ML20041E649

Objections to DOE Request for Emergency Licensing Exemption. Granting Exemption Would Undermine Principal Congressional Objective to Demonstrate LMFBR Ability to Be Commericially Licensed

ML20041E649
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	03/03/1982
From:	Coughlin L, Fish H, Brian Green, Gregg J, Pursell C, Schneider C, Tauke T, Weber V HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-E, NUDOCS 8203110212
Download: ML20041E649 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a LAv. a t* Jc'* COU. LIN M8 "'*o=

tme,,vsiet. Pr sv.vu a ut7 Nrma Sewe um m in coM vf TTer CN 'S '

ocemer omcc, w . . - .. -, M . ..

(COngrC66 Of IIjt EnitED e6fatt$ u,".i.,. ni,m

",'J~,. ',,'.~..". 'M

• M,Ua!?,*a" nuira J)ouse of Representatibe.yg g 9 pr.32 o # !'c O M a. Elashington, D.C. 20515 a mH .

us .a .

wofiE!5 0 " f" cia ,.

b,64*

v-u t. .. N s .

- a uh a.

CE2.ECT COMMITTEC ON .$

• macorics . _. RECEIVED The Honorable Nunzio Palladin i MAR 1'01982* 3) )0CKET f' UMBER Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. g g3 SP .[ ""' ,

same masser a Washington, D. C. 2055'5  %

• 77 *

Dear Mr. Chairman:

4 - .

s.

As Members of' Congress actively involved in Congressional debates on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR), we express our objection to the Department of Energy's request for an energency licensing exe=ption for this controversial project. We urge you to act to preserve the integrity of the Commission's

• licensing process and not allow site work to'begin on Clinch River before hearings on the breeder's impact are complete. .

If the Commission decides to grant an exe=ption in this case, it will under '

mine one of the principal Congressional objectives for the CRBR project which is to demonstrate that breeders can be licensed for commercial use in'the United States. Congress authorized the CRBR in 1972 and, at that time, all parties,in-

. volved agreed that the CRBR would be a licensed demonstration cf the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors' (I.MFBRs) technology. .

The private sector's unwillingness to share commensurately in the ever-soaring

. coses being borne by Federal taxpayers already casts grave doubts on the CRBR's commercial feasibility. By seeking a licensing exemption, DOE not only aborts the original Congressional intent, but abandons reaso'nable demonstration standards that could help determine whether the LMFBR should live or die on its own merits. Post-poning the determination of licensability of LMFERs for co=mercial application will cause extensive delay and increased cost of any LMTBR plant that might follow the Clinch. River project. . ,

The Department of Energy cites the language of the Conference Report accom-panying the 0.nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 as support for regulatory exemption for the CRER. While the conferees did state in that' report that the project "...should be constructed in a timely and, expedient manner,"...they also went on to say that such action should take place "so that a decision on the co=mercialization and deploy =ent of breeder reactors can be made on the basis of information obtained in the operation of t'he plant." Congress did not' intend the CRBR to be built without adhering to the NRC licensing and NEPA requirements.

A 0 y0 8203110212 820303 PDR ADOCK 05000537 .

U PDR

l The Honorable Nunzio Palladino- l Page Two March 3, 1982 The decision you make regarding the CRBR will s$t a precedent for future NRC licensing actions regarding the breeder reactor progra=. If the NRC acts to grant an exe=ption, we fear that public confidence in the licensing process will erode. The NRC should grant exe=ptions sparingly and we do not believe circumstances e.xist that justify a licensing exe=ption for the CRBR.

Sincerely,

• o ,

N ch.<./ ~

BILL' GREEN, M.C.

M -

LAWREl % 0UGHLIN, M.C.

L JHOMASJ.TAUKE,M.C. (INkyBER,M.

_ 1_ - .

CARL D. PURSELL, M.C. CLAUDINE SCHNFIDER, M.C.

- O

. X/

HAMILTON J. FISH, JR., M.C. JU@ EGG, M.C7 . bg e e l .

I e

s l

~

1 l

l l

.