ML19294C125
| ML19294C125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000574 |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1980 |
| From: | ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003060755 | |
| Download: ML19294C125 (15) | |
Text
.
g DCCKlUED USNRC 7
8:
MAR 41980 > 3 Office of the S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V
C@ ting & S@
Branch
,Q,
.N/
Ip3l\\\\'
In the Matter of Docket No. 110-0495 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Application No. XR-120 Application No. XCOM-0013 (Exports to the Philippines)
COMMENTS OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSION ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1980 These comments are submitted on behalf of West-inghouse Electric Corporation
(" Westinghouse") in response to the Commission Order dated February 8, 1980, inviting comments upon "(a) the health, safety or environmental effects the proposed exports [to the Philippines] would have upon the global commons or the territory of the United States, and (b) the relationship of these effects to the common defense and security of the United States."
Westinghouse submits that the proposed export to the Republic of the Philippines of a nuclear steam supply system and related equipment, together with certain com-ponents thereto and the nuclear fuel for such reactor, will have such a subminimal impact upon the global com-mons and the territory of the United States as to be de minimis.
Westinghouse further submits that sucil sub-minimal effects have no relationship whatever to the 600306 0)Ij(j'
common defense and security of the United States.
BACKGROUND In February, 1976, the Philippine National Power Corporation ("NPC"), an agency of the Philippine Govern-ment, entered into a contract with Westinghouse for the purchase and construction of a nuclear power plant on Napot Point on the Bataan Peninsula, about forty-five miles west of Manila.
On November 18, 1976,. Westinghouse filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion ("NRC" or " Commission") for a license to export to the Republic of the Philippines the Nuclear Steam Supply System and related equipment.
This application, No. XR-120, was assigned Docket No. 50-574, and is one of the applica-tions here under consideration.
Subsequently, on August 3, 1978, Westinghouse filed an application for a license to export certain components to be used in the construction of the nuclear plant for which the facility export license had been sought.
This application, assigned Application No.
XCOM-0013, also is the subject of the instant proceeding.
On March 6, 1979, Westinghouse applied to the NRC for a license to export nuclear fuel for use in the reactor under construction.
The fuel license, Application No. XSNM-1471, was assigned Docket No. 110-0495, and is the third license under consideration in this proceeding.
By letter dated November 3, 1978, the Department of State informed the Commission that with respect to Application No. XCOM-0013 (the components license appli-cation), the Executive Branch concluded that the " proposed export would not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States," and recommended issuance of the license.
Similar advice was given by.the Depart-ment of State by letter dated September 28, 1979, with respect to Application No. XR-120 (the facility license application).
On October 17, 1979, the Department of State provided the Executive Branch judgment on Applica-tion No. XSNM-1471 (the fuel license application) and recommended that that license be issued.
Thus, all three licenses which are the subject of the instant proceeding have been recommended for issuance by the Executive Branch.
In an Order dated October 19, 1979, the Commission established a two-phase hearing procedure leading to a decision on these export license applications.
-Pursuant to that Order the Commission during the first phase received and reviewed public comments on "those issues which pertain 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 what procedural framework would be appro-priate for considering such issues, if they are found to lie within NRC authority" (Commission Order, October 19, 1979, p. 3).
On February 8, 1980, the Commission invited further public comment specifically relating to the three Philippine applications before the Commission.to " assist
-the Commission in making the statutory findings required by the Atomic Energy Act."
(Commission Order, February 8, 1980, p. 1).
This document is responsive to the Commission's invitation.
DISCUSSION In April, 1976, the Energy Research and Development Administration ("ERDA") published a generic environmental impact statement addressing the environmental, social, tech-nology, economic, national security and foreign policy bene-fits and costs to the United States of the United States nuclear power export program (Final Environmental Statement on U.
S. Nuclear Power Export Activities, ERDA-1542, April, 1976).
Export activities covered in the statement included activities related to the export of commercial nuclear steam supply systems and nuclear fuel for commercial use in foreign power reactors.
The environmental impacts on the United States and the global commons of the nuclear fuel cycle operations and nuclear power plant equipment manufactur-ing associated with the export activities were assessed through the year 2000.
An evaluation was made of the
" nature and approximate magnitude of physical environ-mental impacts that could affect the world environment and the U.S. directly from activities abroad attributable to projected nuclear power exports through the year 2000" (p. 1-6).
The ERDA statement concluded as follows:
"On the basis of these generic analyses and review of the many studies and programs previously conducted, it is concluded that there should not be significant adverse global impacts from radioactive, thermal and chemical efflu-ents resulting from the volume of nuclear power and fuel cycle activities related to U.S.
exports expected in the year 2000."
(p. 1-7)
In September, 1979, the Executive Branch issued in connection with current export license applications a Concise Environmental Review for the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 1 (the " Executive Branch Environmental Review").
Taking note of the generic environmental state-ment on nuclear power exports prepared by ERDA in April, 1976, the Executive Branch Environmental Review stated:
"ERDA-1542 concluded, among other things, that the level of projected United States nuclear power export activities through the year 2000 would not entail significant and unacceptable adverse environmental impacts to the United States and global commons.
The nature of United States nuclear power export activities, as they relate to potential environmental impacts, has not altered substantially since issu-ance of ERDA-1542 in April 1976, ex-cept that the export activity levels have proved lower than then projected.
Therefore, the environmental impact of such activities is expected to be even less than estimated in ERDA-1542.
There is also no reason to believe that the nature of such activities described in ERDA-1542, as they relate to environ-mental impacts, will significantly change in the foreseeable future."
In light of the conclusion reached in the ERDA Environmental Review that the entire United-States reactor export program has only a minimal impact on the global commons, and in light of the statement of the Executive Branch that the nature of United States nuclear export activities, as they relate to potential environmental im-pacts, has not altered substantially since April, 1976 (except for a lower level of such activity), the impact on the global commons of any single reactor export must necessarily be subminimal.
In this regard, Westinghouse agrees with the position taken in SECY-80-20, dated January 15, 1980, by the Office of Policy Evaluation and the General Counsel of the Commission, that the conclusion of an assessment of the impact for any individual reactor export "would be that the impact is insignificant" (p. 17).
As part of its assessment of the environmental impacts in the United States and on the high seas result-ing from United States nuclear export activities, ERDA-1542 discussed the impacts on the United States environ-ment resulting from the manufacture of the nuclear power plant components and equipment for the export market.
In so doing, it noted that such manufacturing is only a small segment of the total manufacturing industry in the United States and concluded that "the environmental im-pact of the manufacture of nuclear reactor components and equipment is essentially negligible in relation to the impact of the total manufacturing effort in the United States" (p. 5-92).
Nonetheless, ERDA-1542 went on to consider the impact that a particular manufacturing facility might have on its enuironment, utilizing for this purpose the Draft Environmental Statement issued by the NRC Staff for the facility to be used for manufacturing floating nuclear power stations by Offshore Power Systems on Blount Island, Florida.
The NRC Staff in that context had found that on the basis of evaluating the proposed manufacturing facility, there was nothing inherent in the operation of such facility to warrant denial of the manu-facturing license.
This conclusion was subsequently con-firmed in the Final Environmental Statement, Part I, relating to floating nuclear plants (Final Environmental Statement Related to Manufacture of Floating Nuclear Power Plants by Offshore Power Systems, NUREG-75/091, October, 19 75).
Thus, it is clear that the manufactur-ing of the nuclear power facility destined for the Philippines wil.'. have only a negligible health, safety or environmental effect on the territory of the United States.
A perspective on the environmental effects of worldwide production of nuclear power (including produc-tion from non-United States manufactured reactors) is contained in a 1977 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation entitled
" Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation."
The 0.ited Nations Scientific Committeo collected and assessed data on human radiation exposures to present both individual exposure data indicating possible levels of risk to which individuals are subject under certain circumstances and data which could be used to indicate total consequences in radiation harm from a given source of radiation.
The estimated global whole dose body commitments for different sources was expressed as the duration of exposure of the world population to natural radiation which would cause the same dose commitment.
Thus, a one-year exposure to natural sources would cause a global dose commitment of 365 days.
Using this standard, the global dose commitment for one year of energy production from nuclear power plants at the then (1977) installed capacity of 80,000 MWe was 0.6 days.
Assuming nuclear technology remained the same, one year of energy production at the then pro-jected nuclear installed capacity for the year 2000 of 6
2 x 10 MWe would lead to an annual global dose commit-ment equivalent to about fifteen days of natural radia-tion exposure.
By comparison one year's use of radiation in medical diagnosis in 1977 was stated to have a global dose commitment of 70 days.
Since the United Nations figures included all nuclear power installations, and since the global dose commitment included commitment to individuals most of whom would be located within the territorial boundaries of sovereign nations outside the United States or the global commons, it is evident that the global dose commitment resulting from the United States nuclear export programs to persons located within the global commons and located within United Sta es ter-ritory will be subminimal.
In connection with the three export license applications here under consideration, the Commission has been notified by the Department of State that it is the judgment of the Executive Branch that the " proposed export would not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United states."
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, and the Commission regulations issued pursu-ant thereto, the Commission, after obtaining such Executive Branch advice, till issue an export license if it finds, inter alia, that the proposed export will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
Westinghouse submits that the subminimal effects of the Philippine export on the global commons and the territory of the United States do not affect in any manner the conclusion that the proposed export will.not be inimical to the common derense and security.
The common defense and security requirement in the statute is focused on the Com-mission examining the non-proliferation aspects of the proposed export.
In that regard the Commission, under Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act, is required to utilize certain criteria designed to assure that the nuclear facili-ties and materials being exported will be used for peaceful purposes only and not for the purpose of furthering the
.uclear weapons program of a foreign government.
Westing-house submits that there is no way in which the negligible health, safety or environmental impacts on the global commons or United States territory resul'.ing from export of the nu-clear reactor and fuel to the Philippines could affect the conclusions reached by the Commission under Section 127 of the Atomic Energy Act or otherwise af fect the Commission's common defense and security determination.
It should be noted that among the agencies partici-pating in the formulation of the Executive Branch judgment under the Atomic Energy Act was the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense clearly waa in the best position to evaluate the nuclear powcr export to the Philippines with respect to the common defense and security of the United States.
In view of this, it is noteworthy that the Executive Branch-judgment that granting the export licenses here under consideration would not be inimical to the common defense and security was without qualification.
It also is note-worthy in this regard that the Executive Branch advice dated September 28, 1979 relating to the facility license application sets forth the confirmation of the Government of the Philippines of that nation's adherence to the pro-visions of its Agreement of Cooperation with the United States and the fact that the Philippine Government has ratified the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
SUMMARY
Westinghouse believes that the health, safety or environmental effects the proposed exports would have upon the global commons or the territory of the United States are subminimal and are fully included within the generic evaluation performed by ERDA and reported in the Final Environmental Statement on U. S. Nuclear Power Export Activities (ERDA-1542).
Westinghouse also submits that any health, safety or environmental effects on the global commons or the territory of the United States have no relationship whatever to the common defense and security of the United States.
Westinghouse again urges the Commission to act promptly in this matter.
The facility export license application before the Commission has been pending -for more than three years; the components license application before the Commission has been pending for more than eighteen months; the fuel license application before the Commission has been pending one week short of one year.
Congress, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, made it clear that expeditious processing of nuclear export licenses was required.
Westinghouse was pleased
.to note that in the Commission Order of February 8, 1980, the Commission declared that the current public proceed-ing on these nuclear export license applications will be completed on February 29, 1980 - the date of the filing of this document.
Westinghouse urges that the Commission promptly consider the comments received in response to that Order and make a rapid determination with regard to the grant of these license applications.
Respectfully submitted, s
l.'
r k, /\\
i Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott
/
I hc,.. a t f. ll u.
.< i u Law Department Westinghouse Electric Corporation Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation Dated:
February 29, 1980
'N x-
/, s '
.Q f._
e..r.,.._
'L 0010 0 u
H
.MR l'd -,3 Cf the Secret LII UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
e4.
g\\g s.
..fitin & Service s '.N P'a. ch
/
s /,,
g In the Matter of N
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. XSVMO-1471 (Nuclear Fuel Export License for the Philippines)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Comments of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Response to Commission Order Dated February 8, 1980 were served upon the persons listed on Attachment 1 to this Certificate of Service by deposit in the United States Mail (First Class), postage prepaid, this 29th day of February, 1980.
-/
/
/ / w,,1 v.. a -]
Barton Z.
Cowan Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Corporation
ATTACHMENT 1 SERVICE LIST Samuel J.
Chilk, Secretary Ronald J.
Bettauer, Esquire U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Legal Adviser for Washington, D.C.
20555 Nuclear Affairs U.
S.
Department of Stste Chase R.
Stephens, Chief Washington, D.C.
20520 Docketing & Service Section U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas R.
- Asher, P.C.
D.C.
20555 Matthew B.
Bogin, Esquire 1232 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Howard K.
Shapar, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20036 Joanna Becker, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director James E.
Drew, Esquire U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1712 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Carlton R.
Stoiber, Esquire Earl Nicholas Selby, Esquire Office of the General Counsel 2361 Columbia Street U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Palo Alto, California 94306 Washington, D.C.
20555 Barton Z. Cowan, Esquire Peter Tarnoff, Executive Secretary John R.
Kenrick, Esquire U.
S.
Department of State Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellot*
Washington, D.C.
20520 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15210
.