The Export reorganization act, 1975 : hearings before the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, first session, April 24, 30, and May 1, 1975 online

development, even though in the hands of the government
or private contractors, may not be available to the public



V This nuclear world in which "no acts of God can
be permitted", Hanni s Alfven, "Energy and Environment " ,
Bu lletin of Atomic Scientists , Hay 19 72, at 5, has been com-
mented upon by others. See, ej., Hannes Alfven, "Fission Energy
and Other Sources of Energy", Science and Public Affairs ,
Januarv 1974, at 4; Allen Kneese, "The Faustian Bargain",
Resources, No. 44, September 1973.



375



generally, and there nay be no opportunity for the public
to participate in licensing or other regulatory proceed-
ings. The Commission has a lundomcntal moral obligation
to make up for these deficiencies and to discuss fully,
and with the utmost candor, the risks and benefits, both
in the short and long terms, of fission power and its
alternat ives .

In light of the seriousness of the issues before the
Commission, the Congress, other aqencies, and the public,
we believe that a substantial level of effort, in
terns of personnel, time, and money, must be devoted to
this project. The Commission must take all necessary
steps to ensure that all relevant information and points
of view, including responsible opposing views, are fully,
fairly, and openly presented in the Programmatic Statement. 5/
And, it must seek to prepare a draft Programmatic Statement
which, in accordance with Section 1500.7(a) of the NEPA
Guidelines, will "fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent
possible at the tine the draft is prepared the requirements
established for final statements by Section 102(2) (C).'
Only in this way will Congress, other agencies, and the
public have before them an adequate vehicle for eliciting
informed comment on the Program which can be factored
into the final decisionmaking process.



S/ See Council on Environmental Quality, NEPA
Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. 5 1500.10(a).



376



In th< r._; aii..: of this letter we will discuss general
areas of ron.siuVr<it ion which we bali'.ve should be indu-l'-l in
the Programmatic Statement, focusing upon the description of the
program, its impact, alternatives to it and any cost-benefit
analysis mnJc of it. Our suggestions are based upon NEI'A's
requirements but arc not intended to be comprehensive, and we
recommcnJ that the foniini ssion go beyond such suggestions to the
fullest extent possible.

I . Description of the International Nuclear Power
Program

The draft Programmatic Statement should contain a thorough

description of the Program. 6/ This discussion should begin by

def ining what the Program is , that is , what agency actions are

covered, and by explaining in general terms the nature of the

equipment, materials, and fuels which are or may be exported

under the Program. It should discuss the objectives of the

Program, at the time it was initiated and describe how such

objectives may have changed over the years in light of the

development of the Program and/or the proliferation of nuclear

weapons capabi li ty , and whether they remain valid today . I t

should then detail the complete history of the Program since

its inception, setting out the agreements entered into, corn-



el/ See Counci 1 on Knvironmental Quali ty , NEPA
Guidelines, 40 C . 1 . K . S 1 1>00 . H ( a) ( 1 ) .



377



nutrients made, and actual exports of technology, equipment, and
fuel over the past twenty years, together with a discussion of
the safety, health, and environmental reviews which have been
undertaken. Finally, it should discuss the effect private con-
trjctu.il commitments may have on federal agency actions.

(a) Nature, Size and Projected Growth of Program
At the outset , the Programmatic Statement should
describe the various types of fission reactors which have
been or may be involved in the Program (light water reactors,
hi-jh temperature gas gooled reactors, liquid metal fast
breeder reactors, etc.) and the types of fuels which have
been or may be involved in the Program (enriched uranium, plu-
tonium, etc.). The differing characteristics of each of these
reactor and fuel types should be identified, and their rela-
tive importance in the Program noted.

The Commission should then convey to the reader a
qe::eral sense of the size of the Program. Current figures
with respect to fission generating capacity (including numbers
and types of reactors , their locations, total mega wattage , manu-
facturers, and so forth) worldwide should be given, as well as a
list of the numbers, types, generating capacities, manufacturers,
and locations of all fission reactors currently on order or under
construction. The relative share of the exporting countries
(USA, France, West Germany, Canada, Great Britain, USSR) of the



378



worlu '.Jik-t should bo yivtii. Similar figures Should bi! '■• > loped
for each ^l-cIoi of the furl cycle, i.e., the provision ot uw
uranium, enrichment services, fuel element fabrication, repro-
cessing, etc. The Commission, in other words, must show the
contribution to date of this country and other countries in raw
materials, services, and equipment to the worldwide market for
fission power generating systems. Finally, electrical energy
output from fission power should be compared to that provided
by other sources on a country by country , regional and wcr low ide
basi s .

Having described the current market, an effort must be
made, assuming continuation of the Program, to project the growth
of the world market on a country by country, regional and world-
wide basis. It would appear appropriate in this regard to pro-
vide high, intermediate, and low growth scenarios. The Program-
matic Statement should identify the factors, including possible
governmental actions, both nationally and internationally, that
might influence the rate of electric output growth and deployment
of fission power generating systems; should discuss the assump-
tions underlying the various scenarios; should identify the
scenario that it considers "-.o be most likely; and should provide
the reasons for this judgment.

The Commission shou Id i den t i f y the number of f ;i cl lilies .in I I It »■
capacities in each sector of the fuel cycle on a country by ctiin t ry ,
regional .mil woridwiJc basis in the years l f J74 - 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010,
and 2020, under various electrical energy growth assumptions



379



11



or scenarios, indicating aaain the extent to which foreign manu-
factured reactors, foreiqn produced fuels and foreiqn provided
services will make up part of the market in such years. To the

extent possible, the impact of the introduction of the breeder

?/
reactor and plutomum recycling - should be factored into this

analysis. Further, the relative proportion of electrical energy

produced by fission power to that produced by other sources

(fossil fuel, geothermal, solar, etc.) should be set out.

(b) Legal Structure of the Program
The initial section of the Programmatic Statement
should describe in detail four basic elements in the



7/ In this regard, the failure of the United States
at this time to have an operational reprocessing industry , see
e.g.. The New York Times , July 24, 1974, at 62 (discussing
the "inoperability" of the Morris, Illinois reprocessing
facility), should be noted, and its impact on development
of a plutomum recycling economy and future purchases of
liqht water reactors, utilizing enriched uranium fuel,
assessed. The question must be asked: If U.S. enrichment
capacity is not available — see Statement of Dr. Dixy Lee
Ray before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearings on
Uranium Enrichment, August 6, 1974 - and if reprocessing
capacity is not available in this country and European capacity
is also limited - the Eurochemic Plant at Mol, Belgium, for
exanple, is shutting down because of uneconomic operation,
see Dreschhoff, Saunders, and Zeller, "International High Level
Nuclear Waste Management'*, Science and Public Affairs , January,
1974, at 28, 29 - will continued purchases of light water
reactors make economic sense?



380



12



nucl- .ir power expert i*rn .r, and the way in which * h< -<•

elements fit together :

(1) Negotiation of and entry into bilaterial Agree-
ments for Cooperation pursuant to Section 12 3 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, .is amended, 42 U.S.C. 52153. This
discussion should include a list of the countries which have
entered into such Agreements with the United States to
date, and analyze the basic provisions of such Agreements,
specifically noting the amount of enriched nuclear fuel
authorized for export thereunder, and relating such amounts
to the Commission 's contractual commitments and its assess-
ment of the realistic needs of such countries over the term
of the Agreements. It should further explain the process

by which such Agreements come into force and describe,
in particular, the role of the Commission and the Department
of St.itc- in the ruujot i at ion process , the role of the Pres i ilont
and Congress in n -viewing such Agreements, the extent to
which Congress has been able to be an active participant
in the process, and the nature and scope of information
provided to Congress in the past with respect to such
Agreements .

(2) The entry into contracts by the Commission,
pursuant to Sections 54 and 61 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
42 U.S.C. §$2074, 2201(t), to provide enriching services

for nuclear fuels. This discussion should set out a list of
contracts entered into to date and all pertinent data with



381



13

r aspect thereto and contain a description of the process
by which such contracts .ire negotiated. Enrichment com-
mitments should be related to existing and planned U.S.
enrichment capacity (with and vi thout the as sump t ion of
plutonium recycling) .

(3) Financing o F nuclear power exports by the
Kxport- Import Bank of the United States ( "Eximbank")
acting under the Export- Import Bank Act of 1945, 12 U.S.C.
§635 S '. This discussion should contain a complete list
of all financing arrangements entered into to date and all
pertinent data with respect thereto, and contain a des-
cription of the process by which such arrangements are
entered into. Further, it should detail any speci fie
incentives which Eximb.ink offers, i.e. , life of the plant
fuel financing comrntncnts , to encourage the purchase of
U.S. fission power gene rat ing systems and nuclear fuels.



S / There is no quest ion that any adequate analysis of
the Program must include the e lement of financing. Financing
is an integr il part of the export process and , indeed , the
process may not go foru ir-i unless financing is avai lable. As
of December 31, 1073, Exinbank financing had been or was being
provivied for 701 of all U.S. -built nuclear power plants exported
or expected to be exported, at such date, while Eximbank
financing has been provided for more than 35% of the Commission* s
fuel enrichment service contracts. See Eximbank ' s and the
Commission ' s Answers to Interrogatories , dated February 15,
1974, in Sierra Club, ct al. v. United States Atomic Energy
Commission, et al . ( D . D . C . , C l vil Action No. 1867-73) . As
Judge Gasch indicated in his Opinion of August 2 , 1974 , in
Siena Club, et al. v. L'niteJ States Atomic Energy Commission ,
e t a 1 . , the Connission has a plain responsibil lty under NEPA
to insure that an element such as financing, even though carried
out by another federal agency , is properly included in the
Programmatic Statement.



382



14

(4) The licensing by the Commission of the
export of fission power qrne rating systems, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §213 3, and the licensing of the export of
spccul nuclear materials, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2073.
This discussion should contain a complete list of licenses
entered into to date and should describe the regulatory
procedures followed by the Commission in licensing pro-
ceedings .

In discussing the elements of the Program, the Pro-
gramâ„¢ it ic Statement should indicate the amount and nature
of interagency consultation in decisionmaking and the
relative time sequence of each step in the overall process.
To the extent that some actions may occur outside a
normal sequence, i. e. , financing of a reactor export prior
to entry into an Agreement for Cooperation _9/ , the reasons
for and significance of this pattern should be examined
and its impact on the commitments of other agencies
assessed .



y For example, in July 1974, Eximbank authorized
financing to support the export of nuclear power generating
systems and enriched nuclear fuels valued at $176 million
to Yugoslavia, although the United States has no Agreement
for Cooperation with that country. See Eximbank, News
Release, July 8, 1974.



383



15

{ c ) Scope of Reviews Undertaken

With respect to each element of the Pro-iram, tho
Programmatic Statement should specify the nature and scope
of the reviews undertaken by the responsible agencies. The
Commission should detail the type and amount of data it and
other responsible federal agencies receive from foreign
countries with respect to their overall program for the
development of nuclear power and with respect to individual
projects for which United States assistance is sought,
specifically noting what data is required to be submitted
prior to action being taken and what follow-up reporting
requirements, if any, must be met after action is taken.
Additionally, it should be stated whether any written reports,
analyses or assessments are prepared by or for the responsible
agencies with regard to (1) environmental, health, safety,
and safeguard regulation of the nuclear power fuel cycle
by governmental bodies in any country in which U.S. supplied
fission power equipment and/or fuels are used; and (2) any
differences between such regulation and regulation of the
nuclear power fuel cycle in the United States.

(d) Effect of Private Contractual Commitments
The description of the Program should contain an
analysis of the extent to which private contractual rela-
tionships may affect decisions made by the Commission or
other responsible federal agencies. Private industry in
the United States should be canvassed for its contracting



384



16

practices and such questions answered as whether fuel
fabrication or other supply contra, â– ( -, between u. 3.
manufacturers and lorciyn utilities reijuire ruprocL-suirrj ol

"spent" fuel elements in U.S. reprocessing facilities,
whether private contracts for the sale of fission power
generating systems are contingent on F.ximbank financing,
and so forth.



385



17



II . The Envi ronrental Impact of the Proposed Action
(Section 102(21(0 (1) of NEPA)

Under this heading, the Programmatic Statement should
discuss the impact of the Program wherever it occurs , on
an individual and cumulative bas is , throughout the nuclear
power fuel cycle. This means that there must be a dis-
cussion, either in the body of the Programmatic Statement
or in separate appendices, of the specific impacts of
nuclear technology on country by country and regional
bases, together with a discussion of the cumulative implica-
tions of a worldwide commitment to fission power as a
source of electrical energy. In setting out the impact
of the proposed action, the Programmatic Statement should
describe each major segment of the nuclear power fuel
cycle, as it now is constituted and as projected through
2020, utilizing various energy growth assumptions ; the
regulatory scheme, both national and international, govern-
ing each segment; and the outputs of each segment in each
of such years under such electrical energy growth assumptions.
Finally, the Prcgrapjnat ic Statement must treat in depth
the specific risks associated with the growth and output
of fission power.

(a) The Nuclear Power Fuel Cycle

With regard to the nuclear power fuel cycle, the Program-
matic Statement should describe each step in the production
of electrical energy from fission reactors, including:



386



18



(1) mining and milling of uranium; (2) fuel refining,
conversion, and fabrication; (3) fuel enrichment; (4) reactor
operation ; (5) reprocessing; {6} waste storage and disposal;
and (7) transportation of nuclear materials between different
sectors in the fuel cycle. The Commission's discussion of
these elencnts of the fuel cycle must not be limited to
those which occur solely within the united States, but
rather must treat them wherever they occur. 1_Q/ Thus, if
for example, fuel used in a United States manufactured light
water reactor is reprocessed at a reprocessing facility in
Western Europe, rather than at a reprocessing facility in
the United States, the impact , individual ly and cumulatively,
of the Western European facility should be considered. Con-
versely, even though the United States may not export
reprocess ing facilities or reprocess ing technology , if fuel s
utilized in U.S. sup plied fission power gene rat ing sys terns
are or may be reprocessed within the United States, this
impact must be dealt with. Particular attention should
be paid to transnational impacts, such as those associa-
ted with Lin.- intern.ition.il transportation of nuclear
nateri als, as we 11 as with national practices, i.e. ,



M/ See Council on Envi ronmental Quality , NEPA Guide -
lines , 40 C.F.R. § 1500. 8 (a) (iii) (A) , calling upon agencies
to assess "the posi tive and negative effects of the proposed
act ion as it affects both the national and international
environment . "



387



dun-ing of low level (or high level) radioactive waste
products in the ocean, which may have international con-
sequences. Finally, variations in the fuel cycle for
different types of generating systems should be assessed,
and related to the current composition of the Program
(in terms of reactor type) and to its projected growth.

(b) The Regulatory Franework

In discussing the environmental impact of the Program,
it is important to focus on the regulatory frameworks sur-
rounding fission power development. In this regard, the Commission
should specify the nature and scope of the health, safety,
environmental, or safeguard standards, policies and practices,
both national and international (including any imposed by the
United States), now applicable to the construction and opera-
tion of United States supplied fission power generating sys-
tems and to the use, transportation, and management of U.S.
supplied nuclear fuels and associated radioactive wastes. In
a survey of the regulations, policies and practices of recipients
and potential recipients of United States fission power gener-
ating systems, as well as those of the appropriate international
bodies, especially the International Atomic Energy Agency (the
"MLV'l and Euratom, as they relate to all aspects of the fuel
cycle, such matters as the comprehensiveness of the regulations;
adequacy and effectiveness of environmental, health, safety,
and safeguards programs ; experience , competency and size of
the regulatory staff; public access to regulatory procedures



3SS



20



and to information with regard to fission power development
general ly ; and adequacy of budgetary allocations should be
assessed.

In order to analyze the effectiveness of regulatory
frameworks, some attention should also be given to the
occurrence of incidents in the past in particular countries
or regions and the likelihood that such incidents may
occur again. For example, the existence of any past ter-
rorist incidents against nuclear facilities should be
noted 11 /, the reasons for such incidents analyzed, and the
possibility of any such future incidents projected. Simi-
larly, reactor malfunctions, radiation leaks, etc.
occurring abroad should be noted and related if possible
to particular regulatory and/or environmental problems
in the country in which such incidents occurred J 2/
Finally, s-occial attention should be given to specific



11/ Sec, e.g . , 120 Cong . Rec . S. 11503 (June 25, 1974)
(discuss ior, of safeguard failures, including an attack, in
March 1974, by a guerilla band, on the Attucha facility
in Argon'- i na) .

1 :/ Sec, e.g . , The Washington Post , February 25, 1974,
A- 2 , "co 1 . 1 [discussion ol breakdown . t nuclear facility
near Hanover, Germany); T'i c New York Tir.es , June 9, 1974, at
4, col. 1, (discussion of accident at Windscale Atomic Energy
Plant, Great Britain). Mention might also be made of the
reported erosion of pipes and the collapse and bowing of fuel
rods in the Mi h ana I pressurized water reactor in Japan, which
have resulted in radioactive leakage and plant shutdowns.



389



21



national practices which ray pose environmental, health,
safety, or safeguard problems and are currently not
subject to any standards imposed internationally or by the
United States â–  1 5/

(c) The Outputs from the Fuel Cycle
Employing the growth scenarios outlined at page 10,

n'h 11, I lie P ro'ji atmn.-il I C M.it.munL ahuuLO But. furl.ll Llta

outputs, on individual facility, country by country,
regional, and worldwide bases, in each sector of the nuclear
power fuel cycle. Cumulative totals in each of the years
1974-1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020, as well as annual
rates should be presented, and their impact on health and
environmental quality in the particular areas directly
a f f ected, as well as worldwide , assessed. Outputs dis-
cussed should include , but not be limited to, mining and
milling tailings, electricity (both produced by and neces-
sary to support fission pow er generating systems) ,

I" For example, it should be noted which, if any, of
the recipients of the U.S. supplied fission power generating
systers and nuclear fuels have disposed of or may dispose of
waste products by dumping then into the oceans, and the en-
vironmental soundness of this, as well as other practices
different from those engaged in in the United States, should
be assessed. By the same token, it would be appropriate to
assess differing population density criteria employed in
various foreign countries , as well as any differing criteria
for such design factors as emergency core cooling sys tens .

The Programmatic Statement should also disclose what
design features or environmental, health, safety, or safeguards
criteria, deemed advisable in this country, have not been
adopted by foreign purchasers of United States fission power
generating systems and nuclear fuels, specify the reasons for
the decision made, and quantify to the extent possible the
increased risk assumed as a result of such decision



390



22



operational radioactive effluents, thermal (waste heat)
discharges , plutonium, and fission products,
(d) Specific Risks

Havinc described in general terms the growth and
output of the nuclear power fuel cycle, the specific risks
associated with such growth and output must be evaluated.
til la Ji mu:.!i W'ii !-.h"ultl, rtm*»ii«j othoi nmttuiu, |'iovlJ.' mi
informative representation of the hazards and uncertainties
associated with the biological and radiological properties
of plutonium and the principal fission products produced
in fission reactors. It should further recognize that en-
vironrental hazards or risks associated with the technology
are these associated with its misuse as well as its proper
use. Therefore, the consequences of utility or manufacturer
negligence and accidents; theft and hijacking of plutoniun;
nuclear Droli feration and associated national security dangers;
damage to power plants, fuel facilities, spent fuel ship-
nents, and waste repositories by deranged or violently
anti-social individuals or terrorist groups; and similar
scenarios should be dealt with in the draft. In each case the
Prograrratic Statement should quantify, to the fullest extent
possible, the environmental costs of the Program in the coun-
tries winch are or may be recipients of U.S. supplied fission
power generating systems and nuclear fuel, in the United
States itself, and in the international community general ly
(i.e., effects on ocean fish catches due to increased re-
leases of radioactive effluents into the oceans). It should



391



23



also clearly describe the Commission's view and other
responsible opinion wi th respect to ( 1 ) the consequences
should such an incident occur; (2) actions that have been
taken to date, both nationally and internationally, to
prevent such an occurrence or lower the risk to an acceptable
level; (3) the deficiencies in the current Program; (4) pro-
posed steps that will or could be taken to reduce the risks