ML19290D580
| ML19290D580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000574 |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Church F SENATE, FOREIGN RELATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290D581 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220218 | |
| Download: ML19290D580 (4) | |
Text
.
nne.ntr nuueen
- - ~m
[
o UMTED STATES
,T
!N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
d.*
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5**s/
o e
January 23, 1980 CHAIRMAN gg p
us@
.g g@g got Z
~~
The Honorable Frank Church, Chairman hg Committee on Foreign Relations
'6' S
d United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 s
p
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Commission appreciates your courtesy in providing us with a copy of your.
December 21,1979, lette; to President Carter urging prompt action on the pending Philippine nuclear reactor export license application. We assure you that the Commission is processing this application in an expeditious fashion.
The application was received by the NRC on November 23, 1976. This was sent to the Executive Branch on December 20, 1976.
On September 28,1979, the Executive Branch provided its views to the Commission on the reactor applica-tion, recommending that the Commission issue the license. Such views are a prerequisite to NRC licensing. The fact that the Executive Branch review of this application extended for almost three years before submission to the NRC is indicative of the difficuliy and complexity of the issues posed by this matter. Promptly thereafter, on October 19, the Commission ordered public proceedings on the Philippino application, after making the determination that such proctedings would assisi. the Commission to make its statutory determina-tions and would be in the publ k interest. The Philippine application raises novel. issues pertaining to the sccoe of the Commission's jurisdiction and the decision to hold public hearings oa this niatter is consistent with the Con-gressional mandate set forth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act that the Commission afford members of the public a meaningful opportunity to participate in the export licensing process.
The ammission specifically invited written public comments on six issues rebcing to the proper scope of the Commission's jurisdiction to examine health, safety and environmental questions arising from the construction and operation of exported nuclear facilities, and the appropriate trocedural framework for considering such issues if they are founo to lie within NRC's authority. The Commission decided not to solicit comments at that time on issues related to the particular health, safety and environmental aspect 3 of the proposed Philippine facility, and to defer consideration of such issues until the Com-mission had ruled on the jurisdictional questions. A copy of the order commencing public proceedings is attached.
In response to the Commission's order the Executive Branch, the NRC staff and approximately twenty other groups submitted comments to the Corr.:nission. Our offices of the General Counsel and Policy Evaluation have reviewed the diverse comments and have submitted to the Commission the enclosed detailed analysis of the complex issues raised by the Philippine application. A Commission meeting has been tentatively scheduled next week to consider the matter.
8002220 Zl9 G
The Honorable Frank Church 2
The Commission intends to act upon these applications before the summer 1930 date cited in your letter to the President.
In sum, the Commission is acting upon the application expeditiously, and in a fashion that should ensure that the Commission receives sufficient information to make its statutorily required findings.
The Commission appreciates your interest in this matter and will, of course, provide you with all Commission decisions on the Philippine application.
Sirherely, John F. Ahearne
Enclosures:
1.
October 19 order ],/d->d 2.
OGC/0PE analysis.
g g p-.nsa; w w m a " m M% % ^~A ^
'f~E' d
,. '.g 6
federal Register / Vol. 44."No. 208 / Thursday. October 25. "1979 / Notices 61475 -
~
2 t
E" I* finsncial, or other interest in Director. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Because action had not been taken on -,
- E*'
di and(3) the possible Commission, Washington. D.C. 20555.
the reactor application, on August 3..
O-.
- ler ivhich may be Nontimely, filings of petitions for leave 1978 Westinghouse submitted an t[te roc'eeding on the to intervene ! amended petitions, applica tion (XCOM-0013) requesting If
""I petitioner.s interesLThe etition should supplement:.1 petitions and/or requests authorization to export components to -
also identify the s 'ec c spect(s)of the for hearing will not be entertained -
the Philippines which would permit.
to absent a determination by the construction activities related tothe w Commission l the presiding officer or the facility to continue while the U.S.
- - 3 hi utioner ishe tointerv e.
ADY p*f50" *h" h'as filed a petition for' " Atomic Safety and1.icensing Board
. Government reviewed the reactor
~
~-
. designated to rule on the petition and/or application. On November 3.1978, the - ~
leave to intervene'or who has be n request. that the petitioner has made a Executive Branch recommended that adtitted as a party may amen e
substantial showing of good cause for NRC issue the component license.The petition without requesting eave the granting o' f a late petition and/or.
Commission has deferred action on the' Board up to fifteen (15) days rior 6
-request.That determination will be component license application pending -
first prehearing conference s e
based upon a balancing of the factors receipt of the Executive Branch views the proceeding, but such an amended specified in to CFR i 2.714(a) (i)-{v) and on the facility application.
petition must sati'sfy the specificity i 2.7Md) 1 requirements des'cribed above.
For further' details with respect to this ne PeWoneh Center for -
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to action, see the application for renewal f.{}'
'"hh
'"jg;pg,,
p p
the first prehearing conference dated July 2.1979, as may be scheduled in the' proceeding. a petitioner supplemented by future submittals.
M ***** I '. Environ = ental Protection shall file a supplement to the petition to which is available for public inspection. (PMEP}-specifically requested a intervene which;must include a list of at the Commission's Public Document hearing on seven issues:(1) the nature the contentions which are sought to be Room.1717 H Street NW., Washington, and magnitude of seismic and geological litigated in the niatter, and the bases for D.C.
I risks paged by the reactor site; (2) the..
adequacy of the reactor's seismic each contention set forth with.
Dated at Beth,esda. Maryland. this 18th day design; (3) the environmental impact of -
reasonable specificity. Content.ons shall of October 1979-the proposed reactor and disposition of ' -
be limited to matters widin the scope of For the Nuclest Regulatory commission.
Its spent fueh (4) dangers to the health a -
[p];7,'o*n Eben I.Connerd ho of es a
and safety of Philippi..e citizens posed '
t whith satisfies these Actins Chief. Oper: tins Reactors Bronch No-by the reacton (5) dangers te the health..
t q ! ements with respect to atleast one
- 4. Division of opepting Reactors.
and safety of U.S. citizens residing in the -
moem8 md m t o =1 Philippines; (6) risks to the effective contention will no' t be permitted to sec cops 7ssoat-u operation of U.S. military fastallations in.
be sa hn c safety,
O-r ose e t
intervene become parties to the proceeding. subject to any. [ Docket No. 110-0499 Application Hos.
que!tions posed by nuclear power hmitations in the, order granting leave to XR0120 and Applicat- ' Ho. XCOM-0013]
pl and by Westinghouse reactors in intervene, and have the opportunity to -
Westinghouse Elecs
~:orp. (Exports On June 26.1979, another group, the to the Philippines); Order concerned citizens Reactor Export ti. inc u oppo t o present evidence:anc' cross-examine On April 19,1978. the Nuclear Review Board, also requested an Regulatory Commission received a opportunity to submit information on the witnesses.
{
Petition for leave to intervene and for a Philippine export applications.
for lea to i te ee al be d w th hearing concerning a license application On September 28.1979, the Executive the Secretary of the C mmission. United by Westinghouse Electric Corporation Branch submitted its views
- States Nuclear Regula\\ry Commission. '. c verms the export of slightly enriched recommending issuance of XR-120. On h
uranium to the Philippines, and to October to.1979 the Commission c nsolidate consideration of thatlicense discussed the pending intervention and eket and Se c cti n. or ay with two other nuclear bcense hearing requests at a public Commission be delivered to the Commission's Public applications pending for the meetmg. After thoroughly considering Philippines.8 The material would be the submissions already received from
~
.b 6e a o8to. '
Y e.
used to fuel a nuclear power reactor Petitioners, the Applicant u.here petitions are filed during the last being constructed by the Philippine (WesMnghouse Electric Corporation),
ten (10) days of the notice period. it is National Power Corpora' tion at Napot and the Nuclet r Regulatory Commission requested that the petitioner or Point on the island of Luzon.
staff, the Contmission has decided that it representative for the petitioner The Westinghouse Electric would be appropriate to order further promptly so inform the Commission by a Corporation submitted an appl.ication to public proceedings in this matter;The toll free telephone call to Western export a nuclear facility (XR-120) to the Commission believes that such Uru,on at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri Philippines on November 18,1976.The proceedings would~ assist it in making (800) 342-6700). The Western Union Commission did not receive final the statutory determinations required by operator should be given Datagram Executive Branch views on thct the Atomic Energy Act and would be in Identification Number 3737 and the application until September 28,1979.'
the public interest.See 10 C.F.R..
following message addressed to Robert 110.84(a)(1) and (2) and Sectica 304[b] of Reid:(petitioner's name and telephone
..rhe commission had published a notice or the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of number):[date petitior vas mailed):
receipt of tais ticense appucation (xssu.14 21in 1978. C U.S.C. 2155a.
(Texas A&M): and (put ication date and the Federal Register on March :o. :s*3. 44 Fed. Reg.
page number of this Federal Register 25?80 der section s: sata)of the Atomic Enersy Act of State that it is the judsment or the Executive notice). A Copy of the petition should in, commission may not inue a reactor esport Branch that the proposed export * *
- will not be islso be sent to the Executive Legal.
bcenne untilii 'has been notined by the secretarr inimical to the common derense and secunty 9
m
~
q c _._ _ _
__m m
.. frD 8
_e.
v 61476 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. ca / Thu:sday October 25, 1979 / Notices
'.. ?. u. ~.
s,.,,.-
The issues which havabeen raisedin examine.the heahh.safetyand applications XR :t:0.andXCOM-0013 the present matter fallinto.two general environmentalimpacts of an exported for purposes of the present proceeding.
Uw ca t egorie s. 71:st. 2here.are lhose ls su es nuclear.fa cility:in reaching its licensing However.it should be noted thatissues A-which periain to theproper scope of the determination (specifically.w'hich of the raised by all three license epplications -
N/.
Commis sion's jurisd ictin n.to axamin e sevenissuessaised by etitionersare are substantially the same, and Ahat the.*
S' p
health, safety ana enhant21 appropriateforCommission eview)?
rnmmission would expectto consider 4 ; *,..
I questions acising from.fhe const:uction
- t. Is the Cornmission's health..sefety all relevant m a ttm pertaining.to.the 4M;.t.:,
J' < ' '
and operation cTexported. nuclear -
or.environmentalreview cfexport Philippine exportsin the scope cIlhe '$'.
proce eding cometenced by ifhis craer.
Iacilities, and whatymrahal license. applications. limited tothe
-,7M framework woulate approprialeIor connectionof these issueswithabe.U.S.
The Commission does notreach a M,J.
considedngsuch issues.lf they are
, common <!efenseand securitycr.are decision on whether any of the -.: g.l.~4,
~
found tolie within'NRC authority. Ibe there other legalprinciples.which permit Petitioners is entitled to a hearing unaerki '-
second category oTissues are,particular or require,the Cnmmi<sion to examine Section 189a of the.htomicEnergy Act. '".' -- < _,
health. saTety.anaenvironmental these matters aspart ofJts. licensing Sincethe' Commission has decided to.W.. + T-.,+
aspects of the Napot'PointIacilityTfar review.?
authorize a hearing pursuant to Section~ ~...,e example, the ' reactor's. seismic acsign')
- 3. What issuesarisingfrom the 2N(b)cItheNuclearNonymilieration. _
e which the Comm1ssion' hrs'heen asked application to export a nuclear facility Act. thatissueis moo!.~
--Mr. j. S to examineinthe contexttifits export to.the philippines should the It is ordered.
licensing r-view.The Commission Commission examine inanylature Dated atWashin; ton /DC.11Gs 29th Eryof
~
believes it would be useful,before pubhc proceedm ?
October 19 9.
ordering any proceedings un this second
- 4. What pro cralformat.should the Tor the r.ommisdon.
group of issuescto receive submissions Commission adept.to4xamine.any Samue1J rhnk.
from the pa-ticipants and any c'her fweign health, safety and environmental g
gg issues falling within itsJurisdiction?
interested mdividualser cups concerning the precise scope of the 5.lihealth, safety and environmental
{Dja*
{ N3 Commissien's Toreign' health, safety and aspects of a U.S.-supplied nuclear environmental]u:isdiction and what fac21ity are to be evaluatedin the NRC
_.g.
procedures the Commission should exput licensing prouss.in what FATIOt4LTRANSPORTATION specifictnanner should this review be SAFETY RD
/
cdopt to govern furtherp='me edings (ifconducted differently fron the ce
'.l any) regarding the Philipp export Commssion 3domeshcreactuheens, s [M 79-43]
m license applicatiens and other epplications of this type.Therefore,the. proceedings?Should the scope ofreview
. ~ ~ -
be different. andif so.tn what precise Accident He
. Safety Commission requests that participants and any other interested persons file way?
Recommendatlo 1.ettersand Care eere any factuel wiegel Responses; Avaliability with the Commission a statement of h
Speicallavestigati5n Repo:t views on the procedural and CQ Q
sa' d
turisdictionalissues outlined below e envircnmental review for some export Onscene Coor56:tirm Among or before hoyember 14,1979. The licenseapplications thanIor.cthers?
Agencies cf Hara 'dcus Materja/s identificationinthis order of certa.m Specifically, are su:h considerations.
Accidents.-Obs tions of emergency particular,ich the Commission believes applicable to the presentmatter?
response.activm sfollowing a March issues wh ly relevant for reviewing the After receiving submissions on he 31,1977,Tailroa accidentnear jurisdictional and procedura! aspects of jurisdictional and proceduralissues. the NationalTransp$ prompted the Rockingham. N.
tne matter is intended as Fuidance for Commission will expeditiously. review ortation Safety'Boara to those who may wish to participate in any newIllings, as wellas materials inititatee specidlinvestigation of these proceedings. If cor=nenters already submitted. and announceits emergencyresp mse plans for hanaling believe that there are other matters decision on theselssues. Atlhat time railroad accider ts:in which hazardous pertammg to the proceduraf and the Commission will21so' Issue a further materials, inclu ling those dassified es junsdictional issues which should be order defining the nature an3 scope of radioactive. are involved.The Safety considered by the Commission.their further proceedings Tif any) to be Board's formel eport.No.h7SB-1izM.
submissione should address those conducted on specificissues wiihin the 79-3. concernin;this special matters. Also the Commissie Commission s licensing jurisdiction investigationwas released.to the public recognizes that consideration of specific arising'from the pending Westing' house on Octoberal.j facts associated with the Philippine facility and component expert license The Safety. Board notesthat while the Export Applications maybe applications.
movement ofi[azardousmaterials instrumentalinresolving these general With regard 20 Petitioner 4*
through norm &I transportation: channels gunsdictional and proceduralissues.
consolidation requests, the' Commission is of concern.o Federal.Sta.c..andJocal Therefore. it is expected that the written notes that its Tules provide'lin '10 CE.R.
Governmen agencies amdto the public, ' -
submissions will discuss the factual 110.84(d)) that a hearing request will not the transpo.ation of:adioactive
. circumstances of the pendina,
be giarrted " prior to receipt and materials i of special concem.Jorthis i n estinghouselicense applicatJons. to evaluation oTExecutive Branch views on reason..sp cial plans designed to cope the extent relevant to the legal and the license application.**.Since Executive with eme. enciesinvohingradioactrve
/- -
policy questions underconsideration.
Branch views have not been received on materials ave been developed at in this first phase ofits proceedmgs.
the fuellicense application (XSNM-various lev ls of Gove:=mentandby the Commission specifir: ally requests 1437).-consolidation of thatlicense with-private industry. Those plans are the that the following issues be addressed:
the. facility.and component license most comprehensive yeticanulated for M
- 1. Whether (and if so, to whatextent) applications would not be appropriate at handlinghazardousanate:ials fY the Commissionpossesses the legal Sis time.Therefore, the Ccmndssionis emergencies.:and theyhaveserved as
. D."
authority or a legal obligation to
,salidating its consideration only of models for:m:my nonradiological s
%