ML20135E754: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
visited the fuel manufacturing facility, Combustion Engineering (CE), in Hematite, Missouri, on January 23 and 24, 1997. The primary purpose of the trip was a site familiarization tour. The tour of the facility was led by Bill Sharkey, the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Harold Eskridge, a Senior Consultant of Regulatory Affairs, and included observation of production areas and laboratories. Outdoor areas including the burial site, evaporation ponds and environmental monitoring stations were also observed. The NRC staff noted that progress has been made in removing radioactive waste stored in rear of the facility, although a great deal material still remains there. | visited the fuel manufacturing facility, Combustion Engineering (CE), in Hematite, Missouri, on January 23 and 24, 1997. The primary purpose of the trip was a site familiarization tour. The tour of the facility was led by Bill Sharkey, the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Harold Eskridge, a Senior Consultant of Regulatory Affairs, and included observation of production areas and laboratories. Outdoor areas including the burial site, evaporation ponds and environmental monitoring stations were also observed. The NRC staff noted that progress has been made in removing radioactive waste stored in rear of the facility, although a great deal material still remains there. | ||
On January 24, 1997, a meeting was held between NRC staff members and CE personnel regarding the source of technetium-99 (Tc-99) previously identified in groundwater, the status of remediation of the evaporation ponds, and decommissioning of the burial site. | On January 24, 1997, a meeting was held between NRC staff members and CE personnel regarding the source of technetium-99 (Tc-99) previously identified in groundwater, the status of remediation of the evaporation ponds, and decommissioning of the burial site. | ||
Safety Condition S-2 of CE's renewed license required the licensee to investigate and determine the source of gross beta activity found in well #4, southeast of the process buildings. The licensee stated in a letter dated January 27, 1995, that the contaminant is Tc-99, and the source of the contaminant is the formerly used evaporation ponds. However, the NRC staff Ij ph determined that due to inadequacies of CE's groundwater monitoring program, I there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. By letter dated 9703100164 970226 PDR | Safety Condition S-2 of CE's renewed license required the licensee to investigate and determine the source of gross beta activity found in well #4, southeast of the process buildings. The licensee stated in a {{letter dated|date=January 27, 1995|text=letter dated January 27, 1995}}, that the contaminant is Tc-99, and the source of the contaminant is the formerly used evaporation ponds. However, the NRC staff Ij ph determined that due to inadequacies of CE's groundwater monitoring program, I there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. By letter dated 9703100164 970226 PDR | ||
' ADOCK 07000036 emC HLE CWW | ' ADOCK 07000036 emC HLE CWW | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
this area under former 10 CFR 20.304. | this area under former 10 CFR 20.304. | ||
CE believes that the burial site contaminants currently pose no health risk to ' | CE believes that the burial site contaminants currently pose no health risk to ' | ||
the public. Therefore, by letter dated September 13, 1996, CE requestad delay of decommissioning of the burial site until the end of plant life. The NRC staff found that CE did not adequately justify this delay by addressing | the public. Therefore, by {{letter dated|date=September 13, 1996|text=letter dated September 13, 1996}}, CE requestad delay of decommissioning of the burial site until the end of plant life. The NRC staff found that CE did not adequately justify this delay by addressing | ||
Michael F. Weber 3 factors described in the Decommissioning Timeliness Rule (59 FR 36030] and other relevant factors described in 10 CFR 70.38(1). During the site visit, CE indicated that they would request a meeting with FCLB and Low Level Waste Projects Branch (LLDP) staff to discuss this issue further. | Michael F. Weber 3 factors described in the Decommissioning Timeliness Rule (59 FR 36030] and other relevant factors described in 10 CFR 70.38(1). During the site visit, CE indicated that they would request a meeting with FCLB and Low Level Waste Projects Branch (LLDP) staff to discuss this issue further. |
Latest revision as of 06:38, 14 December 2021
ML20135E754 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | 07000036 |
Issue date: | 02/26/1997 |
From: | Chotoo S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
To: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
References | |
NUDOCS 9703100164 | |
Download: ML20135E754 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ . _ _ . - _ __ _ - _ .
70 ^ R gs@ 1cm 4 & UNITED STATES j ,f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001
, \***.*/ -
February 26, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: Michael F. Weber, Chief Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety !
and Safeguards, NMSS l
THRU: George Pangburn, Section Leader ;
Licensing Section 2 Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
{
i and Safeguards, NMSS FROM: Susan D. Chotoo Licensing Section 2 gh
, Division of Fuel. Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS l Sean Soong 1[-
Licensing ection 2 Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT: COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, HEMATITE, MISSOURI, JANUARY 23 AND 24, 1997 i
The Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch (FCLB) staff, Sean Soong and Suu n Chotoo, '
visited the fuel manufacturing facility, Combustion Engineering (CE), in Hematite, Missouri, on January 23 and 24, 1997. The primary purpose of the trip was a site familiarization tour. The tour of the facility was led by Bill Sharkey, the Director of Regulatory Affairs and Harold Eskridge, a Senior Consultant of Regulatory Affairs, and included observation of production areas and laboratories. Outdoor areas including the burial site, evaporation ponds and environmental monitoring stations were also observed. The NRC staff noted that progress has been made in removing radioactive waste stored in rear of the facility, although a great deal material still remains there.
On January 24, 1997, a meeting was held between NRC staff members and CE personnel regarding the source of technetium-99 (Tc-99) previously identified in groundwater, the status of remediation of the evaporation ponds, and decommissioning of the burial site.
Safety Condition S-2 of CE's renewed license required the licensee to investigate and determine the source of gross beta activity found in well #4, southeast of the process buildings. The licensee stated in a letter dated January 27, 1995, that the contaminant is Tc-99, and the source of the contaminant is the formerly used evaporation ponds. However, the NRC staff Ij ph determined that due to inadequacies of CE's groundwater monitoring program, I there was insufficient evidence to support this conclusion. By letter dated 9703100164 970226 PDR
' ADOCK 07000036 emC HLE CWW
Michael F. Weber 2 i
April 30, 1996, CE was asked to revise the P groundwater monitoring program so that it is adequate to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1302. CE was also requested to submit additional information concerning the source of the Tc-99.
CE subsequently contracted with a Certified Professional Geologist to i construct a potentiometric surface map. CE also revised and expanded the i groundwater sampling program and upgraded the wells by installing surface i aprons, protective casings, and lock plugs. Due to surface infiltration, well :
- 4 was properly abandoned and was replaced with a new well approximately ten feet north of old well #4. !
During the site visit, CE indicated that the source of Tc-99 contamination is a former outdoor storage area east of the south vault. This conclusion is supported by historical records, soil and groundwater samples, and the direction of groundwater flow. CE will submit a report summarizing this .
information. i i
In addition to discussing Tc-99, CE updated the NRC staff on the remediation I of the former evaporation ponds. The ponds were dug in 1958, lined with rock, and used for disposal of limed filtrates from the low-enriched ammonium diuranate (ADU) process, limed high- and low-enriched uranium recovery i l
wastes, and spent potassium hydroxide scrubber solutions from recycle / recovery
, furnaces. Use of the ponds ended in 1978. Since that time, CE has initiated several remediation effo:-ts and has removed most of the sludge from the ponds to a licensed disposal facility. i l
On May 4, 1995, CE's license was amended to incorporate the Hematite !
Evaporation Ponds Decommissioning Plan. In the plan, CE commits to decommissioning the ponds to specified contamination levels approved by the NRC. A radiation survey of the ponds has been conducted which indicated the '
presence of hot spots. CE plans to further excavate the ponds to reduce these areas of elevated radioactivity. Currently, the ponds contain water and are uncovered. During the site visit, CE indicated that a revised schedule for the completion of this remediation project will be sent to the NRC in the near i future. 1 The last issue discussed during the site visit concerned decommissioning of the burial site. The burial site is' located immediately to the east of the fence line and extends to a wooded area at the site boundary. Burials were made in the late 50's and early 60's under both Mallinckrodt Chemical, United Nuclear, and Gulf prior to Combustion Engineering ownership. The burial site primarily contains contaminated combustibles and small pieces of equipment. l Records indicate that an estimated 27 kilograms U-235 have been disposed of in '
this area under former 10 CFR 20.304.
CE believes that the burial site contaminants currently pose no health risk to '
the public. Therefore, by letter dated September 13, 1996, CE requestad delay of decommissioning of the burial site until the end of plant life. The NRC staff found that CE did not adequately justify this delay by addressing
Michael F. Weber 3 factors described in the Decommissioning Timeliness Rule (59 FR 36030] and other relevant factors described in 10 CFR 70.38(1). During the site visit, CE indicated that they would request a meeting with FCLB and Low Level Waste Projects Branch (LLDP) staff to discuss this issue further.
1 Docket 70-36 i License SNM-33 ,
cc: Mr. Robert W. Sharkey, Manager Regulatory Compliance Combustion Engineering, Inc.
3300 State Road P Hematite, MO 63047
, 1 l
l l
Distribution Docket 70-36 PUBLIC NRC File Center FCSS R/F Region III FCLB R/F GShear, RIII NMSS R/F
[G:\triprpt.jan] 6fNc5 T J.'+< ~ / W
0FC FCLB r FCLB 6 FCLB f. FCLB - f NAME Schotoo 6BL SfoongIfmp- PShea ytf5 GPangbu W DATE 2/15 /97 2/M /97 2/l'f/97 2/cM/97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
,/
- l t .
Michael F. Weber 3 factors described in the Decommissioning Timeliness Rule (59 FR 36030] and t other relevant factors described in 10 CFR 70.38(i). During the site visit,
. CE indicated that they would request a meeting with FCLB and Low Level Waste i Projects Branch (LLDP) staff to discuss this issue further. '
i
, Docket 70-36
! License SNM-33 cc: Mr. Robert W. Sharkey, Manager Regulatory Compliance
- Combustion Engineering, Inc.
i 3300 State Road P Hematite, M0 63047