Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Yankee Atomic Electric Company in Accordance With 10 CFR 20.2002, License DPR-003, Rowe, MA, 12220-12222 [E6-3338]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12220
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–3337 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
Alternative Use of Resources
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement related to the
operation of the FNP, Units 1 and 2,
dated December 1974, and the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (NUREG–1437, Supplement
18), dated March 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 14, 2006, the NRC staff
consulted with the Alabama State
official, Kirk Whatley, of the Office of
Radiation Control, Alabama Department
of Public Health, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated January 19, June 9, and
November 18, 2005. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of March 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–029]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
Proposed Disposal Procedures for the
Yankee Atomic Electric Company in
Accordance With 10 CFR 20.2002,
License DPR–003, Rowe, MA
U.S. 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:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering a
request dated June 6, 2005, as
supplemented by a letter dated October
31, 2005, by the Yankee Atomic Electric
Company (YAEC or the Licensee), to
approve disposal procedures pursuant
to Section 20.2002 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
part 20.2002), ‘‘Method of Obtaining
Approval of Proposed Disposal
Procedures.’’ The licensee’s proposed
disposal is to allow the continued use
of concrete blocks containing
radioactive materials as a retaining wall
at an off-site location in Vermont. The
proposed disposal would exempt the
disposal site from Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) and NRC licensing requirements
for possession of the radioactive
materials contained in the retaining
wall.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in Franklin County, near the southern
Vermont border. The plant and most of
the 2,200-acre site are owned by the
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 electric (after a 1963
upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC
determined that closing of 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.
The waste material intended for
disposal consists of concrete shield
blocks from within the reactor support
structure (RSS) that were removed, sand
blasted, surveyed, and released from
licensee radiological controls in 1999.
At the time of the shield block release,
analyses of the radionuclide content of
concrete within the reactor support
structure indicated values less than the
minimum detectable activity. Based on
these results and surface contamination
surveys, the shield blocks were
determined to be free of detectable
licensed radioactive material. These
analyses were performed to the
specified levels for 10 CFR Part 61 waste
classification requirements.
Forty of the shield blocks from the
steam generator cubicles were removed
from the site under an approved
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MADEP)
Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) and
used to construct a retaining wall at a
private residence in Readsboro,
Vermont. In 2004, as part of preparation
for demolition and plans to retain RSS
concrete on-site, the licensee performed
further volumetric sampling and
analysis of radionuclides. A lower limit
of detection of 10 pCi/g for H–3 was
established for the additional
volumetric sampling, based upon the
concrete derived concentration
guideline limits and the requirements of
the License Termination Plan (LTP).
This analysis identified the presence of
H–3 in essentially all concrete within
the RSS. Levels of H–3 from samples
taken in the proximity of the former
location of the steam generator shield
blocks indicated H–3 levels averaging
approximately 200 pCi/g. Based upon
the results of samples of RSS concrete,
the licensee subsequently had samples
from the released shield blocks in
Vermont analyzed for the suite of
radionuclides listed in the LTP, using
detection limits consistent with the
requirements of the LTP. The results
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
indicated detectable levels of only H–3
and C–14. Subsequent to the discovery
of radioactive contamination in the
concrete blocks, the MADEP has stated
that the BUD should be viewed as
providing inadequate legal authority for
the removal of the shield blocks from
YNPS. Therefore, the licensee submitted
the subject request for disposal pursuant
to 10 CFR 20.2002.
The retaining wall was built by the
property owner atop a previous poured
concrete retaining wall approximately 8
feet high along a stream. It consists of
35 interlocking blocks stacked 2 high
with a nominal length of 250 feet.
Gravel and soil has been back filled to
the top of the new retaining wall. To
preclude a fall hazard, the property
owner added a chain link fence along
the top of the wall. Thus the majority of
the surface areas of the blocks (to all but
a small 1.5′ wide strip at the top) in the
wall are inaccessible.
Five (5) other blocks were used for
general retaining walls, two at the far
end of the retaining wall, two on one
side of the property’s building structure
and one on the opposite side of the
structure. The blocks near the building
structure have the greatest accessibility.
The 40 blocks used at the off-site
location varied from approximately 5
feet to over 10 feet in length, 2 feet to
3 feet thick, and 3 feet high. The total
weight of the blocks is 259 tons or
2.35E+8 grams. In addition, there were
four smaller blocks which were used as
weights for crane testing and one
concrete block from the turbine
building, which were released and also
sent to this off-site location. However,
these five concrete blocks are not
included in this request for alternate
disposal because of the lack of
detectable contamination in these
blocks.
This Environmental Assessment (EA)
has been developed in accordance with
the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to allow the 40
concrete blocks to remain in place at the
off-site location in Vermont which will
be exempted from licensing
requirements. The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee’s
application dated June 6, 2005, as
revised on October 31, 2005, requesting
approval.
Need for Proposed Action
Based upon the non-radiological risks
associated with removing and returning
the shield blocks back to the Yankee
Rowe site, the preference of the property
owner to keep the wall intact, and a
small estimated dose to the public, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
licensee has requested to allow the
shield blocks to remain in place. This
proposed action would require the NRC
to exempt the site containing the lowcontaminated material authorized for
disposal from further AEA and NRC
licensing requirements.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Alternatives to the proposed action
include denying the request which
would necessitate the removal of the
shield blocks and returning them to the
Yankee Rowe site. YAEC has
determined that allowing the blocks to
remain in place is less costly and less
radiologically hazardous than the
alternative. Disposal of the demolition
debris in the manner proposed is
protective of public health and safety, is
the most cost-effective alternative and
safe alternative, and is most satisfying to
the affected parties.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
allowing the shield blocks to remain in
place on private property in Readsboro,
Vermont.
The licensee performed a dose
analysis for the blocks using approved
derived concentration guideline levels
(DCGLs) for subsurface partial structures
from the LTP. For this calculation, the
licensee assumed:
(1) The contaminants move out of the
concrete into the groundwater, and the
dose is incurred by subsequent use of
this groundwater although due to the
height of the wall in relation to the
stream, water flow would be towards
the adjacent stream and no wells
currently exist on the property where
the blocks are located and none can be
drilled between the blocks and the
stream;
(2) A form of concrete (monoliths) and
contamination similar to that found in
the area in question;
(3) A quantity of contaminated
concrete that bounded the amount
contained in the blocks in Vermont;
(4) A DCGL based on an assumption
that the subject person’s entire diet
(fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, fish,
and milk) has been grown in the
affected area, an activity which cannot
be accomplished on the available area in
question;
(5) And the maximum average
concentration of H–3 and C–14 in the
blocks was the higher measured value
either from the RSS sample or the
Readsboro sample.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12221
The analyses conservatively estimated
the exposure to less than 1.0 mrem total
dose per year. The proposed action will
not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents and there
is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation
exposures.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. The retention of the
blocks in their existing location does not
affect non-radiological plant effluents,
air quality, or noise.
The proposed action and attendant
exemption of the site from further AEA
and NRC licensing requirements will
not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no
changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released off
site, and there is no significant increase
in occupational or public radiation
exposure.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC considered denial of the
proposed action. The implications from
the denial alternative is that the blocks
currently being used as a retaining wall
would have to be removed and disposed
of at an appropriate disposal facility.
This alternative would require a
significant industrial activity with an
associated risk of injury. Although the
contamination level is low, this
alternative would also result in an
increase in occupational exposure as a
result of the removal and relocation
process. Additionally, the transportation
of the blocks from their present location
to a disposal facility would add an air
quality and transportation risk impact.
Finally, the property owner has
indicated his desire to retain the blocks
for the retaining wall. The removal of
the blocks would necessitate a change to
property usage or construction of an
alternative wall, either of which would
pose a significant financial impact to the
property owner. The NRC has
determined that the impacts of the
alternative are greater than that of the
proposed action.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
This EA was prepared by John B.
Hickman, Project Manager,
Decommissioning Directorate, Division
of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection (DWMEP).
NRC staff determined that the proposed
action is not a major decommissioning
activity and will not affect listed or
proposed endangered species, nor
critical habitat. Therefore, no further
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
12222
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act.
Likewise, NRC determined that the
proposed action is not the type of
activity that has the potential to cause
previously unconsidered effects on
historic properties, as consultation for
site decommissioning has been
conducted previously. There are no
additional impacts to historic properties
associated with the disposal method
and location for demolition debris.
Therefore, no consultation is required
under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. The NRC
provided a draft of its EA to the
following individuals:
Mr. Dave Howland, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection, Western Regional Office,
436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA
01103.
Mr. Michael Whalen, Radiation Control
Program, Massachusetts Department
of Public Health, 90 Washington
Street, Dorchester, MA 02121.
Ms. Carla A. White, Vermont
Department of Health, 108 Cherry St.,
P.O. Box 70 Burlington, VT 05402.
The owner of the property where the
blocks are currently located.
Name and address withheld from public
disclosure.
Both the MADEP and the MA
Department of Public Health noted that
the BUD previously issued by the
MADEP is not appropriate for the
removal, transport, or disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste. Therefore, based
on the subsequently identified
radioactive materials in the concrete
blocks, the MADEP does not consider
the BUD as providing adequate legal
authority for the removal of the shield
blocks from the site. Otherwise neither
the MADEP or MADPH had any issue
with the proposed NRC action.
Neither the Vermont Department of
Health or the property owner had any
comments on the proposed NRC action.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
Sources Used
—US NRC Power Reactor License:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Docket Number 050–00029, License
Number DPR–03.
—Yankee Atomic Electric Company,
June 6, 2005, Request for Approval of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:35 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
Proposed Procedures in Accordance
with 10 CFR part 20.2002,
(ML051650291) as supplemented on
October 31, 2005. (ML053120275)
—NRC 10 CFR 20.2002, ‘‘Method of
Obtaining Approval of Proposed
Disposal Procedures.’’
—NUREG–1640, ‘‘Radiological
Assessment for Clearance of Materials
from Nuclear Facilities.’’
—NUREG–1748, ‘‘Environmental
Review Guidance for Licensing
Actions Associated with NMSS
Programs.’’
—NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement of
Decommissioning of Nuclear
Facilities, November 2002.
IV. Further Information
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated June 6, 2005, (ADAMS Accession
No. ML051650291) as supplemented on
October 31, 2005. (ADAMS Accession
No. ML053120275) The NRC Public
Documents Room is located at NRC
Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can
be contacted at (800) 397–4209.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System’s (ADAMS) Public
Library component on the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov (the Public
Electronic Reading Room). Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Andrew Persinko,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning
Directorate, Division of Waste Management
and Environmental Protection, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6–3338 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon written request, copies available
from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
Extension: Rule 6e–2; SEC File No. 270–177;
OMB Control No. 3235–0177.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collections of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit these existing
collections of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
extension and approval.
Rule 6e–2 (17 CFR 270.6e–2) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(‘‘Act’’) is an exemptive rule that
permits separate accounts, formed by
life insurance companies, to fund
certain variable life insurance products.
The rule exempts such separate
accounts from the registration
requirements under the Act, among
others, on condition that they comply
with all but certain designated
provisions of the Act and meet the other
requirements of the rule. The rule sets
forth several information collection
requirements.
Rule 6e–2 provides a separate account
with an exemption from the registration
provisions of section 8(a) of the Act if
the account files with the Commission
Form N–6EI–1, a notification of claim of
exemption.
The rule also exempts a separate
account from a number of other sections
of the Act, provided that the separate
account makes certain disclosure in its
registration statements, reports to
contractholders, proxy solicitations, and
submissions to state regulatory
authorities, as prescribed by the rule.
Paragraph (b)(9) of rule 6e–2 provides
an exemption from the requirements of
section 17(f) of the Act and imposes a
reporting burden and certain other
conditions. Section 17(f) requires that
every registered management company
meet various custody requirements for
its securities and similar investments.
Paragraph (b)(9) applies only to
management accounts that offer life
insurance contracts subject to rule 6e–
2.
Since 2003, there have been no filings
under paragraph (b)(9) of rule 6e–2 by
management accounts. Therefore, since
2003, there has been no cost or burden
to the industry regarding the
information collection requirements of
paragraph (b)(9) of rule 6e–2. In
addition, there have been no filings of
Form N–6EI–1 by separate accounts
since 2003. Therefore, there has been no
cost or burden to the industry since that
time.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12220-12222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3338]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-029]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Yankee Atomic Electric Company in
Accordance With 10 CFR 20.2002, License DPR-003, Rowe, MA
AGENCY: U.S. 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:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering a
request dated June 6, 2005, as supplemented by a letter dated October
31, 2005, by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or the Licensee),
to approve disposal procedures pursuant to Section 20.2002 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 20.2002), ``Method of
Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures.'' The licensee's
proposed disposal is to allow the continued use of concrete blocks
containing radioactive materials as a retaining wall at an off-site
location in Vermont. The proposed disposal would exempt the disposal
site from Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC licensing requirements for
possession of the radioactive materials contained in the retaining
wall.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (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 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 electric (after a 1963
upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC determined that closing of 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.
The waste material intended for disposal consists of concrete
shield blocks from within the reactor support structure (RSS) that were
removed, sand blasted, surveyed, and released from licensee
radiological controls in 1999. At the time of the shield block release,
analyses of the radionuclide content of concrete within the reactor
support structure indicated values less than the minimum detectable
activity. Based on these results and surface contamination surveys, the
shield blocks were determined to be free of detectable licensed
radioactive material. These analyses were performed to the specified
levels for 10 CFR Part 61 waste classification requirements.
Forty of the shield blocks from the steam generator cubicles were
removed from the site under an approved Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MADEP) Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) and
used to construct a retaining wall at a private residence in Readsboro,
Vermont. In 2004, as part of preparation for demolition and plans to
retain RSS concrete on-site, the licensee performed further volumetric
sampling and analysis of radionuclides. A lower limit of detection of
10 pCi/g for H-3 was established for the additional volumetric
sampling, based upon the concrete derived concentration guideline
limits and the requirements of the License Termination Plan (LTP). This
analysis identified the presence of H-3 in essentially all concrete
within the RSS. Levels of H-3 from samples taken in the proximity of
the former location of the steam generator shield blocks indicated H-3
levels averaging approximately 200 pCi/g. Based upon the results of
samples of RSS concrete, the licensee subsequently had samples from the
released shield blocks in Vermont analyzed for the suite of
radionuclides listed in the LTP, using detection limits consistent with
the requirements of the LTP. The results
[[Page 12221]]
indicated detectable levels of only H-3 and C-14. Subsequent to the
discovery of radioactive contamination in the concrete blocks, the
MADEP has stated that the BUD should be viewed as providing inadequate
legal authority for the removal of the shield blocks from YNPS.
Therefore, the licensee submitted the subject request for disposal
pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002.
The retaining wall was built by the property owner atop a previous
poured concrete retaining wall approximately 8 feet high along a
stream. It consists of 35 interlocking blocks stacked 2 high with a
nominal length of 250 feet. Gravel and soil has been back filled to the
top of the new retaining wall. To preclude a fall hazard, the property
owner added a chain link fence along the top of the wall. Thus the
majority of the surface areas of the blocks (to all but a small 1.5'
wide strip at the top) in the wall are inaccessible.
Five (5) other blocks were used for general retaining walls, two at
the far end of the retaining wall, two on one side of the property's
building structure and one on the opposite side of the structure. The
blocks near the building structure have the greatest accessibility.
The 40 blocks used at the off-site location varied from
approximately 5 feet to over 10 feet in length, 2 feet to 3 feet thick,
and 3 feet high. The total weight of the blocks is 259 tons or 2.35E+8
grams. In addition, there were four smaller blocks which were used as
weights for crane testing and one concrete block from the turbine
building, which were released and also sent to this off-site location.
However, these five concrete blocks are not included in this request
for alternate disposal because of the lack of detectable contamination
in these blocks.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been developed in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to allow the 40 concrete blocks to remain in
place at the off-site location in Vermont which will be exempted from
licensing requirements. The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's application dated June 6, 2005, as revised on October 31,
2005, requesting approval.
Need for Proposed Action
Based upon the non-radiological risks associated with removing and
returning the shield blocks back to the Yankee Rowe site, the
preference of the property owner to keep the wall intact, and a small
estimated dose to the public, the licensee has requested to allow the
shield blocks to remain in place. This proposed action would require
the NRC to exempt the site containing the low-contaminated material
authorized for disposal from further AEA and NRC licensing
requirements.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Alternatives to the proposed action include denying the request
which would necessitate the removal of the shield blocks and returning
them to the Yankee Rowe site. YAEC has determined that allowing the
blocks to remain in place is less costly and less radiologically
hazardous than the alternative. Disposal of the demolition debris in
the manner proposed is protective of public health and safety, is the
most cost-effective alternative and safe alternative, and is most
satisfying to the affected parties.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with allowing the shield blocks to remain in place on
private property in Readsboro, Vermont.
The licensee performed a dose analysis for the blocks using
approved derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) for subsurface
partial structures from the LTP. For this calculation, the licensee
assumed:
(1) The contaminants move out of the concrete into the groundwater,
and the dose is incurred by subsequent use of this groundwater although
due to the height of the wall in relation to the stream, water flow
would be towards the adjacent stream and no wells currently exist on
the property where the blocks are located and none can be drilled
between the blocks and the stream;
(2) A form of concrete (monoliths) and contamination similar to
that found in the area in question;
(3) A quantity of contaminated concrete that bounded the amount
contained in the blocks in Vermont;
(4) A DCGL based on an assumption that the subject person's entire
diet (fruits, vegetables, grains, meat, fish, and milk) has been grown
in the affected area, an activity which cannot be accomplished on the
available area in question;
(5) And the maximum average concentration of H-3 and C-14 in the
blocks was the higher measured value either from the RSS sample or the
Readsboro sample.
The analyses conservatively estimated the exposure to less than 1.0
mrem total dose per year. The proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of accidents and there is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposures.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. The
retention of the blocks in their existing location does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents, air quality, or noise.
The proposed action and attendant exemption of the site from
further AEA and NRC licensing requirements will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are
being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site,
and there is no significant increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC considered denial
of the proposed action. The implications from the denial alternative is
that the blocks currently being used as a retaining wall would have to
be removed and disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility. This
alternative would require a significant industrial activity with an
associated risk of injury. Although the contamination level is low,
this alternative would also result in an increase in occupational
exposure as a result of the removal and relocation process.
Additionally, the transportation of the blocks from their present
location to a disposal facility would add an air quality and
transportation risk impact. Finally, the property owner has indicated
his desire to retain the blocks for the retaining wall. The removal of
the blocks would necessitate a change to property usage or construction
of an alternative wall, either of which would pose a significant
financial impact to the property owner. The NRC has determined that the
impacts of the alternative are greater than that of the proposed
action.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
This EA was prepared by John B. Hickman, Project Manager,
Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection (DWMEP). NRC staff determined that the
proposed action is not a major decommissioning activity and will not
affect listed or proposed endangered species, nor critical habitat.
Therefore, no further
[[Page 12222]]
consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Likewise, NRC determined that the proposed action is not the type of
activity that has the potential to cause previously unconsidered
effects on historic properties, as consultation for site
decommissioning has been conducted previously. There are no additional
impacts to historic properties associated with the disposal method and
location for demolition debris. Therefore, no consultation is required
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NRC
provided a draft of its EA to the following individuals:
Mr. Dave Howland, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Western Regional Office, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103.
Mr. Michael Whalen, Radiation Control Program, Massachusetts Department
of Public Health, 90 Washington Street, Dorchester, MA 02121.
Ms. Carla A. White, Vermont Department of Health, 108 Cherry St., P.O.
Box 70 Burlington, VT 05402.
The owner of the property where the blocks are currently located.
Name and address withheld from public disclosure.
Both the MADEP and the MA Department of Public Health noted that
the BUD previously issued by the MADEP is not appropriate for the
removal, transport, or disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Therefore, based on the subsequently identified radioactive materials
in the concrete blocks, the MADEP does not consider the BUD as
providing adequate legal authority for the removal of the shield blocks
from the site. Otherwise neither the MADEP or MADPH had any issue with
the proposed NRC action.
Neither the Vermont Department of Health or the property owner had
any comments on the proposed NRC action.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
Sources Used
--US NRC Power Reactor License: Yankee Atomic Electric Company Docket
Number 050-00029, License Number DPR-03.
--Yankee Atomic Electric Company, June 6, 2005, Request for Approval of
Proposed Procedures in Accordance with 10 CFR part 20.2002,
(ML051650291) as supplemented on October 31, 2005. (ML053120275)
--NRC 10 CFR 20.2002, ``Method of Obtaining Approval of Proposed
Disposal Procedures.''
--NUREG-1640, ``Radiological Assessment for Clearance of Materials from
Nuclear Facilities.''
--NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs.''
--NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement of
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, November 2002.
IV. Further Information
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated June 6, 2005, (ADAMS Accession No. ML051650291)
as supplemented on October 31, 2005. (ADAMS Accession No. ML053120275)
The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in
Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209. Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Andrew Persinko,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-3338 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
