ML20059F037
| ML20059F037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1994 |
| From: | Harlan R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401130122 | |
| Download: ML20059F037 (2) | |
Text
,
7 j
1VP10 RONALD A. HARLAN 1156 CRES'n400R DRIVE BOULDER, CO 80303 telephones (303) (19-4901 (hone)
(303) 9664321 (cffice)
January 05, 1994 John W. N. Hickey Chief, Enrichment Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mailstop 4-E4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Claiborne Enrichment
Subject:
Center, Claiborne Parish, Louisiana
Dear Mr. Hickey:
I am writing in support of the proposal by Louisiana Energy Services to locate I have a new centrifuge enrichment facility in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana.
read a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and have concluded that environmental impacts are acceptable and that potential danger Centrifuge to the public is negligible if the plant is operated as planned.
enrichment of uranium is a proven and implemented technology overseas and it is much more energy-efficient than gaseous diffusion.
I urge your office and the NRC in general to support the findings in the draft EIS and discard any " chaff" thrown out by those opposing the facility. If valid criticisms are identified by others from flaws in the EIS (I saw none in the summary available to me), then these must be addressed properly and I do urge the NRC to quickly so that the licensing process can be expedited.
expedite licensing for the facility.
Writing as a displaced Louisianian, I am familiar in general terms with the proposed area in north Louistana. Its essentially rural nature and natural resources are good for an eririchment plant. As a nuclear chemist, I am thrilled that a nuclear industry has seen fit to consider locating an I still visit relatives important and beneficial piant in my native state.
there and know first hand the depressed nature of the local economy and the
" brain drain" that occurr for Louisiana as a result of too few opportunities for her native sons and daughters that select careers in high technology The propor,ed facility can only benefit Louisiana in terms of her industries.
faltering economy, in keeping some of her brightest young people at home, and in attracting desirable professionals and skilled workers to the area.
As a professional with 30 years experience in nuclear andeavors from teaching in a state university, to research at Department of Energy reactors at the Idaho National Energy Laboratory, to safeguards and environmental instrumentation development at a plutonium facility, I have observed the tremendous improvement in design and safety practices for nuclear facilities.
Contrary to the misinformation campaign (claiming adverse safety, economic and f !,
[]
9401130122 940105 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
PDR sr
t l
l f
2 l
environmental consequences) being mounted in this matter by some so-ctiled I
environmentalists and anti-technology doom sayers, I am confident that a plant can be built and safely operated to the benefit of the region and of the nation.
I shall state for the record that nuclear energy must be part of our national energy strategy for the foreseeable future and is one of the most benign and clean forms of energy for the public. Our nation can ill afford to continue the past history of unnecessary delays caused by specious arguments put forth by intervenors in the licensing processes for commercisi reactors and processing plants.
Sincerely yours,
}
S*r Ronald A. Harlan, Ph. D.
1 l
l i
-..