ML20199K416

Memorandum (Explanation Required by Remand).* Board Concluded That Mine for Disposal of Enrichment Tails W/Characteristics within Range of Parameters Used by Staff Can Be Used by Us.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 971113

ML20199K416
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	11/13/1997
From:	Cole R, Moore T, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#497-18617 91-642-02-ML-R, 91-642-2-ML-R, LPB-97-22, ML, NUDOCS 9712010117
Download: ML20199K416 (25)

Text

.-

g /r4/ 7

' 00CKEIED USNRC LBP-97-22 77 NOV 13 N1:15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOlhpp;y gp gp 7 ll.py RUL M H> M J ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOiJ6)UDIC/1GE CI^rF Before Administrative Judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Richard F. Cole Frederick J. Shon

' SERVED NOV13IW/

Docket No. 70-3070-ML In the Matter of

^ '

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. Se (Claiborne Enrichment Center)

November 13, 1997 Memorandum (Explanation Required by Remand)

In CLI-97-11, 46 NRC _ (Sept. 3, 1997), the Commission remanded "one issue" from LBP-97-3, 45 NRC 99 (1997), for "further explanation." LBP-97-3 is a Partial Initial Decision containing the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law on contentions B and J.3. Those contentions were filed by the i Intervenor, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash (* CANT"), in this combined construction permir-operatsng license proceeding on the

/

9712010117 971113 ll[ flf

'{I}b ,I['lh*

' (f fll' PDR ADOCK 07003070 . ,

C pop b60cGo J

. - - . = - - . . - - - - _ - _ - . . . .

i l

i application of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (" Applicant"), for a 30-year materials license to build and operate the claiborne Enrichment Center, a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility j to be located in claiborne Parish, Louisiara. Intervenor's contentions B and J.3 are primarily economic cost contentions regarding the reasonableness of the cost estimates contained in the Applicant's Decommissioning Funding Plan and Environmental 1

Report and the NRC Staff's Final Environment Impact Statement  ;

("FEIS") for the disposal of the depleted uranium tr..is (DUF 6) from the enrichment process. 45 NRC at 100-01. This Memorandum provides the requested additional explanation.

I. Background t As explained in LDP-97-3, the Commission's hearing notice initiating this licensing proceeding required the Applicant to 4

develop a " plausible strategy" for disposing of the tails from the enrichment process -- a requirement the Board interpreted as necessitating a reasonable or credible plan for disposing of DUF6

' tails. 45 NRC at 101, 105. In addition to that hearing notice requirement, the Commission's regulations further prescribe that an applicant's decommissioning funding plan contain reasonable

?

cost estimates for the various components of the plan. Id. In I

LBP-97-3, the Board found that the Applicant's tails disposal ,

plan of first converting depleted UF6 to U 3Og and then  ;

transporting the U 038 to a final site for deep. land burial (such as in a deep mine) was a plausible strategy for purposes of estimating the Applicant's tails disposal costs. Id. at 108.

With one exception not relevant here concerning the Applicant's failure to include in its cost estimate the substantial costs of neutralizing the byproduct hydrofluoric acid when converting DUF6 to U380 , the Board found that the Applicant's estimates for transportation and disposal of U 038 for disposal by deep burial were reasonable. Id. at 112, 113.

Along with its direct challenge to the Applicant's tails disposal cost estimate, CANT also challenged the Staff's analysis in the FEIS of deep burial of U 38 0 . The Intervenor generally claimed that the Staff's analysis was so flawed that it could not support the conclusion that deep burial of U 038 in an existing abandoned mine will adequately protect the health and environment, thereby mandating disposal in a geologic repository at much higher costs. Id. at 119-20. In this regard, because no

j deep burial site has been licensed for the disposal of depler"'

uranium tails, the Staff modeled two hypothetical sites 3: "< . 4 FEIS making, ixdau; alia, a number of assumptions about geck;tdC and groundwater characteristics. From its analysis, the Staff concluded that the dose impacts for a deep disposal site are less than those set forth in the applicable regulations, 10 C.F.R. Part 61. Id. at 107-08.

In challenging the FEIS analysis, the Intervenor claimed, amor other things, that the Staff used inappropriate and misleading values for groundwater regarding redox potential ("eH"), pH, and retardation factor. Id. at 119-21. In each instance, the Board found-that the Intervenor's challenge was without merit and that the representative values for groundwater generally selected by the Staff from a range of ,

values with respect to eH, pH, and retardation factor were ,

reasonab1m. Id. at 120-21. Further, the Board concluded, contrary to CANT's claim, that an uncertainty analysis to obtain upper and lower bounds for estimated doses'was unnecessary for the Staff's evaluation of-the impacts from two representative hypothetical disposal sites. Id. at 121-22.

4

, a -, -, , ,-e . , , - - * - , - ,,,---,,,------r --,-. -.,-- , ,, .~,-r ---,a n

5-In its remand order, the Commission sought a more detailed explanation of the basis underlying one aspect of the Board's t finding that the Applicant's cost estimate for the deep burial disposal of U 03 8 was reasonable. Specifically, the Commission questioned whether the Board had found that it was plausible that  :

a deep mine will be available in the United States with the exact values selected by the Staff for each groundwater parameter or whether the Board instead had found that it was plausible there will be a mine in the United States with characteristics falling within the expected range. CLI-97-11, 46 NRC at __ (slip. op. at 3). The Commission opined that it was most likely that the Board only relied upon the plausibility of the existence of a mine with characteristics lying within the potential rge and, if so, it directed the Board "to discuss why it found that the staff's dose impact calculations can be taken as representative of disposal in mines with groundwater characteristics that differ from the staff's single set of values." Id. at __ (slip. op. at 3-4).

Further, the Commission noted that the Board had not identified the effect that varying the values within the expected range would have on dose impacts. Id. at __ (slip, op, at 4).

6-In response to the Commission's remand order, the Board held i a hearing conference and directed the parties to file new proposed findings addressing various Board questions as well as the matters raised in the Commission's remand order.1 No party

'Along with the parties' proposed findings of fact filed in response to the Board's direction, the Applicant filed a motion to strike and the Intervenor filed a motion for leave to file surreply findings as well as a counter-motion to strike. San Applicant's Motion to Strike (Oct. 15, 1997); CANT's Motion for Leave to Pile Surreply Proposed Supplemental Findings (Oct. 16, 1997); CANT's Response to Louisiana Energy Services' Motion to Strike and Counter-Motion to Strike (Oct. 22, 1997). Each of these motions is denied.

Further, in its proposed findings on the matters remanded by the Commission, the Staff relied upon a previously filed affidavit, with attachments, that had been filed by the Staff after the close of the evidentiary record. Sen NRC Staff's Proposed Findings Addressing Issue in Commission Remand Order CLI-97-11 (Oct. 7, 1997). The Staff filed this material as part of its response to the Board's post hearing directive that the parties file legal memoranda addressing, inter alla, the legal status of waste generated at the claiborne Enrichment Center. In this regard, the Board inquired of the parties whether, under current law, the Applicant's waste must be disposed of in Louisiana or a state belonging to a compact with Louisiana and whether the characteristics of such locations were compatible with the Staff's two hypothetical sites modeled in the FEIS.

Order (March 24, 1995). As part of its response, the Staff filed an affidavit, with attachments, by its expert witnesses at the hearing to the effect that the states in the Central Interstate compact contained layered-shale and granitic formations that are compatible with the hypothetical sites modeled in the FEIS. NRC Staff Memorandum in Response to Licensing Board Order Dated March 24, 1995 Regarding Legal Status of Depleted UF6 Generated at the

- . - , , . - . . .- -~ - - .- --

advocated that the Board reopen the record to take new evidence to respond to the Commission's order. Nor did any party object to the Board's decision not to accept any new evidence.

II. Discussion The Board's earlier findings in LBP-97-3 on contentions B and J.3 based on the original evidentiary record remain the Board's principal findings of fact on these contentions. This further explanation is intended to answer the Commission's inquiry and set forth in greater detail the basis for the Board'c claiborne Enrichment Center and Legal Standard for Assessing Financial Qualification (Apr. 21, 1995). In its reply to the Staff's memorandum, CANT objected to the Licensing Board making any findings based on the Staff's new factual assertions regarding the geologic characteristics of any sites in the Central Interstate Compact. CANT's Response Memorandum Regarding Effects of Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act on Depleted Uranium Tails Disposal (May 8, 1995). Due to the intervening enactment of the USEC Privatization Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2297h-11, the Board did not reach any questions concerning the effect of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2021b gt acq., on the Applicant's tails disposal strategy. Sem 45 NRC at 110 note 7. The Board, therefore, did not include in LBP-97-3 any ruling on the Intervenor's objection to the Staff's evidentiary material that was filed after the close of the hearing record. Because this staff evidentiary material was filed after the close-of the evidentiar'y record (Tr. 1243) and the Staff did not seek to reopen the record, the Staff's late-filed factual material is not properly part of the evidentiary record of the proceeding and it cannot now properly be used by the Board as the basis for any factual findings.

a-,. __,, _n - -, .L l

i findings that the Applicant's cost estimate for the deep burial of U30s was reasonable and that the Intervenor's challenge to the Staff's dose estimate analysis in the FEIS was without merit.

A. Plausibility of Locrmg a suitable Disposal Site As previously mentioned, the Board found in LBP-97-3 that (1) the Applicant's tails disposal strategy, including the deep burial of U 0g 3 (such as in an abandoned mine), was a reasonable plan for purposes of estimating its tails disposal costs, and (2) '

its estimate for the deep burial of U 0g 3 ',as reasonable.

Further, the Licensing Board found that (? ) the Intervenor's challenge to the Staft's dose estimate analysis of two hypothetical burial sites in the FEIS was without merit, and (2) in each instance, the Statt's use of a representative value for eH, pH, and retardation factor of deep groundwater was reasonable. In making these findings the Licensing Board necessarily concluded that it was reasonable to assume that a mine can be located in the United States for U 3Og disposal that will have groundwater parameters sufficiently close to the representative values used in the Staff,'s analysis so that any deviation will not result in dose estimates exceeding the

regulatory limits of 10 C.F.R. Part 61. Thus, the short answer to the initial question asked by the Commission in its remand order, as the Commission correctly discerned, is that the Licensing Board found that it is " plausible that there is a mine in the U.S. with characteristics falling within the expected ,

range." CLI-97-11, 46 NRC at __ (slip. op, at 3).

Further, in finding that each of the representative values for eH, pH, and retardation factor used by the Staff in its dose estimate analysis was reasonable, the Board clearly recognized that each of the Staff's chosen values, generally selected from a range of values, was not a worst case parameter but rather an  ;

acceptable compromise for assessing hypothetical sites -- a situation necessitated by the fact that no licensed site for the deep disposal of enrichment tails exists. In this regard, the Board relied upon the Staff's assertions in the FEIS that * (t] he objective of (the Staff's) analysis is to develop estimates of impacts for conditions which may be expected to occur at a carefully selected site" (Staff Exh. 2, at Appendix A, at A-7),

and that *(t]he characteristics of these sites are representative of natural variability and expected conditions for deep

disposal." Id. at A-10. Moreover, in choosing the values for eH, pH, and retardation factor used in its analysis, the Staff's FEIS states that "[t]he literature values indicate that the selected groundwater analysis is representative of conditions expected for deep disposal locations." Cbl. at A-12.)

B. Reasonableness of Representative Values

1. Redox Potential. In finding that the redox potential-value used by the Staff in its dose estimate analysis was reasonable, the Board's decision addressed the major arguments of Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the Intervenor's expert witness, and those arguments and findings need not be repeated here. It suffices to note that, as indicated in LBP-97-3, the basis for the Staff's selection of an eH value of minus 100 millivolts ("mV") is not explained in the FEIS. In the FEIS, the Staff only provides a range of values for the eH of uranium mine water and the FEIS contains no data at all with respect to the eH of deep groundwater. (Staff Exh. 2, at Appendix A, at A-12, Table A.5.)

In his direct testimony, Dr. Makhijani, in effect, claimed that the Staff arbitrarily selected an eH value that fell outside the range of eH values of typical uranium mine water listed in the

4 r

FEIS. According to Dr.-Makhijani, this action minimized the ,

amount of uranium in solution.in the Staff's dose analysis because all of the eH values for uranium mine water set out in the FEIS would result in higher solubilities for uranium in groundwater. (Makhijani at-10-11 fol. Tr. 1081.) Further, he declared that notwithstanding one of the Staff's own expert's admissions that uranium 'is 3500 times more soluble at an eH of 50 i

mV (a value within the range of uranium mine water set out in the FEIS) than at an eH of minus 100 mV, the-latter value was the one used by the Staff in its dose analysis. (1d. 11-12.)

As the Staff's expert, Dr. Joseph D. Price, testified, however, the comparative eH values for uranium mine water set out in the FEIS likely do not represent the eH of waters in a closed uranium mine, in contrast to an uranium mine exposed to the air, because reported studies show that once such a mine is closed and contact with the atmosphere is precluded, the mine returns to a reducing state. (Tr. 1147.) Further, as noted in LBP-97-3, Dr.

Price explained that the Staff's analysis used an eH value of minus 100 mV because the comparative eH values for uranium mine water reproduced in the FEIS are not representative of eH values

~

for deep groundwater. According to Dr. Price, reported experimental observations of deep groundwater'show a range from minus 26 mV to minus 210 mV with some data going even lower.

(Tr. 1148-49, 1118-19, 1146.) In-light of this data, .the staff employed a redox potential value of minus 100 mV, which is an approximate mid-point negative eH value, because the majority of the range of available data for deep groundwater shows reducing conditions. (Price Tr. 1119.) And, as found in LBP-97-3, Dr.

Price indicated that depleted uranium tails only will be placed in a disposal site that has~ reducing conditions. (Tr. 1148.)

Moreover, in additional test', mony that the Board found persuasive, Dr. Price explained that the_ maximum dose by many orders of magnitude over the next highest dose is received from the agricultural use of water from a nearby well and this critical dose, which is many orders of magnitude below the regulatory standard, is due to radium and its daughters, not uranium. (Tr. 1152; Staff Exh. 2, at Appendix A, at A-14, Table A. 7.) Further, the critical radium dose is not sensitive to the solubility,of uranium in groundwater. '(Price Tr. 1152.) Stated otherwise, the_ solubility of uranium is largely irrelevant to the

- 13 -

critical dose. Dr. Price also indicated that the Staff dose estimate calculation assumes that all the radium is " grown in" ,

immediately at the disposal facility and, because radium has only a single valance state, it thus is not sensitive to eH. (Id.)

Further, he indicated that the dose estimate coming from uranium, which is the eH sensitive element, is negligible in comparison to the dose that comes from radium. (1d.; Staff Exh 2, at Appendix A, at A-14, Table A.7.) In other words, even if the solubility of uranium -- the primary characteristic determining relecae rates -- increased by a factor of 3500 in oxidizing conditions, that environment would not have a significant impact on the corresponding dose because the dose attributable to uranium is already infinitesimally small and would remain many orders of magnitude below the regulatory standard.

In this regard, the Board notes that in his testimony Dr.

Makhijani nowhere claimed to have rigorously investigated the critical dose as eH is varied and he readily acknowledged that the *very back-of-the-envelope" figuring he had done could not be represented as " scientific work." (Tr. 1181.) Rather, his assertion that it is possible that the Staff may have incorrectly I

e ..--,.m -- - - , - , , . - , - . . - - , ,

a

- 14 -

estimated the transport of uranium by " millions or tens of ,

millions" of times is based almost entirely on his adjustment of the calculation of uranium solubility. (Tr. 1182; Makhijani at 12-14 fol. Tr. 1081.) Yet, as Dr. Price emphasized in testimony that the Board credited in finding the Staff's use of an eH value of minus 100 mV reasonable, dissolved uranium is not what delivers the critical dose. (Tr. 1152.)

2. pH value. In LBP-97-3, the Board indicated that the reference literature for deep groundwater pH showed a range of 7.2 to 8.5. It also found that the Staff's use of a mid-point value of 7.8 in the FEIS dose estimate analysis was appropriate and reasonable. 45 NRC at 120. In challenging the Staff's use of a pH value of 7.8, however, Dr. Makhijani claimed that the pH in the basalt rock formations at the Hanford reservation, a geologic characteristic similar to one of two hypothetical sites modeled in the FEIS, had been found to be greater than 9. He asserted that such pH variationc could have a significant effect on the solubility and transport of uranium and, therefore, the calculated dose to the public. (Makhijani at 9-10 fol. Tr.

1081.) Specifically, Dr. Makhijani argued that the Staff's

choice of a pH value appeared to be designed to yield low dose estimates because a 7.8 pH value is within the narrow range of ,

values between 7 and 8 for which schoepite -- one chemical form of uranium into which U 03 8 might be transformed in some geologic environments -- has its lowest solubility, while a change in pH from 8 to 9 would increase the solubility of schoepite by a factor of about 10. (1d. at 14-15.)

But as other parts of Dr. Makhijani's own direct testimony show, U3 0g converts to schoepite in oxidizing geologic conditions, not reducing conditions. (Li. at 8, 15). Moreover, as Staff expert Dr. Price testified, and the Board found in LBP-97-3, U03 8 will only be disposed of in a deep burial site with reducing conditions, not oxidizing conditions. (Tr. 1148.)

Thus, Dr. Makhijani's challenge to the staff's use of a representative pH value, much like his challenge to the Staff's representative eH value, is.not based on rigorous investigation of the critical dose as pH is varied. Rather, he relied upon a single inappropriate and unpersuasive example. Indeed, in his criticism of the Staff's selection of a pH value, Dr. Makhijani appeared to have ignored completely the dominant effect of the l

radium dose. Accordingly, in finding the Staff's use of a representative pH value of 7.8 in its dose estimate analysis appropriate and reasonable, the Board found nothing in Dr.

Makhijani's testimony that showed that the value selected by the Staff was far from what might plausibly be found in an appropriately selected site or that a modest change in pH would present significant problems.

3. Retardation Value. in LBP-97-3, the Board also found that the Staff's use in its dose calculation analysis of a retardation factor of 1200 for uranium was reasonable. This value was based on actual experimental observations for a comparable medium reported in a 1978 Swedish study and was corroborated by additional experimental observations reported in a German study. 45 NRC at 121. Dr. Makhijani criticized the Staff's use of data from the Swedish study based on a 1983 report by the National Academy of Sciences (*NAS"). This NAS report contained retardation factor data for basalt and granite rock formations in the United States, the general geologic characteristics _of the two sites modeled in the Staff analysis, that were lower than the value selected by the Staff. According

6 ,

. : N k

r to Dr. Makhijani, the NAS report listed retardation factors for [i granite of between 10 and 500 and for' basalt of between 20 and: j 1000, with 50 being the recommended estimate if one number was.to be used for both geologic settings. (Makhijani at 10 fol. Tr. ,

1081.)  ;

~

As stated'in LBP-97-3, the Board found the retardation

. factor value used by the Staff reasonable because it was selected I

from' actual experimental observatibns for a comparable medium and corroborated by a second set of experimental observations. In reaching that conclusion, the Board also took into consideration Dr. Price's testimony that the Staff's primary reference source ,

for retardation factor values presented two sets of values for both uranium and radium: one set was labeled

• cautiously ,

conservative" while the much higher second set was labeled *best estimate." For uranium, Dr. Price testified that the best estimate value was approximately 24,000, while the cautiously conservative value, and the one used by the Staff, was 1200. For radium, he stated that the-best estimate value was in the range t of150,000, while the cautiously conservative value, and the one 1

used by the Staff, was in the 1200 to 1800-range. (Tr. 1235.)

t r -- e----- ,,---wr - . - .,..rm ,>c -

, e -w . . - .,ym....gwi.,,.....,--g ,,w,4 w.,w--w,,,,,,we , , + . w,--- --i,m.- .-,, -- - - ,, * - - - , --,-e.w ,,--

t Further, Dr. Price testified that the best estimate values were also corroborated by observations reported in a second study.

(1d.) Additionally, Dr. Price stated that, while he and his collesgues were aware of the lower values in the report of the National Academy of Sciences, the text cf that study

• qualified" the values and provided no direct citetions for them. For this  ;

reason, Dr. Price indicated that they used references for retardation factors that cited experimental data directly because it provided the most reliable data. 'Tr. 1116-17.)

As a consequence, in finding the Staff's use of a retardation factor of 1200 for uranium reasonable, the Board essentially was confronted with differing professional opinions.

The Staff's experts, after surveying all the data and selecting a conservative value, performed the calculations that produced a conservative result. The Intervenor's expert, on the other hand, cited another value without performing any ca) ulations and neither convincingly stated why that value was preferable nor provided any direct experimental sources for the data. The Board wra persuaded that the Staf f's approach was the correct or e.

k

C. Compliance with Regulatory Standards Having thus rejected the Intervenor's challenge to the Staf f's choice of values for eH, pH, and retardation f actor and found those values reasonable, the Board necessarily concluded that deep burial of the enrichment tails would comply with the regulatory standards of 10 C.F.R. Part 61. This determination, in turn, was integral to the Board's finding in LBP-97-3 that deep burial wcs a plausible disposal _ strategy by which to judge tbo Applicant's talis disposal costs. In making these determinations, the Board also took into account the numerous conservatisms involved in the Staff's dose estimate analysis. As l

Dr. Price testified, the Staff's analysis did not take any credit for retardation and decay during vertical transport and it assumed that all radionuclides " grew in" at the disposal site instantaneously. Additionally, the dose calculation did not take into account resaturation time at the disposal site. (Tr. 1124-25.) Moreover, the various computer codes used in the Staff's dose estimate analysis (agg Staff Exh. 2, at Appendix A, at A-8) are themselves inherently conservative. (Price Tr. 1125.) In light of these factors, the Board, like the Staff's expert who

- m

- 20 -

! performed the analysis, reasonably concluded that the dose j i

estimate analysis in the FEIS overestimates doses and that the j i

projected doses from deep burial of enrichment tails are many i orders of magnitude below the regulatory standard of 10 C.F.R. j 4-j Part 61. (San Staff Exh. 2, at Appendix A, at A-12, Table A-7.) . j i _In this-regard,~the Board also was cognizant that the

methodology, logic, approach, and major source documents used in- l the Staff's dose estimate analysis were reviewed by the Applicant's expert witnesses who concluded that "[t]his margin of safety provides confidence t'. '. a site can be located whose characteristics are similar enough to those of the generic sites analyzed in [FEIS) Appendix A to allow disposal in accordance.

with the. Performance Objectives of Part 61." (Dubiel-Donelson at .

14-15 fol. Tr. 1026.) They further concluded that, " [bl ecause resultant doses are projected to be several orders of magnitude below the Performance Objectives in 10 C.F.R. Part 61, it is reasonable to assume that sites can be located which will ensure that the-Part 61 Performance Objectives are met." (Isi, at 15. )

7' Finally, in' determining on the basis of the Staff's dose estimate analysis that deep burial of enrichment tails would meet-I-

1 9 - w-- - - - - - ,~_. i-,w., -

w,r,ry.p..,cy--m,r w r- e v * - cwwv e -

-+r rw--- "

• .-mw-- -

r-im'*~ *ww-t*-- --ee---#~ e- **s--e e--

- 'the standards of 10 C.F.R. Part 61,'the Board rejected two additional Intervenor arguments. First, Dr. Makhijani argued that the-Staff's dose estimates attributable to uranium were

" unbelievably low" and " incredible" in comparison to routine groundwater samples. (Tr. 1182.) According to Dr. Makhijani, a well drilled into typical groundwater in the United States would yield water with a concentration of: uranium many times the dose estimated'by the Staff from the deep burial of' pure depleted uranium. (ld.) Jus the FEIS makes clear, however, the Staf f's dose estimates are only the projected doses from the deep disposal of U Og.

3 (Staff Exh. 2, at 4-65.) Those dose estimates, therefore, do not reflect background radiation.

Furthermore, and contrary to the Intervenor's assertions, the Board had no reason to find it surprising, much less incredible, that the Staff dose estimates were far below regulatory limits.

As the Staff dose estimate analysis demonstrated, U 038 from depleted-uranium tails is essentially insoluble and largely impervious to-water transport when buried deep in appropriate granite or basalt rock-formations.

Second, the Board rejected Dr. Makhijani's argument that the Staff should have performed an uncertainty analysis as part of its dose estimate analysis so that upper and lower bounds for doses could be obtained. 45 NRC at 121-22. In LBP-97-3, the Board found, based on Dr. Price's testimony, that an uncertainty analysis was unnecessary for the evaluation of the impacts of two hypothetical disposal sites. Id. at 122. As Dr. Price testifiad, an uncertainty analysis is useful and necessary in the analysis of an actual site when the range of parameters of site characteristics can be measured or carefully estimated. For the evaluation of a hypothetical site, however, he indicated that an uncertainty analysis was impractical and unnecessary due to the lack of specific site data on the various site parameters. (Tr.

1120-21.) The clear import of Dr. Price's testimony, with which the Board agreed, was that, for a hypothetical site analysis, the challenge was to s alect a reasonable value from a range of critical parameters for known sites that likely would be found in a reasonably thorough search for an actual site. In such circumstances, a worst case analysis would merely provide information about. dose rates for sites that would not be considered in the " search" for an actual licensable site. As the Board found, therefore, such an analysis was unnecessary.

- 23 -

III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Board concluded in LBP-97-3  ;

that -(1) it was plausible that a mine for the disposal of enrichment tails with characteristics within the range of parameters used by the Staff in its dose estimate analysis can be {

found in the United States; (2) the eH, pH, and retardation .

_ factor values used by the Staff in its dose-estimate analysis were reasonable and representative values; and (3) given the extremely-low doses calculated in the FEIS and the conservatisms-associated with those dose calculations, variations in the representative values of those parameters within the expected range likely would not cause the overall dose estimates to exceed the regulatory standards of 10 C.F.R. Parc 61.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND ,

LICENSING BOARD ,

A4wLa __ W Thomas S. Moore { Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 2

Richard F. Cole ADMINIST TIVE JUDGE r

4 ./ i Flederick J. ' on/

ADMINISTRATI JUDGE

<Rockville,: Maryland November 13, 1997

.- l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

i In the Matter of LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. Ncket No.(s) 70-3070-ML (Claiborne Enrichment Center SNM License) r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

I hereby certify that copies of the for6 going LB MEM0 [... REMAND) LBP-97-22 +

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. ma91, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Ju'dge Office of Commission Appellate Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nucisar Regulatory Jommission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Janice E. Moore, Esq.

Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. Diane Curran, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Harmon, Curran & Spielberg Mail Stop 15 B18 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555 Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Roland J. Jensen Counsel for NEI President Shaw, Pittman, Potts &-Trowbridge Lousiana Energy-Services, L.P.

2300 N Street, N.W. 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Suite 608 Washington, DC 20037 Washington, DC 20037 L

l 1

Docket No.(s)70-1070-ML LB MEM0 (...REMAW) LBP-97-22 Robert G. Morgan Licensing Manager J. Michael McGarry, !!!, Esq.

LES - c/o Duke Engineering and Counsel for LES Services, Inc. Winston & Strawn PO Box 1004 1400 L Street, N.W.

Charlotte, NC 28201 Washington, DC 20005 Ronald Wascom Wathalie M. Walker, Esq. Deputy Assistant Secretary Robert B. Wiygul, Esq. Office of Air Quality & Rad. Protection Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Dept. of Environmental Quality 400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 P.O. Box 82135 New Orleans, LA 70130 Baton Rouge, LA 70884 4

Dated at Rockville, Md. this  ;

13 day of November 1997

$ $tktAdatf Uffice of the Secretary of the Commission l

l l'

_ ,_ ._