APR-09-2004 11:17MlN UU U4 IUL 1'1JU nil

P.04a. . _I, ,,. atu.

FRANK A. LoBIONDO2'Jn CzThu. NI w JLflfJf

n25 2;5uINZA IlNa CrI Oil a1:1 Iunl 0wCWAt-.Trc, DC2dCI410.a2

20z22!'-C028/FAX202 -25-311

1 14 M1Ar SiiatI7 a4o0c L n Nr.1 N 0 O 0

tAx VW4-2 5-50/t

cum f I 1 ̂TRANSPORATON ANO

INMfARITUC LRE

cdti~kfrrc: :CJ4AINUVf

CAACT Gf"WID Atk3 MAAMM3o,Ce(AryIAJ-.!`W1IAOr

Av1&?itW

HI'fUWAYS ANO TbIAtrT

ArME= SEtmces

YACM AP. an Lows rewett

iZongrev of tie 'niteb itate#kou.e of Repre!entatibebWJa~jfigtoir,;DC 20515-3002

April 6, 2004

14r. Dennis K. RathbunDirectorNuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Congressional AffairsWasihington, D.C. 20555

Dcar Mr. Rathbun:

I have received the enclosed information from LorettaWiilliams of Newfield, Now aersey, regarding her groundwaterissues .

I would appreciate your assistance in reviewing this matter,and your providing me with any information that will enable me torespond to Ms. Williams. If you have any questions, or needfurther information, please contact my staff assistant, Allan V.Bernardini (Allan.Bern2ardinigmail.house.gov), in my Mays Landingdistrict office.

Thank you for your help, and.I look forward to hearing fromyou soon.

Sincerely,

Frank A. LoBiondoMember of Congress

FAL/avbenc

P. 05APPR-08-2ee4 11:18 rn IWOHYK-Uo-uq IUtC 11.30 rnli

Loretta Williams310 Oakwood DriveNewfiltd, NJ 08344

Phone (S56)697-4223

April 1, 2004

Honorable Framnk A LoBiondo, Congreqsran5914 Main StreetMays Landing, NJ 08330

Re: Shieldalloy Mctellurgical Corpo=lion tECEIVELUS Environmental ProLcction Agency andUS Nuclcar gulatoiy Corrimission APR a 2 Z004

. Dffr Rep. LoBiondo;: .-

From 1955 through 1997, Shieldalloy Mitallu'rgical Corporation manufactred specialtysteel and supcr siloy additives, primary alnumnu master alloys, metal carbides,powdered.rneta, optical surfacing products. Rminmateril used at the faility includcdoxides of columbium (niobiun), vnadiumn, aluiainum metal, titanium metal, stroituiimnmetl, zirconlLm tnetal, and fluoride (titaniui and boron salts, During the manufacturingprocess, slag. dross, and baghouse dust were gene&Proyclore, a eoneenfthicd ore containing colutmbiium (nicibium), contains greater than0.05% of natural uranium and thonurn. fih US Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenscsthis material.

Shieldalloy has discontinued all furnace operation and the Bimelting of Ferro columium,the company is required by the NRC to decomission iad terrinate the opcratio nliccese..Shicidalloy is plannuing to dcommnission portions of the plant for restricted release/useand obtain a posscssion only license fromr NRC.

In 1972, hexalaint chromium and ofher metals were detected in the municipal watersupply well and alsoin private wells in Newfield and North Vineland.

In 1983 Slhieldalloy was placed on the Nationl Primiti es List.In 1988 Shieldalloy put il a purmp and treat systemto teat groundwater contarnioationthrough groundwater cxirtion lreatmcnt and discarge. Siice it includcs apurnp andtreat ation, it will require long-tcrm operIion snd mainicnriace until cleanup levels areneheved.

In September 2003, a Groundwater Invesigation Report was completed for the NewficldP'laming Broad,ROSE LLC, proposed an adult commuinity bousing project on Caawba Avenuc, for.approval by the Planning Boaid.

APR-08-2004 11:18 P.06III LW V UUY IUL 1'JU MlI r HA i¶u. r. u'

Thle Planning Board ordcerd the groundwater testing to show if there was anyenvironmental impact from the 6uperfund site.In two samples hexavalent chromium ai Icad above NJDEP sandards were found.These tests showed the chromium and lead contamination was moving northeast fromShieldalloy in the direction of the muni pal water well.

Ahe US EPA, NJDEP and USNRC received the fill groundwater investigation reportRose ILC, and asked to conduct more tests or fund independent testing to find out ifShieldalloy's pump and treat system is working, or if the lead is radioactive lead leachingfrom their slag and bughouse dust piles.The answer from the USEPA and NJDEP was thc groundwater flows southwest in thedircotion of North Vineland, and you arc not drinldng contaminated water at this tirec.The USNRC, tests years ago showed the slag and baghouse dust are not leachable, itwould take thirty years to leach and do any harm.1he slag nnd baghouse dust has been there for fifty yearsl

It is tde responsibility of these government agencies to protect the health and welfare ofthe public from superfund sites like Shieldalloy and not allow Ihem to monitorthemselves.

I hlve notified my state officinls on the inaction of the NIDEP on this problem.I would like you and my state officials to push these agencies to be more responsible inperforming their duties as regulatory agencies.

Encloscd arc the Groundwater Investigation Report RoseLLC., letter to Kenneth "almanof the USNRC, Rejection of Decommission Plan and the Shlieldalloy and NRC meetingsummary.

Sincerely,

Loretta Williams

APR-089-2004 11:18 P.07

mir-uo-u4 iut ii Jin r HA NU. r. UD

LoTCtta Williarni

310 Oak-wood DriveNcwfield, NJ 08344

Phone (856)697-8221

January 7,2004

cenneth KalmanUS Nuclear Regiiatosy ComnmissionDocommissioning BranchMail Stop vW27Division of Waste ManagementWashington DC 20555-0001

Dcar Mr. Kalman:

I am %;Titing in reference to the Groundwater Report, Rose, LLC. in the Borough ofNcwfield.In two ground water samples hexavalent chromium and lead tested above NJDEP limit.

The Shieldalloy Corporation in the past has been responsible for hexavalent chrowium inthe ground water, Al-so lead 210 a radioactive lead is one of the isotopes in the slag andbnaghnuse dust piles.

Is there a possibility of finding from the Federal Govcrnment to do morc testing todetermine if lead 210 is leaching from Shieldalloy Coaporarion's slag and baghouse dustpiles? Will NRC radiological experts do the testing?

Enclosed is (he full Groundwater ReportRose, LLC.

Sincerely,

* -Lrla Wla

Loretta Williams

FiPR-08-2004 11:18 P.08APR-U6-U4 TUE 11:3U fin r MA NU. r. U0

Loretta Williams310 Oakwood DriveNcwfield, NJ 08344

(856)697-8221

January 13,2004

US Department of EnergyOffice of Rtepository DceclopmentAllen Benson1551 HillshireDrive1.as Vcgas, NV 89134

Dear Mr. Bonson:

From 1955 through 1997, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Coxportion ranufictured specialtysteel and super alloy additives, primary aluminum master alloys, metal carbides,powdeTed metals, optical surfcing products. Raw materials used at the facility includedoxides ofcolumbium (niobium), vanadium, aluminum metal, titanium metal, strontiummetal, zirconium metal, and fluoride (titanium and boron salts. During the manufacturingprocess, slag, dross, and baghouse dust were generated.

Pyroclore, a concentrated ore containing colurnbiurn (niobium), contains greater than0.05% of natural uranium and thorium. The US Nuclear Regulatory Conmmissslonlicenses ftiis material.

ShicIdalloy has discontinued all the furnace operations and the smelting of feroColumbiurm, the company is required by the NRC to decommission and terminate theopcrmtion license,Shieldalioy is planning to decommission portiors of the plant for restricted rcleasc/usersnd obtain a posscssion only license from NRC.

Is thcre a possibility that the slag could be used for shielding, shielding constituents, drycask storagc for spent fuel, containers for the higher level of radioactive material at theYucca Mountain Project, or other Department of Energy sites?

1 enclosed information on the site background, radiological statu's and isotopeconcentrations.

Sinccrely,

~.' r'bV"4.

Lorctta Williams

APR-08-2004 11:19

QPR-06-04 TUE 11'39 AM

P.09

FAX NO.

* - * -' ae -o... Clicn US I .rmConceern for our Client - fhsa or the Environment

P. 07

GR OUNDWATIER INVE:STIGATION RE;PORTFor

Catawba AvenueBlock 1001, /l, Lots 2, 8.03 16.01I 19 and 25

Newfield, Atlantic CountyNew Jersey

Prepared For.Rose, LLC

660 Sun Haven RoadClayton, NJ OB3 12

Prepared By:Target Environmental Co., Inc.

P.O. Box 283235 Ncw Orleans Avenue

Egg Harbor City, New Jersey 08215

Written By:

Bill Cietyrbok Jr.Gcologist

Rcviewed By:Mark Harlman

President

Scplcmbcr 2003

M~ailing Ad(dressP.O. Box 283

Egg lI;rbl r Chy; NJ 02) 5 %'slVl~rydelff .110

'livAIcm A1.ddress25D Newt O ) ev:1ns AVEMIliC

I':"-- 1;1ul Haditi Ct. NJ n2 .5

APR-03-2004 11:1S5

HrK-Uo-uq Jut 11,qu inrnA liv,

Grmonndr'fncr Irnwfstigraion

cIlrJdcid, NeuCJerxr

1.0 Scope or Work

In accordance with the. New Jersey Department of Environmentzl Protection (NJDEP) hereinknown as ihe "Department", Targct Environmental Co., Inc. (TEC) has compiled thisGroundwater InvestigAtiall Report on behtlr of Rose LLC, of Clayton New Jersey. Thesubject site, known as Catawba Avenue located in Newtield New Jerscy.

This report summarizes all field and analytical data recorded involving the groundwatersampling event conducted on May 5"h 2003 in accordancc whih NIDEP's guidelines.

All onsito work, (performed by 'MEC) was undertaken in a manner consistent with USEPA'sStandard Opermting Sarety Ghtides (1-Iazardous Materials Incidcnt Responso Operations course)(165.5) and with the Dcpartment orfabor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's,Safety andI tIfealth Standards (29 CFR Pad 1910 and 1926) (1989)

All sampling procedures were performed in accordznce with NJDEP procdures outlined in the"Field Manual ror Watcr Data Acquisition and the Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation's FieldSampling Procedurcs Manual. All samples werc analyzcd by a laboratory certified pursuant toN.J.A.C. 7:12

APR-09-2004 11:19 P.ll1

Hmt<-uu-u4 IUt ii-qu nrl rnA jiv,, u

Grin, Jrdwatcr Jincifi'otirnCrrlm.Irn tvrnueNfield. NcnJcr:Cy 2

2.0 Ground Watcr Investigation

On May 5 th, 2003 Target Environmental Co., Inc. personnel mobilized to the subject site tocollect ground water samples utilizing a direct push rig equipped with a decontaminated stainlessstccl screen point groundwater sampler.. A sample, GW-I (Afl84392) was collected. Due to anequipment malfunction on that date further sampic collection was impossible.

On May 9'h, 2003 Targct Environmental Co., Inc. pefsonnel mobilized to the subject site tocollect ground waler sainples. Utilizing a direct push boring rig equipped with a decontaminatedstainless stcel screen point groundwater sampler, TEC employees collected 3 samples GW-2(AB86330), GW-3 (AB8633 1) and GW4 (AB896332). The sample locations can be seen onmap R2: Groundwater Sampling Locations.

Samples were collected utilizing dedicated disposable Teflon hand rnicro-bailers onpolypropylenc line. The first bailers were collected for analysis for volatile organic compounds(VOv10) Thc VO+10 samples were placed in 40-ml glass vials and preserved with hydrochloricacid. Prccautions were taken to eliminate any air from being trapped in the vials. The sampleswere then placed in a cooler at 4 degrees C. 13as neutral +15 samples were collected as wcll assamples for pdiozity pollutant metals analysis. All samples were taken to a NYDE? certified labfor appropriatc analysis. A copy of the laboratory reduced deliverabIcs package may be found inAppendix A.

3.0 MDINGS

Samnple GCVW-1Sample GW-I (AB84392) was taken in the southeastcr section of the subject site. The screenpoint sampler was advanced to a dept h of 33 feet below grade utilizing three (3) foot longdecontaminated one (1) inch thick stainless steel probe rod. Ground water was observed in thesaniplcr rods at 29.5 feet below grade. Laboratory iesults indicate that all volatileorganiccompounds as well as Base neutral compounds found meet NJDEP GWQS. Lead wosdiscovcred in the samrple at a level of 5.6 mTgfk. The cutrcnt NJDEP standard is 5.0 mg/kg. Withthe exception ol'Lead, all Priority Pollutant metals meet cureret NJDEP standards.

Sn ample GW-2Sninpll GW-2 (AB86330) was taken neat the entrance to the subject site close to Gorgo Lane.Closc to the soutlhwestern comer of the subject site. The scrccn point sampler was advanced to adepth of 30 feet below grade utilizing stainless steel probe rod. Ground w8Ctr was observed inthe sampler rods at a depth of 26 feet below grade. Laboratory rcsults indicate thai al1 volatileorganic cornpnunds as well as Base neutral compounds found meet NJDC[)E GWQS. Lead andchromium were discovered to exceed the CUrTent NJDEP limit. Lead was observed at a level or9.6 mnog with current standard being 5.0 mgrkg. Chromium was obscrved at a level of 160

APR-O8-2004 11:19 P.12

HVK-Ub-U4 lIJE II4U fll tfun fu. r. 1V

Growmvdtrr InvcsfiigatienCaJwub a A 'cnue

LlfcJield. YrJersey 3

mg/kg. Thu currcnt NJDEP limit is 100 mglkg. With the cxccption of Lead and Chromium, allPriority Pollutait metals mcet current NJDEP standards.

Sarnl)le GW-3Sample GW-3 (ABl6331) was taken near proposed building lot 6, along the proposed road, closeto the center of tlc subject site. The screen point sampler was advanced to a deplh of 36 feetbelow gradc utilizing stainless steel probe rod. Ground water was observed in the sampler rods ata depth of 32 feet below gradc. Laboratory reslts indlcatc that all volatile organic compounds aswell as Base neutral and Priority Pollutant Metals compounds round meet NJDEP GWQS.

ShAiile' GW-4Sample GINA (ABB6332) was taken near the proposed entrance of the subject site close toCatawba Avenue. The screen point sampler was advanced to a depth of 36 feet below gradeutilizing slainlcss steel probe rod, Ground water was observed in the sampler rods at a depLth or33.5 feet below grade. LRboratory results indicate that all volatile organic compounds as well asBase neutral and Priority Pollutant Metals compounds found meet NIDEP GWQS.

4.0 CONCIUSIONS AN) RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the sampling events conducted on May S5', 2003 and May 9", 200i two of the foursamples wcre round to meet GWQS. With sample GW-I marginally exceeding the currentNJDE-' standard for lead and sample GW-Z exceeding the current NJDE-P cleanup standard forLead and Chromium. Review of a previous Phase I of the subject site has indicated the presenceof a National Priorities list Site to the West of the subject site. The site in question is the ShieldAlloy Corp site on West 13LrD. Newfield, NJ. The site is know to have been thc processinglocation or alloys containing the raw materials: chromium, bismuth copper, titanium, vanadium,barium, calcium and aluminum. It is possible, contamination fom the Shield Alloy site hascaused the increased chromium and lead levels found on the subject site.

Chromium has three stable forms in the environment Chromium metal, Chromium (IIT) andChromium (VI) or hexavalent chromium. Chromium (111) is require by the human body buthexavalent chromium is dangerous to humans if inhaled or ingested.

The subject site does demnonstrate a small level on groundwater pollution. Due to the hexavaientclhromiumn and leads nature of being harmfnul if Ingested or inhaled, soil samples should be takento insure that no human exposure may occur. A Well Head Restriction should also be sccn as a

possibility to insure health and safety by avoiding consumption of contaminated ground water. tis understood thial most residences in this area are currently service by city water supply. It isrecommended that Lllis also be the case for potential homes in tlhis area

P.13APR-09-2004 11:20

APR-06-04 TUE 11:41 RH IRX NU. r. I1

Hampton-Clarke, Inc.veritech laboratories

175 Route 46 Wcst. Unil D)Fairlield, NJ 07004(973) 244-9770Federal ID: 222679402

Target Environmental Co., Inc.

Format: NJDEP-SNewfieldProject:

PO Number:

Sanplcs submilled on: 5l0103.Aui. . _

.1A

r

Date: 5129/03HCI Project: 05091717

1 1u2 tCp;X' M a Iru2 report of rF-ills obtaine:d rnom out Iets or ftu n'femil 1 In 0u a fnrnial mnIrart documenI. Illo Iotfl.flgbf.olle Itblily of Vcrntc1to idl~ ijtI s cf -iuli nolt evtecV rnicIis luta frea rot on4i:iln crv'ce icndeal

Or I-, */Stanley Gilc *:a1 Ubonrt Direciolfkobin Coultrnea J- QualityAssuranctj t(reclor

CT 1l: PH 0671 MA 4: NJ3R6 NJ 0.: 14G22 NY 9: 1140B PA It: GG-4G3CT 1/: PH.0671 MA#: NJ35G NJ�: 14G22 NYU: 11400 PA � G8-4G3

APR-08-2004 11:20 P.14

APR-06-04 TUE 11;41 AM FAX NO.p.j

MDL M: M.13 DL

Te~ilGratip/Ana!yle uts rLr Resull TestGrouplAnalyte Units ROL u

lpP meta!s (Warer 200.7Antimeh IS~ ND

nvlb~ion ieapl d0 NOl

7 0 I'f.% Vich.CrT'ielI. iql 'n2

Sc~vilum 1111 pr

thdllvrn %-f CO ic

van.1~J~oilqU) 0 30 N!31.1.2.1.TctfChI10MciIfc wonl 1) Pinf

1**.ItII.oln.)hJ 0 IS #40

".. 1If a 52 NUVC1 c le NO

I..IeIA,,fE s? C0 so .31

u5I1 a JO NoIo 1 on)

I CI'otaSethylI~nyI.4h.. hgn a II 3407.I1cwwsc wo 7.0 No

Wuej~Ifrt~q4lvlf 1 3 NOAci11v A H o

Accl~qU-11 IMO

&rirzy~aloific win I S Noval a040 IN D

0.ptcUbonhegf a 9,2 N 0C l II NOl

clma.3ab Suf 10I NDCalbal EIqj1 ') .10)0-lVo 1 3 NOcovllo.I ltwiclad a Von V 4 NqD

bontI4.ra 11 V 40 NOD

sot."UlA i~ 1 i NOwo 0 cl ND

uWlI 1 7 NDUct.lh odc~ 37 No

ei~l.7.utoiln 11 0 33 muwellelrn~~~a 11 010 No0UU2u't~ 111 a Di NO

Mtp P veles Ulf? v02 NO0ULA~tyl.Ad ch..,de 087 ~ P4D

C xi KIIpe 0 38 P-

ZyACUlf? I I 140Y~tc~rct~qc 1C so No

re~.Lwar. 0 Nt H

Y1a,. 1.7 DwVcall th~ien VI 0 DI NU)I,2,,-. 3.lEofnF0fl 11 0 3 NoInichlartClhe9I Von1 coo No

ViAy4ehilj it ND

VCI1C1rCh HPrlL0?I 01 Af~lOyious, ~II'J PicjcLd OOJ171 7 2I'*S IR0ult' All Wtim tU".! ( 1 al'fILid N.1 flIODC)4P202o

iAPR-09-2004 11:20 P.15

rnA1 s11 I Ia J

POL P. OL

fl'rfupA~1~tUis TL R ltTeslGroupf~Mayle UnIls RL flsl

FPT Metals (Water) 20.

m'Otaf.I

Ancroc~

tI~oon,

SmazommmmI 6 Wk

I 'aj

to1II!, Ni)

M~IA1 .'U NO

lVI.' to 20g7A . ND)

sIt,4 10 No

UUA b n NO.. v :. ii

sJCf

V061hut OrD~n~cS i4 la (SA)

1. I .. 'btjftl call .n

2 tlxam

4 M~elly 2 IPnIj'cnw

Am~v'o~vlf.Ie

Carur.' O'suP.c-

Oifte.%imphiI~9

#Cc IJ M&IZ191uiardic

naXj,m' mac wn.

'lF ifl4.1 mia; -

Uast Rtutrals 4 15 (G25)

1.2. j OdIraoquia~el'eic

7,;. kewit "s iisttw-.r

.3 0-d-twebarive.

4 e"*Z lf ~nI''usiA

"4,3

"oil"3,A

UDJ4

'VIA

blO4

".0"

v0A

'VIuofl

"own

5144

liom

"U.'"O'li

l.Vl

a *11

h is

a ~s

1a 3'

oa1)C 2$

C W.

0 3!.

C 42

a 71

C Isa rnoC inI

C 2?C 15a 7Diia

a If.o soo 2sC 12

ox2027

CI1,

0220

a 22

C 22

02?

ND

No

#4n

NDHO

NONO

ND)ND

NO

hD

No

IND

No

ND

NO

NONO

ND

ND

NDl

VD

um~

".4

U'43

"14N

u49

u94

LVjA

woff

",04

lit-

LA0~

"104Ut-.

035 NOD

02n Nu]

Elli Nil

(7. NO

It ND.

lb NO)

090 NU

tif Nn033 NI1.)

C is Nrl

Cal ND

a022 NI)

C0eu 1411

212 NI'

944 PIM

01 NDC 21 NI)I r till

021 ND)

OCOfe 1412

C753 #40

00 NO

002 ND

I10 140

0211 ND0 22 ,ih)

0 .4 N

0I~ 101

C130 fin3

Ctvr~uuw

Cj0vn J~fSdIh'01

Ii4WV~l 1.2.2 -CL"Yf0FC

N -Ni# e a ~ PN .I"Irifylamiti

Mercury (Wxlorj 2.IS.1Mmiin~T1 1.11 uIn ano

ND * Not 1je#i'rk-d

Verillccti ricfrli Of Arvi.y-ai.175, EcuRow 46 Wust. Unit E). r ns, rioctI. NJ 1)7004

Verilecli Projccl 06061G08 P.go 2 of 4

APR-08-2004 11:21 P.16mrtt-uo-u IUL 11i4l Hrl rnA llu. O r

:_ _ _ _ M DI...............................

POL PO.l7csti .upfAlilc Unit: Ql Resulh TenGrouplAnilyv LJnilt RL Rcsull

I'P Me3zI (W21er) 200.J?litenwr

IN I-MC

lt'tylllplRL

Camumlllt

cr oompoi

I L.zU

ltigliin

e iI.nit

I 'Ldutu'

Volaile Organk5s * 10 (24)

1.1 ,71d1tjoi m.er e

1. I .n,,c ovilunmI.I.VJe ua1lvrwle

1.2.odwpuw1.2ZDILr20.rmxtrvn

7-1 Irz,1rime

* .I trU.I4 r1`01r110 et4celetyt

A .iol nLHI

o t',"1tmeGlemniftm

13' cnqwtpsXir

U It0.rIfrtt~'.a

crioro.,malti

olutafroolo,ons Uao 2

&Adrt xrkL^,"

O *XJWit

I rC -,.n:

1, r...1I ts lnSit~r?Tyerc L iwx

S4 I lyenr

1"Jil 1 NDugnI 4 Hotiai 2b !J2LWA a*3 No

mm 7U ND

L"W 2L ml)j 1 2. No4UIq'i &O No

utp 10 NO

uPI 20 No

LW.A la NOuD'1 Oa lNiU24 bI D Nut

7C 7*

O711 Nl"V)

1' 10C No

uLf'l D It NDtC1S ts ntP 13 t No

01 C2 Hi)

U040 As

w0 D S2 74nLP3 C DI ND

win e 2 No

LIA a 2D NO

Lag"t a 2 NO

7 01 NO

a?4 O 21 ND

Up*1 t l ND

wo)gt lat NO

V720 0 2t ND

u0Jl CS Ni) tM

t4 021 ND

ca Ni)F4

t2 at ZS 2 4Wm 0 23 tNt-Jt a 25- ts'

u134 D 37 N'Ot-4 071 ND

uoA a 30 tm,

WJ4 0 22 ND

UVA 044? HD

%ion 0 37 NO1134 O072 ND)

W1o 1 NIA L).lrkLMO

Vt illechI RorloJIl Of r& lysis17' I'lsml 41; Wc.111. Lhitt 11. r ;11drivid. NJ 070(J4

Vcrltcch Projcct: OGOG 1GOPngo 4 of 4

- s _ - w-- I - e- - - _-____ - - _,_

L- ----

~

:t ._

_- _-5- -

-D

to

9 - � n�-* � -9...Vad . era

-- 9

--

� �-�- �

!- 1 k ' * .a.

GRADITG AND DRAINAGt PLA1f sfinof 'cot,USOIL EROSION 5 AND S-{)AEN) CON OUL 'N SIALOIN -1 *a}

* _ i- ,! h

I

""IN.1,r-zz

L E'-Aw L *eW.AlftvtU &t-m mcr itW

F-I-.-

P-a

.4. @ @@ -.s- * t\. 7 '; >7 >CRAVING AND DRA1NAI PLAN SrAi.ta.OO t.Suunu501AN E~M WTUC-FaKAI SJAIK0,4JZ 3J6Z

N .... _i '_ - _ #L _E-

APR-0B-2004 11:22 P.19ni r% uu-uli I UC L1|q no 4 t MI. I

son wCck UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

el REGION I475 ALLENDALE ROAD

KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANA 1940G.1415

May 6,2003

Docket No. 04007102 Ucense No. SMB-743

David R. SmithRadiation Safety OfficerShieldalloy Metallurgical CorporationP.O. Box 768Nevfield, NJ 08344

SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY FOR THE NRC, SHIELDALLOY METALLURGICALCORPORATION (SMC) AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY MEETING ONAPRIL 16, 20D3

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter transmits the summary from the subject meeting held in Rockville, Maryland, whichwas open to the public. NRC had requested this meeting to discuss restricted releasedecommissioning options before SMC submits a revised Decommissioning Plan for its Newfield,New Jersey site. Topics discussed included considerations for maintaining a possession-onlylicense, environmental review requirements for restricted release decommissioning plans, andthe phased approach to resolving deficiencies identified In SMC's Decommissloning Plan. Themeeting agenda, and licensee and NRC handouts are provided as Enclosure 1. They are alsoaccessible from the NRC web site athtto:/fvx.nrc.-ovkreadin-nrnladams.html.

NRC was represented by Region I and Headquarters management and staff. Also participatingin the meeting by telephone were representatives from the State of New Jersey, Department ofEnvironmental Protection, and one member from the public. Enclosure 2 lists the attendees.

The meeting opened with introductions and a brief history of the SMC activities authorized underNRC LUcense No. SMB-743. The facility has not conducted primary licensed activities sinceJune 1998. SMO's Decommissioning Plan for restricted release was received on September11, 2002, and was rejected as detailed in the February 28, 2003 NRC letter. During themeeting, SMC reviewed its options for restricted release given the unlikelihood of transferringownership of the property to an acceptable third party. While the NRC staff is exploringgenerically the option of a licensee maintaining a possession-only license, SMC is consideringpursuing a storage-only license. NRC's possession-only license envisions compliance with therestricted release requirements including the dose criteria. However, SMC's storage-onlylicense request would allow retrieval of the slag to permit a beneficial re-use of the material,because a permanent closure plan would not be cost effective to permit re-use.

The licensee also discussed its concern with the cost for a site-specific Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). SMC listed approximately thirty reports that had been previously submitted toNRC or NJDEP, Including an Environmental Assessment to support the 1998 license renewal,varous site characterization reports and remedial investigation reports, and the NRC's draft EIS

AFPR-09-2004 11:22 P.20mrrm-uou4 luC 1lq,3 nil rtiA riU, r. so

D. Smith 2Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

for the SMC Cambridge, Ohio site that cost SMC approximately $1.5 million. SMIC stated thatthe cost-benefit analysis for each alternative that could also be applicable to the Newfield sitewas properly evaluated for the Cambridge site. NRC staff discussed the need to examine theimpact or potentially affected resources at Newfield given the proposed restrictions onapproximately 1 0 acres of land, The staff stated that in accordance with staff guidancedocument NUREG-1748, a concise summary of the site specific information from these pastreports, and a current evaluation of potential alternatives is required to be submitted for anyrestricted release option.

The Stale of New Jersey offered their perspective of the SMC's Issue of re-use of the material.Their experience is that Shieldalloy has not been successful in finding a re-use of this material,and that other NJ sites that had stored radioactive material in the past have resorted to offsitedisposal. The State also summarized their promulgated standard for persons planning totransfer property in NJ, i.e., 15 mremlyr or if all controls failed 100 mremlyr criteria. The residentfrom Newfield stated that Newfield Is having problems with economic development and thatthere are other alternatives for clean-up of the entire site.

There were additional discussions an the phased approach to resolving deficiencies, including:

* Seek advice from affected parties. Best practices have Identified that this initialinvolvement of parties takes roughly six months with additional periodic meetings.

* Determine required institutional controls and plan costs to maintain.* Perform eigibility test for dose assessment to support proposed alternative.

Spend resources to justify site specific parameters that are sensitive.

Based on these discussions the licensee agreed to submit an action plan for development of arevised Decommissioning Plan by May 16. 2003. NRC staff suggested routine monthlytelephone conferences wtih SMC, and additional technical meetings.

Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me at (610) 337-5205.

Sincerely,

Original slgned by Marie Miller

Senior Health PhysicistDecommissioning and Laboratory BranchDivision of Nuclear Materials Safety

Enclosures:1. Meeting Agenda and Handouts2. Meeting Attendees

APR-08-2004 11: 23 P.21Mn 1x U U s IUL 1A'1$ f44 nil I 11ti1 r. j f

D. Smith 3Shleldalloy Metallurgica Corporation

cc w enclosures:Jill Lipoli, Ph.D., Radiation Protection Programs, NJDEPDonna Gaffigan, Superfund Case Manager, NJDEPRuth Vandegrift, Ohio Department of HealthLoretta Williams, Newfield, NJ Resident

APR-09-2004 11:23 P.22.. , ,-m $,,, r nA 11U. r. ou

CASF C cco UNITED STATES0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

A ~REGION I475 ALLENDALE ROAD

oKING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415

* k*

February 28, 2003

Docket No. 04007102 License No. SMB-743Control No. 132074

David R. SmithEnvironmental Manager.Shieldalloy Metallurgical CorporationAlurninum Products & Powders Division12 West BoulevardP.O. BOX 768Nowfield, NJ 08344-0768

SUBJECT: REJECTION OF DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE NEWFIELD FACILITYAND DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION REQUEST TO POSTPONE INITIATIONOF DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS, CONTROL NO. 132074

Dear Mr. Smith:

On August 30, 2002, Shleldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) submitted ItsDecommissioning Plan (DP) for the Newfield Facility. SMC then submitted a letter datedNovember 15, 2002, which requested an exemption that NRC staff defer taking action onSMC's DP. while the NRC is reviewing its regulations and related guidance for restricted uselicense termination. These two documents were discussed during the January 9, 2003telephone conference with you, Carol Berger (your consultant), Marie Miller (of my staff) andma along with the noed to resubmit your application for the timely renewal of your NAC license.

Results of our review of the aforementioned documents and of our telephone conversation areprovided below:

Decommissioninog Plan Acceptance Review

The NRC staff conducted an acceptance review of your DP using the guidance contained InUREP- 757. Vol.1, Consolidated NMSS DecommissioninD Guldance, and NUREG-1748.

Environmental Review Guidance for Lcensina Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.Based on this initial acceptance review, we determined that the DP does not contain sufficientinformation for us to continue a more detailed technical review. Additional information isrequired regarding such aspects of decommissioning as: your sito-specific dose modeling, aquantitative site specific cost-benefit analysis to derrionstrate that the proposed alternative is AsLow As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), specific institutional controls for restricted release,an agreemont by a competent party to assume control of and responsibility for maintenance ofthe site, financial assurance, and advice from affected parties. This information is also neededto ovaluato the adequacy of your Decommissioning Funding Plan as it relates to your DP.

We recommend that you develop a revised DP using the NRC staff's phased approach thatwould have you first focusing on resolving the deficiencies regarding institutional controls,financial assurance, engineering cell design concepts, and advice from affected parties with

APR-0e-2e04 11:23 P.23HrK-Ub-U4 IUL 11:44 AM FAX NO. P. 21

D. SmithShleldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

respect to these issues, before revising the other portions of your DP. To facilitate your revisionof the DP, we are enclosing the staff's preliminary comments on specific topics of your DP asidentified in Enclosurc 1. As a first stop in this process, we suggest that you plan on meetingwith us in March 2003, to discuss these deficiencies of your DP as submitted, as well as thephased approach. Based on this meeting, you should provide a schedule for submitting aroviscd DP.

Exenption.Bequest

Regarding your exemption requost, we find that you have not provided a sufficient basis forapproval of your request. Although the NRC is reviewing its regulations and related guidancefor restricted use, the 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E, Radiological Criteria for License Terminationandcassociated guidance documents remain applicable. While there could be changes, as withany regulation, the review process for a restricted release termination plan is lengthy and alsodynamic. We noed to balance the Impact of possible changes against the need to preventfurther delays to the decommissioning of the SMC Newfield site. We therefore are denyingyour exemption request. However, as discussed above, as you evaluate and develop yourrevised DP. we would be agreeable to having a technical meeting on issues associated withmeeting the restricted release criteria or an alternative criteria and dose modeling.

Timely Renewal

Tho remalning licensing issue we discussed was our consideration of your submittal of the DPto be a renewal request. We require a license renewal application for the ongoing remodiationactivities being conducted under your extended license. Your application for renewal shouldaddress the current remedlation activities, storage of license source material, and include yourFinal Status Survey Plan for the areas that you Intend to request NRC to amend your license.We request that your application for timely renewal be submitted by April 30, 2003.

If you have any question regarding this matter, please contact Marie Miller of my staff at (61 0)337-5205 or by e-mall at mtml Onrc.gov. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC'sbRuIes of Practice, a copy of this letter and Its enclosure Will be placed in the NRC PublicDocument Room (PDR) and will be accessible from the NRC Web site ath1l1p:/www.nrc.Qovirea din i-rm. htim

Sincerely,

Original signed by Ronald R. Bellamy

Ronald R. Bellamy, ChiefDecommissioning and Laboratory BranchDivision of Nuclear Materials Safely

Enclosure:1. NRC Staff Preliminary Comments on SMC

Decommissioning Plan

APR-08-2204 11:24 P.24mrK-Ub-U4 IUM 11:44 Al FAX NO. P. 22

D. SmithShieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

NRC STAFF PRELIMINIAY COMMENTSON SHIELDALLOY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

DOSF MODELING

Section 5.2.2 Assessment Methodology assumes that the "agricultural farm famllyt scenario isapplicable. It also states that RESRAD Version 6.2 was used, and that it takes into account thepotential uses of the site and potential migration of radioactive materials through theenvironment ovor time through both natural processes and human activities. Section 5.2.3describes the input parameters, which were listed in Tables 17.6 -17.13. The followingInformation Is needed to assess the adequacy of the exposure scenario and the dose modeling:

1. The exposure scenario Includes a situation in which the deed restrictions and prohibition ofbuilding a residence near the storage pile fail, yet the cover and shape of the capped pileremain intact. Please provide a justification for how the cell has been designed to withstanderosion and other activities or an exposure scenario should also be included that erodes thecap through natural and human activiiies if the institutional controls and site maintenance wereto fail.

2. The exposure scenario as slated eliminated the direct exposure pathway by placing thehouse 20 fact away from the contaminated area, and estimated an exposure of less than 10microrem per hour above background. Please provide the basis for selecting a distance of 20feel. In addition, provide a basis as to why exposure to direct gamma radiation from otherplausible scenarios should not be considered For example, the average member of the criticalgroup could be tho family farm member engaging in outdoor activities, such as tending to cropsand livestock or recreational activities such as fishing in the on-site pond.

Please consider other exposure scenarios where there could be land activities on top of theengineered coll. For example, an exposure scenario to a worker providing maintenance on andnear the cell, or an Intruder scenario because of loss of institutional controls, resulting in anoccupational ra-uso of the land over the cell. Comparison of the results for modeling thesescenarios to the residential farming scenario should be included to demonstrate the reason forselocting the residential farming scenario as the bounding scenario.

3. An exposure scenario for other areas of the site where licensed materials were used is notaddressed In the DP. The DP should address the dose contribution for the other portions of thesite to meet the overall dose limits for the site.

4. The input parameters used In Shieldalloy's analysis are primarily the RESRAD defaultparameters. There was no sensitivity analysis to identify key parameters. Please provide thejustilicotion for the values used for key parameters for the Newfield site. Note that informationdetermined based on past groundwater studies may be acceptable. NRC staff are available todiscuss appropriate methods for performing sensitivity analyses.

5. The input parameters model an impermeable cover remaining intact and not affected byerosion or water runoff (water runoff coefficient to 10D%). Yet, input parameters erodo tho

APR-O8-2004 11:24 P.25. rHA riu. P. 23

D. SmithShleldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

contaminated slag pilo over time. Provide or reference the basis for why the engineering coverwould remain in place. Also justify how the slag pile erodes with time, although theimpermeable cover is not eroded.

6. The partition coefficients were changed based on a referenced source. Compare these Kdvalucs to calculations of estimated travel times based on the uranium and thorium found inground-water samples from wells near the existing slag piles. Also, explain the basis forinputting the ground water concentration as zero under the initial conditions.

DECOMMISSIONING ATL.TERNATIVES AND RATIONALE AND ALARA ANALYSIS

Section 6.2 states, in part, that the regulatory decision on the preferred decommissioningalternativc for another facility with similar radioactive slag is equally applicable to the SMC'sNewfield facility. Howover, sile-specific factors and a thorough examination of other alternativeswere not presented. Section 7 states that the estimated cost of off-site disposal was calculatedto bo approximately $102-112 million versus about $3.0 million for the on-site disposal options.Please elaborate on the other alternatives and explain the cost differences.

1. See 10 CFR 51.60 for the general requirements for a licensee's Environmental Report andNUREG-1748 for developing a site specific Environmental Report. SMCIs report can referenceother reports, as applicable, but must also describe site specific features that are different fromthe other referenced site where onsite disposal was considered an acceptable alternative. Inparticular, alternatives considered should address the summary of the impacts to thecommunity, such as land use, property values, and environmental justice within a 4 mile radiusof the center of the facility. Also, identify the potential impacts of the alternatives for thecontaminated slag, soils and groundwater on the areas that are already impacted by the pasthazardous chemical contamination, such as the ongoing groundwater treatment and offsiterestricted well area.

2 Examine other conservative alternatives, such as ofIsite disposal to other facilities (comparecost factors per ton or cubic feel), and offsite disposal of the soils and bag-house dust and itsimpact of reduction on the source term. For example, leaching of thorium and uranium from thebag-house dust in comparison to tho slag, and the cost-benefit of the action.

3. Develop and submit a site specific quantitative cost-benefit analysis to support the in-situstabilization option as ALARA, since the chosen alternative is not the environmentallypreferable alternative. The ALARA demonstration should be performed pursuant to Section 7of NUREG-1727. NMSS Decommissioning Standard Rleview Plan.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGQAM

Section 12.3 sates that no solid or liquid mixed wastes are expected to be generated during thedecommissioning process. However, a soil remediation plan Is under review by EPA. Pleasestate whether any mixed waste could be generated from roemediation of these soils in areasirmpiclcd or potentially impacted by NRC regulated source material.

APR-08-2C04 11:24 P.26

APR-06-04 TUE 11:45 AM FAX NO. P. 24

D. SmithShicidalloy Metallurgical Corporation

ENGINEERED BARRIERS

Section 8.3 of tho DP describes a design concept for the engineered cell and cap, with steepslopes and small top to preclude the potential for building a residence on top of the cell In thefuture and therefore, precluding the resident farmer scenario. The cell design concept alsoIncludes the use of a geotextile layer to limit infiltration.

1. The DP states that the cell has been designed to meet New Jersey (see executivesummary) and NRC (see Section 8.3.3) requirements, that it is designed to last 1 000 years,and will prevent future erosion. However, specific guidance documents are not referenced.Please do so.

2. No basis is provided for the cell lasting 1000 years or preventing future erosion, especiallywith steep 311 slopes. Furthermore, no basis is provided that the geotextile layer will last 1000years or the affect on performance if it fails.

3. There is no discussion that the cell and cap have been designed not to rely on maintenanceor to preclude major cell failure and major repair or partial replacement over the 1000 year timeperiod. Reference to NRC's Part 40 Appendix A engineered cell cap design guidance fordesigning disposal cells within the objectives to last 1000 years with no reliance onmaintenance may be useful to consider.

The above deficiencies are key concepts for the dose modeling scenario assumptions as wellas key assumptions underlying the financial assurance/funding estimate and potential long-termfinancial liability concerns related to potential engineered cell failure and repair costs.

L4AtIŽTENANCE OF SITE

Section 16.3 describes maintenance of the perimeter of the property and the entire StorageYard. It also states that when all plant operations cease, SMC intends the area would convertto a wildlife sanctuary.

1. Doscriibe any detriments associated with the maintenance of the institutional controls. Forcxample, discuss the potential for vegataton growth or presence of hazardous wildlif a thatcould prevent the completion of quarterly maintenance inspections or impact tile engineeredcell, i.e., burrowing by animals.

2. Describe maintenance expected for the engineered cap and nature trails after SMCtransfers title of the property. Include a discussion of the potential for and the cost of majorrepair or partial replacement of the engineered cell cap should the cap fail. Note therelationship to the degree of design robustness. For example, more robust design would resultin tower reliance on maintenance and greater certainty that the cell cap will not fail and needperiodic major and costly repair. A less robust design may need greater funds set aside forperiodic major repairs.

APR-08-2e04 11:25 P.27mrK-uo-uq X uW 11:0 l I; W rlA "U. r

D. SmithShicidalloy Metallurgical Corporation

FINQC L-ASSANC2

Section 15.1 states that costs of implementing this plan is S2,731,161 as shown in Table 17.14.

1. Please separate the cost of long term surveillance from the cost of site stabilization and collconstruction.

2. Tho cost for site-stabilization and long term surveillance and maintenance of the cap, wildlifearea and nature trails for 1000 years was estimated at $781,300' Please show the cost forlong-term care on a yearly basis and the method used to determine the total estimate (refer toNRC guidanco to calculate this amount) assuming a duration of 1000 years. Also explain theassumptions used regarding the potential for requiring major repair of the cell (see commentsregarding maintenance of the site).

3. Describe the financial assurance mechanism provided by the licensee or responsible partyfor an Independent third party to carry out the necessary control and maintenance activities.

4. Address whether costs for additional remediation/recovery actions related to being an EPANational Priorities List site are assumed to be secured with the existing irrevocable stand-bylotter of credit.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS (IC)

Section 16.2 provides a summary of the variety of institutional controls that will be implemented.

1. Explain how the proposal for the Institutional controls are legally enforceable, such as theauthority to enforce and manner in which controls Will be enforced. In its DP, SMC proposedthe use of a deed notice after license termination while it remains the owner of the site. NRCstaff is concerned because a deed notice Is not a legally enforceable type of institutionalcontrol. Furthermore, SMC did not address enforceability of the institutional controls aftertransfer of ownership to some other government entity. Such institutional control plans must beagreed to and documented in the revised DP.

2. Identify whether there is an agreement by an Independent third party to assume control ofand responsibility for the maintenance of the site. Residual contamination at the SMO site willconsist of uranium and thorium, both long-lived radionuclides requiring "more stringent' ICaccording to the LTR SOC. Although SMC proposed eventually transferring their siteownership to some local or state government entity, the DP did not discuss the capability orwillingness by any government entity to accept this responsibility in perpetuity. SMO must alsoaddrcss the willingness of entities to accept the funds to be provided and that they are sufficientfor control and maintenance as well as resolving concerns over long-term liability due topotential engineered cell/cap repair after transfer of ownership. Therefore, SMC has notdcmonstrated that its proposal Is feasible.

APR-0s-2004 l1l 25 P. 2e

1. SmithShieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

OSTAINING PUBLIC ADVICE

Section 16.4 states what public advice will be solicited and that it will establish a RestorationAdvisory Board (RAB). It also stated that meetings of 1ie RAB will be held each quarter duringtho planning and implomentatlon phase.

1. Because SMC vith its RAB most likely will develop the mechanisms for soliciting publioadvice from the local parties, please outline in more detail what actions are planned or will betaken to establish an RAB. As stated in Section 4, the RAB should be meeting during theplanning phase to provide valuable input. NRC recommends that a site specific advisory board(SSAB) or other effective methods be selected as soon as practical after the licensee notifiesNRC of its intention to decommission and terminate the license. See NUREG-1757, Vol 1,Section 17.8 for additional guidance.

2. Describe the administrative support and access to licensee studies and analysis pertinent tothe proposed decommissioning for the SSAB. Describe how the summary of the results of allcollective discussions and reports by the SSAB will be made publIcly available.

3. Although SMC indicated general plans for future Interactions to seek advice from affectedparties, the DP did not include the results of interactions as required. The advice from affectedparties should have been part of the Input that SMC used to prepare Its DP.

TOTPL P.28