ML20052A665
| ML20052A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000563 |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1982 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052A666 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204280566 | |
| Download: ML20052A665 (5) | |
Text
,
I o tr:g%
UNITED STATES
- 4
[
~h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Glenn:
Enclosed are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's responses to the four questions raised in your January 13, 1982 letter relating to the role of the Edlow International Company in assisting the South Africa Electric Supply Commission (ESCOM) in obtaining enriched uranium fuel for the Koeberg reactors.
Our responses were prepared based on unclassified discussions with representatives of the international community and the nuclear industry.
These responses have been coordinated with the Executive Branch for factual accuracy and for classification, and their comments have been taken into consideration.
Sincerely, l
Nunzi J.
alladino
Enclosure:
Responses to Questions 820428esG6
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Question 1:
What is the understanding of the Commission as to how ESCOM obtained fuel for the first core of the Koeberg reactor?
What role, if any, did the firm Edlow International -(or other firms acting as agents for Edlow International) play in this transaction?
Answer:
We understand that South Africa obtained a commitment for initial supplies of enriched uranium for the two Koeberg reactors from excess inventories held by the Swiss Power Utility Consortium (SPUC) for its Kaiseraugst reactor and by the Belgian power utility 7rganization Synatom.
The quantities involved are uncertain, but an initial core loading for a Koeberg unit would be approximately 75,000 kilograms of uranium enriched to about 2.6% U-235.
One reload would be approximately 24,000 ki.lograms of uranium.
The Kaiseraugst material was enriched in France (EUR0DIF) from non-U. S. origin feed material, possibly from South Africa.
We believe that SPUC entered into enrichment commitments with EUR0DIF in anticipation of a 1978.startup of its 925 MWe reactor but, with the slippage of the startup date to 1990, found itself obligated for material for which it had no im' mediate use.
The sale of the material to another user may have
. presented SPUC an opportune way to avoid substantial economic ~
penalties.
Similarly, we believe the material from Synatom in Belgium became available when the operational dates for four Belgian reactors slipped two years.
Again, the Belgian material was enriched by EUR0DIF from non-U. S. origin feed, possibly of
. South African origin.
(NOTE:
On the attached list of licenses held by Edlow International is license number XUO8427 for 248 tonnes of natural uranium intended for export to France for earichment, for subsequent return to the U. S. for fuel fabrica-tion, and for ultimate use in the Kaiseraugst reactor.
This license is valid until March 10, 1990.
We have determined that no shipment of material covered by this license has occurred and none is planned for the near' future.)
l The enriched uranium from Switzerland and Belgium will be fabricated into fuel assemblies for South Africa by Framatome in France.
l We do not know the details of the role played by the i
Edlow International Company or other firms in this transaction..
j The NRC staff understands that, at least with respect to discussions with SPUC, Edlow International participated as an intermediary to bring the buyer and seller together and to assist
~
in the negotiation of contract conditions covering such matters as price, quantities of material and delivery schedules.
They also may have served as a liaison with concerned foreign govern-mental agencies.
r
-1
Question 2:
Do any actions taken by Edlow International with regard to this transaction constitute a violation of U. S. law?
What is the basis for this determination?
Specifically, do any actions by Edlow International constitute a violation of Part 70 or Part 110 of the Commission's Regulations ?
Answer:
The Commission staff has looked into this matter and at this time is not aware of any violation by Edlow International of U. S. law administered by the NRC.
Neither to our knowledge was there any violation of NRC regulations.
The NRC is not aware that any of the material acquired by South Africa originated in the U. S. or is subject to U. S. safeguards or other U. S. controls.
The NRC staff has reviewed transactions involving the export of nuclear material to specific countries, particularly those to which Edlow In'ternational was a party.
The NRC staff's review did not indicate that any materials subject to U. S. controls have been diverted to an unapproved end-use.
Based upon our experience, we believe that Edlow International is well informed with respect to the legal and regulatory requirements governing the export / import and shipping of nuclear materials and equipment.
We have no record of Edlow International violating laws or regulations administered by the NRC or our predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission.
/
Question 3:
Has the Commission initiated any disciplinary action or taken any other measure to indicate its disapproval of any participation by Edlow International in this transaction?
If so, please provide specifics.
Has the Commission communicated with Edlow International with regard to this matter?
If so, please provide specifics.
Answer:
Edlow International did not communicate with the Commission concerning its activities.
Following publication of newspaper accounts of the transaction, the Edlow firm was con-tacted by NRC staff members in an attempt to confirm that no U. S.-origin material was involved in the alleged transaction.
Edlow International confirmed this but provided no additional details.
On December 4, 1981, Commissioner Gilinsky met with Mr. Samuel Ed10w, at Mr. Edlow's request.
Mr. Edlow explained that he heard from the Department of State that Commissioner Gilinsky was looking into the ESCOM transaction and was interested in knowing whether U. S. laws had been violated.
Mr. Edlow explained the outlines of the transaction --
.approximately half of the enriched uranium came from Belgium and half from Switzerland -- and assured the Commissioner that the uranium was not of U. S. origin, was not otherwise subject to U. S. control, and that Edlow International had not violated U. S. law by participating in this matter.
v e
a
4-i
'Qu'estion 4:
Please provide a list of Commission licenses (both domestic and export) currently held by Edlow International.
Answer:
A list of licenses issued by NRC and currently held by Edlow International, as well as those pending before NRC, is attached.
9 0
O O
O 9
6 e
w O
9 G-e l
i i
i.
,