ML19269C980
| ML19269C980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/27/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Schelsinger J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260007 | |
| Download: ML19269C980 (2) | |
Text
- "%[
UNITED STATES
+
[%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS.vN WASMNGTON. D. C. 255
,y -
g
% QL December 27, 1978
'%, +.... '
(C y > C O R.L CH AIRM AN The Honorable James R. Schlesinger Secretary of Energy Washington, D.C. 20435
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On behalf of the other members of the Commission, I am writing to express our concerns over the manner in which the NRC has been consulted by the Executive Branch in a number of recent cases involving requests for U.S.
approval of retransfers for reprocessing and technology transfers.
I am referring specifically to the TEPC0 and Kansai retransfer cases and the French sale of two power reactors to the PRC which was submitted to you for consideration.
In our view, these cases demonstrate the need to improve the Executive Branch-NRC consultative process called for by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
In the TEPC0 matter the Department of Energy submitted its analysis of the proposed retransfer to the NRC on June 30, 1978, and the Commissioners provided their views to DOE on August 2.
DOE then submitted the proposed TEPC0 retransfer to the Congress on August 17, incorporating NRC commants.
In September, how+ver, the Department revised this analysis in at least three major respects, and on September 21 submitted a new draft to NRC "for the information of the NRC" while at the same time also forwarding it to the Congress. The differences between the two versions were sufficient to raise the question of whether NRC consultations on the proposal had taken place.
In the Kansai case, the Department's letter of September 27, enclosing what turned out to be only a "close to final" Kansai analysis, requested NRC's views on the proposed retransfer within one working cr. While the Commission did receive a draft Kansai analysis as ear 13 as August 10, the actual consultation procedure under the NNPA was carried out in less than 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />, at the Department's request.
I am sympathetic to the reason for that request, namely the Department's wish to complete the statutory 15 day Congressional review period before the October 14 adjournment. Nevertheless, the hasty action on Kansai put the NRC in a difficult position.
790226 C07 C cmN Cm.
The Honorable James R. Schlesinger With respect to the French-PRC sale, although the State Department and respresentatives of Framatome provided us with some advance information, the DOE analysis of the French sale to the PRC was first received informally by our staf f on December 16 with the official copy arriving on December 18.
Despite the fact that agreed-upon interagency procedures provide 30 days for NRC comment, DOE requested Commission comments as soon as possible, noting that the French had urgently requested that the U.S. reach a decision by December 22. While we recognize that special circumstances surround this sale, we also note that a pattern of short deadlines could raise the question of whether Congress' intent that ue be provided a meaningful time for review was satisfied.
It would be in no one's interest, and clearly inconsistent with Congressional intent,for NRC's role to be merely an endorser of Executive Branch recommendations upon receipt.
In future cases I expect we may adhere more firmly to the 30 days.
Hence, I would hope that DOE will ensure that a reasonable consultation period is provided for all futura such Cases.
' Sincerely, i
\\
(. i
.x-.
m.
..a s
Joseph M. Hendrie
.