ML20246M103

Responds to Re Expansion of Pellet Production Lines at Plant.Regulation of Other Materials Will Not Affect Proposed Changes

ML20246M103
Person / Time
Site:	07000036
Issue date:	08/23/1989
From:	Mehan G MISSOURI, STATE OF
To:	Nixon J MISSOURI, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8909070095
Download: ML20246M103 (5)

Text

[:

.e:ii%

yo_36

~

s,

. JOHN ASHCROIT g.'

rwon d mergy

%' " &y Division of Enuronmental Quality l

M l

Daision of Ceology and land Survey i.,

' 4 ht' DMsion of Management Senices G. TMCY MEllAN Ill tarettir STATE OFMISSOURI Dinsion M Parks. Recreation, and Hisionc Preservation DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GFTICE OF THE DIRECTOR P.O. Box 176

_Jdrerson City, MO 65102 314 751 4422 August 23, 1989 The Honorable Jereniah (Jay) W. Nixon Misrouri Senate, 22nd District Rom 429 State Capitol Jefferson City, m 05101 D9ar Senator Nixon:

I am responding to your letter of August 17, 1989, a garding the expansion of the pellet production lines at the Ocmbustion Engineering plant in Hemtite, Missouri.

The Ccmbustion Engineering Plant is licensed by the U.S. Ibclear Regulatory Cm mission to process radioactive materials. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has no jurisdiction over these radioactive naterials. This is because states are prempted by the federal Atmic Energy Act frm regulating these radioactive materials.

However, & do regulate o*her materials at the plant and the following

cussion outlines those areas of regulation. Based on preliminary infornetim, our regulation of these other materials will cost likely not be significantly affected by the pwposed changes in the plant operation.

We are gathering adctiticial information, howser, and we will follow up to make sure thct the piant is in empliarxm with all applicable state laws and regulations.

In addition, we intend to ask the U.S.

Eruironnental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cdnmissica (NBC) to investigate the previously buried waste at the site.

URA!UUM PROCESSIN2 Question 1: Why is Ccmbustion Engineering requesting permission to handle fuel which contains a higher percentage of uranium than previously processed at Hematite?

8909070090 590822

{DR ADOCV 07000d36 5 0 PDC (jdcLJ"h

The Honorable Jeremiah.(Jay) W. Nixon August 23, 1989 Page 2 Answer to Question 1: The MD!M has no jurisdiction over the processing of uranium. This question should be dirc ted to Cambustion Engineering and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission.

AIR R O WATER QlMLITY Question 2: The total discharged pollutants into river afd air have decreased by a substantial percentage in the last decade.

In view of this ' fact, why is Cambustion Engineering requesting pemission to increase air emissions and water effluents?

Question 3: Has the state of Missouri given its OK for any. increased Emissions?

Question 4: What plans have been prepared to reduce missions?

Question 5: Has the state or a national agency requested such a plan?

Question 7: What will be the effect of approval of the application upon water quality?

Answer to Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7: Based on our carrent records the plant's air emissions are classified as a source which does not requfre regular periodic reporting. The MD!E has requested the Cmbustion Engineering plant to subnit an air emissions inventory in order that we nay determine whether an air pollution control pemit will be required for the plant because of the proposed changes.

The proposed changes will require a 20% increase in the number of plant personnel. This increase will result in a pwrui.ional increase in the dmestic sewerage resulting frun toilets, sinks, showers, and drinking fountains. The Cmbustion Engineering plant applied in March of 1989 for a renewal of its state water discharge permit which was originally issued in 1979 and reissued in 1984.

The MDim has requested Cmbustion Engineering to route the discharge frm the laundry and the de::d.neralizer regeneration water to the wastewater treatment plant. This request, however, is not related to the proposed change in the plant production processes. The MDim has asked the plant to revise its application for a state water discharge pemit to incorporate this requested change. The revised application I

has not yet been received. When the revised application is received the MDNR will issue a draft pemit for public review and cmment.

'Ihis pemit will regulate only the non-radioactive constituents i

in the waste water frm sinks, toilets, shoers, drinking fountains, j

laundry, demineralized regeneration water, cooling water, and stom

]

runoff.

I 1

.e.

e

'The' Honorable Jer miah (Jay) W. Nixon L

August 23, 1989 Y

Page 3 Questions regarding any plans.to reduce any radioactive missions and effluents should be directed to Cambustion Engineering and the NRC.

PO1HirIAL RADIATION IMPACTS

~ Question 6: Will there be increased output of radiation, and if so,'

what a*.e.the potential impacts on health and environment?

Answer to Question 6: The IER does not regulate radioactive missions frm the plant. However, we believe that man-made radiation should always be as low as reasonably achievable. We will g'

encourage all parties to achieve this end.

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Question 8: Will there be any change in trarsy.,rt.ation patterns of prodaet or waste?

Answer to Question 8: Again, due to federal preeription, the MDNR

.does not have authority to regulate the transportation of radioactive products or waste. The MDNR does regulate the trarsporuttion of hazardous waste as defined in the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law (see the next answer). If the plant ships any hazardous waste it must comply with the Missouri law and regulations.

WASTE MANA:3EMENT ISSUES Question 9: Will the volume of waste produced at the plant increase?

Question 10: Where will this waste be taken for disposal?

Question 11: Will the facility have storage capacity sufficient to store waste if it is unable to use its usual disposal site? Will more waste be stored, and if so, how much?

Answer to Questions 9,10, and 11: lbn-hazardous solid waste such as office waste or cafeteria waste must be managed in a permitted solid waste facility. Hazardous waste must be managed in a permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. The MDIE has inspected the plant and deternined that no hazardous waste (as regulated by the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law) is produced at the plant. If non-radioactive hazardous wastes are produced at the plant in the future it will be regulated under the Missouri i

Hazardous Waste Management Law. The plant would be required to j

register the wastes with MDIR.

)

i 1

n h e Honorabl9 Jeremiah (J;;y) W. Nixon August 23, 1989 Page 4 1

%e low-level radioactive waste which is produced at the plant is.

regulated by the NRC. However, under the federal low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act all states are responsible for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (ILRN) generated within their

~

3 borders.

Congress encouraged the states to join in regional campacts in order to m nege LLRR. Missouri is a tnamber of the Midwest ILRR Cmpact which has selected Michigan as the location of the compact's first disposal site. At present, the waste fram the Ccmbustion -

Engimering plant my go to licensed facilities in South Carolina, Washington, and Nevada,until'1993. The plant's waste will go to the

' Michigan facility which is scheduled to be conpleted in 1996. In the period between 1993 and 1996 Cartbustion Engineering will be required to have sufficient storage space to store the waste.

EMERGE 2CY RESPONSE ISSUES Question 12: Will nore products be stored on site? If so, is there a danger of increased accidents with the changed and increased capacity'?

Question 13: Is an accident nore likely to be core serious with the proposed changes?

~

Question 14: How will energency procedures be revised?

Question 15: Will the modifications require changes in local j

eis prcy response capability?

Answer to Questions 12, 13, 14, and 15: The issue of an increased l

chance of accidents should be addressed to Combustion Engineering and the NRC. Under the federal Drspicy Planning and Ccanunity Right-to-Enow Act (EPCRA) the Cambustion Engineering plant is required to notify the Mbssouri Emergency Response Ccunission and the local anspcy planning ccmnittee (EPC) of the existence of hazardous substances at the plant. Ocnnbustion Engineering nust also provide the name of its facility coordinator to work with the local EPC for sim p cy planning purposes.

The plant has notified the state of Missouri that certain non-radioactive hazardous chemicals are used at the site. Rese chemicals are: cryogenic lirIaid nitrogen, 1,1,1 trichloromethane,

{

nitric acid, anhydrous annonia, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, percholoroethane, potassium hydroxide, and hyivgwfluoride. The MDNR has recently sent a letter to Cambustion Engineering infoming them of additional responsibilities under EPCRA and requesting additional infomation. We have not yet received a response.

i 1

)

]

2 2

..o :

~

'Ihe Honorable Jeruniah-(Jay) W. Nixon

i. -',,

August 23,-1989.

'Page 5 2:,

Qaestion 16: Also, it is my understanding that large amounts of

. waste are stored on site. If this is correct, please answer the following:

A.

liow is this wasts stored?

B. ' What type of waste'is' stored?

C.

Do you consider this a tenporary or permanent solution?

D.

Are there plans to make a different pemanent disposal of this waste?

E.-

Is there a clear record, duplicable for state inspection of what and where these wastes are buried?

Answer to Question 16 (A through E): Presumably the questions refer to waste which was disposed of by burial au the site in the past.

'Ihis waste was investigated by the NRC in 1982. The !@C released a xeport of this investigation in 1983 which indicated that small quantities of uranium were buried at the plant and that the buried material is essentially stable.

'Ihe federal Superfund law may apply to this waste as well as appropriate NRC regulations. The NDra's position is that the buried waste should be investigated under these laws and regulations to detemine what further action is required. The NDNR will pursue this issue with the NRC and the EPA.

I trust that this information will be itseful to you. As I indicated we will be following up on several of these questions and I will keep you informed. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance, l

very truly yours, MI %lw[

f G. Tracy Mehan, III Director V

cnudbe Congressman Richard Gephardt cc:

Mr. Morris Eay, EPA Mr. Roland Lickus, NRC Dr. Robert Hamon, MDOH Mr. James Rode, Ccrnbustion Engineering

.