ML19274E999
| ML19274E999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1979 |
| From: | Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274E997 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906070084 | |
| Download: ML19274E999 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:/e,pa nc'%j\\ UNITED STATES "~ ('~-l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7%g%g/p j WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 3 G i Ef...z - a May 14, 1979 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONE R Memorandum for Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky _~ ~ ~ Commissioner Bradford Co=missioner Ahearne en Lee V. Gossick, ED0 ~ From: Richard T. Kennedy,/f[
Subject:
SECY-79-320 - (TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO BRAZIL) As noted in the Commission's letter to DOE regarding SECY-79-320, I disagreed with the Staf f's conclusion that the Commission should recommend disapproval to DOE of this technology transfer. Under our governmental system, the President is charged with conducting foreign affairs and - within statutory constraints - determining foreign policy. In this case, the State Department, which is the President's principal spokesman in the foreign affairs area, indicated that it had no objection to the transfer. ACDA and the DDE staff concurred in this view. I, therefore, was somewhat puzzled as to the statutory and factual basis for the NRC staff's (and subsequently the Commission majority's) statement that the transfer is not consistent with the Administration's policy regarding the West German / Brazilian pilot enrichment plant. Simply put, is the staff aware of something that was not available to the Department of State, ACDA, and the DOE staff? Knat is our statutory basis for feeling obligated to venture a recuanendation based on the grounds of inconsistency with Presidential policy -- an a.ea which, as I noted in the Commission letter, lies peculiarly within the State Department's expertise and jurisdiction? It is also worth noting that, as a factual matter, the production and transfer of the ar.alyzers involves no U.S.-origin or sensitive technology or components. In fact, the basic patents and design were received from a West German governmental research agency and the particular instruments are available from other (foreign) sources. The material will be exported from a West German subsidiary of a U.S. corporation and will be exported directly to Brazil from the FRG. The U.S. corporation will not be providing assistance of any kind to its FRG subsidiary for the pro-duction of the analyzers. M r h 190607 00d ^ ~ 5wa .... N.Z 7 .h. ~ ~
- l'-
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, is the fact that the NNPA 5 was intended by Congress as a means of regularizing and making more predictable U.S. nuclear export licensing. If the NRC feels compelled to dispute the Executive Branch's interpretation of its own policy and utilizes that view to reconinend disapproval, I must ask what statutory policy or requirement is fulfilled. This is not to say that NRC does not have a proper role in the process, as well as expertise in certain areas. What I do question, however, is our intrusion into the area of Executive Branch interpretation of its own policy. cc: S. Chilk, SECY L. Bickwit, 0GC C. Kammerer, OCA = A. Kenneke, OPE ~ bh en 5 m.>e E++ +.. .:+ = - =}}