ML20070R599

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Opposes DOE Request for Early Site Preparation W/O CP or Lwa.Proposed Licensing Changes Would Thwart Public Input
ML20070R599
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 01/22/1982
From: Deckard J
HOUSE OF REP.
To: Chilk S
NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20069D029 List:
References
FOIA-82-516 NUDOCS 8302030136
Download: ML20070R599 (1)
v • d • e


Text

/

JCEL DECKARD

,1 o,,x ,C,. i_ ,

g .g 3L ll {')

t is t 3 3

,,,,.s,.,_

.. <m,

'ts dkn SG-537 cionum

/ _,,

.v ,.

m Tu=v'a-D

  • Er, covEnnwEur open.rious 4.<,c .o-. .~o 1..~, o.r.r.o~

y -"--

F= F;.

  • - ~^~=- =

Congress of tfje Unitch State.4 M $NDIAsen 47 M

" ~

WA',H1NGTON O.C. OFFICE:

O. ",-'.', o"",/*,"*"* J)ouse of Representatibes C'CCE.

==~r~=~~

wn w--,

Elasfjington, D.C. 20515 v a = = '-o'* 47sen

-o-r a - = <. .-. (s12) sea-ssts

--- ~ ar. . <

EV ANSVILLE OFF,CE: WASH 3NGTON OFFICEt zios.t.smv s= = January 22, 1982 o* vim ca-r, cou m==

Consesessape.ta's Roome Ewa<synLLE inoiana 47713 WAsessaar. TON lNthAN4 47501 (812) 423-4279 wousav-rnioar. :-s (ei2) asuite FREDAT G-4 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

It has come to my attention that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be planning to take action on two matters of concern to me. These are the exemption of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor from mle 10 CFR 50.12 and thus allow site preparation to begin before the issuance of.a construction permit or limited work pemit, and a change of the mies regarding Emergency Planning and Preparedness.

If this is indeed the case, I will take this opportunity ~to exprers -

my opposition to these actions. There is no reason to believe that the Clinch River Plant is inherently safer thari any other nuclear plant and thus exemptable from nomal safety practices and procedures built into the permitting process. It is also a risk of the taxpayers money to' spend it before definitive evidence is available that Clinch River will prove safe and -. licensable as now planned.

As for the changes in the rules governing Emergency Planning and Pre-paredness, nuclear plant construction and operation'are extremely controversial in part because they force local inhabitants to accept in their area a plant' that they perceive to be a danger to their health and safety. The proposed rule changes, as I understand' them, would limit public input by eliminating public hearings for emergency preparedness and planning tests, leaving the evaluation of these plans to the NRC. This removes the public one step further from decisions regarding their own safety.

I would appreciate hearing more completely of the NRC's plans in these matters, and to know of any justification that exists for the actions planned.

Sincerely, Joel Deckard Member of Congress

~ -

JD/kh l

l 8302030136 021229 PDR FOIA c WEISS82-516 PDR k

g

! M O Li d n

- ,, E au ~, ~ - O Q) p'

=.==.

==:= " . U.S. %)ouse of Representatibeg

'=".0. r ="e". f'".i",u_

~. ..

= ,,, ",y;,,, _ ra;;"g;;- = '-

v Committee on energy anb Commerre S N n. -ank "Oa" N Ecom 2125 Rayburn lipouse Office Jiini!bing

    • " $b5

- b5"$'b"."." "'-

Ol44.T ""'

Easbington, D.C.

December 8, 1981 20515 C I "5~mE" " ~ "'"

="L"

_P.' ""'.3. ":

alt'.".i. .m. O."1.".m""a":7.

05" ="O.'.", -

,;;.g.g .m.

-u=

.,o"m " "; T.kO c=

The Bonorable Nunzio Pclladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

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 S20 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 will have on the Commisrion's safety programs. In order that the licensing function not be emphasized at the' expense of the Commission's primary duty to endure 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 re' quired to allocate staff resources to address licensing questions raised by the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) application. This application, which had been withdrawn at the request of its sponsors and was recently reactivated, also was not a factor 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

(

3 and permission to begin non-safety related construction activities at y

()]

7 r&ri o o -

2 I

the site under a limited work authorization. Given that the Commission {

has already reallocated staff to establish the capability to review the '

application beyond a level anticipated in the formulation of its budget, we believe that it would be inappropriate for the Comnission to assign additional staff to accelerate the licensing of a project which the applicant has failed to pursue for over four years. It is our belief that this government project should not warrant special consid-eration. Any special consideration allowed CRBR could disrupt or delay the consideration of pending safety questions and commercial reactor license applications. The House recently approved some temporary 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 issues. If the Commission now finds that it cannot adequately process pending license applications, address unresolved safety issues and process the application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor within the 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:

(1) To what extent have staff resources already been reallocated to address (i) perceived delays in the licensing of light water reactors and (ii) the renewed application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor?

(2) What impact has the recent staff reallocation had on the Commission's ability to address pending safety issues?

(A) Please identify those safety issues whose resolution will be delayed or deferred as a result of the reallocation of staff.

(B) Please identify those , safety. issues or commercial license applications whose ,

resolution will be delayed or deferred as a

. result of the need to process the license application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

! (C) Please provide a list of all unresolved generic safety issues, and identify those j .

whose anticipated resolution has been delayed or deferred as a result of the staff l reallocation.

(D) Please provide an estimate of the impact any delays in the resolution of unresolved generic

3

. .,p safety issues or site-specific issues will have on the licensing of reactors or the issuance of construction permits.

(S) 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 saf ety issues which are outstanding in regard to the license applicaticn for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, with the present schedule for their resolution.

We 1 forward to receiving your prompt response.

Sincerely,

)

u 11

[' y '

}ichardL.duko{

R f

Ottinger Joh . II Chairman Chdirman Subconnittee on Energy E,dergy and Commerce Committee Conservation and Power JDD/RLO:mb I

e 9

0 h

r i .

[pa %q'o,,

s hNbulCkbVDUNITED STATES [I e o CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI

  • y

[ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 '

D*****/**

March 19, 1981 SECRETARIAT RECORD COP' CHAmMAN The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate -

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During the course of our hearing yesterday, the subject of the length of time it would take to license the Clinch River Breeder Reactor arose.

I indicated that I had not talked to representatives of the Dtpartment of Energy about a 14-month licensing schedule for Clinch River, nor had I agreed to such a schedule. I find that there have been some preliminary

, discussions between members of our staff and DOE representatives about a possible resumption of the Clinch River. licensing effort, although our staff members do not recall discussion of a 14-month schedule. I would,.

of course, 'have added this information to my answer at the hearing had I been aware of it, and I ask that this letter be included in.the hearing record by way of correcting and amplifying my tastimony.

As you requested, we will supply for the record our best estimate of the steps required and the time they would take for resuming and completing the licensing of Clinch River for construction if it is the decision of the Administration and the Congress to go forward with the project.'

Sincerely,

, i

'~

-~

W h M. Hendrie cc: Senator Bennett Johnston

, i '

l .

~

l l 1

(})

1 ,

0 '

' I9 k

nP

- N P . .

~ ,,,._, _ .u.

M'b-i

." M m := m. ,-. . .- 0 0 :7

== == n .. /;. =~s U.S. 3I)cunc of 31tprentntatibc5

rt, 'J ,'M,.c2' ==..=,.=..~.,'Q',u.

~ ,. .... . m Canuntttte on catrgy anb Commerte

..m..r.;;. ; =0 ~,%. ""#' '. "'=:"f"-

rm= :t:3. rem nme enas peing

,.c....

...m...

. -... . . -.,.u_

"3.'..,.,m.

  1. .* ;;~=.". "'- Ga4ington, D.C. 20515

=O"O.%.

m.m..~.....

.- = .o-o - . .

~

December 8, 1981

"t*f/,~0: ."-  :";"" =.'J. ":m.

ta"r.=%. =It.";.=hh. .

t.^.".T"

, . .u -"'O'".

~ .m "2%"6.

~,l: 'c' ";,22,'L-.

The Honorable Nunzio Palladino Chairman .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you know, last Friday the President signed an Appropriations bill which provides the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a total apprcpriation 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 will 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 endure 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 re' quired to allocate staff resources to address licensing questions raised by the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) application. This application, which had been withdrawn at the request of its sponsors and was recently reactivated, also was not a factor in the Commission's budget -

request. Moreover, I have recently been advised that the Department of k Energy has requested accelerated treatment of this license application 3 and permission to begin, non-saf ety related construction activities at y r

r 04 jl W '

~

~

+ 0 O y the site under a limited work authorization. Given that the Conricsion has already reallocated staf f to establish the capability to review the application beyond a level anticipated in the formulation of its budget, we believe that it would be inappropriate f or the Commission to assign additional staf f to accelerate the licensing of a project which the applicant has failed to pursue for over four years. It is our belief that this government project should not warrant special consid-eration. Any special consideration allowed CRBR could disrupt or delay the consideration of pending safety questions and commercial reactor license applications. The House recently approved some temporary 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 staf f f rom consideration of safety issues. If the Commission now finds that it cannot adequately process pending license applications, address unresolved safety issues and prvcess the application f or the Clinch River Breeder Reactor within the 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 f ollowing questions:

(1) To what extent have staff resources already been reallocated to address (i) perceived delays in the licensing of light water' reactors and (ii) the renewed application for the Clinch' River Breeder Reactor?

(2) What impact has the recent staff reallocation had on the Commission's ability to address pending safety issues?

(A) Please identify those safety issues whose resolution will be delayed or deferred as a result of the reallocation of staff.

(B) Please identify those . safety issues or commercial license applications whose ,

resolution will be delayed or deferred as a result of the need to process the license application for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

(C) Please provide a list of all unresolved generic safety issues, and identify those

- whose anticipated resolution has been delayed or deferred as a result of the staff reallocation.

(D) Please provide an estimate of the impact any delays in the resolution of unresolved generic

s Q, U,

.y,5 safety issues or site-specific issuesthe will have on the licensing of reactors or 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 saf ety 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.

Sincerely,

(/h 1W

[g '

Richard L. Ottinger Joh . In 11 Chairman Ch$irman Subcommittee on Energy E,nergy and Commerce Committee Conservation and Power JDD/RLO:mb 1

O O

e i

f f

h 6 .

g' "3s /,

m .Jzm.s

~

rj .i d 1

Eg gg i

V Cf. EAR REGULATORY CO'/t."lSSib o

7{.f . g4 v.vmNGT ON. D. C. ws

.r  :. g W,*L,**#

/ S[CRETARIAT RECORD CDP-March 19, 1981 CHAM'.MN y The Honorable Mark 0. Hatfield, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During the course of our hearing yesterday, the subject of the length of time it would take to license the Clinch River Breeder Reactor arose.

I indicated that I had not talked to representatives of the Department of Energy about a 14-month licensing schedule for Clinch River, nor had I agreed to such a schedule. I find that there have been some preliminary

. discussions between members of our staff and DOE representatives about a possible resumption of the Clinch River. licensing effort, although our staff members do not recall discussion of a 14-month schedule. I would,.

of course, have added this information to my answer at the hearing had I been aware of it, and I ask that this letter be included in the hearing record by way of correcting and amplifying my testimony.

As you requested, we will supply for the record our best estimate of the steps required and the time they would take for resuming and com?l eting the licensing of Clinch River for construction if it is the decision of the Administration and the Congress to go forward with the project.'

Sincerely,

\{ ,

' ,bseph M. Hendrie

-~

cc: Senator Bennett Johnston

~

(

l

/

S

' $ok cc 90F

. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20070R599&oldid=2708373"