Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to License Termination Plan for the Yankee Atomic Electric Company; License DPR-003, Rowe, MA, 32664-32672 [E5-2850]
Download as PDF
32664
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–029]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to License Termination Plan
for the Yankee Atomic Electric
Company; License DPR–003, Rowe,
MA
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
AGENCY:
John
Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T7E18, Washington, DC 20555–00001.
Telephone: (301) 415–3017; e-mail
jbh@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.0
Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) (or the staff) is
considering Yankee Atomic Electric
Company’s request for approval of the
License Termination Plan (LTP)
submitted for the Yankee Nuclear Power
Station (YNPS) in Rowe, Massachusetts.
The NRC has prepared this
environmental assessment (EA) to
determine the environmental impacts
(radiological and non-radiological) of
approving the LTP and of subsequently
releasing the site for unrestricted use (as
defined in 10 CFR 20.1402). This is
consistent with the final rule, 10 CFR
50.82 that appeared in the Federal
Register on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39278,
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors), which established the criteria
for license termination and the
requirement for a license termination
plan.
As discussed in Section 1.3 below, the
primary scope of this EA is the
evaluation of the impacts of the
radiation release criteria and the
adequacy of the final status survey, as
presented in the LTP.
1.1
Background
YNPS is a deactivated pressurizedwater nuclear reactor situated on a small
portion of a 2,200-acre site. The site is
located in northwestern Massachusetts
in Franklin County, near the southern
Vermont border. The plant and most of
the 2,200-acre site are owned by the
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
(YAEC). A small portion on the west
side of the site (along the east bank of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
the Sherman Reservoir) is owned by
USGen New England, Inc. The YNPS
plant was constructed between 1958
and 1960 and operated commercially at
185 megawatts electrical production
(after a 1963 upgrade) until 1992. In
1992, YAEC determined that closing the
plant would be in the best economic
interest of its customers. In December
1993, NRC amended the YNPS
operating license to retain a
‘‘possession-only’’ status. YAEC began
dismantling and decommissioning
activities at that time. These activities
continue and their relevance with
respect to this EA is discussed in
Section 1.3. The spent nuclear fuel
remaining onsite was transferred in
2003 from the spent fuel pool to the
independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) located adjacent to
the plant. The spent fuel pool was
subsequently drained in compliance
with regulatory requirements.
In November 2003, YAEC submitted
its LTP with a goal to complete
decommissioning by mid-2005 (YAEC,
2003). Draft Revision 1 to the plan was
submitted September 2, 2004 (YAEC,
2004a), in response to a NRC request for
additional information (NRC, 2004).
Subsequently, on November 19, 2004,
YAEC submitted Revision 1 to the LTP
(YAEC, 2004f).
YAEC is proposing to decontaminate
the YNPS site to meet the unrestricted
release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402.
Additionally, YAEC has stated that it
intends to comply with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
cleanup criteria of 105 CMR 120.291
established by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (MDPH)
and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MDEP). Most
site structures will be demolished to
grade or entirely removed, and most
buried piping or utilities removed.
Basements will be perforated to allow
groundwater to flow through during
remediation. The following structures
will remain after phased release of the
site: the administration building, guard
building, a small switchyard outside the
guard building, the ISFSI, the ISFSI
security building, and access roads.
After the irradiated fuel has been
removed from the site and prior to
license termination the ISFSI and ISFSI
security building will be removed.
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action
Licensees of nuclear facilities must
apply to the NRC before terminating a
license voluntarily and
decommissioning a facility. YAEC
submitted the LTP, as required by 10
CFR 50.82, before requesting license
termination. The NRC must determine
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
whether the proposed procedures,
adequacy of radiation criteria for license
termination, and the final status survey
planned for completing
decommissioning appear sufficient and,
if implemented according to the plan,
would demonstrate that the site is
suitable for release.
1.3 Scope
To fulfill its obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the NRC must evaluate the
radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with
approval of the LTP and subsequent
termination of the license. These
evaluations involve an assessment of the
impacts of the remaining buildings or
structures and residual material present
at the site at the time of license
termination.
As described in the Statements of
Consideration accompanying the Final
Rule on Decommissioning of Nuclear
Power Reactors (61 FR 39278), the NRC
must consider the following in order to
approve the LTP:
(1) The licensee’s plan for assuring
that adequate funds will be available for
final site release,
(2) radiation release criteria for
license termination, and
(3) the adequacy of the final survey
required to verify that these release
criteria have been met.
1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail
Consistent with NEPA regulations and
guidance to focus on environmental
issues of concern, impacts to land use,
water resources, and human health were
selected for detailed study because of
their potential to be affected by an
approval of the LTP. These issues are
discussed in this EA due to the potential
for impacts from remaining structures
and/or residual material left at the site.
1.3.2 Issues Eliminated From Detailed
Study
Issues eliminated from detailed study
in this EA include air quality, historic
and cultural resources, ecological
resources (including endangered and
threatened species), socioeconomic
conditions, transportation, noise, visual
and scenic quality, off-site waste
management, and accident scenarios.
These issues were eliminated because
they would not be affected by
implementation of the LTP at the site
(i.e., ensuring the site meets radiation
release criteria in the final status
survey). The financial assurance review,
which is a required part of the LTP
approval, is not related to human health
or the environment and will not be
discussed in this EA.
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
Impacts from decommissioning
activities at the YNPS site are not
evaluated in this EA. NRC has already
assessed power plant decommissioning
impacts in programmatic NEPA
documents. Specifically, the
environmental impact statement for
decommissioning activities (NRC, 1988,
2002) discusses the range of impacts
expected from power plant
decommissioning activities. Further, in
reviewing the LTP, the staff also
determined that the environmental
impacts were enveloped by the generic
analysis performed in support of
‘‘Radiological Criteria for License
Termination.’’ (62 FR 39058)
Decommissioning impacts at the YNPS
site were also addressed in the YAEC’s
Post-Shutdown Decommissioning
Activities Report (PSDAR) (YAEC,
2000).
Additionally, the Commission has
made a generic determination that, if
necessary, spent fuel generated in any
reactor can be stored safely and without
significant environmental impacts for at
least 30 years beyond the plant’s
licensed operating life (64 FR 68005 and
10 CFR 51.23). Therefore, this EA does
not evaluate environmental impacts of
spent fuel storage in the onsite
independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI). However, the ISFSI
is discussed briefly in Sections 3.2 and
4.1.
2.0
Proposed Action and Alternatives
2.1 The Proposed Action
The proposed action is the NRC’s
review and approval of YAEC’s LTP.
The NRC staff will review the plan to
ensure that the license termination
activities (i.e., designation of radiation
release criteria and design of the final
status survey) will comply with NRC
regulations. If NRC approves the plan,
the approval will be issued in the form
of an amendment to the YNPS license
(Possession Only License No. DPR–3).
YAEC plans to complete
decommissioning of the YNPS site for
unrestricted use, as described in the
LTP and consistent with NRC
regulations at 10 CFR 20.1402. In
addition, YAEC intends to comply with
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
cleanup criteria in 105 CMR 120.291
specified by the MDPH and by the
MDEP in the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan (MCP) and Solid
Waste Regulations, as applicable. To
meet NRC’s unrestricted release criteria,
areas of the site will be divided into
survey units. These units will be
sampled or surveyed in accordance with
the LTP to verify that site-specific
criteria have been met. These criteria,
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
known as ‘‘derived concentration
guideline levels’’ (DCGLs), are discussed
further in Sections 3.4 and 4.3.
Initially, YAEC plans to release all but
87 acres of the site for unrestricted use
after having passed the final survey. The
remaining 87 acres would remain on the
license until the spent fuel is shipped
offsite for permanent disposal (see
Section 4.1) and the ISFSI is
decommissioned. At that time, the
remaining acreage would again be
surveyed and, contingent on survey
results, the license terminated.
2.2
Alternatives
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered the ‘‘noaction alternative.’’ The no-action
alternative would maintain the status
quo. This would result in no change to
current environmental impacts, which
are larger than those resulting from the
proposed action.
3.0
Affected Environment
3.1
Site Description
The YNPS site is located at 49 Yankee
Road, approximately three miles northnorthwest of the northwestern
Massachusetts town of Rowe, in
Franklin County.
The site is adjacent to the Vermont
border on land characterized by heavily
wooded, steep hills. It is situated within
the Deerfield River Valley and abuts the
eastern shores of the Deerfield River and
Sherman Reservoir. Hills bounding the
Deerfield River valley rise 500 to 1000
feet above the site, reaching elevations
of 2100 feet above mean sea level (ERM,
2004a). The combined population of the
two nearest towns, Rowe and Monroe, is
less than 500.
The YNPS property consists of about
2,200 acres in the towns of Rowe and
Monroe. Most of this property
(approximately 1,825-acres) is owned by
YAEC; the remaining portion is owned
by USGen New England, Inc., (USGen).
The USGen property is a narrow strip of
upland to the west of the plant,
extending along the entire eastern bank
of Sherman Reservoir. USGen also owns
the reservoir itself, the Sherman Dam,
property west of the Sherman Reservoir,
and property downstream of Sherman
Dam encompassing both banks of the
Deerfield River. YNPS operations have
been conducted on about 15 developed
acres, primarily on land owned by
YAEC, but extending onto property
owned by USGen (ERM, 2004a).
The YNPS site is divided into three
areas based on past site activities and
land use:
1. Industrial Area: approximately 12acre fenced portion of the site that
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32665
contains industrial plant structures and
operations.
2. Radiologically Controlled Area
(RCA): 4-acre parcel within the
industrial area that contains radiological
materials associated with plant
operation.
3. Non-Industrial Area: remaining
land outside the fenced industrial area
that contains the USGen Sherman
Station hydroelectric plant, the
Sherman Reservoir and Dam,
transmission lines traversing the site,
administration building and visitor
center, roadways, fill areas and
undeveloped woodland (YAEC, 2004b;
ERM, 2004a).
During construction of the YNPS
facility, some construction and
demolition debris was placed into what
is now the Southeast Construction Fill
Area (SCFA). This area of approximately
1.5 acres contains soil and rock, in
addition to wood, concrete, asphalt, and
metal debris. In accordance with MDEP
Solid Waste permits, YAEC plans to
remove the materials from this area,
returning native soils to other areas of
the site for regrading.
Ecology and Cultural Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
confirmed in correspondence with
YAEC that no federally listed
endangered or threatened species occur
on the site. (ERM, 2004b) Massachusetts
species of concern have been identified
on the YNPS site. A northern spring
salamander was identified in a
headwater channel of Wheeler Brook.
The bristly black currant was discovered
in a drainage area along the Wheeler
Brook Divertment, outside the site’s
eastern fenceline. Longnose suckers are
documented to exist in the Sherman
Reservoir. YAEC is working with the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &
Wildlife under the National Heritage
and Endangered Species Program
(NHESP) to develop a plan for the
protection of these species during the
remainder of decommissioning
activities.
Several resources of cultural and
historic significance exist at the site;
however, none of these have been
affected by decommissioning activities.
A 2003 report documents these
resources, most of which are located in
the undeveloped uplands (PAL, 2003).
The report also includes a management
plan that meets Massachusetts
Historical Commission guidelines.
3.1.1 Existing Radiological
Contamination
The majority of the site located
outside the industrial area was
determined to be non-impacted (about
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
32666
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
2170 acres), as documented in Section
2.5 of the LTP. The non-impacted area
consists mostly of forested, rugged
terrain that has not been disturbed. This
determination is based on both the
Historical Site Assessment (YAEC,
2004c) and additional characterization
surveys.
Radiologically-impacted areas of the
site include the industrial area and
surrounding open land areas extending
out approximately 1000 feet from the
vapor container (now dismantled). The
radiologically impacted areas comprise
approximately 30 acres, the majority of
which are minimally impacted (contain
residual radioactivity at levels no
greater than a fraction of the proposed
DCGLs). For a more detailed description
of initial radiological characterization of
the impacted area, refer to the YNPS
Historical Site Assessment and Section
2.4 of the LTP.
The Historical Site Assessment also
identified low levels of contamination,
primarily Co-60, in the sediments of
Sherman Reservoir. This radioactive
material was deposited as a result of
permitted and monitored radioactive
liquid releases. Characterization surveys
showed the radioactive material
concentration is a small fraction of the
proposed DCGLs. Areas with potentially
contaminated sediments are included in
the final status surveys for further
evaluation.
Characterization Process
Site characterization activities were
performed in two phases, initial and
continuing. The results of the initial
phase were submitted to the NRC in
January 2004. After a review of the
results of the initial characterization,
YAEC initiated the continuing phase,
which will be ongoing throughout the
remainder of the decommissioning
activities. The results would be used to
guide the remediation activities, and to
confirm the appropriateness of the
radiological source terms used for the
dose model and basis for the
corresponding DCGLs by media.
Site characterization surveys are
conducted to determine the nature and
extent of radiological contamination at
the YNPS site. The purpose of the site
characterization survey is to: (1) Permit
planning for remediation activities; (2)
demonstrate that it is unlikely that
significant quantities of residual
radioactivity have gone undetected at
the site after remediation; (3) provide
information to design the final site
survey (i.e., identify survey unit
classifications for impacted areas); and
(4) provide input to dose modeling
(NRC, 2003). Site characterization
activities include the collection of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
various types of samples, including soil,
sediment, water, concrete, metal, and
surface residues. Surveys and sampling
conducted during site characterization
are based on knowledge of the plant
history and likely areas of
contamination. In accordance with 10
CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(A), radiological
conditions of the site were provided in
Section 2.0 of the LTP. The results of
sample analyses and the use of the
results in identifying the significant
radionuclides expected to be present
after remediation are described in
Attachments 2B and 2C of Chapter 2 of
the LTP.
YAEC conducted a series of sample
analyses using site media believed to
represent the distribution of
radionuclide contaminants, and their
decay-corrected isotopic distribution,
over the operational history of the plant.
In its technical basis document, YAEC
describes the method that was used to
determine radionuclides that could be
present at the site (YAEC 2003). The
radionuclides include, but are not
limited to: 3H, 14C, 54Mn, 55Fe, 57Co,
58Co, 59Ni, 60Co, 63Ni, 65Zn, 90Sr, 94Nb,
99Tc, 106Ru, 108mAg, 125Sb, 129I, 134Cs,
137Cs, 144Ce, 145Pm, 152Eu, 154Eu, 155Eu,
238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 241Am, 243Cm,
and 244Cm. These radionuclides include
fission and activation products, which
are typical of those found in
pressurized-water reactor plants. These
radionuclides are also described in two
NRC documents: NUREG/CR–0130,
‘‘Technology, Safety and Costs of
Decommissioning a Reference
Pressurized Water Reactor Power
Station,’’ (Smith et al., 1978) and
NUREG/CR–3474, ‘‘Long-Lived
Activation Products in Reactor
Materials,’’ (Evans et al., 1984).
Based on dose model assumptions
(including the expected time at which
the site will be remediated) YAEC has
identified the following 22
radionuclides as potentially
contributing to the dose after license
termination: 3H, 14C, 55Fe, 60Co, 63Ni,
90Sr, 94Nb, 99Tc, 108mAg, 125Sb, 134Cs,
137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu, 155Eu, 238Pu, 239Pu,
240Pu, 241Pu, 241Am, 243Cm, and 244Cm.
Accordingly, these radionuclides would
form the basis in planning and
conducting all final status surveys, and
demonstrating compliance with the site
release criteria.
3.1.2 Existing Hazardous and
Chemical Contamination
Chemical Use
Over the YNPS plant’s operating life,
a number of hazardous materials or
chemicals were used throughout the
industrial area. Some of these materials
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are: water treatment and other
maintenance chemicals, fuel, lubricating
and transformer oils (including oils
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)), and chemicals used for the
various reactor systems (including
boron, hydrazine, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
and trisodium phosphate). Additionally,
some of the building structures and
surfaces contain asbestos, PCBcontaining paint, and/or lead-based
paint (ERM, 2004a).
While the plant was operating, it was
classified as a small quantity generator
of hazardous wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
However, YAEC is currently a large
quantity generator (generating over
1,000 kilograms of hazardous wastes per
month) due to the increased volume of
hazardous and mixed wastes associated
with decommissioning activities. The
MDEP regulates YAEC’s hazardous
waste generation and storage activities.
Contamination and Remediation
Nonradiological chemical cleanup at
the site must comply with MDEP
regulations under the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan (MCP) (310 CMR
40.00), which regulates the investigation
and cleanup of oil and hazardous
materials releases to soil or water (ERM,
2004a), and the MDEP Solid Waste
Regulations at 310 CMR 19.000, which
regulate the investigation and
remediation of the SCFA and the review
of beneficial reuse determination (BUD)
permits. YAEC had intended to
remediate onsite contamination to
enable future use of the site without
restrictions, however deed restrictions
will be utilized in the remediation of the
industrial use of the site.
The primary non-radiological
contaminant of concern at the site is
PCBs. A release of PCB-containing paint
chips from the vapor container (reactor
containment) into the Sherman
Reservoir was discovered in the spring
of 2000. The paint chips migrated to the
reservoir through the stormwater
drainage system. Immediate action was
taken to remediate some of the storm
drain sediments. Additional cleanup
has been ongoing since 2001, including
remediation of soils in landscaped areas
onsite and of the sediments in the
Sherman Reservoir and western storm
drainage ditch. PCBs in soils and
sediments are being remediated to meet
the requirements of both the MDEP and
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) generally to a level of 1
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg, or partsper-million). YAEC has documented its
PCB remediation program in three
reports prepared according to MCP
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
requirements: Phase II Comprehensive
Site Assessment, Phase III Remedial
Action Plan, and Phase IV Remedy
Implementation Plan.
Massachusetts and Vermont public
health agencies have issued advisories
due to the presence of mercury in fish
from the Sherman Reservoir.
Atmospheric deposition from industrial
activities is a likely source of the
mercury found in these fish.
Additionally, PCBs were detected at
trace levels in the tissues of fish in the
vicinity of the East Storm Drain Outfall.
The source of the PCBs is likely the
PCB-containing paint chips that
migrated into the reservoir. The licensee
is controlling any remaining PCBcontaining paint so no further
environmental impact is expected. As
discussed in Section 3.1.2, YAEC is in
the process of remediating the PCBcontaminated areas of the reservoir near
the East Storm Drain Outfall (ERM,
2004a).
YAEC began an additional site-wide
characterization of soils, groundwater,
and sediments in 2003 and identified
several areas for further study.
According to the June 2004 Site
Characterization Status Report (ERM,
2004c) and the January 2005 Phase II
Comprehensive Site Assessment Report,
minor contamination in groundwater
and sediment, as well as localized areas
of contaminated soil, were identified as
requiring further evaluation.
Groundwater contaminants are
discussed in Section 3.3.2. Sediment
impacts include PCBs, which is
consistent with previous investigations.
Soil impacts include low levels of the
following compounds: petroleum
hydrocarbon impacts near parking areas;
PCBs near the transformer yard; dioxin
near the former incinerator; lead around
the former shooting range; and
beryllium near the ISFSI and former
cooling water discharge structure. YAEC
will continue to work with the MDEP to
fulfill MCP requirements and
demonstrate that the entire site has been
adequately characterized and
remediated where necessary, according
to MDEP regulations. When the site is
released from NRC jurisdiction, it will
remain under state jurisdiction until all
nonradiological contamination issues
are resolved with the MDEP.
As discussed earlier, most site
buildings are being demolished to
ground level, and some foundations
(notably, the Spent Fuel Pool/Ion
Exchange Pit, or SFP/IXP) will be
removed entirely. Basements will be
remediated to meet the DCGLs before
they are perforated to facilitate
groundwater flow. Soils will be used to
backfill the basements and other holes.
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Additionally, concrete demolition
debris generated from dismantlement
activities may be used as backfill
material if it passes the final status
survey or contains no detectable
contamination. Backfill using concrete
demolition debris will be conducted
under a BUD permit from MDEP, which
will include a deed restriction and
compliance with MDEP and MDPH
requirements for such reuse.
3.2
Land Use
YNPS industrial and administrative
operations are conducted on
approximately 15 acres of land,
primarily owned by YAEC but also
including property owned by USGen, as
discussed in Section 3.1. The USGen
property, consisting of a segment that
extends along the entire eastern bank of
the Sherman Reservoir, is subject to a
2001 Grant of Conservation Restriction
issued by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Management. USGen
has agreed to restrict future uses of its
property for preservation purposes,
except as necessary for operation of its
hydroelectric power plant (ERM, 2004a).
Approximately 87 acres of the site is
dedicated to the long term storage
(about 20 years) of spent fuel and other
high-level radioactive waste in the
ISFSI. The ISFSI consists of a concrete
pad within a fence and a buffer area
with a 300-meter radius.
Transmission lines and two public
roads traverse the site. Readsboro Road
runs in a north-south direction
approximately 1500 feet west of the
plant, across the river. Monroe Hill
Road is approximately 2500 feet from
the plant to the southwest, running in
a north-south direction between the
towns of Rowe and Monroe.
Some farms and a few commercial
sites are located in the surrounding area.
There are no exclusively commercial
areas within five miles of the site. The
only industrial property in the area is
the adjacent USGen hydroelectric
station and five associated powerhouses
that are situated near the Sherman and
other reservoirs along the Deerfield
River. The nearest highway and railroad
right-of-way are each located about five
miles south of the site. Several public
lands and conservation areas are located
within five miles of the site (YAEC,
1999, 2004a). The river is used for
recreation and sport fishing, as well as
for producing hydroelectric power.
3.3
Water Resources
The discussion of water resources is
divided into surface water and
groundwater. The following sections
provide a summary of the characteristics
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32667
of each within and around the YNPS
site.
3.3.1
Surface Water
Surface Water Features
Surface water bodies on the site or in
its immediate vicinity include the
Deerfield River, Sherman Reservoir,
Wheeler Brook and an associated
tributary, a divertment from Wheeler
Brook, a discharge canal, and the
stormwater drainage systems for the
eastern and western halves of the
Industrial Area. Wheeler Brook and its
tributaries flow about 400 to 500 feet
outside the Industrial Area around the
south and east sides of the site before
Wheeler Brook discharges into Sherman
Reservoir (Framatome, 2003).
Sherman Reservoir was formed by the
installation of Sherman Dam on the
Deerfield River. The reservoir is
approximately two miles long, a quarter
mile wide, and up to 75 feet deep along
its central channel (Framatome, 2003).
The discharge canal, which discharges
into the Sherman Reservoir, was
constructed to receive return water from
the plant’s cooling water processes.
Stormwater at the site flows into two
systems, the East Storm Drain System
and the West Storm Drain System,
draining the eastern and western halves
of the Industrial Area, respectively. The
East Storm Drain System discharges to
the Sherman Reservoir, while the West
Storm Drain System discharges to the
Deerfield River. Stormwater from the
undeveloped uplands is captured by the
Wheeler Brook Divertment. The
divertment flows into Wheeler Brook,
which flows into the Sherman
Reservoir.
Wetlands on the site are located in
several areas and primarily border water
bodies such as the Sherman Reservoir,
Deerfield River, Wheeler Brook, and
associated tributaries. Additional
wetland areas were identified in the two
stormwater detention basins at the site.
Some isolated wetlands exist in the
southern part of the site. Wetlands were
formally delineated in an Abbreviated
Notice of Resource Area Delineation
(Woodlot, 2004), which was approved
by the Town of Rowe Conservation
Commission in March 2004.
Wastewater Discharges
During the plant operation,
stormwater, service water, and
noncontact cooling water were
discharged as wastewaters through
seven outfalls to the Sherman Reservoir
and the West Storm Drain System (to
the river). Currently, stormwater and
treated wastewaters from the laboratory
or from decommissioning activities are
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
32668
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
discharged through three remaining
outfalls. Discharges are approved under
a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
issued jointly by the MDEP and EPA,
which sets specific limits for pH, oil and
grease, suspended solids, and flow, and
also requires the maintenance of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(ERM, 2004b). These discharges are also
monitored and treated for radiological
materials according to NRC
requirements.
A temporary wastewater processing
system treats and stores wastewaters
received from the radioactive laboratory
sump discharge line. This water is
treated and then batch-discharged.
Discharges of these wastewaters through
the treatment plant or through the
stormwater drainage system are covered
under the NPDES permit. The
temporary treatment system will be
dismantled and disposed of off-site as
radioactive waste (YAEC, 2004a).
The auxiliary service water system is
being used to supply water from the
Sherman Reservoir to support
decontamination and dismantling
activities. The system will be
dismantled once it is no longer needed
for these activities (YAEC, 2004a).
Three septic systems with several
associated leach fields have been used
at the YNPS site. The leach fields are
located generally on the western portion
of the site. Three of these leach fields
have been in use since 1978, when two
formerly-used leach fields were
abandoned in place.
3.3.2
Groundwater
Aquifers and Geology
The groundwater system at the YNPS
site is a product of the geology,
particularly the petrology and hydraulic
conductivity of the rocks, the glacial
history, the geomorphology, and the
hydrology of this area. The YNPS site is
located on the east side of the Berkshire
Mountains predominantly on a terrace
of the Deerfield River. The terrace is
recessed into the east side of a two mile
wide glacially-derived river valley
where the valley walls rise to over 1,000
feet above the river elevation. The YNPS
plant is adjacent to a dammed portion
of the Deerfield River, Sherman Dam
and Sherman Reservoir. The local
gradient for this portion of the Deerfield
River is 28.4 feet/mile over a river
distance of about 33 miles from the
Vermont border at the Sherman Pond to
the West Deerfield, Massachusetts
gauging station (Framatome, 2003).
The local groundwater system is
extremely complex, with three
groundwater-bearing units, from top to
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
bottom: stratified drift, glaciolacustrine,
and bedrock. The stratified drift unit
contains permeable surficial sands and
gravels,10 to 20 feet thick, that are
water-laid, ice-contact deposits derived
from a melting glacier. The
glaciolacustrine unit comprises
sediments up to 260 feet thick of
glaciolacustrine origin, containing
multiple, relatively thin water-bearing
units of fine to medium-grained sand,
interspersed within relatively
impermeable, fine-grained sand and
silts. The bedrock unit is a gray,
medium-grained, moderately foliated
metamorphic rock that contains
significant amounts of megacrystals of
plagioclase feldspar albite. This bedrock
is the upper member of the Lower
Cambrian Hoosac Formation, which is
relatively competent with few fractures
(YAEC, 2004e).
Contamination and Monitoring
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, YAEC
began additional site-wide
characterization of groundwater in 2003
and identified several areas for further
study. According to the June 2004 Site
Characterization Status Report (ERM,
2004c), nonradiological contamination
in groundwater and sediment, as well as
localized areas of contaminated soil,
were identified that required further
evaluation. Non-radiological
groundwater contaminants identified
were found to be in isolated areas and
do not suggest the presence of a plume.
These contaminants include low levels
of 1,1-dichloroethane, PCBs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons. YAEC will
continue to work with the MDEP to
fulfill MCP requirements and
demonstrate that groundwater has been
adequately characterized and
remediated where necessary.
Radiological groundwater monitoring
at the YNPS site (excluding monitoring
for the Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program) has occurred since
the plant shut down in 1992. Currently,
39 monitoring wells are in operation
throughout the site. Monitoring wells
were installed in stages, as follows: two
in the late 1970s, 15 in 1993–94, 21
from 1997 through 2001, and 17 during
the summer of 2003, with 14 of the
older wells properly abandoned due to
decommissioning (demolition)
activities. Most of the wells that were
installed prior to 2003 are located in the
RCA, although a few are either
downgradient or upgradient of the RCA.
All of the wells installed before 2003
except one are shallow, ranging in depth
from 7 to 31 feet below the land surface.
The exception is a 49-foot bedrock
monitoring well in the RCA. The
monitoring wells installed during the
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
summer of 2003 contain wells screened
as follows: three in the stratified drift
unit, seven in the glaciolacustrine unit,
and seven in the bedrock unit.
Groundwater samples have been
collected for radiological analysis since
1993. Until 2003, YAEC analyzed the
groundwater samples for tritium, gross
alpha, gross beta, and gamma
spectroscopy. The analytical results for
these samples (i.e., groundwater
samples from monitoring wells screened
primarily in the stratified drift unit)
indicated that only tritium was present
above the minimum detection
concentration. The largest tritium
concentrations were observed in wells
located immediately downgradient of
the spent fuel pit and ion exchange pit
(SFP/IXP).
In 2003, YAEC made several changes
to improve site characterization and
sampling and analytical procedures:
1. During the summer of 2003, YAEC
installed 17 monitoring wells, as
mentioned above, to characterize the
glaciolacustrine and bedrock units more
adequately. YAEC installed additional
monitoring wells in 2004 and will
install more as required by MDEP to
improve its characterization of
groundwater at the site.
2. YAEC began quarterly sampling
events in 2003, and in 2004 improved
sampling procedures by measuring the
groundwater levels in all monitoring
wells within a few hours before any
water samples were collected. YAEC has
also committed to collecting the water
samples from the monitoring wells over
a shorter time period.
3. YAEC improved and explained its
analytical analysis of the groundwater
samples by analyzing for the
radionuclides of concern at the YNPS
site. Table 2–6 of the LTP lists the
radionuclides of concern (or see Section
3.1.1). In July and November 2003,
YAEC conducted analyses for these
radionuclides of concern and for Mn-54.
Tritium was the only plant-generated
radionuclide that was detected in
samples from the July and November
2003 events.
The largest tritium concentration
historically observed at the YNPS site
was groundwater flowing from Sherman
Spring early in plant operation, which
is downgradient from the Sherman Dam
and Sherman Pond near the Deerfield
River. Groundwater from Sherman
Spring had a tritium concentration of
7,195,000 picoCuries/liter (pCi/L) in
December 1965. The tritium
contamination is reported to have been
caused by a leakage from the SFP/IXP,
which was repaired in May 1965 and in
1979, when a stainless-steel liner was
installed. Tritium levels in groundwater
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
samples from Sherman Spring have
decreased steadily over time, and have
varied from non-detectable (ND) to 890
picoCuries/liter in recent monitoring
rounds.
Tritium concentrations from the July
and November 2003, sampling events
are variable by space and time
throughout the hydrogeologic units at
the site. The tritium plume extends from
the source area at the SFP/IXP towards
Sherman Spring and the Deerfield River,
with the highest tritium concentrations
present immediately downgradient of
the SFP/IXP. The maximum tritium
concentrations were approximately
2,000 pCi/L in the stratified drift unit,
45,000 pCi/L in the glaciolacustrine
unit, and 6,000 pCi/L in the bedrock
unit.
3.4 Human Health
Potential human health hazards
associated with the YNPS site range
from potential exposure to very low
levels of radioactivity in soils and
groundwater, to limited areas of
relatively high levels of radioactivity
within the remaining portions of the
reactor support structures and systems.
The intent of the final
decommissioning activity at the site is
to reduce radiological contamination at
the site to meet NRC’s unrestricted
release criteria, and to also meet the
criteria of the MDPH and MDEP. After
decommissioning activities are
complete, license termination activities
will verify adequacy of the radiological
release criteria (i.e., DCGLs) and the
final status survey. Unrestricted use of
the site is defined in 10 CFR 20.1402,
as follows:
A site will be considered acceptable
for unrestricted use if the residual
radioactivity that is distinguishable
from background radiation results in a
TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] to
an average member of the critical group
that does not exceed 25 mrem [millirem]
(0.25 mSv) [milliSievert] per year,
including that from groundwater
sources of drinking water, and that the
residual radioactivity has been reduced
to levels that are as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA) * * *.
As planned, the 0.25 mSv/yr (25
mrem/yr) TEDE all-pathway limit would
be achieved at the site through the
application of DCGLs used to measure
the adequacy of remediation activities.
The DCGLs in use at the YNPS site were
calculated using dose models based on
guidance provided in NUREG/CR–5512,
Volumes 1, 2, and 3, NUREG/CR–6697,
and the computer codes RESRAD
Version 6.21 and RESRAD-BUILD
Version 3.21 code for generating the
DCGLs. These dose models translate
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
residual radioactivity into potential
radiation doses to the public, based on
select land-use scenarios, exposure
pathways, and identified critical groups.
A critical group is defined as the group
of individuals reasonably expected to
receive the greatest exposure to residual
radioactivity given the assumptions of a
given scenario. Such scenarios and their
associated modeling are designed to
overestimate, rather than underestimate,
potential dose.
YAEC has also agreed to meet the
following radiological site criteria of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 1
mrem/yr for concrete rubble used onsite as fill; 10 mrem/yr for the entire
site; and the risk criteria for cumulative
radiological and non-radiological risk as
determined by a Risk Assessment
according to the MCP.
4.0
Environmental Impacts
4.1
Land Use
YAEC plans to release eventually all
of the property associated with the
YNPS site to local, state, or federal
government or non-profit entities for
conservation purposes. YAEC has
developed an American Land Title
Association survey to document the
site’s legal boundaries. In addition,
natural and cultural resources
inventories and management plans have
been developed. The management plans
specify the obligations necessary to
preserve the site for conservation
(YAEC, 2004b).
Termination of the YAEC license is
not reasonably expected to result in any
adverse impacts to onsite and adjacent
land use. Soils not meeting the
radiological criteria for license
termination will be removed and
disposed of at a licensed facility as lowlevel radioactive waste. Initially, most of
the YAEC-owned property would be
released, except for approximately 87
acres containing the spent fuel storage
facility and associated buffer zone. That
acreage would be released when the fuel
is removed to a permanent repository
and the storage facility is
decommissioned.
Land on and directly adjacent to the
site is expected to remain heavily
wooded, with lightly populated
communities in the surrounding area.
Recreational opportunities afforded by
the Deerfield River will likely continue
and could increase.
The deed restriction required by the
MDEP Solid Waste BUD permit will
require prior written approval by the
MDEP for any use of the former
industrial area of the site other than as
passive recreation, and will prohibit
excavations in that area.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4.2
32669
Water Resources
Approval of the LTP and eventual
termination of the license are not
anticipated to result in any significant
impacts to either surface water or
groundwater. The approved radiation
release criteria must be met as a
condition of license termination and
release of the site.
4.2.1
Surface Water
Land areas from which precipitation
runs off to surface waters, will be
subject to further investigation,
remediation where necessary, and the
final status survey. YAEC will need to
verify that DCGLs have been met in
accordance with Section 5 of the LTP,
thus demonstrating compliance with the
release criteria. Further, YAEC will need
to demonstrate compliance with the
MCP surface water requirements for
both nonradiological and radiological
contaminants. YAEC’s future license
termination also would not be expected
to result in any adverse impact to
surface water flow or quality, as batch
discharges will cease along with other
license termination activities.
Prior to license termination, the
amount of impervious area will be
reduced by about 8 acres (from about 9.5
acres) due to revegetation of areas
currently occupied by buildings, roads,
and parking lots (ERM, 2004d). YAEC
intends to leave the current stormwater
drainages unaltered to prevent the
destruction of wetland areas that have
formed in the drainages. Drainage pipes
will be closed, so that discharges will
likely continue as sheet flow from the
drainages into water bodies.
Both the existing water supply system
(upgradient supply well) and sewage
system will remain in place. YAEC will
inspect the remaining septic systems
(discussed in Section 3.3.1) for
compliance with state septic system
regulations before the property title is
transferred. Groundwater monitoring
wells have been installed and monitored
in the vicinity of the site septic systems.
Several closure activities are being
conducted on or near wetlands
resources. YAEC has prepared an
Integrated Permit Package to address the
regulatory requirements applicable to
such activities (ERM, 2004d). The
activities requiring wetlands-related
permits include PCB remediation,
decommissioning of circulating water
intake and discharge structures, removal
of the Southeast Construction Fill Area,
implementation of Sherman Dam flood
control measures, and regrading of the
site. Additionally, a wetlands
restoration plan has been developed
(Woodlot, 2004) to implement the
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
32670
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
permit requirements. Further
information concerning wetlands
activities can be found in the Integrated
Permit Package and the Wetland
Restoration and Replication Plan
(Woodlot, 2004).
YAEC samples three surface water
sites for its Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program (REMP) at the
YNPS site. The Deerfield River is
sampled downstream from the YNPS
site at Bear Swamp Lower Reservoir
with an automatic sampler every two
hours. These samples are composited
each month. YAEC also collects
monthly grab samples from Sherman
Pond and from an upstream Deerfield
River site at the Harriman Reservoir.
Samples from all three sites are
analyzed for gamma emitting
radionuclides, tritium, and gross beta.
The tritium and gamma spectroscopy
results for 2003 indicated that no
surface water samples contained
detectable levels of plant-generated
radionuclides. Also, the gross beta
averages for 2003 were slightly greater at
the upstream Deerfield River site than at
the downstream site (YAEC, 2004d).
Based upon these recent data, YAEC
states that the surface waters do not
require remediation pertaining to plantgenerated radionuclides.
4.2.2
Groundwater
YAEC states that remediation will not
likely be required for groundwater at the
YNPS site to meet NRC’s license
termination criteria because H–3 levels
are expected to meet NRC’s unrestricted
release criteria when the site is released
(when the ISFSI is decommissioned and
the license terminated). If
decommissioning activities at the YNPS
site increase the concentrations of plantgenerated radionuclides dissolved in the
groundwater, the monitoring program at
this site should detect this change.
Groundwater samples from the existing
39 monitoring wells should indicate
changes in the groundwater
downgradient from the radiologicallycontrolled area. Because some
monitoring wells have been abandoned
during decommissioning, new
monitoring wells will need to be
installed to meet MDEP requirements to
characterize potential changes in the
level of plant-generated radionuclides
dissolved in the groundwater.
Groundwater at the site also will be
required to meet the dose-based
radiological criteris of the MDPH and
the risk-based criteria of the MDEP Risk
Assessment process (for both
radiological and non-radiological
parameters).
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
4.3
Human Health Impacts
Compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 for
unrestricted release (and, therefore,
human health protection requirements)
is contingent upon successful
remediation and/or removal of
contaminated soil, groundwater,
ancillary contaminated materials, and
structures to acceptable levels
(corresponding to a total dose of 0.25
mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) or less per year) to
an average member of the critical group.
In addition, residual radioactivity must
meet the ALARA requirements of the
rule.
As noted in Sec. 3.4, YAEC also has
agreed to meet the more restrictive
radiological release criteria of the MDPH
and the MDEP.
Derived Concentration Guideline Levels
YAEC has defined levels of residual
radioactivity for various sources at the
site that correspond to meeting the dose
limit. These acceptable levels are
defined as the DCGLs. Potential
radiation doses for the bounding
exposure scenarios are calculated by
assuming an average fixed concentration
level for each of the potential sources of
residual radioactivity. The sources are
soil, building surfaces, subsurface
partial structures, and concrete debris.
Two critical groups were identified to
whom the DCGLs would be applicable:
A full-time resident farmer group
(associated with soil, building surfaces,
subsurface partial structures, and
concrete debris sources) and a building
occupancy group (associated with the
building surfaces source).
The DCGLs for each source were
derived using the radiation doses per
unit activity and a separate dose
constraint for each source. Table 4–1
lists the DCGLs for each radionuclide
from each source. Within each critical
group, each DCGL was selected to
correspond to a fraction of the 0.25
mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) dose limit so that
the total dose to the average member of
that group from all sources would equal
the limit.
For the resident farmer critical group,
the doses corresponding to DCGLs (and
totaling 25 mrem/yr) are:
• Subsurface partial structures: 0.005
mSv/yr (0.5 mrem/yr)
• Groundwater: 0.0077 mSv/yr (0.77
mrem/yr).
• Concrete debris and soil: 0.2373
mSv/yr (23.73 mrem/yr)
In areas that have co-mingled soil and
concrete debris, YAEC would use the
smaller of the two DCGLs for each
radionuclide (see Table 4–1), and for
areas with only soil, YAEC would use
the soil DCGLs.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the building occupancy critical
group, YAEC would take a sum-offractions approach to ensure that if a
member of the public were both a
member of the building occupancy
critical group and the resident farmer
critical group, their total dose would be
less than 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr).
Any actual doses would likely be
much less than the 0.25 mSv/yr (25
mrem/yr) limit. This is due to the
conservatism in both the modeling and
the assumption that the entire source
would have residual radioactivity at the
DCGL. (It is more likely that the sources
will have residual radioactivity at
considerably less than the DCGLs.)
Provided compliance with the 10 CFR
20.1402 limit is demonstrated through
the results of the final status survey,
there would be no anticipated adverse
impacts to human health from approval
of license termination, as described in
the environmental impact statement for
license termination (NUREG–1496)
(NRC, 1997a).
Exposure Scenarios
The manner in which the DCGLs are
derived for the YNPS site is
documented in Chapter 6 of the LTP,
Revision 1. In deriving the DCGLs, an
adult resident farmer is considered to
represent the average member of the
critical group. The hypothetical resident
farmer is assumed to build a house on
the contaminated soil (or soil/concrete
debris mix), draw water from a well
placed into the tritium plume, grow
plant food and fodder on the
contaminated area, raise livestock on
the contaminated area, and catch fish
from a pond on the contaminated area.
The resident farmer scenario is
considered the bounding scenario
because it embodies the greatest number
of exposure pathways, represents the
longest exposure durations, and
includes the greatest number of sources,
of all scenarios envisioned. The DCGLs
are shown in Table 4–1.
The NRC will evaluate the
appropriateness of the postulated
exposure scenarios and the
methodology used for deriving the
DCGLs as part of its review of the LTP.
The NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation
Report will provide the details of this
review.
Survey Design
YAEC would use a series of surveys,
including the final status survey, to
demonstrate compliance with the
radiological release criteria consistent
with the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey
and Site Investigation Manual (NRC,
1997a). Planning for the final status
survey involves an iterative process that
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
32671
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
requires appropriate site classification
(on the basis of the potential residual
radioactivity levels relative to the
DCGLs) and formal planning using the
Data Quality Objective process. YAEC
has committed to an integrated design
that would address the selection of
appropriate survey and laboratory
instrumentation and procedures,
including a statistically-based
measurement and sampling plan for
collecting and evaluating the data
needed for the final status survey. YAEC
has requested that it be permitted to
modify the classification levels based on
new information during the
decommissioning process.
TABLE 4–1.—DERIVED CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE LEVELS*
Radionuclide
Soil
(pCi/g)†
Building surface
(dpm/100 cm2) ‡
Subsurface partial structures
(pCI/g) §
Concrete debris†
(pCi/g)
H-3 ......................................
3.5E+02 ..............................
3.4E+08 ..............................
1.35E+02 ............................
C-14 ....................................
Fe-55 ..................................
Co-60 ..................................
Ni-63 ...................................
Sr-90 ...................................
Nb-94 ..................................
Tc-99 ...................................
Ag-108m .............................
Sb-125 ................................
Cs-134 ................................
Cs-137 ................................
Eu-152 ................................
Eu-154 ................................
Eu-155 ................................
Pu-238 ................................
Pu-239 ................................
Pu-241 ................................
Am-241 ...............................
Cm-243 ...............................
5.2E+00
2.8E+04
3.8E+00
7.7E+02
1.6E+00
6.8E+00
1.3E+01
6.9E+00
3.0E+01
4.7E+00
8.2E+00
9.5E+00
9.0E+00
3.8E+02
3.1E+01
2.8E+01
9.3E+02
2.8E+01
3.0E+01
1.0E+07
4.0E+07
1.8E+04
3.7E+07
1.5E+05
2.6E+04
1.4E+07
2.5E+04
1.0E+05
2.9E+04
6.3E+04
3.7E+04
3.4E+04
6.5E+05
5.7E+03
5.1E+03
2.5E+05
5.0E=03
7.2E+03
2.34E+03 ............................
.............................................
3.45E+03 ............................
6.16E+04 ............................
1.39E+01 ............................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
1.45E+03 ............................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
.............................................
9.5E+01 (cellar holes).
2.8E+02 (grading).
7.2E+00.
1.4E+02.
4.3E+00.
1.0E+02.
7.5E01.
7.0E+00.
6.1E+01.
7.0E+00.
3.1E+01.
4.7E+00.
6.7E+00.
9.5E+00.
9.1E+00.
3.8E+02.
9.5E+00.
8.8E+00.
1.4E+02.
4.1E+00.
4.7E+00.
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
* To convert to Bq from pCi, multiply by 0.037.
† Represents a dose of 23.73 mrem/yr.
‡ Represents a dose of 25 mrem/yr.
§ Represents a dose of 0.5 mrem/yr, radionuclides based upon those found in concrete samples.
5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted
and Sources Used
A copy of the Environmental
Assessment was provided to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on
March 3, 2005. The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
provided comments by letter dated
March 31, 2005, which were
incorporated into this EA.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action would not affect listed
threatened or endangered species or
critical habitat designated under the
Endangered Species Act. Therefore, no
consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act.
Likewise, the NRC staff has determined
that the proposed action would not
affect historic or archaeological
resources. Therefore, no consultation is
required under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
6.0
Conclusion
The NRC has prepared this EA related
to the issuance of a license amendment
that would approve the LTP. On the
basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded
that there are no significant
environmental impacts and the
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
proposed license amendment does not
warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Accordingly, it has been determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact
is appropriate.
The documents related to this
proposed action are available for public
inspection and copying at NRC’s Public
Document Room at NRC Headquarters,
One White Flint North, 1555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Most
of these documents also are available for
public review through our electronic
reading room (ADAMS): https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
7.0 List of Preparers
C. McKenney, Health Physicist,
Division of Waste Management, dose
assessment.
J. Peckenpaugh, Hydrologist, Division
of Waste Management, groundwater
issues.
C. Schulte, Project Manager, Division
of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, nonradiological environmental issues.
J. Thompson, Health Physicist,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Final Status
Survey, radiation release criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8.0
List of Acronyms
ALARA as low as reasonably
achievable
BUD beneficial reuse determination
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCGL derived concentration guideline
limit
dpm/100cm2 disintegrations per
minute per 100 square centimeters
EA environmental assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FSS final status survey
ISFSI independent spent fuel storage
installation
kV kilovolt
LTP license termination plan
MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan
MDEP Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
MDPH Massachusetts Department of
Public Health, Radiation Control
Program
mrem/y millirem per year
mSv/yr milliSievert per year
NEPA National Environmental Policy
Act
NHESP National Heritage and
Endangered Species Program
NPDES National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
32672
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 106 / Friday, June 3, 2005 / Notices
ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
pCi/L picocurie per liter
PSDAR post shutdown
decommissioning activities report
RCA Radiologically-controlled area
REMP Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program
RCRA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
SCFA Southeast Construction Fill
Area
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric
Company
YNPS Yankee Nuclear Power Station
9.0
References
10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20,
‘‘Standards for protection against radiation.’’
10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50,
‘‘Domestic licensing of production and
utilization facilities.’’
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51,
‘‘Environmental protection regulations for
domestic licensing and related regulatory
functions.’’
61 FR 39278. ‘‘Decommissioning of
Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ Federal Register.
July 29, 1996.
62 FR 39058. ‘‘Radiological Criteria for
License Termination. Final Rule.’’ Federal
Register. July 21, 1997.
64 FR 68005. ‘‘Waste Confidence Decision
Review.’’ Federal Register. December 6,
1999.
Evans et al., 1984. ‘‘Long-Lived Activation
Products in Reactor Materials,’’ NUREG/CR–
3474. August 1984. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
ERM, 2004a. ‘‘Baseline Environmental
Report,’’ April 30, 2004. Environmental
Resources Management, Boston,
Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004b, ‘‘Expanded Environmental
Notification Form,’’ March 31, 2004.
Environmental Resources Management,
Boston, Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004c, ‘‘Site Characterization Status
Report,’’ June 4, 2004. Environmental
Resources Management, Boston,
Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004d, ‘‘Integrated Permit Package,
Yankee Nuclear Power Station,’’ May 7, 2004.
Environmental Resources Management,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Kennedy and Strenge, 1992. ‘‘Residual
Radioactive Contamination From
Decommissioning.’’ NUREG/CR–5512,
Volume 1. October 1992. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Kleinschmidt, 2004. ‘‘PostDecommissioning Grading Plan and
Stormwater Management Analysis,’’ August
2004. Kleinschmidt Energy and Water
Resource Consultants.
MASS, 2004. ‘‘Certificate of the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs on the Expanded
Environmental Notification Form,’’ May 7,
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:03 Jun 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
2004, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Boston,
Massachusetts.
MHC, 2003. Letter, Massachusetts
Historical Commission to YAEC, ‘‘Yankee
Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning,
Rowe; MHC#33426,’’ dated August 18, 2003.
NRC, 1988. ‘‘Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on the Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities.’’ August 1988. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
NRC, 1997a. ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking
on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear
Facilities.’’ NUREG–1496. July 1997. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
NRC, 1997b. ‘‘Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual
(MARSSIM).’’ NUREG–1575. December 1997.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
NRC, 2002. ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on the Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities. Supplement Dealing with
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power
Reactors.’’ November 2002. NUREG–0586,
Supplement 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 2003. ‘‘Consolidated NMSS
Decommissioning Guidance,’’ NUREG–1757.
September 2003
NRC, 2004. Letter, NRC to YAEC, ‘‘Yankee
(Rowe) Nuclear Power Station—Request for
Additional Information Re: License
Termination Plan,’’ dated June 16, 2004.
PAL, 2003. ‘‘Archeological Reconnaissance
Survey, Archeological Resources
Management Plan, Yankee Nuclear Power
Station,’’ November, 2003. Public Archeology
Laboratory, Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
Smith et al., 1978. ‘‘Technology, Safety and
Costs of Decommissioning a Reference
Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station.’’
NUREG/CR–0130. June 1978. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Woodlot, 2004. ‘‘Yankee Nuclear Power
Station Site Closure Project Wetland
Restoration and Replication Plan,’’ August
2004. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham,
Maine, and Environmental Resources
Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 1993. ‘‘YNPS Decommissioning
Environmental Report,’’ December, 1993,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2000. ‘‘Post Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities Report,’’ June,
2001. Excerpted from the YNPS Final Safety
Analysis Report, Yankee Atomic Electric
Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2003. ‘‘YNPS License Termination
Plan,’’ Revision 0. November 24, 2003,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004a. ‘‘YNPS License Termination
Plan,’’ Draft Revision 1, September 2, 2004,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004b. ‘‘Site Closure Project Plan,’’
Revision 2. March 31, 2004, Yankee Atomic
Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004c. ‘‘YNPS Historical Site
Assessment,’’ January 2004, Yankee Atomic
Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
YAEC, 2004d. ‘‘Annual Radiological
Environmental Operating Report,’’ Yankee
Rowe Station Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program—January 1, 2003—
December 31, 2003. Yankee Atomic Electric
Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004e. ‘‘Hydrogeologic Report of
2003 Supplemental Investigation’’ March 15,
2004. Yankee Atomic Electric Company,
Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004f. ‘‘YNPS License Termination
Plan,’’ Revision 1, November 19, 2004,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2005. ‘‘Supplement to Proposed
Amendment to YNPS Possession Only
License,’’ April 7, 2005, Yankee Atomic
Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
Framatome, 2003. ‘‘Site Ground Water Data
Collection for YNPS Decommissioning, quo;
Rev 1. February, 2003, Framatome ANP
DE&S, Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5–2850 Filed 6–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
Agency Forms Submitted for OMB
Review
Summary: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad
Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted
the following proposal(s) for the
collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and
approval.
Summary of Proposal(s)
(1) Collection title: Statement
Regarding Contributions and Support.
(2) Form(s) submitted: G–134.
(3) OMB Number: 3220–0099.
(4) Expiration date of current OMB
clearance: 09/30/2005.
(5) Type of request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
(6) Respondents: Individuals or
households.
(7) Estimated annual number of
respondents: 100.
(8) Total annual responses: 100.
(9) Total annual reporting hours: 259.
(10) Collection description:
Dependency on the employee for onehalf support at the time of the
employee’s death can be a condition
affecting eligibility for a survivor
annuity provided for under Section 2 of
the Railroad Retirement Act. One-half
support is also a condition which may
E:\FR\FM\03JNN1.SGM
03JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 106 (Friday, June 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32664-32672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2850]
[[Page 32664]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-029]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to License Termination Plan for the Yankee Atomic Electric
Company; License DPR-003, Rowe, MA
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-00001. Telephone: (301) 415-3017; e-mail
jbh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (or the staff) is
considering Yankee Atomic Electric Company's request for approval of
the License Termination Plan (LTP) submitted for the Yankee Nuclear
Power Station (YNPS) in Rowe, Massachusetts. The NRC has prepared this
environmental assessment (EA) to determine the environmental impacts
(radiological and non-radiological) of approving the LTP and of
subsequently releasing the site for unrestricted use (as defined in 10
CFR 20.1402). This is consistent with the final rule, 10 CFR 50.82 that
appeared in the Federal Register on July 29, 1996 (61 FR 39278,
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors), which established the
criteria for license termination and the requirement for a license
termination plan.
As discussed in Section 1.3 below, the primary scope of this EA is
the evaluation of the impacts of the radiation release criteria and the
adequacy of the final status survey, as presented in the LTP.
1.1 Background
YNPS is a deactivated pressurized-water nuclear reactor situated on
a small portion of a 2,200-acre site. The site is located in
northwestern Massachusetts in Franklin County, near the southern
Vermont border. The plant and most of the 2,200-acre site are owned by
the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC). A small portion on the west
side of the site (along the east bank of the Sherman Reservoir) is
owned by USGen New England, Inc. The YNPS plant was constructed between
1958 and 1960 and operated commercially at 185 megawatts electrical
production (after a 1963 upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC determined
that closing the plant would be in the best economic interest of its
customers. In December 1993, NRC amended the YNPS operating license to
retain a ``possession-only'' status. YAEC began dismantling and
decommissioning activities at that time. These activities continue and
their relevance with respect to this EA is discussed in Section 1.3.
The spent nuclear fuel remaining onsite was transferred in 2003 from
the spent fuel pool to the independent spent fuel storage installation
(ISFSI) located adjacent to the plant. The spent fuel pool was
subsequently drained in compliance with regulatory requirements.
In November 2003, YAEC submitted its LTP with a goal to complete
decommissioning by mid-2005 (YAEC, 2003). Draft Revision 1 to the plan
was submitted September 2, 2004 (YAEC, 2004a), in response to a NRC
request for additional information (NRC, 2004). Subsequently, on
November 19, 2004, YAEC submitted Revision 1 to the LTP (YAEC, 2004f).
YAEC is proposing to decontaminate the YNPS site to meet the
unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402. Additionally, YAEC has
stated that it intends to comply with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
cleanup criteria of 105 CMR 120.291 established by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health (MDPH) and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MDEP). Most site structures will be
demolished to grade or entirely removed, and most buried piping or
utilities removed. Basements will be perforated to allow groundwater to
flow through during remediation. The following structures will remain
after phased release of the site: the administration building, guard
building, a small switchyard outside the guard building, the ISFSI, the
ISFSI security building, and access roads. After the irradiated fuel
has been removed from the site and prior to license termination the
ISFSI and ISFSI security building will be removed.
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action
Licensees of nuclear facilities must apply to the NRC before
terminating a license voluntarily and decommissioning a facility. YAEC
submitted the LTP, as required by 10 CFR 50.82, before requesting
license termination. The NRC must determine whether the proposed
procedures, adequacy of radiation criteria for license termination, and
the final status survey planned for completing decommissioning appear
sufficient and, if implemented according to the plan, would demonstrate
that the site is suitable for release.
1.3 Scope
To fulfill its obligations under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the NRC must evaluate the radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with approval of the LTP and
subsequent termination of the license. These evaluations involve an
assessment of the impacts of the remaining buildings or structures and
residual material present at the site at the time of license
termination.
As described in the Statements of Consideration accompanying the
Final Rule on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (61 FR 39278),
the NRC must consider the following in order to approve the LTP:
(1) The licensee's plan for assuring that adequate funds will be
available for final site release,
(2) radiation release criteria for license termination, and
(3) the adequacy of the final survey required to verify that these
release criteria have been met.
1.3.1 Issues Studied in Detail
Consistent with NEPA regulations and guidance to focus on
environmental issues of concern, impacts to land use, water resources,
and human health were selected for detailed study because of their
potential to be affected by an approval of the LTP. These issues are
discussed in this EA due to the potential for impacts from remaining
structures and/or residual material left at the site.
1.3.2 Issues Eliminated From Detailed Study
Issues eliminated from detailed study in this EA include air
quality, historic and cultural resources, ecological resources
(including endangered and threatened species), socioeconomic
conditions, transportation, noise, visual and scenic quality, off-site
waste management, and accident scenarios. These issues were eliminated
because they would not be affected by implementation of the LTP at the
site (i.e., ensuring the site meets radiation release criteria in the
final status survey). The financial assurance review, which is a
required part of the LTP approval, is not related to human health or
the environment and will not be discussed in this EA.
[[Page 32665]]
Impacts from decommissioning activities at the YNPS site are not
evaluated in this EA. NRC has already assessed power plant
decommissioning impacts in programmatic NEPA documents. Specifically,
the environmental impact statement for decommissioning activities (NRC,
1988, 2002) discusses the range of impacts expected from power plant
decommissioning activities. Further, in reviewing the LTP, the staff
also determined that the environmental impacts were enveloped by the
generic analysis performed in support of ``Radiological Criteria for
License Termination.'' (62 FR 39058) Decommissioning impacts at the
YNPS site were also addressed in the YAEC's Post-Shutdown
Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) (YAEC, 2000).
Additionally, the Commission has made a generic determination that,
if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely
and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years
beyond the plant's licensed operating life (64 FR 68005 and 10 CFR
51.23). Therefore, this EA does not evaluate environmental impacts of
spent fuel storage in the onsite independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI). However, the ISFSI is discussed briefly in
Sections 3.2 and 4.1.
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives
2.1 The Proposed Action
The proposed action is the NRC's review and approval of YAEC's LTP.
The NRC staff will review the plan to ensure that the license
termination activities (i.e., designation of radiation release criteria
and design of the final status survey) will comply with NRC
regulations. If NRC approves the plan, the approval will be issued in
the form of an amendment to the YNPS license (Possession Only License
No. DPR-3).
YAEC plans to complete decommissioning of the YNPS site for
unrestricted use, as described in the LTP and consistent with NRC
regulations at 10 CFR 20.1402. In addition, YAEC intends to comply with
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cleanup criteria in 105 CMR 120.291
specified by the MDPH and by the MDEP in the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP) and Solid Waste Regulations, as applicable. To meet NRC's
unrestricted release criteria, areas of the site will be divided into
survey units. These units will be sampled or surveyed in accordance
with the LTP to verify that site-specific criteria have been met. These
criteria, known as ``derived concentration guideline levels'' (DCGLs),
are discussed further in Sections 3.4 and 4.3.
Initially, YAEC plans to release all but 87 acres of the site for
unrestricted use after having passed the final survey. The remaining 87
acres would remain on the license until the spent fuel is shipped
offsite for permanent disposal (see Section 4.1) and the ISFSI is
decommissioned. At that time, the remaining acreage would again be
surveyed and, contingent on survey results, the license terminated.
2.2 Alternatives
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered the
``no-action alternative.'' The no-action alternative would maintain the
status quo. This would result in no change to current environmental
impacts, which are larger than those resulting from the proposed
action.
3.0 Affected Environment
3.1 Site Description
The YNPS site is located at 49 Yankee Road, approximately three
miles north-northwest of the northwestern Massachusetts town of Rowe,
in Franklin County.
The site is adjacent to the Vermont border on land characterized by
heavily wooded, steep hills. It is situated within the Deerfield River
Valley and abuts the eastern shores of the Deerfield River and Sherman
Reservoir. Hills bounding the Deerfield River valley rise 500 to 1000
feet above the site, reaching elevations of 2100 feet above mean sea
level (ERM, 2004a). The combined population of the two nearest towns,
Rowe and Monroe, is less than 500.
The YNPS property consists of about 2,200 acres in the towns of
Rowe and Monroe. Most of this property (approximately 1,825-acres) is
owned by YAEC; the remaining portion is owned by USGen New England,
Inc., (USGen). The USGen property is a narrow strip of upland to the
west of the plant, extending along the entire eastern bank of Sherman
Reservoir. USGen also owns the reservoir itself, the Sherman Dam,
property west of the Sherman Reservoir, and property downstream of
Sherman Dam encompassing both banks of the Deerfield River. YNPS
operations have been conducted on about 15 developed acres, primarily
on land owned by YAEC, but extending onto property owned by USGen (ERM,
2004a).
The YNPS site is divided into three areas based on past site
activities and land use:
1. Industrial Area: approximately 12-acre fenced portion of the
site that contains industrial plant structures and operations.
2. Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA): 4-acre parcel within the
industrial area that contains radiological materials associated with
plant operation.
3. Non-Industrial Area: remaining land outside the fenced
industrial area that contains the USGen Sherman Station hydroelectric
plant, the Sherman Reservoir and Dam, transmission lines traversing the
site, administration building and visitor center, roadways, fill areas
and undeveloped woodland (YAEC, 2004b; ERM, 2004a).
During construction of the YNPS facility, some construction and
demolition debris was placed into what is now the Southeast
Construction Fill Area (SCFA). This area of approximately 1.5 acres
contains soil and rock, in addition to wood, concrete, asphalt, and
metal debris. In accordance with MDEP Solid Waste permits, YAEC plans
to remove the materials from this area, returning native soils to other
areas of the site for regrading.
Ecology and Cultural Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed in correspondence with
YAEC that no federally listed endangered or threatened species occur on
the site. (ERM, 2004b) Massachusetts species of concern have been
identified on the YNPS site. A northern spring salamander was
identified in a headwater channel of Wheeler Brook. The bristly black
currant was discovered in a drainage area along the Wheeler Brook
Divertment, outside the site's eastern fenceline. Longnose suckers are
documented to exist in the Sherman Reservoir. YAEC is working with the
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife under the National
Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) to develop a plan for
the protection of these species during the remainder of decommissioning
activities.
Several resources of cultural and historic significance exist at
the site; however, none of these have been affected by decommissioning
activities. A 2003 report documents these resources, most of which are
located in the undeveloped uplands (PAL, 2003). The report also
includes a management plan that meets Massachusetts Historical
Commission guidelines.
3.1.1 Existing Radiological Contamination
The majority of the site located outside the industrial area was
determined to be non-impacted (about
[[Page 32666]]
2170 acres), as documented in Section 2.5 of the LTP. The non-impacted
area consists mostly of forested, rugged terrain that has not been
disturbed. This determination is based on both the Historical Site
Assessment (YAEC, 2004c) and additional characterization surveys.
Radiologically-impacted areas of the site include the industrial
area and surrounding open land areas extending out approximately 1000
feet from the vapor container (now dismantled). The radiologically
impacted areas comprise approximately 30 acres, the majority of which
are minimally impacted (contain residual radioactivity at levels no
greater than a fraction of the proposed DCGLs). For a more detailed
description of initial radiological characterization of the impacted
area, refer to the YNPS Historical Site Assessment and Section 2.4 of
the LTP.
The Historical Site Assessment also identified low levels of
contamination, primarily Co-60, in the sediments of Sherman Reservoir.
This radioactive material was deposited as a result of permitted and
monitored radioactive liquid releases. Characterization surveys showed
the radioactive material concentration is a small fraction of the
proposed DCGLs. Areas with potentially contaminated sediments are
included in the final status surveys for further evaluation.
Characterization Process
Site characterization activities were performed in two phases,
initial and continuing. The results of the initial phase were submitted
to the NRC in January 2004. After a review of the results of the
initial characterization, YAEC initiated the continuing phase, which
will be ongoing throughout the remainder of the decommissioning
activities. The results would be used to guide the remediation
activities, and to confirm the appropriateness of the radiological
source terms used for the dose model and basis for the corresponding
DCGLs by media.
Site characterization surveys are conducted to determine the nature
and extent of radiological contamination at the YNPS site. The purpose
of the site characterization survey is to: (1) Permit planning for
remediation activities; (2) demonstrate that it is unlikely that
significant quantities of residual radioactivity have gone undetected
at the site after remediation; (3) provide information to design the
final site survey (i.e., identify survey unit classifications for
impacted areas); and (4) provide input to dose modeling (NRC, 2003).
Site characterization activities include the collection of various
types of samples, including soil, sediment, water, concrete, metal, and
surface residues. Surveys and sampling conducted during site
characterization are based on knowledge of the plant history and likely
areas of contamination. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(A),
radiological conditions of the site were provided in Section 2.0 of the
LTP. The results of sample analyses and the use of the results in
identifying the significant radionuclides expected to be present after
remediation are described in Attachments 2B and 2C of Chapter 2 of the
LTP.
YAEC conducted a series of sample analyses using site media
believed to represent the distribution of radionuclide contaminants,
and their decay-corrected isotopic distribution, over the operational
history of the plant. In its technical basis document, YAEC describes
the method that was used to determine radionuclides that could be
present at the site (YAEC 2003). The radionuclides include, but are not
limited to: 3H, 14C, 54Mn,
55Fe, 57Co, 58Co, 59Ni,
60Co, 63Ni, 65Zn, 90Sr,
94Nb, 99Tc, 106Ru, 108mAg,
125Sb, 129I, 134Cs, 137Cs,
144Ce, 145Pm, 152Eu, 154Eu,
155Eu, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu,
241Pu, 241Am, 243Cm, and
244Cm. These radionuclides include fission and activation
products, which are typical of those found in pressurized-water reactor
plants. These radionuclides are also described in two NRC documents:
NUREG/CR-0130, ``Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a
Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station,'' (Smith et al.,
1978) and NUREG/CR-3474, ``Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor
Materials,'' (Evans et al., 1984).
Based on dose model assumptions (including the expected time at
which the site will be remediated) YAEC has identified the following 22
radionuclides as potentially contributing to the dose after license
termination: 3H, 14C, 55Fe,
60Co, 63Ni, 90Sr, 94Nb,
99Tc, 108mAg, 125Sb, 134Cs,
137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu, 155Eu,
238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu,
241Am, 243Cm, and 244Cm. Accordingly,
these radionuclides would form the basis in planning and conducting all
final status surveys, and demonstrating compliance with the site
release criteria.
3.1.2 Existing Hazardous and Chemical Contamination
Chemical Use
Over the YNPS plant's operating life, a number of hazardous
materials or chemicals were used throughout the industrial area. Some
of these materials are: water treatment and other maintenance
chemicals, fuel, lubricating and transformer oils (including oils
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)), and chemicals used for
the various reactor systems (including boron, hydrazine, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and trisodium phosphate). Additionally, some of the
building structures and surfaces contain asbestos, PCB-containing
paint, and/or lead-based paint (ERM, 2004a).
While the plant was operating, it was classified as a small
quantity generator of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, YAEC is currently a large quantity
generator (generating over 1,000 kilograms of hazardous wastes per
month) due to the increased volume of hazardous and mixed wastes
associated with decommissioning activities. The MDEP regulates YAEC's
hazardous waste generation and storage activities.
Contamination and Remediation
Nonradiological chemical cleanup at the site must comply with MDEP
regulations under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) (310 CMR
40.00), which regulates the investigation and cleanup of oil and
hazardous materials releases to soil or water (ERM, 2004a), and the
MDEP Solid Waste Regulations at 310 CMR 19.000, which regulate the
investigation and remediation of the SCFA and the review of beneficial
reuse determination (BUD) permits. YAEC had intended to remediate
onsite contamination to enable future use of the site without
restrictions, however deed restrictions will be utilized in the
remediation of the industrial use of the site.
The primary non-radiological contaminant of concern at the site is
PCBs. A release of PCB-containing paint chips from the vapor container
(reactor containment) into the Sherman Reservoir was discovered in the
spring of 2000. The paint chips migrated to the reservoir through the
stormwater drainage system. Immediate action was taken to remediate
some of the storm drain sediments. Additional cleanup has been ongoing
since 2001, including remediation of soils in landscaped areas onsite
and of the sediments in the Sherman Reservoir and western storm
drainage ditch. PCBs in soils and sediments are being remediated to
meet the requirements of both the MDEP and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) generally
to a level of 1 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg, or parts-per-million). YAEC
has documented its PCB remediation program in three reports prepared
according to MCP
[[Page 32667]]
requirements: Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment, Phase III
Remedial Action Plan, and Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan.
Massachusetts and Vermont public health agencies have issued
advisories due to the presence of mercury in fish from the Sherman
Reservoir. Atmospheric deposition from industrial activities is a
likely source of the mercury found in these fish. Additionally, PCBs
were detected at trace levels in the tissues of fish in the vicinity of
the East Storm Drain Outfall. The source of the PCBs is likely the PCB-
containing paint chips that migrated into the reservoir. The licensee
is controlling any remaining PCB-containing paint so no further
environmental impact is expected. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, YAEC
is in the process of remediating the PCB-contaminated areas of the
reservoir near the East Storm Drain Outfall (ERM, 2004a).
YAEC began an additional site-wide characterization of soils,
groundwater, and sediments in 2003 and identified several areas for
further study. According to the June 2004 Site Characterization Status
Report (ERM, 2004c) and the January 2005 Phase II Comprehensive Site
Assessment Report, minor contamination in groundwater and sediment, as
well as localized areas of contaminated soil, were identified as
requiring further evaluation. Groundwater contaminants are discussed in
Section 3.3.2. Sediment impacts include PCBs, which is consistent with
previous investigations. Soil impacts include low levels of the
following compounds: petroleum hydrocarbon impacts near parking areas;
PCBs near the transformer yard; dioxin near the former incinerator;
lead around the former shooting range; and beryllium near the ISFSI and
former cooling water discharge structure. YAEC will continue to work
with the MDEP to fulfill MCP requirements and demonstrate that the
entire site has been adequately characterized and remediated where
necessary, according to MDEP regulations. When the site is released
from NRC jurisdiction, it will remain under state jurisdiction until
all nonradiological contamination issues are resolved with the MDEP.
As discussed earlier, most site buildings are being demolished to
ground level, and some foundations (notably, the Spent Fuel Pool/Ion
Exchange Pit, or SFP/IXP) will be removed entirely. Basements will be
remediated to meet the DCGLs before they are perforated to facilitate
groundwater flow. Soils will be used to backfill the basements and
other holes. Additionally, concrete demolition debris generated from
dismantlement activities may be used as backfill material if it passes
the final status survey or contains no detectable contamination.
Backfill using concrete demolition debris will be conducted under a BUD
permit from MDEP, which will include a deed restriction and compliance
with MDEP and MDPH requirements for such reuse.
3.2 Land Use
YNPS industrial and administrative operations are conducted on
approximately 15 acres of land, primarily owned by YAEC but also
including property owned by USGen, as discussed in Section 3.1. The
USGen property, consisting of a segment that extends along the entire
eastern bank of the Sherman Reservoir, is subject to a 2001 Grant of
Conservation Restriction issued by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management. USGen has agreed to restrict future uses of
its property for preservation purposes, except as necessary for
operation of its hydroelectric power plant (ERM, 2004a).
Approximately 87 acres of the site is dedicated to the long term
storage (about 20 years) of spent fuel and other high-level radioactive
waste in the ISFSI. The ISFSI consists of a concrete pad within a fence
and a buffer area with a 300-meter radius.
Transmission lines and two public roads traverse the site.
Readsboro Road runs in a north-south direction approximately 1500 feet
west of the plant, across the river. Monroe Hill Road is approximately
2500 feet from the plant to the southwest, running in a north-south
direction between the towns of Rowe and Monroe.
Some farms and a few commercial sites are located in the
surrounding area. There are no exclusively commercial areas within five
miles of the site. The only industrial property in the area is the
adjacent USGen hydroelectric station and five associated powerhouses
that are situated near the Sherman and other reservoirs along the
Deerfield River. The nearest highway and railroad right-of-way are each
located about five miles south of the site. Several public lands and
conservation areas are located within five miles of the site (YAEC,
1999, 2004a). The river is used for recreation and sport fishing, as
well as for producing hydroelectric power.
3.3 Water Resources
The discussion of water resources is divided into surface water and
groundwater. The following sections provide a summary of the
characteristics of each within and around the YNPS site.
3.3.1 Surface Water
Surface Water Features
Surface water bodies on the site or in its immediate vicinity
include the Deerfield River, Sherman Reservoir, Wheeler Brook and an
associated tributary, a divertment from Wheeler Brook, a discharge
canal, and the stormwater drainage systems for the eastern and western
halves of the Industrial Area. Wheeler Brook and its tributaries flow
about 400 to 500 feet outside the Industrial Area around the south and
east sides of the site before Wheeler Brook discharges into Sherman
Reservoir (Framatome, 2003).
Sherman Reservoir was formed by the installation of Sherman Dam on
the Deerfield River. The reservoir is approximately two miles long, a
quarter mile wide, and up to 75 feet deep along its central channel
(Framatome, 2003). The discharge canal, which discharges into the
Sherman Reservoir, was constructed to receive return water from the
plant's cooling water processes.
Stormwater at the site flows into two systems, the East Storm Drain
System and the West Storm Drain System, draining the eastern and
western halves of the Industrial Area, respectively. The East Storm
Drain System discharges to the Sherman Reservoir, while the West Storm
Drain System discharges to the Deerfield River. Stormwater from the
undeveloped uplands is captured by the Wheeler Brook Divertment. The
divertment flows into Wheeler Brook, which flows into the Sherman
Reservoir.
Wetlands on the site are located in several areas and primarily
border water bodies such as the Sherman Reservoir, Deerfield River,
Wheeler Brook, and associated tributaries. Additional wetland areas
were identified in the two stormwater detention basins at the site.
Some isolated wetlands exist in the southern part of the site. Wetlands
were formally delineated in an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area
Delineation (Woodlot, 2004), which was approved by the Town of Rowe
Conservation Commission in March 2004.
Wastewater Discharges
During the plant operation, stormwater, service water, and
noncontact cooling water were discharged as wastewaters through seven
outfalls to the Sherman Reservoir and the West Storm Drain System (to
the river). Currently, stormwater and treated wastewaters from the
laboratory or from decommissioning activities are
[[Page 32668]]
discharged through three remaining outfalls. Discharges are approved
under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
issued jointly by the MDEP and EPA, which sets specific limits for pH,
oil and grease, suspended solids, and flow, and also requires the
maintenance of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (ERM, 2004b).
These discharges are also monitored and treated for radiological
materials according to NRC requirements.
A temporary wastewater processing system treats and stores
wastewaters received from the radioactive laboratory sump discharge
line. This water is treated and then batch-discharged. Discharges of
these wastewaters through the treatment plant or through the stormwater
drainage system are covered under the NPDES permit. The temporary
treatment system will be dismantled and disposed of off-site as
radioactive waste (YAEC, 2004a).
The auxiliary service water system is being used to supply water
from the Sherman Reservoir to support decontamination and dismantling
activities. The system will be dismantled once it is no longer needed
for these activities (YAEC, 2004a).
Three septic systems with several associated leach fields have been
used at the YNPS site. The leach fields are located generally on the
western portion of the site. Three of these leach fields have been in
use since 1978, when two formerly-used leach fields were abandoned in
place.
3.3.2 Groundwater
Aquifers and Geology
The groundwater system at the YNPS site is a product of the
geology, particularly the petrology and hydraulic conductivity of the
rocks, the glacial history, the geomorphology, and the hydrology of
this area. The YNPS site is located on the east side of the Berkshire
Mountains predominantly on a terrace of the Deerfield River. The
terrace is recessed into the east side of a two mile wide glacially-
derived river valley where the valley walls rise to over 1,000 feet
above the river elevation. The YNPS plant is adjacent to a dammed
portion of the Deerfield River, Sherman Dam and Sherman Reservoir. The
local gradient for this portion of the Deerfield River is 28.4 feet/
mile over a river distance of about 33 miles from the Vermont border at
the Sherman Pond to the West Deerfield, Massachusetts gauging station
(Framatome, 2003).
The local groundwater system is extremely complex, with three
groundwater-bearing units, from top to bottom: stratified drift,
glaciolacustrine, and bedrock. The stratified drift unit contains
permeable surficial sands and gravels,10 to 20 feet thick, that are
water-laid, ice-contact deposits derived from a melting glacier. The
glaciolacustrine unit comprises sediments up to 260 feet thick of
glaciolacustrine origin, containing multiple, relatively thin water-
bearing units of fine to medium-grained sand, interspersed within
relatively impermeable, fine-grained sand and silts. The bedrock unit
is a gray, medium-grained, moderately foliated metamorphic rock that
contains significant amounts of megacrystals of plagioclase feldspar
albite. This bedrock is the upper member of the Lower Cambrian Hoosac
Formation, which is relatively competent with few fractures (YAEC,
2004e).
Contamination and Monitoring
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, YAEC began additional site-wide
characterization of groundwater in 2003 and identified several areas
for further study. According to the June 2004 Site Characterization
Status Report (ERM, 2004c), nonradiological contamination in
groundwater and sediment, as well as localized areas of contaminated
soil, were identified that required further evaluation. Non-
radiological groundwater contaminants identified were found to be in
isolated areas and do not suggest the presence of a plume. These
contaminants include low levels of 1,1-dichloroethane, PCBs, and
petroleum hydrocarbons. YAEC will continue to work with the MDEP to
fulfill MCP requirements and demonstrate that groundwater has been
adequately characterized and remediated where necessary.
Radiological groundwater monitoring at the YNPS site (excluding
monitoring for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program) has
occurred since the plant shut down in 1992. Currently, 39 monitoring
wells are in operation throughout the site. Monitoring wells were
installed in stages, as follows: two in the late 1970s, 15 in 1993-94,
21 from 1997 through 2001, and 17 during the summer of 2003, with 14 of
the older wells properly abandoned due to decommissioning (demolition)
activities. Most of the wells that were installed prior to 2003 are
located in the RCA, although a few are either downgradient or
upgradient of the RCA. All of the wells installed before 2003 except
one are shallow, ranging in depth from 7 to 31 feet below the land
surface. The exception is a 49-foot bedrock monitoring well in the RCA.
The monitoring wells installed during the summer of 2003 contain wells
screened as follows: three in the stratified drift unit, seven in the
glaciolacustrine unit, and seven in the bedrock unit.
Groundwater samples have been collected for radiological analysis
since 1993. Until 2003, YAEC analyzed the groundwater samples for
tritium, gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma spectroscopy. The
analytical results for these samples (i.e., groundwater samples from
monitoring wells screened primarily in the stratified drift unit)
indicated that only tritium was present above the minimum detection
concentration. The largest tritium concentrations were observed in
wells located immediately downgradient of the spent fuel pit and ion
exchange pit (SFP/IXP).
In 2003, YAEC made several changes to improve site characterization
and sampling and analytical procedures:
1. During the summer of 2003, YAEC installed 17 monitoring wells,
as mentioned above, to characterize the glaciolacustrine and bedrock
units more adequately. YAEC installed additional monitoring wells in
2004 and will install more as required by MDEP to improve its
characterization of groundwater at the site.
2. YAEC began quarterly sampling events in 2003, and in 2004
improved sampling procedures by measuring the groundwater levels in all
monitoring wells within a few hours before any water samples were
collected. YAEC has also committed to collecting the water samples from
the monitoring wells over a shorter time period.
3. YAEC improved and explained its analytical analysis of the
groundwater samples by analyzing for the radionuclides of concern at
the YNPS site. Table 2-6 of the LTP lists the radionuclides of concern
(or see Section 3.1.1). In July and November 2003, YAEC conducted
analyses for these radionuclides of concern and for Mn-54. Tritium was
the only plant-generated radionuclide that was detected in samples from
the July and November 2003 events.
The largest tritium concentration historically observed at the YNPS
site was groundwater flowing from Sherman Spring early in plant
operation, which is downgradient from the Sherman Dam and Sherman Pond
near the Deerfield River. Groundwater from Sherman Spring had a tritium
concentration of 7,195,000 picoCuries/liter (pCi/L) in December 1965.
The tritium contamination is reported to have been caused by a leakage
from the SFP/IXP, which was repaired in May 1965 and in 1979, when a
stainless-steel liner was installed. Tritium levels in groundwater
[[Page 32669]]
samples from Sherman Spring have decreased steadily over time, and have
varied from non-detectable (ND) to 890 picoCuries/liter in recent
monitoring rounds.
Tritium concentrations from the July and November 2003, sampling
events are variable by space and time throughout the hydrogeologic
units at the site. The tritium plume extends from the source area at
the SFP/IXP towards Sherman Spring and the Deerfield River, with the
highest tritium concentrations present immediately downgradient of the
SFP/IXP. The maximum tritium concentrations were approximately 2,000
pCi/L in the stratified drift unit, 45,000 pCi/L in the
glaciolacustrine unit, and 6,000 pCi/L in the bedrock unit.
3.4 Human Health
Potential human health hazards associated with the YNPS site range
from potential exposure to very low levels of radioactivity in soils
and groundwater, to limited areas of relatively high levels of
radioactivity within the remaining portions of the reactor support
structures and systems.
The intent of the final decommissioning activity at the site is to
reduce radiological contamination at the site to meet NRC's
unrestricted release criteria, and to also meet the criteria of the
MDPH and MDEP. After decommissioning activities are complete, license
termination activities will verify adequacy of the radiological release
criteria (i.e., DCGLs) and the final status survey. Unrestricted use of
the site is defined in 10 CFR 20.1402, as follows:
A site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the
residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background
radiation results in a TEDE [total effective dose equivalent] to an
average member of the critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem
[millirem] (0.25 mSv) [milliSievert] per year, including that from
groundwater sources of drinking water, and that the residual
radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA) * * *.
As planned, the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) TEDE all-pathway limit
would be achieved at the site through the application of DCGLs used to
measure the adequacy of remediation activities. The DCGLs in use at the
YNPS site were calculated using dose models based on guidance provided
in NUREG/CR-5512, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, NUREG/CR-6697, and the computer
codes RESRAD Version 6.21 and RESRAD-BUILD Version 3.21 code for
generating the DCGLs. These dose models translate residual
radioactivity into potential radiation doses to the public, based on
select land-use scenarios, exposure pathways, and identified critical
groups. A critical group is defined as the group of individuals
reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual
radioactivity given the assumptions of a given scenario. Such scenarios
and their associated modeling are designed to overestimate, rather than
underestimate, potential dose.
YAEC has also agreed to meet the following radiological site
criteria of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 1 mrem/yr for concrete
rubble used on-site as fill; 10 mrem/yr for the entire site; and the
risk criteria for cumulative radiological and non-radiological risk as
determined by a Risk Assessment according to the MCP.
4.0 Environmental Impacts
4.1 Land Use
YAEC plans to release eventually all of the property associated
with the YNPS site to local, state, or federal government or non-profit
entities for conservation purposes. YAEC has developed an American Land
Title Association survey to document the site's legal boundaries. In
addition, natural and cultural resources inventories and management
plans have been developed. The management plans specify the obligations
necessary to preserve the site for conservation (YAEC, 2004b).
Termination of the YAEC license is not reasonably expected to
result in any adverse impacts to onsite and adjacent land use. Soils
not meeting the radiological criteria for license termination will be
removed and disposed of at a licensed facility as low-level radioactive
waste. Initially, most of the YAEC-owned property would be released,
except for approximately 87 acres containing the spent fuel storage
facility and associated buffer zone. That acreage would be released
when the fuel is removed to a permanent repository and the storage
facility is decommissioned.
Land on and directly adjacent to the site is expected to remain
heavily wooded, with lightly populated communities in the surrounding
area. Recreational opportunities afforded by the Deerfield River will
likely continue and could increase.
The deed restriction required by the MDEP Solid Waste BUD permit
will require prior written approval by the MDEP for any use of the
former industrial area of the site other than as passive recreation,
and will prohibit excavations in that area.
4.2 Water Resources
Approval of the LTP and eventual termination of the license are not
anticipated to result in any significant impacts to either surface
water or groundwater. The approved radiation release criteria must be
met as a condition of license termination and release of the site.
4.2.1 Surface Water
Land areas from which precipitation runs off to surface waters,
will be subject to further investigation, remediation where necessary,
and the final status survey. YAEC will need to verify that DCGLs have
been met in accordance with Section 5 of the LTP, thus demonstrating
compliance with the release criteria. Further, YAEC will need to
demonstrate compliance with the MCP surface water requirements for both
nonradiological and radiological contaminants. YAEC's future license
termination also would not be expected to result in any adverse impact
to surface water flow or quality, as batch discharges will cease along
with other license termination activities.
Prior to license termination, the amount of impervious area will be
reduced by about 8 acres (from about 9.5 acres) due to revegetation of
areas currently occupied by buildings, roads, and parking lots (ERM,
2004d). YAEC intends to leave the current stormwater drainages
unaltered to prevent the destruction of wetland areas that have formed
in the drainages. Drainage pipes will be closed, so that discharges
will likely continue as sheet flow from the drainages into water
bodies.
Both the existing water supply system (upgradient supply well) and
sewage system will remain in place. YAEC will inspect the remaining
septic systems (discussed in Section 3.3.1) for compliance with state
septic system regulations before the property title is transferred.
Groundwater monitoring wells have been installed and monitored in the
vicinity of the site septic systems.
Several closure activities are being conducted on or near wetlands
resources. YAEC has prepared an Integrated Permit Package to address
the regulatory requirements applicable to such activities (ERM, 2004d).
The activities requiring wetlands-related permits include PCB
remediation, decommissioning of circulating water intake and discharge
structures, removal of the Southeast Construction Fill Area,
implementation of Sherman Dam flood control measures, and regrading of
the site. Additionally, a wetlands restoration plan has been developed
(Woodlot, 2004) to implement the
[[Page 32670]]
permit requirements. Further information concerning wetlands activities
can be found in the Integrated Permit Package and the Wetland
Restoration and Replication Plan (Woodlot, 2004).
YAEC samples three surface water sites for its Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) at the YNPS site. The Deerfield
River is sampled downstream from the YNPS site at Bear Swamp Lower
Reservoir with an automatic sampler every two hours. These samples are
composited each month. YAEC also collects monthly grab samples from
Sherman Pond and from an upstream Deerfield River site at the Harriman
Reservoir. Samples from all three sites are analyzed for gamma emitting
radionuclides, tritium, and gross beta. The tritium and gamma
spectroscopy results for 2003 indicated that no surface water samples
contained detectable levels of plant-generated radionuclides. Also, the
gross beta averages for 2003 were slightly greater at the upstream
Deerfield River site than at the downstream site (YAEC, 2004d). Based
upon these recent data, YAEC states that the surface waters do not
require remediation pertaining to plant-generated radionuclides.
4.2.2 Groundwater
YAEC states that remediation will not likely be required for
groundwater at the YNPS site to meet NRC's license termination criteria
because H-3 levels are expected to meet NRC's unrestricted release
criteria when the site is released (when the ISFSI is decommissioned
and the license terminated). If decommissioning activities at the YNPS
site increase the concentrations of plant-generated radionuclides
dissolved in the groundwater, the monitoring program at this site
should detect this change. Groundwater samples from the existing 39
monitoring wells should indicate changes in the groundwater
downgradient from the radiologically-controlled area. Because some
monitoring wells have been abandoned during decommissioning, new
monitoring wells will need to be installed to meet MDEP requirements to
characterize potential changes in the level of plant-generated
radionuclides dissolved in the groundwater.
Groundwater at the site also will be required to meet the dose-
based radiological criteris of the MDPH and the risk-based criteria of
the MDEP Risk Assessment process (for both radiological and non-
radiological parameters).
4.3 Human Health Impacts
Compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release (and,
therefore, human health protection requirements) is contingent upon
successful remediation and/or removal of contaminated soil,
groundwater, ancillary contaminated materials, and structures to
acceptable levels (corresponding to a total dose of 0.25 mSv/yr (25
mrem/yr) or less per year) to an average member of the critical group.
In addition, residual radioactivity must meet the ALARA requirements of
the rule.
As noted in Sec. 3.4, YAEC also has agreed to meet the more
restrictive radiological release criteria of the MDPH and the MDEP.
Derived Concentration Guideline Levels
YAEC has defined levels of residual radioactivity for various
sources at the site that correspond to meeting the dose limit. These
acceptable levels are defined as the DCGLs. Potential radiation doses
for the bounding exposure scenarios are calculated by assuming an
average fixed concentration level for each of the potential sources of
residual radioactivity. The sources are soil, building surfaces,
subsurface partial structures, and concrete debris. Two critical groups
were identified to whom the DCGLs would be applicable: A full-time
resident farmer group (associated with soil, building surfaces,
subsurface partial structures, and concrete debris sources) and a
building occupancy group (associated with the building surfaces
source).
The DCGLs for each source were derived using the radiation doses
per unit activity and a separate dose constraint for each source. Table
4-1 lists the DCGLs for each radionuclide from each source. Within each
critical group, each DCGL was selected to correspond to a fraction of
the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) dose limit so that the total dose to the
average member of that group from all sources would equal the limit.
For the resident farmer critical group, the doses corresponding to
DCGLs (and totaling 25 mrem/yr) are:
Subsurface partial structures: 0.005 mSv/yr (0.5 mrem/yr)
Groundwater: 0.0077 mSv/yr (0.77 mrem/yr).
Concrete debris and soil: 0.2373 mSv/yr (23.73 mrem/yr)
In areas that have co-mingled soil and concrete debris, YAEC would
use the smaller of the two DCGLs for each radionuclide (see Table 4-1),
and for areas with only soil, YAEC would use the soil DCGLs.
For the building occupancy critical group, YAEC would take a sum-
of-fractions approach to ensure that if a member of the public were
both a member of the building occupancy critical group and the resident
farmer critical group, their total dose would be less than 0.25 mSv/yr
(25 mrem/yr).
Any actual doses would likely be much less than the 0.25 mSv/yr (25
mrem/yr) limit. This is due to the conservatism in both the modeling
and the assumption that the entire source would have residual
radioactivity at the DCGL. (It is more likely that the sources will
have residual radioactivity at considerably less than the DCGLs.)
Provided compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402 limit is demonstrated
through the results of the final status survey, there would be no
anticipated adverse impacts to human health from approval of license
termination, as described in the environmental impact statement for
license termination (NUREG-1496) (NRC, 1997a).
Exposure Scenarios
The manner in which the DCGLs are derived for the YNPS site is
documented in Chapter 6 of the LTP, Revision 1. In deriving the DCGLs,
an adult resident farmer is considered to represent the average member
of the critical group. The hypothetical resident farmer is assumed to
build a house on the contaminated soil (or soil/concrete debris mix),
draw water from a well placed into the tritium plume, grow plant food
and fodder on the contaminated area, raise livestock on the
contaminated area, and catch fish from a pond on the contaminated area.
The resident farmer scenario is considered the bounding scenario
because it embodies the greatest number of exposure pathways,
represents the longest exposure durations, and includes the greatest
number of sources, of all scenarios envisioned. The DCGLs are shown in
Table 4-1.
The NRC will evaluate the appropriateness of the postulated
exposure scenarios and the methodology used for deriving the DCGLs as
part of its review of the LTP. The NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report
will provide the details of this review.
Survey Design
YAEC would use a series of surveys, including the final status
survey, to demonstrate compliance with the radiological release
criteria consistent with the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual (NRC, 1997a). Planning for the final status survey
involves an iterative process that
[[Page 32671]]
requires appropriate site classification (on the basis of the potential
residual radioactivity levels relative to the DCGLs) and formal
planning using the Data Quality Objective process. YAEC has committed
to an integrated design that would address the selection of appropriate
survey and laboratory instrumentation and procedures, including a
statistically-based measurement and sampling plan for collecting and
evaluating the data needed for the final status survey. YAEC has
requested that it be permitted to modify the classification levels
based on new information during the decommissioning process.
Table 4-1.--Derived Concentration Guideline Levels*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsurface
Soil (pCi/ Building surface partial Concrete debris[dagger]
Radionuclide g)[dagger] (dpm/100 cm2) structures (pCi/g)
[Dagger] (pCI/g) Sec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-3.......................... 3.5E+02......... 3.4E+08......... 1.35E+02....... 9.5E+01 (cellar holes).
2.8E+02 (grading).
C-14......................... 5.2E+00......... 1.0E+07......... 2.34E+03....... 7.2E+00.
Fe-55........................ 2.8E+04......... 4.0E+07......... ............... 1.4E+02.
Co-60........................ 3.8E+00......... 1.8E+04......... 3.45E+03....... 4.3E+00.
Ni-63........................ 7.7E+02......... 3.7E+07......... 6.16E+04....... 1.0E+02.
Sr-90........................ 1.6E+00......... 1.5E+05......... 1.39E+01....... 7.5E01.
Nb-94........................ 6.8E+00......... 2.6E+04......... ............... 7.0E+00.
Tc-99........................ 1.3E+01......... 1.4E+07......... ............... 6.1E+01.
Ag-108m...................... 6.9E+00......... 2.5E+04......... ............... 7.0E+00.
Sb-125....................... 3.0E+01......... 1.0E+05......... ............... 3.1E+01.
Cs-134....................... 4.7E+00......... 2.9E+04......... ............... 4.7E+00.
Cs-137....................... 8.2E+00......... 6.3E+04......... 1.45E+03....... 6.7E+00.
Eu-152....................... 9.5E+00......... 3.7E+04......... ............... 9.5E+00.
Eu-154....................... 9.0E+00......... 3.4E+04......... ............... 9.1E+00.
Eu-155....................... 3.8E+02......... 6.5E+05......... ............... 3.8E+02.
Pu-238....................... 3.1E+01......... 5.7E+03......... ............... 9.5E+00.
Pu-239....................... 2.8E+01......... 5.1E+03......... ............... 8.8E+00.
Pu-241....................... 9.3E+02......... 2.5E+05......... ............... 1.4E+02.
Am-241....................... 2.8E+01......... 5.0E=03......... ............... 4.1E+00.
Cm-243....................... 3.0E+01......... 7.2E+03......... ............... 4.7E+00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To convert to Bq from pCi, multiply by 0.037.
[dagger] Represents a dose of 23.73 mrem/yr.
[Dagger] Represents a dose of 25 mrem/yr.
Sec. Represents a dose of 0.5 mrem/yr, radionuclides based upon those found in concrete samples.
5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted and Sources Used
A copy of the Environmental Assessment was provided to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 3, 2005. The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection provided comments by letter
dated March 31, 2005, which were incorporated into this EA.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action would not
affect listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat
designated under the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, no consultation
is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise,
the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action would not affect
historic or archaeological resources. Therefore, no consultation is
required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
6.0 Conclusion
The NRC has prepared this EA related to the issuance of a license
amendment that would approve the LTP. On the basis of this EA, the NRC
has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and
the proposed license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
The documents related to this proposed action are available for
public inspection and copying at NRC's Public Document Room at NRC
Headquarters, One White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Most of these documents also are available for public
review through our electronic reading room (ADAMS): https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html.
7.0 List of Preparers
C. McKenney, Health Physicist, Division of Waste Management, dose
assessment.
J. Peckenpaugh, Hydrologist, Division of Waste Management,
groundwater issues.
C. Schulte, Project Manager, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, non-radiological environmental issues.
J. Thompson, Health Physicist, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Final Status Survey, radiation release
criteria.
8.0 List of Acronyms
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable
BUD beneficial reuse determination
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DCGL derived concentration guideline limit
dpm/100cm2 disintegrations per minute per 100 square
centimeters
EA environmental assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
FSS final status survey
ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation
kV kilovolt
LTP license termination plan
MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan
MDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MDPH Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Radiation Control
Program
mrem/y millirem per year
mSv/yr milliSievert per year
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHESP National Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[[Page 32672]]
ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
pCi/L picocurie per liter
PSDAR post shutdown decommissioning activities report
RCA Radiologically-controlled area
REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SCFA Southeast Construction Fill Area
TEDE total effective dose equivalent
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric Company
YNPS Yankee Nuclear Power Station
9.0 References
10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy,
Part 20, ``Standards for protection against radiation.''
10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy,
Part 50, ``Domestic licensing of production and utilization
facilities.''
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy,
Part 51, ``Environmental protection regulations for domestic
licensing and related regulatory functions.''
61 FR 39278. ``Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors.''
Federal Register. July 29, 1996.
62 FR 39058. ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination.
Final Rule.'' Federal Register. July 21, 1997.
64 FR 68005. ``Waste Confidence Decision Review.'' Federal
Register. December 6, 1999.
Evans et al., 1984. ``Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor
Materials,'' NUREG/CR-3474. August 1984. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
ERM, 2004a. ``Baseline Environmental Report,'' April 30, 2004.
Environmental Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004b, ``Expanded Environmental Notification Form,'' March
31, 2004. Environmental Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004c, ``Site Characterization Status Report,'' June 4,
2004. Environmental Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
ERM, 2004d, ``Integrated Permit Package, Yankee Nuclear Power
Station,'' May 7, 2004. Environmental Resources Management, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Kennedy and Strenge, 1992. ``Residual Radioactive Contamination
From Decommissioning.'' NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. October 1992. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Kleinschmidt, 2004. ``Post-Decommissioning Grading Plan and
Stormwater Management Analysis,'' August 2004. Kleinschmidt Energy
and Water Resource Consultants.
MASS, 2004. ``Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form,'' May 7,
2004, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Boston, Massachusetts.
MHC, 2003. Letter, Massachusetts Historical Commission to YAEC,
``Yankee Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning, Rowe;
MHC33426,'' dated August 18, 2003.
NRC, 1988. ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.'' August 1988. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 1997a. ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support
of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of
NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.'' NUREG-1496. July 1997. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 1997b. ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual (MARSSIM).'' NUREG-1575. December 1997. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NRC, 2002. ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. Supplement Dealing with
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors.'' November 2002. NUREG-
0586, Supplement 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC.
NRC, 2003. ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,''
NUREG-1757. September 2003
NRC, 2004. Letter, NRC to YAEC, ``Yankee (Rowe) Nuclear Power
Station--Request for Additional Information Re: License Termination
Plan,'' dated June 16, 2004.
PAL, 2003. ``Archeological Reconnaissance Survey, Archeological
Resources Management Plan, Yankee Nuclear Power Station,'' November,
2003. Public Archeology Laboratory, Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
Smith et al., 1978. ``Technology, Safety and Costs of
Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power
Station.'' NUREG/CR-0130. June 1978. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC.
Woodlot, 2004. ``Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Closure
Project Wetland Restoration and Replication Plan,'' August 2004.
Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham, Maine, and Environmental
Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 1993. ``YNPS Decommissioning Environmental Report,''
December, 1993, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2000. ``Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report,''
June, 2001. Excerpted from the YNPS Final Safety Analysis Report,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2003. ``YNPS License Termination Plan,'' Revision 0.
November 24, 2003, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004a. ``YNPS License Termination Plan,'' Draft Revision
1, September 2, 2004, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004b. ``Site Closure Project Plan,'' Revision 2. March
31, 2004, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004c. ``YNPS Historical Site Assessment,'' January 2004,
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004d. ``Annual Radiological Environmental Operating
Report,'' Yankee Rowe Station Radiological Environmental Monitoring
Program--January 1, 2003--December 31, 2003. Yankee Atomic Electric
Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004e. ``Hydrogeologic Report of 2003 Supplemental
Investigation'' March 15, 2004. Yankee Atomic Electric Company,
Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004f. ``YNPS License Termination Plan,'' Revision 1,
November 19, 2004, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe,
Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2005. ``Supplement to Proposed Amendment to YNPS
Possession Only License,'' April 7, 2005, Yankee Atomic Electric
Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
Framatome, 2003. ``Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS
Decommissioning, quo; Rev 1. February, 2003, Framatome ANP DE&S,
Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew Persinko,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-2850 Filed 6-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P