Weekly Comp. of Pres. Docs., Vol. 14, No. 5, Feb. 6, 1978, pp. 244, 248; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 2012, Mar. 1978, pp. 7-8.

With further regard to the Cosmos 954, which was reportedly a naval reconnaissance, or ocean surveillance, satellite, see The New York Times, Jan. 25. 1978 (city ed.), pp. A-1, col. 8, and A-8, cols. 1-8.

During the 15th session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, held in New York from February 13-March 2, 1978, the question of the use of nuclear power sources in outer space was raised. Stephen E. Doyle, the United States representative on the subcommittee, addressed it in his statement delivered on February 15, in which he announced the United States "standing offer to provide assistance in search and cleanup of radioactive debris from reentering space objects belonging to any country, as well as assistance in providing emergency services to the people of any country injured by such debris":

[We have listened with deep interest to the statements which have been made concerning the implications of the recent accidental re-entry of a satellite carrying a nuclear reactor power system.

.. [I]t is extremely important to differentiate between the various types of systems employed as nuclear power sources in space. We will, later in this session of the subcommittee, offer an explanation of the technical differences and different implications of use of nuclear reactors, radioisotope thermoelectric generators (commonly referred to as RTG's) and other scientific uses of much smaller amounts of nuclear material in spacecraft. We will also explain our views on the implications of the placement of reactors in low Earth vs. higher Earth orbit. These distinctions involve important safety implications. We wish to point out today that United States nuclear power systems for spacecraft are designed to release no radioactivity under normal conditions and only inconsequential amounts under the most severe accident conditions. U.S. nuclear power systems are launched only after a painstaking national, multiagency safety review and subsequent approval by the President. The results of such reviews are public.

My delegation is instructed to inform this subcommittee, and through this subcommittee the full membership of the United Nations, that the United States is pleased to make a standing offer to provide assistance in search and cleanup of radioactive debris from reentering space objects belonging to any country, as well as assistance in providing emergency services to the people of any country injured by such debris.

The United States believes that the unfortunate incident of last month provides us with yet another opportunity to strengthen international cooperation and understanding and to insure that the benefits of space technology can be available in a safe and reliable

way to all states regardless of their level of economic development. In taking this positive position, and in encouraging the affirmative consideration by states of the regulated use of nuclear power sources in space for peaceful purposes, we want to make abundantly clear that the United States commitments to and support of existing international agreements banning the placement or testing of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space remain unwavering and unabated.

With regard to possible future regulatory activities, we believe that, subject to further factfinding, a binding multilateral regime can be foreseen based on such elements as the following:

First-Establishment of safety requirements, including the publication of a safety analysis statement by the launching state and the opportunity for other states to comment on that statement. Also setting of standards for nuclear power sources in space, including exposure standards on the basis of risks determined throughout the entire mission.

Second-The establishment of requirements for notification. Possible aspects of this proposal could include (a) notice by a launching state to the United Nations of the launch of a nuclear power source, (b) provision of private notice by the launching state to affected countries of the reentry of a nuclear powered source, and (c) notice by any states with relevant information to the affected states of the fact of impact of a nuclear power source upon the territory of the affected states.

Third-Providing assistance in locating debris, its cleanup and emergency treatment of affected persons, including: (a) a requirement, in addition to existing obligations, that launching states have the capability to provide assistance, and do so upon request by an affected state; (b) the use of suitable existing international organizations to coordinate assistance efforts if requested by an affected state; and (c) the appropriate handling of costs of search and cleanup.

*

Press Release USUN-3 (78), Feb. 15, 1978, pp. 8-10; U.N. Doc. A/AC.105/220, Annex 1, pp. 18-20, May 20, 1978.

The U.S. delegation presented to the subcommittee a complete description, with drawings and statistical tables, setting forth U.S. use of nuclear power systems in space, beginning with the launch in June 1961 of the U.S. Navy navigation system satellite. "Uses of radioactive (nuclear) materials by the United States of America for space power generation: working paper submitted by the United States of America." U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/L. 102, pp. 2, 6, and att. 5, Mar. 15, 1978.

The Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space also discussed the possible hazards of nuclear-powered satellites with regard to their legal aspects, at its 17th sess., held in Geneva from Mar. 13-Apr. 7, 1978. The report of the Legal Subcommittee is at U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/218, and of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee at U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/216. The report of the Secretariat, containing information from Belgium, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, relevant to the question of the use of nuclear power sources in outer

space, is at U.N. Doc. A/AC. 105/220, May 20, 1978, and Add. 1. The U.S. reply to the Secretariat's request for information consisted of its working paper, ante, and the statements of Mr. Doyle, ante, and of Neil S. Hosenball to the Legal Subcommittee on Mar. 16, 1978 (Annex 2).

The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which met at New York, from June 26 to July 7, 1978, decided to request its Scientific and Technical Subcommittee to include in the agenda of its 16th sess. consideration of technical aspects and safety measures relating to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space, taking into account the views of governments and reporting back to the Committee. The Committee also recommended that the subcommittee create a working group of experts. Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, U.N.G.A. Off. Rec., 33d sess., Supp. No. 20 (A/33/20), 1978, par. 76, p. 15.

See, also, the Report of the Special Political Committee, U.N. Doc. A/33/344, Oct. 30, 1978.

See, further, U.N.G.A. Res. 33/16, par. 8, adopted by consensus, Nov. 10, 1978.

The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979, Public Law 95-426, approved October 7, 1978 (92 Stat. 963, 988), set out in section 608, the following congressional finding:

NUCLEAR-POWERED SATELLITES

SEC. 608. (a) The Congress finds that

(1) no international regime governs the use of nuclear-powered satellites in space;

(2) the unregulated use of such technology poses the possibility of catastrophic damage to human life and the global environment;

and

(3) this danger has been evidenced by mishaps encountered, despite certain precautions, by nuclear-powered satellites of both the United States and the Soviet Union.

(b) It is therefore the sense of the Congress that the United States should take the initiative immediately in seeking a multilateral agreement governing the use of nuclear-powered satellites in space.

(c) Not later than January 20, 1979, the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on actions taken by the United States Government pursuant to subsection (b).

22 U.S.C. 2656d (Supp. II, 1978).

87

Meteorology

Weather Modification

Harlan Cleveland, Chairman of the Weather Modification Advisory Board appointed in 1977, pursuant to the National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-490; 90 Stat. 2359; 15 U.S.C. 330 note), submitted the Board's final report to Secretary of Com

merce Juanita Kreps under date of June 30, 1978. The report, entitled The Management of Weather Resources. Proposals for a National Policy and Program, suggested that while it was premature at the present time to seek a comprehensive international agreement on weather modification, the United States should take the following measures to keep institution building in step with the emerging science and technology:

-Unilaterally offering to consult in advance with any nation likely to be affected by U.S. efforts to manage weather

resources.
....

-Working through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) to form a standing international panel of experts to provide technical help and assist in avoiding or resolving international disputes.

-Pressing for international cooperation in scientific research, in ways ranging from the involvement of more non-Americans in U.S. experiments to an eventual integrated research institution for the study of weather resources management. Meanwhile, the United States should give solid support to the first international cloud-seeding experiment, WMO's Precipitation Enhancement Project (PEP) in Spain.

The United States should make as explicit as possible that the U.S. intent is to promote the peaceful uses of weather modification. As a minimal first step, we recommend the ratification of the Environmental Modification Convention ...

Weather Modification Advisory Board, The Management of Weather Resources. Proposals for a National Policy and Program. Vol. I (1978), pp. 11-12. Ch. 10, "International Cooperation", under part II, "Impacts and Implications", discussed the recommendations, ante, in greater detail. Excerpts follow:

The Weather Is Transnational

The weather is inherently transnational . . . . Atmospheric pressure systems, carbon dioxide, pollutants, radioactive fallout, heat, and energy swirl unknowing across political frontiers. All the arguments favoring international scientific and technological cooperation apply with special force to the management of weather resources.

...

As we mount a serious U.S. national program of weather resources management, it will become more and more difficult to insist that weather modification is of exclusive interest to ourselves....

It is clearly in the interest of the United States to promote actively international collaboration in the development of weather resources management. Hurricane technologies are not likely to mature in the absence of international consent. Even the technologies of precipitation will depend for their rapid development on tapping the talents and perceptions of people outside our own borders.

But national use of the new technologies could also, if not used with prudence and in close consultation with those likely to be impacted, politicize the weather resources management and give rise to hostility and suspicion . . . between whole national societies . . This in turn would make it much more difficult to reap the full benefits from weather management for meeting human needs.

The Weather Modification Advisory Board recommends that the United States recognize the wisdom and prudence of fostering international cooperation while the problem of weather control is still a scientific problem with many residual uncertainties. Should the outcome become clearly affirmative, a Pandora's box of scientific and political problems will be opened. Much will be gained and little lost by forging now the links among scientists and nations that will better prepare us for the stresses and strains which, in the absence of well-rehearsed cooperation, could easily get out of hand.

Weather Modification Around the World

Seventy-four countries . . . have at some time used one or more techniques for managing their weather, mostly cloud seeding to increase precipitation. decrease hail damage, or disperse fog. Twenty-five countries have reported to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) that they undertook weather modification activities during 1976 . . .; the reporting system is voluntary. More than 30 nations have already reported projects for 1977.

Every major world region is represented in the list of weather modifiers . .

Bases for International Cooperation

....

There is already a long history of successful cooperation in meteorology. In the late 19th century, the growing need for better weather data at sea and later on land led to internationally agreed standard procedures for making meteorological observations. As early as 1871, the Leipzig Conference of Meteorologists established a permanent body to handle meteorological problems with international dimensions. After World War II, the international machinery was strengthened by the establishment of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the most effective of the United Nations (U.N.) Specialized Agencies.

The atmosphere has indeed provided some of the world's finest examples of global enterprise. The World Weather Watch began as a result of a U.S. initiative in 1961 and thrives today as the central information system on which most of our (and all other nations') forecasting is based. The Global Atmospheric Research Program (GARP) has been productive without being politicized-partly because it is governed by a board formed jointly by WMO, an assembly of government representatives, and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), an association of national academies of science. The GARP Atlantic Tropical Experiment (GATE) brought 60 countries together in a very large atmospheric research project-again, not unduly burdened with politics.

An important element in the initiation and success of these programs has been the willingness of the United States to take a vigorous lead, but not to insist on flying the American flag over the resulting work project . .

The global arrangements that have worked reflect the fact that countries recognized the need to cooperate in forecasting their weather and deepening their understanding of weather and climate systems. Weather resources management, certainly on any significant scale, depends on weather forecasting; in a sense, therefore, a considerable portion of its data base is already internationalized in the World Weather Watch. Weather modification is thus a peculiarly appropriate field in which to carry a step or two further the broader U.S. national policy favoring international scientific cooperation.

The first formal articulation of national policy in this sense was made by President John F. Kennedy in September 1961 when he proposed to the United Nations General Assembly "further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control."

The inherently international nature of the subject was reinforced by President Lyndon Johnson when he sent to Congress a 1965 Report on Weather Modification: ". . . it is clear that large-scale weather or climate control schemes cannot be contained within national boundaries."

In 1968, Congress declared it to be U.S. policy to cooperate with other nations in atmospheric research and development ([Senate] Concurrent Resolution 67, 90th Congress, 2d Session, May 29, 1968). In the Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-490) under which this Board