ML20038C103

Comments on DOE 811130 Request for Licensing Exemption Under 10CFR50.12 Re Facility Const.Opposes Request.Request Does Not Offer Supporting Evidence of Existence of Extraordinary Situation Which Would Justify Licensing Exemption

ML20038C103
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	12/08/1981
From:	Parsons R FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8112100035
Download: ML20038C103 (2)

Text

o

• s t" ^ :* ..

Pkb. ' :bhibb.0.. ,d3- - -

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH 00CXETED

• 530 7TH STREET.S.E., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20003 NC (202) 543-4312

. C* December 8, 1981 '81 DEC -8 P2:I5 (9

k c- y u

b j

J7 EiM r

.' . I!:hG & ERV!CE The Honorable Nunzio Palladino i_ gr,Cg 1 3 RANCH Chairman #< t% IO8/A h Nuclear Regulatory Commission M # 'edd$iew Washington, DC 20555 y) Docket #50-537

Dear Mr. Chairman:

{j -

As active participants in the recent Congressional debate regarding the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Friends of the Earth would like to object to the Department of Energy's November 30th request for a licensing exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 regarding construction of this highly controversial project.

The Department's request for a licensing exemption flies in the face of the original commitment to a licensed demonstration Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program.

In 1972, when the Clinch River project was authorized by Congress, the Atomic Energy Commission as well as the Project Management C0rporation representing the nuclear in-dustry, agreed that Clinch River would be a licensed demonstration of the DFBR tech-nology. Since that time, the licensability of Clinch River has never 'been an object of controversy. In fact, throughout the years of the Clinch River debate, the project's licensability has been a key factor in its favor.

In the August 11, 1972 Memorandum of Understanding between the principal parties, it was stated that the " demonstration plant will be designed and constructed in accor-dance with all applicable nuclear licensing requirements of the AEC and other appli-cable nationally recognized codes and standards." As the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Chairman John O. Pastore pointed out in the Joint Committee hearings in Septem-ber, 1972, that "it is also important to consider that before construction of the UEBR demonstration plant is begun, a construction permit will have to be applied for by the TVA or PMC and .3ecured from the AEC in accordance with Section 104 of the l Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended and the Commission's regulations under that Act and under the National Environmental Protection Act."

That commitment to a licensed demonstration LMFBR project at Clinch River was reaffirmed

, in Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act when the newly-created Nuclear l Regulatory Commission assumed the AEC's responsibility for licensing the project.

l Industry acceptance of a licensed Clinch River breeder'was further reiterated during

! House Interior Committee hearings on June,1975 when John J. Taylor, Vice President j and Ceneral Manager, Westinghouse Corporation testified that "It will fully develop l the necessary safety, licensing and environmental precedents in an open regulatorv l forum. It will be licensed as any other commercial nuclear power plant. This will result in greater confidence in the licensability of future commercial breeder reactor plants - A necessary step for early commercial acceptance."

[O 0 71 to the preservation restoration. apd rational use of the ec< pl r PDR 100r*

c recycled paper

{ C_

a s

2 The Department of Energy has attempted, in its exemption request, to portray recent Congressional votes as support for short-circuiting the project's licensing process.

The Department's cite of a recent Conference Report that the project "must be con-structed in a timely and expeditious manner" does not mean that Congress intended for Clinch River to be built without adhering to the NRC's licensing and NEPA re-quirements. Recent Congressional votes on deauthorizing the project and establishing a more equitable cost-sharing arrangement should not be interpreted as rescinding Congress' historic commitment to a licensed Clinch River project.

The Department is well aware of growing Congressional opposition to the continued Federal funding of Clinch River. The narrowness of the two Floor votes this year, led by a bi-partisan coalition, indicates that the Clinch River Breeder Reactor is on shaky ground in next year's DOE funding cycle. Recent Congressional hearings in-vestigating the Clinch River contracts and the more recent high level shake-up of the project's management have lef t the i=pression in Congress that the project is plagued by chaos and confusion.

A review of previous Commission decisions regarding similar licensing exemption re-quests indicates the Commission's view that such an exemption should be issued only "in emergency situa tions in which time is of the essence" and in " extraordinary" or

" exigent" situations. (Docket #STN 50-508/509 and Docket #50-382A). Contrary to the Department's claim, its exemption request does not offer supporting evidence of its contention that a "truly extraordinary and exigent" situation exists which would justify a licensing exemption for this already highly controversial project.

It is evident that the most immediate " emergency" facing Clinch River is a political emergency - an emergency of confidence in the ability of Clinch River to achieve a measure of success. The Commission's decision, therefore, is whether to preserve the integrity of its licensing commitment to the Clinch River project or to allow that process to be piece-mealed away. We urge the Commission to affirm that historic commitment and reject the Department's exemption request.

Sincerely G

.C. A i b.L M C Renee Parsons Legislative Representative t

i e

. . . - ,