ML20216K170
| ML20216K170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR TRASH |
| References | |
| CON-#397-18480 CLI-97-11, LBP-97-03, LBP-97-3, ML, NUDOCS 9709190033 | |
| Download: ML20216K170 (7) | |
Text
/r'/r 03CKEffD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USWC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
77 !U -3 N1 :02 shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman Greta J. Dicus OfflCL 07 ~.EC Rr tar <y 00CKETK6 4 f Avicr Nils J. Diaz p p f,qt g Edward McGaffigan, Jr.
)
SERVE 0 SEP -31997 In the matter of
)
)
Louisiana Energy Services
)
Docket No. 70-3070-ML
)
(Claiborne Enrichment Center) )
)
CLI-97-11 QEDER In this proceeding for a combined construction permit and operating licence,' the Commission is considering together three petitions for review, two by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (CANT) and one by Louisiana Energy Services (LES).
All three petitions concern waste disposal and decommissioning funding at LES's proposed uranium enrichment facility.
Before taking action on the pending petitions, the Commission requires clarific. tion of one issue decided by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in LBP-97-3, 45 NRC 99 (1997),
As explained below, we remand one issue to the Board for further explanation.
The issue that concerns us is the portion of LES's decommissioning funding estimate allocated for disposal of triuranium octaoxide (Ufh).
The Board found LES's estimate reasonable.
LBP-97-3, 45 NRC at 113.
The Board-approved disposal estimate assumes that deep mine disposal of Ufh is a 9709190033 970903 PDR ADOCK 07003070 C
)3%
s 2
plausible strategy that will provide adequate protection to the public and the environment.
In its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) the staff analyzed the estimated dose impacts from disposal of U 0, in a hypothetical deep disposal site and 3
found them to be within regulatory limits.
NUREG-1484, Vol 1. at 4-66 to 68 (August 1994).
The migration of U 0, f rom a deep-mine disposal site depends 3
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 U 0, via 3
radiological expesure pathways (e.a., drinking water, irrigated crops, and fish), and found them within regulatory limits.
CANT argues that "the FEIS is seriously deficient in its analysis of the likely dose calculations resulting from deeper-than-surface _ disposal,=thereby failing to provide an adequate basis for the NRC staff's conclusion that deeper-than-surface disposal is safe...."
CANT Petition for Partial Review of LBP-97-3 at 5 (May 8, 1997).
According to CANT, to support the plausibility of deep-mine disposal the NRC staff used a "very narrow mix of settings, and then picked and chose data that were not representative of the range of potential conditions (in deep mine cavities]."
Eea.bb,at 6.
3 The Board rejected CANT's effort to diacredit the feasibility of deep mine disposal.
Egg LBP-97-3, 45 NRC at 119-23.
The Board noted that no particular mine has been selected or identified as a potential deep-disposal site so that exact characteriJtics of groundwater in a potentially acceptable deep disposal facility are not available for analysis.
The staff l
cited data that establish the range of potential values likely to be found for each sensitive parameter in deep groundwater at the hypothetical geological settings.
The Board found it reasonable that the staff calculated dose impacts using only a single set of values taken from near-surface data for sensitive parameters, I
given that the near-surface values fell within the expected range for deep groundwater parameters.
However, it is not clear if 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.
It may be unrealistic to assume that a mine exists with the exact groundwater characteristics used by the staff in calculating dose impacts.
If, as the Commission believes likely, the Board-relied only on the plausibility of-the existence of a mine with characteristics lying within the potential range,-the Board needs to discuss-why it found that the staff's dose impact calculations can be taken as representative af disposal in mines with
l i
\\
I I
4 J
groundwater characteristics that differ from the staff's single set of values.
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, even using values at the limits of the range, would not result in dose impacts above the regulatory limit, in light of the significantly low dose impacts estimated using the selected values within the range.
Egg FEIS at A-14 to 15.
But the Board cited no analysis that would provide assurance that this is correct.
The commission remands this issue to the Board for clarification.
"In Commission practice the Licensing Board, rather than the Commission itself, trnditionally-develops the factual record in the first instance."
Georaia Institute of Technoloav (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia),
CLI-95-10, 42 NRC 1, 2 (1995).
Accord Ralch L.
Tetrick (Denial of Application for Reactor License), CLI-97-5, 45 NRC 355, 356 (1997).
This limited remand should not unduly delay the ultimate resolution of the adjudication, in view of-the substantial issues already pending before the commirsion on other appeals.
The Commission expects that the Board will be able to decide the remanded issue by November 17, 1997.
The Board is free to solicit further affidavits or other pleadings from the parties.
If the Board cannot resolve this matter by November 17, _1997, it
5 should advise the Commission and parties of an alternative, reasonable schedule.2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
MN For the Commission 2 i
j
_ /bfe o
u
\\af Q'
_}
(/
John C. Hoyle F
Sedretary of the Commission tigit Dated at Sockville, Maryland, this 2502L day of September, 1997.
2The Commission recently received a letter from counsel for LES, dated August 20, 1997, and served on the LES service list, that asks the Commission its view as to when decisions can be expected.
It is not the Commission's practice to announce in advance a firm schedule ror its appellate decisions.
To do so in this case would be particularly infeasible in view of tne complexity of the remaining issues, the incomplete status of the appellate record (final briefs on the pending appeals are not scheduled to be filed until later this month), and competing demands on the time of the Commission and its staff.
The Commission already is giving priority attention to all pending appellate matters in this case, and as evinced by its remand decision here, is asking the Licensing Board to do the same for any decisions it is called upon to make.
Over the next several months, the Commission expects to issue a series of decisions, of which this is the first, that together will resolve all currently pending_ appellate issues.
2 Commissioner Diaz was not available for the affirmation of this Order.
Had he been present, he would have affirmed the order.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
Docket No.(s) 70-3070-ML (Claiborne Enrichment Center SP'tLicense)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing COMMISSION ORDER (CLI-97-11) have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sac. 2.712.
Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Janice E. Moore, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Harmon, Curran & Spielberg Mail Stop_- 0-15 B18-2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Roland J. Jensen Counsel for NEI President Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Lousiana Energy Services, L.P.
2300 N Street, N.W.
2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 608 Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 20037
--n--v
-r~~
.o Docket No.(s)70-3070-ML CMMISSION ORDER (CLI-97-11)
Robert G. Morgan Licensing Manager J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
LES - c/o Duke Engineering and Counsel for LES Services, Inc.
Winston & Strawn PO Box 1004 1400 L Street, N.W.
Charlotte, NC 28201 Washington, DC 20005 Ronald Wascom Nathalie M. Walker, Esq.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert B. Wiygul, Esq.
Office of Air Quality & Rad. Protection Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Dept. of Environmental Quality 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 P.O. Box 82135 New Orleans, LA 70130 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 3 day of September 1997 g
UTfice of the Secretary of the Commission I