ML20009D299
| ML20009D299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | Hassell D NRC |
| To: | Mcgregor E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009D287 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-212 NUDOCS 8107230350 | |
| Download: ML20009D299 (4) | |
Text
gatsag,
'3 UNITED STATES 1
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
7 '
wAsawcion. o.c. 20sz s...../
OFFICE OF THE A ril 28,1981 P
CHAIRMAN
/
?.s NOTE.TO: L,E6 ward McGregor
~
Executive Assistant to the Secretary FROM:
Donald F. Hassell-SdBJECT:
SECY-81-170 CRITERION 1 DETERMINATIONS I!i EXPORT LICENSING,
' ' ~
In accordance with the'Corraission's rules of procedure, I request an extension of four working days.
'cc: W;' Manning
.T. Gibbon V.-Harding l
l l-i l
I i
l l
8107230350'O'10622I4 J
i N0TATION V 0_I_E BESP0r!SE SliEEl T0: -
~ SAMust J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
't FROM,.
CHAIRMAN HEttDRIE 9
SUBJECT:
SECY-81-170 - CRITERION 1 DETERMINATIONS IN EXPORT LICENSING APPROVED
~
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
--NOTzPARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION
- C'OMMENTS:.
i Awn 4%
yv ArCa 3.
,ij g, Av f
../
g SIGNAIURL.
2MigQ MU SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/0R COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS SEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
.N NRC-SECY FORM DEC, 80
C{ji\\';}El.Ei.).li_.
f > h 'J F..n ;;g.., ef
, p u :..v
<s
},$$l@Q WX~
\\
it0 T A T I O r VOTE RESP 0tlSE SHEEI
.T0:
-SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE SUBJEC.T:
SECY-81-170 - CRITERION 1 DETERMINATIONS IN EXPORT LICENSING APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOTPARTICIPAThlG REQUEST DISCUSSION
~
. COMMENTS:
~
- ~ ~ '
- - ~ ' ~
~
.. a.c......
,..{w uYw i
I
\\
41GNAIURL
'[
/DNIE SECRETARIAT NOTE:."PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/0R COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
i lijfC ASS FE
[
ilRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80'C0FiDN - edam
u--
i g
i Mr. Ahearne's comments on Secy-81-170:
6d (C) k agree with seeking Congressional clarification.
however, I would modifv the letter to make clear the consequences of a Concressional 4
choic'e).
ri[
t We.also need to clarify the staff's responsibilities. I believe
_(U) there are two main differences'- Option 2 and Option 3:
(1)
Option 2 retains as a current objective the search for information necessary to make-a finding on the technical effectiveness of safeguards, while Option 3 concedes this is not going to happen (absent action by Congress).
,(2)
Consequently, under Option-2 the staff will " continue to actively pursue and evaluate country-specific safeguards information," while under. Option 3 the scope of inquiry would be narrowed to examining available information and pursuing specific concerns which arise.
- ( C-)
~
((, Y E l(U)'
. Consequently, I would (1)
Agree that we ask for Congressional clarification, t
i I
(2)
Modify the proposed letter to clarify the consequences of
- 2. choice. between the alternatives offered, and
'(3). Revise the guidance to the staff to indicate Comission support of Option 3.
(Although I would modify Option 3 to clarify country analyses are still a good idea in that they organize the available information, and we should continue to support efforts to improve IAEA safeguards through vehicles such as the Action Plan.)
i 4
r.
i m -.y