ML20217C804
| ML20217C804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1997 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710020081 | |
| Download: ML20217C804 (43) | |
Text
- _ .. . . . . .- . - . - ..
Official Transcript sf Proce3 dings
'O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
Title:
Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Claiborne Enrichment Center SNM License 4
Docket Number: 70-3070-ML Location: Rockville, Maryland O
Date: Tuesday, September 30,1997 4go\
Work Order No.: NRC-1260 Pages 1-42 p' ', 'a e "n g NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
O wasniantea, o C. 20o05 (202) 234-4433 fbd $0c!k No Sho [ll]ll[Ql[!\llllllll!IIlll
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA fw 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ )
3 ------------------------------x 4 IN THE MATTER OF: :
5 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, : Docket No. a 6 L.P. : 70-3070-ML 7 (Claiborne Enrichment Center :
8 SNM License) :
9 :
l 10 ------------------------------x 11 Tuesday, 30 September 1997 12 Rockville, Maryland 13 g s,
! )
v 14 The above entitled matter came on for hearing 15 pursuant to notice before 16 l
17 BEFORE:
18 The Honorable Thomas S. Moore, Chairman 19 The Honorable Richard F. Cole 20 The Honorable Frederick J. Shan 21 Administrative Judges 22 23 24 (n,,-) 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOHTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
_a
2 1 On behalf of the Licensee, Louisiana Enerov Services:
, 2 J. MICHAEL McGARRY 3 Winston & Strawn !
4 1400 L Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D.C. 20005 6 202/371-5733 7 and 8 MARCUS A. ROWDEN, ESQ.
9 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 10 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C. 20004-2505 12 202/639-7070 13 v/ 14 On behalf of the Nuclear Reculatory Commission:
15 RICHARD G. BACHMANN, ESQ.
16 Office of General Counsel 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 19 20 JOSEPH D. PRICE, Ph.D.
21 SAIC 22 11251 Roger Bacon Drive 23 P.O. Box 4875 24 Reston, VA 22090
,-~
) 25 703/318-4620 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 On behalf of the Nuclear Reculatory Commission: (Cont)
-, 2 YAWAR H. FARAZ
/ T 3 Special Projects Blanch 4 Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards 5 NMSS 6 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 7 301/415-8113 8
9 On behalf of the Intervenor:
10 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
11 Harmon, Curran & Spielberg 12 2001 H Street, N.W.
13 Suite 430
,-~
't) 14 Washington, D.C. 20009 15 202/328-3500 16 17 NATHALIE M. WALKER, ESQ.
18 Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
19 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 20 New Orleans, LA 70130 21 22 23 24 py I ) 25
'J NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN52RIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (10:00 a.m.)
t' -
3 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Good morning. This is a hearing 4 conference in the LES Combined Construction Permit Operating 5 License Proceeding on the Commission's remand in CLI 97-11.
6 The Board has a number of questions for the parties. In our earlier order, we requested that all counsel 8 be familiar with the evidence they previously presented in 9 the hearing on the matters identified in the Commission's 10 remand order.
11 Before proceeding, I should note that Ms. Walker, 12 one of the Intervenor's counsel, is on a telephone link with 13 us.
./'%
(d \
14 Ms. Walker, are you the.e? Ms. Walker, are you 15 there?
16 MS, WALKER: Yes, I am.
17 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Before proceeding further then, 18 I would appreciate if all counsel would identify themselves 19 for the record.
20 MR. BACHMANN: My name is Richard Bachmann. I 21 am counsel for the NRC staff.
22 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Who is with you today, Mr.
23 Bachmann?
24 MR. BACHMANN: I have Mr. Yawar Faraz who is with (v) 25 the Special Projects Branch and Mr. Joseph Price, who is one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 of our contractors,
,c3 2 MR. McGARRY: Michael McGarry representing
(
(-) 3 Louisianc. Energy Services. With me at counsel table is 4 Marcus Rowden.
5 MS, CURRAN: Diane Curran of the firm of Harmon, 6 Curran & Spielberg. I represent Citizens Against Nuclear 7 Trash, along with Nathalie Walker.
8 MS. WALKER: Nathalie Walker representing 9 Citizens Against Nuclear Trash. I'm with Earth Justice Legal 10 Defense Fund.
11 I don't know if you all are speaking into a 12 speaker or not, but you sound very distant.
13 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Can you hear me now, Ms. Walker?
n I \
E/ 14 MS. WALKER: That's better, 15 CHAIRMAN MOORE: All right. All parties should 16 be aware that we are testing today the new video 17 transcription system that's been installed in this hearing 18 room so you're on camera, I guess.
19 Let's begin just with our questions so that we 20 can try to begin to sort through what the Commission is 21 looking for.
22 Mr. McGarry, other than the testimony of Messrs.
23 Dubiel, Donaldson and LeRoy, following transcript pages 1026 24 at pages 11 to 15 of their direct testimony, is there any
/-
( _) 25 other direct testimony or exhibits that was presented by the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
6 1 applicant that directly bears upon the issues remanded by the l
,m 2 Commission?
)
3 MR. McGARRY: The evidence -- I believe the 4 answer is yes. The evidence that the applicant presented is 5 contained in the testimony you referred to, but in addition 6 there would be the transcript citations that would include 7 further direct, cross and rebuttal of our panel.
8 CHAIRMAN MOORE: But for direct, those are the 9 applicable pages, 11 to 15?
10 MR. McGARRY: I believe that's correct . If I may 11 be provided a moment.
12 (Pause.)
13 I believe that's correct, f}
) 14 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry, is there any 15 analysis presented in any testimony or exhibits that address 16 the issues remanded by the Commission? And the word analysis 17 was used by the Commission in its remand and in context, I 18 believe the Commission was asking the effect on dose impacts 19 by varying the values relied upon by the staff for pH, 20 retardation factor and redox potential.
21 MR. McGARRY: I'm not aware of any other analysis 22 other than what is contained in appendix A, FEIS. However, 23 we believe that that analysis is representative and addresses 24 the Commission's question.
- . ) 25 CHAIRMAN MOORE
- Fame question to you, Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSpr;r3ERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
7 1 Bachmann, other of course, than what's in the FEIS?
,- 2 MR. McGARRY: Your lionor, if I might make one 3
!V) 3 other observation, in addition to the FEIS, a further 4 explanation is provided particularly by the staff in 5 discussing the FEIS would add to that analysis.
6 MR. BACllMANN: Let me start with '.he actual order 7 as CLI 97-11, the Commission --
8 CHAIRMAN MOORE: We're well aware of what the 9 Commission said in here.
10 MR. BACHMANN: But I want to make. absolutely 11 certain that we are all on the same page here and they refer 12 to staff used groundwater characteristics when actual near 13 surf ace site to calculate solubilities and migration of waste p
Cl 14 radionuclides to hypothetical deep disposal sites. And the 15 Commission's problem was that there was a single set of 16 values and that it was -- that the Board found those --
17 within the range of values, the Board found certain values 18 to be able to -- to be reasonable and I think what we --
if 19 I am not min':aken, the range of values that were -- that the 20 Board cited, the Commission escentially wants to know if we '
21 went to the edge of those range of values instead of using 22 the single value, would that change the dose impact? Am I 23 understanding that correctly?
24 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Correct. The question was is
( 25 there any analysis of that in the record?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND A'/" , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-370* (202) 234 4433
8 1 MR. BACHMANN: When you say analysis, analysis
, 2 of dose impact outside of the single value chosen?
)
' 3 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I believe that's what the 4 Commission meant when they used the word analysis.
5 MR. BACHMANN: There is no, as far as I can 6 determine, there is no rigorous mathematical calculation type 7 of analysis done on the range of values that the staff put 8 forth in the record.
9 There is some talk, especially, I believe when 10 Mr. McGarry and I'll have to check the transcript, was 11 questioning Mr. Price, as to what the effect would be if we 12 used a different value and some statements were made on the 13 record, but as far as a rigorous calculation, that is not in
,/ y b 14 the record. That is correct.
15 The reason I asked about the range of values is 16 that I do not believe the Commission tasks this licensing 17 board to go beyond the range that was suggested in tne la record. There might be a question about that. I'd like to 19 have that made clear. We used a single parameter, did tha 20 calculations, but also provided in the FEIS, ranges of 21 values. If that is, if those ranges of values as provided 22 in the FEIS, that chould bound any further analysis that 23 needs to be done. Is that correct, sir?
24 UUDGE COLE: Mr. Bachmann, you talked about 10 v) 25 ranges, but you made the calculation on only single sets of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISuND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
1 9
1 values, is that correct?
2 MR. BACHMANN: That is correct and the Board, in 3 ite decision in LBP 97-3 found that that single parameter wac; 4 reasonable since it fell essentially at midpoint and that it 5 didn' t need to -- because of the very small numbers involved, 6 it felt it was reasonable. It appears to me the Commission 7 now wants us to test the outer limits of the range of values 8 that are in the record.
9 JUDGE SHON: Mr. Bachmann? Oh, I'm sorry, go 10 ahead.
11 JUDGE COLE: So the record contains no 12 information on any doses associated with any other parameters 13 other than a pH of 7.8 or retardation factor of 1200 and a O
\m/ 14 redox potential of minus 100 millivolts. Is that correct?
15 MR. BACHMANN: That is correct.
16 Mit . McGAPRY: May I add something? I would say 17 that the record does contain additional information in that 18 regard and if you look at the staf f's testimony at 1151, 1152 19 in response to Judge Shon's inquiry with regard to 20 conservatism, the staff explained that it did perform a 21 sensitivity analysis of pH and a solubility of uranium 22 increased by a factor of 3500 when they went to an oxidized 23 condition, but that that would not have a significant impact 24 on dose because it is the dose that comes from uranium which o 1 25 is the redox sensitive element. That would increase, not i
O NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRlDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4 433
10 1 radium, which only has a single valence state. Therefore, 2 looking at the FEIS tables A7 and A8, we see that the values
(
V
)
3 for uranium which are in the range of 10 to the minus 14, 10 4 to the minus 22, would increase to 10 to the minus 10.5, 10 5 to the minus 18.5 and we compare that the regulatory limit 6 which is the 10 to the minus 4 range, we would still have 6.5 I
I 7 to 14.5 orders of magnitude below the regulatory standard.
1 8 MS. CURRAN: Could I ask a point of l
9 clarification? Were the words sensitivity analysis used in 10 that discussion? I don't see them.
11 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I' m sorry. I couldn' t hear your 12 question.
13 MS. CURRAN: Mr. McGarry said a sensitivity
(~h b 14 analysis was performed, and as I recall the testimony the 15 staff witness said we did some calculations and to me a 16 censitivity analysis is something more formal.
17 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I'm sorry, I didn't pick the la word up, sensitivity, used by Mr. McGarry.
19 Mr. McGarry, did you use the word sensitivity?
20 MR. McGARRY: I can't recall if I did or not.
21 I would simply say the record at 1152 speaks for itself.
22 JUDGE COLE: Mr. McGarry, with respect to that 23 section he just read from, wherc they talked about the 24 increase in solubility of uranium or increase of solubility
(, ,) 25 of radium with a valence change or with a change in the redox t-NEAL R. GROSS COURT 9EPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W.
(202) 23 4 433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 Y s n -
11 1 potential, in every instance in Table A-7, the highest dose
- 2 is associated with radium and radium daughters. Is that
( )
- 3 correct?
4 MR. McGARRY: That is correct.
5 JUDGE COLE: Now, if radium has a single valence 6 and is less effected in its solubility because of the redox 7 potential change, how does that modifier change what the end 8 result would be if radium comes from the uranium and the 9 uranium solubility changes with redox potential and the 10 uranium is transported along in the water within the radium 11 coming out as the uranium passes through the system? How 12 does that make a difference if the source of the radium is 13 the uranium and its solubility is greatly af factec'. by redox n
'v) 14 potential?
15 So is this smoke and mirrors or what?
16 MR. McGARRY: All I can say is I'm referring to 17 staff testimony, 1152.
18 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
19 MR. McGARRY: I wish I could answer your 20 question, but I can't.
21 JUDGE COLE: No, I think your point of the level 22 of conservatism in the meeting 10 CFR 61 standards for the 23 river site wherein each case the calculated doses are, for 24 example, at the river site for site 1, I note that the dose
/
25 is 1 trillionth of the 10 CFR 61 standard. So it seems to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1 12
{
1 me that that provides some flexibility in parameters and it's 2 the same thing for the fish ingestion, both for drinking i
,. m
\
I 3 water and fish ingestion, it's 1 times 10 to the minus 12 of 4 the standard.
5 And for the site 2, it's 1 times 10 to the minus 6 10 in both the drinking water and the fish ingestion
'/ standard. So with that particular calculation, it does 8 demonstrate that the dose would be infi.11tesimally small 9 portion of 10 CFR 61.
10 MR. McGARRY: That's the point I was trying to 11 make.
12 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
13 MS. CURRAN: Judge Cole?
i rx
\
C) 14 JUDGE COLE: Yes.
15 MS, CURRAN: I'd like an opportunity to comment 16 on your statement and some of the other statements that have 17 been made here because we have testimeny in the record that 18 addresses the issue of conservatism and varying various 19 factors. I would like to direct your attention to the 20 transcript at page 1182 through -- 1181 through 1182, where 21 Dr, Makhijani cited some studies that showed a variation of 22 five orders of magnitude in the solubility of uranium. He 23 also pointed out that in his view the representations in the 24 EIS regarding the doses expected f rom this deep mine site are n
( 25 actually incredible because they . ire significantly lower than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
13 1 what one would expect to find drilling in ordinary soil. So 2 there's a basic credibility problem in terms of fundamental 3 math that comes up with this EIS and this is all testimony 4 in the record.
5 He testified elsewhere that this redox potential 6 factor that Dr. Price testified to was just one of a number 7 of factors and that any of them could vary considerably and a that one cannot draw conclusions based on just looking at one 9 of the factors. One has to do a scientific analysis using 10 all of them.
11 Finally, I'd just like to comment on something 12 that Mr. Bachmann said which was in his view that the issue 13 of what is the range was not remanded, the range of values (D
V 14 that has to be looked at. In our view, there's considerable 15 lack of clarity about what the appropriate range of values 16 is here or what the staff actually use because if you look 17 at the representative sites which the staff says that the 18 study was based on, that range is somewhat different than 19 some of the studies that the staf f used and is also dif ferent 20 from some of the staff's data for uranium mines. So I think 21 all that needs to be taken into consideration when looking 22 at what the appropriate range is.
23 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. Bachmann?
Q 25 MR. BACHMANN: My concern earlier -- oh, I'm NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 3701 (202) 2344433 1
1
14 1 sorry.
. _ _' 2 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Dr. Price testified on cross
/
t
'v)s 3 examination that the conditions that would be selected for 4 deep disposal site would be a reducing environment. That was 5 on page 1148 of the transcript and that was referenced, 6 paraphrased by us at 45 NRC at 121.
7 Is there any testimony in the record or other 8 exhibits that indicates that the site selected would also 9 have an appropriate pH and a suitable retardation and would 10 have suitable retardation conditions? Did any witness state 11 that as well?
12 (Pause.)
13 MR. BACHMANN: I think I may not have completely
'v) 14 understood the question. Could you please repeat it?
15 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Do you have our findings in 16 front of you? Turn to page 121, please.
17 MR. BACHMANN: Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Third from the last sentence 19 above the paragraph noted paragraph 2, where it states -- I'm 20 sorry, Mr. McGarry?
21 MR. McGARRY: Unfortunately, I huve a slip.
22 opinion. Could you please just give me the section that 23 you're referring to and I can find it.
24 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry, it is --
I 25 JUDGE COLE: Use of appropriate pH retardation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 factor and redox potential values.
2 CHAIRMAN MOORE: The last paragraph of that i +
3 section.
4 MR. BACHMANN: (C)2.
5 JUDGE COLE: Well, it's actually the bottom of 6 (C)1.
7 MR. BACHMANN: Bottom of (C)1.
8 MR. McGARRY: Loes the paragraph begin " redox 9 potential measured in volts and millivolts"?
10 CHAIRMAN MOORE: No, Mr. McGarry. Yes. I stand 11 corrected. The third from the last sentence states, "He 12 stated" and I'm quoting and "he" being Dr. Price, "that the 13 data set forth in the FEIS for uranium mines are not fully
(
V 14 represented in deep groundwater and the conditions that will 15 be chosen and prevail for the deep burial of depleted uranium 16 tails will be a reducing environment." Citing his testimony 17 1145 to 1149 and specifically where he states that is on page 18 1148.
19 My question was simply is there any testimony in 20 the record, Mr. Luchmann, or are there any exhibits that 21 indicate that the site that will be selected or would be 22 selected would also have appropriate pH and suitable 23 retardation conditions? If you know of non,e just say so, 24 please.
,rx
( ) 25 MR. BACHMANN: I know of none, but with
'O NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 # 1
16 1 clarification is the fact that that would be the goal in
,m 2 selecting that site.
I V) 3 MR. McGARRY: I would --
4 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Now the reason I raise this is 5 because it leads to the next question. If a suitable site 6 with appropriate values f~or pH retardation factor and redox 7 potential values will only be selected, then as the 8 nonscientific member of this panel, why doesn't that answer 9 the question?
10 If you're not going to stick it in a hole that 11 is a bad hole, if you will, and if the record so states or 12 clearly implies and we've cited Dr. Price's testimony that 13 it will be only a reducing environment, you would stick it
/^x
( 14 in an oxidizing environment, Mr. Bachmann, why isn't that an 15 answer to the question, that the values on the extremes don't 16 matter because you're not going to go to the extremes and put 17 it in a hole with those extremes?
18 MR. BACHMANN: Sir, you've stated the staff'LI 19 position. That is the answer.
20 MS. CURRAN: May I also comment on the question, 21 please?
22 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I thought you might wish to do 23 that.
24 MS. CURRAN: Well, in the first place, we have 7
25 a concern about the inference that the Board drew from Dr.
()
HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 Price's testimony. It's not our reading of the testimony o 2 that he said that only a reducing environment will be chosen.
I T 3 It's our reading that he predicted that the environment will 4 be reducing and perhaps I'm misreadiag it, but I didn't see 5 any words about selection of such a site, which loads to the 6 next problem which is that there isn't any indication on the 7 record that it's plausible to find sites that have these 8 ideal numbers that -- there's no evidence at all that you're 9 going to be able to go out in the United States somewhere and 10 find a site that has the numbers the staf f has chosen for all 11 of these various sensitive parameters.
12 And it may be that if you are choosing a reducing 13 environment and that's your overall consideration, you have O
b' 14 to sacrifice something else. And in reality, the situation 15 is you generally, you look at what kinds of places there are 16 and get a sense of what the range of conditions are and that 17 they may not be ideal in every respect.
18 So I don' t think it's f air to say or that there's 19 any record basis to say that the staff is capable of going 20 out and finding the ideal site that meets these particular 21 specifications and I don't think Dr. Price testified to that 22 effect.
23 MR. BACHMANN: Judge Moore, I take exception to 24 the term " ideal numbers." There is testimony that these
( g) v 25 numbers were relatively conservative. Not only at mid-range, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 2000k3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 but going towards the image of the bad hole, as you put it.
7 2 These are not ideal numbers in any shape or form. And there i
3 is testimony in the record to back that up.
4 MS , CURRAN : There's also testimony on the record 5 that some of the numbers are not within the range.
6 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry, my same question 7 to you. Are you familiar with any testimony in the record 8 that deals similarly with what Dr. Price testified to with 9 regard to a reducing environment with regard to pH and 10 retardation values?
11 MR. McGARRY: I believe a summary of Dr. Price's 12 testimony would be that the values that he and his team used l
13 were representative of values that one would expect to find, p
v i 14 CHAIRMAN MOORE: No, I understand that. My 15 question was on page 1148, I believe s a fair reading of 16 Dr. Price's testimony as we found the he was saying in the 17 middle of the page that the conditions that prevail in the 18 surrounding groundwater will be reducing. And in context, 19 what he's talking about is that we will not stick it in a bad 20 hole. My question is is there testimony similar to that 21 indicating that it will not be put also in conditions that 22 have the bad pH and bad retardation values, if I can use the 23 word " bad"?
24 MR. McGARRY: I don't know if it's exactly on
,a (j,
25 point, but there are, there is additional information. For N EAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISWND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005-3701 (202) 2344433
l 19 1 l
)
1 example, if we look at page A7 of the FEIS.
7 2 (Pause.)
I l V 3 If we all have that, if you look at the first 4 paragraph under --
in the second to the last sentence 5 following the stated objective cf this analysis is to develop 6 estimates of impacts or conditions which may be expected tc 7 occur at a carefully selected site.
8 If we turn to page A-10 and we look at section 9 A.2.3, deep disposal locations, the third sentence reflects 10 the following: " characteristics of these sites are 11 representative of natural variability and expected conditions 12 for deep disposal."
13 If we look at page A-12, the text in the middle,
/O C) 14 the sentence begins, "the literature values indicate that the 15 selected groundwater analysis is representative of conditions 16 expected for deep disposal locations."
17 (Pause.)
18 I believe those would be the references that I 19 would suggest are in the ballpark are being responsive.
20 CHAIRMAN MOORE: All right, Mr. McGarry, is there 21 any testimony in the record that states or fairly implies 22 that if a suitable mine or uranium mine cannot. be found that 23 meets the 10 CFR part 61 performance standards, that a 24 suitable location for a newly excavated site meeting the part
,o 25 (v) 61 standards could be found?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N SV (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 I MR. McGARRY: I believe there is, however, I 2
g)
(
don't believe it's contained in the testimony that we've all 3 been dealing with for the last several days. I think it 4 would have been in prior panel's testimony. I don't have #
5 that with me.
6 CHAIRMAN MOORE: All right, Mr. Bachmann, do you 7 know of any? ,
8 (Pause.)
9 MR. BACHMANN: At the moment, I have to answer 10 as Mr. McGarry, I do not recall. I believe there might have 11 been.
12 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry, in like vein, is l 13 there any evidence in the record on the cost differential
,7 O 14 between an abandoned mine of whatever kind and a newly 15 excavated site, suitable site?
16 MR. McGARRY: I don't believe so.
17 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. Bachmann, do you know of 18 any?
19 MR. BACHMANN: No sir, I don't recall anything 20 to that effect.
21 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Before T turn this over to my 22 colleagues wnose questions will be more scientifically 23 oriented than mine, Mr. McGarry, in your proposed findings 24 on page 402 and 403, you indicated t'la t the applicant's y) 25 disposal costs are not based on the EIS, but actual costs at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 3 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RKr.0E ISMND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4 433
21 1 Hanford and Nevada test site and that your estimates were
,, ~\ 2 consistent with the EG and G report which was applicant's
( !
V 3 exhibit 8. I quote, "which specifically considers disposal 4 in accordance with performance objectives specified in DOE 5 orders and NRC regulations (10 CFR part 61), see EG and G 6 report (Exhibit LES) at 23 to 27."
7 Do you have that with you?
8 MR. McGARRY: I have the proposed findings, not 9 the exhibit.
10 CHAIRMAN MOORE: All right. Are you -- can you 11 point to where in that exhibit the EG and G report states 12 that disposal at Hanford or the Nevada test site meets the 13 10 CFR part 61 standard?
U 34 MR. McGARRY: I can't today, but I will -- I can 15 get it to you.
16 CHAIRMAN MOORE: My colleagues have a number of 17 questions for you.
18 JUDGE SHON: I'd first like to ask a question of 19 Mr. Bachmann and perhaps also Ms. Curran.
20 When you started out, you etarted talking about 21 the range of parameters to be investigated. I take it that 22 you are making an assumption that we will indeed have to take 23 additional information of some sort, that you're sort of 24 making an assumption that this can't be answered within the
() 25 record. Is that right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRfDERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 I MR. BACHMANN: I was trying to clarify a
[
-, 2 somewhat, at least in the staff's opinion, somewhat cryptic k
3 remand from the Commission as to exactly what wan intended 4 and it is not I wanted to see if the Board and perhaps the 5 parties had a common understanding of what was being asked 6 and the staff's interpretation of the remand was that there 7 were, as I read into the record earlier, the Commission asked 8 about using different groundwater characteristics affecting 9 solubility and the testimony was that there was a range and 10 that the Commission seemed to want to test the limits of the 11 ranges that were stated in the record. And they did not seem 12 to accept the Board's decision to accept what the Board 13 considered, rightly so in our belief, rightly so a single V 14 value that was representative and conservative within that 15 range and wanted some more information as to if we had gone 16 outside of that single value and tested the limits of that 17 range, would that in any way affect the dose, 18 I think there really is enough testimony to 19 indicate that as Judge Cole pointed out, the dose values are 20 so small that there is testimony if you increased it by 21 orders of magnitude that it wouldn't make -- you'd still be, 22 we were talking about in the trillionth, so now we move up 23 to the billionth or the 100 millionth that we are still far 24 below the dose range. But to be on a conservative basis, I 7
25 (v) guess we would all be prepared to attempt to look at some of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433
23 1 the other values that have been put into the record and 2 especially the ones in the FEIS and determine and do the 7
i J k/ 3 rigorous mathematical calculations to show that it would 4 still be within the dose limits.
5 It's a long way of getting around is we're 6 absolutely not certain what the commission is asking for.
? We think this is what this is.
8 JUDGE SHON: What you're saying is you think if 9 there is any additional material submitted, it should be 10 restricted to the range that is already in the record.
11 MR. BACHMANN: Yes, we believe -- yes, unless in 1
12 some -- we've been cautioned that if something else night 13 come up, we might have to pull some extra record stuff in.
O
\_/ 14 We don't want to commit that we would only use that, but we 15 would hope that that would be the case. In fact, Cant has 16 suggested that we restrict it to that.
17 JUDGE SHON: And I take it, Ms. Curran, you do 18 not believe that if additional material is required, it 19 should be restricted to the range already in the record. Is 20 that right?
21 MS. CURRAN: Well, let me just say that my 22 comment earlier was just to address what Mr. Bachmann was 23 saying about what he viewed as the range that was at issue 24 here. I wasn't trying to suggest that I think that it's the 7-.
(
v
) 25 Board's place at this point to take new evidence and do the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W. *
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 analysis. I think the Commission's order is very clear that l
2 the Board is simply supposed to answer the question as to
\
') 3 whether the information is in the record. i i
l 4 JUDGE SHON: Thank you. I might also say to put 5 some of this in perspective, that although the tables 7 and 6 8, the dose is for --
in appendix A, as far as table 8 is 7 concerned, the river scenario, you do have many, many orders 8 of magnitude, but as far as table A-7 is concerned, doses 9 from radium and the agricultural dose from radium and radium 10 daughters is of the order of 10 to the minus 6 Sieverts per 11 year and if as Dr. Makhijani suggested, the doses could be 12 driven up by a factor of a million. You'd be in the range 13 of Sieverts per yenr which I don (t think you'd want.
V 14 This is the kind of thing we're trying to 15 resolve. Dr. Makhijani thinks one thing. You're thinking 16 another.
17 MR. BACHMANN: Well, the reason I mentioned about 18 the ranges, while Dr. Makhijani testified that it could be 19 say a million times more. He did not provide, as I recall 20 in his testimony any numbers insofar as the parameters were 21 concerned.
22 JUDGE SHON: That's true. On a completely 23 different note, I'd like to pursue, get an answer from each 24 party. I'd like to pursue the question of the answers to
(~
( y) 25 questions 13 and 14 of the bill and testimony.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
< 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
25 1 In Question 13, I'll synopsize these questions
-m 2 and answers. The witness is asked do appendix A and your
[
h 3 independent verification give you confidence that tails can 4 be disposed under 10 CFR part 61 in accordance with the regs l 5 and the witness says yes. He says the maximum doses are 6 several orders of magnitude below the 25 mrem pre year and 7 this margin of safety provides confidence that a site can be 8 located and then goes on and the next question is "must one 9 evaluate a specific geologic cavity in order to determine 10 with reasonable assurance that tails can be dispose in a part 11 61 license facility?" And the witness says no, he says that 12 appendix A utilizes parameters determined for a generic site, 13 but they are based on geological data because the resultant O
'vl 14 doses are several orders of magnitude below the performance 15 of the objectives. It's reasonable to assume that sites can 16 be located that will insure part 61 objectives are met.
17 Now it seems to me that that says that an expert 18 in the field or possibly two, there are three sets of 19 initials there, an expert in the field or perhaps both the 20 cited experts can have confidence that a site can be located, 21 where the parameters are close enough to those used in the 22 calculation so that the requirements of the regs can be met.
23 I must admit we didn' t cite this particular thing 24 in our opinion and it may be that the office of Commission 73 i ) 25 Appellate Adjudication was not aware of the fact that this w/
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 was in the record.
,- 2 Do you think this goes a long way towards t
O 3 satisfying the Commission's question or don't you? I'd like 1 4 to have an answer from each of the parties.
5 MR. BACHMANN: Well, the staff believes this 6 certainly does go a certain amount towards assuaging any 7 concerns. Our marching orders basically were to find a a plausible strategy and this buttresses the fact there is a 9 plausible strategy.
10 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry?
11 MR. McGARRY: We will concur. I was looking for 12 a similar statement by the --
13 CHAIRMAN MOORE: We'll get to that. I'm going n
14 to ask a question about the. section that I think applies to 15 that also.
16 You think that it does go some way toward 17 answering the Commission's question?
18 Ms. Curran?
19 MS. CURRAN: Well, I think we have to bear in 20 mind that the applicant and the staff have the burden of 21 proof here and that unsupported statements by a witness for 22 the applicant don't carry the day, that the analysis is not 23 described in any detail and as a matter of fact, in the 24 proposed findings that are cited, the applicant notes that (mw) 25 part of the analysis included a conservatism which was not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
- 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20 4 5-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 taking credit for engineered barriers or special packages and
,, 2 projectc dose limits. Well, it isn't being conservative to (Vl 3 not take credit for something that y 1're not going to use.
4 That isn't a conservatism. So I think we have a lot of 5 criticisms in our testimony of the analysis in appendix A and 6 that they are suf ficient to rebut these generalizations that 7 appendix A is fine.
8 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Okay, that more or less leads 9 us directly to the next question that I had which concerns 10 the testimony of staff witnesses, Price and Faraz, at pages 11 1117 through 1125.
12 And it says the same, pretty much the same thing 13 with rather a different twist to it. Unless I'm mistaken i
V 14 I'll summarize it again. The gist of what the staff witness 15 has said and they're the people who actually did the 16 calculation as I understand it, is that they believe that the 17 conservatism of the code and the parameters used and the 18 broad range of chemical species considered are such that Dr.
19 Makhiiani's objections regarding the range of parameters and 20 use and uncertainty analysis are not valid. I don't want to 21 go into it in great detail here, but it seems again that 22 experts, and here the experts who actually did the 23 calculation and are familiar with the manner in which the 24 various parameters and affect the outcome and it's been my 25 experience in scientific matters that when you do a few (w.)'
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 calculations you begin to get a feel for how these things 2 affect one another, how the input affects the output, that (n)
V 3 these people who are completely f amiliar with the thing think 4 that the calculation is so conservative that a site meeting 5 the requirements can surely be found.
6 Is that not correct?
? MR. BACHMANN: That is correct, Judge Shon.
8 JUDGE SHOM: Mr. McGarry?
9 MR. McGARRY: That is correct and if the Board 10 is interested, I'm prepared to refer to the record citations 11 which reflect the conservatisms that were used by the study.
12 JUDGE SHON: You might want to do that in writing 33 later, b 14 Ms. Curran?
15 MS. CURRAN: Well, again, the staff and the 16 applicant have the burden of proof. There's not a rebuttable 17 presumption that since the staff did the calculations the la staff must know what it's doing. The staff actually has to 19 prove that because part of this contention relates to NEPA, 20 the staft and LES share the burden of proof here. And so the 21 question is where the intervenor has gone forward, we've 22 evidenced raising a reasonable inference that there is a 23 problem with the staff'n analysis, than does the staff come 24 out to meet it with evidence sufficient to show that the
/
(mv) 25 analysis was adequate and I'd be glad to go over the record NEAl. R. GROSS
- i. COURT PEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
29 1 piece by piece and discuss the ways in which we challenged n 2 ebnse conclusions, but it's all there.
/ T 3 CHAIRMAN MOORE: You're not suggesting that 4 expert opinion can't meet one's burden of proof, are you?
5 MS. CURRAN: No, I'm not saying that.
6 CHAIRMAN MOORE: That's what expert opinion is.
7 MS. CURRAN: But here, we had experts on both 8 sides and the intervenors presented expert testimony 9 demonstrating that there were significant deficiencies in the 10 analysis performed by the staff and the intervenor's j 11 testimony was quite specific and related to several factors 12 that were considered: the pH, eH, retardation factor. I 13 can't remember if there's another one. And so then the
! O
'k J 14 question is looking at the evidence that we presented, did 15 the staff counter that with a suf ficient explanation and our 16 position is that it did not.
17 JUDGE SHON: I'd like to ask another question, 18 again departing somewhat from the -- from what we've been 19 talking about, but still along the same general lines. And 20 that is the -- Dr. Makhijani said and the intervenors in 21 their various submittals and filings have made note of the 22 notion that background concentrations of uranium, what you 23 could get if you drilled a we l .' in your backyard, for 24 example, are larger than the concentrations and the doses Q 25 resulting therefrom that the tables in the appendix predict.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS e 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE,, N W (202) 234 ,433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234 4433 1
30 1 Dr. Makhijani immediately says that it's not
,,N 2 reasonable that if something only a few hundred meters or a e
\) 3 few kilometers from a deposit like this would be less than 4 the normal concentrations of uraniun; averywhere, you could 5 not be that far down. Is there anything in the record that 6 addresses that and what about that notion? Is that notion 7 so -- is it so obviously incredible?
8 (Pause.)
9 MR . BACID4 ANN : In this respect, Dr. Makhijani is 10 correct. Our estimates have come in to lower than in some 11 areas, I might add. Naturally recurring background 17 radiation, but we were not, we did not take that into account 13 because we were looking at the incremental addition of C/ 14 dosage, so you would have to add background to that, but as 15 you've seen the dose rates as calculated were so 16 infinitesimal that it is not surprising it might come in 17 under background.
18 JUDGE SHON: I'm not questioning whether they are 19 actually larger or smaller than background. Clearly, they 20 could be smaller. What Dr. Makhijani said and the thing I 21 wanted you to say, whether it's addressed in the record or 22 whether it could be addressed in some other manner is the 23 very notion that a few hundred meters or a few kilometers 24 away from such a deposit as this, that so close to such
! ) 25 tremendous concentrations of uranium oxide, you couldn't HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
31 1 possibly be below background, that that's incredible or that
/
,s T
2 it would be -- that's the term that Dr. Makhijani used was
! I i
'd 3 " incredible" I think.
4 MR. BACHMANN: The concept is that this would be 5 the incremental addition to background is the simple answer.
6 The more complicated one is what we have been able to
'l maintain all along is it just doesn't migrate and you have 8 to have solubility and migration to get this incremental dose 9 at the surface.
l 10 JUDGE SHON: So in your view it is not incredible 1
11 that the incremental dose would be very small.
12 MR. BACHMANN: That is correct.
13 JUDGE SHON: Does anyone else want to address
/^N kj 14 that? I know it was your witness's work. No.
i 15 Lastly, in the transcript at pages 1234, 1235, 15 Judge Cole was pursuing with Dr. Price the parameter of 17 retardation f actor and there he used a sort of a key phrase.
18 Judge Cole said this -- what you used is something of a best 19 estimate and Dr. Price said that it really wasn' t a best 20 estimate, that for example, for radium the cautiously 21 conservative value we used was in the 1200 to 1800 range and 22 the best estimate was in the range of 50,000. For uranium, 23 the cautiously conservative value that we used was listed as 24 1200. The best estimate was listed as approximately 24,000, n
( ) 25 It suggests that far from being simply a single NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 3 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 calculational point at a best estimate value of a parameter,
- 2 the numbers that they used in this calculation already were (m\
\*/ 3 more than an order of magnitude conservative. Is that 4 correct?
5 (Pause.)
6 MR. BACHMANN: Yes, I would say that we use the 7 quote unquote cautiously conservative values in those 8 calculations.
9 JUDGE SHON: That'a -- well, you V9ed very 10 conservative values in the calculation you're sayi.ig.
11 MR. BACHMANN: Yes sir, that's correct.
12 JUDGE SHON: But what I was asking was this thing 13 really isn' t a best estimate. It's already got an awful lot, l \s' 14 maybe an order of magnitude, more conservatism than it is --
15 is that right?
16 MR. BACHMAMN: That is correct.
17 JUDGE SHON: Yes.
18 MS. CURRAN: Judge Shon, I think we may be 19 straying into the area where Mr. Bachmann is testifying 20 because this witness spoke on the record and there's a lack 21 of clarity to me as to what number was actually used. He 22 talks about the dif ferent numbers that were available and now 23 Mr. Bachmann is saying well, we actually used this number and 24 --
(~ ~N i
) 25 JUDGE SHON: Oh, I think the numbers are in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200053701 (202) 234 4433 i l
33 1 record, at least as far as that one parameter is concerned, g 2 They said they used a value 1200 to 1800 which I think is not 3 a broad range and that the best estimate, this is on 1235, 4 the best estimate of the value was in the range of 50,000.
5 And for uranium which is probably the most important one, 6 they used 1200 and the best estimate value was 24,000, a 7 f actor of 20 larger. And of course, for a larger retardation 8 f actor, you get a smaller dose. But I am just saying I think 9 it's clear what numbers we'le talking about. What you said 10 to begin with that we're straying into the range that Mr. --
11 of the field that Mr. Bachmann was worried about, that is 12 exactly what sort of ranges would need to be explored. But l
33 I think it's clear what they used.
C 14 MS. CURRAN: And I do think it's important not 15 to take this statement out of context of the other evidence 16 in the record, our evidence in particular as to the lack of 17 censervatism with respect to retardation factors.
18 MR. McGARRY: Judge Shon, I would also ref er you 19 to the FEIS A-13, 20 JUDGE SHON: Uh-huh.
21 MR. McGARRY: Last two sentences under 22 radionuclide trar. sport bolster reference.
23 JUDGE SHON: Yes.
24 JUDGE COLE: Just a couple of questions. In
,ey ig' 25 looking at the scenario that was established to determine the NEAL R. GROSS
- COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 doses, I note that in each case the solubility was the
, 2 determining factor and it was assumed in each case that t )
V 3 uranium was dissolved at its saturation point in any water 4 that passed through it. Is that your understanding?
5 MR. BACHMANN: Yes.
6 JUDGE COLE: In the deep disposal scenario, I 7 note that the uranium is buried beneath the water table. In 8 an actua' real world site selection, is this reasonable?
9 MS, CURRAN: Judge Cole, I'm concerned again that 10 you' re asking for testimony. Mr. Bachmann is consulting his l 11 experts and we would object to putting new information on 12 this record.
13 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Ms. Curran, we're seeking 7-N.__ 14 answers in response to the Commission's remand. This is not 15 testimony. This is lawyer argument in the same way your 16 findings of fact have drawn innumerable conclusions and made 17 innumerable statements from the record evidence. So I --
18 there are no witnesses testifying, none of this can be taken 19 as anything other than it is, as lawyer argument and these 20 are our questions to lawyers. We ask -- we did not request.
21 any evidence today. We're trying to plumb the depths of 22 what's in the record so that we can see if we can reach 23 conclusions that are responsive to the Commission's remand.
24 That's all we're here doing, p
25 MS. CURRAN:
!] Might I suggest, respe c t f u 11 y NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTEFS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234 4 433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 b
35 1 suggest, that the questions be phrased in terms of where in
, 2 the record can a conclusion be supported?
/ 1
( of
3 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Ms. Curran, in a word, your 4 objection is overruled.
5 Judge Cole, ask your questions.
6 MR. BACHMANN: The wer to your question is the 7 staff believes so, yes.
8 JUDGE COLE: Also sticking with the scenario, I -
9 note that we then drill a well down and extract water right
. a.
d 10 at the point where the radioactive fill is contained. Is 11 that a conservative condition?
12 (Pa ;se )
13 MR. BACHMANN: To respond to your question and
'v/ 14 to also try to stay within bounds of not sounding like 15 testimony, I think Judge Cole, there is a confucion going to 16 some of the material at the top of page (a)3 of the FEIs.
17 I shall try tc always refer to anything in the record here.
18 The drilling which is in the upper paragraph, top 19 paragraph is a scenario in which and I'm not trying to 20 characterize it, just what it says, is a pocential scenario 21 of drilling '.ito a direct intrusion into the tailings. In 22 the second paragraph an page ( a ,' P , it talks about the well 23 and I think you may have interwoven those.
24 JUDGE COLE: I thought the scenario wac you -- <
,m, 5
(-v, ) 25 a well is drilled 200 meters down gradient from the fill and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS A*1D TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. P - 20005-3701 (202) 2384433 c- s , -
36 1 the intake from that well is at the midlevel of the fill.
2 That was my reading.
\ ~')
3 MR. BACHMANN: Sir, I think it's -- let's see, 4 one, two, third sentence in that second paragraph says "in 5 this analysis, well takeoff point is assumed to be at the 6 center elevation of the aquifer", not of the fill.
7 MR. McGARRY: If you look at (a)13.
8 MR. BACHMANN: Am I confusing something here?
9 MR. McGARRY: Look at the last paragraph of 10 (a)13.
11 (Pause.)
12 MR. BACHMANN: Again, *he phrase mid aquifer, I 13 think that's what is --
A t 1
(_/ 14 JUDGE COLE: But the fill is located below the 15 water table and contained in the aquifer and the aquifer 16 passes through the fill.
17 MR. BACHMANN. That is correct.
18 JUDGE COLE: I guess my point. is is that 19 reasonable. Would a real life site be selected and have 20 conditions like that particularly if it was going to be 21 licensed by the NRC?
22 MR. McGARRY: Your Honor, if I might just 23 interrupt, I believe the answer is yes, that would not be 24 reasonable because if you look at (a)13, the second sentence.
x n 25 It begins "under conditions which are not expected to occur. "
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 134-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2000M701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 JUDGE COLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. This 3 2 contention is essentially a cost contention. Is that l
3 correct?
4 MR. BACrIMANN: Yes sir.
5 4 JUDGE COLE: And we have some cost figures 6 estimates stated in the record for disposal at the National 7 Test Site. Do you recall that, sir?
8 MR. BACHMANN: Yes.
9 JUDGE COLE: And those cost estimates are 10 significantly below a dollar per kilogram uranium. Is that 11 correct, sir?
12 MR. BACHMANN: Yes.
I
{ 13 JUDGE COLE: With the knowledge of the nite
)
l ' 14 conditions at the National Test Site, is there any 15 information in the record that would indicate that burial at 16 the National Test Site would be or could be in t.ccordance 17 wich 10 CFR 61 performance standards?
18 (Pause.)
19 MR. BACPMANN: I've been informed that there is 20 some exhibit in the record that found that the test site was 21 not appropriate because it would constitute near surface 22 burial. I just can' t put my finger on it, but I've been told 23 there is an exhibit that addresses that issue. I'm sorry, 24 I can't do better than that.
) 25 MS. CURRAN: Well, may I suggest the EIS says NEAL R. GROSS
, COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433 o
38 1 that near surface burial is inappropriate. You don't have n 2 to go further than that.
f )
~'
3 JUDGE COLE: Does that rule out near surface 4 ourial if a site is selected other than a human, Southeastern 5 U.S. site?
6 In other words, based upon information in the 7 record, are all surface or near surface sites unavailable?
8 MS. CURRAN: I don't think the question is T
9 addressed in the record. I think the question that's 10 addressed in the record is whether the hypothetical deep mine 11 site is appropriate and that's not even looked at.
12 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Mr. McGarry, Mr. Bachmann's and 13 Judge Cole's question is not dissimilar from what I asked you
> /O k.) 14 previously, and you were going to provide us with an answer 15 from LES Exhibit 8.
s 1G MR. McG.MRY: That's correct.
17 MS. CURRAN: And this is going to be in writing?
18 CHAIRMAN MOORE: Yes, we'11, we're going to 19 request findings.
20 (Pause.)
21 JUDGE COLE: What is the likelihood that LES 22 would handle the de'lete:d uranium in a site licensed by the 23 NRC and other than the manner and way in which DOE would 24 handle theirs?
(v ) 25 MR. BACHMANN: The way I understand it and I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 132J RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234 4433
39 1 not testifying at this point and therefore I'll quality my n 2 answer, but as a legal matter, that under the act that
('-
3 brought together and put the LES concept together, that there 4 is an ultimately responsibility by DOE to accept the tails 5 from LES and I'm aimplifying that, but if Mr. McGarry or Ms.
6 Curran have anything further on that, I'd -- I believe that 7 there is in the statute an obligation on the part of DOE, in 8 other words, it would be the same.
9 JUDGE COLE: Okay, this being a cost contention, 10 what would be the consequence of that from a cost viewpoint 11 in our estimation of the cost nf handling and disposing?
12 MR. McGARRY: Judge Cole, I believe there's 13 evidence that reflects that economies of scale will be (G
> 1 N._/ 14 enjoyed under the acenario you just outlined and it's in the 15 March 17th transcript, I just can't put my finger on it.
16 MS. CURRAN: But it certainly -- no econoraic 17 liability is transferred to the DOE. LES is still 18 responsible for the cost of disposing of its tails.
19 JUDGE COLE: Right, they would reimburse DOE.
20 MS. CURRAN: That's right.
21 JUDGE COLE: My point is if DOE does, in fact, 22 do it that way or LES does it that way, whE t is the 23 consequence with respect to the likely cost? Will it go up, 24 go down or stay the same?
O i i 25 MR. McCARY: And I believe the record reflects
(./
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPOPTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 the cost will go down, n 2 JUDGE COLE: Because of economies of scale?
i )
3 MS. CURRAN: And our evidence is that the costs 4 are significantly higher for other reasons than the conomies 5 of scale issue.
6 JUDGE COLE: Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN MOORE: We think the most appropriate 8 way of proceeding will he for the parties to file proposed 9 findings addressing the issue in the Commission's remand 10 order on the evidence in the record.
11 In light of the responses the parties, written 12 responses the parties gave to us, answering the question 13 raised in our initial order after the remand, we see no need
.t
's 14 for affidavits and we will accept no affidavits from any 15 party on this matter. We're strictly interested in the 16 evidence of record.
17 Parties' findings should not exceed 15 pages and 18 those findings shall be due october 7th. Each party shall 19 file reply findings that shall not exceed 8 pages and those 20 should be in out hands by noon on October 14th.
21 All proposed findings shall be newly written and 22 address the issue reised by the Commission in the remand 23 order and the questions asked by the Board today should 24 address those as well. And those findings of f act should not 25 merely be a cut and paste job from the voluminous findings
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 that you filed previously, but are to be addressed 2 specifically to the issue in the Commission's remand order
\/
3 and the questions we've asked today. And again, I emphasize 4 no affidavits are to be filed, none will be accepted for 5 ' filing in this matte.r 6 Does counsel have any questions?
7 MR. BACHMANN: the October 7th filing, is that 8 in hand or in the mail, sir?
9 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I trust in this day and age that 10 with the fax machine that you can put it on the fax machine 11 and get it to us so we'll have it on October 7th.
12 MS. CURRAN: I would simply like to ask for a 13 little more time than October 7th. It's only a week away and p,
t 1 L./ 14 we -- I have other things that I need to do, previous 15 commitments and it will be difficult for me to meet that 16 deadline.
17 CHAIRMAN MOORE: I recognize that it will be 18 difficult. I recognize that this is a short time line. The 19 Commission has not given us a long time line and we think 20 that we' re not asking -- it's a narrow issue with a confined 21 amount of record material. You're limited to 15 pages in 22 your initial findings and we think a week is adequate and 23 that we will stick to that schedule, Ms. Curran.
24 MR. BACHMANN: Judge Moore, I would actually, I (3 25 would support Ms. Curran on asking for a couple more days
()
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR;BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 because it's going to take a couple of days to get the
,-. 2 transcript and --
( )
~' 3 CHAIRMAN MOORE: You'11 have this transcript 4 tomorrow. So we think that that schedule is eminently doable 5 and not unreasonable in the circumstances, 6 Are there any other questions?
7 We thank you for coming today and responding to 8 our questions.
9 Ms. Walker?
10 MS. WALKER: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN MOORE: You' re still there. Do you have 12 any questions?
13 MS. WALKER: No.
I im a
(_) 14 CHAIRMAN MOORE: We will then stand adjourned.
15 Thank you very much.
16 (Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the proceedings were 17 concluded.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
( ) 25 J
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
\
(3 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached i
proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: Louisiana Energy Services Claiborne Enrichment Center SNM License Docket Number: 70-3070-ML .
Place of Proceeding: Rockville, Maryland were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Ch V Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
0 Official Reporter Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.
2 Y
%.,_s NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RilODE ISLAND AVENUE, NW (202)234 4433 WASilINGTON, D C. 2tXx15 (202) 234 4433 0