Text

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land
	ML040990045
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	03/15/2004
From:	Williamson T; Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME
References
	+sispmjr200510, -RFPFR, FOIA/PA-2004-0319, MN-04-020, RA-04-035
	Download: ML040990045 (304)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:MaineYankee 321 OLD FERRY RD.

WISCASSET, ME 04578-4922 March 15, 2004 MN-04-020 RA-04-035 Proposed Change No. 218 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

References:

(1) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309) (2) Maine Yankee Letter to the USNRC, MN-02-048, dated October 15, 2002, Revision 3, Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan (3) USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003, Issuance of Amendment no. 168 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-36

Subject:

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and in accordance with the NRC Approved License Termination Plan for Maine Yankee (Reference No. 2), Maine Yankee hereby requests an amendment to the facility operating license (Reference No. 1) to indicate NRC approval of the release of the land described in this submittal from the jurisdiction of the license. In support of this request, Maine Yankee is supplying the information required in LTP section 1.4.2 and 5.9.3. While the land area associated with this license amendment release request includes the entire non-ISFSI portion of site land, this submittal contains only a portion of the required dismantlement and survey information. The dismantlement and survey information for the remaining land and associated structures subject to this license amendment release request will be submitted to the NRC in supplemental phases as these activities are completed. Maine Yankee is requesting that NRC proceed with review and approval of this license amendment and that the NRC condition the effective date of the license amendment contingent upon the satisfactory review by the NRC of the dismantlement and survey information for the remaining non-ISFSI site land. Attachment I of this submittal describes the proposed change including the change to the license condition, the boundary of land requested for release, an evaluation of the impact of release, a summary report of final status survey results, a no significant hazards consideration determination, and an environmental consideration. Attachment I also includes a proposed schedule for the submittal of the remaining dismantlement and survey information. Attachment II provides the proposed license condition changes. Attachment III describes the boundary of the land that will remain under the jurisdiction of the Part 50 license as the ISFSI site land. Attachment IV provides a copy of the final status survey release records for the survey units that make up the first phase of survey information

                                                                                            /rS5oa

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attention: Document Control Desk Page 2 of 3 This information, together with the information to be submitted in supplemental phases described above, is intended to be sufficient for the NRC to make a determination equivalent to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(l) regarding the lands to be released from the license. Once these lands are so released, it is understood that the NRC will not require any additional surveys or decontamination of these areas unless the NRC determines that the criteria of 10CFR Part 20, Subpart E were not met and that residual activity remaining on the land could result in a significant threat to public health and safety. This change does not involve a significant increase in probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed change has undergone an Independent Safety Review. The Independent Review and Audit Committee has also reviewed the proposed change. A representative of the State of Maine is being informed of this request by a copy of this letter. Maine Yankee requests approval of this proposed release of site lands by September 2004 along with an effective date coincident with the satisfactory review by the NRC of the dismantlement and survey information for the remaining non-ISFSI site land. Maine Yankee is making this license amendment request in this fashion to levelize the review workload and efficiently control the expenditure of limited decommissioning resources especially during the final phases of decommissioning activity. The intent is to focus Maine Yankee and NRC review attention on final status survey results and release decisions as early as possible before on-site and NRC resources begin to decrease as a result of the end of decommissioning. Timely review and issuance of the requested license amendment as well as timely review and acceptance of each supplemental phase of FSS information is particularly important for the Maine Yankee decommissioning project. For the first time in decommissioning, NRC review activities will be directly within the project's critical path. This is a position seldom encountered by NMSS, which should be given serious consideration in allocating resources. To that end, we have requested a meeting with NMSS senior management to fully discuss the potential impact to Maine Yankee's decommissioning and the effect on local and regional stakeholders. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Thomas L. Williamson Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attention: Document Control Desk Page 3 of 3 Attachments I. Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change II. Proposed License Condition Changes III. Legal Description - Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Site IV. Release Records cc: Dr. R. R. Bellamy, NRC Region I Mr. D. R. Lewis, Esq., Shaw Pittman Mr. C. Pray, State of Maine, Nuclear Safety Advisor Mr. P. J. Dostie, State of Maine, Division of Health Engineering Mr. J. T. Greeves, NRC Director, Division of Waste Management Ms. E. Mason, Esq., USEPA New England, Office of Regional Counsel Mr. H. J. Miller, NRC Regional Administrator, Region I Mr. J. Buckley, NRC NMSS Project Manager, Decommissioning Mr. R. Ragland, NRC Region I Mr. R. Shadis, Friends of the Coast AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MAINE Then personally appeared before me, Thomas L. Williamson, who being duly sworn did state that he is the director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and on the behalf of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Notary Public 3II5joL My commission expires [9ie I Ii4 Av 6

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change

1.0 DESCRIPTION

3 2.0 PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION ---------------------------------------------- 4

3.0 BACKGROUND

-----------------------------------------------------------------------      5 4.0     SITE INFORMATION AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ---------------------                         5 4.1     Physical Description of Land to be Released ----------------------------------      5 4.1.1   Survey Unit Information Included in this Submittal ---------------------        6 4.1.2   Survey Unit Information Provided in Subsequent Submittals ----------            8 4.2     Dismantlement Activity -----------------------------------------------------------  9 4.2.1   Containment Spray Building ------------------------------------------------- 10

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

11 5.1 Potential for Cross-contamination from Subsequent Activities ------------- 11 5.1.1 Containment Spray Building ------------------------------------------------- 12 5.2 Impact on the Exclusion Area for Remaining Site Lands -------------------- 13 5.3 Impact on License Programs for Remaining Site Lands --------------------- 15 5.3.1 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) ------------------------------- 15 5.3.2 Emergency Plan - 10 CFR 50.54(q) ---------------------------------------- 16 5.3.3 Security Plan - 10 CFR 50.54(p) -------------------------------------------- 16 5.3.4 Fire Protection Program - I0 CFR 50.48(0(3) ---------------------------- 16 5.3.5 Quality Assurance Program - 10 CFR 50.54(a) ------------------------- 17 5.3.6 Training Plan - Certified Fuel Handlers Training Program ------------- 17 5.3.7 Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) -------------------------------- 17 5.3.8 Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) -------- 17 5.4 Potential Combined Dose Effects ------------------------------------------------------- 17 5.4.1 Dose Effects on Remaining ISFSI Site Operation -------------------------------- 18 5.4.2 Dose Effects on Remaining ISFSI Site Decommissioning ---------------------- 19 5.4.3 Dose Effects from Previous Land Releases ---------------------------------------- 19 Page I of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 6.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT ------------------------------------------------------ 20 6.1 Overview of the Results ------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 6.2 Discussion of Changes to FSS Program ------------------------------------------------- 21 6.2.1 Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) Unity Rule ------------------------- 21 6.2.2 Post-Super Structure Demolition Surveys of Fill Material Surfaces ----------- 22 6.3 Final Status Survey Methodology -------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.4 Final Status Survey Results --------------------------------------------------------------- 24 6.5 Survey Unit Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 7.0 REGULATORY SAFETY ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------- 25 7.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration --- -------------------------------------- 25 7.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria ------------------------------------------ 27

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

(10 CFR 51.22) ------------------------------ 27

9.0 REFERENCES

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  29 Page 2 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-JSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 1.0 Description This letter is a request to amend Operating License No. DPR-36 for Maine Yankee, specifically License Condition 2.B(9), which addresses release of lands from the jurisdiction of the Facility Operating License. Maine Yankee is requesting that the NRC review and approve the release of the remaining land under License No. DPR-36 with the exception of the land where the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) is located. In this submittal, Maine Yankee is providing detailed information on dismantlement activities and final status survey results for a portion of the land (10 Survey Units) to be released from License No. DPR-36. Maine Yankee anticipates approximately four additional submittals of detailed information on dismantlement activities and final status survey results as these activities are completed. Maine Yankee is seeking approval of the amendment releasing the land in advance of these additional submittals. However, the effective date of the amendment should be conditioned upon the written NRC acceptance that the additional submittals contain sufficient information and justification to support the release of the remaining non-ISFSI land, described in this license amendment request. This written NRC acceptance must conclude, for the land associated with the release, that the remaining dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the approved license termination plan, and the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E by meeting a site release criteria of 10 millirem TEDE per year over background (all pathways) with no more than 4 millirem (as distinguishable from background) TEDE per year from groundwater sources of drinking water in accordance with the approved License Termination Plan. This License Amendment Request is consistent with section 1.4 of Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan (LTP). This LTP section discusses the information to be provided in support of releasing land from the jurisdiction of License No. DPR-36 and also describes Maine Yankee's overall phased approach to releasing land beginning with the non-impacted backlands released under Amendment No. 167 (Reference No. 9.5), then the remaining non-ISFSI land, which is the subject of this submittal, and finally the ISFSI land, which will be released coincident with license termination once DOE removes the fuel and greater-than-class-C (GTCC) waste. The information contained in this submittal, together with the information to be provided in subsequent supplemental phases is sufficient for the NRC to make a determination equivalent to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) regarding the lands to be released from the license. Once these lands are so released, it is understood that the NRC will not require any additional surveys or decontamination of these areas unless the NRC determines that the criteria of I OCFR Part 20, Subpart E were not met and that residual activity remaining on the land could result in a significant threat to public health and safety. Page 3 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-iSFlSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 2.0 Proposed License Condition The proposed change will amend License Condition 2.B.(9) to reference the date of this request. The subject of this request for NRC approval is release of additional lands from the jurisdiction of the license. Currently, License Condition 2.B.(9) states: 2.B. (9) Lands Releasedfrom the JurisdictionofFacility OperatingLicense No. DPR-36 The lands describedin thefollowing correspondence have been releasedfrom thejurisdictionof FacilityOperatingLicense No. DPR-36. The NRC may require additionalsurveys and/or decontamination only if, based upon newv information, it determines that the criteriaof 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E were not met and residualactivity remaining at the site could result in a significant threat to public health andsafety. (a) MYAPC Letter to USNRC dated August 16, 2001 "Early releaseof Backlands,Proposed Change No. 211 as supplemented and as approvedin Amendment No. 167. Maine Yankee is proposing to revise License Condition 2.B.(9) as follows: 2.B.(9) Lands Releasedfrom the JurisdictionofFacility OperatingLicense No. DPR-36 The lands describedin thefollowing correspondencehave been releasedfrom the jurisdictionof Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR-36. The NRC may require additionalsurveys and/or decontamination only if based upon new information, it determines that the criteria of 10 CFR Part20, Subpart E ivere not met andresidualactivity remainingat the site could result in a significant threat to public health and safety. (a) AMYAPCLetter to USNRC datedAugust 16, 2001 "Early release ofBacklands, Proposed Change No. 211 as supplemented and as approved in Amendment No. 167. (b) MYAPC Letter to USNRC dated March 15, 2004 "Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land " as supplemented by additionalinformation on dismantlement activities andFinalStatus Survey results. Page 4 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 3.0 Background Reference 9.1 transmitted an application to amend Maine Yankee's License No. DPR-36 to release certain non-impacted backlands from the jurisdiction of the license. Reference 9.2 transmitted a second application to further amend License No. DPR-36 to release additional non-impacted backlands. Reference 9.3 submitted a revised request for Release of Non-Impacted Backlands combining the two previous requests and providing additional information. Reference 9.4 provided additional information to address comments and questions from the NRC staff. The NRC subsequently approved Amendment No. 167 (Reference 9.5) to the license authorizing the release of the requested land from Maine Yankee's license No. DPR-36. The process for releasing land from Maine Yankee's license is established in section 1.4 of the License Termination Plan. The LTP states that Maine Yankee expects to release the land in three phases. The first phase was the non-impacted backlands, which is now complete. The next phase is the remainder of the plant site with the exception of the land occupied by the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The final phase is the release of the land containing the ISFSI and termination of the license after shipment of spent nuclear fuel to a high level waste repository. Section 1.4 of the LTP also defines the information that will be provided to support release of land from Maine Yankee's license. This information, includes (l) a description of the boundaries associated with the area to be released, (2) discussion of dismantlement activities performed; (3) final status survey results; (4) evaluation of the potential for recontamination and controls applied to prevent this; (5) an evaluation of the impact on the exclusion area for site lands remaining under the Part 50 license; (6) an evaluation of possible combined dose effects as a result of partial release; (7) an evaluation of potential impact on various licensee programs and; (8) a no significant hazards determination evaluation. This information is contained in this submittal. Final status survey (FSS) results and discussion of dismantlement activities performed are provided for the survey units addressed in this submittal. The FSS and dismantlement information for the remaining lands and associated structures subject to this license amendment request wvill be submitted to the NRC in supplemental phases as these activities are completed. 4.0 Site Information and Physical Description 4.1 Physical Description of Land to be Released The land to be released consists of all of the currently licensed site land south of Old Ferry Road with the exception of the ISFSI site. The legal boundary description for this land is provided in Appendix M of Reference 9.4. The northern b6undary of the land to be released extends approximately 2,945 ft. along the southern edge of Old Ferry Road from the northwesterly shore of the Back River to the centerline of Young's Brook, also known as Phinney's Creek. The western, southern and eastern boundaries extend from the intersection of the northern boundary with the centerline of Young's Brook to the apparent high water mark of the southeasterly shore Page 5 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-JSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change of Bailey Cove, around the apparent high water mark of Foxbird Island and Bailey Point and along the apparent high water mark of the Back River to the intersection of the northern boundary. Also included is the land contained within the apparent high water mark around Little Oak Island. This area makes up approximately 179 acres, minus the land area associated with the ISFSI site described below. The Maine Yankee ISFSI site is an open area, approximately 1200 II. north of the former power plant, south of Old Ferry Road and occupies a land area of approximately 8.79 acres. See Figure

1. This land will remain under the jurisdiction of the license until license termination. The ISFSI consists of the storage system and concrete storage pads, a Protected Area (PA) for spent fuel storage, a construction pad area and a Security Operations Building (SOB). In general, the ISFSI site area is defined by the former contractor parking lot and Low Level Waste Storage Building (LLWSB), which has been converted to the SOB. This areawas generally defined as FR-1300 and FA-I 100 in the GTS Duratek Initial Site Characterization study. The ISFSI area is generally a trapezoidal-like shaped area between the east and west side access roads to Bailey Point. The east and west sides of the ISFSI site area along the east side of each road are approximately 227 meters (745 fl) and 191 meters (628 fl) in length, respectively. The northern side is approximately 215 meters (705 fl) in length. The southern side is approximately 141 meters (462 ft) in length. Inside the ISFSI site area is a berm enclosure that is approximately 152 meters (500 fl) long by 1 7 meters (385 fl) wide. The Security Operations Building is approximately 47 meters (154 fR) by 21 meters (68 fl). A legal boundary description of the Maine Yankee ISFSI site is included in Attachment 111.

4.1.1 Survey Unit Information Included in this Submittal As discussed in section 1.0 above, this submittal provides detailed discussions on demolition activities completed and final status survey results for 10 survey units located on the proposed land to be released. Details are provided for each survey unit on survey methods, results, data analysis, and conclusions. Additional information on all remaining survey units for the plant will be provided in subsequent submittals. In all cases, Maine Yankee is providing a complete package of information relating to each survey unit so that the NRC staff can verify that the License Termination Plan has been fully implemented for each survey area and that the final status survey results support unrestricted release of the land from License DPR-36 in accordance with the proposed license amendment. This submittal discusses survey units in the Spray Building (Survey Area FA-1700) and the Spray Piping (FC-0300). Table I provides a description of the survey units addressed in this submittal. Page 6 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Sitc Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change Table I - Survey Unit Description Survey Survey Class General Description of Survey Unit Area Unit FA-1700 I I Spray Building - Building remnants following above grade building demolition. Concrete wall surfaces within one meter of the floor slab at the 12' 6" elevation. The unit is approximately 124.3 m2 . FA-l 700 2 1 Spray Building - Basement concrete surfaces within heat exchanger cubicle E-3A extending from the 17' elevation to the -11 '6"' elevation. The unit is approximately 221.6 m2 . FA-1700 3 1 Spray Building - Basement concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P-61A extending from the 17' elevation to the -16'9" elevation. The

                               'unit is approximately 189.35 M2 .

FA-1700 4 1 Spray Building - All basement concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P12-A extending from the 17' elevation to the -16'9" elevation. The unit is approximately 199.9 M2 . FA-1700 5 1 Spray Building - All basement concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P61-S extending from the 17' elevation to the -16'9" elevation. The unit is approximately 196.1 m2 . FA-1700 6 1 Spray Building - All basement concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P12-B extending from the 17' elevation to the -16'9" elevation. The unit is approximately 199.9 M2 . FA-1700 7 1 Spray Building - All basement concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P61B extending from the 17' elevation to the -16'9" elevation. The unit is approximately 190.39 m2 . FA-1700 8 1 Spray Building - All basement concrete surfaces within heat exchanger cubicle E-3B extending from the 17' elevation to the - 11 '6" elevation. The unit is approximately 221.5 m2 . FA-1 700 9 1 Spray Building - A combination of the exposed section of steel pipe sleeve in piping, interior basement wall penetrations, and the East and West Vertical Shake Spaces. The unit is approximately 25.6 m2 . FC-0300 I I Spray Pipe - The interior surfaces of pipe embedded in concrete, penetrating the Containment and Spray Building structures. The unit is approximately 23.4 m2 (19.2 m in length) These areas and locations of these survey units are shown in Figure 2. The shaded portions of the site represent the areas for which detailed dismantlement and survey information is being provided in this submittal. Page 7 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-1SFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 4.1.2 Survey Unit Information Being Provided in Subsequent Submittals As discussed above, Maine Yankee anticipates at least four additional submittals of detailed information on dismantlement activities and final status survey results as these activities are completed. Below is a list of the Survey Areas that remain to be submitted along with an expected schedule for submittal. These survey areas, including those listed in section 4.1.1 above, encompass all of the survey areas specified in the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan. Actual submittal schedule and sequence of these survey areas is subject to adjustment based upon the progress of dismantlement, remediation and survey activities. Maine Yankee can adjust this schedule, as necessary, to facilitate NRC review. Second Submittal Scheduled for 6/3/04 FA-0600 Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB) FB-0500 Turbine Building Footprint (including FB-0900 Diesel Generator Rooms and FB- 1000 Auxiliary Boiler Room) FB-I 100 Circulating Water Pump House FB-1400 Information Center FB-1 900 Bailey House Footprint FB-2500 345kV Relay House FB-3000 Sewage Treatment Plant FD-0500 Circulating Water Piping FR-0210 Circulating Water & Service Water Inlet Pipe FR-0400 Forebay FR-1800 Bailey Land (including FR-0600 Ball Field, FR-0700 Construction Debris Landfill and FR-2100 Maintenance Yard) FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures Third Submittal Scheduled for 8/1/04 FA-1300 Containment Equipment Hatch Building Footprint FA-1400 Personnel Hatch Footprint FA- 1500 Steam & Valve House Footprint (Mechanical Penetration) FA- 1600 Reactor Motor Control Center (MCC) Room Footprint (Electrical Penetration) FA- 1900 HV-7/9 FA-2200 Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) and Berm Footprint FB-0200 Computer & Control Room FB-0800 Fuel Oil Storage Building FB-08l0 Collection Site Footprint FB-1200 Administrative Building Footprint FB-1300 WART Building Footprint FB-2000 Bailey Barn FB-2600 Warehouse 5 FD-0600 Service Water Piping FR-O I I0 Restricted Area Alleyway Page 8 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACIIMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change FR-0140 X14 & X16 Footprints FR-0220 Spare Transformer Excavation Pit (X1 S) FR-0230 X IA & X I B Transformer FR-0900 Balance of Plant Areas (including FR-0800 Administrative and Parking Area) FR-09 10 Fire Pond (including FB-0400 Fire Pump House Slab Footprint) FR-I000 Foxbird Island FR-2000 Diffuser Fourth Submittal Scheduled for 11/17/04 FA-0100 Containment Building FA-0400 Fuel Storage Building (FSB) FA-0900 Hot Side Service Building FA-1200 RCA Building Footprint FA-2600 LSA Building Slab Footprint FA-2700 Tank Foundation Footprints (including FA-2100 Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) Footprint, FA-0500 Demineralized Water Storage Tank (DWST) Footprint, FA-2300 Primary Water Storage Tank (PWST) Footprint, FA-2400 Test Tanks) FA-3000 High Rad Bunker FB-0700 Cold Side Service Building FB- 1500 Warehouse Footprints FB-1600 Training Annex Footprint FB-1700 Staff Building Footprint FB-2400 Staff Building - Tunnel FC-2000 Containment Foundation Drains (Embedded Piping) FR-01 11 Soil Remediation Areas FR-0500 Bailey Point Fifth Submittal Scheduled for 3/9/05 FR-O 00 RCA Yard West (including FA-1 800 Auxiliary Feed Pump Room, FR-0300 Roof and Yard Drains and FR-2300 SFP1 Substation Slab Area) FR-0200 Yard East (including FR-I I00 Roof and Yard Drains) FR-0800 Administration and Parking Areas FR-2900 Railroad Tracks & Roadways 4.2 Dismantlement Activities The Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (LTP) describes the dismantlement activities to be performed for each structure and area of the Maine Yankee plant. In general, the LTP indicates that structures will be demolished to an elevation corresponding to three feet below grade. A few structures will remain in place including the 345 kV swvitchyard and associated relay house. The LTP stated the possibility of other structures, such as the Warehouses and Staff Building, to be left standing following successful completion of final status surveys. The end state of the Warehouses and Staff Building is being evaluated. The former Low Level Waste Storage Page 9 of 30

License Amendment Request: Rleiase of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change Building, now the ISFSI Security Operations Building (SOB), will remain in place until fuel is transferred to the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) and will be dismantled and/or released concurrent with license termination. Portions of the plant access road will remain in place to service the ISFSI and/or other future uses of the site. Since Old Ferry Road is a public road, it will also remain in place. Certain below grade structural remnants and buried/embedded piping will remain in place as described in LTP section 3.2.4. Various options for sequencing building demolition and final status survey activities are established for buildings within the restricted area. For all options, a final status survey is conducted on building basement surfaces before fill material is placed in the basement and conducted on the remaining building footprint after fill material is placed and the building demolished. Provision is also made to ensure State and NRC authorities are allowed adequate time for survey measurements, if necessary, prior to the basement being filled. Accordingly, the State of Maine and NRC performed surveys on the Containment Spray Building basement surfaces prior to backfill. This section reviews the activities that have been performed for each survey area addressed above. 4.2.1 Containment Spray Building Prior to demolition of the Containment Spray Building, associated systems and components were removed and properly disposed. As described in section 3.2.4 of the LTP, the Containment Spray Building was to be demolished to three feet below grade. Basement foundations below this level remain in place and have been backfilled with flowable fill following remediation and survey activities'. Many of the interior walls of the spray building basement were left in place. Much of the intervening floor at the 12 foot, 6 inch elevation was removed to facilitate survey activities. Some limited amounts of embedded pipe that penetrated the interior and exterior walls of the spray building were left in-place including approximately 68 ft of spray piping. The survey information for the spray piping (Survey Area FC-0300) is also provided in this report. All demolition activities for the Containment Spray Building have been completed. As discussed above, the State of Maine and NRC performed surveys on the Containment Spray Building basement services prior to backfill. lSurvey Units 2 through 9 were surveyed prior to partially backfilling the basement to the 12' 6" floor elev. After this floor was removed, Survey Unit No. I was surveyed prior to complete backfilling the basement. Page lOof 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-]SFSI Site Lands ATTACIhIMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 5.0 Technical Evaluation 5.1 Potential for Cross-contamination from Subsequent Activities Since decommissioning activities are being conducted onsite in parallel with final status survey and release decisions, measures must be taken to protect survey areas from contamination during and subsequent to the final status survey (FSS). Maine Yankee LTP sections 3.5.6, 5.1.2 and 5.1 1 describe contamination and access controls measures and periodic routine monitoring practices to prevent and/or detect the're-contamination of survey areas during or following FSS. These requirements are implemented, as appropriate, through established procedures and are summarized below. Prior to acceptance of a survey unit for final status survey, Maine Yankee follows a systematic "turnover" approach. Decommissioning activities having the potential to contaminate the survey unit must be complete. Decontamination activities in the area must be complete. The area to be surveyed is isolated and/or controlled to ensure that radioactive material is not reintroduced into the area from ongoing demolition or remediation activities nearby and to maintain the final configuration of the area. Tools, equipment, and materials not needed to support survey activities are removed, unless authorized by the FSS Superintendent. Routine access, material storage, and worker transit through the area are not allowed, unless authorized by the FSS Superintendent. Survey areas may, with proper approval, be used for staging of materials and equipment providing: I) the staging does not interfere with performance of surveys, and 2) the material or equipment is free of surface contamination or radioactive materials, and 3) the safety of survey personnel is not jeopardized. In areas where remediation was required, a turnover survey may be performed to confirm that remediation was successful prior to initiating final survey activities. Decommissioning activities that create a potential for the spread of contamination to adjacent areas that are being or have been final status surveyed are evaluated and controlled. When applicable, Maine Yankee employs various control measures, as appropriate, including

Personnel training
Installation of barriers to control access to surveyed areas
Installation of barriers to prevent the migration of contamination from adjacent overhead areas
Installation of postings requiring personnel to perform contamination monitoring prior to surveyed area access
Locking entrances to surveyed areas of the facility
Installation of tamper-evident labels
Filtration/monitoring of airborne radioactive particulate emissions
Application of misting to concrete surfaces during demolition
Application of temporary shielding
Containment of liquids within existing or supplemental barriers Page IIof 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-JSFS1 Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change Upon completion of FSS, the area is placed under periodic routine survey by Radiation Protection to ensure no re-contamination occurs and to verify postings and access control measures. Survey frequency is based on the potential for re-contamination as determined by the FSS Superintendent. At a minimum, routine surveys are performed quarterly for structures located within the RA. Routine contamination control surveys are not required for open land areas and structures outside of the RA that are not normally occupied and are unlikely to be impacted by decommissioning activities. Survey locations are normally located at floor level and on lower walls. Locations are selected on a judgmental basis, based on technician experience and conditions present in the survey area at the time of the survey, but are primarily designed to detect the migration of contamination from decommissioning activities taking place in adjacent and other areas in close proximity which could cause a potential change in conditions. If re-contamination is identified, an investigation is initiated that would result in corrective actions up to and including re-performance of the FSS on that area. Sometimes an area, such as a below grade structure, which has been final status surveyed, is then turned back over to the Construction group for backfill, above-grade structural demolition or other decommissioning activities. When this occurs, measures are taken to ensure that ensuing decommissioning activities do not re-contaminate the FSS'ed area. These measures may include the installation of a layer of sacrificial fill or the installation of an impermeable barrier. Following the completion of demolition activities, followup surveys are conducted to ensure that the previously FSS surveyed areas are not re-contaminated. These surveys can be limited to the top surface of fill above a filled basement following the removal of any sacrificial fill layer, as necessary, if the demolition activities occurred above that level such as the demolition of an above-grade structure as described in LTP Section 3.1.3 Phase 3, Option 3. The potential for re-contamination and the contamination controls/monitoring for the specific survey areas included in this release phase are discussed and evaluated below: 5.1.1 Containment Spray Building (CSB) Prior to demolition of the above grade Containment Spray Building structure, the basement areas were cleared of accessible systems and components, surfaces were remediated, as necessary, and prepared for survey. The CSB basement surfaces underwent a significant amount of remediation to remove radioactive contamination to levels that meet the DCGL and to prepare surfaces for final status survey. During the remediation effort, some problems were encountered with groundwater intrusion into the lower basement areas of the CSB, but these intrusions were corrected by the use of sealants before the initiation of FSS activities. Following an initial FSS survey effort in an upper elevation survey unit, a decision was made to conduct the CSB FSS after the remediation in all of the CSB survey units was substantially complete. This approach minimized the potential for FSS'ed surfaces to be cross-contaminated by any remaining remediation work in adjacent survey units. Page 12 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change Following the FSS of the Spray Piping (FC-0300), interim measures were taken to minimize the potential for cross-contamination including the blockage of pipe openings. Prior to the installation of watertight plugs on the lower legs of the piping, the pipes were flooded with rainwater runoff that had pooled in an excavation immediately along the exterior of the spray building. This event was described in Condition Report No. 03-179. An evaluation of the impact of this event is described in the release record for FC-0300 included in Attachment IV. Immediately following the completion of final status survey activities by Maine Yankee and survey activities by the State of Maine and the NRC, the lower level areas of the CSB basement were filled with flowable fill as described in the LTP, up to a level just below the 12 fl, 6 inch elevation floor slab. The above grade CSB structure was then demolished to an elevation corresponding to three feet below grade. The 12 ft, 6 inch elevation floor slab was then removed, as necessary, to facilitate remediation and FSS of the remaining CSB surfaces. A follow-up survey of the top layer of fill was performed and some fill removed as necessary, to prevent any cross-contamination from the demolition of the above grade CSB structure and the 12 ft, 6 inch floor slab and any associated remediation. Following the completion of FSS activities on the remaining below grade CSB surfaces and a follow-up survey on the fill top layer, the remainder of the below grade CSB basement volume was filled to grade level as described in the LTP. Following the completion of demolition activities in the restricted area (eg. Containment demolition), follow-up surveys and sacrificial fill removal will be conducted, as necessary, to ensure that previously FSS'ed areas are not re-contaminated. Finally, the footprint of the CSB will be incorporated into the surrounding survey area, FR-OI00 RCA Yard West, for final status survey, scheduled for submittal to the NRC in the fifth report. 5.2 Impact on the Exclusion Area for Remaining Site Lands The exclusion area is defined, in 10 CFR 100.3, as:

      "Exclusion area means that area surrounding the reactor, in which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all activities including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area. This area may be traversed by a highway, railroad, or waterway, provided these are not so close to the facility as to interfere with normal operations of the facility and provided appropriate and effective arrangements are made to control traffic on the highway, railroad, or water way, in case of emergency, to protect the public health and safety. Residence within the exclusion area shall normally be prohibited. In any event, residents shall be subject to ready removal in case of necessity. Activities unrelated to operation of the reactor may be permitted in an exclusion area under appropriate limitations, provided that no significant hazards to the public health and safety will result."

Page 13 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACIINIENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change During the process of obtaining a construction permit, a reactor license applicant must submit a description and safety assessment of the site and a safety assessment of the facility. These safety assessments include evaluations and analyses of the postulated fission product releases to evaluate the offsite radiological consequences. Pursuant to 10 CFR 100.1 1, the distance between the reactor and the exclusion area boundary is determined such that an individual at any point on its boundary would not received a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 rem or a total radiation dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure for two hours immediately following onset of the postulated fission product release. In Reference No. 9.6, the NRC issued to Maine Yankee an exemption from certain offsite emergency planning requirements based, in part, upon the assertion that the calculated maximum offsite dose from postulated releases to an individual at the exclusion area boundary is less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAG's). The dose criterion in the EPA PAG's is I rem total effective dose equivalent and 5 rem to the thyroid, (Reference No. 9.7). Since this criterion is more restrictive than the Part 100 criteria, Maine Yankee has used the EPA PAG's as the standard for acceptable accident doses at the EAB. The definition of the exclusion area is based upon the existence of a reactor. Upon the submittal of the 10 CFR 50.82 (a) certifications to permanently shutdown the reactor and permanently remove fuel from the reactor, Maine Yankee no longer had a reactor. 10 CFR 50.2 defines a nuclear reactor as "an apparatus, other than an atomic weapon, designed or used to sustain nuclear fission in a self-supporting chain reaction." Therefore, the requirements for an exclusion area pursuant to 10 CFR 100 do not apply to Maine Yankee. However, since the DSAR contained accident analyses where offsite dose consequences were calculated at the exclusion area boundary, the exclusion area boundary has been maintained as a point of reference with the appropriate radiological criteria, e.g. EPA PAG's. Throughout decommissioning, there have been only a few EAB related DSAR accident analyses that were applicable to Maine Yankee: Fuel Handling Accident, Low Level Waste Release Incidents and Spent Fuel Pool Accidents. As decommissioning has proceeded the requisite initial conditions for these accidents have progressively ceased to exist. All of the fuel associated with the historical operation of the reactor has been transferred to NRC certified dry casks stored at the ISFSI. The accident analyses that will continue to be applicable to dry cask storage at the ISFSI are described and evaluated in the associated dry cask Safety Analysis Report (Reference 9.22) and the Maine Yankee 10 CFR 72.212 Evaluation (Reference 9.23). The primary boundary of concern for the ISFSI design basis accident dose evaluation is the "controlled area" established pursuant to 10 CFR 72.106. The ISFSI controlled area is independent from the EAB. Remediation associated with decommissioning activities to meet NRC and state release criteria will remove any other radiological source termn of significance from the non-ISFSI site land. As this removal proceeds, the EAB will no longer be a meaningful point of reference and its use will be discontinued. Page 14 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change The ISFSI controlled area is currently defined in the Maine Yankee 72.212 Evaluation as an area with a 288m radius from the center of the ISFSI (Figure 3). This area will encompass some of the land included in this license amendment request for release from the jurisdiction of the license. 10 CFR 72.3 and 72.106 requires that the licensee exercise authority over the use of the land within the controlled area and maintain appropriate and effective arrangements to control traffic traversing the controlled area to protect public health and safety. NRC regulations do not require that the land within the controlled area be a part of the licensed site boundary or owned by the licensee. Maine Yankee will continue to maintain authority, in accordance with 10 CFR 72.3 and 72.106, over relevant activities conducted within the ISFSI controlled area, even after some of this land is removed from the jurisdiction of the license or is otherwise sold or transferred to another owner. If any portion of the land is sold or transferred to an owner other than the owner of the ISFSI, the owner of the ISFSI will retain sufficient authority and control over activities performed within the ISFSI controlled area through rights granted in legal land conveyance documents to comply with the above cited NRC regulations and to protect public health and safety. 5.3 Impact on License Programs for Remaining Site Lands The license basis for Maine Yankee includes the maintenance of certain programs to fulfill regulatory requirements and functional responsibilities. Throughout decommissioning, these programs are modified as necessary and in some cases terminated when the applicable concern is no longer relevant. These program changes are implemented using the change processes specified for each type of program. Some of these programs have been modified in advance to facilitate implementation following the release of the non-ISFSI land from the license. Some of the programs will be terminated prior to this release. Other programs will continue to be maintained after the release. The methodology for releasing land described in LTP section 1.4.2 calls for an evaluation of the impact on licensee programs for the site lands remaining within the domain of the Part 50 license. This evaluation primarily applies to those programs that will continue to be maintained following release of the non-ISFSI site land. However, for completeness, each program identified in LTP section 1.4.2 is discussed below and, where a program will continue to be maintained following release of the non-ISFSI site land, the impact of the release on that program is described. This section is for information only. With this submittal, Maine Yankee is not requesting NRC approval of any potential changes described herein. 5.3.1 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) The ODCM contains the methodology and parameters used in the calculation of offsite doses resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and used in the calculation of gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring alarm/trip setpoints. The ODCM also describes the conduct of the radiological effluent control and environmental monitoring programs. With the release of the remaining site land not associated with the ISFSI, the residual radioactivity will be shown to comply with the NRC and state release criteria. The MY ISFSI does not create any radioactive effluents or have any radioactive waste treatment Page 15 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-lSFSIl Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change systems. Therefore, specific operating procedures for control of radioactive effluents in accordance with 10 CFR 72.44(d) are not required. NAC-UMS Technical Specification, Section A.3.1.5, CANISTER Helium Leak Rate, provides assurance that there are no measurable radioactive effluents from the ISFSI. As such, the radioactive effluents control and dose calculation portion of the ODCM wvil not be required for the ISFSI and vill be discontinued upon removal of the remaining radiological source term of offsite dose significance. The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program will be tailored to the ISFSI, as necessary. 5.3.2 Emergency Plan- 10 CFR 50.54(q) With the fuel transferred to the ISFSI and the remaining source term of significance on the non- ISFSI land removed, the Emergency Plan will apply only to the ISFSI and will reflect the revised site boundaries. Measures will be described to protect the public health and safety within the ISFSI controlled area and beyond. The dose projection program will address doses associated with possible events within the ISFSI. The effectiveness of the Emergency Plan in protecting the health and safety of the public will not be reduced as a result of any planned changes. 5.3.3 Security Plan- 10 CFR 50.54(p) The Maine Yankee ISFSI Security Plan (ISP) describes the physical protection of spent fuel stored at the ISFSI. Since all fuel has been completely transferred to the ISFSI, the Maine Yankee Security Program is limited to the ISP. Any requirements for access control or other security needs on lands outside of the ISFSI site land will be described in the Security Plan and/or implementing procedures. Appropriate authority over land areas outside of the ISFSI site land will be maintained, similar to that described for the ISFSI controlled area above. 5.3.4 Fire Protection Program - 10 CFR 50.48(f)(3) The Maine Yankee Fire Protection Program is established to address the potential for fires that could cause the release or spread of radioactive materials. There are two Fire Protection Program documents. The ISFSI Fire Protection Program (IFPP), which governs the ISFSI and the Decommissioning Fire Protection Program (DFPP), which that governs the decommissioned power plant. Both are stand-alone documents and are implemented independently of each other. Upon completion of decommissioning activities and the release of non-ISFSI land, Maine Yankee will discontinue the DFPP. Page 16 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 5.3.5 Quality Assurance Program- 10 CFR50.54(a) The Quality Assurance Program will not be affected by the release of the non-ISFSI site land. The Quality Assurance Program requirements are modified, as necessary via 10 CFR 50.54(a), commensurate with the decreased scope of Quality Assurance activities associated with the ISFSL. 5.3.6 Training Plan - Certified Fuel Handlers Training Program Since the spent nuclear fuel has been completely transferred to the ISFSI, no further handling of spent fuel will be necessary and the Certified Fuel Handler position will no longer be required. Therefore, the CFH Training Program will be terminated. 5.3.7 Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) The Defueled Safety Analysis Report will be revised to describe the reduced site area resulting from the release of the additional lands. Figure 2.1-1 will be revised to identify the new site boundary. The accident analysis section will be updated to reflect the elimination of non-ISFSI and fuel transit accidents and events. The scope of the revised Defueled Safety Analysis Report will be limited to the ISFSI and its operations, maintenance, and postulated accidents. 5.3.8 Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) An update of the PSDAR is provided in Section 8 of the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan. The release of the non-ISFSI land does not impact the PSDAR, as updated. 5.4 Potential Combined Dose Effects from Land Releases Prior to this proposed release of non-ISFSI land, Maine Yankee proposed and the NRC approved the release of non-impacted land north and west of the current site. This land was referred to as the "backlands" and was released by Amendment No. 167 to Maine Yankee's Facility Operating License DPR-36 (References 9.1 through 9.5). Following the release of the non-ISFSI land proposed in this license amendment request, the remaining licensed site will be limited to the ISFSI. In this section, the dose effects of the previous land release on this proposed release and the effects of this proposed release on remaining site operation and decommissioning are discussed. Page 17 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACIHMIENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 5.4.1 Dose Effects on Remaining ISFSI Site Operation Maine Yankee performed a radiological evaluation for the Maine Yankee ISFSI in accordance with IO CFR 72.212 (b)(2)(i)(C) to establish that the requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 2 have been met. These requirements specify that the annual dose equivalent from normal operation or any anticipated occurrences at the ISFSI to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area would not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid and 25 mrem to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to: (1) planned discharges of radioactive materials, (2) direct radiation from the ISFSI or (3) any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations within the region. The total maximum annual dose to an individual at the 288 meter (945 fl) radius ISFSI controlled area boundary was determined, by calculation, to be less than 15 mrem. This dose included an assumed 4.6 mrem/yr above background from Maine Yankee non-ISFSI sources. 3 The 288 meter (945 fl) radius ISFSI controlled area will encompass some of the land being requested by this license amendment request for release from the jurisdiction of the license and will be an area which the owner of the ISFSI will continue to maintain authority over, as described above. Much of the land within the ISFSI controlled area has been surveyed as a final status survey. This survey demonstrated that the average residual radioactivity would only contribute from 0 to I mrem/yr (see Bailey Land FSS-FRI 800), not the 4.6 mrem/yr assumed in the Maine Yankee 10 CFR 72.212 Evaluation. Beyond the ISFSI controlled area, the exposure rate from the ISFS1 itself was determined, by calculation to be less than 15 mrem/yr. Therefore, even if the 10 mrem/yr dose calculated in the LTP from residual radioactivity were simply added to the ISFSI dose, the resulting dose would not be greater than the limits specified in 10 CFR 72.104 or 40 CFR Part 190.4 Thus, the proposed release of the Non-ISFSI site lands will not result in doses to members of the public exceeding the specified limits in the above-cited regulations. Maine Yankee monitors the direct radiation from the ISFSI with onsite Thermo-Luminescent Detectors (TLD's) positioned in a 360 degree ring around the ISFSI within a radius of between 75 and 350 meters, as well as TLD's positioned offsite at various directions and distances. Recent readings from these detectors as well as other survey measurements indicate that the calculated values are conservative and that the 25 mrem/yr exposure rate boundary may be less than 122 meters (400 fl) from the center of the ISFSI. Thus, the radius of this controlled area is more than twice the radius which should be needed to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D; Part 72, 2 See also: 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D and 40 CFR Part 190 3This 4.6 mrem.lyr was calculated from an onsite TLD which measured the highest exposure primarily from skyshine radiation from radioactivity in the spent fuel pool. With the fuel completely transferred to the ISFSI, this source of radiation is no longer applicable. 4 The simple addition of this dose is extremely conservative since the LTP dose involves more exposure pathways than the member of the public under 10 CFR 72.104 would be exposed and the as-left doses rates both the ISFSI and the LU? residual radioactivity will actually be much less than those described above. Page 18 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change Section 72.104 and 40 CFR Part 190. Now that the spent fuel has been completely transferred from the fuel storage pool to the ISFSI, Maine Yankee will take additional measurements around the ISFSI to determine actual radiation levels to verify that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D; Part 72, Section 72.104 and 40 CFR Part 190 have been met. 5.4.2 Dose Effects on Remaining ISFSI Site Decommissioning Prior to constructing the ISFSI, final status surveys were performed on the pre-excavated footprint of the ISFSI site land. These surveys demonstrated that the pre-excavated footprint of the ISFSI site land would have met the criterion for unrestricted release. However, since this land will not be released from the license until the fuel is transferred offsite and the license is terminated, the survey records were filed in Maine Yankee's I OCFR50.75(g) file to support the characterization of the ISFSI when it is decommissioned. During the construction of the ISFSI, the land immediately surrounding the ISFSI, known as the Bailey Land area (FR-1 800), was final status surveyed. This survey was conducted prior to the storage of fuel or greater-than-Class-C (GTCC) waste at the ISFSI, so that land scans would not be affected by an elevated radiation background. These immediately surrounding lands were classified as Class 3 except for a small area (100 m 2 ) to the northeast of the ISFSI, where the presence of an elevated level of Cs-1 37 surface soil was identified, remediated and resurveyed as a Class I area. 5 The results of these surveys demonstrated that the land immediately surrounding the ISFSI site met the criteria for unrestricted release. Hydro-geological reports submitted to the NRC (References 9.9 and 9.10) to support the LTP, indicate that the groundwater flowv under the ISFSI site flows from the north passing under non-impacted and the class 3 land north of the ISFSI. These sources of groundwater are upstream of any potential sources of contamination to groundwater. Therefore, there will be no dose effects from the release of the non-ISFSI land on the subsequent decommissioning of the remaining ISFSI site. 5.4.3 Dose Effects from Previous Land Releases The previously released backland to the north and west of the non-ISFSI land proposed for release, was classified as non-impacted land, since the land had not been radiologically impacted by past plant operations. In Reference No. 9.3, as supplemented by Reference No. 9.4, Maine Yankee demonstrated that any radioactivity on the backland was indistinguishable from background using statistical methods described in NRC guidance document, eg. NUREG-1505 (Reference No. 9.19). Therefore, there cannot be any dose effect on the non-ISFSI land proposed for release from the previously released backlands. 5 The FSS Release Record for Survey Unit No. 3 of Bailey Land area,FR-1800, identified no additional areas for investigation and resulted in an average residual activity level roughly equivalent to background. Page 19 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 6.0 Final Status Survey Report Maine Yankee LTP section 5.9.3 identifies the contents' of the written reports of final status survey results that are to be submitted to the NRC. These contents include the items described in NUREG 1757, Vol. 2, Section 4.5 (Reference 9.21). The survey unit design information and survey results are provided below in summary fashion. Specific survey unit design details and results are provided in a copy of each survey unit release record in Attachment IV of this submittal. 6.1 Overview of Results The following survey units are included in this report: FA-1700-SU-1 Spray Building 12' 6" elev. FA-1700-SU-2 Spray Building E-3A Heat Exchanger Cubicle FA-I 700-SU-3 Spray Building P-61A Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-4 Spray Building P-12A Pump Cubicle FA-I 700-SU-5 Spray Building P-12S Pump Cubicle FA- 1700-SU-6 Spray Building P-12B Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-7 Spray Building P-61B Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-8 Spray Building E-3B Heat Exchanger Cubicle FA-1700-SU-9 Spray Building Penetrations & Shake Spaces FC-0300-SU-I Spray Piping The release record for each survey unit contains a description of the survey unit; design information including classification, size, number of measurements, map, scan coverage, and DCGL; survey results; survey unit investigations (anomalous data); data assessment results, including statistical evaluations, if applicable and a simplified general retrospective dose estimate; changes in initial survey unit assumptions on extent of residual activity, an evaluation of LTP changes subsequent to the FSS of the survey unit and survey unit conclusions. Overall, the release records for these survey units demonstrate that they meet the criteria for release for unrestricted use in accordance with the NRC approved Maine Yankee License Termination Plan. Page 20 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 6.2 Discussion of Changes to FSS Program The purpose of this section is to discuss changes to the FSS program. Relevant NRC guidance documents (Reference Nos. 9.20 and 9.21) recommend a discussion of any changes that were made in the final status survey from what was proposed in the decommission plan or other prior submittals. Maine Yankee provides this discussion below. Maine Yankee is also including a discussion of how program changes have impacted completed final status surveys. Since Maine Yankee began performing final status survey activities prior to NRC approval of the LTP, some of the elements of the FSS program described in the approved LTP are different than those used in the design and conduct of early FSS activities. Some changes to the LTP were made following NRC approval using the change process outlined in the license condition and described in LTP section 1.4.1. In addition, some changes to the FSS program are associated with a License Amendment Request to the LTP currently under review by NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. The key FSS program changes that might impact completed FSS surveys are summarized below. The specific impacts of applicable changes on each survey unit are discussed in the survey units' release record provided in Attachment IV. 6.2.1 Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) Unity Rule On May 15, 2003, Maine Yankee implemented a change to the LTP in accordance with the change process described in License Condition No. 2.B.(l 0)(i) and LTP section 1.4. 1. The purpose of this LTP change was to replace the basement contaminated concrete area factor used in the EMC Unity Rule only (50m 2 /elevated area size) with an area factor which is more closely related to the basement fill dose model (survey unit size/elevated area size). This change did not apply to other uses of the contaminated concrete area factor, such as the DCGLEMC or EMC sample size adjustment. Accordingly, this change did not affect the area factor used to limit the level of elevated activity in any given elevated area or used to adjust the sample size for a scan MDC which exceeds a DCGL. This change only affected the area factor used to limit the number of such elevated areas allowed to exist in any survey unit and thereby maintain compliance with the dose based release criteria of 10/4 mrem/yr.6 The basement contaminated concrete conceptual model described in Section 6.6.1 of the LTP was based upon a worst-case surface area of 4182 m2 (1132 m2 for the Containment Building Reference No. 9.17). The model source term is the total inventory over the surface and is not dependent on the distribution of the contamination on the surface. Therefore, consistent with the conceptual model, the area factor could be a simple linear relationship between total activity and area. Since there is a direct relationship between the basement contaminated concrete surface DCGL of 18,000 dpm/l 00cm 2 detectable beta and the inventory of activity contained on the model surface area of 41 82m2 , Maine Yankee's dose model allows an area factor equal to AF=41 82m2 /(elevated area) for a 6 See LTP Section 6: Maine State Law allows no more than 4 mremlyr from groundwater sources of drinking water and no more than 10 mrem/yr from all pathways including groundwater. Page 21 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTAChMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change survey unit size equal to the model surface area (1132 m2 /(elevated area) for the Containment Building, Reference No. 9.17). However, in LTP Section 5.3.1, Maine Yankee committed to a smaller maximum survey unit size of 2000m2 in order to achieve a reasonable sample density and in LTP Section 6.8. 1, Maine Yankee committed to a smaller area factor in order to achieve more conservative levels of elevated activity. The limitation on the maximum size of a survey unit also limits the total inventory of activity allowed to remain in that survey unit. Multiple survey units that add up to the model surface area can not contain more inventory than that assumed in the dose model. Therefore, as a practical matter, the total inventory of activity must be limited by the size of a survey unit. The limitation on the level of activity in any given elevated area DCGL x 50m/(elevated area) maintains the commitment to achieve more conservative levels of elevated activity. However, the limitation on the number of elevated areas allowed in any given survey unit is related to conserving the dose model assumptions, which, for Maine Yankee, is related to conserving the total inventory of activity in a survey unit. As long as the limitation on the number of elevated areas is based upon the size of the survey unit compared to the size of the elevated area, the total inventory of activity will be conserved and the dose model assumptions will be maintained. Therefore, this change was consistent with the dose model methods and limitations described in the LTP and it maintained compliance with the dose based release criteria of 10 mrem/yr for all pathways and 4 mrem/yr for groundwater sources of drinking water. While this change was implemented prior to the conduct of applicable basement structure survey units eg. FA-1 700 Spray Building, its use was not required in those survey units to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria. However, Maine Yankee may use this change in other basement structure survey units. 6.2.2 Post-Super Structure Demolition Surveys of Fill Material Surfaces On January 13, 2004, Maine Yankee implemented a change to the LTP in accordance with the change process described in License Condition No. 2.B.(] 0)(i) and LTP section 1.4.1. The purpose of this LTP change was to clarify the survey to be conducted on the surface of the basement fill placed below a subsequently demolished superstructure. The survey of the basement fill surface is intended to confirm that the subsequent demolition of the building superstructure did not recontaminate the fill in such a way as to compromise the FSS survey of the filled basement structure. This survey may be conducted in a manner similar to the routine surveys conducted in accordance with LTP section 5.11.4 to monitor for indications of re-contamination and may be performed by taking various measurements on the fill surface rather than performing an FSS on the fill surface. This clarification was implemented prior to conducting the survey of the surface of the Spray Building fill material to verify that the demolition of the spray building Page 22 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change superstructure did not recontaminate the fill. Therefore, this clarification impacted the FSS program activities for a survey unit in the Spray Building. A significant amount of the fill material in the spray building was excavated after the demolition of the Spray Building superstructure in order to gain access to concrete surfaces to complete the FSS on the last remaining survey unit (FA-1700-SU I). The survey of the fill material, although not conducted as a FSS survey, demonstrated no significant indication of re-contamination. 6.3 Final Status Survey Methodology This section summarizes the implementation of the LTP Final Status Survey methodology for the survey units that are included in this first report supporting the release of remaining non-ISFSI site land. A table is provided below that lists the key FSS design features for each survey unit. These design features include the survey unit classification and size, the standard deviation and Lower Boundary of the Gray Region (LBGR) used for determining the number of static measurement taken, the percent scan coverage, the design DCGLENC7 , and the number of measurement required. Table 2 - Survey Unit Design Parameters Survey Class l Survey Unit Standard LBGR Design Units No. 2 Unit Size (m 2) Deviation DCGLENIC Meas. Scan FA-1700 Sray Building 1 1 124.3 6,132 9,000 144,000 dpm/1O0cm 20 100 2 1 221.60 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/lOOcm 20 100 3 1 189.35 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/lOOcm 20 100 4 1 199.90 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/l OOcm 20 100 5 1 196.10 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/100cm 20 100 6 1 199.90 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/ 0cm2y 20 100 7 1 190.39 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/100cm2 20 100 8 1 221.50 6,132 9,000 90,000 dpm/l 00cm 20 100 9 I 25.69 6,132 9,000 703,800 dpm/lOOcm' 20 100 FC-0300 Spray Piping NoteI 1 l 1 23.4 61,636 61,500 1,600,000 dpm/lOOcm2 126 100 Note 1: LBGR and Sigma retrospectively calculated. 7 DCGLEc: Derived Concentration Guideline Limit for the Elevated Measurement Comparison Page 23 of 30

License Amendment Rcquest: Release of Non-JSFSI Sitc Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 6.4 Final Status Survey Results The methods used to determine the number of static measurements to be taken are described in the LTP and the specific survey unit release records provided in Attachment IV. Table 3 - Survey Unit FSS Results Survey Class No of Static Mean Maximum Standard Units No. Scan Unit Aleas. Sample Sample Deviation Elevated Taken (see units) (see units) (see units) Areas FA-1700 pray ilding 1 22 586 1,081 270 dpm/l OOcm2 2 1 23 253 1,263 387 dpm/100cm 3 3 1 20 958 4,953 1,078 dpm/I 00=2 0 4 1 20 684 5,566 1,607 dpm1l1OOcm 9 5 1 21 804 2,328 708 dpm.l _ 00cm 6 1 20 1,510 20,581 4,524 dpm/l 00cm 7 1 21 946 2,166 7 75 dp/ OOcm2 3 8 1 24 461 4,643 1,225 d3m/ I0cm2 9 1 24 2,233 13,131 3,041 dpm/l00cm 0 FC-0300 Spray Piping - 1 3 115Cs-137 24,282 311,957 61,636 ldpm/lOOcm 2 0 l 115 Co-60 25,065 158,054 32,695 l dpm/lOOcm l 0 Note 1: Fewer points were collected in the pipe than originally designed (126) due to a deviation between the centerline-to-centerline distances assumed in the design and the actual path of the detector through the piping and the removal of one end of one pipe. 6.5 Survey Unit Conclusions Maine Yankee concludes that this information is sufficient for the NRC to make a determination equivalent to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1 1) regarding for the survey units contained in this first submittal. The surveys for these survey units and associated documentation demonstrates that these areas of the facility and site are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for decommissioning in I 0 CFR part 20, subpart E by meeting a site release criteria of 10 millirem TEDE per year over background (all pathways) with no more than 4 millirem (as distinguishable from background) TEDE per year from groundwater sources of drinking water in accordance with the approved License Termination Plan. Page 24 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 7.0 Regulatory Safety Analysis 7.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Maine Yankee has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment by examining the three standards set forth in I OCFR 50.92, "Issuance of Amendments". As discussed below, Maine Yankee has concluded that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The requested license amendment involves release of land presently considered part of the Maine Yankee plant site under license DPR-36. The release of this land will occur after all demolition activities are completed and final status surveys have been performed to document the final radiological conditions of the land. When the release occurs, the only remaining radiological hazard at the site will be contained in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Therefore, the focus of the analysis is on the potential impact on the probability and consequences of accidents associated with the ISFSI. The accident conditions evaluated for the spent fuel storage casks include the following: accident pressurization, mis-loading of fuel canisters, drop of the vertical concrete casks, explosion, fires, maximum anticipated heat load, earthquakes, floods, lightening strikes, tornado and tornado driven missiles, tip over of vertical concrete cask, and full blockage of vertical concrete cask air inlets and outlets. The release of the non-ISFSI land from the license will not affect the probability of any of these accidents. Maine Yankee will retain sufficient control over activities performed on the Owner Controlled Area through rights granted in the legal land conveyance documents to ensure that there is no impact on consequences from postulated accidents. Therefore, the proposed release of the land will not affect the consequences of any of these postulated accidents. The proposed action, therefore, does not increase either the probability or the consequences of any accidents that have been considered. Page 25 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The requested amendment involves release of land presently considered part of the Maine Yankee plant site under license DPR-36. When the amendment becomes effective, demolition activities will be complete and all systems, structures and components will have been removed from the land. The requested release of the land does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident that could affect the ISFSI that has not been considered in the design, installation or operation of the ISFSI. As noted above, Maine Yankee will retain control over activities performed in the Owner Controlled Area for the ISFS1 to assure that no new hazards are introduced that could create the potential for a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

Response: No The margin of safety defined in the statements of consideration for the final rule on the Radiological Criteria for License Termination is described as the margin between the 100 mrem/yr public dose limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose limit to the average member of the critical group at a site considered acceptable for unrestricted use. This margin of safety accounts for the potential effect of multiple sources of radiation exposure to the critical group. Additionally, the State of Maine, through legislation, has imposed a 10 mremlyr all pathways dose limit, with no more than 4 mrem/yr attributable to drinking water sources. The License Termination Plan prepared by Maine Yankee establishes conservative criteria for residual radiation levels following completion of demolition activities at the site. The LTP demonstrates that when these conservative criteria are met, the dose to the average member of the critical group will be below the regulatory criteria established by the State of Maine, and, therefore, well below the dose limits established by the NRC. The proposed release of the site lands, once the criteria established in the LTP have been met will, therefore, not result in any reduction in the margin of safety. Page 26 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 7.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria The release of the remaining non-ISFSI site lands is part of Maine Yankee's overall efforts to terminate license DPR-36 and achieve unrestricted release of the entire site in accordance with the criteria in Subpart E of IOCFR 20 and the enhanced state clean-up standards established by State of Maine Public Law LD 2688-SP 1084. 10 CFR 20.1402, "Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use," allows termination/amendment of a license and release of a site for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of a critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem/yr and the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are ALARA. The enhanced state cleanup standards require that the residual radioactivity distinguishable from background radiation will result in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of a critical group not more than 10 mrem/yr for all pathways and 4 mrem/yr for groundwater sources of drinking water. The License Termination Plan assures that these regulatory requirements will be met so that the land to be released from the license under this licensing action will meet these requirements. 10 CFR 50.82(a)(l 1) establishes the criteria to be used by the NRC for terminating the license of a power reactor facility. These criteria include (1) dismantlement has been performed in accordance with the approved license termination plan and, (2) the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility and site have met the criteria for decommissioning in I OCFR 20, Subpart E. The proposed license amendment supports the process of license termination by demonstrating that an additional portion of the remaining site lands can be released from the Site license. This letter, along with future letters, provides documentation that demolition activities have been performed in accordance with the LTP and that the final status survey confirms the residual radioactivity in each survey unit meets the criteria established in the LTP. Thus, the requested amendment supports the overall license termination process in accordance with NRC regulations. 8.0 Environmental Considerations This amendment request meets the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c) (9) for a categorical exclusion from the requirements to perform an environmental assessment or to prepare an environmental impact statement. The specific criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) are discussed below:

1. The amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

As demonstrated in section 7. 1, this amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. Page 27 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change

2. There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

The proposed license amendment involves release of land that has been demonstrated to meet the radiological criteria established in the License Termination Plan. There will be no effluents from this land. The only remaining effluents for the site will be the storm water runoff from the ISFSI. Thus, the proposed licensing action will not result in a change in type or increase in the amount of any effluents released offsite.

3. There is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation worker exposure.

When the license amendment becomes effective, all decommissioning and demolition activities on the site land other than the portion used for the ISFSI will have been completed. The residual radiation levels will have been confirmed to meet the criteria established in the License Termination Plan so that the dose to the critical group will meet the enhanced state cleanup standards requiring that the residual radioactivity distinguishable from background radiation result in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of a critical group not more than 10 mrem/yr for all pathways and 4 mremlyr for groundwvater sources of drinking water. The only residual sources of exposure to radiation workers will be the ISFSI. Therefore, the proposed licensing action does not result in any increase in exposure to an individual, or increased cumulative doses to radiation workers. Based on the foregoing information, Maine Yankee concludes that the requested release of non-ISFSI site lands is acceptable and meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(9). Thus no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the requested amendment. Page 28 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 9.0 References 9.1 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated January 3, 2001, "Early Release of Backlands (West of Bailey Cove)", MN-01-001 9.2 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated April 10, 2001, "Early Release of Backlands (West of Young's Brook and North of Old Ferry Road)", MN-01-14 9.3 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated August 16, 2001, "Early Release of Backlands (combined)", MN-0 1-034 9.4 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated November 19, 2001, "Early Release of Backlands (combined)", MN-01-044 9.5 USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated July 30, 2002, "Issuance of Amendment No. 167 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (TAC NO. MB2917) - Release of the Backlands 9.6 USNRC Letter to MYAPC dated September 3, 1998, "Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q), 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (c), and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station" 9.7 USEPA 400-R-92-001, "Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," dated May 1992 9.8 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated October 14, 2003, "Proposed Change No. 217: License and Technical Specifications", MN-03-064 9.9 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-010, dated February 20, 2002, "Maine Yankee Response to NRC RAI #16 (dated December 18, 2001) Addressing Site Hydrogeology," (included submittal of Stratex, LLC, report, Site Hydrogeology Description,Maine Yankee, W1'iscasset, Maine, February 2002). 9.10 Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-037, dated August 28, 2002, "Maine Yankee Addendum Report Regarding Site Hydrogeology," (including Stratex, LLC, report Site HydrogeologyAddendum, Maine Yankee, JWiscasset, Maine, August 2002). 9.11 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated August 13, 2001, "Revision 2, Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan", MN-01-032 9.12 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated October 15, 2002, "Revision 3, Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan", MN-02-048 9.13 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated November 21, 2002, "LTP Revision 3 Addenda dated November 21, 2002 - Clarifications and Minor Corrections to Maine Yankee License Termination Plan Revision 3", MN-02-058 9.14 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated November 26, 2002, "Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Rev. 3 Addenda and Additional Information Related to the Eberline Model E600 Instrument", MN-02-061 9.15 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated December 12, 2002, "LTP Revision 3 Addenda, Update on Forebay Dike Coring Results and Associated Changes to LTP Attachment 2H", MIN-02-063 9.16 USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 28, 2003, "Issuance of Amendment No. 168 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Maine Yankee Atomic Powver Station (TAC No. M8000) - Approval of the MY License Termination Plan Page 29 of 30

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Description and Evaluation of Proposed Change 9.17 Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC dated September 11, 2003, "Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling - License Condition 2.B.(l0), License Termination", MN-03-049 9.18 USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004, "issuance of Amendment No. 170 to Facility Operating License No. DPR Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (TAC No. M8000) - Approval of Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and Dose Model 9.19 USNRC, NUREG- 505, A Nonparametric Statistical Methodology for the Design and Analysis of Final Status Decommissioning Surveys. 9.20 USNRC, NUREG 1727 "NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan" 9.21 USNRC, NUREG 1757 "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance" 9.22 NAC-UMS FSAR, Amendment 2 (TAC No. L23217) Docket No. 72-1015 - NAC Letter to USNRC dated January 9, 2002 9.23 Maine Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)I0 CFR 72.212 Evaluation 9.24 USNRC, NUREG 1575 "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)" Revision I dated October 18, 2000, supplemented June 2001 Page 30 of 30

FIGURE 1: ISFSI Site Maine Yankee e^=,- h figure l. dgn

ttw- s b4 0 tvi WOO-

      -n mA D C (utC 0 3

< m CD CD %< la 0 c> n (X Z a v1

I A I a I c I 0 1 E I F I a I m I I I I K I L I m I

 -f   !        BAILEYCCOV     /        \E                                              =

03 FINHE CENTER OF THE?nd SOUTHERMOST ok. GRAPI, OFCASE STORACE PADS 1/

                                                                                                            ,,   X                                 - 2!,{_, A  d   a-.DX
                                                                                                                       ^\S.                           ocEvaJNOARY.       Report2m)RO 4                                                                                 I 7                        .-          -       '                                                                                                                                          7 GRAPHCSCLE:                                                                               -   172.212I[SF51                         Site Rod GRAPIC                         SALE:Evaluation                                                                                     Report soI SO    75 2     300   4W S                                      ATTACHMENT A:                                                      .*Maine                       Yankee Maine Yankee ISFSI SITE Plan with OCA Boundary (25 n~rem/~yr)

Based an 2000 Hour Annual Occupancy 0 ,64m fgr-.g

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-iSFlSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT 1I Proposed License Page Changes Maine Yankee Proposed License Change Pages 5 & 6

2.B.(7) This amended license is subject to the following conditions for protection of the environment: (a) Deleted (b) Deleted 2.B.(8) This amended license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight October 21, 2008. 2.B.(9) Lands Released from the Jurisdiction of Facility Operating License No. DPR-36 The lands described in the following correspondence have been released from the jurisdiction of Facility Operating License No. DPR-36. The NRC may require additional surveys and/or decontamination only if, based upon new information, it determines that the criteria of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E were not met and residual activity remaining at the site could result in a significant threat to public health and safety. (a) MYAPC Letter to USNRC dated August 16,2001 "Early Release of Backlands," Proposed Change No. 21 1 as supplemented and as approved in Amendment No. 167. (b) MYAPC Letter to USNRC dated March 15, 2004 "Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land," Proposed Change No. 218 as supplemented by additional information on dismantlement activities and Final Status Survey results 2.B.(l 0) License Termination (i) The Maine Yankee License Termination Plan describes an acceptable approach for demonstrating compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use, as defined by 10 CFR 20.1402, by meeting a site release criteria of 10 millirem TEDE per year over background (all pathways) and 4 millirem (as distinguishable from 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 licensee shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved License Termination Plan, as submitted and approved in the following documents: Licensee Submittal SER Approval August 13, 2001, as supplemented on February 28, 2003 October 15, 2002, with addendum September II, 2003 February 20, 2004 subject to and as amended under the following stipulations: Amendment No.

The licensee may make changes to the License Termination Plan without prior approval provided the proposed changes do not: (a) Require Commission approval pursuant to I 0 CFR 50.59; (b) Violate the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82.(a)(6); (c) Reduce the coverage requirements for 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 (a) of making a Type I decision error. The licensee shall submit an updated License Termination Plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71 (e). (ii) The licensee shall certify in its application for Part 50 license termination that it has met the radiological criteria for unrestricted use, as defined by 10 CFR 20.1402, by meeting a site release criteria of 10 millirem TEDE per year over background (all pathways) and 4 millirem (as distinguishable from background) TEDE per year for groundwater sources of drinking water in accordance with the approved License Termination Plan. The licensee shall at that time request NRC to confirm this certification. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed by A. Giambusso A. Giambusso, Deputy Director For Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensing Attachments: Appendices A&B - Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: June 29, 1973 Amendment No.

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-lSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT III Legal Description Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Site Maine Yankee - Wiscasset, Maine Yankee A certain lot or parcel of land with improvements thereon situated at the former Maine Yankee Atomic Power Generation site in the Town of Wiscasset, Lincoln County, Maine. Commencing at a aluminum disk labeled "Mon 3" on a plan entitled "ISFSI Grading Plan", prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Denver, Colorado, Drawing Number 0819616-EY-3A-6, last noted revision 12-3-02, thence; S 15°18'08" E A distance of one hundred eleven and 22/100 feet (111.22') to a 5/8" rebar with a yellow cap labeled "SGC PLS2294" being the Point of Beginning, thence; S 61037'00" E A distance of seven hundred four and 53/1 00 feet (704.53') to a 5/8" rebar with a yellow cap labeled "SGC PLS2294" to be set, thence; S 35037'07" W A distance of seven hundred forty five and 18/100 feet (745.18') to a 5/8" rebar with a yellow cap labeled "SGC PLS2294" to be set, thence; N 44042'00" W A distance of four hundred sixty one and 93/100 feet (461.93') to a 5/8" rebar with a yellow cap labeled "SGC PLS2294" to be set, thence; N 12°47'45" E A distance of six hundred twenty seven and 93/100 feet (627.93') to the Point of Beginning. The above-described lot contains 8.79 acres, more or less. Bearings are referenced to the West Zone of the Maine State Coordinate System, NAD 1927.

License Amendncint Request: Release of Non-lFSSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT IV Final Status Survey Release Records FA-1700-SU-1 Spray Building 12' 6" elev. FA-1700-SU-2 Spray Building E-3A Heat Exchanger Cubicle FA-1700-SU-3 Spray Building P-61A Pump Cubicle FA- 1700-SU-4 Spray Building P-12A Pump Cubicle FA- 1700-SU-5 Spray Building P-12S Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-6 Spray Building P-12B Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-7 Spray Building P-61 B Pump Cubicle FA-1700-SU-8 Spray Building E-3B Heat Exchanger Cubicle FA-1700-SU-9 Spray Building Penetrations & Shake Spaces FC-0300-SU-1 Spray Piping

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA-1700 SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT I PreparedBy: i0;te:_______ g aie FSS Engineer t4 4--rz 6

               --7       e,                 e- ,2      . f Approved By: <   :2.a*              Date:       Lz;:-

FSS, MOP -

FA-1700 SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit I is located in Survey Area FA1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of the building remnants of the Spray Building following demolition of the concrete structure above elevation 17 feet. The walls were removed down to a maximum elevation of 17 feet and the floor slab at elevation 12'6" was also removed. The space between the walls and the remaining concrete slab at elevation 12'6" was back filled up to the bottom of the slab, while the 14' side was filled to approximately elevation 20 feet with flowable fill prior to structure demolition. In the demolition process some wall area was removed that would otherwise have been included as part of this survey unit. The maps of Attachment I, and surface area estimates presented here represent the as surveyed condition. The survey unit contained the previously un-surveyed one meter portion of the upper walls of survey units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 (which abutted the 12'6" slab) which could not be gamma scanned due to the high background at the floorjoint. These un-surveyed areas were gamma scanned and re-surveyed using beta instruments. Following removal of approximately 3 feet of the sacrificial layer, the flowable fill was sampled and gamma scanned to verify that it remained acceptable following building demolition. Verification of the flowable fill was performed in verification package VA1700-01. The survey unit has a surface area of approximately 124.3 m2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA1700-Ola (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 139 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area. Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLw plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those unlikely to meet geometry FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 20

requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-wall and wall-pedestal junctures) were also scanned using the SHP-360 probe. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLw, the investigation level, and the DCGLEMc. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLEMC, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 1 SURVEY UNIT 1 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 125 m Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 Measurements Required dpm/I100 cm2 , sigma of 6,132' dpm/I 00 cm2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type 11= 0.05 Sample Area 6.25 m 125 m'/20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 2.5 m (6.25)7' Scan Grid Spacing 1 m (approx.) Area Factor 8 50 ni 6.25 mn per LTP, Rev.3 2 Scan Survey Area I m' Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background DCGLW 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm' LTP, Rev.3 Design DCGLUIc 144,000 dpm/I00 cm2 LTP, Rev.3 C. Survey Results Twenty-two direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 1. The direct measurement data are presented in Table 2. Scanning resulted in multiple verified alarms. The subsequent investigation work is discussed in the following section.

 ' Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev. 3).

2" LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference I) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 3 of 20

The flowable fill sampling results, discussed in Section A, indicated that the media contained acceptable levels of contamination following building-demolition. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The 43-68 scan process identified two locations of potentially elevated activity 3 . After localized remediation (generally additional vacuuming) of the scan alarm locations was performed, an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-01. The investigation assessment is summarized in Attachment. 3. Table 2 Direct Measurements, FA1700 Survey Unit 1 Sample Location Gross Counts Background Subtracted Equivalent Results4 2 dpm/100 cm 2 dpm/100 cm FA1700-1-CO01 3,346 525 FA1700-1-C002 3,004 183 FA1700-1-C003 3,028 208 FA1700-1-C004 3,120 299 FA1700-1-C005 3,510 690 FA1700-1-C006 3,199 379 FA1700-1-C007 3,834 1,013 FA1700-1-C008 3,492 672 FA1700-1-C009 3,901 1,081 FA1700-1-C010 3,352 531 FA1700-1-CO11 3,724 904 FA1700-1-C012 3,578 757 FA1700-1-C013 3,278 458 FA1700-1-C014 3,755 934 FA1700-1-C015 3,095 275 FA1700-1-C016 3,639 818 FA1700-1-C017 3,523 702 FA1700-1-C018 3,437 617 FAI700-1-C019 3,077 256 FA1700-1-C020 3,230 409 FA1700-1-C021 3,590 769 FA1 700-1-C022 3,211 391 Sample Mean 3,405 586 Median 3,394 575 Std. Dev. 270 270 Sample Range 3,004 - 3,901 183 - 1,081 3 Additional SHP-360 scan alarms were encountered during the survey of uneven areas, but the associated peak-hold values were determined to be equivalent to activity levels far below the required investigation level of Table 5-7 in the LTP. 4 The shielded I-minute scaler "daily" background was used as the ambient component of the background. FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20

E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. The'direct measurements were all below the DCGLw without subtracting background. The maximum result, with background subtracted, is equivalent to 1,081 dpm/I00 cm2 . When adjusted for "representative background" (ambient and material backgrounds subtracted), the mean residual contamination level is 586 dpm/100 cm 2 . For a DCGL of 18,000-dpm/1 00 cm 2 , this is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0098 mrem/y.5 Two verified alarms were investigated as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3 and determined to be less than 4.5% of the DCGLEMc Unity Rule, thereby satisfying the EMC criteria. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. H. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit I was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) wvere provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 1.

1. Conclusion All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/ I00 cm 2 . Verified scan alarms of potential significance were investigated and determined to meet the DCGLEMC unity rule criteria. FA1700 Survey Unit I meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.

J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26,2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.

5This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11, which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLW) is 0.301 mremly. FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 20

Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20

Maine Yanke Maine Yankee DecommissioningProjectSurvey Form MapID #: FA1700-41 Decommissioning Team I I. Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover U Final Status Survey I Survey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623.500 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E l l.. Survey Area: FA1700 MN I 0 400 800 1200 F~ N FA 1700-0 1, Revision 0 Page 7 of 20

Mde Tarsme I Maine YankeeDecommissioningProject SurveyMap I MapID# FA 1700-01b Suvey Type: 0 veffllaf E Turnover I FhdKi Status Survey SurAec nom: Spray Building Unit I Final Remnant N C i C126i C125 C124 ' C123 C122 'C121 1C120 C083 CD82 I C081: C 079 C078 IC077 C127 C1 C8 157 CI56 l C156 C154 I C153 I C152 C119_i jC115 CI C113 C112 Cl CIo0 107 O C128 C15; C150: C14C91 C148 C147 C118 _C!46l19d5 1 coos5 C108 C C07 C1065CIOlCl04 iojcio2 C075 i C129 C144 C143 'C142 ! C141 CMO C139 1C138 II C10 C 9 C097 C96_CD95 C074 -1 161 C130 C1371 C136 ; C135 i C134 C133 1C132 IC131 C094 iC093 C C091 CDM C069 5C C073 07 ! FA 1700 SDrav Buildina Survey Unit 1 Concrete Surface Area = 124.26 m2 M = Flowable Fill M = Concrete pedestals V FA 1700-01, Revision 0 Page 8 of 20 2

FA 1700 Sorav Buildina Unit 1 Final remnant. I 1.71m k 2.5m +k .2.5m- 2.5m 2.5m > 2.5m ->--2.5m 2.5m- 9 N 0.82m cOOl C002 C003 C004 C005 C006 C007 Coca

                   - - -                                                             NINE            A 7
           -- I 0

0 N) % , _ , , 0 R. 0 4 I 0 COI2 CO 3 C01 4 C019 C020 C021 I C022 0 0 0 O 0 0 T 2.5m l-- 2.5m -l- 2.5m-A l 4 2.5m l 2.5m >l< 2.5n1 cI0 9 I Col0 col 1 C015 C016 C017 COVE Lii = Flowable FRil Ls-* 0 0 0 0 0 0 iA

!Concrete
                       =

Surface Area = 124.26m 2 T 0.245m 0.53mX 0-0L5m 4r2.Om 0 = Concrete Pedestals

Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page IO of 20

Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe S/N (type) 2489 148117 (43-68) 2617 149069 (43-68) 2617 149073 (43-68) 2619 148932 (43-68) 2620 148934 (43-68) 2620 148937 (43-68) 1928 467 (SHP-360) 2489 453 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLEMlc Detector 43-68 SHP-360 Scan MDC 1832 10,484 (dpmIO00 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 LTP Table 5-6 DCGL, 18,000 18,000 (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 25% of Design DCGLEac (Alarm setpoint) Background (Note 2) (Note 1) Design DCGLmc 144,000 144,000 (dpmlO0 cm 2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGLENIC of 144,000 dpm/l 00cm 2 .

2. To affect a more efficient survey design SHP-360 alarms of magnitudes corresponding to <

50% of the DCGLEmC were not investigated. FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page II of 20

Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarm Scan DCGLEMC Comparison Investigation Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area AF DCGLEMC Elevated Area DCGLEMC Comparison Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (cm 2 ) (dpm/1 OOcm 2 ) Activity 6 Fraction (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm) (dpm/l OOcm 2 ) C041 (43-68) 3,200 3,800 504 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 C043 (43-68) 3,200 4,590 3,340 I,000 125 2.25E6 2.394E4 0.0091 Survey Unit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGLW = Survey Unit mean = 0.0326 Remainder 18,000 586 Total 0.0417 6 As an additional conservatism, the background and the SU mean activity have not been subtracted in calculating the elevated area activity. 7 It is conservatively assumed that the elevated area's extent was equal to the nominal scan grid area of I M2 . FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 13 of 20

Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20

Survey Package FAI700 Unit 1 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FAI 700 Survey Unit: 01 perimeter of 12.5 ft elevation Evaluator: DR DCGL.: 18,000 DCGLr: 144.000 LBGR: 9.000 Sigma: 6.132 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing NIN sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to "0" Za: 1.645 ZI.P: 1.645 Sign p: 0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift: 1.4 Relative Shift Used: 1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: 16 N-Value+20%: 20 Number of Samples: 22 Median: 575 Mean: -586 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 270 Total Standard Deviation: 322 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 1.081 Adjusted N Value: 22 S+ Value: 22 Critical Value: 15 Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGL.: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass FA 1700-0 1, Revision 0 FA1700-SUI-SurfaceSign Page 15 of 20 /2r0*4 7:32 AM

Quantile Plot of FAI700-01 Static Data 2,500 - C*4I E 0 1,500

Percent CD CD

                                                               -   median E

0. 500 -

     -500 0.0      25.0          50.0               75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 5 575 dpm/100 cmA2 FA-1700-01, Revision 0 Page 16 of 20

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 2/23/04 5:23:50 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 22 585.0455 269.6877 57.49762 465.4726 704.6183 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0796 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 0.4113 0.680883 Cannot reject normality

Kurtosis Normality -1.4566 0.145227 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 2.2908 0.318094 Cannot reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01)

C2<>18000 -302.8813 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<1 8000 -302.8813 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -302.8813 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 22 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference In Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 126.5 30.80179 0 0 0 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 4.1069 0.000040 Reject Ho 4.0907 0.000043 Reject Ho Median<18000 0.000000 Reject Ho -4.1069 0.000020 Reject Ho -4.0907 0.000022 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.1069 0.999980 Accept Ho -4.1231 0.999981 Accept Ho FA 1700-01, Revision 0 Page 17 of 20

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Datefrime 2 2/23/04 5:23:50 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 E 0 i) C-C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 640.0 0 615.0 0 0 0 0, 00 590.0 0 0 o 565.0 0 DUvSA - 00 250.0 500.0 750.0 Ii0 00 Difference FA 1700-0 1, Revision 0 Page IS of 20

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 2/23104 5:25:04 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanit. Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 22 0.05000 0.00000 18000.000 586.000 270.000 64.496 1.00000 22 0.05000 0.00000 18000.000 9000.000 270.000 33.333 0.05000 22 0.05000 0.95000 18000.000 18000.000 270.000 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meanl is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Meanl I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 22 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17414.000 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.000 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 586.000 with a known standard deviation of 270.000 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample W-test. FA 1700-01, Revision 0 Page 19 of 20

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 2/23104 5:25:05 AIM Chart Section Retrospective Power 4Curve 1.0 . _..- .. 0.8 . -I - 0.6.. 0~ CL 0.4 - 0.2-. . . . 2 0.0 l l 0 5600 10o00 1 ~00 000 Meanl FA 1700-01, Revision 0 Page 20 of 20

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA- 1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 2 Date: I agf Date: L/2,6-

            ' SFSS MOP Approved By:             Date:   z    /

FSS, MOP

                       ]FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 2 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 2 is located in Survey Area FAI700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within heat exchanger cubicle E-3A, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the-I 1'6" elevation. Areas or features not included in the scope of this survey unit are:

1. That portion of the ceiling that was in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray building'.

2. The 23" ID penetration through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevation 10' 3". The interior of this penetration will be surveyed as part of containment FSS.

3. The 5 penetrations through the South wall will be surveyed as part of the alleyway East-West excavation. The locations of said penetrations are listed in Table IA.

Table IA. Penetration Elevations Internalr 19" 22" 22" 14" 14"1 Diameter 9 Elevation 996'3" l 23" 2'3"t

4. The 14" ID penetration at elevation 17' 1I", which was removed with building demolition.

5. The two 4" ID penetrations through the floor of the 14' 6" elevation were surveyed as part of FAI700 Survey Unit 9.

The survey unit is approximately 220 m2 . Due to the proximity of the 12'6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of a portion of the upper walls in Survey Unit 2 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To 'Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floor was known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGL,, and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 2 of 24

ensure a complete survey, the top one meter of the Survey Unit 2 walls in contact with the 12'6"slab will be re-surveyed and released as part of Survey Unit I of FA1700. Contaminated piping (22" Ric-Wil) on the South wall of the cubicle's South shelf (approximately 0' elevation) was not completely gamma surveyed as part of the remediation survey, due to the gamma fluence from material within the pipe. Prior to backfilling the building, steel plates were bolted to the building's interior wall, so that the piping and/or penetrations can be remediated and surveyed when the buried pipes located south of the building are excavated. This will be accomplished as part of the Final Site Survey of the Alleyway East-West. B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA1700-11 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 218 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area. 2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLW plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-floor, wall-wall and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLw, the investigation level, and the DCGLemc. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 2 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLemc, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. 2 The total estimated survey unit area (approx. 220 m2) is over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. FA-1 700-02, Revision 0 Page 3 of 24

Table I Survey Unit Design Summary: FAI700, Survey Unit 2 SURVEY UNIT 2 DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA Area 221.6 m' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm , sigra3 of 6,132 dprn/O00 cm2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 10.07 m2 221.6 m' /22 samples& Sample Grid Spacing 3.17 m (10.07)"2 Scan Grid Spacing Im Area Factor 5.0 50 m /10 m' per LTP, Rev. 3 Scan Survey Area I mP Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. _ DCGL 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 DCGLemc 90,000 dpm/I00 cm' Area Factor x DCGLWv C. Survey Results Twenty-three direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 2. The resulting data are presented in Table 2 below. Four verified alarms were received during the surface scans. No 43-68 scan alanns were encountered while surveying junctures. The investigation of verified alarms is discussed below. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The surface scan identified four locations of potentially elevated activity, one using the 43-68 (Grid #C162) and three using the SHP-360 (at Grid #'s C072, C075, and C132). After localized remediation of the scan alarm locations was performed (using appropriate 3 Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A 1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4 This survey unit was initially designed for N=22 samples. The N=22 design led to a survey unit map with 23 locations on the systematic grid. Consequently, no redesign was required when it was later determined that N should have been 20 per MARSSIM Table 5.5 for a relative shift of 1.4. The Area Factor used reflects the design grid size. 5 " LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 1) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 4 of 24

measures to prevent cross-contamination), an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-02. Investigation results are summarized in Attachment 3 (Table 3-1). Table 2 Direct Measurements, FA1700 Survey Unit 2 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted dpm/1 00 cm2 Results dpm/100 cm2 FA1700-2-C001 3,101 54 FA1700-2-C002 3,388 341 FA1700-2-C003 3,919 568 FA1700-2-C004 3,284 237 FA1700-2-CO05 2,985 -62 FA1 700-2-C006 3,175 128 FAI700-2-C007 3,230 -121 FA1700-2-COOB 4,206 855 FA1700-2-C009 4,310 1,263 FA1700-2-CO10 3,095 48 FAI700-2-CO11 3,040 -7 FA1700-2-C012 4,133 782 FA1700-2-C013 3,059 12 FA1700-2-C014 3,791 440 FA1700-2-C015 3,663 312 FA1700-2-C016 3,919 568 FA1700-2-CO17 3,926 574 FA1700-2-C018 2,924 -123 FA1700-2-C019 2,943 -104 FA1700-2-C020 3,059 12 FA1700-2-C021 2,991 -360 FA1700-2-C022 3,480 433 FA1700-2-C023 3,010 -37 Sample Mean 3,420 253 Median 3,230 128 Std. Dev.' 458 387' Sample Range 2,924 -4,310 -360-1,263 6The Standard Deviation of the Gross Count Equivalent and Background Equivalent data sets are not equal since two different ambient background values (selected based on survey measurement location within the survey unit) were subtracted from the Background Subtracted Results data set. 7This value does not include the variance in the subtracted background values as presented in Attachment 4, "Statistical Data." FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 5 of 24

E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. Without subtracting background, all direct measurement results were below the DCGLw. The maximum direct sample result with background subtracted was equivalent to 1,263 dpm/100 cm2 . When adjusted for "representative background", the mean residual contamination level is 253 dpmrlr00 cm2. This would be equivalent to an annual dose of 0.0042 mrem.8 Four verified alarms were investigated, as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3 and determined to be less than approximately 1.5% of the DCGLn-mc, thereby satisfying the EMC criteria. As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 2 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 2. Also as discussed in Section A, portions of contaminated piping in the vicinity of the cubicle's South shelf were not completely gamma surveyed due to gamma fluence from material within the pipe. However, these areas were completely surveyed with beta instruments as part of this survey unit package F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. The macro spreadsheet used to present statistical results in Attachment 4 has small differences from the quantities presented in Table 2. These differences are due to the treatment of background in this survey unit. Specifically, the survey unit was divided into an upper and lower elevation due to slight differences in background. 9 In Table 2, values are reduced by the appropriate background based on the location (in the upper or lower portion). Attachment 4 results were created by subtracting the average of the combined background data sets (upper and lower cubicle background data). It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 did not meet the current procedural requirement of being within the 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined no additional SThis annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11 which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLWv) to be 0.301 rnremly. 9 The division of the survey unit into upper and lower elevations, due to slight differences in background, was found to have no significant impact on the FSS results and was not required. FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 6 of 24

alarms would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required.

11. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 2 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4).

Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 2. I. Conclusion All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/1 00 cm 2 . All verified scan alarms were investigated and determined to meet the DCGLEMC unity rule criteria. FAI700 Survey Unit 2 meets the release criteria of 10CFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15,2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26,2002.

3. NRC letter to Mainc Yankee, dated February 28,2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.

FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 7 of 24

Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 8 of 24

Deco<rmmissiofingTeam lMaine YankeeDecommissioning ProjectSurveyFormMap ID# FA170041 Survey Type: 0 Chaadorizt 0 Turnover

Fnal Staus Survey I Survey Ar Name: Spray BuiAdu SRO Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623,500 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E SCALE I

I I _ _ *1 Survey Area: FA 1700 MN F= I I 400 800 1200 L-- -Ei N FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 9 of 24

FAm1 700 Spray Building Unit 2 (E-3A) 2 Surface Area 221.60 m 160' III 0-o v _ 9~ " 'C _1. 7.7t.2 ___L_ _6.T__ 9.5 0

14. t 14.78y DL 14.75 Rev. 7/16/03

39.997 Max. Parameters: x=39.997m, y=17.678m Spray Building Random Start: x=26.07m, y=11.71 m L= 3.17 meters, n=20 Unit 2 (E-3A) Actual hits=23 Surface Area 221.60 m 2 Rev. 7/15/03

p <

c04~07. I If coI

 .-.                       J...0 . ...                                       s 062 C061C060            C051..CO57,.CO56..ost5 .C54CO5 C052 0 x*                           Li.,,@0es I-- I  Iy                                         [ M s.cor o065.C06S Coas PCTO.j C072 bon3 C074 CO7S CO6s. C085O04.0C$33 C012. COI COtQ COS CoTS COT7 c076 0                                                                                               052 C003 C0O4 CotS CMC           COSCT03 CO09

107 010 0105 44? e44s C

                                                                                                   .108 c10t C110 Ci11 e-44r 104 C103 erA C112 er44 I

U

 .C.j2O.C12CI2             l,24I3              C2 0134 01"           131Ci38CI4OCI42 144C146C145C150 152 C154 CisOCIS5 CISO I

A%4" 1 # t-4 19 e414 w 41q4 i-4iint f vt4 W ea t Ai 4At s 4Ao'se4s :t4tt'kf4tR l It'?P ts 4 irt4 I 184 b185 Cbi 15O bill ciso COIe Cie? M13 c1is J1 i .1

                                                                                                    .195 CM9

b1l3.

C192

.191 C190 0197. CiI CIS.C200. C201.0202C20t 204 0205

                                                                               'C215 h2u4 C213       .     -.211 C210 020S b205 C207 ez i
                                                                               'C218 C215 0220          . 221 C222 C223 C224 C225
                                                                                                                 =-1     020 C    21MC221 eZn t                                                                                        C2E7                                 £
                                                                                                                                                   'a Spray Building FA1 700                                                                                                                          a

_<.'z Unit 2 (E-3A) Rev. 7/16/03 Surface Area 221.60 m2 I

     ?      Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids m(8?Unit                          2 (E-3A) o >,

" n Surface Area 221.60 m2 Ias . 4 0o

                'C245
            'C242 C:

Rev. 7/16/03

Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA- 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 14 of 24

Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe S/N (type) E-600 SIN Probe S/N (type) 2488 148934 (43-68) 2489 149071 (43-68) 2488 149075 (43-68) 2489 149075 (43-68) 1929 149071 (43-68) 2490 177992 (43-68) 1928 148937 (43-68) 1648 148934 (43-68) 1622 148934 (43-68) 2489 459 (SHP-360) 2491 148934 (43-68) 2488 463 (SHP-360) 2491 148937 (43.68) 1622 453 (S.P-360) 1933 148937 (43-68) 2490 459 (SHP-360) 2489 148937 (43-68) 2491 454 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 43-68 SILP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1) LTP Table 5-6 DCGL,, 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpmll 00 cm2 ) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGL,,cn (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGLemc 90,000 90,000 90,000 (dpm/IlOO cm 2 ) (from Release Record Table _) _ l Notes:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGLIC of 90,000 dpm/l OOcm 2 .

FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page IS of 24

Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA- 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 16 of 24

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarm Scan Investigation DCGLemc Comparison Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area AF DCGLemc Elevated Area Activity DCGLemc Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (cm 2 ) (dpm/I OOcm ) 2 (dprn/ OOcm 2 )10 Comparison (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm)_ Fraction C072 422 1535 1,626 15.2 32,895 5.92E8 169,800 0.0003 (SHP-360) C075 422 926 694 15.2 32,895 5.92E8 72,470 0.0001 (SHP-360) C1 32 420 544 296 100 5000 9.0 E7 30,910 0.0003 (SHP-360) C162 3,490 4,003 609 N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (43-68) Survey Unit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGLS Survey Unit Mean 0.0140 Remainder _ = 18,000 = 253 Total 0.0148 10As an additional conservatism, the background and the Survey Unit mean activity have not been subtracted in calculating the elevated area activity. FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 17 of 24

Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA-1700-02, Revision 0 Page 18 of 24

Quantile Plot of FA1700-02 Static Data 1250 1000 2 750 500

Percent 0

0 250 - median E V. 0

  -250
  -500 0.0     25.0         50.0      75.0      100.0 Percent Median = 128 dpm/100 cmA2

One-Sample T-Test Report PagetDaterrime 1 918/03 7:21:05 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 23 252.7391 386.7988 80.65312 85.4748 420.0035 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0739 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 1.7952 0.072616 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.8210 0.411652 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 3.8969 0.142494 Cannot reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 -220.0443 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -220.0443 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -220.0443 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 23 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 138 32.87476 0 2 12 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%/.) Median<>18000 4.1977 0.000027 Reject Ho 4.1825 0.000029 Reject Ho Median<18000 -4.1977 0.000013 Reject Ho -4.1825 0.000014 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.1977 0.999987 Accept Ho -4.2130 0.999987 Accept Ho FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 20 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DatelTime 2 918103 7:21:05 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 Z 0 - U C2 Average-Difference Plot s50.0 0 400.0-0 0 0 300.0 0 0o 0 200.0 00 0 0..0 500.6 ,O)O.O 1 is0o.0 2o0o.o Difference FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 21 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Datelrime 1 918/03 7:29:39 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 23 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 128.0 387.0 46.181 1.00000 23 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 387.0 23.256 0.05000 23 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 387.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meanl is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Meanl I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 23 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17872.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 128.0 with a known standard deviation of 387.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 22 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 918103 7:29:39 AM Chart Section Power vs Meanl with MeanO=18000.0 S=387.0 Alpha=0.05 N=23 T Test 1.0- __- , ---- . . -

                           .           .        I              .

0.8- -- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- --------

                           .                    I \            I 0.6- ------------------------ \--                            --------

0.46-------- 0.4 0.2 . _ L 1 _ 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Meanl FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 23 of 24

Survey Package FAI700 Unit 2 Surface Sign Test Summary _me - Survey Package: FAI700 cubicle E-3A Survey Unit: 02 Evaluator: DR DCGL,,: 18.000 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DCGL": 90.000 LBGR: 9.000 Sigma: 6,132 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cm2 ): 126 Concrete Choosing WNI sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to 0O" Zo: 1.645 Zif0:1.645 Sign p: 0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift: 1.4 Relative Shift Used: 1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: 16 N-Value+20%: 20 Number of Samples: 23 Median: 30 Mean: 219 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 458 Total Standard Deviation: 610 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 1,110 Adjusted N Value: 23 S+ Value: 23 Critical Value: 15 Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL.: Pass Mean value <DCGL.: Pass Maximum value <DCGL : Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions:l Pass FA1700-SU2-StxfacwSign 9112103 10.06 AM FA 1700-02, Revision 0 Page 24 of 24

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 3 Prepared By: 69t4 Ske6ate: /- Z ja-o FSS Engineer 7 _4 TqZ.64 Date: Reviewed By: Approved By: LwF*oC ; I-) Date: -ZA4Jo FSS, MOP

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 3 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 3.is located in Survey Area FA 1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area, abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P-61 A, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the -1 6'9" elevation. Areas or features not included in the scope of this survey unit are: I That portion of the ceiling that is in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the spray building'.

2. The 10" ID penetration through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevation 10' 3". The interior of this penetration will be surveyed as part of containment FSS.

3. The 3" ID hole located on the floor of elevation -4', which was surveyed as part of FA 1700-09.

4. The 8" ID penetration, surveyed in Survey Unit 9 of FA 1700, which ran through the concrete slab that formed the floor of the 14' elevation and a portion of the ceiling for lower elevations of the cubicle.

5. Holes through the cubicle West wall (the wall in common with cubicle E-3A).

These were surveyed as part of Survey Unit 2 of FA 1700. The survey unit is approximately 190 m2 . Due to the proximity of the 12' 6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of a portion of the upper walls in Survey Unit 3 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To ensure a complete survey, the top I meter of the Survey Unit 3 walls in contact with the ' Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12.5' elevation floor was known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGLW, and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 2 of 22

12'6" slab will be resurveyed as part of Survey Unit FAI 700 Survey Unit 1. This portion of SU3 will be released as part of FAI700 SUI. It should be noted that the subject vall areas were successfully surveyed with FSS beta instrumentation during this survey unit's Final Status Survey. B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA1700-12 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 193 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area.2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLW plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360 was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e., wall-floor, wall-wall and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLW, the investigation level, and the DCGLcmc. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 3 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLemc, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. 2 Some scan grids were smaller than I M2 . The total estimated survey area (approximately 190 m2 ) is over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 3 of 22

Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 3 SURVEY UNIT 3 DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA Area 189.35 m' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm , sigma 3 of 6,132 dpm/100 cm 2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 9.46 m' 189.35 m' / 20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 3.084 m (9.46)~" Scan Grid Spacing I m (approx.) Area Factor 5.29 50 m'/9.46 m' per LTP Rev. 35 Scan Survey Area I m2 Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. DCGL 18,000 dpm/100 cmz LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLemc 95,220 dpm/100 cmL Area Factor x DCGLW C. Survey Results The direct measurement data are presented in Table 2 below. The survey unit scan process resulted in no verified alarms for surfaces or junctures, thus, identified no locations of potentially elevated activity. Consequently, no evaluation of the DCGL~mC criteria was warranted. D. Survey Unit Investigation Results No investigations were required. 3 Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-1 A, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4 The design had L=3.17m, this difference is considered neglible (the scan MDC was a small fraction of the DCGLENIC). 5 " LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 1) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 4 of 22

Table 2 Direct Measurements, FA1700 Survey Unit 3 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted dpml100 cm 2 Results 2 dpm!100 cm FA1700-3-CO01 2,924 -242 FA1 700-3-C002 3,095 -72 FA1 700-3-CO03 4,707 1,540 FA1 700-3-C004 3,858 692 FA1700-3-C005 4,322 1,156 FA1700-3-C006 4,042 875 FA1 700-3-C007 3,846 679 FA1 700-3-C008 3,858 692 FA1 700-3-C009 3,877 710 FA1700-3-CO10 3,785 618 FA1700-3-COI1 4,499 1,333 FA1700-3-CO12 4,609 __1,442 FA1700-3-C013 8,120 4,953 FA1700-3-CO14 4,768 1,601 FA1 700-3-CO15 3,700 533 FA1700-3-C016 4,133 966 FA1700-3-C017 3,431 264 FA1700-3-C018 4,200 1,033 FA1700-3-CO19 3,700 533 FA1700-3-C020 3,028 -139 Sample Mean 4,125 958 Median 3,868 701 Std. Dev. 1,078 1,078 Sample Range 2,924 - 8,120 -242 - 4,953 E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. All direct measurement results were below the DCGLv. The maximum direct sample result, with background subtracted, was equivalent to 4,953 dpm/100 cm2 . When adjusted for 2 representative background, the mean residual contamination level is 958 dpm/100 cm . 6 This is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.016 mrem/y. 6 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-1 1 which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLW) is 0.301 mremly. FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page S of 22

F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 instrument did not meet the current procedural requirement of being within the 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined that no additional alarms would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 3 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 3. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Rcsidual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 3 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 3. I. Conclusion All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/1 00 cm2 . No verified alarms were encountered in the scans of the Survey Unit. FA1700 Survey Unit 3 meets the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15,2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26,2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28,2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11,2003.

FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 6 of 22

Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 7 of 22

Maine Yankee Decommissioning Tea Maine Yankee Decommissioning ProjectSurvey Form IMap ID #: FA17004 SuMvey Type: 0 Charadertzation U Turover U Fknal Status SoreySurvey Area Name: Spray Building Sae Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623.500 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E IlI_ _ l Survey Area: FAI700 _ MN 0 400 800 1200 y N FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 8 of 22

I 4.

                   -3, "1*, k4L I z

m 9 00 w co I 0

         .W I

toj F) I I Spray Building Unit 3 (P-61A) scn (0 11.75' Surface Area 189.35 m 2 5. (a

20.641 v-i 0 _ P O " x0 r-j0 IAj'A To To 34.320 Spray Building Max. Parameters: x=34.320 m, y=20.641 m Random Start: x=27.87m, y=20.32m Unit 3 (P-61A) L= 3.16 meters, n=20 Actual hits=20 Surface Area 189.35 m2

I I.07.. . 07. ot.-Colo..L8 0I :.01.?691.0 [

072.. 0O6lfOC0..075

                                                        ~Ia+/-.i 071      I  F07.. FURS9P10 t4i.

O6.II

                               .na4 nnR2 GOAR     AOR 0-to

- ba O :* FAI 700 7 0 t'j < A: Spray Building 0: Unit 3 (P-61A) Surface Area 189.35 m2 Rev. 7/31/03

FA1 700 Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids 016 Unit 3 (P-61A) I Surface Area 189.35 m 2 0194 C20 - 06 C197 C020 N J .9 - - - - - - -d- - I

                                       - - - - -- -- -- - ;-2Fo 9NC                  L              -    --     -     -      a--

CD O Rev. 8114/03

Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA-I 700-03, Revision 0 Page 13 of 22

Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe S/N (type) E-600 S/N Probe SIN (type) 1619 148934 (43-68) 2489 148934 (43-68) 1933 148931 (43-68) 2491 148932 (43-68) 1933 148937 (43-68) 2491 148937 (43-68) 2488 148931 (43-68) 1933 463 (SHP-360) 2488 148937 (43-68) 2488 454 (SHP-360) 2488 149073 (43-68) 2491 463 (SHP-360) 2488 149075 (43-68) 2491 467 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 43-68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note I) LTP Table 5-6 DCGL, 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpm/100 cm2) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGLemc (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGLm, 95,220 95,220 95,220 (dpm/100 cm2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes: I. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGLCmc of 90,000 dpm/lOOcm 2 .

FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 14 of 22

Attachment 3 Investigation Table (No investigations required) FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 15 of 22

Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 16 of 22

Survey Package FAI700 Unit 3 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FAI700 Survey Unit: 03 P-61A Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 18,000 DCGLr: 95,220 LBGR: 9.000 Sigma: 6.132 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% DetectorArea (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing N/A' sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to '0"

                      -  .       ,Wladae                       ___     ___                           .DiW    Bt Zl:                1.645 Zp:1.645 Sign p:         0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift:                   1A Relative Shift Used:                    1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value:                   16 N-Value+20%:                      20 tAtaY                                       __ a                           Gm _

Number of Samples: 20 Median: 702 Mean: 959 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 1.078 Total Standard Deviation: 1,110 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 4,954 Adjusted N Value: 20 S+ Value: 20 Critical Value: 14 ga MPs -'1: S. I Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,~: Pass Median value <DCGL.: Pass Mean value <DCGL.: Pass Maximum value <DCGLe: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Passt FA170-SWU3-SurfaceSign 2/304 11:44 AM FA 1700-03, Revision 0 Page 17 of 22

Quantile Plot of FA1700-03 Static Data 4,500 CN4 3,500 E It 012 0 0 C, 2,500 - Percent 00 0 0 Ir ____median 0 t- 1-. .. 0 E 1,500 0 Cc 500

          -500 0.0      25.0        50.0       75.0     100.0 Percent Median = 704 dpm/100 cmA2

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DaterTime 1 9124103 12:38:42 PM Database CAProgram Files\NCSS97\FA1 700SU3.SO Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 20 958.35 1078.071 241.064 453.7972 1462.903 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0930 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 4.1707 0.000030 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 3.8270 0.000130 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 32.0402 0.000000 Reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 -70.6935 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -70.6935 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -70.6935 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 20 0 1.000000 0.000001 0.000002 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 105 26.78152 0 2 12 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 3.9206 0.000088 Reject Ho 3.9019 0.000095 Reject Ho Median<18000 -3.9206 0.000044 Reject Ho -3.9019 0.000048 Reject Ho Median>18000 -3.9206 0.999956 Accept Ho -3.9393 0.999959 Accept Ho FA-1700.03, Revision 0 Page 19of22

One-Sample T-Test Report PagelDateMme 2 9124/03 12:38:42 PM Database CAProgram FiIesXNCSS97\FA1700SU3.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 12 01 90 CE CIO 0 60 C-C- 30

       .iS0100               2006,,

O.0 3500.0 ml5000.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 2500 0 0 20DO 0 C) C) 15000 1000 0 ICO 0 0 500 00 1500 0 3000.0 4500.0 w00.0 Difference FA-1700-03. Revision 0 Page 20 of 22

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DateMme 1 9124/03 12:37:25 PM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Mean1 Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 958.0 1078.0 15.809 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 1078.0 8.349 0.05000 20 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 1078.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Mean1 is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to Meanr. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Mean1 I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 20 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17042.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 958.0 with a known standard deviation of 1078.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA-1700-03, Revision 0 Page 21 of 22

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Daterlime 2 9124103 12:37:26 PM Chart Section Power vs Meani with MeanO=1 8000.0 S=1 078.0 Alpha=0.05 N=20 T Test 1.0.---- ---- -----

I 0.8-------- _ - --

                        ~. 0.6-I
          -----            I0.6-                      I----------

0.4-II . I 0.2-- -- _ ------

      .0                50oo00        10000        15000               20600 Meanl FA 1700-03, Revision 0 Page 22 of 22

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 4 Prepared By: a~LX L/7 Date: a- i-sOy FSS Engineer

                        -  7D=E.

Date: 2 cQ Date: Z,"!t Approved By: ' L. ie* )j Date: Z/"/q FSS, MOP

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 4 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 4 is located in Survey Area FA 1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P-12A, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the -1 6'9" elevation. Areas not included in the FSS of Survey Unit 4 are: I. That portion of the ceiling that was in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray Building.'

2. The 10" ID and 29" ID penetrations through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevations 12' and 10' 3" respectively. The interiors of these penetrations will be surveyed as part of containment FSS.

3. 15.5" ID penetration (CS-M-91) located at -14' 9", surveyed as part of FAl700 Survey Unit 9.

4. The two 3" ID holes located on the floor of elevation -4', which were surveyed as part of FA 1700 Survey Unit 9.

5. The four 3" ID penetrations running through the South wall of elevation 14'6" to elevation 12', which were surveyed as part of FAI700 Survey Unit 9.

6. Holes through the cubicle West wall (the wall in common with P-6IA). These wvere surveyed as part of Survey Unit 3 of FAI 700.

The survey unit is approximately 200 m2 . Due to the proximity of the 12' 6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of a portion of the upper walls in Survey Unit 4 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To ensure a complete survey, the top one meter of the Survey Unit 4 walls, in contact with the 12'6" slab, will be resurveyed as part of FA1700 Survey Unit 1. This portion of Survey Unit 4 vill be released as part of FAl700 Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject vall 1Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floor was known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGLW, and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 2 of 24

areas were successfully surveyed with FSS beta instrumentation during this survey unit's Final Status Survey. B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated as a Class-I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FAI700-13 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 206 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area 2 . Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLW plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. A repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was then performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e., wall-floor, wall-wall and wvall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLw, the investigation level, and the DCGLemc. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 4 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design background values used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLemc, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. 2 Some scan grids were smaller than I M2 , and the survey unit total estimated area was over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas that were actually opening, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 3 of 24

Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 4 SURVEY UNIT 4 DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA Area 199.9 m' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm2 , sigma of 6,1323 dpm/100 cm 2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I= Type 11= 0.05 Sample Area 10.0 ml 199.9 mI /20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 3.16 m (10.0)" Scan Grid Spacing I m (approx.) Area Factor 5.0 50 m/ /0.0 m per LTP Rev. 34 Scan Survey Area I m1 Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. DCGL 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLcmc 90,000 dpm/100 cm' Area Factor x DCGLW C. Survey Results Twenty direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 4. The direct measurement data are presented in Table 2. Scanning resulted in eleven verified alarms. The subsequent investigation work is discussed in the following section. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The survey unit scan process identified eleven locations of potentially elevated activity. After a localized remediation (generally additional vacuuming) of the scan alarm locations was performed, an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-

04. The investigation assessment is summarized in Attachment. 3.

3 Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4" LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 1) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 4 of 24

Table 2 Direct Measurements, FAI700 Survey Unit 4 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted dpml100 cm2 Results dpmIO00 cm2 FA1700-4-COOI 2,906 47 FA1700-4-C002 2,930 71 FA1700-4-C003 2,821 -38 FAI700-4-C004 2,680 -179 FAI700-4-CO05 3,107 248 FAI700-4-C006 3,284 426 FA1700-4-C007 2,827 -32 FA1700-4-C008 2,845 -14 FA1700-4-C009 2,643 -216 FA1700-4-CO10 8,425 5,566 FAI700-4-COI1 7,814 4,955 FAI700-4-C012 3.547 688 FA1700-4-C013 3,907 1,048 FA1700-4-C014 3,223 364 FAI700-4-C015 3,449 590 FA1700-4-C016 2,491 -368 FAI700-4-C017 3,217 358 FAI700-4-C018 3,254 395 FA1700-4-C019 2,534 -325 FA1700-4-C020 2,961 102 Sample Mean 3,543 684 Median 3,034 175 Std. Dev. 1,607 1,607 Sample Range 2,491 - 8,425 -368 - 5,566 E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. The direct measurements were all below the DCGLw without subtracting background. The maximum result, with background subtracted, is equivalent to 5,566-dpm/100 cm2 . When adjusted for "representative background", the mean residual contamination level is 684 dpm/l 00 cm 2 . For a DCGL of 18,000-dpm/ I00 cm 2 , this is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0114 mrem/y. 5 Eleven verified alarms were investigated as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3 and determined to be approximately 4.5% of the DCGLEMC Unity Rule, thereby satisfying the criteria. 5 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11 which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLW) is 0.301 mremly. FA- 1700-04, Revision 0 Page 5 of 24

F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 did not meet the current procedural requirement of being within the 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined two additional alarms would have occurred if the scan alarms setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. Both locations were juncture grids. These were investigated as part of XA1700-04 and are included in Table 3-1. As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 4 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 4. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 4 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 4.

1. Conclusion All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpml/ 00 cm 2 . All verified scan alarms were investigated and determined to meet the DCGLEMc unity rule criteria. FA1700 Survey Unit 4 meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.

FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 6 of 24

J. Refcrences

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-06 1, dated November 26, 2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.

FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 7 of 24

Attachment I Survey Unit Maps FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 8 of 24

10.0 solow 15 2 .0' 6.5' 8 28.25' 150' 4.375' 0.928' 4. 90' Ilx C t 0 P 1 76-10.25' FAI 700 Spray Building 102'Unit 4 (P-12A) Surface Area 199.90 m2 Rev. 7/16/03

21.945 m x >.3m, 5.2m) 0o 0 C02D (19.62m, 2.+4m) 0 0 32.295 m Spray Building Max. Parameters: x=32.295 m, y=21.945 m Unit 4 {Dw I 2A) Random Start: x=10.04m, y=21.Om Unit 4 (P-i 2A) L= 3.16 meters, n=20 Surface Area 199.90 m 2 Actual hits=20

C035 C FA1 700 _, ..2,'.

                                                                                                               ,..,.o'C4. 'O).C04 A,04t o43,..C5 :..CO4X,. CO~

Spray Building COMTCOW COSS: C054 .COW.. Unit 4 (P-I 2A) Surface Area 199.90 m2

                                                                                            .COIQ1CO$.1 CO05.2Co 1In 0n :>
   -. 1
-o O 0.

[m.1

00 C#,COTS !0,4 CT.3 t.j 2 on,;orscor co4.o.

                                                                                          -1                                             I            I LCl.O;;e I

COc".,etc4 C@'n c1O1. 010. rr~1@7 C1113.c1 CII 015 :12t C125 XCt28 Ce13.-C1_J. .'ci 0i4 1.141L 3 i o.0.*Ig'lo T CM . L' J Cost. C102 CI1Q icI 0114. C1T. C120. 12.12C1 'C1S2. CI34 1u;:1 1SA :4tJ1* 0 '6 ftt crwn C17" Crn ' I I ".

                                                                                             .123 eene        129e                         .r,1 ti      ~1 w-K ItIct      I sOi          e    s        edex eio. IL    444 '.4 4 tP440    i-4)44 1l 1as u lea u1la   X X w . sss   ul  l ff    _su  Es   .. s Rev. 8/21/03

FA1 700 Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids Unit 4 (P-I 2A) Surface Area 199.90 m2 C229 C228- -,0 C28 y ~

                        - - - ~T
                                 -C230 C'

C227 0 C233 C236 71 i r4 =o V41 Ci32 C236

  --Ir Rev. 7/21/03

Maine Yankee Yn Tam Maine Yankee Decommissioning Proje Survey Form Map ID #: FAI 700.41 SurvyType: 0 Charsodzftifon 0 TunVo U Fhal Status Survey lSurvy Area Name: Spray Budigng Sde Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623.500 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E Survey Area: FA 1700 MN n 400 800 1200 A3i>N FA-1700-04 Page 13 of 24

Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 14 of 24

Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe S/N (type) 1929 149071 (43-68) 1933 148937 (43-68) 2488 149073 (43-68) 2489 149071 (43-68) 2490 149071 (43-68) 2490 148932 (43-68) 2491 148934 (43-68) 2491 148932 (43-68) 1631 454 (SHP-360) 1929 463 (SHP-360) 2489 453 (SHP-360) 2491 463 (SHP-360) 2491 467 (SHP-360) 2490 454 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MIDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLenc Detector 43-68 43-68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note I) LTP Table 5-6 DCGLW 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpm/1 00 cm 2 ) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGLemnc (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGLtmc 90,000 90,000 90,000 (dpm/100 cm2) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based2 on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGL,,,, of 90,000 dpm/l 00cm o .

FA- 1700-04, Revision 0 Page 15 of 24

Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 16 of 24

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarm Scan Investigation DCGLn,C Comparison Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area AF DCGLcmc Elevated Area Activityu DCGLCC Comparison Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (cm 2 ) (dpm/1 00cm2 ) (dpm/1 00cm2 ) Fraction (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm) C0200 (43-68) 3,415 19,070 16,570 300 1,667 3.00E7 1.0IE5 0.0034 C0224 (43-68) 3,415 4,570 5,060 126 3,968 7.14E7 3.09E4 0.0004 C0234 (43-68) 1,640 2,470 1,856 178' 2,809 5.06E7 2.56E4 0.0005 Juncture C0235 (43-68)" 1,640 1,617 1,773 178' 2,809 5.06E7 2.56E4 0.0005 Juncture - Loc. I C0235 (43-68) 1,640 2,260 1,817 178' 2,809 5.06E7 2.62E4 0.0005 Juncture - Loc. 29 C0243 (43-68) 1,640 1,623 1,428 140 N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 Juncture C025 (SHP-360) 420 563 398 15.2 3.29E4 5.92E8 4.16E4 0.0001 C033 (SHP-360) 420 584 356 50 1.00E4 1.80E8 3.72E4 0.0002 C0182(SHP-360) 420 1,872 233 N/A' N/A N/A N/A 0 C0200 (SHP-360) 420 9,270 10,360 15.2 3.29E4 5.92E8 1.08E6 0.0018 C0224(SHP-360) 420 1,182 815 15.2 3.29E4 5.92E8 8.51E4 0.0001 Survey Unit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGLW = Survey Unit mean = 0.0379 Remainder 18,000 683 Total 0.0454 6 As an additional conservatism, the background and the SU mean activity have not been subtracted in calculating the elevated area activity. 7This value is corrected for application to a comer geometry, i.e., area = 126 cm2 x sqrt (2). s These scan peak hold values would have alarmed if adjusted downward for a low background, sothey are treated as verified alarms in this table. JJuncture C0235 had two locations with verified alamns. 10 Alarm area was remediated (cored out penetration). FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 17 of 24

Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA- 1700-04, Revision 0 Page 18 of 24

Survey Package FAI700 Unit 4 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FA1700 Spray Building Survey Unit: 04 Cubicle P-12A Evaluator DR DCGL.: 18,000 DCGL".,: 90.000 LBGR: 9,000 Sigma: 6.132 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cmf): 126 Concrete Choosing 'NIA sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to '0' Z.,,: 1.645 Z.~p 1f.645 Sign p: 0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift: 1.4 Relative Shift Used: 1.4 Uses 3.0 i Relative Shift >3 N-Value: 16 N-Value+20%: 20

                      ;t-S~t                    Vatlues             j   N go; 3l Number of Samples:                            20 Median:                     174 Mean:                   683 Net Static Data Standard Deviation:                         1.607 Total Standard Deviation:                         1.649 Sum of samples and all background Maximum:                    5,564 Adjusted N Value:                           20 S+ Value:                       20 Critical Value:                        14
                                    ;efl               Em  0 br*i~tis~factioi.

Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL.: Pass Median value <DCGL.,: Pass Mean value <DCGL_: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass T Flenastatulsl- P __ MMndit The survey unit passes all condit~ions:l Passi FAI7OO-SU4-SurdawSign FA-1 700-04 9122103 4:25 PM Page 19 of 24

Quantile Plot of FA1700-04 Static Data 5,500 4,500 v E 3,500 0

Percent 0

I-2,500 - median i: E 10 1,500 500

   -500 0.0      25.0          50.0               75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 175 dpm/100 cmA2 FA-1700-04, Revision 0 Page 20 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Datelrime 1 9112/03 8:21:19 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 20 684.3 1607.327 359.4093 -67.95239 1436.552 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0930 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 4.0524 0.000051 Reject normality Kurtosis. Normality 3.1350 0.001719 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 26.2499 0.000002 Reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 48.1782 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -48.1782 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -48.1782 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 20 0 1.000000 0.000001 0.000002 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 105 26.78619 0 0 0 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 3.9199 0.000089 Reject Ho 3.9013 0.000096 Reject Ho Median<18000 0.000001 Reject Ho -3.9199 0.000044 Reject Ho -3.9013 0.000048 Reject Ho Median>18000 -3.9199 0.999956 Accept Ho -3.9386 0.999959 Accept Ho FA-1700-04 Page 21 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DatefTime 2 9112/03 8:21:19 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 200 6000.01 15~0 4250.0 00 10.0 C" 2500.0. 5.0 750.0

                                                                          -1U0U.U0    . ..   ....        .  .  ...  . . . . . .

00.0 750.0 2500.0 I4250.0 600.0 *2.0 -1.0 o. 10 2.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot

     °000.01 0

2250.0 0 1500.0. 750.0. 0 nn I.,°0 0.0 1500.0 30O0.0 45000 6000.0 Difference FA- 1700-04 Page 22 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 9112103 8:22:04 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 175.0 1610.0 11.071 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 1610.0 5.590 0.05000 20 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 1610.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meanl is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Meanl I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 20 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17825.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 175.0 with a known standard deviation of 1610.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA-1700-04 Page 23 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis PagelDate!Time 2 9/12103 8:22:04 AM Chart Section Power vs Meani with MeanO=18000.0 S=1610.0 Alpha=0.05 N=20 T Test 1.0-b 0.6- --- .-- - 0. 0.4 --- - 0.2-- - - - - - - 0.0 ia a 5000 10000 15000 20000 MeanI FA-I 700-04 Page 24 of 24

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 5 Prepared By: Date: 2 - S -Or FSS Engineer Date: Q-5-of Date: ,5D4-11/7-FS~- Z ,,, Approved By: c. z jc; ) Date: V--l 17z, - / FSS, MOP

FA-1 700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 5 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 5 is located in Survey Area FA1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area, abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P-61 S, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the -16'9" elevation. Areas not included in the FSS of Survey Unit 5 are:

1. That portion of the ceiling that was in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray building'.

2. The 2" ID penetration through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevation 12'. The interior of this penetration will be surveyed as part of containment FSS.

3. The two 4" ID through slab penetrations located at elevation 14'6", where wvere surveyed as part of FA 1700 Survey Unit 9.

4. The four 3" ID penetrations located at elevation -16', which were surveyed as part of FA 1700 Survey Unit 9.

5. Holes through the cubicle West wall (the wall in common with P-12A), which were surveyed as part of FA 1700 Survey Unit 4.

The survey unit is approximately 200 in2 . Due to the proximity of the 12' 6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of a portion of the upper walls in Survey Unit 5 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To ensure a complete survey, the top one meter of the Survey Unit 5 walls in contact with the 12'6"slab will be resurveyed as part of FAl 700 Survey Unit 1. This portion of Survey Unit 5 will be released as part of FAI700 Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with FSS beta instrumentation during this survey unit's Final Status Survey. ' Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floor was known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGLW, and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 2 of 25

B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA1700-14 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 162 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area.2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLw plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. A repeat scan, using the SHP-360 was then performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-floor, wall-wall, and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLw, the investigation level, and the DCGLemc. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 5 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLemc, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. 2 Some scan grids were smaller than I M2 . The total estimated survey area is over-predicted since it includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 3 of 25

Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 5 Survey Unit 5 Design Criteria Basis Area 196.1 m' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpml Measurements Required 100cm2 , sigma of 6,1323 dpm/100 cm and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 9.81 mn' 196.1 m" / 20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 3.13 m (9.81)"' Scan Grid Spacing Approx. I mr Area Factor 5.09 50 mT/9.8 I m' per LTP Rev. 34 Scan Survey Area I mL Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. DCGL 18,000 dpm/100 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLCmc 91,620 dpmi/100 cm' Area Factor x DCGLW C. Survey Results A total of twenty-one direct measurements were taken in Survey Unit 5. The direct measurement data are presented in Table 2. Surface scans resulted in 48 verified alarms. The subsequent investigations of verified alarms are discussed in the following section. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The survey unit scan process identified 48 locations of potentially elevated activity. After a localized remediation (generally consisting of additional vacuuming) of the scan alarm locations was performed, an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-05. This investigation assessment is summarized in Attachment 3. 3Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LIT Table 5-1 A, Containment Spray Building basement, A 1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4" LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 1) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). The NRC approved LTP, Rev. 3 in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 4 of 25

Table 2 Direct Measurements FAI700 Survey Unit 5 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted dpml100 cm2 Results dpm/100 cm2 FA1700-5-CO01 3,034 283 FA1700-5-C002 3,675 924 FA1700-5-C003 2,796 45 FA1700-5-C004 2,808 57 FA1700-5-CO05 3,358 606 FA1700-5-C006 3,816 1,064 FA1700-5-CO07 2,680 -71 FA1700-5-C008 3,944 1,192 FA1700-5-C009 3,236 484 FA1700-5-C010 3,767 1,015 FA1700-5-C011 4,115 1,363 FA1700-5-C012 4,683 1,931 FA1700-5-C013 5,079 2,328 FA1700-5-C014 4,365 1,614 FA1700-5-C015 3,284 533 FA1700-5-CO16 2,961 209 FA1700-5-C017 4,737 1,986 FA1700-5-C018 3,065 313 FA1700-5-C019 2,918 167 FA1700-5-C020 2,937 185 FA1700-5-C021 3407 655 Sample Mean 3,555 804 Median 3,358 606 Std. Dev. 708 708 Sample Range 2,680 - 5,079 2,328 E. Survty Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. Without subtracting a background, all direct measurements wvere below the DCGLw. The maximum direct sample result with background subtracted was equivalent to 2,328 dpm /100 cm2 . FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 5 of 25

When adjusted for representative background, the mean residual contamination level is 804 dpm/l 00 cm 2 . For a DCGL of 18,000-dpm/l 00 cm 2 , this is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0134 mremly. 5 The 48 verified alarms were investigated as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3, and determined to be approximately 4.7% of the DCGLEMC, thereby satisfying the EMC criteria. As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 5 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 5. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 does not meet the current procedural requirement of being within the 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined no additional alarms would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. G. Changes in Initial Sunrey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 1 area; the SS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. Hi. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 5 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 5. 5 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11 which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLW) is 0.301 mrem/y. FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 6 of 25

1. Conclusion All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/100 cm2. All verified scan alarms were investigated and found to pass the DCGLEmc unity rule criteria.

FA1700 Survey Unit 5 meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26,2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.

FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 7 of 25

Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 8 of 25

aine Yankee M aine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Form p ID#: FA170041 Decommissioning Team I Y Survey Type: Q Characterization 0 Tumover

Fnal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623.500 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E I_ I_ _ _ __ ___ L Survey Area: FA1700 MN 0 400 800 1200 Ea N FA 1700-05. Revision 0 Page 9 of 25

c

  -0C)

"

0 cool 807 oI2 C009 Ccolo C C014 Cc (2.76, -A) (1.41,11.47) c ) (27 7 47) 0C018 ,90 41 (15.28,8.34) (12.15, 2.08) 0CC (15.28, 2 ) (18.41, 2.08) 0 0 Spray Building Max. Start: x=38.378 Parameters: Random x=27.78m,m,y=17. 1.027 m y=2 73m Unit 5 (P-61 S) L= 3.13 meters, n=20 Surface Area 196.12 m2 Actual hits=21 I i I i I t-3 . 8 CO43. i-4 0 - vI C044- "0 0 II i 1I .II I qA.!:;. I i a 141 a i Spray Building Unit 5 (P-61S) Surface Area 196.12 m2 Rty. t1m/3 l Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids Unit 5 (P-61S) Surface Area 196.12 m2 CIPI cio01 l I Il I C18 4 Rev. 9116103 Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 14 of 25 Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 SIN Probe SIN (type) 2489 148934 (43-68) 2489 149071 (43-68) 2488 148937 (43-68) 2490 148934 (43-68) 2491 149071 (43-68) 2491 148934 (43-68) 2617 148934 (43-68) 1933 148936 (43-68) 1933 148117 (43-68) 2617 148937 (43-68) 2489 459 (SHP-360) 2617 454 (SHP-360) 2491 453 (SHP-360) 2491 459 (SHP-360) 2490 463 (SHP-360) 1933 451 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 43-68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1). LTP Table 5-6 DCGLW 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpm/IOO cm2 ) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGL,,,,c (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGLtmc (dpm/100 cm2) 91,620 91,620 91,620 (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGL,,,,C of 91,620 dpm/l OOcm 2 .

FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 15 of 25 Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 16of25 Table 3-1 Investigation Table FSS Alarm Investigation result Gross Survey Location Value Alarm Setpolnt (cpm) Area cm2 dpm/1OOcm 2 AF DCGL emc f SHP-360 XA1700051C026BD0000 2,140 420 4.06E+02 20 42,398 9.81 E+04 1.76E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C027BD0000 2,010 420 1.19E+03 17 124,269 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0001 XA1700051C038BD0000 2,180 420 3.99E+02 40 41,667 4.90E+04 8.82E+08 0.0000 XA1700051C039BD0000 607 420 3.34E+02 17 34,879 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C044BD0000 515 420 6.35E+02 17 66,312 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C045BD0000 675 420 5.78E+02 17 60,359 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C053BD0000 2,660 420 5.09E+02 17 53,154 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C054BD0000 1,597 420 2.06E+02 17 21,512 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051CO61BDOOOO 810 420 6.86E+02 17 71,637 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C069BD0000 705 420 6.05E+02 17 63,179 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1 700051 C079BD0000 484 420 3.45E+02 20 36,028 9.81 E+04 1.76E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C080BD0000 438 420 2.02E+02 17 21,094. 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 w 0 XA1 700051 C082BD0000 50,300 420 1.95E+03 20 203,634 9.81 E+04 1.76E+09 0.0001 Q.00 e,6 XA1 700051 C091 BDOOOO 624 420 8.10E+01 17 8,459 N/A N/A 0.0000 "0 XA17000510C100B00000 643 420 4.49E+02 25 46,888 7.84E+04 1.41 E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C104B00000 652 420 2.27E+02 17 23,705 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C113BD0000 513 420 2.14E+02 17 22,348 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1 700051 C11580000 1,009 420 1.12E+03 17 116,959 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0001 0 . XA1700051C121B6000 1,558 420 2.96E+03 20 309,106 9.81 E+04 1.76E+09 0.0002 XA1700051C130BD0000 509 420 6.27E+02 17 65,476 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C131BD0000 420 2.47E+02 = 539 420 17 25,794 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C1338D0000 975 4.90E+02 20 51,170 9.81 E+04 1.76E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C139BD0000 690 420 2.71 E+02 17 28,300 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C142BD0000 1,020 420 3.06E+02 17 31,955 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1 700051 C156BD0000 675 420 1.14E+02 17 11,905 N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C157BD0000 1,505 420 4.38E+02 17 45,739 1.15E+05 2.08E+09 0.0000 XA1700051C180BD0000 1,653 420 1.32E+03 17 137,845 1.1 5E+05 2.08E+09 0.0001 Table 3-1 Investigation Table FSS Alarm Investigation result Gross Survey Location Value Alarm Setpoint (cpm) Area cm 2 dpml100cm 2 AF DCGLemc f 43-68 Flats _ . XA1 700051 C027BD0000 5520 3395 4.96E+03 126 30281 1.56E+04 2.80E+08 0.0001 XA1700051C038BD0000 4690 3395 1.26E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C052B00000 5460 3395 5.19E+03 126 31685 1.56E+04 2.80E+08 0.0001 XA1700051C053BD0000 3750 3395 2.03E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C054BD0000 3600 3395 2.83E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1 700051 C0708D0000 4810 3395 3.87E+03 126 23626 1.56E+04 2.80E+08 0.0001. XA1700051C0738D0000 4290 3395 3.63E+03 . . 126 22161 1.56E+04 2.80E+08 0.0001 XA1700051C082BD0000 52700 3395 4.60E+03 126 28083 1.56E+04 2.80E+08 0.0001 XA1 700051C1158D0000 8700 3395 1.33E+04 180 81197 1.09E+04 1.96E+08 0.0004 ?J 0 CM~ 0 XA1700051C170BD0000 N/A 3395 1.75E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 06 - 00- XA1700051C171BDOOOO 3790 3395 3.26E+03 N/A - : W N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 o <. XA1700051C180BD0000 - 3710 3395 3.12E+03 - N/A - v - N/A v s v w N/A N/A 0.0000 Junctures XA1700051C188BD0000 1797 1620 1.60E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 0 XA1700051C189BD0000 2270 1620 1.88E+03 178 27128 1.10E+04 1.98E+08 - 0.0001 XA1700051C192BD0000 1971 1620 1.36E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C193BD0000 2150 1620 1.57E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C194BD0000 1800 1620 1.49E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C196BD0000 1649 1620 1.15E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 XA1700051C204BD0000 1788 1620 1.88E+03 178 27,100 1.10E+04 1.98E+08 0.0001 XA1700051C206BD0000 3160 1620 2.90E+03 178 41,847 1.10E+04 1.98E+08 0.0002 XA1700051C222BD0000 1830 1620 1.45E+03 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0000 SURVEY UNIT MEAN N/A N/A N/A N/A 804 1.00E+00 1.80E+04 0.0447 TOTAL 0.0470 Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 19 of 25 Survey Package FAI700 Unit 5 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FAI700 P.61S Survey Unit: 05 Evaluator. DR DCGLE: 18.000 DCGL ,,,: 91,620 LBGR: 9.000 Sigma: 6.132 Type I error. 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing WA sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to 0' Zia ____ _ _ _ Z.<: -{; 1.645 1.645 Sign p: 0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift: 1.4 Relative Shift Used: 1.A Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: 16 N-Value+20%: 20 Number of Samples: 21 Median: 607 Mean: 805 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 708 Total Standard Deviation: 744 Sum of samples and all background Maximum:..- - 2,329 Adjusted N Value: . 21 S+Value: 21 Critical Value: 14 Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL_: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,,,: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass FA1700-SUS-Sufacesign 9126/03 2:48 PM FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 20 of 25 Quantile Plot of FA1700-05 ; Static Data 5,500 N 4,500 -0 , . 01 O E 3,500 O ;* 0

Percent tj I* 0 f-f 2,500 - median 40 0.

E E0 1,500 500 -500 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 606 dpml/100 cmA2 One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Datelrime 1 9/30103 4:08:23 PM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 21 803.9524 708.093 154.5186 481.6323 1126.272 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0860 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 1.5327 0.125346 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality -0.3578 0.720515 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 2.4772 0.289787 Cannot reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level . (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 -111.2879 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -111.2879 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -111.2879 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized, Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 21 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000001 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 115.5 28.77065 0 0 0 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 4.0145 0.000060 Reject Ho 3.9971 0.000064 Reject Ho Median<1 8000 0.000000 Reject Ho -4.0145 0.000030 Reject Ho -3;9971 0.000032 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.0145 0.999970 Accept Ho -4.0319 0.999972 Accept Ho FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 22 of 25 One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Datefirme 2 9130/03 4:08:23 PM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 i) C2 Average-Difference Plot 1200.0 0 1025 0o 0 cm 0 0! 850.0 0 0 0 675.0 0 ._ .1 0.0 625.0 125if e 0.0 1875.0 5 .0 Difference FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 23 of 25 One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/rime 1 9/30/03 4:09:13 PM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: Mean0=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 21 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 804.0 708.0 24.288 1.00000 21 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 708.0 12.712 0.05000 21 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 708.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. Itshould be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. Itshould be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. Itshould be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. Itis arbitrary. Meanl is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. Itmeasures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Meanl I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 21 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17196.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 804.0 with a known standard deviation of 708.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample Wtest. FA 1700-05, Revision 0 Page 24 of 25 One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 9/30/03 4:09:14 PM Chart Section Power vs Meanl with Mean0=1 8000.0 S=708.0 Alpha=0.05 N=21 T Test 1.0- . - - - - - - - - 0.8 -- - - <)0.6-- - - - -- -- -- - '--- -\;--_'_*______ 0 0.4 ----- 0.2 _--- I . X, 0.0I' 0 5000 I A00 15t00 20600 Meanl FA 1700-05. Revision 0 Page 25 of 25 MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD I FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 6 ,^. Prepared By:_fLL 4Date: /1 0'Y FSS Engineer N. T02-o e Reviewed By: : i-i5o

Reviewed By:.

Approved By:. FSS, MOP FA-1700-06. Revision I I FSS Release Record FA-1700, Containment Spray Building Survey Unit 6 RENVSION I

SUMMARY

SHEET Item Key Changes 1 General/Format.

1. Added Revision Summary Sheet, anticipating need to control any future changes to signed release records based on regulatory and other reviews.

2. Numerous changes made to the order of information presented to better reflect the actual sequence of an FSS survey process.

3. Added a Reference-section (Section J) and numerous clarifications and footnotes to further improve the explanation of bases, values, and methods used in the FSS of this survey unit.

2 Section A. Survey Unit Description. Several changes made to clarify areas and features that were included or excluded from the FSS of Survey Unit 6 (and to identify where these features are surveyed). 3 Section B. Survey Unit Design

1. Reorganized presentation of information to group direct measurement design separate from scan design related information. (The order and numbering of Attachments 1 and 2 wvere reversed as a result of these changes.)

2. Added discussion of relationship between scan MDC, investigation level (alarm setpoint), and the design DCGLCImC.

3. Added explanation as to why no EMC sample size adjustment was required.

4 Section F. Additional Data Evaluation. Provided additional explanation regarding the survey approach that divided the survey unit into an upper and lower cubicle, due to small differences in survey unit background. 5 Section G. Added new Section G to address requirements of LTP 5.9.3 regarding the impact of (post-remediation) FSS results to initial survey unit assumptions. 6 Section H. Added new Section H to address any LTP changes made (or proposed to the NRC) since the survey unit was designed and performed. 7 Attachment 2. Added Table 2-2 comparing the scan MDC, Investigation Level, and the DCGLerC, in support of related discussions in Section B. 8 Attachment 3. Added explanation of additional investigation related to juncture C21 I (i.e., actions from CR 03-285). FA-1700-06, Revision I I Page 2 of 25

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 6 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 6 is located in Survey Area FA 1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P- 12B, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the -16'9" elevation. Areas not included in the FSS of Survey Unit 6 are: I. That portion of the ceiling that was in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray building'.

2. The 10" ID and 23" ID penetrations through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevations 12' and 10' 3" respectively. The interiors of these penetrations will be surveyed as part of containmnent FSS.

3. 15.5" ID penetration (CS-M-92) located at -16' 9", surveyed as part of FA1700 Survey Unit 9.

4. Holes through the West wall (the wall in common with P-61 S) were surveyed as part of Survey Unit 5 of FA 1700.

The survey unit is approximately 200 m2 . Due to the proximity of the 12' 6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of a portion of the upper walls in Survey Unit 6 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To ensure a complete survey, the top one meter of Survey Unit 6 walls in contact with the 12'6"slab will be resurveyed as part of Survey Unit I of FA 1700. Thus, this portion of Survey Unit 6 will be released as part of Survey Unit 1. 'Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floor was known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGI,, and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA- 1700-06, Revision I Page 3 of 25

B. Survey Unit Design Information I The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release I limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. I The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location wvas determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FAI700-15 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 187 scan grids each of approximately I rr2 area.2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLW plus background. Table I Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 6 SURVEY UNIT 6 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 199.9 m2 Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm 2. sigma 3 of 6,132 dpmlOO cm2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type 11 = 0.05 Sample Area 10.0 m2 199.9 m2 /20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 3.16 m (o. 0)/2 Scan Grid Spacing Im Area Factor 5.0 50 m2 /l 0.0 in 2 per LTP Rev. 34 Scan Survey Area I ml Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background.l DCGL 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLnc 90,000 dpm/100 cm" Area Factor x DCGL! I 2 The total estimated survey unit area (approx. 200 M2 ) is over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g.. the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. !'Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A 1700, (LTP Rev. 3). 4" LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference I) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA-1700-06, Revision I I Page 4 of 25

To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360 I was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-floor, wall-wall and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLW, the investigation level, and the DCGL,,C. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 6 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLCmC, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. C. Survey Results Twenty direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 6. The resulting data are presented in Table 2 below. One 43-68 scan alarm was encountered while surveying flat surfaces. Two 43-68 scan alarms were encountered while surveying junctures. Investigations of verified alarms are discussed below. FA-1700-06, Revision I I Page 5 of 25

Table 2 Direct M easurements, FAI700 Survey Unit 6 1I Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted Results dpm/100 cm 2 dpm/100 cm2 FA1700-6-CO01 3,388 709 FAI700-6-C002 2,753 74 FAI700-6-C003 3,065 386 FAI700-6-C004 2,906 -103 FAI700-6-C005 2,705 26 FAI700-6-C006 3,346 336 FA1700-6-C007 2,466 -212 FA1700-6-C008 3,431 422 FA1700-6-C009 23,260 20,581 FA1700-6-CO1O 3,114 104 FA1700-6-C01 1 5,012 2,003 FA1700-6-C012 4,713 1,704 FA1700-6-C013 3,742 1,063 FA1700-6-C014 3,431 752 FAI700-6-C015 3,333 654 FAI700-6-C016 3,223 214 FAI700-6-CO17 3,474 465 FA1700-6-C018 3,132 453 FAI700-6-C019 2,686 7 FAI700-6-C020 3,242 563 Sample Mean 4,321 1,510 Median 3,288 437 Std. Dev? 4,500 4,524t1 Sample Range 2,466 - 23,260 -212 -20,581 D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results I The survey unit scan process identified 3 locations of potentially elevated activity. Afler localized remediation of the scan alarm locations was performed (using appropriate measures to prevent cross-contamination), an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-06. The alarms were not reproducible during the subsequent investigation surveys. This assessment is summarized in Attachment 3. 5The Standard Deviation of the Gross Count Equivalent and Background Equivalent data sets are not equal since two different ambient background values (selected based on survey measurement location within the survey unit) were subtracted from the Background Subtracted Results data set. 6 Tis value does not include the variance in the subtracted background values as presented in Attachment I

4. Statistical Data.

FA-1700-06, Revision I I Page 6 of 25

E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Results An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. With background subtracted, one sample measurement result (C009) was ap roximately 15% over the DCGLw 7 . This result is equivalent to 20,581 dpm/l 00 cm . All other direct measurements were below the DCGLw without subtracting background. The application of the Sign Test to this data demonstrated that the survey unit met the release criteria. When adjusted for representative background, the mean residual contamination level is 1,510 dpm/ I100 cm2 . This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0252 mremly. 8 As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 6 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 6. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. The macro spreadsheet used to present statistical results in Attachment 4 has small differences from the quantities presented in Table 2. These differences are due to the treatment of background in this survey unit. Specifically, the survey unit was divided into an upper and lower elevation due to slight differences in background. 9 In Table 2, values are reduced by the appropriate background based on the location (in the upper or lower portion). Attachment 4 results were created by subtracting the average of the combined background data sets (upper and lower cubicle background data). It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 does not meet the current procedural requirement of being within the 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined one additional alarm would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. Upon re-survey, the location (juncture C21 1) was found to be below the investigation level. (See Attachment 3.) 7Attempts were made to determine the size of this elevated location, but the measurements in excess of the DCGL could not be reproduced. s This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-1I which sho%%s the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGL) is 0.301 mrem/y. 9 The division of the survey unit into upper and lower elevations, due to slight differences in background, was found to have no significant impact on lie FSS results and was not required. FA-1700-06, Revision I Page 7 of 25

G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 6 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 6.

1. Conclusion One direct measurement was approximately 15 % over the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm2 . The application of the Sign Test to the direct measurement data demonstrated that the survey unit met the release criteria. In the investigation activities, the alarm measurement locations were remediated, re-measured, and found to be below the investigation level. FA 1700 Survey Unit 6 meets the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.

J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September II, 2003.

FA-1700-06. Revision I I Page 8 of 25

Attachment 1 I Survey Unit Maps PA-1700-06, Revision I I Page 9 of 25

a

                     ,                        7 B......  .

- C', - 10.2S 0 . D -. ) 0 N tA.!2 0 Spray Building Unit 6 (P-1.2B) Surface Area 199.9 m2

21.917 IIJ w 0 01,140 0 0 tQ 0 f-A Spray Building Max. Parameters: x=32.308 m, y=21.917 m Random Start: x=2.61m, y=14.26m Unit 6 (Pml 2B) L= 3.16 meters, n=20 Surface Area 199,9 m2 Actual hits=20

0 t...C2102027!0203;

                  @k0)4
                .,C                                            021 ,022    C023

_029 C028 C027 C026 Ct ':CO31.0032 C033 .

                                                                  .039     C038 C037 C036 C035

_-(M 011.0.42.,l43.C0.44 C048 - C047. C046 C045 C049.C050 C0M1 C066 Cos05 C004 0053 C002

                               >   =    'C07I.COS .C08L088 CO I C094        CIC103 C10S C!IO 0112 C116 C118 C121 C124 C127 C130 C133.
  °                          0    04 C*.C C0.               ,             oo.        0101C104 010t70110 0113 C116 C119 C122 C126 C128 C.131 . C134.

k) -, ___ 1110:4 1 _ 1

                                                                'cogs. JC01530154 C166 C160 zCisv                   ,            1   5C8,15 Spray Building Unit 6 (P-I 2B)

Surface Area 199.9 m2 Rev. 7/10/03

Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids Unit 6 (P-i 2B) Surface Area 199.9 m2 It SI C C Rev.9/2103 (to reflect survey 818103) a

Maine Yankee m Maine Yankee DecommissioningProjectSurvey Form Map ID#: FA170041 Decommissioning Team I I Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover

Final Status Survey I Survey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623,000 E 623,50 E 624.000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E I _ I _____ - Survey Area: FAI700 MN 0 400 Go 12003N FA 1700-06, Revision I Page 14 of 25

Attachment 2 I Survey Unit Instrumentation I FA- 1700-06, Revision I I Page 15 of25

Table 2-1 I Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe SIN (type) I 1643 149074(43-68) 2488 149071 (43-68) 1929 149071 (43-68) 1929 149075 (43-68) 2488 149075 (43-68) 1622 148934 (43-68) 1933 149071 (43-68) 2491 148937 (43-68) 1631 148934 (43-68) 2489 148934 (43-68) 1622 451 (SHP-360) 1929 467 (SHP-360) 1929 463 (SHP-360) 2488 454 (SHP-360) 2491 454 (SHP-360) 2491 463 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison wvith DCGL, and Design DCGL,,m,, Detector 43-68 43-68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm2 ) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1) LTP Table 5-6 DCGL, 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpmnIO0 cm2) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGL,,, (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGL,,, 90,000 90,000 90,000 (dpmlOO cm 2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. Separate scan MIDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGL,,C of 90,000 dpm/l OOcm 2 .

FA-1700-06, Revision I Page 16 of 25

Attachment 3 I Investigation Table FA- 1700-06, Revision I I Page 17 of 25

Tablc 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarmn Scan DCGLemc Comparison Investi ation Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area AF DCGLemc Elevated Area Activity DCGLemc Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (cm 2 ) 2 (dpm/l OOcm ) (dpm/ lOOcm 2) Comparison (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm) _ Fraction C049 3,430 8,750 2,120 N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (43-68) . , . C212 Juncture 1,655 1,773 N/XA N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (43-68) C231 Juncture 1,655 2,680 N/A" N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (43-68) C211 Juncture" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (43-68) _ SU Remainder N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGL, Survey Unit Mean 0.084

                                                                                          - 18,000            = 1,510 Total                 0.084 0No alarm occurred in duplicate scan of this location in investigation package XA 1700-06.

" NNo alarm occurred in duplicate scan of this location in investigation package XA 1700-06. 12Grid C2 11 was resurveyed as part of CR 03-285. Daily ambient background was confirmed to be within 10% of the design value. Upon resurveythe location was found to be below the investigation level. FA- 1700-06, Revision I Page 18 of 25

Attachment 4 I Statistical Data FA- 1700-06, Revision I I Page 19 of 25

Survey Package FA1700 Unit 6 Surface Sign Test Summary o _ - Survey Package: FAI700 Spray Building Cubicle P-12B Survey Unit: 06 Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 18.000 DCGLen:c 90,000 LBGR: 9.000 Sigma: 6.132 Type I error: K00 _ Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing WNA sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to '0'

                                                                        /M2-tV6645 Z.:: ..                1.645 Sign p:             0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift:                          1.4 Relative Shift Used:                       1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value:                        16 N-Value+20%:                          20 i   ~Datava.                        _ _ _ _ _    _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Number of Samples: 20 Median: 304 Mean: 1.337 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 4,500 Total Standard Deviation: 4.507 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 20,276 Co&it ^ctt Lel%-d e r1 ,tRD f-zV-P3 Adjusted N Value: 20 S+ Value: 19 Critical Value: 14 m~~~~ j ~ j~ ; iri s?.-m Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGLt: Investigate Median value <DCGLt : Pass Mean value <DCGL.: Pass Maximum value <DCGLec: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass SVEN- _ The survey unit passes all conditions:l Investigate FAD70D-SLU-SuriaceSign FA 1700-06, Revision 1 8/21/03 12:24 PM Page 20 of 25 I

Quantile Plot of FA1700-06 Static Data 1,250 . - k . . 1,000 m. . i z .; .. I ... .. N 750 E 0 C., 500 . 7. .--. -' -- , I :. " .. ...- L.. - . - . : .. :- . 11 . . . : .. ,

Percent 0 oC.)"

                                                                                                                                -   median  o4 0 5     250 E                         .;.,,    S'                                  ..

a 0 .- ...

    -250 - .,

i . ... F."

    -500 - ."

0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 437 dpmr/100 cmA2

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 8/21103 1:11:08 PM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 20 1510.05 4523.685 1011.527 -607.0997 3627.2 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0930 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 5.3736 0.000000 Reject normality Kurlosis Normality 4.6482 0.000003 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 50.4822 0.000000 Reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 -16.3020 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -16.3020 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -16.3020 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 19 1 0.999999 0.000020 0.000040 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 1 105 26.78619 0 0 0 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>180000.000004 Reject Ho 3.8826 0.000103 Reject Ho 3.8639 0.000112 Reject Ho Median<18000 0.000002 Reject Ho -3.8826 0.000052 Reject Ho -3.8639 0.000056 Reject Ho Median>18000 0.999999 Accept Ho -3.8826 0.999948 Accept Ho -3.9013 0.999952 Accept Ho FA 1700-06, Revision I Page 22 of 25 1

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Dateflime 2 8/21/03 1:11:08 PM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 25000.0 0 17500.0 3 12.5- " 10000.0 (.) - 6.3- 2500.0 0.0: -SuvO

                                                                                   .2i.0
                                                                                .v.0     -t.O
                                                                                              .. 0 0.0 0.0        1.0   2.0 C2                                                             Expected Normials Average-Difference Plot 12000.0-0 9000.0-E 6000.0-3D00.0-w.u .  . . .  .  . .  . . _       _   _ . *_  _

0.0 6250.0 12500.0 18750.0 250000 Difference FA1700-06, Revision I Page 23 of 25 I

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DateMme 1 8121/03 1:12:02 PM Numeric Results for One-Sampie T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 437.0 4524.0 3.882 1.00000 20 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 4524.0 1.989 0.05000 20 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 4524.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meanl is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-MeanI I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 20 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17563.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 437.0 with a known standard deviation of 4524.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA1700-06, Revision I Page 24 of 25 I

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 8/21/03 1:12:03 PM Chart Section Power vs Meani with MeanO=18000.0 S=4524.0 Alpha=0.05 N=20 T Test 1 .8 - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - 0.8--- F -- -- -

                                           -F------              F-- --   --   -- I 0   0.6- ------~--~---r--                       ~--------~

0.2 ------- 1---- 0.0 _ 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Meanl FAI700-06, Revision I Page 25 of 25 I

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD I FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 7 Prepared By: ,& , L. l te: /- i am FSS Engineer H.0TZZ116 N

                                        , Date: I - /6- oVC Date:

Approved By: lacks We. J o) Date: z/7 -/ c rn . . I-oo, lvl%.Ju FA-1700-07, Revision I I

FSS Release Record FA-1700, Containment Spray Building Survey Unit 7 REVISION I

SUMMARY

SHEET I Item Key Changes 1 General/Format.

1. Added Revision Summary Sheet, anticipating need to control any future changes to signed release records based on regulatory and other reviews.

2. Numerous changes made to the order of information presented to better reflect the actual sequence of an FSS survey process.

3. Added a Reference section (Section J) and numerous clarifications and footnotes to further improve the explanation of bases, values, and methods used in the FSS of this survey unit.

2 Section A. Survey Unit Description. Several changes made to clarify areas and features that were included or excluded from the FSS of Survey Unit 7 (and to identify where these features are surveyed). 3 Section B. Survey Unit Design

1. Reorganized presentation of information to group direct measurement design separate from scan design related information. (The order and numbering of Attachments 1 and 2 were reversed as a result of these changes.)

2. Added discussion of relationship between scan MDC, investigation level (alarm setpoint), and the design DCGLemc.

3. Added explanation as to why no EMC sample size adjustment was required.

4 Section D. Survey Unit Investigation. Simplified the discussion of the survey unit investigation. Certain details were relocated to Attachment 3. 5 Section F. Additional Data Evaluation. Provided additional explanation regarding the survey approach which divided the survey unit into an upper and lower cubicle, due to small differences in survey unit background. 6 Section G. Added new Section G to address requirements of LTP 5.9.3 regarding the impact of (post-remediation) FSS results to initial survey unit assumptions. 7 Section H. Added new Section H to address any LTP changes made (or proposed to the NRC) since the survey unit was designed and performed. 8 Attachment 2. Added Table 2-2 comparing the scan MDC, Investigation Level, and the DCGL,-C, in support of related discussions in Section B. 9 Attachnment 3. Added footnotes to explain source for the AF calculations and to include detail moved from the Release Record text regarding the C210's elevated area size. FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 2 of 24 I

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 7 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 7 is located in Survey Area FA 1700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area, abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within pump cubicle P-61B, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the -1 6'9" elevation. Areas not included in the FSS of Survey Unit 7 are:

1. That portion of the ceiling that is in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation.

This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray Building'.

2. The 2" ID and 10" ID penetrations through the North wall (containment wall) located at elevations 10' 3" and 12' respectively. The interiors of these penetrations will be surveyed as part of the containment FSS.

3. The three 3" penetrations and two 4" penetrations, surveyed in Survey Unit 9 of FA 1700, that ran through the concrete slab the formed the floor of the 14' elevation and a portion of the ceiling for lower elevations of the cubicle.

4. Holes through the cubicle West wall (the wall in common with P-12B). These were surveyed as part of Survey Unit 6 of FA 1700.

The survey unit is approximately 190 m2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA 1700-16 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings ' Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floorwas known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCG1,S, and was removed with appropriate controls preventing recontamination of completed Final Status Survey areas. FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 3 of 24

were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 173 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area. 2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLWv plus background. Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 7 SURVEY UNIT 7 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 190.39 m' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required lO0cm , sigma of 6,132 dpmJl00 I cm 2and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 9.99 m' 190 m'/ 19 samplei4 Sample Grid Spacing 3.16 m (9.99y^ Scan Grid Spacing I m (approx.) Area Factor 5.0 50 m /9.99 m' per LTP, Rev. 33 I Scan Survey Area 1 m' Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. DCGL 18,000 dpm/100 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLerc 90,000 dpm/100 cm' Area Factor x DCGLW I To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360 was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-floor, wall-wall and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 I probe with a reduced efficiency. 2 The total estimated survey unit area (190 m2) is over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. 3 Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4This survey unit was initially designed for N=19 samples. The N=19 design led to a survey unit map with 21 locations on the systematic grid. Consequently, no redesign was required when it was later determined that N should have been 20 per MARSSIM Table 5.5 for a relative shift of 1.4. The Area Factor used reflects the design grid size, which is conservative. s LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference I) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 4 of 24 IS

The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLW, the investigation level, and the DCGLec., As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 7 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLCnC, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. C. Survey Results Twenty-one direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 7. The resulting data are presented in Table 2 below. No 43-68 scan alarms were encountered while surveying flat surfaces. The investigation of verified alarms received during the 43-68 juncture scans and the SHP-360 scans of irregular surfaces is discussed below. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results Three verified alarms occurred in the Final Status Survey of this survey unit. The first two, occurred in Grids C083 and C148, as a result of the SHP-360 scans of irregular surfaces. A third alarm, received during the 43-68 juncture scans, occurred in Grid C210. The alarms were investigated, with the results detailed in Attachment 3 (Table 3-1). E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. Without subtracting background, all sample measurement results were less than the DCGLW. The maximum direct sample result with background subtracted was equivalent to 2,166 dpm/100 cm 2. When adjusted for "representative background," the mean residual contamination level is 946 dpm/100 cm 2 . This would be equivalent to an annual dose of 0.016 mrem.6 The three verified alarms were investigated as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3, and determined to be less than approximately 5.5% of the DCGLec, thereby satisfying the EMC criteria. 6 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11 which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLWv) is 0.301 mrem/y. FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 5 of 24

Table 2 I Direct Measurements, FAI700 Survey Unit 7 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted dpm/100 cm2 Results dpmlO00 cm 2 FA1700-7-CO01 3,810 844 FA1700-7-C002 5,104 2,138 FA1700-7-C003 2,906 -59 FA1700-7-C004 3,462 445 FA1700-7-CO05 4,890 1,925 FA1700-7-C006 3,736 771 FA1700-7-C007 4,768 1,751 FA1700-7-C008 3,352 335 FA1 700-7-C009 4,499 1,483 FA1700-7-CO10 3,956 939 FA1700-7-CO11 3,730 713 FA1700-7-C012 4,915 1,898 FA1700-7-C013 3,907 942 FA1700-7-C014 4.628 1,662 FA1700-7-C015 3,034 69 FA1700-7-C016 4,432 1,415 FAI700-7-CO17 5,183 2,166 FA1700-7-C018 3,516 500 FA1700-7-C019 2,930 -35 FA1700-7-C020 2,778 -188 FA1700-7-C021 3,120 154 Sample Mean 3,936 946 Median 3,810 844 Std. Dev.' 783 7758a Sample Range 2,778-5,183 (-188) -2,166 F. Additional Data Evaluation I The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in . I The macro spreadsheet used to present statistical results in Attachment 4 has small differences from the quantities presented in Table 2 above. These differences are due to the treatment of background in this survey unit. Specifically, the survey unit was divided into an upper and 7 The Standard Deviation of the Gross Count Equivalent and Background Equivalent data sets are not equal since two different ambient background values (selected based on survey measurement location within the survey unit) were subtracted from the Background Subtracted Results data set. 8This value does not include the variance in the subtracted background values as presented in Attachment 4. I Statistical Data. FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 6 of 24 I

lower elevation due to slight differences in background. 9 Table 2 values are reduced by the appropriate background based on location (in the upper or lower portion). Attachment 4 results were created by subtracting the average of the combined background data sets (upper and lower cubicle background data). It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 did not meet the current procedural requirement of being within 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined no additional alarms would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed'as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required.

11. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 7 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September I1, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 7.

1. Conclusion All beta direct measurements wvere less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpm/100 cm'. FA1700 Survey Unit 7 meets the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.

J. References I. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yan1keletter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September lI, 2003.

9 The division of the survey unit into upper and lower elevations, due to slight differences in background, was found to have no significant impact on theFSS results and was not required. FA 1700-07, Revision I Page 7 of 24

Attachment I I Survey Unit Maps FA 1700-07, Revision I Page8 of 24 I

d 8.5'

   -J cIz ,0 0

0 0 P:1

   =s Spray Building UInit 7 (P-61 B)

Surface Area 190.39 m2

I~ I IIt 8 N I 0 0ao I iI I Spray Building Max. Parameters: x=33.399 m, y=20.633 m Random Start: x=15.79m, y=14.12m cn w C a. E 0~ Unit 7 (P-61B) L= 3.16 meters, n=20 1-, Surface Area 190.39 m2 Actual hits=21 0 9

n l l l l I r-I to I I -4 l t~~~~e k;J4.49C2$92

                                         'I     ~            l       l    I C190 tO4 t4           rQ49. i    Q 94       .    .   .          I    ;
                                                        /    I       I    I
                                               ,, )0ECOL            4to68. Q I     I
                                      . Q   °5 '92a          Qst6 ._9o xt l .
                                                          .p~g         paC6 a C17O II,'
                    .172   1ty Spray Building Unit 7 (P-61 B)

Rev. 7/10/03 Surface Area 190.39 m2

C1 97 dS *1

                              -I C196-     -C198m , Ih C198 C1 95 1-1 Ij   -11 Cl, ri   C) 011   0 D

0 Cbj N 0 1111-.1i t') PI. E 0 Spray Building Cubicle Juncture Grids Unit 7 (Pm6lB) Surface Area 190.39 M2

I M ne nk Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Form Map ID #: FA7-41 Decommissioning Team II , Survey Type: E Characterization 0 Tumover

Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623.000 E 623,500 E 624.000 E 624,500 E 625.000 E SCALE L I I Survey Area: FAI700 MN 0 400 800 1200 N FA1 700-07, Revision I Page 13 of 24 I

Attachment 2 I Survey Unit Instrumentation I FA 1700-07, Revision I I Page 14 of 24

Table 2-1 I Instrument Information E-600 S/N Probe S/N (type) 1622 149075 (43-68) 1622 148937 (43-68) 1622 148934 (43-68) 1622 451 (SHP-360) 1622 454 (SHIP-360) 2491 148937 (43-68) 2491 454 (SHP-360) 2491 463 (SHiP-360) 2489 148934 (43-68) 2489 148936 (43-68) 2489 453 (SHP-360) 1929 463 (SLIP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison vith DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 43-68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm 2 ) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1) LTP Table 5-6 DCGL, 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpniIIO0 cm 2) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGLCN, (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGLe,,,c 90,000 90,000 90,000 (dpmllOO cm 2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for tle 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGL,,,C of 90,000 dpm/nlOOlci 2 .

FA 1700-07. Revision I I Page 15 of 24

Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA 1700-07, Revision I I Page 16 of 24

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarm Scan DCGLemc Comparison Investigation Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area, AFX' DCGLemc Elevated Area DCGLemc Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (cm 2 ) (dpm/lOOcm2 ) Activity" Comparison (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm) (dpm/l OOcm 2 ) Fraction C083 415 562 595 17.0 29,410 5.29E8 62,135 0.0001 (SHP-360) I C148 415 N/A" 745 100&3 5,000 9.00E7 77,800 0.0009 (SHP-360) C210 juncture 1665 1900 1802 328.5' 1,522 2.74E7 26,002 0.0010 (43-68) _ _ SU Remainder N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGL" Survey Unit Mean 0.0526

                                                                                               =18,000                      =946 Total                            0.0546 2             2 10Area factors are calculated per the conservative approach described in LTP Section 6.8 (Rev. 3), i.e., AF = 50 m / Elevated Area   (M ).                          I 1 As an additional conservatism, the background and the SU mean activity have not been subtracted in calculating the elevated area activity.

I2 Not Applicable (N/A) since this investigation performed as part of the FSS survey (only the I-minute scaler result was logged). 2 13 This grid actually had three small-elevated areas with an estimated total area of 100 cm . For conservatism, the maximum scaler result is used in this table.

 "4The subsequent investigation determined that the elevated area at Grid C210 was approximately 8" in length (parallel to the juncture), considering that the 2

narrow side of the probe is 4.5" long. This corresponds to an area of 50.91 in2 (i.e., 328.5 cm ). This area was determined by adding the length of the two legs of the right triangle formed by the 43-68 and multiplying that by clevated arca's length of 8" [i.e., 4.5" x 2 x sin (45°) x 8"]. FA 1700-07, Revision I I Page 17 of 24

Attachment 4 Statistical Data FA 1700-07, Revision I I Page 18 of 24

Survey Package FA1700 Unit 7 Surface Sign Test Summary m prala' Survey Package: FA1700 Cubicle P-61B Survey Unit: 07 Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 18,000 DCGLei.: "0,000

                                                                               +o0             D ,            -0o' LBGR:                        9,000                                                        I Sigma:                        6,132 Type I error: *                 ;:f Type   II error:                       0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency:                        13.0%

Detector Area (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing 'N/A' sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to 0' a __ Zoo,: ^ F .645 Sign p:, 0.9ik243 Calculated Relative Shift: r- . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ Relative Shift Used: -- 1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: . 1

                                                                                .: .-,__i6 N-Value+20%:            .              :. 20 Number of Samples:                   .               j.             _      ,  _2.1 Median:                        i8jJ Mean:                            :943 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: -.          :__:_83 Total Standard Deviation:                   , .81           Sum of samples and all background Maximum: :                        2.190 Adjusted N Value::                               21 S+ Value:'.            -            .21 Critical Value:                     -       1i Sufficient samples collected:                           Pass Maximum value <DCGL,:                               Pass Median value <DCGLw:                             Pass Mean value <DCGL-:                .            Pass Maximum value <DCGL,.:                                 Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma:          .                  Pass Sign test results:                    . Pass The survey unit passes all conditions:                    *Pa~ss          _______________

FAVOO-SWur.sfaceSign FAI 700-07, Revision I Page 19 of 24 8/11103 2:32 PM I

Quantile Plot of FA1700-07 Static Data 2500 2000 N 1500 E 0

Percent 0 1000 Q [-median E

0. 500 0

  -500 0.0     25.0        50.0      75.0      100.0 Percent Median = 844 dpm/100 cmA2

One-Sample T-Test Report PagelDate/Time 1 8112103 5:25:55 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 21 946.0952 775.125 169.1461 593.2626 1298.928 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0860 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 0.3524 0.724504 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality -2.1406 0.032306 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 4.7064 0.095064 Cannot reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>1 8000 -100.8235 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -100.8235 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -100.8235 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 21 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000001 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 115.5 28.77065 0 0 0 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 4.0145 0.000060 Reject Ho 3.9971 0.000064 Reject Ho Median<18000 0.000000 Reject Ho -4.0145 0.000030 Reject Ho -3.9971 0.000032 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.0145 0.999970 Accept Ho -4.0319 0.999972 Accept Ho FA1700-07, Revision I Page 21 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Report PagelDateMme 2 8/12103 5:25:55 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 C-u 0 C. Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 1050.0. 0 0 9B7.5- 0 o00 0 0 0 0~ 925.0. 862.5-0 0 800.0~I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 625.0 1250.0 1875.0 2500.0 Difference FA1 700-07, Revision I Page 22 of 24 I

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DateMme 1 8/12103 5:27:26 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: Mean0=Mean1 Alternative-Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 21 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 844.0 775.0 22.137 1.00000 21 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 775.0 11.613 0.05000 21 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 775.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meani is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Meanl I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 21 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17156.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 844.0 with a known standard deviation of 775.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA1700-07, Revision I Page 23 of 24

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/lDatelfime 2 8/12103 5:27:27 AM Chart Section Power vs Meani with Mean0=1 8000.0 S=775.0 Alpha=0.05 N=21 T Test 0.8 -- - -- F-- - - - --- ----- -F- -- -- -- -I 0.6 ------------------ r--- - -------- 0 0.4 ____--------r---__----. I IKI 0.2 --- - - -- _- -- --- - 0.0 5000 1000 15000 2000 Meani I FA1700-07, Revision I Page 24 of 24

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD I FA- 1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 8 Prepared By: Al/ z uMjDate: I/- /Lz -# FSS Engineer Reviewed By: Ah- Gal- ate:.. / _/6-6LI Reviewed By: ate:

16

                                            //b/

/Wf Approved By: _7J . .gc Date:

FSS, MOP FA-1 700-08, Revision I I

FSS Release Record FA-1700, Containment Spray Building Survey Unit 8 REVSION 1

SUMMARY

SHEET Item Key Changes 1 General/Format.

1. Added Revision Summary Sheet, anticipating need to control any future changes to signed release records based on regulatory and other reviews.

2. Numerous changes made to the order of information presented to better reflect the actual sequence of an FSS survey process.

3. Added a Reference section (Section J) and numerous clarifications and footnotes to further improve the explanation of bases, values, and methods used in the FSS of this survey unit.

2 Section A. Survey Unit Description. Several changes made to clarify areas and features that were included or excluded from the FSS of Survey Unit 8 (and to identify where these features are surveyed). 3 Section B. Survey Unit Design

1. Reorganized presentation of information to group direct measurement design separate from scan design related information. (The order and numbering of Attachments I and 2 were reversed as a result of these changes.)

2. Added discussion of relationship between scan MDC, investigation level (alarm setpoint), and the design DCGL,,nC.

3. Added explanation as to why no EMC sample size adjustment was required.

4 Section E. Survey Unit Data Assessment. Added information on beta surveys performed in Survey Unit 8 for certain areas that will be surveyed and released as part of associated survey units. 5 Section D. Survey Unit Investigation. Additional summary information provided on investigation. 6 Section F. Additional Data Evaluation. Provided additional explanation regarding the survey approach that divided the survey unit into an upper and lower cubicle, due to small differences in survey unit background. 7 Section G. Added new Section G to address requirements of LTP 5.9.3 regarding the impact of (post-remediation) FSS results to initial survey unit assumptions. 8 Section H. Added new Section H to address any LTP changes made (or proposed to the NRC) since the survey unit was designed and performed. 9 Attachment 2. Added Table 2-2 comparing the scan MDC, Investigation Level, and the DCGLIIC, in support of related discussions in Section B. FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 2 of 25 I

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 8 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 8 is located in Survey Area FAI700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray l Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. The survey unit consists of all concrete surfaces within heat exchanger cubicle E-3B, which extends from the 17' elevation (3' below grade) to the-1 P'6" elevation. Areas or features not included in the scope of this survey unit are:

1. That portion of the ceiling that was in common with the floor of the 12'6" elevation. This surface was removed with the demolition of the Spray Building'.

2. The 23" ID penetration through the North wall (Containment Building wall) located at elevation 10' 3". The interior of this penetration will be surveyed as part of the Containment Building FSS.

3. The electrical duct bank at elevation 16'6", whichwas removed during the demolition of the Spray Building.

4. The 5 penetrations through the South wall will be surveyed as part of the Alleyway East-West excavation. The locations ofthese penetrations are below listed in Table IA:

Table IA. Penetration Locations - South Wllall Internal 19" 22" 22" 14" 14" Diameter I l Elevation 9' 9' 6'3" 2'3" 273"

5. The I0"and 6" ID penetrations both located at elevation 14' 6" were surveyed as part of FA-1 700, Survey Unit 9.

The survey unit is approximately 220 m2 . Due to the proximity of the 12' 6" elevation's contaminated floor, gamma surveys of the portion of the upper wvalls in Survey Unit 8 could not be completed during the remediation effort. The gamma surveys are used to identify contamination at depth. To ensure a complete survey, the top one meter of Survey Unit 8 walls in contact with the '1Maps of the survey unit indicate the excluded portion with hatch marks. The 12'6" elevation floorwas known to be contaminated to levels in excess of the DCGI. and was removed with appropriate controls as part of building demolition. FA- 1700-08, Revision I Page 3 of 25

12'6" slab will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit I of FAl 700 and released as part of Survey Unit 1. Contaminated piping (19" Ric-Wil) in vicinity of the cubicle's South shelf was not completely gamma surveyed as part of the remediation survey, due to the gamma fluence from material within the pipe. Prior to backfilling the building, steel plates were bolted to the building interior wall, so that the piping and/or penetrations could be remediated and surveyed when the buried pipes located south of the building are excavated. B. Surtey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point and a square grid. These locations are presented on survey maps FA-1700-17 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The survey was also designed to include 218 scan grids each of approximately I m2 area.2 Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLw plus background. To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e. wall-floor, wall-wall and wall-ceiling junctures) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency. The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGLW, the investigation level, and the DCGLm,,. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. 2 The total estimated survey unit area (approx. 220 n?) is over-predicted since this value includes some surface areas which were actually openings, e.g., the walkway on the -4 ft elevation. FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 4 of 25

Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FAI700, Survey Unit 8 SURVEY UNIT 8 DESIGN BASIS CRITERIA Area 221.5 m'2 Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm2 , sigma3 of 6,132 dpm/100 cm 2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 10.07 m2 221.5 m2 /22 samples4 Sample Grid Spacing 3.17 m (10.07) Scan Grid Spacing Im Area Factor 5 50 m 2 /10 m2 per LTP, Rev. 35 Scan Survey Area Im2 Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background. DCGL 18,000 dpm/l 00 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLCMC 90,000 dpm/100 Cm 2 Area Factor x DCGLWl Actual survey unit background measurements were made to support Survey Unit 8 design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design background values used to determine the instrument scan MDC values (listed in LTP Table 5-6). Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLCn,, no EMC sample size adjustment wvas necessary. C. Survey Results Twenty-four direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 8. The resulting data are presented in Table 2 below. The survey unit surface scans identified seven (7) locations of potentially elevated activity. No 43-68 scan alarms were encountered while surveying junctures. The investigation of verified alarms is discussed below. 3 Design sigma is based on characterization data. listed in LTP Table 5-lA, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev. 3). 4This survey unit was initially designed for N=22 samples. The N=22 design led to a survey unit map with 24 locations on the systematic grid. Consequently, no redesign was required when it was later determined that N=20 per MARSSIM Table 5.5 for a relative shift of 1.4. The Area Factor used reflects the design grid I size. 5" LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference I) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP. Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3). FA- 1700-08, Revision I Page 5 of 25 I

D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The SHP-360 surface scan identified seven locations of potentially elevated activity at Grid it's C069, C109, Cl 16, C134, C151, C161, and C181. Grid #C069 also gave a verified alarm using the 43-68.6 The investigation was conducted per package XA 1700-

08. Investigation results are summarized in Attachment 3 (Table 3-1).

E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Results An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. Without subtracting background, all sample measurement results were less than the DCGLW. The maximum direct sample result with background subtracted was equivalent to 4,643 dpm/100 cm.. When adjusted for "representative background," the mean residual contamination level is 461 dpm/100 cm2 . This would be equivalent to an annual dose of 0.0077 mrem.7 The seven verified .alarms were investigated as shown in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3 and determined to be less than 3% of the DCGLemc, thereby satisfying the EMC criteria. As discussed earlier in Section A, gamma scans of the top one meter of Survey Unit 8 walls in contact with the 12'6" slab could not be completed during the remediation effort. This portion of the survey unit will be re-surveyed as part of Survey Unit 1. It should be noted that the subject wall areas were successfully surveyed with beta instrumentation during the FSS of Survey Unit 8. Also, as discussed in Section A earlier, portions of contaminated piping in the vicinity of the cubicle's South shelf were not completely gamma surveyed due to gamma fluence from material within the pipe. However, these areas were successfully surveyed with beta instruments as part of this survey unit package. Prior to backfilling the building, steel plates were bolted to the building interior wall, so that the piping and/or penetrations can be remediated and surveyed when the buried pipes located south of the building are excavated. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. The macro spreadsheet used to present statistical results in Attachment 4 has small differences from the quantities presented in Table 2. These differences are due to the treatment of background in this survey unit. Specifically, the survey unit was divided 6 Grid 1C069 was investigated using both the SHP-360 and the 43-68. See Attachment 3, Table 3-1. 7 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-1I which shows the contaminated concrete 'dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLI) is 0.301 mrem/y. FA- 1700-08, Revision I Page 6 of 25

into an upper and lower elevation due to slight differences in background. 8 Table 2 values arc reduced by the appropriate background based on location (in the upper or lower portion). Attachment 4 results were created by subtracting the average of the combined background data sets (upper and lower cubicle background data). Table 2 Direct Measurements, FA1700 Survey Unit 8 Sample Location Gross Counts Equivalent Background Subtracted Results l dpm/100 cm 2 dpm/I00 cm 2 FAI700-8-COO] 3,840 617 FA 1700-8-C002 6,166 2,943 FA I 700-8-C003 2,998 -225 FA1700-8-C004 3,114 -109 FA1700-8-C005 4,286 1,063 FA 1700-8-C006 3,175 -48 FAI700-8-C007 3,724 308 FAI700-8-C008 5,232 2,009 FA 1700-8-C009 2,717 -699 FA I700-8-C010 8,059 4,643 FA1700-8-C01 1 4,628 1,212 FA1700-8-C012 3,822 406 FA1700-8-C013 3,492 269 FA 1700-8-C014 3,364 -52 FA1700-8-C015 3,608 385 FA1700-8-CO16 3,114 -109 FA 1700-8-C017 3,205 -18 FA I700-8-C018 2,582 -640 FA1700-8-C019 3,950 534 FAI700-8-C020 3,187 -36 FA 1700-8-C021 3,333 -82 FA I 700-8-C022 2,973 -443 FA I700-8-C023 2,643 -579 FA I700-8-C024 2,943 -280 Sample Mean 3,756 4619 Median 3,810 -27 Std. Dev.' 0 1,240 1,225 Sample Range 2,582 - 8,059 (-699) - 4,643 s The division of the survey unit into upper and lower elevations, due to slight differences in background, was found to have no significant impact on theFSS results and was not required. I 9 This value does not include the variance in the subtracted background values as is presented in , "Statistical Data." 10 lie Standard Deviation of the Gross Count Equivalent and Background Equivalent data sets are not equal since two different ambient background values (selected based on survey measurement location within the survey unit) were subtracted from the Background Subtracted Results data set. FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 7 of 25 I

It was determined that the daily ambient background data for the 43-68 does not meet the current procedural requirement of being within 10% of the design value. A Condition Report (CR 03-285) was initiated. On review of the data, it was determined no additional alarms would have occurred if the scan alarm setpoints were adjusted downward to reflect the daily background values. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. LTP Changes. Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 8 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September H1, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the FSS of Survey Unit 8. 1.

Conclusion:

All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGLw of 18,000 dpmll 00 cm2 . FA 1700 Survey Unit 8 meets the release criteria of I OCFR20. 1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.

FA- 1700-08, Revision I Page 8 of 25

Attachment 1 I Survey Unit Maps I FA- 1700-08, Revision I Page 9 of 25 I

9oak 1, __ ,.5 12.0' 11.5 2025 2.0' 17.75 00 14.75 Spray Buildi ing 14.75 Unit 8 (E-3B) Surface Area 221.50 m2 L

  -00 0 0

- 'PO C'g 0 xO ut 0 t'j-- Spray Building Max. Parameters: x=39.977m, y=17.678m Random Start: x=21.56m, y=3.26m Unit 8 (E-31B) L= 3.17 meters, n=20 Surface Area 221.50 m2 Actual hits=24

0 0 0 d ?o i : cnez3 MM O MI4 (3 vi 0 C

 -  c Spray Building Unit 8 (E-3B)

Surface Area 221.50 m2

rj 0 -m ? O xO

 -P L.A wf 01 Spray Building Cubicle Juncture GrIds Unit 8 (E-3B)

Surface Area 221.50 m2

Maine Yankee Maine Yankee DecommissioningProjectSur'ey Form Map ID#: FA1700-41 Decommissioning Team. Survey Type: l Characterization 0 Turnover 1 Final Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623,000 E 623,500 E 624,000 E 624.500 E 625.000 E i i I l iI Survey Area: FA1700 MN 0 400 800 1200 E*A- N FA1700-08, Revision I Page 14 of 25 I

Attachment 2 I Survey Unit Instrumentation I FA-1700-08, Revision 1 Page 15 of 25 I

I Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 SIN Probe SIN (type) I 2491 148934 (43-68) 1622 148934 (43-68) 1622 148937 (43-68) 1929 149071 (43-68) 2489 149071 (43-68) 2491 467 (SHP-360) 1929 451 (SHP-360) 1622 451 (SHP-360) 1622 453 (SHP-360) 1622 454 (SHP-360) 1641 451 (SHP-360) 2489 453 (SHP-360) I Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 68 SIIP-360 Junctures Scan MIDC 1832 4330 10,484 (dpm/100 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1) LTP Table 5-6 DCGLA. 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpm/100 cm 2 ) Investigation Level 18,000 + Survey Unit 18,000 + Survey Unit Approx. 50% of (Alarm setpoint) Background Background Design DCGLe,,, (Note 2) (Note 2) Design DCGL,,W,¢ 90,000 90,000 90,000 (dpm/100 cm 2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Notes:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry (as determined and documented in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGL,,, of 90,000 dpmll00cm2 .

FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 16 of 25 I

Attachment 3 I Investigation Table FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 17 of 25 I

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Scan Alarm Scan DCGLec Comparison I _Investigation Elevated Area Alarm Alarm Scaler Area AF DCGLemc Elevated Area DCGLenc Grid No. Setpoint Value (cpm) (Cm2 ) (dpm/lOOcm 2 ) Activityl" Comparison (Instrument Used) (cpm) (cpm) I_(dpm/l OOcm 2 ) Fraction C069 3,475 6,240 5,850 126 3,965 7.14E7 35,714 0.0005 (43-68)12 C109 415 868 78 N/A1' N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (SHP-360) C116 415 482 71 N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (SHP-360) C134 415 443 287 17.0 29,410 5.29E8 29,970 0.0001 (SHP-360) C151 425 1,432 740 15.2 32,895 5.92E8 77,276 0.0001 (SHP-360) C161 415 438 96 N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (SHP-360) C181 415 513 76 N/A N/A N/A <DCGL 0 (SHP-360) Survey Unit N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A DCGLW Survey Unit Mean 0.0256 Remainder =18,000 =461 Total 0.0263

   " As an  additional conservatism, the background and the SU mean activity have not been subtracted in calculating the elevated area activity.

12 This area was investigated with both the 43-68 and SHP-360. The 43-68 result was found to produce a slightly more conservative result and is used here, 3Not Applicable (N/A) since the investigation found that scaler measurements made at marked alarm locations were less than the DCGL. FA-1700-08, Revision I Page 18of25 I Statistical Data FA-1700-08, Revision 1 Page 19of25 I

Survey Package FA1700 Unit 8 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FAI700 SU-8 Spray Building Survey Unit: 08 Evaluator: DR DCGL.: 18,000 DCGL,. ?,,0, 0 D I5X 0/S- Z8-LBGR: 9,000 Sigma: 6,132 Type I error: . 005 Type II error 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% Detector Area (cm2): 126 Concrete Choosing NIA sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to t"0 Zl:.1 45 __ Sign p: .9.1 924;3 Calculated Relative Shift: > -A _ Relative Shift Used: :1.4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: - 16 N-Value+20%: __._20 Number of Samples: .- 2 _2i Median: ;:11 Mean: 419 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: 1,;240 Total Standard Deviation: 1294 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: : 4.721 Adjusted N Value: 24 S+ Value: - .24 Critical Value: 6 Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL.: Pass Median value <DCGL.: Pass Mean value <DCGL : Pass Maximum value <DCGL": Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass_ FAI1700-SU8-Surface~ign 8/20103 12:51 PM FA1700-08, Revision I Page 20 of 25 I

Quantile Plot of FA1700-08 Static Data 1500 1000 N E 500

Percent 0

                                                       -   median 00 E      0 Os
    -500
   -1000 0.0     25.0         50.0      75.0     100.0 Percent Median = -27 dpm/100 cmA2

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 8/20/03 10:05:11 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 24 461.2083 1224.577 249.9657 -55.88514 978.3018 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0687 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 3.8078 0.000140 Reject normality Kurlosis Normality 3.0630 0.002191 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 23.8817 0.000007 Reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01) C2<>18000 -70.1648 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -70.1648 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -70.1648 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 24 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference ih Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 150 34.99821 0 1 6 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<> 18000 4.2859 0.000018 Reject Ho 4.2716 0.000019 Reject Ho Median<1 8000 -4.2859 0.000009 Reject Ho -4.2716 0.000010 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.2859 0.999991 Accept Ho -4.3002 0.999991 Accept Ho FA1700-08, Revision I Page 22 of 25 I

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Datefirme 2 8/20103 10:05:11 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 5000.0 0 3500.0-0 C

                                                                               ) 2000.0                                  0 0

500.0-

                                                                                        -1.WU -*_10
                                                                                      -2.0                 -

0.0 --- ---- 1.0 2.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 2000.0 0 1375.0 0 0 cm CDL 750.0 0 0 0 125.0 00P.

    -500.0E . . . .  .   .  .  .    .  . . . .  . . . .   . .

0.0 1500.0 3000.0 4500.0 6000.0 Difference FA1700-08, Revision I Page 23 of 25 I

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis PagelDate/Time 1 8/20103 10:06:41 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 24 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 461.0 1225.0 14.318 1.00000 24 0.05000 0.00000 18000.0 9000.0 1225.0 7.347 0.05000 24 0.05000 0.95000 18000.0 18000.0 1225.0 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meani is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, iMeanO-Meani ]/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 24 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17539.0 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.0 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 461.0 with a known standard deviation of 1225.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FA1700-08, Revision I Page 24 of 25

                                                 ,  ,1   . .

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis PagelDatelTime 2 8/20/03 10:06:42 AM Chart Section Power vs Meanl with MeanO=18000.0 S=1 225.0 Alpha=0.05 N=24 T Test 1.0- - ------__ ------- I sI I 0 .8- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - 0.6- ----~----r ------ r-------~~~ 0 0.- - - ---- - -------- ----- -- 0.2-0o 59000 10000 156000 20000 Meanl FAI700-08, Revision I Page 25 of 25 I

MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 9 Prepared By: A< /gate: Z - z 1t FSS Engineer _,

O_ .

                                   -Date: a-2G-0o Date: 3?/ i   g Approved By: @    . e-.Ad        ) Date:    3Ski ko FSS, MOP

FA-1700 CONTAINMENT SPRAY BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 9 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey unit 9 is located in Survey Area FAI700, the Spray Building interior. The Spray Building is located in the restricted area abutting the south side of the Reactor Containment Building at site coordinates 407500 N and 623800 E. This survey unit is a compilation of miscellaneous remaining structural remnants in the spray building. The survey unit includes the exposed section of steel pipe sleeve in the CS-M-91 and CS-M-92 piping penetrations', miscellaneous interior wall penetrations, and the east and west vertical shake spaces. A summary of the areas that make up the survey unit is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Survey Unit 9 Areas Items Location Surface Areas Material (m2) Shake Space East Adjacent to E-3B 12.8 Concrete Shake Space West Adjacent to E-3A 12.8 Concrete 14 - 3" ID concrete Various 1.02 Concrete penetrations 6 - 4" ID steel lined penetrations peertoslndVarious 0.58 Steel I - 6" ID steel linedE-3B 0.145 Steel penetration I - 8" ID concrete P-61A 0.194 Concrete penetration 2 - 20" ID Steel lined Steel l penetrations (CS-M-91&92) P-12A & P-12B1.945 Metal I - 10" ID steel lined E-3B 0.243 Steel penetration The total area of the survey unit is 29.7 in2 . l The piping inside these Ric-Wil sections were surveyed in FC0300 Survey Unit 1. 2 All interior walls have a nominal thickness of 30.5cm (one foot) which is the assumed depth for all penetrations except CS-M-91 & CS-M-92, which are 61cm (two feet) in depth. FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 2 of 39

B. Survey Unit Design Information The survey unit was known to have been contaminated to levels in excess of the release limits and required an extensive remediation effort. Given the high probability of residual contamination, the area was designated a Class I survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 2. Given a relative shift of 1.4, it was determined that 20 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was determined using a random start point on a square grid. These locations are presented on survey map FA1700-33 (Attachment 1). The survey was also designed to included 12 scan grids in the shake spaces. In addition each penetration was scanned as its own grid. Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set at the DCGLw plus background or in the case of scans using the SHP-360, the instruments were set to the peak hold equivalent of DCGLw plus background. To meet measurement geometry requirements for flat surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe. A repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was then performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. The SHP-360 probe was used to survey all penetrations, with the exception of CS-M-91 & 92, which were of sufficient diameter to be surveyed with a 43-68. These survey measurements were adjusted as appropriate to account for differing probe surface efficiencies. The survey instruments used in this survey unit are listed by Model and Serial number in (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2). These are compared to the DCGLw, the investigation level, and DCGLEric. As shown in this Table, the scan MDC is less than the investigation level in all cases, thus providing a high confidence (95% or higher) that the scanning process would detect an elevated area. Actual background measurements were made in survey area FA 1700 to support the survey design. Actual background measurements were consistent with design backgrounds used to determine the scan MDC values. Since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was less than the design DCGLEMc, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary. FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 3 of 39

Table 2 Survey Unit Design Summary: FA1700, Survey Unit 9 SURVEY UNIT 9 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 25.6 in' Area of the Shake spaces only' Number of Direct 20 Based on an LBGR of 9,000 Measurements Required dpm/ 100cm2 , sigma of 6,1324 dpm/1 00 cm2 and a relative shift of 1.4. Type I = Type 11 = 0.05 Sample Area 1.28 m' 25.6 m2 /20 samples Sample Grid Spacing 1.13 m (1.28)T Scan Grid Spacing Im l Area Factor 20 25.6 m7/71.28 m' per LTP Rev. 3 Scan Survey Area I m' Scan Investigation Level < DCGLEMc LTP, Rev. 3 plus background. DCGL18,000 dpm/100 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLENIC 360,000 dpm/100 cm' Area Factor x DCGLw C. Survey Results A total of 24 direct beta measurements of concrete media were made in the shake spaces 5 However, due to the surface roughness, direct measurements could not be made in an approved geometry for the 43-68 at all locations. To accommodate the surface roughness, volumetric samples were collected at all of the direct measurement locations, and converted to an equivalent surface activity. The resulting measurement data is presented in Table 3. Scanning resulted in fifteen verified alarms. The investigations performed are described in the next section. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The survey unit scan process identified a total of 15 locations of potentially elevated activity. After localized remediation of a particular alarm location was performed (generally consisting of additional vacuuming) and an investigation was conducted via survey investigation package XA1700-09. This assessment is summarized in Attachment

3. Due to its relatively large size and relatively high level of residual activity, additional conservatism was applied in evaluating the scan alarm associated with Penetration C047 3 The small area contribution and varying locations of the penetrations prevented being easily included in the random sample fixed grid for the survey unit. The area of the penetrations is only 14% of the total, and since each penatration was completely scanned at a conservative setpoint, eliminating the penetration areas from random measurements is not judged to adversely affect the survey design.

4 Design Sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-IA, Containment Spray Building basement, A1700, (LTP, Rev 3). 5Although small in area, scaler measurements were made in 24 of the 25 penetrations. The average of activity value for these measurements was below the DCGLw. (The 25h' penetration was not sampled). FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 4 of 39

(CS-M-91). The additional cboiservatisms applied included considering that the whole interior area was contaminated to the maximum reading, and using the lower probe efficiency for concrete, even though the maximum reading was at the concrete-steel interface. Table 3 Direct Measurements FA1700 Survey Unit 9 Shake Space Volumetric Sample Measurement Location Equivalent dpm/100 cm2 Purpose Direct Measurements to perform the Sign Test on Measurement Error FA1700-9-COOI <98 N/A FA1 700-9-C002 <102 N/A FAI700-9-C003 304 +/-1,090 FA1700-9-C004 <107 N/A

                        .FA1700-9-C005          106         +/-4,687 FAI700-9-C006          <94           N/A FA1700-9-C007          952         +/-700 FAI700-9-C008          158        +/-2,121 FAi700-9-CO09         <110           N/A FA1700-9-COIO          321        +/-1,007 FA1700-9-CoI1          <97           N/A FA1700-9-C012          415          +/-818 FA1700-9-C013           96        +/- 2,332 FA1700-9-C014          195        +/- 2,310 FA1700-9-C015          108        +/- 3,783 FA1700-9-C016          109        +/- 2,029 FA1700-9-C017         <129           N/A FA1700-9-C018          <44           N/A FA1700-9-C019         <107           N/A FA1700-9-C020         1,179        + 462 FA1700-9-C021          151        +/-1,685 FAI700-9-C022          505        +/-1,194 FAI700-9-C023          409        +1,115 FA1700-9-C024         1,856        +/- 532 Sample Mean                    323 Median                     119 Std. Dev.                   430 Sample Range                44-1,856 E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 3. All direct sample FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 5 of 39

measurement results were below the DCGLw and pass the Sign Test (Attachment 4). The maximum result was 1,856 dpm/100 cm2 . The sample standard deviation for the shake space is smaller than the design sigma. The mean residual contamination level is 323 dpm/I 00 cm2 . For a DCGL of 18,000-dpm/1 00 cm2 this would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0054 mremly 6 . Scan alarms were encountered while surveying both flat surfaces and penetrations. Subsequently, an investigation was performed to determine the extent of any elevated residual activity. The results of this investigation are summarized and compared against the DCGLEMC unity rule in Table 3-1. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The post-remediation direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements wvere required.

11. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 9 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda). The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4).

Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment on the final status survey of Survey Unit 9. 6 This annual dose equivalent is based on LTP Table 6-11, which shows the contaminated concrete dose contribution (for surfaces contaminated at the DCGLW) is 0.301 mrem/y. FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 6 of 39

H. Conclusion All direct measurements were below the DCGL equivalent of cm2. The 18,000-dpml100 data passed the Sign Test. Verified scan alarms were investigated to determine the extent of any elevated activity. The investigation and survey results were evaluated and found to pass the DCGLEMC unity rule. FA1700 Survey Unit 9 meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.

1. References

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.

2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.

3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.

4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049; dated September 11, 2003.

FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 7 of 39

Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 8 of 39

Maine Yankee Maine YankeeDecommissioningprojectsul )ecommissioning Team I YgrveyForm 1 Map ID #: FAI700-41 Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover

Final Status Survey I Survey Area Name: Spray Building Site Map Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927 623,000 E 623,500 E 624.000 E 624,500 E 625,000 E l l I SurveyArea: FA1700 MN 400 800 1200 N FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 9 of 39

l Mdne Yankoe Decommssong Project SYve Map l Map ID# FAI 700-09 PK El E TUGjNW M Rniscia&svw o f &9owNe Spray Bulding FA 1700 14'-6" EL. UNIT 9 - Penetrations 1, z (E-3B) 10" Steel Hole FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page I0 of 39

DooAro*y 7eam I Yankoe Decommssning prect Survey Mop - MImv# FA 1700-18 sr. Ch_____I nafnf SPRAY BUILDING FA1 700 - Survey Unit 9 Direct Measurements East Side Shake Space (BSid 6.4 m-I : C004 Table of Direct Coordinates

                         ,-A7 I~4                                          Direct Point Location.

Direct #l X meters Iv meters Cool 0.34 6.33 C002 1.47 ; 6.33 C003 0.34 I 5.2 C004 1.47 f 5.2 C005 0.34 ; 4.07 C006 1.47 I 4.07 I C007 0.34 : 2.94 C008 1.47 8 2.94 C009 0.34 g 1.81 O- A_ Colo 1.47 8 1.81 COI 0.34

0.68 0 2.Um C012 1.47 g 0.68 C013 0.62 FV 6.33 West Side Shake Space (A Sid( C014 1.75 ffi 6.33 a13 1l4 C015I 0.62 1 5.2 6.4 m- C, I C016 1.75 5.2 C017 0.62 > 4.07 CO015: CO6 C018 1.75 4.07 c71, C019 0.62 2.94

                       +/-To                                        C020       1.75           2.94 C021       0.62            1.81
                            #1 COI17' C018 C022
                                                                 'C023 1.75 0.62 W

t 1.81 0.68 C024 1.75 _ 0.68 7< i y L = 1.13 meters n = 20 sample points Actual hits = 24 Total Surface Area 25.6 m2 n_ - 0 2.Om FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page IIof 39

________ Maine Yankee D',i . aing Pr*ct SueY MP Map lD# FAl 700-27 MO I Mame Yankee Decormssnng Roject Survey Map lMpI#Fl702 &w El c f o TLmf

A e i &A Spra Building FA1700 - Survev Unit 9 Shake Space West Side 17'i ation

                                                 -CTMT                   WALL West Side rC049              C052 I
                                                                    -14'6" Elevation Floor 1                           1 I                    Cs C054 Io5
                                          .06115 v               C~

FAI700-9, Revision 0 Page 12 of 39

    -   I   Mahne Yankee Decornrn wfng Proect Survey Map       l Map ID# FA1 700-32 E   cwmf        l OF                    SlAc&vey    l   Are Spray Building FA1700 - Survev Unit 9 Shake Space East Side Side         I     levation iC055            COS6 14'6" Elevation Floor- Il4

I I IGcb 1 COS8, I E FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 13 of 39

I If FA1 700 Spray Building O I II Survey Unit 9 - Shake Spaces C1Ol C002 C013 C01 4 Max. Parameters: x= 4.0 m,y= 6.4 m 6.4m _, +'\ . __2k

                       . 1 . ,

A/t

                                 . . Q .     ,

I

                                      ,CO I.-

Random Start: x=15.03m, y=2.94m I IC004 L= 1.13 meters, n=20 1

 ,V o Actual hits=24 w   9 0 x
     -0 C007 F +1 +,

C008 C019 C0 (8 II c009 Co01 C021 co0n RANDOM START. (x = 15.03m, y - 2.94m) I 9 I ctql t C~g3. C0-4 A\4 z.!i

                                                                                                                    'O O-0U                            2.Om                                                                 CA a

Surface Area 25.6 nf C. 3_.

.L

Mahie Yartee D___ _t_ rn I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map l Map ID# FA1 700-42 S&veyW p: OC EJ Tufrfaxe

FhlStrSuhLeY I&Vey AraNamno: Spray Building FA 1700 14 6 EL.

UNIT 9 - Penetrations (P-61 B) I -z (3) - 3" (2) - 4" Steel Holes FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 15 of 39

l Ma)e yoe Dec nsATecrn I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID# FAl 700-43 Survey Type: C Choicteftation a Tuniover

FlaI Status Suvey ISuvey Aea Name: Spray Building FA 1700 14' 6 EL.

UNIT 9 - Penetrations (P-61 S)

                             &. z FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 16 of 39

Dcor x l Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID# FAl 700-44 fPe l OChractettlon fjTumamr

F-ahM suvY I PvwareaNs Spray Building FA 1700 14 6 EL.

UNIT 9- Penetrations (P-I 2A) 4 - 3" Penetrations FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 17of39

                               -                      I DcnwrmlTe        l    Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map              IMap ID# FAl 700-45 stwT>p: E Charmteftaron   5 Tunave

FkStatuhs rvw r F S iveylA= aNarmo: Spray Building FA 1700 14 6 EL.

UNIT 9 - Penetrations

                 ;    z (P-61A) i I

II i FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 18 of 39

no Mo Ymkee Tim -! -Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map IMap ID# FAI 700-46 SuV TyW [ Cha~tertaon D Tumavor

FKd5a Stv S Ivey ArweaWaNa Spray Building FA 1700 14' 6 EL.

UNIT 9 - Penetrations (E-3A) FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 19 of 39

61*'SI.,SC2~

                              -S' W* S 111 OrO                                                                            %

-. , < ~. I g 1 I I I ( z S S ~~~I-- S -------- 1x e II 1'--g-J- , I t1 I

                                                                     ~   1~~

I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map IMap ICWE FAl 70OG48-Suveyype: 0] Chaoceltzatlon l Turnover U Fd stus v Suve;reArName: Spray Building FA 1700 -4 EL. UNIT 9 - Penetrations (P-61A) I i U- 8 3 FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 21 of 39

Mcdne Ybr~kEe rl-~k-drw-~ Tri I . Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID# FA1700-49 Suvy Tye: E Chatroctezn El Turover

bcI Status Surve _ SuryAWeacmrnam: Spray Building FA1700 -16'9" EL.

UNIT 9 - Penetrations (P-61S East Wall) II II I I East Wall I I r - - - - - - - - I a II I I I C043 . C044 I I I I I I S I I U I I U U I U U I U I I U I I I r U I I I U I. Pit Floor FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 22 of 39

Maine Yank,ee Decommlssioning Project Survey Map moohe Decon0Chsloosnl orn Ii Te k SMap ID# FAI 700-50 Suvvey Tpo: El Ch. f]aio Tuma-'e i Fhki SWus SRve I Suey Aeo Nar: Spray Building l FA1700 -16'9" EL. UNIT 9 Penetrations - (P-61S West Wall) West Wall FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 23 of 39 Pit Floor

IMaine Yankee Decom Ing Project Survey Map Map ID# FAI 700-51 [chcif &xveylmeE El TUBow

Fkj M"us&rvej I yArwNcne Spra Buildin!

FAI700 - Survey-Unit 9 14'6" Elev. Penetrations I Surface Beta Scans (BS) C025 C028 C) C026 C027 E-3B - 10" Steel Hole P-61B - 4" Steel Holes P-61 B - 3" Holes I C031 C032 C033 C034 C035 C036 I P-61S - 4" Steel Holes P-12A - 3" Holes I C037 I C049 II C038 C039 I I I I I I P-61A - 8" Hole E-3A - 4" Steel Holes E-3B - 6" Steel Hole I FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 24 of 39 I

I Mor) ID# FAI 7nn- i2 n- *m N' I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey MaD Deramw L

                                                             -- I                 I- *- -Mi-# -- V7x aveW  Tpe:  LU Chaoctodzan       Turvof

Fhd Stotm Saey Snwhoa Nam: Snrmv Rli lilinri -*

Snrn R tldni FA1700 - Survey Unit 9 Surface Beta Scans (BS)

                               -4' Elev. Penetrations C040 C041                                         C042 P-12A - 3" Holes                                   P-61A - 3" Hole I

I

                            -16' Elev. Penetrations                                                         I C043 C044 C045 C046 U.4I' P-61 S - 3" Holes 6

FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 25 of 39 I

Decomrmonl=qn Team Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map MapID# FAl700-53 Survey Type: [ Characterization [ Turnover U Fha Status Survey S SurveyArea Name: CS-M-91 Penetration CS-M-91 Embedded Piping Spray Building -16'9" Elev. (Cubicle P-12A) I Ngi,,;0v4~~R ,n,vf>o........ F ..z....... .;,. e.j Cr 180° CS-M-91 = 16" Diameter Scan Grid C047 Note: Scan performed on steel surface around exterior of 16" diameter embedded pipe CS-M-91. FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 26 of 39

Mabho eohIYYankDee T Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map _. ILplt- FAI 700-54 1 SuiveyType: F] Characlerizatbn ] Turnover

Fha StatusSuiveY SurveyAreoNa nmeCS-M-92 Penetration CS-M-92 Embedded Piping Spray Building -16'9" Elev. (Cubicle P-12B) l 27eO(9O 180 CS-M-92 = 16" Diameter Scan Grid C048 Note: Scan performed on concrete/steel surface around exterior of 16" diameter embedded pipe CS-M-92.

FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 27 of 39

Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 28 of 39

Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 SIN Probe S/N (type) 2491 148937(43-68) 1929 149073 (43-68) 2618 149073 (43-68) 1933 177992(43-68) 2491 451 (SHP-360) 1622 453 (SHP-360) 2490 453 (SHP-360) 2618 463 (SHP-360) 1622 467 (SHP-360) Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector 43-68 SIIP-360 43-68 SHP-360 SHP-360 CS-M-91, CS-M-92 Metal Concrete penetrations penetrations Scan MDC 1,832 10,484 191.2 1742.2 6,172 (dpm/100 cm2 ) LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP Table 5-6 Table 5-6 Note I Note I Note I DCGL1, 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 (dpm/IOO cm2 ) Investigation 18,000 + Approx. 10% 18,000 + Approx. 10% Approx. 10% Level Survey Unit of Design Survey Unit of Design of Design (Alarm setpoint) Background DCGLEMc Background DCGLEic DCGLEic (Note 2.) (Note 2.) (Note 2.) Design DCGLeWc 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 360,000 (dpm/100 cm2 ) (from Release Record Table 1) Note:

1. Separate scan MDC developed for the instrument when used in this geometry (as determined in site calculation).

2. The specific alarm setpoints were established based on survey unit background and were well below the design DCGLErlc of 360,000 dpm/l OOcm2 .

FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 29 of 39

Attachment 3 Investigation Table FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 30 of 39

Table 3-1 Investigation Table Penetration or Area Investigation Activity Grid No. Material (cm2 ) result (cpm) Et Probe Probe Area dpml1OOcm 2 AF DCGL em f C025 M 2,432 529 0.129 SHP-360 15.2 26,979 105 1.89E+06 0.0142 C027 M 1,459 558 0.129 SHP-360 15.2 28,458 175 3.16E+06 0.0090 C034 C 17 93 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 14,295 N/A N/A 0 C036 C 17 86 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 13,219 N/A N/A 0 C037 C 17 112 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 17,216 N/A N/A 0 C040 C 17 125 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 19,214 15,059 2.71E+08 0.0001 C041 C 17 93 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 14,295 N/A N/A* 0 C042 C 17 109 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 16,755 N/A N/A 0 C044 . C 17 98 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 15,064 N/A N/A 0 C045 C 17 114 0.0428 SHP-360 15.2 17,523 N/A NIA

0 C049 (penetration) M 1,459 2,390 0.129 SHP-360 15.2 121,889 175 3.16E+06 0.0386 C047 M/C 9,729 34,300 0.13 43-68 126 209,402 26 4.74E+05 0.4421 C050 C 17 797 0.063 SHP-360 15.2 83,229 15,059 2.71 E+08 0.0003 C054 (note 1) C 100 2,090 0.063 SHP-360 15.2 218,254 2,560 4.61 E+07 0.0047 C059 (note1 ) C 100 2,740 0.063 SHP-360 15.2 286,132 2,560 4.61 E+07 0.0062 SU Mean C 256,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 323 -

1 1.80E+04 0.0179 Total 0.5332 Elevated Area Calculations D L A cm2 (note 2) C25 25.40 30.48 2,432 (note2,3) C27 15.24 30.48 1,459 (note 2) C49 15.24 30.48 1,459 CS-M-91 Area C47 50.80 60.96 9728.8 Note 1: A 43-68 and SHP-360 Alarms occurred in the same grid SHP-360 were <DCGL. Note 2: The extent of the elevated area could not be determined, so the entire area of the pentration was assumed contaminated to the maximum value Note 3: This pentration was later determined to be 4" dia. 6"used in evaluation is conservative. FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 31 of 39 Statistical Data FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 32 of 39

Quantile Plot of FAI700-09 Static Data 2,5000 tE 1,500-0

Percent uqwD, ~1,000-- -n I-median E

500 . 1 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 119 dpm/100 cmA2

Survey Package FAI700 Unit 9 Surface Sign Test Summary

                                  -___ic._,__,_Ori_                3 Survey Package:                   FA1700 Volumetric data Survey Unit:                           09 no material or ambient background Evaluator                           DR DCG ,,,:                  18,000 DCGL,,:                     4, LBGR:                      9,000 Sigma:                    6,132 Type I error:                     . 0.05 Type II error:                        0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency:                     13.0%

Detector Area (cm 2): 126l Choosing 'N/A' sets material Material Type: N/A background to "0O Zp: ,1.645

                                                                                        .645 Sign p:             0.919243 Calculated Relative Shift:                    . 1.4 Relative Shift Used:                     .-. 4 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: .16 N-Value+20%:       -      .       . :; 20 Number of Samples: i24 Median:                    :1 19 Mean:                        323 Net Static Data Standard Deviation:                            430 Total Standard Deviation:                            430 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: ,.     .       , '856 Adjusted N Value: -.                .         24 S+ Value:-

Critical Value: .,. - - J16 Sufficient samples collected: P.; ass Maximum value <DCGLw: ~ as_______________ Median value <DCGL,: <-ass Mean value <DCGL,,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLem: . . Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: . Pass Sign test results- ass The survey unit passes all conditions:*:Ps_________________ FA1700-SL19-SurfaceSignfin FA1700-9, Revision 0 3111104 4:56 PM Page 34 of 39

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 2/27/04 5:35:49 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FA1700SU9.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 24 323 429.8022 87.733 141.5105 - 504.4895 T for Confidence Limits = 2.0687 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 4.1874 0.000028 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 3.3728 0.000744 Reject normality

Omnibus Normality 28.9100 0.000001 Reject normality Correlation Coefficient T-Test For Difference Between Mean and Value Section Alternative Prob Decision Power Power Hypothesis T-Value Level (5%) (Alpha=.05) (Alpha=.01)

C2<>1 8000 -201.4863 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<18000 -201.4863 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -201.4863 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Prob Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 18000 0.5 24 0 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Difference in Medians W Mean Std Dev Number Number Sets Multiplicity Sum Ranks of W of W of Zeros of Ties Factor 0 150 34.99821 0 1 6 Approximation Without Approximation With Exact Probability Continuity Correction Continuity Correction Alternative Prob Decision Prob Decision Prob Decision Hypothesis Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Z-Value Level (5%) Median<>18000 4.2859 0.000018 Reject Ho 4.2716 0.000019 Reject Ho Median<1 8000 -4.2859 0.000009 Reject Ho -4.2716 0.000010 Reject Ho Median>18000 -4.2859 0.999991 Accept Ho -4.3002 0.999991 Accept Ho FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 35 of 39

One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 2127104 5:35:49 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FA1700SU9.SO Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 2000.0-1500.0-0 V 0 1000-0 1 C-5 00.0. 0 _ 0.0

                                                                          -2.0x            e 0.0        1.0       2.0 C2                                                  Expected Normnals Average-Difference Plot 1000.0 0

750.0 0, a) C, C 0 2500.0 vs.vC=' ioo'o.o 0o6 o bb 6 fo.e

                            , 1000.6      iD   2060.c Difference FA1700-9, Revision 0 Page 36 of 39

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date[Time 1 2/27104 5:38:59 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: Mean0=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 24 0.05000 0.00000 18000.000 323.000 430.000 41.109 1.00000 24 0.05000 0.00000 18000.000 9000.000 430.000 20.930 0.05000 24 0.05000 0.95000 18000.000 18000.000 430.000 0.000 Report Definitions Power is the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis. It should be close to one. N is the size of the sample drawn from the population. To conserve resources, it should be small. Alpha is the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. It should be small. Beta is the probability of accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Meani is the value of the population mean under the alternative hypothesis. It is relative to MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-MeanI I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 24 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 17677.000 between the null hypothesis mean of 18000.000 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 323.000 with a known standard deviation of 430.000 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. F-A1700-9, Revision 0 Page 37 of 39

One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 2/27/04 5:38:59 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0 I I .. I I, I I Is , I I I\ . I 0.8- I I I I I \ I I , ,I I I I , \ .

   &-0.6-          -r~~~                          r~~~-I       x~-

I I I II \ I! 0~ I I I\ I I \ 0.4- - -- -- r

                                          -------                        I__-_..-_I     _

I I I-I I\ I I I \ I I I \ 0.2- *__-_____-____-_- __I-- I I I I

                                                                                  \I II                                                I I                         I                   I            \

I I I I 0.0 Mean1 FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 38 of 39

Volumetric sample data converted to Surface Activity Sample Surface Equivalent Sample Error Co.60 Cs-137 Sample Sample dpm/100 cmA2 In dpmIlOO 43-68 Activity Sample ID pCilg pCI/g W'eight (g DCGLpCI pCi (see note 1) CMA2 dpm/100 cmA2 . FA1700091C001MS 5.32E-02 4.56E-02 448.2 8.11 E+03 4.43E+01 98 N/A 330 FA1700091 C002MS 5.59E-02 5.07E-02 429.8 8.11 E+03 4.58E+01 - 102 N/A 366 - FA1700091CO03MS 1.33E-01 2.06E-01 404.2 8.11E+03 1.37E+02 304 1,090 79 FA1700091C004MS 5.30E-02 4.60E-02 488.5 8.11 E+03 4.84E+01 107 N/A 385 FA1700091 C005MS 5.30E-02 4.60E-02 480.3 8.11 E+03 4.75E+01 - 106 4,687 -171 FA1700091C006MS 4.69E-02 3.82E-02 497.7 8.11 E+03 4.24E+01 94 N/A 177 FA1700091C007MS 1.55E-01 6.56E-01 528.9 8.11 E+03 4.29E+02 952 700 79 FA1 700091 C008MS 9.92E-02 3.92E-02 513.2 8.11E+03 7.1OE+01 158 2,121 250 FA1700091 C009MS 5.44E-02 7.37E-02 385.9 8.11 E+03 4.94E+01 110 N/A 220 . FA1700091CO1OMS 2.51 E-01 7.76E-02 439.6 8.11 E+03 1.45E+02 321 1,007 195 FA1700091CO11MS 5.92E-02 4.44E-02 420.4 8.11 E+03 4.36E+01 - 97 N/A 214 FA1700091CO12MS 4.52E-01 7.83E-02 352.1 8.11 E+03 1.87E+02 415 818 55 FA1700091CO13MS 5.14E-02 3.45E-02 503.2 8.11 E+03 4.32E+01 96 2,332 43 FA1700091 CO14MS 9.33E-02 7.44E-02 524.1 8.11 E+03 8.79E+01 195 2,310 -110 FA1700091CO15MS 2.96E-02 6.33E-02 523.0 8.11 E+03 4.86E+01 108 3,783 98 . FA1700091CO16MS 5.34E-02 5.29E-02 462.6 8.11 E+03 4.92E+01 109 2,029 220 . FA1700091C017MS 6.55E-02 5.51 E-02 482.0 8.11E+03 5.81 E+01 129 N/A 220 FA1700091 CO18MS 2.61 E-02 1.86E-02 443.7 8.11 E+03 1.98E+01 44 N/A 488 FA1700091C019MS 4.26E-02 5.29E-02 504.9 8.11 E+03 4.82E+01 107 N/A 311 FA1700091C020MS 5.28E-01 6.08E-01 467.8 8.11 E+03 5.31 E+02 1,179 462 -195 FA1700091 C021 MS 8.20E-02 7.01 E-02 446.7 8.11 E+03 6.79E+01 151 1,685 195 . FA1700091C022MS 2.35E-01 2.09E-01 512.2 8.11 E+03 2.27E+02 505 1,194 2,381 FA1700091C023MS 3.00E-01 6.03E-02 511.6 8.1 1E+03 1.84E+02 409 1,115 269 FA1700091CO24MS 7.47E-01 9.45E-01 494.2 8.1 1E+03 8.36E+02 - 1,856 532 958 note 1: The area of volumetric sample removal was the size SD 430 501 of a 43-68 probe area (nominally 100 cm 2) Mean 323 294 Median 119 217 Max 1,856 2,381 FA 1700-9, Revision 0 Page 39 of 39

Rev 0

                                            .P~~ear       of 23 29t2     freeze TO-Ml MAINE YANKEE FINAL SITE SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FC0300 CTMT SPRAY SYSTEM (CS-M-91/92)

SURVEY UNIT 1 Processed by DCC Prepared By: / t &of Date: a0 z - a 1- o FSS Engineer Reviewed - 03 Reviewed Approved By: -, Date: 6/zs/ FSS, MOP (ar *sv. 4 I l

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 2 of 23 Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................... 2 Survey Unit Description ...................................... 3 Survey Unit Design Information ...................................... 4 Survey Unit Measurement Locations ...................................... 8 Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Their Results: ....................................... 8 Survey Unit Data Assessment Results: ...................... : 12 Additional Data Evaluation: ..................... 20 Unusual Occurrence: ..................... 22 Removal of 1-Foot of CS-M-91 ..................... 22 Procedural Compliance: ..................... 23

== Conclusion:==

          .23 Attachment Descriptions Attachment      I                   Instruments and Instrument MDC Information - (2 pages)                    Survey Unit Maps - (7 pages)                    Investigation Table [not used] - (I Page)                    Statistical Data - (2 Pages)                    SEA Survey Report - (70 pages)                    Impact of Firmware Issue on FSS Results - (20 pages)                    Analyses of the Impact of Flood Event Contaminating S.U. -

(18 Pages) Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) for Co-60 and Cs-137 - (2 pages) Maine Yankee Work Order WO No. 02-00297 (136 pages) 0 SEA Pipe Explorer Results CD: - (1 page) Files: Alispectra.XLS Maine Yankee Pipe Explorer Final Report October, 2002.DOC 2

RR igFC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 3 of 23 FC0300 Containment Spray System Piping (CS-M-91/92) Survey Unit 1 RELEASE RECORD Survey Unit Description The Containment Spray System was designed to reduce pressure in the Containment Building following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA). The system was able to take suction from various sources including the containment safeguards sump. The suction path from the Containment safeguards sump included two parallel 16" diameter stainless steel pipes running from the bottom of the sump to the Spray Bldg. - to cubicles P-12A and P-12-B). The two pipes are known as CS-M-91, which runs to Spray Bldg. cubicle P-12A and CS-M-92, which runs to spray Bldg. P-12B. The system also includes a 23-foot run of crossover piping which connects CS-M-91 and 92 at the midpoint of their vertical runs, as is depicted in Figure 1. 3

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 4 of 23 Figure 1 - Survey Unit I Spray Piping System During plant operation, highly contaminated water was circulated through the spray pipes. At decommissioning the system was both chemically decontaminated and hydrolased to remove as much residual contamination as possible. Prior to the chemical decontamination and subsequent hydrolasing campaigns, characterization surveys confirmed that the system was contaminated to levels exceeding the derived concentration guideline level (DCGL) of 800,000 dpmflOOcm 2 . Subsequent operational measurements determined that the decontamination efforts had been effective at significantly reducing the overall radioactive inventory of the pipe, but were not formally adopted as Final Site Survey (FSS) measurements (for either characterization, or FSS systematic grid, random start measurements) since a correct probe geometry within the pipe could not be assured. Survey Unit Design Information The spray piping survey unit is unique at the Maine Yankee site for both its contamination potential, increased derived concentration guideline level (DCGL) and limited accessibility. The technical difficulty and high costs associated with a removal of the spray pipe system made removal activities largely prohibitive. So, a special plan was devised to perform a FSS of the spray system piping, key aspects of this plan were later incorporated to Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan (LTP)'. Early in the design process, it was identified that the physical constraints of the survey unit would prevent the existing FSS program survey techniques from being able to successfully complete an FSS of the piping. Since the gross beta survey techniques lacked a way of traveling circumferentially around pipe surfaces, the measurements were limited to the bottom of the pipe. Additionally, visual inspections could not be made to verify that the probe was in an acceptable geometry. So there was no assurance that the data was reliable. Consequently, a vendor (Scientific & Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEA) of Albuquerque, NM) was contracted to perform the survey using their Pipe Explorerm system. The capabilities of the vendor's detector system allowed the survey design to meet the dual design requirements for scanning and fixed measurements of a class I survey unit with one data set. This was achieved by properly calibrating the Pipe ExplorerTM, which allows the system to measure a defined interval of pipe to a desired minimum detectable activity (MDA). By summing together the discretely measured intervals of pipe, it was possible to measure the entire survey unit to a specified MDA level. This was made possible in pipes by taking advantage of the system's 2 x 2 Nal(TI) detector's ability to detect radioisotopes in a 4it isotropic view. The precision with which the entire survey wvas performed was further enhanced with the addition of a multi-channel analyzer, which produced the capability of determining actual concentrations of gamma emitting nuclides. A detailed discussion of this survey unit is included in LTP REV 3, Section 6. 4

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 5 of 23 The Pipe ExplorerT',as described in SEA's documents "uses inverting membrane technology to deploy radiation detectors into pipes". The membrane is essentially a polymer material membrane (plastic bag) that is blown up by forcing 1-5 psi air into its open end. The radiation detector is then deployed by pulling it along its tether/signal cable that is securely fastened to the front end of the membrane. A more thorough discussion of operational details of the Pipe Explorer'system is provided in the report that is included as Att. 5. The survey design took advantage of the Nal(TI) probes spatially isotropic response to gamma activity to achieve a 100% scan of the pipe interior. This was achieved by calibrating the detector to NIST traceable Co-60 and Cs-137 sources spaced at 0.5" intervals along a grid array of locations within a piece of sample pipe made up of similar materials and identical dimensions to the pipe schedule that was used to construct the spray piping system. Given the high probability that detectable levels of residual contamination would remain within the piping, the area was designated as a class 1-survey unit per the LTP Rev. 3. Table I - Survey Design Parameters Survey Unit I Design Criteria Basis Area 23.4 mrt (19.2 m length) Calculated based on pipe's interior diameter and estimated (centerline __ length measurements) Number of Direct j2<(J 100% of area measured to within a small Measurements N120S5 0.1 O7 fraction ofthe DCGL. Sample Area 0.1855 mn (0.152 m Class I Area (per measurement) length) Grid Spacing 1 measurement at Class 1 Area approximately every 15 cm (6") 6,,L 1 7 Area Factor 2 LTP Rev. 3 Scan Survey Area 100% Class I Area Scan Alarm >DCGL SEA Calibration Procedure (LTP Rev.3 allows up to 0.5 of DCGLemc) DCGL 800,0002 dpm/lO00 cm 2 LTP,Rev3,Table6-l DCGLemc 1,600,000 LTP Rev. 3 dpm/l 00 cm 2 The work performed was guided by both FSS procedures and the site work order (WO) process. WO 02-00297-00 is attached as Att. 9. Class I surveys are required to receive 100% scan coverage. The Survey Unit was defined as the interior of the spray system piping, (CS-M-91, 92) from the plane of the 2 800,000 dpmIl 00 cm2 is a gross beta DCGL. The Cs-I 37 DCGL is 715,000 dpm/I 00 cm 2, as is indicated on p. 8 of Attachment 6-13 of the Maine Yankee LTP, REV 3. See Att. 8 for details. 5

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 6 of 23 flanges in the bottom of the containment safeguards sump to the plane of the ends of the cut stainless piping inside cubicles P-12A and P-12B of the spray building with a surface area of 23 m . The piping has a 0.406m (16") outer diameter and an internal diameter of 0.387m (15.25"). The detector used was a BNC 2 x 2 Nal(TI). Prior to performing the surveys, the system was calibrated for Cs-137 and Co-60 surface activity in a 16-inch pipe. These calibrations were carried out in accordance with the SEA Technology Sector Technical Procedure, SEATP-09, Revision 3 Pipe Explorer"'RadiationDetectorCalibration,as modified by field modification to the procedure. A copy of this technical procedure, with the field modification is provided in Att. 5. Also included, are copies of the calibration certificate for the Cs-l 37 and Co-60 sources used in these calibrations. The calibration procedure SEATP-09 defines the response region of the detector under calibration as the limits in both the positive and negative X & Y directions where the net count rate is 5% or less of the count rate observed with the calibration source directly under the active region of the detector, at the 0,0 grid position. In larger diameter pipes, this often results in calibration data being collected for something less than the full interior circumference of the pipe, as these regions of less than 5% account for a small change in the yield factor. The calibration performed exceeded the procedure requirements, in order to account for longitudinal variances over a 32cm (I I1)span. A principle advantage of the calibration methodology employed with the Pipe ExplorerT' was that a different yield factor could be extracted from the calibration data with an arbitrary assumption of the distribution of activity within the pipe, and the survey results reinterpreted accordingly. This required, however, that there be calibration data available for at least 1/2 of the pipe interior circumference over the defined response region in the X-direction (parallel to the long axis of the pipe). Based on an understanding of the operation of a NaI(Tl) detector, and on previous calibration experience, it was known that there is a longitudinal plane of symmetry in the detector response. This plane intersects the longitudinal centerline of the pipe and the detector, as shown in the photo below lefl. By taking advantage of this plane of symmetry, it is possible to collect calibration data from %2 of the pipe interior circumference and mirror this data to the other side of the pipe for the purposes of determining a yield factor. To verify the assumption of the plane of symmetry, selected grid locations on the opposite side of the pipe were collected and compared with the mirror grid location. These were identified in the calibration data as yellow highlighted table entries. The calibration activities were carried out at the Maine Yankee Decommissioning site. The photo below right shows the calibration set-up used at the site to execute the calibrations. 6

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 7 of 23 A surface net plot of the calibration is often used to graphically show the detector response within the particular pipe geometry under calibration. The two figures below show such surface trends for the Cs-137 calibration data, based on the 662 keV peak data, and the Co-60 calibration data, based on the 1332 keV peak data. In these plots the X-Axis lies parallel to the long dimension of the pipe, along the bottom of the pipe. The Y-Axis lies orthogonal to the X-Axis, around the interior circumference of the pipe. 7

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 8 of 23 Survey Unit Measurement Locations Survey unit measurement locations were specified on the maps of the survey unit documentation (Att.2). Note that the pipe diameter produced some deviation in the detector's path length as it passed through the pipe. Therefore, a determination of an appropriate adjustment was made. Corrections to the positions were made, based on an estimate of the actual probe travel path within the pipe, video camera feedback, and indexing against carefully positioned SSPA-3 measurements. The recorded field positioning measurement and corrected measurements were included in Table 2. A post-survey investigation package, XCO300, was developed to acquire additional data to produce further confirmation of the accuracy of positioning. The details of the investigation package are discussed in the Survey Unit Investigations section below. The CS-M-91 and CS-M-92 piping measurements are indexed such that the zero position is at the plane of the flange inside the safe guards where the piping begins inside containment. Position values increase as the piping proceeds down to the spray building. The zero position for the crossover piping was set at the intersection of CS-M-91 and increases through its run to its terminus at the intersection with CS-M-92. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Their Results: No positive scan alarms occurred within the survey unit scan locations therefore, no alarm related investigations were made. However, a problem was encountered with the positioning data. The issue was caused by translating the spatial encoder readings of the Pipe ExplorerT to pipe position without giving due consideration that the centerline pipe distance does not necessarily correspond to the actual travel path of the probe, or that while the digital encoder of the Pipe ExplorerTm positioning system has an insignificant random error, it also has a systematic error on the order of one foot. An error on the order of one foot was considered a problem since this raised the possibility that higher ranging measurements, thought to be outside the pipe, might actually lay inside the pipe. Prior to SEA's departure from site, cross calibration measurements were made with the SSPA-3, by performing a l-minute scaler measurement by placing the SSPA-3 at the so-called zero-zero position (highest count rate location) of the sample pipe. This source to detector geometry was identical to that used by SEA when they calibrated their instrument. The SSPA-3 to SAM-935 cross calibration measurements were collected as non-FSS data, however, they produce a basis for comparing the spectral response (i.e. Compton corrected peak counts within the region of interest) of the Pipe Explorer'M probe to gross counts on the SSPA-3 instrumentation. The cross calibration data results were not used for correction of positioning data, however, since it was observed that superior confidence of the location of the probe in the flange region could be determined by summing all the counts of a given spectra (thus 8

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 9 of 23 producing a gross scaler measurement) and comparing these to a scaler measurement on the SSPA-3. This produced a count rate spatial "profile" to which the actual location of the SEA probe in the flange region of the CS-M-91 and 92 pipes could be deduced. Figures 3 and 4 are graphs of the summed counts of SEA measurements plotted with SSPA-3 scaler measurements taken at known locations. Figure 3 demonstrates good agreement between the SSPA-3 and SAM-935 measurements in the pipe flange region. This verifies that the positioning for the FSS data is accurate. It is noteworthy that the SSPA-3 readings for positions outside the pipe are of similar magnitude and have maximum values at an elevation of six-inches above the Safeguards sump. SPA-3 vs. SAM-935 Scaler Measurements vs. Position CS-M-91 3.OOE+06 0 4- 2.50E+06 C ____ 2.OOE+06 0 1.50E+06 I - SPA-3 4-1.OOE+06 C 0 5.OOE+05 SAM-I 935 O.OOE+OO

         -4         -2             0            2           4            6 Position (ft)

Figure 3 - SEA positioning data and MY SSPA-3 data (Note that positive values for position are inside piping) 3 Operational surveys performed in support of this survey determined that a ring of fixed activity measuring as high as 12 mR/hr was present at the top of the sump. 9

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 10 of 23 Figure 4 Position vs. Scaler Measurement for CS-M-92 (Note that positive values for position are inside piping) The radius of the second elbow of the crossover piping precluded the use of the Pipe ExplorerfT membrane system. Instead, the probe was sealed in a plastic bag and manually positioned with a cord that had been snaked through the pipe. Since it was possible to visually verify the start and end measurement locations, and accurately measure the 6" measurement spacing by placing graduated marks on the cord, no spatial corrections were required for the crossover piping measurements. Analysis determined that the corrected positioning specified by SEA was accurate. Table 2 presents the positioning corrections that were determined by SEA. The Spectrum numbers correspond to the electronically saved file number of a given measurement. 10

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 11 of 23 Table 2- Positioning Data for CS-M-91&92 pipe Segments CS-M-91 CS-M-92 POSITIONING POSITIONING Logged Corrected Spectrum Logged Corrected Spectrum Distance (ft.) Distance (ft.) Number Distance (ft.) Distance (ft.) Number __ _ -0.3 61 19.5 17.9 3 c 4.7 62 1 17.4 4 15.r 15.2 63 18.5 16.9 _ 22.5 22.2 64 1E 16.4 6 22 21.7 65 17.5 15.9 71

20. 20 66 17 15.4 _

2( 19.7 67 16.1 14.9 c 194 19.2 68 1i 14.4 1C 1 18.7 69 15. 13.9 11 18.$ 18.2 70 1 13.4 12 1E 17.7 71 14.5 12.9 1 17.E 17.2 72 14 12.4 14 17 16.7 73 13.5 11.9 1

16. 16.2 74 13.5 11.9 16 1 15.7 75 1- 11.4 17 15.' 15.2 76 12.5 10.9 1E 1 14.7 77 12 10.4 1 14; 14.2 78 11.5 9.9 2 14 13.7 79 11 9.4 21 13.5 13.2 80 10. 8.9 22 1 12. 81 1 8.4 2

12. 12.2 82 9. 7.9 24 12 11.7 83 c 7.4 2 11.' 11.2 84 8.r 6.9 26 11 10.7 85 _ 6.4 27 10.5 10.2 86 7.5 5.9 2 11 9.7 87 7 5.4 2

9. 9.2 88 6.1 4.9 3 11

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 12 of 23 Table 3- Positioning Data for CS-M-91&92 pipe Segments (Cont.) CS-M-91 CS-M-92 POSITIONING POSITIONING Logged Corrected Spectrum Logged Corrected Spectrum Distance (ft.) Distance (ft) Number Distance (ft.) Distance (ft.) Number _ _ 8.7 89 4. 31 8.! 8.2 90 5. 3. 32 _ 7.7 91 ' 3.4 3 7.! 7.2 92 4.' 2.9 34 A 6.7 93 A 2.4 3

6. ! 6.2 94 3. 1.9 3

_ 5.7 95 1. 3 5.! 5.2 96 2.5 0.' 3

                ,                4.7     97                         2               0.4               3 4.!                  4.      98                     1.'                -0.1               41 4                3.7     99                          1             -0.6               42 3.5                  3. 100                     0.'                -1.1               43

_ 2.7 101 _ -1.6

2. 2.2 102 -0. -2.1 4 2 1.7 103 -1 -2. 4

1. 1.2 104 -1. -3.1 4 1 0.7 105 - -3. 48'

0. 0.2 106 5 3.4 4 t -0.3 107 1c 16.4 50 11 10.7 108 21.5 19.9 51

_ 7.7 109 21 19.4 52 20.- 18.9 53 l 2 18.4 54 M9. 17.9 55 1' 13.4 5 Survey Unit Data Assessment Results: Survey results as excerpted from SEA's report are included in Tables 3 through 5. Tables 6 through 8 present the Final Site Survey (FSS) data used to make assessments. Bolded values within the tables indicate a positive result. Results that were less than MDA have generally been treated as a positive result at the MDA. 1jta4l - o(, P.lIE-P3 L4igCtt TableWprovides nominal statistical results for the data collected. The "% of DCGL," represents the percent of the DCGLw for all source term nuclides scaled to Cs-137. Since the results contained higher Cobalt-60 to Cesium-137 ratios than expected, an analysis of the dose impact of Cobalt-60 alone is provided in Table 10. The vendor's documentation stated an estimated accuracy of 10% for the calibration procedure. This, 12

RR i#FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 13 of 23 combined with positioning error, and measurement counting statistical uncertainty could reasonably be bounded to an overall error of 15%. Table 4: Results for Survey of Pipe CS-m-91 Dablem 0971802 Nores: Operators DTitADS ND -Non Deto et Result Pipe Run ID CS-rnm92 Pie-Pipe Length 10 Color Key DIselkr Used BNC 2o2 Nat(To SN 23020 Resut asto gged during surwy Yeld FactorsanrpmndprrnIlO0cm) Y Muttiplier Caix~atedr netcount rate used instead of nslue togged during survey Ce-137 ful Pipe.446E-02 t5.5 C bed lDA used bornon-detect Yiaue CS-1373Jnch 3.165E-03 315 Co-O t t73 kuV Ful Pipe 2.692E402 37.1 C5o 1173 k&V3-nch 1.524E-03 654 CO-80 1332 keVFull Pip. 2.525E-02 396 COD-O332keV3-Inch 1.550E3 645 BegtiningChdckSourCo CwutAmbient 53,135 CHKSRC 115,387 Net- 82.702 Endmg Source Coiunt Anbrie 33.395 CHKSRC 100.005 Net . i5610 MDA Calclatiorn C-437 CO-60 Catcuialed CO-Go CO-CO Catkbised Corrected C34137 MDA Based t173 keV Co-so '1326ieV MDABased Count Logged IDistan COS-137 dpWI00 1n662 keV 1173 6eV ldnVl00l 1332 keV ldtipn00 pn1332 keV TWOe Spectun C s-f iDi- M) (fit) nciea cm, Peak neKrn lCnM MMnrr lcn' Peak (min) I Number 363i1 56440 4350 NO 1465 5527 85748 4933 18262 28331 5140 23209 36006S 4734 16366 253903 7399 i 181132 28130 6534 20108 31 1957 6719 18616 6494 12776 19820e 5658 10471 162444 5160 11329 175759 506 4471 16604 4801 1900 28511 t 72 11523 178761 5132 ND 3951 1564 73 8028 124547 4768 3131 1239 74 111376 4276 75 3960 6143i 3466 76 41851 316&4 77 39514 2958 2641 98507 2661 1053 78 2395 37154 2907 l 260 9658S 2091 unl~ 79 39033 2992 r 2441 9064) 236t 93461 80 2516 47008 3541 212 71175 2291 9069 40t19 3187 4061 15oa11 3961 IW38 974 15111 2505 1 3351 12444 3661 144951 642 1306S 2094 1 309 1 1478r 224r 8871T 358 9885 1702 941 34921 1031 40791 ssse 233 36111 1711 lND IND I 931 3683 124 i924 ND 1321lND lND lND ND 1236 IND lNO lND ND ND IND INO IND U#1 ND lND 1210 IND IND lND t7 ND 1575 lND {ND E 1317 ND 1351 -9 25631 S t3 5 ND 1334 r X51 5386 72 s1 ND 251 929. 1101 43561 ND ti1210 r 1051 39001 8 320 ND 1575 1 691 25631 711 25121 NE) i12931 150 ss5771 351 13861 ND l 41 3120lND ND 1268 ND NDIND ;:- IND IND I 0. ND 473 I 1526 3406 412 73Ui I i 1352

                                                                                             '1t25 l 493 F

1 2341 406 1 10391

                                                                                                                       -l43a31 e6921 t08 385951 1

1031 40791 t2el

                                                                                                                                   " 212 32.1 9481 5069l 1396 3754
                                                                                                                                                  .2910 8241    1I    'iT 269 I~r ND             I 13

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 14 of 23 Table 5: Results for Survey of Pipe CS-m-92 Daefrbne 09g1812 Notse Operators DTtAfDS ND - Non-Doe d Result Ppe Run ID CS-r-92 Pre-FPpeLength 10 Color Ke Deleclor Used BNC 2x2 Nal(TO SN 23020 Result as gged durig survey Y'ied Factos Qncp(dpWI100cm'j Y mulqpw Calulatedi set count rale used rsleadof viue logged durig survey Cs-137 FulTPe 6.446E402 15.5 C tedMDAused bor non-deted value CS-1375-mn 3165E-03 315 Co-60 1173keV Full Pt 2.692E-02 37.1 Co-S0 1173kaV S-an 1.524E-03 65t COM 1332keV Ful PFp 2525E-02 39.8 CO-801332kcV -can 1.550E-03 645 BegisrnngCheck Source Count Arbient 62,82 CHKSRC 125.174 Net- 62.352 Ending Check Source Count Ambernt 70.267 CHKSRC 131,977 Net

61.710 MOACalkutondc Cs-137 CO-W0 Calcsdsted COm80 C60 Caltculaed Corected Cs-137 MDA Based CO-t> 1173keV 1332keV lDA Baued lCountl DOstOcIe CS-137 cp1 W en 662 keV 1173 keV dIprV100 1332keV 4Iptsloo on 1332 ke'o Tim l Spetbu Ctrenests (it) ncPM cmI Peak lncm er'r I1Dcpm Ian Peak (min) I Hurnbef 17.4 17i 164 159 154 14 0 93241 2S91 1 14 4 131 r 1067106 3701 1 22861 1 II 13.4 1940 14.5 12. 22311 14 0 12.4 13.5 Recount 13.5 13.0 11.4 12.5 109 12.0 10.4 11.5 90i II 0 94 10 5 J9 100 84 95 7.9 90 7.4 8.5 60 60 6.4 7.5 50 7.0 54 65 40 60 44 55 3.0 50 34 I

45 21 40 2.4 35 1.0 30D 164 25 01 20 0.4 15 .0.1

                                         *.0 0.5          -1.1 00           .1N      235811     365e          10996        2154      80012       1950
                                                                                     *IM 34                               1322          100       3715 16 4                               1613         276      10252 Iedge d pM                               195I                               35451       2t41      79529j 19 4                               24691        tl13     302001 205           161                                21421        *7S      17644]       43a     17341 14

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 15 of 23 Table 6: Results for Survey of Crossover Pipe DetaT&new 09M18162 Notes. Operators DTKIADS ND

Non-DeledctResult Pipe Run ID CrossOwer ron CS- t91 70 CS-in92 Pre-PipetengM WA. pujieddetecor twough bya rope Color Ke.

Delector Used BNC 2W2Nal(TMSN23020 Result as lord do"9 suve Yied lFactorsUncp dprln0DcrnN Y Mulb Caculd net count rate usedinstead ofvalue lgged during survey CS-137 Ful Pipe 5.403E-02 15.6 E Calcltd MDAused for non-deoed value CS-I373-nch 3.1656-03 316 Co-60 1173keV Pul Pipe 2.692E-02 37.1 Co60 1173keV3-4nds 1.524E-03 6 CO-60 1332 eV Ful Pipe 2.525E-02 39.6 CD-60 1332 keV3-Jnd 1.550CE- 645 Begirning Check Sourc Coun4 mbend 47.016 CHKSRC 107,371 Net - 60,355 EntdngCheckSource Count Ambient 52.415 CHKSRC 119.776 NeM 67,358 MDA Calubon: 5-X7 _ coo _ Ckbd cooa CO-40 Ckb Corrected CS-137 M4A~ased Cow6 1173keV Co.S0 1332keV MDA Based Court Logged Distance Cs.t37 dpnW1eon 662keV 11keV iORIp00 1332keV il"Wd00 r 1332ke Tk e Spectrum aews Dist (IL) ct) lwn con' Peak Drepn em7? me-n anr Peak (rirn) NH bwer dotr se sati th CS in-92 00 00 ND 2757 974 36180 1046 41504 3535 1 118 __ 5 0! ND 3582. 2203 - 83W 2037 80671 3535 1 119 ___________ 10 1.0 NO 3265 1717 -63779 1594 6312? 3626 1 120 L-I5 1 5 ND 4235 3135 t164521 326 12t8154 4490 1 121 _____________ -2 - 2.0 ND - 4641 - 3641 135248 s6 41342 - 4820 i Ž 2.5 2.5 ND 4799 4001 148621 3991 158054 4802 I 123

                                             -3.D              30t ND                               3419        t2607      s9683       2225     88116       3790      1     124
                                             -3_ 5             3.5 ND                               2933         1590         59062    150t     59404       3402      1     125

_ 0_ 4 t4ND 3099 1624 60325 1656 65582 3251 1 126

                                             *4 5              45 ND                                3354         1936         71914    1923     76156       3721      1     12?

_.50 St ND 1 3410 1826 67828 1774 70255 3601 1 128

                                             *S 5 !                ND   _                           3283         1621         60213   153       60592       3223      1     129
                                              -6 0             & _ ND                 6             3269         1880         69834    1716     67958       3797       I    130
                                             *6 5              65 ND                                32     1 7 760            6537     1802     71364       3961       1    131

_ .7.0 7.0 ND ; 4 3041 1355 50333 1612 6339 3616 1 132 ____7_______5 _ IND3512 2146 79715._ 2028 80314 3767 1 133

                                              .80
                                             .ao               soND       -OUt    O                 3199         21t23        76861    2021-    80037       4242       1    134

_45 65 NO 3276 2036 75629 185t 73621 3579 1 135

                                             *9 0              90 No -                              3627         2222         6253     1976     78255       4446      1     136
                                             -9 5              9.5 NO                               3574         2286         64915    2177     eQ21s       3992       1    137
                                           .100              100 ND            i                    3301          1976        73400    1920     76037       3535       1    138
                                           -10_5             18_ ND                  E              32           1902         7065t    1641     64988       3402       1    139
                                           .11t0 l l             tW3 0 ND                                            1905     _   70763    1587     62849       3797      1     140
                                           -lt5              11.5 ND140                             2636         1337         49664    1072     42454       3746       i    141
                                           .12 0             12 tND                                 2528           977        36292       881   34890       3048       1    142
                                            .12 5            125 ND                                 2302           712        26448     517     20475       2407       i    143 4.130             130 ND                                  1629          367        1363      352     13940       2056       1    144
                                          -t35               135 N t D                               1683          321        11924     27l2    10772       2247      1     145
                                           -14 0              140 NO                                1676           168         6241     20         237      1795      1     16
                                           -14 5              145 ND      -                         1517           255         9472      1       4950       1702       1    147
                                           -15.0              15.0 ND                   17t         1788           190         7058     165      6534       2137       1    148
                                            -15t5             15.5 ND                               1685           286        10624     227      8990       2473       1    149 Deltedor t irtesecon with C&rn91            -16 0              16.0 NO                               1667           214         7949     138      5465       2437       i    150

_ 165 165 NO - 1294 181 6723 11 4475 171t 1 151

                                           -17 0             17.0 NO                                 1467          145         5386      l16     4673       1805       I    152
                                           -17            t7 I    uNO           -s                  I15              0t        1857       78     3089       1994      I     153 l-lattO t                      18    ND                               1443           142         5275     132      5228       2099 !          154
                                           -185                            5                 18     1167
                                                                                                    ' N             62         2303      10      4237       1713       1    155 R4epicale Meastawnen!                                          10N I10                                    1575           308        1144  __  202      80         170        1    158 Reokde ar ene4                              -14 5             144                       *NO          1566           201         7466     144      5703       2286       1    157 R .epkateeasuener4                            130             13.0 ND                                17                15-      9324     237      9386       2191      1     156 Some statistics associated wdith the data presented in Tables 6 are listed in Table 7 below.

15

RR HFC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 16 of 23 Table 7 FSS DATA for CS-M-91 POSITION CS-137 CS-I37 MDA CO-60 CO-60 MDA SPECTRUM CS-M-91 DPMI100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 NO. 20 253,903 7,399 97,423 7,550 66 19.7 281,301 6,534 36,355 5,283 67 19.2 311,957 6,719 25,940 4,730 68 18.7 288,810 6,494 24,593 4,618 69 18.2 198,208 5,658 16,752 3,746 70 iI 17.7 162,448 5,160 13,782 3,270 71 17.2 175,759 5,063 19,009 2,851 72 16.7 178,761 5,132 15,643 3,513 73 16.2 124,547 4,768 12,396 3,453 74 15.7 111,376 4,276 11,287 3,297 75 15.2 61,436 3,466 13,861 3,036 76 14.7 41,857 3,164 9,029 2,763 77 14.2 39,514 2,958 10,534 3,216 78 13.7 37,156 2,907 8,277 2,763 79 13.2 39,033 2,992 9,346 2,578 80 12.7 47,008 3,541 9,069 3,396 81 12.2 40,119 3,187 15,683 3,167 82 11.7 15,111 2,505 14,495 2,770 83 11.2 13,063 2,094 8,871 1,835 84 10.7 9,898 1,702 4,079 2,174 85 10.2 3,615 1,711 3,683 1,864 86 9.7 1,924 1,321 1,963 1,963 87 9.2 1,401 1,401 1,528 1,528 88 8.7 1,236 1,236 1,648 1,648 89 8.2 1,420 1,420 1,528 1,528 90 7.7 1,436 1,436 1,985 1,985 91 7.2 1,210 1,210 1,670 1,670 92 6.7 1,317 1,317 1,985 1,985 93 6.2 1,351 1,351 2,178 1,235 94 5.7 1,457 1,457 2,851 1,713 95 5.2 1,383 1,383 4,356 1,349 96 4.7 1,210 1,210 3,208 2,039 97 4.2 1,575 1,575 2,812 1,765 98 3.7 1,293 1,293 1,386 2,125 99 3.2 1,334 1,334 2,061 2,061 100 2.7 1,268 1,268 1,626 1,626 101 2.2 1,352 1,352 4,079 1,442 102 1.7 1,412 1,625 5,069 2,407 103 1.2 7,338 2,493 8,396 2,207 104 0.7 23,674 3,251 12,910 2,900 105 0.2 52,841 5,005 37,543 3,948 106 16

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 17of23 Table 8 FSS Data for CS-M-92 POSITION CS-137 CS-137MDA CO-60 CO-60 MDA SPECTRUM CS-M-92 DPMI100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 DPM/100 CM2 NO. 19.9 17,112 3,545 80,869 3,970 51 19.4 10,581 2,469 26,851 2,437 52 18.9 5,771 2,142 17,346 2,550 53 18.4 6,097 1,877 16,594 2,223 54 17.9 4,965 1,856 11,287 1,897 3 17.4 4,111 1,808 12,910 2,267 4 16.9 4,173 1,856 12,435 2,039 5 16.4 6,175 1,800 14,851 2,207 6 15.9 2,529 1,776 10,495 2,286 7 15.4 1,551 1,742 9,940 2,137 8 14.9 1,660 1,613 11,445 2,166 9 14.4 1,670 1,670 11,287 1,940 10 13.9 931 1,067 14,851 2,286 11 13.4 1,412 1,878 11,049 1,940 12 12.9 1,751 1,751 13,069 2,231 13 12.4 1,365 1,751 10,297 2,814 14 11.9 993 1,572 8,633 2,187 15 11.9 931 1,638 4,832 2,099 16 11.4 1,784 1,784 11,128 2,061 17 10.9 1,638 1,638 4,950 1,795 18 10.4 1,583 1,583 5,901 2,317 19 9.9 1,507 1,507 3,723 1,897 20 9.4 1,497 1,497 1,624 1,795 21 8.9 1,328 1,328 2,455 1,888 22 8.4 1,317 1,317 1,723 1,723 23 7.9 621 1,056 1,888 1,888 24 7.4 1,222 1,222 2,351 2,351 25 6.9 1,477 1,477 1,030 2,133 26 6.4 1,566 1,566 2,297 1,534 27 5.9 1,613 1,613 6,693 2,174 28 5.4 1,676 1,676 10,614 1,403 29 4.9 1,613 1,613 5,584 1,883 30 4.4 1,640 1,640 5,584 1,534 31 3.9 1,585 1,585 2,970 1,949 32 3.4 1,622 1,622 2,166 2,166 33 2.9 1,497 1,497 2,543 2,543 34 2.4 1,436 1,436 1,902 1,902 35 1.9 1,487 1,487 1,902 1,902 36 1.4 2,606 1,796 3,921 2,259 37 0.9 9,200 2,778 6,693 1,985 38 0.4 36,334 3,377 17,782 2,659 39 17

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 18 of 23 Table 9 FSS DATA for Crossover Piping POSITION CS-137 CS-137MDA CO-60 CO-60 MDA SPECTRUM CS-M-92 DPMIO00 CM2 DPM1100 CM2 DPMI100 CM2 DPM/100 CM NO. 0.0 2,757 2,757 41,504 3,535 118 0.5 3,582 3,582 80,671 3,535 119 1.0 3,265 3,265 63,127 3,626 120 1.5 4,235 4,235 128,164 4,490 121 2.0 4,641 4,641 141,342 4,820 122 2.5 4,799 4,799 158,054 4,802 123 3.0 3,419 3,419 88,116 3,790 124 3.5 2,933 2,933 59,404 3,402 125 4.0 3,099 3,099 65,582 3,251 126 4.5 3,354 3,354 76,156 3,721 127 5.0 3,410 3,410 70,255 3,601 128 5.5 3,283 3,283 60,592 3,323 129 6.0 3,269 3,269 67,958 3,797 130 6.5 3,215 3,215 71,364 3,961 131 7.0 3,041 3,041 63,839 3,616 132 7.5 3,512 3,512 80,314 3,767 133 8.0 3,199 3,199 80,037 4,242 134 8.5 3,276 3,276 73,621 3,579 135 9.0 3,627 3,627 78,255 4,446 136 9.5 3,574 3,574 86,215 3,992 137 10.0 3,301 3,301 76,037 3,535 138 10.5 3,260 3,260 64,988 3,402 139 11.0 3,160 3,160 62,849 3,797 140 11.5 2,836 2,836 42,454 3,746 141 12.0 2,528 2,528 34,890 3,048 142 12.5 2,302 2,302 20,475 2,407 143 13.0 1,629 1,629 13,940 2,056 144 13.5 1,683 1,683 10,772 2,247 145 14.0 1,676 1,676 8,237 1,795 146 14.5 1,517 1,517 4,950 1,702 147 15.0 1,788 1,788 6,534 2,137 148 15.5 1,685 1,685 8,990 2,473 149 16.0 1,667 1,667 5,465 2,437 150 18

RR iI FC-0300-l Rev 0 Page 19 of 23 Table 10 Statistical Results for Cs-137 CS-137 CS-.M-91 CS-M-92 CROSSOVER COMBINED dpml 100 cm2 dpmi/ 100 cm2 dpml 100 cm2 dpm/ 100 cm2 Sample Population 41 41 33 115 Mean 62,008 3,698 2,985 24,282 Std. Dev. 92,315 13,592 851 61,636 Median 13,063 26,723 3,215 2,757 Max 311,957 36,334 4,799 311,957 Min 1,210 621 1,517 621 Mean % of DCGL 8.67 0.52 0.42 3.40 Max % of DCGL 43.6 5.08 0.674 43.6 Table 11 Statistical Results for Co-60 CO-60 CS-M-91 CS-M-92 CROSSOVER COMBINED dpm IOOcm 2 dpml 1OOcm 2 dpml OOcm 2 dpm/ 100 cm 2 Sample Population 41 41 33 115 Mean 11,729 9,914 60,459 25,065 Std. Dev. 16,405 44,609 38,138 32,695 Median 8,396 49.325 64,988 10,772 Max 97,423 80,869 158,054 158,054 Min 1,386 1,030 4,950 1,030 Mean % of DCGL 5 0.55 0.47 2.85 1.18 Max % of DCGL 4.59 3.81 7.45 7.45 4The percentage of DCGL was based on a less than MDA value. 5 This DCGL (2.12 E6 dpm/100 cm^2) is for Co-60 alone, as per Attachment 6-13 of LTP Rev 3. See Att. 8 for details. 19

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 20 of 23 Additional Data Evaluation: Since one hundred percent of the pipe was measured 6 and found to be below the applicable gamma equivalent DCGL of 715,000 dpm7 Cs-137/100 cm2, no statistical testing is required. For illustrative purposes an additional analysis has been made to evaluate the impact of having a higher ratio of Cobalt -60 to Cesium-137 than was expected. Although further statistical evaluation is unnecessary, for completeness and consistency in the reporting process a quantile plot (Figure 5) and a histogram (Figure 6) of the data set have been included. The quantile plot and histogram reflected that the majority of Cs-137 activity within the piping system is located within a relatively small percentage of the piping. Figure 7 is a histogram for measured values of Co-60. A Quantile Plot of FSS Survey Unit FC0300-01

     <       400,000                   -                               -

E o 300,000 C 200,000-E 100,000 .- la 0 l? 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 Percent (median = 2,757dpm/ 100 cmA2) Figure 5 Quantile Plot of Survey Unit 6 Strickly speaking, the measurement technique used measured the entire pipe, therefore it was not a statistical sample, and statistical testing was neither necessaly nor appropriate. 7 As per Table 6-11 of LTP Rev. 3. Also see Att. 8 20

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 21 of 23 Figure 6 Histogram of Survey Unit Cs-137 Data A Historgram of FC0300-01 Co-60 data 40 la)

"'10      :.::               ._;.;:-..                   ::     .-

r 20 0D 00

            °)               CD
                              °CD°o V

Range(dpmll 00 cmA2) Figure 7 Histogram of Survey Unit Co-60 Data 21

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev O Page 22 of 23 Included as Att. 6. is a report analyzing the impact that the firmware issue identified in SEA's report had on the survey results. The report concludes that no adjustment to results is necessary. Unusual Occurrence: Potential Recontamination from a Post FSS Flooding of a portion of the Survey Unit On or about 11-07-02, the CS-M-91 and CS-M-92 piping was flooded to approximately the top of the survey unit's piping flange in spray building cubicles P-12A and P12-B. The source of the water infiltration was surface water that pooled in an excavation immediately along the exterior of the spray building (in the so-called "pipe alleyway"). The excavation exposed buried pipes that were breached to. accommodate surveys and/ or removal(s) as appropriate. After breaching the pipes, plugs were not installed and as a consequence the lowest level of the spray building flooded for a period of approximately one week. Additionally, although blocked and posted, the survey unit's piping were yet to receive watertight plugs on the lower legs of the piping. This created a potential for the lowest, horizontal portion of this survey unit to become contaminated. An analysis was performed to conservatively bound impact of presence of contaminated water in the lower piping legs of the survey unit. The analysis assumed that 100 percent of the activity (determined by gamma spectral analysis and tritium measurements of water samples from the P12-A and P-12 B cubicles) in the water was deposited on the interior of the pipes surface. This analysis is included as Attachment 7. Table 11 quantifies the amount of activity deposited to the pipe. The quantities are irrelevant when compared against the DCGL. Table 12 Potential Pipe Surface Contamination from Flooding P-12A P-12B Co-60 (dpm/lOOcm2) 6.86E-3 1.84E-2 % of Co-60 DCGL 3.91E-7 8.68E-7 Cs-I37(dpm/lOOcm2) 8.28E-3 2.011E-2 % of Cs-137 DCGL 1.14E-6 2.76E-6 Additionally, the pipes were swabbed with massilin cloth over all accessible surfaces on the lower legs of the interior pipe surface to remove loose contamination that may have been deposited. Watertight plugs and security seals were installed to accommodate future inspections and prevent contamination of the survey unit. Removal of 1-Foot of CS-M-91 To further reduce the remaining activity within the survey unit the last foot of piping of CS-M-91 was removed by plasma arc cutting. Contamination controls were applied to prevent contamination of the remainder of the survey Unit. This activity took place prior to the swabbing of the pipes with masslin cloth as described above. 22

RR # FC-0300-1 Rev 0 Page 23 of 23 Procedural Compliance: As required by Maine Yankee site procedure PMP 6.7.8, "FSS data processing and reporting", some unique design and implementation challenges of this survey unit resulted in an atypical design process. The survey was performed by an outside vendor who conducted the survey within his own internal procedural guidance in conjunction with the Maine Yankee Work order process, and an operator's manual for one piece of the apparatus. Consequently, some aspects of the survey design are not strictly in accordance with PMP 6.7.4, "FSS Package preparation and Control" and 6.7.8. Below is a list of design aspects that would not conform to the usual process.

1. The survey technique measured 100 percent of the survey unit. This renders some FSS requirements (i.e. the sign test and power curves, and design sigma) irrelevant.

2. Fewer points were collected in the pipe than is reflected on survey maps due to a deviation between the centerline-to-centerline distances assumed in the design, and the actual path of the detector through the piping. This was not a concern since the objective was to get a measurement for each six inches of piping, as was achieved.

3. A nominal error of 15% for all positive results was estimated due based on measurement and positioning error.

4. Data forms (PMP 6.7.4 Form 6) were not used, as it normally would be. The vendor instead used his own data collection form. In addition survey unit maps, and calculation Forms 8 and 9 were annotated to record deviations from typical applications.

5. The investigation setpoint was established as the DCGL, and was calculated using the calibration factor determined by the vendor after mobilizing on-site, and was not integral to the design before the vendor's arrival. Data were compared against the DCGL and no values wvere found to exceed it.

== Conclusion:==

The maximum surface concentration value is less than the DCGL. Survey Unit FC0300-01 meets the release criteria of 10CFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. 23

R RI FC-O 5Q-L-Attachment 1 Instruments and Instrument MDC Information

A A ( te- vWU - /

P4Ne -z 0f L Table 1-1 Instrument Information INSTRUMENT PORTABLE SODIUM IODIDE SODIUM IODIDE TYPE GAMMA SCALER- SCALER-SPECTROMETER RATEMETER RATEMETER Probe type 2"x2" NaI(TI) 2"x2" NaI(TI) 2"x2" NaI(TI)

Application FSS Survey SSPA SAM935 Positioning (FC0300-01) Cross-calibration Investigation (non-FSS) (XCO300-01) Probe Model BNC Na(Tl) SSPA-3 SSPA-3 Probe Berkley Nucleonics Eberline Eberline Manufacturer Probe Serial No. 23020 725332 726560 Probe Cal Date 9-15-02 Due 11-13-02 Due 03-19-03 Detector Type 256 Spectroscopic Scaler - Ratemeter Scaler - Ratemeter Channel Analyzer Detector Model BNC SAM-935 E-600 E-600 Detector Serial No. 90133 1641 1648 Det. Manufacturer Berkley Nucleonics Eberline Eberline Detector Cal Date 9-15-02 Due 10-23-02 Due 12-19-02 Operator(s) T. Kendrick W. Burnham J. 111l I A. Schumaker J. Wilson

AK~~~~

                     /--    ~ -T V-- -

Ret 0, Att . . Pote 1 OF 7 Attachment 2 Survey Unit Maps

Maine Yankee I P S I Map ID#: lecommissioning Team lMaine Yankee DecommissioningProjectSrveyForm Fc03G0-1 survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover U Final Status Survey lSurvey Area Name: CTMT Spray Systom g R.* FC- 03 OQ-.1 REV 0,Ae, Page z oF 7 10-cx.- '. y

                                                                                                     -  623,000 E

_ 623,500 E

                                                                                                -       624,000E

_- 624.500 E ONG

                                                                                                     -  6245.00 E Wt _

a_65.D BE Survey Area MN FC0300 0 400 O0 1200 Eii- N

____ TI Maine Yankee Decormmsolng ProKect Survey Map IMap ID# FCO300-02 l a]ctacw1iion El Tunowe a* vchmsxvcy Fu'~Aroa Ncxne CTMT SpraySystem kR<;$ 5-9' _M061

§N"5 ~4.. 8.5' -MO60 7.5/ --M057 ,rg;M058 ,¢ 5' -M053 f 263.5-M050 z 14.5' -M046 2.5' -- M048 2' M045 0.5'-M044 , -0.0'-M043 A'teF rOP s / Q~e ig hteP
Maine Yankee Decomnmisssoning Project Survey Map !Map ID# FC0300-05 &rvewm. El tcctet1zaaion El Tutrov
VndStms
& iMSt PlAtea Name: CTMT Spray System CS-M-92 Embedded Piping Spray Building Side l9fR . FC- o300i-Pk e L oF 7 .80 1 .
9CM270 1 ' dded CS Pigrng (.14'S)e'.) o . lO'-M084 CS-M-92 = 16" Diameter 9-9'-M082
<4§ S ~8.5' -M081 88' -----M080 0^n t ,7' 7.5'- M079 --M078 -6.5'- M077 .. c:.5 - 6' -M076 '5.5' - M075 5'- M0- 074 i___: S;--4-5' - M073 lll@5_- _Eig--4' - M072 Z c ,3.5' -M071 ^ _EE~~3' -M070 <=:5i- 2.5'1 M069
_ER M068 1.5' - M067 N_Pr 1' -M066 Aio e: Pos- de5Rlth Pvkpa~ef _.0.5'I _I 1065 0 L4 ly 0/ 01-0-0-3 0.0'-M064 4q - e ,- 31 e--p IQmy
CTMT Spray System Crossover Piping M116 94I~ 15.5' 16.5'
\m 17.5' 6.5' 6.0' 0~ *r7 5'
t5' ;7Z -O ll: M12 -22.C 51 TO*-M087 0.5'-?AM1 eIV3 IC,
;:::D
() 1--
'. _r, s r-,,,
M1 -22.J Fit N w Mill _ 23.0' I 13' lz
,Q)
N-1 I Crossover = 16" Diameter n COPY
P VOC - 0t. -D Re Y , Atd 3 pq7e -1OF-Attachment 3 Investigation Table [not used]
A N 4t: -C -LuLuW- L q.iI of 2 Attachment 4 Statistical Data
RQe/Q A&t+4 p ot5e 7 OF -a BEST AVAILABLE COP Y}}

RA-04-035, License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land

Contents

Text

References:

Subject:

1.0 DESCRIPTION

3.0 BACKGROUND

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

9.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

RA-04-035, License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land

Text

References:

Subject:

1.0 DESCRIPTION

3.0 BACKGROUND

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

9.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search