ML20040C672

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

ML20040C672
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Brown I, Cheslow E, Christofferson, Drake G, Falk R, Frey D, Frisco D, Goodman S, Hafner B, Harty J, Mihelish P, Mitchell P, Sabo J, Schmidt T, Schussman K, Seely S, Sinclair M, Smith F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, COALITION FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT POSTPONEMENT, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RHODE ISLAND, MICHIGAN, UNIV. OF, ANN ARBOR, MI, SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
ISSUANCES-E, NUDOCS 8201290140
Download: ML20040C672 (25)

Text

, .

-L tu:: .==::=n:

c ..: u m.

7_. .. . d.

. i.9.??.~???.

' ERNEST CHESLoW 7- ;

" - - = "

Tsilk .

1154 CAROL LANE .. - , 7 - -

_IYi' _ . .II$ .,

GLENCoE. tLLINolS 60o22 -

=: ,==..x

• "~ =2 January 12, 19c

=z g.

'82 J215 P 4 :55 g s.-

._a - ..

Secretary of the Concission

~~E:3 c;S~ 6 59 E -

Nucioar Regulatory Concission Ef - '72

.D Washington, D.C. 20555 W C' . mat:.__ .

rr =

..._..,.=..

"===+:

' r; ':: lU.***. : '==

Re Proposed exenption of Clinch River Reactor

c.n ij from standard licensing procedures under

.;

• =-

.,.2 10 CFR 50.12 Locket # 50-537

....uama

= u: zig;;

Ne

...=.e=.

u. l2. ===

Gentienen:

> ==

.7 ' ' .t!.

.  ::.r?:;;.?

.::-"**: u: :: - " * - '- =-

When considering the above proposed exemption,

....... a =f:."" .?

~ffffi please take into account that standard licensing WR.;_"..

procedures were adopted by the N.R.C. and its .

a-5sE:9 predecessor to assure the public that at least minimum safety stan.iards have been complied with _

i.:. ' ..;

Z.;j before a nuclear power plant can be built and ="=

ama operated. F.any of us believe that those safety 2

, standards are too lax, but at least they are there. EEE'::

.....f:.9

. :.r:.

gir 7

=

To exempt an installation from standard licensing ....==

.,m,...

precedures can be justified only: Sc:sg

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

1. In the event.cf the direst national w w =_. _ .

ene:gency, or '--===

z=;:.:5= .

l=5sf.?

2. If the installation is recognized as ,so safe X "~' that the ususal precautions are unnecessry. __

~

.i e -

Neither of these conditions exists with respect  ;

v

~

~

to the Clinch River installation. r-

.?O 3 First, there is no energency of any kind with

.?. - - .

a:==  ;;;= =="

~"2 = respect to the operation of abreeder reactor, m'-

i" When Clinch River was first planned it was" /f contemplated thEt hundreds of water-coole ctors 1 E

.; 3:7 would be built and that uranium would b RECEIVED x.:.:.

67 JAN 2719925 2 = , _ . . _ . .

~~

f=" -

~

esr::ancca twe 3FL= Z um msnm n W Dx E2 9

2 "9.5i

/ 4<' -.-

"i:Mid N/ \ 9 -

=.[

Tsss 735si pF 7

. . ..... ::5

= ;.;-

_- '~

l -~ =,: -

==

(norts) t-8201290140 020115 . ~~ . . .

. . . . . . .:.Tf.51

~~;::: DR ADOCK 05000537 7=?.f.

~...... PDR  :

==.=. = =

V . . =:. ==-

• .,. g . ::g-g

=...-

ERNEST CHESLoW

""" ~

, 1154 CAROL LANE GLENOCE. ILLINCIS 6co22 ~'~ s--.u

==r--c; a

et d Rei Docket # 50-537 page 2. =-r

r

...=.=.;.

'",';I.Tj  :: 22.....

-+-W ua

""""'"7."

= ;;g;; short supply. Since thG it has turned out that

=:.E.

new reactors are not being built and there is ,.m a- 2 more than enou h uraniun to nee.t foreseeable needs.

~

Wi.q:$

Secondly, and even core in;ortantly, the safety ': .c.===; . .. . ,

..fEii ""

==55 record of liquid netal fast breeder reactors in this country has been abysmal. One experimental

. ex2 MfE9 breeder (E3R-II) and one demonstration connercial k' . .. .. G? _[

breeder (Enrico Ferni) have suffered meltdowns bu+.d d53 Ond come close to explcsion. Surely this ......u...=.

Es$ justifies - indeed, demands strenger precautions MiEeri

~"~"""

.55=5; ZEF.?.5i rather than a relaxation,

=4 =:

lg.d If the people of Tennessee ever have reason to  ;....

IgMM regret their pre:ent enthusiasn for the Clinch

.3 River installation, you would not want it on your "*

x..j.?!j consciences that the N.R.C. did less than it could  ::._;..

== : =2 have done. "'EF3I;

.[:,ig,:i:))

~""

Sincerely, p-3.:-l r n ::::.;

.:: =

""f  :

. h& .

r[}~~~ " __

(f,,p( & "

"~NQ h. - .: -

=~

55.:."i e-

--- r=;=  : :.:..

=-tm ,:c s g;i2--

- 2d Sens.

Reps. Howard John Porter, 3;ker,Toby Hoffett, Charles Fercyt Ottinger, nichard Alan Dixon id? Edward Markey N.I.R.S. p ,_

~:&  :== -

=== ..m.

ll.

-} N- ..._....,

e.. b e

s.

. -

JEi"'i ".: . . .

g;;-

""..7.~' ]

!. u.. . . .;

L ;:.2 1

-: ..: ::7.1

~::= '~'l =: : if=2..,

'- s e .

1

. . _ . Ed-SI3?$j

--......v.3._,

$ - x

/ 7c P'e t& ,.m. R 1.:e

'82 JM 15 PS:31 fe'rm, u ., <r;> .

,-]. y N l

f /,

s g .

l f'l l'

) l l $~ ='- Q t "DI;. f": . :. \$h;n. (

?. .

~ p;yu ECEtygg 2 t

hew k,,

.fs-y -

'jfj a ,/* Y [h ,,<r N .s-sta n

~

R num,gf1982n -3 Grual m &.&%~ 6,- nus < <,,

/nc..rs,, , p e 2 o s,r '\ ~~NW .f l ,

tj &

l lC bT ~ f 3] h e. .: Y~ }.~k JOJ.-s,~jW

$" f ** fps kai d..u n u,s s~n n,. ., a.,, a -, rw,

.cw&Of .

j D 4-.a+~lg 9 -1 e u,,/ <rth DrE h au(a .d 1 1 4 s a ,,,,,t r 6 . J ~ 4 - u ,,, n. cma h. . sr~ '

94,

.V-"nsvY

,1 A- . < se d- e.7t!sn<f ,>% -7ne , -

/sj

/$4 ,ll- %cf)f La -

p b, s, /t tv ,1 JQ , s%,s Vo%, -

5bn 2 ALT c.s- t

~

et A /, -z b < W - c<m a a., 4 a,

a~an f ;rd l L n % , 4,p .., tCr , 4yy d A , 2., y

,,g>,;a a o,enc ar9; 4 n tscu ,- p, s c,.. x .p..+ n

ac s .

d y, , .p , y . , , , ,

l#

4,a1] -c:)  ;:d /i6/ a~ 4). * / (-e r d .

. . /4 a (y

~~

~~ Y.Alh., f-dL.r4.~ .q /W.

./ tq l

. , 3

. . . . . . . ; -. . - ?: Cn 2.T C"~3"2 .)3:? EN...,

$~ '-

..r.

:.=-

• "~'ii,3* " ..L.

=LE::a. . .... .. """'

...l?l .. 0:.N=:: "::~=== =?: * =*jl. .. ,. NE*W"

?.~.

"~iEM.=Q,...::.?.3.Y2"'*".2"  :~u - -;.;;;,r: ,c,

.p;.~4.2 [_Q:j2F ::""-. . . . . . . . . .

. -=.r:: -

~

.~- ..

"Y"'

. z.

,, .l*~ _q:,yg . m:2^ 'u= ""*

n.- =T..::: =: -

.- 2::

- . _ , n . . . :. . = - (k C-  : .""***

.. p=g,;;;;r. n

......';.g..

......,..s ,

m 1 2

l$. :.

.==== .azu "2 sE.i

?:-:: -3 , m m,m :gg' .

=.w.

g=u:=y _ . - x . ac 'lED. .. _ i o C. F /t 6 0 # -

=" *

. . . _ - _ . . d,ECEIUMg.t -Y gg;3::.an:,=

.. 2_T.il m.s rp JAN27 $$5T T 82 JM115 P5T4 - ~ '- M/:T== L:"c -

~ ~ '

~ z

• 2"=

._, ,3

[ . . . . . . . . .

== '"d~'~~

. . .. ....N ="r="' *:-:-5:  :. .=:

M .b ._ .

-g -

~

. .. 3. ;i.:.::

?E{[.)

D f _ l 0. . E .A., 0. ._ ..

4;:3 Y 5" ~~

n~; ; ,, r - ::..I:5.:l.;;-

~

~ '

. ^~

~

~ ~

~ } : : --.::: y -

'T.D .WCL

.:::: . . d . . _ . __

. :~:=~.:.= ~

.  ::~1 7 Nb ..

-~.

= .: - -

--~

=:.-: :::- . ;;;"., =.=..

'"~" ..!:

. ~

~

Y: .C S 0 h NU-b A]L$~

LU)MM-2U- W ._Y[la... ".. 23'".::. . s- - """-

C .

-" ~ ^

. C ;m;;p uw. ,ca At h ru-L dw Fr + =~~~

}

0 uun A u L h. ii"?2~. C " a..

22 ll.: ~~ ~

I

_ . I. . . . . 1. /

R1)OE ft _ . .[l.

s _ ..

/

~

y ,,.

.2

% ==

M M pux A wia wuu puu w

.n l & .

~

- ( - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-~~- ~7_::  :-

f W W

-~. . . . . . -

i N ,  %.J ,

~

ki iiY.  : _ . . Mb [. phb m /

i7 .-- -

= ?Eh: T.)AAN lLE d.C_4 s 0_syL Y H.E w

. ~=~ L= ~ l:((-

xpo

5. ..?

.?? If .. ::

.=..~ -..n...............

g[Q ""

~._.;~~~"~.:

- " .: "-"-~~ ;.:;;" ..r.n-=. ;e--.w .a

=_ }=- .,

. ,a = __  :  :;;;;:::::.: .

-==, =

..=uu=.9

. , u, ; . . .

. ;,;- , ;;  ::;_y, . -.:-.:: .

__ . ;_2 ..,z r ---.:--

- -- - -.---l* ,[ . . . _ . . . . . .

.._.=,.=+  ??TI =====.=

.. .. ====  ?:"G. _; _, _. 2. _... "

.;;-".: :.""::, :. .4-

. v.::..: :. _.. .. ?::.~.~.~ ~""*::.!~^ "T== "=== === =="~~** *""~ ~'

.c . - ~ - -  ::: w:

"" ". " ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ' "~

m ._, _.

w :. .., "=' --i;T).._ .: 2 """ -:..:.:-

. .: ..f.2  ?.~ *

....M 2:: i.;:n . . :. :

="

= x.u....:  :: .?":3.L  :

?:N:::""X:; X:: ==". _

. x.

.m.= ==r=ys l jrcy .

":. E -: ATE g $

. '"YW:'Y:5 .

^

1. L.n.w gr;; v:. ==*

.a."

~=:?*==- 223

"=?=%:::- g-; _

y

&Y 'y g,s. -

pjQ414J.,Um _ . . . . ..g

=.-=.......... , , ,

_. . . .. . . , .,...a 5,_... _.-..::: _ .

?"

.l. ..h n N Y .,.-%.A (.AJ A LU-L M Y /

ms

~ . __ .

_ L, . . . - . i.

. b. . _ ._. I. ./. . . . . _ __

t::- ...w s.:.S$.=.5v5$. - . . . .

.u u.,,

0"0: . , _ _ h_ _ , . . . .

J::.

- - .:.;gy;;

. _ = .

: .= 2

_ . . . _ . . . . . __ ..,. _ __ _.. : -.U

~ M  :

...&..- - G ...oh..u.a. L.<. , %. g.ju.w-nj.-_ G"=~=

= =-

. M......_

-" " "'" y ,. _.f ( _

I _ , _ _ .

w.. . . .

i.X:.

5.N 5555a - - . . - ..

(E.& thA u c.) &~.'.T.T. - = =

a-

= .

.04.u <LJ- - - - - ~ = =

=:.1=..

_ y

._ h M -

!!.I.'.Y."5' -b

. j _ . - .

.;,

. . q w.:.:.:.=

TK V*" - =

./ ..

U .!-- -,

, . , . . .}

5 .

~~~

, _ _ _ . . _ l ... ...

b ...::::':: ,._

A/ .

G ' . .. ... ... E"?:

.~. 2220.M.~ /_

. M. .

. . . - - - . ~ . . _

hgQ "~~-~[

{2;;

'~"

A , (,,[ h t,,,

W:::: - . . .

.q~ ~,

. . 7..'..".."'..._...::,.... _

..:.b. ._.: '.:.  :

h ;.h..( . .h .d. ..

...... .....y ^

f.

T.I _ _ _ , p;  ;,;;;;

. . ~ . .-h,5 ...... .

d ./ M .- - . . . . .

Nb hk A~

^~

-== se

. . -i

'b . . . .

~~T..... Y. v L .k i ..

-<=

.=::::...

s=

" vW.'.?2

. ,y A j_.@ G ),

l l,,It ) / .

,=

.=

r.

=........

n:.:--- - , h =-i ::= ' . . -

"?.15E.';u = = - .

. . 1:=. .

^

m':  :..  :,===  ::: ==" - ": -': :.-".

'^ ~~.. : . . "===-p-" ~-~~=:. . . .

a.

=.=::

.:f:= ;:.= a j_: _ ====:g . _

• * *"'"*5*~" . . . .

!~' . . . . ..

..' .

. ?".?:?==:.

l.?"= ?.. ., ..

= ' . ..:. - . = ..

=.::."":

.=.-...-

.:.".:.- f.:.?$l:.1?.T.. u...:a ..

-:(.::pgr. .ry . _ . ,-: =

. . .. . aa

._

== .g.g:: ===. =}^ __. g=3g=,== =.:.:p .

..r g=. =

r ==.:::r:.== }:.==yu= .: .=

-5a:5:: y==:y:: :- . =- . : t

c=;:: === r.

. :  :.= :. : :;=.::=::.::==.a.2===: '-- 32.: .y::=. .

=-- x w -- . .= n . ..= . .,, ;..u .:;;;.a a ,.,. _ , a., =,, ,,_ ,. . . , = . , , .

" ~ " ' ' - ' ~**"

' y :,(.

" '^ '

.. .~y,]"

, .g

. ~ , . . = . ..w. . :..c . :.

x.:

. - = . = ~ . . .. ..:.w n: ..

.=av.

.u::.

. .:. :.s e=::.  :: -  :.s::

. =..a. ....... r =: .:~-

2D  :[.""""" "O ~ * " ' " ~ '

'M"*

'"G.if'" 5" "

.. .... .. T$T.

... ;;y.:=*= : gL:.:M;..,

. '~v.._,_.,. .

,,. .;;; -.-. .. f n: n =  ::==:. . : . ?? ~: .- ~.v.

~~'~~~~

h'"

$5."il:GU:'I$$$$

=-::: ~iGli:

4M.  :.U . .th'JN

. . T.":Eu:Gri?.5;22 4E15 . =

32- ==.~;g;;;.;;-3)) '==-

'.i.s _.; CZhis *

l. Ja :L:E3. .

9 :::-:=: =:e==== =::: ~

, 0, ..; _ ..

' * ' ' ~ ' " -

'i="=Q""==

.. ,  ;;- t

• - ~ --

.y

:.  ;

=~===+--- u.=; . )' ~~:.....:. : :::::::

~

< l-a h -

, := .ifn::

. ._cc.,y. 7. ..

2.;r. ;;.. ~~;

w~ '""" is - . t.... ..:- lr-.  ::.a ::.% 5:

= 7:-1 l

> iiii' Z{CT'.E.. . . . . . . . .

7

.~. =rm :.re .r.:=.

""'. . . , ' ,peQ .;;.';

.,; .[b.'_[

M .li..L, 5 3 ^

-E ..i.'[7 .

""U. DEI.. =T01 - -

7.., n..

..CC:I"'::,,_S '

..x,..:.--

"C""'::::T.:24 ._

/ )l_ @ U o

"'= .

. e . ' . - x::a.:.:::::.=: z::::.

. '""' .I5f5II.i 8 .t"- -"-

~ - -----

- . = . . ___

-- -- T ,

r.;s.m.. ma , .w x == ===

--~~""*-" .

. ,b. "

=.;;.t..:_.'._.._..n....

.. ......^:E.1..' i. ,

f ". . *"*f:::

LJA. - *

% n" r /p O :._'._'.... ::..,. .l... .g._:a ..

.~ .': ?l.* l:r "" "' ^ "" ,:..;; .

. l '*

N!:: :. f-l:.;':fY::=j: ]__ - . .Y.'

=. -":. .

=. 9 . . -..;. ..

": 5;;;;.,;;..j ;,,m. -

. g, ' *=:. :.:

'"~~

.;ag ;.;YN::  ?.~.'.'a u:- ~ ~ ~

.,::.= :

u.:. g { v:.=u =. :. -:

L:, "" . .L.".T.: .:4:: r. - -

I -

EI gg Amx w w ,a =

2 u-~y .

=:

& b O W 4 /v i & . - -

f . . . . . .

.~~'-~~~

l..' "

. . . . . . ..:.5.

$$ - ~ . . .

f A =Y1'.". ~. .. :=:YNb

.:.a,. ._2 y . . . .

...............F'2

~

.': Y

" ~ ~ ~~ ~

~

L='i:

.  ::p:-

.; 55:=;:::::b . O

• p *a .=:

~

===

=-=

. .Y : . :::==. : -

e e [

'"".l".'.... l

.;;. 6..._.s....u g

7 .

~=? """. " ='"%. = .===;& g ;JK:L=iQ.==y~

a=::=.

~ ' " ~ ~. ,E::.=.m..

n. . .~'"

,.=-

/

QO/I ~ ~ ' " ~

~' Z"In--. .

-~ ~'~~

_ .m. . . . . =m:.m=_=.

_ .a .

e

. .._......_. .. .g, e e. e. .* s2

. , , .s 3

k s.u n t. 'n ,a .~.p i-C.rs.

n .--%.,.

- l I

i

e urge uou not to , cont en e x e - O t L O :f""db-'  ;

, ule 10 C: 50. ' G . This Lotest rush to ^et

?reeder rec.etors en LLne 'urther 50 Oces Out-llc confldence Ln thLs denner0vs venture.

'o"e- erc enc u" sltuctL0n e:Lsts to '_o.arent 0 s0ecLOL'exe,0tlon. US enern'; usc0e Ls dec LLnin^.

9reeders c.crevote O decendence on On outr:0 ecus ,

Lu costle, ter-Lttu dongerous ener^.'! source, l nLLc Lencring the Ossive nu-ter 0 ~ cleon, sOfe, j 1 r e n e";c$ le , d ec -in t r 0 L L:e d oltornettve. Olease  !

9:< IN Tu: 1:1T:':57S 0: THE OU'LIC on this issue.

Oe-ember: The Ont; SO'e : cst Ereed3 s Ore PO tits!

Do take une resconsLtLLLt's 'Or "uture cener0tL:ns -

Ond conde n thLs -enece ones c id ror CLL,.

s SLncereL*, i

\

Ow_. E /f' i

l i n. (,

((-

FtEGEWED ', j J M ga s82 =- : .

6 z.w;wanu e

/ M'tr.s-g sv.C J E 11  %

L.e

%w:.., /

N c3 .

Irene sco.n .-

aytnts MI 48024 , M F@C-Rf ~"

9. PP.ATk 18& {

3 +of 1 , , ,,~,mg' e/-

.m .=.qm

..- m,_ ._.

l <

L , o, k g,f N 43,-

! Q ., Tp 3 t ~. , .s e c:;

s Y ,. 4 .

, w. ., r. .. i np l, ^

% Secretcru of The !!v er r ec.Coril-

$5 c ston (Decket '!c . 50- / exe,0tLon e

g.l- rec,uest 10 CFR 50. .) g3 VM(([1'6 gq g g 4!c0Lecereaulctoru .,0 als slan , 5 7,D_.

+/c ddg d esh Lngton, D.C.20555 / D l

EEEER ACTiVEIODM 1 - is:I

,uwsna PAD 10 ACTIVE IO".0?. ROW i l l n

I L

ry<

53 .537 "' /\

.g7 3... g j .

T-w'l/ / s

{Fj:_E..

W _

G RECEfVED

?.

• ** * 'd Ex: '-  ; 6_ ,JAN 27 jgg'y f3

('.A"I2'd4T N uste D '

d> -

fA M O % ,

"#}/

,, ,I ~

yy"-A * * & W p4 w:a-a % n~A J A' f~ wla piec R 2

y e .1,M n r

" 7 4 p ~ ,/ W A

"#n+ p~~4 l J~z x,u  ;

fM - A i ;A4 y

. J, "W' i ~

1

%f-A w m ;', '

/,9' n

.

• 4 .

AY~M l

-f' uy w'sf4 C 2 L ,e ;

~

. -Jak .24 c~.,.4 6fvfwf4 w JJ ,

WD/mu yD % A

.x.

^

.4 A-.t i .

3 9 50 s/

ll0

gpH4 936 "

g P S M*

$Q O =

G

,,.m..

4

• • 1>

J/J '

Co3/ /sb u t g/sce

~ c.

Y hf$UkV/$ ff

/ J// L.

V W f $0* [)7 -

1

~p-dJ u cpg a sa .a i

i D

4 9

A. , .8& C R E Te k y of TH E CoMMi.SSioN 13uCLEGR R EG U L A 70R y Co mm t S S i oN ,

wasniu roa , o. c. a o sss

'G2 J7" 15 5S! i 3[ $ ,,SR.,.,5 M ) y.?gg. f -

Z BM WRITIN G CO N CER NIN &

Th(E\ n ac

" II982'

'* e p .

D. o. E. req ues T~ FoK A EX EM P Tion fro Q .

RuLS to CFR 5 0 . 10. THE R Equ g S T~ TO 'I r&TT +

SPEED LL P con 5 Titu c Tron IS Ridiculous, Cot 4 S I DE8 ING THG @ R EED ER tv A S con C GI veO A3 A LoNG TERM @R o D'e c. 7~ AND NOT &

& MER G&N CY @ROGR AM, AL.So THE EiURG Y

$ I 7'id A Tiol1 f!6 S CHANGEO SINC 6 TH E @ REEO-

.ER wn3 FIRS T STAR TED. ENERG Y co N S unP-Tio N HAS GonE Do w N , Dug in MRT To Co N S &R Un Tto N, A N D BS RoRE AND AoR E EN ER& Y Sa vi^tG DE vi c E S CoHT/Hus TO ENTER THG P1 &R KET~ THis St ranTio N wtLL co N Tin ue.

'85 Octg TecHnotas y in Saps RENewAatE EN ERC,7 So u Rc e S .T. E., sotna cetts , w i a o Po w L=n ~ con rinue ro GRo w , 7H1s in Te< re N Lv I L L- K E'L P Su PPL f Ou R TRU E En 2796 Y NeeDs. pso3 Sin CE THE enten o menr To ca r ',/o C.R 0.2. Fu n o t Mc, 1os7~ ONLY B y c2-Sen ere vo TES , E H ARD L y } Co N S t D L=R .

THI S To DE A P1AN DATE fro /*1 con spess. .

---

- )/cuiS ,T .~.1.i_Z h5m _

McSd _ -.

m 230 FAsuview .--

l PETosMav.picM. 4e770 , _ , , , , lg y 337

,82 s

,, - s c 13 c

Ja

//  % .

Secretary of the Commission CFF:0 Huclear Regulatory Commision CCCM s ,qECER'ED Washington, D.C. 2d555 I }

(q JAN 27 7932w T chmemrm Gentlemen:

~

q m, 4

• 9&axn

.'~

Docket No. 50-537 We are writing to ask you not to make an exception to yotar lic~en shg

\ -

N rules for the Clinch River Breeder Reacttr. This refers to' rule' 10 C?R 50.10. that licensing has to be approved before ground work for the breeder can begin.

All across the country, rate payers are having to pay the cost for preparatory work that was done for reactors that were later scrapped. This is a great financial burden in times when we can ~ ~

ill afford it.

There is no emergency about getting o n with the Breeder. Power

- consumption is down and even the Electrical Power Institute says we have 35-42% excess capacity.

The French have demonstrated that the breeder will work. There is no need to further demonstrate it. We all know it will produce power too expenisve for anyone to buy and is a boondoggle.

Many, many studies show that conservation, which is also an inexaustible supply of energy, is much cheaper than powee from the 'creeder.

Plutonium is so extremely toxic and we don't know how to dispose of it. Let's stick with investments in conservation which is cheaper quicker safer At least wait until a new concept is developed. We all know the breeder is outmoded already.

Sincerely, 0# YS Gerald A. Drake M.D.

,y , S-Energy Coordinator E= met County, Mich. 3 Dps

/D

O! !  %

1. 4 k REcylVED

#N27 2432 Humboldt Ave. S. 'g D  % -

.s j3 3 '.,~ .~ O Minneapolis, MN 55405 , Quh (4 '

N g Secre ary of the Comraission N r. . .  ; j Nuclear Regulatory Concission Washington, DC 20555 RE: Docket N. 50-537

Dear Secretary:

p B70) -

An exe'it;on request under 10 CFR 50.12 for the Clinch River Breedet Reactor is the cause of this letter. The purpose of writing is to offer the following comments for. the Commissian's consideration:

1. CRBR is a demonstration project. To grant an exemption to a demonstration project either detracts from the worth of the project as a demonstration or detracts from the need for the regulation; both options are counter-productive.

2. To establish the need for the exemption is to give-further credence to public fears of breeder technology and professional suspicion of the project's need; neither need endnuragnment.

3. CRBR has always been presented as a project directed at the energy neeus of this country in the long run. To change rationales so precipitously and now argue for the exemption on " emergency" grounds would also, as #2, support further public distrust of government. While this may be consistent with a certain conservative view of government, to support this view by deliberate action of government officials is close to sabotage against which there are certain legal sanc-tions.

4. To establish the need for the exemption on the grounds of

" Congressional mandate" is to show a calculated disregard

! for basic asthmetic. The Congressional vote has been very I close on the CR3R; to calculate that such a vote is a mandate on a project where calculations are so important embarrasses friends and delights foes.

I

5. The pclitical difficulties which we are now experiencing in Minnesota over the nuclear waste issue are directly attributable to the way this issue was (or rather was not) handled initially.

Short term political considerations have almost always had disastrous consegunces when an issue of nuclear power is at stake. With the CRBR let's do it right the first time. An exemption is unnecessary. p563 i Thank you for your consideration.

si-ev.ggg/ ,

zr.eer1 h W. S.1th

~

? $# ,' The INDIANA SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY Y of Lawrence - Greene - Monroe -

'i A f '/ ' '

Brown - Morgan & Owen Counties

%. _.D January 11, 1982 ,.

y .d- .u,I 13_ g3:!,.4 k y --

'S ( Y fg9 .'

e NECGVED

% = ~ 1.?

3

' ' l} '

NN ?l1982 g

=

Samuel J. Chdlk, Sec:etary

$IIf[#* 82 ""

Nuclear Pagulatory Con =ission s

Washington, D.C. 205$5 x d' x '

'~

-c.\

Dear Mr. C4M:

he Tspartment of 25ergy (DOB) has asked the NRC to grant an exe:ption fron rule 10 CFR 50.12 in order to spend $88 'imon in site-pmparation for the Clint h River 3:eeder P4 actor (CRER) pdgr ji2 iswance gg a _qapptruction eernit 2r a limit d verk authori::ation.

The DC5 rationale for this :equest is that the project is urgent, its spes&f progress has been nn-dated by Cong:ssa, and the k"1C mle isn't needed he:e because site-prep-aration activities don't involve safety-nlated stmetures.

This DON rationale is without merit. In the first place, the Clinch River 3:eeder Peactor Project was oCansilly desiimed j;o, o demonstrate h licensibility gf boeder m actors. Nor was speed-up of the project " mandated" by Congress. In fact, 1981 amendmnts to cut C?aR Dinding failed by only 2 Senate and 20 House votes. Further-som, DCS's top resear,h advisory cecmittee recommended last =onth (page 143, Science, Vol. 215, 8 January 1982) that funding f.qr the Clinch Riv=r Bneder Peactor _be, te =-

inated and that the savings be channeled into higher priority areas such as conserva-tion and environmental R & D. This reco=mendation should fii pue pro-dnently in future cong:essional decisions :egarding Dinding of the breeder :eactor progra.

I I The Sassafras audubon Society asks that the DCS mquest for an exemption fres rule i

1 10 CFR 50.12 for the Clinch River 3reeder Beactor be dendad.

1 Yours

%M sincerely,O Mrs. David G. F:ey Y Ebergy ?clicy Co=mittee4 SAS 2625 S. S=ith Road Bloo=ington, Indiana 47401 t; 5 o 3' 3

l l / *b l

l I

l l

l

ww

~~

g y 4c'- ;25 0 /

3111 Eafner 54 obinwood Street QS  ?.astic , .Tl 11050 07: 2E T ..

giu:L; .

11 January lc82 E

,A US Nuclear degulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission """ SI

• b I 7 (b- )

dashington-, DC 20555

+

SUBJ. Docket No. 50-537 Exemption Request for CRaa under G' 10 CFR part 50.10 g RECEfyg 2

s uw

1. N 271982c l -

__... . __ De ar._ Sir ,. _ _ . -

( My %/ _._.

~

~ g/

Me DOE has recently requested that the Commission gran xanDM. '

exemption from 10 CFR part 50.10-- allowing some 188 millionN dollars to be spent on " site preparation on the grounds that the project is urgent, speedy progress en the CRBR project has been mandated by Congress, and such preparation is non-safety--

related.

Ihe arguments are witho t substantial merit an'd would defeat the entire purpose of the CRBR project-- to demonstrate the licensibility of breeders.

U.S. energy use is currently declining, the project was prem-ised on the *ssumption that there would be 1200 LWas operating by the year 2000 ('de 'll be significantly under chat figure ), and there are other more economic nuclear options available (333, TiR and improving the efficiency of LiRs / so this is hardly the "urgen c, "

situation the DOE claims.

Congress has been more or less evenly split on the issue of the CRSR project funding. This past year amendments to cut project funding lost by narrow marcins (2 senate- 20 house votes)-- hardly a congressional " mandate \

! .4llowing pre-license " site preparation" is a lovely little pre-cedent to start. he potential ramifications of tnis should be evident. Ihe Commission :;hould oversee all aspects of a nuclear project whether it be on a pilot project such as C33R or on the commercial level. It 's duties are clear and should nec be eli.-inated, transfered, or exempted whole or in part.

i 3

Sank you, fj t__. 1,1 -

,/e Eill ? Lifter l . .

g/ Rubin Fal.<, Carolinians For Safe EnerEy

".0.

Sax 0165 Asheville, NC 28914 UC 60A. Webb Cove Road A sneville, N.C.28804 January 11, 1982.. ,_

g,;

Secretary of tne Commission,

uclear Regulatcry Commi'isica, ,

• Washington, D.C. 20555 G 7:CE C 02CXETj Dea? Sirt Dociet No.50-557---exr.::ption request uncer 10 CFR 50.12.) Clinch River 'reeder Reactor The ostensible purpose and function of the NRC has been to protect the public against nislear tasards and also to acnieve economy in this indu %ry. On the basis of both such concerns I request that tN NRC vote against the panting of exemption of the CRBR from certain NRC licensing procedures.

An exemption would undermine public cc:<tidence in breeder technology and certainly challenges the purpose of the NRC y.p as the public guardian, exemPtica defeats tbs purpose of the CP.BR Project which

' 32CENED supposed to demonstrate tco licensibility of breeder reactors.

3 ,ag 371982> ,

• ,.,. n mm t e.n:* j.h are not faced with an emergency situation which would call for 6' ," I h ' "r F C 3 Ra/SPecialexemption. US energy usage is declining. Tim breeder ggfu conceived as a long-term project, not an emergency program.

7,K -

1. '[71 O iT {\ / There is no " Congressional mandate" urging fast action on tne C?ER.

C9ngressiscal vote and debate on this issue was very close, CRBR furd hg won only by 2 Senate votes.

I Across our country tare is pear concern for efficency in govern-l nent, against waster of tax-payer's money. The NRC is also on target; Does it i

l protect tan people against inzards? Does it guare agaidst financial waste? This I

exemption would permit $88 mill 4on of site preparations like clearing and excavatien to proceed before itsuance of a construction pemit or a li=ited work authorisation.

l I therefore urge tm NRC to vote 'no' and to deny the DOE request to grant an exemption from rule 100FR 50.10.

s b r Sincerely,

- - - l C)

, * ~ ~} _ _ . .

- ~

em me

. e g

o

,n -

/

f

~

suTs4oo to south MAmust souans p.a. sox : en wanniseume.PA.svios $32 y'lj- pg g viv. :3e4ss t...

.~

.g

,.,o _,53D. . . .

. January 11, 1982 W. ~

9 ..n p .

Secretary o.f the Cornmission Nuclear Regulatory Commission d ECEfVgg -

-3 Washington, DC 20555 , ul /jy

[ Ut v:m[ g 5082 -; g Re: Docket No. 50-537 (Exemption Request) t  ! g j Gentlemen: "s

[

~%% f.\S I understand that the Commission will presently decide % liehher ~

to exempt the Clinch River Breeder Reactor from ce tain Commission licensing procedures. The request is irunic, since Clinch River proports to demonstrate the licensibility of breeder reactors. I anticipate t, hat the arguments in support ot' the request involve the urgency to develop the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I suspect the emergency is mainly political. The present economic situation of the nuclear power industry, troubled as it is, is a reflection of a de711ne in user demand. If the Clinch River Reaecor Project has any meaning, it is as a long-term project to demonstrate the development of safe breeder reactors.

Given that need, licensing procedures should not be truncated.

1. ,f

/s 1

Thom s B. Schmidt, III l

t

?

)O I

I t

l I _. . . .

peter R. Mitchell

/ 121 2dgerton St..

- ~

Qa.. h.. k. ) Rochester , :!. Y.14607 January 11, 1982

'32 S! 15 P 4 57 Secretary of the Cocsission .

3RC

'dashington , D. C. 2055F P:; . . M i;. .

Dear Secretary,

My com=ents pertain to the Clinch River 3reeder Reactor.

It is =7 sincere hope that you careful consider what I have to say. !1 ease noi:e and weigh the follcwing f9 cts before deciding on the recuest for execotion fro: rule 10 JFR 50.10.

.[ .. . , "o further coccittment of taipayer funds snould be cc nitted '~

l EoST,iniE117 to the CR3R program until the need and worthiness of tnis, epent on l Inese pro Sc' project is deciced.lectric'de New Yorkers in the Rochester Gas c service area are now pa"ing for the 50erling nuclear unile need reactor projedt that was scrapped two ye=rs ago due to lack was debate' of need. The same thing is likely to happen with the Nine Mile point Il reactor where 1.6 billion doll'ers has already

' een in rse'ad e There is no jus tification for permitting the advanced spending of funds prior to decision to issue a  : .

license to construct. Such an exemption would add impetus ~ .- :

to build and take reacning an objective decision based on frets -

more difficult.

Xew York State is 465 above peak in electrical generating capacity and de=end through the end of the centnyy is now projected at 15 yearly. This condition of excess generating capacity and decreased de=and is nationwide. There is no need to rush new generatihg capability onto line. :n fact, it is time to stand back and evaluate where we should be going

- with R & D and tax incentives and seed noney for future enefgy technologies j

FEA studies of 1971+ and 1976 respectively indicated 5

solar could p,rovide 395 of our energy needs by the yar 20c0

• d wind 23% of our electrical needs. Do these technologies offer f . ater potential and less risk? p.re they economically : ore O t etive. It is time for reflection.

remember that:

FEOE#M ' ,' d 1)uhile every reflecting,l 1cw leve radioactive waste du=o is leaking r

4 -

2) over h0 radioactive waste cusps exist'in the Atlantic

JAN N M2ts. -

and pacific oceans bordering US sheres.

6 r:nsdsPTw 4 37 solutions to safe storage of high level waste do not tr.wgl h s exist, m - 4) no one '. cows wnat the cost w'll be to deco: ission

% M\ reactors and other radicactive plants (reprecessing, enrichment fabrication).

V i 3&'3 5) there were,118 unresolvee generie safety proble:s with Qp f nuclear reactors as of 6/80. Sote are of a very serious nature-pipe cracking, reactor vessel e= brittle-jO ent, turbine flywneel craeking, pipe plugging, failure of fuel rods to ful'y 'nsert during scran, the severe 1*-"ts of circenium claddng in loss of coolant accidents (productio:rof hydrogen gas).

6) 8000 lbs. of weauong grade nuclear caterial was unaccounted GA0 for by the end of 1976-according 'to One-

. _ ~ . .

y- - - - w y. -w , . _ - - --. -- -.

2.

7) a growing number of scientists sup; ort the contention that gov't established levels for low level radiation exposure of woricers and the public are 10 times to high.

8) The breehr the 3S~d ancreactsr is a far itcore Ewn because dangerous carr$es a greatertechnolog'f volume o. than ~

its coolant can burn and explode on radioactive contact withisotopes, air it breeds plutonium that can be~ used for nuclear weapons ,,and in a IAC accident , it can 3ROR91:

explode.

cack.nyencdecision should of todays face up nuclear fuh, cyc1e.

to t^he reality of the front of ande The tucusands trrttm tons of uraniu =ine tailings wiJ.1-stay radioactive for ap;roximately 800,000 years. .ta t do you plan to do with them?

Fuel (spent) is now being compacted in spent fuel pools. A nucher of engineers worry about this situa tion. *aha t do you llan to do about it? It is new recognized that class nine accidehts are far nore likely to occur than previously thought. How do you plan to protect the public should the impossible happen? Ivacuation plans are impossible for areas surrounding cany-reactors.

I am very concerned for =y en11:ren and their Aliiliiren.

~

raised legitirate questions based on facts. I hope.you will 'I have incorporate them into your deliberations.

5 e rely your . -

h etsrR./(Mi ell eItb ~

i

~  :.

^- UIIEviM ,

T.100. a '.T*f L FT4. . . . . . , _ _ . ._ - - - -

2200 Pineridge, '82 JM115 P4 57 Cambria CA 93428, . %= _ f Jan. 10, 1982. .... - ' ~/ -

, . .. : . . a. -

s. . . 3 ,--

Secretary, ~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555 ,

Dear Commissioners:

It has come to my attention that DOE has asked you to grant an' exemption from rule 10 CPR 50.10 as submitted in Docket-No.

50-537. This exemption request can only be looked upon as an under-handed attempt to get the ill concieved Clich River Breeder Reactor project underway before you have had to opportunity to execute the proper licensing procedures.

Nation vide, as in California, the demand for electrical en- -

ergy is declining as a result of popular conservation efforts. At this time and in the forseeable future there is no justification for seriously considering the Breeder Reactor project.

Spending tax money on such a pork barzt1 project at a time when our children are going hungry and unemployment reaches an all time high would be the ultimate in hypocracy.

Sin re 7 I Schussman O! ~

~

+ g t

i Jt RECEIV59 _3 N 1982h. =

m - g.. c r gf-, a a/

~  ;

y s.

% \

a

~

s%' .,

s  %

~

l N p%3

.5

/

f>, _

I l . .

- , I I

.= m us1a FMD.& UTli Ffe..fb . g39 (g)

Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement .

2610 Grendon Dr., Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone (302) 994-1342 2612 Ea=+.e n go 4 wilmington, 'b 1980f a P4 57 January ll, 1982 -

Secretary of the Commisaion --

U.S. Nuclear Reenlatory Commisaion hui: . .~.

Vaahington, M.C. 20555 "~>

Met Docket No. 50-557 P.xe-ntion Requent Under 10 CFR 50.12 Pear Sir, 7 am addremaing these comments to you regarding the proposed exemption to 10- CPR "O.12 you are considering for the Clinch River 3reeder Reantar( CRBR) .

The*e comments represent the consensus of coinion of our Coalition and, I trust, the rest. of the Coalitions acrosa America who oppose this dangerous undertaking.

I will now enumerate only our majnr concerne in attempting to make you realize how strongly we feel about this project.

1) The CRER pones more grave of a theeat to our environment than even light water reactors, and the progression of the technology from ,

EBR-1 to the Fermi Reactor to France's Super Phenix tends to bed .

this out.

2) The funding morans for GBR s1 ready shows signs of ieing the Albatrosa of the 80's as that of fisaion reactors has been ir. the 70's. The lack of confidence from Wall Street in fission reactors and no rush for breeder develooment from the private nector is mute testimony to thsee facts.

5) The dogged determination of the developers of alternative technologies for energy production and the continuing decline in electricity demand make CRER a onor candidate for government sponsorship at this time. ^ne nard only look to the enormous cost overruns and cancellationa that. abound in the 'l'74 nuclear orojects and the Bonneville Power Admin-istration's fiasco in Washington State to tenow that entering headlong into vet another doomed technology is not a wise way to squander tax dollara.

4) No ' Congressional mandate ' for CRER exists as the voting record shosa.

Indeed, CRBR could not even stand on ita oua =erits, but hact to be clnaked as a seeingly innocuous expenditure of the DOE budget by its cowardly aupporters in Congreas.

5) The gisnt sten into the Plutonium Econemy that CRRR embodies will have the disastrous effect of turn . sent fission reactors into more of plutonium factories nddeffkg rien than they already are as the transition progresses,.\ * ,

Y g y nEc5WED 3 E

JMl2I OQ 7.... m : n ,e m ,

5

"%.5if U fh f

{: ;e/

\

?

Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement

~ '

/ 2610 Grencon Dr., Wilmington, OE 19806 Telephone (302) 994-1342 Secretary of the Cor:anisaion Pege Two ~

January 11,-1982 -

6) 3e blanket exemptions that CRER will carry with' it by virtue of being a Federal Goverrment installatinn( i.e. lack of need for an Envirormental Impact Statement and %ergency Evacuation Flans), while containing what is best described as a horrendous amount of plutonium, capable of devaatsting thousands of lives and thousands of square miles of productive countryside,=akes it a= terrible : threat to our scenemy as a nuclear war. - --

7) With so many viable alternative energy sourcea begging for a ~ere f raction of CDBa ?s present dsvelooment and construction outlays, I cannot see how, in all good conscience, you can delegate the centinuance of this insane technology to the name genre of individuala who have been reaponsible to date for cutting us on the edge of extinction because of.

our war toys or our electric generating stations.

R spectfully submitted; Donald C. Prisco, Chairman

~ .

2138 Sonners Avenue  :. ;~"~~

.x t '-

. . , Madison WI 53704 p;i;,a.s wm pfe,,M*..M7[fl Jan.12,1982

'82 JMI 15 PS :05

~

Secretary ,ycg- -

Nuclear Regulatory Connission hoed?..gT3Eh.-

ERAi4CH Washingt n, DC 20555 Re: Docket No. 50-537, exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12

Dear Secretary and Co missioners:

I write to ask you to refuse the exemption cited above, which would speed up construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

It seens to me that it would be ill-advi.ed to grant such an exemption when the future of the project remains so uncertain. The prtject's funding survived by the narrowest of margins in the last session -

of the Ccngress - and there are certain to be further attempts.to eliminate.

it fran the budget in the future. .

The exemption being requested could have one of two effects. It could result in the waste of millions of tax dollars if preliminary work is rushed and the project ultimately is scrapped. Or it could be used as a ~

justification to authorize future funding since a sizable investment already would have been made in the project.

Neither scenario is one the NRC should be a part of. I hope you will reject the exemption request.. ,

/t  %

Sincerely g; R S C 51 4 ;) 3

\ kg - JAN 2719825 -

BILL CHRI ON r:

Dy' pso3 5

/6

G. I.'

.g 3.y g 5711 Summerset Dr.

indland, T1T 48640

,, January 13, 1982 ',~

~

} -

Secretary of the Commission '

Nuclear Regulatory Commissi,n - g [3#)(f ) c- -

, , , , ,, _ s . . . Fl.0.v . w = -- -

Washington, D.C. 20555 -

Docket No. 50-537---Exemption recuest under 10 CFR 50.12 .

To the Secretarye

~

I present the following comments on the licens(ng exemption d.

k?

Peactor on behalf of the Great Lakes Energy Alliance, Lansing, ..

Titchigan. /y~g ,

_ J4g 4

.; . n.

The reouest or the Department of Energy to have the Nuclear \ [Pof ,(gh s

t193gtw 4 Begulatory Cornmission grant an exemption from rule 10 CFR 50.12 s

• which would allow the Department of Energy to go ahead with con-E. -

g struction of the Clinch Btver Breeder Reactor (CFPR) without going ~

/8 c, through certain NRC licensing procedures is certainly placing public health and safety in Jespordy. It is widely known that the fast breeder reactor is muche more dangerous than the light water reactors now being built and licensed.

During my graduate work at the I'niversity of \fichigan, I attended any number of seminars at the Nuclear Engineering Department where j

speakers from both the University and the nuclear ladustry frequently made this point. Also, even five years ago, those same knowledgeable people were stating that the Clinch Bredder design was outmoded, l

l To proceet' on an emergency basis at this point would defeat even '

the minimal contribution that could be expected from the CRBR project which is to demonstrate the licensab !!ty of breeder reactors. Enough has been written in the press about the special dangers ,f the fast breeder and of the huge inventory of plutonium that it would contain to

further undermine public confidence in the breeder technology at this time, if any special precipitaus action to avoid necessary IIcensing procedures were to be taken. -

l

. . . . . - 5

c>

l l

I

I Page Two Secretary of the Commission - NRC January 13,1982 .

We know the Congressional vote to further the CRBR in this era of strong susterity measures was extremely close, and it is widely known that the approval was the result of pressure from the Admini-stration to pay off political favors from Senator Howard Baker.

It can only further anger a deeply troubled and financially pressured public to have this type of action, callous to considerations of public beelth and safety as it is, added to what is already a sore spot in the Administration's priorities of budget cutting. Certainly no one can interpret the close vote of the funding approval as any kind of Con-gressional " mandate" urging fast progress on the CRBR.

At the present time, U.S. energy usage is declining. There is no reason to by-pass the normal licensing procedure for the CRBR as though we had an " emergency" situation which might warrant special '

exemption. The fast breeder has always beem promoted as a long term energy option.

Therefore, we strongly oppose the request of the Department of Energy for an' exemption from the normal NBC licensing procedures for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

N j' ,

i- -

Stary Sinclair Af.S. University of Michigan for Great Lakes Energy Alliance Lansing, Michigan AfS/jt

/ Concemed Citizens of Rhode Island .

s Box 525 _

Charlestown, R.I. 02813

'32 gl 13 p5 :f 7

~

January 11, 1982 '

a .,t: - .

Secretary of the Coussission 2 P.Z;.ag7;dh,[0* O U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission ~~

Wa=Mngton, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-537 f exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12 x> g Clinch River Breeder Beactor .'

igWlVgg ',

Dear Sir:

'[ y4/Vg7 l

.- 3

-i MWy 2A j I am +=1r*ng this opportunity to respond to the open invitatio(n to the Vigj,geyg 4 /

public to sddress this question. We have a number of objections tds this % E exemption request, and we urge that the CEBR should not be exempt from'any "

of the established NE licensing requirements. 8~

/ j jg \

i The Clinch River Breeder Esector design has long been recognised to be

obsolete. Consequently, any attempt to foist this particular breeder design onto the public without careful review seems like an effort to avoid facing basic questions concaming the design. Moreover, it appears to be an ef ort f to undermine the v$ ability of breeder remotor licensibility. Such an action would go far toward unde =4aine public confidence in breeder technology.

The present round of cancellations and stretch-outs of IXR construction schedules Mflects the utilities' reassessment of the amount of additional i electricity generating especity for future needs. This action clearly shows that the country is not faced with an emergency need for the breeder to supplement other generating sources. Consequently, emergency :nessures to promote, without need and in the abseice of review, a questioned design, is both unwise and unwarrenttd. The absence of prescure of need actually provides l the country with the opportunity to ernmHne carefully breeder technology.

To find no evidence that a strong stand exists in Congress for special consideration of the CHBR. Past congressicnal actions have often opposed continued funding for this project, and even the latest action to support the program has just barely passed in Congress. It simply is not true that any - ~ ~

mandate exists for fast progress in furthering CHBR.

I trust that thean comments will be given your serious consideration.

Very truly yours,

.5

> w4 lc Samuel Seely, S?/s President

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