ML20040A074

Opposes Applicants' Request for Exemption to Enable Site Preparation Activities to Be Conducted Before CP Issued. Exemption Unauthorized in Law & Would Be Contrary to Public Interest.Claim of Congressional Mandate Is Sham

ML20040A074
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/18/1982
From:	Faden M UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 8201200306
Download: ML20040A074 (3)

Text

.  :

4 Union <f -

CONCERNED 82 s 1a es:19

@CIENTISTS

". . .i January 18, 1982' Samuel J. Chilk -

g recretary G

~

,.S. Nuclear Regulatory 'P Co.amission 2 -

Washington, D.C. 20555 ". ~

m., I

, - 7, v _

re: Docket No. 50-537 9 k.,',. .- J .

In the matter of United CN .'p 4!

States Department of C)A 's Energy, Project Management / /N,_ _ ',

Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch

" ' I ! d/

River Breeder Reactor Plant)

Exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12 Gentlemen:

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) urges the Commission (NRC) to deny the request of the above-named applicants for an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, from the regulations pertaining to the conduct of site preparation activities before a construction permit has been issued. Such denial is, in UCS' view, unauthorized in law and would be contrary to the public interest.

UCS is not an inter'venor in the license proceedings with respect to the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP). We will not attempt to duplicate the points made in the extensive memorandum filed on December 15, 1981, by the intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. (NRDC) and Sierra Club, with which we fully agree. We simply wish to submit the following comments pursuant to the notice in 46 Fed. Reg. 63411.

1) The fundamental questions raised by this exemption request relate to the NRC's credibility as an impartial, effective regulator.

A number of recent events--including renewed pressure from industry, Congressional and executive branch sources to " speed up" the issuance of reactor licenses, delays in the implementation of many TMI Action Plan requirements, and the revelation of substantial quality assurance failures at Diablo Canyon shortly after that plant was granted a low-power license--have combined to rekindle the questions raised in many 8 W3

$ DO$fo$f0ffy, #

PDR 00 1384 Massachusetts Avenue CdTCndge Manachusetts 02233 Teternene (617) 547 5552 1725 i Street N W Suite 601 Washing:en. D C 20006 Telephcne (202; 296 5600

of the Three Mi.le Island post-accident studies about the URC's independence and credibility as a regulatory body. (While recent l speeches by the Chairman and Commissioner Gilinsky call for a renewed vigilance at least with respect to the level of quality assurance in plants now under construction, the public must wait to see if that attitude will be reflected in subsequent regulatory actions.) Any move by the Commission to shortcut the normal procedures in this particularly controversial matter, and upon as flimsy a record as the applicants have presented to date, will justifiably lead the public to question whether NRC plans to under-take the in-depth review which this first-of-a-kind project deserves.

In particular, DOE's argument that national energy policy requires that this project go forward as fast as possible can be used to compromise NRC's entire regulatory regime. The separation of func-tions enacted in the Energy koorganization Act of 1974 makes such arguments inappropriate as grounds for NRC decision-making.

2) The purpose of this exemption reauest can only be to ensure that some site work begins before the next round of Congressional budget decisions. DOE's filing of this request without taking any other action to restart the licensing process indicates that the Department is most interested at this point in

~

seeing that some tangible activity takes place on site before the beginning of the 1983 Congressional budget cycle. While this strategy may suit DOE's own political interests, we question whether it forms a permissible basis for ary NRC actions that deviate from.the Commission's customary procedures. NRC's proper role under the Energy Reorganization Act does not include any involvement in the policy decisions about whe.ther and t.o what extent this project should go forward as a taxpayer-funded activity. Yet any action by the Commission will, intentionally or otherwise, affect those policy decisions. In these' circumstances, the most neutral course of action for NRC, in our opinion, is to how as closely as practicable to its existing regulations and p,rocedures. The least neutral course of I action that we can imagine would be to employ an obscure provision )

of HRC's rules to bypass the normal hearing procedures in order to l allow this project to get in under the fiscal wire. ,

3) The claim of a Congressional mandate to deviate from the normal licensing procedure is little more than a sham. As the intervenors' December 15 memo pointed out, the applicants' use of the fleeting reference in the conference report on the 1981 recon-ciliation bill (H. Rep.97-208) to the " timely and expeditious" l I

completion of CRBRP' to justify this licensing exenption is at best misplaced, because that phrase does not carry any implication whatsoever that the normal licensing process should be bypassed.

In view of the unique legislative history of the reconciliation bill, we believe that any reliance on this language as an expression of Congressional intent verges on the fraudulent. Those not familiar with the 1981 budget process should remember that the reconciliation bill was by all accounts the longest and most complex legislation

- - _ . = _ .

i

) .

j ever to pass the Congress, encompassing dozens of disparate issues ,

linked only by some connection, however tenuous, with the federal 3 govert. ment. This legislation was offectively adopted en bloc by a i single roll-call vote with no opportunity for amendment in the House

• of Representatives. The CRBRP was not a major subject of debate in j n

either branch. The Co'ference report upon which applicants rely ran '

to more than 1000 pages. To pinpoint a small portion of the legis- '

lative materials (rather than the law itself) as a clear expression  ;

i of Congressional intent.to depart from a long-established policy ,

, that CRBRP should undergo the entire licensing process strikes us  !

j as more than simply aggressive advocacy.

t

. L

4) To the extent that NRC may properly concern itself with  !

{'

saving the taxpayers money, the taxpayers may be better served if the Commission proceeds cautiously on this application. Any action j by NRC that creates a false momentum for this project must carry t significant fiscal as well as political implications. As the history l of declining Congressional support for CRBRP laid out in the inter- [

venors memorandum illustrates, the future of this costly project is  ;

now more in doubt than ever before. In that case, DOE's recitation of the potential savings of taxpayers' funds to be achieved from I shortcutting the licensing process deserves to be looked at in another light. If Congress re-evaluates the wisdom of this project  !

in light of current fiscal conditions and decides not to proceed with it, under the current timetable fewer tax dollars will have been >

spent in site preparation and other unnecessary activities. Here  ;

again, the wisest course for NRC would be to proceed cautiously, '

, rather than relying on the applicants' untested assertions of fiscal L benefits.

For the preceding reasons, UCS urges the Commission to deny the exemption requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

1 '

, Respectfully submitted, h i

/ f%d- . l

Michael E. Faden  !'

{ Legislative Counsel 1

l cc: NRC Commissioners j I 4

,1 I

P

?

-- - - - - . . - . - - . . - - - - - - - . - - .. - - _ . , - - _ . - , , ,