ML15057A433
| ML15057A433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 02/05/2015 |
| From: | Norton W Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| OMY-15-003 | |
| Download: ML15057A433 (442) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:MAINE YANKEE 321 Old Ferry Road, Wiseasset, Maine 04578 February 5, 2015 OMY-15-003 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) 10 CFR 50.4(b)(6) ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Maine Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation NRC License Nos. DPR-36 'and SFGL-14 (NRC Docket Nos. 50-309 and 72-30)
Subject:
Biennial Update of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) and 10 CFR 50.4(b)(6), Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee) is submitting a periodic update of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (LTP) to the NRC. Enclosures 1 and 2 contain the pages that were modified in Revisions 6 and 7 to the Maine Yankee LTP. These revisions include all the changes that were made during the time period of January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014. The previous biennial update letter was submitted on February 6, 2013 (Reference 1). provides a summary of the changes that were implemented in Revisions 6 and 7 to the Maine Yankee LTP. Attachment 2 provides the deletion and insertion instructions for Revisions 6 and 7 to the Maine Yankee LTP. This letter contains no commitments. If you have any qu>dtions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. J. Stanley Brown at (207) 882-1303. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 5, 2015. Sincerely, Wayne Norton Chief Nuclear Officer
Reference:
- 1. Maine Yankee letter to the US NRC, "Biennial Update to the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan," dated February 6, 2013 tIs3 (
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company OMY- 15-003/February 5, 2015/Page 2 Attachments: 1. Summary of Changes Implemented in Revisions 6 and 7 of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan
- 2. Deletion and Insertion Instructions for Revisions 6 and 7 of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan
Enclosures:
- 1. Revision 6 to the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (Replacement Pages)
- 2. Revision 7 to the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (Replacement Pages) cc: Mr. Daniel Dorman, Administrator, USNRC Region I Mr.-John Goshen-P.E., Project Manager, USNRC NMSS Mr. Marc Ferdas, Decommissioning Branch Chief, USNRC Region I Mr. P.J. Dostie, State of Maine Mr. J. Hyland, State of Maine Mr. Gerald C. Poulin, Chairman and President, Maine Yankee Mr. Joe Fay Esquire, General Counsel, Maine Yankee
ATTACHMENT 1 TO OMY-15-003
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES IMPLEMENTED IN REVISIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN CHANGES MADE IN REVISION 6 Section Change Reason for Change 1.2 Eliminated the number of utilities This section is a general discussion of the that are part of the consortium that operating and decommissioning history of the own Maine Yankee plant. The precise number of electric utilities that are part of the consortium that owns Maine Yankee is beyond the level of detail necessary for this section. 1.2 Eliminated the reference to the This section is a general discussion of the specific number of acres that are operating and decommissioning history of the contained within the parcel of land plant. The precise number of electric utilities adjacent to the Maine Yankee that are part of the consortium that owns Independent Spent Fuel Storage Maine Yankee is beyond the level of detail Installation (ISFSI). necessary for this section. 1.3 Corrected the reference to the Westinghouse supplied the NSSS. Nuclear Steam Supply System supplier. 1.3, 1.4.2, 1.5.3, 2.1, Updated to reflect that the On July 30, 2002 and September 30, 2005, 2.2.5, 2.3.7, 2A. 1, decommissioning of the Maine the NRC issued Amendment Nos. 167 and 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, Yankee Nuclear Plant is complete, 172, respectively, to Facility Operating 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, with the exception of the Maine License No. DPR-36 for the Maine Yankee 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Yankee ISFSI and the applicable Atomic Power Station that resulted in the Table 3-3, 3.4.1, land areas, release of all of the land from the Maine 3.4.2, Table 3-4, Yankee 10 CFR 50License, with the 3.5.2, Table 3-8, 3.7, exception of the land where the ISFSI is A, located and an adjacent parcel of land. The Table 3A-1, Figures total area that remains under the control of the 3-1 through 3-29, 10 CFR 50 License is approximately 12 4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, acres. Thus, the decommissioning of the 5.2.1, 5.2.2, Maine Yankee plant is complete. The only A, 6.1, remaining decommissioning activities are 6.6.1, 8.1.2, 8.4.1 those associated with the ISFSI and applicable areas. 1.5.2, 2.5, 2.5.2, Updated to identify activities that Following the removal of spent fuel and 3.1.2, 3.2.2, Table will occur to support the GTCC waste from the site, the Maine Yankee 3-1, Table 3-2, 3.3.1, decommissioning of the Maine ISFSI will be dismantled, material removed 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Yankee ISFSI or to define and disposed of as radioactive waste, Table 3-3, 3.4.1, conditions that are anticipated to hazardous waste, or clean waste, radiological 3.4.2, Table 3-4, exist following the storage of spent surveys and characterization performed to 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.5, fuel and GTCC waste at the ISFSI. support the Final Status Surveys of the 3.5.6, 3.6.1, 4.4.3, remaining areas, and the 10 CFR 50 License 5.1.3, 5.10.1, will be terminated. A, 6.7.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.5, 8.1.7, 8.2, 8.4.1, 8.4.10, 8.4.12, 8.7, 8.7.1, 8.7.3 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1 TO OMY-15-003
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES IMPLEMENTED IN REVISIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN CHANGES MADE IN REVISION 6 Section Change Reason for Change 1.5.7, 3.1.3, 3.2.2, Updated to reflect the new cost The decommissioning cost estimate was Table 3-1, Table 3-2, estimates regarding submitted to the NRC in January 2013 as part 3.5.2, Chapter 7 decommissioning and storage of of the Decommissioning Funding Plan. In (All), 8.7, 8.7.3 spent nuclear fuel GTCC waste addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory approved by FERC in July 2013. Commission approved the new The cost estimate assumes that the decommissioning cost estimate and a new storage period will be extended cost estimate for the management of spent from 2022 to 2031 with license nuclear fuel and GTCC Waste in July 2013. termination in 2033. In addition, the decommissioning cost estimate assumes that all of the concrete and steel from the VCCs and ISFSI storage will be shipped offsite as low-level radioactive waste. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.3, 1.5.9, Updates the status of events and The LTP contains numerous statements that 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.3, activities associated with the are written utilizing an active or future verb 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, decommissioning of the Maine tense. The Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant and 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, and its systems, structures, and components have 2.4.8, 2.4.11,2.4.12, the storage of spent fuel and been dismantled and removed, and the 2.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, Greater than Class C waste at the majority of the site released from the control Table 2H-5, 3.1.2, MY ISFSI. These include, but are of the 10 CFR 50 License. In addition, a 3.1.3, 3.2.2, Table not limited to: 1) Maine Yankee number of events and activities were 3-1, Table 3-2, 3.2.3, submittal of the original version of performed during the decommissioning of the 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, the LTP, and the NRC approval of Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Thus, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table the LTP; 2) Completion of the the discussion was updated to denote the 3-3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, Continuing Characterization historical performance of these events and Table 3-4, 3.4.3, Surveys associated with the Maine activities. Table 3-5, Table 3-8, Yankee Nuclear Power Plant; 3) Table 3-9, 3.5.3, Establishment of a special agree Table 3-11, 3.5.5, with Friends of the Coast-3.5.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, Opposing Nuclear Pollution; 4) A, Completion of decommissioning Table 3A-1, Figures activities associated with the Maine 3-1 through 3-29, Yankee Nuclear Plant; 5) 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4, Dissolution of the FSS project 4.4.3, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, organization; 6) The update of the 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.6, PSDAR in LBDCR 13-04; 7) 5.5.1, 5.10.1, 6.2.1, Change of name of Maine 6.5.2, 6.6.1, 6.6.6, Department of Human Services to 6.6.9, Table 6-10A, Maine Department of Health and Table 6-10B, 6.6.10, Human Services; and 8) 6.7.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.7, Elimination of License A-82-71-I-8.2, 8.3, 8.4.1, Table R 8-1, 8.4.2, 8.4.5, 8.4.6, 8.4.7, 8.4.9, 8.4.12, 8.6.2, 8.6.4, 8.6.5, 8.6.7, 8.6.8, 8.6.9, 8.6.12, 8.6.13, 8.7.8.7.1 Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1 TO OMY-15-003
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES IMPLEMENTED IN REVISIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN ('HANC.I?~ MADF. IN R1~VI5~ION f Section Change Reason for Change 1.7, 3.1.3, 8.1.5, Updated to reflect the current Changes were made to reflect the current 8.6.9 activities of the Maine Yankee practices at the ISFSI. These changes are ISFSI. consistent with LBDCR 13-04, approved procedures or other license basis documents. Table 3-10, Section References to Envirocare were Energy Solutions purchased Envirocare A.2 of Attachment changed to Energy Solutions 4A, Section B. I of B 8.1.2, 8.1.5, 8.2, Updated to reflect the The changes update the environmental impact 8.4.9, 8.4.12, 8.7.1, environmental impacts associated associated with decommissioning the ISFSI 8.7.3 with the change in schedule for and the longer time period that the spent storage of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel and GTCC waste will be stored GTCC waste and change in onsite. The environmental impact remains methodology regarding disposal of bounded by the previous assessment. the materials comprising the Vertical Concrete Casks and the ISFSI Storage Pad as low-level radioactive waste. 8.4.8 Replaced "Five seasonally active Throughout the decommissioning of the osprey nests" with "Seasonally Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant, the storage active osprey nests" period of spent fuel and GTCC waste at the Maine Yankee ISFSI, and the future decommissioning of the Maine Yankee ISFSI, the exact number of osprey nesting sites may fluctuate. The important aspect is to respect all the nests, and minimize the impact on those nests. 8.6.2 Eliminated the discussion The elimination of this information does not regarding the availability of the impact the evaluation of the impacts of the Resource Conservation Recovery environmental impacts of the Act Quality Assurance Project Plan decommissioning of the Maine Yankee at the Maine Department of Nuclear Plant and Maine Yankee ISFSI. This Environmental Protection office in information was superfluous. Augusta and the Wiscasset Public and Maine State libraries. 1.7, Attachment IA, Editorial or administrative changes These changes are non-substantive changes Table 2-1, 2A.6, were made. that do not modify the intent of the document. 3.2.4, 5.5.1, 8.4.7 CHANGES MADE IN REVISION 7 Section Change Reason for Change Figures 5-1 through The Figures are re-incorporated These Figures were inadvertently removed 5-6 into the LTP as they last appeared from the LTP during the update process for a in Revision 3 of the LTP submitted revision. This error appears to have occurred to the NRC in 2002. This is an in Revision 4 of the LTP submitted to the administrative change to restore the NRC on February 28, 2005. figures. The revision # and date are changed, and a note is added to describe the re-incorporation. Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2 TO OMY-15-003 DELETION AND INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVISIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN Revision 6 of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan Deletion and Insertion Instructions Delete Insert Cover Page Cover Page Attachment 1 - Listing of Key Changes Attachment 1 - Listing of Key Changes - S(Page 1) (Pages 1 through 3) Attachment 2 - Listof Effective Pages Attachment 2 - List of Effective Pages (Pages 1 and 2) (Page 1) Section I Section 1 (Cover Page, Page 1-i, Pages 1-1 through (Cover Page, Page 1-i, Pages 1-1 through 1-19, and Figure 1-1) 1-19, and Figure 1-1) Attachment IA Attachment 1A (Pages I through 6) (Pages 1 through 4) Section 2 Section 2 (Cover Page, Pages 2-i through 2-iv, and (Cover Page, Pages 2-i through 2-iv, and Pages 2-1 through 2-66) Pages 2-1 through 2-66) Attachment 2A Attachment 2A (Pages 1 through 11) (Pages I through 11) Attachment 2H Attachment 2H (Pages 1 through 13) (Pages 1 through 13) Section 3 Section 3 (Cover Page, Pages 3-i and 3-ii, and (Cover Page, Pages 3-i and 3-ii, and Pages 3-1 through 3-61) Pages 3-1 through 3-26) Attachment 3A Attachment 3A (Pages I through 33) (Pages 1 - 3) Section 4 Section 4 (Cover Page, Pages 4-i and 4-ii, and (Cover Page, Pages 4-i and 4-ii, and Pages 4-1 through 4-16) Pages 4-1 through 4-15) Attachment 4A Attachment 4A (Pages 1 through 18) (Pages 1 through 18) Attachment 4B Attachment 4B (Pages 1 through 11) (Pages 1 through 11) Section 5 Section 5 (Cover Page, Pages 5-i through 5-iv, and (Cover Page, Pages 5-i through 5-iv, and Pages 5-1 through 5-87) Pages 5-1 through 5-86) Attachment 5A Attachment 5A (Pages 1 through 10) (Pages I through 10) Section 6 Section 6 (Cover Page, Pages 6-i through 6-v, and (Cover Page, Pages 6-i through 6-v, and Pages 6-1 through 6-60) Pages 6-1 through 6-53) Section 7 Section 7 (Cover Page, Page 7-i, and Pages 7-1 (Cover Page, Page 7-i, and Pages 7-1 and through 7-14) 7-2) Section 8 Section 8 (Cover Page, Pages 8-i through 8-iii, and (Cover Page, Pages 8-i and 8-ii, and Pages 8-1 through 8-53) Pages 8-1 through 8-46) Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 2 TO OMY-15-003 DELETION AND INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVISIONS 6 AND 7 OF THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN Revision 7 of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan Deletion and Insertion Instructions Delete Insert Cover Page Cover Page Attachment I - Listing of Key Changes - Attachment 1 - Listing of Key Changes (Pages 1 through 3) (Page 1) Attachment 2 - List of Effective Pages Attachment 2 - List of Effective Pages (Page 1) (Page 1)
---- Figures 5-1 through 5-6
__ after Page 5-86 Page 2 of 2
ENCLOSURE 1 TO OMY-15-003 REVISION 6 TO THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION REPORT (REPLACEMENT PAGES)
License Termination Plan Revision 6 January 2014 Submitted by: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
Attachment 1 - Listing of Key Changes - License Termination Plan, Revision 6 Section Proposed Change Reason for Change 1.2 Eliminated the number of utilities This section is a general discussion of the that are part of the consortium that operating and deconmmissioning history of the own Maine Yankee plant. The precise number of electric utilities that are part of the consortium that owns Maine Yankee is beyond the level of detail
-necessary for this section.
1.2 Eliminated the reference to the This section is a general discussion of the specific number of acres that are operating and deconmmissioning history of the contained within the parcel of land plant. The precise number of electric utilities adjacent to the Maine Yankee that are part of the consortium that owns Independent Spent Fuel Storage Maine Yankee is beyond the level of detail Installation (ISFSI). necessary for this section. 1.3 Corrected the reference to the Westinghouse supplied the NSSS. Nuclear Steam Supply System supplier. 1.3, 1.4.2, 1.5.3, 2.1, Updated to reflect that the On July 30, 2002 and September 30, 2005, 2.2.5, 2.3.7, 2A. 1, decommissioning of the Maine the NRC issued Amendment Nos. 167 and 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, Yankee Nuclear Plant is complete, 172, respectively, to Facility Operating 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, with the exception of the Maine License No. DPR-36 for the Maine Yankee 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Yankee ISFSI and the applicable Atomic Power Station that resulted in the Table 3-3, 3.4.1, land areas. release of all of the land from the Maine 3.4.2, Table 3-4, Yankcc 10 CFR 50License, with the 3.5.2, Table 3-8, 3.7, exception of the land where the ISFSI is A, located and an adjacent parcel of land. The Table 3A-1, Figures total area that remains under the control of 3-1 through 3-29, the 10 CFR 50 Licensc is approximately 12 4.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, acres. Thus, the decommissioning of the 5.2.1, 5.2.2, Maine Yankee plant is complete. The only A, 6. 1, remaining decommissioning activities are 6.6.1, 8.1.2, 8.4.1 those associated with the ISFSI and applicable areas. 1.5.2, 2.5, 2.5.2, Updated to identify activities that Following the removal of spent fuel and 3.1.2, 3.2.2, Table will occur to support the GTCC waste from the site, the Maine Yankee 3-1, Table 3-2, 3.3.1, decommissioning of the Maine ISFSI will be dismantled, material removed 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Yankee ISFSI or to define and disposed of as radioactive waste, Table 3-3, 3.4.1, conditions that are anticipated to hazardous waste, or clean waste, radiological 3.4.2, Table 3-4, exist following the storage of spent surveys and characterization performed to 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.5, fuel and GTCC waste at the ISFSI. support the Final Status Surveys of the 3.5.6, 3.6.1, 4.4.3, remaining areas, and the 10 CFR 50 License 5.1.3, 5.10.1, will be terminated. A, 6.7.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.5, 8.1.7, 8.2, 8.4.1, 8.4.10, 8.4.12, 8.7, 8.7.1, 8.7.3 Page 1 of 3
Attachment I - Listing of Key Changes - License Termination Plan, Revision 6 Section Proposed Change Reason for Change 1.5.7, 3.1.3, 3.2.2, Updated to reflect the new cost The decommissioning cost estimate was Table 3-1, Table 3-2, estimates regarding submitted to the NRC in January 2013 as part 3.5.2, Chapter 7 decommissioning and storage of of the Decommissioning Funding Plan. In (All), 8.7, 8.7.3 spent nuclear fuel GTCC waste addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory approved by FERC in July 2013. Commission approved the new The cost estimate assumes that the decommissioning cost estimate and a new storage periodwill be extended cost estimate for the management of spent from 2022 to 2031 with license nuclear fuel and GTCC Waste in July 2013. termination in 2033. In addition, the decommissioning cost estimate assumes that all of the concrete and steel from the VCCs and ISFSI storage will be shipped offsite as low-level radioactive waste. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.3, 1.59, Updates'the'staftis of events and 'The LTP contains numerous statements that 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.3, activities associated with the are written utilizing an active or future verb 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, decommissioning of the Maine tense.: The Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant and 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, YankeeNuclear Power Plant, and its systems, structures, and components have 2.4.8, 2.4.11, 2.4.12, the storage of spent fuel and been dismantled and removed, and the 2.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, Greater than Class C waste at the majority of the site released from the control Table 2H-5, 3.1.2, MY ISFSI. These include, but are of the 10 CFR 50 License. In addition, a 3.1.3, 3.2.2, Table not limited to: 1) Maine Yankee number of events and activities were 3-1, Table 3-2, 3.2.3, submittal of the original version of performed during the decommissioning of the 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, the LTP, and the NRC approval of Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Thus, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, Table the LTP; 2) Completion of the the discussion was-updated to denote the 3-3, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, Continuing Characterization historical performance of these events and Table 3-4, 3.4.3, Surveys associated With the Maine activities. Table 3-5, Table 3-8, Yankee Nuclear Power Plant; 3) Table 3-9, 3.5.3, Establishment of a:special agree Table 3-11, 3.5.5, with Friends of the Coast - 3.5.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, Opposing Nuclear Pollution; 4) A, Completion of decommissioning Table 3A-1, Figures activities associated with the Maine 3-1 through 3-29, Yankee Nuclear Plant; 5) 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3, 4.4, Dissolution of the FSS project 4.4.3, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, organization; 6) The update of the 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.6, PSDAR in LBDCR 13-04; 7) 5.5.1, 5.10.1, 6.2.1, Change of name of Maine 6.5.2, 6.6.1, 6.6.6, Department of Human Services to 6.6.9, Table 6-10A, Maine Department of Health and Table 6-10B, 6.6.10, Human Services; and 8) 6.7.2, 8.1.2, 8.1.7, Elimination of License A-82-71 -I-8.2, 8.3, 8.4.1, Table R 8-1, 8.4.2, 8.4.5, 8.4.6, 8.4.7, 8.4.9, 8.4.12, 8.6.2, 8.6.4, 8.6.5, 8.6.7, 8.6.8, 8.6.9, 8.6.12, 8.6.13, 8.7. 8.7.1 1.7, 3.1.3, 8.1.5, Updated to reflect the current Changes were made to reflect the current 8.6.9 activities of the Maine Yankee practices at the ISFSI. These changes are ISFSI. consistent with LBDCR 13-04, approved procedures or other license basis documents. Page 2 of 3
Attachment I - Listing of Key Changes - License Termination Plan, Revision 6 Section Proposed Change Reason for Change Table 3-10, Section References to Envirocare were Energy Solutions purchased Envirocare A.2 6f Attachmnent changed to Energy Solutions 4A, Section B. I of B 8.1.2, 8.1.5, 8.2, Updated to reflect the The changes update the environmental impact 8.4.9, 8.4.12, 8.7.1, environmental impacts associated associated with decommissioning the ISFSI 8.7.3 with the change in schedule for and the longer time period that the spent storage of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel and GTCC waste will be stored GTCC waste and change in onsite. The environmental impact remains methodology regarding disposal of bounded by the previous assessment. the materials comprising the Vertical Concrete Casks and the ISFSI Storage Pad as low-level radioactive waste. 8.4.8 Replaced "Five seasonally active Throughout the decommissioning of the osprey nests" with "Seasonally Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant, the storage active osprey nests" period of spent fuel and GTCC waste at the Maine Yankee ISFSI, and the future decommissioning of the Maine Yankee ISFSI, the exact number of osprey nesting sites may fluctuate. The important aspect is to respect all the nests, and minimize the impact on those nests. 8.6.2 Eliminated the discussion The elimination of this information does not regarding the availability of the impact the evaluation of the impacts of the Resource Conservation Recovery environmental impacts of the Act Quality Assurance Project Plan decommissioning of the Maine Yankee at the Maine Department of Nuclear Plant and Maine Yankee ISFSI. This Environmental Protection office in information was superfluous. Augusta and the Wiscasset Public and Maine State libraries. 1.7, Attachment 1A, Editorial or administrative changes These. changes are non-substantive changes Table 2-1, 2A.6, were made. that do not modify the intent of the document. 3.2.4, 5.5.1, 8.4.7 Page 3 of 3
Attachment 2 - List of Effective Pages - License Termination Plan, Revision 6 Section / Attachment Revision Number Comments Preface 5 1 6 Attachment IA 6 2 6 Attachment 2A 6 Attachment 2B 4 Attachment 2C 3 Attachment 2D 3 Figures 2-1 and 2-2 Attachment 2E 3 Figures 2-3 thuough 2-101 Attachment 2F 4 Attachment 2G 3 Attachment 2H 6 Attachment 21 3 3 6 Attachment 3A 6 Figure 3-3-30 (Figures 3-1 through 3-29 Deleted) 4 6 Attachment 4A 6 Attachment 4B 6 Attachment 4C 5 Deleted 5 6 Attachment 5A 6 6 6 Attachment 6-1 3 Attachment 6-2 3 Attachment 6-3 3 Attachment 6-4 3 Attachment 6-5 3 Attachment 6-6 4 Deleted Attachment 6-7 3 Attachment 6-8 3 Attachment 6-9 3 Attachment 6-10 3 Attachment 6-11 3 Attachment 6-12 3 Attachment 6-13 4 Attachment 6-14 3 Attachment 6-15 3 Attachment 6-16 3 Replaced by Attachment 2H Attachment 6-17 4 Deleted Attachment 6-18 3 Attachment 6-19 3 Attachment 6-20 4 7 6 8 6 9 3 Page 1 of 1
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 January 2014 MAINE YANKEE, LTP SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page l-i R.evlsion,6 Januarx, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION......... .........* ;.. ,.,*.." . ... '.....". 1.1 1.1 Introduction ......................... .... .. 1-1 1.2 Operating and Decommissioning History ... , .. ,.. *.. .... 1-1 1.3 Plant Description...................... .*: .-. . ........... 1-5 1.4 LTP Submittal Change and Early Release of Land ............ ....... 1-5 1.4.1 LTP Submittal and Changes............ ..- :.. ;;........1-5 1.4.2 Phased Release and License.Termination ..., .... ..... ....... .1-8 1.5 Plan Description ,., .. . , . .. ......... .... .1-10 1.5.1 General Information ..... .... ..:....:. ... .1..........1-10 1.5.2 Site Characterization . . .,. 1-10 1.5.3 Identification of Remaining Site Dismantlement Activities , . 1-11 1.5.4 Remediation Plans........ ..... .......... ,. ... I... 1-12 1.5.5 Final Status Survey (FSS) ... ..... .. .,. .., : ... 11-12 1.5.6 Compliance With the Specified Radiologi.cal. Criteria for License Termination......................... . 1-13
- 1.5.7 Update of the Site-Specific Decommissioning Costs ............ 1-13 1.5.8 Supplement to the Environmental Report ................ * .:. 1-13 1.5.9 Special Agreement With. Friends of the Coast - Opposing Nuclear Pollution............... . ..... .............. 1-15
.1.6 Maine Yankee LTP Information Contact ...-. . .,.. ,........ 1-17 1.7 References.,....... .............................. .. 1-17 Figure 1-1 Location of Population Centers With Respect to Location of Maine Yankee ATTACHMENT IA Maine Yankee Decommissioning Supplementary Radiological Characterization and Analysis Agreement
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-1 Revision,6 January,2014 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 .Introduction This License Termination Plan (LTP) has been prepared by the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company:(MYAPC) nu6lear power plant' located ai 321 Old Ferry Road, Wiscasst Maine, 04578. For tlihe-ibtion of'in the plant with respectoto population centers see Figure '1-1. The ite'bunda~d is defined MYAPC Defleled:Safety Analysis Report (DSR) Figure 2.1-1.. In accordanice with equirements of 10 CFR 50.82(aX9), the LTP has b en' prep'ed aid 6uibniittedas, 'a' *l-Ieifft'toe DSAR and is intended to support
.an.applition me ent: oflitcense.ifunber DPR-36; Docket Number 50-309. An application for amendment of 4the i.,ens'has beenwprovided to facilitate authorizatio/approval' . f th" ITPaLsT-req""iifd b- 10'CFR: 50..82(a)(9).
The license condition inicludes a LTP change process similar to-that required for the DSAR. The LTP Will be updted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). 1.2 0perafirig and DecommissioninmgHistory The plantisg oWned 1y'a coniwortium "ofNewEngland electric utilities representing consumers Isl"id. 'ItfbH-o'z ,New Hampshiie, Vermont,,Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode in.aineMAcmeiim6 d riAti6iin Demembe'r, 1972 under:Atomic Energy Coinmis...s:i Doke _n N. 5-ýb!309, :icense lk1o:OLt-F.PDPR-356, and lIast-.operatedin December ~1996 "(erffication of cdssafi.onof operation under 10 CFRS0.:82(a)(1) sfibfirittdediAugu-7; _ 1997- _atotal . Oifits -ifetie :l3iito0emted for of9 approximately-l:6 effeotive .full power years :based on its~rated.thermal power.- -TheMaine Yankee board-df directors voied to permaentlycease further operation and dec mmnissionthe plant 1 in Au*u 1997.; Oh August 27,1'997, Maine Yankee submitted
- the.Post Shiitd6 .,DednDissinnig Acti'Vities Report: (PSDAR,)i. On November 6, 1997, a-p~ublic meetg was held in Wiscasset to iear publioccomments on the PSDAR.
On No6viber 3,. 1:998' Mine Ya k'esubV tted.the Site-Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimrate -along With a PSDARUpdatd. On Oct6ber, 20, 1997, Maine, Y 6ik.subniitt6d a-tquest to revise the Technical Specifications to.reflect the peirmanetifly defueled:status ofthe plant. On March 30, 1998, the-NucearRegulatory: Cmmissio (NRQ) issIued Amendment #161 approving those evised Technical Speifictiii6ns. Thisamendmet revised theMaine Yankee -Technical Specifications to.reflet the pefrtrenitly'defieled condition of the plant, and regulatory requirements and operating restrictions to ensurel the safe storage of spenthfuel. The.Fiinal Safety Analysis Report (FSA-R) was revised to reflect the permanentlydefueled plant condition and was re-titled "Defueled Safety Analysis Report" (DSAR). The DSAR
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-2 Revision-6 january 2014 was submitted to the NRC on February 6, 1998 and h.as since been revised in accordance with 10 CFR 50.7 1(e). Additional licensing basis documents were also revised and submitted to reflect the plant's defueled condition (Defueled Security Plan, Fire Protection Plan, QA Plan, Training Plan and Emergency Plan). On January 13, 2000, Maine Yankee submitted the original version of the LTP in accordance with 1.0 CFR 50,82(a)(9). This.mubmittal wa's preceded by meetings with the NRC andother federal, state and local stakeholders. Draft copies of the.Maine. Yankee LTP had been circulated and docketed to enhance dialogue andencourage feedback. On Marcqh 16,2000, therNRC comietd its acceptanc-review of theLTP and determined that the. LT.P provides; sufficient information for the .staff to proceed with itsdetailed technical review.. Accordingly,.a public meeting wsheJd at the WiWscasset High School on May 15, 2000 to-solicitpublic-comments. On May 17, 2000, the NRC published notice of the license amendment application proposing to authorize the LTP in the Federal Register-(65FR3.1357-31.358)., In an effort meet stakeholder expectations that site cleanup be conducted to the highest: reasonable standards and beyond current federal regulatory requirements if feasible, Maine Yankee made a commitment in the original LTP preface to achieve a clean up of the site-.toa ddose. of less-than 1.0 mrem -forall pathways and less than 4,mrem to groundwater pathway.: Nevertheless, on April 26, 2000, the Governor of the-S.tate of Maine signedfinto law .LDR2688-SP 1.084'"An -Actto Establish Clean-up :Standards for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities.": This legislationramended the Maine State definition of Low.IeeLcRadioactive Waste: to exclude, from that definition,.radioactive material remaining.at the site of a dec*mmissioned nuclear power plant if the enhanced state standards. described in the newl.aw-are met. These enhanced state standards include dose-based residual -radfioactivity limits ofl 0 mrem/year ,(mremlyr) or less for all pathways and 4 mem.yeqr or.less for groundwater drinking sources and other limits for co.nst.ruction demolition debris., Prior to the passageof this legislation, on April 14, 2000, Maine Yankee had signed an agreement with several Maine groups to support this legisl!ation.and to lil our-mutual intent to reduce the :rdiological burden at the Maine Yankee site. These groups included "Safe Power: for Maine," "Citizens Against Nuclear Trash," "Friends.of the Coast - Opposing Nuclear Pollution" ("Friends of the Coast"), and the Town .ofWiscasset. The implementation of the state-law and the agreement identified above.are both.-described in detail'in Section 6 of this LTP. In-a letter dated ..May 9,:2Q000, the NRC requested that Maine Yankee describe what action it would. take. in reso0nse to the new state-legislation, Ii a letter dated June 8, 2000, Maine -Yankee-generally explained.the expected impact of the newly enacted legislation and indicated that Maine Yankee was continuing a dialogue with state agencies and other stakeholders conc_.iing the-end stateof.the-site, _verification .of-cleanup-:to state.standards and otherlissues.,,
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-3 Revision 6 January 2014 On June 15, 2000, the Friends of the Coast sbmitfted a petition to intervene and a request for a hearing. On June 16, 2000, the State of-Maine submitted a petition to intervene and a request for a hearing or, alternatively, to participate as an interested state. Accordingly, on July 7, 200Q, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Bard(ASLB) was established.. During a telephoinie confef-erice 6ih July'20, 2000 with the participants in the LTP license anmendment, proceeding, Maine .Yankee stated that it;intended to submit a revi~ed LTP addressimg a number of new matters and suggested that hthe proceeding be held iri abeyance udhtilthe revised LTP is filed. The other'participants generally agreed with this suggestion. Accordingly, on July 20, 2000., the ASLB issued an order for, among other. things, Ma'ine Yanikee to file a-revised LTP by october 31,. 2000 or on Nov':eriber- 1, 2000 submit a status report. During the summer and fall of 2000, Maine Yankee 'received o.ver 400 coni'iieiits on the LTP from a range of stakeholders. Many of these comments led to changes which have been inolud6d ir Revision I to the LTP*. In addition, Maine Yankee iitiatediand participated in two facilitated 91keholder meetings on decdmmissioning topics including the dispo'siion of above grade confcrete. A S.a'result of these meetings, Maine Yankee agreed tor:temtove.and dispdse:of offsitie the -concretedeibris which results fiom'rte demolition.' ofbuildings above ihreeý feift below grade. The effect's of this agre~emient have led to additional changes to dose models, final status survey methodology, ALARA evaluations, and: dismantlement activities which have been included in this revised LTP. On Oct6obe*31, 2000, Maine Ydnkee submitted to: the'NRIC a status report including Maine Yahkee's current best estimated schedule for~submi~ting the revised.LTP and progress in settling outstanding marters with sitakeh6lders. Efforts asocited with incorporatin:g the above agreements and stakeholder comments resulted in the call for additional data-collection and. analysis. Based on these efforts and the desire-tocontinue a respons tve.'dilogue w~th-stakeholders, Maine Yankee estimated that thereviyed LTP would .besaub.t6ied to.the NRC tb April 15, 2001. On Ja'nbary29,2001 and April 3, 20061, Maine Ykee: stubmnitted status reports updating the "B.oard on Maine Yankee's interactions with ýstakehoIlders. In thelatter repoq, Maine Yankee extended ihe'ievised LTP submittal scelidule to June 1, 2001. Aecc'rdingly, on June 1, 2001, *Maine Yankee submitted. LTP Revision :1. On October 13, 2000 and:again on February 5, 2001, the NRC issued-requests for additiotial-.iifoi-n-atio6f'(RAI): Oif August 8; 2001( following the issuance of Revision I of the LTP on June 1, 2001); Maine Yanfikiee su"biittedresp.onses to-the NRC RAIs of "Reviged..LTP or "original LTP" will be used in th¢etext-where needed.for clarity; however, in general, "LTP" is intended to mean the revised LTP in all references in this document subsequent to this point.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.1-4 Revision 6 " January 2014 October 13, 2000 and February 5, 2001. Many of the RAý.I issues were incorporated, as appzoprjate, into Revision I of the.LTP. On. June. 8, 2001, Maine Yankee submitted a joint requ ASLB :for a ten-week pq.rod for LTP -settlementdiscussions. On July" 2, 2001, Maine;Yankeevprovided responses to the State of Maine and Friends of the Coast comments and questiis on the LTP. On August 13, 2001, Maine Yankee, submitted LT"Revion 2 i*: rporating many of the remaining NRC, State of Maine and Friends ofthe.Q. oast issues, as;ppropriate. On Augpst -31,.,2001, the State of Maine, Friends off'.the e,N! k ached a Settlement Agreement (SA) related to the. ASLBis A.Su e.A* eýiminatd.'teneed for an ASLB hearing and established a framework for the-Patties",to-resolve- thpe.remaining issues. On October, 2, 2001, the ASLB issued an.order appropvig the S etement Agreement and terminating the.proceeding& One item of the SA was the establishment of a TechniWl, issue Resolution.Pahel (TIRP). The: TIRP consisted of two members each from the State of Maine and Maine Yankee. The:.TIRP met several times-between September 26 2001 and.December 13,2001. On December, 13, 2001 the. Team reachedlconsensus onpthe-f.ve.issu~e* on it's agenda, ad iss.ued a Participant Settlement Agreement. The results of the.-, cPnsensu's have been
'inorporated in Revision 3 of the'LTP.
On December 18, 2001 and January 17, 2002, the NRC issued a huther round ofRAIs on LT.P Revision 2. On March 13, 2002, Maine Yankee responded to the RAIs, As appropriate, the resolution of the. RAIs wereincorporat.e JRevisIon.3 of the LTP.: LTP Reyision 3 was submitted on October 15,. 2002. Three.addenda letters were. submitted to the.NRC: (1) &N-02-05.-, LUP-Revisioni3 Addenda4 dated November 21, 2,002 - Clarifications and M-inr'*-io'rreti0q to: Maine Yankee License Termination Plan: Revision 3; (2) MN-02-0.6, dated November 26,2002, Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Rev. 3 Addenda..an.d*Additlonal. Infrmation Related to the Eberline Model E600 Instrument; (3), MN02-063, daited Deember 12, 2002, Update on Forebay Dike Coring Results and Associated...Changeslto LTP Attachment 2H (LTP Revision 3 Addenda). .. - OnFqebmu.ar 28, 2003, the NRC issuedAmendment 168 :toi e..tMY Facility{)perating License; approving and incorporating LTP Revision 3, and assoi*iatedaddendnn, into the LiJen.se. Maine Yankee provided.commeg nts on the-.eA- n .m.t1,68
.S.et Evaluation in letter MN-03-023, dated May 6, 2003.
On September 11, 2003, Maine Yankee submitted letter MN-03-049 to the NRC propgsjing achange to the activated.concreteDCGL using morerealistieactivated-dose
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-5 Revision 6 January 2014 niodeling. On February, 18, 2004, NRC issued 'AmendhmentNO. 170 approving this change. On March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee submlttedletter MN-04-020 requesting an amendment to the fai.il .otydperatig license susiiait' tfo10 CFRt 50.90 and in accordance with'the NRC ApprovedLicerise Terminatiobf Plan (LTP) for Maine Yankee, -to acquire NRCP'sapproval of.the release. of he N.on-IS.FSI'site land from the jurisdiction of the license. Froi&M M;arh"2904 to JulY 2.0.05, MKi Yarikee submitt.d*supporting final status suyrve- reports, supplemgents to the aniendtheft: and 'resporises to NRC requests for additional information: .n:September-30, 2005NR**i'ssuedAmendmen' t No. 172 consisiting of the unresfficted 'release of thekm.dihing, land under License No. DPR-36 vith the exceptioni 4;e leand 'whete:the.Independent-:Spent Fuel :Storage"Installation (ISFSI) is located and.a parcel ofland aj"acent to the ISFSI. 1,3 Plant Descripti6n The plant was a.three-l.oop pressurized Water.reactor":th a: power rating of 2,700.Megawatts.-thermafl It had a Nu*lear:.steam Supply System supplied by Westinghouse. The-secondary plant consisted.of.three Asea Brown Boveri turbines, one I. high pressure and two low pressure, ctiupled with -a 950 MVA Westinghouse electric gnerato arind as6ciatdd auxiliury systems'. T*e site also in*luded*ancillary facilities used to support norm-al plant-:operations.,. Tfiese:faciliiies consisted of wardhouses, administrative office buildlin6gsff, sediteniiitrer aen ineiitel sampling complex, a substation And a fire protection systemia. The plant was located on an 820Qacre site in Linecln County, Wiscasset, Maine as indicated in Figure -1.- Ornly the land upon -which the ISFSI site, and an adjacent parcel of land remain under the control of the 10 CER50 License.. The total land area is approximately 12'acie;. The !i'te b6uhdai*yis.ihdicatedliii DSAR Figure 2.1-lB. This location is approximately 0.43 miles from the'nearest residenceand is within 5 miles of the niearest population center, Town .of.Wiscasset, as§ shown in Figure' 1-1. 1.4 LTP Submittal Change and Early Release of Land 1.4.1 LTP Submittal and Changes Maine Yankee submitted and.maintains thisLTP as a supplement to the Defueled Safety Analysis Report. On February 28, 2003,. the NRC approved the-LTP. Maine Yankee's license will auihorize and require Maine Yankee to implement and maintain in effect all provisions, of the approved LTP. This license termination plan describes a'naeceptable: approach fordemonstrating compliance with. the radiological criteria for unrestricted use, as~defined by 10 CFR 20.1402,
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-6 Revision 6 January 2014 by meeting a site release criteria of 10 mil lirtm TEDE per year over background (all pathways) and 4 millirem (as distinguishable fronm background) TEDE per year for groundwater sources of drinking water using appropriate dose modeling methods, pathways and parameters and.acceptable final .radiation survey methods. The LTP describes:dose modeling methods, pathiways,.and parameters w'hich produce, derived concentration guidelifie levels (DCGL's) for a given dose based release criteria., Thde LTP also describes.the final radiation survey methods to demonstrate compliance with, the DCGL's. The dose based release criteria used in ihe LTP is the site:_elease "crie.a,.aimely. 10 imillirerm.TEDE per year over background (all pathways) and 4 miiiirem (as distinguished from background) TEDE per ye~ar for groundwater~sources of drinking water in-accordance with state law.' While it is understood that NRC may not agree with or adopt this criteria, it is expected that-NRC will be.confirming that compliance with NRC regulations is being demonstrated by meeting this site release criteria. Maine Yankee will certify in its application for license termination that it has met this site release criteria (10/4) andwill at that time request NRC to confirm this certification. Changes re~qiting NRC approval will be submitted. via application for a license amendment--in.acc6rdance with j10 CER 50.90. Pursuant to license condition 2.B :(1.0) of Maifie Yankee's Facility Operating License No. DPR-36, the. licensee may make changes to the LTP without prior approval provided the.proposed changes do ot:,
- a. Require Commission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59;
- b. Violate the requir.ements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(6);
C. Redu.e:thc coyerage,.re q~urMents f.r.scan measurements;
- d. Increase the radioactivity level, relative: to the applicable derived concentration guideline*level, at which an investigation occurs; or e; Increase the probability of making a Type I decision error.,
Maine Yankee will submit an updated License Termination Plan in accordance with. 1,.0.CFR 5.0.7 l(e). LD 2688-SP 10.84, "!An Act.to Estdblish Cian-'up Standardso..fjrDeornmmissioning Nuclear Facilities," enacted on April 26, 2000.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page-1-7 Revision 6 .January.2014 Items a and b of the above LTP change criteria'regarding 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.82(a)(6) are established in current regulation. Item c regarding the coverage requirements; for :scan measurements, is es.tablislhed in ýLTP Section 5.4.1, Table 5-3.item
' .did&ghardin d nesttig n levels, stsa lirfiit on the acti6n thresholds that would trigger an investigation. These tthesholds-are-specifiedirn LTP Section 5.6,.
Table.. 5-77. Item e limits the probability of releasing asu.rvey unit, which contains iesidi~ial iadi6dtivity abbv'e the'release criteri.on. Thi s probability value is discussed in LTP Section!5.4.2: and 5.8. 1. A'-J4p-robp'riate, Maine Yankeew*¢ill evalftfii-haiiges to the LTP using the Data Quality Objective (DQO).process outlined in NUREG-l1575, "Multi Agency Radiologic.al Survey andSite Investigation Manual" and/or the. considerations des.cribed in section 3.2. Changes to the LTP not requiring NRC approval will be submitted 'as.an updated supplemienr to the DSAR in accordance with
- 10. CFR. 50.7 le.
fn.addition~to the abo-ve liceh9e cohiditihi LTP change,:criteria, Maine Yankee will
,,notiy theState of Maine promptlyprior to making a change to the LTP that Would restilt in an increase, 'of Ahy amo'-tlin a Derived Concentration Guideline Levelf(DCGL) and will request NRC approval if a change.to the LTP would resutitini an increase'in a DCGL, as ýspecified in Table 6-11, by more than a factor of two. Note that any DCGL indi'ede is blny allowable.provided :the iresulting "Total Annual Dose" remains less than or equal to 10 mrem/y and the "Drinking W*.er.",1(d6se) remains less fhan orpequal to 4 mrem/y (as presented Table 6-11).
IfinWhe'if-w.,rds", the individual 6cont'atii-ated .material DCGLsolisted in Table 6-1l must:always collectively result'inra total annual dose of .10 mrem/y. or: less and a drinking water dose of 4 .mrem/y or less. As discussed above, Maine Yankee will cetf
. ini its applicati6n for licenseterminfation that'it has met this site release criteria (pursuahtlto license condition 2.A (10) of Maine Yankee's Facility Operating License).
Iinttie. eVeiit'that Maine Yankee eleds to reduce a survey unit's classification as Iisted'in Section 5, i.e., from Class Ito Class 2 or 3, or from Class 2 to 3,. prior notification will be provided to the'NRC. Criteria for reclassification is discussed in Section 5.6.4. Maine Yankee will provide the NRC as much early notice of "tfiis-dedision as pracfical:but-not less: than two weeks. (See Reference .1.7.16.)
MYAPC License.Termination Plan Page-1-8 Revislon-6 January 2014 1.4.2 Phased Release and License Termination Maine Yankee will make changes to the site boundary footp.rints to allow unrestricted release and license termination, of parcels of property. The following processwill-,be, used for.making.-these changes:
- a. Following the .completion of LTP activities in a given, area, Maine Yankee will pro..videto the NRC a. license am endment request covering the area which it seeks to release from the. Part 50 license.
Thisrep ..rt will contain. the information which the NRC needs to make adetermination similar to .1O.CFR 50.82(a)( 11) and will
-include:
1t. A.description of the boundaries associated with the area to be released. I2 A statement that the remaining dismantlement activities.for the affected area.. describjed in the. license termination plan h~ave been, performed. 3.. Final Status Survey (FSS). results for the area. FSS is not requi.red -for non-impactedareas.
- 4. An evaluation of the. potential for possible re-contamination of thle. area and a description of thelspecific controls established to preventre-contamination.
5 An evaluation of the impact on the exclusion area for the sitelands remaining. within the domain of the Part 50 license.
- 6. An evaluation of the potential combined dose effects on the prticalgroup at license termination as a result of partial releasesof land 7.. A..e.valuation of the impact on the following license programs for the site lands remaining within the domain of the Part 50 license: Offsite'Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Emergency Plan, Security Plan, Fire Protection Plan, QA Plan, Training Plan, DSAR, and Post Shutdown Decommissioning Actiyities Report (PSDAR).
MYA:PC License Termination Plan Page 1-9 Revision 6 January 2014
- 8. A no significant hazards determination evaluation..
This process has been informed by NRC Regulatory Issue Summiary 2000--19 "Paitial Release of Reactor Site for Unrestricted Use Before NRC Approval of the License Termination Plan." Upon,satisfactory'NRC review, the NRC will-provide a license am enfdrmrent to Maifie Yankee that the NRC has mnade 'the .required 10 CFR 50.82 (a)(1 1) and 50.91 determinations regardingthe:area to be released from the Part 50 license and that the area is heicef6ith released :from the Part 50 license. This license. amendment will carry the same authority as that associated with terminating a license. under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1 1). b., Once an area 'is so:released it is understood that the NRCwill not require additional surveys or decontamination of these areas by Maine Yankee in response to futUr'e.-NRC- eritetia'or ýstandards, new, informationor third party survey, results, unless, similar to 10 CFR 20.140 1(c), the NRC deterfiaiiesthat:the criteria: of 10 CFR Part*20, Subpart E were. noti met and residual :activity remaining at the site: could result in significant thireait to public health and safety. With. regard fto 6eah release, *:Maine Yankee will work with the NRC and the State of Maine in facilitating confirmatory surveys.
- c. MaiineJ Yankee ahticipatesa'three-phased release: of land from the operating license:
T;. Approximately 64.1 acres ofh6d lad'associated With the.Eaton Farms and the land north 0'fFerry Road.,: A portion-of this land Will be ffiansferried f6r. thepurp*ose of an environmental center in accordance with the FERC rate case settlement.
Reference:
Maine Yakee to USNRC letters dated August 16, 2001 (MN-01-034) Early Release lof-Backlands (Combined), Proposed Chang&No. ý21:1,,Supplement.No. I, aiid Nove*.bei 19, 2001 N-01'o04.4y!§' subject, Proposed Chahge No. 211, SuDpplement No'i 2. Approval: The NRC provided approval of the subject request for release. of site lands by issuance of the: license
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-10 Revision 6 January 2014 amendment grated by the NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated July 30, 2002, Issuance of Amendment No. 167.
- 2. The remainder pf the site not associated with the ISFSI Reference,: Maine Yankee to USNRC letter dated March 15,2004, (MN-04-020) "Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land" as-supplemented by letters -dated September 2, 2004 and May. 16, -20.05.
Approval: NRC letter datedSeptember 30, 2005, Issuance of Amendment.No.,172. 3-. The portion of the site associated with the ISFSI and a ISFSI. parcel of land adjacent to:.the 1.55 ;Plan. Description 1.5!. G..Gneral Information This section summarizes each of the, seven (7)PLTP sections required by
- 10. CFR,.50.82(a)(99)(ii).
1.5.2 Site Characterization Section 2 summarizes the.radiological.surveys that have been conducted to characterize the nature and extent of contamination at Maine Yankee. A .site.ramdiological.charaeterization was performed to support decommissioning plannigduring.-Noyember 1997 througMarch 1998. This resulted in GTS Duratek's "Cha-ractefization Survey Report for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant." F1.1owing.the initial characterization effort, additional data was required and collected (referred to as "continuing characterization), as discussed "i Section 2.A1. Additional characteriiation will be performed as required to support the deeommionini.g. of the ISFSIand associated areas. The site characterization
,results .ha~yb.e en and will be used tolidentiIy areas of the site that are likely to requiie;rnmediation, to plan rehed1iation trategies, and.to support;final status survey.and dose assessment, activities.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-11 Revision 6 Januay.2014 1.5.3 Identification of Remaining Site Dismantlement Activities Section 3 presents the sequence of dismantlement and decontamination (D&D) activities for the remaining systems, structures, and components at Maine Yankee. The overall project schedule identifies the remafinig site dismantlement activities. The 6nly 'decommissionng-activities :that remain are those associated with the ISFSI and adjacent parcel; of land. The decommissioning cost estimate assumes that the ISFSI-storage pads and Vertical Concrete Casks' will be demolished and disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. The extent -towhich these activities are expected to be conducted under 10 CFR 50.59 is described. The final state of the site, including any underground remnants, is also described. The~strategies fr disposal of waste generated during decommissioning arc disiussged includifigthe. disposition of thematerials from above grade: structires which Will be dernolished. These strategies include;the removal of radioactive
.material from the'.site in order to meet the radiological release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402 and the state clean-up: standards. These state clean-up standards
.specify, aimng ot6hrthings, thatrany construction demolition; debris (CDD),.:
incfudii'ng'onerete,.disposed.of at the site meets the limiits specified 'inTable 1 in the Guide.1974 Uiited States Atomic Energy Commissioný (AEC) Regulatory 1:86. However, Maine Yankee'does :notexpect to dispose of CDD on site. This sect.ion-al.so:includes: estimates Of the quantity of radioactive material to be released; control mechanisms; and radioactive waste characterization. A detail.6! de'scription' of the-coordination ofactivities, requireeidnts, permits and licenses covered by other 'regulatory agencies *is included. These: activities,
'requirements, permits and licenses include Comprehensive Environmental Responise, Compensation and Liabilities Act"(CERCLA),'Resburce Conservation
,and Recoviry Act (RCRA), Site Location of Development Permitting, Natural Resources.P.rotection Act (NRPA), -Solid Waste Storage and Disposal Permits, Hazardous Waste Storage and Disposal Permits, National Pollution Dischge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Waste Discharge Licensing, Tank:Closure Certification,.Stormwater Management, Erosion and Sedimentition Control, Aibst and .PCB chaac.terization. dan.d. emediationr Noise Regulations, Air Emissions License, etc. These efforts` involve.coordination between Maine Yankee-and Qter.stakeholders including: the Maiie Depatent of Envirornental Protection, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services including-the State Nuclear Inspectors, the Governor's Nuclear Safety Advisor, the Governor's Technical'.Advisory Panel,. the AdVisory Committee on Radiation
*and Nucleair'Waste, etc., In addition to describing the coordinationeof the efforts
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 1412 ReyiBi6n 6 January.2014 described above .this section of the:LTP also describes the various agreements between Maine Yankee and the. State of Maine and other parties. For the:purpose of this LTP -itis assumed that the installation and operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage listallatioin will be conducted, separate from the LTP, under a-general licensew whih has already beer:.issued in accordance with 10 CFR 72.210. Howevgrthe de issioning :of the ISFSI -is described in this section. If Maine Yankee.submits an application for a: 10-CFR Part 72 specific license, this LTP will -be revised to i.e.liinate from its- scope the decommissioning of the ISFSI.-
- 1.5.4 Remediation Plans The methods usedtQl-reduce the levels&of radioactivity to meet the radiological release criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402 (Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use) and the enhanced ,state cleanup standards are described. WiSection 4. The alculations used to v~erif~tthat the residual activity levels have been reduced to levels that are as low as :reasonabblyaehi'cevabje-(ALA ):..are presented. These
.calculations, and the apple~d methodolo"gy gen erally confo6r to the guidance provided in Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4006 or as superceded by. NUREG- 1727, "NMSS Decommissioning Stan dard ReviewFPlan (SRP), [D.-emonstrating Compliance with thes Radioogi*adl Critneia for LicenSe Termination]."
1.5.5 Final Status Survey (SS) Section 5 of this LTP describes the methods that will be used by Maine Yankee to demonstrate that residual contamination levels at the.plant site have been reduced to levels below the:site,release:criteria. The derived concentration guideline (DCGL) is calculated in' Section 6 of this LTP .and-represents the-residual contamination levels that Will. esultiin a Total Effective DoQse Equivalent (TEDE) to the average member of the critical ýpopulation-group thatiis: less than 25 mrem per year in accordane.ewith the radiological release criteria of 10 CFR 20X1402 and less than the enhanced state eclean-up ,standards:ofl0 .mem per year from all pathways and:4 mrem per year from.grOundwater sou ces of drinking water. The methods for conducting.th.*lnal-staus vsurvey generally- followlthe guidance in Draft Regulator 4Gpide 40Q6 orassperced&d.by theStandard Review Plan (SRP). NUREG- 1575 :(Muti-Agencpy Rdation and 'SuSt b.iVesgation __Man u..alE MARSSIM]) is a.so used,.tothe extentit is;.referenced4in:DG-4006 as appropriate. Additional sections ofNUREG-1575 are folowed asrequired for specific applications. TheYFSS plan desprbes..methodology for-the division of the site into-survey units,-the-classifieation.of survey areas;-and.the-requirement th-at all0suryy units meet 'the:DCGL With a 95% confidence level. Survey areas have
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-13 Revision 6 January 2014 been classified. These survey areas.will be divided into. survey units as work progresses., :Management: contro6lsover. all aspects of the project are discussed in detail*, including :quita:ssurn~e, daita procele:iiig, and final status survey reports. 1.5.6 Compliance:.Withithespecifie R ad'oioogial Criteria for License Terfmination - Section6of the; LTVPdesciibest. meff-ihods ýused for conducting a dose Sassessent46*.-td .el3pJthe.'fDfCGL s for deiiiinitaiitinig compliance with the unrestricted use criteria ii SubpOArT-*E of- 0 -FR-2O and the enhanced state clean-up standards establis.hed by.Sate of.-Maine7~blii Law- LD 2688-SP 1084. I1O.CFR 20.1402, ".Radiological.Criteria for Unrestricted Use," allows termination/amendment ofa'license and releas&.ofa site.for unrestricted use if the residual radioaetiVity- tatis dsin..guisha.ble frto' ackground radiation results in a total effective dose equivale't to ;-"averaged member of a criticaLgroup that does not. exceed 2-5 rem peryrea andPe: residui1 radibactivity has been reduced to
- levels ithdtfe ALARA Tli-&e-n ed'.tafdeaufi4p :sjtandirds require that the
- .residual radi.olaetiVitdistiid Ah' e-ioedt bAikr6uind radiation will result in a total ffeive. dose eqiya.!entito an ave.mgemember of a critical group not more than ,10 -mren*,/ii f6i/ 1lpt.Wayiiid 4 reiiar for groundwater sources of drinknlg water. Inladdtiton.*eIelanced state .*lanup standards require that any coristru~tion demolitif6ndebris,:..fi'eidig'egoncrete, disposed of at the site meet the limits' of Tabl " i-týh- 4974 ABC R Gýiiie 1.86.
.* -.,,p a ..o ..
1.5.7 Update ofithe$'i-teDSpeeifo eDecomriiss1oning Costs Section 7 provides:anup.-.tidated:estimate:of remaining decommissioning costs and a discussion -ofthel-fu'. ingmechianism and'decomm ssioning trust. [ 1.5.*8 Suppslementtto-the! Erivir'onental Repott Section; 8 satisfies the reuirement sted inr:
- a. T10 1CF.R: .0..82(a 9ii)'(
*a qsuiiie to d the Enviv mn, - *T p*-u-fi-afint to 51.53 discribinigmany nei.w. iniformationw i or:sigbifimcant environmental changeeassociated, with therlicensee .s,proposed termination acti .yt~idS,
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-14 Revii6n..6 January201k4. ba 1o CFR 51.53(d): Postoperatinglicense stage. Each applicant -for a license amendment-authorizing decomnmissioning-afctivities for a production or utilization facility either for unrestricted use or based on contin-uing use res.tritions. applicib.e: to the.site; and each applicantfor a license amendment approving a license terminaon plan or decommissioning plan-under §§50.82 of this chapter either
*.o-unresti*. cted use or.based on continugpuse :restrictions applicbl.. to the.-s!t; qnde.ach a.~pplint oreatlicense or license amendmentlto store :spent fuel, at a nuclear'power reactor after expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its application the: number of copies, as specified in§§51.55, ofa separate document, entitled, "Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report -- Post-Operating License
- Stage," whch wil .-update "Avppicant's Environmental Report --
Operating License; Stage,". as appropriate, to reflect any new "fo0rma or.Tin significa, tenvironmental change.associated with
-the applican.t's .prpposeddeOmmission.ig activities or with the
.applican.ts proposd acivities with-respect to.the -planned.storage of spent fuel. U.ess .otherwiserq.uredby the.Com.mssion, in
,accordance with the generic determination. in §§5.123(a) and the provisions, in §§5.-423(b)? he applicant shall only address the environmen.talimpact ofspe.n.t. el storage .for th...e term ofithe license applied .for.The. "Syupplement to Applicant's Environmental Report -- Post Operating License Stage" may incorporate by reference any information contained in "Applicants Environmental Report -- Construction Permit Stage.
The purpose qf Section 8 of the LTP is to.upgr.de the: Maine Yankee Environmrnental Report with any new information or significant environmental change associated.with ..Maine Yankee's proposed decommissioning/license terin.ation activities. This section of the LTP constitutes a supplement to Maine Yafkee's Environmental Repport putrsuantto 10 C.FR"51.53(d)-and 10CFR -50.82(a)(9)(ii)(G). In.October, 1970,..Maine Yankee submitted to the US Atopic nergy,CormissioniAC- .RC's predecessor-) its Environmental Report, Which-was further appenieddinebra 1971 with supple.entary Informatiqn. On April 19,.- 1972,ý-Maine Yankee. s~ubmitted: to the.AEC a "Supplement to Environmental :Repoqr." It is this latest supplement which is being updated by this LTP section pursuant to the above regulations. On July 1972.the AEC issued the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-15 Revision 6 January. 2014 ,,,.~
. ~~
. . . . .. . ~...
~...........
Any identified new information or significant environmental change associated with Mai.ne Yankee's:proposed decomni.ssioning/license termination activities hasl beefi evaluated to determine whether it is bounded by the site-specific dec-mffiissioniiig:,iacitivritiedegcrib-di Maine Yankee's PSDAR or AEC's Final
.Envi*onmental Statement. P.ursuant to-l 0CFR 51.53, this supplement identifies aý c'hanfiges in Mainaf ke's-deco-mis.sioiing activities as previously
ýideritified in revisionh ofits submittal, and provides the reasons for concluding that the-impacts~associatedwith .th'osechanges remain bounded by the Final Generic Eviiii-ien I!mpac'ttRpdrt Sfatemhei6itv(FGEIS), NUREG-0586.
1.5.9 Special
Agreement With Friends-of the Coast - Opposing Nuclear Po.ll.uti.on.
- a. As-a resultof its reyiew of the-draft revised LTP, Friends of the
- Coastraised questibns regarding the characterization of radioactivity deposition in-off-site marine sediment. The plant
,derivedactiv.ty-is ihe result of licensed plant effluent releases offsite into th.ihte-in...'tidalzone siurr6unding Bailey Point. A separate agreemeint !Was reached between: Maine Yankee and
'Fiends:of the Cbast to-conductaspecial marine sediment study in the: intertidal zbfi.* eas With the 0v'erall purpose of enhancing public confidence in the decommissioning process. The.key elements of this.agreement, "Maine Yankee Decommissioning
,Sudpiement ar Radiological Characterization and Analysis," dated May *3, 2001, are descdribed in ihis section. The: full. text. of the agreementVis included as Attachment 1-A to this section.
b'. it isreceognized: that the.intertidal zone, beyond the site boundary
,(per the Maine Yankee DSAR Section2. .: and DSAR
'Figure 2.1!-lA); Wasan reda-subject to the periodic discharge of low levels of-radioactive effluents, released under the plant's operating license per the regulations governing off-site releases, monitoring, dose asessment, sampling, and reporting
[i.e., 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, Part 50 Appendix I, and 10 CFR 50:.36a(2)]. These discharges were made and evaluated in accordance *ithlte Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and the Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program which are the principal site: administrativie programs that implement the above requirements. During the period of storage of spent fuel and GTCC waste, there are no discharges.. Because this intertidal zone area was beyond the site boundary, addressed byregulations associated with the Part 50 plant license, and involve dose
MVAPC. License Termination Plan Pageir-16 Revision 6 ,January 2014 commitment to the public already assessed by these programs and regulations, the area:is not included within the scope of the LTP.
- c. Regardless.of regulatory considerations, Maine Yankee recognizes the community tuture interest in potential public uses ofthis area.
Although all measurements to date:have identified intertidal zone levels of radioactivity well below that allowed.to be left on-site, Maine Yankee acknowledges :apublic benefit in enhanced con idence~that can be achieved; by additional radiological characterization of the intertidal zone near the end of decommissioning.
- d. Per the subject, agreement, Maine Yankee worked with Friends of the Coast to contracta radiological survey to characterize the intertidal zone. (which is defined in the agreement). This survey was distinct from and inmaddition to that formerly agreed upon in.
the partial settlement ofihhe, FERC -rate case settlement which also provided for a survey of off-sitepmarine sediment (Reference 1.7, 1.2), The intertidal zone characterization included the "non-affected" Eaton Fa~rm. location, as -wellas. Bailey Point (to an agreed point, souih of Ferry Road).
- e. The methods and.protocols used in the survey are discussed in the agreement. Dose pathways associated with the intertidal zone,
.considering current and future.uses, were identified and agreed upon be'tween Maine Yankee..and Friends of the Coast, The characterization results and dose assessment were reported in a form to allow comparison to appropriate on.-site DCGLs established -in the LTP and to the resident fanner dose. The Maine Yankee. Marine Sampling StudyE..inal Report issued in February 2,005 (Reference 1.7.33) concluded that the intertidal zone activities and dose. levels werfe below federal and state limits for site decommissioning.
[.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-17 Revision 6 January 2014 1.6 Maine Yankee LTP Information Contact For information or comments regarding the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, please contact the followiing party: IsFSi Manager Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 321 Old Ferry Road Wifscassef, Maine 04578 (207) 882-1303:
*1.7 References 1.7.1 NLJREG-0586, 'Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on D ecgommissioning of Nuclear Facilities".
1.7.2: ýýNUR _496, Generic Environmenfal Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities. 1.7:.3 Maine Yankee Environmental Report, dated October 1970 1.7.4 "i nai Environmental Statement Related To Operation of MY Atomic Power Station," datekd July 1972. 1:.7.5 Supplement One to the Maine Yankee Environmental. Report, dated April' 19, 1972. 1.7.6 NkRC Regulatory Issue:S.ummary 2000-19, "Partial Release of Site for Uriresicted Use Before NRC Approval of the License Termination Plan" 1.7.7 GTS Duratek, "Characterization Survey Report for the Maine Yankee Atom ic power Plant," Volumes 1-9, 1998 (ICS). 1.7.8 NUREG- 1727 "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan," Septembfeir"t15, 2000'. 1.7.9 NURkE- 1.575, "MultiAgency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" (MARSSIM), Revision 1 (June 2001)
MyAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-18 Revislon-6 January 2014 1.7.10 AEC Regulatory Guide 1.86 1.7.11 MYAPC Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate, November 3, 1998 1.7.1i2 June 1, 1999 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval of rate ease settlement agreement, Docket Nos. ER98-570-000, EL98-13-000, and EL98-14-;00 1.7.13 Post Shutdown Decommissionng Activities. Report, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-97-99, dated August 27, 199.7. 1.7.14 MYAPC Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) 1.7.15 State of Maine Public Law LD 2688-SP 108.4 "An Act toEstablish Clean-up Stadards .for Decommissiqoig Nuleqar Facilities", April 26, 2000 1.7.16 NRC letter to Maine 'Yankee,pdated' August 23, 2002, "Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station re: Lidense Tr-iation Plan Issue" (dealing with survey unit reclassification and the. PAB"test.pit, issue). 1.7.17 NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated July 30, 2002, Issuance of Amendment No. 167, license amendment appro"vingj.partial release.of site lands. 1.7.18 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC,. MN-00-004 dated January 13, 2000, Maine Yankee License TerminationPlan 1.7.19 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-0-0-23 dated June 1, 2001, Revision 1, Maine Yankee's LicenseTermination Plan 1.7.20 Maine Yankee letterto the NRC, -MN-0l-032 dated August 13, 2001, Revision 2, Maine Yankee's: Licenas Ter tion Plan 1.7.21 NRC Letter to Maine Yankeej datedDedember 18, 200.1 R lequest for Additional Information R.f)or Maine. Yankee Atomic Power Station License Termination Plan. (TAC -No. MA8000). 1.7,22 NRC Letter to Maine Yankee, -datedJanuary .7,2002,Request for Additional Information (RAI) for Maine. Yankee Atomic Power Station License Termination Plan (TAG No. MA8000). 1.7.23 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN 011 dated March 13, 2002,
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 1-19 Revision 6 ,January 2014 Response to NRC Request(s) for Additional Infdrmation-foir'Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station .Lieense Termination.Plan 1.7.24 MYAPC Letter MN-02-048 dated OGetob: 15,.2021, R.Vii6.n.3, Maine Yankee's License Terminationf Plan 1..725 NRC Letter to MYAPC dated February 28, 2003, Issuance of Amendment No. 168 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-36 -- Maine, Yankee Atomic Power Station (TAC No. M800),. 1.7.26 MIYAPC Letter MN70-023 dated.May.6, 2'063, Main-e Yanikee'-s-. Comments on NRC's Safety Eailuation on(he-N4ainq. Yanke.ee Lice.nse Termination Plan
. .7.27 Maine. Yankee' Letter to the NRC, IMN-02-058, LTP'Revision:3 Addenda dated November 21, 2002 - Claritfications anid*.M'fr C6kr&rtibn's to Maine.
Yankee License TerminationPlan Revision 3 I .7$28 MN-02-06 1, dated November 26, 2002, Mail, Yank* e Liceis Termination Plan, Rev. 3 Addenda and Additionfal Infcirmation Related to the Eberline .ModelE.600 Instrument 1.7.29 MN-02.63., dated.December, 12,. 2002, Update on-oF, rebayDike.oring. Results aiidA.Ssodieed Changes tb LTP Attah rn.tH (LTP Revision 3 Addencda).
..7.30 Maine Yankee.:.let1to NRC (MN-03-049), dafed-Sltember1i, 2003, Pýiopdsed .Chafnge: Reviý.6d Activated Conretet D9qL iafnid Mo:ReAlistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling -License *ondiiion:.2.B'.(i10),.License Terminaaio.n L.7.31 NRC lette. .to Maine Yankee, dated Februaiaf.f'.18, 2004, Isgtancie of Amendment'No.. 170 to Facility- Operating Lj4Rensep.,:R-36P - Maine Yankee -At6oiic Power*. Station (TAC No. M8000)01 Activted Co'ncre'te' 17.32 NRC letter ýto Maine Yamikee_.di-ed
- Selniber 30., 2"05, .s.sance of A.. endmeit'..No. 172 to- Facility Operating Linenh§ No. DPR Maine Yankee Atomicý Power Station (TAC No. M80-0,00) lWrestrieted-Release 2..7.33 CT. 'Hess. G-P. Beihrdt, :et.alI., Maine Yankee'Marine S-ampring Study Final Report, :issued. February 2Q05.
MYAPC License 'rennination Plan Revision 6 January 2014 Section 1 Fimirei I-I LQc yr vopUlion Centers uon m With Respect To Locatin Of Maine Yankee
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment IA Page 1 of4 Revision 6 December 2013 ArrAICHMENT lIA, Maine. Yankee Decommissioning Soupplementar7 Radioilog.ica Characterizatlon and Analysis Agreement
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment IA Revision 6 Page 2 of 4 Maine Yankee Decommissioning Supplementary Radiological Characterization and Analysis Agreement
- Parties:
This is an agreement between Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee) and Friends of the Coast - Opposing Nuclear Po]lution (Friends of the Coast).
Purpose:
The. purpose- of this agreement is to enhance public confidence in the decommissioning process :through an independent, professional, comprehensive and scientifically valid radiological survey of the intertidal area adjacent.to t he Maine Yankee site.
Background:
ý, Maine Yankee and Friends of the Coast. agree that Maine Yankee: has been lawfully allowed to discharge low levels of radioactive effluents through its. lioensed pathways. With that Understanding, both parties entered:into an-agreement (copy attached) as a partial settlemrent of the 1998 FERC rate case, which included provisions fora survey of off-site marine sediments. The:present agreement is in addition to the "FERc agreement" and supplI"me" s the License Terrmination Plan' by explicitly recognizing, for the purposes of this agreement, the intertidal zone (defined below) as a separate and distinct element of an elective offsite survey Substance: Maine Yankee agrees to contract a radiological characterization of the intertidal zone (the present "supplemental agreement")supplementing and in addition to the radiological survey of offsite :marine sediment (per the "FERC agreement). For pumoses of economy and efficiency, Maine Yankeeowll see k a single c.ntractorfor both the offsite marine sediment survey and the intertidal zone survey through a single: request for proposal (RFP). NS6thiii, i; th`is "supplementary. agreement" alters the previous "FERO agreement. The intertidal zone is that offsite area that lies, between the site boundary (as described in the: Maine Yankee license basis and the License Termination Plan):and the: mean low tide mark of adjacent waters .(or an outer bo.Ud drawn 1.00feet from'the high tide.mark, whichever is closer). The -extent-of-the-Intertidal zone to be oharacterized shall include the designated "noni-affected"Eaton Farm location as well as Bailey Point (to an agreed upon pointsouth of Ferry Road).
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 1A Revis'ion 6 Page 3.of4 December 2013 Dose pathways associated with the intertidal zone current and potential*futu'f uses will be identified and agreed upon between Maine Yankee apnd Friends of the Coast. Characterization results will be used to calculate-an incre.ment:alintertid~al zone dose which may. be compared to the limiting "resident farmer" dose caIcUf'atiohs8in the License Terrmination. Plan. Characterization results will also be teported in a form allowing comparison to on-site DCGLE (e.g., soil) in the License Termination Plan.
.Methods:,and Me:dia:*
The intertidal zone characterization will be conducted using agreed upon methods and protocols. Upon request, Maine Yankee and Friends of the Coast. will observe traditional split sampling protocols with interested pafties. The characterization will be accomplished via.: 0 Sampling and isotopic ahalysis of disturbed and undisturbed inttertidal zone soils/sediments,
- Sampling and isotopic analysis of flora. and fauna that may reasonably be considered c ritburirs to an intertidal" zone pathway dose (e.g, seaweed, shelfi sh, etc.), ,id e Selected gamma .scan employing high efficiency (e.g., sodium iodide).detectors, or-best practical means, for the pt.Urppse of identifying discrete or "hot" paricles.
Gonditionsr Maine Yankee and Friends of the Coast will work together to define.an.RFP fora..sampling and analysis plan for the intertidal zone, identify qualified independent:.contractors to receive the RFP, -and select a contractor based on. the bids :received. Maine Yankee reserves: the right.to: 1) establish a reasonable ceiling on the cost of the splemetlt6 study consistent with accomplishing the purposes of the study and re-bid as neces.ar.yto satisfy .that :constraint, .and 2) void this agreement should 'issues associated with. the intertidall zone, as the intertidal zone is defined in this agreement, become admissible contentions b'efore.the ASLB. Maine. Yankee and Friends of the Coast agree to develop the. RFP by 12/31/2001 and implement the study following final liquid discharge from spent :fuel pIoo operations (approximately 3/2003). This agreement, if' finalized in sufficient time, will be included in the revised License TerminationPlan as an attachment to or in Section I and referencedwherever else Maine Yankee deems;appropriate. If the agreement is not finalized before submittal of the revised License Termination Plan, a statement of intent will be placed in SeCtion I and a later License Termination Plan supplement will provide the agreement when finalized.
MYAIPC License Termination Plan Attachment 1A Revibio6 6 Page 4 of 4 Decen ber 2013 If hot particles that would exceed remediation threshblds On-site are discovered in the "supplemental characterization", hot particle remediation will be undertaken following on-site. methods and protocols.. Results of the "supplemental characte.rization" will be reported to Maine Yankee and Friends of the6Coast. The written report.-willbe publilyayailable and Friends of the Coast will receive sufficient cop-ies to disseminate .to Interested parties and members of the public who request copies. Friends of the Coast,. assisted by Maine Yankee, will provide an.annotated bibliography of historical records, studies, etc., to be included as an appendix in the "suppl.emental .study" report. Agreed by,. Original Signed .by Wayne Norton for May 31., 2001 Maine Yankee Date Odginal -Signed by Ray Shad.is for May 31, 2001 Friends of the Coast Date
'MYAPC License Termination Plan Revislon 6 Ja!uar 201 4 MAIN YANKEE
'L.TP SECTION 2 SITE CHARACTlqERIZATION
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-i Revision 6 January 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2:0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION! .- ,. ,... .:....... . .. ... ... 2-1 2.1 Overview ,:. . ,. ,.. 6a, ,::.!.*.
.-,-,l .. ,.*.j... ... 2-1 2.2 Historical Site Assessment....,. .. ....... ....... 2-2 2.2.1 Historical Data Review 2-3 2.2.2 Deommissioning File 10CFR 5035(g) . . ...... , ,.. 2-4 2.2.3 I0CFR20.302Submittal ...... ,........... 2-5 2.2.4 Historical Radiological.Status Including Original Shutdown Status... 2-6 2.2.5 Current Radiological Status ...... ............................. 2-7 2.2.6 Hazardous and Chemical Material Contamination ................. 2-8 2.3 Site Characterization Survey Mthods...........................2-9 2.3.1 Organization and Responsibilities .*..,... .,.,..... 2-10 1:
2.3.2 Characterization Data Categories........4..... F.a. . ...... 2-10 2.3.3 Characterization Survy Design ................................... 2-12 2.3.4 Instrumentationand Miiim Detectable Concentrations (MDCs) Instrument Selectionwand Use . :, ,, .. . ~. . ;.... ... 2-14 2.3'5 Quality Assurance .2-17 2.3.6 Data Quality Objetives . 2-20 1 2.3.7 Survey Findings And: Results .................. ...... .2-21 2.4 Summary of Initial Characteriz*tion Survey (ICS) Results ... .... 2-30 [ 2.4.1 Group A "Affected Structures and Surfaces" ........... ..... 2-30 2.4.2 Group B "Unaffected Structures and Surfaces" ............... 2-30 2.4.3 Group C "AffectedPlant Sysems". .................... 2-31 2.4.4 Group D "Unaffected Plant Systems" Including the Sewage Treatment Sytem.........,., . .,.........................2-32 2.4.5 Group R "Environs-Affetbd and Unaffected'.-.. ............ -232 2.4.6 Ventilation Ducts and Drains ............ 2-34 2.4.7 Buried and Embedded Pipin 2-34 1 2.4.8 Asphalt Gravel and:Concrete
. . .... ... *.* .... 2.......240 2.4.9 Paved Areas ............... . ........ ..... 2-41
.2.4.10 Components...... 2-41 2.4.11 "S'trutures, :S*ystems" d Envirtns Surveyed For Hazardous Material" (GroupsEandH)-........ :.. ................ 2-41 2.4.12 Surface and Groundwater . . .. . . . . .. . . 2-41 2.4.13 Background .................... ........ 242 2.4.14 Waste Volumes anid AXti2it44s....., *, .. ;.... .. 2-4
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-11 Revision 6 January 2014 2.5 Continuing Characterization (CCS) . . ...... ...... 2-44 2.5.1 Methods ......... .. ...... 2-45 2.5.2 Results ................ 2-45 2.5.3 Nuclide Profile .... . , .,,'. . 2-51 2.5.4 Background Determination........ .,... . , . ..... 2-62 2.6 Summary .................................. . 2-63 2.6.1 Impact Of Characterization Data On Decontamination And Decom.mssionng , ... ..... ............ 2-63 2.7 References . , . ... ................... 2-64-I ATTACHMENT 2A Non-Impacted Area Assessment ATTACHMENT 2B Characterization Data ATTACHMENT 2C Summary of Continued Characterization Data ATTACHMENT 2D Maine Yankee Site Characterization Locations of Radiological :Survey Packages ATTACHMENT 2E Site and Survey Area Maps ATTACHMENT 2F Analysis of Concrete Sample Variance ATTACHMENT 2G Supplemental Information Re ga.Conbr&*e Core Data Use
M.YAPC License TerminationPlan Page 2-iii Revision 6 January 2014 ATTACHMENT 2H Forebayand. Diffuser Characterization Discussion ATTACHMENT 21 Soil Sampling and Nuclide Fractifonl List of Tables Table 2-1 Significant Soil Contarination Events. .. , -. ... ..... ...... ,.. .,., ...... 2-5 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Theoretical Scanning Sensitivities.... ........... :-.*....... *... . .... .. . .. ., 2-16 I' Table 2-4 Summary oflCS Material Backgrounds .......... . ........ 2-42 2-42.........: Table 2-5 Summary of ICS Environs Background Data .. ........ ....,., .. ... ... . ,.. .
...... 243 Table 2-6 Summary of Miscellaneous Background Survey-Data:.,. ... . .... ... ,. *.. 2-44 Table 2-7 Nuclide Fractions, Contaminated Concrete Surfaces ("Balance-of Plant" Areas) --,... , , 2-53 Table 2-8 Nuclide Fractions for Contaminated Concrete: Surfaces."Special 'Areas" .. . . . 2*54 Table 2-9 Activated Concrete. Nuclide Fractions.........,... . ." .'. - 2-56 Table 2-I.10 Activated Concrete: DeeCrSaie At'tPfofii . ,' . 2-57
MYAPC Uicense Termination Plan Page 24-v vliaslon 6 January 2014 Table 2-11 SoilNuclide Fractions 2-58 2.... Table 2*-12 Ground:and'Sufce WaterNuclide Fraction .. ,.. ... ,*, ,.,. , ..... .>. ...... 2-60 Table 243 Forebay/Diffuser Material Nuclide Fractions ..... ,~., , *, , ....... **.,,....... .,, 2-61 TableZ244 Structural Material Backgrounds . 1 2-63
MYAPC- License Termination Plan . -Page*2-1 Rekision 6 January'2014 2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION 2.1. Ovdrview.. The radiological and: chemical characterization of the'Maine Yankee (MY) site has been g6ing on since pre-operational saipling was begun in 1970. Initial site characterization
'for decommissioning was begun in the fall of 1997 and ran through the spring of 1998.
Historical information, including the10 CFR :50.75.(g) files employee interviews, Radiological Incident files, pree-pera*tional surveymdata, spill-repoits, spccial surveys (e.g., site aerial surveys, marine fauna and sediment surveys), operational survey records and Annual Radiological Environmental Reports (including:.sampling. of air, groundwater, estuary water, milk, invertebrates, fish and surface vegetation) to the NRC were reviewed and compiled into the Historical Site Assessment (HSA). Using the information collected during the HSA, an-overall characterization plan was.developed.to collect measurements and samples from plant structures, systems and open land areas to cover the areas where 0ntamination-exis.ted,..i'enied or had the potential to exist. The,information.collected duriing.all.phases of site char*acterization,. including the HSA, was used during demcomissi6oiing planning to achieve":the ffolloiing objectives:
*Determine the-radiological status of the site and facility to include identification of systems, structures, soils and Water sources in which -contamination exists; Identify the location and extent of any contamination outside the radiological restricted areas (RA);
Estimate the source term and radionuclide mixture to support decommissioning cost estimation and decision-making for remediation, dismantlement and radioactive waste disposal activities; Select the instrumentation used for surveys and develop the quality assurance methods applied to sample collection and analysis;
- Perform dose.assessment and FSS design; and Ensure the "Radiation-ProtectionProgram addresses.:any unique radiological health and safety.is"sues :assoiated withldecom miissionring.
The initial-site characterization process focused on four areas, providing both shutdown and -current-data for struct~ire.s, systems, radiologialt environs andlhazardous materials ehifi.. 'Ti- Ame*-tnt fid o'ge 6f contamination were re'orted for structures, systems; drains, vents, embedded piping, paved areas, Wateranfd soils. in addition, activation analyses were performed on key components within the.:res ricted area to estimate radioactive waste volumes and classes.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-2 Revision 6 Janary 2014. The initial characterization results (ICS')' were provided to MY in the,"ýCharacterization Survey Report for the MY Atomic-Power Plant," developed by OTS Duratek., After review of'this initial charactriati*'6n repoOt itý'was det'e.miedthit d-diti6-iial sapling wa needed -tofully define the extent of contali*ation in.some .utdoorarea*-aind. some systeihs-in order to design: the -FSS, perform dose assessments and*addxss~questions related to waste volumes. This additional' saiplig, h'ich i ene*flrferred Ms- to as Continuing Characterization Surveys (C.CS), is discussed in Section:2.5. As additional data is required (such as-concrete coresjefc .), charactefizatibn: samples will be: obtained; and v'il1 be incliided as part of the FSS Process. This section summarizes the key findings of the HSAand: characterization surveyresult, as supplemented by continuing characterization. Thiniti*9lc*harcertion reportand the detailed results of continuing characteriztion, are,maintiineddat the MY site and are available for NRC review. Data from the CCS effortuwas.filed'with the:appropriate
&hWarctefriztion"package associated withfihe sc.se str;cte, cmniioren; -or aira being survreyed (or. sampled). These packagsaemitndinhePntTcialFe System. Th-elevel of detail providedin. this summary-dbmonstrate.s:.thatýthe:overall characterizati*i "plan' bjecti*ei listed: b6veKha've be-e-iiimet Ifi:addition; the charactefization-data provided in this- section,,ar cons!istent with.NC gu*dance contained in Regulatory Guide. 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Teiniination Plans for Nucleair Power"' Reacdtos," and' suffcid to .ee-tli revieW crite a s et fofth in NUREG- 1-700,'"Sta,.dard Review Piainfor Evaluating.Nuclear Power'Reaetor License Termination'Planis. ý-'
As of September 30, 2005., the only. decommissipoing activities that remain are those associated with the ISFSI. The information includedin this sectionof the LTP includes. historical information regarding the decommissio ni of the M e Yankee Nuear Plantr t .twillbe maintained ini its current form. Tins itfformatidn will be reviewed, and revised as necessaryjý at the time; of initiaiting the-decdoiniissionmig acti;vities for thelIFSI and associated;lnd 7 areas to ensure that appropriate ignfrmtioi* is :available forbthe implementation of fnal status survey, activities for the ISFSI and termination of the Part 50 License forthe Maine Yankee site. 2.2 NHist6ricaWSite Assessment The Radiation Protection organization amassed ten'sof thousand§ of`s e..reqrcords documentng-generdalarea and component-speiic radiatifion levels, contamination levels, system-activity.lev.els and, airborne radioactivity levels during 25 years of plant operation. These survey records reflected radiological conditGins on sit wite h "nd requeciy dtail ICS," as used in the LTP refers to the initial characterization performed: by GTS Duratek, as documented in the "Characterization Survey Report fOr.the AP"l q9989. It may also simply be referred to as the "GTSDuratek report."
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page2 Revision 6 January 2014 . . +. dependent.on thdma tude Odfradiation and contain n present in an area and the, frequency..with *which the.arme.a was entered, by!thoeoporating s.taff.. Plant document files contained records *orspi~l and'eveni reports t(Operations*Depar Unusual, ocunce Reports and Radiatio'n Ptectign Department *)0olical nqident Reports) as weU asP the required annual or.semiannual radiological effluent reports to the NRC which documented ay,unyplMned-..rel...ees.. iný order to ensurea, compiletediscover.yof.ev.ents involvingspills, leaksor.other. operaional occurrences wh mightIhaye anqeffe.tL_ *_nt iol.ogic iand chemical status of the site, MY also interviewed terminating employees for any recollection of such events. 2.2.1 Hist or*ic, Da~ta.Review H.istorical records contained in-the radiation protecion files, 1.0 CFR 5Q.75(g) file, Annual R..ad ioogi.o E3yironmental Reports to.the NRC, miscellaneous environmental reports, and one. 10 *CFR-20.,302.submittal :fw.ere -reviewed to determine the lcjation.and extent of leas and*npills :... _ i s o..site..
.. .. The pe results
- of the record eVi§wi, Irtifig;Site Chara.tezatibn .survys, and..emiployee interv.iewswereicap tured :in the Historical Site Assessment (fHSA)..:The fHS.A, as supplemented, is,:a conpilation of the approximately 140 potential, events, occurrin.g Over th 25 yea. operating,4story ofthe plant. About two thirds of these events were potential radiological issues with the other one-third being.
chemical or hazardousmaterial events.. Key: items identifled-inthe..HSA include:
- 1. Con dAnd sob the FomRWST leaks;
- 2. Contaminated~soil afterthe removalof a low level; wasite storage:area (Wiscasset w44);
3;.4Lcto0 q~ it speaii area/construction debris landfill;
- 4. A.wasteneutraliization tank drain line leak;.
s5 A P.CClea in thIe:ally way; 6.6 Con ta td soil on!Bailey Point, south,of the Industrial Airea (IA).trailer park, in-anwareawwhere contaminated. soil from the PCC leak had been. stpored* +: .. 7.: Disete p .iqjes.throghoutplant :from reactor corebrrel machining;
- 8. Contamihnated soil inthe ISF`SI area.formerly.known, as .the contractor parking lot;
- 99. Adiscrete-paicle-outside- war.ehousWe 2;
- 10. Contaminatedsumps and floor trenches in the turbinen hall; .
- 11. RA Sink and decon :shower diains go to sewage treatment plant; 12.. Containfixd& sq m'ent in the: F6rkbay;
- 13. Previous abandonment of an underground ferrous sulfide tank;
MY'APC License Termination Plan Page 2-4 Revision 6 January 2014
- 14. Snow from RA placed in-ballfield;
- 15. Contaminated soil fr.om,BW.ST ,leaks; 16.- Contaminated soils:ii the IA trailer park; and
- 17. Very low levels*of d*.tetable residual radioactivity onf Foxbird Island, RCA-building roof,:Equipment Hatch pit, and on the cQoncrete :blbck in the ball field dugouts..
- 18. Two lage volume spills in the Containment Sýpray Building None of the event records in the HSAiridi'ated the uncontrolled relea-s- 6-f radi6atiVe mnadtial affecting ýhe site beyond Bailey Point (i.e., south-of-Terry Road and.east of"BaiIey Cmvpe).
2.2.2 Decommissioning File 10 CFR 50.75(g) Even though...MY *Was in operation well before the requirement to maintain a decommissioning file, the 50.75(g) file contained documentation of three areas of s-oil contamination:and one record 'of a 10 :CFR:20.302 submittalifor burial in place of residual ;soil ativit. The inforimatibn -in the decormissioning-file-Was added to the HSA so that the affected. areasceould be propefly"addressed-durin-g" site characterization. The 50.75(g) file docum.ented soils outside theSpray, Containment and Fuel Buiidings. (see: Table. 2-i) that were known to contain contamination from an RWST manway lbak, a of RWST siph6n heater leaks, SCC/P.CC. le'aks,ý as oserie well as thest6fage of radioactive waste awaiting shipmentrin an.outside,-shiel-ded. storage, looeatiom Somet,'workwas also performed-on contama inated cQmpofieints wi'thin.tented enc.losures locited outside the'RCA Storage Bul6ding whiih also
- C.eo.ifributed to s*il. nd p.avembntbcontamination.
MYAPC Licerise TeminAtidf"Plian -:Page.2-5 Revision 6 January 201.4 Table 2-1 Sigificant Soil Ctontamnination Ev,ents Event Date. tLocation .,i1Ax0 isposIon
,d" iRWST.siphon 2/2/88 Airea:south and 8200 f.. ReWmediated 600 1 6-mCi ;heaterdeak west-of RWST._ ft-.16.
- 760 I :lef.R in
- - p1ac. under !0
... -:CFR 20.302:2 Removal :of Low 7/92. Outside the. 200.0V Residual 5.9 mCi Level Waste RCA Storage contamination Storage Area Bldg. and 'West to evaluated and high rad b-nker entered into
_____ .50..75(g) file. Si~l spreadi.g 1992, Land.adjacentto 1250:Ift3 Residual 12 .iCi area 1.993.: *nd sthiiiof contaminationý Outages ballfield. :evaluated. and entered into S ... ... ....... ......... .. 50.3.7_ (g file...... 1, 2.2,3" 10.:CFR 20,.302i1Subniitta!t( eference Tible,2,.4l above) MY applied to the.NRC-onr 11/2/88 (MN 88-10.7) to allow.residual soil contaminationto .remain in place under the:pro.visions ofl 0 CFR 20.302. The NRC approved: thesubmittal. on 8/3,.1/89;, This: datads included lto provide a complete historical basis for. the. ov.erall site characterization.: The details of the soil contamination are:presented below. In 1988 a small outd*oorleakat. the inlet: flange:connection between the.RWST siphon heater return line ad an isolation valIvewas discovered and subsequently contained. The actual timethat the leak.started and the volume of water lost could not be determined. .Su.rv.eys;of ,therea..adjacent to the RWST indicated.ground contamination. as high As :7E--3-3, .g Of 'Csý-137. The leak .was repaired,::and the.:co.ntaminated soil was removed -from the area and dispo-sed of as radioac~tive wiste. Samplde *al.yis of the soil removed from the
- area -ofremediatior also. itdiiated thepresenee ofCs-i134, Sb-125 and Co-60 in additi.on: to the Cs-037.,. The Ieyp, of activkt opfthese:a4ditional nuclides was 2 10 CFR.20.302 has been superceded by 10.CFR 29.2002
MYAPC License Termination*Plan** Page 2-6 Revision 6 January 2014
.-aproximately"two tders of magnitude less than the Cs-137. Soil was excavated to a ievel of:two to five,feet below grade until the average residual Cs- 137 activity
'had.der~easedpto an-equivalent MPC ",alu`e in water 6f abou6t42E-5 FLCi/ml.
Ap~proximately6o00 cubic ifeet of radioactive waste was generated from.the
*excavation. R..esa c y of Cs-137 in an estimated 7600 ubic -feet of rmain. g:..l' cted soil was6 mCi. The location of this contaminated soil was known and-theneed for.furtherremediation:was evaluated, via sampling and "analysis, dug.decomfiisiboiiig' t6 eins'ure 6ompliance with the unrestricted use
*dritc.in.'Se.,*d r535.1b* pesentsca'discussionof
- deep'soil cOhtaiination
*Sanplin .g,.i .n-andý,jear the.. RW.ST spill-area..
S2.2,4 Hi~s~t.addl Radi6olgical*-StatOs Including OriginaFShutdown Status MY rd:nfoi approximtely .16 full power years, had an early history of fuel clad failure-*and-was'known::,:a hiag source term plant. Dose rates in the loop areas
-inContainment were approximately I000 to 2000 mrem/hr with surface
.contn.inati.n, leels ~aeraNg.in the 10,000 to 100,00m0 dn.100.cm2 range.
,Rbutinel*!-.a-.cqed a*a*dfthe PABj Spraypand Fuel Buildinagshad dose rates of 0o 50 me/hr, walkways were kept less.than..1 00 dpm/o0O m an ceqdepm.entispacesh.,ad..dose
.,t*..& .S `5 061**. .... " 0 rates
.. Ab
- ". ofupl.to,
- 0. em'- 000mrre and contamination levels oa gf5000 to50.;000., dpmtl.00 cmu...The LSA, RCA Storage and LLWS Buildings had dose ratesoft-10 to 200 mrem/hr depending on.thetype and quantity of.*wasein. stoqrge:and contamination levels.ranged from 5000 to 500;000.dp400 wcmi in'liqiiid Waste iroeessig .areas to less thanz 1000 dpm/00 SIN leagewa.s rspo8nsible for the contamination levels found within ksyst*m
ýtheContainment, ,Spray,,Fuel and Primary Auxiliary Buildings. Secondary plant areas
. were.Iepltuncn ited withithee-ception of a few components (e.g.,~ cmpon0nt0coo1ing system fiters: and steam generator blowdown demine-ralierj):whichgave:general area dose rates of a few mrem/hr. Primary and
.se ad,...pompDhent coolingisystem weire known to contain small amounts of resid.i-,13..s3 *from min.or heat-exchanger'leakage which oc&utredduringpower
.0orations. !-,h* auxiliaryboilers and auiaryary condensate receiver also showed ev~i.ene of minor corftaminatibii'froi heat exchanger x leakage which occurred eary.i the pl.t'operan ,history.
Inthe ltie T980s- and ealy :1 990s. the plant began measures to reduce both the source. erm? and surface contamination-levels. Floor to-.ceiling: area deonti tions, were undertaken., High .ftciencimy filters-were.installed 'in prmary systems. One primary system chemical decontamination was performed which reduced primary system piping radioactivity levels by a factor of two.
MYAPC License Termination Plan ._Page2-7 Revision 6 Janmuar. .2014 In -1990, the plant.experienced aprimary to s ecndary stea generator tube leak. Prompt-operator actions limited -the.secondary plant-contamination. Following the steam-sgeneratortube leak, secondary systems were extensively surveyed during. recoverY activities and no residual activ"ity was identified. Temporary controlled areas were~established, in-the turbine..hall: to .work on RCP -motors, and the turbine hall, smps -have indicated detectable pl.ant nuclides.. The plant was shutdown in December 1996 for evaluation .ofcable separation prb.,es.sDuipng thpeextendedoutage, ,econmicconditions.*ledto the decision to pqmantly shutdown.in August 1997. A second chemical decon was performed following the decision to decommission the plant, Thedecontamination factors for the second decon improved to five to ten which resulted in loop area dose rates in the range of 50 to 200 mrem/hr. Contamir*ation levels throughout the plant remained consistent with pre-shutdown values. 12.5 Clurrent Radiological Status All fuel has been removed fromthe reactor.and transferred tiothe ISFSI. The fuel poQl.was dismantled and removed for dispos al. Chemiiicaland Volue Control 0System.waste.resins! and filters were removed for disposa., Thelreactor vessel
;contained approximately,33,660 gallons of slightly contaminated water. An additional 320,000 gallons added to the refueling cavity Jor shielding during
.reactor compoPnent remo.v.al, was processed.als radwaste.
The diffuser remainsin, place. Characterization of thetdiffuser is described in Section 2.5.3 and Attachment 2H. Demolition of structrs to 3 feet below grade removed the majority of embedded or buried piping. Remaining embedded or buried pip'ig..was classified and surveyed in.accordance with Sections 2 and 5. Based..on both the Historical Site Assessment: and-the. characterization surveys performed, a large por0on of the site.located to the West *ofBailey Cove and North of the Ferry Road was dete*mined to be hon-impacted in the partial site release applications (Maine Yankee Letters dated August 16, 2001 (MN-0l-034) mand Novembr. 19, 2001 (MN-O!-044):Early Release of Backlands (Combined) Proeose.Chn ge 21 I 8Upplements. anid 2 *eKsp-4.ive!.y). ThUp RC granted the re quest libceneamendment in its.letter to Maine YWkee,ý dated-July 30, 2002. (See.Attachment .2A and' Referen.es. :e- .n2.7.).. ContAinmeritand.cbntrol measures have prevented the release of radioactive material -beyond the.Bailey Point areaas evidenced-by no detection of plant-
.-....... deirivedradionuclides: abov ebackground levels-in anyof the measuireents-taken in or on the land area West of Bailey Cove,and North of the Ferry Road. The:
same: control measures will remain in-.effect during the decommissioning to prevent migration of contamination into clean ornon-impacted areas.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-8 Revision 6 January*2014 "On Marh 15, 2004, Maine Yankee sutbmitted lette MN-04-020 requesting an
- end.. tto.the.facility op.eratinglic~~enhepu;iant.to 10.CFR 50.90.and in accordance with theNRC.Approved LT1for Maine Yanee,. to.indicate.NR.Cs appr9yal of.the release of the Non-ISFSI site land .from the jurisdietion of the.licensb. From March .2004 toJuy',25, Maine Yankee submitted s orig fnlst.us surv or, I isupplements -to the -amendment and responses to NRC requests for additional informon. On September 30, 2o005NRCisued*AmnendmeintNd2o. 12 constg of the unrestricted release of the.rem'ainingland un er icense No4: PR-3 ,rwith the exception.
oftheland where'the ISFSI is locateddand ad adjacent:pardel ofland. The.Ottal landarea remaining.within the control of the' 10 CFR 50"Uicense isiapproimatelY 12 acres.]m Th.e i'.mapacted:areas Of the site extend: fromi ithe F'e Ra.oiidin a southerly direction down Bailey Point. 2.2.6 Hazardous and Cheemical"Maiterilal Contmiajibn During.its-operational lifetime, MY used:chemicals typical ofsteam power-g*eneating facilities. In e 98,. ad o.yon..bulk oynon- qI-Septembr quantities of chemical. and 'solvent wa-ste st'ored on si'te a'wa'itinhg'.dispo-6salland'nno mixed waste's Preparafion for decommissioning of the pant included freoval df hazardous and chemical materia6ls from plant systems. In 1998, 16,000 gons.of sodiu
'hiydmrýxide.so otn were.removed fom the spray cemical. ad&on tank (SCA) and
' neiitralize,.and
"" "" ... """" n chroiit n" l~
" i". . e .". remove
.... ". " fdteii the atr
.... ' ."'ta-".."W' 4 . intle i*',_I A 'A*.-".. neutron
, .d th, shield
;*.axusifisin~a totlly-enclosed, ion exch iage.resin.process. Am-ajortyofthe asbestos:insulation was removed:as part of*he.asbestos abatement project complee :in January .of 1999. Maintenan.cechemi'cals*nd ali 'dol materials were removed:as: specific plant areas were prepared for. 4ismantlement.
- Decommissioningwof the plat Tincluded.re6va bfadditioni.l known
!contants inplant systems and structures. Merc* switch&es, lead components, and PCB light ballasts:are some examples ofhazardous-materials tihatf wr rem-oved along with other plant componnts. PT6lclo.iated b.iphenyls
.(PCBs) found at' other nuclear facilities were also present tit MY-but were'limited to paintedtsurfaces and'in some. cable.insulationnateri'al.. Asbestoswabatement oqccur~red 4pur&ingte remoyal 6f various -components afi-b~uildiii aeil.r
- S.toh 3-.6 of thi LTP descrie tecodninofaives sWith othbr agencies withiregardto, these contaminants. Decommissioningof the .isFSIwill*involve therempovl of.contaminants- other than..adioactive.nt nt.. Theyvl0ume of
*waste associated With other: contaaminas. is exp*ected tobe extreely small, when compared t-o the volu--m-e dispose~d of forlthe plant;.V
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-9 Revisl~oi.6 January 2014.
.Over the operational lifetime of the plant.,.spil!s:to the environment occurred and were generally cleaned immediatey. 19 8., the *aciljt expe.i.nced a 1.2,000 gallon chro tAtd Water fro"m an undegro.nd component oo6ling
*pipe. Following repair of the leeaklrmonitoringwells were installed and the extent of contaminatin: and.teeffiectiveness ofr.emedation .weremonitored to the satisfaction of the MiffiD B ent bf Ehiwi-n-ental Protection (MDEP). In 1991, one of the main transformers shorted:and released approximately 200 gallons oftransformer-oil totheBaeAa Rive. The spill was remediated to MDEP's atisfabtioi olbiip i*Cevent. -
In these areas and through.out~fe site, M.Ywll continue to work with the EPA and MDE tio. de monstrat that are;as have"bee-ni.adequateily' characterized, remediated if necessary, and are sufficiently clean to insure public health and safety. The.EPA: is supporting the.MaineYankee.decommissioning project in several areas. The EPA is en~iblWi by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RC ) to administer closure of filities that were hazardous waste generators., Sine the State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection has beeni delegated authopit toad tert RCR progra in Maine, EPAis serving in a techidal sp.oi-f.rdle**forthe Mine Ya.kee site closure. EPA is expected to review all major closure-related documents and advise MDEP on their
.adequacy..
The EPA also is responsible for the To*xic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which serves as the p"ary m..by :whih the use and disposal, of PCBs and PCB-coitaining materiias are.*controll P we defi above ithe TSCA Limits of 50 parts per million (ppm), in ectrical cable. sheathing.and, in. limited areas, paint. These materials wqrqEexod fbr disposal. The MDEP has been-delegated authority, by the EPA, to administer the National Pollut.antD~iscage Elimn.ation.:Sy.stem. (NPDES) penitprogram as authorized by the Cean Water At. . Y eaintain*
- NPDESpermit during operation.
2.3 Site Characterizaif6 n Sk yvMet.h6ods As.diss ed in Section,2.1, :2y theisite's- i.c.arctenhtion s w oak(ICS) was p~~rforn
~ GTcuotkndit by ~ ~ w.,t Pitractdr.. ConiOVW C.haracteff-zationSrey (CCS) were perfo.med .,y i Aiea.llsprtellby the.former Decomnissioning Opera~ions Contractor(DOC), Stone & Webster(S WEC), and its subcontractor, Radiological -SerVif, e Inca R.JSI..The6-FSS ilani as based on. this
-informittiOn. Thesecsite-alariaioiibe 6 s i itical, methods
.and techniques. These differences are noted within themethods ad results sections of this.report.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-10 Revision 6 January 2014 2.3.1 Organization and Responsibilities GTS-Duratek (GTS) was otprinmecontractor for the initial characterization
-4 .py"' conduicted f6n thte'falf"f19.997 througli thesprfing of 1998. GTS supplied hand- held instrudiieiti&ti, and-performed field surveys. Subcontractors provided the foilowing speciali.ed services.
- IT Corporation performed the hazardous materials characterization survey and drive-over scans.
Duke Engineering.& Services performed the activation analysis.
- Canberra Industries provided on-site laboratory instruments.
- Team Associates: performed the.asbestos characterization.
Quanterra peiformedof ite:!nbratranalyses. Continuing characterization!(CCS) activities began in the fall of 1998. Samples were collected and on-site survey and analyses performed. Laboratory analyses
'for'the hiard-to-dettetradionuclides'were performed by Duke Engineering ISerices.
2.3.2 Characterization Data Categories Survey categories for initial site characterization (ICS) were designated by GTS as surfaces and structures, systems, and:environs (soils, sub-slab soils, sediments and groundwater) forboth "affected-" and "'unaffected".locationsbased on the likelihood of the area being conai ated. 'The same designations are used for clarity and ease of comparing data.
- a. ýSurfaces ad Stuture This category included.building interiors :and exteriors with associated srctuies, and, Whe "-applicable,,the exte6ior *sfaces of plant syems and..components becse.th~se:surface have the same potential for
.residual levels of.radioactive material asthe building surfaces in which they adrelocated. Sf6' and strues ey packages also included ancillary buildings ahd structures. 'Structural material background measurements were.also included in this-category. These measurements were intended to determine general background levels for various building materials. If backgioiund "rf'efierc"area nmeasurements are required for final surveymeasuemenritslthey will be performed in accordance with Section 5.0.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-l. Revision:6 January.2014 In total, the survey category included approximately 7,900 measurements
-in unaffected areas and approximately 6,400 measurements in affected areas.
..* Iz This.- intentiondl
. . *. *v 1_ " ' -' ' ." ,
bias toward unaff#eO t surfacesand strudctures
.... *1 . r . ... ..... "-..-I.
ensured no unsurveyed or undetected locations-were likely to. exist. Affected structure siurveys-inc.pluded 18,lý concrete core'samples. Because concrete basement.surfaces represet"the key, remaining strutre.s up on license termination, an .additional.541. -ncretetcore samples were obtained to.immprove nuclide data. (S0e.e Sct-i2:5:3.and.Attachments 2l and-2G for additional detail on these concrete. cies: and results.)
- b. Systems This category included interior surfaces of process piping, components, ventilation~ductork, and jnstalledc*-rnandih ..umps. Thelevels of radioactive material 0n.the interna!! surfiacs of plaMt systems and components.primýariy depend on process operations. Therefore,Athese.
survey packages were:.separate from surface.,andstructure survey.packages. Pýlant. system -sureyýpackages: gnierFilylwer'e limited to one plant system. Thisisurvey category included approximateiy 3,8OOunaffected system measurements and approximately 1,050 affected.system measurements. Again the surveys were biased toward. the unaffected systems to provide a high likelihood of identifying.any existing contaminatedpipe or component. Additional systems surveys were conducted in order to bound the extent of contaminated.c.omponents within. non-Restricted Area-structures.
- c. Environs Land areas were surveyed and, sapled, tbde.ect the.prb6ece a.nrd.extent Of soil cbritamination. Appr6ximately,.one- third..of the 820-acre-site (original 740 acres. +.buffer l.an.d purchase*o;.tek 'lagd ýq4.Teceived a gamma. scan.
Measurements taken over the entitrpipp 'e'ýy iis-a grid syste to adequately locate. survýy. points.ý ~Nea1y.300 Oil1 .Samples -were.taken 1:80. ofw.hich were.from.unaffected qtea. Onie suixey pack-age in-ths.category was deVoted-to obtaining:backg*droudoil aHnd e*..osuire m*as~ur*fidfts from an area similar in physical characteristics to, but located several miles fi-om*..the site, .. ... A study was performed to determine.theamount of radioactivity present in the, vegetation above-the soil surface.. Comparison measurements of soil and overlying vegetation showed no radionuclide activity in the vegetation
MYAPC License T.ernminatlon Plan Page 2-12 Revision 6 January2014 ecdgb'a*kgr*k d lI e~sV IFSS soil 'samnples are therefore taken with o6vly'g vegetation-eoved but with the root ball intact in accordance wit approved' procdures.
-ed i:'mtgroundwiater aind: sfaceVwater samples. wer also included in is egory.: O* ~100 sediment samples were.obtaminedfrom shorelines, utfalls, a`tch basixii iio.ff4 ditches and thte forebay. TWelve sediment saples were, also obt died from offsite sources such as the Damariscotta iv dHarpswedi for background purposes. Overwfifteen water samples en. ori ýmdwaterimonitoiing vells, sumps; datch basins and an..oýut . Five wat*.".samples were taken from offsite or unaffected source. for backgrod purposes. In addition, the Radiological
.Envionmet oi.i.o.it..g Pogr has colleted over-27 years of se nt,g t r 'e*suaceiad., water sampling data. For instance, the Annual.adio igiia Environmental Operating Report. for 1999, submitted.
to!the NRC.on Aprl'27,2000, descbes the automatic composite sampler lti& t the d4sIu'.iigdof the foqeqay-to monitor water discharged to the Bckiv gSaplý,Vere colected at east everyttwo-hours and oitea for analysis.
,sUt*equenmycocGroundwaterfrom an on-site location was ~momitoi quaxterly. Shoreline sediment cbres were ollected semia nnWi1! form two locations on Bailey Point.
Multipl soil..."... A were taken anid co.mposited to determine the amoit*id ~ti"ithth&d-to-detbet radionuclides in the most
- ýcontaminatedsoils.:,ousite..
.Scan-and fixed .surveys of pavement were performed to identify potential
*su*surface contaminatio. .Two areas of soil contamination beneath epareet entdm-i the' HSA. One area of sub-slab leakage we*red*
rom~the-Wqwuid *aste effluent line: occurred underneath theService Building. floor... The.,results of this soil contamination were contained in th 50.so75(g) file. 2.3.3 Caracterization'survey Design All p f the chaateffkation s*rveys, were designed to sample each structure, sytem' and land~area onsite for the presence of radioactive contamination. A heavy:ephasis wa plac6 on non-affected k(non06-impated) systems, structures and areas4 ith 2750 more surveys taken on non-affected systems,: 1500 more surveys-takenion non.-affedas'ufaces.and structures, and 18 survey packages devoted tornon-affected areas-versus 7Tfor affected areas. This emphasis ensured that the .full niature-and- xtent of the..crotamrination were identified and characterized.
MYAPC License Termination Plan -Page 2-13 Revi~Ion 6 January 2014 The initial radiological characterization surVey (ICS) was organized, performed and reported, in one of five "Groups".and 127 packages which are listed in Section 2.3.7. Each group is comprised of plant areas c6ntaiiing similar types of media, or material, and.sirilar contamination :potential. The types. of media included
,surfaqees, structures, systems andenvirons... The environs category incl ded facility, grunds within and.outside thq RA.*tlie liquid effiiuet pathway, Montseag..Bay, groundwater wells antd remote locations within the MY Atomic Power Plant site boundaries.. The contamination potential- for the media in a given group was generally categorized as affected-ardunaffected. Affected areas had medium; to high potential for containing contamination. Unaffected areas had a low or~no .otential forcontaining .contamination. The affected/unaffected designratiknwas not intended to indicate fihal: surVey classification status, but was intended as.a general descýptor of contamination.potential. Themethods for converting any of the characterization survey results to classification of plant areas for final site survey areddes.nribed in Section 5 of-this LTP.
Each.grouP.-was further subdividedinto survey packages that correspond to
,spelifi pan t@reas with similar.operational liistory.or physical location. The surveyýpakPagepbeakdownmis contained in Attachment 2B. All plant areas are
,included in one: of the survey.groups/packages. The five -groupsare listed below.
Group A-Affected Surfaces and: Structures
- Group B-UnaffectedSurfaces and:Strucltures
- Group C-Affected Systems Group D-Unaffecte,d:Systems Gro.up R-Radiologically Affected or Unaffected Environs These group designators were also used duning corntinued characterization (CCS) for survey package identification. Non-radiologi'al data were collected and.
grouped into one of the following two categoieqs*ilisted below: The environs hazardous material characterization sureys .(IC.S) inlehUded testing: for PCBs, RCRA meftalsý,semi volatile organic compounds and volatile organic-compounds.
.GroupEHazardous Materials on Structures, ystems or Surfaces
- Gromup H'WHazardous Materils in_Environs Activation analysis calculations were also performed for the reactor Vessel, reactor intemals.and.d.the.,shield wal] surrounding.the reactor.: - - -
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-14 Revision 6 January 2014 2.3.4 Instrumentation and Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDCs) Instrument!Selection and Use Instrument selection, use and calibration for the MY characterization surveys -(iCS and CCS) were based on the assumed radionuclide mix and wereperlformed in aci*cr -i with appov e dures. tr -ts:usied and thdir"MDCs are described in theapplicable sectibn.
- a. SurveyWMethods Direct measurements of structures were performedvwith 126 ý.cm 2 gas flow proportional detectots ifor beta contanti'idn'.'Th MDC 'was bit 500-2000dpm I 00 cm 2 (as0cmpared to the screering-vaues of 5.000-11,000 dpm/1 00 cm2 ). The detector. was kept.within 1Lcm of the-surface.
Measurements: of surfac wactivity.on small or rPestrcted access: areas, were made.using, small Geiger-Mueller detectors ornawarray:ofmiltiple defect.ors fot large bore systems:or components. 'Measurement times were controlled in order.to achieve'the required MD.Cs. Scan surveysmWere performed on both surfaces:and land in order to detect areas of elevated activity for further investigation. GTS Duratek performed scans (iCS) ofopen land areas with a I inch by 1 inch .Na]ldetector or the large "drive-around" plastic scintillator. Scan speeds were c6ntrolled.in: order to meetthe.reqiud MD'Cs. Au dib e output was~used with the handheld.instrumer-to aid the.surveyor in identi6fng areas of elevated readings. Continuing charac eiation scans (C-CSY wre plefformed using a 2 inch by'2 inch 0deector-fwept iii*a pendulum pattern at a distance of 2 inches from the surfaie at a rate -of0.5 rn/sec,. Samples of building materials, sediments, sludges and: water were taken and analyzed using standard-procedures .andlaboratoryinstruLments. Smears for remo*able contamination were takef using istadaid tec iqueanrd laborato.rycounters. Exposure ratcs.atonepe*terwer mea d using.a
- Na] detector- and a.pressurized ion.chamber.. :Soilsamples ofappro ately 1000 :g. were cleaned.to rbeo.e large debris and dried to6feeiove moigte.
Sampl*e were counted in Maranelli beakersus:ing GYLi detectors for gamma emitters. Samples were analyzed by off site labs foreHard-To-Detect,:(HTD). radionuclides.
- b. Minimum Detectable Concentrations for Volumetric Measurements The MDCs listed in Table 2-2 were-typical values for both initial characterization (ICS) and continued characterization (CCS) samples,
MYAPC License Termination Plan, Page 2-15 Revision 6 January 2014 whith. inteluded-HTD nuclides. The~lower values were for gamma spec analyses. W.hen.charact.erzationsoQil:simplesA(ICS and CCS) were analyzed forf HTDs, the MDCs w.ere maintained'at:levels as low as praclticable. Mirnim'um detec6tible *c6ncenitrfatinris `(MDCqs).reAefined for measurements and. analyses usedto-quanfift soiI and other Volumetric activity. Similar -instruments;.-r-c~dures,-affd MDCs applied to conitinuinhg ch~iaterhzat efor-olumetr.c'soil oh. s.wolu were less than 0.01 pCi/g for gamma nuclides Versus a *screening value of approximately 3-4 pCi/g for a- ,O1. mremr annualdos., MDAs for Volumetric Water were less thar;5i0pCi/.L forH--3. -here-is-no water screening value.
. .. ... ... ".....-....t Gamma..Spoc~troscopy OO00 .
Liquid:acintillation IQ to IQ.0 2.5 Alpha Spectroscopy 0.b. 0.01. . tol
.0 Radio Chemical 20 pCi/g -*1 20 pCi/g Analysis
- except-Ni-,5Y
- c. Structure anidSurface Scan -Sensit-ti6i§s GTS Duratek used&ahi!y difere methd Tfr calculating scan
.seal.tii..ti.s .CS ... d odr -- fied . in N iG-1 575/NUREG-1i507. Thiis approe'eh-ifciaefte e'-ec.-acl lated:.scan MDCs by a factorof approximatel*.p.4.'. The~u*eof,.bi t.*e mateapp roachhad no effect:on the iiit~ftdi~bTf.*ia nd W .,bfvif*il' chf det.ization , ata a(ICS).. The technicians uYh~t~dd, deteaL~ybliev'ate~d re~dfdbgeduring sca isurveys based onzchanges3hinc6unt
.. .. a.." re..l.ssh.e.. estimated MDC.
GTS Duratek performneda-computerized-sobi -of-the-directmeasurements of total beta activityobtained.during the characterization survey"(ICS) of unaffected areas by detector *e,"efficiency,l.ocal area background and use-(building surfaies vs. system iiitemals) Ofi 6rder'fb evalu'ate scan MDCs. The-surface scan!MDCs' raged from:21,00 dpmn./100 cm2 for large
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page, 2-16 Revision 6 January 2014 area gas flow detectors to 16,000*dpm/J 00 cm' for system internals suiveys. The NWREG-.1575/1'-URECi,507-method. was,used to ealculate.,scan sensitivities in the continui ing charaterization wVork (CCS). Thismfithod yielded surface scan M-DCs 6f:1200-16,000 dpm/l00 cm 2 depen&ng on the instrument and material being surveyed.
'd. Open Land Area:Scans GTS tech.icians performed-gaimm scans of-open land areas (ICS)usiPng a Ludlum 44-2, 1 inch by 1.inch Na detector, and a TSA Systems Limited large area plastic scintillatorVM- I X. (See Table 2-3.) In:accessiblei areas, .the VRM IMX detector, a 1.5 inch thilck, by 3 inch wide, by 33 inch long, block of scintillator-impregrnated plastic, .as% the detector of choice becauselit-had the .lower theoretical' MDC. The irelatively large surface of the.VRM- IX defetot" greatly improv.esthe probabJility of dtecting drea isolated areas thatý contain elevated levels of radioactive mterials.
Theor'eticda Scanning Sensitivities Miniimm Detectable:. Instrument .... C..ne.tration Ac ,-ty Ludlum 44-2 14 pCi.l°g (Cs-137isource) VM4-IX 1i pC*bg*'(istributed Co-60) SP.A-3 5pig(s 3 ore s diiet-rmi-ine'd Sibr. Chabotin a-Ieft&tero P oti ae 1/29 iM~ Although GTS did not perform a prioriMDC calculations, theoretical minimumi-i detectable concentiationr or inimum detectable acfivitiesfor scans. (ICS),performed .with a vehicle-mounted VRM-X-'detector, traveling at less than 5.mph, .wee calculated for several geiom based on empiri.a dat. and fin erical-intgratiois following ld ..Ys. These data were examined~by Dr. Chabot on 11/12/98 andfound tobe accurate within a factor of 2' to 4. The SPA-3 detectors (2 inch by 2 inch NaI) were used for land area scans during continuing characterization (CCS) with scan MDCs of approximately 5 pCi/g (Cs-137 source), This nominal MDC value of 5 pCi/g was based on a background of 10,000 c/m, an index of sensitivity
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.2-17 Revision 6 January.2014 (d'.),ofl38, a,surVyr efficiency factorof.0.707, and a conversion factor of 120.0,c/m per microR/hr, as statedjin the manufacturer's literature. The exposurp-rate of soil'for 5 pCi/g was de'termied by Microshield and was the~samewale of :.3 microR/br, as given i'mSection 6.7.2.1 of NUREG-
- e. Instrument Calibrations Analytical and'fieldd' ets foirboth ICS, and CCS were calibrated using Nationatl: Institute of Standards and Technology traceable sources reprosentative ofthe.ass.umed radionuclide-mix at the MY site.
lns~truents~were calibrated at the MY site and, for GTS, at the GTS Duratek Central.Calibration Facility .in Oak Ridge, Tennessee or by vendors in accordance with the GTS, DuratekQuality Assurance Project Planfior-Site. Characterization (ICS). Approved procedures were employed to speif,. on-site instrumbfetation-cýalbrtion~requirements for continuing characrati on(CCS). The averagTereergy of the beta particles in the MY ra n i r calculated, Based on the calculated averagel s0 t enery o6f 0.088.Mev' Td-99 (ave. beta, energy of 0.085.Mev) was chosen for calibration. All of the: alpha emitters have similar energies and!':Am-241* was chosen for ihe:alpha -caibration source. Tc-99 and Am-241 sci. We used for calibrating gas flow proportional instruments used to*perform surfaed:scans and direct measurements. Cs-137 sources were usedtto calibrate exposure rate and soil scan instruments. The calibrtio program ensured that equipment was of the proper type, range, accuracy and precision to provide data to support the MY site characterization activities. The response of exposure rate and soil scan insqtrmes to: CoCO was also d.etermined during continued
- .chlaraterzationW(7CS) in.order to detect discrete Co-60 particles.
'273.5- Qbiialy A'SUrance Quality-Assuma. plans were developed.for-charaeter.ization work (ICS and CCS). The elements of these plans were veysimilar. Differences between plans are discussed be.loWl.
TheGTS Qua*'ility Assuace?Proj Plan,( QAP) described the quality assurance re ents:fortheinitial site charaterizaftin survey (ICS). The QAPP included.applicable: criteriafrom the GTS DuratekQuality Management System Manual spec.eific to theMYproject. Týhe pan addressed sample collection, field survey-me f ,s.iple s ,idata anlsis/vefication, and document control. Conti.uing charteri'zation (CCS) was performed using an approved CCS Quality Control procedure which addressed:the quality elements for these surveys. The
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-18 Revision 6 January.2014 priocedure covered the requitemerits' and-frequency for'replicate measurements,
ýsamplei re.counts,: splisamplesinstrument use and control, sample custody, data
*'eiflta 9.*fii/ *.r., d&V&.fuiii &fi.tf6] and inhesti.ati~n. of unusual results,
- a. Quality Contrdl Saifinpes and Measurements For a'eýacab-'braitbry instrument,.ilsed'dturingboth initial characterization
.(ICS).,andcontinuingchara:pterization'(COS) , laboratory -personnel kept daily-jiality.contro chaxii;aMlog-of samp les analyzed to. provide traebýi!ityfor eahstep of-the analsils; ad. a maintenance log. Daily qualitygcontrol c.hecks'wiere.'cmpared to specified tolerances. Control cha'iswere deelbep&ed'ii fli ttime0of.initial calibration using a statistical an -sifxre.titiVem-as'urements. Laboratory personnel maintained control cha-rtsfor-e-ne-y, full -wi.dth :at half mnaximum (FWHM), and effii*eincy for eacd gamma. spectroscopy system -and performed: trend iR'al**'a"da.*Filuy. Ruiie ba..gro~hid.:. blank d6unts demonstrated that the
.detettr* oreav.e-had not b-eoin*fe6citarminated anfd. confirmed sample
'd.ec.i~onljey.es,. Daiy..heeks-were' also performed on the analytical b9aai w lwv :r.the :hamtples Ifistruments Tailing the daily
..checks were removed'from -service: until repaired.
The"GTS.Sap.!el Aalyis and Data Management Plan (ICS) identified
.:teqiitt. quality don.ntr.1blfro-ijlea;iand;iffeasurements. in addition to the daily
.sinjst ent qu liy conr oiscribed above, laboratory personnel used sr pqf.. '*.l - -. .-. htS to verify system performance
,and 'dataoreproducibility.
Thes followingoni sh:ite Q aniaIlyses were performed and compared by GTS S"iigciteri'nap* US: NRC'-Inspiection Procedure 84750:
*li0% 6fdll 'samplee,_ 1-n-ed twice in the on-site laboratory (duplicatea ysis)
* .0% o6fall sdipl. Were slit and analyzed as two separate samples Qu-ality coritrcil -atFth'e, -oftraet (off site) laboratories (ICS) also:included diafilylisib refit-c.heeks'a. d ualty conltrol samPies that were analyzed dl9 g l!i-..f abitch of smles.- Quality control samrples:and analyses
.for:a'batch of20:.((ort few.er-)samples analyzed by the contract laboratory inc.luded: a b.lak..s.ample,aa matrix::spike sample (laboratory control sample, LCS)4and **lah6mofgeiz.e.slit :mle. Laboratory control samioles and anialyses peformed by the'off-site laboratory were required to meet a relative percent difference;(PD) of 20% in accordance with the laboiatory's internal p...ocedu.ies.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-19 RevIsionw6 January*;2014 Air approved CCS Quality Control procedure for:,the:sample quality control critenia-was developed. This proceAdurecovered instrument daily checks, Split -or:spiked sample.requiremenits: anrd aceptability. criteria. Five percent of alltsurvey. units were chosen-rfor ropeat surveys with 10%.of scans. and fixed point.measurements being replicated. Agreement for replicates was coisidered to be values within. 412 standard deviations. Instruments not passingthe dailyy source check requirements were-tagged "Do Not Use" and w.er.e-r!emoved fromp service until*repaired. Data.not meeting the replicate count criteria were removed from the data base,until evaluated by ani FSS specialist or.engineer. DukeaEngineering & Services Envi ronmental Laboratory performed laboratory analyses (CCS) under theirequirements of DESEL Manual 100, "Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan." The methods -used by theoff site*-laboratory for:analysis of hazardous
*materials&(ICS) were based .on,the .EPA-method for solid waste analysis.
-SW-846. Specific.quality control gamles,. .analysis,and acceptancebcriteria are svpecifed in the analysis .methods.
GTS personnel implemented the QAPP'(ICS) through: Scheduled audits and surveillanaes by on-site and off-site personnel Develqpment of training matrices and training of personnel Development of records flow schedules Development of-document-control-criteria
- Completion of readiness review. hecklists Self-assessments for CCS were implemented In accordance with approved Radiation Protection Performance Assessm ent :Program proced Training and: qualification of survey per&orhel were assessed in accordance.
with ;he .approyedl propedure for Selection,--Tri nng and QualificatiOn. of Radiatint P*rfection Pers6nnel. Recorids :Con*itrbl was maintained in accordance with approved procedures for:QA Records Management.
- b. -Audits andiSbrveillances MY provided oversight of.survey and sample activities to determine whet1her-the oyerall:characterization plan was implemented as designed.
External audits of project activities included assessments by MY personnel
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-20 Revision 6 January 2014 and subcontractors. Thee iricluded-ain a*dit-of the GTS-Duratek facility (ICS): in -Kingston, TN 'and: project-specific audits-based on.the Quality Assurance:Program Plaiin adothli projectplans.' Taits.did not idenifiany projieytspepfic.noncon ormances. In adndition, M personnel and. their contractors-performed surveillances Qon rdailyl pro.ject.operations. Characterization personnel identified, tkackedhdand crneS ed co-nm'rs generated by these surveillances . MY Radiological Engineering and GTS Dufatek corfpbate and:Field Services personnel -(ICS) perfrmd intrna audits: ofthe prjc.Aso, at the request of MY, GTS Duratek appointed. anon-;sit surveillance. technician., This inspector, trine0on;quali-ty ssurance.procedureS performed dai.ly surveilla-nces'o~n p~roje'ctactii'ities.,C-haracterizationi persornel (ICS) track&e: and corrected noi-iconifonranhsesidentified by these surveillances 'accordingto. approved procedurs. During continued characterization. (COS),audts and self asessments.were
- performed on the characterization activities.. Tere tsofthe findings were entered into the trendrdata baad di id ia reotl.. tioji in acc6rdtance with the appýoedprocedu*efor the Cort Action Program.
2.3.6 Data Quality Objectives Initial site characterization (ICS) wis painnýed rior:ot6,he i,.#sii.4*f NRG-.. 1575. However, a retrospective look at site chracterization redve lthatbData Quality Objectives (DQOs) 1, 2,3 -and,4 were addressedbyGTS Dratek.. The characterization plan identified the problem, the.ded§sioh method; the"rsodums, the:team, the decision makers, theisample requir ents, the instrunientation and MDCs, the expected.nuclides,-the survey areas and basic data ,analsis... Whle .the use: of a formal DQO process may haver.esilted: in a i6re efficient characterit~i0on process, the resulting data. have-been. shown to be suffidient to meet the objectives listed in Section 1.0 and. are therefore acceptable. The.DQO-process was used d g continuing cr iaon (CpS),to:meet the objectives outlined in Section 2.1. Contamination boundaries,- radionuclideý profl'es, data standard deviations and"pr6jected:sample sizes er'e determined during continuing characterization. Data Quality Objectives 5, 6 and 7 are addressoedin. .LTP Section 5,.Final .Status.- Survey,.. and Section 6, Compliance with.the Radiolog*-cal Cni'te'n In p.artiWuarfor DQO 5, the parameter of interest is specified-as:the mean of the residual contamination level in a survey unit, the action levels "includethe DCGL and the investigation levels, and the decision rule is described f*r the dete ation to
MY.APC License Termination Plan Page:2-21 Revlion 6. January,2014: release-a surVey unit. For DQ.O6, thelimitations of-decision errors are addressed by.specifying-the"respective probabilities of-making. a Type I and Type HI decision errorý,heloW&er boundary ofihe grey i n(LBGR) and the minimum. valu for reldti-eAsMift. For DQ0 7, thps.ey de-ign,-f rcolleig data.is: optimized :by
,using exposure=.pathway modeling to .develop,some.site-specific DCGLs, adjusting the LBGR to obtain hie .ptimum relativeshiift,ev-uatingsurvey ifstrumentation and measurement techniques and select%:gapproPriate actions following the offinvestigation qexeedance lylels 213:7 Suey Findngs .And.uts The:.resulsQ:tf, nii*iW:lchacte. izatiQn=.greys.. CS) are reported by survey group ahd package nmber as idbntifi*d below.w Site.and Survey Area maps are provided.in thisgsection6of the LTP- to graphicaly depict the boundaries of each area. These maps -are :not '.dra .n-to sea butaresu.*f ficient. to show the presence of
.areas of high contfiation.
Theponly land, strutures., andsystems;.tbhat remain. wit'i the control of the 10CFR 50 Lic-neare!those here* theISFSI is locate and aqradjacentipatcel ofland. f'd
*Thisinformation is.maintained to support decommissioning of the remaining areas
-associated with theISFSI,:following the removal of spent,fuel and GTCC waste from. the sithe.'
Additional survey packaes were developed (and are discussed in thissection) as necessary to support data collection for continued'characterization. These later packages are not listed here in Section 2.3.7,;
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-22 Revislon.6. Januaiy 2014 GRUUPB"A" Affected Structures and Surfaces Su vey Package A0i00 Containment Building.- Elevation 4-',ft. i A0200, Containment Building - Elevation -20 ft,. A0300 Con'tainment Biuildin -MEei.'aition.46 ft. A0400 Fuel Building - Elevation 21 ft. A0500 Demineralized Water Storage Tank TK-21:--Eey.*ti2if ft. A0600. Primary Auxiliary Buildi ft. A0700 Primary Auxiliary Building - Elevation:-21 ft; A0800. Primary.Auxiliary Building - Ele*vatin 36:ft. A0900 . Service Building!-HtSide - Elev1a-tio*411 214fC Ai-106 Low Level Waste Storage Building -Elevation21 ft; AI200. RCA Building - Elevation-21 ft:.. A1300 Equipment Hitch A&ia-,EleiAtiohn 21 ff- z.. . .. A1400 Personnel Hatch Area - Elevation 2lft.
.AIM500 Mechanical Peneti-a4tfioi.nR6om - EM1vatioii-2-ft1A.
- A1600 Electrical Penetration .. ... Room
...... ......- All; Elevaftions A1600 Containment Spray Building- AUkElevations A1800 Auxiliary Feed Pump Room -:Eleiation.21 ft..
A1900 HV-9 Area - Elevationn-.21ft. A210.0 Refueling Water Storage Tank. (RWST) .TK4 - Elevaion 2.1 ft.
,A220.0 Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST)- :Elevaition 21'ft:
A2300 Pro0essed (Primary-)WateriStirage Tarik (PWST) - El*vation 21 ft. A.2400 Test:Tanksi4A/14B.-Elevation 21 ft. A990.0 Cohc~ebcticbrwntaffirntion 0irofile sanri~ln A9901 Activation.analysis-core *smpling
.. . .. 2.A
. ....... ...cti . ly...
-t o.n a. ... * . . , . .". .... . ..........
*A99.02. .Activation *nlssc~~apig .....
M.YAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-23 Revision 6 Januy 62014
,PACKA.GE: GROUP "B! *Unaffected Sru etes and Surfaces SurveyPackages B0200 Old Control Room - Elevation 21 ft.
B0"300 Moior Control Center (MCC)JBattery Room - Elevation 62 ft.
.B0400. Fire Pump House4--Elevation '1 B0so0 Elevation 21 ft.
B0600 Condenser Bay -Elevation 39 ft. _0" B0709 u..... Service Building
---~~:
Cold Side . - Elevation i on.. 21 ft. B0860 Fuel Oil;Buildln--Elevation 21 ft. B0900. Emergency DieselGener.ators - Elevation 21 ft.
+Bl00D *Aulr :Boiler Roo0m -Eievatioon-,ift.
B1100/ Recrculatng Water: PiupHouse -Al Elevations BiO0: Administration.iCenter - Elevation 21 ft. B1300 WART Building - Ali Elevations B1400 Viidtor and IniformatiowCenter -.Elevation 1 B1500 Warehouse2 - Elevation,1
*B1600 Training Annex Building - Elevation 1 B1700 Staff-Bullding - All Elevations B1800 Spare Generator Building - Elevation 1 B190Q.0 En no,nmentalServices Building - All Elevations B2000 Bailey:Barn-- Elevation 1 B2100 Lube Oil Storage Room*- Turbine:Building Elevation .21 ft.
B2200 Cold Machine'Shop - Turbine Building EAe.at0on 21 ft. B2300 CAbleVault Room-- TmblneBuildin#g Eevaion.39-ft... B2400 !Staff Buflding Tunnel - StaffBuilding toTurbine Building Elevation 21, ft. B9800 Structural Backgr0undSurv.ey.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-24 Revision 6 January 2014 PACKAGE"' ,RI.OUP"*C" XfffictedýPlantiSystems Survey Packages ' 0C100., _primary andP0ost Accident.Samping System - IC200. ,Waste'Soidificaion System C3) Containmen t -Spray Syktem C0400 Emergency Cor.(ooling.System" C0500 Residual Heat Removal System C06.00 .PriaryVents and Drains 0.ol,ngSyste
,C.0800., Waste Gas DisposalSystem C0900 .:Preissuizer !anid-!Pressurizer R*ief-System ............
... C. I. _..0.
.Rea.ctor.CoolantSy .stem ......
,C1,200 Boron Reovery System.
SC o-o Clie micaand V i e Cntrol Sysy tem: C1_____0__ Liquid-Waste DisposalýystemY C1500 Primanry Auxiliary -BuildingDrains C1600. P.mrimary..Auxkilry.Bfldig'Ventifa'ton C18o0 . ontainment.Veinatio..System- ...
. -:Steaim;Generators*
C190 :.. ....... ....... . .
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-25 RevOison 6 Janiary 2,q14 N..UMERk__.i Unaffeited Plant Systems SuirveyP akges.i.
" .. 0D 100 lCon~de-ifs~t System _.............. ..
D0200 Water Treatment
. . .. ... .". .",7. ...- ..... , . ... . .Plant-Systems D030.0 .Potable Water System D 0400 . Sanitary.Sewer-System.
D0500 gaeran
- een
_ Wash System _--T " D0600 Service Water System 00700 F~re.ProtectionSystem D0800 Lube Oil System compressed .090_ Air.System.* D1000 Auxiliary Boiler.System
.D1100 Steam,Generator System.
D1200 Main.and Reheat Steam System D1400 Main Turbine and Turbine Control System " D1500 Steam Dumimp:and Turbin'e Bypass System D1600 Main Feedwater System
'.." 0.. ... ,...Eme".- ee.:.D *' -li.Feedwa
' ter. System S.....
, 18006 Heater Drtan andExtraction Steam:System
-D1900 Component Co-oling'Water 'System D2000 VaeuumPiT.P g affd A.iRetiidivl System D.100 Amertap System 61200: econdary "ln~Saig S'se D2300, Auxiliary Diesel Genhiator D2400 SecondarySamipIe anfdljChmFcal Addition System D2500 High Pressure Drains 7 D26001 Environmenta!l Sei...L.bort.ory Systems D2700 Administration Building H-VAC System
. ..... inffr.maon tBuilidg H C
.A .System D2900. Turbine Building Ventilation. System D3000 Staff.Butildlingk`HVAC-Ssti 'm SD3lOO service Building HVAC System 03200 Hydrogen Mnd Nitrogen System 3300. Turbine Building.Sumpsrand Drains
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-26 Revision 6 January2014 PACKAGE" -GROUP e Waste St urveyPk NUMBER D3400 Low. Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility
MYAPC..License Terminahoiib Plan Page 2-27
- Revlslon6 January2014 I -
... .R.- GROUP "Ri nff.
.' .vlrtei....f* .e.... .. ".
AF.FECT... --- R0100. RCA portion (West Sid)of.Protected Area Yard R0200. Bala'uc~e of Protected Ae: as ie R0300 Roof and Yard Drains.#006, #007and #008. R0400 Forebay Area Shorelines Ro5oo Bailey Point R0600 Ball Field R0700 Construction Debris LaUndflll
- UNAFFECTED R0800 Administration
*" " ' ; .. -" ' and Parking.Areas
... " .. . . ":*' : ....... ::*':* *:;"*:"."..... [ " "..... ....": ;:*":-. -.. .... -.. *.
R0900 Balance of *Plant " "7 Areas " " . : ... .... .... ... ........ ..........
' *. ' .' ... ... .. ... ' .. ...... .... ./ ". ' : :...
RIO00 Foxbird Island R1H00 Roof and Yard Drains #005,. #009-12,#Olland-N-'2 R1200 Low Level Radioactive Waste(LLRW) Storage Building Yard R1300 Dry Cask Storage -Area R.1400 Westport, Montsweag Bay, Bailey Point Cove and:Plant Area Shorelines R1500 Ash Road Area Rubble Piles. R1600 Owner Controlled Area West of Bailey Cove-R1700 Owner Controlled Area North of OldFerry.Road R1800 Bailey House. Area R.1900 Bailey Cove R2000 Diffusers R2100 ;ý.Maintenance Yard (Stockyard) R2200 Background "R2300 SFPI Substation Slab R2400 IT Duplicate Samples R2500C Driveover Elevated Areas. R2501, Follow-up sampling at.Elevated'SollSampleLoeatibns.(south:ofRefueling Water Storage Tank aAd Conraictoi"Parking Loi"
.R2800:: 10 CFR 61 AnalysiSSampinig_
Hazardous and chemical material suvey ( We're-pe'rfomed e-IS) on ýthe materiIas, systems and areas as specified in the tableýs for Group: E and Group H below. The data for these groups are presented. in the Summary of Site Characterization Data section which follows.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-28 Revision 6 January 2014 PACKAGE GROUP "E" Plant Surfacesi Structures and:Systems Hazardous Material NUBER. Survey Packages, EO180 Protected Area Paint
.E0200 Plant Electric Components E0300o Transformer Oils
': ' " . .... .* . . ... .. .i . . .....
..... ... . . " . .. - ../ " : . . .... : "
E0400 Plant Pump Oils AE006 Various Plant Fluids
..906 Component Cooling Water E0700 BrassiBronze and Cadmium Plated Components E0800 Plant Batteries E0900 Mercury'Components El000: Asbestos Insulation and Other Materials fi1jo . Asbestos Conta g Components E1200. Lead Shielding E1300. Paint Outside Protected Area
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-29 Revision 6 January 2014 PACKAG GROP"H" Envifro Ara H ardous Material Survey Packages NUMBER . .. BUE M . .....~i i.. . .......... ..
1H0100 A: Oil and Hazardous Material-Transfer and Handling Areas (4) H0200 : ' Diesel Oil.Tank Loading Area H0300 Main, North, Spare and Shutdown: Transformers H0400 Roof and Yard Drains. #006, #007 and #008 1H0500 Solid Waste Storage.-Area 1H0600 PrItary and Secondary.Side. Wastetorage_: Builuding Yard-Areas.. H0700: 'Drumming/Decontamination *Waste-Accumula tion Area H0800 DiffuserForebay: 110900 i Reactor Water Storage Tank Area 111000 Groundwater. Mon0tring.wells:B-201 thro6.ugh 206, MW-100, BK-I H1100 Warehouse Yards H1200 Fire Pond:.and Yard Area 111300 .Construuction Debriis Landfill: 111400 Bailey Point H1500 Administration and Parking Areas H1600 Roof and Yard Drains #005,.#009-12 and&N-12 H11700 Surface Flow Drain #005 H11800 Balance of Plant Area H1900 *... S... . . . . . . Foxbird island H2000 Low Level Waste Storage Yard H2100 PryCask Area H2200 Environmental Services Laboratory H2300 Switchyards H2400 Areas Qutside PlantI.mpant:
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-30 Revision 6 January 2014 2.4 Summary of Initial',Characterization Survey-(ICS) Results The operational, history and the range of contamination determined during initial site characterization (ICS) are su.**m ed .ini section for the sreygroups indicated above. More detailed. dataincluding mean, maximum, and standard deviation are presented by.survey.packageminAttachunent-2B8 2.4.-1 GroupA 'Affedted Structures and Surfiices" Group A includiedbuildings :and suffaces:within the .RA-iiciludinglevels of the Reactbr ContAim*entFuelF aid.nd rPnar.yAuxiliary Buildings, as well as tanks coritaining radioa6ive:liquids, electrical/mechnical penetrafion areas and concrete surface samples. Areas of known contamination with very high dose rates were sampled less than areas With more moderate dose rates in order to miaintain the
,exposure to surveyors ALARA. Survey4data were taken from posted areas:which
- included HighRadiation-Areas,, Radiation Areas, Radioactive Material:Storage
;Areas and Contamnated Area , .Tesea're'as nclhiduedthe reactor coolant system and&wast eproessg! ig quipmientand' were. amon-g the most highly contaminated (areas:onsite., weer,:Several locations: withiths groupcontained no rioadtve ~s~ye ;.compOnents and *tiuts oU.we found to be belowstation
- lints for posting as iotinatei (.vit., DWS-T-, PWST, electrital and mechanical penetration:areas ;*and the. auxiliary feed pump room).
Maximum totaltsurfacei activities ranged from .greater than. 100,000 dpm/l 00 cm2 in theRCA Buiding, Contnent.Building (CTMT), :and.Spray Buildings to less than.1000 d& .O0.cm in**auxilia.r support. areas (epg., eleccal./mechainical penetraons)'. Maximum.rint ovable beta activiies -range*lfrom greater than
-128,00 0 cm .in theo CMT to less: thanMDA ,inauxiliary support areas.
No removable alpha .sample ativties were above the MDA:values which: iidicated littlOePr no trs c (TRU).surface contamination. Maximum net exposure.rates reported.in *ttachmnf2B ranged.from about 4,000.IRhr-in.the Primary Auliary Buildin (PAB) to - d 5 R./"hr in the mechanical penetration area. Operational surveys.reported, containment exposure rates ranging from 1 mrem/hr to o0ver 1000:mrem/hr. Gro.upA results::combined with the operational survey. data. and knowledge of pifoces proviUdo ve brfom-ation~neededto target-those structures -within.the.RA requi remediation, ,etablishradionuclide profiles and provide. estimated radioactive waste voiumes. 24.2. Group B,"Unaffected.$tructures and. Surfaces" Group BWwas comprised oftbuildings and surfaces located outside the RA including the Turbine Hall, sections of thevService Building, the ControI Room, office.spaces and various out:buildings such as-theFire Pond:Pump House, the warehouse, and theBailey House/Bam. With the-exception of a few closed secondary systems and
MYAPCLlcensei TeRW-natlon Plan Page 2-31 Revision 6 January 2014. a few locations in the Turbine Hall,. Service Building and warehouse,,-none~of these buildings contained or stored radioactive matenial during plant operation and are therefo.re some of the-lowest acti ity areasoii site., Sealed. sources for instrument e.calibration .were storted-at tlhe.Bailey Ho.se.environmental lab.oatory. The crane bay and turbine dedk in th6eTurbine Hall Were used for RCP-motor refurbishment. lThe 19901steam generator tube:leak affected steam and feedwater components in.nhg Turhi.neaii., The aul'-iary boilers were-known to be internally contaminated. Soe area.s. within the ServiceBuilding. such asthe dld decon
*shw~er~and prima*y chemistty lab :samploehoods were6 Alsolcnown to be slightly
*.con.tamina.ted. wa-ehouse.wausedas.a wT)e shipment and receipt point for small quianities of pacý.kaged.-rdioactive material. There was no evidence of leakage detected at the: warehouse from,-packages shipped: or received.
2 Maximum. total surface .activities iranged -from a high values of 3700 dpm/l100 cm and 8600 dp,n100 cm2 -in the Turbine Building (certain floor areas) to lows of
<.10.00 d~pm.00 em2 in outlyingareas, such as thecablevault. The Ball Field Dugout indicated 700. dpm/10lcmn,' which was later-identified by the State of
.Maineas Co-60. Maxim-umremovable beta activities ranpged:.from 2010dpn,/lOO cm.*in the Turbine-B~uilding to :less than MD*A ina~other areas. No reas:*had plantrielat'ed alpha activ.i ab6ve the MDA level. Maximum exposure rates ranged from 26 uRA/.rin the Service Building to 2-pR/hr inthe Turbine Building. Tritium was detected slightly:above-MDA in several Water-containing systems. High b~eta readings in theBailey House were confirmed' to be NORM fiprom the,gra.nit foundation blocks...
Group Bsurveys -verified that most of the.Turbine Hall was free of residual radioactivity. Continuing characterization surveys,.(CCS) established the extent and limits of radioactivity in theareas in which.it :w.as8 found, 2.4.3: ,Group-C "Affected Plant System.s" This ,groip was: comprised ,oftheýradioactive systems such as the .RCS, CVCS, ECCS, liquid and*.sOlid waste, containment ventilation and primary vents and drains. The survey packages in-this group consisted of systems and components that-wee. reov.e.and .dispsed*of As radioactive waste-during -decommissioning
.an_..d;theerefdid hteuir. .h~a...eriZatifon.to stepopIrt Final Status Survey
(.). he*-.ese. afe-the highest-.adioactively. conltaminated.:systems-at MY. Total surface activities were not measured on these -systems' intemals, as their activity levels mwere too0high. Instead,j 15.cm and 1 meter.external exposure rate measurements were taken, at four quadrants~from systen lo-atidins, to support dose to uriee calcuIlatifis' for wa6§ste, shiipping purposes. Internal system surfaces of the steam.generators were found to be.contaminated up to:.500,000:dpm/1.00 cm' removable-beta activity. Alpha activity was present at as much as 35 dpm/100 cm' in.the.CVCS indicating.possible.TRU contamination. Exposure rates in these
- M.YAPC Liceuse Termination Plan Page 2-32 Revision 6 January 2014
.areas rnged "from aw of fl3'..R/Ilh in the Waste Solidification system to more
- .'than. !16,000,000 PRr fin the Spent Fiel Cooling and Refueling sYstem.
- Grup C results.-veri-fied the.extent of contamination in primary systems and provi'd6d data needed tosupport the Radiati6n Priotection' Pi~r..6 during c*ompbnentfemoval. in-addition to.providing:information needed for waste cd'assi-fie.a~tii n.;
.2.4:4 Group D "Unaffected PIant-Systms?' inclPIding the Sewage Treatment System This g-roup.onsisted' of secondary side systems that were designed to remain non-
,condamfihated-: Examples ofthese systems weremain.steam, feedwater, m.presSd aire.and p0table.water. However, certain pecondary iamt of the side system-.contafined minor levels.ofcontaminatioii. The auxiliarycondensate system wasiknown:o be sli tlycontaminated due.to aux, boiler problems early in plant Tiiieelife. Hill uisi'ps were .ekown. 6 be slightly cbntaininated due to reactor coolant pimp*motor.`rfurbishni§4 t activities tAking-placb in the.Turbine Hall.
Steamnand, feed"water systems werepotentially impacted by the 1990 steam gienmiat r'tW be e1k. NThe' S&'i6 W'ter s em Wasi-ini acted by ]iquid:effluents from the Test Tanks. Several of'the systems &rosged Vei"to the:RA, where
;elevated-*-dings were detected in/on the sysitms but were later attributed to
'OM -ihnteiferencein. the analyses. Gr'oupfD systems-were generally the lowest in Until'ty of allthci s he i h~eyed.rý Unt.th-e ea.. .9.8.0s.when they weredikcornected, h6t side shower drains and
.toilets were.di..d~dt6 the. sewi'agetreqatrpent plant. Initial characterization surveys (Is)"sahowed: eleva'*"edadingsin onethotsildelshowetdrai."In the two years followjng 6u tdown,.rout!ne chemistry analyses of both. the on-sit6 holdup-tank and
- the..m'uii"iical:tfe6atmfient..facility have shown nio plWt-derived radionuclides.
.Radi~nuclides'have been deteted in the sewage pl-ant as a result of.employees rec.ivin ge&d*1a sdope theapy.
.... ..... '. p.e p '~p..
Surveyr-esuts from&Group D established the limit. and extent: of residual activity in systqe.s expected tfobe:clean and:.provided information to proper.ly control the systems as well as classify the wa.ste during dec"immissionin g. Some of the systedifr inrGroufp.D had elevated readings indicating th'e"possible presence of plant derivedtradeoactie material. Further:measurements were made on'these systems as;par.t.'off :tecont*inuing characte'rzation (CC*) pla .to properly evaluate the evel: driexteiit* dfcontamination. These measuren'ients-support reliaseand/or disposal determinations. 2.4.5. Group R "EnVirons Affected and Unaffected" The group was broken**down into 7 affected and 18 unaffected areas. Environs sampling covered all areas of the 820. acre site (740 acres original site + purchased
..MYAPC License Terminatioi* PUn *Page.2-3.3 Revision 6 January.:2014* buffer properties)., Fifteen of the sample areas showed no deteetable. plant derived radioactivity. Te* of the areas (RO 100, R0200, R9300, R0400 Ri-00, 0 R200 and R2300 within the protectedarea and.R0500, R0900.and; R13.0.0 outside the. pr~otected aeab.ubt opn BaileyPoint) had eleavt.e readingsreq.uiring further evaluatioin' and sampling. Asphalt, sub-asphalt :sofl and uncovered soil to the South and West of Containment,. Spray, Fuel and RCA Storage Buildings we.re*k.nown to be contaminated, by..yStem leaks and radioacti.ve waste, container0storage. Excavated soil and asphalt from the. RA were temporarily playedpn.-Bailey Pojnt and late. returned to the.FA Silt from condenser cooling water intakes wasremoved and spread, on. site land located to.the north and .west of the 345 .kY electrical switch-yard. Plant-i*4fe.&radiponu.lides had been detected"in estuarysediments as-a result of permitted liquid releases by enviro,.nmental samp..(es v reports)traken at various times durinig.plant.operation. Minorcontamination:.was located near storm drains adjiacent to theRAA Contamination levels. ranged from lpCi/g.to 11 pCi/gfor Co-60 :and lpCi/g to 1.56 pCi/g.for Cs-137 in the areas of known soil contamination from. old leaks/spills.(R010.)... Marine sedimefint samnples were obtained from shoreldines, oufalls ofcatbh ibasins, runoff ditches.and.the fotebay. In additi.on, the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Progran.:mhad col1ected over 27 years of 'edimnent sampling data. Shoreline s ediment c6res ::were .collected ~semian..aally:from, tw9 locations off Foxbird -Island. Additional sampling of off-site marine sediments was conducted. pursuant to an agreement between Maine Yankee. and Friends-of the Coast (FERC Qffer of Settlement dacted December 31, 1998.) Survey packages with indications of potentially elevated activity levels (R.0500, R0600, R07.00, R0800., R.! 000, RI.300, R1600 and RI 800) were combined into an investigation package designated.R2500. The. highest.levelsof activity .were dete.ctedon Bailey Point. from the investigation pac.cage *.5_.0O(up to 34,000 pCi/g of Co-60) and the itotivity was remediated during sapling. Follow up samples: taken, in three areas after remediation of detected acivitywere documented in. package R25.01. Three areas.-(R1500, R1600, R1700) were, classified.as non-impacted based on
.per.,ational data,mthe-Histtorieal Site.Assessmernitand theiinit*iil ebaraecterization (ICS) results..
Oroup R. surveys determined whichland areas wer.e. non-irfipaated and Which were impacted. This group also provided the information necessary to project waste volumes-from :contaminated soils.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-34 Revision 6 January 2014 2.4.6 Ventilation Ducts and Drains Results for the biased sampling of building vents and'drains can be found within the survey data for Groups C.C D and R. Ventilation ducts and system drains were sampled. as; the most likelyel01lection point for system contamination. This biased
,sampling -provided a highievelt.ofassurance.that'contaminated systems were locat&e -idefifified'-a..d `,. hfih fund within i c6d-h iside buildiiigs, marked to providelthe necessary-level of'control over radioactive material.
Affected System Vents- ad Drains (C0600, CI 500, Cl 600 and Cl 800) showed2 mean removable contamination values:ranging firom 53 to2 51,000 dpm/100 cm and maximum:values from 6000 to 140,000 dpm/1 00:cm . Unaffeeted System Vents and Drains (Dl1800, D2000; D2500, D2700, D2800, 02900, D3000, D3 100 and D333 0 0) had two systemspositivelyidentify residual radioacti'ity. The: Service Buildifig. HIVAC (D3 W00) had Sigrnifi'ant activity above the MDA*Whiih was: duedto theh-ot side&Ventilatioh sources going to the Service Building-ventilation'. duct W.ork. 'D3000"Turbine Building Sumps and Drains had two (2)ý sumps test positive"for plant dernved hiucli'des: (iip to :1.7pCi/g Co-60). The Sump Oil Collection Tanks (TK-91)"also test positive (1.1 pCi/g Co-60). There wvere four, (4) other systems (D1P1,00 - Heater Drain Extraction Steam, D2700 - Admin .Building HVAC, D2900-;Turbihe Building Ventilation, and D3000 - Staff BuiidingH*HVAC) with eleVated acfti.ity. However, the elevated readings were. likely due to radon daughter activity. The High.Pressure Drains showed tritium activ.ity a.t ev..es just above .MDA.Tiitum inh tiese areas have been attributed to. N M initerference in the anril"s's .. ese *yst'ms and components were removed as part.offthb d~commissioninig of the Mainie¥'ankee Nuclear Plant. Sufvey-fdsults fronfi this gr6up establi.shed the limit and extent of residual radioactiVity nr systemis anid prbvided tiecdssary* iformation for properly contrdfingrmatenal and' for proper 6lassýfibation ofwaste during decommissioning. 2.4.7 Buried and Embedded Pip-ing A feview of prtits and drawings wa-s perifoired during CCS to determine the amount of buried and embedded pipe. MY has a limited amount of piping actually embedded in c'oncrete. eTotal embedded piping-included approximately.800 feet of pi~iar*.ad secjonda.rgy cd'ompbnent c6bng~a .pipe&. Based on inventory es,timntes made 'in 2002, thetotal embedded piping that remains :on site is approximately.940 linear feet, representinfg slightly over 150 M2 . A detailed listing of the embedded piping inventory is'.provided in Attachment 6-7. Component cooling piping showed maximum activity up to 22,000 dpm/100 cm2 and was removed during demolition activities. Small segments of refueling cavity and spent fuel pool skimmer piping (approximately 175 feet) were embedded within the walls of the two pools. The skimmer piping was known to be
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-35 Revision 6 January 2014 contaminated and activity leVels* ccald be as:high as 20,0.00 to 180,000 dpmi/100 cm removable beta contamination'based ondita .obttained from spent fuel pool cooling (C0700) and RIHR (C0500) survey pack~ages This piping was removed. Ci'rculating water;.and s~eri.ce waternpip~s', e.bur*6.dcast concret.e 1pipes rather, than embedded pip es. ighteen direct measurements-aboiet' MDC Were identified in the circulating water pipes. Serice8water discharge piping reees the liquid effluent ove rboardpipe with approximately a,3 fo.temjepdded~section and showed maximum activity levels of 3100 dpm dpo'/100 c0 2 of re***vable beta contamination. Mean values were less: th*i. DA... Embedded piping above the 17 foo.t, eleyatiqhn was removed. Piping below 17 feet was either removed during demolition or properly evaluated to ensure compliance with the enhaneed state standards of 10 mrvem/yr. for-all pathways including not more than 4 mrem/yr from groundwater. sources of-drinkirig water. Maine Yankee produced an informational set :of site drawings showing*the."as left" condition after d.e.ommiissi.oning. These drawings identifthe remaining buried or embedded pipe, conduit, building penetrations, cable vaults, ad duct bas. This set of
.drawings.was used to plan FSS survey.s.
The following desei-bes htheif principial seetitis. 6f biuried afid embedded piping which remains following decommissioning of the. Mairne Yankee Nuclear Plant and which was decontam'inated.as necessy and subjected to FSS.
- a. Containment Spray Piping and .CSValves-appro~ximately 68 ft. (C0300):
During plant.operation, .the systemr wasti*4l0d Withreaeor, coolant water.. Initial site characterization sveys (ICS), idg tedthi' as a contaminated system. Gamma isotopic samples collected from the system. identified the presence of.plant-derived nuclides (Co-6*0Oand Cs5-,137). The portion of the system that remains following d4emolition of.abv grde structures is embedded in.the concrete foundation of the Containment Building. Two valves from the containment spray system were also encased in concrete. Levels up to 40,000 dpt.!l 00. cm* wre deteted.irn.the sp*rAy system (C0300) during ICS. Higher levels of contamination:,were.found in, subsequent surveys. This 1.61inch embedded piping makesup a surface area of 2:.6 5 0m.
- b. Containm.ent Foundatifon..Dra-insý.appr.oximajt¢ly iV:$ feet,(C2000)4 : The.
founidation: diainrsysiem was ueto &*nfer g0oundwtr from around the Containment Building foundation to lower :the hydrostatic pressure on the foundation. The system consistedo-f -fourpvrtiaify-embedded transfer pipes As noted in Section 2.3-7, additional survey packages iWefe.dIev'Opd for data 6tllection during continued characterization (ixe., not part of ICS) and, thus, aire not listed:ii Secti6n2:3.7. Survey Packages C2000, D3500, and D3700.are examples.of packages-develop.ed -for CCS' and/or for FSS using the.same numbering system as.was:used.for ICS.
M.YAPC License Termination Plan Page .2-36 Revision 6 January 2014 that drained to-th'foundatin surnP. The .systm had a high potential for residual cdntamibfatti*oi. Thedfaii 'system was Wholly contained within the RA.and: wasgsubjected.totp .!iq0uid. pil nthe soil.around the.Containment BUilding. The system wars -nofrv*ey*d duri" -nitial site characterization: (ICS); however, the sump, water was.sampled:periodically. Tritium was the only:nuelide',.eidentifi'edinMfh!e sump water at levels exceeding natural backg*round. A. water samplea"sub iitted for.HTD analysis during CCS and only tfitAi.m- asd4tected: Section 2.4.12. No removable surface e.S.ee contamination ordi'et suface measurements have been made. This combination. of-2 inch and 6 inch,.,embedded piping miakes a surface area of 30.2ýh 2
.e. Sanitary.Waste (D0400): Ai ori..n o.fthe sanitary waste piping was buried beneith! .h.e "T*.binHall flooi '§16b and' exte*fn:tothe- Se age treatment plant. At one: time,early -nthe-plant -,.operation, 'the pipe transferred waste from satifira.,facilities...o.at.d-withinih.e A... -The original discharge point fori trt-edst.ni(
_7 i*. . ,'a*.irif6 the' irculýting Water inlet bay. In the mid-ani~ryY 98sl t'e a~6xi~eted o te twn of Wiscasset sewage-sys~te~m... Te~s.t..ary, sy~ste,*icludihg th eicharge to the town of Wiseassef, Wa,,s §ri~ f ib'*o.di~ll' !Radionclides :detected were limited to medical iso topes whic 1 eehtt li..ed. Of..37.fixed point surface measurements of.thesystem take~n.during ICSXtwo were in the RA, and both.indicated eelieitod acttivity: fiup to 5700 dpm/100 cm 2.. Both of these sariptes were fromistiseddfi~i~Iii, the system that was removed during dismantleiment., No'-removgblj..ecopami'natn-,..wwas.* identified ing-the system. Gamma isotopic samp.les- *.q'ffhiiijtem dhii :not inidi.cate the presence of plant-derived .radionuclides. d.. Circulti n g Water '. System-t e pllir9a-el.5A ximate 1600 :fee6t (D0500): The circuiating,'.wa!te .systemen- dbfi'ed 6f-4 buri~ed dohcrete inlet pipes which carie ..sea,
.ater.
. . *.fro.. c.91yert the condenser then overboard to thle foirebla*'nd-li~sbh~argMfffl~o',i..' adiffis.er.."in Back.Riv*e, down streamtf the il.Te cireufating water wasconsidered a "secondary side" sy-stemin that.there-was .a physicoal barrier (condenser tubes. and steam generator-tubes) betweeni th'circ'ulatiing..'watei'.:and'the-contaminated primarypl'ant',(eaictor eo6o6lf.-is9t~n);.'The circulating water system had a very low, ntil~i for-'i-esidt, ;i:ontamhnation. 'Thoeoperational history of the facfity.*ndicat*ddnosfiiant'primary to:secoMdary leakageoccurred.
Additionha.ll',.theciidirl-agtiiig wafe'r y ruwas maintained above the pfe.'nre 6*fir'rbi{:h- ' ust .st- in:he: condenser so that even if therew.9as: a'condenser6..b*lak,. tould have carried sea w~aer into the 6ondefnsate syste, Dring .. Initial Site Ch....zatin, 0lW levels of detectable .ati Vity were.idehnti:fied bn the. main condenser outlet side of the circulatingwater system: Thesuspected cause of the contamination was recirculation of'allowable .effluentf dis'harges :into the suction side of the Circulating Water Pump House, The maximum fixed point total surface
- MYApC LicenseTermination Plan :PeVg:2-37 RevAsion 6 January 2014 contamination measurement-collecited-during ICS was 811 dpm/100-cm 2..
'No rem6,ible*tontamination was identified in the system. Gamma isotopic
*saples! ogl0eeted .in,the.,-system during ICS.did not identify any plant-doritye.d. nul ides.
e.. ServiceWater System (D0600): The Service Water System consisted of two :buried inlet pipes which carried sea water through the component cooling heat exchangers. The discharge of the system consisted of a single
,bAu.l'e w.h.ich goesi into..the spal pit; The-discharge side of the pipe received the liquid effluent discharige pipe.
During initial site characterization (ICS) , low levels of detectable activity were identified on the discharge -side of-thepiping. No direct beta measurements.were -above the MDA. Nine samples of removable beta activity were detected above the MDA .(3134 dpm/I100cm 2 was the maximum. value). The positive indications of.residual activity in this syste .wereassociated with the liquid effluent header location-and the liquid :radwaste radiation monitor installed at that location. Gammna iso tpie samples collected at-the liquid -effluent line.entrance point. and at thbe r-4adiati6-n#ionitor wCere positive -or Co-60 (700 pCi/g). The.waste header is .contained within its ownlocal Restricted Area within the Turbine Building.: The radwaste piping was removed and disposed of as radioactive waste. The remainingportions~ofthe service water discharge piping meet the ct.eriaofa Class 3 area. f.. Fire Protection (D0700): The water-filled portion of the fire protection system is the only section that remains following demolition. Water for firefighting was stored in a man-made storage pond located on site. Makeup:,wtetr- forthe pond came froimMontsweag Brook. (The storage pond was-addre'ssed as part of survey area R0900). The fire protection system was not piped to containment. The system consisted of a loop of buriedpipe whidh A.i.rc!es the yard:and supplies yarious hydrants.and hdedrs's ,he fire protection system was cofisidered a "support system" in 1' thatuit didbnot interface with other operating systems (e.g., primary coolant Sor.steam ~upply),. The fire protec.i*n, system had a very low potential for rs..idual d n9itaination. ,Although secetions qfte system did reside-within the; .RA,.system preessures were sufficient-to-preyent inleakage. The fire w.ater-Ksystem.was orossý.co~nnecte.d with potent,ýiay contaminated systems. in the past. Iowever, samples:collected during CCS:only identified naturally occurring radioactive material. The maximum-fixed-point total-surface contamination measurement taken during ICS was 11 16 dpm/1r00 cm'. Gaimma is0topic samples collected during ICS did not identify any plant-derived radionuclides in the system.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-38 Revision 6 January 2014
- g. Storm Diraiins (D3500): The Storm Drain (SD) system was used to drain storm water and:run6ff from the facilityto theBiack River and Bailey Cove.
The: system functioned as a gravity drain system to remove the water via a system. of drain.grates, manholes and system piping. The system drained th040xtie :site both inside add odutside the Protbetcd Area. Manhole I1 through 3 (Section I of-the system)d edi the Protected Area outsidelthe I' R:Pestricted Area .and.south of the Turbine Bug' and Service:Buildng.
.. .. for The o&utfall . this .o .t ..of
... .poton .. a'24" line that drained to
. . system' .'was
. the ...thie River south of the Circulating-Water Pump House (CWPHA).
Bac~k.1 Manholes 4 and 5 (Section 2 of the system) drained an area inside the Protec-fied Area outside the RestrictedAe east of the Turbine Buildig. This line drained the area.around the Main Transformers. The outfall for thisleg of the system: wasa- 15" line that -d ed to the Back. Rivernorthof the CWP.H. Manfbles 6 thiough 11 ard-uni-niimbered mafiholes: north-60f the Tuirbine Building (Section 3 of the system) drained an area both inside and outside, the Protected Area. The area drained was.all outside the Restricted Area. These-legs all collected it Manhole 7 and the combined: outf-l WO route-dt0othe Back River immediately adjacent to the north.side of.the CWWH. Manholes 13 'and 14 (Section.4 of the :system) drained the, upier aacesd **road and the upper contractor parking lot. The oufall for is s6ction of the system was the Back River north of the Information ýCenter
'building: Manholes 30A, and-31 through 37 (Section 5 of-the system) draiied'an area inside the'Protected' Area in the Restricted Area. Thsleg T of-the:ystem drained'the main RCAYard area% around the Containmenit Building and: the alley between the. Containment Building :and the-Service Bui"ding. These:legs:all collected at Manhole 35 and the combine4! ouffall ws routed o th Forbay S66al Pit. Maniholes 21 through-24 (Sectioj o the-system).:drained the :north side of the Restricted. Area and the roo fof the WARTBuild.ing. The area drained was inside-the Protected Area andboth'
- isi&d a !id0utsidb the ,Restricted.Area. The comtbined outfall for 6ts leg joid anilother legat'Manhole 27. Manholes 25A, 25B, 26 through 29,.and 38'(Seton.7 :ofthe system_.)-drained areas adjong the Fire Pond "and Warhouse an'd oiidie the West ind of the R*erict6d Area. The0o from Manhole 24 joined this leg at Manhole 27. The combined outfall:.for thls leg of the system was routed to Bailey Cove. "
Samples collectedduring ICS and knowledge of process indicated that the StormDr system had a low potential in some legs and alhigh-potential in soe legs for residual contamination. Sections 1 tlhrugh 4 had.a.low a potefifialforresidual contamination. Se-tions ý5through 7 had a:high potential :for residual.contamination. Sections. 1 through 4drained.areas that had.his'tori*ly been outside theRestricted Area and -had a low 0ptential forresidual"contamination. Sections 5 thrOugh 7 drained areas in J and adjacent to. the Restricted Area and may have become contaminated. due to loose surface contamination in and on yard structures and equipment befig washed into the drain legs by rain 1water runoff and snow melting.
MYAPC--License Termination Plan Phg&2-39 Revision 6 January 2014 Since the..roof drains flowed to the storm*drains and the portions-of the roof drains above. 17- feet' were .removed, theio0of drains were included in the
.storm :drain-survey...
- h. C6ntainment-Buildinpg Penetrations (D3700), (4H1f0: Several Containment Building penetrations remain following demolition of the above.grade structure. The peneirafions contain embedded piping from numerous primary and seondarysystems. There~maining penetrations are as follows:
- Approximately:20 linear feet.of up to 1:":'ý pipfing
- ApprOximately 35'Inea1 r feet of 1.5' piping
- Approximately 50 linear feet.of 2' pipj*ng
- Ap.proximately 35Ainear feeetof,3,. piping,
- Approximately.51.0.nar feet..f6.pjping
- Approximately 1,00inear. feet o-f 6".piping Approximately45 linear feet of f'-piping
-Approximately 5.linear feet o,1IQ" piplng
- Approximately25 linear feet of 16" piping,
-Approximately I0.linear feet of 24" piping,
-. Approximately.20 linear feettof 30-" ppingj
- Approximatefir 1 linear feet of 40" PFue.l: Transfer Tube piping Each of these penetraion,except.for.fthe F.uel Transfer.Tube, consists of a five foot length of pipe .penetration through the containment foundation wall. The .calculated!:surface*area .of this!embedded piping is approximately 78 M2 .
The Primary Auxiliary Buildingand SprayBuildinpg Penetrations (60ff). Several non-containment piping penetrations through the Primary Auxiliary Building and Spray Building will remain in the.respective building foundations followig.demolit ionoqf tht above.rgade structure. Each of these penetrations consists. of-a 2Ao 3: footlen ,ofpipe penetration throough the building foundation wall, 'TIhe calculated surface area of this 2 embedded piping is approxmatelyV:l9.5 mn .
- j. Thespent fuel pool liner leakdetection system(24ff). Four I inch lines embedded in the s.pent fuel pool structure will remain following demolition of the, above. grade tructure. The calculated surface area of this embedded piping is approximately 1 m 2.
Thepenetrations thatwill remainiin the:Contairiment Building had a high potential for residual contamination. One .ofth..systems identified.as having a remaining-secptio.n *.of-e'mbedded pipingkwas Containment Spray, which was .knopwn-tocqontain.residual -contamination. ICS data collected in the. Containment* Spray system (C0300) indicated the presence of removable contamination and gamrt.man isotopic. samples
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-40. Revision 6 January 2014 identified the presence of plant related radionuelides. ICS were not collected in the Fuel Transfer Tube. Additionally, no specific contamination controls havebeen established for the*remaining sections of the embedded piping and the majoritiy ofthe Containment Building is pogted and. c6ntrolled as a surface -cfn.i ation area.
.2.4.8; Asphalt Gravel and Concrete Two site locations containing asphalt andgravel from non-RA construction work were sampled for activity (R0700 and RI 500); Neiitier-location showed. activity above background for plant-derived nuclides.
Becauseofthe potential impact of concreteýon=the.exposure pathway; concrete core samples were collected and analyzed during initial characterization (ICS) (A9900, A9901, A9902) and continuing characterization (CCS) In 1998, -GTS Duratek took seven (7)'concrete core samples' that were later'subjected to analysis by..toneand Webster to determinei'T)D nuclides at low'MX s. In .1-9995,forty-three: (.43 additional concrete .cor'es!sa--p-- sw- oIbtained and alyed by ga spectrometry. In 2000, an additional eight.(8) concrete cores were collected and analyzed fo6r HTD nuclides at'low MO'Os. Table 2C--21ists the original 43 cores (I-lA through I I-2A) taken during contining *h eation plusm the `8 additional cores (12-1A through 13-3A): collected in 2000 for a total of 51 cores. Three of te cores (3-lA through 33A) were activated concreir'ai.anareIlabeled as "aetivatin samples" in Table C2. Four samples (,56A,. 6-25A, 6-6A, and 7-2A)
".had noreported activity. Section 2i.5.3a discusses thestabhishment of the nuhlide mixture for.contanfinated concrete surfaces. Se:eAttaehment.2F for aAdescrption 6fth6 *prcss used to evaluate the .concrete ufrfaceinuc!ide mixtute. :See Attachment 2G for-additional discussion ofconcrete ore sample collectionand processing.
Concrete activity was found to be due topenerfation' of sfa&c contamion as well as activation of concrete constituents in areas.:exposed to neutron i.flux. (Activated concrete comprised approximately 5%-of the concretein containment.) Surface contamination penetrationmwas primarily-limited towthe~top 0.1 Cm. M Adivation activity generally followed expected activation, curves; peaking at I to 2 inche: into the ýconcrete, and dropping off attgreater depths (A9902).: Slight anomalies in concrete activation were noted-in the vicinity Of embedded rebar. Positive indications of activation were, seen:as deep"as 24 inches in-some concrete asmp*es thatiwere exposed to hii.neu.tronfluce-, Activated concrete:was remo..ed6 downnto the activated concrete DCGL. As part.of CCS, samples of local fill.material (sand, gravel, And till) w.ere analyzed forbuIlk densitr main Kd. Activated Concre-te at levels above the activated concrete DCGL was removed.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-41 ReO; vsn 6 January 2014 2.4.9 Paved*Areas One paved area near the warehouse-(R0900) exhibited one elevated exposure reading. ANsmall contaminated area was removed during sample.collection and was found to conitain,ia small amount .of C.o-60. Re e confir-med removal of the contamination. Paved :areas within the RA are known to -havesub surface asphalt-and sub surface-soil contamination as :described: in the 'Historical Site Assessment" section. 2.4.10 Components. The status of individual components is given in the systems data, Groups C and D. Group C components are found in.radioactive systems and;are. known to be contaminated. Section 2,4.3 describes the affected components in Group C; Section 2.4.4 describes the unaffected components in Group D, and Attachment 2B provides a detailed. summary of components during.ICS. 2.4.11 "StructuresiSystems and Environs. Surveyed For Hazardous Material" (Groups E and H) These surveys iadentifi.ed expetedamounts of waste.ch..eials, lubricants iand solvents; toxic metals in switches; and PCBs in paints and cables.- Some areas of soil contaminationwby motorvoils/fuels were discovered whioh required further evaluation. Initial~-.chacacterization activities (.CS) confirmed
*~~ . .. ,,* ..b. . . . P,.,
..... .: . .-.. the presence
.. . . of lead-based pait and PCBs in both cables and paints. Several small: areas of soil. were found to be contaminated by chemical or hazardous material.
Hazardous material health and safety considerations will be assessed through the RCRA closure :procesqs described in Section 8.6.2. 2.4.12 Surface and Groundwater ICS sample results for surfac6 and groundwater were reportedowithin the individual survey area packages (RO 100, R0200, R03;00, RI 1.00, R2'200, and R2400) and: are summarized in.Atachment 2B., Tritium was the.only plant-derived radionuclide detected in groundwater. and surface water duringaICS. 'The oy.erall range of the tritium aiialysesmwas: <793 pCi/L to 6812 pCi/L. The highest value was from the Containment foundation sump. All of the measurements w.ere-wellbelowtheEPA Drinking W.ater-MCL-.of S20,000 pCi/L.. The Containment foundation sump was monitored dnd trended as part of CCS.
MyAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-42. Revision 6 January 2014 2.4.13 Background ICS measurements were made of several types of construction materials from 6ffsift locatiis-w,hi.6h ereused as .backgroufid:sirples. Soil samples from rem'ote.locations Were,'also takenoand analyzed to-be used as. background soils. SICS'fmiaternal backro~unds onerete, bric1k, ceianik, etc.) were subtracted from reported'ICS data direct measurements obftotal beta activity. ICS environs background (soi I'sedimnent water, etc.) were coilected for informational purposes only. ICS enirons bakground data re not subtracted from ICS environs survey rep'ort&1d-data.
- a. Material- ackground Theiiniturýa levels::d radioactivityiff-plarit construction materials affected direct measurements for total beta actyiity. To- quantify this effect, GTS Drate. pe.rorme a .background study (ICS) *t the Central MainePower HeadquartersgBuilding in Augusta, Mdihe. The study -included direct
.measuw*m.ents ..for io.t4lbeta activity-on painted and unpainted-concrete: and
*fft*e !bl~cel,, .-ei-i til*6;*iid, asphaltf. Othr: materiils encouuntered Sduring the initial; chatcteriza~thiosurvey (ICS) such as'glass, carpeting, and
-steeýl were.not included in the'background study since their natural rhidioati*ivitY--woiild'6fit 6tffibutte: sigif cantly 'to direct measurements for
- total betaatefivity. Survey prsofinei ~usd the same instruments for the
!strct.e.urarbackgroiunti4ureyasWerev us ed ,for-the initial characterization sur~ey..CSy..unttimeswWer-eadjusted to eiisureminimum detectable adtWA:ities:!iofapprobkimtely 300,dpm/lfl0 : .mProject personnel used these
.results&to' corect data gathered i-om similar-surfaces during the initial c6har*afization survey.(ICS)ý.
The follow.ingis~.*asumary of..C.S mateial bac.kgrounds: Table 2-4 Suimar, of ICS Materi'al Backgrounds MATERIAL AVERAGE (dpmll 00cm') AtBe .Cdn*rdte.(& blck)... 665 IPairite*dotete"*(& block) 478 Asphalt
- 3. . .a... ... ... . ..... ........ .. . .... . .".... .'.." ... ...L:..L...'.*.'.'
'.. ". 7 . .
925 Cermic Tile 10 1jOth r (du t barpe..& painted metal, etc,)_., .. __._...... _0_.......
.MYAPC License Termination Plan P.gei.-2-43 Revision 6 January 2014
- b. Environs Background The p pý,sp.-ofthe, envrfis rlackgound study was: to measure and document theleves o01f radionuiclides, epecia1ly.:Cs- 13 7, present in local soils, and.typical.background.exposure rates. The survey sampling.and measurement teclhi'qpeiomplfed:, th approved procedures and suppQrtlg guid d ocumnefitation. Samplfematerials for the background:
study inQluded surface soils,.sediments..and groundwater. The project team p.q6mkl gaima-.speqXoscopy fo. W-s._amples, and analyzed groundwater
.for* *iti *h6vrage Cs437. concentration in soils was determined from samples collected:at the Merrymeeting Airfield, from a hay field, woodl.an.s, and..9
.. _b.i.ad,*. Tjkhe aveag.e Cs-137 concentration in marine sediments vwas determin. :from samiples collected from the Damariscotta Rivernear D.o~dge Point and HarpswellU. Groundwater concentrations were dOetermi.ed from..helEato r .n,.Bail.ey.. guse, and Days Ferry. No gro .undaterw samiles4 had detectable Cs-.137 or tritium concentrations (abdve MDA).
Th..e uey.als.oinc u.i :ean in sit u.gamma spectrum with a MicroSpec multicihanndel ,analyzer/so~dium: iodide. detector. vSurvey technicians measu*re bacegr.und.exposure..rates with asodium iodide detector. Addi. o.4ly, tne Kjvy..team. took both sodium iodide and pressurized ion chamber (.PIC) measurements at eachof the background soil sample lo.cati,onsuinthe hay 11fid at.Merrymeeting Airfield to observe the energy
. response6.f:ihe PI.v:'r'usthe.sodiim iodide detector. The project team calcutilatedthe!backgrgund exposurei.rate and PIC.measurement ratio for information, and. did-not usectheQresults -to.adjust any other measurements.
The following is a-summ ay of ICS environs background data: Ta.ble: 2-5. Summary of ICS Environs Background Data ME.,, MINUIM.U MAXIMUM. AVERAGE IS.edh"ient Cs-137 0..0 pCilg. .11. pCi/g 0.07 pCilg S.S~oif Cs437 .TC~o.nfbne9):V Oi.42 pCi/g. 0.45.pCig
' o(W-dcand)
So.. 37 ..... : ~~~~~~
. . ."- *- 0.1 pCilg : ... .. 0.92.pCi/g
- - =. ..... ~~ 0.52
.. ~ .. pCi/g soil:.qs'3.7 .(ay*i'eld)* 0.1 pCiVg pCi/g 0.38 p.Cilg SoiliCs-!37(Scrub. .0.t09 pCi.g 1.42pCi/g 0.5-5 pCi/g WLandS) H-_ <4_/31_24 __
tW-ater H'3: . ...<7413.p.Gil. <3.126 pCi/L <2024 pCi/L
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page2-44 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 2-5 Summary of ICS Environs Background Data
'MEDIA 'MINIMUM. MAXIMUM AVERAGE Wood & Scrub Land *5.9.1IR/hr 8.3 [LR/hr 7.2 I.R/hr Exposre: (NaI2) . ..
Open Land Exposure 10.0 IpRh.r 13.6 p.R/hr 1.1.6 pR/hr (NaI 2)
*Open Larfda Exposure' 7.18 p.R/hir 9.34 p.R/hr 8.22 lAR/hr (PIC) ....
- c. Miscellaneous Background Survey Data The University of Maine (Dr. C. T. Hess) performed a radiological soil and sediment background study prior to plant operations and reported the.data in EPA Teihhical Note;ORP/EAD-76-3. The study included analysis of nine soil samples, two marine sediment samples, and seven water samples collected in the vicinity of Maine Yankee priotr toplant operations in. during 1972.
The following-is a:summary-ofmiscellanieous backgro0undlsurvey data: Table 2-.6 S nunmro Miclaeus'Backgyround Survey;,a0ta
. .EDIA M.INIMUM MAXIMUM AVE GE J Sedimenit Cs137 0.35 pCi/g 0*.45 pCi/g 0.4 pCi/g oil C-s-1 37 :C 0:8 p-/g 4,96.pCi/g, 2.04 pCi/g
.Water H,3 j 90.pCiIL <400.pCi/L <294 pCii/L 2.4.14 Waste Volumes and Activities Table3.-8 summarizes pro6e.cted activities associated with various sources of iiadioactive w'" iiiatetials :gneated during decommissioning.
2.5 Continuing-Characterization
(dCCS') The site's initial characterization work (ICS) left a few survey areas unresolved with respect to the nuclides present and the extent. or boundaries of contamination. Those areas were characterized during the Con inuing Characterization Survey (CCS) effort, which included obtaining the following data:
MYAPC License Terinination Plan Page.-245 Revision 6 January2014
* :Soil samples from the southeast .fence area for bounding the extent of contamination Soil samples from the contractor's parking 0lot.to onfirm remediation and support construction: of the ISFSI
*Soil samples, from Bailey Point to confirm',remediation PCC/SCC survey to.bound the extent0of contamrination V. Conden'sate/Auxiliary' Condensate sur-'.e.y to!bo'und the extent of contamination
- SService Water survey to bound the extent of contamination
- Q.oncrete.c~ores Forebay/diffuser media
, Grou.ndwater The new Spent Fuel Pool Decay Heat Removal System was removed and disposed of as radwaste. Additional sampling of the circulating water discharge Forebay was.performed to assure compliance with specific unrestricted use release criteria.
Characterization samples will- be collected .and analyzed to support the decommissioning of the:.ISFSI and associated 'areas. In addition, radiation surveys of the ISFSI storage pads are conducted on a periodic basis during the,.interim storage period. . 2.5.1 Methods Methods emply0ed for continmiing character iz4tifi weri consistent with those described insetion 2.3 for site,characterization.. Any differences between the methods used by GTS (ICS) and .the methods jemployed for Continuing Characteri'zation (CCS) are noted within Sectiohn 2.3 The -work.was performed under the guidance of a Decommissioning Work Order
'(DWO): and i.n ac&ord ane wi-th appr6e - dr d .-tres.T .. order to tnsure compaiabrle resutlts, the instrUmefitation used ddurinig CCS was:similar in design, function and sensitivity to that -used during initial characterization.,
2.5.2. Results The rahge 0f'residual radioactivity existing on s'uifaces and within soils and systems targeted for sampling during Continuing. Characterization (CCS) are summarized below. Detailed data including mean, maximum, and standard
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-46 Revision 6 January 2014 ..... deviation aretpresented .by survey package in Attachment 2D. The standard deviaftions calculated fromrf CCS data were replaced with more appropriate values cal)culated from post riemediation or post:demolition survey data. This section provid~es.summary, results from CCS. The current, resulting nuclide fractions are de~scr-i~be ini &dfibon`2.5,.3. a: Stone &Webster Review of the GTS Report (ICS) Upon review of the GTS Duratech report (ICS), Stone & Webster identified areas requiring. add itional characterization as follows:
- 1. Determine the extent of soil contamination at the Southwest fence (CR0200, CR1 000') - The East/West bouhdaries of the soil contamination were determined by gamma spectroscopy 6f soil samples. In addition, soil was sent.:for radiochemical analyses in order to confirm the ratio of radi6nuelidbs incliding the hard-to-detect nuclides.
- 2. Verify remediatiornof the "contractor parking lot" cOntaminated areas (CR 1.300) - Contrary to the.GTS report anrd ptior tocontinued characterization activities commencing, the:State of Maine reported that the soil in the jafking lot.still cOntained Co-60 contamination after reniediation. Soil survey results verified that there was residual-soil contamination. The contaminated soil was excavated and disposed of as radwaste. A sanple~matrix wa-s:developed forpost-remediation surveys and, soil samples-were -taken and counted. Following this cleanup, the parking lot wats.determined to be successfully remediated based on gamma spectroscopy of soil: samples and gamma scans taken over the:affected soil aiýa.
- 3. Verify remediation of the Bailey Point soil storage area (CR0500)- -A sample matrix was developed and soil samples were'taken and:counted.. Based on gamma spectroscopy results, the Bailey Point soil storage area.was
*determined to have -been:succdssfilly remediated, pending final status survey.
Note:.Survey package numbers, asinitially established for characterization,,are listed in Sectiorh2 .3 7. To-distinguish a. given package's data from the characterization phase to the Final Status Survey.(#SS) phase,;a convention was adopted. A preceding "C" was added (to the package number) to indicate the "characterization" and a preceding "F" would be used to denote the "FSS" phase of the project. Thus, "CR02001"in the LTP text refers to the survey package containing characterization data for survey package R0200.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-47 Revision 6 January 2014
- 4. Bound the .extent of contamination in the PCC and SCC systems (CD 1900) -.PCC was opened and system internals were analyzed by.ganma spectroscopy to determined the
,extent.of contamination. The PCC.SYsytem was found to be contamint ed'thoughout, inpcudingthelube oil coolers of the diesel.:generators. The SCC system contamination was limited too.,rne aiirconditioner feeding the control room (which had previously been in the PCC.system but was later changed to :S CC for train separation concerns) and both SCC pumpsuctio..nelbows. The systems were labeled to show the
-extent of contamination.
5.: Bound the extent .ofcontaminationinthe Condensate/Aux Condensate :systems (CD01 00)- Samples were taken from the aux condensate piping, aux condensate receiver, and aux boilers. The samples confirmed that the aux condensate pip.ing and aux boilers were contaminated. The system was labeled to shoW the extent of contamination.
- 6. Bound the extent of contaminfation in the liquid waste discharge: line.as it -enters the Service. Water pipe (CD0600) -
.Samples of the serice water system were taken up stream from. te po.intof entry of the liquid waste discharge pipe.
The :samples confirmed that contamination was limited to the tarea adjacent-to.the discharge :pipe connection.. 7-., Additional.s urvqeys-were designed and implemented to resolve reported positive count rate data on various systems. or components in the Turbine. Hall. The-activity in the.water treatment plant (CD0200) was determined to be Naturally Occurring-RadioactiveMaterials (NORM). The-datacobtaidted during theContitnued Characterization Surveys (CCS) are presented in-Attachment 2C.tables.
- Data obtained during.all phases, of;6haracterization surveys are used to determine the nuclide profile for.each media or material. If conditions arise during decom0.isio*ingwhich might affect the nuclide profile, additional sampling will be performed to verify, the nuClide profile of any affected medium.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-48 Revision 6 January 2014
- b. Soils Surface soil was sampled and'analyzed for radionuclides. during the initial sitchar~acteri-ai~on(1ICS). ThIe "radionuclides ere detected in.the top 15 cm of on-site soiln.inthe.surviey:atras encompassing tho:backyard.
Additional datawere collected d -*g continued cactitionto hetter establiblh nuclide'profil e's. The-6 predomnat plant-retd, beta-gamma emittin~gradionuclides detected.-w.ere H-.3 C O6, Ni-63 and Cs--37. Two. sets.:of higher: activity soil samples:,taken by GTS:were compositedand subjected to .adidche-micalanalyse's :firtheihrd-to-de t:eiitnclides. No TR.Uswere detected'inthe composites when analyzed with techniques giving MDAs of 0.01 pCi/g-to 1.0pCi/g. The actual soil nuclide profile:is yded'in Section9-.5"3. oit The:samples from each area were analyzed by gamma: spec. If the gamma spec results were consistent with reported values, between 240 and 800 g wer.e removed f.im the ýa§iole;containers and added to the composite. The amount removed depended on the total number of samples.:available from each location. The-composites weremwell mixed, and counted again to bHsDue expc'ted ridMtfH Iwre achieVed. T;hecompositbeswere then sent for HaTDmaalysisexcepn~t forge-3.,o Trtiunimwaseot analyzedbecausetolthde samples.. hadbeen- istorage -'for a: longtim1e and were exceptionally dry. Samples forta. -34'ysiswert*a-a ThkWernfrom lorcationseadjcn tothey ri nal sample locations. K-40 and Th were not reported because they were not plant-derived nuclides. Dug characterization- (CCS),a concert was raised.about. activiy'in the vegetati'velhyer of soil:. As a result, a comparison was performed by
.couting veg*e*tio.n-ad th-esoil/foot fll;f therewas little me le activ.ity in the vegetation. Future soil samples will include the surface soil layer-but not.the protruding vegetationf Sub-rsface soil was;apled and characterized in areas in*which therews -wa knowledge or indication of contamination'below. 15 em. .The.nuclideratios were consistentwitth s'rface ratios. In addition, building.s'b-slab soil characterization wvas.pe'&frmed during:remediation and demolition to determine the presence and extent of any sub-slab -contamination. Samples were .taken.al.ongside'fgbundatiorn walls.or through ho"es boired: throug' the floor iffiessay..
For additional di4*ussion on soil samples and nuclidefraction see Aftachme'nt 21.
- c. Systems and Components Residual contamination: on or in plant piping was the result of the.
MYAPC License Ternni..aPtlon PI.an... Page_2-49 Revision 6 January 2014 deposition of both fission and activation products. Prior to and during characterization surveys :(both ICS'and CCS), samples of process piping were: obtained-,to determine which systems were:contaminated and the current radio'n'uclide~piofiles includinig the hafdto-detect nuclides. The bounds ofthe contaminnated piping.were not established initially so systems wereopened and.-,surveyed to definfe the boiunds .of contamination. Contax.inated.--syst.m components and pi-ping were removed and disposed of as radioactive wait&. Fe- .5,Nij.N-63, Co-6*0 and Cs-137, made up 99 percent of the system activities det~rmined-duringinitial characterization. TRUs contributed less than-lipercent,.of tctota:.activity. The major beta-gamma emitter detected in system mnaterials was C-60-ih-a..r-.ange-of~activity of 1 to7!5pCi/g: (MDAs Were 0.03 to 5-pig), No additional quantitative gamma analyses for systems or. componeiits: were. coiiducted:during CCS.
- d. Buried and Emibe.dded Piping Buried,-and.:emb.cddedt.piping remaining .after.demolition received special sur"vys The ncides..and ratios in piping and
'TrngftheFS.
contaminatedmcomponents Were consistent withthose described in c above since.,the systemsrwith emb~edded.secfiorns of contaminated pipe were the systemssanmpled during-itial charaet.'rzation. The nuclide profile is provided in Secti'oW2.5.3. Nearly all of t~he embedded pipe consists of the through-wall stubs of'l to.4.5 feet.:in length, Since the embedded pipe contributes approximately 2 tenths of one percent of the total annual dose rae, it Was,-deided to. sime the.s.mallýlepgths of embedded pipe were contaminated withthe same. source term, as the, concrete surfaces through whipch they.passed. Bur'ied.pipe is.considered-to be contaminated with the same.source term as..ther contam ted surfaces, and the activity is released into.the .surr.ounding soil upon pip, degradation. d Buried.pipe contributes ess-annualdose than embedded pipe.
*e. iStructures-Concrete:.
-Concreteest"ucres,. iclu'ding the ISFSI s'torage pads and Vertical Concrete CaSks;. at elevationsýhigher; than 3 feet-below grade will be demolished.
,S.uxf.a cs (a.t-xatins~heIo.y:3 fe..et*qbelow grade) wee decontaminated to the specifie6dDCGL f6finir"e'st'c*ted u'se;6ritfera. (See Section 3 for. details ouilding demolition.). FouTr radionuclides, Cs-I137, Ni-63, Co-60 and H-3 comprise. approxirnat e.y.9 -pereent.of-the radioactivity on concrete surfaces. (Special consfiideratiotnwas gi9vj toQ trench and sump surfaces.
See discussion in Section 2.5.3.) Radioactivity found. in the concrete shielding materials in containment was the result of both contarmination, and. activation. Concrete cores were
M*YAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-50 Revision 6 January2014 removed and analyzed in order to estimate the radioactivity levels and nuclide :distr butions of shi~edingmaterials. The predominant radionuclides pi-eseint in structural (activaited) cdhcerete, are H-i, Fe-55, Eu-I152, C- 14, and C.-.60 (comPrfifingapproximditely98 percent of the activity in activated
.concrete).
C.6nc'rete coeste w~ier ou.nted :uaing both hand-held instruments and gamma spetrometers. This informration,.couipled with the radiochemical analytical. d~ata, were :used to determine instrurnent'total efficiency Et values* (rep0rted in Section 5.5.2). Yf ,Surn.. ary of CCS Activities Since Stibmittal of Revision 0 of the Since.,the submittal of Revision 0oaf the LTP, several confirmatory samples wer~e,*ol.cted. Two floor freich concrete samples were taken and suilbmittel :for H4TD an~alysisito conrfirmn or rul'e ouit some nuclide outliers
*.repo~rted*!y OTS (ICS) fr:om a trench samp!*e'pro.eessed by another Three 'addit~ional Containment"Bufilding floor samples and three PAB floor
*amples were8 taken :to replaee thecores-consurmed during analysis. See
.A.tt'a,.b. ent .2G fordi'scussion of'concrete core. sample collection and
.processing.
'A. 6tio o~f civif*ate"d chrefe With 'inbeflded
. . .rebar was sent foranalysis on both the concrete and'rebar: to establiih thehiard-to-detect nuclide' f-ractio~n. A comparison of the nuclide* profile was made to activation,
,anlysis r*esults.,prepar'ed :f&tMY activated material as well as to published
*actlyitiWn dtia.a The resultS !comparedofavir~iblyin both instances. A core from~he~i~n-core instrumentation (ICI):sump was extended to a depth of
'22 incheA: ini order to im-fpiove thie a~tiv,*ted-ebhfiete" profile (i.e, variace of aictivity ith depth; see Table 2-10). The depth profile, was used. to plan [
- remediation~activities for the ICI sump area. 'The projected post-
*remed.iation activity remaining in the ICI sump area was used in the dose cealculations described in Section 6.6.2.
**Fire pon*id water- s~a'miple wiere takein and 'analiyzed for tritium and gamma
,emtters..The same :was..ddne f6r-the reflecting pond and .sediment from the pond was .counted to: well below environmental LLDs in' order to. show
-th~e~ werie no pliant-derived niuclides in..the .sediment. See Table 2C-3 for rxesults of reflectingp-ornd sample*.. (F~ire pond water and sediment results were:not included.) The fire pond was demolished as part of the..
decommissioning'of the plant. 1
MYiAPC License Termination Plan Pnageg-51 Revision 6 January.2014 AXcontainment- foundation sump waterisample..was analyzed (including HTDs) tq relatiyely low MDAs. Tritium.was determined to be the sole. nuclide Present in the foundation.drains..and groundwater based on. this analysis. (This finding was consistent with,sump water monitoring results from the past years.) See Section 2.5*13 for:;additional information regarding siteh ydrogeology and gr6undwater:sampling, and the establishment.of the groundwater nuel.ide fraction used for dose assessment-. As part of both initial and continuing site characterization, forebay sediment was sampled. To gain :additional insight. regarding the spatial distribution of contamination and to support fuirther characterization and remediation planning, additional. sampling efforts were undertaken. The principal campaign was in Spring 2001 and included the sampling of: (1) sediment around the protective rip-rap (Insidete forebay), (2)underwater sediment on the struture floors,-(3) exposed material on the forebay ledges near the.weir wall, and. (4) dike soil material beneath the rip-rap. Diver operations and inspections of.the-diffus.er .aJlso provided.an opportunity for.. the hsapling ofsediment inside the diffiser piping, as Well as piping coupons. The; characterization .ofthe forebay, and diffuser system is sum..arized.iinlw2.5.3e and described in.more 'detail. in Attachment 2H. Section..6.6.9,4iscusqses .the ass.ocia.ed dose, asse.esment related to these contaminated media. Additional material baqkground. samples. were also collected in order.to get better. sample.populationstatistics; The ,Tpsults of theseadditional, samples -wereused with previous data to determine nucl!idefprofiles f'or each medium or material. In addition, detailed. analys.ses ofgconcrete core data wree performed to ensure that the data collected Were truly.rpreoentatiVe ofthe:c triniaifiated concrete on site. The soill and activated concrete data were. also re-evaluated to confirm earlier assumptions based on the dataxrepo e,-irf Revision 0 ofthe LTP. 2.5.3 Nuclide Profl-e One'ofthe purposes:of Site, Characterization (b.th ICS and CCS) is to establish the radionuclide Profiles for the various contaminated media-which p-ovide dose to the critical .group. Multiple samples: were-taken.of each type of media in order to detenmine~ the nuclides present and: their relatijve f.a.,qp*to-one~another. These a.nuclide actions aar-piresd..nted.Sbyumediaci-thef owlo inge ctions.
- a. contaminated :Cpncree S urfaces (!.ncluding "Special Areas")
Multiple concrete cores:were analyzed (including HTDs) in order to
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-52 Revision 6 Januay 2014 determine 'the nuclide profile for dontaminated concrete surfaces. The majority of thdepotentially contaminated surfaces remaining will be concrete. Other contaminated material, such as buried and embedded pipe, ma.also :remain. The iiiuclide pofile detefrriied for contaminated concrete is absumed to:apply to'all concrete surfaces;. Thdesample fts.uts were averaged. over-the :entire population and the individual: samplesoeompared for consistency. As might be~expected, the data were somew6hat vari:ed
.depending 0on the cocrte locatio, spill historyi, de0ontan.adtio'nhistofY,
..surface coating and age.
The nuclide fraction for contaminated material-was established using each
.ofthe positively identified nuclides. The non-detected nuclides were assumed anot-to beopresent.in the mixture. In order.to ensure-that the-elimination of non-detected nuclides at their' MDC levels Would not signficantly.affect, the results, a sensitivity analysis based on dosewas performed. Dose rates weredetermined for each individuailcore, .for the cor averge values andfor the average of the fractions using all nuclides in tthe-suiteat their actual value or their reported MDA, then the anal-sis was
- repeated using only.the detected nuclides.
Two of the original set of nine cores (both containment floortrend:h samples) showed evidence of TRUs; however, the values. were .very near the .aaltcalMDCs. EVen so, the TRUswe're included in the evaluation of the nuclide fraction. Upon closer examination, the nuclide fraction for the trench:samples appeared distinctly different from.the other-concrete fraction. Thetrencl hhad'a slightly different history of nuclide contact:than the.floor surfaces in*general. Most significantly, water hadi:been drainM
,directly to the,trench during the:machining of cobalt-containing-thermal shield pins and othei special evolutions. Based on the sample results from the.two trench cores and consideration of.the opeational trench histor',
additional.-sample data Were obtained to confirm-the non-trench data. From
&thatdati,:a separate nuclide fraction for the trenches was. deelop.ed. As discus6sd Section'6.7, a6separate DCGL for trenches wa"s.alsb: established.
Additional concrete cores were taken and analyzed, revealing other, areas in the plant warranting a separate nuclide fraction. See discussion below related to "special areas." T'*!el .2-7 -give, the nuclide fra.ction for contaminate surfac thatwas selected ba"sed n.the'analysis of the characterization data detmieby the.-%verage~of the fractions" method and decayed:to 1/1/2004. Table 2-7 provides the nuclide fraction for the "balance of plant"ocontaminated concrete surfaces. Table 2-8 gives the nuclide fraction for special areas in the plant. These
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-53 -Revision 6 January 2014 areas include the containment outer annulus trench, the PAB pipe tunnel, and the letdown heat. exchanger pubicle..These..were separated from the.
"balance of plant" contamifiated cncedte: surfaces and were chosen based on operating conditions. adtlepresenee of TRU contamination. The dose consequences and DCGL for .this-collection of areas are described in
.Section6.7.2.
The data variability for the cnrete~cores was analyzed on the basis of dbse. The significanceofanyyide.iq.d.o.yv..ari.ability was judged on its effect on theresulting dose. (Se.e Attacdhent 2F for detaileddiscussion of the data analysis.) Nuc.iaI :elra ctos Contaminated Concrete Suifaices ("Balance of Plant" Areas) Nuclide Fraction (as of'l/1/2o04) 11-3 . . . . .". . . . .... ....' ... . . . . ' " ". . . Z.3E-rF~e-55 4.81lE;3
. .. : .. . . . S.... ... L : :.. .,* * . - : -..... . . . .
Co-57 .'....:..:......:......
-3OE
.... 2.. ':. " .' S . ' .* . ." ". .: : "' ..2 " .
; .?_" .Q ." ."._'.
- 2.-'..
.... !._ * ' *' '_*t 'Y .. * .:. . . ".. .'. ._..-."
Ni-63--* ." ........ ... . . . 3.55ER.f ........... . . . . .
. A .. " . . . -1...' .. - q ' . . .. . . . .. .
Sr-90 2.810E-3 Cs-134 4.5&E-3 V:Csl7137 .o0E-I
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-54 Revision 6 January 2014 Table-2-8 Nucld4e Fractioins f6i C.ontaminated Concrete Surfaces "Special Ar*eas"o Ncidol Nlderaton (/4 Mnz5____ r4.0O3E7.04 Fe-55, 2.2~4E.0.2 sr-90 8-3 Sb,4125.452-0
;Cs-137 2,84-1 INu23 .1B04
'Pu-239' ~ O Pu240
.... 87E 5 Am-241 '5193B-04'
- .Cm243__46E0 Cm.-244 4.45E-05
MYAPC LicenseTermnf ation, Plan Page 2-55 Revision 6 January 2014
- b. Acti~atld Concrete / Reba.
Ac~tivated ulide rati.s were foud to be ýc*nstendt witl.publi'shed values. The major variati~on Wth *ati:Vatd.concretevwas a decrease in total activity with depth in .the:mateiial as'sfiown by.to deep core profile .samples. This property can.be use toede er i depth of remediation needed. There was-also a local effect ownuelide activity and ratio :in the area immediately surrounding rebar.,eontained.w-I the concrete. Two highly actvated:concrrete, ýa"npls were.analyzed for HTDs. As noted in S.ection.2..5,.2f...one portion-of acfiyv@ted concret.e.-included embedded rebar. The rebar-.sample w"'as'.i4o analyzed forHTDs. The hard to detect nuclides shoWed'.-thele'same:leve.1,oo consistency asthe gamma emitters when compared to. published. values (*.REGfCR-3474). The nuclide fractions for theactivated ýcon6rete and .r.eb*,.r W,'s established using each of the positively idetfified nuclides. Th-e non-detdcted nuclides were assumed not to bepresient in themix-etue, ir-Iofderto effsu-elhat the elimination of non-detected nuclides-at.their MDC.evyels-would not significantly affect the results, an analyisisbbsed don doRcdti ti6on Was p.eformed. Annual
. _. . j... . . ........ ... % .. x-- * ..,1i L 9 4* ,9 9 F.:-
. .. , _ ., . =-,. .. ,. . ' ,- '. ...
dosefrates wete determined for¢each.nuelide.at- its actual reported:value or its.MDC, then thie anilysis was. rep.eatedusjg onlythe actual reported valhis 61f thed'et" A fiuclides. *-hose;enruclid6sincluded in the dose analysis.at their MDC*values; -we.shoowiotocontribute less than 10 percent of the annualdose :fromie p.a.tw.ay.ay zed..Table279 gives the nuclide fraction for activatWd on*c*et an'd: r~e'bar decayed to 1/1/2004. Based on the higher. d.ose contutions -fronm activated concrete, in comparison toIthe riebar.. thenxiclidefactft n for-activated concrete was used inthe S6ction.6 dose assessment- See Section 6.6.2Z
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-56 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 2-9: Activated Concrete Nuclide Fractions C.oncrete as of Rebar as-of 1/2004- 1/2004. NUclide Friction Fraction: H-3 ,0.647 F .0.124. 0.910 Ni-63 *0.007. 0.006
&co-60 0.040 0oo.84 CZs.-.13_4 .0.0084
- Eth-l5:4 ,:0*.0069. -___-. ____ ,__
Table 2d 0 shows the.activity measured.a function of depth in the deep core sample. -
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-57 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 2-10 Activated&Concrete: Deep Core Sample Activity Profile Dep~th (in)¶ Ac.tivity (pCi/g)"°* Depth (in). Activity (pCi/g) 0":-0-.5 .677* 10.75-11.5 87 0.5-..0 828 1:1.5 - 12.2515 23 1.0o-1.5
- 845 1225-13;.
. .... .... . Z
- I ." "
23 1.1.5 -40. .824 13.013.7.5. 17 4.0 4.75 .......... 771
,.... . .. .. ................ .....L...... ........ .- ' 1.75 .. . . ...- .14.5
. . '. . ' i . - . " . '. 14. . .
4.7 .3. 329. 14.5 15.5 - 1.4 5.5 - 6.25ý :534 15.25 - 16;0 11 6.25 - 7.0A 35, 16.0.-J16.75 7 7.0- .75 290 16.75 - 17..5 6 7.75-8.5 231-2.5 6 8.5-9.25 206 18.25 - 19.0 1 9,25 -1I.0 182 -.19.0- 20.0I 1 1.0:0:.- lO,75, :1.03
*Adjusted to remove C.s- 137 surface contamination from the total activity
**Note that the depth column represents a "label" for each sequential slice and is not intended as. an exact measurement. The slices were generally
'A"to 3/4." but were not uniform in thickness. Therefore, while Table 2- 10 presents the profile out to 20 inches, this iepresents all of the data available for-the. entire. 22 inch .core.
***Measured activity provided in this table includes gamma detectable activity from the:nuclides listed in Table 2-9.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-58 Revision 6 January 2014
- c. Contaminated Soil Soil from the areas with the highest contamination levels (RWST and PWST-areas) were :comp6sited: and analyzed for nuclide content including HTDsg.6 Since the..samples used for the. comnposites were very dry, archivedx soils, no tritium -analyses were made. However, tritium analyses w.r-epeffonned ..6o-ns6il samolýes from an adjacent-area.
Th.e.nuclide fraction for the contaminated soilfwas established using each of the p6§itively identified nuclides. The non-detected nuclides were assumed not to. be present in the mixture. In order to ensure that the elimination-.of.non-detectednuclide's:at their MDC levels would not sigirficaqtlyaffect the'results, an analysis based on dose contribution' was performed. Annual dose. rates were. determined:for each nuclide at:its. actual:reported value or.its>MDC, :then:thesanalysis was, repeated using oily:the actuai reported'values of the detected ntuclides. Those nuclidees included in the.dose: analysis. at their MDC values were shown to.. contribute!less..than,* 10 percent of the annual dose from the pathway analyzed., The,soil profile given in Table 2-11 is used forboth surface (within 15 cm of the-surface),and deep (below 15. cm:of:the surface) soils. The soil: fractions were. decayed to 1V/1/2004. For additional discussion on-soil samples, and nuclide fraction, see Attdhm&imnt 21. Tableli 2-11 Soil Nuclide. Fractions
*Nudide Fraction
.as of 1/2004.
- .. i._...
_ : ;.. * *z... . .- . .1 - .. .. _ .-. L; _-,2 ? : .-. 1:1-3 0.053. Ni;-63 0.048 Co-60 0.009 Cs-137 0.89.0
- d. Groundwater- and Surface Water 6 Regarding buried and embedded piping and its impact on soil contamination, the most significant of buried/embedded, piping within the !industrial area are the HPCI and LPCI lines. These.. contained the same fluid as the RWST and would be well represented by the RWST and the subsequest RWST related soil samples used in part:of the soil nuclide fraction.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page -59. Revision 6 January 2014 Samples were taken of the groundwater (containment foundation sump) and the surface water sources. (fire pond and "reflecting pond"). The samples were analyzed.for gammaimitters and;HTDs. Since.the samples Scontaiedrel.atively low levels: offrsidual activity, long count times were usedto achieve low MDAs. The. only nuclide, detected in either source-of water:was, tritium. *Thecsurface water tritium is naturally occurring. Additional information regarding background tritium in and around the Maine Yankee site is provided in a.comprehensiVe report on site hydrogeology (Stratex, February.2002, Reference 2.7.19). The February 2002 Stratex report (referenced above) summarized and discussed radioactivity.-in, site groundwater and-its relationship. to site history regarding: releases of contamination 7 in general, while relatively low: levels of Co-60 and Cs-i 37 have been sporadically detected in the containment foundation sump and. other site wells, the primary, consistently detected.nuclide is tritium. The.nuclide fraction for groundwater (used as an initial condition:for the dose assessment) consists of tritium only. See Section 6.6.6 for additional discussion, activity levels, and the use of this nuclide fraction-in the dose assessment. An -additional groundwater re-sampling..program consisting of fifteen wells was:implemented: in spring of 2002. The results-ofthis effort,. which included the analysis of twelve of the fifteen well samples for "hard to
,detect" nuclides, were reported in Maine Yankee's letter to the NRC, dated August 28, 2002 (Reference 2.7.20). This. submittal included an addendum-to the February 2002 Stratex report (August 2002). This sampling effort included not only the containment foundation sump but also numerous wells.4 nthe industrial area as well as several new wells, as recommended in theF6eb1ary 2002 Stratex report. (Additional groundwater exploration of the PrimaryAuxillary Building "PAB" test pit area,. 4, recommended by'Stratex in February 2002, was not pursued. See discussion below.)
Consistent with prior well-sampling in the industrial area, the results of this site groundWater re-sampling effort showed relatively low levels of groundwater contamination. Two wedls reported relatively low levels of eit.he.rCo60, and Cs-.37. Triftium levvls-were above background in sererial wells; howvYeer, they were c6nsistent with previously detected
.concentrations and well within the conservative levels assumed for dose modeling. Hard to'detect .analyses: (including transtiranics) detected no other nuclides, -also consistent with prior sampling. (See References
- 2. 7.20 and 2.7.25.) The nucl.de fraction for both ground and surface water 7 Stratex, February 2002, Section 3.7 (LTP Reference 2.1.19).
MYAPC License Termination Plan P.age 2-60 Revision 6 January 2014 is given in Table 242. Special consideration and assessment was given to the isolated detection (1999) of contamination"in the PAB test pit, as discussedi- the February 2002 Stratex 'report.: Aýdditibi-falFstudy .ibf~the'.fate.rand,,transport of.relevant nuclides-was pe md by Stteix, suppoeiýec.yBroo1ipayen National _Lrai0orido (reporte*d-ii. the-Augt 2002 MaineYanee s.ub.tl .the t.o NRC8). Based .onthetadiditiona rstidyiineidiiig totisidbrati0n of recent sampling of the test pit-an teconta ent 0uncdation sump and site hydrogeology, Maine Yank-ee concluded that no Additional field investigatiois-or gro6un.dw a-ter-expAlorati6o wer niecessary to, further study the fate:and. transport.of .the histor.ocaPBtest'pitcontamination. The PAB testz pitremains. Th'eIapplcable-in.s"taW s surveys' demonstrated compliance with surfaec.obntamination release-criteria. (See -Reference 2.7.20.) Samplesi from. the contaizment tfo6uhdan sumpb and the.PAB test :pit were routinely obtained andfanayized theil-the-final status survey was commenced flor these two planitare*as!. S:ee Section 6.6.6. Furthermore, as noted in Section 6.6;6, 'futuire grundwa ter s*piig.data.obftined prior to unrestricted release was considered for its impaic on the.dose assessment. Ground and Sr*fa*cW.ater NucfLideFracti)n Nuedide "... iP~ii
.. ... ....- : , , ! *:: ,,: : ' i? . . . . .
- e. Foreba and Diffus'e'r, Conta-m-in'atedWMed A detailed discussion. of the charactenizatibn of the forebay-and diffuser system is provided .in Attachm6et'2H1. The:characterization effort ;and resulting nuclide fraction.:fr forebay/difftser media are summarized below.
The forebay (and-seal-pit.) chAfActz-a'.ti'W..onsis.tdof sampling.,efforts that identified the following.contaiiated media: 1, Rock.floors.and wa..lls,.f.e forebay/sea. pit, as well -as alimited amoount: of concrete suffa:6es at theP'northern and: southern ends of the forebay basin;
.2. Rip-rap, contaminated-surfaces;
- 3. Marine sediment deposited on the floors of the forebay/seal pit and 8 Reference 2.7.20, as corrected by Maine Yankee letter..to the NRC, MN-02-045, dated October 3, 2002.
(Reference 2.7.24)
MYAPC-:License TermiiatlOn Plan Page 2-61 Revisio 6 January"2014 around the rip-rap; and.
- 4. Dike "soil," i.e., that material beneath thexrip-rap, interior to the dike walls.
Sampling and assessment of theqdiffus'rzystem identified two contaminated media,. nam6ly sediment entrained-sidethe, diff.ser discharge piping: and contaminated surface filmh pidtoei o4"t1he "insidesurfaces of diffuse'r piping. This surfacecontaminationw.as noted to be very similar to that on Ihe r4pra coIrV the.interior forebaydiewl. As 'the results of several. sampling. c .ampaigns (icluding.diving operations), e.a.chof-th-abo.e.media~were saml.ed, .anal'yzed and evaluated regarding niucl!ides present, activity levels, andr.elative fractions. The evaluation included:three sets of sedimcnt samples.analyzed for HTD nuclides. The overall assessment concluded that a single nuclide fraction was appropriate and conservative for application to these media. The nuclide fraction for forebay and diffuser related media is1presented-in Table 2-13. :See A..cnient. 2H for.additional discussion onthe principal: construction feae ofth forebay and: diff*sOer sr.tenthe sampling campaigns, results, and _conclusions. -See-alsO EC-04 -01 for s!upportig technical bAs.s and analy-ses.:. Table 243
. Forebay*ylffuser Material.Nuclide Fractions
-..". ~ ~.
- .. .... =. . ... . . .............
.=..r .= '_ . . . :.. = . ,, . - __. ' .-' .÷ .* . .- . . ... .," ,.. . ..
Nuclide Fractiton (as of 1/1/2004)_. Fe-55 0.165 Ni-63 0.233.; Co-60 0.567' Sb-125 *0105". CS*137 0.030 f., Future: Sampling Thie. iadionuclide profiles-foi. conta*niated concrete, activated concrete,: soil, ground waterý,surfacd water, and sedimentI istedin Tables 2-7 and 2-8, 2-9, 2-14j 2712, and.2- 3 respectively, were determined using representafive data.. Theseovofileresults-do not :rle -it* psibiif..oftang -th6. :aditional samples.of these media as decommissioning progresses and as conditions warrant. Note:', Ifadionnuclide profiles are*revised, the revised profiles will be
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-62 Revision 6 January 2014 provided to the.N.RC and the State of Maine at least 30 days prior to their use. 2:5;.4 Background Deterin ation Therevsidu radidoactivity -ofasurveyunit-may-be compared directly to the DCGL; how"ever somei suriey uhitsii ill containtone, or more radionuclides which are also
,contained in backgro ind. 1n order to identify and evaluate tho~e ii-dionuclides, background"reas have been established which contain only background levels of the radioncliles of int*erest. These background areas were chosen.because they were similar in physical, chemica!, geological and biological characteristics to the sq.ryeyjunitsC, a.: Soils Soil samples were taken (ICS) from the non-impacted areas and analyzed in orderito establish.gefijierLsoil background levels. If backgound "reference" area'measuremenats.are required for the Final Survey Program', the reference area measurements -willbe collected in accordance with. themethods d-e6ribe6iii Seftidn65: afid the-.-plie ible appr"ed, procedures. The samples
ý.showed:meani Cs-.137. levels of 0.2 to 0:5 pCi/g depending bn whether the
- soil hadbeepn distur~bed:.or not. The more undisturbed the .soil:is, the higher the blakground. C1,3*7 may be (e.g. Knight Cemetery,.E~iton-Farm, values reported in Attachments 2A & 2B). The naturally-occurring uranium isotop.es;(U.-234, UV23.5 and-U-238) were:present in.expected amounts.
U.r4n is:.na.all' occurring, not plant denved. These huclides are-not
*included :inltheSoil Mixture Nuclide Fraction listed in Table 2-11 above.
- Sr-9Q,:was !nQt.detected,.atior.*above aMDC of 0.4 pCi/g.
- b. Structures Badkgund imeasurem'nhts were taken on structural materials duringjinitial lharacterization: CS) in o*rder to estimate the cofitfibition, of bakgr*oid acti vity to the.total measurement value. The same types of detectors Will be used f6orFSS: aswere used during both ICS and CCS. Background values for structural materials using these detectors are :shown in Table 2-14.
MYAPC License Termination Plan ... . Page 2-63 ARe*vsiion6 January 2014 Table 2-14 Structural Material Backgrounds Background Counts per Minute (reflects beta count Tate)
- ,. -~ i Materials ....... 43 ... .a.... ..
-T.ropovtlonalý SH &430 G ancake
... De...... -126 cmn 2_Detectdr -15.5 cm 1z. j
'Painted Cinder Block 29,6** 70**:
Wood .... 301:.i**5*
- ..- .:- . *. -i* * ... .... * . .. . .... . . -. ..... * . ... .. . .::......: .*
Ambient 319.* 65* Steel . .. . :.... ,"-: ....*...,/i* " ' .. .. . ... 27.=:7*" " ............... . ..... . . 46* Carpet. *e m~e*:- ... .................... . . ..339**
. 9 , -:.. . . . .....
- g . * ....
*.1Foor.Tile 359*
62. Ciling Tile 49*73 BareCinder Block 394** 79**
*Pain-ted Concrete 39*74*
Bare Concrete. 433* 76* Aspbalt 55.94 9_9*
- Gi-aiite 566.** 128+*
Porc1an60*
............. ...... ... i .116*# -
Brick . ". .. 16*P
- Average of twenty-five.one (minute static counts taken in the scaler mode.
* *Average.of ten one.minute, static:.countsý.:taken in the scaler mode, The 43-68 proportional detector will generally be used for surface contamination measurements because of-its sensitivity, larger detection area and lower MDC. SHP-360 will onlybe, used where a measurement can not be taken with a 43-68 detector.
2.6 Summary 2.6..1 Impact Of Characterization Data On Decontamination And Decommissioning, Characterization data (both ICS and CCS) confirmed what was -known about the MY site in terms of the level and extent of radi..actfiyve contamination. A major portion (700 acres)( of the site met the classifi'Ati6n. Of n6n-impacted., Primary systems and structures were found to be contaminatedto expected levels. Non-RA systems and structures were found to be free of contamination except as previously: stated.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.2-64 Revision 6 January 2014 There were .minimal or no changes:in either-waste volumes or:waste activity values f6llowing the performance; of site characterization. The data compiled are sufficient to project schedules:and waste volumes, evaluate decontamination.,te ques, perform dose assessments and evaluate an y.safty or heti isises affecting.workem on site. The HSA and characterization measurement:resulis (ICS and CCS).areqsufficient to miee the objec'fiv-es listed in Section 2.1 and demonsttecomp. lance withtthe guidance containredlin:Regulatory:Guide 1A..179 and NURBG-1700. The more than 19,000 measurements provide sufficient data to determine the radiological status of the siteanid facilityas Well as identify the.oc'ation'aid.extent 6f contamifation outside the RA. The radionuclide anialyses pe.rformd .weresufflcient to estimtate: the-source.,term, and isotopic mixture (based on the achieved .standard-deviation: of the data). 'The analysis results also provide sufficienit informatfion to supporý dismantlement, radioactive waste disposal, decominissioninig cost estimates and
.remediationdecsion making processes.: The source termn-information was.also suitable for-fiiigui"iietselection. Theradiolog"cal dita weie ac table toqdevelop the necessary quality assurance methods for sample collec1tio.n.: and analysis :The0 Idata..Obtained during% characterization (ICS and CCS) support dose assessmentvand FSS design.
2.37 References 2:7.1 NUREG- 1575, Multi-Agenc-y Rdi.tidn' Sirvey hind Site Investigation Manual, (MARSSIM), Revisioni I (Juie 2001)1 227.,210 CFR5-0.75, Reporting and Rcordkeping for Deco6missioning Planning. 12.7.3: Cotnig Charterization-(CCS) Plan(PMP,6.8). 2.7.4 CCS: Quality Control (PMP 6.8.4). 2.7.5 Corrective Action Program 2.7.6 Doacument Control Program. (0-17-1). 2.7.7 Radiation Protection Performance Assessment Progam (PMP 6.0.8). 2.7.8 Selection, Training and Qualification of Radiation Protection Personnel, (PMPT6.9).
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-65 Revision 6* January 2014 2.7.9 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co..(MY),.RCRA Quality:AssuranceProject PlanforMaine iYankee-,Decommissioning.Project;Revision 1. (June 28, 2001) 27-, 10. NUREG-1507, Minimum-Detectable .Concentrations .withTypical Radiatidn u.rv.ey.Instruments fo~r Various. Contamirants andEield Conditions.(June. 1998) 2.7: NU REG-:1700, Standard Review"Plan,.for EvaluatingNuclear Power Reactor Li.ense Termimnation Plans.:(April 2000,) 2,7..112- Regulat~o*. Guide,1. 179, Standard Format,:and Content~of License Terination Plans -forNuclear Reactors.. (Janupary1 999)
,2..,7..1-.3 'NUREG/CR-347 4, Long-Lived:.Activation 'Products-in Reactor Materials.
.2.7.14 GTS.Duratek.,"'Characterization Survey Report for the Maine Yankee AtomiPo..wer Plant,. Volumes: 1-I9 199.8 :(ICS) 2.7.15 Dr. Chabot 1ettertoP'. Dostie, dated NoVember 12, 1998,.discussing determination of MDC 2.7.16 IMaine.Yankee -letter to the NRC, .MN-02-002,:datedJanliry 1.6, 2002, transmitting.special report from the Technical Issue Resolution Process, enti*led ".Tansuranic.and Other..eHard to Detect-Radionuclides in Maine Ya e.e-s .. ple.M ..di'. '
2.7.:17 NRC GUtter Jtg.Maine Yankee,.dated July 30j.2002,. Issuance of Amendment No. 167,.license amendment approving partial-release of site lands. 2.7.18 .Maine.Yan..ee EngineeringCalculation, EC-041,?,l. (MY), Revision 0 2,7.719 Maihe Yankee letter to the NRC; MN-02-10.0, dated February 20, 2002, "Maine. Yankee:Response to NRC RAI #16 (dated December 18, 2001) AddressingiSite Hydriogeoj.gy," (included submittal .o..fSt!ratex, LLC,-report, Site Hydroge6logy Description,Maine Yankee,. Wisc*aSet,.Mainie, February 2002). 2.7.20 Maine Yankee, letter, to.the NRC; MNW-02-03,. dat*d August 28, 2002, Maine Yankee Addendum Report Regarding Site Hydrogeology,"
*(including Stratex, LLC, report Site: Hydrogeology Addendum,. Maine
.Yjan'k6ee Wiiscasset, Maine, August -2002-)-. - - -
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 2-66 Revision 6 January-2014
.. . .. . ... .,.. ° . ... ... . . . . . .. .... .. . . . . .. ... .. . . .. . .
2.7.21 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02.011 , dated March13, 2002, "Response to NRC Request(s) for Additional Information for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station LTP" 2.7.22 .MYAPC-HistoricalSiteAssessment (HSA), transmitted byMN-O1-038 dated October 1; 2001 2.1723 Maine.Yankee lefter to the NRCMN-02-015, dated April 11,, 2002, "Revised .. Ma6ine Yankee;Response
.- . . , .,., .:* , . . . : , p . .n :....
to NRC RAI
#5 (dated December 18, 2001) - Supplementary Historical Site Assessment (HSA) Data" 2.7.24: M.ne Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-045, dated October 3, 2002, "Minor.Changes to Maine Yafikee-Responses to NRC Request for Additional information" 2.7.25 Mainie Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC-006-01 (MY), Revision 2 2.7.26 MWine Yan*k lette.rto the NRC,.MN-02-063, dated December 12, 2002, "Update on Forebay Dike,Coring Results and Associated Changes to LTP At.tach.men 2 (LTP. Revision.3 Addenda)"
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revison 6 Page I of 11 January. 20.14 ATTACH.ENT 2A Non-Imnpacted Area Assessment
MYAPC License Termination Plan :Attchment 2A RevisiOn 6 Page 2 of 11 January 2014 ASSESSMENT OF THE MY SITE WEST AND NORTH OF BAILEY POINT FOR CLASSIFICATION AS NON-IMPACTED
!A1 Indroduction Based'on both the Historical Site Assesgmenit.aiid'thie c'haractrizatio"n su'rveys perifomed, a large portion '[
of the site located to the. West of Bailey Cove-and-North. of the-FerryRoad was determined to be non-impacted in the partial site release applications (Maine Yankee Letters dated August, 16, 2001 (MIN 034) and November 19, 2001 (MIN-0 1-044). EairyR.eleae of.Backlands (Combined) Proposed Change 211,.Supplements,.1 and 2.respecively). The RC. granted.the..questepdlicense-amendment in its.letter to Maine Yankee, dated July 30, 2002. Attachment-2A-isImaintaiined for historical purposes. One aspect of the FSS Plain. is the proper classifidation of areas within the site. Areas must be. classified as either: Impacted, Class.,Class 2, or Clai:ss*3;orNon-impacted. Non-impacted areas are defined. in NLREG- 1575 (MARS SIM"as. aeas that "have no-reasonablepgotential for. residual contamiiation, no radiologicOal impact 4frm site operations and are typically.identified during the Historical Site Assessment." The., .,Hist6rical Site.Assessment.(HSA) did not classify any. areas:within ,the site but: it did'.provvl*-ata which coul be used in conjunc.tion with other inforrMation to..classifyareas. The HSA wis .ott4.wil.-not be.solely relied upon to make any.. classification, remediation or survey ,decision. Thesource term was..well,understood through previous Part..61 analysis. The potentialpathways forthis. source te.rm to:potential~y affect any offsite areas are well understood,.described.i th*e*Off Site:Dose Calculation Manual and m .onitored!on a routine:.basis. 2A.2 Area Description Approximately 641 acres of the MY site .aefound to the West of Bailey Cove, North of the access road (FerRoad) and bounded by Back.River to the; east. The land is generally located beyond the20.00 f0ot exclusion-zone.established ýunder 1the requirements of 1.0CFR. 100. As such, the, area.has: een..bopen and accessible *o the-geIna p..u.blicandisbounded by residential land owners. The referenced area consists of open.fields, woodland and some shoreline property which,has been uninhabited and unifarmed since plant construction started in 1968. The-geology and hydro0gy of the area has been described in detailtin the. MY FSAR and.is:physically:similar to thep.operat:ng ga*Qf the"stite :itself_ cxp~tfflertb*ebg'iftte.or no surface: soiJ disturbance. (except for the ash pit and the ash pit acs frod). S ct*s in the-area generally predate the construction ofthe plant. The. me.teorology of the area-has been charactefizle in. detail in terms of annual precipitation, prevailing winds and stability class. Average. annual precipitation exceeds the US average. Prevailing.winds are from the South but a:sea bree-ze blows.East to West.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Atta.ehment.2A Revision .6 Page3.ofl I January 2014 2A.3 Historical Site -Assessment The land areas unideir cOn"sideration are appr oximately 0.2d5mil or"fiir&from theeRe.tor Building and process buildings. No radioactive materialwas..used.or stored beyond the peninsula of Bailey Point. License restrictions and administratiye: contro.s have been in place since-powe r Operations began in-.1,972. to prevent unauthorized removal of radioactive material from the owner controlled area. Planned offsite releases of radioacti.ve.material-wer.e:.limited tothe permitted effluent releases; (which; werekept ALARA by process .contro1L) and xadioactive solid waste Which Was shipped to licensed burial sites. Th&HSA, a'S.siippIe nted, documeiited aplproxjirately, 1:40 actual or potential events :involving: aiplahinned. releases of radioactive material or hazardous material during the .25: year :operating historyof*ie plant.... Ofthese events, about. two thirds, involved or potentially involved radioactive material.' Basd on a review of the documentation assembled inlthe HSA, none ofthese evehts Would haVe resulted in residual contamination of the area under consideration. Therefore., there is. no reasonable-potenfiFl for residual conta'miination in thfe ara. 2A.4 RadiologicaI Environmental Monitoring Prog~ram A Radiological Environmertal Monitoring Ptogramn (REM.P) was inastituted prior to-o-perat.ion Of the plantand continues to'the presenttime. Enviionmental measurements taken have-inclded thousands of gadmma dose ri*t'es, hluntdreds of air and Water"sam'ple's, and"hun'ldreds:6ffood-stuff and surface vegetation samples. The keyindicators-ofradidlogical: impaet in the areawof concern' are TLD measurements, air samples, water samples, vegetation sam...ples, food. crop samples:and sediment samples. TLD measurements have shown no difference in dose rates between the area under discussion and th'-control areas fuirther from the site. Bailey Farmh Well, wýtef'had slight]y lower titium levels on.average thanmthe water supplies-in the Wiscasset arta:. Precipitationltritium levels at local:sampling stations (Eh.o nand, Bailey Farms)-were * *nil'.to:ihe.coinir.(l station levels. Fruits a.fidvegetables samrpled at: the Bailey ,Farm shweod, thepres*e*ef f o'ly K-404and fallout-t. produced Cs-1:37. Grasses sampled at the Eaton and Bailey Farms-shiowed only natural.K,40A and fallout-produced nucli~des d.urng periods of atmospheric testinag. inifial soil samples had Cs-137 at lev"els 6onsistenit With published Value*s for' fallout activity. Samples taen dung the intervening period had Cs- 137 1*els con'sistent: with that wIdthl1should have resulted from th1 decay o*the. initfal '19-70 sample act'.ivity. !No radionudlides,'of plantorigin were detectedin tfiese areas.: 2A.5 Special Surveys And Reports The. HSA and other sources document:samples (ormeasurements)of radiation and radioactive. materials- taken in the area' in question. Pressurized-ion-chamber readings, TLD -measurements; -soil samples and even a "fly over" *dosefate surey have. docum'ented radiation levels, in the. area
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revision 6 Page 4 of Il January 2014 similar to, or slightly less than, those measured in-pre--operational surveys. The-slight decline in levels is likily due to decreesed levels of fallout-produced C6-4 37 (Aerial -Radiation MeasurementStudy, 1974 and;U.iversity of Mafin, 1974 and 1997'). Some :anomalous Cs data for Knight Cemetery, EdtoniFrfi aand Fokbird. Island can be understod 'in light of nornial spaci*a Variability in activity related. to diffirepnesin loations1ad the relatively
-samplinig uridisturbed nature on. som.e .ofthesel'bcatiofios. Table 2A-7., "Alternate Table of Cs-13'7 Activity," sh6W very donigigteift re-sults aid the-impact-of decay when:'1:970 .anid"1997 data-are,
.presented. It is not surprising that some.of the Cs data increased withtime up to .1974 since atomic weapon atmospheric testing was still being conducted up.to 1974. Based 6n NUREG- i575* guidance,' classifleation of-an .a *aS ""t"impaeted" can be made solely on the ihstorical Shte Assessmeiint .. Rathriefidth rely s6ley '6n the HSA the*.areain question was subj.cted to sitW charadtefi'ztion urveys. Urtiig .1997 and 1998,;..GTS performed site characterization measurements in ,the area whiich in6luded gamma dose rates determined by pressurized ion chamber and miero R*rmnter,s.:i' samples and."drive-around" surveys using a veh6icle-mounted 1.5"x 3" -33 ,scint.Iat*iondetector: The .haracterization surveys ,(PC and -"dfiVearound"), fifrthe. area.produced one area wilth :ai .elevatd ddiati*.n "level. Upon investigation, the-elevated.re.adini*.. *s.'f6 Iifidtobe dueto local incfeasei.in naturally occurring. radiation'. A'ifidiy 130soil: saplesaken thoughoutthearea: howed only background levels of radioactive material inmquantifiesslightly less than thdse reported in the 1972 pre-operational studies in this area which is :consistent with the decay of the falloutvproduced activity. 2A.6 Backlands :Report On Aut*"t 16,-2002, Mainie Vinike6i'submitted an-application'! foramendment to its license to release these backlandsfTrom the jur.jsd..ic*n.oftheliehense. This-applkation was supplemented-on November 19 2001. In the:s-piipihg'jstif-itio-attaced':t6 the application,.Maine Yankee reviewed the soil sample Cs-137 results.of-the Initial Characterizatin: Survey (ICS) to determine
- ted... indistingui*hable from background and if the'residal..t~adioactivity,,ifiany,-inthe'.:.backlandsis ti6 r 6 .f, . .i..i.m there~by Isupport the* "i.sifie~
Demonstrating indistinguishability from, background employs MARSSIM Scenario B; In Scenario B, the null hypothe'sis is t.ht the survey unit meets:the release criterion (indistinguishable from background). Under Scenario: B, the comparison of measurements in the reference.area-and survey unit ismae. §usng two nonparanietric statistical tests: the Wilcoxon Rank Sum (WRS) test and the Quat ile:test. The WRS and: Quantile bests are both used because Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated August 16, 2001, "Early Release of Backlands (Combined),. Proposed Change No. 2 1i,SuipeMbn.*i!No. 1, .MN- 1-034) 2 Maine Yankee Letter toUSNRC dated Novemnbr 19,"2001, Reles-e. of Backlands (Combined), aEarly Proposed Change No. 211, Supplement No.2, (MNl-0 1-044)
MYAPC, Lic. ense Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revisionw6 Page ,5..6f 1.1 Ja.n :ua,.ry: 2014
- e~achit' t,det*cts different. residual contamination patterns in the. survey units.. Because: two tests are.ised,,the. Type-I ;error.rate, a, .(nonrally set at 0 -05):is halved, and set: at 0.025 for the indijidualteqsts. UsIng the NUREG-1l505.:re onmended a of 0.025. all0ws for, the use of the
!o.*"'*t~ *s'in NUEG;I-505, for r an&k values -used in the Quantile~tdst, The WRS test o sidesig-ed.to determine whether or.not.a degree ofxresidual radioaptivity remains unif*rt Vdo*u.h.:suryey unit. The Quantile test is: designedl to detect a patchy contaminatio-oripattemr.
Tabld 2A-8 cofitains the soil saimpleCs-l 37 results for the background reference area. The background-referencee:area. consisted of area, surrounding. the MerrymeeOtng.Airfield located appriox-nantQly r"O.l Hiles ftm-Athe site and "wasreprese.ntatiye o&site chdraeristics. The, ska!- Wallis test was Use to6 con*f'ig rmh that there was no significant difference in the mean: background coneentr~tioins-ambngpotential..refetence areas. Table"2A,9 summarizes the rcsults of he soil saple.Cs-.l*7results.-for-the backlands.areas.and co 6mparest'tmtio the-results for.the background :reference area.. For e.ach. of :the backlands areas, the resuls o - WMf-fe S-test, ..where. applicable 3, and the Quantile test uccssf*ly, demonated thaftth6-'jesid.ul iadii.tiYijY,..if any, inthe areas:was indistinguishable from backgroun-d. 2A.7 :Conrlusioni Based on the:;evaluation.of the historical use of the area; :the lack of use or.storage.:o radioactive material in:the.area, the.Historical Site Assessment findings, the REMP: r'esuilts,"the ires§Ults df'the sitedchia ztioni Siweys,.s0and the demonstration .f indistinguishability. from background described. in the Backlandsi Report, the -area.to the West of Bailey Cove and.North of Ferry Road within thelan4..o.wed by..MY.. has been classified as .non-impacted. The*. arealends itself to :use asia backgrou.ndreference area for soil samples .4.may be usped as sueh during *th.FSSI. "Random sampling of soil -in order..to'establish backgropnd activities. may. be perfrine"d in this re*feience area, but no systematic sampling as required by MARSSiM-for impacted areas Will, be-p~etrformned.
. For area R-1500 Ash Rd. Rkubble Piles-,.t-e- ma'xi-m.umC-I37reacdingw-e l.6ithfii tevalue.kno~wn as the: ... per;ýB9undary of the Grey Region; therefore, the application of the WRs9 test' as not necessary to demonstrate indistinguishability from background,
MYAPCLicense Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revisi6n-6 Page 6 of II January 2014
. Table,2A-1 TI,RA.DIOLOGICAL.ENVIRON1MENT4*LDATA.
TL D DATA .(Mean Value in. *r.R/hr . .,, D4aa-Source. Inner Ring Outer Ring ! Co.trol Period; MY 11.8 12.0 11L9 1970-1972 n=9 "MY, 7.1 7.4 7.8 , 1990-1997 __ __ .... . ... n=28 ... (Jniv. ofMaine 8.2 8.6, 93 1971-19.96 ____ ___n-87.. ___ Table 2A-2 Pressurized.Ion ChamberData
-pgi D . :19 1 1 n-*..[:-o~fM
-B iie aiHel ~u e -.f -......... ;15 -... .... .". 8...'.
__n___. M aim Bai*ey ....... 9M5.8.8. 8r03 , . Univ*.f Maine EatonFarm 9.5 9.31 Univ.,ofMaine . Westpo . 1'1.4__ 91. *
'Univ. ofKMaine Knight-Cemeterv- 8.7 *niy.:of:Maine, Long Ledge-.: . 90 . . .. - .
OTS Merrymeeting I Airfield Range: 7-2-9;8
- 1n=300.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revision 6 Page 7.of 11 January 2014
... ..... TI4ile24' A-3 .
Sample 1970 : -197497. 4,J991 4 1-9TGT. LOcation MY. MY MY, M.Y. .C-haracterizati
. _____... ..... ... . _____on Bailey House 0-.64 .. .67 1'.8 0-41 0.21; n30 Bath 0.66
.. .. . . . . .. . -2 . ._..........
Dresde 0.58 ____ EatonyFarm 0.53 , 0:87 _ 2. .0!09 , 0.45; n=60 Edgecom b 0.48 ...__..__..*..:
.. . . - . . . . . . "' .... ..... ÷ .. ... '":' " *I - ...............
" : :" " = : i' FoXbird 0.35; . 0.48.
Knight i Cemetery
,~4.96
~~~~~~~ ::: -..-=:= I
,,I______
- . 2.42
!Long Ledge . 0.80."86. _A 038 Harrison's 0.52' Mason 0.68 -Station Montsweag 0.42 Dam Westport: 0.56 L: I North of 0.39; n=60 i Ferry Road ....
Merrymeeting 0.42; n=60 Airfield . ... = ". " ". " ",7: ..2. . . . . _:2 5 :: . " .l . . 2_ .. .. _ .':::_ ::: -,.: .:2F k:, .. .. - , ..... ...,, ..,
'Shoreline 0.20; n=30 Value 05 2. 5 0,0 .MeaV 0..32 . ......
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2A Revision 6 Page 8 of 11 January 2014 Table 2A-4 Surfacet& Well Water Data Sample;Location (M6hea H-3.pCi/L) 1977-984 Bailey Houe 235 MbntgWeag Dam 276
'Morse Well 187 Biscay Pond 297 Wiscasset Reservoir 278 Ta6le2A-5 SSamp'le Locationnj (Mea'n H-3 pCi/L) 1977-1982 Bifley '.House __.__....... ... _.41_6.
Eaton Farm 417 Wes'.or. 422 Dresden . 9.7
MYAPC License Termination Plan AttschmentIA Revision 6 Page 9 of 11 January 20i4 Table 2A-6 Air ParticulateData (Mean Gross Bet Activty, pCi/r, MY_Pir-Opertional:DRata. 1970j 0.12
- ,971 10. 12
..1972... Janx-Jun 1. ZoneI=0.06, ZoneIW=0.0*7 Univ. fMaine 1'981-1997 MY 1988d-998-lWiscasset -0.02* Montsweag 0.021
'Augusta ... 002* Bailey House . 0.020 Mason Station 01020
':Westport 0.02
.. .... . ... . . ........... D esden, : 0022
-* VaWSii~ simated by graph.p Indiidldaantail.1
References:
- - MY data were~taken from the REMP Reports for the time periods listed or the GTS Characterization Report.
University of Maine data were taken from "A Radiological Survey of the Area Surrounding the MY Nuclear: Plant?", March 1997.
MY.kPC License Termination Plan Aitachmefii2A Revision 6 *Page 0 of 11 January 2014 Table.2A-7 Alteriiate:Table-o.6f:Cs-137 Activity:
.. Soi
- C437p9/g) . .... '
Sam leL.tion
.... .. .97.MY 1997GTS Characterizati6o
. .. ........ ....... ~... .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . ... - . .
BaJ~~oA- 064 0121;' w3,0; Bath 0.6.6 Dresden 0.58t Eaton .5arm" 53 04; n.=-0
.. ... . 2. . "..I . *.... .. . : . . . ... * . ...- -- . '.....".."..
IEdgecomb 0.48 Ha1Trrison's 0.52 son-Station 0.68
....".-..2 -".'i:: ...
_Mo~nt~sweag,¢~. ......Dam:
. .. . . ..--. _ ...... 0.42:
. :......i_:= =*..::...:..-:..=:.. .
.. :.... - . -... *...-:=..:.............
We6stport 0.56 Nrth .ofFerry Road 0.39; h7-60. 'Shoreline 0.20, n30 ean.Value 0.56 0.%3'2.: Table..2A-8
'Refere.n~e Area.SoilSample .Cs-1,37 ResultsspCig .
[Reference Areas - Merrymeeting Airfield j Mean 1 Std.--Dev. Number-of
......_.(Ave.) sampl p ")
Combined . .. ...(wood,
... .. .... .. . .. open ......... &. scrub)
...... . ... . . .. 0.42 .. .".. 0.21
... : .. ' .-- . . .. '*50.i:;;......
Wo.od Land 0.47 .0.%24 LO: bOpen Land (Hay Field) 038 0.12 30 d.0.48 . .S.rn. . .La. . ..... .... 0.3 - A
~*-.10 J
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2A. Revision 6. Page 11 of Ii. January 2014
. ....... . ... : . " . . .. .. .. .: . ..... ... - . .: , . . ... .. .. . _ .. . .".. .. .... : : I - .L Table 2A-9 Soil Sample, Cs.137 Results Arfea Description . Minimum Cs-:1.37
-Medianw .Average Cs-.137 Cs-137.
Maximum Cs-137 I Number o I [,-'--.......... ... eerenceeaR2.2Q _ .. ___...... .. __.. pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g j y_ surem ents'
-- ,. 0:09- 0.38 042 A140 . 50
.urvey Unif _.506* Ash Rd. Rubble Piles .02 . 006 0.07 0.21 36.
t SUrvey Uhit R-1I600E.06i6FaTn 0:05 0.39 0445 1.43 60
'Survey Wit:Rl.700NRrth;of:O~d-E~ri.R 0.04 0.30 0.39 .- -. 1.55 60
- Disturbed open land area within RI-700 North of Fery Rd.
Attachment 2H MVAPC lcense Termination Plan Page 1 of 13 Revision 6 January 2014
-ATTACUMNT 2H Forebay and Diffuser Characteiation Dbicussion
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2H Revision 6 Page 2 of 13 January 2014 Forebay and Diffuser Characterization Discussion
- 1. Physical Description of the Forebay/ and Diffuser.
The principal forebay. structure:consists of the forebay, basin which is.approximately400, feet~in length -itha gra te, floor,..rock and soil walls..(or dikes), and concrete structures at both ends. The forebayisg aligned generally in a-north-sout direction siuch .that the concrete structures: are located .at the. north and south,ends-with the dikes forming the east and west sides. The.seal pit is: at the northern end.. and the diffuser intake structure is located at the southern end, During operations,plant cooling water: discharged into the seal pit and then flowed over a concrete seal .pit weir wall, into ihe forebay basin. With the. cooling water system permanently secured, the flow in,and out of the forebay is influenced primarily by tidal fluctuations. The forebay connects to the&Back River through.the diffuser piping. The intake to.the diffuser piping is at the southern end of the forebay. SeeFigure:2H-I. The forebay dikes:were designed and constructed to achieve structural stability and minimize leakage by the choice, dimensions, and placement .ofpervious, impervious,.and protective. materials, On the"iiterior sides of the=dikes ,(that is, onthe forebay side), the: exterior layer consists oftwofeet-(org*readtr) oflarge:protective "coarse rock" (rip-rap). Beneath the r'p-rapis about two feet of cobble stones'.. Underneath the:cobblestone layer is about two feet of gravel ("pervious fill"). Finly, beneath.the gravel layer is impervious fill material. The dike walls are inclined at a slope of appr ximately 1.75t.1 (that is,. 1.,75 feet horizontal run for ever 1 foot of vertical drop) which resultszin a slope angle of about 3,0 degrees from the horizontal plane. See Figure 2H;-2. The diffuser system .consists of large fiberglass pipes which connect the forebay basin to the diffuser discharge.: submerged in the Back River. At the forebay's southern end, the diffuser supply piping is rihe feet in diameter. Downstream sections continually decrease to a diameter .ofapproximately 5 feet with nozzles of 18 inches in diameter, spaced in the diffuser discharge piping. The diffuser at its discharge is submerged.at a depth of over 40 feet below MSL. The characterization.of the forebay.identified the following principal contaminated media::
. Floors of the forebay and seal pit. This includes other concrete surfaces, such as the seal pit weir wall. (This weir wall will be demolished down to 3' belowgiade,)
- Rip-rap,. c rit~minAtd on the rock surfaces.
- Marine sediment (primary organic material), deposited on floors of forebay basin and seal pit and around therip-rap.
This 2 foot thick layer is specified to be "6 inch minus," i.e., containing material no greater than 6" in diameter. In Figure 2H-2, this layer is referred to as "fine.rock cover."
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment.2H Revision 6 Page 3 of 13 January 2014 Dike "soil"',that is, any material interior to dike below the rip-rap covering, including 2 cobble, gravel, and other soil materials,, as well as sediment deposited around the cobble. Remediation. plans call for the removal of a majority of the accessible marine sediment in the forebay. Once the: sediment remediation is accomplished, the principal contamination source. term is expected'to be. the dike "soil" beneath the.rip-rap, based. on the assessment of activity levels in the various media. As noted above, the other-contaminated media that would remain are the rip-rap (with surface contamination).and: whatever sediment and other surface contamination thatmay remain on forebay/seal rock and concrete floors. See Section 6.6.9 for the discussion. of the dose assessment and corntribution of each of these remaining contaminated media. The characterization of the diffuser identified two principal contaminated media, namely:
- Marine sediment that has been re-deposited intemral to the diffuser piping by tidal :action (following the permanent shutdown of the plant's cooling :water system).
, Contaminated internal surfaces of the diffuiser fiberglass piping.
Seaweed is also considered in the diffuser dose assessmeht;.therefore, characterization infonnation-is 'discussed in-this attachment. See Section 6.6.9 for the dose assessment related to diffuser source terms.
- 2. Forebay (and Seal: Pit): Contaminated Media Characterization As part of the site's initial'characterization (by GTS-Duratek),, seVieal forebay samples were obtained and analyzed. Subsequent to. that sampling (late 2000), anadditionaI set of 15 sediment
'samples were.obtained by Maine Yankee (see -EC:004-01), composited, and analyzed forIHITDs, The LTP Rev. 1: nuelide fraction .for forebay sedimefit (Section 2.5.3.e) was established based on this. sampling and analysis: (decay corrected to 1/1/2004). No TRU's were detected in this 2000 composite .sample.3 This nuc-ide'fraction is presented inTable 2H-I below. In 2001, an expanded sampling program was developed and implemented to support further
- charaecterization:andremediationplanning. This effort involved:more extensive sampling of the forebay and principal. foiebay features to gain insight 'regarding spatial variations in activity, sediment deposition, and the activity depth profile interior to the forebay dikes. At the same time, remediation planning: was involved. in a number of studies and field. tests to determine the opftimum.remediation techniqiues. These studies and tests also in-cluded the .evalUation of material handling equipment required to address. the somewhat unique challenges of the: forebay, givenRthe marine environment,, variety of-material: sizes (friom rip-rap to glacial till), and relatively steep slopes;(of the forebay dikes).
2 An~additional, extensive dike coring program was completed in the third quarter of 2002 to better d.efine:remediation: require.ments of the dike soil beneath the rip-rap. See Section 2.4 of this attachment for additional detail.. 3 The composite forebay: sediment sample was analyzed for a. standard suite of TRU nuclides. See Attachment I of EC-041-01 for identification of specific nuclides.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2H Revision 6 Page 4 of 13 January 2014 Table 2H-1. Forebay Sediment Nuclide Fraction
.(Decay corrected to. *1/2004)- .
Nuclide Fraction: Co-60* 0.567 Cs-137*
. * * . .*.i'. * *'Y
"* ". .Li. = .. ..= .
0.030".
- *:. Y2.. *J,. . .._.* . . ..... !.v,,(,,L..... . .. ..... .. ....
Sb.125. 0.005 Fe-55 0.165 N630.233
. The resulting Co-60/Cs- 137fromthis data is 18.9.
The 2001 sampling program included the.following-principal tasks:
- Sampling of organic, sediment around .the rip-rap on both the east and west dikes;
- Sampling of-sediment material ac4c0 ulated on exposed rock suffacebs in the vicinity of the weir wall at the northern end. Of the forebay;
- Sampling of underwater sediment on ,forebay basin floorand on the bottom (floor).of the seal pit.
- Subsequent, depth profilesanmplinginto -thedike material or "soil."
In addition, as part of work directly related'to, remediation planning,.rip-rap surface samples were analyzed for material composition and activity concentration. The results of the characterization. efforts are summarized:below. See EC-041-01 for additional detail on sample locations, individual sample results, analysis of results, and use .in the dose assessment 2.1* Dike Spatial Activity Distribution Atotal of forty (40)s:s ent samples were taken to provide information of spatial variance of activity in the sediment deposited in the tidal zone ar.Undthe rip-rap on the forebay dike: interior surfaces. Twenity:(20) samples were obtained on eachdike, i.e., ten samples:along the high tide line and.tenw(10) sAmplesalong:the "ow tide.line. See Table 21-2.
MYAPC License Termin'ation Plan Attachrnent.2H Revision:6 Page 5 of 13ý January 2014 Table.21-2. Sediment AroundlRip-7Rapat Forebay High & Low Tide Lines
- -~~~~s - Co60(cig Cs17 (~
Samaple Location Max'. M*min Avg :Std Max Mil Avg Si (. Dev T, Dev High.Tide`-ine. 592.-6 1.8 1:.9 2.'8 6.5. 0.2.:1 1.2 1.4 (East.& West Combined4) Low Tide. Line. 62.7 4.5 21.5 ".-5;2: 1.9 0.3 1.0 0.5 (East.& West Conib ib d __,__,.
'High.& Low.Tideline 92.6 '18 19.7 18. 6.5 0.2.1 1.1 1.0 Combined As shown in Table 2H-2, the sediments samples collected at the low tide line reported a higher Co.-6.0.average; than: thos~e collected.at-,the..high tide. line. .(The.Cs-I 3.7 values for%
both high and low tide were relativelylow by comparison.) Tlie two-tidal area: sediment samples with'the highest reported Co-60'activity were 63.6 and'92.6 pCi/g, c6l!ected on the"inortherrh.pcfrtion of the west dike at high~tide.. See Figure. 2H-l.. Bedausj ofthd -highcohbjdntrations,.;these particular locations were.chosen for additional :sampling to exploro'the activityl profile interior to the dikes. The results. from this effort .ar :d6scibed'beloweoin Se6tion 2.4"(6f this attachment). While*these levels-in'the tidalwarea sediment. are high'relative to remediation levels (i.e., the DCOL rop*sed in!-Sec*ion..6,dbse modeling), the profile saipling c6'nfirmed at these locations th*-ata lar poiton of-the contamination is near the dike soil surface, that is, the materialirmmedfately beneath thfe'rip;-rap *overing. -Later, more extensive: sampling.of the dike soil beineath:the rip-rap demonstfited thatthe contaminated mae'riil has not pe.ne.ated beneath the rip-rapnto any signifcant extent. (See Section 2.4 for additional di{eassi6nf.')* -Sincethe beintaminated s8edi'menti: s generallyaacessible%, lobse, and cocen*terate'd eartlie suffaice, frieasures i'uder' consider ation for sediment iemediation aroundtlhe-rip.-rap*,ad on the: baSih/seal .pit fkoors are expected to be quiteeffective. Dose modeling addresses each of the contaminated media (described in Section 1 of this attaehment.).includigg.,separate"-treatment of contaminated floors and the.Interior dike soil. See Section 6.6.9. 2.2 X'Rgarstd i Mit~ri7 (i -%in of weir wa U) Nin6e(9) s;AIples .wer colleetedd "fr6iii .riiaerial (sedimient, soil, and other material) available on-the exposed rock, i.e., having no rip-rap layer, at the northern end of the forebay/seal pit structure in the area of the seal pit weir. Most of these samples were
M YAPC. License Termination Plan Attachment.2H Revision 6: Page 6,of.13' January 2014 obtained on the west side to provide appropriate coverage of the area in the path of the emergency spil way.4
- his set of-exposed- sediment smpiles exhibited the.,highest-activit-concentrations of all samples.obtained inthis-paricu!arsampling campign' of Spri.ng.,2001. See Table.2H-3 a stummaniayof these re-rsuI*fs.
iTabe 2H-3. Sample.Results:: Sedimentfrlom Exposed Rock Surfaces anid Underwater Sediment
.-Co-;60(pig CS-137 (~l)_
Sample Location' Max: Min Avg Std Max Min:. Avg Std
- Expsed gdi4a it 744. -02 659 i83 ?3& 03 33 1.
-Material Underwater Sediment. 62.7 5.5 . 16.4 7.0 .2 1.9 2A.
(Forebay.and. Seal Pit): _ _ _._
- a. The averageactivities oft*he expodsed.Sediment materialnsamples were 065.9 pCi/g Co-.60 -and 3.3 :pCi/g Cs- 37..The'maximumnactivit, reported 445 pCd/g.Co,60 and 23.8.pCi/gCs-l, :was associated. with a sample:clleeted on the western side, nea r thet-weir.. :See Figure for approximate lodation. The second highest f21--1 sample;.collected from an area immediately~adjacent. to the,.above,.sample.(on the exposed roek1),.rep rted"3,pCi/g"Co60 U arid 3..3 pCi/g<sQ37.
- b. Not.only, did .these.samples:report.the-maximum activity for arny location, sampled in this ýcampaign, but also they were particularly high ite.ative to the other exposed sediment. samples.; For samnplethe :Co-60 concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 10.7 pCi/g.and Cs- 137 from 0,-3 tp..0.5..pCig for the .ther seve(7)exposed sediment samples.
- c. The aver-age exposed sediment sample~activiii'es e.sexcluding the two highest samples) were 2.64 pci/g Co-60 and 0.4 p~i/g -s-.137; The-averagemativ ties for all nine (9) exposed sediment samples were 65.9,pCi/g and 3.3 pCi/g Cs- 137. The average Co/Cs ratio. was 19..8 (using the.:datas from all nine samples).
- d. The;two highest exposed sediment samples ..w.re-se-nt to an. O.utide,-laboratory for From 1972 until late 1974, cooolintg..watei discharge. passed over thie weir and directly into Bailey Cove.
During tht time .period,.the flo wi'path.incdi60ed-iporti.bns pf'exposed&rock now part of the western .dike (at the northern end).. Construction.of the west dike and difftusetsstem was completed in 1975. The wester eposed rock the*n hdcaifi partidfan dmerige'ncy s*ilw' to, in.the. event the diffuser system, was not operating properly.d
MYAPC *License Termination Plan Attachment 2H Revision 6 Page 7 of 13 January 2014 HTD analyses. The nuclide fraction results-from these HTD andlyses Were comparable to -the 2000 Composite sediment HTD results with:the exception that the exposed sediment sample analysi: identified the presenbe of TRU nuilides in very low concentrati'ons.. The MDC v*lues of the 2000.0 coqmposite sedient
- anple :analyses' Would have been low enough -to detect-the tiRnudides! hadethey been present at the levels found in the later exposed sediment.
.... les!apThe 6oiginal and later HTD data sets we-e compared and eyalated. The ,TIRU nuclides, reported in the exposed sediment samples, were:determined to: represent less4han 1% %of the total dose associated with forebay medii ia.d 'ei,e, thirefore, eliminiated from the n.uclide fradtion. ýOveil, *itwas determind 'that the briginal nu-dlide.fraction for sediment (reported in LTP Rev;.,')Lwascotservative due to the its higher proportion. of doseLsignificant, gamma emitters (ie., Co-60,'Csl37, and Sb-I25). The original 'nuiclide fracti'on was, thereore, used i the dose assessment.
e.. Iastly, as mentioneed.above, the exposed rock area by its nature, contain's only a small.amount of material. Whiletwo :of the' exposedsediment samples reported: very high activity, it is expected that remediioio measiuirs ;inthi*area Wllbe qtiitý effective because the total volume of material on thaesek exoeok surfaces is' relativelysmall and because .the:contanination is.foose*and accessible. 2.-3 Underwater Forebay (and Seal Pit)Sediiment Thirteen (13) sediment samiles were:taken from underwateraieias in thý f6iebay and seal pi. Activity levels for underwater :sediment were comparable'to that of sediment deposited ,on the dik-es around'the rip--rap,'.presented in-T-able 2-H-ý2*,abov~e..'-T~he overall. average activties (combining.forebay and seal pit samples) are9.0 p*i/gCo-60 and 1.9 p Cs- U 7.
"ilg blM-3 u"mma.i.zes the.reults.. 'frithis"sampl"g. "- n:c 'th.is, sedimentis accessible (by diving operation)'and:ean ýbe vacuuned by any-number'of proven.echfiques,-irmediiafion measures for this ar. 6ekted to be aontamimnted'amd ex quiteO eff csi' re m otarin 2.4 Dike,'Soil" Activij -Profile Asdiscussed in- Section 2.1 above,. depth: profile samples .weretaken dt Atwo locations
.*i..bit~g,the highest activity levels in the rip-rap tidal zne., ssaiijg was undertaken to gain .fiurther insigh.t regarding the pene*rion o iactiiiitd tedike:
interior (and toksupport remediation planniig). See Fi gure,.2H4 for eiie. surface (starting) lcation for-these profile samples. See Attachment I of EC-041-01 forthe listing of MDC values obtained in the subjeet sediment analyses by Duke Engineering and Services Laboratory, i.e., the "2000 composite"'forebay sediment sample and the more recent, higher activity exposed sediment samples (Sample numbers: H059 and H060).
MVAPC License. Termination. Plan Attachment 2H Revision
. .6 Page 8 of 13.
January 2014 The deppt profilesamples were taken in-6" intervalsidown to.a depth of 24." The.dike soil material foreach.6". interval was composited. Bothseries demonstrated a generally decreasing.activityNconcenttration -with depth. S$e.eTable. 2H-4, which provides. he average Co-60 and Cs-15371 activities values (averagg-ofthe ltwo pfile samples atva given profile location).- Ov.erall, thisiital data d ~at,he:majorityof _the contamination was conceirted near the s'urace6ofthe dike soil. This inifial information on potential dike soil activity, while.lmted, was used in the forebay dose assessment; It was recogm.zed that, additional sampli.ig of the.dike soil was appyqopiAe for remediation planning and :to corffirm activity level assumptions used in the dose assessment.. This .sampling effort involved the,use.of-coringinto'the~area beneath theorip-rap (parallel to. te qslpe) by:way. of inc.li, ed d.ling from the top of the~dike, asOwefll a several vertical. corings: near the centerline ofeach, dike. This-dike coring canipaigif"Was completed:.in the tidrdqua.rter of 2002. The.dike. soil samples taken from both vertical and inclined corings revealed-verylow levels of contamination, much lower than. that as~sumed-inwthe:forebay dose assessment. The sampling .pro am was quite extensive and iinvo1ved a.total of 19 corings (total vertical and.inclined), including corings at the. approximate locationsat which-the pre.vius two-prof!ejsaples, (preented" Ta'm ble 2H) werqetak.-;Te 19 corings wre made down to the bedrock layer beneath the dikes and Variedin depthfrom approximately 12 to 80.feet. Samples were taken, bycompoisiting material from approximately eachmeter of depth. This samplingdensiyresulted in over 270 individuil samples, with approximaely 210 co.mig fraom the inclined co.rigs. The..samples were analyzeAd by gamma-specotrQo.pyqnsite (i.e., usIng.:a.'IGe-de.tector). Most of the 270 dike §amisples from the later catpa'gn We.req a*n zed to be less than the MDA. The averages of all.positively-,detected Co,-60, (six positives) and Cs-137 (38 positives) were 0.07I pCiVg and A0.082 pCi/g, :resp.ctivYe!y., Tjese .els: are muhlower than the val'ues us'ed it: the.forebay doseasssmnt for die.soil (Se.t9o,6.9), as well as thedsurface soil.DCGLs for Co-60 and Cs-137. These. dike characterization results show that contanminated material has not, in general, penetrated to any significant extent into the dike m6terial beneath the rip-rap. As no~ted .above, the rebay dose assessment was based on the limited results from the two profile samplest (sh6own in Table 214-4). This later dike coa ing c*m"gn~is cnsideredto be anopre complete and repreentaiVe characterization ofdike sil pont.minatip., .owevei, sip.e the ,a.ues pesteid,inTable 2H-4 based areeconservatively higherr-the dose-assessment* (for dike;soil): will continueto be. on Table.,2.-4 ýand.rýeques rhange. no A.ddi onaldiscussion on the-dikeý,_oig. results is provided in Maine Yankee's letter to the NRC,, daqtedDecepmber 12- 2002 (Reference 2.7.26).
MYAPCGLicense Termination Plan Attachment 2H Revi-sAin 6" Page 9of 13 January 2014
' able 2H-4. De'.p.th Profle Resul. .Sample.
'(Average actiivity values for samples collected at the listing location) .
Co60. Cs-137 Co/Cs' "Location - - iig pCi.g Ratio
- ".S~uace":-di-eni 7 ': ":.... 78.:2 4.46 1:l7.0O 12" (C ... 367 `0.. 11.0
!8"!'-(CGomposite) . 2.6 0.3 8.2.
..24"(Compose) .8 0.2 1-2:0 2-..5 .Rip-Rap Rock, Surface Aetivýty A.s, part of cither remeediation.plahnifig activities (mentioned above), material saiaples
'were-obtained -fiom..rip-rap rock surfaces. The contamination was ;noted'to adhere :to the rip.-r.ap rock surfaice mu.ch like that on.*difseripiping surface, .i'e., by being incorporated in-t anii6rganic fil". The. surface!matgfial adhering to the rip-raP (in areas exposed t6 id- ac;tion): exhibited the same gefneral appeancee as that found on :the pipihg-coupo'ns retrie.ve.for.analysis from.the diffuser piping., The. surface actiVity concentrations- (on r 'ijp,.tpand diffuse pi6piig) e also ls.*!opa.able, Fo thege reasons, the ri-rap s'u"rface datarand the infurmation from thle'diffUse't pip-ing surfaces were used to establish-the average rip-rap rock surface activities of 0. 1 pCi/g Co.60 and 0.1 pCi/g: Cs- 137. Table
- 2Hý5'lists'the rip-irap surface activ.it..s :and, 6ffer's.comparison to other media contamination -levels.
2.6 Fo.rebay/Seal Pit Floors. and. otheri.'Forebay Concirete:S urfaces, No contamination' dataoKiisT.available for-the forebay/seal pit.floors (or-other-forebay cocr**ete: surfaces). 'The.lgpst stirfaee.. is revpresented by the forebiy basin floor which,,consists of a gr~aiite ledge with atrelafiVely low permeability and rock:fill. Remediatjon.methodsQ.expected for thesesurfaces'are expected to be highly-effective. Contamination levels for these surfa-ees were confi rmed'aspartofthe'iemiediatidn 6 D.ptl.:pr`ti1e.samp.es.w -eoeted.at.the I~eation ;ofihe`highest.reported activities for sediment c'ol1'eoted beneath'.theriip-rap in the .tidal zoi-e..i.e;., "sutfbaoe" setdinimeit. 'See.Sectidii:2. 1:in this attach mnent. 7 ".Surface'-sediment activities, presented here for comparison, are the averages of the two sediment samples,.co0lected immediatefy beneath- the fip-rapiwhich reported, thebhigiest activity. 8 The'e a'ctivities'represerit an average of the: two,samples taken at the listed interval, for example, dike soil collected and composited from the 0." to 6'-interval.
M Y.APIC License Termination Plan Attachment,2H Revision 6 Page 10 of 13. January2014 process. From a dose assessment standpoint,' a conservative.surface contamination level (DCGL) was establisshed to-bound: any contamination that may remain on the forebay/seal pit floor surfaces. SeO LTP Section 6.6.9. Table 21-5.- Summary.MediaLActivfty Data .for the :Forebay/Seal Pit
... . d(for the Princi.pal Nuclides) to-60 ";Qs-137 Comment pCi/g pvilg ! __ .__....__..
Forebay floor (and limited
*
- Expected to-be largely remediated with remediation oI mrimne..sediment.- Conservative surface I
concrete t con*aiiiiftin level assumed in dose assessment. surfaces) Rip-rap rock 0.1 0. .1 Based on:bo.th diffuser and rip-rap rock surface surface Ils-amhleles. (Co-60/Cslf.!3" ratio: Approx. 1.0) Marine 19.7: 1*1 Mariie sediment! is expected tobe largely sediment near eremediated -in,the.initial: stage:of forebay/seall pit rip-rap 9 , iremediation. (Co-60/Cs-137 ratio: Approx. 18.0) Dike "soil" 0).071 0082 9 Material beneath r-prap,(Co-6.0Cs-137 ratio: material"0 - - - 'Apx.O.9.
- The Forebay Was remediatedd-toappr.opridate levels,-aniFSS completed, and the area released from the 10 CFR 50 Licenseý.
- 3. Diffuser, Contaminated Media Characterization As noted above, the principal difflser coitaminat.d media:included:.,(.1)marine sediment likely redeposited back into the diffuser discharge ipping (follo-wing the permanent shutdown of the plant circulating water system) and (2) the diffuser piping internal surfaces. From a dose standpoint, the-principal dose conritibutoris the marine seiddimentl entrained.-in.1thediffuser; The plant derived activity in. this sedimient-originated in the 'plant's licensed liiquid:effluent releases (via theforebay). Then, with.the se.cuing o fplantoperations and the.ooling .watersystem, the tidal action transported benthic. silt back intop the!dj.fser system. '.Plant derived:activity concentrations reported&for.marine sediment~now inside the diffuser-piping -are higher thanthat 9 Average of sediment samprles collected beneath rip-ip. .eeTable 2!-,2.
10 Sample data from the 2002 forebay dike~cporing.campaign. Valdes shown are averages from the samples that resulted in a positive detection; See Section 2.4.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2H Revision 6 Page 11 of 13 January 2014 measured in sediment outside the piping." The bigher sediment activity inside the piping is believed to be due' to activity absorbed or incorporated into: the sediment inside the piping from theliquid effluent discharges since the!end ofhi'.ft'opet.tio:nfs. Although the dose co sequences f 'the' licenisjed liquid efienit rWe!*s:s hichi rue.U*t.in the akct'ivt in the diffiser have. already been accounted fotrand: reportedint toutinVeeffluent releasetreports: adose,assessment of the activity conservatively assumed to remain in the :di'ff-ser; is discusseidin Sectibn 6.6.9. As a matter of completeness:in this discussion,. seaweed. characterization:data is-alsoincluded here since it is considered as a potential confti atedi media in the dose pathway analysis. See the discu'ssion belo'W.
- 3. 1: .Dffiser: Ma ne neIiistde.iffuserP.:ipg During divin-g operationsz afd ihspeitions ofAdiff-user dischargepiping, sediment samples were 0btiined and' afilyzed býy gamma sp66oseop"y*. This analysis provided the f01 loWing aVerage aEvtivities areincluded.*Table .2H-6.
Table 2H-6. Diffuser Related.-Chararterization Summary' 2
.c..6. Cs-137 Comment qpilg pP. _'.l__g Sediihmet inside 1.1 0.15 AVre' ac.tivity. These sediment samples di.ffuserdischarge were.1also.analyzed for HTDs. No, HTD piping u.lfides -were detected. See EC 041-01.
*Diffuser insid 011 V. 0 , ige difftser piingcbup56on actiity.
K piping sutrface .Co0/Cs' .. 137 ratio: Approx. 1.0) Seaweed, 76..8 5-.63 j .'.eraged activity from. forebay sampies (as
.aon.servatiyemeasure). $ee discussion in, tet.).(Co0.-'60/Cs-137'raftio: 13.6) 3.2 DiffuserSurfaces8 Dtrifing the* above meiitonetd diving inspections:of-diffuser piping, coupons 0f the fiberg ass Wereb0 *dan aanal-y-ed-fo-siisrfae-contamindti6n. The nuclides:
detected were. Co-60 and Cs- 137 at nearly eqUil activity.. Th*eaciivity lev-els detected Per LTP Table 2.B5, Pacdkag:R2000, samplestah neir the diffuser reported a maximum Co-60 activity of 0.12 pCi/g. 12 See Attachment 3 of EC-041-01 for additional detail :regarding diffuser characterization sampling, such as number of samples and individual results.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 2H. Revisli 6.. . Page1i2 'or3. January'2014 were- v.ery near the. MDA of 0.1 pCilg for .each nuclide and appeared to.be present on the surface as a tightly adhered,.thin film: of organic material. The physical appearance of thiýs ýmaterial: on-the piping surface was.similar to that noted on th e .ogntaminated .ip-rrap surfaces. The. activity levels of-the diffuser piping surface was also..comparable to that on gig." j.r.qrp, s!uggesting simil' 'hysical mechanisms,.for adherifhgfadfini*corporation of contamfiation at work.
.3.3 'Seaweed Activity., Relevant to--the Diffuser-Dose. Assessment.
Seaweed is present in the forebay and shoreline areas around Bailey Point. Dose contributions via contaminated seaweed were :considered'in the diffi)iser dose model as a matter of completeness, even though the .dose-contribution-was expeeted (and confirmed) to be low. Seaweed samples:jtaken from :shoreline locations have shown-sporadic and low activity ,1e6vels of radionuclide uptake. Seaweed samples taken fromithe forebay were used in the dose assessment as a conservative. measure of any seaweed related dose."3 See Section 6.6.9 for seaweed use,,pathway.assumptions,. and dose. results.. The;seaweed activity valbes presented in Table 2H-6 are associated with forebaysarnples but were applied -tothediffuser dose-assessment. .4. NMiide Fircfioh for ForebayjDiffuser .Material In summary, characterization samples were obtained and analyzed from. contaminated media associated With the forebay/seal .pit s-tructudes, including sediment underwater and around the rip-rap, mat.rial ph exposed rckl' (neai the weir), dike "soil" beneath the rip-rap,a.n.d rip-rap surfaces.. Addifional samples, were taken and analyzed from sediment inside the diffuserpiping,
*as wellaq n bi§.iiqldeo'ited ondiff risjiig internal surfaces. HTD analyses were performed on 3colletio"ns o6f~sediment samplitig sets:;-an :earlier .(MY) composite of 15:samples, two -high activity .samples:from.the. exposed sediment -material, and sediment collected from-inside the diffuser piping. An examination of these results concluded that the original'HTD sample set, used -to estabilshtite LuPRev. I nuclide fraction are appropriate and conservative -nuclide fractions.,; The.sample analyses-also consistently confirmed that.Co-60 and Cs-137 were the.
piinciPal nudlideszbf interest. As: noted inmTable 2H-7, the Co/Cs ratios for the Various contaminated mhedia; are icomparable,-;sparining the range of 10.1 to 19.8. The-Co/C.:ratios: were, .in general, found to be lower- for lower actiVity samples,, as wouldbe expected. This. was seen in the assessment of contamination on rip-rap and. diffuser piping surfaces, as wel as deeper dike-soiI .samples, However, the use of a nucdide fraction with a much. igJ., iC/Coas. atio.,suh tht-f Tab*e 2H-!-1, i§ corservative f*ori a;d.se stafidpoint. See EC 0.41,-b. for 0..ditional.ldiscussi on. 13 . Seaweed and, other vegetative: matter in theforebay will be. removed duringthe sediment remediation work.-
MYAPC License Termination. Plan Attachment 2H Revision 6 Page .i3 'or j3 January 2014 Table 2H-7.. Comparison .of.Co/Cs Ratios p~ilg' p+g Co/..Cs Co-60 Cs-4137. Ratio. LTP Rev .1 forebay sediment NF (Table 2H- ) I NA NA C189 Sediment around rip-rap in tidal zone (Table 19.7. 1.1 189.0 2H-2) ____ ____ Exposed. sediment material (Section 2H-2.2a) 65.9 3.3 19.8 Underwater sediment, forebay and seal pit 19.0 1.9 10.1. V (Section 2H -2.3) ....... _.. ... .... Dike "Soil," underneath rip-rap (Data.from Q..07. 0.082 0i9 2002 dike coring campaign. See Section 2.4) -. The forebay dose assessment confirmed that nuclides other than Co-,d60 .andI Cs-13 7.represent only a. small fraction of the dose contribution. Thus, considering the overall dominance of Co-60 and Cs-;137:nuclides. in.the dose:impact, the xomparable Co/Cs ratios for forebay/diffuser materiaals, and the .eff6etiv:e abls'sende.of TRU niuclides, an overall evaluation of this: characterization, data:c6,idlu*"ed that a si.ngle nublide fracti6n, determinedoby HTD analyses was appropriate .forapplicttion to forebay/diffuser media. Frth.er: assessment and .comParisn of the HTD analyses concl.e.th.at-*.*.riginally d6terminied nuclide fraction, established in the LTP Rev. 1 analysis offoraysediffent, remained appropriate and conservative for dose. assessment.application tiot:ýfotebayand :diffuser contaminated media. See EC 041-01 for additional detail and discussion of the:datal evaluation.
1YAPC License Termination Plan
- Revision
,anua ~iy,06 4 ..... . . ... ..
MAINE YANK-EE LTP SECTION 3 IDENTIFICATION OF.REMAINING SITE DIS.MNTLEAVM ACTIVIES
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-i Revision 6 JanuaE ..2014 . ........... TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMAINING -SITE DISMANTLEMENT ACTIVITIES ..... 3-1 3.1. Introduction ...... ,.., .. * *., ,. . ,.. , .. 3-1 3.1.1 Purpose .-... ... ,.............. , ... .... ......, . . 3-.1 3.1.2 Decommissioning Progress Update................. 3-2 3.1.3 Decontamination & Dismantlement Process Summary..- ,. 3-3
3.2 Remaining
Dismantlement: Acti.vities .. . ... 3-5 [ 3.2.1 Major Decoiffriisioning fActivities . - . :3-5 3.2.2 Dismantlement Activity.Schedule . -. .... ......... .3-7 . 3.2.3 Final State-of-the-SiteDescription ... ... ...... .... 338 I3 3.3 Methods of Decontamination and Dismantlement 3 9 3.4 Evaluation of Dismantl~ment Activities -13: 3.4.1 SystemS :Review ,,. ,..-. ,,, ..- ..-...... ......,., , 3-13ý 3.4.2 System.Deactivation............................................ 3-13. 3.4.3 Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Considerations....,.... ..- .: 3-15 3.5 Radiological Impacts of Decontaminatio nand Dismantlement Activities ... 3-15 [ 3.5.1 Waste Characterization .... ,.*,. ...... ...,.......... , 3-15 . 3.5.2 RadioactiveWa steProjections 3.5.3 Occupational Exposure .. 3-20 ] 3.5.4 Public Exposure.....-.:... 3-20 . 3.5.5 Expected Radiological Conditions... 3-20. 3.5.6 Contamination.Control ........ 3-21 [
*3.6 Coordination With Other Regulatory Agencies 3-22 I 3-6.1 RegulatoryAgencies 3-22 3.6.2 Advisory and :Community Entities ........ , ............ 3-24 .I 3.6.3 Environmental.and Regulatory.Issues ......... .. ... ........ ... ................ 3-2.5 I 3.7 References ..... ; . .;., . ,.. . :. .. ,. ... :. ... .:. 3..2.,.,.. 3-25 ATTACHMENT 3A Drawing Associated with.Specific Decommissioning Tasks i!
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-il Revision 6 January 2014a,~~~. .. . . .. . 1 .0.......... List of Tables Table 3-1 Major MY Area/Systems, Structures, and. Components Removed (By Year).. .... , 3-7 Table 3-2 A~e&6f Activity & Decornimsiabhihig Activitie6s'Schedule '(rraiged Chronologically)..... 3-7 Table 3-3 Structures and Fa6ilities Withif th6e 5s66pe 6fw ork Demoition .... .. 3-i 1 Table 3-4 Status of Major MY Systernis, Structures, an.d bomponents . *..., ; --. . .. *-. -.- -
- 3-14 Table 3-5 Deleted-Table 3-6 NUceli~des Chekeke'd ,for by 10 CFR6 I Aiiayi*,s! . . . .,.......... ...... 3-17 Table 347 10 CFR61 Sample Ahalysis Results (Typical) 3-18,""
Table 3-8' Deleted Table 3 9 Deleted TaBle 3-1.0 Approach t6 Handliiig of Biuilding Materidlsý for Rdgplatbty Release . ........ , 3-19 Table 3-1I1 Deleted
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-Revision 6 January,2014. 3.0 IENTWIFICATION OF REMAINING SITE DISMANTLEMENT ACTIVITIES 1,_l Introduction, 3A1.1 PUrpose Thises ti of the LLT describes the reinq'ig dismantlement activities at MY purstiant-to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(B) and .following the:guidance of NUREG 1700and Regulatory Guide 1.179. Informatiodnis prsemted to demonstrate that these activities will be -performed in acco.dan**,_with 10 CFR Part 50 and will not be inimical to the commonAdefensegaOid s.ecurty or to: the:health.'and safety of lhe publicpU'rsuant to 10 CQR 50.82(a)(lO).. InformftOn which demonstrates that these activities will not have a significant effect on the; quality of the environment is provided in LTP Section 8. The dismantlement acti.vities described in this: section provide the NRC.the information-to.support theirtdetermination to terminate the license pursuant to: 10, F 5o.82(a)(1 l(i). Therdfore, this sectio.nwas writte to clearly dite each dis0mant1ment activfit which remaiýs to bebcompleted, piorto.qualifying-for license-termination. Furthermore, information is provided on the final state of the site includings.tructural remnants, basement f0io~ndAtions and buiried piping and coiidu. Tis.-infogrmationensures that the scope of any possible residual contaminated materials associated with the fina state of, evsite areconsideredlin dose-.modeling,, s-vey-design andeniom tal asesent. Any hagns to t.e dismantlement adtivities described in this section Which are-made pursuant to. 10 CFR 50.59 must also consider the impact of those changes on the final state of the site and any impacts on dose assessment, survey design or environmental assessment. Information related to the remaining decontmation ad dismantlement tasks is also provided. -his-information includes an estimate of theý quantity of radioactive.: material to be released to unresticted, areas, a de scription of proposed lcontrol mechanismns to en areas are not recon*amninated, estimates of
*occupational exposures, and characterizationo6.radiological conditionsto be encountered and the types and quantities of mdioacti've waste. This info6mfi6n spp U its the--siessment of impacts co*sidered in othee sections of the LTP and provides sufficient detail to identify:inspeotio-n:.ortechnical resources needed during the remaining dismantlement activities. Many of thegs dismantlement tasks requiei coordination With.other federal, 4tate or local regulatory agencies or groups. Maine Yankee's coordination With theset agencies and groups is generally described-.
MYAPC 6License Termination Plan Page 3-2 Revision January 2014. An :evAluAtion of-the remaining decontamination and dismantlement activities is described in this,se.ction. This evaluation presents summary supporting: Jisiti-ific-tifflio"n I conclusion that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, activities may be
.conducted.,wiout..obtAiiga. license amendment pursuant .10 C.FR 50.90.
Where hacivitJs reýquire Maihe Yankee to obtain a license amendment, such actitie.g.i identi le al4 ong.with e corresponding schedule for the proposed
'lieense a;m.endment-and.the schedule for needed approval.
*3.12 Deommissionming.Progress Update
_*.Shýotly aerthe su-bmitl-of the 106CFR -50M82(a)(ljcertificatiosii, Maine Yankee s e.m bled.a Sy.stem Evaluation Review Te.am (SERT) to evaluate each Plant systemf, i-tiue and,.eomponent (SSC) against applicable: regulatory and design biasis requmenits-. These evaluatio's resultedhin the classificatioin of SSCs as ayailae and/or a.tbandoned. Applicable systems were drained, de-energized and deactivated as: appropriate. for.turnover to, the Decommissioning Operations: 0ontractopr (DOC),Q. The reactor coolant system was .hemic llldecont ated to
*reduce-s e tee npr'eparation for dismantlement.
During the fall of.1 997 and spring of 1998,9Maine Yankee conducted a raidiologica characterization.:of the.site through GTS Duratek. Appropriate Shistorical inlfrmation was compiled into the.Historical Site Assessment (HSA). This sitectharacterization, which -issummarized in-LTP Section'2,'was conducted to"ssist: c~-~.~e bidd` g for a ponrat t6 dtcoe mi ssion the, site with
' .lditiondil hacteri6ntion be condted as:necessary llereafter. During the f .i:o*f8, .'ineYankee reviewed bids and "Selected Stone-& Webster as the DOC. U Maine Yankee oversight, St6oe & Webster bonddeted various J.decontatbination: and ,dismantlement,activities until May 2Q.0.0 when the contract was;cancelled.
*The ove.ral-tlproject-seheduled.defixies.the current status and remaining activities.
.As-ofSeptember.30, 2005, the decommissioning of the site is complete, With the
.eixcep-inof the.riea associated with the ISFSI anid a parcel of land adjacent to the ISFSL.
,Teco.dsiuct6on of the ISFSI hiis been completed, and movement: of spent fuel was !completed inthe first.quarter. of 2004. In.preparation for constructing the ISFSI, final status suzveys of the land-area and the ISFSI Secuity Operation Building (SOB), formerly thei L.ow Level Waste Storage.Building (LLWSB), were inidtiaed&inthe faill.of 1999 through summer of 2000 ...In preparation for:fuel transfeMr,Maine Yankee coiducted a complete inventory and 4inspection of the contents fthe spent fuel pool during*2000.
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 3 Revision 6 January 2014 .. ........................ The major decommissioning activities, with the exception of those associated with the decommissioning of theISFSI, have been: cmpleted., Reittoqr coolant system piping, reactor coolan pmsad rno~s st'l~ ge ators d the pressurizer haive been remov.edd shid.
,ipped offsiteftortprocssinfgand/orwaste disposal as appropriate. .Othersmall commodities .havealsob.enremoveq d n.d :shipped
,offiite. React v.e.ssel int.ernas w innted Osng an aebraive water jet (AWJ):system. Greatertthan-class-C.(GTQC) waste.generated as laresult of the segmentationproject were.loaded-into NAC U S casks:and stored onsite at the ISFSI. During 2003 Ad2004, remainfig.above-ga.des cus in the Industrial Area were surveyed and demolished indluding ýthe Spray Building, Primary AuMcliary Building,Fuel.Buildig:n.g d Contain ment :B.iding On Jannuary 3, 20.1, MaineYankee submitte a-n
..id ap it to amend the license to release a portiontofthe.site.classified as non-impacted.. This appjication provides the NRC with the601infration ýipedified Jn LTP Section 1.4.2. This lanid area contains a few st.ructures including the Eatonfarmhouse. *hile some non-raiidbki.al remediation was conducted on the farmhouse, no .dismnitlemeiitactivities a reTfed to be-completed priioibi o removingkthis land area from*ihe' jifisditionof the Pat50 Ilicense as requested in the.proposed license amenndmen.t":On Apif i'O;2(0l[,'Mihe Yai ee submited0a secondb ap6plication to amend thelicense to irelDeas an:additional .portion of the site classified as non-impacted, .OnAugust 16,. 6 200*1. ,ai NYinee resubmitted its application to release these lands,ucombining.te previous two appjications into one dapplication and; revising thepresentation of thecharacteriatio6ndata and results.
Statistical ana yseSs were p.reseotd to d.q'nsra .JthatefLgfb sid6a! a*.ti'yity, if any, in these -land.isj inrdistinguishable form b.kg ,pn ,.QnNpember .h9,,.20 01, .Maine Yan.kee supplmn.ted its combiiiedapplidation, mauking certain clarifiations including landsurveyInfrmation. The NRC gran 'ii* 'Jrejque*Vf6t-rth6 irelease..of these lands in Julyj2002; See Section 1.4.2. On March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee-suibmifted ibtter'MN_=-0420 eqauesting an amendment to:the. facility, operating license:pursuant to 10 CFR :50A90 and in accordance with.the NRC Approved'LTP for Mdine Yankee, to indicate NRC.s approval of the release-of the:Non.-.SFSsite.'land fom thejunrsd~ition-of the libense.From March 2004 toJiuly 2005, Maine Yankee, submitted su"ppo'rting final stats survey reports, supplements to the amenhdment and responses to NRC riecluests for additional informati.on..On September.30;,2005, NRC issued.Amendment'No.. 172 consisting.of the unrestricted release of the remaining land under License No. DPR-36 with the exception I of*e heland where the ISFSI is !oq.te.r d &a.p.*0'bf~axid
*djacent to th. ISFSI.
3.1 !3 Deontamiinati6n& Dismantlement Pr6desS Summary Decontaminationr &,dismantlement actviiies vill be supporotd by detailed project pla-nning.and-sghed6ulifig. Thisplaningnu.pports-as.o*wi as're.aso'ably achievable (A.LARA) reviews,,.estimation-of lab.o0r, and resource requireiehts, while tracking cost and.schedule. Work pa-kages.arUsoedi toisimplement thedetailed-.plansanad-provide
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-4 Revision 6
- January 2014_... ....... .........
ihstructidns for Actual field :impl .entati6n. The Work packages :address described units of work and include appropriate h6ld and :jnspectionpoints. Administrative procedures control Work..package format and-ictntentz. as well as. the review and approval process.
$Systemsap.dcomponentsremoved and released from the -secondary.ide.of theplant for commercial disposal were surveye.d,.in aceordance',withplantrprocedures.based upon a no de .ctible. radioactivity starndard. The contio!ling.pyrocedure specified that the
.instrmentation. must be capable of *eiecting~beta/gamma'(and alpha if suspected) radioactiVity at or below the l66e1s listed.b6iw-". .
- a. Total surface beta/gamma.contamination @5000 dpm/ 100 cm2
- b. Lobse-surface beta/gamma conhtam.iriati on::.@l000dpm/.00 2 cm2 C. Fixedalpha:c0Amination i l.00:dpm/olO00 cm f@ln
- d. Loose: surface: alpha contamination':@20 dpm1.00 cm 2
- e. Gamma.dose rates-of 1.0 :micro.zrem/hr Tbispro..edure required that.materiaI be evaluated for pvrbability.of.radioactive eontamination by utilizing "knowledge of proeess" Which may include review of surveys, the'historical site assessment, cliara.e ir i eiy.surveys or Other kot .ledge. of material htistory. ::Survey requirements were increased:according to the greater p robability for contamination. For instAnce, materials with no probability for cdntdmination were.
subject to: an aggregate dose rate survey and a validation survey which included a truck monitor or acceptable alternative. MaterialSlwiifh'a .l.w:pr-obability-f6to.contamination Were subject. to a biased 'direct frisk (typ ica:lyapprox. 10% of surface area) and loose
-surfaeen.coptaniination..survey prior-to packagihg:as well as thefabove.requirements for aggirgate!And Validation survey foibWoihgp.packaging. Materials w.ith a lhigh;pto.bability
.,for-entaminiatijwere,siibject tbe.t i ai'e' ith6V ef'qfii'menisýfo low :probability materials ho weyer. th e ýentire acces s ib Ie-s u rfac~e, ea o fthe m Ater ia Is were. suqbjeýt to a Ai rect fr isk
,priorto packaging. Additional .or:alternati*e. survey requirements.:were. also specified for special siftiations inclUding .volume-tricim¶iterialSIdiffici.uIt 0osurvey items, systems or
,pm.,p-o.e.ntsa.d.samples..
A separate procedure Was implemented wiithkthe same detection:liev.els, au..gmented bjy adillitionalcontrls .the for .reease of-materia from the radi6logi6Ally restricted
- ea.area i.rally, systems anridciohponent§ -remb'ded from the primar (radiologically controlled) side of the plant werepackaged and either transported to an offsite processing facility, a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility, or an appropriate disps.ia. f#agicity..
Decon.tamination of stmctures includ!ed a variety of techniques ranging from ater 'Washingh to surface mAt*rial removal. Str.uctuiral material may be
. .. . .. . .... . . . .... . . .. ..°.
In accordance with NRC Circular 81-07 and IE Information Notice No. 85-92
.MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-5 Revision 6 January.2014 packaged and either transported to. an offsite -processing facility, a LLRW disposal facility; oran appropriate disposal. facility-. Following the.removal or d.contami-nation of Systems, components, and structures associated With the ISFSI, AtcbmPrehensigve fital st*tus.surVey (FSS.) will be completed as described in Sction 5 of this L.TP. The deco.rissioningspost estimate for.thle.:SFS1 asumWines that the material that conmprises the 1SFSI storage pads and Vertical Concrete Casks w-ill .be.deiolished: and. disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. The ISFSI is designed, constructed and loaded with spent fuel and GTCC waste: stored in casksduri.ng this -Phase. Maine Yannkee's storage of spent fuel in the ISFSI. will be conducted under. a general Part'72 licensepursuant to 10 CFR Part 72, Subpart K. Therefore, Maine Yankee will store fuel only in fuel casks approved by the NRC as listed in 10 CFR 72,2.21.4. The GTCC waste is stored in
*accordainceý with I10 CFR30, ahd.is co-lIocat.e.:ith the'storedspent fuel as evaluated in the 10 CFR 72.212F- EvalUation, Report. The ISFSI and the associated
- a:eas will be. decorim.issi_'nep0:following .,r.ovfl !ofhe spenf fuel and GTCC waste frTm thei"W.
3.2 Remaining Dire.antlement .Aqtyiifies Theppurpose of this section of the.LTP is.to.indicate. each-dismantlementactivity which remains:to be completed prior to.-qualif.ng.for license.termination. This information is provided to support the NRC-finmaking their dete rmiation to.rmninate the. license pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1 1)(i). In addition toý'identifyirngthe distmantlement activities, information i's provid.ed on the final state of the site including structural ienants, baserh ent foundatiofis and bti~ed piping ad conduits. This i*ifrmation ensures that the scope of possible. contaminated materials: associated with the final state of the site ae considered in .dose rndeli.g,,survey..d sign ad envi.ronmental assessment,
-A4n c.h.anges to "the disifishtleiififit adtfiviies-decidibediih this.ssec.ti6- which are made pursuant to. 10 CFR 50.59 must also consider the impact of those-changes. on. the final state of the site and any i.mpacts.qon.d'o.e. assessm...ent,* s.rey :des.ign qr environmental
.ass~essmeit.
3.2.1 Major Decommissioning Activities
- 10:CFR50.2 defines "ýmajor decommissioning activity" as any-activity that results in permanent removalof major r-dioaciie compon ients, prmanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components (separatinvg and packaging GTCC waste,) for shipment in.accordance with 10 CFR 61.55.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-6 Revision 6 January 2014 . .... ..... The only remaining decommissiobing activities -are thoseassociated with the ISFSI and associated areas. Followingremoval f the: spent NelI and GTCC waste. from the-site' the ISFSI and the surroTnding.areas-will bedecom ssioned. The decommissioning cos$teestiinde assuines 'theýhematerials th 6'cdmPrise the: ISFSI , stora*epas-ad Verti*ca
""C.i.rete Casks. .. Wibe.demolished'and-disposed of as low-level radioactive waste..
*MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.3-7 Revision 6 January,2014.
I..: 3,2.2 Dismantlement Activity-Schedule The few, facilfities and structures required to support; the..ISFSI (sperit fuel and
*GT.C.C waste.,storage) -will be.de.ontaminated,, as necessary,.and-dismantled, afer USDQE has removed the stored, materials. This is currently:scheduled to occur in Ii, 2031, With license termination in 2033.
Table 3-1 Major MY Area/Systems, Structures, and Components Removed (By Year)
~~~~~~~.., ..................
. .................... Year)... ..
2031 through 2033 (or after DOE removes the stored materials) ISFSM site D&D with remediation as required
~~.. ~ .
r.... ~ ~. ,. . ~. .... ~ .. ~ . .... The remaining decommissioning schedule represented in Table 3-2 will be revised during the project. Table 3-2 Area of Activity & Decommissioning Activities Schedule (Arranged Chronologically)
*.. .. -r..
Activity Number Activity Description Completion Date:
.. ... ~~~~ '" . .. ..... ."
ISFSI Dismantlement, Decommissioning and 2031'-2033** Remediation (After removal of all spent fuel) Dismantlement of structures, support buildings, 2031-2033** _ _fences, lighting and utilities poles Site Remediation, planting of grass, trees, etc 203.3.3* Final Facility Site Survey 2033.-* Release of the Facility Site for unrestricted use 2033'* Termination:of Maine Yankee Atomic Power 2033"' I, Company's Part 50 License A* Calendar -year 203 I is the projected date for DOE to have taken possession and removed stored materials.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page Revision 6 .JanuaEX2014 . . ........ 3.2.3 Final State-of-he-Sitd Desdriptibn The'purpose of this sectin'is .to, present aconce.pt "descriptio of-the. site folling lic*ense*i ficnaxidnre.qstr'ited reIae and to identify .th extent of te:types of media that mAustbe considered in dose assessment, survey design and environmental. assessment. Figure 3-30 shows the anticipated final: sftat* of the
.site. At license termination; whejidthe site willbe released for unrestricted use, the sitewill: be abackfilled and -graded land area with possibly some above grade structures remainingdepending:on te industal .Gnerallyreuse of the. site.
' :*iildiibp be- v-t g. ýWtwill, be ddemýoliedtto .threefeet below:
grade aid the resulting .'*Obcete.demolition.debris, will..be disposed:of offsite.at either a low-level waste facility.or an.appropria.t disp6sa fuaiit e 'ept. for the 345 & 115 kV switchyards;and possibly other administrative buildings. The remaining basement foiudations will be filled.wit a soitRfill material following any required remediaationi and FSS activi.ie*. The.formet LoW' Level Waste Storag.eBuiiding tnow the ISSI Security Operations' Buiilding-(SOB)]i will remain in place until the fuel is iafnsferred to the USDOE. 'The 115 kV Mtc ffdhe 345 kV swithyard, will remain intact. dt-.ad The road that travels ýpast. the ISFSI will remain in place..terminating near.the 1 51kV switchyard. The original-plant access:roha*d wi.lemin. Th&-ekei*ing i-ailioad'will: remai-na inmplJaqei `M"Qld4F&ey h Road (apuublic road) And public boat ramp will remain in place. As of S~epftemnber 30,2005,".the or.ily* th~t
.. remaini wfithin;,the.ontroil of the 10 [
C FR 50 License are the area associated-.with* the:ISFSI and a parcel f*land' adjacent to the-ISFSI. A*ftrthe:DOE trans'-rts' al!.the stored:'spent fuel and j.TCC waste from the, ISFSI; it wiil be decotn*p ed,.if 'ecessary, and demolished 6dow*nto t feet below grade. A Final Status Survey Will be:performed for remaining.lan"ds aid/or structures.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-9 Revision 6 January.2014. ..
- 33. Methods of Decontafinationand Dismantlement:
- Structure decontamination meth.ods typically include wiping, washing, vacuuming, saibbijg, sýpalig, and abrasive blasting. Selectionmof-the preferred method is based on the SPecific. situation. Other decontamination-technologies will be considered and, used.if appropriate.
.Ifstructural-surfaces are. washed4o -remove contamination,.contrQls are
*implemented:in accordance with approved plantprocedures to ensure that
-wastewate, is.collected for proce.ss!ng by liquid waste process.ig systems.
Airborne, cntaminationmcontrol and: waste processing systems-are, used as: necessaryto control and monitor releases. Concrete -thatis-activated will be removed down. tokthe activated: concrete DCGL and sent -toa: low level, radioactive waste disposal :.ilit, ,em .,a1of contap0inted (non-a.tivated) -concrete will be performed using methods that:: cbhtrol thexremoval depth-to minimize the -wastewolume produced. Appropriate engineerg pcontrols or. control of dust and de'bris will be used'to.min.imie th
- spreaid of conitamination and reliarice on respiratory prtcinmaues.:
The decommissioning .ost estimate assumes.that the material that 'compristhe ISFSI stre padsa*id Vertical Concrete Casks will be disposed.of as low-level radioactive waste. kThe qfollwg str.ucftul decontamination methPds are described:
- a. In-situ Concrete Decontamination by Bulk Removal Diamond -wire sawcutting may be used for the:removal.of volumetric co.ncre.eaqbove fte unrestricted use-criteria, (pr DCGL%).
The: removal of concrete consisting of the upper I 9or2 feet of a thick slab such as a building foundation mat.will rýqfire volUmetii remVovals bey6nd.t4he liits ofscabblers or shot blosting. Whether due tolactivation or to leakage of liquids into concrete, the material may be removed -using a mini-hoeramnordemolition robot. These haVe the flexibility toaccess cong;ted: areas and can be controlledto limit the volume of waste produced.:
- b. ,In-situ Surface Decontamination of Concrete
MYA'PC License Termination Plan Page 3-10 Revision 6 January2014 .. The expected depth of the contamination will establish-the process used for the .surfate decontaminatiorn of concrete. Scabblers and shot.blasting equipmelnt !riftedwith yacuum :collection. systemsAma be used for Surfa"es with deeper c6ntamination. Elsewere, sponge blasting usi*ngone or more: different media and wipe downs with solvents:may be used., Cross-contamination and..rec:ontam.inationwill be miiiiimiized 61Sing the:vac.ViiA coll.ection syitems.
- c. Decontamination of Plant Concrete Structures That Are tO .Be Demfolished (located higher than three feet below grade)
Contaminated concrete structures above three feet, be.1owgrade maydnot be completely decontaminated. They will be packaged and ship'ped oiff site, for disposalat a LLRW disposal facility or appropriate disposal fadility.
- d. ConcreteSurfaces Located at Eievations Lo.wer than Three: Feet:
below Grade Concrete stirfaced beloW three fedt below grade will bdecdd..teet hated if required to established criteria.
- e. In-situ Surface' Decontamination of Metals/Preparation of Metal -
Surfaces for.Segmentation
*o'st meta.l:l.cwastes. will.not be. decontaminated on (site. Spongpe blasting ugin-g variotus-m'edliaranging'from non-aggressive:for.: surface cleaning:to heavy abrasive media orI 6ttiiethodse for pint or oxide iemoval willbe used and/or wipe downs with solvents;. The contamination.on:exterkir aid/6orinterior metallic surfaces-may:be fixed zpror.to: dismantli'ng the.
structure:or component. Steel located .within non-RA buildings, -i.e.,-not:eonsidered to have. been exposed to ra'diological :cnfitamination, will be-surve'ed and. r!lesed for demolition. The extemal-struetural steel olfplantbuildings has been: assessed during walkdowns and, depending. upon_ thfe area, will either. be surveyed&and-leaged~ for demolition or dismantled"for pack.aging and shipment to a waste processor.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page-3-11 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 3-3 describes.,the structures and facilities within the scope of the decommissioning along:wththe;condifion ofrelease and final configuration.
.Ta~ble.3-31 -
.Strutu res-nd Facilities Witliiite Scope.of-Wo for Demolition U~
Building or area description condition fi. al configuration of structure
,of re~leas~e.
ISFSI. Stoage Pads 1 Demo. Vertical ConrdeteCasks . 1- Demo. Security /Operations Building 1 Deemo..3, beIow-grade; backfill Vertical Concrete. Cask Construction 3 Demo, Pad Vehicle Barrier Systemf
*7:. '".* ,'"
. - . ..."' . :.. : .,"'-, ... -* - 3
- '- ..' ,v -:.Demo, Protected Area Lighting, Fenring, . 3 Ddm...
and Intrusion Detection Systems _ __ Property, structures and facilities wili be demolished to a level three feet below present-grade, with few exceptions, As-a-restultof this:approach, the following isequence:of dismantlementand demoiition ,will .occur for buildings with
.Condition of Release?, 1-idendtifed'dn. Talb.le 3-3.
,a.. Strip, package, ship. commodities .fromwthe, buildings (piping, steel, compon.ents, etc.) Co.mm.d.oditie._ including b.uiljing steel determined to be clean may be released to the deml6itibn contractor.
- b. Perform decontaminatiori:.of the,:building concerete surfaces (at elevations
-below 3 feetbeýlowgrade) to meet establishe dcriteria levels. Package the debris from de.cont amnation an.dshipfor -LW.processing and/or
!disposal.
c.- Perform~a- final survey (sequenee oP" and "d" optional as described in section 3.1.3)
- d. Release-for demolition.
MYAPC License.Termination Plan Page3-12 Revision 6 .Janusry 2014
- e. Demolish the building structure to 3: feet below grade. Separate the clean 2 rebar from the concrete.
- f. Prepare the demolished concrete for shipment offsite.
.g. Reldeae reba.r:usingestablished radliological release'procedures and ship rebar to metal recycling contractor.
ThestNctures specified. as:Corfditibn of Release.2:in Table 3-3, are those thatare
,onthecpld.side:o the plant and have been maintainedas, radiologically "clean,"
With the exception of some systems and equipment'that may have internal contamination. Within these areas, the process for demolition will follow this
- Proc.e.ss:*
*a. Reimediate, package, and ship systems,, components and, commodities identified within the site. characteri'zationlreport :and assessed and. bounded b3' Maine Yankee. Structural steel of plant buildings will either be surveyed and:teleased for recycling:or dismantled for packaging and shiP.pment as LLW material.
b, Decon'm-inat - if refqired, to dChieve. the' establisheddradiological release crite-ia. C. Perforr-radiation surveys to-allow-materialerelease to -the-demolition
- d. Release for demolition to the contractor.
- e. DemOlish structures and foundations.to. depth specified.
- f. Sbs urface piping to be handled as indicated above.
- g. Perfom66 final grade.*
- The buiblding's;-stru.f..rs, and facilities ilýiiti-fiedý:as EC.ondition of-Release 3 in Table 3-3 :ar those6h.'tt:ado notthave a. history '.ofcontamination and are therefore
'classified as"!!presumed clean." Iii certain cases-there weree -ihorexceptions to thi~s g~nera.!iztio*,,,based uponth~in.fomaioh in thN site chirarctefization report,
§4ch 697a 9ffdall f~ar'aWithin ~th-e iniform'"ation'ceniter anfd -the.staff ;building, that:
,.appear to-have' been.remediated:. Also,'the site.characterization report idenitifies higher activity levels Withinthe-basiementof the environmental ldb (Bailey House), that-maybe attributed to background from the granite. However, Maine Yarikee willevaluatep and release these indi\Vidual areas in accordance with plant raidiologiqAl. release -procedures toallow for-:demolition. Procedural controls 2 Clean rebar has no.detectable, plant-derived radioactivity associated with it. Rebar will be surveyed in-accordance with free release criteria and disposed of as scrap. If activated rebar is discovered it will be disposed of as radwaste.
MYAPC License Terminatibn Plan Page:3-13 Revision 6 January 2014 identify theimonitoring requirements for construction debris release (Refer to Section 3.1.3). Therefo.re,.uildings, structures, and facilities identified as Condition of Release 3 in Table 3-3 will be processed.. as..:foo1Qws;
.a. -Remove ancillary equipment required for asset recovery (furniture, etc,) -
(It is.assqumed:thatMaine Yankee will remove equipment designated for asset recoery, prior to the scheduled remediation/ demolition of the b.
.structure.):
=Perform s*rey in:aaccordance with established procedures and criteria.
- c. Relea. fi" d-i oiliticn to the contractor.
3.4; Evaluation-ofjDismantlement Activities 3.4.-1 SystemsiReview. The lie;ense.bak.ea.v oMatjiteMY. .nkee a systems, structures, and~components (S8C) is.summa.ized in:T.able: 3-4. As of September 30,.2005, the only areas that 17 remain..ithin:the control of the: 10 CFR 50-Lic.ense are the area associated with f the.ISFSI anid.a parel of land adjacent to the ISFSI. 3A4,2 System De.activation. Systems or components Will. continue to be abandoned/deactivated prior to decontamination, -ifnecessary and dismantlement. In general, deactivation is implemented.by mech.ical ispolation of interfaces with operating plant systems, draining piping/components, and de-energizing electrical supplies.. Combustible m.ate a.!i..s r.emoye~d!frni aandopned/deactiv.ated components where possible.
*-C.h.emiAls ued ih,. or#esOui.ng from, .deconnissioning.acti~viti.es are controlled in accordance.~ith theapplicable chemical 'safety -program. :Plant. drawings are revsed.to indictate, .abandoned/deactivated portions of systems. Plant procedures lre modified, to refleWf the chages.when applicable.
bando.nment/depacivation.of plant. systems is 9ntrolied by approved plant p..cedis. T hdensva:tin Plas .re establisihed to implement the desired system valve lineup.-changes and electrical isolations. The design change, process is used*:to.removecomponents, lift electrical cinstallleads, electrical jumpers, cut andca0p piping systems, or tistall blank flanges as appropriate.
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-14 Revision 6 January 2014 Plant procediures:oro'vide:contr6ls oVer the operation df deactivated system boundary valves. As additional systems are deactivated, existing isolation
'bound ries.are:re-evil'uated .andchanged,.as necessary, to iefiect the new plant codnitimn. Me~hanic..alb"U~iondfiiesi-of.ab hdori~dSSCs.:(incliding boundary valves) ate. gpecikalfidentifd i- aec0ordace. with-MainewYankee's procedures Temi-porary liquid:and!sdlid wadte prd6ý*siin.sistens may-be used during dect-mmissioniniig-fot;prtocessifg -plant-waste: These systemslmay include, filters and/or demineratizers:and may be used::at-one or more-locations' in the waste-processing path. Localize.dit.poraiy 'ventilation: equipment' and HEPA filtration may be used to minimize the:'spread'of radioactive: particiulate contamination. *11 Table.3-4.
Status of Major"MY Systems, St-rctures, and Components
~~~~~~
*~~~ .. ... .. ° * .i * " '...... UP .............
System/Component/Structures Required Status T Opgerations& ... Radiation Monitors Mounted on NIni Use Protected Area Fence Electrical systems YES: Prtioin mainitained to support ISFSI Fire-protection systems YES: Portionmaintained !to protect records-in
ýstorage 1SFSI S.tQorage.. Pald.s.. YES Aj Use, Vertical Cooncrete:Casks* "YES' InUse Vertical Concrete Cask NO. Pad will. be dei61ished as part of ISFSI Constr*uction Pad .deommissioning Vehicle Barrier System YES In Use Protected Area Lighting, Fencing, YESý: In Use.
and Intrusion Detection Systems SFSI SFcurity and. Operations Y..S E Use Building. _ __ ___
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3415 Revision .6 Janunary2014 . .
- 3.4.3 Nudcear Safety and Regulatory Considerations The: follo.wing general; considerations, as. applicable, will continue to be
.incorporated into packages duting the'decommissioning p*rio Dring,the decommWi6ioning period, dismantlement activities. willbe.reviewed to ensurethat they: do not impact safe storage of fuel and GTCC wastes in the ISFSI libensed under.a general Part.72: license. Work packagesOare implemented in accodance wit*h s ve controls. -When applicgable, decommissioning work is reviewed against the requirements of 1.0 C -.50,59, 50.82(a)(6) and/or 72.48 to
.ensure work. thatis-,being performed wiýhout prior NRC approval does not need a licenseambe-ndmenit.
i-smantlement aciiv"ities will be conducted to enhsur the safe: stoiage o'fspent fuel mnd to protect the public health and safety as well as the common defense'and ImpW.'rtant--to-Safety SSCs associated with the ISFSI and the:NAC UMScask are specified in Appendix A to the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program.. Table 3-5 Deleted 3.5 -Radiological Impacts. ofDecontamination and. Dismantlemerit Actiývties
- 35,:1' Wast Characterization The.MY Decommissioning, Project Waste Management Plan includes waste disposal:strategies, and addresses issues:such *as:. estimates .of,the quantity:of radioacti.ye material to' be released, control mechanisms,::and radioa*ive :waste chareacterization. Radiodaic* e waste has been characterized by,sending
- representative samples:for 10 CFR Part 61 analysis. Table7 3-.lists the nudides
.for which the ias ples were analyzed. Tableý3-7.presents typical s 1* ,Pa.t61.
anarlysis results. 3.5.2. Radioactive Waste Projections Any'data provided herein-are estimated values and may or may nottrepresent actual final volumes. :The siubjet values shown in Table 3-7 i*rvide.relative fractionhs: of nuclides historically present in Maine Yankee's: waste streams., This
- and.otherinformation sources were used to identify those nuclides. which.were
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-16 Revision 6 January-2014 - . requested for Part 61 analyses. Alternate means and methods may be utilized when appropriate to -reduce these volumes. As of Sep'tmber30, 2005, the only remain.ing.deommissioning:activities for the: site are those.associated with the ISFSI, The.decommissioning.cost estimate: assumes that the materials comprising the ISFSI storage pads andlthe Vertical Concrete Casks will be disposed of as low-level radioactiVe waste. It is not anticipated that this material will need to be removed to satisfy the NRC dose criteria for license termination.
-M.YAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-17 Revision 6 .January 2014 Table 3-6 Nuclides Checked for by 1°CFR61"AnalaYis . ....... , Nuclide Principal Nuclide Principal Nuclide Principal Emissi-n* Emission Emission* Ag- IHOm gamma. Z'-93 beta "Nb-94 (in activated metal - gamma C-4 ,.Ni-59, Ni-6.3) Am-241 alpha Sn-126 beta +Kr-85 .gamma .
.C-M beta iso-u aIphl.. - #Cr-5. gamma Cm-242 alpha K40 gamma #Fe-59 a Cm-243/244 alpha Zn-65 gamma #Nb-95 gamma Co-57 gamma Eu-154 gamma #Zr-95 . gamma
.- Eu-155 gamma #Mo-.99 gamma
*.Co60 gamma Eu- 152: gamma #I-13.1 gamma CS- 134 gamma T1h208 gamma #Xe-133 gamma Cs-037 gamma Bi-212 gamma #Ba-140 gamma Fe-55 ec Pb-212 gamma #La-140 gamma H-13
... .. .. .. ...i . .......
beta, , . , l : Bi-214 gamma
#Ce-1.41 gamma "Mn-54 gamma Pb-214 gamma fiSn,.l13 gamma Ni-59 ec Ra-226 gamma #Sb- 124 gamma Ni,63. beta Ac-228 gamma #Ru-103 gamma Pu-238 alpha
- Pa-234m gamma #Coo8 gamma
.Pu239140 :.. alpha Th-234 gamma Pu-241 beta U-235 gamma S*b-125 gamma Be-7 gamma 7Sr90 beta Ce-144 gamma
*Tc-99 beta Sb-.126 gamma
+!-129 I beta Sn-.26 gamma
*An.alysis performed. measuring this principal emission
*for waste classification
#for Rx.pwr operations (short lived) + in spent fuel
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-18 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 3-7 10 CFR61 Sample Analysis Results (Typical) These values are shown to present relative fractions of nuclides historically present. RESIN LIQUID SMEAR CAVITY UPENDER #3 Sc DRAIN SAMPLE FILTERS ACTIVITY DOWN SMEAR BOWL FILTER
.iCi/g gCi/sample pCi/sample jiCi/sample jiCi/sample jiCi/sample 8M21196 9/4/96 6/18/97 ACTIVITY ACTIVITY SMEAR 7/23/96 6/10/98 ACTIVITY NUCLIDE 3/28/98 H-3 2.OOE-01 1.86E-02 1.40E-01 15500 C-14 8.51E-02 4270 Mn-54 8.01E-01 1.63E-03 1.00E-02 1.00E-03 1260 Fe-5 5 9.81E+00 7.49E-01 2.4613-01 2.58E-01 4.3313-02 160000 Co-57 2.07E-02 2.37E-04 4.79E-04 Co-58 7.70E-02 4.15E-02 674 Co-60 9.681+00 1.64E+00 4.48E-01 3.61E-01 1.14E-01 147000 Ni-59 1.04E-01 Ni-63 1.42E+0I 1.40E+00 3.34E-01 8.97E-02 3.86E-02 18700 Zn-65 Sr-90 2.38E-01 2.741-02 370 Zr-93 Nb-94 Tc-99 6920 Ag-110m 1.37E-03 Sb-125 2.72E-01 2.62E-03 5.8 1E-03 1.61E-03 2.95E-03 2110 Sn-126 1-129 Cs-134 2.00E+01 5.54E-03 Cs-137 3.72E+01 3.352-03 8.06E-02 1.031-02 Cc-!44 2.45E-03 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 U-234 L)-235 U-238 Pu-238 6.67E-04 1.53E-04 1.45E-05 1.83E-04 1.20E-05 6.9 Pu-239/240 2.79E-04 1.9 1E-04 2.24E-05 6.02E-04 1.53E-05 5.3 Pu-241 2.05E-02 1.65E-02 1.98E-03 2.32E-02 9.60E-04 315 Am-241 3.56E-04 2.71E-04 3.00E-05 2.77E-04 1.55E-05 3.4 Crr-242 1.64E-04 3.21E-06 6.10E-06 Cm-243/244 4.5313-04 2.34E-04 1.19E-05 8.50E-06 1.8
MYAPC License Termination Plan Paige-3-9 Revision 6 Januar.y.2014.. i..........
,t*........ ........... "",'.. ',...
.......... .... Tb.,..3-8....... Table 3-8 Dedeted Althoigh the&dtal esti.ted -radwaste volumes exceeds the 18,3.40 m 3 de's"cibed
- ih .NUREG-05,86 the: associated iifpaetg, are'bbUrided..by :those .addressed in the:
FOEIS as. discussed in detall in section 8.7. Materials"reItoved ;arid/or generated durig the'demoiition.process.will be disposed of based upon the origin of the material and the radiological survey findirigs.p1rior to or after demolition. Table. 379
. . ......... Dejeted I.
Ta : pJ,3-1
-"ewd- sci'es the. approach to hand!ingd b uilding materials.for reg . .t .r Y . .. .. . .e..e.
Table3-10 Apiproach to Handiingbof BUfilding Materials for Regulatory; Release No. Ty-pteof bildting..imterial Approach
. Areas:with:lowcontamination-po.tential, Free-release-in accordance with-Tprocedures 2 Concrete with medium to high surface Ship:offsite. for-disposal at Eieirg'y 6ontaffinaidtion pptedtial:ost edevatiohs: Solutions or Bamwnoll.oran above:,- 3. feet bWeloww grade), appropritie:disposal facility Concre..te ith medium.to. high.surface emeodiate-to. acceptance cri~teria.
*oritihatiori potential (at.eleVftions levels and leave in place.. Wih bdlow -I3.feet below.grade) removed material disposal at Energy.. Solutions orBarnwell, -I 3 Contaminated ,metalsrem-oved. Ship ito processor or':for disp.Qsal at Energy Solui on or Baiwe
- 1
'Non-contminaited:ieimtals-.remroVed Ship to processor for s'crap or disposal
. . . . .. .. . . .. . . ...... "'. '*.. . . .. . . ... .. ... ... "' '" : .. ". . . . _2 ' ' . . " . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .... . .. ..... ".. ..... . . ....
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-20 Revision 6 January 2014. ..
. ........... '. "' ?.
..... ... .. * ' . - ' . . . .. " - . . -, . .". . - ' ' " - - - =. . . .* . * . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Built-up tar roofing, inner layer-of Process at LLW treatment facility siding (with actua e or potentia! or directly disp6se at Energy [ ontminion) Solutions "Clean" tar roofing, siding' Ship to a processor ordisposal 5 Outer.layer. ofsiding (GOalbestos): Surface rtelease .survey;- send to asbestos landfill 6 Refueling. cavity and. spent fuel Process at LLW treatment facility _1. lin..... ...... 3.5.3 Occupational Exposurie: The estimated total nuclear-worker exposure during decommissioning of the plant was estimated to be.946 person-rem. The total exposure associated with
.1*
decommissioning-.ofthe ISFSI is not anticipated tobe.-significant. -The-total,
,combined exposure for:decommissioning the pln land*the ISFSI is expected to be belowther1215 p erson-rem. found accle ptle for o in the refere~nce::PWR- N.LJREG-0.586 Table 4.3-2..
I - 3.5.4 Public Exposure Continued, application of Maine Yankee's Radiation Protction Program, Waste Management Plan; Radiological Effluents:Controls Program andRadiological Environmental Monitoring Program: assures public proteetion in accordance with 10 CFR"20. Deiails for reme.d.diatiii are provided in: Section. 4.of this LTP. LTP Section 89:contais an evaluation of estimated public exposure as:a result of deonmssioning activities incud gtheair ortation of radioactive waste. 3.,5.5 Expected :Radiologic'al Conditions'. TheJISFSIlstorage *pads'and Vertical Conrefte Casks -are assumed :to contain
-activation products.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Pa-ge 3-21 Revision 6 January.2014 Surface abrasive'or surface removal remediation techniques may-generate airborne
- radioactivity.-Airborne activjity will be controlled within the. requirements of 10 .ICFRPart 20"and me'asu'red'usig.stangdarddprcesses and procedures existing witi the-radiation protection -program. These processes -and procedures have proven successfu for controlling decontamination and deimolition' activities in the past:while piotectin.g the heth and safety 6f the workers and the.pubflic.
Maine.Yankee segmented'the reactor vessel internals and loaded resulting GTCC waste'into NAC UMS casks-for storage at the ISFSI. Thissegmentation process used an abrasive water jet.: Special precautions were taken to capture the residue
.(SWA* ) resutinggfrom .this~segmentation.
3.5.6 Contamination Control A systematic-approach to-.controlling areas will'be established. Upon I' commencement of the FSS for survey areas where there is a potential for re-coniamination, implementiation of one: or more-of the following ..66ntrol measures
- a. - Personnel training
- b. Installation of barriers to control access to surveyed areas V: Installation-of barriers.to prevent the migration of contamination from. adj acent .overhead areas
- d. Irnsallation of postings requiring personnel to perform "contamination monitoring prior:to surveyed area:access
- e. Locking entriancs to surveyed areas of the facility fi. Installation of tamper-evident labels
- g. :. ..Upon comple0on of FSS,,the area is placed under periodic routine surv ey by Radiation Protection to ensure no re-cOntamination occurs. If re-contamination is identified, an invesgation will be initiaied.that would result in corrective actions up.to and including re-perfomance of the FSS on that area.
Durintgthe D&D activities, measures will be maintained and/or established.to controloand monitor radwaste:effluents. NO radwaste: effluents are anticipated to
-occurduring*:tepeniod of storage:of spent fuel: and GTCC waste at the ISFSI or the ISFSI.
-decorimissioning-of MAMrborne-Contro1s Noa-.irborne, effluent§s are anticipated to occur during the period of storage of spent fuel and!:GTCC waste at the. ISFSI ordecommissioning of the ISFSI.
MYAPC License Termination Plan 'PageO3T22 Revision 6 January 2014 When applicable during demolition.engineering. controls such as misting will be applied to concrete surfaces.. Where practicQlfor ,ALARA purposes, temporary
-shielding is used during decomissinn actvities Liquid/Particle Control Work activities are planned to minimize:thespread..of contamination. To minimize thepotential.for spread of contaminafion, the following considerations will continue to be addressed when planning decommissioning work activities.
- a. Cover ing-of openings i" cotýqiq cor.mponents to confine interhil cofnt-mind**itioh;
- b. D&D of SSCs by decontaminatioin ini-place, removal and decontamination, or removal and.disposal.
S6. Coordination:with Other. Regulatory Agencies: The decommissioning and termination of Maine.Yankee's Part-501license involves, in addition to .the NRC, coordinationnith anum~ber of federal, state and local agencies.as well as scveral advisory-groqips. This.section outlines the broad responsibilities.of those:groups:and also addresses :specific environmental issues raised in the FGEIS in the, context ofthe Ma'eYankee site. 3 .61 Regulatory Agencies The following federal, state and local. agencOesave some level of involvement in Maine Yankee's decommissioning. Somehavedirect approval authority over site activities while others serve in an advisoycapacitytoother agencies. Their primary functions, progras, and regulat.ýo authority re described below.
- a. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'- EPA has been engaged in discussions with various stakeholders 'about the Maine: Yankee
,decommissioning proeess. The.EPAAis-supp-rimg'the Maine Yankee deco.mmissioning project in several aeas., The EPA is enabled by Resou¢rceConservation :andRecoveryAct(R to administer closure of facilities that: were hazardous .waste.generaters. -Since-fthe State of Maine Department of Environentiil Pitectioin .(MDEP) has been delegated authority to administer: the.RC progam*in Maine, EPA isp serving. in a technical support, role for the Maine Yankee site closure.
EPA is expected to review all major closur6 related documents and advise MDEP ori their adequacy. - . ....
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.3-23 Revision 6
- January.:2014.
The EPA also .is esponsible.for the Toxicl Substances Control Act (TSCA) which-serves as: the.:primary means:by'wfhich the use and disposal of PCBs and PCBcottaaiiiir miaterials are .conitrolled. PCBs were identified above 1. thd TSCA.'limitis 6Vf0a56,t4der millioii(ppim) in electrical cable sheathing and,. in'.limited areas,,painted structural s.teel and painted concrete surfaces.
- b. USDepartment of Transportation ('DOT,)- The DOT regulates the packaging, labeling and: shipment of waste materials offered for interstate commerce. Waste nt.riils that direxectedtio be shipped from Maine Yftikeefdiring- decombii-iox-iiitigh-tart-*dregdlated by the DOT include radiooigic.* wastesim...ixed. waste;.and.hazr.dous.waste.
- c. US Coast Guard - The Coast Guard has authority to control vessel traffic in the navigable waterwayso0f the'US. -Bargefshipment of large compo.ne~ntswll be eo.di..at. d with the-C.§hst Guard to ensure that all applicable requirements forsec.uring loadsand. notifying the public are met.
- d. US Departmet ofl f-The nergy.('DE) DOE.has~a contractual obligation to:taike rece.ipt and dispose~of Maine Yankee's GTCC waste and spent rupcl6a fulef. 'This'iincides rem6,o'vg the m-hatetial :from the site.
- e. Maine Department :of Ehnvironmental ?Protection (MDEP) - The MDEP is the Iead state ageny resp~onsible to prevent, abate and control the pollutionoaf the 'air; waterand~land and, prevent di*minution-of the natural en'vmirionmen offthe state. lThe"MDEP has 'authori.ty in a variety of statutes and accomplishes its charge'through ai.iuxiber of Tfegulations. The MDEP reguahtes solid and.hazardous:waste activities, development activities at MaEne Yankee-tbrouh the SitetLocaofion ofDevelopment Law, industrial disc9*hrg Aires,.
air gi-.-, and a4ti0d- a'cIi..ýi'* gnificant natural tesources :inclu-ding coastal and freshwater-wetlands. These aspects are discussed.in more.detail in 'Section 8.6.
- f. Maine Dep-artmientof Huma Services%, The Department of Human Service.s through *e'Division:of-Health. Engineering (DHE) has respon.ib fk- didrogil programs i.ifi&ttt. DHE also sponsors the two State.Nucear Inspectors;that :monitor activities .at Maine Yankee.
- g. Ma'ine Departmentrof Inland FiSheries~and 'Wildlife (IF&W) - I.F&W does not-direetlyie4ilate:iqfiv',iviesat Maine' Yankde. IF&W: does however provide, technical support to the MDEPf0io permitting activities relating to development projects and projects that may affect significant natural
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 324 Revision 6 January 2014 resources. IF&W:is:also responsible.for. the;Maine threatened and endangered species protectibn, prpgtm.
- h. Maine ,Department of Maiine-Resources,(.DMR)- DMR does:noti.directly regulat tiet M.aine Y'n.- .,However._r DMR does provides
ýtechnical support to MDEPo.n pojects invo!ving potential impacts to coastal wetlands.s Maine.Department of Transportation i(MP*OT) - MDOT has permitting authority fqsor-ne. elopmen÷projeetsgenerating over 100 passenger car equi~valent trips ih the pek h-o"' It is'-o.t anitidipated that MDOT will have active involvement in.deq.ommis.i ong.. activities.
Maine -Historic PreservationCom,-mission - Maine Yankee has coordinated with .this orga.'.tion:fqr the-,peservatior.. ofthe.:tWo identified archaeologic.sites,..on-MairneýYýankee property., The specific location of is notprovide~d to ensure their integrity is protected.
.archaeologicalfsites
*k, To.wn. fis.casseot_(To -he To, n has-.permitting authority over new d.evelppnmt projects .s"eha§ the-Inidependent Spent. Fuel Storage Installation :(ISFS). The T6wO;a.so0*s peomitting authority over major earthwork projects. It is expectedthat final- site grading will trigger Town review and approval requIirements.
The Maine Turnpike Auxthority, has aJlong: standing agreement that placarded shipments oftLLW.vil** ol t elon.the Turnpike during dayl.ight hours.
- m. The Maine State Police- #Ke given:a:icouirtesy :cll before each LLW shipment, leaves -the site. This is*got an:ýefi.a! requirement, 3.6.2 Advisory and Community Entities:
- a. The::State Nuclear. Safety-Advisr re.spo.nsibilities.include advising the
-Governorand legis"lature-on hunlcAr ]kwe iHssues, sPecifically transport
.and::storageof nueclearwat: a*M din: Yankee.- The Advisor-als.consults with ýreeyant federal agenesqepS. coorýdntes the' ac.tivities :of state agencies wih. respect to.decommissioniiing. Anofther duty is to keep abreast of related: activities in-other sttes and to advise the Governor and legislature on such activitipes;.!n.:addition to maklingthese
-recommendations-and upd-ates-to'th.GV* odthe Ad.iS-6 prepares an annual report.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 3-25 Revision 6 Jan uary 2014 b,: The Maine Yankee Community Advisory Panel (CAP) was established in 1997 to enhance opportunities for public involvement in the decoMiiiisioning'proeess-ofMaifie Yank-e. The CAP represents the community. By thproughly reviewing the decommissioning process, the CAP is in a position to advise Maine Yankee on: key issues of concern to the regional cornmmunity, cý Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Pollution is a local environmental organization founded in 1995. Friends of the Coast participates regularly in stakeholder discussions on the full range of decommissioning issues and has a seat on the Maine Yankee CAP. 3.6.3 Environmental and Regulatory Issues Section 8.6 of the LTP provides a detailed discussion of how non-radiological environmental and regulatory issues: associated with decommissioning are being. addressed with the cognizant:.state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over those issues. 3.7 References. 3.7.1 NUREG-1700, "Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plans'" 3.7.2 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors." (January 1999) 3.7.3 Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report 3.7.4 "Characterization Survey Report for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant", Volumes 1-8, 1998 GTS Duratek 3.7.5 "Site History Report," Stone and Webster Environmental Technology and Services (November 1999), transmitted via James T. Kilbreth letter to Joan Jones, State of Maine, dated Novembe.r 16, 1.999 3.7.6 Kim Tripp, US Fish and Wildlife Services, letter to David Asherman, dated July 21., 1-999,, regarding federally listed species. 3.7.7 NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated July 30, 2002,1issuance of Amendment No. 167, license amendment approving partial. release of site lands
MYAPC. License Termination Plan Page.3-26 Revision 6 Januaru 2014 3.,7.81 Letter from D. Gillen-(NRC)to J. Niles (MYAPCO), Issuance of [ Amendment No. 172 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Maine [. Yankee'Atomic Power Station. (TAC No. M8000), dated September 30, 1, 2005, I
M*APC License Termination Plan Attichment 3A Revision 6, Page 1 of3 January 2014 ATTACHMENT 3A Drawing Associated with Specific Decommissioning Tasks I The drawing is provided "For Information Only" to suport the reader's understanding and ti correlation of decommissioning tasks and physical locations involved in the subject tasks.
MY.APC License Termination Plan Attachment 3A Revision 6. Page 2 of.3 January 2014
.... . . ... . . ... "*... ' . .. . --. . . . .. . .. . ... .. .. .*..., . ... T... .. . ... "".. ....," . . ... .".
T............... TABLE 3 A-I DECOMMISSIONING AREAS
- Figure Nuimber Figure Title Areas Pigures 3-1 thtouigh 3-29 Deleted following removal of associated areas from the 10 CFR 50 License Figm 3-30 ... . . ... , ..* *... . : .. Final
.. ,,. .:_ , Site
. .. . .... Configuration
~ .. .. _. . . 7
PI'YAPC License Tcrm not on PlanAtahet3 Januar 2014Page 3of 3
" ... i~i ..
" ,... .*. U..
00 MAINE YNE ATOMZIC ]PO R CO. Final Site Configuration Figure 3-30 LICENSE TERMWNA-ION PLAN 3-30
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 January 2014..
.MAINE,:YANKEE LTPYSECTIONA4 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-i Revision 6
- January 2014. ..
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.0 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN, 4-1 4.1 Remediation Actions and ALARA Evaluations ,.:.,.,,. .. .. ,...41 4.2 Remediation Actions .......... , ... ,... ..... ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Soil..4-4.2.2 Structures ... "... ;."......
. .. .... 4-1 4.3 Remediation Activities. Impact on the Ra.iation Protection Program....... 4-5 4.4 ALARA EValuation ............ ,:.... ... ,. ..... . 4-6 4.4.1 Dose Models.. . .. ....... ,""..'"...".4-7 4.4.2 Methods for ALARA Evaluation.,..... . . .. .. . ..... ,....
... 4-8 4.4.3 Remediation Methods: and Cost..., .. .,. . ... 4-8 4.4.4 Remediation Cost Basis.; .. ... ... ........ 4-9 4.5: Unit Cost;Estimiates :,... ,:*, ;,;..* ...i.:,*:;* ..: .:.,.;, . : .- ,.* :,;, ., : 4413 4.6 Benefit of Averted Dose........... ....,.. . .. ...... 4-13 4.7 ALARA Calculation-ResUlts.. :,.. 4-14 4.8 References :..:,......,.. .... ,,*..... . .....;. .,,. ... .. i'.:.;.. .;.. *:;, 4-15 ATTACHMENT 4A Calculation of ALARA Residual Radioactivity Levels ATTACHMENT 4B Unit Cost Values
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-1i Revision 6. January 2014 *~~~~~~~~ . ... . .. .. . . ... .......... List of Tables Table 4-1 Unit Cost Estimates.. . 4-14 j Table 4-ý2 AIARA Evaluaion Conc/DCGLw Results .4-15
MYAPC. LicenSe Termination Plan Page 4ý1 Revision 6 ,January 2014 4.0 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN 4.1 Remediation Actions and ALARA Evaluations This section of the LTP describes various remediation actionls wlhiich may-be used during the decommissioning of MY. In addition, the methods used.to reduce residual contamination to levels that comply with the NRC's annual dosp.e limit of25 rmremr plus ALARA, as well as the enhanced State of Maine clean-up standad of 10 mr.ey e) or-less for all pathways and 4 mremlyear or less for groundwater drinking Sources, are described.. Finally, the RadiationProtection Program requirements f.or the remediation are. described. As of September 30, 2005, the only decommissioning activities that, remaina are those associated with the ISFSI. The information included in this section of the-LTP includes historical information regarding the decommissioning of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant that willbe, maintainedin its current form. This information: will be-reviewed, and revised as necessary,. at. the time of initiatingthe decommissioniniigtiViti.s for the ISFSI and. associated land areas to ensure that appropriate information is available for the implementation of final status survey activities for the .ISFSLand.terminafion of the:Part-50 Licenise for the Maine Yankee site. 4.2 jRemediation Actions. Remediation actions are performed throughout the decommissioning-process.. The remediation action taken is dependent on the material contaminated:. Th principal materials that may be subjected to remediation are structure basemenhts 3-feet below grade and soils; Attachment 4B of this section describes the. equipment; personnel, and waste costs used. to generate a unit cost basis for the remediation actions discussed below. 4.2.1: Structures Followiing the removal of equipment and components, structures will be surveyed as necessary and contaminated materials will be remediatedor removed.and disposed of as radioactive waste: Contaminated structure surfaces at eleyations less than3-feet below gradewill be remediated to a level that wil meet the established radiological criteria provided in Section 6.0. The.-remediated building basements (elevations at and below - 3 foot below grade) will be:bbackfilled Remediation techniques that may be used for the structure surfaces-include washing, wiping, pressure washing, vacuuming, scabbling, chipping, andq sponge or-abrasive blasting. Washing, wiping, abra-ie blatiy-g, vacuunii, g-d pressu&re
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-2 Revision 6 January 2014 washing techniques may be used for:both metal'*and concrete suJfaces. Scabbling and chipping:are mechanical surface removal methods that are intended for
- concrete surfaces. Activated.concrete removalnmayincludeiusing machines with hydrauli c-l sistd, rem.oke-opeirted, ardidcuatin 'tools. These machines have the ability.t6oexchazige scabbling, sheari chisel.and 6ther tool heads.
- S tbblih The principal remediation.method expected to'be used for removing contaminants.
'frnm conerete siufaces is-scabbliiig. S6abbling is'a surface reimoval process that uses pnu ticly-operated a pstons with tungsten-carbide tips that fiacture.the
*concrete.surface to amnominal depth of 0.25.inchesata rate:of about 20 fiper hour. The scabbling pistons (feet)arecontained i, a closen-capture enclosure. that is connected by hoses to a sealed vacuum andý collector system. The:ft ed
.media and dusts are deposited into a sealed remonvable container: The exhaust .air passes -through both roughing and absolute HEPA (high efficiency particulate air fi-e)jiltration d11evice6 s. Dust anfdgge-n&ratd debrisl a-rie 66llH 'and conttrolled duringtheo operation.
A. second form. of scabbling is accomplished using needle guns, The needle:gun.is a pneuma.Wtic air-operated tool containing a sbies;.of tungsten-carbide or hardened steel rods enclosed in a housing. The rods are connected to an air-drivenwpiston to removal d.pth is a function of sairade and facture-themedia surface: ThVemedia
'the r"esiden'e' e'of the rods 6veritheii-*ace. pically" one to two millimeters are removed .per'pass. 'Generateddebfis tradnsport, collection, and dust control are.
'accomplished in 'the same manner.asfor scabblihg'. Needle-gun removal and.
hipping. of media are sually.reser-ved foira" not a sible t' normal scabbling operations. These include,:but:are not limited, tO inside cornerscracks, joints and crevices. Needle gunning techniques can also be applied to painted:and oxidized surfaces. Chippin Chipping` Icudes the use of pneumatibWiy operated chisels and similar tools coupled to vacuum-assisted. collection devices. Chipping activities are usually reseiýve for crac6ks. and crevices butimay. also be-used in lieu of concrete saws to remove p'edestal bases or similar eqtipmenit Platforms. This action is also a form of scabbling.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-3 Revision 6 JaiiunrY!2Q14........... Sponge and AbrasivetBlasig Sponge and abrasive blaoting.arsmar tenqe that usemedia or materials coated with abrasive:ompounds such asu-silica sands, garnet, aluminum oxide, and walnauthulls Sp.oSng .... ggis.ess aggryes.jy incorporafing a foam media that, upon impact: anhd-opiession, absoqrbs cnt.niffiats. The medium is collected by vacuum and the: contaminantswashed..frmn the medium for reuse. Abrasive blasting is morO ag ssve thanspngeblastingbut jess aggressive than scabbling. Both operations uses intermediate-air- ressures Sponge and abrasive
,blasting are intend d for-te-'reo ,aI ofsW-i fil*m.s. wpaints,, Abrasive blasting is evalkated-aswa remediation actio"n' an".d'"the c~os is" oinp'airable to sponge blasting with. an abrasive .media Pressure Washing,
.Pressure: washing uses a hydrolazer.-tfype nozzle-of intermediate water pressure to direct ajet of press'uized'wat ,thi r"emoves.9rficialmatriifals-frm the suspect surface. A header may be.-used to minimize over-say. A wet-vacuum system is used to suction the:potentially contaminated water.into .containers for filtration or processing.
Washing and Wipin Washing and wipingte*.niques a`e aions that are .normally performed during the course: of remediation-activities%and.will not Ialwaysbe evaluated as a separate ALARA. action. Whýenwa* g* .d wiping't0 qiqq-ue.are used-as the sole means to reduce residual.on :hDCGL lvels, ALARA evaluations are performed. Washing and w*vitg:te6hniques,.used.:as a ho.usekeeping or good
- practice. measure-willnot-be iu~a.t* p*.fxamp . wafswhg.and wiping activities for which ALARA evalyations would be perfob.ed in"lude:
- a. Decontfaminaton of and rails.
- b. Decontamination .ofstriehiral materials,.metils or media for which
.decontamignatnregegn~ts.:may:b~e. requied
.. $'Structure aresthat- do :not provide, sufficient access for utilization of other decontamination equipment such-as pressure washing.
Washing and wip'-ig is i&atle.ast
§a remediatio.n actfon.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-4 Revision 6 January 2014 Grit Blasting Grit blasting: uses grit media-such as garnetor sand under intermediate air pressure directed through a no01ze: that is'ifled through the clos6d piping at a fixed rate. Thq. ýit bl"a i*gaton removes thlit*feintor surfAce mediaiayer.of the:piping. A HEPA vacuum system maintains thesections-beingcleaned under negative pressure afid'.ollectS the meia for reuse or: disposal. The final system pass is: performed with clean gritto TremoVe aniy residual contamination.
,Removal ofActi ated Conicete Removal-of activated concrete is intended toibe accomplished using a machine-mounted, remote-operated artifbliatiiig arm with exchangeable actuated hammer and bucket (sawing, macthm rg ad expansion fract g may also be
- .employed). Asaconcfdte.is8fractured anderebar.exposed, the metal. is cut using
-flame .cuýig(oxygn-,acetylenie)equ*pment. The-media are transferred into container~s fo'rlater disiiosal d` imsadg 6ffs~ geertedddebris are locall~y collected and as necessary, ontrolled-Utingtemporary enclosures coupled with close-captureHEPA~filtration systes andco.ntrofled -watermisting. Any maining loose mediaareremoved ybpressir washinigor dry va"icuuming using a HEPA- filter equipped wet-dry vacuum.
As showin Sdion'6.0, th"e .r"'sii.u di6* 'ty due to adtivated confcete results in an annual.dose to :the. critial group of less ithan 0.1 mrem (see tSeetion 6.0,.Table 6.9)..Ths*ose..e.ntribution to the to~taiannual:dbse is a small
*fraction of:the.NRC*and enihaned Stiae.dose fimits ahd therefoe. ALARA evaluation*, are not deemed.necesgsary However, additional- ALARA e*valuations for activated -concretewll be-perforied if the d'se .contrilbtionto the critical group for activaWtedconcr
* .Ose=
ete exced 1.Q' nIdr'en-i per year. contributio 4.2.2 :Soil Soil contamination abov e the.site specific DCGL will:be removed and disposed of as radioactive.waste.. Operational constraints and-dust control will be addressed in sitei excavation and 'sil c6nti=,pero-.cd.l'us 1nadditibn,-work package winstructionis-for remnediation dfisdil ay'inclu~de additional conistiaints: and mitigation or-control methods-, The.site charaderization process-established the
- !o~,atiofi deith and extent of6s6il'contamin't on. As needed, additibnal imnivsigatins. Wil be..tha perone to 'enu hag so"In ntamination profile during.the remediation :actions isiadequiatelyidentified and: addressed. A majority of site soil contamination was associated with three distinct areas: (the
MY.APC License Termination Plan Page 4-5 Revision 6
.o........
PWST, RWST and the Shielded Radioactive Waste Storage Area) within the Radiologically Restricted Area (RRA). Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 provide.
- Additional -informat.ion regarding past and residual contamination Iassociated with th§e.eareas. In addition, the NRC releasgd those.aieas- from;thecontf61 of the 10.
CFIR50:License. it should also.be noted that sofl remediation volume:estimates in thejLTP-.mayvary. from .sectionto section, as appropria te, depding on.their use, e.g., d.e.*co.mfissi0n-..'iingcost estimates, ALARA evaluationsý or dose .assessment. Section 55-.5.l.b discusses soil.sampling and.survey methods. Soil. remediation equipment will .incude, but not:be inWited to; back and track hoe: ex'cavators.. As practical, when.the remediation depthtapproaches the soil
- interaface .eggiQn..ufr:.,nacceptableandacceptabl.e-contamination;,:asquared .edge exeaVatpo bucket design or similartechnique. may be used. This simple' methodology.minmmizes the mixing of.contaminated soils with acceptable lower
- soil layers:.asn would occur.with a toothed excavator.bucket, ..Remediation o.f soils
-will iniclude the.tiise of established Excavation Safety .and Environmental Control proeedures which reference lthe..required aspects of the Maine: Erosion and Sediment ControltHandbook for Construction, Best.Mantagement Fractices.
-Mianual. ;Additionally,,soi handling procedures. and work-package instructions
-will-augment the above g!idance .and proedural requirements to ensure adequate erosion, sediment, and air. emission-controls, during soil remediation.
a . Remediatio.nActivities Impact on the Radiation Protection Program The.R.ad!iati"on Pýr.t e.lq. Pro.gram, appropvdjfor-decommissionling..is sim ilar to.the Proramrin place during 25 ye.ars of commercial power operatibn: Duiringpower
.operations,.contaminated :structures, systems -and,comp~onents:were.deeontaminated in oqrdpe_-:top perfor..mainten.c or* epaations. The-e..itqu*sused,.w.re the same as those, being used for decqmmissibning. Many compoents re.re-moved and repilaced during operation. The techniques used for componentT.removal were the same as those planned for .use during decommiss9ioning.
The Maine.Yankee Radiation Protection:Program adequately controlled radiation.and radioactive: poa.niinaation.n during. dec nt;amination. and equipmentT.ernmal propesses. The same controls:are beingused du*rig decommissioning:to reduce petsonnel exposure toradiation.nd c.ntamination and to. prevent the spread..of corithrmination.froms establishedý contaminated iareas.. ODecom~missioning doqes.not present any-newchallenge to theRadiatio1nPro6tection Pr~ogra-m. above those encountere*d during noin'l'planit operation and refuelin., Decommissioning allows radiation.protection personnel to 0focus on each
*area of the site.andplan each activity well before execution.ofthe remediation technique.
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-6 Revision 6 January.2014 . .. . ... Low levels of surface contamination are expected to be remediated by washing.and wiping. These techniques have been used over the operational history of the-facility. Watet Washing; with detergent has been the method of choice for large area deconamination. Wipingwith-detergent soaked or oil-imptegnated media has been-used on-small items;,overhead spaces and :small hand tools to remove surface contaminants. Thoee same technique§ will be applied ito remediation oflightly co6ntaminat!d sAtrue surfaes duringremediation actions. hiterrmediate levels.of-ooitarnination aind contaminiation on the iiternil surfaces ofpiping or components have been subjected to high-pressure washing, hydrolazing or: grit blasting wirthe past..,Pipes,,surfaces and.drain lines, have been cleaned and hot.spots.removed. using hylElizing, sponge blasting or grit blasting. Small tools, .hoses *dcabld have* bdenpressure washbd in a,self-contained glove box to remove surface contamination. These methods will be used to reduce icontamination on moderately contaminated exterior surfaces.as well.as-internal surfaces of pipes or components during decommissioning. Scabbling.or other~surrfacecremoval techniques.will reduce highilevels of contamination, including t.hatp.reent-oncontarminated concrete. Concrete cuttii..g or: surface, scabbling h.s be6. usid at.i-M in.:the pas dring: or prior to installation of new equipment or structures.both-outside and: inside the RRA. Abraive water jet and mechanical cutting of components will be used to reduce the volume of reactor internals. Mechanicalciuttingwasused at.thiswfacility during past operations., -Abrasive waterjetc-eutting:uses actions similar to'.hydrolazing and. grit b!a.*gkhi~hhave beenhuse 'at'thesite-in'the past. The current' radiaFtion.prott ion program provides adequate controlsfor these actions. The dc**o ngý organizationis-experienced in and capable of applying these remediation techniques on. contaminated systemsi Structuresor: components.during. deco.mmissionin&.- The.:Radi.ati nProteoniProgram-is.adequate to-safely control the tadi.lop'a apect*softhis work and noic6hanges to the Program are neces0ar"in.order to ensure the*lealth and safety of the workers, and the public. 4.4. ALARA EvalUation. As describedin Section 6.0, dose assessment scenarios were evaluated .for the residual contaifiation that could remain, on basement surfaces and soils. The ALARA. anilyfis isi conservativelysed on the resident fanmer scenario. The resident farmer. critical goup applies to..existing::open land'areas and all -site areas where standing buildings have been removed to, fhree t below grade. Current decommissioning plans do not call for on Site
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-7
- Revision 6 January,2014
- . u a
.Ja y 20 4. ...... .........- . ....... - . .... .
buildings to remain standing. However,. ALARA evaluations arealso provided. using the building oecupaney scenario.
.4A -Dose .MOd To calculate. the.costand.benefit, of averted-dosefor the ALARA calculation, certaiii.paramneters* such as size. of conitaminated area and population density are
.required. This information was developed as a part of the dose models described
- in Section6:and the Final :Survey Pr.ogram in-Section :5::and is.sumnarized below.
a,. Basement-Fill: Modei.(Resident. Farmer. Scenario) Asdescribed in Secti6n 6, after bildin-gs. aind str-uctres are rem6ved to 3 feet below gradej the critical group is the resident farmer. Renioval of
..residual ra~dioactivity onbasement surfaces 3 feet below gradeoreduces the dose associated with: the resident farmer scenario. Accordingly, the
.... A. evaluation forremediation actions use-:the pararmters for
- -population density,; eYaluation, time-,monetary discount rateand area: that are applicable: to the resident farmer scenaijo.
b, Standing Building Occupancy Model Altho, gh, standinglbuildi.ngs Are-no...tpannd-to remain at,the.site, an ALARA :evaluation: Was.p.erformed in the event plans change, and, a
,standingibuilding.w.ill :remain. J&. this case, the -buiding occupancy scena6ro would be uised;*Ir accordance with Section:55. of the LTP, the
.building occupancy survey unit size is 180 m2 . This is based on a survey u*Ntwith a 10 ..in 2 floor area with contarminatedwa ils :to0.a-height.of
;2imeters: ALARA cost analyses are based on an assumption that only the l0..nim:floor :area. requires remediation.. This.is conservative; since
,inluduing. the walls ýwould -increase.remediation cost without increasing the benefit of averted. dose.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-8 Revision 6 .Ja.nary 2014 4.4.2 Methods for ALARA Evaluation NUREBG01727, "De`mmissioniiig Standiad RMeve Plah," Section 7.0, ALARA Analysis, states, "Liensdes or responsible parties that remediate building surfaces or soil to the generic screening levels established by'the NRC staff do notsneed .to demonstrate that these levels are .AARA.," TheDCGLs for soil. were based on generic sreeninglevels. Ih addition, :alth6ugh no standinig buildings are planned to remain, DCGLs were. calculated and were also based on generic screening levels. Notwithstanding the NRC guidance, MY is conservatively providing ALARA evaluati6ns of the remediation atio-ns for soii.and standing buildings. There"are no0:genferi6-cscregeiglevelszfor:thebasement fill:scenario so ALARA analyses are required. The ALARA evaluations were performed'in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1727. A..spreadsheet format was used to account for the dose conti*bitio6n6 f eAch.rdionuclide:in the MY f The pinipal equations
.itdre.
used for the calculations are presehted in Attacliment 4A. -TheMeValuation deterninesif t:hebenefit of theldose avertedby the remediation.is greater:or less than the cost of the rfeiedidton. When the benefit is greater than the cost, additional remediation is required.: ConVerely when the benefit is less than the cost, additional remediation is not required. 4.4.3 Remediation Methods and Cost For the Maine.ar#:eep :facility-the rfemediation techniques examined are scabbling, pressure water wshin wet..and dry wiping, gritblastinhg.for embedded and buried piping and gritOblasting of surfaces. The principal remediation method expected to be uised is. scabbiiig, *which isinteniiide ;toinclude needle guns and chipping. The'total cost ofeach remediation methodis provided in Attachment 4B. The-cost inputs are defined in Attachment 4A, Section A.2, Calculation of Total C6st. B'aemsentdoncrete -is'stheprincipal surface that will: require rernediation.
- a. Basement Concrete Surfaces The characterization'data -for concreteasurfaces at-the Maine Yankee facility indicates that a major fractibonl of-the contamination occurs in the top illmetdferof the!concrete.. Scabbhng actions result in the removal of the~top 0,1.25o.0.25inches (0.318 to-0.635-cm) ofconcrete. The ALAR-A evaluation wasperformed by-bounding the cost estimate for a scabbled depth.of 0.125 and 025 ineh.e Fo each evaluation the same manpower
MYAPC License Termination Plan .:Page 4-9 Revision 6 January 2014 cost is used. However, the manpower-and equipment costs for the lower bounding. depth do not include compressor:and consumable..supply costs which adds some conservatism to*theco.st etiffate,.i.e., bias the cost low. The major variables.forthde-boundin'g-.conditionsr are the costs associated with manp.ower and waste-disposa,
- b. Structqre Actiyated: Conrete-.
Concrete activation :is anticipated.regarding theISFSI storage pads and Vertical ConcreteCass. 1h. decg-pijnipning cqs*t-esti..ate assumes
- that. the materials that-comprse th ese stuptures ,will b edisposed of as low-.
level .radioactive waste. 4.4.4 Remediation CostBasis: The cost of remediation depends on.several factors.sbch:as'thoselisted below. This.sectionidescribes-the attrifbutes .of each-remediafionamethod.-that affect cost. The detailed cost estimates .,for:each mneho.areeprov.ided_ n Aitachment 4B. Depth of contaminants; Surface area(s) of contamination relative to total; Types of surfaces: vertical walls, overheadý surfaces, media condition;
*. Consumable items andmequipment parts;
- Cleaning rate and efficiency (d.,contniiaonfafaq.tot,);.
Work crew size;. Support activities such as, waste packaging and-transfer, set up time and
.interfering activities for other tasks;:and
- Waste volume.
,a. Scabblirng, It has been estimated that.scabbling can be'effectively performed on
-smooth concrete surfaces to a-dept .of0.25 toO05 inchesat a rate of 20 fR' per hour. The scabblinggpistonsi(feet),are co ined in a.close-capture
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-10 Revision 6 January.2014 enclosure that is conineted by h0oses toa seaed vacuum and collector system. The waste meddia and;dust' are 4deposited:into.a- sealed removable. container. The exhaustair-passes through both roughing: and absolute HiEPA fl~tratio devi.ces. D.t pand generated debri.s are collected and controlled duting thd opera.tioln. The.operation is oneivti*yeyassumed to be performed by one equipment operator :ad :one-laborer. -Inaddition, costs for radiation protection supportactivities and::supDeision are included. The unit cost is presented-in Tble 4-1., !.Scabbling the room assumes that 100% of the concrete surface contains :contmnination-at levels equal to the DCGL and that 95% 'ofthfiireidual activty.is r"eoved by the remediation aetion. The equipmient U c*pableo6f scabbling 20:0 -square feet.perrhour. The debris is vacuumed initAo collectors that are transferred to containers for rail shipments. For 0-e &'aliatioa, the; fril car is assumed to carry 2 mrn of concrete peru.ipment. The.assumed -cnt6anatioin *reuc6tioh rfe, ari, very high (95%), but not unreasonableconisidein- tt the cotamination is very close to the surface. Based on evaluation ofconcrete' core samples, scabbling is expected to-bethe pincipal metho*dused forfremnediationof 'concrete surfaces. The cost elr6nfuiiised t*6 derive the Unit costs:for the ALARA e uationaelistedin Attach**nent B. -Ther-nmetds.forcalculaing total cost are provided in Attachment A.
- b. iPressure. Water-Washing' The unitco*sts6dW prv.id-d,'mTable 4-ifor water Washing-were established by assuming that 1100% o*the,,.site-struces' surface -areais pressure washed. Ihs ihformnatifon.was used to provide a cos.t per meter. square faotor. Attachment 4B`priovi'dese the c6st details. The equliipmennt consists of a hydrolazer and when-us,. a.heade. assemibly. The. hydrolazer type nozzle directs the jet of pressurized water that removes surficial materials from the cncrnete. The he'derminiiz'esoýver-pray.
d Akwet vacuum system is usedto.suctiot6nhe*pote'nt* ly'conmiated wat*erfito
..containers 'for filtration-or processing.SThe c*le6 g sped"is approximately 9:.3* sqiuire.*ebrs(1O perhou. ad:the*process
-generates about 5.4 liters of liquid per sq-u-are:meter (NUREG-5884, V2).
The.contamination reduction rates. are.dependent on the media in which the nc6hninants ar'e fixed, Ithe com positionof: ithe coniamihints, cleanfing
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page441I Revision 6 January 2014 reagents used. and water jet pressure. Mitigation-of loose contammiants is high. Reduction of hard-to-remove surface 1contamination is aOppoximately,25%o for the jet pressure.ap leaning speed used. The.use., of reagent and slower speeds can providdbet bt _... !ontamination reuctt4n ratts butat proportionally higher costs:. The operation.isperformid uing one. equipment operator and two laborers... In addition, costs for radiation protecton.support activities. andsupervision arebiluded. The.fodrula associated with the cost elements is provided in Attachment A and-the..cst elements-..areprovided inAttachment B.
- o. Wet and Dry Wiping Thq unit: cots provided in Table 4-1 for wasghiand .wiping as~sbmre 100%
of thesitestrLictures' surface area is washed..and wiped-. The informat.ionis useod.*to d.evel.o!p a cost per square meter. Attachment 41provdes the detailed costs. Wetwiping consists ofsing a cleaning:reagent andf wipes on sufac6s that cannot be otherwise cleaned or deconinated. Dry
- wipingincludes fthe-useiof oil-impregnated-media to pick up and:hold 6nt ats. Theleaning rate ofthese.atidon' is estimated.at'2.8,slquare!
meters per hour(r- two minutes per square-fot). This adtion is labor intensive, Th.e.action.is.:effective for thortemoval~of loose contafmiants ndrdedt*ction 6f suiface contaminants esp*ecia*y when cl g reagents
,areiused, Waste generation is. about 0.005..-i hour RG-5 884,.V2). Decontamination factors v,ary and are dependent on fagtors s -ch-as the reagents that are use., -the level- of wiping effort and-the chemical and physical composition of the contaminiant. The contamination reduction efficiency used for wet and dry wiping is 20 perent. Removal of loose contaminants, oil and gr.ase is very eqffecive (100'perpent). The operatiqonJi performed using two laiboirers. In addition,*the cost for radiation:protection support activities includes: an operifatein eneerg and:supervision. The. formul'a*ssociated with the cost is provided- in Attachment A. Attachment B list the cost
'me.n elememts used-for.the evaluation.
- d. Grit Blafstg (Embedded Piping)
T.e-,poqst for,grjt bl'asg .was. tabiishd .by-a.. ig that 6,158 iinwai, fet pfpipigis de4ontaminated. This !. tof piping-is the totalam*o.unt of potentiallvycontaminated buried and embedded, pipinjg identified tbythe Maine-Yankee engineering group. For the evaluation,the entireinterior
----- ----- -requir.e decontamination and the intemal diameter is
MYAPC License Termination Plan .Page 4-12 Revision 6 .January,2014"........ assumed at 4 inches (typical drain line dimensions). The grit blasting system is comprised of a hopper assembly that delivers a grit medium
- (gant.;'risand) at ihneediate Aifr pressires through a nozzle that'is-pulledat a fix.d6.ratb..(-* 'f6tper.minute):,throuighte. pipig. A HEPA vaimuma system-maintains-the:piping'system under a -negativepressure and collects th egrit.forrue i(cyclone separator) or disposal. U ly sevra prasses. are=quire to"effecftivelycleanthe piiping .to.accetable reidual radioactivity levels,. ,The:contamination reduction efficiency used for grit blasting is 95:percet. 'This reduction ,rate can.vary depending on radial bends 'in piping; reduction and .expinsioii fittings, pipe material composition, physical,: conditioniand. the:plate-outmtechanisms: associated withlthe'contrtrmants and effluents.. The final pass is madew-ith.cleangrit to mtigat~ehe~poss~fiblity of lo6se residual contaminants assoceiat with previous cleaýingpas-es Gfitdecontamation factors are related to presur,nozzle: size, grit media and the number of passes made., A nomia gritusge rate of one.pound per linear foot isus6d ifi the calculation. This. cost unit information is provided as*cost per linear foot factor andJs also converted to m2 .for the spreadsheet evaluation.
Attadimnt.4B p`rvid'esthe cbst details used to deriV*eunit c ost .The: formuala- s-ciated with the costAeliements .is provided in Attachment A
- e. Sponge and Abrasive Blasting Sponge and abrasive'blasting uses media or materials coated with abrasive
*:mpud;such silica. sands, garet,.aluminum oxide and walnut hulls.
The 6peration::uses intermediate air pressures as thiatdescribedfo.rgrIt blasting. The operation uses a closed-capture system and air filtration
.sy't*i6tomiigate lo6se:and airborne radioactivity. Thesystem incdies a
-cyclone:0orimilar separation systm.'to cbllet:the.gerted*. m a. The:
ýoperaiionis ,intended .for:.removal of surficial films. Theremoval
- 6ffieif@ iiand deptt.ae a function of ihe surface, -abrasive.mix,-air pressure, 'ritmdia, d speed or number of passes 'overethe
'peomid SUspept 'surface Surface cleaning rates are about 30 square feet per hour.
For the rate given, the removal depth using aluminum oxide gfit will range from: less.than 1 to as much as 3 millimeters. Abrasive blasig techniques are often used for film and paint removal and are less aggressive: than kibbliiag.
MYAPC License.Termination Plan Page 4-13 Reviskrn 6 January 2014
- f. Soil Excavation
*The unit costs provided in Table,4-1 for soil-excavation were established by asmg 496ME+04 f (1403.0.xn*) ofsoil is excavated from the site.
This:information was used.to generate acostýpjer cubic meter for soil gmediatiot t The* equipm6ntconsits of an eciia*atr that -first.moves the soil atthe: contaminated depth intace in.to a container or if necessary, a pile that is scooped into a staged shipping:,container. When filled, the container is pmoved from the:excavation-area with a forklift. Contmna'tion redu.ction i.s assumeat .95%. The operation is performed using.two equipment operators and t"o laborers,. Costs for radiation pro.tpton-suppor -activitiesan.d..sup-eM.sion. are also included. The fomula associa.ted with the; cost elementspis rovided in Attachment A and the cost. elemenits are provided in Attachment-B. 4 .,Unit :Cobst Estimates" In.order to effec.ti.velyper'frm ALARA evaluations, and. remediation actions, unit cost valuesp are6ei' e These values are used to poeformthe NUREG-1727 cost-benefit analysis. Table.4-l lists the unitfcosts of theremediation methods anticipatedto beused at Maine Yankee, The spreadsheets and information used to calculate values in Table 4-1 are summarized in Attachment 4B., 4 Benefit of Averted Dose-R The remediation costs listed in Table 4-1 were compared to the benefit of the dose aver.te. t.*.*o, th:e.* e edation-actio.n The benefit of-averted dose was calculated using EquationsD1 and D2 in NUREG-g727 as:modified:to account for multiple radionuclides. Te:piarameters useddin the equations wre tak'en from .REG1727, Table D2.
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-14 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 4-1 Unit Cost Estimates
..e "e......t..... Unit Costa Remarks Pre.sure Washing and $19.32/0 init co f
' .II*.... Vacuuming
*..atmP~
........... ..: :-.$ 8.9m_ , factorsid.*'* aii.t tB
/asi~ .- -.S48. -59/rn2 _Unit cos.tfactcroii eiitt4et Concrefe Scabblin.gb $1 Unit cosffactrs oimidikin ahikf entB. Needle gun C~nret Scbblng $9 -6.23/mi Unit cost factors pr~ovi~ded scabbling (wpp.r Bound). 2 activities are included.with .Attachiment B. Needle gun Grit aSt.*i $1.1 lUnit cost fact'sprvidedIn AttachmentBNeedle gun
*Ji.ost .tors prodlii t*hm~t'
,9(Upper-B.und) .. - , -__._-_ __... _.._
Grit Bias g.Siu~ace $87.80/rn 2 Unit cost factod provided-in Attachment B (Upper Bound). ( U.. . .'7 ""s * , ,', " 2 Z - .' *. ., ....... .... ... ........... .. .. ...... . . . .. . ." .. .. .... , ". . . . . Grit Blasting "rnbedde.....r..dPV $45.93 6ie& Ui tft: .csta c to.rs, -"ded'hi Attdbzt.B
.. S - ping __--_-___.__"__'_-t_.. ....
SoifE~ci~ati J _ -.jIAh~h 33 ll _Uit cost atrroieinAacmtWI
'The high cost for wiping and washitng.is due both to the labor iitendsivetime(7.6%,of.the total) required and the costs-of waste-processing-and-disposal associated withthoe water used. Becauseradiation protection practices depict wiping as good pmrctice for removingloose contnination, wipng is-performed and not always as a function of.an.ALARAevaluation bA contingency of25%,has been added to the¢person:hourtotal forthe activities Combining Equations Dl and D2 results in the following. The method for adjusting this equation to account -for iiiultiple radionuclides is described in Attachment 4A, Section A. 1.
BAD = $20OOxPDxAxO.025x l(i2 ... .. ) Whiere: .B. istthebenefit of aVerted-dose Variables are as described: in NUREG-1727, Table D2. The detailed description of the calculation of the BA, is provided in Attachment 4A, Sections'A.3 and A.4. 43 ALARACalculation.Results The final ALARA calculations wer6e performed by.compngthe total remediation cost to:the benefit of averted dose isng Equation D8 from NUREG-1727. The calculations are described in detail in.Attachment 4A. The results for each remediation method, for both the Basement Fill and Building Occupancy-scenarios,. are provided in Table 4-2.
MYAPC'License Terminatlon Plan :Page 4-15 Revision 6 Januar' 2014 Since the Cone/DCGLw values are greater than 1 for all.remnediation methods,:no remediation below the NRC.25 mrem/y d.ose limitlis required. As described in Attachment 4A,-the results are also Valid `for th6eoen'ced st4ate eria iI° o16-weifig the dose. criterftia in9cr8eases the Conc/DCGLw :Vfife.
- -~ T~iiIe4-2~
ATAPA F.valsi~itlnn Cnndfltt~Th~. R&~an1hi Remedjation Action Basemient Fill BuIldinigOcuppeiy Pressr Waihingand
. -...-i ~~~~~~
Vacuiuming 996.4
!* * ' --- - . :,* _ o .. 7 % ,- ..-.
Conxcrete:° Sdbliing(..pper Bound) .. 3t9 .76 Concrete Scabbling (Lower-Bound) F23 69. :2.3.8 Grit.Blasing Sfaces*(Uppen Bo-und) 153N3 2 94
.. "GritBýasg Su"ac
-es.(Lower.Bound) AAA... .... 228 Grift Blasting: Embiedded/Buried Piping 91t60 .
56i Ecca~vafio'n 71....:
'Grit blasting of embedded piping is.not evalugted1foif Biiifliihg`Occuipanky bSoil is evaluated usingatheSurface Soil:values fromNUREOG I727' TableQC2.3w 4 .8 Re e.......
4.8.1 Maine Erosion and Sediment, Control Handbook for Constructioni-Best Practices ,Manual 4.8.2 NUREG:1727,."Dec.isii igsg6!S'g"indlard.Rfdeyiew P-IAi: 4.8.3 .NUREG/CR 5884, "Revised Analyses of D cofmsssionn.2g fojh(e..ReferencePressurized Water- eactor Power Station", Volume 2
MY-APC License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Pagel of 18 .January 2014 ALTTACEMUIM-4A Calculation of AL RA Residial480Ioactivity Levels
MYAPC.License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revisin 6. Page. 2 of 18 January 2014 This attachment provides the method for calculating residual radioactivity levels that are ALARA. A.1. Residual Radioactivity Level ALARA,.Calculation.. Forth6 p ss of addressing multiple radionucIdets, Equation D8 of NUREG-1727 as presented below is modified. The equation used for each spreadsheet is provided in Section A. .I1 (NUREG-1727, eq. D8). Conc Cost T F r + DCGL W, (2000 )(PD)(0.025)(F)(A) [1 - e:÷+A-N J Where: Conc DCGLwDCGLW -. Fraction of DCGLw that is ALARA
,Cost- Total monetary cost of remediation action in dollars 2000 The dollar value of-a person-rem averted ($/person-rem)
PD Population density for the.critical group :sceriario (persons per in 2) 0.025* = Annual dose to an average member of the critical group from residual radioactivity. at the'DCGLw concentration (rem/yr)
- NOTE: This calculation is perfonred in compliance with 10 CFR 20, with regard to 25 mrem. If calculated using the: 10 mrem annual dose limit an even wider divergence between cost and benefit would result.
F .. Fraction of the residual radioactivity removed by remediation action. A .-. Area (M 2 ) used to.calculate.the population density
MYAPCLicense Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Page 3 of I8 January 2014 r = Monetary discount rate (yr') A = Radiological *decay constant for the radionuclide (yr1 ) N Num.be of years over which collective averted dose is. calculated (yr) Values foi the equation parameters may be found in NUREG- 1727. The table below: presents .some of these generic .values. Equation Parameters NU.REG,727 Table D2 Values Equation Terms
.Struture Land
=. . .. :.. . . . . . . .. . . . .. " .
P S -- 0.09 0.0004 r 0.07 0.03 N .. 70 1000 A..l EquationD8 .as used in Secti.on 4..0 ALARA Evaluations Equatioin D8, NUREG-1727 is presented below: r+
MYAPC.License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revisfin 6 Page 4 o.f.18 January 2014 The right term of the equation is multiplied by 1 as illustrated in the term below. Equation D8, NUREG- 1727 is then expressed as:. Conc CostT
..... .($2000)(PD)(O.025)(F)(A)[,
For multiple radionuclides the denominator must be summed over all radiotiuclides as shown below: Conc Cost'i... DCGL* .Z($2OOO)(%)(O.025)(Dfj)(F)(A) Where for Basemient Fili Scenari6: Df = Dose Fraction..semenf -i . ..(f(nf)(!InitizedDoseFactor,)
*).( Uni!iz~edDose Factor,)
(qfd)(UnitizedDoseFauctorn) or, Building Occupancy; nf ScreeningValue, Df, = Dose Fractionb,,ildifl8 -ci,,Oncy.
.ScreeningValue, And, nfi nuclide fraction. of the mixture radionuclide
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revisl6n 6 Pagei~isf:f6'" January 2014 Unitized Dose Factori (basement fil) nuclide specific mrem/y per dpm/100 cm2 (orpCi/g) results from the respective -Unitized Dose Tables .6-2 through* *.5,, and, 6-7 throughi 6-8 of:Section"6.0.0 Screening Value, (building occupancy) nuclide specific Screening.Values from Table 5.19 of NIREGB55i12V3 or NUREG-1727 Table C2.2. A.2. Calculation.-of Total :Cost (NURG-4 727 eOq...D3) In order to evaluate the cost of remediation actions NUREG-1727 provides the elements necessary to derivedthe costs that are~compared to the-benefits. The total cost is: cOStr..= Cost R + CoStWD + COSt ACC + CTF +CWD.os +CCPDose+ Cother The terms for '."C~ost" are abbreviated as "C" below (NUREG-l727 eq. D4-D7) Cr = total costs (all the elements below) CR = Monetary cost of the remediation. action (may include mobiliz*ti6o, c'sts)1 CWD C ost for generation and disposal of the waste generated by the action: CWD = VA X: C VA I.s the volume of waste produced, remediated-in units of m.3 :and;* Gv is the cost of waste disposal per unit volume, includingqtranspbrt ...ost, in units of $/m3 CACc ..Costof worker accidents during the remediation action* CAcC $3,000,000 x Fw x TA
$3,000,000 is cost of a fatality eqitivaient to $2,000/person-rem, FW is the workplace fatality rate in fatalities/hour worked.:(4.20E-8/h)4and;.
MYAPC;License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Page 6-of 18 JanuaryI2014 TA. is.the worker time required for rem.ediation in-units, of worker-hours.. Cost.of traffic fatalities during transportof.the waste: C.r .. .. . . . ... . C-T $3,9010,000 X VA x[(Fr X* D)/VJ,.P F.ris: the fatality rate per: kilometer t 4aveled in units, of fatalities/km (3 .8OE-8), for truck shipments *l And .'7(E-9for hazardous material shipped: by-rail (Class I rail = 9.8E-07). The haZardous material value is conservatively used in the calculations; however, in any case CTr does not significantly- impact, the evaluation results. DT is the round trip distance from Maine Yankee to.: Clive, Utah (Energy Solutions), in 1km;
*V5s** is.volumeof truck shipment in;m-3(estimated cat 7.93 mi);. for rail the respectiye volumes used for concrete and .soil.are92 and 122 m3..
CVM0SC $2,j000 x DR x T: CWDos. is the cost of the remediation worker do.se
$2000 is the c6st bf dose received by workers perforingthe remediation and transporting the waste to the disposal facility.
PR is total effective dose equivalenif rate to remediation workers in units of rem/hr and, T'is time woiked to re'm"ediate the are'eai tiinits of person-hours CPDOS - Cost of the dose to the public from excavation, transport, and disposal of the.. waste. Cother Other.appropriate costs~for-the particular-situation,
,A.3 Calculation ofBenefits (NUREG- 1727 eq. DI)
The benefit. from collective averted dose is calculated by determining the present worth of the future collective-averted dose and multiplyingit bya factor to convert the dose to monetary value: BAD, ($2000)[PW(ADCOLLEC-jY)1
MYAPC' License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Rev'*ision 6. Page 7 of 18 January. 2014
*Where:
B&D = benefit from averted dose -for a remediation action;.in $
$2,000 v*alue in dollars -ofa pei'son-rem averted PW.W(ADCOt*E-rIVE) -- present worth of fiture collective averted dose
.A.4 .Prsent Worth of Futtrdefollective Averted Dose (NURE-. 727 eq. D2)
ThR presehft worth of the futuife 6`0ll&6tiVie i-'rted do6d"is edsimiate..d'by" PW( AD C11C ve = )(A)(O.O2_5)(FP) Cn. 1 e+) P,
- population density for the critical group ,scenano-in people per m2 A. Area being evaluated riim 2 and represents te,-fioo-rarea o :rilrfor the
-attached ALARA: calculafio'ns.
.. 0J2
-5* Annual dose:to:a-average:mernber of the critical ;groupfrom tesidual radiiactiVityzat the DC:GL concentrafion i remnjy SNO.TE: Thisicalculation is perfortmd in..compliance With 10 CFR 20, with regard to,25, mrem. If calculaied usinghgfiI 0tmrem annual dose.limit an even w@ider divergende between cst and bi would rl.
PJ* Fra&don 6f the residual radioaciiity r by.the remediation action. pmoved F may be considere'd 'to be'the"remi6vhblefraf.ion"nfor the remediation action being evaluated. C c= Average c6nce!traion o~fresiduaol e radi6activit,ý being evaluited inh units of
-activitypet.unit area for buildings or. activity per iinit vo*ume for' soil.
- D*CGLw:= derived &oninttation:giidline'l0I itiat represents.a dose of 25 mrem/yr to :the aVerge member Oflthe critical group, iin th same unfis as "Cone' r monetary discount rate in units of yr-1 S. ::- radiological decay constant for the radionuclide in units of yr1
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Page S of 18 January 2014 N = number of years over which the collective dose will be calculated. A.5 ALA*5RA Evaluation .S.eadsheets-and:Development Evaluation spreadsheets'incorp.orate the.Bu results for each nuclide in the mixture relative to thexremediation action. The.spreadsheets, if necessary, may be modified to ad dress. changesr additional-regtlatory guid.ance. The spreadsheets provide input for fraction of aciv-ity removed, t6tal cost and remediation surface area. Other nuclide fractions can be input to. address ochanges in mixtures and the dose.factors attributing to the respective scenario can be replaced as necessary. The spreadsheets utitlize :the formula pro.vided in ,Section.A. 1.1 and are 'designedto sum the BA, results for each radionuclide in the mixture. To correctly do so requires that the individual dose'friaeion be multiplied by the annual dose (0. 025 rem/y) to an average member of the critical group.: The total cost for the remedial action when divided by the benefit of averted dose results in the Conc/DCGL as per NUREG- 1727, Equation D2. The results determine-the-cost effectiveness of the remedial action. Values greater than unity a.already ALA.R. For scabbling and grit.bl*sting areduction factor of 0.95 is used. Because a majority of contamination is near the surface of the media the abrasive or scabbling actions are expected to be very efficient. Pressure-washing and washing and wiping activities are designed primarily for remoyal of loose cpnta.minants - grimes and adhered oils and greases. These remediation actions are intended to remove all the loose contamination and the layers of grease and oils adhered to surfaces. These actions are expected to remove a minimum of 10.0 percent:of the contaminants. The characterization results: in Section 2.0 show that the aveirge loose contarination .fraction is less than 10.0 percent. NUREG-1727 uses areduction factor of 20.0 percent for washing a building. The use of decontamination agents with.liquid is an.ticipated to increase the reduction factor for the pre.sure. washing and wasing 'd wiping..C0n~servative values of 20.0 percent for washing and. wiping and 25,0percent~forpressure washing are used in the evaluations. The Basement Fill and Building O uancy dose models were evaluated for each applicable remediation method. For, the baseent fill model the.occupancy area is 10,000 m2 since the resident,farner i thie criti.al group, The area remediated is the assumed model air'ea of 4 82 in 2. Note thfat'reducingthis:area size would reduce dose proportionally. For theBuilding Occupancy model the occupancy area is a 100 rn2 floor in a standing building; the remediation .area is-also assumed to be 100 m2 .
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment4A Revision 6 Page 9 of i8 January 2014 A.5.1: ALARA:Spreadsheet EValuations: PrCessur W iifi(Bhae tilý_TlM6&dl) A removal fractie on.for pressure-washing utilizing standard commercial pressure wahing techiquesis iaibot 0.25. ThMis r'eduiction fraction is associated with
,removal.of loose, contamiatio-n as well as greases :and oils adhered to surfaces.
The-ALOA Evaluition results show that.tie Conc/DCGLw result is 99.4 and ALARA. Pressure.Washi Builfdi.g*OccupancyModel) The results indicate.that f'or aremoval fraction of 0.25 the action is ALARA without remediation, actions. As previously stated, the use of a removal fraction of 0.25.ass umes tat the operation ý,ii 1at;a minimum, remove all loose contaminftfin hndadherig g eadild from suspect surfaces (NUREG-5884, M.27). heALR Evaluationrshows ththe Conc/DCGLw result is 1.9 and
.W'ash .and W.igina -Balse t:4..M*oael)
The re'mov'l.fratio6n used for washing a.nd wiping is 0.20 and shows residual radioactivity being ALAR.A withouttaing ;any-r-emediation actions. The ALARA Evaluation, showsithe: Conup . r ttis 312.6.
. .~~~~~~~~ . .. . , , . , . . *........ "e The buildingoi0n**cmde! as t ."is-based on-'a 100 m2 area. The removal fraction is.6.0'..0 is 0.20.
"i The
"' ALARA " _y". Evaluation
..... "" ... ' results:shows
.. .. ... the Conc/DCGLw result .
;is.:0 eidui 'oaatiyit,- LAA~thout taking any remediation :actions.
Th..e Scbbling evalationisperfomed using emaximum expected scabble deth an*d thlniaihpbWer and equipment ost,uing,a stanfidard contingency.of
.1.25:. The assoceiated:total .ostWlien:comparedto the benefit of averted dose is determine. o -AAFvibtlipAu-Ihot
-be taldigremediation actions. The second m*ation for scAbbling.evalu.ates thea.e.tity using one half of the maximum expected.depth using the same manpower-and: equipment hours associated: with the reFiditiOn! "tht.f6st ;for
`b Fmi esso*r,.and consaumables at 10% of the eqiipment ost is noit used!(a cost r ctiion of-:14%). The results of-the evaluation againsioshow that tfheation is still ALARA withoutrermediation actions.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Rev"if6n 6. Page !0 of 18 January 2014
.Costs are based on assuming the. entire surface. area of the three':.foot below grade structure is scabbled (this area size assumption is used for all surface.remediation activities). This *-isa con*evative assumption sincemaxi1 g i ated area results in the-lowest. unit cost.. TheALARA Evaluation :shows the Conc/DCGLw reslts.arp 143,.9 and 123.9, respectively.
.Scabbling."uilding.Occuppncy Model)
Scabbling conditions for bounding are the same as the basement fill model. The only chatnges.are unit costs and-evaluation area:are 1oom 2 . The xesults of the evaluation show.the action is still ALARA withoutr.em..iati'actions. The ALARA Eval1u'ation' shows.A. thle C6nc/D-CGLre ts aE& 2.76- aid2.3 8 respptively.., Embedded ipinghGrit Blasting (Basement Fill Model) Embedded- and buried pipinjg.-assumes a reduction fraction of O:.95. The total l rfeet ofpipi is use4! (6,0158 feet) The spreadsheet ut ilizes the same surface area as dor other: evaluations for the basement fill scenriao. The cost-basis is per linear foot. The:ALARA Evaluation result for the onc/DCGLwlis. 91.6 and already ALARA.,
'Surface ,rit.,Blaslng,..(aserent.Fill. Model),
Evaluation for suiface grit blasting utilizes the same area and removal fractions as for.scabbling. The results of 'the evaluation show the actionisLA without remediation actins. The.ALARA Evaluation shows the Cone/DCGLw results are 153.3 and 118.9. forthe uppermand lowerrbound cost contingency evaluations, respectivyly.
,Surif-fc6.Git Blasting (,Building Occupancy Model)
Evaluation for surface grit blasting .utilizes'4thesame area and removal fractions as for scabbling. The resultsof the evaluation again show the action is still ALARA without remediation actioS.. The ALARAEvaluation results shows the C.oncDC.GL reswuts are.2i94.and 2.28 for. the upper .and lower bound cost contingn*y evaluatons;.respetiv ely.. SoilB-Ecavation! Du9 to l.ghremnoval.and slipping costs, excavation of sig**ficiat quantities of soil from the site.show that-the residual radioactivity-is ALAR without additionalactions. The; reduction fraction--used isad.d5. -.The amount-of soil.
MYAPC LicenselTeintation Plan Attachment 4A Revisi6n 6: P*ge 11 of 1 Jiih anuary 2014 expected to be removed is 1,403.1 m3 or about,94 percent of what would be removed from anwkea 10,000 m2 by 0. 15 m deep. The ALARA Evaluation results show the Conc/DCGLw results is 733.9t For allacftions' ievluated the.cnditions utilize"25 r per year as the.doseto the critibcal group. If the annual dose-criteria is..hanged to.l 0 mrrm in the evaluation eqqaiiqn themargin for the action being ALARA without remediation actions is sig*ficantly greater. Tables A-2 through A-i. 5 are the ALARA Evaluation Spreadsheets for each of the above;evaluations. A.5.2' Exanination ofDifferential *Sliuibility foriSpeific Decontamination Actions To det'ermiif differential solubility.for specific nuclides could affect the.reduction of seifi radionuclides in the mixture, those nucides expected to exhibit the iost preferential solubility (H-3, Sr-90, !Cs,134and Cs-37) were examined. Fot this sensitivity analysis both washing and .w'ipng,and pressure washing a*tions were~used
*th
. the *ccup.ncy building scenar o.'
- Th... cea.os.e.. t. l
*ConA/DCGL values. Forthe specificit:iclid&g the.remdval rate*wiis doubled. The analysis showed .that,while the Con/OCGL*vlu.e.was reduced by approximately 46 0iect te conclusion is t1e samea.fs thatl using th6: initially assigned,'aues (Con,/DCGL is >i 0).
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 Attachment 4A Jahtuary 2014 Table.A-2. Page 12 of.18 rasstiriqWashingi Remnediation Activity ALAA EYAtUATINý qpnditlon2 (remodial fractio~n.."F"@'02.5). A =10.k in , 0.,03. N =1000, PD 0.0004 ~Rmdao:~frdArea PAprflwb)Enter fraction of activity rernoved:by -remnedial action j>-05ntoil~'italkren W 6/0ý.O1 $.3 4182.0 2 Enter Occupancy Areca him === - . . . Enter total cost (CT, In dollars) ofActibn(i) =--- Banit$ll.cenrh~______ ________________ . Nuc~lide. kUuclda fti UwDd *e. n~iclit[e 'lflifO(~ k.(yri-I -. rtXI (r~N7 X)NIl Tt' -N; f ~~IiJ. .ulie2~. AF~ln. ~ . ...nulw) F5.OR"WDi H-3 1.236E+ý01-.4 -S6807E-02.. -8'607E-,02: 4;8.607E-'-OI 4.167E-38!i 1.OWE+00 1.162E+O01 H~-3 I .2'1E4-. ;236E-02 r1(335&-05 17789E;07 4:f5E-'02:. F6:-55~. 2.....5 00 1 .2-582EZG1 .2.6B2E--0 -2.8U82E+02' 7z166E-1267 1:000E4+00..3.70+0F7 ~e-5 :.....566Z2 2:~E0.28E0 ; 0.... 18E-044 Co57
.7.'1E01 .935E 9645Eý03' 9.645Ei02' G.OOOE4-00
- 9. ll-.UOE+00 1.03MOO.0 C&57 .2-1013EL03, .3.06E:04 '.2.42E-06 ~~~Ei .0-5 Coi-o34: ý52.Q-.W .362EO.ii. 1.61SE:01 '3.6152E'0S957- 1E41 +0 2.3i~0 GS-6-60 _707+0 45-0 3~E0 '~3-7 80E Cs-37 ~+/-iJ2297~2 &27E~Z os'78:b:
C~I oi~hesoes~~ amda.08915J.29E11 9878-2. o 1 Liar~av. ~1:00E0O. ~S&156!
- ~~88E+0. ~13 ~ 6~77~02~ 5.5E-fl 5P18OE+00'2 226-0 1:4E0
_______________________184&0 654LO1 __ _ _ __ _ _ 0-E0:-ý,40Eý0.i-.57 __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ -4 _ srgo CS34.;.1:
- 09.E+0
~ ir .1 4
D :3
ý !
2
ý'61605
-, - .2.8E i.90 17E;0 MEý7 .0O 803E+0o,;
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _CsA3' .01..E.01
-. 27,E 2 '-S-2i-7E02i'Iý.2974--.1'-ý987,ET2";.-
E01 1f.-r,-.177,+02`"; ý&SS;01 -522Eý0SunT .1 4E05 1 64E-011 Table A-3. Pr~sir A~hn emeidlationh Activity ALARA EVAtIJ11ATIO.N.
'nditIenW(removal fraction "P@ 02S5).
Azil00 mn2.:=0.'07. N=70, PD, =0.09 Remedlatlon.Cost and Area, PWAD~~r~oWb3)Enter fraction of activity remo~ved by rehifedia action Uhilt COSIUM2 i
/26/01-Mnter Odcupandy' Areadlri ffi2 os-=2 n l Enter total cost (CT, In dol1lar~s) of! tIon(s.)7 =====-
B O. . . . . . - . . --..- .-.-. Nuclde ',Nucllde S.CremninV
- nuclide. hill X(Yvtiir7f~j%)b (r'4 X--' ft.+ X.)N er+.N i~ 1Ijf
- nld: a. ,Fato audC f~.-~u'if H--3 !-1.236E+01 .'5.60.7E-02. 1.261E121 ?8;a25E+'00: 1..470E-.04 I9,999E-0j.i, J-3.93E.EO ~1 3 609-3~ .36E%-2 I u2OOE408 .1j9E-10 '6.82E-06j+
Fe-55 " 2"685E+00 2fia2Eý01. -1282E-01 -n297EW-01 if1:056E100; ý1000E§:00! N 130WE4v~o0 " Fe-55" -1 Y1275EL0Z2 -4.8-1E-03 :50E40611 E 4.07E&O9 13.72E-05-' 0-7 -7;41,7E-01, :'9.3.45 I OOS.*11-60Eit 0-7.732EýF(Y1.L89E3:1l0t0i-- 91955E4O1 005 8E;03'3;&06E'- 2IOE+05 A.46E-09'*57E5 CM60 ;--5270E+00-- !V1135E!01 7'1 0 114,11e*i0:E .-7.72E0 '.1OOt000E+00 I '-4*962EF-1M C&0060 1.-1597E+'02 '5.84E-'2 '7.1.00E..03 ~8:23E-06i .ý2.86E-01 1 N6.63, .1.00ITE+02.-.925E..03 769mEOz 15.-385e'+00.'.4-,586E-03 ...:9-54.E-01,,.-.24Q. N 3 9:Q99E+0 -3.55E-01: 18EfO..9E-47!68E-
.282E&V~24oE~O 940E0 ':58EI0U .38EO3 -:96Ef: .1-.062E4014- Sr-90-, t.38E4-01 -ZA.8E403, ý8dZ00E+0T3-ý 23.22E-07'ý fA-2E-tl2!
.s13, 206E~0. ~~6E-1A 6E 01 283"0 4.4E3. ti00+/-0 2A2-0~C-3 31449E-4001 :4.55E;.03 .1.27CE'404 3.58E-07 ;A.25&-02'.
0§17 -3.6.17E+.0V-T2.297Eý02 .ýý9 ;29.7E-'02 i-61-5O8E+-00ý 07,4E+
-14SE-3'<998E4U C-s--137, 25E+2 :J.5E015,~0TE2 O ?:7E0 '-6.83EOTi
~
Table e~~oosopas~ flVOVA~e~Do~e~Bii 1'O1201 I.O+0 _________ FrnUR~j7.nie'1d30eedreemqurd -.. WF . .. . I.1 Sih+ 05cDGv -- S~28E-5A0E
MYAPC License Terrmiation Plan Attachment 4A R~ision 6 Page 13 of 18 Table A-4 iWindWiping Rein~ei "A'ti~AAAVItAF~W~. ~-.-- A.1k2. .. rWC~idoi PC0004.. . .. . and Area-
~~Wi4~l~~tv~b~ Enterfractjon of aeftivityi removedtby remredial acition =Uito-~A~~a:AeM 421-Enter 9ccuupancy Areal Iiifrm -- c=== loi- -
Enteýr totalcost .(CT, in dollar~s) of Ato~) Basem qt:FillScdnar~oa.. ~NUclId& 7.----....-.- ;N~udiis $efl.ý6 nucide' halfil(yrs).' __X(rsý: .2 r+2N - " r + )~ 1.~ 1'+ +WT~bie ~ - zt~i-FcrU ~ fUDF) . U6FJM(lJDF) H-3 1.136E 0-1.- v5.607Eý02T.-8.607E-.02-', T667OI -46738 2L00+0 11-.7E00
.417-80 '-- 16ME+/-1ý. -. 'H*3 1.'928E+01: 12.36E202 T355-05' *s896-07' 4.ThE4O-2-,
F-e-55 2.685E4.002~~80 2.882E;-01 2-82E+2-'7.t166E;12B: '--Iý;000E+'0.0 053E.2.'.i~3T.4~7.
- 40+0TF5 28E0 14E0 C-657 F-7.417E:0(L. 3E*t9.645E-01IL-
-. 79.645EY02. -.0002OO+00:; -.1 flOOOE+/-OOZ.`-. 1.037.2+00 ýý:. 60-57' 1.619&-03, 3.06E-04ý 2.422-6 7.43E-10. 3.902-05ý Ca-eQ .5.270E+00 1..315E--Qi 1 .61512-01' 1;615E,402- 7.071B.7Vh 1:00E+007-' -81140. : 66 5 01ý: ý5:84E-02 -,5.99E-:05 -. :35 0 . 1..84E,0V' Ni-63. -- 101'DOE402!::ý.1 62925Eýý03> .- 3:692E-'02.*,3.692E+041ý.9.2O2E-,1.7 .-. o00E+00'.,' .~2.708E0~1-, NI-63 Qr 2 32E-1H01 - 3.55E-01 iT15E-06 42.I0EOT1: 2'.JE-402.
sr~9Oý '2:88212ý01 2N5021 54052-02. 15.405E+01 3 357E 24 i .1.00E'+00- -1.850E+01. Sr-90 . -6.67.72+01. )280E.03' .,-6.12E704---j 1.722-0 .9.022,02J Cs-.13 -206Eý O. 9.7210 [26E0...60.3.662E~0 12027...:.3EaL..Cs-.134. 2 %L8.7-752&0-1 :. :,4455&03 3.36EB5 ' I.53E-07 118.03E-03' Cs-1 37- .3.017IH+0.1' 4 2297E-02 .15.297.E-02. U5.297E+0.11 9.878E-;24 1-.OE0-0 - 1.888E+10i CsI 7 j 4.9.42E+02i r5'50E-01.-Z20:05-1 .1.24E-'05*F 6.542-Of-Table'ol ithe'Iswpes. Biwenlti Ed iifo rdetl'7:b 1~~........ re-ToWa:;Bdefi~of~vdft& -~ 60.051
- $0BD .1.002+00 ______________
c FrornTable 6-2A:1,diked iýroe:ýnhmiated cwroi padr1OD oenbiries SCurO annuL dserta ~.nu.J ~.u.. u ie .~u-D~.-Io~u lTabIe A-56 WAhi~In~ Wpinh§ Re~diatiori-Aciv.t JRAMEAUAIN Ener~to~bacivt~reoedby remrediail-action= Un-Cop~c~1Aa7 Eater Occupancy Area in M Enlterdotal doii (di, in dollarij)f.-A'cei'o'n(s) 5 H 1.2362401- .:5.607E-02 112-2612E-01! ;8..825E+00- 1.470E-.04:. 9:999E-01 .7,93:lE*00 H-3 487E'032 '-,236E!,02: 1-:200E,+08j ~19206.2E0 Fe ;55 72.685E+001 12582E-!0'ý1.28215-01' 2.297E+01' 1.0562-`10- Z1;000E+007- ..- 3.047E+00, F&-55. 2 & 02.'. .- 4812-03 4.50Eýc 6~. ~.Qil.72-ý09L -.3..72E-0&. Co-57ý. 74E -04A9.345E201.. ý1.005E+/--00 ,7ý.032E*ý01 ,2.893E731 -i--O00E4.0 :9.955E-'01' .57' Cd. 4.546FT03: 2 06~5' .3020 ..OE~5 1ýE59-
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~4 Co-60 14i4f~47,2E=07L.70E0~ I 100E+00 --. 42962E~a~
.I3120~~05~i 00ý-0 I .84E-02
- 578~ i7w00E3 -8~30061-ý2:86E201:
M:-63' 1-ý.I.00124021j .6925E-'03'k-7-.692E;-02 5z385E+00- .4.5862,03- 9.'954E-01 I 1.294E4+01. Mi-63 ':7-992E+00. 3L55E;01:1.8002+0r(6 T.97E-07;. 6.86&~03. SrrO 90 2.8-82E40.IVT2,405E-Q2 EA05202ý358'4200..1.383&03A 9960~. .620 Sr7G ý1070E0~10~.2E0...120
.2.0-32
.C's.434. -2'062E-0:.3':3362E-01-1:.4.0.62E-Q01, -2.'843.E*01 .0240 '4444~J
.2A262E+0W0 s34%
0 12:759&200- -520 t7E.4ý.8-7 1..25E-02 Cs- 137 3.0"WE7241- I:2972Z02 ý9.297E5102 ý6:5082+00 A-.491E,03.' .092985Em-01:-! A1:0742011 Cýl3 1S .605E4+02P ,.5.50E-01ý. 2.800-QE+0 A-197p 883-0 a:Table of-the IsotopesSav4rth Edhon*. adwereetal. 1976:b: Lambda- (L6931S/lIb: Mitue tl:ondifitofýAviert~cdd s BAb IS809.70r>- 1.E002+0 r4 FromN!UREG.172iTlablcZ2.2 clpintlOmn'mets,sclared . .. ~ T .0 .Lw l~ ~~-.8-5 1020
MYýAC License TerminationPlan J.ReAnisi6n-_6. A*tachiie:nt 4A Talile A-S! P~ag'e 141 o4 is8 Ba~mAntlIIt Sr~nnnrin
- Bovling".*'ondltiln (remove 025 inches of concrete surface):,
*ALAR~ALUA - "o*
-ON: !r Usl_.gcupe.r-bound costit ntlngency. o Pb'A, ]bfil.wb3) Enter.fraction of activity removed by remedial action unit'Co [iFAcuai Area Mi A=1.k . rý=0.03, N=i1000; Pd4:= 0":0004 $i0".23. I182:0 2
4* .Enter-Occupancy.Area in i .* Entelr total cýt (CT, Ini dollais) of Action(s*)
.. clde c'd
*ip~e iBasemfentt.F.l..l.Scen~arlo: _'__ __ __ __ _ __
'S:;d a..... ... ...
Unucd V".-': nuclide hhbIfl _ ,. ( )N...o.- N] . { j riN(. u ..* nuclide i Fraction F.utwr nffUD)D uovauiama H-3 1.236E+01 :15:607&-02 ;8.607E-02 8.607E*01;'4.167E-38W .'000*0OO: ,". A.1,62.1; *-i3" 9.158E 0" :236E02 -i3.35EO5i .7I789E-07 . 4.15E202 Fe-55 2.685E.4+/-00 -2:582E-01: 28.882E-O1 2.882E+02 7.166E-126 2. I.000+E00 .3A470E+007 -. Fe-55, A 9'.9.7502-02 4.812&03 .5:84E;07' 2;81E-509: 12,A4OE Co-57 ' 7.41.7E-01 i,9;345E201 ;1.9.645E;01 '9.645E+02 0.000E+00: -1.'000E+00. -_'*. 037E+00'.°ii 057 = 76M89E20-.' 306E :ý1 42E06: ;7,43E-10 139MO'.S5 Co:60 T J.! 5.270E.4,0 ,. 1-.:315E-0,i. .1.615E-01.1l.615E+02 :7.071E-711 . 1.000Eý00 . -6.191 E00; Co60 2.65EO2 5.84E:2 5*99E*05. 3.502-06 1284E-01 Ni-63 T.001E402 , 6..9252ýO31 3.692E-02 3.6922+/-ý01:: 9.202E-17 1.000E+00'. 2.708E+0.1 .:NIw.63 ......... '111 08E-+02 3. I.3w552-01 "*-15E-06_* : 4.10E-07 2 :415E,02 Sr-90. 268821*01 2;465E*-* >5.05E-'02 5.405EU01 3.357E-24;.' ,._i;000E.+00-: .._L1-850E001.. .. .Sr790 i .. 3,.171E+02,.. '2.80E03 .6.12E.04: 1.72E-06 . 9:02E-02 Cs-134 2*2062E,.00 .3j382E*2 -*3.6ý62E.0.1 *3.662E--02. 9.'577E-160.. IV00dE'.+-00; =273I"¥00'- -4.168E4_0 _s13: 4:55E-03 ,3.36E-05 "1.53E-07 .. 8.032-03 Cts.137 73:0.17E*0T T'2.2297E*02;-f, *:5;297E-02. ':55.297E+01 I 9.878E-24 i.000E00._0. . _A888EOCs-137. .. .-5.50E-01
-2347E,03.. 2.26Eý05; 1.24E-05: 6;54E-01
- x. Table cfathe Isotope". Sevanth Eoditon, Lederer ...et . Labna n T975;. .i:.Oa A:315/t: Mixture.Tota!,;Bndefit:.ofve0tedDOseB -=..087.72- .I O .
1cFrpofTontarpl..ta TbB2.un.tz al. date .raefur ceacrese pet..a _O.ntmetes squsred 1Cnc/C.G 143.88 'Sum Check Sum 1.90E-05 1.00E+00 Table A-7
..BaSementFll.Sceni d arlo s&btiRfg *di~f n.j v t ..... .--... .'..........L..........
z .A....... .... ......... - . ' .".
. .:ARA
.. -EVAL'.'U W 'OJ* .... . . ... .... * ... . ...
B&ondmng.ondiUlOn,(remove
, . ,J.-, I' ... ", .; :.... . -..0.1
, .. 25inches
*. ,- . * :of
- concrete . - '..surface)
Ug owbounqst :(niontingency .. ". e.o Cot andArea RW.*D* :wb3) . .Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action =:=-P unctmP' Actual'Area M 2 - $-4-9 182.0 AM10km N= Q0:l::"Pd:000*4 q Mir2.'N.03 .. .. . .- 4NI26O1, Ente'rbOcupancy Area: ln*n*m! .-. .>. ______ Enter'total.co~t'(CT,. :dollars) 0f.-4Ation(s) "m'm====" '1
*~~~I~At _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _....__ ...... . ..- * .. ;. _ - *. . ..... .
hucI~~d-11 ~s ~ i.r"X (96Mfý[ N__~ -r+1)jN1. t.: .14&X:-L r+X)JI(IU) A nuld Frcto FaattIDF). n ff 'UDF/Sar(UDFI H-'3-3 1.236E4.01 5.60.7E-.i '4:8,07E-02 ,89607E.+01: 4J167E-38 I.000E+00 I6 16,2E01 3 .9. . '158E*01,' 2.36E-02 3-.35E:5M 7.892-7 .4,A5202 F.e.-55.. .2685E.O. .2.582E.. ).282E-01. 2.882e+02. .7.166E*2.,6 J.:..000E+00, ' 3.470E2+00-*. .e:,55"__ -. .. 9.E02 , 4.81E-03 ...5.84E*07.k -.. :2.81E-09. . 1.48E-04 Co-57 7.4172-0,1i 9.-345E41 i 9.64SE-01 .9,645E+02: 0.0002+00 1:00E+00" 1.037E+00 Co-57 . 689E037!3.06E04 7.432-10, 32:42E06" 3.90,E205-Co-60 .15-1S520+/-0 E4543 - 1.6156i02 7.071 E-71.' J2_1000E+/-Y00 .6.1.91IE002._. Co-60 2J.5- 0 5.842,02 i:5.990E,5L 7,-3.50E-06,- 1.84E.01 Mt-63 1.0012+*02 .6-925E031 '3:692E..02 31692+01 E02-1.7 1.0002+00 2.7082+01 INi-63 I122 3520:-426'4 Sr 90 12.882E+01, 1.2 405E.02.i-..51405EO2-5:405+/ 53.357224-2 -:.OE_00.. I.-1.850E+01,:, S1.90. 0E 2.15E-02 3 1'7102:": 2'80E..036.12E-. . --.. I72E06 _.9.02E-02. s1.41.34 .2062Ev-. .3.362E.'*l;1 :U3.662E-01 j:3;662E02 .'9.577E-1 60 1.0002+00 ji 2.3E+0JC=1. Cs-134 4;503 4.168E. 0 4-56&-03 I"31-36Et05OF- 1.53EL07:;--.8.E03:2.731+00 C.s2.137' 13i-7.E+/--- 29.7E02-":5i297E07z.., *5297E+01 !9.878E-24. 1.00000.. 1888E+01E J 'Tabl eof.fici soiotaes .'-5 v e dtiEEd'Win Le de i :e t aL1978 ;b: Lambda = 0.9T Sg* 15,TA- M=x tur0.6 h)t a l BRr efit ' *6f'A V'f r Cs137 S B A . 'j:= j2.347E+03-. ": $ 'I "0 8 77 2 .'.:5.50E-01: 00 E+00 12.26Eý05) . 1.24E-.05. 6.54E:0-1 6.5. E"
.. * . . :.. . . m~ d.. e rate d nub oe aeroc contairufnatedl ro -ale62
.or .
con wae;p.erdiem100 czn~rmt" M$quaro
. .o 'C-0 ... ... .. .... .
.... . . 1.23
- 8** 9 7 1 7 2 u E c e6 0 s .' . .. l. 0E*-~5 " 10 E 4-- - 0
.L.;* ---.. " ! ... b,:: - -h . .k7... . "1".9" "5:.- -. . '1'-0..-..0,..E... . - -- - - - -- ---.-.=- .: . .-7 .23.. -*... - . m. ......
a.... ... . ..OE ..
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 Attachment 4A January 2014. Table A-8 Page 15 of 18 n 64r_ f.%- a ; , I~~tU 9~ q, aly C-a au- - ý - -_ I... .- _._ I. . - .I--. _.. _;- - - . tSa l b-RinRtledkition Activity - ARE1LJTO . . . .<. .. . F-a a - wb3) Enter fr~action of aciivremoved byrmda action -->- 0. Unit CosI ualAreaM 2 6100.1 tdtal cost (Cr.indollar) oflAction(s02 Enter 1 Occu uci~difalif&N ____ ____ _____cie utd VA6 h nuclide ~~ ~ ~ *J ~ ~(z3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ rs.~ ~~... ~ncle~-Fata.afi
.... aue(C '9Eý0 fS :e(<.IJEi_
ý6;e-r82r~
3tUen Fi-!3> 1:T'236EN0i:'.5.607iE402~ X261E-0i B8.825E-r00, lt4.705264T~ 9.9ELOI01ý.ý'Z7.931E+/-ýO77 H--32640 K.3E.O ,:120E+0~I9E1Yi68 Fe-55 2.685E+00. 2.S82E-'OI-'&I282E-01L ~2.29MEOGA: 11.056E,41'61 0OEý+0'0 '.3' 47.E*00 Fe-.55 486E0 4.8E0 ~0*6 1O7E~ .2-5 Co57 74iZE&.O1 1'34E-l. .02+/-0G.OE~U AýGE+0 004-00_ ,SSF~. CdZZ .2.159E-021 . .0E,4 :1205" -_1.46E-.09.. 5.07E-05. Co-60O 5.2702+00:. .1-.315.E401; 20.0I5Ew_0t1J1.41I2+/-0.1; '7.72E-ý07 .i-0O0E+00G 4J9622+00, Gb-SO: ý6-069E+/-02.V 5.84.E-,02: ;,71Z002t,03rI -8M&.E06.. 2-SS2-OT [INiT637. . .t. TEU0-:567925003: -7.692E-2 .535+/-0.A56-3 99~E0. t~4+DL-N-33..796E+01:'. .. I E45.4EýO1 O.80E+04 I; 1972,07, 6.'86E-03 Sr 2882E0- 2'OE~~~0E02',5428 1~~ ~6-M.~ 1'5W01-S-9 04E~i;0V1-. -2.BDE;03 F8SIOOE+tO31, 7.3-22E,07> 1_.-71T12E-C2: Os-i 34 2ZGM2EOCl0 !3:36Zr=0aY ý4.062EM01 2.443E+M,4; 4.4.94641311 -AXOOEtY.6! -2.462+00: Cs 134. t.3I1E+01 :5E;,031_Jz70F_+04& 34S8E-0.7 1.252-02 CsI7~ ~ ~ 927E~O .6:F4E00. 77F4E;3 IL9!985EZ0:1I .~ 7AE+/-.L~.C 17 3.3203 5.0-1 2BO 0 1ýV ~7 -0..6,83&-01_ ath Ito aTable~o SeEl978 taft 1~4 ~iý- ý;$3M*86*99 111 ODE+(00 V:From NUREG-16 7T~blic22d*iprrJlod~eý6eters squared ýCon C .. 2.6 S.mChek Su 2.885-05. 1'.002+00 Table A-9 1A#'1 00-mr0.7 N#70, PbV-=00 i - ---- - PVADs .w3syE~rrciooatvt v ren ivedby remedial action -
/211Eqterj. pcupncy-Ar~ea inm - = =
E.nter total cost,(Cy, inWdoIhars) of Action(s) - Bui~d~ 0c T~S~iiaib _______ Nulide Nu611de Srenn n'clide hafflifei. ' rs -X. (yrSl)b '(r'+ X) :fr+)N a-P 2.J '1e*X Iýrtx nuclde F Fffetlb .vif c:- nf/sc S~. scn,(n6Os H-3 I1.2362.*011 .5.60/7,E-02, 1.261.E-41 i.8.825E+00.0 .470E-04 ,ý9.99.9E,-011. 731.E+/-0O. !H1-3.. 11.2.3142,02' 2.36E-02 1.200E+/-08:. -1.96E-.0 6..82E-06.. Fe-.55
- 2.6.856Ej+/-00. 2.-5582.S0l i~3i28-2E0$4 2.29M.2+/-0*A'A.056Er.10' -MOE-40~: ý_:-347E+0.0 AFe 55 -4'8'46.EE02'. A:_.81E03. _.50E+/-06ý 3.2E-05:
_3V7.-9-~
~ ~ ~ ~ 7 Co-57 74E0f935-11a5ai7o2+/-V .8E-3 T-100EoT0ý._ : 950. 7C6157-- ?2A59&GV2. 3.06E~0 :2.102E+05; :1.462-09 5:07E-05 j,:SE0 Co-O 152012~15E0iI'.412.01 5.70200 1 2.472-7 :002~.0' .. 92EO0 0-60 16.69E+02I .5.84E-02; 7.100E+032 8'.23E-06 2.86E-01 Ni-,63?-.. j :1:.003l'2+/-02 lj6-9252-,03 ',7.:692E42 15.3852+/-00' .'4.586E-0.3: ;9.95424012 -t294E+/-017. 6I63 :3..796E4+0V.::5E1.J:.0E40~1972-07.-.6.86Eý 3 Sr-90 240E0'90226.4E+00 '1.383E-03: 9.98620 102+01' 'Srw90 .84+1 2.8OE!M03 &700E+03: 3.22E-07 -. 1.12E-02 C~s-34ý 2.062Etý00- 3.3622 01 l4.062E-Oli12.843E+/-O1 '4.4942-ý13 .1'..000+00' 3. 2.462E2+/-00.1.. Cs 134 -- ,I..I'1.3112+01'...4.552-:03 .1.'27OE+-04,- .3.582-07 -. . 1.252-02 MA 3T13-3-0.'7.EiO.T227E0- 9970 6:_508E+0_0' 14203 8E1' 1074EO7 1733E0375. 502:0,1T2:8002E+4: 6197'83E-01 W:Table of the Isoopes, Seventhi Editn Ledererate l. 1978:býamnbda 0.6931511% -- tkTh~~$.4.0 1020 c:IjmNUEG-72lablC. opwprr~ pentmeterssqu"Od ..... .,.-,. 71IjoýdDCGw.Fý ,.2.8.g 5 I .- 1-.88E.05 1020
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Page 16 of 18
.anua y2014 Table A-4.D Sce~if-l Riheiain Piri .kactvlw . ALA~AVALI~J4TION - - - -
fit uper.b,~n cos consen'Cy
~iurgdflwb3) R~r~dIati' iAroa AzOmr ~OOORP.d.:0064.
IOO~ '-Eter-f actlin Of.actvty'removed k..itertotal , : ) -:,Ac by remedial ion action as) .= :i.- . . ! Nq- d r~ifn Nuc.t.I I nm Q1UMIlue'rnuI. T;- _.-,-4' 7 r73N _G4fjV;QNT
' j SIrm(UDF)
H7-31--. 1236E40I.I 1; 64.167ME-38 - (fir,9.158E*OCA ý.'I rzu 141.T
'C2ý6-U~..?5-5ICtg-0 f,' ;02
*17ITTYT I--,...'-_.*. : *k., _ Iý48EZO F-5S-. a- 1400 0~ re,
_.,_. ........ ýj , IC0379."~-0 rT. A32-10.. 7.90E-QS," W'191VIOG., Ni~R~.-_ tOOGE4:0. . ;;2A,08E+0i: ': 2t5EO260
.8~ A,'6 1$62 0~ M3ONIP~. 95Z- I'si~e' .~. .2~4~i 22.7r3V1E4001 c~-1:-34 1 53EZ07.78.-03E -03" 3O7+O1A Q2E0I e-R=5.297E12 EV2j9 r24Eý05 ),:6.54E-01 rialeortieI~teeSSeml~iE an..Ledert, 978'bLmd O.i35ki en if91f/A
.4flflfl~ I fif'~~1 j¶fl-dik11hiv~oei bou~nd cosýt contin~gency A= r OtOidi ;00ni04 Enter fOi..fdo=nO oO4. t removed by remedial action=-LC6M Aa Enter Occupancy Area inmi2 --- ~
Enter total6cost (C-T,indollars).of ActionWs ~~--j
~aientFil Sen~io- Nddlide Aizcnde A.Wxwo. t ARI - '1-2-36E*O1 '5607E-OZIS.60E402 &60.7E+01. 4.167t-38 .O00E+O0 1162E+0Iý- Hw.3ý_; 9.15E0 :36ES02 335E05' i7M9-07. v4ASE-a Fe-56 2.-685E+00 '2.*682E-O,1, Z0892EýM,,' AZ.882E*02i AAWI~E4,12.6 i-.V0E+00__ OE 5E0Z+4tL3 8EG 3~9' Gs7. -r .1:TE4P0f :9.345E.O1. VM6~5SWD1 I84M+02 000E+O j-9~g~ 8EO'~3O.A2O 3~03aEo..'3YOF-0 C&60 - ":70,0~ I~I165ED~ f;~~2 7.7I-7 *0O I. . 212,I65E+'02 '5.'84E.e-02 ,5L9,9ES5 ,3iUGF0 S. I84E-O
- SO9., '51.78EO Ni6~--1.0E0 .- WE55~O 25-339EG "Ii 135ED2 MSSM "I-a 9EO 92lEl .0E0 i00
.~7E2 N ~ ,EOI 0E0 1t+228E3~:2~4~7E0, 5EO6 A 15ýO A1r9-210E
-OEO
'~3V3X*7E;,l0I ~21~9MSOV M97MIOk 52M7E410I qa9~78S;,24' tO0~0~27E*_O3 :16.-5~O -2.;28E6S;LI .24EZ056.5~
4k Table otheSopEoILdeaJ0
~
FromTabl 5l~bd~ B-,~sezadwm~a owi15~ eoe __suae~
'1bctz~ba Beefi
~ i~vttedDos.~?!1.0m
~ ~ I9'
.OE06
~ .1~000 .OE0
MYAPC LicenseTermiaiidtion Plan Reiisin-6 Attachment 4A Januiiry.2014 Table A-1l2 Page 1.7 of 18 A*i 11Hl .'ri'n. *fi*' O~raeritEllastn 6e6iidation Actilit A-.LARtAi-4 0-8,ffk Usilng upper bound cost continge~ncy PWYAD4surqnitbo'.w'b3).ý 465t andiAea: 2 -A=1j06 m3.. r =0.07, N=70, Pd;= 0.09 Enter tract .Ion of actly.ityrernoved-byreme~dlal action:=> ...-. 2
- UdCbsttI ýActua~lAraw Enter Occupancýy. Area in mrn_
Enter total cost-(Ct, in dollars) of Action(s) ~ ...... nu'Iicd6,he~fd:Vs. j~j ~.) f2)L1.e~r~.N ~ ie 4 N I r.41 nulide, - A'5D F'ra~ctionh. I ý:"Sa nf5C 4..SCISemla03cl
`T 1ý22362;i' L,5f60,7,E.:0'2- 71-.2Q17 1I8`8ZE.7+00 1A40E-04.'I 19.99IEmOI. -..-.- 7.931.E+00." :6E. i..234E0.
.GO~85~6;82E-.0 FFýS 2-ý-468T5EýOL ý,21582E:2O.1.,- 3-282Eý01. ý00~0~- 227E01 Q6ý0 .:43!05471E+00.! Fe-55 4 846202 . 4.812E103. 4 56M .07E-09 IL~ 3.72E-05.
1 Co 57ý .i7: 1~: 5201-.i100512+00"
- 3 T7032Ef01" ,Z-193&*1T .020 '95SE- 97 I ': C6757 .2:.159E;02 3.06E-421W0 '.6-0. 5.07E.05.
Co6:7 02..~ ~i2.2:012-.OS01: .1.414 EN01 27:472E-ý07.. 1.00024+00 ;4.'962E2+00 Co-60 6;0692+ý02 5.-84Eý02 :7.100E'+03. i 8.23&-06 2.862-01 Ni-.6.3 5I01+0Z !925Eý03.1-7:692E-0215,.385E*.OMi .4.586&:03 ~994~1 T24+1 Ni-63. j'..3T962+/-01 3'.5E01 6860.5 M Sr=90=LUi'Z-882E+0.14 -24922 9AE2 58EF813303 .98E0 . .62+1 Sr05082t~1UO 2.80FE03 :87.0G0E*03j 3:22E-07 I1.12E-02 Cs-i 34 j.'2'062E4+0W 143362E&01 4.062E-0l.I 2.8.43E+011 4.4942-13 'ýl1000E;F00 7..-..2:4622+00... :Csi.134-. 1 311E+01..j.4-.55203 .1-E2702.04' . 1~586-07 . 1.252-02: CS-137. -.;3017.E+OVll,ýý,2i297.Eý02. -.9.29.7.E-02ý- 6..08E400 -ýr1.491.E03.,-:9:985E2 ý--.4107.4201;ý Cs037- ýA-ý3A13+03. .0-1-.OE0 .7-5 68E0
.- Tbl? e emefI pe.SeenlVEonL L 67: b Lmba.O.8~1It -MituMMOthl--Bdrtflft'of:;A"et Ooe AI $3,846.M09 fICOE+Ob c:FromNUREG-1727 TabeC2.2. dprmIOO cerftireterz squared CocOCL2.4 :Sum Ch~eck Sn .8-5 1.O+0 Ta~ble:A-.3' Biuildlzi'Oc.Siandy Sf~e~jtBlastlng]Rernedato Atiy - A fAEVALUATIQN rl-F.Ig~ower b~o~undcost~continqpqcy .
A.=100 --. 07, F: 7rdn00 Enter-fraction of-actiVity;remtoved> .;-:A... :9 .1:UactionIM .AcwilýArea M~ 2 Enter40ccupancy.Areal fin -. =-..-- .* Enter total cost (CT, in dollars) of ActioA(s;).-==------- >
-1:231SE4Vf5 Ta5S607202ý-.7TI261E2-017 ',8ýB8E*00i t-1~470E;04', 7999-1 7:93Efi00.H4-7..... x2314E702'-.
.. 2.30RE.02 '1--o280FGV8: 196 1:6:82E2:06:.
Fe55 2.685E+00.Q~ !,ýMREO2E.1A -.3;282E!:Q1:; - 2.'2-972+0il.1.061 Q~~.00+0 -- ý3.'047-.1*'W~ Fe-.55--- ~.4.!~420 48el0.3 .%.74ST0E6 ~.J2 .. 'B. 312E.-05. C57 . 7ý'T. !0V.T~4550.11 1i.005E*00 7:.032E*OTV 11,2193E*3,111 000200..Ni "9-9"5~ E'57 - 2. '259 E-02i:- 7'620 460.
;T.~5
.-. i0705 Co-S - 42015Q1t.411F0.M u---4!962E*.00__ Coý-----V.0691F+402:, >;5.8*4E-02 'M7OE409203 L,-8.823E406 42.6ý N66S3-7 -MT0fE+i02i~frý61925295 7X92E02i EsEOG,24` E0jSf9.54 f iM924i N63-.5-- 3192R1O &520f ý886!0BzM'.:7E7~686
*9-- ;ZW4-,JL42!B ~~W4~~ 10oEG62E+OOi' -31I
- M-V.0 'sZ 14Z 1t1E-F G4(G~0
-1~.3.20 -3122Q7 125-2 sW137' 13~17=2M01 U2&97.E%'Q 11WRIEWT-0 "O f F.82~i9 19i~3.t,iz995~0 i !TM 2A215+074I01 . C &f1;34,- 1 !I37.14-E*03.7 T45.'6E003l ,810Q 4 -.9E:7205 -6.1.2E-02-.
of r.Isoops. 0121.198; . ~vn~ ~t MturT~neft~ ;Vied~ 6Bo . '846.09 1.002+00
~ ~ ~~
c~ps~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ ~~~~~~. om..
.... a...I .... ~~I2%7
....... u J7r~ 26B~5
MYAPC.License Termination Plan Attachment 4A Revision 6 Page 18.of 18 January:2014 PWAWMWI%4b3), t~~c~tar I Uea eet Entierfraction~of.,actiVity~remov.edby remedial action = ___.-~At~,~. F Enter. Occupancy ArTea in m----- Enter total Cost (Cr. lh dollars) o~fActionp)-====> 228 ijdfdhafe rs.A 1)* r+X..rXN e 4, r.J/*nuclidelh NJcto H .I),iu~ nffUDF) ____ 1.236E+0O1i 5.6O7E:.:27,1 -. :6O7E-02 -- fE.i~44.--167&-39'.- O1OdE+ao..1":12+ W-3 QM'S8EJ+1.' ý.2.36E-02 3F5j7.8E0. 45~2 F&-55 . .. 2.685Et.OO .. 582E-OI ý '2.8E0 -. 82E. +2 76E-126 ~ 1~OODEtOOL. - :..-:3370.E+0.02. fe5 WO'? ~8EO .8EQ ' i1~9 1.8~ G657 A~ 7,.W17&0o1 "9I3U5E-11 4 9.645EO1 0~AEt~ NgRS ~~0E4O WOfOEOGEWN'.0 C6-57, ....'U89E203" EO 212~6.~u743o --3760E1657 0o- q7 M15VZOE.07 -1 0~15-!4. fS61EiOl .7..07iEý711 riOE*OO-- A: ,.$-64WEF00. :-J Co,-.60 2 16%5E202 5.84E*2 1 5-99E.O -3.50E-06 1.846E01; Ni-3 ~01EO2'[692E~3A.'692ErO2 -3.62~i 1O0~ai': 2x8dl2 163
'g22~7 1iJO8EO2: ý355E~O1 I1fE~0~
F2AO-O 2:15E0 Sr95 t54~5~ '135.7E~24'- 010E0.0 j2~1.5*A'5Ez02. 1. A..180*O-V-=ý &sio9 b 'UMArs~EF02. M.80Ei3 I!-',61'2EW4 1-.7-2E106 9.02E02 CsMU 1 ,2.062EXW
ý3 *332~I 3.662E;01: W15-682EZ £'77EZ150: ~VO00Et 00 Cs34A5...... t-274A31EE,+,0: 45E-03
- :36:75,. 1.53E07. 7:8.03S.031 C~ 37 ~3017*0l:.~2~7.02~5~97EO2
- 5297~-i~ 9.78E2~£00~i~0.- 3
; .88EL~CsA137ý c2:T4V.ETQ3 5,50&.01 1P 1:.O 1-24E4.5 C~54E-01' Table afthe tsvtopes, Seventh. Manar.WLdder eraf. 197; :b Lambd a.31~t4' 8 1it 6 AWta'iD6s AcL S
$3J0B7N 721 O0E+061I ______________
FFfpm.'ý _ urc~ptxd~ o tamrcerrmr perd 100tintim Tp&uaftd Conc)DCGLW'-- ===--> 91-D.6 sum cheI 90: 1.D00~fO0
.u Sall Exc~avddoi - .~ X..R% V 9 A 1 UT PN
*e,;140A~:1 3 lO
-100ý2ii@.oll5m ýiddýe6(94%a),-
14031 Iiki
- ims (O fr~sOsofi~i~a R arinJaCost and Area.
~ ~u~.r=~uj, r'~~ 1Q~-...............- d byremedial a.., ~ -
D4~Itt~wb3 Ente~r Occuanc;y-Area in 2 mn,z' ~ Enter total Cost (CT. In dollars) of Action(s,) = 258 Suffgce Soil hucldi:Ihllf~vi. NP 8-.. -).26E0.~..5~O7
~(*~
'&.60715?O24 r
0.v~) N 1 807Eý+01. 4.167E-3
..._i-.;0015o4E.ov.- J6:92-5EFQ.0& "3.692E-.02) .0692E401
______Ni6flde
.-e r-{r N 41ri. -e -(C 920E47-1,000a00
.OE0 eN r.
1-.162E4-01 2708E+UI ncid H-I3 Ni-63 j PWDoltva
'127E40i 1
'j.40E-t0O Nclldit FcinVnusSCk 0E0 NalN Mec~in 4.8OE-02' 2AQ~E-+Q3-'
n
..... nSC)
E40'2- I4.82ELO4ý
- 2.29E:05
= c u i) 5.75Ez.03'
'2;.7-3E0*
C§-~137 3.17E1401 '2-197E:-Oi5 ý,297.EýOV2 '5i27Eo0 7iJý000E+OO F.88E24 1.E 105A37. _j~0 -M_- E4 ý1 18OE+ 6.09E-'02 9.661R-61.
~b~ ba0~eS315~ bur~ota1:~'enefit~f~vertd sae-BAo >= $3,511 1.OOE+;00 _______________
v.~.. t ..RGA2
.~e ...
....... ......... Obn DCGIw =m ==-'7;.1 ckSu Sm . . .. 3 E-02 1 ;ODE+00
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4B Revision 6 Page. Of 11 January 2014 ATTACHMENT 4B Unt"C.ost Values
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4B Revision 6 Page 2' of 11 January 2014 RA.General This Attachment provides the unit cost values used to develop the total cost CT as defined i this section. 3 Feet Below.3Cirde Remaining Struct.fe Surffaces The results of Engineering Calculation 01-00 (MY) show that the total structure and buildings surface area planned to remain at 3 feet below grade is 7704 .i 2 . This value is the surface area assumed to require remediation and is the area used to estimate remediation cost. This is a conservative approach because increasing the remediated area decreases the cost. For buildingoccupancy 100 m2 is.usedfor determining:both the cost and remediation action surfacearea.: Remediation Activity Rates Remediation activity rates were.provided based on.:&revius experence,.from published literature, or from groups or vendors currentlyperor g these or similar activities. Past operational experience was also used in developing :therates. Contingency A contingency of 1.25 was added to the manpower hours. Scabbling (the primary activity) was bounded using costrand rmanpower associated with the.volume of concrete (disposal cost) for remediation of 0.125 inchesversus using.compressor, consumable materials and the volume of concrete (disposil cost) for remediation of 0.25 inches of concrete. Equipment Equipment costs were developed based on the cost of buying specific equipment and whenever possible prorating the cost. overthe t.task activities. Rental rates are also included for specific equipment such as fork .ifts and. excavators. Consumable supplies and parts -were included in the cost for equipment. Shipping containers were included with shipment costs.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Afttahmet 4B Revision 6 Page 3 ]f11 January 2014 M*bilization and. Demobilization Costs Costs were conservatively included for:deliveryand pick up of equipient. Anticipated costs to stage and move equipment .fom location to. ocation were !also included. Waste Disposal Cost Dispo sail costs for"generated',wte w eonbas'ede the tollowing Ail shipen"t values: Concrete Rubble: 3$10.00'(disposal) + $6.25 (spping)-pericubicfoot ($573.87/mr3) Concrete Scabble: $55.00.(diposal) +:$6.25 (sipp .gilcubicfoot ($2163.04/m3 ) per Soil: $41.00 (disposal) +3$656 (shipping) per cubic foot ($11,679.58/m 3) Round trip rail Itransportation: Clive, Utah;(Energy-Solutions) round trip~byrail: 7728&*km., Wastevolume per shipment: Dependent primarily onhhighway hailing-weight f otnctios and restuItslinrtfie use of a volume of 7.93 M3 . For rail shipments.the same coniditions apply and result in a single car volume of 92 n3 for concrete and 120 M3 for soil. More than one car-canbe included in a rail shipment; however, costs estimates were based on a single car. The distance and haul volume are used for .deitrminig tri pdrt.acid4ent cost in accordanbe With NUREG-1.7-27!.,and Attachment ASectionAZ, The :impact. to total cost of this item is miniml. Worker Accident Costs, To:detenrine worker accident cos in a r .nceWithNUREG-1727.and Attachment A, Section A2, the same hours input for-labor:cost were used for worker accident cost. WorkerDose, Costs associated with worker dose are a function of the hours worked and the-workers' radiation expo forthe task. General dose.rates.for each area from the initial facility walk,down: Wisi .ry sheets were used .to estimate worker doses. The results Were summed and the average (7.3 mrem/h) usqe'for all remediationactivities, For'soil excavation a value of 4.0 mrei/h 'wasused. The value of 7.3 mrem/hr for workerdosewas based on :data averaging. It is anticipated that, --. coioditiiedare:reinoved:and the area(s) prepared for final remediation actions, the dose to the worker will become less. Soil excavation assumes that stored waste
MYAPC.License Termination. Plan Attachment-4B Revision 6 Page 4..of 1.!1 January *2014 remains near the excavation larea. (This assumption is dependent upon which, activities are conducted or completed prior to soil removal.) In the event that soil remediation follows all othera*a9t4Vities and:that wastestored.for off-sitemshipmentis xemoyel.L the dose to workers, 6an be. less than-the-above value. To examine the impact of a lower worker dose, a sensitivity analysis was performe.. By eliminating the cost factor associated with worker dose, the ALARA evaluation for:the: most sensitive (oest)Conc/DCGL.(that. is, pressure washing using buildingd0eeupancy scenario) results.iria change in the Conc/DCGL from 1.91 to 1.76. In that the resulting Con/DCGL is.still greater than 1.0, lower actual..worker doses will not. change'the outcomeiof the. L:ARAassessment. LaborCosts Manpower costs assumptions were based on contracts established with the principal. site contractors... The .individual -cost.for the applicable disciplines, e.g., laborer, equipment operator, health physics technicians, were developed into an hourly crew rate for the task and based on guidance provided by NUREG 5884 Volumes 1 and 2. It -isimportant to. note.that the total work hours for a normal day were used and not adjusted for persornneI breaks, ALARA neeting or:ingiess andegress man area. Unit.,.Cost: The,sum-of all the cost.elements was divided by: the applicable unit .(m2 , mror linear feet) to proQvide a unit-eo st ,for:the.activity., Other.cst units.,for. Cst per hour qr linear foot were also developed in the same fashion. The tables to follow provide the creW cost per hour but.do not provide the individual hourly rates for individual, disciplines. These values are however included in the supporting calculation.. B Pressure.Water WashingaAnd Vacuuming P Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 7704.0 m2 Primary Crew Size: 3.0, Operating. Engineer,: 1; and Laborer, 2 Supprt*Personnel: 3.0, Resident, .Schedule
;Engineers, HP Technician, H.o.urIly Cost: $ 99.49 Cleaning Rate: 9.29. m2 /h 829:3 (7704 f0/9 29 mir 21lh)i H oU'r S."r
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachniet 4B Revision 6 Page 5"of 11 January 2014 Mobilization Costs $600 Labor Cost: $82,256 Equipment Costs: Liquid Processing Costs: $12,952 [($1 .co/g)(1.35 g/n)(7704 m2) (1.25 liquid contingency)] Waste Disposal Cost: $ 33;-328 Solids estimated at 0.002.V .
="15.4 *4.$-2163.04)
Worker Accident Cost: $105 Per NVU .G.-1727
-$7 Per NUREG-!727 Transportation Accident Cost:
Worker-Dose: $1 l,61.0Pr R"EG.4 7.27 Total Costs: $148,858 Cost periýn,: $19,32 B.3 Washing and Wiping Remediation Actions Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 7704,0in2 Primary Crew Size: 2.0, Laborers Support Personnel: 5.0, :Superintenclent,Resident and Sc'hedul e .Engmineers,
.perating Engine and HP Technician Hourly Cost: $75.1.2 Cleaning Rate: 2.8 mh Hours: 3783.-2 [( 7704 w2 /2..8 m%)h) +
*4h/40h set11)(-.25;co tingenc)]
Mobilization. Costs $600 Labor Cost: $284,195
MYAPC IcenseTernduatlon Plan Attachment 4B Revislon 6 Page 6 of n. January 2014 Equipment Costs: $21,571 Waste Generation; 25.4 m3 (3.39E-03,m 3/m2 ) Waste Digposal Cost: $14,550 ($573.87/n 3 ) Worker Acddent Cost: $477 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost: $10 Per NUREG-1727 Worker DoMa: $52,965 Per NUREdG-1727 Totl 'Costs: $374,368 Cost per n 2:. $48.59 Aread Ealiiatfd For Unit Cost Det6rmiiation: 7704 m2 Primary Crew Size:; 2.0, Operating Engineer,. Laborer Suppot Personnel: 4.0, Superintendent, Resident and SThduleEngineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost: $82.12
! leaning Rate:. 1.86 mlh m2 4146.4 (7704 f1,858 m:/h)
Mobilization Costs $7100 Labor. Cost: $340,502 Equipment Costs: $303,682 ($73.24/hr)* Waste:Deipor ot: 48-9 m43 = ( 7704 mr)(6.35E-3 m) Waste Disposal Cost: $105,817 ($2,163.04/rn 3 )
MYAP" License Termination Plan. Attadimen-t 4B Re*Isin 6. Page'7 of 11 January 2014 Worker Accident Cost: $522 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Adcident Cost: $21 Per NUREG-1727 Wrke D6ose $60,7531 Per NUREG- 727 Total-Costs:: $818,397 Cost per in2 : $106.23*
*BUqigngi coditi6onincludes cost for air'compressor, consumables at 10% of-the base equpment cofts and the waste volume of 0.25 inch (0.635 cm) concrete depth.
B.4-.a *ScaLlbbin,:R"mediaion',,Aetion.(Bounding Condition 0,.32ýýcmý.C-oncret.. Area.Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 7704 m2 Primaryrew S.ize: 2.0, Operating Enginee, LaboreIT Suport Pe-rsonel: 4.0, Superintendent, Resident ar
.ScheduleEngi'neer,:and HP Technici An Hourly Cost-; $82.12 10e1in RAteei. 1.86 m%'f Hoirs: 4,146.4 [(7704 m2/1.858 mn/h)
Mobilizflown Costs $7100 La"boirCost: $340,502 Equpmnt Cost: $243,062 ($58.62/hr) WAste Genera .tion: 24.5 m3 = (7704 m2)(3.18E-3 m) Waste Dsposal cost: $52,908 ($2163.04/n
$522 Per NUREG-1727 Transportatio-n Ac-cident Cost:. $10 Per NUREG-1727
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4B Revision 6 Page 8 of I January 2014 Worker Dose: $60753 Per NUREG1727 Total Costs: $704,8589 Co stlper*n?.: $9r1.49
*Bounding condition, uses: (1) base equipment cost, (2) assumes a.on-site ar_
compressor, (3) no added consumables, and (4) t.he Waste VolIme 'i relative to 0.125 inches (0.35 cm) depth: of concrete, i.e., one-half of that assmmed in.BA. Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 6-158 li*n..ar feet: (L) Primary Crew Size: 3.0, OperatingFEngineer, 1;I
. ..borenjr 2 Support Personnel: 4.1)0, *SUpitintdt Residen 'and
- ScdheduleEngineers, and HP TOW h ýican Hourly'Cost: :$H 7.12 Cleaning Rate: 1 U/.te Hours: 10263 [(49,344, lincar-.I/60min per hr = (821 li)(I .25)]
.$4,000 Mobilization Costs.
Labor Cost, $120%204' Equipment Costs: $123,311 Waste Generation: 9..6m=..(4I9,344 linearfeet:xl..96E-04.im./lf atr- 1.0. b. per.linear foot) Waste Disposal Cost:
$20-2854((* 2-16..04/m:)..
Worker Accident -Cost: $129-PerN.U RIG-1727' Transportation,Accident Cost: -7$4 Per -NUE-1 0:72-7
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4B Revision 6 Page 9 of 11 January 2014 Worker Dose: $14,369 Per NUREG-727 Total Costs: $282,867 Cost per linear foot: $45.93 B.6 Gint Basting)(Surfaces)T.Rmediation Action (Boundmg C0nditior 1.25 Contingencv) Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 2 7,704 0n Primary Crew Size: 3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel: 4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost: $122.12 Cleaning Rate: 2.79 m2/hr Hours: .3796.8 {[(7704/218 &2 /h) + ((7704/2.8 m2/h)*(0.1 set up)]}* 1.25 contingency Mobilization Costs $6,500 Labor Cost: $463,662 Equipment Costs: $196,977 Grit/Consumables $69,032 Waste Generation: 36.8 m 3 = (7704 x 3.0E-03 m + 13.7m2 for grit) Waste Disposal Cost: $79,626 ($2163.604/mW) Worker Accident Cost: $478-Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost: $16 Per NUREG- 1727:
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attaci hment 41B Revision 6. Page I10 of 11 January 2014 Worker Dose: $55,630 Per NUREG- 1727 Total Costs: $S871,921 Cost per xn2 $113.18 B.6a 'Gri1astinLY(Suffacese einediation Actiong.(Boun.d0i Condifion. No, ContinaiaionActyw( Area: Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 7,704 m2 Primaýy CrcwýSiz'e: 3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel: 4.0, Superintendent, Resiident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost: $122.12 Cleaning Rate: 2.79 m2/hr Hours. 2761.3 (7704/2.79 m2) Mobilization Costs $6,500 Labor Cost: $337,209. Equipment Costs: $143,256 Grit/Consumables $69,032 Waste. Generation: 36.8 m3 = (7704 x 3.OE-03 mn + 13.7m 2 for grit) Waste Disposal Cost: $79,626 ($ 2163.04/rn 3 ) Worker Acident Cost:. $348 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost: $16 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:: $40,458 Per NUREG-1727
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 4B Revision 6 Page 11 ofll January 2014 Total Costs:.' $676,445 Cost per mn: $87.80 B.7 Soil Excavation Remediation Action Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination: 1403.1 m3 ( 49,550 ft) Primary Crew Size: 4.0, Operating Engineers, 2; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel: 4.0, Superintendent* Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Hourly Cost: 1 $157.12 Cleaning Rate: 3.06 m 3/h Hours: 911.1 [(1403.1 m3/3.06m 3/h)(2,0 contingency for restaging and articulation)] Mobilization Costs $700 Labor Cost: $144,172 Equipment Costs: $71,228 (consumables $9,29.1) Waste Generation: 1403.1 m 3 (49,550 W/35.3:15 Wi 3 /m3) Waste Disposal Cost: $2,356,596 ($1,679.58/Mrn) Worker Accident Cost: $58 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accidptit Cost;. $453 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose: $3,670 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs: $2,576,878: Cost per in: $1,836.58 Note: Remediation of an area of 10' m2 to a depth of 15 m results in a total soil volume of 1500 3;. The above remediation activity represents 94 percent of that volume
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revlsion 6 January 2014 MAINE YANKEE LTP SECTION 5 FINAL STATUS SURVEY PLAN,
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-i Revision 6 January. 2014... TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.0. FINAL STATUS SURVEYPLAN . 5.1 Introductio.....:.... ............... ......-.
'J.2.....
5.1.3 I pilffementation ....................... ,.,.... .. 5-4 5.1.4 Regulatory Requirements and Industry Guidance.........,. ...... .. 5-5 5.2 Clas'sification of Areas .......... ,.... .. 5.2.1 Non-li-pacted Areas ....... 5-7 [ 5.2.2 Impacted Areas ........................................... 5-7 5.2.3 Initi.al ýClassification of Basements, Land, Embedded Piping, and Buried Piping. 55-8 5.2ý.4 Discussion of Initial Classification ............. . 5.-22 I 5.2.5 Changeosin Classification .................. ..... 5-22 52M6. Selected: Survey Area Boundaries Redefined...... ....... : .. 5-22 5.3 Establishrig.Survey Units .:., ... . .. .. . 3..... 5.3..1 Survey Unit.. ... ...- ... . ............ .... .-.*.*... ..... . 5.-23 5.4 Surve Desig y . , ., . . . , .56 .. :... ..... 5-26 5.4.1 Scan Sravey Coverage.......... ... ... .. ...... : .... ... 5-26 5.4.2 Sample. Size Determination..,,..,. : .. .,;............. .....,,~... ,.., ,...,
.,..,.... 5-27 5.4.3 Background Reference Areas ........ .. 5-31 5.4.4 Sample Grid and Sample Location ....... .....* ....... .- 5-32 5.4.5. Survey Package Design Process ............ .......... 5-33 5.5 Survey Methods and Instrumentation *.*............ ... 5-38 .
5.5., Survey Measurement.Methods.. ........... ............. 5-38 I 5.5..2 Instrumentation .... ,.... .. 5-45 5.6 Investigation Levels and.Elevated Areas Test...... 5.-57 " 5.6.1 Investigation
.... .~~........
. . Levels
. . .. 5-58 I 5.6.2 Investigation Process . 5-58 5.6.3 EleVAited Measurement Comparison (EMC). .... 5-59 5.6.4 Remediatibn and Reclassification .......... 5-61.
5.6.5 Resurvey w wi 5-63 !3 5.7 Data Collection.and Processing .: ......... 563 5.7.1 Sample Handling and Record Keeping ..... 5-63
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-i1 Revision 6 January 2014 5.7.2 Data Management ............ .a.. .................. -64 5.7.3 Data Verification and Validation.... ............... ... 5-64 I 5.7.4 Graphical Data Review .-. .:,.m. ... - ... . 5..m.-5-65 f
*5.8 Data Assessment and Compliance ........................ ,. ... :, 5-66 I:
5.8.1 Data Assessment Including Statistical Analysis ., 5-66 5.8.2 Data Conclusions ..........................-.. , - , 54-0 5.8.3 Compliance ........................ ,.... .... , 5-71 5.9 Reporting Format . ,, ,., . : .., ... ..... : . ,. . .- ... ; , 5.9.1 History.File .... . .. ,,.,.. 571 J 5.9.2 Survey Unit Release Record ... . :5 72 ] 5.9.3 Final Status Survey Report........ ..... " 572 5.9.4 Other Reports57.. ......... 3...573 5.10 FSS Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) ... *... , 5-73 f 5.10.1 Project. Management and Organization ,:....... .... . - :,5-74 .1 5.10.2 Project,'Description and Schedule ..... ......... ;, 77 5.10.3 Quality Objectives :and Measurement Criteria..........'.-,- . . 5;.77 - 5.10.4 Measurement/Data Acquisition ........... 78
- 5. 10.5 Assessment and Oversight .... ....... . ... ... .. 80 1 5.10.6 Data Validation ....................... , ...
5.1.0.7 NRC and State Confirmatory Measurements....... .. ., 5 81 I 5.11 Access Control Measures , .... 82, i 5- -,,. n.. 5.11 1 Turnover .. ... .. 582 I 5.11.2 Walkdown .................................. 582 5.11.3 Transfer of Control........... ,.. * .. ,, . 5 83 5.11.4 Isolation andtControl Measures . , . , .. 55.83-. 5.12 References . . . , .......... . , 5"84 I List of Figures Figure 5-1 Impacted and Non-Impacted Areas: Figure 5-2 Class I Areas Figure 5-3 Survey Areas
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page S-Il Revision 6 January..2014 .... . . Figure 5-4 Site Grid Figure 5-5 Survey Area Grid Figure 5-6 FSS Project Organization Attachments A Embedded.and Buried Pipe Initial Final Survey Classification Description Lbst of -Tables' Table-5-1A Survey Area Classification.- Building.Basements... ....... ................. ... 5-11 Table. 5-1B Survey Area Classification-Structural. PbundatiornFbotprints ..... ,. . .............. 5-12 Table :5-1C Survey Area Classification-Land 5-15 5...... Table 5-ID Land Areas Possibly Augmented by.Bacnfibled Structural Footprints. .............. 5-18 Table 5-1E Survey Area Classification-Embedded: and Buried Pipe..,..... .. ..*:, .... ..... 5-21 Table 5-2 SurveyUnitAreas.5-25 Table 5-3 Scan Measurements....... ....... .. .. ....... ... :,- :,-,............. ..:.. .. :. ... . ...... 5-26 I Table 5-3a Con t Media Beta Energy (KeV) 5 '
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-iv Revision 6 January. 2014 Table 5-4 Final Status Survey Instruments.. 5-47 Table 5-4a Scan MDC for E-600 Instrument .... ,. *...:.w.. .. . ... :.... .. . .. ...
....... , ...5-51:
Table 5-4b Structire Scan MDC: forE-60G Instrument ... ......... ........... ., .. 5-51 Table 5-5 Survey:Instrument Efficien'cies: . . . ..... ,:, . :.... .. :.... ...... : .y................ 555 Table 5-6 Measurement Detectinm Sensitivities§ ... ., , . .. .. .. ..... , . .,....... .,. 5-56 Table 5-7 Investigation; LeVels .559 Table5 Investigation .Actions-......-.. , ..*., ,*..*...;.... ....... .... 563 5..:.. 1: Table 5-9 Interpretation of Sample Measurements When WRS Test Is Used ....... ........... 5-67 Table 5-10 Initerpretationiof:Sample -MeaSuremients.When-Sign Test Is Used................ ... 67
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-1 Revision 6 january,2014 - ----- -- 5.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY PLAN 5.1 :Introduction 5.1.1 Purpose The Final Status Survey (FSS) Plan describes the final.survey process-used to demonstrate that the MY facility and site comply with radiological criteria for unrestricted use (NRC's annual dose limit of 25 nirem.plus ALARA a.kd thd enhanced state. clean-up *lvels of 1Omrern/year or4ess-for'all pathways and
.4 mrem!Oyear orless for groundwater rinldngpsouwces).
As of September 30, 2005, the only decommissioning; activities~that remain are. those associated with the ISFSL The information included in-this section of the LTP includes historical informiation reggardin the deo isioig of the Mne . Yankee Nuclear Plant that ..will be maintained in its* cufret form. This3rifo*mation will be reviewed, and.revised asnecessary, at the time-ofinitiating.the" decommissioning activifies:foithe ISFSIiand assoiat I that
.appropriate information is avaiflable.for the implemen*tatiorf ofinl status;surv activities for the ISFSI and termination of the Part.50 License for the Maine:
Yankee site.. 5.1.2 Overview The final status survey-includs.mng pszctres lad.,i QplantiSye tat are identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated asa.result of licensed activities. A final status survey of the kdependent Spent Fuel Storage:Installationj (ISFSI) location (land area)ý was initiated prior to construction of th.econcrete base. There are 5 major.steps in the finl s'ey process: sue9 y prieparation. spr*vy design, data collection, data assessment, and documentation of:urvey results.
- a. Survey Preparation Survey preparation is -the.first.step in thefinal .surOy-prcess and occurs after remediationr if n*ci ,.sry is .le dI n arsh. wh iere r ediaition was required, a turnover survey may be performed-to c6nfimltliat
.remediation was successful priorto initiatngfinal*sreyac ties.. A.
turnover survey may be 7ero'rmed usingtlie same proce ad contros. as a final sur'vey so-that data from-a turnover survey.may be used-as part of
-MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-2 Revislon,6 Janua 2014 .. the final:survey data. In order for turnover srvey data to be used for final status -surey it must.have-been designed- ad-collected incompliance with LTP Sections 5.4 through .5.7 and -the area controlled in accordance. with Section 5. 1. Followingothe turnover surveys, the final status survey is performed: The area to be surveyed is isolated and/or controlled to ensure that radioactive material is not einitkoduied into the area from ongoing demolition ori* emeiation activities nearby-and toamaintain the final configuration of the area. oolsI epment, and matieri'als-not-needed-to support suirvey activities arzefrmvd uls uhrzdb h S Siiperitteidheýt Routine adcess, miitbrial storage, land worker transit through the:area .are not allowed, unless-authorized by the FSS Superintendent However, survey areas may, with proper approval, be used for staging-of materials and equipmenhtproviding; 1) the staging does not interfere with performance of surveys, and 2) -theexternal surfaces of the o*,'epmeht, are free' of lodse surf6ae contaiination:.and there is oriateial no likelihdoodthat inter-nal br fixWd radioactive materials could escape and contaminate the surrounding area or create background concerns, and 3) the safety of uey personnel isiiot jeopardi'z-d. An inspection of the area is:: conducted by FS S personnel to ensure that work is complete and the area is.ready for final: status survey. Control of activitie-s i's trAinsfeirred'fromn the Main. Yane en qgerncostruction group:to the FSS/RP organizations. Aoproved procedures provide isolation and control measures:until 'the area is released ýfor unrestricted use. b; Sur.ey Design The suOrv desig process establishes th* methods Adperfiance
-criteriaised to.condututhetsurvey. :Survey.design.assumptions are
-documented in "Survey Packages*' in accordance with.approved procedures. The site laindstructures, and: systems'(emnbedded and buried pipinmgconduit, aretheprincipal potentially c6nitaminated systems that will remain after, dec6missioning) are organized.. into survey areas and clss'ifidd by ýcnthiiinati6n p6ttntial as. Clis 1., Cliffs 2,!lass 3, r n6ni-impacted in accordance with-L-TP-SectiOn 5.2 and Tables 5-l.A, 5-1B, 5-4C, 5-1D, and 5-1E.
- ,Survey unit size is based on the assumption in the dose assessment models -in: a-cordancewith the guidance-provided in NUREG-i727.. The
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page543. Revikson 6 January.2014 percent.coverage for scan surveys is determined in accordance with LTP
.Se.tion-54-A and Table.5-3. The number and*.location of structure surface measurements (and structure' volum"etric samples) and soil samples -are established in accordance with LTP Sections 5.4.2 through 5.4.4.
Investigation levels are also established in..ac(crdance.with Section 5.16 and Table 5-7. Replicate.measurements are performed as part of the quality process established, to identify, assess, and control erors and uncertainty associated.with* sanping, suey,.or an-alyica activities. This quality
ýcontrol process, described.inLTPSection 5.0, provides assurance that the
.su-rey.data~meets the accuracy.and-reliability requirements necessary to
- support the-decision to release or not release a survey unit.
.c, Survey.Data Collection After preparation-of a-survey package-thefinal survey data are collected.
Trained and qualified personnel perform., the n.ecessary measurements
.0us.ing calibrated instruments in aq-cordance -with.approved procedures and instructions .contained in .the survey package.
Ad, 'Survey Data Assessment.
,Survey data-.asses.sment is performed to-ve'fy that the data are sufficient to
,deimofistate-that. the~survey-unit meets the unrestricted useci-iterion-
-(i.e., teNull Hypothesis may berejected.). Statistical analyses are performed on the data and the data. are compared to investigation levels..
Depending on the results of an investiga.tion, the survey unit may require fturher remediation, reclassification, and/or resurvey. Graphical
,representations of the. data, such as~posting-plots.or histograms, may be
.generated to.provide-qualitative information from the survey and to verify the assumptions in the statistical.tests, such as:spatial independence, symmetry, data variance and statistical power., The assumptions and requirements in the suryey package are:.reviewed. Additional data needs, if-required, are :identifled during thisreview.
.e. :Survey Results
-Surveyresults are documented by-Survey Area-in "Survey Packages."
Each final surey package may contain the data -from the several Survey Units-that are contained in-a given.Survey Area. The data is revieWed,
MYAPC License Termination Plan P'ge 5-4 Revision 6 January:.2014 analyzed, and processed and the results documented in a "Release: Record." The Releas'e.Re'ord-pro'vides the if.0rm .onindeessary to support the decision to releasthe :survey-units for unrestrited -use.. A Final Survey Repo.rt ',prep.red hatprovides thengmri data.ynd aayses from the SuNey PA-c-gesand-Release R*ec*rds;. and-is submitted to the NRC. 5.1.3 Implementation In its submittal to the NRC( 99-26, dated 8/9/99),'MY described the6schedule
*for the phased release of-site. laid. Two large site areas have been,determined to bention-impacted (as described: in Section 2 of the LTP)., Details of the partial release application package are discussedtin::Secfion 1.4,2.6. T**h NRC granted the license amie-ndment all6owig th* removal of the subject siite land fromthe operatinglieense by letterndated July.30, 2002. The impat*ed site.areas are.
- subject to a finýl status surveywin accordance wiih'thii* pA-.
.Thefiinal.survey will be impiemented;in phases. The:first.phase was:comprised-of ihe-survey of the ISFSI`land and aiportion of th ISFSIse c*i trationS btiildin!g rior toconstfution-f the ISFSL The secod 'pWh*e7' lud..s: (a) the nonRadiological Restricted Area (RA) lands and any non-A buildings which ill remain standing within the Industrial A ; aid (b) the vy: ofthe.RA land iniludingthe strue...tural concrete wh.h:wil.!l remain thr.eefeet belw.grade. The third and final-phase includes -the ISFSi site-following fuel- and &TC*C waste.
removal, falility dismantlement and any required remediatioi S'urvey 'esults will be described in. Written .Tee rportstoe NRC. artual urtes and land included in each written report may vary depending on the'statusz of ongoing decormissioning activties. On March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee submitted letter MN-04-020 requesting an amendment to the facility operating license pursuant to 10 CFR 5.0.90 and'iin a0cordande with the NRC Approved License Termination Plan (LTP): for Maine Yankee, to indicate NRC's approval-of the, release of the Non-ISFSI'site.land from F the jurisdiction of the. license. From March 2004 to July 2005, MAie Ynee submitte supporginsts suvyreptssuplemettotheamendment .
- and responses .toNR1C requests for:additional information. On.Sep.tember 30, 2005,.NRC issued Amendii-diit No. -172.con'sistirig .of the unrestriict6d*rlease h e .of the.remaining .land under License No. DPR-36 with the exception of the land where tle. independent.-Spent.Fuel!Storage. Installition (ISFSI) is located and a pare l of laud adjAcent to the ISFSI?.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-5 Revision 6 January. 2014 Maine Yankee anticipates that both the NRC and the.State of Maine Department of Human Services (DHS) - Division ofHe-alth E.ngieri'g . (DHE) may choose to conduct cqnflma"to'; meiauremenitsin acoicewith applicable laws and regulations. Te NRC may ,tke. confirmatory measurements to make a determination inaeccordanee-,wi.th,10 C13R5,.0.82(a)(1.1) that the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstirate that the facility and site are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for decommissioning established in 10 CFR Part 20,. subpart E. Mainr state.-aw requires Maine Yankee to permit monitoring by the Maine State Nuclear:Safety Inspectors (22 MSA 664 suiab-§2,aw amended ýy'PL 1999, c. 739, §I and 38 MRSA 1451, sub-§l 1,, aszamended byPL,199, c. 741, ;§T).hip ýmonitoring includes, among
-other things, tling xadiolo cal measuremefits to verify compliance with applicable:state..aws,(including the.enhanced state radiological criteria). Maine Yankee will.demonstrate compliancewith, the 25 mgem/yr criteria of CFPart 20, Subpart-E by deonstingcom pliance with the enhanced state 10, QF..
radiologiqcl criteria. Therefore, the confirmatoty measurements taken by the NRC and the State of Maine:will be.:fased upon.the same criteria, that is, the DPerived Qo0..n_ ratipn Guideline Level (D.CGL). Timely and frequent cotmuications :with these agen~ies will.ensure that they are afforded sufficient
,opportunity-,toiperforn th-eseconfirmatory measumments prior to Maine Yankee
,.inplemeniing an.'y.:rre'versible,decommisioig0aions (e.g, backfilling basem.ents with fill mater~ial.)
5.. Regulatory Requir an Guidance Thisplan has been developed using the guidance qqntajnedAn the following documents;
- a. Appendix E, NUREG 1727, "Demonstrating Compliance With the Radiologi l Criteria for License Te ation" (September 2000).
b., NUR.G-1.575, "Multi-Agency:RadiationSurvey and Site InvestigationMganalXM.AR§§ " Revision 1 (June 2001).,
.c *NREG-1.505,- A Nonparameotiio :Statistical Methodology for the Design and Aa~lsis! f F.a Stu Decome .ssioning Surveys;,
Revision I (June 1998?draft). d NFEGq-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey ksbetuints:foirVarioWs Contaminants and Field Conditions" (June 1998).
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-6 RevidIon 6 January:2014.
- e. Regulatory Guide 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear, Power Reictois" (January 1999).:
- f. -NUREG-1,60, "Standard R deW Pifofdr Evaluating Nuclear Power-Reactor License:Termination Plans"I(April 2000).
g NUREG-1727j "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan" (September 2000) Other documents used in the preparation of this plan are listed in the References Section. 5.2 Clasjsificatin..of Afeas ior to beginning,.th.e finalstatusurvey, a thorough chactk i aion of the radiol0gieAl status and history of the site Was completed. The methOds and results.from siteo characterization aredescribed in Section 2 of the License Termination.Plan. Based on the characterization results,:.the structures and open land:areas were classified' following:th guid4ace i Appe .nidixE6fNUREG'I7-27 a*n Section 4.4 of NUREG 1575. There will be no above grade systems remaining following decommissioning. Contaminated systems will be disposed of as~radioactive waste and non-radioactive sstems W be disposid of as scrap. MArea c ific-tion- ensures thattthe*-number of measurements, and th6 §can -coverage, are io urate with-'the potential rfor residual contamination.to. exeewdthe unrestricted'use: criteria. Initial classification: of site areas :is bas-d on historical information 'and site characterization data. Data.romn operational surveys-peTfo*ed Jin support of decommissioning, routine survei anceor any oth applible survy:ta maY be used to changeAhe initigb!hcgificationi of an area up to.thdetime of cof-ioincemrentofthe final status survey.as long as the classification reflects-the levels of residual radioacivity.that existed prior to remediation. 'Once the FSS of a given. urvey unit begins, the basis for ny reclassificaifi will be documeinted,'requiring a redesign of the.survey unit package and the-iiitiiion of ainew' survey'USing the redesigned.survey unit package. -Ifduring the conduct-of a:FSS survey sufficienit evidence is accumulatedto warrant aninvestigaion and elassificatioln of the sure'y .nit,- tf surveymay be teirm.iatedwithout c, npltg the surey *tpackage.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page-5-7 Revision 6 January 2014
- 5.2.-I Non-Impacted Areas Nbon-Imbpated areas haveno reasonable potential for residual contamination because there was no known impact. from site.operations. These.areas areno~t required tq:q: sureyed beyond what has already been completed as a part of site chrcerization to confirrn lib area s non-impacted classificatiomn.Te NRC issued a license amendment allowing the removal, of the non-impacted site land from the:operating licenseby le*er dated July 30, 2002.
5.2.2 Impacted Areas' Impacted areas may contzin residual radioactivity from licensed activities.. Based on the levels of residual: radioactivity present, .impacted areas are further divided into Class !.,.Class 2 or-Class 3 designations. The definitions -pro-vided lelowmare fro NURE, ' Pag es El M...
- a. *lass 1 arema-areaimpac.tped areas.that,.prior e.-torme..* ti.n eare
,expected-to conitain'residual contamination-in' excess of the
.!CarW
-b. Class 2dareas are impacted areas that, prior to retned.ation, are not likely to contanresidual radioactivity in-excess~ofthe DCGLw.
.c. Class 3 arieas are areas
-pacted thatlhave a low probability of containingiresidual.radioactivity..-
S.sp eptmbr.30, 2005:, te d~ecommissioning actviie, ta rman r those a:"soiated mwith theý ISFSI. The information included in this section of he LT.P :inqlud*es,hilstori*cdalinfona~tioniregaring the decomuissioP*fg of*te Maine b&la~ht. that will b&m intined in its currentfOn Thi's ioM-6 ion wdl be reviewdd,.and re§ied as-necessavy, at-the-time of initiating the! deommissioning tiyii o- theISjFU d.4u.aqsociated -andareas to ensure that a~ppxopj~tnfoi-a~ti:on is *yviiakle~fo~r. the ,mlmnaio ffnlst~ssre actiVities -for:the ISFSI' and :tdeition ofthe Part 50 License for-the:Maine Yankee-site.
..The-W--i` -DQGL r-eifers to thý Wi doiii- Su test '.r MARSSIMG(NTU G ,575,
-e.2--3) but generally represents the.uifojnleveil of4redual contam'iation Ilia results.i th.e.l dse liit regardless of the:statistical test used. See also, LTP Section 5.4.2.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-8 Revision 6 January.2014 -
;512.3 Initial ClAssificaitionofBasemnents, Land, Embedded Piping, and Buried Piping Ba on mo&IeIth 1-.9,000 measurements made duringthe site characterization and theinaformation evaluated as part offthe Historical Site Assessment, all land
'areas, basemen_*s,..struc.tues, and piping to remain: after d ec-drnssioni ng w.ere assigned ani*n*fial cliiiSificdtion. The scole of the final status survey includes land and structures south of the Old Ferry'Road. The areas to the north and west have been: shown to meet the. non-impacted criteria (LTP Section 2, Appendix A).
Thescope and boun.dres of the:FSS wl beincreased if surve data show s "diflcantieqels dfrdio~tiviti .aboVe backgiouAdin d pij-piera artas. (Initial
- Class i areas south of FerryRkoad are shown onFigure 5-2. Additional Class 1 areas may be added as a rest of ongoing characterization, remediation or survey Thý,piiin "i irt.f b.edtwe=en the Oipaced fia "nd-impacted areas are the publi ro.da (Old Fer. yd.) 'and thedrlroadspurý. Both: sides:of thepublic road willb- s e forFSSIf residiua! radioactivity greater 0. DCGL 'than is datected on theieroa or' sides of the iriod, an investigation Willbe conducted to de...in.the extent-f contamination and to:identify any possible migration into the: on-impacted areas Th. portion-of the railroad spur'witbin the impacted area will .be..ic..d....in the-firal survey. If rsiual adioavity greater than
*0.-5'DCGL is tddtedon*-the last: 00 -meters priorlto exit from the impacted area, an investigation similar-to that describedab oye-will be conducted.
Chracration was pe*rfom da replorted by-survey-area. The area designations used -.for-charadterization-were used, for the most part, to :delineate and classify areas for.final survey. This Allowed the charaicterization data to be efficiently-used fr~s s*uvey e arareA ssifatioti
- l and for estimating the:sigma Value for sample.size dete ation.
Tble's 5-lA *trgh :5-1E:list the survey *raýs for baemenfts, stricture foundation footprints, land areas possibly augmented by structure footprints, embhedded piping,'d buried piping,. See Attachment 5A.:for additional detail on bdifeb~ddeidandýbuiýdpi g' nd ! reat*d discu*sions on the basi:for the initial MAR-SI clssiicaionof he uiieyunits. The major and areas aredsga te inFigure 5-53,.' For-oprerational :efficiency, each of-the final surveyareas listed in the tables miaybe*ebdivde into multiple areas'. SmAler survey areas may be hces Iayto e*i6h.&c*6tefficiency'0f data collection, proceissing, and:review and serve to better-support:the decommissioning schedule. The:classification of all subdivided&survey areas will be the same as indicated in'Tables 5-IA through
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-9 Revision 6 Janiua 2014
.5-!E. unless reclassified in accordance.with.this LTP,.! The sigma values are based on site characterization data. See LTP Section 5.4.2 for the use'of thesesigma values in sample size determination.
,Some survey areas have been assigned morhe tan-one .616sification'ba6sedon the levels of activity found. During the FSS desig proce ss when these areas are divided into survey units, administrative controls will ensure that each survey-unit will have only one. classification..
The iiajority of theseclassifications are-historical, becausiýJetonly-areas that remain within-the control of.the 10 CF5,0.License ae.those-asoc.ate_ e with the land where the. ISFSI is locate and. a p r-pl f lanid.a:dja*cettothe ISFSL. Survey areas for structures that are demolished will either be #pplied to the remaining footprint (ifthe foundation is removed) orf the buildi4&basement.. The soil below removed foundations in the.RA and Industrial, areas will undergo final survey*prior to: backfill.: The need to surey soin'..excay Uqpts before ba*kfill be evaluated onia casegby case basis\id do,, Jdin the:Final Survey Package. The soil in-the excavated footprn of several structures may be
,combined into a-single surveyarea and/or survey unit; if findalseyis-required priorjtq backfil.. Each survey unit will be com.-prised of one.or oArelstructural foundation footprints, will nmeet thesize:constraints fortheassociated structure or structures (per Table 5-2) and will possess generally uniform-characteristics, including:
-* Survey unit classification
- Material type and nuclide fraction.
- Sigma
.istorical radiological impact of the-area The:excavated foundation areas for any building or strutureouiitside of the IA may not be:surveyed prior to backfill.
A :conservative approach of classifying the,excavated foundatio*.. ootprnts.will be: to; classify *te footprpts as one class lower than .would.have been assigned:to the
*foundation, concrete surface.- Ror example, if contamination -below.theODCGL wcee id*efnified, on a given foundation sface: that,would'have resltetdin the concrfeite surface being Class-2, the soil remainin*g-*a the foundation is removed would be. given a Class 3 designation.: The'intent.of classif* -;gthebuiding footprints as one cl.assificationlower (thanfhat for the pfundato concrete sqia9)jis based on the assumption tat thre was no. evidence of exte-al
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-10 Revision 6 January 2014. contamination and that theonlypoteia for soilcon o n :ation would be building demolition, If there were any evidence-of soil con ton or-sub-slab contamination, such information.wouldTform thebasis for:the.footprint classificifion. Absent 6suh inifOmtionthe fotrn would beblassifie'd at one classification below the
*footrin.t tr.cture. FoUlwing.thie satisfactory performance of FSS:on the excavated: foundation footprint surface, -ifrequired, the excavation area would be backlfilled.
The major land areas are designated'ih Figure 5-3.
MYAPC License Tennination Plan Pag*.*-1l Re*ision.6. January2014 ........ ........ Table 5-IA Survey.Area
...... ..... Classification .-. Building Basements. ____ ___
Package Surve'y Area- Interior Extefior :Diec -Mean Bea MaOxmum ke RA Approx. Number Structures.
.. .... . .a..
. . . . qk o0.. .. jA
.p.
,,DirectSBeta . o'Beta c* ".Siz Sreyv
[ . . . ..2 a~~dpip/100cm dpn/(Mcm Area. Size Sigma la Sigma Class (Meers2)
.xo (d~~~~pn3/lO cm ) 2 (dp~1( cm)_____
A0100: ...*.....G-on n...: Ent-El.-2ft 6,853 ......
... 1.. .: ........
- N/A
*... , ..N/A... . . . .. . ...
.8.1,976 7 4 .........
. .. 4860 ..
*A0460 . Fuel.Bldg. 3,606 1 N/A N/A ý-6,815 312.939ý 300
- A0600 t*AB-E1 f *3,811 21 N/A N/A 1,106 .32328 2200 Bld pr ay * ',4 : _68 M Al00 Containment Spy 6,132 2,1 N/A N~/A8329 ; 9$88170
MYAPC-License Termihati6n Plan .page5-12. Revision 6- .January 2014 Table 5-lB Survey Area Classificatfin-Structural Foundation Footprints Package" Survy Area- , Iterior EXterior Mean Maximum -Approx. Number: Structures Direct Beta Direct:Beta .SurveyArea
-Sigma 9 -lass Sigma Class dpm/!nOc3m 2 dpn/lOOcm2 Size 2
fdpintlOO cm2) (qpm/100 cm )(ees)- . AO0fD ST(T-2). 760 2T / N/A 438 ,591 A.0o9o.00' ..s;*exvice
.. ,,!.*..ot. .......
....., . , ...... Side* ... .........
1.,456 1
. ....-.--2;1
... .............. NN7,... N/.... ....
69 8.... 1,955!** . 1.. 88s5 ... ....
.. :100, W . . 4l 86 .3 . :852 74,216. 980 Af200' .....'. .. . .RCA . . ...... .......
-Bldg. A-.4880 .21-- ; ':l N/Ai/ ...... 399 ,3,8 290 Al 30' EcjopehHatch 2N 'A8 9.1.
A..40.0' .ersoetc1 2, N/A N/A 350 6,758 47 5A1"00RMeccaiclyenetration 13,2 -N/ 21 3,6 1:34 A1600.........ME icalPenetraion t8,i.2: . " l N/A" N/A " ... 5 5, A1800' 1 AuxýFeed Rn :-247 ,, - 3,2 N/AN 148 A1900') Hv9 Area * ..** , .510 2,1 N/A N/A .. . 131.. . .. 2,563
>.:...: . .. ...... .... 186
- A21"00* ___ , WST.:(Tgk.
_ .) 5,293 1 N//A /A 3,602 54,71:9 148 A2200' BWST _ 3,865 1 N/A N/A 7,270 43,189 190 A2300' PWST 1,262 1W N/A 68 6UT - 3,2ý58 83
MYAPt License Termination Plan Page 5-13. Januiiv 214 Table 54RB
*Survy Area Classification-iStructural Foýndation F'ootrints- .
Packnge Siirvey Area- ,de-id: Mean
-Menterior Maximum Approx.
Number i! Structures .. .. .... Ditdct.Beta Direr-Beta Survey Area
, .. "$* ~ 9'
........ '"Clas, si Si*i i Class Class d .ii100*n 2 .. . 2 dpiýi2/0(cm Size
..-.. - - -, .(dp 100. c r) "(dpm/1.00 c- i)22 (M eters-)
A240O' Test Tariks , 778 1, N/A N/A *956 *.4,300 180 A2660' LSA;Bld::iab TBDf 2,1 N/A N/A 291 B0200 Citr6im ,: .......
. ,.. ,... ,,.I'
, ... ... .::3317 1.,,,,.
- .. ..-. : 3 'N/A
/...N/A..6 N/A 216 .. 1054 334 B040' :Fire.Pump House 317"3' 3NA N/A 10 84.0 10 B05,500. Tuirine B"lgeuid 7-27 2 NIA N/A .62 8614 3723 BO700a ServiceBldg0a.CodSide 299 3,2 d NN/A /A 80 1622 . 3293.
B0800' Fuel Oil Storage Bld. ..298 3 N/A N/A -83 45.1 200 B0900' Diesel Generators Rooms . 223 3 N/A N/A 4177 412 Included in
*~ ~~~~~
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- . . .. . *.. . . . ,. . .. =,[. * - ...-.......
-Turbine Bldg 8100lo 2 Ai . B6il"Riri. 35 2 N/A N/A 183 1310 Included in Turbine.Bldg BI10.0. Circ:Water Puna 1house ___ 319 3 N/A N/A -'33,4 673 407 B1200. Administ-afition Bid. 432 3 N/A N/A 293 i1628_ 784
.B.300 WART B .d 542 3 N/A NIA 4146 1.1641 242
MYAPC License Ter.ination Plan Page 5-14 Revision.6. Table 5-RB.
.= . ... - =......... . ......
., SuvieyV
- . -: . .* Area Classification-Structural
= .-. . ...... .t* ....
- ,2 - , . - -Foundation
- ::. .-. Footprints
. _o___
....2 2 ':-
Package Su.rvey Aie- Ylferio Exterior Mean Maimum Approx. Number 'Structures Dect Beta Direct Beta Survey Area SSigm g Class Sigma Class dim/l°°em2 djrnfl*em2 Size ________ (dpmI/100 cm) (dpml0o.m2) (Meters 2) B1400a 3InformationCenter13 3 N/A N/A 295 1929; 372
= . ... ..... 3... . -.. ....
BIso' 'Warehouse2 20f 8 3- N/A N/39 1900 B16 0 0. Trafin..gAnie.. 1.44 "3 NIA N/A -13 -768 375 B1700' Staff Bid. 374............... 3 TBDb 3 ... 129 952.9 1431 8 B190o0 Bailey House 327 3TB 3 612 :6,524 195 B20008 BailVBa Slab 2.45 3 _ N/A N/A -97: 3,07 332 B2400ý StiffBld.-Turbinie*Tiel', 381 . 3 N/-A N/A , 19 576 116 B2500, Relay House
-:257
- i" ": ".. :". " .
3 . .. .. . . .. . .. . N/A' 'N/A
"." "..",,.". .. . " .. . 56
.400. LLWSB 1300 3 N/A N/A 457 3099: N/A (yent and:drain) . .... ._....
M.YAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-15 Revision 6 January 2014 ...... .. Table 54C Survey Area Classification-Land Packalge .SjveyArea- Land Sigmak (pCi/g) CIssificAtion . Min Cs-137 Max. Cs-137 Approx. Number K Cs-137 pOilg pCig , Survey Area Size ____(Meters2) ROI.00 RCA yard West 1.33 .2,1 d 15.95 15.6.0' 17,902 (Expaided to include portions of.Rq20Q, R0900 & R1900) '_ 1(0200' Yard Eait ý0.17 3. 0T7 064 28,748
.(Miný.po.riqnincorpo.ate.
into RO100) __ R0300 R6of and Y~rdDrftls N/A.3 0*33 ;0.53 Incorp&oated iiito
*~~~ .. ..... ,..,, .....
R0100...... R6(40,01, t Forebay 2, TD. T " T"BbD., 12,191 (Exopanded to include.portion ..3 dike of RIO0O) sikiface soil. R-0500 :H *-* ~ofl&~ . ~ - 16.046 ____ Bi~Poiii~t A28, i3,ZJ R0600 Ball Field SeeR-RI800. See RI800 See:RK800 See RI 800- Incorporatedinto (In6orporated into Ri 800). R1800 R0700 Construction Debris Ladfll See R1800 See R1(-180. 1; S i800 'See18,0" Incorporated.into (Inco- ora into.Ri1800) - -- -::_ R1.800 R0800 AdminAnd Parlk.g Area 0.13 . 0.18 0.37 31,057
- (Mi4ius'porton incorporated
*_into R-1.800) .. ... .....
MYAPC License Termination Plan .Page.5-16 Revis.on.-2014 6 .Jajua" Table .-5C
. Sur.vey AreatCasifficitibhii-Land
... ;; " '.... .. * ' " "- . . ..".. .... . . " .. . . . .' . " - .. .. . .. . .i"" " .." ...
' ...L b Package Snurvey.Area-.Lnd -L Sigia ,Ci* . ean.Cs-137 Max..Cs-137 MCassification, Approx.
Nuimber* Cs-137 pCi/g pCi/g Survey Area Size
.(Meters')
R09.00: Balaneeof Plant Areas 0:A8 3 0.49 1.5 35,975
ý(Mirnis portion incrpfated into R0100 and R1800)
R1000: Foxbird Island 0.23 .3: 0.26 0.86 56,822 (Minus portion incorporated
'into RO 1.00 and R0400) .... .
Ri*100' Rodf and Yard Drifins ',A 3 0.07 0.09 Incorporated into
,!~~~~~~~~~~~ .....
.. .i*"FR FR'0200 0 0 R1200, LLWS13Yarda
.'o6ited iR130.) "R1300. See R13 010 See R-I300' SeeRbo See4 1300 Incorporated into SR01300 sFsi 007 V342, 0.09 0.2.81 29,240 (x~an~e toInud6Rf200O
.' ,: S".,..
....... a
*...... .. ...p_-'...
otionof
". ... ... 1Z210)
...... r SRoo00 Ash.Road Area; . NA'.P , 0.08021 NA
.. ............ . ...... .. ... ....-..- ;...0 .. 08... 2I .,....A R00 AraWtofBieCoe - ANP0::..6, .. ... "":i143"
... " . NA i..gl700 i Ar :Northofferry;Rbdd NA - _.Q7 .7 1.55 NA
- R1800B-ey e o.. d *r 0.23: 3 .25 0.83 367j0.00
_0_0_ Tifffiiser TB" " 3 0.V10 0.13 -TBD
MYAPC License Termination Plan 'Page.5-47 Revision 6 January2014. Tarbe-1CSC
.. Survey Area-,Clasification-Land Package..: Survey Area- Land Sigma. (pCi/g) Ciassificati Mea:".S-137 Max. Cs-137 Approx.
il.Nurixiber C*Ss137 ,pClg. pC-ig Survey.Area Size,
.... .. " ...... ( M..e.
R21..0) " amntenance Y .ard. Se Rl300 & r See Rl3ý00& & See RI:300..&
;SeeR-I,3.0 t-Incorporated i-to (Inc 6rfatdtinto R1300,and R"800 Mf800" .l8t0 R00: R13500..&-RI800.
I ~Rl1800)1-SFPfi*8bstafio -Slib Area "e'Ip0(Y 7 See fl100 See L0(i0 *ee kolioo0 orated into,
"~~ ~ ~
........ 1 oIi~roae~nt
.". ort.
......d
...... l ~l*0)
'.". : pel~f)
.. .. """..... .. 'R $...
*: 0* into,_____
R2900 RoasfAWiroad F'inal S$"iA 80-et l~O e R8~eee: Rl00,6 006M. -roads. Verification. *500in 2 S b* railroads Ndtes-forTables 5AýA, 5-ItBWand 5.'C:1,
- a. Structull.footprt-may be' incorporated into land area as indicated ýin:Table 5-J:C.
b.. Exterior characterization will be cbfhfdte'd ifhbifldiidiig sel&ted to remainistan.ding
- c. "-NI"..refers to Non'Impacted di Ccritiins: known :sub-surface or sub-slab residual activity.
- e. T~o b.determined ýpon opening the system or other pending.charactefization efforts
- f. Current background radiation IeVels preclude accurate survey. "(Radioictii)e;a:Wste is still being packaged andrstored in this area). Area will be sb.Nered whien background allows.
- g. Sigrn..a values: listed were developed using characterization data;* Sigmas may be recalculated based on post-remediation survey data.
- h. If contamination of 0.5 DCGL is detected in the.last !O0m prior to exit, an inyestigation asto. surce and impact will be conducted.
MYAPCoIicenseTermjiati6i Plan Pag~ 5-18 Revision 6
- Jannarvo20i .......
4 > ......... Table 5-iD
.L*T.I *..2..-L
.. .. . ... ...:*.. . . ... ..Lanid-Areas
.. . .............Possibly
... . .. " Augmentednby
. .. ...... ...... ..... ..Backfflled.iStructUral
.... .... . . F6otprints ..t r...... u.e....a
.. ip.ion.
Land Area:Package 1 Land Area Description Structure S..cture.A "rea D.cription: No. Package.No.
" ."~~~~~ . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. ...... ... . ......
R0ro0 ACA Yard'West AW0A0 DWST
. . . ... . .... .. o. .... . . . . .... .. ....... .......
A09Q0; ServicBldg., Hot Side
.. ... ... ,R CA Bldg ... .
A1300. Equipment Hatch. A1400 Personiel Hatch Al50.0. Mechanical Penetration Al6,Q0* Electfieal.Penetration
- 1. . . ... .. ... ... ... . . .....
. . v..* . . . . ... . ... . .. . ...... . . . . .. . . . *... . .. .. .....
A18V00 AuxFeed Purmpnpm A 900 HV-9. Area A210OO RWST (Tk-4) - A2300 iWST-q" A2400: Test Tanks A2600L'SA Bid
MYAPC Licefise Termination Plan Page 549 Revision 6 Januarvy.2014. Table 5-11D Land Areas Possibly Auginented by Backfilled.Structural Footprints Land Area. Package Land Area Description Structure Structure Area .Description No. . .
. .. .. . ... . .... Packge&No.
R0200, Yard East B0260 ..Control Rm I B0Oi . T.urbine-Bldg B07~) Servi1ce.BldgX- ColdSide B708~0 ~~FadFue Ol StorageBldg B0900. Diesel..Generator Rooms q BIOO0 .. . ..... .. .. . . .. ... . .. Aux.
.. ... ... Boiler
. . . .* Rm
_L BUN10 Ciroý Water Pump House B12, 'Administrativ~eBid.. (Front Office) 30WATBdg ......... B21 00 Lube Oili Storage; kmn B2-200 Cold Machine Shopý R0800 .AdymL and Parking Area B'146- Information Center B1-600 Training Annex"-.". . .. . ....
- * :: .. " . ': . . . .: .. . ... . .;'-' *; ..r" ": ... . . . .... ." ".'
B1 700 SffBldg
'R09.0 "Bialance of Plant-Areas B0400, Fire .Pump House
- B2600: Warehouse 5 800
- aey Ai.R1House Land Area B1900 BaileyI-iuse
MYAP.C License Termination Plan Page 5-20 RevLson:6 January 2014.. ................ Table 5.4D Land Arema:Possibly:Augmemnted by BAckfedl:Structural Footprints. La.
........ P ge LadAe ecpinStructure Structure -Area Description 0N. _Padmge .......
................ . ....... No...
.,B2000 BilWey-Barn 6 00. N/..... . .. ' ........ . ... "-
.. .... .. . . .. . p.., q, p anks . ................. ...... .. t_* ...... . .......... . ..... .
- B ..... : . .
MY-APCLienseTe0 8aton'Plan Page 5-21 Revision 6 .January 2014 Table 5-E Survey Area Classification-Embedded and Buried. Pipe
~
. ~~ ~ .. ~... ~ . ~.. .... ~ . ~. .. ~. ~ . ..... ~.. . . . .......... ...... ...........
PackageNuber Description Classificati6n C0300 -ContainrneinSrat c03~~~... y... ...... ..... .. ....... Class 1I .. C2000U Contdinn~edt Foundation Drains Class 2 D04.00. Sanitary Waste (2) Class3 D0500 Circulating Water - Class 3 D0700 Fire Protection (Water) Class 3 D3500 Storm Drains Class i/3 D3600 Roof.Draihs. ,-Class 1/3: D3700 Containment Building Penetrations Class 1 D60.Q -
....Service
..*...-*:co'.........
Water ...... . . . . .......... ..... ....... .. ... ...................... . :1Claiss
* :s* 1/3II *:* * ,.... . . . . ............ ......
...7".* ..'." ;" ..-.. . . * ' .' " " .-" , .'......
.... -. :* . "= ::: -* . :. . -, - .* - 7* * -= ,* :" . . ..- * * " ' ;. ,. - -': * ..- * . . . * " ': . .
Nbte 1::Roof Drain,* ill be sý ýr-e-d'
" s t ofD350ofStorm.Drains Note 2:.D0400 may require additiohil h-aracterization surveys :(see 52.4).
MYAPC License Termination"Plan Page ý-22 Revilon 6 January-2014..... 5.2.4 Discussion of Initial Classification The..classification tables do not show any prevously(R.ev. 0) classified above A e~ade strdctuhal' eeions;sc 0036 as.A20 !Continment'. t., 20AfL," A0500 "Conttainment El. 46 'i;, A0700PR ..PABE2-1
. Li, 0800 "PAB'E, 36 1..,"
-BOlO0 'TurbineBid-El 61 ft," B0300 "Motor, Control.PCenter," B0600 "Turbine:
Bld El. 39ft.,"or-B23"00:,Cable Vaault.".'Thes"e rea dla*sificitiohs have been removed si'e theY*arebassociated with upper level elevations of buildings which weredemolished and the resulting-debris disposed of offsite.
- A: detiled discussion ofthebasis for thel classificatioi. of the embedded piping and buried'piping listed in Table:5 -. E is'provided in-
Attachment:
5-A.
'5?.2.5 'Chagesi "Classification Iniial classification.of iteareas is based on historical information and site ch&aiacftizaion*:.data; Data frtom operational s urveys p gfo ed i support of decommissioning, routine surveillance and any other appjicable:survey data may b.eused to cha nge the ,iAitin..lassificaton of an.area up-to the time of
- comencement of the fihal stat:surtvey0 as 6long as the classification reflects the Ievels of residual radioactivity that-existedprior to rem6diation. Once the;FSS of
.agivensu*reyuit begins, theobasis for any~reclassificaion w.,be documented.
If 'drig i cinduffof i FSS s0veysufficieni evidenic6is accuhmlated to wa rrtant..a-investigationmand reclassification of the surve.,unit in.accordance with L.TP.Se.ion 5.6 the'survey may ibe.terdiated .vithout.compl etng theosmuvey unit 5_26- .Slect~edSurv.ey AreaBoundaries Redefined During-the review offinitial and continuing'dharatetnz4o.*, it was noted that theremwere some survey areas that contained areas of elevated activity that were adjacent to.one another, ThIe boundaries of these. survey'krea were redrawn for FSS: t cofinolidate the elevated areas int6 one survey-are"a where'pratcal. Other survey reasw-ere combin-ed for efficiencybecause they-had the same classification' and charactedstfics. Table 5-1 Cand Figure. 5-3 reflects the redeiniton fthese boundarieqs.'
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-23 Revision 6 January 2014 5.3 Establishing Survey Units 5.3.1 Survey Unit Each survey.area!listedjin;Tables5.-:1A. -,.15ýE-maybe divided into discrete survey uniits. Survey units are areas that.have similar characteristics and :contamination levels. Survey-units are a.signe as . o onei clssificatioxi. The site and facility are surveyed,, evaluated, and :released-,on'a,survey-unit:basis.
- a. Survey Unit *Siz N.G-1727, Appendix.,proides suggested sizes for survey units.
H~owever; as stated ii NUR *-G1 47*727, pge E, t ggested survey unit sizes-were based on a finding of reasonable. sample density and consistency with commo nlyus.edi;dsemodeling codes. ,The Basement Fill model described in Section:6 *s, by necsity, not generally consistent with
,the6' commonly used codes', becaus-e -thebasic coxiditionsy are.different, i.e.,
filled-:basement vjersusostandingbuildngs.or soilcontamination. Fortstanding buildings,. the MA', SIM*re mens a survey unit size of 100 mi2 floor.area .inaClassl. ar eabasoedon the dose.model assumption that a: 1QOm 2 office:would be. 0oe id-'.6 The source-term in this case is es0setially the -100,m2 floor sae*, 1r80.m 2 if the lower walls are included. For soili the,recoamiendedsUIV-ey unit: size for :a Class 1 area
,wascons.ervatively bmaed -,on4hedose model assuumptionof a 2,000 m' residentfarm. The sourceterm area in-thi, c**eis Z000 i 2 . For basement surfaces, the non-containment basement-fill model assumes an area of 4182 mi. Therefore, the: source term,. and survey unit size, for basements s-ould-be based nb'o area of.4182,n 2 . For containment, the model assumes an area-of 1130-.-. isolthe survey unit size-would be 2
limited to 11.30-in ..
,However, .usinag :a..4182-2im2--Celass. 1 suneyunit .size.may hot result in a "reasonable s mple4densijt " PhI..is is somewhat difficult
-to evaluae since M S-Mj. e'd. explanatioh fr the statement:
and..thestatement'islonsiewhat imconsisten't.with-theiMARSSIM premise
*that sample size is'deter inedusng D*QO.s-and, aEstatisticaly-based
-method. TOprovide a.rati6na1.for.ai"reo nable".saple dersitW' finding, the recommended sample densities-for standing building and soil surveys were evaluated.
Using the recommended survey unit sizes for stadig buildings and soil, and assuming a sample size of 14 per survey -unit(for the sign test with an a and f 0.05 and relative shift= 3 as presented in Section 5.2), sample
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-24 Revision 6 January 2014 densities of 1/13 m2 forstanding buildings and 1/143 in2 for soil would be
.required". The primary reason forthe difference in sample,densities -for t gdidigbuildings and soilisthe soure term assxnp.t. n#in the dose modelý asdescribed previously. Both: sample densities are: considered reasonable, in MARSSIM.- Inr accordance:with the-same logic, a sample density0of'1/298 m2 would be called for in a 4182 m-rve:' unit (14/4182).
flowever Maine Yankee proposes to use a much higher samplei density 2 1/50 m? .for the Class 1'basemnt.surfaces. Therelis no sample density lim.itatiOn for Class: 2 or Class 3 basement surfaces. This,value satisfies the M SSIM "reasonable, sample *dens.ity" crteria since itis. at the.low end ofherang of the' recomeddsmldnitsfo trig bUildingand sOil and isýconsistent with the dose model assumptions,. The number of samples in a survey.unit will, in-all cases, meet!or exceed1the minimum number required per survey ut in..ASSIM, For examPle,if a survey unit size is 280 m2 the sampn..le density will be 1/206:n 2 to.maintain the minimum 14 samples per.survey unit. On Ihe other hand, if a,'survey unit siz.e is 1000"in 2, .20 sAmWd Will be collected as oppqs*d to the 14.that ito maintain the minimum 1/50 im2density. In 6arestatistically required, addition, if sample size adjustments are reqe because-of scan survey MDA, therequ higher saiple uimber Will be used,.regdls of the sample desity. The non-contaiiment Basement surface survey unitsize. willbe limited..to2000rin.. The. containment.Basement surface survey unit
;size will belimited to:11.30 i0.
It is important:eto, recognize that 100% scan survey of accessible,-areas.,isi requir in.a Class'1 area. Thi.provides a Mhgh eel of coifien*.c .. tt no signfct contamina.ti*n W b.e mised. Te fixedpoit-mea'surements. Sor samples are used in hie statistical analysis, ass'uminga.random distibutiol.For. the statistica ganis a sample defsitypof /50mfi2 thit et r. nxcesterqie MARSSM mfiiinmum nmber-is cons'idered sufficient. T'e: ac ii ueyunit ar"eas and locatibn dsignated within a §s.uey area, paticularly in the building basements, will be based on decommissioning operations:.and scheduile as well as the physical configurafion of the areas. Basement suvy u.tnitswillinmodt' case'sbe on the orde 1'000 fi' or lss;: Scaledrawings:of building or lIdnd aieas, and walkdowns, will .be.usedto calculate the surface-area:of .the basement surfaces or soiliwitinra :survey, area. The.survey unit sizes are related. to: the dose models described inSection 6.. Therefore, the standing structure survey units are based on the. biuilding
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-25 Revision 6 January* 2014 opcupantscenafio pathways and the basement structure survey units are based ofn the basement fill scenario pathways. The typical survey unit sizes foir building basements, soil, and standing buildings are listed in Tabl 5-2. Tible:5,2 ______Suirvey. Unit A reas SuggestediSurvey Unit.Area Class {____tadiA9_StruttfOs-t _ _IiBasement Land
- i " ,Sti 6fu-e
... _1 . I80toff 2 2000.m?.** 2000 m2
'2-_ ._.l8.0.-to_100_0md 20.TO.m-** 2000to:104m2 i3 NG Limit No Limit No Limit
%includes florsdlower walls
**1,130 in, for 66oiWtak6n&.tbikfemeiif sriti Table 5-2 lists the u#-.`y-'uiniit aze f6i- lia~eniefif(structures as 2,000 m' surfac*:area. Nbtethit*for embedde- piping- this size is also justified sincethmedpseomodel for residual radioactivity in embedded piping is identicilIto tliat us' for biia.ement stiruc.tue ontam'ination. Therefore, the same sigeqy -lmtf*s.z off2,000 m2 is appr6priate. iFor buried piping, the 2,000:m 2.::survey-is tot appropriate., In, fact, all of the buried pipe could be considere.d a. one suNey.unit based ofindos9e. mod:.eling assumptions. The dose model &forbuied pipixg.asues that'the entire inventory of residual radioactivity inall buried piping -expected to;,remain is instantaneously removed from the;tipe:surface and mixed into ai bolume of soil equal to the7141dh hiThb~
Ish'li-e vWo' medf 0 l iaburied pipe Under the ios-es i1 i -sfsmpt v nd uniformly spread over a 1cm :layer onthe:,ground.-suiface, !i would cover an-area of 940 i 2 . Thisiisless than the2,000 m2 that would,'be' Allowed for surface soil. Therefore,.-all of the buried-piping:could be,included in one survey.unit. In actualit~~, alisted in Tible 5-1, the buried piiing willbe surveyed as s-,ildistiriet s . iiits, bsd5 6n "hysical ad'SyStem considerations.
- b. .ito ýfPrence q.jnate"System C r (Rke nce Grid)
A:refererine coo)rdiniate systena'is iised foriifipacted areas to facilitate the identification of survey units within. the survey area.. The reference coordinate:s3istem is bi§ically n X-Y plot of-the site area referenced to the state if Maine nier&a~t r prjcctionis as'shown in. Figures 5-4 and 5-.ý5.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-26 Revision 6 JanuaryI2014....
..Once,the refeieneepo'iintis established, grids may be overlaid parallel to lines 6f latitude and6ngihtide.
5._4 Surv.ey.Design This tadti6h d-sdibT§ he.-iiith-odsaid :.data -required to determine the:rumber and locidon of measurementssor samples4ni,, each survey unit, the:coverage:fraction for scan surveys, and requieire'fits for measurements'in b-ackgroind reference-areas. The design actiVities described inthWis ,.stionW fbedocimented in a survey package for each survey unit. :Survey design includes the following:
.a,. .'scdaW.Survey Coveraged
.c; Background Reference Areas as-necessary tefrqnrfi.d an:d Samp.le Location
- d R
LTUP Sectio*n.5,describ~esiher6ocess f6r 'dlsign."ing, d""elopiiig and reviewing survey pa~cka'ge.: 5'.4.1... Scan -Su.Prvey Coverage Th&*ta.ei4'r b~y:~~~caii ~ii'easufem~ is-basedio the6 s*tvey unit classification u.sde.sci.bed'l,. m 1 G.f12.7 .and as :shown in Table 5-3 'below. A 100% eible arescan of Class 1 'survey units will be required. The emphasis Will be.placedo6n scannfig thehigher risk areas of Class 2 survey units such:as soils, floors .and lower walls. Scaneii g:.percentage'of Class .3 survey units will be p*ifopid on lik-.ly fars of confitamination based on the judgement of the FSS
.engin~er.: , .
3 ......-... Table,5-3 Scain Measurements Class 1 Class 2
- Class 3 Scan
.Cov-rage 1.1, -/%0 10-100% 1 to 10%
4For2- C 2 ey Ursits, th!.e.'amount of scan coverage.ill be.proportional to the potential feor-'nding areas:of elevated:,activity or areas clos.e to the release criterion 'in: accordanice With MARSSIM 'Sectin .5.5.3. Accordingly, Maine
MYAPC License Termination Plan. Page 5-27 Revision 6 JAnuary.2014____ Yankee will use the results of individual measurenents'collected during characterization to correlate this activitypotential to scan coverage levels,. 7.5.4.2 Sample Size.Determination NUJREG-1727 descr'bes the Process for detenrining the numberof survey measurements necessary to ensure a data set sufficient for statistical..analysis. S~amp1e size .is based on-the rel:atie shift, ,the Type.I and. 1I er-ors,..sigma, and the specijfic, stAtistica! test used td evalu ate the Adhta. Alternate processes may be used .if such Fgain NRC and industry acceptance between the time this p! is .adoptd and thecomm.. ence.ent of final survey activities. However, an.y.neW7technfolo-gies must still meet: the:applicable
,requirements,of this plan for calibration, d4etection tlimit, areal coverage,.operator qualification, etc.
- a. Determining Which Test Will Be Used Approqpriate tests.will be. use for.the statistical e~aluation of survey..4ita.
Tes.uqch. as the Sign test.and Wilcoxona Rank Su*m (WRS) test will be implenerted using unity rules, surrogate.methodoilogies, or combinations of unity rules and surrogate methodologies, as described in MARSSIM and NUREG-1505 chapters: 1.1 and. 12. If thebcontaminaint is hot in.the6bAckg0omd or constitutes a small fraction
.of-the D(CGL- the Sign -testvwill.be used;. If background is:.a significant
.fraction of the:DCGL, ,the"Wilcoxon Rank Sum (W S) test will'be used.
.b, Establish Decision:Errors:
.The probability of making decision e*r*os is controlledby hypothesis
.testing. The survey. resultsvwill be used to select between one condition of fie .env.ironment (fthe null -hypothesis) and an alternate condition. (the alt.emative hyp.othesis), These hypotheses, chosen for MARSSIM
'Scenario.A, are defined as follows::
Null Hy.othesis (H6) Thesuey unit does not meetthe release crteria. Alternate Hypothesis:(H) : The.survey unit does mbete the release criteria. TA T y *eI decision:eror *ould"reslt A in therelease of a.survey unit containing residUal rad io*activity .abobethe release criteria . It cciur when thejnull hypothesis is rejected when it.is.true. The:,probability of making thi's errorisAesignafed.:as . ATypei.l decision-errorvwould result.in the failreto* release a survey unit when the residual radioactivity is below the
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-28 Revision 6 January 2014 release criteria. This occurs when the Null Hypothesis is accepted when it is not true. The probability of making this error is designated as Appendix E of NUREG 1727 recommends using a: Type I error probability (a).of O.0 and states that .any value for theTypeeII error.probability (P) is ac.ceptable. Following the NUREGA1727 guidance, :a will be: set.at 0.05.
.A P.of 0.05 will initially'be selected based on site.specific considerations.
The maybe modified, as necessar, after wei gingthe resulting change in the number Ofrequire s ey measements against the risk of unnecessarily investigating and/or.remediating survey units that are truly below the releasecriteria.
- c. Relative Shift The relative shift (A / a)is calculated. Delta (A):is equal to the DCGLI minus the Lower Bounda of.the. Gy Region (LBGR). :Calculation of sigmas has beendiscussed in Section5.2.3 and values are provided in Tables 5-1A-C The sigmas used for the relative shift calculation may be recalculated based on the most current data obtained Irom post-remediation or post-demolition u.vweys; or from background reference are, as appropiate The LBGRAis initially set at 0.5 times the DCGLW, b*t may be adjuited to obi: an optimM value, of normally between I and 3 for the relative shift.
Lower Bbundarfy of the Gray:Region The Lower Boundary of the Gray Region (LBGR) is the point at which the TypetII (3).error applies, The default, value of the LBGR is set initialy at 0.5 times the DGL. l. he relative shiftfis :greater than 3, then: the number ofdata pOints, N, listed:for the relative shift Values of 3 from Table 5-5 or Table 5-3 in NUREG -1575 will normally be used as the minimum sanple size. Use of a relative shiftfgreater than 3 requires approval by.an-FSS Engineer. If the minimum sample size results-ina: sample density less than the required. minimum density (see Section 5.3.1), the sample size will
- be increased cordingly.
Sigma values (estimate: ofthe standard deviation of the measured values jn a survey unitand/or reference area) were initially
- calculated from characterization data. These sigma values can be used in FSS design or more current post-remediation sigma values can be used. The use of the sigma values from the characterization
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-29 Revision 6 January 2014 data will be conservative for the sample size determination since the recalculated post-remediation sigmas are expected to be smaller. The sigma values for survey areas listed in Table 5-1 which contain survey units with two different classifications, will be evaluated to ensure that the sigma conservatively represents the contaminant distribution of each associated survey unit; otherwise a specific sigma value.will be developed. The sigma values for structure surfaces'were calculated using the GTS characterization data measurements on concrete that were less than 20,000 dpm/i00 cm2,whih was a preliminary estimate of the DCGLW. Tis assumes that areas .above 20,000 dpmi/lO0 cm 2 will be remediated. Using a lower concentration should lower the sigma estimate. This method,should be conservative since many contaminated areas tha.t are near the DCGL, or near other remediated areas will likelyalso be remediated which would serve to reduce the higher values and the resulting sigma. The character-izationmesuement above 200O0 .dpr!l00:cm 2 were not truneated:to 20;,000 dpr/.0o cm%and ýincluded since it is likely that ony area remediated vl'*be weii.below thoDCGL"W. The sigmas for soil areas calcutd sn the iTS characterization data on measurements greater than MDA, and less than 8 pCi/g Cs-137. This should providea conservative estimate of sigma for any Cs-137 DCGL,.at 8 pCi/g or less. The number-of structure surfacemeasurements taken to support the calculationof sigmas indicated in Tables 5-lA and 5-1B ranged from 7 to 98 per survey area. The number of soil measurements taken to support the calculation of'sigmas indicated in Table 5-1C ranged- from 5 to 73 &resurvey area, The structure sigmas calculated in Tables 5-4A anid 5-1B represent the total gross beta activitymeasured down to the beta energy of C-14.. If nuclides are present that.have-beta energies greater than that associated with C-
- 14 they would be includ**d.Anhe g0ross measurement. The method for determining the: ave*r'genergy'of the beta emitters is described in a supportin-geng*eerigýcmculati'on. Table 5-3a shows that the calib!ration sources- *ith avrage bIeta-particle energies of<0.107 MeV are: conservative with respect to the energy spectrum presented in the: table.
The soil sigmas calculated in Table distributed Cs-137. Sig 5-B are based upon may be recalculated based.upon data obtained from post-remediation or post-demolition surveys.
MY PC License Termination Plan Page 5-30 Revision 6 January 2014 There are some areas in containment, RCA, Fuel and Spray buildings that, presentil show 'large sigma values. After these areas are, rf diated, t1ie .sligm vals are expected to be significantly lowe.Wher-d:e ae-s Are. rfnediated ormchanged, new.sigma values may-be calculated byetang mea surements.in te-survey area at about:5 to 20 16dofioInsas renncommended in Section 5.5.2.2. of NUREG 157,5. Table :5-3a ' Contaminated Media.Beta Energy (KeV)
-Nuclide Fraction Average.'Beta Average. Beta Energy Contribution 2004 Energyi§KeV) i (KeV).
.H..-3 2.36E-02 5.68 i 0.134 Fe-55: 4.81E-03 0 0 C.j5.7 .06E-04 0 00 Co-60: 5:84E-M02
. ... . .. ;.' * . . . _*. r' " " . : * .: * . . . . -'r 5-39.9 I.
.... : 1:* " - . * "
5.59 iI63 3..55E01 .......
. 1f7; 7.13 ...
........ 6.08 55..
Sr-90 ,2.80E-03 1:95M80 0.55
;455E703 1C,454 56.80 0.71
~. .. ....
' Cs-x3- 5*50&60.i 1704860 93.94
..' .. otal1_,
.. T . - -.
....-. .. .. i2 2 * . , . . .. .. .; *..* .: ?.:107.01. . . .. . . ." ......
- d. W1ilcoxo.n Rank S.um (WRS) T.estSample Size The number of data pointSx N, to be. obtained- from each reference
- area:or::surVey unit :are. determinedusingg Ta6jie5-3 in NUREGiI1575. The table'.inluides the ecom-mended 20%
.ajustment to ensu.re an.,a.dequate-san.ple. size.
- e. Sign. Tst.Samp-leSize
-Thenumb*. of data points..is-determined from Tab e 5-5 in
- Q4'5.75 ifor~app.ieation:of the:Sign Test. This table includes the' r..oifnmd6ed-20% .adjulstment to ensure an adequate sample size.e El e.Vatd Measurement Comparison. (EMC) Sample Size Adjustment
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-31 Revision 6 ,January.2014 If the scan MDC is.greater than the DCGLw, the samp.,.! size will be calculated usingthe.equation provided below. If 'NEM -exceeds the.sta.isticoi.,y.det4eymined sampl.e size. (N), ,NwMc
.wilreplace.
N-.EMC AI.E-MC Where:NEMc is,the eleVatedimeasurement.t comparison sam.ple; size A 'iisthesurvey uit: area AuMC is the. area corresponding to the: area factor calculated using the MDC,o,c coficenitation. 5A.43 Background Reference, Aiteas Background reference area measU.ements aie. required when the WRStest is used, and background subtraction may be'used. with the Sign test, .under certain! conditions such as those descr"bed in:Chapterf2 of-NUREG 1505. The.reference area.measuremnts Will be collpected using th metheods an ad
- eprob es r*rjired for Class 3 final- survey.units. For*sil, rteference areas will hfe adsoiltype-as
.s.imilar to. the -soil*-type-in the survey -unVit**.pqss~ble.
'e1n thereais a.reonable choiqe of pbosible soil refere aas Wsoil"typs, with simxilar will Wonsiderion be given to selecting reference areas that aredmost similarin'terns ofiother'
- physical,. chemicall,geological, andbiological characteristics. 'Forstruduure .survey
-units: that contain arvariety of materi'ls with-ma i-kdly:diffdintbaekg- ls', a.
reference area will be selected thatha..,s s.imilar:rnaterials. If 6ne~material.is. predominant-or'if there is no.:ttoo great.a.vmanationdinba *kound: among, materials, a background from a reference area containing ril4. a:single.ii lerial is appropriate when it is demonstrated that the selected .reference area will not result in unidbrestimating the residual radioactivity in the survey,unit.
*Itis understObd that background referenc'edareAi ..should ,have:physical'"
characteristics -"(including:soil..t)ype andtrock ,fornmation). similar to th-e:site:and shall not be contaminaiedbysite activifties-. In gene'al,! Maine.Yankee commits to using back""oud ieferenc,&Ardeas, when possible,;that are offsite: If non-contaminated onsiteareas are'to. be used, .th.e.n. Maine Yankee -will,verif'ý.and justify its use by appropriate:comparison.10th samples fromappropriate off-site lo.ications. :A White -Paper (tbchniU-lbasis..docUment) Ws..developed. for d.aling with back rou-d 1(Refere6ntce51A.2.3.), Irifofation fromn...theWhite Papletrhas been' included in Ithe appropriate iF- p$r re4.ere (Ren e Z5.1:2.7),
-Should significant variations in background ,referdnce.ateas be. encountered, appropriate evaluations will be.performedlto-define- the background concentration, Astnoted if-NNUREG 1727;TAPpehni.*Eý-edtiofi 3SA, the 'K sRi.M *llis 6tRstcan be conducted in such circumstance's to determine that there areno -signifioant differences in the mean background concentrations among potential reference
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-32 Revision 6 January 2014 ... -. areas. Maine-Yankee willeonsiderthis andother statistical guidance in the evaluation. of apparefint'siaificf.at atiOns in" ackground reference aras. 1f material backgroýud sUbtracdton is-peformed , the sgma value used will take into accountithe.-v*ariailty of .at~eni.*backgo.und.
,5.4.4. Sample. Grid and :Sam~ple-Lxoation.
Sm ple.lo htion is.a fnioof the-number ofmeasurements required, the survey
- unit classification, an"d'the cbntaffiiiattariability.
The. referheegriid. i primarily used, for reference purposes and is illusttated on sam "lema"*.s. Physial miking: of the reference.grid lines in the.sur.vey utiit will onl.ybe performed when,:iecessary. For the samplei grid in dlass,'! and2-:survgyvnits,ýa-randjomly selected sample start point will be:idenftified: 0aridol, 66tignsw ill be.laid out in a squarie grid pattern?2 at: dAistarice, .L; from, he start;point in both thie horizontal -and vertical directionst.*..-T.heisa*peandreference grids are illustrated on sample maps' and'mai#ybe phyial!y mTark"ed in the field. For Class 3:
*s*ir-ie5' units, ll sample are-.
Y.. do6mly selected, based on the referencegrid- Anmexampleo.is-shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-5. Global Posifioning:System (GPS)'instruments may be used in open land areas to
.d eijin.. !fd*e
- 6&` *l. ,q? tidb.irisn within the survey area. The
-maiuetrc .,sa. i io- diatt:--hofi!ontAl accuracy of2.l feet, to 4 .feet forthie *P-S system" Eiq--ii:'lcameraszmaybe employed to: provide a.lastinig re"ord..f su.e*7.1.9afion within t survey uhnit. When used, t h-e"-te .p garthredfidliked.,tt lafdinark and directional
.,in forma btftion ?s.rr d d ity.o N6te~that ,3PS* ig only fffi~e~a th~dd*that oiild beiused: to locate land survey points. Maie Y.a*nkeIs currntl*yus.ig.a site reference grid based on the Mlnaiemdreat sysftm "d'disia6; and an'gle' from fixed reference points:to lote.suey poiit6. If G'PS-JstAb b the sole method used to lo~cate survey-points, a more:accurate system will be obtained.
ii., - " Me~tfmefit:L6e-fibSis: .-... :....-..... 2 Notetftiat loih ftU:R.5315-5"and iB56 rec"ize-.both the rectangular and the triangular grid pattern grid metho"d'aS acceptable.
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Page!5-33 Revision :6.
January 2014 Measurement-liocations within the.survey unit are clearly identified and documented for purposes of reproducibility; Actual measurement locations-are identified by tags, labels, flags, stakes, paint marks, gepositioi.g nor unts Photographic record. An identification code. matches. a:surv.ey location.to, apartic.uilar survey: unit. Sample.p0ints for Class 1 and Class 2 survey units are positioned in a systematic pattem..or grid throughout the survey unit. by firstrandomly seletinga stal t.poit.coo.rdi.nate. A random number generator is used to determine .the,start p6int of the square grid pattern. Thegrid spacing, L,. is a function.of the:.area ofthesurvey unit as shown below:
- ]L. = Fn* .for a"square grid where:
A.=t.he'area of.the: survey 4nit,
.n.,= thelneffubderfo.6f sample points4in the.su*vey-unit.
Sample points. are located, L, distance. from the random start point in both the.X. and Y directions, Riandomn-. riine .men
..pafteims.are:d'sed for Class 3 survey units. Sample locatiponcoordi.ites are: randomly-picked:-using a random number
.generator.
Measurement locationsselected using either a random selection* process or
.a randomly-st~ar.ed systematic pattern that, d.o:noqt fall within the survey unit or thiat cannoat be su"veyed duel to: site con'ditions are replaced with other measure.mentilocations-as-detennined by the.FSS Specialist or FSS
- Enýgineer,.
5.4.5 Survey. Package..Design.Process AFinal Status .Survey:Package is-produced'-for each surveyarea. The sur-vey package i.: a:cp!eeftion ofdocu mentation, detailing Survey design.,
-surveyimplementationmand data evaluation for:a Final Status Survey Of a survey: area..
Maine Yankee applies the IOCFR50) App. B requirements for field.and laboratory-mcunting e*uipment as: well -as the-correctiveac ion-process to addr'ess data or programmatic discrepancies. Using the existing Part 50,
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-34 Revision 6 January..2014 App. B program precludes developing redundant measures for FSS activities. (See also Sectiori 5:10:5) a;. Survey -Package:'nitiation. Eah surViey frea a-nid pfacikage i s aisigi ed a u'niq ue identification number. To allow continuity-of area identification; the protocol used for identifying
.:survey areas during. ie characterization survey is used, as appropriate.
Numbers dissimi]ar'to tho se used for blharacterization survey may be necessary if surVey'boundaries are modified.
- b. Review of HSA, Characterizatiobn. Surveys The FSS Speei'allt gaflters and' reviews hiktorical data applicable to the survey area. Historical.iformfiatiofiitt will bheased for survey design is filed in the survey package. Sources' ofistoficalidata include:
1.. Hi:storial Site*'A§esmfiint
. haracterization Suriey.(Initial and Continuing) 3
*3* Classification.basis 411. 50.75(g) -files Operational Survey Records
,c. Survey Area Walkdown The .FSS :Speeialist -performs-a walkdown lto gather. information about :the physical characteristics of the survey area. The-walkdown provides-the Sp-ecialisft-an opp'ortunity' to.6teotmiin;eif'n'y piy*.lcal :or safetyr*lated interferences aretpresent that mayaffect suvey design.or suvey inplementation, and .to determine any support :acivifies necessary to implement s~urveys. 'The walkwd6wi.is 'docum'ted ad fJiled!in the survey package.
Following the walkdown, representative maps of the:survey area are prepared.
- d. Siiuey De-sign SurveyDesign: is-the process of determining the number, typ.e.and locafion of survey measu-emeints or samplesreq6uired for:each survey unit' within a survey area. The various asp ect of survey design:are documented and 3 For additional explanation of initial and continuing characterization surveys, see Section 2.1.,
MYAPC License Termina.tion Plan Page.5-35 Revision.6 January 2014.. . . . .... ... .. .,... . - , . .. . ... . . . . . . ... . ......... . . . . .. .. ....... .. .. .. . ........ . . . . . . . . . .. ., . . . . .. . . . ,.* .. . filed in the survey package. The. survey unit design process is controlled by approved procedures. The size and number ofsurvey units for a survey. area is determined based on area classification, modeling assumptions used to develop DCGL's~ and the: layout .'the.survey. area. The. FSS. Specialist will divideithe area in0to discrete survey unitsmas appropriate. Each survey unit is numbered. sequentially. TheYFSS.Specialist-provides a description of eachsurvey un.it incuding,survey.unit size, class.ificati.n and location. The types of material (.e.esoil-, concrete, etc) found.,in the: s.urey unit and survey measurement and/or sampling methods are identified. The FSS Engineer calculates the number of measurements or smple teqiuiired for..each sur.veyunit in accordance with ,NUREG-1575. The FSS Engineer also calculates requtired i nvestigation setpoints for survey measurements.
.The FSS Specialist, dietermines measurement/sample locations based on the. ,l.ssification of the survey u.t an.d in. ad"'dance -with'NUREG-1575.
A survey map is.pr.epared.of each :survey unit. A sample and/or reference grid issuperimposed on themapto providean (x,y) coordinate system. The FSSSpec.ialist. generates -random numbers, betWeen 0 and 1, which are multiplied by the maximum x and y axis values of the sample: grid. This provides coordinates-for each samplelocation, or a random start location for systematic: grid, as appropriate. The measuremeni/sample locations are p..qed.6 - .the-map. ,Each nmepaure!C.ent/sampl.e location is. assigned a. uniue; identification .codewhich identifies the measurement/salnple by Survey Area,. Survey Unit, Material and
,saequewntlial numb.e:
The ESS:Specialist determines the.-appropriate instrm ents and detectors, instrument operating modes and survey methods to be used to collect and analyze data. The FSS Specialist.prepares written survey instrtions that inopora'te the requiremerits set forth in the.survey design. Direction is prvided-for
- selection of instruments, count.fimes,. intm. t modes,'suveymethods,'
required documentatibn, alairminvestigation setpoints, Alarm actions, background requirements, and other appropriate instructions. The instructions also direct the appropriate instrument. set up -to ensure colleeted survey-data jis saved.anddownloaded to:the appropriate files. In conjunction.with thie-survey instructions, Surveydata fo6rms, indicat'ing desired measurements, are prepared to assist in survey documentation.,
MY.APC License Termination Plan Pige 5-36 Revision 6 JanUiary.2014 The FSS Engineerreviews the:survey design and instructions and verifies, or.has a competent person verify, all. calculations. The FSS Engineer ensures that appropriate instruments, surVey.methods and.:sample lo cations have been properly-idefitified. Once approved, the survey-design.and instructions arefiled in.the.-survey.package. The Superintendent OfFSAS reviews thesurvey package and authorizes' survey implementation.
- e. :Survey Area Turnover Prior to performing Final Status Surveys, the FSS Superintendent coordinates with -appropriate site superintendents to ensure decommissioningactivities, area remediation and. housekeeping are complete; The FSS Supefintendefit may direct: Radiation Protection to perfqrm surveys :to v6iify-that the area meets the:iadiologi.cal criteria for performance.of-the Final Status Survey. When satisfied, the FSS Superintendent will direct the: area to be posted, as apppriate,- to indic.ate that the area is control0d for the performance of Final Status Surveys.
Accesg. contrOls. are.implemfented -to prevent contamination. of areas during and~folloWing'Final'Status Surveys.
- f. Survey Implementation Sukveyiareas 'ifid/br16ocati6ns are identified by gridding, mar"kings, or fligs as appropriate. TheFSS S-Ugtp sor performs apre' survey briefinfgwith the survey technicians during which the survey instructions are reviewed.
The techiiiciaiiS gather ins"irumefitsan'd 'equipinent as indicated and perform sur ey§s in adccrdance:with the Apprdopriate. procedures. Technicians arexresponsible for documentihg-surey results and maintain'ing.cusi-t6dy' .ofsan'-me and instriiuidt e nt. At the: c6pletiodn of surveys, echhicians return instruments for downloading.aind prepare samples for-analysis. Survey iiisftments provided to the'technicians are prepared in accordance with appropriate, procedures and the survey.instructions. Itstruments. are performance checked prior to and followingsurVe's. Aniydaita collected in data-loggin'g iimnseuniuts :is'downloaded and a hard copy printed out. The.download. hard copies, surveyor's data sheets: and sample counting reports-are re.viewed .andfOrwarded. for inclusion in. the: sur`ey 'package.
*The :FSS ipqisor is r6tified of any*data'at. exc.ceds ives.tigation criteria so. that..ppopriate ihVestigation, srvxyes!:ahid..remediation canrbe 1performed as:necessary: Thedownloaded data.file is backed up to the system server and to appropriate storage media on a routine basis.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page,5-37 Revision 6 January 2014 Several'quality control >measures~and features have been developed for the impleme ntation phase of 'the final status--suv.ey program. These elements tYpia;includC.,
. Pre-finplementation briefings b.etween FSS design and Itimlemeniation ~perspimel, Pie-implementati6n i area walkdoxvns, Survey location verification,
, Dally survey area*-b.,cugrau dmeasurements,
- Iaiumeiint sourie checks be'fore and after survey activities, and
- Conduct Ofsutreys.hathfleip.ek, trap mode, thereby providing a record of the maximum-scan :value for any scan grid.
- g. Data Evaluation The FSS.Specialistreviews survey.-data, data downloads and counting reports to, verif completeness, legibility and, compliance with survey design. As directed by the.FSS Etngineer,tihe.,FSS Specialistperfonrs the.
follow'mngi "
- 1. .Conveatsdata-ore &Unigits
- 2. C..a.cujates me.an., .e..in.andangeofthe data set
- 3. Reviews thedaqta foir:oiutlirfs
- 4. Calculatosgh'e standaod, deviation of the dataset
- 5. Calculaites 1M'D.C for .eachsurvey type performed
- 6. Cratps.-,in.,, fit_ en_,y .oq*-iitileplts for visual
.:interpretation :of data.
The FSS:.Eng ieer reviews aSd .Veiffiesthe:statistical calculations, verifies the interity-and usefulnessof the data set and determines the need for fixrtherta. TheSS:.Engin e.mwill direct.inv~estigation as necessary. Once.sais.fiiedthatthetd-ataare.alid,, the FS.S Engineer Will perform the
.appropfiaterstatistical test and make a decision on the radiological status of each. survey unit.
The data evaluatibn*prceess is:'docu'mentbd and filed in the survey
,package.;
- h. Quality Cotrl Suv.
Following clompletion of Final Statqus :Sirvey,,thje need for QC surveys
,(replic~a..te , eys, s m p le...r.e . i'tsetc.) :is ,dete-mined. If necessary, aQ e st*_3p.bk,*geide*10p-ed~arnd~modtled afterfthe original survey. QC measurement, results arcompared tote.original measurement results. If QC resu.lts djo not agree. with the-original survey, an investigation is
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page .5.-38 Revision 6 January20.14 performed. Following investigation, the FSS Engineer will decide data validity. iL. Release 'Record Following-data: evaluafion, The :FSS Engineer prepares a Release Record. The Release Record. describes the survey area, survey design, survey units, surveys..performed, and instruments used. The Release. Record summarizes. survey results -and data.evaluation. The Release Record is reviewed and approved by the FSS Superintendent and the Manager of Projects- FSS. 5.5.. Survey Methods aid. Instrumentation 5,5.1 Survey Measurement Methods Survey measurements and. sample. collection are performed by personnel trained and qualified in accordance with the applicable procedure. The techniques for performing suvey measuements-or collecting samples: arespecified in approved procedures. Final site survey measurements :include ;surface scans, direct surface
-measurements, and gammaýspectroscopy of volumetric materials. In situ gamma spectroscopy or other methods:not specifically described may also be used for fin*l:sta ts surveys If so. Mae Yankee will give the NRC 30 days notice to provide an opportunity:to::review the' associated basis document4 as described in L0IPSection 5.3..1.
On-site lab facilities are used for gamma spectroscopy, liquid scintillation and gas proportional counting in accordance With applicableprocedures. Off-site facilities are used, as necessary. No :matter which facilities are used, analytical methods will be. adminiistratively.established toI detect levels of-radioactivity at 1.0% to 50% of.the DCGL value or below the ALARA-Remediation Level, if applicable. a, Structures
-Structures will receive scan surveys, direct measurements and, when necessary,. volumetric sampling.
4 A Technical Basis Document wassubmitted for: "Forebay FSS Survey Measurement Methods (In-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy" - References 5.12.37 and 5.12.38
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-39 Revision 6 January 2014 Scan Surveys Scanning is performed in order to locate small areas of residual activity above the investigation level. Structures are scanned for beta-gamma radiation with appropriate instruments:such as those listed in Table 5-4. The measurements will typically be performed at a distance of 1 cm orless from the surface and at a scan speed of 5 cm/sec for hand-held instruments. Adjustments to scan speed and distance may be made in
.accordance with approved procedures. Sodium iodide detectors may be used for scanning of concrete surfaces when surface conditions would result in increased surface to detector distance (typically within 3 inches) and when the static measurement sample :size is adjusted for the corresponding MDC; if necessary. In situgamma spectroscopy may be effectively substituted for scanning. surveys if technically justified following the 30 day NRC notice and opportunity to review as described previously.
]DiretMeasurements Direct measurements are performed: to detect surface activity levels.
Direct measurements are conducted by placing the detector on or.very near the surfacecto be counted and acquiringgdata over a pre-determined count time., AA count time of one minute is typically used for surface measurements and generally provides-detection levels well below the DCGL,. (he count time may be varied provided the required detection level is achieved). Concrete With Activatedl Radionuclides Residual radioactivity within activated building materials was eonseiratively estimated by pe0forming gamma pectroscopy on core slices
'taken from long concrete cores located in selectively higher than average neutron fluence locations for the concrete volumes represented by the cores, This activity inventory was established: as the DCGL and was evaluated for dose consequences using realistic release assumptions as described in Reference 6.10.7. Because of the low dose consequences, no other final status survey requirements were established to measure the activated concrete activity. However, measurements of total activated activity were estimated using in-situ gamma.spectroscopy to provide verification within the bounds of uncertainty.
-MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-40 Revision 6 January2014. ........ Volumefric_.Concrete. Measutrem~entis Volumet ic-sampling of contaminated.concrete, as opposed to direct measunent.g maybe necessary if the efficiency or uncertainty of the gross beta: im surements are too high. Volumnetric concrete samples will be: analyzed b.y-gamma spectroscopy:. 'Theresults-will either be evaluated-by 1!:) ca.l .ecul..at! .nvgthederived total gross beta cp/hil.00 cm2 in the sample and
*g-the.gross beta ;re sults direetly"to: -te-goss beta DCGL or 2) by tsiiig:ihe.Tadioriuclide specific results to derive. the surface activity equj'ge.tand determine compliance'using the unity rule. Use of the Unity Rul"e" ll tequii Tthe - it gatAeclculation to account for the
-ilfiu6~uclide* i th& gt~u'ae'not ideifid by gamma spectroscopy. This willi: be-ac.:compiished using.theý nudlide mixture listed in Tables 2-7: or 2-84-as appropriate.
Volumetrie samples analyzed by gamma::spectroscopy will detect the priessen*if*-6txidioactiVity below:.the sriifade. Such sampling.is typically perfmbtfollowiinngrernovaE ofpaint andother surface coatings :dtiring remindiafion,; -Afteruanalysis,:the-data may-beiconverted to equivalent surface activi~ty fR "ak aN~lsis. RkemovableContamination 'Surveys
'-Bs.dn inh 7cit deommi9sibrfing 'lO!n j there will beino standing.
buildings iremaining .within the Restricted. Area and .only onebuilding remainjigroutsidethe Resthiited Area,. -nafielyj the switchyard irlayhouse (e LT. Sectiongs 3.2.4 ,rid 6L9.1). RemoVable, contamination surveys will becbll'cte.*t...discreet-locationstin the switchyird; relay house.
- b. Sbil Soilvwill..ireceive. scan surveys.at the!-coveragelevel described in: Tble 5-3; aiiid. vo6lmetric:samples will be taken at designated locations. :Suiffee:soi
§s pIs -Will,-nd-tmally be takeni ata depth of 0Otol5 cm. Areas. of sub-
,;surface;soil* -cont1aminationm.y.reqiiix-e..sampling at a depth exceeding S5ýcbp'. Th' possibilit*y f sb-uiiffa c ntamin'ation will beconS'idered
..... *diirixýg thgs&vy designi*pr s-s-aind.:the survey.design package.will contain
,re~qrirem ents' for sampling sofi 1-5.-cm. 'Samples will be!-below collecied.and
-pfeiii di-*iii ..i6daic wiJth approve*dprocedu.re.
Oe -land areas are scanned for gamma emitting nuclides. The gamma emitters are.used as surrogates for the HTD radionuclides. Sodium iodide
-MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-41 Revision .6 January2014 detectors are typically used for.scanning. For: detectors such as the SPA-3, the detector is held within a few centimeters of -theground surface and is moved at a speed of 0.25. r/sec, trave'rs"mg.each square meter 5 times. The area covered by scan-measurements is based on the.survey unit.classification as describedin Section 5.4.1. VolumetricSamples Soil materials-areanalyzed by gamaspectroscpy. Soil samples of approxmate.ly 1500 grams arenormally-collected from the surface layer (top
.15cm)., If contamination below 15 Icm.is suspected, split spoon sampling or other methofs, wwilbe used fr thq*fInl sgrve .:,qlqks the area has -already b~eenexcavat&di and r eMdi~tedt6 thezd~ee~ I-CQL. If an area con~taining-subsurface-contaminationshas been-temediatod, the excavated area will be treated as a surface soil.
The areas around ýthe RWST and Fuel Building are:two of the areas that will require remediation, and possibly sub-si*a*,esampling. Subsufface
.sam#pling will be performe in'acqorpdjnq "th the:' guidancein NUREG-1727,,page.E18, Section 111. The sample6sizeefor,:subsurface samples will be determined us.ingthe same ,metodsdes-crb or sur-face-soil. Per NUREG-1727, scannig.isnotapplicabl. Sm Will be composited over each 1 m of depth and collected tof.depthsatwhich there is:high confidence that deeper samples will not result in higher concentrations. The area factors derived for surface.soil will be aiý st#b .so.il in Class I areas.
sample preparation: includes removing.extaneus material and homogenizing and drying the soil for analysis. :Separate containers are used for each sample and each container is trackedthrough-the analysis process using a chain-of-custody record. Samples are split -when required by the applicableFSS Quality Control procedure. Sub:-Slab Soils-Grade level foundation.slAbs~will "dduring demolition which will
""erem afford th e-oppgortunityto..sample thesoil underneath the: slab. Thefloor sl~a~bs-or .founlatfio~ns...r~a
_*gj-pla.e.r* demolition (at elevations:less tha 31e bel owy g .rade) may bevlate4 býy falcig amples immediately adjacent to-the, slab usinga 'split-. 'spoon6rore.snig'pler depending on the contamination.potential Factors thatwill be oyaluated .to determine the need for .split.spoonnmpl.g include:.,(.-) i *iteiiibe of-oil under the slab; (2) acceptability of alternate means of identifig te potential for sub-slab contamination,.-e.g.,-groundwater sampling; and. (3) operational history.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-42 Revision 6 January 2014 Stored Excavated Soil Seveol piles of soil have been stored on-site that were excavated from Class 3 areas.Priorto placing any soil into ampile for storage and PossibleAitire usIe,survey measurements aremade,.Scansurveys areoconducted over a'ppro'mately:1.0% of thearea to be excavated using mei ods eq.uivalent to FSS.. Soil -samiples-are,-also; collected and analyzddtlnsr thaft ther sn indication of previously undetected :soil contamination -Once these: meiaurements are completed, the soil is excavatedl:and placed into storage, The Maine Yankee soil control procedure is:used to track theorignM storage location, and final disposition locationh f the-soil. Prior to arnystored: soil9 being placed in any location on site. the sampling tecnques descýibed in Sction 5.5.l.bareemploye to fu.the assrde that.the.soil met.then requirements of the ateaihnwhich-it w-is.being used. This stored%soil could be used for backfilling the soil .excavation areas after additional .voumeti-c
.sapling. Stored soil will not be used for RA basement fill. Tbhefolowing
-strategy will be.followed.
Assumingý the WRS test will be used, =X 0.05, and. a*aA/. yovle :of 1, tl dmspmlesize w*ould be, 10 Ba§edhonthe soil sigma datda in Tab -IC, it is likely: that the A / vValue will be equal or greater than 3. For a Class.3 surfaceesoil surivey-unit of lO,000 2 , the :equivalent volumet*ricsample denity"would'be*I 0. smpl6 per 1,500 m3:(10000 0 x,o. 15 m -depth of soil saiplde). or 1/150in3 . Usfig the'WI S test sm"itple size to'ddermine a volumetric* saplin.g frequency is consisterit'With the methods reco=mended for sub"surace soi in NUREG-1727, Appendix E,:Section -1.1.. Re-gardless of the::soil pile volume,:a minimum of 10 samples will be collected. Ifthe-soil0pile-vol*ume ekeesd ý500' i3 e, additihnal s§aPleý Will be collected to ensurtýhe.41/150 3 in sample.frequency-is maintaifned. Soýil :piles.from-varo-us:class:3-areas may be combinied prior to sampling. "Theorigin, 'storage=and fihal use of-soil
-is dontrolled by anaprved 'soil co'ntrol-procedure.
'Soil excavated from Class 1 -and 2 areas may:tbereused for backfll of ecaVdated aesof the'samef orhige* *,lassif. c aton (eg. C.As::2 ste i ma..bd'ited to backfill Ck.s'91or 2:dexcdvated aries; Class 1 stored soilpay be.used onlyito'bakill Class I excavated'areas). ,'Thesurveyand sampling
'prtoclswill beth d.ame or udi*alett thaif decribed abov.efor Clas63 stored soil with the following exceptions:
- 1. The pre.-excavationsurface scan or:equivalent technique:willi provide 100% coverage
- 2. The soil pile volumetric sampld density Will be calculated based upon a surface.survey unit size of 2000 m2 and a A / ( value of 0.9.
MYAPC License Ternmnation Plan Page-5-43. Revision 6 January 2014 , . .. . . ...~~.. .- . . .. . . . ..... .... Thus, the equival-et..i-iymetric samp.le density would be 40 samples per 300 3 " m 2 .x 0.15 m depth of soil sample) or 1 sample per 7.:5 3 m (2000 in -.. . . Iln-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy it.nay be-epjo*yed,,as approp.riate, in lieu of pre-excavationwsampling and::scanning. , Sitroutinely excavated for non-remediation. puros.ses f.om-aeas*'aSyhjch have been successfully FSS'ed may be-used tp ýboakfill th*e. ecavaftionWith0iat additional .survey. c._ -.Embedded R'iping*-dH Bi-dAPping The only system to rema~in. ate~r:deommissio.ig are embedded piping and. buried piping Te Mwas pip'.g expected to remain described in detail in the Section 2.. A detaileddesdripti*n .o.fthe.final.survey methods is provided in Attachment, 5A.
- d. :Specific Areasanid Conbtiditionis
*Crack~s. Cr, i*es.,Wakl~loF,lt6*teiface~,and.Simall Holes Surface contaminafion.on iiurregularstr."ere.surfaces (e.g.., cracks, crevices, andoho.les): are .difffidl9 f6i*e iectly. Whee no remediation has
.occurred and. re'sidiual, actdivty has not bePdeen dtc. above background, these surface blemishes mray be.:assumed to have thesame levei of residual
.activityas.that fqnd§ onadja"C"t.Surf*akc"s. The raccessible surfaces are surveyed in the same m'.anner as oter,sttucdtral, surfaces and no special corrnections 9. ...adj~ustxnent~s hav¢e to, be *made.
Insituations where.eDmr aton has takenpliaee or where residual activity hasP been.d e.tedabo-me.4backgrouund, a r.epresentative sample. of the contamination :Withinithi'ecrack oir crevice may be obtained or an adjustment for instrument effiqeie pybe mrade if.istififAb1e;. If an instrument efficeiency, adjustmnt cannot.b.e justified based.onthe depth of conta*minationri rkloltker gqeome -.f.tkrf, ,soiurne*.ec*:samp.1s will be collected. Theq tot#Odp!fil0 en .o6t~iiid inte yolumetic sample that is attribuable: to0;thbe beta;-einifting radiont -lides used to determine the DCGL will be compared dir-c.tly*o*thecon.o..e.tegro.ss beta DCGL. As an alternative, radiontilide. sp*cficnialysiMs, coupled With application of the unity rule may be. used. Voiurfi6tric sampfles ahalyzed by gdamm spectroscopy will-detect the. presence of radioactivity below. the surface. Such sarhpling is typically perforned following removal of paint and other surface coatings .during remediation. After anhlysis, the dataimay be converted to equivalent surface
MYAPC UJcense Termination Plan Page 5-44 Re16ison 6. Janudry. 2014 actity for crack analysis. The accesgiblesurfces a surveyed.in the-same manner as other structure c Nuf qsecpt that tey are-inclufded mnarea receivinigjudgmental scans when~scaiing is .*performed over less-than 100% of the area. inEa!*status surveys willpconsiderlthe'effect of painted surfaces. Gross m.ese n il not b. s in-areas coveri by thick painted surfaces that areen6t remediated. The.surces will:be volume tily sampled or the c ng willbe reoe...pri or .t9:survey. No special- consideration must: be: 40YiV.twll o"r c..*ilihn saiiid
*r' before plantO i tarup: and which have noft been ,subjected to reýpeated exposure to materials that would have
-penetrated the-painted !surfae.;
Tavem-ent-oee ia T sTrv-e* desi.giif~lqfp-aing.lof.,.ro adsand'other paved'areas will, be based on, s survey §sm6 .the.yare' Outd6or r 'whefe the exposure
.t..sEies.
*.scenario is most :simflar.to direct radiation to: surface soil. The DCGL aippled to thesereas will.:be.equalto. the buried piping DCGL. Scan and
.aticgam :Aandbita-gaTma surveys are made as determined by the survey unitdesign. Ifb--srfaceconthmiation is possible under.paved or other cove.ed:areas.,,.stý.sii evdolu6me6t-i.samples will be collected. Paved. areas
' *-*imiit* or 1; .ma beeinto inc*orporated other, larger survey on, ligdut. Survqys:ofp-aaedareas.will include the area within road.* t-weys to deck for radoactivity relocated due to water runoff.
.': ~
."'*'-".':':. ~ .. ,T~ ~ "',q ....'. "?. '. .".."
, :T.b.ried pe~mod.as desrbfed in Section;6.6.8, is based.on therelease fofs i.e oa.(i1'ide d0c)nt "' into:soil. The potential dose .from
-paO areas is,also from thie release of6surfacicbntamination into sdil. The joi -cncentraion calculatedinthe buried pipe model was determined as ig a a rea toil 'v0li*fi raio thiit was higher than would
!likcly l i ,..,
oper .:*. in the-case ofpaved
- , * * :; P. : :
surfafes.,This
., ::. .-.> ., z.'.:*.. : -.
would lead to higher soil
*o.ctrations -fr0*m orlease 6f -osnr atkio from the: buriedpiping than
,Wag *I.adiiion, liiied.did-fipvaved durface..the buried piping DCGL Nis Umiftnd~d~o..nsiureU l~~itn yoht soil concentrations w0ould be:.belowt"e surfame-soil DCCGL.'s. The combinationbof conservative as sumptinSinclued "inthe buried 1piping dosemodel and the similarity of the ultimate doseph. s maq it suitbe for application to.the paved
MYAPC LicenSe Termination Plan .Page:5-45 RevISiOn 6 Januar 2014 Forebay Sediment The;NR.C. released the Forebay areadin September 2005. This area is no. longer controlled .in accordance--with-the.1_0 CFR 50 License. 5.5.2 Ins1 u.mentation Radiation. detection and measurementinstrumentation for the final status.survey is selected-to provide both :eliableop6eration afid adequate sensitivity to detect the radionuclif.es.identified at the site at levels sufficiently below the:DCGL. Detector selectionsis, b asedon.detpectioq.Sensitivity, operating -characteristics and expected perfopmance:.in tlhe field.. The. instimmentafiit~n will, to. the extent practicable, use
*atla lqg~ng.wit* ar:. cxdeo scnig cpabil. t '
Commercinilly av'ailable-portable and, laboratory instiuments and detectors are typicallyused to perform the three basic survey measurements: 1) surface scanning;
- 2) direct surface contamination measurements; and:3) spectroscopy. of soil and other bulk materials, :such asconcrete. The Instrumentation Program Procedure controls theissuance use, and cadlibration-cfinstrue*ntation, Records.-supporting: the InstrumenitationProgram.:are maintained by Dociument Control.
.a.. Selection
,Radiation de.tectionl .andm.easurement.instrumentation is selected based on the .type a n.: nd ti:- of radiation to :b. m6easured. (.The instruments used for directmeasurements are capable-of detecting the radiation, of concern to a
ýMinim*um ,.,DeteetableC.Concentration.*(.C) of-between 10% and 50% of the applicableDCGL. The.use:of .10% to..50% of the DCGL is an administrative: limit only. Any value below the.DCGL is acceptable in Class 1 or,2. survey units. MDCs: of less. than :50% of.the DCGLal.ow detection of resi.dual activi in!Cl a3.. s uey unit* ai an investigation level of 0.5 times
-the D.CGL. Instruments used -for scan:measurements in Class 1 areas are
ýrequired to-be:.capable of detecting radioactiye material at the DCGLEMc.
.I.strumnt MDICs are~discussed.-in Section::5.5.2 (d) and nominal MDC v:alues- are .listed .in -Table.5;.:Instrumentation..currently proposed.for used.
'in the fina stats, survey-is lit*eBidi" TblW 5-4. Maine Yafikeefollows Ins men .!A recommendadtioris :an.d/ort sUpporting-basis dobuments,,for- considerations.,such as-temperature dependency.
As the pro6ject proceeds,, other measurem t. instrunie'its or technologies, such as in-sit. gamma spectroscopy or. ohtinuous data-coilection scan devices, may be-found .to be more efficrent fhaný te survey, instruments proposed inthis* plan. The acceptability of such ai instrwiment or technology for use in the final survey program would be justified in-a technical basis
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-46 Revision 6 January 2014 document. The.technical basis document would include among other things the.following: (1) a description of the conditions under which the method would be used; (2) a description-of the measurement method, instrumentation aidMciteriad; (3) justification that the technique would provide eq*u*aleit sýcan:.coverage forrthe given survey unit classicationand 1aitthe scan MDCis..ad.equate whenecompared to.the DCGLmc, and"(4)-a
- deostatio0 thatii~tt metho0d pro6vjide data thathas a Type!.rrot(Ilsely
,concludingthat the suvey unit is,acceptable) equivalent to 5% or'lessaind provides sufficient confidence-that DCGIEMc criteria is satisfied.
.b. Calibration And Maintenance InstrUments and detedtors are calibrated for the radiation types andvenergies of interest at the site. The calibration sources for beta survey instruments are Tc-99, Cs-137, or Co-60 because the average beta energy (100 keV) approximaitesit- be energ.of ihe radionuclides found on surfaces or in
-piping on site (.8.5-ý94.keYV),. The.alpha calibration sources :when used are Am 214.1olr Th-2.30 .whichhave .an-appropriate alpha. energy .for plant-specific
-aphaaemitti'ng nuclide's. Gaimma cintill*tion detectors are calibiated*,ng
'Cs-I137, bilttth energy response.to C6-60 has also been determined since discrete areas of Co-60 contamination have been found by soil surface scans.
MYAPC. License Termination Plan Page 5-47 Re'n41n 6 January 2014 Table:5-4.
, .,L*
Fiaid Status.Surv*ey Instrmiin60ts
'.' * .. .... ....-.. .-! "*[ .,i .2_, :: . . . ,,."".". i.,......"...-.
Measurement Type 1 Detector Detector Typical Unts j Mi*aufafturer &
'Type Total .;ea/
'Density 64M4e# j Surface Alpha/Beta-Gamma. Gas Flow 1126: cm *TdlC "pm Propartional 0.8 mg/ cm 43.-68.
Surface Alpha/Beta-Gamma Lamrge Area Ludlum cpm.
,Gas Flbw! A54*cfi` 43.37
'Proportional
+'2 Surface Beta -Gmm..a G-M 15.5..mcm 2 L +DGM cpI Garmma Scan, NaI(TI) 2._x.2. Eb.dfline SPAý3 _ p Liquid.Beta Scintillation VN/A. B~eeJcman Ci SmearBeta-Gamma Gas 15.5, c60 Te. elec dpm Proportional 0.8 mg/tcm2 iamma..Sp.etroscp. ..- H Ge...- NaG berra.. pC.
Instrumentation used for final status-survey wil'l be calibrated and maintained in accordance with the Instrumentation Program procedure. Radioactive sources used for calibration are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and TechnolOgy TIS.)and have been obtained:in standard geometries to matchthe t.typeofsamples beirng counted. Ifivendor services are used,. these will be .obtained in"acrdance with pur!ghasing requirements for quality related services, to *e*bre the same level:of quality. c.. Response Checks instti.umentatiovn response checks are~cointuceld.:to assieroerinstrument response and operation. An acceptable response for-field instrumentation is an instrument reading within +1-, 10%o.feth e&taibhet check-source-value. Laboratory instrumentation standards .will.be within-+- 3 sigma as documented on a control. chart.: Response: checks :arerperformed daly before instrument use and *again at the end-of lse. ,Check sources. contain the.same type of radiation as that being measured-.in the field and-are held hi fixed-geometry jigs. for reproducibility. if anr instrumentt fails a response check,: it
MYAPC License Termination Plan -Page5-48 Re'ision 6 .J.* . ...r.. 2 4 January.2014 . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ... . .. is labeled "Do Not Use".,and is.re.move.d friomservice until the problem. is corrected in .accordance -with appvlicble proc.edures. Measurements made between the last acceptable check. and the failed check are evaluated to determine if,they sho~uld.pemain imnheodata.set.
- d. Minimum Detectable Co-ncentratiori-(MDC)
,Thie.MDC is determined for the istirumen.. "d.t'ecbnques, used forTfinal status surveys (Table.:5-6). The MD.C:sthe:ioncentratkmn:6f.rddicictivity that an instrument can be expected to detect 95 percent of the time.
StaticMDC :For Structure Surfaees ..-. For static (direct) surface-meas4refiefits, with, conventional detectors, such as those listed in Table 5-4, the MDC isca.lculated:as follow*s: 3+ 4,65a MDCstatic = where:. MDCStic minimum detectable concentration for: direct counting (dpm/100 cm 2), B = backgroundl.oaunts:during.the .count inteNal t (counts), t *count interval-(f0* Iof pared 6bsevtions sAmile~afidblank, usually. minute), K = calibration".constant (.nts/iDnp*re dpml 00 cm ), The:-value of K includes ýcorrection:-factors for efficiency(.r. and .). The value of 63 is dependern on thematderial type. Corrections for radionuudclide abso~rpftibonhae enmade. n Open Land Area and Structure Scan-MDC U.sing AlarmSet Point The MDC fo.rmulae described in REG-j. 507 relj oh:he audible. rIesponse 9f the-meter. Maine Yankee prop'es.tolise.the E.6006.instrumentf, a so called "smart meter;" coupled -to an appropiat¢e'detetofor~perorng scan sueys for both. struct*res: and. soil.. This all6ws data l.gging and, a more objective evaluation of scan MDC.bAsed on amn alam s.et.pon.q Th..e probability of alarm was calculated through-simulat.ion of instrument performance and compared to the DC-GLBMc which was calculated usingthe area factors established in Sections 6.8 and 6.9. The extent of scan coverage
MYAPC License Termination.Pian Pig;e.5-49 RevIsion 6: January 2014 is commn surate.with the radiological conditions and classification of the
,survey unit in accordance with-Table 5-31 Thedete.rin."ation of the alarmn. set:-points. and-the DQO Type I error rate of 0.05 are based on using,a 2 X 2 Nal detector.moving at 0.25 m/sec at.a distanceof 2inches 2 fro!mi-the soil: surface. The-error ratewas calculated, and d e~trminedto b~eacceptable, using an E-600-instrument with: a weighting factor of 5. The F.SS::procedures-.requirea..,aWeighting factor of 5 to be applied during FSS seanýsurveys.
Prior to begainning.the scan survey on an area, the local area background for a-,given surveyýunit.orp.poti.on 6f-a sutrve.y uitisitdetennined. The FSS S qy .signerdeur walks-down the area and determines the number of potentially diffden.t'backgrond ar'e*a~sor mat'erAtenlas. The designer then deterrtiinaes!then.umb-e:of meftstremeiits that: ieed to be taken within the area.in order to establish .the local background. The technician collects the required number of measurements as well as soil samples and in situ gamma spectroscopy readings "tob. ensure that the background values are not influenced by plani-derived radioactive materials. The average background reading is ius~ed to 6a~ciaclate: the.alarm set-poirt,.'This.process ensures the appropriate.:eterminationmand applicationaof backgrond characteristics in
. .surveytuinits-vithmultii!emedia.
Before enterifg -the survey unit grid' to begin a scan, the technician takes a
'one minute :ba*kground"c~o.unt-to ensure the background has not changed. If the.bac r'kgrun readigiieets-the expectation value, the technicianperforms the scan-survey of".thegridd. The~technician Verifies the local area background is within plus ornminus 1000 cpm of the expected value. If the.
background, exceeds +/-1000 cpm or the instrument repeatedly alarms, the technie.ians-top-s thestrVeqy anidi equests the FSS engineer to re-evaluate background and: adjust the alarm set-point as necessary. Using the conrversion. factor derived in Maine Yankee's technical basis document
'(Refeence5.512.32) , l000:cpm .is.equivalent to about 2.2 pCi/g. Maine Yankee will add 2.2 pCi/g to the scan MDC for. open land areas to account.
for the-possibility that the background in a.scan.grid could decrease by up to 1000 Id-m.befo-re -the.aiir set.e-i"oirnt is riedjusted. The scan MDC-'sfor opeiiland :areas using tfie E-600 instrument with an alarm s*t'oftp*-:arelis 6i Tible 5-4a& The li.t*d:MDC's were selected to
'entsure 'a Tye'I:error *ite.less than 0.05. The 0.05 Type I error rate is achieved by apporti oning.a 0.025 error rate to the first stage scan and a 0.-025.'eror rate. to the seconAd stage scan.
5The scan grid size is limited~to no greater than 10 square meters so that background .fluctuation.is not a concern (Reference 5.12.36)
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-50 Revision 6 January 2014 . The MDC calculation~and results are described in.a:Maine Yankee technical basis document (Referenc 5.12.32). Maine Yankee will multiply-ie MDC by a factor:of 1.15 which accounts:for uncettainty due to'varabili tyintsa speed-and deteitr distance-fromthe soilsr..sface. The:a pririiDCGL C usIed for survey planningbfrr soil survey units will be based. on the scan MEOC 'associated with a 2.m2 lanid area At a--0.025 Type 1ero aecrrce by a factor of 1.15 to account-for variable scan speed and distance and increased by.2.2 p. g SO, p g ..-Q7. Tal 54a: ists the EiCGL for. areas outside theRA. DCGL for areas aTh inside the RA is 2.39.pCi/g Cs-137.: (SeecSection 6.7.2,fof.the determination of the DCGL-and application of surrogates.)
*Thesurvey,-is performed -in the ,peak trap mode -and the highest va**e Obtained i the survey gridas logged.
The beta-gamma scanh *D for structures using the E-600 instrwmnentwith an alarm set point are listedinmTable 5-4b. Th'e listed MDCis. were selected tp e a Type I -no.ratfe-les than 0.05. The MDC-calcul atonad
- resultsg:are *described.in.aMainte Yankee.technical basis do&ument (Ref.
,5,1232). -Survey:planning:for structure surnvey units :will be based~on the
*.0REM ]**C associait"ed iita 0a.5 mn surfrce area, i:e., 1832.:pI_:00 cm2 for a:600 c/rm background. Table5-4b; lists the DCGL for.areas, of 600and 2000
.c/rm background.. Thie DCGL for structures is 18,000 dpni/100 cm.(See.
Spbctn 6.7.2 for the determination of the DCGL and the' appliqcat4onof surrdgates). The gAmma, scan MDC's..for concet 6trLctr uin the. E-600instrument with an alarm set point are described using the-Ma.ine Yankeezgamma scan .technicaltbasis document (Rde.5.12,34). The structure beta-gamma scan survey is performed using a gas flow prop,.o~rti'on~al.-d..etozr: n_m.*y*_j tg.t:cm/sec _a4t
.a.distance-of 1.0:cm from the
§&rtiUtitam sujae. (Th eis *fred h' peak trpmode wi'thithe higihest'VAlue obt ed in te ,survey grdlge.Te cnrt tut gamma.scan may p per-formed:using.sodium iodide detectors wh2ensurface conditions would re-su'lt:iiii'n'cred surface to detector distance (typically Within .3inches) and When thestatic measurement sample size is adjuted'for the corresponding MDC, if necessary.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page S-51 Revision 6 JaU ary* 2014
-Table -54a Land A.ea Sean DC .forE6..00 Instrument
(_ntsided -Restricted Area -MDC*L -:4.2p g).*. Scan:Ae (n)
.. .. . 16 25
* * : . .." . i: ,_7. ........ .. . ..
'Arda .Factor 22.3.12 2.-2 L,, ...i.2. 6.8....;
. .L ...- ', .'....:' 2.8 2.0 1:.7
. .... . .. ....7k __ I.-**i528'6 i .. . 13.4 '1118 8.4 7.1
-MDC. (pCi/g) .4.5. .6 3.2 3.0-. .. ... 2.5 2.0 J:i "3.0 25 .5. . .
,T.Ip.el = ..Q5 StruitiireiBe.taiGaimm Table MDC ii:-Scan 54b, fo*rE-'600 .InstrUment
. ... --c
- ai: : .. ...
S- . .. .~~~~~~~ .. .- -- $can reajknO.)
. 0.06 010 E.209 0.50 1:.00 rea .Factsr". 7 87.....500; '.25,0 . 1.00 50 MDC.(with 600.0lmn 14884 " ..3 8 .3053 2442" .18 2 1.221
'bkg),4,pm/
b . . 100
- co,.
, . 9.15 MbC ithpi0c09 5-490 2r36 3053.
- e. ettinSnitivity The,-r i WiniPd'eteotiOff -sensitivity.oi somedof"the detectors that may be used
.fo5.s~fpce tontan 1on.siuveys -ias h,.e..d.eternmed. and is provided in TaBle :5"6.
Count times:,are.rinstrument-,spe~cific andare selected to ensure that.the meAsur:mentis.!arfe iff hntly seiiitive for DlCGL. For example, the 5it count times assocfcTt,ed withi sur* & a-6tivit. sirveys (1 minute) and ga spe*tr.os Wpy.-vo*u* etrictnaterials.(,7 minutes).arewadmninistratively est*ablighedito achiev. QCs:less than the DCGL. The MDCsc.. values are ialso Ue6W,4theD*CGLsh6w.n in Table 5-'6.- Th. MCsCa values may not always be,less: thantheDCGLw, but will be less than DCGLEMC. A te..iiie f6r: erfomiigh lan.d scars with a SPA-3 detector coupled to the
-E-606b hasg ben-developed-which is-capable of detecting discrete Co-60 particles of iuCi acfi*ity buried at a.depth of six. inches in soil. This capabilityhas been confirmed by actual field testing using this: detector with
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-52 RevIsion 6 January'2014 the E600, as documented in a technical basis document (Reference 5.12.32). Cs-S!37 sensitivity. was. determined to:be,3 pCi/g Cs-I 3.7 in a 2m 2 arema. T.is is basied .on", rdelig thte SPA-3/E600 combiiation, as documehted in R. ferenCe5.j-2-.32 afd eofifnied by field testing: The E6009- strument-will be operated.iih the sinfgle channel analye mode wh*-n*iuse-d:in sca-nsrveys-.to'optimnize:the insttument's energy spectrum sensi.tivity. f... .. Toal Effficdiein-(E.) -ahd-Source Efficienicy (E ) for Concrete, Cofit'amin-atiof Secti on 6.6 6ro0Vid es ' taile'd description of the dose assessment'fr cdntaminated basemffenit condcfte. Th& ource term input to the0groundwater caieuatibiins if thie total inventorvy.with*nthe'basement concrete., T . his imyiit.re. iiiarto lid priniariy lbchtkedwi-thin the first mm of the concrete surface. Vari'ouas.fixe~d~pointm-easu-renieiit alternatives for determining the source term were eyaluaiýed 'inciudi~ag gross:.beta measurements on the sfiieee, uenm 'ocete
-cctiic s§amipling and in-situ gamma spectroscopy.
G-ross :beta .fixed:pointlmeasurements: were determined to be cost-effective an-d t~ebnic1!y defensible under. the.assumption that the instrument:: efficiencies:-fr conirete'c ld be s*itisfact'oily' calculated using the :methods re66imenfdedtin NUREGI 1507.
'For scan su.reys, gross beta measurements appeir to be the only;practical method.' Un'de'r:ce.rta'i donditio-is," in-situ ma spectroscopyimay be.a.
Tfeaonaable.mdthodfort erplJcing.:bietisddn surx*es If in-situ gamma
-spectroscopy-1i a.technrica!basi.i document will be developed
'sed, djmoiisftfing'ifs suitabilityfoib final s.rvey measurements and NRCewill be noti~fied 3.0. da..prio=to itfirst use.
The:. ........ fi dt.inifig efficienýc in NUREG- 1507 were secifically devel0ped -tod:afdfdrss Sittatibris wh-enthe source, in this case concrete, Ir emission ratedue to stlf-attenuation, backscatter,.hin
.co .yergs, etc. This.- method a~ccifts, firthes.e*irce. effectS bydsprihg the leffibiency Cdlculatibn iintb two comp6nients, i.e., instrument:.efficiency ER
,aihd.5soure-eefficiency E,.. The total efficiency.E1, is the product.of E an-d,E:
aswshown below*. E (E, )(E SJ
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-53 Revision 6 January 2014 The Ei. was determined by calibration- to a NIST traceable, large area.To,99 source.The valuewas det rd i ly u measumnts of concrete core&collected from rqpesintati*Ve-site,1ocations. Thei.empirically derived value of 0.35, compares reasonably with he ISO, standard default values of 0.25 for betas less than 0.9MeV ind.0.,5 for betas greater than 0O4MeV, considering most of thbedoncretbe. a 'iv. is,Cs-37 with a beta energy greater than 0.4. Forty three coresawedreobtained from concrete floors of the buildings known to be contaminated. Cores were collected from
~ ~ ~ ~~_gbp-j $ulq~i the lopya h-otimn were considrdt represent reactor coolant contamination.. SWy BUilding1 coresiwere representative of the ECCS (emnergeAny qýecooplýig&system):con.tamination.
Cores collected in the PAB were-rr o the wasteprocessing a~f system contamination. The RCA Building cores represented Waste systems and decon*aminaion activities. 6ue.lBuinjig .o -qqr-epresented.th.e. spent fue~l.poolcontaminaftin eýfit. S. #l, i wer tk fo each building. The core nuclide activities'were deterined bygamma spectrometry, geometly corrected,:hen the-pC/ig resuli was multiplied by thie mis ofthe core s.ample andIicnert gros* b etadpnm. The cores were moved.to.a low:backgrpuýc,uýarea-and counted for-gross beta isiing ,al sirvýey ifnitiienfation. The. Ire.,- ere-initially counted for, minute, corrected for bacýground and- tol-ýo'r, s net epm. The instrument total efficiency, E.*.was-calculated as :the.ratio bi*he.netefcount -rate divided by the net activity in dpm. The initial efficiency Aidatr*ulted ini a mean efficiency of 0.148 Witfh a standard deviatiqn of0.i3l. The data showed wideariabiliy.Wit.appr ately.50.[of theindividual efficiency values wiffhi onne*.tandard dviddtion o themf ii . (*Tche.bycheff- theorem states thit 68.% of the values of a norially-ýis* it*ieppulation-should:be within one standard deviation of-the mean.) The core efficiency data have undergone a re-evaluation since the data were first obtained in order: to better und.e the wide variation exhibited -by the.initial data., New cres were replace tse previusly ylctct de0fye:d duL analisis The, .,coresqll riiijqjm weercntd Fi~ve minute count times:.were-use since some.of theco*res did not have high: activity 1qvl. Sh elded. and unshibldel measurements, were taken ofeach core to allow a miore acrate bioafor**l each ore. The recounted, reevaluated: core :data gave ,a.m~ean: total efficienc Vbof. 1.30and a standard deviation of 0.06: The individual, recounted core efficiency values
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-54 .Revision.6. Jannary.2014 -. - -. ranged from a high of 0.25 to alow :,of.less than;0l:0. Almost 70% of the effiiency-, me-a'scuýre-menits were witihin6ii-esigma of the mean. The cores were :colecteoa.from-many areas..ofthe-plant as:described above. Upon physical exiamintion of the .cres-it was nioted that somie cores consisted of bare concrete, some had benpa eand te-paint suace was well worn, some retained: a -thin-coatofpainti, and somaehad:been painted with a thick coat of easy-to-decontaminate paint ih coatings as thick as 3/32 of an inch. It appears: that iost 6f the v&rylow efficiency values came from cores taken in.areas-wher'efloors were.coate,d-withthe. thick, easy to decontaminate paint. Applyingýthe pait attenuati'n .equatingivenin: NUREG- 1507, the thick :floor co'hting w.oid seld h eet.h a pWarticles to the pointbof almost no detector response, These cores repres-et ares(RCA floor, Spray Bldg. floor, and.Decon
. .oom-floo :.that -wi-.Aot be amenable to direct measumnt by gas-,filled deteCtor'oUhlesiý-ait isr'femovd. These areas w.ll-be surveyed b-vo**lu tncri.smple or i-iti. ga a sectroscopy (ifqtified in technical-basis dbcument),-or the spcface-will be:remediated before su y. Th..Pes sps have-been .ve-df t coe-polaiton pqem.
,in the finalEAý calculation.
The cores with thethigh effidiencies Were evail*uf.d. t*oeemine if the Presence of high levels ofnaturally occirri-ngb-ibt patle:sin thedoncrete
.mixturmaybe.contributing to:the-high.-values-", The*-background correction that was performed-on :thfese's*.. W forArea. backgibnroudot material was
- background. Materia :backgroun.ddid. noitcon.t'ribute-signficly to the
- .sample activity.
The use of gross:beta-counting isa reasonabl i:cste**ffective metho*d for measurng concrete contamination;, This techriique :can:also.be conservatively. applied to activity measurements-6fthe Containment wall liner because the liner is a sm-o6th, nearlyflat surface. The alte-ratives to gross counting (e~g,, volumetric sampling with gamma spectrum analysis or in-sittu gamma spetocpy), ..whileadmittedly Mor csty aid time cosuming.surveyetoarvibea ate. Suc' esue a be applied to area:si t.i ckffloor Watinigs.o=veiyfrlu ace tsulting from. remediato.n-acti-vities ifan accepab.ledeefficiency -cre0.n-factor cannot be-determiied.
'The table below. lists the instrument; source and total efficiencies for the instruments proposed foir mat'erial scan .nddirt
.. mea ents.'
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page5-55 Revision 6: JllJanuay 2014 Table. 5 Survey Instrument Efficiencies (Material Scan and Direct Measurement ,Instruments) Detector Source Total Instrument Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
ýE.(E I)_ (Ed)
I.udlum43-68 . 0.:13 0.333 SHP-r360 0.225:. 0W060. 0.280
- g. Pipe Survey..Instrumentation Remainrng pipe will .be surveyed to ensure residual remaining activity is less than-the DCGL. Pipe crawlers (survey-instruments) proposed for use for of pipe with.diameters between- 1..5 and 12 inches have been shown isu lpes tohwaVe.4TEeffidcienies ranging, from.0* .9005l to.0:.29-5 respectively. This 2
,equttes to detection senisitivities-of 2800_dpm/,1.00cm to 210 dpnl.00cm 2
- -respectively., This- levellof sensitivity..is, adequate ,to'detectresidual .activity belbwthe. BOP embedded..pi-pD'.'DCdL.6f'l00,000 dpm/1100cm 2 (80,0-00
.dpm! 00cm 2
.for spray pipe'Dd.GL) orfthleburied pipe DCGL of 9,800 dpmi! 00cm . 2 The-Pipe Explorerr'has beenselected to survey the embedded Spray Buildingpipe. The Piple:Explorefrf's.ystem has-b:.en used for alpha, beta, qjainma and video surveys of over-6,060 feet of-piping. The surveys have includedtpipes with up to 18 elbows and with vertical runs in excess of 9 m.
Detectors have been successfully deployed: past:rocks, oil, and other debris that.have obstructed up to 50 percent of the pipe's :cross sectional area. The ipe.i:ExplrerTM deploymnt sytem is capale -fdcnductingsurveys in
,pipes with diameters-ranigingftO*o0:05 rm to' 1.22- m and survey lengths that "vary from 30 m.up to 300 m. The detectors. are protected and propelled by a pnhumaticVy-driven tubulat'm embrane.
lp.` A -ýfor the:. 6inch:spray -pipe.forexample-is based on Type 1 and 2 eriro 6f,0.05 adis calcuildated using: the C*urie (1968) formula as follows:*. MDA- where MDA is in-dpmn/100 cm2, BKRis the
,Background COunt Rate (cpm)XCF is the Conversion Factor in net
,cpmldpm/i.00 cm2 and t is-the count ,time in minutes. For a background count rate of 4194 counts per minute and a CF of 6.4E-2 cpm/dpm/100cm',
anMDA for Cs-137 of 4745 dpm/100acm was calculated.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-56 ReviSion 6 January 2.014 Table 5-6 Measurement.Detection SensitiVitiei..* jType of j*N __ as ur e me nlt .. . ... . . . .. . . ,........
. .Detector Background*f , IMDC
. .......... .. . " ... i..,( L).... .. . . .... . . .. . .
I . .DCGL; 1.._ _.. . . ... .... Beta-Gamma Pancake:G-M 40 cpm 0.06 10484 18000 S-urfaeeScan (SIP-360') dpr100 cm2 dpn/100 cm2
'Beta-Gamma Ludlum:43-68 600 cpm '0.13 1832 dpm-/10 18000 Surface Scan 1,26 ci 2 Gas *2 doSri/100 "m 2 Beta-Gamma Liidlum-2.r43*368 600 cpm 0:06 3969dp"000 1.8000 Jumeure'scan 126 cm Gas 3969 dppni 1 0 00 m :
Proportional Beta-Gamma Pancake G-M 140 cpm. Q.06 3:554 dpn] -00 18000 Direct
. . .. (SHP-360*. ......." .... ... . . .. .., . . . .
dpC1l20 cm2 .Beta-Gamnma Ludilum. 4.368 :600.cpm_AI 714- Op 180 Direct 126cm2 Gas clm 2 dpm/! 00. cm=2 Proportional
- Beta-Gafmmna: Ludlu2m437 1s2000mcp*m 0.141 257- .d:prn!00 18000:
582*Diect cm 2 ' mcm ' dpm.A00 cm 2 Pr.oportioi:al ____ "-]eta-4amma Ludlium 4:3-37. ',2 0 0 0 cpm 0.1.:!41 5.85 dpm/100 18000 Surface. Scani 5,82.c-m2 3as cam dpmn100em cm2 .B.etak-Gamma Ludlum.n43r9A.4 ,75 cpm 0.024.(foa 4305'dprnY100 10.0,000:
~:1Yre&39. cm2 G'as AYpipe6) ~i~ pIO m Proportional 0,03:(for (ifor ff. of 2" pi.P) 0.024)
*
- o..036 (for*
I pipe) a, i pm!I 0.20 .0 ,dp-.00 Beta-Giima P6mGsrch
-2. Drt Proportion~al_.
IIt
MY .APC Lieise Termination Plani Page0-57 Revision-6 January 2014_. Table 5-6 Measurement Detection SensitiVities** Type of Detectr B Back&**a ud. E'** MDC DCGL 1Measurement, _ (cld)! _ _,,,, Gar&ra Scan Na(TI)ý -10,000 cpm 0.012 5.9 pCi/g (s- 2.39 pCilg (Soil). (A3). 1:37) (Inside RA). 4,2ZpCi/g. (Outside' RA)J (Cs equiv.) Gamrna Scan Nal(-1) .-20,000.cpm TBD Se.Ref. 1,8000f (Concrfet) .S.,A) .. .~p 5.12..34
... "pm/100 r.0 C..
Gamma HP Ge N/A N/A "0.0ipCi/g 2.39' pelg
;Spectroscopy (Inside RA) 4..2 pCi/g S(utside RA)
Liquid Beta' -Beckman- 40: 0:46 325E-6 N/A: iquid ldpm " uCi/nl
- __ SScintillatioh I.Smear Alha-lI Tenrnelec Gas 0.5; cpm 0:25 25"dpm - N/A Beta--aiia- P.wropoiiiobnl 'Alha A lpha :alpa
- 30. cpm:Beta-, 0.35 gama Bet 181 'do-b- beta-
___gamma
- Backgr0.i.u.d:vdJues are fypic.al yalues. These background values are well below the MDCs and.,are adequate for selecting the instrunients for performing surveys. **The table values are based on a one minute direct count or-a suiface scan rate-.of2 inches per second,, and a soil scan rate-of 20,sec/n 2 , unless otherwise:noted. ***:,Efffiiendies.for conicrete:surfaces are -EA,:Ei, djusted for geometry:effects, is *sesd for pipe 'suriWey effk.iency.
5.6 Investigation Levels-and-E*evatedAreasTest,. Duingsurvey unit m.asurements, levels-qf radioactivity may be identified by-an.increase ib count rate; an instrument- alarm or.-an, elevated sample result-that warrant 1investigation. . EleaVted trieasur.emetfisdhm my result,:from either discrete Particles,:a distributed source, or a changedin bacound aci In: eitherT cas;ethe invlestikgations actions would be follbWedil Depending~on. the"results of the investigation, the survey unit may require:no action, may require remediatgon, and/or.may require ,re..el.assi-fication and resurvey. investigation levels-and the-investigation procesu arbedescribed below.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-58 Revision 6 ,Januar~ 2014. 5.6.1 Investigation Levels.
- NVJ G.'1:727 (Tabl e:.2)g"d, dNU G 1575 (Tabl5.58).-Vptv ihivesti on levels for scan surveys. In addition to:investigation.levelgsfor scan urv direct measurement survey investfigation levels have also beendevelopei. These a'dditionalinVestigation levels inclde e aV ýr oiiser'vative'value for Class3 survey units as shown in Table 5;7.
5.A62 Investigation Process Technicians will respond to all instrument alarms whilesurveying. Upon receivng an ala, the techfiiciafi *il stopnd i*l esurvey'he Tht square meter of area to verify the alarm. Technicians are cautioned, n tr g, about the.im,portanceeof the alarm
*verific.ation survey,.instmruted on expete.d instrument response .to localized areas of elevated activity and are* g specific d iiinoedure as to:sur-v&eyetent and scan speed. If the alarm is ve 1fid'dheechniianr willnmarkethareawit aflag
-or.other-appropriate means., The datmaybeevaluated by.th#eFSSS with walarmi, respect to..the investigation leyels sýpefied i'inTable 5-7. Each area.marked, which
- exceeds thdeinvestigation ldvel sp*cfd "i Table5-7, will1 have aninvestigation survey-instruction prepared. The-instruction will 'requie:a re*scan-t.ofthe are direct measurements, field gammaia spect..copy measw.queent.(asappropriato), and collection of a soil sample (fr.land sreys).. Each inhvdesfi on will be evaluated and reported in the ,surveyunit ReleaseRecord.
The,size and average, aqivit*y evelint helevated area is d*termin&. demtrate
*compliance: with the areafactors :If*any location in .a,.Class'2-a.reaexceei s the DCGL, ýscanning coverageina the vicinity is increasped ino.r -,to d.*termie-4the 3extet level of the. elYtdreadings).- .'Ifthe 6el6e.vatedrean or sand lassied 3 area, the scanning coverage,'is-increased-and the area. shbuld-be: reclassified.
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-59 Revision 6 January 2014.
Table 5-7 In~vestigation'Leveds Classification:. [ Scan Investigation Levels6l:[ DirectOInvestigation Levels....
'Clam I. >DCGLEC >DCGLEMC
-Cla ss:"2 !.>DCGLW or >MDC. if >DCGL*
MDC,. is greater than
..DCG L ,. .. . ..... . . . .... . . . .
Class:: i >DCGLW.
. or >MDC,,an:if >0.55DCGLW M!C~.,
ii CGLW."',, is. greater'than Ivestigatiobs.shoild con.sider: (1) the assumptions made inthe's'rvey Unit classification; (2)-the..imost'likely -orknownf cause of the contamination; and; (3),the possibility.that other the .su.eyufit may have elevated areas-of activWY that may*have gone
'areasWithin indete.Vd. D-ID-- din" o the "esults: of tlie:investigation, a,:pIrtio 'of the survey u.t may Ibe ri'ela*alfled-if there ig-sufficient juistification. The tes*lts -ofthe fite-stigation process :are documented ;inLet.hesurývey ,areaýRel~ease Record. See -also,Section 56'4 for additional discussaionr regki-d..g pot.ntiar*eiclassification of the surey unit.
*5.*3'- El~evateI Measurement Comparison (EMC)'
The elevdted measurement c6mparis6n maybe used for Cl'a§ss I survey units when .one or more scan orustafic measurements exceed the investigation. level if remediation is not performied. ýThe EMC provides assui ance that unusually large tneasurements receive the
.pr6oper Attention and tha,-any area having the-potential for 'signiifiearit dose contribution is identified. Astated As in :NUREG- 575; the EMC is-.intended to flag potential failures.,in the tef iýAfi;hq*n..c~.and sh6.old not be-cofnsid&red the pfiffiafy imeandss to identify whether or not-a .surveCAunitm*eets the reledse criterion.
Locations identfified by scan with levels of residual radioactivity' which exceed the a priori DCGLEcCoi static.wmeasurements with levels of residual radioactivity which exceed the a priori *CGL~gmCare-subject-to additional surveys to. determine compliance with the eleyated measurement criteria. The-size of the area-containing the elevated-residual radioactiity and t .awverage level-of residual activity within the area are detemined. The average Ievel of*activity is..compared to ýthe DCGLw based on the actual area of elevated activity. (fIf a background reference area is being applied to -the survey unit,-the:mean: of the backaground: referpence area activity may be subtracted before conducting the EMC). 6 Must be calculated aqpriori. The a priori DCG.LMc for soil was calculated to be 519 pCi/g in accordance with Section 5.5,6.d.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-60 Revision. 6 January.2014. .............. ThoeaprioriD.CGLE*c is established during the survey design and is calculated as follows: DC L.C = Area Factor~x DCGL The :arewa.f'to.r.*.is :th~emult.iple .of,-the D.CGL that is permitted'in the arba'oftelevated ie idiial ii6deiavitk, *ith.ut remediationi. The. area factoriisteIted -td th'bgiZe of the area
,over-wich thýe elevated activity is distributed. That area is generally bordered-by levels of resIdl ra iactivIty below the DCGL and is determined by the investigation process.
Area 'factors are- CAIulated in Section :6 of the LTP and listed in Tables 6-12 and 6-14. The.actuag area. ofelevated actiyity is.deternm. ned by investigation surveys and the area IfactoiiAtl d forBthe actual area of elevated. activity. The product of the adjusted area factor and the DCGLw'determines the actual DCGLF.Mc. If the DCGLu.Ic is .exceeded, the warea. i remedi ated* and resurveyed. The~resuItsof ihe elevated area:investigations in a.given survey unit that are below the: DC imit are evauated using.the eqcuatibn*blow. If more than one elevated area is identified~i~n a*.gi. unit, the unity rule can be used to deterrmine compliance. If the
*ns..ey
.formula o Value is leiIss than unity, no further elevated area testing is required and the EMC test is.satisfied.
i8 (avemge concentration; in-elevated area -
<* 1 3DGLW (Area Factor)(DCGLW )
Whe re.: is.he.averagepresidual activity in -the survey-unit. When calculating.. for use in this ie.q.ualty.. It measurements falinag within the elevated 'area maybe excluded provided the. o-eall ,averageinithe: survey unitis less -than.the DCGLw.7 For contaminated concrete ba~ .t *jlz*odel),,.the are~a .factor used*in: the-unity rule may be specified' as the survey u t sizddivdd
-- by -the,elevatedieai_ size;.
Coqmpjianewifh the~soil DCGLc will be determined using.the FSS gamma spectroscopy re ult an;d iia iity rle-app-oach. These general methods will also be applied'to other materials -where-gsample gamma. spectroscopy is used:for FSS. The application.of the unity te1**pohe eeatetdmeasurewment compari.son requires area. factors and corresponding D0.GLE,-s f6-be 641ldlated for Cs-i3J7, Co-60, and :any other gamma emitter idefnified 0n ...S, se parately. .. The meihods:iused to calculate the nuclide-specific-.soilaica factors will be the same as deasribd i:n Se*tion 6.8.2. These area:factors are: used to determine:DCGLEMc for Co-60, 7 MAR.SSIM, NUREG-1575,Revision 1, (June2001), Section 8.5.2, per the EPA website at wwvw~epa.gov/radiation/marssim/docs/revision1.
M-YAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-61 Revision 6 January 2014 Cs-.137, and any-other identified gamma emitter, :formeach elevated area being evaluated during FSS. The-surrogateradionuclides wi l be conservatively.accounted for through the application of the CS-137"area .factor to the surrogate. Cs-I-37 DCGL since the HTD radionuclides have higher area factors than Cs-137. T*heDCGLMC's Are used as follows to
,determine compiance :with the :elevated tasur.emDent comparison. Background could be subtracted from each. radiornuclide-concentrat.ion f .necessay.
S C~s- 1.37:
- o60'!i
- R s-- io-6 RN- *1
'ThCGLwc-MC DC -NGL Where;s-C-13-7 and Co-60 are-the gamixaispecIresbits from FSS, DCGLEMCN is calculated for the size oflthe.. ele6vated, area being evaluated, RN is any other gamma empitter identified during FSS, and DCGLliS " .,.~-
the
~ DC104i*
. ~.... . ~ m ..
.forradonucjide.N' 5.6.4 Remediaf 0ionan.d-R:eclassification, As shown in Table.5-8, .forsany classgification (1., 2 or-3), areas of elevated residual activity above the DCGLIMc. ae rthqrediated to-reduthe residual ;radioactivity to acceptable levels.
Whenever an investigation cofnfltnS a tiVitYiabove:ah-action.level listed in Table 5-8, an evaluation of the HSA, opetati6naI history, design information, and sample results will be performed. The-evaluation..wilt consider; (1) the elevated area's location, dimensions, and sample. results, (2). an. explanation asto.the .potentiMa cause-and extent of the elevated area in the survey unit, (3)-the recommended extentof reclassification, if considered appropriate, and (4)-ayother requiredactfions. Areas that:are reclassified as Class I are typically bounded by a as*-as 2buffer. zone to prb-idef:rth assurtanlce that.the reclassified area completely bounds the~elevated, area. This evaluation process is established to. avoid the unwarranted reclassificatifon of an entire survey unit (whichcan be quite.large) while at the same time requinrigy an assessment asto-ept..ei-t and-iasois -for the elevated area.
-Specifically,.-for-the:reclassification (folilowing LTP.-approval) of~a survey~unit (or portion of a. Survey. unit): fromiC:.lass - -to C.lass.-2, :the follpwing etiteria.-illbe followed:
1.,. The survey unit (orportion of a. survey unit).-to be-reclassified as Class* 2 must-meet the Class2 designation (LTP Seetion ,5ý.2.2), i.e, prior to remediation, the reclassified-area is -not lik6ely-.tb contain residual radioactivity -inh excess o f theD CGLw.,
!:MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-62 Revision 6
.... .J.nu!My2.14,. . .
2.. There is sufficient knowledge regarding the distribution of contamination within the reclassified Clas.2 area to sup.port aconcluasion that subject area is not"likey to cbntain residual radi octiity in exCes 6f the :DCGLw.
- 3. As noted in Table 5-3, for Class,2 Survey Units, the amoount pf scan coVerage will: be proportional to thepotenitiWlforfiding of elevated activity or areas :close to the'release criterion iniacorw d*e with MARSSIM Section 5.5.3.
Reclassification from either Class I or Class 2 to Class:3Iwould generally observe similar criteria as.listed above.
- 1. The reclassified survey unit.(or p.obit-Iisthereof would be required to meet Class .3requirements (per Secftion5.2.2).
- 2. There is sufficient knowledg- rega-gdiig the.dist'ibution of contamination within.ihe reclassified Cas.s 3.area to support a condlusion that the area has.a low.prbabil .0f iitgi residual radioactivity.
1, S .66n.verage'for *ffe.ehsl *a will,ý" Tible 5-e requrements. Ped~eiinf§ With NRC, M-aine Y kee wil provide'notification to the NR.C prior to a .eclassificatio;i(foilowig LTP'*aroa) ofa su,*ieyut (or portion of a survey unit) per the discussion in Section 1.4. If anjindividual survey measurement (scazior* -in..a 2 survey unit exceeds th'e .DCGL,.the :survey uimt or aTportio of itimaybe .eclassified and the survey redesigned: and re-performed aco*rdingly..: If an.ndividual surey measurementiin a Class 3 survey unit.exceeds 0.5 DCGL,:thesurey nit, or portion of a survey unit, will be evaluated, and ifiecessaty, reclassified to :a Class 2 and the survey redesigned and re-performed acordingly.,
MYAPC License Termination' Plan "Page 5-63 Revision 6 January 2014
' "Investigation Actions:
Act..ion f Invet gation Results Exceed Clas DCG~C __ DGLW- - T 05 DCGILW,
,I Remdiatoe 'an.Pceptable Acceptable rsurve a sn .essay 2 Renediate,treclassify Reclassify portions as necessary Acceptable portion as ýAniessary -
3, Rertnediate, reclas.iffy.;nr sc;an coverage and Increase sa portibns.asnecessary J.rllasspi.yportions as necessary coverageand reclassify portions as
-_____ *.inqncssrv
- 5.6.5' Resurvey.
Foll0wig.an iniesfigation, ifa survey unit isreclassified or if remediation activitiesu were per ,-daresueyisperfomrmed in accordance with procedures. If awClass 2 area had.eoatm 'aiongredter tha- tthe DCGLw it should be reclassified..If the
.av ge vaiilue.of Class :2direct survey measurerhits was less than the DCGLw, the S'anp :Wad nsitiye enough to. detect'the. DCG'LEC *n there we're no-areas" greatertha* ftheDC.-.GLmihe ysuirveredesignimay be limited to obtaining a l,00%
scan without having to*re-perforM the direct measurements. Tis condition assumes that the sample density mi-et* fh! retirern*-ts f6r a Clss 1 area. If the Class 2 area had,contamination:,.greater. than the DCGLw., but the Scanmw.was not sensitive enou~lt~oife dcect ~ th affeced arap, ýkelssife and resurveyda th ampledsity e' "fnih, frPO EMC.
-e 5./7 Data Collection and Processig 517.1 .:Sample Handiing nd'.Rec*rd Keepiing A sample tfackmgrecod (cha-of-custody record) accompanies each sample from the.point of collection.tbrough obtaining the final results to ensure the validity of the: sample data. Sample tracking records are controlled and maintained and, upon completionfof thedata cycle, aiet-rahsferred to Document Control, in accordanbe with.applicablebprocedures.
Each surveyunit'has a document package associated with it which covers the design and field implementation of the survey requirements. Survey unit records are quality.records.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page S-64 Revision 6 ,Januar-y2014........ . ................. 5.7.2 Data Management Survey.data.are coleted fromhsevetal.sourcsdrgthedata lifecycle and are evaluated.:
- QC.replibate measuremfets'are not.used ag~fiifalstat".ssurvey data. See LTP Section 5.10.4(d)..for design-and useg of QC replicate measurements.
Meaisurements performed, during turnover aand investigation surveys can be used as
,finl statuss:urvey data ifthey were performed according'to the same requirements as thesfinal suriveydereqrrent includ: (1).the repn-sentativeness of the survey:datalto reflet. the*
*isef.t survey:unit condition untouched by: further remediation;, (2,) the-applicationof isolationmeasures to the survey unit to prevent re-contamination and tomaintainifinal. configuratfion and (3)-the data collection and design were in accordance with FSS methods, e.g., scanAMC, investigation levels, sur.ey data point num.beran-dlocationistatistical tests,'and EMC tests.
M6asuremeht-reults stor*e as .fia ey d!ata cnstitute the final survey of record and are included in the data setfor-each survey unit-used for determining compliance withthe site;release criteria. Measurem'ents arerecordedin u-mits-ap-p-opriate fr.cimparison to the DCGL. The
.recordmg umnts ,for-surface-,ontamination .aredpni1/00 cm2 -and .pCi/g for.activity concentration. Numerical Values, e"venn*gatie num.bers, agre`r rded.
Document Control procedures establi'shrequirements for.record keeping. Measueent records include, ateammum, the surveyor's name, the location of theomeasurement, then-.'mstrunenusdt..measurement results, the date and time of the
.measurem.-ent.and ,any.surveyor comments.
5.7.3 Datai Verification, and Validaetin The final status survey data are reviewed before data assessment to ensure that they are complete, fully documented and technically acceptable. The review criteria for data aceptability will include~at-amimum,
- the following: items:
,a. The instruilentation MDC for. *fd-6r Vlbmetfid measurements Was below th&*D.** or-.if noit w.bedow the DCGL~C for C lass 4, bel*ow the D CGLw forClass 2:andbe!0_w,0.5, :DC0'GL, for.Class 3 survey units.
- b. The instrument. calibration.. was -urreht- and traceable to NIST standards,
- c. The field instruments were source checked With satisfactory results before and after use each day data were collected or data was evaluated-by the
MYAPC License Termination Plan -Page 5-65 Reyision 6 January 2014 FSSE if instruments did not pass a source check in accordance with 5.5.2.c S The ,MD.Cs ýand assumptions used to develop thempwere :appropriate for the.
. . ... -. .. . . .. ..._ p..
.. .... ý .. ... p r...-., -
instruments and techniques used to perform the: survey, The survey methods used to collect. data. were proper for the;types of radiation involved and for the media being surveyed,
.f. "Speqcial methods" for data collection. were properly'applied for the survey unit under, review. These-speeJal:methods are either described in this -TP section or .il be the subject of an_.NRC:notice of opportunity-for review, The :chai-of-custody was tracked from the point of.sampleco11ectionto the point, of obtaining.results, h, 'The data set is-comprised of qualified eeasuremejn trests collected ini accordance with the survey design which accurately reflect the radiological status ofthefafcility, and.
iL The data have been, properly-recorded, If the data reviewv criteria were not met, the discrepancy will be reviewed and the decision to accept or reject the data will be documented in accordance. with approved prQ Kedures., 5.7.4 Graphical-Data Review Survyeydata may b. graphed to identify;patterns, relaticnships or possible anomalies which might not be so apparent..using-other methods of review. A posting pot: or a frequency plot may be made. :Other special graphical representations of the data will be m".ade as the need dictates.
!a..Po~sting Po~ts Posting.plots may be used to identi' sopat4.a_!aemrs, in.the:data. The posting plot consists .of the survey unit map with the numerical data.Showzi
!at the locationi.from which'it was obtained. Posting plots canTrevealtpatchies of *eevated radioactivity or local areas in which the DOGL is e'xcde6d,,
Posting plots can be generated for background reference areas t9 pointý outl spatial trends that might adversely affect the use of-the data. Incongruiies in thýe background data may be the result o, resid~ial, undetected actityityi. or-they may just reflect background variability.
MYAPC License Termination. Plan Page.5-66 Revision 6 Januar ..2014 . . . ........- "-
- b. Frequency Plots
*Frequency-plots ma:beused.toexamine.the gdeferal:.sha" fth' at distributiort. Frequency plots; are-basieally bar -charts-shoWifig data points
- within a given range of values. Tiequelncy plots.reyeal' such.7thingjsa ske.wness and bi'.odality (h*ving two pe.ks). SkW i'Ss may.b6 the. lIt of a..few areas of elevatedactivity: Multiplejpeaks in the~ddt&-thaS'indi`cate the piresence of isolated areas of residual'ratdioactivity-or backgroundvariability dueto soil types or differing materials of construction. Vai jbjlity-iai also indicatethfie need to0mre caretuly match background referentceareas :to, suirey :units-or to :subdi.vide the.swurvey.uniit:by material orTs.i type.,
- 5.8 ?Data Assessmentand Comnpliance An assessment ispefinormed on the fiidal status SUrVey data to ensiietthat they:ar~eadequate to support the determination to release the survey unit. Simple assessment methods suchbas
,comparing. tjiesurvey data to. the DCGL-or comparing:the mean v-alue to the.DQGL are first peiformid., The statisticalftests: are then applied: to the final,:data set and conclusions are.inade 6i§1to **thrthesiis ey unit meets the site release criterion.
5.8.1 Data Assessment Including Statistical Analysis "h6eresuilts'oftfte survey measurenferi*-sare -valutated .tbo dete* e6ewtethei*the
.suP/ey thimeets~th&release: criterion. In-some cases, the determi'afion canle made without performing complex, statistical analyses.
- a. Interpretation of Sample Measurement Results An assessment of the mea etffent results is used to quicldy.determine whether the survey unitpasses or.'fls-the::release criterion or whother-one of the statistical andlyses'muistbe perfomned. The ev .aluation iatrices arie presented in Tables 5-9 and 5-10.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page,5-67 Revision 6 January 2014 Table 5-9 InterPretation of Sample MeAsuremen6s Wh6i*.WRS Test Is Used
...... ...... ea s~e*gtb Relt~sj,, ..... ,., . .. -- ........ o~ncl.usion .. 'Offferencebetweenmaximum surveyunit concentration and $Sq..yey unit.m.eets release.
mininimurreference area'.eheentfati6nis ls1ttthan:DC.GLW criterion. 1iffrencp of'survey unit.ayerageeoncentratiqn and reference. average concentrations.greater than DOC-GLW Suveyunit fails. 6Difference tetween any survey u t.onceertration and any reference.
. a.b.dtfe6ai§-ni9geat'eiyaiS.L*-.rdthediffereiice.*'- : pndu WRS test and qSvey. "'it r[etfec6 aiea average, ritfation-Aý,:yiýt-agecq eie.vates measurements coneentration-is less,than DCOLw -test.
'Table: 5-10
...... .. MeastiiemenfteRsult, ............ ,. .......
} _j:Conclu:Sion'
" .~ ~ _ ...
/ ..
._7
.._'*S : ...- . ? *
- 2. .. " - ... ....T All aonientratinsless
* * " v* . : ':3 .... :. "
thxh '*DC-GLw
. ,.'- ._ .. ..Z. _ .. .I. .. . ............. . :
Survey ut meet's release criterion" Average concentration greatet than DCGLw ISurvey ttfails* concenetration greaei t cqy ,DCGLW andayerage dqoduct Sign Test and elevated cncentrat .ion lessithnDCGw esreet et When requireid; one off6uir statistical tests 11vill: be performed on the survey data: 1.: WRS Test.
.ig*n~Test 3.'q W'S Test Unity Rule 4.1 Sigi Test UnitY Rule In addition, s.uryey.data are evaluated against the EMC criteria as previously described in' Sction:5.6.3 and as requireq by.. RG 1727. The statistical test'.is:based-6n 'the null' hyothesis (Ho) tht the residual radioactivityin the surveyuhitexeeeds -the, DCGL. There must be sufficient survey data at or below the-DCGL-to rije..ci the :null hypovthesis and. cqorclude the survey-unit meets the site y-ese criterionlfor dose. Statistical analyses are performed using:a speciaally'designed software package or, if necessary, using hand calculations.
MYAPC License Termination Plhn Page.5-68 Revision 6
- b. Wileoxon' Raiik Suni Test The VRS test: or-WRS:UnitY Rule (NUREG- 1.505, Chapter .11), may be us*ed when.the r.aionuclide of coficern is: present in the backgrud:or.
measurnemets are u'sed that are not radion'udide-specic. In addition, this test is valid onlywhen "ýless:ihaf.imeasurement results do not exoce. 40 percent.of the data set.. The WRS tegt is :applied -as fol1ws' L. Theobackground reference area meaguements-are adj*st*d by adding theDCGLw:to each background. reference area: measurement, = X + DCOL. Z*.,.Z The number-oilidjusted background reference area measurements, m, and: the number of survey uni.t measuremnits, iq, are s'u ed.to obtain N, (N m + n).:
.:3, The ~measurements are pooled and.ranked :in:order of increashingsize fro Ito N. If several measurements:hv the: samvalue,-they are assigned the average rank of that
ýgroup.of mneasurements.
4.- 'Therankso6f.fte*adjusted background reference area measurements aresummed to ,obtain Wr. 51-2 The value of W. is compared with the critical value in Table 1.4. of NU G-l575. If Wr is greaier than the critical value,
- the sur.eyuit meets t.e-site release dose criterion. IfWr,iis less than-or eqult h criiclvae, the uVe nItfiso th riekal tetth.eric..v e esurO ntilb
- c. Sign.*.Te ThezSign test.and Sign test Unity Rule are one-sample statisticaltests used
-"f6iýoritiifirii- ifi .*hie thiedidniii~liidd of cone6n is not prest in background, or is prOseit atvac table low fractions compared to the DcCGLW.f: present ina backgro.und, the gross measurement is assumedlto'be entirely Jfijo ln ci ~Ti pin is.us, whenit can, bereasonably expected that inluig th6 background concentration will not affect the outcome. of the.Sign test. The advantage of using the Sign test -is.that:a background rleference areais not needed. The;Sign Test may also be used with background subtraction in accordance with Chapter 12 of NUREG-1505.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-69 Revision 6 January 2014 The Sign test is conducted as foblows:,
- 1. T.surve=.1 .ements,.*, i 1,2,3, 2tme...N; where N the~uberfn esurmensare listed..
-2. x is subtracte*dfom thp.DCGLw.to obtain the difference Pi = DCCIYL%*.:< `1i2j :.*,*
3 Differences.wh~eiex t alge is exactly -zero are discarded and N is redued by. ithe ni ber of seh' zero measurements. 4.: The-number.of p~osiive..differences. are:eounted. The result is
,tie test:fist ,z:S+. Note -that a positive difference
*cofrespohd to ameasurement below the DCGLw and contributes.evidence.:that the survey.unit meets the site releasei crte'in.
- 5. Thde-valuteof Sf, F.is compare.dto the. cifical value given in T~abte,{L3 1o{,f:N:f* *-i-7.5. 'The table contains -critical values for given výalvs "Mf N an a. Thev*alUe of a is. set at 0.05 d4u4g, .vyddsi$n.If S+ is greater than the critical value
*,givea*-he'itabl. the survey unit meets the site release criterion. If S+ is lessIthan or. equiial to the critical value, the vey.ui-t fVt.6al!o meet thterelease criterion.
- d. Unity Rule The.,Cs- 137to .CO60.:'ratio, willivary in the.,final survey soil samples, and this wil"'b~.*.c counted :for using~a- WVtyjre" approach asdescribed in NUREG-l:505%Chapt&r !1.- U iE"'vAets ill be cAlculated for each measurement tesult-usiffg-th.s*Urrogate adjusted Cs.137 DCGL and the adjusted Co-60,DC.GL,: as shQwn in'he following equation. (See Section 6.7.2 for the Cs-l37.- D5CGL balMclation CSIS37. -Co- 60 RN Unity Rule Equivalent 1= +
DCGL~A) DCGL leo-(P)(N.A) Whqere.:,s-,137;and Co-60 gae *eg* ,sped.results, DCGL(cs_3 Ts:$is the-' ogate Cs-A 37s*DCGL, adjusted to reret the Taible 46-11 total tsurface dose, as applicable (inside RA),
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-70 Revision 6 January,2014___ DCGL(o6 ,,) is the Co-60 DCGL, adusted to represent the Table 6-1I total surfacedose, *s applicable.(inside RA) R'N -is anyrothe identified gamma.emitting ralionuchdes, and DCGLk) yis -the-adjusted DCCGL forradionuciide::N. The unity u4*l equivalent resultswilltbe used.to demonstrate compliance assuming ..qDCGL'is u 1o'.0using the rciteria listedin the LTP, Trables 5-9 ahdc5-10. If the appication 0f the .RS or Sign test is necessary, these tests wdIbe 'appd1using qtheunityrule'equivalent results and assuing tat atest theD'CL iS eual to 1.0.. Miea le.of a WRS using the unity'rule is-provided inNUýREG-1505, Page :11-3, Section 11.4. If the WRS testsis used, or background subtraction is used in-conjunction with the Sign test, backgrund.cncentrations ,ill also be converted to Unity Rule Equivalents p.rior to peoring test.. The' Sigi tet 'will be used Without:background subtraction if background Cs-137 is -not o**sidered asiguificant ftrtion of thed DCGL. Note that the surrogateWCs&-37-DCGLwi*l.bedused fori.both tet atistic tests and comparisons with the criteria inLTPTables$-9 anjl!.5-19.. The same generd, suriogateianduity rule methods described above for soil wilfbe: applie6ý40tothe materials, such as acfiated concrete, where sample
.-.ue fed to beta 5.8.2 Data Conclusions The results of.the-statis& -1tests,inclding4 appicatonof the EM.C,;allow one of two oficlusionrs lto.b~bihde. 'Tht fist conclusion isthat the survey'uit ieets the site.release dose! cite*om The..data provide statistically significant evidence that the level ofresidual radioactivity in the:surey unit does not exceed the release criterion. The decision torelease the. surey unit is made with sufficient confidence and without further is The' secdnd conclusiotibt4 can be miade is that .the sueymunit: fais*to meet the release criterion. The data are not c6nclusive in showing thit th* residual radioactivity is less than the "releasecriterion. The data are: analyzed further to determine the reason forthewfailure.
Possible reasons. ate that:
- 1. the average residual radioactivity exceeds the DCGL, or
MYAPC License Termination PMan :.Page 5-71 Revision 6 January,2014 .... . . . .. . . . . ... .. . . .. ~ ... . .... . ... ... .. _ ... ... ... . . . ...-
- 2. the test didnot have sufficient power to reject the null hypothesis (i.e.,
the :fesiiltj is due to irandbm Statigtical fluctuation). Tliep~ower of the'statistical test is a function.of,the number of measuremientgmade _an.dthestandard deviation'in measr ement'data. *e power s determned fro-m 1.- where
- ig the-value for TypeII .erors...A..expospective power.analysis -maybe perfoied. using the methods described-in Appedices 1.9 and 1.10 bf NUREG-.575. Ifthe powerof the test is insufficient due.to the number'of meiasurem.ents,,additional, samples may be .colleted.as directed by procedure. A t~~ei-r iMimiber-of mfeasuremients:icrea's'e the probility of passing if the survey
.i'a ltl~gy.t.thetreltt ease crterion. If failure was.due to thepresen e-of re*4diia]r*adi.actty i.nexxcess of.the;efease criteripn, the surveyunit must be re., 'diteaii~t!"d rre~qd.
..8.3 dronpliance
- The..i.ff;,iistatus,.survey is designed to demonstrate:that licensed radioactive,
.materils-hfave:.been:removed from MY station facilities and.property' tolhe extent.
Iha:is-iu'du*l levels 6of radioapctive contaifmiination are below the radiolo0gi d' crif'ria: fdrunhstricted, use. as approved by::the.NRC The:site-7specificradoi1dgl criteria. presnte.din: Sifid.,St*M6-&M thi's plan -demonstrate compliance: with the: criteria of 10CFR*20.1402 Maine LaW LD 2688-SP 1O084. ff themeeasurement -tesults:pass the requiremnents of Tables 5"9-and 5-:0 cf:Section
!5(.8 .1,`Add te-e6levated areas evaluated per Secton.5.6.63 p.ass the elevated*
- nmasurement cimigaiison, thenthe.survey ifi.it i9 su`itab-be fo' unrestricted rflea*se.
5:9 ReportingFormat Sur*vey.results~aredoeumented in history files, survey unitlreleaserecords, and in the final status swviey. rqepor.t Oher rprts maybe generated .as requestedbytfie NRC.
'5.;9.4 Histozy Filie A histdr filM oft'e.6vafit 6perationhal and deconmmnissioning data has been, cmpiled.
T~ehiso. flcossts of the HS-A, GTS C-haracef~irization; Report, .Clas'sificqib Basis'a,:d m505(g) file information. Thelpurpoae_,:f -ehistory file :is -to.-pro.die a laas fr the survey unit .classi: cati.,aihne helvlo nest of:the..fmalstattis. survey. The history file contains:
'1. Operating history which could affect radiological status
- 2. Summarized scoping and site: characterization data
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-72 Revision 6 Janua 2014
- 3. OtIer relevait iniormaio6n 5.9.2 Survey Unit Release Record A sePrte re*ea.erd b is prepared for each survey unit. The survey unit release.
redord *is a'docfument containingsufficient information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the site release criteria. This recrd includes at least:
- a. Description of the survey unit
- b. SreYnt design information c:~.
- vey resutlts
- d. Surveyunit investigations performed and their results
- 6. Surey unt dath is.Se.ssm.fieirt results
'Whena~~.surveyun*i.treaserecord'is given:final apprval it becomes a quality record.
5.9.3 Final.Status Survey Report Suvyresults wil be described -ina written.:repbrt to the NRC. 'The actual structures, land, or piping system included inweach written reportmay vary dependihg .on"the sitatus 6f on-going de .co6n ssioning activities. The final' status survey report provides a7summaryQof the survey results and the overll con6eusibns . ..- :.L .which .*.'.";,-. . .- ' .. that demnohstra'te
- ?-*.* " " y. and
. ."" .. ,facility
. theMY a" site. meet
... 'the rolo iteriaff unrestcted use. Information suhas the number and type of measurement,:basicistatistial :quantities, and statistical analysis results:'are includea inthe reppo. ATe level of detailis' sufficient it clearly des-iibethee final statu surveyprogr to certify the results. The formatof the final report will
ýad contaiii 'the-,following;topics:.
1.0 :vriw ofth~e.Results
.2A0 3.0 Fia Status Survey Methodology
, Survey unit sample1 size S-Justification forsainple size 4.0 Firial Staius Survey Results
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-73 Revision 6 .anuary_2014.....
- Number of measurements taken
- Survey maps
, Sample. concentrations
- Statistical evaluations, including power curves
- Judgmental and miscellaneous.dlata:sets Investigations and results (aniomalotmis data) 5.0 Conclusion for each survey unit Any Changes from initial assumptions on extent ofresidual act.ivity6.
Simplified Genereal Rer*speeiye.Dose Estimate: For illustrative purposes, relevant FSS data will be reviewed to determine a gross averageof residual contamination level which will be used to calculate a retrospective dose estimate. This retrospective dose estima-te, wthichwill be pro Videddin the final report, maY be helpiil. in* `illustratifgto various
- stakeholders Maine,Yankee,'.om-pliano:e'with the dose based,.
release criteria. 5.9.4 Other Reports Other repots will be prepared and submitted as r.que sed; 5.10. FSS.Quality Assurance Plan (QAP.) The-Final Status Survey QAP, as described in this section, is.,developed:and implemented by rained..and qualified personnel. The F.SS QAP will enSoure that.1the site will be surveyed, evqdat~ed. and deten'ined to be acceptable for unrestricted use yfth.esydulactfivty reslts in an tanhual TEDEtto the average member of the critical group. of 10 mrem/year or.less for all
.a..thaysad 4 mrem or less.for groundwater drianking sources (enhanced state: clean-up peJlS);. Ens.uing.that the site meets;the requirem6nts for.license- .dtminatigpis aý.complex process. 'Quality must bebuilt in to each phase of the plan aind measures must"be 'taken:during:.
the:execution: of the plan to determine whether the expected level of.q4alityis beingachieved. Th6eQuality Assurance activities for decommissioning are based on the requirements of 10CFR-50,,82. The objective of theFSS QAP is to ensu're that the survey data collected are of the typ.e antd quality needed to demonstrate with sufficient confidence that the :site is suitable for nestricted release. The objective is met through use: of the DQO process for FSS'design, arnalysis- and evaluation. The plan ensures that: 1) the ele-meits of the.fiial status surivey-plan are 'i.plemented in accordance with the approved procedures; 2) :surveys are -conducted'by traihned personnel using calibrated instrumentation; 3) the qualityofthe data collected is adequate; 4) all phases of package design and survey are properly reviewed, and oversight is
MYAPC LicenseTerminatlon Plan Page 5-74 Revision 6 January 2014 provided; and 5) corrective.actions, when identifidd, are-implemented in aftimely manner and are determined to be effective., The Fss QA *lanT will be-applied to the f1llowing aspects of Ifinal sitatus"JPvy-atvii F5.10.1 Projet Managemenit and.Ora anraion An.FSs projctofgaiationnill .býetablished when the ISFSI areas are to be
- decommissioned. It will be similar to.the ESS organization described below.
T.he:FSS projg0 rganiatioWn w-ýe.abished. withifi;the:Maine Yankee r.adition protectio6n.organiation'.fotrplanning-andidmplemietation-of the fina status suveys of the.areas associated wiivh;theMae Yankee Nuclear Plant. This organization,
.deic-t-in Fig 5-6.(at fnd 'ofosectibfi 5), was-directed by the Manager of Projects.- FSS who reported to0theRadiati'on Protectin M.anager (RPM). The RPM
.maintained overall responsibility for the performance of the final'statu: survey and overalntegratioi of the6.FSS:p.. with other-decommissiongactities.
The Final Status: Survey project organization consisted: of-the following functional le"v`eIs:
- a. :Manager-of Projects (OP) - FSS: The Manager-ofProjects for Final Status iSury.ey(MOP FSS.) waprTesponible.for the administration-of, and.ensuring the.diplementatiwnof, the FSS Plan. The MOP FSS was responsible'for
,ensring activities conducted.as"part -ofiheFSS Were perfOrmed in
.accordance wth the gSg QuOalAtyAssuance Plan. The MOP6.SSwas rpo:nsible for managemeinltof.qpesnel asiged to the FSS section. The MOP~~~~
a epnil o FSprVing ~ FSSRelease Records and ensuring contractual.and licensing obligoatins-were.satisfied. The MOP FSS reported .. Ithtlh RPM. b& S ýupri 4ntenfdenofRadiation :Remrediation (SRR): The SRR.. had thezoverall. responsibility forthe planning,.monitoring and,cordination of radi.ological freinediationt in preparation forFSS activities. The-SRK had re nsibility for.establising, maintaining and implementing.the programs, procedures and evialutionbsto supprt adiiological remediation. The SRR had responsibility for -the pre-deolition:s :of structre.bongAdemolished as .well.-as.tlie controliofo-radiactive.matefiali:resulting fi-V-iIdeiolition. The SRR-w*hen dire*-ed,, had:responsibfiity -for,Tumrover. Surveys priorto ea a~~p c for FSS-. The SRR epor to'the MOP-FSS. See Section 5.10.4. for discussio.n, of the relationship between the FSS project organization and the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.5-75 Revision 6 .Janupary2014
- c. Superintendent of"Final Status Survey (SFS.S): The Superintendent of Final Sltatus. Survey. (SFSS).was responsible-,forlthe preparation and ]
implementation of:the FSS prQgram. The. SFSS had overall responsibility for pro gra directio"n te "bni" conitent,:and ensuring the program complied with applicable(...NRl.Cregulationsm:adg.gi.idAnce. The SFSS was responsible :J for resolution of issuesaor concer!nsraised by NRC, the State of Maine, or olther stak.ehoders-as-well as an friogr atic issues raised by Maine: Yankee.Management. -The SFSS .provded overall management and direction to FSS.personnel. Interface. with regulatory agencies and other 9utside. orggi*z*aari*oegding.th6-FSS*P-.rogram.was conducted primarily by-the. SFSS. TheS6-SFSre#yiwda.d apprAovedtlihe qualification and
- s6 lection ofFSSipersonnel antd.appro0ed-the content.of training to FSS personnel and *tiierjp e '6nne on FSStopis.- The SFSS approved reports of FSS results; The .SFSS reported to-the MOP-FSS.
- d. Radioehemist: The Radiochemist--was Tresponsible for the tconduct of the day to day activities pe..forryd by Chemistry personnel and for the supervision
ý,of the counting rooimpersonrnel andd activities. The Radiochemist was responsibile fordataquaiity o*o..nsite. FSS.sample analyses. (If samples were.
processed offsite,-the Quality Asý§ahce Program determined the.
- quality requifements fot6rffsite procurement.) The Radiochemist reported to
- the.SuperintendentRa.diationEngineering and Technical Support.
- e. FtSS Engifieer'(FSSE). The*§SS :Eri neer (F..SSE.) ýwas responsiblefor the teclWcal support, deyeopm`ent, and implementation of FSS procedures.
The FSSE wass responsible:for thie~reiiew of survey packages and the review of all data collected inisupp'ort-ofthe FSSE The FSSE reviewed FSS procedures, and repoqrs of FSS'results.. The FSSE reported to the SFSS.
- f. FSS Specialist. (FSSS): The FSSS was responsible for preparation of survey packages for individual survey-.*eas, inelhditing history files; survey designs
.and instructions. In addition,.the F.SSS'was~responsible for preparation of
.suVeymaps, grid maps, IayoUt*diagains, coiposite view drawings and other.,graphics-as necessary*;to support.:FSS reportiing, The FSSS reported to the, Superintendent FSS.,
g.ý FSuS.11perv.isor, TheE"SS'SuperVisor Was: responsible for control and implemerntaztion of sutvey packages .as.-re~eived from the:FSS Specialist.
*The-FSS Supervilsofr-W...a.respoiisibl&efor.ecoordination offturnover surveys, final: status surveys, and survey ,area preparation such as gridding and accessibility needs. The.FSS Supervisor-was responsible.for~coordination and scheduling of FSS Technicians to support the FSS schedule and ensuring. all necessary instrumentaitifin'and other eq"ipment is available to
MYAPC License Termination Plan Pa4g.5-76 Revision 6 .January 2014. support survey activities. The FSS Supervisor was also responsible for maintaining access contrOls over completed FSS survey areas. The FSS: SUperv isor reported to the SFSS.
- h. instrumentation Technician'..(IT): The-IT was responsible for maintaining.the 4 pedigree of instrumentation used for.FSS :by.implementihg t.e procedural requirements for caaibration ;maintenance and daily checks. ThesIT ensued that suffieient arid poperlcalibr-ated instrumentation was available to supportFSS:. The'IT was'responsible for the calibration and maintenance of FSS.instdmentati6ri. The IT reportfed tofthe Instumfi ittie on, Sources arid Resgpiratoir.Proteetioi En eer (ISRPE). ý(The ISRPE'sresponsibilities.
included the.site RP instrumentation program.)
- 1. FSS Technician: The FSS Technician was responsible for perfo0rance of FSS measurements-and collection of FSS'samples in accordance, with F.SS proced.urs and survey.pacage ifnstctions. The FSS Technician reppoied-to the FS:SSupervisor.
- j. Site Quiality, and its Relatiofiship to the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program.
(1) The Maine Yankee Quality Assurance.Program has:been established as required by, and to assure conformance with, 10CFRI50 Appendix B and oth*. rg*ultiofi relevant to the decommissioning of Maine Yankee.
-(2) The'MY Pregiadenthas over-Al responsibility for. all asppetso..of.the'QA Program.
.(3) The Qoality Programs-Manager (QPM) has the overall authority:and respon.ibihit,
..... .,~~
for estal -shing.and measuring the effectiveness-of the Qu6lift 4ssira.e. PAogram. By provisions in the Program,,tghee. QPMý haidir-e't -accegssto. ,enio-manaigeintht positions. ('4) The'QPM,reports through.the Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory
*Affairs, through the Vice Presidenit' and Chief Financial Officer, who in tumrtreports tothe Presidenft), 0 (5). The MY Quality Assurance Program supports the FSS QAP by actidvities-and se.rces-related to-quality; such as, the,estab!ishmernt of requirements and assessing adequacy ofimplementation for 9 Sections IB.,I:, and II.C, MY:Quality Assurance Program,..May 1, 2002.
10, Thie dvroIl MY ýiie'o'tganizatifoi is illustiated (with QA reporting lines) in. Figure 6.1-1 of the-MY Diefieled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). As noted in this figure, the QPM has a "'functional report" to the President on matters of quality (DSAR Section:6.1.2).
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-77 Revision 6 January 2014 procurement control, procedures and instructions, corrective actions, r.qord retention, and audits/survel .lances., 5.1-0.2 Project.Description and Schedi1l..- Each area oftthe-gite.will be div.ided into.,sury nitsi and classified as directed by procedure. The survey neasurements fofr ach suey unit will be determined during.the.survey.design-phase. Portions of the'final status survey will be performed during; deconstructibn activities as areas become available for survey. The n i eaasfmnaybee.evald.atd*e. for release prior to significant decommissioning aetivities taking place,. 5.10.3 Quality Objectives and Measurement Criteria Typpe.I errors will be-established at 0.05 unless authorized by the NRC. Type.I errors will be set ati 0.05: or"geatcrj.
- a. Tranngand"Quajification PersonneL performing fal status survey.measurements will be trained and qualified Tr~img illn.
Aw u.e.th.l "o.*iigi.Qopics:
- Proceduresgope ning the conductobfte:.final-status survey, Operfationfof field and.laborator.instrmentaion used in the final status survey, and QCobllectionof finalstatu6:s urvym easurements and samples.
Themextent of training and qualificafion will be: commensurate with the education, experience: and proficiency.of the .individual and the scope, comple arid nattre of the adtiVity. Recids :of training will be Smaintained in.acceordance with the.approved, course description.for Initial and COpntinuing Trang for Decomissioning.
- b. Survey l*ocumentatio-n:
Each final status :sur*vy easuremet will be identified by date, instrument, location, type of measurement, and mode of operation. Generation, handling and storageofthe-originaltfinal statussurvey'design and-dat'apackages, will be controlled. The FSS records hhv6obeen de's-ignated as: quality documents and,: as such',they will 'be maintained as.such in accordance with procedures.
MYAPClilcense Termination Plan Page 5-78 Revfion 6 January2014-5.10.4: Measurement/Data Acquisition a; Survey DesignlraindSamplinig.Methods The.site: 'ill bedivided-into-sdrvey:areas. Each survey area.package may cont ainone or more ,survey units. -Each survey area package will specfythe t hd num-bro6f &meaurents requireqlid based on the classification of each.sury unit. b-. Wr-itten-Prdcediirs-Sampling andisurvey tasks must be pefformed properly and consistently in oder tb.oasgsue the: qalityofth&e fifial status :survey results. The measurements will'be.performied in accordince with approved, written procedures. Approved procedures describe the methods:and techniques used
- c. -ChainwofCustody Responsbiflity f6r'qcstody of samples. from the p6int of collection'through
-:;thedetermination:of the final sur.vey r.esults .is estabfished by procedure.
When custody i*>frmfeied, a chaln:of' ustody form willaccompany the sanO!e for tracki* g "6se;. Seture-storage will be provided for archived
*samples.
- d. -Qaity Conhtrbl:.Srveys
.Procedures:etablisWbuiltin Quality Control checks.in the survey process f6r both fieldi.d m sr ents.-As-.&'ib.W in LTP'Seti'n
'*tdl*.bortor 5.4.56(. For strotaes and systm's,..QC:replicate.scan:measurements.will congist of resurve s of a minimum of 5% of randomly selected: cass 1, 2, or
- 3. surVeyunitsT u typicly peormed: by a different techn.ciaf with results
.ompaire to.the origifal measurement, The:acceptance criterion: shall be that the same conclusibn as the original survey was-reached-based on the repeat scan.*If the eptac criteonis not met, aInvestigationw be
*,ebndiitedto6 det**e.nthe cause and-corective.action.
-QtilityContiblf bfbdire6t surface contaminantionJaand/o'r xposur rate measurements willconsist of repeat measurements of-a minimum of 5% of the-survey units: using the:same instrument type, taken by a. different technician (except-incase". where there is only one i m t or specialized training is required :to operate the equipment) and the results compared to the Joriginral measurements using the sameinstrument type. The acceptance
MY.APC License Termination PMan Page 5-79 Revision 6 Jahuary 2014 criterion for direct measurements is specified in approved procedures. For soil, water and.sediment.samples,.Quality Control will consist.of participation in the laboratoryInter-comparison Program. Hqowever, as an additional quality measure, approximately 5% of such samples:.may be suibjýected to blind .duplicatesamples-orthirparty analyses. The:acctance crit"eionfor blank samppes is thatnbo pPlat-derived radiomiclides are detected. The criterion for blind duplicates.is that the two measurements are within the value specified by approved procedure. For third party analyses, the a ance criterion iste same as. thosefor blind duplicates. -Some samplemedia, such as asphalt, will not be subjected to split,or-blind dupliicate analyses due to.thelack ofhomogeneity. These.samples will simplybe recounted to determine if the two. counts are within 20% of each other, when necessary. If-Q(- rephlcate-measurem.ents or sample a#nalyses fall outside of their acceptance criteria, a documented investigation will be performed :in. accordance with: approved procedures; and: if necessarythe: CorreQtive, Action' Process des'crbed in, S'"coii 5.'1.0.5(c) will be iplemen6jtd. Th inveti'gation will.typically involve. verification that the proper data.sets were compared, the relevant ins.trments werepoperating properly-and the
*survy/sample points were propetly..identifiedand located. Relevant p.Sqoinrel are interviewed. as approprate, to detemine ifprope itrutions and -procedures were followed and-proper measurement and handling techiques were used including.chain of custody,.where applicable. When deemed appropriate, additional measurements are taken. Following the investigation, a documented determination is made regarding the usability of
*b-e uvey... data and if the impact- of-the discrepancy adversely affects the Aedei~ibn on the radiological statu of the survey unit.
-e. Instrumentation Selection, Calibration and Operation Proper selection: and.use ofin'strumentation will ensure that sensitivities, ate sufficient to detect. radionuclides at-the minimum'detection capabi ies*-as spe.fied in .Seption.5a.2..s well asassu.rethe validity of the..surey:data..
histrument calibration will bepejrfobrred with NIST traceablesoburces using approved procedures. Issuance, control and operation of the survey; ins.tr ents will be conducted in. accordance with the Instrumnentatini Progra procedure. f.4 Control of Consumables Inorder to ensure the quality of data obtained from FSS surveys and
*samples, new sample containers will be used for each sample taken._ Tools
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.540 Re.vis on 6 January 2014 h ti r. 2 0 1 4 . . ....... .... " .""... " ." . . ..... ...
- .'.Y..........
used to-bClect. samples will be cleaned"to remove contamination prior to taking additional samples.- Tools' will be decontaminated after eachsample collection and surveyed for c6ntAiffitjifoin.
- g. Control of Vendor-Supplied.Servkies Venrdc-S*4 plied services, such a 'inisument calibration. and laboratbor.
sample Analysis, will be procured fromiappropfiate vendors in accordance: with approved quality and procurement procedures.
- h. Database Control Softaife used for data reduction. st-fage or eVAi!Atibn WIll be fully--
documented and certified by the-verin-d*;. Thde:software--will be tested prior to useby, anappropriate.test data set.
*L "Data.Manag~nent Survey data control from the time of collection't.ru eva.ation is specified-by procedure. Manual data ehtries-will be.Seond verified.
5.10.5 As*esmhefit and Oversight
,A. Asessnients.
.FSS-.:seg6fssessments Will be contductedinjacdordaidc~with approved procedures. The findings-will be tracked -.and trended ,ifl accordance wvith these procedures.
b.. In-depeident Review ofSUt-vey( esults: Randomly selected-sutvey packag-es *(iap*Oximat~l~i5%/) :from ,*sur~e~uits[ w*ill be~ifidepen~denitly* eviewed by t(he.Qualiity Protgrams. Departrnfent to ensure, that the survey measurements have been taken .and documenied. in acqordaincewiti 1pproved proci res., Ce. Corrective. Action ProcessI The. corrective action process, atad~y-egtabibihed .atis-p-art *of the site'.s,10 CFR Part.50 Appendix B-Quality Assuranc.eP,.-ProgramiaWilI be:applied to FSS3 for-the documientfation, eyalu iation, a implefi enitatibn f`cor.rectiv actions. Thelprocess Will bec6nidit e inh acco-rdanie with approved procedures which describe the methods used to initiate Condition Reports (CRs) and resolve self assessment and:corrective action issues related to
.MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-81 Revision 6 January 2014 FSS. The CR eva*lation effort is: commensuratewith the classification of the CR and co.uld. include root cause.d.etermination-, barrier screening-and extent of conditionreview.s..
- d. Reports .tboManagement.
Repots of* idits.id"end d a will: be lreported to management in accordance with approve*d.procedure. 5.10.6 Data' Validation Survey data will beoreviewed, prior to evaluation or-analysis for completeness and. for the presence o.f outihers.. Compaisons to investigation levels Will be made and measurements: exceeding the investigation-levels.will. be. evaluated. Procedurally verified data will be subjcpted towtheSign test,..the Wilcoxon Rank Sum (WRS) test, or WRS Unity test as approipriate: Techical evhluati6ns or calculations used to support the develqopnert :of DCGLs WIii bejidependenfiy verified to ensure
. :,.. : it. _..
. e:n;tl e'r f oe s r correctneoss of~the method -and th'qalitywof%*data.:.
.5.10-7 NRC 'and Stte ConfimatoM=asuemerits Maine Yankee anticipDates that bo.th t-feK.-1Rnd4the State of Maine Department of Human Se'rvices. (DHS) - Division of Health .Engeering (PHE)may choose to conduct confirmatorimeasurements..in acicordace,;w.ith applicable, laws and regulations,. TNe _"C-nay take-cQýMrmtor..ymeasuriements .to make a determination iniac cordance with 10 CFR. 5q..82(a)(1 )-that the final radiation survey. and associated documentation demonstfate that.the facility and site are sui.table for .release.in .accordance with the...iteria fo.r dec.Inmissioning in 10 CFR Part 20, subpairt"E. Mainestite l' Mine Yankee to permit
'requires monitoring by the-Maine Stt*eiNuclbArf*dSfetyInspectoms (2. MRSA 664, sub-§2, as amended by P-L 199.9,. c.. 739, § 38 MRSA 145 .1,sub-"§,.1., as. amended by PL 5and 1999, c. 741,.,§.). Thimnioing.inclu.des, a9 gter -ngthings, taking r*tiological measurements f~rthe.,pD ose of-verifying'compliance with applicable state laws.(including the,enhanced 'stat¢eradiological criteri'a) and confirming and verfying: compliance with .NRC standardsfor} unestri~tendjiense termination.
Maine Yankee will dembn~strate compliance with the"25 iner/yr criteria of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E by-demonstrating complijanc.e::wi.ththelenhance. state radiological. criteria. Theref6re,,thecofniftintbryimeasremiets takefi by the NRC and the State of.Ma'ine will be based upon the' same teriý,.DCGL'. Tihmely and frequent communications with-theseiagencies -wiltI.ensure-that%-they are: afforded sufficient opp-p9ort.un._.itby!qseseonfi*u gto..rymeaurem.ents pxPior to ,Maine Yankee. implementing, any ifreversible decommi .issioning n.ctefions (e.g. backfilling basements with soil fill materiaL)
MYAPC License Termination Plan PageC5-82 Revision 6 January*2014.
.51.11 Access Control Measures 5.1 1.1 Turnover
'Duti*'t6 the.large sdo*pe of the' finhl statu su efi'vy ad "thei ned fdr some activities to be j'erfomed inparallefl :ith disminftleffiit actiMities, a systematic. approach to
,turnover of areas is established'. Prior to, acceptance of a surveyxunit for final status survey, the* folwinig conditfions:--must Ne safisfied, u less auth'-ized by the FSS Superintendent in accordance with established procedures. These include:
- a. D6comimiissibning activitieshavig..th p6tenftial:tb' contaminate the survey'unit must be cbmplete'.
- b. Tools and equipment not requir-ed fr the survey must be removed, and housekeeping and cleanup must be-complete, except as noted in. section 5.1.2.a,
- e. De0ontaminiation activities inthe aea must bue comIete.
- d. Final remediationsurveys, where applicable; must be complete. These surveys will consist of:
L. Scan surveys or fixed.measurements to ensure that surface
- c6rita6miihoti is within theFSS f6tal Suffte coritamifnation:
-limits.
- 2. Smear* surveys toeisurel aht the remfiovable6 surface cowtarhinatinii-s within the FSS removable surface
!contaminationlimits' (i"e, 10% cofthe surfareecontamination liiti).
- 3. Volumetric-samplesf or scans to ensure-soil remediation is.
-within acceptable FS9S coficentration limirts.
*e. Access.control or other measures .to.prevent:recontamination-must.ie.
implemented. f, Turnover surveys may beperformed and documented to the same standards as FSS surveys so that data can be:used for FSS. 5.11.2 Walkdown The principal objective of the :walkdown is to assess the physical scope of the survey unit. For systems, it will include:a review of system drawings and a physical
MYAPC License Termination Plan page 53 Revision 6 January 2014-walkdown of the system. Structures and openland. areas will -also be walked down. The walkdown is best completed when the final conflgur-ti0n of the areais k*now' usuallymnear: or after.completion of decommissioning activities for the area. The: wAlkdown enisures that the area has been left*in the necessary configuration for FSS or that any further-work. has been identified. The.w.alkdown provides:detailed physi ica nformation for-survey design. Details such.as floor Coatings, structural. inter erencf s or sources needing special survey. techniques caný be deterfined. Specific requirements will be identified for accessing the:survey area.and .obtaining sppo.rt funtflan necessary. to conduct the,-final status surveys, such as scaffolding, interference.removal, and electrical tag out. Sa.fetN concerns, such as aci!ess to confined spaces, tidal areas, and high walls and/or ceilings, will be identified. 5.11.3. Transfer of Control Once:a:walkdown has been performed and the tumover.re.quireme.nts have b.een, met,-coptrol of Aiccess to the area is transferred from the C6nstruction and Radia*n*ic Protection operatiro'ns groups to the FSS grtup. TuinoVet i:s accomplish-ed using admi.i.sttrative, controis,., Access, controland-isolation methods are descrnbed:below.,
- 5. i 1.4 Isolation and Control. Measures Since de'omm"issionitigactivities will not be co0mpleted pipr to the start ofthe final status survey, -measures will be implemented to protect survey areas from contamination during and subsequent to the final status-survey. Decommissioning activities creating a potential for the spread of contamination will be completed within :eachlsurvey janit prior to the final status survey. Additionally, decommissfiQing a.c,ctivities which create apotential for the spread of contamination to adjacent AeasWill be evaluated and controlled.
Upon.commencement of the final status ,survey for survey areasmwithin the RA. where there is, a.po.tential for r*e-contamination, implementation of one or more:of the following cntrol: measures will be required:
- a. Personnel training
ýb. Installationof barriers to control access~to surveyed areas
- c. Installation of barriers to prevent the migration. of cohtainaitfion .fri adjacent overhead areas
- d. Installation. of postings requiring contamination moinitoring prior-to surveyed area access
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-84 Revision 6 January.2014 .
- e. Locking entrancespto survey edareas of the facility f Installation 'oftamper-evident labels Rouftine coit atio-n 6Ue.
si'rv wdil performediin areas, folowing.FSS compleion to monitor-f6r.indications of.re-contamination and-to verify postings and accss ct1 measures. Srvey~freqency will be based 6n the potential for re-contamit~ation as-determined bytie-FS$ Superintendent. At-aminimum, routine surveys wit! be performed' quarterly for.structures located within the RA. Routine contaminiation cohtrold .uiv., wlii t b requ#d for openland, areas: and structures ýutside.of theiWRA thatreenot normally occpled and are unlikely to be impacted bydecommissioning;-activitiesi Routine surveys of are*swh6re FSS his been cqmpleted will nogrmally include
*survey'locationsat floorlev.el. and on lower:Walls. Locations will be selected.on a jud".*e 'bais*,s ponod e6.hmn.ian experience and-conditons present in the survey area at the time of thIesurvey,. but r.e imarily*designedto detect the migr .ation.of contamination -from le~comm9issionin atvities .taking place in adj~acentand'other areas'i close proximityw hich could: cause-a potential change in conditions.
5.121 :Refrences 5.12.1 10CFR201.402, Radiological Cfiteria&for Unrestricted Use. 5.12.2 10CFR50.82, Te ation of License. 5.1-2.3 40CFRl4l.1,25 -through,27., National Primary;Drinking:Water Regulation.. 5.12.4 State ofManeMLawi - LD.2688-SP1084, "An Act.to Establish Clean-up0-Sta dardsefor Decomissio.ning Nuclear FaCilities," April 26, 2000 5.1-2.5 MY P6st Shiufd-ovDec'bmmssigonigActiv*iies Report.(PSDAR), MN-7-919; dated Au.st.2..7, 1997 ai*sulinented by MNW98-65 dated November"3, 1.9I98. 5.1-2.6 NY Hisfofibal Sitfi Aisis ýtati- ifiittedby-MN-01,038 dated Ocetobr 1,2001.. 5.12.7 GTS Duiitek, 'ýChiarteiizatioiin Siurvey Report for thesMaine Yankee Atomic Power Plnt-," Volumes 1-9, 1998.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 5-85 Revision 6 January.2014 5.12.8 MY Quality Assurance Program. 5.12.9 MY Corrective Action Program. 5.12.10 NUREG-'1575., "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" (MARS SIM),lRevision 1 (June 2001) 5.12.11 NUREG- 1507., "Minimum Detectable..Concentrations With Typical Radiation Survey Instrumentsý for Various Field Conditions," December 5.12.,1-22 N .G--505;
,"A. Nonparametric Statistical. Methodology for the Design and Analysis ofrfina!.Stats D.ecommissioning.Surveys,"
Rev.1, June 1998 draft. 5.12.131NUR .- 549, "Using Decision Methods for Dose Assessment. to Comply with Radiolpgical Criteria for License Termination," July 1998@dr:. 5-.12.14 Appndix* E, NUREG 1727, "DemonstratingCompliance with the Radiological Criteria for License Termination," September 15, 2000-5.12.15 NUREG-1727, "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan," Septeober .5, 2000. 5.12.16 Initial and Continuing Training For Decommissioning course descriptions+
-5.12.17 Radiationprotectiogn Performance Assessment.Program (PMP 6.0.8).
5.12.18 Radiation Protection InstrUmentation Program (PMP 6.4); 5.12.19 Operation and -Calibration of the Gamma Spectroscopy System (DI 6-306). 5.12:20, .opefion,;pf ehe Packa*rM6deM:4od*e430 -iquid.Scintillation.(DI 6-31:6) 5.12.2i Final Status, Survey Program (PMP 6.7)..
.56:12.22 ESS Survey Procedure for Structures, Systems and.Soils.(PMP 6.7.1).
5.12.23. FSS Survey Unit Classification (PMP 6.7.2). 5.12.24 FSS Quality Control (PMP 6.7.3).:
MYAPC License Termination Plan 'Page 5-86 Revision 6 JanuAry 2014 5.12.25 FSS Survey Package Preparation and Control (PMP 6.7.4). 5.12.26 FSS Survey Area Turnover and Control (PMP 6.7.5). 5.12.27 FSS Data Processing and Reporting: (PMP ,6,7.8). 5.12.28 Selection, Training and Qualification of RP/Waste Personnel (PMP 6.9). 5.12.29 Instrument Quality Assurance (PMP 6.4.1). 5.12.30 Document Control Program (0-07-1). 5.12.31 Operation of the Tennelec LB-5 100 Gas Flow Proportional Instrument procedure (DI 6-2 10). 5.12.32 Instruiient.,Selection and:MDC.Calculation (EC 009-01). 5.12.33 NRC letter to Maine Yankee,ý dated Augut 23., 2002 "garding classification downgrade and other LTP issues. 5.12.34 Use of the SPA-3 Detector for Concrete Scan Surveys (EC 002-03) 5.12.35 White Paper 2002-001., "The Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys" 5.12.36 Revised Report on Eberline Model E-600 Field Testing (MN-03-009) 5.12.37 Maine Yankee Letter to NRC, MN,03-W051, dated:September 3, 2003, Technical Basis Document for NC CReve'v- Forebay FSS Survey Measurement Methods (In-Situ Gamia Sptrosopf)-30 D No'Ntice per LTP Requirement 5.12.38 Maine Yankee Letter to NRC, MN-03-067, dated October 21,2003, Maine Yankee Response to NRC and State of Maine Comments on the Technical Basis Document for NRC Review - Forebay FSS Survey Measurement Methods (In-Situ Gamma Spect.rscopy)
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 5A Revision 6 Pagel1 of 1.0 January,2014..... ATTACHMENT, 5A Embedded and-Burid Pipe" Initial Finsi S-rOey:Classification Description
MY-APCLicense Termination Plan Atfacine'fit 5A Revlsion 6 PageZ of 10 January*2014, -. ......... Embedded and.Buried:Piping Remainine on'Site:
'The f6llowiin sections-.f bedd nd buried.pipbin will I oni site:f6plwiing denioliffon of above grade structures. This list- includes:.a description of the piping:,thepotemtiaLfo*r the piping to contain residual contamination..id.a'descriptionandthe initi MARSSIMclasifictio.
.... of th.e... . t.
On September 30,2005, NR- issued Amerdment.No. 172"coznsisting of tha unrestritedrelease bftl remaining land under License No. DPR-36 with the exception of the land where the ISFSI isjlocitod and a parcel of land adjacent to the ISFSI. These areas are not anticipated to have any-embedded or buried piping. The following information is retained for historical purposes. Containment Spray (C0300dy
-System
Description:
- The fUnCtion 6 f the Containment Spray (CS) system was to reducethe peak pressure in the containmentbuilding following aloss of coolant accident bylspraying water into the contaiiiment atmosphere, to remove radia'ctive iodine, Which would be released tothe 6ctainimen atmosphere during aloss of.coolnt-accidet, and tosupply wat#r to the suction gf btHgh.Pressue Safety.Injection pump 1.folloi reeipt of aRecirculation.Attuation SignalW (RAS) to provide the requireid sution. head. TheCS-:sygtem initially took suction from the Refueling Water -Storage Tank. Tesystem could-.take an alternate suction from the containment safeguards sump.vupon re eiving the.. RAS signal. Residutal ContaminaionPotential:. The Containent.Spray pipinghas a high-poten'tiAl for residual c6itamination. TheI portion'6f,the.pipigthat will re Ifoing da*e1oliticof abOve grde structures is embedded ini the.eonerete foundation of the Containment: Building.. The water. source XefuelgWater Storage Tank, was contaminated. available for the syste ... Survey Units: The Conta.inent Sp raypiping willjbesurvyed as a singie .sprvey unit. The-suirvey nit will ha4e.ani initial MARSSIMcol.issification'of Class 1. The.classification is ba*sd 6n the k6'wn p ence of contafination in th64isctibii sour'ce for the *i*etm. Containment Foundation Drains :(C2000) System
Description:
The Containment Foundation Drain piping is:usexd to transfer groundwater from ar6und the foindation Of the Containment:,Building to loweirthe hydrostatic piessure exerted on' the f6undation. The remaining piping consists6of four, two :inch 1]b, hrizontal, plastic, transfqr pips at approximately the -46!' 6"-,elvadtiod wh*chriun radially fromuniderneath the ICI pit to the -Cot iit Foudaton rai Sup Piuwelan one, sixic, ho6rizontal, ope j"n lay pipe at approxiaely. the- "8' 6"-elevation whichl.runs'about.90 dIegre-.. arouuid~the.so*hwes, .o.merenceofthe.cont.. mnent f6oindati6n.frorfi the.Spray-Buildi*ngto'the6C/ontaimet Fou.ndationDri- Sum::Pupw e Th" T.'1 horizontl n-feipes -trtadi* common, vertical, six foot ID, Containment FoundationDrain Sump Pumpwell whichruns from the -52' 3" el vtionmto gradeOlevel. Residual Cbntamination Potentil: The Containment Founidaio. .Drainpiping. ha a po.ential..`'or .residual coianation, butis., notlikely.to contain residual, radioactivityin excess of the DCGLAt.The pipig is wholly contained in the Restricted Area.and there are known instances of contaminated liquid spills in
MYAPC License Termination Plan :Attachment 5A Revisl'on 6 Page 3 of 10 January 2014 the area around the ContainmentBuildinjg Survey Units: The Containme#t .-Fodation Dram piping will.be surveyed as a single survey unit. The initial MARSSIM clsification of the survy itas Class 1. Th6biss.forclasification was operation knowledge 0 f the svstemand.data co,.e.tedm .support9ofte diological Environmental Monitoring :Program. Upon.reevaluation of continued. chariate.riation datai with respect to the balance of plant. embedded piping DCGLw1 ýthis survey~uiit has beau reclassifed'to Class 2. SAWitýr Waste M)0460) System
Description:
The Sanitary Waste (SW piping was used to transfer waste from the various buildings on site to the Sewage T.W.ame.Plant P whdi- th we W i t-as i-ed.a pior to disposal..The system tr ferred waste:from all areas of the' site includingsanitar facilities formerly -locatedin the Restricted Area. The portions of the piping that will remai after: the demolition ofabove grade structures will b6coaie witi theMahole systemdescribe in the ,torm Drains system- The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program: rquires that this outfalltbezmonitored periodically. The original otifall.for the system w"as to .the-Back.ve "f01 e1fgtment. In the mid-i 980s, the outfall ifor the system was connected-to.the ity-qf-W*.scasset sewage t*ttement system. Residual Contamihaton Potential: The Sanitary Waste pipinghas.i alow.potential :fr-residual. contamination. The leg..of the piping'that formerly, serviced the sanitary facilities in the:Restricted Area was removed frmqs.ervicein theearly 890.. : -ortibs'of the system may have ,been.contaminated with~medical is"oopes; ihowevr; *thse isotop'esareso'So*- iivý- and should be d-cayedl away by the time the system is surv.eyd. Survey Units: The abandoned leg of the aSaryt :Sewer pipingthat. donnected the sanitary facilities in the Restricted Area to the SewageTeaTWentPlant wil be s eye as.:.single survey unit. The initial MARSSIM classification of the piipnjgwl.lebe Cl*ss .3 Theclassification isbased .onoperational knowledge of the system and survey ata collected Ounng. initial site characterization'.. Circulating Water (D0500) SystemDescription: The CirculaiiingWater*(CW) system supplied cooling. water to the main condenser tube bundles .The, systge toPk. suq tionfrom theBack River at the Circulating Water Pump House. Four CW pu took suction foman indiy*adu1i*" ",-,and discharged to. an.d. daltpbe bundle. The CW in the tube bundle removedheat. fromthe turbme.-exhaust steam-that condened the steam.to condensate. water for return to the: steam g'enetatois. TheCW .exitig-the-tbebundles combined, a3d was. directed to
- thesd pRian,,I**ce.f0*. .Ie's~l.pit A.Watf a.d forqbay.wasie tn the Back-River. The Circulating. Water systemijs considered a ,sond -.side" sy.tm in thatthee w.as a physical bam.ier "Initial site chAracterization" (or ICS).refeirsto the initial chkaateization work'perfoimed by GTS Duratek as documented .in'the:"Caicteriza*tio :Siurve Rp.ort for.the.Maine Yankee Atonic Power
-PlawXt,-"998,-(Se.,th*e
.6,l.2) ontinuing charac;'tehtion, rofeisto.additioia!
cha-acteiiowinli foillwed the lOS and is an ongoing acioVity which collects additional data, as required, to-support remediation, dosemassessm.ent, and FSS activities. See also Section 2.1.
MYAPCP License Ternilnatlon Plan Attachmint SA Revislon.6. Page 4 of lO January: 2014 (Main-Steam.andýCondensate systems) between fhe water in the Circulating System and the contaminated systems of the pray 'plantý (Reactor.C Coolant,, etc.*). Reai~ia b t~itiab h~ irdi1at~i~Watfpiiff ha a ery low potextialfi residWa dot contminaion.i Mhe "lmg"iVs-Meaa frm- Yd the'jria~ry ýsystemn by'se'v'erali nterface s'ystems `The Steam Generto0r W.'tubes cted.as the separator for theprimaryand. seconqdary systems, and the main condenser tuibe bnMes:dteid t"heseparatoi&rfohe seecondary* systemn (Main.Steama, 'CndeniAte, dtc.)
.iid ihe6, M iipig ieop tinalIistoryof '- failit*y-' thalitno significant primary to secondaiyleakag o VTIpI * *eryreihote-chance thereSAM thesystem may have become coninate, AdditifnAll -C system pressure. as maintamind above the pressure of the turbine e~iaust. steam;. Iilie.eve' o f-a t*be b..unale l ~the. cW systein-water would have leakl minto the Condensate-systdewistea*d o*ondnsate le g into- the W system. During siteh chrterization activitieslow Ieels 6f~dete ble activity.weidentified on the nimin condenser outlet: side of the Circuatig Water-pipig. ontinuing racerizat'on Survey samples 'collected in theCW piping-
- identify very:low l6&~els ofplant :related radionueiides. The suspected cause "ofthe contamination was recirculation ofeal..l.le iffli diseagesito the sct.ion side oi the Circulating Watr Pum- Houie.
Sur* Ufiitg:
ý *giWater
'T C iit systemi'l.lbb:ýdividedhinto:two survey units.. The first.suI-,eYuniit will consist of .tie.1etsip.j;Wig ending at4et floor ofdihe Turbiie -Hall where the pipes have b.en cut off at~floo-r.le.el..-Thseols surveyunit.wiU consist of the-outlet side pipinmg at the floor of the Tubine Hll.wha -*ere hepipes wer cut6ff t floor.leve.l and ending.a*t *th OlPit and Fore Bay are. -Bot survey unit~s for s~, .ey-areawill initially be classifieAeas MARSSIM Class 3. The basis for ilasifcatioxi ofthe.survey.unitisidperati'onalk.I6owldg o..f-the.system, data obtaine in supp.drt. f the Radioiogi~~~~~~~l the pipn §onducte 4iin
"-tMitliidsanln'f
- Service :WhterF . . : - gq The Service ,Wate System csisits of two) bui...'inlet'pipes that carried sea water.through the component .coj.o .iheatexchangers. The dischage ofthe system consists of a single buriedline that go.esinto te.W,pit. '
The" a ,'e h ep ge pipe. Th w.ste'header is contained within its o'n.local Res .ieted Area within 'tl{e.Turbine Building. During Site Characterizatior, *lovw levels ofodeectý#le ,afivty. :;,werefentfidon the dischargelside of the piping. No direct beta rmeasurements wereaboy, Mhae.amthe -. l esofremovable:beta activity were dqete* a.bove..the -MDA (31,34 .dJ. T'00bffi2 W2Wfht'ie
- Vii*
Vairiii. h.'lari.pTositiVe.iridications of residual ativity-in this system are-associat.6.wih
- 1¶*.'*ui,effi uaent header location and the liquid radwaste radiation monitor installed at that' l6.tion; G ~amb~~ibwstopicjsainpies ýcollected atfthý liquid effuent line entrance point -and attr " L.a-d * . .. . *. .t . * , ~ ". , " .0 "
The nrdwaste pipfifg'Wll'rbderov aidnd dispbsed ofIasrtadioactive.waste. The buried.inlet*pbrtiolns of the Service.Wa tryst -W*il 1be....eov-l6utside of the Tiirbine Building and the portions beneath the Turbine Building beabandoned mxplace, iwill '-The..remaining poi ns of theservieWater discharge piping meetthehc.bfe.a0Ulais 3 area d will.be survye as a ingle survey unit-.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment SA evision Page s of lO File Protection (D0700) System
Description:
The water portion~of the Fire Protection (FP) system is the only section thatwill
- reain foUowing demltion'o-fabove grad' svtrctures. Water for figlrteiiig was stored inia man. made sto~ge po3nd loafed.zn ortfw..0oheplant. Makeup -water,fr.Athe pond was-sjupplied fromithe Montsweag Reservoir. Water was transferred to, the storage: pnd by.IWo rserv.oirpumps, w ch w.re
.oer*t.. a eq i -tokteep4he st.orge pond full. The former stor gpond iasaddressed as part.of survey aeR00. Two firfe spt0ok suction from theostorggepond anddiscliaged to the yard4oop wheret supplied
.j various fire headers and hydrants. The PP Sy ndid supply
-ot firefighting water to the Containment Buildg. Thei hose stations in the Containment Bu :were supplied*ftome P yWater System., The FireProtection systemis consideed:a "ksupport system" in that it did not intffc&.'ihthe. phiar dr"s'e'ond -'~d' of 6'i ulei sutpp.i Sji,ysytm Residual Contamination Potential: The Fire Protectioni pipinghas .a-ery low potential.for residual:
coamiation, The.piig dd not interface withether the imror the secondary side systemsoof the nxceýar.steam supply system.--,Although sections of the piping reside in theRestricted.Area, the!system operatifig pressure, even at atic headondijins, was sufficet to eue tat ay leakge would occur
&m the systemn, not into the: system. The Fire Water Protection system has beenjinadvertently.-cross
.coneoted with potentially contaminated systems in the past., Samples collected during the Continuing "Ch ati*i Su yivtey ave oy identified naturally,0occunng radioactive matdeial. No licensed activity has been identified nt.e system. S'veyv Uitits The F*irePoionpi(ipg will be, suveyed as a single-survey unit. The surveyunit will cns.iistofall buriedanid .em. .!edpipig remaining after the-de noniiionof the site above grade structures. The initial MARSSlM dlassification for the Fire Prot6ction pipingwill be Class 3. The classification'is based on knowledge of system operation and samples= eollected "in the storage:pond during,site.characterization: surveys and samples of the system collected as part,of the.Continuing Characterization Survey. Storm Drains (D3k00' System
Description:
The Storm Drain (SD) system is used to; drainwater-frorm the facility to the Back River. The system functions as.agravity drain system to remove. the water Via.a system of dragrat esi Bii4holes and piping. The system drains ihe entiresieboth inside:and outside theProtected Area. manholes ~tgo.ugh I P3.(S-.on Qftheqpiping) drain the Protoc .te-dAeaoutsidethe Restrited Area and south thofthe ihflin Tuijie t dat ins "~to ~ Biildingiand.Servic*
¢i,.a k1 iv er south B dng. The outfall fpr.this.oiping ai24
. .9..f the Circula~tin .g. ,W Qa,t .Pump. .$ou S~e:(C .WP ,!).; .M..anholes .,4 ax~d 5-($Secton 2 of the piping) dram an area inside-the*Protected Area outside the Restricted Area east of the Tu*ine; *Bildtn This li.ndrais the ar.,around the Main.Tranhsfoiiers. e6otfal :for :this.leg of ihe pjp ;ls.a 15_" e that d to the Back River-north of ,th QC P-Mnho!.es-6.through 11 andun-nmbered manholes north of the: Turbine Building (Section 3.of the-piping) drwa an area both inside and outiside theProtected Area. The-area drained is all outsidetheRestricted Area. These-legs all collect at Maiolf7and th. combined:outfallAis routed to the Back River immediatelyadjacent to.he northside~of the, WPH. Manholes 13 and' 14:(Section 4of the.piping) drai tepp.
- s frd.and thetu~r conir '-iaring lot.. The outfallfonr hs s.etion of the piping is the Back P*iver nor of the.
Information Center building. Manholes 30A, and 31 through 37 (Section 5 of the piping).drain an area
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachmedt SA Revision:6 Page 6'6.f 10 January 2014 inside'the .PiotectedtArea in the Resricdted Aiea. This leg of'thepijing r themiRCA Yard area around the Containment Building and the alley betw.een..the Containme*ntBuilding.and the Service , Building. Thesle le.af*.collect at Mahoihle:35ý,aidthe combinei outfaUllis rýuit tb d*leS6 Pit F*o*bay.
'M os 2.1-throug 24. (sec~tion6 of the piping) drain thenorth side of th Rest icted *Area.an.d the.oof ofthe WARTBuilding. The area drained isin side.tho roteted 'Aead Idbothfinside. andoutsie the.
Restricted Area. The combinedooutfall for this l~gjoins or leghat Mai*o1*127.--Mahble 2l5-, :25B, 261hrough 29 and 38 (Section 7 of the piping)drains areas d g the Fir :Pond and Wahouse ad outside the west end of the Restricted Area. The.outfall-frobmManhole 24,'joi-s this leg it M"afihoe 27. The combined outfall for this leg of the piping is' iouQd-toBailey.Cove6. Residual Contamination Potential: The Storm Drain:piping-hýaa-w ptential'in s0om i.lefgs I and a high pOtential in some legs for residual contamination. Secti.ns 1 ..rotugh 4.and sectionI7 upstram.of manhole 27 have a-low potential for residual contamination. Section's'5 throu-gl 7 (downstrted f and including manhole 27) have a high potential for residual cohtamination. Sections throuh4 a*n setibn 7 upstreatn lof manhole27 draih areas that have historically, been-outside theRestricted, Area.and ha.v a low potential for residual contamination. Sections 5 through 7 (downstreai of andinheluding mnailiole '27) drain areas in and adjacent to the Restricted Area and may have become ."elmintedde toy!ooe s'- cntamintion in anid on-yard structures and equipment being washed :into the drain.legs by.rain water'runoff and snow melting"
*SurveyUnits: Theý Storm Drain pipingmay: be diYided'into two surveyunits. The :fit:§reyiihit,*l include. sections 1 through 4 and section 7 Upstreamn of hiinho.e 27 6fthJeipg -` W ..itial AMRSSIM '"clasification for this; setion of the pipfing. will beC Cass3. The basi lass c"for.
fia.4ois oeraftional n'owledge,.survey'data obtained for initial site -cha-acterization.:activitfes antd 'as part. of'tIie Contiinuing ..Chareterizatiodn Survey,.iand results o6f the'.di R!ic al'E-.l
,o~g i.L*h. -. nd surveyunii will consist'of sections 5 through 7 (d str amf and!;l.c.udhmahh! ok!,2) of te piping.
The initial MARSSIM classification for this section ofthepip6 Will be .Tbai*:for e class ation isopea~tiona'knowledge and suivey data obtained din"g ini 1 ite6 c'ctei'zaion alrs andi.he Coninug Characterizatiobn:Survey. Roof Drains..(13600) System Dsci.ption: The Roof Drain (RD.) system removed'-water from.iherofs of various_ site:bu*idings and transferird.the water td the Stbim Diaiin system. 'The Roof Drains frombuild"iigs.outsidethie RCAwere rouited to-theStorm Drain piping sections that will beclaassified aAs Class 3. The Ro0fDr from buildng inside the.RCA were routed to the Storm Drain pipingsetions that willbe classifed as Class 1. Resdul Cnimiiif~i , .. I.. Pteiitia;:! Sec-tiotis of Rioof Drain. s §tem outg . .de-he.,CAlia,'vefa`lowpoteni tha *.. .for residualpcontamination. Sections ofthe RoofDrai y insstemh RCA have a lhighpotentiiil for .residiial contaminaticin. Survey Units:: The portions of the system that will remain following demolitidn.of above grade structures are:bried And: embedded sections of the: system th 'atssoc;iated with the Storm Drain system. For this reason, the Roof Drains will be :surveyed aspart .of the Sto_ .Dr,.ain .system.
MYAPC License. Termination Plan 'Attacbment SA Revisl.on 6 Page 7 of 10
.Jafiary'2014
.. h SystemrDescription: Several ContainmeitBuil ,pdingpeetrations will.remain following demolition of the abovye gra..de so ture.. T-he.penet.ratido.s cntain.mbedded.,piping fromnnumerqus-primaryýnmdseco ndary systems. The remaining penetrations are as follows: ,
- Approximately 20'linea: feet of up to 1"%piping SApprox tely35linear feet f 15" .Piping.
Ap ofl
, 2 piping
- Approximately.35 linear fet of .3"pipi.1
- Approximately-55 linear feet of4"piping
- Approximately 100 linear: feet of 6"piping
- Approximately 45 linear feet of V":pipIng Approxjitely ! linear feetofl., ppi-Ing*
- Approximately 25 linearvfeet ofi 6" pipijg
- pproximately 10 linear feet of 24 *":piping
-Approximately 20 li.ear feet of 30" piping
- pproximately 1:1 linear feet ofAO" Fuel Transfer T e pi Each ofthese penetration, except for the Fuel TransferiTube; consists:of a five-foot length of pipe penetration thogh the contaiiment fontiof#.n .wiall. The. c*al*culaed sface area of this embedded: :piping is approximately 78 in . . ...
The Primary Auxili 'Building and Spry Building'Penetrations (6Qf1), Seeray* non-cont entpiping penetrations through the Primary; Auxiliary Building and: Spray"Building$will remain in. the,,,espective building foundations.following de,.tion of..hi abovegrds t ch of these.penetrations-consists ofa32 to3 footlength o pfpiPepenetrationbrughe g-.bu'.din
..unaon wal The calculated surfaee area of this embedded piping is approximatdly1:9.5. m:
The spent fuel pool liner leak. detection system (24ft). Four I inch lines embedded in the spent fuel:pool structure will remain following demolition of the above grade structure. The calculated surface area of this 2 embedded pipingis approximately 0.6 m Residual.Contamination Potential: The penetrations that will remdin in the Containment Building, Primary AuxiliaryBuilding and"Spray Building have.a high potential for residuad contamination. Oneof the systems ..identified as having a remaining section ofembedded. pipingis.ontainment! Spray, which is known to contain residual contamffination Survey Units: The remaining sections of embedded-piping in the Conta ent Building may be surveyed
,as ,sige suryunit.
qa
- initial M.A S clificatiAdon assi et.,. heDenetrations-is Class: 1. The basis for classification is the ,iown pre . o ca.t ainin .ti n ithe..rC .ntai ent Spray system, the potential for residual contamination in ther* gpip dueto syem opetio.andack of control of the penetrations to prevent contamination -duringdismantlement activities in:the Containment Building.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 5A Revision 6. Page 8 of 10 A anuaz 7 2014 4.1... . ... Cassl Survey Units:
;,Cofntgin:tSpuray System (C0300)
-Physic"k Chkacteristics: The.reining embedded section of the Conti Spy.pi.ping-consists of meta:lpiping; DMcontaminaton: Prior to performing the FSS, the remaining piping vill be decontaminated. The decontamination will consist.of hydrolasing the embedded piping from the Containment Safeguards Sump dtothe suction ofthe.Containment Spray Pumps. Follow1inWg the h-dbl :i leg ofW-beddpipng will behsu yd for gross removable contamination.
ýScan surveys~for the-Containment Spriay piping will be c6ii~dte~da't*ie acedsiblehnds of the emnbedded pipVg. The surface-area scanned will be a small percentage of the total -area of the system. The location of ,theijmeaisurements will.be determined by dividinig thdetotal length 6f thepi pe by the number 6fnmeasurements t6obe colleced. The systematic spacing of the survey measurements is in keeping with the guidance of m"-RG14575§and.NUREG- 1727. TotalSurfaceContaminationfmeasurem-entswill b ecollie!cd using a pipe crawler:
Containment ýFowfdatibn Drains (C2000)l Moved
- to' Class 2 Su-veyU -niW§ 'Storm.Dra.ins(D3500) .SuOey Unit: The Class I survey unit for the Storm Drain pipig.consists ofthe secion ofae6pipingibound by Manholes: 30A and 31 through 37and the section of the piping bound by Manholes 21 through 24. :The survreyumnit-includes an unnumbered-manhole adjacent to the .. tidion of tiýTK-1,6-t;.e R Pet6rct. a:
Physical Charactefistics: The remaining sections of b-ied St"6r - Drinsi con",ist ofboth metia and ian'-.* concrete some of the metalsections. are;smooth wall andsome are corugated. spping. D.econtaintion: Thepiping.willr e~qui.,re econ tion.pr top. ormanceof the Final Status Survey.
.Thedecontamination will consist of rpmoving the sand and sediment from the piping lkw points and accesses (the manholes). The sand in the piping, contains naturally occurring radio*ive material.
Scan.Surveys:týAlthough this:.is Class 1 piping, physical ac=cssliikntg availabl'nm-ea'siiremenit'lceations'and scan-surve locations. Therefore, scan sqr'veys far *e' Storm Drai pipiýg Will b*e limited to ac'csgible porions of.the pipi.ng Scan surveys-will be performed inm areas w.ith he ghs.t potential *for-contamint*ion edoqnýp fe~ssiona.JUdAgmet.' Forthis reasn,.the scarn suluey:m willbetbiised.to piping low points-6 d IfC~an te scansre ilb promd-i the -,vc~nit -Ufi`e To6tal' Surfacep Contamintio'n measurements identified for the pipng:S.Scansureys-will: be:peormed on-as much ofthe iiterior surfaces of-the piping as possible.
.ey *L*ocattion Designation: -Su.reymeasureidnts for-the Sto6f EDainpipfpig will be collected at existing access points. The locations will be selected-based on engineeringjudgmentand biased to areas expected
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 5A Revision 6 Page 9of 10 January 2014 to contain the highest-residual activity levels. As the Final Status Survey of the remaining embedded and buried piping for the Storm Drain system; will be biased and not random, the. minimum numbb*r of measuremenichts 6ollected0on the system interior surfaces will be the number calculated using the methods described above or 30 measurements, whichever is greater. Building Peurtn(D-3800), Physical Characteristics: The remaining embedded piping in the .Building Penetrations-suey unit consists of smooth metal piping ,urfaces. Decontaniination:. The embeddedpiping re ng in the system will. be. decontaminated .prior to performance of theFinal Status Survey.: Scan Survey Cover ge:.100%, of.the acsble sys em. suraces, will receive a scan survey. Sections of embedded piping that are inaccessible. willrece.ive 1.00%.gross rpemoxvable contamination surveys. Thiswill include sections that are toossmall to.allow .probe entry into the pipe,
.Survey. Location Designation: Eaeh penetration. will- be assigned a number. The: numfer .of fixed iRl .t measurements will becalcuaed using themeth*od: described in the "sample size determinition" section of this plani. The measurementswill be randomly assigned to :the penetrations. The random measurements will be used due.to the difficulty of perfo4mig a systematic.survey oftthd penetrations. The penetrations fesid'e at multiple 6levations. ofthe b iina.inaon-contiguous manner. These factors make it.virtually impossible to perform a systematic survey -ofthe penetrations.
Class 2 Survey Units: Containment :Foundation:Drain,(C200O) Physical Characteristics: The remaining .buried sections of the Containment Foundation Drains piping consists ofplastic and clay piiping, Thevertical*)puip..well wallUhs perforated sections to allow groundwater to enter the pumpwell.. Thehorizontal.0p.pipg-.onsistsof..intactplastic.*and. openjoint laypiping. D.econtaminaton: Th*e cntanent F..unidationgnram piping is notaexpected, to require decont ntion. Samples of the outlet ofthe piping collected for the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program have identified Tritium as the only plant related. radion*ucide in the outlet. Scan Survcys;ý, San suveys .for-the. Containment .Foundation. Drain piping"will be limited;'to:accesible .portions of the piping' from the Contairnfet Fb.uidation 'Drain Sump Purpwell. Scan surveys willibe performed on 10,toj100% ofthe interior.surfaces.of.thq piping and pumpwell. The number ofmeasurements.
-willbe determinedusing.thoesign.test.andwill be.applied to theltotal accessible urace.aa ofth p'ipe id p pwel.. Thesystematicspacing of.the sur a.surements is in keeping with the gmid e feNU "G-1575 and NR '-1727..-TotalSpfaceCon.tamin.ation. measurements willhbe collected using a.,miinuially deployed detector. When direct sample locations: fal upon surfaces which are not amienable -to guface detection (e6g., moisture saturated surfaces orppipe access restraicted by calcium build-up), .the volumetric samples of.concrete orintealpipescrapings will-be taken-and analyzed inaccordancie With Sectin 5.5 a.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Attachment 5A Revision 6 Page 10 of 10 January 2014 A volumetric sample will also be taken of sediment accumulated at the bottom of the sump pumpwell, if available. Class 3'Survey Units: Scan Surve Coverage: Scan surveys for Class 3 system survey units will be determined based on the Historical Site.Asses.sment (HSA) for the survey unit. In cases where .the initial site characterization and the continuing site characterization did not identify the presence of removable contamination or fixed point total surface contamination in excess of the DCGLIW, the areal.extent of the.scanning will be determined by engineering judgment and should.be in the range of 1 to 10%.of the:aiccssible suifates of the system. Section-5.5.3 of NUREG-1575 'recommends that scan surveys" be performed in areas with the highest potential for contamination based onprofessional judgment. For this reason, the scan survey will be biasedto system low points and system interfaces and the scan* survey will be performed in the: vicinity of the.Total Surface Contamination measurements identified for the system. Sample Size Determination: The.number of samples required fora survey.unit is based on the following: Statistical Test to be used: For Class 3 .system survey units, the sign test will be used to test the null hypothesis. Estimate. of Standard Deviation: The estimated standard deviation values for the systems will be derived from characterization data or measurements additional backgroud measurements, ifnecessary. In the event that there is insufficient data to estimatethe standard.dation,.:the..standard.deviations developed for Class 3 structural survey units with similar contamination potential as Ithe: system (i.e. Turbine Building 21' elevationpmaybe used for the Circulatg Water systei ). Th.ebasis for the estimated standard deviation used for the design ofthe FinalStatus Survey.of the survey area-or survey unit will be given in the survey package design instructions. The previously listed factors dircctly impact the, number of 'measurementsathat will be collected in .each survey u Thismethod:.of ca ltingthe numb.r..fsuv meu nts is valid regadlss of the size of the survey unit or the type of material (i.e. structure or open land area) being surveyed. Experience has shown that this method typically requires that approximately 14 measurements are'required for each survey unit at the :Maine:Yankee site. This method my. als&obe used to deter e the number of measurements required to demonstrate compliance in. a system survey unit.. The basis. for the method described is that random designation.of survey measurementlocictioniallo6s wfora.lower .sample popolation to be-used for the statistical analysis of.the survey unit. As-the-Firuai Status Sirveyo6fthe'remainiAngembedded andburied piping systems.will be biased and not..random* the&mim umnumber of measrements collected on the system itterior, surfaces wilI be the number.calcuate6dusing the methods described in the "Sample Size Determinao" section or 30 measurements, whichever is greater.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 January 2014
*MAINE YANKEE L"TP SECTION 6 COMPLIANCE WITHRADIOLOGICAL DOSE CRITERIA
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-1 Revision 6 .January 2014 -... . .. TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 COMPLIANCEtWITH THE RADIQLOGQICAL.D.OSECRTERIA ...... .. 6-1 6A1 Introduction.............................-... ...... ......... 6-1 6.2 Site Condition After Decommissioning.....,,,,.,..,. . ... 6-2 6.2.1 Site Geology and Hydrology ............ . , .. ......... 6-2 6.3 Critical' G oup .................... ...... 6-3 6.4 Conceptual Model. . ,...... ..... . ,. , . ........... 6-4 6.5 Environmental Media and Dose Pathways . .-. .. .... ..... 6-55.... 6.5.1 Contaminated Materials &. 4:.
... .&........ ..... .... . .. 5 6.5.2 Enivironmefntal Media .... .... .................. 06-5 6.5.3 Dose Pathwvays. ............. .... . . .... 6-..
5. 6.5.4 Radionuclide Concentratioris in:.Envionmiental Media .. . 6-6 6.6 M.ateia! Dpecifi
.DoseAs~s.,e..t Metliods and.Un"tized'D.oS-Factors ... _6-8 6.6.1 Contaminated Basement Surfaces .......................... 6-8 6.6.2 Activated Basement Concrete/Rebar . . .. ... .<....... 6-20.
6.6.3 Emnb0edd. Pipe ., 6-24 6.6.4 SurfaceSoil ...... . ,, ...... 6-27 6.6.5 :Deep Soi .... 6-29 6.6.6 Groundwater . .,.,. .... .... ;: ,.,. ... . 6-31 6.6.7 Surface Water. ............ ,.. ......... ....... 6-32: 6.6.8 Buried Piping ...... ... ... , ,. .... ,...... 6-33 . 6.6.9 Forebay an.d Diffuser. , , ,.,. . .. .. , .. 6-35 6.6.10 Circulating Water Pump House ... ,,. , . ,....,6-36 6- l 6.7 Material Specific DCGLs and Total Dose iCa0lclation ..................... 6-36 6.7.1 Conceptual Model for Suming.ContanmintedMaterial Dose ..... 6-40 I: 6.7..2 Method and Calculations for Summing,CQontaminated Material Dose
....... .... ., . . . . ,, . ,-: . . ... . . . .6-41 6.8 Area Factors:. .,... -. . . .... . .6-46.
6.8.1 Basement Contamination ...... .......... ..... :.. ..... 6-46 6.8.2 Surface So.iland Deep Soil Area Factors: .-. .:,..,.. 6-47
MYAPC License Terinination Plan Page 6-11 Revision 6 6.8.3 Embedded Piping Area Factors ,. .. . ,. , .,., , .... ,.. .... .,, 6-48 6.8.4 Buried Pip'gAreaF-cf .t...... . :L. 6-48 6.8.5 Activated Concrete/RebarA-rea Factors:.. ,*., , ... 6-49 6.9 Standing Building Dose* * .tad DC.GL Dete f!6n, .. ,., 6-49 6.9.1 Dose Assessment.M.thod................... .... , .. . 6-49, 6.9.2 Standing.Building.DCGLs............. .o.......... ,... .*........ ..... 650 6.9.3 Staniding'Buildingi"Area Fatr. ........... 6651 6.10 References ............... .:.. .. ., 6&........., 52 Attachments Attachment.6-1 Fill Direct Dose Microshield Output -2 BNL Kd Report for Fill -3 BNL Kd Report for Concrete -4 Irrigation Memorandum -5 Concrete Density -6 Deleted -7 Remaining Embedded Piping Attachment.6-8 D'ep Soil Microshield Output Attachment.6-9 Deep Soil RESRAD Output
MYAPC License Termination plan Page.6-1if Revision 6 January.2014 Attachment 6-10 Buried Pipin g List and Projected Concentration Calculation Attachment 6-&11 Buried. Piping RESR.AD OutPUt ,Attachment 6-1.2 Buried Piping Microshield 0utput .Attachment 6-13 DCGL/Total Dose Spreadsheets Attachment 6-14 Soil Area Factor Microshield Output Attachment 6-15. Standing BuildingArea Factor Microshield Output Attachment 6-16 Forebay Sediment Dose Assessment (Has.been~replaced by Attachment 2H) -17 Deleted -.18 NRC Screening Levels for Contaminated.Basement and Special.Areas -19 Special Areas Unitized Dose Factors -20 Dose Model Input Parameters List of Tables Table.-6-1 Environmental Media Affected by Transfer from Contaminated Materials ,....... ;.. , , 6-7 Table 6-2 Environmental Media and Dose Pathways for the Resident FarmterScenatio ..... .6-7
MYAPC License TerminationPiu Page6-iv Revision..6. January20140.
'Tabl'-6:3 Tbe6-3. ýSeiected Kd Values: (cm:/g) for Basement Fill Model .,. .. ..,.... ! ,.*........, .>.... , '.6-, 17 Contaminated.Basement Surfaces Unitized Dose Factors ..,.,. <. . , ...... ... ,. ,6-22 Table 6-5 'Table 6-6A BO8P `Embedded Piping Unitized DoseFactors. .,....625 Table 6-6B Embedded Spray Pump Piping Unitized Dose Factors ....... ....... . ........... . 6-26
'Tableý 6-7
- Surface Soil Unitized Dose Factors 1.0 pCi/g Cs-137 *....... .. ,..: , .,:, 6-:29 Thbl0 6-8
- Site Specific Parameters used in RESRAD Deep Soil Analysis .... ... .. ,,, .:.,- 2. ,. 6-30
;Table66-9 Deep Soil Unitized. Dose Factors .. ....... ....... ....
.. ....... ,.. 6-31 e6-10 Buried Piping Unitized Dose Factors........... ........ . .--. ,........ ............ 6-35 Tabletd6--A Table.
Deleted6-40B &36 Ta'tble 6-411 a Containment Contaminated Material DCGL .. ..... ,. ., , ,:. .... :,....,. ...,...6-38 NoniCo-taiinent.Contaminated Material DCGL ýT ble 6-"12 Area Factors (AF) for Surface Soil and Deep Soil ........ , ;.:. ... ....... 6-48
MYAPC License Termination Plan -Page 6&v RevqiIon 6 JanuaryI014 Table 6-13 Gross .Beta DCGL For Standing Buildings.......... . :. ... -51 Table"6-14: AraFcos(A.)*for Staniding :Buildings...
, .. . .. . . .... ..... *~ ~6-52
MYAPC License Termination Plan &ag
-I Revision 6
.January_2014...... A6.O COMPLIAMC WITH THE RADIOLOGICAL DOSEWCRTEA 6.1 Introduction The goal Of the .MY.deco6mmision~iing .project is ,to 1release the site forursrce use"in compfiance With the-NRC's A"na dse mt of-25 nlren~i~plu-s ALARAad h
-enhaed eS&tate of Maine glean-up-criteria-of 10 mrem/y or!iess for allpathways :and
- 4. nirei 6reso fodr;groundwater sources. Both the -Stae*nd NCcseliits apply to residul radioativity that is distingishiable from background. This section.proVides the methods for calculating the annual dose from residual. radioaefivty-that~may remain when the site released for unresiricted use.
.Thedose assessmentmeth&ods are used to determine:Derived ..Concentration Guideline
*L els: (DC.G..Ls) fdr..nine different potentially contanminated imiaterials. 'The DCOGLs are the.levels -ofresidual radioActivity that correspond: to the enhaiced:state clean-ipbciterita of I lrenIyzorless for all pathways and 4.mrem/y orless for groundwater-sources to-the averagmembe0dfilie citical group. The DCGLs developed to0demonstrate ompliance wit te ealnc~d':Stdt'e' crifteria ar itede o lssr tdmnsate e% comlplance withthe. NRC'.s25 mrnm/y plus ALARA regulafion.
Maine Yankee intends to dismantle equipment and systems and remediadtestrutuýres and land areas .(per LTP Sections 3 and 4) to ensure that residual radioactivity levelszareat, or obedow;
- tei&P-OLs. After.remediation*is compled,.a * .*nfit survey .wll be -prformed d6cu'i t hý t h DCGLs have-bbiennmet and serveto demonstrate th vat'th,& Radiological Criteria,'for.iAense.:Tenmination, as codified in 10 C.R 20:Suhpart 2 an *Maine State Law LD.,2688'SP 1084. have be:6 -fully satis-fied.:
A dbso assessmentWill. be performed for: eacho-f-thie.follbwing mate;rials: 1) contaminated
.biilibaiii siacs; 2mbeded pe;3) activated 'cnc&et'rebag;
- 4) .groundwatbr .5),surface water; 6) surface-sbils 7) bufi6edpip'ing; 8),de ils; ad 9)
Forebay sedment., Appropriate.dose models and model:input.parameters were dev.eloped an d1j6stfiefo6 eah material. The dose:from eadh material wa e diated and'.isum med withhatfrom othe* materials as nebessaryt6 detemiine thet totald.oe;to the aveage
-member-ofthe criti6ca group.
Md. .. . f September-30,2005.
-the onydecommisinn s '.oi ativtie'sthat'rmnar g a ..
thos as:*sociated rher ISFSI. The minformationcinclude in thisseceton': ofthe'LTPincIudes itis~torfica'..nformation regarding the decommissioning ofthe-Maine:Yake NuclearPlant th will be n*iaitained in.itscurrent forim. This informatioin will be .revi'twe, w nd"e 'iedl
*as inecessary*,:atthe*time of initiating the decommissioning activities. for the. ISFSI and associated. land areasoto ensure that appropriate information, is available:for the.
MYAPC License Termnliadoii-P*in Page 6-2
- Revision.6
.Januarz.2014 implementation: of final status survey activities -forthe ISFSI and t.ermination of the.Part ,[ 50 License for the Maine Yankee site. 6.2 Site.Condition,After Decommissioning This section provides, a brief overview of the planned -site condition after% decommissioning as well as a summaryof site geology and,hydrology.. Detailed. information on the planned final site condition is:provided in Section 3.,4. LITP Section 8.4. povides mre deAiled overview of the. geological and,,hydrolggical characteristics-,ofthe site. In general, when dedoissioning is complete-the site will be predomiatly a bae*l,led and-graded. land area.restored with indigenous vegetative, over. The=onlyabove grade. structures rem.ngaingper the current plans include the, 345 KV switchyard,. The former Low-Level Waste Storage Building (now the ISFSI Securi0y Operations Bui!g):will remain in place until the: fuel is removed from the ISFSI. Building basementswand Sfoundations greater than:three feet below grade willbe backfilled and.le..ftJnplace. Buriedpipn thatis -atleast threezfeet below grade will be remediated~as necessary, surveyed, and-abandonied :in:place.
.6.2.1 SiteG*!eolgy and Hydrology The-site geology consists..of a series of iidges and va.leys-s*iking .nor,.-south that ref!.t the copmp ney and;stctural narof.the..ue4rqk ,*
2 D1)00 valleys :are filled with glaciomarine clay-,silt soil and nidges are characteri&d by exposed bedrock ,orthi soil` cover ov. .errck. .Surface dige moves both tothe north and south along.the axes of the topographic valleys and also runs east and west down the flanks of the ridges. In the plant area, where the ground surface is relatively flat, manmade-undergroundstormi drains~and.catchb.asins control the-surface*runoff. Ili the aiea-southrof Old Fey Roadrainage-omalge aea north of Old FerryR..oad and theý0orthern.half ofB.ailey Point discharges in undground manmade piping to Bailey Cove. Th6 gprudwater, r.e*me at the Maine Yankee facility.is comprised of. o aquifers*.: (1): addiscontinuous surficial aquifer-in.thoeunconsolidatecfglaciomarine soils and ill ,material; and (2)-a bedrock aquifer. The surficial: aquifer is not presentitn oly .acrss the siTte, as oveburden soilsare, thin non-existent in somedportions of the site. This is especially true:in-the southern portion:of-Bailey Point. The bedrock aquifer iSipresent belowthe ýentire site and vic.inity.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-3 Revision 6 January.2014 . Groundwater originating near. the surface-ihn the northern portion of the site gen'erally moves vertically ihto-the..soil exceptf-i the wetland areas where groundwater.'*ischarge localy occuumr After slow movement through.the soil, the groundwatder mioves into the; depe.r be&dok. and travels toward the bay, di.sharging upward in the :ear-gsbre area.. Ifi the-sout'tini.P6rti6n.bf.the site,
;groundwater originating near. ground, surface generally stays.near the surface,
- raher than.penietrating-deep -into-thebIedibek.
'Duringplant operatiwni,:impaects.td the.groundwater flow:.regime were limited to draw-down. of-.the..groundwater surface caused by. foundation drains around the
!conta:nenft structure. and,%to a 16ser extent, draw-doWn.1.eaused by active water
;supply wdells. -The contariment :structure:.was dismarntled, to. 3 feetbelow grade and'-1ackfilled. Thus,- groundwater levels~are:expeeted to-recover to app-oximate pre-construction levels.
6.3 Critical Group The reguitdioh'sirf 1.0iCFR F20.-Subpart ERrequlire ithedosewto be-calculated forathe average memb.erofthe- critical group. Thecritical grqup:.is.defined in 10CFR2.10035.as "'the groui:offidiV.iduals reasonably expecvted t6 reciVe the greatest egposure to residual r.adioactivity .forany applicable set of circumstances." The averagemember ofthe critical grouppis-a,,.conservative iapproach andis:al§o .usedifor demonstratingicompliancee with the dose criteria in MaiSne 1ta6 LLD 2688-SP 1(84. The 6ritical godup selected for the M,-Ysite--ds'e assessmeint is-the resident:-farmier... The.resident ftfimer is a.person ho lives on the site after the site is released. for unrestricted use and derives all dring and id gation water from an.onsite well. In a:ddiftin, a sigxificant *portion of the resident's diet is assumed to be derived from food g9w n.. nsite- *NRC.guidance in NUEG-1-727, NUREG--!549, and NUREG-55 2 identif*y the isident farmera: acofiserv-*tive.onsite ctritical.group. The-resideent farmer critical groupiapplies-to existing open land ar-eas adrd all site.areas where standing buildings haýe been removed,to three .feet below:grade. It isis-ffikely-that other future site uses would result in adose exteeding.that calculated
.for they4t.yl.eti.'al-resident farriier.. It is more prdbable:.that actual future~occupants of thile ;site*oi0id igage in behaviors that would"result inblowerdoses. For example, it is morelikelythat a hypothetical, future:resident would:uselthemurnicipaliwater supply, as opposed to -welwater, since t.hi is .the ecommon practice in the vicinity of.the: site and the yield'from- on'site test wellsha's been.determined to be low and nbt. suithble 'for consumption.., Further, it is most likely'that the site will be.limited.to induftrial use. In this case*&he future site occupant would: be a worker -as opposed toj,the resident farmer. A third ex"Amp*l* w'uld.be an onsite resident Who does not derive a significa.nt fraction of
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-4 Re~ision 6 January,2014 - - dietary needs from an~onsite farm. The: important. onclision from these examples is that the dose calculated for the hypthetical resident farmer .will likely be a conservative estimate of the dose that an actual site occupant or siteisit.or would receive. Maine Yankee has-assessed, the potential for .the-filed basements: to be excavated and
.0coupied at sometime-inithefiu*tueand. does not believp-9that .tisscenario meets the "reasonable expectation" threshold:r.equired by-the, definition of aeritical group in 10 CFR 20.1003. Asstatedin NUREG-1:727, page C26, compliance with the dose limit
*does not require an*invyesigat.oo*_of* al possibl.eIse .r-.4s0d t*heuse of the average member of the critical group-is intended.:to emphasize. the uncertafinty and assumptions needed in calculating tial future dose, w`eii mtg ',omundless speculation" on possible -future exposu*u*re- s*enaro .disouss aWe.a., selecting the resident farmer critical group is a sufficientlyýconservative projection of futureland use. Further assuming that an individual excavates filled bas*mentscand attempts to renovate and occupy the basements is not considered plausible akndresults in excessive conservatism.
Notwithstanding the very low probabiy:ltof excavation:occurring, Maine YankeewilI limit.thepotential activity.on bas*ement fil!t,: co'nofratio*I"belw 'the surface soil
- D.CGL level ceorrespondingt. t 10mtem/y. In addition,-. ost- tudiest conducted.to date:
indicate that.it .is more-expensive to remediate-soil tha basementfsurface,coam ination. As discussed in Section 6.9, the selected BasmenVtC*o i ation DCGLs are-limited in order to.maximizesoil DC.GLLlevels T.heecost optipiktionpproess supported selecting Basement Contamination DC.3Ls that'are.below *the.C screening values for standing building surfaces., At thesleVels, -th.ere'sidfit fairnier dose for =ontaination on basement surfaces was shown to be low(per Table6:6- Il) for any credible future land use. 6.4 Conceptual Model The.Conceptual Model-for dose to-*the residentibfarmer ,critial asome group is differentto exten,t for eachcontaT.minated material duelto, the di'ffeTent physical characteristics of the materials and differen.t:-source term :radionuiclides .The: Conceptuil Model. for each material is described. in detail. in Section 6.6. In general, the overall.site Concepta lMod*el*inud ahrsident faer who lives :on the site after release for nt-nestnicte*l-se, dtaW-s-diing-wate' anid iigftion-Water-from the
,worst-case onsite welli!ocation, andderivesia. ubstantialperceniagepof annual food
-rquirements from the onsite resident-fanm, The hypothetical dose-from each potentially:contaminated-material is levaluated, independently. However, total.residenit famer d.ose rslts tom-the summation of the contributions-fromiallmaterials and- all pathways&. The method for :summing the doses and selecting DCGLsbfor all contaminated materials is provided in Section 6.7.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-5 Revision 6 January 2014 6.5 EnvironmentalMedia and Dose Pathways 6.5. 1 Contaminated Materials There are nine cOtt WttedmatcOuld tctnibute.to dose:
- a. Embedded pipe
- b. Buried pipe
*c.. Activated concrete/rebar
- d. ,Groundwater e.- Surface.W,at&
- f. Basement surfaces g.: Surface soil
- h. Deep soil i.. Forebay Sediment 6.5.2 Enviionmental Media After considering radionuclide transfer fromthe nine contaminated materials, there are five environmental media that could-deliver dose to the resident fanner.
These are groundwater, surface soil, de soil,.sraeewater, and basement fill.
-Groundwater concentration-may-increase throughithe transfer of radionuclides from; contaminate:basement ,as,;activiyatoed cnre/rebar, r deep soil, and emnbedde~iipe. Nortnthat teg, dwat' environ*
- tal mediu includes contributions from water. contained in.building ,basements:as well as other sources.
Bas ement ill.may-a!_* kecom_e.ig1~tly .Qn*r.itnat.d ough them tr.ansfer of contamination from basement sufcs meddppnand activated concretelrebar. Table'6&. indicates:which environnlental media are affected by the transter.of radionucfides from contaminated materials. The residual contamination in the Foreba:6sdiment is not transferred to any of
.the five environmental media:and "is:evaluated!independetly. Therefore, Forebay se~diment is not included in Table .6-1. The foreba arwea was released from the 10 CFR 50 License in September 2005.
6.5.3 DoseiPathways The five,environmental media listed in.Table-6-l deliverdose to the resident farmer through one or more of the follov Mwin[gdose pathways: 1) drinking water; 2).direct exPosur; 3) inge g soil,-plats, anmals, or fish; and 4).inhaling resuspended soil. These pathways are :consistent with ihose listed in
MYAPC License Termination Plan PNge 6-6 Revision 6 January,,2014. NUREG- 1.549 for the:,resident farmer.. A given .environmental medium wil.l not contribute dose through all pathways. Table 6-2 lists the dose pathways applicable to each environmental medium. No,te* that"groundvWater contributes to :the plantand animal, pathways through irrigation. 6.5.4 RadionuclideConicentrations in Environmuental Media To calculate the dose from each pathwaiy the radio-nuilide concentrations in each environmental medium. must be calculated. The concentrations in the :suiface. soil, deep.soil, and surface water can be% used directly.in the1dose.assessment since; there.is no conbution from other contaminated materials. However, the final concentrations in groundwaterand basement fill, and the resulting dose, will depend on the transfer of contamination from other materials. Final concentrations in the five environmental media are-calculated bY suming .. contributions from various materials as listed below. Thee contaminated materials that contribute to each of th :.envionmnen.t"al media are: summarzedbledw. The materials in brackets are those .reqUiring-transfer evaluatioins.
- Grouofdwater.Concentration =[bsement-surfae conitamination] +
[nbedded-pipoe] -+-[actEivatedconcrete/rebar] + [deep soil] + [buried pipe]
+1existing, groundwater concentratioon Basement Fill Concentration = [basement surface contamination] +
[;embedded pipe]'+ [activated concrete/rebar] Surface..Soil Concentration s rface-soil conceetriý on Deep SoilConcentration = [buried pipe] + deep soil .concentration Sbflface Wattet Con0entration =.surface Water conceentration
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-7 Revision 6 Juanuy2014. Environmental Media* Affected br.:Transfer from Contaminated-.Mater~ials Ground. Surface Deep Surface Basement Water :Soil -Soil Water. FiT sBasement I!COnitamiation :, * . TSýurfce'Soil ___ ____ ___
-De Sil
... ,. r.... ........ .. ..
GroVidaier X____
!Surfacee Wilter "*....X *"..
Activated - concrete/rebar X Bu*ed.. Pipe x
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page6-8 Revision .6 jsnuary,261C .. .- .. ..
*6.6 Materialbpecific Dose Assessment Methods and Unitized Dose Factors
.Ea"ch material _has un:ique characteristics that must be considered when develoyipn the
- cncepitual andfmathematicalmodel for dose assessnient. This sec ionr providesethe: dose assess.ment .metho.ds,and re sults for each. material. in: a unitized format by expressing. the dose-as A dfiutioniof iiit;onceatiktions such as 1 dpfnI100 cm2 or 1 pCi. g,h::e' itiz
.format facilitates-eth&e, atiori of doses ffromall materials and the selection of.material specific DCGLs (see:Section .6.7).
6.6.&1 'Cdit~amiited;Basement.Surfaces
- a. Cohneptual Model The Dose Model for- contaminated'basement 'surfaces assum..s tat the buildinrgs are demolished to: three feet below grade. The remaiffing basements are then decontaminated as: necessaý, filled with :astitable
,material (current plans. call for fillwith Bank;.Run Sand .or flow.able: fill) ind-thb-.area iestored t grade, which res. lts in a'threeefoot cove .ve thel
.......... top-.ofthe filled basements. After the siteois restbred, xaiw*-teran groundwater infiltrate into the. bas-ements. and. o.ccupy the void spacie in: the, fill materfia. The available void spacevol umeis-a1 Unction of the_ fill
- rlporosity.
The enftire inventory of contamination on the basement sufac esii.nluding t16 c 6iiirete and steel liner,-is assumed to befinstantaneously relea§ed and mixed.-with the water that has infiltrated into the, basements. In.this context, "surface" is intended to include all adioactivity, at.all depths (this
-doesnIntnclude
* .. :* .> : . ,- .**activfl
- . . ..
- coicnrete,.which
. *-*:. . .-.* ... , -.--:,.:: _ _*. is tYedte. .. *a:. ae*vara*fe ffidtefig). Analyses of Maine Yankee cncrdte, have indicated that, on average, thecontamination is about I mmdeep in the concrete. The liner contamination: should be true surface.fceo'ntainiation,:i.e,, not .atan
,sighificant depth.
Using a mass balance. approach, the fadionui-lides f.itta.f rffoif
. .. _,~ p r .. .. ... . ...... , -. a ;
- e* .e .. .. m.
- the~surfaces area..ssumed to instantaneously reach equilibiium betwen the
-waterfil,;,.and concrete.. The relative *equilibrium' conecentrations in the Water,.fil, and Poficicte ate a fidntion of the mateial Kd, ifiass,..and porosity.
The crit*c~l~group is the resident farmer who.is assumed to drilla domestib water well into the Worst casebasemet, i.e., that With the highest
MYNA License Termination Plan Page 6-9 Revision-6 Ja 0'a:/2014 basement Surface area to.Volume ratio. The.eamount of activity available
'for.release is assumed to be dfiecly.proportion.l to the surf*cearea of contaminte
%. material. Therfoe the highet surfaced area/v.. 0-, olume rati-o results in.the maxiUm radionucide inventor a md i -mu-m1 concentrations in.the wate,6 ff11,.and cnete. The-resident..farmeris also as.sumed.to` occupy the lan~d'immeidd~iately ýabove .the basemenqt, which maximizes direct exposure throughlthe 34oofdoVter. '(Sintce .the'resid.nt fanmenr 'is assumed to recdive dose from 6expospure:to.: sufacesoil based on G00% stay-ife, 'the additional.direct dose fr6im basm6ent fill is a conservative addition to dose. -Thus, no credit jis taken overall for the absence or presence of the, 3 foot cover.)
The conceptual model results in three dose patways to theresidenty farmer: 1) dinking water from the well; 2) irrigating"with water f'om ihe well; and 3) direct radiation' firm radionudide in' the fill.
- b. -Mathematical-Model Armatheimiaitida iodielwas deVeloped tq, qalulAte the equflbrWhi radionuclide concentriations in the basement Wate*rfll,,and:concrete after
%the.i*nltration'ofriwaterandgroundwate;. " bont.3i.n.ainis.as.umned to diffRiks into6'a'id re'-.adisorb on db trdte uraessic o6ncret is !a,
- porous medlia. The re-adsorpfion on-the, steel liner isexpectedlto be less thnte .concret.e and.is considered to t .bOund44byithe.concrete: analysis.
-The.:mathemafical mioiOdel includes 6cuflatikn* t6 det ne thde eideiit fanr :doise from driking water der-ived fromaa well~ drilledd directly into the.basement.,fill, iriatn ffithte water n en diA.l expoedt the cove~red fill. The inodel is -inteiided to be-S a ini, onevatve screening approach.
The radionUclide inventory, water volme,..fill vome, and cocrete volum.e subject to re-adsorption are the quantities required to. determine tihe 'equilibrium radionuclide'concentrations in.*t.hthreematefials. The hiitiil: condition of the 'modelis that a volume.of.wate has inifilftraed'into thebasementthat is *qual to.the annual _volume ieqWtdr ffor h
- domesfic-use,. and:irrigation'by:theresident.:far'er. ,As.stated abbove. .the well is. placed directly -intothe basemenit fill co.ntaininig the Watei. VFrom this iitial conditiobn the volumes and masses 'f the-three.materials, and the.maximum radionuclide' inventory:released: to.,the water, :can be calculated.
'MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-10 Revision .6 January 2014 The anpnda resident:farmer well-water usage is assumed to be 738 n 3 (ju.stificaion provi.de4 below). This implies ftt the fll volume is 738m3 divided by teiporosityof the soil, which is'assumed to be 0.3
'.sifcton ppvidedLO belmo).,"ilerefore;,the model1 fill volume is 2460 mn. *his h i eminium fillvolume required to contain the annual resident farmerwater, vI*lume., Depending on the:infiltration rate, smaller fill voIumes ouldsup lyt6hereqired 738 my water volume, but this wouldredsulti*n:s *tlyloweraveage Ianual concentrations. Assuming a model volume-'gf-2460 im, -and no, dilution through infiltration recharge, is the mostconsvatiý4 apProach.. .
The onlyareas thattremainin the control of the 10 CFR 50 License are those that address the land that the-ISFSI sits on and an adjacent parcel of land. The RC rdl.eased the-other areas :fom the 10 CFR 50 License. The follw ing'infonatioinisretained to. provide the basis for the model volume. The actual basemet ope. ..... uI s of the PAB, Spray, and-Fuel buildings.
- are less hani 2460,*-ibutthe-containnent basement volume is greater, i 'e.,,821 i -...The l.age piq n nt volume has no :effect on the result since the addtioial .hjOthetidi dwater polume does not affect the radionuclidecod en~trations iinthewater, orthe assumed annual watertuse.
In fcit, 4s exsplainied belo;*o%.: gac containm*n ent basement soh in difi-~Vulum*. a-d*
-& rfap rea would reduce water concenitrationsh aw ifactor of 3.7 since the.surface area to volume ratio for the containment basement is lower than.that used.:in the model. The effect of surface areat'o volume rt4io6and the rationale for selecting the value used in the mode are describ e ow.,
The~basement surface ýaea to open volume ratios have a direct effect on the, esults and are necessary for determining two parameters. The most important affe*ted parameter is ftemax imum radionuclide inventory, Less jinportant.tbut al66frated't is the Volume.of concrete available for re-
- adsorptionofiadionuclides.
," ,* ... 1 . **.... ".. , ...
* ý..y
ýý,**
Using
.. :. , _g the maximum
ý ,e -. a,*5 surface area/volume
" .. u ra tio.fromthe four b~~.ments maximizes the radionuclide inventory and
*the resulting water, filLF,,dconcee coincnr ions.
The maximum ratio, of concrete.surface area/basement open volume of 1.7 m2!/ is found. n theSpy lui:ld'g basement. The surface ar1ea/volume rios fbf*the: CLent, PABand. Fuel buil4ings are
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.6-11 Revision 6 Januiary 2014., 0.46, m/m-, 1.03 ým2 /m3 ,2and3 0.49 n 2/m-,:respectively. Using the maximum.ratio .of1..7m Axiium.r~,..o
/m 'results in ..cosesrvative dose cilcUlations for t*iCoita P..
.n.ent,* ai.*d :FuTIW. building b$fa.etors of 3.7., 1.65,. and.3.5 respecthei!. astheproject6probeedsi Maine Yankee may use..
.Ifnecessary,
.bfldi.g-speciffic .surf*,e.. arey olm.e ra*.os.based: on the data'presented in S6ti0 6 ý.6.ýi*(d)-(2). t6-bai"itel builing-sp.ecific DCGLs.1 .
- Mu~fi!Nng~he.!3 +..
Sn.. 1 n :ratio by e fill volume (2460 i 3 ) results .in the maximii ctiinited.sifce area hht, c6i6ld contribute to. the source:
- Acordingly, the.maximum In:.fo a given 738 :n- *::ofwater.
term for a2'~n" surface-area, in :he model would.:beA4182 im, which exceeds the actual surface.:.area. of an y.of-.The +luflitmglNsmR` .o&curs ;because the 1..7 m 2/Im 3 ratio,*s iTts from the Spray'building and the-maximum sutface area of 3775 m2 is in theý:'Gontaiment buRiding.-However, consistent with a conservati.ve cieinOiiiig.pp6roach,:idid :mtiiftuifi tiI4con6ct nfathematical relatioiiships 2 bet'een poi-osity, annual Water volmee, andsurfaceearea,;the.4182 m surfacearea.wiii be used'in the model. Note that using.3775 rn would3 reda.ice:the aailibl69600rc* eran+d thereby' ir uee Waere concentrations. Assuming'-thatthe twater-penetrates-to a 'depth of 1 mm in the concrete, the concrnte,.voilume available to re-adso'rb radionub"clides from contarriinated wAter is 4'ni3. : li* mTdepth'isbased on-inii.yses of contaminated Main'e. Yankee bonet-. Alth'oug'thecnditior*S*are different, i~e, water
.sat.ration after-decommissioig versus periodic wet contamination v+ fiis-.di~rihg bpei-tid;fi&n,.o pth ei"tiin 6"-i.iiaer:'into the conrete -afterthe bas~enitts.are fille:d' wi-thwater :is*also: aissumed to be I ýmm. This:is
- onsidered .acon.servative assumpti.ion since1increasing the concrete ePneafi~tin depth will decrease the conrc ttins in-the fill. and in the w.ater.
The.moidel uses two a-prximations:relat&!d tore-adsorption onto, concrete
'that:have a very..smnall ffect on the. final results. First, the fill:volume.is calculated. assuming all of-the 738ý:m tvwater volumeis contained in the fill, n6fmixed'be6tveen the fill, ahd 6onciete. An exact solution Would re'quire consideration ofboth -thefill.and.concrete: volumes simiultaneously.
Howeveri, the affected .concreee..vyoume is very low-and the,.orresponding F*ororit~aimnment;the bui.'lding specific SA'Y ratjio of 0. 46 .m2 /ris used for a model surface area of 2
*113.0 M
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.6-12 Revision 6 January 2014 water volume inthe concrete.'is about 1 nm 9 -... This..is-less than 1% of the 3 73a8 m .totalfand is insignificant. SecobndAhe porosity of 0.3 is assumed toapply .b...tho. fill And: concrete... The se, porosities :are used in the model in order to:produce.the, simplified, solution provided in Equation 7,. site;-speciflc:measurementss idilicate-tha~t- the. actual concrete H..W r._wver, porqsýi is .045. Usin.. :.a.porosity*of 0. 15 Would, dedrdase the.volume of wate: in the conretee.to about 0.5. 0%. An exact solution to these two approximations would have-a very :sm.all effect on the results and'is an unnecessary evel of dietail Considering the: cnservative screening approach used in theymodel. The.app*r h.as ,mieanhifqrmi-nifi, g among.th*e soil, water, and concrete., Uniform mixing within the fill is not Unreasonable considering the surfaceare~a=-tovyolume ratio of 1.7 m~m..As2suming a planar geometry, this meansthdat:.the.water is required:to mix over a distance of 0,6mi.i.e baekfi1.. Althoughassuming.*.mlar geometry is~a simplification, itM-demonstrates that.water:mixing over long distances in the fill is 1no ctriicito the: v lidi.tyof the scrceening:m6del. The Male~uiations.f ordetermining the:equilibritu concentrations in the bsement.water,,i.l, and--:oncrete are bped. on a& mass balance apj~roach. The total mnas~s in the-.sstem, M1. is the sum of the massgin the water (Mv), the mass 'sorbed to the'fill (Mb), and the; mass. sorbed to the-concrete (M0 ). For these._calculai ions, m.ass sexpressed as~aetvit, A. Thetotal.activity, A., k the total"rad-I '1d'" inetor theA.1.821,iIi2 -basemeint concrete surfacesunder..consideration, Equationis,(1.) through (7) described below. are solveedfor eac.r adionucl'de:inrthe Ma.e.Yankee Radionuclide At = A. + A+ .A (1) Where: A(-is total activity.(pCi) A-_.js thetotal ac~tiyity in,-water. (pCj) A.,is -the total-ac.tivityi.n the fill (p.Ci) A.is thetotaltactivity in thb.e .concrete..(pci) the activity ini ff water is-defned as: A,= r1C V (2) Where; q is the-porosity oQf the fill and concrete
MYAPC License Termination Plan Piaje 6-13 Revision 6. January.2014.. . .. ......... .....................-. C is'the concentration in solution (pCi/1) and, Vt is the total system volume '(sum of the volume of-fill and concrete; .m). At equilibrium the:activity adsorbed to the fill and concrteeis directly p roportional: to the dn66ri~iifafioiinithe-,ater. The.ptop ortifiality " c6hstdfrit'iised in the*e calcIultions-is the, disftibutio. coefficient, Kd, and measures has units of cm 3/g. Distribution- coefficients are widely accepted of sortion onto the solid phase, and the solid/liqiiid phase ratio, and are accepted for use in risk assessments by national. and:fiteational
*regulatory agencies andIscientific organizations including. theU.S. Nuclear Reguitobr: C6ominission qad the,U.S. 'Env*ir6nr'.it.al Po6tectioh Ageiic.y:
The. aetivity-adsorbed: on-thefill and the concrete: can be represented.-as;. Ar=:pt KdtC Vf Where: pf is fill bulk' denisity (g1c6) Kdf is fill distribution coefficient: CGis water concentration(pCi/1) Vtis fill volume'(in) and A.,=.PO Kdc C V* (4.): Where: p. is concrete bulk density (g/cmr3) Kd* is eonbcrete,-distfibuiti6ni-.c.b.fficient C~is water cond efitAti6n.(pcin1): Vj!is concrete volume-(m 3) Thle -bilk densitty of'the-fill is assumed to be 1;.-g/cm3 based on ahalyses of potenfial-fill (reference-.provided below). For the .concrete,.asite-specific, value-of 2.2. g/cm& was ussed (reference prbýided below). V is the v0o!ume of the-solid phase; Vr is 2460.m3 .and Vo -:i$A.sUiý2 3 Combining the terms from Equationfs (2), (3), :and (4): gives: A,--.q C V,+ pfKdC V+ p, MeKd C V,
MYAPC LicenseTermination Plan -Page 6-14 Revision. 6 Janiuary 2.014 Multiplying the second and third terms by ( IV,)/i(qV.), i.e., 1, and rearranging gives: A, = iC V,+ (TIV, C)( PfKdrVf)/(nV,.) + (r Vt C)(pc .KdcVy/(I..IV,) (6) R.ecognz.ing from Equation (!).........,:rC V is the: ativity in the water phase, A*,,allows Equation 6.to be rewritten 1as:
". : e *. A. . -allows
&A=4.(0 + Pf (Kd/ri)(V/V,) + pc (Kd /)VV-I)) (7)
To-,calculate the water.concentration,,drinking water dose, concentration in the fill, and :cncentration on the concriaete sura es, Equation. (7)is-first solved for A,. All of the terms in Equation (7) are known except A,. The water concentration, C, is then calculated.using Equation (2). After solving for C, the backfill and concrete concentrations are calculated using Equations (3) and (4).
- c. Dose Calculations The,concentrations in the.basement water.and fill are.used to calculate
..dose. There arethreep dose pathways: to the resident farmer after-the fill is placed in the basements, the three-foot 0cver is completed, and water infiltrates the.basements. These are drinking water dose, irrigation dose, and direct dose. The dose calculations are describedin Equations:.(8) through (1 0). The equations are ýu sed to calculate dose for each..
radionuclide in the Maine Yankee mixture. There will b-eno.ingestion or inhalation associated with the fill because of
.the presence:of the,-cover. 'Ingestion or'inhalation could occur ifthe fill were excavated at some time in the; future. -To-.account forthis possibility, the projected basement fill concentiration is limited to ensure that the concentrationwill not exceedthe surface soilDCGL and that. the.dose.&will not,:increase over that calculated with the :earthen .cover:in place. In fact, the-hypo6thetical dose would-decrease.fifthe:,fill were excavated at some time in .thefuture.
- 1. Drinking Water Dose Drinking-water dose is calculated from the radionuclide concentrations in the basement water.. As: shown in Table 6-4, the
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-15 Revision 6 January 2014
'basement water is6ne:of sev.eral contributors to drinking water dose. The annual water inis assumed to be 478 L/y consistent
'with-the: default values in the NRC screening code,.DandD, Version,1. Dose.conversion factors :are taken from Federal G dance Report NO .11.
.Dosed,'= ( C pCi/1)(478 Liy)(DCFmrem-y/pCi) (8)
Where: C is water concentration in pCi/L DCF: is-FGR 1- dose .conversibn factor
- 2. Irrigation Dose.
Including irrigation dose is conservative because irrigation in Maine.isuncommnon due to relatively high annual.precipitation. However, :consistent with a. screening approach it is included. The irrigation rate is assumed to 'be 0.274 U/m2/d (justification provided below); The source Of the water is the resident farmer well placed intlhe buildingbasement. Te annual irigation volume is mixed in a 15 cm depth of s6il, .which is 6onisistefit with the.NRC DandD model as desibeO inNUREG-5512, Volume 1. The dose from the resulting'soilconeentrations were calculated using the NRC screening values in NUREG-1727; Table C2.3 , converted to
-mrema/Yper Ci/g.
Doseg,, o,.= (CfQi pCi/g)(NUREXG727 mrem/y per pCi/g) (9)
-Where: q6, is the, annual dose from irrigation (mreno/y)
C:r`is Asoilconcentrafion in pCi/g (NUREG- 1727) is.the soil screening value from
..NMG-1727, Table C'23 converted to mrem/y per pCi/g; Cjol* = (pCiiL in Water)(0.274 2/dY365 (m d)(1 mi)
.(.Irm.)(0,l!.m)(.I E+06 ci./mIa.)(!. 6, g/cm 3 ) (1 0)
- 3. Direct Dose The direct dose was calculated using the Microshield code assuming a three-foot soil cover, 10,000 m2 area, and 5.8 in depth.
MYAPC License Termination Plan 'Page 6-16 Revision 6 January 20114. The 5.8 .m depthixepresentsthe deepest basement, i.e., containment. The Microshield result for 'Deep Dose Equivalent, Rotational Geometry," was used anddis generally refe*red t "exsposure." The-tesulting .exposure ratevwas*multiplied by the annual outdoor occupancy time.of964 hours (0.110! x .365 days x 24 hrOda) .from the NRC DandD, Version 1., screening code to calulate the annual direct exposure dose. The Microshield output repoirt.are.provided in Attachment 6-1. di Model:Input Parameters The following section describes and justifies the parameters -us. .dinthe concentration and dose calculations.
- 1. Distribution Coefficients, Kd FillKd-values were either derived*.from literature (mean values).or T..e :ste-fromthe results of anal ses of site-specific fill matrials.
sp ec.ificKd *analyses were*performedby-Brookhaven ,National Laboratory (BNL) (results provided in Attachment 6-2).. At th's time, the most likely fi6material is Bank Run Sand or fiowable fill. Therefore, the averageXKd's for Bank Run Sand'orflowable fill from Attachment 6-2 werelused in the model. Table. 6-3-lists the fill Kd's, and the refaec.,'foreach radionudide. Concrete: Kd values were either-derived from literature or from the results of site-specific Kd analyses. The site-specific Kd analyses were performed by BNL (results provided in Attacbm*n.t 6-3). Table 6-3 liststhe-condete Kd's, and the reference, for each radionuclide. It-is seen.that for cement, a few Kd's were :left blank. This indicates: data were not available and a valiue of zero (0) Was used in the calculations. A Kd-of zero,(0) maximizes the concentration in water. In addition, the.Krupka referencedid not contain Kd information for obalt'or iron. It Was assumed thdt the Kd's for these-two metals were the same. as nickel. ,However, the overall effect of the concrete is small, regardless of Kd.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-17 Revision 6 January-2014 Table:64-3 Seiected Kd;.Vaiues (cm 3ig) for Basement Fill.Model Radionuclide,, Mean 4 . keference.forbMean.Kd* Concrete Reference for Kd IFlowable* . d indcement Fe-55 .25. Bacs, Table.2.1i3 100 Krupka Table 5.1 Ni-63 128'" Atc.clfeftt6r- 100 Krup.a Table 5.1 Mn-54 k.Mn,5:4:~~~~ " 5.0` .....
... .S~pd,
....... I 'Sepi1
... ,TalA'-___________
Co0-57 128 Aftachnent 6 2*1 100 Krupka Table 5.1 Co-60 .1.281: .Atient6-2 ,100 Knspka Table 5.1
.:Csl3. , 79. Attacm
-2' .6 3 Attachmbent:6-3.
Cs-1-37 79 Attaehmont62 3 Attachment 6-3
*Sr-90. 6A. Atacliint,6:2J . 110 -Attachmfent.r6-3.
s A.- -A~
.P~u*-23.8 ,. ~~~~~
.i.,._...~ "...q~ .::..........
~~~~. ... .
-5509
. " ' i.. ".. . .". t . . ".. . .. .. ..? -. , ....
.. _phjpcp ..- ... .a ...--:
Tabe:.5.1: Piu2'Cn9/240 550 SlitppirddTati , " "0 Krupka'Tible 5.1 Tu-24 1 550 . p Tab l e %-A,&-- ..... .pka Table 5.1 Ain-241 .15 9,6 Shepparale - 500 u.Table.5.i C.i243/244 4000 Slieppý ;TbAl .5000 Krupka Table :5.1
"(2*:14 ... 3 . .""
P. C44: . 5. ;hpaa,!alA41 KEu- 152 400 .:isT.a,,,3
.... 5 400,Oii , a ,Tl - :3 .-.- _. __.. . . _........__.....
!iEu-154 40') , :Oisi.*T iAI,,e--g.
- 2. Maximum SurfiaceArea to Volume.Ratio
ýThe-bldildi*gbaes.entt-fiiat will remain f611owing demolition of site: strcue'nld h otiiet PoB, Spray::and Fuel Building~basements, The open-air-vvol~ues of the basements.are.
.82.1.7m. 1584 m3, 1i3.nf -ard 837;m.-respectively. This represeits the ol!uime offill req-uirýd in eaq.h basement. Th'e wall and. floor surface areas! are :3775.in, 1637. i, 1883.im., and.409 m
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-18 Revlson 6 Jannasry72014 - , resp.ectively. The basement volumes and surface areas :w.ere detei -in Maine Yankee calculation EC 01-00(MY). The makimum*' s .e...ardato voliue :rAtio of 1.7 m2Am3 -is found in the Spray'buildingbasement., Facotor tables .pryoduced below Thisratio is used in the.Unitized Dose (Tables 6-4,5, 6A aid 6B). 'The C6rita*finit buildin g;surface are 4to volume ratio0of 0.46 m2 m3 Was used in the dose assessment summation for activatedconcrete
-(Reference No. 6.10.8) and: is shown in Attachment 6-13.
The 1iio~i~r f te 111material is: issuimedto. be 0.3. The r~ange. of metanporosities-for a wide variety-of soil types are listed in N G-5*5.12, 'Voume .3, '"ResiduA Radioactive Contamination FroDecimissionitig. Parameter Analysis," Page 6-64, Table:6,.1. The.porosities listed in NUREG-551.2 ranged from o.a.6&O.49.- The projected dose from contaminated concrete in the basement fill
*mo.cdeld-ecreases. qrinceasing porosity. However, the projected
- dos`es 'f0iomheie*.
mbedded pipe .and activated concrete inicease with
. ihbrsing-p.osros. *Th.is because thesource term forembedded and buried piping. is onstant and the.source-term for .contnaminated cofncreteis a if6hibon ofs6face area. Alth dosýe ass ent rnodbls, .-7oi. i ~ativce. Howeyer, the activated:concrete and eib'eddd piping source term assumptions are much more conservative than those used for the basement concrete and the resultihkrgo doe"Iid small fraction of that from: contaminated.
coiicrete, Th.erefore, .the:porosity. ffect on the contaminated concr.g.dos__ei§ used to select a porosity at the lower end -ofthe ra-ige e.g,., 0.3
- 4. Annul*a g Water Volume The-annual drinking water volume was -assumed to be 4781:/y.
Th*s i's e default-yvo!lume froqm NRC DandD, Version I screening coeqd. 5i. Irrigation Rate-and Annual Irrigation Volume
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-19 Revision.6 Annual irrigation volume was'based on interviews with eprtesen-tatives ofthe Maine USDA-NRCS. The individuals
*contadtbd 'are doueneithd :in iamemorandum provided in Attachment'64. 6 The USDA representatives indicated that irgitikon in-Mainis iiunic m i,, but that in drought years ion may oicur. ThdeMaine USDA representatives indicated that therdrought irrigation rate for: a family garden would not be expected to exced 4A-5 fiy (1:0 to 12 cm/y). The 10 cm/y rate was used in the model, which can be converted to 0.274 1/m2/d. To calculate-total:anual voluine, the 10 cm/y rate was multiplied by
!the defadlt cultivatedy d ara f02400 mi from the DandD: screening moddel (NUREG-1727; Appendix C, Section 2.3.2). This results in the-annual irrigationtvolume4of 240,000 l/y.
- 6. Annual Domestic Water Use
-Annual domestic. water volume is derived from NUREG-551.2,
-V6ofhirne3, 1P~geO6-37, Taibl-6_-!9.- The per capita consumption rate for the State ofMaine is listd&a- 124,422 /y. Assuming afamily
'of four, this corresponds to a total domestic water volume of 497,688. lyy The* assumpton6of f'ur occupants is based on the land occupancyrate from NUREG-1727, Table D2, of 0.0004 persons/rm and an.ass.umptilon4hat, the-resid*ent farm size is 7.. Total Resident:Farmer .Annuil *Well Water Volume
-Thie ttal aInmuaIlvOqibn of waterfrom the resident farmer well is
,th~u oifthe domtestic use:plus i-i'gation use. Domestic use is 497;6888/y. and: rrigationuse is 240,000 1/y for a total of 737,688 l/y. A rodunded value of 738 m3/y was used in the model.
- 8. Concrete Density Concrete..density.was.determined by site-specific analysis to be 2.2 gm(Attachment 6-5).
- 9. Fill MaterialDensity
'Density of te" possible fill material is 1.5 g/cm 3 (Attachment 6-2).
Tis corresponds to Bank kinSanAd.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Poge 6-20 Reision 6 January,2014 Density ofsoil is 1.6 gem3 based on an average of the densities of Bank Run Sand and Bank Run !rve.l frQm.Att.ac.hment,.16-2. This average is-assu'medto be reresenttiv of the site.soil, whichis comprised primarily of backfill..
- 11. Dose Conrversion Factoirs(D.CF§)
The:DCFs are in units ofC-ommitted Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE) and areltaken from Federal Guidce RepRe-No. 11,,
;"L mitinNValuesof RadionuClide Intke and Air-Concentration and Dose Conv~ersion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion," Table 2.2, EPA-520/1 020.
- 12. Outdoor ,Occupancy Time The DandD, Version -,.default val** of 0.0 1 y or 965 hr/y :is.
.,usedi e- Unitized 'Dose Factors for Contaminated Basdeent.Silf es Using Equat0ion .-1*) above,. the radionucide copce.tra. o0ns in basement wate, fill, and concrete, and th.dp, resdet farier were calculated using a simple spreadsheet appli-ation. The activity of each radionuclide in the Maine Yankee mixture :for:contaminated surfaces was set tol dpm/1 00 cm' of surface area. The sufa was assumed to be concrete for-the -purposeof the calculationr-to evaluatelthe potential effect
.ofre-adsorption-on-conorete., The-:spre.adsfieet.output.:and the resulting
.unitized: dose factors areprovided "inTble '64 (see next page).
6.6.2 Activated Basement Concrete/Rebar
- a. Conceptual :Model Activated concreteand.rebafr is
- et-in the IlCI siup:area iii te containment building. The'current plan is th reineiatf actiVated concrete down to the containment building liner and-any-rebar associated with this concrete. The walls and floors consist primarily ofconcrete with rebar being a smalliperceiitage Characterizatibn results indicate that the total activity concentration in-rebar is about 1.9jtimes higher th-an the concrete surrounding the rebar. In addition, the radionudlide:mixtures for concrete and rebar differ as indicated in Table 2-9. However., as. shown in Attachment 6-13, the calculated dose fromthe rebar is less:than the dose
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-21 Revislon 6 from the surrounding .concrete (see Table 6-11 for activated concrete do.se),ac fiting foirboth the highde-relative concontiation and the rebar rAdionuclidemixtuire. Therefore, the walls :and floors are *conservatively assumed to be:eomprised,.entirely:of activated:concrete in the dose:
M-YAPC License'T ernilnatdonPlPan Page46*22 Reviqon,6 Janiisrv 2014 Table 6-4 Contaminated Basement Surfaces -Unitized Dose Factors Key Parameters Porosity 0.30 Fill Volume 2460.0 m4 AnnualTotal Well Water Vol 738.0 m3 3 2 3 2 Bulk Density .1.50 g/cm Surface Area/Open Vol 1.70 m 1m .lrrigatidn Rate 0.274 Umm -d 3 Yearly Drinking Water 478.0 LJyr Concrete Volume 4.18 m Surface Soil Depth 0.15 m 2 3 Wall Surface Areea 4182.0 m Concrete Density 2.20 glcma W.. 'AT FILL, CO RT ....... CONTAMINATED CONCRETE DOSE CALCULATION FACTORS Source Term Kd CONCENTRATION ANNUAL DOSE Nuclide ..mrernlyper pCI~g
-r mrem per PCI.
rn.re-dy per'. pC.I .. In dpn.. Invey n.2 Intentory . netr. pC. IKd Fill Fl 2E4 m Concret cm-lgm Kd
-Adsotlon ocee As~or+ I F.ctor
.Water Wae p.. ...
L Fi0I C1g Corte il coceel Pooi... 77-1E NucIld~i Wate Dose a E-.5 Dose Doren 62 6 ldle Dire Dose moe 0.00E+00 Dose Dosrnlyl e 6.29E...- Cs-134 4.39E+00 7.33E205 .609E-05 . 1002+0 1:88E205". 7.91E+01 3:0OE+00 3:96E+02 .6.44E-04 5.09505 :1'93E-06 CQ.34. 2. 26l)5' 1J6E-6" 3.0E2-09 2.38E-05: Cs-137 2.27E+00 5.00=-05. 11.2012*5 1.002+00 1.88E+05: 7.91M+01 3.o0020. 3.968202 6.442.04 5,092-05 1.9k-06 6 ,-7 1.54.-.5 6.42-07 M1It-10 1.60E-05% Co-6O 8.8+0 2.0-5 530-4 1OE+0 18205. 1.2BE4,02 1.002+02 .5.40E+02 3.98E-04 5.09E-05 3.982-05 Co-SO 5 12E-06 '1182.E06 3-2012-08 6.322-06. Co-57 1.672&01 1.16F-06 2-80E-08 1.00E+00 I.B6,805 *1.28-402 1.00E+02 '40GE,02 3:.481-04 5.09E-05 3.982-l05 Co-& 2. .2.ro96,-08 1.42E-12 2.54E-07 Fe-55 2.50203. 6.07E-07 ,002e+00 1.00E+00 1.88E+05 .2. '2.80E+01 1..02+02 "1.27E202 2.-1E-03 5.01E205 2.016;04 Fe-55 5.82-07 223E-09. 0.60E+00 5.84E-07 3 3 H-3 2.27E-01 6.40E-8. 08 OE+'0 1.OOE+00 1.88E205 0.00E+00 0.002+00 1.00E+00 2.552-01 0.002+00 :0..00.2E+00 H-3 .7.802*-06 2.57E.-05 0.00.E+0
- 5E-05i NI-63 1.1 9-02 5.77E-07 0.00E+00 1.002a0 1.88E+05 1.28E+02 1.00E+02 6.402-02 3.98E-04 5.09E-05 3:98E-05 Ni-63 1.10EL07 2.1E-09 0.00E+00 1.12E-07'
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-23 Revision 6 January 2014 With the exception of the surce-term calulation, and the realistic release rate to the.basement, the.coneptual modelfor activated concrete is identical to the conceptual model o'r conta:miatesdbaement surfaces descr.bed above. SeeRefe ree .6.10.70for a:di:cf sus.'io'n*.of the -ctivateddconcrete dose-model. b.. :Dos& Fiacto.0 for Activated Conret Although activated concrete *is.presenrat ildeb beneath the surface, the dose. calculation for activatedconc-reteis based on a total activity (sum of all radionuclides) ifi..i tli flo-6iiadhd l-6 oft.he ICI up..The total :inventory, i.e., source term, incudes the radiofiules in the entire volume of activated concrete, including surface: and subsurface. The-total.inventory was, determined to b.e 4.88E+08 pCi as.,descibeddin Reference 6.1.0.7. Todetermine..the inventory of .eachradionmuzide,the total 4.88E+08 pCi inentory :mut bejiidliplied* bjy la.i raiidpnuclide fraction in the activated concrete mixture, Thexresxilting-radionuclide specific: inventories are input to the "inventory-" couminjnthe- spreIadshcet developed for the contaminated basiiemiet siufaces. All of the i'.&e"ig ate, fil, and concrete conrcentrations nid dose calculations.aro.idenitcalto those described for the contaminated basement rein Section 6.6.1. t"abie&65 - Deleted
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page6-24 Revision 6 January 2014............ ... . 6.6.3 Embedded Pipe
- a. Conceptual Model Embedded pipe includes pipes that are encas in thebase et concrete walls or.floors that will remainafter.deonolitionandremediation. The conceptual dose modei is identical to ihat descrbed forcontaminated basement surfaces. However.,.nalogoustocat*tivated condrete, the source term calculation includes the.entire radionu-ci de inventory contained in all embedded piping, regardless_ o lofi.fn. !The .ent inventory is assumed to~q oql~ I~. th wors cas'e 738 m' of basement water.
- b. Viiitized DoseFactor s forEmbe d6d Pipe The.total embedded-pip,: inventory istiac at.assuming a.unit cont.ifio i 1 "' ofreldf 106,ciiY-6.r-The ehtire internal. surface area of all embp deddpip'e . i4ng-qfler comprmissioning. A-list of the
. embedded piping.planned to remainsT aferdemcommissioning is provided in
,.Attiacbnet 6-7. The internal iudiacý-..aa of the embedded piping is
!54p*.Ag-a unit nvenry, f Idm/,l00m 2 the total .inventor was determined to be 6.95E '-03-pC1..
The:.6.95E+03 pCi inventory applies to each.radionuclide at a "unr't -concentrationof I dp*IlO0 cm 2 . Based on thi vlu,n n~ntrywas calculatbd 'and'nuitothe spedsheet developed for the contaminated basement':surfaces. The spreadsheet "inventory" column.input was calculated by multiplying the pipe surface contamination le.yel, in thiis case-a unitized level of 1 dpm/lOO cm2, by the 6.95E+03 pCi unit inventory. Bbcaus**two.distinct areas (Embedded.-Spray Pump. Piping and BOP Embedded. PipWg)&ere;created to address embeddpiping, two different.DCG.L cjcaions (and sp'.readshoets) were created. Each spreadsheet addresses separate ýunit inventories that sum to the above total inventory. (Spray Pump, and:. BOP embedded inventories.are 1.19E+03 :and 5.-75E+03 reive. ..vely)., Thse forms facilitate the use.of the spreadsheets in the tot dose af*dDCGL ca*Lc* ations provided in Section 6.7,. All of th¢eresulting wat.eriflh,,an d-poncrete.concentrations, and dose calculationsare identicalo sef, edibtd for thecontaminted basement surfeces in Sectionf6.6.1. The BOP Embedded Piping and Embedded SprayPump Piping spreadsheets are prodedin Tables..6-6A And 6-63. The results represent the unit dose factors for embedded pipin gassuming a source term of 1 dpmi/I00 cm2 , for each radionuclide, on .theintemnal surfaces of the associated pipe.
Y.APC Liense Termination Plan Page4625 Revision 6 jAnnuar 2014+__
.E' nt o..... . . . ... .. ...
Porosity .30. FiiVolume 2460.0 rfAi Surf.ace Soil Depth- 11..15 m Bulk Density. 14.503 g/&r Surfce Area/open Vol i 1.T. fil 3
!& 1rrjgqt!0hRat 0.-2-74 LUrn 2 d Yearly Drilking'Watef, 478.0 1Iyr Concrete Volume 4.618 . Aui0iaT6tal W6l1f*ter.oV6l" :738 m3 Wall.surface Ar~eae 41.82-.2 0'. e doen **i . :2.201 EmbeddeidPipe:Converslon Factor "57545 ptperdpil0 )c TotablInventory 1.E00 . Ml/,00:cM2 DOSE CALCULATION FACTORS .Source Term: K. FILL,N ON" .. EMBEDDED-PIPE ANNUAL DOSE CONCENTRATION -
NUREG- 1727.: FGR 11 Microshield Kd Kd " - ...... ;otal t Nuclide 'mremlyp. mrnlpC :rermrty
- per Invendtory :innto-y Fill Concretel Adsorption Water Fill C'on*et Nuclide Water Dose Dose Dose Dose
, .g-
. .............. .... PC g .......dp O . 1 cm3/g c 3/m . Factor: , :pi L - pC g l . . .y _mremty mremi m /remly Sr-900.00+00 1.00E+00 5.875K 03 6.02E63 01 1.00E'-00 "3.01+02,"258E-O5'".-E--06S258E-08 81-.69507
'S-90! .75E-06 0.0. +00 1.92E-06 Cs-134 4:39E+00 7.33E-05. 6.09E-05 1.00E+00 5.75E-033 7.91E+0.1; 3'00E-00 3.96E+02 1.97E!05 1.56E-06 5.90E-08 Cs-134 6:891-07 3.84E-08 9:47E-1 1 7.27E-07 Cs-137 .2-27E+00 5.001E05. 1.20E-05 1.006060 5.75E+03 7.91E+.01 3,OOE*00
- 3.950S2' 1.97E-05 1.56E-06:5'90E-08 Cs-137 4.70E-07 1.98E-08 1.87E-11 .4:90E-07,
~~~~~... , . .. *..
Co-60 '6.58E+00 2:69Eý05: '6:30E:04 100E-00 575EJ+03 .-1.28E4i02, .100Et02 :6.40E4+02 .22E)5: 1.55E-O6: ,.206 Co60 1.562-07 3.56E-08 9.79E-10 1.93E-07 Co-.57 1.67E01 1.8-06 .2.802-08 J1.00E400 5.75E+03 1.28E+02 D00E+02 f 6.40E+02 1:222.05 1.55E-06:. 1.22E-06 Co-57 6B.E-09 9.03E-10 4.35E-14 7.76E-09 Fe-55 2:50E-03 6.07!E07 b.'00E+00 1.00E.00ý 5.751E+03 .50E*-' I00E-02 !1.27E-2 i.33E -05 1.53E06 6.;13E-06 Fe-55 1.78E-08 6.81E-11 0.00E+00 1.78E-08 H-3 2.272-01 6.402E08 .. OOE+00 1.00E+00 5.75E+03 0.00E+00. 0.00E+00. 1.00E+00 7.78E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E400 H-3 2.38E-07 7.85E-07 0.OOE+00 1.022-06 Ni-63 1.19E-02 5.77E:07 0.002+00 .006E2-00 .5.75E+03. 1.28+/-Et02, 1.00E-02 6.40E+02 1.22E-.05 1.55E-06 1.22E,06 Ni-,63 3.35E-b9 6.43E-11 0.00E+00 3142E-09
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page:626 Revision 6
.Januarv 2014
..... ... eTable..6-GB.
............................ m te s .. . . .... .
* - .~. ~Embeded
. um~1i~riUnlitized Dos~e Factors.
Key Palram~eters: Porosity' 0.30:. -Fill Volume 2S60.0 m3 Surface Soil-Depth 0.15 in Bulk Density. 1.50 glcm3 .Surface ,.ea/Open Vol 1.70 m0/m 3 Inigation Rbte 0.274 LUm2 -d 3 Yetify Drinking.Water 478.0 I/yr C6fidrieteV'ol-iure 418 rn* AnnualTotal Well. WaterVol 7 I38 mn 2 3 2 Wa~lvSurface'Area 4182.0 m Concrete Density 2.20 g/cm Embedded Pipeohversion Factor 1191.7 pCiper dpm1100 cm 2
.Total Inventdlj ýi.bbEi0d dpm/100 cm DOSE CALCULAT-ION FACTORS v SOURCE TERM KWTEFILL,.d CN ibbRE:PETANALDS Nu',lIde S-90 f
NtIie mremImrd pr
.PCg
..- 7-E+0 .
pe
.. *GRII IIe rrem/pCl
.422-604
-1.-.---.,
mremoy per
. pplig .
0.00000-Inventory
'dpmv 0prn2.
1"002+0 . Inventory pci:
.19E*03.
d Foss Fill Concrete cr 3lgm Jcf3lgrn 8.021 1.00E-0O
.Microshittleld Adsorption Factor a31E+02 Wae Water
*CI/i 5.352-06 Il Fi F.
plCg I :Ionret 3.222-07 Concrete p'lig Pmrerly 5.35T-09 Nucde Sr-O Drinking
.Water:Dos.
mr 3.832-07 Irrigation Dose mremly 3.502-08'08 Direct Dose Total mrmt ,:' mrew/y* 0.00E-00 3.98E-07 Cs-.134 4:39Et-00 .7;33E-05 6.09E-05. 1.00E+00 1.19E24'3" 7.91E+'01 3.002E00 ,3.96E+02 4.07E-0"6 3..22E07 1.22E-08 Cs-134 1.43E .07 7.95E-09 1.96E-11 1.51E-07 Cs-137 2.27E+00 5.002-05 1.20E-05 ;I 1.0E+00 1.19E+03 :7.91E+01 3.00E'-00 3,96E+02 4.07E-06 3.22E-07 1.22E-08 Cs-137. 9.73E-08 4.-11.O9" 3.872-12 I.01E-07 Co-60 6:58E+00 269E-05 6:302E04 1.00E4,0 .192,403 ".28E 021! 1..E20E 6.,020 2.52E-06, 3222-07 2.52E*O7 Co-60. 3.24E-08 7.37EL09 2.03E-10 4.OOE-08 Co-57 1.67E-01 1.18E-06 2.80E-08. 1.00E+00. -1.19E+03' 1.28*+02. 00+0u 6.40E+02 2:5206 3..22E-97 2.522-07 Co-57. 1.42E-09 1.87E-10 9.0115-15 1.61E-09 Fe-55 2.50E;03 6.07E-07 0.002+00 1.0+0 1.192+03 .2.50+01:1,00E'2+62 127E+.02 .1.272-05 3.17E-07 .1-27E-06 Fe-55 3;68E-09 -1.41E-1-1 0.001+00 3:70E-09 H-3 2-27E-01 6.402E08 000E+0(0 i100+00 1.I9E+03 "0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.61E-03 0.G0E+00 0.00E+00 H-3 4.93t-08 1.63E-07 0:00E+00 2.12E-07 Ni-63 1.19E-02 5.77E-07 0.002+00 1.00E+00 1.19E+03 1.282+02 1.00E202 6,40E+02 2.52E-06 3.22E-07 2.52E-07 NI-63 6.95E-10 1.33E-11 0.00E+00 7.08E-10
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.6-27 Revision 6 January.2014.
6.6. Surfae -Sofl
- a. Concepti*al Mod'l Surface. soil-includes all soil within ihe first 15 cm of the ground surface. The NRC sceei-iing values for soil from'NIIJRG-i 727, Table C2.3, are used for the&uitized dose 6dlcufati0ii ýTheef..ore,'the conceptual model is identical to thatldescribed-inNUREG-4:727. Th-e-scre'eiriigv,alues include the dose.from
-all pathways, The groundwater on~tfibufibn to.the screening alue :dose is neligible'and"is entered as-z'ero. "Tthe'ceeninlg'values are used because they
-were specifically generated by NR.C-.to:.be.conservative calculations. of the resident: farmer-dose and are recommendefd for use in NUREG-1727..
Veq ficatioiff Conditions: (for SufAce Sý*oil Screeftihg Values). NUREG-1727,
`8 SSbecommissioni'ng Stana. evew Plan, Appendix C, describes the ji.tif~ifointiii to llow. dir'et u*e of-tfiese screening. Per the ie6 NUREG, the following conditions mustvbe satisfied:
1--n The ifial r"esidual 'radioaetiVii;y (aifter decommissioning) is dontaihedin thdtQp layer .fth~esurface soil [that is, approximaely 6 :inchesT (15crni).
- 2. The :unsaturiatedizone and:the-gr'pundwater are initially free of dontaminntibn.
-3:. The vertical saturated.dhydraulic conductivity at the specific site is greater than ihe infiltration rate.
"Theaboyve.conditions are satisfied for*.* e-Maine Yankee site.
Cb0fdition One. The direct uSe-o-f these s*-reniig e values is only for surface soi1t(approx.- 6 :inches).: Section 6.6.5 calculated a dose from -deep-soil (that is, :gIeater than 6'inches)-separate from .ihe:use of the surface soil screening. va!ies. (See. Section 6.6.5) ConditionTwo., -Maine-Yankee does-not use the surface soil screening valuies to addrie potn- tnialsite oiidat' eco"inf nation' from H-3. H-3 presence
.in the groundwater and surface water is assumed based upon the highest pmeasured Ireadings and is covered. byse~parate dose assessments .(See Secfioi.iso6.6.6 ahd 6.6.7*
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6.28. Revslon.6 January.2014 Condition Three. The soils at-MaineY-ankee that are in areas c tly containing nuclides elevated above background, and,,those soils: that are planned to be "usedto fill the foundations ar'e b0kruinrsand and gravel: ýThie Adams or Hinckley USDA Soil.:Series#*ouldprovide.the cldsest approximation. Theminimum saturated vertical hydraulic.conductivity-of these soils is 0Q.001 cm/sec or 1.417 inches~pebour. Average.saturated hydraulic. conductivity rates would be about 19 times this, or 14 inches per. hour., Infiltration capacity isbased on landecover type, antecedernt moisture
.ondition pr.or.to araifiI orsno.wmlt yen._ and te rate of water supply, available fopinfiltrration.: teMineM Yaiik.e.si M.t.Wat'tableat in the area of interest:is approximately elevation*10 to W 1.5 eet aboiveMean SeaLevel, indicating *.a ditance of 6 to 1I feet .fýom the existing ground surface to the average water table position. Therfore, this much of the sand fill will be.unsaturated. Infiltration capacity iselimited by the unsaturated hydraulic cond.uctivity of the soil. The,.unsaated hydraulic*conductiviiyof th6 sa..nd'fill`ist~rialMfrom 1/1'0'to 1/100`o'f, -hs"ahiraitidhhyrali conductivity. Pre(ibitation rates rarely excee*o*e iAd*per hour in Maine.
Therefore?, 'becausethe: typically expece do.i~u precipitaiffon'rateis l1ess than the minimum saturated hydraulic., conductivitdand b-eiuse the filI::is unsaturated for.6 or more feet down and.unabIe to tranniit-.watdr downw-ar.d at a rate, expeeding the saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity, inffitration ratesý in the fill,iuist be les's than the saturated vertical hydraulic conducfivity. Soil types on the.Maine Yankeesite are-representative of thoselassumed in the: soil screening m.del. These soil types include: silt loams derived from glaciomarine s.ediemnts, fine sandy loams derived from glacial.till, and. fill that has a wide textural variation. However, the primary fill inithe immediate plant..area jis a sand,or loamy sand.. The* silo.*Ms'areo most..typical-over ihe undisturbed pins. of the site. The exception*s* arithe '.oll and .ridge areas.where bedrock is exposed or shallow wherelthe fine sandy loams
.predominate.. Fill areas surrounding the plant .bu.ildingsare sandor .loamy sand. Fill areas north of the-345 KV-yard tend to have a silt loam suace covering. The most likely foundation fill material will be bank run sand..
(See Section6;6.0ld;)
- b. Unitized Dose Factors for Surface Soil0 The unitized dose factors are generatedffor each radionuclide directly from the NUR-EG- 1727 screening values. by conyýeftn e value-sto;* per pCi/g. Table6-7 provides the "Surface-Soil" unitized dose~spreadsheet. The results represent the dose from a unit source term if I pCig fo6r each radionuclide in the soil mixture.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-29 Revision 6 January2014. .................... 6.6.5 DPeep Soil a.. t.d* '.ncep . Deep soil is defined as soil .at.de.pfhis:grtere;trlha. ,15.cpm. A.separate
.calculation is required for deep.,sdii because t R soil sVree ig Values apply to the top 15 cm of soil'only. The residentfarmner i&exposed'to deep soil through the diOect expposure-pathway and groundwater. *heq4eepsoil could be brought-t6 thesurace ati somn- tixiie in th' futureuthrough the
- activities of the residerit :farer. -Therefore, the deepl'soil coficentration will be limited to the surfiaces0ilDC-L.-....
The conceptual mo.el for".d'deep sdiassum"es'a 1.5c'm layertofuncontaminated soil for the p .urp f.oýacu!atgbeadjional 4ee..traia~tion exposuqre. The 15 cmf cover ente*i aer: ofiuifaee sil>Thbeditret radiation fromftresidual conA in tib ifx the.tip155CMi Soil layer W8 _account.ed for in
.theasurface soil scree g-ing Malu. *Avry lage _valu .ic so.ur;ce term was assumed, i~e., 2,8500 in,, for thepurpose of onservatively deteining the potential -for groundwater, C-ntamihaion: feom. deepp soil. u's is cofisid'ered a bounding source'term volume and-essentially-representsthfe%:entirevolume of soil "withinthe res'trked arei down, to :bedrock. A'fter remediati.n and backfill, the actual remainingVolumne of deep soil with any~significant contamination will be a very srmall fraction .of28,500.in 3.
.MYAPC License Termination Plan :Page.6-30 Revision 6
.January..2014....
;b. Unitized Dose Factors for Deep Soil Uffi.fi'd doseefacf6rS were calculatedausing.unit concentrations of each ofthe radibrifeclides.ir: the soil mix~gtuie: The eontribution from direct radiation was cl¢culated using the Microshield code assuming.a 15 cm cover.:and default vai.esf*omn DandD for indoor ccupancy time (0.6571 y), oiitdooroccupancy time..(0. 101 y),)and external radiation shielding factor (0.5512,). The Microshield output reports, deep dose direct radiation calculations, and trsiiltifig dose.factors are'provided in-AttaChment 6-8.
The-maximum groundwaterconcentrations were.calculated using RESRAD and uit :concentrations of each radionuclide in the mixture. The RESRAD
- grou*.watefparameters used in the anal sis are listed in Table .6-8. Only the.
,parameters; pertaining to groundwater transport are listed since the.
.gr"*un.waiter :nco.ncentration is the only RESRAD output used. The RESRAD parameters affecting groundwater transjp6rt were reviewed by a local hydroibgist who is ve y famiiia*-wiih the~site-hydrogeological characteristics'
*.(Mi. !R.e Gie~rbr, *P:.'E.-and[a C tifedO GWofgist). The par4meters in Table 6-3 are t.ei hdn*d site-speciffic alues., The Kd.s were derived from Maine Y , analyses!of Bank Run Sand.andBank Run Gravel. The average of these two materials was assumed to represent.the material used to backfill the si teding plat construction. F1inalIy, site-specific effective porosity was idertifieid as -variable at the' site. To 'ac0un-t forthis variability, a sensitivity anaysi'sw.as: conducted over a range of.0.01 -to 0.001. The highest grýnd.'aWte c**netaitiofi resulted from vailue 6f 0.01, which was used:in
-theihanVA~ss.
...z ....... -.........
- . ' - 2 ' ..
- 2 . . .. . -. 7 * . : s ' .* '"... ......
* .. " . . ! L sie e peifi
,i PTable:6-.8 aters used in- RES:RADP Deep Soil Analysis P64arete 'Value units, kContanfesU ndueiolnye 32 m/y,
*.e e fac.o.- .405 Site::Spebific, Effectiv*e Porosity 0o01
`:UnsatU-at.ed'. ýZdne Site Specific Hydr*ulicb iriditicvi -1009 nmy.
"i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : ":
Co "335.0 cm3/g
-i Sr.152;0 cm3fg Site Specific Soil Kd*s '
'Cs 1200,0 cr3/g
.Ni .274.0 cm3.g
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-31 Revision 6
.January.20.14.
Attach~men~t 6-9 provides the-RESR.AýD-ý.utpuit repoirt, The!attachment provides ihe~resultsofbf the radioftuclidbs.thdat w-eire- p.rojected to migrate. to groundwater over a 1:000.yearperiod..- The.RES_ efcode.was used'only to est~imiate xinium roudwqwatei, concenta ionsn*:f.cicliulate d6se. The dose from the-groundwater icOncentrations listed in Attachment 649 were. calculated using the same parameters,:as: in fihe'-water dose. calculations performed for contaminated basemnent surfaces, activated concrefe/rebar, and embedded piping, i.e, 478 1/y annual watervintake andF.GR-11 ?Dose Facfors. The spreadsheet. ou.tpujt ,and,.the.uniý zd.dose factors..for dee.soil are provided in Table 6-9. Table 6-9
.. ....-..........Deep
.. .... =* --r....' Soil
=*K ýUntized.Dq e ;Pa- s.e Factqrs
*ia m e t ...rs'........ . . ......... -.-.... . ... .....
Porosity 0.3 Yearly Drinking Water 478 Ly W Surface~iID~pte 0.15 m
. / - 3. -
Bulk Density 1.6 "g/m Irrigation Rate O.i274 U .d!.rn DOSEýCALCULATIONFACTORS Sb!i.Pe>ITEP~lA L DOS NURE ....17 . '- R"1 . "M roshid. Deep.Soil. ved.WWter Water, Dri ing Irrigation. iDfct Total Nuclide. mremly per mremrpCl: rniemly per inventory. Converslon Unlls, Inventory Water Dose D09ose i Dose Dose pC~g pCli Vp1 g .pi)pearp~~ CI' meI ~e~7 na C1cs-la -2272E'+0 5.OOE-05 4.00E-01 1.002+00 9.02E-; *. . z %2 Co-60 6.58E+00 2.69E-05 2.40E+00 1.00E+00 2;24E-02 12.2402 2.88E-04 6.1SE-05. 2.40E+00 2.40E+00 W3. 2.27E-01 6.40E-08' 0.00E+00 1;.OE001f 6;69103 .6:69E+03 ..2.05E-01 633E3-01 :0.OOE+00 8.37E-01 Ni-63 1.19E-02: ~~~~~~~. 5.,77E-07:
... . .... . . . .0.02+00
. . ..... 1.00E+0.0
*...... ... 6.01E-'01
.... :,. 6.012-01:
... 1.66E-04
. :. 2.98E-06:
.. ,. . 0.002E00
. 1.69E-04 6.6.6 Groundwater This calculation. applies to existing.groundwater only. As described above, there are additional contributions to.theprojOected to ta.I goundwater dose from other conitainateld mate"Sai. -
Groundwater dose is calculated directiy from the highest: individual .groundwater sample result from site moffitoring wellb.cations. As reported in Section 2, Attachf.ft B, the only rid*onuclidcl:identified in..site.grouindw er-i.s 11-3. ad the maximum concentration W.as-identiifed-.in the 'on-tainnieritf6oundaftionS p :at a concentration of 6812 pC(il. The r.ange*:of H-3 concentrations identified during: characterization sampling of site wells was 441 pCi/l to 6.812 pCi/1, for the most part consistent with background levels. The containment sump was re-sampled during
MYAPCLicense Termination Plan ,Page 6-32 Revision 6 ..Jan u ra ry ,2 01 4 .. . .. ... ... ....... . . .. . . . . . . . .. ........ _.... . .......... .. . continued characterization with 900 pCi/I H-3 identified. In addition, routine contai-ment s"up water samples were collected. None of these samples exceeded.the
.MDC leve of-.abut 2500 pCi,, *(Additioa smpling and analyses.' ofsie
.groundwater .conducted in !2002, including thecontainment foundation sump, iare di*dsci.d' Secton 2ý.5.3.d and reportedito.the NRC in references noted in that
*.section. The.:additional mpling c fired the niiclide fraction and conser-vtism of h" 3-3 atvty Iee assumhed: inthe,dose assessment.)
.. gen*l it appa that current containment sump H-3 water concentrations are In wi h 16e'agel expecwted in area water background. However, to ensure that a co nseratie ,water concentration i eapplied and to avoid the potentially extensive.
n ad sesnecesisary to demonstrat6that the concentrations. are: at: background lev.els, the 6812 pCi/I H-3 concentration is used in the dose assessment. If1p*o.r to: unrestricted release of the site, additional groundwater monitoring data are colleted. that .indicte higher3H-concehtration, or identify other radionuclides, the higher concentrations will be used in the final dose assessment for demonsting
.compliane.wn ithhe 10/4 mrem/yr dose limit.
Asdilscussed.in Se*tion 2.5.3.d, additionaltroutine:sampling of-the onta et foundat*on.sump and.PAB test pit will :be-obduitrd routinely until final status.survey hascomm!qene iin these two plant.areas. The samples willbetakeno._.aqn,
.approx.nat:t .nonhy basisandwill be-analyzed by gamma spectrosc.pyvad for H-53.
Sampl*eaalysis results -willbe evaluated regarding: (i) the need for additional as fiieiit .suchas, aidditional sampling or "hard to detect" analyses)! and,(2), any
.. p..... th d,6sssessment.
There .areno unit dpse factors-or DCGLs.for grqundwater. The actual dose .from the
)ighepaLn , concentration will be used in the total dose. calculation. The groundwaterdose is .calculatedusing the FGR 11 DCF for H-3: and a 478 -y intake.
Thieresulting dose is 0.21 mremiy. The method fr factoring the groundwater dose into the totAl d6se calcalation and the DCGL deterniination for other contaminated: materials is-described in Section 6.7. The dose caeulAtidn for existing groundwater is provided below.
.Dos6.w. (68Y2 pCi/i H-3)(478 ./y)(6.4E-08 mre!O!y/pCi)ý 0.21 mrem/y (12) 6.6.7 Surface Water Site ki-face wtater from the Fire Pond and Reflecting Pond was sampled during characte on. -The results indicated no plant.derived radionuclides-in theTFire Pond and a lowpdtential-in the: Reflecting Pond. Therefore, only the Reflecting Pond was considered in the dose assessment.
MYAPC License Terninatlon Plan Page 6-33 Revision 6
- 4a u ....
January.2014 . .... . ....... l 2 O .. . . . .. ... . ... . . . .. . .... ....... . . .... Tritium was-,detected in .the Reflecting Pond at a maximum concentration of 960 pCi/I. This a(tvity,:is not belie.ed to.beattributable to Maine Yankee operations. However,,.a.review of available literature on-H-3 concentrations -in surface water could.
-not.co.ns~eratively ,demonstrate that the;H-3 -concentrations identified were consistent wi14*ackground, levelstih f.the region. Additional characterization and literature
*.eview mayprovi.dethe-infobiation needed to dem0nstrate that the H-3 was not plant derivoed. -.However, given. the, very low_ dose -from-these H-3 concentrations, it'was not considered costýeffective to ,perform more analyses.
As'for groundwater,-.the-dose from surface; water was calculated using existing data. The mý:aimum H-3 concentration of .960 pCi/lI was used.. As with groundwate,..if igheconcentratiOns 6r additional-radionuclidesfare identified at any time prior to
- uresffict6e: release of the facility, the higherconcentrations will be used in the final 4dosqe-assessment for demonstrating compliance.
The47urfce :water.dose results from.dfinking water and -ingesting fish from the pond. The water, dose.is ;calculated using.the :parameters. described above assuming that the reidift famibe d*inks-rt y m .the surface water source. The dose from:fish ingestionis,.-aculated uing a water to fishltransfer factor of 1 for H-3 .(NUREG-
-512.*ol.3', Table 6.310),.20 6:kg fish consumption per year (DandD default value),
*,hd-usig:PDCssfrom FGR No: 11.
,The calcu.lafions for water and-fish consumption from onsite surface water with a H-3 oncefrati~oni o'f960 pCi/lis provided btelow.
Dosew (9.60 p1Ci TH-3.)(478 1/y)(6,4E-08 mrem/y/pCi) 2.9E-02 mrrem/y (13) Dost = (9.60. pCi1)(,!.O.pCi/kgper-pCi!)(-20.6 kg/y))(6.4E-08 imrem/y/pCi)'= I1.3E-03 mrem/y (14) 6.-6;8.8 ýBbrPipinM',
.a.. onceptual Model.;
erideco ssioningis completed, some piping.and conduit will remain undeground: atdepts gr-eaterlthan three -feetbelow grade.. 'is contaminated
*ma_*il c,.eategory.includes the piping buried i open land, not pipe.b e edded
'ini cnbrete'ba-sements, which were described: iný Section .6.6.3. A list of the bi~edp~iping that cqu.ent plans call to.remain after decommissioning is dedn Attachment6-10. The buried piping is expected to conta very
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-34 Revision 6 .JAOUg 12014.- limited le*els ofoontarnination, if any. 1Theradionuclide mixture is assumed to be the same aspfor contaminated materials. The.conceptual dose-nodel fortthe buried~pipIg;is mv*e. bimple -and cons.e*vative. 'Thepipiýg/condui3tis-assumed too.be udiformly contaminated
*ov.er.th etieinterna e *fac are Tepipg,:isfurlir
. asued to.
eventtimly disintegrat6ersulting in-the tota-linvntordin the pipe mixing with a volume of'soil: equaltto"the pipe volume.- Without thelassumption of the pipe disintegrating, thdereis esentialy noldose pathway frdio buried piping. The resulting calculatedsoilconntrations~are-treateds deep :soil and the dose was.calculated usigthoe-same.methods as described'above for deep soil. However,. &t direct exiOs6r** is calculat-ed ssuing a three foot cover as opposed to a 15 cm.cover. Although-not requed by thi conceptual model, the buried.pipingDCGW will -belimited to ensure that- the projected soil concentrations are below the surface soil DCGOs. This additional measure of conservatismwas alsoapplied to deep soil to account for hypothetical future exca.vation of the bu ried:cont=am on.
- b. Untized-'Doise Factors for Brie"d PipPg The total surface ar.ea and totil-volume were calclated frial ofthe buried piping.planned to remai-n- er de6oMissioning. A'ssuming a unit inventory of 1.dpm/.l OG cmn! on the internal surfaces,*th-total inventory of each radionucide ws deterrnied., ' hs totvil ieony was.,dided by-the total volume And 6onV&t6ed.Atogr ofso assum'in& a densit' :of 1.6 g/cm 3 to calculate the projected.pýi/g-soil conicehtrationt-ofeach-'tadionuclide. The list of Buried Piping: and the*calculation of projected pCi/g soil concentration are proide'inAtt~h t~6lO.The est gdtin~
onenrtion biis 2.59E-04 pCi/g. The resulting projected pCi/&g so il concentratibn was.'entered as the source term in RESRADfor ea-ch app'Icable idionuClidk. "The RESRAD analysis was performied using.fitesame parameters used for deep soil.(Table 6-8) with the exception of the saource term geomtry. Forthe biuried piping, the source term geometry WaA"as-umed'*to be a' 142 fi area 1 m deqep TIs corresponds to the total volume of iibuid pipig*of 1u42-rin3 . 'lihis."a.conservative assumption since, in reality, .the piping is-distributed overa-fairly large surface area which woufld resuilt ini dilutii.on thugh groundatern~o~t~~p ompared to the maximum concentration assuming all the pipe is bn1tigous. The RESRAD output report -isprovided in Attachment 6-11.
MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-35 Revision 6 January 2014 Microshield runs were performed on the unit source term assuming the same
*1,42 m 2:x Im-deep source.: he. s.ourc is ,.assumed to: be covered by:three feet of soil. The resul ting exposure.rate-*as.multiplied by the defaut outdoor occupancy time (0. 1101 y)-from Db.-adDiVersion 1. The Mieroshield:reports
........ ... ,, .... .. *= " F t....-
"' : i ' : "" " . . . .. j. . .. " . ..... . . ' . .. . ". . . . . - "
Buried Pipin,gUnitize:d Dose:Factors KeyPaameters. Prosity 0.3 Yearly Drinking Water 478 ULy 3 2 Bulk Density 1.6 glcmn rIigti6n Rate 0.274 IJm -d 2 .0.15 M Buried Pipe Conversion Factor 2.59E&04 pCilg per:dpm/100 cm SurfaceSof Depth Dose Calculation Factors Source Teri. Buried Piping Annual Dose NUREG.17i7 microshield MR1 Waterid pipe Sura Sall ..n..ng .IrIatIon.! "Drect Totas AucOlide
. 14 ImremipCI mremly per mremly per i," g ..... . .p "g ....
Inventory.., P ...I p 'p lg iientory dpm/100crm2-*Z Invdhntry ig-_. Water.Dose mremly Dose mremyýI Dose rnremiy ,. Dose m!em/y :
.s 11.21104 1.47E+01:.. "OE*-i2-2T ......... 0o9403'0 377E;7i t59E4- 3;4IE-68: .O0OE+00 4;12E-07*.
CS134 733E-05 4139E+-00 .2:21 E05 2.25E-05 1';.QE400, :2 5.9E-04 1 204.E--10 1:07E-1.1 5.72E-09 5.94E-og cs-137 5.OOE505 .. 27E+00 1.97E-06 .3.27-04 ,.00E00" ý2,*9E-04 " 2'0E409 :8:01"E-1"1 1.03E-09 3.13E-09 Co60. 2,69Ew05 "6.58E+OO' 2:53E;04 . 14L-04 1!0:,0 ;2.59E-04 2* 1E-09 5678E40. 6.55E-08 6.88E408
- C6-57 1..18E;06 1-67E-,1 9.'44. 09, - I1SE7. .'O14:0O ..2.59 E04 -§68E-11 .07E-12 2.45E-12 2.13E-11.
,Fe55 !-,7E-07 2.50E.-03 O.0OE+00, .30E-05<, ,,
1.00Etc04 ..59E04 3.23E-12 :.1.-16E-14, 0.0OE406 3.24E12' 8 2 1 ii-3 6 40E-o8 2.27E-01 0.00E+00 1.9 E0 1400E+00: 2';59E-04 1.67.E-d06 .4BSE-06 0.OOE+00 6.42E-06 Ni 63.M 7 3 :6',77E-07" "0 9E 0 i:19E-02 0.00E+00 0.. ..2.09E 0...-
. ......2 "11" i*;E+0. ... ':
,2.59E&04 * ...
1 49E-09 2:68E-1 1 0.00E+00
.. . 1.52E-09 5
.and Burkied.Piping Dir~ectý RadiationD..,0:se Fa.ctorsar.e. providedin. Attachment i- 12.. Th ..;sprrea dshe.et:outputand. esultiiig"u"Itied dose fa:1tors
- 2) 1fo6r buried pipiP gare providedin.Table 6-1.0.
(.1 dpfnfl00 cOm 6.6.9 Forebay and Diffuser
*The NRCc released the area-associated with the.Forebay and:.Di*ffser from i!
the 10 CFR.5R.liense pn :S-e embe.r 13O, 2N5..
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page .6-36 Revision 6 Januaay2014 Table 6-10A Dele!ted Table.6-0B Deleted 6.6.1:0 Circulating Water Pump House The NRC.-released. the area.associated with the Circulating Water Pump House from the 10 CFR 50 license on September 30,2005 6.7 Material Spedific DCGLs-aId Total Dog"-Caletilatibg
- As dscribed.b above, c at~ibiis*.w~-e perf'ored to d-' 'elop:conservative dose.assessment models, and generate.,unitized dose,-factors for .all .contaminatedmaterials at the Maine Yankee site. and all .radinuclides.iniithe Maine.Yankee mix.ture applicable to each material.
When the dose.pathways for thd fisfdent farifie'hWere eva*ja*td, it w"a's ident that the. tesidenitfanertfecotldreceive dose, rrom:more-than one.cofitaiminated imaterial. A detailed: discussi.on oftie various containafed .materials and dose pafl-ways .was provided above, The total dose results from, the summation of the cointribiutiohs 'from-each of contaminated materials. Therefore, the final DCGLs for each of the contaminated materials are inter-dependent.. This s-edtidii describes -the methdd usedto.account for the dbse :from. all materials and select the final DCOLs for all materials. The.method :ensures that the 'summation of doses from all pathiways;, at the s'elected DiCGL 0nentrattiones fo aill mai*ls, does not exceed 4 mremly drinking water dose and J10 mrem/y total dose. Table 6- 111 provides the DCGLs that ..were. selected for the Maine. Yankee Site-and -&e.'resubting tdfal dose for all co0itatihnated materials..(Since the containimefit basement was the onfily remaining basement striictur*o .be 'dir&dt*y' impaýct by activiatedcoxcricete, the bas6in~nt fill dose calculations were treated in.two approaches' One asseýsment wa~pirfoned ýfor the containment basement, .acc.ounting for the direct impact of the activated concrete. present. A. second. assessment was performed, conservatively modeling the remaiiiing non-containment basement structures. The results are presented in Table 6-11, which comprises two tables: one for. containment (Table. 6-1 1a) and onel for non-containment (fable 6'i.ib). For additional discussion on the dose assessmient felated to activated. concet.e, see the request for license amendment in Reference 6;1O.7, which was approved by the NRC in Reference 6.10.8:)..
MYAPC License Termination Plan -Page.6-37 Revision 6 'Janna .... o.2014 Attachment 6-13 contains the dose calculations for-all contaminated mnatirials listed in Table .6-11. The radionumlidemixture;for "special areas" differs from therestof the basement surfaces. Therefore,.a s.eparate D C.GL.:w.as sele.tedl and aoseparatepdose calculation was performed -forthe "s'eial areas". ý(See Attachment 2F for:a dis'ssion of "spebial areas".) The.DCoLs listed in Table *611I alretftr'edt projec D-CGL. The formal uresaticted use criteria are the enhanced State dose criteria of 10 y or lesd from allpathways and ymr 4:mrem/y or less from groundwater drinking sourceS.; The DCGL values in Table-6-11 may be.adjusted as the project proceeds. using the methods andi limitations-described in this; sectio'nas long as the dose criteria are satisfied.
MYAPC License Termination Plan .Page:6s Revision 6 January 2014 Table 6-41a Cdntainment Contaminated Material DCGL Basement Contaminated Concrete (gross beta dpm/l 00 cm2): 18,000, Special Area Contaminated:Concrete (gross beta dpm/100 cm2 ) ;9,500.;: Basement Activated Concrete - Released to Basement (pCI): 4,88E+08 Surface Soil (Cs-i437p(;Vg): '2.39: Deep Soil (CS-137 pClIg): 2:39, 5BOP Embedddd.Plping'Iimit:1O0K], (gross beta :dpm/100 cm2 )" 100,000 Spray.Buifding Pump Piping,[Limit: 800K],;(gross beta dpm/100 cmM)A 800,O0 Ground Water (H--3, pCI/L): 6,81,2 Surface Water (H-3; pCII): 96 Buried Piping, Conduit andý Cable, (gross beta dpm/ 00 cm2): 9,800
- +., - .. i .. .. .... . . . . . ... .....
* .i..
........... . ....... * * -_.Y Containment Contaminated Material Annual Dose Material Drinking Direct, Inhalation Total Water & Ingestion Annual Dose (mremly) (mrenly) -,(mrern/y)'
Contaminated Concrete 7.32E-02 8.53E-03 8.15E6.2. Activated Concrete 1.36E;-02 3.30E-02 4.66t-02: Surface Soil: 0.OOE+00 5.63E+00 .5;63E+'00 eepSoi ....... . ......... .5..33E-02 " 1.98 0 . 2.04E BOP Embedded.Piping: 4.59E-02 5.24E-03 511E.-.02
*SPray Building.PumiEmbedded Piping 7.60E-02 8,68E03 .8.47E42.'
Ground Water 2.08E-01 0.OOE+00 2.668E-01 Surface Water 2.94E-02 1.27E-03 3106E602 Buried Piping, Conduit & Cable 6.33E-04 1.89E-03 2.52E-03 Total 0.48 mrem/y 6.79 mrem/y :817 mremly
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-39 Revision 6 January 2014 table 07-16b Non-Conltainmnent; Contaminhated Material DCGL Basement Contam.inated ConcreteW(gross beta:dpmi106 cm2 ): 18. 000 Special Area: Contaminated Coricfete. (gross,beta .dpm/i00 cm 2) .9Q500 Basement Activated: oncrete - Released to. Basement (pCi): 0.00 Surfacei.Soil ::(Cs-1 37 pCVg): 2.39. Deep Soil (Cs3.7 pCi.g):.. 2.39. BOP .Embedded Piping [Limit: 100K], (gross beta dbpmi/10 cm2): 1,000 Sprayi Building'Pumip Pipin [iLimit:ii800K], ss b(t: dpm/100. Cm2 )t 800,000 GO'ound W.ter ý(.H-3,. 'CiIL): 6`812 Surface Water (H-3,. pCi/L)-. 960 Bure&dPipingf, Cbnduit ahd ,Cable, (gross beta .difi/0oo cni 2):* 9'800 Non-qCrntainment Contamihated Material-Annual -Dose
..Drinking'. Direct, Inhalation -. Total m:itril watia: &Ilngestion Annual Dose (mrem/y) (mrem/y) (mremly)
Contaminated Concrete 2.702.E-0Q. 3..08E-02. 3.01.E-01 Activated Concrete V0.'OE+00 0,OOE+00 0.OOE+00 Surface Soil 00E+00 5.63E+00 5.63E+00 Deep Soil .533E-02 1.98E+00 :2..04E+00 BOP EmbeddedPipng; *1.4:59E-02 5.24E-03 5.A1E-02 Spray Building Pump Embedded Piping 7.60Eý-02 8.68E-03 8.47E-02 Ground W.ater . 2.D08E41 O.E+00 2.08E-01 Surce Water 2:94E-.02 .11.27&E03 3.06E-02
;,Buried Piping,. .Od.u& .c-a.bleq 6,3E-Q4 1:.89E-03 2.52E&03 Total 0-66 mnrem/y 6.78 mrem/y 8.34 mrem/y Th6 dose immation method is a c*tiserqdtive screeniig approach.. For example, the environiienatal pathway analysis forb deepsoil indicated thata loW'Concentration of tritium would rea.hgroundwater threeyearsafter the site .. isreIeasedfor. unresicted use. The locationbofth- deep soil and corrsponding-groundater conttaminatiohn are:obviously different-from the .location of building basements :where the hypothietical resident farmer well was.:pac.ed. -hInadditi'on., the peýk time fbr H-3:.vwater concentration from deep soil is diffren t~p~kfrm tniefor he aseentWatr qnc-it" 6io. None6theless, consistent with*a screening:approach, the 'eakH3 ;concentrationin groundwater from deep-s'oihis filly added to the peak.basement; water .concentration and the. sum is used in the.dose. assessmenit. There was-no reduction in concentration due to the diffeiendes in peak dose time or dilution through groundwater transport. A more reailistic and less conServative environmental pathway..analysis. would consider..these.effects.
MYAPC License 6 Termination Plan Page 6-40 Rev*ilon January.:2014 The Maine Yankee commitment to a conservative sc8reeing appoach is' alsb:osee in: the methods for adding, the dose contributions from embedded piping, actiVated. con.e0te9rebr, and contaminated surfaces in the building bais6 ts, as well the: other contaminated materials. it is important to. recognize that: the conservative results ,from the doiseisummation are:in addition to the conservatism already'buiit'into. the unitized. dose factor calculations for the individual contaminated .hinitrialse. SOil areas outside of the RA boundary will not require consideration of dose from any othlfe materials. The area of the RA is approx ately, 10,000m), .hiehrep rehe66 the size of theresident farmer surivey'unit and cdntains.th*,6hter on i fi$..atei ds cotisidered (Refer to Section 5, Figure 5-1).2 The other contaminated.materials, have, essentially no effect outside of the RA and the dose is as'smed to riesult fm the' contaminated: soil only. In this case, the DCGLs will bebased on the NUREG-1727 screening values corrected to represent 10 mrem/y. The~soil-radionuclide mixture applied to iiiAs outside the RA boundary are assumed to be the same as the mixture ljs in Table 2-11.. The DCGLfor areasboutside the RA is 4.2 pCi/g. :This-DCGLLa be becaulated:id6ot directly by the ratio to the.2.39 pCi/g Cs- 137 DCGL providedin, LTP Tableo6-141, kecognizinig fha the dose from 2.39 pCi/g is 5:.63 mrem/yr. Thi.s.-culation.issprovded below: 4.2 pCi/g=.( :39 pCi/g) (10.00 mrem/yv) (5i63 rer/yr) 6.7.1 Conqeptual Model for Summing Cont nted-MaerialjDoseý
- The conceptual model for summing doses to the resident farmerlessentidlly combines: the dose from surface soil and deep soil with.th.e dose from Water derived'fr6rma well drilled directly into the wo*rt bas- buidinfg bai.eiit. Th well water is used .for irrigation: and drinking.
The: source term for the well water concentrations includes. contributions from baseme*t. contamination, activated, concrete/rebar, ad ,mbeddedtpipingq The model assumes that the residual contamination in all three materials.is instantaneously released and mixed with water-that has infiltrated the building baemen't .. The; instantaneous, release of all contaminationjis conservative for-several, reasons. Concrete6cnination will be released at a rafte6 askociated with thediffusion coefficient for the various radionuclides. Activated concrete/rebar will actually be The Figure 5-2 CJ.ss I Area represents the size of the Resident Farmeies farm and therefore, consists of that land-area to which thc DokSumernton Table6-Ill applies. While operational considerations may result in modificstio sAto the RA boundat, the extent of land;area to which Table 6-I I applies should not-change.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-41 RevisIon 6 Jtilq'.ry_2014 released: to the'water.ata relatively slow rate more closely linked.to physical dissolution of-boncrete, whichis.expected bevery slow.. :Forembedded'piping, the actuail-.ontninatio r'lease* ratte1is expected to' becloqs-etoq" -6obeca-usean~y open pipe end that .could.be a:.p.oint .of release.int0oaI basement:willbe :sealed. ,othe conservatism is te.as sumpion thatall. of-these sourcs aremied inthe same worst.case 2460 m3 o,,fb-baeent voliue: ifi -Ctality, .thvario*is sources are in different-areas:-bad d.ierenf t buildings. Fiiially,-the soource:tem..contributions :from groundwater, surface water, and: deep-soil. were added directly to.the basement well concentrations without cdnsideration of transport or dilution. 6.7.2 Method and Calculations for Summing Contaminated Material Dose The primary inputs to the.dose summation are the unitized dose factor calculations developed for eaefi contaninafed material., The unitized dose spreadsheets were-used for thedose calculations -without modification. Howevr,.the input
.concentrations and inventorieserequired modification to represent the sel.ected DCGLs.as,.opposed: tounit-concentrations. The: additional -alculations required to 1convert:the DCGL Viailudes:into iadio6nuclide concethatiions: and iniventofies are described.in the sect"nms bebow..
Tobperform the:summationlandd"to provide a methodto efficiently adjust the DCGLs for.. various
.naterials,
ý each of the -individual material . unitized dose spreadsheets was!,copied and linkedin a. single ,spreadshet,.erititled DCGIJTotal Dose. The sp.eadse*,t output for the DCGLI dose cal.ulation.for each material is provided iin Attachifient 6-13l 'These sptdshtis lri'de dth&ealculations fdr the dose values&reported in Table.. 6-1.
Contaminated--'Baseme't !Sfiacs! The DC.GL .forcontamiqtoed: ncrete is. expressed asdpm/l: cm2 detectable grOss beta. This form r ire Fwea6s th nalsaurve.y wil be performed tbcaue using gross beta measurements. The primary.criteria foi:selebting the gross beta DCGL for basement surfaceswas. toensure that-the total dbse, from all contaminated matrials, was less tha fthe.-0/4nrm/yr..dose. limit. There were two; secondary criterida:applied to the selection. of :.heD*CGL;, thle..DCGL would result in. caiclated basment 4fill'.concentiations below *-the-u :9soil,DGL, ad
- 2) Athe DCGLwas less than the.NC siface sc.ree ng valuss'from NUREG-172.-27, Tab leC212;(sel Attitenbelit 64.8).
To -calculate: the dosefrom a gi'ye gross beta DCGL, the grossbeta concentration is cornverted to individual i~adido"'udilide bonbntrati6sbased
- on their reýpective fractions.in the radionuclideuixtute. 'The xidividual oncenttations are then input to the dose calculation spreadsheet for contaminated basement concrete.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-42 Revision 6 January 2014
.Characterization data indicated that the radionuolidetmixtureslfor "special areas"
.differs from. the other -thebasermnt surfaces (see Table 2-8). Therefore, a separate mixture is applied to -the:dose assessmnetfor the "special areas", resulting in a different DCGL.forthe.. special areas"?. The DCGL:selected for the "special areas.". resulted in a lo~wer doose an._th atc41*uated.forthe.rest of the. basement surfaces (see Attachment 6-.13).Thereforelriose te total "in shown Table .6-: 1 is
,based on,the higher dosel calculated far thoegeneral rgdionuclide-mixture and DCGL, .not the ",special areas"q mixture.
The individual radionuclide concentrations.ar.e.calculated, as follows: Convert the detectable gross beta. cn*ocenftibfi to itol. radibn'uciddoniice*nfratin: Total dpm/100 cm .. (gross b.eta.dp-!m.00..cm.)/(gross:betaradionuclide fractions). (15) Where:! Total dprn/i.00. cm2 nis the:g maaion aofactivity-frotro all radionuclides. Gross beta is the deqtqectbJg.gros beta cnntraýtiof Tgross beta radionuclide fractions is.-the.sum ofthe fractions of each radionuclide in the:MaineYankee~nmix.ture: .With detectable beta Calculate. each individual radionuclide:c.ncentration as follows:.
*CR dpm/l..00 cm = (NFO-)(Total dPhi/.00: cmi); ('16)
Where: CR is the concentration of a given radionuclide NFR -is the nuclide fraction: of a:given' radionuclide Surface. Soil The DCGL forl surface soil is-expressed in.pCilg Cs-."37. .The surface soil dose' is calculated by-first determining.the:individual..radionu.clide concentrations by ratio: to. Cs-I 37 -using: the relative vractfions"in the'.Maine Yaikee mixture and then ent.erig th4e iindividua ,oncentratirons into te'"inventory cgum i-n-t' dose calculation spreadsheet :forsurfacee. olL; During final survey, and in the fidid bite ose.assessmentthenemitting radionuclides (HTD nuclides) will: be accounted for using Cs- 1:37 as a surrogate as describd .in.Equation .17 (.from REG :l.505,,.,Page .1 .-2, Equation 1.-4), The contribution -fromn soil HTD faidinfiili169 Willfbe*l-cikited using th6ei-dionuclide fractions listed. in Table 2-11. Cs- 137 was selected as the surrogate sincetit is the predominant radionuclide insoil (i.e.,. 89%) andsince:many offAte soil samples
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page..6-43 Revision 6 January.2014 will not result in positivelytdetected Cio-.60'. A-s seen of page 5 of Attachment 6-13, the dose contribufion form theHTD: radionuelides in soil (Ni-63 and H-3):is less
*. -,. . ....; ... . . . .. . . . .. . .. .. ... . . *. . . . . . . . . .. . .n . - .. . ..
than 1%.6f the Cs-.137..dose. ThefdfoirEthe effet' 6f the sirrdgate calculation on the Cs137 DCGLw* valueWill be-minial. To calculate the s garr le6t6 Cs-137 DG.L, the_61!6Wifig equation is used: CS- 137s=
=_+ +.k3 .D.... (17)
Where; Cs- 13 7ý,: is the; suirog'ate' Cs- 137 DCGLw; D1 is the.D.C.GL:forCs-137; Rn is ihexratio of the-HTD radionuclide mixture fraction to the C*s-137 * ... , .mixture. fraction; and D6 is the. DCGL, of.tie HM-radionuclide corresponding to 10 neyer.,Ther e DCGL.'s ýare: calculated by inverting the .Unitized Do'e Fa*to*s Liste'd.infith LTP, Table 6-7, and multiplying by 1.0. The unitized dose. factors were used:in the total dose and DCGL calculations. This allowed th6e-dose co-ntiib-tion:.of *h*-&tdibniid-lide to be calculated land reviewed to understand; the.relative sign.ificanceofit.q !.qcidesi:ini the mixture. The dose calculated from the Cs-:l:37 concerfrAtion sh6ii in Table 6-11 will be the game regardless of whether a "surrogate" Cs-137 DCGLW is used or the unitized dose factors for all i-adi.nuelides are .used. The Cs-'37 .to Co-60-ratio .ary iii. h',thi: fin-al suvy soil samples and this.will be accounted for~using a "unityyrle" approach as. described in.NUREG-1505, Chapter 11.... Before applying the t DCGLs, for areas inside-the RA, will be adjusted to :reprtesent the:Table'& 11 total sifae"soil d1se, as opposed to 10 mrem/yr.! Aszseenrin Tabie 6-11*,Te ose. rom surface soil is limited because.of the additional dose: from the other.contaminatedlmaterials on the site. The unity rule calculationwill limit: the surface soil do."seby minultiplyingthe Cs-137, and Co-60 DCGL's :corresponding to 10 mren/yr by. a factor equal to the Table 6-11 total surface soil dose value dividedby! 10mr. myr. If the dose contribution from surface soil changes in the future, the mu-ltiplication factor will change accordingly.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.6-44 Revision 6 ..
*a M.
o4 .. ..... .... ..... ......................... ... In order to demonstrate compliance with.the surface soil DCGL, the gamma spetroscopyresults for each soil smplew be ed toa unity e equivalent-using the Table 6-1 surface. soil DCGL's in the following equation. After this conversion, the DCGL becomes a unitless value of 1.0 that is equivalent
ýto the total surface soil do6se slhown ini Table 6-11. If the dose contributi ron from surface soil:changes in the future, the dose correspondinggto a unity rule equivalent of1.0Awillcangeaccordingly. The unity ýre equivalent is calculated per the following equation:
Cs-137 Co- 60 ;RN Unity Rule Equivalent * =- -IG
+... .....
Where: Cs-I137 and :Co-60 are the gamma spec results, DCGL(s,1 378 ):is the surrogate Cs-1375 DCGL, Sadjsted to represent the Table 6-11 total surface soil dosei as applicable (inside RA),ý DCGL(C&A) is the Co-60 DCGL adj'ustOedto, represent the Table-611 totalrurfae soil dose, as applicable (inside. RA) RNOis any other identified, gamma emitting radionuclides, and DCGL(Nx) is the-adjusted DCGL for radionuciide N. Absent sample-specific information from the final survey, usi n the radionuclide mixture fractions to represent the final Cs-137/Co-60 ratios is:the best method available to estimate dose and determine target soil concenftations.for remediation Pj g. Activated-Concrete/Rebar TheDCGLLfor activated concrete/rebar is.in units of pCi iotal activity at the wall and floor surfaces.. Toitd acfii includes all radionuclides in the Maine Yankee ni~ture.
MYAPC License Termination .Plan Page 6-45 Revision 6 January.2014. Deep Soil Tfe.DCGL for deep soil; as :for surface soili: is expressed in pCi/g Cs-1:37. The dee s6i! dose'is..leti!lfed. y fir"t determi'n ing the- indlQi dua.r.adionuclide concentrations by-ratio to Csf- 37 'usingther'elative-fracti6os ýin the Maine Yankee surface soil mixture and then entering the individual concentrations -into the "inveitoiy"'column in the dosetcflulation spreadsheet for deep soil. The surface Soil radionuclide mixtVre is assumed to heirepresentati-ve of the deep soil mixture. resulIts for gamma emitters and The -issues rellated to-compli.ance using .fihal survey Athe use-6f'Cs-I 37 a a 'urrgte."for dtie HTD tfidionuclides'that were described for surface.soil: also apply to deep soil.
.Grbuihdwater The exi'stng ground water.coiicent ations-iare entered diectly into theDCGL/TOtal
- os'e spiadshieet.- 'Tis ali6csthe dose from current-jrimdvaf&r contamination to be accounted for. The entered concentration is not ihtend~ed to be a: DCGL. If Maine Yankee's estimate of existing groundwater concentration changes, the valWe(s) iiihput tfothe :final-ddose 6alciil'atiofi~ f6r cmpliance with the 10/4 dose criteria will use the most :applicable corieentirationis.
SiraceW-ater. The maximum concentration identified was:used in the dose assessment. As with the.groundwater concentration, the entered concentration is not a DCOL. If new
'amnlle data, if.colle'ted, itiicates.'high& &incentatia*ns-in site surface; water, the new datawill leused in the:final udos:
esessment to d *oristrateompliancewith th7i 10/4 d6se criteria. Buried:P~iping! 2 6cmbeta. The goss "Thei. b ed pipihgDCGL is expressed as dpin/!0 D.CG., Total Dose sp.eadshei 'ait co'n-efts griss beta ntrafion to individual radionuclide concentrafibons .adiagous io:contaminatea.!basement surfaces. The re ting concekntration are edteredin the Om/!!00 cm inveritory. column in the dose-calcUlation spreadsheet.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-46. Revision 6 January*2014 Embedded Piping Theredis no; embedded piping associated with the ISFSI or the adjacent~area. The ,
.only ar*ea* fat. remain.-within the control. of the .0 CFR 50 license. Theembedded L piping.pliiin6n.'to remain after decommissioning of the Maine Yankee Nucl'ear 2
Plant had aototal internal surface area of .154.3 m? . Maine Yankee evaluated the contamination potýetial of the embedded piping in the Containment, PAB, and.Fuel building. Two. different DCGL's were used for embeded piping. The DCGL for the spray pump piping was 800,000 dpm/l.0O f? and th6 DC.GL f6r the rest Of the embedded p.ipngin.the spray Building, 2 Containment, :PA, and Fuel buildings was 100,000 dpmi100 cm .'. The inventory for .the dose assessment was calculated assuming that the spray ptum piping (26.5 m 2) is contaminated at 800,000 dpm/.100m.cm 2 and that the. remainingembedded piping. (127.8.m 2) is contaminated at 100,000 dpm/100- cm.. T.he entife,:in'ventrtyv of embedded piping-from all buildings was summed and assumed to be.instantaneously released. The dose under these assumptions was' cakculatedto b.e,0.1i36 mre yr... T:.ýessipýtioh*df instantaneous release is.conservative since the spray pumpi embedded piping willbe filled with cement grout.
.6.8 Area-Factors
.6.8.1 :BPserm.t Coqntapiilation The.basement. contamination conceptual model .described in Section 6.6.1 was
*as.d* .o.n.w,-" 2 . The model assumes t,*aý*e .surface area .of.4182 mn uniform mixing1 wthin a 0.6 m layer of fill in direct contact with the..4182. 2 . siface area The conceptual model assumes that the activity released from the wall i's mixed.
withthe 738.m 3 volume of water contained in.the 0.6.m fill layer, but.does not reqluitre, tie'ntmifiation to be iunif6rmly distributed over the eintire 4182 m2 surface area. The.model source termis the total inventory over the.surface and is no~t 6epoendent, on.the;distribution of the. contamination-on:: the,surface. Therefore, consiit'nt:itt.'nith the conceptual mo6dl, the are factor could be, a-:sii-pl'elinear relationshi -betwe;en total activity andarea. The area factor formula w*ouldthen be described usingi the.following equation: AF = 4182 mi/(elevated area) i(18).: where: AF is the area. factor (elevated area) is the size of the area exceeding the DCGLw
MYAP.C License Termination Plan Page 6&47 Revision 6 .January.2014 - - . -. - :..----. Maine-Yankee evaluated this potential approach and belieye that it is consistent with NUREG-1575 and NURE l4727 guidanc ,Which *cknowledges fhat the area factors should be based!on.the dose model -used to-calculate..the DCGL. However, it appears .thatsubstantiaye btter..remediation performance can be achievd 'thanis refleted in: Equation (1l8) 'nd That leaving, ! evaed.-ireas aitihe. lels all.wed byý the equation is not sufficiently conservative. Accordi.gly,,'the'area.factois-for'
.~~~~ ~ t. :concrete ontaminate.d:basement '.:f will be calculated!
e "-Ausmg Euon (19), to "whiic
-ý'mthe reprq6siets a considebly more -cons&vative. apprach. The ...a' .a...r used in te unity rule for~contaminated basement concrete willbe calcula-tediusing:Equation (20) which-ensures *that the number:of elevated arasin sureyunt are restrited to limiftthe- inventory of acti.vity: allo0wed :i a surv..y uniti'd maintAinompli anc with the :release criteria.
AF.= 50 m2/(elevated area) (19) AFd (survey-unit)/(elevated: area) (20) where: AF:isthe area .factr (elevated area) is the size of the area exceeding thebDCGLw (survey unit) is the size of the surveyunity The 50 mnarea was selected after qualitative:consideration.ofthe potential residual cntpniatliom that could reain in elevated!areas af.er.. a cop. .eSiv. freediatidn effort. Are g ter tan 50.r!are required b ;at or9b..w the D.CGLW Aiea factors can-a'pply.toj: elvated aireas:-o-n ,a-ny. srace butatae ,expected itobe applied prim&arly to 6ontann"ationin mcra"c and-creVices, or oher geometries,' that are not efficiently remediatied. 'It .isnip6. ca4t" that a .arge number of elevated areas. will remain. The numbi .o6feleviateArea.sallowed*to remain:is limited by the foxmula presented in Sect ion .,T survy-unit size is i-5:. d.etermined i accordance wivthSection 5.3 11EL. 6.8.2 Surface Soil and Deep Soil Area Factors The NRC screening values were used to calculate the surhibc: sOi. DCGLs. This approach does not provide a direct method: of linking-the 'areafactor calculation-to itie.dose model. The surface soil' area *actors W-6ee d6t "Wa*6*ionth' :changke indiec rditinas a funfction l ra he'eaiye&PlW deteried; usingAMicrobshield. T-he output: repcrts are ~providedinAttabhiMent 6-14. Using direct radiation onlyis a conservative approach since~ areafactors based on the ingestion and inhalation. dose pathways increase ata faster rate,than those based on the direct radiation pathway. This is evident frominspectiri: of Table 5.6 in NUREG-i 575 which shows, fo rexample, the higher area fitors for Am-241 as
.MYAPC License.Termination Plan -Page.6-48 Revision 6.. January 2014 compared to .Cs-3.7 andCo-6Q.. 6 The'ar factors for surface and deep soil are listed i. Tabl.e:&42-1,.
'Tibk1&-642 Area Factodr,(AF) for SuaceSoilad. 2 Deep Soil
___...____.Survey Unit=T.h;oouo .__ ___ 2
-A~rea~m Ar..
I ' 2.i 4 rý' _-.5.
,6 .
L 8 :16i<2$5
-. ... 16; .0 *
- 50 .00:..'
10.. 500: 0 1,000. 10,000 10,000.
- Cs-17 (AF) _ 19 i67*..i A.1 *3.2.I 2-*8
ý - -t*..
2.
,4'- 2' 1.'7!=-=
4.
--1.3: 1.--*"21.1 . .
1.0 '.. Co-.60'(AF), 12.7. -7:21 44 I3,F M9 2. 1".8A..1.5, 12; .2 1.1 1.0 I___YMix(F)*: ___L- ,,. ~~120
- ~ .*, . ..68
~, ._. 4~.'.,_
.1 .~
32- :: ~ .. 2:.8 _. .. ý : ,. --- .1.5 I V.3 i2 L.2 1.1 178 IMI--N. 1.0
.
- Wher. MY. *,i isi :theduaf*, . if a ' .. i...i.i....cii.e.inixture.
.6.8,3 Embedd Piping :Aea qFQtors
,Since.the: dose.mode .for emteddhe i thtlsame as the :basement fill model, the same:.ar ea factor e.qiation.w.o~&Lapp. "Y eleVated arqd Anevaluation o c ntana ppotzentnp 4a remediitjon effectiveness in eimb*d&1d Pi&iiig 6cu!'. tlh-at "areafqtors t an b*limhifd t&o'2"0. Area fact6rs larger than.2.0 can readily-be.justiid on a.dose basis using the above equation.
However, .a...onsev.atieappfl'catfn oS.f-A.. was applied to. lmit the embedded pipiig aY fact.6* to 2.0&... The.number .f!e.vat edar. nm li.ing will be linimted to ensure that the sburre te,.iain'ventb. V y andiýktr(Odd.,sed relý(iV fo the selete6d DCGL(s) is not exceeded.
- 6. .4 'BuiedP'ig A. . A: act o.s
'ipjpi.g *n~ib.utgbq t*.f onerperentof the total.:dose to the resideit fEier,. 'The volnm'e:o' pmg expected to reman on site is 142.0 nm. The radioactive..contamirnants asso' diatdithtiried pipe are considered :to be excavated to, the soil thlese condi~fions-area factors! for soil: woxildsurface uniformly ixed
. ýin the top. 0. 15:m of soil. Under 4pl.
. .. ....". . .. . .. . "' .. .. . .. .... .... a pp..
the,foilWing equationii ceaiculat~s an ;area factor that is ALARkA and conserves the
.survey un4it.total riaren.rto.ry...A a..s.amqasureof conservatism,-.a .imit .of 1.0 is placed
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-49 Revision .6 ,January.:2014 .......
,on area.factors-for.buried.piping. The.DCGGLpc;(the DCGL used for the elevated rieasuremeit"criteia): is calculatefdu'sirig thed s§=me eqiuatibho.
,4reaFactor=:
Foýr exkample, a 20 m2 survey unit containing a 1.0 in2 ele'vated ariea and using the DCGL.of 9. 50E+03 dpm./100 cim2-wouldrxrsult-in an area faet6r (AF) of 20: 20Me Arlea.Factor=20=".0 -2 The AF woul d be limnited to 10 :as stated abpve so,-the,allowable adtivity in the elevated *.Ae would be.9.50E+04 dpmI.00 cm2 The D.CGIrC calculated by the equationmould be .0times the DCOL or 1.906E-05 dpm/1 00 cm2 , I th!e maximum concentration..of the: elevatedarea.(i.e., 9.50E+04 dpm/n 00 cm2 )
*were the only activity-in the survey unit, the. unity ruleý application would be as follows:
9,.50E-+ 04 1pm UnityRule = 10'm =':0Swhich is, < L0 1.90E + 05 PM.. 6.8.5 Activated Concrete/Rebar Area: Factors The aciivated :.oncrpte/reb.ar conceptual model.j-s qos.evativey treatedn-a similar mi as the baseient cbntainafion' model.. Activt'ed:concreteinclu'des the
.fer source term in the.entite volume of activated concrete; (sutface and siIbsifface).
nike th.e.b.asemnt fillmod e hopweyver .the acti"vated radi"onuclide, inventory -is
-aligsti-a l' reledsel. Sifnce:the doseimodel§,are simiar., thea6fa ctor for the BasementFill.Model (Section:6.8.1, equation 19 or 20 of the LTP)will be used for actiVateqd.-orncrete..
- 6.9: Standing Building DoseAssessmient. ad DC:GL Detertmination.
6.9.1 Dose.Assessment:Method This:dose assessment applies to the occupancy of a standing building and does-not apply to the filled building basement. Current plans call, for only one building to
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page'6-50 Revision 6 January*2014 remain'standing :after decommissioning, i.e., the.switchyard relay house. The NRC screening ya.oqs .from NS Jo E-.m72 7. Tab.e C2.2.1 were.u.sed.for building o*ccuepahncy dose. assessment:and DCGL determination. The screening values were adjusted to correspond to 10 mrem/y. NUREG-1727, NMSS Decomissioniiig Standard Review Plan, Appendix C, describes, the justification ntecessary to allow directuse of these screening values. Wh~en..jng .thescr!eeng;g.apprtah r icensees need to: demonstrate that.the picuiearsit*eI cojdtis." (4'g, physi6al and source term conditions) are compatible and.consistent with-the DandD model assumptions. Thelfl16owinig site.conditions are ý.edified for Use of the Standing Building screening ýaluesl
- 1. The.c0htamination bn bn.building surfaces (e.g., walls, floors, ceilings) should be surfi6dl and..no.n-Volu fiec (e.e.s less than 0.4 in (10
'ram)).
2; Qpntaminaition on surfaces is mostly fixed (not loose), with the frac-tion of loosecoantaminaticn no)t tnoexieed 1O p6cent of the total suraee activity. 3..; Thescreening-criteria, are not applied to: surfaces such.as buried strucrs (eig., drainage or sewer pipes) or mobile equipment within th'ebuilding;.such. strctUres'and buried surfaces will be. treated on a
'Ca.seby-ceaseiliasisi..
The. above conditions .are satisfied for the Maine Yankee site. 6.9.2 Standing Bdildidg:DCGLs The .sianIngbuildin'g0IOCL wvas:calculated-as shown in Table 6-13. The DCGLs weire cal.cula ted. 6skin" E'tio'n .4-4 i-i NUREG-1727 as ddjusted for gross beta by multiplying. the resiuts by the gross beta radioniiclide fraction in the mixture. The DCL w~as'expresSed* .asgrosstetasince the final survey of a~standing building, if necessary, wil .be perf.ormed using:gross beta. measbdements.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-51 Revision 6 January 2014 Taible'6-15 kGrssBt(aDCGL Fo*rStding Buildings ____ *.o t(NO Applicable to Bafsements.to be Filled) Nudlte& .......Screening-
' - . ....... e ta !
N'u"lide Fraction Level nflScreening Level
.:: ' : __,.n) ____ ........ pmr 10O-cm 2 Fraction
'H:3 2.36E_-02. 4.96E+67 4.75E-10 F4e-55 81&.03 8 1:.80E+/-.406 - - 2.67E-09 coo57' 31oE-o* . ,. ..... 3.63E-09 Co-60 5.84E-02 2.82E+.03 5.84E702 2.07E-05.
Ni-63 3.55E-01 7128E+05 4.88E-07 9r.490 I 8O.&.03 3,4t+03 2.80oE!03 -8.04E-07 - C.'s134 4.55Bt:03, 5i08E+W03,
. ..... .. ............. . I. -.-.
4y.45-5E403-: 4.. 8.95E-07.'
, * .. . .1.* . ...
*cs-;417 -5.50E6 1: 1.E+'04- 5350E-0I 4.91E-05 Sum. 6.16En01l 7.20E-5
* ,DCGL 8.554E+03
.. 3.-dpm/100 cm'
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . (10 m rem/i )
6.9.3 Standihg Building A.rea:Factors As :discussed above:for sokiisg the Nc-screening values for DCGL det n*inti6n~d~e§.no~t ailld:fo'i d .terMt.Idtridati6n of area factors. Consistent with: the. mthi:e'dused for soil,ýMicroshield'runs were used to generate the area factors by starting with an. area of 1.00::M 2 : and calculating the relative exposure rate: as the area is d&erased. The-ratio, of the:. 100 n.mexposure rate to the respective smaller area exposure rate reptesehts~the area factor for 'the given elevated area size. Attacfirment 6-15:contains the Microshield runs and Table 6-14 provides the: restiltinga area factors:
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-52 Rlevision 6 Jq2014 Table 6-14 Area Fact~rs'lAF)for Standing Buildings (Does NotApply to Building Basements.To Be Filled) Survey Unit Size = 100 ml,
~. )
= ~= ' .....
" z.. ... -. "... : .... ..
Aream 065 1 2 i4 8' .16? 25' 50. '100 CS-137(An) 23.5 1.2.6: 7.1 4.3 2.8 L9 1.6 1:2 1.0 Co-60.(A.) .3- 1-2.6,7.1,4.3.2.8 1.9 .6 1:2 1.o
'M M~ix (A.} 23.-S," l2-:6 7.1 4.3: 2.8; IS 1'6 2-i1.0
.... .......
- WherMe -MY...
. th .C ,i _ii o e radinci........ . . .
6.10. Ref&rences. 6.,0..1 Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp,A.L. Sjorren, and:R.W. Shor, 1984. "A Review and Analysis-of Parameters for Assessing Transport ofEnvironmentally Released Ridionuclides thiiogh Agriultre," ORNL-5786, Oak Ridge Natiorial Laboratory. 6.10*2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1.988."Externa! Exposure to Radionuclides in Aik Water and Soil, Federal Guidance Report No. 11 ," EPA 520/1-88-020,, U. S. EPA-Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
.6.1,0.3 Krupka, .K.M.,, and R.J. Seine, 1998. "Effects on Radionuclide Concentrations by Cement/Ground-Water Interactions in Support of Performance Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities," NUREG/CR-6377, PNNL-14408.
6.10.4 Onishi, Y., R.J. Senie, R.M. Arnold, C.E. Cow'an, anid F.L. Thompson, 198.81. "Criticl Review: Radionuclide.Transport., Sediment Transport, andWvater Quality Mathematical Modeling; and-Radionuilide Adsorption/Desorp0.n Mechaisms,," NUREG/CR-1322, PNL-2901. 6.10,5 Sheppard, MI and D.H. Thibault, 1990. "Default. Soil:Solid/Liquid Patition-s2oeffieients" 6.10.6 Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, Diff-user'arid Forebay Dose Assessment, EC-041'-0! (I), Revision 0.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 6-53 Revision 6 January 2014 6.10.7 Maine Yankee letter to NRC (MN-03-049), dated September 1:1,2003, Proposed Change: Revised Activated Cbncrete D.C.GL -and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose: Modeling - License Condition 2.B.(1 0); License Termination 6.10.8 NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 18, 2004, Issuance of Amendment No. 170Q to Facility Operating License No. DPR Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (TAC No. M8000).
- MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6
.January20.14
-MAINE YANKEE LTP SECTION 7 UPDATE OF SITE- SPECIFIC DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 7-1 Revision 6 January 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7.0 UPDATE OF SITE- SPECIFIC DECOMM.ISSIONING COSTS >,.i;..,, 7-I 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Decommissioning Cost Estimate .... ..............-. .... ..... ...... 7-1 [ 7.3 References................:.-....,.,..."..,* ".'. ',"." 7-2 I.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 7-1 Revision 6 January 2014 . ... 7.0 UPDATE OF SITE- SPECIFIC-DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 7.1. Introductieon In accordancewith :10 C.Rv50,g2()(9)(ii(F)- eguidance of.Reguiatory Guide 1.179, the site-specific: cost estimates an4dfnng plans are provided. 7.2 Decommissioning Cost Estimate The current Federal Energy Regula.'o CdIii n (FERC) approved decommissioning [. cost estimate andcost.,estimate for miana..gement 6f spent fuel and GTCC waste is based. onthe Stipulation .and Sett-lement--Agrernen e.,tween MAPCO and~the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Author-'ity, °te` neC..tiut Offie of Consumer Counsel, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, theMane. office:.of Public Advocate, the Massachusetts Departmerr of Pubrile. tiliies, andthe. Attorney General of Massachusetts I, dated April 30, 200133. This- cost estimate includes ithe cost. associated t ISESI decommissioningW4 costs and a fundi g:assumvnptiofi 1!5. :of.perations cost toimaage spent fuel and GTCC waste. 'A funding mechanism provides: that damage. awards and settlement I proceeds that.MYAPCQ receives in.future phases-of 'its litigation with the Department of Energy (DOE). will be applied tlo ahtaln atheadqacy of6tfhe Nuclear Decommissioning. I. Trust (NDT) to cover :15, years of ISFSI operations'!(as well as all other projected decommissioning c~sts).,:In addition,.MAC0ihas the right to resume collection of I, decommissioning char-ges. from c o' r"n;,gis.j*l ,to the submittal ofa proposal under eiits I: section 205 of the FederaltPower.Aýtif needed. MYAPCO has an account within its NDT entiitled,i '.ISFSI Radiological Decom," that segregates the funds for radiologicaal decommissioning of the ISFsi from the larger balance of funds for.ongoing management ..of spfent fuel and: GTCC waste held in the NDT. [ The assumptions of the.current. decommissioning eost estimate. are discussed in the DecommisSioning F,undinhg!Plhan submiitted to.6th.eN;RC 60on JAiUary 8, 2013 in accordance I with 10 CFR 72.30(b)(2) (Reference 7.3--1). The: dedommissioning cost estimate incorporates.the most recent assumptions-.th respeet toOe .remaning-,decommissioning 1. activities and.rte6a6d costs (,e.,thos-ess.* i-aed With the Maie Yinkee ISFSI). The total I un-escalated cost estimate for decommissioning 'the ISFSI, includinigcontingency is $26.8 I million, which includes $22. 1 millionfor radioloiqcalfremoval and $4.7 mfllion for non- I, radiological removal. The deciomm'.isi`ng 9st est-imate is in 2013 dollarsm
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 7-2 Revision 6 Januaqy2014 MYAPCO will continue to inform-the NRC regarding the status of this fUndingby .1 complying with the obligations defined in: 1) 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1).and (2),to-submit an annual De omissioning Funding Status Report; 2).!0 *CFR 50. 8"2(a)(8).(v) to submit-an annual7 2financial assurancestatus report regarding decommissioning funding; and 3) 1;0 .1
.FR .3 0(q,)Ato resubmit the decommi ssioninh unding planat inteivalln o*.tt exceed three years. I 7.3 References 7.3-1 Letter from C. Pizzella (MYAPCO).to U.S. Nuclearý Regulatory Commission, OM-Y-l 3-003,, "Revised independent S~pen Futel Storige Iastallation Decommidssin ing Funding Plan,"'dated January 8, 2013. .1
MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 6 January. 2014. . ........ MAINEYANKEE LTP SECTION 8 SUPPLEMENT "TOTHE: ENVIRONTMENTAL REORT
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 87i Revision 6 januaOy-2014... TABLE OF CONTENTS 8.0 SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ....... ... 8-1 8.1 Introduction and Purpose .......... ,... ,... 8-1 8.1.1 Purpose...... , .... .. 48 8.1.2 Site Description After Unrestricted Release ,., .* . . .. .. 8-2 8.1.3 PSDAR Update For Remaining Dismantlement and Decontamination Activities.8-2 8.1.4 Update of Maine Yankee Environmental Report',_, ..;.. ....- 8-2 8.1.5 Radiological Environmental Impacts.......................8-3 8.1.6 Non'Radio.logical Environmental Impacts ........................ 8-3 8.1.7 Evaluation of Decommissioning LOw-ýLeVdl RadibiaetiVe Waste (LLRW) 8.1.8 Summary/Conclusion .................................... 8-4 8.2 Site Description after License Termination .. ............. ..... 8-4 8.3 PSDAR Update for Remaining Dismantlement-and Decontamination Activities 8.4 Update of Mai:ne Yankee Environmerital Report. .. . ...... .... :. -. . :.8-7 8.4.1 Sitelocation 8.4.2 Climate. ......... .... ,.,,, .. ..... ..... 8-9 I 8.4.4 Socioeconomic Data ........ ,....8-11 I 8.4.5 LandUse ... .................. ,1........,....,8-1 8.4.6 Surface Water ............. ,. 8-12 8.4.7 Groundwater .......... .... * .... ,. .:.. ............... 8-13 . 8.4.8 Biota ........... ....... 8-177........... 8.4.9 Water Use.84............ .... .....:. -, - 8-19 .1 8.4.10. Effects of Decommissioning ...... .. .... ;..... 8-20
.. &.. I 8.4.11 Historical and Archeological Resources ,., .......... ....... 8-21 I 8.4.1.2 Endangered or Threatened Species ...... .................. 8-.2.. .
8.4.13 Environmental Effects. of Accidents and Decommissioning Events .. 8-23 [ 8.5 Radiological Environmental Impacts ........... .- .......... 8-24
& I 8..5.-1.Radiological.Criteria for License Termination.... ............ 8*24 8.5.2 Deconunissioning versus Plant Operation.. 2 8.6 Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts .. . , .. 8-25 I 8.6.1 Overview of Other Regulators Covering:.Site.Release ... .... 825 8.6.2 RCRA-Closure Process . -8,25 I
MYAPC License Termination Plan. Page 8-i Revision 6 ,January*2014 ... 8.6.3 Site Location of Devel6pmenit Act Termiiiation or Transfer ........ 8-27 8.6.4 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) ..................... 8-28 8.6.5 Solid Waste.......... ...... .... :............8-3 8.6.6 Hazardous Wasteaaj Hazardous Matter Control...8.-........ 34 8.6.-7 Waste Water Discharge-s, .. ...... 834" 8,6;8 Storm WatetrManagement ...... : ., ....... 8 35 [ 8.6.9.. ir.and .Noise s ..... .. .................. ., .......... - .,.. 835 18.6.1,0:FlorAl a'n~dFauqna'l.Ijpacts§ ~ .85 8:.6,.11 Confirmat.ry S:rveys .4 . . 6.......... 8.6.12 :Cumulative Risk, ... ,:... :,.. ....... ...... , .... 8-36 8.6.13 P6ssibility of Institutirin, Ca*'htrols for Non-Radiological Impacts .. 8-36 8.7 ;E-aluation-ofDecommission*ing,.Low-Level R:adioactive Waiste (LLRW) Volume
........ .... . 8-37 8.7,1 Estimate of Maine Yankee LLRW Volume ... .............. 8-37 8,.7.2 FGEIS LLRW Volume* Basi's......... .................. 8-38 8.7:3 ImpactofMaine Yankee's LLRW Volume ;, .,............. ... .." i... 8-39 8.8 Su'mmary 8-42 I 8.9
References:
....... .>, . , .... , .,...:... . ..,. ... ..... 8-42 List of Tables Table 8-*1 Table 8-2 Wi§sasset and Other City Population-Updates, . -... , ...." 8-10 T-able 8-3 ee* ecommissioning Water Use. Y.8-20. Table 8-4 Envirton ental Impats :of Accident Classes .;. . , . .... . ... ........ 8-23 . Table 8-5 Maximum Annual Total Body Dose:Com . . ert . ,:.
... .... .,.. . .... . -.. *. v, ... ,.,
. . . . , 8-24 I
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-1 Revision 6 January 2014.. . . .... 8.. SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTALREPORT. 8.1 Introduction and Purpose 8.1.1 Purpose The purPose of this. section*of the License"Temna.tiqon. Plan (LTP) is.to update the Maine Yankee Envir9mnentalReport R) W(M wifh any new information or significant environmental change associated'with Mdine Yaade's proposed decommissioning/license .tmination.actities. .This section of the LTP constitutes a supplement,.to the:MYERK.lprs..tt 110..CFR"51.5::53(d)
"Environmental.Report Post-Operating.License. Stage" and 10 CFR 50.a82.(4 ,)"(9)(iii(G)*....IniOctober, 197Q, .. i.e. .eesubmitted to the US. Atomic Ener'gy Commission (AEC: "NRC's.predecessor).
its Environm.etal Report, which was further appended in Februa-r 1.97 withIsupplementary information. On April 19, 1.972, Maine .Yankee submitted: to.the AEC a "Supplement to Environmental Report." It is this latest- supple'ent whi ch is being updated by this LTP sectionpursuant:tt the above re.guati0ns During July 1972 the AEC issued the Final Env.ironmental S.tatement related to"the: operation. 6fMaineYankee Atomic PowerStatiion. Qn August 27, 1997, shortly, after submitting-its-10 CFR. 50.82(a)(,) slijitdown certificati6ns, Maine Yankee submitted. its Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR). This supplement to the MYER describes chages since the issuance of the PSDAR and the MYER. Any identified new-intformation-or significant environmental ch age associate. with. Maie.*e.. ,kee's proposed decommissioning/license termihatioinactivti.es i6s.,.evaluated to determine whether it is bounded by the site-specific decommissioning::activiies described in.Maine Yankee's.PSDAR,. AEC's Final Environmental Statement or the:.Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS),. NUR.EG.0586. Maine Yankee's proposed decommissioning/license. ,terminration: activities are.bounded by AEC's Final Environmental Statement (FGEIS),NiG905Et586, and/orthe impacts of-the reference plant evaluated therein (Refer6eie 8.9.5). This. supplement to the environmenta.report generalIy. follws -the NRC :guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.179 "Standard Format: and .Conitent of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors"..dated Januaary 1999 and NUREG-1700 "S~tandard Review Plan -forEvaluating Nuceiar.Po.wger,-Reactor License Termination Plans'." dated April 2000.: 'The" ontehtsio fthis, section have been informed by appropriate -sections ofNURBG-1727-' NSS.Decommissioning Standard Review Plan," dated September 15,. 2000.. Much of the information specified in this later guidance document has been preiously brovided to the
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-2 Revision 6 January 2014 . .. . ... . NRC in otherforrns;,e.zg.',Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) - site description, meteorology, Seismology, hydrology, etc. 8.1.2 Site DescriptioniAfler Unestcted Relese A summary descriptionof theý,site following license termination'and unrestricted release4s provided fi`S.4fi'on"r:2. U tnr ted,.'r*e-lease,.in this usage, refers to demonstration.ofredlýease in te*ms-.of.ad!iological criteria, as defined in IO.CFR 20.1402. As:of Septefmei'30, 2005, theoonly.de.nmnissioning activities :that I: remain are those:associa'ted with the ISFS. The. information included in this section:of the .LTP-inclu~des hist.rical information. regarding the decommissioning
,of the, Maine: Yankee Nuclear-Plant thatwill bhe maintained in.its current form.
-This info.*mati.on.-.1l be:reviewed;;:an'l- i6sed`as necessary, at the time of initiating.the de'oM-iiss*.sg'i6 1 c ti esi for the.ISEIS*and.associated land areas to 'L ensure,,that- appropriateinformatior is~avlailable for the implementation of final status. survey activities...f.r the 108FI and termination'of -the Part 50 License for the Maine'Yankee site.
Generally, :the -abov.e:.grade s.tructur.es fr-the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant were dem6lished d6o' to tie ý66fetigbb1,*oW and thekitesuling concrete demolition debris-was disp-osed. ofoffsite at .either:a lodwlevel -radioactive waste facility or an [
.appropriate disposal facility. Tlieremainingbasement.foundations were filled with-a soil 'fill m"aterial fol11 n ayfrq*g Uir'derfmediation :and final status survey activities. .:The,ISESIstoragepads and: Vetical Concrete Casks-will be dismantled and allof the; material (gonrete*n4 steel) dispo,sed.of as lowlevel radioactivee
,waste. This s,9o radioloicialandfindn-radiological
.i....ifies. impacts:
.associate*d-* th the Tfa.,statelffthe site".
8.1.3 PSDAR Update For* Reaining -Disiiantlement and Decontamination Acti~ities
- LTP. section 3 idenifies the dismantlemet-and diotatinationractivities which rem.Ain to.be comp.td tojdal6w :'license'terminhation and unrestticted release.
These activities are:coimpaed to ethedesretiptions.gien in :the PSDAR and any changes identified. The.impacts of the changes to these activities are described in Section 8.3. 8.1.4 UeFpdate 'ofMiman.e eeEnvironmental. Report The.MYER was.reviewed aganhst-Maine.Y.ankee 'sproposed. decommissioning/license .ermi ahon.a.tion.'a.ctivities to: identify-relevant new information or significant. e.viro.n.metal changes associated with those activities.:. Any releVant.new inofrnmationoir sign.ifitant: envi'onmental changes identified
MYAPC License Termination Plan. PAge.8-3 Revision 6 Januar.y 2014. w*re review.ed *to *determine whether.they are:-boundedby the site specific decommissioning activities described in the.PSDAR, the AEC's Final Environmental Statement for Maine Yankee or the FGEIS, NUREG-0586. Maine Yafkee's proposed diconinissioniing/lieense termination activifties'are bounded by.AEC's Fjinal"Enivironmenital:Statement (FGEIS)3 NUREG-0586 and/or the im..pactq ofthe referen-pliant e.aluiated therein (Reference 8.965). A description ofthisr*erview..'is-provided in.Section 8.4 8.1.5 Radi1oigical Envird menta. Impacts: A deseritijon'of the radiological.impacts of the site following:'Iicense termination land ..uesgthrte.dreleise.isi§p-ioded in SectionS.5.-1. Theseradiological impacts areideritiffied.genedrally. follfowing the guidance pro-vided by the NRC in NUREG-17-27. ",NM*SSeDecomrmissionrig.S*fandard Review Plan" dated Sepitemb.er 15, 2000.. The models and modeling -results aredescribed in LTP SectiOn 6. That LTP? section. shows. how Maine Yankee1meets the Radiological
*Criteria for License termination prescribed: in. 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E and the
*enhanieedstate .criteria des.c.bed in Maine State Law LD 38MRSA§1455.
The r-adiolbegfl .Aupat ofplan*t
?opaton versus the site-following license
- termina'io. i and.unresthrited release is also-Adiseused in; section i8.5.2. D.ufing approxi .atOly:twoenty-rflve..years of:operation, Maine Yankee-operated Well within the-limits;-prescribed .intheap.plicable radiological effluent -requirements. With.
the cessation of operations and, thecompletion"of the decommissioning of the {
.Maine Yahkee Nuclear*'Plant;.,.with the exception of those' activities associated wiwth iffISSI,-the.radi'lgi6-al have..decreased due to both impacts:ofthe-facility theei¢minafibn-of effluents: (bothliquid and gaseous)-and-the -reduction in source term due to radioactive decay. Following license terminationnand unrestricted release,-the ,radiological imlpacts.,are assessed againstapostulated member of a group.ofindividuals reasonably :expected to receiye the greatest exposure to
*residual .ra~di'io,aeti'yfor"anyajpp .icH e set of circumstances. The radiological imipact-torfeadindiiv~iduals underrdeaiistic.circumstances: are eXpected to belmuch
-less-than *tispostu!ated,:low. probabi.ivtysituation :and are expected to be much less: thia for plant:operatfio.
*8.1.6 Non.R.adiological EnvironmentalImpacts The non-rad*i,!lg iclimpats :of decomisAsioning activities associated with terwmationofthe license are described. in Section 8..6 These non-radiological imp.as-ihclude&wateifisa'ge:, noný'rdinologi6cMwa. generation ind transporation, dismantlement and excavation controls. Other nOn-radiological concerns .which are covered by federal, state and local agencies::other~than the NRC ate generally described.. Moreinfiorrmafion on the responsibilities: of these
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-4 Revislon 6
,......,January,2014
- . . . . g .a . , "4. . . . * . .. *.. ...... ... .. .. ....... ......... .
agencies and Maine Yankee's coordination with these agenqc ieps is presented in LTP Section 3.6. 8.4.7 Evaluation offDecommissioning-Low-Level Radioactive Waste !(LLRW) Volume The waste volume generated from the decommissionig, of Maine:Yankee-is described and its impact is evaluated in section:8.7.- This w-aste Volume, is greater than that which was originally described in the PSDAR. The: increase in volume isaresult of the decision to,.dispose of all. concrete demolition debris from structures above grade (above three feet below, grade).at either a l-w-level radioactive..waste facilityorvan .appropriate, disposal facility. Inwaddition, the ISFSI storage pads and Veri.cal Concreteý Casks will be djismatn end; ill.liof the ma.terial (concrete and ,steel) disposed of as low-level radi'ctiVe.-Waste. The impacts ofthis volume are evaluated Against theý basis for-the estirfiates provided in the FGEI.S., in particular, the,impacts, on: LLRW.di.sposalI.facility resoaurces and the dose to the public resulting from waste transportation are e valuated and
!described.
8.1,8- -Summary/Conclugioh S~ection88 summarizes the r~elemant:new information and.significant, environmental chanies idnfitified ..and the evaluation. oftheiiri corresponding* impacts It. is concluded, that Maine Yankee's proposed. dedormmissioninj/license termination activities arpe.bounded.by AEC.?"s Final :-En vironmnental,+Statement ('FGEIS), NUREG-0586 and/or. the impacts.of-4he -referenqe plOa.@val~uated therein. Idertified changes between this. supplement and tlih previciiSlý:rsubmitted documents will be:expanded uponwinthe, text of this do-ument. 82; Site-Description after Licn~se Terminhti6n Thepurposeof this section:is to presdent a summary of the final state: of-the: sitefoliowing likense-termination and: unrestricted 'rel'ase and t6 .id&ntify relveant ra'diological :and n"on-
- tadiolgicalimpacts., Unrestricted release, in thisýtusage., feferslto. tthe rakioogical ielease criterina .of:10 CFR 20.1402. (It is,possible that due-to; non-radikogi..al.consideratibns, some prrtion 6f the site may be. sibject to-deed.restritions regardingcertain."ativities.
SeeSection 8.6-13.) -LTP Section.3.2.4 provides ýEamore detaild bdeAsciptioi ofPhe final state-of thesite following dismantiemente activit.ies. Thefimpacts.ident.fi.din this section are discussed in.:Sections-:8.5.atnd:8.6i At license termination, when' the site:will be released for unrestricted use, the site will be a backfille6d
* ~. ... ~and graded,. land area
. . ,. r ..
With sorime above grade gra stictSfeifisefimining e . .... re , . depending
.... ppr,,
on theindustriia reuse of the site. Reim.aining:above gra!destrudtures includethe.main switchyard and possibly other buildings'which were used for administrative, nion-
MYAPC License Termination Plan '.Page 8-5 Revision 6
- January.2014 radiological purposes. Generally speaking, the rest ofthe, above grade structures.
associated with the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant. were demolished down to .hre.e fee.t. below gradeand the resulting concrete demolition debris was disposed of offsite at either [ a,LLRW dis*posl faciliity.r anappr6priate disposal facility. The remiaining.basement foundations were filled with a soil fill material. following: any'required remediatini and final status..:survey, activities. In addition, the ISFSI storage pads and Vertibal:C0ncrOte Ca~sks. Wil.bedi.sinaintled'.Arid all of the material acrcrete~and- steI) ýdisposed.of as. low-level radioactive .Waste,. The for.emerLow Level Waste Storage Building [now the ISFSI Security.Operations Building-(SOB.)] Will t'emain in-place untilthe:fuel is transferred. to-the Department .of Energy. Thef 15' ksw.-,itchyard, the 345 k-v.-switchyard,.the barge slipand: dopl;phins§ Will re.mai itact.. The road thaittravels west:oif .the ISFSI will remain in place, terminating near the.. 155 kv.t witwhyard. Theb'original plantaecess road -willremain, The-existing [
.railroad-will remain in place. The Old:Ferry Road and public boat ramp: will remain in place. Some iibe!lw gride structures and systems will remain.
The foundation basements -ofthe-Containment, Primary Auxiliary. Bugilding, Fýuel Buildingand Containent Spray.Building will remain in place below an elevation equivalent to three feet below: grade. Ofherf above grade. structures:such.as.wthe.:; Tbine Bui lding-"Sevice Building, WART Building,.FrontiOffice, Ciriculating Wat6r Pup House; RCA.Building; High Radiation Budker, Main Steamantd Valvellouse, FeedWater AEmergency Pump Room, LSA BBuildiffg; EquipmeDnt.Hatch' and HV.7 and 9 Rooms, Ventilation Equipment Area and. theReactor Moior Control: Center Room -wre demolished. Such'ttiimarily hnly oTuindation remnants:below: an-elevation equivalent to, nminlaly threefeet.belo
... gradewill be 'left. rThe.xadiological ccntamination-and
'acfivation'.products in the-basements and grade-level foundations wefreaclbane"d u1pand 1:1 surveyed'in..accordance.:ith the.radiological criteria and stirvey methods described in LTP Sections 3 through 6. Non-radiological contaminants in these buildings included paint that contains I1w levels of PCB. These:,and other *non-radiological .contamiants
*wereaddredss.ed in. the.RCRA closure process.
System piping.such as Primary Component Cooling, Secondary Component Co661ing, sahitary siewe" in the .idustrial:area and fuel :oil anid., pipin g between thie:DWST/RWST and the SprayBuifldinghwere removed; ;Following piping: removal,*the: excavations were remediated as necessary and surveyed.in accordance with :the radiblogichl .crit**i anid S. eyfimeh6d§ degeribed: in LTP S.6c-tio*§i3 th6iigh 6.Non-..drdidi al .chtiutinants that werecaried. in, these.pipes;:ifrdldde.'chromates and fuel oil, These: andiother-noni radiological contaminiants were addressed inthe.RCR closure proc.
- Portibns:ofthe Srvice. Water (SW), Circulating Water.(CW.; Fire Water; and storm water drain -pipes,.and 'dUct. banks. remain: buried. Most-of'these pipes/duct banks: were not r_4di616g6illc,. entaariated
- with the possibleexception of ihestorm :w*ter drain pipes from the restricted area. These pipes were; remediated, if necessary, :and surveyed in
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.8-6 Revision 6 .January 2014 aýcdrdance. withtlhe radi61brgicai criteria and survey methods described in LTP Sections 3 through,6. Non-.radiological. contaminantsý were -addressed in the RCRA.closure plan. Maine. Y.arkee evaluated. the final disposition of the forebay, seal pit, and.diffuser piping, as part "ofthe -c-omprehensive application -forperrit under-the Natural Resource-Protection ActNRPA),. TelMine Yiinkee permit *pplicatibn Was filed wth-he State ofMaine in October2001 !(Referenýce8'.:9.25); was.coditirially approved _in.February 2002: (Reference 8.9.27).r-wi-t final *approval* given in February2003 (Reference 8.9.40). Aspart of the mComprehein ive NRPA wMaineapiicatio, 'YpbkeedY yze' demedial options and coordinated-,as:.required, with theMaine.Departhient of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers. (Other responsible. agencies coordinate through these two principa-lagncies.) ,.The key opfions *Muated *iiid~d: (1).eaveiri place as exists; (2) -secure and leave.in place; (3).partial -removal and; (4): complete removal. The types of impact iconsidered -in-the analyses.nincluded environmental: impacts (water; quality, marine wetlanids, freshWater wetlands and land use),..ecological impats including flora, fauna and marineeresources, and.: impacts on natural resources and navigation. Maine Yankee's assessment resulted in the followi.ng sum*mary recommendations for the key elements of the.planit's-dis"chairge stutes, as presented in the Comprehensive NRPA application:
- Diffuser. Pipe, Foxbird Island -onshore below grade, Leave in-place-with both end back&-filled "'r.plUgI'e-&
Diffuser'Pipe, Mudflats.- below the :sediment/water interface. 'Leave in place. iDiffuser Pipe, offsh.o.re above the sediment/water interface. Leave in place, in'cludingthe concr.ete saddle-supports and.thrust blocks. Forebay anfd Seal Pit,. Reddictiori of-forebay dike elevation to approximately 10', rewe.diation-of forebay and seal. pil interior, removal of concrete-structures at both
- endsof the fotebay:to:a.nelevation three feet below grade, fill ar'eah tween dikes With.appropriate ba*ck-fill-material, stabilize and revegetate areas to match existing features,.pending further consideration of:alternative..remedial options.'
The impacts ofthe; de*ommissi*ining of thid forebhy auid diffdser piping-are described (in summary. fashion) in Section 8;4..1 :below and (iindetail) in-Section 8.6.4 which discusses the :egvluation o6f the rieiediati (.worbk under NRPA. As described'in Section 8.6.4, the As;noted-'above, these remediation.approaches for thekey elements of the plant's discharge.structures repi'6seht'NMhiie Ya*nkee's reommenidations.aspresented in the Comprehensive NRPA application
-(Ref'ii6*. 8'9.25). As dii&u-ss.ed'ini S*ction 8,6.4,..MDEP.ginnted bidiii6fihal irdvil.of the work described Main&Yai'k
-ii ee" pplication. Fihal imp'lifientafi6fi of the' foreb*y temediitidn wais
.-reviewed b*.fe MD-D*EPi Mfaine .Yinkee's..Phise I*P* ebay. reniediatioi-plani w*ich 'o..ntaiiidd an uaen.aa mtre optaonis.-SeeSetion 8:6.4 for additnal-detail on the NRPA review .process.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-7 Revision. 6 January 2014 NRPA applications, .agency approvals, andother relevant-documents were submitted to the NRC to support its review ofthis.supplement I.to b qenyiro.nmentAl report. (See Section 8.9, References;) The previously described Radiologically Restricted.Area (RRA) wasradiologically
- .relea.sed for.ur.estricted'-use. Toastire copinpIanieewith,*hon-iradioactive environmental noni.toring issues; the land was deeded -withrestrictive-covenantsAagainst:excavating basements or drillingr:wells. for drinking or .irrgation-water, :.(See,,also; Sections 8.2 and 8.6.13.) After the'DOE trnsports. all the-stored spent.ful an'd'GTCC from the ISFSI, it will be decommissioned,:(as described in LTP :Section 3.2).
8.3 PSDAR Update: ,for.Remaining.Dismantlementad, IDecontaminationActivities The PSDAR has been updated to-reflect. he .urrent.'statusof the decommissioning, and is consistent with the-LTP. I.
.8.4 Update.of Maine. Yankee Environmental.Report.;
This:section of the LTP presents any relevant new information or significant environmental .change from theM.YER, as supp!ement4., These instances of new information or signiificateieVironmfental chaing*siafe. fdcsed' upon that.which is relevant to Maine Yankee's proposed decommissioning/license termination activities. See Sections 8.5 and ,8.6;respectiv~ely;.,for-sp.ei-fi.c-disouss iQns .onRcadio.logical and Non-Radiological Impacts. Any identified new -information.ortsignifieant.,nironmentai.liange associated with Maine Yankee's proposed decommissionihg/licetnse6 termihation activities has been evaluated to determine whethernit is bounded by. the site-specific-decommissioning activities described 'in:Maine. Yankee's PSDAR, AEC's,Final Environmental Statement or the FGEIS. 2 8.4.1 Site Location Section 2.1 ofthe MYER described thelocation and boundaries of the site. At the timethe plant site c¢onsisted,"of 740.aejes. in 1,995_, aine:Yankee purchased-an additional 80. acres of land from US Gypsum. This, additional land had historically been used for coastal famning .andas a private.residence prior to being-purchased by the utility, Thistland.has remained nrtonimpacted..lbyplant.operations. 2 The:original sectionr titles. of the.MY Environmental:Report..are used in this LTP section and the most convenient means to ogrganize the '"update"..information., Eachrsection's content was expanded, as needed;-to accommodate-the updited-information-. :-For.-iampflek-iSiion&.-Is coritent was expanded beyond .Site Location" to iticlude c.a ges in ihe site b6i indary constructibn piojects subsequent to plant construction, and to summarize site demolition and decommissioning activities.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page &8 Revision 6 January 2014 Section 9 of the MYER desciibed the long-term-effects of planticonstruction, including, among other-things; the, availability of property to the public for recreational and educational purposes. On Janhiiu 3, 2001i Maiifi-Y"nfik~e:sub-mittedan applicatior to amend the license
,to release a porfibn ofron-iinipae.teil land; West:of the facility, from the jurisdiction 6fthi ltchs& The Ire"ently p..rsed.asi Wan sicluded iWwthin la1d proposed for
*.r~ase. The proposexdrlease f the lanads will-facilitate thedonation of this.
property io an: envirionmentil, organizationpursuant to-a FERC-approved settlementagreement2 The ppifu 6*s of'the 'doiiation is to create -anature preserve and aineriVifonmental-edication"center-idid to-ptovide public-access of coastal landsjin.the-mid-coast regionfo* Mainei; This-purpose iszconsistent with the long termfia 'us0ofthe prdpert en6ihind in the MYER. On April 10, 2001, Maine Yan ee:subitted a-second, applicatiofi to amend the license to release the remainibnigpotion of non-impacted land, North of the facility, fromthejurisdictionwof the ,lice-nse., The proposed release of the lands will fa"Iiiiate potential'redevl6opment:and. reuse-0ofthe land'. This pur'jose is consistent With th6e 16 ei iJej u'ue- 6ftltfiei; prt e*iivioined ih'tlfe MYER. On August 16, 20001,*Mai'ne a.ne.e. sigiifibantly reVised and resubmitted its application to amend the; license to release non-impacted! lands, approximately 641 adtesj-.ftrom.them 4 rj§dictionwif -the.i.icense, -Twhis application c-ombined the two previous applliations: into; one-and- presented -the.radiologicalisurvey data and associated stati-stial analysrstelts i more cohesiemanner. The statistical analysis: results weremused todemonstrate thatresidual activity, ifany, in these Iandsis iudi'sting sable-frgm'aelgound. Tlis-apphcatin wassupplemented on
- NibVe-irb. 19,:200l,;to.*' sscbiiiiits ýriid by the NRC(staff. The subject
'm.dd-.
license amendment was granted. by'the NRC on July 30,12002 (Reference 8.9.3.6). On -March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee:submittedletter MN-04-020 r.equesting an amendment to .the-faci.i.tyVoperatmg ihcensepurs.ant.to .10. CFR 50.90 and in.
.ancrdance:with thAeNRC pprved L.TP:forM**a.aine Yankee, to acquire NRC's approval of-the::reledase of the Non-ISFSPait& land from the j urisdiction of the.
-license.; From..March'2004 to ly 205,:ine yankee .. submitted supporting final
-status *sr:ey repo*ts, suppIlI.IIts to the1-" ah dment and responses to NRC
.reqfesgtforadd:itioaltinforIh ati-o On .Septeifiber 30,.,2005; NtRCissued Amendment.No. 172 consisting of the..unrestrfcted release of the remaining land
- und,'.Ui-ens'e No. D.PR-36, w itht. e ecept .o.p6f theland wherei-the ISFSI is
-located and an: adjacent parcel o6f -lMd .- ttal lah-d area that remains within.the control :ofthe 10 CFR 50 License.is approximately 1.2 acres.
Section 3.1 of the MYER described, ingeneral terms, the historical. arrangement of plant structures on the-site.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page8-9 Jeaiury.n 6 January 2014 Table:8-1
*..;).* .:*.*...
- ..: .:: .. ... . .=.......
*; ...=. .. *-~ ......... . . . = . -. " . .. . ..Deleted AllIsite structures constructed subsequent to the original plant.were located on.
areas of the .plant~site that were disturbed-during plantcon*sc0tion with.-the: exception of.theadditioniof the west forebay dike and diffuserpiping. These latter two-structures were contemplated in the MWER as pat.of several altematives
*discussed that,w.exriavailable: if needed to ireduce .ther impacts on reiving waters. MaineeYankeealso removed a causway that co nneted with Westport Islan. Th.e causeway, constructed in- 195 0 acoss.C.o.wseagan Narrows, was .a majorimpediment-tO tidal circulation in:the BackRi*verMontswe.ag B ay in th-e a'ea of the plant. Removal of the causeway, 6oupled with the installation of a submerged multiport diffuser, eliminated localized adverse thermal impacts from surface dischage ptoRaaiey Cove.
Several structures were constructed:as part of the. ongoing decommissioning at
,Maine; Yankep, Two.tejnp.or.ry oljd astecsorage. ara ,yr'epermittedwth MIEp ad..d 6n* .ýt.These two are wee
- iabe !forthe tempo.rar storage j, ofcon*crete debris from decommissiornig prior to shipment offsite. -Closure of these twowareas was in~acordane with the Maine"Solid :Waste:Management Riles,
.' ad.diton,,Maine Yankee.constructed an Itidependent Spent Fuel.:Storage Installation (ISFSI) .f thrie onsite storageof use*dnuclear friel. Decommissioning of the ISFS;I:: is_ discu*sed in Section 3 of the LTP.
The decontamination/dismantlement of the mang struces associated.with the ISFSIwill no alter -the anticipated impacts of decommissiong. Impacts will be-typical of those associated with demolition of structures and include erosion and sedimentation, fugitive dust emissions,. noise, transpoitation of wastes and disposal
,.Of wst.s
.Decontamination/dismantlement of the forebay/difflser piping as discussed in Section3, resulted in :short-term mitigable and unavoidable impacts togmarine resources. Decormmisgioning:a'ctivities were-timed.(in consultation with regulatory
,agencies) to avoid~Perods when migratory species could be adversely impacted.
.Activits that ocwurd within the oewe finterial "of short duration.
The: decomissionng, including .deontaminationwand dismantlement, of these structures.is desIcri-bed in LTP -Setion 3. 8.4.2 Climate Section 2.6 of the MYER describes climatology and meteorology of the site. At the time of the submittal of the original version ofthe;LTP, Maine Yankee had
- MVAPC License Termination Plan Page 840 Revision 6 January 2014-...~ .** . . ..
c~ollected twenty-five".y.ears of additional meteorologicald4ata. Much of this data has been submitted to the NAC.:ifi thei anufial (fo6rerly :semi-annual) effluent and environmental reports*. As m..t be expected, there has been no significant change
*in cimatology oi-iT~eteofoiag, 8.4.3 Demoigaphy
- Section 2.1 of the MYER defibe'd -the` popultioin of Wisiass'etahd six other population centers. -Thef.o!!whg table updates. this information withrespect to
*the US Census;Bureau 1999:p.opulationestiinates:.for these same: locations, While the populations of the town of Wigs.sset and the twoclosest population centers
.ave ,groWn-modest1;the-other-larger- populati6n *entets.hawe nfot, Wiscasset and ter: City opuation daies.
Location .97*0Population 1999.Population.Est. Distance from Plant _Ref,1.*72 MYR" (US Census B reau) :(miles) Wiscassset 2,250ý ,229' ._.-_ Bath 9700 - 9,.829`- 7 _ rBuinswick
- s t. ,,.. .. .11602899,
' '14 Au......a 19722 27 . ..22,00 Lewiston - Auburn 65900 58,660 229 Pofrtland :65',100 1 61,.925 338
.Bgor 33,200 132,66 75 MYER Section 5 mile: radius: ofthe 2.2 dkeribes the population density and population totals within a plant and;describes the general area. The: area: surrounding the plant remains rural. It, currenty .. has; relaivfely low pob pulationi density of
.appro*xnmately 90- per, square rile withi. 10 miles. of the plant. The.population is higher at: distan~es ofr30-0. miles (with a slightl' lower dens ity in the area between
'.0,an0 20 miles). At 40-50mi.s 6.t-t he poj ulatiod6ndesity dQr.ps The population of the two nearestcities (Lewiston, 36, 193 and Auburn, 22,467) are
?.siAf~cantiy less thfi tthe:TFEIS model :g1a* cipty p"'pulat"o6of l 6'f4-;00 Within 29 miles.
ThpeFGEIS evaluatioion consider's.;the:close.st large- iaty aýtabout.30. miles away with a population of 1,800000. There areono large cities (population.>1, million) within 100 miles of the Maine Yankee site. The Maine State 2000 population was
.MYAPC License Termination Plan. Page 8.11 Revision 6 January.2014 1.27 million.fl,274,923) and theB Bo.ston Metro Statistical Area 1990 census population was 4,171,747. TheFGEiS assumes the-total population in a.-radius of 50 miles: at.3.52 million,. whereas the. total population within: 50 miles of MY is approximately 650,000. This di-fference between the MY site and the generic site does rnot affect the _conelusions'of the environrental statement. 8.4A. Socioecponomic'Data The number of-workers onesite at anyftime::is comparable.to that-when Maine Ya-kee was:ih operation, and will be much"less than-during theiinitial co~is ructioh rio0;. It aippýeas th-at( the p.eak Wprk f6rde on site during:;finF0al6perftinS *W6s approximately,450 (MY Human Resources Dept.) and during consiruction was. approximateyi,300 ( 280 - CMP weekly. pr6ject ripjort week of 6/25/7J, a, 133-.8
-man.. peak w~asestimated in the June .1-9.71 - 1972: Environmental Report (Pg 4-2)).
MY's property taxes:from.the operation of the plati had-,"a.positiveeiippact,-onthe T6wb, of Wi'scasset. The reduction in taxes concurrent with the: decomiisgio*ing, of thep.ant.has: had. a significant impact on the' town -budgetplanning asea..on.
,operatingplant tax base,..however MY negotiated a phased reductin. of the taxes.to minimize the financial imp4c#t on .the town. Once,thesite is.giveniunrestriicted use relea.b, ep-r-foperty has'the potefitial of being developed as an-industial paik which would potentially increase the-local tax re-*eiue.
-5". Land Use MYER S.ecti6n 2.2 describes th" sefting of the Maine Yankee siterand suri-oiudihg environs. The.plant area'is, characterized by home.sites, s~ummer. home .siteside.
farmiland, forest, and. small commercial establishments. The effec.tsof plant
&'i~ts~tidh 6 peation are describ&d'ih Section 5A of the MYER.
;Sinceplmant, construction, the overall: character of 'the area has changed little. While
'addlitidfiil riHv*it homes have been built near: the plant in bo-th Ni~easset;and nearby Westport island, the character of the-area remains rural. Considerable
'commerciilýatdevelopment 'has occurred aloig the.Route 1:bo0"ddi -.ocated: tWo-miles nidI-thwest. ofthe site.
As part ofaý FERC* rate caseesettlermefnt, a 200 irep..io6rtioh of thie- planft sit,.was donated to the Chewonki foundation for environmental edufcation*purposes. This will -continue to provide public access to this parcel which has been allowed during "plantoperation. Remaining:portions-ofthesite 'Will own ih'li'nse te*rination:,
'become 'availatble for redev61opmefit:
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page-8-12 -Janiary_ 2014-
-ThesmAll percentage of land used for-farrning, combinedvwith the low population density, and the-commitment to continued application of radiationi protection and c6dntaiiirii'tion 'controls during deconmmissioniing, resultýsin radi~logical consequences to the public lower than those calculated in the:FGEIS.
D1coprmmissi6iinig activities are-inot-expected to have any adverse impact on Surrounding land uses both onsite and 'off. 8.4.6 Surface Water The surface water regime for the plant site:and:surrounding areas .is described in detail in Section 2.5 of the MYER. Plant operation i*pacted ;surface water in two
,areas. First, fresh waterforsanitary-uses, plant mrake-up,: and fire-protection was piped to thie plant: from a-reservoir"located on Monftsweag Brook, two miles fnorthwst *of the lant-. Onice through cooling Water W.As-piovidd from the Back Riv ef. -P'otable Waterf&t.the plant-Was ptovided by-a*i onsite bedrock well. Two additional weils supplied.water f6r 'the Bailey firmhouse:and Eaton farmhouse
,d~ifibc ni..ed6.-
S'ince, plant start-up, there have'been several changes to.suface water use by the P.!ari. :tin the ea1rlyi1970's, in coordiniati~bii ,wi~thf~ederal w*.id. sta~te environmental
..agencies, several alteatiVes preibusly..considered in: the MYER were implemented to reduce-the- thermal impacts of the 'plant on. the Ba*ck River and Mo6nts'sea'g Bay. .Ma*ineY:nkee removed;theCw sea4a k'ca6seway and replaced it with a br-idge. This change.i dis*.used fiSection 8-4..8-ofthe MYER, increased the.
ti'dalflushing and flow in the. BaekRiver.. 'In ad'difion, the.Owest*forbay dike was
-constfruted and diffuser piping was installed benhdeth.1 3Fxbird IAlad ithat
.discharged in the Back River channel. These changes helped xestore the Back River. to its pre-causeway condition and mitigated impacts of.the plant's thermal In the early 1990!s, changes tothe federal -SafeDrijingki aW.er Act triggered an i'Viluiatio. of :tho plant's fresh Water supply.
p Tly decisi.nh w: ma.de to.nnect with for .the Wiscasset Water District to supply all domestic..anddribiking water:needs theplant. Use o fthe bedrock we-l.wa.s ihencdisconfinuedJ :Water from M6hfts'we"Ag Br6ok -continued to be used f6r fireprtec-.tdi.; ahd Wpant make-up through. operation; The -M6nts:weag Br6ok-.daiiiand puimphouse.were removed. All plant freshwater needs- are met by the Wiscasset WaterDistrict. 'The, Bailey farmhouse and Eaton farmhouse -we.ls were utilized fdra.pe riod during.
..d.eomnmissioning of th -Plant: Theae. w6ll, ate.niow abaridoned.
- The. c-olifig water systexf (inlduding the srVice watet sYtem) was originally used lf6r.the.-dis sipation-of heat and rthe discharge:.of d6mestic. wastes..and.conventional pollutants. The cooling water system was decommfissioned.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page,8-13 Revision 6 2014 oJanuary In the. early 1990's, continued problems with the onsite sanitary waste treatment plant-resulted ijn connection0of, the plant site.to the Wiscasset sewer system., At that time', discharge of sanitary wastes from the treatmennt plant ceased. Surf*ce water use during depcommis.sioning will be consideiably reduced froin operation6ailconditi+ons. The demandW illbie for domestic uses and will certainlybe: less ýthan .during~plant operation. 8.4.7 Gdoundwater Section 2.5. of the. MYER states:
"Grouitdwater-inithe ..region.occu. as free. groundwater within the, clay-silt soil mantle and joints iii the underlying bedrock... *Prepitation at the.power station site: will percolate downward-to the:water-table and then move with the normal groundwater flows toward the adjoining salt water areas.
Percolation rates howeyer, ;are low due tothe low permeability of: the local soils..and limited bedrock.jo.ointing..... Water wells in areas Sadsaient-tojhe.fte are eitlier dug. wlls, usually less than 25 feet. d.eep or dilled wellspntra tI--n-g thebedrock for depths of 100 feet' or rmore.. Such wells are for domestic or farm use. Although: adequate for the purpose, their61deld sedomh exceeds. 5-10 ,gallons. per rmminit& fo.r short"terrm pumg ad even less for sustaihed ptmpingi There areno municipal. or'other:important:we.ll water supp.y.systems in ,the area" (Refe.ence 8.9.2, 2.15"1) Section 9..of the, MYER.states-
"During its operation the Maine Yankee plant will. not affect-the water it uses so that the water would be unfit for use by others."
In addition t-the,pre-operation construction associated with the Bailey Point area, numeroiis subsi.rface.exploration studies were conductedover the years of operation-at the:facility.. A description dfthe..site may be:found'in other Maine Yankee documets. including the report, 's ummary of Geologic: Information Coveing~the Mane .YankeeuNuclear-ower Plant Siteand Vicinity" (Reference. The: discussioff regarding groundwater:across.:the site is retained to establish tie groundwater impacts associated with :the areas that remain within the: control.:of the
.10 CFR50: License.(i.e., those associated with the ISFSI anda parcel :adjefoent to the: ISFSI). The groundwater regime at.the Maine Yankeejfacilhty -is comprised, Of' two .aquifers: .(.1)a discontinuous surficiail aquifer in the unconsolidated
MY-APC License Termination Plan Page 8-14 Revision 6 January 2014 glaciomarine;soils'and fillmaterial; and .(2) albedrock-aquifer. The surficial aquifer isnot present continiuously-acros..s the.site; as the overburden soils are thin to non-existent in some portions of the.site. Thisisepecially true in the southern portion of Bailey Point. The: bedrock aquifer is present below ihe:entire site and vicinity. To summarize the.hydraulic regime at *the-sit,,ýad. discsion of a~previously developed groundwater flow model is,"p ed belo..1"w, A three-dimensional grounrdwater flow.and tranport m"odelof'Bi-.y Pointehas *been developed. This model allows an evaluation of flow paths,..travel me, and: dilution.of contaminants from.their source 16cations.in he model. The-modelingrof the .transport-of-solutes fitroducedIpto the gr.undwater at the Maine Yankee sitewas' dqelo'pedusiigAte OD O.W.-three-dimensional flow
.model and the.:.MT3Dtapor model. There hasbeen no.attempt to model unsaturated flow and transport. i.tis expected that unsaturated flow through a 10-foot thick section - permanewt.
-'th .table is"tyically about 10 feet ddwn:in thick so~isat:Ih~e.-it6)woud taeoirthe order of..weeks.:T~he model:
*extends from Old FerryPRoad to theoendof ihe peintsula toth.e south. This is a four to .fivelayer bedroo-and Matufaifd tsil d#e.l dthv -irggrid sizes. The southern p6rthiw"of the model has fobur.bdrock layersAnd a-.20-foot grid square.
spacing. From the.Administration-B.lding nor-thto *0ld Ferry Road, five layers are included in the model;* s0,aturted 66ils oce.ur s on of the site. The soil thickness in thiis area: can.be, sigfcant' and there.is.much saturated soil, so the inclusionoft e-sofil,*whýereiitioccuirs,iss ipo.rtant. .S.me-0f this isoil is glaciom.ane.olay-silt. '.Wheresata .siim il.u. it*iS isnmdeled as either one or twb layers depefidig on- -th pcted ,waterttable.lpositionranfd type and thickness of soil. Cell sizes ,inthe:northermnareao-f-themodelarme50.feetby50 feet50 horizontally.. The-bottom ofth.e fiodel!is,700 fe & bl **top of rock. The bedrock is treatedAisotr.i*c*cs"uch that.the transmissiivit-in themnorth-south direction is 5 times greatertthaanin the, east-westdirection.. For solutetranort* prblems involvgyears'of applicati6n of a solute at a relatively, steady rate,. taverage annual rhage. .. rate is used. 'For the northern p ortio~n of the model~ithis i's "3.percentofa.a annual precipitation since most of the area has thick soil. over (w*hichisgincluded inthe.model). For the southern portion of-the nmodel (.w.hich: is basically abedkoel model),.the.recharge rate is set at,. 10 percent.Qf averg .-anuinllripittion, ..h h res being runoff and evaporation. DepeningPe* , :aquIfer thicknes,.-orosityb andrecharge:rate, .there is a.certain amounflof timeolrequiredtfor-a .conserat've" solute (one not removed by adsorption, precipitatio., ,Mdio.ctive or bio!pglc,1 decAy, volatilization or For additional inf6rmation ofthe stibject-grouidwatermodel,.seeChaptcr.5: of the QAPP, Reference 8.9.24.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page:8-15 Revlslon.6 .January 201.4. o6therwie) to reach a:steady-state distribution in.a defined aquifer area. Multiple tirme-r-plotsof concentrationrwere checked to -see.how jclose the .mrodel is to a steady s.tate.-conditi on. Forfthenorthem model area, steady state-is close after 20 years of
!simfultioi'i;' for -thesbu'othemmodel area, ,steady.-state is reached by :10 years.
The.near-surface flow in:the saturated soil under the ISFSI are- is northWestward,
- but .theh!ead-contours suggest theIS-FSI area is-on a groundwater divide with flow
.goingi bdth, northw.est :andsoutheast.. Travel times from the: surface of the .iSFSI
'area to~~vlontsweag Bay disc.harge-points are-on the order of:10 years or more
*.becuse of the relatively thick, low permeability soil under the ISFSI area.
Groundwater originating near the .surface in the northern portion of the model area
,generally mov.ey.s:veriticily irtoithe soil except-in the: wetland, areas where
.-grouxidwat*-discharge locallyoccurs. After slow movement through the soil, .the groundwater moves .into-the deeper bedrock and travels toward the bay,
,dischar ging .upWard in the near-shore.area. In-the southern portion of the model, Igroundwaterforiginating near ground .surface generally stays near the surface, rather
.ha .penetratjing deep-into-the beWdrock. Moement thr. gh-the bedrock is expe*d td be' fairlY fast.b0ecaus~oofthe,1w porosity of the rock. Conservative con-tiniiianti'move.-through'.the-r-.ck7 included in the southern model area to
*shallow diseharge areas in: a timefrafe on' the order of seva! htundred days. as ddimgifindn6d-b'y a.1989. stdybof.a sodium chromate-.leak in the area south of-the C
1ontainmnt. Biuilding *(Reference-8.9.1 3), Meda-ured seas-onal changes in groundwatet elevations:in the. area north of Old Eert. Road ni'earfin the area .ofthe,;once-proposed coal ash disposal area. These sresults demonstrate'seasonal -changes in!the historic .on-site wells of two to four feet forf niost wells,- with up .to 1.0 feet north of Old Ferry Road, where topographic relief is greatest. G.rondwater chemistrW of the bedrock aquferis documented by the Maine Department of Human Services (MDHS).well** water test results of the plant well, fheEatonlF.rmwell ..and the Bailey Farm well for the period 1988-1995.
..G.rotdwaer qualityin the immed.iate vicinity of the plant structures is stifmarized. ingroundwaterimonitoring studies conducted by.Robert G. Gerber, Inc. (tReference.8.. 1.6).
Gtoiinid .aterfloW..and.chertfiistry-in-the southern-portion-.of-the modelarea was i*jnfluenced by-the, presence of the:Cofitainmreiiitfoundation drain sump at 47' below me..an-iea-lýevel(MSL) tihderZthe, raeactor arfd 14 feet .below MSL under the remainder of'the-Containment.Building.. This. has.induceda very.localized flow toward the Containment Building and induced some seawater intrusion into the smp;(ia-ptb 10 percent dilute seawater). The.granular backfill around-,buried piping and storm drains, also -allowed sea water. to flow backward from the diffulser
MYAPC LicensieTermination Plan Page 8-16 Revision 6 January 2014 forebay~into the yard area during f:tiPii6" of spri jig-high tides and during plant Oleration. Previouslyý duririg piatit operatidn, theforebay-water levels were 5 feet higher than present, due to the consistent discharge of 4,20,0'00 gallons per minute. The Mafie -Yankee pilantoperated f6to-r'ppa f.teiy26 yeas(1972-1997). Over that tinie,. ifinbor spills and reeases ,haye occ.urred (primarily petroleum) aS Well as a' feww'sgnificant reeases. These-spills-and,'re1eases are sumnlarized in the MDEP RCRA-Faility Assessment FA). (Reference 8.9J 9) and the Site.Historical Report (Reference8-9.:20). Four sigrnihcantvreleases have occuirred over the years of operati.Oninc*uding: (1) a rel"ea'iof ainunknown amount of chromated water afrethase Primaýr*yCoponent: Cooiiig..systemto. a storm drain in October 1985; (2) arelease -ofapproximately 1.20,000 gaqllons:6f de-mineralized' wdier containing sodium- chromate .in December 1988 (RXferenceý 8.9.13 and 8.9 .1-); (3) an dccidental release of-approximately 200 gallonis of low viscosity-transformer oil to the Back River inMay 1991 ; anid4'()Yarelease of keroseneto subsurface soils in fhe SpAre Generat6OrStoiage Buildinig adjacent to the west:side of the ISFSI
'fr'er arealin June 199.4 (Reference..9.1.07anfd 8-!9.1.9), These four. releases have been studied and remediated: to the safilsfiction of MDEP.
In addition to the known spiIlsandi eleases, the GT.S Duratek Characterization Survey Report!(Reference 8.9.2111has provided .additional tinde*trsnding concerning the distribution of enir6.n.ental 6o6htainatio at :the Maine Yankee facility. The-GTS Duratek study*ricluded water,. soil, sediment, and groundwater samples from potential .-areas of con.cernmini6uding~historic: sill'sand releases, Soutfalls, h.nd 'ate*h bsiiS. 'The s....... 'I"' Vs
.. piaW anAly'ized. f6r volatile organic c6mpounds (V.OC), seniivolatilo.:.brganic :o*timponds (SVOCs), metals, s(irDRO); and diesenge organics p6olyhiorinatedhbiphenyls.*PCBs), however all comnpouifnids. Were niotnalyzed ifi-each sam**riple.
Groundwater samples. were taken as p4a: of*-he GTSD.u1rate'k stidy -from existing mo-0iiifg Wrel!sld6chfeAt inhe*.Uthem portion fBailey'Pbiht., This portion of the faci ity:was the locs: of the sighificant industrial activity -and the results :for VOCsi.SVOCs and metals demo.nstate that groundOWater quality has nr6tbeen gignificantly impacted by 'thlonfig-term;ind ust-.fial*ictivities at the' site. Aside from the localized. flow into the Co.ntainment Building. foundation drain sUmp,!grounidwater in the ind.u.stria0poron of Bailey Point flow's in a quasi-radial diredctionl towards:Bailey Cove..tothe:West, Back-,Riverlto the east and the Montswetg Bay to:the south., Thus, ajy.contaniiiants dissol'I dinh gro dwater will :flow iiito those furface ci; r bodies. During plantvoperation, impacts to: the grWunWater flow regime were limited to localiz ed diaw dod-i:ofthegr'undwatesrf'ace catUsed by foundation drains around the containment structure ard to alesser extent draw down by active water
MWYAPC License Termination Plan PageL17 Revsi~on 6 January. 2014 supply wells. The containment structtare was dismantled.to 3-feet below grade and backfilled., Thus,: go.undwater levels ar.e.pteted.to rec6ver to approximate pre-construction levesls In responseo'to NR.Crequests for additional. information durifig the LTP review
.process,~ ie Yaneeprovidedani ~m p~td e ,.pe~nsive~ie yrgooia report.(
Reference:
- 8.9.29). Based on that report (and subsequentdiscussions with
.the NRC),.anwadditional round..o gr.,odw'terw* **lsatples were obtained ad analyzed on-sie by Maine Yankee wt selet,ed.wlAml*es also nalyzed off-site by-a vendor laboratory, the State.of Maine, and by the. NRC, The Maine:
Yankee assessment ofithese resuiits, wfi.ch generally Co firn, ed low levels of tritium in site, g*o0dfatpr, is.prqvidedin: Sd.ction 2.
*Dose calculation modeling for.theLTPr,-esiddent.t-farmer.scenario addressed in Sections 2 and 6 ha*v**i*luded use Of this SliAghtl taminated.,groundwater for domestic, purposes and demotnstrated that-thhis. lelvel of groundwater contamination would-no*t imit-juresite* use..
8.4.8 Biota Section,2:-..o6f*t M1Ehprvides an .pver.view16Dblogibai*resources foundat
-the Maine:Yankee.site.
The coastline aro'und*th t Vaies b!t"Weiin s8at.marsh-oand mud flat with some
- rocky: area where~the gradi-enit :is ste¢e t;4 ,Thesli-*m*as:vgetation is dominated by Spartinaqpatens-ard anSprtina which are kth oliigate wetland
.atert"zgfiora
- species. .Whbriero6ky.iibstiate i:iS6peset, setiq,ied is also prevalent in the intertidal zone. The.mud flats are generally.devoid of vegetation with the exceptionoofsalt marshispecies.:alongfi.he edge. Mud flits -are typically found in areas thattareslightly sle"tered, suceh"as vov.m.4r.1.l iLadyýad,.of the salt marsh and mud;flat areas, the.coast has.asteepincli.neup'to.the upland areas, which are
.,dominated by :trees_su.has whe~pine(Pinus .trous)and id oak..
"Land animals inhabiting.the-,site inciude:deer;,iracoons,. and smaller mammals.
Non-poisonous snakes can :be found, ,, Te .biIrdpopulation varies greaAtlb' tween seasons :.and: betweenprioids ofmrna igon anjresidency...." (Reference 8.9.2, Pg 2:7,1I): Section 9 of the MYE 94(pg. 9-1) de-@bes.t"* !bngrter efects of plant construction, incbluding,. amotg other things,.-the effectof plant operational heat. dissipation on the estuarial: system. It .states:
"AsltV6ng .:*S:tthe-piaMit :i-s-operated so that' the:temperature .ofthe dischargeis below.a damaging temperature for 'any ecologically important species, there
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-18 Revision 6 January 2014. should be-no cumulative effect on the river system. If the plant were to be permanently shutdown, repopulation of any-disturbed inter-tidal areas by water-borne larva would soon occur." Since plant!construction, areas of the site. disturbed by-cotnstffidtidn" aeti.vitiesihave
,stabilized and revegetated. Mowed, areas are dominated ýby.nativyeand exotqic' grasses afid.herbaceobis spe'ies ULmowed area..s havo no'W be'efnc0lonized. by pi.neer species such ýas poplar, white birch and. shrubs_ Sbme..of theseeareasg.will be redisturbed by decommissioning; however,, the total' area distur'bed will be smaller than diiiing plant construction. Mature pinqi*ie- :aks'A166ted d along -gtheperi meter gshorelirie were largely undisturbed by platnt construcdton ahd operation and those remairfiing will not be distUrbed by6decomniiissionfng:aciivti-ies.F.loWiný g decommissioning, virtually the entire site*wJll be reveget.ated.;
Throughout Maine Yankee's operating history, onsite sightings of.wildlife have been common with red fox, raccoon, White-tailed deerI, ad o tti:1small mainmals observed frequently. Protected status and-eiination of persistent pesiides from hle'environment has contributed to -a dramatic increase-'mAhe population' of osprey ali g. he 4e:htem -seabo.ard. ý.S e aýb6iil1 tvi 6 sP*e s a 6eslocte- tI`db pant
!oe 'd.
p in the immediate vicinity of the'plant. The, 6spriey-yare-not
.oper.y -byaffeted
'planf activities and have been'observed:aitempting.to build-nests on.active eii'pment. Bald eagles areoals'b-bseirved in..th plant aeabit ho known nesting
.ites-6ccur on pihnt property.
rMinihe.,pecies are Seeti.n 2t 7 .f heME R., Si.-nplant ilndiscssed
*6 ntrifieibn.therehav';e beenAtwo. fotible. dhanges in iarii~l ibtaadjacent to: the en plUhtsite. First, . removal of the .Cow.seaga'.hn"causeway si"iifi ~~~~qantly
~ ~.......... 'i y,
- improved ihe
.circulation of the Back River. As a regUlt,. the area .has,.seen an hiticeAs-eirn 1obster populatiaons and: the Back River how suppomrtscomercial lobsterfimshing. Secnd, management.oftheý striped .bass fishery along the eastern'seaboAidlhas restilted in a drixatjic `incease in the nufiber'sof this§ 1'opul. ,gamefiJ fish. While, coifcial fis.hig. forstriped bass is not allowed.O -i Maine, rec eational. fihing is gowgin .
popularity and the Back River is used byre". reitional' fishermen.. DecommisSioning of shoreiine'structures has the potential:-.to have'impacts on marine habitats and biota. Impacts. may: include disturbance ofsubstrate, sedimentation and turbidity. Careful project hpla*ning, coultatio w:.ith !'r'ilat6ry an* resoiirces agencies, and permittiig requirement will. serqemtftmtinitizefthe duration and 'extent of theseimpacts, .Fol.otwi.png:d.isturbaefes,.ffct-e. tareasare e.ed: t6o"re:colofiize-quiiickly: See additional dlisus4sioin 6d thfehe --- Valti6n for.
-umpmact related to-the decommissioningdof shoreline structures (uindet:the NRPA prcceess)-in'Sections 8:.2 and 8.6..4.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8,19 Revision 6 January 2014 8.4.9 Water'Use. Section2.5 of the.MYER states:
' terwel~lS..in areas adjaceht to the site are either dug wells, usua4lly less than 25 feet deep, or drilled wells zpenetrating the bedrock for depths ofl00 feet or more. Suchwells are fr.domestic or faim .se. Although adeqDate for the purpose, their yield seldom
.exceeds 5-.1:0 gallons.per minute, for short term pumping and even less,fqrýsustained[pumping. There ar, -no: mugi.c.ipzA or-other imrtn t w-ell -water supp systems in thearea." (.eference 8.9.2).
;Section 8K4.6 outlines fthe sources of water used at Maine Yankee and describes changes. that have occurred since pl.j start up.
Potable watoer. usage(from.the:Wiscasset, W.ater* district) during.decommissioning is
-summarized ini. Tibe 8.:3. Basedon the averaga mpnthY use for the first three years of decbmmissionifrig, total. water use,for decommissioning the Maine Yankee Nuclear' Plant was-projeted at 2.3 million cubic feet(I7,385,0O0 gallons).
Additional minor armoiiuits ofwater from :Montsweag Brookwere also used early in
.decommissioning priortd, abandonment of that source. The.useof water during decommissioning' of the Maine Yanke~eNuclearXPant was minor compared to the F use 6fWater d.ur.ing operationis. In addition, the use of potable water during the period of storage of*spent fuel and GTCC wasteattheISFSI and; the decommissioni~ng:of the ISFSI-will. be mIinor cmpar ed 0 the. use of water during r, ioperati.ons o-.rdurrn.'.ig d.com. ission of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant.
.Maine Yankee was. connec.ted4to,the .Wiscasset Water. District to provide potable waterand seaigeservi.eto:sup port plant operatiotns in October.,of 1995. For the last-quart.er of 1r995- Maine Yankee used 73,000 ft ,of water, in 19.96-the plant used 235,300.of water, -and for the first seven monthsf,109971 before cessation of operations, the plail :used 211,500 ft3 of water. Before the plant was connected to
-the Wiscasset Water District, water to support plant operations was obtained from
'wells on site. Records of water usage from. the wells during operations were not maifitained.
The-F GEIS makes theeonclusion that. the environme.ntal. c..onsequences of
-decjomissionuiiginlhiding .theuse of -water,are minor compared to the
.environmental.consecquences of building:and operating.the plant. For the generic Splant, an:operatio water usage of 953;mi1!i -ubic feet of wa~ter per year is compared to a total decommissioning usage of '636.thotisAnd cubic feet (4.76 million galloiris) 6f-water. While Maine Yankee's: estimated water usage of 17 million gallons is greater than the 4.76 million gallons anticipated based on the
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.8-20 Revision 6 January.2014 FGEIS generic plAnt, it ishmueh less than ,the ambunt-used during operation and the amount- used by the generic plant in operation. Th'erefore, the FGEIS conclusion
*that the envionrmenteal conisequences of the decomminssioning use of water is minior compardd to theefivitroneiital- consequiences..of building. and. operating a
.nucloar plantiis valid forMaine Yankee'
... .- " " ' " "" "/ " """"""" ":":* ,'*" :.",7,- " """ "" -"-" -* - "'" " - -- "" "'"'
Tabl1e ý3 MWinY _.Decommissioning Wate uTjs iN*!§r
... '.Jan leb I[Mar ' ; [ l(Expressed in hundreds of ft3)_ i
-6091004 483. 464 182 ..426,. 24r .629.0-42 108 88 4890 77 10 -6910 16 04- 52ý21.80 1-43 194 2061 4 .121 1885 2'000-. 1"31 1.28. 320 ,1 1.15"2 215, ;3030 -167"8974"36j 143 '42i 3186 j\nnualAverage Usage 3.32,033 ftW(2,48,3,609 gallons)
Month4yAve.rage Usage 27,700 1 f 3 27W, 19.6 gallons) The Wiscasset" Water :District has adyised Maine Yknkee that continuing to. supply this volume of ývater-will not adversely affect the Dist.ft's.w*dtei supply or their abi .ltyto provide the; required volume to the site.
ý8.4.10 Effi.6et of Dconiiissibfiing Secil on 9 of the MYER (pg. 9-11 describes the long-term.effecs 9fplant construction, iicluidirig, ahig. joti~er tfhe rgsto.fri6i f't: site fellowing 1ermnahent shutdown. It states: thefolloWifig:
'If a -Iimd W6u6in.
W"-e icle.h the stie sý no -1it iFid for ele*cal production, the plant c6uild .be dismantled andcdompietiey removedý from the site. Grading, and landscaping co.uld.restore the plant4 area.to. natural cover. Byusing spcial .di smantfing: 6c d All componenfi Ot's of the pIant' could be removedTor dispq.os in approved bur-ial gfoiiid. mSiice no radioactive material isdisposed ofon site, thifs would leave..the; ite.xaioacfivitylevel at fi~-:.-0eclb~s"e "the bac*-grund .eyel kfr th q "*.-suitable -ad for other use..
*Section VIII 6f the AEC Fina'l Enfironenali Statement fof Maine Yankee describes the de'commissioriing, of Maine Yarikee. It states the following:
MYAPC License Termination Plan ,Page 8-21 Revision 6 January 2014 "UpQn termination.of use of the power station-the Plant can be: deoqmmissioned .an:d.the s qteconqverted toi4nitialVuses.or, used for other industrial and.recreational activiti~es. De.o9mmissioning would involve removing and. reclaimniing fuel,.decontaminating arid"fixing" accessible surfaces of radioac.ti.vity,.remoyal of'salyageable equipment, and :sealing of the reactor and components. The-degree of di"smiantlement as With in'st aban-doned industrial plants, wouild be-contitigentron a balance of health and safety consideýrationsjsalvage valiues,, and: environmenta~limpact as judged b*' the know'ledge and tfdhfiiOldgy dveloped in future:years:" The:dismantlement-plan describedin LTP Secfion 3, detai.s the dismantlement of
-the .imt s.y'stesand shdtnites, Th--s *.:tiils compaire well with the-%oig.in dec 6rmm-i s:sio3ning v ision de sc6ribeid above in"t~Ve MY-ER and the. AlEC Final Environmental Statement..,.,Radioaciive material will be cleaned up :to meet, the.
radiological criteria of 10' CFR Pait 20,.Subpart E and the enihanice'd stateclea'nup
.standards. Following decommissionihg of the ISFSI,. Mainie Yankee .plaig.to release the-site for unrestricted use.
8.4.11 Historical and Archeological Resources Setj'on 2.3 of the MYER-proVides an overview of the historidal resources.in the plant vicinity. The MYER does mnqt.dis-ugs-Iarchaeological resources. Through consultation wfith the Maife State Hi-storid Pk6§6rvatibn'Offhee (SHPO) in 1.99 1, two minor archaeological sites (16.621!2.& 1.6.213) were identified on Maine Yankee property within severa*lfhundrýed yards of the p.lant. Both sites are located im.mediately adjacent to the shorelin.e.in areas that were*undistitbed diring plant construction. The SHPO was contacted in.conjunction Withodecommissioning and has not identified any additional cutWural sites onMaine Y anee property. Because of their locations, the two: known:archaeological siteswill not be disturbed
.or impapte. during ,decommilssioniing On October 10, 2001, Maine Yahkee transmitted to the SHPO a: copy of theMaine Yankee COrpr'ehensiyve Natural: Resources Protection Act Application (Reference 8.9*25), Which co 6erd the bahtinýe*of the Plied.econst-uction anid demolition acetivities within 100 feet of-protected naturl resourcesý that areassoci-ated with the decommissionihg of its nuclearpowerfacli*y. 'These constructiognand; demolition activities included: the cooling watre discharge stmctui-s forbay, di!ffuiser p.iping, remediation activities, demolition.of the Bailey Farm House, Information Center, fire pond, warehouse, and other mi'nor structures.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-22 Revision 6 January.2014 On .October:25, 2001, *the S HPO responded to Maine Yankee (Referencei8.9.35). The .SHPO stated: "Our office feels that the subject property and area of potential effects does not contain resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Histrieplad**es." Te':-efore;fthe SHPO fioiinando historic propertiese(historic, architectural !or~archaeological):affected by this project 8.4.l2: Endangered orYThreatened Species animal2 at the Maine Section..2.3: of the MYER discusses. plant and..pnima life.at the Maine. Yankee;.site. At that time. there. were no identified endangered species as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973. In permitting structures constructed afterplant'startup through the Maine site: Location. of De el1opmenit Permitprocess, Maine. Yankee has :consulted with federal and stateresource agencies to identify rare and endangered species. These agencies have also been consulted in conjunction with decommissioning,. In responise to.Maine Yankee's inquiry, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) ideiitified,;only.two federally listed species -undertheir jurisdiction., The .baldeagli (HaIliaee'tus.'leucoce'jhcal-s)
. ,. . -. .. .., . ... ... . , . ..*_ ... aind- l*regrifi fialcon
, (Faldbpeiuiu) are-.boih identified ds transient species :(eference 8:9.3 8).
The National Marine Fisheries Service,(NMFS),identified the 'shortnose-stur geoii as.known to oc-ur in ,th&eBack* Rver and Montsweag Bay, especially during.thte: summer months:(Reference 8.9-939);, Subsequent-to .ree.eipt.;of the NMFS letter,.the Atlantic:..salm on (Salmo salar)Was listed as endainge'ed species (Federal Regis.ter' 11/1,::7/.00).. .' Decommissioining of shoreline structures had the pbtenitial to have impacts on ma rine habitats and :biota. Impacts :may. include. disturbance of substrate, sedim*entationani.d :turbidity: Carf.u project. plianning, constutation with regulatory ahd iesoutces -agencies, .and p6mitfting.iequiremets .sered to minimizethe duration anid extent of these impacts. No.adverseý impacts on rare and endanger6d
- species.are expected. Maine Yankee's assessment of this. impact.and the review by State..:and Federa agencies were accomplished under the NRPA process. Impact.to mftifide. eouircýs ffdrih-:decomrissibning. ttiites Ws .evaluited in the Maine Yankee a^pl-.tioios for. permit underlthe NRPA. (MN-02-012,. References..8.9.30 an.d MN-0.2-03 *, R"fere.ce8-.9.31) for that ,gork accomplished at:ornearthe.
Sshoqreine.i per: fSt'teofMaine requairements. The principal work siubjecttot.the NR.PA .proeýss i:nc*luded. thfe :demfoilition and restoration of the circulating-water pump house and the seWage treatment planit and the cha'racterization, remeIdiation,
-and. &.ecmmissi.oningof the fdrebay/diffhser system. The. evaluation and
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-23 ReviSion..6
- Januar.v 2014 - -:.... .. .. . . . . .. .......
permitting conclusions. by Maine Yankee and. S.tate/Federal agencies are described in Section 8..6.4. 8.4.13 Environmental. Effectslof.Acoidentsand.. De.om*iss~ioning Events The MYER considered"the tradiologicdl impacts on .the..environment of various. classes of accidents. These qlasses ranged from.. Class 2 eventsl :to Class 8. The events discussed are listed in Table 8-4 below.: Table 8-4 Environmental Impacts of Accidenit Classe EVent Classification DescriptionEt entalesipt" Classification D e.t n .. ........- 2 Small Peleases Outside' a. Leakage .fr.om Valvs'e dMechanical Containment Seals.
- b. Cracked.Pipe in.Chemical* Volume Control Systemm;
- 3 R*ad WasteSys.tem i.F*ies .a._aseqous waastq
- b. Liquid Radwapste 4 Events thatRelease NotAppI~iable Radioactivity Into the P. rimary iSystem*-*
5 Radioactivity Release Into a. Steamn Generator Tube Leakage SecondarySeonar -System S .. b Steam
. .... . Tube-Rupture
.Generator ... . *. . ....
.6 Refueling Accidents*Inside a. FuelAssembly Drop Containment 7 Fuel Handling Accidents a. Cask Drop Outtside Containmi'nt -
- b. Fuel Assemibly DrOPp 8Accidents Initiated b_ .6a. MairSt_. ihe-__.
'Events Conisidered in.the . j..
- .S. .
NbC(6iflroElenU A§sesthbl§Ejection __ SA*s.~l. .... . . .den.. .:.... ....... On August 7, 1997; Maine:Yankee siubjmitted its: certificati6n.0of permanent cessation of operation and permanent fuel removal ifr0m the reactor in: accordance
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-24. Revision 6 January.2014-. .. -- . ..... with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). Thespent fuel and GTCC waste have been transferred to the ISFS!, and the decommisiponing of the-plaht (With the dxception of those activities associated with the ISFSI) is complete. Thus, the above event classifieations nro loniger'apply. There-iie riopf6stulated eventsob6roiidents asso'ciated with the ISFSI that could result:itn-:ra~di1o'gical-c:nsequences. 8.5 RatdiMlogi'ecil 9Eiiir6nmentai Impacts, 8.5.1 Radiological Criteria for License&Te'rmnation Maine'vYanke'wiill'comply with*the enhanced state cleanup*standards-contained in Maine .Stat Lai"' LD 38MSRA§155: These.standards. .peify: a residual dose limit of 10 mrern/ir total with a groundwater contribution niot to exceed 4 mrem/yr. These.
-requirements are less than 40 %of the:NRC's 25 mrem/yr all pathway exposure lirriit.
8.5.2 Decommissionihg versus Plant: Operation The radiological effluent releases and direct exposures.to the hypothetical maximally-exposed Jndividual from.decommissio rning activities are expected to be coihmpill6:t oor be*ow those experiencedbythe maxifmially-exi6sed individual digjg operatibns. Table, 8-5 provides'a~c6mparison of the max.imum'annual total b~ody dose 'commitments reporte.din Annua!DoseReports during the operational prjiod'.(1.995: afid 1:996) .i*ersps thle:decomifssioning p"'erd (Post 1996). The table is
-ide.iiato Ifpathwaycaytegories DirecttExternal, Liquid 'and Gases.
Table:8-5 Maximum.Annual TotalfBody Dose. Commitment (mrem)
...........*th
* *=.. *w ................
*...... :,: 6. ".- '... ..-197-Period Operaion -... .... ...
.Decommi§ssiofing .........
Period - 9. Patw 19 1996 19907 7 19--.9-8 19.99_ DirectExternal. .. . . . . 3.5
.-.... y . 2
- 1.5
. -. . . .. . .'... . ' .. . ... -. '. 10.84 .
' " :** * ,
- 7 1.3. . . . . .
.. ... 1.5
.L.'
.....' s Liquid -. .... .. 02.. . 000 0.0056 . . :0.12. .. . 1.0 1 u.... ........... - . 01. . oO 5 Gaseous 0.0 02 0.00.5 Total 1...8 .3 ...-. ....
Other radiological impacts of decnbmmissioniing.Maihe Yankee are discussed in Sectiois :83, 8.4 and 8.7.
MYAPC lAcense Termination Plan Page.8725 Revision 6 .January 2014. 8;6 Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts 8.6.1 Overview of Other Regulators Covering Site Release. I!n addition to involvement by the-NRC, thodecommissioning of Maine Yankee involves coordination with a number of federal,.state, and 1local agencies as well as. several advisory groupsm Sections 3.6.1 and 3.62disss the primary tions, programs, and regulatory authdrity of these agencies and advisory groups. 8.6.2 RCRA Clos.ure Process Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RC.A)-* RC:A as appled to Maine Yankee :decommissioning pertains to the,l"c16sfr&" 6of th sitb with. respect to chemical contamination. RCRA closure is required for thedMaine Yankee site because Maine Yankee-was a large quantity generator ofhazardous, waste, has documented historical spills and because; Maine YakjetemporaryI held a RCRA Part A interim license in'the early 1980s with finaldlosre6 deferred Until decommissioning. MtDEP has..been 'designated asaieilead :ageney for RCRA closue. activities at Maine Yankee with technical isupp*or bWghprided by EPA. r- p *slb . ,,_ . . . . The closure process.involvesa rigorous examinationp.ofsitebhistoryj investigation (including sampling), of the site, :evaluation of ta u a nst risk"based: standards, and possibly.remediation if determined neeessaryto,protect human health and the environment. The.closure process includes:,amplep ppp, ity*for public
,input; for example,: a publicinformationl ee"tix g waskhe.d Jun 12,2000, a public presentation of the RCRA Sampling Program was giv*nonMay 23, 2001, and an internet web site: www.state.me.us/dep/rwm/myankee/homenage,shtm is maintained by MDEP. Additional piublic infoirmation metinigs.*inl"' bleld throghout the closure process.
In 19.98 GTS Duratek, Inc. conducteda pzraiinry id.ai6ogia arndchemical characterization of the site:to determine the nature and, extent ofcontamination (if qany)ý for use by pctential bidders onethe decommissioning projeet (Reference 8.9.21). Subsequent to the Duratekreport and in response.to .MDE-F's questions,. a Site History Report (SHR) was-written by'Stone &_Webster-.ian-,enineering firmn then uiider contract to Maine Yankee",to sere ias ip for- I 1l*s-e pla that Maine Y.ankee, a.s a generator of hazardous waste, will pr.re- to.meetdthe requirements of the Standards for Generators of HazardousVWasteo[660ý CMR8501A()]. The
,rport did not address all closure issues, since it did not deal with the characterization of the waste generated by the demolition of buildings and any soil
MYAPC License 'Termination Plan Page 8-26 Revision 6 January.2014 . underneath or adjacent to thoseý,buildings. To address: potential releases to the environment from the buildings..a viAsal site assessment was performed in November 2000.and subiiitted to:State;,r.egulators:(Reference 8.9.22). The SHR and visual..site assessmenitwre:.used to,.prepare.a*RCRA Qualit Asslranee Project Plan (QAPP) sublmitted to: thle*MDEP foreVie'WV in' Febsruiy200 !. The SHR provided the ME-P ,wfi.-a,deta'ileidsunmaryf opast.or present known
ýhazardous material redagesý or .illsiof.a"pny signficance-,Maine Yankee's response to thosexreleases and: the Cirrttiit status of any:.impacted areas of the facility. Additional spills-andreleases that iwerenotr.equired.to be repored to: MDEP orthe U.S. Coast Gti0,td wre identified by' review'e'w-abf other available red6rds, including operating lo'gs dating back toithe: beginiig.ofop.erations-at.the facility, sitecinspections, and
,interviews iof past and presentý employees, anddare also-addressed.
In broad terms, the RCRAe l0sure proeess generally parallels the,.characterization, dose assessment, remediation, and FinTal Status SurIey steps inblved:in the LTP process. (See Table F.l o6fM*RSSIWM EG-1575 for a more detailed
.compari'son.of-the LTP:ad'RCRA' prcpesses)
The QAPP.defined the *trit 6i f dditidSa inVestigations-required to. adequately "clhatacterize.the potential chemicalc.-.ontamiýation at'ithe siteior -all:media to remain following decommission'ig. Thi.e.h QATPP indluded deeloprfient:6faatlhree diniensional groundwater model tiseddto assess fate .and-..transport- of contaminants, an Ecological Risk Asses-rnenit-P.lanatind proposed sampling: and analytical.
... .. The activiti.es..
- 0QAPNP . . ........ .... .. ...qe foll owed. es.EPA guide-line t s
................ rensre,thtit data quality objectives: (QOs) are met for..e poj eeti..
The RCRA QAPP (Refer.ence:8.24), which outlined the RCRA Facility Iii'vestition..(RFI( pilaný ,vaS p&.6vid.d t6ld th.State of Maine for-review and comment in February 2001. provide, opportunity for public pArpab~icifieeting"Was--lso-heldto
- input intothe pqro4eJss : ,spon:"he QAPP.. Maine Yanke:bhas completed
'the: ihitia'l p.has*'e .ofthi;F.UidI th6 C6iW6i s.,.;t*.. . o*f.:oraoiblog-caliq bil, ýsediment, groundwater, and other site mit-tfial4saples .to support: RCRA: losure in-accordance with-the QAPP. This iniWi:ph.as-e.of4he fi.ed in.vestigatibn beganfi in-September 2001 .following conditional a the QAPP by DEP. The: QAPP received
.!pprovAlf finaloapproval on December 11,20.04. 00.*,ThQA.PP (Wiih the exc.eption :of figures and othervselected attachm.1 nt.*)w.as.Submitted.to the-NRCOby MainteYankee letter dated, February :14, 2o002.(Refernce %89.-8),J The-QAP includes asamp..ling and an.Jys, .p!n based on;a.r&iew-of the site histo*r.yand vafious.-buildinig "sssents. T.hieseresultsserved-to identify "study" areas which are the focus of-the RF.I sampling activities. The.RFI sampling program
MYApC License Termina.tion Plan Page 8-27 Revision 6 January 2014. for eabh study area is outlinedin'Seetion 8.of the QAPP. Following collection ofenyivronmental samples; aftalysis and data validation, the results -Wee u§se* to eValuate-the risk to -humanhealth anid-the environment-. Areas of chemicald fritamination that requir.ed,:remedi.atfion:or long-,term, moriitoring wee [e identified'based on the risk assessmerits. Insfitutional controls, if necessa'ry, were eValuatd* as partof the risk. assessmsents. I'
-ACorrective"Measures Study wias prepared following completion of the RF-I- and subseqdiie"t RFI report; This report evaluated :remedial.alternatives, a" appropriate, and involved ,MDEPreview, as -well as public participation. In.addition, remedial activitis.*p.*.ormed as part§of the-Correctie-Measures Im.plementation phase were [
coordiniated With finalf.site restoration plan!.sand MDEP permits; (i.e., NRPA and Site LaUw) and approvals, as applicable, to ensure protection of public health and the environment. Storm -water discharge permits', erosion and sediment controls, fugitive du-st plansr, etc", remained .vald for.remedial iactivities'. 8.6.3 :Sie Location of Developmet Adftf - Temintion or Transfer Site Lo-iation-.of-De.velopment, Law.(Site Law-.)-The Sitf Law and o.its. implementing
.reglat~i~s,proVi*e a-coiprehensiv*eV.,ulion of efvironmental .aid's.ocial a.r impac tsf dvelopment proj:ectsto 'ensure there are no unreasonable adverse itnpadtg. The,,Site-Law-addresses siormwatertmanagement, groundwater impacts&
solid waste disposal,.erosion and sedifnentation-.ofrolt .noise (specific stanxdards), AR ri emissio'n*s ii'ncludirgd.dogrs, visual impacts', archaologie.and historical res'ources, wildlife and fisheries, unusual natural armeas, .finmanalicapacity,.traffi.,,soil suitability
- (bearingcapacity, tet.),
seismic, eodability, wa:tersuppy and waste water disposal. The original--Maine Yankee plant. was-'grandfathered". under -Maine -Sjite Location-of Development.Act becauseplant constructiofn. wasbeg*n-prior to 1970. Structures built-i aftbr., 1-972- on thb-Mai.nee ,Y4a.nee sifte .were,sbsequently permitted under. the Site L-aw in 4992... All subsequent new-z.const-rucion-has been-reviewed by MDEP. As part:of their review, MDEP -consults wit otheier ag6cies including the State -Historic Pree&ivtibn Qfficeý(SHPO), IF&W, critia.l areas program and.others asineeded. TWo .archa6l1ogic:-sites-have been -identified :on'Mair*ex Yankee propery, N~either.site has b~een impactedby plantpconstruction or operhtio"n. ýDe ommissioning activities will als*o ntaff6ctt4 Stestwo sites. Theýspeifo-lpeation- of archaeological sites-is not provided to ensireftheir integrity--is"Protected.
- MDEP :hais 'evi:ewed and approved-a number of projects relAted to decommissioning under the. Site L.aw including barge slip improvements,. installation of a truck monit oroscreening wastematerials for radiological materials, construction of the
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-28 Revision 6 Januair 2014 ...... . - --- ISFSI, air cooling sy.stem for the spent fuel pool and initial demolition projects. The MDEP has determined that remaining waste .disposal aspects.of demolition of the Mane Yankeesitedoes not require.re.iew under the SiteLaw. 'These deýomissiofing hciVities While.tempyorar.yisrHpti , ltimately result in a net. decease in environmental affectsý. Areasý undisturbed. by plant construction or operafibn will continuel.to be undistrbe'da pasr of de' oIa. ssioifng. 8A6.4 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) The NRPA requires d permt -forcertain activities located in, .on,.overa protected nati.tl resource (includes wetlands) or-adjacent to fieswater or coastal wetlands. 0 6fNPA reVie'W'ific0 Topi0s iueimpactstots*!ii.i.can.vildlife habitat (habitat for statý *nd..federa istecO rare:and endangered 'species, deer wintering' areas, waterfowl and wading bird. habitats, including, feeding and nesting areas, and critical spawning and nursery areas for.Atlantic sea run salmon, shorebird:: nesting, feeding and staging areas and nesting islands), erosion and sedimentation control, protection of water supplies, .,x.scenicjaestheticýrecreational or....navigational uses, water
...... a e w .....
flow, q v, flooding and an d water quality. MDEP has reviewed and approved a nurber of projects related to deconmissioning
- under the NRPA including barge slip imprvements, construction6f the ISFSI and initial demolition projects. Project review under the NRPA includes coordination wiih other agencies.by .MDEP' ncluding asapprOpriate, .DM US. Aimy Corps of Enginers and IF&W. D'm lition'ofsev.rl'diinlsrcirsdrn d02omissic. uingct (s as. the circulating water iumphouse and forebay/difibser) anhd:final sitexrestortation:-retlied approval by MDEP un*det W."PA. Under NRPA,: MEP coordinat, 'interiactions ] "Swith te agenchies ad the U.S. Army Corps of Enigin'eers.
Circulating Water Pump Hotseiaind SeWage:Treatment PIani)Q NRPA
- Aoplication, Review, and Approviai. n Alprii 4, 2001, Main'e.Yanee :submitted its applicafion under'NRP A.for the-demolition andresforaion -ofthe affected shoreline related to the decommissioiing ofthe cirulqatmig water purp house
- (CWPH) intake structutd ind sewage treatment plant (Reference 8.9.3 1). The subject.NRPA application included,' among other documents, the following key elements; (1) a descrption-of the :CWPH (afid sewage treatment plant) demolition,
'(2) te erosion contro plan., including'the description :anduse of siltboom/curtain to minimize the wetland disturbance,ý.(3):copies of relevant .correspondence.(asof the time of.application submitt) with variouss tate and.. F*edr*.aenies relevant to thea ipilication's review, (4) an analysis of variOu'saltermatives in .consideration:of
;impact to.marine resources,:and (5).a .wetland delineatin* report..
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page .8-29 Revision 6 January 2014 In an April 2001. NRPA pre-application meeting with :representatives-from ke*y.State! a .d.federalagencies inyolved in the review, additional iinfom*ation in support oif"he applicationt wis requested. As:a result, Maine Yankee contracted with a qualified marine .biologist to- wreview previous Maine Yankeoe underwaterjnispns ton-repQots.. (of
,the,CWPnHintake structure) and'provide anassessment of existing marine reso6wce.
The mrinie biologist's.report concluded :that the wetland and-marine resources impacted by the removal and. shoreline. restoration of structures in the Baek River did not requ~ire:wetland compensation.. The assessment also concluded that thez"fifial conditfi.ns prop's~ed in this area will provide higher value marine habitat than currently exist orexisted at any time during, the operation of the Maineý Yankee
,Eaceility"*4 (
Reference:
8,.9.31). As a result of this assessment,*Maine Yankee. modified i.eonstruction jplans to-use a largerjrock as the'rip. rap.to -restore the bank. oflthe Back River to;.pr6vide an improved :marine environment, Allow an aesthetical match to existiinigshoreline, and to maintain.desired structurAl **tbility:(Refei'ence-' 8., 9..31). QOjJuly :1-.., 2001, the MDEP provided. conditional appr pval of a N A. appliation for removal ofthe. CWPH intake structure and sewage treatent plant. (Refeence: 8.9.31). ThteU.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) similarly provided aRProgra.madi'P:
.General Permi* ,(QPP) for :demolition of the CWPH /STP, dated Septm*ber 2.6,ý2000.
(Refeen 89-3 .).. ... ThF!ae MDEP approval desqribed the resiilts.of its: coordinated. review with other agencies* add.essing.:con§ideration of impact: to water quaiy, habittat, -and wetland. In. addition, the pQermit addressed.lease/easement requqrpements, re.i*e. of hisgoijc prop~epteis, an.d m~egures proppsed for the. reemoval f contipated sI. For eta l " ddl* in and related to the CWPH NRPA permitappproval, see Reference 8.9.31 The MDEP review included coordination;among the follo.wing agencies, as documented in the permit approval: various divisions with MDEP,
.Depa'tment ofnI.anld Fisheries and Wildlife, Depament of Marine Resources, the Atlantic. SalmonCommission ýaand the Maine Historic.Preservation *Commission.
Severa.lkeyvdi~s.eussions and findings are -summarized below:
.a. Erosion control provisions.described by Maine Yankee were reviewed -and
.-found to be adequate-and,. thus, no unreasonable imparts to water quality were ani.ticipated ,(provided appropria.te preventative measures are implemented), .
4 "Marine Res0urces Associated with the MY Circulating Water Pump House: Projec.*t James T. Maughan, Ph.D., report dated.April. I I, 2001; submitted to the State of Maine, April 19, 2001;- pr6Vidld'tb the NRC by Reference 8&931.
MYAPC License Termination Plan TPage 8W30 Revision 6 January2014 b?. In regard to habitat considerations, minimum.impacts to wildlife resources would'be anticipated. The Maine- Department.of'Marine-Res6urces reviewed the applicatioh rýegardinig impact tO. riigrating-'a*n'adromous fish. The MDEP also obtained the review bofthe Atla*litc Salmon*Commission. In consideration. of'Maine;Yankee'*s1propsed use of.a fl6atifigdebris boom
,With a-* d"i*h*d gedi 6ent* dftrb *l'c'u to rminiimize risks tO- fish, the.
proposd poj"twsra:eep-ta*ble..;pr'vided thatc-ertain spge.eified -seasonal, limitations*be; observed for instream work.
- c. Wtland ifif.pact:were demons .trt .aine ;Yankede N A-application, to y'by be.:a*voided and minimized: as -riehas possible. MDEP documented::.its review and acceptance ofthe Maine- Yankee repoit on the lwetland's function and valuds. MDEP indicated its corinurrernce with the-assessment of the marine. bilogist that. wetland wompensation was noft-required.,
The MDEp pejfiit, as granted, °Was a conditional approval with 'the key conditions as follows. (SeeiReference 8.9.3I for additional detail.) The Maine Yankee proposed work .was acceptable:provyided that.: (-i-) All ii&es9esaiy-i.measire-s shall be t4en' to-ensure :that.itgs.actiVities:or: thWse! of its-agtiftSdo'notresult in measurable erosion of the, soil on
'the :site during the construction :of the `pqroject co.vered by thepJrijbeet, and (2) Any inStream work shall be performed.between October 15"and December 31.-
The Army COER appboval (*ie., the PGP imentiotned ;bahove).approved .teproposed roje.t:-w.o*k. :ith ,the:.'-special conditionl' th.ta.iristamý -Work*beli"mited to the peiod 0f N6Vriber. 11'16 APri! I (Rdfeehce&8..93 1.)';t0-p.r.teet'the6. sit6'`§relevant endangered species; that is: (1)-the shortnoseý sturgeon .and (2) the!..Alantic salmon. (See-Section 8-.4'. 12.) :The-COE PGP. docuefited its c6o diate*l ieviiw ithe EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, *.d. 6'the:Niition.alMarine Fisheries Se.rMice. The COE concluded that the project as proposed,would not cause more::than minmal
'adverse..effects to essenial fiýshhabitat (as identified under the Magnunson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act),.per:Reference 8.9.;31.
- The demolition; of :the CWPH.and sewage treatmeint plant and subsequent restoration of-the daffected shoreline Was fompleted ih 2001.
The Army COE special:conditionr(in:thePGP.4dated.Jtune 15, 2Q.l;,provided in:Reference 8*9.31) on instream work was slightly.modiried:by a.later agre.ement tween .aine Yankee, A.ry .E.:, and MDEP, allowing a earlier. (two weeks) instream work.startldate.ofOc*thbbe I 5 e...hefinaI .formpfth agreed.uponi condition "isthatdocumentedin the MDEP permit aPoflOial (dated.July.17,2200 1;'also pr.videeii~ftReference 8;9-3:1') Thii§, inýtream work waslimited..io:-aperiod df-Octobei-.1.51to December 31.
MYAP.C License.Termination Plan IPage 8!31. Revision 6 Januarl.'2014 Comprehensive NRPAApplication. Maine Yanke.e,§ubmitted a Comprehensive Natural Resources Protection Act (CNRPA)Application to MDEP on October.4, 2001. (submitted t6 the NRC byReference 8.9.30). The application was developed b~y Maine Yankee as agreed.upon with the: MDER and.Army CQE to provide a single,- omprehensive-application to address: those'refmainingdecommissioning activities subject to NRPA, L.ei, decommissioning activities;that are located -in, on, or, over any protected natural resource or is .located,adjacent :to o within 100'. of such resources. The:-most sigpificanit an'd complex proje69tiincluded.in the GNRPA appli.afttion involved, the decommissioning of the. forebay and diffuser :system. (See also Section 8.2 for a discussion of the. for.ebay/diffuser. activities and proposed final state.). The CNRPA's-scope also included storm water outfalls and the fire: pond. See,the.refeen-ed. CNRP.A application.for additional detail. The CNRPA application foll0.wed MDEP's prescribed, format (as in the case of the CWPH NRPA application, described above), namel-.:.(0l) description of demolition activities, including the existing condition, the remediation p ocess, and the inten'ded demolition *apprbach,(2) the erposion control.progr*aJhcludiig the use of a floatinlg silt curtin devipce with oil boom to:protect the wetland environment during- the stubject-project, (-3).:in-altematiye analysis, and (4):4a wetand delineation and mapping xeview-repor. The MDEP documented its.review and approval. in-the conditioned permit ordered on February 2, 2002 (Reference 8.9.32).6 Consistent with the NRPA process, MDEP coo6rdinateld the reiew with numerous agencies (listed'above in~the QWPI-. NRPA
'e~iewdiseugsioni)-, The Army .C.OE worked with the'MDEP and .oordinated its review-among sev.eral relevrift :federal agencies (also listed abov0e). The Army COE CNRP.A permit, approval was :dated February 20, 2002 (Reference 8.,9.32). For additional detail onwthe.Maine Y-ankee application and MDEP/.COE permit
'approvals, see :Reference 8.9.3.2-Several key-dis.ussions and conclusions from tlhe .MDEP permit-,approval are summarized' below:
- a. Erosion control provisions described by Maine Yankee Were reviewed and
-,found to be a~dequate andthus; noumnreasonabje-impacts to water quality were anticiipated .(proVided appropriate prevent~atiye Measures are ii.mpleiernted).:
- b. The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) requested additional (ROCR) information to fully evaluate remediation of~stormwater outfall.areas. This 6 Maine Yankee:included c.opies of the MDEP and -Army COE approval documentsin its response to NRC RAI. See Attachientes LC and !.D of Reference 8.9.32.
MYAPC License Termination. Plan Page 8-32 Revision 6 January 2014 information will be developed and commtinicated to DMR and MDEP as part of the RCRA closure process.7
- c. In order to minimize-poten.ftial advrse* impacts to migrating anadromous fish, certain restrictions oningtream iWork wererequie'd -similrt1ot6he CWPH NRPA permit approval. (The Atlantic Salmon Commission indicated no concerns regarding the proposed -actiie.fi IMDP, reogiZed that Maine Yankee's pr'oposed: dec666 .isiio4'oapproach would: leaveý the diffuser pipe iti place and that minimal work-is expected, iiithe-water. Therefore, no impact was anticipated'on"i tih6 Atlafid salm6rin lb6pu"Ilitio6i. "NADEP concluded overaIll that the pr6pbsed- project would nobt unreasonably harm any significatit wildlife habitat, freshwater .plant habitat, fhreatened or endangered plant habiiat, aquatic habitat, etc, optr6 d tlit deitaih-conditions are met.
(The principal conditi0os are sumimnarized býelow.). d; Maine Yankee-s applicatfion indicatedthat fie..only 'impacted wetland.area involved thestormwater outfall ri.rear'emediatiinnfi. .MDEP conicurred with Maine Yankee.'s 'assssmenrit (Referened 8.9.32)ithat-wetland compensation was-not biologicalwarranted due-to:the "lack~ofifunecion'and'valueloss -based on the surveys and obserti ohs' atThe.silte." 8 The MDEP- pemit, as grantea,-was a',conditional approvyl with thekely conditionsi as follows. (See. Reference 8.9.30 for additional detail.) The Maine Yankee proposed work was acceptable provided that: (1) All necessary measures shall be:takenmto ensure that the activities described in theo.CNRA a i do jot"resdlt ii
"'Ieasurable erosi6n of the sbUiig.-otithe site.
(2) inif-i-if.io will1Additionial b theMDEP for review and M.r*vtd:t6 approval regarding remedilation-of'each of the'stormwater outfall areas, (3) -AfTre.bay-rerOdiation:pl aI wilibe submitted it, MDBP for review and approval prior to implementafion, (4) Anyinstream work shai be perforrmed.-between October 15 andApril I. The -AryCOE approval mtioiedabo'e approved: the project as
-(#,etaePGP proposed, finding that t.would.not cause more 1=an.mi.iim;nAl adverse. impacts to 7 Condition 6, MDEP approval order, Reference,8.9.32.::(:Attachmentl.C).
Comprehensive NRPA Application, dated October 4, 2001, Reference 8.9430.
M*YAPC License Termination Plan Page,8733 Revision 6 January 2014 essential fish.habitat (as identified under the Magnunson-!Stevens Fisheries Conservation.and :Management.Act), per ReOepren, 8..93'i. The COE PGP documented its cPoordinated reviiew with; the.EPA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and tihe iNatihAl Marirne Fishehies SerVide. Asqn.ot0e.d i.o..ve 6per l4h.t* .Aperit ppr.ovai, afoibay remediation plan was required. Baise on1 fuirther forebay remediation planning development, Maine Yankee .eleclteld.ýtodivide.:.the o1vera hptlanjnt.o twophases. The initial phase would address, primarilmy,4thos~e.:^cfivitiesne"'cssa"" tro. *hher. chartacterize the. scope and extent: of-remediationactivities for *forebay related structures. The Phase I plan has
-been submittedltopipEP byM..ane Vanke fetr,.dated.June 6, 2002 (Reference 8 33) and 4w6hved ad ace6.etd withouit cncern -in the MDEP letter,.dated July 11.,2002- .ere qce,.9,.37). A.key elemenit-of4the Phase I activities included an expanded;fore~bay.dike-boring~qampai.gnt supporT'-remediation planning, primarily.
The. boring plan Was pr.ovide'd to:MDEP 1.)?"theAM*ae Yankee letter, dated July 11, 2002 (Reference.-8.9.3.4).Y. Phase lI.of the remediation plan Was provided to MDEP by the end.of_.2O2.0 The NRC'was provide,*ac.opy of Mairin YAnke.'s..Phase I1remediation plan, as
- well.as the.resufts of NM E'P-s revyew. (Refeyrence: 8.9.40).
8.6.5 So'lidW.ate Solid Waise: stoAge, h*[adnldg .dpoasW. .Are .egu!atel d by MDEP (38 M.R.S.A. §§ 1301 - '1316-M-and a'ssociated regulatidns)ý Aspart of decommissioning activities, Maine Yantke~e perontted4-..i.o areasforthetemporary storage of cured concrete rubble-(COR-)thatD Ep sr*g&la4tedasspi. wasste. Special Waste is a discretion*yclassification that.MDEP appliesto waste streams that may warrant special handling, transportation and disposal procedu.es to be protective of public health, hu'ma safet~.or:the environment. MDEP has classified CCR at Maine Yankee.as -sp~eeiai waste6 because bofthe large v.olUme of material that was generated during*deý.o.mis~soii..gatiyiies,,
,As.p.art of their~oversight-, MD.EP-has reviewed and.approved Maine Yankee'.s Waste Management Plan N%0P) iand assoCiateqd.,.samp-iig .and verification procedures, which ares outliined in and Oi6eratiohs Manual. Revisions to the WMP and procedures lso.rgqtiie; rDeEP'iPPfoval,. The WMP -andthe-Operations Manual also address:handlingan ddispqsition.of p o1certe, Qainted.rec yclable materials (wood and
.metals), tehha*
iz*i-n 'd o-the categories of solid:waste that will be generated in A....
....I.... .... .......
.'r"e 24 b t o'"e"sf.f r b y k 9 As rnoted in. Attadhmintiit2R'(S6fi0"ný14), the NRC Will Ibe..updated on.the *results of the. forebay d'ike bo i gpo .4. . . . ... . ... .
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8,34 Revision 6 January:2014 relatively *mll volmes.during:decommissioning. The WMWincludes by reference Maine Yankee's-procedures for controlling radiological materials,-specifically provisionfor the mlease.of iaiharials fro the site. Theabo.e gradeecncrete to be shipp.d off-site has b6en: ch.aact,6ed ain-acord.anfe with the MDEP-approved characterizationplan at.d has been determined not to constitute a hazardous waste. 8.6'.6 Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Matter Control Hazardous waste stoiage4 handling and4disposa *areregulated by MDEP (38 MN.R.S.A. §§ 1317-r 1319-T, §§ 1:401 - 1404,'§§ 1601 - 1608, and..§§ 1651 -
.l654 and-associatediregulations). -Included"AWithin the hazardous-waste regulations is the, control pof,mxed waste,(i~e.,.... waste .. ° thatis bothhaz*0douS ad radiological). In addition to .MDEP, EPA: .l9uates OP.CBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act.(TSC.A);
As w.ith solid waste hazardosus Waste ha.dling, !stotage an&diiposition are controlled through-Maine Yankee'sMEP-appToved WMP and: associated p~rgedue~*S:. The MPaifid'd. r:c es,idess mixed waste, POBs,.lead, asbestos, ni*rce-u, and otahdr li6tehd ran. h* ct risttid zý&dods'stes. PCBs:`at concentrationsgrater ite'5 parts permillion.(pm) standardbhave been identified
. ..... .:. at:'Maine
......... ..--. Yanikeji
. ., p. a n . .. on fpt ., . . ,. steel some
,: ,'. . . and
.. concre
.. tesuacs
...... .;.~ in the and
'sheath ngof some electfi cables. PCBs9:inthese areasfmeet the definition of Bulk Product Waste under TSCA, whickhallowsthem to be handled and disposed of at mma.ylandfills. InMakiie, PCB-eot ii maiterials (s 5Opi4m) ade cia"ssified as a aho-,iit Waste arid.mdiistftherefore bd haidId, transported and disposed of radinbgly.
,Maix* -neY has Ip.rogas in pl to.address active and historic'spill reporting and remedialion during decommissioning. 'The Maine Yaikee'Spill Program mrquir:eorting eplls ofs to*the.,MDEP :nd'dother agencies as appropriate. Maine
-Yank...ee's Excavaticin Pirotedurepprovidesgtudidancefor identification in the field of d~um nt spillsor historical oin andstains-.duriing*.deconanissioning
....... id A-'.?' ..* - i" sactivities.
..... Both programs outline d.cumentation and remedl dactions following discovery.
8.6.7. Waste Water Discharges hM_ :Ydn.de.wait~ew dis harges wetregul ated by MDEP. MDEP assumed responsibility for admin.streng thqeNatlo-n Pollutant Disicharge Elim'intiofi System (DS)program. AMEP- also amnsters the State Waste Discharge License
- Whi-rro.'..rss thegfapmealr,-prograhm.=
irarm,. On April 13, 2001, MDEP issued waste discharge license, renewal ;#ME0002:569 -and#W000746-SR-D-R. Discharges that oecurred during decommissioig ineluded drai down-and flushing of various
MYAPC-License Termination Plan Page 8-35 Revision.6 January 2014 tanks, systems and components, discharges included disposal of sump water, draining of thereactor cavity and,.ultimatey, dr-aini ng of the spent fuel pool. These activities-weree conducted..in accordance the: requirements of the associated, approved disoharge Puts isst~ed by.MDEP. 8.6.8 Storm Water Minagement Storm water-management. at Maine. Yankee: was historically addressed as part of the j facility's NIP:DES permit. :The NPDES permit riquired Maine Yankee. tohave -a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP was incorporated into Maine Yankee..'s Integrated Spil l Pl.ian..Aspart.of the transition from an operating -plantto.-a:decommissioning-plant,.Maihe--Yankee filed a Notice of Intent for coverage under EPA!'sNPDES:Storm Water: Construction Permit, (Permit MERI 0A416). As such, Maine Yankee: prepared aISWPP. for the decommissioning construction activities. The SWPPP utilized Best Management Practices as outlined in the "Storm Water Management For Maine: .Best Management Practices" (1995) and, 'Ma.ine .Erosinýand Sedi,ient.. Con.tro.Handbook., for Construction: Best. ManagemfienttPractiees" (1991). MDEP regiulateS st6orm-water. as part. of their review of pro.ects under various laws.and-regulaftinsintcluding Site Law, solid waste regulations and hazardous waste re.gua1tions,* 86.69 -Air and Noise Emissions Maine. Yankee: has a diesel generator that pro*ides backup power forsecurity.
.Operation ofthe..diesel generator: will comply with, the applicable xegulations.
Fugitive emissions. are addressed in the.license whidh.requires-a fugitiye emissions plan which Maine Yankee maintains and follows. Ait emissions are also addressed as part of MDEP .reiew.of projects ramder various laws and regulations including
.Site Lawý solid waste regulations.and~hazardous.waspe regulations.
Nqise.emissiors. from decommissioning-. activitiegs'are-regulated under MDEP regulation C-hapter 375, Section 10 -anid addressed ad contdrolled per appropriate Maine Yankee-Site Law permits. Compliance is accomplished by measures such as prior assessment of-.noise impact of planned decommissioningaet.ivities, implementation of.appropriate engineered eontrols: to mfinimize n6ise*impact, and restrictions on wor*king hours. 8-6,10 ,Floral and Faunal Impacts As:part of'their review of projects under Site Law, solid waste and hazardous waste and. NRPA,, MDEP consults with other agencies including IF&W, critical areas program and pthets as rieeddd,. Through this pro&ess, no:unusual. natural areas or
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8`36 .Janu*ar.v.2014 ciitieal habitat or rarebor endafigeted plant species have been identified on-the Maine Yankee site. Other-than occasional transient bald eagles andr.peregrine falcons, there are no known rare and endangered siecies present at the site .Reference 8.9.38), The federally-.ligted shoithn0Se .hugn is klnown tb ocuif min thed Back River and Montsweag Bay; adj.acenft.-to the:site. There Will be: no. additional .areas disturbed durng ecomisinn beyond tose afected b.y polatconstiric tio r oeain 8I6.11 Confirmatory Surveys,- lnaddition to:the:confirmatory-surveys which may bec::onducted by the NRC, state law requires Maine Yankee to pe.rm'it :monitoring bythe-Maine State6:uclear Safety Ifisp:tdr (22 MRSA 664,zub9§2, as amendehd by PL- 1999, c. 739, §1 and 38 MR 1t4:451, sub-§1-l, as amended byPL 1999, c. 741,i1) mTis monitotring inciudes,!among odter things, taking radiological, measurements for the purpose of Verif ing ormrliane w*ith applic.able state laws and confirming and verifying. cbompiiance With NRCGstandards for unrestricted liderise t.ihriation. 8Z,6.12 CumlaWmtiVeRisk
'Siateof MaineLaw (L.D. 2496 Sec.3.38 MRSA 145,5) indicates that-the MDEP shall evaluate the cumulative risk posed by rdio*l-gic*l and ce.mical contaminants that will remain at the site at which the decommissioning of a nuclear power-plant is occurring or :has been completed.. A*nMDEP letter (dated.February 22, 2.001) p.roposed that Maine Ynktee pr-epar the
-ctumuilative risk:-asessment;.. In resp*n*e, by letter datedFebr ,26, .2001, M:aine Yankeeconfirmedliits agreement to prepare fthesubject.*ssessment With the Understasdi'g that MDEP will review aid eval*ut*ethe *s iemt in acordancedWith the: above.cited law. The final:reportwas approved by MDEP in-March 20(67.
,86.&o3 Possibiliit:ofInhstitutional :Controls -forNon-Radiological-hmpacts
*Ai discussed fin-dSectioni 14.1, this-License Tefrinati6n P-ah describes an.
acceptble approach for demonstrating compliance.with the radiological: riteriafor uunrestricted use:(as defined iin 10:CFR.20.1402). The:.Radiologic alyRestricted Area RRA) w -radiologic6ally released for unrestricted ue: To e ompliae wth
.iionriadioactiveenVironmeiital monitoring isses, the.land.as deeded with restctive...'.o.ve~nantsaginstspecific activities,. consistent with thReR*-: closure MpRo=ess, oing, suxch asecavating basements or drieli ls fo drinking:or iriigation Water. Ifstitutiondl Controls willbe :implemented!as:necessary governing
;intended siteuse and'wil. be eliminated when no longer required. (See also Section 8.2.)
MIAPC License Termination Plan Page..8-37. Revision 6 Janus ry 2014 8.7 Evaluation of Decommissioning Low..-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) V.0oume, The *most. signifiaift changeto. Maine:.Yankee's plans for.,decommissioning since the submittaloVf- heo'riginal PSDAR s the:" crease in volume. of 16w l.eveadioactive Wast estpafd0tob,6, generated.. Th6,driginal PSDAR-estimated'fthat the LLRW Volumewould be 209,000 cubic'.feet.(5,r920 cubic meters).: The estimate of LLRW volume to:'.bj.:transported from Maine :Y~anke is ,,127,320. cubic-feet (31,924 cubic mieters) 'from the Maine YAnkee Nuclear PbwerPlnt. The LLRW volume estimated for, final burial in. a radioactive waste facility isdless fbecause of yolume reduction. SThe~iner~ehse in volume po that gipnayll.estimated.in the PSDAR is a result MifiP Yank-e'S decision,, made.i conhet with Federal,.Stateeand Local stakehotders,jto dethilish all buildings,,to:an -elevationlequivalentto.-three feet** below grade and dispose~of tiie demdlition-debiis: from the radiologically c Introlled (refsictedd), area At a low level i-adioactive waste.disposal facility or other appropriate disp6sal..faiility. Iff additioni'the de-ommissioning Cost estimate for, the ISFSI assumes..that:all ofithe material tha.:comp)ises the ISFSI storage pads and Vericaal ofncreteCaisks§ will -b6 dispdsgd.6f as low-1eVel radioactive waste. Another change which has iiflhuenced this vohIme-is:the enhanced state cleanup. standards that establish._m~r~e~res.t:iive exposure 1el.e.s, th*an the, NC regulation .odified in :10
'F `2 ar iff'Subpat E. .
8.7. Esiimate of'Maine.:Yankee LLRW°VOurne LTP.Sectioff 3, Table 3-!9identifies-the transportation:mode-andv,.olume.as well wasthedisposa.rmethod and volume for tleiftems.to be dis sed.of as LLRW. The"transportation modes .identified by Table 3-9. include-,barge,.rail and truck. Large components such as the ,rea.ctor. vessel:,. pressurizer and the three steam gineiators.were.shipped bybg..y.g The t0ot* barge transportatiqn volume for ithese ompo-nets, was..3 tI,00.ubic. feet.,: The non*GTCC packaged hardware and cuttingggritý associated wifth the, reactor pressure vessel internals, dr' active
*Wast...*(AW), resin containing'transPortation packagesý and the reactor piessute. vessel head were.transported. by truck-. The total truck..transportation ylIm~ume .'is :.70,00" cubic feet.. Rail transportation will transp*or' themajority of
_0t* ev,!U[eof LL.RW fo. *MaifY*ankees .decommissiioning. Teitems
,trans portud by. tail includeoxe'actor :cocilant pump motors,. contaminated 1soil and co~t._a*'_a~t~d concrete. T`tal.ai1 e, transportation volume-is99225,000cubic ifeet. Ith&6tal LLRW. tra6s"'otation V6olue:for-: al1 modes..of transportation is
-22:3.-:0 :cubic .feet (31 924 cubic. meters)., :In addition, the material, that ecompmjses the ISFSI storage pads and the.Vertical Concrete, Casks is expected to 'be,Irsp.ft ed by rail.
MYAPC License Termination Plan 'Page:8.38 Revision 6 January 2014 The-LLRW disposal modes identified. ih Table 3-9ginclude direct disposal and disposal after volume redUctiorn processing. Items processed for volume reduction include. the three: steam' generators, thepressbrizer, other contaminated metal and dry active. waste. This volume reduction process feddifJe-stlhe.Total; V6lutme dftioiw level..Waste ftomtfiheseiteins from -1..8:5470: cubic feet to 8,700. cubicsfeet. This'.represents: *avlum..e reduction iatio of.
- about twentý-ofie to 6fi&. The remaininig-LLRW,.ifems kre-tdesigntedAM fo direct disposal. Therefore,-,their-transportatibfnvolume is thef1same as::their- disposal volume. The majorityof the LLRW volume (941,850 .'ubicifeet) designated
- f6rdirect'disPo6sal.,.conhistso o£n'ta-iiiiated concerete (900,000 cubic. feet),
contaminated .soi- (25,000 cubic feet) and .the reactor pressure vessel (9,500 cubic fe&t).. The total LLRW: dis'posal'vMlo .umd'e§al~ifted for disposal either
*directly or afrertprocessing is 950ý550' cubic.feet(i2ý6,920ubicnmeters).
8.7.2 FGEIS LLRWVolutme Basis The FGEISoon -Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, NREG-0586, dated November 1988, evaluated the decommissioning of a gen:eic .eferern.e" Pressuriz.ed Water Reacdtr. The FGEIS .oncliddd that decommissionhing has many positive environmental impacts such as the return of possibly:valuable land fo the: pUbli d1iain nd th.,elifiinatii6n of*ot*e*i*dl problm as iated WitliradioactNiely contariirfated:"facfilities .With minimal i.use Of .resources. Adverse impacts.identified by the*FGEIS inciude.routi-e.oc.upationailradiation doses.anrd the comm*tnientof nomimally small a1miontsoif land to radioactivie.
'Waste disposal.4§ Other impacts, -iricluding'pulblic:r.diat.ibn doses, are minor.
The FGEIS evaluates the generation of LLRW from d~c6missibniiiig in the cbotext of itsfimpact on the conmmitmfent"f ra-dioactive :wste disposak space arid the dose to the public.. The commitment of radioactivevwastedisposal space'is-related.to the-volume ofL.Wfoidisposal. -IeThe dose to the pic is filate'd*.to the v6lumer ofLLRW being trasportedý The, stimatedL..RW
-v-olume used in the.--FGEIS: for the reference PWR was-th1e same for.-disposal
- and transportaiofi. This volume totaled: 18,i340Tcubic ineters:.(647,600.cubic feet). This volume was estimated based upon a radiological criteria of.-2-5:.
.mrem/yr: and -an-assumption-thatubuildings would be remediated: and-left standing.
The dose: to ihe:publicfrom LLRWWtransportation was ..aiculated-.by
,deteiriigthenumbe~~r of tuck shipi'enhts that wtuldbe-.eq to tran'stport 64.7,600: cubicfeet' of low-level6 Waste. The number of.shipments was.
calculated to be about 1.,363. The dose to the public was based uponan-cextmrhAl'pckage dose-rate ofI 0 mrem/hr i at'24neter-s a"way fromi the*pac kage.
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page &-39 Revision 6 January 2014 The: dose to.the publiq totaled about 0.015 man-rem per shipment. This resulted in a.'total doseto.the .:p~uhui, from- anspopaion of the entire decommissioning LLRW volumeof-20.6kman rem.
-The commitment.of LLRW disposal space/.for.-.a~volumeo.f 647,600 cubic feet was estimated tcq be leS'thn 2-acrefigfeslassumng &-W-.l~adt burial of radioactiVe Wastes Jn staipdardti'enches: The FOEIS concluded that two acres ofradioactiv.e Waste.,dispolsalspae :is smallin.!qomparison~to.the acreage freed up by decommissoningoe4 reference *pant,(1,60a.*). The FGEIS also concludeddthathaWie dp0mmiisionihg,,will generatean appreciable fraction of the LLRW generate by*.a PWJ ver its.hlfeiim, .the quantity of waste from all iope'ratingreactorisgwll *cosidiei~a le:-"ex Wthat :er1, from those-facilities being de4dmmisioned.- Hernce atp* *uroblems in.waste .disposal capacity. will be the result primily of opert"rng nuc!a. ,plan.ts'raher tan those being decom7mssioned. The e-foe,.* tFGEIS e ends that before choosing a decommissioning opon, -e.g., DECON or SAFESTOR, the licensee should assess 0urrent.,waste;disposal condi*tions and.thleir. mpacpton decommissioning.
8.73. Impact QfMae Y.n** sJR1 iolume
-:Asdescribed ;A.b.' jSeYtionfi.7 I l, Mafi. Y *'s,d".qmmissioning LLRW vplume.fortrportlitio"n .i"-beenV.stim -at 1,127,320 cubic feet (31j924 cubic rand,ýfor'disposa! at,9-5;O,5ýOcubic!,feet.(26,£20 cubic meters).
v~u~s regreae Thee simat for the. EGEIS reference ji~yl~i plant att*47,600iý cubimete*)ýby 74 % for transportation
.bic-feetý(l8ý0 and.47 /for',disposal.
The.decommissioning cotiesfimate.,assumesthat.ali of the material associated with the VerticalConcrte*Casisand theIFSi storage pads will be shipped offsite,* lo e~eadioactive, e. This ~'s~mpt qOV n was made to maximize the cost of dispoalyOf4- t in the decommissioning cost estimate., ;Maine Yankee does n~t*jp*iehat.this materal would beA requiir;e to be, dipse':qf i6tsati%'sith N_,SP.'s 25 njiem/year release criteria. In order to understandhedimp.apt.of tfhe .minorpasn,:LLKWvolume, M..aine Yankee evaluated the. expectd dose. to _blic from:ih 6raportation e and the con.imient of r"-adtivew.astediosWspace,., Theoincreased commifment
.of LLR ý.diposa*l.spa qetfqr .thej'crea.edLLRW from-theMaine Yankee AdeoMn.Si nin ga 4dete.-1ineid yj* s ly.,u ,t"p'igthe NUREG 0586 value oif 2 acres by. 47% /resu!ingin,0t94 aces Tus, it iS estimated that the commitment of LLRW waste: fa*ility space is 2.9 acres. This space is small in comp' sorntt-h ar creage. r up ,by.dcq sosinmg Maine Yanke.e, 840
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-40 Revision 6 January.2014 acres. Therefore, Maie Yaikee'sdeo'mmission1rig LLRW volume is consistent with the conclusions. o.the FGEIS. In.aid'ditiofi, Maiie -Y keb donsidered the avaiinbility.of LLRW disposal space int chodsing iti decommssioning.opti:n,?(EIOO), as desc..eibed above in Section'.3.1, consistent with theireebnmfidati6h 6f the FGEIS. Fuithermore, th.e P6tential imgpact 6oLLRW&spo'ýo 4spa 6 hMgb-an-diminiihed s by MY's eftioiebit planning andUtilization of volume reduction techniques :wherever possible. Disposal 'space availaibilityýfoMiine. Yatikee has'.-icedsed significantly with the establishment ofcontracts with the Waste Disposal Facility in Clive, Utah,.and the volume reductionbeing.realized through use of the many services offerdby ;GTS. atek Fhilifie6s in.Tenesse..: The expected dose to the:publie from .anspor tation of MaineYankee's decommissioning LLR-W "Wa detemined.by exam ngzth&different-modes of trAnsldrtation plaiined !fordiffererit-'&uces of waste.- It was estimatedlthat the volume of concrete ..would-fillQ!.,..167 contaners (20 cubic. yard rolloffs) lassuming a 30% volume S!-v*l p.6h~dbii d .mlitionirubbliiafion and packaging. This quantity results: in about 181 i,;ailfhip-mnts s assuming;two intermodal.rail cars per shipment loaded with-6.roll-off containers each. `The reffifnifng LLRW volume isconseivitively estimated to-ru 364 truckýeshpments. This is conservatiebecausessbom o6f-this§ V7olme is transported by barge-and by rail, as indicated above-in Section.3.5, whhi'mparts iess dose to:the public. Thedose to the Putblic.for each of thes tra npoft.adon modes is.divided,
.consistent with.the FGEISmijnto two,,a.zeg~oiis: -onlboikers and the..geheral
.Public. On-ookersfare ass&med to niostiit4 IO.Person&s whoa--reiexposed for 3 minutes each:at close proximityp'er shiphenti The FGEIS ,assumes this close proxcimity is'two metersiatan exp~osure:rat.eof .0 rrem/Ah.. The dose to the general public.is a fu*tfion 6.fe..fi : b*,9ofshipmen. and the travelig:
distace'for each-shipment. Th.EGEISassumes 1363.spments 4at adistance of .500 miles. In order to calculate d.ose..to the onilokers; for intermodal rail,:Maine Yankee assumes the same close pproximity of two meters at.p an eosure rate: of 10 .mrem/hr. For 10 pers6o (6fi(onlooks)'6ex.od.s6d.r 3.m"i'ntes at::this exposure rate the d6se iss alculýateddt be:5 mr-ffl pet Tiipment. Therefore, the.dose: estimated to onlookers, for 181-*r.jl.s pment.'of Mae Yankze decommissioning LLRWhaste is 'm*s.,9fa-rem. The do'se,to sthe general public from rail shipme nts.ofiMain-e Ya .nkedeonIssiobing-LLRW waste was calculated using WAS.- 238, "Environmental. Safety of Traportation of Radioactive Materials to anid fr6om Nuclea Power Plants"; dated 1972
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.8l41 Revision 6. Januatry 2014 .. ....... (Reference 8.9.23)i. As.suming the. dosexrates'for Maine Yankee rail packages, whichare. abo.u.t..ne..third of the:.FGEIS ass§umd dose!rates, the resulting dose to the general public was estimated to be about :6.0 E-6 man-rem per mile. Ev.ti~ho~gfthe .tual Adistance -for:rail shipments'isabout 2400 miles, the dista'ce-wa-sconserv.atively, assumed, to-be about.3000 miles. TIhisaresults in-a dose -o-the general pubJic of .8 E-2 man-rem per shipment. For 181
.sh1*pments, de dse:o the-generai pubicitotals.0:098 man-rem. Therefore, the total dose,to. the _publicfrom rail shipments: of.Maine Yankee LLR.Wis estimatet .obe3.26 man-rem.
Forfthe.3f64 truck.shipments, Maine Yankee cak.upla.ted ithe total number of
-shipmeni s multipied ,by the distanceeto beraqveloedby the trucks, 1200 miles.
Th6- totaFnmiles for all truck shipments of Maine Yankee decommissioning LLRW, is-.46,800 milesversus the FGEIS total of 6813,00 miles. In.order to calculate. the dose to the. public. from both onlooke~rs and the general public, the FGEIS.dose of 2...6.man-rem was multiplied by the ratio :of total truck
*shpm nt. distai.ce for. Maine Yankee.eto that in the FQEIS. The resulting dose to the;p&u*Icpir the.truck shipments of Maine Yankee decommissioning LLRwi* ia*but 13A4 manrrem.
In Sulemenfit 1 -togNUREG 0586, the.very lowiactiyity waste does rates wdere. consOideredt9 be.so'low .that. they did not have.to be considered in the
,transportation .dose estimate.. All of-the: material associated with the Vemri'al Concr.tte Casks and the ISFSI storage pads that will be shipped to a low-level rad .tiye'-aWste site is considered to be very low activity waste.
Therefore the :tdthl dose to the public from the transportation of LLRW assobiatedvith the -decommissioning.of Maine Yankee is about 17.6 man rem. ThisAo'se: impact: is less than the.impapt. estimated. for the, reference plant in the
-FGEtIIS.(21 rfian-rem),.and is primarilyattributed to thie choice of rail shipmti.t t0 a rOdi~a t'ive waste storage' facility rather than, truck shipments. Thus, the environmental impacts of the volume of low level waste to be generated fromp thedepommissionhing of Maine Yankee are bounded by the impacts of the reference plan*t evaluated in the. FGEIS:.
In addition .extending the storage period through 2031 does not have a signifiia.to impacbt, because all applicable ,*ederal.and state.regulations. will be. fm'et:duif-githj s:*time period.,
'MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-42 Revision 6 January 2014
.88: Su1hinaiy This supplement to the MYER describes -aniyewinfOrmatio'n or significant envirohmental .change associated with decommissioning and license:termination.
The. oi.alýenviiioifnntfLrejeiort:..forMaine Yankee demonstrated that the eonsitruction aAd operati'.n:of the Mainfe;Yankee pl!nt would result in no unace6ptable effects.on the enVi-ro*ment,. The hang'e in invirdrimnental impact due
- to. decommissioning. Maine Yankee isgenerally favorable;no.sign ifant envfronmental changes havetbebn:ideiitifidd. In -mot-ase dee6-imiriissioning elimiffintes orifrthe iredu ces the already" small .environmental effects that have been associated with operation of the. facility. There are certain environmental effects which W'will be inc*eased-dueAt6 deboffim.is-si.0.iiig activities, The-se. include the o9ccupatidnal radiatibh exposure 'necessary'f6r decommi~siOning activities, the.
radiation exposure.to the public associated with transportation:of low-!evel radioactive waste; and the eomrmiftfint of ýnsall amounts of land at: the burial site for diýl96sl 6fthisl6*4-6leVel radi'9acti.e wafte. However, these estimated effects for Maine Yankee's decommissioning/licernse :te-rmination ac~tivities as within the basis
.and intents ofthe effects previously evaluated by the NRC on. a generic basis. Also, consequences 6foposstlate"d '*c:idents,:and 'events whichýCould occur during d~*itioii~itiiif wculd :have nr. signifiant adverse env.ironmental effects.
Therefore, the proposed decommissioninrg, of the Maine Yankee facility will have no unacceptable impacts on the environment. 18.9 References 8.9.1 Maine:Yankee Atomic Power Co. (MY), Environmen.talReport, Submitted 1to0.nited StatesAtoiimic:En"ergSyCorfimission. (Octoberý 1970) 8.9.2 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (MY),Supplement One to Maine Yankee Env*ironmental Report, Submitted. to United States Atomic Energy 6Comisisjin. (April1 9; 1:972). 8.9.3 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission"(NRC), Final EnvirohmentaFlStatementRelated to Operationof the Maine Yankee Atomic Power:Stationl(July: 1972.) 8.9.4 Maine-Yankee Atomic PoWer'Co. (MY), Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report. (August 27, 1:997) 8.9.5 United Sttes Nuc.learRegulaitoiryCommissi6n (NRC), NUREG-0586, FinalGeneric :EnvironmentalImpact Statement on Decommissioning of NuclearFacilities.(August 1988)
MYAPC License Termination Plan. Page.843 Revision
, . . P.
6 January;X2014 ..: _. .n
..."*..r*...Z
! 4_.... . .......... .
....... ... .. .:..... ... : ..:-.- . .=
8:.9.6 United States Nuclear Regulatory Comnigsion (NRC), Regulatory Guide 1.179, StandardFormatand Content ofLicense TerlminationPlans for Nuclear Power Reactors. (January 1.999) 8i;97 United.States Nuclear- Regulatory Commission.(NRC),. NUREG- 1700, S.tanard.Review Planfor Evaluatig.Nuc.earpwe.eactorLicense.
- TerminationPlans. (April 2000) 8.9.**8 ;United-States Nuclear Regulatory -Commission (NRC),.NUREG-1727, IM..SS.De,co.tmmissioningStandardReview Plan. (September 2000) 8.9.9 Maihe*Yankee Atomic Power Co.. (MY) (MN-* m029), Defueled
.Safty-AnalysisReport, Revision 18. (July 18, 200:1) 8.9.10 'United States.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG/CR-5849, Manualfor Conducting RadiologicalSurveys: in Support of License
- Terminatio. ..(June 1992).
8.9.11 '6ite~d 'States Nuclear Regulatory*Commission (NRC), NUREG-1575,
- MultiAgency Radiation Survey and Site.Inyestigaton Manual (MARSSIM),
.e ._isio6n :(une.20.0 .1) 8.-9. 12 United.States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Regulatory Guide No. 1.185, StandardFormatand Contentfor Post Shuitddwn
*De.ommissioning A ctivities Report. (July 2000) 8.9i3 obe0rtQ, Gerber, Inc. (RGGI), Evaluation.ofUltimate Faite.of Chromiumfrom December 1988 Maine Yankee SCC Leak, Consultant
.report to MY.,(1 989) 8.,9.14 Robert G..Gerber, Inc. (RGGI),ý Maine YankeeAtomic Power Co.
12.88Sodium Chromate Spill Summary Report, Consultant report to MY. 8;.9.*1:5 Robert.G. Gerber, Inc. (RGGD,.Summary of eo.ogic Inforr.nation Coveringthe Maine Yankee Nuclear Power PlantSite and Vicinity, Conrsultant report to MY. (1-991) 8,.?:9.1-A 6 ;Robert G. Gerber, Inc. (RGG1), Ground Water Monitoring related
-to.Componen Cooling Change..in Service, .Consultant.report to MY. (1992)
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-44 Revision 6 January 2014 8:9.17 R6b1ert G. Gerber, Inc. (RGGI), Kerosene Leak, Spare Generator Enclosure, Consultant report prepared for MY. (1994); 8.9..18 Robert G. Gerber, Inc. (RGGI), Site Assessment Report of Kerosene Leak at Spare.GeneratorEnclosure. Consultant report ;toMY (19 94) 8.9.19 Maine Department of EnVirton-mental Pr~otection(f( EP), Final Report, RCRA FacilityAssessment,. Maine Yan.ke.eAt.omic EnerP Plant, pirepared by Richad&'Kaseli's on:bedhalf of'MDEP. ('Aug"ust1992) 8.9.20 Stone1& Webster:(S&W), Site History Report:(SHR) for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station:Decommissioning Project, Wiscasset,:Maine.
- Prepared -for-MY. (Novermber 1999) 8.9.21 GTS Du.ratek (GTS), CharacterizationSurvey Repbrtfor the Maine.
Yankee Atomic Power Plant, Revision 2.. Consuliant Report.for MY. (June 1,998) 8.9..22 :Strdtex, LLC, Building Walkdown Assessaent DataPackages,. Consultani-report.prepared for MY. -(Novembei 2000): 8.9.23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(NRC), WASH-1238, Environmental Safety of Transportationof Radioactive:Materials:to: and from -Nuclear'PowerPlants. (Dece'iber' 1972) 8.9.24 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (MY),..Quality Assurance Project Planfor Maine Yankee DecommissioningProject,R*vision .1J (Jine28, 200%1) 8.9.25 Main'e Yankee: Atomic Power Co. (MY),: Lettber:toJu.udC. Gates (MDEP) from T. L. Williamson of MY, ComprehensiveNaturalResource Protectio~nAct .PA~) Atpplication. (October .4,'00'1Y 8.9.26 Maine Yankee Atomic PoWer Co. (MY), Letter. (MN-01-04-1)-to iNRC Document..Control Desk-from T. ýL, Williamson of MY., LTP.Related Hydro-GeologicalReports.(October 1.6, .200'1). 8.9.27 Maine Department of 'Environmental Protecfion .(MDEP)- Letite ffini J.- G. Madore to T. L. Willi~rnson of MY, Department Order in the matter of
,NRPA Application a:pproval, Lic. I L!'lI 7973;'4E 7-N.,(Feray6 02
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page.8-45 Revision 6 January 2014 8.9,2.8 Maine Yankee, Atpmic Power Co.-(MY), Letter (MN-02-009) to NRC Document Contro.1 Desk from T..L. Williamsson.Qf MY, Submittal of QAPP. (February 14, 2002)
!8.9.29 Maine.yankee: Atomic Pow.erQo.: (MY), Letter (MN-02-010) to NRC Documenit Control Desk from T. L. Williamson of MY, Addressing Site
- Hydrogeology, (.February 20, 2002),
8.9.30 MaineYankee Atomic Pow'e Co. (MY), Letter (MN-02-012) to NRC
.Document Control Desk from T. L. Williamson of MY, Comprehensive Natural Resource P.rotec.tion:A-ct ;(NRPA),Application-. (March 13, 2002) 8.9.31 Maine Yarikee .Atomic.*Power Co. (M-Y),:Letter (MN-02-030) to NRC Document Control Desk from T. L. Williamson of MY, Submittal of CWPH NRPA Application and Other NRPA Related Documentation. (June 26, 2002) 8.9.32 Maine Yankee Atomic POwer Co. (MY), Letter (MN-02-0 1l) to NRC Document: Control .Desk~from T. L. Williamson-ofoMY, Response to NRC RATI, included the permit; apprgvafs..fo the: Cmp. NRPA applicationfrom MDEP. (Attachment I.C) nifid ippiro6val from US Corps of Engineers (Atachment. 1)D). (March .3, 2002.)
8.9.33 Maine Yankee. Atomic Power Co., (MY), Letter to Heather Jackson
- (MDEP) from T. L. Williamson of MY, Forebay Remediation Plan - Phase.
- 1. (June 6,&2002) 8.9.34 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (MY), Letter to Heather Jackson (MDEP) from T.. L. Williamson of MY, ForebayRemediation Soil Borings and "Radiological[Screehnig Prog.ianm R:equiremnents-.:(July 11, 2002) 8.9.35 MaineHistoricoPreseration- Comm.issin,Leter..from Earle G.
Shettle worth to Thomas L. William'son,6; MY. (May 7, 2001) 8.9.36 United-. .tates Nuclear RegulatQry*.Commnission .(NRC), Letter from Mic hael K. Webb to M..J; M-isner o.fMY, 'Issuance of Amendment No. 167, license amendment approvingqpartial release of site lands. (July 30, 2002). 8.9.37 *Maine Department 'of En.vironmentaild Protection:.(MDEP), Letter-from Heather Jackson to T. L. Williamson of MY, Pernmit #L- 1773-4E-AA-N/
MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 8-46 Revision 6 January 2014
#L- 17973-26-AC-M,-.Condition #7 (MDEP review of Forebay Remediation Plan, Phase 1). (July 11, 2002) 8.9.38 United States Department of Interior, Letter from Kim Tripp to D, Asherman, MY. ýJ(Tuly 2199m9) 8.9.39 Unted States Departmeiitof Comerce, Letter from Christopher Mantzaris, (National Ooeanic and Atmospheric Administration) to D.
Ashermn* MY. (February9,2000) 8.9.40 Maine Yankee letter to:NRC, Maine.Yankee ForebayRemediation Plan Approved by-,Maie De'ar-m"entofEnvironmentalProtection (MDEP). (February.24, .2003)!
ENCLOSURE 2 TO OMY-15-003 REVISION 7 TO THE MAINE YANKEE LICENSE TERMINATION REPORT (REPLACEMENT PAGES)
License Termination Plan Revision 7 December 2014 Submitted by: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company
Attachment I - Listing of Key Changes - License Termination Plan, Revision 7 Section Proposed Change Reason for Change Figures 5-1 through Reincorporate Figures that were This is an administrative change to restore the 5-6 removed in the Revision 4 Update figures. The revision # and date are changed, and a note is added to describe the re-incorporation. Page 1 of 1
Attachment 2 - List of Effective Pages - License Termination Plan, Revision 7 Section / Attachment Revision Number Comments Preface 5 1 6 Attachment 1A 6 2 6 Attachment 2A 6 Attachment 2B 4 Attachment 2C 3 Attachment 2D 3 Figures 2-1 and 2-2 Attachment 2E 3 Figures 2-3 through 2-101 Attachment 2F 4 Attachment 2G 3 Attachment 2H 6 Attachment 21 3 3 6 Attachment 3A 6 Figure 3-3-30 (Figures 3-1 through 3-29 Deleted) 4 6 Attachment 4A 6 Attachment 4B 6 Attachment 4C 5 Deleted 5 6 Figures 5-1 through 5-6 7 Attachment 5A 6 6 6 Attachment 6-1 3 Attachment 6-2 3 Attachment 6-3 3 Attachment 6-4 3 Attachment 6-5 3 Attachment 6-6 4 Deleted Attachment 6-7 3 Attachment 6-8 3 Attachment 6-9 3 Attachment 6-10 3 Attachment 6-11 3 Attachment 6-12 3 Attachment 6-13 4 Attachment 6-14 3 Attachment 6-15 3 Attachment 6-16 3 Replaced by Attachment 2H Attachment 6-17 4 Deleted Attachment 6-18 3 Attachment 6-19 3 Attachment 6-20 4 7 6 8 6 9 3 Page 1 of I
MYAPC License Termination Plan The figure is unmodified from that Revision 7 presented in Revision 3. Revision 7 restores the Figure. 7
.7/
.9
/ F 4 44 r-)
/f , 0L I )
'U z<
(I ("F z 0 C ri F! U o1 MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. LICENSE) TERMINATION PLAN
MYAPC License Termination Plan The figure is unmodified from that Revision 7 presented in Revision 3. Revision 7 2014 U) CU Ui) 0 U) (D C: MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. LICENSE Class 1 Areas TERMINATION PLAN
-~>
zo CD) CD
-Q CD G~
~ ~. S o 0.
0~'
- 0.
S 0=
3-M -0 z0 S
*f o!
t t ci 01 CC! 0'E
.1 ..-
S ,f~ 11 CI cc C, c c c c c c cc
~. -0 o,
IRUNG I>~~~~~Eý ---- 2 NŽC~ 5; R. [6-163- __________ ~ UN Po____ ' ______ j. C-) 622000 E IH.HC zo J-J N
-N I, IS IN ley CUR N H
j
..... ...*-62300 o4 OC~~T I-.
iILZr / I, I-14, 624000 E F 0 LEGEND: RAILYK ~ .1' C' 5H~ 0~'
.................. T ILITI LINESIUSESOMIADI R WAII STREAM RAS- I RIIEE
~.0*> '- R l NO ES:ATNE SHNTU MTD Z- DAN 11 1 62500 Ht K
-N NOTES :
_________ C
'I-0'HS K + ~ ~ O'~ ~ ~ to9~ I 1626000 E 1 TOPOGREE INUSSEWALLWOMAN' APY y EHOj ELINEC" ILEEPROM EATER81-S. 'POPT*HE PLA'S.y EOTOUJ N CP 'OE THEPROPOSER AE DISPOSAL I TlO HAS STATIOCN SITE EATER -S44. AD DAO TEE PSERT. AMNEEATE T9E. USES RESTTEAL TR N. HAEEACERY EATTIA A SE"A CREL.
- 2. REAOP*_TT OUNARIES ECILED PERA THEUSEPROPEETIHO. lAC.,
MAS AND PYE IAI MAPS APS 5TRW CPRO ERSTHE THE rCWN PR I]SCASS[T. W EALLAND SURTENIOR I-E. -R.~ -~
~
~ 22
\, - ~A ~R PA~AAY GRAP- -
zT~ IRS p0
-I 5 628000 E
-n Fr-00 RE
MYAPC License Termination Plan The figure is unmodified from that Revision 7 presented in Revision 3. Revision 7 ecm r , restures Lnltrigure. . Stone & Webster Decommissioning Team Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project SapSurvey Map MapFR300-17 Survey Type: ] Characterization L] Turnover EFinal Status Survey I Survey Area Name: ISFS[/ Contractor Parking Lot FR1300 Survey Unit 4 Scan Grids x > (meters) C- It ) on(r-- Mo M 0 (N :ý '2 Li 0 ý0 M 210 21 20 190 19 180 18 170 17 - 014 016 160 16 150 15 140 14 010 013 0151
- v 130 13 120 12 110 11 100 10 90 9
80 8 005 70 7 0041 A 60 6 50 5 003 II 40 4 30 3 002 20 2 001 10 I J K L M N 0 P 0 R S T
'0 A B C D E F G H U
ýN MAINE YANKEE Survey ATOMIC POWER CO.
LICENSE PLAN TERMINATION Survey Are GGrid 5- 5
MYAPC License Termination Plan The figure is unmodified from that Revision 7 presented in Revision 3. Revision 7 December 29, 2014 restores the Figure. Figure 5-6 FSS Project Organization' a a ,< ts
- e a *e IP-M )N Mg hk I
lf'COA74Wbm See Section 5.10.1'M for Q discussion of the relationship between the FSS project organization and the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Program.}}