yankee nuclear power station, site ground water collection ... · revision 1 corrects the...

A TECHNICAL DOCUMENT COVER SHEET Form DPR-3.4AFRAMATOME ANP of 1

FRAMATOMEANPD &S QA Record Type: N/A Revision 3

DOCUMENT NO.: DESD-TD-YR-02-001 REV.: 1 Page: 1 of 26

DOCUMENT TITLE: Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning

PROJECT NAME: YNPS Environmental Engineering Field Support

PROJECT NO.: 01637.00.2002.03.00002

CLIENT: Yankee Atomic Electric Company - YNPS QA CONDITION: Non QA

*Non-QA

Pagination:

Cover Sheet & Text: 26Figures 1-8 11 w/cover pageTables 1-3 30 w/cover pageAttachment 1 3 w/cover pgAttachment 2 34 w/cover pgAttachment 3 30 w/cover pgAttachment 4 33 w/cover pgAttachment 5 2, w/cover pageDVC 1

Total 170

Revision 1 corrects the units/data used in Table 2 for gamma-emitting radionuclides and provides a few changesbased on a general review of the document. Typographical errors were corrected in lab nos. 49101, 16466R,47793, 341901 and 49113. Two verified analyses not previously reported were added to Table 2, lab nos 62623and 62620. A general review of the report also prompted minor editorial changes, and a revision of the anglebetween true north and grid north on the Figures 2 and 4 through 8.

DESIGN VERIFICATION METHOD:

E Design Review

El Alternate Calculation

El Qualification Testing

Prepared By: F. X. Bellini ____" 2______-13 i V:?(First, MI, Last) PRINTED/TYPED NAME URE / DATE

Verified By: E. F. Maher ___________2//os

(First, MI, Last) PRINTED/TYPED NAME SIGNATURE DATE

Approved By: G. A. Harper ___T_ _/_03_

(First, MI, Last) PRINTED/TYPED NAME SKNATURE DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 4

1.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 41.1.1 Plant Location and Local Topography ........................................................................ 41.1.2 Plant Structures.................................................................................................. 5

2.0 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................... 6

2.1 DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACTER OF SOIL AND BEDROCK UNITS AT THE SITE .................................... 62.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND MODIFICATIONS MADE BY CONSTRUCTION.........................................8

3.0 SITE GEOHYDROLOGY .......................................................................................... 8

3.1 GROUND WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS .................................................................................. 93.2 GROUND WATER IN BEDROCK ............................................................................................ 9

4.0 GROUND WATER CHARACTERIZATION METHODS .................................................. 11

4.1 APPROACH FOR YNPS ............................................................................................ 114.2 PRIOR DETERMINATION OF ANALYTES OF CONCERN, SURROGATES.............................................. 114.3 INVESTIGATION METHODS: PROCEDURES AND PLANS .............................................................. 124.4 BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 13

5.0 SUMMARY OF CHARACTERIZATION GROUND WATER INVESTIGATIONS................... 13

5.1 WELL DESIGN AND LOCATIONS ......................................................................................... 155.2 R.EFERENCES AND DATA ................................................................................................. 155.3 ANALYTICAL DATA....................................................................................................... 16

6.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS ..................................................................... 17.

6.1 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS........................................................................................ 176.2 WELL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 176.3 SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................. 17

6.3.1 Tritium........................................................................................................... 176.3.2 Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides in Ground Water Samples ............................................... 196.3.3 Gross Alpha, Gross Beta and Sr-90 Anab'ses ............................................................... 206.3.4 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Leakage .............................................................................. 20

6.4 WELL CLOSURES.......................................................................................................... 216.5 SITE GROUND WATER CONDITIONS SUMMARY...................................................................... 22

6.5.1 Unit Thicknesses and Lateral Extent......................................................................... 226.5.2 Water- Transmitting Properties, Flow Velocity Estimates, and Inferred Kds .............................. 226.5.3 Recharge and Discharge ...................................................................................... 23

7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 24

Ground Water Data for YNPS Decommissioning of 26DESD-YR-02-001 Rev. 1

1.2.3A.3B.3C.4.5.6.7.8.

LIST OF FIGURES

Regional Topographic MapSite Structures and AreasGeologic MapGeologic Profile A-A'Geologic Profiles B-B' and C-C'Ground Water Contour for Wells in Surficial MaterialsPlan Map of Monitoring Wells1999 H-3 Concentration Map2001 H-3 Concentration MapPAB Area: H-3 in Ground Water 1998-9

LIST OF TABLES

Monitoring Well Information SummaryYNPS Ground Water Database Analysis InformationGross Alpha and Gross Beta dataMaximum 1999 H-3 ConcentrationsWell Closure HistoryProperties of Geohydrologic Units at the Site

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Radiological Profiles of SoilGraphs of H-3 Concentrations in Monitoring Well SamplesMonitoring Well Configuration SketchesMonitoring Well Ground Water LevelsYNPS Spent Fuel Pool: Concentration of H-3, 1997-1999

1.2.3.4.5.6.

1.2.3.4.5.

Ground Water Data for YNPS DecommissioningDESD-YR-02-O01 Rev. 1

of 26

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Environmental site characterization studies and surveys to support the Yankee NuclearPower Station (YNPS) decommissioning began in late 1992 and have been carried outby Yankee Atomic Electric Co, (YAEC), Yankee Nuclear Services Division (YNSD),Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S) and Framatome ANP DE&S (FDE&S) personnel.This report summarizes the ground water studies performed to date for sitecharacterization.

The goals of ground water monitoring at the site have been to evaluate the status of thesite ground water following plant operation and to verify that on-site decommissioningactivities are not having a negative impact on the ground water through the release ofradionuclides. Ground water samples collected for site characterization have provided avery small number of results identifying elevated (compared to U. S. EPA Drinking WaterStandards) levels of any radionuclide. Elevated concentrations have been principallylimited to tritium in well samples from in or near the Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB)during the time period from 1998 to 2000.

Site radiological release criteria for unrestricted use are provided by 10CFR20,"Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use"(Reference 1). Dose equivalent from ground water is included in the 25 mrem/yr doseequivalent limit provided by this regulation. With one short-term exception, all sampleanalyses have met U. S. EPA primary drinking water standards, which are based on a 4mrem/yr dose equivalent.

The investigation for non-radiological hazardous constituents in site ground water isbased on guidance provided within Reference 2, the "Massachusetts Contingency Plan"(MCP) regulations under 310 CMR 40.00 for the release of oil or hazardous materials.Those investigations are not addressed in this report.

1.1 General Site Description

The YNPS was built in 1959-60, designed as a prototype to operate for 6 years,with a power level of 145 MW (later increased to 185 MW). In fact, YNPSoperated for 32 years, safely and reliably producing low cost electric power.Descriptions of the site, related to ground water investigations, are provided inthis section.

1.1.1 Plant Location and Local Topography

The YNPS plant site is located in northwestern Massachusetts in the townof Rowe, near the southern Vermont border (Figure 1). The developedarea of the plant site encompasses approximately 12 acres at thenorthwest corner of a 2200-acre property owned by YAEC. Aside fromelectric transmission lines, the balance of the property area remains asundeveloped woodland.

Ground Water Data for YNPS Decommissioning of 26DESD-YR-02-O01 Rev. 1

The YNPS site is at the east side of Berkshire Mountains situated on aportion of a river terrace on the east side of the Deerfield River. Theterrace is recessed into and largely surrounded by high slopes of the rivervalley. In the vicinity of the plant, the sides of the river valley rise to over1000 feet above the river elevation, creating a valley about 2 miles wide.

The YNPS plant is adjacent to Sherman Dam, owned by USGen NewEngland, Inc., one of several dams along the Deerfield River used forhydroelectric power generation. This upper (northern) portion of theDeerfield River Valley is unique in Massachusetts for its steep topography(a product of alpine-type glacial erosion) thus providing good locations forhydroelectric generating facilities. The local gradient for this portion of theDeerfield River is quite steep at 28.4 ft/mi, as measured from the Vermontborder to the gauging station at West Deerfield, Massachusetts, adistance of about 33 miles.

Sherman Pond, impounded behind Sherman Dam, has been the sourceof cooling water throughout plant operation. This pond is about 2 mileslong, a quarter mile wide, and up to 75 feet deep along its centralchannel. The pond and river are directly downgradient of the site. Figure1 provides a topographic map of the site area, showing these generalfeatures.

This report along with plant drawings and many descriptive reports basereference elevations on this arbitrary Sherman Dam datum. TheSherman Dam datum is 105.66 ft higher than mean sea level (msl)datum.

Key elevations for the site are based on the datum used for constructionof Sherman Dam. These are approximately as follows:

Typical water elevation of Sherman Pond +999 ftDeerfield River below Sherman Dam +834 ftGround surface at the plant site +1014 to +1054 ft

Unless otherwise noted, compass directions used to describe YNPS sitelocations in this report are based on a plant grid that has its northdirection toward the Deerfield River, parallel to the sides of major plantstructures. This grid-north direction is rotated 44.5 degreescounterclockwise from true north (Figure 2). This plant grid system isused on most original plant drawings and documents.

1.1.2 Plant Structures

The YNPS consisted of 26 permanent structures and a number ofseparate outdoor components, especially system tanks. Figure 2 showsthe location of all of these original and added structures. Structuresremoved as part of decommissioning are denoted with dotted lines inFigure 2.


The plant's original Radiological Controlled Area (RCA) shown in Figure 2represents a standard nuclear facility arrangement providing a restrictedand controlled access and operations area where use and handling ofradiological materials are permitted. "Summary of Excavation Volumesfor YNPS Construction Projects Performed During the Time Period ofPlant Operation" (Reference 3) provides a description of plantconstruction projects since the start of YNPS power generation. This isnotable because construction included soil excavation inside the RCA formost projects. Excess soil from this work was generally placedelsewhere on the site. Radiological controls in effect at the time of theseprojects provided release criteria with lower thresholds than currentrequirements in effect for decommissioning

Currently all radiological components and materials, with the exception ofthe spent fuel and associated support structures, have been removedfrom the site as part of decommissioning work. The fuel will eventually bemoved to an onsite dry cask storage facility and remaining structuresdecommissioned.

2.0 SITE GEOLOGY

Relevant site geologic data are described in detail in References 4 and 5. "YNPSGeology and Seismology" (Reference 4) is a licensing document prepared for the NRC'sSystematic Evaluation Program to describe site and local geology and seismology insupport of licensing of older nuclear power plants in 1979. Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C are ageologic map and two profiles taken from that document, respectively.

The document "Environmental Characterization Summary" (Reference 5) providesanalysis of site characterization data collected through the year 1999. References 6, 7,8, and 9 are the 1993-4, 1995, 1996, and 1997 "Annual Site Characterization Reports,"respectively. These reports summarize YNPS site characterization information for thoseyears and contain detailed data for specific characterization locations at the site whereinvestigations were made, including soil boring information for many of the monitoringwell locations.

2.1 Distribution and Character of Soil and Bedrock Units at the Site

Soils at the site consist of three basic types (Figures 3A, 3B and 3C):

* Fill outwash: silty sand and gravel outwash with some silt layers,generally 3 to 12 feet thick with original construction fill derived fromsandy outwash and used for YNPS plant construction

* Till: dense, silty, sandy, gravelly bouldery glacial lodgment till, whichincludes some stiff clayey layers, with a total thickness of about 0 to 250feet

" Ground moraine: thin till-like material present on valley slopes only

Reference 4 indicates soil thickness is over 100 feet beneath the center of theplant site (Figures 3B and 3C). The thickest soil deposits are located in the


southwest portion of the site. Soil is absent or nearly so just above the base ofthe valley slopes from near the northeast around to the southeast side of the site.On the adjacent hillsides around the east, south, and west sides of the plant site,a thin layer of glacial till, essentially ground moraine, occurs intermittently overbedrock. Soil is absent and bedrock is exposed for a portion of the site just eastof the RCA. A bedrock knob forms a topographic high between the site andWheeler Brook (Figures 3A and 3C).

Close to the Deerfield River, soils include alluvial material consisting of sandyand gravelly sediment in and along the shorelines and silty sediment in thedeeper sections of Sherman Pond. The contact between outwash and till oralluvium and till within the Deerfield River's south bank produces outflow ofground water as springs, as discussed in Section 3.0.

Prior to plant construction a stream flowed through the south side of the site fromthe hills at the southwest corner of the site to the Deerfield River, downstream ofthe dam. This appears to have fed the so-called "unnamed tributary" thatreceives water from the plant's west storm drain system. This stream is shownon an original plant construction drawing for site clearing (Reference 10).. Alluvialdeposits, consisting of stream terrace sands and gravels with relatively higherpermeability, appear to occur along the trace of this stream.

Sherman Dam is a large earth embankment that straddles the river at the northend of the YNPS site. It consists of various types of fill originally placed in 1927and increased in height slightly in 1964.

Reference 4 also describes outwash as thinnest at the east margin of the sitewhere bedrock crops out at the surface along the upper (south) portion of the site(Figure 3C). Near the center of the site where the bedrock surface is very deep,Reference 4 indicates that glacial till extends to depths of over 175 feet.Investigation for a new potable water well in 1999 showed glacial till up to 250feet deep at the southwest corner of the plant site. Original plant constructionincluded the placement of fill beneath and in the immediate vicinity of buildingsand under the yard area of the plant.

Bedrock at the site is part of the lower Cambrian Hoosac formation. It consists ofmetamorphic rock described as quartz-albite-biotite gneiss and rusty gneiss inadjacent areas. Underlying these are garnet schist and a layered gneiss withsome dolomitic marble belonging to the lower Cambrian or older CavendishFormation (Reference 4). Bedrock structure consists of a south-plunginganticline, the axis of which occurs just west of the site (Figure 3B).

Reference 4 describes bedrock at the site as generally hard, fresh, internallywelded metamorphic rock, without significant subaerial or other weatheringfeatures. Bedrock fracturing is not a prominent structural element. Bedrockoutcrops exhibit either no joints or minor discontinuous joint surfaces. Analysis offracture patterns for 74 joints or joint sets and 5 minor fault surfaces in the sitevicinity showed no anomalously preferred orientation of fractures. These studiesalso suggest the absence of any through-going zones of post-metamorphicfaulting or shear that is these faults are not found associated with contemporaryseismicity (Reference 4).


2.2 Site Characteristics and Modifications Made by Construction

Plant structures with deep foundations that penetrate or impinge on the saturatedzone include the Primary Auxiliary Building, Fuel Pool, and Ion Exchange Pit(PAB/FP/IXP). The Ash Dewatering Pit in the Waste Building is also very close tothe water table level. The PAB/FP/IXP foundations are also built into a naturalslope, providing a very steep local ground water gradient. The significance ofthis configuration is discussed in Section 3 of this Report. Underground storagetanks that held non-radiological liquids, were removed at the outset ofdecommissioning activities. One radiological liquid storage tank location remainsas an underground concrete vault (storing drainage from a radiological lab andother radiological areas of the Service Building), while another subsurface vault,mostly filled with concrete due to internal radiological contamination also remainsat the site. These are designated as nos. 35 and 36 on Figure 2.

The "Overview and Status: Environmental Characterization, Yankee NuclearPower Plant Site" (Reference 11) describes residual contamination from waterleakage to soil under the Fuel Pool, Ion Exchange Pit, PCA radiologicaldecontamination-tub drain, and Waste Building Ash Pit. Subsurface soil at theselocations is yet to be fully evaluated or remediated. However, no significanteffect on ground water is apparent based on existing YNPS characterizationdata. A full description of soil at these locations is provided in Reference 5.

3.0 SITE GEOHYDROLOGY

Prior geologic studies and YNSD decommissioning site characterization data provide afairly complete picture of shallow ground water conditions at the site. The major portionof the data comes from monitoring wells installed as part of site characterization (Figure5). Shallow ground water at the site is contained in fill outwash and glacial till, soil typesdescribed in Section 2.1.

Shallow ground water occurs to some extent perched in shallow soils due to the relativeimpermeability of the underlying till. Along slopes where the contact between these soilsis exposed, such as the banks of the Deerfield River, are small, perennial andintermittent natural springs. A perennial spring, called Sherman Spring has beenformally monitored for radiological constituents over many years (see Section 4.1). Asecond spring emanates from the Deerfield River bank to the west of Sherman Springabove the roadway to the Sherman Dam powerhouse, downgradient of the old plantseptic leaching field (Reference 7).

The shallow ground water depth at the south end of the RCA is about 3 to 7 feet,depending on local soil conditions, with surface ponding occurring in isolated areas. Awetland just south of the RCA fence line highlights this shallow ground water. At thenorth end of the site, toward the Deerfield River, ground water is 18 to 20 feet beneaththe ground surface (Figure 4).

The site's ground water is recharged primarily by precipitation, which averages 47inches/year at YNPS based on data in the "YNPS Environmental Report" (Reference12). Surface runoff and shallow ground water flow from the surrounding hills aredirected through the plant storm drain system, ultimately discharging to the Deerfield


River. Since the elevation of the Deerfield River below Sherman Dam is approximately100 feet lower than average plant grade, a fairly steep average water table gradient of0.10 ft/ft exists across of the site. This contrasts with a very steep localized groundwater surface gradient of 0.15 ft/ft at the PAB/FP/IXP area. This steep gradient is due toconstruction of these structures along a slope and the damming effect of the deepfoundations of these structures, which are extended into the glacial till.

Natural surface drainage in the YNPS site area is towards the Deerfield River andSherman Pond. Like surface water flow, ground water flow was initially assumed to bedirected toward the Deerfield River based on this practical assumption. These data canbe compared to ground water elevations in wells as represented by Figure 4, describedin Section 3.1. In Addition, leakage of tritium (H-3) from the plant's Fuel Pool and IonExchange Pit early in the plant's history in the "Yankee Nuclear Power StationDecommissioning Plan" (Appendix B of Reference 13) has provided a direct method(solubility of H-3 is not an issue) for tracing ground water movement, providingconfirmation of the flow direction based on well known methods (References 14, p. 427,15 and 16).

Ground water from surficial materials has not been used for drinking water at or nearbythe site, nor is it a source of water for any purpose in the area of the plant (Reference17, Section 3.4.2). The Deerfield River is not used for a source of drinking waterdownstream of the plant. The closest municipal water supply downstream of the plant isover 20 miles distant (Reference 17, Section 305). The site's potable water well, drilledinto bedrock, serves as a source of drinking water for the plant. This state-licensed wellis located approximately 450 feet southwest of the main plant buildings in the upgradientground-water flow direction (Figure 2). Bedrock in the region is not a significant sourceof water supply, and no major ground water aquifers occur within the site area(Reference 17, Section 302).

3.1 Ground Water Table Elevations

Figure 4 is a ground water contour map based on average levels of water in sitemonitoring wells from data compiled over the years of plant decommissioningwork. Also considered were:

* Topography (elevations rise sharply to the south, east and west) andtoward the crest of Sherman Dam, and

* The shape of contour at elevation 1035 near the ISFSI structure isinferred based on the installation of a foundation drain and structural fillplaced at that location per the "ISFSI Site Grading Plan" (Reference 18).

Ground water flow can be assumed to be directed perpendicular to these contourlines. Thus, in general, Figure 4 shows that ground water flow is directedtowards the river, and for a small area at the northeast corner of the site, towardSherman Pond.

3.2 Ground Water in Bedrock

Ground water in bedrock has provided potable water for the plant site from twowells over the course of plant operations and decommissioning. Locations of


both wells are shown as features 41 and 42 on Figure 2. The first plant waterwell, drilled in 1958 to a depth of 437 feet and with a diameter of 8 inches, had asafe yield of 5.7 gpm as documented in a report to the MA DEP (Reference 19).Such a low yield is consistent with regional observations of yields from crystallinerock (Reference 20). That first well was decommissioned in December 1999 andgrouted due to its proximity to the planned location for the YNPS ISFSI.Stratigraphy at that location was estimated to consist of:

Unit Depths

Sand and gravel fill 0-5 ft

Silt and fine-grained sand outwash 5-12 ft

Glacial till 12-100 ft

Bedrock: Hoosac Gneiss 100-437 ft

A new well was drilled in 1999 at the southwest corner of the site to a depth of280 feet. The well was determined to have the following stratigraphy duringdrilling:

Unit Depths

Sand and gravel outwash 0-15 ft

Glacial till 15-250 ft

Bedrock: Hoosac Gneiss 250-280 ft

Yield estimated at the time of drilling was 60 gpm. This high yield is attributableto the well location, which was chosen based on standard geologic explorationprinciples:

* Bedrock is deep (and consequently glacial till cover thick) and

* A coincident topographic inflexion line for both ground surface andbedrock surface topography occurs, and

Location is along the trend of a surface drainage feature,coincident with a recognizable fracture trend in the bedrock andsurface topographic and drainage lineaments

Another 6-inch diameter bedrock well, 408 feet deep at the Plant's Visitor'sCenter, about 1/2 mile west of the site has a yield of about 8 gpm per its "1995Annual Statistical Report" (Reference 21).

Two site monitoring wells, B-1 and CW-1 0 penetrate bedrock. The typical levelof ground water in Well B-i, which has a screen that straddles the till andbedrock, is generally about 10 feet lower than that for CB-1, which is only 60 feetaway and is screened in the fill-outwash. This condition demonstrates how therelative impermeability of the till perches ground water.


4.0 GROUND WATER CHARACTERIZATION METHODS

4.1 Approach for YNPS

With basic plant site geology fairly well documented in licensing plant studies anddocuments, the initial phase (scoping) location of monitoring wells was based onsite history of spills and leaks (Reference 13, Appendix B). Some wells, installedsubsequently, were located to help define a tritium (H-3) plume flow.

Based on many years of YNPS Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program(REMP) ground water analyses for radioactivity reported in the original YNPS D-Plan (Section 3 of Reference 13) it was clear that H-3 was present in the groundwater at the site. Tritium acted as a tracer faithfully tracking ground water flowand provided an additional means to assess the suitability of monitoring welllocations.

All pertinent descriptive information for each well and the basis for their locationsare summarized in Table 1. Table 2 is a summary collection of all analyses donefor characterization of ground water based on a database described in Section5.3. A site plan showing all monitoring wells is in Figure 5.

Installed in 1993, monitoring wells, CB-1, -2, -3, -4 and CW-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6 were located just downgradient of historic spill or leak locations. At locationswhere there was some possibility of subsurface soil contamination, soil sampleswere taken and analyzed as wells were installed (wells prefixed "CB").

Analyses for H-3 from wells installed in 1993, along with REMP results forSherman Spring (Attachment 1), provide a reasonable definition for ground waterflow direction. They also served as a basis to help locate monitoring wells, CB-6,-8, -9, CW-7, and -8, installed in 1994 to further defined general ground waterflow and the H-3 plume at the site. Other monitoring wells installed upgradient orcross-gradient of the PAB/FS/IXP complex, CB-5, -7, -8, -10, -12, and CW-10were located at places where warranted by soil conditions or site history.

4.2 Prior Determination of Analytes of Concern, Surrogates

Reference 5 addressed the historical analytes of concern for site environmentalcharacterization based largely on soil sampling data. It describes the radiologicalanalytes of concern and for all environmental media (soil, sediment, and groundwater) at the site as follows, with analytical techniques noted:

Symbol Radionuclide Analytical Technique

* H-3 Tritium Liquid Scintillation Counting

* Mn-54 Manganese 54 Gamma Spectroscopy

* Co-60 Cobalt 60 Gamma Spectroscopy

" Sr-90 Strontium 90 Radiochemical Separation

* Ag-1 08m Silver 108 metastable Gamma Spectroscopy

* Cs-134 Cesium 134 Gamma Spectroscopy

* Cs-1 37 Cesium 137 Gamma Spectroscopy


Other radionuclides that could have been released into the environment fromYNPS are transuranics, alpha-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbersgreater than 92 and with half-lives greater than 20 years. These includeneptunium, plutonium, americium, and curium. No significant testing wasperformed for these analytes because:

" The lack of evidence for their presence in characterization soil samples at thesite (Appendix 6 of Reference 7)

* Their very low transport rates in soils such as exist at YNPS

" Knowledge based on records/results of RP surveys, effluent sample analysesand radiological waste characterization analyses

" The use of gamma-emitting radionuclides Co-60 with Cs-1 37 as surrogates

* No detectable levels of these nuclides found in characterization soil samplescontaining the highest levels of gamma-emitting radioactivity (Appendix 6 ofReference 7)

Sr-90 was not originally considered to be a likely concern for ground watercharacterization. Recent interest in this radionuclide in ground water at otherdecommissioning plants has caused YNPS to consider a second look at theresults for this analyte in YNPS ground water. Two rounds of analyses of wellsamples for Sr-90 are described in Section 6.3.3 of this report.

4.3 Investigation Methods: Procedures and Plans

The YNPS Site Characterization process was planned and constructed based onthe YNPS Plant Procedure "Administrative Program for RadiologicalCharacterization Surveys to Support YNPS Decommissioning Planning,"(Reference 22). Monitoring well installation was done using YNPS PlantProcedure, "Subsurface Soil Sampling and Monitoring Well Installation"(Reference 23). That procedure provided installation direction anddocumentation and allowed for soil samples to be taken during well installation,where needed. Wells were designed consistent with Massachusetts Departmentof Environmental Protection (MA DEP) guidelines for monitoring wells asrecommended in MA DEP "Standard References for Monitoring Wells"(Reference 24).

Sketches showing the configuration of each well are included in Attachment 2.Well development (preparation for initial sampling) was accomplished bypumping multiple well volumes (screen as well as filter pack volume) from eachwith pumping continued until satisfactory water clarity was obtained.

Ground water samples are obtained using YNPS Plant Procedure "Ground WaterLevel Measurement and Sample Collection in Observation Wells" (Reference 25)with transport to offsite labs performed in accordance with the YNPS PlantProcedure "Sample Chain of Custody" (Reference 26). Ground water sampleswere initially obtained from wells using bailers or a peristaltic sump. Wherededicated equipment was not used, care was taken to insure decontamination ofsamplers between wells. Sample acidification and filtration as needed wereinitially done in the laboratory but eventually these steps were provided in thefield.


The Framatome ANP DE&S Environmental Laboratory (FDESEL) typicallyperformed analyses but the YNPS plant laboratory also performed someanalyses. Analyses were done using standard environmental MinimumDetectable Concentrations (MDCs) based on the YNPS Offsite Dose CalculationManual as guidance. For H-3, the analysis method was distillation with thedistillate subject to liquid scintillation counting (Reference 27). Gammaspectroscopy analyses were performed using a shielded high purity germaniumdetector (Reference 28). Strontium analyses were performed using theCerenkov method (Reference 29).

As a minimum initial survey for each well, samples were typically obtained atleast quarterly for a year. Analyses included H-3 liquid scintillation counting andgamma spectroscopy.

CB-1 1A was installed in the PAB following detection of H-3 in samples fromstanding water exposed during concrete floor removal in that building.Subsequent samples from that well revealed elevated H-3 concentrations in ahighly localized zone. Several new monitoring wells were placed in the vicinity ofthat well to assure that any significant related information was uncovered.Results of these investigations are discussed in section 6.3.1.

Soil permeability conditions were evaluated using YNPS Plant Procedure, "FieldPermeability Data Collection in Observation Wells" (Reference 30). "YR GroundWater Model-Permeability and K-Summary" (Reference 31) an informal,unverified calculation, provided permeability estimates based on the field data.

The YNPS Plant "Procedure for Permanent Closure of Monitoring Wells"(Reference 32) was used to insure the safe and complete decommissioning ofwells when monitoring is no longer needed. To date, five wells (shaded entries inTable 1) have been grouted for various reasons, using this procedure.

All pertinent radiological data collected for environmental characterization aredocumented in a database provided by YNPS Plant Procedure, "SiteCharacterization Environmental Radiological Database" (Reference 33).

4.4 Background Considerations

Background levels of plant-related radionuclides in ground water are generallyvery low, well below any drinking water standards for ground water (Reference34 p. 137-9 and Reference 35 p. 6.40). For example naturally occurring H-3typically occurs in ground water at levels less than 10 pCi/L; slightly higher levelsmay occur where atmospheric weapons testing has impacted ground water(Reference 36). However, this level is not only well below drinking waterstandards (20,000 pCi/L), but is also below typical environmental level MDCs forH-3, which ranges from about 350 to 2000 pCi/L. Other radiological analytes ofconcern are expected to have even lower presence in background.

5.0 SUMMARY OF CHARACTERIZATION GROUND WATER INVESTIGATIONS

References 5 and 11 provide summaries of all radiological and non-radiologicalsite characterization data collected through 1999. Ground water data collected


since that time is compiled in a site characterization database per requirementsof Reference 33. A summary of H-3 plume data was presented in a recentmemo entitled, "H-3 Concentrations in YNPS Site Ground Water" (Reference 37).General radiological sampling activities for ground water were last assessed inmid-1 998 (Reference 38). Reference 5, Environmental CharacterizationSummary describes the radiological analytes of concern for all environmentalmedia at the site as described in Section 4.2.

With the exception of H-3, the analytes of concern listed in Section 4.4 generallyhave relatively low solubility in water. It is possible for them to migrate throughsoil when driven by water flow, but such migration is greatly inhibited by theirphysical state, atomic sizes, as well as the ionically charged nature of the soilcolumn and radionuclide. Consequently, movement of these radionuclidesthrough soil occurs very slowly or not at all when water sources (regular rainfall,or continuous leakage, e.g.) to carry them are not available. This is supported bythe relatively high soil-liquid partition coefficients estimated for them byReference 39. Thus with the exception of H-3, radionuclides inadvertentlyreleased to soils tend to remain very close to the source. This anticipatedcondition has been found to be the case for every instance of radioactivityinvestigated in YNPS site soils.

An example of this is provided in Appendix 10 of Reference 6 (Included asAttachment 3). Investigations were performed at three YNPS locations wheresoil radioactivity was found to be the highest in surface soils:

* Beside the Waste Holdup Tank Moat,

• In the radiological storage area north of the Old PCA, and

* Under the Vapor Container

Hand excavation of surface soil beneath asphalt revealed very consistent profilesof diminishing radioactivity within a depth of less than 18 inches. The soilsampled is representative of the fill-outwash at the site. Pavement was added inthe latter two areas in the mid-1 980s. H-3 behaves very differently compared togamma-emitting radionuclides. H-3 moves through soils with ground water.

Historic water leakage from the Ion Exchange Pit (repaired in 1966) and theSpent Fuel Pool (prior to its lining in 1979) has introduced H-3 to the groundwater at the site. The extent of this leakage is discussed and summarized inReference 13, and the "YNPS Site Radiological Environmental HistorySupplement" (Reference 40). Table 2 contains a summary of H-3 values from allsamples taken from wells since initiation of monitoring.

Gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in a very few well samples,generally in samples that were not filtered. Retesting of those samples afterfiltration, a standard field/lab practice for ground water samples, confirmed thatradioactivity was in sediment in the samples and not dissolved in the water. Thisimplies that while there is some radioactivity at depth in soils,-these componentsresist dissolving in water. This is consistent with behavior the expected due tohigh permeability coefficients (Kd) values. Table 2 contains a summary of alldetected gamma-emitting radionuclide values from all samples taken from wellssince initiation of monitoring. A description of that data is provided in Section6.3.2.


5.1 Well Design and Locations

Figure 5 shows all site well locations and Attachment 2 contains constructionsketches of all monitoring well installations. These sketches show well groundelevations, well and screen diameters, depths, materials, stratigraphicsummaries, sand filter packs and bentonite seals, installation dates, drillingcontractors, design engineers, and initial ground water depths.

Table 1 summarizes all information relevant to the monitoring wells including:

* Date installed/grouted

0 Surface elevation

• Well depth

* Typical ground water depth

* Responsible engineer

* Well location

* Basis for the location of the well

* Characterization results summary

* Grid location

5.2 References and Data

A number of documents were produced to address ground water monitoringresults for YNPS site characterization. Key references include formally issuedreports and documents in several categories as well as outside references:

* The original Decommissioning Plan submitted in 1993

0 Annual Site Characterization data reports

• YNPS Plant Procedures used for characterization work

0 Topical reports and technical memoranda by DE&S and others

* Licensing documents: YNPS Final Safety Analysis Report, YNPSEnvironmental Report, the original License Termination Plan draft, and theSEP submittal on site geology

• External references on geology and geohydrology of the area

There also exists a quantity of characterization data collected but for whichassessment is not documented. This information is addressed in this report, asfollows:

YNPS Site Characterization Database. A periodically updated, verified andvalidated (V&V) database of all radiological analyses done for sitecharacterization, plant procedure DP-8600 provides for this data catalog.Copies of the database have been provided to YNPS as new data areentered. Data are V&V through 1999. Outstanding data packages (6/01 and12/01) have been provided to YAEC for validation check per Reference 33.


" A round of 1994 gross alpha and gross beta results from 12 monitoring wells.

* Two rounds (1997 and 1998: 20 and 23 wells) of Sr-90 results and one round(1997: 20 wells) of Sr-89 results from monitoring wells.

* Graphs of ground water depths/elevation data collected during monitoring ofwells. Presented in the annual Site Characterization Annual Reports,References 6, 7, 8, and 9, these graphs have not been updated since 1998.More recent data are included in this report in Attachment 4.

* Graphs of H-3 data from the time of initiation of site monitoring in 1993.Presented in the annual Site Characterization Annual Reports, References 6,7, 8, and 9, these graphs have not been updated since 1999. Newer data areincluded in this report in Attachment 1.

" YNPS REMP data for ground water samples from Sherman Spring and thesite potable water well. Collected and compiled from FDESEL results, thesedata provide baseline information starting in 1978 to support sitecharacterization ground water studies. Data for H-3 in Sherman Springsamples are represented in the graph in Attachment 1. No other significantdetectable levels of radionuclides have been found in either Sherman Springor in samples from the site potable water wells.

* A single round of Sr-89 and Sr-90 analyses was done for 20 monitoring wellsamples in late 1997 and a single round of Sr-90 analyses were done for 23YNPS monitoring well samples in early 1998. The data were not formallypresented in a report. Results show no detectable Sr-90 or Sr-89 in groundwater samples. MDCs for the samples were less than 20% of the U.S. EPAdrinking water limits.

" A single round of gross alpha and gross beta analyses was done for the 12existing monitoring wells at YNPS in 1993. Gross beta data were presentedin the original D-Plan (Reference 13, Section 3) but gross alpha data werenot formally presented. Samples were unfiltered and results show nodetectable gross alpha levels for samples from 12 wells. Gross beta levelswere within typical background levels for environmental samples.

5.3 Analytical Data

Reference 33 provides a means to formally compile, store and provide dataexcerpts for evaluation or analysis. The database consists of a catalog thatincludes all the pertinent data from sample analyses, recorded in a way thatprovides V&V information and ready access. Attachment 6 contains a list of thedata provided in the database for each sample. Input of information has beenhandled both electronically and manually from lab data sheets. Currently theground water data has 2 sets of data ready for inclusion, pending V&Vcompletion. The V&V status of data is noted in the last column of Table 2 where,per Reference 33, a single V identifies data that is verified; VV identifies verifiedand validated data; X represents invalid data; and no designation represents datanot yet V&Vd.


6.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS

6.1 Water Level Measurements

Graphs representing ground water depths for all monitoring wells are included inAttachment 5. Most wells show minor seasonal fluctuations in ground waterlevels, as demonstrated by the data plots in Attachment 4.

Figure 4 is a ground water table hand-drawn contour based on average levels ofwater in site monitoring wells from data compiled over the years of plantdecommissioning work. The contours show the general flow direction of groundwater toward the river and Sherman Pond.

6.2 Well Development

Well development was provided based on a procedure that included the initialuse of driller's equipment when wells were constructed, and pumping prior toinitial sampling. Well development (preparation for initial sampling) wasaccomplished by pumping 2 to 3 well volumes (volume of the casing as well asfilter pack) from each with pumping continued until optimal water clarity wasobtained.

6.3 Sample Analysis Results

Radiological analytical results for site characterization ground water samples arepresented in Table 2.

6.3.1 Tritium

Tritium (H-3) has had a constant, though generally decreasing low-levelpresence in wells. These data are represented in graphical form inAttachment 2. The graphs show filled and open symbols to denotedetectable and non-detectable (<MDC) levels, respectively. Results forwells with persistent H-3 levels are:

B-i, CB-1, -2, -6, -9, -10, -11 A, CW-11, MW-1, 2, MW-3 and itsreplacement, MW-5.

A few wells have had H-3 detectable intermittently in samples:

CW-7, -8

Most wells had no detectable H-3 in their samples: -

CB-3, -4, -5, -7, -8, -12, CW-1, -2, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, MW-6, OSR-1,NSR-1, CFW-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6

With the possible exception of CB-10, H-3 concentrations have trendeddown due partly to natural dilution and attenuation. Decreasing H-3


levels in the Fuel Pool since the start of decommissioning are also a likelycontributor to this trend (see Section 6.3.4).

The results from monitoring wells define a plume for the site as illustratedin Figures 6 and 7. These show:

" The relatively low concentrations of H-3 in site ground water(almost all below the U. S. EPA drinking water standard of 20,000pCi/L)

" The rapid dilution of H-3 concentrations with movement toward the

river, and

* The significant decrease of H-3 concentration with time

The single exception to these conditions is the presence of elevatedconcentrations of H-3 in wells CB-1 1A, CW-11, MW-2 and MW-3 betweenearly 1998 and late 1999. This appears to be a consequence of leakagefrom beneath the PAB, which occurred in the course of decommissioningwork. Reference 41 is a memo that addressed the situation at the time.

Initial samples from well CB-1 1A, installed (12/18/97) inside the PABthrough its concrete foundation mat, contained H-3 at levels near 80,000pCi/L. In addition, this well exhibited an artesian condition with waterflowing from the hole at a rate of ½/2 to 3/4 gpm. The initial water level wasabout 2 to 3 inches above the top of the concrete foundation slab of thePAB cubicle corridor pipe trench. This condition supports the belief thatthe foundation of the PAB along with those of the Ion Exchange Pit andthe Fuel Pool, all deep structures extending beneath the ground watertable and into the top of glacial till, are providing a "dam" impeding flow ofground water from beneath the PAB. Dewatering of the PAB to facilitatebuilding cleanup effectively removed a very large percentage of thetrapped ground water. The result was an effective remediation of thetritium. Water produced by this process was collected and processedthrough the plant evaporator and released to surface drainage in keepingwith regulatory release permits. The consequences of residualconcentrations of H-3 in the ground water beneath the PAB wereinvestigated by installation of several new and existing wells, asdescribed below.

Soil samples taken during installation of CB-11 A contained very lowlevels of gamma-emitting radioactivity. Ground water samples from CB-11 A have contained no detectable gamma-emitting radionuclides.Additional monitoring wells were installed downgradient (MW-2 and MW-3) and upgradient (MW-1) of this location in early April 1998. These newwells supplemented existing downgradient wells CB-1, -2, -6, and CB-9.

During the period between early 1998 and early 2000, samples fromdowngradient wells showed some increase in H-3 levels compared withprior results. These data is illustrated for the two closest wells, CW-11and MW-2 in Figure 8 and in graphs for wells in Attachment 2. Afterearly 2000 the trend of decreasing H-3 resumed for downgradient wells.

The H-3 plume maps in Figures 6 and 7 provide a comparison of H-3concentrations in the vicinity of the PAB for yearsl 999 and 2000. These


show that H-3 concentrations decrease rapidly downgradient of the PAB.In Figure 6, for example, maximum H-3 1999 concentrations were aslisted in Table 4.

Table 4. Maximum 1999 H-3 Concentrations

Well Downgradient Maximum 1999 H-3Distance from Concentration, pCi/L

CW-11MW-5 30 5610CB-9 75 4010CB-2 350 1280CB-6 500 666

Figure 7 shows that by the year 2001 the highest H-3 concentration inany of the wells was just over 4000 pCi/L in MW-5.

6.3.2 Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides in Ground Water Samples

Routine tests for gamma-emitting radionuclides have been done for allsite monitoring wells. Samples that were found to have detectable levelsare highlighted in Table 2. This includes eight samples from CB-1 (andtwo reanalyses of those samples), and one sample each from wells CB-6,CW-5 and MW-3. Almost all of these have been in unfiltered samples.Detected levels in all samples are all well below U. S. EPA DrinkingWater Standards levels (based on a 4 mrem/yr dose equivalent).

Follow-up samples or results from filtering of samples have shown thatthe radioactivity in CB-1 samples appears to have been in suspendedparticulate matter in samples, and not dissolved in the water itself. Sincefield filtration of samples was initiated in 1996, no samples from that wellhave contained detectable levels of gamma-emitting radionuclides.

Single samples from wells CW-5 (unfiltered) and MW-3 (filtered) containdetectable Co-60 and Cs-1 34, respectively. In both cases concentrationswere very low and no subsequent samples from those wells containedgamma-emitting radionuclides above MDC levels. During the samplingepisode for the CW-5 sample demineralized water used fordecontamination of sampling equipment was found to contain gamma-emitting radioactivity and that is the suspected source for that sample.The sample from well CB-6, filtered in the lab, retested with no detectablegamma activity.

Fifteen samples from seven wells taken in early March 1999 were foundto be contaminated by Co-60 due to field and/or laboratory error.Subsequent resampling of these wells provided Co-60 results belowdetectable levels (Reference 42).


6.3.3 Gross Alpha, Gross Beta and Sr-90 Analyses

As discussed in Section 4.2 testing of ground water for gross alpha, grossbeta, strontium and transuranics has not been a major component ofYNPS site characterization. Data were collected at the outset of theproject in 1993 for gross alpha and gross beta (Table 3). Strontiumanalyses were done for two sets of samples (Table 2).

Samples from 12 wells were analyzed for gross beta as both unfilteredand filtered through a 40-micron screen (Table 3). Results for bothfiltered and unfiltered samples showed detectable gross beta in allsamples with levels consistent with those found in ground water forsamples in YNPS REMP analyses, that is detectable but low (based onU. S. EPA criteria discussed below) levels of gross beta. The U.S. EPAdefines a gross beta screening level for "vulnerable" locations (such asnear a nuclear facility) at 50 pCi/L. All results for filtered samples and allbut two results from filtered samples were well below that threshold. Thetwo unfiltered samples that exceeded that guideline, from CB-3 and CW-4, had values of 74 and 79 pCi/L, respectively. Subsequent filtering andreanalysis of these samples resulted in concentrations of 5.20 and 1.70pCi/L for CB-3 and CW-4, respectively. Thus the high values for theunfiltered samples are attributable to radioactivity in the suspendedfraction of the sample and thus not contributing to internal dose. Most ifnot all gross beta in these samples is likely to be attributable to naturally-occurring radioactivity.

Samples from 12 wells were analyzed for gross alpha with all samplesfiltered prior to analysis. All sample results were less than detectablelevels (<MDC). The MDC for those analyses was generally between 1and 4 pCi/L, sufficient to analyze against the U. S. EPA drinking waterstandard of 15 pCi/L.

Sr-90 analyses were done for 20 wells in 1997 and 24 wells in 1998. The1997 work included analyses for Sr-89 as well. None of the samplesshowed detectable levels of either nuclide. MDC values were all belowthe U. S. EPA drinking water standards of 8 and 20 pCi/L for Sr-90 andSr-89, respectively (based on a 4 mrem/yr dose equivalent).

6.3.4 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) Leakage

"YNPS Condition Report CR 1999-036" was issued on 5/17/99(Reference 43) and addressed leakage from the upgradient Spent FuelPool (SFP) wall into the Ion Exchange Pit (IXP). The CR was promptedby analysis of standing water in the Ion Exchange Pit, which contained H-3 at a concentration of 50,000 pCi/L. Subsequent inspections andanalyses of standing water from IXP provided information confirming thatthe leak to the IXP was less than 10 gallons per year. H-3 concentrationsin water on the IXP floor, sump and in upgradient well CB-10 showeddecreasing concentrations based on data reported in YNPS memoranda(References 44 through 48).


A chart showing the average concentration of H-3 in SFP water wasincluded with these references and is included in this report asAttachment 7. This graph shows a significant decrease in H-3concentration from 1/97 to 12/98 due mostly to evaporation(approximately 90% of the decrease) and the balance to H-3 decay(approximately 10% of the decrease). The significance of this conditionto ground water monitoring is high. First, if there is leakage from the SFPto the IXP, there appears to be a reasonable likelihood that leakageoccurs through the floor, the other walls and/or the joints between them.Thus, it seems likely that leakage from the SFP is the source of H-3 foundin ground water monitoring wells. The general decreasing levels of H-3in wells like CB-1, -9, -2, and -6, and B-1 would appear to be consistentwith a decreasing source term like the SFP water.

A "blister" (water penetration) in the New Fuel Vault was noted as aleakage location. A water sample taken at the blister contained low levelsof Co-60, Cs-1 34 and Cs-1 37. It was indicated that the Cs-1 34/Cs-1 37ratio, compared to that of the SFP water, suggested a 4-year migration-rate through the SFP wall (Reference 48).

Removal of the fuel from the SFP in the near future will allow it to bedrained. Levels of H-3 in ground water should then reflect the extent towhich the SFP is the source of H-3 in site ground water.

6.4 Well Closures

Five YNPS monitoring wells have been closed since the start of monitoring.These are noted with shading in Table 1. Closure was accomplished in keepingwith Reference 32. The procedure is based on Reference 24. The wells closedare as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Well Closure History

Well No. Date Closed Reason for Closure

B-3 2-Jan-97 Well used for prior geotechnical investigationwas small diameter and difficult to sample,replaced with CB-3

CW-1 7-Jul-00 Replaced by CW-9 to confirm isolatedcontamination with paint chips

CW-9 7-Jul-00 Replaced with MW-6 to confirm isolatedcontamination with paint chips

MW-3 7-Jul-00 Bent casing made sampling difficult, resultsfrom adjacent well, MW-2, appeared moreconservative

NSR-1 7-Jul-00 Offsite location: non-radiological investigationcompleted


of 26

6.5 Site Ground Water Conditions Summary

This section presents a review and evaluation of conditions at the YNPS siterelevant to ground water. It addresses the three potentially water-bearing units:fill outwash, glacial till and bedrock and their measured or inferred watertransmitting and water bearing properties, and their potential for radionuclidetransport. Key properties of the geohydrologic units at the site are estimated asshown in Table 6 based on study done for site characterization (Reference 31)and estimated done using site geotechnical data.

Unit Thicknesses and Lateral Extent

The thicknesses of key geologic units related to ground water at the YNPS site

are as follows:

. Fill-Outwash 3-12 feet

6.5.1

• Glacial Till 0-250 feet

The limits of the fill-outwash and the till are generally defined by site topographyas shown in Figures 3A and 3B.

6.5.2 Water-Transmitting Properties: Estimated Coefficients of Permeability

Values for coefficients of permeability for site soils were obtained in two ways: 1)estimates based on soil description using a standard chart and 2) based oncomputations using field testing results. Table 6 shows these data.

Table 6. Properties of Geohydrologic Units at the Site

Unit Description Silt and Estimated ComputedClay Permeability Permeability

Fill Silty sand and 5-25% 5.0 x 10-1 to 2.5 x 101 tooutwash gravel with some silt; 5% or 1.0 x 101 4.6 x 101(sandy silt layers, 3 to less clay g/d/ft2 g/d/ft2

portion, 12 feet thick. (Equivalent (Equivalentexcludes Original plant to 2.0 x 10-2 to 1.0 x 100silt layer) construction fill to 4.0 x 10-1 to 1.8 x 100

was derived from m/d) m/d)sandy outwash

Glacial till Dense, silty, 30% to 1.0 X 10-3 to 5.0 x 10-2 tosandy, gravelly 40% silt, 1.0 x 101 4.0 x 100bouldery glacial 8% to g/d/ft2 g/d/ft2

lodgment till, 20% clay (Equivalent (Equivalentwhich includes to 4.0 x 10.5 2.0 x 10-3 tosome stiff clayey to 4.0 x 10-3 1.6 x 10-1layers (till), from m/d) m/d)0 to about 250feet


of 26

Table 6. Properties of Geohydrologic Units at the Site, continued

Bedrock Quartz-albite- Estimates 1.0 X 10-7 to No measure-biotite gneiss based on 1.0 x 10- ments madeand a rusty low yields g/d/ft2

gneiss, generally for drilled (Equivalenthard, fresh, low wells 4.0 x 10-9 tofracture 4.0 x 10-7

frequency m/d)metamorphicrock, and withoutsignificantweathering

Estimated permeabilities were based on grain size distribution data fromReferences 49 and 50, geotechnical studies done for the YNPS site and sitecharacterization data. Key properties of the various units are noted in Table 6, inparticular the abundance of fines (silt and clay) in soils and fracture frequency inthe bedrock. Permeability of the fill-outwash soil is estimated to be moderate.Till and bedrock permeabilities are both estimated to be low. These data wereused to make estimates based on a standard chart describing permeabilities forthe range soil and rock deposits in Reference 14 p. 29.

Specific ground water inputs to RESRAD (Reference 51) were presented for theYNPS site in Reference 52 with some revisions provided in Reference 53. Theseare the results of site-specific judgments made by personnel familiar withcharacterization data and these dose codes. Those data represent one of theprincipal products of site characterization work.

6.5.3 Recharge and Discharge

Ground water recharge for the YNPS site is described in Section 3.0. It isprovided by rainfall as well as by ground water flow from the steep hills adjacentto the site.

Ground water discharge from the site is to the Deerfield River surface water viasprings or to underlying river deposits via ground water flow. Minimal groundwater discharge occurs from the site soils to the underlying bedrock.


of 26

7.0 REFERENCES

1. "Radiological Criteria for License Termination: Radiological Criteria for UnrestrictedUse," 10CFR20.1402, 1/1/01.

2. "The Massachusetts Contingency Plan" (MCP), 310 CMR 40.0000, MassachusettsDepartment of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, October 29,1999.

3. "Summary of Excavation Volumes for YNPS Construction Projects Performed Duringthe Time Period of Plant Operation," Memo to: E. Cumming from F. Bellini ESG 97-082, 2/27/98.

4. "Geology and Seismology Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant," Prepared for YankeeAtomic Electric Company, Weston Geophysical, 1979, Docket No. 50-29, 67p.

5. "Environmental Characterization Summary," Yankee Nuclear Power' Plant Site,DE&S, June 2000.

6. "Summary Report of Site Characterization Activities (1993-4)," EnvironmentalEngineering Department, September 1995, YAEC-1924.

7. "Summary Report of Site Characterization Activities (1995)", EnvironmentalEngineering Department May, 1996, YAEC-1934.

8. "Summary Report of 1996 Site Characterization Activities," EnvironmentalEngineering Department, October 1997, YAEC-1945.

9. "Summary Report of 1997 Site Characterization Activities," EnvironmentalEngineering Department, August 1999.

10. "Site Clearing," YNPS Plant Drawing 9699-FY-1C, 8/22/57.

11. "Overview and Status: Environmental Characterization," Yankee Nuclear PowerPlant Site, DE&S, Feb. 2000.

12. "YNPS Decommissioning Environmental Report," December 1993.

13. "Yankee Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Plan," Revision: 0.0, YankeeAtomic Electric Co., 1993.

14. "Groundwater," R.A. Freeze and J. A. Cherry. Prentice-Hall, 1979.

15. "Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology," Chapter 2, Fundamentals of IsotopeGeochemistry, Carol Kendall and Eric A. Caldwell, 1998, Elsevier Science B.V.,Amsterdam, 839 p.

16. "Introduction to Ground Water Tracers," Dept of Hydrology and Water Resources,University of Arizona for the U. S. EPA, EPA/600/2-05/022 March 1985.

17. "YNPS Final Safety Analysis Report," 1999.

18. "ISFSI Rough Site Grading and Earthwork, Plan," Sheet 1, YNPS Drawing ISFSI-FY-010, 3/23/00.

19. "Comprehensive Compliance Evaluation: Sanitary Survey Stage 1," Letter toYankee Atomic Electric Co. from MA DEP, NYR 96-047, 4/24/96.


20. Ground Water Atlas Of The United States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Crystalline-rock aquifers," HA 730-M, 1995.

21. Submittal of 1995 Annual Statistical Report," Letter to Massachusetts DEP Divisionof Water Supplies from W. J. Meyers, YNPS, BYR 96-055, 11/25/96.

22. "Administrative Program for Radiological Characterization Surveys to Support YNPSDecommissioning Planning," YNPS Procedure, AP-0831, Rev. No. 1.

23. "Subsurface Soil Sampling and Monitoring Well Installation," YNPS Procedure, OP-8122, Rev. No. 0, Issue Date, 4/93.

24. "Standard Reference for Monitoring Wells," Section 4.6, "Decommissioning ofMonitoring Wells," Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,Publication WSC-310-91, November 1993.

25. "Ground Water Level Measurement and Sample Collection in Observation Wells,"

YNPS Procedure, DP-9745, Rev. No. 1, 9/96.

26. "Sample Chain of Custody," YNPS Procedure, DP-8123, Rev No. 8, 5/02.

27. "Determination of Tritium in Environmental and Bioassay Matrices," FDESELProcedure No. 371, Rev 19, 1/25/02.

28. 'The Determination of Gamma-Ray Emitting Radionuclides InEnvironmental/Bioassay and Effluent/Waste Media," FDESEL Procedure.No. 450,Rev. 15, 2/21/00.

29. "The Determination of Sr-89, 90 in Environmental Media via Cerenkov Counting,"FDESEL Procedure No.368, Rev. 10, 3/1/02.

30. "Field Permeability Data Collection in Observation Wells," YNPS Procedure, DP-9747 10/94.

31. "YR Ground Water Model-Permeability and K Summary," informal unverifiedcalculation: F. X. Bellini and G. A. Harper, YNDS, February 1996.

32. "Procedure for Permanent Closure of Monitoring Wells at YNPS," YNPS Procedure,OP-8125.

33, "Site Characterization Environmental Radiological Database," YNPS Procedure, DP-8600, Rev 0, 5/00.

34, "Hydrogeology," S. N. Davis and R. J. M. DeWeist, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966

35. "Handbook of Hydrology," D. R. Maidment (editor), McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

36. "Determining Background Radiation Levels In Support of Decommissioning NuclearPower Facilities": Contributing author: soil and ground water sampling plan designsand river sediment case studies, EPRI Report No. TR-1 003030, December 2001.

37. "H-3 Concentrations in YNPS Site Ground Water," Letter to K. W. Dow from DanielL Magnarelli, DSF 2002-034, 2/19/02.

38, "Assessment of Ground Water Sampling Activities," Memo to E. M. Heath from F. X.Bellini/D. R. Orlowski, ESG 98-061, 6/2/98.

39. "Default Soil Solid/Liquid Partition Coefficients, Kds, for Four Major Soil Types: ACompendium," M.I. Sheppard and D.H. Thibault, Health Physics. Oct 1990, v.59 (4),p.471-482.


40. "YNPS Site Radiological Environmental History: Supplemental Information," Memoto E. M. Heath from F. X. Bellini, ESG 98-100, 12/22/98.

41. "Evaluation of Tritium in Ground Water at YNPS PAB," Memo to E. M. Heath from F.X. Bellini, ESG 98-045, 3/25/98.

42. "Co-60 results from 7 Ground Water Observation Wells for 3/99 and 5/99," Memo toE. M. Heath from F. X. Bellini, ESG 99-11, 6/10/99.

43. "Possible Spent Fuel Pool in-leakage to the Ion Exchange Pit," YNPS ConditionReport CR-1 999-036, Issued: 5/24/99, Closed 2/7/00.

44. "CR-1999-036 - Possible Spent Fuel Water In-Leakage to the Ion Exchange Pit(5/18/99)," Memo to Management Review Team from J. Gedutis, CHM 99-012,11/22/99.

45. "Reference CR-1999-036"' CHM 99-015," Memo to Rick Williams from J. Gedutis,12/1/99.

46. "Ion Exchange Pit Inspection Report," Memo to Rick Williams from J. Gedutis, CHM00-005, 5/17/00.

47. "Surveillance for Spent Fuel Pit Wall Leakage," Memo to Rick Williams from J.Gedutis, CHM 01 -008, 6/14/01.

48. "Surveillance for Spent Fuel Pit Wall Leakage," Memo to Greg Babineau/RickWilliams from J. Gedutis, CHM 02-009, 5/12/02.

49. "Project Plan: Preliminary Geotechnical Studies for the Proposed Expansion ofSpent Fuel Facility (Draft)," Dames & Moore, 1978. YAEC Microfilm # 1000010.

50. "Report on Foundation Investigation, Fire Water Tank, Rowe Atomic Plant, Rowe,MA," Geotechnical Engineers, Inc, 1980, Prepared for Yankee Atomic ElectricCompany, Docket No. 50-29.

51. "Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactivity Materials Guidelines UsingRESRAD, Version 5.0," Yu, C., Zielen, A.J., Cheng, J.-J., Yuan, Y.C., Jones, L.C.,LePoire, D.J., Wang, Y.Y., Loueiro, C.O., Gnanapragasam, E., Faillace, E., Wallo IIIA., Williams, W.A., and Peterson, H., September 1993, Environmental AssessmentDivision, Argonne National Laboratory.

52. "YNPS Soil and Ground Water Inputs for Dose Models," Memo to J. W. Bisson fromF. X. Bellini, ESG 98-025, Rev. 1, 3/24/98.

53. "YNPS Soil and Ground Water Inputs for Dose Models," Memo to J. W. Bisson fromF. X. Bellini, ESG 00-001, 1/20/00.


DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 1Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning

Page 1 of 11

Figures

M--- M- -I MM - - - m

Approximate Scale

4000 80001 . . 1

0meters L

12000 160oo

0miles i

4.01

8.01 Figure 1. Site Location Map

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

Figures: Page 2 of I I

Site Structures and Area DesignationsYankee Nuclear Power Station

Legend(Dotted structures are removed)

1. Abandoned Septic Leaching Field2. Operating Septic Leaching Field3. Sherman Dam Powerhouse (USGen)4. CW Discharge Structure5. CW Intake Pumphouse6. Gatehouse and Security Generator7. Former Office Building8. Turbine Building9. Service Building10. Stores Warehouse11. Modular Office Building12. Office Trailers13. Office Building14. Vapor Container15. Decon Rooms (N. & S.)16. Spent Fuel Pool17. New Fuel Vault18. Diesel Generator Building19. Safety Injection Building20. Primary Auxiliary Building21. Ion Exchange Pit22. Fuel Oil Tank23. Compactor Building24. Waste Disposal Building25. Tanks Area (ADD & WH Tanks)26. Safe Shutdown Building27. Fire Water Tank and Pumphouse28. PCA Warehouse29. Old PCA Building (#I)30. New PCA Building (#2)31. Outdoor Rad Storage Areas32. ISFSI (Dry Fuel Storage)33. SE Construction Fill Area34. Gas Drum Decay Area35. Fuel Chute Lock Valve Access36. Service Bldg. Drain Tank Pit37. Former Clean-Side Incinerator38. Old (N.) and New (S.) SI Tanks39. E&W Storm Drain Discharges40. Circulating Water System Pipe41. Former Potable Water Well42. New Potable Water Well DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. I

Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

Figure 2

Figures: Page 3 of 11

= - M- i = M I I, M l, M m m -m OR Mm M - so


U OUIU

Approx. ScaleContour interval 6 meters

Figures: Page 4 of 11IFigure 3A. Geologic Map

See Figs 3B and 3C for profiles

- - - - -IIIm mmM m m N

A See Fig 3A for Location

' SITS

SHERMAN DAM ...

-- 2000'

1500I

1000'

500'

Northwest Ccg ICcsf Ch SoutheastO' MSL

GLACIAL SEDIMENTS

h HOOSAC ALBITE GNEISS

h HOOSAC RUSTY GNEISS

c CAVENDISH GARNET SCHIST

-cg-- CAVENDISH EVENLY-LAYERED GNEISS

0* 1000'I

2000' 3000'

NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

Site Locale Geologic ProfileI

Figure 3B. GeologicProfile

From Reference 4



-- -M m m -ý M M m IM am -s -n M, M -s M

See Fig 3A for Locations

B Northwest1 CONTAINMENT I

Southeast B'

0 0. *.

-'0CN

Ch ~' ~ >N'N < <.N

N K NXN' N ' N,

INortheast '

.0*.

.j 0 ~~-

~0.0* .- -. Ch

l

ODOM*

OUTWASH: BROWN SAND AND GRAVEL, SILT

TILL: COMPACT, FINE, WITH GRAVEL AND BOULDERS

VARVED CLAY-SILT: COMPACT, MINOR SAND

SAND: FINE TO COARSE, VERY COMPACT

BEDROCK t HOOSAC FORMATION, ALBITE GNEISS

0I.I . 50' 100'. I |

200'i 300'

NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

Site Locale Geologic Profiles

Figure 3C.Geologic Profilesfrom Reference 4



Yankee Nuclear Power Station

CB-4968

CO

0 ShermanSpring997

0S I

S I

_,,•-• OCB-6

on Average Water Levels infor Well in Surficial Materials

Grid N

Yi N(True)

4"44.5 Deg.

Elevations based on YNPSPlant/Sherman Dam Datum

EstirmateContours are Hand-Drawn

"-. E-stimates

N-7 "-

Ground Water Contour Based

9%5-

-t1000 .

1000

1005

1010

0 C0

.. CW-61015 '"1007

-71026

0

\ ___1030 . .

-- • • 00000000010 5

-, o oo00000000o

0 200 ftI I SI

Approx. ScaleA040

-- - OSR-10 1043 CB-5

10440 --- - - - - - -

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. ISite Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

- --- - Figure 4Figures: Page 7 of 1

- -,nI na -- •• m I I_ m -Plan of Monitoring Wells

Yankee Nuclear Power StationFall, 2001

Deer

0 C0-4

3ShE

Well No. Location

CB-1 NW of Fuel Pit

CB-2 NW of Office Bldg

CB-3 E of Fire Tk

CB-4 Old Leaching Field

CB-5 Misc Fill Area

CB-6 Sherman Spring Area

CB-7 PCA Warehouse at WDG wall

CB-8 Storage Area behind old PCA

CB-9 VC Equipment Hatch

CB-10 IX Pit

CB-11A PAB Cubicle Corridor Trench

CB-12 WDB Ash Dewatering Pit

B-1 NE side Fuel Bldg

B-3* NE side Fire Pumphouse

CW-I* NW of DG Bldg

CW-2 NW of SI Tks

CW-3 SE of Ion Exch Pit

CW-4 NW of Plant Whse

CW-5 SE of Service Bldg

CW-6 SW of Turbine Bldg

CW-7 W. of Service Bldg

CW-8 SW comer Turb Bldg

CW-9* 5' N of CW-1

CW-1 0 Down-Gradient of old gas UST

CW-11 PAB Down-Gradient of CB-11 A

MW-1 Up-Gradient of PAB

MW-2 Down-Gradient of PAB

MW-3* Down-Gradient of PAB

MW-5 Adjacent to MW-3

MW-6 Adjacent to CW-1 & 9

NSR-I* New Shooting Range

OSR-1 Old Shooting Range

* Well Decommissioned. Grouted

OCB-6

= C 0 CB-2

•rman Pond

NSR-1

)S

O Monitoring Well

* Decommissioned Well

0 300 ft

Approximate Scale

CFW-6 0

nGrid N

e44.5 Deg.

\.............-.......

OSR-10

CFW-3 00 CFW-4

CFW-20

0CFW-5

CB-50

Figure 5. GroundWater Monitoring

WellsCFW-l 0

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 1Site Ground Water Data Collection for Figures: Page 8 of 1I

O ShermanSpring

-- S

0 CB

YNPS 1999 MaximumConcentration/Annual Dose

Equivalent due to H-3 in GroundWater (mrem/yr)

Grid NY N(True)

e44.5 Deg.

o CW-7",li

0 .. : .

Li czjC:13-2

Well H-3No. pCi/L

0CW-6

0CB-1CB-2CB-3CB-6CB-7CB-8CB-9CB-10CB-11ACB-12CW-2CW-3CW-4CW-5CW-6CW-7CW-8CW-10CW-1 1MW-1MW-2MW-5MW-6B-1

42101280

<MDC666

<MDC<MDC401023302030

<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC

360<MDC116001290114705610<MDC2830

MW-6CW-5

Legendo Monitoring Wells® (x are grouted)

0, _....J CB-8

0 O CW-4CB-3

- - - - - - - - - -

D-] Site Structures

Fence lineNote: All contours are approximate

D 300-3000 pCi/LMDC to 0.6 mrem/yr

Lii 3000-6000 pCi/L-0.6 to 1.2 mrem/yr

E] 6000-9000 pCi/L1.2 to 1.8 mrem/yr

9000-12000 pCi/L1.8 to 2.4 mrem/yr

Sherman Spring<MDC

0 200 ftI I S

Approximate ScaleLI

DESD-TD-YR-02-001'Rev. ISite Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

Figure 6Figures: Page 9 of 11

0 Sherman Spring, YNPS Fall 2001Concentration/Annual Dose

Equivalent due to H-3 in GroundWater (mrem/yr)

;. •

0CB-6

Grid NYN(True)44.5 Deg.

0 200 ft

Approximate ScaleELZ

.0CB-2

0CW-6

0CW-10

Well H-3No. pCi/L 'S

CB-ICB-2CB-3CB-6CB-7CB-8CB-9CB-10CB-11ACB-12CW-2CW-3CW-4CW-5CW-6CW-7CW-8CW-10CW- 11MW-IMW-2MW-5MW-6B-I

28201370

<MDC430

<MDC<MDC23303270410

<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC<MDC2260620

22504180<MDC1710

I

.I,•, t

0 i CW-5

OjILegendO Monitoring Wells® (x are grouted)

E-] Site Structures

Fence line

E 300-3000 pCi/L

MDC to 0.6 mrem/yrLi 3000-6000 pCi/L

0.6 to 1.2 mrem/yr

Note: All contours areapproximate

CW-40±1 1,, I I- - - - - - - - - -

000000o

Sherman Spring<MDC DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 1

Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

Figure 7


MMM -M M m-mM- ---

PAB Area: H-3 in Ground Water 1998-9

80000

70000

60000

- 50000G

L. 40000

S30000

--- CB-11A (4-galpurge)

--o--CB-11A(30-galpurge)

- MW-2

--x- CW-1120000

10000

00o 00 ) 0

Date

O0C.,

0


Figure 8

Figures: Page I I of 11

UI

IIIiIIIIIIIIII

i

I


Page l of 30

Tables

- - - - - - m - -- - -~ - - - - rnTable 3. YNPS 1993 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Results Page 1 of 1

Gross GrossBeta Beta

Filtered UnfilteredConcentration Concentration

Date Well LSN pCi/L Error MDC Detected? Date Well LSN pCi/L Error MDC Detected?6/28/1993 B-1 11726 4.70 0.80 2.30 Y 6/28/1993 B-1 11115 16.0 1.3 3.5 Y6/28/1993 B-3 11725 6.80 0.80 2.20 Y 6/28/1993 B-3 11114 11.9 2.0 5.9 Y6/18/1993 CB-1 11717 17.60 1.00 2.50 Y 6/18/1993 CB-1 11101 17.2 2.1 6.0 Y6/18/1993 CB-2 11718 13.90 0.99 2.50 Y 6/18/1993 CB-2 11102 16.9 2.1 6.0 Y6/28/1993 CB-3 11466 5.20 0.48 1.30 Y 6/28/1993 CB-3 1111-2 74.0 3.7 8.4 Y6/28/1993 CB-4 11724 4.90 1.30 3.90 Y 6/28/1993 CB-4 11113 12.1 1.4 3.9 Y6/28/1993 CW-1 11722 12.30 0.95 2.50 Y 6/28/1993 CW-1 11109 11.4 1.4 4.1 Y6/28/1993 CW-2 11723 6.20 1.80 5.60 Y 6/28/1993 CW-2 11110 43.6 3.2 8.1 Y6/18/1993 CW-3 11719 26.80 2.50 6.50 Y 6/18/1993 CW-3 11103 25.4 4.3 13.0 Y6/28/1993 CW-4 11465 1.70 4.30 13.00 Y 6/28/1993 CW-4 11111 79.0 11 31 Y6/18/1993 CW-5 11720 25.30 2.30 5.90 Y 6/18/1993 CW-5 11104 35.1 3.0 8.1 Y6/18/1993 CW-6 11721 13.30 0.95 2.40 Y 6/18/1993 CW-6 11105 15.4 1.3 3.5 Y

GrossAlpha

FilteredConcentration

Date Well LSN pCi/L Error MDC Detected?6/28/1993 B-1 11726 1.27 0.46 1.20 N6/28/1993 B-3 11725 -0.17 0.92 3.60 N6/18/1993 CB-1 11717 4.30 1.60 4.10 N6/18/1993 CB-2 11718 2.40 1.50 4.10 N6/28/1993 CB-3 11466 -0.70 0.37 1.50 N6/28/1993 CB-4 11724 -0.77 0.88 2.70 N6/28/1993 CW-1 11722 0.89 0.46 1.30 N6/28/1993 CW-2 11723 1.32 0.97 2.90 N6/18/1993 CW-3 11719 -1.50 3.20 1.10 N6/28/1993 CW-4 11465 -0.30 2.10 7.10 N6/18/1993 CW-5 11720 -0.30 3.00 1.00 N6/18/1993 CW-6 11721 3.00 1.40 3.90 N

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning Tables: Page 30 of 30


Attachment 1: Page 1 of 3

Attachment 1Radiological Profiles of Surface Soil

M a- I o O mEft w- K •m w -o - -

Attachment 1

Distribution of Cobalt-60 with Depth, (pCi/kg wet)

TS-155 TS-158 TS-171Depth (Beside WHT Moat) (Storage Area) (Under VC)

Asphalt --- 183 414

0-2" 18,600 9880 264

2-4" 5290 8880 < 99

4-6" 1270 866 < 93

6-8" 201 17.5 137

8-10" 95 201 < 104

10-12" 215 124 < 98

12-14" <96 781

14-16" --- <45

Distribution of Silver-108M with Depth, (pCi/kg wet)

TS-155 TS-158 TS-171Depth (Beside WHT Moat) (Storage Area) (Under VC)

Asphalt --- <56 <55

0-2" 37,400 20,600 < 66

2-4" 5030 3940 < 44

4-6" 1100 149 < 51

6-8" 425 < 61 < 52

8-10" 187 < 59 < 51

10-12" 157 226 < 42

12-14" < 61 < 53

14-16" <60

Ground Water Data for YNPS DecommissioningDESD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0


-¸ - - -In - - -• m m m

Attachment 1

Distribution of Cesium-137 with Depth, (pCi/kg wet)

TS-155 TS-158 TS-171

Depth (Beside WHT Moat) (Storage Area) (Under VC)

Asphalt --- 428 582

0-2' 18,400 7780 1490

2-4" 6070 9970 173

4-6" 1200 1660 84

6-8" 263 515 87

8-10" 115 336 <87

10-12" < 105 167 < 81

12-14" --- 145 251

14-16" --- < 79

Ground Water Data for YNPS DecommissioningDESD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0




Attachment 2. H-3 Well Graphs

--- M •mn lK- M -m Af -MDESD-TDoYR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning Attachment 2: Page 2 of 34

Sherman Spring REMP: 6-Month Averages

10000000_

1000000 ___

100000 _ ___..

0. 10000 __-_ _

1000_

100 _ _ __ __ _ _

10Co 0or. I' 0c C o 0) 0)

CC C = C C r- C C CCU CU CU CU CU CU CU MU CU CU CU CU CU

Date

SO% - 0!, MM M oft U M " g M 0 MM 0 M MAR JM 0 'I-



Sherman Spring REMP Data: H-3

-J

00~cvi

I

1200

800

400

0

-400

-800

IT TITTM T T T -rrTT j T, TO T -r'

T'T TITT. J-Tit t 'it tit,-0 -P

T

CU0)

(-3

0)

C"(3

(00)

(1

r,-0)I

(1

000)

!(1-

0)0)

CU(3

00O(1 CU

(N0

(3

0CU(13

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 siama

Date

mo m -am

- - m m - -i m - -m - - - , -M

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YN IPS Decommissioning


CB-1: H-3

9000 Legend

8000

7000

6000)5000, 4000

- 3000

t, { LegendFilled. Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDC

, Error Bars 2 sigma

{ il ,,

2000

10000 -~ I I I I I

CU0') 0)

CU

LO)

CU

CD0)C(U

(U

0)

CU(U

0)Cb

mU

0

C)

t-

C)(U

(NC)(U

Co

C)(U

Date

M m mm m-m mm -m- mm' mm- -u N m



CB-2: H-3

4000

3000-J

*o 20000,.

-1000

0

-1000COM)

'I LO) (0 ID 00 0 T- No0 0) 0) 0)) 0) ) 0 0 0

CU (U (U CU (U -U (U "U CU

Date

CO0(U

MM- -OE M- am m--

DESD-TD-YR-02-O01 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning


CB-3: H-3

-. I

a--

2000

1000

0

-1000

-2000CO)0)C:

LO) ..0 r .- 0 0) 0 T- N0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0I I I I I I I I I

C C C C - - CCU CU (U CU

Date

CO00

1•.--

- - m M " M MM a M --" " - -M M



CB-4: H-3

..J

0

-0-

900

600

300

0

-300

-600

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma

T ""

CU M)

nU

LO)0)

CU

co

CUCU

coM)

CU CU(U

00(UC-0C

(U

(N

C:(U

MO

C)

(U

Date

-M - " - - MM M - M - -M



CB-5: H-3

2000

-J

00.

I

1000

0

-1000CO)

CU

L00 C0 T- NO a \a)M C) a) a) a ) )

CU CU C CU CU CU CU CU

Date

CO0)CýCU)

m M- M mt M M -M m M M1 M M M M



CB-6: H-3

2500 -.J

L) 1500-

' 500-

-500

I LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 siqma

mMM

IT T T TI

II

I I

Co)

CU

LO) CD N 00 0') C) N\) 0') 0M M) 0 ) C CD CD

CU~ (U CU CU (U (U (U (U (U

Co)C)Cý(U

Date

I

M M M a Mm m s - - - -M m M m -0 M M



CB-7: H-32000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDC

j-I -1UUU€00. 0

S-1000

-2000

-I-Open SymbolsIUI "-IVllDCT

Error Bars 2 sigma•-¥ :i: - }

(U

0)

(.m

LO)

(U

Co0)C(U

0")

mU

000)(m.

0)0C)

IU

00

(.-C)

0mU

0

C).U

CIOC0Cý(U

Date

m m m m - m- m - - m - ml n- m -



CB-8: H-32000

S1000UCL 0

= -1000

-2000

Tp

0oMbIc

CU-(U

L0)

CU

(D0M

CU

co

cO(U

CU(U

C)(Dlc(U

091--C)

N\C)

co)C)

CU(U

DateLegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma

- mmM - - m M m m m mMa um

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Coffection for YNPS Decommissioning


CB-9: H-3

9000

7000

S 50000.

= 3000

1000

-1000COC)

(U

LC) LO CD r- 0 C) C CI0) 0 . 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0

I I I I I S L I I

-U -U (U ( -U M -U CU CU CU

CO0(U

Date

M, -Mm m m -•MM - - m m i



CB-10: H-35000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma4000 + +

-J3000

c 2000

1000

0

o.

' .. 1 ,I

I

0e) 0)Cý

0')CM-

0)Cý- 3

0)

CD

Date

0)0)

!

00C(U

0

C(0

IN04

CýCU

coC:

-CU

M M M - - m M M m M M -M m



CB-11A: H-380000

70000

60000

! 500000CL 40000

Z 30000

20000

10000

0

Legendj Filled Symbols <MDC

Open Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma

I I I I ; .. . . . I-. . . .•. . . . .• . . . .• . . . .

CUCU

LO)

CU

0)

CU(3U

ll`-0)Cý(U

0)Cý(U )

Date

0)0)

!(U

0.0

Cý(U

0T--

Cý(U)

N\C09L-U

co0

(U-U

Average MDC

M M M M M M M M M M m m M - - M M M



CB-12: H-3

1000

-j0

Cn

-.

4- -1000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDC TTError Bars 2 sigma

-2000 -t

co0)

U3

0)I

CU

ILO0')

Cr, C.O(..

0)I

CU CU(U

C)0)I

(..

00

CU

0

CU(U

0Cýcc

CO0

CU(U

Date

M M M nM-m M -M m M M M m M m m M



CW-1: H-3

-J

U0.I

I

2000

1000

0

-1000


TT 4 1 T I

COa) !) a-)CL C C C

00

CU

T0C)

CU

(NC)C:

CO)0C:

Date

M m m M M m M M m M M m m m M M M M



CW-2: H-32000

-J

00.

I

1000

0

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2sigma

T1 T iI T 0

-1000co)0')

CU

U-)

(U)

C00') U)

C(..

0)

Date

0)0')CýCU

0

Cý(U

0-C)

(U)

N%%C0Cý(U)

C)(U

m m m m - m M m M M m M m m m M



CW-3: H-32000 I3

-J

U0.

I

I

1000

0

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 siama

I I I II

-1000coM~

CU

LC)0~)

CU

C.0

CU(

0)MCUX

0)0)m

CQC)

QrC) C)

Co)

Date

M M M M M M -M m M m M m - m - M



CW-4: H-31000

0-l O

-1000

-20000U

(UU) (.0 1,-. 00 0) C0 C\J

0) ) 0M) 0M) 0) 0) 0 0 0I I I U U i i i i

(- U (U (U (- (- (- (U (

0o

C)


Date

m m m m m m M M M M m m m - M m M



CW-5: H-33000

2000

0. 1000

0

-1000

CU )

LO) (0 0)I 00 M C0 T CN0 ") 0 " 0 ") 0) 0 ") 0 ") 0 0 0u I n I n I I n IMC M C C- C C

CU (U (U (U (U (U (U (U DU

Date

CO)C0Cý(U

mm m - M M M M M M M m - m m M M



CW-6: H-3

4000

3000

J 2000

-1000

4 0

-1000

-2000CO)

0)

14, LO (.0 CO,- 0 0") C) ( N CO0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0I I I I I I I I I I

(U (U CU (U CU CU (U (U (U DU

Date

m M M M M m M M m m m m M n m M M



CW-7: H-3

-J

cm)

0.I

I

3000

2000

1000

0

-1000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDC

___Open Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma

0)O3

0)

CU

0O

C:

(U(U

3-0)C:( U)

00

C(U

Date

0)

C:-CU)

0

(U30

C:(U

N0C)

(U)

0o0

C(U)

- - m n m - m - m m - -- m - - m - m

M-- M M ----- - - - m - -M M MM



CW-9: H-3

400

--0

-r

200

0


I I I

-200

CU )

0)

('-

LO0')(m

(00')(I

U-0).

000a)

Date

0')0')

-CU(m

00Cý(U

0-C)

CU

N0Cý(m)

C~)

Cý(U3

- --- u mnE - w•_ -n m -l -------- •mn -



CW-10: H-3400

300+LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma-J

0

0.I

=

200

100

0

-100

i _____________________ ___ ________________________

C?)CU) CU)

LO)

CU)CoCU)

01)

C',

000)

CU

CU)C)

(U

U--

(.-C)

0CC)(U

Date

- --- m -m -ml p •n L• -F - -il -

M - M - - -n M9 m - - M, - m m



MW-I: H-3

-J

00.I

I

4000300020001000

0-1000-2000

LegendI II

Coa)CU CU

I

CU

(0D0)

IU

0)

CU

0)0)30)

IC)C) T-

C:

co

C)

Date

- g - m) of M - 4 % 4 1 o aw, M M "a --



MW-2: H-3

-J

U0.I

I

14000

10000

6000

2000

-2000

Legend 1Filled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma

C:0o

i)L00) C:

0UNC.

000)C:CU

C:ICU

C:CU

0

CU

C-)

C:(0

0 I

C:CIO

Date

-l -o 10 M. -l MV am o. A s!1w MM



MW-3: H-3

-J

00~

I

3000

2000

1000

0

-1000

-2000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDC0Open Symbols <MDCoError Bars 2 sigma

i

COt

0')

CU

0)

(U

LOt0)(!

I(0

(U

0)

CU

!

00

CD(U)

Date

0)0)C:O(U

0C)

C(U

o

(U

0CU(U

CU

-w -x- O * " , M,,w- 1M. I I- a -a



MW-5: H-37500

5500

3500

1500

-500


I I I I

CU

0')

(U

LC)I

(.-

(0

CU,CU(..

00

CU(UO

0')

CI( U

C)

C)(U

C:(U

C:(U

CI)

C:(U-

Date

- - -, - - - ~ - A- -~



MW-6: H-3

1000

-J

(U)

0.cvi

I

=

0


-1000

C:)CU

0')

(U)

LO)

C)

(DC)

-CU

N-C)

(U)

00I

CD(U

Date

C)C)

!U

00CUC!

0(-"

0C)

(U)

C~)

C:(U)

- •m an "lw so o M lo - aN -if



NSR-1: H-3

-J* -

00.

I

I

500300100

-100-300-500

LegendI___Filled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2sigma

- ~~I II

C:)CO

L()0)

cc'0) 0) CID0)3

IoC:

C)0-

Co

N

C:

co0

Mo

Date

m an mw, -o - - , - -w A In -M



OSR-1: H-31000

LegendFilled Symbols <MDCOpen Symbols <MDCError Bars 2 sigma-J

00.C

I

I

500-

0

-500 -

T tI Ii ____________

-1000

0)(O3

qqt

0')OC(!

LO0')

(U

(00')

CU)

0)C-

0)

Date

0)0)

CU(3

00C(U)

0T'-

C:(U

I-.jC:(U

0C-(U



Attachment 3Monitoring Well Configuration Sketches


Attachment 3:Page 2 of 30

SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION B-INew Fuel Vault

DEPTH (fi)

0-

10-

grounddepth

20-

30 -

ground surfaceelevation: +1128.34 (1022.68)

pipe

PVCriser pipe

water18. -F

5' bentonite seal

filter pack sand

40 - 6" dia borehole

Top of Bedrock 44 -

49.0' -

4 in. dia schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen

Borehole depth: 78.5'

Bottom of well screen: 49.0'

Top of well screen: 39.0'

Top of filter sand: 23'

Top of bentonite seal: 18'

Installation date: 12/30/77

Sampled Subsurface Materials:

0-8' Fill8-44' Till44'-78.5' Bedrock

Contractor: Guild Drilling

Engineer: Dames & Moore



SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-IN. of Fuel Building

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5-

10-

ground waterdepth 11.7'

15-

20-

25-

N

[ ground surfaceelevation: +1126.80 (1021.15)

16" deep road box metal cover

N2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

riser pipe

grout

2' bentonite seal

filter pack sand

\12.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

5" dia borehole

Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-3.5' Fill3.5'-13.5' Bouldery Till13.5'-25.5' Till


Engineer: Yankee Atomic


Bottom of well screen: 25'

Top of well screen: 15'



Installation date: 4/26-27/93



SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-2N. of Office Building

D ground surfaceDEPTH (ft) F I.. ý; ... 1 In Q,7 IlI A,)I

eLIVGLIUII. "-r1 on , .01 kIU 1.C.1

0-

5-

10-

ground waterdepth 13.7 -V-

15-

20---

Borehole depth: 25'



Top of filter sand: 13.5'


2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVCriser pipe

grout

seal

filter pack sand

slotted well screen

5" dia borehole


0-0.5' Asphalt

0.5-15.5' Fill/Outwash

15.5-25' Bouldery Till


Engineer: Yankee AtomicInstallation date: 4/20-21/93



SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-3E. of Fire Water Tank

DEPTH (ft)

0-


ground waterdepth 4.2' _

5-

10-

15-

L- ground surfaceelevation: +1139.97 (1034.31)

4 grout

1' bentonite seal


filter pack sand

2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen

5" dia borehole







Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt

0.5-10' Silty Outwash

10-15' Till





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-4Old Septic Leaching Field

Top of casingelevation: 1087.21 (981.55)

ground surfaceelevation: 1084.5 (978.8)

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5- riser pipe

F' bentonite seal

10-ground waterdepth 11.3'

15-


20-- 5" dia borehole





Top of bentonite seal: 7.0'


Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0-2' Fill2'-7'Sand7-9' Gravel9-13' Sand13-15' Gravel15-20' Alluvium





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-5

Southeast Construction Fill Area

DEPTH (ft)

0

10 -

20 -

ground water vdepth: 26'

30 -

40-

50-

60-

Borehole depth: 60'6"Bottoms of well screen: 59'

Top of well screens: 29'Top of filter sand: 18'


L ground surfaceelevation: 1070+-

24" deep metal riser box

¾ grout

2'bentonite seal

filter pack sand

2.5 'dia. schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

W5" dia. borehole

Sampled subsurface materials:

0-0.2' Topsoil

0.2'-25' Fill

25'-60'6" Till







Southeast of Sherman Dam

DEPTH (ft)

0

10 -

/

Top of casingelevation: +1113.79 (1008.13)

ground surface

eelevation: +1110.6 (1004.9)

.- 24" deep metal riser box

g grout

2'bentonite seal

filter pack sand

2.5' dia. schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

X" 5 dia. borehole


0-0.2' Topsoil

0.2'-20'SSand and gravel

20'-26 Till

ground waterdepth: 15' V

..........

.. ......... .......... . ......... . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . ..

20 -

Borehole depth: 26'




Top of bentonite seal: 12'Contractor: Guild Drilling






PCA Warehouse near Waste Building

DEPTH (ft)floor surfaceelevation: +1141.34 (1035.67)

0-

ground waterdepth: 10'

10 --

17 -

4

- Flush metal road box

grout

. 1' bentonite seal

1' fine sand seal

filter pack sand


slotted well screen

5" dia. borehole

Well depth: 17'



Top of filter sand: 5.5'Top of fine sand seal: 4.5'



0-1' Concrete

1'-6' Sand and Gravel Fill6'-11' Boulder, Cobbles

11 -17' Boulders (Till?)




DESD-TD-YR-02-00l Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning



Rad Storage Area East of Old PCA

DEPTH (ft)

0


10

20-

Well depth: 19'





fl

ground surface

elevation: +1140.83 (1035.17)

lush metal road box

grout

1.5' bentonite seal

filter pack sand

5" dia. borehole


slotted well screen


0-.5' Asphalt

0.5'-3' Sand fill (till?)

3'-19' Till


Engineer: Yankee AtomicInstallation date: 9/20/94




Beneath VC Equipment Hatch

DEPTH (ft)ground surface

elevation: +1126.84 (1021.18)

0


V

10

20

24

Well depth: 24'





Flush metal road box

* grout

1.5' bentonite seal

- filter pack sand

2.5 ' dia. schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

5" dia. borehole


0-2" Asphalt

2"-9.5' Sand fill

9.5'-24' Till







NW. Comer of Ion Exchange Pit

DEPTH (ft)

0-

slab surfaceelevation: +1127 (1021)


F bentonite seal

5 -

10-


5" dia borehole







Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-1.5' Concrete1.5-10' Brown silty gravellywidely-graded sand


Contractor: Geosearch

Engineer: Duke Engineering & Services



SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CB-1 1A

PAB Pipe Trench

DEPTH (ft)

0

ground waterdepth 3'* 7

5 -

10 -

15

20

Top of casingelevation: 1023.5 (1129)

ground surfaceelevation: 1020.5 (1126)

16" deep covered metal riser pipe

2.0 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

K riser pipe

grout

1' bentonite seal

filter pack sand


5" dia borehole

* Initial ground water depth +0.2 ft above floor

Borehole depth: 20'






Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-1.5' Concrete

1.5-19.5' Brown silty gravelly

widely-graded sand: loose

19.5-20.0' Clayey silt






NW Comer of Waste Disposal Building Ash Dewatering Pit

DEPTH (ft)

0-

grout,,'


5-

6-

5" dia borehole

F

floor slab surfaceelevation: +1134.3 (1028.6)


F1' bentonite seal


filter pack sand

Borehole depth: 7'






Sampled Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-10' Silty Outwash

10-15' Till






SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-1N. of Diesel Generator Building

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5-


10-

15-

20-

g ground surfaceelevation: +1126.49 (1020.83)



grout

1' bentonite seal

filter pack sand

I'-2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

4" dia borehole







Inferred Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-12' Bouldery Till12-21' Till





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-2N. of old SI Tank

DEPTH (ft) /- ground surfaceelevation: +1 136i.57 k032.9)

0-

5-

10-

ground water -2depth 12.4'

15-

20-








grout

1' bentonite seal

filter pack sand


5" dia borehole

Inferred Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-15' Fill/Outwash15'-21Fill





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-3SE of Ion Exchange Pit

DEPTH (ft)

0 -

5-


10-

15-

20-

I

ground surfaceelevation: 1140.20 (1034.54)



I\ grout

1.5' bentonite seal

K,filter pack sand


5" dia borehole







Inferred Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt

0.5-7.5' Fill/Outwash7.5-19' Till19-23' Bedrock



DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. '0Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning


SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-4Between PCA Storage Buildings

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5 -

ground water.a7depth 7.7' -

10-

15-


16" deep road boxmetal cover

grout


1 bentonite seal

K, filter pack sand


5" dia borehole


0.5-17' Till











SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-5S. of Service Building

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5 -

ground waterdepth 8.1' -F.

10 -

15 -

20 -

T ground surfaceelevation: +1126.70 (1021.04)


2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVCSriser pipe

Ngrout

1' bentonite seal

I,,filter pack sand


5" dia borehole








0.5-12' Fill/Outwash13'-21.5' Bedrock





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-6W. of Turbine Building

DEPTH (ft)

0-

5-

10-


15 -

20 -

L ground surfaceelevation: +1124.44 (1018.78)



grout

2' bentonite seal

K,filter pack sand

K2.5 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

slotted well screen

5" dia borehole

Borehole depth: 24'






Inferred Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-14' Fill/Outwash12'-24' Till





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-7

West of Service Building near former Used Oil UST

DEPTH (ft)

0

10 -

4


k"_ 16" metal road box

grout


1 bentonite sealV__ x_"20 -

30 -

Borehole depth: 31'





filter pack sand


slotted well screen

5" dia. borehole


0-5' Silt with sand

5'-6' Fine-grained sand

6'-8' Cobbles8'-31' Till (top depth uncertain)






SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-8

Southwest Bay of Turbine Building

DEPTH (ft)

0

10

>

>>

>


SFlush metal road box

grout

1.5 bentonite seal

Sfilter pack sand

2.5'dia. schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen

S5" dia. borehole


20

V

Well depth: 26'






0-1.4' Concrete

1.4'-5' Sand

5'-10' Cobbles

10'-26' Till (top depth uncertain)






SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-9N. of Diesel Generator Building

DEPTH (ft)

0-

grout

5-

ground water .depth 7'

10-

15-

20-





ground surfaceelevation: +1126 (1020)

1' bentonite seal


filter pack sand (#2)

2.0 in. dia schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen (0.010")

6" dia borehole

Observed Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-17' Brown dense c.sandy

f. gravelly, cobbley silt: Till

Contractor: GeosearchEngineer: Duke Engineering & Services



Method: Hollow Stem Auger

Attachment 3:DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0 Page 24 of 30Site Ground Water Data Collection forYNPS Decommissioning

SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW-10N. of Former Gasoline UST Location

ground surfaceft) / elevation: +1120 (1014)DEPTH

0-

grout

5-

Top of Bedrock 10.- 10-

4" dia boreholein bedrock15 -,,

20-

ground wate-depth 21' -

25-

30-

Contractor: GeosearchEngineer: Duke Engineering & Servi


1' bentonite seal

2.0 in. dia schedule 40 PVC

riser pipe

6" dia borehole in soil


2.0 in. dia schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen (0.010")







Method: Hollow Stem Auger

Observed Subsurface Materials:0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-10.2' Brown siltygravelly f. sand

10.2-30.5' Bedrock: dry to 23,'

where fractures occur



SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION CW- I1

PAB at LP Cooling Pump Area

16" deep road box, metal cover

DEPTH (11) floor slab surface

grout elevation: +1128.5 (1022.5)A• go,,•_

V

ground water Vdepth 3' "Z

5- 2.0 in. dia schedule 40 PVCslotted well screen (0.101")


10 -








0-1.5' Concrete Slab

1.5-9.5' Sand & gravel fill





DEP']

0

5

10

SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION MW-I

S. of PAB

H Ift- ground surfaceelevation: 1140 (1034)

16" deep road box metal covei

2.0 in. dia carbon steel piperiser pipe

ground waterdepth 13.5' __.

15-2.0 in. dia carbon steel

slotted well screen (0.01.5")

20-

1' sediment sump

Borehole depth: 21'




Inferred Subsurface Materials:

0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-21' Clay/silt?





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION MW-2

N. of PAB

DEPTH (ft) ground surfaceelevation: + 1126' (1021')

0-


ground waterdepth 4'

5-2.0 in. dia carbon steel pipe

riser pipe

10-

2.0 in. dia carbon steel15- slotted well screen (0.015")

1' sediment sump

20-

Borehole depth: 18'





0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-11' Fill10'-18.5' Till18.5' Refusal





SCHEMATIC FOR WELL INSTALLATION MW-3

N. of PAB

(ft) r ground surface

/elevation: +1126' (1021 ')DEPTH

0-

5-

gr1dl

10--


ound waterepth 5'

2.0 in. dia carbon steel piperiser pipe

2.0 in. dia carbon steelslotted well screen (0.015")

15-

20-

1' sediment sump

Borehole depth: 21'




Note: Casing bent on installationcausing sampling difficulty


0-0.5' Asphalt0.5-11' Fill11-21' Till




Attachment 3, Page 29 of 30

ERM SITE MAP399 Bo~ylton St-eet, 6th Hoor

DRILLING LOG for Well #- NSR-1 iR Bogo SMA 02116

Prjc Yankee Nuclear Power SL-Rowe Proet Number 468.01 NSR-1 @

Client Yanke- Atomic Electric Company Logged by: Joe FancoDrilling Cox Geosearch Drille. Pat GoodaleDate Started: 22-Oct-97 Data Finished 22-0ct-97 ShootingLocation: Rowe, Massachusetts Drinlng Metho& 4 1/4" ID HSA& & 3 7/8" Air Hammer aneScreen Dlame 2.5" L 10y Slot Siz 0.01"Casng Diam; 2.5" Length: l3 Type PVC Firing Line

Boring___ ________wll___t 23 Boring Mauin 9" (0-201/4" C20-231) ________Surface KP. Depth to GW: -18" Notes: Til"s boring was

MP Blev- completed in two attempts

bSple, (ppm) Lab Smp#lesLog pn6t y Split Spoon Description/SoilClassification &Depth spoonlHS &Analyses

I Sand 2-2 12" Brown, fine to medium SAN, trace fine gravel, piece S-1 1.0

Fill 3-5 of wood in tip of spoon, well sorted, loose, dry 0-2'

.4

Misc. 8-9 12" Greyish-brown, rock fragments, some fine to medium S-2 900 NSR-I/S-2/6

Fill 10413 sand and wood fragments, poorly sorted, loose, dry; 5-7" 5-7 ft

the wood pieces have a strong chemical odor VOCs (8260)

;VOCs (8270)9

Sand 13-13 10" Brown, fine to medium SAND, trace coarse sand and S-3 5.3

15-17 fine gravel, well sorted, loose, damp 10-12'

Note: air hammered through a boulder from 11-13 feet

1in second boringNote: encountered water table at -17-18 feet

Note: top of bedrock at 20 feet; air hammered to 23 feet

Bottom of Borehole: 2T-17.

.19Well construction:

-3' - 2': Steel protective standpipe

0 - 11Y: Portland cement/bentorilte grout

10 - 12': Bentonite chip seal

24 12 -23': #1 silica sand filter pack

13 -23': 2.5" 11, 0.010"-slotted PVC well sceen

Foonoe for BoiiV unM=

(1) 140 b. tammer(2) 300 lo. HammerMIi sii.,H-- Bentonite Seal Cement

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0 Attachment 3, Page 30 of 30Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning,

ERM SITE MAP399 Boylston Street, 6th Root

DRILLING LOG for Well #: OSR-1 &RM Boston MA 02116ERM Bston MA 02116

Project Yankee Nucclear Power St-Rowe Project Number. 468.01 -Client; Yankee Atomic Mectric Company Logged bY Joe MaccoDrilling Co: Geose Is Driller. Pat Goodale

Date Started. 22-Oct-97 Date Firnahed: 22-Oct-97 ShootingLocation: Rowe, Massachusetts Drilling Method: 4 1/4" ID HSAs RangeScreen DiaaL 25" Length: 10 Slot Size: 0.01"Casing Diam- 2-5 Length: 3' Type PVC F LineBoring, Deth,~: 33 w,,u Dp,• is. Boring Di, m.- w"

Surface Elev.: MR Depth toGW: -7 NIotes

MP Elev.:

Bb-ftSample # (ppm) Lab Sample#Depth Well iog sea h ja kid,- R- Split Spoon Description/Soil Classification &Depth spoon/HS &Analyses

Sand 3-5 24" Brown, fine SAND, some coarse sand and fine gravel, S-1 13.8

.2. Fill 10-12 -moderately well sorted, loose, dry 0-2'

.3

.4

.5 1 1 -•

Sand 4-4 12 Top 6" of spoon: Brown, fine SAND, well sorted, loose, S-2 502

Fill 5-6 damp; Middle of spoon: 2r thick piece of wood (no odor); 5-7

-. 8 Bottom 4" of spoonr Grey, fine to very fine SAND, well

sorted, loose, damp

Sand 9-9 10" Brown, fine SAND, some coarse sand and fine gravel, S-3 6.2

23-50/31 moderately well sorted, loose, wet 10-12'

Bottomn of Borehole. 13'13 -

.14 .

.15 .

-16-

17-

-18

-19 . -Well Constructiow

.20 . m

.21 . -3Y - 2': Steel protective standpipe

0 - 1s5: Portland cement surface seal

1.5 -2.5': Bentonite chip seal

2.5 - 13': #1 silica sand filter pack

.25.1-3 - 13': 25" ID, 0.01O"-slotted PVC well screen

(1) 140 Lb. Hammer(2) 30o Lb. Hammer(M cAd. "--e..

Key to Well Constructio

El Sandpack Wll Screen GroutM Bentonite Seal Cement



Attachment 4Monitoring Well Ground Water Levels

M m m --M M M M M M= I O - M M M -- m

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPSDecommissioning

Ground Water Level in WellB-1


N0) 0)

(U

CY) ~ ~ Mo M -T -T T V, LO) LO (0 (0 (D 0 r

Sa) (U T a) T) MU MU M 00)T T(U~ 0

0)) >00)) >0

(I) CU <M 0) CU- <= 0.0 >, 0D > .0

CU M MO0U- 2< zU-

>, a) >CU =3

a)j CU9 9-0--- >,

0 I I • I I ? T r I I I I r I I I I I T

5 -

*10

15

0.20

±

25 -

30I

U m, M M M M-i m M m - M• =


Ground Water Level in WellB-3


0),L.c0)C)C-

cv,CP

a)03

0)&L

o?,C-

CO

U)C,,

0)

C.)U)

LO0)

LOC)C-

LO

a)C/)

toC)

0•

(0C)I..'

0

...... ..................

--------------- ------- ------- 6ý ------------ ------------------5.

LO15

CL

25 t---------

30

m - m M m - M m - m -IM m

DESD-TD-YR-02-OO1 Rev. 0DESDTD-Y-02-01 Rv. 0Attachment 4: Page 4 of 33Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Ground Water Level in Well CB-1Decommissioning

,t U1 LO ( 0 1DD C,4 0 _0O 0O (0 COD0 0) C) C:) 03 CD9I 0) 0)910 CD 0) 00 0) 0) 00

a)) 0.) (D 0. 0IL C Cý*5 > CU

S I I I -II) I I Q g I - I I z - I I zCO (I) CU 0 a) 2 00C) ~ ) r-1 0 CD w 10 (=) s ) C -

-( - -N N 04 LO (N v- v- - 04 LO v- 04 0) (N (N (0 0- N 0) Ci- (N 10 (

4!

10/

15

C,,

r ,• .2 0

25 ---

30

m - M M M m m m M M M -I1 I I I M M M1


Attachment 4: Page 5 of 33Ground Water Level in WellCB-2

M~~0)

(O

C Y)c) > M

(U=0 IL

T-- T- 0 - T.-

al) uýCO M-

~U') LO Lr0)() I0)

Iý I

0- CTI- 04J 04. UO

CO CD N- - N- 0 ) 0 ) C)000) CO) 0)0 T 9) 0)0)0)00 0 -0 CD 9

0 0E I -o , M L '=3 CDCi w <, 0.- 0 M =3 (U a. 5 > a

IC M 0 z Li0 LU6 c~) 6-0) N- US 'T s CO . UO) C ?) -? M 00 c A

- NJ T-~ - (N V) - NJ -0) (N (NJ O (0 NJ ' 0) - N U-)

CNI

(U

(N

0

10

O 15

0

20

25

t

30

Mm m m m m m m m m M MM



(N0)

M~0)IL

0)0)

a) a)a-)0 0)LL)0) LL

>.. 0) > .0 >, CMu 0 0 CM 5 0

00

LL

>,c cy ) > 0 > 0) >)

C 0 0 MD 5 0.0 >ý 0;) >

) CU 0U-2 z .0 > 0) >CU 5 0

(NIC0400

U0 >

0 I ....

5

a8 10 -

C.)

2 15 -

20

25 -

30 I

m M M - m 1 1 1 U-U n 1M m - n m


Ground Water Level in WellCB-4


0)

a)

CLLI~~C I ' 0> . ~ > .0 0 > Ml > > f > )>~~~~~~~ U) M)C )U C U~ o ~ C 0(1 CU M U 0 w 0 U 0

< L2<zU - <ZL

-r ,- i

900090>

U0 <= 0) (D CC

0

5

0

0Q.

10 -

15

20 1-

25

30

m - m m mmimnmum m m - m -n

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Ground Water Level in Well Attachment 4: Page 8 of 33Decommissioning CB-5

,q* IT U) ) U') LO (0 1- 00 0) 0)0 ) )LO' g S I aI I"0 "- a) 9 0OM 0 > CM > r-) CL 0= 0 0•, o, - (_II I I I I 7 I I I I

0

5

CO€• 15

•-" 20

25 --------------------.--------- -.-------------------------- ----------

30

m m - - m m n - m - -




-.I- It U') .O (0 (0 r . .. Ný r- 00) 0 0) CN 04'~IT ) ~ U)~ 0O 0)oLc~ O CD 0M 0 0) 0) 0 0 0~

0 9 ) )a) 0) 9 0) 0 0) 0O 0) > p0)60) 0. ', _y 9' 0. 'L 9.0 9. cm 5 20 0 9 9

IL M a) -DCýa7 > Qo =3' c CL75 >M , C/) 2 U) < 0- 0 zIt)C~ - 0C) 00 11- L6 A ~ 0) N 7 US q i i Cb U-) A' 1 0) CO Ca

I- -r N - (N (N LO '- N T- - 'r (N LO 0-(N4 0) 04 (NJ (0 0a ( 0) T- (N U) - (N

0

5 +-

10

_o

15

00

ca

25 +

30

M M - M m m m m - - m = m

DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev. 0Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS

Attachment 4: Page 10 of 33Ground Water Level in WellCB-7Decommissioning

CO Cp0) >:3 0< z

.-

o)LL

S I r, CO co Co co 0) 0) 0) 0)

~ ) > .0 > 0 0 > -) >CU 0 a ) : 0 a) M " 02• < z U- : < z, u. < z

0

a)

OCo 000,

0

0z9-DU)iL

o 9

<)

9

0z

0 N

S CUU-

0

5+ý

0 10 -

C,

15

0

C. 20 -

25 t ---------

30

- - m m m- m m - m - mm




**4* .IJ. .L .1.0) C)0 0

co~~* Q L

LO

0. 0

(D0)

((0 (0

0)>a) = 0

0 006

.0

a)

00N

a) a ~ 0 a ) 0 a a) 0

00 co N- J) co Ný b o -( 6C 6 ( 6 u-) 4(co N N~ N N N N N N " N N N N N

a)04U-

N1

>, 0M > .0 >,CU 0 a) M:ý z L-

NO N NN

0

5-

S10(U

It

N o 150

20

25

30

- - m - m - - m m - - m - m i-




.~. ~.

C) ~

CU C

LO LO LO (D M 0 M r_ I, r_ M co COC 0)0)0) 0) 0) C) C) C) C)C 000 0 0 0

O0 0 a CL0 0 &L M > M0 >, M) > M0 >, 0D > .M >, M > -0 >, 0) > .0 >, 0) > .0 >,0) 0) M 0) U CU 5 0 0 MU 5 0 CU M 0 0 CU = 0 0 CU = 0 CU M 0 0 CU

0

5

0 10

-,1

O 15

031:0

C. 20a

25

Well covered with a temporary structure 9/96 &2/97

Well flushed prior to 2/28 reading

30

m n m nm m m - n- m - mm - -- -



qT LO C) U')U (0 r, r- I' o 0 0 0) 0 T- 0 0>, 0) >J C' o LL) It M) C > '' C) CL a. C) IC 0 1 0M 0 : a- C: &L=3 0 ) a) C) i5 CU 3 CO () a)~ 0.~ -9M)30 M U C

<J z. -5 L.. 0) < -- 0 D2 < '-w ' -:2 0 L Z0 < Z 2 n <

0

5

0

U)

15

020

,,0

25

30

m -n mn m - m m - m m - m-m m - m m


Attachment 4: Page 14 of 33Ground Water Level in WellCB-11A

I- cO 0O C O 0 ) M 0 ) C 0 C0 TIM ) 0) C 0) 9 9 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 9 1? 0

& ) > IL >1 >) .0 >1 M .0 >1 -0M = 0 (U U 0 Q) (1 0 Q) CU 0 Q

0 <) z < z LL< z U-< z0 I I

A

5 t±------------

0 10-.)

"U

15

20

a

25 . .--------------

30

m m--n m - m - -- - - - m - m - m


Attachment 4: Page 15 of 33Ground Water Level in Well

CB-12

r- CO CO CO CO 0) 0) 0 ) C 0 0 T- - - - (

0) 0 0) 0> 0L 1 0M 0> 0 01 0D > 0 01 0) >

a) (D 0 M o U =S 0 a), (U =3 0 Qi, CU 0 (2o < Z < Z u L < z u L < Z UL

0

--

54

10

2 15

.2•0

0

25

30

m- -m-m -m-m-m - - -m m-m --m - -


Attachment 4: Page 16 of 33Ground Water Level in WellCW-1

LO ~ i ' ~ LO) LOf (0 pN I- 1- 00 0o 0o

C0) M ) C) T C) C) U) 0 0) T) T T T w, C) C) C)CM > C) C) iM > a.

1 :3 0 &L C.) 0) IaMu ca M a-~ dj ) 75. M. Mo 7, 0 2: Cu ---) I 0 0. <) 0F -

C6 00 (0 04 1 rL <4 A ~ (0 oC (04c4 c (4 U') 04 CY) I (00 CY

U

5

10

U)

so1

0

(20C

25

30

I

------------ -------------------------------------------------

Well covered 2/97

- ) - - -i - - - - - - rn - - - - -



L.. 0 0. 0 'L & 6 ý (U = 0 5 U 0 D U 0 ~ U~ 0 ~ U~ 0 51 C 0Wcu 0 0M 0) CU M 0)M M

I ~~~ I 750 ) - -- 0MT- 0 LO O O

0

5

10

CO,

2L 150,

20CL

4------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------

25

30

-_ - - - L - - - I- I m -' -I I- -.



CW-3

(N0)

M

0)0)) ))00)) )c 0) 0')0)

6 6. 6 0) 00) 0) 0) 0)2 < i i- 2 < Z

O O0)0 D0)0)ncn0)

CU C U) CU 900

< z

9

U)

T- ý - 04

00~< z a -

(N9

0 I I I ...

5±+

OONý010

V

&015

0.20

In0

25 +

30 I

= - - IMI - -l!I -, m w- w WE M - I o w N -



N M M q I* "T 0) )0 0) )0)M0) )M)0)M0 0a00) )0) )0 0) )0)0D*~~~~~~ T . 9 9 9 I 9 0 0 ~

< z S I

0

5

0 10

2 15

20

• 20

25

30

W mn --- - mo m A M -MM


Ground Water Level in WellCW-5


CD CU 0. C) 0(D CO w D CU M CD

LO U M0 (0 0 0

CL 0 >0) >0)0)0)>

0

.0 >D) .0 ~0) 0 0>5>-<D C z U- <C CU U-

>0 0) 0 .

S0 C< z U-- 0 0 0

< z U-

0

5

(D 10

0

0)

0.20 t-k------

25

30

m M - w m M -MM-- M M



'IT '4*~ U') O U) (0 Nl N% r- 00 00 00O M) It) (0) 0 D0) 0 ) 0) CO 0) C9 CP

0C 0) > 0 ) iý I a 0)a >~a:3 M 0) Cý a) ca M 0 :3 0.) Q )

0.~0 ' U) 0 -

0 00 (0 a r 04 (N o b PCD qq 04 N ., 0 CD (- - - N (0 04 04 (N0-4- ( U) 0- (N () -( CD ( N 0 Ce)

0 ! ---------- L- -

5 t

10(U

U,,

& 15

20.20C

25 t

30

Sm - - k M M --- m- -M



.,T IT -q LO LO L U-) cD (D (0 0 1, r- M' M--c MO Mc Mc M) M C0 000 w " - - N NM0M0)0 M0M090M0M0)090)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)9)0)0000009 000

L!. a- 0 LL 'L > > > > > >

I-'U -

5

010-

£ 15 -

I-1C,,0

0.2 -

25

30

M - ,M-i- M- - - , - - mý -



So o -6 - o > n > n > > n >ý M > -0 >, M) > M0 >, 0) > M0 >,~()CU 0 M i M) MU C 0 MU 0 MI C 0 M) z 0 0 M =C 0 0 M~ = 0 0i M

0

5

( 10

CO,

LO15

0

~200.4)

25

------------- -- ------ ---- ------------ --- --- ---------- - -----------------------

30

- M M w - m = w M



03

CO

C)

0O

coCO

0z(N

0)

LL

(6(N

0)

(N

0)

0)

0)

zc,)AN

0

10

0

20

25 ±

30I

m - -- m - ---- m m



CW-10

CO CO

91cm,M3

CO0)

0z

o)C)CpoC, 0)

C)C) 0z

0-oC)U-L

0C, 0C)9 0

0z0-o.- 0

0C)

T,

0z.0C)U-

0

F

10

2o 15

0

, 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25 t

30

m-nm-mm--- m - m m-m m - m m



cO CO 0) C ) ) CD 0 C0 0 1- ~ ~ N (NCO ) 0) C) 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 09

.) >~0 .0 >% 0) > 0 >% 0) > .Cý 0 (L) M 3 0 ( U :3 0 (U =5 0 M

:3z LL 2 5 z U 5 z L 2 z LC0 cO (6 N-L LO A 1 ý-- 0) N-L L6 (6 'I (N 0ce) (N 04 04 04 (N (N (NI - T - T- T

A

U

A 5

C)

10

CL

2.-• 20-

25 t---

30

m- __nm m - -m m m - - -


Attachment 4: Page 27 of 33Ground Water Level in WellMW-1

co0)IL.CL

coM)

co00

0•

0)

cO0)

CO)

03

03

0)0)LD

CO

0)0)

CO0--7,

0L0)

U)Co0N

(D0)C6N)00)Nq

0(D

C)o

0

CO

N

0

I-.

CL

00C.)

NrN

0LL

N

C)

N

N-

9

N

o

N

N0(,

i-

0

5 t-~-

10

2 15

0

I 200.

25 t .----

30

M =MM =M M M==MMm=i=MMMMM



co0-ILCL

COCP

co0)

U)

co

a)

0) 0)0)C

0)0)

a)C/)

0)0)

a)

CCU

0C)

D

C,,00C.)90D

0I.-

CU

T, T-

a)

0C.)6a)D

0CU>

0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

010

,,,

215

0

520

25 ----------------

30

m= -- M -M M M M m M = M m m - m mM



co0)

CO

0-

COU)

c6C')

co

03(N

0)

Cs'q

o)0)C-

-?,(Ni

0)0)

o-a)C')A~(NJ

0)0)

C-)

N0

5 t ------ ------ --------------------------------------

010

2015

IM

~2 0C)

25 t--

30

- m m - m m m m n m - mn m m -


CO CO CO 0)0) i M


%LCL -5 a.C',

o.<9C

C-M,M0

0)a)

U)

()

0)C.)

0(0CD

0 0ý

U)

00C)0

0 0C-

9a-(DU)

0C.U)0

NCD

0 4

5 1-

0)10 -

V

,,152 15_o

20

25

30

m - --- mm-- m - m - m - - m m m



co

0.co_=

CO

U)

COM.

U)

0)C)I-Cu

O3C"

C0

a)(.U)C,,

C)

03

0

CU2

0C

0

U,C)

0C.)U)0•

0CD •9

0-(-U)

0

C.) C)IL

0

A

0 10

so1

C.)

20t-

o15

_o

.20

25

30



NSR-1

I.- o,06M

CO

CbN

CO

0.<,

CO

N,

cc0)0

LNN•

0

5+

U 10 -

(U

2L 15

CD20

C20

U

25 ±

30

- m - m - m -m- - m m m - m -


CO9) 0- c

0) 00 -o= o, -?<, o (N


OSR-1

co

cN

CO

M-

00

(N

0)

(0CP

(N

0)0)

L-

•0

cN)

0)0)1

(N(N

0)

C)04

0

---- Ký ---------------------- --------------------10

C-

15

200. 2

25 t

30



Attachment 5YNPS Spent Fuel Pool: Concentration of H-3, 1997-1999

tj ,SPENT FUEL PIT AVERAGE QUARTERLY TRITIUM VALUES

o.0

Ct '.

0

0

,°

0

0•

1.50E-03

1.40E-03

1.30E-03

1.20E-03

1.10E-03

1.OOE-03

9.OOE-04

L)= 8.OOE-04

7.OOE-04

6.OOE-04

5.00E-04

4.OOE-04

3.OOE-04

2.OOE-04

1997 2nd 3rd 4th 1998 2nd 3rd 4th 1999 2nd 3rd 4th

P t DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST Form DPR-3.9A

FRAMATOME ANP DE&S QA Record Type N/A Revision 4

Document No.: DESD-TD-YR-02-001 Rev.: 1 Page: 1 of 1

Document Title: Site Ground Water Data Collection for YNPS Decommissioning

1. Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design? El Y EL N 0 N/A

2. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately El Y Li N 0 N/Adescribed and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptionsidentified for subsequent reverifications when the detailed design activitiesare completed?

3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified? E Y EL N EL N/A

4. Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, Li Y EL N N N/Aincluding issue and addenda properly identified, and are theirrequirements for design met?

-5. Have applicable construction and operating experience been considered? EL Y L il N 0 N/ N/A

6. Have the design interface requirements been satisfied? EL Y Li N 0 N/A

7. Was an appropriate design method used? El Y [L N O N/A

8. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs? EL Y Li N Z N/A

. 9. Are the specified parts, equipment and processes suitable for the required EL Y EL N 0 N/Aapplication?

10. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design EL Y Li N E N/Aenvironmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?

11. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified? EL Y EL N 0_ N/A

12. Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of [I Y EL N 0 N/Aneeded maintenance and repair?

13. Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the inservice EL Y [Li N 0 N/Ainspection expected to be required during the plant life?

14. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and EL Y EL N 0E N/Aplant personnel?

.15. Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents Li Y EL N 0 N/Asufficient to allow verification that design requirements have beensatisfactorily accomplished?

16. Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test EL Y EL N 0 N/Arequirements been appropriately specified?

17. Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements EL Y EL N 0 N/Aspecified?

18. Are adequate identification requirements specified? EL Y EL N 0 N/A

19. Are requirements for record preparation review, approval, retention, etc., 0 Y Li N Li N/Aadequately specified?

Comments:

Verified By: E. F. Maher .71____'$1/_2._'01P_(First, MI, Last) PRINTED/TYPED NAME SIGNATURE DATE

yankee nuclear power station, site ground water collection ... · revision 1 corrects the...

Documents