[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67212-67218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28014]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-213]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company; Haddam Neck Plant; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 
issued to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (the licensee) for 
the Haddam Neck Plant, a permanently shutdown nuclear reactor facility 
located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. The new license condition is 
related to the licensee's proposed License Termination Plan (LTP) for 
the plant. Therefore, pursuant to Section 51.21 of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC is issuing this environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would amend Facility Operating License No. DPR-
61 to approve the LTP for the plant and add a new License Condition C.7 
to the LTP for the plant. The proposed condition will require the 
licensee to implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the LTP 
that are approved by the NRC as part of the amendment. The proposed 
condition would also (1) provide criteria for the licensee to make 
changes to the LTP with prior NRC review and approval and (2) require 
the licensee to perform a capture zone analysis and to have assured 
that the groundwater contribution is included for all applicable survey 
areas. In accordance with the regulations, the licensee has, and will 
continue to have, the authority to remediate the site without an 
approved LTP, which is performed under the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(6) and 50.59. The proposed license amendment does not 
authorize additional plant activities beyond those that are already 
authorized and, therefore, is administrative.

[[Page 67213]]

    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated July 7, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated June 
14, July 31, August 15, August 22, September 6, September 7, 2001, and 
August 20 and October 10, 2002. Calculations to support the LTP were 
also provided by the licensee in the letters dated January 11, 2001, 
and May 9, June 26, and August 15, 2002.
    Consistent with the decommissioning rule that appeared in the 
Federal Register notice dated July 29, 1996 (Vol. 61, No. 146, pp. 
39283-39284), the NRC has also prepared this environmental assessment 
(EA) to determine the adequacy of the radiation release criteria and 
the adequacy of the final status survey presented in the LTP.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow the licensee to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9), by which a licensee is required to 
submit an LTP to the NRC for approval. Further, in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(10) and (11), the staff will: (1) 
Approve an LTP by license amendment if the remaining decommissioning 
activities will be performed in accordance with the regulations, will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and 
safety of the public, and will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the environment; and (2) terminate the license if the 
remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the 
approved LTP and if the final radiation survey and associated documents 
demonstrate the facility and site are suitable for release.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Background
    The nuclear steam supply for the HNP is a four-loop pressurized-
water reactor (PWR) with a thermal power design limit of 1,825 MWt. The 
turbine generator was rated to produce 619 MWe. The HNP began 
commercial operation in January 1968 and was permanently shut down on 
December 4, 1996, after 28 years of operation. After the cessation of 
operations, the licensee began to decommission the HNP. The Post 
Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) was submitted to NRC 
in 1997. The licensee transmitted an Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) to NRC in 1998. The UFSAR reflects the HNP's permanent 
shutdown status. Later in 1998, NRC amended the HNP Facility Operating 
License to reflect the plant's shutdown condition. In 1999, the 
operating license was amended to reflect the decommissioning status of 
the plant and long-term storage of the spent fuel.
    The LTP was submitted to NRC on July 7, 2000. The LTP was 
subsequently revised in response to NRC comments and resubmitted on 
August 20 and October 10, 2002. NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 require 
that an LTP contain plans for site characterization, identification of 
remaining dismantlement activities, plans for site remediation, the 
licensee's plan for the final radiation survey, information on whether 
the site is being released for restricted or unrestricted use, an 
assurance that the licensee has adequate funds to complete 
decommissioning, and a supplement to the environmental report that 
describes any new information or significant environmental change 
associated with what the licensee provided in its PSDAR.
    The licensee is proposing to decontaminate the site to meet the 
unrestricted release criteria (25 mrem/year and residual radioactivity 
as low as reasonably achievable) as found in 10 CFR 20.1402. The 
licensee plans to complete decommissioning activities by 2004. At the 
time of license termination, several buildings may remain on site. 
Debris from buildings that were demolished during decommissioning will 
have been sent to an appropriate offsite disposal facility. The spent 
fuel will eventually be removed from the spent fuel pool and placed in 
an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
Scope
    NRC rule changes in 1996 (61 FR 39278) allow the licensee to 
perform major decommissioning activities after submittal of a PSDAR. 
The 1996 rule prohibits decommissioning activities that could result in 
significant environmental impacts that have not been previously 
analyzed. The impacts of decommissioning activities for nuclear power 
reactors have been assessed previously by NRC in the Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for Decommissioning (Reference 
NRC, 1988, 2001) and are not reevaluated in the EA. The PSDAR is 
required to include a discussion of the reasons for concluding that the 
planned decommissioning activities are bounded by the GEIS and previous 
site-specific analyses.
    At this time, the NRC is considering only approval of the 
licensee's LTP, not termination of the license. Approval of the LTP, as 
discussed in the Statements of Consideration that accompanied the Final 
Rule on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors (61 FR 39284, July 29, 
1996), requires the NRC to consider: (1) The licensee's plan for 
assuring sufficient 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. NRC has reviewed the decommissioning costs to 
ensure that adequate funds will be available for site decommissioning, 
and this review is documented in the safety evaluation report for the 
LTP amendment. Financial assurance is not analyzed in this EA since 
financial assurance methods would not result in any environmental 
impacts. The radiation release criteria and adequacy of the final 
status survey are addressed in this EA.
    Additionally, the Commission has made a generic determination (10 
CFR 51.23) that spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored 
safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 
years beyond the licensed life for operation of the plant and that 
there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic 
repository will be available within 30 years beyond the licensed life 
of operation to dispose of high level waste. Accordingly, no discussion 
of environmental impacts of spent fuel storage in HNP's storage pool or 
its projected ISFSI is provided in this EA.

Site Description and Current Site Environmental Conditions

    The HNP is located on a site of about 2,124,608 square meters (525 
acres) in the town of Haddam on the eastern bank of the Connecticut 
River in an area known as Haddam Neck. Haddam Neck is bounded by the 
Connecticut River and the Salmon River, which enters the Connecticut 
River just south of the plant site. The town of Haddam is in Middlesex 
County, Connecticut. The HNP is about 35.4 kilometers (22 miles) south-
southeast of Hartford and 40.2 kilometers (25 miles) northeast of New 
Haven.

Land Use

    About 80 percent of the area surrounding the site within a 8-
kilometer (5-mile) radius is rural and wooded, with much of it occupied 
by State parks and forests. The remaining area is used for general 
farming and for small industrial-production facilities. The largest 
industrial complex in the vicinity, which employs about 3,000 workers, 
is located in Middletown, which is about 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles) 
northwest of the site. Several other

[[Page 67214]]

small industrial facilities are located within a 10-mile radius. The 
nearest agricultural farm is about 17 kilometers (10 miles) from the 
site. Two schools are located within 8 kilometers (5 miles), with a 
combined enrollment of about 600 students in 1995 (Reference CYAPCO, 
1997).

Geology and Soil

    As discussed in the Decommissioning Environmental Review dated 
August 1997 (Reference CYAPCO, 1997), the surficial deposits at the 
site are dominated by relatively thin and often discontinuous layers of 
glacial till overlying bedrock. This till is a poorly sorted mixture of 
clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. Sediments underlying 
the floodplain portion of the site vary from 3 to 30.5 meters (10 to 
100 feet) thick. The uppermost portion of these sediments consists of 
thin [less than 6.1 meters (20 feet deep)] alluvial silts and sands 
deposited by the Connecticut River.
    Before the plant was constructed, much of the overburden sediments 
were excavated to competent, unweathered bedrock. The area was filled 
and graded from an initial elevation of about 3.7 meters (12 feet) to 
an elevation of 6.4 meters (21 feet) above mean sea level (MSL). Site 
elevations range from about 3 to 6.1 meters (10 to 20 feet) MSL on the 
developed floodplain, and to approximately 91.4 meters (300 feet) MSL 
in undeveloped upland portions of the site.
    Radiologically contaminated site soil is generally confined to 
surface soil, although survey results have indicated localized areas 
with deeper contamination. In the LTP, 20 radionuclides have been 
identified in site soil on the basis of survey data collected from 15 
sample locations. These radionuclides include cesium, plutonium, 
americium, and cobalt.

Surface Water

    All stream flow past the site is derived wholly from within the 
Connecticut River basin. Although tidal influence in the Connecticut 
River extends upstream to approximately Hartford, saline water extends 
only as far north as East Haddam, about 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) south 
of the plant. No drinking water intakes exist on the Connecticut River 
in the vicinity of the site; local water supply needs are provided by 
wells or tributary stream reservoirs.
    Stream flow at the site is a combination of upstream basin 
discharge and tidal interchange. The average annual daily flow at 
Haddam Neck is approximately 481 cubic meters per second (cms) [17,000 
cubic feet per second (cfs)]. Tidal flow at the site averages about 425 
cms (15,000 cfs), but it may be as great as 623 cms (22,000 cfs). 
During periods of low river flow, tidal flows can be significant 
(Reference CYAPCO, 1997).
    The HNP drew once-through cooling water from the Connecticut River 
through an intake structure at the edge of the river. The cooling water 
effluent was discharged into a canal that flows parallel to the river, 
with its outflow located approximately 1676 meters (5,500 feet) 
downstream of the intake. The plant's National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System permit will be in effect until the end of 
decommissioning. The permit imposes the limits for flow, temperature, 
and effluent chemistry. To date, no surface-water contamination 
attributable to the site has been observed.

Groundwater

    At the site, groundwater is present in both unconsolidated 
sediments and in underlying fractured bedrock. In the LTP, the shallow 
groundwater is described as flowing toward the Connecticut River. Near 
the uplands, the generalized flow direction of groundwater is downward 
and toward the river; near the river, the generalized flow direction of 
the groundwater is upward toward the river. Groundwater flow in the 
bedrock is assumed to occur in the fractures. The direction of this 
flow can be complex because of the variability of the depth, 
orientation, and interconnectiveness of fractures; however, net flow in 
the bedrock is expected to be toward the river.
    Groundwater beneath the HNP has been affected by boron, tritium, 
and strontium-90 releases. The boron and tritium contamination is 
attributed, in part, to leakage from the refueling water storage tank 
(RWST). A contaminated groundwater plume extends from the RWST south to 
wells adjacent to the Connecticut River. The locations of the core and 
bottom of the boron/tritium plume are not known. Groundwater 
concentrations of tritium as high as 5,137 Becquerels per liter (Bq/L) 
[138,700 picocuries per liter (pCi/L)] were reported from sampling 
events performed in 1999 (Reference Malcolm Pirnie, 1999). Since then, 
there has been a trend of decreasing tritium concentrations. The 
highest concentration reported from sampling conducted in June 2001 was 
774 Bq/L (20,900 pCi/L) (Reference CYAPCO, 2001a). Groundwater in the 
deep water-bearing bedrock units is also monitored (Reference CYAPCO, 
2002b). Tritium concentrations as high as 1,225 Bq/L (33,070 pCi/L) 
were reported for deeper segments of the fractured bedrock (Reference 
CYAPCO, 2001b). No plant-generated contamination has been found in any 
of the area drinking-water wells. However, strontium-90 has been found 
at a concentration of about 0.4 Bq/L (1 pCi/L) in water from the water-
supply well on the peninsula adjacent to the discharge canal. Cesium-
137 (76 pCi/L in 1999) and technetium-99 (3.9 pCi/L in 2001) have each 
been found in one monitoring well, both near the containment building.
    Many private water-supply wells occur in the vicinity of the site 
(Reference CYAPCO, 1997). These wells, which pump water from deep 
water-bearing units in the bedrock, are located outside and upgradient 
of the facility. The nearest residential well is approximately 0.8 
kilometer (0.5 mile) northwest, in the opposite direction of the 
groundwater plume traveling southwest of the RWST, of the HNP stack. 
The nearest community water supply well is approximately 4.8 kilometers 
(3 miles) from the site.
    Additional groundwater characterization is being performed by the 
licensee to determine the nature and extent of potential groundwater 
contamination. This investigation is described in the plan titled 
``Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan,'' which was approved 
by the State of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection on 
May 10, 2002 (Reference CYAPCO, 2002a). The plan's objectives are to 
study the distribution and migration of radionuclides within the plant 
industrial area, and to show whether any radiological substances of 
concern exist at the landfill, other property areas, or across the 
Connecticut River.
    Groundwater samples from the landfill area wells were also analyzed 
for chemical parameters, consistent with State requirements for solid 
waste disposal areas. The samples were analyzed for various metals and 
for volatile organic compounds. No volatile organic compounds were 
found, and metals were either below detection limits or were detected 
at very low concentrations (Reference Malcolm Pirnie, 1999). The 
licensee will be conducting a site-wide characterization of hazardous 
constituents under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
Corrective Action program, and this environmental investigation will 
provide additional information regarding chemical parameters (Reference 
Rosenstein, 2002).

[[Page 67215]]

Ecological Resources

    About 70 percent of the plant site's 2,124,604 square meters (525 
acres) are forested. Dominant tree species include eastern hemlock, 
black oak, shagbark hickory, and sweet (black) birch (Reference CYAPCO, 
1997). The remainder of the site contains wetlands and open areas. 
Wetlands include forested swamps, beaver ponds, and floodplain 
(riparian) areas. Open lands are mostly manmade, occurring within the 
transmission line rights-of-way and along roadways. These areas consist 
primarily of short, transitional vegetation. Only 28,328 square meters 
(7 acres) of the site were developed and occupied by buildings and 
associated parking lots. Approximately 36,422 square meters (9 acres) 
were modified to create the discharge canal. Transmission line rights-
of-way associated with the HNP occupy about 3,986,170 square meters 
(985 acres) (Reference USAEC, 1973). Important habitats located within 
the plant site boundary include a freshwater tidal marsh and a bald 
eagle winter-roosting site (Reference McKay, 1997).
    Common mammal species occurring at the site include white-tailed 
deer, woodchucks, eastern cottontails, red and gray squirrels, eastern 
chipmunks, raccoons, and Virginia opossums. Regularly encountered bird 
species include mourning doves, red-eyed vireos, red-winged blackbirds, 
black-capped chickadees, American robins, wood thrushes, common 
grackles, song sparrows, American goldfinches, and several species of 
warblers. Herring gulls, mallards, and great blue herons are common 
species within riparian areas. Salmon River Cove, which abuts the site, 
is a wintering area for waterfowl such as mallards, black ducks, and 
Canada geese. Common reptile and amphibian species include northern 
spring peepers, bullfrogs, red-spotted newts, eastern box turtles, 
eastern hognose snakes, and northern black racers (Reference CYAPCO, 
1997).
    The HNP is located at the estuary portion of the Connecticut River 
about 25.8 kilometers (16 miles) from the mouth of the river. Thus, 
freshwater, estuarine, and anadromous fish species occur in the plant 
area. Common fish species include channel catfish, striped bass, large-
mouth bass, white catfish, white perch, yellow perch, spottail shiners, 
white suckers, American eels, carp, American shad, and several species 
of sunfish. The American shad is the most important commercial species 
in the area. Plant operations had no apparent effect on the shad 
population (Reference CYAPCO, 1997). Because of silt deposition in the 
plant area, the macroinvertebrate community is dominated by aquatic 
worms and chironomid (midge) larvae. Several expansive beds of 
submerged aquatic vegetation occur in the plant vicinity. A large bed 
occurs near Haddam Island State Park and Haddam Meadows State Park 
upstream of the plant, and several smaller beds occur just downstream 
of the plant in the vicinity of the discharge canal (Reference CYAPCO, 
1997).
    No Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species 
are known to occur in the area that will be affected by site activities 
(Reference Amaral, 2001). However, the endangered shortnose sturgeon 
makes seasonal movements through the Connecticut River estuary and thus 
passes by the site. The shortnose sturgeon is also State-listed as 
endangered. Three other State-listed species occur in the site area: 
Atlantic sturgeon (threatened); tidewater mucket (endangered); and 
swamp cottonwood (endangered). Six other species listed as of special 
concern in Connecticut occur in the site area: eastern box turtle; 
eastern pondmussel; golden club; woodland pondsnail; and two arrowleaf 
species (Reference McKay, 1997).

Historical and Cultural Resources

    Known archaeological and historical resources within the HNP lands 
include the plant itself, archaeological sites containing Native 
American ceramics, and the Venture Smith site. The HNP is historically 
significant as one of four early demonstration reactors that used the 
PWR design. It was one of the earliest nuclear power plants constructed 
in the Northeast and was the world's leading reactor in nuclear power 
generation from 1980 to 1984. The HNP has been determined eligible for 
listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Reference Maddox, 
1998). The Venture Smith site is an 18th century homestead of African 
American archaeological significance and has been identified as 
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 
Places (Reference Maddox, 2001).

Visual and Scenic Resources

    The HNP is adjacent to the Cove Meadow State Park, located on an 
undeveloped riverfront area at the confluence of the Salmon and 
Connecticut Rivers. Haddam Meadows State Park is located directly 
across from the HNP on the western bank of the Connecticut River. The 
plant can be viewed from the parking and boat-launching facilities at 
this park. Hurd State Park, Haddam Island State Park, and Cockaponset 
State Park are all within 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) of the HNP 
(Reference CYAPCO, 1997). The nearest Historic Landmark is the 
Goodspeed Opera House, which is located 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) 
downstream of the plant. The plant is not visible from this landmark 
because of a bend in the Connecticut River near the Salmon River 
confluence (Reference CYAPCO, 1997).

Radiological Impacts

    After approval of the LTP and release of the site for unrestricted 
use, the only source of exposure to members of the public would be any 
residual radionuclide concentrations on the building surfaces, in the 
soil, and in the groundwater. Derived concentration guideline levels 
(DCGLs) were derived to ensure that exposure of the average member of 
the critical group to residual radioactivity within the various media 
will not exceed the dose limit of 0.25 Sieverts per year (Sv/yr) [25 
milliroentgen-equivalent-man per year (mrem/yr)] as specified in 10 CFR 
Part 20, Subpart E. The impacts of radiological release criteria were 
analyzed in NRC's 1997 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) in 
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination 
of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-1496). Because the residual 
radionuclides that are expected to remain on the building surfaces, in 
soil, and in groundwater will be less than the DCGLs, any doses 
incurred by a potential receptor will be less than the 0.25 Sv/yr (25 
mrem/yr) dose limit.
    The manner in which the DCGLs are derived for the HNP is documented 
in the LTP. NRC evaluated the adequacy of the DCGLs in providing 
protection for members of the public as the site is released for 
unrestricted use, as documented in the safety evaluation for the 
amendment that approves the LTP (Reference NRC, 2002).
    In deriving the soil DCGLs, a resident-farmer was considered to 
represent the average member of the critical population group. The 
hypothetical resident farmer is assumed to build a house, draw water 
from a well, grow plant food and fodder, raise livestock, and catch 
fish for consumption from a pond within areas of the site with residual 
radioactivity in the soil and groundwater. The resident farmer scenario 
embodies the greatest number of exposure pathways and represents the 
longest exposure durations of any other scenario envisioned.
    The DCGLs for buildings are obtained by selecting the more 
restrictive DCGLs (i.e., the lowest radionuclide

[[Page 67216]]

concentrations) between two potential exposure scenarios. The first 
scenario is a building occupancy scenario that considers a light 
industrial worker working in a contaminated building. The second 
scenario considers a resident farmer who builds a house on the concrete 
debris generated from the demolition of the contaminated buildings. The 
light industrial worker is assumed to be the average member of the 
critical group for exposure to residual radioactivity remaining on the 
walls of standing structures at the site. The worker is assumed to 
spend time in the structure performing light industrial activities. 
Because exposure for the light industrial worker scenario does not 
consider exposure from any residual radioactivity that may be located 
below the wall surface (e.g., from activation within the containment 
building), a second scenario involving a resident farmer performing 
limited activities in the area of concrete debris was considered.
    The DCGLs for the groundwater pathway are determined by assuming a 
well is pumping water that contains residual radioactivity and the 
water is used for drinking, crop irrigation, and livestock watering.
    NRC evaluated the appropriateness of the exposure scenarios 
postulated and the methodology used for deriving the DCGLs. It has 
concluded that the potential radiation exposures caused by residual 
radionuclide concentrations have not been underestimated by the 
licensee and will not exceed the dose limit in 10 CFR Part 20, subpart 
E, for the general public. Additional details of the NRC's analysis of 
the DCGLs are available in the safety evaluation for the amendment 
which approves the LTP (Reference NRC, 2002).
    The licensee will use a series of surveys and a final status survey 
to demonstrate compliance with Part 20, Subpart E, consistent with the 
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation process and the data quality 
objectives (DQO) process. Planning for the final status survey involves 
an iterative process that requires appropriate site classification (on 
the basis of the potential residual radionuclide concentration levels 
relative to the DCGLs) and formal planning using the DQO process. The 
licensee has committed to an integrated design process that will 
address the selection of appropriate survey and laboratory 
instrumentation and procedures, and that includes a statistically based 
measurement and sampling plan for collecting and evaluating the data 
needed for the final status survey. The NRC staff has determined that 
the integrated design process, sampling strategy, and survey data 
evaluation methodology presented in the LTP are adequate. Additional 
details of the NRC's analysis of the survey plan are available in the 
safety evaluation for the amendment which approves the LTP (Reference 
NRC, 2002).
    If the licensee requests license termination in the future, it will 
submit a final status survey report, which will describe the residual 
contamination remaining on site. NRC would conduct a confirmatory study 
to determine whether the site meets the criteria for unrestricted 
release, and would also confirm that decommissioning activities were 
done in accordance with the LTP, prior to terminating the license.
    As for groundwater, emptying the RWST has eliminated a major source 
of tritium contamination in the shallow groundwater system. With time, 
contaminant concentrations will decrease because of source removal and 
dilution and discharge to the Connecticut River. Groundwater levels at 
this site are complex and the effect of discontinuing groundwater 
pumping is not well understood. Tidal conditions in the Connecticut 
River probably affect water levels. The water levels and groundwater 
flow directions between the unconsolidated and fractured bedrock units 
are variable. The complexity of the stratigraphic units in this area 
also affects both the water levels and groundwater flow (Reference 
CYAPCO, 2002a).

Nonradiological Impacts

    The scope of this EA is limited to adequacy of the DCGLs and 
adequacy of the final status survey described in the LTP. Therefore, 
there are not expected to be any adverse nonradiological impacts on the 
environmental resources described in Section 3.0.
    NRC notes that the HNP has been determined eligible for the 
National Register of Historic Places, and decommissioning and 
dismantling of the plant are considered adverse effects on 
Connecticut's cultural heritage (Reference Maddox, 2001). Additionally, 
HNP lands have a high potential for containing significant prehistoric 
and historic archaeological resources. Archaeological resources that 
have been determined potentially eligible include the Venture Smith 
homestead and areas near the canal that have been found to contain 
Native American ceramics (Reference Maddox, 2001). The following 
summarizes the mitigation measures that the Connecticut Historical 
Commission (Reference Maddox, 2001) has recommended, in response to 
NRC's request for a consultation:
    a. Documentation of the HNP to the professional standards of the 
National Park Service's Historic American Engineering Record;
    b. Completion of a reconnaissance-level archaeological survey of 
all lands associated with the HNP; and
    c. Consultation with the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, at the 
University of Connecticut, concerning the archiving of pertinent 
documents, plans, and photographs of the HNP.

All three of these recommendations are being carried out by the 
licensee.

Cumulative Impacts

    The NRC has evaluated whether cumulative environmental impacts 
could result from an incremental impact of the proposed action when 
added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions 
in the area. The proposed NRC approval of the LTP, when combined with 
known effects on resource areas at the site, are not anticipated to 
result in any cumulative impacts at the site.

Mitigation Measures

    As a result of NRC's review of the LTP, the NRC has added license 
conditions to the licensee's Part 50 license. The license conditions 
concern: (1) The procedure for any changes to the LTP after approval by 
the NRC, and (2) the analysis of groundwater prior to release of any 
survey areas. These license conditions will ensure that there are no 
significant adverse effects on the adequacy of the DCGLs or the final 
status survey after approval of the LTP. The license conditions are 
described further in the NRC's safety evaluation for the amendment that 
approves the LTP (Reference NRC, 2002).
    The licensee is taking mitigative measures to minimize adverse 
effects on the potential historic and cultural resources present at the 
site. These mitigative measures are described in the above section on 
nonradiological impacts.

Conclusions

    NRC believes that the approval of the LTP will not cause any 
significant impacts on the human environment and is protective of human 
health. Adverse effects were identified for historical and cultural 
resources, but these impacts will be mitigated by the licensee, as 
described in the above section on nonradiological impacts. 
Environmental impacts caused by site activity after NRC has terminated 
the HNP license would be evaluated, if necessary, by either the State 
of Connecticut or other

[[Page 67217]]

agencies responsible for overseeing or regulating the specific future 
activity.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA with input from the State of 
Connecticut's Historic Preservation Officer, by letter dated January 8, 
2001, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by letter dated January 
25, 2001.
    In its letter, the State of Connecticut's Historic Preservation 
Office noted that the HNP possesses historic and technological 
significance and is eligible for the National Register of Historic 
places. It further notes that the lands associated with the HNP possess 
high sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, 
and these resources harbor a strong potential for being eligible for 
the National Register. The State Historic Preservation Office believes 
that decommissioning and dismantling of the HNP represent adverse 
effects upon Connecticut's cultural heritage and has recommended three 
mitigative measures, which are described in the above section on 
nonradiological impacts.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated, in its letter, that 
on the basis of current information, no Federally or proposed 
threatened or endangered species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
jurisdiction are known to occur in the site project area.
    The NRC staff provided a draft of this EA to the State of 
Connecticut for review. In response, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection provided input related to ecological 
resources, surface water, and groundwater (Reference Wilds, 2002). The 
EA was revised to reflect the State's input where appropriate.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided comments on the 
draft EA to the NRC staff (Reference Rosenstein, 2002). The comments 
were related to a range of topics, including site characterization and 
decommissioning impacts. The EA was revised to reflect the EPA's 
comments where appropriate.
    The licensee submitted comments related to clarification of the 
water resources and historical resources sections (Reference 
Fetherston, 2002). The EA was revised to reflect the licensee's 
comments where appropriate.
    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 3, 2001, the NRC 
staff consulted by e-mail with the Connecticut State Official, Dr. 
Michael Firsick, of the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
In the e-mail response dated October 4, 2002, the State official had no 
further comments (ADAMS Accession No. ML022840536).

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is NRC approval of the HNP's LTP, which 
contains the radiation release criteria (i.e., the DCGLs), and the 
description of the final status survey plan required by NRC. NRC review 
and approval of the LTP will verify that the remainder of the 
decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with NRC 
regulations.

No Action

    NRC considered the no-action alternative relative to the licensee's 
request for approval of the LTP. Under the no-action alternative, NRC 
would not approve the LTP and therefore would not be able to terminate 
the license. This alternative is in conflict with NRC's regulations in 
10 CFR 50.82, which states that an LTP will be approved if it has been 
determined that the remainder of the decommissioning activities will be 
performed in accordance with NRC regulations, are not detrimental to 
the health and safety of the public, and do not have a significant 
effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, the no-action 
alternative is not considered to be reasonable and is not analyzed 
further in this EA. Also, the no-action alternative would result in no 
change in current environmental impacts.
    Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 
alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Haddam Neck Plant or the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on 
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    NRC has prepared an EA related to the issuance of a license 
amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61, approving the LTP. 
On the basis of this EA and the mitigative measures described above, 
NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts 
and the 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.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letters dated July 7, 2000, January 11, June 14, July 31, 
August 15, August 22, September 6, September 7, 2001, and May 9, June 
26, and August 15 and 20 and October 10, 2002. 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 (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://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 at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of October 2002.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Attachment to ``Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact''

References for the Environment Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

Amaral, M., 2001, letter from Amaral (U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Field Office, 
Concord, N.H.) to C.E. Abrams (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C.), January 2001. (Amaral, 2001)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 1997, Decommissioning 
Environmental Review, Haddam Neck Plant, East Hampton, Conn., August 
1997. (CYAPCO, 1997)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 2000, Haddam Neck License 
Termination Plan, Attachment 1, Haddam Neck Plant, East Hampton, 
Conn., July 7, 2000. (CYAPCO 2000)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 2001a, June 2001 Quarterly 
Groundwater Monitoring Report, Haddam Neck Plant, Haddam, Conn., 
November 2001 (CYAPCO 2001a)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 2001b, Response to the 
Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding the Haddam Neck 
Plant License Termination Plant (TAC NO. MA9791), CY-01-084, Haddam 
Neck Plant, Conn., submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C., August 22, 2001. (CYAPCO, 
2001b)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 2002a, Phase 2 
Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan, Haddam Neck Plant, May 2002. 
(CYAPCO, 2002a)

[[Page 67218]]

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 2002b, Haddam Neck License 
Termination Plan, Revision 1, Haddam Neck Plant, East Hampton, 
Conn., August 20, 2002. (CYAPCO, 2002b)
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, 2002b, Haddam Neck License 
Termination Plan, Revision 1a, Haddam Neck Plant, East Hampton, 
Conn., October 10, 2002. (CYAPCO, 2002c)
Fetherston, N.W., 2002, letter from Fetherston (Site Manager, 
CYAPCO, East Hampton, Conn.) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C., June 19, 2002. (Fetherston, 2002)
Maddox, D., 1998, letter from Maddox (Deputy State Historic 
Preservation Officer, Connecticut Historical Commission, Hartford, 
Conn.) to J. Borne (Northeast Utilities Service Company, Hartford, 
Conn.), June 1, 1998. (Maddox, 1998)
Maddox, D., 2001, letter from Maddox (Deputy State Historic 
Preservation Officer, Connecticut Historical Commission, Hartford, 
Conn.) C.E. Abrams (Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.), 
January 8, 2001. (Maddox, 2001)
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1999, Groundwater Monitoring Report, 
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Station, Haddam Neck, Connecticut, 
Final Report, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Middletown, Conn., September 
1999. (Malcolm Pirnie, 1999)
McKay, D.M., 1997, letter from McKay (Department of Environmental 
Protection, Natural Resources Center, Hartford, Conn.) to P. 
Jacobson (Northeast Utilities Service Company, Hartford, Conn.) 
January 6, 1997. (McKay, 1997)
Rosenstein, M., 2002, letter from Rosenstein (U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA) to J. Donoghue (Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, D.C.), June 24, 2002. (Rosenstein, 2002)
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973, Final Environmental Statement, 
Haddam Neck (Connecticut Yankee) Nuclear Power Plant, Connecticut 
Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-2123, Directorate of 
Licensing, Washington, D.C., October 1973. (USAEC, 1973)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988, Final Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement on the Decommissioning of Nuclear 
Facilities, NUREG-0586, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 
Washington D.C. (NRC, 1988)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1997, Final Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on 
Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed 
Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-1496; Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research, Washington, D.C. (GEIS, 1997)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2001, Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities; Draft 
Supplement Dealing with Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, 
NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 
Washington, D.C. (NRC, 20901)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2002, Safety Evaluation Related 
to Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61, Connecticut 
Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant, Docket No. 50-213, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C., 
to be issued in November 2002. (NRC, 2002)
Wilds, E., 2002, letter from Wilds (Department of Environmental 
Protection, Hartford, Conn.) to J.E. Donoghue (U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.), June 3, 2002. (Wilds, 
2002)

[FR Doc. 02-28014 Filed 11-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P