ML20035B524
| ML20035B524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1993 |
| From: | Walker N CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. |
| To: | LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13776 ML, NUDOCS 9304020113 | |
| Download: ML20035B524 (43) | |
Text
--.
PELATED CORRESPONDENCE
'JNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 W' 22 P 4 :14 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
cr '.
a
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3 070 - /l4 L
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
i SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS B, J,
K AND O Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash
(" CANT"), hereby files these supplemental answers to " APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS B, I,
J, K,
L, M AND Q."
Specifically, these answers are responsive to the following eleven interrogatories:
B.5-1, J.3-2, J.4-2.c, J.4-2.d, J.4-2.f, J.6-1.b, J.9-3, J.9-4.a, J. 9-4. b, K-2. a, and Q-2.
(A few additional interrogatories -- and CANT's prior answers to them -- are also repeated here where such 1
interrogatories are " introductory" to the eleven interrogatories to l
which CANT is now supplementing its answer.)
INTERROGATORIES Decommissioninc Plan Contention B:
Contention:
The LES decommissioning plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the CEC site can be cleaned up and i
adequately restored upon cessation of operations.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of December 19,
- 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- 15) that Contention B is litigable with (Board) stated (pp. 6 regard to Bases 1, 4, and 5 to the extent described.
It should be 9304020113 930319 9
PDR ADOCK 07003070 41 C
PDR w -
noted that the Board specifically stated in the above referenced order that "we see no reason to believe that the depleted uranium hexafluoride tails would be classified as mixed wasts and would therefore be a material for which no disposal site is available.
Id. at 14.
(The Board further stated, at page 7 of its June 18, 1992, Memorandum and Order, ASLB No. 91-641-02-ML, that tails are a source material and not a mixed wasted
[ sic] under RCRA.)
Accordingly, Applicant's interrogatories and requests related to Contention B focus upon each Basis to the extent admitted by.the Board.
Interrogatories and Recuests:
Decommissioning Plan Contention B, Basis 5:
INTERROGATORY NO. B.5-1:
Provide the basis in regulations or regulatory guidance to justify the statement in Contention B,
Basis 5,
that "[t]he application should be amended to include full details of decommissioning and dismantlement For
- example, decommissioning funding plans are required by regulation (10 C.F.R.
Subsection 70.22 (a) (9) and 70.25), but section 70.38 (c) (1) does not require a detailed plan for decommissioning until "on or before the expiration date specified in the license.
What, therefore, is your basis (in the regulations or guidance on the regulations) for alleging that a detailed plan is required prior to licensing?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. B.5-1:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention B have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention B.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
CANT believes that the Atomic Energy Act, NRC regulations, and NRC regulatory guidance, taken together, require the submission of a decommissioning funding plan that contains sufficient details of
[
LES's decommissioning plan to permit the NRC Staff to evaluate whether LES's decommissioning cost estimates are reasonably accurate.
9 M
i
The decommissioning funding-regulations for materials licensees are intended to provide a reasonable assurance that, at the time of decommissioning, sufficient funds will be available to do an adequate job of cleaning up the site.
As stated in the preamble to the decommissioning funding rule:
[T]he Commission's - statutory mandate to protect.the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the common defense and security stems principally from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
In carrying out its licensing and related regulatory responsibilities under these acts, the NRC has determined that this regulation is needed because there is. a sigt.ificant radiation hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear f acilities..The NRC has also determined that the f
public health and safety can best be protected by j
promulgating a rule requiring reasonable assurance that at the time of termination of operations adequate funds i
are available so that decommissioning can be carried out.
in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems.
j 53 Fed. Reg. 24,018, 24,037 (June 27, 1988).
To carry out this i
- purpose, the rules require license applicants to establish a i
mechanism for collecting and safeguarding decommissioning funds i
during the life of a plant.
The rules also require the applicant to submit an estimate of decommissioning costs.
The cost estimate l
t should have sufficient detail to enable a reviewer to determine-t whether the applicant's funding targets are reasonable. As the NRC stated in the preamble to the final decommissioning rule:
l 1
It is expected that the requirements contained is [ sic]
amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 will provide
{
reasonable assurance that funds are available for decommissioning nuclear facilities.
Specifically, S 30.35 [and related sections in other parts) requires submittal of a funding plan containing an estimate of the costs of decommissioning or use of a certification of an.
amount prescribed in the regulations.
The cost estimate l
- i l
t..
contained in the funding plan will be based on site conditions and can use, as a base, information developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in a series of reports on technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities.
NRC's review and evaluation of the estimates can use not only the PNL reports but experience gained at other materials facility decommissionings.
53 Fed. Reg. at 24,036. See also Regulatory Guide 3.66, Standard Format and Content of Financial Assurance Mechanisms Required for Decommissioning Under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72, 5 1.2 (1990), which prescribes an " extensive checklist of decommissioning activities that must be included in the decommissioning cost
'i estimate."
Assessment of Costs Under NEPA, Contention J Contention:
The Environmental Report does not adequately describe or weigh the environmental, social, and economic impacts and costs of operating the CEC.
Moreover, the benefit-cost analysis fails to demonstrate that there is a need for the facility.
- See, e.c.,
Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 i
NRC 33, 90 (1977) (in a power production plant licensing case, "need for power" is "a shorthand expression for the
' benefit ' side of the cost-benefit balance which NEPA
[
mandates.").
On the whole, the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action.
In its Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions) of 1
December 19,
- 1991, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
(Board) stated (pp. 33 - 39) that Contention J Bases 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 are denied, and that Bases 3,
4, 6 and 9 are admitted.
Accordingly, Applicant's interrogatories and requests related to Contention J focus upon each admitted Basis to the extent admitted by the Board.
Interrocatories and Recuests:
l t
e Contention J, Basis 3 INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-1:
Does Basis 3 set forth any concerns that have not been voiced in Contention B, Bases 1, 4 and 5?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-1:
Yes.
Contention J concerns NEPA's required benefit-cost analysis which must be performed with respect to the CEC facility in general, and basis 3 of Contention J concerns that NEPA analysis as it pertains to decommissioning costs in particular.
In contrast, bases 1, 4,
and 5 of Contention B concern safety issues and NRC requirements as they pertain to decommissioning.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-2:
If the answer to interrogatory j.3-1 is Yes, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic] information, related to the estimated cost of decommissioning (in addition to the Decommissioning Funding Plan (Exhibit I
to the License Application), submitted by Applicant on July 31, 1992, and the Urenco paper " Decommissioning and Decontamination of a USJVC Plant," dated April 27, 1989, (License Application, Revision 2,
Exhibit I at 3)) that you believe Applicant has omitted from the decommissioning cost estimate.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.3-2:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
CANT does not dispute the " type" of information provided in LES's cost estimates, but rather the adequacy of the information.
CANT believes that the decommissioning cost estimates for the CEC are inadequate in at least the following respects: '
1.)
In its decommissioning cost estimate of December 14, 1992, LES states that 4600 MT of aluminum from centrifuges and UF6 '
piping at the CEC plant is salvageable for resale.
- However, crediting salvage value is contrary to Regulatory Guide'3.66 S 1.2.2.
Moreover, if the aluminum is contaminated, CANT believes it would have little or no resale value.
2.)
LES also takes credit for resale of recovered fluorine.
Again, this is contrary to the requirements of. Reg.
Guide 3.66.
Moreover, the fluorine, which would be recovered
^
i primarily as aqueous HF,
would be slightly contaminated with j
uranium and may not be marketable in the United States.
L.M.
5 Lippard and L.W. Davis, " Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Study," Louisiana Energy Services, Claiborne Enrichment Center, at i
D-1 (October 1, 1991).
3.)
In a letter to LES dated September 22, 1992, the NRC stated that "the preferred chemical form for final disposition of
[
i the DU tails is U308," that "near-surface disposal of such large
{
quantities of DU tails is not appropriate," that "other disposal alternatives under 10 CFR Part 61 may be viable, e.g.,
deep mine disposal;" and that "therefore, disposal options, other than j
near-surface disposal must be considered for the DU tails." Letter from John W.N. Hickey to Louisiana Enrichment Services.
a h
In response to the NRC's position, LES has provided cost l
estimates of $5.50 per ton for deep mine disposal of 3,300 tons of DU308 per -year.
CANT believes that this estimate. is not j
conservative enough because it is based on a much smaller scale 6 !
-i
- project, i.e.,
disposal of 13 tons of uranium mill tailings at a 1
processing site, rather than the many thousands of tons of uranium to be disposed of from the CEC.
We also note that decommissioning standards are still under development, and may affect the cost of decommissioning.
See 57 Fed. Reg. 58,727 (December 11, 1992),
Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning of NRC-Licensed Facilities; Workshops (notice of workshops in preparation to
" initiate an enhanced participatory rulemaking on establishing the radiological criteria for the decommissioning of NRC-licensed facilities").
Accordingly, at this time, it would appear more reasonable to follow the recommendation of the DOE Uranium Enrichment Organization, which states that a " prudent basis for current estimates of disposal costs" would be $1.00/kgU for DU308 disposal, based on the estimated charge for surface disposal of DU308 at the Nevada Test Site.
DE91-006414, "The Ultimate Disposition of Depleted Uranium" at 17 (DOE Uranium Enrichment Organization:
December 1990).
$1.00/kg U equates to about $770 per ton U308 in 1990 dollars.
Escalated at 4% per year to 1996, the disposal cost for 3,300 tons of DU308 is $3.2 million.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-c:
In Contention J you cite Public-Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) as an authority that equates need for power to benefit for power plant cost-benefit purposes.
In Basis 4 you substitute "need for l
enrichment capacity" for "need for power" to allege that the CEC does not provide sufficient benefit.
Do you rely on any authority (e.g.,
case law, regulations) to substitute "need for enrichment capacity" for "need for power," or is this done by analogy 7 Please cite any authority relied upon.
?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-c; The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis i
of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
[
Since this case is the first licensing proceeding for uranium j
enrichment facility, there is obviously no case law holding that need for enriched uranium must be considered in a NEPA cost-benefit l
j analysis for a
uranium enrichment facility licensing
- case, However, CANT believes that this situation is analogous to NRC
-l cases in which the NRC has held that "need for power" is the l
primary benefit in a NEPA cost-benefit analysis.
See Public l
Service Company of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),.
I l
ALAB-471, 7 NRC 47, 509 n. 58 (1978) and the cases cited therein.
f Similarly, in Enerav Research and Development Administration i
(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-76-13, 4 NRC 67, 76-77 (1976), the Commission examined the question of whether a proposed
.i nuclear facility that would not generate electricity was nevertheless needed for " informational" purposes.
(In that case, i
~
i the Commission accepted the determination of need made by a i
different agency that had prepared the Environmental Impact
(
Statement, and went on to examine alternatives to the project that-would meet the stated need in other ways.)
Thus, CANT believes there is ample precedent for holding that the Commission.must j
i consider the need for the CEC in its NEPA analysis.
l l
r I l i
l
I INTERROGATORY No. J.4-2-d:
l Do you consider the need for enrichment capacity the only valid need to support a benefit in the cost-benefit analysis under NEPA7 If not, what other valid needs would be a benefit in a NEPA cost-benefit analysis?
MSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-d:
l i
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis i
of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
The need for the facility is the only valid need in the sense that it constitutes the overriding consideration in conducting any cost-benefit analysis.
If a nuclear facility is not needed, there-i is no point in incurring the safety and environmental risks posed i
by such a facility.
This reasoning is used by the NRC in judging the costs and benefits of nuclear power plants, and is equally applicable here.
As the Commission noted in Duke Power Co.
(Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-355, 4 NRC 397, 405 (1976):
A nuclear plant's principal " benefit" is of course the electric power it generates.
Hence, absent some "need for power," justification for building a facility is problematical.
See also Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 90 (1977).
While other benefits, such as tax revenue and the provision of jobs, could be considered, they could not tip the balance in favor.of the project.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-471, 7 NRC, 509 n. 58 (1978).
1 INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-f:
1 In Contention J you state that "[o]n the whole, the costs of the project.far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action."
What bases, facts and analyses were used to reach this conclusion?
Please address the specific costs you rely upon.
Also, please explain how these costs outweigh the benefits listed in ER sections 8.1 and 8.2, as amended on July 31, 1992, and the LES information letter on need for the facility sent to the NRC on April 30, 1992.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.4-2-f:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
As admitted in Contention J, CANT's statement that "on the whole, the costs of the project far outweigh the benefits of the proposed action," was based on CANT's assessment of the following factors:
First, the principal -- indeed, overriding -- benefit of this facility would be the need for the enriched uranium that it is intended to produce.
As discussed in basis (4) of Contention J, there is no evidence that such a need exists.
- Second, in opposition, the costs of the proposed project are significant:
(a) t the risk.s of contamination posed by the plant, as discussed in basis (6) of Contention J; (b) the high cost and potential infeasibility of disposing of uranium tails offsite, which makes it i
likely that the CEC could become a de f acto nuclear waste dump with the potential to contaminate soil and groundwater, as discussed in Contention B; and (c) the adverse impacts of the facility on the minority communities of Forest Grove and Center Springs, as I
discussed in basis (9) of Contention J.
j i
- 10,-
LES asks CANT to explain how these costs outweigh the benefits described in ER sections 8.1. and 8.2, as amended on July 31, 1992, and the letter from LES to NRC dated April 30, 1992.
The costs of the proposed project outweigh the benefits cited in the Environmental Report and the April 30 letter in at least the following respects.
The first benefit cited by LES in S 8.1 of-tne ER is the value of the enriched uranium.
Based on a proposed value of $110 per-SWU, LES states that the added value of uranium enrichment services which is produced by the facility each year is approximately
$165,000,000.
However, CANT believes that the dollar value of enriched uranium as expressed in the price per SWU that enriched uranium may be sold:for in the marketplace does not provide a meaningful measure of the benefit afforded by construction and licensing of the CEC, because it does not reflect consideration of whether the enriched uranium to be produced by the plant is actually needed.
If enriched uranium can be bought from another source for more or less the same price, there is no benefit at all.
As discussed in Basis (4) of Contention J, existing uranium capacity is more than adequate to meet projected domestic needs through the year 2010.
In addition, LES fails to acknowledge the existence of an agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation for the purchase by the United States, over the next 20 years, of an estimated 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from dismantled Russian warheads. This HEU will be converted into low enriched uranium for nuclear power plant fuel.
Dismantled
- 11.-
~
U.S. nuclear weapons are another equally large potential source of uranium for commercial fuel.
I LES has not prcvided any evidence that the price of uranium enriched at the CEC will be any less than the price of enriched f
uranium available from other sources.
The mere fact that gas l
centrifuge enrichment uses less electricity than the gaseous t
diffusion enrichment method does not necessarily mean that the end 1
5 product is cheaper.
Other costs, including capital costs, and the competitive position of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, need to be factored in.
LES also argues that operation of the CEC will result in I
reduced carbon emissions.
At a minimum, whatever carbon emissions could be avoided by LES' displacement of DOE enrichment production in the gaseous diffusion plants would also be avoided by the substitution of Russian uranium for DOE enrichment production.
As j
i j
stated by the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, HEU j
i obtained by DOE from the Russian Federation would be used "to reduce the electricity costs at its enrichment facilities." White t
t House Fact Sheet, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, (August k
31, 1992).
Contention J, Basis 6 I
INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1 and J.6-1-a.
In light of the July 31, 1992, changes to sections 3.4, 3.5, 4.4 and 6.4.14 of the SAR, and sections 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 6.1 and 6.2 i
of the ER, which provide additional information on the effects of
?
f acility construction and operation on the surf ace and underground drinking water supply:
Are you willing to withdraw Basis 6?
1 I
r l
- 12.-
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1 and J.6-1-a:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1-b:
If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 6 of Contention J, provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic) information, related to the evaluation of the potential impacts of i
the proposed project on the ground and surface water, and the manner in which it will be kept free from contamination that you believe Applicant has omitted from the SAR and ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.6-1-b:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
10 C.F.R. S 51.4 5 (b) (1) requires the Environmental Report (ER) to discuss "the impact of the proposed action on the environment."
A discussion of the possible negative effects of the CEC on ground and surface water is patently an " impact of the proposed action,"
i and therefore must be discussed in the ER.
Basis 6 of Contention J lists a number of areas of concern to CANT:
groundwater 2.5 feet below the surface of the CEC site; drinking water just five miles from the CEC; effluent discharge into Bluegill Pond, Cypress Creek, and Lake Claiborne; standing pools of contaminated effluent seeping into the groundwater; and the possibility of lining Bluegill Pond.
The ER at a minimum 1
should analyze all of these concerns.
Instead of seriously considering water contamination, LES has recently decided to eliminate monitoring the CEC effluent in - -
4 Bluegill Pond.
The ER does not. describe the impact that this decreased monitoring might have on the environment.
The ER should discuss any alternatives to the use of liquid effluent, and alternatives to discharging into the water systems of the local environment.
The ER should discuss whether these wastes could be disposed of by transporting them to a different disposa)
- site, whether they could be reused,
- recycled, or reduced in quantity in any way, and other alternatives to discharging into Bluegill
- Pond, Cypress
- Creek, and Lake Claiborne, and any mitigating measures that could be taken to protect the surface and ground waters.
Contention J, Basis 9 INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-1:
In light of the July 31, 1992, changes to sections 8.1 and 0.2 of the SAR, and Applicant's additional information submitted March 30, 1992, on the economic and sociological impacts of the CEC on Forest Grove and Center Springs, are you willing to withdraw Basis 9?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-1:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-2 and J.9-3:
If you are not willing to withdraw Basis 9 of Contention J, answer to following questions for Basis 9.
Provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic] information, related to the economic and sociological impacts of the proposed project on the Forest Grove and Center Springs communities that you believe Applicant has omitted from the BAR and ER.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. J.9-2 and J.9-3:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis i
4 e
of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
In S 8.1.2 of the Environmental Report, LES claims that the CEC will cause "no disruption to the local populace."
CANT believes that the CEC will disrupt the !.ocal communities of Forest Grove and Center Springs in numerous raspects.
Forest Grove Road, which joins the two communities, will be closed in order to make way for tt.e proposed plant, which lies between them.
If the road is closed off, it will disrupt the life of these two communities.
For instance, it will cause hardships to families who use the road and residents who car-pool to work, and it will complicate transportation to school, church,. sports events and other activities that involve both communities.
Increased traffic on the narrow and winding country road'to the plant will exacerbate the hazards already caused by the heavy use of the road by gasoline trucks.
Such adverse effects on the quality of life in the vicinity of the plant must be considered in the EIS.
Hanly v.
Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 826-27 (2nd Cir.
1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908 1973).
Residents of Forest Grove, who live extremely.close.to the plant site, will also be exposed to potential accidents and contamination of soil and groundwater by the plant.
Even assuming that such incidents may be
- unlikely, they are reasonably foreseeable and thus'must be considered in weighing the costs and benefits of the project.
Limerick Ecoloav Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989).
l INTERROGATORY NO.
J.9-4, J.9-4-a and J.9-4-b:
Basis 9 "ates that "[t]he ER does not demonstrate any s
attempts to av( 2d or mitigate the disparate impact of the proposed plant on this minority community."
To support this statement you cite a report relating toxic waste sites to community socio-economic and racial characteristics (" Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States").
This report analyzes commercial hazardous vaste facilities and uncontrolled toxic waste sites.
The report defines a commercial hazardous waste facility as any f acility which accepts hazardous wastes (as defined by the EPA) from a third party for a fee or other remuneration; and defines uncontrolled' toxic waste sites as closed and abandoned sites on the EPA's list of sites which pose a present and potential threat to human health and the environment.
Explain the relevance of the statistics in this report to the CEC, which is not a type of facility analyzed by the report; and Explain the basis for the statement that the facility has a disparate impact on the community, i.e., disparate with respect to what?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
J.9-4, J.9-4-a and J.9-4-b:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention J have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention J.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
The United Church of Christ's 1987 report on " Toxic Wastes and a
Race in the United States" is relevant to this proceeding because it demonstrates that racial minorities bear a disproportionate i
share of the burden of hosting facilities that have hazardous or toxic wastes.
Two types of facilities were surveyed in the UCC study:
[
" Commercial hazardous waste facilities,"
i.e.,
facilities for the storage, treatment, or disposal of the "by-products of industrial production which present particularly trcublesome health and i
environmental problems;" and " uncontrolled toxic waste sites,",
h.
i.e., " closed and abandoned sites on the EPA's list of sites which pose a present and potential threat to human health and the environment."
Id. at xii.
While the CEC does not fit the technical definition of a hazardous waste facility, it is analogous because it will produce,. treat, and store material which'is both toxic'and radioactive.
Moreover, the CEC has the potential to become an uncontrolled toxic waste site, because the presence of toxic and radioactive material on the site will pose a constant risk that surrounding
- air, soil, and ground-water will be contaminated.
(Presumably, the " toxic waste sites" studied by the UCC were not toxic when they were first built.)
By virtue of their close proximity to the plant, the isolated minority communities of Forest Grove and Cedar Springs will suffer.
impact s that have little or no effect on white society in Homer or elsewhere.
The African Americans in these minority communities will bear virtually all of the risk of air, soil, and groundwater contamination emanating from the plant, they will receive the greatest impacts of any accidents that occur at the plant, and they will suffer great disruption to their community and diminution in their quality of life, as discussed in the basis of Contention J, Basis 9.
The United Church of Christ's 1987 report demonstrates that race and, to a lesser extent, poverty, plays a significant role in the siting of environmentally dangerous facilities.
The siting of the CEC in the midst of two poor minority communities -- which are neither close to the source of the feedstock for the facility nor
- 17.-
1 4
i close to the markets for the finished product --'is yet. another example of this insidious nationwide pattern.-
The disproportionate' burden of pollution borne by minority and j
I low-income' communities is discussed in fuller detail in reports i
such as the following:
l Paul Mohat & Bunyan Bryant, " Environmental Racism: Reviewing the Evidence," in RACE AND THE INCIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS:
A TIME FOR DISCOURSE 163, 169-74 (Bunyan Bryant & Paul Mohai eds.,
1992) (documenting that out of the 15 systematic studies done since
.{
1971 whicP examine the disproportionate impact of environmental-fj hazards by race or class nearly every study has found an i
inequitable distribution of pollution by income, that all but one l
of the 15 studies have found distribution inequitable by race, and
{
that five out of the eight studies that compared race and income
[
found race to be a stronger predictor);
U.S.
General 7ccounting Office, SITING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
)
LANDFILLS AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH RACIAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF j
SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES (1983) (stating that'.all'four toxic waste l
dumps in eight southern states are in economically depressed-
{
communities, and that three out of the four commercial hazardous j
waste facilities are located disproportionately where people of color are most heavily concentrated);
f i
Paul Mohal & Bunyan Bryant, " Race, Class and Environmental l
f Quality in the Detroit Area," in ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM:
ISSUES AND DILEMMAS 42, 44 (Bunyan Bryant & Paul Mohai eds., 1991) (stating that African-Americans in Detroit are four and a half times.more f
i
- l
- la -
t
)
I i
f
i 6'
4 likely than whites to live within a mile of a commercial hazardous
~
waste facility, and that race is a stronger predictor than income, although Detroit residents living below the poverty line have a four and a half times greater chance of living near a commercial hazardous vaste facility than those who live above the poverty line);
Bob Anderson, " Plant Sites:
Is Racism An Issue?," Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, May 12, 1992, at 1A (this article is part of a three-part series on industry moving into low-income African-f American communities);
Myrick Freeman, "The Distribution of Environmental Quality,"
l in ENVIRONMENTAL QUMITY ANMYSIS 243, 264 ( A11en V. Kneese & Blair T.
Bower eds.,
1972)
(finding that air pollution is distributed i
inequitably by income in Kansas City, St. Louis and Washington, D.C.);
q Michel
- Gelobter, "Toward a
Model of Environmental Discrimination,"
in RACE AND THE INCIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL l
HAZARDS:
A TIME FOR DISCOURSE, 64, 65-68 (Bunyan Bryant & Paul.
Mohai eds.,1992) (finding that the damage caused by air pollution f
i in urban areas is inequitably distributed by income) ;
Michael Greenberg & Richard Anderson, HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES:
THE CREDIBILITY GAP 158 (1984)
(reporting that a study of 567 I
communities in New Jersey found that those with the greatest number j
of toxic waste sites have more African-American residents than i
t other communities);
l I
- i f
r f
i
h i
Jane Kay, " Minorities Bear Brunt of Pollution:
Latinos and Blacks Living in State's ' Dirtiest' Neighborhood," San Francisco l
Examiner, April 7,
1991, at A1, A12 (this article is part of a four-part series);
Brian J. L. Berry 31 gl_,, THE SOCIAL BURDENS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
')
POLLUTION:
A COMPARATIVE METROPOLITAN DATA SOURCE 563, 570-71 i
(1977) (reporting that solid waste sites in Chicago are distributed i.
inequitably by race);
Robert D.
Bullard & Beverly Hendrix Wright, "The Politics of Pollution:
Implications for the Black Community," 47 PHYLON 71, 77 (1986) (noting that African-American neighborhoods, which comprise one-quarter of Houston, are home to six of the city's eight garbage incinerators and all five city-owned garbage landfills).
l No Action Alternative, Contention K Contention:
The ER violates NEPA because it does not contain an adequate discussion of alternatives to the proposed action.
Interrogatories and Requests:
INTERROGATORY NO. K-1:
In light of the July 23, 1992, LES letter providing additional information on the no action alternative, are you willing to withdraw Contention K?
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. K-1:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. K-2 and INTERROGATORY NO.
E-2-a.
If you are not willing to withdraw Contention K, answer the following.
i i
The basis for Contention K alleges that the ER fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. Section 51.54 (which applies [ sic] nuclear power reactor manufacturers) because it does not satisfy the no-action I
alternative. Assuming that 10 C.F.R. Section 51.45 is the intended reference, no requirement appears to exist for Applicant to submit information on a no action alternative, although the Commission is to provide a discussion of the no action alternative in its i
Environmental Inpact Statement under 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, i
Appendix A.
In this regard, provide specific descriptions of the i
information, or types or [ sic) information, related to the no action alternative analysis that you believe Applicant has omitted from the ER and its supplementary communications to the NRC (i.e.,
the July 23, 1992, letter).
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information bo provided by Applicant.
j ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. K-2 and K-2-a:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in Contention K have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention K.
Accordingly, the i
following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
As LES itself admits in interrogatory K-2.a, the " alternatives analysis" of the Commission's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) l must include the "no action" alternative.
And pursuant to 10 i
C.F.R.
S 51._4_5 (which.;i_;i the intended reference by CANT in Contention K),
LES's Environmental Report (ER) must discuss alternatives in a manner "sufficiently complete to aid the
}
Commission in developing and exploring" alternatives under section 102 (2) (E) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
42 U.S.C. S 4332.
i An
" alternatives analysis" under section 102 (2) (E) must consider the "no action" alternative.
Bob Marshall Alliance v.
Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1988)
(several federal agencies required to consider the alternative of not issuing any f
t i
oil and gas leases); Trinity Episcopal School Corooration v.
Romnev, 523 F.2d 88, 93-94 (2nd Cir. 1975) (Department of Housing and Urban Development required to consider alternative of not building a housing project.)
Accordingly, in order for the ER to ke sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in analyzing alternatives under 102(2) (E),
the ER-must discuss the "no action" alternative, as well as all other impacts on the environment as set forth in - 10 C. F.R.
S
- 51. 4 5 (b) 1) -(5).
LES'S July 23, 1992 letter, which purports to contain a "no action" analysis, is nothing more than an attempt to justify construction of the plant.
Instead of discussing the environmental harm to be avoided by abandoning the project, the letter discusses the alleged need for the plant.
There are two important flaws in the July 23, 1992 letter.
First, the analysis fails to consider the local environmental impacts of the proposed f acility.
For example, under a "no action" alternative analysis it must be admitted-that the adverse effects on the air, surf ace water, groundwater, and other natural resources will be entirely eliminated if-the project does not go forward.
Likewise, all detrimental impacts on the health of the people who live near the proposed site will be eliminated.
In short, a discussion of the no action alternative must quantify the local environmental harms that will be averted by abandoning the project.
Furthermore, the letter fails to show that the. facility is.
necessary.
The letter ignores the recent contract between the Russian Federation and the United States which requires the United-States to buy weapons grade enriched uranium (at a - very cheap price) from the former U.S.S.R.
Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the United States will downgrade the uranium to a level-of enrichment required by American domestic nuclear reactors. This Russian uranium will entirely displace the projected output from the proposed LES facility.
The LES letter also ignores recent reports that an agreement.
similar to the contract between the United States and the Russian Federation is also being discussed with South Africa.
Such an agreement would further glut the market for enriched uranium.
The letter also ignores the fact that the United States itself already has on hand an abundance of weapons grade uranium which it intends to downgrade for sale to nuclear power plants.
The letter also ignores the fact that Congress may pass legislation to exempt the new United States Enrichment Corporation from President Clinton's proposed energy tax- (which will be applicable to LES), thus making it nearly impossible for LES to compete in the uranium enrichment market.
Thus, LES's July 23, 1992 letter neither demonstrates a need for the CEC nor discusses the important local impacts of abandoning the project.
It is unsatisfactory as a no action alternative analysis.
Financial Oualification, Contention O l
i Contention LES has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to build and operate the CEC.
}
Interrogatories and Recruests:
INTERROGATORY NO. Q-1:
Please review the May 1,
1992, LES Letter to the NRC Staff regarding financial qualifications, and advise whether you are willing to withdraw contention Q.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. O-1:
No.
INTERROGATORY NO. Q-2:
If you are not willing to withdraw Contention Q in light of Applicant's recent submittal, please provide specific descriptions of the information, or types or [ sic) information, related to i
financial qualification that you believe Applicant has omitted from its financial disclosures.
Include reference to regulations, regulatory guidance or other authorities requiring or recommending that this information be provided.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. O-2:
The persons who may be testifying with respect to the issues encompassed in contention Q have not yet completed their analysis of the issues encompassed in Contention Q.
Accordingly, the following is a preliminary response to this interrogatory.
The May 1,
1992 letter from LES to the NRC Staff, and the version of the attachments thereto which were sent to CANT do not demonstrate that LES is financially qualified to build and operate the CEC.
In fact, because substantial key portions of the attachments have been censored under the rubric of " proprietary information," these materials are almost worthless in terms of establishing LES's financial qualifications.
1 10 C.F.R.
S 50.40(b) provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may issue a license only after determining, among other things, that the applicant is " financially qualified" to engage in t.
i i
the proposed activit[y]
Accordingly, every applicant is j
required to submit such information.
Under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (b) (1) CANT is entitled to review all documents which are " relevant' to the subject. matter. involved in the [ licensing] proceeding."
{
Because the financial qualifications of an applicant must always be reviewed before a license can issue, such qualifications are always i
relevant to the proceeding.
Furthermore, because CANT has successfuly had its contention regarding LES's financial qualifications admitted in this proceeding, there can be no doubt that such qualifications are relevant to the proceeding, thus entitling CANT to review such documents.
Although LES has thus far tried to hide this financial information behind a claim of privilege, under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.790 (b) (.)
and (5) such information may be disclosed where "the
[
right of the public to be fully apprised as to the basis for and t
effects of licensing" outweigh
" concerns for protection of competitive positions CANT intends to invoke its-legal i
right to have a fuller financial disclosure by LES.
LES's claim, as set forth in the affidavit of W. Howard Arnold i
(attachment A to LES's May 1,
1992 letter), that the censored t
financial information should be considered proprietary, is without i
merit.
LES admits that it will be approaching the financial markets, i.e. investment banks, to raise money for the LES project, i
To do so, LES will have to submit its financial information to such institutions.
Thus, the " proprietary" information will be readily
[
available to many Wall Street analysts, but not to CANT, who, by
[
' )
virtue of its standing before the ASLB, has a right to know this information to effectively litigate its contention.
In short, LES's May 1,
1992 letter and the version of the attachments to the letter which were forwarded to CANT, do not demonstrate LES's financial qualifications to build and operate the -
f CEC. As set forth below, (and organized under captions referencing the relevant portions of the attachments to the LES letter of May 1,
1992), a review of even the censored financial information I
furnished to CANT demonstrates many unanswered questions 'about l
LES's financial qualifications.
OUESTION 2 OF ATTACHMENT B A)
It is not specified if the "new infusions by limited partners" have irrevocably been committed to.
B)
There is no evidence of the ability and willingness of I
the remaining limited partners to " provide the necess,ary equity and l
3 appropriate debt" if some limited partners elect not'to invest i
additional capital at the time of construction.
}
C)
There is no evidence that " sufficient long term SWU sales agreements with affiliated and non-affiliated utilities" have Le an obtained.
.[
D)
There is no adequate discussion of current market l
conditions (at the time of plant start-up and beyond) or conditions i
reasonably projected for the life of the plant, all of which
[
clearly would impact the financial health of LES.
In such a f
discussion, the following factors should be considered:
the shrinking market for SWU services, as evidenced in the past year by l
1
).
the permanent shutdowns of the Yankee Rowe, San Onofre-1 and Trojan reactors; the projection by Shearson Lehman Brothers that as many-as 25 nuclear reactors will be shut down by the year 2000; the effect of President Clinton's campaign pronouncement that "no new nuclear reactors should be built" pending adequate proof of economic viability and progress on radioactive waste storage; the effect of President Clinton's proposed slashing of the nuclear power research and development budget, and his statement in the State of the Union address that unnecessary programs "such as nuclear power research and development will be eliminated" from the federal budget; and the effects of the NRC's stalled license renewal plan for LES's potential market over the next 30 years.
E)
LES has stated that "one-third of the plant's output has been reserved for the utility affiliates of the founding general and limited partners:
Duke Power, Northern States Power, and Louisiana Power & Light. " However, in light of commitments by each of these utilities to their respective Public Utilities Commissions or other regulatory bodies not to proceed with this project beyond the venture capital phase, there appears to be no basis for LES's suggestion that these utilities will purchase SWUs from LES.
F)
There is no adequate discussion of how LES plans to obtain sufficient debt financing arrangements if the limited partners back out of this project -- as many of them have committed to their local regulatory bodies that they will.
OUESTION 3 OF ATTACHMENT'B l
r A)
LES apparently plans to " employ less. [than 100%) leverage in the construction phase to reduce capitalized interest," but_
fails to indicate projected figures, or any basis'for believing _
that LES can pay for less than 100% leverage, given LES'~ balance sheet which indicates cash reserves of only $24,067 (12/31/90) and deferred start-up costs of only $16,799,993 (12/31/90). ' Current f
cash and start-up cost balances should be indicated.
There should..
l be a discussion of how LES plans to leverage assets of les's than 5%
of construction costs, and cash of less than 0.01% of such costs l
r into cash sufficient to pay for a potentially billion-dollar facility.
[
B)
There is no adequate discussion of how LES, without all-of the limited partners, "would provide the necessary equity and appropriate debt support for such initial investment."
Financial data should be provided indicating capability, willingness, and I
commitment to do so.
Q1]ESTION 4 OF ATTACHMENT B
{
A)
LES says that because Urenco is operating uranium enrichment plants in Europe, the CEC will not be first-of-a-kind.
l LES premises most of its discussion of " contingency allowances" on this " fact".
However, LES never admits that Urenco is anything l
more than a 47% investor in this plant -- and it is LES, not Urenco, that is applying for a license from the NRC.
If the CEC is to be a Urenco plant, then LES should acknowledge this, and revise j
its license application.
Furthermore, other LES application I
! P l
i
documents indicate that the centrifuges proposed for the LES plant will differ from those in use by Urenco in Europe.
In short, there is no reason in the application to assume that this is g a fir t s-of-a-kind plant; at the very least, it is certainly a first-of-a-kind plant for the United States.
DUESTION 5 OF ATTACHMENT B A)
LES indicates that " construction and term debt will be raised from a consortium of major, international project lending banks familiar to the LES partners," but does not identify these lending banks.
B)
There is no indication of the projected date for financial closing.
C)
There is no evidence (such as letters of credit or other proof) that LES and its partners have "sufficiently strong relationships with major lending institutions" to obtain financing for this project.
SECTION 1 OF ATTACHMENT D A)
There is no adequate discussion of the extent to which anticipated nuclear plant license. renewals enter into LES' financial calculations, or the effect on LES's financial he lth if a
natidn'snuclearplantsclose 25% of the by the year 20"]
-- as projected by major Wall Street financial analysts.
_SECTION 3 OF ATTACHMENT D A)
There is no adequate discussion of whether LES can meet its target operational date of 1996 to take advantage of its
" window of opportunity" i.e.,
when existing long-term SWU
!,. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ " - - - - -
4 i
documents indicate that the centrifuges proposed for the LES plant will differ from those in use by Urenco in Europe.
In short, there is no reason in the application to assume that this is ILqt a first-l of-a-kind plant; at the very least, it is certainly a first-of-a-
[
t kind plant for the United States.
i OUESTION 5 OF ATTACHMENT B
~
A)
LES indicates that " construction and term debt will be raised from a consortium of major, international project lending banks familiar to the LES partners," but does not identify these lending banks.
i B)
There is no indication of the projected date.for financial closing.
C)
There is no evidence (such as letters of credit or other f
i proof) that LES and its partners have "sufficiently' strong j
i relationships with major lending institutions" to obtain financing
- i' for this project.
i SECTION 1 OF ATTACHMENT D t
i A)
There is no adequate discussion of the extent to which 1
anticipated nuclear plant license renewals enter into LES' financial calculations, or the effect on LES's financial health if.
f 25% of the nati6n's nuclear plants close by the year 2000
-- as projected by major Wall Street financial analysts.
SECTION 3 OF ATTACHMENT D A)
There is no adequate discussion of whether LES can meet l
its target operational date of 1996 to take advantage of its f
f
" window of opportunity" --
i.e.,
when existing long-term SWU i !
E contracts with the DOE' expire (between 1996-2002) --'or the effect which additional years of delay before the CEC is operational will have on the financial health of LES.
SECTION 4 OF ATTACHMENT D A)
There is no discussion of the effect of President Clinton's proposed BTU tax on LES's financial health, which will likely be substantial, given the fact that the entire front end of the nuclear fuel cycle (mining, milling, processing, enrichment, t
l fuel fabrication, and, finally, reactor operation) will have to 1
pass on the BTU tax on to subsequent customers.
f i
B)
There is no adequate discussion of the recent contract between Russia and the United States which requires the United i
States to buy weapons grade enriched uranium - (at a very cheap l
price) from the former U.S.S.R.
Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the United States will downgrade the uranium to a level
[
I of enrichment required by American domestic nuclear reactors. This j
f Russian uranium will entirely displace the projected output from j
the proposed LES facility.
i l
C)
There is no discussion of recent. reports that an agreement similar to the contract between the United States and l
Russia is also being considered with South Africa.
Such an agreement would further glut the market for enriched uranium.
D)
There is no discussion of the fact that the United States itself already has on hand an abundance of weapons grade uranium l
which it intends to downgrade for sale to nuclear power plants.
l
~.,.
g..
E)
There is no discussion of the fact that Congress may pass legislation to exempt the new United-States Enrichment Corporation from President Clinton's proposed energy tax (which will be applicable to LES), thus making it nearly impossible for LES to compete in the uranium enrichment market.
F)
LES states that it " expects that a major fraction of its output will displace production from diffusion plants which when built were not required to meet current NRC and EPA standards and regulations", but fails to explain how the' enacted version of the I
t 1992 National Energy Security Act will now affec t such a scenario.
SECTION 5 OF ATTACHMENT D A)
There is no adequate discussion of the effect that the i
federal government's purchase from Russia of large quantities of highly-enriched uranium for conversion into commercial reactor fuel l
will have on LES's competitive outlook and finances.
B)
There is no adequate discussion of how nuclear power f
holds a
cost-competitive advantage' over other sources of electricity generation.
Respectfully submitted, NATHALIE M. WALKER ROBERT B. WIYGUL SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone:
(504) 522-1394 By:
)
Nathalie M. Walker March 19, 1993 homer \\ansinter.L3.
~
4 E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 W,7 22 P4 34 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
' In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIALA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the." SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH REGARDING CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S CONTENTIONS B, J, K AND Q" have been served on this 15th day of March, 1993, as follows:
Administrative Judge By first class mail Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 2 copies Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.-20555 Administrative Judge By first class mail Richard F.
Cole 1 copy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge By first class mail Frederick J.
Shon 1 copy Atomic SaZety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission By first class mail U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission original plus 2 copies Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section i
L i
L r
i-Office of Commission-Appellate By first' class _ mail Adjudication 1-copy L
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory:
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Eugene Holler, Esq.-
By first class mail l
-Office of the General Counsel 1 copy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Joseph DiStefano By first class mail Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
I copy
}
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 404 Washington,-D.C.
20037 Peter G.
LeRoy By first class mail Duke Engineering and Services, Inc.
1 copy 230 South Tryon Street i
Post Office Box 1004 l
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Marcus A. Rowden By first class-mail Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver
.1 copy
-j
& Jacobsen i
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue,-N.W.
Suite 900 South Washington, D.C.
20004 l
j Diane Curran' By first class mail Harmon, Curran, Gallagher & Spielberg 1 copy-
_3 2001 S-Street NW Suite 430 Washington DC 20009 l
t Ronald Wascom, Deputy Asst. Secretary By first class mail Louisiana Dept. of Envir. Quality 1 copy Office of Air Quality & Radiation Protection Post Office Box B2135
. Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 J. Michael McGarry, III By first class mail Winston & Strawn 1 copy Washington, D'C l
1400 L Street N W 20005 l
Adjudicatory File By first class mail Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1 copy l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 1 l
~)
j Respectfully submitted, NATHALIE M. WALKER ROBERT B.
WIYGUL SIERRA CLUB LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
l 40'O Magazine Street, Suite 401
'i New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone:
(504) 522-1394 By:
u Nathalie M. Walker I
Attorneys for intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash March 19, 1993 E
+
P l
1 t
+
a 1
homer \\ansinter.L3
- 34,-
i 4
5 I
i
sy
[s
+
e I
p sr
/
i OFFI I TEXT bmc M (pr NRW februsry28.!993 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OFTIIE RUSSI AN FEDERATION CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM EXTRACTED FRCM NUCLEAR WEAPONS The Government of the United States of America and the Govemment of the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, Desiring to arrange the safe and prompt disposition for peaceful purposes of highly enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons resulting from the reduction of nuclear weaponsin accordance with existing agreements in the area of arms control and disarmament, Reafdrming their commitment to ensure that the development and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes are carried out under arrangements that will further the objectives of the Treaty on the IVon-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1
Affirming their commitment to ensure that the nuclear material transferred for peaceful purposes pursuant to this Agreement will comply with all applicable non-proliferation, physical protection, nuclear material accounting and control, and environmental requirements, Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I PURPOSE The Parties shall cooperate in order to achieve the following objectives:
- 0) The conversion as soon as practicable of highly enriched uranium (HEU) extracted from nuclear weapons resulting from the reduction of nuclear weapons pursuant to arms control agreements and other commitments of the Parties which is currently tJS ARMS CONTROL AND OtSAW. AMENT AGENCY, WAShNGTON. O C. 20451 CFFICE OF PUBUC AFFAIRS (202) 5:7-2577
~
- r estimated at approximately 500 metric tons in the Russian Federation, having an i
average assay of 90 percent or greater of the uranium isotope 235 into low enriched uranium (LEU) for use as fuelin commercial nudear reactors. For purposes of this Agreement, LBJ shall mean uranium enriched to less than 20 percent in the isotope 235; and (2) The technology developed in the Russian Federation for conversion of HEU resulting from the reduction of nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation may be used for conversion of United States HEU in the United States of America; and (3) The establishment of appropriate measures to fulfill the non-proliferation, physica]
r protection, nuclear material accounting and control, and environmental requirements of the Parties with respect to HEU and LEU subject to this Agreement.
ARTICLE 11 IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACTS AND AGRHEMENTS
- 1. TE2 Parties, through their Exocutive Agents, shall within six months from entry into force of this Agreement seek to enter into an initialimplementing contract to accomplish the ob}cetives set forth in Article I of this Agreement. The Parties may conclude additionalimplementing contracts or agreements pursuant to this Agreement, i
as required. For any purchase, the Executive Agents shall negotiate terms (including price), which shall be subject to approval by the Parties.
t
- 2. It is the Intent of the Parties that the initial implementing contract shall provide for, inter alia:
[
(i)The purchase by the United States Executive Ageht of LEU converted from HEU at facilities in the Russian Federation and sale of such LEU for commercial purposes. The United States will provide information to the Russian Federation on all commerciel l
disposition of such LEU; (ii) Initial delivery of LEU converted from HEU extracted from nuclear weapons resulting from the reduction of nuclear weapons pursuant to arms control agreements and other commitments of the Parties by October 1993,if possible; t
(iii) Conversion of no less than 10 metric tons having an average assay of 90 percent or greater of the uranium isotope 235 in each of the first five years, and,in each year thereafter, conversion of no less than 30 metric tons of HEU having an average assay of 90 percent or greater of the uranium isotope 235; however, specific amounts will be stipulated in the first and subsequent implementing contracts or agreements; i
i
r l
o.
1 s
l (iv) The participation of the United States private sector and of Russian enterprises; (v) The allocation among the United States of America, private sector firms of the j
United States of America, the Russian Federation, and Russian enterprises of any proceeds or costs arising out of activities undertaken pursuant to any implementing I
contracts; (vi) The use by the Russian side of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of LEU converted from HEU for the conversion of defense enterprises, enhancing the safety of.
nuclear power plants, environmental clean-up of polluted areas and the construction.
and operation of facilities in the Russian Federation for the conversion of HEU to LEU-i (vii) By agreement of the Parties an equivalent amount of HEU can substitute for the corresponding amount of LEU planned for purchase by the United States Executive Agent.
l ARTICLE III EXECUTIVE AGENT.S i
Each Party shall designate an Executive Agent to implement this Agreement. For the United States side, the Executive Agent shall be the Department of Energy. For the Russian side, the Executive Agent shall be the Ministry of the Russian Federation of Atomic Energy. After consultation with the other Party, either Party has the right to change its Executive Agent upon 30 days written notice to the other Party. If a -
govemmental corporation is established under United States law to manage the i
uranium enrichment enterprise of the Department of Energy,it Is the intention of the i
United States Government to designate that corpor' tion as the Executive Agent for the a
United States side.
l ARTICLE IV h
PRIORITY OF AGREEMENI i
In case of a.ny inconsistency between this Agreement and any implementing contracts or agreements, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.
l ARTICLE V i
ADDITIONAL MEASURES i
L The Executive Agent of the Russian Federation shall ensure that the quality of LEU derived from HEU subject to this Agreement is such that it is convertible to LEU usabla i
in commercial reactors. Specifications shall be agreed upon in the process of negotiatmg i
the initial and subsequent implementing contracts.
i
+
i
-4
~
2 The conversion of HEU subject to this Agreement shai! commence as s af ter the entry into force of the initialimplementing contract.
t l
- 3. The Parties shall, to the extent practicable, seek to arrange for more rapidl of HEU to LEU than that provided for in Article U (2) (iii).
i i
l
- 4. The United States of America shall use LEU acquired pursuant to this Agre its implementing contracts and agreements, when subject to United Statl and control, for peaceful purposes only.
i i
- 5. LEU acquired by the United States of America pursuant to this Agreemen implementing contracts and agreements related to it, shall be subject t accordance with the November 18,1977, Agreement Between the United Sta America and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Applic Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of N
- 6. The Parties shall maintain physical protection of HEU and LEU subject t
~
l Agreement. Such protection shall, at a minimum, provide protecti recommendation set forth in IAEA document INFCIRC/225/REV.2 conc l
physical protection of nuclear material.
i l
- 7. If the Parties enter into an agreement for cooperation concerning thl nuclear energy, nuclear material acquiredby theUnited States of America l this Agreement and its implementing contracts and agreements, when su States jurisdiction or control, shall be subject to the terms and condit l
Agreement for cooperation.
-l
- 8. The activities of the United States Govemment under this Agreement,or any implementing contract or agreement, shall be Eubject to the ava:
Government funds.
f l
- 9. In the event the United States Government does not h l
implementation of this Agreement, the Execut private United States company.
f
- 10. Prior to the conclusion of any implementing contract, the Parties sl transparency measures to ensure that the objectives of this Agreem f
h including provisions for nuclear material accounting and control and LEU. Specific -
r time that HEU is made available for conversion until it is conv h
ti tion of l
transparency measures shall be established in the same time frame ment l
the initialimplementing contract, and shall be executed by a separate agree I f
I
~
l v
t
- n. Frior to the conclusion of any implementing contract, the Parties shall agree on i
appropriate governing provisions for entry and exit, liability, and status of personnel, l
exemptions for taxes and other duties, and applicable law.
12.The Executive Agent of the United States of America shall use the LEU converted l
l from HEU in such a manner so as to minimize dismptions in the market and maxim'ze the overall economic benefit for both Parties. This Agreement shall have no effect'on contracts between Russian enterprises and United States companies for the delivery of uranium products which are currently in force and consistent with United States ane Russian law.
.13. This Agreement places no limitations on the right of the Russian Federation to dispose of LEU derived from HEU extracted from nuclear weapor:s resulting from the reduction of nuclear weapons pursuant to arms control agreements and other commitments of the Parties beyond the specific commitments set forth herein.
' ARTICLE VI -
ENTRY INTO FORCE. DUR ATION_Abil1 AMENDMENTS i
- 1. This Agreement shall enter into force upon signature and (tall remain in force until t
l the full amount of HEU provided for in paragraph I of Article Iis converted into LEU, delivered, and supplied to commercial customers.
- 2. Each Party may propose amendments to this Agreement. Agreed amendments shall j
enter into force upon signature and shall remain in force so long as th!s Agreement remains in force.
- 3. Each Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon 12 months written l
notification to the other Party.
4 Done at Washington this ISth day of February,1993,in duplicate fn the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
FORTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
i
8 aF8%q F
A'y F SHEET F
A y
TQd
%s#
urat n.un
{
Tr.cWh:te House Of6ce of the Pes sec:ir=y US-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT ON HIGHLY-ENRICHED U An ag-eement concerning the disposition of highly-enriched uraniu dismantlement of nuclear weapons in Russia has been initialed by Majo (Retired) William F. Burns, representing the United States of America, a Ministe-of Atomic Energy Nikolai Yegerov, representing de Russian d
agreement recuires formal approval by both governments, af te i
and entered into effect.
l Tne agreement is in two parts. Tne first part es:ablishes the partie p
commits them to cooperate in the conversion, as soon as practicable[
hd resulting from dis:nantlement of nuclear weapons in Russian into low-e i
uranium (LEU) for use as comme =ial reac:or fuel. It also calls on the part e establish appmpriate mezsures to ensure that this transaction is execu consis:ent with all applicable nonproliferation, physical security, ma and control, and environmental recuitements.
Tne second put of the agreement commits the par:ies to seek to enter implementing contract within twelve monds to accomplish ie l
i contract will provide, the first part. Tne agreement specifies that the imp ement ng among other things, for the following:
- Annual conversion of no less than 10 met-ic tons of HEU in the first and no less than 30 metric tons thereafter:
i h
-- The purchase by the US Department of Energy of HEU for conve United States to LEU and sale for commercial purposes; F
HEU at
[
-- The purchase by the US Department of Ene agreed:
US ARMS CONTRCL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY, WASHINGTON OFFICE OF PUEUC AFFAIRS (202) 6474677 i
l
2
- The participation of the US private sector; and i
f HEU sales to
- The use by the Russian Federation of a portion of the proceeds o upgrade the safety of nudear reactors in the former Soviet U i
f any proceeds
- The use by the Russian Federation, at its discre Russia to conver:HEU to L:_U.
Implementation of the a5:eement will be budget neutral for ih yer-by-yer basis. Payment for purchase of FEU would c Depar: ment of Energy's enrichment operations. Purchase e
US consumers or warheads Wntledin Russia would have no adverse im a
dLTm~wrTu e765?.huuTg~'
jo5in t.use the MSU to reduce the elec:ricity costs at ittemi. chm _eg ti lly-produced a
to operate at curieEF'eT:ip'I5f5FentTevcis and to process domes ca i NudearThreat uranium. The agreement will not be funded under the Sov et Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) Actof1991.
h e
e
m DE9l-006414
-o X
E To-L} u f
THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF DEPLETED URANIUM Uranium Enrichment Organization l
Oak Ridge, TN l
l b
e
[
1990 t
1
=
=E r
5 i
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
National Technical information Service s
o C3.4 Permanent Disposal Versus Long. term Stooge The major DU management cuestion remaining is whether the ultimate disposition of FDU
- hould be permanent disposal or long. tem retrievable storage. The cost of disposal ve
- sus that oflong-tenn retrievable storage and philosophical considerations will form the basis for making that decision. Tnis section addresses the cost for pe=anent dispcsal compared to that cf long-te= stcrage, including the cost of convening to U 0,.
3 By far the greatest cost associated with ulthate disposition of DU is the cor2 version of UF.
from the GDPs er of uranium metal from AVLIS to U 0,. Since the French process is the 3
enly available commercial process fcr UF conversion to U 0., the best estimate of 3
conversion cost is provided by their information.
A cost of 22 French francs /kgU -
(54.20/kgU) fer this conversien, assuming recoverv and credit for the Ducrire, has recently been quoted by French sources." An earlier communication had indicated a conve:sion cost of 17 French francr/kgU," which is equivalent to $330/kgU." The difference between the a
two values could represent profit margin, cost escalation, rate of exchange ancmalies, or a cowbination of all these factors. *D:e higher number (54.20/kgU) is considered more sound as the basis for estimating disposal costs since it was obtained more recently.
The second largest cost for ultimate disposition is expected to be for disposal or permanent storage. Tnis cost is estimated utilizing the waste disposal fees at the two government disposal sites, the Nevada Test Site (NTS) near Las Vegas and the Hanford site in
[
Washington. Information frca a waste acceptance seminar at Hanford and discussions with personnel at Hanford and at NTS prcvided waste disposal criteria and costs. Personnel at l
both sites agreed that UF, is not acceptable for pe:manent disposal since it is reactive if released to the environ:nent. It was also agreed that U,0, is an acceptable uranium disposal fonn. hIS currently charges SC/ft' for disposal of LLW, while Hanford's fee is
$35/ft'. These fees are for containerized disposal and are calculated for the total volume of the waste package. Tnerefore, even with efBeient packaging, low-density U 0,(Appendix i
3 II) would cost about 50.25/kgU fer NTS dispesal and about SLO 0/kgU for disposal at' l
Hanford. Personnel at both sites cautioned, however, that rapidly changing regulations and disposal requirements made it impossible to project disposal feer, even for the near future.
[
Tne higher-cost disposal cption (SLO 01gU) is therefore seen as a prudent basis for current estimates of disposal costs.
Other costs associated with the ultimate disposition of FDU are bandling, packaging, transportation, and storage cests. Packaging and handling costs should be sirrJlar whether the u!!imate disposition is pemanent disposal or long-term storage. Transportation costs I
would be ve:y dependent on the location of the AVLIS plant, conversion facilities, and the ultimate disposal or storage sites with respect to the Paducah GDP site. Since the sites for these new facilides have not been selected, a precise estimate of transportation cos:s is not i
UR. H. Dyer, DOE!ORO, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, letter to J. W. Parks, " Plant Visit to French Tails DeSucrination Facility,' dated May 1,1990.
"R. L Hoglund, Manin Marietta Internatienal, Inc., Brussels, Bc!giu=, letter to F. C.
l Huffman,
- Enrichment Tails Forms,* dated January 10,1990.
J
" October 10,1990, foreign exchange rate.
I 17 l
h i
f
.a-a my 9
~