ML19210B945
| ML19210B945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130072 | |
| Download: ML19210B945 (2) | |
Text
,.,L C
'o UNITED STATES
!V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{,g k n %
t i
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 g, f3 /ei r
....m October 23, 1979 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Glenn:
During Commissioner Bradicrd's and my appearance at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's October 5 hearing, you requested the Commission to re-examine the text of the proposed U.S.-Australia Agreement for Coopera-tion to determine whether my June 8,1979 letter to the President on the proposed Agreement continues to reflect the NRC position.
On the basis of this re-examination, I would like to reiterate Commission concurrence in the proposed Agreement. However, during your hearing, you requested further comment on the question of whether the Agreement's pro-vision dealing with U.S. " fall-back" safeguards is sufficiently stringent.
Our conclusion is as it was when we provided our comments to the President on June 8 that the provision is sufficiently stringent for purposes of our Agreement with Australia.
The proposed Agreement requires the parties to e ter immediately into new safeguards arrangements, if those provided for by the Australia-IAEA Agree-ment of 1974 are not and will not be applied. The net effect of this provision is generally consistent with certair, of our existing agreements for cooperation. One notable exception, however, is our agreement with Japan, the counterpart article of which triggers U.S. fall-back safeguards rights upon determination that IAEA safeguards acceptable to the U.S. are not being applied.
One might argue, therefore, that if the Japanese language is the standard against which others are to be measured on this point, the Australian Agreement falls short, in that the notion of " acceptability" to the U.S.
is, at a minimum, diluted.
In response to this argument, proponents of the language in the Australian Agreenent would point to the detailed provisions of the Australia-IAEA Agreement and assert that serious problems o non-implementation, e.g.,
r with respect to material control and accounting, scope of inspections, inventory and design information, etc., could be used by the U.S. as a basis for insisting on new safegua-ds arrangements. They would also maintain that the proposed U.S.-Australia Agreement represents an improve-ment over current agreements in that framework of such new arrangements, i.e., conformance "with agency safeguards principlas and procedures," etc.,
is specifically provided for.
y i'n t
19111S O9L
The Honorable John Glenn I noted earlier that the Commission continues to concur in the proposed Agreement with Australia, notwithstanding deficiencies perceived by certain Commissioners with regard to those matters addressed in my June 8 letter to the President (and in related Congressional testimony) and the adequacy of the language dealing with fall-back safeguards rights.
In no small measure, this unanimous position reflects Australia's acknowledged non-proliferation credentials.
It is not possible to forecast whether, in the case of another agreement involving a nation whose credentials are less impeccable than those of Australia, our position would be the same. At this juncture, I can assure you that we will consider each future proposed Agreement on its merits and forward our recommendations to the President.
Commissioner ?radford notes that unlike prior agreements, the Australian Agreement for Cooperation does not give the United States the automatic right to impose bilateral safeguards if IAEA safeguards are not acceptable or are not applied.
Instead, it calls for the parties to enter into arrangements conforming to IAEA safeguards principles and procedures and providing equivalent assurance. He also notes that the newer Agreements for Cooperation, signed before the NNPA, provided to the U.S. the righc to impose bilateral safeguards if the IAEA safeguards were no longer satisfactory to the U.S.
The clearest example of this right is the U.S.-Japan Agreement which would permit the U.S. to impose bilateral safeguards upon a determina-tion that IAEA safeguards acceptable to the U.S. are not Deing applied.
The Australian Agreement for Cooperation, on the other hand, would permit safeguards arrangements other than IAEA safeguards only if safeguards are not applied. This standard in the Australian Agreement is generally equiva-lent to the older Agreements for Cooperation negotiated befcre the NNPA.
He feels that the rights of the parties must be set forth with rufficient clarity to avoid misunderstandings on this important issue. Accordingly, he would suggest that the safeguards provision unambiguously provide the U.S. right to impose bilateral safeguards in the event that it determines that IAEA safeguards are no longer acceptable. The nature of these bilateral safeguards should also be clearly set forth.
I hope that you will find these comrants useful in connection with the Committee's consideration of the proposed Australian Agreement.
\\
- ncerely, Si
\\
Luk.guf
'Josiiph M. Hendrie 1318