ML22230A206

Tran-M780510: Discussion of Matters Relating to Advanced Reactor Safety Agreements - Cabri

ML22230A206
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/10/1978
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M780510
Download: ML22230A206 (1)

Text

ORf Glt(&mN 10 s~sRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

DISCUSSION OF MATTERS RELATING TO ADVANCED REACTOR SAFETY AGREEMENTS -

CABRI Place -Washington, D. C.

Date - Wednesday, May 1-e, 1978 A.CE* FEDERAL REPORTERS, L'l"C.

Offici.a.i Reporters 444 North Capitoi Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIDE COVERAG!:

• DAILY Peg es 1-~

3 2-Telephone:

(202) 3.d.7-3700

DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of th2 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission he1d an /1111-Y

/0 1 /77g::'

in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street" N. t,1:, \\*!asKington, D. C.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been revie~*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies..

The transcfipt is intended solely for general informational purposes..

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or *fnformal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.

No* pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Cammi ssi on may authorize.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATION COMMISSipN DISCUSSION OF MATTERS RELATING TO ADVANCED REACTOR SAFETY AGREEMENTS -*CABRI (Open to Public Attendance)

Room 1130 1717 H.Street, N.W.

. Washington, D.

C.

Wednesday, May 10, 1978 1

The"Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m.,

Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:

J. Hoyle L. Gossick J. Shea

s. Levine A. Spano J. Lafleur H. Faulkner J. Maynard J. Cooke

s. Hanauer

c. Kelber C. Stoiber

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

P R 0 C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If we could now come to ~rder on today~s business.

The first item on the agenda is a discussion of matters related to the advanced reactor safety agreements, the so:::called CABRI Agreements, which has a long and checkered history.

We have just gotten a letter from the State Department which has been seen and I sent around a note last week noting that as per,agreement and individual discussions with you, I was asking the Executive Director to sign the agreement itself so we could get that in to place and that we would talk in this meeting about the letter which had been under discussion for some time.

I have sent some comments that the research staff had, I sent around the proposed wording which is very samilar to an earlier draft that seems to have the merit that it paraphrases internationally agreed to language in the area.

Dick, I know you have some discussion, why don't you go ahead.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I wonder if the staff could brief us and summarize for us how we arrive at our present state and where we are.

MR. GOSSICK:

Well, Mr. Chairman, let me *-- and Commissioner Kennedy, let me just start out by saying the agreement was signed on May 2nd after I had received notification

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

from the Chairman it was alright to go ahead and sign it.

The background on this, I think, as indicated in my memo of April 19th to Commissioner Kenn*edy who had asked for a chronology of the actions and events on this matter ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I ask for this, as you know, simply because it came to me as a great surprise to find that the agreement had not been iigned aft_er -the Secretary had communicated the Commisson's -- well, unanimous view that it should be three Commissioners signifying that it should be signed in its then-existing form which had been approved by the Department of State, as I understood it, and a fourth Commissioner indicating J1that he had no objection.

That was like in when, December, I guess, I have forgotten MR. GOSSICK:

January.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And some weeks later, I just happened to learn quite by happenstance, that indeed a number of other things were going on and I wasn't quite sure what th¢y were and I wondered how we got there.

And that's the reason for your*letter.

MR. GOSSICK:

Well, as I inducated in my memorandum of April 19th, we should have, we did not*get word -to the other Commissioners there had been a question raised with regard to certain modifi~ation or addition to the statement that Commissioner Gilinsky's office had indicated interest in.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think I would have to say that our tracking system broke down or didn't work in this case, or I didn't know about the fact that we hadn't in.£act signed this agreement in keeping with the directions of the Secretariat on January 20th, until some weeks later.

4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

• The Secretariat, as I take it/\\

from its memorandum was also aware that this was the state

• of affairs?

MR. GOSSICK:

I think that's correct, yes sir.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, that suggests that there is a need, Mr. Chairman, for some kind of a system which would have a little tick-mark off in the corner of completed Commissioner actions, since it seems clear now that the meer fact that the Commission decides something doesn't really necessarily mean very much until the staff actually does what it has been told to do.

So I would suggest in the future, and I would ask

~-._~r the Secretary to indeed communicate to me on a periodic basis precisely what has been done in respect to Commission decisions, at least those *in which I have taken part.

MR. HOYLE:

Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Thank you.

MR. GOSSICK:

Well, I think that in general is the situation.

We have made it clear to the staff that when there

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5

are questions that have to do with any of the directions that come down on implementing instructions from the Secretariat and if it is unclear as to whether we are *to proceed or not, to make very sure that my office is aware of the question so that we can then get back to the Secretariat and find out that.it.is appropriate to find out what the situation is, but as I said COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It was a fact that in November of 1977 that the Department of State had indicated that there.. was to be agreement as it was submitted to the Commission in December, had been approved -- cleared by the Department of State and indeed, as I recall, *_the circumstances, had been cleared and approved by the group in the Department of State under the aegis of the National Security Council staff body responsibile for these matters in the nonprolifer-ation context.

Isn't that correct?

MR. GOSSICK:

That's my understanding.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What was the nature of that approval?

MR. SHEA:

Perhaps I could elaborate on that.

They had indicated that they wished certain wording put in the draft agreement that would specifically say that the agreement would cover the full range of applicable fuel cycles of fast reactor concepts, test of advanced fuel materials such as uranium carbide, uranium nitride or other alternate

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fuels in addition to mixed oxides.

what?

So with that wording, State was satisfied with ---

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And the point of that was 6

MR. SHEA:

The point of that?

Well, to indicate that in addition to mixed oxides or plutonium oxides that additional items might be covered -- this was, I think, a reflection of concern about the Department's review of proliferation policy and the concerns about plutonium being the sole focus of advance research efforts.

With this wording they were satisfied that the broad range of fuel cycles were covered, that that would meet their concerns that everything be looked at and the total focus not be just on plutonium in this agreement.

They just wanted to make this point clear.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What was in a sense therefore, a recognition of the broad scale and the thrust of the nonproliferation policy and the INFCE studies and the rest.

MR. SHEA:

Yes, that's basically COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

This was implicit or explicit or ---

MR. LEVINE:

Stated in writing.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That what?

MR. LEVINE:

That this broader range COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That that was the purpose of i?

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7

MR. SHEA:

I believe it was.

We have the documents from State.

Do you recall the specific agreement?_

MR. LAFLEUR:

It was put in at ACDA's request.for that purpose.

MR. SHEA:

But the memo that gave the generic approval.

Do you recall, Howard, how that* was:*;put, whether it was specifically in line with U.S. nonproliferation policy.

I believe it was.

It is one of the attachments.

MR. LEVINE:

We have it right here.

Thatl's what it says.

This document is not a part of the CABRI Agreement.

This document set a generic framework for processing fast reactor agreements by us in cooperation with State.

We knew COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And what is the document you refer to?

MR. LEVINE:

It is a letter from State to Jim Shea from Boright talking about how we should work together and cooperating on having such agreements.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what is the date of this letter?

MR. LEVINE:

8/2/77.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And who dealt with this specific agreement?

What was the nature of the approval?

MR. LEVINE:

I'm not sure.

This letter came out of a discussion between ourselves and State, also involving at that time ERDA about how to handle such matters.

And they

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recognized a clear difference between the kind of agreements we had in mind and the kind of agreements that ERDA then had in mind.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The difference being what?

8 MR. LEVINE:

That ours were really just exchanging safety research information having nothing* to do with developmen except in a very peripheral way.

Whereas, the ERDA agreements were much more directly devoted to the development of fast breeder reactors.

After that meeting -- that meeting was in about June, I think of '77, Boright referred the matter to the ad hoc group on nonproliferation and COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's the National Security

,Counqii*group?

MR. LEVINE:

Yes.

And this letter resulted there from that saying follow this policy and clear each agreement one-by-one with State Department.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That's what I am asking.

With whom specifically ---

MR. SHEA:

Specifically on the breeder agreement with these words.

That was done verbally between Howard

-- who in State gave you those words in OES, do you recall?

MR. FADLKNER:

It was done with two separate organi-zations. *one, there was a set of comments from Mr. Vernon

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9

Adler from OES, Department of State.

His comments were cleared separately and verbally through.:,conversations between he and myself.

A second set of comments originated from ACDA.

Those comments were discussed with a number of people on the NRC staff, but clearance was explicitly conveyed verbally by a Mr. Williamson of ACDA in early November.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I inquired later, because I couldn't find any document in the file, which is an extensive file indeed, more than what I would have anticipated, but I inquired later of Mr. Nosenzo of his understanding of that situation and he confirmed precisely what you are saying in that he was fully aware of these conversations in which you indicate the clearance was verbally transmitted.

He had thought some memorandum had been passed, but recognized that it had not, but confirmed that in fact the concurrences which had been given by ACDA and his own office were supported by him.

Well, now having said that then the Commission was informed.~. I gather, in December that that was the state of affairs, that the Department of State had cleared this matter.

MR. LEVINE:

It was in the staff paper in November.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It was in the staff paper, that's*correct.

So then we undertook to reexamine it with the

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 Department of State so that in a letter which came some time later, and I guess that was the principal vehicle, the Departmen of State seemed to be confused.

That is the only thing I could say, but then, not an unusual state of affairs I would add.

In a letter:.of January 19th, Mr. Scheineman suggested adq.ing some other language, and it was at this point, I gather from the record, that all manner of discussions began to take place.

These were the discussions which were.snot made known to others, including the Executive Director.

Well, at any rate, as I understand the circumstances then, in February when one party -- potential party to the agreement said no, it could not accept this language, Mr.

Scheineman,~the author of the language, indicated to some one in this agency, according to his statement to me made just a week ago, that he saw no need to pursue the matter further and we ought to just drop it.

Now, is that a correct statement and to:whom did he make it?

My understanding it was to Mr. Kelber.

Is that correct?

MR. SHEA:

I don't know whether he spoke to Mr. Kelber.

He did have a conversation with me which is recorded in the chrolonbgy sheet.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

He had some conversation with somebody in Rearch on this matter, so he indicated to me.

Now, his recollections may be faulty, of course.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 MR. KELBER:

The conversation with me was solely on the wording of the or~ginal letter and he was suggesting some working, and the only comment I made was that there were some phrases in there that the Commission was developing fuel cycles and I pointed out that this was not an impression the Commission would like to have abroad and he changed the wording.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It isn't even true.

MR. KELBER:

As far as I know, that's correct.

So he then came up with the wording in his original letter, I think, to Commissioner Gilinsky, what January 19th or thereabouts and that was the last time r:ever talked to him.

(

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Do I get the impression then that you were~assisting him in the formulation of the language which he submitted then, subsequently to us?

MR. KELBER:

No.

The reason I called COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That is confusing to me, given the fact thaL:thit:LCommission had already approved something else.

MR. KELBER:

• Yes.

The reason I called was to find out whether there was any technical matters in the agreement which he -- which were in the way of his developing some lanaguage and to offer my assistance in clarifying any of those technical matters.

I think it was the confusi6n... about our role versus

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

. 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOE's role that was bothering him.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All right.

Any way, he did communicate this view that the matter.ought to be dropped.

Is that right?

Or to Mr. Shea?

12 MR. SHEA:

Well, what he communicated to me and this is outlined in~the chronology, this was Page 5, Item 12, I had contacted him upon becoming aware that these matters had developed and that the interaction with the French had occurred for the first time shortly before that, and that they had turned this down.

So I called him to notify him of thi and that we had had the earlier State Department approval.

It appeared he at that time was not really aware that the State Department had approved it previously.

He indicated that in view of the French rejection, as we said here, that we should not accept the French to accept the position since they had ct.urned it down.

I mentioned to him the side letter approach which had been suggested, I believe by the French and Germans to the research people in contact with them.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Suggested by the French and Germans -- who?

MR. SHEA:

I think it was actually -- perhaps Al Spano could elaborate.

MR. SPANO:

Dr. S6hmidt of the French CEA.

MR. SHEA:

Right -~_conveying the French-German view,

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 I believe, that that side letter would be appropriate.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The political side of the CEA?

MR. SPANO:

No, he *is with the technical part.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Okay.

All.. -right.

So what did Mr. Scheineman.,say.to that?

MR. SHEA:

That on:,the side letter end that was a sample that ERDA had produced some time in the past -- had sent some time in the past by the French.

And he said that -- well, a side letter similar to this ERDA example might be appropriate or would be appropriate.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

When was this?

MR. SHEA:

This was on or about February 16th,is my I

recollection.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And ERDA had sent such a lette?

MR. SHEA:

Had sent such a letter, yes.

A copy is attached in here.

That was just used as a model.

This was a year before, February '77"on another thing.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The reason they did this was because of the relationship, I assume, with their.developmental activity.

MR. SHEA:

Yes, that's right.

It was in the field of gas cooled reactor concepts agreement executed the day before.

And in.that letter they had conveyed ERDA's hope that cooperation of the agreement would lead to the development of technology and approaches which support nuclear nonproliferati n

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 and so on.

Well, that was the extent of the coversation, as I recall with Mr. Sbheineman that if the side letter -- if we wish to pursue the side letter, why that would be all right.

They would not object and i:tncouJd;.:p6ssj::bly have some benefits was my recollection, but I don't recall the exact wording.

He didn't feel strongly about it.

We relayed that coversation to Mr. Spano.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Could we not get up to date now that we understand, at least, very briefly how we got into this strange situation.

Maybe now we could bring ourselves up to date and I did read an interesting and rather detailed, I would say, trip report by Mr. Kelber, an excellent one.

I wonder if we could get Mr. Kelber's appreciation of where things stand with our French and German friends at this point on this whole matter?

What their attitude is as he heard it and he understood it from them.

MR. KELBER:

Well, insofar as the agreement is concerne we have received informal expressions of pleasure that the agreement is signed and that they*,_*,.:are ready to proceed.

The French have a delegate in this country and he will be assigned as a visiting scientist under the agreement as soon as the formalities can be completed.

The Germans have proposed a gentleman whose name I don't really recall attthis time, and again, as soon as the

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 formalities are completed he will come to this country to work under the agreement.

We have in turn proposed a delegate, a Dr. Don Eggan from Northwestern University and his papers are in process and he proposes to report to CABRI September 15th.

The contractor is already working on the*: p~rticulars *. of the first CABRI test and they are looking ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The French and the Germans have also signed the agreement?

MR. KELBER:

I don't know whether they have actually signed it.

The copies, I believe, are in transit.

I don't know whether they have actually arrived.

We have received their official translations of the agreement.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What about the so-called side letter question?

Where does that rest with them?

MR. KELBER:

I think they have -- they expressed to me no attitude other than that if the Commission were to send them such a side letter they would be happy to look at it and make whatever response they thought was necessary.

And that's about as far as it went.

I was COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

My impression from reading your trip report was that they did not look with the utmost favor on the whole concept.

Indeed, they had some difficulty with some of it, some notions about it at least.

MR. KELBER:

I frankly made a mistake in opening the

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subject up with the French.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Who's to know.

MR. KELBER:

Well, I have known these people for many years, and felt that I could speak informally.

I also felt that some constructive 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

In matters of foreign policy that is often difficult~.

MR. KELBER:

I think so.

I am somewhat of an amateur at this, I must say.

Yes, I think they might be somewhat hesitant, but I would say that they realize the Commission has its own role to play in this matter and they wo_uld simply reserve their own position until the Commission had made its decision.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And suppose that they found it difficult to accede to the language of the side letter as having any effect whatever on the agreement. Then what would your view be as to the status of the agreement?

MR. KELBER:

I think that they would find a way of at least noting the Commission's views without prejudicing the agreement, but I cannot ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Then I guess it would depend on whether we thought their simple noting the views would prejudice the agreement.

That would be a different question.

MR. KELBER:

That, I believe is correct. I really don't know.

I cannot predict what the political arm of the CEA,

1 2

3 4

5 6

7

8.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which by the way,--',-* I found out much to my surprise, operates.

~ --~*

independ~ntly of.the Frenc~*ioreign Office.

COMMISSI.ONER KENNEDY:'. You would be.,surprised how the French Foreign Office. view,s it.*

(Laughter)

I know.

MR. KELBER:

I really don It. know how,*the political arm of the CEA*would view that question, nor did my friends.

1 17 MR. LEVINE:

Well, you know, I think the:* French are -- -

.COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Th.ere is, as you know,. in the office of the presidency of France these days a nonproliferation activity which also operates somewhat independent of the Quai, bu:t nqt, entirely in the sense it *is. directed to.the Quai,.. and I suspect also reaches somewhere down to the CEA.

MR. KELBER:

Well, I understand that Mr. Giraud----

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

so'their situation in this

• regard is almost as complicated as our own.*

MR. KELBER:

I WOU*ld think so. I don It think that anybody in these days is willing to hazard a guess,. but I--'

from a purely technical standpoint of view and the feeling is that the specific technical activities carried out bear very little direct relationship to the questions involved in nonpoliferation*decisions.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's a very interesting statement.

I am fas6inated by.that.

Let me see~_if I can paraphrase it correctly so that I

1 2

3 4

s*

'6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 am..sure I understand it.

The technical activities which would be undertaken in connection with the agreement; the studies, et cetera, add little or no relationship to~*.

-*rionprolife;i;ation matters and policies.

Is that correct?

Is that what you are saying?

18 MR.. KELBER:

• That is correct.

The substance *_which I think was fully developed in our conversations with State

,and ACDA was the notification, whi6h I did discuss fully with both the French and the Germans, that the extent of our interest in these phenomena ranged over all applicable fuel cycles and I explained to them ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And everybody understands that?

MR. KELBER:

-~ and I explained to them that if in fact the Department of Energy came forward with a fuel cycle proposed for eventual licensing which was different from the mixed oxides, *we would naturally focus our attention 6n that.

And that we had no role in proposing or developing the fuel cycles, but that we had a rule in examining them.

They apprecia ed that fact and it might very wel.l be that if this country were to follow a fuel cycle which is r_adically different from that followed in Europe that there would be a certain lack of interest in pursuing this type of cooperative exchange, but that is yet off in the future and if_ that happens we would just have to face that fact.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, at least I think I

.. 1 2

j 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 understand what the factual situation is and where we are.

I MR. LEVINE:

I would like to add just one more thing, if I may, to what pr. Kelber said.

• ~ think the French are very interested irt this

. agreement as we are and in order to supplement on,e.another's undeistanding of potential hypothetical qore-disruptive acciient behavior in pait reactors and that thi~ matter is a generic ~afety issue that would*apply to almost ~ny fast reactor.

• Th.ere is an.attempt here *tq take the limitations df their* experiments and the limitations of:.dhr experiment~

and couple them together to add an:understanding in important safety issues.

The work is goin<J on, in arw,event, in* both countries independent of proliferation issues o~ in consonance I **

with our: proliferation issues in any event in our country~

The exchange of this information is very useful to both countries, I believe.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

. Well I have* had.' precisely for that reason that I have been anxious to move the agreement forward.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I shared that.concern back last December.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think this agreement and the others as well that we have with other nations in.safety

'research work provide us all a way to make effective use of our limited resources and in a way to multiply our individual l

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capabilities by combining the results of.work from various countries..

So I think these agreements are very important, very helpful to us in.doing.the safety research efficiently

.* and a. very d_esirable, fe*ature of our prograI)ls.

So ::i;: im glad the agreement has finally been signed.

20 I guess the remaining* i tern ih this* matter, -which 'we ought to consider. is the side letter which has been proposed, and which the beginnings, at least of an agreement had *begun to work out.. I wonde~ if I dould ask for sentiment along the Commission side of the 'table on, (a) whether a letter ought to go :forward, and (b) would you -- what do you think of-the language I proposed in that last note I sent*around?

Peter, can I start at your end of the table and work across?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Sure.

Yes to both.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That's eff'icient. 'vie?

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I*,think it is appropriate to have ~n expre~sion.of seritiment on t~e part of the Commission _in -line* with agreements of this sort, while it may be an exchang~ of information that went along the lines of the ERDA.agreements, nevertheless, it is in an area to which the President has drawn attention to the Commission with nonproliferation.

We are pursuing technologies pertaining to R&D on reactors, of fast reactors and breeders, but we are

1

• 2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 mindful of the risks that this government is pointed to,*

that would attach to.widespread commercial us~ of these technol6gies, and that we. are trying to $teer things in the dir~ctions that would be *saf~r~

That is the nature of the

.comment that I.would propose.

We are interested in promoting

'fast reactor tech:i;iologies that are free of these risks.

• course.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The Commission is not, of COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I am.

COMMISSIONER. KENNEDY:

Promoting?.

.COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And developing, yes.

Those are not our resporisibil~ties to develop the technology, but the fact is CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It is in the implementation of technologtes, less liable.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY':

Yes, but the fact is we in conducting work on technology, :we are in some way pushing things in One direction than in others,.or at least facilitating o.n technology as opposed to other.

So for these reasons I thought some expression of the Commission's thinking, assuming the Commission agrees with that, was appropriate.

As for the explicit language, I would prefer the earlier language on it.

I think -- I guess that I don't have the language that you suggested right in front.of me, but I thought -- I guess I wouldn't care what it means ---

l 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Charles, this was the language in your memorandum.

MR. KELBER:

Yes.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Which was suggested by-----

MR.. KELBER:

The contents of CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It*seems to have *the merit.that

• the p,araphrasing agreed upori.

I assume the commuique was mutually satisfactory to everybody.

MR. KELBER:

It was signed by all of the nations attending the conference.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Where does this come from now?

MR. KELBER: It com~s from the communique ~ssued at the end of the initial meeting of the INFCE last October.

I actually got out the communiq11e and went over the wording to make sure that the paraphrase was accurate.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I would use somewhat different words, but I don't know that we can work that out right at the table right now.

But in any case I think the thought is good.

22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me skip mysel_f.

Dick?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I certainly share, and I think there is no doubt, with the nonproliferation objectives of the President.

Indeed, I have gone around the world proposing that others should more forthrightly come forward

\\

1

2.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 to support them.

However, i*t seems to me that by their mere adherence to con_cepts

~* of INFCE, their participation in it, the nations we are talking about, the proposed partriers in this agreement have already indicated that ipterest.

And thu~, I'm not stire what it is that this Commission*as an independent arni of this government is doing.

If the Department of State sees no need for such a proposition, and after... all it is the Department of State which is in the lea~ership role by direction *of the President himself1 for ~uit of hi~ nOnproliferation:objectives throughout *the wo:ld, if the Department of State sees no need, I have some difficulty in conceiving the need from my own prospecbye.

As to the particular language it certainly is inoffen-sive except that it might be seen by some as that ~light hint that we are not sure they really meant it.

Now, I can say this:

that having talked to a great many of our friends abroad in the last couple of months, there already is enough suspicion that that's the way we may be thinking.

It suggest that it is not really all that helpful from our perspective to the nonproliferation policy which we are all trying to implement.

It is not all that helpful to sow the seeds of more distrust and misunderstanding.

And that's what I think may well come.

However, while meaning it I have no doubt of that, I

\\

1 2

3 4

5

'6 '

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 have no doubt that everyone involved here has the best interest at heart of.our nonproliferation policy, no question on that

• score., I am 'just concerned about how it will be seen and wheth r in fact it might be seen as just another little tweaking of people who have come a long way, even though.they disagree

. *,fundamentally w.i th some of our. technical.views, nonetheless have come a lohg way to help make a~ across-the-board world-wid effort to look at these problems and to come to some. solutions in the nonproliferation context.

If I thought that this would unquestionably help that effort I would be for.it i~stantly, because ~s I say, the language is certainly unobjectionable.

I am just not sure of that.

I would think that if the Department of State thought so they would unequivocally say so and they have not.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well~ let's see.

This*

letter

.I assume you are referring to the letter of May 5th?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It really deals with the quest1on of including of such language in the. agreement itself, does :*'it?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It says no further action on the*matter need be taken.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But the letter really talks about incorporating language in the CABRI Agreement and so on.

And that is the matter, really.

The question of a separate

1 2

3 4

5

• .~

• 7 8

.9

. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 letter. is

_COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I think the Department qf State in* its iast p~ragraph ~joµ the one hand concedes to an agency in a way* that I have never seen t~e Department of State

before* conceive a foreign policy, but *.there it is a

• new departmen~ and one which I. hav_e some diff icul ~y understanding,*

in:',a,.va:r+/-ety of respects*.*

But in any event,. it, concedes that to us, but as *:r say,.

it seems to me that. if they really want.ius to do. this they were in a posi:bion to unequivocally say', please do it either as a side letter or some other way.

What they are saying here is, you know, ob:viously you have the :t.:i,:~ht to do anything you: want to do.

And I think that~s* true, we do and I'm not questioning that nor am I suggesting, as I say, the language is objection~ble., I think this language is preferable simply because it could be* pointed to simply. a reaffirmtion qf what we have already *.adhered :*to rather than suggesting something new, something additional, but that's not the issue~ I am concerned that it will be seen.and questioned by ~he -recipients as just another indication we are really not all that su:t'e their bona fide*s.

And I don't believe that is true, because I think*we are sure of those bona fides and I would not like to give the impression that we are not.

One of the quickest ways to have the~ run off with reservation is to charge them we are doing so.

1 2

3,'

4 5

6.

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I vote you a stong "no" on the letter,and *I guess so,me preference for my language versll.s the other, if there is a letter.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

For myself, I guess* I would go along with the letter and.to the extent that discussions at Commission meetings constitute any sort of legislative history of the documents that the agency think should make it very clear f0*r myself. that there is no thought in my own mind

• in agreeing to such~ letter that there is any inclination on the part of our partners in this agreement not to be fully supportive of nonprolif~rion aims.

But.on balance for an assortment, of reasons I am inclined to go with the.letter.

In order to put the matter somewhat more formally I would propose to first,ask the Commission.to vote on whether or not to send the side letter so that a vote can be registered,

,and secondly, I'm going to try to fasten on language to avoid what may be a rather an iteration between offices and prospective language which might go on until a subsequent meeting had to be scheduled.

So I will first ask the Commission to vote on whether a letter along the line~ of those that have.b~en proposed be sent to our partners in the CAgRI Agreement.

Those in favor please vote Aye?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Aye.

1 2

3 4

5, 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13

• 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Aye.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay, those opposed?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No.

CHAIRMAN HENDRI.E:

Ok,ay, three to *one.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

For the reasons stated.:

,CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Because we do have several sets 6f language before us and becarise I sense that I may be able to carry a. majority with the language I propos~d, I'm going to ask the Commission, would.it accept this language in a letter to the partners?

Those in favor?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, in that case. I guess I would have to*ask compared to what?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Compared to any other set of language.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD':

I guess specifically, Vic, did you have 27 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I thought it was an alternati e that was CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I believe this was the stage we had gotten to before and it seemed to me that the written thing dealing with the time sequence is not really the essence of the matter.

I think whether it has been timely raised or not I could have objected, so I have trouble with that. Then the difference between them is largely a period over in here.

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 COMMI_SSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I frankly do riot like to fasten on language here. I'm not sure what the context.in.

which this was use.1 in::_1:NFCE.was,and so on, but don't let me hold you up.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, 'let me see if I can get expressions from the rest of'the Commission and see where I stand.. If the Chairman can muster up three votes, why it is a deal. If he eant,why he has to devise other,.strategy. So let's see, Peter, how did you come down finally?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, if only it comes to this letter, this lett~r is fine with me.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Wh1ch letter?

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Excuse me.

The letter that Joe is proposing_~nd as I indicated before, that letter i$

acceptable to me.

If it goes to one of the alternative letters, I guess I would like to consider it.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

So you would prefer not to vote yes to this specific language at this time?

COMMISSIONER-BRADFORD:

That's right, sure.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That leaves me without my working majority and I will then recommend the following:

Vic, you wanted to look at the communique and see if there was some background associated with the language and context and so on which could tilt you one way*or the other.

Please do that and let us circulate ---

1

2.

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER'GILINSKY:

I would think we.could settl~ it pretty fast.

CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:

Okay.

So that in spite of my hopes to settle on language you will do: a*certain amount of iteration but fair enough, that's the Commission vote.

Now, one final 'matter on this letter.

I. notice 29 when.. the staff first worked up.some draft of the letter COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Which, by the way, was never circulated to some Commissioner's offices.

A fact which will not be forgotten for some considerable period I wish the staff to note.

CHAII'AN. HENDRIE:

Not at least until -.--

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It will be asked on a daily and.regular basis of all kinds of things to be sure tbe Commissioners are being properly informed.

Indeed it is the responsibility of the Commission and its staff to keep the Congress informed, let me suggest it.is the responsiblity of the staff to keep the Commissioners informed.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That seems fair.

But i notice the staff draft that was worked up was a letter from the Executive Director to his opposite numbers and the other partners in the agreement.

And I wonder in~fact, since Lee has signed the agreement if that wouldn't be appropriate here.

Do you have any objection, Lee?

Since we are going to

1 2

7 8

9 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 word engineer your letter, I think you have a right to.say

.a word.

. 30

~~-

GOSSICKS If, I have seen, +/- have forgotten the letter thit~6u.are talking abciu~ prepar~d by'the staff.

• Has anybody go,t i,t'?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

• Do you me.an you 'share my

. problem,,'Mr. Gos sick?.

MR. GOSSICK:

• I ma~,have, I'm riot Sure.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

There are a variety of versions..

The latest*one:lobks like that *. *(Showing document to Mr. Gossick.).

MR. GOSSICK: I have seen this one.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

,,And the previous pne looked like that~ 1 (Handin~ document to Mr. Gossic.k.)

-MR. SHEA:

They*we:te the attachments to the package.

MR.,GOSSICK:

Oh, right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

But since the matter has been of some interest to Commissioners, why you are going to*.. have more help _than you.might have wanted on the language.of this letter.

In fact, since the Commission would like to concur COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:* I get the impression they have already had more than they rea.lly needed*.

MR. GOSSICK: I would be very happy to leave the matter with the Commiss.ion.

If you would like me to sigh it I would like some guidance on ---

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What you are suppose to sign.

• 1 2

3 4

5

,6 7

8*

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GOSSICK:

-- On what I'm suppose to sign.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You might even as~ why.

31 MR. GOSS_ICK: It might come to that,Commissioner.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Don't sign anything until you have

• gotten signatures from four Commissioners..

signing.

MR. GOSSICK:

Right.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Well, you won't get one~

MR. GOSSICK:

From three Commissioners?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Fronr three,Commissioners.

Okay, I think it is appropriate in view of.the All right, is.there anythi~g else?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I would ask one more thing before we leave the subject in seriousness:

I do consider the whole matter that every level of this organization to have been handled badly.

I fully recognize and think from a careful review of the entire file which I am putting in the Public Document; Room, that*. there were a numb.er of competing concerns. and interests, not all of which were understood by all of the parties.. It was largely a misunderstanding, but it was the kind of misunderstanding which could be catastrophic in a truly serious matter affecting the public health and safety.

And I suggest it is a matter which the Executive Director and the Chairman need to pay great

I.

I I

I' 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

• 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 attention to in the future, and in the interest of helping_

them in this regard, I will also pay great attenfion to it on a regular and r~curring basis.

CHAIRMAN-HENDRIE:

Duly noted.

All right, we will take a 30-.second :stretch and move oh to ~iscussion of the St~ndardtza~ion.

(Wh~reupon, the meeting was rec~ss~d at 10:50 a.m.)

.