ML20054M762

Forwards Commissioner Ahearne Questions for Applicants

ML20054M762
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/12/1982
From:	Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 8207140377
Download: ML20054M762 (6)

Text

-.

-- 7 ,g? bro UNITED STATES

,y o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

( $.,

WASHINCTON, D.C. 20655 -

00tnEIC -

g b~nT'

~

Q ~

,,,,, July 12, 1982 CFFICE CF THE Docket No. 50-537 '82. .El 2. P6:13 COMMISSIONER (Exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12) -

.- [

ch((#",),0 Ei (

C MEMORANDUM FOR: Secy \ ' [

ERVE0 JUL131982 FROM: John Ahearne

)/

SUBJECT:

CRBR QUESTION The July 9th order states the Commission will distribute questions today.

Attached are mine.

Attachment cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine OCA _

OPE V OGC l

i 8207140377 820712 CPDR ADOCK 05000537 PDR b 6 81 t _ . -. .

~

' ~ ~ ~

cf.n;X i .

r Docktt"No.: 50-537 -

u.~~C J'- 7:7

. ~ ...: . . . ..

(Extmption requ::st und r 10 CFR,5,0.12.)

- t

... .7 ~ ~.

$~5'l

'M-h* *

- f,kf 21 *. < ~ ^

4wa= --

. Commissioner Ahearne's Questions for CRBRP. Applicants ~

- r DQEf : -

. t.

_ *M ..M

-- -- - 17 P 6 13,:e j.

4 l a ': 1. On page.2 of.his letter dated July 1, 1982 to the ~ i~.

p- .r rr p ..c c ;;,:# L -

u "v ' .,7 - 2 Commission',' Acting Secretary Davis states: - - . . . - - . i

=

SERVED'JllL131982 "Most importantly, acceleration of the CRBRP -

' ~~ ', schedule by 6 to 12 months will: -

o Support the timely completion of. . .the Large Developmental. Plant. . . ."

Please describe the current funded program for this plant and the funding in the FY 83 DOE budget proposal.

. 2. On page 2 of the Davis letter:

. . .as indicated in.the Department's letter of February 25, 1982, [ acceleration of the CRBRP schedule] will also yield substantial monetary f cost savings to the taxpayer." i Does the Department wish the February 25th letter to remain as part of their submission? Does the Department wish to modify any part of that letter? .

3. Page v, Site Preparation Activities Report (SPAR), June 1982:

I " Approval by NRC to proceed as proposed can. . .

achieve a substantial cost savings to the taxpayer."

Page 7-2:

i "The estimated 6-12 months reduction in schedule l will result in substantial cost savings."

l Page 7-13:

i l '"The net effect of an additional 1 year delay to I the project from an appropriation perspect, [ sic]

I is estimated at .$129 million. "

i l

~

l l

l l

L

n 1

. lY:',; i . -. .. ~

L .n . .J

.9r

~~

.b'_I

_ z,. ;.. . .

2 . -- . - l.,.n -

. .f. _

Page 7-13: . _

"From the economic perspective. . .J t]he net? J ..

~~

of these costs is estimated At A minimum of $28

~~

i million for a 1 yea ~r project delay." -

Page 7-14:

"From the financial perspective, the present worth of a one year delay in the CRBRP Project would result in a cost increase of $218.,million."

Are the estimates from pages 7-13 and 7-14 the " substantial cost savings to the taxpayer"? (Note that on page 28

.I of the " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Request to Conduct Site Preparation Activities," dated July 1, 1982, the applicants refer to:

"[t]he relatively small investment for site preparation activities. . . ."

According to the SPAR, this investment would be $81.5 million (p. 3-22).)

4. The quotes from pages 7-13 and 7-14 of the SPAR referenced in question 3 apparently are to be supported by reference 7-5 (page 8-7 cfthe SPAR):

"The calculations supporting the cost of delay are contained in W. Kenneth Davis, Deputy Secretary DOE to NRC Commissioners, February 25, 1982, Applicants Response to NRDC, Incorporated, and Tennessee Attorney Generals Comments, January 28, 1982, and Applicants Answers to Questions Set forth in Attachment A to the Commissioners, December 24, 1981, Order (January 18, 1982)."

Does the DOE continue to support all cost calculations in reference 7-57

n y ,

A'

'. . co -

, ,, n . .

=n -

3-=. 'a ,_

5. Page 25, " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Request to Conduct Site Preparation Activities":

"This case in [ sic] on all fours with Shearon-Harris . "-

Given that the site preparation work addressed in the Shearon Harris case was authorized before the LWA rule went into effect, please explain why Shearon Harris is "on all fours" with the current request.

6. Page 16, " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Request to Conduct Site Preparation Activities":

~

"The Department of Energy has implemented Congres-sional and Presidential policy and its own independent statutory responsibility for energy research and

~

development, by determining that CRBRP should be completed as expeditiously as possible. The program called for in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program (Supplement to ERDA-1535, DOE /EIS-0085-FS, '

May 1982) is construction of CRBRP as expeditiously as possible."

Page 29:

"[G] rant of the Section 50.12 request will permit CRBRP to provide information in a timely fashion necessary to support the LFMBR Base Research and Development Program, and Large Developmental Plant, and the LFMBR Fuel Cycle Program,'and will substantially enhance the prospects for success in those programs."-

Page 39, " Final Environmental Impact Statement (Supplement to ERDA-1535, December 1975), Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program" (DOE /EIS-0085-PS, May 1982) (footnote omitted): '

1

, .. -~ -.- . \

.+... --. -

. _ . . . .__m . _ __

. . = . . :z. 3 .w 43

_; 3 "There are four main reasons to proceed expeditiously '

with the U.S. LMFBR dev'lopment e program:

o Even with a relatively vigorous LMBFR develop-

' ment program, a commercially viable LMFBR cannot be available for several decades.

o There is significant uncertainty in any

~

prediction of a date for LMFBR need.

o In view of uncertainti.es, the penalties for developing the breeder too early are small j compared to the penalties for developing too 1 ate. {

~

o Continuity is essential to progress in any high technology development program."

Page 40:

(

"Even if the LMFBR program is pushed ahead now in a vigorous fashion, commercial-scale demonstration cannot be accomplished until the mid-1990's and resulting utility commitments to commercial LMFBRs _

would result in LMFBR generating plants no earlier .

than 2005 to 2010."

y Page 43:

j "As noted earlier, the prudent course is to gear the development program toward possible commercialization of LMPBRs fairly early in the next century. . . .This course provides the maximum programmatic flexibility and minimizes the risk of not having options available."

.Page 45:

"The nation has a considerable investment in the 1 team of people and the f acilities that now make up F the LMFBR program. If development were substantially deferred, experienced people would be lost to h other fields, and existing facilities would have -

to be closed." E E

The timing of the program called for in the EIS seems

{

to be measured in terms of years and decades rather g

b E

L

=

p, f L

~ " '

5 i

than months. The " Applicants' Memorandum in Support of f Request to Conduct' Site Preparation Activities" states  !

to the NRC that the public interest would be best served by granting the request. The Applicants argue that the information and program benefits support this position. <

Certainly grant of the Section 50.12 request will

" permit CRBR to provide information in a timely fashion."

However, since the Applicants raise the issue, it is important to understand how failure to grant the request will cause the information to be untimely. Therefore, how will delay of site preparation activities until (a)

December 1982 or (b) August 1983 affect the " informational

?

and programmatic benefits"? i 2

3 1

=

t E

t E

II 5

5 re b

is

!!f