ML20063D550

Requests Temporary Delay to Schedule Set for Licensing of Crbr.Delay Necessary to Update 1977 EIS

ML20063D550
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	07/09/1982
From:	Greenberg P CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20062B818	List: ML20063D550
References
NUDOCS 8207050009
Download: ML20063D550 (2)

Text

-

$ tate of Galifontia S}

• """ .0;,,"",, W N J R.

GOVERNCR'S OFFICE SACRAMENTO 958 94 916/323-6237 July 9, 1982 fir. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Dircks:

I write to register our objections to the schedule set for licensing the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) and to re ques t that the NRC temporarily delay that schedule. Such a delay is necessary in order to update the grossly inadequate and out-of-date Environmental Impact Statement for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Major changes in the design of the CRBR have occurred in the laut seven years because of major advances in technical, environmental, and materials sciences and because of information learned from international experience with breeder reactors. As a result, _the old EIS no longer evaluates the actual breeder design to be built in Tennessee. The ef fects of design changes must be incorporated into a supplement to the original EIS which reflects previously unaddressed impacts on the ' environment and public health and safety.

Since 1975 there have also been significant changes in NRC regulations that relate to health and safety. Some of these changes are the result of. the major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant and some are the result of greater experience and technical advances. The information learned in the last seven years should be incorporated into a supplemental EIS, even if this means a temporary delay in the licensing schedule.

m 3 8207050009 *

' 'm , - . 4,  ;

v. .

~

Mr. William J. Dircks July 9, 1982 Finally, we believe that the recent draf t EIS for the generic Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor was grossly inadequate, and we have filed comments to that ef fect.

Because many of the issues raised in the State 's comments are germane to the development of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, we believe that it would be helpf ul to reevaluate need for and alternatives to the CRBR, in addition to the new technical information that has arisen since the original EIS was filed.

We hope the Commission will consider our views in making its decision.

Sincerely,

/ .

hillip A. Greenberg Assistant to the Govern for Energy &Environme e