JPRS ID: 8903 WORLDWIDE REPORT NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND PROLIFERATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: JPRS
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9
• Release Decision: RIF
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: November 1, 2016
• Sequence Number: 5
• Content Type: REPORTS

APPROVE~ FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-R~P82-00850R000200050005-9
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~

~ FEBRUARY 198~ t FOUO sr80 1 OF 1
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
- F'UR Of~ FI('1:1(. ( ~51~, nIti1.Y
JPRS L/8903 _
5 February 1980
J
~ V1/orldwide Re ort
p
NUCLEAF~ DEVELOPMENT AND PROLIFERATION
CFOUO 1 /80)
,
. FBIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE
- FOR OFF[CIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200054405-9
NOTE
JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign
newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency
transmissions and broadcasts. Materials from foreign-language
sources are translated; those from English-language sources
are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and
other characteristics retained.
Headlines, editorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets
are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text)
or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the
last line of a brief, indiLate how the original information was
processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the infor-
mation was sumn~arized or extracted.
- Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are
enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a ques-
- tion mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the
original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.
~ Other unattributed parenthetical notes with in the body of an
item originate with the source. Times within items are as
_ given by source.
The contents of this publication in no way represent the poli- -
cies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.
For further information on report content ~
cail (?03) 351-2811,
COPYRIGHT LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OWNERSHIP OF
MATERIALS REPRODUCED HEREIN REQUIRE THAT DISSEMINATION -
OF THIS PUBLICATION BE RESTRICTED FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
.;IPRS L/8903
5 February 1�,80
- WORLDWIDE REPORT
NUCLEAR DEVEL~^MENT AND PROLIFERATION
(FOT~o i/so) -
CONTENTS PAGE
ASIA
JAPAN
Ishikawa~ima-Harima Develops CF[, Laser
(NIKKEI SANGYO SHIMBUN, 2 Nov 79) 1
Local Government Approves Miyagi Powerplant _
(THE DAILY YOMIURI, 9 Dec 79)..,, 3
LATIN AMERICA
- A~GENTINA
Nuclear Expansion Requires Industrial Competitiveness
(Martin F. Yriart; LA OPINION, 8 Noy 79) 4
, Engineering Se~tor Ready To Assume Strong Role in CNEA
- Plans
- (Martin F. Yriart; LA OPINION, 6 Nov 79) 6 -
Strong Nuclear Leadership Must Be Maintained
(Martin F. Yriart; LA OPINION, 7 Nov 79) 8
USSR
Scie{~tists Defend Nuclear Energy, Tell Public Fears
' Groundl~ss'
: (Michael Binyon; THE TIt~IES, 20 Dec 79) 10
_ a _ [III - WW - 141 FOUO]
~ _
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICT~AL L'SE ONLY
CONTENTS (Continued) Page
WEST EUROPE
INTERNAT~ONAL AFFAIR3
Changes Considered for Euratom Procurement of Nuclear
Fuels
(Jan-Baldem Mennicken; EUROPA-ARCHZV, 25 Dec 79)..... 12 -
FRANCE
- Briefs
_ Nuclear Collaboration Worry 23
UNITED KINGDOM
Government To Announce Plan for New Nuclear Reactors
(THE OBSERVER, 9 Dec 79) 24
Q--
- b -
FOR 01?FICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
~
~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JAPAN
ISHIKAWAJIMA-HARIMA D~VELOPS CF4 LASER
~okyo NIKKEI SANGYO SHIMBUN in Japanese 2 Nov 79 p 14
[Text) Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries announced on 1 Nov that it was
successful in pumping a carbon tetraflouride (CF4) laser which can be used
for uranium enrichment. CF4 laser pumping has been successfully accomplished
individually in the past by research groups of Osaka University, the Insti-
tute of Physical and Chemical Research and Keio University. The CF4 laser
by Ishikawajima-Harima features i.he use of pressurized liquid oxygen which
cools CF4 gas, the lasing medium. Since this cooling method can provide
cooling down to 100�K (absolute t~_~~perature, equivalent to approximately
-173�C), a high power laser beam .is expected to be obtainable. Ishi.kawa~ima-
Harima is proceeding to improvE tl~e unite, and plans to attain a more stable -
high output Yaser beam.
The CF4 laser developed by Ist~ cawaj;ma-Harima uses a stainless steel tube,
25mm in diameter, 3m long as L~e laser cavity. The tube is shielded on the
outside by another stainless steel tube, 75mm in diameter, which wraps
around the smaller tube, giving it a double tube construction. The pressurized
liquid oxygen flows between the tubes and cools the CF4 gas in the cavity in -
the process. At each end of the cavit}~, reflectors are installed 4 me~ers
apart. These reflectors are iised as resonators.
Wkien a 9.3 micrometer (one micrometer is one-thousandth of one millimeter) `
carbon dioxide laser beam is introduced at one end of the laser cavity, CF4 `
molecules are excited to high energy levels. When excited CF4 molecules -
ahift to lower energy levels, they emit light of 16.26 micrometers in wave-
length~ This light is then amplif.ied by two resonators. In Ishikawa~ima-
;iarima's experiment, the C02 laser beam was pulsed at very shor[ 50 nanosecond
~_nt2rvals (one nanosecond is one-billionth of a sec~nd) and the resulting
- output of a weak laser beam, 16.26 micrometers in wavelength, confirmed the ~
pumping.
For pumping a CF4 gas must be sufficiently cooied. I~i th~ pracess developed
_ by Isnikawa~ima-Harima,;cooling is accomplished by liquid oxygen which is
pressurized up to a maximum pressure of 20 atmospheres. In doing so, the
1
, UR 'vFFTCIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
coaling temperature can be freely controlled anywhere from 90�K up ta 130�K.
Another advantage of this process ia that the cavity can be cooled uniformly.
CF4 lasers in the past used liquid nitrogen gas ~s a coolant, but this
- cooling method reached its limit at 150�K. It is said that in CF~~ taser
reclinology, the cooler the CF4 gas, the higher the output of the laser. In .
rhis respect, the cooling process developed by Ishikawa~ima-Harima has a
definite advantage in developing a high output laser. The company plans to
further improve the equipment and develop a CF4 laser pumping unit of even
higher output.
_ ~ F~ ~-*~-~~~~t (1)
ai~i b.T � 1~7- C 2'
C-~ � t7'1 ��r 4~ 3 ~ ~
~tJ~~~j~L4 ~i5r
x~ ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ - --L 8
~ -
~ ~
- ) ~ y~
L (~5~ -~r J
- - - - ~
Key: l. CF4 laser emission system 6. Resonator 1
2. C02 laser 7. Outside cooling tube
3. Bpam splitter 8. Resonator 2 .
- 4. Reflector 9. Laser cavity
5. Laser beam 10. Pressur~zed liquid oxygen
The CF4 laser was originally developed by Professor C. (Wittig) of the
University of Southern California. Using the CF4 laser, the separator of
uranium isotopes can be accomplished. In other words, by using the CF4
laser to irradicate the gas mixture of Uranium 235 and Uranium 238, we can
isolate Uranium 235 for nuclear fuel use. For this reason, attention is
being given to it as a new uranium enrichment method, and various countries -
are proceding with research and development programs. Since a rather high
output laser beam is necessary for separation of uranium isotopes, emphasis
is bein~ placed on development of a higher output laser pumping unit.
COPYRIGHT: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha 1979
9564
CSO: 5100
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE 0'~ILY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JAPAN
- LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVES MIYAGI POWERPLANT
OW110707 Takyo THE DAILY YOMIURI in English 9 Dec ?9 p 2~W
' [Text] Sendai, Miyagi--The local government of Onagawamachi, Miyagi-ken, Saturday gave _
the go-ahead to the construction of a long-pending nuclear power plant in the city.
The green light came after Tohoku Electric Power Company and the Onagawamachi city
aiztriorities reached agreement that the firm would donate a total of 1,350 million yen
in "gratitude" money to the city and in reply the city would acknowledge the pro,~ect.
The power company is now expected to start construction within this month.
Y a
Con:>truction of the atomic power nlant has been delayed by 12 years because of the strong -
opposition from local residents.
Of'ficials of the power company said construction work for the nuclear reactor will ~tart
late this month.
As a condition to agreeing to the atemic power plant construction, the local govern~,nent,
along with ~:C local residents, tiad been demanding a total of 2 billion yen in "coap-
eration" money.
In the negotiations..Saturday, the company and the city agreed to set the sum of "coop-
eration" or "gratitude" money at 1,350 million yen.
Of the sum, 600 million yen will be paid in cash to the city as the local industry pro-
motion fund and the rest of the sum will be spent on three sports grounds and 10 meeting
halts.
The company also agreed that a surgical clinic to be built by the company in Onagawamachi _
will be opened to the local residents as well as company workers.
The Onagawamachi local goverrunent will also receive 1,752 million yen in subsidies from
the central government in accordance with three laws concerning electric power development.
- CSO: 5000
3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~ -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
i
FOR OFFICIAL USE O:JLY -
ARGENTINA
7
NUCLEAR EXPANSION REQUIRES INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS
Buenos Aires LA OPINION in Spar~ish 8 Nov 79 p 12
_ [Article by Martin F. Yriart]
, [Text] In a few days, Buenos Aires will again demonstrate its growing role
' as a center of influence in matters referring to Latin American tendencies
in nuclear energy development. Recently, the results of a study carried
out by a prestigious group of exnects--headed by United States President
Jimmy Carter--were made public. This commissi.on analyzed the security con-
- ditions surrounding U.S. nuclear power plants, of which there are almost
80 in operation and somewhat more than that number in different stages of
construction.
While the United States tries to solve this internal problEm, it is carrying
out a foreign policy of dissuasion, the effect of which tends to be that
countries which have not yet included nuclear energy in their economic
balance (something which certainly does r~i~t benefit them) defer the deci-
sion until later (something which hurts ci:em even more). Three of the _
four countries of Latin America who have 'oegun to tread the atomic path
find theinselves within the U.S. sphere of influence. They are Argentina,
Brazil and Mexico. Cuba, naturally, is nnt. Even though, by a strange
trick of political pool, it is more "non-proliferationist" than the North
Americans themselves. Never mind. The fact is *hat of the three western
countries, Argentina and Brazil have chosen the role of the bad boy, refusing
to yield to U.S. pressure, and Mexico, so stridently "anti-Yankee" but in
fact strongly influenced by U.S. economic pressure, will not be long in
using the "nuclear argument" to affirm its independence. ~
Buenos Aires is host this week to the second meeting of Latin American
_ nuclear experts, with spec:ial participation by the head of the Peruvian
Atomic Energ~ Cor~.mi~~~or.~~ His presence emphatically marks the special
rel~tion uniting r_~~s~_� two countries after having agreed on intensive coopera-
tion in atomic matt?rs. Argentina, in what constitutes an unprecedented
fact for a developing nation, has begun a program of technology transference
to Peru which wi11 permit the nuclear "unfolding" of their sister nation.
4
FOR OFFI~IAL USE ONLY
.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
In a few days, the Inter-American Nucl,cax ~nergy Commissi:on (CIEN) will
meet in Buenos Aires. CIEN is the organ of the OAS dedicated to exchange
and coordination for atomic energy. MorTbund a few years ago, it has
revived and has gained a new force, at least at the nation-to--nation poli-
tical level. The fact that the meeting fs being held in Buenos Aire$, and
_ being attended by the heads of four nuclear organ~zations from four countries
in the region--including Chile--fs a sign that Argentina offers increasingly
greater attraction for the rest of Latin America.
For some time it seemed that the ambitious Brazilian nuclear program would
tip the balance in Brazil's favor. But the complexity of the nuclear
sector, Argentina's solid margin of advance in basic sciences, and its slow
" but steady movement toward the creation of a(significant) nuclear-electrical
industry, backed by the infrastructure of necessary supplies and services,
inexorably incline thQ balance in Argentina's favor. T.he year 1979 is the -
year of symbolic jolts, with the Annual Conference of the International
Atomic Energy Commission, OIEA, being held in India.
India is the confessed and convicted "sinner" of ;:he nuclear community, who
built atomic weapons thanks to the involuntary collaboration of the organisms
of international aid. India'~ atomic bomb, set off in 1974, is the direct
cause of the problems Argentina (and other non-nuclear countries) have
suffered in their efforts toward nuclear industrialization.
Behind all this, however, there is a severe economic and ~.olitical problem,
which comes to the fore--albeit involuntarily---on the occasion of eminently
technical meetings such as the one taking place presently in Buenos Aires.
The question is up to what point the countries currently possessing nuclear
~ energy--and who have vast underused installdt-~c~ns for the manufacture of
heavy components--are disposed to let the debutantes of the Nuclear Era,
the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, set out on their own road;
one which takes their needs into account and is based on the selection of
resources and technologies which favor them most.
In this regard the Argentine position is clear.
Nuclear armament is to be deplored. Those who are most at fault are countries
like the United States and the Soviet Union, who preach nuclear disarma-
= ment but fornent vertical proliferation. None of their arguments is suffi-
- cient reason for our country to become self-sufficient in equipment, supplies
and technolegy for the peaceful uses of nuclear pow:r, especially in the
besieged field of energy.
Argentina does not aspire to regional hegemonies. But we know that by
exercising vigorous leadership we help ourselves and our friends.
COFYRIGIiT: La Opinion, 1979
9077
CSO: 5100 5
i
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY _
ARGENTINA
~ ENGINEERING SECTOR READY TO '.SSUME STRONG ROLE IN CNEA PLANS
Buenos Aires LA OPINION in Spanish 6 Nov 79 p 24
[Article by Martin F. YriartJ
[Text] The Annual Convention of the Argentine Association of Nuclear Tech- -
nology (AA.TN], which started yesterday in Bueilos Aires, should have coin-
cided with a spectacular launching of ~rgentine nuclear industry, which,
since the Atucha II award in 1979, should have entered a period of rapid
develapment. This development, the AATTI speculated, would be favored by
the adoption of the CANDU system for the future reactors under considera-
tion by the Argentine Nuclear Plan.
The AATN, perhaps foreseeing the need for a more resounding environment
than in the past, decided to meet in Buenos Aires rather than in one ,
_ of. the localities of the interior (Embalse Rio Tecero, San Rafael, etc)
directly connected with nuclear activity that have been the selected '
sites in the past.
Any existing hope has long ago been destroyed. The adoption of the German
KWU system, aciequate from many other poiiits of view, is not the most
fa~orable decision to the development of the industry, at least from the
point of view of quality. And, if the readaptation to German technology -
� is not impossible in principle, the industry feels that it must put forth
a supplementary effort in order to obtain a comparatively smaller return.
If, for some enterprises, the short-term business profits will be greater -
than with Canadian techr.ology, for other sectors the prospects c~f achieving
the critical economic momentum they require for development are now even
more remote.
However, all these arguments for and against, look like water under the
_ bridge when one listens to the spokesmen of the National Commission of
= Atomic Entergy [CNEAJ who--it must be recognized--have maintained approxi-
mately the same views for 4 or 5 years. It is not the development of the
nuclear indistry that is privileged in the Argentine Nuclear Plan. First
in line are engineering and th~ c~pabilities of sssembly and imple~entation.
6
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFF~CIAL USE ONLY
ln tlie CN~A s~rategy the capacity to define the characteristics that must
be met by a power plant, a reactor or a principal component, and the
ability to set forth their building specifications, seem more important
than having an industry capable of building them. The theory is that, due
to the Argentine economic scale, the industry ~aould be inefficient and
te~hnical.ly obsolete, while the mastering of engineering technology permits
buying freely, selecting a seller fromthe world market wi~hout any obliga-
tion of a~lopting a certain design for reasons other than the national
interest.
Even though this policy existed in principle at the heart of the Commission
(where comptetely opposite pra~tices are also carried out), it coicides
= extremely well with *_he dominant ideas of the present economic policy.
In short, if the nuclear industry must now reconsider its prospects and
its hope, the engineering and ser_vices sector finds itself vigorously
strengthened. The recent CNEA decision of fully assuming the assembly
, and all engineering details of the En:~�alse power plant only confirm the
direction adopted in 1979.
For this reason, it becomes increasingly difficult to rule out the pos-
sibilities for cooperation with Brazil, if one takes into account the
Brazilian nuclear program's stress on heavy components (containers, ex-
changers, turbines, generators), which are now threatened by the lack
of demand for their production caused by delays in the Brazilian plan.
COPYRIGHT: La Opinion, 1979
9341
- CSO: 5100
7
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-00850R040240050005-9
= FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ARGENTINA
STRONG NUCLEAR LEADERSHIP MUST BE MAINTAiN~:D
Buenos Aires LA OPINION in Spanish 7 Nov 79 p 13
[Article by Martin F. Yriart]
[Text] "State and private sectors should learn to act in coordination, -
_ making optimum use of resources such as qualified personnel, materials and
finances, which will serve, in the first place, to insure a pool of human
talent for research snd development, in order to carry out--without pressure
and with clear criteria and objectivity--the task of maintaining nuclear
activities."
These words, spoken last Monday at the opening of the annual meeting of the
Argentine Nuclear Technology Association by R Adm Carlos Castro Madero,
_ head of the Na~ional Atomic Energy Commission--words not generally commented
- on in outsir~e circles--point up one of Castro Madero's main concerns of -
late.
Passing from a beginning state to one of intense development in the nuclear
sector involves the inevitable growing pains associated with such processes, _
and this is aggravated by the effects of increased business expenditures
tied to the Nuclear Plan.
"One of the greatest risks," Castro Madero p~inted out, "is the possibility
of upsetting the equilibrium which should exist in r_uclear activities
_ between the private and public sector. At the base of the equilibrium is -
- the preserva~ion of and respect for the power of decision vested in the
state, since nuclear activity cannot be subject to a system dominated by _
coa~ercial interest~ or those of the private sector."
Nuclear activity is developing in a"grey zone" where the competitive
efficiency of industry is demanded but where the demands of strategic
security also operate. To make both compatible without hurting either is
a delicate task.
Another element causing concern today is that of human resources. "We -
should avoid," said Castro Madero, "letting eventual differences in labor
8
FOR aFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-00850R040240050005-9
FOR OF_ICIAL USE O1JLY
structure be the cause of horizontal trans~er7cences o~ pexsonnel. These
_ transfexrencQS, if left ~uncontrolled, can produce a real exodus from the
public sector." The number of national enterprises becoming tnvolved in _
- nuclear activity is growing exponenttally, and th~s year the proponents
of suc~ a key topic as "quality control" come entirely from the private
sector. The CNEA [Na!-ional Atomfc Energy Commiss~on] has bepn i:.~isting
~ since 1976 on the necessity of maintaining sufficient f1~~xibil3ty to compete
- ~ adequately in the labor_ market. No one can reasonably e~xpect an enterprise
- to sr_up contracting the personnel it needs in order to d~.velop, and "dif- _
ferential advantages" boil down to remuneration and fringe benefits.
COPYRIGI~T: L3 Opinion, 1979
9077
CSO: 5100
- 9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007102/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9
FOk OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USS[t
SCIENTISTS DEFEND NUCLEAR r~NERGY, TELL PUBLIC FEARS 'GROUNDLESS' _
LD201051 London THE TIMES in English 20 Dec 79 p 8 LD
[Article by Michael Binyon: "Scientists Tell Soviet Public that Fears
about Safety of Nuclear Power Stations are Groundless"]
_ [Text] Moscow, 19 Dec--Zhe Soviet Uhion~s most senior scientists have again publicly
defended nuclear energy and said the oauntry is determined to press ahead aith an ambi-
tioua programme of nuolear power atation oonstruotion.
But theq disolosed at an unpreeedented open pr~as oonference yesterday that ordi,nary
Rusefana living near powrer stationa are xot~ried by the eafety issue. Their fesrs xere
dismi~eed as groundlees.
Limited public debate on nuclear porrer began only aia Weeks ago ut~en a nuolear eoien-
- tiat in the Soviet Acader~r of Sciencea xrote in an influential ideologioai ~ournal that
nuelear power stations used up too much land anA rrater, oould ecologioally exhauat -
populated regions and could lead to radlation leaks during the transport of fuel
conta ine rs.
His article xas given wi9e publieity and suggested there was disagreement cireles over
the iasue.
Yeaterday. however, Prnfes~or Aleksandrov, proaident of the Academy and the chief
- advocate of nuclaar e+iea.~a~., categox~ically dismissec9 all doubts: "There are no inc:urable
problems in atonic erergy", he said. "Atomia energy ia one ~P the saPest industrial -
technologies."
He said nuolear po~r stations were safar than oll or aoal-fired stations. and posed no
threat to tha Qrrvimr.r.~n~ or to th^ eZ~ L?~nnmrnt n~- t1~~ p~p,,~~ti.oii,
He gave a surprisingly aharp rebuff to a fellox academician, Profeasor Nilaolay
Dollezhal, who wrote in KOMMiJNIST that there was no guaranteed safe and eoonomia iray
- of dispoaing of spEnt r.~~^1e~z~ �t~oZ,: a^.r,d~~miclnn, he ztismeirlaed, xci~ a apecialist only
in reaotor building, n^t i.s~ xhe broa~nr aRpaata of nucl.~ar technique.
Professor AlPksandrov told tt?e oroxded conferenae, which included diplomata from Bri-
tain and other cour~tries using nuclear energy who had been summoned to hesr the 3oviet
v~ewpoint, that the R+.~sians intanded to develop nuelear eriergy aa rapidly as poasible.
- 10
, F(1k UF~'ICIAL USE ONLY
I
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
_ f~(li~ ~)l~i~ iC1~11, l~til? liN1,Y
At preser.t 5 percent of electricity is genetated by nuclear poNer. In 10 years 1:ima
this fip,ure wou1~9 rise to 25 percenY� with atomic stAtl.ons being bi~llt with & capacity
of up to 1,500,~~OU kiln~-~xtt:~. -
By tkie year 2000 nualc~ir powar atatl~~r.s wo~tld be cited in every part of the oowitry
except wherr. c~ul. uas p1~r~Yiful an' r'1~an r.c exf;ruct or ~.h~,~~- 'zy~'.t~z-al~ott�la ~3ner~{y
- ~~as avai.l~.ble. A thir3 oi all genaipt;ion uould be from fastbx~Ledar raaators.
Futurc poNer stations ~rnuld also be used to heat towns centrally, Two such stations
are now Ueing built near Qorkiy and Vororuzh. Professor Aleksandrov ridiauled the
sup,gestzon by the distinguished Soeiet physicist Petr Kapitsa 131at they sho+ild be sited
on re?note islands, and he asloe3 hcw transport and cortununications Would be pussible therc.
The academician admitted that ordirrary Russians uere frightened by nuclear energy.
He said this fear arose from ignorance and from associationa with atomic weapons. But -
every qualified nuclear scientist in the world kr?ew it Waa safe to site atomic stations
in populated areas, and even near big cities, he asserted.
"~ere has never been a nuclear aecident in the 3oviet Union", he said. Weatern
reports of an accident at the St~evchenko i'ast-breeder station in the iTkraine, one of
two now tn commission, were tmtrue.
The KOtqMUNTST aiticle said the Russians xere having difficulties devaloping fast-
breeder reactors, and the programme was at least 15 years bCh_Ct~~tl L-ar�gst.
Until nox the Russians have ignore3 anc�.-,nuclear protests in !',:i~~ 4(~st, even by lcft-
Wing groups. They have ~losaed over reports of accidsnts and blamed Western oil
lobbiea for artiticially eaaggera~ing people+a fears.
This position has been increasingly unteriable at international conferences however, and
the beginning of a genuine public debate in this country may have been made neceasary
to authorize sclentists to discuss such matters with overaeas colleagues.
COPYR7GHT: Times Neorspapers Limited, 1979 =
' CSO: 5100
F
11
FOR OFFICIf,;. li5G ONLY _
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
I
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
CHANGES CONSIDERED F'~R EURATOM PROCUREMENT OF NUCLEAR FUELS
Bonn EUROPA-ARCHIV in Gernan 25 Dec ?9 PP 7~? ?56
~A~'ticle by Dr Jan-Baldem Flenni~i;en, general director~ Etiratom Supply -
Agency~ Brussels~ "Conuaunity Procureaent of Nuclear kl~els 'ox~ i~C States--
Operating Procedures and Problems of Euratom Supply Agency'J
~Text~ Problem of Changes in Supply System
. In June 1979~ the European Communities Commission subditted to the Council
of Ministers a report on the Conmunity's nuclear fuel supply and called
for ~ discussion of issues connected rrith Clause VI of the Eurato~a Treaty ~
(EAGV ~European Atom:ic Community Treatyy. Not long thereafter, the _
- F~enoh governnent prssented a memorandum containing a formal request for
changes in the proyisions of this clause. Th~ provisions w~der discussion
re8ulate supply of the European Atomic Co~munity with ores~ rax materials
and especi~?lly fissi~na.ble materials, or essentially naturally occurring
uranium~ slightly and highly enriched uraniwa and plutoniua~.
The political compronise reached during negotiation of the Euratom Treaty
had provided that 7 years after its effective date~ the Council and
Commission "may undertake changes in the supply system that appear
necessary o~ thp basis of interim experience or may confirra the original
pro,visior~." A simgle aajority resolution by the Cauncil is sufficient �
for confirmation~ rrhile any change in treatyv provisions is made by xay of
a unanimous Council resolution at the suggestion of the Commission and
after a hearing by the Et~ropean Parliament. The Commisaion must pursue
every petition by a member state for such a change. Article 76 thus makes -
pc>g~ible an autonomous treaty alteration by the orgar?s af the Community.
Ratification by the national parllaments is not needed.l -
The Commission submitted to the Council its fixst proposal for changea in
Clause VI in Idovember 1964. The Conmission held that developments in the
nuclear fuels e~arket necessitated adjustments in the provisions on supply.
~ The proposals xere not approved by the Council, however, and no resolution
af any kind was passed. The F~ench government's subsequent presentation
and practice of the viek that Clause Hz had become invalld becauae it had
12
FUR OFFICIAL USE ~*1LY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
l~Uk l)F1~ iC I AL U51: UNLY
neither been confirmed within the allotted time nor replaced by nex provis-
ions caused the Commission to file a complaint. In its decision dated
14 December 19?1~ th~ ~European~ Court of Justice overruled the ~ench pos-
ition, ruling that the membRr states had ~greed to establish for an unlim-
ited time a community Wi~~h permanent or.gans, one that Nould possess actual
sovereign rights deriving from restrictions on the authvrity of the member -
states or from the transfer of sovereign rights to this community. Only
through an express provision of the treaty may the Community be relieved
o` responsibilittes conferred in this xay. Article 76 does not carry such
authority. This provision is designed to make it possible to adapt the
supply system to changed circumstances and m%~y not serve to take aWay from
the Community a possible means for reallzing an aim of the treaty. The
~ court's decision says further that S;hs existing provisions must stand so
long as no decision has been made on Whether they will continu~ in perpe-
tuity or be replaced by nex ones. They are~ hoxever, "temporaxy~" since
different supply arrangements may be made at any timei despite the lapse
of time~ Article 76 may not be considered "cast off." Neither did a
second proFosal by the Commission at tho start of the 1970's meet rrith -
unanimous support in the Council. The lengthy consultations xere finally
broken off xith a viex to the first expansion of the Community and never
resumed.
The Commission's present initiative is supported by the desire to produce
a decisian this time and to clarify the situation~ espec1411y xith a view `
to the credibility and earn~stness of Community lax. The simultaneous
- F~ench initiative xas most probably inspired by a decision of the European
~ Court of Justice dated 14 November 1978. The deciaion Kas lssued in pro-
ceedings conducted under Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty2 and makes
~ssential determinations in the matter of Euratom's foreign relations in
- terms af the Community's extensive responsibilities, particularly in the
area of safety cuntrols and procurement. An assessment of the F~ench
position should also not overlook the fact that F~ance has clearly decided
to go ahead Kith a broad expansion of nuclear poxer and that this decision
Will result in special demands on the fuel cycle.
Responsibilities of Supply Agency
Clause VI contains a description of the obligation imposed on the organs
of the Community in Article 2 of the E~ratom Treaty "to provide for a
regular and equ~table lupisytofberassurednbylxay of asjointapolicy based
the Community. Supp y
on the principle of equal access to sourcES of supply. In contrast to -
- other sectors, Khere Community policy ls being implemented only gradually
and rrhere treat~.es prescribe the goals, instruments and procedures for the
development and implementation of this po~icy~ the joint policy on supply
has an immediat~: effect in the sense of an exclusively Community-related
- responsibility, one that leaves no leeNay for the member states= its regu-
lar implementation is assured by the Kork of the E~ratom Supply Agency,
Which was estab.lished by the treaty "for this purpose."
13
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL L1SE ~NLY
Agency as ~ade Monopoly
- The Agency ~as conceived as a trade monopoly that xculd compare supply am _
demand on a centralized basis and provide procurement services to conaum-
~ ers in accordance xith their orders. The Agency~ xhich is a legal entity
- enjoyir~g financial autonomy, has in addition tha excluaive right to con-
clude alY contracts on the shipment of ores~ rax materials or dspecially
fissionable materials from countries inside or outside the Community.
Kith regard to nuclear fuels that are produced in the Community (for exam-
ple~ naturally occurring urani wn~ enriched uraniurn and the plutonium pro-
~ duc~l th~ough uranium rad.iation in reactors), the Agency has priority _
rights tn these fuels insofar as the material is not being used in con3unc-
tion ~ith the Cot~munity's orm needs or by assaciateii industrial.enter-
pris es~ or insofar as it is not being stored with Community approval.
Practi~ally speaking~ the priority rights (to be more ex~ct, the producers'
obligation to offer and the Agency's right of option) are exercised
through the conclusion of contracts rrith prod.ucers in other xords~
under negotiated conditions. The Agency is authorizEd to build up commer-
aial inventories in order to facilitate procurement or current deliverfes.
This system is the result of difficult contract negotiations that ineolved.~ _
among other thingso th~ different viexs of the German and F~ench sia~as on
a solutibn. Besides the fundanent2t7. aspects centralized economic c9n-
ceptions on the one hand an~i a rejection of dirigism on the other an -
assessment of the supply situation pla,yed a substantial role~ both in
regard to develapments in the area of naturaZ.ly occurring uranium as Ne11
as the nuclear poxer plant program. Added to thia was the fact that the
~ arrangement arrived at by the Community also had to fit in with the precor:-
- ditions that were tied to nuclear fuel transactions, especially from the
U.S. side. Even before there xas such a thing as the concept of a nonp~o -
liferation policy as it exists today, these conditions such as partici-
pation by pub~ic agencies in transactions or public oxnershi p of nuclear
fuels Kere an expression of i:he idea that nuclear fuels, by virtue of ~
tlieir nature, carinot be treated like just any ~ther commodity~ but that a
specific framexork is needed here.~'
In practical terms, the procurement system outlined in th~ treaty has -
never lieen fully applied. In pa,rticular, there have never been regular
centrali2ed comparisons of aupply and denand, and active commercial inter-
ven~ion in the n~arket by the Agency has been the exception. It has never
used its right to conclude accords or agreements on the shipment of fuels
firore th~rd countries. It Was essentially political factors that led to
li~it~tioris on the Agency's developnent potential from the very outset.
Aiided to this Kas the fact that the nuclear energy progra.ms and fuel
_ supply trends folloxed such a course that the supply situa,tion put no
- pressure on the Ag~ncy to attend to its allocation respc~nsibilities. The
fact that the Community has not arrived at a uniform uranium-enrichment
poli:cy has not been ~rithout influence= the same is true of the circumstanr.e
that nuclear poltcies in general in the member states have largely
14
FOR OFFICIAI. USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY -
~ developed iruiependently of one another and xith differe~it goals. Although
these factors placed limitations on 'the Agency's Work from the very begin-
r~ina~ nnd nlth~~~~p,h tt Nr~n nat, fully ah1e, i.~~ ~rform thP ~luttes anat~{neei to
Lt ln the treaty~ it has neverthel~~ss found its oxn way over the yeara and
has~ in the opinion of many of those concerned, played a definitely impor-
- tant role in supplying the Community. The Agency's guiding principle here -
- has been to use its efforts to heip assure a secure and regular supply for
its consum?rs and to adapt itself While maintaining its legal status
according to Clause VI constructively and pragmatically to existing
- conditions in the supply system.
General Flael Supply Conditions
'~lithout being able to go into the Community's supply situation ard the
structure of nuclear fuels markets in detail, xe must at least n~~ntion
some basic data for the purpose of better understanding the xork of the
Agency. With a presently installed nuclear poxer plant output of around
28 gigaxatts~ the Community has an annual requirement of about 8,000 tons -
of natural uranium. Approximately 3~500 tons of materlal must be reduced
in ord.er to enrich this uranium for use in light water reactors~ xhich _
Y means increasing the proportion of the fissionable U-235 isotope to a
level of up to 3 percent. Ye must assu~e a steadily rising demand for the
future. The uranium depoaits found in the Community~ chiefly in ~Yance~
Will fall far short o`' meeting thls demarri. So long as t~~e volume of re-
processed uranium ~nd plutonium used is not increased, the Community xill
- be dependent upon imports of naturally occurring uranium for up to about
- 80 percer,t of its requirements in any event, this is i~rue of the 1980's. -
Moreover~ at the same time these requirements constitute approximately
one-third of xorld demand, a considerable factor in itself.
Non-Community uranium production is presently concentrated essentially in
the L'nited States (largely for its oxn use)~ Canada, the southern part of
Africa as well as Niger and Gabon. Australia xill add its considerable
potential to this list in the near future. Other producer regions, mainly
in developing countries~ will expar~d the supply only gradually. The United
States~ the Soviet Union and Europe itself xill have at their disposal
sufficient capacities to supply enrichment services for the next fer+ years.
In contra.st to the area of natural uranium supply~ developments in the
field of uranium enrichmer,t are such that the Community's share of supply
is steadily inc.reasing.
By reason of the special nature of nucleax fuels, the governments of all
- producer countries are exerting their influence on the conditions under
which such material is tzansferred from their countries and subsequently
used.5 These conditions have to be incorporated in the delivery contracts
in some instances. In addition~ the United States, Canada and Australia -
~ require that nonproliferation policy stipulations for their material be set
doxn in bilateral agreements as xell. The Community has ma,de such arrange-
ments xith tne United 5tates and Canada within the framexork of cooperation ~
15
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
~ FUR OFF~CIAL USE ONLY
agreements in the area of the peaceful use of nuclear energy.6 The Com-
misssion~is presently negotiating an accord designed to set conditions for
natural uranium deliveries from Australia. The participa.tion of the Com-
- munity as a partner to such accords assux~es that the same conditions will
apply for the entire Community and that the material may therefore circu-
' late freely. Thus, for instance, the supplier country's right ~f approval
for transfer to third countries does not apply ~ithin the Community. In- -
sofar as nonproliferatlon policy stipulations are incorporated in the de- -
livery contracts~ the Euratom Supply Agency sees to it that no instances _
of discrimination result nor obstructions to free trading on the Cornmunity
market. -
But for other reasons (policies on raK materials, for instance) and xith _
varying degrees of intensity, a variety of regulations and interventions
by public authorities are imposed upon the production~ tran,fer~ process-
ing and conswnpti.on of nuclear fuels. For example~ there is the influence
exerted over the volume and the marketable portion of production~ restric-
tions on refinement and processir.g~ the right to approve individual deliv-
ery contracts~ stipulations xith regard to pricing and~ on the other hand,
supply guarantees as rrell as influences on demand. Consequently~ in the
_ overall area of nuclear fuels supply there are certain limits quite con-
. fining in some instances to balancing in an economically sensible rray
the free play of the market forces of supply and demand. ~rther con-
straints result from the structure of the nuclear energy industry and the
business enterprises that participate in the fuel cycle.
.
Agency Control Flinctions
In fulfilling the func~ion assigned to it~ the Agency is striving to accom-
modate itself to these complex overall conditions involved in supplying
fuels. Accordingly~ given a normal su~ply situation, it is not necessary
to exercise the procurement monopoly by direct intervention in the market
after a comparlson of demand and supply in order to assure an adequate and
equitable supply for all users in the Community. In practice~ the prin-
ciple of private initiative and corporate responsibility can operate also
xith regard to nuclear materials procurement. Fssential to the ass~~rance
_ of an adequate and equitable supply is the reliability and calculability _
- of the framexork rrithin xhich the market is developing, as well as a guar-
antee of nondiscriminatory access to the sources of supply. It has thus
become a crucial Agency responsibi~ity to exert influence on thi.s frame-
Nork and to make regular assessments of the supply situation and its rami-
fications. Accordingly, in order +,hat nondiscriminatory 3upply and the
uniformity of the common internal market may be assured~ attention has in-
creasingly been focused on the control aspect, xhich is similarly substan-
tiated in the treaty's procurement system and covered by the Agency's mon-
_ opoly. It is particularly the diverse government influences on fuel gro-
curement, xith their consequences for the commercial sector, that can lead _
to cases of discrimination against the Community's business enterprises.
They also harbor the trend toWa2~d splitting into national maxkets. By
16 -
- F'OR OFFICIP? USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
~ FOR OrFICIAZ, USE OIVLY
,
- virtue of its being a party to the delivery contracts and its status as a
neutral public institution dedicated to the xelfare of tr~e Community, the
Agency is especially xel'1 suited to the imposition of controls and counter-
controls in this mixed zone of politics and commerce. _
~ It sho~ild be noted that Agency practices have evolved in line xith a supply
situation that up to this poir.t ha.s remaieed ~situationgbrought onheither
not always without tensions. In an eme g Y
by a scarcity of uranium or uranium-enrichment services or by anoi:her klnd
of long-lasting disruption of the market, additional forais of intervention
suited to the situation trould certa.inly have been required.
The Agency exercises its right to conclude ofnthecfuel, condition of~the, u
with the deciding factors being the na.ture
market~ country of origin and general interna.tional conditions.
In the matter of supply and demand trends for naturally occurring uraniwn~ -
~ the Agency has basically been able to leave it up to consumers and procluc-
ers to establish business contac~s directly and to negotiate contracts. -
An implementing order stipulates tha+. the Agency is to be informed of the
opening of negotiations= it further stipulates the minimuu conditions
that delivery contracts must fulfill. Once negotiations have been con-
cluded~ the contracts are to be submitted to the Agency "for purposes of `
closure preparatory to signing," The Agency's exclusive right to conclude
contra.cts is thus respectedi this procedure also ensures that the con-
- tracts are valid and that shipaents made on this basis rrill come into the
la~+ful possession of the consumer. To demonstrate the special character
of Agency participation in these contracts~ the practice of teraiing thea
three-cornered contracts has developed, a practice in Khich buyers and
sellers establish rights and obligations that ~irectly affect one another
and then conclude the contra.ct "rrith the parti.cipation of the ~ratom
Supply Agency."
A different practice has developed as regards procurement of enriched
uranium. In the case of shipments from the United StateuCe~s a rule a _
delivery contract is conc.luded betxeen the American prod
Department of F~ergy and the Age~?cy= the latter then pa,sses the material
on via a subcontract to the consumer Kho issued the original order. This
- is also most often the rule for order$ far special isotoges by research
institutions and universities. In the case of shipments of enriched ura.n-
ium and~or uranium-enrichment services or other especially fissionable
materiala from countries other than the United States and particularly
Hith transactions xithin the Community it has become a general practice
to conclude three-cornered contracts among the producer, the conaumer and ~
the Agency. There has hitherto been no direct intervention by the Agency
in terms of purchase and resale.
As far as the signing of contracts is concerned~ it is not merely a formal
process of exercising the right to c^nclude these contracts. Rather, in
17
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
each case the Agency assesses the supply asF.�~~s~ determines xhether the
contract corre~poru�a to the provisions of the Euratom Treaty and takes
_ into consi.deration the conditions and obllgations affecting transfer of _
the material in terms of the Community's tnternational agreements xith
supplier countries. with regard to the Community's procur.ement system~ it _
is primarily a question of deter~ining xhether the contract contains pro-
visions th~at could have an adverse effect on the uniformity of the ma.rket~
or xhether it might lead to discriminatory practices. Here the concept of
nondiscrimin~tiun is to be interpreted on the basis of the principle of
equal accea~ to sources of supply~ denial of special treatment for indiv-
idual consu~ers and the Coauaunity's obligation to assure an adequate and
equitabl8 supply. There has thus far been no instance of refusal to con-
clude eontraets, since negotiations have managed to produce adjustments
and improveaents. Horeover, the fact that the contract requires for its
conclusion the pgrticipe,tion of an institution~ pledged to Com~unity res-
pensib~.lity for ssecure and equitable supply is a stabilizing factor in
ter~& of precureaent policy, one that xorks in the interest of both par-
ties and contributes to legal safeguards. _
With reference to the described procedure, problems have arisen in that
not a11 contracts entered into by Comaunity business enterprises are being
_ concluded t~rough the Agency. This is attributable in part to differing _
opinions on legal questions, such as on the legal handling of contracts
that involee xage incentives and on the clas~ification of comnercial enter-
prises Khich~ according to the economic context xithin xhich they operate~
cannot be ma,~3e to conform directly to th~ cantract systen~, Nhich recog-
ni2es only consumer and producer. Also still unsolved are practical prob-
lems that have resulted from the preferential position of business enter-
prises in an industrial association. There are some kho hold the viex
that the practice of the three-cornered contract and~ indeed, the exercise
of the right to conclude contracts rrithout a formal comparison of supply
and demand are of dubious legality. Thexe are essentially only a very feH
businesses xithin the Community that avoid full cooperation xith the -
~lgency by citing this situation. Since, hoxever, the Commission and the
Agency have not enforced their legal position~ those enterprises tha.t do
cooperate sometimes raise the charge of inequltable treatment. _
4dvice and Znformation
- In additi~n to particip~ating in delivery contracts~ the Agency has been
concentrating on the are3s of regular monitoring of tlae market and inform-
_ ation and advice for consumers and producers in the Community. Intensive
contacta are also maintained with producers in third countries. Moreover,
as part of the overall structure of the E~zratom Treaty, the Agency brings -
- to the prepsration and negotiation of those safety-control agreements -
negotiated by the Cocunission for the Community specific exgeM ence that
- derives frot~ translating such activities into practice as Mell as experi-
ence derived fran industry's point of visM. It is also considerably in-
volved in ia~lexenting Cummunity agreenents of this kind. Among other
18
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL fJSE ONLY
Nays, it does this by providing active as~istancQ in the issuance of ex-
port llcenses, by cbtaining authorization for re-oxports to the Community
by third countries. and vice-versa, as xell as by ob~erving other condi-
tions and restrictions in the handling of the material. In this connec-
~ tion there is very close cooperation betxeen the ~ratom safety-control
system and the Commission offices responsible for nuclear relations xith
foreign countries.
Debate on Treaty Changes
There are first of all two aspects to the debate noW being conducted on
confirming or emending Clause VI thus on the future task of the E~Zratom
Supply Agencys In the first place~ greater legal clarity is being sought
by rray of establishing in a binding manner the Agency's responsibilities
and instruments= in the second place, it has become obvious that there is
interest in undertaking substantial changes in the Agency's role and
= operating procedures. +
The desire for a clear legal status is generally sha.red. Not only the
Commission and the member states, but especially the industry concerned, -
need a reliable legal foundation in vieK of the vast financial means that
are to be spent on nuclear fuels procurement as Well as to provide safe-
guards for long-range pruvision for the futuree The concern that these
are not noW assured is due less to the practical applicati~~n of existing
regulations by the Agency than to the apprPhension that in case of dispute
this interpretation Kould ha.ve no legal standing, and that there is also
no guarantee that the Commission and the Agency would not rev~rt to a
dirigistic monopoly~ as provided for in the treaty.
Insofar as it can be determined~ hoxever~ xhile the great majority of
business interprises hold that legal clarlfication should not lead to
substantial changes in the actual xork of the Agency, and they consider
it correct to put these very responsibilities down in xriting and leave
it to the c~urts to determine whether a formal emendation of the treaty is
needed or r~erely adjustments in regulatory procedures~ the F~ench memoran-
dum also proposes substantive changes. Consequently~ it also includes th~:
demand for formal cha.nges in the treaty. This element is in turn of the
greatest significance for some member states~ since they xould pxefer on
the basis of general E~ropean political considerations not to see treaty
changes~ even if they xere to take place Within the framerrork of special -
proceedings. It is not possible in this space to discuss in detail the
proposals for changeo The F~ench conceptions are aimed essenti.ally8 at
replacing the present "dirigistic" system of direct parti~ipation in _
nuclear fuels procurement xith "a flexible system of a liberal bent" in
or3er to permit a procurement policy tha.t takes into consider~tion the _
interests of al] member states. The FScench vierr is that the role of the
Supply Agency st.ould be adapted to the new principles of nondiscrimina- _
tion, guara.nteec~ provision for the future and Community preference by
having restrict~:.ons placed upon its opportunities for intervention one
- 1~
FO~. OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ~
` ~ra.y Kou13 be to eliminate the Agenc3r's monopoly. The prnceedings initi- _
- ated under Article 76 to study the F~ench petftion proceedings in xhich
the Commission is being advised by an ad hoc committee of high-level
national experts have not yet been concluded. At the Council session
in September 1979~ at xhich time the ent~ire p~oblem xas discussed for the
, first time~ the Commission intimated that it xould iasue an opinion a.s
soon as posaible. Not until the presentation of this opinion~ Which could
take the fo'rm of a proposal to emend the treaty~ xill actual negotiations !
begin among member states on the future role of the Agency.
" The debate thus far has produced txo basic elements that xill be decisive
in determining the substantive direction of the various options. One is
the desire of all concerned to limit the debate on changes strictly to
- the clause in the E~ratom Z~eaty that deals kith supply. This establishes
the legal framexork xithin Which changes must be kept and at the same time
makes clear that the clauses on safety controls~ oWnership of nuclear
fuels and the Community's nucleax dealings ~rith foreign countries are to
remain undisturbed (a situation that in turn reduces possibilities for
changes in Clause VI by virtue of the close interrelationship between
these clauses and the procurement regulations).
The second basic elemen+. is the unanimous ad[cnoxledgemen~ tha~ the aim of
the present debate is to strengthen the Community and to establish the
_ most suitable conditions for development of the nuclear industry in the
Community. Indeed~ E1~ropean authorities have empZvisized again and again
= most recently that~ in view of the xorld energy situation, th~ ~am~sunity
is dependent upon nuclear energy and that every effort should be made to
sugport its development.With reference to the special structure of nuclear
fuels procurement~ as xell as from the standpoix~t of Community dependence
upon uranium imports and the great variety of statutory influences affect -
- ing this sector, a Community policy on procurement is indispensable.
It is the zole of the Community to assure supply, guarantee nondiscrimina - ,
tion and uniformity in the joint market, plan ahead for Community solidar-
ity in times of crisis, safeguard joint interests against external influ-
ences and assert its strength. It goes xithout saying that individual
member states have eminent political interests besides these~ above a11 in
the area of the policy on nonproliferation, and that specific demands de-
rive from the priority placed on nuclear energy in individua.l national
ener~r policies. Hoxevert the focus of the present debate on Clause VI
is not primarily on issues t~.at derive from th,~se concerns. Nevertheless,
from the standpoint of fuels procurement it xould certainly be desirable
if a consensus could be reache;d in the Community in this regard~ at least
on those aspects of the overall complex that have direct repercussions on
. the fuel cycl~.
20
F~.^. OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FOOTIr OTF�S
t. Arti~le 85 is similar Kith refer~nce to provisions on safety- monitor-
ir~p, if "new circ~imstances req~aire~" aa well as Article 90 with refer-
ence to provisions on the Community'~ right of oxnerahip.
2. It xas up to the Court of Justice to decide Nhether~ in the absence of
simultaneous participation by the Conmunity, a member state may become
a party to the interna.tional agreement on the protection of nuclear
material, nuclear technolagy insicallations and nucleax transports.
The decision xas in the negative; the agreement negotiated in the
interim xas also initialed by the Community. The decision xas pub-
lished in the AMTSBLATT DER EUROPAEISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN~ No 302,
16 December 1978. See also Gundolf Fahl, "Impending Revision oi
Et,iratom Treaty, " ATOMVIIRTSCHAFT~ October 1979, p 476.
3. From the extensive literature, seE Hans von der Groeben~ Hans von
Boeckh, Joc hen Thiesing (editors "Handbook for Eliropean Economics
commentary on Clause VI, collection of leaflets, Baden-Baden= Hans-
Hilger Haunschild~ 'The Eliratom Supply Agency," DER BETRIEBSBERATER~
1 ~ p 1285; Pirotte~ "L'A~ence d'Approvisionnement d'Eliratom
_ ~ratom Supply Agency~~" Lille, 1975�
4. Moreover, today it can be said in general tha~; the Etiratom Treaty,
with its regulations on supply~ safety controls and public oWnership
of nucl~ar fuels as xell as other, i.nstitutional capacities on the
regional level, provides an overall structure for nonproliferation
policy regulations. The latter are presently being discussed rrorld-
xide Within the fraa?exork of the International F1ie1 Cycle Etiraluation
~ ~NFC~. See EUROPA-ARCHIV No 24, 1977, p D 710~ concerning the INF'CE.
~ 5. See~ for example~ Uranium Institute~ "'Governmental Influence on Inter-
national Trade in Uranium~" Lond~n, October 1978; literature on arran-
gements by the Nuclear Suppliers� Gro~ips Ruediger von Preuschen,
"Nonproliferation Policy and Nuclear I~cport, " RDCHT DER IIJTERNATIONAI~-
EN WIRTSCHAF'~, December 1977, p 741.
~ 6. Cooperation agreement between the gover~ment of the United States and
� the E~ropean Atomi,c Community on the peaceful use of nuclear energy~
dated 8 November 1958; amended in 1962 and supplemented by the supplem-
entary agreement on cooperation, dated I1 June 1960 and last a~aended
in 1972; agreement tietrreen the government of Canada and the European
Atomic Community on coope~ation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy
- (AMTSBLATT DER EUROPAEISCHEN G~IEINSC)iAFTEN~ 24 November 1959)~ ~?end'
_ ed through an exchange of notes on 16 January 1978 (AMTSBLATT DER
EUROPAEISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN, 8 rca.rch 1978, L 65/17). The Community
also has agreements xith Argentina and Brazil~ but these have not
- yet been brought up to date in this regard.
21
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200054405-9
~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
7. Implementing order of the Etiratom Supply Agency on Lhe procedure for
comparing supply and demand for ores, r.a.x materials and especially
fissiunable materials (AMTSBLATT DER EUROPAEISCHEN C~fEINSCHAFTEN,
li t~ay 1960~ 777/60)~ in the version dated i~ July 1975 (AMTSBI.ATT DER
EUROPAEISCHEN GE?lEINSCHAFTEN, z5 Ju1Y 1975~ L 193/37)�
8. See response by F`rench foreign ninister to parliamentaxy inquiry on -
12 October 1979 and LE MONDE, 7 March 1979, p 8.
COPYRIGHTt ~q]9 Verlag fuer Internationale Politik GmbH~ Bonn
aus~
c~o~ 5ioo _
- zz
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/48: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200054405-9
i~OR G~r I(:1 AL UtiE OI~LY
. FRANCE
~ BRIEFS
NIICLEAR COLLABORATION WORRY--In the decision that Giscard is to make
concerning the new delivery system (i.e., submarines or surface vehicles)
for nuclear weapons, one important question arises: the above-noted
- surface vehicles imply Franco-German industrial collaboration. How will
the Soviets react to that? [Text] [Paris LA LETTRE DE L'EXPANSION
in French 14 Jan 80 p 3J _
CSO: 3100
23
FOR OFFICI~~L L'SE UNLY
' L
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPR~VED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9
- FOR OFiICiAL USE ONLY
,
UNITED KINGDOM
GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE PLAN FOR NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS
LD101225 London THE OBSERVER in English 9 Dec 79 p 1 LD _
[Ad~m Raphael report: "Go-Ahead for 15 Nuclear Reactors"]
[Text] A 20,OU0 million pounds sterling plan to treble Sritain~s nuclear generating
oapaaity by buildinL; 15 thousand-megawatt nuclear rieactors by the end of the century
will be announced by the government this week.
' The secretary for energy, Mr David Iiowell, will tell the Commons on Wednesday that the
plan, whiah is designed to provide up to half the country~s electricity needs, will
require a massive civil engineering programme with one new reactor being ordered eaah
year from 1982.
Mr Howell will confirm r_.r,~r �H~ U^vvciiLuOlli. tias decided to press ahea3 with its first
~ order for the controversial American-designed Westinghause gressurised water reactor
(PWR) sub~ect to planning approval and safety clearances by Lhe Nuclear Inspectorate.
Minis~ers are clearly apprehensive over the reaction fros~ environmental and anti-
nuclear groups that the announcement is bound to create.
The minutes of the Cabinet~s main economic strategy committee, whiah were leaked to
the magazine TINIE out last week disclose that ministers ~recognised the great
importal~ae of appropriate presentation for achieving the government~s ob~eotive and
- generally favoured a low profile approach.~
- Earlier the minutes of Downing Street meeting on 23 October chaired by Mrs Thatcher
suggested: ~A low profile by government was not necessarily incompatible with giving
a firm lead to the industry since the industry involved only a few firms.~
This softly-softly tactic will be particularly displayed in the government~s
reluct~nce to confirm that it intends to concentrate its future nuclear programme
_ on the Westinghouse PWR reactor. This is similar to the one involved in the Three
Mile Island aecident in the United States.
The Cabinet minutes disclose: ~The prime minister, summing up the discussion, said
~ that the committee were agreed that the government should aim to aahieve a sizeable
24
- , FOR OFFICIr~~ USE ONi,Y
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000200054405-9
FOR OFFICIAL USE OI3LY
- nuclear pro~;r.~ai~une, and that this should include the prospect of PWRe....A ciecioion _
- on the balance between PWRs and other reac~ors ln L�he programme would fall Lo be
made at a later date,'
Gven the leaked minute is a tactful stunmary of the aotual poslt�oti. Ministers have
been appalled at the delay in construction and cost of the British designed
advanced gas cooled reactors. They are hesitant about ~ettisoning these completely
before safety agproval has been gained for the American reactor.
The energy seeretary, Mr Howell, will announce on Wednesday that the National
Nuclear Corporation is to be reorganised and strengthened. The corporation is to
activate its licensing agreement with Westinghouse so that detailed designs can be
prepared for the first British pressurised water reactor.
Ministers believe that one advantage of the n.uclear programme would be fewer strike
threats.
The Cabinet minutes say: ~It was noted that such a programme would not reduce the
long-term requirement S'or coal b3cause of the likely deeline in world oil supplies
towards the end of the century, But a nuclear programme would have the advantage of
removing a substantial portion of electricity production from the dangers of
disruption by industrial action by coal miners or transport workers.'
Since 1969, only 1600 megawatts of nuclear energy have been commissioned by the
Central Electricity Generating Board. So the plan to build ar additi~nal 15
thousand-megawatt nuclear plant by the end of the century represents a fivefold
, increase.
Mr Howell .i;: expected to stress that nualear energy is not only competitive with all _
other fuels, `_:ut is likely over the long term to be verq much cheaper.
The government~s announcement this week on its future nuclear programme will bring
to an end a long-running battle that has been waged in the corridors of Whitehall.
`Ihe Labour government~ under the influence of its energy secretary, Mr Tony Benn,
deferred a decision on the PWR in the teeth of intense pressure from his permanent
secretary, Sir Jack Rampton, most of his officials and the nuclear industry.
CSO: 5000 E~
25
~ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000200050005-9