S. interests and the IAEA.
2. How the U.S. Mission operates.
3; The organization of the IAEA:
a. Governing bodies.
b. The Secretariat.
Annex A-Officers of the U.S. Mission.
Annex B-Principal officers of the IAEA Secretariat.
Annex C-The Agency's budget and finance.
Annex D-IAEA Board of Governors.
Annex E-Staff of the IAEA.
(113)
PAGENO="0120"
INTRODUCTION-U.S. INTERESTS AND THE IAEA
`In his historic "Atoms for Peace" address to the United Nations
General Assembly in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower urged
t.he establishment of an international organization to:
devise methods whereby . . . fissionable material would be al-
located to use in the peaceful pursuits of mankind." Three years later,
in 1956, the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the
IAEA) came into force and the organization itself came into exist-
ence the following year on July 29, 1957.
In Article II of its Statute the basic objectives of the organization
are set forth:
The Agency ~sha1l seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic
energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure so
far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its
supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military
purpose.
The United States shares and strongly supports the basic objec-
tives of the Agency. The principal U.S. interests in the IAEA relates
to the Agency's responsibility to assure that nuclear materials and
facilities are not used to further any military purpose. These are car-
iied out tinder its program called "Safeguards."
IAEA. Safeguards have the principal objective of timely detection
of the diversion of significant quantities of sensitive nuclear material
of importance to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices (principally plutonium or enriched uranium) and
the deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection and
the consequent threat of international exposure. To accomplish that
objective, IAEA safeguards include review of the design of facilities,
examination of records and reports, surveillance and containment de-
vices and, most importantly, on-site inspection by IAEA inspectors
for the purpose of independent verification of nuclear material flows
and inventories by means of analysis of samples, measurements, etc.
Since the founding of the Agency, the United States has taken a
leading role in creating an effective IAEA safeguards system~ and, to
a great extent, we have transferred to the Agency the resnonsibility for
applying safeguards on the nuclear materials and facilities which the
U.S. provides bilaterally to other countries. In this important func-
tion, therefore, the IAEA has become a primary vehicle for imple-
menting relevant U.S. interests. In recent years. particularly with the
coming into force of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), the Agency's safeguards functions have assumed in-
creasing importance. Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapons states
party to the Treaty (there were 97 as of June 30. 1976) are required
to accept safeguards on all of their peaceful nuclear activities under
agreen'ients with the Agency to insure that nuclear materials are not
diverted from peaceful uses. All the non-nuclear weapons states of
Western Europe, except Switzerland and Spain, and all East Euro-
(114)
PAGENO="0121"
115
peans states, except for Albania, are parties to the NPT, as are Japan
and Canada.
Although not required to do so under the NPT, the United States
and the United Kingdom (two of the three nuclear-weapons states
party to the Treaty; the USSR being the third) have each offered to
permit the JAEA to apply its safeguards to their respective peaceful
nuclear activities, excluding only those having direct national security
significance, when such safeguards are applied generally in non-
nuclear weapons states party to the Treaty.
A second important U.S. interest in the IA'EA arises from our
commercial position as the predominant supplier of nuclear materials
and equipment to the rapidly growing world market for nuclear
electric power generating facilities and materials-such as power re-
actors, fuel, and related equipment and services. Particularly in view
of the recent energy crisis, our commercial interest is an important
and exnanding one, and necessitates our active participation in the
work of the Agency in this field.
Active U.S. involvement in the Agency's programs, for example,
serves to preserve and `advance this commercial interest. The Agency's
activities, which include defining the market for certain items, and
helping *to coordinate legal and regulatory standards relating to
nuclear programs in member states are of direct interest to our nuclear
equipment vendors. In addition, Agency functions in other areas help
insure that U.S. iroducts may be sold under our own laws relating
to conditions of export, and that the eauipment will be received and
used by customers who are well-trained and capable o:f using them
safely, re1~ ably and effectively.
The TT.S. fl-rnTernrnent seeks to realize its other obiectives in the
IA EA by full financial backino~ through (1) its annual assessed con-
trihiition to the. A gency's reoular budget. which is the largest contribu-
tion of any member state (the A gencv's budget and finance is described
in greater depth in Appendix C), (2) the provision of cost free experts
to advise on numerous regular program activities, (3) a pattern of
narticipation in the many technical meetings and symposia scheduled
by the Agency each year, and (4) tliroitoh vigorous supnort for the
Agency's technical a ssistance program. This last item includes:
An annual voluntary cash contribution to the Agency for tech-
nical assistance to developing countries which are members of
the Agency:
Gifts of U.S.-made equipment to the. Agency and to certain
developing countries;
Providing to the Agency, on a cost free basis, fellowships for
study in the United States and the. services of U.S. experts to
advise on technical assistance activities in Member States; and
Support for organization of specialized training courses for
nationals of IAEA developing Member States.
The United States also maintains continuing active cooperation
with the Agency's numerous other programs, particularly the Inter-
national Nuclear Information System.
Finally, the strong and active role of the United States Mission to
the IAEA, located in Vienna, enables the U.S. Government to en-
courage the Agency to `act in areas of scientific or technical interest to
the United States or in areas where. the U.S. has determined that there
PAGENO="0122"
116
is a requirement for concerted international action relating to nuclear
energy.
HOW THE U.S. MISSION OPERATES
The U.S. Governor and the Deput?,' U.S. Representative
The U.S. Mission to the TAEA is headed by the U.S. Representative
(also the U.S. Governor on the Board of Governors of the TAEA) who
has the rank of Ambassador. The current U.S. Representative is the
Honorable Gerald F. Tape. He is resident in Washington and comes to
Vienna three or four times a year for meetings of the Board of Gov-
ernors, the General Conference, and such other special meetings as
require his presence. When the U.S. Representative is not present in
Vienna, the Mission is headed by the Deputy U.S. Representative (also
referred to as the Resident Representative). Both the positions of U.S.
Representative and Deputy U.S. Representative are established by law
and require Presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate.
The staff of the Mission
The staff of the U.S. Mission to the TAEA (listed in Annex A) in-
cludes three advisers who handle most of the scientific, technical, and
legal affairs, and two Foreign Service officers who act as political ad-
visers. A sixth adviser has been on loan to the Mission from the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency since August 1975. The Mis-
sion also has four secretaries, a communications and records officer, an
administrative assistant (an Austrian), and two drivers.
The Counselor for Atomic Energy Affairs is the Representatives'
chief technical and political adviser on a wide spectrum of Agency
activities, and is the acting chief of mission when the Resident Repre-
sentative is out of the city. The senior technical adviser has primary
responsibility for safeguards matters. The Attaché works on personnel
matters regarding staffing the Agency Secretariat with qualified Amer-
icans. The Attaché also follows the Agency's schedule of meetings
and assists the second political officer in analysis of the Agency's tech-
nical assistance program and its budget.
The senior political adviser is responsible for traditional multi-
lateral diplomatic contacts with other missions and is the Representa-
tives' chief adviser on l)Olitical strategy in the organization. The sec-
ond political adviser interacts more with the staff of the Secretariat
and is responsible for following the Agency's technical assistance activ-
ities. He also handles matters concerning the Agency's budget and
administration and its relations with the remainder of the U.N. family.
The officer on secondment from ACDA has responsibilities primarily
in the Agency's safeguards field and regarding any responsibilities the
Agency may acquire in the field of peaceful nuclear explosions.
The entire staff of the Mission assists the U.S. Representative in
conducting relations with the Agency and in keeping the Department
of State and other interested U.S. Government agencies informed of
developments within and concerning the Agency, particularly on mat-
ters to be discussed at meetings of the Board of Governors and at the
General Conference. The Mission makes recommendations as to posi-
tions that the U.S. Government should take, and provides the U.S.
representation at most meetings which are not of a strictly technical
nature. It is also responsible for analyzing the results of these meetings
and following up subsequent developments with other Missions in
PAGENO="0123"
117
Vienna and with the Secretariat. During meetings of the Agency's
Board of Governors the members of the Mission staff (along with such
persons as are sent from Washington for individual meetings) serve
as advisers to the U.S. Governor.
The Mission is a U.S. diplomatic post separate from the U.S. Em-
bassy in Vienna. It looks to the Embassy, however, for administrative
support and cooperates closely with the U.S. Ambassador to Austria
and his staff.
Relationships with other missions
The bulk of the ongoing work of the Agency, and especially of the
Board of Governors, is presently conducted in Vienna through normal
diplomatic interchange and informal consultations among the resident
representatives or permanent missions and between these representa-
tives and the Agency's Secretariat. Maintenance of continuous liaison
with these resident representatives and missions is one of the princi-
ple duties of the U.S. Resident Representative and of the U.S. Mis-
sion's political adviser.
Many of the thirty-four Governors who are members of the Board
are officials of their governments' atomic energy establishments and
are residents in their countries' capitals; some of these Governors have
resident representatives in Vienna who are usually career members of
their diplomatic services (as is the case with the U.S.). Others are
concurrently their country's Ambassador to Austria or Representative
to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE IAEA
Governiinq bodies
(a) The Board of Governors:
The IAEA Board of Governors is unique in the UN family by virtue
of the unprecedented scope of its authority. The Statute gives the
Board "authority to carry out the functions of the Agency." The
Board appoints the Director General (subject to the approval of the
General Conference), and submits the annual budget of the Agency
to the General Conference, which can accept or reject it, but not amend
it.
The Board has important responsibilities under the Statute in the
field of safeguards. It approves each Safeguards Agreement to which
the Agency is a party, and the designation of inspectors to conduct
safeguards inspections. In the event of any non-compliance with the
provisions of a Safeguards Agreement, the Board is called upon to
report such non-compliance to Member States and to the Security
Council and General Assembly of the United Nations. If the State
fails to take corrective steps within a reasonable time, the Board may
withdraw or terminate any assistance given to that State by the
Agency. (However, there has never yet in the Agency's existeilce
been a case where the Board was required to invoke these procedures.)
The Board currently consists of 34 members (enlarged from 25 by
an amendment to the Agency's Statute which came into force in 1973).
Nine of these seats are filled by members designated each year, for
one-year terms, by the outgoing Board from those members "most
advanced in the technology of atomic energy including the production
of source materials." In addition, the outgoing Board designates the
PAGENO="0124"
118
member most advanced in each of the Agency's geographic regions
which do not include one of the. above nine; accordingly, at its June
1976 session the Board designated 12 states to serve during the period
1976-77. These "designated" seats on the Board are normally filled by
the largest and most advanced members, including the U.S., the UK,
France, the USSR and Japan.
The remaining 22 seats on the Board are filled by election by the
General Conference for two-year terms, with specific provision for
distribution of these seats among the eight geographic regions named
in the Statute. Counting both elected and designated seats, the Board
representation for North America now stands at 2 (the U.S. and
Canada). for Western Europe at 8, for Eastern Europe at 4 (including
the USSR), for' Latin America at 6 and for Asia and Africa at 14.
A listing of the 34 members of the Board as of June 30, 1976, is
attached at Annex P.
(Ii) The General Conference:
All members of the Agency are entitled to attend the annual General
`Conference of the Agency, which ordinarily is held in Vienna during
the latter part of September. This gathering `of high-level officials con-
cerned with atomic energy from all over the world provides many of
them with a unique opportunity to transact bilateral business with
many of their counterparts from other nations, with whom they might
not otherwise have a chance to conveniently meet. The General Con-
ference also serves' as an opportunity for non-members of the Board
to voice their de'sires and opinions of the Agency's activities, and for
contact between the Agency's Secretariat and those members not
regularly represented in Vienna.
Although empowered to discuss and make recommendations upon
any issue within the scope of the Statute, the specific `functions of the
General Conference are limited and include:
Election of 22 (11 each year) of the 34 members of the Board
of Governors;
Approval of states for membership (upon recommendation of
the Board);
Suspension of members (upon recommendation of the Board);
Approval of the budget submitted by the Board (although the
Conference may not amend it);
Approval o'f relationship agreements with the UN and other
international organizations;
Approval of amendments to the Statute and
Approval of the appointment of the Director General (upon
recommendation of the Board).
The U.S. Delegation to the General Conference would normally in-
clude high-ranking officials of the ERDA, of the NRC and of the De-
partment of State. The Delegation also normally includes' members of
Congre'ss (usually drawn from the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy). The U.S. Representative and Deputy Representative serve
as alternates to the Head of Deleaation and the remainder of the
Mission staff serve as advis'ers to the Delegation.
The &crefariat
(a) The Director General:
The Secretaria.t is headed by the Director General, who is appointed
by the Board with the approval of the General Conference for a term
PAGENO="0125"
119
of four years. The current Director General, Dr. Sigvard Ekiund of
Sweden, was reappointed by the Board and the General Conference
for his fourth four-year term in t.he fall of 1973. The Director General
is responsible for the appointment, organization and functioning of
the staff of the Secretariat, under the authority of and subject to the
control of the Board, and performs his duties in accordance with
recommendations adopted by the Board.
(b) The Deputy Directors General and the Inspector General:
The Secretariat of the IAEA is divided into five Departments, four
of which (Technical Assistance and Publications, Technical Opera-
tions, Administration, and Research and isotopes) are headed by
Deputy Directors General (DDG's). The Department of Safeguards
and Inspection is headed by the inspector General (IG) who has a
rank and status equivalent to that of a DDG. When the Director
General is absent from his office, he appoints one of the DDG's to act
for him; in view of his special position, the IG ordinarily is not asked
to serve as Acting Director General. In addition, a new post has been
created (in 1976) that of Assistant Director General, which is cur-
rently held by a South African national, D.A.V. Fischer, who also
handles the Agency's external relations (e.g., relationships with other
international organizations).
(c) Division Directors:
The next level is that of Division Directors within the five Depart-
ment~. Two of these Director level posts are currently held by Ameri-
cans (Directors of the Divisions of Budget and Finance and Scientific
and Technical Information). In addition, an American employee of
the Food and Agriculture Organization heads the Joint FAO/IAEA
Division of Atomic Energy in Food and Agriculture, which is located
in the Agency's headquarters in Vienna. (The names and nationalities
of the Deputy Directors General, the Inspector General, and Director-
level officials of the Secretariat are contained in Annex B.)
(d) The Staff:
The Agency's total regular staff numbers just over 1,240, and is
located almost entirely at the Agency's headquarters in Vienna. (The
Agency also has employees at the International Center for Theoretical
Physics at Trieste, the International Laboratory of Marine Radio-
activity at Monaco, its Seibersdorf Laboratory just outside Vienna,
and at its small liaison offices in New York and Geneva.) About 830
of these employees are.General Service and Maintenance and Opera-
tional category. employees, who are largely Austrian. The professional
staff as of June 30, 1976 (as reflected in the table in Annex E) included
nations of 60 Member States of the Agency among its 349 posts, subject
to geographical distribution. About 18.6 percent of these professionals
were Americans.
An additional 63 posts are not subject to geographical distribution.
There are also 19 staff members in the Joint Food and Agriculture
Division and some 79 temporary employees (a'ssistance contracts, con-
sultants, and secondments).
Most of the Agency's scientific professionals serve for fixed terms
of two to four years. This is based upon the provision of the Statute
which requires that the Agency's permanent staff be kept to a mini-
mum, (a provision which is unique in the UN family of organiza-
tions), and reflects a deliberate policy of avoiding the creation of a
PAGENO="0126"
120
large group of long-service scientific professionals. This serves to
promote a constant infusion of scientists with up-to-date knowledge
and new ideas, enabling the Agency to keep abreast of new develop-
ments in the constantly-changing nuclear field.
The Secretariat is responsible for the year-round implementation of
the Agency'8 program in accordance with the direction given to it
by the Board and General Conference in their consideration of the
Agency's program and budget documents. In addition, as the member
of the UN family competent in the field of nuclear energy, t.he Agency
is frequently called upon to provide advice and assistance to other
UN agencies whose activities enter the nuclear field, and to implement
technical assistance projects in the field of nuclear energy and tech-
niques within the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
In addition to the permanent regular staff at headquarters, the
Agency normally employs a number (which varies according to the
demands of its program) of short-term consultants to assist the Agen-
cy's regular staff on specific projects which require special expertise,
and experts who render technical assistance to developing countries.
The Agency normally employs about 200-300 individuals annually
to implement assignments as technical assistance experts in field loca-
tions around the world, with these assignments' ranging in duration
from two weeks to one year or longer. The number of Agency experts
in the field at any one time varies greatly, but normally averag~
around 30-50 during any month in a given year.
Additional sources of income for technical assistance activities are
members' contributions in kind and certain "special" cash contribu-
tions for specific programs or purposes. Contributions in kind are
usually equipment or expert services provided cost-free to the Agency,
or cost-free fellowships in the donating country whdse recipients are
nominated by the Agency. In 1975, these amounted to over 4 million
dollars (compared to about $2.7 million in 1974) of which the United
States provided almost $1,650,000. In accordance with a policy an-
nounced in 1974, the United States gives preference to NPT parties
in allocating its contributions in kind.
Other sources of income for the Agency include receipts from the
UNDP for overhead costs resulting from use of United Nations tech-
nical assistance funds, income from short-term deposits, sales of
Agency publications, reimbursement from the United Nations In-
dustrial Development Organization (UNIDO) for the costs of Agency
administrative services used jointly by the two agencies in Vienna, and
other miscellaneous income.
The IAEA budget is among the smaller of those of the major
agencies of the TJN family. The Agency has a history of maintaining
a sound and well-managed program on its relatively modest budget.
The budget will, however, have to keep pace with the increased level
of activity and responsibility placed on the Agency by its members,
including the United States, in its safeguards, technical assistance and
other activities in response to the rapid increase in nuclear power
plants throughout the world.
Further details of the Agency's budget for 1977, and of its detailed
program of work for the period 1977-82, can be found in the published
budget documents (most recently, document GC (XX) 567) which is
available from the Mission on request.
PAGENO="0127"
ANNEX A
U.S. MISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL ATo~IIc ENERGY AGENCY
1080 Vienna, 14 Schmidgasse
U.S. Representative: Ambassador Hon. Gerald F. Tape (non-
resident).
Deputy U.S. Representative: Ambassador Hon. Galen L. Stone
(resident).
Secretary: Mrs. Georgia H. Alexander.
Counselor: Allan M. Labowitz.
Attaché: Thomas G. Gabbert. Secretary, Mrs. Chris Ashley.
Scientific advisers: John F. Mahy, Eric E. Anschutz. Secretary,
Miss Ruth Sweeney.
Political adviser: Joseph P. Leahy.
Political/administrative adviser: James H. `Williamson. Secretary,
Mrs. Gladys Oakley. Central files, Mis~s Irene Norman. Administra-
tive assistant Mrs. Susanna H. Kun.
(121)
PAGENO="0128"
ANNEX B
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Director General: Dr. Sigvard Ekiund (Sweden).
Deputy Director for Adm~inistration: Dr. John A. Hall (U.S.).
Director, Division of Budget and Finance: John P. Abbadessa
(U.S.).
Director, Office of Internal Audit and Management. Services:
Dov Broshy (Israel).
Assistant Director General and Director, Division 0± Externa'
Relations: David Fischer (South Africa).
Director, Division of General Services: Muneer-Uddin Khan
(Pakistan).
Director, Legal Division: Ian MacGibbon (U.K.).
Director, Division of Personnel: Wilfrid Lynch (Australia).
Secretary, Secretariat of the Policymaking Organs: Terence
Garrett (U.K.).
Deputy Director General for Research and Isotopes.' Hellmut
Glubrecht (F.R.G.).
Director, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in
Food and Agriculture: Maurice Fried (U.S.) (FAO Staff
Member).
Direct.or, Division of Life Sciences: Masamichi Saiki (Japan).
Director, Division of Research and Laboratories: Alexander
V. Shalnov (U.S.S.R.).
Director, International Centre for Theoretical Physics (Tn-
este) : Abdus Salam (Pakistan).
Director, International Laboratory of Marine Radioactivity
(Monaco) : Charles Osterberg (U.S.).
Inspector General: Rudolf Rometsch (Switzerland).
Director, Division of Development: Adolf Von Baeckmann
(F.R.G.).
Director, Division o.f Operations: Sibbodan Nakicenovic
(Yugoslavia).
Director, Information Treatment Unit: Vladimir Shmelev
(U.S.S.R.).
Deputy Director General for Technical Assistance and Publica-
tions: Helio F. S. Bittencourt (Brazil).
Director, Division of Technical Assistance: Svasti Srisukh
(Thailand).
Director, Division of Publications: Norbert Brell (Austria).
(122)
PAGENO="0129"
123
Deputy Director General foi' Technical Operations: Ivan S. Zhelu-
dev (U.S.S.R.).
Director, Division of Scientific and Technical Information:
Edward J. Brunenkant (U.S.).
Director, Division of Nuclear Power and Reactors: Andre-
Jacques Polliart (France).
Director, Division of Nuclear Safety and Environmental Pro-
tection: Charles H. Millar (Canada).
92-187 0 - 77 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
ANNEX C
TUE AGENCY'S BUDGET AND FINANCE
The Agency's Budget for 1977 is broken down into the following
main sections:
Regular budget $43, 501, 000
Operational ud~et:
Operating Fund I 1, 155, 000
Operating Fund II 6, 350, 000
Total budget for 10 51, 006, 000
The Regular Budget provides funds for the regular activities of
the Agency, including its safeguards program. The Operational
Budget includes support for certain activities of the International
Center for Theoretical Physics at Trieste, Italy and the International
Laboratory of Marine Radioactivity at Monaco (Operating Fund I),
and for the provision of Technical Assistance by the Agency (Operat-
ing Fimd II).
ASSESSED CONTRIBtTTIONS
About 85 percent of the funds for the 1977 Regular Budget will
come from assessed payments by the members, based on a scale fixed
annually by the General Conference. Of this amount, the United
States will pay just short of 28 percent. The percentage pa.id by each
member, including the U.S., is made up of two components. Each
member has a "base rate. of assessment", which is computed based on
the principles adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in fix-
ing the UN scale. This base rat.e is then adjusted, according to a com-
plex "safeguards financing formula" adopted by the 1971 General
Conference, to calculate the "scale of assessment" percentage actually
paid by the member sta.te.
The United Nations scale of assessments for 1974-1976, on whose
`pi~inciples the base rates of assessment for IAEA members will be
based in 1977, includes a maximum rate for the U.S. of 25 percent.
When the Congress of the United States imposed a limit of 25 percent
on U.S. assessed payments to international organizations, however, it
exempted the IAEA from this limitation. Therefore, the U.S. "base
rate of a'~sessment" for 1977 will be 27.51 percent, and will continue to
be somewhat above 25 percent (to prevent an increase in other mem-
ber's "base rates of assessment") until the addition of new members
and their contributions can reduce the U.S. base rate to the 25 percent
level.
The safeguards financing formula was devised in order to insulate
developing members of the Agency from the effects of rapid increases
in the costs of implementation of safeguards pursuant to the Non-Pro-
liferation Treaty (NPT). As a result of this formula, developing
countries actually pay at rates which are somewhat below their base
(124)
PAGENO="0131"
125
rates of assessments, while advanced countries have scale of assess-
ment percentage rates somewhat above their base rates. For example,
1977, with a base rate of 27.51 percent, the United States will actually
pay at a scale of assessment of 27.88852 percent. In fact, even after the
United States' base rate of assessment reaches 25 percent, we will pay
our assessed contributions to the Agency at a scale of assessment some-
what above 25 percent. This additional amount represents costs which
the U.S. has accepted, pursuant to its policy of commitment to the
NPT and to Agency safeguards. It also expresses, in one small way,
our recognition of the additional costs necessary to further U.S. in-
terests in the maintenance and advancement of this aspect of inter-
national peace and security. Thus, in 1977, the U.S. will pay 29.27478
percent of total Agency safeguards costs of $7,936,000 (or
$2,323,247).
OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME
Voluntary contributions constitute the principal source of income
for the Operational Budget. Income to Operating Fund I is largely
from special contributions made by some members and some other or-
ganizations for the support of the two facilities financed from~ this
Fund. The provision of technical assistance from Operating Fund II
is financed solely by voluntary cash contributions made by member
states toward a target set annually by the General Conference. The
Target for 1977 is $6.0 million. Voluntary cash contributions pledged
by members for 1976 should amount to about $5.0 million of a $5.5
million Target. The United States has pledged $1,516,350 toward this
1976 total.
The Agency also serves as an executing agency for the United Na-
tions Development Program (UNDP) each year, implementing a
large number of projects in the field of nuclear energy in developing
countries. In 1975 it received and expended $4,493,301 to execute such
projects, compared to $3,556,720 for the same purpose in 1974.
PAGENO="0132"
ANNEX D
1975-76
IAEA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1976-77
Most Advanced (Appointed by the Board)
1. Canada
2. France
3. Germany (Federal Republic)
4. India
5. Italy
6. Japan
7. USSR
8. USA
9. United Kingdom
1. Canada
2. France
3. Germany (Federal Republic)
4. India
5. Italy
6. Japan
7. USSR
8. USA
9. United Kingdom
Regionally Most Advanced (Appointed by the Board)
10. Argentina (Latin America)
11. Australia (Far East)
12. South Africa (Africa)
13. Bangladesh (MESA)
14. Brazil (LA)
15. Chile (LA)
16. Colombia (LA)
17. Denmark (WE)
18. German Democratic Rep.
(EE)
19. Indonesia (SEAP)
20. Iran (MESA)
21. Iraq (Floating seat)
22. Libyan Arab Republic (AF)
23. Netherlands (WE)
24. Philippines (Floating seat)
25. Poland (EE)
26. Senegal (AF)
27. Spain (WE)
28. Thailand (SEAP)
29. Turkey (WE)
30. Uruguay (LA)
31. Venezuela (LA)
32. Yugoslavia (E.E)
33. Zaire (AF)
34. Zambia (AF)
1 Newly elected in 197G for 2-year term.
10. Australia (Far East)
11. Brazil (Latin America)
12. South Africa (Africa)
13. Bangladesh
14. Argentina (LA)'
15. Chile
16. Colombia
17. Denmark
18. (Not yet announced) (EE)1
19. Indonesia
20. Pakistan (MESA)' or
Iraq (MESA)'
21. Egypt (Floating seat)'
22. Libyan Arab Republic
23. Netherlands
24. Philippines
25. Poland
26. Senegal
27. Belgium (WE)'
28. Malaysia (SEAP)'
29. Portugal (WE)'
30. Mexico (LA)1
31. Panama (LA)'
32. Yugoslavia
33. Nigeria (AF)'
34. Ghana (AF)'
Elected by General Conference
(region in parenthe~es)
(126)
PAGENO="0133"
ANNEX E
STAFF or IAEA
TABLE 1.-TOTAL STAFF BY NATIONALITY AND GRADE WHO ARE IN POSTS SUBJECT TO GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRI BUTION
Nationality DDG D-2 D-1 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-i Total
Algeria 1
Argentina 2 1 1 4
Australia 1 1 2 4
Austria 1 3 3 6 4 2 19
Bangladesh 1 1 1 3
Belgium 1 2 1 4
Rrazil 1 1 1 3
BUgaria 1 2 1 1 5
Pyelorussian SSR 1
Canada 1 1 3 2 1 1 9
Chile 1 1 2
China 2 2
Colombia 1 1
CSSR 1 2 1 4
Denmark 1 3 1 5
Egypt 2 2
Finland 1 I 2
France 1 3 5 2 2 2 15
German Democratic Republic 1
German Federal Republic 1 1 5 6 10 1 1 25
Greece 1 1 1 3
Guatemala 1 1
Hungary ~ 1
India 6 1 1 8
Indonesia
Iran I 1 2
Iraq 1
Ireland i 1 2
Israel 1 1 2
ltrly 1 2 4 5 1 1 14
Japan 1 2 6 1 10
Korea, Republic of 2 2
Lebanon 1 1 2
Mexico I 1
Morocco 1 1
Netherlands 2 1 2 5
New Zealand 1 1
Nigeria 1 1
Norway 2 1
Pakistan 1 1
Peru 1
Philippines 1
Poland 1 2 2 1 6
Portugal 1 1 2
Romania
South Africa 1 1 1 2
Spain 1 1
Sri Lanka 1
Sudan 1 1 2
Sweden 1 4 2 1 8
Switzerland 1 1 1 1 2 6
Thailand 1 1 2
Turkey 1 1 1 3
United Kingdom 3 10 7 3 3 26
Ukrainian S.S.R 1
Uruguay 1
United States 1 2 1 22 21 12 6 65
U.S.S.R 1 3 10 11 5 2 32
Vietnam Republic, South 1
Yugoslavia 1 1 1
Total 5 7 16 86 118 75 33 9 349
1 Has the rank of Assistant Director General.
Note: in addition to the above, there are 63 staff members for whom consideration of geographical distribution does not
apply.
(127)
PAGENO="0134"
128
TABLE 2--STAFF HOLDING PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS
Nationality 0-2 D-l P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-i Total
Argentina 2 2
Austria 1 2 3 3 4 i 14
Belgium 1 1
Brazil 1
Denmark 1 1 2
Egypt 1
France 2 1 1 4
Germany, Federal Republic of 1 1 1 3
India 1 1
Ireland 1 1
Italy 1
Morocco 1 1
Netherlands 1
Pakistan 11 1
SouthAfrica 21 1
Switzerland 2 2
United Kingdom _ 1 2 1 4
United States 2 1 2 1 6
U.S.S.R 1
Total 1 3 17 9 5 11 2 48
1 Serving at the D-level under a fixed-term appointment.
2 Has the rank of Assistant Director General.
TABLE 3.-STAFF HOLDING FIXED-TERM APPOINTMENTS OR EXTENDED APPOINTMENTS WHICH WILL COVER A
TOTAL PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 5 YR
Nationality DDG 0-2 D-1 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-I Total
Algeria 1 1
Argentina 1 1
Austria 1 3 1 5
Bangladesh I 1
Belgium 2 2
Bulgaria 1 1 2
Byelorussian SSR 1 1
Canada 1 1 1 3
China 2 2
CSSR 1 1 2
Denmark 1 1
Egypt 2 1 3
France 3 1 1 5
Germany, Federal Republic of 4 3 3 10
Greece 1 1 2
Guatemala 1 1
Hunnary 4
India 3 1 4
Indonesia 2 2
Ireland 1 1
Israel 1 1
Italy 3 2 1 6
Japan 2 2
Lebanon 1 I 2
Netherlands 1 1 2 4
Nigeria 1 1
Norway 2 2
Poland 1 1 2
Romania 1 1
Spain 1 1
Sri Lanka 1 1
Sudan 1 1 2
Sweden 1 1
Switzerland 1 1 1 1 4
Turkey 1 1 2
United Kingdom 5 5 1 1 12
Ukrainian SSR 1 1
United States 1 1 9 2 5 2 20
USSR 3 1 4
Vietnam, Republic of South 1 1
Yugoslavia ------- 1 1 2
Total 2 3 1 40 44 27 5 3 125
PAGENO="0135"
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERNATIONAL Aroi~ric ENERGY AGENCY MEETING,
VIENNA, AUSTRIA-MAY 29, 1977
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY (IAEA)
Mr. TEAGUE. Dr. Hall, let me say we are pleased to be here and let
me introduce my colleagues. On my left is Congressman Dale Milford
of Texas, Jim Scheuer of New York, Gary Myers from Pennsylvania,
across the table is John Paul Hammerschmidt from Arkansas, a
Louisiana Cajun Mr. John Breaux, and I'm not going to tell you
what they remember the next man for, but he's from California-
Mr. Norman Mineta. The other members I'm not going to call are
staff members on our Committee on Science and Technology. I think
they are all from that; maybe, is Ed Bowser here ~ Mr. Ed Bowser
was the Staff Director of formerly the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy. He's been here many times.
Now before you came in, Dr. Hall introduced all the members here
and I wish he'd go through that again-I'd think you'd know who's
here.
Dr. HALL. Before I do that, before you, there is a listing of all the
personnel in the room-one of your yellow sheets. There's a listing
of the staff, the country and a little, bit of our background. Bob, why
don't you start;; just stand up, announce yourself, and then you can
identify the person by looking at the list, too.
I'm Bob Catlin from the United States.
I'm L°onard Bennett also from the United States.
Woj ciech Morawiecki from Poland.
Reinhard Rainer from Austria.
George Delcoigne from Belgium.
from Norway.
Art Waligura from the United States.
Norm Beyer from the United States.
Jim Cameron from the United Kingdom.
Vladimir Shmelev from the U.S.S.R.
Tohru Haginoya from Japan.
James Lane from the United States.
Robert Skjoldebrand from Sweden.
Rurik Krymm from France.
Dr. HALL. There we are~ Mr. Chairman. I would like t.o draw your
attent'~on to a short agenda which should be before you and if you
agree, Mr. Chairman~ I would like to give a. very short presentation
so we can devote most of our time to the asking of ouestions and per-
hans we could risk you a few questions. Item number three, the In-
striimentation Demonstration is in the next room and I thought that
perhaps we could have a cup of coffee or tea in about an hour and take
a look at the instruments. I consider this very important because on
(129)
PAGENO="0136"
130
the safeguard inspection activity, the use of instruments has not only
facilitated, but enhanced our ability to do our job. To avoid returning
with simply an impression of human beings pumping things, we do
have some very sophisticated equipment which helps us, as I say, do
the job.
Mr. TEAG1IE. Doctor, will you comment on what I asked the Am-
bassador last night; do you think you can be objective to us or not?
Dr. HALL. Objective?
Mr. TEAGUE. Yes.
Dr. HALL. Sir, I will be objective and balanced.
Mr. TEAGUE. I didn't say "you"; I said the rest of you.
Dr. HALL. If they are not, I'll be the first man to curb the passion,
as it were. The Director General should be arriving in the next half
hour at the airport anc~ I know that he would like to be here himself,
but he's been on an African trip.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I think most of you know this, we are
an agency-20 years old this year. And as you pointed out yourself,
you were one of the participants 20 years ago at our first conference.
We have grown to an organization of 110 members. We have a budget
of about $4~5 million and the staff at the moment is scattered in three
buildings. This is the temporary headquarters and has been for 20
years. This was turned over to us by the Austrian authorities as an
old hotel. You may see clues as to its earlier purpose. The nationality
on the staff is rather interesting; we have over 65 nationalities on the
staff and for those of you who might he concerned about U.S. and
American participation, I think we have the highest percentage of
Americans in our mission than in any other international organization.
It's running pretty close to 20%. So American participation is good
and we have been fortunate over the years to have been able to draw
the calibre of people who are prepared to spend two or three or four
years with us and longer. Many of us have come from the national
laboratories. Jimmy Lane has been in Oak Ridee for 35 years, so you
have a great deal of competence here from the U.S. as well as the rest
of my colleagues from other countries.
How are we run? We have, a Director General who is Swedish and
we have the four Deputies. I'm one of those deputies. We have a Soviet
deputy, a deputy from the Federal Republic and Brazil and Switzer-
land. My responsibility is the administration, budget. the legal side,
public information and all the housekeeping responsibilities as well
as external relations. The Board of Governors consists of 34 governors.
The Board meets about four times a year, two important meetings-
one in June.
And you probably know some of the previous governors. Professor
Smythe from Princeton was here for about seven years. Dr. Keith
Glennon who I think was a friend of yours was a governor for several
years. And Dr. Tape who is still a governor and earlier was the
commissioner of the old AEC and is now responsible for the Brook-
haven National Laboratory. I make this point because of being
American, you have to ask yourself who represents us? Who is
the person who really is talking around the table? Well, we've had
some. very able men here. So, that's the Board of Governors-34 gov-
ernors-and it's the group who approves the budget and policy.
We have once a year a meeting of the full membership which we
PAGENO="0137"
131
call the General Conference and is comparable to the General As-
sembly in New York. This takes place in September and that's the
first meeting that you attended in 1957. We have two Directors Gen-
eral; one an American, Mr. Cole, who was for years here in the
beginning and presently we have here, as I said earlier, Dr. Ecklund
from Sweden. He's a physicist and came from the Swedish nuclear
energy program.
What are the issues? The interesting and I think important issue,
if I can make this clear, is that in the past four or five years you've
had an extraordinary political consensus between, let's call it, the East
and West, and the South and the North, on certain issues which makes
this agency somewhat unique. What are these issues? The safeguard
issue is one. And after 1963, we've had the strongest support from the
East and the West on safeguard. We've never really had a problem on
the budget side on getting money for safeguard. Some of our develop-
ing country friends are on the board.
I might point out that they want to maintain a balance because
they are interested in technical assistance in which we have a small
program, but th~y too, now are supporters of the safeguard program.
What does this mean realistically? It means that if we have, and
I think we do have, a sensible safeguard program that we have no
prob'em in having the political and economic support necessary to
implement that program. Twenty years ago I couldn't say the same
thing, because in the early days the purposes and the objectives of
this a~rency were rather misty. But now we enjoy I would say nearly
complete support from our Board of Governors, which is a bit unique.
I have to make two or three points because while the political issues
are not as dramatic here as they in New York or the United Nations,
they do emerge. For example, we will have in June a auestion on
South Africa. So we are not devoid of the realities of 1977. What is
the question on South Africa? South Africa has been a member of our
Boerd of Governors for 20 years and there is some thought that per-
haps South Africa should not be a member of the Board. This is not
a question of throwing South Africa out of the agency. It's simply a
question on how certain that the Africans-they feel-from their
standpoint that. it would be better for South Africa if they were not
on the board. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be balanced and objective.
Mr. T1~AGrTE. Doctor. what does a member nation do when it is a
me.mb~r of this organization?
Dr. HALL. There are four or five answers to that.
Tn the earTy days I would find it difficult to answer that question
other than the easy answers of status and prestige and being on the
Governors' hoard. Now, and in the case of South Africa, there are so
many policy discussions that affect all memher states that. it is becoming
increasingly difficult to keen people off the hoard. Each state feels that
he wants to nart.icipate and this h~is a politic~i~1 irnpa~t too, because right
now we're being confronted with a small bitt aggressive groun who
feed that the board membershin should be enlarged. And it's always
that worrisome thing because the larger the board the more difficult
it is to do business. We had a Board of Governors for many years
of 23 and it jumped to 25 and from 25 to 34. This is pianae~eahle and
still one of the smallest governing councils in the United Nations
family. If you're on the board you participate on the national side
PAGENO="0138"
132
you support, you participate on all the political decisions, the scope
and intensity of the agency policy. You are there. You're a member
of that committee; you're a member of the Committee on Science and
Technology, if I can put it that way. As to why there is such a great
interest in Congress of being a member of your Committee. As I said
earlier, there are elements of prestige in consideration.
Now, who runs the board? We have a chairman, a new chairman
every year. We've never had a problem in selecting a chairman because
very early in the selection process, it was decided that there would
be a rotation among the areas of the world. And so there never has
been a problem. The present chairman is Dr. Sece, from Senegal, who
is a very intelligent, tri-lingual person.
One exception to the chairmanship is that early is was agreed outside
the board that the big powers would never be chairman. So the
United States, Soviet Union and England have never chaired.
Now let me quickly see if I covered in a very general sense the
budget, the membership, the chairmanship of the board, the function
of the general conference and the makeup of the staff. Now before we
go on to item number two, I wonder if there are any questions, Mr.
Chairman, about what I have said?
Mr. TEAGUE. Doctor, wily don't we go on to your schedule, then get
questions and answers at the end.
Dr. HALL. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I promised that the presenta-
tion be short so we could have more time to talk among ourselves, so
if we could move to item two-which is Immediate and Long-Term
Prospects for Nuclear Power, Light Water Reactors, Heavy Water
Reactors, Advanced Reactor Types and the Breeder. All of this is
very contemporary as you know and we put this item on deliberately
because we are interested in this and we are acutely aware that through-
out the world there are some controversies dealing with this subject.
So we wanted to in a balanced fashion, Mr. Chairman, to give you our
thinking. Could I call on Mr. Krymm first to give us a little feeling
on nuclear energy and the general energy picture and then after that
program, we will talk about some of the specific reactor types. Mr.
Krymm.
Mr. KRYMM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I feel that Dr. Hall
it was your original intention by considering tile agenda to put
economics last.
And I am sorry that he didn't yield to that first impulse because
that's where it would belong since of all the reasons which can at
present account for the status and immediate prospect of nuclear
power, economic reasons are certainly the last ones to be taken into
account. The reasons may be social, environmental, domestically po-
litical, internationally political, economics comes at the bottom. So
you will forgive me if I am not going to discuss costs-cost of capital
investments of tile fuels in detail. It will only leave us all confused
including myself and rather proceed to very broad-brush presenta-
tion of the framework within which nuclear power is likely to take
its place. Now today we are dealing with a world of about 4 billion
people. Total energy consumption of that world is on the order of 6
billion tons of oil-equivalent, that is if you convert everything to oil,
there may be argument about that 5 or 10 percent plus or minus be-
cause this conversion process is always to some extent arbitrary. Out
PAGENO="0139"
133
of those 6 billion, a little less than 3 billion actual oil and two-thirds
of the total-more than two-thirds--is accounted by gas. Again, it is
worth thinking that about two-thirds of the 6 bilhion-4 billion-are
consumed in countries with developed market economies and about a
little less than 2 billion in the other countries. Also worth remember-
ing is that the United States accounts for about 30 percent-a little
more-of the total. That is about one billion eight hundred fifty mil-
lion (1,850,000,000) tons of oil equivalent and about a little less than
half of the total of the countries with developed market economies.
No less important is the developing countries taken as a whole includ-
ing the-oil--producing and exporting countries for the time being ac-
count for a little less than 10 percent of the total consumption.
It accounts for about a little more than 2 percent of primary energy
in 1977. A little more than 8 percent of total electricity.
If we turn to the year 2000 of course the bets are wide open, but
looking at the most modest projections, taking for instance President
Carter's projection up to 1985 and less precise projections beyond the
year 2000, you see that even the United States which is by far the
greatest energy consumer, expects to consume more whether it grows at
2.25 percent a year or 3.85 percent or even 2 percent with extreme con-
servation measures. Still, it will increase. The room for conservation is
small in countries like my own France which per GNP dollar or franc
consumes about half of the energy consumed in the U.S. for one unit
of GNP. And the countries of the centrally planned economy have
development plans which involve a rapid energy consumption growth.
As for the developing country any attempt is made to narrow even
slightly the gap between theirs and our standard of living there will
be a rapid increase in energy consumption there. So we are dealing
with the world in the year 2000 which will consume between 12 billion
which is twice the present total and 18 billion tons of oil equivalent.
Now without speculating as to the composition of that consumption as
between coal, oil, natural gas, we can estimate roughly the share of
nuclear power by taking the rock bottom minimum targets which have
been established recently and somewhat more optimistic programs
which have been considered only for several years, or even a year ago.
The share of nuclear power will be about 10 to 20 percent of the total.
Ten if the rock bottom targets are actually implemented; 20 if some-
what more optimistic objectives are achieved. So that by the year 2000
nobody actually expects nuclear energy to be the predominant fuel.
It could be hydocarbons, coal will no doubt increase substantially,
but nuclear will not be the decisive fuel. Does it mean that nuclear is
not significant over even the short term? Of course not, because you
remember as a benchmark that roughly speaking, each 1000 megawatts
of nuclear-tha.t is each large station of the type which is being built
in Europe or the United States and France-the larger types. .
Well, a 1000 megawatts saves about 11/2 million tons of oil a year. So
that for countries which are heavily dependent on oil. this is of tremen-
dous significance. So that this relative share of 10 to 20 percent should
not blind people to the significance of nuclear energy for oil importing
countries.
You may wonder why after oil has risen by a factor of about 5,
let's say, since the middle of 1973, I'm talking of OPEC oil which
sooner or later all oil prices will pretty well be determined just what-
PAGENO="0140"
134
ever the production place. Nuclear programs today are substantially
lower for the years to come and especially for the year 2000 than they
were, let's say, in the middle of 1973 before the price of competitive
fuel jumped by a factor of. first 4 and then 5 or even more. Much has
been said about economic reasons, but as I tried to point it out from
the beginning, they are not really of relevence here. There is a total
divorce of prices and cost of production-you may say at any rate the
representatives coming from oil states-what else is new? Because
that has always been the case in the case of oil and to some extent of
gas. But it has now extended to coal and even uranium which has
increased by a factor 7. But for spot delivery prices.
But it is not in economics that you will find an answer because even
with all those increases in uranium prices, and in the increases of the
investment costs of nuclear power plants, nuclear is clearly economic
in all cases where it is competing with imported oil, or fuel-to be more
precise-derived from imported crude. That is in all Western Euro-
pean countries which are not coal producers or exporters. The reasons
therefore are social, rooted in domestic politics, in international pqii-
tics and it's not for me to enter into their discussions here. But what
we may ask is how long will those reasons continue to prevail over
certain underlying factors which push a whole category of countries
towards nuclear power-regardless of the economics which are
favorable.
I have in mind countries like my own, France, or even the most
extreme case of Italy, which total fossil fuel resources are worth three
years of national consumption and two months of United States con-
sumption of energy. Obviously, countries of Western Europe devoid
of fuel resources will take the stand that if they are not to become
totally dependent upon oil imports from OPEC countries, and they
are already for the majority of their energy needs, they have to de-
velop nuclear power and if they are not to become totally dependent
on uranium supplies from the outside world, they have to develop
particularly economic types of nuclear power plants-in particular
for the first step they have to consider squeezing out the energy still
contained in the irradiated fuels for reprocessing-that's gaining
about 30 to 40 percent from a given amount of uranium, but much
more important than that, they have to consider the necessity for
breeding which would permit them to become totally independent-
almost totally-since you can use depleted uranium as fertile material
for the breeder from outside uranium sources.
So that the positions of countries looking at the short term will be
radically different depending on their wealth of natural resources. It
is one thing for the United States to iook at the immediate future on
the basis of the largest coal reserve in the world, a very substantial
oil and gas reserves which perhaps may be more extended in pricing
policies are changed, a very substantial uranium reserves. It's another
thing to look at it from the standpoint of France or Italy which have
no fuel reserves and in the case of Italy no uranium reserves: in the
case of France, very limited uranium reserves: Intermediately, you
could have countries like the United Kingdom who can have a breath-
ing spell because they have the North Sea oil and they have substan-
tial coal resources which were perhaps underestimated in the past.
But my major point is that those countries will look at the short
PAGENO="0141"
135
term policies in the nuclear field from entirely different points of view.
And you will understand the urgency which presses on countries who
want to become somewhat less dependent-not fully independent, far
from it-but somewhat less dependent on imports of coal and oil
Now regarding the longer term, these countries of course continue
to press with the development of reactor types which will perniiit
greater and greater independence even from imports of.uranium. But
even if we look at the resources of rich countries like the United
States, like the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent the United King-
dom, much lesser extent, when the long term is taken into account,
you realize that some kind of breeding appears essential. It is true
that the figures which `are at present bandied about about uranium
resources-Mr. Cameron will no doubt point out-are very tentative
figures.
The fact that uranium seems to be consentrated in the United States,
Canada, South Africa and Australia plus a couple of African coun-
tries is not the geological enormity; it's probably due to the amount
of prospective money which was sunk in those areas to find the ura-
nium and since there was a long period of market glut, no prospecting
worth speaking of has occurred in other areas which may turn out to
be promising. So that the 4 million tons of proven and additional re-
serves which are advanced as a figure for the Western World are
probably going to be pre - maybe by `a factor of 2,
maybe by a factor of 3-who knows ? .Nevertheless, if you take the 4
million tons in terms of energy producible in present light water re-
actor types-this corresponds to about 40 billion tons of oil. This is
less than half of the proven oil reserves. So that it's not really sig-
nificant for the long term, however important it may be for transi-
tional gap bridging. Even if you multiply it by a factor of 10 instead
of 4 million tons of uranium, 40 million tons were to be discovered,
if it were to be used in present-day's light water or even heavy
water reactors of the present fuel cycle, you would still be meeting
with an energy equivalent much smaller than that producible from
economically recoverable coal reserves; so again it would be no more
than the stop-gap solution over the longer term. However, if you en-
gage in breeding, you multiply all those figures by a factor of 50 to
60 which places you in an entirely different ballgame. Also you are
then free to turn to very low grade uranium deposits because the cost
of the uranium fertile material in the breeding cycle is insignificant
and in fact, for a very long period this fertile material will be de-
pleted uranium from the enrichment cascade tails which is practically
worth nothing except under these conditions.
Now again, the degree of urgency to prepare for this long term
future will be judged differently by different countries depending on
their resources both in the field of fossil fuel and in the field of nra-
nium, but one thing which should certainly be remembered in that
respect are the lead times required for a capital intensive complex,
difficult technology to make a real dent on the energy market. Now
the first reactor has operated in 1941 in Chicago. The first power re-
actor has operated in 1954-55 and we are now in 1977, 50 it took 22
years for certain reactor lines to prove themselves and today the ac-
count for only 2 percent of the world primary energy and about 8
percent of world electricity.
PAGENO="0142"
136
Now if demonstration efforts or pilot plants or first industrial plants
of a given line are abandoned, if skilled teams of engineers and sci-
entists are disbanded, it may take a long time to put them together
again. And this might be not only time, but also a money-consuming
business. But I feel I am already getting into deep waters in which
my friend, Bob Skjoldebrand, is a better swimmer than I am, and.
Mr. TEAGUE. May I ask Mr. Krymm a couple of questions. I under-
stand you said that the area of conservation is small. Now is my at-
titude right that in our country we estimate that we use abou~ the
same amount of energy that we waste? Is that a fair statement?
Mr. KRY~n\r. I think that it's an understatement, probably.
Mr. TEAGUE. Let me ask another question. In the field of interna-
tional cooperation, it seems to me that France should be a good nation
to comment on what more can our country do in the field of waste
storage and in the field of uranium enrichment. `What would you like
to see us do?
Mr. KRYMM. Well, Sir, I'm not speaking for the government of
France, but I am sure that France intends to continue with an effort
on the one hand that national energy-not independence-because it
would take an awfully long time for any of the Western European
countries to become really energy independent, except in the special
case of the United Kingdom with the North Sea oil; but to lessen its
dependence on imported oil in particular and unstable areas of supply.
It will certainly continue therefore in all areas of nuclear power
development in which it has been fairly active and in some cases a
leader that is, in reprocessing and in breeder reactors, with special
emphasis on the breeder because the French feel, not without reason,
that nuclear technology is not breeder resources based-it's human
based-it's based on human resources. By the time you have a breeder
you are practically independent from geological vagaries and you de-
pend on your own technological, engineering, scientific organizational
brain power. It seems to me the only technology of that kind because
that even solar depends on geographica.l conditions, and availability
of cheap lime. Let alone, hvdrocarhors or coal . . . so that certainly
France would like to see full steam ahead the development of ad-
vanced reactor systems which of course require development and re-
search in the breeding field. Now as between different breeding cycles,
France is developing, as you know, the plutonium fuel fast breeder
sodium cooled. There is research, but France is not that
large and that rich a country to engage in the investigation of a
variety of possible breeding cycles and' has concentrated her efforts
on the prototype which has given quite a bit of successful results
* upto now.
Dr. HALL. I think that answered your question. Bob, could you talk
* briefly about reactor types and touch on the breeder also?
Mr. SKJOLDEBRAND. I'll try to be very brief. I'lT try to sumriariz~ the
situation. Where we are, where we are going based on the Saltzburg
conference on nuclear power and its fuel cycles. `We finished just two
* weeks ago in Saltzburg. It was a major conference and it followed
the traditional engineer conference. There was one maior lesson we
got from Saltzburg-tha~t was if anyone who had doubts about the
future of nuclear power going there, we came back reaffirmed. Nuclear
PAGENO="0143"
137
power programs are definitely here to stay; they're expanding. The
programs have been reaffirmed, they've been stabilized and they are
going ahead full speed.
QuI~sTIoN. All programs?
Mr. SKJOLDEBRAND. Not all programs. But in general. Let me come
back to that later.
In discussing the programs of the United States and
refer to all capital major industrial nations which outside the United
States are certainly likely to shape the future of nuclear power pro-
grams. These are Germany, France, Japan, United Kingdom, Soviet
Union and perhaps also Italy, Canada, and Sweden. These are the
countries also which have their own domestic industrial capability to
produce their plants-their power plants-and also to go into, if they
want to, the fuel cycles. All these countries have strong nuclear power
programs. It's notable that present in the United Kingdom there is a-
at the present time-pause or reevaluation. Let us not forget that 6000
megawatts are going to go on the line in 1982, 6000 megawatts nuclear
in the United Kingdom. Sweden is perhaps the most notable example
of a country which has now reevaluated its programs.
Where that is going to stop is not to say at the present time, but
again, Sweden has at the present time the highest nuclear capacity
per capita in the world. It is a~ small country. . . [there was some dis-
cussion here as to what Mr. Skjoldebrand said; the other members did
not understand what he was saying either].
In most of these countries with the exception of the United King-
dom and Sweden and Canada the programs of the present time are
based on t.he light water reactors, where the pressurized water reactors
seem to be getting the edge at the present time over the boiling water
reactors. If that is a long term plan it is difficult to say right now, but
it appears that the pressurized water reactors are the fundamental
basis for the programs in most of these countries. There are some in-
teresting variations. The pressurized water plants and also boiling
water plants have a technological limitation in size to about 1300
megawatts electrical. Mainly based on the pressure vessel technology.
We don't want to build bigger pressure vessels than that. In the Soviet
Union there is some development now toward a pressured tube-type re-
actor which can be designed and constructed in a modular fashion.
They at the present time have on the drawing board units of 2400
megawatts-very big units.
Canada is of course going ahead with the heavy water reactor plants
of .the candu type. They are also giving paramount of interest in
other countries outside these major industrial countries. Also there,
there are some variations in ; they are talking about
cooling heavy water reactors with light water reactors. But these are
ripples oii~ the surface. What we are really seeing at the present time
in the thermal reactor field is a focusing on the light water reactors
and on these candu type heavy water reactors. All others are more or
less falling by the wayside.
Now in the five countries which are mentioned first-that is, Ger-
many, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, there
were definite statements in the Saltzburg conference that it is a na-
tional objective to close the fuel cycle and to head towards the breeder.
PAGENO="0144"
138
It is notable as Mr. Kryrnm pointed out here also that these coun-
tries have a lack of indiginous uranium resources or very small
resources of any country.
Qu~sTIoN. Which countries?
Mr. SKJOLDEBRAND. That is German, France, Japan, the LTnited
Kingdom, the Soviet Union. They are definitely going-and is a na-
tional stated objective-to close the fuel cycle and moveS towards a fast
breeder development . . . and a domestic fast breeder development.
In this context, we have pointed out that we have at the present
time a status where demonstration plants are in operation__the demon-
stration plants, I talk about plants of the size range 250 to 350 mega-
watts electrical. They are in operation in the Soviet Union since 1973,
in France since 1974, in the United Kingdom since 1975. They are
under construction and plan in German for operation in 1981, in Ja-
pan in 1983 to 1984. It should be remembered here also that Italy and
Germany are working together with France in the development of th~
fast breeder program. They are heading you could say that in the mid
7O's to the early 8O's is a demonstration plant stage of the fast breeder.
In the mid 80's we are aiming at the first commercial prototype plant
in the 1200 to 1600 megawatt i~ange. In France the Superphenix should
go on line in 1982: in the United Kingdom the prototype commercial
reactor should go on line in 1986; and the Soviet Union has on the
drawing board now a project for a 1600 megawatt breeder without
even . And here Italy and France are participating
with about 30% involvement in Superphenix projects.
Caiiada has of course always had a special situation with its
heavy water reactors. The economics in that part of the fuel cv-
cles-they have had a stated objective not to close the fuel cycle. It
is interesting to note that in the Saltzburg they came back to the situa-
tion where they've always kept their options open for the future
And I hear they stated that they are launching an orderly 20 to 25
years program to develop and demonstrate technology of recycling Of
this size material in the candu reactors. And they are here going to
study both the plutonium recycling but undoubtedly going to concen-
trate on the plutonium and thorium fuel cycle.
In other countries, industrialized or developing countries, you see
a definite focusing on the thermal reactors of the light water type or
the candu type. The basis is always the pressurized water reactors with
a sprinkling of interest in the candu type of breeder reactor. In none
of these countries is there a real interest in the fast breeder cycling.
They would like to see the fuel cycle closed outside thir own coun-
tries. The excention here of course is India that has a closed fuel cycle
and has a possibility of closing it for the power plants amid which also
has a small fast breeder reactor program. At the present time it is very
early-in the early stages.
I could have just mentioned some points that were made on the more
exclusive concepts, the more exotic concepts of power plants. Notably
the high temperature reactor where we at the present time stand with
20 years of research and development behind us and in the program
which is now in the next couple of years going to have two demonstra-
tion plants in the 300 megawatt range, with no certain plans for the
future. There is an effort in the Federal Republic of Germany to corn
mit an international cooperation on the high temperature reactor pro-
PAGENO="0145"
139
gram. It's att.ractive because the high temperature reactor again
uses thorium ; it has a higher fuel use efficiency; it
has a higher thermal efficiency; it has several advantages, but in the
German statements here it was pointed out and expressed the great
capital investments that have prevented this development effort. That
it needs international cooperation. At the present time there is no
closed fuel cycle for it and they look forward to performing formal
discussions to something like 20 years additional work `that the breeder
concept can be applied.
And the same came out for the major part of the other exotic con-
cepts like the gas cooled breeder, for instance. There was one possi-
ble notable exception which astonished me very much indeed. That
was a statement by a U.S.. industrial concern that the molten salt
breeder could be brought on line very quickly. I was taken aback by
that because that-it would be an outstanding example-so here here
again Mr. Laue is the specialist in that area.
I think that's a quick rundown of what we have.
Mr. TEAGUE. Doctor, am I correct in my understanding that Canada
and Australia~ are two nations that agree on the announced policy by
President Carter?
Dr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, part of our problem in Vienna is that,
frankly speaking, to understand what the policy is. I'm not making a
joke here-being frivolous-I'm saying we had a Presidential speech;
we had a Presdiential press conference; if you take the small shifts
between the speech and the press conference, the most straightforward
understanding on my side of what the U.S. policy is related to the
transmittal of the proposed legislation on the export questions. And
I think here the Australian policy and the. Canadian policy is the same
as the U.S. on the export control.
Mr. TEAGUE. Doctor, it is not. The President's announced policy re-
stricts reprocessed energy, restricts the breeder.
Dr. HALL. The reason that I have to be balanced here is that when
we were in Saltzburg we had the Deputy Under Secretary, Mr. Nye,
and I discussed this thoroughly. This particular point that you've
made, and lie said that we and the U.S. are not against stopping the
breeder or stopping chemical reprocessing because we feel that that is
a national decision, but On our side, the U.S. for reasons that the Presi-
dent has stated. Now, I have to choose my words carefully because tius
was a luncheon discussion, and I had to tell him that many of us were
from Western Europe and had a more limited access to what the Ti .S.
policy is than let~s say you in Congress and in Washing-
ton and New York, but that's one reason earlier, Mr. Chairman, I
said that I would be most grateful that if some point I could ask a few
questions so that we could be informed on what the U.S. policy is.
Mr. TEAGUE. Why don't you ask the question; I think we'd get a
bunch of different answers.
Dr. HALL. Well, as I say, I am not being frivolous here; I am trymg
to be honest because our-we do have some concern on certain aspects
of the announced policy. We do find that there has been a little adjust-
ment as they go along. And like you say, what is that adjustment?
~Tell, I'm just speaking of one example in our luncheon
conversation, I don't think that I heard that type of comment as ex-
plicit in the press or in the press conference. Maybe you can help us
92-187 0 - 77 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
140
here understand. We understand the objectives of the President. In
fact, this is our job here in Vienna. We are as I said earlier, you are
in the heart of the group that is opposed to the proliferation of atomic
weapons; this is our job. Everyone in this room on the staff side is
related in some way to achieving that objective. And so we support
President Carter's objective; where we're really concerned is to make
sure that we understand the policy points that have been made by a
series of individuals other than the President which seem to suggest
that there are shades of difference. But on the export presentation, this
proposed legislation to Congress here I think that I understand
completely and I think I agree with it. If I understand it, and I think
I do.
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that our Committee is particu-
larly interested in one aspect of what the President has said and that
is that we should delay our breeder development program until the
answers can be gained about the proliferation problem. Now is that
a realistic approach? Number one, will a unilateral policy on our
side stop the commitment that has been indicated here by other coun-
tries? Number two, can we gain any knowldege while we are not pro-
ceeding with our program?
In other words, are we going to know more about how to control
proliferation if we delay the program or are we going to gain more
knowledge about what to do if we continue with the program? I think
with our Committee that is the crux of it. What to do with the demon-
stration project of 300 megawatts? Do we scuttle it and then try to
bring back the nuclear scientists together later on? Will we have
known more that way? Will we have solved the proliferation prob-
lem that way, are we in better position internationally and domesti-
cally? I guess that's the question we have to answer for ourselves. I
think our Committee is most concerned about that today. We will be
looking at the funding of the program.
Dr. HALL. This is a very important question you've raised and before
I make a few comments I wonder if Mr. Lane could comment on this
point.
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Lane, be objective
Mr. LANE. After 35 years in the nuclear business, I don't believe I
can. I tend to agree with the attitude of your Committee, as I under-
stand it from what the Chairman has said, that there is a question of
timing on the breeder and as Mi. Krymm pointed out it will take at
least 20 years to be able to introduce any new type of breeder in large
enough quantities to make a serious impression on the uranium re-
sources. Now, that. means that if you delay the introduction of the
breeder until after the year 2000 which is what some people have said,
I think it brings up a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to where
you go from there because if you build a lot larger amounts of light
water reactors in the 1990's, you're committing 5000 tons for each one
of them-natural uranium-you're. going to run into the tens of mil-
lions of tons requirement not only, if not before then.
So I think you have to keep the program going. You have to keep
an echelon of engineers intact whether the program goes slowly or
fast, that's something else, but I think you have to keep it going.
Otherwise, you will never `be in a position to meet the resource prob-
lem in time to make any appreciable dent.
PAGENO="0147"
141
Now I would like to make one point about the molten salt breeder.
In Saltzburg the question was asked Mr. Lightly-"Well, if this
is such a good reactor that can avoid proliferation and plutonium
conversion, why did it fall by the wayside after 25 years of develop-
ment? Well, I think the answer is quite clear to me anyway, in my
opinion, that you don't need two successful breeder programs. If you
have a successful fast breeder, that will solve the job and so with the
successful fast breeder, it is very difficult to have a lot of incentive
to develop a parallel breeder. The same thing is true of fusion. If you
have a successful fast breeder, you don't need fusion either. That's
something else you gentlemen might think about. But, if the plu-
tonium breeder has problems, then there is a great deal of desire to
look at alternatives.
Mr. TEAGUE. In you people, this group here, in your discussions,
do you considerably agree among yourselves or are the peculiarities
of each nation's - - supply of energy, of coal, gas, all the
other-or do you have a considerable difference. Your big mission is
the peaceful use of atomic energy. And you would like to restrict
weapons. Is that a fair statement?
Dr. HALL. We have a statutory responsibility and also we have a
responsibility given to us by how many states ?-95 ?-How many have
ratified the NPT 95 non-nuclear states.
Mr. TEAGUE. Is there a fairly good consensus among you people?
Dr. HALL. I will make a statement and I will ask my colleagues if
they disagree. We feel that plutonium is important in the energy field
servants. I've-
Mr. TEAGUE [continuing] and can you produce plutonium and not
bring in the fear of weapons?
Dr. HALL. We have lived with a situation until the past four or five
months ago where one of our important objectives was to control re-
processing plants; we have developed with the support of the United
States some interesting proposals dealing with the regional fuel cycle
centers which would avoid the proliferation of small reprocessing
plants; and so to answer your question, yes, I mean we-this has been
our responsibility, exactly, to avoid the problem which I think is-
I'm talking about plutonium-I'm talking about the problem of the
reprocessing plant control, and the natural, nearly a natural objective
which Mr. Krymm has pointed out, that the breeder simply must
come into the picture of energy in the next 40 or 50 years. It's been
so natural to us and I think, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues are men
of integrity; I don't think that there's any-there's no commercial
interest involved in this room at all and we are international civil
servants. I've-
QUESTION: Are there national interests that divide you?
Dr. HALL. No, not on this subject; not on this subject at all.
Now, may I ask my colleagues whether I have stated the case too
strongly or do we agree. The question is, are we in general agreement
on the future of plutonium, the breeder and the-as a necessary part
of the energy requirements? Mr. Krymm had pointed out the states
that are completely without certain resources-that Japan should be
included-and the breeder is a part of the future and it's interna-
tional decision.
And now I call on my American colleague, Mr. Lane, first.
Mr. LANE. I think it's a wholehearted agreement with what you say.
PAGENO="0148"
142
And not only among the staff here, but there was almost wholehearted
agreement at the Saltzburg conference with that position. Every per-
son I talked to was completely in agreement with the fact that, one,
the breeders, until we have to close the fuel cycles. So, it is 100 percent
unanimous as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. TEAGUE. If you were a member of the Science arid Technology
Committee of the United States Congress, and you had to vote on
whether to go ahead with the breeder, what would you do?
Dr. HALL. I think we have answered that question.
Mr. MILFORD. You didn't really answer Mr. Myer's question. As
to whether or not the unilateral action of the United States is stopping
breeder reactions. . . will that have any effect on the work being con-
ducted by Great Britain, by France, by Germany, by others? Will
they continue?
Dr. HALL. I think we can answer that by saying "no". Now let me
make-
Mr. MILFORD. They will continue?
Dr. HALL. Yes.
What has happened is this: this is one of the important elements
of attending this Saltzburg conference. The United States for many
years has had a strong leadership in the nuclear energy field. The
United States with its scientific ability is highly respected. So when
the President of the United States makes a statement, it is listened
to by the rest of the world. There's no doubt about that. So I felt that
many of our friends, while they were puzzled, became a little cau-
tious on their own statements. But the serious problem of developing
a sensible, logical energy plan in Japan, the Federal Republic, France,
the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, is so crucial to the people of
these countries that I think the unilateral action by itself will not
change the burden on technology.
Mr. MILFORD. Let me pick one short problem, if I may. If the
United States proceeds to take such unilateral actions as t.he President
has indicated, will that have any significant effect on controlling
proliferation?
Dr. HALL. Well, I will answer as a person on this rather than as an
official of the agency. My answer would be "no". Would any of the
other members care as a person to answer the question?
General mumbling . . . (. . . criticizing another country . . .)
Dr. HALL. We have had in this room certain safeguard people-see
part of the problem here as I stated earlier is "what is U.S. policy ?"
I thtink we've all heard what you have had to say, I will take the
legal side first. If anyone does not wish to comment, I'll answer for
them. Mr. Rainer.
Mr. RAINER. Well, I think I'm sure as I look at the U.S. as an
Austrian and substantially say .
* * * . * * *
now whether this of course has a political effect on nonprolifera-
tion is a different thing. But certainly it will inhibit many other states
that will repossess or to gain access to plutonium.
Mr. MILFORD. Mr. Chairman, I understood the statement earlier
though that you seem to have a fairly common belief that uranium
can be found in other areas and it's simply a matter of looking for it..
Would it also simply encourage others to look for it someplace else?
PAGENO="0149"
143
Dr. HALL. I think that's possible . . . you `also have to talk about the
enrichment question here, because you n'iay find uranium resources rn
many new places in the world, but you still have a reactor technology
now that requires first a slightly enriched uranium that requires a
plant. And then also the Canadian reactors that refine' natural
uranium. But could I come back to the unilateral question. And this
is where it hurts. The United States, and I think everyone in this
room would agree with me, proposed many years ago that the inter-
national community itself could do something about the control of
proliferation. Now I'm talking about the founding fathers of this
organization. This is all based on not unilateral action, but the idea
that there is a common goal and so we have the agency. And that's
the reason that I think basically that I would hesitate to suggest that
any country by unilateral action could develop *a policy of avoiding
proliferation which would be more effective than the international
community working together-and we have been pretty successfill
on this.
Mr. TEAGUE. You said that the United States could do something...
are you implying that it didn't do anything?
Dr. HALL. No, I'm implying that to me the great hope objective on
proliferation can be achieved through this organization. That's what
I am saying and this was the original U.S. idea.
Mr. TEAGTJE. Dr. Hall, our fear is weapons, everybody's. Safeguards.
If it weren't for the subject of weapons, what would we do in the
nuclear field?
Dr. HALL. `Well, we have not touched on our responsibilities in the
other areas other than power and we do have programs, if I under-
stand the question, we have many other...
Mr. TEAGUE. Is it true that if it weren't for the fear of weapons that
we would push nuclear power in every way, form and fashion?
Dr. HALL. I think that's right. But I'm not so sure if you're talking
about the U.S. now or the world.
Mr. TEAGUE. I'm talking about the world.
Dr. HALL. Well, it's the energy problem that I think that-some of
these other decisons and what has happened-governments have come
to us and I said earlier we now have nearly unanimous support for
that part of our program which does provide a basis for controlling
proliferation. And this is a series of national decisons. And the sup-
port for the budget, the support for the entire program-this reflects
a series of national decisions. So on the one side, you have the goal of
putting nuclear power into the grid next 30 to 40 to 50 years. On the
other hand you have this agency which can, I'm quite serious at this
point, can. And this is why I say I'm a little coneerned about any
state taking a unilateral action when you have a mechanism here with
such unique political support of 110 states. That isn't a religious state-
ment; this is somethng that I think is very, very important and very
serious.
Mr. MILFORD. Some of my colleagues would argue though the point
that the working of this organization and the support you think you
have here d~d not prevent a weapons development in India.
Dr. HALL. Well, one of the tragedies of this age is the fact that, if
I may say so in front of the public information officer, is that so many
of the people in the press simply do not know what they are talking
PAGENO="0150"
144
about in this field. Now, so you have a series of 2 plus 2 equals 5. Let
me tell you what I mean in India.
The Indian atomic energy project as you know was not fully cov-
ered by safeguards. And until recently the policy of the U.S. has
supported a sort of piecemeal coverage of safeguards. Plutonium de-
rived for the so-called development in India came from a plant
and facilities which were not under safeguards. Now the answer
to the question is that if they were under safeguards, could (the
device then produce?) ? The answer is categorically "no." So the
scheme of things is such that daily I picked up the paper and see that
the weakness of safeguards is India. But India never was under safe-
guards. And the plant that produced the plutonium is a reprocessing
plant that separated the plutonium for the . . . never was. So the true
answer to the question is that if it were under safeguards now could
this have happened? Answer: "no."
Mr. TEAGUE. Doctor, it seems to me that this organization could
have the greatest influence on nuclear power in the world of any orga-
nization that we have. Did you people have an input, do you think, on
President Carter's announcement? Did the Carter Administration
consider what your organization thinks and what you are trying to
do?
AMBASSADOR. I would say that the answer is generally "yes"-not
in every detail, but there was a definite impact on the program of the
present Administration as a result of consultations with the Inter-
* national Atomic Energy Agency. And that was seen most particularly
at Saltzburg where there were as I see it, nuances on the part of the
Administration's policy which take greater consideration of the in-
terests of other countries and have involved not only the Agency, but
other countries in the proposed international evaluation program on
fuel cycles.
Dr. HALL. You see some of this in Senator IRibicoff and his com-
mittee who were here last November. And the discussions we had the,
particularly on the export policy, I think some of it was reflected in
the Presidential transmittals of the export proposed legislation to
Congress. And here really for the first time we see the assumption
of responsibility by the International Agency. We have a big role to
play and this is as I said earlier-it seems to be now the policy of
Australia and Canada. And the Soviet Union. An after all we are
an international organization; we have a U.S. representative and the
policy channel is that.
Well, I think on that specific, Mr. Chairman, that point perhaps we
can have a cup of tea.
Mr. BREAUX. Can I ask one quick question? Fortunately or unfortu-
nately, Dr. Hall, the district I represent in Louisiana has probably
the largest nuiñber of underground salt domes than anyplace in the
United States and some proposals to use those salt domes in my area
for the storage of nuclear waste. I just wondered if you might corn-
ment briefly-on the safety aspects. People are just completely ter-
rified of it and don't want to have anything to do with it.
Dr. HALL. If we could later on in the agenda, this is a question that
will be handled-waste management. .
Mr. MYERS. If I could just briefly . . . you mentioned something
that was the connection of Saltzburg with the entire proposal. But the
PAGENO="0151"
145
conference at Saltzburg happened after the proposal came to our Com-
mittee. I don't understand how you can state that Carter took into
consideration this organization you call Saltzburg when he-already
he'd given us the message ~
Ambassador STONE. The Administration was represented in Saltz-
burg by Deputy Under Secretary Nye and Mr. Fri.
Both of whom made statements at Saltzburg with regard to L.S.
policy. And it was those statements which were reflecting the Adimn-
istration's view which I felt showed some modification in the attitude.
Mr. MYERS. OK, but the Chairman asked if the policy by the
Carter Administration-the origination of the policy-was impacted
at all by this agency. Not that they then come back and speak to the
agency, but was it involved in the development and if Saltzburg hap-
pened after the message, then it clearly did not have if that's the only
reference we have.
Dr. HALL. Could I make a short answer ~ A great deal of the Presi-
dent's policy was news to us.
[Meeting breaks for tea.]
[Following break:]
Mr. Chairman, our minutes are precious at this point and on the
agenda I would like to have a few minutes of briefing on the way we
think about uranium resources because there has been a bit of con-
troversy throughout the world whether you have enough uranium or
not, or what or how this relates to fuel cycle. If I could ask Mr. Cam-
eron just to spend a few minutes on this because we do have a
timetable.
Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, the uranium resources situation is
dealt with in the agency in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy
Agency of OECD, and we produce reports on the world's uranium re-
sources on a two yearly basis. This report is compiled from government
submissons, we compile the material and make comments on it, but
the figures are as provided by governments. It is an unfortunate
moment because the new 1977 book is in preparation and will be pub-
lished about September. So I have not got the most up-to-date figures
but I will give you a rough idea of what we think they are. The reason-
ably assured resources, which can be termed reserves in the true mining
sense of the word approximate to two million tonnes, metric tonnes, at
the present time. The estimated additional resources which are re-
sources which are not delimited by something, but are resources which
are surmised by the geologist to exist in extensions of deposits, come to
about the same amount, to about two miflion tonnes. Now that second
two million tonnes is subject to all the work that still has to go into it,
it has to be thoroughly explored and delimited. So that thereis a great
deal of work to be done on that. Substantial real reserves is at the
moment about two million tonnes.
Now before I would be poaching on Mr. Crimm's side of it, I think
I ought to mention something ~about what the demand is to put this
into perspective. The approximate demand to the year 2000 is on the
most likely case about three million tonnes of uianium~ and to the
year 2025, about ten million tonnes, so we have a very large job in front
us to find enough uranium.
If, as Mr. L~ine mentioned earlier, we have to look to a non-breeder
fu~ur~tb~flgure i~iultipliea by a f~ctor of.thr.ee or four~perJiaps.
PAGENO="0152"
146
Mr. TEAGuE. Let met understand that, we look to a non-breeder
future?
Mr. CAMERON. If we were to do that.
Mr. TEAGUE. But we don't, do we?
Mr. CAMERON. No, I don't think so. But, it has been-
Some people have suggested it.
Mr. TEAGUE. I know that Doctor, but how many nations are going
to follow it?
Mr. CAMERON. But, if it were, you are looking at something like
thirty million tonnes, by the year 2025.
Mr. TEAGtTE. How many major nations are going to follow a
non-breeder?
Mr. CAMERON. At this stage, none.
Mr. CAMERON. Anyway, it is one thing that we are going to have to
take into account in our future estimates.
Mr. HALL. This question of resources comes up exactly on the point
that you are making, in other words, if you view the future as
non-breeder for a long time, then the question is, will you have enough
uranium to sustain the Light Water Reactor future for the next twen-
ty, thirty or forty years. What is your answer?
Mr. CAMERON. This is where the answer lies because if you are look-
ing at ten million tonnes by the 2025, we have a big problem in finding
it, but, the general opinion among most geologists is that it is not an
insuperable problem. We look on the constraints and factors that have
to be taken into account as three fold. The physical factors of whether
that uranium actually exists in the world, in the near surface crust, the
economic factors, and the political factors.
Now on the physical factors, there is a wide range of opinion, of
weather that ten million tonnes exists or not, but the general consen-
sus is that there is so much ground unprospected, unlooked at, that it
by all reason it should be there. At the present moment, as you know,
the world's uranium reserves are, eighty-five percent, are in four coun-
tries. And this is-
Mr. SCHEUER. Which four countries?
Mr. CAMERON. The United States, South Africa, Australia and
Canada.
Mr. SCHEUER. Russia?
Mr. CAMERON. We don't kiiow. But, it seems incredible that this bias
should exist, and it really only means that the money in exploration
has been spent on those countries. You have vast areas of the world
that has equally favorable geological potential which hasn't been
looked at.
Mr. SOHEiJER. Which areas would those be?
Mr. CAMERON. Well, this is a subject which our geologists have been
trying to define, but there are many general areas. The whole of the
borders of the outlying Himalayan range on the southern side if favor-
ably generally, a large part of the African continent, round the main
shields is favorable, and the South American cordillera, the East side,
all that is favorable ground, and it just hasn't been properly looked
at. So, the tendency is to feel that if the work is done, the money is
spent, and enough research and development put into the techniques,
we could probably find it.
The second factor, which has always been considered is, is there
PAGENO="0153"
147
enough available exploration funds? The total that you are looking
at is about twenty billion dollars before the year 2000 to do the ex-
ploration, and about the same amount on capital expenditure.
Now at a recent AIF' meeting the bankers said that this was not
important, this could easily be found if the uranium industry gen-
erated enough confidence to bring in this capital.
The third, and most important of all, is the political factor, that is
the availability of search areas and the availability of production
rights and export rights. This is where a much more complicated situa-
tion exists. Are you aware, even in the main countries, such as
Australia, you have big problems.
Mr. MILPonr~. Shall we continue? Dr. Hall. Yes, two more minutes.
Mr. CAMERON. So that in my view, the solution to the political situa-
tion of finding the search areas is one of the major constraints on
uranium resources in the future.
Mr. SOHEUER. What are the political constraints? These were
economic constraints, of finding the twenty billion for exploration and
the twenty billion for capital development.
Mr. CAMERON. Well, there are many countries who are unwilling or
unable to grant the exploration rights. They, are interested in their
own uranium resources, but not in exporting them. We run into this-
Mr. SOHEUER. Have they explored them, do they know that they
are there?
Mr. CAMERON. No, in many cases they are quite inadequately ex-
plored. But they are not willing to provide the exploration concessions.
Mr. SOHETTER. Is this a north-south problem? Is this a developing
world problem?
Mr. CAMERON. Yes, I would say it is. But, even as I said, its not,
you can't relate it purely to a developing country, we've had big prob-
lems for example, in Australia, until the Fox Report came out only
two days ago, and even now its only providing a very limited develop-
ment of some of the uranium deposits there. So there are these internal
political problems.
Dr. HALL. I think the conclusion I derive from this is that the
resources of uranium do not provide argument for or against the
breeder. I think that this is the way I come out.
Mr. Krymm, would you disagree with that?
Mr. KRYMM. All but the short term.
Because our resources are sufficient to cover nuclear programs
even at the maximum level, contemplated only two years ago all the
way to the year 2000.
Mr. SCHEUER. What you are saying is, that there may be far more
resources that are there, but that we do not know about, simply for
the lack of exploration.
Mr. CAMERON. Exactly.
Mr. SCJIDUER. Or, are you saying that we shouldn't run into any
shortage before 2000, crisis situations, you're not really saying-
Mr. CAMERON. Not really, there should be no problem up to 2000, I
indicated, to begin with that about half the total reserves, the two mil-
lion, hasstill to be blocked out. That is a purely technical job.
Mr. MYERS. Coftldn't there be some kind of international explora-
tion program without any commitment to export the uranium,
just for the sake, br goodness sake, of finding out where it is? We
PAGENO="0154"
148
could say "look, we want to find out where your uranium is, we are
not going to charge you a thing for it", wouldn't that be a worth while
international project, just to identify the source of uranium and then
the second stage of the two-stage~ rocket would be to negotiate an
arrangement that could be exploited fo the benefit of mankind. We're
talking about a trillion dollars worth of nodules on the deep sea. ocean
bed, available for the benefit of mankind. It seems to me that we could
apply the same kind of logic to uranium, that thats there for the bene-
fit of mankind, and we know you have a national stake in it, you have
absolute sovereignty, we're not questioning that, but for God's sakes,
lets at least find out from the world point of view where the hell the
uranium is, and then we'll get on to t.he second stage, of trying to fig-
iire what the devil to do with it, and you will have total sovereignty
over your uranium, and you will have total control and yoU will have
all the options, and you can preserve your options, but we just want to
heln find out where the world's uranium supplies are.
Dr. HALL. You have a very sensible proposal, and I hope that
at some stage you will discuss this with the Department of State, and
bring it back to us.
Mr. SCHEUER. I'm sorry our Ambassador isn't in the room, we
cou1cl h~ive have worked out the details over lunch.
Dr. HALL. Well, Mr. Cameron wanted to tell you that we already
have a modest international program, but it's a modest one that
wouldn't fit the-
Mr. MILF0RD. Well, couldn't `the World Bank fund something like
this?
Mr. CAMERON. I don't think it's a matter of funding, they won't let
you into the country to do it.
Mr. CAMERON. Sir, I'm happy to say that we are trying to do it, the
idea, I think, was initiated by the United States, about two years ago,
and it came through the International Energy Agency, through the
Nuclear Energy Agency and we are participating in it. We are doing,
at the present moment a purely bibliographical study of every coun-
try in the world and I'm in the midst of that at the moment. The sec-
ond sta~e would be-
Mr. SCHEnER. You mean I just reinvented the wheel here-
Dr. HALL. The next stage is to invent us-
i\[r. CAMERON. We are very limited in funds on this.
Mr. MILFo~. Gentlemen, let me warn you that we have about ten
minutes left and we are going to have to leave and they still have ma-
terial to cover.
Dr. HALL. Could we turn to the second item on the fuel cycle.
Actually B and C could be discussed together. This is reprocessing,
spent fuel waste management, and I think that one of our colleagues,
our colleague is interested in some of the management problems, so
Mr. Kaplan could you, really in about four minutes-
Mr. KAPLAN. Let me say that first of all you will find a hand-out of
material largely taken from agency publications and I won't attempt
to cover it in detail, but will give you the general specifics.
In terms of reprocessing plant capability, this is given on the first
sheet. you will see that there is a cumulative capability in the world.
excluding the simply planned economics of about 64,000 tonnes of
spent fuel, and this can be equated by the relationship that 100
PAGENO="0155"
149
tonnes per year is approximately equivalent to 4000 megawatts of
installed electrical capacity. Of this 64 thousand tonnes, the United
States comprises about 20,000 tQnnes through the year 1990, so that in
essence we can say that the United States contribution to reprocessing
capacity is about 1/3 of the world capacity excluding the Soviet coun-
tries, and you will see some details on the breakdowns of planned and
projected, we might say that the plans which are shown in terms of
capacity in the near future, lets say through about 1983-84 are fairly
fixed, those that come in late in this time frame are somewhat more
improbable.
Mr. MYERS. Which means that they are committed to-
Mr. KAPLAN. They are committed ard the plants are already under
construction, or in some cases in operation.
Dr. HALL. This is a very important table, because this sets out
what the world is doing, except in the planned economy, which we
don't have the information on on the chemical, or the fuel reproc-
essing. So here on one table you see that element of the President's
program and the significance of it in reference to the world.
Could we quickly go on to-
Mr. KAPLAN. I'd like to just briefly go on to the next figure, this
shows the cumulative quantity of spent fuel discharge based on power
projection curves for the high and low estimate, again this is for the
world, excluding the simply p~anned economies from now through
1990. I think what is pertinent here is to note that there are three
portions of the graph, the bottom one fuel expected to be reprocessed
from plants authorized for operation, these are the plants which are
Mr. Myers are already in near term completion, or are operating
already, and these would handle approximately 76,000 tons of fuel by
1990.
The next group, the fuel expected to be reprocessed from plants
planned is-the middle group is fuel expected to be reprocessed from
plants planned, this is much more uncertain, it is not clear that these
plants will be built and the top curve represents the short fall that is
fuel in storage which cannot be reproces~ed because there is insufficient
reprocessing capacity, using the low estimate of nuclear power projec-
tion. Now this means essentially that if you take simply the fuel in
storage by 1990, cumulatively there would have been 30,000 tons of
fuel and fuel in storage Plus that from plants planned would be 76,000
tons. So if these uncertain reprocessing plants do not come into opera-
tion there will be essentially 76,000 tons of spent fuel in the world that
need to be reprocessed, or dealt with in terms of storage or some other
management.
Dr. HALL. What do you with this stuff, how do you store it, or
can you store it?
Mr. KAPLAN. Experience with extended fuel storage is limited. The
Canadians of course have been storing their fuel for quite some time,
they look to water storage, that is, storage in water basins for perhaps
up to Th years without any particular modification of fuel. They are
considering moving such fuel to air storage. Similar studies have been
undertaken in other countries. I think the United States is about to
embark in a major review of this practice. We have a program here
in the agency to look at the world experience. But, it is clear that the
clouding of the fuel in water storage will not last forever, that means
PAGENO="0156"
150
that these elements must be either treated in some manner, put in
secondary containers or dealt with so that the material in them does
not escape due to failure of the clouding itself.
Dr. HALL. Are there any questions on the storage problem, be-
cause this has been a part of the public debate you know as to can
you safely store the waste for the next thirty or forty x years when
the waste itself contains halfway problems that literally are a thousand
year problems.
Mr. KETCHAM. Do you have adequate short term storage capability
here until you get into the reprocessing made in the United States. We
have been anticipating reprocessing for so long that the short term
storage is going to be a very critical problem unless construction takes
place quite sliorti. Is that a similar problem in Europe or~-
Mr. KAPLAN. Well, I can answer that question. In the United States
if no reprocessing is done through 190 there will be about 38,000 tons
of spent fuel, which will have to be stored.
Mr. BREux. Where are they stdring it now around the world?
Dr. HALL. That wasn't the question. The question was can it be
stored, not how much. Tell them about-
Mr. KAPLAN. There are plans for building large scale storage
facilities in-
Dr. HALL. Short term though-
Mr. KAPLAN. These are short term, these are to deal with lets say
the next ten to fifteen years. The Federal Republic, France, or both are
building expandable storage facilities. In the United States I think
the position has been that the fuel, the power plants themselves must
have storage capacity, unless some action is taken to build centralized
repositories for such fuel. Other countries are proceeding with their
reprocessing and hope to more or less keep abreast of the problem,
so they would not expect to have more than perhaps two to three year
backlo~ of fuel in storage.
Dr. HALL. I think the point you made is the conclusion in West-
em Europe, because Western Europe has had this problem for
many years now, and so the short term storage has been pretty well
solved, but the long term storage, as we all know, is still an enormous
proh1em, but solveable.
Mr. KETCHAM. So the short. term storage is not then on site, but--
Dr. HALL. No. I don't think the short term storage should pre-
vent a full fuel cycle, let me put it that way. On the long term storage
we fortunately have thirty or forty years to worry about that, and I
think, well I'm an optimist based on the status of the art in the events
we have already made. Now we've reached, with two minutes to go,
we've reached one of the most important items, namely the nonpro-
liferation policy consideration, the IAEA safeguard system, on point
of fact we've sort of touched on this for the pa.~t two hours, but I,
we have with us Mr. Schmeli from the Soviet Tlnion who is senior
person responsible, particularly for the iuformation treatment which
our inspectors are required to bring in and we wish to say, about two
minutes on this one, and then perhaps I could close down with a. few
general remarks.
Mr. Sr.TmrEr~r. If I may I would explain first the pen~ral organi-
zation of the Department of Safeguards. We have in this Department
PAGENO="0157"
151
two operational divisions who are responsible for actual verification,
inspection and verification of the materials, we have their Development
Division responsible for development of methods, techniques and in-
struments, and very recently established the Division for Safeguards
Information Treatments. The safeguards are actually two, operates
under two types of agreements. Under agreement concluded accord-
ing to the nonproliferation requirements, but still we have the second
type of agreement which is for bilateral or trilateral agreements for
those countries who are not signers or of nonproliferation treaty.
The procedures are such that the agency is reviewing the design
information to be sent by the member states which are under safe-
guards, the countries are, sent us the reports, accounting reports about
all conceptions or material balances which they are making, and to
verify that information which is being sent to the agency and being
processed here, inspections of the facilities are being made, where
inspectors check the validity of information and the agreement of the
claimed amounts of material with the actual.
As a result of those inspections the statements are being made about
the results of the inspections, those results are being made known to
the respective countries where the inspections are being made.
As far as the size of our work, I think that about 150 facilities are
reporting. were reporting to us under NPT, and I think about a similar
amount are reporting under non NPT.
Safeguards budget for `78 for Safeguards, is I think about 11 mil-
lion dollars, from 44 million, which was quoted by Dr. Holtz, or 1/4,
and the staffing budget for 1977 for 311 professional officers as members
of the Safeguards Department, for all activities of the Safeguard De-
partment for inspections, for development work and for headquarters.
Dr. IL~LT~. I think the main point here is that we have been in
this business of safeguarding for about fifteen years, and we have
developed an expertise that I think can prov~de everyone assurance,
aided by the equipment that we have seen in the next room, that the
~ob that. you want us to do, that we can do, and do effectively. Oc-
casionally you hear problems. Mr. Chairman, we've reached the item,
number five, the last item. which we call nonproliferation policy in the
IAE Safeguard System Mr. Schmeliff has described the general orga-
nization arid the number of facilities which we inspect, which now
are in the order of about 300. and I think the conclusion is that we
are not n.~w in this business, we now have been in this business for
about 15 years.
Mr. MINETA. If I could very quickly~ my colleague Mr. Milforci
has brought up the example of India, and you said if they had been
under safeguards~ then it would have been-
Dr. HALL. No device, no device.
Mr. MINETA. Now, the question is how do you bring someone
under the umbrella of beinq under the safeguard, when under your
own articles it says that "where the agency is requested by the parties
concerned to apply safeguards," so its outside the control of the agency
as ~o who oornes under the umbrella-
Dr. HALL. That's right-~
Mr. MINETA. Now, that's where the problem lies, a~ ~ this part
here you show all of the countries that are the non NPT countries
having significant nuclear programs.
PAGENO="0158"
152
Dr. HALL. May I answer this. This is something, if I may speak
as an American now, that the Congress of the United States
has the power to do something about, because most of these non NPT
countries still rely on supplies and equipment and if the export-
Mr. SCHEIJER. Only emulating from the U.S.?
Dr. HALL. And from other countries too. I'm developing sort
of off-the-record policies for the U.S., because in the case of India,
India cannot survive in the next ten years without help from the out-
side. Our Canadian colleagues have already taken a strong position on
this, they feel a little embarrassed by what happened in May of `74,
`75. So, what am I saying, the Terr Reactor requires fuel,
and that fuel comes from the U.S., they require other types of equip-
ment which India itself is not able to build, so if you have a concerted
policy through `the mechanism of the suppliers that nothing will be
exported unless it's under complete safeguards, then to answer your
question it's not the agency-
Mr. MINETA. But if take that unilateral action, is there not
someone else that would fill that gap to become the supplier if-
Dr.' HALL. That was the second part of my answer, in other
words, if this requires the cooperation among the suppliers, which
has already started, we are not part of that, but we know what is
happening, so if the suppliers themselves, in a' concerted action, and
this is reflected in the proposed export legislation, proposed by the
President, then I think you are about 95% home to answer your
question. So what is the answer to your question, the agency as an
international secretariat can do nothing, but your representatives in
collaboration with other supplier representatives can establish policy
which would mean that what happened in India couldn't happen
again.
Mr. MINETA. As Jim has talked about the agency or some other
international body becoming the supplier of the capital for explora-
tion purposes, is there a way that the agency could become the sup-
plier and controller of the reprocessing. In other words, none can get
additional fuels unless they return back what they have gotten in
the first place.
Dr. HALL. We have statutory authority to do that., that type
of thinking goes back twenty years really, when it was understood
very early that the supply problem was essentially the basis of the
control problem but, in the years that have gone by that has been
somewhat overlooked until the past three or four years when it
became' clear among the, suppliers in their hands `they had the oppor-
tunity to establish conditions and denials unless the recipient con-
formed to certain policies. I think the ultimate of that is the Aus-
tralian, the Canadian, and the draft legislation for your Congress.
Namely, the export control.
Mr. SCHEUER. Aren't there. some European supply companies that
are really keen on selling nuclear plants?
Dr. HALL. Yes, and what this means is that you have to talk
to these countries and develop a common purpose, and I think you can.
Mr. SCHEUER. Didn't the President try some jaw-boneing on that
a.nd really-
Dr. HALL. Yes, but that wasn't the way to do it if I may modestly
say so.
PAGENO="0159"
153
Mr. SbHEUER. Tell us, what is the way to do it.
Dr. HALL. The way to do it is to have a collective approach
through the suppliers, not a unilaterial concern.
Mr. SOHEUER. Maybe this, as Congressman Mienta mentioned,
maybe this, the leadership to this thrust could come through your
agency.
Dr. HALL. Well, we're ready, and again Mr. Chairman I hope
I haven't overstated our case, but even if I have., I think we can match
it. By that I mean I think we are capable of doing it.
Mr. MYERS. Dr. Hall, if I might sort of a broad question, it
seems to me that on a world wide basis there is increasing activity
in opposition to the utilization of nuclear power. Does your organi-
zation identify any world wide effort, organized world wide effort,
in this regard, and if you have do you have a policy or program to
deal with it.
Dr. HALL. Well, this has been discussed internally for some
months as to what our responsibility was. We call it, well in the
broadest sense, informing the public, and in a narrow sense, sort of
reassuring on specific items as they come up, I mean if there's a leak,
or an accident, to make sure that the leak or accident is not distorted
in the press. But, within the House, and I think within our Board.
itself, at this stage, we do not have a clear cut policy. Now in identify-
ing the groups or personalities throughout the world that contribute
to this problem I am particularly amazed that there is such a variety.
I eluded the one problem, that is generally an ill informed press re-
porting. A great deal of the headlines are related to that, this is the
old theory in press, if you have rape, riot or revolution you make the
headlines but, if you have a safe operating industry its not news.
Even if there is an allegation of an accident, and the accident may
even be on the conventional side, had nothing to do with the nuclear
side, you read the article, and so point one, its a complicated, techni-
cal subject and here again I think that the American Congress has
an important responsibility, you gentlemen not only understand, but
also in nrovidiug the American people with the-
Mr. MYERs. Have you identified any organization, any structural
organization whose intent is to remove total utilization regards
to the Breeder or Light Water and do you react. to those?
Dr. HALL. Yes, Friends of the Earth is one of them-
Mr. CAMERON. There are many that have national bureaus, Na-
tional Secretaria.ts, and they correspond, and they make conferences
and its followed up rather.well.
Mr. MYERS. On an international basis?
Mr. CAMERON. Yes, they profit of any international occasion where
they can state their case.
Mr. TEAGiJE. At Saltzburg we started on Monday and Saturday
and Sunday the Friends of the Earth and a few other local groups
met on an anti:nuclear conference, a counter conference, fortunately
the demonstration, they had two, one with thirty-two people and the
other with fifty-five, so it didn't disturb the tranquillity of our meeting
at all.
PAGENO="0160"
154
Mr. Chairman: I would like to keep on all day, but we can't. May I
say thank you on behalf of all my colleagues and to all these people
who came out here and spent the morning, the Saturday morning,
trying to educate us some, I thank you, you have certainly done a great
job.
Dr. HALL. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I know niy colleagues
were delighted to have you here and I hope you come back, because I
really think we have something to say that in the long run can add a
bit to the peace of our rather complicated world.
0