ML20055A901

Informs of Changes That Have Occurred Since Initial Issuance of Fes for Crbr.New Updated Environ Statement Requested

ML20055A901
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	06/10/1982
From:	Elliott C THOMAS & HAIR
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20055A899	List: ML20055A901
References
RTR-NUREG-0139, RTR-NUREG-139 NUDOCS 8207200106
Download: ML20055A901 (2)

Text

THOMAS AND HAIR -

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 101 1 123 NORTH FIFTH STREET I ALLENToWN. PENNSYLVANIA 18102 JOHN P. THOMAS TELEPHONE CHARLES J. HAIR (295)421 8900 CHARLES ELLIOTT June 10, 1982 WILLIAM M. THOMAS DAVID J. JORDAN, JR.

The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: United States Deoartment of Energy et al (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) Docke t No. 50-537

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I have been following the progressof the construction permit proceedings in the above captioned matter with interest, and have examined numerous documents relating to that proceeding.

I also understand that the Commission may resist the necessity for supplementation of the 1977 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Clinch. River. I cannot, however, understand any conceivable rationale for such a failure, inasmuch as (1) EISs have recently been routinely supplemented for LWRs in order to detail environmental impacts of accidents beyond the design basis; (2) there have been major design changes in the CRBR reactor vessel and fuel core; (3) the US Court of Appeals (DC Cir) -decision of April 27, 1982 invalidating the table S-3 rule will require further environmental analyses; (4) so much new information has arisen, resulting in so many changes in NRC regulations and its safety perspective since the issuance of the EIS in 1977, that any analyses of environmental impact of the CRBR must be taken to be outdated.

8207200106 820629 DR ADOCK 05000537 PDR

e- .

The Honorable Nunzie Palladino. June-10, 1982 In fact, any failure of the Commission to supplement the 1977 EIS must be perceived to be an abrogation of its statutory responsibilities under NEPA, and the Atomic Energy Act, and.an attempt to improperly expedite the licensing process for the CRBR.

I trust that the Commission will honor-its responsibilities, and provide the public with a new, updated statement of the environmental impact of the CRBR and for opportunity to comment. I look forward to receiving and reviewing a supplemental EIS on this project which has so many serious implications for the common security.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my views.

Very truly yours, 7}hffg/ -

CHARLES W. ELLIOTT CWE:sch i

i I

l

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