ML20217D080
| ML20217D080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1998 |
| From: | Jensen R LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#298-18972 ML, NUDOCS 9804240190 | |
| Download: ML20217D080 (5) | |
Text
'l197L 00CKETED (202) 4e7m Louisiana Energy Services USNRC (202) 467 5495 Fax 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Suite 608 EE Washington. DC 20037
% APR 22 PS :12 OFFKm
- , c.n April 22,1998 RULt.
.Y.U ADJUDC i s SMFF l
l Shirley AnnJackson, Chairman Greta J Dicus, Commissioner Nils J Diaz, Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l Re:
In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services Docket No. 70-3070-ML
Dear Chairman and Commissioners:
l Today, Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (LES) has formally withdrawn its application for a license to construct and operate the Claiborne Enrichment Center (CEC).
LES filed its license application on January 31,1991. The decision to terminate the licensing comes after more than seven years of effort and $34 million in costs. It was not an easy decision, nor is it a happy one. But it is a realistic decision, accepting that licensing nuclear facilities, even those as benign as the CEC, is not commercially feasible, no matter how liberal the funding or timing limits of the interested private investors.
The LES facility in Louisiana would have brought a safe, generous and welcome neighbor to the Claiborne Parish community.The partners are particularly grateful for the unflagging, loyal support received from the majority of the community for this enterprise from its earliest beginnings. Certainly the inability of the licensing process to operate in a predictable, efficient and timely manner has disadvantaged these citizens as much as it has the LES partner companies. We are disappointed and saddened not to have been able to have met their and our own expectations to have had a facility in operation by 1996.
The 1996 date was in fact carefully calculated by experienced parties and was eminently reasonable, but for the incredible delays experienced in the licensing process. One need only recall the promising early features of the LES enterprise. It f
began with a proven technology, which has been operating safely in Europe for decades; with a final plant design, the sort of advantage standardization is supposed
)go j
9904240190 980422 l
PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 of 3 April 22,1998 to offer; with the support of four governments for the safe, secure transfer of the most advanced enrichment technology in the world; with a long-standing state law, unanimously adopted, that encouraged the siting of facilities, like the CEC, in economically disadvantaged communities such as the one selected; and finally with the landmark legislation, passed by Congress the year before the licensing process began and mandating a " streamlined" single stage licensing process. With these attributes, the path to a reasonable licensing process should have been assured. This proved incorrect. The attached chronology illustrates the point. Even a facility as safe and as attractive as the CEC can be delayed indefinitely, beyond the patience of the most committed and able private partners and investors.
In the end, LES is a private venture, started with enthusiasm for the prospect of a fully private, competitive and alternate domestic source of enrichment services. LES is unlike the past model of a regulated utility seeking a reactor license and possibly able to recoup investment overruns because of the need for base load capacity. LES is J
an enterprise supported by private funds and aimed at carefully defined market opportunities. With electric industry restructuring, such will necessarily have to be I
the basis for future energy projects as well. But judging from the LES experience,
)
nuclear projects are presently at an extreme disadvantage and could be lost in this run-away nuclear licensing process. Unless serious reforms are undertaken, perhaps with express mandates from Congress, there may be little interest in the private business community for future nuclear facility investment in the United States.
On a note more personal to the LES partners, these companies and the individuals who have supported this project on their behalf, have been outraged by the accusations of racism in site selection and the licensing board's unfounded ruling on this issue. The partners took quite seriously the need to' expose the shoddy f
foundation for this charge. The Commission has corrected this erroneous and unsupportable finding. Unfortunately, however, as the LES partners evaluate the prospects for the licensing process going forward, we conclude that continuing the LES venture has become futile at this late date, regardless of the salutary outcome on this issue.
Even with the Commission's ruling, the project is nonetheless bound to linger on indefinitely, resolving issues remanded by the Commission, awaiting still other Commission rulings on long pending issues, staving off inevitable requests for further hearings, opposing motions for reconsideration and defending further j
appeals to the Commission and the courts, with no real controls on nor confidence in, the timing and responsiveness of the process. Because this enterprise would have been privately financed, not one shovel-full of dirt could have been turned until all of these actions were completed. At this pace, that is years away. Too far to justify continued investment.
(,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 of 3 April 22,1998 In closing, the partners have spoken frankly of this experience, both in an attempt to explain their frustration and in the hope that this experience, though now of little benefit to the partners and their supporters in Claiborne Parish, might prompt consideration of the sort of dramatic licensing process reforms that could someday provide a real opportunity for new nuclear energy development in this country.
l If the Commission sees a value in discussing these matters with the partners, the partners are prepared to meet with the Commission at the earliest opportunity.
Sincerely, gg-,/
1 Roland J. Jensen President l
l l
i E
c
)
\\
l LOUISI ANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
CLAlBORNE ENRICllMENT CENTER LICENSING lilSTORY i
June 1989 Project announced; commencement of preparation oflicense application and discussions with NRC staff
(
January 1991 LES files 15-volume license application November 1993 NRC staffissues Draft Environmental Impact Statement January 1994 NRC staffissues Safety Evaluation Report July 1994 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board holds hearing on safety issues August 1994 NRC staffissues Final EIS March 1995 ASLB holds hearing on environmental issues April 1996 ASLB issues Partial Initial Decision 1 (PID-1) upholding LES and NRC staff on safety issues October 1996 NRC upholds LES and NRC staffon PID-1 December 1996 (planned initial operation of ASLB issues PID-2 upholding intervenor on CEC under originally projected schedule) need for the CEC, consideration of the "no action alternative" under the National I
Environmental Policy Act and financial qualification of LES March 1997 ASLB issues PID-3, finding for LES and NRC staff on decommissioning issues, modifying the costs of disposal ASLB issues PID-4, directing NRC staff to May 1997 inquire into potential racial motivation in LES site selection process, and requiring more discussion in the FEIS on property values and road relocation
{... September 1997 NRC upholds LES and NRC staff on decommissioning issues (PID-3), but directs the Licensing Board to seek clarification on the plausibility of deep mine disposal. All
{
parties submitted the required information, and ASLB clarified and reaffirmed its decision upholding LES and NRC staff positions. Issue remains on appeal before l
NRC.
NRC reverses ASLB on financial December 1997 qualifications issues (PID-2), affirming LES and NRC staff original positions.
j NRC reverses ASLB decision (PID-4) that April 1998 would have required an NRC staffinquiry I
into potential siting discrimination; upholds the Board's findings that the FEIS needs more information on the "no-action" attemative (PID-2), nearby property values and a projected road relocation (PID-4).
)
1 l
(
LES terminates license application citing that i
under NRC practices "... licensing nuclear l
facilities...is not commercially feasible..."
l l
,l l
1 L