ML20246M771
| ML20246M771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/08/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Studds G HOUSE OF REP., MERCHANT MARINE & FISHERIES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246M777 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905190249 | |
| Download: ML20246M771 (6) | |
Text
r H,;
4.
l
=
'o, -
UNITED STATES gd NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{~
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 3
May 8, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gerry E. Studds, Chairman Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries United States House of Representatives l
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I have received your letter of April 12, 1989, concerning your draft amendment to H.R. 1113, legislation to reauthorize the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and to amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on your proposal, which, if enacted, would have a significant impact on U. S.
nuclear regulatory programs and our relationship with foreign governments.
Our detailed comments on the draft amendment to H.R. 1113 are enclosed.
In general, we believe that the proposal presents significant difficulties in at least three areas.
The requirement for analyzing environmental impacts within the territory of' foreign nations is likely to be objected to by nations con-sidering whether to import nuclear facilities and fuel from the United States; the likely effect is that recipient countries will simply turn to other suppliers.
The probable result is economic harm to the United States, unaccompanied by any benefit to the global environment, as well as a weakening of this country's ability to further its non-proliferation goals.
The proposal also envisions a substantive decisionmaking role for the Council on Environment'l Quality.
As currently drafted, your amendment to H.R. 1113 appears to give CEQ the authority to issue regulations binding on independent regula-tory agencies and to regulate the votes of U.S. agencies in such international bodies as the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We.believe this spproa'ch goes far beyond the essen.
tially advisory role previously intended for CEQ by the Congress and would seriously limit our ability to make the independent regulatory judgments that the Congress expected of us when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created in 1975.
hh 8905190249 89050s PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
\\
i
oo
\\....
J l
Finally, the proposal woulo require that agencies reevaluate old environmental impact statements, even in the absence of any indication that a project has had unforeseen environmental consequences.
We believe that this-aspect of your draft amendment would impose a significant burden on the already limited resources of various Federal agencies, including the NRC, without necessarily realizing any public health and safety benefits.
As'a result of these concerns, we find ourselves unable to support tiie prorosed amendment.
If you have any questions regarding our position, please contact me.
Sincerely, M W-c.
, Jr. h Lando W.
Zec cc:
The Honorable Don Young
Enclosure:
Detailed NRC Comments I
t, ' ' '
a e
~.
Comments on Amendment NRC Coments on Amendment to H.R.1'113 1.
The proposal envisions that NEPA environmental impact statements (EIS) will be required to evaluate impacts occurring within the territory of foreign nations. This represents a departure from the general rule, as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332 (1937), that "our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation, unless in respect of our own citizens." Requiring an impact statement within the borders of a foreign nation presents extreme diffi-culties of obtaining adequate information, especially on alternatives to the proposed action. With regard to nuclear reactor exports, the evalua-tion of alternative sites, alternative power sources, and need for power could prove particularly problematic.
Foreign nations may be expected to object to allowing the United States to undertake the responsibility of deciding the acceptability of environmental impacts which will occur within their sovereign territory, and which they have already deemed i
i deceptable. Those nations may regard the requirement of an EIS as an inappropriate effort to impose American views on the tradeoff between environmental and other values on the rest of the world.
See the attached letter from Louis V. Nosenzo, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State to James J. Shea, Director of NRC's Office of International Programs, dated March 31, 1977, and NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (no f
environmental impact statement required for export of nuclear reactor to the Philippines). Not only are foreign governments likely to object to having exports conditioned on satisfying the procedures of American 1
.m
. environmental law in order to go forward with projects they have already deemed to be in their citizens' best interest, such a broadening of NEPA would presumably give any citizen of a recipient country the legal standing to object to the sufficiency of an environmental impact statement involving that country.
2.
The most probable effect of a requirement for evaluation of environ-mental impacts within foreign countries is the immediate and severe impairment of American competitive.ess on world markets.. Recipient nations are unlikely to buy from a source under conditions which would impose extensive procedural requirements regarded as an invasion of sovereignty and which would subject the project to uncertain delivery dates as a result of potential court challenges.
In the nuclear area, such a requirement is likely to harm U.S. exports drastically. Rather than serving any environmental interests, the proposal is likely to benefit those exporting nations which do not have comparable restrictions.
Thus this proposal is likely to cost American jobs, possibly in large numbers, without benefiting the global environment.
3.
In the nuclear area, such a requirement is likely to undercut national policy in the non-proliferation area, since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 22 U.S.C. 3201, has as one of its basic tenets the need for the United States to be a reliable and timely supplier (with short time deadlines established in the Act) of nuclear reactors, materials, and equipment to nations with good nonproliferation credentials.
It would be difficult to prepare the environmental impact statements that would be i
l t.... 1 required under this proposed legislation for nuclear reactor exports within the time frames contemplated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
4.
The proposal appears to give CEQ the authority to issue regulations binding on independent regulatory agencies. As such, it goes counter to established NEPA law, under which "CEQ guidelines are not binding on an agency to the extent that O P agency has not expressly adopted them."
Limerick Ecoloay Action, Inc, c. NRC, F.2d (3rd Cir. Feb. 28, 1989) (slip op at 51).
From a policy standpoint, it is also questionable whether an Executive Branch agency should be given the power to prescribe how an independent regulatory agency will comply with the substantive laws that bind it.
5.
The proposal confers on CEQ the authority to regulate " votes and other actions in international conferences and organizations" by entities of the U.S. Government. As such, the participation of the NRC in the International Atomic Energy Agency could be significantly impaired. This could result in adverse public health and safety or nonproliferation repercussions. Such authority would be a major departure from the essentially advisory role envisioned for CEQ by the National Environmental Policy Act.
6.
The proposal that agencies be required to reassess past environmental j
impact statements might appear desirable if Governmental resources were unlimited, but in a time of major efforts to curb deficits, we question
{
whether it would be the most worthwhile expenditure of limited NRC k
4 1
1
F.
l l
. resources. Where a project leads to serious environmental problems, it may be useful to consider whether the EIS accurately gauged the likely i
effects of the project, but in the absence of any such problems, a re-examination of the EIS would amount to an academic exercise. We further a
note that the NRC licensees carefull.y monitor environmental impacts, particularly those from power reactors.
Should any significant adverse environmental impacts arise from reactor operation, this would be promptly i
communicated toLthe acency so that the NRC can take any necessary regulatory actions.
Enclosure:
Nosenzo letter l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.