"tandem fuel cycle", and non-fission alternatives to plutonium recycle) be analyzed in GESMO supplements? Please describe the process for analyzing comments on the Draft GESMO and for reaching a decision concerning the extent to which recommendations contained in such comments should be incorporated in the Final GESMO. 5. 6. In what ways does the Final GESMO reflect comments made in regard to the Draft GESMO? (Please indicate the character and source of any comments which resulted in major changes in the Draft GESMO.) 7. To what extent did other agencies participate in review of the Final GESMO prior to its having been printed for public release? (Please provide documents containing agency comments or recommendations for change.) 8. In what manner and fashion are ERDA and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency participating in ongoing plutonium recycle proceedings? What steps are being taken to insure that perspectives of these agencies are taken account at an early stage of the proceedings? 9. Does the NRC consider that the plutonium recycle proceedings are the proper forum for addressing the fundamental question of whether it is in the national interest to start on a course that will eventually lead to a major portion of the nation's electric generating capacity being dependent upon plutonium as an energy source? in what forum and at what time does the NRC believe the fundamental plutonium decision (as defined above in the preceding question) should be addressed? 11. How will the NRC address the question of whether blending should be considered as a condition for approval of plutonium recycle? 12. To what extent will the existence of the reprocessing plant at Barnwell, South Carolina influence the Commission's recycle decision? 13. What procedures exist to insure that the plutonium recycle cost-benefit analysis is put in a context that shows costs and benefits from the perspective of the consumer as well as from the perspective of the industry? 14. To what extent do the findings presented in the Final GESMO represent the views (or have the endorsement) of the Commission, as opposed to representing the views of the NRC staff? 15. What process did the Commission institute in releasing the Final GESMO? What matters did the Commission consider in authorizing such release? Did the Commission vote on such matters? Please indicate the outcome of any such votes. 16. If the Commission decides against the funding of public participants in the GESMO proceedings, what assurance is there that the record resulting from these proceedings will be comprehensive and complete, and thereby provide an adequate basis for a sound and credible decision? and proceeding rapidly on a tight schedule, how can currently underfunded participants plan effectively for their participation if they will not know for several weeks whether NRC financial assistance will be available? If funding is made available, will the NRC support a lull in the hearings so that the benefits of timely financial assistance can be available for the critical stages of the hearings now scheduled for later this year? Would the 18. The NRDC and others have strongly objected to the early deadlines and inadequate time allowed by the GESMO Hearing Board in its September 17 order. NRC be willing to entertain and decide a motion by the parties seeking a revision of the Hearing Board schedule? 19. Given the importance of cross-examination to getting to the bottom of critical issues in GESMO, is it the NRC's intent to resolve cases of doubt in favor of holding adjudicatory hearings at the conclusion of the present legislative-type hearings? |