ML19289C701
| ML19289C701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/08/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Freeman G, Irwin D, Nissl C HUNTON & WILLIAMS, OHIO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| RULE-RM-50-3 NUDOCS 7901220128 | |
| Download: ML19289C701 (4) | |
Text
i
- f1 19e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$Ng f[$;s-([
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 JAN 8 197S a,,,,, %s,,%
~)
9,,y ~
January 8, 1979 BV em..
OFFICE OF THE
- yy7 3, d*
SECRETARY CD
-4 James P. Murray, Jr., Esq.
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
James Lieberman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Counsel for NRC Staff Department of Law Office of the Executive Legal State of New York Director Two Wcrld Trade Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory New York, NY 10047 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Helene Linker, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Council, Inc.
6504 Bradford Terrace 2345 Yale Street Philadelphia, PA 19149 Palo Alto, CA 94360 James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq.
Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae General Counsel 1757 N Street, N.W.
Division of L u Washington, DC 20036 Tennessee Vailey Authority 400 Ccmmerce Avenue Colleen K. Nissl, Esq.
Knoxville, TN 37902 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Law Section Patrick Walsh, Esq.
State of Ohio Assistant Attorney General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Department of Justice Columbus, OH 43215 State of Wisconsin 114 East, State Capitol George C. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
Madison, WI 53702 Conald P. Irwin, Esq.
Hunton and Wi'.liams Sierra Club P.O. Box 1535 Scx 64, Sta. G Richmor.d, VA 23212 Buffalo, NY 14213 lubj ect:
Cral Fresentations -- Environmeni.a1 Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (Docket No. RM 50-3)
To the above
Participants:
This letter sets out questiens which identify areas of particular interest to one or more Commissioners for the oral cresentations, scheduled for January 19, 1979 in accordance with the Ccmmission's orcer of December 15, 1978.
Participants whose comments on the Hearing Scard's reccmmendations nave touched on the subject matter of particular questions should be prepared to respond appropriately.
Participants who have not previously 790122 oDS
J Uranium Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Participants 2
commented on such subject matter may do so but are not expected to as a matter of course.
Participants need not restrict the scope of their oral presentations to subject matter related to these questiens, nor will the scope of the Commission's questioning of participants neces-sarily be so limited.
Questions for consideration by carticipants:
1.
Parties who have opposed the Hearing Board's recommendations should identify and discuss the issues central to their objections.
Each party should state specifically how its proposed resolution of the issues would change the Board's findings and how the proposed rule would be changed to reflect such a revision.
Specific references to the record in support of the procosed changes should be provided.
(Parties' attempts to coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication and assure that all major issues are covered are appreciated and should be continued.)
2.
If environmental dose commitments are addressed in the final rule in this proceeding, over what time period or periods should they be assessed?
3.
Should the topics listed below be included in the final S-3 rule? If so, is the evidentiary record compiled in this pro-ceeding and the notice given adequate to support the inclusion in the final rule of the topics below? The topics are:
a) environmental dose commitments; b) socioeconomic effects; c)
Technetium-99 releases; d) health effects; e) cumulativa environmental impacts of wastes produced by an individual reactor over its entire operating lifespan; f) cumulative environmental impacts of wastes produced by all operating reactors for their operating lifespans; g) alternative environmeidal impacts based on a model which excludes reprocessing and a model whicn i cludes reprocess-ing based on past experience; a
w+
Uranium Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Participants 3
h) the environmental impacts of waste management and reprocessing on the world population; i) the environmental impacts resulting from a breach of the permanent repository?
4.
The Commission at this time has not decided the applicability to NRC activities of the regulations recently prcmulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality to become effective on July 30, 1979. See 43 Fed. Reg. 55978.
If the : mrission should decide that the CEQ regulations apply to NRC activities, does the Board's l
proposed rule meet these requirements?
5.
Snould the numerical values in the S-3 table include a range of uncertainty?
It not, why not?
If so, is supporting evidence for each calculation available in the record?
t 6.
If Technetium-99 releases cannot be determined adequately on the basis of the existing record, is the neglect of these releases adequately compensated, as the Hearing Board concluded, by the assumption that all Iodine-129 would be released?
If the modified Table S-3 is adopted as the final rule, as the Hearing Board recom-mends, should the table take explicit note of impacts which have been over-or under-estimated?
7.
To what extent are the Table S-3 values proposed by the staff dependent upon the assumed improvements in reprocessing technology?
8.
To parties who have objected to the staff's conclusion, adopted by the Hearing Scard, that reprocessing impacts may be based on expected improvements in technology rather than past experience:
Which, if any, of the improvements assuted by the staff for their model reprocessing plant do you belic ' are not within the state of the art? Which would have the most secious impact if the improve-ment proved infeasible? kny do you believe them to be infeasible?
What impact would infeasibility have on the values in Table S-3?
9.
Should reprocessing impacts based on past experience be presented in the table as a " worst case" analysis? Does the record provide nun,erical values for such a " worst case"? What is the probability that thi: " worst case" would be representative of actual reprocess-ing impacts?
11 Is there a " worst case" analysis acplic ole to waste disposal impacts?
5 Uranium Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Participants 4
11.
Have deve:opments since the record was closed significantly affected the adequacy of the impact estimates in the table recommended by the Board? In particular, does the draft report of the :nteragency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management raise any significant questions about the assumptions used by the staff to estimate waste management impacts?
12.
How do the staff and the parties which have emphasi::ed economic questions interpret the term " economic feasibility" as the Board has applied it in this proceeding?
13.
Is the staff's proposal to present an explanatory discussion of the rule in individual proceedings an adequate substitute for an explana-tory narrative promulgated as part of the rule?
If you believe not, what is your proposal for a narrative to accompany Table S-3 based on the existing record? Does the fact that this proceeding was restricted to the back-end of the fuel cycle cause serious compi" ca-tions? Can a narrative be drafted, circul'.ted for comment, and promulgated within the relatively short period remaining before the current expiration date of the Interim Rule?
If this does not appear feasible, what alternatives do the parties favoring a narra-tive suggest?
The Commission will be aided by the participants' response to these questions.
In view of the complexity and number of questions, the Com-mission will allow mota than two persons to speak on behalf of eacn designated commenter if necessary for an adequate response.
Sir)darely, ll
/J l1 f,
coi..we i J. Chilk Secretary
[