ML20148A916
| ML20148A916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/27/1978 |
| From: | Eilperin S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| RULE-RM-50-3 NUDOCS 7810300368 | |
| Download: ML20148A916 (5) | |
Text
__
hT
~
NUCLEAR REGULATOR [COMMISS&KEE ARIADECORD..CO.Pl
- *d f
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- % %+,,.4,/
September 27, 1978 l
KEMORANDUM F]R:
Chairman Hendrie.
l Commissioner G111nsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne FROM:
Stephen F. Eilpe i icitor
SUBJECT:
WRITTEN AND ORAD PRESENTATIONS BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE FUEL CYCLE RULEMAKING (RM-50-3)
At the September 12, 1978 discussion session at which the Commission extended the Interim Fuel Cycle Rule for six months, the question of procedures for completing the final rulemaking was touched on.
This memorsndum follows up that discussion.
NRDC..has urged the Commission to permit participants to present oral argument and submit in writing a model rule.
(NRDC letters of July 14, 1978 and August 29, 1978.)
Marvin Lewis, a participant in the rulemaking, supports NRDC's request on oral argument.
The NRC staff,'the Pacific Legal Foundation, and counsel representing Baltimore Gas and Electric and other utilities genera 12y argued against NRDC's propos614 The Commission, however, indicated at the Sep-tember 11, 1978 discussion session that it favored some form of additional participation by the parties, including oral argument.
OGC agrees that because of thb size and complexity of the record the Commission would benefit by presentations that focus attention on controversial and significant parts of the recold.
While the Hearing Board's summary and its anticipated recommendations should in part provide this kind of perspective, the participants no doubt will dispute the l
l CONTACT:
E. Leo Slaggie, GC X-43224 1
781030 0 % 8
.. ~....
- m. :::.--
y g,
y,-
-ar-
-p--
"-m'-'
e v
+'
o e
..,; c.
The Commission 2
September 27, 1978 Hearing Board's characterization of the reccrd-/ and dis-agree with some or all of the Board's reco=cendations.
LAccordingly, we have drafted an order that w:uld pernit parties to submit written statements to the Oc= mission during a 21-day period following subsission of the Hearing Board's recommendations.
The statements could include a suggested model rule, if the party so desired.
The proposed order imposes a 30-page limit to keep matters reasonably concise."
With regard to oral argument, we have found it difficult to draw a scheduling and allocation of time this far in advance, without a clear idem how many people desire argutent and how many different points of view are represented.
While the Commission could decide now to hold oral argument, while leaving scheduling and allocation of.tice to a later deci-sion, we,think the parties might make more of our effort at consolidating their oral presentations if ' oral argument is left in' doubt.
Therefore the draft order merely notes that the Commission is considering oral presentations, soli;its expressions of interest, and encourages attempts at consolidation.
Coordination:
OPE concurs in the proposed order.
Recommendation:
Issue the attached draft order.
Scheduling:
For approval by affirmation or, if discussion is required, for discussion no later than the week of October 16, 1978.
Attachment:
Proposed Order cc-SECY (2)
PE (2) l l
- /
The Commission has received at least tw: letters challenging the Hearing Board's interpretati:n of parts of the record.
l l'
,v.--
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
{~}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM".ISg COM:4ISSIONERS:
Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Peter A. Bradford John F. Ahearne
)
In the 14atter of AMENDMENT OF 10 CFR PART 51 Docket No. RM S0-3 LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES (Environmental Effects of the
)
Uranium Fuel Cycle)
)
)
ORDER The uranium fuel cycle rulemaking to assess the envircr;nental impacts of ' reprocessing and waste managenent associated with operation of individual light water reactors is now entering its concluding stage.
On August 31, 1978, the Commission received the Report of the Hearing Board summarizing the record and outlining the si;nificant issues raised in the proceeding.
We expect to receive not later than Octcber 31, 1978 the Hearing Board's recommendations regardin; a final fuel cycle rule.
In this Order we discuss the procedures which the Commission intends to follow after the Hearing Board's recommendations have been su bmi tted.
(n letters dated July 14, 1978 and August 29, 1978 the Natural Resources ' Defense Council submitted precedural su;;estions for written 6
.? ~_
':~ '
'"T*
' *
- 72" ~M::.. :-*a
'~~
.. ?
0 o
2 f
and oral presentations to the Commission by participants.
Responses by other participants and by the NRC staff have c..ticized or opposed these sugge'. ions.
After considering the matter, we conclude that some form of eaditional submission by the parties may be useful, although we do not accept the specific proposals and scheduling suggested by NRDC.
We believe, in'particular, that concise, well-focused written statements by participants are likely to assist the Commission in.its study of the extensive record in this rulemaking.
Accordingly, following submission of the Hearing Board's recomen-dations the Commission will accept written statemer:ts by participants in this rulemaking, including the NRC staff.
To be of maximum use to the Commission, these statements should focus on the rulemaking record and on the Hearing Board's summary and reconnendations.
The statements P
should highlight those portions of the record which the participant believes should receive the Commission's special attention.
Partici-pants ' s tatements/should not exceed thirty double-spaced pages and -
\\
should be submitted to the Secr.etary of the Commission no later than twenty-one days following the date on which the Hearing Board's recom-mendations are served.
The Commission is also considering reserving up to three hours for oral presentations following receipt of written ccaments.
Participants who are interested in making oral presentations should notify the Secretary no later than the deadline for submittir.g written comments.
. :.; f --
0 o
j 3
i This no,tification should give the name of the person who would make the presentation, indicate the intended scope of the comment, and advise on whose behalf the oral presentation would be made. The participants are encouraged to confer together in an effort to consolidate and, limit the number and length of proposed oral presentations.
Based on an assess-ment of the " Commission's needs following our initial review of the Hearing Board recommendations, the participants' written comments, and the expression of interest in oral argument, the Commission.will decide whether to schedule oral presentations and how to allocate time.
It is so ORDERED.
For the Commission.
v SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Cc mission Dated at Washington, DC, this -
day of 1978.
9 4
-