ML20148K024

Questions & Answers Re DOE U Enrichment Program NRC Intention to Act on Export License Applications in Accordance W/Regulations Issued on 870306

ML20148K024
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/24/1986
From:	NRC
To:
References
NUDOCS 8803300465
Download: ML20148K024 (5)

Text

~

nac

? '

l QUESTION 11. We understand that the 00E uranium enrichment program could lose l substantial revenues from its foreign customers if these utilities are barred from bringing in South African uranium for '

processing and subsequent re-export.

How many applications are currently pending before NRC for the import of South African uranium? What is the status of these applications?

ANSWER.

Prior to December 31, 1986, NRC regulations permitted the import of most fonns of uranium under a general license (i.e, no specific application or approval wasnecessary). On that dau, NRC regulations were changed to eliminate the general import authority and to require case-by-case approval for the import of South African material. Since December 31, the Comission has received a total of eight new applications from three companies for the import of South African material. (One of the eight applications subsequently was withdrawn by the applicant.) These applications were forwarded to the Executive Branch for review and com.. lent in January and, on March 17, the Executive Branch provided its favorable comments to NRC. The Comission will consider these coments, together with other relevant information, in its review of these requests. It is noted, also, that these requests are the subject of a petition for leave to intervene in opposition to the issuance of the licenses, filed by seven members of Congress and by five private organizations. This petition currently is under consideration within NRC and final Commission review of these cases cannot take place before this matter is decided. Details of the apolications follow:

Braunkohle Transport, USA:

10-87001 500,0C0kgs natural uranium (U) as V 3g 0 for processing (conversion and enrichment) and re-export.

IV-87002 1,000,000 kgs natural U as UF 6 for domestic and foreign use.

ISNM-87003 500,000 low enriched Uranium (LEU) as uranium hexafluoride (UF6 ) for domestic and foreign use.

ISNM-87004 40,000 kgs LEU asg UF for fuel fabrication and ra-export to West Gemany (subsequently withdrawn).

Exxon Nuclear Company:

IiNM-87005 167,732 kgs LEU as 6UF for fuel fabrication and re-export to West Gemany Edlow International:

IV-87006 500,000 kgs natural U as U 0 for processing (cinversion and enrichment) and re-export to 38 EURATOM, Japan, Twiwan or Korea.

1U-87007 500,000 kgs natural U as UF for for enricimnt and use in the U.S.

and re-export to EURATOM, J, N pan, Taiwan, or Korea.

ISNM-87008 500,000 kgs LEU as UF for fuel fabrication ad use in the U.S. and re-export to EURATOM,6 Japan, Taiwan or Korea.

8803300465 060324 EM Noa PDH

.. f r.

• QUESTION 12. Does NRC intend to act on these applications in accordance with the regulations issued on March 6,1987, by the Department of Treasury on behalf to the Administration? Please explan specifically how NRC will handle these requests.

ANSWER The NRC regulations, referred to in Question 11, above, do not prohibit the import of South African-origin uranium, but do provide for a case-by-case review to determine whether an import license should be issued or denied. The import applications also identified in Question 11 remain under review within the NRC.

The NRC staff has prepared a legal analysis of Section 309(a) of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 which, among other things, concludes that the Act bans the import of all South African-origin uranium ore and oxide, regardless of its intended end-use, but that the Act does not ban the import of uranium hexafluoride and any other forms of uranium not specifically mentioned in the statute. This NRC staff interpretation differs significantly from the regulations issued on March 6,1987 by the Department of Treasury in one important aspect in that the Adninistrations interpretation would permit the import of uranium ore and oxide ft. further reprocessing and reexport, at least until July 1, 1987. The Commissic' itself is not expected to reach a decision with respect to the interpretation of the Act for several weeks; therefore, it is not possible at this time to state what the final disposition of this matter may be.

9 6

-, y n , --

' ;#% A il

1. %, UNITED STATES I I '

a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$' 1 veAsMitecTom.O c.20ess Ap '

GPq A at 1h;G  !! '78TV 4

cJ ' ?d C EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL FROM:., , DUE: 03/24/87 EDO CONTROL: co2446 '

DOC DTt UNDATED OCA .-

FINAL REPLY:

TO:

FOR SIGNATURE oft * ** PRIORITY ** SECY NOt DESC: ROUTING:

O'S FROM 3/19/87 BEVILL BUDGEf HEARINCE STELLO ROE DATE: 03/20/87 RFHM ASSIGNED TO: RM CONTACT: SCROOGINS 7ERDE OOC DENTON SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: SHEA THOMPKN OFFICES PROVIDE BY 5520 AND HAND CARRY HARD NORRY COPY TO RM BY C.O.B. MONDAY 3/23/87. DIVISION SPEC I AL PROJECTS LEVEL REVIEW ACCEPTABLE AT DISCRETION CF OFFICE TAYLOR DIRECTORS (SO, DIVISION DIRECTORS HELD RESPONSIBt.E 01 FOR COMTENT). IF WEEKEND HORK IS REQUIRED - LET IT BFCKJORI)

BE SO. KEEP ANSWERS SHORT, BUT RESPONSIVE - USE CONSOtIDATION' FREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED DATA WHERE POSSIBLE. HOLD OCA ENCLOSURES TO A MINIMUN.

THE SUSPENSE AND INSTRUCTI,QNS ARE THE REStA.T OF NEW DIRECTIONS FROM THE BEVILL COMMITTEE. OMICES CAN ANTICIPATE FURTHER Q'S ON SAME StISPENSE FRIDAY 3/20/87. OFFICE REVIEWED Q'S TO EDO C.O.B.

TUESDAY - CHANGED QUESTIONS ONLY, TAREHr1

Q v3 ff(m@sAyK)

- g Muclear Regulatory Camuission }

,/

FY 1988 Budget Request E M*?

d 452o 4 March 19,1987 el I

p WJdb ha ruan Zech, we welecae you back to our Subcomunittee. I believe this is your first appearance before us as the official Chairman of the Commission, but of course we are very familiar with you fran your previous service as a Commissioner.

Copsaissioner Carr, we are pleased to have you here as the newest member of the Commission, and we look forward to hearing from you during the course of your service at MRC.

Consissioner Asselstine, we understand this will probably be Nur last appearance before this Subcosseittee as Commissioner. We thank you for your service to the country at NRC, and wish you the best in your future endeavors.

' Overview O GA. 1. The Subcommittee is pleased that during the past several years the NRC has 1stgely broken the logjam to license nuclear power plants that had been in the pipeline for a number of years. However, all of these plants were ordered prior to 1974. Since that time there have been over 100 new plants started or licensed overseas, basicall using derivations of U.S.

technology. nm wp 4 Q. n r ,.

7 What actions can we take to make the licensing and regulatory process i more rational in the United States so that nuclear power will be a viable energy source to meet future growth in electricity demand?

3 9. 2. In recent testimony before this Subcaseittee, the Department of Energy indicated that it is working with the NRC to obtain review of various advanced reactor designs.

Does WRC agree with the objective of achieving a certified advanced light water reactor design that could be ordered in the early 1990's?

Wt. 3. What priority have you placed on your efforts to certify such a design, and what is your schedule to complete these certification activities?

uRA. 4. The NRC, DOE, international energy agencies, and the nuclear industry have all been reviewing the results of last year's accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union. Given that there are no conrnercial plants of this type in the United States, have we studied s

Chernobyl enough or is there significantly more to Icarn?

utA 5. How can the MRC assist the nuclear industry in improving the reliability and availability of nuclear power plants?

PRA 6. How does the availability of U.S. nuclear reactors compare to those in Japan and Europe?

M 7. What is the NRC doing to minimize its role as a cause of unnecessary downtime for operating reactors?

W 8. Please describe the objectives and principal chances of the NRC's recent reorganization. Provide a copy of the revised NRC organization chart.

MIM. 9. Please describe your activities and schedule for providine licensing quidance for advanced reactors such as U6t's and HTGR's.

Epo -- 00 2646

1

• l .

2 Y Id' URR.

10. What are your views on the efficacy of continuing preliminary safety reviews and issuing licensability stataments for more advanced reactors (LMR's and HTGR's) by early next year to help 00E and industry make deci-sions as to how they should proceed with these designs in the future?

-E P 11. We understand that the DOE urania enrichment program could lose substan- -

tial revenues from its foreign customers if these utilities are barred from bringing in South African urania for processing and subsequent re-export.

How many applications are currently pending before NRC tor the import of f South Africati uranium? What is the status of these applications?

.CP 12. Does NRC intend to act on these applications in accordance with the obc. regulations issued on March 6.1987, by the Department of Treasury on behalf of the Administration? Please explain specifically how NRC will handle these requests.

f.-

Um% 13. There has been discussion of late on the potential for the operation of a privately owned uranium enrichment plaat in the United States by a U.S.

subsidiary of a foreign company, URENCO. What is the status of your efforts in developing rules and regulations for the licensing of private companies to enrich uranium?

2K 14. Please describe the successes of the NRC during the last year and what you see as the principal objectives of the NRC for FY 1987, FY 1988 and the future.

l ,

Regulatory Activities MDMW. It has now been over a year since the NRC prcanulcated revised backfitting regulations and policy. In your view, how effective have these revi-sions been?

//RR /6V. Please describe your efforts to streamline utility technical specifica-tions. Please describe your schedule for completion of the program's objective to completely rewrite these specifications.

MRR X. The Cossaittee has supported the continuation of the Integrated Safety 1% Assessment Program as a pilot effort to provide efficient and timely improvements in nuclear plant safety. We understand that there has been substantial progress from Northeast Utilities' two plants in the ISAP program, and that the Comission supports continuation of the concept of 15AP. Please advise the Consittee what the Conrnission is doing to further implement this program.

g /. Please describe in more detail the "shift in the mix of contractual l $ support /in-house technical review for safety evaluations" that results in

! a 12% increase in the FY 1988 budget for the operating reactors procram.

l Please explain the reasons for shif ting more support to contractors when it appears that this is more expensive than retaining Federal staff for l the effort.

g f. What specific regulatory actions have been *aken to date by the NRC based

/4. on the lessons learned from the Chernoby,1 accidert?

i l

- _ _ _ _ _ . - - - , . . - . . _ _ _ - _ ~ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _