ML19295C148
| ML19295C148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project, 07000821, 07001327, 07001462, 07001821, Barnwell |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1980 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19295C149 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-RM-50-5-45FR53933 NUDOCS 8010160686 | |
| Download: ML19295C148 (3) | |
Text
JC D AUG S 1930 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Carlton C. Kamerer Director Office of Congressional Affairs FROM:
John G. Davis, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
POSSIBLE REINSTITUTION OF GESMO HEARINGS The July 14, 1980 letter to Chaiman Ahearne from Stuart E. Eizenstat, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs and Policy, reiterated the Administration's view that reprocessing of comercial reactor fuel should be deferred indefinitely and that the GESMO proceeding should remain seminated.
If the Congress should mandate a reinstitution of the GESHO hearing, we would urge that first the 1976 GESMO study and report be thoroughly revised to provide a complete and up-to-date basis for the new proceeding.
Recent studies indicate that the reprocessing of comercial LWR fuel for the recycle of uranium only will not.be economically attractive.
European nations and Japan are planning to recycle both uranium and plutonium following the reprocessing of spent fuel from comercial power plants.
One of the benefits they expect from reprocessing and recycle of comercial power plant fuel is the buildup of a plutonium inventory for the breeder economy.
If the U.S. re-evaluates the reprocessing and recycle option's, the breeder economy should be included in the consideration.
The 1976 GESMO report and the record of the GESMO hearing up to its temination in Dececber 1977 are based on infomation which is now out of date, especially in the areas of costs, nuclear power growth projections, and plans for radioactive waste management. We consider the changes in these areas to be of such magnitude and importance as to affect the outcome of the GESHO study. We, therefore, believe that it is essential to revise and update the GESMO study before reinstituting the public hearing process.
We estimate that 6 to 9 months would be required to assemble the needed staff and from 18 months to 2 years to perfom the study and to develop and publish the updated report which wouTid serve as the basis for the public hearing.. We believe that a year would be required to receive public coments on the report, publish the final document and conduct the public hearing.
8010160688
,aq e
Carlton C. Kannerer Factors affecting the scheduling of a reinstituted GESMO effort are the following:
New waste management regulations for both high-level and low-level wastes are now being developed but will not be finalized until about the end of 1981.
Contracts to support the new GESMO study will require 12 to 18 months for obtaining proposals, selecting a contractor, and completing the work.
The performance of the study and the writing of the report will require about 18 months, with additional time for ifRC internal reviews and revisions.
If GESMO is completely redone, including consideration of breeders, the uncertainties are such that an additional year's effort for both staff and contractors may be required at approximately the level shown for the third year.
5 h
i..
m s
3:
k
=. -
- - ~
y
~.*,.
- yc.. -
9..
a y r"
?&- - ~
^
. -. = -..,. -
. 2.-...
4 C,arlton C. Kannerer We have estimated the resource requirements for a complete updating of the GESMO study as shown in the tabulation below.
It must be noted that these estimated resource requirements are incremental to the proposed budget levels.
If NRC is directed to accomplish this work without a corresponding increase in budget levels, some present on-going and projected programs will be sharply curtailed as resources are diverted to GESMO assignments.
No effort has been made to develop the details of the GESMO resource requirements, as the scope and content of work te be required of us are not known, The resource estimates given below should be regarded as first approximations only, intended to give an idea of the magnitude of resource requirements and the approximate length of time required to update the GESMO report and conduct a new public hearing proceeding.
LWR Fuel Cycle Only LWR & Breeder Fuel Cycles 1st Yr 2nd Yr 3rd Yr 1st Yr 2nd Yr 3rd Yr Staff Requirements NMSS 20 24 22 24 30 29 Other 18 20
- 22_,
24 26 24 Total 33 44 44 48 56 53 Contractual Support (thousandsofdollars)
NMSS 1.350 1,800 750 1,800 2,600 850 ADM 925 455 550 925 45S 550 RES 0
0 0
12,000 20,000 10,000 Total 2,275 2,255 1,300 14,725 23.055 11,400 (Signed) John G. LaViS John G. Davis, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety
=
and Safeguards f
- cc~:
Y
~
Mr. Dircks'
~
- g
- ~ -- -....=~ Mr. Minogue
~
bec: ' FC Central File
~~ NMSS 80-O991
..1
.Mr. Denton NMSS r/f GATeri
_BAClausser e
i er i c Nr. Stello
' =+ -
FCOT r/f TFCarter
' ABentley Jr Mr. Budnitz
- 1 WET r/'
RECunningham c.- Mr. Hartin WEThompson__
JGDavis
.~
. T Hr. Burnett
_ 7 Mr. Cunningham m
Mr. Brown FCTA FCOT FC FC NMSS WEThompson:mpm GATerry TFCarter RECunningham JGDavis 8/7/80; 8/7/80 8/
/80 8/
/80 8/
/80
- L -.
n -
+
Au.
L JJ.
,,