ML25119A201
| ML25119A201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07003103 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/2025 |
| From: | James Hammelman, Christine Pineda, Rowley J NRC/NMSS/DFM/FFLB |
| To: | Louisiana Energy Services, URENCO USA |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25119A197 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML25119A201 (1) | |
Text
1 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DOCKET NO.: 70-3103 LICENSE NO. SNM-2010 LICENSEE:
Louisiana Energy Services, LLC dba Urenco USA
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENT 109 - UUSA LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST LAR 23-07, REVISE SNM-2010 TO DELETE LICENSE CONDITION 14 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST By cover letter dated September 1, 2023 (Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number ML23244A190), Louisiana Energy Services (LES), dba Urenco USA (UUSA) submitted a request for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval of an amendment to special nuclear materials (SNM) license SNM-2010 for the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) to remove License Condition 14. License Condition 14 prohibits UUSA from shipping depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to a deconversion facility that uses a deconversion process involving the production of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (AHF).
The license amendment request (LAR) details the background, proposed change, technical basis for the change, and environmental impacts of the proposed change After conducting an initial review of the LAR, the NRC staff sent UUSA a request for supplemental information dated November 28, 2023 (ML23324A190). UUSA provided a response dated January 25, 2024 (ML24025A136). The NRC staff found the response adequate, and the LAR was accepted for formal review on February 5, 2024 (ML24037A190). A Federal Register Notice, giving the public an opportunity to request a hearing on this matter, was issued on January 29, 2025 (90 FR 8407 or ML24352A393). The public was given until March 31, 2025, to make a request. No requests were received.
BACKGROUND In December 2003, LES applied for a license to construct and operate the NEF in Eunice, New Mexico. In July 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board admitted an environmental related contention (contention EC-4) stating that the environmental report LES submitted as part of its license application for the NEF did not contain an analysis of the environmental impacts of construction and operation of deconversion facilities for depleted UF6 waste (i.e., specifically ones that produce AHF) (ML050180335). Contention EC-4 also contended that the NRCs draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the NEF application (ML050280297) did not consider the impacts of shipping the depleted UF6 to a facility that utilizes the AHF process or the environmental impacts of the AHF process, because that process was not yet in use.
As a result of contention EC-4, License Condition 14 was added to materials license SNM-2010 as such:
For the disposition of depleted UF6 (DUF6) the licensee shall not use a DUF6 deconversion facility that employs a process that results in the production of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid.
2 Since the original license application was issued, two deconversion facilities have commenced operation in the United States: the Department of Energy (DOE) Paducah, Kentucky facility in 2010 and the DOE Portsmouth, Ohio facility in 2011. These facilities use the aqueous HF deconversion process. Additionally, in 2012 the NRC licensed International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Incorporated (IIFP) to construct and operate a deconversion facility in Eunice, New Mexico.
The safety aspects of the deconversion of depleted UF6 that results in the production of AHF are addressed by the NRC in the safety evaluation report for the IIFP facility (NUREG-2116, (ML11305A138)). NUREG-2116 evaluates the proposed IIFP facilitys potential adverse impacts on workers and public health and safety, under both normal operations and accident conditions.
The NRC staff concluded in NUREG-2116 that IIFPs descriptions, specifications, and analyses provide an adequate basis for safety of facility operations and that operation of the facility does not pose an undue risk to the workers and public health and safety.
The effects of transporting both depleted UF6 and AHF were assessed previously by the NRC and DOE, respectively. In section 4.1.2.11 of the 2015 environmental assessment (EA) for the NEF expansion (ML15072A016), the NRC assessed the potential impacts of transporting depleted UF6 to the DOE Portsmouth and Paducah deconversion facilities. These facilities are significantly farther away from the NEF than the location of the proposed IIFP facility, where UUSA would likely ship depleted UF6. UUSA stated in its application that there have been no serious or fatal injuries associated with UF6 transport to or from the NEF since operation began in 2010 (ML24025A136).
NUREG-2113, the NRCs EIS for the IIFP, described the process for AHF loading and shipping at the proposed facility (ML12220A380). UUSA would not be involved in shipments of AHF from a deconversion facility such as the proposed IIFP facility. DOEs 2004 EIS for the Paducah, Kentucky deconversion facility (ML041680265) addressed the potential impacts of transporting AHF. DOE stated that, since 1971, no fatal or serious injuries to the public or to transportation or emergency response personnel had occurred because of AHF releases during transportation. In section 2.4.3 of its 1999 programmatic EIS for the long-term management of depleted UF6 (ML051040181), DOE assessed the potential for and consequences of an accident involving AHF.
SAFETY EVALUATION The LES license to construct and operate the NEF in Eunice, New Mexico was issued in June 2006 (ML061780384). The NRC evaluation supporting issuance of the license examined the safety of the proposed facility and its operation (including depleted UF6 handling operations).
The results of the evaluation were documented in NUREG-1827, Safety Evaluation Report for the National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico (ML051660111).
The removal of License Condition 14 would not result in the modification of the NEF facility design or operations involving depleted UF6. Depleted UF6 cylinders would continue to be handled on site, consistent with safety controls developed using the license-approved integrated safety analysis process. Based on this, the NRC staff determined that the removal of License Condition 14 would not result in any reduction of safety for workers or members of the public.
3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The NRC staff assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from the requested action is captured in the NRCs final environmental assessment (ML25125A111). In the environmental assessment (EA), the NRC staff determined that amending Materials License SNM-2010 to remove License Condition 14 would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff determined that the preparation of an EIS was not required for the proposed action. Therefore, under 10 CFR 51.32, a finding of no significant impact was appropriate.
CONCLUSION Based on its observation that depleted UF6 handling operations will not change as a result of deleting License Condition 14, the NRC staff concludes that on-site safety will not change as a result of the proposed action.
The NRC staff determined that amending Materials License SNM-2010 to remove License Condition 14 would not significantly affect human safety or the quality of the human environment. As described in this safety evaluation report and Section 4 of the EA, approval of the proposed action does not pose an undue risk to the worker and public health and safety, would not result in new construction or ground disturbance, would not result in significant differences in the amounts of effluents or emissions generated, and would not significantly affect any resource area.
Based on its review and evaluation, the NRC staff approves the LES LAR to revise materials license SNM-2010 to delete License Condition 14.
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS Jonathan Rowley, NMSS Christine Pineda, NMSS James Hammelman, NMSS