ML20138F350
| ML20138F350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/1996 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bishop A CANADA ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Z587 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-493 NUDOCS 9609130157 | |
| Download: ML20138F350 (1) | |
Text
. _ . -_ _. . ._.
g N.1dQ$6 '
/ %e UNITED STATES f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066!Kx)01 o E g ..... j# September 9, 1996 CHAIRMAN Dr. Agnes J. Bishop President Atomic Energy Control Board 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Canada KlP 559 l
Dear Dr. Bishop:
i I wish to thank you and the other members of the Atomic Energy Control Board (Messrs. P. Marchildon, R.M. Duncan, J.G. Waddington and J.D. Harvie) for the time devoted to me and my delegation during my August 15 visit to Ottawa to discuss U.S.-Canadian policy initiatives and licensing issues. I found our l talks to be very informative and productive, and hopefully they will pave the way for even greater cooperation in nuclear matters between our agencies.
I look forward to receiving information on the results of your review of the work done under your effort "96 and Beyond." I will also send you information on my initiative " Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining."
As we discusred, I believe there is much to be shared between the U.S. and Canada on our experiences in such areas as risk-informed regulations and cooperation with other countrie's, such as China and Korea.
With respect to your future efforts to transfer more responsibility from the Atomic Energy Control Board to the Canadian Provinces, similar to our Agreement States Program, I have instructed my staff to work closely with your j staff to provide any information that may be useful to your organization to :
facilitate this transfer of authority.
Please pass on to Mr. Tom Diamantstein my thanks for his work in arranging my visit to the AECB, as well as for the role he played in arranging my stay in Toronto.
I again thank you and your colleagues for your hospitality and look forward to continuing to share views on important nuclear safety and waste disposal issues. Should your busy schedule permit, I would be honored and pleased to have you visit NRC for a continuation of our discussions.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson l cc: Tom Diamantstein -
~E , ~ ,
CheTd M.n
1 h 2Q$V
[
e" t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINcToN, D.C. 205500001 o #
g **..+ / September 6, 1996 _
CHAmMAN The Honorable Jesse A. Helms, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Pir. Cnairman:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwaried the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent -to ratification in May '.995. The Convention implements a consistent U.E. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reacters while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organiz,utions and provides that reactors l'uilt to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement te our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety ;
assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a i text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy. i Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and ;
June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety ,
agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress N
- ~ ,
i .-
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early springlof 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has 4 written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety. j Thank~you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson l
4
)
[
e" k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 g
e k...+,/
September 6, 1996 g l
I CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard G. Lugar Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lugar:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your nelp in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already ;
embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of :
the U.S. nuclear power industry. l i
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to I become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
1 i
4 j
- 2 f
4 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to i participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by J early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive. Branch agency representatives have i briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has i written to you and Senator Pell asking for your support in ratifying the CNS.
4 Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the j Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate
- action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive i achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of l international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states,
- including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, j Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
2 Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with
- you on this important matter.
Sincerely, l & ^4 '
l
! Shirley Ann Jackson i i i
i 4
i 0
i i
b l
i l
i
)
- ~. - - . - . ._.- - - .-. --. - - . . . _ . ._ -
f N UNITED STATES i 4
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 205500001 5 e September 6, 1996
\**..+ j CHAIRMAN
)
l
)
l The Honorable Nancy L. Kassebaum Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kassebaum:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important -
international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to I ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national i governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate ,
standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is
~
an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a ;
text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy. ;
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contiacting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effect.ive and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implercenting U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the !4ational Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
a i
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that.the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive. Branch agency representatives have brieted the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
i Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with !
you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson I
l 1
l
?
l l
/ \ UNITED STATES
.t' " %. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
- t k.....,/ September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN
- The Honorable Hank Brown Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Brown:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of_our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S.. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However,.unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
d i
6 4
i
! 2
- organizes itself, it' is' very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by
, early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have 4 briefed the Committee's staff on.the Convention,-and the State Department has
! written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the i CNS.- Secretary of State Christooher has also twice noted the need for action
) on the Coiventior, in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the a
i'.ipressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant j extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including o'.her major nuclear power states such as France, the i United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have
. already ratified the CNS, to support international' nuclear safety.
1 Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with j you on this important matter.
Sincerely, s
i i
l i
f %4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e-)v(f S 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 e September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Coverdell:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important l international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety. I I
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995 The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an t.ffective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors shiie affirming the responsibility of national :
governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging I regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs. 1 The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy. i Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that i the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian l nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. car, move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that.the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial'CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in. testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other
. Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate.the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter. ;
i Sincerely, ;
y
[ 4,$
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 2 e
\....,/
+
September 6, 1996 CHAMMAN I
4 The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Snowe:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards shrild be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become'a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress l
4 i
i 2
- organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to 4
participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by
, early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have
- i. briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has
- i written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying t1e CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for acticn on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other !
Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the 1 impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly ,
- thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have j already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with
- you on this import <.t matter.
2
! Sincerely, i
j hb Shirley Ann Jackson 1
- --. . ~..-. .. .. - _.-. . .- .- .- --
f e"
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSiCN WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
-e i
k.....,/ September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN f
The Honorable Fred Thompson Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate i Washington,.D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Thompson:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian
- nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
- -- - _ . . - , - - - . . . - . . - - - - . ~.- . _ _ . . _ . . - . -
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial'CHS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by !
early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has j written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the 1 CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other '
Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the 1 United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, I
l i
j i
i
+
1 f
i-l l
a
[>3 MCy**, UNITED STATES 3 -
4- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055tM)o01
'e k.....,/ September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN a
l j The Honorable Craig Thomas '
j Committee on Foreign Relations 4
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 '
Dear Senator Thomas:
I l On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into
, force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of 1
the Convention to enable the United States to join this important 3 international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
1 The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to l ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national i governments f'or nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging 1 regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate '
standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
,. The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a )
text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
i Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the l
! U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and '
1 June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that )
the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting !
Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and I
- supportive of our safety goals.
! 'The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in impleirenting U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National
- Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already
- embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
1 The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to i become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would !
erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the~ Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded. ,
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress l
, l
- l l
i
i
- l I 2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Conventio,n, and the State Department has 3 written to' Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action .
i on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other l i Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the i impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant i extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly i thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the j United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have
. already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
j Thank~you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with
! you on this important matter.
l Sincerely, 1
I i <
J F
5 l
J l
3 l
1
. i i
i h
)
i l 1
4 4
4
- i i !
4
I 1
ge % UNITED STATES y" #g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 o e September 6, 1996
\ . . . . j/
l CHAIRMAN '
. l l
i The licnorable Rod Grams Committee on Foreign Relations j United States Senate i Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Grams:
l On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into -
I force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to l ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development cf an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages m p.ncrt for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactces built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practicaliy possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expediciously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress i
I
__ _ _ _ . _ - . . . _ .._. _ _ _ _ __.~.._ _ _._.-._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .. ..
i 4
'1 i
- 2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive. Branch agency representatives have 1
briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has j written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the i CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action -
i on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other i Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the i impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant
- extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly j thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the
- United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have l already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
2
- Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter. .
j Sincerely, bA l Shirley Ann Jackson i
l t
1 4
1 i
4 s
i I
i
i
- 4 i
f UNITED STATES k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
/* )21 j WASHINGTON, D.C. 205$s-0001 kb# .....
September 6,1996 CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable John Ashcroft Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Ashcroft:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of F e Convention to enable the United States to join this important ic.ternational mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
. - . . . . . - . . - -.. - - - . - . - - - . - - - _ - - - . . - ~ _ .
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive. Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell ahd Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly i thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
- Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
l Sincerely, l
i l
)
?
?
i l
l
[
e" UMITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055MX)01 a e
( ..... / September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN I
I l
The Honorable Claiborne Pell I Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 l l
Dear Senator Pell On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into i force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important i international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety. '
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy i to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civiiian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
- . - - . . - . . . . - - . . - _ . - - . - . - . . - . . - . - . - - . . . - . - . - . . - . . . ~
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to i participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has .
written to you and Senator Lugar asking for your support in ratifying the CNS. !
Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this-important matter.
Sincerely, b -
i i
_. __ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._. .. _ __ ._m__
g# % UNITED STATES p- 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655-4001 3 :j '
\ ..... p8 September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN j
J The Honorable Joseph R. Biden j Committee on Foreign Relations
! United States. Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 4
Dear Senator Biden:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to I ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy
!- to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national s governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging !
i regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate l standards should be. closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS'is I an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs. ,
I The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a l l text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy. !
i Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the p U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and ,
June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that
. the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting i Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals, i l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian l nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of I the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
s 2
4' organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by l early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have
' briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of-State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the _ Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international' nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the i United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
'I
je UNITED STATES c
N}t "
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20555 4001 5 i September 6, 1996 j/ >
- ...+
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force'. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety. t The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. ..Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of t.he CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that ,
the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and '
supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regelations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to .
become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification vould erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
9 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the cru:ial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by '
early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Ccmmittee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety. r Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson l
l I
I
1 UNITED STATES
/
y" 4 NUCLLAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20%F0001 e
k.....,/ September 6, 1996 CHAmMAN The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 .
Dear Senator Dodd:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into l force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety. ;
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to l ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy )
to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for i nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national '
governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory-organizations and prnvides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating th! Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful. implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and
! June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be.able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effectise and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian t nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
l The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to l
)- become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would crode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety ;
i agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded. i f' However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress ;
I
2 organizas itself,- it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to .
participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spru g of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the 4 Ur,ited Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have l l already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter, l
Sincerely, 1
i
? l l
l I
l l
l i
i f
4 i
- , -. - r.. - . - , . _ . ,, _. - . , . . . _ , . , _ . . _ . . , .-
O'
[ 4 t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
g g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20SS!M001 e
k.....,/
1 September 6, 1996
]
CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable John F. Kerry
' Committee on Foreign. Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kerry:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety. ,
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy i to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for ,
nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national j governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and' succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
l obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National l Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already ,
! embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to i become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would
, erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety
- agreement. We know the Congressional legislative caler
- dar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that' the U.S. would be able to participate'in the crucial CNS, Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written'to you and Senator Lugar asking for your support in ratifying the CNS.
Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter. '
Sincerely, 1 i
l l
i i
. . _. . , ~ . - _ . . . - - - . . - . .. -._. ..- - = - - =
e
[ %
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055!M)001 j k....
CHAIRMAN September 6,1996 The Honorable Charles R. Robb Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter.into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The. President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
l The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a text which is fully consistent with current'U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop apprcpriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
'The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional. legislative calendar is very crowded.
. However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
~~-
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank.you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson
l e"
[ 4 k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E O WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 3 !
k...../
CHAIRMAN September 6, 1996 The Honorable Russell D. Feingold Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 -
Dear Senator Feingold:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
I The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility of national I governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs.
The U.S. was active in negotiating the Convention and succeeded in achieving a i text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy.
Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the 1 U.S. has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S.
obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations'and procedures, and the conforming practices of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded.
However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress
2 organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have briefed the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with you on this important matter.
Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson i
i l
i
. ..~.- - . - _ - . - . _ _ . _ ~ _ - . . . . _ - . - . - - . . . _ _ .
$ ## UNITED STATES
- p% \ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 i_ .o f
\ ...+,/
September 6, 1996 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein:
On October 24, 1996, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) will enter into force. I am writing to seek your help in expediting the Senate's review of ,
the Convention to enable the United States to join this important international mechanism for enhancing nuclear safety.
The President forwarded the CNS to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification in May 1995. The Convention implements a consistent U.S. policy I to support development of an effective nuclear safety culture worldwide for nuclear power reactors while affirming the responsibility 'of national governments for nuclear safety. It also encourages support for emerging ,
regulatory organizations and provides that reactors built to inadequate '
standards should be closed as soon as practically possible. Thus, the CNS is an important complement to our bilateral and multilateral nuclear safety assistance programs. j The U.S. was active in negotiating thn Convention and succeeded in achieving a l text which is fully consistent with current U.S. law, regulations, and policy. 1 Underscoring its commitment to the successful implementation of the CNS, the f i
U.S._has chaired three meetings of signatories (in March and November 1995 and June 1996) to develop appropriate implementation procedures. It is vital that the U.S. be able to participate in the initial meetings of the Contracting Parties to ensure that the procedures finally adopted are cost-effective and supportive of our safety goals.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its capacity as the U.S. civilian i nuclear regulatory authority, will play a central role in implementing U.S. 4 obligations under the CNS. Other than the requirement to prepare the National Report required in Article 5, obligations under the Convention are already embodied in NRC regulations and procedures, and the conforming practices of l the U.S. nuclear power industry.
The Commission hopes that, with your help, the U.S. can move expeditiously to become a Party to the Convention. Delaying consent to ratification would i erode U.S. leadership in implementing this significant nuclear safety l
agreement. We know the Congressional legislative calendar is very crowded. i However, unless the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moves the Convention forward before the November elections and the hiatus as a new Congress I
l-
l 2 l organizes itself, it is very unlikely that the U.S. would be able to participate in the crucial CNS Preparatory Meeting that must be convened by early spring of 1997. NRC and Executive Branch agency representatives have
~
briefe<1 the Committee's staff on the Convention, and the State Department has written to Senators Pell and Lugar asking for their support in ratifying the CNS. Secretary of State Christopher has also twice noted the need for action on the Convention in testimony before the Committee. Early hearings or other Senate action on the Convention would enable the U.S. to consolidate the impressive achievement of over sixty states negotiating this significant extension of international nuclear law. The U.S. should join the nearly thirty states, including other major nuclear power states such as France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Sweden, and Spain, which have already ratified the CNS, to support international nuclear safety.
Thank-you for your consideration. The Commission stands ready to work with i you on this important matter. l I
l Sincerely, ;
i L
i l
1
,_ ~ -
_._ _ _ .. _ . _ . . _ _ . _ .. . _ . . . _ ~ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _
W w c %. UNITED STATES
/1 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 2055%0001 l
- E
\...../
CHAIRMAN September 5, 1996
)
i l i
i 1
i The Honorable Se-Jong Kim 4 President Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 4 P.O. Box 114
. Yusong, Taejon
, Republic of Korea, 305-600 i
Dear President Kim:
- On behalf of my Commission colleagues, I want to extend to you our best wishes on the occasion of the Republic of Korea's second annual Nuclear Safety Day, which is to be celebrated on September 10, 1996. We commend your initiative ;
and support the concept of establishing a national day to enhance public l awareness of _ nuclear safety, to cultivate greater awareness of and attention l
^
to nuclear safety, and to single out for recognition those individuals and -!
1 organizations who have strengthened and furthered the achievement of nuclear -!
> safety objectives. It is, indeed, a pleasure to see nuclear safety being accorded the prominence it deserves and demands, particularly in the Republic l of Korea, which has one of the most active nuclear power programs in the l world.
I I know that the Nuclear Safety Day is the beginning of a full week of !
activities, including a symposium on emergency planning and response 4
internationally and a full scale emergency exercise to take place at the l
, Ulchin nuclear station. A member of the NRC staff is participating in the !
- symposium and observing and helping critique the exercise. ;
- We wish the Government of the Republic of Korea continued success with its j i regulatory program. l Sincerely, J
i N Shirley Ann Jackson I
-s f
gE i
- i. i b
ht7mr a _.
C U K tt J
, . . .h 5 g@to r
- p *o UNITED STATES y *' ' ,t, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMGD-96-002 g ;i W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 ,
t e s,,e OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER September 4, 1996 TO: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM: Commissioner Dicus [
RE: U.S.-Russian. Joint Coordinating Committee for Radiation Effects Research - Status Report and Plans
Background:
On July 22, 1992 Dr. Gail de Planque, then an NRC Commissioner, brought-to the attention of Robert L. Gallucci, Department of State Senior Coordinator for the Deputy Secretary, that a unique , opportunity existed for cooperative research programs with Russian scientists that could provide significant new insights on radiation health and environment effects (attachment 1). Russian operations at the nuclear weapons production complex at Mayak, near Chelyabinsk, resulted in the release of enormous amounts of radioactive materials into the environment and serious overexposures of thousands of Mayak workers and citizens in the surrounding area from both external and internal sources of radiation. The Mayak worker and citizen populations provide a unique opportunity for radiation health effects research to validate the models used by the NRC and other organizations for early morbidity and mortality after irradiation from external and internal sources.
Most of our knowledge of radiation health effects is based upon studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and persons deliberately exposed for medical reasons. The atomic bomb survivors were exposed to a very short burst of external radiation which is not characteristic of radiation worker exposures nor of population exposures from normal operations or accidents at nuclear facilities. The studies of medically
- exposed persons are confounded by the facts that the exposed populations are already diseased and have age and gender characteristics different from worker and public populations.
The extrapolation of health effects observed at high doses or dose-rates in the atom bomb survivor and medical patient populations to low doses and dose rates has not been validated.
The method selected to make such extrapolations is controversial because the method affects the estimate of the risk of injury - _
ex ,
h h//.
! 2 which, in turn, is a critical factor in regulatory decision making on radiation protection standards. Therefore, the results of studies of populations such as the workers of Mayak and citizens of surrounding areas who were exposed over long periods of time from.both external and internal sources could have a major impact on the world's radiation protection standards.
As.a result of Dr. de Planque's letter and communications from other scientists, the Russian Federation and the United States l
engaged in negotiations to develop a framework to support and l facilitate joint cooperative research and exchange of information l between the United States and the Russian Federation on the i health and environmental effects of radiation. On January 14,
! 1994 at the Moscow Summit Secretary of State Christopher and )
Foreign Minister Kozyrev signed a bilateral agreement.for this !
purpose. ]
The group established to implement the Agreement is known as the !
l Joint Coordinating Committee for Radiation Effects Research
! (JCCRER). Currently, U.S. members are DOE, HHS, DOD and NRC.
The. DOE is the Executive Agent for the U.S. side. Its l
! representative, Tara O'Toole, Assistant Secretary for i
Environment, Safety and Health serves as JCCRER Co-chair. I am - ,
the NRC representative. The Russian Federation Co-chair is I
l:
i Vicktor Vladimirov,-First Deputy Minister, Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense Affairs, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters (EMERCOM).
JCCRER representatives are Presidential appointee or Ministerial level government personnel.
The JCCRER held its first, and only, meeting in Washington, DC on October 24-26, 1994. An organizational structure was approved that called for an Executive Committee (EC) to effectively be l
responsible for day-to-day communications and coordination of JCCRER activities. The EC also serves as a liaison between the l JCCRER and the Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) which serve in an advisory capacity. Individual projects are carried out by Project Research Teams.
t Three main areas of research were proposed:
Community Populations Health Effects (Direction 1)
Worker Populations Health Effects (Direction 2) l.
Information Technologies and Decision Making Support for Radiation Accidents and Health Effects from Radiation i Exposure (Direction 3) i Feasibility studies for Directions 1 and 2 were approved at the
! October, 1994 meeting.
) 3 I
In 1995 the JCCRER sponsored public workshops in Clearwater, FL
- and St. Petersburg, Russia on worker and population studies.
' In 1996 the SRGs provided their comments on Current Issues the feasibility studies to date. The U.S. SRG also expressed concern about the overall management and focus of the U.S. side i of the JCCRER and about the uncertainty of long term U.S. funding for projects conducted under the JCCRER.
(
In FY 96 the U.S. provided direct funding for JCCRER projects
- totaling $1.07 million. Of this, NRC contributed $0.1 million
- (which was transferred to the DOE in support of Direction 2.3, s discussed below) and DOE the rest. The DOE and the NRC as well
- as.HHS and DOD also funded travel, salaries etc. of their staffs who are engaged in research carried out under the JCCRER. The 2
j Russian Federation has provided about $ 1 million in "in kind"
} support.
Partly in response to the U.S. SRG comments, a meeting of the
. U.S. side of the JCCRER was convened on August 20, 1996. At that i meeting, which was also attended by representatives of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of State i (DOS) -(see attachment 2 for attendance list), it was proposed that the U.S. JCCRER should refocus its attention on coordination
- and promotion of the radiation effects research, fostering of j radiation-effects research partnerships with other
- organizations,* and increasing public awareness of the value of -
the research.2 Under this proposal the JCCRER would leave the
! selection and management of research projects to the funding agencies but would-retain a sufficient degree of oversight to i
l-1 For example, in an August 6, 1996 letter to the EDO, Mme.
Annie Sugier identified as an area of common interest between the
} NRC and the Institut de Protection et de Surete Nucleaire (IPSN) i the " follow up of ex USSR workers (case of deterministic ef fects) . " IPSN has transferred $250,000 to the NRC to augment the funding of radiation health effects studies to be conducted under the U.S. Ukraine leukemia protocol. Also, at the April, 1996 international conference on Chernobyl sponsored by the IAEA, Dr. Jaak Sinnaeve, Head of the Radiation Protection Research Action of the CEC met with Commissioner Dicus to discuss
~
- coordination of radiation health effects studies in the Russian j' Federation.
1 2 As an example, the DOS representative stated that there is Congressional interest in radiation effects research arising out of the Chernobyl accident but that Congress' perception of Mayak i
j and the surrounding areas is that it is a Pu production facility i 'with little or no recognition of its potential for radiation i health effects studies.
i 4 .
. - - - , ,,. , .n- , , , -
4 assure that overlaps and duplication are minimized. It was also agreed that there was a need for increased involvement of the DOS.
The DOE is estimating a shortfall in its FY 97 contribution of
$1.14 million (attachment 3). DOE commitments beyond FY 97 are uncertain. Absent alternative sources of funding, the JCCRER will have to prioritize projecte based upon available funds.
With respect to the NRC's direct support, it is focussed upon Project ~ 2.3 which will examine the deterministic radiation health effects observed in the Mayak worker population. Such studies would help to validate the models used by the NRC (see NUREG/CR-4214, " Health Effects Models for Nuclear Power Plant Accident Consequence Analysis"). The feasibility study for this project is in progress and the SRGs strongly suggested that this project be given high priority.
Current, preliminary estimates are that a full scale Project 2.3 will take 3 to 5 years to complete and direct costs will total approximately $1.5 million. Under the proposed revised management approach and focus, the NRC could directly fund this, study (replacing the current arrangement whereby NRC funds are transferred to the DOE) and manage it. NRC administrative and staffing costs are not expected to be significantly changed and this arrangement would enable more direct interactions between NRC and Russian scientists. It must be stressed that Project 2.3 is a long term effort, 3 to 5 years and thus will require funding over this period to attain a full return on the investment assuming the availability of funds and no funding constraints due to unforeseen circumstances.
For FY 97, the EDO has indicated that up to S 500,000 could be made available from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) budget to support JCCRER activities. JCCRER spcnscred research, particularly, Project 2.3, would benefit NRC licensees by validating radiation effect models for regulatory purposes.
Other.JCCRER sponsored research has the promise of yielding data on radiation health effects in dose and dose rate ranges comparable to those encountered in the nuclear industry. These data.could enable refining of current standards for radiation protection including those for waste disposal and for decommissioning with the potential for commensurate benefits to the regulated community.
Future Actions: At the August 20th meeting I expressed my personal support for the proposal to refocus the U.S. JCCRER and the need to prioritize JCCRER research in view of budget constraints. I noted, however, that I could not speak for the Commission. Further, I noted that the Commission, in addition to budgetary constraints, is also undergoing a strategic assessment
. . - - - - . . . - - _ - - ~ ~ _ _ - . . . . - _ . _ _ _ - - -
1 .
[.
! 5 i.
and rebaseling. Therefore, I would be consulting with my fellow Commissioners on these developments.
1 Dr. O'Toole will convene a telephone conference of the U.S. l 3
JCCRER principals on September 16th. This will be followed by a l 5
meeting of the principals on October 9th. The U.S. JCCRER l i principals and their staffs will depart on October 19th for the j i 2nd JCCRER meeting which will be held in Moscow and visits to the !
- Mayak complex and the cooperating scientific institutions. In j order to hold effective and meaningful discussions with the l Russians the U.S. JCCRER must first reach final agreement on the i proposed revised U.S. JCCRER focus and must have in hand I commitments, to the extent possible, from the participating
{ agencies for funding JCCRER projects in 1997.
Therefore, your concurrence in the proposed revised focus of the JCCRER and NRC direct funding for FY 97, as follows, is requested:
i 1 l I recommend that the Commission support the revised focus of the i U.S. JCCRER. It vill result in more effective use of the l i
principals' resources and will focus their energies on developing support both inside and outside of the government for research
- covered by the Agreement. Oversight to assure that overlaps and 3 duplication are minimized will be maintained. Operating principles and guidelines will be developed to implement the new
- direction.
1 j I recommend that the NRC explore direct funding and management of !
the research proposed under Project 2.3. This arrangement, made
{ possible under the revised focus of the U.S. JCCRER, will enable NRC scientists to interact more directly with their Russian Federation counterparts. To support this research, NRC would provide up to $ 500,000 in FY 97 from RES' budget for direct i support of JCCRER activities with the intent that, subject to
- ' future budget constraints or unforeseen circumstances, Project j 2.3 will be funded to completion at a total cost not expected to exceed $1.5 million total over the next 5 years. This proposal
- is predicated on a positive report resulting from the feasibility 4
study. It is expected that about two-thirds of the funds will be
- j. for support of U.S. scientists working on this project and the
- remainder will be used to support Russian Federation researchers.
I further recommend that NRC pursue sources of outside funding to support Project 2.3 activities, for example, additional funds from IPSN, the European Commission or from Japan.' If such 4
i 3 Funds for this work in Russia are not currently available
- from the Agency for International Development (AID) which at this time has limited AID funds to strengthening the regulatory organizations in Russia and Ukraine.
6 outside funding becomes available, it should be noted that since Project 2.3 directly benefits NRC licensees by validating existing radiation health effects models, then such funds would be used in direct support of research activities and not for recovery of NRC staff costs.
A timely response is requested to enable my presenting the Commission's decision at the Septer ber 16th teleconference.
SECY: Please track.
Attachments: As stated 1
9
. [ ' 'o UNITED STATES 1
, ! o NUCLEAR REGULATOTr COMMISSION I g E W ASHINSTON, D.C. 20h 4
~
\...../
OFFICE OF THE
- COMMISSIONE R July 22, 1992
)
. l The Honorable Robert L. Gallucci ;
Senior Coordinator for the Deputy l Secretary (D/SC) ,
Room 5214 _
U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520 i
Dear Ambassador Gallucci:
It has come to my attention that there is considerable interest within several government agencies in cooperative programs with Russian scientists at Chelyabinsk. Such programs involve studies of health effects of radiation, decontamination and
- decommissioning, and waste management issues. Various meetings have already been held on the subject. For your information, the ;
enclosed brief " white paper" has been prepared discussing this in more detail.
I am concerned that unless these efforts are coordinated at a high level, the United States may jeopardize a golden opportunity ;
for a cooperative program that could pay significant dividends useful to the scientific and nuclear communities in the U.S. as well as abroad. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you in more detail. I sense that time is of the essence. I have discussed this matter with my fellow-Commissioners and would like to meet with you at your earliest .
convenience.
Sincerely, p I C E. Gail de Planque
Enclosure:
As Stated A?A%WA log
i,
}~ ,
i DRAFT July 24, 1992 L
j ...' SOUTHERN URALS (CHELYABINSK) WHITE PAPER 1
I' The political changes that have occurred in the FSU have opened up a unique opportunity to study and greatly increase our understanding of the.
problems related to decontamination and decoanissioning of sites contaminated I with radioactive materials, nuclear waste management, as well as health'-
! effects of radiation. The results of the studies may have a significant i impact upon public policy related to nuclear activities in the U.S. and I throughout the world. Full exploitation of this unique opportunity requires a j prompt, coordinated USG effort, for which your cooperation is being sought.
l Background on the Situation l In 1948, a nuclear weapons aroduction complex, 'MAYAK" was established i in the Southern Urals, about 100 us. northeast of Chelyabinsk. A closed town 3 l was built next to the MAYAK complex for MAYAK workers and their families, 1 j 'Chelyabinsk-40," (also known as Che1yabinsk-65). ,
. j
> 1 MAYAK operations resulted in the release of enormous amounts of l
- radioactive materials into the environment from a series of accidents from i 1948 to 1967, poor management practices, deliberate releases, and adverse i weather events. Thousands of square kilometers have been contaminated and hundreds of thousands of people have received significant radiation exposures
- over a protracted period. Furthermore, because of limited and primitive i j radiation protection measures and procedures, thousands of MAYAK workers and i
citizens in the surrounding areas were seriously overexposed to internal and/or external radiation, j Over the years the West heard bits and pieces of information about these
! events, but most of the information was considered secret and classified.
i Since the disolution of the Soviet Union and the Russian removal of many j restrictions on information, the whole story is becoming public.
l Importance to the United States l The preservation, restoration and analysis of radiation exposure, i
medical and environmental data in the South Urals is extremely important to the United States and to the world. These data may serve as the basis for radiation exposure studies that differ from those concluded in the past. Most of our knowledge on health effects and risks associated with radiation
- exposure is based on studies of persons exposed for medical purposes and i studies of the atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and' Nagasaki in 1945. The
- confounding factors in the studies on people exposed for med.ical reasons
- include an already diseased population, age and gender distributions
- l. unrepresentative of the general population, and in most cases, large doses, i delivered at high rates, to just portions of the patients' bodies. The i atomic bomb survivors were exposed to a very short burst of external
- radiation, which does not correspond to the pattern of exposure normally j encountered or expected in the nuclear fuel cycle and as well as in other uses i of radiation and radioactive materials. In all radiation risk issues, there j is no direct human data base equal in robustness to that of the atomic bomb i.
i i
i
i
{ survivor: data base; and thus our current risk and regulation policies are i primarily driven by and extrapolated from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki data.
- However, the extrapolation to low doses and dose rates has not been validated
- and this important scientific question remains unresolved. ,
t
- The Southern Urals data base may provide an opportunity to answer the d
question of whether chronic low level exposures pose a risk different from
! that previously assumed. The range of doses is comparable to Hiroshima-i Nagasaki, and the exposed population is even larger. The significant
, differences are that the Urals populations were chronically exposed over long
- periods of time, and the exposures were both external and from internally l deposited radionuclides. More definitive studies on these issues may have a j major impact on the world's radiation protection standards and regulations.
4 Accordingly, this situation now provides us with a unique opportunity to >
i address our questions and issues concerning possible risks to populations from
! protracted exposure to internal and/or external radiation Possible examples l include exposures from uranium mining, from nuclear facilities operations, i from transport and disposal of radioactive materials, from radon, from the i testing and dismantling of nuclear weapons, from medical exposure, and from i contaminated sites or facilities. Verification of a possibly lower risk from i chronic radiation exposure could be of major medical and economic j significance, as it could provide guidance on risks to actually and
- potentially exposed populations, populations that today are seriously l
concerned about future risks from past or future nuclear operations.
1 l In addition to the opportunity to study radiation health effects at
- Chelyabinsk, the unusually extensive environmental contamination has created a rare opportunity to study the transport cf the radioactive material in the 1 air, soil, water and biota. Data from such studies can add to our knowledge in this area and could significantly enhance the technical bases for national l and international programs for radioactive waste disposal as well as decontamination and decoanissioning of any sites contaminated with radioactive l materials.
i l UNITED STATES RESPONSE i.
- Many agencies of the United States Government, both at their own
- initiative and the initiative of Russian scientists, have begun to conduct i dialogues with those who collected, housed, directed and controlled the health j and environmental data of the Chelyabinsk area. It is now incumbent on the
- USG to coordinate and assess the scientific merit of potential cooperative i projects in this area and to negotiate with the appropriate Russian i
authorities in an organized and uniform fashion. An ad hoc. approach could i, cause confusion and disillusionment and the opportunity to proceed would be
- lost. It should be emphasized that no single U.S. agency has all the expertise or depth to cover all that should be done, but conversely, our j] collective national science community is noe than adequately equipped for the
- task.
s i
i
4 .-
f i
j At Chelyabinsk, most of the dosimetric and medical data are still on l l' handwritten paper files--without backup. Due to economic conditions in the :
Russian Federation, there is uncertainty about continuing funding of Russian _ i
. scientific organizations that have the data and have begun analyzing them.
Should support evaporate, both the primary data and the scientific expertise f
- related to the data might disappear, thus jeopardizing this unique opportunity 1 to learn more about the spectrum of effects of chronic radiation exposures on l humans. Not only must these data be preserved for future evaluation, but j cooperative studies on these populations and their environment must begin, as soon as possible, in order to capture the benefits described above. The full ;
.l understanding and exploitation of this unique opportunity can only be realized through an integrated and well coordinated program. The results from such
- studies may have a significant impact on pubite policy related to nuclear i activities throughout the world.
I Lastly, a coordinated program could avoid duplicati.on among U.S.
agencies, keep resource expenditures within reasonable bounds and avoid competition for access to Russian data and facilities by negotiating access once rather than many times for each U.S. participants.
- Appendix 1 lists USG agencies interested in carrying out scientific projects in the Chelyabinsk area.
Appendix 2 lists some of the potential research partners in the Russian ;
Federation and some of their interrelations.
Appendix 3 lists some research and scientific projects that would be of benefit for participating USG agencies.
O f
J I
i .
Appendix 1
$ SOME U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INTERESTED IN lliE S0lmi URALS,
. INCLUDING A FEW ASPECTS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST _
Interested Aaencies ;
- U.S. Department of Defense / Defense Nuclear Agency /AFRRI i
Nuclear disarmament, acute effects of radiation
. U.S. Department of Energy '
l Dosimetric, occupational, medical, environmental, basic radiation science issues; waste management, decontamination, EH, EM, ER (OHER),
Intr.rnational Programs U.S. Er.vironmental Protection Agency -
! Environmental contamination limits and dynamics I -
l U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1
Occupational and population epidemiology, treatment of I radiation illness, public health (CDC, FDA, NiH (NCI))
l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Health effects, decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities, worker safety, risk assessment, accident consequences l analysis, EDO, NRR, RES, IP.
- U.S. Department of State International cooperation, safe nuclear disarmament, assisting in the Scientific Center for employment of former weapons scientists in the Former Soviet Union (FSU).
potentially Interested Anencies National Academy of Science / National Research Council /RERF Health Effects (Hiroshima and Hagasaki)
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Plutonium dispersal dynamics, atmospheric transport U.S. Department of Agriculture Food contamination, soil and crop contamination ;,
e
) U.S. Dep'artment of Labor Occupation Safety & Health Administration National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration ..
Environmental Transport of radionuclides
! - U.S. Department of Transportation
)
)
i l
a I
l 1
'I J
J i
1 1
4 4
0 8 8
. g 4
.I
I l
Research Partners -
Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation Andrei I. Vorobiev, Minister l Institute of Biophysics Branch No. 4, Chelyabinsk Leonid Ilyin, Director Ural Research Center for Radiation !
' Medicine Branch No.1, Chelyabinsk-65/40 Mira M. Kossenko, Head / Clinical Dept. ;
Nina A.Koshurnikova, Marina O. Degteva, Deputy Director Head / Epidemiology i l
Nadeshda D. Okladnikova, International Radiological Head /ClinicalDept. Laboratory, Ltd.
Marina O. Degteva, Executive !
. Director ,
Research Institute .gfpedical Radiology Anatoly F. T3aA, Director . i e
4
i
}
4 Interolav Amonast the Potential Russian Partners l
l The principal executors (on the Russian side) of health research will be field j stations originally set up as part of the USSR Ministry of Health's Institute i
of Biophysics (I.B.); Branch No. 1 in Chelyabinsk-65 (=40) and Branch No. 4.
- Branch No.1 is still under the I.B.'s Director in Moscow, Academician Leonid i Ilyin but, recently Branch No. 4 was renamed the Ural Research Center for i Radiation Medicine, (URCRM), reporting (.tractly to the Ministry of Health, j (Academician Vorobtev). .
l Branch No. I has the data on MAYAK workers and the population of Chelyabinsk-i 65, while Branch No.- 4 (URCRM) has the data on Techa River populations and the population exposed to the 1957 Kyshtym accident, (and the subsequent 1967 wind l resuspension event).
[ The personnel of Branch No. 4 have estabitshed an independent unit,
" International Radiological Laboratory," (IRL), which has access to personnel j and data of Branch No. 4. IRL can apparently contract directly without going through the Health Ministry, and is attempting to sup;ilement, but not l.
duplicate tasks and projects supported by the Health Ministry.
! ' For studies on MAYAK workers and their families and others living in Chelyabinsk-65, the management of MAYAK has to be included.
l Academician Anatoly F. Tsyb of Obninsk, is the Russian Head of Working Group 7.2 of the Joint Coordinating Committee for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Safety (JCCCNRS) and was head of the USSR Academy of Sciences Comission to study the i health effects, environmental contamination and radiation control in the South l Urals in 1990.
l Due to past practices and the current conditions in Russia, it will be necessary for the researchers in the Chelyabinsk areas to be direct parties to
, any negotiations with the USA and that any funding, equipment and personnel j exchanges be sent directly to the unit in which the work will be done. It is j important that the number of intemediaries be minimal.
- For studies of waste management practices plus decontamination and i
decosnissioning of contaminated sites, the local and Moscow centralized
- management of NAYAK sust be involved along with the necessary health i
officials. The current Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) in Moscow is the L " owner-operator" of the facility and would have some say as to access to past records and availability of current participation of scientists in cooperative j, activities. .
i 4
l !..
1 i
- . - - - - . - ~ - _ . . . - . _ . . . - . ~ . - . . -
i
,. Appendix 3 PROPOSED RADIOLOGICAL, DOSIMETRIC AND HEALTH PROJECTS 4
FOR THE RUSSIAN SCUTH URALS REGION
~
1 Environmental Radioloaical Studies
- 3. Reconstruction of the " source terms" for each of the releases and
- events.
4
- 2. Determination of the distribution and fate of released radionuclides.
j a. Atmospheric transport
- b. Resuspension of deposited radionuclides
- c. Soil contamination and transport
! d. Aquifer contar.ination and dynamics
- e. Contamination of the food supply
- f. Estimate of current dose rates and forecast of future i exposures -
l g. External radiation dose rates, their past, present and j future levels l 3. Countermeasure methods to reduce population exposures i
' Stochastic Health Effect's Studies
! Applies to:
1 i a. Techa River Populations (1948-1953 and later exposures)
, b. East Ural Radioactive Trace (EURT) Populations (1957 Kyshtym I
Accident, and the 1967 wind resuspension)
- c. MAYAK workers employed and retired j d. Chelyabinsk-65/40 Populations, including families of Mayak workers i 1. Most important is the issnediate preservation of existing radiological,
, exposure and medical data, (e.g. microfilming, optical scanning, oral
- histories).
- 2. Data computerization. Develop a format that will facilitate future j manipulation and analysis.
- 3. Personal Dose Estination
- a. Biological dosimetry.
- b. Radionuclide body burden determination. -
- c. Personal. histories and the development of registries.
f' j d. Dosimetry of deceased persons.
l' 4. Medical data reconstruction and evaluation, including medical files, death certificates, histopathological information and materials., ,
l i
t
- 5. Analyses of data.
Deterministic (Non-stochastic) % alth Effects Studies ,
- 1. Chronic Radiation Syndrome, evaluation and analyses (data from MAYAX workers and selected Techa River inhabitants.)
- 2. Acute Radiation Syndrome, evaluation of clinical data and determination of possible threshold values for effects-(MAYAX workers).
- 3. Pulmonary Syndrome, evaluation of the metabolism and injury from inhaled radioactivity, especially transuranic elements including plutonium-(MAYAX workers).
e e
d 0
0
I i -
-t-vu l
l' NOTATI ON VOTE J ESPONSE SHEET q .
TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary
! FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-182 - DOE SUBSEQUENT ARRANGEMENT FOR DOE TO TAKE BACK SPENT HEU AND LEU FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTOR FUEL-l Approved Disapproved Abstain
'Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS: -
l 1
i la s~
~
W SI(! NATURE
/
Release Vote /j_/ August 27, 1996 DATE Withhold Vote / / :
Entered on "AS" Yes / No i
I I
i D i
> _v l
s - . . . _ . . . _ _
- L - .ie - I jscO Creg%, UNITED STATES 3"~ 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055W1
, 4 August 26, 1996
%.....,/
CHAIRMAN l
i l
Mr. Phillippe Vesseron Director-Institute for Nuclear Safety i and Radiation Protection (IPSN) 60-68, Avenue du General Leclerc B.P.6-92265 fontenay-Aux-Roses Cedex France j l
Dear Mr. Vesseron:
.It was a pleasure to meet Mrs. Sugier during her recent visit. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission looks forward to cooperation with IPSN in the area of radiation protection in the future. 4 Thank you for your invitation to visit your offices during my trip in September. Unfortunately, my short time in France is fully committed to two days of facility visits and participation in the OECD/NEA Senior Regulators Meeting. However, I hope you will hold the invitation in abeyance until my next visit to France.
Sincerely,
}/l? , f ) J =- j Shirley Ann Jackson
~ C-dew!^N[ //.
1 f:L i ?. ',' A
. j[
NOTATI ON VOTE 1
1 RESPONSE SHEET '
l TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l
l FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON 1
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-173 - DOE PART 810 REQUEST TO j TRANSFER TO RUSSIA TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO l PLUTONIUM-FUELED GAS TURBINE-MODULAR HELIUM REACTOR l
Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating .
Request Discussion COMMENTS: As modified by the attached.
l "
} 4 SIGNATURE
/ l Release Vote / V/ August 14. 1996 DATE Withhold Vote / / !
Entered on "AS" Yes / No l
j e-(
%p
, , ,,., n ,,
'i} - DRAFT ME
\ :
i
-(
Ms Trisha Dedik,; Director Extort Control Operations Division :
Off ice of Export Control and i international Safeguards '
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-
Washington, DC. 20585
Dear Ms. Dedik:
j l
in reference to your letter of July 5, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) i has reviewed a request under 10 CFR Part 810 from General Atomics (GA) for i authorization to provide technology and other assistance to the Russian i Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) in the design and development of a plutonium-fueled Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) and fuel for such {
nuclear power reactors (96RS001). !
DOE would condition the subject authorization to require Russian government assurances that GA technology will be used only for civilian nuclear power
- reactor purposes and not for any military nuclear purpose and no retransfer of technology to those countries listed in 10 CFR 810.8 will be permitted without prior U.S.. government approval.
n% 1Hnj M s;ert{ O N l
In addition, even though this i not a statutory requirement, the Commission believes.that DOE also should ondition its approval on receiving assurance.
- from Russia that . reactor would be placed on the eligible list of facilities'to be subject to IAEA safeguards,.to avoid any question of its i
l 'being used in s me unsafeguarded circumstance.
43-Based on the above, the Commission does not object to the approval of the subject authorization, provided any national security concerns identified by l the Departments of State and Defense are addressed.
Sincerely, Ronald D. Hauber, Director Division of Nonproliferation, Exports and Multilateral Relations Office of international Progratas i
1 DRAFT o
Attachment 2 l
, _ , ~ __ _ _.
_ __ , - . . . - -