ML20040B853
| ML20040B853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 01/13/1982 |
| From: | Babbitt B, Deutch J, Lewis H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201260477 | |
| Download: ML20040B853 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.t J _
. ).b.ua 4
1700 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 January 13, 1982 2 A916 M
G C:. -
e 4-Mr. Nunzio J.
Palladino abgo, j q
j Chairman
' (/q,A l
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory x
l Commission s
Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Palladino:
I-2s -
.s.
7 l
\\:
l This letter is in response to the Commission's notice l
in the Federal Register (FR 46, 63411 (1981)] inviting;
~
l comment on the Department of Energy request for exemption pursuant to 10CRF 50.12 to begin site preparatioh~for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR).
The undersigned are observers of nuclear power develop-ment, and as private citizens have a continuing interest in seeing the NRC strengthen confidence in the nuclear regula-tory process.
Accordingly, in the past we have argued that l
the Commission should keep its attention relentlessly centered l
on maintaining and improving the safety of commercial nuclear l
power plants.
The present proposal does not further this l
objective.In our judgment,_ should DOE believe that the present licensing requiremants cause undue hardship in terms of cost and schedule delay, the appropriate remedy is legislation rather than the pursuit of an avenue that can only raise questions about the integrity of the licensing process and the separation between nuclear power development and safety regulation.
NRC action'to grant this exemption will under-mine public confidence in the licensing process.
Finally, in answer to Question ll(b) we note that ample evidence exists to suggest that there is nothing crucial about the March, 1982 date, i.e.
there is no technical or economic reason to identify this date as a milestone for the CRBR proj-ect.
Indeed, most informed observers believe that the CRBR project is both obsolete and premature -- obsolete in that it reflects a technology that has matured since the inception of
~
the project and premature in view of the projected time scale for, depletion of our uranium resources.
The industry, NRC
'()SO 3
/
)
1%
0 H
a Mr. Nunzio J.
Palladino Page Two January 13, 1982 and DOE would be well advised to focus effort today on light-water reactors and to structure a long term breeder development program aimed at producing genuinely competitive breeder re-actors when they are needed.
Sincerely, r
f Bruce Babbitt k%\\
Johti Deutch Lf).
l,-
Hal Lewis kae
.