Изображения страниц

p. 389).

Cooperating in Gasbuggy are the El Paso Natural Gas Co. and the Department of the Interior, acting primarily through the Bureau of Mines.

Four additional gas stimulation projects have been proposed : Dragon Trail (see app. 15, p. 361), by Continental Oil Co., Rulison, by Austral Oil Co. (see app. 16, p. 373); Pinedale, by El Paso Natural Gas Co. (see app. 17, p. 388); and WASP (Wyoming Atomic Stimulation project), by the International Nuclear Corp. (see app. 18,

In the area of nuclear fracturing of oil shale rock for subsequent in-place retorting, we, with the Department of the Interior, are currently negotiating an arrangement for a joint Government-industry experiment in which industry would be represented by about 20 companies. (See app. 16, p. 373, for details of Project Bronco.)

Another area of interest is the recovery of copper from low-grade ore. In this, the nuclear explosion would fracture and break the ore to prepare it for in-place leaching.

Both the Kennecott Copper Corp. and the Anaconda Copper Corp. have indicated interest in this technology; and we are in an advanced state of planning for a possible joint experiment in Arizona with the Kennecott Copper Corp. (See app. 7, p. 123, for details for Project Sloop.)

We have also studied the feasibility of using nuclear explosions to create underground void space which might be used for storage of fuels and management of waste. We have received a proposal from Columbia Gas Systems Service Corp. for an experiment to apply this concept to natural gas storage. (See app. 8, p. 167, for details of Project Ketch proposal. See p. 223 for current status.)

Other potential applications concern water management in which nuclear explosions might be used in several different ways.

Governor Williams of Arizona has proposed a joint State-Federal Government feasibility study of the possible application of nuclear explosions to the long-term water shortage in Arizona. The proposal has been accepted and study of this application is currently underway. (See app. 19, p. 390 for correspondence.)


To assist in applying Plowshare technology, a service industry has come into being in the United States. The purpose of this industry is to provide consulting, project design, and other architect engineering service to users of Plowshare technology. Several multiservice organizations have been formed and other companies are known to be offering one or more of the needed services to potential users.

For example, Holmes & Narver, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.; CER Geonuclear Corp., Las Vegas, Nev.; El Paso Natural Gas Co., El Paso, Tex.; Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Sunnyvale, Calif.; Teledyne Geonuclear, Garland, Tex.; and Applied Nuclear Corp., La Jolla, Calif., have announced Plowshare service capabilities.

In addition, there is one such company incorporated abroad, the Geonuclear Nobel-Paso Inc.

Also known to be offering services in the Plowshare field are Fenix & Scisson, Inc., Tulsa, Okla.; the Bechtel Corp., San Francisco, Calif.; and Ralph M. Parsons Co., Los Angeles, Calif.

I should make it clear that we are not recommending the use of companies of this sort, but are pointing out their availability in case a potential user might find their services helpful.


We have witnessed recently a strong increase in foreign interest in our Plowshare technology. This interest has been demonstrated most dramatically in the development of article V of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The treaty, as I mentioned earlier, explicitly calls for the nuclearweapon parties to make available the potential benefits of nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes to the nonnuclear-weapon states party to the treaty.

As we have openly reported our past research results and future plans for developing peaceful uses for nuclear explosions, the United States will undoubtedly be looked to by other countries as the most immediate source of nuclear explosion services under article V.

Enactment of H.R. 18448 and S. 3783, or similar legislation, would assure that the Commission would have clear authority to execute the undertakings of the United States under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would thus clearly illustrate our serious intent to fulfill the needs of nonnuclear weapon parties to the treaty.

Article V of the treaty, while preserving the option for non-nuclearweapon states to obtain services on a bilateral basis under appropriate international observation, also calls upon the parties to insure that the benefits of peaceful nuclear explosions can be obtained through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon states.


As President Johnson stated to the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee on July 16, 1968, the United States believes the International Atomic Energy Agency should be that international body.

We also believe the IAEA is the appropriate forum in which detailed procedures should be developed for providing such services in response to requests made through the IAÈA. The details of these procedures will be the subject of negotiation.

Arrangements whereby the United States will respond to such requests would take into account the international procedures and criteria which are adopted. The bill under consideration seems broad enough to accommodate, consistent with the treaty, such procedures and criteria as might emerge.


Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fisher added a point in his testimony that it might be desirable to insure that the act is so amended, if necessary, to make clear reference to the possibility of incorporating the international agencies, and I might add here that it would seem desirable to include in section 124 of the Atomic Energy Act a reference to the proposed new section 161W, so that there would be no question that the bill would authorize cooperation with an international body such as the IAEA.

This is a cross-referencing proposal.

We are entering a period of technological transition in which our basic, and as yet incomplete, understanding of nuclear explosion phenomena is being applied to engineering and industrial applications which we expect will become commercially attractive.

Similarly, we are entering a period of administrative transition.

Based on our experience during this period of time, we need to learn more about and develop standardized procedures appropriate for practical applications in handling such significant matters as security, health and safety responsibilities, indemnification, site disposition, and the roles of the various government agencies.

Enactment of these bills, or similar legislation, would provide a useful vehicle to take us through this period of transition and evolution of both the technology and administrative procedures, and thus take us toward the ultimate goal of providing a useful and economic Plowshare service.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the Commission's support of H.R. 18448 and S. 3783. The expanded authority provided by these bills should facilitate the progress of the Plowshare program.

They would also put us in a better position to fulfill the obligations of the United States under article V of the Nonproliferation Treaty. Enactment of such legislation would emphasize the seriousness with which the United States views its obligations under that treaty and would be in keeping with President Johnson's statement before the United Nations General Assembly that “*** we shall make available to the nonnuclear treaty partners without delay and under the treaty's provisions the benefits of such explosions."

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

As you know, I also have with me today Mr. Kelly, of our Division of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives; Mr. Hennessey, our legal counsel; Mr. Johnson is here; Mr. Bloch, our Deputy General Manager, and Mr. Labowitz, Special Assistant for Disarmament.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Tape.

I have just one question of Mr. Hennessey. I know you have been in consultation on this with members of this staff on the language of the bill, and in view of Dr. Tape's suggestion that there be some reference to the IAEA organization. As I understood it, you thought maybe there might be an amendment to the bill that would make that more specific, Dr. Tape?

Dr. Tars. In the bill that you have for consideration there are several sections which cross-reference and delete and so on in order to make the new section 161w. consistent with the other language of the act.

This suggestion was, in my opinion, merely a cross-reference in another portion of the bill to clearly recognize the existence of the new section.

Representative HOSMER. Would that cross-reference be added to section 124?

Dr. Tare. I would be glad to have legal counsel talk to this.

Mr. HENNESSEY. Yes, it would be to section 161w., in the bill now before you. We will be happy to present the proposed language to the committee that will accomplish this.

The problem, to the extent there is a problem, arises from the fact that section 123 agreement for cooperation apply only to nations and regional defense organizations.

The thought is that it would be desirable to make it completely clear there could be an agreement for cooperation with an international agency.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Or a nondefense international organization?

Mr. HENNESSEY. Yes, sir.
Representative HoSMER. You will supply us with that language?
Mr. HENNESSEY. Yes, sir.
(The material referred to follows:)


ADDITION TO H.R. 18448 AND S. 3783 Insert new section for bill between present Section 2 and Section 3, to read as follows:

Section Section 124 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by striking out “or 144a.” and adding in lieu thereof "144a., or 161w.”

Dr. TAPE. Mr. Chairman, this is a point that has come up within the past week. I do not want to make a major point of it today. I think it is just a matter for the staff to get together.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. It is a technical point. And if in further study of the language of the bill there are any other suggestions that Mr. Hennessey and the Commissioners have between now and the time of consideration, we would like to have you submit them to us as promptly as possible and they can always be considered as amendments.

Dr. TAPE. We will do that.
Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Hosmer.
Representative HOSMER. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

I did make some remarks about the Plowshare program in general on the 5th of July in San Francisco. I would ask unanimous consent that they might be included either in the hearings or in the appendix to the hearings, along with the explanatory remarks which I made for the Congressional Record on July 10. Representative HOLIFIELD. Without objection, that will be accepted. (See app. 2 and 3, pp. 38 to 45.)

The Nonproliferation Treaty would obligate the United States to make the potential benefits of peaceful nuclear explosions available to non-nuclear-weapon nations which are parties to the treaty.


Assuming that the demand for such services exceeds the AEC's ability to perform them immediately and delays ensue, would foreign nations be given preferred consideration in the order of rendition of such services or, rather, would such services be made available on a first-come-first-served basis regardless of whether the user was domestic or foreign?

Dr. TAPE. Mr. Chairman, the treaty, as I interpret it, does not require us to show a preference for foreign customers over domestic

customers. It does on the other hand, I think, imply that we will be as equitable as we know how in making available the services to both foreign and domestic interests.

It seems to me that the question itself anticipates that we may be in a difficult position of having limited services. In my own opinion, I believe that with respect to the nuclear explosive devices and their related handling aspects, for which the Commission would be responsible, that we do have adequate leadtime by the time the treaty is ratified and by the time that the international collaboration procedures are established with respect to an organization for observation and soon, futhermore, we are, as I have said, moving through this transition period from development into applications and I believe that we will be able to meet all reasonable requests for services.

Now I fully recognize that some types of requests will come before us earlier than others.

In other words, with gas stimulation, where we are a bit ahead now, I am sure we can do more at an earlier date, say in 5 years, then we would be in some of the other more complicated ones.

But we would look at these on a case-by-case basis. We would look at them in terms of our ability to meet the request not only timewise but technically; however, we would try to be as equitable in our distribution as we can.

Representative HOLIFIELD. And all factors, including the merit of the requirement, would be considered?

Dr. TAPE. The merit is a factor, although I think that for projects through the international body we would seek their guidance.


Representative HOLIFIELD. What, if any, warranty or guaranty would the Commission give to users, either domestic or foreign, as to the efficacy for the intended purpose of any particular peaceful nuclear explosion?

Dr. TAPE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the best we can do at this time is to express a best efforts approach to such a problem.

As I said, we are in the process of developing these applications today. As we do more and more of them, we will have a better idea of the outcome from each experiment, and we will then build up a body of knowledge which would let us better describe a future application to a potential customer.

On the other hand, I do not see us setting forth warranties in the normal sense of the word, and I think the expression "best efforts" would probably best describe our ability to respond.

Representative HOLIFIELD. That seems reasonable to me, in view of the need for many more explosions in different kind of underground soil, rock, and so forth, and since we are not in a position where we have these devices on the shelf, nor do we know what the devices will do under different conditions.

We can make scientific estimates, and we can certainly give the information that we have gained from the number of underground tests which we have had in the West, but certainly we are not in the position of guaranteeing results at this time.

Would you say that was right?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »