Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's Facility in Cambridge, Ohio: Notice of Revision to the Scope of an Environmental Impact Statement

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's

Facility in Cambridge, Ohio: Notice of Revision to the Scope of an

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to revise the scope of an environmental impact

statement (EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intends to revise

the scope of an EIS for decommissioning Shieldalloy Metallurgical

Corporation's

[[Page 43478]]

(SMC's) facility located in Cambridge, Ohio.

ADDRESSES: Documents referred to in this notice may be examined at the

Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 2120 L Street (Lower Level),

NW. Washington, DC, or at the local PDR in the Guernsey County District

Public Library, 800 Steubenville Avenue, Cambridge, Ohio.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James E. Kennedy, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-415-6668.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 28, 1993, the NRC published, in the Federal Register

(58 FR 62384) a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed

stabilization of slag piles containing radioactive waste, located at

the SMC, Cambridge, Ohio, facility, and to conduct scoping for the EIS.

NRC's requirements for EIS scoping are contained in 10 CFR 51.28 and

51.29. The scoping process included a public scoping meeting held in

Byesville, Ohio, on December 13, 1993. NRC also invited the public and

interested agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit written

suggestions and comments for consideration in the scoping process. The

EIS scoping process was described in a ``Summary Report'' published in

May 1994. The ``Summary Report'' identified five alternatives to be

considered in the EIS. These were: (1) Onsite stabilization and

disposal (the licensee's proposed action); (2) off site disposal; (3)

onsite separation processing with off site disposal; (4) onsite

dilution and disposal; and (5) no action.

In a possibly related matter, NRC determined, in 1993, that slag

from the site, when it was owned by Foote Mineral Company (FMC) may

have been used as fill at off site locations. To date, NRC inspections

have identified 17 locations with slag having elevated levels of

radioactivity. Radiation surveys and slag analyses that NRC conducted

in 1994 indicate that the slag does not pose an immediate health and

safety risk to residents. However, some action may be necessary at

specific locations, to minimize the long-term risk associated with the

slag. To determine the nature and extent of the off site slag

contamination, Cyprus Foote Mineral Company (CFMC) (successor to FMC),

is conducting an investigation. Any needed remediation will be based on

the CFMC's further measurements and analyses and NRC's subsequent

review of this information.1

\1\ Documents (letters and reports) related to the slag review

program are available for public review at the Guernsey County

District Public Library, 800 Steubenville Avenue, Cambridge, Ohio.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the issues that fall under NRC's jurisdiction, there

are other environmental issues, associated with decommissioning the

Cambridge site, that are regulated by other State and Federal agencies,

including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), and the Ohio Department of

Health. As a result of these other environmental issues, SMC and CFMC

are conducting a remedial investigation/ feasibility study (RI/FS) for

the SMC, Cambridge, Ohio, facility. The RI/FS is in response to a

consent order for a preliminary injunction agreed to, in principle, by

OEPA, SMC, and CFMC. This RI/FS concerns the remediation of hazardous

wastes, industrial wastes, water pollution, and other wastes associated

with the Cambridge facility. Some of these wastes may be located in the

two slag piles. Because the RI/FS is expected to result in information

needed by NRC to develop the EIS, NRC staff is participating in

discussions between the companies and OEPA concerning the development

of the RI/FS for this site.

Revision to the Scope of the EIS

At meetings with the OEPA in December 1994, attended by NRC staff,

SMC representatives indicated that decommissioning alternatives under

consideration for the SMC, Cambridge, Ohio, facility should include the

relocation of off site slag that may have originated from this

facility. Because this new alternative would impact the EIS under

development by NRC, NRC staff requested a formal proposal from SMC

concerning the inclusion of this alternative, on January 5, 1995. In a

letter dated January 25, 1995, SMC requested that the EIS be modified

to include an analysis of the relocation of the off site slag to the

SMC, Cambridge, Ohio, site.

On April 20, 1995, PTI Environmental Services, Inc. (PTI), acting

on behalf of legal counsel for SMC and CFMC, submitted a Preliminary

Draft Feasibility Study (FS) for the SMC, Cambridge, site to OEPA. The

FS included additional information concerning this requested revision

to the scope of the EIS. In the discussion of this alternative, the FS

assumes that 10,000 yd \3\ of slag, that may have been produced at the

site and used off site, will be excavated and relocated to the West

Slag Pile. Only slag that was originally produced at the site and is

similar to slag in the West Slag Pile would be brought back onsite. The

FS estimates an area of 75,000 ft \2\ for the relocated slag. By

comparison, the existing West Slag Pile has an estimated volume of

approximately 220,000 yd \3\, covering an area of 359,000 ft \2\.

Because CFMC is still conducting the characterization of the off site

slag, the volume and radiological composition of this slag have not

been determined.

In addition, the preliminary draft FS identified additional site

remediation alternatives that would impact the scope of the EIS. These

additional alternatives involve the placement of wetland soils, onsite

sediments (from drainage ditches), and off site sediments (from Chapman

Run) on the West Slag Pile. SMC formally requested NRC staff to expand

the scope of the EIS to include these alternatives, in a letter dated

July 5, 1995. The preliminary draft FS estimates the volumes of each of

these materials to be approximately 26,000 yd \3\, 80 yd \3\, and 7,400

yd \3\, respectively. Radiological contamination of these materials is

not expected. The principal chemical contaminant is expected to be

vanadium.

Section 51.29(c) of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (Title 10)

states that the appropriate NRC staff director may, at any time before

the issuance of the draft EIS, revise the scoping determinations, as

appropriate, if substantial changes are made in the proposed action, or

if significant new circumstances or information arise that bear on the

proposed action or its impacts. Under the provisions of Section

51.29(c), the staff has determined that the licensee's proposed new

alternatives, concerning the relocation of the off site slag and the

disposal of wetland soils, onsite sediments, and off site sediments,

constitute a significant change in the proposed action. Therefore, the

staff intends to revise the scope of the EIS to examine the potential

environmental impacts of these alternatives, in addition to those

alternatives identified in the Scoping Process Summary Report. The

revised list of alternatives is described below.

Decommissioning Alternatives To Be Considered

1. Onsite stabilization and disposal (licensee's proposed action).

a. Without off site slag, soils, or sediments--Radioactive

contamination would be consolidated, stabilized, covered, and graded in

a manner to provide long-term protection against

[[Page 43479]]

wind and water erosion and to minimize ground water contamination. This

alternative would also likely include land use restrictions and/or

other institutional controls, to prevent or reduce potential intrusion

into the waste, to monitor the long-term effectiveness of the disposal,

and to take mitigative measures as necessary to protect the public and

environment.

b. With off site slag only--This alternative is similar to

Alternative 1.a, with the addition of approximately 10,000 yd \3\ of

off site slag to the West Pile before stabilization and capping.

c. With soils and sediments only--This alternative is similar to

Alternative 1.a, with the addition of approximately 33,500 yd \3\ of

chemically contaminated soils and sediments to the West Pile before

stabilization and capping.

d. With off site slag, soils, and sediments--This alternative is

similar to Alternative 1.b, with the addition of approximately 33,500

yd \3\ of chemically contaminated soils and sediments to the West Pile

before stabilization and capping.

2. Off site disposal--Radioactive contamination would be exhumed

from the site and disposed of off site at a licensed low-level waste

disposal facility. Radioactive contamination onsite would be reduced

down to levels that NRC presently considers acceptable for release for

unrestricted use (e.g., 10 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g) total uranium

(with decay products) and 10 pCi/g thorium-232 and thorium-228 and

other criteria such as exposure rate and radon concentrations).

3. Onsite separation processing with off site disposal--Radioactive

contamination would be processed using physical or chemical methods to

separate more highly concentrated contamination from lower

concentrations that could be stabilized onsite. Higher concentration

wastes would be sent off site to a licensed disposal facility.

Radioactive contamination onsite would be reduced down to levels that

NRC presently considers acceptable for release for unrestricted use.

4. Onsite dilution and disposal--Existing radioactive contamination

would be blended with clean fill, to reduce average concentrations of

uranium and thorium to levels that NRC presently considers acceptable

for release for unrestricted use. Diluted contamination would then be

graded onsite and released for unrestricted use.

5. No action--Radioactive contamination would be abandoned in its

present configuration without any additional processing or

stabilization. This alternative does not consider any protective

measures, such as land use restrictions or other institutional

controls, that might mitigate or prevent intrusion into the waste or

long-term release and transport of contamination in the environment.

(The no-action alternative is only included for the purpose of

comparison with the other alternatives.)

The EIS will evaluate these alternative decommissioning approaches

with respect to: (1) The incremental impact to workers, members of the

public, and the environment both radiological and non-radiological

resulting from each alternative; and (2) the costs associated with each

alternative. The EIS will also include a comparative evaluation of the

decommissioning approaches based on the associated impacts and costs.

The evaluation is described in great detail in the November 28, 1993,

Federal Register notice (58 FR 62384).

EIS Development Schedule

NRC intends to prepare and issue for public comment a draft EIS in

March 1996. The comment period would be for 90 days. The final EIS is

scheduled for publication in January 1997. This schedule has been

delayed because information resulting from the RI/FS is needed to

conduct the EIS analyses. Further delays may occur if needed

information is not submitted in a timely manner. Subsequent to

completion of the final EIS, the NRC would review and act on a license

amendment from the licensee requesting authorization for

decommissioning the site, including the decommissioning plan as

required in 10 CFR 40.42(d). Depending on the resolution of the

licensee's financial restructuring under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy

code, the NRC may terminate or postpone development of the EIS.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of August 1995.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch, Division of

Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95-20639 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P