ML19312D576

Provides Addl Comments on Effect of Proposed Reactor Export on Health,Safety & Environ Effects & Relationship of Effects to Defense & Security of Us.Nrc Consideration of Safety & Environ Effects Is Authorized & in Interests of Us

ML19312D576
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	Knight C COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
To:	Aheane J, Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8003240645
Download: ML19312D576 (4)

Text

, - --___ - ____ ,

UUUt'ict Tsu Autti  :

METJMPCRT .~]..g . .... ... ....,

~

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QU ALITY 722 JACKSON PLACL N. W. ,

WASHINGTON. o. C. 20006 February 29, 1980 9 C e  %

occKETED fe Ustma .

_\.

MAR 3 19 80 > .

Dr. John F. Ahearne 27 O!!itsof tht'M T ..

Chairman Dockat!::g & Sanke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission g C Washington, D.C. 20555 \g Or b Re: [ntheMatterofWestinghouseElectric Corporation (Exports to the Philippines)

Docket No. 110-0495 Application XR-l'!0

Dear Chairman Ahearne:

On February 8,1980, the Commission invited additional comment on (1) the health, safety and environmental effects that the above-referenced

' nuclear reactor exports could have on the global commons or the territory of the United States and (2) the relationship of these effects to the common defense and security of the United States. This letter supplements the Council's January 25, 1980 comments and responds to the Co ission's invitation for further comments.

As stated in the Council's letter regarding the Commission's jurisdic' tion in this proceeding, dated January 25, 1980, it is the Council's opinion that the Commission must make the fullest possible effort to implement NEPA's goals and policies and particularly its duties under Section 102(2)(F) of NEPA by taking into consideration not only the localized and regional environmental effects, but also the " worldwide and long-range character" of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed .

exports. We again urge that the Commission has jurisdiction under NEPA, the Atomic Energy Act, as. amended (42 U.S.C. 5 2011, et, seq.) and Executive Order 12114 (January 4', 1979) to consider these p'otential effects in

. taking action on the proposed exports. Indeed, NEPA significantly supplements and expands the Co ission's jurisdiction and imposes the duty to make environmental evaluations of all its decisions "to the fullest extent possible." Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v.

. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109,1122 (D.C. Cir.1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 942

. (1972). As Section 2-4(c) of E.O. 12114 indicates, the NRC is free to ge beyond.the terms of the Order and to pursue " measures in addition to those provided (therein] to further the purpose of the National Environ-mental Policy Act and other environmental laws...." Hence the review dP l

8003240[ h

cnlled for in E.O.~ 12114 constitutes only a minimum standard for the Commission to-follow. The NRC is under an obligation to fully exercise its.other statutory powers in furtherance of NEPA. We. refer the Commission

'to the cases ~and discussion in.the Council's letter of January 25, 1980 '

(pp. -' 2-3) .-

E /With: regard to the Commission's duties under NEPA and E.O. 12114, in o rder.to support a decision not to proceed with an environmental impact .

. statement'on the ptoposed exports, the Commission must adequately document its. threshold determination that there will'be.no significant-impact .from its action on the environment of the United States or the global ~- commons. (Department of Justice Opinion cencerning NEPA's application outside the United States, reprinted in the Legal Times, 0ctober 9,.1978).. In this respect, two ef the most important matters to

'- be addressed are (1) the potential impacts on neighboring oceans of accidents at the Philippine reactor, and (2) the potential impacts from

• radioactive vaste that would be generated by the reactor. Initially we observe that. under NEPA and E.O.12114,- if the proposed exports may have -

significant effects on nearby oceans or portions of other global commons areas, an. environmental impact statement is required with respect to the effects in those areas. To the Council's knowledge there are no environmental

• E impact statemsnes which sufficiently address these points for the purposes'of Commission's decisionmaking in this proceeding.

k The' Council'has reviewed the Final Environmental Statement on U.S.

Nuclear Power Export Activities (ERDA-1542, April 19.76) and its assessment of the potential impacts on the global commons of (1) accidents at the

. reactor proposed for export, and (2) the management of the high level vaste from the Philippine reactor.

Whatever the merits of that EIS's adequacy in terms of the U.S. reactor ,

export program in 1976, the Ccuncil believes- that developments since 1976 make that document insufficient for purposes of considering the environmental effects of the proposed Philippines reactor under NEPA and

, E. O.~ - 12114. Only 7 of the ERDA EIS's 580 pages even relate to these potential impacts. In terms of the global impacts of normal reactor

, operation,s,-the statement states that "Anl attempt to rigorously evaluate total world population dose

- commitment estimates would necessitate taking into account, in

. great detail, the location of-specific plants...and the popula-tion growth patterns....For the purposes of this Statement, such L

! assumptions and the evaluative effort.are not deemed appropriate...."

- .ERDA Export EIS, 5 2.3.2.2.

Yet the EIS purports to evaluate among oth'er matters p .

t

[.

t-(..

[..

s f .t L ,

c l ,

P

~ . = - .:--

>e

)

"the nature and approximate =agnitude of the i= pacts from only those activities conducted abroad (reactor operations and all related fuel cycle) which are related to U.S. nuclear power exports that potentially could affect the world's environment (i.e., global impacts) and, hence, the U.S. and the high seas." (Id. at 5 2.1)

Despite this' assertion, there is no discussion of the potential conse-

• quences of reactor accidents on the environment of the oceans and other global commons areas. Nor is there any consideration of specific sites I and their seismic, gcologic or meteorologic conditions. Instead, the four sentences in the EIS devoted to reactor accidents (Id at.1 2.3.4) suggest only that certain population doses were calculated into a single table pertaining to radiological dose consitments to the U.S. population

. from activities abroad. (Id., Table 2.3)

Th'e EIS likewise fails to provide any discussion of waste management that would be sufficient for use by the Commission in the context of .

this proceeding. The EIS prefaces its analysis with the qualification that "while recognizing that the question of ?u recycle is still open, both in the U.S. and abroad, we have assumed for this analysis that it

, will occur." (Id. at V 2.3.5.3.1) Hence, the discussion fails to consider the more probable difficulties and consequences of long term spent fuel storage or geologic disposal.

The EIS further' assumes that there is decreasing need for temporary spent fuel storage facilities. (Id. at 1 2.3.5.4.1) As indicated in the President's Statement on the Program on Radioactive Waste Management 4er (February 12, 1980), the situation is quite the contrary (pp. 3-4).

Thus, the Commission must carefully and independently consider the potential consequences on global commons areas of t'he management of the Philippine reactor waste.

The issues before the Commission are made even more complex by the characteristics of the Philippine site. It lies in one of the most active seismic areas in the world* and is in near proximity to the ocean. These factors and their potential threat to the nearby global commons areas warrant careful consideration by the Commission. The known characteristics of the site and the close proximity of the Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base also clearly indicate the need under NEPA, E.O. 12114 and the Atomic. Energy Act for the Commission to examine the potential health, safety and environmentt_ effects of the l proposed exports on U.S. citizens stationed at those bases.

khile the Council is not advocating that an EIS is required for the environmental effects of the proposed exports within the Philippines, it does assert the need to supplement the ERDA Export EIS to address the

• It is reported that only Indonesia and Italy have suffered more volcanic destruction than the Philippines, and that a volcano 60 .

miles from the site has erupted seven times since 1965.

m , . .

' ~

s4, indicated deficiencies if the Commission intends to rely on that document with respect to analysis and consideration of the export reactor's effects on the environ =ent of the global commons areas or the United

-States. .

The Commission has been advised by members of Congress and the Senate that an accident ste= ming from this export could incur a severe backlash on U.S. foreign policy and even impair national security. Such an .

incident could be seized upon by hostile nations and used against U.S.

interests, citizens and influence abroad. These are additional reasons why Commission consideration of the health, safety and environmental effects of the proposed exports is authorized in the interests of the co= mon defense and security of the United States.

Mi .

l In submitting these co=ments the Council is acutely aware of the need to maintain the United States as a reliable supplier of nuclear techology as mandated by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. However,

[ careful consideration by the Commission of the health, safety 'nd a i environmental effects of the proposed Philippines export is consistent with that Act and the foreign and non-proliferation policies of the Unites Ststes. ,

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely, v" , g .

s t @

! C. Foster Knight Acting General Counsel ec: Com=issioners Parties to the Proceedings e

N ,

4 e

.