Home > Facility Info Finder > Sites Undergoing Decommissioning > Complex Materials

Westinghouse Electric Company (Hematite Facility)

1.0 Site Identification

2.0 Site Status Summary

The property consists of approximately 228 acres. The operating facility consists of two main plant buildings, an administration and several support buildings, and a parking area. Plant operations included low-enriched uranium fuel fabrication, processing and treating uranium compounds, including all forms of uranium from depleted to enriched uranium, and thorium fuel. Contamination at the site consists of uranium and thorium in the soil and groundwater. The Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (WEC) has provided phased-notification of cessation of operational activities. On September 11, 2001, WEC provided notification of cessation of all principal activities and submitted an application for license amendment to change the scope of authorized license activities to those associated with decommissioning activities. WEC has performed, within its permitted license activities, certain equipment decontamination and dismantlement and has shipped equipments and material to its South Carolina facility. WEC submitted the Phase 1 DP in April 2004, and Decommissioning Funding Plan in September 2004. Staff required more information and requested that the licensee resubmit the Phase 1 DP by January 2005. The licensee submitted Rev.1 on January 28, 2005. OGC has determined that one EA is required to avoid segmentation under NEPA. Due to this OGC decision, the licensee agreed that NRC should perform one EA. In addition, the licensee agreed to one DP and therefore Phased-decommissioning is no longer being pursued by the licensee. Decommissioning is estimated to cost approximately $40.5 million.

Throughout its history, Hematite's primary function has been to manufacture uranium metal and uranium compounds from natural and enriched uranium for use as nuclear fuel. From its inception in 1956 through 1974, the facility was used primarily in support of Government contracts that required production of highly enriched uranium products. From 1974 through the plant closure in 2001, the focus changed from government contracts to commercial fuel production plant. Over the lifetime of the facility there have been six owners. Mallinckrodt, United Nuclear and Gulf United Nuclear owned the plant for the government focused phase of operations. Combustion Engineering, ABB and Westinghouse owned the plant during the commercial phase of operations.

3.0 Major Technical or Regulatory Issues

WEC submitted its comprehensive DP on October 5, 2005. WEC requested the NRC to approve an alternate schedule. The NRC staff completed its 90 day extended acceptance review of the DP. The staff notified WEC that it would not accept the DP for a detailed technical review due to technical reasons. Subsequently a meeting was held at NRC Headquarters with the licensee to discuss the deficiencies in the DP. The licensee resubmitted the DP on June 19, 2006. On September 20, 2006, NRC accepted the DP for detailed technical review. However, NRCs letter noted that the staffs detailed technical review of the DP will not begin until WEC provides information that adequately addresses NRCs August 24, 2006, RAI (ML061630034). On October 27, 2006 withdrew its license amendment request of 06082006 which was the basis for the RAI (ML063060011). At the October 17, 2006 meeting, Westinghouse indicated that a revised amendment request would be submitted. Originally, the submittal was to be made in January 2007. However, in December 2006 it was decided that the submittal should consist of two parts. The first part was submitted on February 5, 2007. `A public meeting was held on June 19, 2007 to discuss the forthcoming submittal. As a result of the public meeting Westinghouse decided to delay the second part of the submittal pending the identification of the remediation contractor and the incorporation of the contractors approach into the DP and the amendment request. In addition, Westinghouse also determined that there were issues raised in past public meetings and correspondence which warranted a response. The upcoming amendment request will also include a response to these issues. The submittal of the second part of the amendment request is now anticipated for the second quarter of calendar year 2008. On February 15, 2008, Westinghouse submitted an amendment request which proposes revisions to the Hematite License and revisions to Chapters 1-6 of the application incorporated into the Hematite License by Condition No. 16.A. With this submittal, Westinghouse withdrew its February 5, 2007 amendment request in its entirety. With two exceptions, Westinghouse considered the amendment request to be administrative in nature. Revisions were those necessary to (1) correct editorial errors, clarify existing content and/or enhance consistency and readability; (2) eliminate references to operationaltion processed that are no longer performed at Hematite; (3) reflect organizational and position title changes; (4) update the licensing bases to reflect current site status and configuration and stage of site decommissioning; and (5) prepare the Hematite licensing basis for beginning active decommissioning activities following submittal and NRC approval of the Hematite Decommissioning Plan and associated licensing bases changes. The two proposing licensing changes which were not considered as editorial included a revision to Chapter 5 of the License Application, "Environmental Protection". This revision entailed replacing the Plant Well with Well No. BR-04-JC as an Environmental Monitoring Program monitoring location and adding a new Effluent Control and Monitoring Program sampling requirement for liquid effluents. The NRC anticipates concluding the DP licensing action within 12 months following an acceptable conclusion on the license amendment request and the revision to the decommissioning plan. On September 11-13, 2007, an inspection was conducted of the Hematite site. The inspection resulted in the issuance of three Level IV violations. The violations involved failures to: conduct licensed activities due to a lack of management focus; maintain the license consistent with changing site conditions and activities: and failure to properly label containers containing radioactive materials. On December 18, 2007, Westinghouse responded to the the Notice of Violation. They contested Example a of Violation 2. Westinghouse believes that they took proactive actions to maintain the license to reflect the removal of the exhaust and conversion offgas stacks. In letters dated February 4, 2008, February 11, 2008, February 21, 2008 and March 5, 2008 Westinghouse reported four instances of concentrations of radioactive material exceeding limits in unrestricted areas. Although, only one EA and one DP will be produced, Westinghouse still has plans to address NRC regulatory requirements concurrent with those required under EPA's CERCLA process. This coordination of remedial investigation and remedial action under CERCLA versus NRC's License Termination Rule (LTR) decommissioning and site cleanup criteria could potentially be challenging. There are active local, State, and Congressional interests in how the site will be decommissioned. Westinghouse has sued previous owners and the US government for cost recovery for decommissioning. Westinghouse has entered into an agreement with the State of Missouri to give the State of Missouri specific authority in the decommissioning of the site. NRC submitted comments to the State of Missouri opposing the consent agreement because it does not recognize NRC authority over radioactive cleanup. The U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division,ruled that the consent decree could not ratify the consent decree because the decree attempts to regulate the safety of a site containing nuclear contaminated, a field which is completely pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act.

4.0 Estimated Date For Closure

03/01/2012

Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer
Monday, April 14, 2008