|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML19310A6271980-06-10010 June 1980 Brief on Appeal Before Us Court of Appeals,Dc Circuit,From Commission 800506 Orders.Case Must Be Remanded to Examine Us Common Defense & Security Under Atomic Energy Act,Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act & Nepa.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19305D4561980-04-0303 April 1980 Motion to Stay Effectiveness of Final Order,Pending Appeal & Judicial Review Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines. Delay in Shipment Will Not Injure Interests of Exporter or Parties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19294C1251980-02-29029 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines. Effects on Global Commons Subminimal Per Apr 1976 Fes on Us Nuclear Power Export process,ERDA-1542.W/Certificate of Svc ML19290E3061980-02-29029 February 1980 Statement of Views in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Submittals Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Urges Preparation of EIS Updating ERDA-1542 & Addressing Possible Environ Impacts on Us & Global Commons ML19294C1191980-02-29029 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines. Impact on Clark Air Force Base & Subic Bay Naval Station Sufficient to Pose Threat.W/Certificate of Svc ML19294C1071980-02-29029 February 1980 Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines.Apr 1976 Fes on Us Nuclear Power Export activities,ERDA-1542,should Be Applied.Effects on Global Commons Not Related to Us Defense ML19322E2601980-02-28028 February 1980 Statement Opposing Proposed Export of Reactor & Matls to Philippines by Westinghouse.Nrc Should Not Approve Export of Reactor & Matls for Power Plant to Be Constructed on Slope of Volcano ML19294B6441980-02-28028 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Re Reactor Export to Philippines.License Should Be Issued Immediately. NRC Already Adequately Addressed Health Safety & Environ Effects ML19290E7051980-02-27027 February 1980 Comments & Argument in Response to Commission 800208 Order Inviting Further Views Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Adopts Wl Cummings 800129 Encl Affidavit Re Health,Safety & Environ Effects on Global Commons or Us Land ML19294B6041980-02-26026 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 791019 & 800208 Orders Re Reactor Export to Philippines.Steps Taken by Philippine Govt Assure No Adverse Health & Environ Effects on Us Global Commons.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19290E7081980-01-29029 January 1980 Affidavit Urging Denial of Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Export Threaten Philippine Sovereignity, Jeopardizes Global Commons & Affects Us Natl Security. Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211C6621979-12-27027 December 1979 Comments on NRC 791119 Position Per Commission 791019 Order. Urges Compliance w/1954 Atomic Energy Act Re Limitation of NRC Jurisdiction to Common Defense & Security of Us ML19211C6241979-12-27027 December 1979 Comments by National Power Corp of Philippines on NRC 791119 Submittal in Response to Commission 791019 Order.Urges Compliance W/Us 1954 Atomic Energy Act Limiting NRC Jurisdiction to Common Defense & Security of Us ML19257A3961979-12-19019 December 1979 Response to Westinghouse Objection to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.No Delay or Prejudice Will Arise from Granting of Request.No Other Group Can Represent Interests of Petitioners ML19257A6591979-12-19019 December 1979 Response in Opposition to Westinghouse Answer Objecting to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.Adopts Ctr for Development Policy,Movement for Environ Protection & Jn Perlas 790604 Consolidated Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML19260C6721979-12-18018 December 1979 Reply to Applicant Response to Petitioner Motion to Intervene.Urges Commission to Grant Intervention.Affidavit of Support & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260B6141979-11-29029 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Ctr for Development Policy, Philippine Movement for Environ Protection,Movement for Free Philippines & Nj Perias 791119 Pleading.Waiver of Export Rules Will Create Uncertainty Among Importing Countries ML19210E5401979-11-21021 November 1979 Response to NRC 791019 Request for Views on Philippine Export Proceedings.Hearing on Seven Items Outlined in 790419 Petition to Intervene Requested ML19210E5831979-11-19019 November 1979 Affidavit of C Planas on 791119 Re Westinghouse Application to Export Nuclear Reactor to Philippines.Application Should Be Denied Due to Health & Safety Risks & High Cost of Maint ML19260A6281979-11-19019 November 1979 Response to Commission 791019 Order Requesting Views on Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Requests Hearing on Issues Presented in 790419 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Documentation Encl ML19262A9881979-11-19019 November 1979 Brief in Lieu of Pleading,Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Questions Ability of Less Developed Nations to Deal W/Nuclear Technology Issues.Supporting Documentation Encl ML19253C3591979-11-19019 November 1979 Memorandum Stating Position Re Export of Nuclear Reactor to Philippines in Response to NRC 791019 Order.Nrc Has No Jurisdiction Over Matters Affecting Health & Safety in Foreign Countries.Certificate of Svc & Exhibits Encl ML19210E4861979-11-19019 November 1979 Comments in Response to Commission 791019 Order Requesting Views on Commission Jurisdiction to Consider Nuclear Reactor Effects in Foreign Country.Proceeding Affects Foreign Policy Which NRC Cannot Formulate ML19210E6181979-11-15015 November 1979 Statement of Views by Natl Power Corp,Agency of Govt of Philippines,In Response to Commission 791019 Order.Atomic Energy & Nuclear Nonproliferation Acts Were Not Promulgated to Dictate Policies on Foreign Nations ML19210D9251979-11-14014 November 1979 Response to Commission 791019 Order for Views on Procedural & Jurisdictional Issues.Relevant Legal Considerations Discussed May Justify Different NRC Health,Safety & Environ Reviews for Some Export License Applications ML19253C1351979-11-12012 November 1979 Affidavit Alleging That Philippine Govt Has Not Carefully Considered Impacts of Proposed Reactor.Nrc Should Conduct Thorough Health,Safety & Environ Review.Reactor Would Be Unsafe.Exhibits Encl ML19253C1231979-11-12012 November 1979 Petition to Intervene in Form of Brief Requesting License Denial.Urges Review of Commission 791019 Order Re Seismic & Geological Risks,Design Adequacy,Environ Impact,Spent Fuel Disposition & Other Issues.Hearings Requested ML19210D9791979-11-12012 November 1979 Responds to 791019 Order Requesting Views on Jurisdictional & Procedural Issues.Nrc Failed to Comply w/791004 Deadline for Implementation of Executive Order 12114.NRC Is Restrained from Action on Westinghouse Application ML19250C6581979-11-0808 November 1979 Natl Power Corp Statement of Views Re Pending Westinghouse Export Application.Export License Should Be Granted W/O Further Proceedings ML19268B9901979-11-0606 November 1979 Affidavit Stating Observation of Commission 790623-0810 & 0913-14 Hearing in Philadelphia,Pa.Objects to Scope of Hearing & Limited Opportunity Given to Participants ML19256F0671979-11-0202 November 1979 Brief in Lieu of Pleading Per Commission 791019 Order Inviting Submittal of Questions Re Scope of Commission Jurisdiction Over Foreign Environ.Alleges That Environ Impacts in Philippines May Be Connected W/Us Security ML19256F0731979-10-19019 October 1979 Affidavit Alleging That Westinghouse Has Been Bribed by Marcos Govt.Contends That Location of Reactor on Slope of Volcano Believed to Be Active Will Cause Harm to Us Military Personnel Located in Adjacent Areas ML19256F0721979-10-19019 October 1979 Affidavit Alleging That Philippine Environmental Matters Will Be Aggravated by Allowing Exportation of Nuclear Reactor from Us.Urges Commission to Disapprove Proposal ML19209D2001979-10-10010 October 1979 Notice of Friends of Filipino People Intention to File 791016 Petition to Intervene,Along W/Opposition & Request for Participation.States Experience Gained in Representing Us Citizens Concerned About US-Philippines Relations ML19254C8261979-10-0909 October 1979 Supplemental Memorandum in Response to NRC Supplemental Answer.Psar & Other Primary Evidence Were Prepared by Members of Group Applying for Full Participation in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc & Affidavits Encl ML19261F1541979-10-0909 October 1979 Answer in Opposition to Movement for Free Philippines Motion to Amend 791003 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Petition Is Untimely & Does Not Satisfy Requirements. Separate Intervention Status Should Not Be Granted ML19254F0231979-10-0303 October 1979 Motion That Ctr for Development Policy 790419 Petition to Intervenor Be Amended to Add Movement for Free Philippines as Petitioner.Members Are Political Refugees.Affidavit of H Alvarez & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254F0261979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 790420 Petition to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Public Hearing.Asserts Vital Interest in Export Proceeding ML19254C8511979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Ctr for Development 790420 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Alleges Discovery of Contradicting Applicant Submittal ML19254C8451979-10-0303 October 1979 Motion to Amend 790419 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Participation Will Draw Filipino Attention to Risks & Hazards Created by Reactor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254F0271979-09-28028 September 1979 Affidavit of L Mattison on 791003 Re Supplemental Memorandum to 790420 Petition to Intervene.Intervention Is in Public Interest & Would Assist NRC in Making Required Determinations.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254C8521979-09-28028 September 1979 Affidavit Attesting That Ctr for Development Policy Conducts Independent,Nonpartisan Research of Us Development Programs, W/Primary Attention Focused on Nanot Point Reactor Project. Requests Intervention to Present Evidence ML19254C8501979-08-31031 August 1979 Affidavit Attesting Authorization to Intervene on Behalf of Movement of Free Philippines.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254D4891979-07-11011 July 1979 Transcript of Republic of Philippines Commission on Nuclear Power Plants 790711-13 Hearings in Manila,Philippines. Transcript Divided Into Sections by Stenographer ML19261D6981979-06-0404 June 1979 Joint Reply of Petitioners to NRC & Westinghouse Request for Denial of Intervenor Status.Petitioners Have Standing Under All Applicable Tests.Consolidation of Licenses Will Aid Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19257A2541979-05-23023 May 1979 Answer in Opposition to Friends of the Filipino People & Coalition Against Reactor Exports 791106 & 15 Briefs. Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate Standing & Raised Questions Outside NRC Jurisdiction.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9811979-05-23023 May 1979 Applicant Answer to 790419 Petition to Intervene.Joint Intervenors Are Untimely,Lack Standing,Raise Issues Outside Jurisdiction of NRC & Fail to Demonstrate That Hearing Is in Public Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263E2461979-04-19019 April 1979 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Per 10CFR110 by Ctr for Development Policy,Jn Perlas & Philippine Movement for Environ Protection.Supporting Documentation Encl 1980-06-10
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML19305D4561980-04-0303 April 1980 Motion to Stay Effectiveness of Final Order,Pending Appeal & Judicial Review Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines. Delay in Shipment Will Not Injure Interests of Exporter or Parties.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19290E3061980-02-29029 February 1980 Statement of Views in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Submittals Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Urges Preparation of EIS Updating ERDA-1542 & Addressing Possible Environ Impacts on Us & Global Commons ML19294C1071980-02-29029 February 1980 Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines.Apr 1976 Fes on Us Nuclear Power Export activities,ERDA-1542,should Be Applied.Effects on Global Commons Not Related to Us Defense ML19294C1191980-02-29029 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines. Impact on Clark Air Force Base & Subic Bay Naval Station Sufficient to Pose Threat.W/Certificate of Svc ML19294C1251980-02-29029 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Requesting Further Views on Proposed Reactor Export to Philippines. Effects on Global Commons Subminimal Per Apr 1976 Fes on Us Nuclear Power Export process,ERDA-1542.W/Certificate of Svc ML19322E2601980-02-28028 February 1980 Statement Opposing Proposed Export of Reactor & Matls to Philippines by Westinghouse.Nrc Should Not Approve Export of Reactor & Matls for Power Plant to Be Constructed on Slope of Volcano ML19294B6441980-02-28028 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 800208 Order Re Reactor Export to Philippines.License Should Be Issued Immediately. NRC Already Adequately Addressed Health Safety & Environ Effects ML19290E7051980-02-27027 February 1980 Comments & Argument in Response to Commission 800208 Order Inviting Further Views Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Adopts Wl Cummings 800129 Encl Affidavit Re Health,Safety & Environ Effects on Global Commons or Us Land ML19294B6041980-02-26026 February 1980 Comments in Response to Commission 791019 & 800208 Orders Re Reactor Export to Philippines.Steps Taken by Philippine Govt Assure No Adverse Health & Environ Effects on Us Global Commons.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211C6621979-12-27027 December 1979 Comments on NRC 791119 Position Per Commission 791019 Order. Urges Compliance w/1954 Atomic Energy Act Re Limitation of NRC Jurisdiction to Common Defense & Security of Us ML19211C6241979-12-27027 December 1979 Comments by National Power Corp of Philippines on NRC 791119 Submittal in Response to Commission 791019 Order.Urges Compliance W/Us 1954 Atomic Energy Act Limiting NRC Jurisdiction to Common Defense & Security of Us ML19257A6591979-12-19019 December 1979 Response in Opposition to Westinghouse Answer Objecting to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.Adopts Ctr for Development Policy,Movement for Environ Protection & Jn Perlas 790604 Consolidated Reply.W/Certificate of Svc ML19257A3961979-12-19019 December 1979 Response to Westinghouse Objection to Friends of the Filipino People Request to Intervene.No Delay or Prejudice Will Arise from Granting of Request.No Other Group Can Represent Interests of Petitioners ML19260C6721979-12-18018 December 1979 Reply to Applicant Response to Petitioner Motion to Intervene.Urges Commission to Grant Intervention.Affidavit of Support & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260B6141979-11-29029 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Ctr for Development Policy, Philippine Movement for Environ Protection,Movement for Free Philippines & Nj Perias 791119 Pleading.Waiver of Export Rules Will Create Uncertainty Among Importing Countries ML19210E5401979-11-21021 November 1979 Response to NRC 791019 Request for Views on Philippine Export Proceedings.Hearing on Seven Items Outlined in 790419 Petition to Intervene Requested ML19210E4861979-11-19019 November 1979 Comments in Response to Commission 791019 Order Requesting Views on Commission Jurisdiction to Consider Nuclear Reactor Effects in Foreign Country.Proceeding Affects Foreign Policy Which NRC Cannot Formulate ML19262A9881979-11-19019 November 1979 Brief in Lieu of Pleading,Re Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Questions Ability of Less Developed Nations to Deal W/Nuclear Technology Issues.Supporting Documentation Encl ML19260A6281979-11-19019 November 1979 Response to Commission 791019 Order Requesting Views on Nuclear Reactor Export to Philippines.Requests Hearing on Issues Presented in 790419 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Documentation Encl ML19253C3591979-11-19019 November 1979 Memorandum Stating Position Re Export of Nuclear Reactor to Philippines in Response to NRC 791019 Order.Nrc Has No Jurisdiction Over Matters Affecting Health & Safety in Foreign Countries.Certificate of Svc & Exhibits Encl ML19210E6181979-11-15015 November 1979 Statement of Views by Natl Power Corp,Agency of Govt of Philippines,In Response to Commission 791019 Order.Atomic Energy & Nuclear Nonproliferation Acts Were Not Promulgated to Dictate Policies on Foreign Nations ML19210D9251979-11-14014 November 1979 Response to Commission 791019 Order for Views on Procedural & Jurisdictional Issues.Relevant Legal Considerations Discussed May Justify Different NRC Health,Safety & Environ Reviews for Some Export License Applications ML19210D9791979-11-12012 November 1979 Responds to 791019 Order Requesting Views on Jurisdictional & Procedural Issues.Nrc Failed to Comply w/791004 Deadline for Implementation of Executive Order 12114.NRC Is Restrained from Action on Westinghouse Application ML19250C6581979-11-0808 November 1979 Natl Power Corp Statement of Views Re Pending Westinghouse Export Application.Export License Should Be Granted W/O Further Proceedings ML19256F0671979-11-0202 November 1979 Brief in Lieu of Pleading Per Commission 791019 Order Inviting Submittal of Questions Re Scope of Commission Jurisdiction Over Foreign Environ.Alleges That Environ Impacts in Philippines May Be Connected W/Us Security ML19261F1541979-10-0909 October 1979 Answer in Opposition to Movement for Free Philippines Motion to Amend 791003 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Petition Is Untimely & Does Not Satisfy Requirements. Separate Intervention Status Should Not Be Granted ML19254C8261979-10-0909 October 1979 Supplemental Memorandum in Response to NRC Supplemental Answer.Psar & Other Primary Evidence Were Prepared by Members of Group Applying for Full Participation in Proceeding.Certificate of Svc & Affidavits Encl ML19254F0231979-10-0303 October 1979 Motion That Ctr for Development Policy 790419 Petition to Intervenor Be Amended to Add Movement for Free Philippines as Petitioner.Members Are Political Refugees.Affidavit of H Alvarez & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19254F0261979-10-0303 October 1979 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 790420 Petition to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Public Hearing.Asserts Vital Interest in Export Proceeding ML19254C8451979-10-0303 October 1979 Motion to Amend 790419 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Participation Will Draw Filipino Attention to Risks & Hazards Created by Reactor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19261D6981979-06-0404 June 1979 Joint Reply of Petitioners to NRC & Westinghouse Request for Denial of Intervenor Status.Petitioners Have Standing Under All Applicable Tests.Consolidation of Licenses Will Aid Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19257A2541979-05-23023 May 1979 Answer in Opposition to Friends of the Filipino People & Coalition Against Reactor Exports 791106 & 15 Briefs. Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate Standing & Raised Questions Outside NRC Jurisdiction.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19269D9811979-05-23023 May 1979 Applicant Answer to 790419 Petition to Intervene.Joint Intervenors Are Untimely,Lack Standing,Raise Issues Outside Jurisdiction of NRC & Fail to Demonstrate That Hearing Is in Public Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19263E2461979-04-19019 April 1979 Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing Per 10CFR110 by Ctr for Development Policy,Jn Perlas & Philippine Movement for Environ Protection.Supporting Documentation Encl 1980-04-03
[Table view] |
Text
.
.. s c4
. . .-. nygd g DOCKET NUMBER g ]r-----
- v----
g4Ssj j EXPORT lMPORT.- t c, S 2F o[ -
q@ t c5s, #I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gs s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION %e#a'T A
- 2 to In the matter of )
) Application No. XR-120 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. )
) Docket No. 110-0495
)
(Exports to the Philippines) ) Application No. XCOM 0013
) Application No. XSNM0 1471 COMMENTS OF THE CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY
- AND-THE MOVEMENT FOR A-FREE PHILIPPINES-These proceedings result from the November 18, 1976 filing of an application by the Westinghouse Electric Corp. to export a nuclear reactor to the Philippines and two subsequent applications to export component parts and fuel. All pertain to the proposed nuclear power plant at Napot Point,. Bataan, the Philippines ("the Site"). On April 19, 1979 the Center for Development Policy filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene, which was subsequently joined by the Movement for a Free Philippines (hereinafter " Petitioners"). In response to NRC's October 19, 1979 order requesting public input on six specific questions, Petitioners filed detailed comments as to the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction herein. .
3 This document responds to the Comission's February 8,1980 Order requesting additional public comments on the issue of whether the proposed exports herein pose a threat to either, United States territory or the " global commons" and the relationship of such hazards "to the common defense and
~,..
N ei. .
^%.._
W ar - ...
80030607 %
security of the United States." As explained more fully below, we suggest that these issues at best are tangential to making NRC's Congressionally mandated findings in nuclear export cases and, based on discussion at the Commission's January 29, 1980 meeting, apparently constitute an effort to avoid the central problem--viz. whether the NRC in this case may avoid evaluating the Site's seismic and volcanic hazards.
In brief, Petitioners contend that NRC correctly perceived the pertinent issues in its October 19, 1979 Order herein, earmarking the second phase of these proceedings for "particular health, safety and environmental aspects of the Napot Point facility." Now, after Petitioner Center for Development Policy has brought much expert opinion and evidence on those questions to NRC's attention */ indicating that the site hazards have been systematically understated and may well render it unsuitable, the Commission seems to be ducking those problems by limiting its inquirty to matters outside Philippine territory. We will demonstrate below that this is statutorily impermissible on the facts of the instant case.
In the Atomic Energy Act and the 1978 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, P.C.25-242 ("NNPA"), Congress has charged the Commission with determining whether
- / See evidence in detail in Petitioners' November 19, 1979 Brief.
this and other proposed nuclear exports will Dose unreasonable risks either to (1) this nation's common defense and security or (2) public health and safety interests. 42U.S.C.2133a,42U.S.C.2139b.1/ Only if able to answer both questions in the affirmative can NRC issue an export license. By limiting the present inquiry to United States territory or global commons, the Commission apparently seeks to narrow its responsibility to make these determinations on the basis of a reliable record despite the vast and growing record questioning the Site's suitability on seismic and volcanic grounds.2/
Although some NRC staffers claim that additional NRC site investigation will produce no " fundamentally new information,".3,/ exoert opinion to the contrary continues to accumulate. For example, there is a " low but not A
1/ See also the August 26, 1979 Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Comission in Westinghouse-Electric-Corp. v. Hendrie, C.A. No. 79-2060 (D.D.C.) and Westinghouse-Electric Corp. v. Vance, C.A. No. 79-2110 (D.D.C.), pp. 26-29.
2_/ Compare Chairman Ahearne: "
[W]e ought to obtain all the information that is available. That does not lead me to conclude that we ought to require the same amount of information as required for a domestic site," (Transcript of NRC's January 19,1980 " Discussion and Vote in SECY-80-20, Philippine Export Application," p. 39), and Commissioner Gilinsky: "I would limit our responsibilities to health and safety responsibilities, to effects on the United States and on the ' global commons'--and environmental responsibilities, too." (Id. at p. 47) 3/ SECY-80-20, p. 31, emphasis in original (1/15/80).
necessarily remote" likelihood that the Site's safe-shutdown earthquake would exceed the "high value of seismic design. By way of comparison, the staff of the NRC would require for a domestic site that the likelihood of exceedance of the design level be demonstrably remote."4I -
Moreover, evidence mounts that potentially disastrous volcanological hazards were both inadequately measured and severely understated by Ebasco, the American firm consulting for the Philippine National Power Corporation.
Christopher Newhall of Dartmouth University recently submitted to NRC an eighty-six-page analysis of the site's volcanological risks and Ebasco's failurestomeasurethemadequately.5/ He concluded: "I cannot describe theEbascovolcanologicalworkaseithercarefulorobjective."5I The United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), at NRC's request, reviewed Mr. Newhall's study. It found that he raised "a number of important questions inaforthright,scientificmannerandhisargumentsarepersuasive."U USGS concludes that Ebasco inadequately explored the Site's volcanological 4/ John Kelleher, " Review of Reports Relating to the Philippine Reactor Site," July 18, 1979 (released by the Commission in response to F.0.I.A.
Request 79-463 on November 16, 1979), p. 5.
5/ " Review of Volcanological Discussions in the PSAR and Related Documents, Philippine Nuclear Power Plant No. 1," December 22, 1979.
6/ Id. at p. 85.
7/ USGS " Review of Volcanological Discussions on the PSAR and Related Documents, Philippine Nuclear Power Plant #1," February 22, 1980, p. 1.
history and that "without such a firm understanding of the historic and prehistoric record of eruptive activity, a meaningful volcanic hazards assessment of the Mt. Natib region, let alone the Napot Point site, is not possible."$/
The courts have made clear that an agency charged by Congress to carry out a regulatory scheme must evaluate carefully all facts and issues material to makingdeterminationsunderthatscheme.2/ Thereft e, NRC's appropriate response to conflicting and unclear evidence on key statutorily defined issues is to weigh it thoroughly and, where necessary, secure additional evidence rather than avoiding key questions.E/
The lengthy proceedings involving the proposed Philippine reactor demonstrate that the statutory determinations in these cases ultimately turn upon a clear evaluation of the Site's hazards. Yet this is the very issue the Commission apparently seeks to avoid or dispose of on the basis of the dubious evidence supporting the applications, despite recent events which underscore the enormous importance of the affected military bases--Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Air Force Base--to this nation's common defense and security interests.
8/ Id.
9/ See, e.g., The Public-Service Commission for the State of New York v.
Federal Power Commission, 511 F. 2d 338, 345 (D.C. Cir.1975) (hereinaf ter "Public Service Commission"); Greater Boston-Television v. FCC' 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970) cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Lir. 19b9). .
3 / See, e.g., Public-Service-Commission, supra.
Subic Bay Naval Station is the key base for American naval vessels responding to the ongoing crises in the Pers*an Gulf. Therefore, a nuclear accident which would close or severely limit Subic Bay's cperations would jeopardize the United States' military capabilities in the Middle East as well as Asia and thus almost certainly be " inimical" to our common defense and security interests.
Furthermore, United States and Filipino defense interests are mutual and coextensive. Bothnations'governmentshaverecognizedthisbytreaty.E Therefore, attempts by the Commission to artificially limit common defense and security considerations to those which occur within the territory of the United States and outside the territory of the Philippines are unrealistic and, under NNPA's common defense and security standard, arbitrary and unlawful.
In the same fashion, a large radioactive release at the Site would certainly threaten the health and safety of the 30,000 Americans at the military bases. Therefore, we suggest that in this case both statutory licensing standards--public health and safety and common defense and security--require a careful analysis of the Site's hazards, l_1/ See eg . 1952 Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Philippines, August 27, 1952, Department of State Publication 4733 (1954) and the March 26, 1947 Treaty covering U.S. military bases in the Philippines, Department of State Publication 3257 as amended January 1979.
In its January 29, 1980 meeting, the Commission seemed obsessed with deciding whether notions of national sovereignty prevent a thorough review of site hazards in nuclear export matters in general and this case specifically.
We suggest that that question was resolved by Congress in NNPA and, if NRC is uncomfortable with its legislative mandate, the appropriate response is to seek new legislation, not to attempt to to rewrite Congress' law. 2/
.4oreover, the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission ("PAEC") in 1978 specifically requested that NRC review the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Ebasco had prepared and an NRC employee (Charles Willis), on leave to the International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA"), has served as the PAEC's chief safety expert on this project. Therefore, whatever its pertinence in other cases, the issue of sovereignty has been effectively waived here. It is too late in the day for the Commission to overlook its intimate involvement in the Philippines government's evalution and assessment of the site hazards And, as USGS suggests, a thorough analysis of certain Site characteristics and dangers is necessary before NRC may consider issuing export licenses.
Some NRC Commissioners seem inclined to take an impermissibly broad approach to the sovereignty doctrine. Even the Department of State, for example, is of the opinion that sovereignty does not preclude NRC's focusing upon U.S. military bases and the threat to these bases posed by site 12/ See Greater-Boston-Television v. cCC, supra, and Public Service Emmission, supra.
P I
hazards.1d/ Tne NRC staff takes the same approach to finding that the Commission has authority to thoroughly evaluate the Site.11/
To measure and assess the Site's hazards, NRC or other U.S. government personnel need not conduct an intrusive site visit. First, it is entirely possible that the Philippine government, which relies heavily upon U.S.
friendship and expertise and has far more to lose in case of a nuclear accident at Napot Point, might welcome a reliable examination and evaluation of the Site.
Second, even if the Philippines opposes an American site investigation, additional tests and monitoring recommended by IAEA, Newhall, USGS and other independent experts can be carried out by agents of the Filipino government and the results, as with the previous data, transmitted to NRC.
The strategic importance of the Subic Bay and Clark installations demands this factfinding.35/ The intrusion upon Philippine sovereignty seems nonexistent so long as no site analysis is forced upon that nation.
13/ See, SECY 80-20 pp. 3-4. -
14/ SECY 80-20, p. 14.
15/ We should note that protecting U.S. military interests is frequently the Justificationunderinternationallawadvancedbyourgovernmentforsuch severe actions as military occupation or invasion of foreign territories (e.g.
Nicaragua (1923) and Dominican Republic (1965)). Without endorsing the merit of such extreme measures in general or in any particular case, it seems ironic to Petitioners that NRC apparently seeks to avoid compiling nothing more intrusive than an accurate evidentiary record in a case like the instant one where the relationship between its actions and America's vital military interests is so plain.
8-
In sum, on the basis of the evidence of major site hazards before the Commission and the sharp and profound challenges to and conflicts within this evidence, the Commission has but two choices in conducting its statutorily mandated inquiries: (1) seek additional and reliable evidence about key site hazardsl6/ or (2) decide that there is insufficient evidence to make the statutorily required determinations and transmit the application to the President pursupnt to 42 U.S.C. 2155(b)(2). In either case, examining the impacts on U.S. territory or the global commons seems superfluous. Rather, impact on Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Station, and their U.S.
residents, is sufficient to require careful analysis of the Site's volcanic and seismic hazards.
cdllys m' d, JRes
,/
. L Thomas l}/ Aper si b/' W ~
Matt' hew B. Bogin Thomas R. Asher, P.C.
1232 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Third Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 452-1540 Attorneys for Center for Development Policy and Movement for a Free Philippines 16/ USGS clearly endorses this approach: "Newhall simply makes a plea for more fieldwork to: a better establish the geologic setting of samples dated or chemically analyzed); and b) improve evaluations of the various kinds of volcanic hazards on a point-by-point basis for the mapped area, including and especially the vicinity of the Napot Pt. site. Newhall's observations and questio .s (p. 20-23) are valid and pertinent, and should be addressed." USGS Review p. 2.
_9_
8
.? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Comments of the Center for Development Policy and the Movement for a Free Philippines were mailed this 29th day of February, 1980 first class postage prepaid, to:
Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Joanna Becker, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Peter Tarnoff, Executive Secretary U. S. Department of State Washington, D. C. 20520 Barton Z. Cowan, Esquire John R. Kenrick, Esquire Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott 42nd Floor, 600 Grant Street -
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
-/
Mattliew B. 80g15
- CA
,Z ,cb -
~
h [
+ c 6
.