ML20154Q998
| ML20154Q998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Bradburne J NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Murkowski F SENATE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806070187 | |
| Download: ML20154Q998 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _
e a tso d uq% UNITED STATES g /2.
!" 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ;; y WASHING ton, D. C. 20655 k + . . . p/ May 26, 1988 The Honorable Frank H. Murkowski United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Murkowski:
On March 28, 1988, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Comittee held a hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 1989 budget request for th: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Mr. Hugh Thompson, Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, also provided testimony.
During the hearing you asked Mr. Thompson whether NRC has responsibility for conducting a licensing review of the shipping cask to be used for the transport of plutonium under the "Japan Agreement," since the Agreement provides for use of a United States airfield i.' the event of an emergency.
The Comission has considered your question and has determined that the NRC does not have licensing responsibility for shipments between foreign countries which do not involve planned entry into United States airspace.
Unplanned entry into United States airspace in the event of an emergency would not alter NRC licensing responsibilities. However, the NRC would advise appropriate authorities to take steps so that adequate physical protection would be provided for formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material in the event of an unplanned landing in the United States.
This information is also being provided as an insert to the record of the hearing.
Also enclosed are responses to two addition questions that concern NRC's licensing responsibilities with regard to the shipments of radioactive materials.
If you need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, m
John C. Bradburne, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs
Enclosures:
As stated 8806070187 880526 PDR COMMS NRCC f CORRESPONDENCE PDR
. l l .
i
> 1 QUESTION.
What are NRC's licensing responsibilities with regard to shipments of plutonium transported by air [ presumably from the United Kingdom or France] to Okinawa for subsequent shipment to Japan by boat?
ANSWER. !
The geographical definition of "United States" in subsection 11.bb. of the l
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2014(bb)) does not include Okinawa. Under these circumstances, the NRC has no licensing responsibilities j with regard to either a plane or ship carrying the plutonium. The NRC would f have "licensing responsibility" (i.e., approval authority over the design of f the shipping cask used for the air transport of plutonium) in the very limited 1 situation where the airplane transporting the plutonium from France or the U.K.
to Okinawa makes a planned overflight over the United States. The NRC's authority l in this situation arises from section 5062 of Public Law 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987.
l 1
t guESTION, What are NRC's licensing responsibilities with regard to shipments between two foreign countries of uranium [ presumably it. the form of spent nuclear fuel] to be reprocessed where the transportation involves water transport through the Panama Canal?
ANSWER.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), not the NRC, has licensing responsibility over transportation within the United States by common or contract carriers transporting any form of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material. The NRC does have regulations p7oviding for a general license for carriers of transient shipments of formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material but such licenses are limited to requiring physical or safeguard protection for such shipments in accordance with NRC regulations. Neither 00T nor NRC has jurisdiction over transportation on the high seas. The same is true for transportation passing through the Panama Canal because under the Panama Canal Defense Act of 1979 (P.L.
96-70, September 27,1979) and the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 (September 7, 1977),
the U.S. has discontinued its geographic jurisdiction over the Panama Canal Zone.
The Act and the Treaty supersede all previous legislation and accordingly, the reference to the Canal Zone as being part of the U.S. (in a geographic sense) in subsection 11bb. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2014(bb))
is not valid.
- ___