ML20141D381
| ML20141D381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/06/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141D345 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-085-C, SECY-97-85-C, NUDOCS 9706270205 | |
| Download: ML20141D381 (2) | |
Text
_
i NOTATION VOTE l
RESPONSE SHEET l
TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-085 - PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE U.S. AND SWITZERLAND Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
l l
/up h.
SIGNA'sDRE U
b b!<I 7 Release Vote
/ 2T /
DATE' Withhold Vote
/
/
l Entered on " AS
Yes X
No
{
i 9706270205 970617 PDR COMMS NRCC
- 0,vy CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commissioner McGaffican's comments on SECY-97-085 - Proposeo Aareement for
[oooerationbetweentheU.S.andSwitzerland I approve this agreement with great reluctance.
Like the EURATOM and Japanese agreements, the proposed Swiss agreement would provide advance, long-term approval of both re]rocessing and fabrication and use of MOX from U.S.-origin fuel.
It was not t1e intent of Congress in 1978 that such blanket consent features would be incorporated into new Agreements for Cooperation.
Quite the contrary, the dra uers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 intended that such approval be granted on a case-by-case basis if at all.
The Executive Branch recognized that and generally insisted on a case-by-case prior approval ap] roach.
It requires a tortuous legal analysis to come to the conclusion that t1e Japanese, EURATOM, or Swiss agreements (including their agreed minutes and annexes) meet the terms of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act.
I recognize however, that the Congress did approve.the Japan Agreement in 1988 despite the opposition of the Commission at that time.
I recognize that the EURATOM agreement with even broader programmatic consents and more limited revocation rights than the Japan agreement was not challenged in the Congress in 1996, and that the Swiss agreement is effectively a corollary of the EURATOM agreement.
But as the exceptions multiply, I believe that they undermine the U.S. Government policy not to encourage civilian reprocessing and use of plutonium in MOX fuel.
I would hope that the Swiss agreement would be the last agreement of this type to come before the Commission.
It is striking that the EURATOM and Swiss agreements have been concluded at precisely the time new governments in France and the United Kingdom are questioning the wisdom of the totally uneconomic reprocessing, MOX and breeder reactor programs with which British and French taxpayers have been saddled.
Hopefully, these agreements will prove to be the "last hurrah" of the old 1
guard closed fuel cycle fraternity.
l l
I l
i
i kSREOp t
-/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
' 7, f,,
- ,E W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
,o June 17, 1997
['
f OFFICE OF THE srcRETARY O
MEMORANDUM TO:
Carlton R.
Stoiber, Director Off' o
In ernational Programs 4
FROM:
John-
. loy Secretary i
SUBJECT:
ST FF RlQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-085 - PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE U.S.
AND SWITZERLAND 1
I l
The Commission has approved the proposed letter to the President with the following addition.
The words 'and supporting draft documents' should be added at the end of the first sentence.
I cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan EDO OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR i
f DCS SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-97-085, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
.