[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