View source for IA-96-378, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App a Encl & Being Made Available for PDR

{{Adams
| number = ML20128L308
| issue date = 10/07/1996
| title = Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App a Encl & Being Made Available for PDR
| author name = Powell R
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
| addressee name = Fioravanti M
| addressee affiliation = INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY &amp; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, HEIDEL
| docket = 
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = FOIA-96-378
| document report number = NUDOCS 9610150006
| package number = ML20128L312
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 2
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _           -
UA. NUCLEAR CEOULATORY COMMISSION                                 NRC FOIA REQUEST NUMBE R(S)
         ,,,                          d_j                                                                                          FOIA -           96-- 3 78 h                                                                                                              RESPONSE T YPE l
I RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF                                                                   XI"NA'             I IPARTIAL s cosas                                INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST                                                          o^2E
                                                                                                                                             @CT 0 7 m     ...~
DOCKET NUMBER ($)(/f apphcable/
VEOUESTE M Marc Fioravanti PART 1.- AGENCY RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checkedbo.nes/
N J agency records subject to the request have been located N2 additional agency records subject to the request have been located.
Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section.
  ~
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)                       are already available for public inspection aad copying et the NRC Nblic Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)        A               are being made available for public inspection and copyina
(     at the NF C Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC,in a folder under this FOI A number.
The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staf f is now being rnade available for public inspection and copying at the N RC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOl A number.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)                 may be inspected and copied at the NRC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section.
Enclosed NP.,       is information "ashington,    DC. on how you may obtain access to and the chtrges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
(
Rec:rds subject to the request have been referrbo another Federal agency (ies) for review and direct response to you.
(
Fus NONE (Fee n'aiver Granted)
You will be bill.          ie NRC for fees totahng $
You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of 5 in vitw of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated                                           ., No.
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certiin information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in trt 11, B, C,and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOI A number.
OMME NTS The records identified on enclosed Appendix A are responsive to your request.                    Copies of these reco.ds are enclosed.
This completes NRC's action on your response.
                                                                                                                                                                        /
                                                                                                                                                                         /
r   -
4 GNA         . DIRECT m                      -
D islON )F F RE ()OA OF INF ORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SE RVICES
                   , ,1; ) ~
9610150006 961007 PDR         FOIA FIORAVA96-378                      PDR                                                                                                               ___    _.__. i m._

d
                 /eer                                               INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH Washington, D.C. office Fax: (301) 270-3029 Laurel Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912 Phone: (301) 270-5500 FOlA/PA REQUEST September 20,1996                                                                             94- 3 '/ f Case No:
Date RecU:        9 -M A L Russell Powell, Branch Chief                                                                  h
'                                                                                  Action 0#:          '
Division of Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services                   Related Case:
Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

==SUBJECT:==
Freedom ofInformation Act Reauest On behalf of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act,5 U.S.C., Section 552 et. seq. (FOIA), I request the following documents:
All notes, calculations, background data, memoranda, correspondence, or reports that were considered or relied on in detennining the solubility of transuranic waste ("TRU"), as r7orted in the following documents filed in the licensing proceeding for the Clairbome Enrichment Center, In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Clairbome Enrichment Center) Docket No. 70-3070:
: a.       Affidavit of Yawar H. Faraz (February 6,1995);
: b.       Letter from Eugene H. Holler, Counsel for NRC Staff, to Administrative Judges and enclosed revised Affidavit of Yawar H. Faraz (Febmary 14,1995).
Copies of these documents are attached. This request includes but is not limited to documentation of the NRC's calculations for the solubility of TRU in both reducing and oxidizing conditions. It also includes but is not limited to any documents that discuss the NRC staff's basis for changing its representation of TRU solubility from 1.6x10"" Ci/m3 to 5.2x10" Ci/m'.
If, for any reason, you determine that any information in these documents it classified, privileged, or otherwise exempt under FOIA, please release all segregable nonexempt portions of the documents. In addition, please describe the reasons for withholding any information and the exemption which applies.
AfCCMN                        h'

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9.41, IEER requests that the NRC waive the fees associated with this FOIA request, and provides the following information in response to the eight criteria listed in          1
    ,,   Section 9.41(b):
l
: 1)           Purpose ofrequest:
IEER has conducted extensive research on the production, testing and disposal of nuclear weapons          !
and related materials. This request is part of ongoing work in this area. IEER is preparing a report on   1 DOE's cleanup and waste management activities and we expect that our report will be very useful to        i the public and policymakers in improving these programs.                                                   .
I
: 2)           Extent to which IEER will extmet and analyze the substantive content of the records:
As discussed above, the documents will be used in the evaluation of the DOE's cleanup and waste            ]
management activities. IEER will fully review and evaluate the documents that are provided.                !
l
: 3)           Nature of the specific activity or research in which the records will be used and IEER's      l qualif. cations to utilize the information for the intended use in such a way that it will contribute to j      public understanding:
IEER will evaluate the records obtained to evaluate the adequacy and reasonableness of the DOE's           ,
activities in the management and cleanup ofits nuclear legscy. IEER is a non-profit organization            !
actively involved in the collection and dissemination ofinformation relative to various safety, health      ;
and environmental issues. It is among the leading public interest organizations doing technical work        ;
in these areas, with the primary aim ofinforming the public.                                                )
: 4)            Likely i npact on the public's understanding of the subject as compared to the level of understanding of the subject prior to disclosure:
IEER's work is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. Through various publications, IEER has demonstratea its ability to convey the requested information to other interested members of the public.
: 5)            Size and natun. of une public to whose understanding a contribution will be made:
The public affected by the requested disclosures includes residents in the immediate vicinity of DOE nuclear facilities, as well as the general public who have an interest in seeing that nuclear sites in this country are cleaned up adequately and economically.
: 6)            Means of distribution of the requested information:
IEER has published six books in the last five years and also publishes two quarterly newslehers. The books and the newsletters are used in courses tau h2 t in universities in the United States and much of our work is published in other languages and used na other countries. IEER is registered as an educational institution with Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association--College Retirement Equities Fund. The requested documents will be distributed in similar fashion to IEER's previous work.
: 7)            Whether free access to information will be provided:
Information will be provided to the public at no charge. There is no charge for our newsletters, and our reports that we do charge for are also available free by special request.
l

   .~ .. _ . _ _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . _
: 8)           Commercial interest by IEER or any'other party:
       ,               Because IEER is a non-profit, public interest organization, no commercial interest exists which would be furthered by disclosure of the information.
Thank you for your cooperation. As provided in the Freedom ofInformation Act, IEER will expect a reply to this request within ten (10) working days. IfIEER does not receive a response within this time, IEER will treat this request as denied and will pursue the necessary appeal.
IEER will be pleased to work with you and your staff to explain or reformulate this request as necessary to comply with its terms.
Sincerely, Marc Fioravanti StaffEngineer I
i l
l
!                                                                                                                                                                                       i 4                                                                                                                                                                                       i i
k i
t l
i l

~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                               )
                                                 )
ISUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. )                      Docket No. 70-3070-ML
                                                 )
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)                  )
                                                 )
AFFIDAVIT I, Yawar H. Faraz, being duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:
: 1.      I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. My business address is:
Yawar H. Faraz Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
: 2.        I am currently assigned to sene as the Project Manager in the Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguard!
for the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (Staff's) review and processing of the application to construct and operate the Claiborne Enrichment Center, submitted by I.ouisiana Energy Services, L.P., to be located near Homer, I.ouisiana.
I

i, 4
i e                                                                                                                            i l                              3.-    I am certified in the comprehensive practice of health physics by the American Board of Health Physics and familiar with the regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 61 and with the                    ;
Staff's review cf LES's decommissioning plan. A sunimary of my professional qualifications                      i and experience is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
: 4.      I have reviewed " Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's Petition For Waiver of               .
1 10 C.F.R. 6 61.55(a)(3) And 10 C.F.R. { 61.55(a)(6) And For Classification of Depleted 1
Uranium Tails As Greater Than Class C Radioactive Waste," dated January 17, 1995.                               :
]
I
: 5.       The purpose of this affidavit is to explain differences between hazards associated l            with disposal of depleted uranium and TRU waste isotopes.                                                       l
: 6.       TRU waste, which is a waste type produced primarily in activities conducted by         :
j the Department of Energy (DOE), includes alpha emitting trmsuranic radionuclides with half- -                    i
)
lives greater than 20 years, and concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g. Radioactive waste i
containing less than 100 nCi/g of TRU alpha contamination is classified and managed by DOE i
as low-level waste (LLW). Most TRU waste exists in solid form (e.g., items such as protective l
clothing, paper trash, rags, glass, miscellaneous tools, and equipment that have become contaminated with TRU radionuclides).
1 l                             7.      The potential hazards associated with disposal at the WIPP facility of DOE's i
!            retrievably stored TRU waste inventory as of 1992, are significantly higher than those for j
;            depleted uranium tails. The reasons are as follows:                                                             ,
J i

I 7a. Inventory For deep radioactive waste disposal facilities such as the one anticipated by the Staff for tails generated at the CEC and the WIPP facility, the primary mechanism by which an individual may be exposed to waste radionuclides in the absence of human intrusion is transport via groundwater to a well or stream down gradient from the disposal facility with subsequent ingestion of the well or stream water. Groundwater transport, to a large extent is dependant on the radionuclide inventory. Between 1970 and December 1992, DOE had placed in retrievable                 ,
storage, approximately 106,000 m' of TRU waste in a variety of packaging (metal drums,                    I i
wooden and metal boxes). This volume of TRU waste containing about 1,000,000 Ci of TRU                    i activity, and newly generated TRU waste from defense-related activities, is destined to be disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) which has been designed to emplace about 175,000 m' of waste material 650 meters below ground in a mined salt formation. Operation of the CEC at 1.5 million SWU per year for thirty years would result in the generation of about 30,000 m' of DU 30, containing about 30,000 curies of uranium activity.                                   ;
7b. Activity Concentration The specific activity or the highest attainable uranium radiological concentration in pure DU 30, is about 350 nCi/g. This activity concentration applies to separation cascade product and tails assays of 5.0 and 0.2 percent U-235, respectively.            The cumulative radioactivity 1
concentration of DOE's retrievably stored TRU waste at the end of calendar year 1992 was                  !
17,500 nCi/cm'. Disregarding the byproduct radionuclides contained in TRU waste, the average              ,
i concentration of TRU radionuclides in retrievably stored TRU waste is more than 6,000 nCi/cm'. Assuming a density of 2 g/cm 3for the TRU waste (see Petition at 19) would result                l l

l I
in a TRU waste activity concentration which is about 10 times greater than the activity concentration of DU 30s. It should be noted that a significant fraction of the entire TRU volume 1
of 106,000 m' containing Pu-238, Pu-239 and Am-241 will have concentrations much higher than the average of 6,000 nCi/cm'. Theoretically, the concentration could be as high as the specific activities of the three radionuclides which range from 6.0x10' to 1.7x10'' nCi/g.
7c. Internal Dose Table 1 provides internal dose conversion factors for U-238, Pu-238, Pu-239 and Am-241.
Table 1. Internal Dose Conversion Factors EDE Inhalation Dose Factor (Sv/Bq)          EDE Ingestion Dose Factor (Sv/Bq)
Class D          Class W       Class Y      f=X              fi=Y           fi=l U238 6.62E-7             1.90E-6       3.20E-5      6.88E-8          6.42E-9 (X =.05)         (Y =.002)
Pu238                    1.06E-4       7.79E-5      8.65E-7          9.08E-8         1.34E-8 (X =.001)        (Y =.0001)     (Z=.00001)
Pu239                    1.16E-4       8.33E-5      9.56E-7          9.96E-8         1.40E-8 (X=.001)         (Y =.0001)      (Z=.00001)
Am241                    1.20E-4                    9.84E-7                                        l (X =.001)
When comparing the equivalent iriha'lation and ingestion dose conversion factors of uranium with Pu-238, which constitutes about 44% of TRU waste inventory, Pu-239, which constitutes about 11% of TRU waste inventory, and Am-241, which constitutes about 9% of            I TRU waste inventory, it is apparent that for equivalent radiological intakes, Pu-238, Pu-239, or 1

i Am-241 would result in significantly higher committed effective doses than for intake of uranium i
(from about a factor of 2 to about a factor of 200).
The primary pathway of concern in the environmental evaluation of properly sited, operated, and designed radioactive waste disposal facilities is transport of dissolved radionuclides in groundwater and ingestion of potentially contaminated surface water or groundwater. For near-surface facilities where groundwater conditions are expected to be oxidizing, uranium and TRU elements are likely to speciate as soluble complexes. As shown in the table above, for soluble forms, the ingestion dose conversion factors of the TRU radionuclides are more than an           ;
order of magnitude larger than the dose conversion factor of U-238. For deeper disposal 1
facilities where groundwater conditions are reducing, uranium and TRU elements are expected to speciate as less soluble hydroxides. For these insoluble forms, the ingestion dose conversion factor of uranium is less than the ingestion dose conversion factors of the two plutonium isotopes      1 by more than a factor of 2 and much less than the ingestion dose conversion factor of Am-241.
7d. Solubility Release of radionuclides from a disposal facility is expected to involve dissolution in water percolating through the facility and transport in groundwater to potential human receptors.
The dissolution process is dependent on the chemical composition and thermochemical properties (e.g., eH) of the groundwater. Minimization of energy which provides the driving force for the dissolution process is appropriately referenced to a rnass rather than activity basis.             As mentioned above, groundwater conditions in a near-surface disposal facility are expected to be          l oxidizing while conditions in a greater-depth disposal facility are expected to be reducing. This difference is of great significance for uranium whose solubility under reducing conditions could 1

i be as much as three orders of magnitude lower than under oxidizing conditions. In addition, the    l solid / water distribution coefficient of uranium is expected to be increased under reducing conditions resulting in a slower rate of transport through the environment. 'Ihe d==adaa~ of
,                  the solubility of TRU elements on oxidation-reduction state is not expected to be as large as that of uranium. In particular, americium solubility is expected to show little dependence on eH over   !
normally observed ranges and plutonium solubility dependence on eH is expected to be less          ;
dramatic than that of uranium.                                                                      '
i Based on similar data used and methodology applied in the determination of salubilkies of uranium, thorium and radium in Appendix A of the Claiborne Enrichment Center FES'                I (NUREG-1484), the solubilities of plutonium and americium were determined. Under the                4 reducing conditions expected at a greater-depth disposal facility, the solubility on a mass basis   .
of uranium is expected to be greater than the solubility of plutonium and considerably less than    ;
the solubility of americium. See Table 2. On an activity basis, the solubility of depleted            j uranium is expected to be less than the solubility of Pu-238, comparable to the solubility of Pu-   j l
239, and several orders of magnitude less than the solubility of Am-241. See Table 3. For I
reducing conditions which are expected to be prevalent for the disposal of DOE TRU waste and DU308, the representative solubility of TRU radionuclides (1.6x104' Ci/m') is about four times higher than the representative solubility for DU308 (4.3x10" Ci/m').                 ,
i i
k

~.
Table 2   CEC FEIS Elemental Solubilities, Mass Basis i
Solubility (g/m')
Element               Reducing                            Oxidizing Conditions                          Conditions' Uranium              1.0x10"                             3.5xl&'
Plutonium            1.0x104                             1.0xl&'                                 -
Americium            1.5x 10-'                           l.5x10-8 i
I For reducing conditions, eH=-0.10 mV; for oxidizing conditions, eH=+0.05 mV Table 3       CEC FEIS Solubilities. Activity Basis                                              ,
Solubility (Ci/m')                                               ;
Nuclide               Reducing                           Oxidizing Conditions'                         Conditions' Depleted 4
Uranium              4.3x 10 "                           1.5x10 DOE TRU              1.6x 10 '"                          1.6x10''
l West Valley TRU           6.4x104                             6.4x104 Pu-238               1.7x104                              1.7xl&*
Pu-239               6.1xl&"                              6.1x10 "
Am-241               5.2x10'                              5.2x10' 1 For reducing conditions, eH =-0.10 mV; for oxidizing conditions, di= +0.05 mV 1

         .       . - - - - - . . .        ~ . _ - - -           - . -    _ _ . . - - - . - . - .       .
i 7e. Other TRU Waste Characteristics .                                                        !
It is estimated that as much as 50 to 60% of TRU waste is mixed waste. In the plausible strategy pivycd by LES, unlike for the anticipated disposal of waste at the WIPP facihty, disposal of depleted uranium will not include concurrent disposal of hazardous waste and therefore, unlike as for TRU waste, strict RCRA permitting requirements would not be                  ,
applicable.                                                                                           l l
If the direct radiation level at the surface of the package exceeds 200 mrem /h, the TRU      ,
waste package is classified as " remote handled" (RH). Otherwise the TRU waste package is classified as " contact handled" (CH). As of December 1992, DOE has designated about 2,000             ,
m' of retrievably stored TRU waste as RH TRU waste. The relatively high direct radiation levels in TRU waste emanate in most part, from byproduct radionuclides such as Cs-13L The source of more than 40 percent of the radioactivity in CH TRU waste is a consequence of other -        j than TRU radionuclides. In the case of RH TRU waste, this fraction exceeds 99 percent. The             i direct radiation level at the surface of a large volume of U3 0, will be significantly less than all   I RH TRU waste and a large fraction of CH TRU waste. To put the direct radiation hazard from             )
depleted uranium in perspective, it is reasonable to note that at the surface of a 14 ton tails cylinder containing DUF., the direct radiation level is less than 2 mrem /hr. Also in the case of TRU waste, additional precautions may be warranted to limit inhalation doses to waste package handling workers since the higher radiological concentrations in conjunction with higher inhalation dose conversion factors could lead to comparatively higher doses. Therefore, for the disposal of TRU waste packages, more stringent packaging, transponation and handling practices

l from the standpoint of radiation safety and additional engineered features such as shielding are expected to be instituted.
: 8. In conclusion, on the basis of these considerations, the Staff submits that DU is not like GTCC-TRU in the potential hazards associated with disposal of the two materials.          l i
: 9. The information set forth above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge    l and belief.
i
: 0.            W Yawar H. Faraz Sworn and subscribed to before                                                                -
me this 61 day of February 1995.
    ,$ , 6            AIa/ !g4,,e ( c(.'
G,                                                                                   ,
Notary Public My commission expires: 0 /// / I I
I

3                               UNITED STATES
          # 0 usg'o,              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,     [                'n                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
                        ,i
        \ *****/                          February 14, 1995 OFFICE OFTHE GENERAL CCASEL Thomas S. Moore, Chairman                               Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge                                    Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and 'icensing                             Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                                                  Board                          i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory                                 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                             Commission Washington, D.C.       20555                             Washington, D.C. 20555         i Frederick J. Shon                                                                          !
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                                                           !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                          )
Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of                                             l LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.                                       !
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)
Docket No. 70-3070-ML                     ,

==Dear Administrative Judges:==

It has come to my attention that there are certain factual errors in the "NRC Staff Response In Opposition to Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's Petition For Waiver of 10 C.F.R. S 61.55(a) (3) and 10 C.F.R. 5 61.55(a) (6) And For Classification of Depleted Uranium Tails As Greater Than Class C Radioactive Waste," dated Febuary 6, 1995,(Staff February 6, 1995 Response) and affidavit of Yawar H.
Faraz attached thereto that require correction.                     Pursuant to the enclosed February 13, 1995 affidavit (with corrected pages ror his February 6, 1995 affidavit attached thereto) of Yawar H. Faraz, the                         .
Staff February 6, 1995 Response should be corrected as follows:                             )
i Page 8, second full paragraph:
Mr. Faraz's affidavit at 17 details the reasons for this difference in potential hazards between DU and TRU. The radioactive inventory of TRU radionuclides in waste                                 I destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Program (WIPP)                               )
facility is ab=t 50 ide%than730 times the amount of
                                              ~
I radioactive uranium to be'~"$ehefat'Ed at the CEC.               Also,              l the activity concentration of TRU radionuclides in waste destined for the WIPP facility is about ten times the                              !
uranium activity concentration in depleted U308.                   The            !
internal dose from a unit radiological intake via the                              )
ingestion or inhalation pathway of the most commonly O
tStGlW0l2. l                   App-

l l
occurring long-lived TRU radionuclides is 2 to GM 150 times ~
higher than uranium.      Regarding solubility, on an activity                           l basis, and for reducing. conditions which are expected to be prevalent for the disposal of TRU waste and depleted U308,           the representative solubility of TRU radionuclides                (' '"*^~1" Si!2E10~1 Ci/m ) is about fcur times tsal%istsfaII6fRmagnitude 3
niiheE than the representative solub"I~1'117~foFdipiifed~U3Ci8                           ,
(4. 3x10-" Ci/m') . A higher solubility would result in greater                         ;
dissolution in groundwater and therefore a higher leach rate                             i of radioactivity from the waste.      Further, more than half of the retrievably stored TRU waste is classified as mixed waste                            ;
whereas disposal of tails in the form of depleted U308            ... .
A corrected page 8 for the Staff February 6,            1995 Response is attached hereto. The Staff regrets any inconvenience that this may have caused the Licensing Board and parties.
                                       ' Sincerely, l
Eu .ne Holler Counsel for NRC Staff                                   ;
i Enclosure and attachments: As stated cc:  Service List                                                                             ,
J I
l
                                                                                                )
l 1
1 i
i l

             ,               s l
i-                                                                                                                                                   l 1
Further, as a basis for its argument that improper classification of DU will defeat i
j                                   the purpose of Part 61 and 10 C.F.R. I 70.25, CANT asserts t'at DU is comparable to l
greater than class C-transuranic (GTCC-TRU) waste.                        Petition at 15.                  CANT's l
l                                   characterization of DU as GTCC-TRU waste is not technically sound. As explained in i                                   the attached af5 davit of Mr. Yawar H. Faraz, (Affidavit) there are significant differences i-between the hazards associated with the disposal of DU and TRU. The potential hazards l                                  associated with disposal of TRU waste are significantly higher than those for DU tails.
I                                                                                                                                                        !
!                                                   Mr. Faraz's affidavit at 17 details the ' reasons for this difference in potential j                                   hazards between DU and TRU. The radioactive inventory of TRU radionuclides in waste destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Program (WIPP) facility is more than 30 times the j                                  amount of radioactive uranium to be generated at the CEC.                              Also, the activity l                                   concentration of TRU radionuclides in waste destined for the WIPP facility is about ten                           .i i                                   times the uranium activity concentration in depleted U3O8. The internal dose from a unit 1
;                                   radiological intake via the ingestion or inhalation pathway of the most commonly l                                   occurring long-lived TRU radionuclides is 2 to 150 times ' higher than uranium.                                     .
I 3
Regarding solubility, on an activity basis, and for reducing conditions which are expected to be prevalent for the disposal of TRU wase and depleted U3O8, the representative
)
j                                   solubility of TRU radionuclides (5.2x10r' CMn') is about ten orders of magnitude higher i
!                                   than the representative solubility for depleted U3O8 (4.3x10 " Ci/m'). A higher solubility
!                                    would result in greater dissolution in groundwater and therefore a higher leach rate of i
radioactivity from the waste. Further, more than half of the retrievably stored TRU
:                                    waste is classified as mixed waste whereas disposal of tails in the form of depleted U308 l
4 Corrected 2/14/95 j

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of                                             )                                                   i
                                                                          )                                                   l LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. )                                 Docket No. 70-3070-ML                          l
                                                                          )                                                  '
(Claiborne Enrichment Center)                                )
                   ,                                                                                                          l AFFIDAVIT                                            ,
I, Yawar H. Faraz, being duly sworn, do hereby state as follows:
: 1. I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. My business address is:
Yawar H. Faraz Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                           ;
: 2. On February 6,1995, I provided an affidavit explaining the differences between hazards associated with disposal of depleted uranium and transuranic (TRU) waste isotopes which the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) submitted as part of the "NRC Staff Response in Opposition to Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's Petition For Waiver of 6
10 C.F.R. I 61.55(a)(3) and 10 C.F.R. I 61.55(a)(6) And For Classification of Depleted                        ;
Uranium Tails As Greater 'Ihan Class C Radioactive Waste," dated February 6,1995.
f thD1MU bD                                /3
: 3.        The purpose of this affidavit is to correct several errors in my February 6,1995 affidavit.
: 4.         On page 5 of my February 6,1995 affidavit, the second line should be corrected:
                   ... (from about a factor of 2 to about a factor of 200 @)."
: 5.         On page 6 of my February 6,1995 affidavit, the last sentence on the page should be corTected:
For reducing conditions which are expected to be prevalent for the disposal of DOE TRU waste and DU308, the representative solubility of TRU radionuclides (4-4n4035.2i104 Ci/m') is about few-emes jiiji iigr[s gimagnitudj higher than the representative solubility for DU308 (4.3x1&" Ci/m').
I
: 6.         On page 6 of my February 6,1995 affidavit, Table 3 should be corrected:
Table 3            CEC FEIS Solubilities, Activity Basis
>                                               Solubility (Ci/m')
Nuclide                    Reducing                     Oxidizing Conditions                    Conditions 8 4,
;              Depleted Uranium                   4.3x10 "                      1.5x10' DOE TRU                   44*4015M104                   44n4015,,2i104 a
,              West Valley TRU                44n4415j2fl03                 44n4014:2s!04 Pu-238                    1.7x108                        1.7x104 Pu-239                    6.1x10"                        6.1x10" Am-241                   5.2x1&2                        5.2x1&'
i             1 For reducing conditions, eH=-0.10 mV; for oxidizing conditions, eH= +0.05 mV

I l
1
                                                                                                                                       )
i    '                                                                                                                                      i 4                                                                                                                                          ,
  '                                                                                                                                         )
: 7. The information presented in paragraph 7a of my February 6,1905 affidavit                                 '
                                                                                                                                           )
$               . indicates that the radioactive inventory of TRU radionuclides in waste destined for the Waste                            {
t i-               Isolation Pilot Program (WIPP) facility is more than 30 times the amount of radioactive uranium                            l l
l                to be generated at the CEC rather than "about 50 times" as stated in the "NRC Staff Response 1
2 in Opposition to Citizens Against Nuclear Trash's Petition For Waiver of 10 C.F.R.
6 61.55(a)(3) and 10 C.F.R. I 61.55(a)(6) And For Classification of Depleted Uranium Tails l
I As Greater Than Class C Radioactive Waste," dated February 6,1995 at page 8.
i                           8. Copies of corrected pages 5, 6, and 7 of my February 6,1995 affidavit are attached hereto,                                                                                                           ,
: 9. The information set forth above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge f
I                and belief.
1.^
1 l                                                                                  % ti. %t-fawar H. Paraz e
!                Sworn and subscribed to before
;                me this 14th day of February 1995.                                                                                        ;
e O-@ _% k N ' _                                                                                                             i l                 Nothy Public                                                                                                             ,
My commission expires: 1/9C i
i d
i l'                                                                                                                                         ,
1                                                                                                                                          ;
l

Am-241 would result in significantly higher committed effective doses than for intake of uranium i
(from about a factor of 2 to about a factor of 150).
4 The primary pathway of concern in the environmental evaluation of properly sited, operated, and designed radioactive waste disposal facilities is transport of dissolved radionuclides            ,
in groundwater and ingestion of potentially contaminated surface water or groundwater. . For near-surface facilities where groundwater conditions are expected to be oxidizing, uranium and TRU elements are likely to speciate as soluble complexes. As shown in the table above, for soluble forms, the ingestion dose conversion factors of the TRU radionuclides are more than an                   ,
1 order of magnitude larger dian the dose conversion factor of U-238. For deeper disposal facilities where groundwater conditions are reducing, uranium and TRU elements are expected to speciate as less soluble hydroxides. For these insoluble forms, the ingestion dose conversion factor of uranium is less than the ingestion dose conversion factors of the two plutonium isotopes by more than a frctor of 2 and much less than the ingestion dose conversion factor of Am-241.
7d. Solubility Release of radionuclides from a disposal facility is expected to involve dissolution in water percolating through the facility and transport in groundwater to potential human receptors.
The dissolution process is dependent on the chemical composition and thermochemical properties                   !
(e.g., eH) of the groundwater. Minimization of energy which provides the driving force for the dissolution process is appropriately referenced to a mass rather than activity basis.             As mentioned above, groundwater conditions in a near-surface disposal facility are expected to be oxidizing while conditions in a greater-depth disposal facility are expected to be reducing. This difference is of great significance for uranium whose solubility under reducing conditions could Corrected 2/14/95

   ~*
6-be as much as three orders of magnitude lower than under oxidi7!ng conditions. In addition, the                  ,
i solid / water distribution coefficient of uranium is WM to be increased under mducing                            !
conditions resulting in a slower rate of transport through the environment. The @h of the solubility of TRU elements on oxidation-reduction state is not WM to be as 1trge as that of uranium. In particular, americium solubility is expected to show little Wee on eH over normally observed ranges and plutonium solubility dependence on eH is expected to be less dramatic than that of uranium.
Based on similar data used and methodology applied in the determination of solubilities of uranium, thorium and radium in Appendix A of the Claiborne Enrichment Center FEIS (NUREG-1484), the solubilities of plutonium and americium were determined. Under the reducing conditions expected at a greater-depth disposal facility, the solubility on a mass basis of uranium is expected to be greater than the solubility of plutonium and considerably less than                  j the solubility of americium. See Table 2. On an activity basis, the solubility of depleted uranium is expected to be less than the solubility of Pu-238, comparable to the solubility of Pu-                  ,
l r
239, and several orders of magnitude less than the solubility of Am-241. See Table 3. For                         !
l reducing conditions which are expected to be prevalent for the disposal of DOE TRU waste and DU308, the representative solubility of TRU radionuclides (5.2x10' Ci/m') is about ten orders of magnitude higher than the representative solubility for DU308 (4.3x1&" Ci/m').
Corrected 2/14/95

                                      .               7 Table 2   CEC FEIS Elemental Solubilities, M' ass Basis Solubility (g/m) 2 Element              Reducing                          Oxidizing Conditions 2                       Conditions 8 Uranium             1.0x10"                           3.5x10 Plutonium           1.0x104                           1.0x10-'
Americium           1.5x10-                           1.5x10-2 1 For reducing conditions, eH=-0.10 mV; for oxidizing conditions, eH= +0.05 mV Table 3      CEC FEIS Solubilities, Activity Basis Solubility (Ci/m')
Nuclide    4         Reducing                         Oxidizing Conditions 2                       Conditions Depleted' Uranium             4.3x10'"                          1.5x10-'
DOE TRU             5.2x10'                           5.2x104 West Valley TRU          5.2x10-2                          5.2x10-2 Pu-238               1.7x104                           1.7x104 Pu-239              6.1x10-"                           6.1x10-"
Am-241             5.2x10-2                           5.2x10-2 1 For reducing conditions, eH=-0.10 mV; for oxidizing conditions, eH=+0.05 mV Corce:ted 2/14/95}}