ML18338A119
| ML18338A119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07003103 |
| Issue date: | 11/30/2018 |
| From: | Cowne S Louisiana Energy Services, URENCO USA |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response |
| References | |
| LES-18-161-NRC | |
| Download: ML18338A119 (7) | |
Text
LES-18-161-NRC NOV 3 0 2018 Attn: Document Control Desk Director, Division of Security Operations Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Louisiana Energy Services, LLC NRC Docket No. 70-3103
Subject:
UUSA Comments on DOE's Federal Register Notice
Reference:
83 Federal Register 50909 (October 10, 2018)
In accordance with the guidance set forth in the Reference, Louisiana Energy Services, LLC
("LES"), also dba URENCO USA ("UUSA"), submitted comments to the Federal Register Notice, on its proposed interpretation of the statutory term "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW), on 11/30/2018. As allowed in the Reference, UUSA's comments were submitted via Email to HLWnotice@em.doe.gov.
The comments submitted by UUSA are enclosed.
Should there be any questions, please contact, Wyatt Padgett, Licensing and Performance Assessment Manager at 575.394.5257.
Respectfully, Chi f Nuclear Officer and Compliance Manager
Enclosure:
UUSA Comments on DOE's Federal Register Notice October 2018 LES,PO Box 1789, Eunice, New Mexico 88231,USA T: +1575394 4646 F: +1 575 394 4545 W: www.urenco.com/LES
~
CC:
Jacob Zimmerman Branch Chief Enrichment and Conversion Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jacob.Zimmermant@nrc.gov John Tappert Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John.Tappert@nrc.gov Mike King Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards & Environmental Review U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mike.King@nrc.gov
ENCLOSURE UUSA Comments on DOE's Federal Register Notice October 2018
Submitted via Email to HLWnotice@em.doe.gov 11/30/2018 Ms. Theresa Kliczewski U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Office of Waste and Materials Management (EM-4.2) 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Subj: Comments of Louisiana Energy Services, LLC (d/b/a URENCO USA or UUSA) on DOE's Request for Public Comment, 83 Fed. Reg. 50909 (October 10, 2018)
On October 10, 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) published a Federal Register Notice, 83 Fed. Reg. 50909 et. seq. (Notice), requesting public comment on its proposed interpretation of the statutory term "high-level radioactive waste" (HLW) set forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended. The Notice states DOE's view that "the statutory term [should be interpreted] such' that some reprocessing wastes may be classified as not HLW (non-HLW) and may be disposed of in accordance with their radiological characteristics." Id. at p. 50909. Under DOE's interpretation, waste resulting from the reprocessing of SNF is non-HLW if the waste:
I. Does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste as set out in section 61.55 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; or II. Does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated through a performance assessment conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Id. at p. 50911. As such, DOE specifically requests that the public co1T1ment on this proposed interpretation. UUSA offers its initial comments below.
UUSA's Interest The UUSA facility, located near Eunice, New Mexico, is the only operating commercial enrichment facility in the United States today. UUSA has expanded the capacity of the facility from the original nominal capacity of some 3 million separative work units (SWU) to over 5 million SWU and is authorized by the NRC to expand up to 10 million SWU. UUSA, as the only operating commercial enrichment facility in the United States, is concerned that the proposed interpretation could result in a significant increase in waste generation volumes below the HLW designation (e.g., Low-level Radioactive Waste or LLW). Given that there are only a few disposal facilities in the U.S. that might be able and willing to accept LLW, the proposed interpretation could very well significantly affect UUSA's ability dispose of its depleted uranium (DU) waste in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Therefore, as discussed in UUSA's comments below, it is imperative that the Department carefully consider its comments to this Notice.
The UUSA facility is critical for economic, energy security, and national security/nonproliferation reasons. Uranium enrichment is necessary for the production of fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The demand for uranium enrichment services is expected to remain relatively strong in the United States and worldwide, particularly with the continued increased growth of nuclear energy around the globe. For these reasons, Congress has recognized the strategic importance of U.S. domestic uranium enrichment capability.1 In terms of long-term U.S. energy security, the Energy Information Administration's annual reports on uranium marketing show that the bulk of enrichment supply (generally over 70%) for U.S. nuclear power plants is foreign-based - including suppliers in Russia, China and France that are typically subsidized by their governments and would not be subject to the differential costs resulting from the proposed definitional change that is the subject of the present Notice. In this environment, discouraging the expansion of U.S.-based commercial enrichment services, by creating new impediments to LLW disposal could significantly challenge the availability of long-term domestic enrichment services to U.S.-based utilities. This result could present a further challenge to the U.S.
nuclear industry at a time when many merchant nuclear generating plants in competitive markets are facing economic stress despite the significant environmental and economic benefits nuclear energy produces for the country.2 Comments on the Question Presented in the Notice A thorough and fair reading of DOE's Notice reveals that its discussion focuses largely on a legal and statutory history analysis of the terminology high-level radioactive waste under the AEA and NWPA. The discussion leverages from this analysis to briefly address the radiological characteristics of LLW. Notably, however, the discussion does not provide any background or insights on the potential implications of the proposed interpretation-in particular, how much waste would be redefined from HLW to LLW (and what class of LLW).
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, in particular 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(3), an agency's notice is considered adequate where it "'affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process." See, e.g., American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. F.C.C., 524 F.3d 227, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting WJF Tel. Co., Inc. v FCC, 675 F.2d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir.
1982).3 While there may be no explicit definition of what constitutes adequate notice, the D.C.
1 Congress has characterized uranium enrichment as a "strategically important domestic industry of vital national interest," "essential to the national security and energy security of the United States," and "necessary to avoid dependence on imports." S. Rep No. 101-60, 101st Congress, 1st Session 8, 43 (1989); Energy Policy Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. Section 2296b-6. National security and defense interests require assurance that the nuclear energy industry in the United States does not become unduly dependent on foreign sources of uranium or uranium enrichment services (S. Rep. No. 102-72, 102nd Congress 1st Session 144-45 (1991)), and domestically produced enriched uranium may also further non-proliferation goals. Ibid.
2 See The Nuclear Industry's Contribution to the U.S. Economy, the Brattle Group (July 2015) (estimating that the U.S. nuclear industry contributes some $60 billion annually to GDP and lowers average annual CO2 emissions by 573 million tons).
3 It is noted that the Department has not asserted this proposed action represents an interpretive exception to the APA. Of course, if this were the Department's position, we point out that the "statutory interpretation" standard of review involves a two-step analysis, which derives from Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (468 U.S. 1227). Under Chevron, courts must first assess whether Congress has spoken to the "precise question at issue." To do this, courts must look to the language and design of the statute, as well as look to the traditional canons 2
Circuit has provided some additional detail, particularly regarding technical studies. According to American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. F.C.C., under APA notice and comment requirements,
"[a]mong the information that must be revealed for public evaluation are the 'technical studies and data' upon which the agency relies." This allows parties to provide comments on where the studies are erroneous or where the agency may have drawn improper conclusions. Id.
The Notice mentions that "DOE manages large inventories of legacy waste resulting from spent nuclear fuel (SNF) reprocessing activities from atomic energy defense programs.... " 83 Fed. Reg. at 50909. The Notice also mentions that DOE's reprocessing waste is being stored in both liquid and solid form at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Hanford Office of River Protection, and West Valley Demonstration Project in New York. Unfortunately, the Notice does not say how much waste is being stored at these sites, or in total. UUSA attempted to estimate at least the high-level volumes of waste at issue, using reports published by DOE's own Office of Environmental Management which DOE must have relied upon as part of undertaking the proposed change. Using DOE's public data, UUSA estimated that the total volume of HLW stored at the above listed sites equates to approximately 340,000 m3 of liquid waste and 8,000 m3 of solid waste (site-specific breakdowns are provided in Table 1 below).4 It appears that most of this HLW would comprise reprocessing waste, although UUSA cannot be sure.
Table 1: Estimations of US Government HLW Stored at DOE Sites
>'.. 1!"1*.*'"u:",*'i.l.*.*.*H***.,;.u:r.*.*.*.,*n')":-.a***.*n* k.
- "v**
01. : *:er**,*,3)':1t1:*, ~: 'A*;.. '* '(e****)':ft'
.,':;i,'L.~~.. ~.~""'* '"~1
- u.:
,... o.ume,:;111~::~m~~f. :.. ct~v1ty, 9,;Jt;J:ixte SRS 132,000 9.73E+18 INL 3,000 1.37E+18 Hanford 205,000 6.33E+18 Total Liquid HLW:
340,000 1.74E+19 SRS 3,280 2.12E+18 INL 4,400 1.20E+18 West Valley Demonstration Project 210 5.74E+17 Total Solid HLW:
7,890 3.89E+18 From our analysis of DOE's studies, it appears that DOE, as mentioned in the Notice, is storing a large amount of HLW in liquid form. Reclassifying this waste and disposing of it as LLW carries with it the potential to significantly impact how commercial entities dispose of their DU and LLW (and these impacts may further vary depending on the final classification of the reprocessing LLW). For comparison, UUSA's New Mexico enrichment facility estimates that it will produce approximately 7,000 m3 of LLW in the form of U02 over the life of the facility. This amount may be greater if the of construction. If the court finds that Congress has not directly addressed the precise issue, the court must then determine if the agency's action is based on a "permissible construction of the statute." Under Chevron, legislative regulations are given deference unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.
4 Particularly relevant is the SIXTH NATIONAL REPORT FOR THE JOINT CONVENTION ON THE SAFETY OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND ON THE SAFETY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT, at Annex D-2A (Oct. 2017), available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017 /12/f46/10 17%206th_%20US _National_Report%20%28Final%29.pdf.
3
currently licensed capacity is installed. UUSA recognizes that the conversion of liquid waste to solid form (e.g., through vitrification) could reduce the volume of the waste, but the information provided in the Notice does not allow for the public to make any such volume reduction estimate. Therefore, the available information in the public record does not allow the public to accurately assess even just the volume-based impacts of DOE's planned definitional change on LLW and DU disposal prospects.
Therefore, although UUSA does not take a position at this time on the legal question raised by DOE, it believes that this Notice provides insufficient technical detail to allow for proper evaluation of the impacts of the proposed definitional change. UUSA requests that this Notice be re-issued at a future date with the desired information on expected impacts, and a reasonable explanation of the long-term implications of the proposed definitional change on LLW disposal, to enable the public a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to comment.
UUSA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the question presented in this Notice. If you have any questions, please contact Wyatt Padgett, Licensing and Performance Assessment Manager, at 575-394-5257.
Respectfully,.au en R. Cowne Nuclear Officer and Compliance Manager 4