ML20148M849
| ML20148M849 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/05/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012240095 | |
| Download: ML20148M849 (53) | |
Text
. . -- . .. . ..
. e,* *
=*
,o $
- 1,% .*. I WASHINGTON D. C. 20505
.t,'w.'L;p,/j Sc. 7
.1. ui g April 5, 1978 & -
j;
=.;
s% e,,. ,n.>~W/ i. -
ij .(
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY [. .. n s
, Ei i
i!E F.O R A N D Ui4 F O R : Lee V. Gossick li '
Executive Director for Operations fi D F FR0li: Samuel J.
Secretary Ch11(: 7 p q)r>
d E
(i-SU3 JECT: REQUEST FOR STUDY OF THE GE::ERIC ISSUIS OF COI.'STRUCTION DUP.I:.!G ADJUDICATICI:
A. Il:TRODUCTION [
The Commission is seriously concerned about implications of f continuation of construction of nuclear power plants '.:hile !
challenges to the construction permits are under adj udica-tion." Fotential issues include the following:
5 Irrevocable changes can be made in the site environ =cnt during review.
Large sums. spent on construction, ultimately derived from the rate-paying or tax-paying; public, as well as from investors, are being placed at risk. fl Construction work underway can create psycho- h
. logical pressure on decision makers to uphold I:
a CP under conditions when a proper balance of factors might have led to revocation or .
[
modification. t.
Activities perfor:.ed while a CF is under review might ultimately prove to be the decisivo fac'Jor in tipping a 1:E?A cost-benefit balance in favor of a plant, when the balance before construction would have been unfavorable.
{~
p..
- See Tublic Service Company of ':e.1:erchire (Seabrook k Stat' ion, Un1:s i and 2),_7 'EC (slip op. at 4-fa). f- l 0
t ;
[l 8012 2-4 0 c95 n
. 6 j, ..r.. mos., . wuooemown __. o==...... _ _ _ _ _ . - - . . ..______.....-.....................m%._.......... , . . . , . _ ,
. . s 6
Lee V. Gossick 2 . . .
ls y
i I
The cloud of litigation during construction, or fear of it, can make utilities' planning more difficult, and result in undesirable dis- g O
tortions of rational. planning.
The Ccmmission desires a study to be made of the present licensing process in order to develop options for dealing T.
with these and related issues without undue damage to other regulatory objectives. , g B. STUDY SCOPE y The study should include consideration of the following b issues. In all cases the experiences and practices of other agencies with similar responsibilities and functions should be analyzed.
- 1. ?,eoeal or modification of the rule giving irmediate effectiveness to licensing board decisions.
Study of this topic should include but not necessarily ['
be limited to consideration of the following questions:
- a. What were the original intent and ationale for i the rule? Are these still valid? What reasons now favor retention of the rule? What reasons i now favor rej ection of the rule?
- b. Based on experience, what is the correlation in time of the amount of money spent on a project ..
with the various steps in the licensing process, *
?
including tendering of application, the filing of a DES, the filing of an FES, LHA decision, CP decision and subsequent steps'in the appellate process?
Based on experience, chat is the correlation in time of irrevocablu changes in the site environment :ith the varicus steps in the licensing process, including tendering of application, the filia; of a DES, the filing of an FES, LWA decision', CP decision, and subsequent steps in the appellate process?
l l
t l
l . , , , , ~ = , m . ==,,. ==:- . =-- = == == -
. m m . _ . .
4 -
,, l
' * . 1 Lee V. Gossick- il~
4
.l
- c. To what extent would repeal or codification of
- m the rule lengthen 1or shorten the' licensing process? To what' extent would repeal or '
modification' delay.or hasten completion of the plant? 'dould repeal, or' modification m,.,
diminish or increase schedule uncertainty?- ["~ -,
- d. Based on. experience, what is the' likelihood p ,,,-
of ultimate reversal of the result of any '" ]
licensing. board or appeal board decision?
Have' decisions on review been affected by continuation of construction during review?
- e. How would repeal or modification of the rule affect the functioning'of the boards'and the Commission? If reviewers-were on the critical path would that' increase pressure on them and reduce their effectiveness? To ..
what extent does the it=ediate effectiveness rule-result in a prolonged decisionmaking process because of the absence of critical _ ,
path pressure?
- f. What are the main options ~ for modifying the p .,
ir. mediate effectiveness rule and how do they P compare? For' example, what would be Sained -
and lost by delaying effectiveness of a board decision by 10 or 15 days to allow parties to -
prepare stay papers for the appeal boar'd?
h' hat would be the effect of delaying effec-tiveness until the appeal board had ruled on any ,
stay motion before'it? Until the Oc =ission .
ruled on a stay? Until the appeal board rules on the merits? Until the Commission rules on the terits?
- 2. nodification of criteria for grantine stays.
!. t E :
Study of this topic should consider the effect result-ing from relaxation of the stay standards now codified in 10 0F.; 2.735 to permit resolution of significant site-relsted issues before large sums of noney are cor.- .titted and sites irrevocably altered. Study of ^
relaxation options should include but not necessarily be limited to censideration of the following:
U. h 4
- 4
__r - .
- - ~ ~ .
.a g
,. t
!gd.
E
' Lee V. Gossick 4
- a. What are the merits of waiving other stay standards when the movant identifies.and the appeal board (after preliminary consideration) . 51 confirms the existence of an important policy l' '
1ssue appropriate for Commission review?
- b. What are the merits of distinguishing for stay purposes among types of issues, such as (1) health and safety, (ii) environmental, and (iii) procedural issues; or (iv) site-related issues and (v) issues of plant design and construction?
- c. What are the merits of recuiring rapid deci-sions on stay requests?
- d. i.'aat are the merits of reversing the burden of proof in relation to stays (i.e., of staying board decisions automatically unless the applicant shows a need for immediate effectiveness)? What standards would then be appropriate? What role should.(1) eco-
~
nomic and (ii) schedule considerations play in such standards?
- e. Should licensing boards and appeal boards have enlarged sua sponte powers to stay their own (or lower-board) decisions an'd a policy of using such powers liberally? What criteria would be appropriate to guide exercise of such ;
~
powers? . ,
- f. Should the Cor$..ission sua sconte . monitor board decisions (perhaps witn special atten-tion to split merits decisions)? What mechanism would be appropria",e for such monitorin;;? When should the Cormission itself issue sua sconte stays?
- g. How many stays have been granted by the boards and the Commission and what is the len-th of such stays?
a
. ! 6 Lee V. Gossick 5 3 Review of 1:RC appellate adninistrative procedures. .
5?ir Study of this topic is- to be directed to . ways in which the procedures may assure earlier resolution of major issues in licensing without excessively increasing , ,
relitigation and piecomeal review. Questions con- E sidered should include but not be limited to the following:
- a. Should there be rules that permit (and perhaps encourage) interlocutory appeals a under appropriate circumstances? What criteria should govern such appeals? e
- b. Should there be rules easing and encouraging certification of questions to ap' peal boards and the Commission? What criperia_should govern certification? g
- c. Should the Commission more actively monitor ongoing board proceedings to help assure ear]y' resolution of issues? What mechanism could be used for such monitoring? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
The study should discuss the effects on the Commission's operations if board decisions, particularly Licensing Board decisions, were more closely re- wed and inter-locutory appeals were allowed. The et_ sets of Commis-sion review of factual issues decided by the Board should also be discussed. Would such changes require an increase in the staff of the Office of the General Counsel? Would an Office of Adjudication be required?
Would Co.missioners' staffs need augmentation? These i and similar questions should be addressed in the study in order that a full evaluation of the'conceots can be
- l assured. N
[ '
- 4. Proceedincs other thsn direct review.
Study of this topic should consider post-CP adjudicatory Q proceedings other than direct revie'<. (e.g., 10 CFR 2.202 show cause proceedings). Are any of the factors previ-ously addressed relevant to these proceedings? Con- #
sideration should be given to proceedings resulting from:
l
. . ~ ~ . - . - .n . , . -
+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. g;.
~ '
=. ,,
as ,
,,., , Is Lee'V..Gossick. 6 P
. N
-a.
New information about old facts'(e.g.,.new '
seismic information relevant to effective ;::l cps). ,
- b. New facts (e.n. a new decision to build a liquid-natuFaI-g,as installation nearby, or -
a new decision by a state public utilities '
commission relevant to an applicant's finan- -
cial qualifications).
j
.c. Effects of court action other than direct i review (e.g., a court decision such as the. :q Vermont Yankee. case setting aside or remand- . ...;,:;
=
ing a rule). ]
5 Aop11 cation of findings.
- Under this topic consideration should be given to ,
such questions as the following: :j
- a. To what extent and with'what differences, if any, should rules and procedures appro- !
priate to effectiveness of construction j permits ba applicable to (1) limited work -
3 authorica. ions and (ii) declaratory judg- ~
ments that no CP or LWA is requires (Wolf ,,l Creek cases)? h;
- q
- b. If rule changes should be made as a resul" of this study, what benefits and what harm .]
would result from delaying their effective- . j ness or from exempting specified ongoing !
proceedings (i'.a., Grandfathering some or
["= j all. existing proceedings)? , Ij
- 6. Other considerations. :I Consideration may be given to the effect of increased ;.)
use of early site review; standardi:ction; combined ':{
construction permits and operating, licenses; settling ,
more issues generically by rulemaking; and to any other j matters that the staff may view as having important j potential bearing on the issues considered in this ]
study.
]
E l
.I
1
.:.:.;.y
--,r ==
. . . w Lee V. Gossick 7 -
9 0
C. REPORT A!!D PROGRESS BRIEFIMGS A final report should be submitted to the Commission and ..
made available to the public within six months. The report @
should present conclusions and recommendations, with support-ing analyses and rationale and identification of significant alternatives considered.
The Commission wishes to be briefed on progress within 30 to 60 days after the beginning of the study, after 3 or 4 months, and near the end of the study period. At the first briefing, the staff should present in writing an interim report out-lining the general approach to the study it intends to adopt and any changes in the study scope or g;uidelines that it believes desirable, f-D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATIOM
- 1. The Commission desires public participation to the maximum extent practical. At.least once every month, those responsible for this study shall hold a meeting open to public attendance, which shall when possible be announced at least a week in advance by notices in the PDR. Other meetings shall be open to public attendance when practical.
- 2. Public comments following publication of the interim report and after publication of any proposed rules resulting from the Commission's consideration of the final report will provide further opportunities for public participation.
3 Those responsible for preparing the study are free to consult informally with licensees, members of the public or representatives of other agencies during the study period.
E. RESPONSIBILITY The study shall be conducted by an inter-office task force e.-
whcse members shall represent the EDO, OELD, URR/Proj ects, _
URE/ Division of Systems Safety, NRR/ Division of Site Safety I and Environmental Analysis, the Licensing Panel, the Appeal 2 Panel, OGC and OPE. Task force members shall be designated
.R 1
i W
- =::. .
~
Lee V. Gossick 8 -
h.,.
- 5 11 by their office directors or by the EDO -- on appropriate ::,
~
part-time bases. The task force members shall call on other
- NRC personnel as necessary. The EDO is requested to make a .
recommendation to the Commission for the position of task ;
force lea 4er as soon as possible. ,
- '*.h.b '
cc: -Chairman Hendrie .:q Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford .
James L. Kelley, OGC .j,3 g en Pedersen, OPE ,
Alan Rosenthal, ASLAP James Yore, ASL3P -
$.5..
C f
f-?
9
- d
- ,1
. . . . :1
=
k...
a e DIABLO CANYON g.l Diablo Canyon is a two-unit nuclear power plant which is being con-structed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San Luis Obispo -
County, California. Unit 1 was initially ready for fuel loading in -
Febniary 1976; Unit 2 is approximately 94 percent complete, and con-struction is supposed to be completed by March of 1979.
p The construction permit for Unit 1 was issaed in June 1958; for Unit 2 9 in December.1970.
In January 1971, geologists surveying the coastline published a des-cription of the Hosgri fault, which lies about three and a half miles offshore from the Diablo Canyon site. Evaluation of this fault and the associated seismic design questions have been the pacing item in the '
operating license review.
The operating license application for Units 1 and 2 was submitted in July 1973, and noted the existence of the fault. The NRC staff re-quested additional information from the applicant to enable evaluation of its impact on the plant.
~
In November 1973 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) idenpendently discovered evidence that the fault was somewhat closer to the plant than previously understood. This discovery was made as a result of offshore geophysical surveys funded by the NRC. ,,
Following extensive studies by the applicant and the USGS, the NRC staff 'l completed their evaluation of the fault. The USGS concluded that the original seismic design basis was inadequate and recommended certain earthquake parameters to be used in deriving a new design basis. The NRC staff provided further ground motion values and other criteria to be used in reanaly:ing the plant to determine what modifications may be required. The applicant is proceeding in its seismic reanalysis based on the staff's position, y There has been considerable public interest in Diablo Canyon, and 1 several public hearings have already been held as part of the operating i license review: j
-- 1973-74, environmental impacts of the construction permit review (cf. Calvert Cliffs decision). cps were upheld.
-- December 1975, the limited safety question of whether or not new, unirradiated nuclear fuel could be stored at the plant s site. Licenses to store the fuel were upheld. D
-- December 1976, environmental aspects of the operating license review.
In addition, the House Committee on Energy and the Environment held hearings on Diablo Canyon in June 1977.
Only security and seismic design remain to be litigated, probably in an October 1978 hearing.
((l
_ - _ _ _ - - _ _= - -
I m,
CONSOLIDATION OF NRC HEADQUARTERS O The NRC is currently housed in nine scattered locations, primarily in suburban Maryland. As a result of this fragmentation, NRC has suffered operational inefficiency and unnecessary expenses (estimated at some $4 million annually). Consolidation in a single location would bring substantial benefits to the agency, including:
-- $4 million annual savings;
-- elimination of duplicate services;
-- elimination of wasted man-hours lost in travel;
-- more effective staff /Ccrmnission coordination (e.g. meetings, face-to-face discussions);
-- more effective NRC interaction with other agencies and Congress.
In order to resolve this problem, the General Services Administration (GSA) was directed by the Congress in May 1977 to " investigate the ,
feasibility and needs for consolidation of the NRC." Congress further ,
instructed GSA to consider specifically two fundamental needs expressed by the NRC:
-- to locate the offices of the Commissioners "so as to facilitate essential interaction between the Commission, other government agencies, and the Congress"; and "to collocate the NRC principal operating staff with the Commissioners."
The GSA report to the Congress recommended consolidation of the NRC. The requisite House Committees have supported implementation of the GSA recommendation with the provision that leased space be provided for NRC in a single building to be constructed on a suitable site in an urban '
renewal area in downtown Washington D.C.
Because of employee opposition to a downtown location, expressed in-dividually and through union representatives and Members of Congress, the Senate Public Works Committee held hearings on the consolidation, and is presently reviewing the GSA report in light of the testimony.
The advantages of a downtown location are primarily those relating to ,
interaction with other agencies and the Congress. The major potential F disadvantage lies in the necessity for most of the NRC staff to commute from suburban Maryland to the downtown area. A recent survey shows that f=
l the heaviest concentration of NRC residences is in the Rockville-Gaither-sburg area of Montgcmery County. The mass transit potential in this area is expected to increase greatly by the early 1980's, when NRC's new ^
headquarters should be ready for occupancy.
On February 7, 1978 Chairman Hendrie sent an announcement to all em-playees setting forth the background facts relating to the proposed relocation. In addition, the Commission has had informal discussions on -
the intended move with the officers of the NRC Unit of Local 2195 of the U American Federation of Government Employees.
l I
n .
a CONSOLIDAT. ION OF NRC HEADQUARTERS &
R" n The NRC is currently housed in nine scattered locations, primarily in
\=
suburban Maryland. As a result of this fragmentation, NRC has suffered operational inefficiency and unnecessary expenses (estimated at some $4 million annually). Consolidation in a single location would bring substantial benefits to the agency, including: [a
-- $4 million annual savings;
-- elimination of duplicate services;
-- elimination of wasted man-hours lost in travel;
-- more effective staff / Commission coordination (e.g. meetings, face-to-face discussions); -
-- more effective NRC interaction with other agencies and Congress. .
In order to resolve this problem, the General Services Administration (GSA) was directed by the Congress in May 1977 to " investigate the feasibility and needs for consolidation of the NRC." Congress further p instructed GSA to consider specifically two fundamental needs expressed by the NRC:
-- to locate the offices of the Commissioners "so as to facilitate essential interaction between the Commission, other government agencies, and the Congress"; and
-- "to collocate the NRC principal operating staff with the Commissioners."
The GSA report to the Congress recommended consolidation of the NRC. The requisite House Committees have supported implementation of the GSA recommendation.with the provision that leased space be provided for NRC in a single building to be constructed on a suitable site in an urban renewal area in downtown Washington D.C.
Because of employee opposition to a downtown location, expressed in-dividually and through union representatives and Members of Congress, the Senate Public Works Committee held hearings on the consolidation, and is presently reviewing the CSA report in light of the testimony.
The advantages of a downtown location are primarily those relating to interaction with other agencies and the Congress. The major potential disadvantage lies in the necessity for most of the NRC staff to commute i from suburban Maryland to the downtown area. A recent survey shows that
\ the heaviest concentration of NRC residences is in the Rockville-Gaither- ,
\ The mass transit potential in this
\sburgareaofMontgomeryCounty.
area is expected to increase greatly by the early 1980's, when NRC's new headquarters should be ready for occupancy.
On February 7,1978 Chaiman Hendrie sent an announcement to all em-loyees setting forth the background facts relating to the proposed
' location. In addition, the Commission has had informal discussions on
' intended move with the officers of the NRC Unit of Local 2195 of the
-/ -ican Federation of Government Employees.
e
1
- = e:.,::.
!C g
.1 PLUTONIUM RECYCLE (l. -
In August 1974 the Atomic Energy Comnd ssion issued the Draft Environ-mental Statement (GESSD) in connection with the proposed wide-scale use of recycled plutonium (mixed-oxide fuel) in light water reactors (LhRs).
In November 1975, the NRC announced:
-- full assessment of the safeguards issue was needed before =
considering the wide-scale use of mixed-oxide fuel in LhRs.
-- scope, procedures, and schedule for GEShD proceeding.
-- criteria for interim licensing actions.
In January 1976 NRC announced detailed rules for public hearings:
-- on final environmental impact statement on wide-scale use of mixed-oxide fuel (health, safety and environmental aspects); ..,'
-- on the (to-be-developed after EIS) proposed rules for wide-scale use of mixed-oxide fuel; separate hearings after publication of a Final Safeguards
- Supplement.
In April 1977, President Carter announced that reprocessing in the United States should be deferred indefinitely due to concerns about the m international proliferation of nuclear weapons. The President also decided against providing any funds to assist construction of a re-
. processing facility at Barnwell, S.C.
In early May 1977, the Comission asked for:
-- public coments on the President's April 7 nuclear policy statement;
-- the President's views, via letter, on the relationship of his nuclear policy statement to the GESb0 proceeding.
In October 1977, the President wrote to the Commission and said that
"... his nonproliferation initiatives would be assisted both domes- ;
tically and internationally if the Commission were to teminate the i GESBD proceeding."
On December 23, 1977, after consideration of the President's views and public coments, the Commission teminated the GEShD proceeding and plutonium recycle-related licensing reviews. In so doing, the Com-mission decided to re-examine its termination decision after completion of alternative fuel cycle studies (i.e. the INFCE and NASAP), expected to be completed around the end of 1979. In addition, the Commission decided to publish the Draft Safeguards Supplement as a staff technical report.
- .1 I..". R j:;;
w= NRC BRIEFING BOOK -- TABLE OF CONTENTS ..
[::::g '
Volume I - .:]
I. NRC GENERAL- ,.,,, nl
- 1. Legislative mandate F
- 2. Regulatory Overview ["
- 3. . General Organizational Information
- 4. Budget ' '
- 5. NRC License Fees
- 6. Regulation of Nuclear Medicine m:-
- 7. Transportation of Nuclear Fuel and Waste
- 8. Abnormal Occurrences
- 9. Equal Opportunity Employment at NRC
- 10. NRC Essential Uninterruptible Functions
- 11. Dissent and Internal Communications ,
- .1 U
II. NUCLEAR ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
. . :n
- 1. Relative Costs of Electrical Energy Generation b~
- 2. Relative Health Effects of Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycles (f l
- 3. Uranium Reserves / Resources [
- 4. The Price-Anderson.Act h_
i.5 III. REACTOR LICENSING PROCESS
- 1. Background and Nature of the Nuclear Power Reactor Licensing Process .
- 2. Improvements in Place and in Progress
- 3. Opportunities for Further Improvement
- 4. Standardization S. Early Site Review
- 6. Status of Nuclear Power Plants ?
IV. REACTOR SAFETY
- 1. Siting "
- 2. Design, Construction, and Oporation
- 3. Safety Issues
- 4. Feedback S. Clinch River Breeder Reactor V. DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS
- 1. Domestic Safeguards
- 2. Major Safeguards Accomplishments since November 1976
- 3. Major Safeguards Objectives for FY 1978
- 4. Special Nuclear Material -- Public Reporting of Inventory Differences 4
G
..E
NRC BRIEFING BOOK -- TABLE OF CONTENTS' I
-3;;
, VOLUME II .
419 -
O VI. INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS .
t
- 1. U.S. Government Nuclear -Export Functions
~2. NRC's Export Licensing Functions
- 3. Export / Import Licensing Regulations ..,
?
- 4. IAEA Safeguards and International Physical Security Standards S. International Reach of NEPA and Public Health and Safety G
- 6. Worldwide Nuclear Safety '
- 7. U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
- ysy
- 8. INFCE and NASAP
- 9. Fuel for Tarapur Reactor VII. WASTE MANAGEMENT
- 1. Radioactive Waste Management
- 2. NRC/ DOE Regulatory Authorities
- 3. GAO Waste Management Report
- 4. High-Level Waste Management
- 5. Low-Level Waste
- 6. Spent Fuel 7.- Decommissioning
- 8. Uranium Mill Tailings VIII. NRC AND THE STATES
- 1. General statement concerning State involvement in nuclear power issues
- 2. NRC and the States -- Partnership in Regulation
- 3. Section 102 Study
- 4. Background on Agreement States IX. LEGISLATIVE / CONGRESSIONAL
- 1. Congressional Committees with Jurisdiction Over NRC
- 2. FY 1979 Budget Authorization
- 3. Licensing Reform Legislation
- 4. NRC Legislative Initiatives
- 5. Summary List of NRC Appearances at Congressional Hearings X. CURRENT ISSUES
- 1. Conran allegations concerning insufficency of NRC safeguards requirements '
- 2. Union of Concerned Scientists Petition
- 3. Current Litigation
- 4. Radiography Overexposures
- 5. Increasing Public Participation
- 6. Seabrook
- 7. Diablo Canyon
- 8. Consolidation of NRC Headquarters
- 9. Plutonium Recycle 7
. ::M SU" i
l
}ii INTERNATIONAL PROGRAhtS TABLE OF CONTENTS ,..,.
~ .~
A2
- 1. U.S. Government Nuclear Export Functions ,,
- 2. NRC's Export Licensing Functions .g
- 1
- 3. Export / Import Licensing Regulations .L
.M:::pl
- 4. .IAEA Safeguards and International Physical Security Standards : @
m
- 5. International Reach of NEPA and Public Health and Safety 9
- 6. Worldwide Nuclear Safety-
- 7. U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
- 8. INFCE and NASAP
- 9. Fuel for India's Tarapur Reactor b
i .~e'
>s 3
h # 4
U.S. GOVER41ENT NUCLEAR EXPORT FUNCTIONS While the NRC is responsible for licensing nuclear exports, many other Federal agencies are involved in various aspects of nuclear export programs.
Agreements for cooperation between the U.S. and other nations under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by the Nuclear Nonpro- p liferation Act of 1978 (NNPA), are the bases for nuclear sales abroad. ~
The Department of State is responsible for negotiating such agreements -
with the technical assistance and concurrence of the Department of [r((
Energy. ACDA and the NRC are consulted in the negotiating process and 0-provide their views and recommendations to the President on proposed agreements.
In shorthand form, the following list summarizes requirements mandated for new agreements by the 1978 Act. With the exception of item 2 (full scope safeguards) the requirements apply to nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology transferred pursuant to the agreement.
- 1. Application of IAEA Safeguards
- 2. Full-scope safeguards
- 3. A "No-PNE" assurance
- 4. U.S. right to require the return of any transferred materials and equipment or SM1 produced through their use in the event of a detonation of a nuclear explosive device or termination or abrogation of an agree-ment providing for IAEA safeguards.
- 5. U.S. Veto over transfers.
- 6. Adequate physical security assurances
- 7. U.S. Veto over reprocessing and enrichment
- 8. U.S. approval rights over storage facilities [
- 9. Application of the foregoing criteria to materials and facilities !
produced or constructed by or through the use of any sensitive nuclear technology transferred pursuant to the agreement. ,
Section 404(a) of the NNPA mandates a Presidential program to rene-gotiate agreements for cooperation in effect on the date of enactment of the legislation, or otherwise to obtain the same undertakings in current agreements for cooperation that would be required in new agreements. ,
This provision allows continued U.S. nuclear cooperation under an existing agreement for a period of 30 days after enactment of the legislation.
. i.
3
I
~
U.S. Government Export Functions - 2 C
Thereafter, for such woperation to continue, the Secretary of State must notify the Comission that the nation or group of nations covered by the relevant agreement has agreed to the negotiations called for in Section 404(a).
This issue has imediate relevance for EUPATOM, which has not yet agreed _
to comence renegotiation of its agreements. ,
E Majo. exports of facilities and materials under agreements for cooper- 7 ation are licensed by the NRC. Exports of nuclear components and if certain materials having a significance for nuclear explosive purposes, such as heavy water, previously made under a Department of Comerce license, are in the process of being transferred to NRC jurisdiction.
p doe is responsible for so-called " government to government" transfers,
'that is, exports that do not require a license. Pursuant to the NNTA, these will in the future be limited to small quantities of material for laboratory samples or for emergency situations. The NRC will be li-E censing most of the other doe exports. doe is also responsible for the export of non-hardware items (technology transfers) .
In addition, doe is responsible for " subsequent arrangements" such as approving retransfers for reprocessing. In reviewing such requests, doe is required to consult with other concerned Executive Branch agencies and the NRC. If a proposed " subsequent arrangement" might significantly contribute to proliferation, ACDA is mandated to prepare a Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement.
The NRC is also consulted by the Export / Import Bank in cases involving the financing of foreign nuclear projects.
6 NRC'SEXPORTLICENSINGFUNCII,0g s y Although the NRC has the responsibility for issuing export licenses, no d license can be issued until it has been notified by the Department of r State that - in the judgement of the Executive Branch -- the export i would not be inimical to the common defense and security. ]
h' hen the NRC receives an export license application, it is distributed to relevant NRC staff, and at the same time, it is forwarded to the State Department. Prior to enactment of the NNPA, the Executive Branch p$
response took the fem of answers to a list of questions. Given the new b Act's specific export criteria, a new femat for Executive Branch views has been developed on an interagency basis. This fomat addresses not "y only the criteria, but also other issues various Commissioners have raised in the past concerning license applications, including whether there have been any problems related to the implementation of safeguards in the nation involved and what plans the nation has for the disposition of spent fuel. The fomat has been submitted to the Commission and is awaiting its action. Executive Branch views are due back to NRC within 60 days, unless a delay is judged by the State Department to be in the
" national interest." In such cases, Congress must be notified.
The NNPA requires that the Executive Branch judgement submitted to the NRC specifically address the extent to which export criteria contained in the Act are met, and the extent to which the cooperating party has adhered to the provisions of the applicable agreement for cooperation.
Also, the Act lists several optional factors that may be addressed. The Act provides that the NRC may request additional information from the Executive Branch.
The detailed export criteria specified in the Act are:
"(1) IAEA Safeguards: IAEA safeguards as required by Article III(2) of the treaty will be applied with respect to any material or facil-ities proposed to be exported, to any material or facilities previously exported and subject to the applicable agreement for cooper-ation, and to any special nuclear material used in or produced through the use thereof.
"(2) No PNE Pledge: No material, facilities, or sensitive nuclear j- ,
technology proposed to be exported or previously exported and subject to the applicable agreement for cooperation, and no special nuclear mater-ial produced through the use of such materials, facilities, or sensitive i-nuclear technology, will be used for any nuclear explosive device or for '. : ' ,
research on or development of any nuclear explosive device. E -l -J
"(3) Adequate Physical Security: adequate physical security measures h will be maintained with respect to material or facilities proposed to be G*
exported and to any special nuclear material used in or produced through -
q the use thereof. Following the effective date of any regulations -
promulgated by the Commission pursuant to Section 304(d) of the Nuclear 5 Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, physical security measures shall be 1 deemed adequate if such measures provide a level of protection ;y equivalent to that required by the applicable regulations. ;
4
=
Export License Functions - 2 N d I "(4) : U.S. Approval of Retransfers: no materials, facilities, or sensitive nuclear technology proposed to be exported, and no special nuclear material produced through use of such material, will be re- g; transferred to the jurisdiction of any other nation or group of nations
~
unless the prior approval of the United States is obtained for such retransfer. In addition to other requirements of law, the United States k may approve such retransfer only if the nation or group of nations :::-
designated to receive such retransfer agrees that it will be subject o $"
the conditions required by this section.
s
"(5) U.S. Approval of Reprocessing: no material proposed to be g75 exported and no special nuclear material produced through the use of such material will be reprocessed, and no irradiated fuel elements containing such material removed from a reactor shall be altered in form or content, unless the prior approval of the United States is obtained for such reprocessing or alteration.
"(6) Controls on Sensitive Nuclear Technology: no sensitive nuclear .;;j technology (e.g. reprocessing, enrichment, heavy water) shall be ex- q" ported unless the foregoing conditions shall be applied to any nuclear material or equipment which is produced or constructed under the juris-diction of the recipient nation or group of nations by or through the use of any such exported sensitive nuclear technology."
e f::
.; An additional criterion, requiring the recipient nation to place all of '
its nuclear facilities and materials under IAEA safeguards (i.e. IAEA
~
full-scope safeguards) is to be applied 18 months after enactment of the NNPA. The Act permits a Presidential exemption from this criterion, ,
l subject to Congressional review.
In making its decision on a license application, the Commission must, in the language of the NNPA, find " based on a reasonable judgement of the assurances provided and other information available to the Federal Government, including the ccamission, that the criteria...or their equivalent, and any other applicable statutory requirements are met..."
Another provision authori::es, but does not compel, the NRC to make a single finding for several license applications having the following .
characteristics: the exports --
g
-- are for the same country
- are in the same general time frame fk
-- have similar significance for nuclear explosive purposes
-- are under reasonably similar circumstances.
The statute also authori::es, but does not compel, the Commission to grant follow-up licenses upon a finding that there have been "no mater-ial changed circumstances from those existing at the time of the last application."
. . , , *a++-=
Export License Functions a"
'G3-In cases where the NRC denies the license for failure to meet one or more of the criteria or refers the license application to the President, j e.g. Tarapur, the President has the authority to authorize an en ort a upon a determination that withholding the export would be " seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States non-proliferation objectives, or would otherwise jeopardize the common defense and se-curity." Congress has 60 legislative days in which to review the Presi-dent's determination and may reject the detemination by concurrent resolution.
The NNPA enjoins the NRC to act on licenses in a timely fashion. If it has not acted upon a pending export license application within 60 days after receiving Executive Branch views, it must inform the applicant of the reason for the delay. And, if it has not acted within 60 additional days, the President may authori e the export on the same basis as if the Commission had made a formal finding not to issue the license, if he determines that further delay would be excessive.
Additional time is provided for Commission action in cases where there are public proceedings or where the Commission has requested additional information.
For general assistance in performing its export licensing functions, the Commission receives a regular flow of State Department telegraphic traffic on export issues, and relevant Executive Branch agencies provide intelligence summaries and intelligence and foreign relations briefings. .
The Commission considers the formal and informal Executive Branch presentations prior to making the NRC determination on the license. The Commission also takes into account all other matters of record in the licensing proceeding', including contributions of NRC staff, the ap- -
plicant, and others who may be participating in the proceeding.,
. i 95 EXPORT / IMPORT LICENSING REGULATIONS. r
, ::}
After some experience with its export licensing activities, the.com- $
mission realized that there was a need for codified export / import licensing regulations., The need arose because: {
-- references to export licenses were scattered throughout the H domestic rules, and were in many cases outmoded; : ;
-- the criteria and procedures for export licensing were different ,
than those for domestic. licensing; %
- the hearing requirement under domestic rules was not suitable Ic for application to export license cases. :
s.
After an extensive study.on export li ensing regulations, the Commission q published for public comment on June 30, 1977, a proposed new part to- 6 its regulations (10 CFR Part 110), " Export and Import of Nuclear Facil- i ities and Materials." Based on public comments received, the Commission issued its new regulations earlier this year, and they became effective "
on May 3, 1978.
The new regulations, comonly called Part 110, include:
-- requirements for the contents of export and import license Ej applications; i
- general procedures for NRC staff review of these applications; y
. -- exemptions from licensing and general licenses; ,
standards for granting or denying licensing applications; j
-- a description of the Commissions relationship to the activities i; of the Executive Branch in nuclear export / import areas; ?!
- provisions for notifying the public when license applications g.,
are received; gi
-- details regarding procedures for public participation in nuclear :
export licensing proceedings when the Commission finds that 3 such participation will be in ,the public interest and will j assist the Comission in making its statutory licensing ?
determination required by the Atomic Energy Act; i
-- provisions governing access to information; 3
-- procedures for rulemaking on export and import matters; Ti
-- recordkeeping and reporting requirements for licenses; j
- enforcement mechanisms. j i
On the important issue of public participation, the main features of Part 110 are: g n
- 1. Written Comments: persons interested in NRC export proceedings have a always been able to file written comments. However, the new rules .
specifically make this procedure the first formal level of public a participation. 3
- 2. Petitions: petitions must particularize issues to be raised, the 4 contribution'~a petitioner expects to make, and the interest asserted. j 1.;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gd
'l ill. ~
'Ex/Im Licensing Regulations - 2 e' f?"
s 3. Basis for Hearing: general principles to guide the Comission's .j action are codified. In contrast to domestic licensing actions, hear- !!:
ings on export licenses are discretionary with the Comission. Factors s to be considered are whether public participation would be in the public interest and would assist the Camission. Er IU
- 4. ' Hearings: unlike domestic proceedings, which are conducted by NRC y licensing and appeal boards, export proceedings will normally be con- p ducted by the Commissioners. However, the Commission may designate a person or persons to preside. Two Comissioners' votes are needed to order a hearing. In both the " written" and 'the " oral" hearing foma1, cross-questioning is substituted for cross-examination, typically used in adjudicatory proceedings. This procedure allows participants to submit questions for response by other participants, which may be posed a by the Comission or presiding officer after review for relevance and
~
materiality. The regulations do not adopt formal devices for obtaining .
information by participants (such as written interrogatories) . Also, no
. provision is made for subpoenas.to compel attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of evidence. Participants may make oral or written statements during the hearing.
After enactment of NNPA, Part 110 was revised to reflect certain of the statute's new provisions. The key provisions deal with;
-- NRC's new authority to license certain camponents and other material previously under the jurisdiction of the Department of Comerce; '
-- NRC's expanded authority to issue general licenses;
-- the new export criteria specified in the Act;
-- certain cases involving export of by-product material and minor quantities of source material which will not require Comission-level review unless there are extenuating circumstances;
-- physical security.
- ]
. .. Ib
$l:. '
! 1 TFi
REASAFEGUARDSANDINTERNATIONALPHYSICAL-'SECURITYSTANDARDS 9 .IAEA Safeguards .
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) .is responsible for the 's administration of an international safeguards program (i.e. material ,,
accounting and control, but not physical security) and for providing .
assistance to developing countries which wish to initiate nuclear power. .
programs. . . . ,
p^
The' safeguards function of IAEA is of great importance to supplier countries such as the United States, whereas the technical assistance-program is of greater interest to the developing countries. Hence, the- ~2 IAEA represents a delicate political bargain between those countries' primarily interested in safeguards against nuclear weapons proliferation -
'and those countries interested in obtaining the economic benefits of :
peaceful nuclear energy. 5 The IAEA safeguards system seeks to verify that civil nuclear materials ,j and facilities have not'been diverted to any military use. The system -
is based principally on measurement checks, and the IAEA uses traveling ;
inspectors, radiation monitoring equipment, and tamper-proof seals and g cameras to monitor the nuclear facilities under its supervision.
IAEA safeguards are applied to all the nuclear programs of nations which l have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
In countries which have not signed the SPT, IAEA safeguards are applied to all facilities and materials furnished by outside suppliers which are :
NPT parties (basically, all suppliers except France). Thus, for ex- q ample, IAEA safeguards in India apply to the Tarapur reactor supplied by M the U.S. and the RAPP reacto.rs supplied by. Canada, but not.to India's llJ indigenous nuclear facilities. 7
- l Considerable concern has been expressed over the ability of t.e IAEA to ,
safeguard future nuclear programs which may involve breeder reactors and -
substantial quantities of plutonium. Three major areas of concern are ;
involved: :
-- Personnel: verificatien of controls on plutonium would i probably require permanent resident inspectors, thereby 4!
increasing considerably the number of inspectors needed j by the IAEA.
1
-- Measurement Control: measurement accuracy Nguired to detect diversion of weapons-significant quantities of ((]
plutonium would have to be much greater than that presently g; used to control low enriched uranium. There is some -
question whether the technology needed for such accuracy #
is available. ;
.i q
_ . . '. . _ .- _ .. = A
i IAEA Safeguards - 2 ....y
.y.g.;
-- Timeliness of Detection: .it would take some months to, construct a nuclear weapon from diverted low enriched '
uranium but it would take only days to achieve.a weapons capability with diverted plutonium. .
~A number of issues have arisen in the area of international ~ safeguards that bear directly on NRC's responsibilities. The principal one is S that, while the Commission and other Execut!.ve Branch agencies do have =;
knowledge of the overall IAEA safeguards program and some of its de- f ficiencies, no U.S. government agency, including the NRC, has direct access to country-specific IAEA safeguards confidential information as a basis for independent evaluations of the effectiveness of.IAEA safe- M guards on a country-by-country basis. Ccasequently, the NRC-staff has advised the Commission that in the absence of country-specific detailed information, it is not able to provide such independent evaluations. To some, this is troublesome in light of the IAEA's first Special Safe-guards Implementation Report (SSIR), issued last year, which cited significant deficiencies in implementation without naming countries.
The Comrtission is currently considering various alternative means of gaining improved access to the necessary information to enable a firmer determination of the adequacy of material control and accounting in recipient countries.
The alternatives range from seeking receipt of additional information for in-hcuse review to implementing direct U.S. inspections of safe-guards systems in recipient countries. For its part, the Department of State has expressed the view that, for the U.S. Government, either _
through the Executive Branch or the NRC, to insist now on country - -"
specific inspection reports from the IAEA or alternatively on U.S. on-site inspections would undermine the basic international consensus that has developed around the safeguards system administered by the IAEA. ,
Since the first. export criterion specified in the NNPA refers to the- p ,
application of IAEA safeguards and does not contain the word " adequate" --
=
in contrast to the third criterion on physical security - some have 7 argued that Congress merely intended to require IAEA safeguards to be applied without examining their effectiveness. Others might say that inadequate safeguards are equivalent to no safeguards.
The NNPA finesses the question with the following neutral provision:
'That nothing contained in this section is intended to require the Commission independently to conduct or prohibit the Commission from g independently conducting country or site-specific visitations in the ' '
Commission's consideration of the application of IAEA safeguards."
- q a
~
e..
. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . :.1
IAEA Safeguards - 3 Related to the question c' safeguards adequacy is the U.S. Action Plan -
- to strengthen IAEA safeguards being developed on an interagency basis,
'= with NRC participation. The Plan deals with, inter alia, securing c better information on safeguards implementation, developing specific effectiveness criteria, enhancing safeguards technology, achieving design features in facilities which facilitate improved safeguards, increasing the number and quality of IAEA inspectors, and achieving better compliance by states regarding State Systems of Accounting and Control (SSACs). .
Another issue presently before the Commissic,n is which office in the
' staff (IP or hMSS) should have the lead responsibility for:
-- development of broad international safeguards-policy options for Commission consideration;
-- development of staff recommendations for export and import licensing review criteria regarding (a) safeguards and physical security and (b) nonproliferation assurance.
-- monitoring for NRC and recommending NRC positions on upgrading of international safeguards programs;
-- coordinating international safeguards policies and non-technical matters and interacting with other agencies, IAEA, other NRC offices, and the intelligence community.
Presently, both offices participate actively and jointly in analyses, meetings, and Comission presentations on international safeguards matters under IP's policy 1 cad. A staff paper on the issue is scheduled for Commission consideration in June 1978.
Physical Security The IAEA statute does not give the Agency responsibility for protecting .
nuclear materials and facilities against theft or sabotage. At the United States' insistence, the IAEA has developed guidelines (INFCIRC-225) for physical protection. However, the implementation of these guidelines is the responsibility of each individual country.
Since November 1974 the United States has required assurances from recipient countries that adequate physical security will be applied to exports of significant quantities of weapons-grade material. Other suppliers have also adopted this requirement as a condition of supply.
The NNPA, in the form of its third export criterion, has formali::ed this requirement in the statute.
In drafting the new Part 110 regulations to implement the NNPA, there was disagreement within the NRC staff and the Commission itself re- :
garding the degree of specificity with which the physical security requirements should be spelled out. Ultimately, a general formulation was developed for the regulations themselves, with the more specific measures (reflecting INFCIRC-225) outlined in Part 110's " Statement of Considerations" with the notation that they will be considered in evaluating the adequacy of physical security.
i INTERNATIONAL REACH OF NEPA AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFE 1T
~"
0
+
Two issues which arise with respect to the commission's responsibilities in export licensing are the need for health and safety findings and 2 environmental impact analyses pursuant to NEPA.
The Commission has, in the past, taken the position in all its export licensing decisions that the health and safety determination applies only to the United States. At the Commission's direction, however, the Staff has had underway for some months the preparation of a report analyzing possible approaches to the health and safety aspects of U.S.
nuclear reactor exports. It is nearing completion and will be submitted for the Commission's consideratien in the near future.
In the meantime, the health and safety issue has become a subject of increased congressional interest, e.g. Congressman Long's criticism of the proposed reactor export to the Philippines based, in part, on health and safety considerations, and Congressman Cavanaugh's proposed amend-ment to the Export-Import Bank Act which would condition Ex-Im financing of nuclear exports on the NRC's preparing a safety report on the project in question.
With regard to the NEPA issue, it has been challenged in the courts in cases relating to the foreign activities of other Federal government agencies. NEPA states that environmental assessments must be made for major Federal decisions, but there are no bounds placed on the defin-ition of "the environment," and hence the issue remains unclear.
A specific provision of NEPA calls for the responsible agency to aid any foreign nation in environmental deteminations, with due consideration to foreign policy.
The Commission was specifically challenged on this point in the Burger-aktion case; the foreign intervenors petitioned the Commission to prepare an environmental impact statement on the site in West Germany -
where the proposed reactor export would be located. .
The Commission determined that the international reach of NEPA did include global impacts which might arise from its decisions, but that this did not include site-specific impacts. Global impacts were defined as those which would extend substantially beyond the recipient country, e.g. those arising from ocean dumping of radioactive waste or krypton releases from foreign reprocessing of spent fuel derived from U.S.-
supplied materials.
The Commission thus denied the Burgeraktion petition on June 28, 1977.
Some interest has been expressed within the NRC to reassess the issue, particularly in light of CEQ's recently proposed regulations which -
would broaden the application of NEPA in terms of requiring agencies to consider the impacts of their activities on the environment of ,
foreign nations even if there is no impact on the U.S. and/or global ,
(E.G. high seas) environment. This continues to be the subject of i-interagency consultation. p l o
WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR SAFETV2 m
9 Although the hRC does not assess foreign health and safety impacts in J specific export licensing cases, hRC is the lead government agency responsible for cooperating with other countries on nuclear safety issues related to public health and safety.
T.
hRC utilizes a number of mechanisms for nuclear safety cooperation: 2
- 1. hRC plays a very strong role in helping IAEA draft standards for !
nuclear plant safety and environmental protection. These standards are of particular assistance to developing nations which wish to establish _y safe nuclear power programs. In addition, the HEC staff attends many M IAEA conferences and symposia on safety-related subjects. 's
- 2. hRC has agreements to exchange regulatory information and research 2 cooperation agreements wth some 19 nations and has discussed such 4 arrangements with a number of others.
l
- 3. Germany, Japan, and the Nordic countries are participating in the t hRC's Loss-of-Fluid (LOFT) program, and a number of IAEA member nations i participate in the Power Burst Facility (PBF) and Heavy Section Steel s Technology (HSST) programs. j
- 4. h7C is a member of the multinationally-supported Halden nuclear fuel performance project in Norway, the Marviken containment response project in Sweden, and in Karlsruhe, West Germany, Saclay, France, and Tokai, H Japan. q l
Many foreign countries do not follow a policy of providing the public with infomation on nuclear safety. However, much of the information ,
that can provide hRC is of value in providing effective protection and
. regulation within the United States. Therefore, in order to obtain this needed information, hRC has agreed with foreign regulatory authorities not to release any infomation they have provided without their per-mission. ..
In some cases, the hRC has withheld the foreign information under the Freedom of Information Act, because it is proprietary in nature. In other cases, with the agreement of the State Department, hRC classifies the information under Executive Order 11902 on the grounds that its disclosure would damage foreign relations.
Thus far, the hRC has maintained a steady flow of useful information from other countries, and has honored their desire for confidentiality.
E r
l U.S.-IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENTS (VOLUNTARY OFFERJ, l im
();= Since 1967, it has been the policy of the U.S. Government to offer to accept IAEA safeguards in U.S. nuclear facilities, excluding only those facilities with direct national security significance. The intent of this offer has been, and is, to encourage adherence to the WT by demonstrating that acceptance of safeguards w uld not place any nation at a commercial disadvantage. . . .[j; In September 1976, the IAEA Board of Governors approved a text of an agreement for the application of safeguards in the U.S. This agreement has been submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, and action is expected in the near future.
In the meantime, the NRC staff has prepared a n6w 10 CFR Part 75,
" Safeguards on Nuclear Material -- Implementation of the U.S./IAEA Agreement" and confoming amendments to other part: of the Federal Code.
These were recently approved by the Commission and have been published in the Federal Register for public comment. They will not become effective, of course, until the Senate approves the Safeguards Agree-ment.
When the Agreement enters into force, the U.S. will provide the IAEA with a list of its nuclear facilities which are not associated with activities of direct national security significance and which have significant quantities of nuclear materials. The U.S. may add facil-ities to the so-called " eligible facilities" list or remove facilities from it in accordance with these criteria.
under the terms of the Agreement, the IAEA selects from the eligible list those facilities to which it wishes safeguards to be applied. These safeguards will be the same as those implemented by the IAEA in similar facilities in non-nuclear weapons states under NPT safeguards agree-ments.
Concurrently, a U.S. team, with NRC participation, has been negotiating
with the IAEA for about a year on the texts of subsidiary arrangements .
which specify how IAEA safeguards are to be applied to various classes of facilities. The Commission approved the subsidiary arrangements on April 14, 1978.
Once the Agreement comes into force, NRC will be the lead agency in implementing it.
1
INFCE AND NASAP
.: i:
The NRC Staff is participating in U.S. efforts related to the Inter-national Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) . The staff is repre- i;;.
sented on a number of the working groups, particularly those relating to reprocessing and breeder alternatives and advanced reactor fuel cycle concepts. Care is being taken to ensure that the work done by NRC officials will not compromise positions the Commission may ultimately have to take on the licenseability of alternative fuel cycles. .
In a similar vein, the staff has played only an observer role on such working groups as that devoted to fuel assurances.
E Concurrently, on April 20, 1978, the Commission instructed the staff to indicate to doe that it intends to support fully the doe's Nuclear -
Alternative System Assessment Program (NASAP), which is designed to provide recommendations on proliferation-resistant civilian nuclear power systems.
The NASAP recommendations will be considered in the formulation of the U.S. government position in the INFCE.
The NRC's role is to provide preliminary staff views from a license-. .
~
ability perspective on health, safety, environmental, and safeguards factors of reactor fuel-cycle concepts which could emerge if the NASAP and INFCE were to lead to development of new nuclear systems for use in the U.S.
doe's NASAP recommendations are on a tight schedule, with completion currently expected by the summer of 1978, p.
H l
l i
d
FUEL FOR INDIA'S TARAPUR RFACTOR g fs On April 24, 1978, the Comission for' the first time failed to approve n (by a 2-2 vote) an export license application and referred the matter to "
the President because it was unable to make the determinations required by law. The issue in the case (low enriched fuel for India's Tarapur
"'y reactor) involved whether IAEA safeguards would continue to be applied ;y to U.S.-supplied nuclear material if the U.S.-India Agreement for "
Cooperation were to be teminated.
Specifically, Comissioners Gilinsky and Bradford ~ judged that there was a possibility that the government of India might suspend the application W of safeguards at Tarapur if U.S. fuel supplies were terminated in 18 months as a consequence of the Indian failure to accept full-scope '
safeguards as mandated by the NNPA. This uncertainty led them to find that the law's first export criterion could not be met.
Comissioner Kennedy disagreed, stating that in his view, in developing the new legislation Congress had provided for a precise mechanism to .
achieve the desired safeguards regime: namely, a program of renego-tiation of existing agreements for cooperation. He<also noted that the legislative history of the NNPA indicated that nuclear comerce with nations with which we have agreements for cooperation should continue during the renegotiation process. .
Subsequently, the President approved the export in question by Executive Order, as provided for by the NNPA, and submitted the Order to the Congress for the 60 legislative day review period specified in the Act.
Hearings on the matter were recently conducted by the House Interna-tional Affairs Comittee and the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee. As e of the end of May, final congressional action is pending. ~
Meanwhile, another license application for 1cx-enriched fuel for Tarppur has been submitted to the Comission, whose action on it is awaiting i
receipt of Executive Branch views. u f
"=:*
e
=,
8 NRC AND THE STATES TABLE OF CONTENTS E J
- 1. General statement concerning State involvement in nuclear power i issues. ,
l
- 2. NRC and the States -- Partnership in Regulation ,
o .
- 3. Section 102 Study
- 4. Background on Agreement States ....
ts
??
9 4
e.
!+
1 P
- 2 a
b i
J I.9
!S. -
- .1
' .]
- )
1 I %
.en i
. I son a
k
.?
. . . ~ . . ;.].
i
L. . .
E
~
GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING STATE IhYOLVBIENT IN NUCLEAR P0hTR ISSUES $
. E
'l *:i The h7C encourages. the cooperation and participation of local and State ~ DO authorities in licensing proceedings involving their jurisdictions.
Representatives of State and local authorities participate in our '
safety and environmental reviews and proposed regulatory actions which may affect their residents. - .
g The NRC fully recognizes the legitimate State and local interest in protecting the health, safety, and environment of its citizens, as well as in such matters as economics and long-range energy planning. The -
NRC is willing'to do everything within its powers to accomodate those interests and to cooperate with the States. ;
NRC also recognizes that the choice of a nuclear power plant or facility site is of major importance to the affected State, and that the State should have a strong input in this decision. Evaluation and approval ;.;
of a detailed design of a proposed nuclear facility should be a Federal regulatory function.
NRC's policy, from inception of the agency, has been and will continue .
to be one of active coordination and cooperation with the States, as !.'
indicated in the folleving pages, which describe our partnership in ,
regulation. r :
t .:.
(Please note also Chairman Hendrie's statement on this subject, as b .
contained in his testimony on the Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act ,
of 1978, in Congressional / Legislative Section.) :.
.n
.f ll$
e
?
i 5
- {
l i i
- {
l .
?
..)
e
?
.f
- 's
.72.*,*. .U22 s
NRC AND THE STATES -- PARTNERSHIP IN REGU1ATION Is g
In June 1976 the NRC established an Office of State Programs charged l with assuring that the fullest possible assistance is given to States in ;..
their regulatory efforts, that State concerns are addressed in hRC -
regulatory programs, and that cooperation between State and Federal governments in the regulation of nuclear energy is maximized and waste-ful duplication minimized.
AGREEMENT STATES: Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 7 ~
authorizes the NRC to enter into agreements with States whereby the NRC relinquishes and the States assume authority over byproduct, source, and . . . .
special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a cri- E tical mass. The agreement is based on a finding by the NRC that the @
State's radiation control program is adgequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with NRC's regulatory program. .
-- at the end of 1977 there were 25 Agreement States regulating approximately 11,000 nuclear material licenses. (The NRC administered another 8,800 such licenses directly).
-- in 1977, onsite program reviews were made of all of the 25 Agreement States. NRC found the programs of'24 of the States to be adequate, and deferred a determination of d adequacy for the State of Washington for CY 1977.
Nineteen States participate with NRC in monitoring low-level radioactive emissions at the point of release at nuclear power plants. n 4
Contracts for the surveillance of radioactive materials transportation have been executed between NRC and six States. NRC published a Summary Report of the State Surveillance Program on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials as NUREG-0393 in March 1978.
NRC conducts training programs for State personnel to improve technical 6 '
and administrative skills and to develop regulatory capability. In 1977 L a total cf 213 State staff members received 428 man-weeks of training.
The NRC is the lead Federal agency responsible for working with the States on radiological emergency planning. NRC has published for '
comment a Guide and Checklir, for developing State and local government radiological emergency plans, and has also published a supplement to the Guide reducing the list of 154 essential elements to 70. This was done in consultation with relevant State and Federal agencies and the Guide .-
~
will continue to be reviewed periodically.
-- The NRC has developed additional t2aining courses for State and local government personnel, offered at Federal expense. ,
An Emergency Operations Training Course is presently being a offered at the Nevada Test Site, providing monthly classes l for about 20 State and local personnel. f
... 7l
';::: '"* ': ll::,
Partnership in Regulation - 2 jy p
-- a one-week course in radiological emergency response planning has been conducted 11 times over the past few years, and at ,,a the end of 1976 approximately 360 State and local governmental personnel from the 48 contiguous States had attended. Similar courses will be scheduled in the future as needed.
-- during 1977, 13 radiological emergency response exercises were participated in by State and local governments, and Federal field assistance cadres observed three of these. .~.q.
f=:
Having concluded the Second Memorandum of Understanding with EPA --
allowing early issuance of water quality discharge permits for nuclear power plants -- NRC is new in the process of developing agreements with the 27 States to which EPA has delegated this authority to issue Section 402 permits. Memoranda of understanding have been concluded with three States thus far -- Virginia, New York, and South Carolina --and nego- F tiations are under way with the States of Washington and North Carolina.
At the first annual Federal-State Siting Conferehee, one of the re-commendations for improving coordination between NRC and the States was the appointment of State Liaison Officers to be responsible for working with the NRC. All 50 States and Puerto Rico have appointed such of-ficers, and in October 1977 the Commission met with the State Liaisen Officers. .
SITING: an area holding considerable potential for State-Federal coordination
- More than 30 States now have some form of siting author-ity.
-- NRC completed and issued for public comment hUREG-0195, "Lvproving Regulatory Effectiveness in Federal-State Siting Actions." (See next section which summarizes it)
-- Joint hearings on environmental matters offer considerable r
potential for avoiding duplication and for saving time and j" money. NRC and the State of Maryland held joint hearings on j; the Douglas Point nuclear phnt, and NRC and the State of New York's Siting Authority held joint hearings on the proposed Greene County plant. NRC has also signed a protocol ,
for joint hearings with Massachusetts in 1978. l NRC has appointed two State Liaison Officers to work directly with the l States, in Regions I and V, as of January 1978. '
c
- _ _ . ~ - - _, __ , . _
di Lm SECTION 102 STUDY
$s L
(e. g c
Background [j During the 94th Congress, the Joint Comitteee on Atomic Energy con-ducted several hearings on legislation to streamline the nuclear reactor p licensing process, including siting proceedings.
E ;i:
Section 102 of the chief legislation considered required that 'The I~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in cooperation with other Federal and g
State agencies, shall conduct a study of methods to improve further the j procedures for Federal and State participation in the review and ap- 43 ;;;l proval, in areas other than protection against radiation hazards and protection of the common defense and security, of sites for utilization-facilities. The study should give particular attention to methods for coordinating and reaching environmental decisions as efficiently as possible."
- i In September 1976, the Commission directed the office of State Programs a to undertake a study of key Federal and State activities involved in the d siting of nuclear facilities, particularly in environmental reviews, and $
to develop recomendations for improved coordination of such activities. 2 The study (known as the Section 102 Study) us to be performed in cooperation with other Federal agencies and the States, and was com- i pleted by late spring 1977.
Procedure g,", .l W
A study team from the Office of State Programs (OSP) met frequently with ,
staff and committees of the National Governor's Conference (NGC) and I conducted two two-day workshops with the NGC. The OSP also sought the vins of the governors and relevant Federal agencies in formulating its 2 proposals. .]Tl In addition, OSP convened two panels of outside experts who met twice to ;
discuss respectively the concept of efficiency in the siting process, and state regulatory activities.
-1 Conclusions The preliminary staff report of OSP was completed in May 1977 Specific recommendations emerging from the Study included the following: h l
- that Federal legislation authorize coordinated early and ~
open planning by all utilities and states or associations of states for all forms of electrical generation;
-- that NEPA be amended to allow Federal agencies to accept for inclusion in final EISs environmental reviews performed by .
qualified States acting under carefully constructed Federal guidelines; .
sa L
Ii L
L 2:
Section 102 Study - 2
-- that states he authorized to certify sites for generating i.s t<we:3 facilities; tii <
-- that State certification of need-for-power (facility) be E:E&
final and binding on Federal agencies. E
-- that coordination of Federal and. State regulatory actions ~
^
be emphasized in order to minimize duplication and create.
5::;
a.comonly available data base.
The Commission was briefed on the study team's final report on June 9, I?! 5 1977 and authorized its release for public coment as NUREG-0195. Seven if 8 supporting documents were also distributed to States, Federal agencies, ezg industry, and the public (see appended list).
N::
T .; .
q l
.r::1
[;i a
l:
. . Na e,
. i 1 1
[. 4
. . a r ...
- q. u
(;; .
Improving Regulatory Effectiveness in Federal / State ~
Siting Actions NUREG 0195 ' '~ '~'
~'
Suc$e's'~ s Factor Iv'alu$ tion Panel' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
State Regulatory Activity Involved in Need for Power NUPIG 0197 State Perspectives on Energy Facility Siting p NUliEG-0199 _-_
~
Environmental Planning and the Siting of Nuclear Facilities: The Integration of Water, Air, Coastal, and Comprehensive Planning into :ne Nuclear Si .g Prccess NUREG 0199 __ ,_ ,_,_. _
Federal / State Regulatory Permitting Actions in Selected
. Nuclear Power Station Ucensing Cases NU"IG-0200 Water Supplies and the Nuclea.- Ucensing Process NUREG-0201
~
N clear Power Plant Licensing: A New England Perspective .
NUREG-0202 State and Local Planning Precedures Dealing with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Fewer Plants NUREG-0203 Altemative Financing Methods NUREG-0204 Need for Power: Determinants in the State Decisionmaking Processes nuato: caco:::
4 6
e
l
- t;;
b
,./ w BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON AGREE \EVT STATES PROGRA'4 \p:1
- n. .
il:
Protection of the public health and safety has traditionally been a responsibility of the several States. The 1954' Atomic Energy Act, however, did not specify what role, if any, was left to the
~
States in regulating safety in the use of atoctic materials.
u......
Many States became concerned as to what their responsibilitics, (?.?:
if any, might be and many of them expressed interest in seeing that clearlythedefined.-
boundaries of Federal and State authority were In reponse to the States' concern, Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act was enacted in 1959, to recognize the States' ,
interest in atenic energy activities, to clarify the respective responsibilities of the States'and the AEC under the Act, and to provide a statutory means by which the AEC could relinquish to the States part of its regulatory authority.
The AEC was pemitted to relinquish authority over:
-- source material (natural uranium and thorium);
-- byproduct material (radioisotopes);
'E -- small quantities of fissionable materia'1. '
The Comission, however, is required to retain regulatory authority over the licensing of nuclear facilities such as reactors, exports and imports of nuclear materials and facilities, and ,large quantities of fissionable material.
The mechanism authority is by an fora the transfer of the Comission's regulatory and the Connission. greement between the Govemor of a State Before entering into an agreement, the Connission is required to make n finding that the State's radiation centrol program is compatible with the Comission's, and the State's program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
r Thus far, 25 states have entered into such agreements and have taken over the regulatory authority described above. ,.
It is necessary that a State have enabling legislation authorizing its Governor to enter into such an agreement. In addition to the E
25 Agreenent States,19 others and the Co=onwealth of Puerto Rico have enacted such enabling legislation. .
- p /
l
, = -
g..: Agreement States - 2 '
E 1
1he Corraission's staff is available to consult with a State which is interested in entering into a regulatory agreement with '
hitC. This includes consultation and the drafting of enabling legislation and radiation control and licensing regulations, as ,
well as other aspects of.the State's program. The Comission also provides training assistance in radiation safety and regulatory procedures for personnel in Agreement States and States negotiating for agreements.
Section 274j of the. Atomic Energy Act provides that h3C may terminate its agreement with a State if the Comission finds that such termination is necessary to protect the public health and safety.
Each agreement provides that the State will use its best effort to naintain continuing compatibility with h?C's program. For these reasons, the hRC maintains a continuing relationship with each Agreement State to assure continued compatibility of the State's '
regulatory program and its adequacy to protect health and safety. :
This relationship includes: i
-- periodic meetings to review the cur ent status of the '
(". State's program; '
i,
-- accompaniment of State inspectors by hRC staff on
.... _ selected inspections of State licensees; - *
~
L -
-- exchange of infontation on a current basis covering regulations, 5 licensing, inspection, and enforcement data; ::
-- consultation on special licensing and regulatory problens; l
-- annual meeting of all Agreement States to consider -i regulatory matters of co;caca interest or concern.
1
.I
.q
+
8 me i
l
. . . . . , .~..
e
.. '/.i
, s....
j
( j ,:01 I ..
AGREEMENT STATES E Yir.i
- % k s - ( .-
[, h
.- . e..., ws*** .
- ~
'N\\
)
)
I q ~,....
b.. . . . -- . ,
* *f esg t
g '_._. -
. . . . . s
'%s .
l@@@@@d AGREEMENT STATES \.
~
l l NON. AGREEMENT STATES NRC AGREEMENT STATES ALABAMA ARI2ON A ARK AfiS AS CAL!NORNiA COLORA00 FLORIO4
- CEORGI A i
- KAN3AS KEtifUCKY LOUl$l AN A I MARYLANO 1 MISSIS".lPPI . ..I NESHA?XA ' cl NEVADA ...i HEW H A%l*SH6RE ,
f4EW P.'.8!XICO fJiwYOHt d' NOR TH C A90t.tN A ::l NOR f M 0440 TA !!.I GRECCN "l SOU f ri e A ac LIN A 7:1
- T'.~hP.154 M l T C X A:s .l YIASH.lNGTON 6 16
I ,
LEGISLATIVE / CONGRESSIONAL TABLE OF CONIBirS .si 6"
- 1. . Congressional Comittees with Jurisdiction over NRC -
p
- 2. FY 1979 Budget Authorization ...
. m ::".,
- ."1
- a. Summary of FY 1979 Budget Status en i- b. Senate Authorization Report i, , '
- c. House Authorization Report (to be supplied)- l2
- 3. Licensing Reform Legislation
- a. Sumaries of major bills
- b. Chairman Hendrie's testimony on Administration bill
- iu
- b. Commissioner Bradford's testimony on Administration bill ,3...
- 4. NRC Legislative Initiatives
- 5. Summary List of NRC Appearances at Congressicnal Hearings s L
4
+
- 6 i , ,
5 i
1
. l::,.
' l) e.::
....U 4 .. .... . .$5.'ll.
. . - .. .:: - , - , .. _ . :~" """' . - , .
(
. .::. CONGRESSIONAL COSMITIm hTTH JURISDICTION C'ER NRC 5
="
g%
- Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Joint Comittee 5 I on Atomic Energy had jurisdiction over all bills, resolutions, or '
other matters in the Senate and House relating primarily to the NRC or to the development, use, or control of atomic energ E
'Ihe Comittee was charged with oversight responsibilities,y.and with keeping House and Senate Comittees informed on matters-relevant to areas under their jurisdiction. The appropriation .
of funds for NRC Appropriations activities remained with the House and Senate Comittees. '
The 95th Congress abolished the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy and reassigned various responsibilities. The present assignments kit are as follows: E H3USE f.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs '
Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment
- a. NRC authorization bill
- b. Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, h including regulation of research and development reactors
(@" and nuclear regulatory research. ;.
- c. Special oversight on all programs affecting nonmilitary ["
nuclear energy and research and development, including the disposal of nuclear waste.
Costittee on Appropriations Subcomittee on Public h'orks '
- a. NRC appropriations bill Comittee on Govemment Operations Subcomittee on Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources
- a. Budget and accounting matters, other than appropriations.
- b. The overall efficiency and economy of government operations and activities, including Federal procurement.
- c. Receiving and examining reports from the Comptroller -
General (GAO) and submitting such recommendations to the
' House as deemed necessary or desirable in connection with 'n. . . .
the subject matter of such reports. "1
- d. >
3 Receiving and evaluating responses to CAO reports ~
(such responses are required by law). f q
e c:. .
% -i ;. '
\
e t
Congressional Comittees - 2
{
Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations hi Subcomittee on Energy and Power @
a.
The same jurisdiction with respect to regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it has rc; with respect to regulation of non-nuclear facilities and of use of non-nuclear energy.
b.
Special oversight functions with respect to all laws, programs,
- c. Reviewingand government activities affecting nuclear energy.
and studying on a continuing basis all laws, programs and government activities relating to E nuclear energy. y c
Comittee on International Relations E Subcomittee on Intemational Security and Scientific Affairs Subcomittee on Economic Policy and Trade
- a. Export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware.
b.
International agreements, including all agreements for cooperation in the export of nuclear technology ;;
and nuclear hardware. ;~
SERTE p ,
(;
.Comittee on the Environment and Public Works subconnittee on Nucicar Regulation
- a. NRC authorization bill
- b. b Nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.
Connittee on Appropriations Subcomittee on Public h'orks v.
- a. NRC appropriations bill Comittee on Foreign Relations Subcomittee on Arms Control, Oceans, and International Environment' ,
a.
Intemational aspects of nuclear energy, including nuclear transfer policy.
Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcomittee on Nuclear Proliferation, Science, Planning and Federal Services
- a. Nuclear proliferation 0 d' 9 . . . . .
-Eiib Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works a
Di &
Gary Hart, Chairman t.;:.
~.
s:l Mike Gravel Daniel P. Moynihan IE Kaneaster Hodges James McClure, Ranking Minority Howard Baker, Jr. ...
Pete Domenici !?
r 5,._'.'
+
i-
.e.
O ee e
E n
[ .
.s 9.!
t i.l.
v l 5 W%
~
i k l
'[.*
)
l
.?)
f (f"' Subconnittee on Energy and the Environment j.2 4
House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs -
f5.5
. 5 (($
Morris K. Udall, Chairman Jonathan B. Bingham :
Bob Eckhardt "
Paul E.. Tsongas James We: aver t.. .
Bob Carr @
George Miller Philip Sharp -
Edward J. Markey Nick Joe Rahall, II Bruce F. Vento _
Jerry Huckaby t;;
Abraham "azen, Jr.
Teno Rorcalio ..
F
' John F. Seiberling Ron de Lugo [T Robert E. Bauman, Ranking Minority Joe Skubitz Philip E. Ruppe Manuel Lujan, Jr.
Steven D. Symms Dan Marriott '
Ron Marlenee Mickey Edwards
II$ *I e
V
4 1
=- l 4
0!.f Subcomittee on Energy and Power House Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce lll .5 John D. Dingell, Chairman Richard Ottinger Robert Krueger Philip R. Sharp Anthony Toby Moffett Bob Gammage John M. Murphy David E. Satterfield, III Timothy E. Wirth Andrew Maguire Martin A. Russo l
Edward J. Markey ...
Doug Walgren si i
Albert Gore l Clarence J. Brown, Ranking Minority Carlos J. Moorhead l James M. Collins l W. Henson Moore t :: :n Dave Stockman Edward R. Madigan, III a
c..
t r
l:
O j j::.
^ ^
lY.41[-
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS m 2170 RHOB $225-5021 Jurisdiction: (1) Relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; (2) Acquisition of land and :
buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries: (3) Establishment of boundarylinee between theUnited i States and foreign nations; (4) Foreign loans; (5) International conferences and congresses;(6) Intervention :9: a and declai rtions of war; (,7) Measures relating to the diplQmatic service;(8) Measures to fostercommercialintercourse i with foreign nations and to safeguard American businessinterests abroa'd;(9) Neutrality;(10) Protaction of Americ citizens abroad and expatriation;(11) The Amerien National Red Cross; (12) United Nations Organizations;(13)i ~
Measures relati'ng to intomational economic policy: (14) Export controls, including non-p.roliferation of nuclear!"
technofcgy and nucle'ar hardware: (15) Intemational commodity agreements (other than those involving sugar),.
including all agreements f or cooperation in the export of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; (16) the enemy; (17) International education, in addition io its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding /.
p this paragraph (and its, general oversight function under clause 2 (b) (1) of the House Rules), the cory)mitt have the special oversight functions provided for in clause 3(c)'of the House Rules with ' respect to citatomsg administration, intelligence activities relating to foreign policy, international financial and monetary -
organizations and intomational fishing agreements.
' Wm. S.Eroonvield, Mick
- Clement J. Zablockl,Wis., Chairman Cardiss Collins, lit. Edward J. Derwinski, Ill L.H. Fountain, N.C. Stechen J. Solarz. N.Y.
Helen S. Meyner, N.J. Paul Findley, Ill.
Dante B. FascelI, Fla. John H. Buchanan. Jr., Ala.
Charles C. Diggs, Jr., M%h. Don Bonker. Wash.
Robert N.C. Nix, Pa. Gerry E. Studds, Mass. .
J. Herbert Burke. Ela. ,
Andy Ireland, Fla. ' Charles W. Whalen. Jr., Ohio Donald M.Fraser, Minn. ~
Donald J. Pease, Ohio Larry Winn Jr., Kans.
' Benjamin S. Rosenthal, N.Y. Benjamin A. Gilman, N. Y.
Lee H. Hamilton, Ind. Anthony Beilenson, Cal. -
- Wyche Fowler, Jr., Ga. Tennyson Guyer', Ohio -
I. ester LlVolff, N.Y. Robert J. Lagomersino, Calg
. Jonathan B. Bir'gham, N.Y. . .E de la G.arza, fex. ' ' -
George E. Danielsori, Cs!. ' )Villiam F. Goodling, Pa.
,Gus Yatron, Pa. Shirley N. Partis. Calg Michael Harrington, Mhas.
' ' John J. Cavanaugh, Nebr. - .
Leo J. Ryan, Calif, POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY:
. KEY STAFF AIDES: * ' % '* - -
-i John J. Brady Chief of Staff
.. Editor (B350 C RHOB)
Ray Sparks -
Minority Staff Director . .
Everett E. therman *
(225-6735) -
-(B369 RHOB) . . . ~~
Staff Consultant Executive Agencies, Peace Corps, ElB John Chapm.n Chester Energy, Nuclear issues, Security L ..
- Robert K. Boyer -
Staff Consultant 5 Affairs "
Staff Consultant NATO Affairs Peter Anthony Abbruzzese Food, Communications Lewis Gulick Staff Consultant InternationalLegal Affairs, James Schollaert Staff Consultant ~
Executive Agreements '
Staff Consultant international Economic and Georgeingram Monetary Affairs g
Robert Stoner (225-5515) Special Asst. (2169 RHOB)
Thomaa Smeeton (225 6735) Minority Staff Consultant ,
. -(B359 RHOB) . ,
]
George R. Berdes Staff Consultant '
L
. . . ., , , , )
225 5515.
jThe Intemational Relations Committe h'as a special phone number for document requests:
'The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member are ex officio members of all subcommittees of which they aff.
not regular members.
ll -
p L __ .
g - - . - --
..e nam s sv8W. rf at M LUM-Cantinued ' ~ ~l
-l SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIAN AND PAOlFIC AFFAIRS 704 HOS Annes 1 225-3044
.;. Jurisdiction: (1) The annual legislative programs of foreign assistance for each region shall be referred to the E
, appropriate subcommittee for review and leg,islative recommendations. within a time frame to be set by the !.
i Committee; (2).Those subcommittees shall be responsible for ongoing oversight of all foreign assistance activities !1*
affseting their region; (3) Those. subcommittees shall have the responsibility of annually reporting to the full l Committee, on a timely basis, the findings and conclusfons of their oversight,includingspecifie recornmedations for *
.a
, legislation relating to foreign assistance. In additior'i to the responsibilities provided by subsection (a) of this rule, the E regional subcommittees shall have jurisdiction over the following: (1) Matters af fecting the political r elations between ths United States and other countries and regions, including resolutions or other legislative measures directed to
~ ,
tuch relations; (2) Legislation with respect to disaster assistance, boundary issues, and international claims; (3)
Legislation with respect to region- or ' country-specific loans or other financial relations outside the Foreign Assistance Act;(4) Resolutions of disapproval under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, with respect to forsign military sales; (5) Oversight of regional lending institutions; (6) Identification and development of optior>s , ,
for rneeting future problems and issues rstating to U.S. Interests in the, region; (7) Environmental, population, a,nd ,.
anirgy aff airs affecting the region; (8) Base agreements and regional security pacts; (9) Oversight of matter:s relating , k to parliamentary conferences and exchanges involving the region; (10) Concurrent oversightjurisdiction with resp'ect to matters assigned to the functional subcommittees insofar as they.may affect the region. . ..
~ ' '
Lsstir L Wolff, Chairman lielen Meyner' J.HerbertBurke L.H. Fountain Anthony Beilenson Tennyson Guyer Gus Yatron .
~ '
KEY STIFF IIDES: POSITIOhiS: ' LEGISLATIVE RESPONhilBILITY:
Jo'n D. Holstine Minority Staff Consultant ,
Christopher Nelson Staff Associate * * '
Arlene Atwater
- * ~ ' '
, Staff A1st., ,
Edward Palmer Staff birector w.
l' SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATION,AL OPERATIONS I B358 RHOB ' "- - -
225 3424' Jurisdictiom To deal with Department of State and United States information Agency operations and .
. .ligislation; diplomatic service; international . education and cultural. affairs: foreign buildings;'and parliamentary '
- confsrences of the NATO countries; protection of American citizens abroad; international broadcasting.
Dante B. Fascell, Chairmen Leo J. Ryan John H. Buchanan, Jr. .
Ch:rles C. Diggs, Jr. Helen S. Moyner J. Herbert Burke C.
Lester L. Wolff '
KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY:
- R. Michael Finley Staff Director ,
Karen Brennan Staff Asst.
Virginia Schlundt Staff Associate .,
j Janean Mann Minority Staff Counsel y
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT [ ,, '
703 HOB Annex I 225 355S
. Jurisdictiom To deal with Agency for international Development and other U.S agencies' operations affecting devtlopment; administration of foreign assistance; oversight of multilateral assistance programs; population and food programs; and legislation and oversight witn respect to the Peace Corps.
Michael Harrington, Chairman Donald Pease Larry Wlan Don Bonker Robert Nix Benjamin Gilman Gsrry Studds KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILin:
Gary Jefferson Statt Director ji
' Wreen Lambeth Staff Associate F b..d Wallerstein Staff Associate .. i Sandy Reinhardt Staff Asst. '
p bl5 78 .@onnressioneyfckwM eh978 - Washin;itonMonitseRm
' FOREIGN RELATIONS 4229 DSOB 224-4651
{,
Jurisdiction: 1, Relations of the United States,with foreign nations generally; 2. Treaties and executive agreements, ex' cept reciprocal trade agreements; 3. Boundaries of the United States: 4. Protection of United States citizens abroad and expatriation: 5. Intervention abroad and declarations of war: 6. Foreign economic, military, t,.
. technical, and humanitarian assistance;. 7. United Nations and its. affiliated or,ganizations: 8. International.p
' conferences and dongresses; 9. Diplomatie servi'ce; 10. !nternationallaw as it relates to foreign policy; 11. 0ceans and i international environmental and scientific affairs as they relate to foreign policy; 12. International activities of the @ L Americar. National Red Cross'and theInternation&lCommittees of the Red Cross;13.Internationalaspectsoinuclear !s d energy, ine'uding nuclear transfer policy; 14. Foreign loans; 15. Measures to foster commercialintercourse with ,(
foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad; 16. The World Bank group, the regionals developm'ent banks, and other international organizations established primarily for international monetary purposes i ..]
(except thati as the request of the Committee on Etanking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, any proposed legislation l relating to such subjects reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations shall be referred to the Co'mmittee on :
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs);18. Acquisition of land and buildings for emhassies and legations in foreign countries; 19. National se'curity and' international aspects of trusteeships.of the United States. ,
' John,$parkman, Ala., Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Del. Clifford P. Case, NJ. .
Frank Church. Idaho John Glenn, Ohio ' Jacob K Javit.t. N. Y.
Claiborne Pel!, R.I. Ricnard Stone, Fla. James Pearson. Kans.
George McGovern, S. Dak. Paul Sarbanes, Md. Charles H. Percy. Ill.
Muriel Humphrey,, Minn. Rober) P. Grryin Mich.
., Dick Clark, lowa
' ~ ' - -
Howd Baiser. Jr.. Tenn. :- -
~
KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: !:
. Norvill Jpnes (224-4615) Chief of Staff:(S 116 Capitol)
Abner Kendrick (224-4615) ~dhisf 'Cle'rN (S 116'Cacitol) '
Roy Werner (224-5381) Staff Associate (4304 DSOB) . .
Robert Dockery (224-4651) Exec.. Asst. (4229 DSOB) . , .
John Ritch (224 46S1) Staff Associato (4229 0508)
David Keaney (224 5381) Staff Associate (404 DSOB)
George W. Ashworth (224-5381) Staff Associato (404 DSOB) * *
- Robert Barton (224-4618) Staff Associate'(4219 DSOS)
Ralph McMurphy (224-4618) . Staff Associate (4219 DSOB)
, Mary M. McLaughlin (224-7953) Prof. Staff Member,(S 116, Capitol) , ,,
'l
,. .. George Krotoff (224-5381 or 5481). . Administrative .AsM.7Pri!ss~
- ;' .~
~. .
, (4304 DSOB) ,
. Peggy Brown (224-3112) , Transcript Editor (402 DSOB) *
- Steve Bryen (224 5381) Staff Associate (404 DSOS)
Dave Evans (224-4651) Asst. Chief Clerk (4229 DSOB) .
Pauline Baker (224-4651) Staff Associate (4229 0S08) tSUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS Jurisdiction: This sutEommittee has responsibility corresponding to the Bureau of African Affairs in the.
. Department of State. The. subcommittee considers all matters and problems relating to both the dependent and the -
~
independent areas of Africa.with the exception of the countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea from $gypt tc -
Morocco which are under the Near East and South Asia.
~ Dick Clark, Ch' airman Muriel Humphrey James B. Pearson
~ ' ' '
KEY 'ITAFF Al' DES: POSIT 10'NS: ' LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITYP Pauline Gaker (224-4651) Staff Associate (4229 DSOB) e p
r l.
4~ tall Foreign Relations subcommittees operate through the full cor--'ttee office.
- The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member are ex officio mem6ers of all subcommittees of which they are n!
regular members.
3-I5~y Congressional YellowBook al978 - WashingtonMonitor,Inc.
ut to . PUMen.sN McLAlluM5-Orntinued j
- = . .
' tSUBCOMMITTdE ON ARMS CONTROL, OCEANS, AND e; INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT .ri Jurisdiction: Matters pertaining to the control and reduction of armaments; international aspects of nuclear N
=5nstgy. Including nuclear transfer policy: suspension of nuclear tests; nonproliferations; subjects such as the SALT 'd ta!ks; and security agreements and military bases abroad. On issues involving conventional arms control policies pnd - fE 9 military base agreements involving foreign assistance commitments it has mutual interest with the Subcommittee on E
. Foreign Assistance. This slybcomrpittee.is also concqrned wit.h the probjems and acuvities involving the use, .
'!! p'
, . devdopment and exploitation of oceanjspa,ce and the, international environmer;t, as well;as,intomational maring
, aljairs generally., . , , .
f.
Citiborne Pell, Chairman - John Gleryn . .Charlespercy - -
George McGovern . Muriel Humphrey Robert Grigin . & M Howard Baker
- u.
KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: !*
George W. Ashworth (224-5381) Staff Associate (4304 DSOB) Arms Control and Security #
David Keaney (224-5381) Staff Associate (4304 DSOB) Agreements
~ '
tSUBCOMMITTEE ON'EUROFEAN AFFAIRS ~ .
~
Jurisdiction: The continent of Europe, from Spain to the Soviet Union including Greece and Turkey. Problems relating to the United Kingdom, Greenland, Iceland, and the polar regions are embraced in this area.
Jos:ph R. Blden, Chairman John Glenn Robert CrWin a Claiborne Pell y, ,
.., Clfford P. Case - -
KL*Y STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: LEGISULTIVE RESPONSIBILITY:
John Ritch (224 4651) Staff Associate (4229 0S08) .
Steve Bryen (224-5381) ,
Staff, Associate (4304 0S08) ,, , ,, ,.
,(
tSUBCOMMITTEE.ON EAST ASIAN AND PACI'FIC. AFFAIRS' ' .
Jurisdiction: From China and Korea to Burma, inclusive, on the mainland of Asia, Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines Malaysia. Indonesia, Ausualia and Ne,v Zealand. Oceania, and the South Pacific Islands.On trusteeship ,
htters it has a related interest with the Subcommittee on International Operations. -
P John Glenn, Chai.rmen. - J. am. .es Pearson
. Richar.d ..Stone ~. ,
. - - . .. . . .- =
..=.:- -" . :
KEY STAFF AIDE'S : ' POSITIONS: * ~ L&'GISLATI E RESP'ONSIBILITY: ~
Roy Werner'(224-5381) Staff Associate (4304 0S08) .
'tSUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 209 Senate Courts Annex 224-7523 ,
Jurisdiettom (1) U.S. policies, prog' rams and U.S. participation in internationalinstitutions and organizations, concerned with economic growth and development, trade, or the transfer of economic resources, directly or. 1 indirectly, to fesa developed countries. (2) U.S. security assistance programs, foreign military sales, arms transfer 2 policies toward foreign countries and military base agreements involving foreign assistance. On issues involvind conventional arms control policy and military base agreements.Involv,ing. foreign assistance committments it has -
mutual interest with the Arms Control, Oceans, and International Environment subcommittees; and (3) matters I relating to food, hunger, nutrition and general living standards ih less developed countries to the extent that the j substance of issues in foreign economic policy fall within the jurisdictiort of the subcommittee on foreign assistance .
)
arid the subcommittee on Foreign economic policy, the two subeommittees may consider the I,ssues jointJy.. . , , . ,
, , g.
I
- ' ~ ~' '
Jihn ' Spark' man, Chisirman Jdseph ' Bid'en', J'r. " ClyfordN2ase Frank Cnuren Jacob K. Javirs c "E
Dick Clark Charles Percy KEY STAFF A10ES: POSITIONS: LEGISLATIVE RESPONStBILITY:
Frank Ballance Staff Director
- Constance Freeman Staff Associate W Rudolph Rousseau Staff Associate
- l William Richardson Staff Associate L -. l i.l. "J-ns Binnendijk Staff Associate {
MslJohnson Staff Associate ,
j Tall Foreign Relations Subcommittee operate through the f all committee office. ,
l Q. ./
l 3-15 78 __
CongressionalYellowBookff 978 - WashingtonMonitor,Inc. _
- 7. }_
uvvennmeru aL arres--centd.
1 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND FEDERAL SERVICES 6208 DSOB 224-2S27 Jurisdiction: Matters over government planning, productivity, shortages, energy matters. including nuclear proliferation. Federal postal service, census and statistics. 'ed...
John Glenn, Ch' airman Edr'n und Muskie '
Jacob Javits * * '
b- " " '
- ' Thomas Eagletton - -
Ted Stever.rs .
Charles McC. MarMas. Jr.
- 'sh MEY S'OFF AIDES: .
- ' . . POSITIONS: ,'. ' LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBl}.lTY .
ggf. -
Lconard Weiss -
Staff Director- .
Postal Service Reform ""
Walker Nolan Chief Counsel :'
Daniel Doherty Prof. Staff Member -
Martha Weisz Special Asst. -
D;borah Steinmeyer Chief Clerk , . .
Donna Lavigne - Investigator -
- Gary Klein Minority Counsei .
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY AND THE -DISTRICT OF C.0LUMBIA 6222 DSOB 224-4161
, Jurisdiction: Matters penaining to governmental efficiency and the District of Columbia. .
.. - = * .
Th mas Eagleton, Ch' airman .h u,m. p l }1. Charles McC. Mathias. Jr.
James Sasser i
- Ted.Stevens .. .pc KEY STAFF AIDES: POSITIONS: f:.
, LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: A Madley Roff , Staff Director Bail Reform b iseph di Genova --
Minority Staff Dire-tor -
" Mark Abels Prof. Staff Member Stily Brain .' Prof. Statt Merhber
. . Andrew Car:on . . .
' . Prof. Statt Member -
~~ 'i Rex Krakauer ; Counsel ' '
' [6:
. . r
,. g q 5
h-
.1 1!
U S
Z ;
I l nj 3 1578 Congressional Yeuow B. ' ~ni: - Washington Monitor,Inc. y= .
- 11. 5. fluCLLAli ItLGULA10ftY COMill5510N AllAtllMLfit 1 c
e C0tlGRE5510NAL ACTION T^ DATE ON FY 1979 BUDGET .cq, May 23.S1978 Authorization Committees Appropriation Conenittees NRC House Chg. Fm. Ilouse Chg. Fm. Senate Chg. Fm. Chg, fa. Appeal Request Interior Request y Comme.ce Request 1/ P. Works RequestIf House RequestIf to Senate Program Support & Equipment .
NRR XTternate Fuel Cycle - - - - 1,070 $ +1,070 - -
$ 850 $ 2,350 2] $ +1,500 $ 2,350 +1,500 2.] $ 1,590 +740 J $ 2.350 y $ +1,500 -1.000 Advanced Reactors / Gas Balance of Program 14,830 13,330 -1,500 13,330 -1,500 13,890 -940 12,530 -2,300 +2,300 Subtotal 5 15,680 5 15,680 5 - 5 15,680 -
5 16,550 5 +870 5 14,880 5 -800 11/ +1,300-3D -
Ew Level Radiations Activities - - -
$ 500 $ +500 6f Balance of Program $ 6,800 $ 6,800 $ 6,800 $ 6 765 -35 $ 6,800 5 6,800 5 6,800 5 6,l'00 5 +465 5 6,800 Subtotal , , 5 IE $ 4,610 $ 4,610 $ 4,610 $ 4.610 -$ 4.410 $ -200 12/
fiMSS Waste Olsposal & Management $ 5,125 $ 5.125 $ 5,125 $ 6,425 $ +1,300 $ 5,125 Alternate Fuel Cycle - - - 540 +540 -
Safeguards fluclear Exports - 285 $ +285 285 $ +285 - - 285 $ +285 Balance of Program 7,895 7,895 - 7,895 6,695 -1 ,200 7,595 -300 13/
Subtotal -
5 13,020 5 13,305 5 +285 5 13.305 5 +285 5 13,RO 5 +640 5 13,005 5 -15 RES '
- Wroved Safety Systems $ - $ 2,500 $ +2,500 Waste Research 1,200 $ 1,200 $~ 1,200 4,350 +3,150 y $ 1,200 Alternate fuel Cycle - - - 330 +330 Advanced Reactor: ' "-
Fast Breeder 12,600 12,600 12,uu0 - - 12,600 Advanced Converter / Gas 2,400 3,900 2/ $ +1,500 3,900 41.Enn 2/ 3,900 2/ $ +1,500 Subtotal 5 15,000 5 16,500 5 +1,500 5 16,300 +1;500 5 18,000 5 +3,000 8] 5 16,500 $ +1,500 500 139,340 137,840 137,840 -1.500 133,530 -5,81G 132,640 -6,700 -46,200 Balance of Program -1.500 Subtotal $155,540 $155,540 $ -
$155.340 5158,710 $ +3,170 $150,340 $ -5,200 +5,700 u- -me-m=
e
, b I
- g e .
m??' - - - :-- -. -
. . . . p., ,
i
. m -
e O ,,
AuthorG tion Corr:nitt*es Appr&riation Constttees
, NRC House Chg. Fm. House Chg. Fm. Senate Chg. Fm. Chg. Fm. Appeal Request Interior Request 1/ Connerce Request P. Worts Request y House Request to Senate
! PTS l ATternate fuel Cycle $ 160 $ +160 .
l Balance of Program $ 1,550 $ 1,650 $ 1,650 1,570 -80 $ 1,350 $ -300 l Subtotal 5 1,650 5 1,650 5 1,650 5 1,730 5 +80 5 1,350 5 -300 14/
1 .
t PDA l E6 $ 20 $ 20 $ 20 $ 95 $ +759/
Balance of Program 2,870 2,870 2,870 2,795 - 75 Subtotal 5 2,890 5 2,890 $ 2,890 5 2,890 $ - $ 2,600 5 -290 14/
P:rsonnel Compensation and Benefits 3 91,760 $ 91,760 $ 92,912 $ +1,152 y $ 91,760 $ 90.572 $ -1,188 15/ + 300 Administrative Support 31,940 31,940 31.940 31.940 31,040 -900 T6/ -
Travel 6,780 6,780 6,780 - 6,780 6.490 -290 Ff !'
0*her - -
2.000 +2.000 4/ 500 $ + 500 10/ - -
10TAL $330,670 $330,955 $ +285 $334,107 $ +3,437 $336,395 $ $321,487 $ -9,103 +7.300 ,
_lf The add-on items are not necessarily only for program support or equipment funds.
_2f Specifically for gas cooled thermal reactor preapplication feview for NRR and to accelerate the effort in gas cooled thermal teactiai safety research - '
for RES. .
3] This increase is for an additional 35 people for NRR to speed up the licensing process.
- 4/ This increase is for funding of pubitc participation.
J/ Identified specifically for Advanced Reactors. This increase is added to a base of $1,340K which includes prograni support of $850K and people costs of 5490K. 1 This increase is'added to a base of $150K which is all people costs.'
This increase is added to a base of $1,298K which includes prograia support of $1,200K and people costs of $98K.
_/ This increase is added to a base of $15,833K which includes program support of $15,000K and people costs of $d33K. -*
- 9] This increase is added to a base of $150K which includes program support of $20K and people costs of $130K. '
y This add-on is included in Sec. 6 of the bill and is for assistance to states. >
JI Applied to technical projects. ,.
2/ Applied as follows: $100K to Feel Facilities and Matarf als and $100K to Safeguards. :
J/ Applied to Fuel Cycle and material safety. .
@/ Not allocated to indlyidual offices.
15/ Applied as follows: $900K general reduction, $84K to RES for 7 people reduction, $36K to PTS for 3 people reduction, and $16aK to P0A for 14 people reduction.
j6 General reduction to Administrative Support.
// General reduction to agency Travel. _ _. _. ._ .
\ -
\. s . .
.. . , - ~ . - . - - - . . . . - - . .,w-
,qn
_ :--.. + , , - .
. . . . . .