ML19320B009
| ML19320B009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/13/1980 |
| From: | James Shea NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320B008 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-238, NUDOCS 8007090030 | |
| Download: ML19320B009 (13) | |
Text
5 G-May 13, 1980 C 0 R R E C T I 0 N N 0 T I C E TO ALL HOLDERS OF SECY-80-238 - PROPOSED EXP0RTS OF FUEL AND COMPONENTS TO TARAPUR (XSNM 01569, XCOM0240, AND XCOM0250)
(COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEM)
THE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ATTACHED CORRECTION MEMORANDUM BE CIRCULATED TO ALL HOLDERS OF THE SUBJECT PAPER.
ATTACHMENT:
AS TATED
\\
THE SECRETARIAT 8 0 0 7l0 9 0030
~
s i
UNITED STATES y/
5.g
.' E g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
)
- s;?eff/
- +
A May 13, 1980 i aj
./l
[f l MEMORANDUM FOR:
Samuel J. Chilk Office of the Secretary FROM:
James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs THRU:
Acting Executive Director for Operations k
SUBJECT:
CORRECTION NOTICE TO SECY-80-238, PROPOSED EXPORTS OF FUEL AND COMPONENTS TO TARAPUR (XSNM01379, XSNM01569, XCOM0240, AND XCOM0250)
IP would like to inform all holders of SECY-80-238 that Commission SECY papers cited in that paper are incorrectly referenced.
With regard to XCOM0240 (last line of page 1), the reference should read: SECY-79-328 and 328A.
In addition, the first senterce of paragraph 4 on page two should read SECY-79-674A.
James
. S ea, Director Offic f International Programs
UNITED STATES 7 AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Joseph M. Hendrie Peter A. Bradford
)
In the Matter of
)
License Nos. XSNM-1379
)
XSNM-1569 EDLO4 INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
)
XCOM-0240
)
XCOM-0250 (Agcnt for the Government of India
)
XCOM-0376 on Applications to Export Special
)
XCOM-0381 Nuclear Materials and Components)
)
XCOM-0395
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI Edlow International Company, as agent for.the Government of India, filed the following license applications 1/ with the Commission seeking authorization to export material and components for use in the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (Tarapur) located near Bombay, Ind.ia:
(1)
XSNM-1379 on November 1,1977 for export of 487.3 kilograms of U-235 contained in 19,858.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to a maximum of 2.7%;
(2)
XCOM-0240 on April 25, 1979, as amended May 8,1980, for export of. replacement parts; (3)
XC(N-0250 on May 7,1979 for export of replacement parts; (4)
XSNM-1569 on August 17, 1979 for export of 487.3 kilograms of U-235 contained in 19,858.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to a maximum of 2.71%;
1/
A brief chronology.of correspondence on these applications is attached.
n
-2 (5)
XCOM-0376 on March 6, 1980 for export of replacement parts; (6)
XCOM-0381 on March 14, 1980 for export of replacement parts; and (7)
XCOM-0395 on April 3,1980 for export of replacement parts.
Thb lengthy history of U.S.-Indian cooperation in connection with the Tarapur reactors is fully chronicled in several formal Commission decisions. U The Commission cannot find, based on a reasonable judgment of the
. assurances provided by the Government of India and other information available, that License Applications XSNM-1379, XSNM-1569, XCOM-0240, XCOM-0250, XCOM-0376, XCOM-0381 and XCOM-0395 meet the criteria for issuance set fo-th in Sections 109,127, and 128 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Accordingly, NRC is referring these license applications to the President, pursuant to procedures set forth in Section 126b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.
The' basis for the Commission's decision is as follows.
India has several nuclear facilities which have not been placed under International Atonic Energy Agency safeguards.
After reviewing the legislative history of Section 128 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission has concluded that the full-scope safe-guards criterion applies *to the two fuel applications.
The legislative history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act is replete with references that the full-scope safeguards criterion would come into effect at a date certain E -- that U
CLI-76-10, 4 NRC 1 (1976); CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563 (1976); CLI-77-20, 5 NRC 1358 (1977); CLI-78-8, 7 NRC 436 (1978); CLI-78-20, 8 NRC 675 (1978);
E E.
H. Rep. No.95-587, 95th Cono., 1st Sess. at 22, 25; S. Rep. No.
67, 95th Cong.1,1st Sess. at'18; Statement of Senator Glenn, 123 Cong. Rec. S.13139 (July 29,1977).
3 the application of the criterion would have a " guillotine" effect. O The State Department's view that the criterion does n'ot apply to license applica-tions filed before September ~ 10,1979 where the applicant reasonably expected the license to issue prior to March 10, 1980 is, we believe, inconsistent with Congressional intent.
As we understand the Department's view, if an applica-tion were filed with the Commission prior to September 10, 1979, an applicant expected the license before March 10, 1980, but the Executive Branch did not provide the Commission with its views until years later, the criterion would not apply.
Such results do not comport with the " guillotine" approach which was contemplated.
Because of unique features in the Agreement for Cooperation between the United States and India, the Conmission is also unable to find that the two fuel applications satisfy the requirements of Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act or that the component applications satisfy the requirements of Section 109 of the Atomic Energy Act.
This issue is thoroughly discussed in earlier Commission opinions. E The Commission's inability to issue these licenses should not be read as a recommendation one way or the other on the proposed exports.
Rather, we have found that the particular statutory findings. with which the NRC is charged cannot be made.
Congress provided that the President may in such a case authorize the export by executive order if he finds "that withholding the proposed export O
Testimony of Joseph Nye, Deputy Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology, before the Subconmittees on Inter-national Security and Scientific Affairs, and on International Economic Policy and Trade of the House Committee on International Relations, 95th Cong.,1st Sess., at 118 (May 19,1977).
E CLI-78-8, 7 NRC 436 (1978); CLI-79-4, 9 NRC 209 (1979).
i l
4 would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States non-proliferation objectives, or would otherwise jeopardize the common defense and security. "*
It is so ORDERED.
By the Commission SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this day of May,1980.
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present. " Commissioner Kennedy was not present at the meeting at which this Order was approved.
Had he been present he would have voted to approve this Order.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission is 4-0.
l
Chronoloay of Events On March 28, 1979, Louis V. Nosenzo, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State sent a letter to James R. Shea, Director, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which contained an Executive Branch analysis on XSNM-1379.
The Executive Branch concluded that all applicable export licensing criteria were met and recommended issuance of XSNM-1379.
Shortly after receiving this submission, the NRC posed additional questions to the Executive Branch regarding India's nuclear programs and policies.
The Department of State forwarded its response to the NRC on July 5,1979.
On August 15, 1979, the Commission noted changes in the leadership of the Government of India and requested an Executive Branch assessment of the impact of these developments on the Executive Branch analysis of XSNM-1379.
In 1.ts letter the NRC noted its intention to defer final consideration of XSNM-1379 and two component cases (XCOM-0240 and 0250) until receiving a r5sponse to this inquiry.
On October 19, 1979, the Commission sent a letter to the Department of State noting that it had not received a response to the questions raised in the August letter and requesting that the Execu-tive Branch include an assessment of the leadership changes in its views on License Application XSNM-1569, which was then pending in the Executive Branch.
On May 7,1980, the Executive Branch in a letter from Louis V.
Nosenzo to James R. Shea provided responses to the Commission's August 15 questions and provided its views on XSNM-1569.
The Executive Branch con-cluded that XSNM-1569 met all applicable criteria for issuance and recommended issuance of the license.
in a letter from Louis V. Nosenzo to James R. Shea, dated June 11,1979, the
' Executive Branch concluded that XCOM-0240 met all applicable licensing _
criteria and recommended issuance of the license.
In a letter from Louis V. Nosenzo to James R. Shea, dated October 22, 1979, the Executive Branch concluded that XCOM-0250 met all applicable licensing criteria and recommended issuance of the license.
In three separate letters from Louis V. tbsenzo to James R. Shea, dated May 13,1980, the Executive Branch concluded that XCOM-0376, 0381, and 0395 met all applicable licensing criteria and recommended issuance of these licenses.
P s
y_.
e 4,. -
.my
s e,, -
1 Chairman Ahearne's Concurring Views
-In March 1979 I found that a license application for export of fuel to India for use in Tarapur met the Section 127 criteria and concurred in j
i the Commission's decision to authorize that export.1/
In connection with that decision I made the following statements:
"If there had been no indications of progress towards U.S. non-proliferation goals, I would find that to weigh in favor of denial.
The fact that some progress has been made weighs in the other direction.
"The current Government of India has taken truly significant steps j
to meet these proliferation goals.
India is the only country that having exploded a nuclear device, has turned away from nuclear weapons, and has demonstrated the ability to make the difficult choice of not continuing down that path.
Although the previous government was certainly not supportive of non-proliferation policy and acted in.a manner which.was inimical, the present government has done just the opposite--it has acted responsibly and courageously."
(Id at 250)
Since that decision, Mr. Desai has departed and Mrs. Ghandi has been elected Prime Minister. 'No progress has been made in achieving full scope safeguards and Prime Minister Ghandi "has not ruled o' t the option u
of so-called peaceful nuclear experiments, should this be considered to be in India's interest."2]
j Consistent with my reasoning in the previous case, I can no longer find i
that the criteria in Section 127 are met.
In addition, I do not agree l
with the Executive Branch's interpretation that the March 10, 1980 deadline for full-scope saf.eguards meant only that the applicant intended to ship the material prior to the deadline.
Consequently, I cannot find-that the Section 128 criterion has been met.
Finally I cannot find that the criteria in Section 109 are met for the same reasons I cannot find that the corresponding criteria in Section 127 are met.
g.
--re.
.w--
p
'I P-p Consequently, I agree we should forward these applications to the President for his consideration.
1/
Edlow International Comocny (Agent for the Government of India on Application to Export Special' Nuclear Materials), CLI-79-4, 9 NRC 209, 230-50 (1978) (separate views of Commissioner Ahearne).
2]
' May 7,1980 letter from Louis V. Nosenzo, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, to James R. Shea, Director, Office of International Programs 1
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (providing the Executive Branch response to NRC's A.ugust 15, 1979 inquiry concerning the impact of the change in.' government on the prior Executive Branch analysis),
f b
,..a e
r
5/16/80 g,
SEPARATE OPINION OF COMMISSIONER GILINSKY This decision involves, primarily, two export license applications for fuel shipments for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station. 1/
These applications, on which the NRC is acting a~fter the expiration of a two-year grace period provided by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, are subject to the requirement of Section 128 of the Atomic Energy Act that international safeguards apply to all nuclear facilities in the receiving country. 2/
India has rejected such full-scope safeguards.
In recommending approval of these applications, the Department of State has informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that "[i]f the 'NRC does not act favorably, the President is prepared to authorize the export by Executive Order." 3/
There is reason to believe, on the basis of the Department of State's presentation to NRC, that the Department, prior to submitting these license applications to NRC, assured the President that Section 128's full-scope safeguard requirement is not applicable to these particular fuel exports, and that the President, in authorizing public comment on his intention, relied on that opinion.
The Nuclear Reculatory Commission disagrees with the Department of State's interpretation. 4/
The export can take place only if the President grants a waiver from this requirement of the law and if Congress allows that waiver to stand.
The law requires the President,
. in granting the waiver, to find that failure to approve the export "would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of the United States non-proliferation objectives, or would otherwise jeopardize the common defense and security...." 5/
It is an unfortunate accident of history that these license applications have come under consideration at a time when the international situation is thought to require a serious compromise of our long-term security objective of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. 6/
It would be even more unfortunate, however, if the decision to except India from this central provision of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act were made without a full understanding of the price we may be forced to pay.
Full scope safeguards are the sine qua non of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act. 7/
If a waiver is in fact granted by the President, and if it is upheld by the Congress, the law will be gravely impaired.
If India does not need to satisfy the full-scope safeguards requirement, other countries will be quick to seek similar exemptions, with the inevitable erosion of the law's effectiveness.
There are other difficulties with the export.
For reasons which have been spelled out in prior opinions, and which apply with even greater force now, these fuel shipment applications also fail to satisfy the requirements of Section
. 127 of the Act. 8/
In relevant part, Section 127 requires a pledge that IAEA safeguards will be applied to any material or facilities proposed to be exported or previously exported, that no material or facility will be used for any nuclear explosive device or for research on or development of any such device, and that no material will be reprocessed without the prior approval of the United States.
India has made it clear that if there is any halt, or perhaps even lapse, in the supply of fuel for the Tarapur reactors, it will consider itself free of the contractual obligations of the Agreement for Cooperation and at liberty to reprocess as it sees fit the 200 tons of fuel it already holds hostage. 9/
It has not excluded making explosive use of the more than one ton of plutonium that'can be separated from the U.S.-
supplied fuel. 10/
t Commissioner Bradford is in basic agreement with the points made in ti.s opinion.
i 4
=
FOOTNOTES 1/
XSNM-1379 and XSNM-1569.
2/
42 U.S.C. Section 2157 which provides that " [al s a condition of continued United States export.of...
special nuclear material...to non-nuclear-weapon states, no such export shall be made unless IAEA safeguards are maintained with respect to all peaceful nuclear activities in, under the jurisdiction of; or carried out under the control of such state at the time of the export...."
3/
Press Correction issued on May 9, 1980 by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Louis V.
Nosenzo.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act contemplates that the President can respond to the Commission's findings in one of two fashions:
he can, after receiving the views of both the Executive Branch and the NRC, determine that a waiver of the Act's requirements is necessary or he can, prior to submitting the application to the NRC, announce that he is granting an exemption from the full-scope safeguards requirement and ask the NRC to consider only the other applicable provisions of law.
In the present case, the Department of State has placed the Administration in the position of ignoring NRC's views on the applicability of Section 128 to these exports without regard to what these views might be.
-4/
The Commission has rejected the Department of State argument that the applicability of the full-scope safeguards requirement depends not on when an export occurs but on when the exporter would have liked it to take place for the reasons set forth in the attached opinion of the General Counsel.
" Application of Sections 127 and 128 of the Atomic Energy Act to Proposed Exports to India," memorandum of the General Counsel to the Commission, May 12, 1980.
5/
Section 126 (b) (2) of the Atomic ~ Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section-2155.
s -6/
It should be noted thac the present fuel shipments are not immediately.necessary to the continued operation of the Tarapur reactors.
I understand that India already has sufficient fuel on hand to continue operation of these reactors until the beginning of 1983.
If the President grants a waiver from the full-scope safeguards requirement for these two shipments, India will have sufficient fuel to operate the Tarapur reactors until about 1985.
In this connection, it should be noted that the Senate section-by-section analysis of Section 128 states that "[t]he NRC should also not permit any other highly unusual proposals which are intended to circumvent this statutory provision."
(S. Rep. No.95-467,'95th Cong., 1st Sess., at 18.)
7/
In its Comments to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Executive Branch stated that full-scope safeguards were of "... crucial and pivotal importance...to an effective non-proliferation policy..."
(S. Rep. No.95-467, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., at 4 9. ).
The House report termed the full-scope safeguards requirement " indispensable to any comprehensive nuclear antiproliferation policy."
(H. Rep. No.95-587, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 25.)
8/
42 U.S.C. Section 2156.
See the views I expressed in Edlov International Company, CLI-79-4, 9 NRC 209 (1979),
at 250 (attached).
9/
Letter of May 7, 1980 from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Louis V. Nosenzo to James R.
Shea, Director of International Programs, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10/
Letter of May 7, 1980 from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Louis V. Nosenzo to James R.
Shea, Director of International Programs, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[(j Wg g
UNITED STATES g} g g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%]M May 12, 1980 o
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford hLeonardBickwit, Jr., General Ccsunsel FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 127 AND 128 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT TO PROPOSED EXPORTS TO INDIA on May 7, 1980, the Executive Branch submitted additional information on XSNM-1379 to the NRC as requested by the Commission in July and October of last year.
The Executive Branch also provided its views recommending approval of the follow-on license application, XSNM-1569.
Both of these license applications cover proposed exports of special nuclear material to be used at the Tarapur facility.
The primary legal issue raised by these applications is whether the full-scope safeguards requirement set forth in Section 128 of the Atomic Energy Act is now applicable to either or both of these licenses.
Aeolicability of Section 128 In its May 7 submission the Department of State did not provide an analysis in support of its legal position on the Section 128 issue.
Instead, the Executive Branch views include a one sentence, conclusory assertion that Section 128 of the Atomic Energy Act does not apply because the two applications were filed with the Commission prior to September 10, 1979, and the initial shipment of the material was reasonably planned to occur prior to March 10, 1980.
This legal view appears to represent a change from earlier positions taken by the Executive Branch.
For example, in testimony delivered shortly after enactment of the NNPA, when NRC referred Tarapur application XSNM-1060 to the President, Joseph Mye (then Deputy Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology) took the position before two congressional committees that the "... Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act establishes that a recipient country must, within two years, have all its peaceful nuclear activities subject to IAEA safeguards as a condition for U.S.
supply after that time."
Nk NWCW5Wf g
6,we.pC.wvam w$g 1/
Rndia Before the subcommittee DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Sional Environment of the Ejs, 95th Cono. 2nd Session Entire document previously ings and Markuo on Excort entered into system under:
e G m h 'e N b&
ANO ession (May 23, 1978) at 38.
b j
Co No. of Pages:
ypJ a
, a.
y 5
s y
May 9, 1980 SECY-80-238 l
COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Commissioners From:
James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs M
U TD Thru:
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED EXPORTS OF FUEL AND COMPONENTS TO TARAPUR (XSNM01379, XSNM01569, XCOM0240 AND XCOM0250)
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of the receipt of final Executive Branch views on the subject cases and to provide the staff's recommendation on these cases.
Background:
On May 8, the Commission received final Executive Branch views with respect to the following export license applications for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station in India:
{
l.
XSNM01379 - 19.858.8 kilograms of uranium in in the form of UFg and enriched to a maximum of 2.71% U-235.
Ref: SECY-79-233 and SECY-79-233A through 2330.
2.
XSNM01569 19.858.8 kilograms of uranium in the form of U and enriched to a maximum of 2.71%
U-235. R
In addition, there are pending before the Commission two related component applications for Tarapur as l
follows l
1.
XCOM0240 - Miscellaneous replacement parts.
l Ref:
SECY-79-238 and 238A.
e *nnie ic tantativolv schadialed SECY W C-
'f gj
.9 DUPLICATE DCCUMENT e.
Entire document previously entered into system under:
- q nNo T006(?03lo0 l~
No. of pages:
f
.ab$
w -~
RECEIVED DEPARTMENT OF STATE USNRC Washington. D.C. 20520
'80 MAY -8 A8 :07 BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS INTERN ATION AL PROGRAMS May 7, 1980 Mr. James R.
Shea Director of International Programs United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 6714 - MNBB Bethesda, Maryland
Dear Mr. Shea:
Your letter of August 15, 1979 requested an Executive Branch assessment of the implications of the governmental changes in India on the Executive Branch analyses concern-ing the pending application for Tarapur fuel (XSNM01379),
including an evaluation of the likely policy of the new Indian Government with regard to nuclear explosive develop-ment.
It also noted that the Commission would defer its final consideration of this application until it received our response.
As you know, this matter has been the subject of dis-ctssions between the two governments and of public state-monts by the new Indian Government.
In response to your reques't, I wish to provide the following information.
The new Indian' Government has provided assurances to the United States that it will continue to meet its ob-ligstions under the U.S.-India Agreement for Cooperation M and related understandings as long as the United States
- meets its obligations under the agreement.
With regard to the policy of the new Indian Government on nuclear explo-
.sive development, Prime Minister Gandhi has stated that India's nuclear program is devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes.
At the same time, however, she has not ruled out the option of so-called peaceful nuclear experiments, should this be considered to be in India's interest.
India described its 1974 nuclear test as a " peaceful nuclear ex-periment".
We are concerned that the new Indian Government is not prepared to make a more forthcoming statement concerning continued forebearance on development or testing of nuclear APPENDIX A htDV bdc Y
Q
. explosives, and continue to believe that restraint in this rr,ard is key to international stability.
However, we do
/. believe that withholding the pending export would ad-75nce U.S.
interests in this regard.
Moreover, we continue to believe that the proposed ex-port meets the criteria of Section 127 and that the Execu-4 tive Branch analysis.of March 28, 1979 continues to be valid in this. regard.
The Executive Branch also believes that the section 128 additional criterion does not app'2 to this license application since the export was reasstably planned to occur during the period prior to March 10, 1980.
- Finally, it is our judgment that the proposed export will not be inimical to the common defense and security and that with-holding the export would be prejudicial to broader U.S.
i foreign policy interests.
Therefore, the Executive Branch i
recommends that the license be issued and we hope that the Commission.will act expeditiously on the application.
As vou know, the time for Commission consideration of this license under the NNPA has expired, and this letter completes i
the Administration submission on this case, j
We are also forwarding to the Commission under separate cover the Executive Branch analysis and recommendation on XSNM01569.
This analysis and racommendation applies as well j
to XSNM01379 and the additional factors section accompanying the submittal on XSNM01569 updates and supersedes sections
]
B and C of the March 28, 1979 analysis of XSNM01379.
Sincerely,
':,l
/
Lo
.Ns Deputy Assista t Secretary i -
l l
I' l
i
,.a_
9 APPENDIX B DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ON 5/8/80
RECDVtB DEPARTMdNT OF STATE UKSNM01569 Washington. D.C. 20$20
'80 MAY -8 A8 :07 BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS nFT!CE C.
!.'4TER!!/,T'm:r e' V n0'..' : ;.
May 7, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES R. SHEA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Enclosed is an Executive Branch analysis covering a li-cense application for the export of low-enriched uranium to India.
In accordance with P.L.95-242, the analysis explicitly addresses how the requirements of Section 126 a.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act are met, including the specific criteria of Sections 127 and 128, as well as certain additional factors, envisaged by Section 126 a. (1).
The Executive Branch, on the basis of its review of this case, has concluded that the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and P.L.95-242 have been met and that the proposed export would not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States.
Moreover, India has adhered to the pro-visions of its Agreement for Cooperation with the United States.
Therefore, the Executive Branch recommends issuance of the re-quested export license.
/
/ sicwo Louis V.
osenzo Deputy Assist nt Secretary 1
Enclosure.
As stated
,a ms
\\
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 1
Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO DO O
APPENDIX C No. of pages:
.Aq
(~~_
r h
E.
h.
J' 1
s 4
APPENDIX D t
3 l
4
}
}<
1
(
t-
)
I
~
',ve m,- _.
o m.
mn
uo.
~
~
va.Nvstema R = z _ __
io.w a in
- staan NaTom.cr ressa
,.q:n.y
,,. FUCATION FOR LICENSE TO
.O
.. a..t.c AN ri ese
- 2. Nae.;s, a u s ** st.4. r.e
- EXPORT SYPRODUCT. SCURCE OR s ucaman no.,rm Y N SPECIAL NUCt. EAR MATERlAL v. /'/ n / / ? 7 r.
N
' ;g siE th5TrT' CTICNS CN REVfRSE k*n*/
aro aa r s =se sanm.ca J
s 22,
- 2. A LIC ANM N AME % AOCS E23 l Rt3 COCE (til
- 4. 51 PCLIER'S N AME AND A00mtss l R11(12?
'O I. Neene L iCc_Cotte l. sca).s.*t not secca.t of Matensol b
-s j
3..
a.aimaET a Manas 21
..m..
i C.T V
[ STATE [ 4.P CQ;9'
,,. sTma47 s.-
.N, y
a Tawareso%e - meta ccot = %wusta - a m f a%3saae a c. T v gs' ATE g 4.8* 6e a e
. ' t.4p t
4
- 7. APPLICANT *$
- 4. PROPCSED
- 9. U.S. OEPT. QP ENE RGY CONTRACTUAL EXPiMATICN DATE CONTR ACT % Mat R
^1 S. PtRST SMtPMENT
- 4. FINAL SHIPMENT 5
SCMEOULED SCHEDULEO OElfvfRVCATE OP LICEN$t f.t ha.=*A f08J i
g..
M
- 90. ULTIM A78 CON 11CNtt l 918 t281
- 11. ULTIMATE END USE
{ ms (2a) p s heans (Inskte 9 tant er JVaataty Namel er
- {
.e...,;....,.,,..,.
..... i
.6 p
s STAttT
' d [
'5.
~,
"'A' sI
'5' 8'
[,. a. -
.F
- - je 3.s,..,
- * '- ^ t d ' -
- 1W.L.
S CiTv.staTa-CounTRv 7 m'w its. EST. OAT 8 CP PI AST ust Of k
- 12. eNTanutotaTE CONstGNtt l Rt3 (2S411
- 13. INTERMEDIATE ENO USE I Ris 430411 f3 snaus
~ ;. v-i e ~. - ~.,
i m.sTnttT
'.g1.....
'".; i *
-.?,,
[
- e. CITY Statt = CGuNTRY
,4. tNTtautot ATE CONilCNf f l Rt3 (7942) t$. INTERMEDIATE END USE I Rts ciM127 I
1-
?
's 12a. EST DATE CP FIRST U18 W
s asaast 3.. u
.m 3.siAEET 5.
g g.
3'
- e. C4 T V
- sf ai t - GQweet A T 11.. T$7. D ATE C e samST US E k
"* WT.
18.PCA NRCUS$
- 17. MATERIAL TYPE AND OESCRIPTION g3' gax' gLgMtNT 1e 25 No fladus. CA*'a'e8d *ad 8*F8'e8' 'ersw and pr.as we.J WEIGHT (206 9 we TSOTOPE WT UNIT t
gg
,p 3
l
,i il tf,353.S
.!S7.3
.Cee c2..- c n,. -
s.,.u r 1 4 e a A
f' l
io s cen-t.
- y.
.* >l f
I
.Uf w
i l
1 i
4 s
(
s',
k5 e
+s
@ PEMUIX [
=
M i
o
- 22. GOwNTRY op G AaGtN - l
.22. COUNTRY OF GaiGs4 - EhM l
- 24. CouNTott nMcCM ATTACH ScuRCI M Af TRIAL WMERE PROCUCEO SAP E'3U ARCS f.# kn.wal y,
- 25. AQQaitoNA6.tescRMAT ON,vae sesarate sneer.s aec.ewys I
~i a
6) l el.
?
.9 p.- g i
......._,..~..-...._...............m,A_.eC.._
~
_.T.....C......._............._...
. s _ _.
. - m- -
...........,,.....s..
tw l
,fg s
r.rs.
1-D.
i
(...-
(cc hj uw% fiard araw sd, W-v...u.
E"'
TEU3 PHON E :
25 05 01 I
- cwaum sma umni u4aa.
M{I
)
AToMPoW s
a o u a A Y 4ae sm.
retecn.wsifly"in_omew. ER"
<s.
c.u. unc we.
mmr x:rt v.
~
D78 S ? 25 14! 110 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
~
2.*70RUIMPORT MD*
- mudsrcaos !
^ " " " ' " ^ " " ' " '
p
,No. B/ TAPS /10.-E-IVI September 11, 1978,
'. Director
Uranium Enrichment Operations Division Department of Energy'
)
P. O. Box E 4t,.t,g.g :
Fr. H. Doran Fletcher
)
' Oak Ridge, TN 37830 near sir, c
Subjects hath'orisati~on~for withdrawal of enriched UF6 - Contreet IWIS/3.
1.
With the receipt of 7.6 tonnes enrich 6d uranium as UF6 in July 1978 ve have so far received' approximately 5050 kgs. contained U 255 against a total quantity of 14,500 kgs. contained 5235 in the enriched uranium to be supplied to us during the,Agrecznent period. (upto 1993).
On receipt of material covered by our application ro. 2SE1222, the quantity received may go up to 5450 kgs. contained 5235.
2.
We rec.uest authorisation for withdrawal of following c
quantities of enriched uranium as UIG during 1979:
No=inni Weight Weight Shipnent h-U.S.A.
Enrichnent Kg U lbs UEB by' i 2.66 6080 20,000 March 1979
.I 2$66
'6080 20,000 -
May 1979 i 1.6 1520 5,000 Jlugust 1979 2.1 6080 20,000
.tzgust 1979 s
It may be notod that the quantities and phasing of the above
- 3..
reguirasents are based cn the schedule arrived at'in consultatics with Mr. Kiefer and D:. Inst, U.S. experts deputed to India by the US State Department in September 1976 for the purposo.
4.
Kindly advise the Dirichment Fn2 mty from where the above quantities of enriched uranium vill be r.ade avdW e.
s
's.
.'.'. 2
(
(
=
,s 2 2 Paferrir.g to the End Use State:ent, I confim that the transfer
- 5.,
of material vill be in accordance with the te.and conditions of the U.S./ India Sale. contract. II/Dg5,' an = ended, pursuant to the Agreement for Co-operation betveen the Government of U.S.A. cnd Indin which entered into force on October 25,1963, 'and the enriched UFB vin be used for naking fuel assenblies recuired for the reland fuel requirenents of Tarapur Ato:ic Power Station.
6.
Edlow International Compag vill conti nto to act as our Transport Agents and Nuclear Aidit & Testing Conpany W' represent us for withdraval and annpling as in the peat.
7.
As ususl, Edlows, as Transport Agents, vill be sub=ittir.g the application' for issue of the necessa:7 export licenes, etc. on cur behalf in due course.
- 8..
Q:r best estimates indiente that the total. quantity of UIB
.prodnet' required in the fonowing years also vill be of the same order, i.e.18.-20 tonnes U as UFB of 2.717. n@mm enrichment.
I take this opportuniv to thm* you and IN DOB for co operation.
Yours faithfuH y, Sd/-
(R.S. Yema)
Cor.mercial a neser Ref t E/TAPY10 E IFI September 11, 1978.-
/
Copy toi, 1. Mew International Company, Suitse 404-5,17th St. N.W.
Washington DC 20036, USA (Atten Mrs. Diane Hamon) -
with a recuest to take immediate action for making the export licence application as usual.
2.
2htelear Audit & Testing Company, 8206 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, Virginia 22180.
3.
Mr. William F. Courtney, Counsel General, Consulate.
General of the U.S. A., Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bonbay.
4.
Dr. H. Anandakrishnan, CounseHor(Science), Ihbassy of India, 210's Massnehusetta Avenue, N.W. Washington In 20008, USA.
I (R.S. Ym)
Comercial knager
)
t R57:ggk 11.9.78 i
F07 M NRC;7 U.S. NUCLEAR RE!ULATORY COMMIS$10N APPZOVE3 BY CAO 1o$a tio APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO EXPORT NUCLEAR s.1so22mRoss2)
MATERIAL AND EGUlPMENT (SeeInstructions on Reverse)
Wla t.lCEN9E NO'" $ 9 r
//S40 87
- 1. APPLICANT *S la. DATE OF. APPLICATION M n1B/ - ~
D.DOCKETN
- b. APPLICANT'S REFERENCE 2.NRC uSE du;;.
l',
1979 D:ES-3 uSE
- 3. APPLICANT *S N AME AND ADDRESS l RIS
- 4. SUPPLIER *S NAME AND ADDRESS lRIS -
(Compiere if apolicant is not supplier of materiail L NAME Tc![ 3;,9 {3[t1 CC. Es agent fCr rM,. w w nc T., n -
- b. STREET ADORESS s.NAME 11C0 17th Street, M.E.
24M Denn m rt n c--
e
- c. CITY STATE ZIP CODE
- b. STREET ADDRESS
'.!a shin g ton DC 20335 P.O. Son E
- d. T E LE PHON E N U M BE R (4rea Coas - Numoer - Estensson>
- c. CITY STATE ZIP CODE (202)C33-8237 n,+
,'+2 n
- 27o9,
- 5. FIRST SHIFMENT
- 6. FINAL SMPMENT '7. APPLICANT *S CCNTRACTUAL 8. PRCPOSED LICENSE
- 9. US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCHEDUI.ED SCHEDULED DELlVERY DATE EXPIRATION DATE CONTRACT NO. /// Known>
Feb. 1980 Scot. 198 3 c s.
1cM T,,,. toot ru /nc /,
e Io. ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE l R13 -
- 11. ULTIMATE END USE I'
of 0"'
' W#"' '
c.NAME Taracur Atomic Power Section
- b. STREET ADDRESS Dent. of Atomic Enerev
- c. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY 303 bay India lia. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE
- 12. INTERMEDI ATE CONStGNEE l m3
- 13. INTERMEDIATE END USE l'
d3 a.NAME Dept. of Atomic Enerev
- b. STNEET ADDRESS To make fuel assemblies recuired for the TCload of the Tarapur 5tomic Pct.ar Nuclear Fuel Conclex Station.
- c. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY g,,1,, 11
'n v
13a. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE
- 14. INTERMEDI ATE CONSIGTJEE l #14J
~
- 15. INTERMEDIATE END USE
" r' W [NML ;
e.NAME t
D. STREET ADDRESS
- c. CITY - STAT E - CCUNTRY 15a. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE 13.
- 17. DESCRIPTION
- 18. MAX. ELEMENT 19. MAX. 2o. MAX 21.
NRC (include ch=mical and physical form oi nuclear rhaterial;give dollar value of USE nc ciear ecueoment and co~conennl VIE lGHT WT.1' ISOTOPE WT.
UNIT
/g Urantum as uranium her.afluoride 19,858.S 2.71T 487.3 b;s
/
APPENDIX D
- 22. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.-
l
- 23. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.-SNM l-l24. COUNTRIES WHICH ATTACH l
SOURCE MATERIAL WHERE ENRICHED OR PRODUCED SAFEGUARDS (if Known/
- 25. ADC TICN$L INFOR1ATION (Use saparatedsnee i/vecEesf' 77 1 pp NA 0g L
a 0-99d4 e
rpppy t gaaa=d Acc 2 3# P e.*
U 0
y
- 26. The applicant certifies that this application is prepared in conformity with Title 1s, Codepf Federal Regulations; and that all information in this
,j //
g g fg f opplication is corro.;t to the best of his/her knowledes.q i
- 27. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
- a. SIGNATURE D{Q pyM" 4r./ 'IM "
Asst. to the VP T
FORM NRC-[
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSl3 APPROVE'; BY CA3 s is022st0362 Pb ss0 APPLICATION FCR LICENSE TO EXPORT NUCLEAR i0 MATER lAL AND EOUlPMENT (SeeInstructions on Reverse)
- b. APPLIC ANT'S REFERENCE 2.NRC e LICENSE NO.
- b. DOCKET NO.
i t trTr ?;7 t,d
- 1. APPLICANT'S la. D ATE OP APPLICATION BDW-79108 uSE April 25, 1979
- ich ti 7. 9 o.~
USE
- 3. APPLICANT'S NAME AND ADORESS l RIS
- 4. SUPPLIER'S NAME AND ADDRESS lRIS (Cortplete if applicant is not supplier of material)
- a NAME G:neral Electric Co., Attn: B. D. Wilson MC E 38 L STREET ACDRESS a.NAME 175 Curtnne Avonno
- c. CITY STATE ZIP CODE D. STREET ADDRESS San Jose CA 95125 STATE ZIP CODE T E LE Pa*ON E N U M B E f1 (Area Coos - Number - Es tens,on/
- c. CIT y t
408-925-1380
- 5. FIRST SHIPMENT
- 9. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCHEDULED SCH EDULED DELIVERY DATE EXPfRATION DATE CONTR ACT NO. /// Known/
May 14, 1979 Jan.31,1980 May 21, 1979 Jan.1,1981 N/A
- 11. ULTIMATE END USE l
- 10. ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE l R15
' e **
(include plant or facility name)
Government of India Replacement in Tarapur reactor G. STR'aET ADDRESS Department of Atomic Energy Units 1 and 2
- s. CITY - ST ATE - COUNTRY Bombay 400 001 India 11a. EST.DATE OF FIRST USE
- 12. INTERMEDI ATE CONSIGNEE l RIS
' 13. INTERMEDI ATE END USE l
c.NAME
- 3. STREET ADDRESS
- e. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY 13a. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE la INTERMEDIATE CONSIGNEE l A66
- 15. INTEW 71 ATE END USE l
c.NAME
- b. STREET ADDRESS
- c. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY 15. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE 16.
- 17. DESCRIPTION
- 18. MAX. ELEMENT 19. ( IAX. 20. MAX 21.
NRC (Include chemical and physicat torm ol nuclear marerial;give dollar vatur of WElGHT I 4T. %
ISOTOPE WT.
UNIT USE nuclear enroment and componenn)
Replacement parts for use during period of operation covered by issued XSNM licenses.
See attached list. Value approximately
$180,000.
y, r
t
$4' r_-
- 22. COUNTRY OF QRIGIN.-
lI
- 23. COUNTRY OF ORIGINrSNM l
- 24. COUNTRIES WHICH ATTACH l
SOURCE MATERI AL WHERE ENRICHED OR PRGDUCED SAFEGUARDS (if Known/ _
N/A N/A
- N/A
- 25. ADDITION AL INFORMATION (use separate sheetif essarrf Da 4 o4 'M $:l5j g 42g6 appenoix o
&& [0 C. :..
?. : -
'f
{
- 26. 'i he opplicant certifies
- hat this application is prepared in conformity with Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, and that all information in this applicetlen le cetreet to the best of his/her knowledge, f
' WV ' ud34'3UU
- a. SIGNAWRE b
T
- AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
April, 1979
~ GENERAL ELECTRIC ORDERS FOR
'TARAPUR REPLACEMENT PARTS Approx Sty Description Value t
6 Thermal Sleeve for control rod 12,450 20 Guide tube for TIP Detectors 2,300 2
Ion Chambers 17,500 12 Misc. parts for control rod drives 57,900 10 Recorder parts 1,950 various Refueling platform control 2,750 parts various Control rod drive mechanical parts 29,300 1
Index mechanism for TIP 9,250 2
IRM drive system mount & gear 7,250 2
Bearing assemblies for pump 38,500 BDW 79109 - attachment
POR ORCd MUCLEA3 REIULATORY COMMILSION App,;OVE3 BY CA3
'Yeb110 APPLICATl!N FOR LICENSE TO EXPORT NUCLEAR to MATERlAL AND EQUIPMENT (seeInstructions on Remsel
~.DOCKETNO.h N b D. APPLICANT'S REFERENCE 2.NRC d ' _H NO.
h
- 1. APPLICANT'S le. D ATE OF APPIICATION BD1 79122 USE May 7, 19 9
' Y @g h dh j [M uSE
- 3. APPLICANT *S NAME AND ADDRESS l RIS
- 4. SUPPLIER'S NAbE' AND ADDRESS lR35 (Complete if applicantis not supposer of materiall ANAME Genegal Electric Co. Attn: B.D. Wilson M/C 838
- s. STREk T ADDRESS
- e. NAME 175 Curtner Avenue
- c. CITY STATE ZIPCODE D. STREET ADDRESS San Jose Ca 95125 STATE ZIP CODE
. T E L.E V n ON E N U M e t R (Area Coor - humcor - Estensoon)
- c. CITY 408-925-1380
- 5. FIRST SHIPMENT
- 6. FINAL SHIPMENT 7. APPLICANT *S CONTRACTUAL 8. PROPOSED LICENSE
- 9. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCHEDULED SCH EDULED DELIVERY DATE EXPlR ATION DATE CONTR ACT NO. /if Known/
September 1,1979 Same September 24, 1979 September 1, 1980 N/A
=* ! 11. ULTIMATE END USE l
- 10. ULTIMATE CONSIGNEE l RS tinciuse piant or factitty names Covernment of India For use in Tarapur Units 1 and 2 Nuclear A STREET ADDRESS Power facilities Department of Nuclear Enerov
- s. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY Bombay 400 001 India tie. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE
- 12. INTERMEDI ATE CONSIGNEE l WIS
- 13. INTERMEDIATE END USE l
C.NAME E STREET ADDRESS
- c. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY 13a. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE
- 14. INTERMEDI ATE CONSIG' NEE l A45
' 115. INTERMEDIATE END USE l
e.NAME E STREET ADDRESS
- c. CITY - STATE - COUNTRY 15s. EST. DATE OF FIRST USE 16.
- 17. DESCRIPTIO"
- 18. MAX. ELEMENT 19. MAX. 20. MAX 21.
NRC (include chemical and physical form of nuclear enatorist;give costar value of WEIGHT WT.%
ISOTOPE WT.
UNIT USE nuctor rourament and comcone~ts) l~
Six (6) Traversing Incore Probe detector assemblies. Value $112,000.
p...
'Cepz j;a C2 r.:::! ACC I N M
APPENDIX D n--
l 24. COUNTRIES WHICH ATTACH l
j
- 22. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.-
l
- 23. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.-SNM l
SOURCE MATERIAL WHERE ENRICHED OR PRODUCED SAFEGUARDS (!/ Known) 1
- 25. ADIITIONAL INFORMATION (Use seoarate sheetif necess*.y/
IF Ik d b5b 7
I00 1
- 26. The applicent eartifies that this application f prepared in cohforhety with Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, and that sti information in this
~
l sopliestion is estreet to the best of his/her knowledge.
[
p$, /
- b. TITLE Manan r-Goveiggent Relations
- e. SIGNAWRE
- 27. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL l
an Extort Licens1pn
//W/Mft
8 w.
(f be t'
~
=-
G E N E R AL h E LE CTRIdE NUCLEAR POWER
'79 OCT -5 P3 :05 SYSTEMS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CAug Sj5125 INTERHgTgAL October 1,1979
}
s Mr. James R. Shea g
Director Office of International-Programs 4
y/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 d'
SUBJECT:
quest for Expedited Processing - XCOM
Dear Mr. Shea:
On May 7,1979 General Electric filed an application for the subject g
license. When issued, the license will authorize export of six (6) traversing incore probes - neutron detectors used to calibrate the power range monitors at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS).
Recent inquiries on the status of this application indicate:
1.
Executive branch views have not been completed and tend toward a final recommendation that only four of the six required detectors be approved for export; 2.
Even after executive branch views are transmitted, the case will be referred to the Commissioners and will be taken up only at such time as they are prepared to consider all other pending applications for exports to TAPS.
As to the first point, TAPS has advised ';E by wire dated September 27, 1979 that one of its installed detector; is inoperative and scheduled for replacement in October using the only currently available spare.
Traversing probes operate under severe mechanical stress in a high temperature environment and are extremely vulnerable to damage.
Two others are niarginal and are to be replaced in December.
l h'
l
)
y
,s.
s
(=..
GENERAL h ELECTRIC Mr. J. R. Shea October 1,1979 Thus, if only four are supplied, the two then remaining spares will constitute the barest minimum number required for safe operation.
If the license covers the six units. TAPS has purchased, and GE has packaged and ready for transport, four spares - one for each installed unit - will be available after the December replacement.
A single set of spare probes, in our view, could scarcely be characterized as excessive stockpiling; indeed, it is merely prudent operating practice.
The second point, further indefinite delay for Commissioner action, threatens to leave the Tarapur Station with no spare detectors after the October outage. As previously stated, the one spare unit will be used then. - TAPS has repeatedly requested expedited shipment in recent months.
They.have approved premiums to cover the costs of transport by air. They know the probes are packaged and shipment awaits only the issuance of XCOM 250.
TAPS, without adequate spare instrumentation, clearly would not be in the interest of public health and safety. Nor would the continued withholding of XCOM 250 at this time contribute significantly to construction of stronger Tarapur safeguards.
Given these facts, we are confident you will now initiate all reasonably productive steps toward timely issuance of XCOM 250.
Please keep us advised of progress toward that goal.
Very truly yours,
'/A<.h
[ Bend. Wilson, Manager Governmental Relations &
Export Licensing c1k cc:
G.R. Helfrich R.L. Williamson V.H. Hudgins
/
I.r-GEN ER AL j ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY 5?NE
~B TIS I N E S S GROUP GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA,p}3 JAN 125 ov 14 Ri R 4:
January 11, 1980
- G ;Rf/iXP;nT BDW 80005
.g3,;,$tSFGRDS O
Mr. James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs Mt:BB 8103 U. S. fluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Expedited Issuance of XCOM 250
Dear Mr. Shea:
This confirms information discussed today ty phone with Mr. William Upshaw of your staff.
As stated in my letter to you of October 1,1979, only one spare traversing incore probe (TIP) was available at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) and it was used to replace a failed TIP during the October outage of reactor Unit Two.
This leaves absolutely no available spares for the scheduled replacements of the two TIPS in_ Unit One. That unit was shut down for refueling and maintenance on flovember 28, 1979.
It is scheduled for return to service on February 28, 1980.
~
Although TAPS has approved air shipment of the six probes (a costly and unusual instruction from TAPS), there is scarcely enough time remaining before the planned February 28, 1980 Unit One startup to accommodate the needs to complete shipping arrangements, for air shipment to Bombay, trucking to TAPS site, inspection, testing, preparation, removal of old failed units to storage casks and installation of the spares.
We tnerefore urge your best efforts to issue XCOM 250 immediately in order to avoid both of the unacceptable alternative consequences; i.e., (a) remain inoperative until the spare units are exported and replaced or, (b) attempt potentially unsafe start-up with faulty instrumentation, if Government of India safety regulations permit.
Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours, J.m
. D. Wilson, Manager Government Relatio s and Export Licensing
/shh.