ML20248J312

Transcription of Public Meeting Re C-E.* Forwards Transcript of 890824 Meeting,J Nixon & Petition Signed by Local Residents in Support of C-E Efforts to Expand Operations at Hematite Facility.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20248J312
Person / Time
Site:	07000036
Issue date:	10/02/1989
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20248J303	List: ML20248J301 ML20248J312
References
MLA, NUDOCS 8910180051
Download: ML20248J312 (81)

Text

. - - - _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - _ - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - -.

~: .j .j 0f UNITED STATES f*pn at0 m[0,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

'5

'[ g REGION lil

.. f 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD cocu cu.vu, icuuOis som 00T 0 2 1989 MEMORAkDUMFOR: Judge Charles Bechhoefer, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel FROM:

Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Radiation' Safety and Safeguards, Region III

SUBJECT:

TRANSCRIPTION OF A PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING COMBUSTION ENGINEERING On August 24, 1989, I moderated a meeting to provide.information to the general public on licensing actions regarding expansion of operations at Combustion Engineering's facility in Hematite, Missouri. Attached for your information is {i a' transcription of the meeting which I.have marked for clarification, a copy of an August 17,1989. letter from State Senator J. Nixon to the Executive Director j a

for Operations, and a petition signed by local residents in support of Combustion Engineering's efforts to expand operations at the Hematite facility.

l Please let me kr.ow if you have any questions regarding the ineeting or the attachments. )

4hca Y. J Charles E. Norelius, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Attachments:

1. Meeting Transcript

2. August 17, 1989 Ltr from J. Nixon

3. Petition  !

-l cc w/ attachments:

A. B. Davis, RIII L. Rouse, NMSS cc w/o attachments:

R. Bernero, NMSS D. Cunningham, NMSS 0910%051Bhh036 PDR OCK O ppR C

t l '0

. t l- s

~ ll{; s:  ;;

4 ,

fuhsl Inarked lopy.

g.4.U+10'=

2 ..Izin; i

L: 3 1: .

Pasut. Msersg 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NrrMt9ftfr 5

AUGUST 24, 1989-6 ' JEFFEP, SON. COLLEGE , HILLSBORO, MISSOURI.

v .; .v 7'

' 8.

Presenti ' Charles Norelius 9 Lee Rouse George Bidinger 10 Jim Rode 11

-'12 e

s 13 1

14 15 16 17 18

.- 19 20 21

- 22 23 24 25

. PJ5fLL2naaa arson 9nm coumv

t3 c

yG. .

~*

2 1 MR. NORELIUS: Good evening ladies and 2 gentlemen.. My name is Charles Norelius. I'm the director 3 of the division of radiation safety and safeguard.in 1 N.R.C.'s region three office near Chicago, Illinois. The L

5 purpose of our meeting tonight is to provide you with 6 information regarding plan changes in the operation at 7' Combustion Engineering's plant at Hematite and also 8 information on the N.R.C. staff evaluation of the changes.

9 I have with me tonight the following members'of the N.R.C.

10 . staff. Sitting first here is Lee Rouse, who is the chief of 11 the fuel. cycle safety branch out of our headquarters in 12 . Washington. Next to him is George Bidinger. He's the f' uerbs.

13 leader of the uranium fuel section also out of N.R.C.4 Dave etcC 14 M"F ^y' e,hty nuclear processing engineer and med M**y Horn 15 environmental engineer both ' ^ '--- ' -'-*#

of 16 headquarters.j om our regional office 3 I have Dr. Bruce

)

Malktt . I 17 M;11:t. He's the chief of our nuclear material safety j Famve.

18 branch and next to him is George Trank; who is the project 19 inspector for the Hematite facility. In the front here is )

i 20 Russ Harbito who is our public affairs man and I might just 21 say if there are anyone here, reporters who are here Russ 22 should be your point of contact this evening. I would also 23 note that Combustion Engineering is participating with us in 24 this meeting and Mr. Jim Rode the manager of the Her.atite 25 plant is sitting back here and he will be addressing you I

) M

i-

• ' '~

3 1 shortly. WealsohaveDaveBedan,[whoisfromthe' Missouri 2 ' Department of Natural Resources. Dave, okay. And if there 3 are questions pertaining to the' state permit Dave will 4 answer those. [Excuseme, would you please turn up your 5 speakeralittlemoreorwhateveryoudotomakeitlouderf[

6 Okay. We'll try that. Is that better? The 7 ', N.R.C. has a responsibility to show that g4g. posed uses of E radioactive material can be carried out with due regard for 9 public health and safety off site by the N.R.C. is 10 accomplished through the review and approval of any planned 11 activity proposed by an applicant and through subsequent 12 field inspections of ongoing activities once they have been 13 approved. In the case of Combustion Engineering at Hematite 14 Mr. Rouse and his staff are responsible for licensing 15 4ad activities and I 446 my staf f are responsible for onsight 16 inspection activities.

Letmeexplainthapy'sdhereisa 17 difference between a public formal hearing as we are having 18 here tonight and a hearing which is provided for under part i

19 two of our regulations. During this past June Senator Nixon 8 20 and the coalition for the environment requested a hearing to 21 address the proposed expansion of uranium processing 22 activities by Combustion Engineering at the Hematite site.

23 The request from the coalition was signed by Martha Dodson, i

I 24 Karen Sisk and Arlene Sandler. These requests have been l no cv(L t.

25 evaluated according to 44+ part two sub part &we of our 1

MILL 236&& RED 6aTING coMDAkv  !

,:m;. .

.p 4.

l..

[(' i regulations. -And on August 18, 1989, Judge Beckhoffer 1

u 2 issued an order granting the request for a hearing to Martha 3 Dodson and deferring action on the other petitions. The 4 order also set out the time frame for continuing that 5 proceeding. The N.R.C. . staff has perceived our based on the 6 previously mantioned letters input from the. Missouri 7' Depart =ent of Natural Resources and supporting letters from 8 members of the'U.S. Congress that a general meeting 9 conducted by the N.R.C. staff and open to the public would 10 be' beneficial. Combustion Engineering also suggested that 11 such a meeting be held. That is our purpose here tonight.

12 The management of Combustion Engineering Hematite 13 plantfas agreed to participate with us in describing the 14 operations at the plant. And we, the N.R.C., plan to 15 describe our evaluation of the safety of the operations. We 16 hope that the information presented this evening addresses 17 your concerns. In Judge Beckhoffer's order he acknowledged 1

18 that this public formal hearing was planned. He also  !

19 stated, and I quote, "that this meeting, of course, is 20 separate and apart from the hearing sought by the 21 ' petitioners in this proceeding.[' Attendance at the formal 22 meeting would not affect a petitioner's opportunity to 23 become a party to this proceeding. Or if a petitioner

, 24 through this formal meeting determined that any or all of 25 its concerns were not warranted it should so advise me."

5 1 That's quoting Judae Bechhoffer. I would also note that 4

2 while this is not a hearing as provided for in the 3 regulations it is being transcribed so that if there is a

'4 need to refer back to the statements by individuals at this 5 meetinc at a later time we will have a record of the 6 comhents made here tonight.

7- What we plan to do here this evening is first have 8 a presentation by Mr. Jim Rode plant manager as to the 9 changes they-have made in or are plannina to make in their 10 operation at Hematite. He also will address th: ::::ific, 11 some of the specific questions raised by Senator Nixon in 12 recent letters both to the plant and to the N.R.C..

I 13 Specifically questions one through five and A through E 14 regarding waste storage. Secondly, Mr. George Bidinger will 15 describe the N.R.C. licensing process and specifically the 16 status of reviews as they relate to the Combustion 17 Engineering request. He will respond to the remaining 18 questions raised by Senator Nixon and to the issues raised 19 by the coalition for the environment in their request for a 20 hearing. After that time we will take statements by members 21 of the public who are here. I will first give opportunity 22 for statements from Senator Nixon and then from Martha 23 Dodson and Karen Sisk and after that I will take statements 24 from other people who are visiting here. We placed a pad of 25 paper back on the chair. It's probably under the chair now

6 1 where that gentleman is sitting and one back there.

And if 2 you wish to make a statement tonight I would ask that you 3 sign up and we believe in that way we will give everybody a

-4 fair and equitable time to make those statements. If we 5 still have time available after the persons who indicate 6 they would like to make statements we will then open the 7 '. meeting for public questions and answers.

8 I believe we will proceed and I'll ask Mr. Jim 9 Rode if he will come at this time and describe the 10 operations currently under way at the plant.

11 MR. RODE: Good evening. My name is Jim Rode.

12 I'm the plant manager for Combustion Engineering's I

13 operations in Hematite. The Hematite plant and the C.E.

14 employees have been members of this community for fifteen 15 years. I hope that we have been good neighbors and that we I 16 will continue to be. The efforts that we are making to 17 modernize our plant are intended to make us even better 18 members of the community than we have been in the past. I 19 am pleased to be here this evening to talk to you about what 20 we're doing to modernize our facility and consolidate our 21 manufacturing operations. Our local applications for 22 building permits and the documents we have submitted to the 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been publicly available

( 24 for sometime but there is no substitute for face to face 25 discussion. We welcome and support this meeting.

m2LLeaaaa nasaa@vma eawanew

-- i

e. s.

7 1 I would like to start by briefly describing in i

2 non-technical terms what we do at the Hematite plant and 3 just as importantly some of the things that we don't do.

. 4, Our plant performs some of the manufacturing steps in the 5 process that transforms uranium or as it is mined from the 6 ground into suitable fuel for use in nuclear power plants.

7 . We do.what you might call the middle steps. The early step 8 uranium mining and millino transforms the ore into uranium 9

9.lte wak4.

concentrate generally referred to as y-?lr" 5. This part of 10 the operation deals with daughter products and uranium 11 refining plant and conversion to uranium hexaflouride 12 removes the daughter products. The daughter products are 13 somewhat hotter than the uranium that we process at our 14 plant. That uranium has been purified then sent on to the 15 gaseous diffusion plant where we enrich, where the uranium 16 is enriched by the Department of Energy. Subsequently sent 17 .to our plant as a solid in cylinders under vacuum. This IB bbm4h comes to us generally today from the Pert Caith gaseous 19 diffusion plant in Ohio. Occasionally we receive uranium, 20 enriched uranium also from overseas enrichment plants. In 21 a series of steps we transform this material into a powder.

22 This powder is referred to as uranium dioxide. Some of this 23 powder is pressed into small cylindral pellets about this 24 big. We ship the pellets or the powder to the Connecticut 25 plant where the manufacturing process is completed. In

. 22LLeaaaa sesaa9Tra eassAww

{ .. .

V-8 1 recent years we have been producing considerably more 2 pellets than we had in the past. Our plant has always l

1.

l 3 however been converting the uranium hexaflouride to uraniu.7

,4 dioxide. We've been doing this safely for over fifteen 5 years and we have been pelletizing the uranium dioxide 6 during that time as well. It's important to note that in 7I our work we deal only with the forms of uranium that have 8 very low levels of activity. Both the material coming in 9 and the material going out. We handle it with appropriate 10 caution and care. We continuously monitor the working 11 environment inside the buildings. Contamination is 12 controlled to levels well below those which might be

(

13 hazardous to our employees. The air discharge from the 14 manufacturing process areas of the plant are filtered by 15 double high efficiency filters to remove traces of low level 16 radioactive dust. The average releases from our plant 17 through the filtering system are about currently four 18 hundred milligrams per day. That is approximately the 19 weight of an aspirin. We have always remained well below 20 the conservative limits set by the federal and state 21 regulations for release from our plant and we expect to 22 continue.

23 Now let me emphasize some of the things we do not

, 24 do. We do not handle highly radioactive fuel that has been 25 in a nuclear power plant. As a matter of fact, we don't l

$IbbO3630 Od3639INO OOU3bNY

9 1 even complete the manufacturing process for fuel assemblies, a

2 We only produce uranium oxide powder or pellets that !

3 described. Our plant modernization does not anticipate y anythine beyond this. Because of this, because we do not 5 handle highly radioactive material we do not need to take 6 some of the extra nor extraordinary planning steps that are 7' done at nuclear power plants such as plans for off site 8 evacuation. We simply do not deal with that type of rnake-9 material. We do hewevergcertain that we are prepared to 10 deal with accidents at the facility should they occur. We 11 maintain an emergency response plan. It's been discussed 12 with the local sheriff, fire fighters, the local hospital

( .

13 personnel, Barnes Hospital, the State of Missouri Emergency 14 Management Agency and the local civil defense office. We 15 hold emergency drills once a year. We have our own site 16 brigade that's been trained by the Eematite fire department.

17 We have arrangements with local ambulance personnel and area 18 hospitals to transport injured personnel if they have been 19 contaminated by some of the low level radioactive material.

20 I think it's fair to say that our emergency planning exceeds 21 that of most comparable industrial facilities in the area.

22 Let me now talk briefly about the changes we are 23 in the process of making in our facilities. Basically they 24 fall into two catagories. We're installing more modern 25 equipment. After all, some of our equipment is thirty years 22LLeaaaa am9anTIN8 eoMaaNW

10 1 old now. We are increasing our capabilities to produce and 2 ship more pellets and less powder.

m ult As a owes our plant will 3 look somewhat larger. Our modernized facility will include 4 additions in this central area. I would point out that the 5 pelletizing building, this building here, has been desianed 6 to survive an earthquake of substantial magnitude. The 7 design standards are those of institutional buildings such 8 as hospitals in the same seismic zone in Missouri. Also our 9 new buildings are at a higher elevation than the existing 10 buildings and are above the hundred year flood level 11 established by the Army Corps of Engineers.

12 Now I'll show you the general floor plan in 13 somewhat more detail. This is the Hematite facility before 14 the modernization. There are several points that I would 15 like to make. One of them, you notice there is considerable 16 open space between the buildings. At one time this made 17 alot of sense when the planEwas built in the '50's. The 18 idea was to try and keep areas separated so that in case of 19 an accident you would limit the injury to employees. It has 20 alot of disadvantages. One of them is tracking of uranium 21 out of doors between the plants. We have already a pellet 22 facility and I'm not sure that you can see it very well.

23 Right there this building is the pellet line and our 24 expansion doubles the size of that building. The reason 1

) 25 that we're doubling the size of the building is that plant XILLenene nesonTTien enusmew

i i

- e o j i

. . l l

e 1 l

11 i i

J 1 is currently in operation and is required to satisfy the 2 requirements of our customers. We can't shut it down for i 3 construction. The phase two pelletizing building has been

~4, erected and we are in the process and have been for some  !

5 while now of installing equipment in that building while we 1

6 are continuine to produce in the pellet line. In order to 7 accomplish this the dark area that you see in the new

{

I 8 pellets building was our warehouse. This had to be removed j l

9 to make way for the new pellet building. To accomplisn that 10 we had to have a new warehouse installed and the warehouse 11 was installed then behind the existing building allowing us 12 to continue operations, continue shipping oxide and pellets

(-

13 to the Connecticut plant. The warehouse is now operational.

14 The pellet building is near operational and we are in the 15 process of excavating and decontaminating the ground in the 16 storage utility building area. It's a requirement that we 17 decontaminate the land before we can put up new structures 18 in the area. I would like to stress again the things that 19 we are not doing. We are not changing the basic process 20 that we have performed here over the years. And as a result 21 we should not increase the risks of an industrial accident.

22 We are not increasing the overall output of our facility.

23 The total amount of uranium that we have on hand will remain

, 24 about the same. There will not be an increase in traffic 25 around the plant or a change in the traffic patterns. We

p l

f 12 1 expect the results of this program will be &No followbb.

2 First a more modern facility. One that is more efficient 3 and up to date and as a matter of fact this will be the ,

1 first time that we have had as an exemple adcquate women's 5 locker facilities in the plant. This reflects the changing 6 nature of the work force as well as the age of the 7- facilities that we have been working with. We will continue 8 to train our employees and inform them of any hazards i

9 associate with their work. We will continue to provide '

10 radiation monitoring and annuals for all of our employees to 11 make sure that we continue to stay within all federal 12 requirements. We'll be shipping more pellets and less

(

13 powder. The pellets are easier to handle. They are not 14 nadily re pe.zikle dispensable. They are easier to transport and 15 since the pellets will be produced here there will be a 16 scmtwhat smaller quantity, about ten percent less shipments 17 going to Connecticut. And the amount of material being 18 shipped back from Connecticut to our plant in Missouri for 19 rework will decrease.

20 I hope that these remarks have been useful and f

21 have provided you with some of the answers to your 22 questions. Let me recount, though. We are installing move .

l 23 efficient air filtration systems to reduce emissions.

24 Substituting ir, door traffic patterns for outdoor traffic l

25 patterns and thereby reducing the spread of contamination '

l m2Lnesoaa arsanTima causAmv

N ,

r .

13

i. >

.1. out of doors. We are decontaminating large. areas of the 2 site. We have enclosed'the.UF6 vaporizer area to minimize 3 the consequences of release of UF6. We are improving the y ventilation system to reduce work or exposure and installing 5 continuous air monitors to detect deviations in the air 6 concentration within the plant rapidly. Automating 7 pelletizing equipment to reduce operator expoeure to the 8 uranium and we are reducing the shipping traffic. These 9 improvements would not be possible without the modernization-10 program which we have undertaken.

11 Now, I would like to address some of the questions 12 that have been raised by Senator Nixon. First question is 'i 13 why is Combustion Engineering requested permission to handle 14 fuel containing higher percentages of uranium than 15 previously processed at Hematite? Whi2c the facility 16 modernization has nothing to do with the-increased 17 enrichment level we have, in fact, we have been, in fact, 18 handling the higher enrichment uranium up to five percent 19 now for well over a year, The utilities, we're doing this 20 because the utilities uses slightly higher enriched fuel at i 21 power plants to improve their fuel cycle economics. Other 22 fuel manufacturers also have licenses which allow the use of I

23 five percent enriched uranium. Before we obtaid our license 24 amendment to use five percent enriched uranium we perf ormed 25 extensive analysis to show the adequacies of our equ:pment

y. .

[ ' L. .

i 14 1 and our procedures. And including criticality safety t--

2 analysis. These analysis are based on conservative 3 assumptions approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1 Question number two, the total discharged pollutants into-5 the river and air have decreased by substantial percentage 6 in the last decade. In view of this fact why is Combustion 7 Engineering requesting permission to increase air emissions 8 and water effluents? We were not requesting permission to 9 increase air emissions or water effluents. Our plant does 10 not release any significant amount of radioactive air 11 emissions nor do we discharge radioactive liquid effluents

{

l 12 from the production processes to the creeks. In fact, we I 13 have always stayed well below the federal limits for 14 airborne radioactive releases stated in the federal 15 regulations 10CFR20. After the plant modernization these 16 limits will remain at the same low levels. But our ability 17 to remain well within them utilizing our proposed state of 18 the art improvements will be enhanced. It's expected that 19 the nonradioactive sanitary and laundry waste water from the 20 plant will increase about twenty percent. This is largely 21 due to the additional jobs created by the modernization of 22 the Hematite plant. The sanitary waste water from the plant 23 passes through the plant sanitary treatment facility and is

, 24 then discharged to the creek. The laundry waste water is 25 filtered, held in a storage tank and sampled prior to 1

MIMM3 BOO eDde9EEm Ob@bN

.g"  :

t .*

15 1 -release and will be going through the sanitary systems as 2 well. As a final point there will be no adverse effect en 3 ground water quality since there are no plant activities i related to plant modernization.that will introduce foriern 5 substances into the ground water. The next question, has 6 the State of Missouri given it's okay for any increased 7 emissions? This question assumes an increase where there is 8 none as I have stated earlier. The plant modernization will 9 not significantly increase airborne releases and radioactive 10 liquid discharges. What plans have been prepared to reduce 11 emissions? Once the modernization is completed and put into 12 operation the Hematite plant will use modern equipment and 13 controls which will enhance our ability-to remain well below 14 the established federal limits. Has the state or national 15 agency requested such a plan? The answer is no. The 16 additional questions now deal with waste on site. It is my 17 understanding that large amounts of waste are stored on 18 site. If this is correct, how is the waste stored? All of 19 our low level nuclear waste is put into N.R.C. approved 20 shipping containers and sent to license burial grounds while 21 awaiting shipment. The low level waste is placed in 22 approved containers kept at the plant. What type of waste 23 is stored? Low level nuclear waste, which generally is in

, 24 the form of solid. Any liquids that we have are solidified 25 before we store them. The present inventory is less than HILtenana aescaTI;;c eausarv

4 4 a

16 1 fifteen hundred cubic feet of current operational waste.

2 And a bit less than ten thousand cubic feet of 3 decontamination waste. Primarily decontaminated or y contaminated earth, which we have removed during 5 decontamination of the retention pond behind the plant and 6 excavation prior to K.R.C. release for construction on the 7 site. Unless sone of this material is found to meet the 8 requirements for unrestricted release it.will be shipped off 9 site to burial. Additionally there are about two thousand 10 to three thousand tons of spent limestone, a :tixture of 11 calcium flouride and calcium carbonate, which is stored on 12 the site awaiting release from the Nuclear Regulatory I 13 Commission. This material contains about the same low level 14 of radioactivity as flash from typical coal fired utility 15 boilers. Do you consider this a temporary or permanent 16 solution? At the present time we consider shipment of our

-m 17 low level nuclear waste to Barnmewell, South Carolina to be 18 a permanent solution. Are there plans to make a different 19 permanent disposal of the waste? Yes, if our low level 20 wastewillnotbeacceptedforburialatBarn((wellweplan 21 to ship to the Midwest Compact Sta p Facility. At present 22 we are in the planning stages to construct a temporary 23 storace facility at the plant to hold the waste until the

, 24 Midwest Compact State Facility is operational. Is there a 25 clear record duplicable for state inspection of what and

Ll

< .; .. a s.

-17 1 .where these wastes are buried'? I presume this refers to the  ;

L 2 burial grounds on the site at Hematite.

l n Prior owners of the 3 Hematite site have recorded the burial of twenty-seven point 4 four 0 five kilograms grams of U235 in thirty-nine on . site 5 burial pits. These pits were established in conformance 6 with the A.E.C. regulatory requirements in existence between

. to tFR 20.ney

7. 1957 and 1970, 10Crr.20 poi..t thr:: 0 f ur and appear to 8 contain in the burial pit that is approximately two point 9 five parts per million U235. There are burial logs 10 available. -The boundaries of the burial grounds are 11 defined in maps provided by the prior owners but not the 12 specific location of the individual burial pits. R.M.C. and 13 N.R.C. contractors conducted tests of the burial grounds in 14 1983 and concluded that the buried material was essentially 15 stable and that the burial pits had no detectable effect on 16 the population or the surrounding environment. Subsequently 17 we have determined that samples of water from wells on the h 18 periphery of the burial grounds are not only within the 19 release requirements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 20 within the E.P.A. drinking water standards. There are 21 currently no plans to decommission the burial pits.

22 MR. NORELIUS: Thank you, Mr. Rode. I believe 23 we will proceed right on and ask Mr. Bidinger if he would 24 come and describe the N.R.C. licensing evaluations?

25 MR. BIDINGER: Good evening, ladies and HILLSBORO REPORTING COMPANY

l3

( ;.; ; '. .

Ib s, ,

,, 2

-< l 18 1 gentlemen. I'm George.Bidinger'section leader in the fuel i

i 2 cycle safety branch. My section has the responsibility for {

3 preparing or for'perforcing the1 environmental and safety; Weem.sy r

i reviews prior to our branch taking any : f:ty actions.

l-

? 5 Senator Nixon has invited us here this evening to discuss i 6 ' potential health and environmental impacts of the Combustion  !

7' Engineering plant expansion and operation. Since protecting 8 the public and the environment is the primary responsibility 9 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I think it's more 'l 10 appropriate that we be here and' discuss the proposed project. 4 11 with you people. Answer your questions, if we can. We're-12 certainly going to try and do that. Let you know a bit I

13 about the combustion Engineering license y The licensing.

14 process and the status on the current project, the 15 expansion. I wish.we.could have rehearsed our performances, 16 Mr. Rode and I could have rehearsed our performances 17 together. Much of what he said I was prepared to say, you j i

gre.ph 18 will see it on my view m r:ft but I intend to skip over it 19 where I agree with him and even though it's been said it's 20 already been said, in the economy of time I'm not going to 21 repeat it but you will see it on the viewh ht. After 22 discussion of the licensing process I~ intend then to respond 23 to the rest of the questions from Senator Nixon and take up l

, 24 the issues that have been raised by the coalition and the I

25 two Jefferson County residents in their reque,st for a

~ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

• 3 a i

19 A 1 hearing. That does not affect the hearing process at all 2 but I want to speak to those issues so that we pass the while 3 information on to everybody "hy m're here this evening. To

-4 understand what we were doing on the amendment process to 5 approve or to consider approval of the project by an 6 expansion, i

7 I wanted to spend a few minutes going back and 8 discussing what was in the license at the time of the last 9 renewal which occurred in 1983. In the renewal process we 10 looked at all aspects of the Combustion Engineering 11 operations here at Hematite. We performed an environmental 12 assessment. We did a safety evaluation of their operations 13 looking at their organization and administrative practices 14 to protect people and the environment. We looked at their 15 health physics, the radiation protection program. We looked crihda 16 at their nuclear safety esa4: to see that they had 17 criticality practices that were adequate in all respects in 18 handling and processing enriched uranium. At that time the 19 process as they are now consisted of processing the UF6 into 20 UO2 powder and/or pellets at the site and shipping those 21 products off to their sister plant in Connecticut. They 22 would receive scrap material back from that Connecticut 23 plant and ir *he process that scrap and the scrap that they 24 themselves generated in their scrip plant. The enrichment,  !

I 25 the uranium enrichment that they were handling at that time E LLSSORO REPORTING COMPANY  ;

r. - _ - -

.'.6 L. : ,

o- , .

~4' [

20 1 was four point'one weight l percent, U235. Another feature-of  ;

i

.'2 'the license was that.the environmental or excuse me,.the i 3 E.P.A. offsite environmental limits for' fuel facilities.and

• 4 reffactorswerereimposedonCombustionEngineering. At 5 that time.they'were all subject to them and we reimposed' 6 those limits on Combustion' Engineering. .Those. limits'are millivems 7- 'very,'very low. One of the limits is twenty-five Silt; :: ..

8 The whole body dore equivalent, sort of technical, but mhtines 9 twenty-five Mile;r::: is a very small number. It was 10 established by the' Environmental Protection' Agency and~we 11 have no choice.but to impose.that on our licensees.

12 Licensees, all licensees in the fuel cycle h::: n:, have to.

( 13 live with that limit. In the process of type operations 14 changed here we had to. amend that license that was renewed 15 in '83. There have been thirteen amendments. I'm only i

16 going'to mention two or three of them this evening. Also.

l 17 over.a year ago we amended the. license to authorize uranium 18 enriched five weight percent in the U235 isotope. This did 19 not change their health physics program. It modified their 20 criticality safety program slightly because the uranium is J 21 slightly more reactive than the four percent but their 22 original responsibilities and administrator's 23 responsibilities in the license remain unchanged. The plant

.1 24 manager was still responsible to see +4 they operated with W

25 written procedures. He was responsible to see that their h .mRLLenaaa sesaa9 Ins coM9awv

21 j i

1 people were trained in safety practices and processing

^

l 2 practices. He was responsible to see that audits were l

3 performed to see that they were living up to their license.

i' y I might divert just a minute. When I talk about the license 5 some of you may have no idea what we're talking by a i 6 license. The license consists when Combustion Engineering 7 '. applied for the license back in 1982 they submitted 8 thirty-five pages of commitments. We took those 9 thirty-five pages and incorporated them into the license.

10 We added roughly twenty-five additional conditions. We i 11 imposed, you might say, twenty-five more commitments on 12 Combustion Engineering so our conditions and their own

( 13 thirty-five pages of commitments became their license. So  !

14 when I talk about a license I'm talking about a big thick 15 document. And periodically it does cet amended. So at the  !

16 time that this project started then we had basically a 17 facility that looked like this. You have already seen it 18 but the things that I want to point out here are that this 19 little building right here, the little square building is 20 the oxide building. That's where all of the powder is 21 produced. That little building is not being changed by the 22 revisions to the plant site. This building here is where 23 the old pellet line was but then you notice that any scrap 24 produced in these two buildings had to be taken out into the 25 open over to the scrap building, an undesirable practice

{

l f- EILLS3ORO REPORTING COMPANY

22 1 because there is a chance for contamination spills, anything 2 else. So at the time that we started this project there 3 were f our buildings, four main production buildings on site.

4 As we, the first communication on this project came to us 5 formal way in July of '88 so we have been working on it now 6 for over a year. Since that time they asked us for 7' permission to tear down those two buildings in the middle of 8 the plant site. We required them to decontaminate the 9 buildings and provide us with surveys that they were 10 decontaminated. Our region three staff went out and 11 conducted their own survey to make sure that the buildings 12 were decontaminated. Then they were allowed to put up the ,

i 13 shell of the building but they had to then, Combustion 14 Engineering then had to survey the soil, remove the 15 contaminated soil. And then our consultant, a contractor 16 from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, went to the site and performed an 17 independent soil sampling survey for ourselves. Once we 18 were convinced that the soil had been, the contaminated soil 19 had been removed they were allowed to pour the floor for the  !

l l

20 phase two building, the pellet line building. That same l l

21 process is now going on in the phase three area. We will 22 see that in just a minute. Our contractor has already been 23 out and sampled the soil. We're waiting for the results but i 1 24 if the soil is properly or all of the contaminated soil is l 25 picked up we will then authorice the or we expect then to I l

l l MTLLeasaa aa9aa97ma eaM9ATP l

i

(

1 23 i

1 1 authorize the pouring of the floor for the last phase. So l 2 we, okay. So'then let's me move on then. Combustion  ;

i 3 Engineering then applied for a license amendment. That 1 4 license amendment was to authorize them to operate the new 5 pellet line building, the phase two building with depleted 6 uranium. When we talk about depleted uranium we're talking 7 '. about the uranium that's had the U235 removed from it. Most j 8 of the U235 removed from it. That U235 has been 9 concentrated and will be used in reactors and what was left 10 over was the uranium deplete.d. And U235 has, and it is 11 being used, Combustion Engineering asked to use some 12 depleted uranium to test the new plant by using depleted I

13 uranium to take away the risk of criticality safety. It's a 14 reasonable approach for them, the building with uranium but i 15 not have any of the criticality concerns while you're l

16 testinc it. I think there is also an economics incentive 17 for Combustion Engineering to do it that way tut that's i

18 their business. They also presented with us a second 19 amendment application in May of '89. This was to operate 20 the plant with the enriched uranium. Once we received these j

21 two applications we performed an environmental assessment as l Nat,%al hvowomsfa) & cit 5 Ast 22 required by the t'.; "AAC and our own regulations. In j 23 performing this assessment we came to the conclusion that

, 24 the doses that would be, let me change that slightly, the l

l 25 uranium that would be released by the operation of this  !

I 1

MILL 23630 RO96&9IN6 26MBAL*Y

. i .

24 1 plant would result in doses to the public that would be well i

2 below the E.P.A. limits that have been mentioned before.

silli w l 3 We're talking in terms of less than a kil...es to a real j l

y person here in the Hematite area. Again remember that I ]

I 5 mentioned before the limit that E.P.A. has put out is a l rnids %

6 twenty-five kileg s::: whole body dose. We're talking about 7' less than one 'El  ::r dose .cr ' ilegrin per year, h 8

Because of this small incrementg'in dose we made a finding 9 of no significant impact and we published this in the 1 10 federal register. Now when we published this in May we had .j 11 to live with new rules which had been imposed on us by our 12 own commission and this required that when we publish a 13 finding of no significant impact in the federal register we 14 offredurA St.I also have to publish a notice offa heiring. We published 15 that notice of a hearing and we received two requests for a 16 hearing from Senator Nixon and from the coalition and two 17 residents here in the county. Discussions with Senator a

18 Nixon jbr lead to this public meeting and here we are 19 tonight. Now, since that time we have gone ahead with our 20 safety evaluation, our safety review of the first 21 application for Combustion Engineering to test the plant l 22 with the depleted uranium and we have authorized Combustion 23 Engineering to test their new plant with depleted uranium.

l 24 d5e  !

,. That was, that amendment was issued in July. We c;r:gr. are l 25 l t.

reviewing their application to use the new pellet line with >

i MILL 28888 73 C86997%T6 /P RNIM\ h*F/ I

. .w.

25 1 theDenrichedruranium. That review, that safety review is 2 ongoing. We have developed some concerns. We1have not 3 communicated them formally to Combustion but we will do that y 'as soon as'we're away from this.public meeting. So'if we 5 could look'quickly at the view graft.and you seen most of it 6 before but again the important. features are that the oxide 7' area is still this small building. That's where all of the 8 powder is produced and that really limits the through put to-9 the plant. We're not changing the amount of uranium they 10 can bring on site in the amendments. This old pellet line 11 .is still here. The two new pellet lines will be here when 12 _ phase;three is completed. Then there will be one, i 13 essentially: one building and then all of the scrap from the i 14 oxide line, the pellet line can be transferred over to the 15 scrap plant without going outdoors. It will be an  !

16 -enhancement of environmental concerns on site.

17 I'm going to move now to the questions the rest of 18 the questions that Senator Nixon has posed to us. We have v.itvJ h 19 "10.jr*P  ;;;ft 3 here; the questions are here, the answers are i 20 here also. Some of them the answers are redundant with 21 those that Mr. Rode have given you. H'e's already explained  !

22 how their will be an increase in the volume of laundry and  ;

23 sanitary waste because you have more people flushing toilets 24 and you have more clothes to be washed. All of that, the 25 volume of water will increase, the concentration of uranium L . m2Lteassa eesaaerma eassanw

y 7___--____-_

I f.. .

L . j 26 1 is not expected to increase. There will be no other liquid l

2 released into the surface water here. All of the process 3 wastes are solidified and sent to low level burial. We

-4 don't expect any significant increase in airborne activity 5 except that again there is a larger building there is more 6 air being released but all of the new exhausts are being 7 filtered twice by very high efficient filters. We call then 8 QE

.. PA)

as.. If I refer to them tonight I apologize for that but 9 they are very, very high efficiency filters at removing 10 particles of dust that are in the respiration range. So 11 there will be a very small increase in the amount of 12 contaminated air going out of the building, contaminated 13 material coing out of the building in the very large volume 14 of air being exhausted from the building but the amount of 15 uranium going out is miniscule. The air and the liquid i

16 effluent, the air going up the stacks going into the surface 17 streams are all well below the regulatory limits. Those 18 limits that are imposed by the N.R.C. and by the 19 Environmental Protection Agency. They are coing to continue 20 at less than the E.P.A's limits. So therefore, we have 21 concluded that there are no significant impacts on the 22 health, public health or the environment. Our next question 23 deals with the effects of the approval of the application on 24 water quality. The radioactive aspects of water quality are 1

25 regulated tot:11; by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The l

MTLLGBB&8 HEDORTING COM&AMT i

_l 27 H90GS 1 state issues.an 4:.F.' 4. permit. That's a National Disdary. S tw 2 Po11utant Elimination Permit, you can understand, but-4 3 the state issues the permit f or the chemical' ef fluents going i To 4

fr-- the Joachim Creek. Those limits remain unchanced.

o 5 The volume of the water will increase again

~6 because of m::: of. iner a;c c.wn.u .swuwa; af more employees.

7 '. )Ibt'again no process liquids, those coming out of the scrap 8 plant which are the only wet process in the building, no 9 process liquids are being released to the environment. They 10 are all being solidified. The solids are being sent to 11 waste burial. The conclusion is that water quality is not 12 being impacted by this proposed action. Will there be any 13 change in transportation patterns. Mr. Rode again has 14 talked about the ten percent less material that's being 15 shipped to Windsor and less material being shipped up there 16 and possibly becoming scrap. There will be less scrap 17 coming back from the Windsor Connecticut plant. There will 18 be some additional chemicals associated with pellet 19 production shipped to the site for the operation of the sMe Wag 20 cindering furnaces, for example. But overall there is goinc 21 be no significant change in the transportation patterns,se.

22 he perhaps a slight decrease from the number of radioactive ski 23 material c*emuds.

"r d, a slight increase from the chemical 1

( 24 material shipments. Our next two questions concern the I i

1 25 volume of waste produced at the plant and where would the j l

sitteensa arvoaerne eessauv

n g 3 is .. s

-)

4 28

-4 R M"

1' waste be taken=for dispocal. The waste.that we're talking 2 - about her6 consists of.the solidified-process, residue

.3 - filters, air filters-that'are contaminated with! uranium. We 4 were told by Combustion Engineering: people that they. produce 5 about two thousand cubic feet of this waste a year. That's; 6 equivalent to two hundred seventy fifty-five gallon drums 7' and'it' cont'ains'about eighty kilograms of uranium, not 8 uranium 235 but uranium. That's a hundred and seventy-six 9 pounds that's shipped:over to a licensed commercial' burial 10 site.- Each~ year this volume of waste is going to increase 11' slightly. They have more filters, for example, in the 0 '12 plant. 'Those filters end up as being waste and be shipped

- 13 off:but they have estimated that waste at about one percent.

14 We. don't have any reason to challenge it. All of the' waste, 15 this kind of waste is disposed of at a licensed burial site 16 so whether it increases by one percentaor ten percent it's 17 only more expensive for them to ship ten percent more but

'l' 18 there is space available now for them to ship the waste.

19 There is an issue on the limestone. They have requested 20 that it be declared nonradioactive or that they be 21 authorized to dispose of it as nonradioactive waste. They i

22 have done some studies that we have requested. We have not 23 made a decision yet on that request. Will the facility have i i

, 24 capacity to store the waste if it is unable to use the usual 25 disposal site? Well, when you are talking about two  ;

MRLLeaaera er9aE5FN8 ESM916W2

S- 4 l

29 1

i thousand cubic feet per year of solid waste and the big 2 warehouses that we saw in their drawings and our drawings 3 it's not, it's easy to store that volume of waste for

' ,4 several years in their warehouses or bring trailers on' site 5 to store-it. We don't see it as a problem. I think some of 6 you may know that there are some of the waste disposal 7 '. issues are changino from day to day with waste compacts and  ;

8 all that maybe the basis for the question, I'm not sure.

9 But even if they can't send it to Barneswell until the 10 Missouri compact.is available they can store the waste for i

11 two, three, four years at those volumes. It's not a l i

12 difficult problem. Okay. The next two questions deal with A

'( 13 is there going to be more production on site?

Is there a 14 danger of increased accidents with the increased capacity 15 and are the accidents likely to be more serious? First of 16 all, in our response, our consideration of these questions  ;

1 17 the possession limits the amount of material that they were I i

18 authorized to have on site does not change by and will not l

19 change by this amount processed. When you think about it as  !

l 20 a production plant the way they want to make money is

{

21 convert the uranium hexaflouride into truck load quantities 22 of powder or pellets and ship it off to the next site and 23 cet paid for it. So it's, we're not changing the possession 24 limit. I don't thinkNhhbewantseetorunuptheinventory 25 in the plant but even if they run up their inventory we have

l f

JC 'e J

)

30.

]

I

-1 already established a maximum limit they can have in the ,

j

, it ;

\

2 plant. So the' possession limits, at least, do not change'.

' J

.3 accidts[s>

As far as ;;tini emergency planning already considers first ((

'4 Or ;nplan a. ca, nuclear criticality reactions, uranium j 5 releases, chemical releases' and of f ' site : transportation a

6 events. We haven't been able to think'of any other accident  !

l 75 ,senarios that need to be considered in this, any other 8 accidents of this magnitude that need to be considered. .And i 1

1 9 there are no changes in the types, as far as we're i 10 concerned then there are no changes in types or consequences j q

11 of accidents for emergency planning.

{

j

- 12 The next question deals with emergency procedures I i

L 13 being revised. Combustion Engineering already has an 14 i

e=ergency plan and procedures backing that plant-mp in 15 place. This is a document of.something like.a hundred and

{

l 16 fifty pages.. I mentioned thirty-five page notice the rest i 17 of their license. It's a big thick document. It deals with 18 the on site emergency organization. It deals with training 19 of people, the on site people and the off site people who 20 would respond to any emergency at the plant. It deals with are 21 drills so that the peoplegnot only trained but they get to g

22 exercise their training so that the N.R.C. and Combustion 23 Engineering management can see that the training is

.. 3 24 effective. It deals with arrangements for off site support l 25 by the local police, hospitals, fire departments, ambulance i

m2LLesaaa arease wa eassaww

,1 -

L i

~

C *

• 1

~

31 l 1 services.' The plan also provides for dedicated emergency 2 equipment-on site that can be used in the event of an 3 accident.- Now, there are going to have to be some emergency 4 procedures revisions. They have.got, you know, new ecress

'1 5 -door, doors where people leave the buildings. New equipment )

' i i

6 that has to be shut down as people leave but these are all q 7$ minor procedural revisions that have to be made so we don't 8 see any significant changes having to be made in their-9 emergency procedures. Will the modifications require l

10 changes in the local emergency response capability? Again 1 11 the-local emergency response capabilities will remain the i

12 same, okay. That includes the existing fire department, i

d. 13 hospitals, sheriff department and ambulance arrangements.

14 These are all part of the plan. We don't see any neeedent 15 e4+* type senarios or new types of accidents that need to be 16 protected against so we don't see that there are any changes r 17 needed in the off site response capabilities. I now want to 18 go through the issues that have been raised by the coalition 19 for the environment Mrs. Dodson and Mrs. Sisk. This first i

20 issue really deals with changing from four point one percent 21 uranium to five percent uranium. From a criticality safety 22 standpoint this is really a small change. Granted it's my 23 opinion when I say that but I have worked in this field for g 24 the last thirty years. I compare it to someone coming home 25 with eighty-nine octane gasoline and telling their children ,

s25Lheessa G=9aaciP2ma eats 9fm

r. -

e . 8 L l]

j 32 1

1 not to strike a match around the gasoline. Don't pour it-  ?

l 2 down the drain, don't drink it. And the next week they come 3 .home with ninety-one octane casoline. I The safety programs- '

j for your children are the same. You still don't strike- 1 l

S. matches, you don't pour it down the drain, you don't drink .

C .it. It's more powerful gasoline but it's not significantly  ;

y 7' different. And going from four percent uranium to five 8 percent enriched uranium is about the same.. It's more 9 powerful uranium. It makes the reactor run a little longer- I a

10 but it does not change the basic rules for handling enriched-11 uranium in the plant.. But if they jump up to ninety-three 12 percent enriched uranium like the plant used to handle many, i 13 many years ago before it was Combustion Engineering's plant

.14 that would be a major change and we would require a much 15 longer time to review their proposed safety limits. But 16 when you go a small change from four percent to five percent 17 it's not a big chance from a criticality safety standard.

18 But in our safety evaluation review of the nuclear 19 criticality safety principal the safety controls and the 20 limits were adjusted so that the same margins of safety were 21 maintained in the plant. They already were used to dealing f

To b e pucsek s ,4,ly 22 with like twoA They had ::fe_y maintained in their plant 23 for two percent, three percent, four percent material and

, 24 when they added the five percent they added another line to 25 rar: p"'li%t;- to their table.

saf ernass _

They already had a UILL286R6 ar9699TM8 E8M9 AMP

,7 4 33 1 standard in place. When'they were dealing with two percent 2 they used the two' percent limits. When they were dealing 3 with three percent they were dealing with the three percent 4, limits But 211 th:y had *^ de t: ::tablich effluen: 5, the 5 4.ecc : ef inp::ing +'rt li;it en m:: rial ;nd prc::::

6 r: reining th c'** re by the natrrc' f fi;c ;;recnt enriched 7' ur:niur and th: control =* #^"r perc:nt.'Ehe modifications in

% saan as 8 coing he five percent were not see a significant increase in 9 the potential to criticality accidents when we authorized l

10 that amendment of June, '88. The next question is rather '

11 long and it's going to appear on two slides. This has to do

. 12 with the lack of adequate emergency response capabilities of

.. 13 Jefferson County and other counties within the state in the 14 event of radiological accidents. Talking about inadequate 15 roads for evacuation)ef :: rg;ncy responders to plant our or i 16 transport routes, inadequate emergency health care f acility.

17 First of all, the response requirements are not affected by 1

18 this plant modification. The quantity of uranium at the 1 j

l 19 plant is the same. The processes are the same. The

{

20 responsible capability of the plant staff remains the same 21 so the basic response capabilities do not change. As far as l

\

22 the evacuation route goes really very little need for 23 evacuation. Even the potential for evacuation is very small

, 24 to begin with by any accident that would happen would be 1

I 25 basically a localized event much as a truck event where the j

r 34 1 local police would isolate the accident but you would not 2 consider that to be an evacuation. The accidents that we're 3 dealing with here don't have the potential impact like you 4 have with a reactor where you do evacuate over miles. We're 5 talking about evacuation over meters or yards, hundreds of 6 feet. And Combustion Engineering does have the on site 7' capability. We have already been througn that so there 8 really is not a great deal of change there. As far as the 9 local emergency response capabilities we both have touched 10 on that. Combustion Engineering has arrangements with two 11 different hospitals, the ambulance, the sheriff and the fire 12 departments, two of them, so that the local response 13 capabilities of their own emergency responses and the local 14 support governmental agencies and service agencies are 15 adequate for the, deemed adequate for the current plant and 16 the changes to the plant as well. As far as the off site 17 response to transport the shipping containers that 18 Combustion Engineering are allowed to use are designed to 19 withstand severe accident. If there is an accident, a truck 20 overturned the local police are equipped and qualified to 21 isolate the truck accident until there is assistance at the 22 site by either Combustion Engineering or while the federal 23 radiological assistant deals are ready to move. Frankly if

, 24 there was a truck accident in the state we would expect 25 Combustion Engineering to be on the way to lend radiolocica~.

. z, .

35 i

l~ assistance before we even heard about it back in Washington.

I

.1

. 2 The next issue is the-potential to increase in the plant an non 1 3 unplanned release was of radioactive and ec. radioactive dust, y liquid and gasses. We have already covered water. We have 5 covered the air going out of the plant. The one thing I 6 want toaddressisraj[ don. I think we all know that the 7 uranium that is in the ground is put there by mother nature B does decay through a series of different elements and it o

9 ' ends up with radium and finally raggon. And in some places 10 in the United States that is a problem. The uranium, 11 .though, that we are dealing with here in the plant does not 12 have a rggpon problem associated with it. If.you remember l 13 the first viewhbht that Mr. Rode put up he showed the 14 uranium coming out of the ground and coing through a uranium 15 mill and then it goes on to a UF6 production plant before it 16 ever goes to the D.O.E. enrichment plant, before it goes to 17 the Combustion Engineering plant. Ar.f ; r.ri;h e d U.70, The i

18 radium that is associated with that uranium ore coming out I i

l 19 of the ground is essentially left in the first two chemical 20 processing steps up there at the uranium mill) nKnd then at i

21 the UF6 production plan % About ninety percent of it stays at 1 22 the mill and that's why the mill tWkings are sources of sm 23 raggon . Because all of the radium has been dropped out of

. 24 the process and left on the talings pile. So that the 25 uranium that arrives at this plant has had all of the radium

.. , 1 36 1 remove from it, all of the daughter product radium removed i l

l 2 from it. It takes something like, what is it, sixteen 3 hundred, sixteen thousand, sixteen thousand. The decaying

/s y of the radium to rayfon has a half life, this is sort of 5 technical but I have to do a little bit of that, has a half 6 life of sixteen thousand years, sixteen hundred is the half 7' life, okay, excuse me. Sixteen hundred years of half life.

8 So that means that for that equilibrium stage to develop 9 wherethereisradiumandr(hdonequilibriumtakessomethinc 10 like ten half lives or sixteen thousand years. That uranium 11 is not going to be in this plant that long so if it is 12 they're out of business. So radium is not an issue.

13 They're going to have, perhaps have more ammonia on site.

an 14 That could be a significant issue if they had ammonia g 15 release. It can be knocked down by water and they have it. i 16 The next issue the importing of radioactive and hazardous 17 material in. The only materials that they are importing is 18 uranium and the chemicals we have mentioned. There are no 19 other hazardous materials being imported. The next issue is l 20 the impact of the expanded operations ofenthe health and 21 safety of employees. The N.R.C. safety standards are going 22 to be in place for the new employees as well as the existing 23 ones. Combustion Engineering radiation protection program

, 24 will apply for the expanded operations, new employees, new 25 uranium handling and combination techniques to impreve the

y .,

, s e ,- .

3 37

'l employee's environment inside the plant. Our inspection 2 findings in the past since the renewal for that in health aft

3. and' -, in the area Combustion Engineering has had four 4 . violations. That inspection program is going to' continue 5 during .the testing' program and if-we get around to it during 6 the: operation with the enriched uranium. I'm not,-the 7I impacts of floods and earthquakes have already been used by 8 Mr. . Rode so I'm going to call it at this point. Thank you

,. 9 very much. I hope that this answers some of your. questions 10 and all of your questions and all of your concerns.

11 MR.-NORELIUS: Okay. We will try to move 12 quickly into the statements and, Senator Nixon, welcome you 13 to start, if you care to make a statement. I would ask 14 again that for those of you making statements we would 11 5 appreciate if you could limit them somewhat hopefully to 16 about five minutes to start with so that anyone who wishes i

17 .to make a statement to do so. And we ask that you sign up 1 18 on one of our sheets if you would like to make a statement.

19 There is one back there and there is one here. So why don't 20 we go right to that. Senator Nixon, you're first. Would 21 those of you who make statements would you please state your 22 names and home town locations so we can have a record of 23 that, please.

24 SENATOR NIXON: My name is Jay Nixon. I 25 reside-in Hillsboro, Missouri. I'm a State Senator L _,--__-__ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

' s g .

38 1 representing the 22nd District which includes the plant 2 location of Combustion Engineering. I also like to give Mr.

3 Norelius a copy of the letter I sent on August 17th. This 1 is the questions that they referred to and ask that it be 5 marked Exhibit A and be made part of the record. I want to 6 thank very much the members of the N.R.C. =-6 ? ' I. staff 7 '. who have come down from Chicago and Washington and other 8 places around the country tonight to bequest us to answer 9 the questions. I would also like to thank Morris Case and 10 people from the Environmental Protection Agency who have i

11 answered the questions that have been posed to them. I l

12 would like to thank the Department Of Natural Resources I

13 State of Missouri which has worked with us as 14 representatives here tonight and has answered also l

15 separately in writing and I have available for anybody who 16 would like those the sixteen questions that I presented for 17 the hearing this evening and answer to those in writing to 18 me yesterday. I would also like to give special thanks to 19 the union stewart and fine workers of Combustion Engineering 20 who were very helpful in helping me to secure a tour and 21 going with me in the tour of the facility. Martha Dodson 22 and I spent the better part of four hours walking through 23 everything and frankly we were taken wherever we wanted to 4 l 24 go, I should note, and answered questions by workers as well l

25 as members of management of Combustion Engineering as we 1

l

)

39 1 toured that particular facility. They were very courteous j l

2 and answered each and every question that we had at that {

j 3 time. I would like to just very oriefly indicate to 1 l

t j everybody why I instituted the request for a hearing in this 5 matter and it all comes back to th'e May 24th publication in 6 the Federal Register. I would likt to read very quickly 7 '. three sentences from that. One is under the environmental 8 impact of proposed action and it says trace amounts of 9 radioactivity entered the system from sinks and showers 10 control liquid for the liquid effluent radioactivity remains 11 the same. However the volume increase would be j 12 approximately twenty percent the impact from this liquid

( - 13 discharge is expected to be minimal. Secondarily it said 14 Combustion Engineering's objective is to increase pellet 15 production with no significant increasse to existing raise in 16 effluent release. Our radioactive re3 eases are expected to 17 increase. With these statements beina made in the public 18 record I felt it was essential as a State Senator 19 representing this area that we got the' questions about these 20 things answered in open forum and I thank the folks for 21 being here tonignt to help us with that. I wish that 22 everybody had the opportunity that I have had to review the 1

23 records that I have done and spent the hours looking at the l

, 24 facility as well as take the record and tour it. It's a j 25 going facility. It has the capability of holdino over fifty

40 1 tons of product worth in excess of fifty million dollars.

e 2 One of my major worries when we began this process was the 3 burial pits that had been referred to before containing the j waste from the ninety percent pure uranium that was used 5 there in years past not recently. T am very proud of the 6 State Department of Natural Resources in they answered my 7' questions concerning that issue, which is not directly 8 affected by what we're doing tonight. But I would like to 9 treat the two sentences of Trney Mehan's letter to me 10 yesterday concerning that material. It indicates the 11 material may apply to this waste as well as the Missouri 12 Department of Natural Resources' position is that the buried

(

13 waste should be investigated under these laws and regulation 14 to determine what further action, if any, is required. The 15 Missouri Department of Natural Resources will pursue this 16 issue with the N.R.C. and E.P.A.. I think that's an 17 allowable standard of their's and I think it's an important 18 step forward to move this thing forward in a very quick and 19 effective manner. The Joachim Creek valley is very 20 important to me. My grandmother lived within sicht of the 21 Joachim Creek at Victoria before World War One. My father's 22 family grew up in Hematite. My grandfather and cousin who j l

23 was killed in the Vietnam war are buried in a cemetary

, 24 overlooking the nuclear plant. I have floated and fished 25 every inch of the Joachim Creek in Jefferson County in .c.y mmm m mmnn - ~~mnnmmn~ - - - - - -

'...:- .i..:

t

.i..

41 1 life. I am-not here to, my purpose is to set the'hignest 2 standards of cleanliness not merely compliances but complete 3 cleanliness. I am an environmentalist.and want to fight to 4 prott et our environment. I know we can.and must do better.

~

5 Meeting in hearings like this show we are interested. We 6 demand the best of Combustion Engineering, the N.R.C.'and 7 '. the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. D.N.P.. as I 8 had. indicated promised me continuing inspections. Hopefully 9 we will get the same treatment from-the N.R.C.. We don't

~ 10 .want series of the types that has caused so much 11 environmental nightmares and fears of the past. Not just 12 compliance cleanliness, not secrecy but open cooperation.

I-13 -Not just permissable. levels but improving limits of waste 14 throughout this system. Our county ranges. thirty-second in 15 the entire country of all counties in toxic waste and I was 16 elected to fight that and I'll continue to fight that and' i 17 try to clean up the best we can and tonight is not for me it 18 is for you to ask the questions that you have concerning i 19 this process. And I thank you for coming and look forward l

20 to you getting the answers to the questions that you need.

21 Thank you. '

22 l MR. NORELIUS: Thank you, Senator Nixon. 4 23 Martha Dodson, would you like to come up here and make a 1

y 24 statement? l 25 MS. DODSON: May I speak from here?

m-m m - - _ - _ _ ~ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4

s .*

42 1 MR. NORELIUS: Why don't you try it and if we 2 can't hear we'll do something else.

3 MS. DODSON: I'm Martha Dodson. I am one of M the requesters for a hearing this evening as others. I am 5 very pleased that you called and I thank you from Jefferson 6 county.: I'have very little knowledge of nuclear fuel 7 production and rely heavy upon your expertise. I have no 8 complaint against Combustion Engineering but I do know that 9 they are in the business of business and therefore.it is 10 essential to me as a citizen living in close proximity to 11 the plant to have someone who is not in the business and 12 hasn't been in the business for thirty years guarding me.

13 That's what I understand your role to be. I am fully 14 convinced that it is essential to me as a citizen that 15 experts not in the business inspect the plant regularly with 16 and without notification and monitor-all of the emissiens 17 waste and products of the operation. Does the N.R.C., you 18 are people that I can really shake bewee with and-talk to.

Ws 19 Do you make those on site inspections? If you have not been 20 able to do so it would seem to me that common sense would 21 dictate that expansion permit would be withheld until 22 existing facilities were determined to be safe. That is to cent 23 say if 44: must exist it must exist on the safe side as what 24 is done in Hematite cannot be undone. Do you agree? It was 25 with great dismay that I read last week that Jefferson

w .

~ .

43 1 County ranks number thirty-two among the nation's 2 approximately four thousand counties in' toxic chemical 3 release. It is impossible for Jefferson countians not to

-4 wonder why we have achieved this dubious distinction and 5 perhaps make more serious demands upon our protective 6 agencies to say enough is enough. Is that not reasonable?

75 In much of my reading and much of what.I have heard this 8 evening I am struck by phrases acceptable permissable 9 regulation levels. Permissable levels of radiation, 10 permissable levels of toxic releases to air, permissable 11 levels of water pollutants. I can't understand permissable 12 but must concentrate on safe. Safe levele of radiation,

(

13 safe levels of toxies, safe levels of water pollution. Can 14 you tell me that the air and water emissions and the waste 15 on site above and below ground at Combustion Engineering and 16 surrounding areas are safer?

17 MR. NORELIUS: Let me, let us try quickly to 18 respond to those questions before we go to the neck speaker.

19 Since I'll deal with this subject of inspections we have and 20 continue to make routine unannounced inspections at the 21 plant. We get there two to three times each year and the 22 areas that we have covered include radiation protection, 23 nuclear criticality safety, management organization.

24 controls operations, training and operator retraining, 25 maintenance and surveillance activity at the plant, the

( _n------- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - _-

i 44 1 transportation of radioactive n.aterials and environmental 1:

2 activities, emergency preparedness, the management of liquid .

3 and solid waste and emergency preparedness. We do those

( sometimes separately sometimes with a team so those are the 5 issues that we have covered. Mr. Franks here, who I 6 introduced as our project inspector, you asked for a person 7 who you could shake and he's our head inspector. We have.

8 our specialists who come from time to time. Mr. Rouse will 9 address the second part of your questions.

10 MR. ROUSE: Thank you. Lee Rouse. I wanted 11 to add one thing. By the way part of your question Mrs.

12 Dodson had to do with are ti.e inspections announced or k 13 unannounced. Most of those inspections are unannounced.

Frseu 14 The plant does not know that George Esaaks is here until he 15 shows up at the cate. I certainly appreciate the second W

16 question. Ew-e world of radiation protection and alot of 17 other scientific areas you will hear people say permissable 18 and acceptable and I suppose we are guilty of that tonight 19 and in some of our documents certainly you have seen that.

20 I don't set the limits for this plant. -? "r" indient: cr 21 Ss I think George indicated,the limits in the nuclear fuel 22 cycle including the reactors are established by the 23 environmental protection agency se which the federal agencys

,, 24 including the N.R.C. have to implement. The limits that 25 we're talking about as opposed to sore of the ones in the

c:...

v b l

45 I l' older days toda The' limits tenight are based on a risk )

g .

2 approach. I can't tell you honestly that-the risk is zero  !

l 3 but I-can'say honestly in my-view the emissions from this i

.4 plant,-C.E., are safe. When you compare them with the other risks that we face each and everyday and.I'm.only going to 3

5 6 give you.one: comparison I'm not going to throw out alot'of 7 numbers, I just note that the radiation that we have 8 projected from this plant even with the expansion of the-m;iline 9 pelletizing lines will be less than one m-ill:;r:n for the 10 residents Hematite. The closest residents are less than-mMirm 11- one #^cra* per year. The background radiation on the 12 average throughout the United States and I assume it's about

(. 13 the same here in Hematite, is about three hundred mis tine mill;;.s  :.;s 14 per year. That's a whole body equivalent. That's the only 15 comparison-I'm going to give you but I consider the levels 16 at this plant as operated and emissions we project for the 17 expansion to be safe. Thank you.

18 MR. NORELIUS: Karen Sisk, would you like to 19 come next? We would appreciate you coming up here.

20 MS. STSK: Hi, my name is Karen Sisk. I'm 21 from Imperial, Missouri. I'm a registered nurse. I have 22 two kids five and seven who have allergies and my concern 23 basically living in Imperial is air effluent. I have a past j 24 history of contaminated ground water from wells that have 25 affected my children so I'm also concerned with the water EscLusaea at:9asenta earaann

'A, s, 46 1 quality. I have basically been involved with organic waste 2 as far as the water is concerned. I don't have resources to 3 test for chemicals. I do have a few questions as far as the 9 one thing I'm concerned is basically the safety of the 5 plant. Like Mrs. Dodson I am not that familiar with the 6 plant I'm just learning about it. I wondered when the 7 E.P.A. limits were originally set what year as to when these 8 were actually set and to what amounts. My other question 9 was'as far as the old pellet building is that going to be 10 utilized and that is this state of the art as the new one is 11 is it earthquake resistant. And as Jay Nixon also 12 discovered the decontamination of the previous evacuation k 13 pond and such is concerned with also and contaminating the 14 ground water. And the other question was there was a 15 statement that there would be no change in the increase of i 16 the products broucht to the plant but it was also mentioned 17 that there would be a maximum amount of the product that was I

18 going to be allowed unless I misunderstood. And I was 19 curious as to what the maximum amount was going to be 20 allowed. And other than that that's basically all I have to 21 say and I appreciate everybody coming in.

22 MR. NORELIUS: Would you run through your 23 questions quickly again. I think we can address them 24 quickly.

25 MS. SISK: The first one was when the E.!.A.

n LLemeaa aeeaa9;Ma eawenMW

w ,

~

l 47 i 1 limits were set what year and how did they come about these l

l l 2 limits. The other one was is the old pellet building that 3 they were originally using is it as state of the art as the 1

l 4 new one, is it earthquake resistant as these are. The 5 decontamination I already mentioned and what is the maximum 6 amount of the product that's going to be allowed to be

7. brought to the plant. Right now there is not going to be a 8 change but what is the maximum amount that will be allowed?

Rouss :

) 9 MR. NO.". L U": Jim, you don't get off the hook 10 here. Come on down, Jim, I would rather have you speak to 11 the old pellet plant. Wait a minute, Jim Rode the plant 12 manager is coming down to help us out. Let me answer the

(

13 first question, when were these E.P.A. limits that we were 14 referring to set?

The particular limits we're talking about) 15 uranium fuel cycle standards were put into application by (6PA) 16 the environmental protection agency jin 1979, became Decem bw,199 1980 17 effective in Occcabc., 1070. In January of 1000 N.R.C. )

18 issued an order to C.E. here at the Hematite plant with an )

19 evaluation and some action levels to assure that they were 20 well within that limits. So it's been since 1980 that that 21 particular limit was established. Before I turn it over to l 22 Jim I wasn't quite sure of the question about 23 decontamination of the ponds. I may have missed that. Did 24 you get it? The question related to decontamination of the 25 ponds?

mRLLeaaaa aasaa97%a eassurv

1 p.'.

• 1 48  !

1 f

MS. SISK: When I talked to Martha Dodson 2 .and Jay Nixon when they had viewed the plant the evaporation 3 ponds were still present with the sludge and I was wondering  ;

1 4

how and when they were going to evacuate all of that. I 5 thought that-was taken care of in 1979 as far as getting I 6 rid of the contaminated sludge. '

7 MR. ROUSE: I'm going to have to turn that  ;

8 one over to Jim also. Let me answer one question and then I '

9 may help him out. The maximum amount g e4 the possession 10 limite of the license is eight thousand kilograms of uranium 11 235.2: r^a+-ined in the ur:niu.? p r;;;;c . Jim, you want to 12 go?

13 MR. RODE: Martha, do you understand what her 14 question is about the ponds? I'm not quite sure I 15 understand that.

16 MS. SISK: Evaporation ponds, what do you 17 expect to do with the evaporation ponds?

teenmqME :

18 MR. Re&E: srst Oka. y . The sludge has generally 19 been removed from the ponds. We have surveys of the ponds 20 that have been completed. The submission of the data on the 21 ponds I believe is at present incomplete. We are putting 22 together the plans for finalizing, that is dedicating the ucush 23 ponds at this point. We have among the turi-le that we 24 listed the less than ten thousand cubic feet of 25 decontar.tination materials. Among that is the remaining l

- _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . M8&L@a0R0 REPORT 7 SNG COMPAIDf -

o .

~

49 1 earth that was removed from the ponds. Martha, did you see 2 the ponds when you were there?

3 MS. DODSON: I did in fact see the ponds 4 when I was there, yes.

5 MR. RODE: The depth of the original pond 6 was about three feet as I recall below grade. We are quite 7 some distance below that at this' point and have achieved j 8 levels which will allow us to make it a dedicated site 9 within the regulations. The old pellet building is not 10 designed for any special earthquake requirements. That's 11 one of the advantages that we have for modernizing the i

12 facilities. One that will accrue to us. It is not a state e.

13 of the art plant. It was a state of the art plant in 1959.

i 14 MR. NORELIUS: Let me just add that we will 15 continue to monitor the activity regarding those ponds and 16 the sludge material that is there. Okay. I have some 17 other people who have signed up and I may do damage to your 18 names so I would ask that you again repeat your name and say 19 it right and give the location of your home. Greg Pernoud.

20 MR. PERNOUD: Okay. I'm Dr. Greg Pernoud and 21 I'm a practicing oral maxillofacial surgeon in the community 22 so I kind of represent the dental community as well and .*

23 have a couple of questions to ask Combustion Engineering.

24 Certainly Mr. Rode has presented us with fine answers to 25 many questions. At least we have certainly met alot of

50 1 standards here tonight I think. Whether those standards

't 2 are appropriate or not we don't really know. Years will 3 test that. But my question has to deal with another

'd, chemical that hasn't been mentioned tonight. If you look at 5 the original slide we have a chemical hexaflouride coing to 6 a dioxide. Now if ;ny chemistry serves me correctly chere is 7 about two and a half molecules of flouride produced for 1

8 every molecule of U232 or whatever. 235, excuse me. And 9 there has been no question or no answer either raised to 10 what happens with all of this flouride. In this community 11 as a dentist I have seen quite a bit of flourisis. Now, I 12 am not making any accusations here but it does exist and it l 13 does exist other places as well. I would like to know what 14 exactly happens to the flouride that is produced. I also 15 know that many states have regulations regarding the output 15 of flouride in their state. Missouri does not. There is 17 also a machine that will take flouride out of the air i 18 discharged by these types of plants. I would like to know '

I 19 if this modernization that we have heard about tonight does 20 include this machine to take the flouride out of the air.

21 So my questions are that as well as how many hundreds of 22 pounds of flouride maybe discharged from the plant currently 23 and how much will it increase and if you have any studies on 24 the environment from flouride and what exactly happens to it 25 and does not end up in our drinking water.

W2Lteessa aesaa9vua eam9nsv

. . -4 c,

51 1 MR. RODE: Give me a moment to get my data s

2 together. I do happen to have some of the environmental 3 monitoring data which we do routinely. I'm relatively-y certain that the data is kind of. data that you want. I'll 5 have-to find the specific samples, the sample results. The 6 first-answer that you are looking for is really do we scrub 7I the off gasses from the plant to remove the flouride from 8 those gasses. The answer is yes. They are passed through-9 crushed calcium carbonate limestone rock. The calcium 10 carbonate reacts with the gasses which are systic hydrogen 11 flooride producing calcium flouride which is an extremely 12 insoluable form of flouride. We subsequently do monitor

(

13 both the soil and we monitor the run off water for flouride 14 levels. It is all drained with the water from the plant, 15 put out into a pond and we sample at the exit from the pond 16 and I'm trying to locate that flouride level. Do you have 17 that information, Harold?

Gsv.RooGE Kskred9 e, 18 MR. EGTRfee: I'm Harold Estri;c, manager of 19 licensing and safety at the plant. As Jim said we routinely 20 monitor the storm water and drain water run off absorbing 21 any flouride emissions from the plant. This is required 22 also by our N.P.D.E.S. permit any levels generally run less 23 than one part per mill which I understand is quite 24 acceptable.

25 MR. PERNOUD: You didn't answer my other

4. .. O

s, ce

~

52 1 question. How many hundreds of pounds i.* put out the 2 calcium' carbonate that you use? Is not the standard of care 3 as you mignt say to reduce of flouride emissions out of y smoke stacks? The machine I'm talking about does nbt run on 5 calcium chloride or calcium carbonate and do you plan on 6 modernizing it with this machine?

7-

~

MR. ROUSE: Well, when Jim comes back up to 8 respond to the quantities which he's going to know alot F. c 9 better than I. I would like to make one comment.g the 1 'ce. se 10 environmental assessment the N.R.C. did for the 4renewal back-11 in t%83 3 we did make an assessment of the quantity of .

12 flouride being released. Even after being. treated with the 13 calcium carbonate we recognized that the state and we were 14 looking at the gaseous emissions where most of it would be 15 released, the State of Missouri does not have a standard,at 4kLrslease.s 16 least at that time h4 compared 4+ against the standards that

%A 17 the state of Washington established.A State of Washington 18 had established and I'm not, I don't know the numbers, you 19 know, but the state of Washington was very sensitive to 20 flouride releases because of the aluminum plants up there, 21 which because of the nature of the process were releasing 22 large quantities of flourides. So we compared it against 23 sk&d> cmkstA thatj and we arri"^d at that very close sato the plant, very

, 24 close in essentially within the site perimeter) vfou might 25 see something full:d in the vegetation. I don't know that

3 e.. .

.} .

53

' &n. rufawd

'l it was below thi: rmeunt b; creua* standards. We compared L

& hua wg 2 it with the state of Washington subsequend g

t$ th:t th;n they 3 did do some sampling of the~ vegetation. I'm not sure they

^4 still do it.

5 MR. RODE: Yes, we do.

.. . user 6 MR. ROUSE: And the results have 1;;n didwT 7- c?"iru:17 lower than we projected because they der'd see IT 8 -in the vegetation as much as we projected. Go ahead, Jim.

9 MR. RODE: I'M not sure what I can say about 10 a system for-scrubbing the flouride out that you don't know 11 what/the' system is or any.information about it. The use of:

12 calcium carbonate is something that we have developed we 13 have used and,to our knowledge it has been more effective 14 .and a better system than waste used more broadly. Now, you

.l 15 may be discussing or thinking in terms of the. aluminum 16 industry which put out several orders of magnitude higher 17 . quantity of flouride than our small plant does. Their 18 flouride emissions in many cases are larger than our plant 19 through put of all material and I can't answer a question 20 without something a little more specific, I'm sorry.

21 MR. PERNOUD: Well, how many pounds are you i

22 talking, hundreds of pounds, are you talking about a day.

23 MR. RODE: The scrubbing efficiency AS I 24 recall is rated to be about ninety percent we are putting I

25 out in the course of a year. In the course of a month i

)

i i

m2LLeasaa ans899We eaN9RWW l

l l

54 1 somewhere in the neighborhood of one to two thousand pounds. .

ll 2 MR. NORELIUS: Next we have Herb Biehle.

3 MR. %@;HLE: Herb Seshle and I live in the y DeSoto area. I am chief shop steward at Combustion 5 Engineering in Hematite. I'm also a Jefferson countian and i 6 concerned Jefferson countian. I have worked for C.E. for 7 eight years and during those years I have seen alot of 8 changes. The changes I speak of are improvements to the We.len,-

9 plant,some of them required by the ::: tion:1 Regulatory 10 Commission and all have been to improve the health and 11 welfare of the employees and the surrounding community. Our 12 safety record with the N.R.C. has been outstanding. As I

('

13 look around I see a lot of fellow employees. The reason for 14 their atteEdance is of concern. Concern for the expansion 15 of their plant. The Hematite plant has been a small arm of 16 the nuclear power submission of C.E.. We at Hematite feel 17 that this expansion is a definite security of our jobs and 18 also improves the environmental impact on the community as 19 well as the safety at the work site. I also see some of the 20 residents of Hematite. Some of these are employees who 21 would not have moved or built so close to the plant had they 22 felt there were hazardous conditions. Their knowledge of 23 the safety at the plant as well as the safety factor 24 employed by the plant as set by the N.R.C. are reason of 25 their saying that living in the area is safe. As said by a l MRLLeaaaa aeeaa9;mm easenww

4 4, o-i._

e.. .. A "s'

, i,}

2 .

55 m

1 neighbor of C.E. it'is the fear of the unknown that 1

2 frightens people. C.E. has-strived to be.a good neichbor to 3 the community. In closing the future of the Hematite plant

~

~

4, is also the future of the fifty-five union and sixty company 5 employees. The company is also in the process of hiring *a 6 number-of new employees. This is an economica1'plus to the 7 county in addition the safety factors of the new equipment-8 being installed at the time. Thank you.

9 MR. NORELIUS: Next we have Gary Surdyke.

10 MR. SURDYKE: That's better than some people 11 have done. My name is Gary ~Surdyke. I'm from Hematite, 12 Missouri. Live with my wife and our family of ten have I

13 lived there for about twenty years, close to it. I come 14 here representing nobody but myself, my family and my kids.

15 I have been asked and have-agreed to both sign and to 16 present to this body a petition of approximately eighty plus 17 signatures of people who and let me read what it says. We 18 the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all 19 concerned that as local neighbors of Combustion-Engineering, 20 Incorporated we support their efforts to modernize and 21 expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri plant. I would 22 like to present this. Also there is a letter in there from 23 one of the residents, one of our Hematite characters. Okay.

3 24 I share Senator Nixon, Martha Dodson, Mrs. Sisk's concern 25 about Jefferson County. I think that it is something that we mmn m mm mm _mAm-mm---- -m - - =

d i

56 1 need to be concerned about. The county does have some 2 problems. Dr. Fernoud brought up something that's quite 3 interesting that sometimes with our focus on nuclear because 4

nuclear has become such a hot word that we lose sicht of the 5 real problem and it could be that the real problem is 6 flouride, it's not radioactivity. It may well be. Sounds I like it is something that's been looked at and considered.

8 I believe that the objective of the coalition for the 9 environment is to stop nuclear in its tracks and to 10 eventually eliminate it completely. Why else would they >

11 come after an operation as inoccuous as the Hematite plant 12 and not take time to compare nuclear to petroleum, coal and I

13 wood as sources of energy as far as the potential damage to 14 the environment. We all are much aware of some of those 15 problems. I believe that the coalition for the environment 16 is part of the problem rather than part of the solution as a

17 it applies to enerav production and use. I believe that i 18 the, their time, the coalition for the environment's time 19 would be better spent concerning themselves with sewage, 20 trash and litter dumped in our beautiful county and maybe 21 flouride. If they did I imagine that everybody in this room 22 would join them in their endeavor. Iluclear has the 23 potential that would eliminate the environmental damage done l 24 to our planet by the use of oil and coal. I predict that 25 sometime in the future whether it be not too distant future MRLLeaaaa 9esaa92Wa eamsRew

1 C a . . .? 1 t  !

a, ,

!. o 57

< 1 or centuries and centuries it may depend upon how successful

!i 2 the coalition-for environment is, that sometime in the L

3 future our personal transportation vehicles, our cars our

'4 motorcycles, I am in that business, will run for years on 5 the electricity generated by very snall amounts of nuclear 6 energy. Now, r.y goodness.are we coing to do away with 7 something that has such great potential. There is no 8 compromise with the antinuclear people. There is great-9 ' lengths, there is a tremendous body and tremendous effort of 10 concerned people and a part of our government a tremendous 11 amount of its budget is spent to insure to protect us from 12 the potential hazards of nuclear. But I have confidence k 13 that that's being done at Hematite and in the industry as a 14 whole because the industry as a whole has a very good safety 15 ' record. If the coalition for the environment is successful 16 we will be much more dependent on oil and coal and what will 17 that bring us. I recall in the late '40's and early '50's 18 going into St. Louis with my father and a dark pale hung 19 over the city in the winter time and it was because of coal.

20 Most everything was coal fired. Now I just wonder what 21 department of the government was or citizens committee that l

22 eliminated that. Well, gee I think it'was the market place 23 because we come up with oil and we come up with natural gas

_f 24 and we come up with fuel oil and electricity. Where would 25 the coalition for the environment have us be? Where would  !

l

_ __--- _ _ - _ _ _ . _ __ ______ l

w il ; " .. . :

1 i ..

v 58 q 1 they back the clock up to? ~

' That's all I would like to know.' l t

2 I have more hope in mother nature in the future lead by

'3 people who are concerned than I do.about the doom ~ sayers and

'4 the chickens littles of the'world. Thank you.

5 MR. NORELIUS: Next we.have Phillip Crow.

.L 6 MR. b : My name is Phillip '. I live in 7$ Hillsboro. . I really wanted to come to this hearing tonight,-  !

8 this meeting tonight. I did not have any prepared 9 questions. I wanted to come and listen.with openess and 10 .were genuine respect for all of-the parties that are 11 involved. And I'm sonewhat saddened at the question of the

~

12 integrity of one of the bodies that was brought into body by 13 the last speaker. But what I would like to share with you 14 is that I'm here for a couple of reasons. One of them is 15 that at nicht when I look at the awesome beauty of the stars 16 and during the daytime and during the daytime when I look at 1

17 the beauty of nature I'm still with a sense of wonder and of 18 an increasing awe for the God that could create this. And -)

l 19 the other reason that I came here tonight was that I have a

20. real concern about the safety of people who work in the '

21 plant and about the citizens of our community. For a long,

)

22 long t,ime now certain kinds of issue have needed to be 23 discussed. Missouri began to talk about participation in

, 24 the low level radioactive nuclear waste. In fact, I was a 25 member of the board of directors of the coalition of the

$*JcRassaae sessewma erexwn- .

l. .

N 59 i

1 environment at the time and introduced the motion to have i

2 the coalition oppose Missouri's participation in should 3 impact the relevance of that. As we were told tonight that t

4 there is the possibility if the Barneswell facility cannot 5 take the waste then in fact Missouri may in time participate 6 in the compact and until then the waste will be left on site 7' and after that it will be part of the compact. The 8 difficulty that I and others have with the compact was three 9 fold in its nature. One, the issues related to the safety 10 of the storage, two, issues related to the safety of 11 transportation and third, the ethical issue. And very 12 briefly the ethical issue is I don't think my God allows me

_ g..

13 to say if I don't wcat waste here that I have a right to get 14 you to take it by taking an economically depressed community 15 and telling it if it desperately needs jobs it has to  !

16 surrender the potential safety of its workers and residents 17 in order to be able to have increased income. I don't like 18 that kind of ethical trade off. What happened though is 19 that we have talked about low level radioactive waste and as 20 I began to do things like, for example, debate the assistant '

21 director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources I 22 have the same kind of ambiquity that I have when we use 23 words without definition. Like say the reason that I am 24 bringing that up is when I would ask them would you please 25 define for me low level waste. Most frequently the response MILLeeann a=9aa9?ma earsAww

s A *

>"- j 60 j

kwne i 1 I got was low level waste is that waste which is higher than 2 hich level waste. Is that the kind of definition that we 3 want safety based on. Yes, there are technical responses l

4 that can come-but I don't'like to see the safety of people 1 5 in my community nor the safety of people in plants based on 1

6 the kind of. language that has that ambiguity that can be i 7' used very deliberately but in turn impact upon the health of i i

8 people. That's one of the concerns that I had. Was that we 1

9 hear some definition of what low level waste means in terms 10 of this future of facility. Because the amount of it at"the i 11 facility on site seems large at least in terms of volume.

]

12 I'm not questioning the integrity of any of you. I respect k 13 your integrity and I deeply respect your expertise. I do 14 have a concern about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 15 its vigilance in protecting us based on its past record.

16 For example, the studies that told us that the kind of 17 accident that occurred at the Three Mile Island could not 18 occur, right. The same experts that the N.R.C. relied on 19 for that safety figure for that was then hired for a dam and 1 i

20 he gave the same figures for the safety of the dam. The dam 21 also broke and people died in the flood. My point is simply

]

22 that the N.R.C. has not always been our guardian but at 23 times has been the guardian of the industry. So I think we 24 have a right to say to the N.R.C. we appreciate your openess 1 25 tonight. We respect your integrity and expertise but we I i

mRLLeassa seesemrwa eassnww J

~ '

61 1 know that your track record is that sometimes you have a 2 little more vigilant defending the industry rather than 3 defending us. In closing I would like to say that I moved 4 to this area recently to become a teacher. I'm an i

5 educational therapist. I teach children with behavior 6 disorders and learning disabilities and what I hope for 7' those children is that we can one offer them the environment 8 that's more conducive to their health than growing up in the 9 county with the twenty-eight highest degree of toxic waste 10 in America. I think we owe that to them. I think we owe a 11 more responsible worship to our God for our environment and 12 what I ask you to do is please, if you could, join with us 13 in being part of the process in protecting our community to 14 define more to us with less ambiguity word like low level 15 waste. Because my friends low level waste can and does kill 16 people and that's my point is that low level waste has the 17 capacity to kill human beings and that's why I'm concerned 18 about it. I'm not saying that the waste there does. I'm )

19 just saying that when we use words ac ambiguously as we did l 20 tonight we need to have a little bit greater clarity because 21 you have some very, very powerful substances that are low i

22 level waste that even N.R.C. says that are dangerous to 23 health. That's why I came here tonight. I notice some were 24 in opposition. I think the coalition cares deeply. You may I

25 or may not agree with its position but it's been my MRLL2aaaa BesaaeTra eamenew

o i

{

l

{

l

\

62 l 1 experience that the people who give their time to the l

2 coalition aren't there because of personal gain. The names ]!

k 3 aren't known in the community and they don't make money i

(

l 4, because they participate on the board. It's simply that 1 5 they, you and I are concerned about the environment. The 6 major conflict resolution along time ago so people could 4

7 learn how to resolve conflicts in "*i*

"2C_e that all parties i 8 won. I don't think anybody wins whcn we begin to question 9 the integrity of each other. Thank you.

10 MR. NORELIUS: I think in the interest of 11 having everybody be able to make a statement we will move 12 on. We have three other who have signed up. Bill Schifler.

Stuf tFLER j k"~ 13 MR. EC::ITL:2 : Yes, sounds like everyone can '

S diciftw .

14 hear me. My name is Bill Ochific-r. I live in Hillsboro, 15 Missouri. I'm speaking only for myself as a private 16 citizen. And I have three points or questions to make.

l 17 This particular piece of property has passed through several 18 owners and each owner has passed its liability onto I would i

19 suppose the current owner Combustion Engineering. Part of l

20 that liability are the waste pits. Now, I take some issue )

21 with using the federal funding to clean up these waste pits.

1 22 This appears to be a liability that Combustion Engineering 23 has purchased along with the property. And I think it is

! , 24 morally correct for Combustion Engineering to set a schedule l

I 25 and set aside escrow money for the cleaning up of these

.1

,-: , .- 1 i

l

'63 I 1 ' pits. I think we can plainly say that this is nothing more j

,1 2 than a waste dump. And I get.the impression it might have

,3 been a'high level waste dump to leave these pits.in our i

i water shed to contaminate our deep wells where most of.the 5 -private citizens are using deep wells I think is I mean 6 morally' disgraceful. I'm a little disturbed that the 7' regulatory' commission is issuing expansion plans without l

8 having some plans for the removal and cleaning up of these 9 waste pits. I am also somewhat surprised that the 10 regulatory commission without hearing is issuing expansion 11 plans and reissuing their licensing without providing escrow 12 . funds for the' emissions and clean up of this plant at the k 13 end of its life cycle. Now these are normal liabilities of

-14 any company that is in this industry. And to ignore these 1

15 liabilities is improper and it appears that the regulatory 16 commission is ignoring them as well as the company. These 17 waste pits should be removed and taken to a proper site.

18 Because a mistake was made back in the '50's in burying it 19 it does not make it correct today. Part of the clean up of 1

20 the plant site should be the clean up of the waste pits and l

21 definitely an escrow account should be made for the 1

22 emissions and cleaning up of this plant at the end of its l 23 life cycle. Those are two of my points. The third question 1

,. 24 I have, we have drugs prevelant in the area. I think it is 25 a normal question to ask does the plant have a drug policy

L

..p d'

'h.

1- 64 i

i within its plant? Thank you.

2 MR. ROUSE: I'm going to try the first two 3 and then I'm going to let Jim talk about the last point, j Mr.Schifler. I have no c.uarrel at all with your two points 5 about the burial pits. First of all, the burial pits are 6 the responsibility of C.E. notwithstanding that C.E. as a 71 corporate entity was not the one that put that uranium 8 contaminated material in those pits. They are now the 9 licensee. They the responsibility for that site.

so (FR 2o.3o4 6urials3 in 10 These 022.20' and I use the term that was 3the regulation

%e bw.dr 11 that permitted th+e,is no longer in affect. As you might 12 have heard it really went out of use for any fuel cycle 13 facility in about 1970. Nevertheless we have a few of these c ancern 14 around the country and they are a hether to the regulatory 7

15 agency. And in very recent testimony +b 4ktcongress,our 4 new 3 sse 16 Chairman, Chairman Carr committed to Congressman 9Etter of 17 Oklahoma that before any of the plants were decommissioned 18 and the -license terminated that something would have to be 19 done with these 20.304 burials. They would have to be 20 assessed, determined what would be done with them) Whether 21 there would have to be some restrictions on the land or 22 whether that waste would have to be removed by the licensee.

23 Number two, on the decommissioning again you're abso16 .ely 24 right and as a matter of fact about a year ago the N.R.C.3 25 maybe a little belatedly but now nas a rule that we will 3

nRLLesaea arsaa9Tua eament-w

]~

l

> c V ... ,

65 1

Nirms require a decommissioning funding plan from &4*+4 like o

V' 2 Combustion Engineering Hematite which will have to estimate 3

deu=missilwN the cost of the e* wesens and then provide assurance under 4 specified mechanistas that'that funding will be available at u det\

5 the time that the plant ceases its life. 4md be a few years 6 before that comes into play,but there is no indication that sod 7 C.E. Eematite is going to go out of business 4*t I assure 3

%e.

8 you that 4Ae+- rule covers full funding of whatever it takes 9 to meet thedecommission#hequirementsoftheN.R.C. at the ne rMaw 10 time and then R has to be updated about every four or five 11 years.

Scas s F Len 12 MR. SC::I"Lrl: May I rebuttle there a I

13 moment? Why was this expansion. plant approved 4without sone.

14 provisions for those pits to be cleaned up along with the 15 plant site that's being constructed on? Why wasn't that 16 held up until commitments were made on those pits? We know 17 there were there. We know they exist. Granted they were 18 under license in '53 but I can't visualize you issuing 19 expansion plans and not including total clean up of that 20 plant site before they were issued.

21 MR. ROUSE: I can't say anything other than 22 the plant is an active plant. Some of these decisions with 23 respect to these burial grounds have only been recently 24 considered. And number two, as long as the licensee is 25 4hc there and operating the:e plant #,th^ : bur a; g r ~2r r': cri

.o.

66

,-the.f ar.Algromds hm hadj 1 our studies and their studies have snownin~o impact off site.

f 2 MR. RODE: With respect to drug testing C.E.

3 Hematite does have a policy of testing new employees for  !

I 4

drugs. We also have a general policy dealing with fitness 5 for duties. This policy dictates our answers when we detect 6 that someone at the plant is unfit for work in the plant and 7' this may not seem that it has any association with drugs but 8 I assure that it does. It is not possible to unilaterally 9 implement a drug testing program. This may come to pass in 10 the future.

11 MR. NORELIUS: Okay. Next we have Pete 12 Pappin.

(' 13 MR. PA[, PIN:

-s My name IS Pete Pa(pin. I was 14 called by a member of Senator Nixon'S staff to make sure 15 that I would be here tonight. I responded in the local 16 paper the Courier Journal that Mr. Surdyke wrote a couple of 17 weeks ago and I have two things to say. The first one is as 18 I look around tonight I see some red and white caps that say 19 quality is our future. They are all brand new. How long 20 has this been your motto. I would like to read my response {

l 21 to Mr. Surdyke and it's also a response to Combustion '

22 Engineering. It is ludicrist for Gary Surdyke to cor. pare 23 the coal industry to uranium processing facilities. That is ,

24 like comparing apple to oranges. It seems as though Mr.

25 Surdyke has little or no regard for the safety of the I nRLLeaaae mesaaerMen eausatW

.A . .; :.e

• ' ... ~,.

67 Lc

( ..:

1 residents of Jefferson County. ~ Our_ county has been a-1-

L 2 dumping ground for far too'long. -

It's time to slow down and-3 ' consider just exactly what needs to be done so that the 4 Combustion. Engineering plant is a safe and welcome neighbor.

5 .Which1he tried to slip.an expansion of.their plant-past the

'6 residents of-Jefferson County that would double the amount 75 of processing done at the Hematite location.

. No 8 environmental impact study was to be done until Senator, 9 Nixon required one to be completed before further 10 construction. To my knowledge C.E.-has no evacuation plan, 11 no way to notify the surrounding-communities of a nuclear 12 accident. They don't even have a fence around their

( -

13 perimeter. They have four unlined waste pits that no one 14 knows the exact location of. This is not what I call 15 stringent regulation. I suppose the Exxon Oil spill sounds 16 okay with Mr. Surdyke. With the oil industry is highly 17 regulated with friends like Exxon, Dow Chemical and 18 Combustion Engineering who need enemies. The human race is 19 rapidly condeming itself through irresponsible polutting of 20 .the land, air and water and this is something no one has 21 said tonignt. Our children, our grand children will inherit 22 the earth from us. Let's make sure that there is somethinc 23 worth while to inherit. I'm sure that the polluters of the 24 world wish that there were more people like Mr. Surdyke and 25 the people that signed that petition, people who do not care t

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - - - - ' - - ~

n;p( , ,

.s i , x n- ,

n' .

.;f 68 1- .about the environment. . People who disregard the warning

[f' 2 signals that our mother earth is sending to the' human race.

3 Wen won't get many more second chances.

-4 MR. NORELIUS: .Pam: Midget.

5 MS.-MIDGETT, My name is PamLMidgett. My 6 husband, Dennis, works for Combustion Engineering. We also t

1. 7 ', are. residents'of Jefferson County. We live in DeSoto. I 8 speak.only as a mother. We have three children and I

.9 wonder, also I wondered when Dennis took this job of parents 10 does.it was an unknown job. Whenever he mentioned 11 radic2ctivity I kind'of freeked at first. I-mean who 12 wouldn't'and whenever I did meet Mr. Rode and I see al'ot of

13 the people that work with Dennis we are all real people.

14 You can walk up and shake our hands. I mean we have 15 children. We are raising our kids here. We're not running 16 off hiding. I worry about Dennis when something happens.

'17 The worse thing I are think he did was sprain his back at i

18 work, which they took care of that. They sent him straight

{

j 19 to'the doctor. He vas paid for it. We have two children 20 that we're born with disabilities before Dennis even worked 21 here and, you know, I mean I don't think it's fair that we 22 could blame Combustion Engineering. I know for a fact that 23 the guys and the ladies and gentlemen wear patches on their 24 clothes that monitors radioactivity. I get the letter in 25 the mail telling me that Dennis is way blow and he is richt )

i b

SR2ftacest&aa sePAG92Wa ean29faNr  !

Imig c,. . (.

i. . .

.?.

<v; 69 1 - with it alongLwith'everyone else that works there-or right

.2 with it.- And'I understand the community being scared:but:I y ,. 3' also understand that the guys'and the ladies that work with 4 this stuff would be more contaminated than'the rest ofLus ,

5 .and I'm not saying that every place is perfect butLI do know 6 what I-know is that Combustion Engineeringois safe. 'As safe 7- as any~ place like this could be. 'And I'also have'a. question 6 sfor the lady. The plant did not hide its expansion. I mean-9 anybody that travels that road could see it for over a-year.

10 and.if they did not expand would this have ever happened and-11 that's my question?

12 MR. NORELIUS: Okay. That completes the

! 13 list of people who asked to make a statement. It's getting-

'14 near. ten o' clock. Our purpose in coming tonight was to try 15 to provide information to those of you who have an interest 16 and from the size of the group that is assembled it's 17 obvious that many of you do have an interest. I think 18 that's a healthy sign. I appreciate the sincerety of each 19 person who made a statement but one thing that strikes one 20 in listening to it is that there are many people who-21 sincerely come to this problem from quite different 22 approaches. And I think what that means is that this like 23 alot of questions are not easily answered. There are 24 difficult problems they require judgement and they require '

. 25 study and they require alot of thougnt in order to nake the HILLS 3ORO REPORTING COMPANY ,

___ - - - I

,si e h d 4 ;,n , 8 0 H n

- JEREMIAH W. (JAY) Nixon COMM TTEES:

22Ho DISTRICT CNAIRMAN, COMMERCE AND MOOMdat a CONSUMER PROTECTION STATE CAPITOL APPROPRIATIONS

• *" "' ' " ^'

TELEPEE l "T 13, MISSOURI SENATE ENERoy A7a*ENU NNEur JEFFERSON CITY E LOCALGOVERNMENT AND

""*"O"'#D"V"""E"Y DSTuscT Orrect: GOVERNMENTAL AND ISIS c M D. VETERANS' AFFAIRS N ERCULANEUM. MO S3048 g TELEPHONE (3 t d) d64 8545  ;

l 6

Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Wite Flint North j Mail Station 17G21 '

/

Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear Sir:

I look forward to the public forum on August 24th concerning Combustion Engineering. It is important that all relevant facts concerning potential health and environmental impacts of the Combustion Engineering plant expansion and operation be brought to light.

Because of the many concerns expressed by area residents,-I have prepared a series of questions which should be addressed and adequately answered at this hearing.

I am providing to you a copy of these questions beforehand so that you may have sufficient time to prepare answers.

The questions and concerns are as follows:

4

1. .Why is Combustion Engineering requesting permission to handle fuel which contains a higher percentage of uranium than l previously processed at Hematite?

2. The total discharged pollutants into river and air have decreased by a substantial percentage in the last decade. In view of this fact why is Combustion Engineering requesting permission to increase air emissions and water effluents? '

3. Has the state of Missouri given its OK for any 1 increased emissions?

4. What plans have been prepared to reduce emissions?

5. Has the state or a national agency requested such a plan?  !

I

l L , .. .

• a' ,

u. . Page 3 August 17, 1989 l

l

6. Will there be increased output of radiation, and if so, what are the potential impacts on health and environment?

7. What will De the effect of approval of the application upon water quality?

8. Will there be any change in transportation patterns of L product or waste?

9. Will the volume of waste produced at the plant increase? If so, how much?

10. Where will this waste be taken for disposal?

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?

12. Will more product be on site? If so, is there a danger of increased accidents with the changed and increased capacity?

13. Is an accident more likely to be more serious with the proposed changes?

14. How will emergency procedures be revised?

15. Will the modifications require changes in local emergency response capability?

i Also, it is my understanding that large amounts of waste are stored on site. If this is correct, please answer the following:

A. How is this waste stored? .

B. What type of waste is stored? j C. Do you consider this a temporary or permanent solution?

D. Are there plans to make a different permanent disposal of this waste?

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

I look forward to getting the answers to these essential questions at the hearing on August 24th.

Sin ely, i

J ah W. (Jay) Nixon L___-_____-_________ _.

' f' . .

i August 1989 i

]

We the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all concerned that as local neighbors of Combustion Engineering, Inc. we support their-efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri plant.

NAME ADDRESS 0Y Y.WmL Rd,8st /09 W s N ,*7t>L430V'7 Y 3%,8 -

eo.en i+c n a r. -s. c3 0 er V

C,Om9crt ~7_.OnE RTL,.Kllv. P h . 66Y. IM Wendte__

r L au,' .,

hC Amy U ** R ,n ~, W R,.aL]&k~ fo Bu <j3Y % 48 Dia 43xasAEL iosa 6 m&Z feL 80 6Lbcf Newn 704 nrnd itsras xn g3

!LDA L- m aa. su o 7,M a,g c+

Susf4$~d 99&Z ZdwaecNiG6Auauo S6.w.cc)

A3 Y 4 2 W Jr7D 2>csex.D.e Fi=577f Mc.

$r$&N 2M/B /7G=?n4ivtsNO 4$Y)

~2K c & "s p a d z a wa aoy;

n ...

hl- ..'.. c

.+ ,

k ,:

August 1989 l

We the undersigned petitioners do'hereby give notice to all concerned that as local neighbors of Combustion' Engineering, Inc. we support their

' efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri plant.

NAME ADDRESS W4 _

Y 49&fb r O' d/L awdi4

?a%6a Kaa Ms snu . ers '

x - W 2. , & So7e W Z Ae.

WJHMJ~/ 4W E L D 3 4 7h 634E L W' s1s, Da>w or. sis,Jk oca '

Scd1 ZMim asu 41dLJ /L AA,)L g34 l d d 19

August 1989 ,

We the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all concerned f that as local tieighbors of Combustion Engineering, Inc. we support their efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri i

plant.

' ADDRESS

/ AME -

i n, p- + LJ i g i 4R'~

d n%> fo f a f A% Lsw+ ears

()$$A h brn9aulo O 2/0)1//a fsRAd.39&

Pas & los- Y1\cuL %dno nio 6.90a Dw a)s m u O mo/,g*7 A' L 2 / 1 sw, sonfrJd s/ 4E J r,%s.a v-7 MAaL Lcign U & A 47 A L *1o ui s sse m

~

Iovu Nak50 ihswr%h Moy)

, o a s ..

August. 1989 We the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all concerned that as local neighbors of Combustion Engineering, Inc. we support their efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri plant.

NAME ADDRESS

, h. h$

L oLs q , g as i L 1s> wq ha M ICsQA w s &wsi. nzsmw W/1M~ h Ya 2 a r ( % n r u ll S D / 4 % N n o . G.5 of; ar na P L1s M.nv7

& n d . O a ,, % Re>. A x 3 H 2 kl m 630+7 L J /,a a 4 u u , L a 'v;; m ss e 40,hmA R hox. Wohvir:ra % ma4L nw swen e O_LM ;JLo

• t'o f L Q .4Je A.7+4M7 M ",0 K GoseB cLas./<&uer N'W625 " k 2 b c> x 8' 3 L a t l7e s c>.g g ui y baNTJu /*a D of 47 }Le M/ws A3of7

/Ja k is B . S k is k u l d:4im ssw7

%k 64, a dasirso;% % otw ,

% i cm o wa % w La..m mo43eg

$aww$0E f}.2 D95 O k D?o 6.3Cv4 lk sd L.! fJ A L 2 9 5 R m o 6 3 9 E' Dhh 14n 92 AwM6 s,& . n /me l d~A>4ah 90aer ros hetM,-rro.am7 l I

c

-m__m__._______m..-_ _ - _ _ _

s,

. - 1;o r .

August 1989 We the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all concerned-l .that as local neighbors of' Combustion Engineering, Inc. we support their efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri plant.

NAME ADDRESS J $$W$b4 .h6 L A a as xs m m a,,

Y. A.,I?0auT 300' $ E l M n u d ; hn E s4 0 - \

ELaae d <to , o n w k r , x li ,, a WGW 47xuw 13cc oshln, '

in4M 90.Borosz s as ks x..

,)s' J- @ L w 1 P e 7t } A ,

h ku1A1N h m 0 W 'D1V Por13eL W D.CiselhiM  % A % ); j

'EufDnli i e m adiri w ro Oud & Ni b /hto 2LwLAsb Devi&MwA nn I%$/- k . 8 nyx L +5 rno.c.3o47 Yd>v& 5b &n' 9/ AN<aZ26 >w.o 450 0 bhnNm19pf,a #

h Bn to Hw&b im Mey1 3 d$w2/ Q1brurZh W5 4309

f a \ R um AJn ss,: su acar 4,- % A iv maw h,-, n. og

~. .-

i

,S_ _ci L h a ~ ,d o._ .

fb exy K7 devridt Mn MBG l

~. y y p 1.' 9 ;3

+

.y , ,,

l' } ' f ,

..August

-. . ' 1989 )

.We'the undersigned petitioners-do hereby give. notice to all concerned

]

that as local neighbors of Combustion' Engineering, Inc. we support their

. 4 efforts to modernize and expand operations at.the Hematite, Missouri plant. I

. .NAME- ,, @RBfj$1' j y-g 0$d/b>rr) tjud. 699 & Aw,n%' c'f4.dn'p; Tk D J . B R k #1 % A :s n e n 'r c sifAY .& 2 rw2w h<na mo saoA

[D l a n m !b c su %& ss,a Odes-d'.W7

~

' = e fox SY Od d s /A 45oY7 bu't h#vu (?wzh Nuni if0 6Ec47 17- lK u &c AJL 11n Mn un S E Afsn$n 1o 791Hwb1A bro f d2J8A&14N/ ' Map DeMie Tv. Es+os MO YNM ]Ma s wg (bJL. D =% L., N,L ?

RAAnsn s w a d u Jru w in ,t 4' ii n

&l }ch 3gpb n jdd ,%nu ms R~l% ss 90 ads ik Doad k,w #L M1_ 3r90 RLJbA.5A w?P

%1,h1 mo NL Na,L eL n

-f ,n ,r lo9ss >n y w m 4 ,,m ne c.p4a i

.f (x ., u % ,d- 1,, A, IM V9 3)to;on -aj h 9]c > m oM /dt. h a n, l

( -_- - - - - - - - - -

, s

. 4 1

l 1

i August 1989 i

We the undersigned petitioners do hereby give notice to all concerned

t. hat as local neighbors of Combustion Engineering, Inc. we support their efforts to modernize and expand operations at the Hematite, Missouri l plant.

NAME ADDRESS {

f Wm w n ds O &J h J Maffbyhk 79 d,fronr a sio,,e m syss p a j-Qef&9pa jm-nana,w nws wM Jnw" \

i y v e r - / \

W w do a & & OJ M 2 C w M W 4 h././+t 6 / Y pilp A,$,& p w M 'h , Q f W & W wwimwaY

- r s wa.wassk

. /

, & $c m.l & MAhs kan u)2& w A/qM,akJA Jecw eae.g l

/& kla/t</s2o m_& tau rA,f <

d, s /~. dez ua J u

tf/ % % k % Y 5 -,<) E kl& %D.,

L s ma i,uts.k 2xcar QL w n& L a ~ s a, k a% M . -

a Yff f '

h J W/ MW i y v

. % /x-[>d M M d rva A d n-l w e O '. 5 Y c7 M -<t 4 $ u

~

i

&)J's tY O MV w &-

46s#m' edea%%7&2z'RA l Raasuon 6 ?028' \

17t a

&&e %o n un s  !

l s F l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORy COMMISSION l

In.the Matter of ,

I I

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. I Docket No.(s) 70-36-MLA I

(Hematite Fuel Fabrication Facility i License No. SNM-33) I 1

1 -)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB NOTE TO JULIAN W/TR.--8/24 )

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

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Charles Bechhoefer Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Michael A. Bauser, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20036 Missouri State Senator Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon 22nd District Martha Dodson Room 429 412 Mississippi State Capitol Crystal City, MD 63019 Jefferson City, MO 65101 Arlene Sandler President Karen Sisk Coalition for the Environment 1123 Wolf Hollow Road St. Louis Chapter Imperial, MD 63052 6267 Delmar Boulevard St. Louis, MD 6313,0 4

.,4 ;_;

e .: .

Docket'No.(s)70-36-MLA-J

.LB NOTE.TO'JULIAN W/TR.--8/24 Dated at Roc'kville, Md. this \

12 day of October.1989 '

1 Office f the Secretary of.the Commission i

4 l

e.f \

. I k

i l

. _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ]