April 15, 2004

ALL AGREEMENT AND NON-AGREEMENT STATES

NRC IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EPA-NRC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

(STP-04-026)

On October 9, 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

on "Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated

Sites." (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2002/mou2fin.pdf). Under

the MOU, EPA agrees to continue its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA) deferral policy of not listing sites on the National Priorities List that

are subject to NRC’s licensing authority. The MOU also expands EPA's deferral to sites for

which the NRC license is terminated and certain criteria are met. Specifically, the MOU

provides that unless an NRC-licensed site exceeds any of three trigger criteria, EPA agrees to a

policy of deferral to NRC decision-making on decommissioning without the need for

consultation. 

The three criteria provided in the MOU are: 

 Radioactive groundwater contamination above EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels; 

 Radioactive soil concentrations exceeding the values provided in Table 1 of the MOU; and 

 License termination under either the restricted release or alternate criteria provisions of

10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. 

For NRC sites that meet or exceed the above criteria, the MOU provides that the NRC will

consult with the EPA. Before license termination, the NRC will continue to require sites to meet

the criteria in 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, which are fully protective of public health and safety. NRC

will not require licensees to remediate sites to the MOU trigger values.

For sites that trigger the criteria in the MOU, NRC will consult with EPA at two points in the

decommissioning process: 1) prior to NRC’s approval of the license termination plan (LTP) or

decommissioning plan (DP), which NRC terms Level 1 consultation; and 2) following completion

of the final status survey (FSS), which NRC terms Level 2 consultation. Although the NRC’s

plan for consulting with EPA calls for the initial Level 1 consultation to occur early in the

decommissioning process, at the time the MOU was signed, NRC had several sites which were

in the latter stages of the decommissioning process. Because these sites already had

approved DP/LTPs, the next opportunity to consult with EPA would be a Level 2 consultation

following the completion of the FSS. NRC determined that it was in the spirit of the MOU to

notify the EPA of these sites that could possibly require a Level 2 consultation in the future. 

This third category of communication under the MOU is termed Notification.
STP-04-026 - 2 - April 15, 2004

To date, NRC has issued the enclosed notification letters to the EPA for Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company’s Haddam Neck Plant in Haddam, Connecticut; the Kirtland Air Force

Base site in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the Saxton site in Saxton, Pennsylvania. 

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (301) 415-3340

or the individuals named below:

POINT(S) OF CONTACT: Patricia Eng, STP Derek Widmayer, NMSS

TELEPHONE: (301) 415-7206 (301) 415-6677

INTERNET: PLE@NRC.GOV DAW@NRC.GOV 

Sincerely,

/RA/

Paul H. Lohaus, Director

Office of State and Tribal Programs

Enclosures:

As stated
STP-04-026 - 2 - April 15, 2004

To date, NRC has issued the enclosed notification letters to the EPA for Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company’s Haddam Neck Plant in Haddam, Connecticut; the Kirtland Air Force

Base site in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the Saxton site in Saxton, Pennsylvania. 

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (301) 415-3340

or the individuals named below:

POINT(S) OF CONTACT: Patricia Eng, STP Derek Widmayer, NMSS

TELEPHONE: (301) 415-7206 (301) 415-6677

INTERNET: PLE@NRC.GOV DAW@NRC.GOV 

Sincerely,

/RA/

Paul H. Lohaus, Director

Office of State and Tribal Programs

Enclosures:

As stated

Distribution:

DIR RF DCD (SP03) PDR (YES)

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML041070033.wpd *See previous concurrence.

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE STP STP:DD NMSS STP: D

NAME PLEng:gd:kk JMPiccone

(CHMaupin for)

JGreeves PHLohaus

(JMPiccone for)

DATE 04/15/04* 04/15/04* 04/14/04* 04/15/04

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
March 5, 2004

Mr. Michael Cook, Director

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE CONNECTICUT

 YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY’S HADDAM NECK SITE 

Dear Mr. Cook:

This letter is intended to notify you of the decommissioning oversight actions that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken and intends to take for the Connecticut

Yankee Atomic Power Company’s Haddam Neck site (Haddam Neck). 

On October 9, 2002, the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on “Consultation and Finality on

Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites.” Under the MOU, EPA agreed

to continue its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

deferral policy of not listing sites on the National Priorities List that are subject to NRC’s

licensing authority. The MOU provides that, unless an NRC-licensed site exceeds any of three

trigger criteria contained in the MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC

decision-making on decommissioning without the need for consultation. 

For sites that trigger the criteria in the MOU, NRC will consult with EPA at two points in the

decommissioning process: (1) prior to NRC’s approval of the license termination plan (LTP) or

decommissioning plan (DP), which NRC terms Level 1 consultation; and (2) following

completion of the Final Status Survey (FSS), which NRC terms Level 2 consultation. Although

the NRC’s plan for consulting with EPA calls for the initial Level 1 consultation to occur early in

the decommissioning process, at the time the MOU was signed NRC had several sites which

were in the latter stages of the LTP/DP process. Since these sites were further along in the

decommissioning process, the next opportunity to consult with EPA would be a Level 2

consultation following the completion of the FSS. 

This letter is to notify you of the existence of one of these sites. This letter is not considered a

Level 1 consultation because this site already has an approved license termination plan.

However, the NRC believes it is in the spirit of the MOU to notify the EPA of sites which could

possibly require a Level 2 consultation in the future, and were already well into the

decommissioning process at the time the MOU was signed. 

The Haddam Neck Site

The Haddam Neck site is located on the east bank of the Connecticut River, approximately 21

miles south-southeast of Hartford. The plant, a 1825-megawatt (thermal) reactor, began power

operation on August 7, 1967. After 19 operation cycles and over 7750 effective full power days,

(ML040560250)
Michael Cook -2-

1

 The EA is available in NRC’s electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html (ML022670351). Also available in NRC’s electronic reading room are EPA’s June 24,

2002, comments on the EA (ML021900332) and NRC’s September 27, 2002, response to

EPA’s comments (ML022530460).

the plant was shut down on July 22, 1996. On December 5, 1996, the licensee certified

permanent cessation of operations. The Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report

(PSDAR) was submitted August 22, 1997, in which the licensee elected to pursue active

decommissioning. In April 1999, decontamination and dismantlement activities began,

consistent with the PSDAR. Subsequently, the licensee submitted a LTP on July 7, 2000. NRC

completed its review of the LTP on November 25, 2002. Major components have been

removed, including the steam generators, pressurizer, and reactor vessel. 

Since the Haddam Neck site already has an approved LTP, the general time period for having a

Level 1 consultation has passed. However, the approved LTP for this site contains derived

concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) for 20 radionuclides, which are provided in the enclosed

table. The DCGLs for 15 of these radionuclides exceed the MOU trigger values for soil [i.e.,

tritium (H-3), niobium-94, cesium-137 (Cs-137), europium-152 (Eu-152), and Eu-154]; and/or

groundwater [H-3, carbon-14, manganese-54, iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63, strontium-90,

technetium-99, Cs-134, Cs-137, Eu-152, Eu-154, Eu-155, and plutonium-241)]. 

Before the NRC license is terminated the doses to the average member of the critical group at

the Haddam Neck site will be in compliance with NRC's criteria in Part 20 Subpart E that

provides all-pathways dose criteria of 0.25 millisieverts per year (25 millirem per year) plus as

low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), to an average member of the critical group. The dose

criteria in Part 20 Subpart E are fully protective of the public health and safety, and were the

result of a comprehensive rulemaking, including an accompanying generic environmental

impact statement. Furthermore, individuals at a decommissioned site are expected to receive

doses substantially below the constraint level because of ALARA, conservative dose modeling

assumptions, and the nature of the cleanup process itself, which often reduces residual

contamination levels significantly below site DCGLs. Another reason the residual radioactivity

at the site is expected to be much lower than the approved DCGL values is that the final

cleanup values that will be used at this site to achieve 25 millirem per year must be based on an

all pathways, sum of the fractions approach. The DCGLs in the LTP represent the maximum

levels for each radionuclide without considering the existence of other radionuclides. Thus, in

applying the sum of the fraction requirement, the actual cleanup values will be reduced to

ensure that the potential dose from all residual radioactivity at the site in all media is less than

25 millirem per year.

Based on NRC’s decommissioning experience, a Level 2 consultation might not be necessary,

because the levels of residual radioactivity remaining after remediation could be lower than the

MOU trigger levels. However, if the residual radioactive material concentration levels in soil at

the time of license termination still exceed the MOU trigger values, NRC will enter into Level 2

consultation with the EPA in accordance with the MOU. 

As part of the LTP review and approval process, the NRC staff prepared and published, for

public comment, an environmental assessment (EA) to document how site remediation at

Haddam Neck would ensure protection of the public health and safety and the environment.1
Michael Cook -3-

2

 The EA is available in NRC’s electronic reading room (ML022670388).

The EA was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2002, at 67 FR 67212, and

concludes that approval of the LTP would not result in any significant impacts on the human

environment and is protective of human health. In addition, the approval of the LTP was based

on the NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued on November 25, 2002.2

 The SER

concluded that the activities described in the LTP were consistent with the Commission’s

regulations and that approval of the LTP would not be inimical to the common defense and

security, or to the health and safety of the public.

Next Steps

Following site remediation activities at Haddam Neck, NRC staff will review information

contained in the FSS Reports and compare the remaining levels of residual radioactivity to the

MOU trigger levels. If the FSS measurements trigger the MOU, an additional consultation

between the agencies will occur under the MOU to identify and resolve any remaining issues. 

In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding this letter or the remediation activities at

Haddam Neck, please contact Mr. John Greeves, Director of the Division of Waste

Management, at 301-415-7437.

Sincerely, 

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio, Director

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards

Enclosure: Proposed Remediation Values at the Connecticut Yankee Site 

cc: Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck Site Contact List
PROPOSED REMEDIATION VALUES

AT THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE

Radionuclide DCGL (soil)* MOU (soil) DCGL**

(groundwater)

MOU

(groundwater)

H-3 412 228 652,000 20,000

C-14 5.66 46 9,010 2,000

Mn-54 17.4 69 24,200 300

Fe-55 27,400 269,000 65,400 2,000

Co-60 3.81 4 1,140 100

Ni-63 723 9,480 31,500 50

Sr-90 1.55 23 251 8

Nb-94 7.12 2 6,750 ---

Tc-99 12.6 25 26,400 900

Ag-108m 7.14 --- 4,240 ---

Cs-134 4.67 46 342 80

Cs-137 7.91 6 431 200

Eu-152 10.1 4 7,330 200

Eu-154 9.29 5 5,050 60

Eu-155 392 --- 32,500 600

Pu-238 29.6 297 15.1 15***

Pu-239 26.7 259 13.6 15***

Pu-241 870 40,600 460 300

Am-241 25.8 187 13 15***

Cm-243 29 35 19 15***

*soil values reported in pCi/g

**groundwater values reported in pCi/l

***15 pCi/L is total for all alpha emitters
March 5, 2004

Mr. Michael Cook, Director

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE KIRTLAND AIR FORCE

 BASE SITE

Dear Mr. Cook:

This letter is intended to notify you of the decommissioning oversight actions that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken and intends to take for the Kirtland Air Force

Base (Kirtland AFB) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

On October 9, 2002, the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on “Consultation and Finality on

Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites.” Under the MOU, EPA agreed

to continue its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

deferral policy of not listing sites on the National Priorities List that are subject to NRC’s

licensing authority. The MOU provides that, unless an NRC-licensed site exceeds any of three

trigger criteria contained in the MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC

decision-making on decommissioning without the need for consultation. 

For sites that trigger the criteria in the MOU, NRC will consult with EPA at two points in the

decommissioning process: (1) prior to NRC’s approval of the license termination plan (LTP) or

decommissioning plan (DP), which NRC terms Level 1 consultation; and (2) following

completion of the Final Status Survey (FSS), which NRC terms Level 2 consultation. Although

the NRC’s plan for consulting with EPA calls for the initial Level 1 consultation to occur early in

the decommissioning process, at the time the MOU was signed NRC had several sites which

were in the latter stages of the LTP/DP process. Since these sites were further along in the

decommissioning process, the next opportunity to consult with EPA would be a Level 2

consultation following the completion of the FSS. 

This letter is to notify you of the existence of one of these sites. This letter is not considered a

Level 1 consultation because this site already has an approved decommissioning plan.

However, the NRC believes it is in the spirit of the MOU to notify the EPA of sites which could

possibly require a Level 2 consultation in the future, and were already well into the

decommissioning process at the time the MOU was signed.

The Kirtland AFB Site

Portions of the Kirtland AFB site were used for radiation training purposes, beginning in 1961,

to train Federal and State personnel on detection of dispersed contamination resulting from 

(ML040560134)
Michael Cook -2-

3

 The EA is available in NRC’s electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html (ML030080492).

4

 The SER is available in NRC’s electronic reading room (ML030080421).

simulated nuclear weapon accidents. To simulate radiological contamination that may result

from nuclear accidents, thorium oxide sludge applied at these training facilities served as a low

hazard analog to plutonium. A total inventory of 602 kilograms of thorium-232 was applied and

tilled into the soil at the site. The site consists of approximately 43 acres, in which

approximately 9.4 acres were affected with elevated thorium concentrations. The site is owned

by the U.S. Government and regulated by NRC. The approved DP contains a derived

concentration guideline level (DCGL) for thorium-232 (Th-232) in soil of 5.7 pCi/g that slightly

exceeds the MOU level of 5 pCi/gram. Remediation work is expected to be completed in 2004. 

However, as the site is covered by the Air Force's Master Materials License, the license will not

be terminated when the remediation project is completed.

When site remediation is completed the doses to the average member of the critical group at

the Kirtland AFB site will be in compliance with NRC's criteria in Part 20 Subpart E that provides

all-pathways dose criteria of 0.25 millisieverts per year (25 millirem per year) plus as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA), to an average member of the critical group. The dose criteria

in Part 20 Subpart E are fully protective of the public health and safety and were the result of a

comprehensive rulemaking, including an accompanying generic environmental impact

statement. Furthermore, individuals at a decommissioned site are expected to receive doses

substantially below the constraint level because of ALARA, conservative dose modeling

assumptions, and the nature of the cleanup process itself, which often reduces residual

contamination levels significantly below site DCGLs. Therefore, based on NRC’s

decommissioning experience, the staff does not expect that this site will require a Level 2

consultation, because the levels of residual radioactivity remaining after remediation are

anticipated to be lower than the MOU trigger levels. However, if the residual radioactive

material concentration levels in soil measuresd in the FSS still exceed the MOU trigger values,

NRC will enter into Level 2 consultation with the EPA in accordance with the MOU. 

As part of the DP review and approval process, the NRC staff prepared an environmental

assessment (EA) to document how the remediation at Kirtland AFB would ensure protection of

the public health and safety and the environment.3

 The EA was published in the Federal

Register on January 15, 2003, at 68 FR 2078. The EA concludes that approval of the DP would

not result in any significant impacts on the human environment and is protective of human

health. In addition, the approval of the DP was based on the NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation

Report (SER) issued on January 6, 2003.4

 The SER concludes that the activities described in

the DP are consistent with the Commission’s regulations and that approval of the DP would not

be inimical to the common defense and security, or to the health and safety of the public.
Michael Cook -3-

After site remediation activities at Kirtland AFB, NRC staff will review information contained in

the FSS Report and compare actual levels of residual radioactivity to the MOU trigger levels. If

the FSS measurements trigger the MOU, a consultation between the agencies will occur under

the MOU to identify and resolve any remaining issues. In the meantime, if you have any

questions regarding this letter or the remediation activities at Kirtland AFB please contact 

Mr. John Greeves, Director of the Division of Waste Management, at 301-415-7437.

Sincerely, 

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio, Director

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

cc: Kirtland AFB Contact List
March 5, 2004

Mr. Michael Cook, Director

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE SAXTON NUCLEAR

 EXPERIMENTAL CORPORATION SITE

Dear Mr. Cook: 

This letter is intended to notify you of the decommissioning oversight actions that the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken and intends to take for the Saxton Nuclear

Experimental Corporation (Saxton) site in Liberty Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. 

On October 9, 2002, the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on “Consultation and Finality on

Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites.” Under the MOU, EPA agreed

to continue its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

deferral policy of not listing sites on the National Priorities List that are subject to NRC’s

licensing authority. The MOU provides that, unless an NRC-licensed site exceeds any of three

trigger criteria contained in the MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC

decision-making on decommissioning without the need for consultation. 

For sites that trigger the criteria in the MOU, NRC will consult with EPA at two points in the

decommissioning process: (1) prior to NRC’s approval of the license termination plan (LTP) or

decommissioning plan (DP), which NRC terms Level 1 consultation; and (2) following

completion of the Final Status Survey (FSS), which NRC terms Level 2 consultation. Although

the NRC’s plan for consulting with EPA calls for the initial Level 1 consultation to occur early in

the decommissioning process, at the time the MOU was signed NRC had several sites which

were in the latter stages of the LTP/DP process. Since these sites were further along in the

decommissioning process, the next opportunity to consult with EPA would be a Level 2

consultation following the completion of the FSS. 

This letter is to notify you of the existence of one of these sites. This letter is not considered a

Level 1 consultation because this site already has an approved license termination plan.

However, the NRC believes it is in the spirit of the MOU to notify the EPA of sites which could

possibly require a Level 2 consultation in the future, and were already well into the

decommissioning process at the time the MOU was signed. 

The Saxton Site

The Saxton site consists of a deactivated pressurized-water nuclear reactor located on about

1.15 acres, near the borough of Saxton in Liberty Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. 

The Saxton facility was built from 1960 to 1962 and operated from 1962 to 1972. After its

(ML040560098) 
Michael Cook -2-

5

 The EA is available in NRC’s electronic reading room at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html (ML030350564).

6

 The SER is available in NRC’s electronic reading room (ML030580260).

shutdown in 1972, all the nuclear fuel was removed from the reactor and returned to the fuel’s 

owner, the Atomic Energy Commission. The site is currently being decommissioned under an

approved LTP. The approved LTP contains derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) for

11 radionuclides to be used during the remediation of the site (see enclosure). The DCGLs for

two radionuclides slightly exceed the MOU values; Cs-137 (6.6 pCi/g vs. 6.0 pCi/g) and Eu-152

(10.1 pCi/g vs. 4 pCi/g). License termination is anticipated in 2004.

Before the NRC license is terminated the doses to the average member of the critical group at

the Saxton site will be in compliance with NRC's criteria in Part 20 Subpart E that provides 

all-pathways dose criteria of 0.25 millisieverts per year (25 millirem per year) plus as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA), to an average member of the critical group. The dose criteria

in Part 20 Subpart E are fully protective of the public health and safety, and were the result of a

comprehensive rulemaking, including an accompanying generic environmental impact

statement. Furthermore, individuals at a decommissioned site are expected to receive doses

substantially below the constraint level because of ALARA, conservative dose modeling

assumptions, and the nature of the cleanup process itself, which often reduces residual

contamination levels significantly below site DCGLs. Therefore, based on NRC’s

decommissioning experience, the staff does not expect that this site will require a Level 2

consultation, because the levels of residual radioactivity remaining after remediation are

anticipated to be lower than the MOU trigger levels. However, if the residual radioactive

material concentration levels in soil at the time of license termination still exceed the MOU

trigger values, NRC will enter into Level 2 consultation with the EPA in accordance with the

MOU. 

As part of the LTP review and approval process, the NRC staff prepared an environmental

assessment (EA) to document how the remediation at Saxton would ensure protection of the

public health and safety and the environment.5

 The EA was summarized in the Federal

Register on March 20, 2003, at 68 FR 13733. The EA concludes that approval of the LTP

would not result in any significant impacts on the human environment and is protective of

human health. In addition, the approval of the LTP was based on the NRC staff’s Safety

Evaluation Report (SER) issued on March 28, 2003.6

 The SER concluded that the activities

described in the LTP were consistent with the Commission’s regulations and that approval of

the LTP would not be inimical to the common defense and security, or to the health and safety

of the public.
Michael Cook -3-

Next Steps

Following site remediation activities at Saxton, NRC staff will review information contained in

the FSS Reports and compare the remaining levels of residual radioactivity to the MOU trigger

levels. If the FSS measurements trigger the MOU, a consultation between the agencies will

occur under the MOU to identify and resolve any remaining issues. In the meantime, if you

have any questions regarding this letter or the remediation activities at Saxton please contact

Mr. John Greeves, Director of the Division of Waste Management, at 301-415-7437.

Sincerely, 

/RA/

Martin J. Virgilio, Director

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards

Enclosure: Proposed Remediation Values at the Saxton Site

cc: Saxton Site Contact List
PROPOSED REMEDIATION VALUES

AT THE SAXTON SITE

Radionuclide DCGL (soil)* MOU (soil)

H-3 130 228

C-14 2 46

Co-60 3.5 4

Ni-63 750 9,480

Sr-90 1.2 23

Cs-137 6.6 6

Eu-152 10.1 4

Pu-238 1.8 297

Pu-239 1.6 259

Pu-241 86 40,600

Am-241 9.9 187

*soil values reported in pCi/g