ML20212C769
| ML20212C769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1997 |
| From: | Curran D, Walker N CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#497-18590 ML, NUDOCS 9710300172 | |
| Download: ML20212C769 (4) | |
Text
[,
a S'hbh s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
M U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D'
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO p#U e
In the Matter o'f
)
d Louisiana Energy Services
) Docket No. 70'Q070 g4 (Claiborne Enrichment Center)
) October 22,1997 6,\\
N g
h CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S RESPONSE TO LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES' MOTION TO STr E AND i
COUNTER-MOTION TO STRIKE I. INTRODUCTION Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (" CANT"), hereby responds to the Motion to Strike submitted by the Applicant, Louisiar.a Energy Services ("LES") on October 15, 1997. LES seeks to strike certain attachments to CANT's Reply Proposed Supplemental Find-ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Contentions B and J.3 (hereinafter " Reply Pro-posed Supplemental Findings") (October 14, 1997). LES's Motion to Strike corrects an erroneous citation in paragraph 2.3.3.3 of the LES Proposed Findings of Fact on Remand (October 7,1997) (hereinafter "LES Proposed Findings"), and claims that the attachments should be disregarded based on the correction.
CANT submits that in light of the Applicant's corrected citation, the attachments to CANT's Reply Findings are no longer relevant. However, the correction brings to light the fact that paragraphs 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.2 of the Applicant's Proposed Findings should be stricken because they are redundant of paragraph 2.3.3.12.
II. BACKGROUND In its Proposed Findings, LES claimed that the NRC Staff's analysis was conservative by using " maximum concentrations of radionuclides." LES Proposed Findings at 10, par.
2.3.3.3, citing FEIS at A-9. Because there was no express assertion of this sort on page A-9 of the FEIS, CANT surmised that LES was referring to the statement on page A-9 that
"[r]elease of uranium was modelled as being controlled by its solubility." CANT responded, 9710300172 971022 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
PDR ggo3
2-in1H alia, that had the FEIS given notice that the solubility limited assumption was considered a conservatism, CANT would have submitted evidence that it was not. CANT Reply Proposed Supplemental Findings at 7-8, note 2. To support this argument, CANT attached Figures 9-4, 9-5,9-9,9-10,9-11, and 9-13, from the National Academy of V aces 1983 report, " A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes," which compare solubility-limited dissolution and congruent dissolution, and shows that the solubility-limited assumption is not conservative. Id.
In its Motion to Strike, LES now claims that the reference in paragraph 2.3.3.3 to page A-9 of the FEIS was incorrect, and the proper reference was to page A-8.
IH. DISCUSSION Based on the Applicant's Motion to Strike, it now appears that LES did not intend to assert that the solubility-limited assumption was conservative. Accordingly, CANT agrees that it is not necessary to consider the graphs attached to its Reply Proposed Supplemental Find-ings. However, the Applicant's correction also exposes misleading redundancies in the Applicant's Proposed Findings, which should be addressed by striking the redundant para-graphs.
The Motion to Strike asserts that the conservatism of maximum radionuclide concentra-tions, as represented in paragraph 2.3.3.3 of the Applicant's Proposed Findings, can be found on page A-8 of the FEIS rather than on page A-9 as previously alleged. An examination of page A-8 reveals that the only conservatism discussed there is the fact that the FEIS did not consider " inventory limited releases." Read in the context of the two preceding sentences, it appears this conservatism consisted of assuming that all radionuclides are already present in equilibrium at the time of disposal. From a dose impacts standpoint, the conservatism of such an assumption stems from the fact that radionuclide concentrations and radiation doses would be at their highest if all radionuclides have grown in.
4 If, as it now appears, paragraph 2.3.3.3 refers to the conservatism that all radionuclides l
are assumed to grow in at the same time, it is redundant of paragraph 2.3.3.12, where LES l
already asserts the same conservatism. The ame is true for paragraph 2.3.3.2, which asserts that the FEIS conservatively assumed " maximum doses," also citing the FEIS at A-8.
Applicant's Proposed Findings at 10. The assumption of maximum doses is part and parcel of
?
the assumption that radionuclides grow in simultaneously.
Thus, paragraphs 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.2 misleadingly represent as adependent conserva-tisms what amounts to just a different way of expressing the conservatism identified in para-i graph 2.3.3.12. Accordingly, paragraphs 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.2 should not be considered to represent independent conservatisms, and should be stricken.
IV. CONCLUSION In light of the Applicant's correction to paragraph 2.3.3.3 of its Proposed Findings, it appears that there is no longer any need to consider the attachments to CANT's Reply Pro-posed Supplemental Findings. However, LES's correction also reveals that LES has mis-leadingly cited, as two independent conservatisms in paragraphs 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.2, slightly different expressions of the same conservatism that appears in paragraph 2.3.3.12. Therefore, l
paragraphs 2.3.3.3 and 2.3.3.2 should be stricken, l
Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, & Spielberg 2001 "S" Street N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 1
(202) 328-3500 h,Jiu A1 WhG
}
Nathalie M. Walker Earthjustice Legal Defense Fur.d 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 522-1394 October 22,1997 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Diane Curran, certify that on Octobei 22,1997, copies of the foregoing CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH'S RESPONSE TO LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES' htOTION TO STRIKE AND COUNTER-h10 TION TO STRIKE were served by first class mail and/or FAX on the following parties, as indicated below:
' Thomas S. hiocre, Chairman Off, of Appellate Adjudication Atomic rafety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 2055 2
Washingtan, D.C. 20555 s
_L 3
.U 4'
- Richard F. Cole Robert h1 organ r
Atomic Safet and Licensing Board Duke En ;ineering cocKETro U.S. Nuct Regr'". + a Commission 230 Sout1 Tron Street Washington, D.C..M5 P.O. Box 1004 OCT 2 21997 m
28201-1(gyg.jjl@@
Charlotte, NC
' Frederick J. Shon cc,cw:no Ato:nic Safet and Licensing Board W.H. Arnold, President x
U.S. Nucl Regulator LES, L.P.
Washington, D.C. 205.y Commission
,5 2600 Virginia Ave. N.W.,
Suite 608
- Secretary of the Commission Rulemaking and Adjudications Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nathalie ht. Walker, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20553 EJLDF 400 hiagazine St., Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130
- Richard Bachmann, Esq.
Office of General Counsel htarcus 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. hiichael hicGarry, III, 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 Qualit & Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 k
Diane Cur-
__