Nuclear Safety: Uncertainties About the Implementation and Costs of the
Nuclear Safety Convention (Letter Report, 01/02/97, GAO/RCED-97-39).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed implementation of the
Convention on Nuclear Safety, focusing on: (1) how compliance with the
Convention's terms and obligations will be reviewed by the ratifying
countries; and (2) the potential costs to the United States to
participate in the Convention.

GAO found that: (1) the method to review compliance with the Convention
on Nuclear Safety has not been finalized; (2) the Convention does not
impose sanctions for noncompliance but seeks to encourage compliance
through peer pressure; (3) the Convention relies on each ratifying
country to prepare a self-assessment report of its nuclear power
program; (4) these reports will, in turn, be reviewed by other member
countries at periodic meetings to determine how each country is
complying with the Convention; (5) the level of detail to be included in
these reports has not been finalized, nor has the process by which
countries will critically review these reports been fully determined;
(6) as the method is currently envisioned, groups composed of five or
six countries would form the core of the review process; (7) the
countries with the greatest number of operating nuclear reactors, the
United States, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia, would
participate in separate review groups made up primarily of several other
countries with operating reactors; (8) although U.S. government
officials did not originally favor the country-grouping approach, they
believe the United States will have adequate opportunities to review the
safety programs of all countries through other mechanisms established by
the Convention; (9) the costs associated with the United States'
participation in the Convention have not been fully determined; (10) the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of State, and the
Department of Energy have estimated that it could cost as much as $1.1
million to participate in planning meetings to develop the Convention's
policies and procedures, prepare the first U.S. self-assessment report,
review other countries' reports, and participate in the first review
meeting; (11) other costs, a portion of which the United States will
incur, associated with the International Atomic Energy Agency's
administration of the Convention are less certain but could range up to
$10.3 million through the first review meeting, according to a 1993
estimate; (12) NRC officials believe, however, that the actual costs
will be significantly less, about $1 million to administer the first
review meeting; and (13) the costs for subsequent review meetings have
not been estimated.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-39
     TITLE:  Nuclear Safety: Uncertainties About the Implementation and 
             Costs of the Nuclear Safety Convention
      DATE:  01/02/97
   SUBJECT:  International agreements
             International relations
             Nuclear powerplant safety
             Noncompliance
             Accident prevention
             Cost analysis
             Foreign governments
             Treaties
             Nuclear reactors
IDENTIFIER:  Chernobyl Nuclear Powerplant (USSR)
             France
             Japan
             United Kingdom
             Russia
             Vienna (Austria)
             Convention on Nuclear Safety
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

January 1997

NUCLEAR SAFETY - UNCERTAINTIES
ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
OF THE NUCLEAR SAFETY CONVENTION

GAO/RCED-97-39

Convention on Nuclear Safety

(141000)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  GAO - U.S.  General Accounting Office
  IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-275746

January 2, 1997

The Honorable Jesse Helms
Chairman, Committee on Foreign
 Relations
United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Graham
United States Senate

The 1986 explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power reactor in Ukraine
underscored the global importance of nuclear safety, as radioactive
material was carried beyond the national boundaries of the Soviet
Union to East and West European countries.  In the aftermath of the
Chernobyl accident, representatives of over 50 nations participated
in the development of a Convention on Nuclear Safety, a multilateral
treaty that seeks to increase the safety of civil nuclear power
reactors.  As of December 1996, the Convention had been signed by 65
countries, including the United States.  The Secretary of Energy
signed the Convention on behalf of the United States in September
1994.  However, in order for the United States to become legally
bound by the Convention, the U.S.  Senate must ratify it.  In May
1995, the administration transmitted the Convention to the Senate,
but the Senate has yet to take action.  (See app.  I for a list of
countries that have signed--or signed and ratified--the Convention.)

As requested, this report provides information on (1) how compliance
with the Convention's terms and obligations will be reviewed by the
ratifying countries (hereinafter, also called parties) and (2) the
potential costs to the United States to participate in the
Convention. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The method to review compliance with the Convention on Nuclear Safety
has not been finalized.  The Convention does not impose sanctions for
noncompliance but seeks to encourage compliance through peer
pressure.  The Convention relies on each ratifying country to prepare
a self-assessment report of its nuclear power program.  These reports
will, in turn, be reviewed by other member countries at periodic
meetings to determine how each country is complying with the
Convention.  The level of detail to be included in these reports has
not been finalized, nor has the process by which countries will
critically review these reports been fully determined. 

As the method is currently envisioned, groups composed of five or six
countries would form the core of the review process.  The countries
with the greatest number of operating nuclear reactors--the United
States, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia--would
participate in separate review groups made up primarily of several
other countries with operating reactors.  Although U.S.  government
officials did not originally favor the country-grouping approach,
they believe the United States will have adequate opportunities to
review the safety programs of all countries through other mechanisms
established by the Convention. 

The costs associated with the United States' participation in the
Convention have not been fully determined.  The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy
have estimated that it could cost as much as $1.1 million to (1)
participate in planning meetings to develop the Convention's policies
and procedures; (2) prepare the first U.S.  self-assessment report;
(3) review other countries' reports; and (4) participate in the first
review meeting, which will probably be held in April 1999.  These
costs are made up primarily of U.S.  government-related salaries and
benefits.  Other costs--a portion of which the United States will
incur--associated with the International Atomic Energy Agency's
administration of the Convention are less certain but could range up
to $10.3 million through the first review meeting, according to a
1993 estimate.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials believe,
however, that the actual costs will be significantly less--about $1
million to administer the first review meeting.  The costs for
subsequent review meetings have not been estimated. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Convention on Nuclear Safety, which became effective for the
ratifying countries on October 24, 1996,\1 seeks to achieve and
maintain a high level of safety for all nations that operate civil
nuclear power reactors.  (According to the International Atomic
Energy Agency [IAEA], as of December 31, 1995, 32 countries operated
437 nuclear power reactors.) The U.S.  government views the
Convention as one of the chief policy instruments to encourage Russia
and other countries with reactors that do not meet Western safety
standards to improve safety.  The Convention calls on countries to
take action to, among other things, (1) establish and maintain a
legislative framework and independent regulatory body to govern the
safety of nuclear installations; (2) establish procedures to ensure
that technical aspects of safety, such as the siting, design, and
construction of nuclear power reactors, are adequately considered;
and (3) ensure that an acceptable level of safety is maintained
throughout the life of the installations by such things as giving a
priority to safety, providing adequate financial resources, and
establishing a quality assurance program. 

The Department of State, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have participated in the
development and implementation of the Convention.\2 NRC, in its
capacity as the U.S.  civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will
play a central role in implementing U.S.  obligations under the
Convention.  The Convention establishes IAEA as the Convention's
secretariat primarily to (1) convene and prepare for the meetings and
(2) transmit reports and information to member countries. 


--------------------
\1 Under the terms of the Convention, any country that ratifies the
Convention subsequent to October 24, 1996, must wait 90 days to
participate in it. 

\2 See our report entitled Nuclear Safety:  Progress Toward
International Agreement to Improve Reactor Safety (GAO/RCED-93-153,
May 14, 1993) for more information about the development of the
Convention. 


   PROCESS TO REVIEW COMPLIANCE
   HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The method to review countries' compliance with the Convention has
not been finalized.  The Convention relies on the ratifying countries
to prepare reports (self-assessments of their nuclear power programs)
that are expected to describe how they are complying with the
Convention.  However, the reports' level of detail and specifics and
the process for examining the reports have not been fully determined. 
Although U.S.  and IAEA officials believe the Convention will
encourage openness about countries' safety programs, it is uncertain
how much information will be made available to the public. 


      PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS
      CENTRAL TO THE CONVENTION'S
      SUCCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The Convention does not impose sanctions for noncompliance but seeks
to encourage compliance through peer pressure.  To determine
compliance with the terms of the Convention, countries are required
to meet periodically to review one another's safety programs.\3
State, DOE, and NRC officials have stated that this peer review
process is central to the Convention's success, noting that it will
enable the countries' safety practices to be brought before the "bar
of world public opinion."

The Convention does not specify the form and content of the peer
review process but calls on the parties to (1) submit self-assessment
reports of the measures they have taken to implement the Convention
and (2) hold meetings to review these reports.  Representatives of
over 40 countries, including the United States, have met on several
occasions over the past 2 years to develop options for implementing
the peer review process.  The United States has chaired these
sessions.  In June 1996, the representatives agreed on a model to
implement the peer review process, but final decisions will not be
made until all of the ratifying countries meet no later than April
1997, as required by the Convention.\4

As the process is currently envisioned, the five countries with the
most operating nuclear reactors--the United States, France, Japan,
the United Kingdom, and Russia--would participate in separate groups
made up of several other countries that have ratified the Convention. 
The remaining countries are placed in each group on the basis of the
number of reactors in each country, as shown in table 1.  Within this
group setting, all countries would critically examine and review how
each country is complying with the Convention.  IAEA officials told
us that the country-review groups form the core of the peer review
process. 



                                         Table 1
                         
                          Possible Grouping of Countries for the
                                   Peer Review Process

                                  Countries (number of reactors)
         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group
-------  --------  --------  --------  ------------  ------------  ----------  ----------
A        United    Republic  India     China         Argentina     Armenia     Italy
         States    of        (10)      (3)           (2)           (1)         (0)
         (109)     Korea
                   (11)

B        France    Sweden    Spain     Slovak        Lithuania     Slovenia    Romania
         (56)      (12)      (9)       Republic      (2)           (1)         (0)
                                       (4)

C        Japan     Ukraine   Belgium   Hungary       Mexico        Pakistan    Cuba
         (51)      (16)      (7)       (4)           (2)           (1)         (0)

D        United    Germany             Finland       The                       Philippine
         Kingdom   (20)      Bulgaria  (4)           Netherlands   Kazakhstan  s
         (35)                (6)                     (2)           (1)         (0)

E        Russia    Canada    Switzerl  Czech         South         Brazil
         (29)      (21)      and       Republic      Africa        (1)
                             (5)       (4)           (2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Numbers in parentheses show the total number of reactors
operating in the country as of December 31, 1995.  The table assumes
that all of the countries had ratified the Convention. 

Source:  June 1996 Meeting of the Signatory Countries to the
Convention on Nuclear Safety and IAEA. 

NRC officials have expressed some concern about the potential
grouping of countries.  In their view, this approach may not provide
the most meaningful, professionally technical review.  For example,
the United States, which spent about $89 million through March 1996
to improve the safety of Soviet-designed reactors, would not be in
the same review group as Russia or Ukraine, countries that operate
the majority of these reactors.  In addition to its ongoing safety
assistance program, the United States also has significant technical
expertise and years of practical experience working to improve the
safety of these reactors and improve these countries' civilian
nuclear regulatory capabilities. 

The United States had earlier supported a different approach in which
each country's self-assessment would be reviewed by separate subject
matter committees.  This review would be based on three main elements
of the Convention:  (1) governmental organization; (2) siting,
design, and construction; and (3) operations.  The U.S.-favored
approach was replaced by the country-grouping model proposed by
France and the United Kingdom.  Representatives of these countries
maintained that the smaller groups of countries would allow for a
more thorough and unified review of a country's report than would a
functional review of part of a country's report, as initially
envisioned by the United States. 

The Convention states that each country shall have a reasonable
opportunity to discuss and seek clarification of the reports of any
other party at the review meeting.  As a result, NRC and IAEA
officials believe that regardless of how the countries are ultimately
grouped, the United States will have ample opportunity to review and
comment on the self-assessment reports of all countries.\5 For
example, according to NRC and IAEA officials, countries may be
permitted to participate in other groups' meetings as observers and
discuss their concerns in supplemental meetings.  Countries are also
expected to have opportunities to comment on the self-assessment
reports at general sessions held during the review meeting. 

The detail and specifics of the self-assessment reports--which serve
as the basis for the meeting of the parties--have not been finalized. 
These reports are expected to describe how the parties are complying
with the Convention.  Because of the differences in countries'
nuclear safety programs and available resources, NRC officials
anticipate an unevenness in the quality and detail of the reports. 
In their view, this unevenness could affect the level of review and
analysis.  U.S.  officials also stated that the countries with a
significant number of nuclear installations may produce a generic
rather than a plant-specific report. 


--------------------
\3 The Convention requires that the first meeting of the parties to
review the self-assessment reports occur within 30 months of the
Convention's entry into force, which means not later than April 24,
1999.  Subsequent meetings are to be held at intervals not to exceed
3 years. 

\4 Because the Convention provides that a country must wait 90 days
after ratification, the United States would not be entitled to
participate in the April 1997 meeting unless it ratified the
Convention by January 24, 1997.  NRC officials told us that it is
likely that some form of informal participation could be arranged,
however, if the United States ratified before the April meeting. 

\5 According to the June 1996 "Draft Guidelines Regarding the Review
Process Under the Convention on Nuclear Safety," the self-assessment
reports of all countries will be submitted to IAEA 6 months prior to
the first review meeting.  Each country may send questions and
comments on any report to the coordinators of the relevant groups up
to 2 months before the first meeting.  The coordinators would then
distribute the comments to all parties to the Convention. 


      PUBLIC ACCESS TO
      CONVENTION'S PROCEEDINGS IS
      UNCLEAR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The public dissemination of information about the countries' progress
in meeting the Convention's obligations can play a key role in
influencing compliance, according to some experts familiar with
international agreements that rely primarily on peer review. 
Although U.S.  and IAEA officials believe the Convention will
encourage greater openness about many countries' safety records and
programs, it is uncertain how much information resulting from the
periodic meetings will be made available to the public.  According to
NRC officials, the countries can limit the distribution of their
reports.  These officials noted, however, that the United States
plans to make its report available to the public. 

Although the Convention provides for the public distribution of a
report summarizing the issues discussed and decisions reached during
the review meeting, preliminary information indicates that this
report is unlikely to identify any country by name.  IAEA officials
told us that they do not expect this report to provide detailed
information about the key issues addressed during the review meeting. 

According to IAEA, the Convention explicitly prohibits
nongovernmental organizations from participating in the meetings. 
NRC officials told us however that these organizations, such as
public advocacy or industry groups, might participate as members of
their national delegation or be called upon to review and comment on
self-assessment reports.  U.S.  nuclear industry representatives told
us that they would like to assist in developing the U.S.  report and
participate in the meeting of the parties.  NRC officials
acknowledged that the Convention does not specifically provide for
the kind of openness they would prefer, but they believe that over
time, more information will be made available to the public through
the Convention process. 


   COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
   CONVENTION HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
   DETERMINED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

To prepare for and attend the first review meeting in 1999, the
United States estimates it could spend as much as $1.1 million.  As
the Convention's secretariat, IAEA will also incur costs to
administer these meetings.  IAEA's costs, which the United States
will partially fund, have not been fully identified but could range
as high as about $10 million, according to a 1993 estimate.  NRC
officials told us that they believe IAEA's costs will be
significantly less--about $1 million. 


      U.S.  COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
      CONVENTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The United States estimates that it could spend between $700,000 and
$1.1 million through fiscal year 1999 to prepare for and attend the
first review meeting, which is expected to be held in April 1999. 
Additional costs to participate in subsequent review meetings, which
are expected to be held every 3 years, have not been estimated. 
Officials from NRC, State, and DOE told us that the costs associated
with the first review meeting are based on (1) participating in four
planning meetings held between December 1994 and June 1996 to develop
the Convention's draft policies and procedures, (2) preparing the
first U.S.  self-assessment report, (3) reviewing other countries'
reports, and (4) participating in the April 1997 preparatory meeting
and the first review meeting.  The agencies' estimated costs include
the existing and planned travel costs associated with attending
meetings at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, and salary and
benefit costs related to the time spent preparing for these meetings. 
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of estimated costs by agency through the
first meeting of the parties. 

   Figure 1:  U.S.  Government's
   Estimated Costs to Implement
   the Convention on Nuclear
   Safety Through 1999

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note 1:  These costs include $99,500 actually expended in fiscal
years 1995 and 1996. 

Note 2:  These costs are based on a high range of costs projected, as
discussed in app.  II. 

Sources:  NRC, DOE, and State. 

Salary and benefits constitute 94 percent of the agencies' costs; the
remainder is for travel and per diem expenses.  The salary and
benefit costs result from the efforts of agency staff to prepare the
first U.S.  self-assessment report, review all other countries'
reports as part of the peer review process, and participate in all
aspects of the first review meeting.  (See app.  II for a breakdown
of expenditures by each agency.)


      FULL COSTS OF IAEA SUPPORT
      ARE NOT KNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In late 1993, a working group that participated in the drafting of
the Convention estimated that IAEA's costs could range from $10,800
to $10.3 million for the first review meeting.  NRC officials told us
that they believe that IAEA's actual costs will be significantly
less--about $1 million to administer the first review meeting.  The
factors affecting IAEA's costs primarily involve the number of
languages used to conduct the meeting of the parties and the
corresponding translation and interpretation services.\6 IAEA's costs
to administer future review meetings have not been estimated. 

The Convention states that IAEA will bear the cost of administering
the meeting of the parties.  IAEA's cost of holding the meeting in
Vienna is expected to be funded from IAEA's operating budget, which
the United States supports through an annual 25-percent contribution. 
IAEA's 1997 and 1998 budget shows that IAEA plans to dedicate about
$330,000 in 1997 and 1998 for Convention-related activities. 
According to an NRC official, IAEA, whose regular budget has been
subject to a policy of "zero real growth" since 1985, may have
difficulty financing the initial review meeting.  As a result, this
official said that additional financial assessments of participating
countries may be warranted to provide the necessary funds for IAEA to
administer the Convention.  The need for additional financial
assessments will have to be addressed during the April 1997
preparatory meeting.  NRC officials told us they were concerned about
IAEA's potential costs to administer the Convention and that the
United States will seek to keep these costs to a minimum. 

The Convention also permits participating countries to request, after
receiving consensus approval from the other countries, additional
support and administrative services from IAEA.  IAEA's Deputy
Director General for Nuclear Safety told us that it is likely that
IAEA will receive requests for such assistance and would cover these
costs from its regular budget. 

NRC and DOE officials told us that they believe the Convention will
not stimulate any significant requests for additional assistance to
upgrade unsafe reactors.  An NRC official told us that as a result of
the meetings, there may be some reordering of assistance priorities,
but he noted that requirements have already been identified over the
past several years through regular multilateral and bilateral
assistance channels.  A DOE official noted that by the time the first
meeting of the parties occurs in 1999, some Western assistance
efforts should be winding down, and many safety upgrades will have
already been made.\7

IAEA's Deputy Director General for Nuclear Safety told us, however,
that the Convention may uncover additional safety problems that
require attention.  As a result, the countries with the most acute
safety problems may seek to use the Convention process as leverage to
obtain additional nuclear safety assistance. 


--------------------
\6 The lowest range of estimates, based on English as the primary
language, was considered artificial, since a number of incidental
expenses were not included.  The high end of the estimates is based
on the use of six languages--Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian, and Spanish. 

\7 For more information on assistance efforts, see our reports
entitled Nuclear Safety:  Status of U.S.  Assistance to Improve the
Safety of Soviet-Designed Reactors (GAO/RCED-97-5) and Nuclear
Safety:  International Assistance Efforts to Make Soviet-Designed
Reactors Safer (GAO/RCED-94-234). 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We provided copies of a draft of this report to NRC for its review
and comment.  NRC obtained and consolidated additional comments from
the departments of State and Energy.  On December 23, 1996, we met
with NRC officials, including the Director, Office of International
Programs, and State's Director, Nuclear Energy Affairs, to discuss
their comments.  In general, these officials agreed with the facts
and analysis presented.  They gave us additional clarifying
information, and we revised the text as appropriate.  The officials
noted that the Convention is fairly well developed because of the
significant amount of work already done by various countries'
representatives during several preliminary meetings.  In their
opinion, it is very important that the United States ratify the
Convention before the April 1997 preparatory meeting in order to (1)
shape the peer review process to create the most rigorous and
systematic analysis of the self-assessment reports, (2) keep the
implementation costs as low as possible, and (3) use the United
States' diplomatic and political strength to make the Convention an
integral component of a network of binding international legal
instruments that enhance global safety. 

We also provided IAEA with a copy of the draft report.  In its
comments, IAEA, including the Deputy Director General for Nuclear
Safety, suggested some technical revisions to the text, which we
incorporated as appropriate.  IAEA noted that the April 1997
preparatory meeting will provide countries with the opportunity to
decide on the review process and factors that will determine the
costs to implement the Convention.  IAEA also views the Convention as
a major accomplishment that will assist in achieving and maintaining
a high level of safety worldwide.  In its view, the Convention will
provide for a degree of openness about national safety programs that
has not existed in the past. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

To obtain information on how the Convention will be reviewed for
compliance, we examined relevant parts of the Convention and
interviewed agency officials from the Department of State, DOE, and
NRC and other officials knowledgeable about international agreements
from the Congressional Research Service, Georgetown University Law
Center, and New York University.  We also discussed the Convention
with officials from IAEA, including the Director General, the Deputy
Director General for Nuclear Safety, and the Senior Legal Officer. 
These matters were also discussed with officials from the U.S. 
Mission to the United Nations System Organizations, Vienna, Austria,
and the Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C.  We also reviewed
relevant documentation provided by these agencies and officials. 

To identify cost information, we obtained cost data from the
Department of State, DOE, and NRC.  We also obtained data developed
by IAEA's Division of Nuclear Safety.  We did not independently
verify the accuracy of these data. 

We performed our review from October 1996 through December 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretaries of State and
Energy, the Chairman of NRC, the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, and other interested parties.  We will also make copies
available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3600 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

Allen Li
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


COUNTRIES THAT HAD SIGNED OR
SIGNED AND RATIFIED THE CONVENTION
ON NUCLEAR SAFETY AS OF DECEMBER
1996
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                                             Number of
                                                             operating
                                                                 civil
                                                               nuclear
                              Signed        Ratified             power
Country                       convention    convention      reactors\a
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Algeria                       X                                      0

Argentina                     X                                      2

Armenia                       X                                      1

Australia                     X                                      0

Austria                       X                                      0

Bangladesh                    X             X                        0

Belgium                       X                                      7

Brazil                        X                                      1

Bulgaria                      X             X                        6

Canada                        X             X                       21

Chile                         X                                      0

China                         X             X                        3

Croatia                       X             X                        0

Cuba                          X                                      0

Czech Republic                X             X                        4

Denmark                       X                                      0

Egypt                         X                                      0

Finland                       X             X                        4

France                        X             X                       56

Germany                       X                                     20

Ghana                         X                                      0

Greece                        X                                      0

Hungary                       X             X                        4

Iceland                       X                                      0

India                         X                                     10

Indonesia                     X                                      0

Ireland                       X             X                        0

Israel                        X                                      0

Italy                         X                                      0

Japan                         X             X                       51

Jordan                        X                                      0

Kazakhstan\b                  X                                      1

Republic of Korea             X             X                       11

Latvia                                      X                        0

Lebanon                       X             X                        0

Lithuania                     X             X                        2

Luxembourg                    X                                      0

Mali                          X             X                        0

Mexico                        X             X                        2

Monaco                        X                                      0

Morocco                       X                                      0

Netherlands                   X             X                        2

Nicaragua                     X                                      0

Nigeria                       X                                      0

Norway                        X             X                        0

Pakistan                      X                                      1

Peru                          X                                      0

Philippines                   X                                      0

Poland                        X             X                        0

Portugal                      X                                      0

Romania                       X             X                        0

Russia                        X             X                       29

Slovak Republic               X             X                        4

Slovenia                      X             X                        1

South Africa                  X                                      2

Spain                         X             X                        9

Sudan                         X                                      0

Sweden                        X             X                       12

Switzerland                   X             X                        5

Syria                         X                                      0

Tunisia                       X                                      0

Turkey                        X             X                        0

Ukraine                       X                                     16

United Kingdom                X             X                       35

United States                 X                                    109

Uruguay                       X                                      0

Total                         65            29                     431
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Number of operating reactors as of December 31, 1995. 

\b The installation is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor. 

Sources:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission and International Atomic
Energy Agency. 


THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION'S, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE'S, AND DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY'S ESTIMATED COSTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE CONVENTION
========================================================== Appendix II

This appendix provides information on the costs that have been or may
be incurred by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
Department of State, and the Department of Energy (DOE) in
implementing the Convention on behalf of the United States.  NRC,
State, and DOE estimated together they could spend about $1.1 million
in travel and salary and benefit costs to prepare for and participate
in the first review meeting, which is scheduled to take place no
later than April 1999.  This amount--based on the number of NRC staff
needed to prepare for and attend meetings--represents a higher-range
estimate of a figure that could be as low as about $700,000. 



                               Table II.1
                
                  NRC's, State's, and DOE's Estimated
                   Costs to Implement the Convention

Element of cost                NRC       State         DOE       Total
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Travel                    $ 45,000     $12,000     $ 8,000    $ 65,000
Salary/benefits          909,000\a      30,000     116,000   1,055,000
======================================================================
Total                     $954,000     $42,000    $124,000  $1,120,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Actual costs incurred to date by these agencies total $99,500
for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. 

\a NRC's reported costs range from $450,000 to $909,000. 

Sources:  NRC, Department of State, and DOE. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Victor S.  Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues
Gene Aloise, Assistant Director
Glen Levis, Evaluator-in-Charge
Gregory Mills, Evaluator
Duane G.  Fitzgerald, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineer

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Jackie A.  Goff, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***