ML20211H551
| ML20211H551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211H527 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-165-C, NUDOCS 9909020120 | |
| Download: ML20211H551 (2) | |
Text
r NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary i
FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-165 - FINAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN REGARDING FOREIGN OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, OR DOMINATION OF APPLICANTS FOR REACTOR LICENSES Approved /
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
,.g
,a,,
~
j SlfiKAfGg
/#
,hJn DATE Entered on "AS" Yes 1 No IDR hh CORRESPONDENCE PDR 9969920/20
=,
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTS ON SECY 99-165 l
' I approve the final Standard Review Plan (SRP) and the staff publishing the responses to the comments received on the draft SRP in the Federcl Register. The Commission has recently seen an increase in license transfer requests raising questions involving foreign ownership and we expect this trend to continue. The Commission cannot anticipate overy foreign ownership
{
arrangement that might be proposed, especially in the current environment of power industry I
deregulation and restructuring. Nevertheless, the SRP provides a useful framework as it l
outlines the basic principles underlying our regulatory approach to foreign ownership issues.
I agree with Commissioner McGaffigan that it would be useful to distinguish matters that will be considered when' reviewing foreign ownership, control and domination issues, from those issues that pertain strictly to inimicality judgments. Most notably, the inimicality provision does not pertain strictly to foreign ownership Conceivably a U.S. national with ties to a terrorist organization could pose an inimicality threat. At the same time it is clear that the two provisions will overlap, ga, certain restrictions ori foreign ownership might assuage inimicality concerns.
Similarly, in certain situations we may never review foreign ownership, control and domination issues in the context of the corporate structure because an up front judgment that any ownership would be inimical to the !Jnited States interests will immediately eliminate the applicant from further consideration.
I also agree that addressing inimicality should not delay this SRP. A footnote would seem to be an appropriate vehicle to distinguish inimicality jJgments, but only if it can be added without significant delay.
7
? 9 9
is
%,),
f UNITED FTATES y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
y WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 31, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
Karen D. Cyr General Counsel William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations yv FROM:
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-165 - FINAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN REGARDING FOREIGN OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, OR DOMINATION OF APPLICANTS FOR REACTOR LICENSES The Commission has approved the final Standard Review Plan (SRP) regarding foreign ownership, control, or domination of applicants for reactor licenses. The Commission has also approved of the staff publishing the responses to the comments received on the draft SRP in the FederalRegister.
The staff should clarify its understanding of NEl's comment regarding a foreign entity owning a share of a nuclear power plant. Specifically, staff should replace the third sentence of the response ("However,... " beginning on the fifth line, last full paragraph p. 2 of SECY-99-165) with the following:
However, the intent of NEl's comment that a foreign entity "should be allowed to own a significant share of a nuclear power plant"is not entirely clear. If NEl is suggesting that a foreign entity may become a direct owner of a substantial percentage of the facility, its position would not appear to be consistent with the Commission's interpretation of the statute, even if the foreign entity is only a co-owner.
At the end of the second full paragraph of page 5 of the SRP, add the following footnote:
In any event, a license would not be issued to any person if the Commission found that issuance would be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public. See,.e.Lg., $$ 103d and 104d of the AEA. Pursuant to this provision, the Commission has the authority to reject a license application that raises a clear proliferation threat, terrorist threat, or other threat to the common defense and security of the United States.
Y O W CCiih'
r-
/
cc:
Chairman Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifteld CIO CFO~
.OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
'PDR-DCS 4
4 8
9 4
e I