ML17164A423

Charles B. Schwer Affidavit and Attachment

ML17164A423
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	06/13/2017
From:	Schwer C State of VT, Dept of Environmental Conservation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML17164A418	List: ML17164A419 ML17164A420 ML17164A422 ML17164A423
References
50-271-LT-2, License Transfer, RAS 53892
Download: ML17164A423 (56)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT )

YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY ) Docket No. 50-271-LT-2 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.; )

CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL )

OF TRANSFER OF LICENSE AND )

CONFORMING AMENDMENT )

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))

Affidavit of Charles B. Schwer I, Charles B. Schwer, being duly sworn, depose and state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct:

(1) A true and correct copy of my resume is attached to this affidavit as Attachment A.

(2) In 1990, I joined the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Agency) as a supervis01~ in the Waste Management and Prevention Division (WMPD) of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Currently, I am the Director of the Waste Management and Prevention Division. Before my role as Director, I was the Section Chief of the Sites Management Section of the WMPD.

(3) In my role at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, I have managed or helped manage the Agency's oversight of non-radiological waste management and prevention activities at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) during the plant'_s operation and post-closure.

(4) I have been involved in, and supervise Agency employees who have been involved in, a number of proceedings, comments, and other filings and hearings related to the closure of Vermont Yankee, including the State of Vermont's March 6, 2015 Comments on Entergy's proposed Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR).

(5) On October 17, 2013, Entergy submitted the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Non-Radiological Historical Site Assessment (Non-Radiological Site Assessment).

1

(6) On December 13, 2014 and March 6, 2015, I requested additional information from Entergy about non-radiological waste management activities because the Non-Radiological Site Assessment was significantly deficient. See Attachments B and C. For example, Entergy failed to adequately characterize potentially impacted areas; failed to include a complete list of potentiaUy impacted areas; did not adequately characterize lead in building materials generally; and did not address possible PCB contamination in wire sheathing, caulking, and paints throughout the plant. Attachment C at 3-4.

(7) On March 27, 2015, Entergy responded to the majority of my requests for additional non-radiological site characterization information by stating that Entergy "cannot provide a response to this item until other information becomes available, including the development of site restoration standards ...."

Attachment D (worksheet), at 8-13. Entergy also suggested that the Agency's authority to request additional non-radiological site characterization and other data is preempted by the Atomic Power Act and "intrude[s] impermissibly in the NRC decommissioning process." Attachment D at 3-4.

(8) As of the date of this affidavit, Entergy has not provided the Agency with a complete non-radiologica~ *s ite investigation and characterization report for the Vermont Yankee site.

(9) Instead, Entergy has stated it will delay additional site investigation and characterization activities until nearly t4e end of the SAFSTOR period.

(10) I am familiar with the proposed sale of Vermont Yankee from Entergy to NorthStar Vermont Yankee, LLC (NorthStar). I am also familiar 'with the "Revised PSDAR" that NorthStar submitted to the NRC on April 6, 2017.

(11) NorthStar has stated that it does not intend to do a complete site

_investigation and characterization of non-radiological pollution before purchasing Vermont Yankee.

(12) The lack of a complete non-radiological site investigation and characterization creates significant uncertainty regarding what is required and what it will ultimately cost to clean up non-radiological pollution and complete site restoration. This also means that the Agency is not able to determine at this time whether the work plan and r elated cost estimates for non-radiological clean up and site restoration that Entergy and NorthStar r ely upon in the PSDAR, revised PSDAR, and related filings are sufficient to address non-radiological pollution at the VY site. Because the Vermont Yankee site h as not been fully investigated and characterized for non-radiological contamination, there is a risk of cost overruns.

2

I affirm under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and based upon my personal knowledge this l 2- day of June 2017.

~ er

,')*t~

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this _____.joZ , c.___day of June 2017.

'f&~,-)-\ 'pc£:./2...C \ J/rL

~~1ff --

My commission expires:  :;).

I

\O I

I 19 3

Attachment A Charles B. Schwer 11 White Oak Drive Jericho, VT 05465 802-879-5107 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Division Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), State of Vermont, 2014-present Responsible for the supervision of 7 program managers, managing $23M budget and providing overall direction for Division. This includes the Solid and Hazardous Waste Programs, Underground Storage Tanks, Salvage Yards, and the Site Cleanup Program (Superfund, RCRA, Brownfields, LUST).

Supervisor/Section Chief/Program Manager, Sites Management Section, Waste Management and Prevention Division, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), State of Vermont, 1990-present Duties include supervision of 9-13 technical staff responsible for providing oversight of the investigations and cleanup of over 4,000 hazardous sites; active member of the Division management team working on personnel issues, budgeting, future planning and other key management issues; development, implementation and evaluation of program policies and procedures; coordination with EPA and other state agencies concerning hazardous waste site cleanup issues, management of 6 federal grants of more than $3.0 million and the Vermont Petroleum Cleanup Fund which provides approximately $5.0 million in annual expenditures for the investigation and cleanup of petroleum contamination from both underground and aboveground storage tanks.

Interim Solid Waste Program Manager, Waste Management Division, Department of Environmental Conservation, State of Vermont, August 2006-January 2007 Interim Management of the Solid Waste Program during a challenging transition period. Duties included management of 12 staff and supervisors; participation in solid waste policy, permitting and planning decisions and overall program management. Led and facilitated an internal review of program priorities and structure which resulted in a program reorganization. .

Deputy Chief/Crew Chief, Vermont Hazardous Materials Response Team Member, Department of Public Safety, State of Vermont, 1996-present Team leader of the Department of Public Safetys Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) Response Team.

Team provides emergency response for hazardous material, radioactive and chemical terrorist events. As crew chief, oversee 8 team members from state police, labor & industry, fire service, natural resources and private industry. Responsible for ensuring team members maintain proper training and equipment. Work closely with local fire departments, emergency planning organizations, federal and state agency officials and other first responders when responding and training for hazardous material incidents.

Leadership and Management Training Committee, 2004-present Serve as one of two DEC representatives on the Committee responsible for managing the Agency of Natural Resources Leadership and Management (L&M) Training program. Provide ongoing support of the program and participants by reviewing and approving semi-annual reports of all program participants, and evaluating and implementing program improvements; selecting annual class, organizing annual orientation and graduation. Act as committee liaison/mentor for staff going through the program. Provide guidance, advice and inspiration to L & M mentee.

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTWMO) Region 1 Board of Director, 2014-present Appointed as the Board of Director for ASTWMO representing Regions 1 that provides oversight and leadership focusing on training and policy development of the national waste management issues.

Board member of the Chittenden County Solid Waste District representing Town of Huntington. 1989-2004.

One of 18 board members of the Chittenden Solid Waste Management District, responsible for managing nearly 30% of waste in Vermont. Actively participated in decision related to implementing the state Solid Waste Implementation Plan and siting of a new landfill in Chittenden County.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING Graduate of the Agency of Natural Resources four-year Leadership and Management Training Program. 2001.

40-hour certification - Hazardous Materials Response Technician, 1998.

Ongoing training as a member of the Vermont Hazardous Materials Response Team.

3-day Lean Coordinator Training. 2014.

EDUCATION University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 1986 Masters of Science Degree , Natural Resource Planning, Water Resources St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 1982 Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Geology Graduated Cum Laude.

PUBLICATIONS A Vegetated Filter Strip to Treat Milkhouse Wastewater in Vermont. Journal of Environmental Quality, No. 4, 1989.

Development and Implementation of State Tanks Core Programs ASTSWMO, June 2014.

REFERENCES Carolyn Hoskinson, Director Office of Underground Storage Tanks, US EPA Washington, DC 20460 703-603-7166 Hoskinson.Carolyn@epa.gov Dania E. Rodriguez, Executive Director ASTSWMO 1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 707 Washington, DC 20036 202-640-1061 daniar@astswmo.org Joe Choquette III External Affairs Manager Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC 802-225-5510 jchoquette@drm.com Ron Poltak, Executive Director NEIWPCC 650 Suffolk Street, Suite 410, Lowell, MA 01854 978-323-7929 rpoltak@neiwpcc.org

Attachment B 1 National Life Drive Davis 2 Deborah L. Markowitz Montpelier, VT 05620-3901 Agency Secretary Tel: (802) 828-1294 Justin G. Johnson Fax: (802) 828-1250 Deputy Secretary www.anr.state.vt.us State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources ANR Comments on Entergy Vermont Yankee Site Assessment Study December 2014 Overview On December 23, 2013, the State of Vermont and Entergy entered into a settlement agreement that included a commitment by Entergy to prepare a Site Assessment Study (SAS) of the costs and tasks of radiological decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel management, site restoration of the Entergy Station, and a full assessment of non-radiological conditions at the Station site. The settlement agreement requires Entergy to review and consider any comments provided by the State for inclusion in the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) prior to filing the SAS, any site-specific cost estimate, or the PSDAR with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has reviewed the SAS to prepare comments on the content of this report that fall within the ANRs authority. The ANRs review and comments provided today address the waste issues identified in the SAS regarding non-radiological hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The comments in this document do not address radiological waste issues raised in the report, nor do the comments address asbestos or lead abatement issues as the Vermont Department of Health is the primary regulator of these areas.

The information contained in these Comments includes general comments to the overall content of the SAS (including requests for the production of additional information, records, or data relied upon or referenced in the SAS), and more specific comments relating to a certain section or page of the SAS.

These Comments and requests for additional information represent only ANRs review of the information included in the SAS. ANR expects that Entergy will engage in constructive discussions with ANR staff, the public, and other State agencies to address the ANRs concerns in an efficient and transparent manner. To that end, we have attached a chart of our specific comments (see underlined text that follows) to facilitate Entergys responses to the comments and inclusion of the comments in the PSDAR.

Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation Department of Fish & Wildlife Department of Environmental Conservation Respect. Protect. Enjoy.

Due to the preliminary nature of the SAS and the breadth and complexity of the information presented in the SAS report (being presented for the first time in a comprehensive single source document), ANR reserves the right to modify or add to these Comments in the future. The submission of these Comments shall not limit ANRs rights to otherwise comment or participate in the NRC or any other process, and ANR expressly retains all authority and reserves all rights to take any actions authorized by law, including all appropriate evaluation of toxicological hazards. Nothing in this document shall be interpreted as prohibiting or restricting Entergy from complying with any NRC requirements or other obligations under its NRC license.

I.

GENERAL COMMENT

S ON SITE ASSESSMENT STUDY Use of MARSSIM process The SAS is designed to identify potential environmental issues that could remain at the facility after the power plant ceases energy production operations at the end of 2014. The ANR has no objection to Entergy using the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) guidance even though this process was not developed to evaluate non-radiological environmental issues. In general, the terminology used in and the organization (identifying potentially impacted areas into Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3 areas) of the MARSSIM process helps to organize the issues remaining at the plant. The MARSSIM analysis relies on an iterative process whereby a background study is updated with additional investigation to further characterize the degree and extent of contamination at a site. In this way, this process is similar to other environmental regulations and standards like the ASTM Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Assessment Studies and Vermonts hazardous waste guidance titled Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Properties Procedure.

Underlying information and reports The SAS and Appendix F of the SAS (the Non-Radiological Historical Site Assessment (NRHSA))

reference and rely upon a number of sources of information. These sources include reports related to incidents of non-radiological contamination; the file required by federal regulation 10 C.F.R. 50.75(g) to maintain a record of contamination incidents important to decommissioning; selected inspection reports prepared by American Nuclear Insurers (ANI); company records describing equipment leaks, spills of hazardous materials and an inventory of components containing elemental mercury; the spills database maintained by the Waste Management Division of ANR (Table 1-1); various permits related to environmental regulation of the plant; interviews of current or former long-time plant employees to identify incidents that may not have been documented in plant records; Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation in 2001; and inspection of the site to observe each identified potentially impacted area. Though comprehensive, this list of informational sources is not specific enough to discern what sources may already be in the ANRs possession or the public domain. Additionally, there is no justification provided when only selected reports were analyzed and relied upon. In order for the ANR to conduct a thorough and independent review of the SAS, Entergy should ensure that all records listed above are available to the ANR. ANR should also be 2

provided with a list of employees interviewed for the SAS and either a transcript of the interview or list of questions asked in the event that ANR wishes to conduct its own interviews or respond to the information provided by employees in the SAS (ANR - 1, ANR - 2).

Further characterization of potentially impacted areas The SAS identifies a number of areas potentially and/or actually impacted by chemical contaminants (identified as potentially impacted areas) and states that these areas will be further characterized as

[they] become more accessible during decommissioning to determine the extent to which [they] may have been impacted. Entergy should explain the characterization process in greater detail so that ANR can determine the adequacy of this approach (ANR - 3). The SAS does not indicate what is meant by characterization of a potentially impacted area; what procedure (i.e., what new investigation, sampling, or analysis) will take place to determine whether additional remedial measures or clean-up of a potentially impacted area is needed.

Generator closure requirements and timeline The Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR) include Generator Closure requirements (VHWMR § 7-309(c)) that are not referenced in the SAS plan for site closure and clean-up. Entergy must consider how these requirements pertain to the facility and identify what steps Entergy will take during the post-closure process to comply with these requirements by submitting a comprehensive plan for phased closure of waste handling and storage areas on the site for approval by the Hazardous Waste Program of DEC (ANR - 4).

Underground storage tank systems All underground storage tanks that are removed will be required to follow the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Closure and Site Assessment Requirements, formalized in June, 2010, to ensure a consistent closure process for all tanks on the site (ANR - 5). In addition to other requirements, notification of tank closure must be made at least 5 business days before the date scheduled for closure, and a copy of the report must be sent to the DEC UST Program.

II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON SAS 1.5 Non-Radiological Contaminants On-Site Update of NRHSA (Page 13)

The SAS states that The [Historical Site Assessment] process, as described in MARSSIM, is an iterative process in which knowledge about the site is obtained through records of past events and augmented over time through scoping surveys and characterization surveys. Entergy will periodically update the Non-Radiological HSA as information is gathered. Entergy should specify what process will be used to obtain or update any additional information, and should notify and consult the State and the public with regard to any changes made as the result of additional or updated information (ANR -

3

6). ANR reserves the right to review and comment further on any additional scoping surveys and characterization surveys as they may be performed. ANR also reserves the right to request that additional work be performed at identified potentially impacted areas or at other areas at the facility as further information is obtained or as those areas become more accessible during the decommissioning process.

Identification of potentially impacted areas (Page 15)

The SAS states that, The assessment identified one hundred thirty four (134) areas on or adjacent to the VYNPS site where current or former activities may have resulted in non-radiological impacts potentially significant to the decommissioning effort. This list of potentially impacted areas does not appear to include the petroleum-impacted soils, identified during the 2010 tritium release investigation, that are located roughly 30 feet below ground surface at a location just northeast of the Radiological Waste Building. Entergy should identify the need for any further investigation of this area in the SAS (ANR - 7).

Structural component materials; PCB management (Page 15)

While abatement of areas of the plant where lead-based paint and asbestos are present is overseen by the Vermont Department of Health, Lead and Asbestos Abatement Program, lead waste (including waste resulting from abatement activities) must be tested to determine if it is subject to regulation as hazardous waste under the VHWMR (ANR - 8).

Entergy should also address possible PCB contamination in wire sheathing, caulking, and paints throughout the plant and how these potential hazardous wastes will be handled and managed throughout the decommissioning process (ANR - 9). Note that materials contaminated with PCBs at a concentration of 50 ppm or greater are regulated as hazardous waste under the VT01 listing (see, VHWMR § 7-211).

Finally, devices containing elemental mercury (e.g., mercury switches, thermostats, gauges), batteries, cathode ray tubes and lamps must be managed either as hazardous waste or as universal waste in accordance with Subchapter 9 of the VHWMR (ANR - 10). (Note: the VHWMR are in effect in Vermont in lieu of the U.S. EPA RCRA hazardous waste regulations).

SMAC designated sites (Page 16)

The SAS identifies that two of the Class 1 areas at which petroleum products have been released have been designated by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as Site Management Activities Complete (SMAC) sites. In these cases, institutional controls (primarily notice to land records) were implemented as notification of any remnant contamination left in place due to the area not being currently accessible. In one case, involving a release from a 5,000-gallon underground fuel oil storage tank, petroleum constituents may remain in low concentrations at the site. Once the decommissioning process makes these areas of the site more accessible, Entergy should conduct 4

additional investigation and perform any remedial work required at this site.1 Entergy should submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by the ANR (ANR - 11). Such additional remediation of these SMAC sites may supersede the current notice to the land record with a notice that all of the remnant contamination has been addressed.

Transformers (Page 16)

To ensure that the oil-water separators on site do not contribute to contamination of the surrounding soil or other environmental media, Entergy should conduct further sampling at and around the separators upon their excavation (ANR - 12). At a minimum, one sample should be obtained for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and PCBs. If field observations determine that this area is contaminated, then Entergy should perform further characterization of the area in order to determine the degree and extent of the contamination.

The SAS identifies a fire at the Main Transformer that occurred in June 2004, whereby transformer oil and fire-fighting foam were spread outside of the transformer containment. Entergy should indicate whether any residuals or contaminants of concerns (such as perfluorinated compounds, or PFOAs) from the foam remain on the site that may require clean-up. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation required, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR - 13).

The SAS identifies a leak in the Auto Transformer that occurred within the fenced area of the 345kV switchyard in 2003. The SAS indicates that the spill was remediated by excavation and removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of impacted soil, but that impacted soil may remain beneath the concrete pad on which the Auto Transformer sits. The information included in Table 1-1 indicates that there were two transformer leaks that occurred in 2003 (identified as WMD 136 and WMD 394).

Entergy should clarify which leak is being referenced in this section, and if any additional remediation is needed at the location of the leak (ANR - 14).

Chemistry laboratory (Page 17)

The SAS provides minimal detail of the purpose and historical use of the chemistry laboratory. Entergy should provide additional details such as what materials were tested or analyzed for in the lab; what activities, testing, and analytical methods were conducted in the lab; and what materials (chemicals) were used or managed in the lab (ANR - 15). This information is critical for the ANR to have in order to determine what potential contaminants may have been released as a result of laboratory activities and to ensure that the lab site is properly remediated.

The SAS indicates that no non-radiological contaminants were detected in a 1991 investigation (conducted upon discovery of a leaking sink drain), but that the investigation inquiry was limited in scope due to limited accessibility. Though the SAS indicates that further characterization of the area will be conducted during decommissioning, Entergy should clarify the timing and scope of further 1

This may also be true for the tetrachloroehthylene (PCE) contamination stemming from the former dry cleaning operation at the facility.

5

investigation and what contaminants/chemicals will be sampled or analyzed for in such investigation (ANR - 16).

Former Edsons Gulf (Page 18)

The ANR concurs that the hydraulic lift cylinder and the former floor drain at the former Edsons Gulf site may need further investigation and possible remediation. However, once the garage is no longer used for maintenance activities, Entergy should conduct further investigation into possible releases from these operations, as well as mitigation measures that may be required, if any contamination is identified (ANR - 17).

Table 1-1; Summary of Vermont Waste Management Division Spills Database for Vermont Yankee (Page 19)

Table 1-1 appears to consist of information related to spills that occurred at the facility and that were reported to the DEC. The manner in which the information is presented in the table is confusing and inconsistent with how the information is recorded and maintained by DEC. For instance, DEC identifies reported spills by a Spill Number, which include a reference to the year (i.e., 2014WMD100). However, the table does not include the spill number with an associated year/date, and thus the information included in the table is not presented chronologically. Entergy should recreate this table to include Spill Numbers and order the information in the table chronologically (ANR - 18).

3.2.3 Systems and Equipment Release criteria (Page 29)

The SAS states that debris produced during demolition will be designated for off-site disposal.

Contaminated materials (those that are exceeding the release criteria) will be sent to a controlled disposal facility (or licensed landfill), while non-contaminated materials may be used as scrap or recovery. Entergy should clarify what is meant by contaminated materials in this instance, as well as what is meant by release criteria; whether these are NRC criteria or are yet-to-be determined by either state or federal authorities (ANR - 19). This information is necessary for the ANR to determine and anticipate the potential impact of any non-radiological debris and waste being shipped offsite for disposal and/or for reuse or local recycling.

4.0 Hazardous Materials Remediation (Pages 33-34)

As systems are abandoned throughout the decommissioning process, areas that contain hazardous materials (e.g., oil reservoirs, battery storage areas, tanks) must be assessed for possible releases. At least one sample for analysis should be collected and analyzed to confirm that an area is clean, or alternatively, to identify areas that will require further characterization. The identification of contamination (through visual observation, field analysis, or lab analysis) should prompt further characterization and a determination of whether further remediation is required. Entergy shall submit a work plan as to how it will assess areas for possible releases, including all work to be performed and how sampling will be conducted, for approval by ANR (ANR - 20).

6

5.3 Site Restoration Standards Testing of PCBs (Page 36)

The SAS identifies paints used at industrial sites as the most common source of PCB materials with concentrations of greater than 50 ppm total PCBs in them that would invoke provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Other materials, such as caulking, wire/cable sheathing, and/or any untested oils may also contain PCBs at concentrations of greater than 50 ppm. Entergys plans for remediation of the site should include testing of these materials in order to ensure they do not contain excessive levels of PCBs in them (ANR - 21). As noted above, materials containing PCBs at a concentration of 50 ppm or greater are regulated in Vermont under the VT01 hazardous waste listing (see VHWMR § 7-211).

Future reuse determination (Page 37)

Entergy stated, Entergy will continue to work in good faith to determine in a timely and cost-effective means a set of site restoration standards required and necessary to support future use of the VY property without limitation. As part of this commitment, Entergy should determine future possible uses of the property as early in the decommissioning process as possible, and recommend further site characterization and remediation activities that will be necessary based on the future use (ANR - 22).

The public and appropriate State entities should be consulted in this planning.

APPENDIX F: NON-RADIOLOGICAL HISTORICAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix F of the SAS identifies numerous areas where environmental media may have been impacted by non-radiological contaminants throughout the history of the plant, including areas that may require further characterization and remediation. During the decommissioning and decontamination processes, Entergy should ensure that the following areas and materials are addressed adequately:

Potentially impacted areas (App. F; Page 3)

Entergy should investigate the area outside Radiological Waste Building for possible chlorinated VOCs (i.e., any spills, possible blowdown, drain). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR - 23).

Entergy should investigate all manholes (MH-A, MH-B, and MH-C) and oil/water separators for releases for TPH and PCBs. The 3 storm water outfalls should also be investigated for TPH and PCBs due to possible deposition of these compounds in soils and groundwater stemming from any releases from transformers in the switchyard. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR - 24).

As referenced above, UST removals and AST closures conducted by Entergy must comply with the procedures in the 2010 Underground Storage Tank Closure and Site Assessment Requirements.

7

Specific materials testing (App. F; Page 6-7)

Entergy should test all wiring, caulking and any remnants from foam application in fire-fighting operations for PCBs and PFOAs during the decommissioning process. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR -

25, ANR - 26).

A licensed technician will be required to perform lead abatement per the Vermont Department of Health regulations. Entergy should ensure compliance with these requirements by contacting the VDH Lead and Asbestos Abatement Program specifically (ANR - 27).

Heating Boiler Fuel Oil UST; transformers (App. F; 8-9)

In order to obtain unrestricted closure without implementation of any institutional controls (such as notice to land records), all soils measuring at above 200 mg/kg TPH must be remediated. Entergy should further investigate the presence of VOCs in groundwater measurements that may stem from the former dry cleaning site or the 5,000-gallon UST site; any VOCs measuring above standards must be further assessed and remediated. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation and remediation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR - 28).

Chemistry lab and sink drain (App. F; Page 9)

As referenced above, Entergys characterization of lab drain pipe should include list of chemicals used or otherwise managed in lab so that the ANR will know what chemicals to look for.

Nearby Off-Site Properties Owned by Entergy (App. F; Page 10)

Entergy should engage in further characterization of the dry well and hydraulic lift cylinder during removal at the Former Edsons Gulf (Site No. 93-1485). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional characterization, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR (ANR - 29).

ECS 2001 REPORT The SAS relies, in part, on information from the 2001 Environmental Site Assessment conducted by ECS. The ECS report identifies certain areas that may require further characterization and potential remediation; however, it is unclear whether Entergy has identified the need for further characterization of these sites in its plan for decommissioning and decontamination of the site (as outlined in the SAS).

Entergy should therefore further characterize the following areas during its decommissioning and decontamination process, and should submit a work plan to ANR Entergy for such additional characterization and any required remediation, outlining all work to be performed (ANR - 30):

TPH Areas of Concern (and reported concentrations*):

- North Field (43 to 410 mg/kg);

- South Field (39 to 230 mg/kg); and

- Drainage system of 115Kv switchyard (87 to 250 mg/kg).

8

• Vermonts current residential soil standard for TPH is 200 mg/kg. This standard may be revised in accordance with revisions to EPAs soil standard for TPH.

PCB Areas of Concern (and reported concentrations**):

- MH-A oil (Arochlor-1260 at 11,600 ug/Kg);

- Spare Main Transformer (composite sample at 200 ug/Kg).

• • Vermonts current soil standard for PCBs is 0.22 mg/kg.

Lastly, to be able to conduct a thorough and independent review of the SAS, including information from underlying reports, ANR requests copies of the Appendices from ECS 6/4/2001 report, including Appendix S - Lab Results (ANR - 31).

9

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 1 Underlying information and reports: In order for the ANR to conduct a thorough and independent review of the SAS, Entergy should ensure that the reports and other identified sources of information on which the SAS relies are available to the ANR.

ANR - 2 Underlying information and reports: In order for the ANR to conduct a thorough and independent review of the SAS, Entergy should provide the ANR with a list of employees interviewed for the SAS and either a transcript of the interview or list of questions asked in the event that ANR wishes to conduct its own interviews or respond to the information provided by employees in the SAS.

ANR - 3 Further characterization of potentially impacted areas: Entergy should explain the process for characterization (for potentially impacted areas) in greater detail so that ANR can determine the adequacy of this approach.

1

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 4 Generator closure requirements and timeline: Entergy should consider how Generator Closure requirements (as required by the VHWMR) pertain to the facility and identify what steps Entergy will take during the post-closure process to comply with these requirements by submitting a comprehensive plan for phased closure of waste handling and storage areas on the site for approval by the Hazardous Waste Program of the Department of Environmental Conservation.

ANR - 5 Underground storage tank systems: UST removals and AST closures conducted by Entergy must comply with the procedures in the 2010 Underground Storage Tank Closure and Site Assessment Requirements.

ANR - 6 Update of NRSHA: Entergy should specify what process will be used to obtain or update additional information in the NRSHA, and notify and consult the State and the public with regard to any such changes made as the result of additional or updated information.

2

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 7 Identification of potentially impacted areas:

Entergy should identify the need for any further investigation of any petroleum-impacted soils identified during the 2010 tritium release investigation (located roughly 30 feet below ground surface just northeast of the Radiological Waste Building).

ANR - 8 Structural components; PCB management:

Entergy should test lead waste (including wastes resulting from abatement activities) to determine if the waste is subject to regulation as hazardous waste under the VHWMR.

ANR - 9 Structural components; PCB management:

Entergy should address possible PCB contamination in wire sheathing, caulking, and paints throughout the plant, including how these potential hazardous wastes will be handled and managed throughout the decommissioning process.

ANR - 10 Structural components; PCB management:

Entergy must manage devices containing elemental mercury (e.g., mercury switches, thermostats, gauges, batteries, cathode ray tubes and lamps) as hazardous waste or as universal waste in accordance with Subchapter 9 of the VHWMR.

3

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 11 SMAC designated sites: Entergy should conduct additional investigation and any required remedial work at the area where there was a release from 5,000-gallon fuel oil UST, and where petroleum constituents may remain in low concentrations) (Sites No.

992617). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 12 Transformers: Entergy should conduct further sampling at and around the oil-water separator(s) on-site to ensure that the separators do not contribute to contamination of the surrounding soils or other environmental media. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 13 Transformers: Entergy should indicate whether any residuals or contaminants of concern (i.e., perfluorinated compounds, or PFOAs) from fire-fighting foam used during the 2004 transformer fire remain on-site (and whether they require clean-up). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

4

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 14 Transformers: Entergy should clarify which 2003 leak is being referenced in this section of the SAS (whereby impacted soils may remain), and if any additional remediation is needed at or around this location.

ANR - 15 Chemistry laboratory: Entergy should provide additional details of the historical purpose and use of the chemistry laboratory, such as:

what materials were tested or analyzed for in the lab; what activities, testing, and analytical methods were conducted in the lab; and what materials (chemicals) were used or managed in the lab.

ANR - 16 Chemistry laboratory: With regard to further characterizing the chemistry laboratorys leaking sink drain, Entergy should clarify the timing and scope of further investigation and what contaminants and chemicals will be sampled or analyzed for in such investigation.

ANR - 17 Former Edsons Gulf (Sites No. 93-1485):

Once the garage is no longer used for maintenance activities, Entergy should conduct further investigation into possible releases from operations conducted therein, as well as what mitigation measures may be required (if contamination is identified).

5

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 18 Table 1-1; Summary of WMPD Spills Database for VY: Entergy should include Spill Numbers and order the information presented in the table in a chronological order.

ANR - 19 Release criteria: Entergy should clarify what is meant by contaminated materials and release criteria in this section (and whether the release criteria are NRC criteria or are yet-to-be determined by either state or federal authorities).

ANR - 20 Hazardous materials remediation: As systems are abandoned during the decommissioning process, Entergy must assess areas that contain hazardous materials (e.g., oil reservoirs, battery storage areas, tanks) for possible releases. At least one sample for analysis should be collected and analyzed to confirm that an area is clean, or to identify areas that require further characterization.

The identification of contamination (through visual observation, field analysis, or lab analysis) will prompt further characterization and a determination of whether further remediation is required. Entergy shall submit a work plan as to how it will assess areas for possible releases, including all work to be performed and sampling to be conducted, for approval by ANR.

6

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 21 Testing of PCBs: Entergys plans for remediation of the site should include testing of materials (such as caulking, wire/cable sheathing, and/or any untested oils that may contain PCBs at concentrations of greater than 50 ppm) in order to ensure that these materials do not contain excessive levels of PCBs.

ANR - 22 Future reuse determination: In consultation with the State and the public, Entergy should determine future possible uses of the property as early in the decommissioning process as possible, and recommend further site characterization and remediation activities that will be necessary based on the future use.

ANR - 23 Appendix F: Potentially impacted areas:

Entergy should investigate the area outside Radiological Waste Building for possible chlorinated VOCs (spills, possible blowdown, drain). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

7

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 24 Appendix F: Potentially impacted areas:

Entergy should investigate all manholes (MH-A, MH-B, and MH-C) and oil/water separators for releases of TPH and PCBs. The 3 storm water outfalls should also be investigated.

Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 25 Appendix F; NRSHA: Specific materials testing: Entergy should test all wiring, and caulking for PCBs during the decommissioning process.

ANR - 26 Appendix F; NRSHA: Specific materials testing: Entergy should test all areas where fire-fighting was applied during fire-fighting operations for PCBs and PFOAs. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 27 Appendix F; NRSHA; Specific materials testing: Entergy should ensure compliance with lead abatement requirements by contacting the VDH Lead and Asbestos Abatement Program specifically.

8

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 28 Appendix F; NRSHA; Heating boiler fuel oil UST; transformers: Entergy shall remediate all soils measuring above 200 mg/kg of TPH.

Additionally, VOCs in groundwater measuring above standards from the former dry cleaner and 5,000 gallon UST must be further assessed and remediated. Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation and remediation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 29 Appendix F; NRSHA; Nearby off-site properties owned by Entergy: Entergy should engage in further characterization of the dry well and hydraulic lift cylinder during removal at the Former Edsons Gulf (Site No. 93-1485). Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional characterization, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

ANR - 30 ECS 2001 Report: Entergy should clarify whether the specified areas of concern are addressed in SAS report, and if not, Entergy shall submit a work plan for such additional investigation and remediation, outlining all work to be performed, for approval by ANR.

9

Vermont Yankee SAS / PSDAR Review Comments Reviewing Agency: Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)

Response

Document Section & Description of Comment # Entergy Response Accepted?

Reviewer(s) Comment (Yes / No)

ANR - 31 ECS 2001 Report: Entergy should provide ANR with copies of the Appendices from the ECS 2001 Report, including Appendix S - Lab Results.

10

Attachment C State of Vermont AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Environmental Conservation Waste Management & Prevention Division 1 National Life Drive - Davis 1 Montpelier, VT 05620-3704 (802) 249-5324 FAX (802) 828-1011 March 6, 2015 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7013 0600 0001 3411 4687 CHRISTOPHER WAMSER VERMONT YANKEE 320 GOVERNOR HUNT ROAD VERNON, VERMONT 05354 RE: Request for Information and Records Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28 Mr. Wamser:

The Agency of Natural Resources (Agency) has received information that Entergy has commenced certain non-radiological waste-related deconstruction activities on the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site (the Site). Commencement of this work may conflict with the Agencys regulatory requirements, including requirements governing closure of the Site. The Agency requests that you provide the information in the attached Information Request. The Agency is issuing this request after consultation with EPA, Region 1, and pursuant to the Agencys authorities to require generators of non-radiological hazardous waste to furnish information related to such wastes, and to inspect and copy records, reports, information, and test results for purposes of ensuring compliance with and enforcing standards and regulations promulgated pursuant to its authority under 10 V.S.A. chapter 159. See 42 U.S.C. § 6927; 10 V.S.A. § 6609. The Agency reserves the right to supplement or modify this request for information at any time.

This request supplements and restates the Agencys request for information submitted to Entergy on December 13, 2014, as a part of the Agencys comments on Entergys October 2014, Site Assessment Study. The December 13 request sought additional information regarding Entergys anticipated non-radiological waste-related activities planned for the Site, as well as Entergys overall plan for investigation and remediation of non-radiological waste contamination on site or discovered during the post-closure period. See ANR Comments on Entergy Vermont Yankee Site Assessment Study, December 2014 (submitted with Vermont Department of Public Service submission of December 13, 2014 re:

Comments on the Entergy SAS and PSDAR). As stated in its prior request and reemphasized herein, this information is critical to the Agencys ability to fully and independently evaluate Entergys plan for non-radiological clean-up and restoration of the Site, and to ensure that any non-radiological waste management activities are conducted in a manner that is protective of the environment and public Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury

March 19, 2015 Page 2 of 2 health. To be clear, the Agency is not seeking to regulate any decommissioning or radiological activities at the Site.

The Requested Information is Necessary to Ensure Entergys Compliance with 10 V.S.A.

chapter 159 and Applicable Non-Radiological Waste Regulations and Procedures The request is consistent with Entergys commitment in the December 2013 Settlement Agreement to conduct all activities in Vermont, including at VY Station site, in accordance with federal and state laws. The Site is a complex site with a legacy that includes a variety of non-radiological waste-related activities that fall under the Agencys authority in 10 V.S.A. chapter 159 and regulations promulgated thereunder. Additional non-radiological waste-related activities proposed during the post-closure period will also be governed by these Agency authorities. Without a full understanding of Entergys plan to address non-radiological contamination on the Site or that is discovered during the post-closure period, the Agency cannot ensure that Entergys non-radiological waste activities are conducted in compliance with Vermont laws, regulations, and procedures designed to ensure protection of the environment and the public health. Moreover, the Agency cannot approve of any non-radiological waste-related clean-up or restoration activities absent this information.

The Requested Information is Necessary to Ensure Entergys Achievement of Site Restoration Standards The State of Vermont retains jurisdiction over restoration of the Site. As part of its obligations to the State, Entergy is required to work in good faith with the Agency (and Departments of Public Service and Health) to determine and achieve overall site restoration standards that are necessary to support use of the site property without limitation. By commencing non-radiological waste-related activities without prior notification to the State and without submitting necessary information of Entergys non-radiological waste-related activities, the States ability to negotiate site restoration standards and oversee work performed to meet such standards is severely compromised.

For the reasons above, the Agency requests that you submit the information set forth in the attached Information Request in accordance with the specific instructions included therein within 14 calendar days of your receipt of this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 249-5324.

Sincerely, Chuck Schwer, Director Waste Management & Prevention Division cc: Michael Twomey, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Vice President of External Affairs Joseph Lynch, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Manager of Government Affairs Bill Glew, Esq., Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Daniel Dorman, Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1 Jeffry Fowley, Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Christopher Recchia, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service Dr. Harry Chen, Commissioner, Department of Health Mr. Perry Plummer, Director, New Hampshire Department of Safety Mr. John Giarrusso, Jr., Nuclear Preparedness Manager, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MARCH 6, 2015 INFORMATION REQUEST AUTHORITY The Agency of Natural Resources (Agency or ANR) hereby serves the following Information Request upon Entergy pursuant to the Agencys authority to require generators of non-radiological hazardous waste to furnish information related to such wastes, and the Agencys authority to inspect and copy records, reports, information, and test results for purposes of ensuring compliance with and enforcing its standards and regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 6927; 10 V.S.A. § 6609. The Agency requests that Entergy answer this request and deliver its answers and all requested documents and materials to the Agencys offices at One National Life-Davis 2, Montpelier, Vermont 05620-3901, as soon as possible, but in no case later than fourteen calendar days of receipt of this request.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

1. For each request, please reproduce the request being responded to before the response. Provide two complete hard copies of your responses and an electronic copy of your response on disk.

Provide two complete copies of all documents produced. All spreadsheets and computer data should also be provided on disk.

2. This request shall be deemed continuing. Please change, supplement, and correct your answers to conform to all information as it becomes available, including the substitution of actual data for estimated data. Responses to requests for information covering a period not entirely in the past (or for which complete actual data are not yet available) should include all actual data available at that time and supplementary data as it becomes available.

3. To the extent possible, please organize and label your responses to correspond with the paragraph number to which they are alleged to respond. With respect to each document produced by you, please identify the person who prepared the document and the date on which the document was prepared.

4. Your submittals containing information requested should include the following signed and dated certification: I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all enclosed documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.

5. The following definitions shall apply to the following terms as those terms appear in this information request:

a. Activities means activities regulated by the Agency pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 159 and any of the regulations promulgated thereunder.

b. Agency means the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

Regional Offices - Barre/Essex Jct./Rutland/Springfield/St. Johnsbury

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 2 of 7

c. The terms and and or shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively, as necessary, to bring within the scope of this request any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.

d. Documents means any written, recorded, computer-generated, or visually or aurally reproduced material of any kind in any medium in your possession, custody, or control, or known by you to exist, including all originals, all prior drafts, and all non-identical copies.

e. Generator closure means the removal of all non-radiological hazardous waste and hazardous materials from the Site, the cleaning of buildings to allow for safe reuse, the remediation of any non-radiological environmental releases or contamination, and the clean-up and/or removal of equipment such as tanks, non-radiological hazardous waste generating equipment, and non-radiological hazardous waste management units.

f. Hazardous material shall have the meaning provided in VHWMR § 7-103.

g. Hazardous waste means those wastes identified as hazardous wastes under subchapter 2 of the VHWMR.

h. The term identify means:

i. with respect to a natural person, to set forth: the persons full name, the persons present or last known employer (include full name an address), and the persons current title, position, or business; ii. with respect to a corporation, partnership, or other business entity (including a sole proprietor), to set forth: the entitys full name, address, and affiliation with the individual and/or company to whom/which this request is addressed.

i. Material or materials means any and all non-radiological objects, goods, substances, or matter of any kind, including hazardous and solid wastes.

j. SAS means the Entergy Vermont Yankee December 2014 Site Assessment Study.

k. Site means the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site located in Vernon, Vermont.

l. VHWMR means the Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

m. Waste means a non-radiological material that is discarded or is being accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically or biologically treated prior to being discarded or has served its original intended use and is normally discarded or is a manufacturing or mining by-product and is normally discarded.

n. The term you, your or Entergy shall mean Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and shall include any officer, manager, employee, contractor, trustee, successor, assign, and agent of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

2

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 3 of 7 WORK ACTIVITIES COMMENCED ON SITE TO-DATE

1. Identify, fully describe, and provide all documents that refer or relate to non-radiological waste-related deconstruction activities that commenced on Site after December 29, 2014, through and including the date of your response to this request. The response shall include:

a. Identification of all buildings, facilities, infrastructure, and other areas of the Site where non-radiological waste-related deconstruction activities are occurring or have occurred;

b. A summary of all such activities that have been completed on Site as of the date of this letter, to include:

i. Identification of all non-radiological waste materials generated; ii. The method and location of disposition of any shipment of non-radiological waste materials removed from the Site; and iii. The dates on which these activities occurred;

c. A summary and current status of all non-radiological waste-related deconstruction activities that are ongoing at the Site.

2. Identify each person, corporation, partnership, or other business entity (including sole proprietors) that is or has been charged with or is otherwise responsible for performing, managing, or overseeing Site non-radiological waste-related deconstruction activities. This response shall include:

a. For each Entergy employee, the persons name, job title, duties, qualifications, and contact information;

b. For each corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other business entity acting as a consultant or contractor for such activities, the entitys name, the scope of the entitys work performed or to be performed on Site, the entitys internal organizational chart, and contact information for the entitys operations on the Site.

INCORPORATION AND RESTATEMENT OF AGENCYS DECEMBER 2014 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

3. Identify, fully describe, and provide all documents that refer or relate to the requests for specific information in the Agencys comments on the December 2014 Entergy SAS. This response shall include:

a. All reports and other identified sources of information on which the SAS relies, as requested in ANR - 1;

b. A list of all employees interviewed by Entergy for the SAS, and either a transcript of the interview or a list of questions posed to each employee as requested in ANR - 2; 3

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 4 of 7

c. A detailed description of Entergys process for further characterization of potentially impacted areas as requested in ANR - 3;

d. A closure plan that identifies how Entergy will implement generator closure of the Site in accordance with the requirements for non-radiological materials in VHWMR § 7-309(c),

as requested in ANR - 4. This plan shall include the following components:

i. An overview of how Entergy will implement a phased approach to implementing and achieving closure of the Site in accordance with VHWMR § 7-309(c),

including the identification and scope of each phase of the closure process, and a detailed schedule for completion of Site closure activities for each phase; ii. The specific proposed actions to be taken during each defined phase of the closure process to achieve generator closure of the Site, to include, at minimum, specific actions identified for:

1. All non-radiological hazardous waste accumulation, handling, and storage areas;

2. All areas where non-radiological hazardous materials were used;

3. All raw product storage areas where non-radiological hazardous materials were stored prior to use;

4. All containers, tanks, piping, equipment, liners and bases that have been in contact with non-radiological hazardous waste or non-radiological hazardous materials;

5. Each location on Site where spills or releases of non-radiological hazardous waste or non-radiological hazardous materials are known or are suspected to have occurred; and

6. All floor drains (even if previously sealed), tanks and associated piping, underlying containment systems (including septic systems) and associated piping; iii. A summary of all non-radiological hazardous waste managed at the Site (referencing appropriate waste codes), and all non-radiological hazardous waste generating processes that have occurred on Site; iv. A detailed description of sampling of equipment, structures, or environmental media generated during non-radiological Site closure activities, proposed off-site disposal or decontamination of such equipment, structures, and media;

v. A detailed description of the plan for dismantling of pipes, vents, tanks, or other equipment encompassed in the plan, noting additional procedures required to 4

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 5 of 7 assess, and if necessary, remediate the areas for non-radiological contamination where this equipment is currently located; vi. A detailed description of the planned management, characterization, and disposal of closure-generated non-radiological wastes, including a description of all new non-radiological hazardous wastes likely to be generated by the closure process; vii. A sampling and analyses plan to include all non-radiological waste sampling methods and equipment, sample handling, preservation, shipping, and chain-of-custody procedures; and analytical methods used to evaluate samples; and viii. A detailed description of the anticipated future use of the Site or portions of the Site (if known).

e. The process to be used to obtain or update additional information in Entergys Non-Radiological Historic Site Assessment, and how the State and members of the public will be notified and consulted of such changes, as requested in ANR - 6;

f. A detailed description of the need for any further investigation of soils that have been or may be impacted by petroleum identified during the 2010 tritium release investigation, and include the justification for the conclusion, as requested in ANR - 7;

g. A work plan for identification and management of lead waste identified on the Site (including such wastes resulting from any abatement activities) as requested in ANR - 8, to include specific sources of actual or suspected lead contamination, and ultimate disposition of any lead waste encountered on Site;

h. A work plan for identification and management of PCB contamination or waste identified on the Site, to include management of any PCBs in wire sheathing, caulking, paints, or other materials, as requested in ANR - 9;

i. A work plan for additional investigation and necessary remedial work at the area where there was a release from a 5,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank (UST), and where petroleum constituents may remain (Sites No. 99-2617), as requested in ANR -

11.

j. A work plan for further sampling at and around the oil-water separator(s) on the Site to ensure that the separators do not contribute to the contamination of surrounding soils or other environmental media, as requested in ANR - 12.

k. A work plan for additional investigation to determine whether any residuals or contaminants of concern (including PCBs and PFOAs) remain on Site as a result of fire-fighting foam application, as requested in ANR - 13 and ANR - 26.

5

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 6 of 7

l. Information clarifying which 2003 leak is referenced in Section 1.5 of the SAS (whereby impacted soils may remain), and if any additional non-radiological remediation is needed at or around this location, as requested in ANR - 14.

m. A detailed description of the historical purpose and use of the Site chemistry laboratory, including what activities, testing, and analytical methods were conducted in the lab; and what materials and chemicals were used or managed in the lab, as requested in ANR -

15.

n. A detailed description of the timing and scope of further investigation of the chemistry laboratorys leaking sink drain, to include a list of the non-radiological contaminants and chemicals that will be sampled or analyzed for, as requested in ANR - 16;

o. A work plan for investigation and remediation of any releases from operations conducted in the Former Edsons Gulf garage (Sites No. 93-1485) once the garage is no longer used for maintenance activities, as requested in ANR - 17;

p. Clarification of what is meant by contaminated materials and release criteria in Section 3.2.3 of the SAS, as requested in ANR - 19.

q. A work plan for investigation of areas that contain non-radiological hazardous materials (e.g., oil reservoirs, battery storage areas, aboveground storage tanks, and other systems) that are abandoned during the decommissioning process for possible releases, to include a plan for sampling and analyses to identify areas that will require further characterization, as requested in ANR - 20;

r. A detailed description of further non-radiological site characterization and remediation activities that will be necessary based on the designated future use of the Site, as requested in ANR - 22;

s. A work plan for additional investigation and necessary remedial work at the area where the former dry cleaner operated at the facility, including characterization and remediation of any contaminated soils and groundwater that was impacted by perchloroethylene released from this dry cleaning operation, as requested in ANR - 23;

t. A work plan for the additional investigation of all manholes (MH-A, MH-B, and MH-C) and oil/water separators for releases of TPH and PCBs, to include all work activities to be performed, as requested in ANR - 24.

u. A work plan for additional investigation and remediation of all soils contaminated with TPH, as requested in ANR - 28.

v. A work plan for additional characterization of the dry well and hydraulic lift cylinder during removal at the Former Edsons Gulf (Site No. 93-1485) to include all work activities to be performed, and associated timelines, as requested in ANR - 29.

6

ANR Request for Information March 6, 2015 Page 7 of 7

w. A work plan for additional non-radiological investigation and remediation of any areas of concern referenced in the ECS 2001 Report that are not specifically addressed in the SAS, as requested in ANR - 30; and

x. Copies of the Appendices from the ECS 2001 Report, including Appendix S - Lab Results, as requested in ANR - 31.

7

Attachment D

• =:=a Entergy March 27, 2015 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL & EMAIL Chuck Schwer Director Waste Management & Prevention Division Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive-Davis 1 Montpelier, VT 05620 Re: Request for Information and Records, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station License No. DPR-28

Dear Director Schwer:

Attached please find the response of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ("Vermont Yankee") to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources' ("ANR") March 6, 2015 Request for Information and Records ("RFI"), which Vermont Yankee received on March 10, 2015.

Consistent with your email of March 23, 2015 to Joseph Lynch, which is attached as Attachment A, ANR granted a three-day extension of the 14-day deadline contained in the RFI, allowing Vermont Yankee to respond by today's date.

Vermont Yankee appreciates that extension, as well as the opportunity to meet with your Staff on March 19, 15 to the RFL Vermont Yankee's is that that meeting represents the

Attachments Enclosures cc: T. Michael Twomey, Vice President of External Affairs, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Joseph Lynch, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Bill Glew, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Timothy Ngau, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Kelli M. Dowell, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Susan H. Raimo, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Daniel Dorman, Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Jeffry Fowley, Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Region I Dr. Harry Chen, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health Perry Plummer, Director, New Hampshire Department of Safety John Giarrusso, Jr., Nuclear Preparedness Manager, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2

Lynch, Joseph R From: Schwer, Chuck <Chuck.Schwer@state.vt.us>

Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:08 PM To: Lynch, Joseph R

Subject:

RE: Meeting Follow-up & Request for Additional Time EXTERNAL SENDER. DO NOT click links if sender is unknown. DO NOT provide your user ID or password.

Joe - Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I was off on Friday and am just catching up now. We really appreciated the opportunity to sit down with you and discuss our concerns with the VY decommissioning. We appreciate that our information request is fairly extensive and understand how Entergy would benefit greatly for a few additional days to provide the Agency a more complete and comprehensive response to our letter. We will grant you an extension to Friday, March 27th, 2015.

I look forward to receiving your response on Friday.

Chuck Department of Environmental Conservation Chuck Schwer, Division Director Waste Management and Prevention Division 1 National Life Drive - Davis 1 Montpelier, VT 05620-3704 New telephone number: 802-249-5324 chuck.schwer@state.vt.us From: Lynch, Joseph R [1]

Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:09 PM To: Schwer, Chuck

Subject:

Meeting Follow-up & Request for Additional Time Importance: High Good Afternoon Chuck, I want to thank Richard, Steve and you very much for meeting with us yesterday at your offices in Montpelier to discuss the March 6th, 2015, Request for Information and Records letter and to establish expectations and points of contact for 1

future interactions. I thought the meeting was extremely productive and an excellent first step in working collaboratively on near and long term work at Vermont Yankee within your Divisions oversight.

Our team is working on the response to the letter and would benefit greatly for a few additional days to provide the Agency a more complete and comprehensive response to the questions contained in your letter.

I would appreciate greatly if I can request an extension to Friday, March 27th, 2015 as some of the information requested relies upon outside resources and to allow us more time to provide a schedule for those items that are not readily available by the original response date of Tuesday, March 24th (14 days after receipt of the letter).

I would appreciate your response and decision by e-mail or letter as to ensure I have a reference to document granting this additional time.

Please feel free to contact me on my cell phone (number listed beloe0w) if you would like to discuss this request or have any questions.

Thanks and regards, Joe Joseph R. Lynch VY Government Affairs Manager - EWC (802)-258-4107 (Work)

(508)-728-1421 (Cell) jlynch4@entergy.com This e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than a designated addressee is unauthorized. If you are not a designated recipient, please delete this e-mail from the device(s) on which you received it.

2

GOODWIN I PROCTER Elise N. Zoli 617.570.1612 Goodwin Procter LL P Counselors at Law ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Exchange Place Boston , MA 02109 T : 617.570.1000 F: 617.523.1231 March 27, 2015 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL VIA E-MAIL Chuck Schwer Director Waste Management & Prevention Division Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1 National Life Drive-Davis 1 Montpelier, VT 05620 Re: Request for Information and Records, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, License No. DPR-28

Dear Director Schwer:

On behalf of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC ("Vermont Yankee"), this correspondence addresses the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources' ("ANR") March 6, 2015 Request for Information and Records ("RFI"), which Vermont Yankee received on March 10, 2015. See Letter from Chuck Schwer to Christopher Wamser (Mar. 6, 2015), at 2 (requesting response to RFI "within 14 calendar days of [Vermont Yankee's] receipt of this letter" (boldface type omitted)). Vermont Yankee appreciated meeting with your staff on Thursday, March 19, 2015 to discuss the contents ofthe RFI and to address specific questions on the issues contained within and believes this was a positive first step in collaborating on issues affecting the non-radiological clean-up or remediation of the site (also called "site restoration"). At that meeting, Vermont Yankee requested an extension of the 14-day deadline due to the voluminous nature of and extensive effort required to address the RFI. Although we are disappointed that ANR declined Vermont Yankee's request for an appropriate extension of the time within which to respond to the 47 separate requests (including sub-parts) in the RFI at the meeting, we do appreciate the three-day extension that you subsequently granted to Vermont Yankee. See Attachment A, Email from Chuck Schwer to Joseph Lynch (Mar. 23, 2015).

Vermont Yankee remains committed to appropriate and timely coordination with ANR Staff with respect to site restoration activities, consistent with the December 23, 2013 Settlement Agreement

("Settlement Agreement"), to which Vermont Yankee and ANR are parties. That said, as set forth below, we believe that the RFI is inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement and the parties' intentions with respect to site restoration activities, as contemplated by more than a decade of Vermont Public

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chuck Schwer March 27, 2015 Page 2 Service Board ("PSB") orders and memorialized in various agreements between and among Vermont agencies and Vermont Yankee. We are likewise concerned that the RPI necessarily involves ANR in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") decommissioning process for the Vermont Yankee site.

For all of these reasons, Vermont Yankee respectfully suggests that ANR reconsider the RPI and instead continue to work together collaboratively with a goal of providing additional information required by ANR and establishing a framework for the yet to be determined site restoration standards.

Site restoration, as that term has been employed with respect to Vermont Yankee since 2002, is designed to encompass and in fact encompasses Vermont state authority regarding the non-radiological remediation and release of the Vermont Yankee site, including all applicable Vermont authority identified in the RPI. See, e.g., June 13, 2002 PSB Order, Docket 6545, at 32129 ("ENVY will comply with all state requirements regarding site restoration and has committed to full site restoration following decommissioning, unless it reuses the site. Tr. 4/1/02 at 130-32 (Wells); exh. DPS-42 at 113 and 9.");

Site Restoration Trust Agreement§ l.Ol(dd) (defining "Site Restoration" as "restoration of the site in accordance with Site Restoration Standards," expressly "exclud[ing] activities required in order to meet the NRC's criteria for Decommissioning"); id. § l.Ol(gg) (defining the "Site Restoration Standards" to be employed in satisfaction of Vermont law). In other words, Site Restoration in compliance with Site Restoration Standards (as certified by the PSB, id. § l.Ol(i)) represents the parties' agreed-upon mechanism for conducting non-radiological site restoration under Vermont law. The mechanism for ANR's participation is good faith and cost-effective negotiation of site restoration standards pursuant to the Settlement Agreement 18.

The Settlement Agreement is also explicit about the schedule for conducting Site Restoration: Site Restoration occurs only after the NRC decommissioning process has been completed. See Settlement Agreement 18 ("As used in this agreement, the period of 'site restoration' applies only to the period of time after radiological decommissioning has been completed to the satisfaction of the NRC."); id. 19

("EVY shall commence site restoration ... promptly after completing radiological decommissioning.");

Memorandum of Understanding Among Entergy, Vermont Public Service Board, and ANR dated Dec.

23, 2013 ("Memorandum of Understanding"), 115-6 (repeating statements concerning sequencing of site restoration made in 118-9 of the Settlement Agreement); Public Service Board Order dated Mar. 28, 2014, Docket No. 7862 ("PSB March 2014 Order"), at 831220 ("Site restoration costs and activities are not governed by NRC regulations, as they come after license termination and are outside the scope of the NRC definition of decommissioning." (emphasis added)); id. at 88-89 (referring to "site restoration after decommissioning," restoration "after closure and decommissioning," Vermont Yankee's commitment "to commence site restoration ... 'promptly' after completing radiological decommissioning," and the "agreement to promptly commence site restoration after the completion of radiological decommissioning"). The RPI requests the development of information and documents, including a "further characterization," a "closure plan," "further investigation," and numerous "work plan[s] ," see RPI, Nos. 3(c-d, f, g-k, o), that is in tension with the understandings reflected in the various

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chuck Schwer March 27, 2015 Page 3 orders and agreements since 2002, the schedule established in the Settlement Agreement, and most notably the Settlement Agreement's requirement to negotiate site clean-up standards.

The coordinated approach to non-radiological remediation during radiological decommissioning/license termination followed by Site Restoration activities is not only what has been agreed to, it is the only approach that makes sense. The comprehensive NRC decommissioning process will likely take decades to complete under the SAFSTOR decommissioning method that Vermont Yankee has selected. The details of the plan for completing that decommissioning remain under development. See Site Assessment Study at 41, 49 Table 8-1. Decommissioning will result in the removal of structures, known hazards and quantities of soil, which will address much of the non-radiological remediation needs as well. The successes at other decommissioning sites depended upon this approach that coordinated license termination activities required by NRC with non-radiological remediation to achieve conditions needed for Site Restoration and Closure. Until the NRC process is at the very least developed (and perhaps until it has been implemented), there can be no credible purpose, nor benefit, to detailed planning for the subsequent Site Restoration activities, including the remediation of the non-radiological conditions that by then simply may no longer exist.

Thus, while Vermont Yankee agreed to prepare a Site Assessment Study ("SAS") addressing non-radiological considerations in the Historical Site Assessment ("HSA"), a copy of which has been provided to ANR, the SAS was intended to be a factual depiction of the conditions at the site at the time of issuance and not a detailed plan for the eventual actions to address those conditions. See Settlement Agreement ,r 6. 1 Vermont Yankee further agreed to begin discussing the Site Restoration Standards that will be employed during the future site restoration process. See id. ,r 8 ("Following completion of the site assessment study [the parties] shall work in good faith to determine in a timely and cost-effective manner overall site restoration standards .... " (emphasis added)); Memorandum of Understanding ,r 5 (same). While the benefits of setting Standards for an effort that is not expected to commence for years might be questioned, Vermont Yankee remains committed to what it hopes will be a reasonable, evolving discussion consistent with the Settlement Agreement - one that is sensitive to NRC's and ANR's roles and the timeframes involved.

We are further concerned that the RFI reflects an effort by ANR to intrude impermissibly in the NRC decommissioning process. 2 The Settlement Agreement reflects NRC's primacy with respect to the site 1

As the Site Assessment Study underscores, non-radiological conditions were comprehensively characterized in 2001 under ANR' s oversight, and in any event are typical of an industrial facility . Thus, even if the site were not undergoing a comprehensive, NRC-directed decommissioning, on-site conditions are limited and present little cause for concern. This dynamic is the basis, in part, for ANR' s limited involvement at this phase of the process.

2 To avoid such inappropriate intrusion, "EPA Office of Solid Waste's policy is to encourage regional and State program implementers to coordinate RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] cleanups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subject to EPA ' s corrective action authority." Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 5 (2002).

GOODWIN I PROCTER Chuck Schwer March 27, 2015 Page 4 decommissioning. Within this context, ANR's effort in the RFI to force the development of documents that unavoidably relate to the NRC process, including by demanding a "closure plan" and numerous "work plan[s]," see RFI, Nos. 3(d, g-k, o, q-w), encroaches on preempted space. See, e.g., Boeing Co. v.

Movassaghi, 768 F.3d 832, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing that a state lacks authority, including under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), to regulate the federal government's efforts to conduct radiological decontamination of a site); Brown v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp., 767 F.2d 1234, 1240-42 (7th Cir. 1985) (recognizing that States also cannot regulate removal of waste, which comprises radiological and non-radiological materials that are intermixed or inseparable); Missouri v.

Westinghouse Elec., LLC, 487 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1086-88 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (holding that federal preemption precluded entry of a consent decree purporting to allow a State to regulate the removal of either radiological waste or mixed radiological and non-radiological waste from the site of a decommissioned nuclear power plant). Indeed, despite ANR's disclaimer of intent "to regulate any decommissioning or radiological activities at the Site," it is hard to see how an RFI with a 14-day return date demanding extensive detail about plans for Site Restoration that will not occur for years is not an effort by ANR to interject itself into the ongoing decommissioning process regulated by the NRC. 3 Consistent with the above, we respectfully request that ANR continue the productive discussions begun at the March 19 meeting and, in the spirit of that meeting, work collaboratively with our technical staff to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of ANR's concerns. In the interim, Vermont Yankee hereby responds in Attachment C to the RFI requests with such information as is now available. Vermont Yankee notes, however, that a response to many of the requests contained in the RFI will require substantially longer time periods before a response can reasonably be expected, e.g. , because they are contingent on the outcome of future, NRC-driven events. Further, and consistent with the discussion above of Vermont's agreed-upon role in site restoration, Vermont Yankee appropriately limits its initial responses and provision of documents to non-radiological matters, and declines to respond to the extent that any of the requests call for a response or documents related to radiological matters. See also Letter from Chuck Schwer to Christopher Wamser (Mar. 6, 2015), at 2 ("Tobe clear, the Agency is not seeking to regulate any decommissioning or radiological activities at the Site."). Consistent with that approach, and with clarification provided by ANR Staff at the March 19 meeting, in interpreting the RFI 3

Certainly, ANR' s refusal to grant more than a three-day extension of time to respond to the RFI is hard to understand as anything other than an exercise in brinksmanship - to assert authority for its own sake, rather than to approach the long-term radiological decommissioning and subsequent site restoration process in a coordinated and collaborative manner. Providing extensions is a normative regulatory response for sites with neither the complexity nor timeframes contemplated here, and federal courts take into account the reasonableness of the time afforded to respond to the RFI in assessing any penalty to be imposed. See, e.g., United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc., 642 F. Supp. 329, 332 & 334 n.4(D . Mass. 1986)

(noting that EPA required a response to its RFI relating to defendant landfill under the analogous provisions of the federal RCRA within 30 days, and that "[t]he reasonableness of the time afforded to the defendants is a factor to be considered in assessing the penalty"); In re Mun. of Catano Dep't ofTransp. & Pub. Works, No. RCRA-02-2006-7116, 2007 WL 1933123,

,r 17 (E.P.A. Apr. 17, 2007) (noting that EPA required a response within 30 days to its RFI relating to municipal used oil generator facility); see also United States v. Livola, 605 F. Supp. 96, 98 (N.D. Ohio 1985) (noting that EPA granted a 20-day extension to respond to its RCRA RFI relating to defendant's landfill).

GOODWIN IPROCTER Chuck Schwer March 27, 2015 Page 5 requests, Vermont Yankee also understands references to the "SAS" in certain requests to refer to the non-radiological HSA attached to the SAS. These qualifications also are reflected in Vermont Yankee' s responses in Attachment C, as appropriate.

Again, Vermont Yankee appreciates your time and attention to this matter, so that we may come to agreement about the most reasonable way to proceed. Please do not hesitate to contact Chris Wamser if you have any questions.

Elise N. Zoli ENZ Enclosures cc: Christopher Wamser, Site Vice President, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

T. Michael Twomey, Vice President of External Affairs, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Joseph Lynch, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Bill Glew, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Timothy Ngau, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Kelli M. Dowell, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Susan H. Raimo, Esq., Entergy Services, Inc.

Daniel Dorman, Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Jeffry Fowley, Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Region I Dr. Harry Chen, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health Perry Plummer, Director, New Hampshire Department of Safety John Giarrusso, Jr. , Nuclear Preparedness Manager, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

VERMONT YANKEES RESPONSES TO MARCH 6, 2015 RFI REQUESTS Request Response (or Reasons Why a Response Cannot Be Provided at this Time)

1. Identify, fully describe, and provide all Since shutdown, seven structures on the site documents that refer or relate to non- were identified as candidates for early removal:

radiological waste-related deconstruction activities that commenced on Site after 1) Power Uprate Building (modular office December 29, 2014, through and including building removed in sections for salvage) the date of your response to this request. . . .

2) Maine Yankee Building (Domed post and beam structure disassembled for salvage)

3) Rotor Building - Demolished and debris removed from site

4) On-Site Storage Container (OSSC)

Structure - Demolished to slab, debris remains on site and will be sent for off-site disposal as Green is Clean (debris will be assessed by vendor and disposed of as clean waste or exempt quantity radioactive waste.

5) Tan Modular Building - modular office building demolished and debris removed from site to clean landfill in Vermont.

6) Pipe Storage Building - demolition preparations in progress. Contractor has option of dismantling for reuse or demolition in place.

7) South Warehouse - demolition to slab in progress, debris will be removed from site to clean landfill in Vermont 7a) Two underground storage tanks (UST) located adjacent to the South Warehouse on the north side were removed as part of the demolition preparations. The USTs have installed Veeder Root monitoring systems that were powered from the Warehouse. The cost benefit analysis indicated it would be more cost effective to remove the tanks than to repower the Veeder Root monitoring. The tanks were not required to support dormancy conditions and

would have required either abandonment in place or removal. A closure report pertaining to the USTs has been transmitted to ANR on March 10, 2015.

For each of the structures identified above, a hazard assessment was conducted by a trained and qualified employee and it was determined no hazardous waste resided in the structures.

National Environmental Standards for Hazardous Air Emissions (NESHAPS) notifications were provided to U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 1 and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation in accordance with Federal and State Regulations. The USTs were removed by a licensed contractor that notified the State in accordance with regulations and has prepared and will transmit a closure report.

Copies of these NESHAPS and of the UST closure report that was transmitted to ANR on March 10, 2015 are enclosed.

2. Identify each person, corporation, With regard to request 2(a), during the meeting partnership, or other business entity on March 19, 2015, Vermont Yankee and ANR (including sole proprietors) that is or has been Staff agreed to designate single points of charged with or is otherwise responsible for contacts regarding questions associated with the performing, managing, or overseeing Site early demolition activities. Vermont Yankee non-radiological waste-related deconstruction has designated Mr. Joseph Lynch as the single activities. This response shall include: point of contact. Mr. Lynchs contact information and experience are summarized

a. For each Entergy employee, the persons below.

name, job title, duties, qualifications, and contact information; Joseph R. Lynch Manager - Government Affairs

b. For each corporation, partnership, sole Entergy Vermont Yankee proprietor, or other business entity acting as a 320 Governor Hunt Road consultant or contractor for such activities, Vernon, VT 05354 the entitys name, the scope of the entitys Office: 802-451-3160 work performed or to be performed on Site, Mobile: 508-728-1421 the entitys internal organizational chart, and Email: jlynch4@entergy.com contact information for the entitys operations on Site. Mr. Lynch has worked at two other nuclear decommissioning projects in New England with responsibilities for the oversight of physical 2

decommissioning at Connecticut Yankee and was Site Closure Director at the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station in Massachusetts. It was at that site Mr. Lynch work in collaboration with the State of Massachusetts and the agencies with jurisdiction over site restoration and closure.

The corporations and other business entities responsible for the relevant activities are listed below, along with the address, telephone number and scope of work for each:

Bernie LaRock and Son Construction Inc.

1266 Coolidge Highway Route 5 Guilford, VT 05301 Justin LaRock or Rocky LaRock (802) 254-4222 Scope - Provide demolition preparation and demolition services for Tan Modular Building, South Warehouse, and Pipe Storage Building.

No internal organization chart available.

Triple T Trucking 437 Vernon Road Brattleboro, VT 05301 Norman Mallory (802) 254-5388 Scope - Haul and dispose of demolition debris associated with the structures identified as scope for Bernie LaRock and Son Construction Inc.

No internal organization chart available.

DB Environmental Consulting PO Box 815 Brattleboro, VT 05302 David Balk, P.G., R. S. - (802) 258-0630 Scope - Removal of one 500 gallon and one 1000 gallon underground storage tank previously used for storage and dispensing of diesel fuel for site equipment and vehicles. No internal organization chart available.

David Manning, Inc.

103 Frost Place Brattleboro, VT 05301 David Manning - (802) 258-3962 Scope - Subcontractor to DB Environmental 3

Consulting. No internal organization chart available.

Renaud Brothers Construction 283 Forth Bridgeman Road Vernon, VT 05354 Mike Renauld - (802) 257-7383 Scope - Deconstruction for reuse of the Power Uprate Building and the Maine Yankee Building. Demolition of the Rotor Building and the On-Site Storage Containers (OSSC). No internal organization chart available.

3(a). All reports and other identified sources Based on discussions with ANR Staff on of information on which the SAS relies, as 3/19/2015, Vermont Yankee understands that requested in ANR - 1. the references requested by this RFI request were for the Non-Radiological Historical Site Assessment, and not the Site Assessment Study.

Those documents are as follows:

1) Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Environmental Compliance Services, Inc., June 4, 2001. This document was previously provided to ANR Staff during a VY Decommissioning Workshop conducted in 2014; the Appendices are provided consistent with Vermont Yankees response to RFI request 3(x).

2) NUREG-1575 Rev.1, MULTI-AGENCY RADIATION SURVEY AND SITE INVESTIGATION MANUAL (MARSSIM),

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, U. S.

Department of Energy, and U. S. Department of Defense, August, 2000, available at www.nrc.

gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/

sr1575. Vermont Yankee respectfully directs ANR to where it may be downloaded from the NRCs website, rather than providing it in hard copy.

3) Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Operating Procedure OP 2106, Rev. 33: Oil and 4

Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention and Control. Due to the confidential or otherwise sensitive nature of Vermont Yankees internal policies and procedures, Vermont Yankee does not enclose copies of them, but instead will make them available for ANR to inspect on-site upon request.

4) NEI 09-14 Rev 3, GUIDELINE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF UNDERGROUND AND PIPING INTEGRITY, Nuclear Energy Institute, April 2013, available at pbadupws.nrc.

gov/docs/ML1313/ML13130A322.pdf.

Vermont Yankee respectfully directs ANR to where it may be downloaded from the NRCs website, rather than providing it in hard copy.

5) SEP-UIP-VTY Rev 5, VERMONT YANKEE UNDERGROUND COMPONENTS INSPECTION PLAN, Entergy Nuclear Engineering Programs, November, 2013. Due to the confidential or otherwise sensitive nature of Vermont Yankees internal policies and procedures, Vermont Yankee does not enclose copies of them, but instead will make them available for ANR to inspect on-site upon request.

6) UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLOSURE AND SITE ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Waste Management and Prevention Division, June, 2010. Because this document is authored by ANR and therefore already within its possession, Vermont Yankee does not enclose it.

7) INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Waste Management and Prevention Division, April 5, 2012. Because this document is authored by ANR and therefore already within its possession, Vermont Yankee does not 5

enclose it.

8) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Reports of Properties Off-Site from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Due to the confidential or otherwise sensitive nature of Vermont Yankees internal policies and procedures, Vermont Yankee does not enclose copies of them, but instead will make them available for ANR to inspect on-site upon request.

3(b). A list of all employees interviewed by Vermont Yankee interprets SAS as used in Entergy for the SAS, and either a transcript of this request to refer to the non-radiological HSA the interview or a list of questions posed to attached to the SAS.

each employee as requested in ANR - 2.

Consistent with the NRCs Safety Conscious Work Environment policy, and to encourage employees to raise concerns, it is Vermont Yankees policy and practice to protect the identity of employees raising nuclear, environmental, or industrial safety concerns. It would be inconsistent with these policies and practices to publicly identify by name the individuals interviewed to support preparation of the Radiological and Non-Radiological Historical Site Assessments. In lieu of providing the interviewees names, a list of their job titles as well as the list of standard interview questions are provided below.

Interviewees:

Former Senior Operations Training Instructor Former Probable Risk Assessment Engineer Former Senior Radiation Protection (RP)

Technician Former Plant Health Physicist, RP Superintendent, and RP Support Supervisor Former Chemistry Manager Former Senior Plant Mechanic Former Senior System Engineer - Mechanical Former System Engineer - Balance of Plant Mechanical Current Senior Project Manager Former Maintenance Services Superintendent 6

Former Environmental Scientist/Biologist Former Mechanical Maintenance Technician Former Chemistry and Health Physics Engineer Former Welder (2)

Former Licensed Reactor Operator Former Assistant Plant Manager/ Reactor Engineer/Operations Supervisor/Planning, Scheduling & Outage Manger Former Senior Environmental Specialist Interviews consisted of the following information/questions:

Date of Interview Name of Interviewee Name of Interviewer

1. What is/was your job title/position?

2. During what span of years have you worked or did you work at this site?

3. How many years have/did you work with radioactive materials, petroleum products, and/or chemicals?

4. Can you identify any locations/areas/buildings of known use or storage of radioactive materials, petroleum products or chemicals that are now used for something else?

5. Did your standard operating procedures address disposal of radioactive materials or waste? Are you aware of any disposal or incineration of radioactive material onsite or if radioactive waste was transferred to an industrial landfill as non-radioactive trash?

6. Describe what would happen if radioactive, petroleum products or chemical incident occurred. Whom would you tell? What special procedures would have been implemented?

7

7. Do you recall any instance of broken or leaking tanks, pipes or any other contamination incidents or accidents?

8. Are you aware of any studies/reports that may have identified contaminated areas on or off-site?

9. Are you aware of any chemical use/storage/spills/releases involving any type of solvents or fuels?

10. Are there any other individuals you feel should be interviewed regarding any of the above items?

11. What areas would you concentrate on if you were conducting a radiological or non-radiological close out survey of the site?

12. Are you aware or have you heard of any area or areas outside the protected area where radioactive material or non-radioactive chemicals were used, stored, or disposed of?

13. Can you think of anything else that needs to be addressed during the decommissioning process?

14. Additional notes and comments:

3(c). A detailed description of Entergys Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to process for further characterization of this item until other information becomes potentially impacted areas as requested in available, including the development of site ANR - 3. restoration standards, which have not yet been negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont.

3(d). A closure plan that identifies how Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to Entergy will implement generator closure of this item until other information becomes the Site in accordance with the requirements available, including the development of site for non-radiological materials in VHWMR § restoration standards, which have not yet been 7-309(c), as requested in ANR - 4. . . . negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont.

3(e). The process to be used to obtain or At the time of additional characterization, 8

update additional information in Entergys Vermont Yankee will assess the results of the Non-Radiological Historic Site Assessment, characterization samples/surveys and determine and how the State and members of the public if the data collected during the characterization will be notified and consulted of such changes, efforts warrants publishing a revision to the as requested in ANR - 6. Non-Radiological HSA. Vermont Yankee will update the Non-Radiological HSA at its sole discretion and is not committing to any fixed periodicity for the updates. When it determines that an update to the Non-Radiological HSA is appropriate, Vermont Yankee anticipates the process will include providing a draft preview of the Non-Radiological HSA to ANR prior to making the revised document available to the public on the vydecommissioning.com website.

3(f). A detailed description of the need for Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to any further investigation of soils that have this item until other information becomes been or available, including the development of site may be impacted by petroleum identified restoration standards, which have not yet been during the 2010 tritium release investigation, negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of and include the justification for the Vermont.

conclusion, as requested in ANR - 7.

3(g). A work plan for identification and Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to management of lead waste identified on the Site this item until other information becomes (including such wastes resulting from any available, including the development of site abatement activities) as requested in ANR - 8, restoration standards, which have not yet been to include specific sources of actual or negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of suspected lead contamination, and ultimate Vermont.

disposition of any lead waste encountered on Site.

3(h). A work plan for identification and Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to management of PCB contamination or waste this item until other information becomes identified on the Site, to include management available, including the development of site of any PCBs in wire sheathing, caulking, restoration standards, which have not yet been paints, or other materials, as requested in negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of ANR - 9. Vermont.

3(i). A work plan for additional Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to investigation and necessary remedial work at this item until other information becomes the area where there was a release from a available, including the development of site 5,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage restoration standards, which have not yet been tank (UST), and where petroleum constituents negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of may remain (Sites No. 99-2617), as requested Vermont.

in ANR - 11.

9

3(j). A work plan for further sampling at Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to and around the oil-water separator(s) on the this item until other information becomes Site to ensure that the separators do not available, including the development of site contribute to the contamination of restoration standards, which have not yet been surrounding soils or other environmental negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of media, as requested in ANR - 12. Vermont.

3(k). A work plan for additional Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to investigation to determine whether any this item until other information becomes residuals or contaminants of concern available, including the development of site (including PCBs and PFOAs) remain on Site restoration standards, which have not yet been as a result of fire-fighting foam application, negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of as requested in ANR - 13 and ANR - 26. Vermont.

3(l). Information clarifying which 2003 leak Section 1.5 of the SAS includes a subsection is referenced in Section 1.5 of the SAS entitled Main, Spare Main, Auxiliary, and Auto (whereby impacted soils may remain), and if Transformers (pp. 16-17). The 2003 event any additional non-radiological remediation is described in this section occurred in the Auto needed at or around this location, as requested Transformer located in the 345 KV switchyard.

in ANR -14. The Non-Radiological HSA discusses this event on Page 9 where it is stated, A leak in the Auto transformer occurred in 2003. The spill was remediated by excavation and removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of impacted soil.

However, inaccessible impacted soil may remain beneath the concrete pad on which the Auto transformer sits. The 345 KV transformer yard was sold to Vermont Electric Power Co. (VELCO) in May 2009 and the equipment in the yard (including the Auto transformer) remains in service as part of the 99 year lease agreement between Vermont Yankee and VELCO. Detailed characterization will be performed in this portion of the site when VELCO removes the 345 KV switchyard from service permanently.

3(m). A detailed description of the historical The site Chemistry laboratory has been used to purpose and use of the Site chemistry analyze process fluids from various plant laboratory, including what activities, testing, systems. The primary analysis method used is and analytical methods were conducted in the ion chromatography, which uses small amounts lab; and what materials and chemicals were of base or weak organic acid as eluent to release used or managed in the lab, as requested in analytes from the stationary phase. Analysis of ANR - 15. various process streams for metals, both soluble and insoluble, has been conducted by inductively-coupled plasma optical emission 10

spectroscopy, which uses an acid matrix to digest and process the sample. The last major analysis type performed in the chemistry lab is boron measurement via a titration methodology using base and mannitol. Wastes from all these analyses are put into the plant liquid radiological waste system for processing. Radiochemical detection of gamma-emitting isotopes is performed on the water samples collected without use of any chemical additives, and therefore the samples themselves go into the waste stream after analysis. Radiochemical detection of beta-emitting isotopes uses a cocktail that is disposed of in solid waste after analysis and is not put into the liquid waste stream.

Various other chemicals are used in small quantities for investigational purposes or new methods development and do not constitute a significant portion of the normal waste from the chemistry lab. There are no chemicals currently in use that contain preservatives that contain mercury or other toxins. Given that the sample matrix for almost all samples analyzed by our technicians is water of varying degrees of purity, no chemicals that are toxic and susceptible to bioaccumulation are needed for analytical purposes. Only water and water-soluble chemicals are disposed of through the chemical lab liquids waste stream for processing and reuse in plant systems.

3(n). A detailed description of the timing Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to and scope of further investigation of the this item until other information becomes chemistry laboratorys leaking sink drain, to available, including the development of site include a list of the non-radiological restoration standards, which have not yet been contaminants and chemicals that will be negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of sampled or analyzed for, as requested in ANR Vermont.

- 16.

3(o). A work plan for investigation and Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to remediation of any releases from operations this item until other information becomes conducted in the Former Edsons Gulf garage available, including the development of site (Sites No. 93-1485) once the garage is no restoration standards, which have not yet been longer used for maintenance activities, as negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of 11

requested in ANR - 17. Vermont.

3(p). Clarification of what is meant by The terms contaminated materials and contaminated materials and release criteria release criteria, as quoted in Request No. 3(p) in of the RFI and in ANR Comments on Vermont Section 3.2.3 of the SAS, as requested in ANR Yankee Vermont Yankee Site Assessment Study

- 19. dated December 2014 (ANR-19), do not appear in Section 3.2.3 of the Site Assessment Study.

However, as used in other sections of the Site Assessment Study, these terms are intended to refer, respectively, to radiologically contaminated materials and radiological release criteria. For example, both terms appear in Section 3.2.4 of the SAS in regards to the removal and disposal of plant components of which the majority of components in the Radiologically Controlled Area are considered potentially contaminated but can be surveyed for unrestricted release from radiological controls.

Examples of these types of materials would be electrical breakers and control cabinets.

3(q). A work plan for investigation of areas Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to that contain non-radiological hazardous this item until other information becomes materials (e.g., oil reservoirs, battery storage available, including the development of site areas, aboveground storage tanks, and other restoration standards, which have not yet been systems) that are abandoned during the negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of decommissioning process for possible Vermont.

releases, to include a plan for sampling and analyses to identify areas that will require further characterization, as requested in ANR

- 20.

3(r). A detailed description of further non- Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to radiological site characterization and this item until other information becomes remediation activities that will be necessary available, including the development of site based on the designated future use of the Site, restoration standards, which have not yet been as requested in ANR - 22. negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont.

3(s). A work plan for additional investigation Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to and necessary remedial work at the area where this item until other information becomes the former dry cleaner operated at the facility, available, including the development of site including characterization and remediation of restoration standards, which have not yet been any contaminated soils and groundwater that negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of was impacted by perchloroethylene released Vermont.

12

from this dry cleaning operation, as requested in ANR - 23.

3(t). A work plan for the additional Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to investigation of all manholes (MH-A, MH-B, this item until other information becomes and MH-C) and oil/water separators for available, including the development of site releases of TPH and PCBs, to include all restoration standards, which have not yet been work activities to be performed, as requested negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of in ANR - 24. Vermont.

3(u). A work plan for additional Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to investigation and remediation of all soils this item until other information becomes contaminated with TPH, as requested in ANR available, including the development of site

- 28. restoration standards, which have not yet been negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of Vermont.

3(v). A work plan for additional Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to characterization of the dry well and hydraulic this item until other information becomes lift cylinder during removal of the Former available, including the development of site Edsons Gulf (Site No. 93-1485) to including restoration standards, which have not yet been all work activities to be performed, and negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of associated timelines, as requested in ANR - Vermont.

29.

3(w). A work plan for additional non- Vermont Yankee cannot provide a response to radiological investigation and remediation of this item until other information becomes any areas of concern referenced in the ECS available, including the development of site 2001 Report that are not specifically restoration standards, which have not yet been addressed in the SAS, as requested in ANR - negotiated by Vermont Yankee and the State of

30. Vermont.

3(x). Copies of the Appendices from the ECS See Enclosures. Vermont Yankee in this 2001 Report, including Appendix S Lab response has limited its production to those Results, as requested in ANR - 31. Appendices which pertain to non-radiological matters. Thus, for example, Vermont Yankee does not provide Appendix S of the ECS 2001 Report, which is entitled Laboratory Results of Radiological Analyses. If Appendix S is still required as part of your review, a copy will be provided upon request.

13