ML20198K954

Citizens Against Nuclear Trash Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Contentions B & J.3.* Applicant Decommissioning Cost Estimate Rejected. W/Certificate of Svc

ML20198K954
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	10/07/1997
From:	Curran D, Walker N AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP.
To:
References
CON-#497-18557 ML, NUDOCS 9710240185
Download: ML20198K954 (15)

Text

.._-

Q. ' !. (g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

4.-

4 DOMO BEFORETHE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO/

DCT - 71997 p

in the Matter of d Neuw I Louisiana Ener

) Docket No. 70 070 amo (Claiborne Enn);y Services g

g ?iil chment Center)

) October 7,1997 6

)

CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASil'S PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING CONTENTIONS B AND J.3 E. INTRODUCTION

1. Pursuant to the Board's instructions during the Hearing Conference of September 30,1997, Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (" CANT"), hereby submits the follow-ing Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Contentions B and J.3 (hereinafter " Proposed Supplemental Findings"). As instructed by the Board, these Proposed Supplemental Findings respond to the questions posed in Commission Order CLI 97 Il (Sep-tember 3,1997), regarding the Board's Partial Initial Decision (Resolving Contentions B and J.3), LDP 97-3,45 NRC 99 (1997). Also pursuant to the Board's Hearing Conference Order, CANT responds to the questions posed by the Licensing Board during the Hearing Conference.

2. These Proposed Findings supplement rather than replace or alter CANT's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding CANT's Contentions B and J 3 (May 26, 1995) and CANT's Proposed Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding CANT's Contentions B and J.3 (June 26,1995). Because of space limitations, CANT has not attempted to fully restate every relevant factual assertion and legal argument made in those pleadings.

H. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. On March 7,1997, following discovery and a hearing, the Licensing Board issued LBP-97 3, its Partial Initial Decision addressing the adequacy of LES' license application and the NRC Staff's Final Environmental impact Statement ("FEIS") with respect to decommis-o 9710240185 971007 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C

PDR

2

< sioning funding for the Claiborne Enrichment Center (" CEC"), a uranium enrichment facility proposed by Louisiana Energy Services ("LES"). Although the Board found that LFE cost estimate for the conversion of depleted uranium hexaGuoride ("DUF6") to uranium oxide

("U308") was inadequate, it approved the cost estimate in all other respects.

4. CANT filed a petition for review on those aspects of the Board's decision which approve LES' decommissioning cost estimate. Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's Petition for Partial Review of LDP 97 3 (May 8,1997). CANT also filed a Petition for Review of Order Denying CANT's Waiver Petition (May 8,1997), and LES filed a Petition for Partial Review of LBP 97 3 (May 9,1997).

5. On September 3,1997, the Commission issued CLI 9711. The Commission did not grant or deny any of the three pending petitions for review of LBP 97 3, but rather stated that before taking action on the petitions, it required "clarincation of one issue" decided by the Board in LBP 974 relating to the technical basis for LES' decommissioning funding estimate.

M. at 1, 3-4.

6. Before proceeding to its questions, the Commission observed that:

[t]he migration of U308 from a deep-mine disposal site depends critically on the characteristics of groundwater at the site. As part of its analysis, the staff used groundwater characteristics from an actual near surface site to calculate solubilities and migration of waste radionuclides from two hypothetical deep-disposal sites. Based on these results, the staff then estimated potential dose impacts from the deep disposal of U308 via radiological exposure pathways (tgu drinking water, irrigated crops, and fish), and found them within regulatory limits.

M. at 2. The Commission then quoted porQns of CANT's petition which challenged as

" seriously deficient" the staff's technical analysis, and charged that the Staff "used a very nar-row mix of settings, and then picked and chose data that were not representative of the range of potential conditions." M., aucting Petition for Review at 6, 7, The Commission observed that the Board " rejected CANT's effort to discredit the feasibility of deep mine disposal" and that "[t]he Board noted that no particular mine has been

3 gud e identified as a potential deep disposal site so that exact characteristics of ground-wales 3n e

• 1entially acceptable deep disposa facility are not available for analysis." M. at 3.

j a We Commission also noted the Staff's citation of " data that establish the range of Etential values likely to be found for each sensitive parameter in deep groundwater at the hypothetical geological settings," and observed that the Board had approved the Staff's use of a single set of values taken from near surface data for sensitive parameters, given that the near.

surface values fell within the expected range for deep groundwater parameters. M. at 3.

9. The Commission then asked whether the Board:

found it plausible that a deep mine with the exact near surface values chosen for each sensitive parameter used by the Staff would be available, or if the Board simply found it plausible that there is a mine in the U.S. with characteristics falling within the expected range.

M. at 3.

10. The Commission also asked why - if the Board relied only on the plausibility of the existence of a mine with characteristics lying within the potential range -- can the Staff's dose impact calculations be taken as representative of disposal in mines with groundwater char-acteristics that differ from the Staff's single set of values? M., slip op, at 3 4. The Commis-sion asked the Board to provide any record evidence that would provide assurance that varying the values of the sensitive pH, retardation, and redox potential factors would not result in dose impacts above the regulatory limit. M.

I1. On September 30,1997, the Licensing Board held a Hearing Conference at which it questioned counsel for the parties on the Commission's questions and on questions ofits own regarding the remand in CLI 97-II, At the conclusion of the Hearing Conference, the Board ordered the parties to submit proposed findings addressing the Commission's questions in CLI-9711 and the Board's questions in the Hearing Conference.

4-111.

TIIE BOARD FOUND IT PLAUSIBLE TIIAT A SilNE EXISTS WITII GROUNDWATER CIIARACTERISTICS FALLING WITillN TIIE EXPECTED RANGE.

i

12. Although CANT cannot speak for the Board, and the Board did not explicitly address the question, it does not appear that the Board concluded that a specific mine exists with groundwater characteristics 'alling within the expected range. Certainly, the Staff did not make any such assertion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") or in its testimony. Rather, the FEIS acknowledges that no candidate sites for the deep disposal of U308 have been identined. FEIS at A 10. Thus, "in order to compensate for lack of detailed knowledge of a specinc site," the NRC Staff claims to have assumed that the site for the depleted uranium disposal would have the same geologic characteristics as two assertedly " rep-tesentative" sites whose characteristics had been evaluated in previous studies for the disposal of high level radioactive waste.1

13. These " generic" sites, as described in the Rechard and Stottlemyre reports (see note 1), consisted of a granite formation overlain by a thin layer of glacial till, located at the Idaho National 1.aboratory, and an interbedded sandstone basalt formation, located at the Hanford Reservation. The NRC Staff added to this a set of other assumptions that were not derived from these two allegedly representative studies, regarding groundwater chemistry, uranium behavior, and transport of uranium, and proceeded with an environmental impact analysis which concludes that the impacts of deeper than surface burial are insignincant. FEIS at 4-66 68; FEIS at A 10 - A 15, 3

FEIS at A-10, citing Pechard; R.P. (ed), Initial Performance Assessment of Disoosal of Soent Nuclear Fuel and Hich Level Waste Stornee at the Idaho National Laboratory, SAND 93 2330/1, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, Nhi, December,1993t Stottlemyre, V. A., G.ht. Petrie, and hi. hiullen, " Computer Enhanced ' Release Scenario' Analysis for a Nuclear Waste Repository," in Scientine Basis for Nuclear Waste hianacement, Vol.1, bl.J. hicCarthy (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, NY 1979.

. 14. Based on the FE!S, it appears the Board found it plausible that a mine exists with grou.idwater characteristics falling within an expected range.2 The Board found the Staff's analysis using single values was acceptab!c because those values allegedly fall within and are

" representative" of the " expected range" as defined by the Staffin the FEIS. LBP 97 3,45 NRC at 120 21.

IV.

TIIE RECORD CONTAINS NO ANALYSES TII'.T WOULD PROVIDE ASSURANCE TIIAT VARYING Tile VALUES OF TIIE SENSITIVE Pfl.

RETARDATION, AND REDOX POTENTIAL FACTORS WOULD NOT RESULT IN DOSE IMPACTS ABOVE TIIE REGULATORY LIMIT.

15. Both the Commission and the Board have asked questions regarding whether the record contains any analyses that would provide assurance that varying the values of the sensi-tive pH, retardation, and redox potential factors would not result in dose impacts above the regulatory limits. CLI-97-11, slip op, at 3-4; Hearing Conference Transcript (hereinafter "H.C. Tr.") at 6.

16. At the Hearing Conference, the NRC Staff conceded that the record contain no information on any doses for parameters other than a pH of 7.8, a retardation factor of 1200, and a redox potential of minus 100 millivolts. H.C. Tr. at 9. The Staff also acknowledged that "there is no rigorous mathematical calculation type of analysis done on the range of values that the staff put forth in the record." H.C, Tr. at 8. There is only "some talk" during the hearing. Id.

17. We have examined the 1995 hearing record and find that this " talk" consisted only of testimony by an NRC Staff witness, Dr. Price, regarding the effects of varying eH on dose assessments. 1995 Hearing Tr. at 1152. While acknowledging that a different eH would pro-duce greatly increased solubility of uranium, Dr. Price maintained that a 3,500-fold increase in the solubility of uranium would not significantly affect the NRC Staff's dose calculations. Id.

2 As discussed below, CANT disputes the NRC Staff's assertions regarding the range that is expected and whether the values used by the Staff fall within the appropriate range.

6-

18. Dr. Price's calculation, which was based on a limited variation in only one of vari-ous parameters relevant to dose assessment, is insufncient to demonstrate that the many and signincant errors and misrepresentations made in the FEIS regarding the solubility of uranium would have no signincant effect on the FEIS' dose calculations. Moreover, we do not agree with LES that Dr. Price's on the spot calculation regarding a single parameter in a complex and multi parameter analysis amounted to a valid " sensitivity analysis." H.C. Tr. at 9. To be meaningful, a sensitivity analysis would have to address all major parameters.

V. TIIE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF DOSE Ih1 PACTS OF DEEP MINE BURIAL OF DEPLETED URANIU31 TAILS.

19. We have re-examined the 1995 hearing record in light of the Staff's renewed claims in the Hearing Conference that the dose impacts analysis reported in the FEIS was conserva-tive and properly representative of a range of expected values for the parameters evaluated. In conducting our review, we are mindful of the fact that LES and the Staff have the ultimate burden of proving that the analysis in the FEIS is adequate to justify the plausibility of LES' chosen di:posal strategy. As demonstrated in the detailed written and oral testimony of Dr.

Makhijani, CANT presented expert testimony raising more than a reasonable inference that the Staff's analysis is inadequate, In the face of Dr. Makhijani's detailed and specific prima facic evidence, it is not enough for LES or the Staff to prese t general and unsupported assertions to the effect that they have confidence in the analysis, or that a suitable site can be found. Sec colloquoy in response to Judge Shon's question, H.C. Tr. at 25-28. Rather, LES and the Staff must present factual evidence to overcome the inference raised by CANT. Louisiana Power &

Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station), ALAB 732,17 NRC 1076,1093 (1983). This they have failed to do.

20. We find the record shows that the Staff's analysis was utterly inadequate tojustify deep mine burial of depleted uranium tails, In particular, (a) the Staff inaccurately defined the expected range of conditions for groundwater and failed to use values that fell within the

7-range, (b) contrary to the Staff's and LES's claim, the Staff's analysis was not conservative; and (c) on their face, the Staff's dose calculations are so low as to be incredible,

21. The net effect of the NRC Staff's biased assumptions in regard to sensitive parame-ters is that the transport of uranium into the human environment may have been misestimated by millions of times, tens of millions of times, or even more, hiakhijani at 12-13,14; Tr. at i181 82.

A. The Staff Inaccurately Defined the " Expected Range" for Groundwater Charac-teristics.

22. Not only did the Staff fail to perform a sensitivity analysis or uncertainty analysis on the full range of expected values for pH, eH, and retardation, but it did not even accurately report the range of values that could be expected in the types of sites that were studied.3

23. For instance, in the FEIS, the NRC Staff reports typical eH values for uranium mine water as -89 to +60 mV.4 FEIS at A 12. However, the Swedish study which the Staff claims to have relied on in its FEIS actually reports a much larger range of eH values for uranium mines: -212 to +220. hiakhijani at 12. The FEIS's use of a much smaller range constitutes a misrepresentation of the data. This misprepresentation is significant because the eH value used in the analysis could have a great effect on the calculated amount of uranium dissolved in the groundwater. Id.

24. hforeover, the NRC Staff cites no comparable eH values for other deep ground-water ranges, leaving data for uranium mines as the only basis for comparison of its choice of eH value for this parameter. hiakhijani at 11,

25. Furthermore, while the Swedish study indicates that deep groundwaters in Swedish granite are generally reducing, (KBS at 116) the NRC Staff has made no attempt to establish 3

See CANT's Proposed Findings at 23-28 for a detailed discussion of why the lack of an uncertainty analysis is fatal to the validity and credibility of the Staff's analysis.

4 Oddly, the Staff's analysis used an eH value of -120, which is outside the range reported in the FEIS.

8 the applicability of data from a granite formation in Sweden to the basalt sandstone formation in the United States on which the FEIS was partially based. As discussed in Dr. hiakhijani's testimony, the differences in the characteristics of host rocks must be taken into account in per-forming an environmental analysis hiakhljani at 9,1995 licating Tr. at 1169. This testimony also showed that there are far better data available, which are more relevant, and therefore Dr. Price's use of the Swedish data is irrelevant and scientincally indefensible.

26. We also find that the single values used by the Staff in its dose analysis are not rep-resentative of an expected range for groundwater characteristics. For example, the Staff chose to use a surface water pl{ value of 7.8, inexplicably ignoring available data from Hanford showing that pli values for deep disposal could be over 9. hiakhijani at 9-10; Tr. at 1142.

Variations in pil could have a signincant effect on the solubility and transport of uranium, and therefore the calculated dose to the public, hL

27. hioreover, the FEIS assumes that the depleted uranium tails will be disposed ofin a reducing environment, for which the NRC Staff has used an eH value of-100 mV in its environmental impact analysis. FEIS at A 12. As conceded by Dr. Price, this value falls entirely outside the range of cil values cited by the NRC Staffitself as typical of uranium mine water, bl., Table A 5; Price, Tr. at i147. All of the eli values cited by the NRC Staff as typical of uranium mine water ( 89 to +60 mV) would result in a higher solubility of uranium in groundwater. hiakhijani at 11.

28. Similarly, the Staff has ignored available data on retardation factors from basalt and granite locations in the U.S., and chosen to rely on a 1978 Swedish study instead.5 Based on the Swedish study, the Staff used a retardation factor of more than 1,200.6 However, the 5

FEIS at A-13, citing Karn Bransle-Sakerhet (KBS), Handlingand Final Storace of Unreprocessed Spent Nuclear Fuel, Vol.1, Karn Bransele Sakeerhet, Stockholm, Sweden,1978.

6 FEIS at A 13.

9 National Academy of Selences ("NAS") reports retardation factors for granite of between 10

.-r and 500, and for basalt of between 20 and 1,000, with 50 being a recommended estimate if one number is to be used for both geologic settings.7 The lowest NAS estimate of retardation factor is more than 100 thes lower than the value assumed by the NRC Staffin its calcula-tions. The higher retardation factor used by the Staff would produce. lower dose estimates than the values given by the NAS; thus, the NRC Staff's choice of retardation factor underestimates potential doses. This is only one example of the NRC Staff's selective use of data, which results in biased estimates. Makhljani at 10.

B. The Staff Failed to Show That a Deep hiine With the Values Selected By the Staff Could Be Found.

29. Dr. Price testified on cross examination that the conditions that would be selected 3

for a deep disposal site would be a reducing environment. S.es 1995 Hearing Tr. at 1148. The Board also concluded in LBP-97 3 that the Staff wculd choose to dispose of depleted uranium tails in a reducing environment. 45 NRC at 121. However, as testified by Dr. hiakhljani, it is not valid to generally assume that deep groundwater is reducing. There are oxidizing deep environments, and in fact, the one location which is being studied for high level waste disposal is an oxidizing environment, hiakhijani at 13. Aforeover, the NRC Staff's own data for uranium mines show that some cH values for water and uranium mines are oxidizing. FEIS at A.12. Table A.5, column 4. A 1992 Sandia Report gives an example of a site with well-characteri7ed groundwater, at which uranium solubility ranyed over five orders of magnitude (100,000 times), hiakhljani at 1415; Sandia National Laboratories: Performance Assessment of the Proposed D::posal of Depleted Uranium as a Class A low-Level Waste at 49 (December 16, 1992) Exhibit I Aht 70.

7 NAS at 147.

~.. - -.-. -,.

. 30. In sum, there is no basis for Dr. Price's conclus n that -100 is an appropriate value for eH, or the conclusion in LBP-97 3 that a deep mine with reducing groundwater con-ditions will be available.

31. hforcover, as the NRC Staff conceded, there is no testimony in the record or other exhibits indicating that, assuming a site could be selected for its reducing groundwater condi-tions, it would also have the preferred pH and retardation conditions. H.C. Tr. at 16.

Although LES cites several assertions in the FEIS to the effect that the NRC Staff plans to select a disposal site carefully, H.C. Tr. at 18 20, statements regarding the Staff's good inten-tions do not constitute evidence that such sites exist.

32. There is no testimony in the record that states or fairly implies that if a suitable mine or uranium mine cannot be found that meets the 10 CFR Part 61 performance standards, that a suitable location for a newly excavated site meeting the part 61 standards could be found. Sec colloquoy in response to Judge hicore's question, H.C. Tr. at 19.

33. htoreover, there is no evidence in the record on the cost differential between an abandoned mine of whatever kind and a newly excavated site. Sec colloquoy in response to Judge hicore's question, H.C. Tr. at 20.

34. The record also contains no evidence that disposal at the Nevada test site meets the 10 CFR Part 61 criteria. Etc colloquoy in response to Judge Cole's question, H.C. Tr. at 37.

The cost estimate in the EG&G report (LES Exhibit 8) is based only on the costs of low level radioactive waste disposal in near-surface federal facilities at the Nevada Test Site and Han-ford, %shington. LES PF at 389; EG&G Report at 48; Martin Marietta Report at 17. As acknowledged in the FEIS, near-surface disposal of depleted uranium tails cannot be accomplished safely.8 Neither the EG&G nor the Martin Marietta study addresses the cost of a

During the Hearing Conference, Judge Cole asked whether the FEIS had ruled out only near-surface disposal in the humid east. Sec H.C. Tr. at 38. According to the FEIS, the Staff ruled out near surface disposal bar:d on an analysis of tails burial m the " humid southeastern U.S." FEIS at A-9. The Staff also noted that, even without considering ingrowth of uranium daughters or intruder construction scenarios, the estimated doses were "signficantly above" the 10 C.F.R. Part 61 limits, li Thus, the Staff concluded that a deep disposal site is "most likely to be selected," and made no attempt to justify

i 11 -

)

i disposing of large quantities of depleted uranium tails in a deeper than surface facility, which i

- is the strategy prescribed in the FEIS and agreed to by LES. Therefore, these studies provide r

i no basis to support LES' cost estimates here.

35. Moreover, neither the EG&G nor the Martin Marietta study purported to justify the f

reasonableness of LES' tails disposal strategy, or any other strategy for that matter. Rather, as i

stated above, they assumed that near surface disposal of depleted uranium tails was i

appropriate. The FEIS constitutes the naly technical rnalysis in this record of the reasonable.

}

ness of deeper than surface tails disposal.

~

C. The Staff's Dose Calculations Are Not Scientifically Credible.

36. In addition to the fact that the Staff selectively and improperly used data that were not representative of groundwater conditions for deep mine disposal, we also find that the Staff's dose calculations are not scientifically credible. As testified by Dr. Makhljani, the est mated doses calculated by the NRC Staff for groundwater contaminated by pure depleted i

uranium are millions of times lower than those that would be obtained from drinking ground-water derived from ordinary soil containing concentrations of uranium 100,000 times lower than pure depleted uranium. Makhijani, Tr. at 1181 82. Neither LES nor the Staff rebutted this evidence with any explanation as to the plausibility of the dose calculations.

D. The Staff's Analysis Was Not Conservative.

37. In the Hearing Cor.ference, the NRC Staff asserted that the values used in the Staff's analysis were "relatively conservative," and "not only at mid-range, but going towards the image of the bad hole." Tr. at 17-18. As discussed above, there is absolutely no conser-vatism to the numbers chosen by Staff, as some do not even fall within the expected range, let alone the midpoint. A brief survey of Table A.5 in the FEIS dispels any notion that the Staff

[

(continued) near-surface disposal in another climate.

C

.g-..

y-.

-.-t m-w,.c.,

,,-,,,._-,me-e w,.,,.,_,,,..,--o-,,

,,ri..,,---,_

r

. w,.,..

.W,.,-..ef

- 12 systematically chose the " midpoint" for values used. The value of 4.4 mg/l used by the Staff for chlorine, for example, is not even in the range of 5 to 50 for deep groundwater ranges, and 5 to 16 for unraium mine water ranges. While the value of 7.8 for pH is near the midpoint for the reported deep groundwater range of 7.2 to 8.5, as discussed above, the table misrepresents the range for deep groundwater. Higher values of over 9 are not represented. Moreover, the value of 7.8 is at the very top of the reponed range for uranium mine water. Similarly, the value of-100 is not even within the reported range for uranium mine water of 89 to 60, and it is not even close to the midpoint of the range reported in the KBS study of minus 212 to plus 220.

38. In addition, as discussed above, the Staff failed to perform any sensitivity analysis on the range of parameters that could be expected for deep mine disposal; nor did the Staff peMa any uncertainty analysis, a fundamental requirement for demonstrating the conserva-tism of the analysis.

39. In the 1995 hearing, the Applicant also claimed that it employs " numerous conser-vatisms." LES PF at 412. According to LES, "the analysis does not consider 'resaturation time' or retardation and decay during vertical transport." LES PF at 410. LES also cited the use of retardation factors at the " bottom of the tr.nge recommended in the reference study,"

use of the " highest referenced dose factors," and use of " conservative" computer codes. M.

However, the purpose of conservatisms is to compensate for the margin of error in an other-wise valid technical analysis, by overestimating an adverse health result. "Conservatisms" cannot cure a technical analysis that is fundamentally deficient on so many levels, and to such a pervasive extent, as is the FEIS.

40. LES clso appears to consider that the FEIS' failure to take credit for packaging or engineered barriers is itself a conservatism. LES PF at 403 note 275. However, this hardly qualifies as a conservatism, since the NRC Staff does not anticipate that any such barriers or

~

O 13 -

packaging will be used when the waste is disposed of. Only if there was a plan to use engineered barriers or packaging would it be conseniative to take credit for them in the environmental analysis.

41. hforeover, we do not consider it evidence of conservatism that the Staff's dose cal.

culations are extremely low. As discussed below, the very low size of the Staff's estimate is, of itself, evidence that the Staff's analysis is deeply flawed. It is simply inconceivable that a well drilled in the close vicinity of a highly concentrated uranium deposit would yield a lower dose than a well drilled in an ordinary back yard. Moreover, as can readily be discerned from 4

Table A.7 of the FEIS, the estimated peak agricultural dose of Radium 226 (2.3 x 10 Sieverts/ year) is below the regulatory limit of.25 milliSieverts/ year by only a factor of 110.9 There is no evidence in the record that the dose limits would not be exceeded if the Staff's analysis had used different pli, eli, and retardation values for its analysis.

42. Thus, we have no basis for concluding that the Staff's calculation is "so conserva-tive that a site meeting the requirements can surely be found." Ses question posed by Judge Moore, ii.C. Tr. at 27 28. To the contrary, we conclude that the Staff's analysis does not meet the most minimal requirements for a scientinc analysis supporting an EIS or decommis-sioning cost estimate. Srs CANT's Proposed Findings at 28.

VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

43. We reject the Applicant's decommissioning cost estimate because it is not based on a plausible strategy for disposal of depicted uranium waste. Because the depleted uranium is not suitable for disposal in a near-surface facility, sss. FEIS at A 9, the regulations presume that they must be buried in a licensed repository unless a specine disposal site is identined. 10 C.F.R. I 61.55(a)(6). LES has failed to plan for disposal in a licensed repository or to 9

As noted by Judge Cole, II.C. Tr. at 11, the highest doses reported in the FEIS are asso-ciated with radium and radium daughters. Cole, li,C. Tr. at 11.

a

8

> demonstrate the existence of a disposal site. In reaching this conclusion, we presume that the disposal of depleted uranium tails will be regulated pursuant to NRC standards, whether or not the disposal is carried out under the auspicles of the Department of Energy (' DOE"), as has been suggested in the llearing Conference. We think it is reasonable to presume that if the DOE takes charge of the tails, it will apply either NRC standards or standards that are equi-valent to NRC standards.

44. Even assuming for purposes of argument that it would be acceptable to justify the deep burial of DU tails based on a generic analysis, the Staff has not presented a supportable analysis here. There is no record evidence that the Staff analyzed the range of expectable con-ditions for deep burial of depleted uranium tails, or that the Staff has demonstrated that doses from deep burial would not exceed NRC regulatory limits. Indeed, we are persuaded by CANT's unrebutted expert testimony that the dose calculations proffered by the Staff are so absurdly low as to be unworthy of credence and to cast doubt on the validity of the Staff's entire analysis.

45. Accordingly, we reject LES' decommissioning cost estimate and the Staff's NEPA analysis regarding the impacts of decommissioning costs as unsupported by the record.

Respectfully submitted, C-inne Curran Harmon, Curran, & Spielberg 2001 "S" Street N.W.

Suite 430 Washinh8 3500 ton, D.C. 20009 (202) 3

/($f(d4 NW C Nathalle M. Walker Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 522-1394 October 7,1997 w

w se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Diane Curran, certify that on October 7,1997, copies of the foregoing CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S PROPOSED SUPPLEh1ENTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONTENTIONS J.9, B., AND J.3 were served bys g

first-class mail and/or FAX on the following parties, as indicated below:

7

• Thomas S. hicore, Chairman Off of Appellat Mihidicatiud-

"I Atomic Safet and Licensing Board U.S. Nue; ear R algt to U.S. Nuclea Reputatory Commission Washington, D. "'20 I - 7 1997 Washington, D.L. 20555 rat.uussAto N WF

• Richard F. Cole Robert hforgan e

N Atomic Safet and Licen;ing Board Duke En ineering to U.S. Nuct Regulatory Commission 230 Sout Tron Street Washington, D.C. 20535 P.O. Box 1004 f@

Charlotte, NC 28201-100,

• Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board W.H. Arnold, President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LES, L.P.

Washington, D.C. 20555 2600 Virginia Ave. N.W.,

Suite 608

• Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nathalle bl. Walker, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 SCLDF 400 hiagazine St., Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130

• Richard Bachmann. Esq' Of6cc of General Counsel hfarcus A. Rowden, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fried, Frank, Harris, etc.

Washington, D.C. 20555 1101 Pennsylvania Av. N.W.,

Suite 900S Washington, D.C. 20004

• J. hilchael hicGarry, Ill, Esq.

David Bailey, Esq.

Robert L. Draper, Esq.

Thomas J. Henderson, Esq.

Winston & Strawn Lawyers' Committee for Civil 1400 L Street N.W.

Rights Under Law Washington, D.C. 20005 3502 1450 G Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C.

Ronald Wascom, De uty Asst. Secretary Office of Air Quallt & Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 DTane Curran l

.