ML25261A119

SECY-78-186: Proposed Retransfer from Switzerland to France for Reprocessing (SECY-78-123)

ML25261A119
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/04/1978
From:	James Shea NRC/OIP
To:	Commissioners NRC/OCM
References
SECY-78-186
Download: ML25261A119 (1)

Text

i?.Jri l 4, 1978 For:

From:-

Thru:

Purpose:

Discussion:

Contact:

_U ; / \I NUCLEAR WASHlftf,~~ttl'l~JJtiijtf---

INFORMATI ORT The Commissioners SECY-78-186 James R. Shea:t Director, Office of International Programs Executive Director for Operatic~

PROPOSED RETRANSFER FROM SWITZERLAND TO FRANCE FOR REPROCESSING (SECY-78-123)

To infonn the Cornnission of staff response.

In-response to the request of the Cammi ss i oners, as for-warded. by Mr. Chflk's March 17 memorandum,. tht! staff has confinned that the Executive Branch did consider the following twa factors. in making its decision to approve the subject retransfer-request:. (1) the affected nations are generally cooperative in nonproliferation and nuclear fuel cycle evaluation efforts, and (2) it is ~S policy not to interrupt foreign advanced reactor programs during the INFCE.

In mentioning these factors in SECY-78-123, however, the staff did not mean to imply that the second consideration fanned a new decision criterion or. guideline for Executive Branch review of retransfer for reprocessing requests.

As noted in SECY-77-634 of December 22, 1977, the Executive Branch has adopted four major criteria for approval of retransfe.r requests involving reprocessing:

T.

General cooperation by both the requesting nation and reprocessor in nonproliferation and fuel cycle evaluation efforts;

2. US control over disposition of recovered plutonium;

!. CTear need for the retransfer (e.g.,. spent fuel storage capacity limitations); and M. A. Guhin, IP (492-7866)

M. R. Peterson, IP (492-8155)

I r NATIONAL SECURliY INFORMATION tJnauthonzP.d Disclosure Subject T1l

~riminal Sanctions.

Subject ta Ge.neral Declassificcti~!: ::-,~:1:::.:.,le '7" ot Ex. Order 11652 Automatically ::;c.:-:::: ::-::,:fo:i 1184 i.nse::-t y~ar.,-,:.

Discussion:

(Continued)

4.

Demonstrated serious effort by the requesting nation to implement relatively near-term spent fuel disposition plans which are dependent neither on reprocessing nor on return to the US.

The approved retransfer met these criteria.

In addition, because the proposed retransfer involved a designated or intended end-use for the recovered plutonium in breeder reactor programs, the staff considered it appropriate to highlight Swiss and French cooperation in the fuel cycle evaluation efforts and the US commitment during INFCE not to jeopardize foreign advanced reactor development programs.

As stated in the communique released at the INFCE Organizing Conference:

"The evaluation will be carried out in a spirit of objectivity, with mutual respect for each country's choices and decisions in this field, without jeopardizing their respective fuel cycle policies or international cooperation agreements and contracts for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, provided that agreed safeguards measures are applied."

With respect to the Commission's query concerning how the proposed end-use of the plutonium-affected initial Executive Branch consideration-of the retransfer proposal, it is my understanding that (1) DOE and State initially intended to include approval of the end-use of the plutonium in the retransfer decision, and (2) this was not included because of reservations expressed by ACDA.

With respect to approving the end-use of recovered material at the time a retransfer is approved, DOE anticipates that each case will be considered on its merits.

I also understand that, in future approvals of reprocessing retransfers, the DOE intends to assure the foreign countries involved that "the US will not revoke this approval."

In our view, this formulation assures others that the US will not unilaterally revoke previously approved retransfer approvals and impose new requirements, but does not intro-duce a substantive change to US policy concerning these cases.

In the context of the approval letters, it is clear

Discussion:

(Continued)

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners that both parties ust agree to any future alternative disposition of the spent fuel.

This assurance by the US not to revoke its approval has been included in two previous retransfer approvals involving reprocessing

/Zorita (Spain) and Beznau (Switzerland.lf.

Finally, in considering retransfer requests involving reprocessing, I understand that the E,l<ecutive Branch will continue to rely primarily on* the four criteria noted earlier. However, since cases may involve unique aspects, all pertinent information, including factors beyond those specifically addressed in the four basic criteria, will normally be considered 6y the Executive Branch in reaching a final decision.

--R-~

Ja a, Director Of ternational Programs Commission Staff Offices Exec. Dir. for Operations Secretariat