ML19322E262

Comments on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines.Nrc Legally Entitled by Nonnuclear Proliferation Act of 1978 to Consider Effects on Philippine Population & Americans Connected to Subic Bay Naval Base & Clark Air Force Base

ML19322E262
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	Lewin R, Parsons R FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 8003270052
Download: ML19322E262 (3)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:" _ _ _ _ _ g DOCKET NUMBER ~

 "*                                                                                                                 EXPORT.lMPORT.r N.OMETS                        [
            .                                           $s  c                                                                                      --
                                              .}

f@.b FEB 2 91980> [5 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH 530 7TH STREET S.E., WASHINGTON D.C. 20003

                                                %{       Era, *[a                           (202) 543-4313 4          #

DAvl0 BRO rman of the Board EDWlN M ATTHEWS. President February 29, 1980 Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Friends of the Earth is an environmental organization designed to protect the environment, and to seek alternative energy approaches to the energy dilemma that are safe and environmentally sound. In joining with the dissent of Commissioner Bradford, we feel it is unfortunate that as a matter of policy only, the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission has resolved only to consider the environmental, health, and safety effects that the proposed export would have upon

                                                 " global commons" or the territory of the United States. The N.R.C.

is legally entitled by the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Act of 1978 to consider the effects on the Philipine population, and even the 27,000 American citizens connected to the Subic Bay Naval Base and the Clark Air Force Base. Initially, it must be recalled that '.n August 1979 during the litigation involving Westinghouse versus the N.R.C. and the State Department, the government argued 'that "it is conceivable that a safety or health risk could so threaten U.S. relations with a recip-ient country-or a U.S. military facility in that country-that it would jeopardize important U.S. security or defense interests such as an ally or base rights." Furthermore, U.S. attorneys cited pos-sible affects from any accident on the " global commons" giving "a clear interest in insuring that the world's nations carefu]ly evalu-ate activities taken under their authority." In order to remain consistent with these statements, and in light of the faulty, heavily criticized, and biased review performed by EBASCO, we feel that the U.S. must conduct its own review. As was brought out at the recent N.R.C. hearing, an examination of the environmental, health, and safety effects only on " global commons" rules out such issues as evacuation planning, disposal of spent fuel, and airborne releases. As our recent experience at l Three Mile Island indicates, the existence of an emergency evacuation plan is an issue of increasing importance. 1 l Of major concern is the future of the reactor's radioactive I spent fuel and its ultimate disposal. This issu.e also is of major consequences, and impacts directly on the United States' capacity to store foreign spent fuel. Radioactive emissions could have disasterous results to the U.S. citizens in the event of a tragic

                                                                                                                             . ~ ......

Commined to the preservation restoration, and rational use of the ecosphere 10Fi recycled paper g

a D h

   .                                                                       I mishap. Before a license is granted, and before it can be determined if this export ef fects " global commons" ar.d the U.S. , these issues should be reconciled.

We would also like to raise nuclear proliferation concerns as a threat to " global commons" and the territory of the United States. Friends of the Earth would be remiss not to point out the leading role of the United States in the promotion of the export of nuclear i technology. While the State Deparunent's policy has consistently encouraged that export policy, the U.S. government has, at the same time, cited its concern about the proliferation of nuclear materials. This inconsistency underscores the fact that the " peaceful atom" is a misnomer. Heed should have been paid to the reports in March 1946 of the Acheson-Lilienthal Committee which proclaimed that if an internation-al Atomic Development Authority did not halt national nuclear pro-grams by gaining a monopoly over all nuclear activities with military potential, the proliferation of nuclear weapons could not be prevented. The pledged word and good faith of a country is questionable as history has shown. National revalries and tensions overcome concern about proliferation, and military options "must" be kept open. This concept is currently exemplified by the Pakistani-Indian and Argen-tina-Brazil rivalries. Existing in the volatile region of Southeast Asia, the Philipines is no exception. Among other conflicts, claim of the Paracel and Spratley Islands is disputed among the Philipines, Vietnam, and China. Internally, circumstances are even more unstable. President Marcos' regime is constantly frustrated by its inability to put down the Moro National Liberation Front centered in the traditionally Moslem areas of Mindanao and Sulu. Putting nuclear weapons capability into the hands of a nation where the leadership is unstable is a risk too high for the U.S. to bear. The odds on the Marcos regime lasting the life of the reactor are small. In turn, the odds that the junta overcoming the U.S. backed regime will be anti-American are great. Consequently, we could end up arming potential enemies. The record of the last several years shows that U.S. participation in the world market has little, if any, bearing on U.S ability to exercise influence on the nuclear decision-making of other countries, at least not in a manner consis-tent with nor-prolife. ration policies. The U.S. is fortunate in that it has the capability of exporting other energy technologies. Geothermal power is especially conducive to Philipine needs. Mr. Chester Budd of Union Oil Company, Geothermal Division in Los Angeles, California (213 486-6100), upon recently returning from the Philipines, confirmed that by this y1ar, 440 mega-watts of geothermal energy are to be in transmission, with a potential for 500-1000 additional megawatts predicted for the near future. By 1985, coal streams are scheduled to account for 620 megawatts of power. (Reportedly, the 600-megawatt proposed nuclear reactor can be done without.) In light of the serious problems, including design defects, and the apparent catastrophic volcanic ind seismic hazards at the site, we again find it appalling that the Commission has chosen to ignore 2 ,

.% a i direct health and safety aspects o:f this export. Secretary Vance, in his letter to Senator Church on May 12, 1979, while recognizing that health and safety were sovereign responsibilities of the Philipine government, said that "we would be remiss in our responsibility if we were to approve any exports from the United States without consid-eration of hazards that might occur from such exports." Congress, through the National Environmental Policy Act and the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Act of 1978, has also asserted that the N.R.C. has the legal authority and responsibility to conduct a health, safety, and environmental review of nuclear reactor exports in regards to the welfare of the public. Twenty-five members of the Members of Congress for Peace through Law, and Senator Claiborne Pell in an indi-vidual letter, wrote to the N.R.C. outlining their sentiments and previous legislation ascertaining these facts and, furthermore, pro-claiming that the Dataan/ Westinghouse reactor specifically requires such a review. They also cite that the Senate Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the N.R.C. has stated that "there can be no real-istic separation between the criteria for nuclear exports and the criteria for licensing domestic uses of similar materials and facil-ities." Even concerning the environmental, health, and safety effects on global commons and United States, as pointed out above, the U.S. must conduct its own careful review and determine the answers to such pertinent questions that the disposal 6f spent fuel poses. In view of Congressional urging, our hope is expressed that the Commission will change its mind on its jurisdictional decision, and finally, in light of the instability of the Philipine government, nuclear pro-liferation concerns should not be discounted. It would be dishonest and may prove to be e fateful error to encourage nuclear development in unsuspecting and undeveloped coun-tries. At the very least, the U.S. government has the moral obliga-tion to assure the same level of health and safety requirements for exported reactors as for domestic reactors. Indeed, most of the im-porting countries have an inexperienced or non-existent regulatory process unable to deal with a sophisticated nuclear program. It is clear that Eisenhower's " Atoms for Peace" program has not proceeded as expected. Let us therefore let " atoms rest in peace." It makes good " global commons sense" for all mankind. Sincerely, W t,ldO LQ Renee Parsons Legislative Representative G L --{' . (n-' Roland . Lewin Research Associate

                                                          .}}