ML20070R548
| ML20070R548 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1982 |
| From: | Hill A PRESIDENT OF U.S. & EXECUTIVE OFFICES |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069D029 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-516 NUDOCS 8302030079 | |
| Download: ML20070R548 (1) | |
Text
~
O t' )
H.
EXhECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF ENVmONMENTAL QUALITY 722 JACKSON PLACE. N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 July 13, 1982 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chaiman Kuclear Regulatory Commission Eatomic Building, Room H-lll4 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On July 8,1982, members of your staff met with CEQ staff to discuss whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor cust be supplemented and recirculated to the public. Because of the contro-versial nature of the project, I did want to follow up with you on that conversation.
If a substantial amount of time has passed between the time an EIS is written and % project is implemented, an agency may determine that a supplement is app priate. The Council has suggested that an agency should consider supple-centing an EIS for an ongoing program if the EIS is more than five years old.
.(See Federal Register for March 23,1981, p. 18036.) However, the five year period was offered as guidance to the agencies to use in detemining when new information or circumstances may exist and should not be considered an absolute requirement. Mere passage of thmg in and of itself, need not render an EIS obsolete.
The CEQ regulations do direct agencies to supplement an EIS VSen significant new circumstances or infomation relating to the project and its environmental impact indicates that this would be appropriate.
(See 40 CRF 1502.9.) Obvio'usly,
to detemine $ ether new infomation or circumstances are significant, one must look at the n'ew material in relationship to the environmental impacts of the l
proj ect.
l l
I hope the above clarification is helpful to you.
The Council stands ready to I
assist the Commission in any way we can with respect to this project.
l S nc e
e ALAN HILL n.
Chaiman s
8302030079 821229
(
' U Lnch Uunf(~'
' %f. '
'k
~
k-g--
g s ;
. SEC' ETARIAT RECORD COPY R
'JUL 7 1982
~
The Honorable Alan J. Dixon United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Dixon:
Thank you for your June 21, 1982 letter forwarding correspondence fran Miriam Targ concerning the changes that have occurred since the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Environmental Statement (NUREG-0139) was issued in February 1977.
We have been assessing these and other changes and their environmental significance from the time licensing activities for -the Clinch River Plant were resumed in the fall of 1981. The results of.that assessment will be documented in a report which is scheduled to be' issued soon.
Sincerely.
IS4ned) 7. A, Rahm William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations l
u l
l v'
~
gh qbV 4
99,
9
... 0 -
I j
c June 21, 1982 1
9)Cnifeb Sfafes Senafe Miriam Lee Targ, President Citizens Opposed to Radioactive Pollution (CORP)
Post Office Box 5
~111nois 60022
- Glencoe, Respectfully referred to:
Congressional Liaison Office Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Beca'use of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquirics and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by 1
l Alan..J. Dixon u.s.s.
m, Form #2 GPO 3983 0 237 a
j 5
I
~
i
, 7 g
.i s
05Ei&
,4 bk '
=
D_
b Q
CORP CAgeaGwedtsRadoaase M%
' June 12, 1982 The Honorable Nunzio Palladino, Chairman
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Falladino:
You have announced your intention to see the Clinch River Breeder Reactor through to licensing despite the Commission's vote,against exempting that installation from licensing standards.
Nevertheless, we believe that it will be irresponsible and even 111e6a1 to proceed with licensin6 before a supple-ment is issued to the " Final" Environmental Impact Statement of 1977.
That statement has been outdated first of all by N.R.C. 's own changed regulations dealing with safeguards such as siting, protection against radiation 'and accidents, and so on.
Clinch River Reactor's compliance or non-compliance with all safety and environmental regulations must be care-fully delineated.
And certainly the major design _c'1anges of C.R.B.R.'s reactor vessel and fuel core mandate the development of a current F.E.I.S.
Given a major project whose primary characteristics are superfluity, obsolescence, and enormous danger, the American taxpayer and concerned citizen must first seek relief from the executive of the agency with primary respons-ibility.
We therefore exhort you to meticulously carry out your legal responsibilities.
The stakes are too high to permit the Clinch River Breeder Reactor to perform its only remain'ing function, as,a transparent and demonstrable political @ yorfc C.O.R.F. requests a full public disclosure of all inform-ation and circumstances to update or replace the 1977 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
Very truly
- ours, hm
- ?Y Firiam Lee Targ, President q f.c.
.o. sox 5 copies to: Senators Charles Fercy, Alan I
c LEncOE. lL 60022 DiXon, Representative John Forter
[
T'1 LE P H ON E S:
Fl y) 432 b?47. 9411. 3133 l
hk
1,h1 b Llo(, k M's O
O 3
- UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
I W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 V...../
WH M. N opp,cr op 7s, CHAIRMAN The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Comittee on Energy and Comerce United State'i House of Representatives
, ashington, D.C. 20515 W
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On December 8,1981 you expressed concern that recent NRC reallocation of FY 1982 resources to accelerate licensing of light water reactors and to review the construction permit application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program may impact resolution of igortant generic safety issues.
Responses to your specific questions, the separate views of Comissioner Ahearne, and sqy response to Comissioner Ahearne's views are enclosed.
Since submission of the FY 1982 budget to Congress in January 1981, events have occurred which require the Comission to adjust the al-location of the resources requested in our original budget submission as discussed in the enclosure.
In making these adjustments,-the Com-mission objectives continue to be resolution of issues igortant to safety, maintaining the safety of operating reactors and not unneces-sarily delaying the licensing of reactors.
Within the total resources appropriated, the Comission believes that these major objectives can be met.
Sincerely,
- ~
,',,. u s, - ) t -
- c * ;
r
~
.u
~*
Nunzio J. Pallacfino Chairman
Enclosures:
1.
Separate Views of Comissioner Ahearne 2.
Chairman Palladino's Response to Comissioner Ahearne's Views i
3.
Responses to Questions cc:
Representative James T. Broyhill x.
JAz)P O
f
/
>nk a
e
-~
m
Q f'
UNITED STATES
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
E WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
\\ *~
. p$
OFFICE OF THE April 20, 1982 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On December 8,1981 you expressed concern that recent NRC reallocation of FY 1982 resources to accelerate licensing of light water reactors and to review the construction permit application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program may impact resolution of important generic safety issues.
Responses to your specific quastions, the separate views of Comissioner Ahearne, and my response to Comissioner Ahearne's views are enclosed.
Since submission of the FY 1982 budget to Congress in January 1981, events have occurred which require the Comission to adjust the al-locai.'on of the resources requested in our original budget submission as discussed in the enclosure.
In making these adjustments,-- the Com-mission objectives continue to be resolution of issues important to i
safety, maintaining the safety of operating reactors and not unneces-
~
sarily delaying the licensing of reactors. Within the total resources appropriated, the Commission believes that tnese major objectives can be met.
Sincerely,
l j.) lt ( :
. i.
c...
Nunzio J. Palladino
.a Chai rman
Enclosures:
1.
Separate Views of Comissioner Ahearne Chirman Palladino's Response to 2.
a Comissioner Ahearne's Views 3.
Responses to Questions cc: Representative Carlos Moorhead j
uN 10t3(%
~
- 4 4.
..r.
O U
"" ".",",""L t'a...
m""I.'"*""".':%
,==: ::"f. ~fft,"r"';"-
E.6. house of Representatibeg E@l,_ @[Mh-Committee on energy anb Commerte
..".".i, mu 5 "~2m2 Room 2123, Barburn Rpouse offire puDias
=, "*.".". L";.,.
- llt"," ="L",l:." *^'"-
E!ashington, D.C.
20515
=,h",'"m",""L""
"J,*400' ""'
December 8, 1981
- ".t::;"=-
- L""".=0. "
l "llll".or"L.
llllllt.";.'."m:t."",i,.
'"l",::::"Ja".'-
l
- ,t,Mu.
- .*ll~* *-
.=
m.
I
..; ".";: =. h The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
(
i As you know, last Friday the President signed an Appropriations bill which provides the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a total appropriation for Fiscal Year 1982 of $465,700,000.
This appropriation is $35 million less than the Commission initially requested and approximately $20 million less than the amount authorized in the House version of the authorization bill.
A reduction of this magnitude will unquestionably' affect the Commission's program priorities, which, in turn, will provide the basis upon which reductions will be allocated among the various offices and programs.
In the past, the Commission has been pressured to accelerate the licensing process, and, as a result, has already reallocated staff resources.
Because such actions have already occurred, we are particularly concerned that the additional cuts not be based on the present assignment of staff.
We are deeply concerned about the possible impact any future reallocation of staff wi3.1 have on the Commission's safety programs.
In order that the licensing function not be emphasized at the expense of the Commission's primary duty to ensure the public health and. safety, the new program reductions should be based on allocation of staff at the time the budget requests were formulated.
I do not believe it is a wise policy to defer the resolution of important safety issues on the basis that staff resources are better utilized in the licensing of new nuclear reactors incorporating unresolved safety issues in their design.
We are also aware that, in addition to the diversion of staff resources to the licensing process for light water reactors above that anticipated during budget preparation, the Commission has been required to allocate staff resources to address licensing questions raised by the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) application.
This application, whien had been withdrawn at the request of its sponsors and was recently reactivated, also was not a f actor in the Commission's budget request.
Moreover, I have recently been advised that the Department of Energy has requested accelerated. treatment of this license application a
and permission to begin non-safety related construction activities at (L
1
)
i
/2.-
(
Ec]
O O
2 i
Given that the Commission the cite under a limited work authorization.
has already reallocated staff to establish the capability to review the application beyond a level anticipated in the formulation of itswe believe assign additional staff to accelerate the licensing of a project which
- budget, It is our the applicant has failed to pursue for over four years.
belief that this government project should not warrant special consid-Any special consideration allowed CRBR could disrupt or delay eration.
the consideration of pending safety questions and commercial reactor The House recently approved some temporary license applications.
modifications to the licensing process, and our support for those modifications was based upon your assertions that these provisions would lessen the need to divert staff from consideration of safety If the Commission now finds that it cannot adequately process pending license applications, address unresolved safety issues issues.
limitations of its appropriations, we would expect that the last item to be compromised would be the resolution of safety issues.
In order to better understand the impact of the budget reductions on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's activities, we request that you supply our subcommittees with responses to the following questions:
To what extent have staff resources already been (1) reallocated to address (i) perceived delays in the licensing of light water reactors and (ii) the renewed application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor?
What impact has the recent staff reallocation had on the (2)
Commission's ability to address pending safety issues?
Please identify those safety issues whose (A) resolution will be delayed or deferred as a O
result of the reallocation of staff.
(B)
Please identify those safety issues or commercial license applications whose
.resolu. tion will be delayed or deferred as a
. result of the need to process the license application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
Please provide a list of all unresolved (C) generic safety issues, and identify those whose anticipated resolution has been delayed or deferred as a result of the staff reallocation.
Please provide an estimate of the impact any (D) delays in the resolution of unresolved generic
I
.., f...y "\\
O O
s safety issues or site-specific issues will i
have on the licensing of reactors or the issuance of construction permits.
(E)
Please provide the criteria used-in selecting the issues whose resolution should be deferred in order to avoid delays in the licensing process or to process the application of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
(F)
Please provide a list of all the identified public health and safety issues which are outstanding in regard to the license application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, with the present schedule for their resolution.
We 1 forward to receiving your prompt response.
l
'fe
/
Sincerely, f/
A g
Joh In 11 Richard L. Ottinger Cpirman I
Chairman Epergy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power _
JDD/RLO:mb 1
I i
~urh&
[.., m.
s)
UNITED STATES
\\k
.8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOi4 o
3-4j w4 ssincTON. D. C. 20555 a
%,*.. /
MAR 3 1982 The Honorable James A. McClure United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator McClure:
Thank you for your letter dated February 17, 1982, concerning the Department of Energy's (DOE) request for an exemption from certain Commission regulations for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
On December 24, 1981, the Commission issued the enclosed order outlining 'the procedures it will be following for considering the merits of DOE's request for an exemption to pennit them to undertake certain site preparation activities prior to the issuance of a construction permit or limited work-authorization by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The schedule established would permit a Commission decision by early March on this request.
' The ' Commission appreciates receiving your comments with respect to this request and will include them as part of the record of the proceeding.
Sincere
-f & (4
/fon rammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Encl.osure:
As stated
~~
l.
l A
q+p w
e4
U I1h h^k JAufs a. we cwns. :we.cm.mu.se NeIw$cau$nIcome. a.Es A m N u.
- " A **"? m t ".". -
Ot' r "" M t.
0"."1.; T',"J":0.
= L. ;.""Z""C" g,]Cni{ch S{a{cs Mencdc
- "'","Pa""**f."' '"*" = ="a"T; C h",O F cucanv((((xEn'At.nesouners wasnincron, o.c. zesio
.g,..,.~,.g. n,.7,.=
u,cx.o. -m, c,.
-o. ro. n.c - m February 17, 1982 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chaiman Nuclear Regulatory Cannission h'ashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
The Cr
'.on has received a request from the Secretary of F:nergy to begin preliminary siting work relative to the Clinch River Breeder Reactov Project. This facility is a vital element of the government's research and development program relating to the liquid metal fast breeder reactor.
As you may know. the Conferees' language on the Onnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-35) states that Congress wants this project to "be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner". The Floor statements in both Houses further support this conclusion.
I therefore confim that the Secretary's request is consistent with Congressional intent.
Sincerely, l
gf es A. McClure aiman
~. -
JAM /ech
@F w
L
d dLf 8 L ' V ' # h ' N
... riOE COUGMLtN
\\
l
- _1A* sv.ecr.Posesi.wmaa V) we,,,, c, rsca, 24s? Marau.m s,.i. ness (zoa)zzs e sa, coM M TTer oN
^ ~ " ~ ^ " "
- Congregg of tf.Je IRnitch States
, a ~' ;-, ;;,, t,,
M
. M_
'rY*#.""TX.ou"
. Momie of Representatibes'
. (215) 2n-4040
=
<JE"""="*u=%
Elasf;fngton,3B.C. 20515 u m.an SUSCOMMrTTEE ON
,eUo mocrememr auncics March 3,.1982 Mammes CELECT COMMITTEE ON NARCCTICS The Honorable Nunzio Palladino
- Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
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 fer an emergency licensing exemption 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 exemption in this case, it will unders one of the principal Congressional objectives for the CRBR. project which is m a.!
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 of the Liquid setal Fast Breeder Reactors' (LMFBRs) technology.
The private sector's unwillingness to share commensurately in the ever-soaring costs being borne by Federal taxpayers already casts grave doubts on the CRBR's I
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 LMFBRs for commercial application will extensive delay and increased cost of any LMFBR plant that might follow the.
causa Clinch Aiver project.
The Departme'nt of Energy cites the language of the Conference Report accom-panying the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 as support for regulatory exemption for the CRBR. While the conferees did state in that' report that the proj ect "...should be constructed in a timely and. expedient inanner,"....they also went on to say that such action should take place "so that a decision on the commercialization and deployment of breeder reactors can be made on the basis of information obtained in the operation of t'he plant." Congress did not' intend the ORBR to be built without adhering to the NRC licensing and NEPA requirements.
li G
v pl}$
l
wd e
. ?-
y D
o The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Page Two March 3, 1982 The decision you make regarding the CRBR will set a precedent for future E
NRC licensing actions regarding the breeder reactor program.
If the NRC acts
-to grant an exemption, we f ear that public confidence in the licensing process will erode. The NRC should grant exemptions sparingly and we do not believe circumstances exis,t that justify a licensing exemption for the CRBR.
Sincerely,
%m a /kl--
~
W LAWRE Q OUGHLIN', M.C.
BILL GREEN, M.C.
t a m
poxiSJ,.TiuxE,M.C.
nN WpER, n.y W
[fuJk,M:/d
-- m CARL D. PURSELL, M.C.
CLAUDINI, SCHNFIDER, M.C.
n A/
HAMILTON J. FISH, JR., M.C.
J Q EGG, M.C.'
b[
e e 9 e
6 6
-- _---.--- <-