ML19295A635
| ML19295A635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project, 05000564, 07001327, 07001821, Barnwell, 07001432 |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1980 |
| From: | Weiss E National Resources Defense Council, SHELDON, HARMON & WEISS |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR53933, RULE-RM-50-5-45FR53933 45FR53933-47, NUDOCS 8010020670 | |
| Download: ML19295A635 (5) | |
Text
e 00CXU fitjitf1IR MOPGTED BULE b"[4, HAaxox & WEISS 1725iSTREET,N.W.
b c a o,7*37,*o*7 o G AIL M. MARMON WASHINOT h', D. C. 2 0 o 06 l
C L LY N R. WCISS WILLI AM S. sCRC AN, til Lcc L. e:$ oM September 29, 1980 g tw
.?
- CWin Secretary of the Commission y
UO.':?0 SEP 3 7
-iG
- . S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Attn:
Chief, Docketing & Service Of
- CIOSfestyy Section g
//
Washington, D.C.
20555 rpea 0
Dear Sir:
43 j y g Enclosed are Comments of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. on Re-examination of Orders Terminating GESMO offered in response to the Commission's Order of August 17, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 53933 (Aug. 13, 1980).
Very truly yours, 51Ufn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for Natural Resources Defense Counsel ERW/lc Enclosure m%dged by cad.
f
'h' 8010020&70
COMMENTS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC. ON RE-EXAMINATION OF ORDERS TERMINATING GESMO.
In April, 1977, President Carter announced that, because of the increased risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons inherent in the plutonium fuel cycle, this administration's policy will be to defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium and to sponsor domestic and international programs aimed at developing less risky alternative processes.
In May, 1977, the NRC announced its intention to reassess the propriety of the GESMO proceedings, which had been undertaken as a programmatic assess-ment of the costs and benefits of recycling plutonium for light water reactors.
In response to this notice, NRC received a broad range of comment, including a letter presenting the President's views that continuation of GESMO would interfere with achievement of U.S.
nonproliferation goals, including increased research on non-plutonium fuel cycles and international studies, including the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE).
On December 23, 1977, NRC placed a mortorium on the considera-tion of plutonium recycle by terminating the GESMO proceeding and related licensing proceedings.
Upon appeal by tne nuclear industry, the NRC's action was upheld as a lawful exercise of its discretion.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
v.
N.R.C.,
598 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1979).
As the Court noted, NRC suspended its consideration of GESMO in recognition of the nonproliferation concerns raised by the President, which bear directly on common defense and security (Id. at 769) and because of the pendency of domestic and international fuel
. cycle studies.
(Id. at 770).
In addition, the Court deferred to the Commission's finding that it was not then in a position to formulate a generic standard on reprocessing or to make a determi-nation on the question of inimicality to common defense and security.
(Id. at 774).
The Court stressed the breadth of discretion granted the NRC to achieve its statutory objectives.
(Ii. at 771)
In early 1980, INFCE was completed.
The Commission solicited the views of the Administration on the impact of rer" ing the GESMO proceeding.
Mr. Eizenstat responded for the President, stating that reopening of GESMO "would be inimical to national security and contrary to the non-proliferation and foreign policy interests of the United States."
By notice dated August 7, 1980, the NRC has sought the views of the public on the following issues:
--Whether the Commission should reopen GESMO and other recycle-related licensing proceedings;
--What action, if any, the Commission should take re-garding the license applications listed above which relates to the commercial reprocessing of nuclear material;
--Whether the Commission should consider any other actions related to this subject.
In response, the Natural Resources Defense Council submits that NRC should not reopen GESMO and other recycle-related 1; 1.tsing proceedings, that it should maintain all related license applica-tions in suspension and that it should ake no other actions related to this subject.
As noted in Mr. Ei ensta.t's letter of July 14, 1990, "[n]othing in the INFCE results nor i. events since October 1977 has altered
, the Administration's view that our goal of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons capability among non-weapons states can be signifi-cantly helped by a halt in purex reprocessing, or the President's decision in April, 1977 that the U.S.
should ' defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium produced in U.S.
nuclear power programs.'"
The U.S.
is engaged in continuing efforts to persuade the international community against plutonium recycle for light water reactors.
It should be emphasized that GESMO is a binding rulemaking proceeding; it is not simply an academic study.
Reopening GESMO would erroneously signal to foreign nations that the U.S.
position on plutonium recycle is ambivalent at best, undermining our credibility in international negotiations and potentially crippling our ability to exert our influence against the spread of reprocessing around the world.
These considerations are at least as strong today as they were in 1977.
In addition, there is no legitimate domestic need to pursuee plutonium recycling for light water reactors.
Virtually every cred-ible authority now doubts that there is a potentially significant economic advantage to be gained from the use of recycled plutonium in current reactors.~1/
In addition, the president's Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management (IRG) found that reprocess-ing would have no significant impact on the waste disposal problem.
Moreover, GESMO is unrelated to breeder development; it relates only to the use of plutonium in light water reactors.
Its termina-tion would have no implicacions for the breeder program.
- Finally, 1/
E.g., Non-Proliferation Alternative Systems Assessment Program, Department of Energy, June, 1990, Program Summary, p.
95.
,. it is clear that enormous federal subsidies would be required to establish a commercial reprocessing industry.
Considering all of these circumstances, it can hardly be maintained that reopening the GESMO proceeding is worth the risk to overriding U.S.
foreign policy and nonproliferation policies.
The only discernible benefit would be to a cmall segment of tha nuclear industry which perceives its self-interest to be consistent with prenating reprocessing.
The public interest is to the contrary.
For these reasons NROC urges the Commission against reopening GESMO.
Respectfully submitted,
'h / ;
7 I'-
- l. M L
'._~u Ellyn R.
Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 833-9070 Counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
September 29, 1980