ML19295A629
| ML19295A629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project, 05000564, 07001327, 07001821, Barnwell, 07001432 |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1980 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR53933, RULE-RM-50-5-45FR53933 45FR53933-46, NUDOCS 8010020651 | |
| Download: ML19295A629 (4) | |
Text
,.
/
CGC.UJ MUwai9
~
TtWE0 Rule Q l
~To ~Aal H e x r o x & %. ILLInts I
,6 go - 33 2.
70 7 c.., u.,~ s. cr a.0.se. sas gq
..ee.....~....~o arc 11xon.vrooi.m uoai2
., ~......
..... ~. ~... ~..... ~.,.
r;o.,3 m
.no
- '.=,;,=,c 'oe" y, _ g
- '. ;c ;;', c ~= ~ '" "
r u.-o~.
.c..>..
.,eo
- 1. - i u.,
'C ',', :L~.. ';;.'.' ~ ' "
..a ~o 3ooo2.ooooo2
'*"*i..*"'*
7' *
.e.
u...e,a.
,o e.
r...
8?S7
_ @)
)
September 29, 1980
@v e
'3 000:qr:3 U
L' MO eg Samuel J. Chilk, Esquire t
0 sp,g > 3 "d S!Tw\\U Secretary D3 2niu U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q,
Washington, D.C.
20555 7
'b d'
Attention:
Chief, Cocke ting and Service Section GESMO (Cocket RM-50-5)
Dear Sir:
This letter is in response to the Commission's August 7,
1980 request for comments by September 29 relative to recommencement of the GE3MO and other recycle-related protG 3 dings.
GESMO was terminated in 1977 in deference to the wishes of President Carter, whose Administration believed it inconsistent with ther Administration's policy of reducing the cotential for nuclear weapons proliferation.
The Administration conti.1ues to oppose GESMO's resumption on the same grounds as were initially advanced for its termination.
The members of the GESPO Utility Group,l/ which
-1/
Baltimore Gas i; Electric Cotapany Boston Edison Company Consumers Powe/ Company Duke Power Con pany Lo no Island Lighting Company Middle South Earvices, Incorporated Arkansas Power & Light Company Louisiana Power & Light Company Middle South Energy, Incorporated Mississippi Power & Light Company footnote continued xr.cw%cyd ty r?rd..... -. N..kk.
ti G.i 0 02 0 651 S//
- HuxTox & WILLIAMS participated jointly in the GESMO proceeding, believes that GESMO, or a successor proceeding, should be reactivated at an early time c commi tments.g sistent with the NRC's other present The Administration's initial reasons for urging its termination have not borne the expected fruit.
Abstention by the United States from technical advance in the back end of the fuel cycle, contrary to hopes, has neither inspired other developed nations to renounce their reprocessing and recycle plans nor deterred developing nations from desiring to acquire their own independent capabilities.
The recently completed INFCE study has, to no one's surprise, uncovered no realistic, truly proliferation-proof fuel cycle; to the contrary, it has emphasized the importance of institutional controls in limiting proliferation risks, whatever fuel cycles are commercially utilized.
At the came time, the INFCE study has confirmed the indisputable resource-conservation and waste-management, and the likely long-term economic advantages of fuel cycles which reprocess and recycle fissionable materials rather than discarding them as though they were waste.
Further, with the passage of time, other natior.s which are acting on these principles gain inexorable technical and institutional independence of U.S.
influence in the fuel cycle area.
In the footnote continued Northeast Utilities The Connecticut Light & Power Company The Hartford Electric Light Company The Northeast Nuclear Energy Company The Western Massachusetts Electric Company Northern States Power Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Psnnsylvania Power & Light Company Philadelphia Electric Company Public Service Electric And Gas Company Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Southern California Edison Company Virginia Electric and Power Company Yankee Atomic Electric Company 2/
Inasmuch as the primary concern of these companies is with the generic availability of the reprocessing / recycle option, this letter will comment only on resumption of the GESMC proceeding, and not on specific licensing proceedings also referred to in the Commission's notice.
,. HuxTox & WILLIAMS absence of an effective international consensus f avoring renunciation of recycle-mode fuel cycles--and no such consensus seems to have developed despite more than three years of diligent ef fort by the Administration--a policy of self-abnegation by the United States can only tend to the ultimate isolation and obsolescence of this nation's technology and a waning of its influence over the nuclear policies of other nations.
Completion of the GESMO or an equivalent proceeding will not, by itself, result in the issuance of a single license for the construction or operation of a reprocessing f acility, the use of a full core load of mixed oxide fuel in one reactor, or the emplacement of one canister of reprocessed waste:
these are the subject of individual licensing proceedings, each of which also is subject to paramount considerations of the national interest.
But without the GESMO or its equivalent, none of these things can ever take place, given prevailing constructions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The previous GESMO proceeding was well into its third year at its conclusion and there is little reason to believe that a successor proceeding, including preliminary updating of technical material, could be taken f rcm start to finish substantially more speedily.
In short, clearing a hurdle to closure of the nuclear fuel cycle has been set back already not one or two years, but six or seven.
In view of the absence of adverse consequences resulting from ccmpletion of GESMO or a successor proceeding, and the certainty of their occurrence resulting from failure to complete such a proceeding, we believe that the GESMO or a successor proceeding should be reinstituted.
We recognize that events and technical developments since the termination of the GESMO proceeding may commend modification of its scope or procedures, updating of its record, and the like.
We further recognize that constraints on the NRC's manpower, the present press of other issues, and other legitimate considerations may not make practical the immediate resumption of a GESMO or successor proceeding, however restructured.
What we continue to believe is that ultimate closure of the nuclear fuel cycle is a vital step in fulfilling the long-term promise of nuclear energy, and that the arguments advanced by the Administration for aborting that effort have not proven substantial.
_4_
HuxTox & WILLIAMS Very truly yours, Donald P.
Irwin Counsel to the GESMO Utility Group 91/728