ML20209D988
| ML20209D988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/15/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D524 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-409, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-85-059, SECY-85-59, NUDOCS 8503010051 | |
| Download: ML20209D988 (8) | |
Text
-_
/
e .
2 u
\...../
POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
February 15, 1985 SECY-85-59 For: The Commission From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
LETTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND ENERGY REGARDING NRC'S COMMENTS ON A REQUEST INVOLVING THE RETRANSFER OF HEU FROM CANADA TO WEST GERMANY AND RETURN
~
Purpose:
To advise the Commission of the subject letters and to obtain Commission concurrence in a proposed response.
Background:
In November 1984, the Commission reviewed a request Z~ .,
irvolving the proposed retransfer of 50 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU from Canada to West Germany and subsequent return to Canada (SECY-84-436). The initial request was forwarded to the staff by DOE on April 5,1934. However, because of outstanding issues, including t ansportation physical security arrangement matters, the staff was not able to fomard the case to the Commission for review until November 8, 1984.
Shortly thereafter, on approximately November 9, the Department of State advised the staff that the case had become urgent because of the Canadian government's desire to meet an early December shipping deadline and requested NRC's comments on the case in advance of the time nonnally allowed by established interagency procedures. The Commission subsequently concluded its review of the case on November 19. However, in the Staff Requirements Memorandum, the Commission directed the staff to provide coments to DOE (1) expressing concern regarding the short amount of time allowed for Commission action on Executive Branch consultation cases; (2) asking that the Executive Branch, in discussions with other countries, give-due~ regard to the CONTACT:
W. Upshaw, IPEI /
/
Q ,\M f l 49-24724 I YJ hT '- '
- m
'O "The Comission 2 y
tirre needed by the Comission to discharge its statutory mandate; and (3) noting that the Comission's final review, "by necessity, must occur at the end of the Executive Branch review and.recomendation process." The coments were transmitted to DOE in the staff's letter of November 27, 1984 (Appendix A), with a copy to the Department of State. -
By letter of January 7,1985 (Appendix B), the Department of '
State agreed with the Commission's second point and expressed its disagreement with the third of ti.-
Commission's comments, noting that the interagency procedures require simultaneous review by all agencies of proposed subsecuent arranbements after they are circulated by DOE. State cisagreed with the idea that consultations
-with the Commission must occur only)after andD0D(i.e.,theExecutiveBranch complete DOE, State, ACDA, their review and recommendation process. Subsequently, by letter of February 2 DOE also wrote to NRC asking for clarification of the position taken by the Comission in the November 27 letter (Appendix C).
' ~
Discussion: The staff is in agreement with State that all agencies.
including NRC, are required to review simultaneously subsequent arrangement requests submitted by DOE. However. - .
completionofthisreview,pursuanttoSection15(d)of~the~' ~
interagency procedures, can only take place after 'all ' ~ ~ ~
outstanding issues have been resolved and all substantive information relevant to the request is made available to all participating agencies. It is with respect to this factor that State has misinterpreted the Commission's coments.
The Comission's courients, as the staff understands them, were not intended to refer'to its review responsibilities and rights under the interagency procedures, but instead were intended to point out that NRC has no practical alternative to completing its statutory review until all outstanding issues, such as Executive Branch policy on necessary physical security assurances or on the desirability of engaging in nuclear commerce with certain countries. are resolved. Because NRC normally is not involved in the internal Executive Branch deliberations and consultations with foreign countries which lead up to the final DOE analyses and recomendations, the Comission is.
hampered severely in its ability to review cases simultaneously with the Executive Branch agencies, even
'though the Executive Branch agencies usually try to keep the staff informed informally of ongoing developments.
It is this review time disadvantage, which has been shown to be a problem on several cases, to which the Commission's coments referred, and which led to the Commission's renewed request, in the November 27 letter, that the Executive Branch allow for this time factor in its deliberations on subsequent arrangement requests.
~
The Comission 3
'l The staff notes that State in its letter raises no criticism or concerns regarding the Comission's actions on the Canadian case itself, which presented some special circumstances. . As the Conunission will recall, the staff, in an effort to expedite the Comission's review, forwarded .the request to the Comission prior to completion of the Executive Branch's own final decisions regarding -
. transportation physical security arrangements. Although physical security arrangements are a matter in which NRC has particula'r expertise, the staff decided not to await.the Executive Branch's decision on physical security arrangements and instead relied on the encouraging information available up to that point and on the previously established competence of the Canadian and West German authorities to provide for proper physical security arrangements. The Comission accepted the staff's approach and, for its part, completed the Commission's review on an expedited basis, well in advance of the time technically.
allowed under the interagency procedures.
In addition, after dispatch of the Comissiion's November 27 ._
1etter, the staff made a special effort to explain to DOE and State staff the basis for the Commission's comments and concerns regarding adequate review times and to assure DOE and State further that the Commission, to the extent " .T..; ^ ,,
.possible, would continue to review subsequent arrangeirdnts simultaneously with the Executive Branch in accordance with the interagency procedures. In response, DOE staff .
informally expressed agreement with the. Comunission's actions with respect'to the Canadian case and, more recently, further advised that DOE was not consulted by State with regard to the January 7 letter to NRC. State, however, apparently remained concerned about the general point made by the Commission about necessarily having sequential rather than parallel reviews by NRC for subsequent arrangements and therefore chose to write their January 7 letter to NRC.
DOE's letter of February 2 does not express any concerns but -
simply asks NRC to further clarify its position.
Conclusion:
The staff has prepared a proposed response to State at Appendix D for the Commission's consideration. Since the
. comments in the proposed letter to State cover the matters raised in DOE's February 2 letter, the staff proposes to respond to DOE's letter by providing DOE with a copy of the letter to State.
The Comission 4 Recommendation: That the Comission approve dispatch of the proposed letter to State at Appendix D, with a copy to be provided to 00E.
b& h]qi -c William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Appendices:
A. Ltr to DOE dtd 11/27/84 B. Ltr frm 005 dtd 1/7/85 C. Ltr frm DOE dtd 2/2/85 D. Proposed Ltr to State Commissioners' comments or' consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Nednesday, March 6, 1985.
Commission Staf f Of fice comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 27, 1985, with an information copy to SECY. If the paper is of such a nature.__;. -
j that it requires additional time for analytical review and. ' . . . . , ~
comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE EDO Dep Exec Dir for Ops Dep Exec Dir for Regional Ops and Generic Reqs ADM ELD NMSS IP DMB SECY L
6 g D e
'l I
APPENDIX A l
l g g 4 , e p9W gig a
1 l
l I
I l
1 1
i 1
. i l 1 i l I l l
, - . _ . -. ,g- -e ,,.- - - . - - , n, ~,, - - n- - --. - , -., - ,. -
- o. . .
NOV 2 7 584 Mr. George J. Bradley, Jr. ~.
- Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs '
U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. , S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20585
Dear Mr. Bradley:
With reference to DOE's April 6 memorandum and subsequent correspondence, this is to advise that NRC does not object to DOE entering into subsequent arrangements for the retransfer from Canada to West Gerr.any of 50 kilonrans of uranium' enriched to 93.15 percent in U-235, in the form of urantun-aluminum cold scrap, for purification and subsequent return to Canads for fabrication of fuel for the NRX and NRU re. actors.
We understand that, should these requests be approved, 50 kilograms of HEU will be deducted from the amount of HEU currently requested for exoort to ~
Canada under license application XSMM31933.
In regard to the urgency of this request, the Commission wishes tb note th[t '
t this is yet another instance where it is being asked to complete its~ action' '
~
in an inordinately short time. Therefore, we would request that in its dis-cussions with other countries, the Executive Eranch*give due- regard for the
~
time needed by the Comn.ission to discharge its statutory mandate which, by necessity, must occur at the end of the Executive Branch review and recommendation process.
Sincere 1,y, L
- l* *
. . ay James R. Shea James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs
. . cc: J. B. Devine, State ,
e WM e se
- h e*
e .e e o e
'~4 o aa se O
4
- g 4
g '.k' e- p~
\
4 e
9 APPENDIX B
- . w w W
@g 4 BOO @f 4 =
9 4 ' O'* b g , p a
G-f e
\
g 4
ik k
4 /
, \ .
J I
r I
f +
/
- . g.
e G
'I s
9 e
9 9
APPENDIX C
- e m. e 4 8e & me @ W w 4 &
g 'W
- GGP 99 %* e o g
- m. 4, 4 ,-a, --,-- . . . -,e -.c,_,, - . ,.,,.e , . - ,,,,- , -, ~ , , , , , - . . , , . ~ , _ , . - , ,w n - . , . _ , ~ , , _ .,--,.,m-,...,,, , . - ,nr,,- - , - , _ - ,,-,. - -