ML20040C588

Package of 18 Comments Opposing Exemption of Facility from Std Licensing Procedures

ML20040C588
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/20/1982
From:	Camille J, Crowley J, Cruley J, Goldberg S, Gutting S, Hein M, Higginbotham C, Hirsch S, Keating R, Koester S, Koogle H, Magaletta V, Meserve G, Parsons R, Quigg C, Rezendes S, Riddle J, Ross D, Rubinkowski G, Carrie Safford, Seitz J, Tolman E, Vonruden J, Whitehead G AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
ISSUANCES-E, NUDOCS 8201290057
Download: ML20040C588 (39)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

r *

'D '

50-531[G)

To US. L - L/!,Ric, dd CenwuYS  :

h4cdl.ac,go555 '2 W + m; NW Mk~8 ediak Au ?.i gA:.. .-= n % veo s

2 L 4. 5"$hg'I

%g cf tr e

An a A c nYx m/db pL dw z e

CCM hd ey h htAW ~ uc %odle &

.kA cze-rLab ,

u- A -

a L if w

4tefL p, Ziw. n

. l e-c d b u.u_ ,

&a c !RA+ 8de

~Il $1eAtl u d .zb nson-d 4 % M$le ehd f lS <

is fd /+ ~ k ch hI .'ui /a_./M

!S m Le_ ab, J je p ~4,h o/m m m&wgo 4&ckham.

o=

~ m

/ dl % - T + B% R A CAA 0 %.

b,&

At% ccL1+ mac w bt

$ecombsh Lou ladku9 cu Q upad

,JL & J w & A -

A4 cxra

1. f h hg 4.4A e -

mw it w%

i b ouctuqAtc_2eMe dub .b.akt c i m ,.

11 Mita MW 44dA n L4 f T2oEece Ak!'p Al0Rt. dL % 2anya.pA 7

1

%o

M' 02 SAD Oh '

2 Ak.Q?cfh auraw Whe .

p a Y

z, -

one. ' d, b '

d &%m mas 3ce% = a ma  !

v/u_.

nedagda (& W J ~w m ia Au AG m N, # """# &

y l %1fL3f'aw 33Yo &cc4mesde Dr.

.. WoMy M&Je~c ,1t docoY o

- ~ .-

em O6 I  %

. y

+ '

, "L-

[_} RECEIVED ,

67

~

JAN 2719825 9 "Y

t

_. _. _ _ _ . . . . _ . . 4,, _ EEEEZ's tcc

.:.= - - - -

~y::.::.:;g~~$. 5.l5...$. g ----- --

, g, _g _

~

heseiMr.SN M y Che/Vmon,. .

s

$'5felC'i/ NClfe'ffWC ib encm

$ 1@ h lsh k h tY' ArecaecAeacfor~ fam. shna6cd4wrig azecea&res._

TAa,sn andcere49 niste /s any amer,, nnzard. /se- -.

e/ ore

.rcru/my decase afiXr yues.%6/c hc/im/p...

R Mie,'prenws.h1/Wed, Jrim'seh" a swe/e.1e eyore

~ oWno? f/rh/Awne /# mceedwe conshcAme'Mi>-

reacAr, } Seems_li1 e a',ciW. rha//.caer nue$gigaa,.

commi rrim inn Mof Rze cu <enF aSWsW=wL

. r

& nsore nderesfedik pnmob osmm ik Ac hk securiny /en, fcrm. Rod'a"Mre.- -

y r'/ze AnNres6 ON rAYci! i l1460w, .. . - - . . - .

//uScy._v#l AoA ujonjev wNir Svor Myau resis?" ..

5"""l7' ..

_. . . . . _ . . - sw .- .

gg 9503 is=i Scac n 9/ ,

Ito

@cellu)1%.

i G2 l'lb

l .i .A.4.',...

. N 'b;'Y . . . V '.lll  : '" ***:i,.'-

. - ;N4de. .~.Ev.&.ke.  !:: ;:1. . ...a. :. '*4.

- ..ni.^ 2.u '.

.:.-.. . L :.. ': .l. m.~.. w '~ .......:.... . :.e. .. . s .. . u..a.:::::. .. ".:="C:.*'  ; . .:. - ~* ':.

• ~:'

nr.  :;2.. . .

..a.. ....:... .-n.-

..2.-.c.. . . _ , ...

..i":u;:"::~ u...

.. . :.= ~:::.

?. .. ~ 5-

.""*:*Q li.i; l.x., ' ' "  ;,::... :;..". :

u .. 4 e. . . - .

, 3. . . .&.

"=?' C.i. ::' '

.s 2',GG.?lu.i , . . . .

, .1;; ..dd

-w.-*:*

l.~- . : ,..ili.h . . - . . . . .

-=.,".," .

~..ac.....:. aux.a: .... a. ":"..=2

=-

. . ~. . ... a. . . .. a ..".

w.s -

~ - -

. un ny ..a w.s::

• 2 :.".:2,2:y j [;,Q,_, n ap 1 x A

?:~:=' Q ... . :. %.

,.x.=.z a v.4 82 J.d 20 P 4: 4 - - - n: .= ". "

. - , x .

4 =

. . . . . c

• L. ." "*5.

' " * '~

= "nr.....

n:r ~***......u.=. -u m '

~:..

=. -

.

s.:: Lit.

( p. a ..ik; -- .. y,-

...,g. *'s, e. .e .

ar m CCC2.5 %'5Eh ""* Wsl l S- ltlEL # 2-- "

. . . . . . ..Wm 3

. . .Er "=:p/:: . :.:"".

ELUCH . . . . . .

n::~ .:::- :-:

-== . . . . .

,..v=

.(:s y - ._._. ..u.u::

. ..x: e..".w.

k"~!!':!S!!! LY Y  %,,.  % &F1 e We y %  ? ::-/.. .YNr '.75:~

M 1

n n u..A,

. , v:. y -.:

5a 24 4 (f -

2.:s".EF2 El*

l

{% w.16 L b% r, . % ' RECEIVED:E . ..'. . . . . . . .14

==-

~ T. cam:q:s:

~

==

...m.......,

. . . ~

JI5G:"a C. ms:.G uk H d M N3 6-- JAN 27198&_S M= n= =

.~MF:=&= m

=m

.. .. u..u:.2 - -

M E DX25 2 1tg- . . . . . . - . . . ...:

EL%^ll hM3in .~ i: $:' L.

i."E$:EE.N

% M p .T . ' " **""'",._~~

--.:..M.

.:a_. " a;.;  : .~

1"." """; ':I

, g ..J...

-.).....

""" E

.;$.5. ....

• V e G _ _ _ #"ji-hi.~

' == - -

==::.== , . . ...:

P"

': .:. E.i ..a.... . . . . . . - . . . . .

, . .  :=nt - :=

id::l .... q s ":

.::.:.:'" .:i1 h) /~ .  % c  ?' Tu"-. .. .... .

., .=: *"% D n .e5R  %=..:..:.=........."~L...... .....

h :. .. -

t

..['....

hf( ' **

jg h

&~

.. ::..z;;;;

.w. . ...au.. .

dU.*S*~ C.[ .. ,,

/ \ ~ . . .. , . . . . .

..-..."~...g.-;.-17**. ',:.

........g I, s

.... s G :n : ... ...j : :.

. . . .: . u.4

e mQ\ s t ,/ y

/*  %

r.r

.~.2

.n=:  :=-  ::: en

...a:  ::::=:*::s %p. Qgg Q * % )~ $_ . ;;.;., . -  :- : .

.}u .;.au.:3  %,,. I

• - "*^'~:5.'"_",:-

_.  := : _

".: c.

.}'"*

. . . . .=* v O DO '

..N .

7.+ 0. ,

b  :..'."N.*l."........ .. - .

.:nl:5.

" " ..=.. t.f..=. L. . .

%% y e i.=..=....

.,.:::::" ".. ........".2 e_g g t.; ..

j ,

5 1 I .%.i.h... *T.......;._...

o:x.. .g J &~t

- c .

~:" u-. .:

... . : .- \ s

. . . . n ::.1 g ,,3 y {%

r":: N ': l r/ N l3m e T . C,,,,,

Z g"Ni - [.; =;;g q. ;-:g.;!i lb

.s.:.....

. :. L...

%v k nr14 >f s -

";;r

.,;.u . .. :* :::.:::.::::

nb$5NY.Y h k'. U.5 ~

. ..u. . . . . . .

• ^

':';;:{  :":::

)Q  ::..

==r '  :.:- ~'-

'. .. . .u.;m 7 ",;'.

7-*',

A!  ::.:::*L"*= *

'"*t  :.?'*'"" .. ~

..-~.__ . . . . . . . . .~. "....-

""""' 7:nt' r":'"" 2:-~"v' ':::::

. . . ..::=:==. T=:b;::i::l::::: . .

....-..:,.r _ ,

.==.-*_......

=: 3. ==:=:.2, ,  :::::=::n 9.:-.

- :. =::.u:.w. ....;  ::==.:::

=: .

~ ~a~~"*:'.n".:a:=

. :. .. 1== ..:n:=.. i: . . .

.:==" an =n =rn >::;;; =n2=v "= 7: : *- ""n

. e . . . . . . : .a:L . .:::.J.,.. .w.. =.=.::...'=....*r . :..:. . .. a.. 4. m' W d'd -....3 . - . . . - . . e

^ "

0.. " .O':.:

.a......:.-

' ' ~

.- .. ... .. :.:; . ' u'ni*

. ",: ' '.?? .*N:.*N ' ' ';...:..... .....'' " " " "..a.- "**""*"-.'"""'"

..::: ::.=::  :.:.a :  :== ~:r :. m

=

"&;;;:y3.Ql5Qgi:y y::;

;.bi,f

n:@:' .....:.. .. .-a+

.:_ :.:.y" . .::::.& ,.; a.z.: . ., . .:,.. . _ ..:_ ;. .; . ...=..p == ;:. . w =;:::" ....-...;,:..  : ....~-

....u..

. . .:. .- a . ~ . .

'u.=... .a . m" 22.=: :.a=..:. ..: ..

a;::."::. :::=

J uw '

= :==== :=. ::"nt:::

' ' ' " " ';4 :

=="*"'

"-". ~~r n~ n' m""......n-~:

.===="

/4- . .

.. ", =""

. - . . . . . . - . . ~

r ::. - . . . . . .

7:'

..;a. au::: ': ... :.:.::a 7:u::;.?" " " ' '

. ...m

.....  :::=. .

- *==V"=*"."

. - ~

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._. _]

4 s :. ...<: a .:.".G: ..=t:." ::::::a :a:: iu::a. :.""-

-w - . . a.  : .:. . :  :.=c::::. 7:

.u.:u... .

xia v.a.&:.:s.s.k: == :m:==n. .

. ::e :. -:::nn: . :. . . . -. . --::v v:.= .

- :ry:......:: == .. .:::: v. u .

..s.< . . . . . . . ...:.....:....

-. v .. a.

.........a.. . . .

- === .una".:e .  ::==. .::::::.

- - ...-.~c.;......

..<........ ....x.. . . ~ . .  :...

.:.w::  :---

; .ru v.~.v== ==u.... .:wnew

.aw-v::: .

r.: ..

u...

.. ..a..

. .: .nu x um uu:r me 2: . . . . . . .

r6e nu.c ..=.

. . . . .w-===

. . . . . . . . ..s v +s-.. x a: . . .u..:-. . j , . .

-.. . . .u ..m  ; ..w .a

=' '

.:. .. c.a.a.i (=

-- .

";;;";c~ ---"...;u;a.:d ..........: s-..- . . ..

- mmasu.;a f:'*: ,*: ...***'.22Y***

> 2:"l22. ::::*.1 f. :t use*.....,.... ...T..dit- ' 2 u u.g._;;a g'.g,gg.

.-J.m '-.d

.:.7 =::. =:.. ...a "5= ~:::Q u *'::

~T;[="'" " M ==* R,=j _

au

,""" " n~:r +:~i E y ;":;3:  ::.3:;

.-=. . := - . . ma.m.E w Q t

.m QQQ }%(A(j Q "c" = =  :: :==.: =

f 4 ml6' wk

..= ===

,~=.a...w. w r e_ m=L.

,_2 I

t fr/.1 _ _ _ _ _. ==.=..-.....

& Q . d a-o. Ch

~ . .~ ..

~ . . . . . . . . . . ,

_..;...-.3..:." .;

"'.......:.. .., t m y.or3, l w "(1

.:... . .: a..::a .

.......I.

. :::':. "*"" . . . . . . . .* ':a.

14.3  ;;m/ :4 434

3"""Y:. "r DO P dQ, (,h 04 h-5$.. h=...Y..

... a . .,.m.

5 s 5.:::  :: ~2 .=...: .

~*"" " " ' "

-n n ..-o ,..a.. =

,,,.: u. ..u. u n.u:a.

""*: . w :.v: .a [ "~

---

. Od ,h 's ( \/ 4 1 . . . . , . ,

. : .a...&.'4 u t ii.r ' .8

.$ .5 b h_b O

".~b..

aa M b.a.. u am" .:. 4aJ PA65  %

' ,.....:.."' .GT***'. , ..

',*"M. ..l""*

- .u .u. ..a.

.. Ga Y[NS~. . . ~i

...==== m=w m. z.m.- mm .

f[

z ..

N *hN N. .. \/.fs.h* Q -

l

{ _, "."""

M*** T * ::. ** '

.-, ."I':"*!* :7".7. *

f**f.",.*.*....,*.*.* _

. . . . ::.= v:: nu- "'- '~ ~:=

. .a....:u .s .e..:n

' .auM

. : .T tg..' . . . .

• C. A. . . . . . . . .

"" ~""". . . . . . . . . .  : .re.-- . ..=: r---

un un- q

.. .......:b.: . . . .-. ::-- - .h WC )

~

. . . . ". " Y :Y:Y

)

. . 3. .;._..7.., _

. .....'~

. . . - . . - ~

. . . . ~

...:. i.h " .:

_ .f.:}

e "rr: .. ..,

.x;

"^~

.::::::22

{: * -

hi C

.m" e- .=....:* ,_",",a"

=T

^ - - -

. ]~~

~

=- ..-... "::: . . - .

~~.~.:., YN h Oj }.lk

'"':.". T .T* .:* :

' Y*?'

. '*t *: . , . . . . .. "':' ~ 5* . .-

T *:.::.

g g.,

. .a. ... . ::=. ,..'"""^

...~ ;*:. *

- " - ='==+: - - " " -

.........':-.'.."....:. ~ "* I"*": " " '

= r - n l.na.=:-:==.=t wa...u.. ..

. .a...=

a

...

. .e...a

-I

"-~n-:1 n

.=a* :::::':*:L .. .- .....::-.. . . ..

- ..:.,, n umn:. :.~.:2.. ... . . . .. . . . .

C"M '::.7;*. .Y '"':: '.'.": T".M .A*^T_T_"'.,"*'.

...,-.'.'? v.s.,.....::. M".T 2:*!

- ,., ~

~;. :.:. . .

u =:; == .=-::. :::::.5

"- ve n' -

. .: .~::. . . . ;=.= r =.= e  :;.uu +

==..:=..r?=. - . . ~ . . . . . - .". ..-.._

. . . :..cu .nu;,w . .

. . . - .:.. .u . . . . . . . .

I %MIMOY ':.***.7'

!/-* M

.~...-_..._...'.=v:c=.:

=..:...=.U.

Z ;**.!"" "i

a -'-

.i.:.u .. . .

'. C;; .", *::7 7* ~

a..

.~.

T .L.":':...

.'.'.'"*-T' s- . . , ..."~'.."I"..,.

.._.y. ..,.. . .y y.;y

~~"-~..=-a.==~......- v.. . - . - . .

.. .i. .e . *:- .o :d!,

..u.

% ::' . TT* ' ' ' ,%.* h G.:"a:':::::*:Y*;*C%

-.-.. C** ;* A. ; . .. .....4..

- . Y:...

.~:.*::, "*: .*Y:. N*::

'M~ T 7,j,.,,g;

• ?:"*."*::.

g.j,, 7 Tin::

l' .

__;.  :*~~~"__",, .:",: .

.g, g 4...g . .. :",

...;.. . . - .....g . ,.ug y g.y. g;g, ;g..g ;3  ;, ,y...,.. ,__ _ -_.+.;, _, ..

..y;;;; -.. ;; . . . 3;; .;;,. .,.

....a- . c . .a . . . . . . aa .

. . . . g._ e . ...,s, . , . , . . , . . .- . . . . , . , .,_

i r . c * . y','w. ..; <...om

. e,::'.' ...w ~M,.,.' c. .r.u :.. : .,;*t -..s _.,.m>vz.... . ;. .%a . . w. .. . - . . .

_ . .~n' I

,.%, w.'.  :..

.:J.s-ps ,. a

.-. : ; ..:n. . n - .~ *- r ., p . ,.; ..>

^.,,

z. .. ,*;. erV 'y ..~.;, y* .

' ~)f ,m*ys

. j,. ,>,,;~ c... .? *.i;;W;a;p r,.p ,;. . -.  % s y',

,.;.r. e ,1. b.. r.c. u .1,. - :: ,,; ,-41.y%.. . , s . - .

,,;,u, .jeg. . :;f .(w r- .; g.s.. r-:r .,:.

...( , ,-*:; . g; .t, *.,- . . . a . .:-2#4 -. --- - -

-N....

4 7

,;'., ~

• ~ '

.e

,a :R. :? -. " . . .:*,- . h,;: F-~  :*T.y,~ ". :e . .- ;*:  :: V .% s . . - -  %. ~.

- - o. . .t. 2 * ..w . w -

...,%. ,.;.a, . E.,.- Y '.u*s,.,,.#"

y o j,, . . *f. .

o; -* , n v 4 %. .; W,A.-"l:.. e .:

%.e- .

,,-~. .~  ; , w/ 'T , **

• f g,.. ~ a.e , . .,1 N.n.O ** , . . . '. 7*.- *;,g. , , ,, , * * , . *,.., ,.

~.

. . . w. ...x... '.;.e

. ,a.v.frM.s

r. , .%W , . . . . . ,

%. --tuf &sei.7; e

- t

, .. nW as. p. -

-. M - - .'... .

m..n

• ,, .p, . . ,

• l

• ^j '". x'%._.s

, " *r' , . '"*; " .,._,p. . / . 5 .p,. ..

e.. ...a ~ x, .

.$7 ...a _3., ..p

, .  ; y r' o*-

.~.'p..

,2-- .

l ~ =. :. ,(

- 3.. . ,w s

.":yrs

. d g,,,e .'; a ~.d. -G.* -*r r-

, =;n ..

f aw . % * ( [, I ~**' D

r. ..A7

];, .

- . ., *:, e .h r. .g,

'Uj:..

.-*.! ..- !yD'[ :.,?l D ?*~

y.

t

.m -4ff,'W n:.s

"?' H' [C{[1 y'If%=,-t$h!

,. bm.M u.

u%-

e.v ., -w.q

.v. .,m. -. g e,i7n <e.

wu.s...%. .w . 3 e....

~G l .. .M /. Nil i

dt.'*;N.I'd 'ils M.

.O . r%w q f(*ctCt. Jt , + .:p;..,. &. 3

, ' e .

Y emed e . pes ewf'.1 ( **. P eauscent 9.---ba% M I

a f'N 1 e. ns.u %dct &g1vkscr1 C*w. gG2, J2 20 F *lVGO L 4:wh

J g ,',.1982 Awa

! - cP i2# b%& D.C . WMSM 1

n.,ndy 2nd 4.w:.

b. . . .;. L xv t:e

% nomM * %.

7, mu w. f r ab: \

. . . e-v2

• >. .es:

nm Q * ' fra T/,( ' g

,h,,, *- .*

-. 4 O/w:'.p:~d  %

r.,

. . mi.

,T,.CI@b , "'//m g 7,y . 4. .

3:i..  %

W '

e f

m

. . . . .-m 2 I -a  %.su Ned % WggM.-

an mw p 8

m..f%qs tw r%q.-

Gh h 'M.U Af ihr -% Gr (.- YYN

• m@g g hc sue udh &.d sM reph . %,

• s d u

h e.,. n. ,,

cp , Pre ub- M c1 ch rp p cga-ced a n@h d eer @

g,a ,4.g <...+

- - . ~ .

ye ',,p

• M Ve .'

• f "# - 8

.. u #.mr.

k P'%

_4 ..

l

• 1

~_

5.we, g_.M.

mw %4 w:

m t>. u., ~ . c, awi ,%D C.de,C w...,M r w ( 1a a.

o a =/ J3 u o w A, V .c,M. .. . t . m. . . . .m.ep-s,,

.nesv ..e .,y.

y ,g.v..

.} .. '.' +

a

')S b. G) h d C0k( , k. . ('

- a +., ,.

.*M.n Q M'# N'#M hfMh

w. &

CnMEN .

NY'(RbdbMMC

\ \

Mbd  %,  %. ww:,,,.,

n.m

y. ,e

.*kY wrn .'{ h%

Wn C,@ L. N G 0& hf,-hh m .-.4 h

% .; M S &~~ &

+ ".g,,;a .r.91 9.c3.N.w.

n%s , a ;7.y - c.-3 n.

=.+.c .

. , e . ..

n. .

M .he J[,

g; h 4;,,.)!s; ; / ,

..s. ,s s a f,--. %

...A,*'.

~.. 'q 3K . Q - T ."):'.4

.' .C".*h ""7,h. ..'n;i """"; .,; I.D '

'... ( , .+ : ..~.. .'v7

.u- s,a Q .*

m h, a,s i.b. s ,i ,4g er >, <

., d. ,. . .e . 3 r3 red

. n,L

/a C)3 w,.,.:',&g2M., . m..,

c.

n;;:.w - a'"-'."x .Q.w,.r.c .-*** . ** '*

. , C'f

~"- A [0 . t , r

• awh 5l ~x. - n. ,, L ' ~. :. :

'..e**.... en...w...

L.,r; ;s tem .y yQ ~

.Aj,;.c N b -sd M.., s, -

M.~ . ~';,.:J.:5.*i.r.e c &--  :..-

• ~..,gn:.MM

?,E%."" # '.J.

m. .m.: w, :.-@" Oddd, h gM,, -.vC p.. w; ;.c; w, p :'.

D EM.:

n*."*"PM, > . _.p4' p?.Qi ,~s.Sm

g.wl.-.e,.a . . .w* --%. .s s-5*W- .r:.,,q;~,, =,.t. %.4 Tes  ;.m -

- -

• v ,, 44 sp.y s.. w. , v -;?-- .~-

• ~ ~. ex .-=.

..g[

~ , -; v. w. *r k J5.

• • • • • 7,,,

n :.y'.x : x 7 ymf~5d .g. .y,j +., .

f N E*'

v 'f54-w._ . [ *f. ,f.=E.N+D .:.s,mn,s.'.;;. 't, . r%_;[aa

- 3 - y.T.2Y .3 I 5../-J =13*'h* N...a.34m$C

w .. n ,u mu.~>: a . .n c.n < - ' -n *- - -

m% . .. &: : m.,.,, .. L . c. m .n-*:e M..

we  :

c,< a- ~-= , ., u. sm.. :-w:n=ar

.n. . . a prs-t-wp. '

• m.y; . t : --*~ - . . ...----*W**c.

c*- a.. ,a

.:..,...,,..;..g.a.

.: s me . w . - , e u.-. . , f .y.. .$,. .*.',.a--)w w. . ;,.- .o --

./

• .4 q**=v' --ast

, , , - , .. .- . ,y i ..,n 3 v  % - - s

." .s**

near,,g- -- s'..' - t d 4% st A.,. {lp - + dataA se ---*.*;N.,r.a.*' - F s <* gee.y,9r.e4. =v't.._'.-sa n** * *'N . .* h."w*' 1 .*. .  :-" .9'*M*

• ged +

_ e, *-

-t-e .

.,. .. w.. .. .

. h.'.\C & Y ,[(f? q

?

I\c

-M h%

yi. nuitfe-nm qct.$

N._2. </ s i

'L' /

% w tumi'=n-w-t % E 3at% io c(*R  %~ mo MM>

r So. h

-hg ct NWS 4 O f " i .

l A%tunrt& Mw&tgs y -ny Q /

cob NLLL h _f(2. A .O b ,,. 51 C'IVL I -

ah $ LA y

a>apns4 %. hW w 'n % a w'i}w %s o, ch.-

jtd p d k h k -tItc . [ E t 7A % A C k M JtR_---

4 0 CD, Ao .<rvLd'q N _2/)d2/wt T >A rncVL4Lun.aa._, T h T 4 -

wJ $wdbt u.mJutan6vu c e fMAc. w:_c im

~ h%'\,&4h&-

., T$ p$lAOA1w '

n M /c JAnh * "

/ W,l~

Sri

~ -

'ti im mtc@ coo 4W I u.>wvtc.ut f' s .s

._n2 y ' ,

, CM h bI LOR ,

M M Ct./rtt pd1 W, p'ttIr httMO~ 6') ._Q/L L C4j ' W LM L

~12M\ M LLf4d' cvthi_,

%@ c]QytuO h u.)\.Q._ , N . $ .cntu V Eta sJlh cd/ pm 3 apt, A ; ,w 2

--. Ctn'LALAn'YL La nW *~~

y CUA. M f lLL/)\Li.,L- - 4. 'I . 4 %

. 'L_ w. ow\ iwte , <~cm, ntd agett w&y 6L 4S--,K

=

. mteccfiowu m % 2plC snunt m.cu; ambte-Q_ N LtA_dAL 2. tM") _rk bl/0j ,,,

b j

? .cLv, feru 2 ,t p tC7 A#AC O t x2,gue>tcd_

%%h ..h.& h k ft\ 0 & *

, A l $ ,A Lwt%v mN sgJ t3 n vsc.~ v ( h dt2 h } .AA dA M

.: k k u u a n ... D Jt& Cut aan.u te s'$ .ca.e$ u,um, & SDi'~41

%y envCs omd%) -W na c' -

'cktpubw . Eh rnit Qd am-%y (nuub-n peen l

l = .h),se .Agt w & ct-te m hmmA.& Er

tw<n en eacA

= + po >Wh ', qi%R 1~E HsaL, y%,.Rith atei

,, k '\.S- A CLCA.1 MklLTLC Q. H1 LLM ./L%L M CT'C\. , h GinW$ OL(Yg ^

v ^d~ W W f) i

%4d,t:)') Wm N'L'rt A' bi-  % CL t_,.cA 7- tA\fsA l

h e , h , .Ib1%bl!tuvDWL2._

-02 .uku Cit mwe a' Mmne x r.R.%sA em n OpWbN~

Je wy Cfk.G S'

-l -

(

O G Gary Whitehead 'C)60$

t, ,g/s.e:. lf ,2. g.,C 2300 Eastway Drive l J/

l Lex. , Ky 40503 J/O l

.:.._ ...--.  : 2. . . . . . . - . . - . . .

/

Co-S39(c Mrs. E. B. TcIman I Calvin Circle, C.209, Evanston, Illinois 5039; 3

fihdIbak

&&f 4Df bY'LOlA'f., b , .

} dah k Y "*'

l&nehA6$!/ ridh/2Tu L cuad 6 n&as9& ped %

f)&g c7st AllenM  :

WW J2ul<-

,, ~dLin

&&vr.iME'>: V , cbt? Q.feA1.t.

1 n*d?{'lTf

-f.hsd." &nailih juZ'au'aITb" 0bibiak Y*

th dstpaa h 2 9 act.s w w w yw y

y -

w.' s t A g a n c u a kA nngo f q w t w

(w% a m Cwuaa&w.mza,Ja p fM,kq;wnztk,gr-l

DSO3 5

f l /D l

b

b' b -

4 4

4a k f'fii&c.o

', tukb&uac/

A,ga&,

N ktsw $t Ysd.ibt.

Ya>v 4&Jartbd o g .'fr}

i

& 'cAtivet du %ege ' b$.eYP h

i fG.n Yn.bb0, 'W a4 ll4Gu

[Ogkei 7la C6..i3 Y Jh uletLGlJu.6 hem' '

kab d/n bMe, ab ' ^

04hYsydt4.Lv.

9d&l t&fibe c$& Ys ,) i 3,

{

.f i $ N y  ?' ' = 'd \ '. J k '" ^..

l ( 's ,w,% 'g,N .i  ; , %. K".'Ny i7 v \ 3 9o ,,

, 's . ,

1 0

\J s . N,.

t' v y - ,

7 ;s IJ e  ? >

~

.f x, .. .

)a . ')

l

~'*L 's G 'll y, r C.

8

%{,

l %n  % s , ' h 1%. N '

.v ,

4 y s u s y , B, . 'q '2 ,-

'J '! 9 *'a h

,a 'R J \i v'  ?

la'-

' Q.

it. ,

i .:

sj \

~

Q. 1 bus s t

$. 'k

~ i.%s

't , j '\

s

-? s j

s e ~

w . .' \'

'. ?

Y

- \

• ]

j r

~

,,3 N bi y - T;

,s . w ' - .' . ' . -

. N, s, t'

y 1 (I 9 - N.  % 'N ' N .f 4 a'. s y N < , '2 -

t h q $y *3 Ms M-1

• n $- 4  % 4 k k " y '3 @,

(f), .k)' J '

\J .Qg s

} %g' 't,3 y,'; . .p, g gc ,.'A, ) 7

%v .v-

,s .> .%

, n. a,s r. s.e, .e . . .

, , , , .- m m . - .-

'- .\ ,g 3 -

i - eayv . .'\ ,- S /

'a k v a\Ns D

h l(.i. ;

?

v,x , .3.t-x 3 -

.s - .  :

% ,9 . . .

s . s . .

gs {le 1 'i

'9 M '.' . , (^d 9 Q : l'm d i'k4. d [C!

i 3 Sp,s y -j

' y- W':

?

s s: gg u s:. 3 i

,s . 4 iv y 'M -

[w+ > y_ .y (' ' -

a .j ' '

-! t,s .G,hs [. y-f! $s ' $ a , g$ $y- -.'c 4 ,(' j_L .t 4w h , 4

'.Is : N Nu

.i -3

. s t . ..  :

q- e , ,-

'. I' I

! 'h ) ri h h ,

(5 D(m \Q' N A :. ' "sh' tig i i .

jim

o . m. x.

. . . d.1',' q ! $# P hj.' $. h.sy4 s r ,9tgo g .$q.i1 ,

i E, jo

- . a g .s f "'+,3ry;f ~+c.

- . . ~14 m . )s s,, r .. [4 g4 'J s,

. ->) V.;..,.p:; _ $, % .4.....7g *e.

i i ,

Ay t ,3, s .

) '% ' - j .

, 'tr' Q'f j 'f l M,

+e s

. ,: Sh

• • 0 r p i.,

( -

h l,

,f. 7 i

] N .J 9' 'y ,.

rhy , Q-d:.G. ,.%

, gf.g. r .

f

% - . J' ,>;

i - <v . , - -

- -Q. A i - - - - -

i

-= g - +. m,-w~3-

, .r

%n . .y%..

-  : -_- s.

i .. - - , . _

m%

e . re .y . p. . ' #p '

,.9,m.n , ,F .,,

-r -

. ie, M,^;yI*, n#J{y n . 'rc* M *.:%-.*. N w- - w.vf.;6,17Yyfs" .;.

=Q

( .b J.

' %%o;cg,,5m s.=

., mp:

\.-  % .

y .

l

" * * ~ ~

.,.y

,y -

/.

)

. g-e%,

ax ~ CLr pt ,

wu ( W ~,. *. J8nb =. "7"E"E ,. a3

.u see L

, ~

""~ ' ' h;lC?!

Ax

%m) < T .?

b A ~ l

'ca a.

c "8gg sp, L Y,k i 3 t .s e '

J L. M 6

~

-m e_  %

a. '

c4 W wk&

0= - se n I I

O gt t

C' h

cL, O SL M

& t'd

, m

? cM n-wu 45% t,u W

3 &o W4a~

c .-

q ic e u._,

2 , ~.

g( '

.(.

NfM

g ,

(Q

,a~4. e -

'y

, a~~S--

-/7 re 34*.'

w

- .i .e s- 202 :&clevect St.

.A .3

'82 ,

is-art:wr.,.?ss. 02172

. ; g ;, Januar/ 14, 1052 ..

LC?.EI, ' e2 ~

'/

Sacretar-/ ?f the Cc9 mission

' uelear Heralato:y Co,,ission gggWED 3 .

, gg, g3 y [g-]

3 ca.,hingten, :.:. c2555 -

gB?.e 1 - - -- --

T emar 6k $@p ws

• 4 Cear Mr. Jecretary, -

/

W h/

I's writing to register my oppesitien te the exe... 'd he Clinch River 3reeder Reacter fror: routine regulatory and licensing precedures. I understand that monies have recently been appropriated frc a the federal budget to ccast: .:ct this reactor. Since no emergency situation exists necessitating the i==ediate construction of Clinch River reactor, if constructed at all, I am of the streng opinion that established regulatory procedures shculd be aihered to.

I thank you in advance for your censideration of my cencern.

Sincerely,

. , e. -

.<~ ..

Crissey Safferd p0 7 s

/o

___- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 1

37 yct20 P4 d Jam:ary 15~,1982 Y 1 Secretary of the Conr:issibrr- -

z-Iluclear Regulatory Corsnission Washington, DC

[

Dear Sirt is a group we oppose the exempticn of the controversial Clinch River Sweder Reactor from rule 10 CFR 50.10. We oppose this exemotion for the following nasons:

1. The exemution defeats the purpose of the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor Project, which is designed to denonstrate the licensibility of breeder reactors.

2. The exeption would further undernine public ecnfidence in ~

q,

//

bne'dar technology. gQ $

3. This is not an " emergency" situation which would war-ant a G7 B6 p$

%FI, .

special exemution. US eneigy usage is cur-ntly declining.

O

• 8

' <b

h. There is no Congressional mandate urging fast progress of N s the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor.

Thank you for your attention to our remarks.

l Sincen17, N#

j June venA: den Mothers for Peace 921 Iongview Pismo 3eaeh, CA t

W S

/b l

l l

l l

l .

~

~

- 91 DA'11t January 11, 1982 e- -

q ss-~Lt)

T Secretary of the conssLasion A M -Y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoassL esid p?l'( p _]

7ashington, D.C. 20S25 [st 4 FRCM Catherine quigg, research directo- '\ ~ '8 j 20 P 4 5 Pb11ution & Erwironnental Problems, d l Palatine, Illh ais 60067 /v 8 (312/381-6695) i The development of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CR2) abuld not take For that reason, the sambers of Pollution &

precedese Eurironmusstal ererProblesse public safsty(.

Inc. PW) are unalterably opposed to the Nuclear Regulstory cousdadom's prope sal to allow eenstruetio:a to begin witbeut prior

. licendng Ig the NRO .

The U.3. Department of Baergy (DOE), in = king this prope enl, has oited the need for expediting the derelopment of the CRBR in the United States. We de not believe this need exide. Curiously, we find that the U.S. DOE's top I

research advisory committee-in at s =ning reappraisal of mergy priorities--

l agrees with u se- The January 8,1982 issae of asianee magazine reveals that the DOE's Energy Rosenroh AdviDry Board (ERAB) recommende that funding for the 1RiR be halted and tio se funda, indead, be us ed fWr higher priority areas, steh as senservation and enrireammatal research and derelepast.

The CRM is alrea# more than ten year e behind schedule and five time s it s original

, cost estimat e. Original plans called flor operation of the CRM to begin by the l mid-1770 e. Pooe admLaistration and dedgp changee haye eaused numescua dslaye l and higher ao ete. Thore are many eginoera she feel the present CRM dosign ie i alrea# outdated and that the U.S. should bypass this proj eat. Roughly $4-billica l ' .o already been poured down the breeder drain over the pas 4 three doendes and t

as additional $10-killiam will be required for the derelopmet of a coussereial prototype breeder tsastere There is ne need in the U.S. to expedite the developmet of the CRR. Uranium reserves are platiful and the price of uranium is relatively law. Ihreover breeders are dependet om an expanding nuclect program. In the U.S., the nuclear program is centracting-not expanding. There has beam a d=1+ning growth in -

demand tor elentricity. Ae high intered ratee and heavy coupsti; ties finr finenase continue, this deline in electrical demand growth will go ca. Ao a'r'esalt of ~

this deeline, eleven proposed nuclear power plants have been eeneelled dnce ' ~ T. .

Newember 1981.

when Clinch River was conceived at a time /we expoeted to riat out of umanium-hr the l

year 2000. It was dedsped as a prototype for the generation of remeters that would preduee mough plutonium to fuel other remotore as the world ran short of pO3 f

l uranium. In actuality, the rate of reacter condructica is otirabout one-fifth of that which led to these psejection s. Furtherere, new sperose:of uranium have /D been foted, extraction, teelmiques improved, and efficiacy with which uranium is used.wirasashile,.:the ce st, of breeder and related reprocessing facilities have dramatically increased. As a resalt, the o is no need fer the breeder in our lifetime. Itarsever, we are far more awarts today of the dangers in becoming reliant on plutoniumwhiche tulike light, water reactor fuel, is directly and 1-ediately useable in making nualaar weapons.

= s t

RANGE AVENUE VETERINARY HOSPfTAL , ,_;

<st 9. RANGE AVENUE .

DENMAM SPRINGS. LA. 7073.

,.-.....u..

'82 JM120 Pa f 5

< ~

January 15, 1982 .:; . , ...- ",0 a...-

..... . 1

..f. _3.0 (fJ-

~ . . .

4 .

,g q.

Secretary of the Commission jf RECEIVED ~~

3 Nuclear Regulatsry Commission f JAN 2719828* '

'dashington, D.C. 20555 n esi um" c" (Docket No. 50-537- exemption request under 10 CFR 50.

S T *" o

'/

To Whom It May Concern: g

% m Cn March 1, 1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be vo on whether or not to exempt the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor from certain licensing procedures. As a concerned citizen and one that is involved in a medical-related profession, I am opposed to this hasty decision for several reasons.

First, licensing exemption of the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor by the KRC is not an emergency situation e.nd therefore does not warrant special exemption. Clinch River, like other breeder reactors, would guarantee the United States an unlimited supply of domestic atomic fuel. However, Jan Beyea, a physicist on the staff of the Audubon 3ociety states that there won' t be a shortage of conventional uranium for at least 50 years.

Second, an exemption by the ZRC would permit 388 million dollars of site preparations to begin before issuance of a construction permit. The report, "A Cost and Technical Fiasco" issued by an Cversight and Investigations Subcommittee staff indicated an increase in cost from 3669 million in 1973 to et least 33.2 billion.

In 1973, a group of 753 private utilities agreed to provide = ore than a third of the capital for the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor.

Becnase of the cost increases, the private sector will only provide 5% or less of the investment. This forces the Government to underwrite nuclear development for the private sector by building the reactor. The underlying Department of Energy motive l

l in pushing for exemption therefore appears to be -eencern that

! without progress at Clinch River, the pro.j ect would not survive another Congressional budget battle.

Third, Clinch River 3reeder Reactor is a much more ~ dangerous and complex device than other reactors. Aside from :the obvious concerns of terrorists obtaining plutonium for the production of atomic weapons, questions arise as to the adequacy of the reactor' , safety mechanisms. Since the reactor is designeu to cool by highly volatile liquid sodium, any leakage in the sodium ducts and the inability of the reactor to control it could be disasterous.

go3 5

) C7

l l

RANGE AVENUE VETERINARY HOSPITAL 4st s. RAMOS AVSNUS DEMMAM SMllMee, LA. 70726 me a < eam, See.neo In summary, any " fast track" exemption for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor by the Department of Energy is unwise and unnecessary because this is not an emergency situation which would warrant special exemption, and because construction of the reactor is both financially unsound and unsafe.

Sincerely, Dr. Susanne M. Hirsch i

l

-. L 15,11%

"d2 J#l 20 P4 :C6 '

PdaIrlin C/Y 79301

. .b S t u t W y o f T k t. C o m m .s s < c 8 '.

i;?f l

/11ilC Wask % tzn, Dc ES55 -c = =n m:.a a u- ....,.flg.- y~h

. q. l g RECEIVED ', l 6; JAN 271982 w l-32 D1e Stmky - , "MllM" ;

I an wnh t rm ve, Am ,

ns. Clu s % zi B z/- h oiaft d A a 5'cc< &nS r auhsh$ --

br chscsssim ntd- wut.. T ful t mW be.4 g.sNen &k_ u to allow sgy pnpern/1cns 6h st 15 turst cit

• i.htRV Rt rtutv S onV k b t - bnit.

T a m o f 'i k t. imon Tk+ it ska,ldn'tbz bd s a%s. a n h %ty/ tts is declume. M Thta- cs u l prsd>< n1wl ts rm ido 'iks ub!<c.

cit 6sth cm inkt. tact. on %.?eks . sut. T s.ar-

&vsk, 6&m 7kst-a &)lt cc3rts.s is prt.w, y split evv rprt9 uu,ly.

A c. SBR e  % -

wson erg 1#. caUtikhws to mt 4 cm$ ar p,+t%

dats oba # gtrwkt "Is t ' in ] h s cen T% & rsad-pwpc+<'i ktlf wiwyi5 rF mght- 55 jo, ids.

~

I hcot. ycw wt// rtys+ my ccectots, .

9 503 5l

'/O i

t *1cS.

f. **Z (YlNtt

NEW york publlC INTEREST RESEARCb Q ROUp,INC RG S Beekman Street e New York. N.Y.10038 e-1212)449 6460 o, ., ~ . w = .. u . . e =

. .... m vec. s _ -.

• 02 J'd 20 P ' T3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g, $3. 7. -

r]MMENTS ON DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EXEMPTION REQUEST g FOR 4 4

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR  %

g,%$, yED 2 T3 g, e sM. lfl.?.,2, 7 7S 8 2 .s 10 CFR PART 50.12 rg .4

g .< a s

'lifGf January 18, 1982

- ' J.: 2,b r'

%4

.p

. / /

l l

i l

l The New York PuCMC Interest Aseeerm Grote. Inc. (NYPtHG) is a not-for-orofM. norcerasan researen are advocacy orgaruzation estabitened, directed and succorted Dy New Yort State codege and urwererty stuoentL NYPtAG*s staff of lawyers reeeermers. soennets and orgartzers works wrth students and other Cmzens, devonoonng cit 2ensnso saums and snaamg puDec pokcy. Cortaster proeschon, r>gner education. energy 'iscal resconseskty, postacal reecrm and ecomi jusace are NYP1AG s prvopes aroes of concem.

1 1

~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - -- -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$80N - - - --

Department of Energy )

)

Exemption Request for

~~ ~ - ~ -

)

) Docket No. 50-537 Clinch River Greeder Reactor )

) January 18, 1982 -

10 CFR Part 50.12 )

COMMENTS BY NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, INC.

Introduction On Nov. 30,1981, the Department of Energy asked the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission to grant an exemption from rule 10 CFR 50.12, permitting work to go ahead on site preparation for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor be fore a construction permit or limited work authorization has been issued.

Ground could be broken at the site early in 1982 and up to $88 million could be expended on clearing, excavation, and the like before the comple-tion of hearings on licensure and before the NRS has given its formal approval of this highly controversial project. The DOE offers as a rationale for suspending the usual rules the arguments that the project is urgent, that Congress has mandated rapid progress on it, and that the rules in question are not necessary because .no safety-related structures are involved in the preparation of the site. The NRC announced on Dec. 24, 1981 that it intends to decide the issue by March 1,1982.

NYPIRG finds that the reasons given are singularly unconvincing, that the requested exemption would create additional risk to the public health and safety, and that no compensating benefits would ensue. Therefore.

NYPIRG strongly urges the Commission to reject the request for exemption.

I. DOE's rationale for seeking the exemotion rests upon factual inaccura-cies; the real state of affairs imolies that the rule (10 CFR 50.12) should be vicorously enforced.

-- NYPIRG Coments - page 2 There is not, as alleged, any urgency about the construction of A.

the Clinch River reactor. No emergency exists or threatens that could be remedied by hastening construction of this pilot plant. DOE's own Energy Research Advisory Board, in its recent report, recommended that ,

construction of the breeder reactor be delayed precisely because of a lack of any urgent- need for it. The ERAB provided evidence that supplies of coal and uranium will be more than sufficient to supply foreseeably needed electricity for 40 years. In addition, many signs point to a reduction in the growth of demand for electricity, perhaps even to a decline in the absolute amount of electricity used in the immediate future, and the elec-tricity generating industry is already plagued by overbuilding. NRC will be doing the utilities a favor to help prevent the further glut of excess capacity which DOE seems intent upon fostering. There can be no urgency to build as a demonstration a plant based upon an antiquated and already obsolete design. In the years since the Clinch River reaction was planned, research on LMFBRs has progressed to the point where all that would be demonstrated by its construction is the political power of its proponents

in the face of all rational arguments.

B. Congress has not mandated any speedup in the construction of Clinch River; on the contrary, congressional support for the continued expenditure of funds on this ill-considered project has been weakening.

Amendments calling for a cut in the funding of the project failed by only 2 votes in the Senate and 20 votes in the House of Representatives, in the i consideration of the 1981 budget.

I l C. Contrary to DOE's statements, the preparation of the site can have strong implications for safety. Experiences like the accident at

-Three Mile Island indicate that it is a great deal more difficult than for-merly supposed to be sure just what aspects of a nuclear plant are " safety l

l i

NYPIRG Comments - page 3 related" and what aspects are not. In large part, that stems from the great cordlexity of PWRs and BWRs; a fortiori, it applies even more strongly to fast creeder reactors, which are even more complicated and with which we have had less actual experience. Strictly speaking it fol- -

laws from the very definition of systems that no part of a complex system

~

like a breeder reactor can be wholly irrelevant to safety. Even the pre-paration of the site, narrowly construed to mean excavation and grading operations without the installation of any foundations, can be highly relevant to the safety of any reactor that is subject to core melt accidents, which are a distinct danger with LMFBRs of the Clinch River type: The amount and rapidity of environmental contamination that would occur after a core melt and penetration of the basement material would depend grer.;1y on the microgeology of the site. What kind of soil and subsoil underlie the foundation, how far it is to groundwater, etc., could have a great deal of influence on the rapidity and degree of environmental contamination after a core melt accident. It is highly artificial, from an engineering I

standpoint, to pretend that the choice and preparation of the specific site l

on which a breeder is to be built are irrelevant to safety and would not be affected by the specifications of the reactor design that is finally approved.

~

II. The orocosed exemption would defeat the purpose of a demonstration project and would tend to undermine the lono-run crosoects of nuclear power.

The purpose of a demonstration plant is to show that it is in fact feasible to build, license, and operate a liquid metal fast breeder reactor

~ for practical power generation, within the constraints of existing rules and practices. But if the only way to do so is to suspend the rules that normally and properly apply, that is a serious indictment of the breeder's

, .NYP8RG Comments - page 6 practical feasibility, already in doubt on numerous other grounds. At the same time, it wou1J tend to uncermine rather than support public ccnfidence in the breeder, which is another precondition for its feasi-bility. The most recent national public opinion polls (conducted by AP ,-

and NBC) show that a majority of the public now opposes the building of more nuc. lear-power plants; the post-TMI loss of confidence in the irdustry and in the NRC will be turnad around only by an extended period of time in which the Commission consistently and scrupulously puts safety first.

Corner-cutting of the kind being proposed is an excellent way to undermine the long-run prospects for nuclear power of any kind, because it can only nourish the seeds of suspicion, cynicism, and distrust that were sown by the TMI accident and the way it was handled by the NRC.

III. The fast-track approach is acoropriate only to fully tested tech-nologies; serious doubts remain about Clinch River on many grounds.

The only conditions under which it makes sense to suspend rules and otherwise seek to cut red tape that slows the application of a technology is when all doubts about it have been resolved. With respect to the LMFBR, however, grave doubts remain on the most serious of grounds: the need for it, its economic advisability, its technical feasibility, and above all, its safety. The plan for Clinch River was originally proposed during a time when projected demand for electricity during the next few decades was at a level that now seems absurdly exaggerated. The growth of demand for

~

l more electricity has virtually halted, and may well become negative, whi1e l the industry has a substantial overcapacity. Many signs are pointing now 1

to a much more serious kind of shortage, which threatens to grow worse in the remaining years of this century: a dearth of capital . It is therefore of the greatest urgency now to ask of any proposed long-range energy plan,

. NYP7RG Comments - page 5'-

"How great a demand will it mak? on the shrinking pool of capital funds?"

The breeder reactor is one of the mort capital-intensive methods of gen-'

erating electricity yet devised, and capital costs now bulk much larger in the total price of electricity than the alleged savings from the

generation of fissionable plutonium. Similarly, in a time of budgetary stringency., breeder technology absorbs a hugely disprorrrtional amount of all available R & D funds, especially considering the very small contri-bution it could ever make to the nation's energy needs.

The technical engineering problems of this means of generating elec-tricity continue to multiply, notably those of processing the fuel and its blanket to extract fissionable material. Until that technology has been developed to the point where it is clear that reprocessing is both comercially feasible and capable of being carried out without endang_ering..

the health and safety of the workers and public, it is absurd to push ahead rapidly with building a demonstration reactor that may never be used.

The operation of the breeder reactor itself has all of the dangers tc health and safety of other fission reactors plus several others of its own. The Clinch River design uses liquid sodium as a coolant, a' substance which is both poisonous and explosively inflamatory if it comes into con-tact with either air or water, so that it introduces new dangers o' fire and chemical pollution.

l

~~ ~~

We do not claim that the points made in the preceding paragraphs cannot be rebutted; but it cannot be denied tnat all of these issues are highly controversial, and that qualified experts take the anti-breeder position on each of them. This is, then, ' precisely the kind of situation for which a suspension of ordinary rules is not appropriate.

l l

l _

NYPfRG Comments - page 6 IV. Nothing should be done_to advance the building of Clinch River until the most seriqus' issue has been resolved: its threat to national security.

Clinch Rtver has been. controversial from the start for the reasons .,

just enumerated in the previous section, but also for an additional and overridingly-important reason: Building it would threaten our nations 1

! security in several ways. 'NYPIRG believes that these dangers are of the l

l utmost grcvity, and that' wholly insufficient assurances have been given by the proponents of Clinch River. Hence, we oppose any steps toward it::

construction until all of the security issues have been thoroughly explored and much better safeguards are in place than any proposed so far.

The greatest danger to life on e'arth comes ~ frost the threat of nuclear war, which would be enormously increased by-committing this nation to a "olutonium economy." It should ba sufficient merely to mention the problem of proliferation, the impossibility of preventing the-disappearance of  !

significaat amounts of bomb-grade plutonium even under present conditions, and the growing' duger that a terrorist group will hold cities and nations hostage with threatUto detonate nuclear bombs; All'of that would be made l far.rrxiee threat $ning with the construction and operation of a breeder reacter in this coer.try, especially one that.is to usher in a series of others l'ke ;tt. s 4 -

1 l Fudhermore,' breeder te:hnology is applicable only to very large.

l central generating plants, while the' security of this . country is already s

seriously'comprtimised by the present degree of centralization of electric l '

generation. Breeders would increase our vuingrability to sabotage, direct L enery attack, or incapacitation by electromagnetic-pulse from nuclear explosions. -

L -

l ,.

7

, s _

\

._, .. . . ...W... s -- -.

+

, .t ,

s NYPIRG Co.ments - page 7

_V. The ceksecuence of granting the exemotion is that future objections l .. .._ _. _. .

l ..

t will be outweighed by the momentum of a fait accomoli.which may be the underlying motivation for the cresent -recuest. .

The history of nuclear power has been dominated by the economic J trap of the fait accompli . Because so much money has already been invested, a

doubts about 'an enteyprise that looks increasingly unwise in many ways have been set aside on the argument that "we can't turn back now--we have to realize something on our enormous investment." The recently published s, story of the economic quagmire of the Shoreham construction project (Newsday, 1981), provides a dramatic example of the folly of hasty actions 7 like the one being proposed by DOE. At Shoreham, permission was given for

, f " site preparation" befere a construction per: alt was issued. When the public

/

hearings for that permit were completed, a good part of the containment i building had been constructed unde- the pretense of " site preparation."

1 Having been willing to look the other way before, can NRC's I and E be trusted now to apply strict standards to Clinch River? As more questions were raised in the public hearings about the safety of LILCO's proposed reactor, the structural steel skeleton rose into plain view, mak'ing it b increasingly difficult for any ASLB to decide against issuing a construc-tion license. With the wisdom of aftersight, all parties concerned now t

probably wish that permission to build at Shoreham had never been granted.

It is of course no accident that the utility pushed ahead beyond the

, site preparations that were legally authorized. They knew what they were doing, and there is every reason to believe that DOE is not wholly naive o

, /l about the fa,f t_ accomoli issue either. The advocates of the breeder un-doubtedly want so many millions of dollars to be spent that Congress will feel they have no choice but to vote funds to continue a project that per-haps should never have begun, but is now a physical reality. NRC should l

NYPIRG Comments - page 8

- ~~ -- -not -l end i ts el f to becoming pa rt o f any such cyni cal scheme . ------- -- --- -- - -

Conclusion

~' ~

NYPIRG is fully convinced that the Clinch River demonstration plan is' a wholly unjustifiable waste of public money, one for which there is,no d,emonstrated need. Furthermore, it subjects the American publ'ic and the world to grave dangers for small and doubtful benefits, which in no way are counterbalancing. Far from taking any extraordinary steps to adyance the project and preempt future congressional considera-tion lof it on its merits, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should reject the present request for an exemption, and enforce full and careful ad-herence to all rules to protect the health and safety of the public.

~

New Yo rk , N.Y.

January 18, 1982 Respectfully submitted,

. W Q Donald K. Ross, Director

, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

i 5 Beekman Street New York, N.Y. 10038 (212) 349-6460 l

1 '

\ .. .-

e FRIENDS OF THE EARTH .y,;. .---

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

'82 FI 20 P d :D_

~

es

' :_ ^- A ,'7 S h $ .. _

COMMENTS TO THE NUCLEAR REGLLtTORY COMMISSION REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S LICENSING EEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REAcr0R W  %

4 Q-Docket #: 50-537

? , El'GIVED 3 .

2 -

6- allN277902L d"mreh^[@SPM'1 7 January 18, 1982 k ,f Presented by: Renee Parsons Melanie Rubin 'i' , , .

t

. i2..;;g

• '! r.cc ,,

950s 3

/ I Comimited to the presenation. restorarron. and rational use of the etusphere IWe metrG e paper y

Before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Docket # 50-537 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Exemption request under 10 C7R 50.12) '

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant)

Friends of the Earth would like to submit its coments as specified in the __

Federal Register Notice dated December 31, 1981 regarding the Department of _ _.- .__

Energy's request for a waiver of the license for '.6e Clinch River Breeder. --- - . -_ :1.

Reactor pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. As suggested by the Commission's Memorandum u- - - -

and Order, our comments will address specific points in Attachment A.

As key participants in the Congress debate that took place in 1981, Friends of the Earth is exceptionally well-qualified to coment on numerous questions raised by the Comission directed to the Applicant.

The Department's November 30, 1981 request for a waiver of the Nuclear'Regula-tory Comission's licensing requirements for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor demonstration represents a major policy decision to be mada by the Comission. Since the history of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor has already been a contentious and controversial one, any license exemption would only further undermine the Comission's ability to address this highly visible project in an objective and impartial manner.

Friends of the Earth believes that the Department has failed abysmally to pre-sent its case in favor of the exemption with credible and factual material.

The only " exceptional circumstance" that faces Clinch River is, as the Department is well aware, possible Congressional veto of further funding for I

the project.

2 Af ter a thorough review of all the relevant documentation, we feel certain that the Comission will agree that the exemption request is without meric and will, therefore, reject the Department's application.

Clinch River Breeder Reactor - A Licensed Demonstration The Department's request is extraordinary in view of the Federal government and the nuclear industry's historic comitment to a fully licensed demonstra-tion LMFBR plant. That commitment to licensability dates back to the pro-j ect's earliest conceptual discussions.

In 1970, the Senior Utility Advisory Panel developed guidelines during the early deliberations on what kind of a plant should be built. An excerpt from those guidelines says that "the design of the nuclear island must result in a practical plant that is licensable by the Atomic Enargy Comission."

In his June 24, 1972 Ectrgy Message, President Nixon initiated the development of the LMFBR project.

In August, 1972, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the AEC, Tennessee Valley Authority, Comonwealth Edison and the 'PMC and BRC, representing over 700 utilities. Attachment of that Memorandum specified that "the demonstration plant will be designed and constructed in accorc ance with all applicable nuclear licensing requirements of the AEC."

Congressional comitment to a licensed LMFBR plant was also pledged. At Joint Committee of Atomic Energy hearings held in September, 1972, Chairman John O.

Pastore pointed out that "it is also important to consider that before con-struction of the LMFBR demonstration plant is begun, a construction permit will have to be applied for by the TVA or PMC and secured from the AEC in accordance with Section 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended and the Comission's regulations under that Act and under the National Environ-mental Protection Act." A careful review of the Joint Comittee's proceedings show that there was no dissension at the project's desired licensability.

3 That commitment to a licensed demonstration LTBR project at Clinch River was reaffirmed in Section 202 of the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act when the -

newly-created Nuclear Regulatory Cournission assumed the AEC's responsibility for licensing the project. 2- - - - -

Industry acceptance of a licensed Clinch River Breeder was further reiterated during House Interior Connittee he trings on June,1975 when John J. Taylor, Vice President and General Manager, Westinghouse Corporation testified that "it will fully develop the necessary safety, licensing and environmental prece-dents in an open regulatory forum. It will be licensed as any other connercial nuclear powerplant. This will result in greater confidence in the licensability of future commercial breeder reactor plants - a necessary step for early commer-

. cial acceptance."

In October,1975, at the PMC's Chief Executive Briefing on Clinch River, the Assistant General Manager for Engineering, Richard E. Jortberg presented an overview of the project's licensing process and progress. At that time, Mr.

Jortberg said "one of the objectives of building the Clinch River Breeder Plant as a demonstration plant is to demonstrate the licensability of a LVBR plant."

Mr. Jortberg went on to define the PMC licensing philosophy outlining four basic premises.

"1. There will be no shortcuts to the counercial licensing process. -

2. A second premise is one of complete openness. Our information is avail-able, and we feel that we must meet all the key licensing issues head-on.

3. We wish to establish meaningful dialogue with serious intervenors.

4. The fourth premise is that we wish to make our licensing case on merit."

4 That industry commitment to licensing Clinch River does not appear to have lessened in recent years, even in the face of uncertainty abou e the project's

( -

future. The PMC's 1980 Annual Report provides a brief overview of the -

i l licensing progress of the Clinch River project.

"Although licensing has been suspended pending resolutions of the policy debate over the futcre of the Clinch River project, the project has continued its licensing and safety activities. The project has instituted design changes for licensability and conformance to regulatory require-ments and has amended documentation previously submitted to the NRC.

t Pertinent NRC documents issued since the TMI accident have been reviewed l

co keep the Clinch River Project current with changing requirements con-cerning plant features, siting policy and emergency preparedness planning.

l CRBRP's Preliminary Safety Analysis Report has also been amended to ensure that it continues to be accurate and up-to-date."

l l More recently, the 1981 Progress Report, published by the BRC, lists as one of the principal objectives of Clinch River "to verify certain key characteristics of breeder power plants for operation on utility systems. This includes safety and licensability."

Clearly, the industry itself has seen the licensability of Clinch River as a key factor in its favor as well as an important element in the public's perception.

Further, an obj ective analysis of early Congressional hearings, GAO documents, and the industry's own statements reveal a firm cotanitment to a fully licensed demonstration plant. Our extensive review of available documents indicates that, at no time, was anything less than a fully licensed plant contemplated.

Congressional Intent According to the Department of Energy's November 30, 1981 request to the

" Commission, Conference Report language in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 indicates support for construction in a " timely and expeditious manner".

If Congress had meant to waive certain licensing requirements, then such language would have been explicit. A complete reading of that section of the i Reconciliation Act shows that Congress did not address a licensing exemption l

for the Clinch River project. That passage in its entirety reads:

5 "The Conferees intend that the plant 'should be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner, so that a decision on the consnercialization and deployment of breeder reactors can be made on the basis of information obtained in the operation of the plant. The plan should therefore be -

constructed on the basis of that objective, and not on the basis of pro- -

viding needed power in the specific region of the Clinch River site."

A careful review of the 1981 Congressional debate in both the House and Senate reveals no expressed intention or desire to exempt the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project from any part of its licensing requirements. To the contrary, any mention of the licensing issue simply restated that goal. As Senate Energy Committee Chairman, James McClure said .n November 4th during debate on the Senate Floor, " Experience in licensing, building and operating an interim scale breeder d'amonstration plant will be needed in the early 1990's if prudent decisions are to be made by utilities about the long term needs for inexhaustible energy from breeders." During that same November Senate Floor debate, Sen.

McClure recited Congressional activities on Clinch River during 1981. That recitation included a review of the House .tud Senate versions of t' e'h ~Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 - without any reference to a possible licensing exemption request.

In addition, Senate Majority leader Howard Baker, a leading Clinch River propo-nant said on November 4th on the Senate Floor that, "the President has urged the rapid completion of the Clinch River demonstration plant as a key element in that program." Senator Baker went on to add that "the main uncertainties concerning the LMFBR are not technical as is the case with unproven technologies such as fusion. They are economic."

As Senator Baker has indicated, the NRC's licensing activities were not cited as a major uncertainty to the completion _of Clinch River. At no time during the Senate Floor debate did Senator. Baker, Senator McClure or any other Clinch River proponent raise the necessity of a possible licensing exemption for Clinch River.

6 A similar picture emerges when the House Floor debate is examined. Represen-cative Bouquard, Chair of the Energy, Research and Production Subcommittee which has sole jurisdiction for the project, said on the House Floor on July 24th:

"A technology demonstration project is intended to verify key aspects of a technology, in this case, the operating characteristics of breeder powerplants as they wih fit in utility systems. Technical and economic data vill be provided to government, industry and the public, so that sufficient experience with, and information about the concept will be available to permit the ccmmercial deplovment of the breeder."

As a review of the Senate showed, at no time during tne July House debate

~

did either Rep. Bouquard or any other Clinch River proponedt rad e"sh'e NRC's

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

licensing requirements of Clinch River as either prohibitivior 'reE~rEtWe~

~'

~~~

to the project's ultimate consitruction and o'peration.

~ ~ ~~~

It is also interesting to note that immediately prior to that July Floor vote, DOE Secretary James Edwards wrote to the Science & Technology Committee's ranking ainority Members, Rep. Iarry Winn. On July 21, 1981, Secretary Edwards said, '*4e believe that in order to resolve the technical uncertainties associated with the breeder, it is necessary for us to move ahead with the basic research and development work." Secretary Edwards, at that time, did not raise the need for a licensing exemption as a prerequisite to moving ahead with Clinch River.

T Clinch River " Dead in the Water"?

At the December 16, 1981 Commission meeting, Mr. Silverstrom, the Department's representative, claimed that unless this exemption request was granted, the project would be " dead in the water". As the result of unexpectedly close Congressional votes on continued funding for Clinch River, the Departnent of Energy is clearly fearful of the upcoming debates in Congress. During the I

House and Senate debates in 1981, there was never any indication or refer-ence on the part of Clinch River proponents that the project would be " dead ,

in the water" by March,1982.

Contrary to DOE's assertion, Clinch River advocates have claimed that operation

is imminent. In the PMC's 1980 Annual Report, Wallace Behnke, Chairman of the PMC Board and Vice President of Conunonwealth Edison said, that " Clinch _

River can be ready for construction as soon as regulatory approval to proceed is obtained and can be completed as early as 1988." In the BRC's 1981 Progress Report, the BRC claims that "the plant could start generating electricity in

~

1989."

Rep. Bouquard, in March,1981 " Breeder Briefs", published by the BRC, stated

, chat "I believe that as a result of Congress' refusal to let the project die and the aggressive support of the new Administration, we will see the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project in operation within the decade. None of these preceeding predictions are dependent on a waiver of the NRC's licensing re-quirements for Clinch River. Clearly, the Department of Energy's allegations are ,not consistent with industry and Congressional supporters. The Commission can only reject the Department's request and concentrate its effort on building a credible record on Clinch River.

• Conclusion i .

In sumnary, Friends of the Earth would like to reiterate three key factors in the case against a 10 CFR 50.12 waiver pf the license for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

1) Such a waiver is completely inconsistent with the U.S. Congress and Federal Government's historic commitment to a fully licensed demonstration LMFBR plant and undesirable in terms of achieving public confidence 1

8 in the Commission's activities.

2) The question of whether CRBR's licensing requirements prohibit the ~

the plant's construction in a " timely and expeditious" manner was never raised during the 1981 debates on the House and Senate floor Furthermore, in alleging the necessity of a licensing exemption the DOE has interpreted this phrase in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

3) There has been no conclusive evidence to prove the DOE's allegation

~

that the CRBR project will be " dead in the water" if the licensing exemption is not granted by March,1982.

In conclusion, the DOE has not presented valid documentation to substantiate its opinion that a licensing exemption is needed for " timely" construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Clearly, the Department's true purpose

~

in seeking this. waiver rests in its potential to show the Cong'ress that the CRBR project has not reached an unresoluble stalemate, e

i I

u DOC 5 Dorothy Rd.

• 02 dM 2 Arlington, Ma. 02174

',p g January 14, 1982 .

c.JF:0E I

( C0CKE 1

Joseeh M. Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ '--<-

'"[3-:+~-= 7

'4ashington, D.C. 20555 i

Dear Chairman Hendrie,

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing procedure will be nothing but a meaningless farce if The Clinch River 3reeder Reactor Nuclear Power Plant is granted an exemption. . Since no emergency exists, the granting of an exemption is unwarranted and would es-tablish a dangerous precedent. As chairman of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, you have a sacred responsibility to the American people to have its safety as your foremost consideration in t.41s.

deliberation. The Clinch River 3reeder Reactor Nuclear Power Plant should not be granted an exemption from the licensing procedures of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sincerely,

- 7 .

f. $-C. -L.4uu'.L Cathy 3ezendes

/

l .,-f -

, s. v

,g Stanley Rezendes c.% 't 7 m, GE..4

"~ pM.h l

as -

bpttggg2r-4

@E'(($h'* )

c

%nn vsa s

i

/O

(

l l

l

l f .

I

' ' ~ - - - - -.

a. , , , , , , . , , ,

i

• - . ein . _'. ,

, f .; -? -

wL ., .

~ *

~- -

. , 00 0 - -

~ ~

• l

.,'_.- . + . - . .

. .' ,, $. "',a . r N: ,] N' ' '

.' . l-  % # , {

.- ' <

• N.; . 3 .

.y k M2 Y .f'~ L - '

., ~ h. ~l, $$

-;. h,.. h f , Yt - a w ;; p . v a^ s p4/ e.,c-y g  :#  :

$~ y# hQ x ' i,,g 4

'. . .-: .. TNGt ';{ p .

um. . . . . . .

,C. . %j,t.y.-7,',v.,.,

I .. --$'

..a.. s.. ' _,. ,.

~, {3 v.,'. . . . -

w . .

^

~_ .

l

, l .-J. .--. .- 2 . $,,@'s.) f%. *? -p +

- - _' ~ ..1

. Y':. . ::n.... t gy%,3..:- p.' f3:: .'s

....-.4 . , ~

,C'r% .Ql,';;n. ..,f

. *k . s. . .

-~. 1

. m ..  % .

~* 35 ./

,,.'.:--w.

,: -, . - ~. - .. .

.>b >-

~.;e =.:. w-s ~ -' -I ~

. yp+p

. % :'> . . - 3 s..

. .. - 3.;y.;~.:.%;j,-,

... ..--a

,; . . . . . :vn.myw

-- .  : Mi y.?.lu.;. :.'- q, ;. - ;. g gyggy.. .

-f p [. .

-r - - - .

. ,~,y

-pg*...;l . &'. . -^?&_tg,.:y

= . W ** ' ;*y . . ' ' ' '*eny n*N 'i & ~t.. $' % ; 3 %

Y usQQOI$'p;ak. . -':

.;.eQ -+.

-l*5.-U.T F.4 .23 J g, ,f-plrw Q }Qyc^y;Yg .l=% W :,W ".s'w

=.& L * -

',ky?.;!c 7-}-3 '

h .

r r*9 g*egr. +

,* Q'=~='I  % ,& *,,. % 4. . ~ *

^

}1

( 's?k.? .d@*"? =S:: W.T.=  ;

= = . .

Y?$  %:j*

~

% *(

' 3' g * .. f.y ' ,-< .....

~

.y- 'i - 2

-+3

"-Y.; M ..;t: y R,

@y,..

'9 f^

... y .- *7 ;-%, .6.h],[@.:h .7 .. 3. , (: ....,.,,, h. -

---

f, g}*2 i

g e e, qqa -

.,+; g*. -

,p -

'w w?w .3,N s.r a:wv .wA ,.m. a

1. .ac s i

. .p - . ,

v.

g'O.g;*g'

-. a ~ - ' .~ .

ody: .g > ,.. <;; ,.

7,,

' 'i. '

~

z ' ~' - S l

-3 ~ **'

L _

,- 4l . , , . , - * *~

Q s.. s

,. .,y,. ,,

Q*

' % .' *-:.y l'.*W '

p'"" ' - fQ g , go ..v g. _. . 'Q?

ll~ **'

f Me* '

q ; g'

~u py .

gg.y::

'c.-m4<

s rb., = -,

N g ~M S <N .@g h $kkk, . - ) T M .v - r h$kE N 'h

% ,L-ri &yJ_ .3 . % *. 4 9

• W.,I"M= h

&g\gCW

~

w '4- l'- a

s. 1. % Y A'- [*?  :~ . ,,,,.

% g :. ~~ ,.

u j@EJF#Af%A$iuM:po-

. .i

. r

.;*; .[y . . q;, ;6 ,,. 5 - ,

y 2 yjf '-(=','.". ., g - .. % m.

. F,

- - 1 ,-

Y k.] p. .-v.,_-;..- .

.ra@k , -

'

• t

.:>ik

.lb .-

og *?'Y ~.; .. . *

~

p'S- '

s.P7 ,,.g "3 "

f4% -=% "

'~{ ,

y +=~.e.*

s.-

m- n. rw w _m_

- y. 3. 7 ' -_. u,y*A,g, .

m

. ,4..g,+

. : a

=n.. v :.:

Typ3 5

/o

.-;y. ,

--- ~ ....e,..,.

r.u.i GGyo. fo . D ?(s).

~

~ ~ . . ~ ~ '~' ~~~

'82 JM 20 P4 :04 .

-=

~ - . .

n--

1 ,

.e.3..*,,.. .e *w2 a .,. t- ,. --

• ,C

..-.s o. ... .c

. . 51 * -a "1 *. . .s

. . a ., 2- Sa : .... -

"W- .

, ,.;a

.a-

-on

.o 4..,,

a,.,a- w...a . , . . , -~ . e, ,e, .,,

a ~

s .__e e

. .2 ,. , - - .

- . . I'o,. . g . . ,. ..:,c:......'3

.. 3

. o -..e.

4 +

+.3

. . . . ar....O.

.. e. ,3..r.s.....+.2..,.

a. m. . . ea

s. 1 3 46

... . .. .. ,,, 1. o .

. m s.. : , 2.3..,-.*... ..f..*-

.- A a. .e.s .- +-. v. ..

2 -

4

, o. .. e 4s

.3 . a. .c..t .e.

2

..,,a. ,, .. . . ., ..-., , ,a...,,. s.. .:, .

.. .. . . .: , ,.... :.o.. e. .

.2

• O . ,aa ... C

. . ..e. '. - .e.

• p. .. -a.-

+ %. ,18s =.... e. 8 %. 8 ' 8 *.s- . .. .e %. .- ,.3 a.o.

. 8.. 3.3.,....-.

.,.3,a_**,,,

. . . . . . A. w. . a S 3,. X . ..y A. a ,,........a.

.v.. .e.4 . + ... w 3. . . .g r. .7. ,. S *. h1' .,, . . . .* .: ,.,. e , _

t- w o.n. e.t.,.8. a. n 4n  %., m. a. d e.v. *

...,.. rw . .a.

. ' k. .s .. e.'..'..o-b.'.-

a. *.a. .a. .h. .e..a. 6,,.' - - . S'. s o ' .. m t . . . s. .= . . . . a w ... .,...w e,.,

s .. a. *+

. ~

,3 ...

.Io .0 .,, *ha. ,

..e . ,

1. .-,. * . - , . .

... . , . . . . . . ...m. ,,... .

,-  : . . e z. .s.

m -

~.m- +. n .c: i - n uu. ,..

,2:a,.

..--a Mr. John Riddle j

1224 '.'lillowbroo!: ?7 q' - -

Huntcville, ^L

q. 35002

//

/

RECEIVED 3 1 -

JAN 371982 % .'.

A wwwm

> m t.Gi st /s'.A 56 3

\ ,

3 S

<\

> jo W

= m

..';sb-fE7(E) e

.. ~~~ Y Y &

&4 t p.g -

%S M.

f K @ % & ~ja,.  :

& ^%_?  %

ee n

Q s

9 9 ms w' w.

W f eM- -

_W Wem?W"* Ase -

7%%

w ~

MAA L M" w .:'---

p &; ;

c> d w

~

RECEIVED kf 32 JAN 20 Pa. :c4 O!

J AN 2719325* f

a. __

y  %

Q $

Thi 0,-

Suv(

o Pc

- 2.01 '

92 m s V.c k f6q 515J o Y;

~

. - . - . . .S. .

~~

.....,y s _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _..__._.._O

i

[.

., ~**. 1 l

/ .

x =.. a w .. 2 ; Q _. 5 3 p E )

r .--',i_ 3t.0..:.r.w . . - . - - - .

. O C.U.

- .hT ..P .v.. . . . .

P2d6 -: . . t ..

62 309g/ 4;i.~!cuurcay

.u ne.

-a..hr ...s: . .C '

c.m. q ..Tp.-

coch

% ::, JM 'rn -

, N.C SHDA ghigCa N, , 2 25 '

~.-.

• • U I:1F0:: ASTER 1 -016 307 CC a 01/1E/e2 Id. . . . , , .-.,d .or

-% , - f I r.v.e. I n. .-, ju n.f .r " .e, } r.

q, 01C2.1 Cl-!S 0214P EST O[

T*!x 71 cs2404 ! 5 ::RC SHDA

~

s RECEIVED ,

4-c3iO9sS0ie et/is/S2 I C.C. I s'.*ic. ..'J C '.,

c C.e. ?

O7 JAN 271982>

mmm ' ,

9 2017503481 T ORI LO3A:: UT 30 01-12 C212? IST ecuis =rm a T

Tec

e. r...e.. e. r C n.. .: . n. -.v.

. C. s 3 r.e . Cn..'..e.

u .. . i .SIC.n.. ... :t n,. v. . -..,

..a.. r. L,. , g

!!UCLEAR EEGULATORY C O:::iI S SI 0.N /

N &

V ASHI !3T O:J DC 20555 m r.n.e.e. ..:.. .r.n o t o ..rc- .r ..m,

.eLeA.er D O i ., C . . e.v.

. . e.v. .e. e. CLI,-.. . v.t .Iyc.- a... . .

, v . . .,,. e. C .,. ., ......a 2.EOUIRE::E!JTS. THERE I S !!C PUBLI C RATI C:; ALE .?C'. ANY EXEMPTION TO S:EED UP'THE PROCESS OF REACTCR LICI:!SI!!3.

PLEASE REPLY.

e CC.,4 a mr ., . , c..a 465 !CF.TH 3CC EAST LOGA:; UT 24321 a

e 1414 EST 1422 EST r~ l. f_ ' '

!!?C SMDA

'8 /J.T 0 J :p

.- J

[W, /., .e.

I #

. Y. .. r

.; s.

S

/O

. M

.b:.:. : .. . . S. . o - 63.7. L

.pv. s ~~

r g .

9' RECEIVED h 'g 2 g i; 1 9 p ) : g 6- JAN 271982E~@ -

N e,xnnawmen=s  : c: : ..

'*;a jEc: .

C%M N;4N II . .

I' q . {' ', C -

g . . . A .', C H

% y

j.krm Jd 00IC

v%

.{

de #

Y 4 y ,A .m y1cucJ~/,/9Fa. gor <

[

. .<,vtNL 4 v.cc. Oc'O M" @ '"-@

. o& N c r 0 - S 3 ") , - .L.yd-n ) W $ M c  !^ loCF 4 uu t

)

tta m iensc N w 4;/ +tuR. .r u . t 2. , try ct e y ,

8 u.>:clLt h c.fct,J y % _

e-6~acs h cliI't( ut ,w-h

+k""rk E'pd -% cd%d%>PFk4 J-/ad

- u 9 2 1 n u _.,

c )

DLL 5.M ca -

.ti,J w( xgiq &c\ 0

,9 cc,u+vtt.c uye 4 , g 4 .,.qctcht av v g ,,(, u

% t d!wnt e,cu2Qd cau fvt&< 4 utla ]*ci wcefn ** w tec-ccf Cb <t Go

$te MC f . u fa

.5 5-c %ct Mtf rt ig w J,uceaw 3 Su.4 ,%A ccacny4'ma';e j't w;% )

y Mn )

u, mad'ofuo.c@.AkJn.fau.~i)s.<

3 y matwcN^"k,j_, fe M T.^^"

t

.rug at ,7a , e~4 + i ve~  :

j gS..Q , wW kNJ 0 0s%

g ~f,1

,, epy.c>-a c a s H c~ ~

g3wn 9 4 j y- Q t w x , arax cyo *'. "j<sp oso3 S

./ O

., s s

&'O.s

%M-4 5 W%h~4 .U CcwJ J+p % 9 ,

v. -

r

' -Sw @ wa~ &b yu. rs 9 h " ~ o w cfy &y'd%:d-

/

,d % *.

ylcz.nn.ea)e Q L pivS , Q

%'""nbA

^~h.$ cf d 3 My p 4) oc L 4 W'~ U 24b A W 9u % d %

4%Y h%d.

eL 4, E d '^- C D -t'J A ,\

N l

MYNI

- a ctxETE. .

'. m -

p r.09

'B1 S . 82 -JAN 18 P4:09

. _ , < t.G$X c: '

'E'A  ! TiliG Sh '

GRAt:CH

NATIONAL SOCIETY Of m PR0fESSIONAL ENGINEERS . . . . .

IINSPlII mur 32 Je"' O P.iT6 '32 JXI 19 P 2 :21 F ~

January 13, 1982 :c .

,- -. ~. p.-,j a Mr. Samuel J. Chilk  ; ,,; ; ;,.g,,,,

I .,

Secretary of the Commission / /

Nuclear Regulatory Comission ' q.

Washington, D. C. 20555

/

[] y( [__

REcyNE!)

Coments Concerning the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, Exempti.on l g

- o /2 n,, p 00 ,2 5 m Request Under 10 CFR 50.12

\:r '

ga

Dear Mr. Chilk:

31, 1981 In response to the opportunity published in the December /

Federal Register for filing comments by interested persons, the National ?

Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) wishes to state The engineering its support experience, education for NRC approval of the subject request.

and certification of NSPE's members places NSPE is a unique position from which to provide substantive and pertinent coments regarding the Clinch (CRBRP) and the Department of Energy's request.

River Breeder Reactor Plant The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder (LDfBR) is this country's To maintain besta prospect for generating electricity af ter The theconstruction year 2000. and strong bree Project should be completed as soon as practicable.

operation of this essential step in demonstrating breeder technology is also crucial to the nation's ability to keep pace with foreign developments in this technology.

Because the previous administration had allowed the CRBRP com-pletion date to be delayed to the point where unavailability of DfFBR experience might jeopardize the use of nuclear fission as a long-term ene: gy option, timely and vigorous action by the Federal Government is necessary to complete the Clinch River Project and preserve this option.

Fortunately, the Department of Energy has developed a plan to start site to appropriate NRC environmental review preparation activities, pursuantand authorization, more than a year earlier than wo ble. NSPE agrees with this action and considers that NRC approval is warranted by (1) the national priority assigned to the Clinch River Pro-ject, (2) NPJ's own determination that these site preparation activities would not result in significant environmental impacts, (3) DOE's comit- g o3 ment to redress the site if required'by further licensing activities, and y (4) recognition of the clear cost advantage to theNSPE taxpayers of earlier wholeheartedly

• start and completion of construction activities. /D endorses the legitimate use of the 10 CFR 50.12 procedure in this case.

m roun opacarumrv twetorre 2029 K sTnEET N W a WASHINGTCN. O C. 20006 e 202/463-2300

l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk January 13, 1982 NSPE notes that the natien has already expended about $1 billion -

~

on the Clinch River Project. Further delays in this project would defer returns from this substantial investment in breeder technology. A monetary cost of about $100 millf on could be assigned to one year's deferral of these returns, (asstaning a 10 percent annual interest rate). This would be in addition to DOE's estimated savings of $120 - $240 million of increased costs. However, NSPE believes that such an approach to deter-mine the cost of delaying the benefits of this project greatly understates the actual benefits that would accrue, in terms of reestablishing the United States as a leader in the international nuclear comrmmity and insuring that the potential for stretching our increasingly short supplies of uranium is developed in time to avoid severe economic consequences.

The benefits of accelerating the CRBRP schedule by one year as proposed by DOE would. thus be far greater than the hundreds of millions of dollars estimated above. For these reasons, we consider the granting of an exemp-tion for the CRBRP to be in the public interest.

Approval of DOE's request would not detract from the CRERP pur-pose of demonstrating licensability of breeder reactors because (1) the 10 CFR 50.12 provisions are an integral part of NRC's regulations, (2) as noted in the Connaission's memorandum and order, five such requests for LWRs have been considered over the years, and (3) the CR3RP Project will still be required to comply with the rest of NRC's environmental and safety review regulations, including public hearings. Future LVBRs would neither be precluded from nor required to utilize the 10 CRF 50.12 proce-dure. NSPE believes that consideration of DOE's request must also acknow-ledge the unusual circumstanca.s of the Clinch River Project that have evolved from the delays dictated by the last administration, and the undue hardship to the Project and. national objectives of further delays.

In closing, NSPE strongly recommends the 1:nmediate authorization for DOE to co1mnence site preparation activities for the Clinch River Pro-ject. We discern no legal requirement to deny this request and are per-suaded by the overwhelming benefits to the nation of proceeding expedi-tiously with these activities and breeder reactor development.

Thank you for allowing us to submit these comments in this matter.

Sincerely, i I ,

Cf-hl. . l Herbert G. Koogle, P.E. , Chairman Legislative and Government Affairs Committee HGK:EBT:jw cc: Mr. Nunzio J. Pa111dino, Chairman Mr. Victor Gilinsky Mr. Peter Bradford Mr. John F. Ahearne

• Mr. Thomas M. Roberts

9 D

" *U J e ,,

Q

~

Do54 eTeep { t}y cL> ag (+ Kv'E L -

kehr Read < er- en blNCIAfSp/G $ froaston5 Do 11E &Llod

/ag Lu T+ is Noi~

tkJ5 [eachor %

D vi <

jd ibt U f Y I b dA A19 Q 8h h'4dv~,,

m Ji\N 2 7 Igggw e

~

/

o "525W[$@p%t d TiCC gg Trmu?O

,.nr gf3cg

'82 JM 19 P a :18 3 e,-. ...

]S. y/s c.= . w-

a -ea = - m - a A. - L--

O e e a f

'82 ."" 20 2 4 c3

.;-A .

~

rnay nyeyoq -

7 h y--

34 _O y

, = - +_ = = .

I W" - ~

A

' q m.. _

LMf- w ~

-+Mg

%m 8 e e --

_' -'nfijd@GPL M[ O

=-

E-Y ._[ .

e m ,

I i I h k.

.._S .

. , (.,,.

'1, - y .

g .

=m

$ -l 1e ^^; [ 5

~

'L-l% .- .,R

'sY '- -

--f'  ?

(i ~

l w -

_  ; gi

$0 =-  ; .A . , w=- = =m N

l So you're satisfied u ita your bank, are you? (

$AA I1g 111g

-d, Ni

f w

~~ U ,

Sher /l Goldberg 2160 Lawrence #2N 82 J,3 0 St. Louis Mo. 63110 82 JM119 P2:21 Jan.15,f982 ~

ci .-

Secretary of the Commission:di t 9c.

" C ".

Nuclear Regulatory Commission B^ ~ -lif T Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir or Madame,

j I

,[.{(g,[d*S3E[b)

Re Docket No. 50-537 -- exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12.

I am opposed to exempting the Clinch River Breeder Reactor from any NRC licensing procedures. The following reasons clearly de-lineated by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service sum up my own positions

1. The exemption defeats the purpose of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, which isostensibly designed to demonstrate the licensibility of breeder reactors.

2. The exemption would further undermine public confidence in breeder technology.

3. This is not an emergency situation which would warrant a special exemption. US energy usage is currently declining..

The breeder was conceived as a long-term project, not an emergency program.

4. There is no " Congressional mandate" urging fast progress on the CRBR. Congress has recently been almost evenly split on this issue. During the 1981 budget battles, ammndments to cut CRBR funding lost by only 2 Senate and 20 House votes.

In additon , myself, as the rest of the American public, is aware the the nuclear industry is suffering, possibly fatally, is the grip of inflation. Surely, part of the motivation for this exemption attempt is concern that CRER will not survive another budget fight in Congress.

Sincerely, &/ \ %1 A>/

13 w .- iw!G. , y Cgo  %

Sheryl Goldberg GE y "a ~3 e $ S j 6

/ G - "

.% J g -

~

--__- M

. .