ML19296B253
| ML19296B253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000574 |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Church F SENATE, FOREIGN RELATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296B254 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-80-020, SECY-80-20, NUDOCS 8002200332 | |
| Download: ML19296B253 (4) | |
Text
.
fpwag%
UNITED STATES
[V) 3,%' g,, g!f, f E
- f n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
W ASWNGT ON,0. C. 20M5
%;&g g
\\O +
- January 23, 1980 CHAmMAN The Honorable Frank Church, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Commission appreciates your courtesy in providing us with a copy of your.
December 21, 1979, letter to President Carter urging pro:npt 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 ilove,nber 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 revica of this application extended for almost three years before submission to the NRC is indicative of the difficulty and complexity of the issues posed by this matter.
Promptly thereafter, on October 19, the Commission ordered public proceedings on the Philippine application, af ter making the determination that such proceedings would assist the Commission to make its statutory determina-tions and would be in the public interest. The Philippine application raises novel issues pertaining to the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction and the decision to hold public hearings on this matter 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.
Tho Commission specifically invited written public comments on six issues relating 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 procedural framework for considering such issues if they are found to lie within NRC's authority. The Commission decided not to solicic comments at that time on issucs related to the particular health, safety and environmental aspects 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 Commission. 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.
8002200 13 2--
~
'The Honorable Frank Church 2
The Commission intends to act upon these applications before the summer 1980 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 2.
OGC/0PE analysis
-,-,.y Q
, g y @*, #dWfW::dsh6n.;/**fET.E"Tfh-N.WWWM2 7WS#W 3
r f
federal Register / Vol. 44.' Nd. 208 / Thursday. October 25.1979/ Notices 61475
\\
ro i rty. financial, o\\
r other interest in Director. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Decause action had not been taken on-i Ihe oceeding; and (3) the possible -
Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555.
the reactor application.on August 3,.
cffeft of any order ivhich may be Nontimely fdings of petitions forleave 1978 Westinghbuse submitted an l
entered in the proc' cding on the to intervene.' amended petitions.
application (XCOM-0013) requestm, g e
I
>etitioner's interest. The petition should supplemental petitions and/or requests authorization to export components to also identify the specific aspect (s) of the for hearing will not be entertained the Philippines which would permit -
subject matter of the proceeding as to absent a determination by the construction activities related tothe t which petitioner v}ishes to intervene.
Commission, the presiding officer or the facility to continue while the U.S.
erson who has filed a petition for Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Government reviewed the reactor I
An -[to intervene or who has been designated to rule on the petition and/or application. On November 3.1978. the-lea l
admitted as a party may amend the ~~,
request. that the petitioner has made a Executive Branch recommended that petition without requesting leave of the substantial showing of good cause for NRC issue the component license.The Board up to fif teen (15) days pr:or to the the granting of a late petition and/or.
Commission has deferred cetion on the' first prehearing conference scheduled in request.That determ, nation will be component license application pending -
h d
but such an amended based upon a balancing of the factors receipt of the Executive Uranch views pe i io mu atisfy the specificity SP'Cbd in 10 CFR i 2.714(a) (iHv) and on the facility application.
l2 d
?
requirements described above.
r further' details with respect to this The Petitioners-The Center for I
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to action, see the application for renewal Devel pment Policy (CDP) lesus the first prehearing conference
. dated July 2.1979, as may be Nicanor P. Perlas,111. and the Phih, ppm, e.
M vement for Environmen'al Protection t
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner supplemented by future submittals.
i shall file a supp!ement to the petition to which is available for public inspection. (PMEP)-specifically requested a inten ene w hich'must include a list of at the Commission's Public Document hearing on seven issuesj (1) the nature the contentions ivhich are sought to be Room.171711 Street NW., Washington, and magnitude of seismic and geological f
htigated in the matter, and the bases for D.C.
i-adequacy of the reactor s seismic risks poged by the reactor site: (2) the.
cach contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Content'ons shall ogh','obe f
da. Manland. this 18th day design: (3) the environmental impact of tne proposed reactor and disposition of i
be hmited to matters within the sco;>e of nen t.Comy Regdaton Conm..
its spent fuel:(4) dangers to the health T r the Nucle sim the renewal action under consideration.
I A petitioner who' fails to file such a Acuipef. Op\\ ungReacto s Bran @,
and safety of Philippine citizens posed supplement which satisfies these by the reactor:(5) dangers to the health -
era i
requirements with respect to at least one mi nofope{cungReactm and safety of U.S. citizens residing in the i
contention will not be permitted to m m N imm5 =1 Phibppines: (6) risks to the effective i
- C E 7" partic!pate as a party.
operation of U.S. mihtary installations in
' Those permitted to intervene become the Philippines: and (7) Seneric safety,
parties to the proceeding. subject to any. iDocket No. 110-0495 Application Nos.
questions posed by nuclear power I
hmitations in the order granting leave to XR0120 and Application No. XCOM-00131 plants, and by Westinghouse reactors in
.'Np"[tc g"u th cond t f1 Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Exports e 2G 1979. another group, the I
hearing. including the opportunity to the Philippines); Order concerned citizens Reactor Export I
present evidence and cross-examine On April 19.1978, the Nucle ir Review Board, also requested an
)
witnesses.
I Regulatory Commission received a opportunity to submit informatio. on the I
A request for a hearing or a petition Petition for leave to intervene and for a Philippine export applications.
I for leas e to intervene shall be filed with hearing concerning a bcense application On September 28.1979, the Executive the Secretary of the Commission. United by Westinghouse Electric Corporation Branch submitted its views States Nuclear Regula bry Commission.
C *'. ring the export cf slightly enriched recomraending issuance of XR-120. On Washington D.C.20555. Attention:
uramum to the Mppines, and to October 10.1979, the Commission l
Docketing and Service Section, or may.
c ns lidate consideration of that license discussed the pending intervention and with two other nuclearlicense hearing requests at a public Commission be dehvered to the Commission's Public
)
Document Room.171711 Street NW" applications pending for the meeting. After thoroughly considering Philippines.8 The matenal would be the submissions already received from washington. D.C. by the above date'last used to fuel a nuclear power reactor Petitioners, the Applicant
)
Where petitions are filed during the j
ten (10) days of the notice period. it is bems constructed by the Philippine (Westinghouse Electric Corporation).
requested that the petitioner or National Power Corporation at Napot and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Point on the island of Luzon.
staff, the Commission has decided that it i
representative for the petitioner.
Corporation submitted an application to public proceedings in this matter.The The Westinghouse Electric would be appropriate to order further
~
[
promptly so inform the Commission by a toll free telephone call to Western export a nuclear facility (XR-120) to the Commission believes that such Un,on at (600) 32M000 (in Missour3 1
i Philippines on November ta.1976.The proceedings would assist it in making (800) 312-0700). The Western Union s
Commission did not receive final the statutory determinations required by operator should be given Datagram Executive Dranch views on that g
Identification Number 3737 and the the Atomic Energy Act and would be in application until September 28.1979.'
the public interest See 10 C.F.R.
g following message addressed to Robert
(
Reid: (petitioner s name and telephone 110.M(a)(1) and (2) and Cection 3N(b) of
'The Commission had rub!:shed a notice of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of r
number); (date petition was mailed):
receipt of this ticense applic son fxsnt-14'1)i".
1978, 4 2 U.S'C' '155a~
L (Texas A&M); and (publication date and the Federal itegister en Mm.b rA 19'9. 44 Fed. Reg page number of this Federal Register 1'Qr section usar )cf the Aiorme eners:y Act et state that it is the judgment of the cuecutive notice). A copy of the petition should the comm,,, ion m.y noi i,,,, a r,.cior,, port er.nch thei ise proposed export witi not be olso l'e sent to the Executive lega!.
heense unta it *has been net:r.ed t.y th, secrei.ry inimic.f to the common defense and secunty * -
(
~MV y-2
)
3 G106 l'ederal Register / Vol. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25, 3979 / Notices J'
r
' O..
The issues which have been raisedJn examine.the health, safety and applications XR 120 andXCOM-ools the present matter Ldlinto two general environmentalimpacts of an exported for purposes of the present proceeding.
e ca teFories. First.1here are lhose issues nuclear.fecility in reachingdts licensing flowever.it should be noted thatissues A-which pertain to theproper scope of the determination (specifically,which of the raised by all three license applications v-Coaumssion's jurisdiction toexamine sevenIssues raised by Petitioners are are substantially1he same. and.that the.
health, safety an3 environmental appropriate for Commission <eview)?
Commission would expect to consider '
questions atising from the construction
- 2. Is the Commission's health..saIety all relevant matterspertaininglo.the -i..
and operation oTexportednuclear or.cnvironmentilreview of export Philippine exports in the scope of the - -
.M^
~
facilities, and what. procedural license. applications tunited to-lhe proceeding commencediby.this cracr. V framework would be appropriate Ior connection of.these issues with.the.U.S.
TheCommission does notreach a 1 -1 ".
considering such issues,II they are
, common defense and security.or are decision on whether any of the
. G.
~ '
found to lie withinNRC authority.The there other legal principles which permit Petitioners 1s en~ titled to alearing under ' '
second category oTissues are,particular or requi e.the Commisrlon to examine Section I& of the Atomic Energy Act. '
health, safety.and environmentil these matters as part ofits. licensing Since the' Commission has dec'ided to : $
aspects of the Napot'PointIacilityTfor review?
authorize a hcaringpursuant to'Section' exampie, the reactor's.scismic design)
- 3. What issues arising hem the 304(b) o! the Nucicar Nonproliferation v
which th: Commissionhas~been asked application to export a nuclear facility Act, thatissuels moot.
-J to examine in the context tif its export to.thePhilippines should the It is ordered.
licensing review.The Commission Commission. examine in.anyfuture Dated at Washington.I)C,1his 19th Bayof beheves it would be useful, before pubhc proceedmg?
October 1979.
ordering arry proceedings on this second
- 4. Wha! procedural.formatshould the Tor the rommission.
group of issues. toreceive submissions Commission adopt.to examine.any Samuel }.Chilk.
from the participants and any other foreiy.n health, safety and environmental I; sues falling within its junsdiction?
3,,,,,,G,,j,3, gg,m;,,7,,
interested individuals vr-oups concerning the precise stop I th 5.lf health, safety and environmental N S2"N 2"**=1 Lommission,s foreign health, safety und esPects of a U.S.-suPP ied nuclear e m cox 7s* m a l
envuonmental jurisdiction and what f cMity cre to be rvaluatedin'theNRC procedures the Commission should export licensing process in what adopt to govern further proceedings (if specme manner should this review be NATIOQLTRANSPORTATION SAFETYB RD any) regardmg the Philipp'me expert c nducted d1fferently from the license applicatiens and.other Commissmn,s domesticteactorlicensing (N-AR 79 13]
apphcutiors of this type.~fherefore.the. pr ceedings?Should the scope ofreview Commission requests that participants be different, endif so.in whatprecise Accident Repo.,. Safety and any other interested persons file way?
Recommendatio 1.ettersand with th'e Commission a statement of
- D Oere any factualor legal Responses; Availability sje Speicall vest gati m Report yiews on the procedural and Q5 51 t
junsdictional issues outlined below en environmental review for some export Onscene Coordnetion Amen; or before hovember 14.1979. The A encies or Hazafdsus Mc'eriols identification m tnis order of certain I censempp1! cations thanIor.others?
E issues which the Commission believes Specifically, are su::h considerations.
Accidents.- Obs tions of emergency particul rly relevant for reviewing the applicable to the present 2 natter?
response activiti -followings March g
After receiving' submiss ~ ions on the 31,19 7,railroa accident near jurisdictional and procedural: aspects of the inatter is mtended as guidance for Jurisdictional end proceduralissues the Rockingham, N.. prompted the Commission will expeditiously review NationalTransportation Safety' Board to those who rnay wish to participate m any new 'f!!mgs, as well as materials inititate.a specif t investigation of these proceedmss. If commenters alreadv suhmitted, and announce its emergency resp ;nse plans for handling believe that there are other matters decisio'n on these issues. Atihat time railroad accider ts:in which hazardous pertainmg to the procedural and the Comrriission willilso issue a further ma terials. inclu Jing those classified as jurisdictional issues which should be order acTming the nature and scope of radioactive, arc involved.The Safety considered by the Commission.their further proceedings Uf any) to be Board's formal ceport. No.'NTSB-1TZM-submissions should address those conducttd on specific issues within Ibe 79-3. concerninrthis special matters. Also, the Commission Commission's licensing jurisdiction investigation was re' leased to the public recogni7es that consideration of specific arising'from the pendingwestmghouse on Octoberal.}
facts essociated with the Philippine facility and component export license The Safety Haardrotes that while the Ex;> ort Applications.may be appic'a tions.
movement of 1/azardous snaterials instrumental in Jesolving these general With regard 20 Petitioners
- through normil transportation.thannels jurisdictional and proceduralissues.
consolidation requests, the' Commission is of concern.o FederalcState :andlocal Therefore,it is expected that the written notes 1 hat itsTules provide'[in'10CJ.R.
Governmen+ agencies andte thepublic, submissions will discuss the factual 110 84(d)) that a hearing request will not the transpo tation ofradioactive s ; circumstances of the pending be granted ". prior to receipt and materials i of special concem.Jonhis i 'Westinghouselicense applications. to evaluation oTExecutive Branch views on reason..sp cial plans designed to cope the utent relevant to the legal and the license app!!catiorr.Since Executive with eme enciesinvolvingradion tive
- policy questions under consideration.
Branch views have not ;een received on materials ve been developed at In this ftrst phase ofits proceedings.
the fuellicence application [XSNM-various le is of Government.andby the Commission specifically requests 1437). consolidation ' thatlicense with-priva te inditstry. Those plans are the that the following issues be addressed:
the. facility and ccmponent license most compryensive yet fannulated for
- 1. Whether (and if so, to what ntent) applicatmns would not be apptcpriate at handling hazardous 2naterials f
. %j the Commissionpossesses the legal this time.Therefore. the Ccnunissionis emergencies,mnd they haveserved es cuthority or a legal obligation to consolidating its consideration only of models forantmy nonradiological a