[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12220-12222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: 
[email protected].

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, http://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 
[email protected].

    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