ML20127G887
| ML20127G887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1993 |
| From: | Mcgarry J LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13545 ML, NUDOCS 9301220107 | |
| Download: ML20127G887 (16) | |
Text
_____ - _______________.
/235e/li l
fyi ;i i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 am 19 n2 51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD p
In tho Matter of g
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070-ML (Claiborne Enrichment Conter)
PARTIES' JANUARY 15, 1993, JOINT PROGRESS REPORT This (fourth) joint progress report responds to the Licensing, Board's requent in its May 7, 1992, Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Prehearing Conferenco), ASLBP No.91-641 ML, that "the parties should provide the Board with a (bimonthly]
joint progress report on their activities for mooting the prehearing schedulo."
This report has been reviewed, and found acceptable, by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (Intervenor), NRC Staff Counsel, and Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
(Applicant).
The NRC staff has revised the anticipated publication dates of the Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement to reflect the timo needed for the applicant's responses to additional NRC staff questions on safety and environmental issues and to reflect delays, beyond the dates set forth in the third joint progress report, of the submission datos for the revised Emergency and Fundamental Nuclear Control Plans.
9301220107 930115
{DR ADOCK 07003070 n
q> 7 von
4 I.
Statun of ADDlicant's Answers to NRC Staff Ouestions Applicant has made, or will make, the following additional changes to the listed licence application documents in response to requests for additional information ("RAIs") from the NRC staff.
A.
LiqSEoe AnpligJaign Applicant will revise the License Application, Exhibit I, in the near future to reflect the revised decommissioning and depleted uranium hexafluorido disposition cost estimates contained in LES' letter to the NRC staff dated December 14, 1992.
B.
Emerooney PlaD Applicant held a meeting on November 5, 1992, with the NRC staff to discuss details to be included in the Emergency Plan.
Subacquently, the NRC staff sent LES a letter dated November 20, 1992, detailing the requested changes to the Emergency plan.
The Emergency Plan will be revised and submitted by January 29, 1993, to provide the additional detail requested by the NRC staff.
C.
Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Applicant will revise the FNMC plan by January 29, 1993, to respond to RAls datcd August 14 and 17, 1992.
D.
Environmental Report Applicant will re' ace ER sections 4.4 and 8.1 in the near future to be consistent with the information provided to the NRC staff in a letter from LES dated December 14, 1992, concerning decommissioning ard disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride.
The ER has boon revised on the following nino dates:
August 18, 1991, March 13, 1992, March 23, 1992, March 31, 1992, May 22, 1992, June 30, 1992, July 31, 1992, October 16, 1992, and January 11, 1993, (NEW) to respond to RAIs on these dates:
March 21, 1991, June 25, 1991, November 7,
- 1991, May 20, 1992, July 24, 1992, and November 20, 1992. [NEW)
E.
Eatety Analysis Report Applicant has revised the SAR twelve timos on the following dates:
August 16, 1991, November 27, 1991 January 9,
- 1992, February 28, 1992, March 13, 1992, March 31, 1992, May 29, 1992, June 30, 1992, July 6,
- 1992, July 31, 1992, October 16, 1992, and October 23, 1992, to respond to RAIs on those dates:
March 21, 1991, June 25, 1991, 8
November 7,
- 1991,
-3
December 26, 1991, May 20, 1992, and o
July 24, 1992.
Applicant will reviso SAR section 11.8 in the near future to be consistent with the information provided to the NRC staff in a letter from LES dated December 14, 1992, concerning decommissioning and disposition of depleted uranium hexafluorido.
Applicant will reviso appropriate SAR sections in the near futuro to be consistent with-the information provided to the NRC staff in a letter from LES dated December 20, 1992, concerning faci?.ities design critoria, classification of structures, t
systems, components, and control cystems discussed in a meeting with the NRC staff on October 20, 1992, and outlined in detail in a staff letter to LES dated October 29, 1992.
F.
Criticality Safety Encineerina RgR2Et The Criticality Safety Engincoring Report (CSER) will be revised prior to February 15, 1993, to respond to NRC staff Roquests for Additional Information sont to LES by letter dated December 23, 1992.
II.
STAFF DOCUMENTS AND HEARING SCHEQl!JJ The NRC staff has revised its projected publication date for the Safety Evaluation Report from April 9,_1993, to July 9, 1993,-
and the publication date for the Final Environmental Impact Statomont ("FEIS") from February 21, 1994, to May 16, 1994.
These datos aro_ subject to change in the future.
-4
4 Based on those projected datos and the Board's schedule from the May 7, 1992, Memorandum and Order:
Discovery on technical issues will and September 3, 1993 (8 wooks following issuance of SER);
Profiled testimony on technical issues is duo October 29, 1993 (8 wooks following and of discovery);
Tho hearing on technical issues will start flovember 19, 1993 (3 wooks following filing of profiled testimony);
Discovery on environmental issues will and July 11, 1994 (8 wooks following issuance of FEIS);
Profiled testimony on environmental issues is duo August 22, 1994 (6 weeks following and of discovery);
fand The hearing on environmental issues will start September 12, 1994 (3 wooks following filing of profiled testimony).
III.
DISCOVERY A.
Intervonor's Interrocatories 1.
Contentions A, H, I, J, and K April 14, 1992:
Intervenor served Interrogatorios on Applicant for Contentions A, H, I, J and K.
May 4, 1992:
Applicant answorod Intervenor's April 14 Interrogatories, and objected to answering soveral Interrogatorios.
June 2, 1992:
Intervonor filed a Motion to Compel.
June 18, 1992:
The Board ruled on discovery disputes portaining to_-Contentions'B,-H, I, J_and K.
July 8, 1992:
Applicant responded to tho Board's Ruling _and answered rolovant portions of Intervenor's April 14 Interrogatories..
9 July 27, 1992:
Intervonor filed a second Motion to compel (which Applicant answorod on 1
August 11, 1992).
August 24, 1992:
Board Order denied July 27 Motion Without prejudico.
September 24, 1992: Applicant filed answers to questions provided by Intervonor in the July 27 Motion.
2.
Contentions L and M April 28, 1992:
Intervonor served Interrogatories on Applicant for Contentions L and M.
May 18, 1992:
Applicant responded and objected to discovery of the Physical Security Plan and Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan, and sought a Protective Order.
July 8, 1992:
The Board approved Applicant's Motion for Protectivo Order.
April 28,.992:
Intervonor served Intorrogatories on the Executive Director For Operations and NRC staff, portaining to Contentions L and M.
May 18, 1992:
The NRC staff responded and objected to providing propriotary or classified information and filed a Motion for Protective Order.
This was not opposed and was granted by the Board on July 28.
2.
Other Interrogatories May 14, 1992:
Intervenor served Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on the Executive Director For Operations and NRC staff portaining to all admitted contentions.
July 2, 1992:
The NRC staff respondod-to the discovery requests, objected to certain of the requests, and filed a motion for a protective order.
This was not opposed by Intervenor.
The Board granted the NRC staff's motion on September 18, 1992.
. L
~
4 B.
Applicant'n Interroaatorica 1.
Contention H April 10, 1992:
Applicant served Interrogatorios on Intervonor for Contention H.
June 12, 1992:
Intervonor Answered Applicant's interrogatories and filed a Motion for Protective Order.
(Applicant did not object to Intervenor's Motion for Protective Ordor.)
2.
Other contentions August 11, 1992:
Applicant served Interrogatorios on Intervenor for Contentions B, I, J, K, L, M and Q.
December 2, 1992 Intervenor answered some of Applicant's August 11 Interrogatories and objected to others.
December 24, 1992 Applicant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervonor.
January 11, 1993 Licensing Board granted Intervenor's Motion for Extention of Time to Respond to Applicant's Motion to Compel.
(Applicant consented to the extension.)
s IV.
CollTEliTIolis The status of some contentions has changed as a result of some contentions being withdrawn (although the status has not i
changed since the parties' September 15 progress report).
Thorofore, a brief summary below provides the status (e.g.,
allowed, withdrawn) of each contention and basis.
A short summary of each contention and Basis is provided for orientation purposes.
This summary-was prepared by Applicant's counsel and-is not intended to alter or supersede the actual scope or content-of the Contentions and Bases as allowed by the Board.
7
A.
Uo Wagte Disposal Plan.
WTTHDRAWN.
Contention A alleges that LES has no plan for disposal of i
depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) and that LES must comply with the mixed waste requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
This contention was withdrawn and the Basis was added to contention B.
The Basin was then denied by the Board on December 19, 1991.
B.
pe_ctmaiasjonina Plan Deficienciel.
PARTTALLY AT,LG(RD.
Contention B alleges that the Plan is inadequate because:
1.
ALLONRD The $9.5 mil 41on per year estimate allegedly does not include the cost of disposal and has no realistic basis; 2.
DEN TED LES allegedly does not know how or where to dispose of DUF6; 1
3.
DENTRD The decommissioning plan allegedly has no information about the amount of payments into the trust; 4.
ALLONRD There are allegedly no details provided about how decommissioning costs were derived; 5.
ALLOWRD LES allegedly did not indicate which buildings would be decontaminated and dismantled; and 6.
DENTED LES allegedly has not responded to tha NRC's June 25, 1991, questions on the decommissioning plan.
C.
Lack of Protection Acainst Worst Case Accidents.- DENTED.
Contention C allecos that LES characterizes a number of reasonably foreseeable accidents as not credible and fails to fully evaluate their potential impacts on health and the environment, to protect. adequately against them, or to provide adequate emergency measures.
The bases are:
1.
-DENTED Cylinder rupture -, Dependence on administrative controls allegedly is insufficient; fails _ allegedly to consider the Sequoyah or Portsmouth accidents; 2.
DENTED Worst' case criticality accident -- LES position that criticality accidents cannot occur allegedly is not supported by the law or facts; 3.
!vrTNDRAWN Autoclave rupture -- Overheating allegedly could occur;,
4 4.
DENTRD Storage yard fire -- procedures as a method to prevent fires allegedly are inadequate; 5.
DENTRD Transportation accident -- Assumption that a 30-minute fire will not occur during a crash allegedly is invalid; 6.
DENTED Airplane crash -- LES allegedly fails to consider the increased use of the Homer airport as a result of CEC construction and operation; and 7.
RTTHDRAWN Gas well explosion -- LES allegedly does not consider the possibility or consequences of a natural gas explosion from one of the local wells.
D.
Lax Attitude Toward Criticality safety.
DENTED.
Contention D alleges that LES " demonstrates a dangerously smug attitude toward serious accidents.
corporate attitude may not contain a serious commitment to maintaining preparedness for a criticality accident."
E.
CVlinder RuDture.
WITUDRAWN.
Contention E alleges that LES fails to meet the requirements of 1G C.F.R. S 20.105 in "he event of a cylinder rupture.
F.
kack of Criticality Monitors.
DENTED (without prejufd.ce).
Contention F alleges that LES violates 10 C.F.R.
S 70.24 by not providing criticality monitors.
G.
Inadecuate Protection From Toxic Effects of UF6.
DENTED.
Contention alleges that tty plant boundary exposure' limits 3
do not provide adequat'. protectiJn of the public.
H.
Emercency Planninc Deficiencies.
PARTTALLY ALLOWED.
Contention H alleges that reasonable assurance of public health and safety is not provided in the avent of an emergency.
The bases are:
1.
DENTED LES allegedly has not responded to the NRC's questions of June 25, 1991; 2.
ALTDWED, WITHDRAWN IN PART LES allegedly has not identified primary routes for access of emergency.
equipment or evacuation, or offsite emergency support crganizations (along with their qualifications);
The portion of Basis 2 related to "[L)ocations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, and other offsite
-9_
emergency support organizations" has'been withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, answer to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention H; 3.
ALLOWED The EP allegedly does not includes a list of hazardous chemicals used at the site; 4.
ALLOWRD LES allegedly does not identify each type of radioactive materials accident for which actions will be needed to prevent offsite dose; 5.
ALLOWRD More details about notification of state authorities allegedly must be provided; 6.
ALLOWRD The operating crew allegedly is " skeletal";
allegedly not clear are:
emergency response authority when a partial crew is present, communication information, emergency training requirements, and levels of authority; 7.
ALLOWRD, WTTHDRAWN TN PART The list of participating government agencies allegedly is inadoquate; The portion of Basis 7 that applies to the Homer Police Department has been withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, answer to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention H; 8.
MTTHDRAWN EP allegedly does not indicate the type.or thoroughness of training for emergency response personnel; 9.
DENTED EP allegedly does not specify a media information contact; 10.
ALLORRD EP allegedly fails to describe authority, capability, responsibility and interfaces with government agencies; 11.
DENTED EP allegedly is fatally flawed by not providing specific guidelines for offsite protective actions; 12.
DENIRD LES allegedly should establish an EPZ; a UF6 release can kill peorie as far as 20 miles away; 13.
DENTRD LES allegedly should indicate how it plans to
~
notify-people within a few miles of the plant; 14.
DENTED-LES allcgedly should indicate how it plans to evacuate elderly people living near the plant; 15.
DENTED LES allegedly should provide residents within 5 mi. of the CEC and inmates of Wade-prison with regular, updated emergency procedures; 16.
WITHDRAWN Allegedly no provisions are provided for projection of off site radiation exposures; This basis is withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, i
answer to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention H; 17.
ALLOWED IN PART. WTTHDRAWN IN PART LES alagedly has-given only the vaguest description of proposed measures to mitigate onsite (not offsite) consequences of-accidents; The parts of this basis related to the " vaguest description of proposed measures for mitigating onsite consequences of accidents at the CEC" and
" approximate times required to accomplish a safe shutdown" are withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, answer to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention H; e -
18.
WTTHDRAWN LES allegedly has not described instrumentation to monitor toxic materials; 19.
WITHDRAWN LES allegedly has not provided backup offsite emergency communications; 20.
ALLORRD LES allegedly has not described plans to ensure instruments and supplies are well-stocked and in working order; 21.
DENTED The EP allegedly plans for cnly the most minor of possible accidents; 22.
DRNTED LES allegedly has not indicated how it will provide emergency plan information to local planning committees; and 23.
ALLORRD.
The EP Appundix allegedly lacks agreement letters and informatton on the capabilities of local' emergency organizatiens.
I.
IncomDiete License ADD 11 cation.
ALLOWED.
Contention ~I alleges that the license application and associated documents is incomplete.
The Board has allowed Contention I, limited'to eleven issues, the first.seven.cf which relate to the ER, and the remaining four of which (8--
- 11) relate to the SAR:
1.
Environmental-impacts of site preparation and construction;
2.
Monitoring data to support source term determinations for gaseous effluents; 3.
Evaluation of means of reducing liquid effluent concentrations; 4.
Assessment of radiological impacts of plant operation; 5.
Environmental effects of accidents; 6.
Baseline data for pre-operational effluent and environmental monitoring program; 7.
Program to maintain releases as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA);
8.
Finalization of design features for earthquakes, tornadoes, and missiles; 9.
? Quality assurance program for Class I equipuent; 10.
Program for surveillance and maintenance of cylinders containing tails in interim storage; and 11.
Management and control program.
J.
Inadenuate Assessment of Costs Under NEPA.
PARTIALLY ALLOWRD.
Contention J alleges that the benefit-cost analysis does not adequately describe or weigh the" costs or impacts of the CEC and fails to demonstrate-that there is a need for the CEC.
The bases are:
1.
DRNTED ER allegedly does not discuss environmental impact of tons of mixed radioactive waste; 2.
DRNTED Environmental and safety analyses allegedly do not account for severe low probability accidents that result in discharges that exceed legal limits;_
3.
ALLORRD LES allegedly has not provided adequate basis for decommissioning cost estimates; 4.
ALLOWED The need for the CEC allegedly is not shown;-
S.
DRNIED The impact of improper use of the CEC to-produce weapons grade UF6 allegedly has not been shown; 6.
ALLOWRD The.asse:sment of the effect on ground and surface water sLloyedly is inadequate; allegedly, the number of domes a wells-is incorrect;-Lake Claiborne
- was not dammed for flood control; allegedly LES and NRC recognize that contamination of the area is virtually inevitable; The Board accepted this basis, restricting it to potential impacts on present and possible future surface and groundwater drinking water supply; 7.
DENIED The effect on wetlands allegedly has not been evaluated; 8.
DENIED Property values allegedly may be depressed; and 9.
ALLOWRD The CEC and closing the local road allegedly will have negative economic and sociological impacts on the local minority communities.
K.
No Discussion of No-Action Alternative.
ALLOURD.
Contention K alleges that LES has not discussed the no-action alternative, as required by NEPA.
L.
Online Enrichment Monitorina.
ALLOWED.
Contention L alleges that online enrichment monitoring should be provided to prevent unlawful diversion of production to highly enriched uranium.
M.
Monitorine of Samplina Ports, Process Valves. and Flances.
ALLOWED.
Contention M alleges that LES will not adequately monitor employee access to process connections to prevent production of HEU by batch recycling.
N.
Centrifuce Cell Walls.
WITHDRNfN.
Contention N alleges that opaque walls around small cells of centrifuges should be prohibited.
O.
DesicD For Effective IAEA InsDections.
DENIRD.
Contention 0 alleges that the NRC should require the cascade design be conducive to online gas enrichment nonitoring by IAEA.
P.
Liability Insurance.
DENIED.
Contention P alleges that $120 million in liability insurance is inadequate.
Q.
Financial Oualifications. ALLOWED.
13 -
Y.
Contention Q alleges that LES has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to build and operate the CEC.
R.
MAAacement Comoetence and Intecrity.
DENIED.
Contention R alleges that Urenco has proven unable to control the spread of its enrichment technology.
S.
Quality Atgurance.
DENTED.
Contention S alleges that the QA plan is inadequate.
V.
CONCLUSION The parties will submit another progress report on March 15, 1993.
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
hi.N
(
FOK :
J[MichaelMcGarry, III WINSTON & STRAWN, January 15, 1993 ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
i ;tr L ii.D USHHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 SW 19 R2 51 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD a n" A. UJ Y In the Matter of DuCMIN; 4
i nlC dim LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No. 70-3070 (Claiborne Enrichment Center)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Parties' January 15, 1993, Progress Report" have been served on the following by deposit-in the United States Mail, first class, this 15th day of January, 1993:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Morton B.
Margulies, Chairman Richard F.
Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing.
Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington,-D.C.
20555 (2 copics)
Administrative Judge-Secretary of the Commission Frederick J.
Shon U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Attention: Chief,-Docketing and Commission Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 (Original plus 2 copies)
Office of Commission Appellate-Eugene Moller,-Esq.
Adjudication Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 6
Wasnington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ronald Wascom, Deputy Assistant Joseph DiStefano Secretary Louisiana-Energy Services, L.P.
Office of Air Quality &
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Radiation Protection Suite 610 P.O.
Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135
_ Washington,_D.C.
20037 i
\\
1 Peter G.
LeRoy Marcus A.-Rowden Duke Engineering and Services, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Inc.
Jacobsen 230 South Tryon Street 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 1004 Suite 900 South Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Washington, D.C.
20004 Diano Curran Nathalie Walker Harmon, Curran, Gallagher &
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Spielberg 400 Magazine St.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 401 Suite 430 New Orleans, LA 70130 Washington, D.C.
20009-1125 Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. NuclearrRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
h& Y W&
EO J./ Michael McGarry,/III WINSTON & STRAWN, January 15, 1993 ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
f s