ML23156A469
| ML23156A469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/26/1993 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-MISC, 58FR62387 | |
| Download: ML23156A469 (1) | |
Text
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 11/26/1993 TITLE: PR-MISC - 58FR62387 - DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICALCORPORATION'S FACILITY IN NEWFIELD, N.J.; NOTICE CASE
REFERENCE:
PR-MISC 58FR62387 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-MISC OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION'S FACILITY IN NEWFIELD, N.J.; NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARED AN EIS AND CONDUCT SCOPING PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 58FR62387 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 11/26/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 41 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 01/15/94 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: I I NOTES ON FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
a STATUS W OP RULE TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-MISC RULE TITLE: DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION'S FACILITY IN NEWFIELD, N.J.; NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARED AN EIS AND CONDUCT SCOPING
...t'ROPO.SED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: I I FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: I I STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: MICHAEL WEBER MAIL STOP: 5-E-4 PHONE: 504-1298 CONTACT2: GARY COMFORT MAIL STOP: 5-E-4 PHONE: 504-2667
DOCKET NO. PR-MISC (58FR62387)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 01/14/94 01/11/94 COMMENT OF BARBARA VERDEVOSE ( 16) 01/14/94 01/11/94 COMMENT OF JOHN J. ANDERSON ( 17) 01/14/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF MARTHA LANGLEY ( 20) 01/14/94 01/13/94 COMMENT OF GRUCCIO, PEPPER, GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO ETC (GERALD SPALL) ( 21) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF ROSE MARY FIERICK ( 22) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF JOHN FIERICK ( 23) 01/19/94 01/07/94 COMMENT OF MARYA FLEISCHMER ( 24) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF JAMES MARCACCI, JR. ( 25) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF MARCACCI ( 26) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF DEBBIE DOVILLA ( 27) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF MRS. ROMEO GELSI ( 28) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF GELSI MUSTANG WORLD ( 29) 01/19/94 01/19/94 COMMENT OF ROBIN REMSEN ( 30)
- 01/19/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF TREVOR JONES ( 31) 01/19/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH GENNA ( 32) 01/19/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF CONCERNED CITIZEN ( 33) 01/19/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF JAMES AND PATRICIA MADDEN ( 34) 01/19/94 01/11/94 COMMENT OF NJ DEPT ENV PROTECTION AND ENERGY (RONALD T. CORCORY) ( 35) 01/19/94 01/14/94 COMMENT OF FREDERICK A. LANGLEY ( 36) 01/21/94 01/14/94 COMMENT OF SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION (DAVID R. SMITH) ( 37) 01/24/94 01/20/94 COMMENT OF BOROUGH OF NEWFIELD (EVERITT E. MARSHALL, III, MAYOR) ( 38) 01/26/94 01/12/94 COMMENT OF S. ROSARIO-GOMEZ ( 39) 02/04/94 12/16/93 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON SHIELDALLOY'S FACILITY IN NEWFIELD, NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. PR-MISC (58FR62387)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 03/09/94 02/23/94 COMMENT OF COUNCIL OF BOROUGH OF BUENA (JOSEPH BARUFFI, PRESIDENT) ( 40) 03/02/95 02/24/95 COMMENT OF BARBARA l ZENON MARCYNIUK ( 41)
DOCKETf:.O U<;NRC Barbara,Zenon Marcyniuk 106 Hunter Dr .
- 95 MAR -2 P 1 *4 3 Newfield , N. J . 08344 OFFiCL er* --~~ ,,~ f.\RY OOC KE T1ti(~ . ~, i1>* February 24 ,1 995 1} i( , .
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen :
Our local newspapers , including Philadelphia Inquirer ,
eloquently express fear and frustration of anticipated disaster, which is inevitable if Shieldalloy Corporation is permitted to continue to dispose their nuclear waste .
As a new and disappointed residents of Newfield , our fear and frustration is greater , because we were not aware of existance and activities of Shieldalloy Corpo-ration , before moving in . We feel however, that inter-vention by U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other Government \uthority having jurisdiction over the case is necessary .
We are requesting,therefore, that you undertake appropriate steps, in accordance with demo cratic principles of: "Government of the People , by the People ,
for the People," to protect properties and population of our community against imminent disaster .
Thank you for your cooperation .
s ~ ~ - rH Aft ~~ . /_
Barbara M a r c y ; ~
2e \N?v\, no Zenon Marcyn:t:1lk C---\~~ ,)\(
Acltnow1edged by catw,.a ....... *~, .., *** I .J'""'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~
DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Oo.,um 'it ~!atistics Postmark Dato ~~ {,: ._..,_..___ __
Coples Receive,::l _ __L_ _ __ _ __
Add'l C pies Rcp,v ll.r
- Spacial Distribut:on-L~ - ...1+1-.\.J.>,d,1 -------
l.0
ll., I 'lwr~ I l'ul lt*r
- '* ll r !l r
- ,,,, ll!r I(
I n \:cwfi cld. it 1s bl!St n11t 10 be in a hurry. e *pccwlly when you are shopping 1n its smull business dis-trict.
In this tiny Gloucester County bor-ough. residents love tu stop and greet one another. Before you know it.
someone will say: " Iii. how arc yo u doing? "
Then. in a blink of an eye, a crowd of people will be immersed in a long conversation.
Just ask some of the town 's most popular residents how difficult it is.
at times. to walk in. out or even through its business community.
- Vlunicipal Clerk Toni L. Van Camp jokes that it takes her almost "15 minutes ** just to get out of its stores.
This is the kind of place people top. look. listen and talk . and it's not C m r a tee unusual for residents to know th t>ir neighbors.
In ~ ewfield. one does not expect to Living In find "a lot of transients." says ~ew-fie ld :0.layor Everett E. 1\,_larshall 3d, a Newfield local business owner and Matchbox car collector who has been the may-or for 13 years.
Familiarity In this old-fashioned rural town.
" people who co me here seem to stay for generations," he said.
abounds in If vou decide to come to Newfield for ,; vis It and get lost. don't fret.
All you have to do is ask, and someo ne in th is 1.7-square-mile town this N.J. is bound to be able to point you in the right direction . Residents know their streets as well as they do their neighbors.
borough "They may not know the telephone number, but they can take you right to the house," said longtime resident Florence Hargrove. who has lived in town since 1970.
" It's an old-fashioned town ... . You can even sit on somebody's step or go into someone 's yard to get a ball or something and there is no one look-mg at you strangely." Hargrove said.
Down to-*~ ,~ ' <11 ...,f.' *d .,.~~pc such
- Wh . 10U In Slvt * .,..
as !hf'_ Club House (sport cards 1~~-
co1.iectibles) : Ronnie's Barber Shop
& Hair Styli.:i.g; and Bernard's Gun-smithing, as well as the Newfield Lucheonette, more popularly called Fannie's (the place to eat breakfast, many townsfolk say) .
The pristine neighborhoods show-case well-kept homes. and immacu-la te, verdant lawns, with shrubs and hedges.
There is a mixture of housing styles. such as ranchers. Cape Cods, colonials and two-story bi-levels.
with an average price of S120.000 to SlS0,000. according to Bob DeFeo of Bob Defeo Real Estate.
See NEWFIELD on K4
K4___________________________T.:.:HE=.::P:.;;;H:::IL=AD=EL:
In Newfield, familiar faces part of oldtime friendly atmosphere
,,. ,.* NEWFIELD from K1 Bankruptcy Code - leaving a slew of
... ::rhe m~dian sales price for homes unaswered questions including how
- Jl( Newfield was 572,750 in 1993, ac- to - and who will - dispose of the
- -cprdi ng to The Inquirer's recent slag;
- Jiome-price survey. As part of the court proceedings,
~;: Still, this is not a town overgrown POPUlATION: 1,592 in 1990. Shieldalloy must present a plan to
- "With new housing developments. AVERAGE HOME PRICE: $72,750 in 1993. decommission its radioactive smelt-
"'* Quail Run, the last development, PER-CAPITA INCOME: $14,616 in 1989, ing process and determine its out-
- ~as built in the late '60s and early standing liability for the Newfield
- ?Os. No large housing communities 20 percent below the eight-county plant.
~are planned. suburban average. Kenneth R Pugh, manager at
- ..:: The town is so :'.mall, there really is Shieldalloy's Newfield plant, said the
- 'not enough ground left to be devel- operation did not pose a health haz-jped," Mayor Marshall said. PA.
ard.
- '!-: People in Newfield aren't sure how The company has proposed cap-
- 1-heir town got its name, but they are ping the site with dirt and trees.
- Jlappy to share popular theories. Van But a local residents group, which
- ..;::amp suggests, with a chuckle, that organized in January and has about
- 'perhaps there were a lot of fields in GLOUSTE R 30 members, wants the material re-1own, and they were new.
COUNTY ,~~=** ~@** *ij* moved.
- . But this much is certain
- Borough Terry Ragone, a coordinator of the
..1ecords indicate that the area origi-
- N.J. Newfield Residents Environmental jl-ally was part of nearby Franklin Group, said: "We would like to see it
.:(ownship; in 1924. it separated from hauled away . ... All of it, in the next
- franklin and incorporated as New- ards associated with Shieldalloy Met- five to eight years."
{jcld.
,J
- allurgica' ~orp., one of the borough's , An environmental-impact study by
- The histnrical society is working to largest c*llployers. the Nuci~ar Regulatory Commission
.;preserve information on the town's Shieldalloy, which produces ferro- will determine how the material
"<<istory and a special paper called columbium and other hardening should be handled, but results aren't
-Newfield History is published every
~ix months by Charles V. Paladino & agents used in the steel industry, expected until next year.
&ins Inc., a local graphic-design and stores about 50,000 tons of a rocklike The Inquirer's 1994 home price sur-Finting company. slag and 13,400 tons of dust from the vey found eight homes sold in New-j _: As Ne.vfield has matured, it has process in a fenced-in area behind its field tn 1992, and four sold in 1993.
j!11countered controversies, a few of foundry. Ragone attributes the sales decline
.which still are raging. The waste is low-level radioactive. to the safety concerns. She is deter-
- Right now, a local group is ques- Shieldalloy has filed for court pro- mined to stay in Newfield, which she 1J'.onin g whether there are safety haz- tection from creditors under the U.S. calls a "nice, family-oriented commu-nity."
"Why should we get out? Let them get out," she said. "Why should we have to run?"
Newfield is working on its prol>-
lems, and most people interviewed say they like the borough and find it the perfect place to live.
Newfield is a nice town to raise children because of its relative low crime, said Municipal Clerk Van Camp.
Inquirer correspondent Karla Haworth contributed to this article.
Vital statistics Major parks and recreation: Gatier Field offers soccer, tennis, basketball, Little League and rugby. Newfield's park is referred to as the Grove. It has a bandstand, picnic tables and a play-ground.
Shopping: No major grocery store,
<*,\I For The Inquirer / TOM MIHALEK shopping malls or fast-food restau-rants.
Catawba Avenue in Newfield, Gloucester County, is a quiet area Public schools: Buena Regional School
~ith well-ke1Jt homes that boast verdant lawns. District.
IQOCKET NUMBER PR PH OSED RULE.:-:::-:~ J-' _
I LS_c.,_
S'S>- F R b -:i..:?J BOROUGH OF BUENA .... t.'
-, t,fr I.
Marlene Sasdelli *94 MAR _9 p ~0Ji1~: (609) 697-9393 Borough Clerk i:a'i<(609) 697-0832 County of Atlantic RESOLUTION 33-94 RESOLUTION OPPOSING A NUCLEUR WASTE STORAGE FACILITY IN THE BOROUGH OF NEWFIELD COURTY OF GLOUCESTER BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Borough of Buena of the County of Atlantic, State of New Jersey hereby joins the Township of Washington and the Borough of Newfield in their opposition to the siting of a nucleur waste storage facility at the Shieldalloy metals plant in the Borough of Newfield.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Borough Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Nucleur Regulatory Commission, Borough of Newfield, and Township of Washington along with all appropriate State and Federal Legislators.
MARLENE SASDELLI, BOROUGH CLfilU<
I MARLENE SASDELLI, do hereby certify that the above resolution is a true copy of resolution adopted by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Buena at a regular meeting held ~ f)... 'o \ \~ ~~
Borough of Buena MARLENE SASDELLI, BOROUGH CLERK' 616 Central Avenue tJUL 2 1 1994 Minotola, New Jersey 08341 Acknowlegged by c; rd...........
, .. , - -
- I . I A
- _ a* ! -_ I
, ,m....
'-*--* .,::,10N OOGl\t. ; ,;',u ~ ... ~. 1
- lvt: SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3 /, /1 l-l Copies Received ____ / _ _ _ __
Md'I Copies Reproduced _ ' -.._I_---,,-__
Special Distribution 4T ~ fa&
We,~c/ - W>>'>Eot'T '
.; .. ~.
'J; Ni, c*
- 94 FEB - 4 p 4 :44 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS *r r _ ~ , \ t*
Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Public Meeting on the Scope of
Title:
the Environmental Impact Statement on Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation' s Facility in Newfield, New Jersey Docket No.
LOCAflON: Franklinville, New Jersey DA.TEI Thursday , December 1 6 , 199 3 PAGES: 1 - 105 ANN RaEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1'12 K St., N. W.,Sulte 300
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
4 POBLIC MEETING ON THE 5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6 ON SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION'S 7 FACILITY IN NEWFIELD, NEW JERSEY 8 ***
9 10 Auditorium 11 Delsea Regional High School 12 Blackwoodtown Road 13 Franklinville, ijew Jersey 14 15 Thursday, December 16, 1993 16 17
- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 [7:05 p.rn.]
3 MR. WEBER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
4 I'd like to welcome you to NRC's scoping meeting tonight.
5 Can everyone hear me? Okay.
6 I appreciate your corning out. This is an 7 important first step for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 As many of you are aware, we are at the onset of developing 9 what we refer to as an Environmental Impact Statement for 10 the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's facility in 11 nearby Newfield, New Jersey.
12 As I mentioned, this is the first start of that 13 process so hopefully tonight we will be able to exchange 14 some information. The Agency will be able to share with you 15 some of the background information to make sure that you 16 have some of that perspective. We will be able to listen to 17 the concerns of the local community.
18 To set the stage, the Shieldalloy Metallurgical 19 Corporation has proposed, at least at a-conceptual level, to 20 stabilize its radioactive wastes that presently exist at 21 that site in Newfield, New Jersey. It is because of that 22 that the Commission has decided to prepare an Environmental 23 Impact Statement.
24 You will be hearing from me a little bit later on 25 about what exactly what NRC means when we refer to an EIS, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
3 1 and what is the process, what are the opportunities for 2 public input to that.
3 Gary Comfort, who will also be speaking a little 4 bit later on will share with you some of the facts about the 5 site, how much waste is there, what are the concentrations 6 of radioactive materials in that waste, how did it get there 7 and things of this nature.
8 I would like to begin by introducing the people 9 who are here tonight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 My name is Michael Webber. I am a Section Leader in NRC's 11 Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Division out of NRC 12 Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. That is just outside 13 of Washington, D.C.
14 With me at the table is Gary Comfort. Gary is the 15 Project Manager. He is in the Fuel Cycle Safety and 16 Safeguards Division. Francis Cameron, or Chip Cameron, will 17 be our Facilitator. I will introduce him in a little bit.
18 He is also from the NRC.
19 In the audience we have several individuals in 20 addition to ourselves who are from the Headquarters Offices.
21 We have Bob Pierson, Robert Fonner, and Chad Glenn. From 22 our Region I Office in fairly nearby King-of-Prussia we have 23 Duncan White, and in the back of the room, Marie Miller.
24 She is back there by the door.
25 Perhaps throughout this evening, if you have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
4 1 questions or if you have comments that beg an answer from 2 the NRC, you will hear from us in that answer.
3 Before we pass it to Chip, I would just like to 4 tell you a little bit about the information, the documents 5 that were on the back table when you first came in. NRC has 6 back there a copy of the scoping notice, which describes the 7 process and some of the background for preparing the 8 Environmental Impact Statement.
9 We also have a copy of what we refer to as the 10 Action Plan for ensuring timely decommissioning of site 11 decommissioning management plan sites. These are sites that 12 are licensed by the NRC or that were never licensed by the 13 NRC, but require some sort of removal or decommissioning of 14 the radioactive materials on site.
15 They pose special challenges either because of the 16 large volumes or ground water contamination. that may be 17 associated with the facilities. It is for that reason that
- 18 19 20 they get on NRC's SDMP's list. The Shieldalloy facility in nearby Newfield is one of those facilities.
facilities.
It is one of SO 21 Other documents that are out there is a background 22 pamphlet on radiation and radiation protection. There is a 23 users guide for what we call our Public Document Room. I 24 would point out that if you read that and you have an 25 interest in looking at some of the information that is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
5 1 available, there is a facility within about 30 miles from 2 here where you can tie into that Public Document Room by 3 computer. There are people there that can help you use that 4 system. You will be able to access a lot of additional 5 background information that the NRC has in its file on this 6 facility.
7 We also have a brief summary of the site. It goes 8 over some of the same information that Gary Comfort will be 9 going over in a minute. I believe Shieldalloy Metallurgical 10 Corporation has also placed on that same table a brief two-11 page statement of their position on this facility.
12 So you are certainly more than welcome to pick up 13 that material. If you have questions about the NRC 14 material, give Gary a call. His name and telephone number 15 is in that scoping notice, or I believe there is a contact 16 on the end of the licensee's fact sheet.
17 Without further ado, I would like to turn it over
- 18 19 20 to Chip Cameron who will facilitate our meeting this evening.
Thanks.
21 MR. CAMERON: Thanks a lot, Mike. I would like to 22 add my welcome to all of you tonight.
23 As Mike mentioned, I am going to serve as the 24 Facilitator for the meeting tonight and in that role, try to 25 make sure that everybody who wants to gets an opportunity to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
6 1 express their opinions or ask questions to try to keep us on 2 track in terms of schedule and to help us to meet the 3 objectives for this meeting.
4 There are three primary objectives here. One is 5 for all of us to try to increase our understanding of the 6 physical, the environmental, the economic aspects of the 7 Shieldalloy site here in Newfield.
8 Secondly, we want to encourage communication on 9 the issues from all of our parties who may be potentially 10 affected by the decommissioning of the site, and not just 11 communication between the NRC and the audience, but 12 communication among all of you out there.
13 Thirdly, we want to receive comments on what the 14 scope of the proposed Environmental Impact Statement should 15 be. Mike Weber is going to be going into that in a little 16 bit more detail.
17 I would emphasize that this is only the first of
- 18 1~
20 several opportunities for public involvement in the decision-making process on this site. Again, Mike is going to detail some of those steps that are going to be further 21 down the line.
22 This is not a decision-making meeting. We are not 23 here to arrive at a decision. We convened this meeting to 24 hear your comments on our proposed approach for evaluating 25 what decision should be made in terms of the decommissioning ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
7 1 at the Shieldalloy site.
2 In terms of the format for tonight, we have 3 divided the agenda up into several segments. One segment is 4 going to be some brief explanatory statements from the NRC 5 staff on the site and on the process that we are going to be 6 going through. There will be an opportunity after those NRC 7 presentations for anybody to ask clarifying questions about 8 some of the information presented.
9 The second major segment of the agenda is to give 10 everyone who wants to a chance to make a formal statement in 11 regard to their concerns about the site. In order to keep 12 this more or iess coherent and to make sure that every 13 interest gets a chance to express their opinions, we have 14 divided it up into several interests.
15 First of all, we are going hear from the Company.
16 Then we are going to hear from any elected officials or 17 local government agency representatives who are here. We
- 18 19 20 are next going to turn to environmental and citizen organizations.
The next category would be labor, site employees.
21 After that would be any representatives from state and 22 federal agencies who want to say anything at that point, 23 local business interest, and then citizens at large.
24 After all of those presentations are done, we are 25 going to turn it open for questions to any of the people who ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
8 1 made presentations and comments on what they have said.
2 There are a few ground rules that I would go over with 3 everybody before asking you if you have any questions on the 4 agenda.
5 If you want to speak -- I think I talked to a 6 number of you as you came in -- if you want to speak during 7 the formal part o= the presentations, there are sign-up 8 sheets back there by interest. Please sign up so that I 9 will know who wants to talk under the interest that most 10 closely matches yours.
11 In terms of ground rules, I would just ask 12 everybody to listen when someone else is talking and to not 13 interrupt them, and to basically respect their point of view 14 in that regard. I don't think we need to see any personal 15 attacks on anybody, whatever your perspective is. I would 16 just ask you to respect each other's time. Try to be brief 17 and to the point.
- 18 19 20 I think that we have a small enough number of people in attendance tonight to get the questions answered that people have and to give people a chance to express 21 their opinions.
22 But again we are going to have to budget our time.
23 If you are going to make a formal presentation, I would like 24 you ~o try to keep it to five minutes tonight. Then we will 25 see how the time is going. We can revisit some things.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
9 1 Are there any questions on the agenda for tonight?
2 [No response . ]
3 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, I know that we are 4 looking forward to hearing from all of you tonight. What I 5 will do now is ask Gary Comfort at the NRC staff to give us 6 some background on the Newfield site. Gary?
7 MR. COMFORT: Thank you and good evening.
8 As has been mentioned before, I am Gary Comfort.
9 My phone number is in the scoping meeting notice. Anybody 10 would like to can feel free to call and ask any questions 11 that they didn't get answered tonight. We will try to do 12 what we can for you.
13 I am a Nuclear Process Engineer at the Nuclear 14 Regulatory Commission in the Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch.
15 NRC is involved with Shieldalloy because they hold an NRC 16 license which authorizes them to possess and to process ore 17 that contains uranium and thorium under their Source
- 18 19 20 Material License, SMB-743.
This facility has imported and processed niobium ore to produce ferro-colurnbiurn alloy since the 1950s. The 21 niobium itself is not radioactive, but the ore that it is 22 associated with has trace amounts of uranium and thorium.
23 This radioactive material is basically 24 concentrated into a high-temperature slag which is like a 25 glass-like rock. It looks like almost an ordinary stone.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
10 1 It is stored on-site.
2 The facility is still continuing operation and is 3 still continuing to process the material and create slag.
4 The plant has no plans to immediately decommission until 5 they finish doing their process operations at this point.
6 This facility is located in Newfield, New Jersey, 7 basically at the intersection of West Boulevard and Weymouth 8 Road. Along the southern portion of the site, t~ere is a 9 small stream that is called Hudson's Branch.
10 The main portion of concern here is what is called 11 the source material storage yard which is back in the corner 12 shaded. In this slag yard, there are basically three 13 different piles that are licensed by the NRC.
14 The first one is called the standard ratio pile.
15 This is the largest of the three piles and has about 46,000 16 tons of material on it. This material covers about 17,000 17 cubic meters of area.
- 18 19 20 Another pile that is under NRC license is the high-ratio pile. This pile is much smaller, only has about 3,200 tons of material which covers about 1,000 cubic 21 meters.
22 The terms "high ratio" and "standard ratio" don't 23 relate to the radioactive constituents. It is the 24 licensee's terms for when they process the ore and how they 25 processed it.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
11 1 The third pile is actually not a slag pile, but it 2 is from their baghouse filters. It is a very fine 3 particulate dust, which they store out there. When they 4 store it out there, usually when the water goes onto it, it s solidifies it enough that it stabilizes it somewhat on site.
6 They have also taken some other actions, or are continuing 7 to take actions to keep that on-site.
8 Basically the process is occurring in Building 111 9 over here. After they remove the slag it is then 10 transported by truck into the slag yard.
11 In this process, the basic representation of it is 12 that the ore comes into the facility. It is melted and then 13 it is separated into a slag ~orm, and then the alloy which 14 is used by the steel industries and other industries.
15 During this melt process, as the material -- they 16 pour it into crucibles in which the material then separates 17 into a metal portion and then a slag portion. The
- 18 19 20 radioactive constitute stay in the slag portion.
Because the licensee is continuing to produce material, the amount of material in the slag, or the source 21 material storage yard, is going to continue to grow. The 22 proposal is to continue to store the material into the 23 source material storage yard until they eventually do stop 24 producing. Then they will decommission the site as a whole.
25 At this time if the licensee were to stop ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
12 1 production and go ahead and decommission and leave what they 2 have on-site right now, they would have about 34,000 cubic 3 meters of material to dispose of on-site.
4 This includes the high ratio, the standard ratio, 5 the baghouse pile, and then any other contamination from the 6 buildings, from the site, and from anything off-site that 7 they detect, would go into this storage yard for the final 8 decommissioning under their proposal.
9 At the current process rates on a high side, they 10 expect to generate basically around 1,200 cubic meters more 11 of slag and*baghouse dust per year. So basically if you 12 carry that out in about 25 years they would probably double 13 the amount of slag that they have on-site right now.
14 One of the elements of concern is the Thorium 232 15 that is in the slag. This basically shows the 16 representation of the decay chain. When an isotope decays, 17 it goes into another product which may -- or into another
- 18 19 20 isotope which then could continue to decay until it gets to a stable form.
NRC, in its review, is going to look not just at 21 the mother product which is the Thorium 232. It would look 22 at each one of the daughter products and how that will 23 affect the environment at the site.
24 The uranium decay chain is also shown here.
25 Shieldalloy on the site has the three piles of various ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reportel7s 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
13 1 concentrations and that is why they are separated into 2 different piles. They have gone through different 3 processes, or there is the baghouse dust.
4 This slide is basically trying to show a 5 representation of the various concentrations as compared to 6 some other guidelines. Also it is called background.
7 Background is basically what would exist in the environment 8 had Shieldalloy never existed at this site, never produced 9 or stored anything at the site.
10 The NRC guidelines are, in this case, for each of 11 the isotopes -- Thorium 232, Uranium 238, and Radium 226 12 are 5 picocuries per gram for unrestricted release. This 13 under the Branch technical position that we have for on-14 site storage or disposition of uranium and thorium.
15 As can be seen, the three piles have much higher 16 concentrations. The highest pile, the standard ratio pile, 17 has an average concentration of about 500 picocuries per
- 18 19 20 gram Thorium 232, about 200 picocuries per gram of U-238, and about 100 picocuries of radium. E~ch of the high ratio pile has a little bit less, and the baghouse pile has 2l considerably less.
22 Another way to look at the concentrations on site 23 is through the exposures. Again, the background here is 24 showing what would be at the site should Shieldalloy never 25 gone onto the site and been there at all. The highest ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
14 1 concentration pile was the standard ratio pile. If you are 2 on top of that, you are going to get about a dose of 3,000 3 micro R per hour.
4 Now, this very rapidly decreases as you approach 5 the fence line. This pile is not considerably far from the 6 fence line. At the fence line it runs around 200 micro R 7 per hour.
8 This compares to an NRC dose limit for operating 9 facilities of about 2,000 micro R per hour if somebody were 10 standing the fence line just on a casual basis. If somebody 11 were at the fence line, as a continuous living there, that 12 dose limit would be less. The decommissioning guidelines, 13 though, that NRC has is about 10 micro R per hour.
14 What Shieldalloy is proposing to do under their 15 proposal is cover this material and stabilize it such that 16 somebody living on that site would receive no more than the 17 10 micro R per hour above background that is allowed under
- 18 19 20 our decommissioning requirements.
Now Mike is going to-discuss the rest of the NEPA p~ocess for you.
21 MR. WEBER: Gary used the acronym "NEPA." NEPA 22 stands for the National Environmental Policy Act. It was a 23 piece of legislation enacted by Congress back in the late 24 1960s. It created the framework under which the NRC and 25 other federal agencies evaluate the impacts of different ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
15 1 actions before those actions are taken. I am going to 2 describe what that process is in general terms.
3 First of all, what is an Environmental Impact 4 Statement? I will review that. What alternatives will be 5 considered by the NRC?
6 In this section I will emphasize both the 7 licensee's proposed action, which is to stabilize or dispose 8 of the material on-site, versus alternatives to that action.
9 We tried to come up with a range of alternatives that would 10 reasonably bound the types of actions that may be taken with 11 the waste that is presently there.
12 What impacts will the NRC evaluate as part of its 13 evaluation? Then the last two points will include: What is 14 the schedule that we are developing the Environmental Impact 15 Statement on? Where will there be additional opportunities 16 for public input into that process?
17 In general terms, an Environmental Impact
- 18 19 20 Statement evaluates the environmental effects of a proposed NRC action. In this case it would be a decision on whether to approve on-site disposal of the licensee 1 s waste.
21 These slides, by the way -- I see some of you 22 marking down -- there are copies of these available at the 23 back of the room.
24 Secondly, it would identify alternative actions
'25 and estimate the potential effects of those actions. That ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
16 1 is to provide a common framework in.which to compare the 2 alternatives, to evaluate one versus another, versus the 3 whole range of alternatives. Is there one alternative that 4 is clearly preferable from the standpoint of environmental 5 impact or the lack thereof? Other things are also 6 considered such as cost or social impacts.
7 Third, assisting the NRC in reaching a decision.
8 It is a decision-aiding document. That is the very reason 9 why Congress requires the federal agencies to prepare this 10 sort of statement.
11 Then not to mention the least is that we are 12 required by law and we are also required by our own 13 regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, to, in circumstances, prepare 14 an Environmental Impact Statement.
15 The scoping process that we have embarked on, and 16 we recently noticed back in November in the document called 17 the Federal Register, is the very beginning of the 18 preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. This 19 public meeting here tonight is certainly a key component of 20 that.
21 We decided to have a public meeting because we 22 thought it would be a good opportunity to solicit* input from 23 the local community, the various interests that might have 24 concerns or view or suggestions on what the NRC should 25 consider as part of the development of that Environmental ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
17 1 Impact Statement.
2 Basically you can summarize the scoping process 3 into a single question and that is: Is the NRC on the right 4 track? Are we considering the right alternatives? Are we 5 considering an appropriate range of impacts of those 6 alternatives? Are there other issues or concerns that you 7 believe the NRC should consider as part of the development 8 of the Environmental Impact Statement?
9 These are the sorts of things that we would hope 10 to get out of the scoping process and in part out of the 11 scoping meeting tonight. But this is by no means your only 12 option for providing us with that input.
13 In addition to tonight's meeting, there is 14 certainly the opportunity to convey comments in writing by 15 mailing them to the NRC as laid out in that scoping notice 16 before January 15, 1994.
17 We will also be looking at other issues throughout 18 the scoping processing. There may be issues or comments or 19 concerns that are raised that after the NRC evaluates those 20 issues determines they really fall outside of the scope of 21 the document.
22 To make that part of the public record and provide 23 an opportunity for you to see how we have decided they fall 24 outside of the scope, we will prepare a summary document at 25 the end of the scoping process and specifically provide an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
18 1 explanation for why certain comments or certain issues and 2 concerns we believe should rightfully fall outside the scope 3 of the document.
4 What are the alternatives that we have identified?
5 They are described, conceptually at least, in that Scoping 6 Notice that is available here tonight, and was sent to some 7 of you in advance of the meeting through the mail.
8 First of all, there is the licensee's proposed 9 action of on-site disposal. This is really the action which 10 stimulated the NRC to prepare an environmental impact 11 statement.
12 As Gary pointed out, the concentrations that are 13 involved in the thorium slag are somewhat above or 14 considerably above the levels that NRC has previously found 15 acceptable as part of a decommissioning action or as part of 16 on-site disposal of radioactive waste.
17 Also, on-site disposal, the waste, would at least 18 envision that there would be long-term controls placed on 19 that land which would prevent other uses of that land. That 20 may have impacts associated with it, and that is something 21 else that we want to evaluate as part of the EIS 22 development.
23 Other alternatives -- and I will go into these in 24 more detail on the coming slides -- include off-site 25 disposal. Instead of disposing of material on-site, remove
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
19 1 it from the site, and reduce the levels of contamination to 2 acceptable levels at the Newfield site, transferring the 3 material to another licensed disposal facility.
4 A third alternative might be some on-site 5 processing, which might be useful in reducing the volume or 6 the hazardous characteristics of the waste before it was 7 taken off-site, an~ perhaps some waste would be disposed of 8 on-site as part of that alternative.
9 A fourth alternative would be on-site dilution.
10 Reducing the concentration of the uranium and the thorium 11 and the other radionuclides that are.present in the waste by 12 bringing in relatively clean material.
13 A fifth action, and I emphasize that this is for 14 comparison purposes. We routinely include in an 15 environmental impact statement the so-called no-action 16 alternative. Now, a lot of people get concerned when they 17 hear that expression. Again, I would emphasize that the 18 purpose of that is to provide a baseline or a common 19 reference point against which to compare all the other 20 impacts of the alternatives. It is a common framework that 21 we can use to make the comparative decisions that we have to 22 as we go through the EIS process.
23 To go through these in a little more detail.
24 Again, they are conceptual. In part, what we would like to 25 hear from you, either tonight or through your written ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
20 1 comments if you choose to send them in, is are there themes 2 or variations that you would have us emphasize in developing 3 the specifics that would implement these different 4 alternatives.
s For example, when we discuss on-site 6 stabilization, I depict here one potential configuration 7 where som~ sort of multi-layered cover would be placed above 8 the radioactive waste, and this cover would be designed to 9 do several things.
10 For example, perhaps minimizing infiltration into 11 the waste so that you could protect ground water or against 12 potential leeching of the radioactive material~. It would 13 be designed perhaps to minimize any long-term erosion. It 14 could be designed to minimize gaseous releases of 15 radioactive materials from the pile or wind erosion, these 16 sort of things. All those would be taken into consideration 17 in coming up with the more detailed information in the 18 alternatives.
19 Another alternative is the off-site disposal 20 alternative. In this case, there would be removal of at 21 least the large volume of material that is presently at the I
22 site or some fraction of it, and that material would then be 23 transported off the site and disposed of at another 24 location.
25 That location may be near Newfield; it may be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
21 l somewhere within the State of New Jersey; it might be 2 somewhere outside the State of New Jersey. These are all 3 potential sub-alternatives that could be considered as part 4 of the development of the environmental impact statement.
s I have shown on there the map of the United 6 States. The arrow leading to the State of Texas is only for 7 .Lllustrative purposes. By no means are we implying that the 8 State of Texas should be the potential recipient of the 9 waste from the Newfield site.
10 A slightly different alternative would include 11 some sort of on-site processing. As I mentioned earlier, 12 this might be used to reduce the volume or the hazardous 13 characteristics of the waste.
14 Some of the waste that would be concentrated then 15 would be taken off the site and disposed of at a licensed 16 disposal facility. Perhaps other waste would be disposed of 17 right at the site, but it would meet NRC 1 s existing 18 guidelines for decommissioning.
19 In other words, the concentrations would be 20 expected to be somewhat lower. Again, the arrow leading to 21 the State of Texas is just for illustrative purposes.
22 Another aiternative would be that of doing 23 processing on-site, but it would be for the purposes of 24 diluting the waste.
25 In this case, the concentration of the waste could ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
22 1 be reduced and, thus, potentially, the risk for the 2 radiological dose to potential future residents at that site 3 might be further reduced. Something else that the NRC would 4 consider. These are all conceptual.
5 The last action that is identified in the scoping 6 notice is that of the no-action alternative. In this case, 7 for comparative purposes, we would assume that nothing is a done with respect to the existing waste, or not anything 9 substantial.
10 We would look at what are the long-term 11 ramifications of that, what are the impacts on the 12 environment, and are there compliance problems with that.
13 Would that violate other regulatory programs, requirements, 14 or legislation.
15 I show here a capital dome. There are certainly 16 other agencies that are involved at the Newfield facility.
17 For example, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and 18 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and 19 Energy are both involved because they have, similar to the J
20 NRC, oversight responsibilities for some of the activities 21 at the site, which many of you are probably already familiar 22 with. In this case, some consideration would be given under 23 the no-action alternative to how these other programs might 24 impact the site.
25 I should also point out at this junction that we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
23 1 are and have proposed to a number of these agencies that we 2 cooperate in the development of the environmental impact 3 statement, and the agencies are currently considering the 4 merits of that and whether they should chose to do that 5 cooperation.
6 There are benefits to that by sharing information, 7 by improved efficiency in governmental function and by 8 acting in a joint fashion to some extent. These will be 9 considered both through the EIS process and then separate 10 from that as the agencies continue to cooperate and consult 11 with one another.
12 That is the discussion of the alternatives. We 13 next turn to the impacts. I show the impacts in a single 14 slide. These, again, are for illustrative purposes.
15 The scoping notice that is available describes the 16 types of impacts that the NRC has identified that it 17 presently intends to address in the environmental impact 18 statement. Some of those are illustrated in this slide.
19 For example, if on-site disposal is evaluated, as 20 it will be in our present plan to conduct the EIS, we would 21 be looking at potential future exposures of radiation to 22 people who might live at the site in some point in the 23 future.
24 We would also look at the_iong-term erosion 25 potential and what negative or positive effects may accrue ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
24 1 from that. We look at potential ground water contamination 2 or surface water contamination, evaluating some of the 3 impacts of this on-site disposal alternative.
4 There would also be other impacts or other types 5 of impacts evaluated. Cost is certainly something that 6 comes into play because many of these activities involve 7 quite a bit of money to pay for their implementation.
8 For example, off-site disposal is expected, at 9 least at the present waste disposal charges, to cost a 10 considerable amount, and that would have to be reflected in 11 evaluating the alternatives.
12 There would be other alternatives. For example, 13 risks from transportation accidents. If the waste is to be 14 removed form the site, it has to go either by rail or by 15 truck usually, and there are risks associated with that.
16 Just simply transportation risks driving trucks down the 17 roads, and things of that weight.
- 18 19 20 Other impacts would be social impacts on the community that may accrue or differ from one alternative to the other. These are the type of things that the NRC would 21 be evaluating as part of the development of the 22 environmental impact statement.
23 With that background, let me turn briefly to the 24 schedule that the NRC is presently intending to complete the 25 environmental impact statement on. As I mentioned earlier, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
J.
25 1 we would be completing a scoping summary document, and I 2 have on here February; it might be March, but anyway, that 3 is the time frame that we are looking for in completing 4 that.
s What we intend to do there is take the comments 6 that come through orally tonight as well as any written 7 comments that may come in during the comment period and a summarize those, provide responses as to whether we feel 9 they fall within or without the scope of the document.
10 We will probably also merge the scoping summary 11 for this environmental impac.t statement with the scoping 12 summary of another environmental impact statement, and that 13 is an EIS we are preparing for the sister facility of the 14 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation in Cambridge, Ohio.
15 We had a public meeting essentially identical to 16 this meeting we are having here tonight in Byesvill~, Ohio, 17 which is near the Cambridge facility, on Monday evening of 18 this week. We had a similar turnout, and we heard views and 19 concerns expressed by local communities on a variety of 20 issues.
21 With all that, we would agree on the scope of the 22 document. We would then set about the analyses that we need 23 to do to support that document. We would plan to publish a 24 draft environmental impact statement in October of '94, and 25 then publish a final environmental impact statement in June ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
26 1 of 1 95. That is specific for the facility here in Newfield.
2 There would be a separate environmental impact statement for 3 the facility in Cambridge, Ohio.
4 I put one caution on the bottom of the slide, and 5 that is, as noted in the scoping notice, that the process -
6 - the schedule may be revised by the NRC in response to new 7 information.
8 For example, some of you are aware that 9 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation filed for protection 10 under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the beginning of 11 September. Depending on the resolution of that matter, that 12 *may impact the NRC licensing and environmental impact 13 statement development process.
14 With all that, where is your opportunity for 15 input? Well, tonight's meeting is one first example, one 16 first opportunity for you to have input into this process 17 either by providing oral comments or by providing written 18 comments to us tonight. Either way is fine. We do not 19 place any greater emphasis on oral comment or written 20 comments. What we need is your comments. So if we get it, 21 we can include it and consider it as far as scoping.
22 There is also, as I mentioned earlier, the 23 opportunity to submit written comments. Send them in 24 writing to the address noted in the Federal Register notice 25 by January 15, 1994. There will be an opportunity to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
27 1 comment on the scoping summary document. We intend to 2 circulate that to people who attend here tonight, as well as 3 other individuals that may express an interest over the next 4 several months.
5 Then, certainly, there are formal comment 6 opportunity on the draft environmental impact statement that 7 would be published and distributed widely. We would b~
8 requesting comments on that document within 90 days, so you 9 would have roughly three months to review the document and 10 tell us what your views are on things we may have omitted or 11 things that you think were right on.
12 Finally, there will be an opportunity, once we 13 complete, the environmental impact statement to comment on 14 the decommissioning plan. We would expect that after we 15 would complete the environmental impact statement that we 16 would then move to the next phase of the decommissioning 17 process whereby the licensee Shieldalloy would submit a more
- 18 19 20 detailed plan than the kind of conceptual alternatives we have been discussing today about exactly how that corporation plans to dispose of the waste.
21 Certainly, as Gary mentioned earlier, there is the 22 continuing opportunity for individuals to contact the 23 project manager, to write things to the project manager. We 24 are public servants, so, in part, we are here to answer your 25 questions and provide information that you may have interest ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
28 1 about.
2 I would just like to say two things and then turn 3 it back to Chip to take the comments or begin the formal 4 process. One is that the meeting tonight is being s transcribed. There will be a public transcript avail~ble to 6 you if you are interested in that.
7 Secondly, I would like to thank the school system 8 here, the Delsea Regional High School for allowing us to use 9 their facilities here tonight. We certainly have a need for 10 that when we have this kind of a turnout. We just thank the 11 school system for making this facility available to us.
12 Anything else?
13 [No response.]
14 I'll turn it back to Chip.
15 MR. CAMERON: Thanks, Mike. t think we should 16 take some time to allow you to ask some clarifying questions 17 of Mike and Gary. The reporter has told me that he thinks 18 he can hear most of you if you ask questions from your seat, 19 rather than coming down to the mike, but we may have to ask '
20 some of you in the back who have questions to come down to 21 the mike.
22 I would just remind you that there is a sign-up 23 sheet out there for further information if you want to get 24 copies, for example, of the scoping summary that Mike Weber 25 mentioned. Before you leave tonight, give us your address ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
29 1 if you would like to be kept on the mailing list for further 2 information about what is happening with Newfield.
3 Does anybody have a question? Yes, ma'am?
4 MS. WILLIAMS: Loretta Williams. I have a couple 5 of questions. How many sites -- this stuff, the slag is 6 going to be moved to another site and disposed off-site.
7 How many facilities are there around. the country, and how 8 many mainly in New Jersey?
9 MR. WEBER: I think I can answer the first 10 question. I am not sure I can answer the question about the 11 State of New Jersey. But your question is how many site are 12 available?
13 MS. WILLIAMS: Are available for this stuff to be 14 moved, this slag. They had a proposal, the second one, I 15 think, was off-site disposal.
16 MR. WEBER: Right.
17 MS. WILLIAMS: They were going to dispose of this 18 at another site, a disposal site for low-level radiation.
19 How many facilities are there around the country that would 20 handle this?
21 MR. WEBER: There are currently three operating 22 low-level waste disposal facilities that take commercial 23 waste in the United States. They are located in South 24 Carolina, Utah and Washington State.
25 The access to at least two of those facilities ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
30 1 will be restricted severely as of next year sometime. So 2 that would leave, at this point, the facility in Utah as the 3 only facility that I a~ aware of that would be currently 4 licensed to take this waste.
5 Now, that is not to mean that other facilities 6 .could not also come in and seek a license and go through the 7 licensing process, and recejve authorization by either the 8 NRC or by what we call our agreement state agencies.
9 In terms of how many site there are in the State 10 of New Jersey that have similar waste, was that the second 11 question?
12 MS. WILLIAMS: That would dispose of this.
13 MR. WEBER: I am not aware of any in the state 14 that would current dispose of this material.
15 MS. WILLIAMS: What about the nuclear power 16 plants? Would they be used to store this type of radiation?
17 MR. WEBER: No. First of all, the typical nuclear
- 18 19 20 power plant would not generate this type of material because this is naturally occurring radioactive material that has been concentrated in the process, uranium and thorium.
21 Secondly, every radioactive waste disposal 22 facility that I am aware of -- every nuclear power plant 23 that I am aware of has not taken waste from off-site from.
24 another generator, for example. There are some 25 complications with doing that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
31 1 In many cases, a nuclear power plant committed to 2 the local community when they began building the facility 3 that they would, at some point, decommission that facility 4 and remove whatever material they would bring to the site.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: What do you mean decommissioning?
6 Does that mean that the company would go out of business as 7 a certain point, or eventually going to -- go out of 8 business in this town?
9 MR. WEBER: NRC uses the term "decommissioning" as 10 an order process where a licensee decides to terminate 11 whatever activity that they are currently engaged in that 12 required authorization from the NRC to use the radioactive 13 material.
14 That doesn't mean the company itself would go out 15 of business. There is a potential that they would simply 16 stop doing what they've been doing with the radioactive 17 material, and continue doing whatever else they may want to
- 18 19 20 do.
business MS. WILLIAMS: But isn't this part of their that is, part of the waste materials from the 21 alloys that they produced?
22 MR. WEBER: Part of their operation at the 23 Newfield facility generates this waste on an ongoing basis.
24 But they do have other activities on that site that are not 25 associated with this radioactive waste.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
32 1 MR. CAMERON: I think that when we get to either 2 the second question and answer session or when the company 3 comes up to make their presentation, they might address 4 exactly those aspects that you are interested in.
5 MS. WILLIAMS: I have one more question of the 6 NRC. In the worst case scenario, say they file Chapter 7 7 and they decide that it stays on~site. In other words, it 8 would have to be enclosed there, on-site, so the radiation 9 would not leak into the atmosphere or into the ground.
10 Would it be possible for another company to move there? I 11 mean, would that ground be -- I mean, would that area be 12 restricted from any use whatsoever in the way of industrial 13 use?
14 MR. WEBER: There is an entire range of 15 alternatives there. For example, a company might want to 16 move to that site and continue the kind of operations that 17 Shieldalloy currently is engaged in. In that case, the 18 license would be transferred after NRC reviewed and approved 19 that new company receiving that authority.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: What if they don't? How many 21 companies do this kind of work?
22 MR. WEBER: There are a handful of companies that 23 I am aware of in the United States that do similar 24 activities like Shieldalloy is engaged in.
25 MS. WILLIAMS: I don't really think that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
33 1 people in this town want another company like Shieldalloy to 2 be doing this type of work that causes this kind of 3 pollution.
4 MR. CAMERON: I would just ask you to save that 5 for the comment section, and just keep this for clarifying.
6 But thank you.
7 The gentleman in the back.
8 MR. VINEGAR: Good evening. My name is Samuel 9 Vinegar. I am the Senior Office of Local 2327 UAW, 10 Vineland, New Jersey. I work at Shieldalloy Corporation. I 11 have been there for 30 years.
12 It seems to me there has been a lot of discrepancy 13 placed on Shieldalloy about radioactivity and waste.
14 If people will look back over the past 30 or 40 15 years, 90 percent of the waste comes from North Jersey. It 16 didn't come from Shieldalloy was a chicken farm when it 17 first started out. There wasn't any chrome there then.
18 Then, from the '50s through the '60s, they found 19 the chromium was going to be bad. Shieldalloy tried to 20 clean it up. They did the best they could under the 21 regulations that the government set down.
22 MR. CAMERON: Sir, can I interrupt you for a 23 second?
24 MR. VINEGAR: Yes.
25 MR. CAMERON: If you do not have a question right ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
34 1 now for the NRC people, could I ask you to come back down 2 when we have the -- wait for about 15 minutes and come back 3 down and make your statement because I know that we want to 4 hear it, but we want to try to save this part just for 5 clarifying questions.
6 MR. VINEGAR: The reason why I am saying this is 7 it seems_like they were in our shop today, and I saw them 8 when they walked over the shop. They have an adverse 9 condition about Shieldalloy due to media. I really don't 10 like that because I know better. I would like to express 11 myself while I am here, and I can go.
12 As far as Shieldalloy is concerned, Shieldalloy, 13 period there has been radioactive material there. The 14 reason I am saying this is I worked in there more than 15 anybody else in that shop. I can still run 100 yards in 12 16 seconds, and take care of business; no problems.
17 But all of sudden somebody is going to say -- the 18 NRC Commission has 15 or 20 people there today. It is not 19 so because no matter what we make or decisions here today, 20 they are not going to clean it up because they're not going 21 to move it. They'll put a concrete slab over it and let it 22 sit there.
23 But all we want is for Shieldalloy to stay open 24 and have people's job. To keep my job. Thank you.
25 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
35 1 We have another question right up front here.
2 MS. MADDEN: My name is Pati Madden. On one of 3 the things that you showed where you said they were going to 4 take the slag off-site . .And you said possibly in the near 5 area. Are you going to allow them to sell this again so 6 that they can use it for different buildings for putting 7 footage -- for fill? That's what I am trying to say.
8 MR. WEBER: This is licensed material, so the 9 concept there is that it would be sent to a licensed 10 disposal facility.
11 MS. MADDEN: Were you aware of the fact that they 12 were selling this stuff out there years ago?
13 MR. WEBER: I'm not aware of that, but I do know 14 we were at the site today and they showed us where some slag 15 had been used adjacent to the site, but on their property.
16 MS. MADDEN: No. I'm talking about tractor 17 trailer, 18-wheelers type coming out where they were selling 18
}
the slag and getting rid of it. That is not one of the 19 options that you are going to release to them again?
20 MR. WEBER: Yes.
21 MS. MADDEN: All right. You also talked about 22 having it capped and then lined. Are these going to be 23 lined, and I don't mean to be facetious, but like the 24 chromium pools were lined?
25 MR. WEBER: Again, the concepts that we put up ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
36 1 there are really that. They are just conceptual 2 illustrations. We haven't set on whether a liner would even 3 be necessary or whether that should even be part of the 4 environmental impact statement.
5 We would like your comments on whether you believe 6 that alternative should include a liner because of your 7 concerns.
8 MS. MADDEN: How safe -- if you cap this -- all 9 right, fine. You're going to stop it from going into the 10 environment. We are no longer going to have it in our air.
11 But what is that going to do our water?
12 MR. WEBER: That's why we have to prepare the 13 environmental impact statement.
14 MS. MADDEN: So you have done absolutely no study 15 whatsoever to this point as to what this radiation is doing 16 to our ground water, or ground or our air?
17 MR. WEBER: No.
- 18 19 20 MS. MADDEN: So for 40 years they have been allowed to have this stuff there without the NRC -- you've done nothing?
21 MR. WEBER: No, we haven't done nothing. We have 22 the ability to license this facility. We have evaluated the 23 leeching potential, for example, of the slag. The licensee 24 had to run some tests, submitted that information to us, 25 showed that the leech potential of the slag was very low.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
37 1 They have a monitoring program presently on-site. We review 2 that. We recently inspected the facility.
3 So it is not like we haven't done anything. What 4 I am talking about here are what are the long-term impacts 5 of allow the disposal of that waste on-site as one 6 alternative versus impact that might be associated with 7 other alternatives for the disposal of that waste.
8 Those kind of analyses we have not yet done 9 because we are in the beginning of this process. And that 10 is exactly the kind of information you look at as part of 11 the environmental impact statement.
12 MS. MADDEN: You're talking about on-site. I've 13 heard a couple of time you say people that will possibly 14 live here. We have people living near that fence line now.
15 MR. WEBER: Right.
16 MS. MADDEN: Okay. That are exposed to this now, 17 have been exposed to this for year. Our concern here is
- 18 19 20 when you do your survey, we want a very in-depth, aggressive, however you want to say it, report done.
I spoke to someone before the meeting started.
21 When they refer to on-site, I want on-site either to be 22 stated that it is the on-site facility that is right there 23 at the main buildings, or is it on-site when they mean 24 property owned by them because they own property all over 25 the area now that they've been forced to buy.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
38 1 These are real concerns that we have. You are 2 saying that with the water, they have a report on one of the 3 ones that they have from the reports that are here where it 4 has already been proven that it is in the ground water.
5 MR. WEBER: What has been proven is in the ground 6 water?
7 MR. CAMERON: Can we save this for your formal 8 talk --
9 MS. MADDEN: Sure.
10 MR. CAMERON: so that we can get some other 11 clarifying questions here?
12 MS. MADDEN: Sure.
13 MR. CAMERON: And then wrap this particular 14 portion up, if you don't mind.
15 MS. MADDEN: No problem.
16 MR. CAMERON: The gentleman right there in the red 17 shirt?
- 18 19 20 MR. MOYNIHAN: If they do encapsulate the material on-site, there will always be a restriction on that land.
Is that true?
21 MR. WALKER: That's at least conceptually what we 22 have been looking at as far as an alternative.
23 MR. MOYNIHAN: Mrs. Williams was asking that if
, 24 shieldalloy should go to Chapter 7, what future use could 25 there be for that land, and the only use would be with the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
39 1 light industry. No other industry could move into that, is 2 that true?
3 MR. WALKER: No. It depends on what kind of land 4 restriction was placed on that property.
5 MR. MOYNIHAN: You believe that you are only going 6 to be able to restrict that little part where the slag piles 7 are? Once you get into those buildings you don't think 8 they'll be restricting the whole area? Right now there's 9 contaminated chromium as far as West and -- I mean there is 10 a flow of contamination. I forget how big it is, but it's 11 very big and I think you are going to find the same type of 12 contamination from the sludge.
13 Another question: The dust from the baghouse, is 14 that a scrubbing type baghouse or a precipitator type? What 15 is that?
16 MR. WALKER: My understanding and Gary or Duncan, 17 you may want to correct me, but it's fabric bags that are
- 18 19 20 within that baghouse.
MR. MOYNIHAN:
MR. WALKER:
It's just a plain baghouse.
Right .
21 MR. MOYNIHAN: Going through the filters. In 22 other words the dust bag is transported from the baghouse to 23 the site where it is stored, the small pile.
24 MR. WALKER: That's right.
25 MR. MOYNIHAN: At that time it's still the dust, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
40 1 is that right?
2 MR. WALKER: That's my understanding.
3 MR. MOYNIHAN: You said when it gets damp it gets 4 hard. What happens when it gets dry?
5 MR. WALKER: It stays hard. It forms a crust over 6 it.
7 MR. MOYNIHAN: In other words there is no surface 8 dryness that can go to the atmosphere?
9 MR. CAMERON: Gary, if you are going to answer, 10 why don 1 t you get up to the mike so that we can get it on 11 the transcript.
12 MR. COMFORT: Basically on the site the dust is 13 put into a pile. As they put it down, they wet it down 14 immediately at that point so that the dust is not --
15 MR. MOYNIHAN: Have you ever seen them do that?
16 MR. COMFORT: I have seen the residue after they 17 have done it.
18 MR. MOYNIHAN: My concern is during transportation 19 from the baghouse -- I mean a normal baghouse, all the dust 20 is not in the bags. You know, what 1 s happening to our 21 transportation here? What's happening before they do wet it 22 down and it dries?
23 MR. COMFORT: Okay. There have been changes 24 recently in procedures over the last couple of years. I have 25 been at the site back in 1990 and it's changed a little bit ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
41 1 on how you would work with the stuff now.
2 Under current operating, they'll basically put the 3 dust into a truck, cover the truck, carry it over to the 4 site. Then they'll dump it onto the pile, immediately 5 wetting it down and which actually I had been at an 6 inspection of February of this year where I did see them.
'7 MR. MOYNIHAN: Still dust though?
8 MR. COMFORT: Yes, it's still dust at that point 9 but it is under a tarp and then they will put it, cover it 10 over and then if you go into the site right now you would 11 see, even though they haven't just put water on it, that 12 there is a crusty material over it.
13 Now there are breaks in the crust and they are 14 working currently with us. They had been trying to use a 15 process where they put I think it was a material called 16 gunnite on it, which is like a cement material. Now that 17 they found some problems with settling causes it to still
- 18 19 20 expose dust that might migrate to the air, so they are working further to do more.
MR. MOYNIHAN: There is a potential problem?
21 MR. COMFORT: There is the potential right now, 22 yes, and that is one of the things that will be studied.
23 MR. MOYNIHAN: You had some figures -- I 24 personally have been around with a geiger counter at the 25 fenceline. What happens if a piece -- you have a whole ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
42 1 bunch of small stone, I'm talking small. What happens if a 2 kid picked that up and put it in his mouth at the fenceline.
3 I mean it could get to the fenceline.
4 What happens if that is digested? The kid wants 5 to pick a pebble up and shine it up and puts it in his 6 mouth. He shines it, what happens?
7 MR. COMFORT: Basically I am not aware of, I am 8 not familiar with the digestive process of this material.
9 MR. MOYNIHAN: You're talking about exposure.
10 MR. COMFORT: Right.
11 MR. MOYNIHAN: So I am talking about internal 12 exposure.
13 MR. COMFORT: Right. You know, that will be 14 studies but I am not aware of the internal exposure I 15 mean the internal digestive process. If it isn't digested, 16 it will just come out in the stool basically as a whole 17 piece in which there will basically be no effect at all to
- 18 19 20 the kid in that time period --
MR. MOYNIHAN:
MR. COMFORT:
But if it is digested?
Like I'm saying if it isn't 21 digested, if it stays as a whole.
22 If it does there may be some other effects.
23 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Let's go to some other 24 questions and I just want to remind everybody that there are 25 questions that the NRC Staff does not have answers for or ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
43 1 satisfactory answers for right now, the importance of your 2 questions is so that we are alerted to those very concerns 3 that you have so the importance is in the question, too, as 4 well as the answer here tonight.
5 MR. MELON: My name is Ed Melon, and it seems 6 that most of the concerns from what I have heard --
7 MR. CAMERON: Can you come forward to the mike, 8 Ed? I don't think they can hear you, and I would just ask 9 you let's save this for clarifying questions to the NRC 10 Staff. I know everybody has a lot of concerns. Let's get 11 those out there during the next period. Go ahead, Ed.
12 MR. MELON: Thank you. Kind of a progressive 13 question. It seems that the study is based on if the site 14 is to be decommissioned, is the environmental impact study 15 and it seems most of the questions I hear and myself the 16 same, if the plant was to operate for the next 15 or 20 17 years, would there be any changes made by your study as far
- 18 19 20 as what is done with this material and the slag while they were still under operation or is it pretty much a cleanup when the plant ceases to do this procedure?
21 MR. COMFORT: First of all, NRC is continually 22 looking for information that may change or be new to them 23 that they didn't know about, so if we determine things that 24 are new, we will act upon it, immediately if necessary, in 25 our next review if it is not necessary but it will be acted ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
44 1 upon.
2 In this case we are currently doing a renewal 3 review at the same time in which there is an environmental 4 assessment being done of the operating process of this, 5 which is hopefully going to be out some time I'd say in 6 early Spring. Again, a lot of that is going to depend upon 7 this process, what kind of information comes into it, and 8 environmental impact statements i~ a much more thorough, in-9 depth process. A lot of the issues are similar.
10 They are storing the slag out there right now in 11 an exposed form. You know, the EIS will evaluate, you know, 12 the "no change" alternative, you know, just walk away.
13 We will take lessons learned from that and 14 perhaps, you know, create new license conditions, force them 15 to do other things, but we are continually'learning. This 16 process is not only just for when they decide to 17 decommission but the information will be used as we do
- 18 19 20 renewals every five years and our studies on it.
thank you.
MR. MELON: That's a little better comfort factor, 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I forget my high school 22 chemistry here: Ra-228 and Rn-220, could you --
23 MR. WALKER: Ra-228 is Radium-228, and Rn-220 is 24 Radon-220.
25 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Radon is a process of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
45 1 decomposition. It's gaseous, right?
2 MR. WALKER: Right, that's correct.
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there a way to determine 4 how much radon gases would be put out during the 5 decomposition process, the quantity of material there, if 6 that would be of help?
7 MR. WALKER: Yes, that's what we are going to have a to look at as part of the EIS, as part of the dose 9 assessments .
10 MR. CAMERON: The woman in the back.
11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you are planning on 12 moving --
13 MR. CAMERON: I think you are going to have to 14 come up. I'm sorry.
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you are planning on 16 moving this material out of there, if they decide not to 17 encapsulate it and move it to Utah, what would be the
- 18 19 20 process of moving it? Truck, train? How would you do it?
Would it go through Franklin Township, for one, and what is the half-life of these particular contaminants?
21 MR. WALKER: Okay. One clarification and then 22 I'll answer the questions.
23 We are not planning on doing anything at this 24 point. What we are doing is looking at what the 25 alternatives are. The company has come to us and said we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
46 1 propose to dispose of this material on site, so we are going 2 to evaluate that as well as these other alternatives.
3 Now one of your questions was what is the half-4 life of the materials involved.
5 The Thorium-232, which was one of the 6 radionuclides or the radio materials Gary mentioned, has a 7 half-life of 14 billion years, which means it is -- billion 8 with a 11 b 11 -- it's essentially radioactive forever.
9 Now many of the other radionuclides involved in 10 that decay chain, those two decay chains he showed, have 11 significantly shorter half-lives but even so, since the 12 parent material is going to be around for a long time, we 13 would expect those decay products also to be around for a 14 long time.
15 In terms of your question about what mode of 16 transportation would be used, we haven't gotten to that 17 level of detail yet in terms of refining the alternatives .
- 18 19 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure you have some idea of whether they are trucked or trained or however, you know, and what I am thinking of is going through 21 Franklin Township I want to make sure that if they go down 22 Route 40 and there is a spill that, you know -- I'm with 23 Emergency Management. That is why I asked.
24 MR. WALKER: Right.
25 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you. Let's take one ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
47 1 more question and to the presentations and then we'll get 2 back to some questions later on after we go through the 3 presentations.
4 I guess I would ask you to state your name for the 5 Reporter. This gentleman right here, why don't you ask a 6 question.
7 MR. COLLINI: I want to ask a question --
8 MR. CAMERON: Could you state your name too?
9 MR. COLLINI: My name is Collini. Have you ever 10 considered an alternative onsite disposal? I know of a 11 process -- you reprocess the contaminants, fuse it in a 12 furnace, bring it up to about 2750. That should bring it 13 back out again in a very glassine state similar to a pyrex 14 or a hard ceramic. Would that reduce the leeching and 15 eliminate the toxicity?
16 MR. COMFORT: Okay, we haven't done any kind of 17 evaluation like that. The licensee hasn't proposed anything 18 like that. From what I understand from the process, the 19 slag that was actually created in using that kind of method 20 and that would have to be a study and that could possibly be 21 an alternative as to how they are going to stabilize the 22 material on site during this decommissioning.
23 For current actions and operating conditions, that 24 hasn't been evaluated either, you know, as to a way to make 25 it more stable on the site. You know, that's one of those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
48 1 things that we will at least consider looking at in our 2 environmental assessment in the process of renewing the 3 license.
4 MR. COLLINI: I have done pilot work in the past 5 and I have worked for 25 years in the furnaces, incinerators 6 and so on and so forth. Now I have done some pilot work on 7 sludge and I have reduced it to a nugget and it's 8 practically, it is nontoxic. Now if that same process you 9 could put a pilot plant or pilot furnace, a small one, right 10 there, and do a study on it.
11 MR. COMFORT: Okay, Mr. Collini, that may be a 12 good thing to talk to these people about after the meeting, 13 too.
14 MR. COLLINI: Well, I thought I'd --
15 MR. COMFORT: -- no, but it's good that you 16 suggested it.
17 MR. CAMERON: I know there is a lot of questions
- 18 19 20 out there.
patient.
What I would like you to do is be a little bit We are going to get to all of your questions.
What I would like to do now, though, is to make sure that we 21 get some of the formal statements on the record and those 22 may answer some of your questions but more likely they will 23 even create more questions perhaps.
24 What I would like to do is to go through this 25 category-by-category, and the first category we have is to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3 950
49 1 hear from the company, and then we are going to hear from 2 local officials, and then citizens, and environmental 3 groups, and then we are going to go on from there.
4 Mr. Scott Eves wants to make a statement, and then 5 I believe Mr. Michael Finn is going to say a few words. Can 6 you come down and introduce yourself and we will take it 7 from there.
8 We are going to have a question period for any of 9 the people that are talking now after we go through the 10 presentations, so keep that in mind.
11 MR. EVES:* Hi, I am Scott Eves, and I am Vice 12 President for Environmental Services for Shieldalloy 13 Corporation. In 1952, Shieldalloy bought an old glass 14 manufacturing facility in Newfield and converted it to a 15 metals manufacturing plant.
16 In the mid-1960s, the first heat or melt of ferro-17 columbium using pyrochlore as a raw material was cast. It 18 has been manufactured there on that site since that time.
19 Shieldalloy is the only U.S. manufacturer of ferro-20 columbium. Ferro-columbium is manufactured from pyrochlore 21 which is a mildly radioactive ore and the manufacturing 22 operation results in the generation of a low level 23 radioactive slag and baghouse dust. These materials have 24 been sitting on the site for almost 30 years. In 1993, the 25 NRC said, "The site poses no immediate threat to public ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
so 1 health and safety." This is because if the piles were never 2 decommissioned, never covered or hauled away, the exposures 3 to members of the offsite public would not exceed any 4 regulatory limits published by the NRC.
5 For the decommissioning of the site protection of 6 the public is a primary concern to Shieldalloy. Before we 7 can discuss the different levels of exposure, it is 8 important to understand the criteria used to determine these 9 levels. The standards that are used to determine the level 10 of maximum possible risk to members of the public require 11 that a certain number of assumptions are made, some of these 12 assumptions are: A family builds a house on top of the slag 13 pile and moves into it. They never leave the top of the 14 pile for their entire life. They drink water only from the 15 nearest aquifer. They eat vegetables grown only on top of 16 the pile. They drink milk from cows that graze only on top 17 of the pile. They eat meat from livestock that grazed only 18 on top of the pile. They eat fish that live in ponds on top 19 of the pile.
20 This farm family scenario is one that is used to 21 determine maximum possible risk for decommissioning 22 purposes. For the piles of slag at Shieldalloy, if they 23 were left in their current condition, uncapped, and a person 24 stayed on top of the pile for 70 years -- I am sorry, for 24 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> a day, 365 days a year, they would get less radiation ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
51 1 exposure than someone that smokes half a pack of cigarettes 2 a day.
3 However, the NRC has determined that even this 4 level's exposure too high to leave as is, and is requiring 5 that a decommissioning plan be developed. Any method of 6 decommissioning involves some risk. For a practical 7 evaluation of a remediation technique, there must be two 8 components of risk that must be evaluated. One is the risk 9 of performing the remediation and the other is the risk 10 remaining after the remediation is complete. These two 11 components must be added together to come up with a total 12 risk for a given project.
13 When the risk of constructing and installing a cap 14 for the piles is calculated and compared to the risks 15 associated with the construction and transportation efforts 16 necessary to move the material offsite, the risks associated 17 with the offsite transfer are much higher. This is due to 18 the hazards associated with excavation and moving material 19 over local roads and highways. In this case, it would take 20 more than 3,400 tractor-trailers to remove the materials, 21 and the risk of death and injury to the public go up because 22 of this.
23 The method proposed in the conceptual 24 decommissioning plan, stabilization and covering with an 25 engineered cover, is the alternative that poses the least l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
52 1 amount of risk to the general public. Not insignificantly, 2 it is also second to lowest in cost. As a company trying to 3 develop a reorganization plan under Chapter 11 of the 4 Bankruptcy Code, the financial impact of any remediation 5 plan can't be ignored.
6 Some major points I would like to 'leave you with 7 is that there is no appreciable exposure to the public at 8 this time; that the lowest risk remediation method is 9 stabilization and capping in place; and that stabilization 10 and capping in place will allow Shieldalloy to protect jobs 11 and continue to be a viable member of the community.
12 MR. CAMERON: I think what we will do is, we will 13 give everybody a shot at saying their formal comments and 14 concerns, and then we will come back and open it up for 15 questions. I believe Mr. Finn from Shieldalloy has some 16 things that he wants to put before the audience in terms of 17 financial conditions, things like that, whatever you have in
- 18 19 20 mind.
MR. FINN: My name is Michael Finn and I am a Vice President of Shieldalloy and I am also the Corporate 21 Secretary of Metallurg, Inc., which is the parent company in 22 New York.
23 I want to talk a little about the way the 24 bankruptcy of Shieldalloy and of its parent company 25 Metallurg affects this situation. On September 2 both ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
53 1 companies went to the court and asked for the court's 2 protection under Chapter 11, and the effect of that is that 3 the creditors, the people we owe money to, have to hold back 4 and cannot be repaid for a period of time, and we are given 5 a short period of time, initially 120 days, in which to go 6 back to the court with a business plan, and we say our 7 liabilities are such-and-such, if we put this plan into 8 effect the people we owe money to, the creditors, will be in 9 a better position at the end of the day than if we are just 10 closed down immediately.
11 It is this stage we are now at of producing the 12 business plan. Shieldalloy has liabilities which are 13 unquantified to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to New 14 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, to the Ohio 15 EPA and to the Federal EPA. There are things which need 16 correcting on all the sites, both of the sites, and we 17 cannot or have not yet put an amount on those. So until we
- 18 19 20 do, we cannot complete this business plan. With that in mind, we have been to see the authorities and the NRC understood exactly what we were saying and it is partly 21 because of that, I think, that this meeting and a similar 22 meeting in Ohio have been called.
23 At the Ohio meeting, we in our fact sheet --
24 incidentally, I hope you will all go away with the fact 25 sheet which is on the table at the back -- the fact sheet ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
54 1 said that to cart the material off to Utah would cost in the 2 region of $350 million, and people in the audience 3 questioned that figure and said that they could do it for 4 $250, remarks of that sort.
5 I wanted to tell the meeting that if it cost $250 6 million or $150 million or $100 million dollars, Shieldalloy 7 and Metallurg just will not be able to do it. If it is done 8 at all, it will be done by the taxpayer. Shieldalloy would 9 then abandon the site, and I believe that the site wou1d 10 remain abandoned because anyone who bought the site who 11 wanted to continue working on the site would still have the 12 liability for the slag that was there. So for that reason 13 we have to reject in our own minds carting the material 14 offsite and try and work with a cheaper method entirely 15 satisfactory and we believe ultimately safer method of 16 capping the piles and continuing the existence of 17 Shieldalloy as an employer in the area.
- 18 19 20 abandoned.
I don't really want to -- I believe that this would be a low priority site on the NRC's list if it was It might be many, many years before the NRC 21 could afford to start cleaning it up, if we abandoned it.
22 So for that reason once more we are recommending onsite 23 disposal.
24 MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Finn. I am sure 25 there will be some questions for you later on and I thank ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
55 1 you for bringing those economic realities to light. I guess 2 I would only say that the scoping meeting that is being 3 conducted right now and the examination of alternatives is
'4 an NRC decisionmaking document and that decision is going to 5 be based on the statutory responsibilities that the NRC has.
6 We have the Mayor of Newfield with us tonight, 7 Everett Marshall, who I believe wants to come up and make a 8 short statement.
9 Mayor Marshall, do you still want to say 10 something?
11 MAYOR MARSHALL: I am certainly happy with Mr.
12 Finn's comments. He answered one of the questions that I 13 had. My concern is, whose responsibility obviously would it 14 be if, in fact, Shieldalloy left the site. He has answered 15 that quite bluntly.
16 One of the problems that I have being a native of 17 Newfield for some 44 years, there are some people who are 18 sitting in the audience that have been there longer than I 19 have, is that the corporation has been very, very good at 20 times, bad at times, good neighbor/bad neighbor to the 21 community. It employs people in the community, it employs 22 people around the community. It pays a fair share of our 23 taxes in the Borough of Newfield. We certainly don't want 24 to see them abandon the site. We certainly want to protect 25 the citizens we have who live in the Borough of Newfield.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
56 1 Whatever is done and, ultimately the NRC will make 2 that determination, you will have a written comment from the 3 Borough Government of the Borough of Newfield by the 15th of 4 January. We are here, we have several council people here, 5 we have our solicitor here. We are on a fact-finding 6 mission ourselves. We have gotten some of those facts 7 whether we liked them or disliked them. We will comment on 8 them by the 15th of January.
9 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much, Mayor Marshall.
10 Now we are going to go to environmental and 11 citizen groups and I believe it is Patty Madden who is going 12 to address the audience at this point.
13 Am I correct in pronouncing your name, Patty?
14 MS. MADDEN: As far as the draft is concerned, I 15 misunderstood you. I would like to present the questions 16 that the environment groups have.
17 MR. CAMERON: Sure.
18 MS. MADDEN: First of all, most of you here know 19 who I am. I also represent a group called STOP that most of 20 the people in the Newfield area belong to. It is a TAG 21 grant that was granted to the residents of this area where 22 we could review reports that have been done on Shieldalloy, 23 and I misunderstood your question when you said speak with 24 the environmental -- I thought you meant I had environmental 25 questions from that group. But that is one of the things ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
57 1 that we do, we are here for that purpose, and that is not 2 only with the radiation but also with the water pollution 3 that the TAG grant has been trying to get reports from the 4 DEP and Shieldalloy that we have been reviewing to make sure 5 that what they are saying verifies what the report is 6 saying.
7 When it comes back to comments, I would like to a come back.
9 MR. CAMERON: Good. Thank you very much for 10 identifying the group, too.
11 Esther Berezofsky, do you want to say anything at 12 this point in terms of concerns or the group that you 13 represent, or do you want to wait until questions?
14 MS. BEREZOFSKY: I prefer to wait until the 15 question period.
16 MR. CAMERON: Okay, thank you.
17 I think we have already heard from the gentleman 18 who was up earlier in terms of site employees labor, a~d I 19 don't believe there is anybody else here who signed up in 20 that particular category. I believe that from the New 21 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, 22 Fred Sickels is here as well as other people, and Fred is 23 going to make a statement at this point.
24 MR. SICKELS: My name is Fred Sickels. I am with 25 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
58 1 Radiation Protection Programs. I really have only one 2 comment on the scope of the EIS, and it gets back a 3 jurisdictional issue that the NRC and the DEP have sort of 4 wrestled over for a while, and it has to do with the ferro-5 vanadium piles.
6 We talk about ferro-columbium and the high 7 concentrations of Thorium-232 and some other thinqs in them, 8 but we have a concern about the ferro-vanadium piles. Some 9 of our tests, at least as far as I could find in the files, 10 show that on ferro-vanadium, we have about between 15 and, 11 say, 39 picoCuries per gram of Thorium-232. It is our 12 understanding that initially the ferro-vanadium was not 13 radioactive. Something has gotten into those piles. We 14 don't know where from.
15 NRC, we understand that you regulate source 16 material and these levels are obviously below that.
17 However, there is some conflicting information as to how 18 these piles were contaminated, whether they did come in with 19 a certain level of radiation, whether because they were 20 perhaps processed in some of the same kettles with the other 21 materials that radioactivity was -- source material was 22 mixed with this previously non-radioactive material and 23 thereby contaminating it.
24 We would like to see as part of the environmental 25 impact statement that these piles be evaluated, one, to see ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
59 1 where, in fact, the radiation came from and whether it is 2 source material or not, and if it is a source material, we 3 would strongly -- we would, I guess, take the position that 4 the NRC should, since licensed material was in fact 5 contaminated,material, that they would take responsibility 6 for that because these figures, as far as volumes go, are 7 pretty high, but it is our estimate there is upwards of 8 200,000 yards of this material on the site.
9 With the Federal Register Notice, I read only that 10 three piles were going to be considered, two of those are 11 ferro-columbium, and one is the baghouse pile. We would 12 strongly recommend that the ferro-vanadium be considered in 13 the Environmental Impact Statement to see where the 14 radiation came from.
15 Also, I am just basically here to state the 16 position of my office, but I would like to just say that we 17 will also offer written comments by January 15th.
18 Thank you.
19 MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much.
20 I know that there are going to be a lot of people 21 who are going to be making comments and asking questions.
22 In terms of citizens at large, we had one person who signed 23 up, and I would like to go to her now if she still wants to 24 speak.
25 Mary, would you like to come up and speak?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
60 1 MS. GORGO: I would like to say that I live right 2 near the pile. If they say that there is no contamination, 3 they are crazy because at night from the shivering you can't 4 sleep. That pollution comes in your window. My house is 5 black. I showed you the picture of my house, did I show you 6 the picture of my house?
7 MR. CAMERON: Yes, I saw it.
8 MS. GORGO: What are they going to do about that?
9 I went to Shieldalloy when Mr. Smith was there, 10 and Mr. Marshall was there at the meeting, and they said 11 they were going to come over to my house and they were going 12 to do something about it. They didn't do one darned thing.
13 Another thing is the pollution comes right through -- I am 14 maybe a block away from Shieldalloy because my dad's field 15 is right near Shieldalloy, and my father couldn't even farm 16 because everything was dead from the chemicals. If they no 17 chemicals, they are crazy. If they say there is no radium, 18 they are crazy. It is terrible.
19 So many people in my family have already died from 20 cancer. I just had a sister six months ago die of cancer.
21 It is all from Shieldalloy. We had three of them on our 22 street, two last year. A girl, Holly Leahy, and my sister 23 died within six months.
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't hear back here.
25 MR. CAMERON: We are going to have to make sure ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3 950
61 1 that the people can hear back there. Again, I think that 2 the transcript caught Mary's comments, and it will be 3 available if anybody is interested in reading it.
4 Mary, you may want to comment later on and amplify 5 on some of your remarks.
6 What I would like to do is open it up now and to 7 try to keep it somewhat organized. I think there are 8 probably plenty of questions that people have for the 9 company or messages or concerns that they might want to 10 express. So why don't we start off with any questions that 11 people might have for the company.
12 There was one question from earlier in terms of 13 what types of non-nuclear activities might be able to be 14 conducted at the facilities, so keep that one in mind, 15 Scott, and I would ask, can we start off with a question for 16 the company, Patty?
17 We are going to have to, not perhaps for the 18 transcriber but for the people in the audience, to make sure 19 you either speak up or come down here and talk into the 20 microphone, okay.
21 MS. MADDEN: This is for Mr. Finn. When you said 22 that Shieldalloy, if you are forced to close,' say if it was 23 $100 million to take this off, that the taxpayer would have 24 to take over the payment.
25 MR. FINN: Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
62 l MS. MADDEN: My understanding was, when you 2 originally signed an agreement with the NRC -- I might be 3 incorrect in this, the NRC might want to correct me on this 4 one didn't you have to put up money up f~ont?
5 MR'. FINN: Yes, we did, but it was nothing 1 ike 6 $100 million.
7 MS. MADDEN: I realize it is not $100 million.
8 MR. FINN: It was a more modest sum and it 9 wouldn't cover the cost of moving the stuff offsite.
10 MS. MADDEN: So the monies that are put aside for 11 Shieldalloy, not only for the radiation but for the water 12 contamination also, is that being affected by Chapter 11?
13 MR. FINN: No.
14 MS. MADDEN: So that money is separate?
15 MR. FINN: I think I can say that, right, yes, it 16 is separate.
17 MS. MADDEN: So that if the company, God forbid, 18 does go Chapter 7, there is some monies available for the 19 continuation of the cleaning, not only of the radiation but 20 the water?
21 MR. FINN: Yes.
22 MS. MADDEN: But not enough to cover the removal 23 of it.
25 MS. MADDEN: I really don't think anybody wants to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
63 1 see this -- I don't know. It is hard to say. I don't want 2 it in my neighborhood, but I can't really see it driving 3 down the street either.
4 My next question is, if you leave it onsite -- now 5 we have gone'through this before with the chromium where we 6 were told as residents of the area that the chromium was in 7 lined lagoons, it was safe. Now we all know that that is 8 not true. They were not lined lagoons. How can anybody in 9 this room that is a resident, and I don't mean this to be 10 facetious, trust what you say to us?
11 MR. FINN: I think if you look at the fact sheet, 12 I am not a scientist but one of the statements there is that 13 the slag is in glass-like form, and glass to the man in the 14 street, to use really something that doesn't leech but just 15 remains there.
16 MS. MADDEN: But they also talked about the cracks 17 and the dust that hasn't formed into the glass, that 18 leeching, that coming down.
19 MR. FINN: I really can't answer technical 20 questions of that sort.
21 MS. MADDEN: I think this is one of the questions 22 that we have that we would like to see addressed. The one 23 report that I believe was a fact sheet that Shieldalloy 24 turned in said that they did find the radiation in water 25 around the area. Maybe I have misread the -- I don't even ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
64 1 have the report right here. So that shows to me, if it is 2 not coming by air, then it has to be leeching.
3 MR. FINN: I really -- it wouldn't be proper for 4 me to answer that because I don't have the technical 5 knowledge.
6 MS. MADDEN: Would someone from the NRC be able to 7 answer that?
8 MR. CAMERON: Does anybody over there have any 9 information on it?
10 MR. WEBER: The SDMP summary sheet that you have, 11 it is a two-page document, it does mention that there was 12 offsite contamination found. It was found in the stream 13 that is adjacent to the facility.
14 MR. FINN: I think she was specifically thinking 15 about the groundwater.
16 MS. MADDEN: I was talking about the radiation 17 that was found in the water, yes.
18 MR. WEBER: Gary, do you want to elaborate on 19 that?
20 MR. COMFORT: Part of this is from what I was 21 mentioning before. Shieldalloy has in the past -- the time 22 pile has had problems of migration. We haven't detected or 23 seen any kind of show that it is through the groundwater at 24 all, but there have been actual physical signs, back in 1990 25 where I originally went to the site the first time, that you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
65 1 could see where the lime dust pile, through runoff of rain, 2 had dragged the pile off the site.
3 Shieldalloy is now, because of both that 4 inspection and now because of our renewal process, we are 5 requiring them to do something to prevent any further 6 migration. They are putting up berms around the side of the 7 piles. They are trying to put the cover on. At first they 8 were using gunnite, now they are talking about putting some 9 kind of perhaps other material type cover to hold it that 10 the dust won't permeate. NRC will evaluate.those and look 11 at those as part of both the renewal and part of the 12 technology they may use for the EIS for the final 13 decommissioning.
14 Again, this is all -- for the decommissioning 15 portion, we are looking at all the alternatives. Could be 16 with the slag which is a *very glass-like material, the 17 reports that we have seen are that it doesn't leech at all,
- 18 19 20 and glass has been used in other technologies for solidifying of high-level waste.
hold radioactive material.
Not all glass is going to Usually the glass used in high-21 level waste is done through a very specific formulating 22 proces that is specific to the waste.
23 The studies, as I said, that they have done so far 24 show that there is not much leeching out of it. The biggest 25 problem with the migration offsite is from the dust pile, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
66 1 and one of the alternatives may be to leave the material of 2 the slag onsite and to remove the dust pile slag or the dust 3 pile residue of the dust because there is problems with 4 migration, if they can't come up with a way to prevent it 5 from migrating offsite that is acceptable from our review, 6 then that may be one of the alternatives.
7 MS. MADDEN: What happens with the baghouses where 8 the dust is actually formed or created? You say it gets put 9 under a tarp and trapped. Now all of us have had the 10 question of, what happens while it is travelling to the 11 pile, but what happens when these bags go down, what happens 12 to the air?
13 There are so many farms located immediately around 14 that facility that people literally grow their food for the 15 winter. We do a lot of canning and freezing. What happens 16 to that food if these dust particles get on it? I know you 17 don't have the answers for me. You said you wanted our 18 questions, these are some of our questions. What happens?
19 What happens when their baghouse goes down?
20 MR. COMFORT: That portion of the question I won't 21 address in this form. I will take them as questions because 22 they are actually more particular to the continuing 23 operation, as I said, we are doing an environmental 24 assessment on that, and that is one of the questions t~at we 25 have been continually developing in this report and that we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
67 1 are requesting the licensee -- actually, we are getting 2 ready to request the licensee for more information about it 3 before we do issue it because we are evaluating, what are 4 the emissions, what is the problem when the baghouse filter 5 breaks, what' is the process.
6 We know a little bit about it, that they have a 7 flow control alarm which will trigger off and they will shut 8 down a£ter that process and change out the bags and check 9 out all the other bags to make sure that they won't 10 continue. Their bags supposedly last about three to five 11 years, but you are going to run problems after that three-12 to five-year process.
13 They have been operating for quite a long time, 14 you are going to have some failures. That is the thing that 15 we are evaluating in the environmental assessment which will 16 be a separate document which, when it is available, we will 17 be happy to provide you with our reading, and there will be
- 18 19 20 the same thing, a comment period, on that before we go and renew the license if there are concerns on that.
Tonight's meeting is more so for the EIS for the 21 disposal, the eventual disposal of the material when they 22 cease operating, but I will be happy to talk to you about 23 the operating conditions at any time after this, too.
24 MS. MADDEN: If they cap it and leave it, like 25 they would leave it on-site, can you guarantee me that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
68 1 there's no way that can leech into the water?
2 MR. COMFORT: I can't say right now. I mean, that 3 is part of what we are doing, part of the environmental 4 assessment that we are doing and also the environmental 5 impact statement will evaluate more fully to a further 6 extent truthfully.
7 You know, so far, we worked on the signs of what 8 has been happening because different places have different 9 characteristics, the soil, the water, et cetera.
10 I think Mike will want to continue on that.
11 Michael?
12 MR. WEBER: Let me comment. I can't imagine that 13 we could ever give an absolute guarantee through the best 14 data, the best analysis that we can do, the best information 15 that the licensee can collect. What we would aim for is to 16 ensure that the probability is low enough or the likelihood 17 is low enough so that it won't pose any significant hazard
- 18 19 20 in the future. I mean, that is our objective.
We look for something called reasonable assurance, and I know it is not very comforting in most cases, but, you 21 know, if we take a cut at it and you feel that there isn't 22 sufficient demonstration provided on that aspect, comment on 23 that when you read the draft environmental impact statement.
24 MR. CAMERON: Gary brought up again something he 25 mentioned earlier, which is the environmental assessment on ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
69 1 the continued operation of the plant and some of Patty's 2 questions went to that.
3 I think that the NRC would use the mailing list 4 that we have developed from the people who signed up tonight 5 to also inform people of that environmental assessment 6 process on continuing operation.
7 Now, are there other questions for Mr. Eves or Mr.
8 Finn from Shieldalloy at this point? Esther, do you have a 9 question for the company?
10 MS. BEREZOFSKY: I am Esther Berezofsky. I am an 11 attorney. I represent some of the residents in the 12 Newfield-Vineland area in litigation against Shieldalloy.
13 MR. CAMERON: I think as a matter of course, we 14 better just use th~ microphone from now on. I was hoping we 15 could do without it, but I think it would be better.
16 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay. I have a number of 17 questions, but this in particular is directed at Mr. Eves, 18 who made the statement that there is no evidence that the 19 radionuclides have migrated off site, and I was somewhat 20 perplexed by that and I was wondering if you were aware of 21 either the Oak Ridge study as well as the EPA evaluation of 22 the Oak Ridge study which in fact and indeed found that 23 there has been significant migration off-site of the 24 radioactive materials into the community.
25 MR. CAMERON: Mr. Eves, I think you probably ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 2ooq6 (202) 293-3950
70 1 better come down, if you could. rt* sounds like it is more 2 than a yes or a no answer.
3 MR. EVES: I don't think that I said in my 4 presentation that the radionuclides had never migrated off-s site. They bave. There's extremely low levels found in 6 Hudson's Branch in surface water and that may be mentioned 7 in the report that you are speaking of.
8 MS. BEREZOFSKY: My understanding is there is 9 evidence of migration and more than just Hudson's Branch.
10 Are you making the statement that the only evidence that you 11 are aware of of off-site migration of radioactive materials 12 is into the Hudson's Branch?
13 MR. EVES: The only migration of source materials 14 that I am aware of is in Hudson's Branch, that's correct.
15 MR. CAMERON: Okay. While we have Mr. Eves down 16 here, and we will come back to you for further comment, 17 Esther, while we have Mr. Eves here, are there some 18 questions for Mr. Eves or Mr. Finn? Yes, ma'am?
19 MS. GATTO: I live on Rena Street right in back of 20 the plant. My house is turning orange and many, many more 21 up the street. Could you tell me what it is? I had Mr.
22 Okioki out there years and years ago. It is all orange and 23 all up the street. And I called them many times in the 24 middle of the night that they used to let this whatever come 25 out. If you want to come and see the houses up on Rena ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
71 1 Street, they are all orange.
2 MR. EVES: I will come and look at your house. I 3 have never seen it; I couldn't comment on why it is orange.
4 MS. GATTO: Were you with Mr. Okioki at the time?
5 MR. SMITH: Yes.
6 MS. GATTO: Yes. He came to my house, too -- Mr.
7 Smith. So I don't know what it is, but all the houses up 8 the street are turning orange. In fact, one girl was on 9 television a couple of years ago.
10 MR. CAMERON: I think that from what Mr. Eves said 11 that the company would be willing to come out and take a 12 look.
13 MS. GATTO: That was ten years ago.
14 MR. CAMERON: The woman in the back from the 15 Emergency Response? I think you are going to have to come 16 down or yell.
17 MS. BILLINGS: How far down the Branch did you 18 find the radioactive material?
19 MR. EVES: From the facility across Northwest 20 Boulevard and down as far as the -- I think it's the 21 Vineland Carwash on Weymouth Road.
22 MS. BILLINGS: To where?
23 MR. EVES: The Vineland Carwash, North Vineland 24 Carwash on Weymouth Road.
25 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Go ahead, sir, in the back.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
72 1 MR. MOYNIHAN: The company now is bringing the 2 chromium back. You are bringing them back, you putting them 3 through something like a deionizer or a reverse osmosis 4 *deionizer, whatever. I want to know, number one, after the 5 chromium is purified according to you, does it meet the 6 Clean Drinking Water Act when it is discharged back into the 7 Hudson Branch?
8 MR. EVES: Yes, it does.
9 MR. MOYNIHAN: It meets the drinking water 10 standard?
11 MR. EVES: For chromium, that is correct.
12 MR. MOYNIHAN: For chromium.
13 MR. EVES: Yes.
14 MR. MOYNIHAN: I am saying for drinking.
15 MR. EVES: The general answer would be yes. The 16 specific answer is that the remediation technique is for 17 chromium and that is really all we measure on a routine 18 basis. There is no reason to think there would be any other 19 contaminants in there.
20 MR. MOYNIHAN: The resin in that purifier or 21 whatever you call it, the deionizer, the resin --
22 MR. EVES: Let's back up for a minute, if I may 23 interrupt you. It is an electrochemical cell. There are no 24 resins in the system at all.
25 MR. MOYNIHAN: There are no resins.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
73 1 MR. EVES: That's correct.
2 MR. MOYNIHAN: That's not what you told our 3 counsel.
4 MR. FINN: The system has changed.
5 MR. MOYNIHAN: Oh, it has changed.
6 MR. EVES: This is a system that was put in at the 7 very end of last year.
- 8 MR. MOYNIHAN: Oh. A question to this-gentleman, 9 or just a comment.
10 MR. CAMERON: I would just say that I know that 11 everybody has questions for the company, and indeed we asked 12 you to ask them. There is a dialogue that can occur between 13 the company and the community that might be broader than the 14 d~commissioning alternatives that the NRC is looking at now.
15 But why don't you go ahead and ask your question.
16 MR. MOYNIHAN: My comment is that you said glass 17 does not leach. That is not true.
- 18 19 20 It sounds like it is a foregone conclusion on the part of the company that if you cannot clean this stuff on site, you are going to monitor it. You can't afford to move 21 it off-site, true? My assumption is this, that we will be 22 monitoring wells, piles, that we will be air monitoring 23 MR. FINN: On somewhat of a regular basis.
24 MR. MOYNIHAN: Some type of air monitoring.
25 Assume even though you get the okay to encapsulate on-site, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
74 1 your business plans do not work out and you still must go to 2 Chapter 7. Who monitors this*site until the year 2020 or 3 whatever the year may be?
4 MR. FINN: I don't know.
5 MR. MOYNIHAN: You don't know. In other words, 6 even if you get the okay to do what you want to do and your 7 business plans io not become what you*need them to do, we 8 are still stuck with the monitoring, or who is?
9 MR. CAMERON: I think that that is probably a 10 question that the NRC might be able to shed some light on in 11 the context that it was asked. Would anybody from the NRC 12 like to address that?
13 MR. WEBER: The question is who is going to 14 monitor the site if Shieldalloy liquidates under Chapter 7.
15 If that occurred, there are a couple of options that we
/
16 would be facing in terms of what is to be done with the 17 contamination on site. One option, and we haven't pursued
- 18 19 20 this with the Federal EPA yet, but certainly Superfund is out there and we would be hurriedly discussing with them as well as the state what opportunities exist through that 21 program.
22 Another option might be, for example, the 23 Department of Energy. I am not aware that any material was 24 produced at this facility that was sold to the government 25 for defense nuclear purposes, but in the past the Department ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
J 75 1 has taken contaminated sites either legislatively or on 2 their own initiative when there has been indications that 3 material was sold to the government for some purpose.
4 Now, under both of those scenarios, whatever 5 remedy was selected, there would probably be some 6 institutional controls set up to provide for the kind of 7 monito~ing that will be necessary to ensure that the 8 material stayed put and to ensure that there is continuing 9 protection of the local citizens as well as the environment 10 in general.
11 In addition, NRC retains its authority for this 12 material and it is likely that we would continue to perform 13 some sort of ongoing monitoring to confirm whatever 14 measurements were.taken or, at the very least, reviewing the 15 monitor data collected by what everybody is out there taking 16 this kind of information.
17 MR. CAMERON: Would that type of information, that 18 type of material be addressed in the generic environmental -
19 - or in the environmental impact statement on the decision?
20 Would some of that information be presented?
21 MR. WEBER: In terms of the on-site disposal 22 alternative, there would be consideration of what mechanisms 23 would exist to continue to monitor that as well as do you 24 need to maintain fences and what kind of property noti~es do 25 you need and boundary markers and site notifications and all ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3 950
76 1 sorts of things like that. So that will be considered, yes.
2 MR. CAMERON: I know there are going to be more 3 questions for Mr. Finn and Mr. Eves, but I think what I 4 will do is you can either stay up here or sit down but 5 open it up for questions generally from people who we have 6 not heard from so far. I would ask the lady with the 7 pearls. Can you come up, please.
8 MS. BLANDINO: My question is for the NRC.
9 Now, the one gentleman said that in the event that 10 this company went to Chapter 7 and abandoned this site, that 11 perhaps -- this is a regulated, a licensed proces perhaps 12 sometime in the future another company might want to come in 13 there and proceed with the same process that Shieldalloy is 14 doing now.
15 Now, what my question is, is who regulates who 16 comes in there and who doesn't? Is this going to stay in 17 the scope of the NRC or does the borough council have 18 anything to say about the future use of that plant.
19 MR. WEBER: In terms of the authority, the 20 authority continues with the NRC.
21 MS. BLANDINO: Will borough be invited to comment 22 on that, have any say whatsoever, or is it just anybody that 23 the NRC wants, they say okay, you go ahead, you go back in 24 and you continue with this process.
25 MR. WEBER: I think it is fair to say we are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202} 293-3950
77 1 always interested in hearing from local government 2 institutions as well as other organizations on their views 3 with respect to future use of the property.
4 MS. BLANDINO: Their views will be listened to, 5 but there will be no we will have no control whatsoever.
6 Do I understand that right?
7 MR. WEBER: Well, the concern here is that the NRC 8 as a Federal agency can't delegate its authority to make 9 decisions to anybody other than itself.
10 MS. BLANDINO: Will they consider the wants of the 11 local government and the people?
12 MR. WEBER: Certainly.
13 MS. BLANDINO: Will that have any effect 14 whatsoever on their determination of what will go in there 15 in the future, if anything?
16 MR. WEBER: I can't commit one way or the other.
17 It would depend on the circumstances.
- 18 19 20 MR. CAMERON: I guess I would just clarify for you there, if I get the gist of your question, is that in addition to all of the procedures that allow members of the 21 public and local government to participate in any decisions 22 the NRC makes in regard to use of radioactive material at a 23 site, the local government still has, you know, it's usual 24 zoning authority under police power in terms of what types 25 of facilities it wants to have in its community.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
78 1 MS. BLANDINO: I have been in Newfield since 1939, 2 and prior to Metallurgical going in there, that was the 3 Newfield Glass Company and they had that big tank there and 4 the pipe and the tanks went in there to melt the glass, and 5 I understand that Shieldalloy has utilized that.
6 Now, somewhere along the line, this chromium 7 process moved in.there and this other stuff moved in there, 8 and I don't recall the borough council ever having anything 9 to say about that. We are stuck with this now, as near as I 10 can see. I just want to know why the local government 11 could we, with our zoning and this and that, keep that from 12 ever being used for this again?
13 MR. CAMERON: Those questions, you know, obviously 14 would have to be addressed to your local government rather 15 than to the NRC.
16 MS. BLANDINO: I don't think they know anything 17 more about it than I do, what is going to happen in the
- 18 19 20 future.
out.
MR. CAMERON: It sounds like they are here to find 21 This gentleman right here.
22 MR. SHEELER: This is a question -- you know, you 23 have the NRC here now. They have addressed it. They are 24 under Chapter 11 at this point in time. They have 120 days 25 to come up with a plan to reorganize monetarily. Will the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
79 1 NRC be able to decide what method of disposal will be 2 acceptable in that time frame. That is question number one.
3 MR. WEBER: No.
4 MR. SHEELER: Okay. Question number 2 then lends 5 itself to if in fact they are asking for renewal of their 6 license, you are then deciding how much money for them to 7 put in escrow. Will that be decided in 120 days?
8 MR. COMFORT: Yes, before the license is renewed, 9 they will have to come up with an amount of money based upon 10 a plan that is accepted by the NRC for a certain amount. We 11 will not come up with that number in 120 days, no.
12 Part of basically our commitment to the licensees 13 is in that 120-day period to tell them whether we will not 14 continue on with -- or we think the process will -- we will 15 continue on with the process, but there is an absolute 16 certainty that nothing will -- you know, that we won't allow
-17 that to go on site and they will make the decision off of
- 18 19 20 that. We cannot make a decision about whether we will allow them to do it or not until the environmental impact statement is done.
21 MR. SHEELER: My next question is to Mr. Finn.
22 When is the 120-day period up?
23 MR. FINN: The 120-day period is up on the 31st of 24 December, but on the 21st of December we are going to court 25 to ask the judge to give us extended time, and it's one of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
80 1 these things -- you ask for six months and you get three, 2 something of that order.
3 MR. SHEELER: Is the NRC willing to go with them 4 at that point in time when you are going to court to 5 represent the NRC as being unable to represent that rtumber?
6 MR. CAMERON: Bob Fonner from the NRC Office of 7 General Counsel I believe can answer that question.
8 MR. FONNER: I am Robert Fonner from the general 9 counsel's office in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 The United States Government is represented in the 11 bankruptcy by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of 12 New York and by attorneys in the Department of Justice. We 13 do not represent either the NRC or the U.S. Government in 14 any form in that proceeding. Our jurisdiction to go into 15 court is limited to Courts of Appeal for cases involving our 16 rules and our licenses and we have no authority to 17 participate in the bankruptcy proceeding.
- 18 19 20 So our position, the government's position is dictated by the Department of Justice and the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
21 MR. SHEELER: That's well and true, but as I 22 understand it, under bankruptcy, you would have been named 23 basically as one of the creditors.
24 MR. FONNER: We are. NRC is listed as a creditor 25 for a contingent environmental liability, that's correct.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
81 1 MR. SHEELER: Okay. I would say at that point, 2 when they asked for the extension, there should be somebody 3 there to represent the creditor, which is the NRC.
4 MR. FONNER: The U.S. Attorney for the Southern 5 District of New York will represent the NRC as well as the 6 U.S. EPA and other departments of the government that may 7 have an interest.
8 MR. SHEELER: So, in fact, there will be somebody 9 there from the NRC?
10 MR. FONNER: I cannot say whether there will be 11 somebody there for the*upcoming hearing on December 21 on 12 the extension of the date.
13 MR. SHEELER: I would look into it pretty 14 severely.
15 I have another question for Mr. Finn and I think a 16 lot of people will have this question probably also, because 17 the viability of your company is basically what is going to
- 18 19 20 get us more money for the capping process because in order to continue, you are going to have to perform properly or you are not going to get a new license.
21 MR. FINN: Yes.
22 MR. SHEELER: If you don't get a new license, you 23 don't continue.
24 MR. FINN: Yes.
25 MR. SHEELER: You are selling material that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
, (202) 293-3950
82 1 other fellow stated is -- you are the only manufacturers in 2 the United States.
3 MR. FINN: Yes.
4 MR. SHEELER: Is there a continuing viable market 5 for your product?
6 MR. FINN: The market is there, certainly. But 7 there are competitors overseas who make the stuff who sell 8 it in the United States just the same as we do. But it is*
9 not domestic competition we are facing; it is overseas 10 competition.
11 MR. SHEELER: Okay.
12 MR. FINN: Specifically Brazilian, in fact, 13 MR. SHEELER: In lieu of the fact that the NRC is 14 now saying, in fact, that they have no idea how much to tell 15 you this is going to cost or how much money to put in 16 escrow, et cetera, et cetera -- and I have one more question 17 after this -- how do you feel your extension will go on the
- 18 19 20 21st?
fighting.
MR. FINN: All I can say is that we are in there It is an unclear picture, but we are trying to 21 make it clearer and trying every possible way to stay 22 afloat, and this is one of several problems we have to 23 overcome. It is a difficult one because it is a shapeless, 24 formless object and we don't quite know the size of it.
25 MR. SHEELER: It happens to come that way with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
83 1 government.
2 Okay. So the next question that I have --
3 MR. CAMERON: This is the last question.
4 MR. SHEELER: Yes, it is. I think everybody ought 5 to know this. What amount of money was placed in escrow at 6 what time previously?
7 MR. FINN: We are talking about the 8 MR. SHEELER: The original escrow.
9 MR. FINN: we are talking about Newfield-NRC?
10 MR. SHEELER: Yes, for this site.
11 MR. FINN: Three-fourths of a million dollars.
12 MR. SHEELER: And at what time was that put in?
13 What date?
14 MR. FINN: I would guess at least four or five 15 years ago, I would guess.
16 MR. SHEELER: So that is not more than a million 17 dollars at this point for clean-up.
18 MR. FINN: It is not even that. It is still 19 three-quarters of a million because it is in the form of 20 what is called a stand-by letter of credit. It doesn't 21 grow. It is not a sum of money which is --
22 MR. SHEELER: You did not place a sum of money; 23 you basically just had a bond with somebody?
24 MR. FINN: Yes.
25 MR. SHEELER: Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
84 1 MR. CAMERON: I think Mike is going to clarify 2 something on that for you, too, and then I believe we have 3 someone from the local government who might want to make a 4 comment back there.
5 MR. WEBER: Just to clarify, a couple of times 6 tonight the questions have come up about financial assurance 7 for decommissioning and NRC's requirements.
8 NRC enacted those requirements for most licensees 9 back in 1988; it became effective shortly thereafter. By 10 July '90, I believe it is, most materials licensees~-
11 that's people who handle radioactive materials under our 12 regulatory jurisdiction -- that possess significant 13 quantities of those materials had to come up with financial 14 assurance for decommissioning.
15 Now, the Commission envisioned a transition period 16 where the first time around, licensees would be able to put 17 up some minimal amount of money through certification and 18 escrow accounts have been mentioned several times. That is 19 one alternative. There are other alternatives, like letters 20 of credit, surety mechanisms, sinking funds, things like 21 this. So the concept is not putting aside a large amount of 22 money in waiting, but there has to be some assurance that 2.3 the financial resources will be there for decommissioning.
24 The way the regulations were written, there is a 25 period of time after which then the licensee would have to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
85 1 come in and submit what is called a decommissioning funding 2 plan along with an upgraded financial instrument which 3 matched the estimated cost for decommissioning.
4 In fact, what has happened to Shieldalloy is they 5 met the first requirement of certifying the minimal level, 6 but they are in this transition period, too, and they have 7 not yet come in and submitted their estimate for 8 decommissioning costs along with the upgraded financial 9 instrument. That is one of the issues tied to the renewal 10 of the license here in Newfield and that issue would have to 11 be settled prior to issuing the renewed license.
12 MR. CAMERON: Thanks very much, Mike.
13 Bill, do you want to come up and identify yourself 14 and what your affiliation is?
15 MR. QUIGLEY: Yes. My name is Bill Quigley. I am 16 with the Borough Council of Newfield.
17 In talking to some other folks who couldn't make 18 it here tonight, there are basically two concerns, the first 19 ~eing the environmental impact and stuff like that of what 20 is going on with Shieldalloy. The second, which here lately 21 has been the biggest concern, is your Chapter 11 and your 22 leaving.
23 I think most of the people in Newfield don't want 24 to see you leave and go away because that is going to create 25 a bigger problem for us in Newfield. So if it seems like ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W. ,- Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
86 1 you are being beat up a little, you know, we don't want you 2 to go away. We just want some answers and things to work 3 out smooth.
4 Now, I do have a question for I guess maybe the 5 NRC and Mr. Finn. Part of your Chapter 11, is that due to 6 fines that the NRC and DEP and other agencies are putting 7 onto you or is that just because of bad business practices 8 or lack of business?
9 MR. FINN: It's all sorts of things. Big 10 liabilities which are coming closer from the environmental 11 authorities, and our market being flooded by competing 12 materials from Eastern Europe and the former Russian --
13 Soviet Union countries and other things.
14 MR. QUIGLEY: How much of that is to be fines?
15 MR. FINN: Oh, fines --
16 MR. QUIGLEY: Are there basically business reason 17 why you are doing a Chapter 11?
18 MR. FINN: Fines are not a significant factor.
19 MR. QUIGLEY: All right, because one of our 20 concerns would be that the Government would put you out of 21 business and, in turn, it would be the Government that would 22 end up paying for it.
23 MR. FINN: Yes.
24 MR. QUIGLEY: I think especially the residents of 25 Newfield don't want to have to foot that bill. So we do ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
87 1 want to see you stay in business and not go away. I think 2 that is one of our major concerns at this time.
3 MR. FIN'.N: Yes, 4 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill.
5 Esther, would you like to come down?
6 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Yes, I have a couple of 7 questions. One, who is actually going to be conducting the 8 Environmental Impact Statement? Is it the NRC or is it 9 going to be contracted out?
10 MR. WEBER: NRC has contracted with Oak Ridge 11 National Laboratory to provide assistance in drafting the 12 Environmental Impact Statement, but the NRC issues the EIS.
13 So the process is the contractor does the analysis and 14 formulates recommendations. That comes to the NRC.
15 Then we absorb that document, add to it, take from 16 it, whatever, and then issue it as a draft. We go through 17 the same process in issuing the final.
18 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Who pays the Oak Ridge people to 19 do the study?
20 MR. WEBER: NRC pays Oak Ridge to do the study.
21 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay. It is -- Shieldalloy is 22 not the 23 MR. WEBER: But Shieldalloy pays --
24 [Laughter.]
25 MR. WEBER: I couldn't complete the second one. I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
88 1 was sure that he was going to beat me to it.
2 NRC pays the --*Shieldalloy pays the NRC, then, 3 because our Agency is currently 100 percent funded by the 4 licensees. Now, that sounds bad but that is the way the 5 legislation *that Congress enacted paid set it up. That 6 was to ensure that we were not a drain on the Federal 7 budget.
8 MS. BEREZOFSKY: So just so that we are real 9 clear, the NRC that contracts with Oak Ridge to do the 10 study, which is essentially paid for by Shieldalloy?
11 MR. WEBER: Ultimately.
12 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay.
13 MR. CAMERON: By all -- I think it paid for by all 14 licensees. It is not like Shieldalloy is billed for the 15 study or indeed has any control over the study or over the 16 NRC actions. It is just that the NRC's operating budget 17 generally is comprised of fees tram all licensees, but there 18 is not anything close to one-to-one correspondence on NRC 19 actions towards the specific licensee and licensee fee.
20 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay. Also, are there any plans 21 for doing any comprehensive testing in both groundwater soil 22 -- not in both, but in groundwater soil and air off-site of 23 the migration of the radioactive materials to determine*
24 whether there has been migration or what the environmental 25 impact has been off-site to date?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C~ 20006 (202) 293-3950
89 1 MR. WEBER: What we have been discussing inside 2 the NRC over just the last. several weeks since we initiated 3 this process is to sit down at this point and identify where 4 there may be additional data needs to develop the 5 Environmental Impact Statement so that we can start that 6 process now to collect the information.
7 Now, that information could be collected several 8 ways. One, having identified those needs, we could go to 9 the licensee and say, "Based on our evaluation, we need the 10 following information and you are best suited to collect 11 it."
12 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay. What I am suggesting is, 13 and this is a request, or a suggestion, is that there ought 14 to be independent testing done not by the licensee, but a 15 independent analysis of what the off-site migration has 16 been, both into soil and water and air.
17 There has been evidence of radionuclides in
- 18 19 20 residential wells.
been generated.
There is data to that effect that has I think there needs to be some independent study of that issue. I don't -- if there has been leeching 21 at all over the time, then there is indication that there 22 would continue to be leeching over more time.
23 So, I would wonder how one would come up with an 24 Environmental Impact Statement without looking at what the 25 environmental impact has been to date on the community.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
90 1 MR. WEBER: Okay.
2 MS. BEREZOFSKY: I have one other question, and 3 that is: What effect,. if any, does Shieldalloy, or Mike 4 Finn 1 s position that they will abandon -- that Shieldalloy 5 will abandon.the site if, in fact, the NRC does not agree to 6 the plan, have on the NRC's approving the plan?
7 MR. WEBER: The NRC is a health and safety agency, 8 so our primary charter is to ensure the health and safety of 9 the public. That is the paramount concern that we have in 10 conducting this type of analysis.
11 Now, as we point out in the scoping analysis, we 12 do identify that some of the impacts considered are cost as 13 well as social impact. So that has to be factored in. But 14 in whatever decision the NRC makes, it has to foremost 15 satisfy itself and the local community that that decision is 16 going to provide adequate protection.
17 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Sure. That is why I am saying if
- 18 19 20 the real opinion -- I mean, you talked about a number of options, one of them being off-site disposal of the waste.
But it sounds to me now that we are really not 21 talking about that as being a viable option because the 22 poeition that Shieldalloy has taken is: "Look, either we 23 are going to have to find a way to dispose -- to leave it 24 on-site, or we are going to abandon the site," which it 25 seems to me that from the NRC's perspective would not be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
91 1 satisfactory with respect to the health and safety concern
.2 of the community.
3 MR. WEBER: The off-site disposal options may 4 still be viable. We don't know. We have to go through the 5 analysis to determine that. We haven't done that yet.
6 MS. BEREZOFSKY: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. CAMERJN: This woman has been waiting 8 patiently here for awhile.
9 MS. BARSOTTI: Okay. My name is Antoinette 10 Barsotti. I would like to invite both of you to my home on 11 Ohio Avenue to see the brown that is on there and on my car, 12 and inside my home on the window sills. When I had my 13 television repaired, the repairman said if my body looks 14 like the inside of my television, I'm i~ pretty bad shape.
15 My plants are black in the summer. So, I would 16 like you to come down there. I am the only house on the 17 street.
18 MR. CAMERON: Thank you.
19 Donna?
20 MS. GAFFIGAN: May I respond to that?
21 MR. CAMERON: Could you come down, please? Please 22 identify yourself, too.
23 MS. GAFFIGAN: My name is Donna Gaffigan. I am 24 with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 25 and Energy.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
92 1 I am not here specifically to defend Shieldalloy 2 but it seems like at the last public meeting we had, not 3 related to the NRC issues, the issue of darkening of the 4 houses has come up. At our last public meeting, we had s someone from our air program who monitors the air emissions 6 from Shieldalloy.
7 It was his opinion that since they no longer use 8 some of their processes, some of the grandfathered emissions 9 are no longer used any more, that there should not be any 10 more discoloration of the houses.
11 Another thing that he brought up was that they 12 only respond if there are citizen's complaints specifically 13 to the DEP hotline for the air people to come out and look.
14 MS. BARSOTTI: They came out 15 or 20 years ago.
15 MS. GAFFIGAN: Okay, well --
16 MS. BARSOTTI: They came out and told me to write 17 down the times and all of that, but this is still going on.
18 There are still small particles on my car every day. I wash 19 the car every other day or so to get them off.
20 MS. GAFFIGAN: Okay. Well, my comment or my 21 response to you is: Call them every single day. They have 22 people that drive around at night so far as I know.
23 MS. BARSOTTI: The next question was: How can I 24 privately get my ground tested because this year was the 25 worst year with my flowers. Everything was black. They ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
93 1 were black. It looked like they had just rotted.
2 MR. CAMERON: well, it sounds like Donna is 3 suggesting at least one part of the answer.
4 Do you have anything else?
5 MS. GAFFIGAN: No.
6 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank you very much, Donna.
7 This gentleman back here? Right there. You.
8 Come on down.
9 MR. JAREMA: I just wanted to say one or two 10 things. I live in Newfield, but not in the town. I guess I 11 would ask -- and Mr. Eves probably could be or maybe Mr.
12 Weber would know -- where does that water come from? You 13 bring it -- how is it brought into Newfield? By train? The 14 water? The niobium ore? How is it brought in?
15 MR. EVES: It is brought in by truck.
-16 MR. JAREMA: By truck?
17 MR. EVES: Yes.
18 MR. JAREMA: So whatever way -- if you want to 19 dispose of it off-site I mean, I assume all you do is 20 remove some of what you want out of it, like the metal being 21 -- you take it away, and whatever is left is left. I mean, 22 you really haven't appreciably changed the concentration 23 much by taking out some of the niobium. I mean, you have 24 taken away a little bit of it, you say to me. So you have 25 changed the concentration somewhat but not significantly.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
94
\.
1 MR. EVES: The volume is slag is larger than the 2 volume of material we bring in because of the process that 3 is used.
4 MR. JAREMA: Really?
5 MR. EVES: Yes.
6 MR. JAREMA: Oh, you mean you actually in 7 effect, I mean, as far as the radionuclides, you have 8 actually decreased their concentration?
9 MR. EVES: In the slag, that's correct, yes, from 10 the concentration that comes in.
11 MR. JAREMA: Once it comes in, that is where they 12 end up, right? Then wherever this comes from where do it 13 come from?
14 MR. EVES: It comes from Canada.
15 MR. JAREMA: Canada? Oh, I see. What would be 16 the problem with -- you know, for instance, suppose 17 Shieldalloy got the ore shipped down and then didn't do 18 anything with it. Just didn't do anything with it, just 19 shipped it back and dumped it. I mean, it wouldn't make any 20 difference. I mean, nobody would care, theoretically.
21 But wouldn't they? I mean, the NRC actually would 22 take an interest because there are controlled substances 23 involved here to go along with the niobium.
24 MR. EVES: I think there is a wide gray line here 25 that maybe the NRC would be in a better position to answer, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
95 l but I think your approach is true, that they would not be 2 interested in it.
3 MR. JAREMA: Yes, I don't understand why it is 4 going to cost so much to get rid of this slag which was some 5 place in the first place. I mean, it was there. People 6 were living there or around there. It came through by 7 trucks and things like that. Why does it cost hundreds of 8 millions of dollars to dispose of it?
9 MR. PIERSON: I'm Bob Pierson, the Chief of the 10 Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch at the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission.
12 The first thing you need to understand is that the 13 regulatory process which we regulate thorium and uranium is 14 a holdover from.a period of time in the early part of the 15 Atomic Energy enterprise when we were concerned about the 16 availability of what we called source materials.
17 In terms of the availability of source material, 18 we have a regulation that we developed at that-time that 19 said that if a concentration of thorium and uranium, or 20 combined thorium and uranium, reaches one-twentieth of one 21 percent, we the Government are interested in knowing where 22 it is in terms of availability of source material.
23 In other words, if we would need this as a 24 strategic asset, where would we go to* find it? Now, that is 25 what caused the initial regulation to be developed in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
96 1 first place.
2 Now, it is interesting -- and what you say is 3 technically correct. When the ore comes in from Canada, it 4 hasn't been processed or changed by anyone in the United 5 States. We are not, in fact, interested in it because it 6 hasn't gone through a fabrication process.
7 Now once it goes through a fabrication process it 8 becomes, by definition, this source material, and we are 9 interested in regulating it. When it becomes regulation, 10 then it requires a license issued by us. It maintains that 11 license until it is reduced to levels such that we can 12 release it for general release which you saw in the early 13 slides, or it has to be sent to someone else who has a 14 license.
15 So, this is an issue where the regulation has tied 16 together multiple things. It is probably superseded by time 17 because the reason we set up the regulation initially was to
- 18 19 20 account for source material. But we don't want to drop the regulation now because we are concerned about it in terms of health effects.
21 In fact, if we go back and revise these 22 regulations, we will probably revise the concentrations of 23 thorium, uranium, based on health effects, not based on the 24 strategic in this particular issue here.
25 Does that help you understand it?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
97 1 MR. JAREMA: Yes, I was really wondering why it 2 was so expensive to dispose of something that just 3 MR. PIERSON: Well, it is because it becomes 4 licensing material as part of the process.
5 MR. JAREMA: But it licensable material before it 6 even came into the United States.
7 MR. PIERSON: Well no, it was not licensable 8 material before it came in.
9 MR. JAREMA: Well, they didn't change the 10 concentration.
11 MR. PIERSON: It hasn't been changed or altered as 12 part because otherwise we would be going out and licensing 13 mountain ranges in Colorado; do you see what I am saying?
14 MR. JAREMA: Yes. Exactly.
15 MR. PIERSON: It becomes licensable material as 16 soon as man does something with it, as soon as man changes 17 or alters or processes it. Then it becomes licensable
- 18 19 20 material. That is an artifact because when the regulation was developed, we wanted to know strategically where thorium and uranium were.
21 MR. JAREMA: Yes, where you want to keep track of 22 it?
23 MR. PIERSON: That's right.
24 MR. JAREMA: Track it, the main thing. I mean, 25 but Shieldalloy doesn't do anything, you know, to change ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
98 1 that concentration or anything like that. It is like, 11 Why 2 does it become" --
3 MR. PIERSON: Well, they do change the 4 concentration somewhat, but in fact, they probably reduce 5 the concentration.
6 MR. JAREMA: Yes, that is what this fellow just 7 said that they probably reduced the concentration. The only 8 thing is that bring it into New Jersey.
9 MR. PIERSON: I won't try to explain to you and 10 say that is the logical outcome. I am just trying to give 11 you some historical perspective of why we regulate this 12 material in the first place.
13 Now, it turns out that we would probably regulate 14 it anyway in terms of health and safety, but on a different 15 basis.
16 MR. CAMERON: Mike, do you have one last thing to 17 add on this? Then you can talk later on more about the 18 historical perspective.
19 MR. WEBER: Why it cost so much, which was your 20 question to get rid of it?
21 MR. JAREMA: Yes.
22 MR. WEBER: Why it costs so much is that there is 23 a limited market -- well, there is a limited capacity to 24 take this stuff for disposal. The people who are licensed 25 to take this material are -- have invested capital resources ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
99 1 as well as other things in procuring a license to run a 2 waste disposal facility. When there is a limited capacity 3 like that, it is a buyer's market. They can charge what 4 they feel is appropriate to recoup their costs.
5 MR: JAREMA: I am just saying that -- I mean you 6 took it out of the ground and everything like that. It 7 didn't make it more poisonous or more radioactive in 8 concentration or anything like that. Why can't you just 9 dump it where you got it, or something like that, back to 10 Canada?
11 But the only other thing, it seems to me, is that 12 they then bring it into New Jersey that we as New Jerseyites 13 -- and I am a Newfield resident -- would care about stuff.
14 - They bring it here. Then they don't take it away. I mean, 15 it is iike it just comes in and doesn't go away.
16 Also, they powder it over there. I guess that is 17 in the course of preparing to smelt it, or something like
- 18 19 20 it, they might make a little powder.
what, dirt?
dirt?
What does it come in as?
I mean, it comes in as It is like rock and 21 MR. EVES: It is like sand.
22 MR. JAREMA: Yes. Okay. Thanks very much.
23 MR. CAMERON: Sure, you are welcome.
24 The gentleman up there in the hat.
25 MR. SILVER: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
100 1 ask. Maybe someone has the answer.
2 MR. CAMERON: I am getting the signal that you are 3 going to have to come down here and speak into the 4 microphone, if you don't mind.
5 MR. SILVER: My name is Edward Silver. I am a 6 business consultant. I have one question. Maybe someone 7 has the answer.
8 Have you done drinking water tests a~ound the 9 subject property? Does anyone have the answer to that 10 question?
11 MR. CAMERON: NRC, New Jersey?
12 MR. SILVER: I think that that is first and 13 foremost that everyone is concerned. Okay. I think that is 14 something -- do you have the answer, sir?
15 MR. VALENTI: My name is Jim Valenti. I work at 16 Shieldalloy. I am an Environmental Manager. As part of our 17 quarterly motoring, we do analysis of both chemical and
- 18 19 20 radiological constituents. We have analysis from a few years' worth of data for both gross alpha ,and gross beta.
If the gross alpha and gross beta exceed screening levels, 21 we do isotopic analysis.
22 I heard the reference to radiological parameters 23 that have leeched out of the material. We have no evidence 24 of any wealth with groundwater exceeding the drinking water 25 standards. There is reference to radium and other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
101 1 radionuclides that are naturally occurring in the ground 2 water. We have results that are consistent with background 3 radium and background numbers in our monitoring wells.
4 MR. SILVER: I would like to know if you could 5 provide me with a copy of the recent report on that, sir?
6 MR. VALENTI: It is in with the state files. We 7 report them quarterly to the state and also to the NRC. They 8 are available to the public through the public documents.
9 MR. SILVER: Okay. I can request them. Thank you 10 very much.
11 MR. CAMERON: Would the NRC or the state folks 12 like to amplify or feel there is a need to amplify on Mr.
13 Silver's question at all?
14 MR. SILVER: One of the most important factors 15 here, I think, is a problem -- an answer to the problem 16 not really a problem but a situation. How many employees 17 do you employ, sir? Mr. Finn?
- 18 19 20 MR. FINN:
MR. SILVER:
In Newfield, 210, something like that.
210 jobs. Okay, we talking about.
We are also talking about the health of the people, also the 21 welfare of the people in the neighborhood for many years.
22 It is a new day today. It is not yesterday, 30 years ago, 23 40 years ago. I am 56 years old. It is a new day.
24 I have the solutions to your problem, if I could 25 meet with you, and to the problems of the people that are ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
102 1 here tonight.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. VALENTI: Thank you very much, Mr. Silver.
4 MR. CAMERON: Yes, would you like to ask the s question or make the comment? Please come up to the mike.
6 MS. BILLINGS: If one of the -- if the alternative 7 is reached by the NRC that this be taken off-site, and 8 Shieldalloy claims they don't have the assets to do that, 9 can they apply to Superfund to help? Does this come under 10 Superfund or not?
11 MR. CAMERON: Let's have one of the NRC folks, 12 either Mike Weber or Bob Fonner clarify that.
13 MR. WEBER: I think it would be mistake to think 14 of the Superfund program as a big pot of money that people 15 can tap into when they choose to.
16 The first course that EPA has under the Superfund 17 law is to go through enforcement action to recover the funds 18 to be expended from the potentially responsible parties.
19 MS. BILLINGS: That would be like an attachment of 20 their assets?
21 MR. WEBER: Whatever it takes.
22 MS. BILLINGS: Well, can the NRC do that in order 23 to --
24 MR. WEBER: No, we do not have the same kind of 25 authority that the Environmental Protection Agency has.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
103 1 MS. BILLINGS: But does the Superfund have -- say, 2 for instance, Shieldalloy goes into Chapter 7 and they move 3 out of town. They abandon the place. Like one of the 4 officials said, it is the responsibility now of the 5 taxpayer.
6 Can Newfield Borough apply to Superfund, or does 7 this come under Superfund at all? I heard that it didn't.
8 MR. FONNER: The Shieldalloy site is already 9 listed on the National Priorities List. It is Number 46 in 10 Group 1. That is about highest you can get on Superfund.
11 There are only 45 sites which are considered of a higher 12 priority, apart from certain exceptions for individual 13 states.
14 There is a nuance of bankruptcy law which you 15 should understand. I heard Mr. Finn talk about abandonment 16 of the site. I don't think the site will be abandoned 17 because under current bankruptcy law, and since the site is 18 listed on the NPL, EPA can prevent the abandonment of the 19 site.
20 My understanding from conversations with attorneys 21 involved in the bankruptcy -- not Shieldalloy's attorneys, 22 U.S. Government attorneys -- is that that remedy will be 23 pursued. But Shieldalloy will not -- Chapter 7 will not be 24 allowed to leave the site.
25 MS. BILLINGS: Well, what do they -- I mean, what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
104 1 recourse?
2 MR. FONNER: EPA would then use whatever remedies 3 it has available under CERCLA in order to 4 MS. BILLINGS: They can't touch their assets if 5 they have no*assets if they are bankrupt.
6 MR. FONNER: They have the factory.
7 MS. BILLINGS: They what?
8 lViR. FONNER: There are assets in the company that 9 are probably reachable.
10 MS. BILLINGS: Enough to move that stuff off-site 11 so that another company could move in?
12 MR. FONNER: Pardon me?
13 MS. BILLINGS: Is there enough assets that the can 14 attach to move the slag out of Newfield to another site?
15 MR. FONNER: That I can't answer. I don't know 16 what the asset picture of Shieldalloy is.
17 MS. BILLINGS: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, I think you have 19 cleared up a little bit about what the potential Superfund 20 remedy might be.
21 Do we have further questions or comments from the 22 audience?
23 [No response.]
24 MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, you have been very 25 patient. I hope that the -- I know that the NRC has gotten ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006
{202) 293-3950
105 1 some good information. I hope that maybe this could be the 2 start of a continuing dialogue not only between the NRC and 3 the community, but perhaps between the Company and the 4 community.
5 I just would ask Mike to maybe reiterate the next 6 steps and what is going to happen and the written comment 7 deadline, and that type of thing. Mike?
8 MR. WEBER: Let me thank you again for coming out.
9 We certainly appreciate your taking your time from your own 10 busy schedules to come out and share with us your views and 11 comments tonight. Let me assure you that they will be 12 considered as we go through this first part of the scoping 13 process.
14 As you leave here tonight and as you think about 15 this over the next few weeks, if you want to send comments 16 to us, please do so by January 15th. The name and address 17 to whom you are to send that is listed in the scoping notice
- 18 19 20 which is available on that back table, or if you have questions of the NRC, please contact Gary Comfort who is the Project Manager.
21 Thank you.
22 [Whereupon, at 9:27 p.m., the scoping hearing was 23 concluded.]
24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202} 293-3950
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE Thi* *1* to certify that th* attach~d proceedings before th* United Stat** Nuclear Regulatory Ccnmzai1aio11 in th* matter of&
NAHi OP PROC!E0INGI Scoping Meeting on Shieldalloy 00CJCff NUMS ER:
PI.ACS OF PROC!EOINGI Franklinville, NJ were held as herein appears, and that this is tr.a original transcript ther-*of for t.ha f il* of the Unitad States Nuclear Regulatory Commission take~
by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by~*
or. under the direction oe the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a trua ana accurate record ot the foregoing proceedings.
o!!Iciai Reporter Ann Riley, Associate*, Lta.
Background Information on Radioactive Material and Rad1at1on What ts Radiation?
The term "radiation" as it relates to nuclear materials means the energy g1ven off by radioactive material as it decays. Ionizing radiation produces charged particles, or ions, in the material it encounters. The adverse effects. of ionizing radiation in plants, animals and hllll'lans are caused by these charged particles.
There are five major types of ionizing radiation:
- Alpha radiation - positively charged particles that are emitted from naturally occurring and man-made radioactive material. Uranium, thorium and radium emit alpha radiation and so they are called "alpha emitters.*
Most alpha particles can be stopped by a single sheet of paper or skin.
Consequently, the principle hazard from alpha emitters to humans is caused when the material is ingested or inhaled. The limited penetration of the alpha particle ineans that the energy of the particle is deposited within the tissue (e.g., lining of the lungs) nearest the radioactive material once inhaled or ingested.
- Beta radiation - negatively or positively charged particles that are typically more penetrating but have less energy than alpha particles. Beta
( particles can penetrate human skin or sheets of paper, but can usually be stopped by thin layers of plastic, aluminWB, or other materials. Although they can penetrate human skin, beta particles are similar to alpha particles in that the predominant hazard to humans comes from ingesting or inhaling the radioactive materials that emit beta radiation.
- Ganvna radiation - similar to light waves, but containing much more energ~.
gamma rays are very penetrating. They can pass through the human body and common construction materials. Thick and dense layers of concrete*, steel.
- or lead are used to stop gama radiation from penetrating to areas where humans can be exposed. Because of their penetrating abilities, gamma emitters are frequently used in radiography which employs the gamma rays to take pictures of pipes, beams, and other structures to determine whether they have any cracks or other flaws. Gamma emitters can pose both eAternal and internal radiation hazards to humans.
- Neutron radiation - neutrally charged particles, neutrons can also b~ -er, penetrating. Neutron radiation can be created through spontaneous .J~lay.
in nuclear reactors or as a result of the interaction between alpha particles and specific materials.
- X-rays - the most familiar type of radiation, x-rays are very similar to gamma rays, except they are generally produced by machines rather than fro radioactive decay. Most X-rays are less energetic than typical gamma radiation. Most people have had an x-ray taken by a doctor or dentist.
What Units are Used to Heasure Radiation?
Whether it emits alpha or beta particles, ga11111a rays or neutrons, a quantity of radioactive material is expressed in terms of its *radioactivity* or simply its "activity" and is measured in Curies. Activity is used to describe a material, just as one would discuss the mass or volume of a material. For example, one might say "the activity of the tritium in the container is 2 curies." Generally, the larger the activity of the material, the greater the potential health hazard associated with that material if it is not properly controlled. At nuclear facilities, the activity of material may be described in terms of hundreds to millions of curies, whereas the units typically used to describe activity in the environment are often microcuries (µCi) or picocuries (pCi). A microcurie 1s one one-millionth of a curie and a picocurie is one one-trillionth of a curie. -
The activity of a radioactive material decreases or decays at a constant rate. The time taken for the activity of a radioactive material to decrease by half is called the radioactive ha1f~7ife. After one half-life, the remaining activity would be one half of the original activity. After two half-lives, the remaining activity would be one fourth (1/4), after three half-lives, one eighth, and so on. For example, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. If the initial activity were 1 curie, the remaining activity after 5730 years (1 half-life) would be 1/2 curie. After 57,300 years (10 half-lives), the remaining activity would be 1/1024 curie or about l millicurie. Some radioactive materials, such as Technetium-99m, hav~ short half-lives measured in terms of minutes or hours. Others, such as Uranium-238, hav half-lives measured 1n terms of millions to billions of years. Thorium- 232 has a half-life of 14 billion years.
When radioactive material decays, it produces a decay product that contains less energy than the original material. The energy has been released by the decay in the form of alpha, beta, ganrna, or neutron radiation. Many radioactive materials deca to form stable materials that do not decay further. However, certain radioactiveW' materials, such as Thorium-232 and Uranium-238, may form other radioactive materials as they decay to more stable forms. Radioactive materials may decay through a long chain of different radioactive materials, each decaying with its own half-life. In such cases, the hazard posed by the parent aateria1 is a function of the radioactive hazards posed by each of the radioactive decay products. In particular circumstances, the hazard of a parent material may increase with time as the decay products are formed through decay of the parent.
The measurement of intensity of ga.nma or x-ray radiation in air or exposure rate is measured in Roentgens (R) or aicroRoentgens (µR) per unit time [one one-millionth of an R], usually an hour, as in R/hr or µR/hr. In the environment, exposure rates are.
typically measured in terms of µR/hr. For example, 1n many parts of the United States the background exposure rate from natural sources of radiation is between 5 and 15 µR/hr.
Many commercially available radiation detectors measure radiation fields in terms of 3
µR/hr or counts per minute (cpm). *cPMw refers to the number of ionizing particles striking the detector in a minute. A fraction of these particles are recorded by the detector as counts. The number of counts per minute can then be related to exposure rate or radiation dose for a known radioactive material with a standard set of assumptions.
Radiation dose or the measurement of the body's exposure to ionizing radiation is measured in units of rem. In the environment, doses are often measured in terms of millirem. A millirem is one one-thousandth of a rem. The dose rate is expressed in terms of dose per unit time, again usually an hour, as millirem/hr. For external radiation, exposure rates are often equated to dose rates using the conversion of 1
µR/hr = 1 microrem/hr. Standing in an area for 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> where the exposure rate is lµR/hr would cause an individual to receive a dose to the body of 1000 microrem or l millirem. Doses from internal exposure from radioactive material that has been ingested or inhaled are more difficult to detennine. Computer models that account for the distribution and excretion of the radioactive material within the body are used for estimating doses and dose rates from internal radioactive contamination.
What fs background radiation?
"Background radiation" is the radiation that is emitted from materials in and on the Earth and in space. Almost everything, including people, contain some radioactive material. Naturally occurring radioactive materials are found in the earth, in the materials used to build our homes, and in the food and water we consume. Even the air we breath contains some radioactive gases.
It is estimated that on average every individual in the United States* receives slightly more than 300 mi111rem per year from exposure to background sources of radiation. The figure below illustrates the typical amounts of radiation received by people living in the U.S. As can be seen from th1s figure, the annual dose consists of about 30 millirem per year from cosmic radiation from space, 200 millirem per year from radon in the air we breathe in our homes, 40 millfrem per year from food and drink, and 30 millirem per year from soils and building materials.
lrlllmal
ⅈ.;.i NudNr o]i
~
,;,.~ ca.,..
... 7 Q.1'11, Figure 1. Average annual radiation dose in the United States (Total dose equals about 360 millirem per year}
4
Of course, these doses can vary greatly, as the various factors that contribute to background radiation vary from location to location and from one point in time to another. Our lifestyles and daily activities vary these amounts to some extent.
For example, a flight on a c011111ercial airliner increases the traveller's dose from cosmic rays about 4 to S millirem for each roundtrip, cross-country flight. If a person lives in a brick home instead of one ade of wood, that person may receive 10 millirem per year or more due to naturally occurring thorium, uranium, and radium found in the clays of which bricks are made.
In addition to background radiation, radioactive materials are found in consumer products. For example, most domestic smoke detectors contain the radioactive material americium. In the practice of nuclear medicine, radioactive materials are administered to patients for the diagnosis or treatment of illnesses such as cancer or Graves disease. Laboratories and universities use radioactive materials in research, including the marking and detection of molecules in genetic research, the study of human and animal organ systems, and in the development of new drugs.
What are the effects of radiation exposure?
When radiation passes through the human body, it may damage some cells. Some cells may not survive the damage and die, while other cells will survive the damage and reproduce normally. Other damaged cells may survive, but in a modified form, which may later result in cancer. Other health effects from low doses of radiation may include birth defects and inherited diseases.
Very large doses of radiation (for example, about 1000 rem) over short periods of time may cause organ damage and, if high enough, death. large doses may also cause cataracts of the eyes, hair loss, skin ulcers, and sterility.
Doses associated with natural background exposures are thousands of times lower than the high doses that are so destructive. At low doses, the principal concern is the possible occurrence of cancer years after the exposure to the radiation. Other effects such as birth defects and inherited diseases are even less likely. For such low doses, the likelihood of producing cancer has not been directly established A because it is impossible to distinguish cancers produced by such low levels of w radiation from cancers produced by other sources. such as harmful chemicals in the environment.
Therefore, in estimating the consequences of any exposure to radiation, it is assumed that the chance of developing cancer 1s linearly proportional to dose and that there is no threshold below which there is no chance of cancer. This chance, or risk, is expressed in terms of probability of an adverse health effect because a given dose of radiation dose not produce I cancer 1n 111 cases. The NRC uses the linear assumption and the philosophy that radiation exposure should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 1n regulating the use of nuclear materials.
5
What are the 1iafts on Radiation Dose?
Federal and State regulatory agencies have established dose limits to protect against the harmful acute effects and to minimize the long-term risks of radiation.
The basic limits are as follows:
(1) The dose to any member of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr; and (2) The dose to any worker shall not exceed 5 rem/yr. For workers under 18 years of age, the dose shall not exceed 0.5 rem/yr.
There are additional limits that apply.to specific portions of the body (lens of the eye, skin, specific organs). In addition, because of the health effects that may be caused by exposure of a developing human fetus, a separate limit of 0.5 rem during the pregnancy has been established.
These and related limits have been established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and various State regulatory agencies for a variety of sources of ionizing radiation.
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission's radiation protection limits are found in Part 20 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The limits are based on expert reconrnendations from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the International Conrnission on Radiological Protection. The agencies have generally adopted the reconrnendations through a formal rulemaking process that included opportunities for public review and comment on the draft limits prior to finalization.
How can I protect ayse7f fro* radiation?
Individuals responsible for the use and handling of radioactive materials should ensure that doses to people remain below the dose limits. In addition, as a general matter, users of radioactive materials should also maintain doses and releases of radioactive materials as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Beyond the limits and measures to keep doses ALARA, there are three important factors to keep in mind. to protect yourself from sources of ionizing radiation.
These factors are:
- Time - The longer an individual 1s near a source of radiation, the greater the potential dose will be. Decreasing the amount of time spent near a source of radiation can significantly reduce the potential dose.
- Distance - Radiation exposure rates generally decrease proportionally with the distance from the source of the radiation. For example, if you move twice as far away from a small source of radiation, your exposure will be one quarter of the dose received at the original distance. Increasing the distance from a source of radiation can significantly decrease the potential dose.
- Shielding - Any material placed between you and a source of radiation will reduce the exposur~ you will receive under most situations. Different 6
types of radiation are stopped (or reduced) 110re effectively by different materials. Placing material (for example a wall) between yourself and a source of radiation can reduce the potential dose.
Who is NRC?
This pamphlet was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent regulatory agency established by Congress to ensure the protection of the public health and safety and the environment from civilian uses of many types of radioactive materials. Radioactive materials are used for a variety of beneficial purposes, including medical diagnosis and treatment, testing of materials to ensure they will perform as desired, manufacturing, and research. The NRC regulates the civilian uses of certain nuclear materials (called source, special nuclear and byproduct materials) in the United States. NRC accomplishes its mission through :
licensing nuclear facilities, such as nuclear power reactors; licensing the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear aterials; development and implementation of guidance and requirements governing licensed activities; and inspection and a enforcement activities to ensure compliance with these requirements. W NRC was created as an independent agency by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which abolished the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and assigned the AEC's regulatory function to NRC. This act, along with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides the foundation for regulation of the nation's commercial uses of nuclear material .
In 29 States most commercial uses of nuclear aterials are regulated by State agencies through the NRC Agreement States Program. A State may sign an agreement with the NRC allowing the State to regulate the use of radioactive material within that State . The States that have currently signed such agreements with NRC are depicted in the figure below.
Figure 2. NRC Agreement States (depicted in gray shading; non-Agre~~~nt States are shown in black) 7
1 States also have the responsibility to regulate naturally occurring radioactive material (such as radium), other radioactive materials that are generated in machines called accelerators, and X-rays as used by doctors, dentists, and other individuals. NRC does not regulate these materials because Congress did not provide the agency with the authority over naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive materials (NARM), with limited exceptions.
Various other Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services and Energy, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, also have a role in the regulation of radioactive material.
Want Hore Infon,ation?
If you would like more information about NRC, the facilities it regulates, or radiation protection, please call NRC's Office of Public Affairs at (301) 504-2240, or write to:
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission Washington, DC 20555 8
Federal 1-.fwter / Vol 58, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 8238'1 ellrninatlon rd the following iuua from plan u required ill 10 Q'R ..U."2(c)(2). ~ of lhlllcldoy the scope of this EIS becaUl8 they ban Depending on the resoluticm of the lletallurglcal Corporatlon'a FaoU1ty In been previoualy analyzed in a previOUI l.icentee'1 ftnandal J'Ntructurlng under Newfield, NJ; Nodoe of Intent To Generic Environmental Im pact Ciapter 11 of the banbuptcy coda, the Prapara an Envlror.mentat Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-0586) and NRC may tmninate or postpone Statement and To Conduct lcoplng h;::h:Jded m* earlier rulemaking (53 development of the EIS. Procaa R2t011. Jiima, D. ?9118): (U Planning r:ecessary to condw:t dec:nrnmis$!oning (g) Describe the .meam by which the AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory cpe~&tions in
- safe manner; (ii) EIS will be prepared. NRC will prepare CornrnissiQD.
assmance that sufficient funds are the draft EIS according to the ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an c'l"ciable to pay for decommissioniDg; requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
(m) the time penod in *which Specifically, in accordance with 10 CFR to conduct a acoping process for the EIS, decommissioning shculd be completecL 51.71, the draft EIS will consider and to conduct a scoping meeting.
a.,d (n*) whether facilities should not be comments submitted to NRC u part of .,...,,...,: The NRC intends to prepare lef: abandoned. but instead remediated the scoping proceu and will include a an EIS for decommissioning Shleldalloy to appropriate le\*els. In addition, preliminary analysia which CODlidera Metallurgical Corporation '1 req'.!irements Wffe recently pro posed in and balances the environmental and (Shieldalloy) facility located in a separate rulemaking regarding other effects of the proposed action and Newfield, New Jersey. Shieldallo.r end cmelilless of de=c::m:i.uioning for 10 the alternatives available fer reducing or predeceuor companies at the Newfield CFR Par!~ -,,, 40..Eld 7'0 licenaeea (58 avoiding adverse en\'ironm~tal and location have been licensed by the ?-.'RC fR 4099 :..iJir.t D. 1993 ). ctlie?' ~ffects, u we~ as the to process ores and mineral concentrat~s id) Jc.,_ ,*m ~ental tn\'irunmental, economic, t1::.::.::Jcal, containing the radioactive mat,,:1als
- AsSl!Sm'lem.For E!Ss '4durh an beiq or and other benefits of the proposed uranium, thorium, and their 15soc1ated 11-;ll be pre~d that are related but are decay products (i.e., collectively action.
not part of t..it scope of this EIS. A draft COI1lidared 10urce material). AJ a result Ennronment3.l Assessment on the The EIS will be prepared by the NRC of processing the ores to produce metal mr.ehness of decommissioning has been staff and an NRC contractor. NRC it alloys, Shieldalloy concentrated the prepared as part of a separate arranging a project with Ou Ridge National Laboratory to provide technical radioactive materials in high r..ilsma.king on decomn:issioning temperature slag and in baghouse dust t:meliness (58 FR 4099; January 13, uaistance in the preparation of the EIS.
Shieldalloy continues to _process the 1993) and will be fina.JJ..zed. NRC ii In addition, NRC antidpatel requesting 10urce material. Althougb Shield.alloy presently de\'eloping a Generic EIS to specific information from the licensee to has no intent to close down the s:.:pport a rulemaking to establish support preparation of the EIS. Any Newfield facility in the foreseeable generic radiological criteria for information received from the licenaee future, plans for stabilizing or disposing decommiss~ In addition, NRC is related to the EIS will be nailable for p:-ese::t!:, ~ le;,: :ng an EIS for of th* alag and dust need to be public review, unleu the information la es111blithed u part or a process for c:ec:ir.muss1oning tb-e waste piles at protected from public disclosure in renewing the NRC licexae at the s.te.
- Shieldalloy's facility in Newfield. New accordance with NRC requirementl in This notice indicatea the NRC's intent to Jersey. 10 CFR 2.790. prepare an EIS in conjunction ',\ith thia (e) Identify other environmental l'!'11eoiv or consultation requirements In the acoping procua, participants proposed action and to conduct a related to the proposed action. NRC will are invited to apeak or submit written ICOPins proceu that will include a cons.ult with other Federal. State, and comments, u noted above. on any or all public acopi.ng mNting.
local agencies that have jurildiction of the areu described above. In DATU: Written commentl on matters c\*er the Cambridge site accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the covered by th.ii notice recei\-ed by cec::m:nissiooi:lg. For example, NRC conclusion of the acoping pJ'OCfll, NRC January 15, 19i4, will be considered 10 has already been coordinating its will prepare a concise IWDUW)' of the developing the acope of the EIS.
re\"iew1 of decommissioning actions at determinations and conclusiODI Commentl received after thia date w1ll
~e Cambridge site with the USEPA. reached. including the significant 1uun be considered if it ii practical to do so, OEPA., and the Ohio Department of identified, and will send a copy to each but th* NRC it able to usure Health. ?',,"RC ant=dpates continued cmllideration only for comments participant in th~ acopms prOCIII. received on or before thil date.
consultation wit:i these and other agencies, as appropr.ete, during the Dated at Rocbillt, Marylud, this 19th day A public acoping meeting will be held cevelopment of the EIS. of November 1993. at Del.sea Regional High Scnool in (0 Indicate the relationship betweMI For the U.S. Nuclear R.gwatmy Franklinville, New Jersey, on December t.ie timing of the prtparation of CommiYhm 16, UISl3, from 7-10 p.m.
em'lIC'-r-.mental analysis and the JobDB.Amtbl, ADDRUIU: Written comments on the Co:n:russicm *s ~r~ pJanning and Cliief. ~ and flerulato17 matters covered by th.ii notice and/or decisirut maJd.ng schM!ule. NRC intends luun Branch, Dmnon ofLow-llvel Wmte the acoping meeting should be aent to:
to prepare and i~ue for public comment Managemetlt and Deeomzrun~ of Secretary, U.S. Nuc1ear Regulatory a draft EIS in October 1994. The Nuclear llalerial Safety tmd . ComrnlMion, Wuhington,bc 20555.
comment period wocld be for 90 days. (FR Doc. u-nou Piled 11-2c-v3; e:,s amJ AnN: Docketing and Services Branch.
The fiDal EIS is scheduled for a&MOCDa.~
Hand deliver commenll to 11!555 publication in June 199!5. Subsequent to Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland completion of the final EIS, the NRC 20852, between 7:45 Lm. and 4:15 p.m.,
would review and act on a license OD Federal workdaya.
amendment from the licensN requesting The acoping mNting will be held at authorization for decommissioning the Delaea Regional High SchooL site, including the decommissiODins Blackwoodtown Road (County Highway
82388 federal Regllter / Vol 58, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 655), Fran.klinville, New Jersey, on the metboc1 for usuring funds for Because the Newfield lite has larse December 26, 1993. decommJuimrlDg using one of '8Veral wut.e pllea that may be difficult to P0flt fUATHiR INPOAMA'nON CONTACT: method.I, mcluding pn,peyment; IU1'9ty, dispOM of at the time of Michael Weber. Office of Nuclear lmurmce, or other guarai:itee: extemal decommiuioning, NRC included the Material Safety and Sahwwds. linking fund coupled with a surety Newfield site in the Site Washington, DC 20555, telephone: metboe; or statement of intent (for Decomm.Jsrloning Management Plan 301-504-1298. or Gary Comfort, Office government licensees only). Based cm (SDMP) 1 and bu been devoting speoal of Nuclear Material Safety and NRC'1 dttflnition of d-commiuion. the attentiOll to the lite to ensure planning Safeguards. Washmgton. DC 20555, cost estimate would be bued OD the continues to adlieve timely and Telephone* 301-504-2667. usumption that residual radioactivity effective decommiuioning.
wouldoe ntduced to a 1-vel that permits SbieldaJloy'1 license for the Newhelc!
IUPPLIMI.NTARY IHFOAMATION: nleue of the property for unratrlcted facility hu been in timely renewal smc:e Background use and termmatfon of the license. Shieldalloy filed iU request for renewal with the NRC in 1985. As I condition The Nuclear Regulatory Cornrniasirm Need b PrapONCI Action of ac:ting on the 1'8Dswal request. the
- bu the stst'.Jtory responlibility for Shi ldall Metallurgical Corporation NRC identified the need for Shleldallol protection of hlli.lth and safety related to (Shieldalloyfii llcentea by the NRG to submit an adequate decommislilomng the use of source, byproduct. and (IJ.ceD.N Number SMB-743) t o ~
- funding plan in accordance with 10 CFR special nuclear material undft 1bt and 1tonJ the ndJoective materials 4D.36(c)(2). In addition, the NRC raised Atomic Energy Act. The Nii.C ........_ uranium, thorium. ad their usodated a cm:u:ern in 1992 that Sbieldalloy*i.
that one porn on of this 191p0DS'ibility is decay prod.um (i.1., collectively plan far eventual decommtnicming of to uswe ufe and timely cmwdered IOUl'C8 material) at I site the Ntrwfftld lite may not satisfy NRC's decommissiorung of nuclear facilities heated near New!eld, Gloucester J'8QUll"llm8Dts beaau.se it contemplated which it licenses. This responsibility County, New Jeney. AJ a result of stabilization of the contaminated was!e can be partially fulfilled by providing proceui:Dg orea and mineral ODlite and may nquire land use guidance to bcensees on how to plan for c:oncantntn to produce metal alloys. restriction1 to emure continued long*
and prepare their sites for the radioect:ive materials have been term protection of the public and decommissioning Iw:ornmlnioning, u conamtnted in b.1sh temperature a1q 1mvironment. This approach ii defined in NRC's regulaticm.s in 10 CFR and bqbOUN dust. inconsistent with NRC'a nqujnment, 40.4, for example. means to remove Since llilSS, Sht.ldalloy has operated for dtc0mminion.ing, which require nuclur facilities safely from NrVice and a manufach:r.:ci.Dg facility in Nedeld that residual radioactivity be nduced to to reduce residual radioactivity to I and produced spedalty steel and super a level that permits :releue of the level thet permits releue of the property alloy additivu, *including aluminum ~~ for umestricted UH.
for unrestricted me and tmnination of muter llloys, metal carbides, p0'!deted bi September 1993, Sbieldalloy and the license. . metals, and optical rurfadng l)l'Oducts. its parent company, Metallurg Inc, nleci Once bcensed activities have ceased, R.aw materials uud at the facility for protection from creditors under bcensees are required, in exilting NRC include ores and concentrates of Clapte? 11 or the Bankruptcy Code.
regulations. to cfec.ommiuion their niobium, n.nadium, ziramium, I)Acnrnrninioning the Newfield faciht),
facilities so th.et their license1 can be titanium. and othar metals and and another licensed site in C.mbridge.
terminated. This requires that materials. NRC licenses activities at the Ohio, represent two of Shieldalloy's radioactivity in buildings, equipment, site related to processing a mineral largest and unquantified liabilities.
soil, groundwater, end aurface water concmitrate (py:rochlore) to recover which must bl resolved as part of the resulting from the licensed operation be niobium, The pyrochlcn ccmltlns more company's restructuriDg activities unc!e; reduced to acceptably low NMUS that than 0.05 percent (by Wfisht) of the Chapter 11. To complete rest:ructunng tllow the property to be relaued for . radioactive materials uranium and in a timely manner, Sbieldalloy bas unrestricted use. lJcentees must th.en thorium, which are source materials and requested NRC to determine whethe; demonrtrate by I lite radiological nQUire I licenee under 10 CFR part 40, onsite stabili:ution and disposal of sur..-ey that residual CDDtamiDation in Ou.ring the manufacturing proceu, the redioactive waste is acceptable for all facilities and environmental media radioactive materials ll'& cancentrahKi decommu1ioning the Newfield !ac:i!:t:-
have been proparly reduced or in I high temperature alag and in NRC bu determined that approval d eliminated and that. except for any bagh0UN dust. The *las hu been placed Olllite stabilization and disposal ef tl-.~
residual radiologi~l contamiDltion into two pilet with a total men of about radioactive waste ia a major Fede:-c!
found to be acc:eptaWe to remain at the 45,000 metric tolll (about 50,000 tons) -action and, therefore, warra:nu site, radioactive material bu been and a volume of about 18,000 cubic preparation of an EIS in accordance tr11.n1ferred to authorized recipients. meten (about &30,000 cubic feet); the with the National Envt!'ODmen!al Po.1::,
Confirmatory surveys are conducted by baghouse dust ii located in a thhd pile Act (NEPA) and the NRC'1 NRC. where appropriate. to verify that of about 12,000 metric tons (13,400 implementing requirements in 10 CFR site, meet NRC radiological criteria for ton,) and a volume of about 15.000 part 51, Concentraticns ofUJ'amuo.
decommiuioning. cubic meters (5:S0.000 cubic feet}. In thorium, and their radioactive de.a'"
In accordance with NRC requirements addition to these pU.., radioactive producu. in the waste piles exceed
- promulgated in 1988, licensen are 11&0 material& have also been dilperled in NRC'1 cunent aiterl1 far allO'\'.ing required to provide financial usmance 10il around th* piln and at numerous release of sites for unrestricted use.
Jor decom.minioning, including other locations at the facility. The These o-iteria are listed in NRC's Ar1lC:.'l aubmiuion of a decommiuioning concentraticns ofredioactive materlall Plan to EnsU?e Timely Cleanup of SD~W funding plan (10 aR 40.36(c}J. In in the pU.. vary with maximum accordmce with 10 CFR 40.36(d), the thorium-232 concentration1 up to 1,500 1 n.. SI.If' :o.cnmmlm"!:l.ln& Ma:Dapmft'.lt Pia:,
decommissioning funding plu must picoc:urlet per gram (pCi/g) and avenge tJ.S Nudw ~ Camm\tdoa. Nt,'J!IG-1,M4, UN, ii a ~ from !he U.S Govtmmtnl contairl I cost estimate for thorium-232 concent:rati0D1 ranging Pmit:1zia omca, Mail Stop ISOP, W~tcn. DC dec:ommiasioning 111d a description of from NVfJrll tens to hwidrldt of p(l/g, JOIGI-IUI
Federal RegiMer / Vol. 58, No. 228 / Friday, Nonmber 26, 1993 / Notices Sites (57 FR 1338i: April 18, 1992). N described in the Acticm Plan, the aiteria are applied 011 a sitMp<<:llk buts with emphasis on residual contamination levels that 11'9 as low u ii rauonably achievable (A.LARA).
Cor.s~:ntly. ifNRC approved on*
==~=IN 8DW'DIUD1DtaJ iuuN into tbelr contained in 10 Q'R part 51. To fwAll NRC'1 responslbilltia under NEPA. the NRC lntadl to prepare 1.t1 EIS that will analyze the envirmimental impact, of (2) Tbe Commttlina will allo accept writbm commtJDtl - the prQPOMd action and altarnativee from tbe public.
Written comments abou.ld be- submitted by January 15, 1994, and ahould be sent to: Sec:mary, U.S. Nuclear Ragulalory O>mminioa. Wub.inaton, DC :WS55.
or s:te stab . tion the rad.loecUve the £:~talactiml, 11 well u ATI'N: Docketins ancf Services Branch.
matenal. land use restrictions mother env lmplCtl of altarnativ.1 to Hand deliver commmtl to '11!1!1!1 mst:tuuanal control.I may be necessary the propoNd action 111d C01U associated Rock\ille Pike, Rockville. Maryland to ensun? 101\8-tetm protection of the with both the propoNd action and the 20852. between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m .*
p..:bllc and the environment. NRC altemativea. All niuonable altematives on Federal workdays.
e:cpec:ts that SlaWckl\oy would have to to the propOled actioD, i.ocluding the According to 10 CFR !51.29, the apply fat and d:tma
- ftllUIPtion from no a::ticm" altemative, will be ecopiDg process ii to be used to address
!\"Re's p.uent requitemeDts bea.UM analyzed The ICOpt of the EIS will the topics which follow. Participants
?-.RC's cum!ot requtremenu for include both radici1ogical and non* ; make written commenu. or verbal cecommissioning do not allow for land radiological impact.s usociated with the t . .;nentl at the scoping meeting, on use restrictions. alternative ICtionl. tht- following {current preliminary NRC In addition to the issues disc--..:s!'ed ThiJ not.ice l.tlJUIWlces the NRC'1 staff approad,.es with teR8,rd to etdl aboi;-e that f.a.ll \ln.der NRC's :*-.: :::ton. intent:. *:-!?'~ an EIS. The pnncipal topic are includPd for inlonnati* .*.):
thent a:-e od:lik*~;.... .r ... *:: intent oi Le L.5 ii to provide a (a) Define ti,* proposed action to be assOCU1ted Wldl decommis:sic.-..;..., ~e document d.etaibmg enVU'0D.ID8Dtal the subject of the EIS. 1be proposed t-;ewfield site that are regulated State and Federal agencies, inclu 1*
ba ~~er consequencu that wW be availablil to action is consideration of on.site "the Agency'* decial.oD maker, in stabilization 1nd disposal of radioactive the U.S Enviror.unental Protection reviewing the licell899'1 waste at the Sbieldafioy facility in Agency (EPAJ and the New Jersey decommissioning plan for the Newfield Newfield, Nev. !r:rsey.
Depa..~nt olEn,:um::imentaJ Protection lite. (b) Detmrune the scope of the EIS and md E.,ergy (NJDEPE). For exa:nple, the the signjficont issues to be analyzed in
~ew6eld siua is had on the ?.;ational The Scoping Proam depth. The NRC is proposing to analyze Prioriues List and b being remediated The Comrniui011'1 NgU!ati,ou in 10 the costa and impacts associated "1th under the Comprehensive CFR part s1 contain requuemmta for the proposed action and alternative Ennronmeotal Rasponae Compensation conducting a scopl.Dg procea prior to decommissioning approaches, The and Lubillty Act to mitigate preparation of an EIS. In accordance following proposed outline for the EIS groundwater CD11tamination caused by with 10 Q'R 51.26. wbanevar the NRC refiects the current NRC staff 1,*iew on r.cm-licans.td activities at the lite. These dr !"lIUllll that an EIS will be prepared the scope and major topics to be dealt actl\it.ft I.Ill adm.uustered by EPA and by : -..RC in connection with a proposed with in the EIS:
SJDEPE The 1e:oping process and EIS action, NRC will publilh a DOtial of Proposed Outline. En\'irocmental will not only aid NRC in reaching intent in the Fadcal Regilter atating decl..Sions about the decomminionin8 of Jm~ement.
that an EIS will be prepared and t.'le Newfield site. but should alao be conduct an appropriate ICOpl.Dg proc:en. Executive Summary.
usefal to these other agendea in In addition. this acopms p:roc:Ht may c:schargmg their respective duties. include the holding of a public ,copms Table of Contents Description of Proposed Action meeting. t. lntroductlon The proposed act.ion is oDSite NRC also deaaibes, in 1D 01l 51.27. t.t Baaground Stabihzatioo and disposal of radioactive the conteDt of the notiol of lnlellt and '1.2 Purpose a:nd Need for Proposed waste containing elevated nqui1'et that the notice include the Action concentrations of thorium and uranium propoyd action and, to the extent that t .3 Description of Proposed Action a."ld thetr decay products at the iufflcient tnfmmation ls an.tlable. l1ao 1.4 Approach in Preparation of the S.belda.l!oy facility in Newfielr\, New deacribe posslble alt1matiV111. In DraftEIS Jersey. Bec.tuse most of the radioactive addition, the uo&. of intent ii to 1.!5 Structure of the Draft EIS conta..--:.inaticm at the site exists in three deaaibe the propo,ed scopms PJ'OCMI, 2. Altmativu including the Proposed waste piles, the proposed action including the role ofputicipants. Action pnnc:~ally locuse1 on the disposal of whether written comments will be 2.1 Factors Considered in t\*aluating the ra:l:oactive materials within thON accepted, and whither a public acopins Alternatives waste '.::s. meetinl will bt held. 2.2 Alternatives P:-e~ _ :.::ion of Ill Envirmunental In accorde..,~ with SS 51.26 and 2.3 Regulatory Comphance L-r.p!ct Statement 51.%7, the p* ;:oted action and pouible 3. Affected Environment t:nc!ar the Natior::.\I u--*:-:mmental altemltive a;;i'.)roaches are discussed 3.t Int:* duction Pobcy Act (NEPA}. all r . ~ agencies below. 1be role of participants iD the 3.2 Desr.ription of the Newfield
-::icst consider the effect -* :beir actian1 scopms procMI let this EIS includes l facility on the environment Section Ul2(1) of following: . 3.3 Land Use
!'."EPA nqul.res that the policies, (1) Participants may attmd and 3.4 Geolc,sy/Sei.sm1city regulations, and public laws of the provide oral dilCUSSion on the proposed 3.5 Meteorology and Hydrology UnJted States be Interpreted and action and poasible altemaU\'91 at the 3.6 Ecology administered iil accordance with the public &a?PU?8 meeting at Delaea 3.7 Socioeconomic Olaracteristic:s policies let forth in NEPA. It ii the Regional Hijb School in Fnm:.11.nville, 3.8 Radiation intent of NEPA to bave Federal qencies New Jersey. on December 16, 1993, fnnn 3.9 Cultural Resources u:.cor;,ome C0?11ideraticm of 7to lOp..m. 3.10 Other Environmental Features
U390 Federal hgilter / VoL SB, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices
,. Decommiuioning Altemativu facility. Radioactive contamination Term Uaes of the Environment 11:,d Analyzed and Method of Approach ansite would be reduced down to Long-Term Productivity for the An~ &.veis that NRC presently considers 5.8 Irreversible and lrretrie\'able
- 4. 1 General Information on acceptable for release for Commitments of Resources Approach end Method of Analym unrestricted u,e (e.g., 10 pCi/g total 6. Costs and Benefits Auociated v.1t~
of Decommissioning Altemativea uranium (with decay products) and Decommissioning Ahernatives 4.2 Alternatives C a m i ~ 10 pCi/g 1borium-232 and 6.1 General of the alternatives represent Thorium-228 in addition to other 6.2 Quantifiable Sodoeconor:m:
alternate decommissioning aiteria IUCh u gamma exposure lmpacts approaches. . rate and radon concentrations in 6.3 Toe Benefit-Cost Sumrr.ary (a) Alternative 1, Onsite Stabilucmon 6.4 Staff Asseesment air)* 7. LW of Preparen and Ihsposal [Ucensee'1 Proposed (d) Ahmwive 4, Dnnu DilutJon .
Action }-radioactiv* contamlnaticm 8. Ust of Agencies, OrganiZl!,t,i:~s. /::~
Processing and Dis~sting Persons Recehing Copies. c. t.~
would be consolidated and radioactive contamination wpuld be stabilized in a single pile that Draft EIS blended with clean ftl1 to reduce 9 References would be covered and graded in a average concentrations or uranium Appendix A-Resen*ed fer Cor::::.E:::s manner to provide Jong-term and thorium to levels that NRC on DIES protection against wind and water presently conaiden ecceptabl1 for Appendix B-Re,ults of Scopir.g erosion and to minimize releue for unrestricted UH (e.g .* l D froce15 growidwater contamination. This pQ/J total mamum '(with decay altemative would also likely include lend use restrictions and/or other institutional controls to prevent or reduce potential proctucts} Eld 10 pCi/g ThoriUIIr 232 and Thorium-228 in addition to other aiteria such u gamma (c) Identify and ehminate from detailed study Jssues which art r.ot sigruficant o, which are peripherc.l er w1uch have bffn ~ d by prior e.
exposure rate and radon. environmental review The NRC hes ::o:
intrusion into the waste and to concentrati0n1 in air). Diluted
- monitor the long-term effectiveneu yet eliminated any nonsignih~ar.~
contamination would then b" blues. However, NRC is conSlder!:::g of the disposal end take mitigative graded oruite and released for measures u necessary to protect the elimination of the following issues frc-:-:.
unrestricted use; and r ublic end environment.
(b Alternative 2, Of/site Disposal-radfoactive contamination would be (e) Ahemative 5, No Action--
ndioactiv1 contamination would be abandoned in its present the scope of this EIS because they hl*, e been pre\'iously analyzed in a pre..,1c:.:s Generic Environmental Impact exhumed from the site and Statement (NUREG-0586) and inch:d,d configuration without any disposed offs1te at I licensed low- additian&l processing or in an earlier rulemaking (53 FR 2401E
)eveJ waste disposal facility. The June 28, 1988): (i) Planning neces~a.--:, t::,
stabilization. This ahemative does disp058I facibty may either be uot comider any protective conduct decommiuioning operatlo::s m located in the near vicinity of
- a safe manner; (ii) assurance thet measures, such u land UN Newfield (e g
- within 50 km) or in sufficient funds are available to pay fer another State. This alternative restrictions or other institutional decommissioning; (iii) the time peno:!
controls, that might mitigate or could also consider disposal of the in which decommissioning should be con:amination along *with other prevent intrusion into the waste or completed; and (iv) whether faciht:Es wastes c,f similar physical, long-term release and transport of should not be left abandoned, but chemkal, and radiological contamtneUrm in the-emironment.
4.3 Mathod of Analysis of instead remediated to appropriate characterisucs, such u mill taiHngs. levels. In 1ddition, requirement5 "e:t Regulatory Ahematives or in a dedicated daposal facility (e) Define a range o! alternative recen~oposed in a separate that would provide enhanced decommiaioning approaches; rulem g regarding timelineu cf barriers against human intrusion (b) Evaluate the altirnative decommissioning for 10 CFR pa:-ts 30 into the waste for thousands of decommissioning approaches with 40, and 70 licensees (58 FR 4099, years, such u a deep mine. respect to: (l) the incremental Jan~ 13, 1993).
Radioactive contamination onsite impact to workers, members o! the (d) fdentify any Environmental would be reduced down to levels that NRC presently considers public, and the environment, both Auessments or EISs which are bemE er will be prepared that are related but c:e radiologiccl and nonradiological, acceptable for release for , resulting from each a!temative; and not part of the 6CO~ of this EIS A ciraft unrestricted use (e.g., 10 picoCuries (2) the costs associated with each Environmental Anessment on the per gram (pCl/g) total uranium regulatory alternative. Evaluations timelineu o! decommimwling h!s bee:i (with decay products) and 10 pCi/ of impacts and com are contained prepared es part of a separate g Thorium-232 and Thorium-228 in in s.ctiom 5 and 6 below; rulemuing OD decomminioning addition to other citeria such u (c) Perform a comparative evaluation timeliness (58 FR 4099; Janue~* 13 gamma exposure rate and radon or the decommiuiouing approachn 1993) and "'ill be balued. ~"RC is concentrations in air); baled on the impacts and costs of presently developing* Generic (c) Alternative 3, ONite S e ~ n each alternative from 4.3(b). Environmental Impact Stateme::~ t:j Processing with Offsite Dispo,aJ- s. Environmental Consequences, support a rulemaldng to establish radioactive contamination would be Monitoring, and Mitigation generic radiological criteria for procesaed using physical or 5.1 Constn.iction and Remediation decommissioning. In addition, ~RC is chemical methods to separate more Consequences presently developing an EIS for highly concentrated CODtamination 5.2 MonitoriD.I Programs decommissioning the waste piles et from lower concentrations that 5.! MitigationMeuures Shi1ldalloy'1 facility in Cambridge, could be stabilized omit1. Higher 5.f Unavoidable Adverse Ohio.
concentration wastes would be Nnt Enviranmeutal Impacts (e) Identify other environmental offsite to a licmaed dispou.l 5.5 Relationship between Short- tt\'i1w or consultation TeqWl"ffl'lents
, Federal hgilt8r / Vol 58, No. 226 I Friday, November 28, 1993 / Notices 82391 relamJ to the prc,poHd actjon. NRC will accordmca with 10 CFK 51.29, at the
- Further i n b r n a t l ~ topics consult with other Federal. Staaa, and local apnciN that have jurlsdic:&n 0V9l' the Newfield site. For example, NRC hu aheady been comdinating its re,.;ews of decommiuioning .aioru at concluaicm of the 1e0plng proceu. NRC will prepare a CODCile ,ummary of the determinatiOlll and conclusions reached. inclu~the signiflcant issues identified. and send a copy to each m=
to be diacuased, lb.
eeaions open to tha public, w ruch ulin~
bu been cancelled or uled, the Chairman's ruling on
~uts for the opportunity t~resent the the Newfield site with the USEP A and participant in the scoping proceu. statements, and the time otted the ~"JDEPE. NRC anticipates continued Dated at Rockville, Ma:yland. thls 18th day therefor can be obtained by contacting con,ultatl.:m with these and other of November 1ga3, the ~ t ACJts staff person, Dr.
agencies, a.s apfropnate. dunng the For the U.S Nuclear Regulatory John . Larkins (telephone 301/492-Jevelopment o the EIS. _ Commi.uion. 4516) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,
(?1 !ndJcate t..'i~ relationship between EST Penoru planning to attend this the ~:mng of the preparation of John H. Austin.
meeting are urged to contact the above e:,\'Jronmental an.uysis and the ~f. Decozrurussionmg and Regulatory named individual five days before the c.,!':':rrJssion 's tentative planning and Im.in Branch, D1vilton ofLow-Level Wane
.&tanagem~nt and ~mmurionilll, ~ :,f scheduled meeting to be advised of any de,151on making schMiuk. NRC intends Nuclear .\fatnuJJ Safety and Safeguards changea in schedule, etc., that may have to[rrepare and issue for public comment (FR Doc. g3-2go14 Filed 11-24-93; 8:45 am! occurred.
a raft EIS iD October 1994. The co:nn-.ett penod would be for 90 days.
kUHG CODf .,.._.,-ti Dated: So\*e:I.ber 15, 1993 Sam Duraiswamy, Th f:nal EIS ii scheduled for pubi1cauon !n June 1995. Subsequent to Ch~f. NuclNr Reacton Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor (FR Doc. 93-2ag~ Filed 11-24-93. B .cs a:n]
. coor,Ation of the final EIS, the NRC Safeguards Suboommlttu on PlaMlng
"'*cu.d review and act on a and Procedures; MNUng IIU..ING C001 7II0-01-M supplemented ltcense renewal request from the hcensee requesting continued The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning [Docket No. IG-312]
authorization for rossession and storage and Procedures will hold a meeting on of source materia at the site, including December 8, 1993, room P-422, 7920 Sacramento Munlclpel Utlllty District the decommissioning funding plan as Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda. MD. (Jllancho a.co NuofMr Generating rPquired in 10 O'R 40.36(c)(2). The entire meeting will be open to Station); Exemption Depending on the resolution of the public attendance, with tht exception of licensee's financial restructuring under a portion that may be closed pursuant I Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, the to 5 U.S.C. 552b{c)(2) and (6) to discuss The Sacramento Municipal Utility
!\"RC may terminate or postpone organizational and personnel matters District (SMUD or the licensee) is the development of the EIS. that relate 10lely to inttmal personnel holder of Facility Operatin~ License No.
(g) Describe the meam by which the rules and practice, of ACRS and matters DPR-54. The license provi es, among EIS -...1JJ be prepared. NRC will prepare the release of which would represent a o t h e r = ~ it is subject to all the draft EIS ~ t o the clearly unwarranted invuion of rules, tions, and orders of the reqwrements in 10 part 51. ~privacy. Nuclear tory Commwion (the Speclfically. in accordance with 10 CFR The agenda for the subject meeting Cornrnlulon or NRC) now or hereafter 51.71, the draft EIS will consider shall be u fol.lowa: in effect. The facility consists of a comments submitted to NRC u the scoping process and will in ude a dart of Wednesday, December 8, 1993-4 p.m. ~surized water :reactor located at the nsee stte in Sacramento County, Until 6 p.m.
I prelJminery analysis which considers California, and is currently defueled e1 and balances the emironmental and other effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or u*o1d~ adverse environmental and The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities, practices and
~urea for conducting Committee eu, and organizational and with fuel stored in the spent fuel pool.
Additionally, a confumatoi order preventl the movement of e fuel into the :reactor building v.1thout NRC other e ects, u well as the personnel matters rela~ ACRS and approval.
enYironmental, economic, technical, its staff. The purpose of meeting ii and other benefits of the proposed to gather information, analyze relevant D ac:uon. issues and facts, and to formulate The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating The EIS will be prepared by the NRC prop018d position, and actions, u Station (Rancho Seco) wu permanently staff and an ?\"RC contractor. NRC ii appropriate, for deliberation by the full shut down on June 7, 1989, and arra."'lg:ng a ~otect with Ou Ridge
~at:cnal La ratory to provide technical ass.stance in the preparation of the EIS.
Con:mittN.
Oral statements may be memben of the ~lie wi the
- r::n~ by completely defueltd on December 8, 198Q. The NRC in Amendment No.117, dated Mach 17, 1992, modified Facility In acidiiJan, !\"RC anticipates requesting concurrence of Subcommittee Operating License No. DPR-54 to a c;pec1f.c mfor.nation from the licensee to Ciairman; written statements will be Pouenion Only Ucense (POL). The
~*... pport preparation of the EIS. Any accepted and made available to the license is conditioned so that SMUD is mforrr.auon received from the licensee CommittN. Electronic recordinp will not authorized to orrate or place fuel related to the EIS will be available for be J::ltted only during those ~ o m in the reactm vesse , thus formalirlng puohc re,:iew, unless the information is of e meeting that are open to the liC8DHt commitment to protected fr-om Ju bli c disclosure in accordance wi NRC requirements in Lvblic, and questions may be asked only P9!Dlantntla C811SI powM operations.
memben of the Subcommittee, itl By letter ated November 14, 1990, 10 CFR 2. 790. consultants, and stafL Persons dniring and supplemented by letter dated In the scoping process, participants to make oral statements lhould notify October 15, 19Q2, the licensee requested are invited to sped or submit written the ACRS staff member named below u a reduction in primary financial comments, u noted above, on any or all far in advance u ii practicable 10 that coverage and an exemption from of the areas described above. In appropriate mangementJ can be made. participation in the ind U5try
m ,,....,.11**""
. _... ~-.. _, .......
U*ilftl~ f:':*;1 ' ** '
I I .. ~- ,. _ ...
Ndlwr Rqulolor, Co,wfffi.uiol, 0 Public Meeti~ on the Scope or the Environmental lmpad Statement for Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's Facility in Newfit!ld, NJ Dtttrnber 11, 1993 Franklin,ille, NJ Shieldalloy Process
@ ~
NRC l11ftlftfflent
- Adhe NRC lk9a ......._ ,...._.
Thorhllll (Sollra Matellal; SMB-743)
.r Un11l1M11 and ~- Ore~
- FadlllJ Imported and pnc:1*d ....._ 411'1'! to prodllCe Feno-eommbhnl alloy nee l'581
~
- RadloactlYe ...tahh maceabaled ID ltlp-tftllpe1atare 11111; Blilllfoml*afte
- Fadlff:, mnthnrlnl llttMtd ~ prodwdloa; ne plans to beghl decommlssionlnc ntH vpe1 atfom cenaplete ..111 I
,111ll~l~lla1H11rn11n,,~
[ Alloys
I Melt Process Uranium Decay Chain 0
c:-
t~
-ul J_
--~......
I
,.,, -~*
'Sla11 - -*---~-*-*
ila \ ~-J Th t~ I' I
l Metal ,.,
. *~--- .... - - -
I\
<'1 Volt.me of Maleria! i.a Slag Yard o-,.. Thorium Decay Chain
© 10 ©
., II II u2rh II ISO
.I I Ii1-ff
,~
40 _...JI n ---
JO I
""Rn H '°*Pb 0' .,. I I
0 I I :ro n
5
,_ tS
I
,Roncentrations of Radioactive Material l11tited St,,t~s N11clur R~g11l111o,y COMMiuioH
'-V in Shieldalloy Waste 800 Concenlretlon (pCl/g) 0
!500
- What Is M t:nYiroaateflfal l*pact Slalmwtlt (m')'?
400
- Wltiat AheroatiftS will br COll5idettd hy NRC?
300 Proposed Adioa
- Onie Dbpossel Allenatiws lo PropoMd Adiole 100
- Wlaal lmpads will NRC Enaiaate!
0 .. :r:; l - r. r --, "l I' -
- WIIHI will llw 1-:IS be avaiLable.!
- Will I lwtt ht' f."nt un- Ol)fNlf1111111 k,, for rnhlk ('om1ttt*td?
- Thorhmt-232 ID Uranlullt-131 r7 Radhlm-129 Exposure Rates at Shieldalloy Site
@ (in microRoentgen/hr) 3500 3000 Ea.ilonmadal I.... ~I.JI~
HOO All lnapKt Slateamt (Im,') ...
- E..._.n 11nlr11 aeatal tffedl l'nnl propmed NRC adlea 1500
- ldmlffln altentlff adJoM and alhnatn polfllllal ell'edl 1000 500
- Aaisl5 NRC In madll111
- dttlshNI all I pn,pMIII ,,.,_
Sllieldalloy Mdallargfcal Corporlltioa 0 -...----/ -...---_,/
IIC~ I I ~ .... lo hnceflne Doee L11911 0 . - O.INll11e
- 1!1 n-qltin-d hy the Nltlio111tl 1-:._....,..wnr.a Polley Ad ol 1969 atnd NRC l't'Cflllttmntb itt 18 C Ht Pllli SI
- Expoaura Rate
Potential Impacts Elwlroa11N?.e.a llllplld SbtfflHIII The 1eopaa pnc:aa II lhe l'lrla - - . of dewell*II*
- EIS -
- ,t,w "* - . . """' n.att*
- Hne we Wmlllled Ille rlpl .._. la enlle?
- Are we umi*er-. caaplete .,... el ....._..,es?
Onslte Disposal
- Are we n1 l*Hlas ft11'm! .... M lalpllCll fnNll tlle allffllllliftl?
Schedllle for EIS De,flatamt
- A.re tlaere NJ atlwr .._. nr bnpacts tlutl llbould 1w l"I~
l/94 - eo.p1ete Stopfna Summa.., (llldlNlac C'NI ....... mm 1eoping EIS for Cambridge, Olllo fadlily) 10/94 - Pllbllsll Draft Eis 6195 - Publilll Flaal EIS NRC .,., Ut"IIWNff ,,,. ,-,,,0,,t tltH'-,flJtlfl *f 11w BIS
- ~...,., ,q,o,t bmwt,pkJ ~ or INW btf"""""""
Allenlllfft9 I.
Opportunlllel for Pahlc .....
2.
- Toalght'1 Sc..,.1 Mt:edlll - Oral er Wrlttm Cem111t11l1 J.
- Wriltea Accepted bJ NRC dlrollp J.....-y 15,
- 4. o.11e .,..._ Pnce**I _. Dlsp I 19'4 5 N. At1* * ........ ~lll'llt:llhl'
- COffllllfflU on the Draft EIS - - - , mallltllt a,ertod In Odober-Novanber 1994
- Commenb o ~ Plan - l"S
- ODIOing oomnm'1.ciom with NRC
December 16, 1993 SHIELDALLQY'S NEWFIELD, NEW JERSEY. PLANT FACT SHEET
- Shieldalloy employs 228 people at the plant.
- The plant is a high-tech metallurgical facility producing ferroalloys and aluminum alloys, - specialty alloys for technical and defense applications.
- One of those alloys is ferrocolumbium, an important addition to high-grade steels.
Although ferrocolumbium is non-radioactive, one of the raw materials used to produce it, columbium ore, is slightly radioactive. The ferrocolumbium product process generates slightly radioactive slag and baghouse dust which are stored on site in a controlled area known as the storage yard.
- The slag is in the form of a glass-like rock. The baghouse dust, while origfoaUy in a loose form, sets up like cement when it becomes damp.
- Although only slightly radioactive, and in no way a threat to nearby residents, the materials are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission '("NRC').
- The NRC, in its 1993 Updated Report on Site Decommissioning Management Plan, says that "the site poses no immediate threat to public health and safety' (Page A-202).
- Shieldalloy has a license from the NRC to process the columbium ore and to possess the mildly radioactive material in the slag and baghouse dust. If ever ferrocolumbium production ceases the NRC will require Shieldalloy to decommission the site. To achieve that goal Shieldalloy plans to stabilize the material in the storage yard with the NRC's approval, to cover it with a multi-media cover, revegetate the site, institute long-term surveillance, and to arrange for some permanent restrictions on future use of the site.
- Once the site is decommissioned in that fashion the maximum exposure a member of the general public could receive from it is calculated to be less than one millirem per year above background, using very conservative assumption:.. By way of comparison, every person in the United States receiveG, on average, a radiation level of 360 millirem every year from normal background radiation. The average background level in Denver, Colorado is 410 millirem per year due primarily to that city's greater altitude. One would receive a fifty times greater excess radiation level by moving to Denver, Colorado than by moving directly on top of the capped storage yard.
- As a result of downward price pressures in its primary metals markets, and for other financial reasons, Shieldalloy filed for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 2, 1993. Shieldalloy must present a viable Business Plan in order to restructure its finances and emerge from Chapter 11.
However, Shield.alloy must be able to estimate the cost of decommissioning the site in order to determine if reorganization is feasible, a fact that Shieldalloy has communicated to the NRC and the NRC has acknowledged.
- Shieldalloy has determined that operations with columbium ore can continue at the current rate until at least the year 2430. At that time the slag and bagbouse dust could be safely decommissioned on site and still remain well below the NRCs decommissioning objective of 10 millirem per year above background as stated in the 1993 Updated Report.
- The NRC now intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate the effects of the proposed decommimoning option, as well as all the other poss1ole alternatives, on public health and the environment in light of the costs associated with each alternative. The NRC expects to publish its draft Environmental Impact Statement in October 1994 and to publish it in final form in June 1995.
- Off-site disposal - an alternative to on-site decommissioning - was considered by Shieldalloy for its Cambridge, Ohio plant which is facing similar decotnmissioning A questions. That alternative was rejected because it was more hazardous than the on- W site plan now being proposed. Because there are many tons of slag at the Newfield plant, to dispose of it off-site would mean putting thousands of trucks on the road and would present clean-up workers and members of the community with a many thousands of times greater chance of fatality than if the slag were left right where it is. That is due, primarily, to the added risk of transportation and construction injuries. Off-site disposal would also be prohloitively expensive. Cost estimates for two such alternative*pians at the Cambridge site are $135 million and $467 million, neither of which Shieldalloy could afford Similar estimates are likely for the Newfield plant
- Carol D. Berger, a Certified Health Physicist from IT Corporation, Shieldalloy's technical consultant, has studied this site extensively. She has submitted her evaluation to the NRC which concluded that the low levels of radioactive materials in the storage yard at the site now, and as projected into' the future, pose no risk to public health. The evaluation also shows that there will be negligi'ble risk to the e
community over the long term if Shieldalloy is permitted to decommission the site as planned.
- Shieldalloy's intention is to protect the environment and the people in the vicinity of the plant and to implement the safest, most effective clean-up possi'ble. Shieldalloy will continue cooperating with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and arrange for the permanent disposition of the materials on the site.
For additional information, please contact Michael A Finn,- Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, (212) 686-4010
.r - *-, -.~.- -* .
. .d. *. . * .J'ederal ~ *r.io1- **-. ~ v:tlnndaj. ~ *,11.*'1iaif Not1eea ..
- I authority of the Art/dt, V: I * *. .i ,.: Commmkm, u em*mc:,- tdtutian under c:haptera e. 7. .,,. At,wmnent affect the a:iltl nqulrtq tm: action to 161 of the Act wtth Rtborfty at Che CGal!l.illliOII mder proJ.ect piiblac -1th Nfety and the followma m.ateri&la 1Nbaection 1811,. or Act to inn State bu fao.d to neceuary 1tepa.
A. Byproduct ma I n defined.at rules, N!Wlltiont. or to protect TIMI Commi11lon periodically section lle.(1) f the Act; the comJJltl!l defeme , to review th.ii ad ectiom B. Source ma r. and *
- protect rn1ricted de pud taken by the State er thia Agreement C. Special nucl ..material, In against the loft<< of apecial to enaure compile with aection 2:14 of quaotftiet not l'ldfident to fmm a ~1111Rm'ia1. tbeAcL critical mu.a. Article VI Article IX Article JI The eJb best Thi5 oome Thi.I Agreement not provide for efforta to coopera State and efrective OD A lhall dl1e0ntinuance or y authonty and the other~ tbe remain in elf until auch Comm.inion ahall lain authority and formulaticm of ataniQ:r,lil nigulatory time** it ii uant to retponaibility with pect to regulation programs of tbt article vm.
of: Commiaicm for Dane et Roc:hfl in triplicate, A. The contt:ructi and operation or .
hazards of rad.la ume that thi. 18th day of State and Comm for For 'lbe Uaitad Sta Replatory any production utilization fac:ll.lty; protection b4lcania r ndlation Commitslon. Iv B. The export from r Import into the will be patible. The Done at A tripbcata. thi.
United States o! yproduct. source, or State will a. It to cooperate 25th day of special nuclear terial, or of any with the Co1D1Di Far the State production or u zation facility; Agreement Stat ulation of Govmmr.
C. The daposal int the ocean or Na of' atandards and of Dlt.d at byproduct. . or special nuclear the Stete and Cd~iN for 11111112.
waste materials defined in pn,tectioD of radiation Far lbe Un.ltad regulations or or ra of the and to auare ** prosr11m C-OmmiNiaa Com.minion; will continue ble with the Sliltldm A. ....,_.,.
D. The disposal of ch other byproduct. program of for the IMputyDi source, or apecia nuclear materia! u regu)atian of 'The State and tbe aain~m their best fFR Dac. m-mlil Plled the Com.minion time to bme effortl to 0l"llled of ......,._CCIX,_.....
determines by ation or order propoaed ,
ahould. becau,e ! the hazards or nilea end regula 1jng.
potential haz.a thereof. not be to inspection and polide1 and Action Plan to IEnlUN Timely Clanup du;posed of with ut a licente from the criteria. aDd to o entl and of Site Decomrnluk>nlng Management Commission: Planlttel ,
£. The land dispos auittance of thereon. ,..
Article Vl1 MliNcY: Nuclear Regu)eJary-,,.. **
- byproduct and s nuclear ma-tens! receive other peraons: The C-ommi1ti thtJ State qn,e de reciproc:al . ~ H e e of aYllllabiltty of NRC end F. The extraction o concentration of that it ta du recognition o or the mattriala =ia~D source materiBJ m source m.teri&l listed in l:iQjbsttd by tbe other party or by t State. IIUllllMY: The NRC h1 dneloped an ore end the man ement and di.pool Action Plan to dncribe the approach the -
of the resulting rodau:t material. AccotdinslJ, Cctl'lmiltllon and the ageney will au to accelerate the State AFM to best dorta to Article Ill develop* JelU]atiqn,, cleanup of radioJosically contamJneted and rucb lites lilted in NRC'1 Site Thia Agreement 11y be amended. reciprocity Decommiuioning Management Plan upon application b the State and (SDMP). The objective of this plan it to
- approval by the ~nmasion. to include Articlevm communicate the Commjulon'a general the add1t1onal are ) specified in article The COJIDIEdnian.luN>n Us own expectation that ailn listed in thr SDMP D. paragraph E or whereby the State initiative after reH ble notice ad be cleaned ap in a timely and effl ctive can e:>..ert regulato control over the opportumt)' for be to the State. or mauner. Thia plan ('1) Identifies exiltms material, stated h upon request of the enmr of the criteria to guide cleanup or Article IV State, may termina or lutpeDd all or contaminated IOlla. atructmea. end part of th.ii A,reem nt and reauert the equipment and empbalize1 alte.apeclfic Notwltbstandi it Agreement. the licemfris and reguJ Of'J ntbority application of the Aa Low Aa Commission may f m time to time by
- vested in It under Act If tbe Reaaonably Achievable (A.LARA) rule, regulation, or rder, require that the Cornmiash:m findt t (1) IUCb principle. (2) atatn the NRC'1 position
- manufacturer, p Hor, or producer of termination or 111.1 naioD wrequired to on the finality of decommiuioning an)' equipment, de ce. commodity, or protect the public alth and safety. ar de~ions; (3) describe, the NRC'1 other product cont ing source. (2) the State hae D complied with one general expectation that SDMP 1lte byproduct. or 1pec I nuclear material or more of the requ ents of ACl:ion cleanup will be completed within
- 4-1hall nol transfer ueulon or control z,4 of the Act. The *ulon may year timef:nune after operation, cease or of such product ex pt pursuant to
- licenfie or an exe hon from hcensing el10, pUl"IUanl to on 274j of the Ac:t. S yeara after the ia.uance or an initial temporarily 1u1pe all or part of this cleanup mder. (4) ldentifie1 cun-entJy aaued by the Co 111lon. Agreement if, in th judgment of the available guidance on lite _
- -~---~-
- :-:*:*. -~ *. *. _ _ :=;.*,:._:_. :_.-~}* ~-,...:: -~-~;;-;~-~~~~,---!~:-:_k*.~~. *: *-.=~?:::~*.. *_ =~~----~*-_- *,,. - (
\1,:. amo *-f 1. * .: *.Fecier.i~.:,,vai ii;i~tN
,Z..
1 i'~~i. ~\ie;\~*,_ NJ.ct* i:.:_~~-~::~1 *~~- *
- 1
.... characterb:ation w0l'k in sappcirt.of: .... . currently blcfuded in the SDMP (the~ . 'J>tvisioh*or ~ ~ M~cal. _. . .:.
clecommiuioning; and {5) dNCribel tba BDMP G18 aot iDdude !DON l'OlltiDe Nuclear Safety, November 4, 1D83. .
proceaa the NRC staff will ue to
- clACO!rimlNlordng .,._. IUCh u nw:1ear I. -rerm1nation of Operatf.ns Ucenaet ettablllh and enforce acbedulet for ,,, *
- power ,-ctcp). The SDMP bu heen for Nuclear Reactora," Regulatory Guide timely cleanup on
- 1ltHpecific ba1it. . effective ill euwi.ag coordination 11114 "1..16. June 11114. Table 1. for surface ADOIWIIU: Other document.
- resolutioo ef IOID8 of.the policy ud . contamJnatioo of reactor facility referenced ill thit notice DUI)' be regulatory lann aflectiD8 alte at:n.u:tarea. Alao CobalMIO. Culum-137, reviewed 81:ld/or copiet for a fee from decornrnl11loni.Dg. ~ OD actual and Europium-112 that may exilt in the NRC Public Document Room. zuo L aile nmedlation. however. rmtinuelto concrete, ~ t i . . and atructures Stre-et NW. (Lower Level). Wuhin,tcm. be slow. The limited Prosrna to date
- lhould be removed ao the indoor I m.1;r::
DC 20555. bu prompted the Commiuiaa to direct exposure rate ii lea than S FOR PU'""8I INl'OflllA110N CONTACT: the NRC staff to iD.itiate actiom to
- per boar above natural John A. Auatin. Chiet Decomminlonlng accelerafe the cleuwp of SDMP alta.: be at t meter, with an overall and Regulatory laaue, Branch. Division It lhould be noted that tbiJ.Action dON objective of 10 mWinm per year of Low-Level Wute Management and Plan itnlf does not contain enforceable (cf. Letter to Stanford Univenity from Decommit1ionlng. Office of Nu.clear : 1tmdardt and ii not intended to c:rute Jame* R. Miller, Chlet Standardiution I
I Material Safety and Safeguanh. U.S. uw riptl or obli,gatiom on third partiel and Special Projectl Bnmcb. Division or I Nuclear Regulatory Com.minion.
- or to preclude litiptioll of properly Ucen1iog. Office of Nuclear Reactor Waal- 1..16"'on. DC 20555. telephone (301) framed illuat in any pend:ina Regulation. U.S. Nuclur Regulatory I
..... ' proceeding. Implementation of this plan Commiuion. April 21. 1982. Docket No.
=
~ M Y INl'ORMATIOIC: may nault in the utabli1hment of
- ID-Ht}. -
legally bindina requirement, by order- or 4. The Environmental Protection L Introduction and Pmpoee licenee ~ . . t h a t IUJ be Apncy'* {EPA'*} °'.Interim Primary Over the past several yean, the =~~ PSan II Drinking Water Regulatiou... <<> CFR Nuclear Regulatory Commil1ion (NRC) intended to a:fftot be*...iw. .. .w.u part 141 (tl FR 3840t; July ll, 19'18}. In bu identified over 40 nu.clear material --e *.,.. accordance with FC ll3-Z3. lbe maximum sites that wmant apeci&J attention by auociated witb such on.ten or liceDJee contaminant levels for radionuclida iD the Comtrrluion. Thete situ bave buJldingl, former waate di,poul ueu,
=dmentl or~ be-:'
81 to prnen..., pen Ill ripta of public drinkina water u Ntabliahed by the EPA sbowd be ued u reference larae pile* of tailinss, groundwater. and ~dicaticms and. lo the extent that ltandud for protection of groundwater soil contaminated with low level* of promulgated iD1ICCOl'd with 5 and surface water IWOU1'CH.
uranium or thorium (1ource material) or U.S.C. 553 are not applicable. Neb cue a. The FJ>A"s ""Personl Exposed To other radionuclidea. Con.tequently, they ~ be Judpd Cll1 U. GWD merit* .. .- Tranaurantum Elements In Tb*
present varying degrees of radio iosical .U. Actiaa Plan ~ **
- EnvbonmentM ('2 FR ase; November huard. cleanup complexity, and CIOIL In . ~ wttb the overaD JO. 1877). Tbil docmnent providee Some of the sites are still under the objective of .enlllriDa timely and pidelinet for acceptable levels of control of active NRC li01D.Ha. whereu licen11es for other aites may have already been terminated or,may_haq effective cleanup of SDMP lites. lbe NRC staff will review alte-epeclfic p1ma and tab decommluionJna acttom ic:riteria transU].mlum element, In IOil.
or thil sectimt-will be ldered ill. establishing aite-epecific never been IHued. At some altet. conaiatent wttb tbe fol1owma elemeata: . levels for uch of the SDMP licenses are fmancially and tecbnically ,. "'--up ~..:.-z_ * .
- 91~ _.licenH_ amendment. and ~
capable of completing cleanup In a ~ ""'9UU __,_._
reasonable timeframe, whereas at other Pendina NRC nilemaldna on acimc /J. FlnoJity -
altes. the licensee or mpomlble party la ndiolop:al criteria b The NRC'a decilion to tlrmillate a unable or unwilling to perform cleanup. decmnmi11kmfna the NRC wDl ccmtinal Jk:ense will relieve the 1icenaee from any In addition. the 11te1 are CWTently in to comider exist.in& ptdance, criteria. further obU,ation to the NRC to conduct various 1tages of decommiuionin&, At some 1lte1. licensee1 have initiated and*practice1 liated below to determine additional cleanup. u whether situ have been IUf'ficie:atly Jons**
licensee decmommiuioned the lite In the decom.missloning. Y.-berea1 at other decontaminated ao thet they JUJ be full accordance with an approved sites, decommi11i0ning bu not yet been nleased for unrut:ricted use. punuat decommlnkmin,a plan. 1be licenue will plenned or initiated. to. m conailtent with. tbe demonstrate compliance **vilh the
'the NRC believe, that the best deeommiulonfng nun m10 CFR aoa, cleanup leve1t described m the approach for minim.i%ins the potential 40,42.. I0.82. 10.38. and 7'Z.M. 1beu * ~nlonins plan by performina a for unnecesaary radiation expol'IJJ'U and cleanup criteria wW be applied on a ndiolc,sic survey of the lite prior to emironmental contamination In the aite-sp1td& basil with empb&1il .on . liceme tumlnation.. The NRC uually future i* to enaure that theae sitn are nsidual contamination levels that are
- conductt an indaptmdent n.rve, to cleaned up in a timely and effective. AL.ARA.. *
- confirm the accuracy of the liceuee'1
- manner. In 1Q90, the NRC implemented 1. Optiom 1 and Z of tbe13rancb . termination aurwy. Therefore. If a I the Site Decommiulontns Man.asement Technical Polition "'Dil)>OW or Onalte "licensee or re1pon1lble party cleaned up Plan {SDMP) to identify and reaolve Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wut* a site. or was In the procea of cleaning hsuee a11ocla ted with the timely from Pait Operations" (48 FR. S2ll01: up a site, W'ldar an NRC-approved cleanup of the1e 1ite1. The SDMP October 23, 1981). dacommi11lon!ng p!an. the NRC wW not providee a comprehentive 1trategy for 1. "Guidelines for Deconta.mination of require the licensee to conduct NRC and lic:entee acti\'itiet dealins with Facilillet and Equipment Prior lo additional cleanup in felJ>Olllt to NRC the cleanup and closure of c:oataminated Release for Unre1t:ricted UH or
- criteria or 1tandard ntabli1hed after nuclear material facilitin over whicb Tmnination orIJcenan for Byproduct. NRC approval of the plan. An exception the NRC bu juri11d1ction. The appendix Source, or Special Nuclear Material... to thit ceae would be in the event that to th11 document li11.i the 1lte1 that are Policy and Guidance Dire~~ PC tD-23, a~dltiona1 contamination. or
"f * * ~ * * *;,:* * * .'"' * -:-*:... *,. * .*1.:*. -: ::- #- ~ : V * * " ~..,.;.. .,,. : : " ** * ,. .: ;*,. ::. ** - " * ~
.. 4,.....__ *~ -,-* ~*-!* ---~---~*11....,.~.- i~~-e--ii,*-w ~..,_ ...-- .. -.,~!""*.,.,,.._.-_-!a:-""" "-~-:
, . :: : . . -~ -~*:. ~Regk..;",v~~-~~-.,.'11l~,:~~11n1 ~ uist f ~compliance with the plQ. 11 lmmd .,** m deoommiatomnR1"1roaah liceme
- rmewednp:rding pneral alJ)eCb of tndicattng I algnfficant threat to public * -emendmenta or onfers. TheH acbedulel e!te'Charademation activities: -
health and Nfety. Noncmnplimce . *
- will proYide Dexlbllity &o allow a *** *
- 1.. "'Smvl'y Procedure Manual for the would occur with
- licenee or *
- licensee ar.naponaible party to OR.AU Environmental Survey and Site resp01Ulble party does not comply-with demonstmte aood cauae for delaytns Auumumt Program." Oak Ridge an approved decomm.i.ulcmiqg ptan. or cleamaJS baaed on lechnlcal and riak Auoclated Umveraitiea. March 1990.
pro\'idee false .mf'ormaUon. * . redu.ction"camlderationa. or for rulOD.I z. "'"Laboratory Procedures Manual for The NRC will inform EPA about beyond their cmuro1. NRC r.ecognize the F.nviromnental Survey and Slte specific decommiuioning 1ctiom at that at ait.N containing hazardou. Aneument Program... Revialon 5. Oak aite1. NRC will also inform State and chemical wa tea. 1chedula will depend. Ridge Auodated Unlveniltiea. February local agencies that have juriadic:tion .at 1e,1t in part. on the neceuary . 18'KI.
- over 11pecta concerning :reviews and approval, by other a. "Quality Anurance Manual for the decom.mitsion.tng actions. -re1pcmsible.apnc:ia (e.g.. EPA or State Oak Ridge Aaaodated Umveraltiea' C. Timing qendu).
- Enviromnental Survey and Site The NRC staff will addreu the timina D. Siu, Charactsrizatkm Anenment Program." Revlaion 3, Oak or SDMP site cleanups on a caee-by-. Inadequate lite characterization hai Ridge Aaaociated U.Divenltiea. February 1
case basil, with the expectation that been one of the technical iuue1 that baa ~ ~onltoring for Compliance With clea11up generall)' be completed within delayed timely approval and Decommiuioning Termination Survey about 4 years after opentiona that _implementation of aite-1ped& ,.._.teria," NUREG/CR-2082..* June l981.
e,a115ed the contamination ceate or a decomm.l11iDDlng action.a. Therefore. the '-" 1 ye&.r1 after issuance of an initiaJ cleanup NRC la developing new guidance on the S. "Guidance on the Application of order. To achJeve this objective. major content of acceptable lite Quality Aleurance for Characterizing 11 decommi111ionl.ng m.lle1tone11hould be cbaracteri.zation program.a conducted in Low-Level Radioactive Waite Disposal established with.in the fol.lowing 11.1pport of decommiui~ona. Site... NUREG-1383, October 1990.
~~~:U u practical. but pnerally ~:i~~ : ' ~ E. 1'rocadurfu to Compttl Time}y not later than 12 montha after Radiological Surveys in Support of CltHmup notification by the NRC that lJceme Termination" (NUREG/CR- The NRC staff will seek voluntary decommi11fonl.ng ii expected lo 5849) 1 through Oak Ridge Auodated cooperation by IJcemeea or other commence, tbe licensee or mpon,ible UnlffJ"litiu. :nu, draft manual. which responaible partla in ntablJlhing and party identified by the NRC thould will be publiahed far .Interim uae and implementins decommiasioning plam in submit to the NRC an adequte lite evaluation in April 1992. thould be _. accordance with the objective, of thit characterization report. If that ha, not consulted resudlng general aspecta of Action Plan. For lita with active NRC yet been completed. The NRC aite characterization activltiea. Jn liceme* llll approved dM';C)fflfflfutr.ming encouraget early and 1ubttantive addition. this draft manual lhould be
- plan that includea appropriate acbedules coordination and communication 111ed b)' licennn when conductma and cleanup ave1I will be .Incorporated between the licenaee or reaponaible party in planning for lite
!\':::-::,1'!:~:;,t:~C-
- 2. ~ 100:n a11 practical. but generally not later than 8 montht after NRC approval of the 1ite characterization contaminated lltn.
~~-=
ndiological 1urveya in npport of
- Oil int() the licenn by amendment through license termlnatiom .In the interim until 1nonual licenaina procedurn. For lites
~.,,,:1 s..~ln~=~:i"::.!:'
specific upecta of lite characterization. '. .. er reactor liceme). a coordinated auch u hydrogeologic aueument of approach under both licen111 will be taken in estsbli1hl111 appropriate report. the licenaee or retpcmatble party - Until specific NRC swdance on 11w tcbedule. and plan, for hould aubmlt to the NRC a lite cbaractemation ii developed. Jicemen decommiuionm,. If a alte la not under decorrun.fnioning plan for approval lhould continue to review relevant an active liceme, the NRC may Impose a based on the aite characterization .Information from existing document. on decomminioning plan by order.
re1ults. The decomml111ioning plan lite characteris:ation such u thon Jn cates where voluntary cooperation thould include achedulea for completing identified below. Altheup NRC la tneffectfve in ntablilhin,g acceptable lite decommilsionmg work in* timely recognize, that thne document. do-not schedules for completins and effective manner, including plana to completely addreu alte characterization decommiuion.ins actiODI. the NRC wlll dispoee of contaminated materials either needa for decommiaalon!Jll. ue of tbeH ntabliJh legally bfndins requirementl onsite pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 (or 10 referancea. in addition to lite-lpedfic and take enforcement action. es CFR 20.2002 of the reviled 10 CFR part
- con.ultation with the NRC *taft. "'.lll necnury. to compel timely and 20). or at
- liceued d.ilpoaal facility help 1m1ure that lite characterization ii effective cleanup of SDMP litn.
offaite. appropriately planned and conducted to Demands for Information may be uaed
- 3. As oon as practioaL but pnerally that final lite characte:mation reporta to eatablih Jicenaee commitments to not later than 1B months after NRC are 1ubmitted with m1Blmal deflciencie:t perform major decommiaaicming approval or the tile decom.miJloning ~nd in
- timely manner. The followm, actMtie. Enforcement actions may plan. the licmtee or respontible party aocumenta; available from the NRC .
ahould complete all deccimmi.aslcming Public Document Room. thoul.c1 be
! Coples of Nt.JRECS 111.1y bit pmdiaaed from Iha work and termination 1urveys. 10 that Supm11tand1:11t olDoclllnenta. U.S. Covcmmtml alle1 or facilities can be reJeaeed for I A ht IUll1t C11PJ of drafl NUREC/CII-INI Pnntma Offiet. P.O. Box fflJ82. Wawn,ton. DC unrestricted use after termination of the may be niqv.ted by wrltq to tM U.S. NudHr JCl:l13.-7'01!2. Copt" are aho available from the licen1e. a, appropriate. R.arula~ ~ Ann. Dllltrtbutlon and MaQ Na banal Tecl:inlcal lnlormallOll s.mc.. IZll6 ~
Semce1 &tctim. , _ P-t>>A. Wa hmgton. DC lloyal Road. Sprinlfield. VA :&n91. A oopy q also In implementing thl1 approach. tha 2055$. A oopy
- aLio rnllable for inlpectic,n UJ4./ available rot' inapecbon a&d/DT COJ1Y1111 at the ~'RC NRC will establi1h 1pecific and or COf'YUII lfl the N'llC ,..bbc ~ I loom. ZL1D -Public Doc:umelll ~ 1UO L SIJ'Nt. NW. fLcn,,er enforceable mlleatona for each phate L SbMt. NW. {Lowar LrN!). Wuhtllpln. DC. Level). Washmft011. DC.
-- ..:. -t.. ,. .* -- -
- lridud" IMVure rif ordera. lnducti,w F.._.. ..._.-;
..... .. ..... ..,I - _..,...
YGL~. Ila a*/~;;.
- N
~-.Bii /
_,,,,~c....:~t~~- ""'-* .... . . ':( -::
=:---_:*.~~=~ . . -....,'-=~=-*!t ....---:-~*-=---..~~~ . . . . ..:;'"!*.-"1~-1'-'!.,("- .. ~*
-Elal'mHs SDMP.sna- * . DC-to-ob1alA. .
s;.-, - - ~- - ~ ..
lh#w ..,_ :
immediately eD'ectlve Drd.ms. ID amipe1 actiooa by lic:en.11eM or other J'elJ)CIUible partiea. 1! DecetW')', NRC wiU laR1e orden requirins payment of Iv.mu in.in decommlu1onl.Jl8 escrow account wben
_;:- ... -: __., ,._Qlnlimed ; .;. ... *.. ,,._:' dettW*
con
..,,_.mn'ICI. i::Oot,tmc:::tilllln
- licen1ee or l'UJ)DllBlble party1alla &o Clearan JtJicbola1 lnfJ'el an agreed vpon .schedule and bu U.At ~.suite not .alrea,dy mabliabed an adtiqua,e U20North. A.wenue..
decommi111iiming fund pummn't to. or NW.,W consil1ent with. the decommiN!onlng
- 0MB
- Harker.
fundmg rules (to CFR 30.35. 40.38. so.m. (202)395-37 end 10.25, and 7UIO). The amount t>f the Regulatory escrow acc::ount will be band upon and . Management ew be consistent with the estimated COit Exe.cuttve om 17th St..
required to complete site cleanup. 01her NW..*Wa enforcement at:tiom may include Dated:April escalated payment of funds into the N..J.lbwlle, escrow account baffd on a ticemtee'* or EJCIJcutneDi
!'Hp0n9ible party's failure to comply with the order. Accumulationl Into that (PR Doc.
accomit wf1t be dedicated for me to -..U.CIXll,....._.111 finance the cleanup of the lite. Finally.
the NRC will consider lnwng civil penalties where (1) the licenteeor SECURITIES responsible party failJ lo comply with COMM
- f. an order compelling payment into a
- , escrow account or (2) the lic:enaee or Forms
..)
responsible J)att1* fail.I to comply wttb
- Ill
.
- requirement or an order compellins Apncy th cleanup when there is already auffideDt Foplh(
I decommiseloniq flmd.ins. AdditianaDy. (PR Doc. m-aa flledMMZ:Mlam) Upon *Yllilable I NRC mey leek court injwaction, to -......a. ....... from:
compel enforcement of thete Olden.
.l i:
Dated at 1\oc::lnilie, Maryland. 1bit tot.b day of April. 1992.
OmlmiHi Jnformati w
cti:i111mr&errices.
t For the Nuclear Jteswatmy CommlMIDZL i
JabnH.A.Ullm. Pubic klntl!lfol_..... QOlllcllcNI CJwf. ~onuw and Rqulat.o.r:7
/nun Branch. Division ofLow-Lnel Wa.te Requtn.m M ~ t and D<<:ommiuioning. Office of Review Nuc:Jear Matcmal Safety andSofetluorrh. PADC bu (OD Apd11. U9%)
the foll
- mmatioa APPENDtX-ExlSTING SOUP Snn collectiou DILll...,,.,,.._t lo 0MB for review undar-lb,.
&htNIIII l0cl.llon Paperwo Act of 1880. Pub.
L 96-611 (" 35). Copln of the
~MDC:a! ~OH. aubm111ion ma tamed by c:aJ1ins
&,,l1eina ALCOA _ _ _ _ CINilltnd,OH. the PADC fficer U.ted. Send
1 AberdNn.MD Aberl'INIIP!IMl'(il Wood Colny, W'I/.
c:ommenu lo and to the P.
reviewer 1tsted afDcer.
Groul,d N'rrtf Ar'Nnal--~ WatlrlDwn. 11A. -
BlbcockllnCIWtleox Apollo.PA.
8lbcocl< a"ICI Wilcox Pal1IS TOlffllhlp, PA. reptered BP~ LMnl..OH ply with 8udcl Corflper1y ~ fill\.
Cal:l0C llo:fenDwt~PA. obtain:ina
- CebotCor;aa ~PA. . enter CebOI Corpora Re--. PA.
Chanle1rOn Corporation Cliwaland. OH. ~QJIK:UOZ. . provided (BenAW'I) dienL Ctwnetron ~ ~ OH. tlil util.in (H8rvard Ave.)
a-tin Cot;>oration Pawling.,.,_ YOl1t. t190enitatfna about Dow CtlelTIICC---1 Mdand. UI Ml Bly
- total of City, Ml poue \...
E-..m Mmbl Minima. OH.
- tolalof E n g l a t M I ~ PlalrMIII, 11A.
- Fr.alee! ~ . OK.
G.nefa! S.W.. . Wawtown, MA.
N!ifwWO . . . L * ,
I SHIETDALLOY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION, NEWFIELD, NJ
- 1. Site ldentiftcation Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation Newfield. NJ License No.: SMB-l!IJ17 ,_. .I Docket No.: 040-07102 Ucense Siatus:: Active-timely renewal Project Manager: Oacy Comfon, FCSS I.LWM Monitor: C. GJeM
- 2. Site and Operations
- Specialty ferro alloys are manufactured at this facility. The site coven Z7 hectares (67 acres) in Newfield. New Jersey. Operations began in 1955 and are on-aoing. There are multiple buildings on the property; however. all smelting operations involving source ma:erial are conducted in a foundry near the west central portion of the lilc. Licensed ores are stored in a warehouse near the foundiy. Licensed slag containing thorium and uraniul"I" 1s located in two piles {standard ratio and high ratio) in a controlled area. Exhaust air from processing actiVl~,es passes through baghouse dust collectors. Dust collected in the baghouses i5 considered as licensed material and ii acc.:-:iulated in a pile located within the confines of the controlled area. These piles are described below.
Standard Ratio Pile - this pile consi.sU of 42,000 metric tons (46.100 tons) of slag in a volume of 16.800 mJ (595,000 ft3 ). The slag contains concentrations ofTh-232 averaging 19.1 Bq (516 pCi)/g. Ra-226 averaging 4.SS Bq (123 pCi)/g. and U-238 averaging 7.47 Bq (202 pCi)/g.
I High Ratio Pile - this pile consists of 3200 metric tons of slag in a volume or l<XX> m3 (35.<XX> r13). The slag contains concentrations o!Th-232 averaging 13.5 Bq (366 pCi)/g. Ra-226avcraaina 2.6 Bq (69 pCi)/g. and U-238 averaging 3.9 Bq (105 pCi)/g.
- Baghouse Dust Pile - this pile consists of 12.000 metric tons (13,400 tons) of lime dust in a ~ume of 15.(XX) m3 (530,CXX) ft 3) with concentrations of Th-232 averagin& 2.0 Bq (55 pC1)lg and Ra-226 and U-238 each avcr&jing 0.59 Bq (16 pCi)/g.
Processing of non-radioactive materials in other (i.e., non-licensed) facilities on the site has resulted in a plume of chemical (non-radioactive) contamination in the ground water (primarily chromium). This has caused the liite to be a high-priority listing on the Superfund National Priorities Ult (NPL). Ground water remediation is ongoing.
- 3. Padioactive Wastes illi around the piles, and at numerous locatiom around the main yard of the lite and foundry building. arc cuntaminated. Average soil concentrations o!Th-232, Ra-226. and U-238 are 1.06 Bq (28.6 pCi)/g. 0.31 Bq (8.4 pCi)/g. and 0.39 Bq (10.5 pCi)/&, respectively.
Some offsite contamination has occurred. Levels of radionucl.Jdes in some soil amples outside the perimeter fence exceed 0.37 Bq (IO pCi)/g above background for thorium and radium and 1.3 Bq (35 pCi)/g for uranium.
Certain offsite loc:at ."Ir.( Jn Haul Road, which leads f- . the southern perimeter of the lite to Weymouth Road.
have elevated levels of dir.cct pmma radiation (gru1er than 0.00258 )LC/kg (10 µ.R)/hr above bacqround).
Haul Road and its immediate vicinity have not been adequately characterized.
Since December 1989 Shieldalloy bas been perfonning quanerly gross alpha and gross beta analyses on grab
( samples obtained from S wells located on-site and down-gradient. and l well located on-site and u~gradicnt from the Source MateriaJ Storage Yard (SMSY). These samples have occasionally indicated elevated concen-trations, the highest being 2.5 Bq (67 pCi}/1 gross alpha and 20 Bq (530 pCi)/1 gross beta. Sediments from area drainage pathways leading from the site indicate some locations of contamination at and just beytmd the plant perimeter but there is no accumulation of radioactivity in area surface water.
NUREG-1444 A-96
t Description et Radiological Hazard Site aa:ess is controlled. The lite poses no immediate threat to the public health and lllf'ety. The contamination present is relatively iDJoluble radium, thorium, and uranium in the slag. baghome dust piles. and tiOil. Diffusivc Jeadling of each or these radionuclides from the slag WU determined to be imipifacant in a leachabilily lest performed in 1991192 by Shicldalloy in ac::ordance with ANSI 16.1. Low concentrations ofTh-232, U-238, and Ra-226 in IUbsmface soil and water provide additional evidence that contamination from the site operations is not m.igratin& into the soil or ground water. Soil contaminants appear to be limited to the upper 30160 cm (1-2 feet) of soil. A likely pathway and aource of contamination beyond the controlled areas appears to be overland runoff from the baghOUIC dllll piles and from spillJ and fugitive emilsions that might oc:cur during routine unloading of dust from the bag bowlel into t:rucb and during transport to the SMSY. The nature and ment of this contamination bas b e e n ~ determined by the lite characterization report submitted in April 1992. Sbie1dalloy will be asked to cake appropriate cleanup and mitiptive meaJW'CI.
A walkover sun,:y indicated elevated gamma exposure rates of up to 45 nC/tg (175 t,i.R)/hr at 1 meter above the surface at the perimeter fence. Most or the elevated levels are due to gamma shine originating from the licensed
- slag piles.
Radiation doses to the worker and the nearest resident are ezpected to be within the limits of 10* C'FR Pan 20.
- 5. Financial AssuranceMable Responsible Organization SbieldalJO'j is owned by Metallurg, Inc.. and all licensed activities were conducted by Shicldalloy. Shicldalloy seems able and willing to undertake cleanup activities but claims that in the absence of insitu disposal, or recovery of usdul material, if does DOl have the means to fund offiite disposal of licensed material.
Shieldalloy c:un-eotly holds financial assurance tn the amount of S7SO,OOO.
- 6. Status or Decommissioning Activities Sbieldalloy has stated that they are committed to decommissioning the facility at the cessation of operations.
Shielda.lloy is emphasizing new procedures and housecleaning techniques to keep any newly produced licensed material within amtrolled areas. There is no expectation for a detailed decontamination plan any time in the near future since the facility is still operating.
In conjunction with a survey for nonra~ological hazards for the New Jersey Department of Environmental -
Protection for Superlund remediation activities, ShieldallO'j has completed a limited survey of radioactivity on site and in the site vicinity. A radiological cbaracteriz.ation report was fmalized in April 1992.
- 7. Other Involved Parties The site is on the NPL, 110 NRC activities are being conducted in coordination with the New Jency Dcpanment of Enworunental Protection and the U.S. EPA.
- 8. NRC/Licensee Actions and Schedule
- environmental assessment September 1993
- safety evaluation report December 1993
- 9. Problems/Issues Shieldalloy's lack of funds to dispose of licensed material off lite. Shieldalloy is currently generating waste at a rate which will exceed their possession limits in 1996or 1997. NRC has told Shieldalloy that the possession limits will not be increased if an acceptable decommissioning funding plan bas not been submitted.
A-97 NUREG-1444
DOCKET NUMBER ~
p OPOSED RULE t ,;,,
(!it- F ~ 623J-?)
MAY
- 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ...........................- ...
PR ' - *.~
EB (
DOCKET NUMBER f1CPOSED RULE l TELEPHONE :
AR EA CODE (6091 5if'Hl 6:2-~J/ 697 -1100 Borough of Newfield
- 94 JA: :4l PS L4 @
N. W. BLVD. & SALEM AVENUE t ....
tJ uL,/{ ~ N: , ,. fi P.O. BOX 856 ;j ..\ t NEWFIELD, NJ 08344 January 20, 1994 Mr. Donald Schneider, Environmental Health Coor.
Gloucester County Health Department 160 Fries Mill Road Turnersville, NJ 08012
Dear Mr. Schneider:
Recently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a meeting regarding the decommissioning of Shiel da 11 oy Meta 11 urgi cal Corporation Facility.
In addition to the scoping meeting that was held, the governing body of the Borough of Newfield conducted a Town Meeting on January 4, 1994. Mayor and Council as well as the citizens have expressed concerns with respect to health and safety related to the use and storage of materials at this facility.
Have any studies been done to ascertain whether this site has had a d i r e ct effect upon the health of the citizens of the Borough of Newfield? It should be noted that a number of years ago, an attempt was made to have a cluster study performed as to the incidents of cancer. Statements have been made by Shieldalloy that the waste accumulation at its site is basically safe. Please provide the documentation to support the claim made by Shieldalloy that there is no danger from the accumulating slag of its business operation. If a report does not exist, Mayor and Council of th e Borough of Newfield request the Glaue.ester County Health Department to conduct a study and forward a copy of .the results. Since there is an urgency regarding this matter, ~our immediate attention is requested.
Thank you for your cooperation. Once again, I would like to stress the importance of this matter and ' request your immediate attention.
Very truly yours,
~~4L--
Everett~E~,~arshall III Mayor/ Borough of Newfield cc Council Members Congressman Hughes Senator Lautenberg Freeholder Zane Nuclear Regulatory Commission / MAY 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ...........................~..."
,;.S. t'UCLE:A.Fl RE GULATORY COMMISSION DOCK ~-IING & SERV l~E SECTION OF ,c.E 0F 11-i': SE:GR::::TARY OF 1HE GOi, ~~ISSIO N
oot~:(Ei NUMBER n '
PHOPOSED FiULE Pn f:1,*~**-
(SJ'- F~ t 23M ) 51
___ s_H_I_E_L_D_A_L_L_O_Y_M_E_ , 1:_
,'i_.::LL_
/ L_
- ,.' u_R_G_IC_A_L_C_O_R_P_O_R_A_T_IO_N_
'94 JA J 21 P / l ,,i WEST BOULEVARD P O. BOX 768 NEWFIELD, NJ 08344 T E L EP H ONE (609) 692-4200 DAVID R. SMITH T WX (510) 6 87 -8918 DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FA X (60 9) 692 -4017 ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT FAX (609) 697-9025 January 14, 1994 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation Facility in Newfield, New Jersey: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping Process
Dear Secretary:
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) is submitting written comments regarding NRC's Public Notice and our recommendations for modification to the subject scope. It is requested that NRC and its contractor utilize these enclosed comments and recommendations for the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SMC's specific comments or recommended changes to NRC's Public Notice are attached.
SMC is in receipt of the Official Transcript of Proceedings to Public Scoping Meeting on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation Facility -- Newfield, N.J. on December 16, 1993 at the Delsea Regional High School, Franklinville, N.J. We plan to prepare and submit to NRC under seperate correspondence our comments and responses to the testimony presented.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr. C. Scott Eves at 609-692-4200.
David R. Smith DRS:lms Enclosure CC: Newfield and Franklinville Business Leaders and Elected Officials Speakers from the various EnvironmentaJ Groups M,W:' 4 1994
'":! -r;ow!cdged by card ....." ............."'"""':..
iJ,S. NUCLE_.~1, hi:., :.,ii.A :'0:-1Y COMrJ!SSION DOC'.~Oii*IG & ScP.V,C!:: SECTION OFF!Cc c;: THE S~CRETARY CF rns co:~1~!SSlON Dncu)ncnt Si;:firitics
Comments to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Notice [7950-01]
Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's Facility in Newfield, New Jersey: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping Process References (1) Metallurg, Inc., Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation Conceptual Decommissioning Plan for Newfield, New Jersey Facility, IT Corp/Nuclear Science Report No. IT/NS-93-104, April 7, 1993.
Page 1, Summary, line 7: Delete "Shieldalloy concentrated".
Page 1, Summary, line 8: After "radioactive material" insert "contained in the ore is segregated during the process into high temperature slag and baghouse dust and is separated from the metal alloy.
Page 1, Summary, line 10-13: Delete sentence beginning with "Although Shieldalloy..." and replace with the following:
On December 15, 1992, the USNRC requested that Shieldalloy provide a conceptual decommissioning plan as part of the June 1992 renewal application Reference 1 was intended to provide that information. It contains a description of the decommissioning objective, a conceptual plan for decommissioning the site, and assessment of the long-term risk associated with the d~commissioning alternative and estimated cost for achieving the decommissioning objective.
Page 4, Need for Proposed Action, 1st paragraph, 2nd line: After "(License No. SMB-743)"
insert "to process, possess and store".
Page 4, Need for Proposed Action, 1st paragraph, line 6: Modify the sentence to read: The radioactive material had been segregated by the smelting process into slag and baghouse dust.
1
Page 5, 1st full paragraph, line 2: Change the sentence to read: Separated from the alloy and report to slag and baghouse dust.
Page 5, 1st full paragraph: General Comment - The quantities and volumes of slag and baghouse dust which are discussed in this paragraph are being continually added to since Newfield is currently an operating facility. The volume of material which will require in-situ decommissioning at the time SMC discontinues production and requests termination of the license is currently unknown. SMC has projected that it could continue production and generation of slag for the next two to three hundred years and still have capacity for additional slag and materials storage without increasing radiological exposure to the general public or the employees above today's levels.
Page 6, 3rd full paragraph: SMC questions whether relicensing a current operation which is required to have a conceptual decommissioning plan constitutes an approval of decommissioning and is therefore a major federal action or whether a major federal action will only take place at the time that the licensee discontinues its operation of processing source material and submits a decommissioning plan to implement a termination of the license.
Page 12, line 2: Change to read: ... consolidate and stabilize into a single area that would be covered and graded.
Page 12, (b), line 5: SMC is unaware of any facility within New Jersey or within 50 kilometers of Newfield which is licensed to receive and dispose of low-level radioactive waste similar to SMC slag and baghouse dust.
Page 13, Alternative 3: Same comment as above.
Page 14: Insert after 1st line additional paragraphs "f' and "g" as follows:
(f) Alternative 6 - On-site Stabilization and Dilution of Licensed Material with 2
RCRA regulated materials (metal hydroxide sludges).
(g) Alternative 7 - Develop commercial use and market for slag to be utilized by an NRC licensed facility, or an exemption for licensing requirements when slag is utilized for the specific purpose of steel making slag conditioners, or export.
3
00 1 *\f[T 'UMBER PR \A -
1; P" 03ED RULE /*, Cl -
January 14, 1994 3:47 am cSf'Frl 62Jr1J '.,.; ...
Frederick A. Langley 26 Nc,rt h \Ji r-,e Street 36 Clayton, N.J. 08312-1632
- 94 JAN 19 P4 :L, 8 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 AttY,: Dc,cketiY,g ii\Y,d Services BraY,ch
Subject:
Disposal of Shieldalloy's slag & ba ghou se dust from the ferrocolumbium operations.
I, the writer was employed November 10, 1960 to the current date with Shieldallc,y Met.allurgical Cc,rpc*rii\tic,Y,. My preseY,t pc,sitic,y, is- a Fc,rk l i ft c,peratc,r.
1 1 am concerned of your present evaluation process in the above mentioned s ubject matter.
I would hope that in y o ur considerations that you give some thought to sc,me c,f the pc<iY-,ts that I i-1c*\.1ld like tc, make.
- 1) 23Ct Jc,bs iY, Shieldallc,y Y,c,t tc, mer,tic,r, c,ther "jc,bs" cc,r,r,ected aY,d related and depending upon the plants successful operations; some examples* are: outside contractors, trucking industry, Newfield's local business's, local ta~es, electric, telephone, natural gas, and our Union, & your Job and my job! (to mention a few)
- 2) Cc,r,s\.1mer prc,ducts prc,d\.1ced b>* Shieldal lc,y "Made Ir, The USA" made with PRIDE by Americans for Americans! The ores from the mines prc,ces.s.ed by Shieldallc,y accc,rdiY-,g tc, c,ur custc,mer specks tc, be \.1sed in their operations to turn out a end product that our lifestyles demand. Metals for the home appliances, metals for the kids bikes, metals for our homes exterior sidings, metals for cookware, metals for food preparation, metals fo r the ~utomob i les, perhaps the chai r that you're sitting on & the desk that you are at may in a production chain-reaction event came from Shieldalloy! <Defense Applications!)
I would guess that we might be now talking about American's eMceeding 200,000,000 (our population) dependent upon Shieldalloy's successful business operations!
I cc,._, l d attempt tc, mer,t ic,r, c,ther "pc) pfJ j h-or- Co~_ -r+-
"Althc*\.\Qh C*Ysly slightly radic,active", "pc,se Y,c, risk tc, public health as they exist tc,day ! 11 Histc,ry *** I have (..-dth emplc,yer prc,vided safety eq\.1iprney,t & sii\fety traiYsiY1g) wc,rked iY,, arc*\.IY1d, ar-,d i,iith; the ra.,.,
rnmterials, the finish product, the slag & the bmghouse dust for 33 years without any known health problems.
P\.1blic A..-,arer-,ess *** Sell the public the "ber-,efits c,f Shieldallc,y's succes£ful business ope rations! Soothe their fears I, anxiety's with a plan that benefits them as well is reasonable & acceptable with Shieldalloy & the NRC!
Cc,Y,&.\.Hner Prc,d\.1cts *** 11 0ppc,rt\.1r-sity is kr-,c,ckir-,g" I c,ffer the ch.al ler-,ge that fur-,ds;. be i\ppc,ri ated fc,r research & developrner-,t c,f a prc,duct c,r prc,d\.1cts c,f the 11 ..-,aste" ir-,stead c,f cc,mittiY,g fur-,ds tc, dispc,sal c,f the
""'iaste" that cc,y,cerY,s us all. The prc,po>>ed sc,l\.1tic,r-,s are c,y,ly temporary & offers problem's to the future generations to deal with!
I propose that the material be left as it is with a mandate to Shieldallc,y & timetable set whereby a cc,r-,s\.1mer prc,duct be made frc,m the "waste"! "TRASH TO CASH"! We all .,.,ill ber-,efit!
I ii\m Y1C:*t ii\ sciey,tist c,r lab tech. but I believe that sc,mec,r-,e cc,uld develop a consumer product from this waste! Hum *** maybe Radiation gems.tc,y,e bracelets fc,r car-,cer patieY,ts! "Or-,e persc,y,' s pc<isc,r, is maybe ar-,c,ther per5:.c,r,' s mediciY,e" !
Thank-you for your time in considering my comments! Let's Do It!
Together l e t ' s get it done! All will benefit!
Tell Shield.alloy We are all awaiting them to submit a manufacturing research I, develc,perner-,t plar, deal iY-19 with the "1,,lASTE" !
Respectf\.11 ly Submit.ted,
~::if~:!~
DOCKET NUMBER PR f_ PROPOSED RULE ;,,
- ~ . ~: .. : C5 tr F- lZ £:238-?)
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protecdon and Energy DMslon of Responsible Party Site Remediation
- "-, ~;;. r*
@s CN 02s *94 JA J 19 P5 :( B Trenton, NJ 08625-0028 Karl J. Delaney Jeanne M . Fox Director Acting Commissioner Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission JAN 111994 Washington, DC 20555
Dear Secretary:
Re: Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's Facility in Newfield, NJ: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping Process This is in response to your request for comments regarding t he s cope of the proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the decommissioni ng of the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation facility in Newfield, NJ.
As described in the Federal Register notice of November 26, 1993, it appears the proposed EIS will address only the two ferrocolumbium slag piles and the baghouse dust pile. Because the NRC licenses the materials in these piles it is appropriate that such materials should be included in the scope of the EIS.
However, a rather large volume of ferrovanadium slag is on site that we believe should also be included in the scope of the EIS. From prior NRC and Sh i eldalloy documents we believe it is probable that the ferrovanadium slag derived its radioactivity from cross contamination with the ferrocolumbium processes which would also place the ferrovanadium slag pile under NRC jurisdiction. As such, alternatives for its disposition would need to receive full treatment in the EIS.
We are aware that NRC disagrees with us over the source of the radioactive contamination in the ferrovanadium slag pile and their jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore to resolve this issue, NRC scoping documents should present a compelling factual argument to the contrary. Information required to resolve this matter would include: 1) documentation of the original radioactive concentration of the vanadium ore, 2) a historical engineering description of the ferrovanadium and ferrocolumbium processes, 3) the source and cause of the current contamination levels.
If it is established that the ferrovanadium slag did not derive its radioactivity from source material, the EIS, in our view, still needs to discuss ongoing Shieldalloy actions and plans for the disposition of this slag under the "cumulative impact" (Section 1508. 7) and "similar actions" {Section 1508.25(a)3) provisions of the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations.
One additional area that we believe needs to be included in the scope of the EIS is the final soil cleanup standards that will be applied to this site.
In June, 1993, the New Jersey Legislature passed P.L. 1993, c.139, a MAY~ 4 1994 New Jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employ dmowledged by card..................................
Recyded Paper
i].'S- NUCU:..'J r"t.1:it..~~TChY ;.;u;~iivitSStON DOC~~U;;,,G & ::;cRViCE SECTION OFFICt 0:- THE SECRETARY CF THE COMM1SSION Dc:ument Statistics PostrrRr!, Dnte / /, 1-J qL J Cop:e::; Rcc,ei*,~;J_* _ __,_ ! _ _ _ __
"d *fl l"'C* 'a' n *p*~c:** *r"d ") ----,,-:----
r . U
- Jt.11,,...J ;'"l.., .,1V .* ... "' _..,L SpeCiui D:,J ;~ulion ttri2,y ft)ll.
/,ue,;b *v-r- , <311~/C..O r---f--
/ I
comprehensive statute to modify the contaminated site remediation program in the state. Among its many provisions, P.L. 1993, c.139 requires that sites be remediated to a level that results in an incremental lifetime cancer risk no greater than one in one million or in the case where natural background levels exceed a one in one million risk, to a regional nat!J,ral background level. In order to meet our responsibilities under P. L. lif93, c .139, the Bureau of Environmental Radiation has begun preliminary work on establishing soil cleanup levels for both future residential or non-residential uses. Preliminary results indicate that depending on the radionuclide and potential site use scenario, final soil cleanup criteria may be somewhat lower than those previously used at other radiologically contaminated sites under state or federal jurisdictions.
We would be happy to brief you on the developing standards and to offer assistance in resolving this matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (609) 633-1480. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~?:~~ Director Responsible Party Cleanup Element c: John Austin, Chief, Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch Richard Sinding, Assistant Commissioner, Policy & Planning Science &
Technical Program Larry Schmidt, Administrator, Program Coordination
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR M15 C *
{_s-~ F'f< 623~1)
- 94 JAN 19 P4 :58 JANUARY 12, 1994 ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
In response to the public scope meeting held on December 16, 1993, in Franklinville, NJ. Please be advised the decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation in Newfield, NJ is of great concern to our family. When the NRC conducts it's meeting please consider a few requests and questions.
- 1. An indepth study on the health hazards this radiation will cause the area residents.
- 2. A high impact study on the wa~er, air, and ground pollution from this radiation. There has been low levels of radiation found in our wells, and we do not live near the fence line. My house is almost one mile from this plant.
- 3. What are the effects of background radiation to the area.
- 4. If removing the slag by truck is a health risk because of particles escaping into the air, why can't it be placed into train box cars? This facility has train tracks running onto their property.
- 5. If they are allowed to "CAP" these slag piles and continue operating ... WHERE WILL ALL THE NEW SLAG GO???????
- 6. Will a monitoring system be installed if they are allowed to CAP this slag? Who will monitor this system?
- 7. If this company is not granted their license who will be responsible for this radioactive waste?
- 8. Please be aware that this company, which is already located on sandy soil, sits on top of the Cohanse~ . a Q.ll ifer.
MAY_ 4 1994 Acknowledged by card .................." .........,...
. t.u:"'; . Gu1.ATORY COMMISSION OCC1',::. 1* ~l; & SERVICE SECTION OFF iCS Of THE SECRETARY CF THE COMMISSION Qocument St1tistics
- tmar\< o~te _ LI/') l 111 O)p*,es Recci ~tl Add'\ Copie<; R~?rCC'..!Ced s~c:1a! * * '
I
- J fi}rl; _
=
ii. J>l-"t'
Should this pollution leach into this aquifer all of New Jersey will have a problem not just the residents of Vineland and Newfield.
We sincerely hope that you will take into consideration our concerns with this company.
cc: Congressman William Hughes Governor Christie Whitman
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR tvQ._
I ~ q:fL
~......_,,, / ~ / / 9 9 cf l5J- F ~ 61--11-1
- 94 JAN 19 PA :rs
~~ - .....__..~ ' ' ( .J' ntC..)
~
+~~-~k.z_ . . ~
~ ~~ ~ ,
(Z) fl~ ~~~
A ~*~ - - . . . . , ~ ~ ~ *~ ~ * . . . . . . , . . _ _ _ , _
, ~
I" r
}J.S. NUClf,,n ~::.:i;Ji.XfCRY C0\1MISSION D~:c: :- 1* ,; ':"_~ ,i ~~fn:t!~;E SECTION 0~: ',, :.'. <<);- T; ,1:: S!:CRE f ARY Of- l r;E C01,IMISSION r (l<<*!
'.J ,) l .. ;-;+
'I,(.., 1l :-*~*1>
- ,t.,.1 * **-* 1 11 '-LL-O
_}_;____ _.!,_i_L
_L -1 _ __
C::;1lf~;" !~~ ... -,;~,
1
'.i - - - - -- - -
j ::-. - -- - - - -
- pr;l'i11 f,i
- -,~*., . , , 1 It/I b ~ JI
/v..L-L:, ~ 0
~ --LJJ.~~R.4..'4.--,:.U~ ~S,£,LJ'J
Ya:e-, ~- ~ ,~ . .~
~__,/2,,,_,, ~ ~ ~
~ r ~ ~~~
~ :f .
-/I- ~ ~~~
~
~ -
~~~, - L----
A ~
~ ~ Ot--.e-,1 ~
1~
- .,_; -;o(PJ ~~~~
~-~7~
~s .
- ~- w+ ~~ ~ ~
~~ *~ *~
~~ ~ ?
C . - ~ ~ ~ &_
~~
© ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~
-r?- -~ ~ ~~
~~~~
,/ 7
~ ~ ~ ~-,,,
~ - ~ ~ ~ / ~
~ * ?s~~~~
. ~ ~~ -
-/ .
- - ~~~
- ~~y ~ r--!7-n "Q )Z, ,-,.-~ ~~ ,Y
~~~~~;z
~ ~ ~ I:::.~1
-~~~
~,....,.__,~ ~ ~~ - ~
- ~ L- ~ ~ 5-rir-
ooctcT NUMBER PR /1, i u PROPOSED RULE.:...::---
(, B" f /!- 6t-1f 7)
- 94 JAN 19 p 4 ::
4
~
t I To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of 1
capping on site [ ]
carting off site [,A' the 1.2 million cubic yards of radiCactive waste at 'he Shieldalloy plant in our town. 1 I
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Address: 8' tfu.vT-e>~ Pr
)l)e~+-: - JJ 1 .u~ ar~</y to '1 - /o ~7 ;;lb 33 MAY !4 1994 i .
Ackn:JWledged by card ..............................11:ft,.
- s. NUCLEAh ;;c~.u-,, ORY coMM1ss10N DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 1/rJ /&rt../
Copies Received. ____7_____
Add'I Copies Reproduced _ _ _ __
ecial Distribution fli;t) ~, PPJ'l ,
W--e. b 6ir-J, Cerb/4ac-+/- F-
~
NEWFIELD RESIDENTS SUR~EV I
- 1. Do you know about 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive wasie at the Shlel~a~ plant In our town ?
[ H'>'es
[ ] no
- 2. Are youj!l favor of
[ ri'" complete clean-up and carting it off site?
[ ] capping the contamination on site?
- 3. Who shoula pay for this?
[ ] Tax dollars for Government agencies
[ ...+'Shleldalloy e.. How many years have you lived in Newfield?
[ ] 1-5 years ( ) 5-10 years [ t,..J-1'5-25 years [ ] over 25 years
- 5. Since living here has anyone in your family had cancer?
[ ] yes
[,-f-no Died from cancer?
[ ] yes
[ ~ no Had any prolonged illness?
[ ] yes
-6.
[~o For drinking water and cooking do you use
[ ] well water
[ ] town water
[t-f15ottled water
- 7. Do you feel the borough government has kept you well informed about this particular environmental problem? .
[ ] yes
[~o
- 8. What questions do you feel should be asked on this survey?
- 94 JAN 19 p 4 :so U*. NUCl - , Fl *GULATORY COMMISSION 0 1
- .T.'/G P. SERVICE SECTION Off ,c CF Tl-'E SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document S 3tistics
_i I r-1 I 14 I
j J
_ .L.u
- .,._-e..
- =.<J,:L..-0 --....~=---..&--- -
At Shieldalloy Proposes That Newfield Be
.---~--~~--.~------~~------=~---.,._.,.--~~--------~~
- Named A P_erma_nent_
Nuclear Wastesite By Jim K;*kade mg into eont,et with the ma-Newt,eJd h "&dents Jean,,.
- The NR1: ,ay,_ it is co~- teriah.
la,t Week that Jt*, very, likeJ) Snicldalloy asked t_he NRC ned with Sh,eldalloy
- The second Dption woold
!hot r e.- ,OWn w;11 become, to dete,mine if on "" .,,_b e ~; stabilize the conta!"* be to toke the matetial off 0 10
~*manenr nuclea, "'"* lizolion of the tad,oae1<ve !:.ared waste on ~it~ stn: ;: ske and dispose of it at* Ii-11~1~, at ie,,r fo, the next 14 waste is an ,eeeptable plao may teqoite ,estncttng u <cnsed nucle,, """ Ste.
btlfi?n yea,._ Thar*, the time ro, deenmmiuionlng the the l*nd and doe, not P(O- Option thtee involves w,u lake fo, the cunent 10 plaot. vide f<>t loog tenn ptotect,o~ prncessing the matedal on n"'Jea, wa,re In the town The company euttently op- of the poblie ,nd the env!- Ute to ,educe the volume of decay lnro a safe fonn.
App,o,Jmar,1y 50 people e""' ""d" a license from the NRC to prne_eu om
- 'This ,pp,oaeh IS r,:;:,-::::~,nt with NRC's ~ radinoetiviiy so that it meets NRC ,equJrements. Mote,J.
- tten_d ed last Thu"d*y*,
A meet,ng of the NucJeo, Resulaio,y CommJuion containing radioa~hve mat':"
ri,I, such" urnmu!", thon-um ,nd theit moc,ated do-
~ uinments ro, dee?mmi,-
ning which ,equtte thot
- '.:idu,i radioactivity be~
a1s that h*d highe, coneen-uation, of "dloaetivity would be <Ii,po,ed of off *ite.
- ~Id at Debea Regionai coy prnducts. duced to a level that pe<nub The foutth option would be top'°""' the motorial on Whteh w,.
lf~ School in F,""'linviJJe,
- lmed at the r,,.t
'°lm*nt of havins ,n envi-The om a,e melted at high temperntum to p,o-duce met,I alloys. A, a mull
,ele"e of the prnpetty fot un,e,trict<d use; th"! note.
OPTIONS LISTED
,ite to dilute it so thot it bo-come, Jou <adio,etJvo by tonmentaJ lmp,c, statement of the smelting p,ocen, *181 Michael Webo,, a ,pecial- volume. The m,toriab would done to, tho S.E. Boulova,d ,nd dust a,e p,odu"7d and isr with tho NRC's deeom- then be ,p,o,d out on the Pl?Petty Whleh belong, to the radioactive matona~ are miuioning unit in Rockville, -
- PSltteldaUoy M er,Uu,gJc,J concentrated in the;e waste,_ Md. w"' at last week's meet- The llfth oo,;.. ****. * .
Co.rporation, the largest em- The company stores the m* g and said that th_e there " arative loye_ r, taxpayer and water Sl *1 the .. NRC says is for comp user m the Borough. ag and dust in p1 es ear on the h were five viable options t,or purrv,ses on ly" 1s* t do noth-Last September the com- r of the property, rNeaewf1'eld lndustria_n1 _Park. decommissioning The r1*r t, which tShieldalloy e p Ian . ing.*r- 0 l . pact pany r, d r The envirorunonta un .
t e or Chapter 11 Currently the slag is m tOOOwo ha requested, ~~uld_ allow statement is expected to. dis-bankruptcy and as part of p1*1es containing about 50, "or on site stab1hzat1on _of h pt1ons the coun proceed1'ngs the *th a volume of about ,, tal cuss each of t ese o . .
company must determ1*ne i*t.s tons w1 630 Th dust d the material. The m_ater. h d rt and to analyze t e outstanding 111*ab1'J1't1*es. The ,ooo cubic f feet . e bag
- would be covere wit tect mental impacts hof the environ-pro--
Iargest liab1*1 *ty of the New- w hi n 1 d posed plan an b hou.ch comes rom a - or other materials to pro d the altema-field plant i's cons1'dered t 400 f bout se collector system, s of-co 1*t ,,"rom the environment
,. an tives as wel 1 as t he cost as-e the radioactive slag ando ta1*ns about 13, soci.at'ed WI'th each one*
T Oton brought into the sa,e range dust. dust with a volume
- 530, f<>t radiotion limit< . Re,idents who wi,h to he company must deter- 000 cubic fee_t.. f the The plan would also_ lik_ ely comment on the plans or .any nune the eeded to amount decomnu*ss of1*0money n the PlThe radioactivity
- o t on. include land use restnct1ons may oaspect of the proJehct other
.les varies, with thef mhax~- to prevent people from com- d so by writing to t e I**t* evonrhough the pi,nt mum um-232 concent<at,on o at ,pprnximately - Sceretuy.
Regui,to,y UComm!, .. Nue!,on, "
e foCOntinue ay eeableto operate for future.1 1 500 picoCuries per Th, e NRC considers a safe gram. Washington, DC 20555 S '!-ttn:
ces Th. ""'st of remov *ng the han 10 Docketing a crv g o"""the only 11*kely 11*- limi*t to be no more t Branch. Maten*a1 must be re-n ed *ite in the United 01 i;eived Y t
- nd
.coCurie oer 1Uam. b h NRC by Janu-
.* ,,!Uc,d
{llj , "hich Ut,h, i, is in between to cost a,y IS, 1994.
-a.ncJ Ssoo million dol-
pproximately one million cubic feet of radioactive slag is plied up company says it can not afford to pay to have the waste disposed t the rear of the Shieldalloy Plant on the South East Boulevard in of in a nuclear waste dump and are proposing a plan to leave the ewfield. The waste is left over from smelting operations at the waste on the site.
lant while making high grade alloys for the metal industry. The
DOCKET NUMBER PR . ,
PROPOSED RULE ~ -
LS° rrfl t2Jt-f)
- 94 JAN 19 p 4 ::s Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regul)f~~t q~~ssion Washington, D.C. 20555 OOCKrr,~ ... t.i;r-t P.O. Box 178 Richman Lane Malaga, N.J. 08328 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch I have enclosed a letter I wrote to a local newspaper expressing my concern over the problems that Shieldalloy is having. I would like to express my concern to you over this issue. I feel that we should try to work with Shieldalloy to keep this company a productive American company. I feel the proposal that Shieldalloy gave you is in the best interest of the company, especially in light of the financial condition they are experiencing. I feel if the problem is dealt with correctly the fears that some have can be allayed. I really believe the company wants to do the best it can to alleviate the problem. I feel that their proposal to you was done in good faith and I hope you will consider it.
Thank-you, Ro in Remsen
~
_C?.)CJ1- li8' rY) ~ G. , ">') . i)* Oi' 3 :l8 Acknowledged by card ...~~--~:.:~111; ; .
- s. NUCLEAF, I - ** ' *...
- COMMISSION DOCKETING ti SERVICE. SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document StJtistics Postmark Dale L I /3 /q L/
Copies Received ~
Add'I Copies Reproduced ..,.,o..___ _ _ _
Special Distribution JtI>f f 012; .
. W :t. he,, .,. . .1 Ca-mr,,lr:k
January 12, 1994
Dear Editor,
I am writing this with concern at the way this newspaper has reported the problem with Shieldalloy. It hasn't touched on some of the other issues that would be created if Shieldalloy closed down. There are other businesses in Newfield, the food and eating places, the bank, the pharmacy, the shoe store, the bar and others that would be effected.
The Shieldalloy employees patronize these establishments. I wonder the economical effect on them and if they can afford to lose that business? Shieldalloy also contributes to the Newfield Recreation Commission. They sponsor a T-Ball team in Newfield. They contributed a U.S. Savings Bond to the Edgarton School for an essay contest on drug abuse and also for their employees children on the same issue. They sent Christmas stockings to a soup kitchen ministry in Vineland.
Shieldalloy has also invested in education at the plant. Some employees were found to be illiterate. They paid for teachers to come and teach them to read, on company time.
Shieldalloy is taking responsibility for cleaning up a polluted water plume. Some of the pollutants did not even come from the plant. VOC ( Volatile Organic Compound) a pollutant, was found in the polluted water plume. It is found in degreasers, which the company did not use. Other area companies did use these products. My mother-in-law lived in Newfield. She remembers when there was a heavy rain, gas and oil would flow freely down her street in the rain water. They couldn't even get to their house without walking through the polluted water. This did not come from Shieldalloy. Also our cousin remembers playing near a drain, on the street where he lived and it was covered with oil. They knew who was dumping oil down the drain and it was not Shieldalloy. Where did all of this water pollution go? Why weren't other companies investigated and made to pay for the damage they also helped to create?
I am also concerned about the problems that Shieldalloy is having. My husband has worked there for 17 years. I care very deeply for his health. We do need answers, truthful answers for all concerned. This paper has chosen to make Shieldalloy look bad in every way. Shieldalloy is a company of real people not just a bunch of stuffed shirts trying to make money at everyone else's expense. Why didn't this paper talk to any of the employees? Some of them are second generation employees. How about the people that actually work in that department, especially the ones that have been there 25 years.
Two closing thoughts. Shieldalloy makes products for the Defense Department. Their alloys are found in things all over our homes. Maybe if they close, they will just move to a different country and we will have to depend on a foreign country for these products. Too many American companies have already done this and we wonder where are the jobs? If the
plant closes not only will the tax burden be increased on Newfield citizens, but what happens to the 220 employees if they can't find another job? Most support a family, like my husband, who supports 4 children and a wife. Maybe they will wind up on welfare, which you the tax payers support. I think fear of what we don't really know or understand is the problem. We do need truthful answers and not statements made that are blowing everything out of proportion. I pray and hope that when the decision is made it is based on the whole picture.
Robin Remsen Malaga
DOCKET NUMBER * .
PROPOSED RULE PR M \~ u C5YFf< 62JG--,)
- 94 JAN 19 P4 54 vi- I C ul CK~ ..
ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC. 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR MEETING ON DECEMBER 16, 1993 I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ON THE DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIEtDALLY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION LOCATED IN NEWFIELD, NJ.
DOES THE NRC INTEND TO DO ANY STUDIES ON THE HEALTH RISKS THIS RADIATION WILL CAUSE THE AREA RESIDENTS.
WILL THE NRC INITIATE AN AGRESSIVE STUDY ON THE WATER, GROUND AND AIR FOR ANY RADIATION.
IF THESE SLAG PILES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CAPPED, WHO WILL MONITOR THEM.
IF SHIELDALLOY FILES CHAPTER 7, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF THIS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
IF SHIELDALLY IS ALLOWED TO CAP THE SLAG PILES AND THE CONTINUE OPERATIONS, WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THIS SLAG.
THANK YOU GELSI MUST ANG WORLD 3576 Northwest Boulevard Vineland, NJ 08360 MAY - 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ..................................
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark D3te f f L/
J (J 'f Copies R~caived_ _ _*__.__ _ __
Add'I Cop,eJ Rt:produced 3 Special D:strit'U'ion ll:t:._y}_5,_.-,-a-o-!l_J_
W~ k e~ C DJr- F ui:f
DOCKET. NUMBER PR M -~ I C,
p POSED RULE J -
l5 r f re. 6 23 y,) .J~,1- ~*:. *u, Ni* (,
- 9,1
'+ JAN 19 p 4 :5 4 ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC. 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR MEETING ON DECEMBER 16, 1993 I WOULD
.LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ON THE DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIEtDALLY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION LOCATED IN NEWFIELD, NJ.
DOES THE NRC INTEND TO DO ANY STUDIES ON THE HEALTH RISKS THIS RADIATION WILL CAUSE THE AREA RESIDENTS.
WILL THE NRC INITIATE AN AGRESSIVE STUDY ON THE WATER, GROUND AND AIR FOR ANY RADIATION.
IF THESE SLAG PILES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CAPPED, WHO WILL MONITOR THEM.
IF SHIELDALLOY FILES CHAPTER 7, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF THIS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
IF SHIELDALLY IS ALLOWED TO CAP THE SLAG PILES AND THE CONTINUE OPERATIONS, WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THIS SLAG.
THANK YOU MAY: 4 1994 AcKnowledged by card .............................ma
IJ.S. NUC, *, 1..,0,v,~.1SSION DOC'<c , .* ,.:**~ICE SECTION OFF1Cl C;;- l"i '!= SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Copies Rec ived _ _~ ~- - - -
Add'I Coplas R procLccd _ :J_____
Special Distribution /tL t?(; ffJI?;
W,Lloev-1 et>n:-p a":t
DOCKET NUMBER PR f'-1 , s 6 I,.;*;*,
- ~N~kL~- ~
PROPOSED RULE -
(S"J' fYl C:1--J&-- 1) *94 JAN 19 p 4 ;5 3 ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC. 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR MEETING ON DECEMBER 16, 1993 I WOULD
.LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ON THE DECOMMISSIONING OF SHIELDALLY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION LOCATED IN NEWFIELD, NJ.
DOES THE NRC INTEND TO DO ANY STUDIES ON THE HEALTH RISKS THIS RADIATION WILL CAUSE THE AREA RESIDENTS.
WILL THE NRC INITIATE AN AGRESSIVE STUDY ON THE WATER, GROUND AND AIR FOR ANY RADIATION.
IF THESE SLAG PILES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CAPPED, WHO WILL MONITOR THEM.
IF SHIELDALLOY FILES CHAPTER 7, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF THIS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
IF SHIELDALLY IS ALLOWED TO CAP THE SLAG PILES AND THE CONTINUE OPERATIONS, WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THIS SLAG.
THANK YOU be6w, 1,_Vlila.
C '31 1LL14
.Jb 7~AJ.u.J 13L II,::> ~ 2-
.'(/JtfeL r]P..' /~' j CJ ~-'>~ (J MAY '1 1994 Ac' n0w11::ugeo by card ..................................
I$. NUCLEAR REGULA I ORY COMMISSION
' DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stltistics ftostmar1< Date ~ _.._}I______}.. .___.'-- ._ _
- es Received I 0 ;cs Re r
---~----
DOCKET NUMBER -
PROPOSED RULE PR ~/ ,5 G
(_Ser FR 623!-7)
ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVICES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC. 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: .,, ,, .
IN RESPONf-.:,E TO YOUR MEETING ON DECEMBER 16, 19L 3 I wot~*.::.
LIKE TO EXPRE:-3S MY CONCERNS ON THE DECOMMISSIO '~4 G )F SHIEGDALLY METALLURGICAL CORPORATION LOCATED IN NEwfM:y ,D .
- w. 9~ -
l!J,-..~ S.3 DOES THE NRC INTEND TO D( ANY STUDIES ON THE HE ~416(~~,PKS THIS RADIATION WILL CAUSE THE AREA RESIDENTS. J11*4 * * *.:: IL;~
1rr WILL THE NRC INITIATE AN AGRESSIVE STUDY ON THE WATER, GROUND AND AIR FOR ANY RADIATION.
IF THESE SLAG PILES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CAPPED, WHO WILL MONITOR THEM.
IF SHIELDALLOY FILES CHAPTER 7, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN-UP OF THIS RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL.
IF SHIELDALLY IS ALLOWED TO CAP THE SLAG PILES AND THE CONTINUE OPERATIONf.:i, WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THIS SLAG.
THANK YOU MAY 4 19941 ACKllOWledged by card ......... ,nNIHHHHlffl~
- s. c:. . ~:-'o;w COMMISSION ocrv ,~ ~; . .i r: SER' i C E SECTION OFFIC!: 0F f hC SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics stmark Date --=- 1..:;..l_lJ'---'J_q_1-_/_ __
CoplEs R ccivcd_ __ _J_ _ __
Adcfl Cop'P.s Rcproduc~d -=-- - - -
Special D:st<b4;ticn 11,,.t; 0.£,. P/J I?,
w--L b-c ,-..,, cl) rvf:// n
ouc \C-t .J-UMBER PR H_ _*
1 .....
PROPOSED RULE ~ -
- Ni- c'""
[5 r f tz 62-Jf-1)
- 94 ATTN: DOCKETING AND SERVI CES BRANCH SECRETARY U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI ON WASHINGTON, DC. 20555 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
IN RESPONSE TO Yomz-~EETING ON DECEMBER 16, 1993 I )U ,.
LIKE TO EXF'RESS MY CO!\fCERNS ON THE DECOMMISSIONING **
- 3HIELDALLY ME'rALLUR'"'ICAL CORPORATI ON LOCATED IN NE ** IE .
NJ.
DOES THE NUC INTEND TO DO ANY STUDIES ON THE HEALT ~ISKS THIS RADIATION WILL CAUSE THE AREA RESIDENTS .
WILL THE NRC INITI ATE AN AGRESSI VE STUDY ON THE WA'*~,
GROUND AND AIR FOR ANY RADIATION.
F THESE SLAG PILES ARE ALLOWED TO BE CAPPED, WHO \ JL MONITOR THEM .
IF SHIELDALLOY FILES CHAPTER 7 , WHO WI LL BE RESPON:: .;Lf,; FOR
'T'HF: CLF:AN trP CF THIS RADIOACT IVE MATERIAL .
IF SHIELDALLY I S ALLOWED TO CAP THE SLAG PILES AND '[E CONTINUE OPERAT I ONS, WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THIS S1
- _;.
THANK YOU JAm e .S (Y\ ~(Uc'A?-e,~ j f<'
- 8 "2) 9 A,l(_b d .e_ *A\) e .
U I Del~~ I f,J . J. <9 8>~bO V\A1/2~JV\~~L Y14 1994 Acknowledged by card ...........".....HI~ 1
IJ,S. NUCLEAfl f.C.....,LATORY COMMISSION OOCKETii'IG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Postmar1< Date / / 11-/ /qt-j Oopies Receiv.Jd _ _ _J_ _ __
Add'I Copies Reproduced _,2 ~ ---'7'1-"-
~ecial Distr;buuon If_,'I, Y-} j I eoil, Uluh-e9 Com f oet J
S. NUCLEAR RbciL.ATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date I I L'-1 L1 4 Copies Received _ _ _=------
Add'I Copies Reproduced - -..,...,.,~ - -
Special Distribution fl. YJyS W...e,b~,-
/4 ~~ k k ~~;,~. * .
u~~,_,;~~,;a~
~~~r,.~~~~
,;,1/4~
~~4~,'f"~
- hi~
~~ ~ ~,.,y~~~~~
~ ~ --/4~~,iife ~ ~
4~
ltH- ~ ~ / / - t ~ v H a u ~ r
- ~ ,u ~ ~ ~ ,k,e, w~1 ~ I ~~ ~~r
~/f,Jr4~,~1~ ~
- 1k ~ I ~ ~ - J . . , / k ~ ' , , , ; / ~
~ '7 ~ ~~~ w.:tl~ ~
~,mp1L~r~-
wi,Me ~r/4f-~ ~
~
~- 1~r'7 ~ ~ ~~
PR .
0 1 *CKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE
{_~yf(l f,25Y1 l:1J c., -
- 94 JAN 19 P4 :49
,i- ; ! *,
Date: L1,C/* 1 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site \(]
the 1.2 million cubk }ards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
MAY; 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ..................................
. NY - ,- - --* \_<\TORY COMMISSION DOt:r _ * ~RVICE SECTION OFF l'J: .,i- i. ,;; SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Copies rocei* ~d Ad cf I Copres Reproduced -=------
Special D1st*;bution YL 13 ~ f }')~
L,v-e,, b~ fl.c,llri,,,..F e?:12
NEWFIELD RESIDENTS SURVEY
- 1. Do you know about 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shleldajjoy plant in our town ?
[p,("yes
[ ] no
- 2. Are ypuJK{avor of
[P(' complete clean-up and carting it off site?
[ ] capping the contamination on site?
- 3. Who should pay for this?
~. ~ax dollars for Government agencies pl :::;hieldalloy 5.
How many years have you lived in Newfield?
[ ] 1-5 years [ ] 5-1 O years [ ] 15-25 years Since living here has anyone in your family had cancer?
_ /
~over 25 years
[ ] Y-8S Vno Died from cancer?
[ ] yes
[ ] no Had any prolonged illness?
-6.
[ ] yes
~.
For drinking water and cooking do you use
[ ] well water
[A-1own water
[ ] bottled water
- 7. Do you feel the borough government has kept you well informed about this particul~vironmental problem? .
0 ' yes *
[ ] no
- 8. What questions do you feel should be asked on this survey?
(Optional)
Name:
Address:
- 94 JAN 19 P4 :4 9 Date:
' L To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern :
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ X1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, MAY ,. 4 1994 j Acknowledged by card .........." ....." ........._ -
. N JCL.E.A . , *, _: -.. : O:lY COMMISSION occ><:T1~G fit SERVICE SECTION Of-"r l:'.:,c: uF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document St!3tistics A,stmai1< D:::e ____.~/_ 1-L-;---'-----
Copi ~ f1i;~e1, -1 _ _ __," - - - - - -
Add'l Cc .c~ P li., ... u p
~~
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO 8c FARNOLY, P.A .
- - - - - - - - - - -~ *4 J N 14 P3 :39 JAMES J . GRUCCIO 538 LANDIS AVENUE I * ,WALTER F. GAVIGAN LAWRENCE PEPPER. JR. CN 1501 I
- t. ~DWARD BoWMAN COSMO A. GIOVINAZZI, Ill VINELAND, NEW JERSEY 08360 GERALD R. SPALL STEPHEN D. BARSE ROBERT A. DESANTO 609 691-0100 JOSEPH E. RUTH*
THOMAS P. FARNOLY 0 TELECOPIER: 609 692-4095 JAMES J. GRUCCIO, JR.*
CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY
Headquarters Washington, DC 20555 Borough of Newfield, Mayor and Council's concerns regarding the Decommissioning of Shield Alloy Metallergic Corporation 's Facility in Newfield, New Jersey - Scoping Meeting
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I write on behalf of the Borough of Newfield, with respect to the Notice as it appeared Friday, November 26, 1993, regarding the Decommissioning of Shield Alloy Metallergic Corporation's Facility in Newfield, New Jersey, and the Scoping Meeting held at the Delsea Regional High School in Franklinville, New Jersey on December 16, 1993.
At the direction of Mayor and Council for the Borough of Newfield this letter is sent with regard to those matters, of particular interest, to the Borough, its citizens, as well as its elected officials. In addition to the Scoping Meeting that wa.s held December 16, 1993, Borough Council conducted a town meeting Tuesday, January 4, 1994. The interest generated as a result of the publicity concerning this matter has resulted in a number of citizens taking direct action themselves, by addressing correspondence to your attention. Mayor and Borough Council have included a copy of the transcript of proceedings of January 4, 1994, together with copies of correspondence addressed to Borough Council concerning this matter, which is enclosed for your review.
MAY - 4 1994 Acknoviledged by card..........................._.,.
ADDITIONAL NJ LOCATIONS: WOODBURY 609 848-5558
- SALEM 609 935-3559
- ATLANTIC CITY 609 347-0909
- AVALON 609 967-4040 ASSOCIATED WITH : STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG , PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
- MALVERN, PENNSYLVANIA
- CHERRY HILL. NEW JERSEY
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO 8: FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 2 It is obvious from the public meeting that varied opinions exist with regard to this matter. Those opinions go beyond the alternatives offered with respect to the decommissioning of the site. Those opinions and concerns relate to health, safety and economic issues, which are important not only from the point of view as evidenced by the citizens concern, but also, the concern evidenced by the Borough, its government, through its elected officials.
At the Scoping Meeting a comment was made by a representative of the Shield Alloy Corporation. This representative, a Michael Finn, Vice-President of Mettallerg, Inc., simply stated that a basic fact of life was that if it was too costly for the company to implement a plan, they might as well walk away from the property and abandon it, because that was the only thing that made any sense. He referred ~o the bankruptcy proceedings filed by the Company, and the reason for the proceedings being held on that date, December 16, 1993, to ascertain what, in essence, was the bottom line, with which the Company would be faced at the site if it was required to decommission its facility.
A basic question now exists, because of the comments made by Mr.
Finn, as to what would be the ultimate responsibility, should Shield Alloy elect to abandon the site? There is no indication at the present time that it is their intent to do so, but a suggestion made that if the decommissioning process is too costly the only thing that makes sense for the Company to do is to walk away from its responsibility. The Borough of Newfield, therefore, is concerned with respect to the alternativ~s that are available to it, as well as all who are affected by this site, which are the citizens of Newfield, as well as all the Governmental Agencies and Institutions that have any type of jurisdiction or contact with this site. If Shield Alloy were to abandon the site, what would the responsibility be with respect to the Borough of Newfield, the County of Gloucester, and the state of New Jersey, as well as the Federal Government?
f/aa.~
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO 8: FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 3 The Borough Government, as well as the citizens of Newfield, have expressed, through their comments, concerns with respect to health and safety related to the use and storage of materials at this facility. One of the questions asked with respect to the matter was whether there was anything to stop the accumulation of any further material at the site. If so, this would at least limit the accumulation to what presently exists, with no more material added at the site. The question therefore asked, is whether or not such a possibility exists that is no further accumulation of the materials at the site will occur. This would leave concern and resolution of that material which is stored at the site.
The concern with respect to the health, and effect upon the citizens of the Borough of Newfield, has been voiced by many of its citizens. The question that is asked, is what is the effect, if any, upon the health of the citizens. Have any studies been done, or efforts made to ascertain whether this site has had a direct effect, in any fashion,. upon the health of the 'citizens of the Borough of Newfield. It should be noted that a number of years ago an attempt was made to have a cluster study performed as to the incidents of cancer, which were voiced to be higher than,normal, by concerned citizens. These efforts did not produce any effective study, because of what seemed to be finger pointing among County and State Agencies, as to whose responsibility it was to perform the study. At this time, and because of statements made by Shield Alloy, that the waste accumulated at its site is basically safe, are there any studies or plans for such studies to confirm this fact. What answer is there for the citizens with respect to questions concerning the health and safety, and sufficient facts and documentation the claim by Shield Alloy that there is no danger from the accumulated slag byproduct of its business operation.
Concern by numerous citizens related to the fact as to whether they could trust comments made by Shield Alloy, having in the past felt that Shield Alloy had not been totally candid with its disclosure to the Borough of Newfield, its citizens and other local State and Government Agencies. The question therefore is asked, as to what
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO Be FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 4 facts and circumstances exist, to ensure the Borough and its citizens that the comments, statements and facts as disclosed by Shield Alloy, are accurate and correct.
Since it is evident that operations at the site continue, a number of citizens have raised the issue of regardless as to what may happen concerning a decommissioning plan, is there a way of ensuring and protecting the people that are in the area. This has to do with the monitoring of the site, with respect to radiation levels, and its effect with regard to the air, airborne particles, the effect upon the water, and, the environment.
Although not perhaps specifically expressed, it would appear that the citizens of Newfield, as well as its Government, are concerned, of course, with what decommissioning plan will be adopted.
However, the ongoing and daily concern is with respect to the continued operation at the site, and whether or not those operations are safe, properly regulated, and appropriate testing done to ensure the safety of the citizens of the Borough of Newfield.
A number of citizens have asked questions concerning the responsibility of the Borough, its Police Force, and Government Officials in protecting the citizens, especially children, by keeping them away from the site. This is a question that deserves consideration, and a response, especially if the worst case scenario takes place, that being the abandonment of the site by Shield Alloy if it finds the plan proposed for decommissioning by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unacceptable to the company.
Some information would be helpful, which would include, what is the proposed date for decommissioning for Shield Alloy? Further, what steps are presently underway, not only by the company, but also, the Federal Government to police and monitor the site? Could Shield Alloy successfully avoid responsibility for decommissioning or cleanup of the site, if that is the appropriate term, by walking away from its problem? Are there any plans to conduct a further
!llw,,~
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZ!, DESANTO 8: FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 5 Oak.ridge study, one having previously been made sometime in the vicinity of the years 1987-88 at the site? It would be helpful to have answers to these questions, and input from the appropriate agencies or even perhaps the Co~pany itself, to help provide a sufficient factual basis to permit the Borough and its citizens to understand the problem with which they are concerned.
A concern voiced by a number of citizens was with respect to not being made aware of the status of ongoing matters concerning Shield Alloy, the involvement of the NRC, and decommissioning process and meetings. The request is therefore made, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that sufficient and proper notice be provided, above and beyond that as required under the law, which merely may be the publication in the Federal Register of appropriate notice of a planned meeting. By permitting sufficient lead time the Borough would be able to properly circulate information within the community to permit all of those who are interested, and it is many, to attend meetings or to participate in the providing of sufficient input so that all matters, and interests of all citizens, can be considered.
A number of citizens have participated in a response to a questionnaire prepared by a group of citizens interested in the scoping process and eventual plans for decommissioning of the site.
A copy of correspondence addressed to Mayor and Council, dated January 11, 1994, from three citizens, Terry Fox Ragone, Penny Hallet, and Loretta Williams, is enclosed, together with the Newfield Residents Survey Questionnaire, and a form letter for interested citizens to use to send comments to your attention. AS of the date of our last regularly scheduled council meeting, seventy-seven (77) letters were collected, with sixty-one (61) of the citizens responding to carting the waste offsite. This would indicated, with regard to the sampling of citizens involved, that
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GIOVINAZZI, DESANTO & FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 6 eighty (80%) percent of the citizens of Newfield want the problem removed from the site, and from the Borough of Newfield.
Comment was made by citizens hot only as to the health and safety of citizens, but also the effect that this site has upon the financial values of the properties of the Borough of Newfield.
This is a legitimate and proper concern, because the type of publicity generated by the scoping process hearing and what has appeared in the newspapers thereafter, would indicate that there is a radioactive site in Newfield, New Jersey, which may or does pose a possible risk to the citizens, with concern as to how to properly decommission that site, if business operations at Shield Alloy should .cease.
The elected officials of the Borough of Newfield, as well as its citizens, are extremely concerned in the ongoing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The concerns and questions with regard to comment, as set forth in this letter, represent a sampling of those comments and ideas as expressed by a number of citizens and elected officials involved in the subsequent hearing at the Borough and, from comments received in the form of correspondence addressed to the Borough Government. It is the request of the Borough of Newfield that it be provided the option to remain in contact and address appropriate comments concerning matters involved in this decommissioning process. A fact of life relates to the reliance factor upon the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be provided with adequate and proper information to permit informed decisions to be made, not only by the Borough Government, but also by the citizens of Newfield. If, the most ideal situation in the decommissioning process would be to remove the materials from the site, then that may well be what should occur. However, it is fairly evident from the concerns of the citizens of Newfield, that before that possibility occurs, a number of very important questions remain. Those questions concern the existing operations at the site and the continued responsibility of Shield Alloy to protect the citizens of the Borough of Newfield, as
GRUCCIO, PEPPER GlOVINAZZI, DESANTO 8: FARNOLY, P.A.
Secretary of the United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
January 13, 1994 Page 7 well as the Borough itself, from any health or safety problems associated with the use of its facilities within the Borough.
Spall, Esquire Enclosure(s)
January 11, 1994 Mayor of Newfield, Everett Marsball Borough Council Members Borough of Newfield Newfield, New Jersey 08344
Dear Honorable Mayor and Borough Council Manbers,
Following the Tuesday, January 4 Town Meeting, we tried to get nnre of A direct reponse fran the residents of Newfield concerning the 1.2 hti.llion Wubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant.
We prepared a short letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for residents to sign, with a check off option of whether they favored capping the waste on site or carting-it off ( since these were the two options roost discussed at that Town Meeting.
To date we have collected 77 letters to be mailed to meet the January 15 deadline. 61 are in favor of carting tJie waste off site, 16 for capping the site and one didn't check either option.
In addi\tion another 50 letters were distributed for individuals to mail in on their mm.:.
We also prepared a short questionnaire to survey residents' opinions about this issue. See enclosed questionnaire. One of the questions on the survey was "Do you feel the borough government has kept you well informed about this particular environmental issue?" Overwhelmingly
.w,.e response was that you have not. Had we been informed earlier
~fter the December meeting) we might have amassed even larger numbers of letters in support of cleaning up this hazardous waste at Shieldalloy.
Now you know that we the residents of newfield want action taken in this matter.
We want to be informed. We want to be involved and participate in these serious decisions that effect our lives and the kives of our families and our future.
Pleaee take these concerns into considerations when representing us and acting in our behalf to the NRC, the EPA and any other governmental agencies.
Thank you for your consideration.
yJ //4tzf
~
~CJ~
Penn~let Loretta Willi;;:rr.s
NEWFIELD RESIDENTS SURVEY
- 1. Do you know about 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant In our town ?
( ] yes
[ ] no
- 2. Are you in favor of
[ ] complete clean-up and carting It off site?
[ ] capping the contamination on site?
- 3. Who should pay for this?
[ ] Tax dollars for Government agencies
[ ] Shieldalloy 5.
How many years have you lived in Newfield?
[ ] 1-5 years [ ] 5-1 O years [ ] 15-25 years Since living here has anyone in your family had cancer?
[ ] over 25 years
[ ] yes
[ ] no Died 1rom cancer?
I
[ *] yes
[ ] no Had any prolonged illness?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
- 6. For drinking water and cooking do you use
[ ] well water
[ ] town water
[ ] bottled water
- 7. Do you feel the borough government has kept you well informed about this particular environmental problem?*.
[ ] yes
[ ] no
- 8. What questions do you feel should be asked on this survey?
(Optional)
Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
\ As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in* favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,*
Name:
Address:
!'J*."t';,~;\,
,-1*
- ~. '
t
/
I :
.; ~-~*
- ~
s.~ *
.-I
- , ~-
- -:, ,~(**~$"'*1*
- _J-,-.1,,.' 't
..-~ I *,,-,.
,,._,_~*~.l,, (
,~':"---...,-1'**~.,.~J.;f~
I * '- *
~,'-
}'::;;t,,'~
~*'
i~
,)'J,~
Y.
l1-
!<(F*ti.5r;:,,,t)t "::~.('. .,,,,,,'!.l-::;,* ,)"l'-_";!t~ -~_.[\ ,'_,.; *~
~~tl, if*~
"<i.-- 'l;.\c
~,-. ,
. . . . .- H . - .. -
,,}1f:3/';::;.,.:;:~f -~:-;'. ,.*.
,,:-..r,.t ;";:.,-~*r*~,~--*
'* ~ * -
. -~-. ;:,: I -~t. *. ,-r..~..
.**.. ' . ~*.,-;-,,'-....',
.. _'*'*/_,.-~ ,:-~:1_,
,_-~:}' :" r****r**,~1~*-*'
,, -....t.
r
- -*,?:'*<
.,,. . -..*_ -*" -~""
-,-~-.,.-., -e -fl~ ,
~~i, ~~~:~--~1
- . -*.... /( ~*. :'. :'
',h-~ :\ .:> :,>i*:f~
' f.
...;*: --;" 1,--__:;.,,:.
,it~~'-
i;*!"~*~f. *.:, -~*,:?,:,;. --~t*~/J{i};:jtJ).~
f:1-f:-:* .-:*
0
~,*:-:
--J,~r*~:;~,--'
~-.:;
--~,.~\V *<,'r,!;:,; .* '.
~
- . -~~---*. :*
~, *
- -t ~--~:.!*\:'
- ,.rQ,,,,, -:-.~-
..I '* .
1 r-*
\ , '.'.
. . 'f . . ' ' ' . . , ~-:**',,* .
. . ' 11 , . ';lf,,-*1-! ,.
_ 'r *_*. . *. . * *
- l**
.**t***---*~ .
' , * , ~
.to
. i**_.,,,;t*** . '
r5- .. q
j
{1 r*
- ~ ~
,--.. ih C; . t
\J. \. t t: ~- ~
t ~ t \ ~' f "f. f rrr
. - ~
- .:f .:Z~I,_, ~J ~
,r ~~<t~
Loretta Williams 310 Oakwood Dr.
Newfield N.J. 08344 609-697-3283 Secretary, U.S *. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch December 29, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I attended the meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, held at Delsea Regional High School in Franklinville, on Dec-ember 16, 1993.
The answers given by the Officals of the NRC and Shieldalloy to questions askeo by mysel~ and others at the meeting raised-even more questions and comments.
If_Shieldalloy is allowed to stabilize and dispose of the slag piles onsi~e, this radioactive material is located at the rear*
of Shieldalloy's property near the Newfield Industrial Park.
What would be the impact on the future economic development of the Industrial Park?
What would be the impact on privately owned property hear the plant if the radiation was found outside of Shi~ldalloy's prop~-
erty? Would private owners be able to.sell their land for indust-rial, commerical, o~ residential use?
Who would monitor the site if Shieldalloy goes out of *business?
Would Newfield Borough be responsible to use the Borough police department to keep children and others away from the site?
Would the Borough beco~e liable for a civil lawsuit if a child goes on to the property and comes in contact with the slag, and the parent believes the child's health is affected by the expo-sure to the material?
I was angered by the comment made by Michael Finn, Vice President of Metallurg Inc., Shieldalloy's parent company of New York, that the company could not afford the cost of shipping the slag to a licensed nuclear wastesite, and if forced to do so they will ab-andon the site, and the taxpayers in Newfield Borough would be responsible for the clean up.
The cost of disposal of waste materials is part of doing bus-iness. If Shieldalloy is unwilling or unable to afford to pro-perly dispose of the waste they manufacture, then they should go into another kind of business that is less costly to operate and does not produce this kind of waste.
In my opinion the only safe alternative for Newfield residents is to ship the radioactive slag to the licensed nuclear disposal wastesite in Utah.
In preparing the Environmental Impact Statement please take into account the impact on the residents of Newfield in the long run.
The impact on the environment in the Borough of Newfield-, air quality, ground water, public health, economic development, land
,and property values.
If the NRC names Newfield as a parmanent nuclear wastesite the 67 acres
\ . of Shieldalloy property will not be'able to be,sold-to
\other-business.
Sincerely, .
~tJ~
Loretta Williams
,: .'- ._--*? -,; *~,'r-~; -fr: r ; '.-:, . :;. ~1:-: '<-;~iF:.~- :s.~-:: *c:: :_~,c '1:~~:-:7~~~ /---
.. --. 1- **
~* : ,: :-~ ~\- ,.~ ......- ~ ~~'
t * ,.
- . , ' :.. ~
rJ4/¥i. -
-:-~7-~ ... ;il..--
-/Jlbjri ~-~4. -
~" .'
A.A-4(.. (.f'y1"
. ...,:.. *. .._ I
JAN.STH.1994 MAYOR MARSHALL & COUNCil I was at the last council meeting, Jan.4th. and listened to many people on our current important issue.
We have lived in Newfield for 46 yrs. Nobody complained about our water or radiation and smog before Shieldaloy moved here. Just like you said ,Ssieldaloy is both good and bad. The question is, how badt That has really not been answered.It would be a shame for people to lose their jobs, but it would be worse yet for them to lose their lives. Their lives could be at eve a greater risk than the rest of the borough is .Health should be #1.As far as the borough losin
- money if Shieldaloy closes,will not happen, because our taxes would go up to make up for it That is of course if people stay in Newfield.I think a lot of people are scared into moving, but may even have trouble selling their house in Newfield with this publicity.Knowing that the waste is still there may stop new people from moving to Newfield. If that waste that is there i.
found to be of any danger to our health, then we think it should be moved.On the other hand if it would \e more dangerous to move it, then it should be capped. We also feel that an important issue like this should be put up for vote, after the bourough is well informed.
Hoping this matter can be resolved in the best interest of the people we remain, Sincerely, Dorothy & Louis Renshaw
~ cu.e ~ q_ ~ k
Loretta Williams 310 Oakwood Dr.
Newfield N.J. 08344 January 3, 1994 Congressman William Hughes:
222 New Rd.
Linwood N.J. 08221 Honorable Congressman Hughes:
I would like to inform you of an urgent environmental situation in your district, Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey It is very likely that Newfield could become a permanent nuclear waste site if Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation has their proposal for decommissioning approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Shieldalloy has been manufacturing specialty ferro alloy in New-field since 1955.
The company operates under a license from the NRC to process ores containing radioactive materials such as uranium, thorium and their associated decay products.
The ores are melted at high temperatures to produce metal alloys.
As a result of the smelting process, slag and dust are produced and radioactive materials are concentrated in these wastes.
The company stores the slag and dust in piles at the rear of the property, near the Newfield Industrial Park, and privately owned property.
September 2, 1993, Shieldalloy and their parent company Metallurg Inc. of New York, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and as part of the court proceedings the company must determine its outstanding liabilities. The largest liability of the Newfield plant is con-sidered to be the radioactive slag and dust.
The company must determine the amount of money needed to decomm-ission the plant, even though the plant may continue to operate for the foreseeable future.
There are five options~for decommissioning the plant.
The first, which Shieldalloy has requsted, would allow for on site stabilization of the material. The material would be cover-ed with dirt or other materials to protect it from the environ-ment. The plan would also likely include land use restrictions to prevent people from coming into contact with the materials.
The second option would be to take the material off site and disp-ose of it at a licensed nuclear waste site.
The third option involves processing the material on site to re-duce the volume of radioactivity so that it meets NRC require-ments. Materials that had higher concentrations of radioactivity would be disposed of off site.
The fourth option would be to process the material on site to dilute it so that it becomes less radioactive by volume. The mat-erial would then be spread out on the property.
The fifth option would be to do nothing.
Shieldalloy claims that off site disposal at the licensed nuclear waste site in Utah would be too costly to the company, and if they are forced to ship it off site the company will abandon the Newfield plant.
Shieldalloy's processing of non-radioactive material in the fac-ilities on the site has resulted in chemical contamination in the ground water, (primarily chromuim). This has caused the site to be a high priority listing on the Superfund Priorities List.
The chromuim contamination has resulted in lawsuits against Shieldalloy by residents of Newfield and North Vineland for con-tamination of water wells.
I believe that Shieldalloy wants to abandon the Newfield plant and leave the clean up to Newfield taxpayers.
I believe the NRC should reject the option that Shieldalloy has proposed and force the company to properly dispose of the rad-ioactive waste and ship it off site to the licensed nuclear waste site in Utah.
Enclosed are copies of letters I wrote to the Nuclear Regulatory cbmmission,* and to Vice President Albert Gore.
Also a copy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's notice of in-tent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to conduct a Scoping Process. And a press release indicating Shieldalloy and their parent company Metallurg Inc., including its US trading division Metallurg International Resources filing of a petition for protection from their creditors under Chapter 11.
Sincerely, , .
~u~
Loretta Williams Borough of Newfield N.W. Blvd. Newfield Mayor Everett Marshall 111 Business phone 609-697-2800 Solicitor Gerald Spall Business phone 609-692-8000 Borough Clerk Toni Van Camp Borough phone 609-697-1100 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.
Steven Rappaport President Phone 609-692-4200 Loretta Williams Phone 609-697-3283
Loretta Williams 310 Oakwood Dr.
Newfield N.J. 08344 January 3, 1994 Vice President Albert Gore Office of the Vice President Washington, DC 20555 Honorable Vice President Gore:
- Because of your excellent voting record in the Senate on envir-onmental issues, I am writing to you about an urgent environment-al situation in my town Newfield Borough, Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation manufacturer of speeialty ferro alloys began operations in Newfield in 1955.
The company operates under a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to process ores containing radioactive materials such ae uranium, thorium and their associated decay products.
The ores are melted at high temperatures to produce metal alloys.
As a result of the smelting process, slag and dust are produced and redioactive materials are concentrated in these waste.
The company stores the slag and dust in piles at the rear of the property, near the Newfield Industrial Park, and privately owned property.
4t September 2, 1993. Shieldalloy and their parent company Metallurg Inc. of New York, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and as part of the court proceedings the company must determine its outstanding liabilities. The largest liability of the Newfield plant is con-sidered to be the radioactive slag and dust.
The company must determ1ne the amount of money needed to decomm-ission the plant, even though the plant may continue to operate for the foreseeable future.
There are five -options for decommissioning the plant.
The first, which Shieldalloy has requested, would allow for on site stabilization of the material. The material would be cover-ed with dirt or other materials to protect it from the environ-ment. The plan would also likely include land use restrictions to prevent people from coming into contact with the materials.
The second option would be to take the material off site and dis-pose of it at a licensed nuclear waste site.
The third option involves processing the material on site to re-duce the volume of radioactivity so that it meets NRC require-ments. Materials that had higher concentrations of radioactivity would be disposed of off site.
The fourth option would be to process the material on site to dilute it so that it becomes less radioactive by volume. The mat-erial would then be spread out on the property.
The fifth option would be to do nothing.
Shieldalloy claims that off site disposal at the licensed nuclear waste site in Utah would be too costly to the company, and if they are forced to ship it off site the company will abandon the Newfield plant.
Shieldalloy'$ processing of non-radioactive material in the fac-ilities on the site has resulted in chemical contamination in the ground water. (primarily chromuim). This has caused the site to be a high priority listing on th~ Superfund Priorities List (NPL)
The chromuim contamination has resulted in lawsuits against
- Shieldalloy by residents of Newfield and North Vineland for con-tamination of water wells.
I believe that Shieldalloy wants to abandon the Newfield plant and leave the clean up to Newfield taxpayers.
I believe the NRC should reject the option that Shieldalloy has proposed and force the company to properly dispose of the* rad-ioactive waste and ship it off site to the licensed nuclear waste site in Utah.
Enclosed are copies of letters I wrote to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to Congressman William Hughes.
Also a copy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's notice of in-tent to prepare an Envirionmental Impact Statement and to conduct a Scoping Process. And a press release indicating* Shieldalloy and their parent company *Metallurg Inc. including its US trading division Metallurg International Resources, filing of a petition for protection from their creditors under Chapter 11.
Sincerely, ,
~u~
Loretta Williams Borough of Newfield N.W Blvd. Newfield Mayor Everett Marshall 111 Business phone 609-697-2800 Solicitor Gerald Spall Business phone 609-692-8000 Borough Clerk Toni Van Camp Borough phone 609-697-1100 Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp.
Steven Rappaport President Phone 609-692-4200 Loretta Williams 609-697-3283
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF TOWN MEETING BORQUGH OF NEWFIELD GLOUCESTER COUNTY. NEW JERSEY JANUARY 4. 1994 Transcriber Pat Hallman PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE 504 Forest Court Williamstown, NJ 08094
2 1 MR. MARSHALL: -- and believe me this is no retlec-2 ion on any of the other reporting people that are here tonight 3 ut very close to this story is Jim Kinkade from The Sentinel 4 nd I would ask Jim if he would -- and he was at the meeting at 5 elsea, obviously reported the meeting, people have read about 6 his newspaper. Ji~ through the years has helped us 7 igest some of the things that Shieldalloy has been doing and 8 arious things. I'm going to ask Jim to take about two minutes 9 to recap exactly what we're doing, what's going on with the NRC 10 and what we're talking about tonight and the comments that we 11 ave to make to them by the 15th will all entail what he's 12 going to, in two minutes, tell us, so that we can move on and 13 get the comment8.
14 Now when we start the comment period I would appreci-15 ate it if everybody would come up, even though there's people 16 that we know and there's people we don't know, it's very 17 important that -- we're going to transcribe this entire meeting 18 to the NRC. So if you'd come up to the microphone, state your 19 name, your address, and then give us your comment or question, 20 whatever it happen8 to be, we would appreciate it and we'd like 21 to run the meeting that way.
22 Also, I'll ask that, you know, we don't have micro-23 phone hogs. We just say what you have to say, please, and 24 e'll move on to the next person. We have quite a few people 25 here, however many want to comment or just listen, fine, but we PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
3 1 ~ant to get to everybody and move it along as quickly as we 2 possibly can.
3 Jim. would you take about two minutes. please?
4 HR. KINKADE, Thank you. As many of you know.
5 Shieldalloy has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. And the 6 bankruptcy judge has deter~ined that in order to assess their 7 liabilities they had to _determine what the charges will be to 8 take care of the pile of low-level radioactive slag that they 9 have in back of the plant. That was the purpose for having the 10 meeting at Delsea Regional two weeks ago. The NRC was -- had 11 what's -- they held what's called a scope hearing and anybody 12 in the area really can comment. make public comments to the 13 NRC. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. and they will use this 14 as a way to determine what they are going to do.
15 Shieldalloy's position at that meeting was very 16 emphatic that if they had to do anything other than remove 17 other than cap and leave the materials there. they were going 18 to basically abandon the site and walk away from it. There was 19 comment from the NRC. some of the NRC attorneys at that meeting 20 that they would try to prohibit them from doing something like 21 that. but they were unsure of how they would go about doing something like that.
23 The NRC laid out basically five optiQns that they 24 will look at and one of them was to do nothing. And that was 25 only. in their words. for comparison purposes. The other PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
4 1 option. the first option would be to have Shieldalloy move the 2 ~aterial from the site to the only site that will be accepting 3 ~aterial in the future which is in Utah. Estimates ranged from 4 350 to $500 million and an immense amount of truckloads of 5 material moving across the United States.
6 The other Option was to process this material to 7 remove some of the radioactivity and then leave the slag --
8 ~ome of the slag there on the site. Other options were to 9* cover the site and to basically cap it as Shieldalloy is 10 proposing. That's the option that they have. they :f.igure they 11 can do for a couple million dollars. which is just to take the I
12 site, prevent it from being used by the public for the next. as 13 they said there, 14 billion years. Again there's controversy.
14 ahieldalloy's contention is that low-level radiation -- it 15 would be of no harm to the public. The NRC says that there is 16 no way of telling what long term low-level radioactivity could 17 do. 'J:'he big concerns were *mig*ration from th~ site -- in other 18 ~ords if they cap_ that what happens in 100 years. 200 years, 19 500 years as the weathers erode the cap which would be nothing 20 more probably than a -- it could be clay, it could be concrete.
21 but whatever it was it would be something that eventually would 22 erode and would leave the materials, again. subject to migra-23 tion oft the site. And in a nutshell that's what the meeting 24 was about.
25 What they're looking for now is -- public comment PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
5 1 from the people. The entire meeting was transcribed. That 2 ~ill become part of the permanent record and the rest of it 3 ~hat they want is comment from the public either through the 4 township or the borough council or through individual 5 letters. I know -- I put an address in there. I'm sure the 6 borough clerk has one or i~ any of you would want to write a 7 letter to the NRC and comment on it, that's what they're 8 looking for right now. Either "I don't like it," "I do like 9 it," whatever.
10 MR. MARSHALL, I have several letters already from 11 resident~-that chose to write a letter. If there's anybody
~ that didn't realize that that option is open, we will be taking 13 tho~e letters before we send away on the 15th if somebody would 14 feel more comfortable in writing their comments as opposed to 15 standing up and saying their comments.
16 We're going to try to move around the room as best we 17 can. We'll open the meeting motion to open to the public?
18 UNIDENTIFIED, So moved.
19 MR. MARSHALL, Do I have a second?
20 UNIDENTIFIED, Second.
21 MR. MARSHALL: All in favor? Opposed? Now anybody 22 in the public wish to be heard for comment? Ladies before 23 gentlemen.
24 MS. WILLIAMS, Loretta Williams, 310 Okra (phonetic) 25 Drive. Newfield. I've given all of you my written comments PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
6 1 that I made to the NRC and to vice-president Al Gore and to 2 Congressman William Hughes. They're the letters I wrote. I 3 like asked the people on the borough council and the mayor some 4 of the questions that I put down for the NRC. If they cap it -
5 - if they Shieldalloy to cap it, they allow Newfield to become 6 ~ permanent nuclear waste site. It has to *be monitored. What 7 do we do? Use the police department. do we hire new policemen 8 to monitor it 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day? Is the borough liable if a child 9 goes onto that property and comes in contact with the slag and 10 his parent decides that there is. you know. they've_been harmed 11 by this, by exposure, is the borough liable for a law suit?
I 1~ The industrial park which the slag and Shieldalloy is 13 right at the rear of the property, it's right adjacent to the 14 industrial part and the old landfill. If the town wanted to *.
15 you know. properly close the landfill for the state standards e, 16 and apply-for grants or whatever to de.velop the landfill. if 17 Shieldalloy's property is. you know. -- the radiation migrates 18 into the soil, into the adjacent industrial park or the land-19 fill, would that also be restricted from use? ~auld private 20 owners be allowed to sell tneir property for either commercial.
21 residential or industrial use? You know. there's like private 22 ownership of land in the landfill there.
23 Can anybody comment on some of these questions? Have 24 you thought of this at all since-you*neard about Shieldalloy?
25 MR. MARSHALL: That's some of the things that we have PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
7 1 discussed. You know. obviously our liability in the whole 2 thing -- our meaning the town's not necessarily our sitting up 3 here. They are some of the things that we've already -- and we 4 certainly take your comments constructively. Yes, we have 5 talked about those things and that's the primary concern, 6 obviously, the finance of this whole thing. So that's basical-7 ly the answer that. you know. I can get for council.
8 MS. WILLIAMS1 How about Mr. Spall? Could he give 9 some comment about the legal aspects of liability? Also in the 10 industrial park, with this situation there would we ~e able to 11 . develop the industrial park?
12I, MR. SPALL: Loretta. at this particular point in time 13 -- I read your letters when I came in tonight and I don't know 14 without some further investigation on my own and actual contact 15 with the NRC attorneys myself that I'm in a position right now 16 to answer point by point. It would take hours to respon~ to 17 your questions. There are considerations here that need to be 18 reviewed with them and considerations that I'll discu~s with 19 council and perhaps as we get on later in the year and after we 20 send the letter. I'd be more than happy to sit down with YOU 21 But I don't think tonight I can do it in the time frame given 22 and I thin~ it would take a lot of homework on my part to be 23 able to respond adequately and properly.
MS. WILLIAMS: Does anybody else have a comment on --
25 MR. JESSICK: Yeah. Loretta. as you know we've been PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
8 1 following this for the last eight years and we've had an 2 ~pportunity for other problems with cleanup measures being 3 ~aken at Shieldalloy and certainly one of the things that were 4 brought up I think eight years ago was the fact that they did 5 ~ave supposedly radioactivity -- radioactive material on site.
6 Of course at that time there was nothing ever done by any of 7 the environmental agencies to assist us in ascertaining what it 8 was. what type of potential hazards, if any, it would give to 9 the borough residents. and even in some meetings that we had 10 with the contaminated water they wouldn't even discuss it at 11 that point. They said everything had to be referred to the lf INRC.
13 ! think the mayor and the rest of council certainly
-*- 14 agrees that one of the things we want to ascertain first is 15 what potential hazard does it affect the residents of the 16 borough as well as the borough itself. You know. is it -- on a 17 scale of one to ten are we below one or are we up at the nine 18 level. Certainly if there's nobody here at the professional 19 level that can tell us and nobody as of today has given us any 20 real direction of how dangerous is it. You know, I hear rumors 21 that you can build a house on it, you can raise food on it.
22 Well. if that's the case why can't you ship it via tractor-23 trailer to Utah and why is it going to cost $300 million.
24 MS. WILLIAMS, Any why do they have signs all around 25 their property pointing out that there's radioactive material PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
9 1 there and to keep out? And they got it fenced in and all. If 2 it's not harmless how come even* child can't walk up and climb 3 that pile or something?
4 MR. JESSICK: Well. certainly that's what the mayor 5 and council wants to do is ascertain what kind of professional 6 like the NRC should be abl' to tell us, you know, what real 7 hazard is it to the Borough of Newfield, and that's the key 8 issue right now. I think the capping issue or moving it will 9 be determined by the amount of hazard to the borough residents.
10 I certainly feel that, you know, we certainly don't ~ant them 11 to leave. We don't want to create any additional tax burden, 12 but what are the alternatives? Whether they leave or not we're 13 still going to be responsible for it. But we certainly want to 14 put a package together working with the government agencies 15 that is going to be both safety directed for the well-being of 16 all the town residents. And I think since they've opened the 17 Pandora's box they should be the ones to tell us what kind of 18 risks that are involved with it.
19 MS. WILLIAMS, Do you think the NRC's really going to 20 tell you? I mean reading now about all the nuclear tests that 21 the scientists did in the '40s and '50s and neve4 told the 22 people they were injecting them with plutonium. They put 23 radioactive material in milk in a school for retarded children.
24 you know.
25 MR. MARSHALL1 Well, I agree with you, Loretta. I PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
10 1 think that there are other agencies involved now. state agen-2 cies and some county agencies that will be giving us additional 3 support as well as assistance of advice and other people that 4 we can ascertain to gather that information. I know I on 5 council have no. you know. I wouldn't know whether it was safe 6 or it wasn't a safe level. It's my understanding that any 7 radioactive material is really not safe. It depends on the 8 ~mount of dosage that you'd be getting over a period of time.
9 MS. WILLIAMS1 Well, if you look at the volumes of 10 ~adioactive material there. I mean it's like punitiv~. And I 11 don't buy the idea that it's not harmful that it can be con-12 tained over the ye.ars. If it's not harmful. then ship it out.
13 Ship it out. Why does it have to be licensed as waste when it 14 comes in -- and the ground is more radioactive -- the uranium ore and other, you know, radioactive materials and it's shipped 15 16 from Canada to this country. to Shieldalloy. It's not li-17 censed, it's not controlled, and yet it can't be shipped out. I 18 mean because it's controlled. I mean that doesn't make sense.
19 MR. MARSHALL1 Loretta, I've been sitting here for a 20 good number' of years and heard many different things that 21 Shieldalloy has told us. And my comment. I think you were at 22 the meeting. was that sometimes they're good neighbors. some-23 times they're bad neighbors. One of these -- this particular 24 instance in my mind is that they're a bad neighbor*because 25 they've told us that there's nothing harmful there, all right.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
11 1 But now we've got to determine whether that's true or not true.
2 We've come to a point in time where the Borough of Newfield has 3 to make a decision on or at least give comment on whether 4 those signs that have been publicized for as long as I've been 5 sitting here and talked about with the neighbors and everybody 6 else and all the, you know, the older citizens know what I'm 7 referring to, we've got to now get some comments to decide that 8 those radioactive signs actually are doing something or not 9 doing something. I think that that's the direction we're 10 going.
11 I don't want to cut you off, but I'd like to get some 12\ comments from other people. We have your letters. If we could 13 move on to other people, but it certainly is to a point in time 14 now where the water pollution is sitting over here, now the 15 radioactive situation is now come to the forefront that we're
- 16 17 18 now going to discuss that and certainly get particular informa-tion as opposed to what we, you know, I can remember a comment that a Shieldalloy person made, "Well there's no more in that 19 than there is in toothpaste." You know, and I'll never forget 20 that comment. It was made in this room many times. That 21 question's going to be answered now because now*~ the time to 22 do that.
23 MS. WILLIAMS: Well. I think they are not a good 24 neighbor ~nd they should have been run out of this town years 25 ago. All they did was lie and all they did was pollute. And I PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
12 1 ~hink it's time to run them out. They're planning on leaving 2 anyway. There's no doubt in my mind that they found that it's 3 going to be cheaper to operate and it's going to be better to 4 go to another country with the low wages, with no environmental 5 laws over there, maybe eastern Europe. maybe even Mexico, you 6 know, with all these trade agreements --
7 MR. MARSHALL, That's -- that's -- Loretta. that's 8 not something we should particularly speculate and that's got 9 really nothing to do with this other than they've filed Chapter 10 11, they're in this process and we have to continue on doing 11 what we have to do. So we appreciate your comments. Does 1~ anybody else 13 MR. MOYNIHAN: Could I just say one thing from here?
14 MR. MARSHALL1 Sure.
15 MR. MOYNIHAN: You know, in my mind the word harmful
- 16 17 18 that the mayor used can be taken more than one way. Is it harmful to your health or is it harmful to the financial well-being of this town. Try to develop that industrial park, try 19 to sell your house. Read Jim's headline "Nuclear waste dump in 20 Newfield." Go out and try to sell your house today. Yes. it's 21 harmful to Newfield. I don't know whether it's healthwise 22 because I -- like Gerry said, we have no feeling for, you know.
23 what radiation is even, let alone how much you can stand.
24 But financially ~o* each and every individual in this 25 town it is harmful.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
13 1 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Morrell?
2 HR. MORRELL, Frank Morrell. -- I was a little 3 appalled when you first asked if anybody had anything to say 4 because Loretta and myself were the only ones with their hands 5 up. Apparently nobody else has anything to say. But I've been 6 coming to these township meetings for quite a while. I've 7 missed a few. I will admit that. But I go back 25 years ago 8 ~hen we addressed -- and you people were not on council at that 9 time. You were not mayor but we addressed Shieldalloy.
10 nThat's fine. Nothing will happen. It's fine. They're taking 11 care of every~hing.* We had pictures taken. We brought them
¥ to the city council. radioactive material. *oh. it's real 13 mild." Now all of a sudden it's one of the top 10 or 20 in the 14 country. Is this another farce? Are you leading us on to say 15 that nuclear whoever it is is going to look into it? Are they
- 16 17 18 going to look into it? Take another 10 years to *decide what they're going to do.* I mean we've got to have something done.
Like Chris Moynihan said. Who's going ta buy a piece of 19 property in Newfield when the newspaper says. "Newfield Shield-20 alloy contaminates the ground radioactive.ft What can we do?
21 We voice our opinion, we come to council. Council does nothing 22 about it. You go to the meeting up there. They listen. We'll 23 get back to you. When are you going to get back to us? When 24 it's too late.
25 I came here four or five years ago. You appointed a PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
14 1 ~octor to check into the health. The people were dying from 2 bladder and kidney cancer and let me tell you there was a hell 3 of a lot of people passed away in Newfield. The water's 4 polluted. Where'd it come from?
5 Then, not you, they built a water tank up* there where 6 they knew that the water was polluted.
\
That cost us quite bit 7 of money. didn't it? They put a water tank up there in the 8 pump house. can't use it, can we?
9 MR. MARSHALL: Shieldalloy paid us back for that, I 10 ~elieve, didn't they. financially?
11 MR. MORRELL, Why? By paying taxes? I mean i~ this 1'2 going to go on? The 15th going to be two weeks from now. are
\
13 Me going to get an answer?
14 MR. MARS~L: What is that time frame?
15 MR. SPALLs My recollection is we.file the comments
- 16 17 18 and they're supposed to have some preliminary reports available in March or April. 'I think it's 60 to 90 days.
MR. MARSHALL, That's the way the government works.
19 There's nothing we can do about it. We're allowed to make in 20 your behalf comments to the NRC.
21 MR. MORRELL, But you've had the opportunity 22 MR. MARSHALLs We;ve never gone through this.
23 MR. MORRELL, With all respect, how long have you 24 been in office?
25 MR. MARSHALL: Sixteen years.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
15 1 MR. MORRELL: Sixteen years. you've been on council 2 and mayor. And it's been brought up time and time again but 3 you have not done anything about it.
4 MR. MARSHALL: It's never been to the point where 5 they're going to decommission the site.
6 MR. MORRELL, It doesn't make any difference. The 7 people have filed a complaint. It's your obligation as a 8 servant of the people of the Borough of Newfield to follow it 9 through, and it was never done. Am I wrong?
10 MR. MARSHALL: No, you're right.
11 MR. MORRELL: That's all I have to say. Thank you.
1~ (Applause) 13 MS. RAGONE, My name is Terry Ragone and I live in 14 Newfield at Church and Wayne Streets. I just -- I've lived 15 here about five years. I'm very concerned. I have a small
- 16 17 18 daughter and my husband grew up here and grew up with that water and we have yet to see what this generation will need.
just want ta make a comment. I think it's very hard ta be I
19 informed about this and I don't know whose fault i t is but I 20 also want to make some practical suggestians*about that. I do 21 know what I read in bits and pieces if by chance I read that 22 paper that day. The Sentinel, or The Philadelphia Inquirer 23 last year had about 300 sites of which this one was on that 24 list for cleanup and tha~ tnat cleanup was being stalled 25 between the state and EPA on how to clean it up.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
16 1 So you get these little bits and pieces. I also know 2 there was a $50,000 grant to a citizen's group to inform us 3 about -- to get through all the technological manuals which sit 4 in the library. I sit on the board of the library. Because we 5 can't as lay people understand that material. And none of us 6 have to my knowledge have gotten anything in the mail that 7 says, "
Dear Neighbor,
This is what we did. The Citizens' 8 Committee hired a consultant. This is what the consultant 9 said." Where did the $50,000 go? I'm just saying -- the point 10 is my practical suggestion is that since the borough has a list 11 of all the citizens because we pay taxes and because we pay our 12 water bills, why not routinely keep us informed?
\
13 And in terms of having -- now we have two weeks --
14 less than two weeks to get comments to the NCR. If I by chance 15 had not picked up the paper, I wouldn't even have known that 16 there was a meeting tonight. I get to the fire house and I 17 drove in, but I didn't know it was about this particular issue 18 or the meeting at the NCR at the high school. I did not I 19 was not informed. So I think it's your responsibility to 20 inform us. And if you don't do it. then I think we have to do 21 that. And I think -- my practical suggestion which I hope you 22 will take and act on is to make a little piece of paper with a 23 questionnair~ to everybody in town, do you want this -- here's 24 the information and give us some facts. some real facts. you 25 know, that -- how many million cubic feet of low level radia-PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609} 728-0781
17 1 tion sitting there. These are the options -- and just give 2 and see what they respond to that, like you would go around 3 door to door getting a petition from citizens. You know, we 4 need that kind o:f activity here and it's not happening. It has 5 not come from your side and I must say that it has not come 6 from the citizens' group because I think when I hang out at the 7 library with the mothers or, you know, go over to the play-8 ground or to the chicken, you know, eating and all of that 9 stuff at the grove or even at the swim club in the summer, and 10 everybody talks about it but nobody knows how to handle it.
11 If you had a piece of paper that already was ad-12 dFessed to our congressman and said this was a letter and this
\
13 is what we want you to say, put it in the mail. You know, put 14 on postage. I don't know what we have to do but I think we 15 need to put information in the hands of every citizen in this 16 town and I think it's easily done with our we can get out 17 something like that. We can put it in the mailboxes tomorrow 18 if we really wanted to and you could get a better response.
19 There are many more people in this town that are 20 concerned than are here tonight.
21 MR. MORRELLz They don't want you to know what's 22 going on.
23 MS. RAGONEs I just wanted to say that. And the 24 ether thing I think that just philosophically and I think t~is 25 is what he was trying to get at was that we have to take a more PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
18 1 aggressive stance. I mean I think we have not to be on the 2 defensive as a township. as a borough. We have to be on the 3 offensive. We have to demand compensation for reckless endan-4 germent -- or I don't know what but we have to have that kind 5 of attitude towards this. We can't say. "Oh. in 15 or 18 years 6 nobody will know what happened." Gee. I laugh about it and be 7 mad or angry. We really have to do that and I don't know what 8 that takes but I think everybody here has some ideas about 9 that.
10 UNIDENTIFIED1 I have something. I ' l l tell you what 11 that takes. That takes more than six people on council and a 12 mayor. All right, that takes people like you and you people
\
13 out there, all right, you'll come to a meeting, you'll come to 14 one meeting, maybe a town meeting and stuff like that. And we 15 don't see you anymore. I've never seen you before at a town 16 meeting. but what I'm saying is, okay, --
17 (Simultaneous speaking) 18 MR. QUIGLEY, It's the people's responsibility to get 19 out and act.
20 HS. RAGONE1 Right.
21 MR. QUIGLEY1 I'm one voter in this town.
22 MS. RAGONE1 It's your responsibility to inform 23 people why they need to get out and act. If they think there's 24 nothing happening oz if they don't know that there are meet-25 ings. they're not going to show up.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
19 1 MR. QUIGLEY: In our defense as far as the NRC 2 meeting, we didn't find out until a week before that that there 3 was even a meeting. We didn't know.
4 MS. RAGONE, Right. And now you have two weeks to 5 rally support. The point is how quickly can you rally sup-6 port --
7 MR. QUIGLEY: What I'm saying is this is what we 8 need. I mean you'll come to one meeting and ~e won't see you 9 again.
10 MS. RAGONE, No, ask me.
11 (Simultaneous speaking) 12 MR. MARSHALL: Terry, thank you very much.
\
13 (Applause) 14 MR. MARSHALL: Just one second. In order to keep 15 orders~ we can get the people that want to ask questions or
- 16 17 18 comments concerning the NRC decommissioning of Shieldalloy, they're the comments-that we need. The other comments we appreciate and we want to hear those too, we're not saying not,
/
19 we need to get those comments specifically. If you have 20 something else to say, that's fine. We want to hear that, but 21 we've got to, you know, we're not trying to rush everybody out 22 but we need to get everybody that's here obviously, as Terry 23 has said, that she has to say something. Go ahead, sir.
24 MR. DIETRICH: My name's Fred Dietrich. I live on 25 Columbia Avenue. I'm not here to blame any company -- it seems PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
20 1 ~o me that this is moving from the realm of demonstrating and 2 pointing fingers and being written, with all due respect, 3 getting written petitions and all, I think you're heading into 4 litigation, am I correct? That's what it seems to me is going 5 to be done with these people. What are your plans from the 6 litigation aspect? Is this company owned by somebody else and 7 is a subsidiary of that corporation, an international corpora-8 tion?
9 MR. MARSHALL, Yes.
10 MR. DIETRICH: Have you planned an attack _against the 11 parent corporation because you can write all the petitions you 1'2 want and bureaucracy's not going to do a damn thing. Where
\
13 you're going to win this battle is in the legal arena and in 14 the courts as far as I can see.
15 MR. SPALL: Mr. Dietrich, are *you aware of the fact 16 that they're presently in bankruptcy and when they're in 17 ~ankruptcy there's no other legal proceedings that take place 18 until some action --
19 HR. DIETRICH, Well, that's what I'm asking, you 20 know, that question, that thi8 is a company, but it's a subsid-21 iary of another corporation. Can you -- on the legal side can 22 your office attack that other corporation? Are there maneuvers 23 that you have to your advantage that you can go after the8e 24 people in other -- or are they going to stonewall or what? I 25 mean they've got the props and if they're an international PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
21 1 corporation. they've got the lawyers.
2 And I'm just asking have you formulated a plan yet 3 besides some other way to circumnavigate maybe a little bit of 4 what they're doing on this end. I mean this company is in 5 Chapter 11, I understand that. But the stockholders, the 6 people that own this compa~y. the stockholders, the chairman of 7 the board of sister corporations. is there a way to circumnavi-8 gate this and maybe attack, you know, the other companies 9 involved with this one, that own this company assuming this 10 company's not owned solely by itself. That's what I wanted to 11 ask.
~ MR. MARSHALL1 Thank you.*
13 MS. LUCIANO: I'm Maryanne Luciano, Delton Street.
1---
14 Newfield. How long has this stuff been sitting there until now 15 th~t we just found out that it was there?
16 UNIDENTIFIED, Thirty,years.
17 MS. LUCIANO1- Open? Open like that?
18 MR. MARSHALL, Well, as they explained at Delsea.
19 what happens is they take it out of -- it comes when they take 20 it out of their process, it comes out like powder. And then 21 they solidify it by putting water on it. Then they dump it out 22 back and it stays that way.
23 MS. LUCIANO, And it's been like that since they've 24 been operating?
25 MR. MARSHALL, As far as I can remember.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
22 1 MS. LUCIANO, Okay. so if they cap it and they leave 2 it there, then what's to say somebody else won't say. "Hey, 3 ~here's a place in New Jersey that's capping their waste. Why 4 ~an't we send more in?" I mean is it a possibility they could 5 ~ven do that? Bring us more than -- I mean if we decide we're 6 soing to cap this thing. there's a possibility they're going to 7 say. "Well. now we're a waste dump and they could bring us 8 more."
9 MR. MARSHALL: I'm shaking my head. I'm not saying 10 yes.
11 MS. LUCIANO,. I mean you're not sure. I know you're 12 not sure either.
13 MR. MARSHALL: I'm saying that's a very good comment.
I-14 MS. LUCIANO: That's an option.
15 UNIDENTIFIED: They have another plant in Ohio that I 16 think has the same problem.
17 UNIDENTifIEDa They're going through the same*pro-18 ceedings we are right now.
19 UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. but what happens if Ohio says 20 ship it to Jersey and we're sitting here saying Bingo.
21 MS. LUCIANO: But then our other option is to make 22 tnem move it. They don't have enough money to move it. They 23 move out and they're going to leave it with us anyway. So 24 we're damned if we do and damned i ! we don't.
25 MR. MARSHALL: That's the scenario that PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
23 1 UNIDENTIFIED: When was the last time you were at a 2 school board meeting? I go to every one of those.
3 HR. MARSHALL1 Thanks, Maryanne.
4 UNIDENTIFIED: I know there are folks that are doing, 5 but there are folks that sit home and don't ever come out.
6 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Mellon?
- 7 8
9 MR. HELLON1
~akwood Drive.
have been made.
My name is John Mellon. I live on Most of the comments that are similar to mine I'd still like to say a few words. I'm mostly 10 concerned about the property values. We were reasse-ssed not 11 too long ago and whether those figures are still good or not, I 12 don't know. I believe the values have gone down and they're 13 going to go further and I'm concerned about the lack of growth 14 for the town, the site is more or less center. I think 90 15 percent of the people live right within the vicinity. And I 16 don't know what that holds for the future growth of this town.
17 I like Newfield. I moved here eight years ago. No one told me 18 there was a nucle~r dump over there. No one told me there was 19 mercury in the water and we put in a new water system.
20 I liked the looks of the town. We moved in. That's 21 it. I like it and I hope it continues. The extra dust and the 22 radiation, I've been to one meeting several years ago, this 23 lady mentioned that her house was dusted periodically. I don't 24 know if she was ever compensated for it or not and I'v~ heard 25 calls from people that the -- quite a few people have died from PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
24 1 ~ancer of various types. These are concerns. We don't want 2 ~hat in the future. No matter what the cost, we have to clean 3 up the site in order to make Newfield grow. Shieldalloy took 4 the profits. They brought the material i*n. They took the 5 profits. I say the cost of removing the residue should have 6 been figured into the profits and paid for. not to put it onto I
7 the public. Some day the United States government is going ta 8 pay for the removal of that and they're going to charge Shield-9 alloy, whether it's this subsidiary or the major plant wherever 10 it's located. They're going to pay. They can't get.out from 11 under because the government doesn't like to pay. It increases 12 ~verybody and it's not popular with the government. It's not 13 popular with the state and it's not popular with you. So I 14 just wanted to repeat that if Shieldalloy doesn't clean it up, 15 the federal government will and we can't attract new .industry 16 or building of homes otherwise and -- oh, and one more thing 17 about the NRC meeting that was held up in Delsea. this is 18 Newfield. I don't have to travel five miles to go to a town 19 meeting. That's why the meeting should have been held here.
20 (Applause) 21 MR. MELLON; I heard the explanations. we expected 22 1,000 people or 500 people or whatever. The newspapers said 23 there were 50. I counted 87 people there. Now I know Edgar-24 town (phonetic) School can hold more than 87 people. You have 25 close to 50 people here. This meeting. I came here knocking on PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
25 1 the door last night. no one was here. but the Daily Journal 2 told me there was a meeting here last night. But your sign out 3 front said it's tonight. so I'm here.
4 MR. MARSHALL: Don't ever believe what you read in 5 the newspaper. Always check.
6 MR. MELLON1 We ~an't do without newspaper8. I just 7 want to repeat about the article that was in the -- from 8 Washington, D.C. where the people have been injected with 9 radiation ostensibly for health reasons or to find out what 10 radiation will do and they kept it secret. So if the United 11 States government can keep a secret. who can say what the 12 profit making corporations will do in order to keep their 13 profit margins hi~her. The water pollution I already covered.
14 The last remark I want to make is back in the 1930s I lived in
- 15 16 17 the countryside and we had an outhouse.
feet to go t_o it..
I had to march 100 After a lifetime of work. today in my old age I have another outhouse. only it's less than half a mile 18 away and I hope they move it.
19 MR. MARSHALL1 Thank yqu.
20 (Applause) 21 MR. MARSHALL1 Anyone else?
22 MS. MADDEN1 My name is Patty Madden and I live at 23 3544 Northwest Avenue and unfortunately -- I don't know about -
24 - but we do precipitate and receive all the pollution from 25 Shieldalloy. In your letter -- the residents -- are also PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
26 1 writing letters but in your letter, I would really strongly 2 nope that you are going to write to find out a very in-depth 3 survey as to what this radiation will do to a -- families, you 4 know, like our friends and children and stuff.
5 Also what the radiation as far as -- they talked' 6 about it leeching. Now Mr. Affini (phonetic) said there was no 7 ~ay that it would leech out of this and we already know that it 8 has leeched into the stream. So I would hope in your letter 9 that you would really strongly want an aggressive study done to 10 see what the possibilities are if they cap this is there any 11 possibility of leeching because if they cap it and leave it
~ then we're still left with -- not only the residents of New-13 field but the residents of Vineland are also left with this 14 problem.
- 15 16 17 And if Shieldalloy caps this, are they going to continue -- if they don't go under Chapter 11 and they file Chapter 7, are they going to be allowed to continue to operate?
18 ~re they still operating the slag and what's going to happen 19 Mith the-new slag? Does anybody know? I mean are they still 20 operating? Are they still using the same technique?
21 MR. MARSHALLs I thought that if they were going to 22 stop doing what they were doing, then they would cap it and be 23 done. Otherwise they will continue to operate. I think this 24 decommissioning is when they're done --
25 MS. MADDENs But do we know that?
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
27 1 MR. MARSHALL: No, we don't.
2 MS. MADDEN: We don't know whether they're going to 3 continue or they're going to stop?
4 MR. MARSHALL1 No.
5 MS. MADDEN: So if they __ , if the NRC says they can 6 cap this, are they still going to be allowed to be producing 7 more? Are we just going to end up with like maybe we'll 8 have a ski resort.
9 MR. MARSHALL: Well, if there's enough radiation 10 MS. MADDEN1 It will melt.
11 MR. MARSHALL: -- the snow will melt.
ll MS. MADDEN: No, in all seriousness, that is one of 13 the questions that I would like answered is are they going to 14 be allowed to continue? Is this going to be something that is 15 still going to be -- they're 'going to be using this and still 16 creating more slag. It's not going to be solving the problem 17 then if they cap it.
18 And in ~nswer to the question with the TAG grant, if 19 I may, most of the people here in Newfield who have lived here 20 all our live~ have dealt with the DEP the EPA and this is the 21 first time we've ever dealt with the NRC. And to the people of 22 you who have never been to this town, the answer is we have 23 written letters. We have petitions. We have requests in to 24 the DEP dating back 40 years. Right now with our TAG grant 25 the TAG grant, and I don't want to say it was not for the PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
28 1 residents of Newfield. we are in a class action law suit right 2 now against Shieldalloy because of the water contamination.
3 That grant was issued to the people that were in the class 4 ~ction suit. Our technical advisor has now been waiting a year 5 for the DEP to send her ~eports, okay, this is what happens.
6 ~he DEP, the EPA. and I can't answer for the NRC, just don't 7 respond to you. The only way we found out about -- as being 8 unlined and about the radiation was through litigation. Once 9 we got lawyers involved, we got answers. That's for our 10 purpose. I don't know about the borough. I don't know how 11 you've done. And we've been. trying for how many years now to 12 get them to do air monitoring and they keep saying next year 13 ~e'll get back to you. Well, that was two years ago. We were 14 supposed to have a meeting every January with the DEP, with
- 15 16 17 Shieldalloy.
are trying.
It's be~n two years.
You just --
UNIDENTIFIED1 We haven't had any.
But you're trying by yourself.
So we 18 MS. MADDEN: No, we are trying 19 UNIDENTIFIED, Because none of us knQw all the 20 particulars and it would be very easy to get all that informa-21 tion out to us and just keep feeding us --
22 MS. MADDEN, You can't do anything against Shield-23 alloy.
24 UNIDENTIFIED, Yeah but we can --
25 UNIDENTIFIED, What do you mean we can't do anything, PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
29 1 MS. MADDEN: They're in Chapter 11. You can't do any 2 litigation against them.
3 UNIDENTIFIED: If the Borough of Newfield would go 4 down there and block their entryway --
5 (Simultaneous speaking) 6 MR. MARSHALL: M~rgaret?
7 MS. BLANDINO: My name is Margaret Blandino and I've 8 lived here since 1938 and I think I've come to pretty near 9 every council meeting since then. Yet there's a lot of people 10 in this town -- and I mean a lot of people in this town -- that 11 are just so apathetic about what goes on in this town. You 12 never see them at a meeting. These things are put in the 13 paper. This meeting here. I don't know how many -- I read all 14 the papers. I'm an avid reader. I don't know how many times 15 this has been in the paper. Everybody says that they don't 16 know anything. I'll tell you one thing that I didn't know 17 about was this committee of so and so. I don't know haw many or 18 what their name was. that they were given a $50.000 grant to 19 look into these things. this is the first time I'm hearing of 20 it and I've been here since 1938. Where is this committee and 21 who heads it and where did the $50.000 go? I think there ought 22 to be an investigation because -- do you know anything about 23 this committee? I bet you you don't.
24 MR. MARSHALL: Oh. I do. Well. M~s. Mann. she just 25 said the people that are in the class action suit against PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
30 1 Shieldalloy.
2 MS. BLANDINO, The point is within this borough 3 MR. MARSHALL, Oh. no, no. Yeah, please.
4 MS. MADDEN: This class action law suit -- not the 5 class action law suit, the technical assistance grant, okay, 6 all this is this was $50,0~0 that was granted to us that we can 7 -- all we can do we cannot generate any reports. I cannot 8 hire a water person 9 HS. BLANDINO, -- on your own --
10 MS. MADDENi No, no, no, no --
11 MS. BLANDINO, I want to know who is responsible
\
12 for --
13 MS. MADDEN, This is from the EPA. The EPA granted -
14 - the Environmental Protection Agency gives what they call
- 15 technical assistance grants. We were granted $50,000 -- now we 16 do not have $50,000 --
17 MS. BLANDINO, Do you have officers? Who was sup-18 posed to get this_ information --
19 MS. MADDEN: This is what I'm trying to tell you. We 20 got it out to the people that were involved with out case and 21 put a notice in the paper -- there as a notice in the paper 22 saying that we got this money. Anybody that was interested was 23 -- but we don't have $50.000. What we have is we hired a 24 technical advisor. They are to get reports. All we can dcr ts 25 read reports. We cannot generate any reports. We cannot say I PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (6~9) 728-0781
31 1 want this tested, I want that tested. All we can to is take 2 all the paperwork that they give us, and --
3 MS. BLANDINO: That's all right. That answers my 4 question. I thought this was a committee within the borough.
5 MS .. MADDEN I No, no. no. no, this was -- and this is 6 something ~hat we can't get reports for because the DEP won't 7 release them to our technical advisor. So we're stuck.
8 MR. MARSHALL: Let me get the first go-arounds first, 9 Frank. We'll get back to you.
10 MR. MORRELL1 I'll forget what I want to say.
11 MR. MARSHALL1 How quick can you say it? Yes. sir?
'12I MR. COKER, Hy name's Terry Coker and I live on Route 13 40 in Newfield. Ive lived in Newfield fo*r about four years 14 and you're all going to be upset, but I am an employee of 15 Shieldalloy. Now the only thing -- I can understand all your 16 concerns. I have only been employed at Shieldalloy for three 17 years. I can understand all your concerns because I don't know 18 what's all going on. But you got to understand, I have a wife, 19 two kids and a family to support. With the economy the way it 20 is today, if Shieldalloy shuts down within Newfield, my taxes 21 are going to go up and we're still going to be stuck with the 22 waste site, right, and I'm going to be out of -- you're going 23 to have 220 people out of a job.
24 How to me how'B that going to help the economy of 25 Newfield when you're going to read in the paper Shieldalloy PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
32 1 UNIDENTIFIED1 You don't live in Newfield.
2 MR. MARSHALL, Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, 3 excuse me. Just let him have his chance 4 MR. COKER1 Well, I think that my address says Route 5 40, Harding Highway, Newfield.
6 MR. MARSHALL: Just continue on, sir.
7 MR. COKER: But I'm an employee of Shieldalloy, so my 8 ~oncerns are in Newfield. I live three miles from here and the 9 only thing I'm saying how's that going to help the economy of 10 Newfield if Shieldalloy leaves. You're stuck with the waste 11 site. You'll wind up paying to have that removed anyway. Your 12 taxes are going to go up and there's going to be 220 people out
\
13 of work.
14 UNIDENTIFIED1 I think that --
15 MR. MARSHALL, Excuse me, excuse me, please 16 MR. COKER, I'm not here to condemn anyone, but I'm 17 saying I agree with your concerns, but you've got to sit down 18 and think. You got to look at all angles because people are 19 going to be out of work and where are they going to find work 20 today with the economy the way it is? It took me two years to, 21 get a job at Shieldalloy.
22 UNIDENTIFIED, Go to the hospital 23 MR. COKER: Right, I'll go to the hospital as an 24 orderly making $5.00 and hour.
25 UNIDENTIFIED1 And at least yoQ're working.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
33 1 MR. COKER: I'm working. I'm working at Shieldalloy 2 right now making 14-something an hour supporting my family.
3 How am I going to support on $5.00 an hour?
4 MR. MARSHALL: Hold it, hold it, hold it.
5 MR. COKER: I agree with everybody, there are con-6 cerns.
He's got to support a family.
7 UNIDENTIFIED: We 8 understand that. What we're saying is we don't want to live 9 we feel bad for you. I think --
. 10 MR. COKER: Oh, I agree wholeheartedly with you .
11 There are problems over there.
12 UNIDENTIFIED, But when you cap it, what's to say --
13 MR. COKER: Well, what I'm saying is what I'm hearing 14 here are people are saying, "Get rid of them. Get Shieldalloy 15 out of there." But what I'm saying is you should sit down and 16 get all these options. Find out which is the best way for 17 Shieldalloy and for the Borough of Newfield.
18 UNIDENTIFIED: But that doesn't correspond with 19 what's best for the town because you're looking at the least 20 costly way for them and the most costly way 21 MR. COKER, Right, but I'm saying that the town and 22 Newfield and Shieldalloy should get together. I don't know how 23 they can do it or what it is they've got to do or whether the 24 ~RC will get together and find out what's right for everybody-25 HR. MARSHALL: Excuse me, hold it, hold it, hold it.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
34 1 ~top a second. Hold it. Mr. Morrell. Listen. this meeting is 2 pot going to continue in the manner that it's going. The 3 ~uestions the comments are to be addressed to mayor and 4 council. The discussion between the audience and the people 5 giving us comments is not helping us get the information that 6 we need to put together because there's people that are not going to get a chance to say what they have to say. We under-7 8 stand that discussion is good, but we need to get the comments 9 here. Comments -- an outburst by the public is not helping get 10 ~hings accomplished. That's what we're trying to do tonight.
11 ~hat's why we're here. Terry made a comment you people are
~ here. We want you to give us comments. We don't need peop*le
\
13 to get into discussions between two different people. We need 14 to get the information to us so that we can get the information 15 where it needs to go.
16 MR. COKERi Yeah, well the only comment I got is ~e 17 should look at all angles, I mean thoroughly so it would be 18 Pest for everybody.
19 MR. MARSHALLi Thank you. Anybody else from the 20 public? Hr. Nestle?
21 MR. NESSEL: My name is John Nessel. I live at 108 22 Woodlawn Avenue. I had a discussion. myself and Mrs. HcCargle 23 (phonetic). We talked about the incidence of cancer in New-24 field and I was ~hocked to find that virtually everyone on her 25 street which is Rosemont Avenue between St. Rose Church and PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
35 1 Helena Street, I think it is, died of cancer in those houses as 2 well as on Church Street where you live, Mr. Mann, those 3 houses, either had an incident of cancer or died of cancer.
4 Back to the pass, it's too late. That's all too 5 late. We should have looked into that before. All this talk 6 that we're doing and everything that we're doing, how much 7 impact is it going to have? Are we in a position to say, yes, 8 Shieldalloy stays. We'll let them stay with these conditions 9 or do they have to leave the town? Do we have that power?
10 MR. QUIGLEY: I think that we're in a Catc.h-22.
11 We're stuck with that place. I think Rosemary -- or Maryanne, 12 rather; brought up a valid point is I'm more concerned about
\
13 what else is going to be coming in. I think we're gettin~
14 mixed messages about how hazardous that material is because if 15 you recall not so long ago they were selling it to the City of
- 16 17 18 Vineland for fill in front of the fire department, but the city made them take it out.
next minute it's not.
So one minute it's very deadly; the It's too deadly to move to Utah; but 19 it's not deadly enough to stay here. That bothers the heck out 20 of me. The school's what -- within 3/4 of a mile of that 21 place? We've got to take some serious action. I can tell you 22 that $220 a year for taxes is a hell. of a lot less money than 23 health care. A hell of a lot less money. And Mr. Coker, with 24 regard to your employment, the borough was trying to fire so 25 many people, put an application in. You can get in here.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
36 1 MR. MARSHALL: Quick solve economy.
2 MR. NESSELs I'm really disappointed in you. Bill.
3 because how many council meetings did you attend before you 4 were councilperson?
5 MR. MARSHALL, Wait, wait. wait, wait -- hold it.
6 MR. NESSEL1 You don't have to address that. It's a 7 ~hetorical question, relax. My chief concern is that no one's 8 doing anything. Gerry's been trying for eight years to put in 9 monitoring stations. What has council done to back him up?
10 What we have to do is hire a lawyer and we have to turn around 11 and pursue this thing and not play around. Hire an independent 12 lawyer. If we have to pay the taxes. put it in my bill. I'll
\
13 pay it. But dog gone it, every time this thing appeara in the 14 paper. my property value goes down the tubes. We lost the 15 school. we lost property value. We're losing Shieldalloy now
- 16 17 18 Mith this dog gone radioactive stuff. my property values have gone down. We got to take a serious look at this. We've got a lot of money invested before we even come to a meeting. We've 19 got to do something. We've got to clean that place out and get 20 that stuff out of there. I'll be honest with you. We have no 21 choice. If we leave it the way it is, we die. If we don't get 22 it out of here and decide to move, we can't get the money for 23 our property and we can't move anyway. We're locked in: it's a 24 Catch-22. We have to do something.
25 MR. MARSHALL1 How much money can we put in your PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
37 1 bill? This is a light side of that.
2 MR. HESSEL1 Let me tell you. my father had cancer, 3 my mother had cancer. my uncle had cancer. My uncle died of 4 cancer. There's some serious problems. I think -- we met 5 several years ago with Shleldalloy and somebody from the state 6 and they suggested a cancer cluster site. Where is it?
7 Where's the cancer cluster site? We should have all that 8 information a long time ago. I remember, Frank, I remember 9, when you said you were supposed to look into that and you never 10 . really di_d. That's not really anybody's fault. It's not your 11 responsibility.
We've got to take a good solid look at this thing.
As far as the $50 000 grant, I'm not sure we can even dip into 0
14 that money, --
15 (Simultaneous speaking) 16 MR. MORRELL: .Let me tell you something, we've got to 17 do something as a town. I'm not sure what we can. even what we 18 decide at this meeting isn't so so important, but I think what 19 I would like to see happen. before the meeting's adjourned I 20 would like to see coun'cil take a vote on the people in this 21 meeting by way of show of hands, how many think Shieldalloy 22 should stay, how many think Shieldalloy should leave. I would 23 like to see that happen just to get a general feeling of what 24 the town thinks should happen to Shieldalloy. That's what I'd 25 like to see happen tonight before we leave. Thank you.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
38 1 MR. MARSHALL: Anybody else from the public?
2 MR. MORRELL: I just have one question.
3 MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead. Don't forget he wants to 4 say something, too.
5 MR. MORRELL: I'm going to address my remarks to 6 Councilman Quigley. With all due respect, Bill, and everybody 7 on here, you made the remark that nobody comes to the council 8 meetings, only when there is something like this going on. Why 9 don't they come? I blame it on the mayor. Mayor, I like you.
10 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.
11 MR. MORRELLi You sit behind there, you hit that 12 gavel. and you can't wait until 20 after seven so you can get 13 out of here. One night a month can you people give us two.
14 three, four hours, whatever's necessary. You're all ready to 15 go home and watch the football game or the basketball game. Am
- 16 17 18 I right or am I wrong? Huh?
twenty minutes. bangi boom.
the bills and away you go.
Nobody's backing me up. Fifteen, You make your point that you pay Spend more time listening to the 19 people of Newfield and then we'll listen to you. That's all.
20 MR. QUIGLEY: Can I please say something?
21 MR. MORRELL: Yeah.
22 MR. QUIGLEY1 Well, number one, the point I was 23 trying to make is there's power in numbers, all right, and you 24 have six, seven people up here. We can't do it all. okay, and 25 we need your input. We've had town meetings, all right, and we PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
{609) 728-0781
39 1 got a pretty good turnout. I guess there is -- how many people 2 in town? Maybe 100 turn out and stuff like that. We need 3 more. We need more people to get involved. That's my point.
4 all right. and there is -- there's power in numbers. If you 5 guys don't come out. all right. there's nothing we're going to 6 do.
7 MR. MORRELL: If it wasn't for you and the mayor and 8 Mrs. Miller. Mr. Jessick~- what's your name Magnum -- I 9 mean you haven't opened your mouth. you've been here an hour 10 and a half and you haven't --
11 MS. MILLER1 This was an evening to hear your com-12 ments. I wasn't planning to open my mouth. I want to hear
\
13 what these people have to say so that our solicitor can forward 14 it on to the NRC. That was the purpose of this meeting.
15 MR. MORRELL, What I'm trying to say is that we
- 16 17 18 elected you to represent us. We ask you questions -- and I've been here -- God knows I've been here "We'll look into it.
Mr. Morrell, and we'll have an answer next month." I come next 19 month, "We're working on it." I mean how long's it take? It's 20 only about a little over a mile over here.
21 MS. MILLER, I've always been anxious to hear how 22 that audit's been doing over at your house --
23 MR. MORRELLs Lousy.
24 MS. MILLER: I never heard an answer from you.
25 MR. MORRELL: Lousy. You heard it when I was here at PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
40 1 the last meeting.
2 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, sir? We've got the train back on 3 ~he track.
4 MR. MORRELL: Wait until election. November.
5 MR. SHIELER: On the NRC 6 MR. MARSHALL: Your name. sir?
7 MR. SHIELER: Glen Shieler. I live at 361 Catawba 8 Avenue by the old Pace farm. We're pretty close to that site 9 and we're real interested in what's going on. You're absolute-10 ly correct in that we've got to decide whether Shieldalloy 11 stays or Shieldalloy goes. Shieldalloy's got a real problem as 1~ a business man. They need to come up with a plan to decide 13 whether they can get out of bankruptcy and move on. They're 14 not going to pay $50 million to move that stuff off site. I 15 don't know of any company. parent company or other who would
- 16 17 18 shoulder that. It's cheaper for them to get their high powered lawyers. pay them $2'million a year for the next 150 years to fight it. to leave it there and do nothing than it is to move 19 it, okay?
20 Now the NRC wants to know how up in arms we are. How 21 much trouble are we going to make? Okay? That's the bottom 22 line. They call it a scope meeting. Does that mean, you know.
23 they're going to put a scope on us and if we holler loud enough 24 they're going to do something about it if it's bad enough we 25 better do something. If it's not bad enough. let's just leave PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
41 1 it there. And again, what they don't realize is just what you 2 brought up and they didn't hear you. As long as they don't 3 leave that site, they don't have to do a damn thing. This plan 4 is only covering the decommissioning of that site, okay? That 5 means how much money do they have to put in bond or how much 6 because they don't have anr money in it. When I asked the 7 gentleman at the meeting, they had less than a million dollars 8 letter of they're paying an insurance policy so that when 9 they leave there's about $900,000 available to do something 10 with that pile.
11 Secondly; the pile is not only the problem. There 1~ are buildings in Philadelphia that went into the ground and at 13 one point in time they were watch factories. Those watch 14 factories used to put the little dots an the watch that used to 15 light up at night. okay. That factory. sixty years later 16 basically from the time they put the dots an the watch, has 17 contaminated almost every piece of material -- material, 18 clothing that people wore to that, and one's house -- they had 19 to have -- they were paid reimbursed for the furniture. the 20 carpet, some of their flooring, et cetera, et cetera. from just 21 going to work and sitting in the chair in front of the televi-22 sion. Okay? The building was bought by the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission. It sits empty in the middle of -- not Philadel-24 phia, I think it's Camden or something. But it just sits 25 there. It's completely -- got the yellow lines, "Danger. do PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
42 1 not cross." et cetera. et cetera. They bought it. They're 2 maintaining it. They have air quality something or other. they 3 suck air in and out of trying to decontaminate this building.
4 ~here is still merchandise down in the basement, basically 5 material. that was too hot to remove because it was there more 6 than six months.
7 The problem's not going to go away. Even if you take 8 all of that, you truck it to Utah. you get Canada -- force 9 Canada to take it back. you dump it in the ocean, whatever, the 10 ground. what are you going to take out -- 200 feet down? All 11 the buildings. all the metal in the buildings -- we don't know.
12 So the bottom line of this is we need to yell loud. hard, large 13 numbers and Shieldalloy doesn't have enough money. He's right.
14 The one man who wants to keep his job, he's right. There's no 15 use getting rid of that company right now. There's not a use 16 getting rid of that company in ten years. It's not going to do 17 any good. Again. you know. the ground's still contaminated.
18 At least they're right now pulling the chromium or whatever's 19 in the water out. They're there to maintain that. So they're 20 trying. I'm not saying they're good for business, they're bad 21 for business. That's what the man was saying. He's got a job 22 there and he likes his job, he makes money. okay. He doesn't 23 want to be shut down and thrown out, ~hatever. I don't think 24 anybody here that would work there would want ta be the same 25 problem. They understand they have a problem. They weren't PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
43 1 aware they had this bad a problem. okay. The radium -- whatev-2 er it is has just been put on. you know, the -- whatever it is 3 that is now recognized. It's a low-level radiation. It's not' 4 radiating nuclear -- we have to still plow snow. as you said.
5 unfortunately it doesn't make it go away.
6 Cancer? There's,a lot of cancer. you know. maybe 7 there's more in here. This is what we need to get on the 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission about. We need to get them to 9 start studies. the real studies. Right now the only thing that 10 they're asking and the only thing we're making comments on. and 11 that's why when you guys get off track you actually hurt
~ yourself, we're making comments on what do we feel should be 13 done with that pile, okay? Taking the pile away, and that's 14 the only thing they will do. take the pile away. whether 15 Shieldalloy pays for it, whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-16 sion pays for it. the EPA pays for it. the Superfund. pays for 17 it. they'll take the* pile away. Keep in mind the equipment 18 that handles that stuff is now going to be radioactive. You 19 can't throw it away. Whatever it take. motors, whatever. when 20 you're done moving that pile. that equipment has to be thrown 21 away. It's now radioactive and unable to be used probably not 22 for 14 billion years. but I don't think it's going to be 23 around, you know. between 100 or 200 years for it to -- half 24 life or whatever they want to call it, so that's junk. okay?
25 So you've got problems you're creating by doing something.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
44 1 Capping it? Of course that's what Shieldalloy would 2 like to do. That way they can stay in business. that way they 3 can cap it. But we only want it capped as Newfield residents 4 if that is the best way to do it. We don't care if it cost 5 $100 trillion basically to fix the problem. That's not our 6 concern. Our concern is w~at's safe. There's a big brouhaha 7 in the national government right now that people were subjected 8 ~o radiation. They didn't know what radiation was going to do.
9 That's why they subjected people to radiation to see what does 10 it do to people. Okay. wasn't good the way they did it. It 11 ~as totally unethical. All those things are coming out now I
12 because you now have truth in paperwork. You can get paperwork 13 you couldn't get before. And that's where these things come 14 from. Somebody dug it up. okay? They dug and dug and dug.
- 15 16 17 They kind of had an idea this was happening but they couldp't get the paperwork. Now they can get to the Open Meetings Act and this act and that act and*paper act. They found it buried 18 in some basement somewhere because now they can get to it.
19 Twenty years ago they couldn't get to it. That was classified 20 information. pure and simple.
21 So what classified information is there on this?
22 Somebody did say that we need to get a lawyer. Now Newfield 23 needs to get a lawyer. That's not what this meeting's about.
24 This is meeting is for every one of you to say -- to stand up 25 here. state your name. state your address. that you feel that PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
45 1 the pile should be kept, you feel that the best method should 2 be taken to deal with it. To disturb the pile right now is a 3 hard statement. You're going to free all the dust. You're 4 going to break this stuff up and it's going to make dust. It's 5 going to travel. It has to travel. Whether they cover the 6 trucks or whatever, you ge~ drips out of your tankers, you 7 know, when you fill them it gets on the top. It comes out and 8 it drips out the pipes and you've got to take care of that. If 9 you make a spill somewhere when your tank's filled up, you've 10 got to take care of it, right. Everett?
11 MR. MARSHALL: Yep.
12 MR. SHIELER: Shieldalloy makes a spill, they got to 13 take care of ft. What we want is -- what they're going to do -
14 - we want to know the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's not even 15 asking all this. They just want to know what we want to happen 16 to Shieldalloy if they leave. If they leave, we want the pile 17 to leave with them. If they stay, we want whatever is best.
18 We don't want the pile to go if it's going to be unhealthy even 19 if they leave, but I don't know. I'm not a nuclear person.* I 20 do know a little bit about radiation a~d I know that it can 21 affect clothing, okay? So there's a danger. but they use 22 radiation to cure cancer. So there's another side of it. you 23 know? Maybe if you go play on the pile, your cancer can be 24 cured and you don't have to go to the hospital. You have to 25 decide. That's what this meeting's about. Every person needs PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
46 1 ~o stand in front of this microphone, give their name and 2 ~ddress, and I'm for capping the pile right where it is. I 3 don't think in 20 to 30 years they're going to address anything 4 other than capping that pile.
5 If you decide to get rid of it, we certainly can get 6 rid of the cap, too. Okay~ If you've got 300 million pounds 7 or whatever there, and if you have another 100 tons of concrete 8 on top of it, you can get rid of the concrete, too. So for 9 right now, we want to ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 ~hat whether that plant decommissions or not, we wan~ the pile 11 capped. And we need to say that again. They're not really 1~ addressing that in this particular instance. There's a lot of 13 noise and a lot of smoke, but you need to tell them they better 14 -- not for tne decommissioning, today, tomorrow, in March we 15 want a report does not say well we recommend they put up a $50 16 million bond and that they can stay in business if they put up 17 the $50 million bond. We want to know from the Nuclear Regula-18 tory Commission, and it's up to the council to start bringing 19 pressure and the citizens to start bringing pressure through 20 letter writing, through -- basically channel letters, lots of 21 letters. Don't -- because then your property value goes down.
22 but then again if it gets fixed your property value goes back 23 up. Between a rock and a hard place. so all we need right now 24 1tonight to say is that either we're for capping it, or for 25 removing it, or for doing absolutely nothing. I'm for capping PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
47 1 it. Glen Shieler. 361 Catawba Avenue. is for capping it in 2 place and doing it under Nuclear Regulatory guidelines.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. MARSHALLz Thanks. Glen.
5 (Applause) 6 MS. HALLET, Hi. I'm Penny Hallet. I live at 104 7 Madison Avenue and Lena Streets and you can see these piles 8 from my house. I don't like them and I really would like them 9 moved. And that's about all! have to say and I think that 10 they are hazardous.
11 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you. Thanks. Penny.
- 1'2 MS. QUINN: Hi. I'm Bernice Quinn and I live at 3595 13 Norcross Avenue which is Vineland. I moved here 25 years ago 14 and I really like the community. We do a lot of things over 15 here with you and I just want to let you know when we moved 16 here we had no idea what was going on. We were just liked the 17 people who are new here. But we found out over the years as 18 our well was poll~ted and we found out, not with radiation, but 19 we know definitely it was polluted with voes from Shieldalloy.
20 all right?
21 I can tell you they told us a lot of things and I 22 don't trust them. They are not a company that tells you the 23 truth. There are plenty of things that we found them lying in 24 and you know that yourselves. Now if you want to take their 25 word and say we're going to cap it and it's going to be safe.
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
48 1 you're fooling yourself. The best thing for you to do is to 2 try to think back about how they treated you in the past and 3 realize what have you gotten out of it. You know, it's still 4 ~here and it's still hurting the people here in the town and 5 it's not going to go away. They want to cap it, but what about 6 what's underneath? The Co~ansey aquifer runs underneath there 7 ~nd if it polluted my well and I'm a little below you, what's 8 it doing to your water and what will that radiation do?
9 They're not saying what they're going to do underneath it.
10 They're not going to lift the pile up and put somet~ing under it. If they cap it it still can go down to the ground into the
~ater, you know, and then what's going to happen. They have to 13 think about those things, too. It's like not only, you know, 14 ~n immediate action. I'm not saying, you know, kick them out 15 of town. That's an awful thing. You have to give your opin-16 ion. My opinion is if you want to think back on past actions 17 and realize how they treated you before, don't take their word 18 now that capping ~s going to make it safe. It's not and you're 19 going to be sorry later on.
20 I also have an interest in this town because I have a 21 daughter-in-law and granddaughter that live over on Columbia 22 ~venue and I can tell you right now we have a high incidence of 23 cancer in north Vineland and I know you do in Newfield, too.
24 ~nd if you want to spare yourself some real anguish you better 25 think about your future and think about your children because PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
49 1 you're going to be suffering later.
2 MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.
3 (Applause) 4 HR. MARSHALL, Anybody else? All right. we will take 5 all of these comments back. We'll have some discussion about 6 that and make our comments,to the NRC. There's some very good 7 points as far as I'm concerned that were brought out this B evening that we're obviously going to have some discussions 9 with our council and -- this council. We are proceeding on
\
10 more than what we have. we have our engineers here and obvious-11 ly they got reappointed this evening, but they didn't leave.
1i They were under the direction of mayor and council to stay so 13 that they could hear what was going on so that if we need their 14 expert opinion on something that they have now heard. and we'll
- 15 start to investigate some of the things that -- and options 16 that we may have on an engineering standpoint and what they do.
17 So we have moved further than we were before. We 18 certainly want to_move as quickly and as expeditiously as 19 possible to try to solve a problem that has plagued all of us 20 that have sat here for a good number of years on and on.
21 Once again, thanks for attending. We meet on the 22 second Tuesday of every month and not to belabor a point. but 23 please. anybody has any comments we're certainly all open. We 24 all have phones. Let us hear from you with your comments.
25 Come to the meetings and see how we operate.
- No, we don't run PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
50 1 out the door as Mr. Morrell said. We'll sit here as long as 2 possible. I dress up every second Tuesday of the month 3 MR. MORRELL, Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, don't say I said 4 you run out the doors. I said you just sit there and can't 5 wait until you can bang the gavel and say meeting adjourned.
6 MR. MARSHALLs G~rry, --
7 UNIDENTIFIED: Just one point of information, the 8 ~ineland Times Journal said that letters could be addressed 9 directly to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and gave that 10 address. Is that true?
11 MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
1\2 UNIDENTIFIED: They don't have to be funnelled 13 !through you?
14 MR. MARSHALL: No.
1-5 UNIDENTIFIED: May I just make a suggestion? One of 16 the points that was made up here today was like there's voice 17 in numbers, it's great that the council is going to do a 18 letter, but I hope that everybody who is standing here, even if 19 you just write a letter and say, "I don't want it. Remove it."
20 If everybody sends an individual letter to the NRC, then they 21 know that you're talking the power if you write. And if 22 everybody tries to get other people they know in town to do the 23 same thing or prepare a letter for those people just to sign 24 1 t, --
25 MR. MARSHALL: What we will do is from now until the PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609} 728-0781
51 1 15th of the month -- and that's fine to do that. we will put 2 the address that the letter should be mailed to on the front 3 door. It will stay there until the 15th so that anybody that 4 needs that information can have that. I'm not sure what more 5 we can do at this point. Pat? I'm sorry.
6 PAT1 (Inaudible) 7 MR. MARSHALL: Certainly.
8 PAT1 How will we get that information?
9 HR. MARSHALLi We can either make it available here 10 or we can bring it around with our water people. I .have no 11 problem with that. That's fine. We can do that.
UNIDENTIFIED: I'd be interested in a requisition 13 from council on behalf of --
14 HR. MARSHALL: Certainly.
15 UNIDENTIFIED: To the NRC.
16 HR. MA*RSHALLa All right. Mr. Beckwith (phonetic),
17 sir?
18 MR. BECKWITH: Paul Beckwith, 206 Church Street.
19 I've been listening to these people saying shove Shieldalloy 20 out of town. That's the same thing they said about Byron 21 Chemical. Byron Chemical got out of town and we're paying to 22 clean up Union Lane, Horris River. and their site. Aren't we 23 prudent? Everybody in the country is paying to clean that up, 24 millions and millions of dollars. So if you run them out of 25 town. it's not going to help. What's going to happen is we're PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
H 52 1 going to pay it.
2 MR. MARSHALL, Thank you. Motion to close to the 3 public?
4 UNIDENTIFIED1 So moved.
5 MR. MARSHALL1 Do I have a second? All in favor?
6 UNIDENTIFIEDa Are.
7 MR. MARSHALL1 Opposed? Motion to adjourn?
8 UNIDENTIFIED: Wait a minute, one thing. Are we 9 going to make a statement as to what we feel like he asked us 10 to or 11 MR. MARSHALL1 I'm not going to. ,Motion to adjourn?
12 Do I have a second? All in favor?
13 UNIDENTIFIED: Aye.
14 HR. MARSHALL, Opposed?
15 (Meeting adjourned)
PAT'S TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE (609) 728-0781
M ,*; C.
c~rr-fl 62-3r1)
'94 JAN 14 P4 :OS Date: r ~ ~. r
~,, L-1 t ' It ,
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
I As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ )
1 carting off site [ q-the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at 1he Shieldalloy plant in our town.
'I e I Please keep me informed about this site, future m~etings and plans.
Thank you, ~~~
Name:
- J~,,.J ,P/2.12._
li-!_~h-4 t- Co~ _.t>rl-
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: ...
p /'t;, p t.A '"J GI v,, VI (_ (
As a resider,t of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site p<] .
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
- e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Date: ,./) ~j,(... ~ I IC\ 9 't To: Secretary .,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site cv1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Address:
/ 0 '+ (._, I) Y'1 w .L I l fl. V -z._
l~ fl W ~* .Q..-\ D 1'\ . __\ 0 'c 3 4Jf
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [VJ carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Nam~:~/4,* 17c_;:-/c Z3 arsrJ M>
Address: ? 0* Oo )( .5tJ o2
/Y~ cu-Pe / c4 /7 --:Tr dP3y7
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ y carting off site [ VJ the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: ~ -/-. ~ ' { ' -
Address: 8o;c S"o) <:Jhto Ave j/lf!!M/fi<-IJ N.~
o'?:J'V'-(
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: ...
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [}(1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ J carting off site [ V]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
- e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
~ fu CC/
Address: .f *a Box &10 fJf.,)/;e Id I~ egJ'f<f I.
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, -D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ L--j the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Name:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site D><]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: l ~'ti~~ t:,D~jj/"'
i\ ~ . ~
Address:
d-- c ~\o (A, ~
f\Q.M)t, u~ D "3 0"6 34-ly
\
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site [ t]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
9 Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
£1~:r l>y~
Name: :t Address: #,f /J//RLC// 5/1 Nbv?r # 1
- Vv / ~h ¥1
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [X]
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site l.')Q carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:c.5' rephc:=-rz- Bt> c;lc Address: t-/ {1/Jf vu/blJ ;lvc
/1:J,:-i,LJ7~/ ./._ I~
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site ~
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site M carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,/a/~ .**
N~me: w'rl t: ~ ~ t d c _ S--:
loci Co.__~l.,o._ ~
Address: Oo...Dhdc1 0:r o ~3J{-
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [Y'1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future
,__ meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ . ~
carting off site ['VJ the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: fl oPE Bu Vuf<()1(HC/
Address: p6 (3 o,( 1 l* !J-
) ' ~ 11 cf ustJ lf
Date:~ ( d1 ( rff To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [--Y]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:~~
Address:/;._ ~ ~
i(__,~, 1lJ&J'3 cl-f
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [)<'1 1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
,J._; \
Name:
v~ Ykt Ctz~Jl-..,
Address: // a/A}MOL1tu;v, ~'E
{JWI{i4t' rJ .J .
Ora 3 LJ¥
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ .X]
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: ~~?~
Address: ) ~ o&,1.
- 77.,e~'71f , cJ f 2, p
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site P-r carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:/)ft<,rfl,u__ c~~
Address: c;;2 Oc/ JJJ-tiLI _)/
/J-e,,J µ, 171 d/13<.JY-
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
capping on site carting off site
!fl As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of
[ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
4t Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
{/V' ,..,__
Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [J-'Y the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: UlL ;A"" JeoV Address: llJ pMVL s r
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site J><j the 1.2 million cdOic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: \.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site b<J the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: Devi" s {os-r;;rtJ()( l(j(J
!O? U) tJocf /4w 1U ifve-Address:
/{Je w F- tE Lt) NJ or5 vy
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [.>(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:~~
- / ~ (J ~Fj~P-
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
1
' (/4
/~/_, ---- /7)
Thank you, )L} f,0_,,>J, Lu,,.~
Name: G '- ~ o 1.,/ s C__C-t,e6 a Address: 20 5" ( 0 .s .r= Mo f...lT AV* 'Po Bo l<. I 3 3 N we 1E._LD }\./.J 083"/I./,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
~
Name: ~ ~ ~~
Address: aO ~ ~~ ~ \
~~ \ "°o O't3lf L/
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [><]
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date: } - /0 - l t To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site (X1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future me_etings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfi7Jd, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ l/]
- carting off site [ ]
the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ }'
carting off site CV]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: ~lt--h f)on.~ h.y Addr~Bef 1~ fle,tlfklt oiYfl rrs.
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in fav1r of capping on site [ ]
- carting off site l)q the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future m etings and plans.
Thank you, Name: :Jo~/J/yl/t/C J)/j E.lf Address: ~~~ /Ja::, c,/J7();U/
)(uu Fi~LZ> NI c> ~ </-<f
Date: / - 9 - 9f To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in fav r of I
capping on site [ ]
carting off site h(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at he Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, CD OJ-~
Name: [AJ l l, L \ i'\ ~I( "'"5 p '{ E ~
rJ-8-~ 'Q__o3eM o NT ~vc Address:
Nf;wFIELD Iv-: ;f.
{) '8 3 4-1---
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site { .Y -
carting off site VJ the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
~*!fr-- _,J?/-,
/r!f C, ~
Date; To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: ~ --5l..
As a residenUJf Newfield, New Jersey, 1'am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [)(]
the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
trlt . ~
Name: Lv..~ w)0 - \ k~
Address: \O \ D ~W- \':)Lvt>
"-)'G,W~\\::.L.b "-.)'T
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] ,
carting off site [>(I the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, ~ t-4~
Nam~: lyt,ji)lf 6tzzleJ Address: f {!ir/lkJJ;t /lw.
Mw-At/t( 1(/T OfJff
Date: / jro/ 9/
To: *secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch
- To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site M the 1.2 million cubrb yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
- Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, ~~ ----"'-+--,,"-"
\
Name: Me/( ~tZ4l_i Address: f {~.fr /w'f /
Jvaovltld ~Pfli/
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in fav r of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ y]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radiCactive waste at ,he Shieldalloy plant in our town. *
- Please keep me informed about this site, future mf etings and plans.
I Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [\]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Ple<:1-se keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
I
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [')'] _
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ vr--
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
4t Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: Yenr)1e \-\o....\\e,~
Address: IOL-i r1o..d\oO'<"\ AM UvJ8eJd ) }-J J Dl>& ~~
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ v"]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: 5/ewo-rJ- '?, /J 1/ei}
Address: f o V y'll 1-.,j ls,.,,, li.A.P.
tvw-+,~ '1 ff,~
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [J(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, \U~ p. ~~
Name: 10'-I m~ a.e.
Address:
~J, 7!j a?-5¥1
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in fav r of capping on site [vj carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at he Shieldalloy plant in our town. j Please keep me informed about this site, future mretings and plans.
I!
Thank you, ~ #. ~
Name:
Address: / (/ y m J) Ser YI M~ ,
fl/e-t.,(:1/'J CI di #'-(f, cJ?-g 'r-Y
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ~
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
-rf; Yt,.,,,.._ J. /,I/? ,ef,b //C-Name: I t?b J, . C/ctrc:-A £?r*
Address: /Jtrw /(t:F?J>
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ~
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: [;0 "- "'- d "- ~ o._ y-f' ,
Address: 17 U GGx --yz--(o G rt. '-'l 0 b ll c ( 7 r- ~~ Q u.J~ ~ e l J , l\j <=' LJ 0 J ')-1/2 cf{Jc(c(
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [>-J carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant
, in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: /f>~Nll4£) /;J£ffL<j I Address: J /o /ff!J,,,-r{J.-,- ff ,Ir{_
- Vtw f, e~p, rl.J
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ vf the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy_ plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date: I - ~ - q £4 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: .
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [J ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: Jo'/,nLamµ;µ Address: .5t1, (fc; Z< I Atl~ AJ et-1/,~/J W 'T
Date: /- / o- f 'I To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of J
capping on site [ ] -
carting off site ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site [l/J the 1 .2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:~µ~
Address:
36 C, f J ~ 3~
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
- carting off site [ ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address;
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] /
carting off site [ vf the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, n\,~ t'\ f'\..e,~
Address: D~)l ~B N~,-<lJ. X'JS
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site l><l carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
capping on site [
carting off site [
v As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [XJ the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
4t Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:~~~
Address: /c:P,Y ~w. /45~
~.v.,V/~4j. c9g'$'f{
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [X..1 carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: l GoN1*d *7lh-flwt~
Address: p. J. y l/)_ S--
Date:
To: Secretary ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [X ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date: / - 9- 91 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site l><J the 1.2 million cubit yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thankyo1/4-M Name: Li';;/- //4//(_k.._{?_
Address: { ( ) ~ (/4~ ,¥eJl
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in-favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [)(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, /
/
Name: 71/~wit/- f /?r~
Address: lo i ~ /l4Y j(p~f[ r I f'? Y/
\
- Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington*, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site J><]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
- e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site M the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20559 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date: I- 9 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [~
carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at he Shieldalloy plant in our town.
I Please keep me informed about this site, future m~etings and plans.
I Thank you,
Date: /-:- / 6 - 9' t/
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [X ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ 1/
carting off site [t--1 the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Nam~: flnlvih e.-f/e.-- f?ce,,i u/17.!
Address: 3 U) o-o J(a_ w n J1w-,.
(\Je-w~J~
I
- v
- r ols Yf
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ . } -
carting off site [ Y J the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town. ,---- -
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date: j~* ~'t / f <J4 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: C),K--L-w.Jl.--
As 1l residentfof Newfield, ~ew Jersey,~ in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [X]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
. -J'/(,,v r{ ~ ~~ff.-~~d)i --e..
Name: Kf7nt '°' *Tt:RR'f -RAG-o~c Address: C\{\_J 'RC\--\ .--{ -\tE Lttv f\ s I S f.D - Box toos-N-aurta..o, ~. r. o~ 3 tt
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfie.fef *. New Jersey! I am in favor of capping on site ( J .** l carting off site ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank your Name: ~r,f\: "'- ~rc£a__z._-z_b Address: { UJ 00 &_ (CUJJ11 f-e_.
(\J>>Jfl eY cl) I N_J ()[3 v1
Date: / }o /qLJ To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ] -
carting off site [ ~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Address:
RD 8 tlY, Ioy - 3ol/f C/ftlxJD 01211;-(
fv ew-6-c IdJ /1/J o<t3 Lf '-I-
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [~
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: 0 u_t~Mti~ r~o b-t1 r+.s Address: - \3 µ_u V)~-er Jx.
t'J_e,wf-e Id / tJ J oi SL/1
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site J><J _
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site Jx]
the 1.2 million cubic yar~s of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: [),:vt1/4{/ I /7-"--
Address: f;o fut_c/~ 1/J~
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site P( ] .
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [v]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: .J>~ J: . ~
Address:
3 1 'J
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [)(I the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site 1 future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
Address:
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [ vt the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: Lind~ :r, S ClA.. \}
Address: 3 / 3 Oo.J< ~ 0 od -0 i-.
]Vcwtteld I tJ:J" 083'-1'-I
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site C><I. .
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
-* Address:
/ro S~rt of./r 4v ~
lt/t J Fe t 1 )_
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site f)'l the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: l(eWv-,~ lA ire$
Address: 3, {p 0 .lJ, 1/2\ L) d
- t\)el,Jf)e,/d ,tJJ o6Jltl/
Date: /z/t-r To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [><]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Name:
Address: Pb. 1?vx ~ 7 /
.J/EvV FIE L D N_ J I
,t)£:, 3 t/f
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch
- To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ !.,.,-
carting off site [ vf the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
\
Name~~£__,~~
Address: "?)7A ~ ~ - : ; . ~ ~ * ,, u
~~.-eld I --'Q--c;, 'l' 3-,
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [?']
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, 1~~
Name: 1ioN /)J £/?ll/J G' Address: f.o, 6oK //& I'). I Fawn ])r, Alewf,~Icl/ ;J..f c;e:3t1t.1
Date:/-/ 0 -f C/
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [)(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, I
Name: ~1J~~
Address: 3 ( o tJ ~ ,LJ.,,,_
~ 11-j {}J-3~7
Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site J>(]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
Survey of options of Newfield residents concerning what we feel should be done about contaminated slag piles at the Shieldalloy plant.
CLEAN UP CAPPING NAME AND ADDRESS SLAG SLAG cl..,
~~ 1d
.-IJiPrv,ft
~ ~.tftl'.....,_ 5S uJq,,,'!'I{
(P~~ 4~~ ljiJ!j}
Survey of options of Newfield residents concerning what we feel should be done about contaminated slag piles at the Shieldalloy plant.
NAME AND ADDRESS CLEAN UP SLAG CAPPING SLAG X
(Y)o..r 1 Ann Loc...1a..n,o ~c:JD9 J::a_J/,r,n :Sf, Aje,,i.JF, e,_ Ie{ X
,;(~ ;?(di~ cto& Jl~s.t X
?(~
~ 0~ 3/rl{) 4---~j{ x-
~~ ~-
Q ~ ~ £.,___ -i4i!itk-'w- x
(/;tlP ,,l.. trF:A*ws,:; Avl!,
/YewFt<>£(,J- .,;r..J; C ~3~
X
\ -
I '.
Survey of options of Newfield residents concerning wl1aL~ _ _1 we feel should be done about contaminated slag piles at the Shieldalloy plant.
CLEAN UP CAPPING NAME AND ADDRESS SLAG SLAG
- I -- ~n P12,411y J/Jltlf /Of /l1tlc/J~4,(,I fJe1e, 1 l.)eu f; efd /.,JI O[t3.Y¥ /'
I
/1&/t) tJ, tt11Nis 3 5 e:75l o""b Jl)t"wft.i-t-Df./.J. of':y,A/
1
~_, d ~ <Q.,.....___-f..___ ,. e..R.--.:~ _A.,,,_ 1/
~
~
tfloa<d4~~~~
7-J ~e- f;t. fJox:S-C:-'( .AJew-F~e/ d
\
r'I
\
TERRY FOX RAGONE P.O.Box&0S r-L
- NEWl=IELD, NEW .JERSEY 08:S44 :, Ni'L
&09 &97-97&4
- 94 JAN 13 A11 :06 January 12, 1994 Secretary United States Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATI'N: Docketing & Services Branch TO whom it may concern; I am a resident of Newfield, New Jersey.
I am writing in response to your request that Newfield residents respond to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposals on how best to deal with the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste now at the Shieldalloy Company in our town.
As you know Shieldalloy is also on the EPA's Superfund list of top sites that need immediate clean-up. The current attempts to clean ground water pollution are not effective, and there are plans to unveil soil clean-up plans in 1995. Having radioactive slag and dust presently continuing to accumulate on a daily basis only compounds the hazards and clean-up of this site.
It is my understanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission as a government agency is to "regulate" such radioactive hazards in the best interests of the cormnunity and the environment, and that "responsible parties" (in this case Shieldalloy) is only a concern to the government in terms of payment for the clean-up. The NRC should revoke or not renew Shieldalloy's licenses to use radioactive materials. This would halt further accumulation of waste immediately. Then clean-up could begin.
I am in favor of hauling away this waste. The NRC has a responsibility to make this economically feasible. To keep the waste on such a site located in such a densely populated, farm cormnunity seems untenable. In addition, the Borough is seeking to develop a light manufacturing industrial park adjacent to Shieldalloy property, and knows that no one will make such an investment next to a hazardous waste site. Thus,this impedes the much needed economic growth in our town.
In closing, I would like to say that I would l ike be better informed. I did not know of the December meeting the NRC called until after the fact.
Were there minutes of that meeting? May I have a copy? Do you have any "fact sheets" or other pertinent information that would help me and my neighbors better understand the situation at this site? Please send me all updated materials. I know my community wants to participate in this serious environmental
,. I '
decision.
I hope the NRC will meet its obligation promptly, and work with us to clean up Shieldalloy, keeping our town a safe, healthy and prosperous place to live.
Thank you for your consideration.
MAY 14 19941 Acknowledged by card ....."....... _....... _.,
).. ' ' '
NC:'.!.8.i;:i -:_.
- NOIS..:i! M,O~ ,,'.:< , t -
- II JAN JC/1~
JOHN j ~/\) D6!,(S'O~
- _77:> W/fo#J IT J?'//?7
,J --~*
~(./4,/VV }
1
. _ )ft,? , Fl~T l\\l'z. N ~
, )~"TG!U..- rl1AI.JO,()
- 94 JAN 14 P4 :os D8 3 <"j
- - __ _...__ _ _::r ~/ti WA-r77NG T'#J:r I, ~.ll:£.-rT~. " -
- ,oLKl '1N i * . * *nri 17
- - -*- /(/$ ~ D JA.16.. 771£ A £ ~ / # G ~~tl/;!z: /4-JC££Ns_~
__ _ e;;:: S.H1Et..lM_~/ .fltGI/fl.f.M..G ~ oF N~GL.P _
_ ---!. /U.itu .J6z/!Sdy~ 1 #I Su/Ui£ you fll'JI/E-
~1't/G£J:J /J1,lt/>>j" ~77__;--'f'- L /!IS1<1AJ1>- you _ _
'""[Q D'zN)" Tltf£ _A-La;;:A/S-E-1 /1,VD ,CQ/{CfiE_
72iff P/Jc1~17 7ZJ CZ.D2EJ T#/5 bi£'17lii?()
o/J ,7-1/z C'ovr/4-12:J J 5 ""To /?S'.K you ~
__;O~/ISIZ Co,vSLl)~ ~ ~ I A . J G 7ll£ ,A./C~E,._
,r:/b/D TD r/Mow 78-6. S1/4& 7Z> ,64. /J~l/iE.C>
ON _S'J-r£4' _ -~~----
- /7;,<ST Cr'//~) h 77/INI< 77-Jlii£ Ct,12.Gi:N5 o,=- NwP-ll!!FLD HAvtz l'{JLou.)N 7711.z D ~
- bar OF ,4;1J:J,Jt?a;c,JOA}
oA /9fi.DLJJJ.D
.r Do ,<.x:::rT S_ffJJi£t-D/i,IJJ:)/) (3_vr f/-llV.fE
-rJ-lt.:Utz:. /A) THE J#_A_JNTENA-J..JGE.. ,D_ez/07 Pcv(
Ml/~ N/iz~
tooA.J<~J>
tl9 ;dWS )!/.:v!l(_S#- ,;r 721.Jµk_ /17 ~ a_T _/2_0,:-
7ltt;£ 2/11~L7~ 77fex'E. /-il7VG£ ci/1!2/(_ IS- )kS Or SluI< ti- CXA-!Jo/ I/U r-zE1T ~L/11-JT 1 ,#..JJD Jf'9YliZ oo,w~D 77-f,,<ou<:,/;,/,
/.izVIIl2/(;/ /J'J,tf-,dA/~L _ 711.19:r $,H./.JEL.~y DI.EdL-5
- tu1m.
-1'1-/il/.
S#Jez:Lf)AU..o/5
_r No.<
/JI-J/
4:N/ 07/fBF,,(
li/1/(IH r-uL liz~rli£cr5 ,:x,o~
PAoDUGTS livl'/17(...0/EE.
I o~ ..{5/-P~oovcr5
W/-/,1T-&'o- /:rV,t;;,Z * ~ ,6!.Eivl&l/.,z. ,/(./£CIEVE d/o/(.lz lt4.D1//r10A.1 rA.P#/ J?N x-M/ 7111/AJ :c Do PA.o/J,t 'T/io5££ SLAG ~1~5 *
..>1£.coA.JDLj 7/f/.iz CL.oSLJA.f/E 0~ S/tJ6LD-
- /PJ./..,o/ Wou<.Df ff,lfVE£. 19 D-Z V-'liY/,477A.J6
/9-r-/C~r OIJ TH~ /1/:zo/<J~ O r A),fil,WP:Jl!£t.../.) *
/riv/) 77f~ 677-/-10( 4uSNP.£556.5 IN 77tE J:}J{fF/1.
THIJT SJi1REWl'l-t.Lo/ S~A:>x,s-.. tHli£. /;;:£oJfJMz-Tlill'T $~/::£Al< ,f-J~ /J::>uoes-r p:'bt(._6-6..7 WH/IT 6-ooD S/f)IE'L/>>tfµpf 1-f-AS Dc>,AJ,:z Fox Tf/1:£ co/. 5l>C.H
- I ,15J S,tJo,_/4ax_ A-ITT;JJE ~J CO/v-r.<.i 13VTE-
- l 'Jo WA~ D5 7Jf6E. ,4r>t (5 UlANCG:. ) [)oAJl1Tlz 7l4JO -wo/
MD105) f.:i-rc.,
I /ii.TC, )
,Jf//f-0/J ..Z:- WOm( 7116XlfL. 11 IS ~ -
A..,JVI NG- ;'f-ND So /7 JS F"M :l.20 Oil+~
rA/Jt141s. I~ we ,Le$, ov~ Joa) J wlh£X,£ l,oov<-D we. ~ ~ . C'DAJ s IO '/A.1/4- 7}J-1£ .,,,/._,_J?t OST
/JOA) tz.y;.I STJt#AlT J c,d /}'/MJ<.i, IN 7}Jlie /J-~.
~
I I IAJ CM:>f/AJ~ J ::;c $,I(, T.!14T you Col-.lSlDEu{
~VP.Ut/71-fJAJ6- VeA. I (///1../!£.Pl.)o/ IN /Jf/fJKIIJG )hrM Dlz -
-c,s1otJ,- ~o, 7otfl..Slii/.F IN o ~c71Jl!z.~1A/Ei.Sf}.#!Aa 7l-HfNk. -7ov A:>~ '/our{ 'TI JJ.tJz: !A.J
/2.MDIN6 TJflf 4£Tr~.
~ .__
_,, I ; '
j ., l'ti '
- 9~ JAN 14 A10 :07 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in fav~r of capping on site [ ]
carting off site t><l j the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at ~he Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
~~Q)
Name: ~~~ \)Q.x-QQJ.rC> ~Q__
Address: \ ~ *(?e..o..>>-\ ~~
\,.) ~~ i. t:0-cD, ~ ~ C!.) '8 ~ c..f 4 I IIAY 4 1994 Acknowledged by card .............._u..mm>>.
S. NUCLEAR RE.Gui..P. I ORY COMMISSION OOC'<c Ii. J . CRV!CE SECTION Orr I I:: SECRETARY
°"F , , :. C0, 1MISSION D, - .., . -
j /12/ q -'- L/_ _ _
(
12;(
.J_ ...,..,.,.___
_w~loe I; Com P,,-,-:~ ' - --
Secretary * -~tfr.L Robert Owens U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4774 Central School Rd.
Docketing and $ervices Branch *94 JAN 13 /\1 ~ :(St. Charles, MO 63304 Washington, DC 20555 t
- I . r January 10, 1994
Subject:
Comments on NRC Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's Facilities
Dear Secretary:
Please consider my comments on the proposed NRC actions to conduct a scoping process and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation facilities. My comments are applicable to both the Cambridge, Ohio and Newfield, New Jersey facilities.
COMMENT 1 Efficient Chemical Separations should receive thorough scientific/engineering evaluation to determine feasibility.
l(a) The EIS, or other document made available to the public, should provide evidence of a thorough evaluation of alternatives involving processing and chemical extraction of the slag, to provide isolation of the radioactive metals and possible recovery of remaining semi-precious metals (Alternative 3).
1(b) The evaluation of chemical extraction technologies should include feasibility studies and treatability studies on actual representative samples of the slag material. Engineering performance data for the chemical extraction alternatives should be reported in the EIS or alternate document(s).
l(c) New, innovative separation chemistries should be evaluated, and evidence of coordination with other agencies of the federal government, such as the U.S.
Dept. of Energy, and consultation with experts in the field of efficient chemical separations should be provided in the environmental documentation.
COMMENT2 Shieldalloy should take the lead for decommissioning.
2(a) The EIS should provide background information and evidence, supporting the fact that Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, a private U.S. corporation, has applied its own corporate resources to the evaluation of on-site processing alternatives.
MAY 14 1994 Acknowledged by card ...~ueeweeeeeeeee:wvo*
,,j2,. I I I tJ I q1.-;
I J --
_w ~he,- Jf~fl!lC-
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. Proposed EIS -- p. 2 2(b) Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation should take the lead in the effort to solve its environmental problems. As a private corporation, Shieldalloy does not require an EIS to conduct a thorough evaluation of engineered solutions to its waste problems.
COMMENT3 NRC should have a reduced role in solving the problem.
3(a) NRC should explain why it is considering going the route of an EIS, rather than requiring Shieldalloy to develop its own documentation of alternatives.
3(b) NRC should explain why it should perform EIS-related studies, rather than deferring such work to the private sector. The proposed NRC-prepared EIS has the appearance of directly competing with the private sector in the provision of engineering services to a private corporation.
3(c) NRC should explain the involvement of ORNL in preparation of the EIS.
Why use ORNL instead of a private engineering firm?
3(d) NRC should announce its intention to hire a support contractor for the preparation of the EIS, if NRC moves forward with an EIS. This will allow companies with expertise in the fields of extractive metallurgy and chemical stabilization to offer their services.
COMMENT4 If timely resolution of this problem is so critical, explain the schedule.
It does not seem very aggressive.
COMMENTS Appropriateness of current unrestricted release criteria should be evaluated.
5(a) Other facilities have applied higher cleanup criteria, or action levels for naturally-occurring radioactive material. Perhaps a less restrictive standard could be considered, if site-specific conditions warrant. Cost reductions without added health risk may be possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
- Signed, Robert F. Owens
~~ ~
- ~ JSJc
/~'--'--"-~
> ~os 55
- 94 JAN 13 A9 :59 I
') . . ,r. ~ ':- r ) , .,
vt-~ /)JU_J ~ a ct,o J..1/4u0 . *rr
~
. *. . ~ TJ_f'W-"-*~ (J
. ~~~~~. c9 .
- 3/4 .w ~ ,..,_ ~
I q 8' ~ ~
°M r MAY .4 1994 Ac nowledged by card..................... .... ....
C.S. NUC',L .: , ~ **,\ 1uiiY COMMISSION D1.*C' ; , ,{ :, SERVICE SECTION OF, :* .* r f f:--,[ SECRET ARY CF *, i !c COi,;rAlSSION f't. ........ ,*. r- * / J_-"-
1-"-"'
J --L-..::
L/_ _ _
c~-,~:~~,: -'- -- - -
t..:. { j::___=-,,,_.....,,--
r *I -c
.--b!L--be
13ern'1c~ o.ncA J"ohn P. Quinn S'r.
35q5 N. Wes+ Ave.
Vi'neland > NJ" o33&>o
'94 JAN 13 A9 :58 uf'"F 1..., - t t f ocKl 1~ , *~ ; v rr b A~
- To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN : Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern :
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [.>< ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
Please keep me informed about th is site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you ,
Name: Lor ~ Lo...n3 Address: 'P. O. Box 301 I:> A y- c,,h ~ e.J, Ll. ..
N ~w+-,e.,\d_ > tv J oi 3Y Y MAY_ 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ...................."............
No:c-" , .,
Abv'l :i.I ~
NOID:=!.; :i~ _
NOISS!l"Jf'l((J A_ r
(59-Ffl 6.28~1)
~tfr.C
- 94 JAN 1J Al 1 :O1 Date: I - i - q4- ,r~,** r ~tr ~.,
1-'u1..'K 1 , i1~1,-, ~, ..,, r, l t\M,l
- To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
1 carting off site [¥] o the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Address:
MAY
- 4 1994 A Knowledged by card ...*--**-*-"--
l.S. t-;Jc~i:1,i--. _ . ,1.JRY cor,AM1ss10N
, ~
ICE SECTION
.. i:CRET ARY
... ~:,::f.,11$S JN J I 11 lf'i c, I J
l::r l:'J5 f!JJ_/2,~
'" W..£.,,!J e-v::-..,, - c_~w-..F- or-C
- 94 JAN 13 A9 :S 7 Date: j f/qf un1*c vocKrT*N F
l r
TAt-<Y v,cr 8kAN ,..
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
N(]JJ_ y-- '(?;} L/ tl-o rn ~ o 0 nQ.,Y-As a r~ t of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you,
' l,S. NUCLEAR Rt:GJ _, .., l ORY COMMISSION
, DOCl<F1 .NG Cl SERVICE SECTION
' OF~~ CE r:r:: Tl r:: SECRETARY CF , ,E Cv /,'/ilSSION I /1° -~q'-/
e--r:--1Js
- t..,?2::---7
.-:: &~
W !:,/h_ Ci!::::..7 C/)11" "r-t
/)<t,5G*
(5"Y-Ff< bJ-3 J-1)
- 94 JAN 12 P3 :32 To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN : Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern :
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site carting off site [ ]
the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
I Thank you, Name:
Address: pc, e~x y'-(
Ve:wP.-e/cL A/, -7; tfga ~9 MAY 14 1994........._
I ,daed by card........-.w.MMMiihiH~
$.NUCLE/,R R:.:C*LAfORY COMMISSION OOCKfTIN-J ~ SERVICE SECTION OFFIC::: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Documert St1tistics Postmark Datl:) / 1 o If L/
Copies Rec *
- _ ___,_ / _ _ _ __
Add'I Cop*c_, Re, V , "::l =-
.J_ _ _ __
S ecial Dist1 ibu 0. Ji 1 lu<,,b-e. v- C
V V
- 94 JAN 12 P3 :32 Date:
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern:
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [/ J the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name: /<1c.llA-£1J fl 1£5 Address: / 0- /;cJ;< 16 J /tJ6 A&rl 57, hwhf1-f)
/
A/4 - t1fJ£/<f MAY ~ 4 1994 Ac~*r.owledged by card ....................................*
S. NUCLEAR PC::GULATORY COMMISSION DOC'<cTl:~G E, SERVICE SECTION OFFICE O" Tl-iE SECRETARY OF THE C01/.MISSION
R
[Sir F-1< 6 .23 1
- 94 J.AN 12 PJ :32
,_ t ' ~ 4,. r I I v
\Jl,/"it * *
(f
' ...""'~' ..
To: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch To whom it may concern: *.
As a resident of Newfield, New Jersey, I am in favor of capping on site [ ]
carting off site [))(:I the 1.2 million cubic yards of radioactive waste at the Shieldalloy plant in our town.
e Please keep me informed about this site, future meetings and plans.
Thank you, Name:
- JAY KoseN-f;.[~
Address: / on CA-~ 8 If IJ-rJ IL fcJ. l3°<t [Sz.
/IJ ew *-f}e- {l), NJ olr .Jt f MAY 14 1994 A,knowfedged by card ...................................
N'JC~EA-, RE. ' : 1GRY COMMISSION Due ~ETI 1G S~flV!CE SECTION OFr-ivE '."" ;1-1E SECRETARY OF THE CO'A"1SSION 1/Lo ..........,_L_/ _ _
J- - - -
- ]
nc /1:T NU..r BERII r-(J)
- 94 JAN 12 P3 :4 7 JJ@@@~[X] ~ 0 lli@(f'i]ffi[K]@
MAYOR 640 E. WOOD STREET VINELAND, NEW JERSEY 08360-3713 l (609) 794-4010 Secretary, U.S. Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation Newfield, New Jersey
Dear Secretary:
The City of Vineland is in receipt of a communication from Gary c. Comfort, Project Manager, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, dated November 30, 1993 at which time he invited the City of Vineland to attend a a Scoping Process meeting on December 16, 1993 to solicit public input on the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the decommissioning of Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation's facility in Newfield, New Jersey.
- Please be advised that the City of Vineland had an identified site remediation project funded through the New Jersey Spill Fund to provide portable water to North Vineland due to contamination by the Shieldalloy facility.
The City of Vineland is currently in the process of having a Diagnostic-Feasibility Study of the Burnt Mill Pond regarding the quality of water in the lake and any impact in the lake from the Shieldalloy facility. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy has made files available to Dr. F.X. Browne, Environmentalist, contracted by the City to complete this study.
In addition to the above two areas of impact, we ask that as part of the Scoping Process you take into con-sideration any yet to be disclosed or released reaction which may be a threat to the Vineland community. Our Health Department Environmental Coordinator is concerned that there may be other areas of impact not disclosed to the City of Vineland and which would present future health concerns to our residents.
Printed on Recycled Paper MAY~ 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ..........N . .N O t N H t _ o o _
'C MM SSION ECTION
~ARY 0 N D
Please be advised that, as a contiguous neighbor to the Shieldalloy site, the City of Vineland has a responsibility to its residents in the area to request that the NRC not be short sighted in its investigation of the potential impact that this site represents not only to Newfield but to Vineland as well. Environmental issues do not respect boundary lines.
In the past, the City of Vineland has been negatively affected by operations at the Shieldalloy site via air and ground water pollution incidents which have transcended the political and geographical boundaries separating the two communities.
We ask that as part of the Scoping Process that as the Federal agencies considering the potential impact associated with the radioactive waste materials stored on-site that you would join with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and other Federal and State regulatory agencies in providing a "comprehensive" environmental risk assessment of this site's past, present and future impacts on the health and safety of our residents.
In closing, we ask that you consider all the concerns expressed in this letter. These statements should be included in your comprehensive health assessment of Shieldalloy's facility with regard to the environmental and other health risks to the City of Vineland.
JER/rb cc - Representative William Hughes Gary C. Comfort, Nuclear Regulatory Commission City Council Linda Dechen Louis Cresci George Sartorio Dr. F.X. Browne Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Representatives Lisa Serfling Bud Cann
January 6, 1994
Dear Mr. Secretary,
- 94 JAN 12 P3 :J 1 I am a resident of Pearl Street in Newfi~,lcati::Nt.J*~;L~ ,~ ,,wt1 , ting about the
-r .K£ - . :, 1 r
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation. I am in favor-Mt. the canpany remaining in town and continuing to provide jobs & much needs tax revenue to our ccxmrunity.
However they must cap the slag piles with clay, revegetate and continue to m:mitor the situation. That waste sit~s been here for years and now suddenly the towns people are up in anns. Claiming the air, water and land are polluted and that peopl e are dying of cancer. Did Shieldalloy cause all this? I think not!
I grew up in snog filled Los Angelos where you couldn't see acroos the street.
These people have clean air and don't even know it. As far as the water is con-cerned, we've needed new water pipes for years, but the cost to the town would be staggering. We do have rust, etc. in our water. Personally I don't drink it, I buy bottled water for our personal consumption. Yes the land around the canpany is polluted with uranium and thori\lffl., but they claim it is harmless to us. I be-lieve them. They have acted in good faith in the past by installing a ground water purification systenJthat is working. This was at considerable cost to them.
- I tow they had hefty fines to pay when it wasn't operational on schedule. Most of the delays were caused by Borough council's demands & changes in the original plans. And who's to say if it was Shieldalloy who caused the water's contamination?
There are other known polluters in the area. I didn't see them making any effort to c l ean up their act. Shieldalloy is being up front, honest and working hard with the coomunity. What happens if they are forced to shut-down? Who would continue treating the water on their property? And yes, it is true, five of my good friends and neighbors have passed away fran cancer. And that fact scares me. But they were elderly, in their seventies, had lived here all their a¢iult lives. They may have had cancer in their families. Maybe they would have died anyway f:ran old age or sane other horrible disease.
MAY 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ............",,,.,,.,,,""""*
J I 3 :~:* _;,Fi REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ..;
- ;r;1'!:Ti'~G & SERViCE SECTION o-FICE OF- THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Oocumont S listi ark Oat0 I(_~ yJi 'IJ I?.;
C~~ ~-(-
(2)
I don't believe the company should pay 350 million to have the slag heaps transported clear across the count ry. That could only causes additional problems.
I say, stay here and clean up the land by burying it where it began. We wanted the industry here fran the start. Now they're saying you did this horrible mess, fix it then get out of town.
I'd personally hate to see Newfield becane a bedroan ccmmmi.ty with no jobs and no future except higher taxes.
Sincerely,
D C'< _T 1UMBER i ~ E -J<-.
l5 f-rfZ- 62.38-7) ,J
- 94 J~N , 2 p 3 :32 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sirs:
We live within two miles of Shieldalloy Corporation in Newfield, NJ. In July, 1987 our water was found to have contaminates and at that time we were asked to change to Vineland City Water. Our wells were no longer able to be used for any purpose.
We strongly urge you to have Shieldalloy Corporation to follow your policy of transporting slag to federally approved facilities. We feel this would be in the best interest of the families in the area.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CC: Congressman William Hughes MAY '::"" 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ...............".............~...
CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document S*atistics Co >
Jdle. 1zc~ -'f'//!!/f!!Il
0( '"!..: T F *:.~BER n r * ......, .: *
- M i s*-<- ~ Jhi.&Mli,6 Loul6 Re.Mhtml ***r.* r.
Lt;"tY°Ff<.. 6.2Jri)
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 110 All.cit Ave POB 314 Naol,ie.td.,NJ 08344 ~-- &
i .i:*.o;r:t:s'TH . 19 9 4~
- 94 JAN 10 12 :26 We have been living in Newfield,N.J. for almost 47 yrs.We are concered about the radioacti, dump at the Shieldaloy Corp. here.Our whole town is upset over it. Befo~~~~~elda}'Wi}~Jed here, 1~C~
we had no problems with our water like we are having now.People are dying from cancer, and we arE wondering if their waste has anything to do with it. A friend of ours moved out because his whitE house was green every morning. He lived close to Shieldaloy and blamed it on the radioactive waste}le would often have our windshields covered with it. Imagine that getting in your lungs.
I know we are a small borough, but that is no excuse for us to be ignored.Every human being,s li :
.recious and ours may be at stake. We desperately need an investieation into this by experts in that field.If that radioactive dump is of any danger to us, Then it should be moved. If it is more dangerous to move it, then it should be capped.Please have this checked into thoroughly so, can decide what is the best thing to do.
Sincerely, Dorothy & Louis Renshaw MAY~ 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ..................- ..."."'""
UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OOCK,..TING ~ SERVICE SECTION OFFiCE Of T:-iE SECRETARY OF THE cor.lMISSION
nn-;L'*::r ~s--
1* v :LlLE-=-=.::....;........,........
(£~FR t>2 3fr1)
Jan. 3, 1994 *94 JAN -7 A1 1 :29 To whom it may concern: ~ *T t ..,
v.Kl * (f After reading the article s in the Franklin Township bisfe 1i inel, I am compelled to write thi s letter. I am a Newfield resident and tax payer and have been for most of my life. As a chi l d, I lived on Catawba Avenue which is less than a mile from Shieldalloy. I can remember having to come inside because of smokey dust that eminated from the plant. Moms would hurry to get their clothes off the line so they wouldn't have to do the wash again. Many times in the summer we would have to shut our windows because of the b l ack s tuff .
Now as an adult I live with my family at 104 Madison Avenue
& Rena Street i n Newfield. I bought this house because at the time it s eemed like the right thing to do and the price was r ight for us. We didn't give ~uch toughtto Shieldalloy Qti ng 1n our back yard. The location was good for our small clii ldren at the time. Newfield was a close net town and quiet to raise children.
I am very upset that I now live next door to a nuclear wastesite.
Sometimes at night there is a pink cloud that hangs over the area and I belive it is from the contaiminated rocks and the dust that blows off of them. Sometimes my family has difficulty breathing and nose bleeds. I am also upset at the fact that many people in this town have cancer or have died from cancer.
I know of about 10 cases within this area and belive that studies should be done on the air and ground surrounding the Shieldalloy plant.
Having been raised in this town I have grown to love it. It is the only home I have ever known. Now I am saddened at the fact that Newfield is considered a Nuclear wastesite.
I would like to know if Shiedalloy would be willing to buy my home so tha t I c an move my famil y furt h er away from th i s plant! I don't thi nk anybody would want to live next door to a Nuclear wastesite. I feel my neighbors and I should be compensated for having to live next door to this contaimanation.
At the very least our taxes should be lowered.
It's just so scarey to know that your town is a Nuclear wastesite and you didn't know about until l you read it in the papers.
As a citizen I was not asked what should be done with the waste.
I think the people of the town should decide.
Thank you for allowing me to voice my complaint.
Sincerel y ,
Penny Hallett Penny Hallett 104 Madison Ave.
Newfield, NJ 08344 MAY ..... 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ......................_'""*.-
$. NUCLEAR REGUU.TORY COMMISSION DOC(-'.::T1~*G & SER /ICE SECTION Cl=F!':': C,F TnE Si:CRETARY OF THE vO,/i .ISSION
- 94 JAN -6 A9 :14 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing .and Services Branch
- December 29, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I attended the meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, held at Delsea Regional High School in Franklinville, on Dec-ember 16, 1993.
The answers given by the Officals of the NRC and Shieldalloy to questions asked by myself and o t hers at the meeting raised even more questions and comments.
If Shieldalloy is allowed to stabilize and dispose of the slag piles onsite, this radioactive mate r i al is located at the rear of Shieldalloy's property near the Ne wfield Industrial Park.
What would be the impact on the fut u r e economic development of the Industrial Park?
What would be the impact on privately owned property near the plant if the radiation was found outside of Shieldalloy's prop-erty? Would private owners be able to sell their land for indust-rial, commerical, or residential use?
Who would monitor the site if Shield a lloy goes out of business?
Would Newfield Borough be responsible to use the Borough police department to keep children and others away from the site?
Would the Borough become liable for a civtl lawsuit if a child goes on to the property and comes in
- contact -with the slag, and the parent believes the ch i ld's health is* affected by the expo-sure to the material?
I was angered by the comment made by Michael Finn, Vice President of Metallurg Inc., Shieldalloy's parent company of New York, that the company could not afford the cost of shipping the slag to a licensed nuclear wastesite, and if forced to do so they will ab-andon the site, and the taxpayers in Newfield Borough would be responsible for the clean up.
MAY 4 1994 Acknowledged by card ...,....._"_._......_...
j' . ..
$. NUCLEAR RE*:..u:..A TORY COMMISSION DOCK~Tl~'G [~ S::.'v!CE SECTION OFF1c*- Cr r:-,:. ScGAETARY OF THi: GOi i'.fi.iSSION Postmark Oat~
Cop;e F: 11c:ai* - -*- ---'-- - -- -
Add'I Copies rL:~r:. :..c:.;d :c
- J_ _ _ __
Special Distribution * ~
UJ~h~~ r
The cost of disposal of waste materials is part of doing bus-iness. If Shieldalloy is unwilling or unable to afford to pro-perly dispose of the waste they man u facture, then they should go into another kind of business that i s less costly to operate and does not produce this k ind of waste.
In my opinion the only safe alternative for Newfield residents is to ship the rad i oactive slag to the licensed nuclear disposal wastesite in Utah.
In preparing the Environmental Impact Statement please take into account the impact on the resi d e nts of Newfield in the long run.
The impact on the environment in the Borough of Newfield, air quality , g round water, public health, economic development, land and property values.
If the NRC names Newfield as a parmanent nuclear wastesite the 67 acres of Shieldalloy property wi l l not be able to be -so l d t o another -business.
Sincerely , ,
~tJ~
Loretta Williams
(f)
- 94 JAN -S PLI ;49 R.R.4 Box 654 ....
,._l.1.nv1."11 e, l'4. j'l*i=*~*8'l;.,2 Frana. i;~
- ~ -. *.; , I'!*,*
December 29, 1993
- 1" '***
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,D.C. 20555 Attn:Docketing and Services Branch
Dear Long-Term Terrorists:
In response to "Shieldalloy Proposes That Newfield Be Named A Permanent Nuclear Wastesite", please take your invisible death, place it on a rocketship and blast it off-destination the sun, (perhaps you could purchase some tickets for yourselves!).
When are you androids going to free this planet from nuclear insanity? Are there:,no- lessons to be leazmE!d fromCGhennbbyl?
Americans do not want to be participants or casualties in your New Jersey experimentf:arld,your immanure,pctafty politics. New Jersians are no fools. I am sure if you were a .- *resp6niib~e or-ganization you could find money in the "superfund". In the meantime, we will be stocking up on suntan lotion.
8?~1~
Edward G. Hudiak MAY ** 4 1994 ckno ledged by card ..........::................."..
~ UClEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.. KET:tJG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE. Or Tl--1::: SECRETARY OF THE COM'v11SSION
I 706288 9 I
u *,,;*,.J l'lL,*.'l:.Jt:N~ *
( f lr Pf<..F,tJSi-;1-1 :I '!_t: ~ l, f;/J_ I .s G Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 226 I Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 62387
- elimination of the following issues from plan as requiJed in 10 CFR 40.42(c)(2). Decommlsslonlng_})f Shl!idaUoY . 1 ~
" the scope of this EIS becauae they have Depending cm the resolution of the Metallurgical CoP.?oraUon'a Facility In
. been previously analyzed in a previous Hamsee'a financial restructuring under Newfield. NJ; Notlce,-of lntenfTo / ~
. Generic Environmental Impact Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, the Prepare an Environmental Impact * , "'~
Statement (GEIS) (NUREG--0586) and NRC may terminate or postpone Statement and To Conduct a Scoping \-
.
- included in an earlier rulernaking (53 development of the EIS. Process - ., \-
FR 24018, June 28, 1988): (i) Planning ~) '*--
(g) Describe the means by which the AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
- 1 I necessary to conduct CMCOrDmissiooing
}(j;I
~I operations in a safe manner; (ii} EIS will be prepared. NRC will prepare Commission. - *-
assurance that sufficient funds are the draft EIS according to the ACTION: Notice of intent te p;epare ,an,.
available to pay fo, decornrnilliootng: requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Environmental Im:p~ct Statement {EIS),_.,. ~ '.* .
(iii) the time period in which Speciftr.ally, in accordance with 10 CFR to conduct a scoping process ~ the EIS, .
decommissioning should be completed: 51.71, the draft BIS will consider and to conduct a scoping me~ * .' ,,,.,
_ and (iv) whether facilities ahould not be left abandoned. but instead remecilated comments submitted to NRC as part.of the scoping process and will include a
SUMMARY
- The NRC intend& to prepare*
an EIS for decomrni81rioning Shieldalloy to appropriate levels. In *dctittcm, prallminuy analysis which considers requirementa were recmtly pmposed in Metallwgical=tion'*
and balancea the environmental and (Shieldalloy) . . located in a separate rulemaking :regmdJDB other effects of the propoeed action and Newfield, New Jeney. Shieldalloy and timeliness of dACOrnmiutooing for 10 the alternatives anilable for reducing or predecessor companies at the Newfield CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 licenaees (58 avoiding adYerseeD'rironmental_and location have been licensed by the NRC FR 4099; January 13, 1993). other effects, as well as the to process ores and mineral CODC81ltrates (d) Identify any Environmental environmental, economic, technical, containing the radioactive material, Assessments or EISs which are being or and other benefits of the proposed uranium, thorium, and their usociated will be p ~ d that are related but are action. decay products (i.e., collectively not part of th~ scope of this EIS. A draft considered source material). & a result Envirnnmental Asiesamant on the The EIS will be prepaied by the NRC of processing the oraa to produce metal timelinen of dacommissionins bu been staff and an NRC contractor. NRC is alloya, Shieldalloy concentrated the prepared as part of a separate arranging a project with Oak Ridge radioactive materials in high rulemaking on decommisliomng National Laboratory to provide technical temperature alag and in beghonse dust.
timeliness (58 FR 4099: January 13, assistance in the preparation of the EIS.* Shieldalloy continuea t o ~ tha 1993) and will be finalized. NRC ia In addition, NRC anticipates requesting source matarial. Althougb Shieldalloy presently developing a Generic EIS to specific information from the licensee to baa no intent to close down the support a rulemaking to 9ltablish support preparation of the ms. Any Newfield facility in th,ca foi:e_seeable generic radiological criteria for information received &om the licensee future, plans for stabilizing or disposing dACODJmi15irming. In addition. NRC is. related to the EIS will be-available for presently developing an EIS for of the alag and duat need to be .
public review, unless the information is estebliahed u part of a pnx:eu for decommissioning the waste piles at Shieldalloy's facility in Newfield, New protected from public disclosure in renewing the NRC license at the me.
accordance with NRC requirements in This notice indk-1te1 the NBC'a intent to Jeney. 10 CFR 2.790.
(e) Identify other enviromriental prepare an EIS in CODjwlction with this review or consultation requirements In the ecoping p1'0C818, perticipanta proposed action and to conduct a related to the pro'f)OSIJd action. NRC will are invited to speak or submit written scoping process that will include a consult with other Federal, State. and comments, u noted above. on any or all public scoping meeting.
local agencies that have jurisdiction of the areas described abcmt. In DATES: Written comments on matters over the c.ambridge site accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the covered by this notice :received by decommissioning. For example, NRC conclusion of the acopq process, NRC January 15, 19ut, will be considered in.
has already been coordinating iu will prepare a concise sammary of the developing the scope of the EIS.
reviews of decommiasioning actions at determinations and conclusions Comments received afts this date will the Cambridge site with the USEPA, reached, including the significant issues be considered if it is prac:tical to do so, OEPA, and the Ohio Department of but the NRC is able to assure identified, and will send a copy to each Health. NRC anticipates continued consideration only for comments participant in the scoping process. received on or before this date.
consultation with these and other agencies, as appropriate, during the Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day A public scoping meeting will be held development of the EIS. of November 1993. at Delsea Regional High School in (f) Indicate the relationship between FOi' the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Franklinville, New Jersey. on December the timing of the preparation of Commission 16, 1993, from 7-10 p.m.
environmental analysis and the John H. Autin, ADDRESSES: Written comments OD the Commission's tentative planning and Chief. Decommissioning and R~ r y matters covered by this notice and/or decision making schedule. NRC intends Issues Branch, Dirision ofI.ow-l.ffsl Waste the scoping meeting should be *nt to:
to prepare and issue for public comment Management and Decommimolling. Office of Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Resu}atory a draft EIS in October 1994. The Nuclear Material Safr,ty and Safe,uard*. Corornissirm, Washington, DC 20555.
comment period would be for 90 days. [FR Doc. 93-29013 Piled 11-24-93: 8:45 am] ATI'N: Docketing and Sa-vices Branch.
The final EIS is scheduled for Hand deliver comments to 11555 BILUNQ CODe 711CM114 publication in June 1995. Subsequent to Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland completion of the final EIS, the NRC 20852, between 7:45 a.m. ,and 4:15 p,m.,
would review and act on a license on Federal woritdays.
amendment from the licensee requesting The scoping meeting will be held at authori7.ation for decommissioning the Delsea Regional High Scbom.
site, including the decommissioning Blackwoodtown Road (County Highway
62388 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 226 I Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 655), Franklinville, New Jersey, on the method for assuring funds for Because the Newfield site has large December 16, 1993. decommissioning using one of several waste piles that may be difficult to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: methods, including prepayment; surety, dispose of at the time of Michael Weber, Office of Nuclear insurance, or other guarantee: external decommissioning, NRC included the Material Safety and Safeguards, sinking fund coupled with a surety Newfield site in the Site Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: method; or statement of intent (for Decommissioning Management Plan 301-504-1298, or Gary Comfort, Office government licensees only). Based on (SDMP) 1 and has been devoting special of Nuclear Material Safety and NRC's definition of decommission, the attention to the site to ensure planning Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555, cost estimate would be based on the continues to achieve timely and Telephone: 301-504-2667. assumption that residual radioactivity effective decommissioning.
would be reduced to a level that permits Shieldalloy's license for the Newfield SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: release of the property for unrestricted facility has been in timely renewal since Background use and termination of the l i ~ . Shieldalloy filed its request for renewal with the NRC in 1985. As a condition The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Need for Propoled Action of acting on the renewal request, the has the statutory responsibility for Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation NRC identified the need for Shieldalloy protection of health and safety related to (Shieldalloy) is licensed by the NRC to submit an adequate decommissioning the use of soUIC8, byproduct, and (License Number SMB-743) to possess funding plan in accordance with 10 CFR special nuclear material under the and store the radioactive materials 40.36(c)(2). In addition, the NRC raised Atomic Energy Act. The NRC believes uranium, thorium, and their associated a concem in 1992 that Shieldalloy's that one portion of this responsibility is decay products (i.e., collectively plan for eventual decommissioning of to assure safe and timely considered .aurce material) at a site the Newfield site may not satisfy NRC's decommissioning of nuclear facilities located near Newfield, Gloucester requirements because it contemplated which it licenses. This responsibility County, New Jersey. As a result of stabilization of the contaminated waste can be partially fulfilled by providing processing ores and mineral onsite and may require land use guidance to licensees on how to plan for concentrates to produce metal alloys, restrictions to ensure continued long-and prepare their sites for the radioactive materials have been term protection of the public and decommissioning. Decommissioning, as concentrated in high temperature slag environment.Thisapproachis defined in NRC's regulations in 10 CFR and baghouse dust. inconsistent with NRC's requirements 40.4, for example, means to remove Since 1955, Shieldalloy has operated for decommissioning, which require nuclear facilities safely from service and a manufacturing facility in Newfield that residual radioactivity be reduced to to reduce residual radioactivity to a and produced specialty steel and super a level that permits release of the level that permits release of the property all,oy additives, including aluminum property for unrestricted use.
for'UDrestricted use and termination of master alloys, metal carbides, powdered In September 1993, Shieldalloy and the license.
- metals, and optical s~roducts. its parent company, Metallurg Inc., filed Once licensed activities have ceased, Raw materials used at the 'ty for protection from creditors under licensees are required, in existing NRC include ores and concentrates of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
regulations, to decommission their niobium, vanadium, zirconium, Decommissioning the Newfield facility, facilities so that their licenses can be titanium, and other metals and and another licensed site in Cambridge, ferminated. This requires that materials. NRC licenses activities at the Ohio, represent two of Shieldalloy's radioactivity in buildings, equipment, site related to processing a mineral largest and unquantified liabilities, soil, groundwater, and surface water concentrate (pyrochlore) to recover which must be resolved u part of the resulting from the licensed operation be niobium. The pyrochlore contains more company's restructuring activities under reduced to acceptably low levels that than 0.05 percent (by weight) of the Chapter 11. To complete restructuring allow the property to be released for radioactive materials uranium and in a timely manner, Shieldalloy has unrestricted use. Llcensees must then thorium, which are source materials and requested NRC to determine whether demonstrate by a site radiological require a license under 10 CFR part 40.. onsite stabilization and disposal of survey that residual contamination in During the manufacturing process, the radioactive waste is acceptable for all facilities and environmental media radioactive materials are concentrated decommissioning the Newfield facility.
have been properly reduced or in a high temperature slag and in NRC has determined that approval of eliminated and that, except for any baghouse dust. The slag has been placed onsite stabilization and disposal of the residual radiological contamination into two piles with a total mass of about radioactive waste is a major Federal found to be acceptable to remain at the 45,000 metric tons (about 50,000 tons) action and, therefore, warrants site, radioactive material has been and a volume of about 18,000 cubic preparation of an EIS in accordance transferred to authorized recipients. meters (about 630,000 cubic feet); the with the National Environmental Policy Confirmatory surveys are conducted by baghouse dust is located in a third pile Act (NEPA) and the NRC's NRC, where appropriate, to verify that of about 12,000 metric tons (13,400 implementing requirements in 10 CFR sites meet NRC radiological criteria for tons) and a volume of about 15,000 part 51, Concentrations of uranium, decommissioning. cubic meters (530,000 cubic feet). In thorium, and their radioactive decay In accordance with NRC requirements addition to these piles, radioactive products in the waste piles exceed promulgated in 1988rlicensees are also materials have also been dispersed in NRC's current criteria for allowing required to provide financial assurance soil around the piles and at numerous release of sites for unrestricted use.
for decommissioning, including other locations at the facility. The These criteria are listed in NRC's Action submission of a decommissioning concentrations of radioactive materials Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of SDMP funding plan (10 CFR 40.36(c)J. In in the piles vary with maximum accordance with 10 CFR 40.36(d), the thorium-232 concentrations up to 1,500 1 The Site Decommissioning Management Plan, decommissioning funding plan must picocuries per gram (pCi/g) and average U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiaaion, NUREG-1444, 1993, la available &om the U.S. Government contain a cost estimate for thorium-232 concentrations ranging Printing Office. Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC decommissioning and a description of from several tens to hundreds of pCi/g. 20402-9328.
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 62389 Sites (57 FR 13389; April 16, 1992). As environmental issues into their (2) The r-0roroission will also accept described in the Action Plan, the criteria decision-maki:'9aes NRC written comments on the proposed are applied on a site-specific basis with regulations im nting NF.PA are action and alternatives from the public.
emphasis on residual contamination contained in 10 CFR part 51. To fulfill Written comments should be submitted
-~- levels that are as low as is reasonably NRC's respoosibilitiea under NEPA. the by January 15, 1994, and should be sent achievable (Al.ARA). NRC intends to prepare an EIS that will to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consequently, ifNRC approved on- analyze the environmental impacts of Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
site stabiliz.ation of the radioactive the proposed action, as well as A'fTN: Docketing and Services Branch.
material, land use restrictions 01' other environmental impacts qf alternatives to Hand deliver comments to 11555 institutional controls may be necessary the proposed action and costs associated Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland to ensure long-term protection of the with both the proposed action and the 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m .*
public and the environment; NRC alternatives. All reasonable alternatives on Federal workdays.
, ,.. expects that Shieldalloy would have to to the proposed acti011. including the According to 10 CFR 51.29, the apply for and obtain an exemption from "no action" alternative, will be scoping process is to be used to address NRC's present requirements because analyzed. The scope of the EIS will the topics which follow. Participants NRC's current requirements for in.elude both radiological and non* may make written comments, or verbal decommissioning do not allow for land radiological impacts associated with the comments at the scoping meeting, on use restrictions. alternative actions. the following (current preliminary NRC In addition to the issues discussed This notice announces the NRC's staff approaches with regard to each above that fall under NRC's jurisdiction, intent to prepare an EIS. The principal topic are included for information):
there are other environmental issues intent of the EIS is to provide a (a) DefiM the proposed action to be associated with decommissioning the document desaibins environmental the subject of the EIS. The proposed Newfield site that are regulated by other consequences that will be available to action is consideration of onsite State and Federal agencies, including the Agency's decision makers in stabilization and disposal of radioactive the U.S. Environmental Protection reviewing the licensee's waste at the Shieldalloy facility in Agency (EPA) and the New Jersey Newfield, New Jersey.
decommissioning plan for the Newfield Department of Environmental Protection site. (b) Determine the scope of the EIS and and Energy (NJDEPE). For example, the the significant" issues to be ant;zlyzed in I
Newfield site is listed on the National The Scoping Process depth. The NRC is proposing to analyze f Priorities List and is being remediated the costs and impacts associaled with The Commission's regulations in 10
'I f 2:*
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act to mitigate CFR part 51 contain requirements fm conducting a scoping process prior to preparation of an EIS. In accordance the proposed action and alternative decommissioning approaches. The following proposed outline for the EIS groundwater contamination caused by It I
non-licensed activities at the site. These activities are administered- by EPA and NJDEPE. The scoping process and EIS with 10 CFR 51.26, whenever the NRC by NRC in connection with a proposed action, NRC will publish a notice of reflects the current NRC staff view on determines that an EIS will be prepared the scope and major topics to be dealt with in the EIS:
Proposed Outline: Environmental "ill not only aid NRC in reaching intent in the Federal llegister stating Impact Statement.
decisions about the decommissioning of that an EIS will be prepared and Abstract.
the Newfield site, but should also be conduct an appropriate scoping process. Executive Summary.
useful to these other agencies in discharging their respective duties.
In addition. this scoping process may include the holding of a public scoping Table of Contents Description of Proposed Action meeting. 1. Introduction The proposed action is onsite NRC also describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, 1.1 Background
- stabilization and disposal of radioactive the content of the notice of intent and 1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed waste containing elevated requires that the notice include the Action concentrations of thorium and uranium proposed action and, to the extent that 1.3 Description of Proposed Action and their decay products at the sufficient information is available, also 1.4 Approach in Preparation of the Shieldalloy facility in Newfield. New describe possible alternatives. In Draft EIS Jersey. Because most of the radioactive addition, the notice of intent is to 1.5 Structure of the Draft EIS contamination at the site exists in three describe the proposed scoping process, 2. Alternatives including the Proposed waste piles, the proposed action including the role of participants, Action principally focuses on the disposal of whether written comments will be 2.1 Factors Considered in Evaluating
~.::ie radioactive materials within those accepted, and whether a public scoping Alternatives waste piles. meeting will be held. 2.2 Alternatives Preparation of an Environmental In accordance with§§ 51.26 and 2.3 Regulatory Compliance
!:r. pact Statement 51.27, the proposed action and possible 3. Affected Environment Cnder the National Environmental alternative approaches a.re discussed 3.1 Introduction
?olicY. Act (NEPA), all Federal agencies below. The role of participants in the 3.2 Description of the Newfield
- -:ust consider the effect of their actions scoping process fm- this EIS includes the facility on the environment. Section 102(1) of following: 3.3 Land Use
- '-.'EPA requires that the policies, (1) Participants may attend and 3.4 G9ology/Seismicity
- egulations, and public laws of the provide oral discussion on the proposed 3.5 Meteorology and Hydrology Cnited States be interpreted and action and possible alternatives at the 3.6 Ecology administered in accordance with the public scoping meeting at Delsea 3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics oolicies sat forth in NEPA. It is the Regional High School in Franklinville, 3.8 Radiation i:1 tent of NEPA to have Federal agencies New Jersey, on December 16, 1993, from 3.9 Cultural Resources incorporate consideration of 7 to 10 p.m. 3.10 Other Environmental Features
62390 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices
- 4. Decommissioning Alternatives facility. Radioactive contamination Term Uses of the Environment and Analyzed and Method of Approach onsite would be reduced down to Long-Term Productivity for the Analysis levels that NRC presently considers 5.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable 4.1 General Information on acceptable for release for Commitments of Resources Approach and Method of Analysis unrestricted use (e.g., 10 pCi/g total 6. Costs and Benefits Associate~ with of Decommissioning Alternatives uranium (with decay products) and Decommissioning Altemat1ves 4.2 Alternatives Considered~a~ 10 pCi/g Thorium-232 and 6.1 General .
of the alternatives represent Thorium-228 in addition to other 6.2 Quantifiable Socioeconom1c alternate decommissioning criteria such as gamma exposure Impacts approaches. . .. . rate and radon concentrations in 6.3 The Benefit-Cost Summary (a) Alternative 1, Onsite Stabilization 6.4 Staff Assessment and Disposal [Licensee's Proposed . air);
- D'1 . 7. List of Preparers .
(d) Alternative 4, Onsite i ution 8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Action }-radioactive contamination Processing and Disposal-existing would be consolidated and Persons Receiving Copies of the radioactive contamination would be DraftEIS stabilized in a single pile that blended with clean fill to reduce would be covered and graded in a 9. References average concentrations of uranium Appendix A-Reserved for Comments manner to provide long-term and thorium to levels that NRC on DIES protection against wind and wat~r presently considers acceptable for* Appendix B-Results of Scoping erosion and to minimize release for unrestricted use (e.g., 10 Process groundwater contamination. This pCi/g total uranium (with decay alternative would also likely (c) Identify and eliminate from products) and 10 pCi/g Thorium- detailed study issues wmch are not include land use restrictions and/or 232 and Thorium-228 in addition to other institutional controls to significant or which are periph~ral or other criteria such as gamma which have been covered by prior prevent or reduce potential exposure rate and radon intrusion into the waste and to environmental review. The NRC has not concentrations in air). Diluted yet eliminated any nonsignificant monitor the long-term effectiveness contamination would then be of the disposal and take mitigative issues. However, NRC is considering graded onsite and released for elimination of the following issues from measures as necessary to protect the unrestricted use; and public and environment. the scope of this EIS because they ~ave (e) Alternative 5, No Action- . been previously analyzed in a previous (b) Altern,ative 2, Of/site Disposal- radioactive contamination would be radioactive contamination would be Generic Environmental Impact abandoned in its present Statement (NUREG-0586) and included exhumed from the site and configuration without any disposed offsite at a licensed low- in an earlier rulemaking (53 FR 24018, additional processing or June 28, 1988): (i) Planning neces~ary ~o level waste disposal facility. The stabilization; This alternative does disposal facility may either be conduct decommissioning operations m not consider any protective a safe manner; (ii) assurance that located in the near vicinity of measures, such as land use Newfield (e.g., within 50 km) or in sufficient funds are available to pa~ for restrictions or other institutional decommissioning; (iii) the time penod another State. This alternative could also consider disposal of the control*, that might mitigate or in which decommissioning should be contamination along with other prevent intrusion into the waste or completed: and (iv) whether facilities wastes of similar physical, long-term release and tr~sport of should not be left abandoned, but chemical, and radiological contamination in the environment. instead remediated to appropriate 4.3 Method of Analysis of levels. In addition, requirements were characteristics, such as mill tailings, Regulatory Alternatives or in a dedicated disposal facility (a) Define a range of alternative recently proposed in a separate that would provide enhanced decommissioning approaches: rulemaking regarding timeliness of barriers against human intrusion (b) Evaluate the alternative decommissioning for 10 CFR parts 30, into the waste for thousands of decommissioning approaches with 40, and 70 licensees (58 FR 4099; years, such as a deep mine. respect to: (1) the incremental January 13. 1993). .
Radioactive contamination onsite (d) Identify any Environmental 111 I impact to workers, members of the would be reduced down to levels public, and the environment, both Assessments or EISs which are being or 1/4il that NRC presently considers will be prepared that are related but are
~ radiological and nonradiological,
- l. . acceptable for release for . .
unrestricted use (e.g., 10 p1c0Cunes resulting from each alternative; and not part of the scope.of this EIS. A draft Environmental Assessment on the
"-1 (2) the costs associated with each
.;v, per gram (pCi/g) total uranium regulatory alternative. Evalua~ons timeliness of decommissioning has been (with decay products) and 10 pCi/ of impacts and costs are contained prepared as part of a se~~te .
g Thonum-232 and Thorium-228 in in Sections 5 and 6 below; rulemaking on deco1DDUss1onmg addition to other criteria such as (c} Perform a comparative evaluation timeliness (58 FR 4099; January 13,
!1: gamma exposure rate and radon concentrations in air):
(c) Alternative 3, Onsite Separation of the decommissioning approaches based on the impacts and costs of 1993) and will be finalized. NRC is presently developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement to each alternative from 4.3(b).
Processing with Of/site Disposal- 5. Environmental Conseque~ces, support a rulem~g ~o e~ablish radioactive contamination would be Monitoring, and Mitigation generic radiological cntei:i~ for .
processed using physical or 5.1 Construction and Remediation decommissioning. In addition, NRC 1s chemical methods to separate more Consequences presently developing an EIS f'!r highly concentrated contamination 5.2 Monitoring Programs decommissioning the waste piles at from lower concentrations that 5.3 Mitigation Meas\ll'8s Shieldalloy's facility in Cambridge, could be stabilized onsite. Higher 5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Ohio. J concentration wastes would be sent Environmental Impacts (e) Identify other ~nviro~enta offsite to a licensed disposal 5.5 Relationship between Short- review or consultation requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 226 / Friday, November 26, 1993 / Notices 62391 related to the proposed action. NRC will accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the Further information regarding topics consult with other Federal, State, and conclusion of the scoping process, NRC to be discussed, the scheduling of local agencies that have jurisdiction will prepare a concise summary of the sessions open to the public. whether the over the Newfield site. For example, determinations and conclusions meeting has been cancelled or NRC has already been coordinating its reached, including the significant issues rescheduled, the Ch:rirman's ruling on reviews of decommissioning actions at identified, and will send a copy to each requests for the opportunity to present
' , the Newfield site with the USEPA and participant-in the scoping process. oral statements, and the time allotted the NJDEPE. NRC anticipates continued Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day therefor can be obtained by contacting consultation with these and other of November 1993. the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr.
agencies, as appropriate, during the For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory John T. Larkins (telephone 301/492-development of the EIS. Commission. 4516) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,
(f) Indicate the relationship between EST. "Persons planning to attend this John IL Austin, the timing of the preparation of meeting are urged to contact the above environmental analysis and the Chief. Decommissioning and Regulatory named individual five days before the Commission's tentative planning and Issues Branch, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, Office of scheduled meeting to be advised of any decision making schedule. NRC intends Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. changes in schedule, etc., that may have
~ to prepare and issue for public comment occurred.
[FR Doc. 93-29014 Filed 11-24-93: 8:45 am) a draft EIS in October 1994. The Dated: November 18, 1993.
BILUNG CODE 7S~1-9 comment period would be for 90 days. Sam Duraiswamy, The final EIS is scheduled for Chief. ;\'uciear Reactors Branch.
publication in June 1995. Subsequent to Advisory Committee on Reactor completion of the final EIS. the NRC [FR Doc. 93-28998 Filed 11-24-93; 8:45 am!
Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning BILLING CODE ~9CHJ1-M would review and act on a and Procedures; Meeting supplemented license renewal request from the licensee requesting continued The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning [Docket No. 5!>-312]
authorization for possession and storage and Procedures will hold a meeting-on of source material at the site, including December 8, 1993, room P-422, 7920 Sacramento Municipal Utility District the decommissioning funding plan as Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating required in 10 CFR 40.36(c)(2). The entire meeting will be open to Station); Exemption Depending on the resolution of the public attendance, with the exception of licensee's financial restructuring under a portion that may be closed pursuant I Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, the to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss The Sacramento Municipal Utility NRC may terminate or postpone organizational and personnel matters District (SMUD or the licensee) is the development of the EIS, that relate solely to internal personnel holder of Facility Operating License No.
(g) Describe the means by which the rules and practices of ACRS and matters DPR-54. The license provides, among EIS will be prepared. NRC will prepare the release of which would represent a other things, that it is subject to all the draft EIS according to the clearly unwarranted invasion of rules, regulations, and orders of the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. personal privacy. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Specifically, in accordance with 10 CFR The agenda for the subject meeting Commission or NRC) now or hereafter 51.71, the draft EIS will consider comments submitted to NRC as part of the scoping process and will include a preliminary analysis which considers and balances the environmental and other effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for reducing or shall be as follows:
Wednesday, December 8, 1993-4 p.m.
Until 6 p.m.
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities, practices and procedures for conducting Committee in effect. The facility consists of a pressurized water reactor located at the licensee site in Sacramento County, California, and is currently defueled with fuel stored in the spent fuel pool.
Additionally, a confirmatory order prevents the movement of the fuel into avoiding adverse environmental and business, and organizational and the reactor building without NRC other effects, as well as the personnel matters relating to ACRS and approval.
environmental, economic, technical. its staff. The purpose of this meeting is and other benefits of the proposed to gather information, analyze relevant II action. issues and facts, and to formulate The Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating The EIS will be prepared by the NRC proposed positions and actions, as Station (Rancho Seco) was permanently staff and an NRC contractor. NRC is appropriate, for deliberation by the full shut down on June 7, 1989, and
- arranging a project v.ith Oak Ridge Committee. completely defueled on December 8, National Laboratory to provide technical Oral statements may be presented by 1989. The NRC in Amendment No. 117, assistance ln the preparation of the EIS. members of the public with the dated Mach 17 , 1992, modified Facility In addition, NRC anticipates requesting concurrence of the Subcommittee Operating License No. DPR-54 to a specific information from the licensee to Chairman; written statements will be Possession Only License (POL). The support preparation of the EIS. Any accepted and made available to the license is conditioned so that SMUD is l:1formation received from the licensee Committee. Electronic recordings will not authorized to operate or place fuel related to the EIS \\till be available for be permitted only during those portions in the reactor vessel, thus formalizing public review, unless the information is of the meeting that are open to the the licensee commitment to protected from public disclosure in public, and questions may be asked only permanentlv cease power operations.
2.ccordance with NRC requirements in by members of the Subcommittee, its By letter aated November 14, 1990, 10 CFR 2.790. consultants, and staff. Persons desiring and supplemented by letter dated ln the scoping process, participants to make oral statements should notify October 15, 1992, the licensee requested are invited to speak or submit written the ACRS staff member named below as a reduction in primary financial comments, as noted above, on any or all far in advance as is practicable so that coverage and an exemption from of the areas described above. In appropriate arrangements can be made. participation in the industry