APPENDIX 21-JCAE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO AEC AND THE RESPONSES THERETO Mr. ROBERT E. HOLLINGSWORTH, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, General Manager, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Enclosed is a list of questions concerning certain aspects of the Plowshare program which were not completely covered during the July 19, 1968 hearings on H.R. 18448 and S. 3783, bills to authorize the Commission to make peaceful nuclear explosion services available on a commercial basis. I would appreciate it if you would provide answers to the enclosed questions as soon as possible, but in no event later than August 27, in order to permit the information to be included in the hearing print soon to be published. For ease of reference, in responding please repeat and underline the questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Enclosure: Questions on H.R. 18448, S. 3783. EDWARD J. BAUSER, Acting Director. U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Mr. JOHN T. CONWAY, Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. DEAR MR. CONWAY: Enclosed are answers to the questions on H.R. 18448 and S. 3783, transmitted by E. J. Bauser in his August 6, 1968 letter. If you desire any additional information, please let us know. Sincerely, (Signed) R. E. HOLLINGSWORTH, General Manager. Enclosure: Answers to Questions. 1. Does the Commission believe that an increased R & D program for Plowshare will be required if peaceful nuclear explosion services are to be made available on a commercial basis in the reasonably near future? We believe that peaceful nuclear explosion services for certain applications can be made available on a commercial basis in the near future through active execution of the presently planned research and development program. All of the present government effort in the Plowshare program, as well as much of the effort by private industry, is directed toward research and development. Some of this work is underway in the laboratory, the rest in planning and carrying out field experiments. Clearly, additional effort in both areas is necessary to reach the goal of making peaceful nuclear explosion services available on a commercial basis. The pace of the research and development program and, consequently, the question of the near-term availability of peaceful nuclear explosions on a commercial basis, depend, to a considerable extent, on the level of funds available. Based on anticipated fund levels and assuming timely execution of the field experiments now planned, it is probable that peaceful nuclear explosion services will be available on a commercial basis in the reasonably near future for some of the applications being studied. In this regard, the two most critical areas which need further work are the development of specially designed, “optimum” nuclear explosives for particular nuclear explosion applications and a clearer understanding of nuclear explosion effects in a variety of underground media. 2. Commissioner Tape's statement referred to the "roles of the various government agencies" in connection with Plowshare. What agencies and what roles does the Commission have in mind? In providing a commercial nuclear explosion service, there are several agencies within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government having responsibilities 1 Questions are incorporated with AEC response. 98-179 0-68-28 and capabilities which must be integrated with the Commission's responsibilities and capabilities in the field of nuclear technology. The Department of the Interior and its various components such as the Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Land Management. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the U.S. Public Health Service, are among the organizations which will perform activities related to the Commission's provision of nuclear explosion services. In addition, the Commission will work closely with the Department of State in providing peaceful nuclear explosion services internationally. The particular relationships between the Commission and other agencies will be evolutionary, depending on the future course of the Plowshare technology and the nature of the services provided by the Commission. In any event, in keeping with general policy, the Commission would not assume the responsibilities or prerogatives of other government agencies. 3. Please amplify the reference to “security” matters made on page 7 of Dr. Tape's statement. The operational procedures currently used in conducting Plowshare experiments are the same as those developed and used for testing nuclear weapons. These procedures were established without specific regard to the needs of routine industrial operations and, consequently, the Commission is now taking the first steps toward standardizing and streamlining them for Plowshare purposes. In developing these streamlined operational procedures, attention is being given, as was the case in developing the currently used procedures, to "security" in the sense of assuring that, as called for by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. the nuclear explosive remains in the custody and control of the AEC, and that there is no unauthorized access to classified technology. 4. Does the Commission believe it necessary or desirable that its regulatory authority be enlarged to permit it to license and regulate the participants in the domestic Plowshare service industry? What about users of these services? In carrying out experimental demonstration projects involving the use of nuclear explosive devices for peaceful purposes under present law (Section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) the Commission fulfills its responsibilities for protection of the common defense and security and the health and safety of the public through controls written into its contracts with users of the services and with companies actually handling, placing and detonating the nuclear explosives for the Commission. In the event that any such experimental project should result in production of products or storage space which might be utilized commercially, the organizations selling such products or utilizing such storage space would be subject to applicable licensing and regulatory requirements of the Commission, on a state which had entered into an agreement with the Commission under Section 274 of the Act, if any radioactivity involved might be sufficient to invoke the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission or of an Agreement State. The same principles would be applicable if H.R. 18448 and S. 3783 were enacted into law. Enlargement of the Commission's regulatory authority would therefore not appear necessary. Although the handling, emplacement, and detonation of nuclear explosive devices by private organizations not under contract to the AEC is not authorized by law, it is possible that some of the preparational activities and post-detonation activities in connection with a Plowshare project might eventually be carried out by non-contractor private organizations and therefore made subject to regulatory requirements. We believe the Commission could provide for that eventuality under its present regulatory authority. In any event, as indicated in the answer to question 3, the nuclear explosive device will remain in the custody and control of the AEC. 5. Would access to classified information relating to nuclear weapons technology be afforded to participants in the domestic Plowshare service industry? No. We do not believe that the service companies will need access to nuclear weapons technology in order to perform effectively the role we presently envision they will play. 6. Mr. Hennessey testified that under existing legislative authority the Commission could enter into indemnity agreements with contractors performing services abroad on behalf of the AEC, whereby indemnification for public liability arising from nuclear incidents occurring in foreign countries could be made available up to $100 million. Where such services were rendered abroad on a strictly commercial basis pursuant to proposed new subsection 161 w., is it the Commission's belief that such services would constitute "activities . . for the benefit of the United States" and involve "activities under the risk of public liability for a substantial nuclear incident" within the meaning of subsection 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act? Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. Government would have certain responsibilities to make available Plowshare services abroad. Enactment of the proposed legislation would provide the AEC with the authority to implement these responsibilities. Accordingly, we believe that the performance of such services for AEC by its contractors would constitute "activities . . . for the benefit of the United States." We believe further that depending on the nature of the service and the local law, the performance of such services could involve "activities under the risk of public liability for a substantial nuclear incident" within the meaning of subsection 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act. The question of the appropriate mode of handling the public liability problem is one that will require further study, taking into consideration the availability of insurance, possible protection that may be afforded under the law of the foreign country involved and the possibility of an international convention that might establish standards of liability and protection on an international basis. 7. Have domestic projects conducted to date involving the detonation of peaceful nuclear explosives been deemed by the Commission to be “activities under contracts for the benefit of the United States involving activities under the risk of public liability for a substantial nuclear incident" within the meaning of subsection 170 d.? Why? In domestic projects conducted to date involving the detonation of peaceful nuclear explosives, the Commission has utilized the services of cost contractors to handle, emplace and detonate the nuclear explosives for the Commission. Since these contractors had previously been engaged in activities involving the risk of a substantial nuclear incident they already had Price-Anderson indemnification provisions in their contracts with the Commission and it was not necessary for the Commission to determine whether the risk of public liability for a substantial nuclear incident was involved in the performance of the peaceful nuclear explosive services. To date the Commission has entered into only one contract with a user of these services, the contract with the El Paso Natural Gas Company for performance of Project Gasbuggy. This contract did not extend Price-Anderson indemnification directly to the contractor, but recited that the contractor was a person indemnified within the meaning of subsection 170 d. under contracts which the Commission had executed with its contractors who would be rendering technical support in the furnishing, emplacement and firing of the nuclear explosive to be used in Project Gasbuggy. 8. What particular services does the Commission plan to provide toward fulfilling its role in the area of peaceful nuclear explosions for commercial applications? In what ways will the Commission make use of the capabilities of commercial service organizations? It is presently contemplated that the nuclear explosion service to be made available by the Commission for commercial applications would include the fabrication of the nuclear explosive device, its transportation from the assembly plant to the project site, its emplacement at the prepared site, and its arming and firing. This service would also include appropriate technical reviews of the proposed detonation, such as those relating to health and safety. The user would be responsible for the engineering studies and planning for the project; site preparation, including the drilling of the emplacement hole; and all the activities subsequent to the detonation required to make use of the explosion-produced effects. Such activities would include any product recovery facilities and operations necessary in the particular application. While the AEC will stand ready to assist and advise users on the nuclear explosion technology, it is likely that many of the potential users will not have the in-house technical capability to work directly with the AEC in determining the details of the nuclear explosion services. This is where the nuclear service organizations will have a role. These service organizations could serve as an interface between the Commission and the user, assisting the user as needed. 9. Has the AEC done anything to study or develop a simpler method of performing the emplacement, firing, and other associated service activities? The development of simpler methods of performing the emplacement, firing, and other associated service activities in support of industrial applications of nuclear explosions is a matter of high priority in the Plowshare program. One result of |