ML20205E561

Discusses Threshold Issues Concerning NRC Handling of Petitions to Intervene in Proceedings to License Two Exports of low-enriched U to India

ML20205E561
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/04/1976
From:	Strauss P NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Anders V, Gilinsky, Kennedy, Mason, Rowden M, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 9904050223
Download: ML20205E561 (36)

Text

D ~+ NY &&N e

,m m_

U D l A $g

'sd ,l &_N),:,. '<

, . , ,, 4 M 4

,W[Icenm i. UNITt:0 STATES g

~A W .

yg 7% NUCLEAR flEGULATORY COT /. MISSION -

l '3

,. 'YASHffdGiott D. c. 20%$

kb 4 .

, ~. , CegMe~ . ., 9e/a

_(  % *'**++

%d '* f 3 fp6 distra mqde by MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Anders I Commissioner Rowden ObCuW. R Q Cor.raissioner Mason kCOqq Commissioner Gilinsky COImissioner Kennedy b

PROM:

h Peter L. Strauss, General Counsel

SUBJECT:

PETITION FOR INTERVE'NTION IN TARAPUR, INDIA, EXPORT LICENSES -- PRELIMINARY ISSUES t

This paper will discuss tlireshold issues concerning NRC's handling of petitions to intervene in proceedings to license two exports of low-enriched uranium to India. The licenses wcre sought by Edlow International Company on July 29, 1975 j (XSNM-305) and October 21, 39'/5 (SXMM-845). On March 2, l

l 1976, separate, but nearly identical petitions requesting

leave to intervene c.nd a hearing were filed on behalf of

,l three organizations active in the environmental and nuclear area: Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Union of Concerned Scientists.

1

! The discussion in this paper will be divided into I

i three parts. The first will bricfly discuss two procedural

Contact:

t Cn r1 ton F'Loibor

432-7.373 9904050223 760304 PDR COMMS NRCC .

)( _

• CORRESPONDENCE PDR >

%%A .-

.'+

%1

[ ;~

Q t, d@kk* , , _

sa , -

2 f

4 (

incues which require early consideration, and which may be Ceterninat ive of the question whether to grant intervention at all. These are the concepts of " standing" and "timeli-l ,

l nasc." The second part. of the memo addresses the issue of l uhat to do about the on-going export licensing study. The thi rd section out3 ines alternatives the Commission may wish to entarte.in on ho'.' to approach t'ie arapur petitions.

Also included as en Appendi is a memorandum entitled Health and Safety Considerations in the Licensing of Nuclear Exports which eineucscs many of the issues reflected in the Tarapur petitions, inclu6ing the question of the international reach of the Nationel Erc.'ironmental Policy Act.

J t

e G

l l

l i

4 .,

? s.7, @

,4 - .s

~ ,- ,, , , - ' ' :, .s. , ,. ,r, , , , , , , e ,

, 3; i . .a 3

1 l

1. PDOCEDUP3L ISSUES The fo) Jot.'ing Ic: gal discussion is in no way intended to be c.xhaustive ou the nubjects of " standing" and timeliness,"

but :aarely to provide some guidance on the approaches taken to thc.ro issuen by the federal courts and the AEC/f1RC in the pan.t.

a 1

l

m -mgr . , , -m ,

% ' 41;.

~

',;ig ,

< i 4. M :' ' <

W W

y  ; , ,

w,..

.' y }

4 3; - <

4 .

A. STANDING One of the important threshold questions to be decided 1 by the Commission regarding the Petition for Intervention is l the " standing" of the petitioners to demand a hearing. Sec-tion 189 of the J 954 Atomic I:nergy Act provides that the Commission "shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and~

shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding."

l That' statutory provision is implemented in the regulations at 10 CPn E 2.714.

At this point it is important to keep in mind that 1 E ,, standing requirer.ents in the federal courts may not be

{

identical to thost applicable to c.dministrative proceedings.

' For example, the requirement under Article III of the United

> States Constitution that a matter constitutes a " case Or ,

controversy" does not apply to Commission actions. There-fore, it has been urged that judicial standing rules provide I i only a' floor, rather than a ceiling, for administrative proceedings - and that a more liberal treatment of inter- ,

1 However, venors may be warranted than in court proceedings.

j regardless of this difference, administrative agencies have  !

tak.cn the standards announced by the federal courts a'

\

general quir2es ar to what hinds ni interests a petitioner  !

must show to enabic him to demand participation in a l

proceeding.

I

4

-*9 ;s; ,

_ .y?

c5

• • ~r Y 1 1

k p >; a- 't . , , ,o , , , e , ,

l l

l 5

Because no request for a hearing in an en o:s licen e matter has ever been made to either the AEC or the MRC, there are no definite internal precedents which govern the question of what interest qualifies persons to seek intervention in such proceedings. There are several precedents-on standing in domestic proceedings in the jurisprudence of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. In particular, two recent decisions provide some guidar;ce on defining the interest required for intervenors.

The first of these decisions, In the Matter of 1:orthern Statea Pcwer Cc m ./, ' LAB- 107, 6 AEC 188 (March 29, 1973),

holds that a petitioner raust (1) demonstrate the existence oc 1 .arsonat . x m nt acP n r '/ - nffected bv the proposed f

reactor; and (2) present at least one contention which

~

, complies with the applicable requirements. See also, In'the i l

Matter of Louisiana Power and Light Ccmpany, ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371 (May 25, 1973).

!* A more recent decision, In the Matter of Lona Island Lighting Company, ALAB-292, NRCI-75/10 (October 2,1975) ,

est!ablished a " zone of interests" test similar to that announced in recent Suprema Court decisions.

l s

, 1

$gE W .g1 f. ;g. ' ,

. u r. ' s , ' '

t' '

}f ;,

• T In'Long Island Lighting Company, the Appeal Board cited with approval the following language from Association of Data Processinc Servien Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 (1970):

... it must appear that "the interest sought l to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in ques tion. "

i l

There is some difficulty in giving precise content to l l

the general "none of interests" test. However, two recent i Supreme Court decisions are of particular relevance in assessing the Tarapur petitions.

In the 1972 case of pierra C.'.uh v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 i

(1972), the Supreme Court considered the standing of the j same organization which is now seeking a hearing in the

' India ey. port licensing matter. The case involved the l i

Sierra Club's challenge to the planned recreational develop-ment of a wilderness area in California. The Club, in its complaint, recited general interests in the problem of ecology and envitunment similar to those contained in its petitions before the Comission. In denying standing to the Club the Court stated that "a mere 'interont in a problem,'

l

F W f '. .

qn , sM, '

W hN?[U ' '

1MM

@yyr - t .

9., .- ... - '

7 y

' ; i. y

.l .. *

+ ,

no_riatter how long standing the interest and no matter how qualific0 the organization is in ' valuating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization ' adversely affected' or ' aggrieved' within the meaning of the A.P.A."

t 1 This holding would seem particularly relevant to the "insti-tutional interests" cdduced by petitioners on pages 2 and 3 of the Tarapur pe titions.

l In a further e:: position of its standing rules, the Supreme Court considered the standing of organizations and individuals in Rochester, New York, to challenge coning ordinances on constitutional grounds because they excluded low-incore persons f rc a living in the city. Warth v.

, . Seldin, 45 L.Zd.2d 3t3 (1975). In denying standing, the i Court dic:ussed cta.. ding in light of principles under Article III. liowever , it also discussed what it called

" prudential rules" of standing which served to limit the role of courts in rotolving public disputes. One of those rules was stated as follows: ... when the asserted harm is a ' generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction."

i See also, Schlesincier v. Reservist Committee to Stop the War, 410 U.S. 208, 221 (1974); and United States v.

Richardcon, 418 U.S. 116 ( .19 7 4 ) . This holding has bearing A

I

, h:., .hb> sp ~ , ; t ,, -r , ,, , ,

' . :y  ;,

.x e, 9 mr' 7;

j u l on the Tarapur petitioners' assertions of injury due to thef t or diversion and the proliferation of nuclear weapons capability, which appear to be the kind of risks shared.by the entire U.S. (if not world) population. In this regard, Paulinq v. McTamara, 331 P.2d 796 (1964), in which standing was denied to U.S. and foreign citizens seeking to enjoin nuclear weapons tests may also be relevant.

Applying these standing rules, even if only as a guide, it becomes apparent that the petitioners in the India exports may have difficulty establishing a sufficient personal interest to support a claim to participate in the export licensing process ar. a ratter of right. Por example, in stnh the health and safety area. the petition does not en facts c,

by which it con be reertnably concluded that individual ~

members of the three organizations are in any danger from

• an accident which might occur at the Terapur reactor. The fact that members of the Sierra Club may live in India or Pakistan does not place them within any readily determinable zone of interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act of.1954.

d This follows not only from the fact that these persons may i

, not live within the geographical proximity of Tarapur, but because (in the Commission's view) the 1954 Act does not i

1  !

t 1

E/4- %[Q ' ' . b ,,s t-

<J;y ys,, J -6%.

v

. pa ,

Y 9 D, J '

l apply to matters of foreign health and safety (Sec, Chairman Andern' toctimony to the Senate Government Operations Corr.ittee of January 30, 1976)r/ on the question of common l

defense and security innues, the asserted injury is shared by an extreraely broad class of persons. This is not the kind of identifiable individual interest uhich meets the prudential f

rule cited in Fr.rth v. Soldin, suora. The petition 9' contentions in the environmental area are also vague. In l discussing hazards of waste management, for example, they state that "the entent of damage and other adverse con-seguances ma.y a.

not be baunded by national frontiers and certainly may not bc 15:11ted to the Indiar ubcontinent."

I '1he conj ecture t nature of this annertion about hypothetical 6ciaag a cugger_m: c::.v5 out q e n t. ion about whether'the injury alleged by the petitioners is sufficiently direct and i

personal'to give them standing to demand a hearing.

'k 1

/ At the lei.mt , more information ir required than is

~

nupplied in t he pe ti:: ions . bn allegation that Sierra 4 Club r.or.0v. rs live i.n the UnJ :ed Sta tes would not be cuf ficj ent to est..>1;ah e o ting t.o part icipato in a doc.icstic .licensino proceeding.

~ . a.

. A v. Q ;; ' . . ,

M M / kkht? N '. M '

i

' ..,,,m h$Y$fh;

y:  ; %y ,

7..<.ph.t.g b:r]gyn;W .

' ..",, 10 sm

@,y -~

m J .'i

-7

[. D. TIMELINESS y

The Tarapur petitions were formally filed with the NRC.

- on March '2, 1976 (the Corc:aission ',cas telephonically advised 1

of the Ciling on the previous day, March 1). The question l 40

.of whether these petitions were filed in a timely or expe-

~

di tiom, narner n, noi.c ta t ecwli cated .

Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act requires 30 days' Federal ggister notice of hearing only for construction permits for-facilities licensed under Sections 103 or 104. Therefore, the Tarapur license applications, in common with all materials licenses, were not noticed in the Fcderal Register. They were, .

however, tranc:aitted to the Nnc n blic Document Room. The pre- i 1

I V r cise date upon ahich the applicc.r. ions were placed in the PDR is 1 it still being determined. Ilowever, the petitioners' attorney --

f Mr .

Eldon Greenburg -- apparently received copics of.the, documents l

'.on or,before January 30 (something over 30 days before the filing l 3

of.'the petition).

!7 The attcr.:pt to arrive at a r;pecific timo limit for the l ,

l l 3. 1 1

j I =

Tarapur petitions reveals the weaknesces of NRC's regulations, l

~

-as-alplied

' i to the export process. The Commission's rule of j i

-intervention is set forth at 10 CPR S 2.714 which provides J r hall be filed not later 1

that " [t]he petition and/or rer7unt i

I i

l

' 4e

=

l

u. -c 1 t

,r . . o qlk, , , +; q .

,s,. ,. s. , ,

.....:g_ ,

11 f..

.s.

i than the time specified in the notice of hearing, or as provided by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the l atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petition and/or requett, or as provided in S 2.102 (d) (3) ."

.v, of course, this rule assumes that procedures for convening a hearing have already been connenced, which is not the care here.

Because the petition for intervention .in Tarapur is the initiating event in the procean of determining whether a hearing shall be held, there are no regulations which set forth a definite tim limit for the filing of petitions.

Generally,1:90 regula tions provide a thirty-day period for filing in cituaticr.: where a hearing is involved. See, 10 C1'R SE 2.104 a nd '. 10 5 .

The fact that no specific time limit exists under our rules means that the CoImission's decision on timeliness 'must be based on. general considerations of fairness and equity.

Several factors are relevant in this regard.

One such factor is'the previously discussed issue of standing. The decision In the Matter of Duke Power Connany (LDP-73-28), 6 AEC 666 (September 6, 1973), states that i

l l

4 40

r , _m yd ' , lw ' ' x ,. .

fY ll k % '0 $W: , ./

..' t r i c i. n > *. .

, n' :& 'C

. j't > > '

12 r ,, V

, ;4 . .;

"... the question of timeliness is inextricably interwoven

)

wit'h the question of: standing and the right to' intervene."

l l- That decision alluded to the declaiou of federal courta and

, 4 l l gave approval to the vieu tha t "... where intervention.is  !

nought as a matter of right, the lateness of the. petition must ba cgregious or sericusly untimely." Thus , where 'a petition is permissive, there is less reason to postpone or

,. .otherwise inconvenience a prococaing by permitting intervention.

Another element which nhould be considered is the R Coanission's own rules on timeliness, cutlined in-10'CPR 5 2.714(a). This provision sets forth four factorc which-should be considered in de' cr:aining schather to entertain o

[ nea+-t incly filing. . Thesc four tactors are:

, (1) - The availability of other neans whereby -

the petitioner's interest vill be protected.

. 4

-(2) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reaconably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.

6 -

'(3)? The extent to which petitioner's interest J4

~

4 , , 'will be represented by existing parties.

)..

5 (4) : The extent to which the petitioner's-

! . participation will broaden the issues

! or delay the proceeding.

/

l

I J .

W ,

3, , y . . .

iti < , , , , ,

. , i , ,

'e j 13 In nscc:>uing the availabi 3.4 ty of other means for pro-tecting t h- Ntitienc-r' intcren", arone of health and safety and envirem nt nrcsuciL di f f on n L insues than common defense and cocurity. I'or e..a mpl e , pro: coures nay be availabic through 1:egulatory ag::scien or th? courtn of India for ad-vancing pe titioner::' concerns M out the safe and ecologically cound operetion of th; enraner reactor. The same may not be true for safeguards gan tions, the; e the UFC may be the only realir. tic f.orcrr . Whetlier the petitioners'participetion will assist in duveloping - .ound record depelids upon the ex-pertine of pat.it;oners' ccunucl :nd potential witnences.

It vould be 6 lieu 3t - uaterr :e thi: in the absence of further c/it:c . cc: e - no t' ype of submicsions the pocit' c n:r. i :' ': ~ ! tc n c r. , at qualifications are possessed by the witn. ;es they intend to call. Alco germane in thic area in the e:: tent to which petitioners' witnernes will be pen!itted to review censitive. data-on---

which our common defense ~and security determination must be based. The question of whether petitioners' interest

. will be reprocented by exicting parties turns on an inter-pretation of what legitimate interest is being advanced by the intervenors. This is a sir,ilar determination to that required under standing concepts. The extent to uhich

Q :, % , ; i

.m jm, p w .

a t . ~. M+ W,u gin W. .D er?% ' ,

WW;:: A'.

i' ,

~

l' 14 U~.Y . ..

. 4 G

1*

broadening of, issues and the delay which can be anticipated if intervention in allowed is rather jruponderable. In this-

+

regard, it chould be noted that the petitioncrc-stato on

'E page 3 that the ' petition is not interposed for delay ...."

.Ilowever, it should be kept in mind that delay:could result not only, f ron an ND.C hearing, Imt if a hearing .is" denied,-

from an attempt by 1etitioners to enjoin the iscuance.of an

'~ export license in the federal courts.

n, Another factor which might.be considered is the need for electrical power in the area served by the Tarapur  ;

l reactor. .in view of U.S. obligations under the Agreement I

for Cooperation 'ti % 1.n.ia and the fuel supply contract to ncet the v ede of .. N " caput reactor, a question. concerning bronch or internatiar. O lec riight arise from a failure to i 1

1 I

ship fuel in a tir.ely fashion. If the Tarapur reactor ~is '

4 shut!down because of lack of; fuel, the Indian govern:r,ent" might une that factor as a ground for abrogating lother pro- ,

visions of the Agreement for Cooperation, namely, those.

related to safeguards. This must be weighed against the

.- . x.

4 1' prejudice to the petitioners' interest.

In making a determination on the timeliness issue, there may also be reason to treat the two petitions filed l

, s

+ ' ~ . ,

pp. .

-# $,,dy & , M. , , ;:iW , a 4:wh r . ,

.1

+- : ' n.v: utj yq: .

.H', '

' 4. : 15 y

7 ,.

i)'

3

[ differently. The application for License No. 805 was filed as larg ago as July 29, 197E; wan referred to the State Department on Autunt 18, 1975; *

.. :s the subject of a State Department nemorandum dated December 6, 1975; and has been 4

, , the subject of lengthy consideration before the Commission.

License No. 845, in contrast, has been pending only since November of 1975, and URC has yet to receive the views of the State Department on this export.

Such differentiation could be vicued as an effort to force' the fjrut of these proposed exports through. On the other hand, it may also avoid possible breach of international relations and, l ,

in our judg:nent, ould be more readi3y defended in. court -- in l the absence of shtutory or regu ! atory guides on timeliness --

l thnn an opinica dismissir.a Lo'i3l petitions on timeliness grounds.

1 l It would also permit less forced consideration of the " merits" l ' in SXNM 845. Before taking such a course, the Commission might wish.to ask the parties and the Department of. State for formal expression of views or transmittal of relevant record documents l on the-issue. (Viz., the " aide memoire" from India.)  !

i i

s f

s

1 w,, ,.,

5

. ;.j Q,~,! v n ,

r.T t; .r.si, ,

s .e y ,

1 s./ l q ,< um .,

,e

,1..

?

1 16 II. EN' PORT LICil'1311:G FTUDY I l

As you knov, - cc:nprehen=ive ntudy of NRC's export licensing has buen u nda ntay for aan.e time. Islthough initial efforts i l

l began as a result of interest by individual Commissioners last year, a forcal outline for the effort uns approved by )

the Conmission en January 29, 1976, to bn completed by 1

March 19, 1976. '2'

.r e rc sponsibility for the study was i 1

assigned to E'iS3 on February 2 by the Executive Director for Operations, with OCC and OPC to participate. The fact that the study involves personnel from bot.h the staff and Conmission, r - cone O' Nicultion under the ex parte rules vin-n 'clu h -

f i: ? - ' > r r u .:. netitienn.

Therefc 3, a t. '-ti;n  :. r ua n t ne uandily resolved by the Co: caission i.e whethi; or r.ot to sucpond the e): port study l until the Tarapur interventions have boon resolved, or to I

1 allow the tuo rrocesses to continue at the same tine. The argur.ent in fa.vor of suspension it based on two points.

.First, much of the staf f effort required to respond adequately

, to the Tarapur petitions in engaged in the study. Since many of the is:.,ues overlap, i t J. :, nrgued that staff time would be conservcd if the study :ure suspended. The other point is, of course, the ex cart < problen.

1 1

1 J

f l i; 76 y;p.s w. a' '

.>..  ;' .6 .

• W U:n:t ,

I 17 ]

The argument for continuing the study is that there is a need for early recolution of i:;aues, criteria and procedures in the export c rea which chould no, be pxtponed. Also, there is no legal iupediment to continuing th study, although it might l

cause some practical disruption of the effort because normal channels of staff /commjssion communication would be obstructed 1

to nome extent. Only spufic discnscions of Tarapur would have I to be exc.luded. It is probably'not possible accurately to forecant what the timetable for the Tarapur proceeding ic likely to be. Even if the Commission acts expeditiously in a number of areas, thc petitioners r.my coek relief in the federal courts. Therefore, any <"umension of the export study should be no more thur. prc/:aionil. Much of the preliminary drafting of the stu]" har .7 .h hc_.. donc., and will doubtless be re-f]ected in ntn f f n'm 3. S inec. e.~ 2orta are continuing through the "cace" papers, the s taf fs involved considerably overlap, and we are only two veeks away from the scheduled completion date, a brief suspension should not prejudice the staff's ability to put the study into sufficiently good shape for submission.

l r

4 L

l l

l 4

Ql -

.VD

%[ ple,{g' q <

fuiM M ;f Q l7,khyjtlb:ir,1% a Y' " , s J) , .1

.i

- 1 4; 'N7 rd . * - y d) 6'1 -

[/l .I y

I

1. pq i , , ,

18 Y ,

l 4

4 III. AL'i'E DMTIVE S l

l l

The following discunnion su:rcaarizes the major steps the Commission could take regarding the Tarapur petition 0. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of each cource of action are briefly mentioned.

• A. Summary Denial of Doth Petitionc The Commission would be Icgally entitled to make a finding that the petitions and acconpanying affidavits were insufficient to' demonstrate the interest required for intervcntion under 1

Section 139 of the Ator:dc Energy. Act and NRC regulations. The obvioue result of such a holding would be an immediato appeal by the patitioners to the D.C. Circuit Court, with a request to enjoin the gran ti: 4 of etther Tu g.ur license. Given the com-plexity and novelb cf t?t. .. :ue s , a court might be persuaded that i

a curma ri danial in thesa circumstances was arbitrary and capricicur and grant 2 temporary restraining ordor. In that cane, expeditious

- consideration of the Tarapur natters would be hindered, rather than l sided ~by a quick Commission decision.

D. A Pre-Hearing Hearing (for both licenses) l

.i-

/.

Because of the novelty of the issues in this'first export l license intervention, the Commission may want to obtain broader  !

views on issues such as " standing," " timeliness," " foreign health J and safety." decisional criteria, handling of classified material, and a variety of pt elintinar:, issues.

I

) Therefore, conoideratien Aould be given to request ng oral i argument to addroso specifie:: questions. If such a procedure l l NW

T

, . ]-# 1- / .

,'q, " sag +

v; ,

l??h GN. ,f -* */}.f.A'f f G -

kWTD * $ ' ' ' ' + 'd -; ' ' A*O

N

% ?' I

, , ~ ,x _ ~ .

4.s: ; , 19

.v .e i ', ..,

tn b'

were'to be followed prior to any ruling on the petitions for intervention, the following questions would need resolution.

(1) How soon 'hould the hearing be acheduled?

Fairncca would require a minimum of one week'c notice.

l (2) 11cw would the hearing be noticed? Should I o Federal Register notice be drafted?

(3) h'ho should be invited / permitted to participate?

The Dops.rtraent of State may have vicus on rele-

! vant raat tern , as may t'he Government of India.

(4) Whrit icsucc should be specified? Standing and l

timelinnes would seem to be obvious questions to be sffressed.

(M What chanid be the -:ature of staff participation in such a proceeding?

The advantage of a pre-hearing would be to provide greater infor-raation to the Cormaission, as well as demonstrating the openness 2

of NRC' decision-making. The resultant delay might not be great,

. if.the icsues were sufficiently narrow.

I C. Deny Intervention on XSNM-805; Grant' Pre-11 earing

, on XSNM-845_=

Because of the lengthy consideration which has taken place on XSUM-805, and the apparent need of the Indians for prompt shipnent of fuel to keep the Tarapur reactor on-line, the Com-mission : night explore the possibility of coupling a more expedi-tious decision on the earlier license application with a more

w s ~ 6

, f rY k '

.{

. . ~

-iA f.... .

t ,  ! Ik$DEIhII If$$f U Ob I l< Y "' . * #' >Ui 'M ' ' Y l O' 5'd ' ' '

]p , J " 20 l q' g l

+ deliberate approach to XSNM- 845. The size of the respective fuel shipronta might also be relevant (about 3000 Kga in #805 to 13,000 in #843). If the f oreign ' calth and cafety contention is decided in line with past Commission thinking, it is the safe-guards question vehich must be resolved in both the question of

' granting license 7305 and permitting intervention by the petitioners, j It could be argued that petitioners would not be.significantly injured by the relatively small increment of uranium added.to I

', the Tarapur stockpile by granting b805 -- especially compared to j i

the injury to the citizens of the Bombay region and to U.S. foreign l l

policy if the Tarapur reactor is shut dos.*n. NRC regulations (10 CPR D 2.714) provide that the extent of any delay should be con-sidered in decid.in9 upon interve: ion petitions. The delay q

factor ic obviouc1" a much greata problem in #805 than in #845.

4 Further, .since the same 3cgal iscoes are raised iir the applica-  !

tions under both #S05 and (iS45, if the earlier application is specifically granted "without prejudice"'to the legal claims

~

. raised in #845, the injury to petitionerc' legal interest may also be small. The disadvantage of a " split-decision" may be

.i

";that'the speedy approval.of #805 by the Commission may not be

-l possible. Also, since a denial of intervention on one license constitutes a final order of the commission for purposes of appeals, the intervenors would be likely to une that no basis for necking injunctive relief in 1 w Circuit Court. Ilow cue r ,

the grounds for opposing such injuctrze relief 1;ould probably be strbng, considering the fact the #845 license application

i

., ,.i. . , .. :.

~, ; *o y ..;. ,

i' 4-' cW ii , i , J' , > ' h M M ;* ..' , V , n , r' .e "r.jg'f*gfi?.g.+,:.l9:r;et'd;'<

j P. , ' -e ,

s ,

i i

i, 21 b

was being given full and deliberate treatment.

D. S ur.c:c r ily G: a n t: Both Petitions To Intervene This alternative presents the least likely option. Staff, the aprilicant and perhaps the Department of State doubtless )

have objections to standing, etc., uhich should be heard before a ruling is made.

/

I T

.i

-4 4

n l

l l

i; .g.

= g' a . (. . . .

fjj[M;FJ@lh'n!NfiM'@%

. C s s Uh Ml3D

'R' S'" '

U.V'* APPEUDIX s

,b l(" e p .'i' i

}1EUl_NLppd Sa f e,t,,LC f ylj;j derations in the Licensing of

a. Nuclear ---. Exp orts

-4 Thr - .;uclea  % gulatory Co:n ission has been ached to d.ircuss t' e han' tog of he :lth and safety issues in the nuclear export lit .mn i ng proces': . Thin memorandum is a

general legal annU /sis of U7C'n responsibilit.ios in this 6

n L'e ~1.

Unlike the n'a rc sa "comaan defense and security," which is defined in Section ll(g) of the Atomic Energy Act to mean "the coi::non defer:.sc and security of the United States," the term " health and m.tety of the public" is not so qualified.

This loa 6s to the u otion of 'ihether the NRC should require a recipiew; coun"r n.o ar n .2 to ninimtm henith and safety

, .standarL ao is o- ' ion to ap a:oving an export license.

Sco, Sen.:e Co.:>...cnt 0 w ratio:.3 Staff Memorandum, " Leading "Insucs in the Muc2 car Expo'rt Licensing Process" (January 28,

'1976), pp. 9 10. Doth domcatic United States' law, and L

prin'ciples of intccr.ational law are relevant to the question

.of how NRC treats hcalth and safety of foreign citizens in i

enuclear export licensing.

4 t

Before reviewing the specific stittutes which define NRC's 1icensing activities, it.is iirportant to keep'in mind that:a strong let41 presunption governs the application of C

i

%y . s:

W.p. ,

ifQOO,,

. y

.'. D $,fyQ$?,l~kUO L

. ~

V *

%: x iL W ' ' Olb A NO': $.' , P 'Y, + < ' ' '  ;

• F , . , ,

v;< ,

t .

4

• e

'th'se-nlatuten. This presur.iption was succinctly set forth a

T in Settion 30 of the aut.hnritative Rentatement of the Law (M) - re e > < a P i l t t:i c . n L t..c c . the United State's:

Rules of United States statutory - law, whether l

prescribed by federal or state authority, apply only La conG ct occurring vcithin, or having l effect 'tithin, the territocy of the United States, unicas the contra:; 10 clearly indi-

! > cated by the stacute.

- The federal courta have frequently affirmed this pre- l l

1 Q sumption. Iz:;crican Banana Companv v. United Fruit Company,

!: 213 U.S. 347 (1909); Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1942); .E_.e a

v v e_.n..

. Occretarv. of Health, Education

_a.n _d _ n_._ l.f a..r..e.,

'7f r.26 910 (c.A.D.C. 1973). Therefore, a r e r ';.a n s i b i. i d r e t '. e nevt o f ', 2 " to rrr/iew foreign health an6 -fcty . t :m: in r. t. c ^ar . -. c:or t licensing would arise only if a demectic ef f ect were shown or the procumption against such an application of U.S. law were rebutted by

)

,. olcar statutcry evidence. A review of the applicable leginlation fails to cupply that evidence.

l i The' Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides the legal 1

j foundation of NRC'.s export licensing progran. Before s

4 turning to th: various provisions of the Act which govern 4

l '

different typas of exports, it is instructive to look at t

Ses; tion 3,' .m aprusre the > vm 31 i'o ng r e s s i on a '. Inu:po se 4

l

r l9/

hC(jyl46h$" nib'  % " "'#' '

j~ N t

\ . <

, . - i.

y r ,,

1

\

t ,.i L

l in enacting this legislation. Section 3 (d) , announces a l

i l

policy of enecuraging zidespresG utilitation of atomic l l energy, an .: :u'.res thut m

• UcVelopr nt be " consistent l i

wit h the coc. mn def ense and accur.i ty and with the health  !

and cafety of the public." Ilowever, in the Collowing subcection -- 2 (a) - E,pecifically coverning int ernational cooperation, " c.e n i t h a H safety" dicappc rc. Only the criterion of "connon defence anf security" re:aair.s This pattern carr:ies through the entire Act, and reflecta a Congreccional determinat. ion that the AEC (and its successor, the NRC) woule pl:.y a liriited role in foreign health and a

sa!ct.'.

accion, '

37 c. 1. : x 'tt

,i- i:nvrgy Act govern-e::po ;t 3 cen . o :m ' -

.u r u.1 ; Sec tions 02 and 64 portain to source ma t erii.1; Section 82 covers byproduct j Q

material; and Section 103 covers export of equipment for .

l i

I production and utiliuntion faci 32 ties. Although the pro-1 cise language of these authorir tionc varies in detail, the l i

statutory ochemes are basically sirailar. For example, all these types of corraodities may he exported only pursuant to an agreement fcr cooperation under Section 123 of the Act.

i It is significant that Section 123, which is the basic provision def.inir.g the raanner i: which the United States I

L

e-  ;

,o n><../a. E.,4 ,XW Lt ' C

.it <' in " ,

• . . ,n'3

'- ' 0'"'%g w. . A rm \ -

-4

.x l 4-l l

in to cooperate with other nations in nuclear matters, '

l 4

conta r , no refore.nce to health and safety conciderations, i l

Pether l' i. uirun.ed exclu:ively toward safeguards and i j

1

._ l non proll m..iLion concern,.  !

I Jt should be noted that no cention is raade of hea3 th l

> nd : - rety in Section 54, entit'!cd Forei7n Dis _tr_ibution of --

E,pe . a l ::td ear ::nori cl, althouch Section 54(c) does mention "the co: mon def enso and security. " It is in Sec-tion 53, Do:r?stic Distribution of Special Nuc3 ear Material, that " health and safety of the public" nakes its appearance. l l

And when health and cafety are u.cntioned in Articles 57 (c) (2) ,

they a m usel only an c: nnnet ion with li cencoc "to any per" 7; tli n i n .ut Fi t : U.

A sjicilar result emerges f rn:" :. n e si i tio e ma. c.,s or not.rce r,a teri al . Section 63 on Dorestic T;i:;t ribution of Source Material usec the terms

!' health and safety of the public"; Section 64 on Foreictn Distribution of Source .".aterial does not. It is the same with byproduct material, where Section 81 on Domestic Distribution speaks of " safety standards to protect health" and Section 82 on Foreign Distribution ricntions only "coraon defence end security." Section 103 covers licensing of production and utilizat. ion facilitica both for domestic use and c:.nort. Although the provision l

l

1 :<s , ,

1/  %,

e

< $$k!?5q ', &$$b$ WNNW' % ~ N I D?Y Y Y'N

1. '*  ?' W W:'% ? N *Y W V' l' '

f?s.. .

v:gy , 9 n .w. ,

,_ 5 _ ,,

j V J f mentions haalth mid cafety neveral tirnes when it~ speaks I'

spe a i 'l i c 1:y c ycn (Sect i on 2 03 (d)) , tihe only quali-fjcat o: <

e ;;c.: < 1et.Lo;; be under the terms -of an agrecuant for c W ; ration. Ce n.tScratien of health and  !

i safety la .nde a cardition only for licenses issued "to any persen witP'n chu United States."

This analycir incicarot. th a t. , far from rebutting the strong precuraption against extra-territorial application of United States lau on health and refety, the plain language of the Atorsic En :rgy Act confines those concerns to domestic l

licencing.

F ic. r ' i _ r , th ; r. . _: in; in th<.. Icgislative history of the ]"54 t ;: _. t -: .a t C r- .g run intended the AEC (or its cuccw cor, the J:.C ) to conduct a detailed examination of foreign health and cafety concideration as part of its export licencina p ro c e. c s . In fact, Congressional scrutiny l 3 of the Act's provisions on international cooperation focussed l

l l

almost exclusively on quant:ior.s of defense and security. -

. See, e.a., 100 Cong. Rec. 10084-10094 (July 15, 1954).

l The legislative hictory is reinforced by over twenty-1 years of prnetico by the AEC (and its successor, the NRC).

Regulntion? prc"migated by the Cc: nission do not provide for 4,

l

'3 fs:  ?

Nb j/, .t'T)I.1.$ l i,)l /c, [W ON ', 'O *' '

,' ' Y. '  ! '

, iE , *9 et 1, W. ,

,%M'

. , , .n cc sid<>rntion'of public health and safety factors in foreign

o - __< t r. v t o, t !: . Co r r.ii :

1sn's licensing responsi-9, ) a Xi; 70.31(e), on export of special nuclear r:m r al; 10 CFR .; 0 . 3 3 , govern.ing source material; and 10 CEF 50.65, par c o i.nira to equip::.en t for reactor and fuel cycle facilities. It in alr:0 5.acrtant to note that Sec- ,

I tior 123 agruenon:-- for coopara tion have been carried out l

ur.dcr c2 on:' Congrc.snional sc rutinv. a The statute has alwa s i

require.5 an oppor-unity for Congressional disapproval and, by ar u d: rent, now proviCu. for approval by concurrent resolution.

Thc Cc: r e . .< , t h r~ ' 1 the Joint Cernittee on Atomic Energy, het 5 m.' -

--'ul. _

u: 1ce of th Cc=i s s io:i 's policy of cxc' . M rn '?h .a sa -tv nattecro from its cw-rese nn; quesnoas concern.ing i

Cc.ilaission rocam l s n, the courts have attached substantial l

.;eight to tne knowlacge and apparent approval of such pro- ]

cedurco over a pc-ic0 of time by the. Joint Committee. See, i e . c., . , Po'rer Reac cGr Development Con cany v. Electrical Workers, -

3 367 U.S. 396, 408-409 (1961).

1 During its consideration of the Energy Roorganization  ;

1 Act of 1974, the Congress conducted an exhaustive review of I

U.S. .uclea r regul:' Ecry activities. If that Act was intended to alter th Cor m , n', polir <

reguding foreign hea]th

... ;u . .a i

• y . . .! ,. s' N/%. Mip$ '(.l N {r$N"M y i@ D h .. N i L'! U:<1'.t.' 'Y '60 4 V [' '-

@ . Nl4%#p Q%) L c;

4 je

3.. .)4 5 l and operation of nuclear reactors licensed under the Itomi,c . l 1:nergy Act of 1 9 :ri , c: auended ...." D:p'o r t ' ] i cen s in a is - l l not ' h, .u P. D ation 104, entablinhing tha Office of uc} rar . .r a ', f e .y awl Saf cguards , also references the 1954 ?3 . . , vi % n o r. . tion of e:u.cnding health and cc;c v c o n r. . n a s.lons wyond dc.. ec t:i c licensing. l It he i - n cu^,ac t r 5 that H.C :aus t consider foreign I 1 h oa] Lh e ne, : n '. a t' i s :s a c t in c>: port licensing under the l provisionn c? tha :ational Environmental Policy Act of 196.9 (' 2PA) . S, , Sirrrn Club v. ALC, et al., Civil No. 1567-73 (1 1.i r 0 ~: n. ~4, J973) Of cource, this enactnant la u aj : "! ' ' aa] p r _< n .p c.i e r againr:t f orel i n e, p c ! ic~ ti m - t? 1"e D:er: J.c t . In the case of NEPA, 1 I tP- -

.  ; ,: c' - mre. :enal intent. to apply the l l

Act to Fedecc1 at:-ions having their effect in foreign countries. 'Ih:tro are ir.portant reacons for limiting its applicability to the United States. The language of the statuto and itc legislativo history Irake it clear that Congress intended NEPA to reach only actions having an itnoact ' on the ac::.estic environment. , l In delinceting the nurposes of 1: EPA, Congress emphasized that it into.:Jed to establish a " national rolicy" or the prc t = c' ior 4 r' . f or v < * ' "Of ti.0 , c a l o g i c r.1 c y s t cc.s - id l l .p:.  ! ,)m* M p ._ . y. mw # s , ._ . . . $h. k b h,f h > h. . h b.,oh,h,k h )N k h b k ;Okd'h'k ;k$$h,fhi.h e o. h ke.[.fk.h, s f;s 4. . h,,,f '$4 i 4 ~ '- - , j- ,= y , . _; ' ' -m. s 1,12 f ., 4 .y; - i <*, 3 1f . q~ .:,; ... U., w w.,,3.,;/ i .e m ,< i,- ) ,p w 1 g ,. ' .y.. - -. w s ,. ,p naturtil resources inportant to the Ijation." Congress >de- . ., . . ,. , , w.9 , . 'e.w a .r , .." cone.inuing c:licy of the Federal' Governtr.ent ,c... - clared a to une all pc at: nM e ..eans and maacures . . ..to create and raintain mm6itionc under which man and nature can. exist in . productive harmony, and fulfill the soc.ial, economic and. S othec requ irecen_t c__o._f._.present .and. f uture c:eneration s of Ar.cricang.

• FEI% , Sec tion 101(a) (emphasic added). In i+

I Section 3 01(b) , Congress expressed concern with coordinating

4. -

• rederal programs to the end that the nation would-~be in a position to "assura for all incricans safe, healthful,/

productivo, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surro.:ndings," e " th .t a r chanism would be established to " preserve impc : _ c_ . h u twic , cultural and natural at;;cctc of op; r .' m Jt M tne _ . " (Empha sis -. added) . In Section 201, the Congress r.andated on annual environmental report to the Congroan by the President, settingsforth~in detail conditions of the enviro 2nacnt of the " Nation. " , .The only explicit reference to foreign considerations .f - i ,in .NEPA is in Section 102 (2) (E) . This provision is clearly yu l [ " promotional in character and does not man'date-any. action l beyond cooperation with other nations in environmental matters. Rather than imposing well-defined procedural duties, Section 102 (2) (T ) is a nr. n-mandatory , hortatory 4 c n; . , 3.r sa - v,:n . , i.r .,( , 3 i! ~ , c

1. h.,r. . - h.-1y .hh. -

h I b NN N N ' f b I N,hbj$'h,b bN h k N. IN N .. ., s - p., , - , , j g ,; n .; o ,.v. . , pg!' yn,:, tlf , s;>, 2.6, ,r;.1 y ;y . , , < . ,n m; )a ,1 - . . g - t -

1. ,

. . > . , 1. &s .t 9

• r'f f[

• k 'l

. /

.% h 7 . .

prchinihn which encourages agencies to take discretionary . o .. 4 g gig,, , m ; y :; . u f. . e t ep:- t o 2.n ..c o r t co~ .r.. ce e Nrta. The NitC has been active ir t.his Trea ticough thc International Atomic Energy l Agency and numerous bilateral arrangements. This could. not be further from requiring imposition of environmental D l ntandards dcveloped in the Unirad States and applicable  ; l ' l l to thju country upon other novc. reign nations. Rather than supporting extencion of henith and safety concerns to export licensing, Section 102 (2) (E) has the opposite effect. NEPA's legiciative history supports the view that in enacting MEPA Concress was concerned colely with protecting and enhaue.rr! C:ite, _m .an entironn.ent rather than the -l i envirunr.ent af foreign count.rio. l 6 l From 1963 until 19CC, several environmental reports l 1_ i were issued by the Congress, each reflecting.anuov.erriding ( 4 . concern with the national environment. In 1968, the Science, l .t - Research and Development Subcommittoc issued a report'en-1 titled, " Managing the Environment. The primary recom.enda-g- , I tion contained in the document is that "a nptional policy a f of the United States for the environment should be developed by Government and private sector interests . The report I ! containa no reference to questions of environmental quality in roreign countries. r r 4>: . h , <- ' .! -l - 0 .. ', ' ' ' ~~E ' k !I  ; h  ! l, f,e ,,; , i Y. ,, 3 , e- , s.s A, ' . ' J  ; . ! ..A ya , '.; , d .)e ppf ;t:, ,,, - ,2- , , 4., s '; , y 't r,  ; y 11 . e.o n f4 se i ,, e,e I l l , In July 19CP, the Scuat' Conlittee on Interior and

i. ,9- ,c. ,

"+ . >:c, ' I: 7' . . a rit ry y.:rindiution over en-l vironnental <atterc, roc e i t, cd a report entitled "A National i Poliev for the Environnont," which crovided the back9 round for th<. Ccra.Mte.'s 00:, ,laantic.n of cnvironmenta3 issues. l As the title indicaten, the repcrt *tas concerned almost .- l exclusively witl the ca..t .11 t , of the national environment. In the report's prea:able the au thors specifically note that the "7starican >ccEole" S fc :e . graut " ch a llencee to the safet.v s 1 1 \ and welfare ci the Unit mi States" at a result of environ-1.wn tcl de.g ra a t: c. n .  % ryort called for the creation of a ' n o t i c .- . 1 1. : u ' .:" cua: a.ty of t.he environ-nne of the The report cf tha ' n1 P' aiLtca on Interior and Insulur Affairs on the bl.ll that was later enacted as NEPA, notes that the bill's purpose sins to provide a mechanism to deal with the environ untal 3caues being faced by the United States. J t is the unanimouc view of the taonters of the Interior ar.d Incu20.r Affal: a Cannittoo that our Nation's cresent crate of kno',dedae, our estab- . .1ched 1;uou.c po.ue ws, ar - cur cu. sting qcvernracital inntitutions r :. not adequnto to deal '.citn the gro'..>ing v. . i ronmentral proble:na c.nd 2.crt - t h e ". a_L '.. o_n_ _: :- c . _._ i h [ M Y,ii'i![,-(fp ^ I U , b TJ ^ ' ' 'O ) > .[j'%k, QI/,' .v:

d '

O .h ' {UMW

yr _ 12 -

> 4: I l l ]f the reaulLa of statutory construction under United i cc 1 S ta t _ , ' w,, n. u' forc h' . to a.s: t ca- territorial anplication I of healt..b < .a . E' c r i t e ' . :. la auclear export licenning, universally recognized nor:as of international law support auch n conclucion even tore strongly. Elementary notions of nation?.1 sovereignty, 'hich , erc established long before the recant crmrgence of rany ne*,' nations from colonial do:uina tion , ' reject the icica that one Stato has a right to enforce its own laws in the territory of another sovereign i i l entity. Chief Justice Ihrchall expressed this principle l in the early U,F. Suprre Court case of The Schoor.or Fxchange

v. Uc ' 3duun , 7 Cr .'.o 110 (1012)

T: - jc:.  :. 2,  ;" s , ion tithin its own 1- vi sto .; n f! abso. lute. o t.r1. i ,_'- > 2 c. , ., .. . c q 3n.c c. ~, 11 >2nclon not uaposea by itself ... bei.ng al2):e toe attribute of every sovereign, ac1 being incapable of con-forring entra-territorial power .... The courts of othSr nations and international tribi2nals have given uniform support to the concept that nationn should avoid the attc.:.pt to extend the reach of their laws to other countrica. As the Periaanent Court of International Justice said c.s early as 1927: Icos the firct and ' c r er.c a t 'emtriction imposal b"s 2ntu vat onal is u nn 'Pate ' that -- i

• ' \ . J

- v, < '-$ .c. kr (? , f . , , i i \Ylr * 'N ' $ Y' ' ' I: 'Y 5 ' ' , o' '\ ' ' ' 'r i t ' i.4l = ~ 3f Je e <, < u <, - i.gS w; ' * < r; <.,t ,, 13 _ >> * ^\. ' ., i t '&, '1 )~>  ! c. . , t- l _. 3 . canuing .. ' existence of a permissive rule to

squd- .

l 'l - t.hG cO::t . Y ' - - it J V not e::;e rc i S C i t' S ' p O'./O r n ' '. ^' . 1Ir . ... t :r State. I 'P h / < ' . . . (1 'a::ce V, Tilt j.ey ) , P.C.I.J. s },s... - tw ., , _w6 n, . l r., . s. a..a.> m )' . The co: '.1 : ' v it:;1ity of hin priciple is testified to by a rrcar" ;d pu s re;olution of the United l'ations Genera! .'s a s : .i .; ' clar o m.n ha :ic pra.nci:;1ec of internctiant- ' - The chi;:d c; tha a :. '.:n3 the principle , ~ concernina the c.uty not to intervene (directly or indi-rectly), in ra_ tors within the domcstic jurisdiction of any Stata. { 0'g[dian_pn Pri:;q,i_ples of International Law C o n c c r_ro_._ns.... .  :. '?. '. . _ . ' a t_i e n s_. . A m o nm.a S t. a t.c s .._.__ C_.s u_ m_._:__a_.t.__i_o_n .- ill A . 7:. ' . h t' . .. . 'I'. ns C 2 A r *. e r , c. A. aesn. 2 f, > ,, ,, 4,

u. c 1ccog: rior of these c o s . e ! c . . ..y >

. ;'u.;,  ::g r e m _ . . s f o r cooperacion nego-tinted by the urEted Statea typically 'rovide p that the government of the recipient countr2 ohears all ressonsibilit."1 L for t.hc afe harcil'ng and une of harr.ful nucioar materials. . 1 1 Scc, - e.g - . . , Is_g n - ant Between tht United States of America and India Contorning the C.ivil Uses of Atomic l'nergy_, signed at Washingt.on, EC, Augu.st 8, 1953, /irticle II(G). The import rf these authorjefes i s that, even if there was clear vi & , (which tnero oti that Ccngt:eas intm@ imC to e frei:2 ' . ith .: 2 a a : c t., .cicnem crer export licenm.. A s* J , Q_ ? ] _, tW-

'a '

'gy' ro< - , e t. 'i t G t 31m- p !! +.; Ap> Asif p r.V;g, - 4. . t' .,4 9

• g.6g' aQ[:u

' - '/ '- ' ~r 1

o. p a.

', ' e f.;<,, 3. _ 1; _ u, o,  ; ,  ;. , , . .\., .. ,c to foreign nat:ans, cerious qu';ti.ons ander international law .to . .yc< c' . , p *: :erc i r - that ro30. Before cor-lc.dtny this discussion, it should be em-phacized th ' t:;e ' .2 _.es ccmsider health and caf ety mattern arining f r c.n ':4- r.u c.a. ; r e:.pc t ' process, insofar eg, United Stato: v. ..lu.minum Ccr m ny of Arc. erica , 148 P.2d 416, 443-444 (2nd C'r 7 NS) . For e. a:.'p l e , the .NRC c:: amines heal th a nd : <. a q. it- :02 4.nvo L /ed in the transportation of l ' co r e., : o r t , '*hile that e r- 1 rucic< -- - <' .c'i - ., rr.a t ~ r : v i u , ._: 4t... _ :. a t e s . Purther, i f an 1 c; , , ua .c- . _ , , t. r u c t e : n Canadc. or ;*exico, in clo:e pr'>. .: . . '. u c cd States' frontiers, the 1;I?C wou.ld obviousi:. .ccu to rc.ake n health c.nd saf ety deterraina-  ! tion on such 7 f acil.:. :.y 's impact on United Staten citizenc. Also, th >re .rould he no legal iir.pedinent to NRC review of nuclear equip:ent intended for export to ensure that auch l 1 f acilities ware capt.bl e of safe operation by a recipient l i nation. However, such a pre-e: part procedure is subctantially different fro:: cssuming heal th :.nd cafety resioonsibility for such an e::por ' n r.c c it has lofr U.S. territory. 1 t / n :- - 1 ,; -f . if.Q. }:. ,,.2./[h. h h, ,a Y3 k.g,hf'k N>; . ; ?f a.,Y. ' ' ' "' < f t.ff..i\ r  ; ,o. , b 5 @ )' ).' $, ., 'b, , ' 'm,fj / ~ l. , , , ' #S , ,, ,,( ,}- , ~p ' *  !- .- ] 'i'

g . u .. > ,, . ' p\ ' .'y,),

n  ; . ~. j ) .p; ' y 1 :: , , s, l I . l a.,  ;- l ,R., .-. yp i - 2 , , e.b , a, a..i . . r , , .3c , f, D io n. : ,.3, i l 1 11cv i .r,.the:: are d'afinite linits to how far the. e ' lict:w int  ;'l oc e nt> caa he enende ia even' > ins the t aEss 'cifM * *. ' don ': ' a . .ca. . Jo, .- nar be;n argued that th e ... C 3:o.d a c  ;.u u r the stat. af technological advance-m.: t in .  :.' e r - '. q n countly, c'.d in, ability to safely operate cc ..pl e- welt _ :. a c i t t. t e n , beft c grar t ng in export license. As a matt . of Im: : ins p ;11cy, i . ; ci a n approach would be j :ug p:. opr m a te . liy the L.ine a 3 5 c :nse application reaches th e h"1C , nn agreere.2nt for cooperution under Section 123 of ,nac orcinar13y .n e o n n e g o t i a 4,: e a.

t. h e n. i o:c.i c .norgy nat , in which the Uni;od Sta e:u is cc:cnitted to provide certain kind, of : n c i n a ".ct 'oa f:zeign ution in the development n'

of i .. en > f  ; t. i.o , as to a recipient n .it i t . ' - c li / o  !. t r. u ._ technoingy safely have not r.c.un . .. c t. _ .grec. - for cooperation phase, it i t, much too late to revisit thrt issue in a licensing proceeding. To do othe;4:3se rai.ses the possibility of abrogating a binding inte:nat.ipnal obligation of the United States. l l l