ML19290E306

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

ML19290E306
Person / Time
Site:	05000574
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	Barnes J, Scherr S, Weiss E CENTER FOR LAW & SOCIAL POLICY, National Resources Defense Council, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8003100196
Download: ML19290E306 (10)

Text

.' x 01 DOCKET NUMBER ggg[

to RT.lM PORT. "

17 d 4 $ TREE gW WASHINOs ON. D C 20036 202 872 0670 FOR g ocjo C

LAW 2 Q

qM 5 Jaa " emaa N Ih,#NS3

, - Nancy Duff Campbell AND W } **C E'n ' C (f. Roger S Fester SOCIAL g, @ uk'a"8'"eLO,'e Magaret A Kohn POLICY O c) 29 February 1980 d ca ,n McAteer.

LeonadC Meeker Sanford A Newman

• Cao# Ocoenreimer Before the MaNyn G Am UNITED. STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION * Te'o'"p*SaU**eS Herbert Semmel Richard L Webb Amewre se La.

e goe admewo e o C In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 110-0495 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. ) Application No. XR-120

) Application No. XCOM-0013 (Exports to the Phillippines) )

STATEMENT OF VIEWS These comments are submitted on behalf of the Philippine Movement -

for Environmental Protection, the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Sierra Club, pursuant to the Commission's Order dated February 8, 1980. That Order invited the submission of public views relating to: (1) the health, safety or environmental impacts that the proposed export of a nuclear reactor to the Philippines would have upon the global commons or the territory cf the United States, and (2) the relationship of these impacts to the common defense and security of the United States. ..

I. INTRODUCTION

_ .3 The undersigned organizations firmly believe that if the United States is to be a truly " reliable supplier" of nuclear technolo y, as C

8003100  ;

s .

8 the law requires, it must take steps to assure that U.S. reactors sold to foreign customers are designed, sited and constructed safely and that recipient countries can operate them safely. A serious accident at a U.S.-supplied reactor abroad could directly affect our environment at home, and would have severe national security and foreign policy repercussions.

Before the NFC issues any license for the export of a nuclear reactor, the Atomic Energy Act requires it to " find that the proposed export will not be inimical to the commen defense and security or to the health and safety of the public." 42 U.S.C. S2013(d), as amended August 26, 1964. S. Rep. No.'1325, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 28-29 (1964).

Subsequent federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Nuclear Non-Pro,liferation Act of 1978, require that such a finding be based in part 'cn1 the. NRC',s independent examination of all of the health and safety risks and potential environmenta.1 impacts associated with reactor exports wherever they might ari'se. (See our previous Statement of Views on Further Public Proceedings, I? 14ovember 1979) .

'o These legislative requirements have been reaffirmed by President Carter's Executive Order # 12114 of January 4, 1979, which explicitly recognizes the responsibiliby of the United States to ensure that its nuclear exports do not harm the health of foreign citizens and the environments of other nations.

The undersigned organizations deplore the Commissioners' decision of January 29, 1980 which has purported to limit the scope of the NRC's licensing review to the potential impacts of the Philippine reactor export on the global commons and U.S. territory. Such a

_ decision violates both the requirements that have been imposed on the NRC by the laws cited above and considerations or sound policy. It reflects a callous disregard for the health and well-being'of some 30,000 U.S. citizens residing within forty miles of the proposed nuclear reactor site in the Philippines.

The Senate Report on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 indicates con-gressional awareness of this type of situation:

Although the NRC finding on the health and safety of the public refers only to the American public, it should be recognized that certain overseas activities could pose a threat to Americans.

S. Rep. No.95-467, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in Legislative History of the NNPA of 1978, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Prolifera-tion, and Federal Services of-the Senate' Committee on Government Affairs 469, Jan. 1979.

The Commission must also examine whether the proposed export would be inimic'al to the " common defense and security" interests of the United States. An accident at the proposed reactor could threaten important U.S. military bases in Southeast Asia and seriously harm U.S.

relations with the Philippines. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance has emphasized that the foreign policy interests of the United States would be enhanced by a complete examination of the possible effects of nuclear exports. In a letter to Senator Church concerning the State Department's assessment of the proposed export to the Philippines, Secretary Vance stated:

I feel that we would be remiss in our responsi-bility if we were to approve any exports from the United States without consideration of hazards that might accrue from such exports.

[ Letter of Secretary Vance to Senator Frank Church, May 12, 1979]

Moreover, in its submission to the NRC of November 15, 1979 regarding

. ~4-this proceeding, the State Department formally admitted that, "there are circumstances in which certain health, safety and envir6nmental factors may be taken into account by the Commission."

(p.2). It is well recognized that many countries, particularly those in the developing world, lack the technical expertise and skilled personnel necessary to assure the safe operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC has both a legal and a moral obligation to ensure that an exported technology as potentially dangerous as nuclear fission will not be mishandled with disastrous consequences.

The refusal of the Commission to examine the environmental, health and safety risks associated with the proposed reactor in the Philippines ' .is simply irresponsible.

The undersigned organizations do believe that the potential impacts of the Philippine eactor export on the global commons and on U.S. territory warrant detailed examination by the NRC.

However, this contention and the discussion that follows should not in any way be perceived as undermining our view that the Commissioners' decision to limit the scope of the NRC's licensing criteria contravenes relevant legal requirements and policy considerations. We further believe that it is not . appropriate for ' he Commission to solicit c

further public comments on the proposed reactor export before pro-viding a formal justification for this decision.

II. NUCLEAR WASTES GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PHILIPPINE REACTOR WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON BOTH THE GLOBAL COMMONS AND U.S.

TERRITORY Few environmental problems are more significant, or more global in scope, than those posed by the management of nuclear waste material. The choices which the United States makes

with regard to its nuclear export activities will have inevitable consequences in terms of the generation of wastes which must be managed for long periods in the future. Such is the legacy that exported nuclear reactors create for future generaticns of Americans, as well as for the rest of the world's population. In the case at hand, disposal of the nuclear waste material generated by the proposed Philippine reactor poses a threat to both the global commons and the territory of the United States that should be scrutinized seriously by the NRC in this proceeding. 5 t

It appears that long-term storage or disposal of spent fuel in the Philippines [ .is impossible. The nuclear waste material generated by the proposed Philippine . reactor ultimately will be shipped out of that country. One possible destination for such spent fuel is t.he Unit,ed States. This option has been explicitly mentioned in the Phillippines and is implied by the text of the Agreement for Cooperation that the U.S. government signed with the -

Philippines on July 19, 1968. BRDA 1542 at 3-109. If it is effected, the shipping of spent nuclear fuel back to the United Ltates will have clear domestic impacts both on the environment and on the health and safety of the American public. Such impacts, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 stipulates, must be thoroughly studied by the NRC prior to the issuance of any nuclear export license. 42 U.S.C. S4321, et seq.; See generally S102 (2) (C) .

As an alternative, the Philippine government might decide to dispose of certain mid- and low-level nuclear wastes generated

by the reactor by dumping them into the ocean. The government is clearly at liberty to take such action, even under the provisions of the 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dunping of Wastes and Other Matter (the " London Dumping Convention"). But significant questions exist as to the suitability of the oceans as a repository for radioactive wastes.

As a major user of global ocean resources, the U.S. has a direct interest in protecting the high seas from the potentially serious impacts of ocean dumping of nuclear waste materials. Since June of 1970, the United States has not permitted any of its own radioactive wastes to be dumped into the ocean. The interests underlying this domestic policy apply with equal force to the dumping of nuclear wastes from the proposed Philippine reactor.

Under the London Dumping Convention, the U.S. has consistently advocated the need for actual studies of the impacts associated with ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes in order to substantiate hypothesized release and transport events in the deep oceans. These U.S. positions, as presented to IMCO, IAEA and the OECD/NEA, are sound and should not be undercut by a policy determination that might well result in another country disposing of its wastes without adequate consideration for these concerns.

The obvious risks to the global commons posed by possible ocean dumping of spent Philippine reactor fuel coexist with a series of potential impacts on health, safety, and environment in the United States. As the NRC has recognized, environmental impacts on the global commons which also affect U.S. territory trigger the requirements of NEPA:

_7_

The obligation of S102 (2) (C) plainly extends to considering the global impacts of major federal actions specifically affecting the environment which also have substantial impacts within the United States ...

In te Babcock & Wilcox, 5 NRC 1332, 1344, CLI-77-18 (1977)

(emphasis added). MEPA, in turn, explicitly stipulates that such impacts must be independently analyzed by the NRC in its licensing process. 42 U.S.C. S4321, et seg.

It has been argued that the potential effects of nuclear reactor exports on the global commons and U.S. territory were previously examined in ERDA-1542, a generic environmental impact statement published in 1976. In retrospect, however, ERDA-1542 appears to have been an effort to rationalize a decision already made to continue U.S. nuclear power export activities under essentially the conditions existing at that time.

, In this EIS, the assumed benefits of export activities were trumpeted loudly, reasonable alternatives were cursorily dismissed, and serious risks were minimized. It is a flawed and dated document.

The problems associated with nuclear waste management were explicitly deemed to be "beyond the scope" of ERDA-1542, and were scarcely mentioned. ERDA-1542 at 14-11. Such problems were never incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis that was used to justify the Statement's conclusion that nuclear exports generally do not pose a substantial threat to the global environment. Id, Ch. 13. These omissions were purportedly based on an assumption that, "The U.S. does not have a commitment to manage radioactive wastes generated abroad." Id at 1-12. Such an assumption clearly overlooked the factual contingencies presented by a situation like __

that of the case at hand, where the U.S. has contemplated the domestic disposal of spent nuclear fuel which a recipient country cannot store on its own. It is evident that the analysis contained in ERDA-lS42 grossly oversimplified the potential impacts of nuclear waste disposal both on U.S. territory and on the global commons.

Equally as evident is the fact that the Statement is now seriously out of date. Since it publication four years ago, there has been a general recognition not only of the problems of radioactive waste disposal, but also of the increasing risks of nuclear proliferation and the inadequacy of international safe-guards. For this reason, ' the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA require the federal government to prepare a new, updated EIS on all nuclear exports.

The law further requires that any such supplemental Statement must completely analyze all of the potential effects of spent fuel problems on the global commons and U.S. territory. 40 C.F.R.

51502. 9 (c) (1) (2) .

The potential environmental, health and safety problems associated with the management of the reactor's spent fuel can have serious, global impacts. Such risks associated with the pro-posed Philippine reactor export are quite unique and must be fully and individually addressed by the NRC under the statutes governing its licensing review procedures. The existence of ERDA-1542 cannot relieve the Commission of its legal obligation to analyze the impacts

of this export to the extent that those impacts were not covered adequately in the previous generic Statement. 1/

~1/

ERDA-1542 was self-defined solely as a programmatic analysis and does not purport to examine any site specific impacts or alternatives to the proposed action. The export of a nuclear facility to the Philippines poses significant risks. The proposed facility will be constructed on a precarious site which lies in an earthquake fault zone and in an area prone to significant volcanic activity. Any accident at the f acility would threaten the well-being of thousands of U. S. citizens. As mentioned in our Statement of Views, dated November 19, 1979, these potential impacts must be independently assessed by the NRC.

- s

_lo_

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we submit that the Commission cannot lawfully grant the proposed export license withont (1) an evalua-tion of the health, safety, and environmental hazards specifically associated with the nuclear reactor in the Philippines and (2) the preparation and consideration of an EIS, supplementing and updating ERDA-1542 and addressing in particular the possible environmental impacts upon the U.S. and the global commons associated with the disposal of radioactive wastes from the reactor.

~

Respectfully submitted,.

Dm kr #7,nm

^

w T

(cese

Jal'es N. Barnes '

Clifton E. Curtis Timothy C. Harrison

• Center for Law and Social Policy 1751 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Counsel for Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, Philippine Movement for Environmental Protection, and the Friends of the Earth.

t

& Askiff,,,

i

/C~/ &l(c 'l,'? .,n y u Ellyn' Weiss S. Jacob Scherr General Counsel Counsel for National Resources Union of Concerned Scientists Defense Council 1208 Massachusetts Avenue 1725 I Street, N.W.

Cambridge, Massachusetts Washington, D. C.

/

• / Student Intern, Center for Law and Social Policy.

.