ML20149E432
| ML20149E432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1994 |
| From: | Mcgarry J LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#294-15062 ML, NUDOCS 9405310094 | |
| Download: ML20149E432 (13) | |
Text
bb 0 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINOi BdAhd8 P3 :27 0FT ~
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 7 0-3 07 0- MT.:
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
PARTIES' MAY 16, 1994. JOINT PROGRESS REPORT I.
INTRODUCTION This (twelfth) joint progress report responds to the Licensing Board's request in its May 7, 1992, Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Prehearing Conference), ASLBP No.91-641 ML, that "the parties should provide the Board with a [ bimonthly]
joint progress report on their activities for meeting the prehearing schedule."
This report has been reviewed, and found.
acceptable, by NRC Staff Counsel, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (Intervenor), and Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
(Applicant).
II.
LICENSE APPLICATION STATUS On March 29, 1994, Applicant updated the CEC Proposed License Conditions and Environmental Report.
Applicant also made additional minor changes to the Proposed License Conditions and Environmental Report on April 11, 1994.
9405310094 940516 h
PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
4 1
III.
STAFF DOCUMENTS AND HEARING SCHEDULE
?
Based on the availability of the NRC staff SER on January 25, 1994, ths Licensing Board (during a telephone prehearing 5
conference on May 5, 1994) scheduled the hearing on safety issues c
for the weeks of July 18 and July 25, 1994,_at the Federal Courthouse in Shreveport.
Contentions B, H and Q will be litigated during the first week, and Contentions L and M will lxn litigated the second week.1/
During the May 5 conference, the Licensing Board directed the parties to identify dates for the filing of written testimony and pre-hearing motions.
The parties have agreed upon July 1 for testimony and July 8 for pre-hearing motions.
The publication date of the Final EIS, which will follow the DEIS publication date (of November 17, 1993) by about nine months, remains August 30, 1994, but could change depending on resolution of the DEIS comments received.
Based on these dates and the Board's schedule from the May 7,
1992, Memorandum and Order, the following hearing schedule is in effect:
1/
Intervenor filed a Motion to Consolidate Contentions B and'Q with Contention J, which would have the effect of. scheduling.
these contentions for the environmental hearing.
Applicant's Answer, filed May 6, and the NRC staff's Answer, filed May 11, 1994, opposed Intervenor's Motion.
On May 11 the Licensing Board Ordered Intervenor to reply to both Answers by May 18.
a e
r s
Prefiled testimony on technical issues is-due July 1, 1994; Pre-hearing motions are to be fil'ed by July 8, 1994;
-The hearing on technical issues will start July 18, 1994; Discovery on environmental issues will end October 25, 1994-(8 weeks following-issuance of FEIS);-
Prefiled. testimony on environmental issues is due.
' December 6, 1994 (6 weeks following end of discovery);.
and The hearing on environmental issues will start December 27, 1994 (3 weeks following filing of prefiled testimony).
IV.
DISCOVERY Discovery involves the following activity.
1.
On May 2, 1994, Intervenor filed a Motion to Compel
~
Applicant to answer Interrogatories Q-4 and Q-5 of its "3/24/94 Interrogatories."
Applicant intends to file an Answer opposing this Motion on May 17.
2.
On May 5, 1994, Intervenor withdrew bases 8-11 of Contention I, rendering Applicant's Motion for Summary 3
Disposition of April 13, 1994, moot.
3.
On May 11, 1994, Applicant filed a Motion to Compel Intervenor's responses to Applicant's Interrogatories regarding the identity of witnesses and the subject and:
~
substance of their testimony. -
4 I.
i 4.
On May 13, 1994, Intervenor filed a revised list of witnesses for technical issues.
V.
CONTENTIONS The brief summary below provides the status (e.g.,
- allowed, withdrawn) of each contention and basis along with a short summary 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.
A.
No Waste Disposal Plan.
WITHDRAWN.
Contention A alleges that LES has no plan for disposal of 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 Basis was then denied by the Board on December 19, 1991.
B.
Decommissionina Plan Deficienci_e_s.
PARTJALLY ALLOWED.
Contention B alleges that the Plan is inadequate because:
1.
ALLOWED.
The $9.5 million per year estimate allegedly does not include the cost of disposal and has no realistic basis; 2.
DENTED.
LES allegedly does not know how or where to dispose of LUF6; 3.
DENIED.
The decommissioning plan allegedly has no information about the amount of payments into the trust; 4.
ALLOWED.
There are allegedly no details provided about how decommissioning costs were derived; 5.
ALLOWED.
LES allegedly did not indicate which buildings would be decontaminated and dismantled; and O
6.
DENIED.
LES allegedly has not responded to the NRC's
' June 25, 1991, questions on the decommissioning plan.
C.
Lack of Protection Acainst Worst Case Accidents.
DENIED.
Contention C alleges 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.
DENIED.
Cylinder rupture -- Dependence on administrative controls allegedly is insufficient; fails allegedly to consider the sequoyah or Portsmouth accidents; s
2.
DENIED.
Worst case criticality accident -- LES position that criticality accidents cannot occur allegedly is not supported by the law or facts; 3.
WITHDRAWN.
Autoclave rupture -- Overheating allegedly could occur; 4.
DENIED.
Storage yard fire -- Procedures as_a method to prevent fires allegedly are inadequate; 5.
DENTED.
Transportation accident -- Assumption that a 30-minute fire will not occur during a crash allegedly is invalid; 6.
DENIED.
Airplane crash -- LES allegedly fails to consider the increased use of the Homer airport as a result of CEC construction and operation; and 7.
WITHDRAWN.
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.
DENIED.
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.
Cylinder Rupture.
WITHDRAWN.
Contention E alleges that LES fails to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 20.105 in the event of a cylinder rupture.
F.
Lack of Criticality Monitors.
DENIED (without prejudice).
Contention F alleges that LES violates 10 C.F.R.
S 70.24 by not providing criticality monitors.
G.
Inadeauate Protantion From Toxic Effects of UF6.
DENIRD.
- 1 Contention G alleges that the plant boundary exposure limits do not provide adequate protection of the public.
H.
Emercency Plannina Deficiencies.
PARTIALLY ALIOWED.
Contention H alleges that reasonable assurance of public health and safety is not provided in the event of an emergency.
The bases are:
1.
DRNIED.
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 organizations (along with their qualifications);
The portion of Basis 2 related to "[L]ocations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, and other offsite emergency support organizations" has been withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, answer to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention H; 3.
ALLOWND.
The EP allegedly does not include a list of hazardous chemicals used at the site; 4.
ALLORRD.
LES allegedly does not identify each type of radioactive materials accident for which actions will~
be needed to prevent offsite dose; 5.
ALLOWED.
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.
ALLOWED, WITHDRAWN IN PART.
The List of participating government agencies allegedly is inadequate; 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; -
~c
8.
WITHDRAWN.
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.
ALLOWED.
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.
DENIED.
LES allegedly should establish an EPZ; a UF6 release can kill people as far as 20 miles away; 13.
DENJED.
LES allegedly should indicate how it plans to notify people within a few miles of the plant; 14.
DENTED.
LES allegedly 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 offsite radiation exposures; This basis is withdrawn by CANT's June 12, 1992, answer to Applicant's-Interrogatories on Contention H; 17.
ALTDWED TN PART, WITHDRAWN IN PART.
LES allegedly 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; 18.
RITHDRAWN.
LES allegedly has not described instrumentation to monitor toxic materials;.
19.
RITUDRARN.
LES allegedly has not provided backup offsite emergency communications; 20.
ALLORBD.
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 only the most. minor of possible accidents; 22.
DFNIRD.
LES allegedly has not indicated how it will provide emergency plan information to local planning committees; and 23.
ALLORRD.
The EP Appendix allegedly lacks agreement letters and information on the capabilities of local emergency organizations.
1.
Incomolete License Avv11 cation.
ALTZMED, WITHDRARN IN PART.
Contention I alleges that the license application and associated documents is incomplete.
The Board has allowed Contention I,. limited to eleven areas, the first seven of which relate to the ER, and the remaining four of which (8-
- 11) relate to the SAR.
Intervenor withdrew areas 8-11 by Motion on May 5, 1994.
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.
RITNDRARN.
Finalization of design features for earthquakes, tornadoes, and missiles; 9.
RITHDRARN.
Quality assurance program for Class I equipment; 10.
WITHDRAWN.
Program for surveillance and maintenance of cylinders containing tails in interim storage; and 11.
RITHDRAWN.
Management and control program.
J.
IDadectuate Assessment of Costs Under NEPA.
PARTIALLY AIMMED.
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.
DENTED.
ER allegedly does not discuss environmental impact of tons of mixed radioactive waste; 2.
DENIED.
Environmental and safety analyses allegedly do not account for severe low probability accidents that result in discharges that exceed legal limits; 3.
ALLOWED.
LES allegedly has not provided adequate basis for decommissioning cost estimates; 4.
ALLOWED.
The need for the CEC allegedly is not shown; 5.
DENIED.
The impact of improper use of the CEC to produce weapons-grade UF6 allegedly has not been shown; 6.
ALLOWED.
The assessment of the effect on ground and surface water allegedly is inadequate; allegedly, the number of domestic 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.
DENTED.
Property values allegedly may be depressed; and 9.
ALLOWED.
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 Altotpative.
ALLOWED.
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.
Monitorina of Samplina Polis. 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.
WITHDRAWN.
Contention N alleges that opaque walls around small cells of centrifuges should be prohibited.
O.
Desian For Effective IAEA Inspections.
DENTED.
Contention 0 alleges that the NRC should require the cascade design be conducive to online gas enrichment monitoring by IAEA.
P.
Liability Insurance.
DENIED.
Contention P alleges that $120 million in liability insurance is inadequate.
Q.
Financial Oualifications. ALLOWED.
Contention Q alleges that LES has not demonstrated that it is financially qualified to build and operate the CEC.
R.
Manacement Competence and Intecrity.
DENTED.
Contention R alleges that Urenco has proven unable to control the spread of its enrichment technology.
S.
Quality Assurance.
DENIED.
Contention S alleges that the QA plan is inadequate.
T.
.Use of CPCs.
WITHDRAWN.
Contention T alleges that the facility should not be licensed without an analysis of the effects of substituting refrigerants.
(Withdrawn by Intervenor on February =11,'
1994.)
U.
DEIS -- Consultation With Other Aconcies.
EZZgpE8lg.
Contention U alleges'that the NRC did not consult adequately
[
with other agencies prior to issuing the DEIS.
(Withdrawn
~
by Intervenor.on February 11, 1994'.)
W.
DEIS Should Analyse-DUF DISPOSITION MAITING DECISION.
g Contention W alleges that the DEIS is deficient for not assessing the environmental impacts of converting depleted-UF to U O3 g and disposal.
6 i
VI.
CONCLUSION The parties will submit another progress report on July 15, 1994.
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
bo 3.
/)/s J
Michae'l M G ry,:III j
WINSTON.& STRAWN, May 16, 1994 ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY.
j SERVICES, L.P.
l 4
1 11 -
)
f se
'ey y
D-4
- Aeg, se meeie--e-w 4
4 - eme
Sith UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "94 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD EjfSfCRE gy
)
BR Eh / ICE In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070-ML
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Parties' May 16, 1994, Joint Progress Report" have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, this 16th day of May, 1994:
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Thomas S. Moore, 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 copies) i Administrative Judge Secretary of the Commission Frederick J.
Shon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission i
Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Attention: Chief, Docketing and l
Commission Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 (Original plus 2 copies)
Office of Commission Appellate Eugene Holler, Esq.
Adjudication Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 j
i l
l 1
(
e Ronald Wascom, Deputy Assistant Joseph DiStefano Secretary Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
i Office of Air Quality &
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Radiation Protection Suite 610 P.O.
Box 82135 Washington, D.C.
20037 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 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 Diane Curran Nathalie Walker Harmon, Curran, Gallagher &
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Spielberg 400 Magazine St.
c/o The Institute for Energy Suite 401 and Environmental Studies New Orleans, LA 70130 6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Adjudicatory File Dr. W. Howard Arnold Atomic Safety and Licensing Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Board Panel 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Suite 608 Commission Washington D.C.
20037 Washington, D.C.
20555 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Jbhn A. MacEvoy MINSTON & STRAWl, ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.