[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43477-43479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20639]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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