ML20033B866
| ML20033B866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1981 |
| From: | Edwards J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033B867 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112020372 | |
| Download: ML20033B866 (6) | |
Text
-
C3:::Of.T T PR0D. & UTIL 17.C.g 4....<g-
...i THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON. D c. asses 00tKETED wc NOV 3 01981
'81 NOV 30 P1 :17 i - i EECRETMY Li & SERV lCE Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Eli Chaiman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20S55
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
The Department of Energy (DOE), for itself and on behalf of its coapplicants Project Management Corpo:ation and the Tennessee Valley Authority, hereby requests authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commissiori (NRC), under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.12, to conduct site preparation activities for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) project.
DOE seeks NRC approval to conduct site clearing, orading, excavation, and construction of temporary support and certain service facilities beginning in March of 1982 at the Clinch River site.
Approval of this request in accordance with NRC's established Section 50.12 procedure will allow site preparation activities to commence, while at the [], g, /,;
same time:
N( J L ' [.h o assuring full consideration of all relevant environmental issues, L
g o advancing the Congress' and Administration's policies in favor of expeditious project completion, DECy
.gg p i
9 v s.H gm3%^*
o avoiding additional project cost increases of $120-240 million, and o preserving all remaining elements of NRC's environmental, safety, and q M>
hearing processes for completion.
The enclosed Site Preparation Activities Report (SPAR) describes the specific activities proposed, addresses each of the four factors set forth in 10 C.F.R.
S 50.12, and provides the detailed technical justification and support for this request. A Memorandum in Support of Request for Authorization to Conduct Site Preparation Activities, which provides the detailed legal justification and support for this request, will be filed separately by the applicants.
This request is a DOE initiative to implement the Administration's policy in regard to the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) technology demonstra-tion program and the CRBRP project. The President's October 8,1981, nuclear energy r0) icy statement established this Administration's definitive policy on the LMFBR program and CRBRP project, as follows:
"I am directing that government agencies proceed with the demonstration of breeder reactor technology, including completion of the Clir.ch River Breeder Reactor. This is essential to ensure our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs."
d g5 s
(h e112o20372 811130 I
PDR ADOCK 05000537 G
t 2
Accordingly, DOE respectfully requests that the Commission grant this request, for the following reasons:
1.
The Congress has consistently continued to support the project and its expeditious completion. The project has been continually authorized and funded by the Congress for more than a decade. Most recently, the Conference Report for the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 reaffimed the intent c' the Congress that the CRBRP project is an essential step in the development of the LMFBR and that the project must be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner. The Congress' efforts to preserve the project require that we, as responsible Federal agencies, take all actions within our cuthority to avoid or minimize undue delays and unnecessary cost increases, and ensure our preparedness for longer-tenn nuclear power needs.
2.
The project has already undergone extensive safety and environmental review. Although NRC's authority under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.12 requires consider-ation of only those limited environmental issues relating to site preparation activities and no consideration of safety issues, this project has already obtained findings concerning site safety and environmental acceptability. The NRC's 1977 Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the project concluded that the environmental effects of site preparation activities would not be signifi-cant, and the SPAR shows that the same conclusion would hold true today. The NRC's 1977 Site Suitability Report found that the site was suitable from the standpoint of radiological health and safety. On this basis, the project had anticipated completion of hearings and issuance of authorization to initiate site preparation during the fall of 1977. Prompt approval of this request would avoid at least 1 year of additional delay. At the same time, it would assure full consideration of relevant environmental matters and preserve the mandate of Congress for expeditious project completion, while the Commission's review continues to completion.
3.
Absent approval of this request, procedural delays will cause undue hardship in the form of another 1-2 years of delay and $120-240 million of I
increased costs. As previously noted, NRC authorization to commence site l
preparation was expected in the fall of 1977. The previous Administration's April 1977 decision to cancel the project resulted in suspension of all NRC licensing activities, precluded any progress toward construction activities, added more than 4 years to the schedule, and added $800 million to the cost.
Approval of this request would avoid hardship to the project and Federal taxpayer, since it would avoid another 1-2 years of delay and $120-240 million i
of increased costs.
1 4.
The project is in an advanced stage of development. Design and research and development (R&D) are about 90 percent complete and more than $500 million of hardware is delivered or on order. The project is ready to l
l l
~. _ _
3 commence site preparation as soon as approval can be obtained from the NRC.
If that approval 1s delayed, the project would be forced to stretch-out the remaining design and R&D activities, while maintaining the project's technical team intact throughout the period of delay. Thus, any additional delay would inevitably preclude the most productive application of taxpayer dollars and increase project costs.
5.
Approval of the request is clearly consistent with the Comission's policy of granting such requests only in exceptional circumstances. The four factors detailed above demonstrate the exceptional nature of the circum-stances necessitating this request. Moreover, the project is a federally owned, managed, and operated experimental reactor facility that is essential to assure our preparedness for longer-tenn nuclear power needs. The unique and extraordinary circumstances identified in paragraphs 1-4 above, coupled with the project's relatively small size (375 MWe vs.1200 MWe for modern commercial power reactors), assure that approval of this request will not be precedent setting, but entirely consistent with the Commission's policy of granting such requests sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
6.
On balance of the four specific factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 50.12, there is a compelling case for approval of the request. Section 50.12 of NRC's regulations requires consideration and balancing of:
(a) the impacts of the proposed site preparation activities, (b) whether those impacts are reasonably redressable, (c) whether the activities would foreclose alterna-tives, and (d) the public interest, including the effects of delay. NRC's FES has already concluded that the environmental effects of the site preparation activities would be insignificant, and the SPAR shows that this conclusion holds true today. No safety-related construction is involved, and no reasonable alternatives would be foreclosed, including design and site use alternatives. Redress of the activities, if needed, will be effected promptly and at modest cost (about $8 million). Approval of the request would avoid additional delays of 1-2 years and save the taxpayer $120-240 million. Under each of the 10 C.F.R. 5 50.12 factors, there is a compelling case for approval of the request.
DOE submits that the circumstances surrounding this request are truly extraordinary and exigent. The President has directed that Government agencies proceed with the demonstration of breeder reactor technology, including completion of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. The Congress has consistently supported the project for more than a decade. The Congress has also expressed its intention that the project be constructed in an expeditious manner. Previous NRC environmental and safety reviews for the project, and the analysis presented in the enclosed SPAR assure that all substantive environmental considerations relating to site preparation will be properly addressed. The 4-year delay and $800 million cost increases already imposed on the project must be absorbed by the Nation's taxpayers. Additional delays of 1-2 years and cost increases of $120-240 million can be avoided if
4 the Comission recognizes the unique and extraordinary circumstances surrounding the project. Approval of this request is essential to permit expeditious cogletion of the project, and, in turn, to ensure our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs.
1 We believe that these circumstances present issues of national and regulatory policy that only the Commission itself is equipped to address. Further, the NRC licensing process for the project has been suspended for the past 4 years, and approval of the request will avoid additional delays of I-2 years.
In these circumstances, timely relief from a Licensing Board is igossible, or at least highly unlikely. There is, however, sufficient time for the Comission to provide notice and opportunity for coment on the request. This project is ready to move forward to comence site preparation activities.
If approval is delayed, the Nation's taxpayers must absorb the project cost increases that will inevitably result. We think it is igerative that the Comission itself examine the relevant factors and overriding policy considerations presented by this request and exercise its existing authority under 10 C.F.R. $ 50.12 to approve the request.
I wish to emphasize that expediticus cogletion of the CRBRP is an important element in ensuring our preparedness for longer-term nuclear power needs. We should recognize that the Congress has repeatedly endorsed the principles that the CRBRP is a key step in the LMFBR program and that it must be expeditiously constructed to meet the objectives of the program. We cannot turn back the clock on the project's past 4 years, but we can exert all possible efforts to minimize further delays in the project and costs to the taxpayer. As Federal agencies involved in development and regulation of nuclear energy, respectively, we share a responsibility to assure that the Nation's energy future is well secured and that the taxpayers are well served. The President's direction to Government agencies to proceed with the LMFBR program, including completion of the CRBRP, is clear.
I believe that approval of this request will serve those vital national interests.
Sincerely
/
/
y Enclosure
cc w/ enclosure:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Cowmission Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Bodega Marine Laboratory Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Nuclear Regulatory Commission Daniel Swanson, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stuart Trebey, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing & Service Section Nuclear Regulatory Commission William B. Hubbard, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General Oak Ridge Public Library Lewis E. Wallace, Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Rescurces Defense Council Mr. Joe H. Walker Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss Lawson McGhee Public Library Luther M. Reed, Esq.
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
Tennessee Valley Authority Barbara A. Finamore, Esq.
Natural Resources Cefense Council, Inc.
t'
.~,
t' ADDRESSES S
Honorable Nunzio J. Pallad'no.
f Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wishington, D.C.
20555l
/
M'r. Victor Gilinsky
~
Commissioner Naclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr. Peter A. Bradford
- Commi ssioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
< Mr. John F. Ahearne -
Commissioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
_._ _ _ _