ML19347B569
| ML19347B569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project, 05000564, 07001327, 07001821, Barnwell, 07001432 |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1980 |
| From: | Gallo J ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Chilk J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR53933, RULE-RM-50-5-45FR53933 45FR53933-57, NUDOCS 8010150364 | |
| Download: ML19347B569 (3) | |
Text
.
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE H
+
COUNSELORS AT LAW 19 2 C O O N N CC 10 ? V E N U C. N *-
g o, wASHIN GTON 3. O 200 3 6
? C LC P.* C N C 202*033*9730 OmCAGC OFF'OE ONg ri Ast NAricN% aqAzA FC A?v-S COON G FLOC A
- .= ic AJ O. L.: Nots 6C6CJ
?CLCPwoNC 3t2 + 5 58 750 0
?CLCX: 2-5288 October 10, 1980
.x.1
%i, 71 t
.e ysy "Ccy.%
. !J yy lN
?M v s A.u
!m
-' r m
n Samuel J.
Chilk, Esquire i9 C",
a
- c c
decretary
\\ g -:... y.cs, " g q U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\\cAM CQM[g 2 !['?g Washington, D.C.
20555
<A
' 7 ' ty ' Xy Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section N '-'i 7 GESMO Docket No. RM-50-5
Dear Sir:
Arizona Public Service Companyr* Carolina Power
& Light Company, Commonwealth Edison Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company, full participants in the now dor-mant GESMO rulemaking, submit these comments pursuant to your request of August 7, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 53933).
The NRC is seeking the views of the public with respect to the resumption of the GESMO rulemaking as well as specific licensing proceedings.
Since the above-named utilities (hereinafter referred to as the " Group"), as licensees for the construction and operation of light water nuclear power reactors, are primarily concerned with the generic availa-bility of the reprocessing / recycle option, the Group's comments will be limited the question of reopening the GESMO rulemaking.
The Group supports the resumption of the GESMO rulemaking.
We believe it is necessary to complete this rulemaking in order to establish sound decisionmaking bases for determining the efficacy of spent fuel reprocessing and recycle.
Crucial decisions regarding the form of high level l
Arizona Public Service Company submits these comments on behalf of itself and the participants in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
l DSM S Iff I
8 0.101 so W I
nuclear waste for permanent disposal are inherent in the reprocessing question.
Moreover, it is imperative that these questions be answered with finality in order (i) to provide needed certainty with respect to the nuclear li-censing process and the energy resource mix available to the nation, and (ii) to maintain this country's capability as an international nuclear supplier.
Since the GESMO proceeding primarily involvas an environmental assessment, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, this process permits a full exploration of all policy views, including those of the Administration.
Indeed, we can conceive of no better mechanism for testing the soundness of the Admin-istration's policy of proscribing domestic reprocessing /
recycle programs as a part of its nuclear weapons nonpro-liferation policy.
The Administration's recommer.dation in 1977 to terminate the GESMO proceeding was prompted by two principal concerns.
Completion of the INFCE stud / was deemed necessary as a precursor to the GESMO rulemaking.
And it was perceived that any action other than termination would be construed by the international community as undermining both the INFCE effort and this country's declared policy of limiting and deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The INFCE study is now complete, and the Administration's nonprolifera-tion policy is well-established.
Therefore consistent with the teachings of the Westinghouse case,* it would appear improper to restrain any longer the process for determining the future of reprocessing and recycle -- the GESMO rulemaking.
The two year INFCE study, initially sponsored by the Administration, concluded, among other things, that re-processing for light water reactor plutonium recycle may have net economic benefit, that breeder reactors cannot be ruled out as energy sources for at ' east some countries, that reprocessing is essential for the breeder fuel cycle, and that, based on a review of a large number of alternate fuel cycles, no fuel cycle stands out on technical grounds as sig-nificantly more proliferation resistant than any other fuel cycle.
Nevertheless, the Administration has reiterated its intention to postpone consideration of reprocessing and recycle indefinitely.
The continuation of this moratorium is now tantamount to a decision to commit to the once-through, or throw-away, nuclear fuel cycle, a decision at variance with the conclusions of INFCE and unsupported by any programatic Westinghouse Electric Corporation v.
NRC, 598 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1979).
r.
i environmental impact statement as recuired by law.
Racog-nizing this de facto decision, the Nuclear Waste Confidence Rulemaking (PR-50, 51) is premised on the assumption that spent fuel will be disposed of directly without reprocessing.
Resuming the GESMO proceeding would serve to provide the 1
necessary environmental statement, and more significantly it would provide a proper factual basis on which the NRC could render its own independent judgment on issues that since 1977 are more urgently in need of solution.
Sincerely, 4
j O
Joseph Gallo Counsel for Arizona Public Service l
Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Commonwealth Edison Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company 1
i a
t a
1 a
i t
__