ML20198L040
| ML20198L040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1997 |
| From: | Mcgarry J LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18558 ML, NUDOCS 9710240216 | |
| Download: ML20198L040 (16) | |
Text
.f6?
q DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULOAAKINGS AND I
ADJUDiCAi!GNs STAFF In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
October 7, 1997
)
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ON REMAND 1.
BACKGROUND 1.1 On March 7,
1997 this Board issued Partial Initial Decision LPB-97-3, resolving Contentions B and J-3.
45 NRC 99 (1997). -In that decision, this Board ruled on Intervenor's alleged deficiencies in the NRC Staff's assessment of dose contained in the as' ociated w4.th the disposal of U 0,, particularly FEIS-(Appendix A) s 3
assumptions regarding pH, retardation _ and redox potential parameters.
The Board found Intervenor's allegations to be without merit.
LL at 119-121.
1.2 On May 8, 1997, Intervenor filed a petition for partial review of LPB-97-3.
In that peti; ion, Intervenor sought review of this Board's findings with regard to the matter referenced in paragraph 1.1 above.
0) 9710240216 971007 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
f
-2 1.3 On September 3,
- 1997, in CLI-97-11, the Commission,
" (bl efore taking action on the pending petitions, " stated that it required clarification regarding the matter set forth in paragraph 1.1 above.
Specifically, the Commission asked the Board to clarify whether the Board found it probable 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 United States with characteristics falling within the expected range.
CLI-97-11, NRC (slip op, at p.3).
Assuming that the Board relied on the latter option, the Commission instructed the Board "to discuss why it found that the Staff's dose impact calculations can be taken as representative of disposal in mines with ground water characteristics that differ from the Staff's single set of values."
IIL. at 3-4.
In addition, the Commission noted that the Board "has not identified the effect, if any, that varying the values within the expected range would have on dose impacts. It may well be that varying the values of the sensitive parameters would not result in dose impacts above the regulatory limit, in light of the significant low dose impacts estimated using the
t 3
selected values within the range."
1 at 4.
The Commission went on to note, however, that "the Board-cites no analysis that would provide assurance that this is correct."
1 1.4 On September 11, 1997, the Board issued an order seeking the parties ' views on "(1) on the basis for the Licensing Board's jurisdiction to proceed in this matter and (2) on the most efficacious manner of proceeding to respond fully to the Commission's Order."
1.5 On September 19,
- 1997, in CLI-97-12, the Commission issued an order clarifying that this Board had jurisdiction with regard to the remanded issue.
1.6 On September 25, 1997, the Board issued an order setting a hearing conference in this remanded proceeding for September 30, 1997.
1.7 On September 30,
- 1997, at the sched led hearing conference, this Board sought the parties' -views on a number of matters to assist it in the resolution of the remanded issue.u The Board specifically stated in that hearing conference that the v
The Board inquired as to the extent of Applicant's evidence regarding the remanded issues.
Tr.
5-6.
Applicant would expand its answer to include evidence cited in these proposed iindings.
l
-. 4 st'atements made_by counsel were not evidence, but:rather were the parties' views on matters-of interest to the - Board.
At the conclusion of the hearing ' conference, the Board instructed the
' parties to file proposed findings of fact by. October 7, 1997, with reply findings to be filed by noon or October.14, 1997.
The Board set this schedule to. assist it in promptly responding-to the Commission's remand consistent with the time sches :le set forth in CLI-97-11, 2.
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ON REMAND The Board has made findings and reached conclusions regarding:
matters related to the remanded issue.
45 NRC at 119-123.
These matters will not be revisited; rather, the Board's focus is en the
- specific questions faised by the Commission in its remand order.
2.1 Board finding regarding the nature of the sensitive pacaneters (pH, retardation and redox potential) in a deep mine.
2.1.1-The Commissibn is correct that the Board relied Don the plausibility of the existence of a mine with characteristics lying within the potential range of the sensitive. parameters-(pH, retardation and redox potential) rather than-finding that it was plausible that a deep mine with the exact values chosen for each
. sensitive parameter used by the Staff would be available.
The basis for this Board finding took into consideration the following NRC Staff evidence:
2.1.1.1 NRC Staff statement that "(t]he objective of this analysis is to develop estimat?s of impacts for conditions which may be expected to occur at a carefully sel=cted site" (emphasis added).
FEIS, NUREG-1484, Volume 1 at A-7 (August 1994).
2.1.1.2 NRC Staff statement that
" (t) he characteristics of these sites are representative of natural variability and exoected conditions for deep disposal" (emphasis added).
M. at A-10.
2.1.1.3 NRC Staf f stat 4 ment that " (t]he literature values indicate that the selected ground water analysis is representative of conditions exrected for deep dirposal locations" (emphasis added).
M. at A-12.
2.1.2 The Board notes that a disposal site would not be required until 2014 at the earliest (LES Testimony following TR.
1016, p. 33).
The Board finds that it is reasonable to assume that a site within the parameters selected in the NRC Staff's dose assessment can be identified within this timeframe.
This finding is supported by recent legislation which directs the Secretary
. (DOE) to'3ccept depleted uranium generated by-USEC and entitic J such--as LES.
42 USC.2297 n-11; s.ef, also 1069-73.
Given Congress' charge, and given DOE /US".:C's' current and - projected inventory of depleted uranium (LES Exhibit 8, Tables 1 and 2 at pp.-3-5), it is reasonable to assume a suitable site will be identified by the Secretary within the requisite time.F 2.2 Board finding regarding the representative nature of the NRC Staf f -dose impact calculations in mines with ground water characteristics that differ from the Staff's single set of values.
2.2.1 The Board previously found that the NRC Staff determination of the ranges for pH, retardation and redox potential parameters were reasonable and thus makes no further findings in.
this regard. _45 NRC at 120-121.
4 -
U At the Hearing. Conference, the Board inquired as to the-cost differential between an old-mine and a newly excavated site.
Tr. 20.-
The evidence reflects that deep-mine burial will be
-less costly than a near-surface facility.
LES Testimony following Tr. 1016 at 34-3$.
The Board inquired about the likelihood that LES would handle its depleted uranium-in a fashion dissimilar to DOE, Tr. 38.
LES intends to follow closely DOE's and USEC's activities in this regard and to handle tails disposition in a similar
-manner.
LES Exhibit 4n, p. 3.
It is anticipated that such a course can have a beneficial effect on costs through economies of scale.
Sgft LES Exhibit 41, p. 13; LES Exhibit 4n, p.
3.
. 2.2.~2 With regard to the pH parameter, the NRC Staff used a mid-point value of 7.8, the range being 7.2 to 8.5.
Egg 45 NRC at 120; Tr. 1115.
2.2.3 With regard to the retardation parameter, the.
NRC Staff used a conservative value of 1200 to 1800 where the literature reference of actual experimental data reflects values "from several thousands to tens of thousands in these environments,"
FEIS at A-13; sag also Tr. 1234-35.
2.2.4 With respect to redox potential, the NRC Staff again used a mid-point value of -100mV, the range being -26mV to
-210mV. 45 NRC at 121, 2.2.5 The Board believes that the NRC Staff's use of mid-point values for two of the three parameters and a low value for the retardation' parameter yields a representative resulting dose value that for purposes of establishing a
plausible decommissioning strategy is reasonable.
The Board notes that the Intervenors' expert witness, Dr.
Makhijani, stated that "the central value witl.in the uncertainty range should be representative of expected conditions."
Een Testimony of Dr. Arjun Makhi,4ani at p.
14 and following Tr. 1081.
8-2.2.-6 The Board notes that the redox potential value used by the NRC Staff is consistent with the expectation that the disposed material will be in a reducing environment requiring the mine shaft to be sealed so that contact with the atmosphere would be removed on closure of the mine.
Tr. 1147-48 F The Board finds it reasonable to infer, particularly from the Staff's position on the redox potential (i.e.,
the disposal site will be in a reducing environment), that a site outside the ranges identified by the Staff will not be suitable.
Thus, the Staff's dose calculation using a
single set of
- values, which we have found to be representative, may also be viewed as reasonably bounding.
2.2.7 on the basis of the above, the Board finds it unreasonable to assume the NRC Staff has used values that are not expected to occur 'within the range assumed.
The FEIS dose calculation assumptions were peer reviewed, which suggests to the Board that a number of experts found the approach taken and values used to be reasonable.
Tr. 1108-09, 37.11, 1139-40, 1164-66.
F The NRC Staff stated that the majority of the range of available data indicated that deep mines were in the reducing domain.
Tr. 114C.
9 2.3 Doard discussion of the effect, if any, of varying the values within the expected range of dose impacts.
2.3.1 The Board refers to the dose estimates calculated by the NRC Staff as set forth in Table A.7 and A.8 of A-15.
The peak doses set forth in the raIS.
Egg FEIS pp. A-14 those tables indicate that for the river scenario the doses range from 10 to 13 orders of magnitude lower than the regulatory standard; that for the well scenario the peak doses rarge from 2 to 19 orders of magnitude below th3 regulatory standard.1/
2.3.2 The Board notes that the well scenario posits assumed conditions "which are not expected to occur."
FEIS at A-9 and A-13.
2.3.3 Given the extremely low
- dose, the Board believes it is reaso'nable to assume that varying values within the
.n 1/
At the Hearing Conference, the Board inquired as to whether the subject sites of LES Exhibit 8 ( LL., the Nevada test site and Hanford site) met 10 CFR 61 ndards.
Tr. 20-21.
LES Exhibit 8 sections 5.1.1.2 ar.?
J.2 identify the DOE waste acceptance criteria for *'
.tified sites.
Overarching these specific site crite:;a DOE Order 5820.2A, Chapter
- III, which directs that sposure to the waste and concentration of radioactive aterial that may be released (is] not (to) exceed ~
mrem /yr to any member of the public."
Egg LES Exhibit at 4. 2.1 ( 2 ) at p.
23.
This DOE s
imposed limit corresponds to 10 CFR Part 61 standards.
. expected range would not cause the dose to exceed regulatory limits.
Fee: LES Testimony following Tr. 1026 at pp. 14-15.
The Board finds support in the conservatism of the dose calculation, which provides flexibility if other values were to be used.
In this regard, the Board refers to the following evidence and testimony:
2.3.3.1 The NRC Staff's use of a bulk density value for U 0. of 3.0g/cm.
FEIS at A-7.
2 3
2.3.3.2 The NRC Staff's use of maximum doses.
FEIS at A-8.
2.3.3.3 The NRC Staff's use of maximum concentrations of radionuclides.
FEIS at A-9.
2.3.3.4 The NRC Staff's determination not to place limits on the length of the evaluation period.
FEIS at A-8.
2.3.3.5 The NRC Staff's use of conservative computer codes regarding solubility, retardation and decay during transport.
FEIS at A-8 and Tr.*1124.
2.3.3.6 The NRC Staff's use of a bicaccumulation factor that is the same as used in other NRC analyses of decommissioning scenarios. FEIS at A-8.
s
=
iiii
11 -
2.3.3.7 The NRC Staff's itse of dose conversion factors that are consistent with federal regulatory guidelines.
FEIS at A-8.
2.3.3.8 The NRC Staff's assumption that the well would be located at the distance of maximum dose for the center elevation of the aquifer.
.FEIS at A-9.
2.3.3.9 The NRC Staff's decision not to consider both the effects of potential engineered barriers and retardation during vertical transport.
FEIS at A-10; ggg also FEIS at A-7, A-14; Tr. 1111 and 1124.
2.3.3.10 The NRC Staff's decision not to consider the mass transfer limitations in release.
FBIS at A-14; age also A-8 ("inventorv limited releases were act considered").
2.3.3.11 The NRC Staff's decision not to consider the resaturation time to resaturate the facility.
Tr. 1124.
2.3.3.12 The NRC Staff's assumption that all radionuclides grcs in at the facility instantaneously at their full concentration.
Tr. 1124, 2.3.3.13 The NRC Staff's use of the highest dose factors for soluble and non-soluble forms.
Tr. 1124.
12 -
2.3.4 In addition, the Board refers to the NRC Staff testimony in response to a question by the Board as to the conservative nature of the analysis wherein the NRC Staff explained that it had established both " cautiously conservativea and "best estimate" information.
For example, with respect to retardation for radium, uranium and thorium, the staff had used the " cautiously conservative" information of 1200 rather than the "best estimate" information of 24,000 to 50,000.
Tr. 1234-35; gag also FEIS at A-13.
2.3.5 Finally, the Board would note that the NRC Staff did perform some additional calculations with respect to eH h
and pH,
assuming oxidizing conditions, and found that the solubility of uranium increased by a factor of 3500.
Tr. 1151-52.
The NRC Staff stated that an oxidizing environment would not have a significant impact on dose because it is the dose that comes from uranium, which is the redox sensitive element, that would increase, rather than radium which has only a single valence state.1' Tr.
1/
At the hearing conference, the Board inquired as to the conservatism of these calculations.
Tr. 10-12.
The Board notes that a single valence state connotes that the element is as soluble as it is going to be.
Therefore radium, being in such a state, will be unaf fected by an assumed oxidizing (continued...)
=
e
/c.45W
- 13 1151-52.
Therefore, referring to FEIS Tables A-7 and A-8, the 10 " would values for uranium which are in the range of 10 "
increase to 10 " ' to 10 " $ i that is, they would still remain at 6 1/2 - 14 1/2 orders of magnitude below the regulatory standard.
3.
CONCLUSION OF Ti!E BOARD ON REMAND On the basis of the above, the Board concludes that it is plausible that a mine with characteristics lying within the potential range of sensitive parameters assumed by the NRC Staff exists or will exist when needed; that the NRC Staff's dosa assessment based on a single set of values is representative; and
- that, given the extremely low doses calculated and the conservatisms associated therewith, varying the values of the F(... continued) environment.
The Board also notes that the ha l f - 1.4 f e of uranium is 10' years.
LES Exhibit 8, Table 3 at p.
8.
L
- 14 sensitive parameters within the expected range will not greatly affect the dose as it relates to compliance with regulatory standards.
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
October 7, 1997 d-s-Michael McG rry, IgI WINSTON & ST \\WN COUNSEL FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
8 9
00gETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in un -8 P2'12 BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFI F. OF SECRELWTi
)
RU L%WNGQ /hD In the Matter of
)
dlCATIONS STAFF
)
LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
)
Docket No. 70-3070
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of the attached APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT were served upon the following this 7th day of October, 1997:
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)
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 Adjudicatory File Adjudication
- Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
2 Ronald Wascom, Deputy Assistant Joseph DiStefano, Esq.
Secretary Quinn, Racusin & Ga==ola Office of Air Quality &
1401 H Street, N.W.
Radiation Protection Suite 510 P.O.
Box 82135 Washington, D.C.
20005 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Robert G.
Morgan - WC26B
- Marcus A.
Rowden
- Licensing Manager Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &
Duke Engineering & Services, Jacobsen Inc.
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
400 South Tryon Street 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.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 401 Suite 430 New Orleans, LA 70130 Washington,D.C.
20009-1125 Thomas J.
Henderson, Esq.
Roland J. Jensen
- David S.
Bailey, Esq.
Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Lawyers' Commmittee for 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Civil Rights Under Law Suite 608 1450 G Street, N.W.
Washington D.C.
20037 Suite 400 Washington, D.C.
20555 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
M October 7, 1997 MichaelMcG[ry, I[ '
[J.
WINSTON & STRAWN, COUNSEL FOR LOUISIANA ENERGY
- SERVICES, L.P.
Via Fax
-