ML072420100
| ML072420100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2005 |
| From: | Gorski M State of MA, Dept of Environmental Protection |
| To: | John Hickman NRC/NMSS/DWMEP/DD |
| References | |
| Download: ML072420100 (24) | |
Text
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS fEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE 436 Dwight Street e Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 e (413) 784-1100
- FAX (413) 784-1149 MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER Governor Secretary KERRY HEALEY ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, Jr.
Lieutenant Governor Commissioner March 31, 2005 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Decommissioning Directorate Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: John B. Hickman, Project Manager - Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Dear Mr. Hickman,
Thank you for your letter of March 3, 2005 that seeks Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) comments on the "Predecisional Draft Environmental Assessment Related to Consideration of License Termination Plan" at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS) in Rowe, Massachusetts. The purpose of the Environmental Assessment (EA) is to determine the environmental impacts (radiological and non radiological) of approving the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the YNPS and releasing the site for unrestricted use (as defined in 10 CFR 20.1402). The LTP was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in November 2003 and it established a goal of completing decommissioning by mid 2005.
As you know the MADEP has been fully engaged in the ongoing decommissioning activities at the YNPS over the past several years and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this element of the license termination process. The owner of YNPS, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC), has indicated in the LTP that they intend to comply with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' clean up standards for both radiological and non radiological contaminants.
As the physical plant has been dismantled the DEP has reviewed and approved a number of permit applications under pertinent Massachusetts Environmental Laws in order to advance the decommissioning project. Although there are more permits to be reviewed before the project has been completed, substantial progress has been made to date towards realizing YAEC goals.
In order to provide comments in their proper context, the MADEP has attached a redline/strike out copy of the EA word document you sent the MADEP via e-mail on March 3, 2005.
However, there are a few significant areas of comment that should to be highlighted here in the cover letter. They are listed below:
- 1. The extent of existing radiological and non radiological contamination at YNPS has been updated in the EA to reflect more recent data. (see sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2)
This information is available in alternate format. Call Donald M. Gomes, ADA Coordinator at 617-556-1057. TDD Service 800-298-2207.
DEP on the World Wide Web: http://www.mass.gov/dep Q
Printed on Recycled Paper
2
- 2. The understanding of groundwater conditions at YNPS continues to improve so the EA has been edited to incorporate more recent information. (see section 3.3.2)
- 3. Commonwealth of Massachusetts standards have been added to the EA to provide clarity on state requirements. (see sections 3.1, 3.4, 4.3)
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EA. Hopefully our comments will be helpful to you during NRC deliberations. If you have any further questions please contact Mr.
David Howland of my staff at 413-755-2280.
Sincerely, Mike si Regional Director Encl. Marked up EA document Cc Mr. Michael Whalen, MADPH Mr. Marvin Rosenstein, USEPA - Region I Mr. Joseph Lynch, YAEC
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-29 YANKEE NUCLEAR POW ION PREDEClSIONAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAAWSSESSA T:
CONSIDERATION OF LICENSE' IN ON PLAN'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (or t e staff) g Yankee Atomic Electric Company's request for approval of the Li erminat TP) submitted for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS) in achuse NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to deter nmenta acts (radiological and non-radiological) of approving the LTP and uhe site for unrestricted use (as defined in 10 CFR 20.1402). Thi consi rule, 10 CFR 50.82 that appeared in the Federal Register on Jul 9,199 1
ecommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors), which established th riteria ens tion and the requirement for a license termination plan.
As discussed in Section 1.3 belo prim scope o is EA is the evaluation of the impacts of the radiation release criteria e ad cy of t nal status survey, as presented in the LTP.
1.1 Bacjkj d
YNPS "
rpater nuclear reactor situated on a small portion of a 2,200-acre site.
ocate stern Massachusetts in Franklin County, near the southern Ve er. T most of the 2,200-acre site are owned by the Yankee Atomic Electri I portion on the west side of the site (along the east bank of the Sor) d by USGen New England, Inc. The YNPS plant was constructed nd operated commercially at 185 megawatts electrical roductio erae) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC determined that closing of the plant wrd be in the bic interest of its customers. In December 1993, NRC amerd the YNPS op iense to retain a "possession-only" status. YAEC began dis tling and decom gin activities at that time. These activities continue and their rel nce with respect hi EA is discussed in Section 1.3. The spent nuclear fuel remaining 0
was transferred 2003 from the spent fuel pool to the independent spent fuel storage S
lation (ISFSI) lo d adjacent to the plant. The spent fuel pool was subsequently drained ordance with rotocols.
In November 2003, YAEC submitted its LTP with a goal to complete decommissi 2005 (YAEC, 2003). Draft Revision 1 to the plan was submitted Septer~ber2,,
2004a), in response to a NRC request for additional information (NRC, 2004 ubs*
November 19, 2004, YAEC submitted Revision 1 to the LTP (YAEC, 2004 W
,pg by mid-
. (YAEC, y, on YAEC is proposing to decontaminate the YNPS site to meet u 20.1402. Additionally, YAEC has stated that it intends to co Massachusetts cleanup criteria established by the Massachusl and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental ProtecfiA demolished to grade or entirely removed, and most buried Pl remain after phased release of the site: the administration b]
outside the guard building, the ISFSI, the ISFSI security buil fuel has been removed from the site and prior to license termii building will be removed.
Itted re ith the of 10 CFR Uh of (MDI D)E ost Sl 1~
or uffes remove ill be e following st ard building, a sm*Wchyard cess roads. After the irradiated SI and ISFSI security 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action Licensees of nuclear facilities must apply to thj and decommissioning a facility. YAEC subt requesting license termination. The NRC adequacy of radiation criteria for license in completing decommissioning appear s ient demonstrate that the site is suitable foA lease termini L requi thr:
rF license voluntarily r
y 10 CFR 50.82, before proposed procedures, ratus survey planned for according to the plan, would 14 1.3 Scope t
P4 To fulfill its obligations under &
evaluate the radiological an n the LTP an ubsequent of the im the re at the ti, se te nal lfionmef Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC must ntal impacts associated with approval of hese evaluations involve an assessment es and residual material present at the site on of tl ildings As describl Decommi following in or, atemi ideration accompanying the Final Rule on ktors (61 FR 39278), the NRC must consider the e thi (1) the site adequate funds will be available for final (2) on release ci license termination, and (3)We adequacy of Infeen met.
survey required to verify that these release criteria have ssues Stud
'in Detail
Consistent with NEPA regulations and guidance to focus on environmental issue impacts to land use, water resources, and human health were selected or det because of their potential to be affected by an approval of the LTP. TIeis s
discussed in this EA due to the potential for impacts from remaining s*ra material left at the site.
A&
- concern, tudy ae nd/or residual 1.3.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study Issues eliminated from detailed study in this EA includ resources, ecological resources (including endangere(
socioeconomic conditions, transportation, noise, visua management, and accident scenarios. These issues be affected by implementation of the LTP at the site (i.l release criteria in the final status survey). The financial part of the LTP approval, is not related to human healt2 discussed in this EA.
J quality J threj Phed spec i
quality, off_-
edbecauset ted bease='ld not the site meets radiation L eview, which is a required ment and will not be Impacts from decommissioning activities at the YP has already assessed power plant decommissi documents. Specifically, the environmental (NRC, 1988, 2002) discusses the range of decommissioning activities. Further, the iologil unrestricted use are bounded by impac valuate Impact Statement in Support of Rulem ng on NRC - Licensed Nuclear Facilities."
Ct 1 were also addressed in the YAEC' hu A
(PSDAR) (YAEC, 2000).
£ a are no din this EA. NRC n pr atic NEPA for de missioning activities fm er plant sing the site for
,"Generic Environmental or License Termination of ioning impacts at the YNPS site
- sioning Activities Report 8liologi Decon Additionally, the Commis generated i lny reactor at least 3 s beyond Thherefo doe (ISESI)
. Ihc ht ade a ic
{*i~
ination that, if necessary, spent fuel 1!ored s out significant environmental impacts for ts licen!
ng life (64 FR 68005 and 10 CFR 51.23).
te envi tal impacts of spent fuel storage in the onsite es. The independent spent fuel storage installation insed briefly in Sections 3.2 and 4.1.
)wi 2.0 PR(
IVES 2.1 The F The pi review relej ap i Ii
!sed action is, e plan to ensu criteria and des es the plan, the (Possession Oq review and approval of YAEC's LTP. The NRC staff will e license termination activities (i.e., designation of radiation e final status survey) will comply with NRC regulations. If NRC r val will be issued in the form of an amendment to the YNPS License No. DPR-3).
plans to con LTP and coi
,te decommissioning of the YNPS site for unrestricted use, as described tent with NRC regulations at 10 CFR 20.1402. In addition, YAEC intends ommonwealth of Massachusetts cleanup criteria specified by the MDPH, Page and by the MDEP in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and Solid WE as applicable. To meet NRC's unrestricted release criteria, areas of th site wi survey units. These units will be sampled or surveyed in accordance the site-specific criteria have been met. These criteria, known as "derive W
levels" (DCGLs), are discussed further in Sections 3.4 and,.
I I divided into Pto verify that ation guideline Initially, YAEC plans to release all but 87 acres of the si unrestric r having passed the final survey. The remaining 87 acres woul am on t c
fuel is shipped offsite for permanent disposal (see Sec 4.1) an t e IS decommissioned. At that time, the remaining acreage d ag e surve gent on survey results, the license terminated.
2.2 Alternatives As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff cons*
action alternative". The no-action alternative would maintain the status quo.
s wo no change to current environmental impacts, which are larger than those re ulting r sed action.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Site Description The YNPS site is located at 49 Yankee ad, a im miles north-northwest of the northwestern Massachusetts town of in F kin C The site is adjacent to the Vermo ter on d chara rized by heavily wooded, steep hills.
It is situated within the Deerfield alle d abuts eastern shores of the Deerfield River and Sherman Reservoir.
bound*
the De Id River valley rise 500 to 1000 feet above the site, reaching ele ati of 210 ab ean sea level (ERM, 2004a). The combinedp ulation of th arest t and Monroe, is less than 500.
The YN cout 2,2 s in the towns of Rowe and Monroe. Most of this pro x
tres) is owned by YAEC; the remaining portion is owned by USGen N Inche USGen property is a narrow strip of upland to the west of the ding a ire eastern bank of Sherman Reservoir. USGen also owns the resee'
,property west of the Sherman Reservoir, and property down erman ncompassing both banks of the Deerfield River. YNPS operations ted out 15 developed acres, primarily on land owned by YAEC, b endin rty owned by USGen (ERM, 2004a).
The S site is divide ee areas based on past site activities and land use:
ustrial Area: appli ately 12-acre fenced portion of the site that contains industrial ant structures an perations.
diologically C rolled Area (RCA): 4-acre parcel within the industrial area that contains
.ological m ials associated with plant operation.
Page Non-Industrial Area: remaining land outside the fenced industrial area that c(
USGen Sherman Station hydroelectric plant, the Sherman Reservo and DD lines traversing the site, administration building and visitor center, r, wad undeveloped woodland (YAEC, 2004b; ERM, 2004a).
W Pins the transmission areas and During construction of the storage installation for the-spei construction and demolition debris was placed into what Area (SCFA). This area of approximately 1.5 acres coj concrete, asphalt, and metal debris. In accordance wI plans to remove the materials from this area, returnin regrading.
a 15w the S s soil anA
)EPs t Es 40-*
struction on to wo other for Ecology and Cultural Resources The US Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed in corresp listed endangered or threatened species occur on th
- e. (
species of concern have been identified on the YNPS ite. A n identified in a headwater channel of Wheeler Bro e bristly a drainage area along the Wheeler Brook Dive id the Longnose suckers are documented to exist i the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries &
I e ation Endangered Species Program (NHESP)t vel*p during the remainder of decommissioni etivitie AEC that no federally b) Massachusetts g salamander was nt was discovered in stern fenceline.
o AEC is working with eritage FOUdation and tection of these species eritage Foundatio is_
isto conduct project
- ag intheUnited States.)
- 1(AiJi[ietm.;i Ihnit [tpn1U to raq4.Uim m Several resources of cultural an have been affected by decomm most of which are located in th managemegLplan that m dric si ing a(
cance eR at the site; however, none of-these Ds. AA03 report documents these resources,
- laýýAL, 2003). The report also includes a
ýI1 Commission guidelines.
sachu!
3.1.1 3C doe eafteF 4' LL_ -
_L_
T -ý n
1+
22 mplanni 1cl;d-nc
ýPntrih-topq to the
&-.-. '-...? - W, -_ iý4 Z'.
gb-, C6, Ru-i'Ru-ý'Am7-'Gm, aRd-244Gm--AGGGFd+ng4Y-,
-the-W-is-i-plannon and GendUG all final status survey-s-,
rp-le-AGe n-riteria. Moved to end of section ating-The (ab, Feo rity of the site 2170 acres), as of forested, rugC
- he Historical SiteA F utside the industrial area was determined to be non-impacted Ned in Section 2.5 of the LTP. The non-impacted area consists rain that has not been disturbed. This determination is based on sment (YAEC, 2004c) and additional characterization surveys.
)gically-impa
,ýxtending oq ! areas of the site include the industrial area and surrounding open land pproximately 1000 feet from the vapor container (now dismantled). The
ýd areas comprise approximately 30 acres, the majority of which are Page minimally impacted (contain residual radioactivity at levels no greater than a fra(
proposed DCGLs). For a more detailed description of initial radiologica charac impacted area, refer to the YNPS Historical Site Assessment and Sec 2.4 The Historical Site Assessment also identified low levels of ntami the sediments of Sherman Reservoir. This radioactive m Aýwas permitted and monitored radioactive liquid releases. Ch erization radioactive material concentration is a small fraction of propose potentially contaminated sediments are included in the al status*
evaluation.-alF-re lsefi an-VFetpbi elhae O f the ation of the ie LTP.
arily Co-60, in 3s a result of wed the with 6saGhusetts k~elythe PGE-I of the n.itia.
pas re submit o
thei.
After a reve ofe rSeGuio th talar.ateriztion, d
E neieited phe wir, wl e
ongo detected are below risk levels desigiqv it s De baetuent of Environmental Protecmio vitess Characterization Process the dan b
f e
s iy Site characterization activities e tor in two es, initial and continuing. The results of the initial phase were submitt po the I in Ja 2004. After a review of the results of the initial characterization, s nitiatedo phase, which will be ongoing throughout p emainder tecomm ii ies. The results would be used not only toitieds ities, bu nfirm the appropriateness of the radiolo*
te'he dos
.1ad basis for the corresponding DCGLs by media.
Site charact rvysed to determine the nature and extent of radiological contamination pose of the site characterization survey is to:
(1) permit la0 ies; ()dmntaethat iisunlikely that significant quantities~il h
gone undetected at the site after remediation; (3) provi formati the final site survey (i.e., identify survey unit classifications for impact areas); and
.nput to dose modeling (NRC, 2003). Site characterization activi include the co various types of samples, including soil, sediment, water, con e, metal, and su sidues. Surveys and sampling conducted during site ch cterization are ba o knowledge of the plant history and likely areas of contamination.
I ordance with 10 R 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(A), radiological conditions of the site were provided in n 2.0 of the LT he results of sample analyses and the use of the results in identifying nificant radio lides expected to be present after remediation are described in ents 2B C of Chapter 2 of the LTP.
Page YAEC conducted a series of sample analyses using site media believed to repr distribution of radionuclide contaminants, and their decay-corrected iso dis the operational history of the plant. In its technical basis document, Y de method that was used to determine radionuclides that could be presee 2003). The radionuclides include, but are not limited to: 3 1 4C, 54I 7
63, 65
- 60Co, Ni, Zn, 90 r, 9 Nb, 99T, 0 R*U, lmAg, 12 O5, 129 1
ad 155 238 239 241 241 243 E-u, P'u, P'u, 240 u, P'u, Am, C~m, and 24 C se rd and activation products, which are typical of those foun
, pressuriT, These radionuclides are also described in two NRC do. -ents:
N GI "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a ferenc
,essurize Power Station," (Smith et al., 1978) and NUREG/CR-1L*
ived Activa Reactor Materials," (Evans et al., 1984).t o I.
the over bes the (YAEC
,, 58 Co, 59Ni, n, 152 Eu, 154E dlude fissio kpr plants in Based on dose model assumptions (including the expect remediated) YAEC has identified the followinq 22 radiojINIM dose after license termination: 3H, C Fe, Co, 6 Sr, 1 37 cs, 15 2 Eu. 1 54 Eu. 15 5 Eu, 2 3 8 pu, 2 3 9pu, 24 0 Pu, 2 4 1 Pu, 2 4 1Am, 2 4 3c0 these radionuclides would form the basis in plann condL
.nd demonstratina comnliance with the site rel
- h the site will be ntially contributing to the 108mA 125 b 134 Cs s.Atsrvdingly, 1
1status surveys, 3.1.2 Existing Hazardous and (
Chemical Use Over the YNPS plant's operating throughout the industrial area. S maintenance chemicals, fuel, lub and chemicals used for the van trichloroethane, and trisodiupl F surfaces cogain asbestosAlI af-umbE thes g an reactor
- phate) ntaini
!anazai aterials isform*
rd* *materials or chemicals were used water treatment and other ils (including oils containing PCBs),
sding boron, hydrazine, 1,1,1-some of the building structures and ir lead-based paint (ERM, 2004a).
is claslM a small quantity generator of hazardous hlation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, YAEC is nerating over 1,000 kilograms of hazardous wastes per zardous and mixed wastes associated with gulates YAEC's hazardous waste generation and at the site must comply with MaGsihuse MDEP IE
, setts Contingency Plan (MCP) (310 CMR 40.0000), which 3
~ cleanup of oil and hazardous materials releases to soil or water
- )EP Solid Waste Regulatons at 310 CMR 19.000, which regulate the ation of the SCFA and the review of beneficial reuse determination had intendsed to remediate onsite contamination to enable future use of ons, however deed restrictions will be utilized in the remediation of the Page The primary non-radiological contaminant of concern at the site is pol (PCBs). A release of PCB-containing paint chips from the vapor contc containment) into the Sherman Reservoir was discovered in the sprint migrated to the reservoir through the stormwater drainage system. I to remediate some of the storm drain sediments. Addition leanu 2001, including remediation of soils in landscaped areas and Sherman Reservoir and western storm drainage ditch.
in Ssoi beare being remediated toth Gebetvof1..il aso...
,Ply withmeet the requirements of both the M and the Substances Control Act (TSCA)f parts-peFmillion generally to a level of lmilli rams/kil g.
under TSGA 7 YAEC has documented its PCB remedia m in prepared according to MCP requirements: Phase II Co e
L Phase Ill Remedial Action Plan,,,t.&f il detai*.and Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan.
aF he paint chips action was taken ongoing since ments in theens wI twethree-reports Jite Assessment;-a-n4 ipation activities in more Massachusetts and Vermont public health agenc of mercury in fish from the Sherman Reservoir.,
activities is a likely source of the mercury fouM at trace levels in the tissues of fish in the vi the PCBs is likely the PCB-containinq pai hip c is controlling any remaining PCB-contaigffa pain expected. As discussed in Section 3.1AF YAEC contaminated areas of the reservoir_
r the Ed iss' ýd~lý"l due to the presence
,epo o
industrial Additi *
- f. PCBs were detected orm 4,in Outfall. The source of 19&ýIhe reservoir. The licensee Wnronmental impact is rof remediating the PCB-Outfall (ERM, 2004a).
mhe YAEC began an additional site 2003 and identified several are Characterization Status Relp Site Assessent Rort, Groundi which "
t yard;- dioxin rmer near the ISFS the MDEP to f uir characteriz is releas om NR contaM t'ion issues
- j larac ation of ils, groundwater, and sediments in r furth dy. A rding to the June 2004 Site M, 20
- ndn anu**ary 2005 Phase II Comprehensive ntamnin l~water and sediment, as well as oil, wer that required further evaluation.
cussedl ion 3.3.2. Sediment impacts include PCBs, estigations. Soil impacts include low levels of the followinq pacts near parking areas;- PCBs near the transformer lead around the former shooting rangeT and beryllium Ii ischarge structure. YAEC will continue to work with ad demonstrate that the entire site has been adequately he ecessary, according to MDEP regulations. When the site it will remain under state jurisdiction until all nonradiological with the MDEP.
As lussed earlie eu-My. Basement fn~ate groundwat r, mi buildings are being demolished to ground level, and some v,"hp*t Fuel Pool/Ion Exchange Pit, or SPF/IXP) will be removed tsw
)e remediated to meet the DCGLs before they are perforated to elserw. Soils will be used to backfill the basements and other holes.
emolition debris generated from dismantlement activities may be used passes the final status survey or contains no detectable contamination.
te demolition debris would 4-ey will be conducted under a Beneficial Use D) permit from MDEP, which will include a deed restriction and compliance mate Page with MDEP and MDPH requirements for such reuse.wth the approval of theC Macs~ahusetts.
3.2 Land Use YNPS industrial and administrative operations are condu ap 1
land, primarily owned by YAEC but also including prope ned by Section 3.1. The USGen property, consisting of a seg t that extco eastern bank of the Sherman Reservoir, is subject to 01 Gra Con issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environm I Man ment. U to restrict future uses of its property for preservation p s
cept as nece operation of its hydroelectric power plant (ERM, 2004 Approximately 87 acres of the site is dedicated to the lo age (about 2 spent fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the consists of a concrete pad within a fence and a buffe qea vveter rad Rwealth-I 5 acres of liscussedi lentire Dn ad 0 years) of llatoon ISFSI ius.
Transmission lines and two public roads traverse north-south direction approximately 1500 feet Road is approximately 2500 feet from the Pi l direction between the towns of Rowe and oe
- elant, rL l6vest, rL
! boro Road runs in a river. Monroe Hill in a north-south Some farms and a few commercial site exclusively commercial areas within fiv area is the adjacent USGen hydroe situated near the Sherman and ot r
and railroad right-of-way are eacot c
lands and conservation areas a cat river is used for recreation apd I fis le loca-iles ofA site
- /servofalong th ted a t five m ed A n five rJi s ing area. There are no ly industrial property in the 3ciated powerhouses that are eerfield River. The nearest highway south of the site. Several public of the site (YAEC, 1999, 2004a). The ir producing hydroelectric power.
- hii divided into surface water and groundwater. The following haracteristics of each within and around the YNPS site.
rin its immediate vicinity include the Deerfield River, W
.tl ok and an associated tributary, a divertment from Wheeler an the stormwater drainage systems for the eastern and western al
- a. Wheeler Brook and its tributaries flow about 400 to 500 feet a around the south and east sides of the site before Wheeler Brook Reservoir (Framatome, 2003).
s formed by darwming the installation of (Sherman Dam) on the Deerfield is approximately two miles long, a quarter mile wide, and up to 75 feet Page deep along its central channel (Framatome, 2003). The discharge canal, which the Sherman Reservoir, was constructed to receive return water from tje plant'1 processes.
r L harges into ling water Stormwater at the site flows into two systems, the East SF Storm Drain System, draining the eastern and westernsh respectively. The East Storm Drain System dischargej West Storm Drain System discharges to the Deerfield uplands is captured by the Wheeler Brook Divertment.
Brook, which flows into the Sherman Reservoir.
Drain id the West pre Sherm
- r. StormT ie diverthe while the oindeveloj Wetlands on the site are located in several areas andI Sherman Reservoir, Deerfield River, Wheeler Brook, a wetland areas were identified in the two stormwater deti wetlands exist in the southern part of the site. Wetland Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (WEl Town of Rowe Conservation Commission in March 20Z, rder water bodclWh as the ted tributaries. Additional ls at the site. Some isolated W
delineated in an h was approved by the Wastewater Discharges During the plant operation, stormwater, see discharged as wastewaters through seve Storm Drain System (to the river). Curr laboratory or from decommissioning a tiE Discharges are approved under a N al I permit issued iointly by the MDEP d PA and grease, suspended solids, a
-..,_-4 Stormwater Pollution Preventio n (ERM Itfalls y, stor*
.s ard
- cha k
onjiooling water were
'eervoir and the West d astewaters from the ughtree remaining outfalls.
lichusets specific limits for pH, oil 5ires the maintenance of a se discharges are also monitored and d also 04b)._
treated for radiological paramef
- tewAte A temporq radioacýt Discha drainage NPDES per radioactive w stewater Ltory s cwas
- ,cove a d N
otocols and requirements.
g syst nd stores wastewaters received from the rge lin, water is treated and then batch-discharged.
ugh the treatment plant or through the stormwater National PollutiOn Discharge El.. imation System system will be dismantled and disposed of off-site as The auxili support longer j em leing used to supply water from the Sherman Reservoir to smantling activities. The system will be dismantled once it is no I*(YAEC, 2004a).
ded for the!
T fio raeptic systems %
ach fields are lo(
have been in use Wral associated leach fields have been used at the YNPS site.
ýItenerally on the western portion of the site. Three of these leach ice 1978, when two formerly-used leach fields were abandoned in Page Aquifers and Geology)
A The groundwater system at the YNPS site is a product of the geology, and hydraulic conductivity of the rocks, the glacial history, the geomoj hydrology of this area. The YNPS site is located on the ea ide of predominantly on a terrace of the Deerfield River. The te is re a two mile wide glacially-derived river valley where the v alls ris above the river elevation. The YNPS plant is adjacent damme River, Sherman Dam and Sherman Reservoir. The lo gradient Deerfield River is 28.4 feet/mile over a river distance out 3 es at the Sherman Pond to the West Deerfield, Massach ing s 2003).
the petrology and the iire Mountains the east side of 0 feet keerfield,/
from fl tation (I der The local groundwater system is extremely complex, wit top to bottom: -the-stratified drift, glaciolacustrine, andli permeable surficial sands and gravels,10 to 20 feet tl
,th deposits derived from a melting glacier. The glaciolac strine u up to 260 feet thick of glaciolacustrine origin, con
-with m bearing units of fine to medium-grained sand within relativel im ermeable fine-rained s he grained, moderately foliated metamorphic at megacrystals of plagioclase feldspar albi his b Cambrian Hoosac Formation, which is r ively c pe ndwater-bearing units, from stratified drift unit contains
-laid, ice-contact s sediments about ely thin water-lainterspersed unit is a gray, medium-amounts of r member of the Lower fractures (YAEC, 2004e).
be a
Contamination and Monitoring As discussed in Section 3.1.2, N groundwater in 2003 and identif Site Characterization Status R groundwater nd sedimen required fl evaluati to be inj reas include f 1,1-continue the that ground ieena
- iegan itional
-wide characterization of Ieveral as for f er study. According to the June 2004 vt(ERM C),
adiological contamination in II as Ioc of contaminated soil, were identified that adiolog water contaminants identified were found u
Mgesl
- sence of a plume. These contaminants n
PCBs, and petroleum hydrocarbons. YAEC will MDEP to fulfill MCP requirements and demonstrate aracterized and remediated where necessary.
Radiological Radiologic3 1992. C l
These 94, 21 itoriq wel om 1997 thrc abandoned ad prior to 200~
Jient of the RC from 7 to 31 fe the RCA.Th 6ed as folio~
onitoq he YNPS site (excluding monitoring for the onitoM' Program) has occurred since the plant shut down in naonitoring wells are in operation throughout the site.
Is' led in stages, as follows: two in the late 1970s, 15 in 1993-
)Und 17 during the summer of 2003, with 14 of the older wells du omissioninq (demolition) activities. Most of the wells that were a lo ated in the RCA, although a few are either downgradient or A.
11 of the wells installed before 2003 except one are shallow, ranging in elow the land surface. The exception is a 49-foot bedrock monitoring onitoring wells installed during the summer of 2003 contain wells ree in the stratified drift unit, seven in the glaciolacustrine unit, and unit.
Page Groundwater samples have been collected for radiological analysis sir YAEC analyzed the groundwater from wells existing before that time s alpha, gross beta, and gamma spectroscopy. The analytical results f/
groundwater samples from monitoring wells screened primIy in thj indicated that only tritium was present above the minimur*ction,.
tritium concentrations were observed in wells located neA lmediately spent fuel pit and ion exchange pit (SFP/IXP).
ff 19
- 1.
1'til 2003,
- 'tritium, gross
!amples (i.e.,
drift unit)
- l*in. The larget nt of the In 2003, YAEC made several changes to improve site analytical procedures:
'acteri*An and~
- 1. During the summer of 2003, YAEC installed 17 mor characterize the glaciolacustrine and bedrock units m installed additional monitoring wells in 2004 and m*
by MDEP to improve its characterization of these 4 as mentioned above, to atly. YAEC is installing Lore if needed as required ater at the site.
- 2. YAEC began quarterly sampling events in by measuring the groundwater levels in all water samples were collected. YAEC ha from the monitoring wells over a shorten in 2004 owells cit d0 to cc Pampling procedures v hours before any the water samples
- 3. YAEC improved and explained its analyzing for the radionuclides of radionuclides of concern (or see conducted analyses for these *i plant-generated radionuclide 2003 events.
Wytical ern at
)n 3.
3 F YI'JI
). In A
)f concer,
--d in sýd ndwater samples by ble 2-6 of the LTP lists the and November 2003, YAEC and for Mn-54. Tritium was the only les from the July and November vas d The largest flowing froA Dam anglm tritium contaminq repaired in groundwater non-detectaL im conceni erman S
n f 7o rted nin JeE rica at the YNPS site was groundwater which is downgradient from the Sherman
.rfie
. G~roundwater from Sherman Spring had a
)Curies/liter (pCi/L in December 1965. The tritium a stainless-steel liner was installed. Tritium levels in q have steadily decreased over time and have been r rounds.-
Tritium space the s hiQ*
tritiM c
Otime througl area at the tritium concent concentrations %
ciolacustrine uni h
uly iand November 2003, sampling events are variable by drogeologic units at the site. The tritium plume extends from owards Sherman Spring and the Deerfield River, with the Sresent immediately downcqradient of the SPF/IXP.The maximum pproximately 2,000 pCi/L in the stratified drift unit, 45,000,pCi/L in id 6,000 pCi/L in the bedrock unit.
an I Page Potential human health hazards associated with the YNPS site range from poter very low levels of radioactivity in soils and groundwater, to limited area offrelat of radioactivity within the remaining portions of the ctm support structures and systems.
exposure to high levels ad reactor The intent of the final decommissioning activity at the s contamination at the site to meet NRC's unrestricted re criteria of the MDPH and MDEP. After decommissionir termination activities will verify adequacy of the radioloj the final status survey. Unrestricted use of the site is al F"criteria.
ctivities aj I releas ed in,rl ieet the iense FR 20.
A site will be considered acceptable for unrestrictel is distinguishable from background radiation results equivalent] to an average member of the critical groi
[millirem] (0.25 mSv) [milliSievert] per year, includi drinking water, and that the residual radioactivity low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)....
residual radiba'W hat
- [total effective dose not exceed 25 mrem ndwater sources of to levels that are as As planned, the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) T through the application of DCGLs used to m DCGLs in use at the YNPS site were calcu provided in NUREG/CR-5512, Volumes 1 RESRAD Version 6.21 and RESRAD-B E
These dose models translate residual ioý based on select land-use scenarios os group is defined as the group of "
als exposure to residual radioactiviity the and their associated modeling esigneA potential dose.
A ar acti' Id e rc ay limit e achieved at the site auuacy o ediation activities. The mo dels sed on guidance 7, and the computer codes
- 'igenerating the DCGLs.
aradiation doses to the public, identified critical groups. A critical eycted to receive the greatest a given scenario. Such scenarios e, rather than underestimate, vatnto P(
- hways, onably e Bmption overesta YAEC I Massa(
the risk to E mr/)
L(Cun ollow M M.qical site criteria of the Commonwealth of rubblA on-site as fill; 10 mr/yr for the entire site; and
).qical and non-radiological risk as determined by a Risk to 4.0 ENV 4.1 Land YAEC state*
Idn
-oc Ps to releasd federal goverr ped an Americai ition, natural and
,ped. The mana(
rvation (YAEC, A all of the property associated with the YNPS site to local, on-profit entities for conservation purposes. YAEC has I
~ *itle Association survey to document the site's legal boundaries.
It al resources inventories and management plans have been ent plans specify the obligations necessary to preserve the site for
)4b).
ion of tl
- EC license is not reasonably expected to result in any adverse impacts to land use. Soils not meeting the radiological criteria for license termination Page will be removed and disposed of at a licensed facility as low-level radioactive wa most of the YAEC-owned property would be released, except for appro imately containing the spent fuel storage facility and associated buffer zone.
t ac decommissioned.
Land on and directly adjacent to the site is expected to r
n heavily, populated communities in the surrounding area. Recre nal op o i
Deerfield River will likely continue and could increase.
The deed restriction required by the MDEP Solid Was it will requir appro yal by the MDEP for any use of the former indus of the site other recreation, and will prohibit excavations in that area.
Initially,
§e would be cility is lightly I by the pen pasive 4.2 Water Resources Approval of the LTP and eventual termination of the lie'nse arq
- significant impacts to either surface water or grouJ
- r. The criteria must be met as a condition of license te_
nd rele to result in any tion release site.
4.2.1 Surface Water Land areas from which precipitation rui investigation, remediation where necei verify that DCGLs have been met i compliance with the release criteri the MCP surface water requirem YAEC's future license terminati so surface water flow or quality a tchs termination,ptivities.
to sL nry E ordar ther.
fe ie subject to further e final urvey. YAEC will need to
!i ithth Sec n
of the LTP, thus demonstrating EC will d to demonstrate compliance with nradiol cal and radiological contaminants.
be e cted to result in any adverse impact to ase along with other license 5rlt wo disi ount oflleW ious area will be reduced by about 8 acres tation of areas currently occupied by buildings, roads, and
~n sto leave the current stormwater drainages unaltered s that have formed in the drainages. Drainage pipes continue as sheet flow from the drainages into water stem (upqradient supply well) and sewage system will remain maining septic systems (discussed in Section 3.3.1) for em regulations before the property title is transferred.
have been installed and monitored in the vicinity of the site are being conducted on or near wetlands resources. YAEC has o Permit Package to address the regulatory requirements applicable to
!2004d). The activities requiring wetlands-related permits include PCB nissioning of circulating water intake and discharge structures, removal of Page the Southeast Construction Fill Area, implementation of Sherman Dam flood coi and regrading of the site. Additionally, a wetlands restoration plan has keen de*
(Woodlot, 2004) to implement the permit requirements. Further inforrr pncj wetlands activities can be found in the Integrated Permit Package anIn and Replication Plan (Woodlot, 2004).
k
'AA
- measures, ped eerning and Restoration YAEC samples three surface water sites for its Radiolo (REMP) at the YNPS site. The Deerfield River is sam Bear Swamp Lower Reservoir with an automatic samp composited for each month. YAEC also collects mont and from an upstream Deerfield River site at the Harri sites are analyzed for gamma emitting radionuclides, t gamma spectroscopy results for 2003 indicated that no detectable levels of plant-generated radionuclides. Also were slightly greater at the upstream Deerfield River sij 2004d). Based upon these recent data, YAEC states remediation pertaining to plant-generated radionuclides.
FEnvironr downstr~
,ring Progr 9NPS siteA VnI y LV va.U1 10.
VJ W
0 le17s from oir. Sample ree gross beta. Thl m and Laer samples contained beta averages for 2003 ownstream site (YAEC, aters do not require 4.2.2 Groundwater YAEC states that remediation will not lil, meet NRC's license termination criteria unrestricted release criteria when the si the license terminated). If decommiss' concentrations of plant-generated r program at this site should detect existing 39 monitoring wells sho Ii radiologically-controlled area.
use during decommissioning, ne itorir requiremen~kto characteri ntial c dissolved g cround Iuse
- rele,
,qu *und 5r at the YNPS site to HH-cted to meet NRC's a
(
SI is decommissioned and es at t S site increase the issolve e groundwater, the monitoring uroundw r samples from approximately 55the iges in groundwater downgradient from the onitor wells may-be have been abandoned eed to be installed to meet MDEP evel of plant-generated radionuclides nang cate soj hig Ground1 MDPH ar and non-i site uired to meet the dose-based radiological criteria of the V
MDEP Risk Assessment process (for both radioloaical 4.3 Human Comp protec contj lev av
=1.'*
- re**Iuemen*
ated soil, grou Icorresponding t(
e member of the ements of the rull 2 for unrestricted release (and, therefore, human health ent upon successful remediation and/or removal of ncillary contaminated materials, and structures to acceptable dose of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) or less per year) to an il group. In addition, residual radioactivity must meet the ALARA in Sec. 3.
the MDDDD FAEC has also agreed to meet the more restrictive radiologic release id the MDEP.
Page Derived Concentration Guideline Levels YAEC has defined levels of residual radioactivity for various sources to meeting the dose limit. These acceptable levels are defined as thE radiation doses for the bounding exposure scenarios are ch lated fixed concentration level for each of the potential sources idua]l are soil, building surfaces, subsurface partial structures, concretE groups were identified to whom the DCGLs would be a cable: a fjl group (associated with soil, building surfaces, subsurfE partial O
sources) and a building occupancy group (associated the. buffin Fat correspond F Potential ng an average
'LY. The sources o critical tfarmer g surfa The DCGLs for each source were derived using the ral separate dose constraint for each source. Table 4-1 li, each source. Within each critical group, each DCGL w, of the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) dose limit so that the ftr group from all sources would equal the limit.
J ses per unit actiqW a.
sGLs for each radionuclide from correspond to a fraction (average member of that For the resident farmer critical group, the doses c mrem/yr) are:
e inding tb ind totaling 25 subsurface partial structures: 0.005 m (0.
V groundwater: 0.0077 mSv/yr (0.77 mr yr).
concrete debris and soil: 0.2373 mS r (23.7 re In areas that have co-mingled soil oncr t ebris, Y would use the smaller of the two DCGLs for each radionuclide (see b
4-1) d for ar with only soil, YAEC would use the soil DCGLs.
For the building occupancy riti
- group, wo ake a sum-of-fractions approach to ensure that, a member o lic wer ber of the building occupancy critical group an esident f ical gro aI dose would be less than 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/y/
Any actu uld like less than the 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) limit. This is due to the c
-iling and the assumption that the entire source would have residual ah t is more likely that the sources will have residual radioactivity at ss DCGLs.) Provided compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402 Iithrou the results of the final status survey, there would be no anticipat vere uman health from approval of license termination, as described in the onmental i ent for license termination (NUREG-1496) (NRC, 1997a).
Ex re Scenarios T
anner in which t DCGLs are derived for the YNPS site is documented in Chapter 6 of P, Revision 1.
eriving the DCGLs, an adult resident farmer is considered to represent erage membe the critical group. The hypothetical resident farmer is assumed to build on the co
- ated soil (or soil/concrete debris mix), draw water from a well placed
- tiun m
, grow plant food and fodder on the contaminated area, raise livestock on Page the contaminated area, and catch fish from a pond on the contaminated area. T esident farmer scenario is considered the bounding scenario because it embod the test number of exposure pathways, represents the longest exposure durations, an lud e greatest number of sources, of all scenarios envisioned. The DCGLs are sho 4-1.
The NRC will evaluate the appropriateness of the postula posu and the methodology used for deriving the DCGLs as part of its w ofothe RC staffs Safety Evaluation Report will provide the details of this ew.
Survey Design YAEC would use a series of surveys, including the fin urvey, to demon compliance with the radiological release criteria consis e Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (NRC, 1997a). PI he final status survey involves an iterative process that requires appropriate n (on the basis of the potential residual radioactivity levels relative to the D s) lanning using the Data Quality Objective process. YAEC has committed to a integra hat would address the selection of appropriate survey and laboratory nentatio dures, including a statistically-based measurement and sampling iuating the data needed for the final status survey. YAEC ha t it be p ted to modify the classification levels based on new informat*
urin mmis ning process.
/
I Page TABLE 4-1: DERIVED CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE LE LS
- To convert to Bq from pCi, multiply by 0.037.
Subsurface Soil Building Partial Concrete Debi-s Radionuclide
.p./g-Surface (pCilg (d
Structures (pCi/g)
( dp__ _ _ _0 c m_)_
( p C i/ g)i.
H-3 :9.5E+o 1 (cellar holes) 3.5E+02 Q
3.4E+OS 1.35E+02 2.8E+02 (grading)
C-14 S.2E+00 1.0E+07 2.34E-+-03 7.2E÷00 Fe-55 2.SE+04 4.0E+07 1.4E+-02 Co-60 3.SE+00 I.SE+04 3.45E+03 4.3E--00 Ni-63 7.7E+02 3.7E+07 6.16E+04 1.OE+02 Sr-90 1.6E+00 1.4E+05 1.39E+01 7.6E-01 Nb-94 6.SE+00 2.6E+04 7.0E+00 Tc-99 1.3E+-Ol 1.4E+07 6.1E÷O1 Ag-10Sm 6.9E+00 2I5E+04 7.OE00 Sb-125 3.OE+01 1.OE+05 3.1E-0I Cs-134 4.7E+00 2.9E+04 4.7E-÷00 Cs-137 S.2E+00 6-3E+04 1..45E-03 6.7E÷00 Eu-152 9.5E+00 3.7E+04 9.5E-00 Eu-154 9.OE+00 3.4E+04 9.1E +'00 Eu-155 3.SE+02 6.5E+05 3.8E÷02 Pu-238 3.1E+01 5-7E+03 9.5E-00 Pu-239 2.SE+01 5.1E+03 S. 8E00 Pu-241 9.3E+02 2.5E405 1.4E-'02 Am-241 2.SE+01 5.OE+03
- 4. 1E-00 CCm-243 3.OE+01 7.2E+03 4.7EO00 F
Represents a dose of 23.73 nuen,"yr Represenr.t a dose of 25 nueni"vr Represents a dose of 0.5 niemiyr, radicnuctides based upon those found in concrete samples as discussed in Reference 6-11 ENCIES M ERSONS CONSULTED AND SOURCES USED Page A copy of the Environmental Assessment was provided to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on XX,.200-4.
k The NRC staff have determined that the proposed action would not E endangered species or critical habitat designated under th ndangj Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 of daný Likewise, NRC staff have determined that the proposed n woul/
archaeological resources. Therefore, no consultation i quired urq National Historic Preservation Act.
6.0 CONCLUSION
/
The NRC has prepared this EA (ADAMS Accession No.:MLX issuance of a license amendment that would approve th NRC has concluded that there are no significant enviro license amendment does not warrant the preparation an Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of o Sign The documents related to this proposed action le f at NRC's Public Document Room at NRC H e
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Most of t do through our electronic reading room (AD htt 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS C. McKenney, Health Physicist, D" i
of W e Mana e
J. Peckenpaugh, Hydrologist, D' on. of e Man ent C. Schulteject Ma*na ion of ement non-radiolj environ ues.
(X)XXXXX) related to the thebasis of this EA, the and the proposed a Impact Statement.
t is appropriate.
or p Wh
~ection and copying t North, 1555 Rockville ratilable for public review ading-rm/adams.html.
- nt, dose assessment.
, groundwater issues.
and Environmental Protection, J. Thon Final St I PI, on of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, 8.0 LIST OF ALARA CFR DCGL dpm/
if;ode Ne derivedl cm2 disintegr environn Environr Federal ind kil onablyhievable lRegulations on guideline limit I'r minute per 100 square centimeters
- issessment Protection Agency gister survey it spent fuel storage installation termination plan Page MCP MDEP MDPH mrem/
mSv/yr NEPA NRC ORISE PCBs pCi/L PSDAF RCA RCRA TEDE TSCA YAEC YNPS Massachusetts Contingency Plan Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Radiation millirem per year milliSievert per year National Environmental Policy Act Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Edu on Polychlorinated biphenyls picocurie per liter post shutdown decommissioning activit o
Radiologically-controlled area Resource Conservation and Recovery A total effective dose equivalent Toxic Substances Control Act Yankee Atomic Electric Company Yankee Nuclear Power Station
9.0 REFERENCES
10 CFR 20. Code of Federal Regulations, against radiation."
10 CFR 50. Code of Federal Re ulati production and utilization facilities."
10 CFR 51. Code of Federal Re ns, regulations for domestic licensirjld rela for protection I U,
,Title "Domestic licensing of T
10, E tlegulal
,, Part 51, "Environmental protection inctions."
61 FR 392-1996.
A "Decomrr of Nuc
ýactors." Federal Register. July 29, 62 FR I July 21, ic Ifor License Termination. Final Rule." Federal Register.
Review." Federal Register. December 6,1999.
Evans et a August 121 d AcI!tion Products in Reactor Materials," NUREG/CR-3474.
gulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ERMIJ04a. "Baselini Ma rgmement, Boston, ental Report," April 30, 2004. Environmental Resources IE usetts.
lEnvironmental Notification Form," March 31, 2004. Environmental Boston, Massachusetts.
E 2004b, "Expand Furces Managemj 4c, "Sit raracterization Status Report," June 4, 2004. Environmental Resources i,
Page ERM, 2004d, "Integrated Permit Package, Yankee Nuclear Power Environmental Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kennedy and Strenge, 1992. "Residual Radioactive Conta atior NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 1. October 1992. U.S. Nucle ulý Washington, D.C.
Kleinschmidt, 2004. "Post-Decommissioning Grading and St Analysis," August 2004. Kleinschmidt Energy and Wa Resou MASS, 2004. "Certificate of the Secretary of Environ ir, Environmental Notification Form," May 7, 2004, Massa u
r Environmental Affairs, Boston, Massachusetts.
MHC, 2003. Letter, Massachusetts Historical Comm' on to Station Decommissioning, Rowe; MHC#33426," date August 2004.
nmissioning."
- sion, 7Avater Consult s on the ExparI (ecutive Office of inkee Nuclear Power NRC, 1988. "Final Generic Environmental Imr Nuclear Facilities." August 1988. U.S. Nucl9111 nt on thl L*Com mis Irnmissioning of Washington, D.C.
NRC, 1997a. "Generic Environmental Irr Radiological Criteria for License Termini 1496. July 1997. U.S. Nuclear Regulgo Mnt Stý n of I*
y Comj bf Rulemaking on
ýar Facilities." NUREG-n, D.C.
NRC, 1997b. "Multi-Agency Rad NUREG-1575. December 1997.,
Survef!id Site
'NuclgffRegulat' 5stigation Manual (MARSSIM)."
Commission, Washington, D.C.
NRC, 2002. "Generic Environr Facilities. S~p plement De*
2002. NU*k-0586, S1 tal Iml h Dec(
1, U.S Fon the Decommissioning of Nuclear of Nuclear Power Reactors." November ulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
ecommissioning Guidance," NUREG-1757. September be (Rowe) Nuclear Power Station -- Request for ination Plan," dated June 16, 2004.
nnaissance Survey, Archeological Resources Management
~ion,"
November, 2003. Public Archeology Laboratory, Inc.,
0 Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference or Power Station." NUREG/CR-0130. June 1978. U.S. Nuclear Washington, D.C.
Page Woodlot, 2004. "Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Closure Project Wetland R Replication Plan," August 2004. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc., Topsham,
- aine, Environmental Resources Management, Boston, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 1993. "YNPS Decommissioning Environmental Re "De 99 Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2000. "Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activi Report,"
e, from the YNPS Final Safety Analysis Report, Yankee ic Elec om Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2003. "YNPS License Termination Plan," Revi ovember 24, 200 Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
YAEC, 2004a. "YNPS License Termination Plan," Draf ptember Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Rowe, Massachus 3
YAEC, 2004b. "Site Closure Project Plan," RevMarch 3
nkee Electric Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
iration and Yankee 2,2004, Atomic YAEC, 2004c. "YNPS Historical Site )
Company, Rowe, Massachusetts.
)04, 'Wikee Atomic Electric YAEC, 2004d. "Annual Radiological Radiological Environmental Monitor' Yankee Atomic Electric Company YAEC, 2004e. "Hydrogeologic 5
Yankee Atomic Electric Conmpa HR Fronmeg[ Opei
'rogra rffJanuar
., Ma§Vchusetts
)ort," Yankee Rowe Station
- December 31, 2003.
)rt of
- owe, Supp al Investigation" March 15, 2004.
rminati Olassa r'evision 1, November 19, 2004, Yankee ML043240450 Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning," Rev 1.
L Marlborough, Massachusetts.
Page