RA-04-052, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 1A
| ML041350397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 05/06/2004 |
| From: | Williamson T Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME |
| References | |
| +sisprbs20060109, -RFPFR, FOIA/PA-2004-0319, MN-04-031, RA-04-052 | |
| Download: ML041350397 (397) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Maine Yankee 321 OLD FERRY RD.
- WISCASSET, ME 04578-4922 May 6, 2004 MN-04-031 RA-04-052 Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement No. I 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 (4) Maine Yankee Letter to the USNRC, MN-04-020, dated March 15, 2004, License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, Proposed Change No. 218
Subject:
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. IA On March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee submitted a request for amendment (Reference No. 4) to the facility operating licensee (Reference No. 1) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and in accordance with the NRC Approved License Termination Plan (LTP) for Maine Yankee (Reference No. 2), to indicate NRC approval of the release of the Non-ISFSI site land from the jurisdiction of the license. In support of that request, Maine Yankee supplied the information required in LTP section 1.4.2 and 5.9.3. While the land area associated with the license amendment request included the entire non-ISFSI portion of site land, the license amendment request contained only a portion of the required dismantlement and survey information. According to the approach outlined in the license amendment request, the dismantlement and survey information for the remaining land and associated structures subject to the license amendment release request would be submitted to the NRC in supplemental phases as these activities are completed. Maine Yankee is hereby submitting one of the supplemental phases of dismantlement and survey information. Attachment I - Final Status Survey Final Report No. IA]: provides the dismantlement and summary survey information for the survey units covered in this supplemental submittal. Reference 4 established the proposed schedule of supplemental submittals. As discussed in Reference 4 (Section 4.1.2), adjustments might be made to the submittal schedule based on dismantlement, remediation and survey progress, and to facilitate NRC review. As such, this additional "Submittal IA" is provided that contains a number of final status survey release records originally scheduled for Submittals 2 and 3 as outlined in Reference 4.
'po
IN-UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attention: Document Control Desk Page 2 of 2 1 provides a copy of the final status survey release records for each survey unit covered in this submittal. Maine Yankee requests review and acceptance of this dismantlement and survey information by September 2004 in order to complete the final phases of decommissioning by March 23, 2005 as discussed with the NRC at the March 2004 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, 'Xa aT Eo L. V7 Thomas L. Williamson Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs Attachments
- 1. Final Status Survey Final Report No. IA II. 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. M. Roberts, NRC Region I Mr. R. Shadis, Friends of the Coast
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I, Final Status Survey.Summary Report No. 1A
1.0 DESCRIPTION
1.0----------DESCRIPTION------------------------ 3 2.0 PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION 3
3.0 BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 4.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ------------------------------ 4 4.1 Physical Description of Land to beReleased ------------------------------------------- 4 4.1.1 Survey Unit Information Included in this Submittal ---------------------------- 4 4.1.2 Survey Unit Information Provided in Subsequent Submittals ------------------- 7 4.2 Dismantlement Activity ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 I .2.
4.2.1 FB-1200 Administrative Building --------------------------------------------------- 9 4.2.2 FB-1300 NVART Building ----.------------------------------------------------------- 9 4.2.3 FB-1400 Information Center --------------------------------------------------------- 9 4.2.4 FB-1 900 Bailey House ------------------------------------------------------------- 10 4.2.5 FB-2500 Relay House ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10 4.2.6 FR-0210 Land Between CWPH and TB -------------------------------------------- 10 4.2.7 FR-0810 Collection Center ----------------------------------------------------------- 10 4.2.8 FR-1800 Bailey Land & FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures- II
5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
-- -------------------------- 7-------- 12 5.1 Potential for Cross-contamination from Subsequent Activities ---------------------- 12 5.1.1 FB-1200 Administrative Building -------------------------------------------- 12 5.1.2 FB-1300 WVART Building ------------ ----------- --- --- --- ---- --- --- -- . 12 5.1.3 FB-1400 Information Center --------- 12 5.1.4 FB-1900 Bailey House ---------------- 13 5.1.5 FB-2500 Relay House ----------------- I----------------------------------------------- 13 5.1.6 FR-0210 Land Between CWPH and 1 ------------------------------------------- 13 5.1.7 FR-0810 Collection Center ----------- ----------------------------------------------- 13 5.1.8 FR-1800 Bailey Land ----------------- 13 5.1.9 FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous NT IIII'T I ric ---------------------------------- 14 5.2 Impact on the Exclusion Area for Remaining Site Lands --------------------------- 14 Page I.of 26
II Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA 5.3 Impact on License Programs for Remaining Site Lands ----------------------------- 14 5.4 Potential Combined Dose Effects ------------------------------------------------------- 14 6.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT ------------------------------------------------------ 15 6.1 Overview of the Results ------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 6.2 Discussion of Changes to FSS Program ------------------------------------------------- 16 6.2.1 Soil Derived Concentration Guideline Limit -------------------------------------- 16 6.2.2 Open Land Area Scan Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) ----------- 18 6.2.3 Open Land Area Scan Setpoint and Background Determination --------------- 19 6.3 Final Status Survey Methodology -------------------------------------------------------- 21 6.4 Final Status Survey Results --------------------------------------------------------------- 22 6.5 Survey Unit Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 7.0 REGULATORY SAFETY ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------- 24 7.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration --------------------------------------------------- 24 7.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria ------------------------------------------ 24
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
(IO CFR 51.22) ------------------------------- 24
9.0 REFERENCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Page 2 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status SurveySummary Report No. 1A 1.0 Description This letter is submitted as a supplement to Proposed Change No. 218 (Reference 9.25), which requests an amendment to the Operating License No. DPR-36 for Maine Yankee, specifically License Condition 2.B(9), addressing release of lands from the jurisdiction of the Facility Operating License. Maine Yankee requested 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 (15 Survey Units) to be released from License No. DPR-36. Maine Yankee is providing this information earlier than anticipated in Reference 9.25 to facilitate timely NRC review and acceptance. 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. Reference 9.25 provided the information required by section 1.4 of Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan (LTP). LTP section 1.4 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. This submittal contains the dismantlement, FSS results and recontamination prevention and control information required by LTP section 1.4 specific to the survey~units covered in this submittal. The information contained in this submittal, together with the information provided in Reference 9.25 and subsequent supplemental phases is sufficient for the NRC to make a determination equivalent to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(l 1) regarding ihe lands to be released frornthe 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., 2.0 Proposed License Condition The proposed wording for the license condition is provided in Reference 9.25 and is not affected by this supplement. Page 3 of 26 . .
II Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA 3.0 Background Reference 9.25 transmitted an application to amend Maine Yankee's License No. DPR-36 to release the remaining non-ISFSI land from the jurisdiction of the license. The process for releasing land from Maine Yankee's license is established in section 1.4 of the License Termination Plan. This LTP section defines the information that will be provided to support release of land from Maine Yankee's license. This information, includes (1) 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 re-contamination 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. Items (1), (5), (6), (7), and (8) are applicable to the License Amendment Request and the release of the entire remaining non-ISFSI land. Items (2), (3) and (4) are specific to each survey unit/area. This information is contained in this submittal for the fifteen (15) survey units covered by this submittal. 4.0 Site Information and Physical Description 4.1 Physical Description of Land to be Released The land to be released is described in Reference 9.25 and is unchanged by this submittal. 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 15 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 other applicable survey units for the plant are provided in Reference 9.25 or 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 (Reference 9.25). This submittal addresses dismantlement and FSS information for survey units associated with the Administrative Building (FB-1200), WART Building (FB-1300), Information Center (FB-1400), Bailey House (FB-1900), Relay House (FB-2500), Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building, (FR-02 10), Collection Site (FR-0810), Bailey House Land (FR-I 800), and FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures. Page 4 of 26
Release of Non-JSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT 1 Final Status Survey.Sumnmary Report No. 1A Table I provides a description of the survey units addressed in this submittal. Table 1 - Survey Unit Description Survey Survey Class General Description of Survey Unit Area Unit FB-1200 1 3 Administrative Building - The surface soil footprint' of the former Administrative Building located outside of the Restricted Area (RA) 3 . The unit is approximately 785 m2 . FB-1300 1 3 WART Building - The surface soil footprints of the former WART Building located inside the industrial area of the site, near the RA. The unit is approximately 245 rn . FB-1400 1 3 Information Center - The surface soil footprint' of the former Information Center located outside the industrial area of the site. The unit is approximately 672 mI. FB-1900- 1 3 Bailey House - The surface soil footprint 4 of the former Bailey House located outside the industrial area of the site. It served as the Environmental Services Building, which before demolition was a two-story farmhouse. The unit is approximately 117 m2 . FB-2500 1 3 Relay House - The interior of the Relay House, a one-story cinderblock standing building used to support the operation of the 345 kV switchyard. The unit is approximately 390 rn2 . FB-2500 2 3 Relay House - The exterior wall surfaces of the Relay House, a one-story cinderblock standing building used to support the operation of the 345 kV switchyard. The unit is approximately 190 m . FB-2500 3 3 Relay House - The exterior roof surfaces of the Relay House, a one-story cinderblock standing building used to support the operation of the 345 kV switchyard. The unit is approximately 100.7 m2 . FR-0210 1 3 Land Area Between Circulating'Water Pump House and Turbine Building - The surface soil land area prior to and above the excavation of the CWPH piping. The unit is approximately 2193 m2 (located inside the industrial area but outside the RA). FR-0210 2 3 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building - The surface area exposed after Unit I excavation that is directly underneath and between the removed subsurface CWPH piping which runs between with the Turbine Building and CWPH. The unit is approximately 1408 in2 (located inside the industrial area, but outside the RA). 2 The surface soil footprint consisted of the sub-slab soil beneath the foundation slab which was removed. 3 The restricted area (RA) boundary will vary to support operational and radiological control of demolition activities. The survey of this unit was designed and performed prior to subequent changes in the RA boundary that may have encompassed the subject area. This note applies to all survey units described in this report as "outside the RA." For additional discussion, see Section 6.2.1. 4 The surface soil footprint consisted of the grade level surface of the filled basement following above grade building demolition Page 5 of 26
II Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHIMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A FR-02 10 3 3 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building - the area of excavation for the two Service Water pipes running between the CWPH and the Turbine Building. The unit is approximately 278 m2 (located inside the industrial area but outside _ _the __ RA). FR-08 10 1 3 Collection Site - The surface soil footprint2 of the former Collection Site, a one-story structure used for security, NRC and Fitness-For-Duty collection offices. The unit is approximately 83.6 m2 and is __ located outside the industrial area. FR- 1800 1 3 Bailey Land - The land area, outside of the industrial area, is bounded by Old Ferry Road and the west access road to Bailey Point on the North, the railroad tracks on the West, the northwesterly shoreline of the Back River on the East, and the Admin Parking lot on the southern limit of Parking Lot B. The ISFSI was excluded from _ the survey unit. The unit is approximately 133,000 in2 . FR-1800 2 3 Bailey Land - The land area, outside the industrial area, is bounded by Old Ferry Road on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, the shoreline (centerline of Young's Brook to the apparent high water mark of the southeasterly shore of Bailey Cove) to the west, and the _ fire pond on the south. The unit is approximately 234,000 m2 FR- 1800 3 1 Bailey Land - The area investigated as a result of measurements taken in Bailey Land Survey Unit No. 1, north of the ISFSI site, on the west side of the east access road. The unit is approximately 100 _ m. 2 FR-I 810 T 3 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures - The soil footprints of the Meteorological Tower Area, the 345 kV Tower Base, and the Well __ _Water House. The unit is approximately 43.4 n2 . The areas and locations of these survey units are shown in Figure 1. The lined portions of the site represent the areas for which detailed dismantlement and survey information is being provided in this submittal. The shaded portions of the site represent areas for which this information has been previously submitted. Page 6 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT 1 Final Status Survey. Sumniary Report No. IA 4.1.2 Survey Unit Information Being Provided in Subsequent Submittals As discussed in Reference 9.25, 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 the list of the remaining survey areas, provided in Reference 9.25. This list has been annotated to indicate the survey areas that are included in this submittal. The schedule and identity of survey areas included in each submittal were developed. based on a review of the demolition and FSS schedule, as well as in consideration of NRC review requirements. The demolition schedule, including the cleanup of demolition debris to permnit access.for FSS, is dynamic and subject to continued refinement in logic, durations, and completion dates. It is Maine Yankee's intent to maintain the basic submittal milestone schedule provided below. However, as a result of changes in the demolition schedule, it is likely that additional, interim submittals will be filed with the NRC with the goal of providing release records as soon as possible to the NRC to support the agency's review, as well as Maine Yankee's goals regarding the release of site lands. 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- 1100 Circulating Water Pump House FB 400 n.a- n-eter (Submitted in FSS Final Report'No. IA) FB1900-BAiey-Heuse-Feetprint (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. I A) FB 2500 3151A' Relay -Huse (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) FB-3000 Sewage Treatment Plant FD-0500 Circulating Water Piping FR02 10 Giret}ainga Ser-vie Water nepe (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) FR-0400 Forebay FR-80-ileyLand (i ud Ball Fiel FR 0700 CnstnDebris bandfifl nd FR- I00 eintenanee Yard) k(Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) FR 48-l0 Ekailey=and Miseellancous Structures (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) Third Submittal Scheduled for 8/2/04 FA-1300 Containment Equipment Hatch Building Footprint FA- 1400 Personnel Hatch Footprint.;,'; FA- 1500 Ste'am'& 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 Page,7 of 26
II Release of Non-lSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA FB 0810 Collection SiteFootprint (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) FB 1200 Administrativ-Building-Feotprint (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) F-B 1300 W ART Building-Foetprint (Submitted in FSS Final Report No. IA) FB-2000 Bailey Barn FB-2600 Warehouse 5 FD-0600 Service Water Piping FR-OI I0 Restricted Area Alleyway FR-0 140 X 14 & X 16 Footprints FR-0220 Spare Transformer Excavation Pit (Xl S) FR-0230 X IA & X I B Transformer FR-0900 Balance of Plant Areas (including FR-0800 Administrative and Parking Area) FR-0910 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 I I Soil Remediation Areas FR-0500 Bailey Point Fifth Submittal Scheduled for 3/9/05 FR-OI 00 RCA Yard West (including FA-l 800 Auxiliary Feed Pump Room, FR-0300 Roof and Yard Drains and FR-2300 SFPI Substation Slab Area) FR-0200 Yard East (including FR-I I 00 Roof and Yard Drains) FR-0800 Administration and Parking Areas FR-2900 Railroad Tracks & Roadways Page 8 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status SurveySummary Report No. 1A 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 switchyard and associated relay house. The LTP indicated that there was a possibility that other structures, such as the Warehouses and Staff Building, may 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 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. This section reviews the activities that have been performed for each survey area addressed above. 4.2.1. FB-1200 Administrative Building LTP Section 3.2.4 and Table 3-3 indicated that the Administrative Building would be demolished to 3 ft below grade. All demolition activities associated with the Administrative Building have been completed. Footings and foundation remnants below the level corresponding to three feet below grade were left when appropriate. Surveys were performed on the foundation footprint prior to backfill. 4.2.2 FB-1300WARTBuilding LTP Section 3.3.3, Table 3-3 indicated that the WART Building would be completely demolished. All demolition activities associated with the WART Building have been completed. 4.2.3 FB-1400 Information Center,,-; LTP Section 3.2.4 indicated that the Information Center might be left standing following final status survey. The Information Center
.1.
has been demolished and removed in accordance with LTP Table 3-3. Footings and foundation remnants below the level. corresponding to three feet below grade were left when appropriate. While surveys were performed on the graded foundation footprint, it should be noted that since this structures was a Class 3 structures and was located outside of the Industrial Area, no survey was required on the pre-backfill excavated surfaces. Page 9of 26 .
I I Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMAIENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA 4.2.4 FB-1900 Bailey House LTP Section Section 3.2.4, the Bailey House was to be removed demolished down to three feet below grade level. All demolition activities associated with this structure have been completed. Since the Bailey house was classified as a Class 3 structure and was located outside of the Industrial Area, no survey was required of the pre-backfilled excavated surfaces. Accordingly, upon demolition and removal of the structure, additional clean excavated soil from onsite was used to fill in the basement hole prior to the final status survey. Since it was not possible to combine the survey of the backfilled footprint with the survey of the surrounding area, FR-I 800 Bailey Land, because it had already been performed, the final status survey was performed solely on the backfilled footprint of the structure. 4.2.5 FB-2500 Relay House The relay house contains electrical relay equipment that supports the operation of the 345kV switchyard. Although the building is located on the Maine Yankee Plant site, Central Maine Power Co. owns and controls access to the building, making it very unlikely that radioactive material was ever used or stored in the structure. As indicated in LTP Section 6.9.1, this building will remain standing and will not be demolished as part of decommissioning activities. Therefore, this building was surveyed as a standing building. 4.2.6 FR-0210 Land Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building LTP Section 3.2.4 indicates that the Circulating Water pipes and portions of the Service Water pipes between the Circulating Water Pump House and the Turbine Building will be removed. All demolition activities associated with this piping removal have been completed. Surveys were performed prior to excavation and removal of the piping and in the excavated cavity surfaces following pipe removal. The excavation was then backfilled and will be combined with the surrounding area. 4.2.7 FR-0810 Collection Center LTP Section 3.2.4 and Table 3-3 indicated that the Collection Center would be demolished to 3 ft below grade. All demolition activities associated with this structure have been completed. Footings and foundation remnants below the level corresponding to three feet below grade were left when appropriate. While surveys were performed on the foundation footprint, it should be noted that since this structures was a Class 3 structure and was located outside of the Industrial Area, no survey was required on the pre-backfill excavated surfaces. Page 10 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMIENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 4.2.8 FR-1800 Bailey Land and FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures As described in section 3.2.4 of the LTP, the Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures were to be removed along with concrete footings and foundations down to three feet below grade level. The Meteorological Tower, .345 kV Tower Base and Well Water House have all been demolished and removed. Footings and foundation remnants below the level corresponding to three feet below grade were left when appropriate. All demolition activities associated with these structures have been completed. While surveys were. performed on the foundation footprints, it should be noted that since these structures were Class 3 structures and were located outside of the Industrial Area, no survey was required on the pre-backfill excavated surfaces. The surveys of the foundation footprints were conducted because the surveys of the surrounding areas had already been performed by the time the structure was demolished and therefore, the backfilled footprint could not be combined with the surrounding area.
.. I..
t. , '. -. I . i Jo . 1
'. l. i ' I,: I Page I I of 26
_I Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA 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 were summarized in Reference 9.25. 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 FB-1200 Administrative Building The Administrative Building was determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. Following the completion of FSS in the excavated building structure footprint, Maine Yankee backfilled the footprint to grade level but did not institute any additional access controls. This area will be combined with the surrounding land area, FR-0200, which wvill be resurveyed at the completion of physical decommissioning activities. 5.1.2 FB-1 300 WART Building The NVART Building was determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. Following the completion of FSS in the excavated building structure footprint, Maine Yankee backfilled the footprint to grade level but did not institute any additional access controls. This area wvill be combined with the surrounding land area, FR-0200, which will be resurveyed at the completion of physical decommissioning activities. 5.1.3 FB-1400 Information Center The Information Center was determined to be Class 3 and did not require reinediation. Following the completion of FSS in the building structure footprint, Maine Yankee left existing FSS postings in place but did not institute any additional access controls. Routine contamination control surveys will not be required for this building structure footprint since it is outside of the Restricted Area (RA), is not normally occupied and is unlikely to be impacted by decommissioning activities. Page 12 of 26
Release of Non-1SFSI Sitc Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 5.1.4 FB-1900 BaileyHouse The Bailey House was determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. Following the completion of FSS in the building structure footprint, Maine Yankee left existing FSS postings in place but did not institute any additional access controls. Routine contamination control surveys will not be required for this building structure footprint since it is outside of the RA, is not normally occupied and is unlikely to be impacted by decommissioning activities. 5.1.5 FB-2500 Relay House The Relay House is used by Central Maine Power Co. to support the operation of the 345 kV switchyard. The location of the relay house is generally removed from the majority of decommissioning and remediation activities. ilt is unlikely that this building would be contaminated by decommissioning or remediation activities. 5.1.6 FR-0210 Land Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building The soil area was determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. -Following the completion of FSS in the excavation footprint, Maine Yankee did not institute any additional controls. This footprint is inside the Industrial Area but outside of the Restricted Area. The footprint is in an area of heavy traffic volume for physical decommissioning activities and will be combined with the surrounding land area, FR-0200, which will be resurveyed at the completion of physical decommissioning activities. .5.1.7 FR-0810 Collection Center The Collection Center was determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. Following the completion of FSS in the building structure footprint, Maine Yankee did not institute any additional access controls. This footprint is outside the Industrial Area but is also in area of heavy traffic volume for the handling and transfer of non-radioactive solid waste, eg. concrete rubble, for offsite disposal. The footprint will be combined with FR-2900, Roads and Railroad Tracks, and wvill be resurveyed at the completion of physical decommissioning activities. 5.1.8 FR-1800 Bailey Land Areas Since, the Bailey land area was classified as Class 3, it required essentially no remediation except for one elevated area; thus, there was little or no potential for cross-contamination concerns. A portion of the land surrounding the elevated area was reclassified as Class I and resurveyed as a separate survey unit. Following the completion of FSS in this land area, Maine Yankee left existing FSS postings in place but did not institute any additional access controls. Routine contamination control surveys Page 13 of 26
I__L Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA will not be required for this land area since it is outside of the RA, is not normally occupied and is unlikely to be impacted by decommissioning activities. 5.1.9 FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures The Meteorological Tower, 345kV Tower Base and Well Water House were determined to be Class 3 and did not require remediation. Following the completion of FSS in these structure footprints, Maine Yankee left existing FSS postings in place but did not institute any additional access controls. Routine contamination control surveys will not be required for these structure footprints since they are outside of the RA, are not normally occupied and are unlikely to be impacted by decommissioning activities. 5.2 Impact on the Exclusion Area for Remaining Site Lands The impact on the exclusion area for remaining site lands is evaluated in Reference 9.25. This evaluation is not affected by this submittal. 5.3 Impact on License Programs for Remaining Site Lands The impact on the license programs for remaining site lands is evaluated in Reference 9.25. This evaluation is not affected by this submittal. 5.4 Potential Combined Dose Effects from Land Releases The potential combined dose effects from land releases are evaluated in Reference 9.25 These evaluations are not affected by this submittal. Page 14 of26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHIMENT I Final Status Survey Summary, Report No. 1A 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. The contents include the items described in NUREG 1757, Vol. 2, Section 4.5 (Reference 9.21). The surveyjunit 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 11 of this submittal. - 6.1 ..Overview of Results The following survey units are included in this report: FB-1200-SU-1 Administrative Building Footprint, FB-1300-SU-2,, WART Building Footprint FB- 1400-SU- 1 Information Center Footprint FB-1900-SU-1 Bailey House Footprint FB-2500-SU-I Relay House -Interior FB-2500-SU-2 Relay House - Exterior Walls FB-2500-SU-3 Relay House - Roof FR-0210-SU-l Land Area Betveen Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building -Surface Soil Prior to Excavation
,FR-021 0-SU-2 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building - Circulating Water Pipe Excavation FR-021 0-SU-3 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building7 Service Water Pipe Excavation FR-0810-SU- I Collection Site Foundation Footprint FR- 1800-SU-1 Bailey Land - East FR-1800-,SU-2 Bailey Land - West FR-I 800-SU-3 Bailey Land - Reclassified Follow-up Area
, FR-1810-SU-1 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures 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 cvaluations; if applicable and a simplified general retrospective dose estimate; changes in initialsurvey unit assumptions on extent of residual activity, an evaluation of LTPchanges 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 15 of 26
- II Release of Non-1SFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 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 9.22) 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 Soil Derived Concentration Guideline Limit On January 13, 2000, Maine Yankee submitted to the NRC the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan. This submittal specified the surrogate Cs-l 37 soil DCGL as 10.38 pCi/g for 25 mrem. Since this submittal included a commitment to achieve levels of cleanup beyond regulatory limits to 10 mrem/yr all pathways and 4 mremlyr for drinking water pathways, the actual surrogate Cs- 137 soil DCGL would have been limited to 4.15 pCi/g. The submittal included a commitment to unitize the dose between the soil and concrete for any area within 100 m of contaminated basements, although the unity rule was not solved and the fractional soil DCGL for such areas was not established. Following extensive interaction with state and local stakeholders and in response to NRC requests for information, Maine Yankee submitted Revision I of the LTP to the NRC on June 1, 2001. In this revision, the nuclide fraction for soil was revised, and the unity rule for areas within the restricted area (RA) was solved to establish a fractional, Cs-137 equivalent soil DCGL at 3.0 pCi/g. The area for which the material dose contributions from soil, concrete, and etc. are unitized was revised to simply refer to the RA, since the size of the RA (10,000 m2) was consistent with that assumed in the dose model. Although the surrogate Cs-137 soil DCGL for the area outside of the RA was not calculated or explicitly provided in Rev. 1, the methodology for its calculation was provided and, when followed, produced a value of 4.2 pCi/g. The soil DCGL values were unaffected by LTP Revision 2 submitted on August 13, 2001, though the 4.2 pCi/g value was now explicitly provided. Page 16 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA On October 15,2002, Maine Yankee submitted Revision 3 of the LTP to respond to additional NRC requests for information and to implement the results of ASLB settlement agreement activities. This submittal also included the results of basement fill tests to determine site-specific partition factors (Kd) for the basement fill dose model. This resulted in a lower dose contribution from potentially contaminated materials "associated with the basements, e.g. contaminated concrete. Accordingly, the fractional, surrogate Cs-137 soil DCGL was increased to 3.2 pCi/g for areas within the RA in order to be equivalent to the open land area scan MDC, described below. The soil DCGL values for areas outside the RA were unaffected by this change. On February 28, 2003, NRC issued Amendment No. 168 to Maine Yankee's Facility Operating License approving the Maine Yankee License Termination Plan. On September 11,2003, Maine Yankee submitted to the NRC a license amendment request to supplement the LTP with a change to the activated material dose model and an increase in the associated activated material DCGL's (inventory). NRC approved this request in License Amendment No. 170 dated February 18, 2004 (Reference No. 9.18). In this submittal, Maine Yankee referred to a reduction in the surface soil DCGL to be implemented under 10 CFR 50.59. This reduction was meant to compensate for the corresponding increase in the activated material inventory without the need for the dose model modification. This compensation applied to areas where the materials' dose contributions from soil, concrete, etc are unitized, i.e., within the RA. The fractional, Cs-137 equivalent soil DCGL for areas within the RA was lowered to 2.39 pCi/g. The soil DCGL values for areas outside the RA were unaffected by this change. The land area'final status surveys performed and included'in this report to support the release 'of remaining non-ISFSI site lands are associated with areas outside of the RA, with the exception of the NVART building which was just on the borderline of the RA. Some of these surveys were conducted under LTP Rev. 0 framework. However, the, impact of the changes to the soil DCGL'on these surveys is limited to the increase in the surrogate Cs-137 soil DCGL for areas outside the RA from 4.15 pCi/g in Revision 0 to 4.2 pCi/g in subsequent revisions. This impact does not and cannot adversely affect the FSS conclusions for any of these survey units because the DCGL is increased. The NVART building release record reflects'the use of the fractional, Cs-137 equivalent soil DCGL of 2.39 pCi/g. As discussed earlier in' this sectioni, ihe area used for material dose contributions for dose modeling'purposes was the RA or 10,000 m., as it was defined at the time when the LTP was being developed. 'The actual RA boundaries will vary, as necessary, to provide appropriate radiological and operation controls during demolition activities. Some survey areas described in this report as "outside the RA". ma'y be included in subsequent re-definitions (expansions) 'of RA boundaries. 'However, the actual surveys were designed and performed prior to any redefinition of the RA boundary that might include the area. Changes in RA boundary, therefore, have no impact on the FSS results. Page 17 of 26
A-1L-Release of Non-1SFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 6.2.2 Open Land Area Scan Minimum Detectable Concentration (NIDC) The original version of the LTP submitted January 13, 2000 calculated the open land area scan MDC using the methods described in MARSSIM (Reference 9.24). This produced a MDC value of 5 pCi/g for Cs-137. However, during subsequent internal review, Maine Yankee evaluated the applicability of the MARSSIM method, which relies on a human response to an audible increase in count rate, to the intended use of scan technology, which relies on an alarm setpoint. In LTP Rev. I submitted June 1, 2001, Maine Yankee referred to the use of a "smart meter" for scanning open land areas, which relies on an alarm set point rather than an audible response. Maine Yankee committed to calculate the probability of alarm to ensure a Type I error rate less than 0.05 and to provide a technical basis document for determining the MDC. In LTP Rev. 2 submitted August 13, 2001, Maine Yankee provided the results of the alarm probability calculation in the fonrin of a table that presented the scan MDC as a function of the scan area. From this table, Maine Yankee determined the scan MDC to be 3.0 pCi/g Cs-137, which was equal, at that time, to the fractional, surrogate Cs-137 DCGL inside the RA. In LTP Rev. 3 submitted October 15, 2002, Maine Yankee provided additional details and assumptions included in the probability calculation, specified administrative controls associated with the scan technique and monitoring background radiation levels and incorporated State of Maine comments with regard to the two step alarm assessment method. This resulted in a scan MDC of 3.2 pCi/g Cs-137, which was equal, at that time to the fractional, surrogate Cs-137 DCGL inside the RA, which was increased as described above. In order to incorporate NRC comments on Maine Yankee's method for calculating the open land area scan MDC and facilitate NRC approval of the LTP, Maine Yankee submitted an addendum to LTP Rev. 3 on November 26, 2002 (Reference No. 9.14). Two additional factors were included in the MDC determination. The MDC was increased for purposes of survey design by a factor to account for the possible variation in background of up to 1000 counts per minute (CPM.) The MDC was multiplied by a factor similar to the surveyor efficiency to account for variations in detector speed and distance. This resulted in an open land area scan MDC of 5.9 pCi/g Cs-137. While this NlDC is less than the DCGLENIC, it is greater than the open land area DCGL both within and outside of the RA. Therefore, Class I survey units need to incorporate an EMC sample size adjustment/verification. Page 18 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHINIENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A The land area final status surveys performed and included in this first report to support the release of remaining non-ISFSI site lands include one Class I survey unit (FR-I 800-SU3) located in an area outside of the RA. While the FSS of this survey unit was conducted under the LTP Rev. 0 framework, the survey unit size was sufficiently small such that the resulting sample density satisfied the EMC sample size adjustment/verification and did not affect the FSS conclusion. 6.2.3 Open Land Area Scan Setpoint and Background Determination Many of the open land area surveys included in this submittal were designed and/or conducted in late 2000 and 2001. Evaluations and data assessments were subsequently. performed. For these surveys, the design was accomplished, in general under the original LTP (Revision 0). Some elements of LTP Revision 1 (June 2001) were also incorporated (such as the scan MDC of 3.0 pCi/g). During 2001 (at the same time the scans were being conducted), there were on-going discussions internal to the project and with regulators regarding measurements of background, setting of the investigation level, and the use of the E600 data logger. In addition,.background levels were found to fluctuate significantly within some of the survey units. , In preparing and reviewing the survey packages for finalizing many of the Release Records, the reconciliation5 evaluation required additional review of land area survey scan data. The principal differences between the scan practices used and the current setpoint determination methodology, are summarized as follows: I. The alarm setpoint for land areas is now set at the established scaler background plus 3 sigma. The method for establishing the alarm setpoint varied during this time period, largely to address and accommodate variations noted in local background. Some formulations of the alarm setpoint resulted in higher investigations levels than would be set by the current methodology.
- 2. The background is currently verified on each scan grid prior to performing the scan for that grid. By current procedures, if the local background varies by more than + 1000 cpm from the background used to establish the alarm setpoint, FSS management is to be contacted for possible additional background evaluation and alarm setpoint adjustment. Prior to establishing this practice, the local background measurements were taken on a daily basis and applied to several scan grids.2
- 3. The land area scan grid size is currently limited to 10 m2. The scan grid sizes, for certain Chis 3 areas, were sometimes as great as l00 m2 to 200 m. This resulted A number of Final Status Surveys were designed and conducted prior to the finalization and NRC approval of the LTP. The "reconciliation" step in the preparation and review of a release record is the procedural requirement to identify and evaluate the impact to survey results of differences between the approved LIT and the criteria used at the time the survey was designed and implemented.
Page 19 of 26
II Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA in scan count times over 30 to 60 minutes. However, according to Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC-009-01, an alarm setpoint of 3 sigma above the mean background should result in less than a 1% chance of a false alarm in 43 minutes of scan time which is below the target Type 2 error rate DQO of 5%. Calculation EC-009-01 "Instrument Selection and MDC Calculation" (Reference 9.26) determined the open land scan MDC for the E-600 instrument, as wvell as other instruments. This EC was reviewed by the NRC and formed part of the basis for NRC's approval of the LTP. The EC includes the documentation of a a retrospective review of the MDCs for the Bailey Land scans against an alarm setpoint which was set at the background plus 3.6 sigma. The retrospective review of Bailey Land scan data (FR-1800) found the resulting scan MDC to be sufficiently below the DCGLEMC for the design basis elevated area (2m2 )6 . As part of the reconciliation process, the scan data review for the Bailey Land areas (FR-1800, Survey Units I and 2) was the most detailed and rigorous. These survey areas were approached in this manner due to their relatively large size, the significant number of scan grids, the wide variations in the background, and due to their role in the evaluation and resolution of E600 related issues. The basic process consisted of establishing an appropriate "revised" alarm setpoint based on the current scan methodolgy and comparing that level with the E600 recorded peak scan values for each scan grid. If this comparison concluded that an additional alarm would have been noted (had the "revised" alarm setpoint been used in the scan), this scan location was subjected to additional review. Most of these so-called "non-alarm" conditions were dispositioned without additional action, as explained in the subject release records. In some cases the locations were known to be subject to additional scanning as part of the final survey of roadway and railroad track areas following the conclusion of major demolition activities (FR-2900). In a some cases, the scan data review concluded that additional investigation samples should be taken. These samples were taken and indicated no plant-derived activity above background. This final scan data review, taken in concert with exhaustive investigation work already performed as part of the original FSS scans concluded that the overall scan results were largely indicative of background values in a large Class 3 land area. A similar scan data review, using the above described FR-I 800 effort as a basic template, was conducted, as appropriate, for each of the other survey units that had been designed and performed in the same time period during which scanning methodology related to the E600 was being evaluated and refined. The results of the scan data reviews are described in each of the subject release records and, in all cases, concluded that the FSS results and conclusions remained valid. See the release records for additional detail and discussion. 6 See LTP Section 5.5.2.d. Page 20 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Surney Summary Report No. 1A 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 Lowver Boundary of the Gray Region (LBGR) used for determining the number of static measurement taken, the percent scan coverage, the design DCGLEIMC 7 , and the number of measurement required. Table 2 - Survey nit Design Parameters Survey Class SurveyUnit Standard LBGR Design Units No. % 2 Unit Size (m ) Deviation DCGLENIC . Meas. Scan FB-1200 Administrative Building Footprint I 1 3 l 785 l 0.17 1.89 NA pCi/g 14 --11 FB-1300 WART Building Footprint 1 r 3 245 0.17 2.69 NA pCi/g 14 I FB-1400 Information Center I I3 l 672 0.17 3.69 NA pCiug .14 11 FB-1900 Bailey House Footprint I 3 . 117 l 0.17 l.3.69 NA pCi/g 14 12' FB-2500 Relay Ilouse Note, & 2-1 3 390____ 257 .7,783 NA dpf/100cm 14 100 2 3 - .190. 257 .7,783 NA dpm/100cm2 14 100 3 3 . 100.7 . 257 *7,783 NA dpm/l OOcm 14 100 FR-0210 Land Area Betiween Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Buildingg 1 3 2193 0.17 3.59 NA pCi/g 14 10 2 3 1408 0.17 .3.69 NA pCi/g 14 10 3 3 278 0.17 3.69 NA pCi/g 114 -20 FR-1800 Bailey Land -___ _ 1 3 133,000 0.8 2.08 NA pCi/g 15 10 2 3 234,000 0.8 2.08 NA pCi/g 15 10 3 100 0.2 3.5 12 pCi/g 14 100 FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures ., I 3 l 43.4 . 0.21 l- 2.37 NA Ci/g 14 37 Note l: LBGR and Sigma retrospectively calculated. Note 2: 100% of the safely accessible area was surveyed Note 3: Scan and direct measurement were limited to accessible floor areas due to live high voltage electrical components. 7 DCGLEhic: Derived Concentration Guideline Limit for the Elevated Measurement Comparison Page,21 of 26
___ -I'-_L1 Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTAChiMIENT I Final Status Survey Surmmary Report No. IA 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 11. Table 3 - Survey Unit FSS Results Survey Class No of Static Mlean TMaximum Standard Units No. Scan Unit M1Ieas. Sample Sample Deviation Elevated Taken (see units) (see units) (see units) Areas FB-1200 Administration Building Footprint 1 3 14 FB-1300 WART Building Footprint 7 0.030 0.045 0.008 Ci! Cs-137 0 I 3 14 0.053 0.092 0.015 pCi/g Cs-137 0 FB-1400 Information Center Footprint 1 3 14 0.0526 0.0649 0.0056 pCi! Cs-137 0 FB-1900 Baile House Footprint 3 14 0.046 0.058 0.011 l pCi/g Cs-137 0 FB-2500 Relay House NO_ A 3 14 3,321 3,565 136 dpm/ I00c; 0 2 3 14 2,971 4,176 360 dpm/nIbi 0 3 3 14 0.132 0.148 0.020 pCi/g Cs-137 Note I0 FR-0210 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump 11ouse and Turbine Building I__ 3 14 0.071 0.088 0.011 LpCi/gs-137 0 2 __3 14 0.072 0.102 0.018 pCi/gCs-137 0 3 _ _3 14 0.072 0.110 0.026 pCi/gCs-137 0 FR-0810 Collection Site Foundation Footprint 3 14 0.059 0.068 0.003 lpCi/g Cs- 137 0 FR-1800 Bailey Land l 3- 15 0 .108 0.330 0.078 (pCi/g Cs-] 3 7 1 2 3 15 0.230 0.670 i 0.222 pCi/C§s-137 0 3 1 16 0.118 0.183 j 0.035 p igs-137 0 FR-1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures I 3 14 0.066 0.086 0.009 00Ci/g§-37 Note 1: The standing building surface DCGL (8,554 dpm/l 00cm') was converted to a volumetric DCGL (24.08 pCi/g) by assuming that the aerial activity is homogenously dispersed in I inch of gravel on the roof. Note 2: Material background was not subtracted from the measurement in the Relay House. IPage 22 of 26
Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 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)(l 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 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 groundwvater sources of drinking water in accordance with the approved License Termination Plan. Page 23 of 26
_I Release of Non-1SFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 7.0 Regulatory Safety Analysis 7.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Maine Yankee evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment in Reference 9.25. This evaluation is not affected by this submittal. 7.2 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria Maine Yankee evaluated applicable regulatory requirements and criteria in Reference 9.25. This evaluation is not affected by this submittal. 8.0 Environmental Considerations In Reference 9.25, Maine Yankee demonstrated that it met 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. This conclusion is not affected by this submittal. Page 24 of 26
Release of Non-4SFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. 1A 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-01-034 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 Hjydrogeology Description,Maine Yankee, liscasset,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, reportSite HydrogeologyAddendumr, Maine Yankee, WXiscasset, 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", MN-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 Power Station (TAC No. M8000) - Approval of the MY License Termination Plan Page 25 of 26..,
II Release of Non-lSFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT I Final Status Survey Summary Report No. IA 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.(10), License Ternination", 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- 1505, 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)10 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 9.25 Maine Yankee Letter to the USNRC, MN-04-020, dated March 15, 2004, License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, Proposed Change No. 218 9.26 Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation EC-009-01, "Instrument Selection and MDC Calculation", Rev. 4, January 8, 2003 Page 26 of 26
CM> woos Oc : O cM (ano Cb- <(D
- '<0
_o. (DZ S
II Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands ATTACHMENT 11 Final Status Survey Release Records FB- 1200-SU-1 Administrative Building Footprint FB- 1300-SU- I WART Building Footprint FB- 1400-SU- 1 Informnation Center Footprint FB- 1900-SU- 1 Bailey House Footprint FB-2500-SU- 1 Relay House - Interior FB-2500-SU-2 Relay House - Exterior Walls FB-2500-SU-3 Relay House - Roof FR-02 IO-SU- I Land Between CWPH and TB - Surface Land FR-02 10-SU-2 Land Between CWPH and TB - CWP Excavation FR-02 1O-SU-3 Land Between CWPH and TB - SW Excavation FR-08 10-SU- 1 Collection Site Foundation Footprint FR-I 800-SU-1 Bailey Land - East FR-i 800-SU-2 Bailey Land - West FR- I 800-SU-3 Bailey Land - Reclassified Follow-up Area FR- 18 IO-SU-I Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-1200 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I Prepared By: W/av~ Z ce .
- le.
FSS Engineer: Reviewed By: v Date: Reviewed By: Date: Z-/X4 I I~ Approved By: t- d of *.. Date: FSS, MOP I; ,
II FB-1200 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description FB-1200 is the survey area located in the footprint of the former Administration Building located at coordinates 407655N & 624275E using the Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927, and is shown on map FB 1200-SITE in Attachment I. The entire footprint survey area of approximately 785 m2 was designated as Survey Unit l. The Administration Building was a single story brick and concrete building used for offices, document storage and meetings. The building was located outside of the RA. B. Survey Unit Design Information The area was designated a Class 3 land survey unit per the LTP. The area had no history of surface or airborne contamination. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated and are shown on map FB1200-02 (Attachment 1). A 1% to 10% scan coverage of the area was required.' This was accomplished by scanning fourteen approximately 6.25 m 22areas (equaling 87.5 in2 , which is conservatively greater than 10%). The location of the scan areas is shown on map FBI200-01 (Attachment 1). The survey instruments used and their MDCs are provided in Attachment 2. I TP Rev. 3, rable 5-3 FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 20
Table 1 Survey Unit design Suminaryi FB-1200, Survey Unit I SURVEY UNIT I DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 785 m2 No limit for Class 3 Area Number of Direct 14 Based on an adjusted LBGR Measurements Required of 1.89 pCi/g, sigma2 of 0.17 pCi/g and a relative shift of 3.0. l__ .Type I = Type 11 = 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area' Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area 14 grids sized 2.5m x 2.5m Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A - Class 3 Area. Scan Survey Area 87.5 m2 Class 3 Area 1% -10% Scan Investigation Level 3 sigma of background EC-009-01 (MY) (Reference 1) DCGL 2.4 pCi/g Rev. 3 LTP-, Section 6.7 and Table 6-I1 Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Area C. Survey Results As required, 14 soil sample samples were taken and analyzed. The results are provided in Table 2.? One of the 14 grids scanned (FBI1200-1-S013) resulted in a verified alarmn. The investigation'is discussed in Section D. 2 Basis for sigma from the Yard East survey area R0200, per LiT Table 5-I C. 3LTP, Rev. 3' refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 2) as amended by the MY's addenda of 4 November 2002 (Reference 3). LIT, Rev. 3 was approved by thie NRC in February 2003 (Reference 4). The design DCGL was conservatively chosen. See additional discussion in Section H1. F-B-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 3of 20
_ _lI Table 2 Direct Measurements, FB-1200, Survey Unit 1* Soil Sample # Cs-137 (pCi/g) FB1200-1-S015 <0.028 FB1200-1-S016 <0.031 FB1200-1-S017 <0.026 FB1200-1-S018 <0.024 FB1200-1-S019 <0.026 FB1200-1-S020 <0.026 FB1200-1-S021 <0.045 FB1200-1-S022 <0.044 FB1200-1-S023 <0.042 FB1200-1-S024 <0.025 FB1200-1-S025 <0.024 FB1200-1-S026 <0.024 FB1200-1-S027 <0.024 FB1200-1-S028 <0.028 Average 0.030 Median 0.026 Standard Deviation 0.008 Range 0.024 - 0.045
- Samples were also analyzed for Co-60; all were less than MIDA D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed anl(I Results:
The investigation of scan grid FBI 200-1 -SO 13 consisted of re-scanming the grid in peakhold and taking a soil sample at the highest count rate location. The soil sample was analyzed by gamma spectroscopy and no plant derived fission products were detected above the MDA, which is a small fraction of the DCGL. The results of the investigation measurements are tabulated in Attachment 3. E. Survey Unit Data Assessment: The soil sampling results yielded no positive indications of plant-derived nuclides. All direct measurement results were below the DCGL. An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2 The mean and median activities were less than the DCGL. The representative background for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value5 ). 'When background is subtracted from the mean value of 0.030 pCi/g, the result is a net value of -0. 16 pCi/g, or an equivalent annual dose of 0.0 mremlyear. 5 See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PNMP 6.7.8 (Reference 5) FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, 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 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional samples were required.
- 11. 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 (Reference 2, 3 and 4). Note that a conservative DCGL was chosen for the design of this survey unit: 2.4 pCi/g vs. 4.2 pCi/g. Use of this conservatively lower DCGL does not impact the assessment and conclusion of the final status survey on FB-1200-01.
The only subsequent LTP changes with the potential to impact this survey unit were in the license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan (Reference 6 and 7). Changes represented in this later license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the results or conclusions of the final status survey on FB-1200 Survey Unit 1.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil measurements taken in Survey Unit I wvere less than the soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. One scan grid was investigated, and no evidence ofplant-derived activity above the MDA was found. FB-1200, Survey Unit 1, met the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced release criteria.
J. References I. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01
- 2. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.
- 3. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26,2002.
- 4. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.
- 5. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8
- 6. MY letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September II, 2003, "Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling."
- 7. NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004.
113-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 20
Attachment I Survey Unit Maps FB1-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
LZ61 GVN (auoz ISOM) MSLZ'f9-walsAS aleu!pJooo aeS eu~eiN uo paseq PpJO :GION N999'M0t IL6 PIS UIwPV Jo 01eU!pJoo0 Ise3 qlnoS
-... . I8d-'VMUVA3AUfS OOZ~
3 000 '929 - I 0 Iri a (D
- 3 00S 'SZ9 0
0
. 000e e cr.
1:v 71 t 3000 29 - 0 3 00S. 't-29 _SN (In
*3-a~)
3 000 *¶Z'9 -
~
1-(a 3 000 'C29 - 5.e l3 000 C29 - 0 0 Z 0 uo . ---~~(A 0 .0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 (A 0 0 0 o 0 Ufl 0 0 0
- z. z z 77 -- 2. - Z
, - C j L
L L-Decommissioning Te m Team-____
- AiFe YankeeDeconzmissiong ProjectSurvey Form Revised: 10-29-03 Survey Type: El Charactenzation O Tumover MlFinal Status Survey I Survey Area Name: Admin Building Admin Building Footprint Final Status Survey Survey Scans 001-014 77 77
__L I L I 013 014 8.0m I 77 77 77 77 _ L1 008 L I L I 010 L I LI X 009 011 012 8.0m 1 --- 2 2-5rn i
;I TYP.
_I _ L 003 5mn - t L 004 l LI0 005 LI 006 LI-007 8.,- rYP. 77 LI I _ L 1001 I I ()02 l - I 2.E
- 2. ~ 6.0m Origin, SE Comer 407,655N / 624,275E FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Total Area = 785 sq-m Page 8 of 20
Decmmisinin Tem Maine YankceeDecommissioning i-ToJe-t-SirVey-Iorfilz Revised: 10-2.9-03 Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover O Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Admin Building Admin Building Footprint Final Status Survey Direct Points 015-028 3Dm Il I I I I 02~JL f HjI I ___ IJ Iiiii I -I1-2 4O11 17~-- - . . . . . I . . . - . . - - . . . - . . . . . - . I --- P26, j w -. 6 : ;
!I i ! ! .
0 24!. 1 1 I' I
- I I I i I i I I ! I I I I I I Ii I 1. 1 ;! I - --
! I------ --
019' 0251 11-
- 015:~
; . I I I jI..
- .; i1 !1 . ! : : ! .! I - -a.- .... . .I-imi- I . a I p----
4 I 01 II
*..*: a.:
I I I i I a gI!111023 j 1Dm- .l...a I I j I. 4 It . r _____ I ______________ I I .1 - I. . a . I _____ __ - - II _______ ii1-ii.A t2 KL...L..L11 ' -- 3-1 q28 I i I _ I i I I II i I I I _ _ _ _ I-T I I I I 0'o 5m 1Dm I 5m 2Dm 25m 30m
-'Origin, SE Corner 407,655N I 624275E F13-1200-0i, Revision 0 Total Area = 785 sq-rn Pageqof 20 a
I I Attachment 2 Table of Instruments Used FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page IOof 20
Table 2-1 Instrument Information I E-600 S/N I SPA-3 SIN l Design Scan MDC (pCi/g) l 2491 1 725332 1 See Table 2-2 l HPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC (pCi/g) FSS-I 0.04 - 0.11 FSS-2 0.04-0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan 1MIDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGL 4.2 DCGL for land areas outside the Restricted Area pCi/g applied. Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Design Scan MDC (LTP Table 5-6, Rev. 3, pCi/g References 2, 3 and 4) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 1) (Alarm setpoint) Background FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page II of 20
_ _ -IIAAL Attachment 3 Investigation Table FB1-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of'20
Table 3-1 Investigation Measurements, FB1200, Survey Unit 1 Notes:
- 1. Cs-l37 reported <MDA.
- 2. Co-60 provided a positive result of 2.79 + I.8E-2 but was also < the MDA value listed in the table.
FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 13 of 20 .
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
Survey Package FB1200 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary 4 / lnp~it yalue5,:.- e n Survey Package: FBI 200 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: uv DCGL.: 2.40E+00 DCGL,,: NA LBGR: 1.89E+00 Sigma: 1.70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: NIA
~,aS~ _______________________________
Zte: 1.645 1.645
. Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift- 3.0 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11
'N-Value+20%:: 14
$. '-.amrnp leb Datav yah l So________ _________ ____,,__
Number of Samples: 14 Median: 2.61 E-02 Mean: 2.96E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 7.77E-03 Total Standard Deviation: 7.77E-03 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 4.47E-02 Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL.: - Pass Median value <DCGL. . Pass Mean value <DCGL.: , Pass Maximum value <DCGLem: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass lThe-'us uni pssaCoomiomePnstss , The survey unit passes all condilions:l Pass __________________ FBI200-SU1-SouiSign 4r7104 8:51 AM FB-1200-01, Revision 0 Page 15 of 20
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/7/04 9:05:58 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB1200SU1.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 2.978572E-02 7 797224E-03 2.083896E-03 2.528373E-02 0.0342877 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 2.2011 0.027727 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.4103 0.681571 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 5.0133 0.081539 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<>4.2 -2001.1626 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.2 -2001.1626 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.2 -2001.1626 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 4.2 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.87057 0 3 90 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<>4.2 3.3080 0.000940 Reject Ho 3.2765 0.001051 Reject Ho Median<4.2 -3.3080 0.000470 Reject Ho -3.2765 0.000526 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.3080 0.999530 Accept Ho -3.3395 0.999580 Accept Ho FB- 1200-01, Revision 0 I'nge 1Gof 20
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DaterTime 2 4/7104 9:05:58 AM Database C:lProgram Files\NCSS97\FB1200SU1.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 10.0 7.5 0 50 Ci) I 1)
-a 2.5
'T -
eK, 1 0 a0.0 u .u > . . : . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 C 0.0 0.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0°0 0 0 0.0 0 0) 0 0.0- 00 C, 0.0 0 0* 0.0 .0. 00 Difference FED-12 00-01. Revision 0 IPage1-of 20
I I One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 4/7104 9:05:36 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Mean 1 Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.030 0.008 521.250 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 3.700 0.008 62.500 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.008 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, IlMeanO-Meanl [/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.170 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.030 with a known standard deviation of 0.008 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FB--1200-01, Revision 0 Page Jyof 20
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 4/7/04 9:05:37 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.
. ,t
- 0. -. . - - . --
I. ,I a) 0. L-. 0 , , , I . 0.4--- ------ - ----- - - --- - - - --- - - -,
- 0. ' I. I, -
- 0. .- I I III 0
Meanl
; l FB-1 200-01, Revision 0 PageJlof 20 .
FB-1 200 SUf1 Quantile Plot 0.05 - 0.04 _ __ _ Median =0.026 0.03 - .... .-. ______ _______________. ___ 0.01 - ____-_-__ _--- 0.00 : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB- 1300 WART BUILDING FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I I i .- I . ., I I I Prepared By: A4,12a FSS Engine6' Reviewed By . Reviewed By: z. I/ SFSS ' / Approved By: Date: /
-/ -- z---
FSS, MOP.
. -, . tI - -s - ,
XI FB1300 WART BUILDING FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT 1 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description FBI300 is the survey area located in the footprint of the former WART Building at coordinates 407750N & 624065E using the Maine State Coordinate System (wvest zone) NAD 1927, as shown on Maps FB 1300-SITE and FB 1300- SITE-A in Attachment 1. The entire footprint survey area of approximately 245 m 2 is designated as Survey Unit 1. The WART Building was located Northwest of the Turbine Hall and North of the Service Building (as illustrated in Map FB 1300-SITE-A). The building was a concrete and steel structure and was used for offices, and document storage. B. Survey Unit Design Information The WART Building footprint area (Survey Unit I) was designated a Class 3 land survey per the LTP (Table 5-lB) and is shown on site Map FB 1300-01 (Attachment 1). This area had no history of surface or airborne contamination (even though the Radiation Protection Checkpoint was located on the first floor during early decommissioning activities), and there were no contaminated or potentially contaminated systems residing in, or traversing through this area. Therefore, the potential for soil (footprint) contamination for this area was considered to be very low. The survey unit design parameters are summarized in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated and are shown on map FB-1300-02 (Attachment 1). A I% to 10% scan coverage of this Class 3 area was required.' The survey design provided for scanning twelve 2.25 m2 areas for a total of 27 m2 , thus exceeding the 10% requirement. The locations of the scan areas are shown on map FB 1300-01 (Attachment 1). The survey instruments used and their MDC values are provided in Table 2-1 of . C. Survey Results As required, 14 direct soil measurements were made with the results presented in Table 2. Three of the 14 samples had a detectable quantity of Cs-137. The levels detected were below the DCGL and were attributed to trace environmental levels from the global dispersion of nuclear fallout. LTP Rev. 3, Table 5-3 FB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 20
Scanning of the footprint produced no scan alarms; therefore, no investigations were required. Table l Survey Unit Design Parameters: FB-1300-01 Survey Unit I Design Criteria Basis Area 245 im2 No limit for Class 3 Area Number of Direct 14 Based on an adjusted LBGR of 2.69 Measurements Required pCi/g, sigma2 of 0.17 pCi/g, and relative shift of 3.0. Type I =Type 11=0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area 2.25 m 2 Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 27 m2 Class 3 Area 1% 10% Scan Investigation Level 3 sigma of background EC 009-01 (MY) (Reference I) - DCGL 3.2 pCi/g DCGL for areas inside the plant's Restricted Area.3 . LTP, Rev. 3.4 See Section H for discussion of revised DCGL. Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Area D. Survey Unit Investigations and Results No investigations were required. E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, arc provided in Table 2. Of the 14 soil samples collected, I I had no detectable Cs-I 37 and three had trace levels of Cs-I 37 well below the DCGL value of 3.2 'pCi/g. The mean 'and median activities were less than the DCGL. The representative background for this survey unit is 0.19 pCiig (disturbed soil mean value5 ). WNhen background is subtracted fiom the mean value of 0.053 pCi/g, this results in a net value of-O.137 pCi/g, or anequivaleni annual dose of 0.0 mremlyear. 2 Basis for sigma from East-side yard R0200, LTP Table 5-IC. 3 At the time of survey design, the majority of the NVART building was outside the boundary of the plants Restricted Area (RA). The application of a DCGL of 4.2 pCi'g could be'considered per LTP Section ' 6.7. Hlowever, the more restrictive DCGL of 3.2 pCilg was assigned to this survey unit due the general proximity of the survey unit to the RA and Class I areas.-, LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference 2) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference' 3). LTP, Rev: 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 4). 5 See Allachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 5) FB-1300-0l, Revision 0 Page 3 of,20
TABLE 2 FB1300 WART Building Footprint Soil Measurements Soil Sample # Cs-137 (pCi/g)* Uncertainty (pCi/g) FB1300-1-3S013SS 0.048 N/A FB1300-1-3S014SS 0.039 N/A FB1300-1-3S015SS 0.052 N/A FB1300-1-3S016SS 0.053 N/A FB1300-1-3S017SS 0.058 N/A FB1300-1-3S018SS 0.050 N/A FB1300-1-3S019SS 0.050 N/A FB 1300-1-3SO20SS 0.043 N/A FBI300-1-3S021SS 0.045 N/A FB1300-1-3S022SS 0.047 N/A FB1 300-1-3S023SS 0.092 +/- .038 FB1300-1-3S024SS 0.081 +/- .030 FB1300-1-3S025SS 0.048 N/A FB1300-1-3S026SS 0.037 +/- .028 Average 0.053 Median 0.049 Standard Deviation 0.015 Range 0.037 092
<"indicates NI1DA value
- Samples were also analyzed for Co-60; all were less than NMDA F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are provided in .
G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. LI. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit I was designed using the design parameters of LTP Revision 3 (References 2 and 3). LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes related primarily to those associated with the license amendment related to the activated concrete remediation plan submitted by Maine Yankee in Reference 6 and approved by the NRC in Reference 7. Among other things, the license amendment revised FB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
downward the Soil DCGL inside the RA (from 3.2 pCi/g to 2.39 pCi/g). As discussed in Attachment I to Reference 6, the DCGL decrease could impact Scan MDC, Relative Shift, Area Classification, and Instrumentation. Overall, based on the evaluation conducted, these LTP changes were found to have no impact on the results and conclusions of the FSS of Survey Unit 1.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil samples taken in Survey Unit I were less than the soil DCGL of 2.39pCi/g.
There were no scan alarms. FB-1300, Survey Unit 1, met the release criteria of 10CFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced release criteria. J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 2. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002.
- 3. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 4. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.
- 5. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8
- 6. MY letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003, "Proposed Change:
Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling."
- 7. Issuance of License Amendment No. 170, NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004.
FB-1300-01; Revision 0 Page 5 of 20
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - L U-Attachment I Survey Unit Maps FB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
-- x i 0 w z z z z Z - z Z
- :. O z - z 0 0 O. 0 I 0 0 I 0 I O 0 0 0 0 . In. 0 0 I .... 0o-Z 0 In) 0 r, . O.- U) 0 O .0 U~)
0 IT r' C0 0 0 0 0 .0 . 0CD 0 - I - 6
- 09. 0 0 LL VI- -
I I 623, 000 E 0 I-I. B6,Itey Covt AY A G.RROOK 623, 500 CE . C4 ON TSWCAO SAY XKV ZE rcHYAR
>4 0 .1 7 1. 4 624 co 0
-j 0 ;Ahc NN 624,: 06 C. MKJNG7 z -Z, Q
oM 0 C( POIN 624, 50 ZW 0 C/)
.0 cj C
4 C I-5 625, 000°E a LITTLC _Sj OAK I SLAS D MN 0 C) 500 C SCALE N>L
>4 LO 0 400 800 SURVEY AREA,;FB 1300 -
- 'I
1600 4 FEET K 12 626, 000 E North East Coordinate of Wart Bldg at -407,750N Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System
-624.065E /W.ct 7nnpl WAr) 1C97
u-
- -z k
L.
°-
*9 f-3-'
-Z
~j Ct
.. C SURVEY AREA, FB 1300 North West Coordinate of Service EIdg at -407,750N
-624,065E
Team I1Mainc Decomisionng~am YankeeDccoinmissioning F ProjcctSurveyI orinm .Ii DecommissionlingManeYake aieTo aneeDeomisioin PrjcSurvey AreaPD~B1O Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover 0 Final Status Survey Suve areaNae: Wart Butildng Wart Building
;10I -+--N S a Status Footprint SurvyFinal .001-012 Survey Survey Scans 001-012 77 L I LI L 012 011 010 77 77 7.7 L I LI LI 009 008 007 1.50m - 21.OOm squarej L I LI L1 006 005 004 F14.50m I
801 8.00m 77 L I 003 L I L L 1 0021 0011 1.50m I
\ 1 t FB-1300-01, Revision I Page _9 of 20 1.75m
-- 4.50m I _-
*1 - - Origin, NE Comer rotal Area = 245 sq-m rotaf Area = 245 sq-rn -7.50mn 7.50m_ --.
V- 407,750N I 624,065E
_ _ _ L Maine YankeeTam Ya.kee I Decommissioning Te am Aaite YankeeDecommissioting ProjectSurvey orm Survey Type: l Characterization El Turnover : Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Wart Building Wart Building
~-+/----N Footprint Final Status Survey Direct Points 013-026 F13-1300-01, Revision 0 Page __ of 20 Origin, NE Corner otal Area = 245 sq-m 407,750N / 624,065E
Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FB-1300:01, Revision 0 Page 11 of 20
Table 2-1 Instniment Information E-600 SIN SSPA-3 S/N Design Scan MDC (pCilg) 2618 2258 See Table 2-2 HIPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC(pCi/g) FSS-1 0.05 to 0.13 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.13 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan iAIDC andl Comparison with DCGLn, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGLW 2.39 DCGL for land areas inside the Restricted Area pCi/g applied. Scan MIDC 5.9 LIP Design Scan MIDC (LTP Table 5-6, Rev. 3, pCi/g, References 2 and 3) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of (Alarm set oint) Background FB- 1300-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20
Attachment 3 Investigation Table (No investigations required) FB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 13,of 20., - - . . .
_ _l I Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
Survey Package FB1300 Unit I Soil Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FBI300 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: uv DCGL,: 3.20E+00 DCGL,,,: NA LBGR: 2.69E+00 Sigma: 1.70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 ., - 1. : Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: N/A .
. .; I : I I.
. I-Zag.: 1.645 Zap: . 1.645 --
Sign p:- -: "0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: . 3.0 Relative Shift Used: ' 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: l11 , N-Value+20%: 14 8z,>,x>,,,t,,,ropiki-D~il5'rAn.M5' Number of Samples: 14 Median: 4.90E-02 Mean: 5.31 E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: '1.53E-02 Total Standard Deviation: . 1.53E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 9.20E-02
'2_ 43;' 9s uls' , 41VIS°F %^,;FtC, . ' a S Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 '_-
Sign test results:j. Pass
>W ~~~ I>..fjgw fS^ V."iFU::t k~~, s 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 Criteria comparison results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass
' ! . i FB1300-SUW-SoilSign FB- 1300-01, Revision 0 4/12/04 11:20AM Page 5 of 20 I?
- LU One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DatefTime 1 10/29/03 11:07:37 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 5.307143E-02 1.531949E-02 4.094306E-03 4.422622E-02 6.191664E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%)
Skewness Normality 2.7756 0.005510 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 1.9659 0.049313 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 11.5686 0.003075 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<>4.2 -1012.8526 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.2 -1012.8526 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.2 -1012.8526 1.000000 Accept Ho 0.000000 0.000000 Nonparametric Tests Section Quantile (Sign) Test Hypothesized Number Number Pro b Prob Prob Value Quantile Lower Higher Lower Higher Both 4.2 0-5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92168 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<>4.2 3.2974 0.000976 Reject Ho 3.2660 0.001091 Reject Ho Median<4.2 -3.2974 0.000488 Reject Ho -3,2660 0.000545 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.2974 0.999512 Accept Ho -3.3288 0.999564 Accept Ho I13-1300-01, Revision 0 IPage jI of 20
One-Sample T-Test Rep6rt Page/DaterTime 2 10/29103 11:07:37 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 0.1 0 0 CI 0.1 0 0. U-
.D
.,I O. .. A.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0
. C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1 0 0
a) CD !2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0U .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.1 Difference lFB-1300-01, Revision 0 Page 1y of 20
- t/
_~- T One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 10/30103 6:32:56 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: NMean0=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>MeanI Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 3.20 0.05 0.02 209.800 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 3.20 1.60 0.02 106.667 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 3.20 3.20 0.02 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. Mean 1 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-Mean1 I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 3.15 between the null hypothesis mean of 3.20 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.05 with a known standard deviation of 0.02 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0-05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. F13-1300-01, Revision 0 Pajge _a of 20 el
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 10/30/03 6:32:56 AM Chart Section Power vs Mean1 with MeanO=3.20 S=0.02 Alpha=0.05 N=14 T Test 1.0,.------------.-_- - -- a- 0.4 ---------- ___
------- F _ _ -- -
- 0. 4 0.6 Mean0 -;
I .. I7B- 1300-0 1, Revision 0 Page LI of 20
FB-1300 SU#I Quantile Plot 0.10 0.09 0.08 Median = 0.049 0.07 C)
.7 0.06 C)S
.~~ ....... . ..... .... .. . ....... ........
- 0.05 j .. ... ... .. . - C2 ,1 _ t_ a 4 LLo ^ 0.04 4 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 ... . . . . I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-1400 INFORMATION CENTER FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I Prepared By: &, /L a at: 3 '0 FSS Engineer' Reviewed By: QDate: Reviewed By: Date: ,ky f Approved By: X- , X,'. Date: FSS, MOP,.
__ II-FB-1400 INFORMATION CENTER FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit FB-1400-01 consists of soil media, which lay below the noxv demolished Information Center (location shown on Map FB-1400-01, Attachment 1). The Information Center was a brick walled, concrete floored building. It was used during plant construction as a contractor office and later came to be used as an infornational museum, open to the public. The single story, slab run building sat atop a rectangular footprint of approximately 56 m by 12 in. The structure was located outside the Industrial Area of the site. B. Survey Unit Design Information The area was designated a Class 3 land survey unit per the LTP (Table 5-1 B). Since the building covered the area prior to initial fuel load and for the duration of plant power operations, it had a very low probability to contain any plant derived residual contamination. Aside from a brief use as a low-level count room in the post plant shutdown era, no plant-derived radioactive materials were stored or used in the building. According to the Historical Site Assessment (Reference 1),2 one exhibit containing radium (believed to be from a piece of ore) leaked onto the floor. The spill was detected by GTS-DURATEK during site characterization (Reference 1). A detailed release survey of the structure performcd prior to the demolition of the building detennined that the spill was thoroughly remediated. The building debris resulting from the demolition was free-released in accordance with site procedures. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was deternined that 14 direct measurements wVere required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly determined andl are illustrated on the map FB-1400-02 (Attachment 1). Scan grids of I m by 12 m were established, as indicated on survey map FB-1400-03. A 1% to 10% scan coverage of the area was required. To meet this requirement, six I-meter wide "scan lanes" were made at regularly spaced intervals along the longer side of the rectangular survey unit. Tlis produced 72 in2 of scan area, exceeding the 10% requirement. The survey instruments used and their NII)Cs are provided in Attachment 2. C. Survey Results As required, 14 direct soil measurements wvere made with the results presented in Table 2. No scan alarms occurred within the survey unit scan locations; thus no investigations wvere required. 1 l his involved the use of sealed calibration sources to facilitate counting "cold side" samples-2 Sec also 1.1-1 Section 2.2 1. 113-B14 00-(01. Revision 0 Pa Ce 2 of 19
During the time of the FB-1400 survey, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. The key program changes resulting from the E600 investigation were: (l) using scaler local background measurements to establish background and (2) setting the investigation level at 3 sigma of established background (excluding the DCGL term). Table 1 Survey Unit Design Parameters: FBI400, Survey Unit 1 SURVEY UNIT I DESIGN CRITERIA BASISi Area 672 m2 No limit for Class 3 Area Number of Direct 14 Based on an adjusted LBGR Measurements Required of 3.69 pCi/g, sigma of 0.17
-pCi/g3 ad a relative shift of 3.0.
Type I = Type I1'= 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3'Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area I mx 12m Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 72 m Class 3 Area - 10% Scan Investigation Level 3 sigma of background plus EC-009-0l (MY), DCGL - (Reference 2 DCGL 4.2 pCi/g LTP, Rev 2 (Reference 3), LTP Section 6.7.' Design DCGLc N/A Class 3 Area As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600'instrument, a review of Survey Unit I scan data was conducted. Using the'latest scan methodology and the pre'io'usly'established background, a new alarm setpoint was calculated'(13,800 cpm) and compared with each grid's peak scan value. This review indicated that one scangrid (FBI400-l-S020) would likely have alarmed using the revised setpoint since it's peak scan value was 13,820 cpm. However, two soil samples (FBI400-1-S006 and S007) were taken oii' either side of this scan grid. These samples indicaied results less than MDA values, 'as did all direct soil measuiemen'ts from the survey unit (Table 2). It was concluded that, while this scan grids peak scan value was slightly greater than the revised alarm setpbint, it is unlikely that additional investigations would have identified plant-derived activity. I. D. Survey Unit Investigations and Results No investigations were required. 3 Design sigma based on characterization data from Yard East, R-200, LTP Table 5- IC. F1B-1400-0, Revision 0 Page 3 of 19 .
I I 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 soil sampling results yielded no positive indications of plant-derived nuelides. The Minimum Detectable Activities associated with these analyses are listed in Table 2. Table 2 FB1400-01 Soil Sampling Results SAMPLE NUMBER CO-60 CS-137 pCi/g pCilg FBI400-1-SOO < 5.35E-02 < 5.46E-02 FB 1400-1 -S002 < 5.43E-02 < 5.74E-02 FB 1400-1 -S003 < 5.79E-02 < 6.14E-02 FB 1400-1 -S004 < 5.18E-02 < 5.24E-02 FB1400-1-S005 < 5.39E-02 < 5.28E-02 FB 1400-1 -S006 < 5.16E-02 < 5.07E-02 FB 1400-1 -S007 < 5.29E-02 < 4.76E-02 FB1400-1-S008 < 5.64E-02 < 5.50E-02 FB 1400-1 -S009 < 4.19E-02 < 4.72E-02 FBI400-1-SOIO < 4.69E-02 < 4.82E-02 FB 1400-1 -SOI I < 5.04E-02 < 4.99E-02 FB1400-1-S012 < 4.83E-02 < 4.70E-02 FB1I400-1-S013 < 5.79E-02 < 4.71 E-02 FBI400-1-S014 < 5.53E-02 < 6.49E-02 Sample Mean 5.24E-02 5.26E-02 Sample AMedian 5.32E-02 5.16E-02 Standard Deviation 4.42E-03 5.60E-03 Range 4.19E-02 to 4.70E-02 to
= 5.79E-02 6.49E-02 The mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Co-60 and Cs-137. The highest reported value for Cesium-137 was less than 1.5% of the DCGL. The representative background for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value 4 ). When background is subtracted from the mean activity the result is a net value of -0.138 pCi/g. This would equate to an annual (lose rate of 0.0 mremn/y.
F. Addlitional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachmenit 4. See Attachmcnt E to Maine Yankee Procednre PNIP 6.7.8 (Reference 4). I:B- 1400-0 1. Revision 0 Pa'.ce -J of 19
G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions oil Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation wvas less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit I was designed and performed per the criteria of LTP Rev. 2 with some LTP changes intended for LTP Rev. 3 (Reference 5) anticipated and incorporated into the survey unit design. The subsequent LTP changes with potential impact to this FSS requiring evaluations were: (I) Increased scan MDC to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP, Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 6), (2) The requirement for background checks prior to the scan of each grid (also LTP, Rev. 3 Addenda), (3) LTP changes related to the activated concrete license amendment (proposed in Reference 7; approved by the NRC in Reference 8), (4) Change in method for calculating the investigation level based on established background, (5) Procedural change which limited maximum scan grid size to 10 m2 . These changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the FSS results or conclusions for this survey unit.
- 1. Conclusion The maximum surface soil concentration value is less than the DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. No investigations were required. FB 1400 Survey Unit I meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References I. Initial Characterization Survey and Historical Site Assessment, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-038, dated October 1, 2001.
- 2. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 3. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
- 4. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-048, dated October 15, 2002.
- 6. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 7. Proposed License Amendment Related to Changes in the Activated Concrete Remediation Plans, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September II, 2003.
- 8. Issuance of License Amendment No. 170, NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.
FB-1400-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 19
_ _ _ _ _ 1A Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps II- 11-00-01lRevision 0 Page 6 of' 19
Maine Yankee [on I Map ID #: Dommissioning Teaml jiil' akeDcmisoningProjeCtSUrVey Form FB1400-01 Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover
- Final Status Survey I Survey Area Name: Information Center Footprint 623.000 E
. i 623,500 E 624.000 E 624,500 E 625,000 E I vii, 0 400 800 1200 1-- ~ N FB- 1400-01, Revision 0 Page 7 of 19
INFORMATION CENTER FOOTPRINT UNIT 1 Soil Sample Locations Surface Area = 672m2 y I L1 (-- I
~. ,z 7 VI J
x 0 (x,y) - Sample Location as measured from Northwest corner of Info Center Foundation @ 0, 0 Note: Measurements are In meters.
FB1 400 INFORMATION CENTER FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT 1 Scan Locations Surface Area = 672mn 56m6-SOl 6 S01 7 Sol 8 S019 S020 S021
*.4.
- 7 q 'V ow a / / I0 (r I /
0 7
/ /
/ / /
I ? / on 0
/ /
- /
so x 12m
/
/ /
0
/ /
.0
/
. a
/
0 x 8m 1dm 24m 3im 40m 48m 0
= Scan Grids Scan grids are approximately 1m x 12m Note: Measurements are In meters.
II Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrunmentation 113-1400-()1 Revision 0 1P.wew 10 of I')
Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N SPA-3 S/N Design Scan MDC (pci/g) 1619 726554 See Table 2-2 1648 726560 See Table 2-2 1648 725328 See Table 2-2 Detector No. MDC (pCi/g) FSS-I 0.04 - 0.11 FSS-2 0.04 - 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan AIDC and Comparison with DCGLw, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 . Comments DCGLIW 4.2 Approved DCGL for land areas pCi/g outside thc Restricted Area, LTP Section 6.7 (Reference 6) Scan MDC 5.9 Design Scan MDC, LTP Table 5-6 PCi/g (Reference 6) Investigation Level 3 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 2) (Alarm setpoint) Background F[- 1400-01; Revision 0 Page 1I of 19
I1 Attachment 3 Inlvesti-'ation Table (No investigations required) FB- 1400-01. Revision 0 l'aec 12 of 19
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB3-1400-01, Revision 0 Page 13 of 19
-i-I-j1 Survey Package FB-1400 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary
~!z"4 Survey Package: FB-1400 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: uv DCGL: 4.20E+00 DCGLemc: NA Class 3 LBGR: 2.10E+00 Sigma: 1.70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: NIA Z: 1.645 Z._ : 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 12.3 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value+20%: 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 5.16E-02 Mean: 5.26E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 5.60E-03 Total Standard Deviation: 5.60E-03 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 6.49E-02 Ab4.~zr I n Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass 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 Criteria comparison results: Pass ua al Gjndian; 4; Th1uvyuitpse l conditions: Passi FB-I lO0-OI, Revision ()
Page 14 of 19 2/2104 3:33 PM 1`1-14DO-SU1-SoilSign ReVI
- 1 One-Sample T-Test Report PagelDatefTime 1 1/28104 5:38:45 AM - .
Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\Fb-1400.S0 Variable C3 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C3 14 5.258571 E-02 5.599706E-03 1.496584E-03 4.935254E-02 5.581889E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1602 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 1.6811 0.092744 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.5004 0.616817 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 3.0765 0.214761 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) C3<>4.2 -2771.2534 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C3<4.2 -2771.2534 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C3>4.2 -2771.2534 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 4.2 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92953 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<>4.2 3.2958 0.000982 Reject Ho 3.2644 0.001097 Reject Ho Median<4.2 0.000061 Reject Ho -3.2958 0.000491 Reject Ho -3.2644 0.000549 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.2958 0.999509 Accept Ho -3.3272 0.999561 Accept Ho FB-1400-01,Revision 0 PageJy I19
_I One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 1/28/04 5:38:45 AM Database C:\Program FiHes\NCSS97\Fb-1400.S0 Variable C3 Plots Section Histogram of C3 Normal Probability Plot of C3 8.01 0. 6.0 0. E 10 0 4.0 C)
-w.' '-
2.0 0.
- 0. 0-1., , n0nNor 1.n0 o 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -2.0 -1E e n.
C3 Expected Normials Average-Difference Plot 0.1 0 0.1 Oo a) 0) 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 00 00 0.0 0o oo00 Difference F13-1,100-0J, Revision 0 Pagc L( of 19
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DateMme 1 1/28104 5:40:21 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 Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.053 0.006 740.536 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 2.100 0.006 375.000 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.006 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. Itfshould 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 l/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.147 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.053 with a known standard deviation of 0.006 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FB-1400-01, Revision 0 Page ofr I9
-l One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DateMme 2 1/28/04 5:40:22 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Cuirve 1.0-._ X
- 0. - ,
a) 0-----, 0 - 0 I Mean1 FF3- 1400-01, Revision 0 1Page i of 19
Quantile Plot of FB-1400.-O1 7.OOE-02 oo66.OOE-02 ' 'HI
'*., I N 5.OOE-02 0 _
p ?o
'O on %4.OOE-02 _-
_ I .. m*5 3.OOE-02 G x4
# Cs.137 pCI/g Median
,,,2.OOE-02 0 1.OOE-02 O.OOE+00 0.0 50.0 100.0 Percent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-1900 BAILEY HOUSE FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT 1
', '1,,
- -Prepared By: Date: A Reviewed By: 4-1 -- of Reviewed By:. Date:
. 4/M1,4
- -- i
-" -'SFS9S -a--/ t .
Approved By: _ Bras)s je - Date: FSS, MOP il ,
. t f, , . - , .
. - . i -:
I/ , I: 1
. i -
- , ; -.
- 7 .
I . : . , .1 . i' .-.
I I FB-1900, BAILEY HOUSE FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Area Description FB1900 is the survey area located in the footprint of the former Bailey House and is shown on Map ID# FB 1900-SITE in Attachment 1. The entire footprint survey area is designated as Survey Unit I. The combined surface area of the Survey Unit is approximately 117 m2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information FB 1900 is the footprint of the former Bailey House (Environmental Services Building) that was an original two-story farmhouse on the Maine Yankee site. It was a wooden structure built on a stone foundation that was converted into office and lab space for the Environmental Services Department of Maine Yankee. Since it was located outside of the Industrial Area and no radioactive material was used or stored there (except for sealed, low activity instrument check sources), the area was classified and designed as Class 3. Upon the demolition and removal of the structure, additional clean excavated soil from onsite was used to fill in the basement hole. The Final Status Survey was performed after backfill in accordance with the LTP (Section 5.2.3). Survey Unit I (shown on Map FB 1900-SITE in Attachment 1) encompasses the entire survey area of FB 1900. To calculate the number of soil samples required for the Sign Test, the sigma value of 0.17 pCi/g applicable to R0200 Yard East (Table 5-1 C of the LTP Rev. 3) (Reference I) was used, rather than the sigma of 0.23 from RI 800 Bailey House Land Area. This was done because the basement fill was not from the Bailey Lands and may be better represented as R0200 Yard East. In any event, the use of the sigma for R0200 or RI 800 would result in the same number of sample points required because the relative shift is forced to 3.0. The footprint required 14 soil sample points. These locations were randomly generated and are shown on survey map FB 1900-02 (Attachment I). As a Class 3 area, the footprint required a minimum 1% to 10% surface scan per LTP Table 5-3 (i.e., 1.2 m2 to 11.7 M2 ). This was accomplished by scanning 14 one meter square areas located uniformly over the footprint, shown on survey map FR 1900-01 (Attachment 1). The location of the direct points is shown on map FB 1900-02, in . The survey instruments used and their NMDC values are provided in . FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 19
The design information is summarized in Table 1. Table I Survey Unit Design Summairy:'FB-1900, Survey Unit 1 Survey Unit 1 Design Criteria Basis Area 117 m2 No limit for Class 3 Area Number of Direct 14 Based on adjusted LBGR of Measurements Required 3.69 pCi/g, sigma of 0. 17 pCi/g, and relative shift of 3.0. Type I =Type 11=0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Spacing 14 grids sized Im x Im Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 14m Class 3 Area -10% Scan Investigation Level 3 sigma of background EC 009-01 (Reference 2) DCGL 4.2 pCi/g Rev. 3 LTP Rev. 3 Addenda (Reference 1), Section 6.7 Design DCGLEMC N/A Class 3 Area C. Survey Results The results of the soil sample analyses are shown in Table 2. Soil samples collected from random locations on the Bailey House footprint were analyzed and 2 of the 14 samples had a detectable quantity of Cs-137. The levels detected were well below the DCGL and were attributed to trace environmental levels from the global dispersion of nuclear fallout. The Bailey House footprint was scanned at 14 locations with an alann setpoint of 13,770 cpm. Prior to scanning each grid, a scaler measurement was performed to determine if the background reading was within acceptable limits. Background for the grids measured within the acceptable limits except for-three'grids that were just below' the minimum background limit. An evaluation of the three low background grids resulted in the: calculation of a new alarm setpoint at 12,465 cpm, which was subsequently compared to the peak scan value of each of the three grids. Since the peak scan value of each of the three grids was below the revised alarmnsetpoint,bthe scan data were determined to be acceptable. No alarms were received during the scanning of the 14 scan areas. D. Survey Unit Investigations and Results No investigations were required. FB-1900-01, Revision 0
'Page 3 of 19
Table 2 FBI900, Survey Unit 1, Soil Sample Resulis* Soil Sample # Cs-137 (pCilg) Uncertainty (pCi/g) FBI900-1-3SO15SS < 0.044 FBI900-1-3S016SS < 0.045 FB1900-1-3S017SS 0.054 + 0.024 FB1900-1-3S018SS 0.013 + 0.014 FBI900-1-3S019SS < 0.045 FBI900-1-3S020SS < 0.050 FB1900-1-3S021SS < 0.048 FBI900-1-3S022SS < 0.046 FBI900-1-3S023SS < 0.052 FBI900-1-3S024SS < 0.058 FBI900-1-3S025SS < 0.055 FB1900-1-3S026SS < 0.051 FB1900-1-3S027SS < 0.037 FB 1900-1-3S028SS < 0.052 Average 0.046 Median 0.049 Standard Deviation 0.011 Range 0.013 - 0.058
"<" indicates MDA value
- Samples were also analyzed for Co-60; all were less than MDA E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample range, is provided above in Table 2. Of the 14 soil samples collected, 12 had no detectable Cs-137, and two indicated trace levels of Cs-137, well below the DCGL value of 4.2 pCi/g.
The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value'). When the representative background is subtracted from the mean value of 0.046 pCi/g of Cs-137, the annual dose equivalent is 0.0 mrem/year. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Powver Curve are provided in . See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMIP 6.7.8 (Reference 4). FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 19
G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. II. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The FSS of Survey Unit I was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP Revision 3 Addenda (Reference 1). The only subsequent LTP changes with the potential for impact to the this survey unit were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan, submitted September II, 2003 (Reference 3) and approved by the NRC (Reference 5). Changes represented in this later license amendment have been evaluated and were found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of the final status survey of Survey Unit 1. I. Conclusion All of the soil samples were less than the DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. No investigations were required. FB-1900, Survey Unit lmet-the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced release criteria. J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002 and Addenda, provided by Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-06 1, dated November 26, 2002.
- 2. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 3. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.
- 4. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Issuance of License Amendment No. 170, NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 18, 2004.
FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 19
I Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 19
w 0 0 o 4.0 0* o 0 0 0o 0 I0 0 0 Q 0 0 C) . (A, (A 0D (AMt 0 co ,..' o0 : , 0 0. 0 0 0 0 ru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 LL
. . 000 E 0
CL C) (I) 0
- C I
E 623, 500 E a) Q M E Z z(C
-624.000 E
>5 a)
.t en U) .%I 2 9t co
*624, S00 E 4
a C-U) c .4 U) C E 625.000 E C) 0 C I.; 00 62, 340 E IN .625, 500 E w Z
.)
0 626,000 E 7, t.- SURVEY AREA, FB 1900 Z t NorthWest Coordinate of Bailey House at -409,520N I Note: Grid based on Maine State Coordinate System U)
-625,340E (West Zone) NAD 1927
I I Maine Yankee A aineYankeeDecommissionin ProjeaSurveyForm IMap IU : I-B 1900-01 Decommissioning Team IM Survey Type: [ Characterization EI Turnover M Final Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Origin, NW Comer Total Area = 117 sq-rn 409,520N I 625,340E f Scan Areas = 1m x im 0.3m-0.3i I I-1.8m I 1 .3m-C 0 Cn (D I-. 4.9m " F1-1900-01, Rev. 0 Page 8 of 19
Bailey House N 0 I.- Footprint Final Status Survey K' V-I, LL a) Direct Points 01 5-028 0o I (L) 9 0 017 023 l C) __ 024_ 028 E zZ em 021 0221 et C) 1°° U,. 2U _028 018 U, U1 PI
.k) .t CU 2U 016 020 5M - I 4.------4-------4 9-+-------4 I 4 t-+ -+/- -
0 - S S .9. 5 S S - .9. 5 V U)0 UC
'zI-w 019l 025 C
C}> 0A E vd 14 V 4>
.t N
iM - 027 S .o
-C CE C U*)
0 Im 0 'II Za) CU o IV a) 0) F, a .' I-C.) I tO IM 5M 1oM 15M 2 E 8 a C) U, In-LI
II Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page IO of 19
Table 2-1 FB-1900 Instrumentation (Survey Unit 1) HPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC(pCi/g) FSS- I0.05 to 0.13 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.13 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGLWv and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGLW 4.2 pCi/g Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Design Scan MDC, Table 5-6 (LTP Rev. 3, pCi/g IReference 1) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of (Alarm selpoint) Background I FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page IIof 19
-- 1-t-Attachment 3 Investigation Tables (No investigations required.)
FB-1900-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 19
. } s w
{ : - F l . 0 l Attachment 4 Statistical Data z ....
. . . I I:B-I900-01, Revision 0 Page 130fl9
I I Survey Package FBI900 Unit I Soil Sign Test Summary 4+-7g>s: 9 wj ~ 4 A =# lX_ Survey Package: FB1900 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: GP DCGLX,: 4.20E+00 DCGLemc: 4.20E+00 LBGR: 2.08E+00 Sigma: 1.70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 __ . Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: NIA ZJ': 1.645 Zeus: : 1645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 12.4 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value+20%: 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 4.90E-02 Mean: 4.64E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 1.10E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 1.10E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 5.80E-02 Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLl,: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass FB1900-SW -SoilSign 3/31/04 10:46AM Paes-I i W oV Pasa 14 Ms A
l One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 10/8/03 8:35:52 AM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 I
. T . . I 0.1 000 o.o.
i)0 C.- 0.0-C- 0.0-0 00
-2.0 -1.0 0.0 ' 10 2.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1
° °°.°.
0.0 o 0.0 0.0 0
.0 A
- 0. 0 0.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.1 Difference FB-1900-01 Rev.0 Page 15 of 19
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 1018/03 8:35:52 AM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCIL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 4.642857E-02 1.102246E-02 2.945875E-03 4.006439E-02 5.279275E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality -3.4106 0.000648 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 3.0874 0.002019 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 21.1644 0.000025 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<>3.54 -1185.9198 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<3.54 -1185.9198 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>3.54 -1185.9198 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 3.54 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92168 0 2 12 Approximation Withot it 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<>3.54 3.2974 0.000976 Reject Ho 3.2660 0.001091 Reject Ho Median<3.54 -3.2974 0.000488 Reject Ho -3.2660 0.000545 Reject Ho Median>3.54 -3.2974 0.999512 Accept Ho -3.3288 0.999564 Accept Ho FB-1900-01, Rev. 0 Page 16of19
FB -1900 SU#l Quantile Plot 0.07 0.06 4 Median =0.046 0.05 4.-. 4 4 4
- 0) 0.04 0!2C a 4 I:.
0~ 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 I
- 0 10 :20 30 40 - *50.1 60 70. 80 90 100 Pe'rcent.
_ _ _ _ _I I One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 1/21/04 8:45:13 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 Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.046 0.011 377.636 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 2.100 0.011 190.909 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.011 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-Mean1 /Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.154 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.046 with a known standard deviation of 0.011 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FB-1900-O1, Rev. 0 Page 18 of 19
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 1/21/04 8:45:13 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0-I I Il;I 0.8-I\ , a- 0.6- 1, I,
- 0) I ~~~r------
I , --- ____ I I l\ I 0-0.4-I I
- I 0.2-e I I I I I I .6
- 0.0 I I I I I 0
Meanl FB-1900-01, Rev. 0 Page 19 of 19
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT 1 Prepared By: 9- .. Da ate: 1/3 -L9 St FSS Engineer Reviewed By: Date: a. -of
. 1 1.1 , . .
Reviewed By: Date: _a7j4L_l I i\ Approved By: (.r'n ° ) Date: 44L. FSS, MOP I 1% II
I W FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit I is located in Survey Area FB2500, the 345 kV Relay House, and consists of the structure interior. The Relay House structure is located to the south of the 345 kV switchyard and to the east of the former fire pond. The area is a freestanding cinderblock structure on a concrete foundation slab. The survey unit area is approximately 390 m2 . Due to safety concerns, discussed below, the area selected for survey focused on the floor. The area of the floor is 100.7 m2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information Since the Relay House is likely to be the only remaining structure following site decommissioning, its survey was designed to meet the "Standing Building" criteria of the LTP. Given the low probability of contamination, the area was designated a Class 3 survey unit per the LTP. The presence of a significant number of live high voltage electrical components, representing both physical barriers and special risk to personnel safety, made designing standard scan grids impractical. To address these safety concerns, and to provide a conservative bias to the limited scan area that is required for Class 3 areas, scans and direct measurements were limited to accessible areas of the floor. The floor was covered with a thin coating of paint, which was worn off in some areas. This was deemed not to be a concern because the thin coating applied was accounted for in the basis for the efficiency applied (LTP Rev 3). The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was randomly determined. These locations are presented on the survey map of FB-2500-02 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location. The design permitted surveyors to designate scan grids based on an orderly layout of the portions of the survey unit that could be surveyed and required a 100% scan of accessible areas. Unusually high Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) within the building were anticipated to also affect survey measurements. As a result of EMF interference, appropriate adjustments were made to the scan investigation level as discussed below. FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 20
Scan areas were located as shown on survey maps of FB-2500-02A (Attachment 1). The survey instruments used in this survey unit are listed by Model and Serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2). These are compared to the DCGLw, and the investigation level. As shown in this Table, the scan MDC is less than the investigation level, thus providing a high confidence (95% or higher) that the scanning process would detect an elevated area. Table I Survey Unit Design Summary: FB-2500, Sur ey Unit I SURVEY UNIT I DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 390 m'_-_; Number of Direct 14 Based on an LBGR of 7,783 dpml Measurements Required IOOcm2, sigma' of 257 dpm/I 00 cm2 and a relative shift of 3.0. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Survey Unit N/A - Class 3 Survey Unit Sample Grid Spacing Scan Grid Spacing N/A Safety guided limitations on scan area precluded use of scan grids. Area Factor N/A NA for Class 3 area per LTP Rev. 2 Scan Survey Area 50 mi- 100% of safely accessible area surveyed. Scan Investigation Level <DCGLw LTP, Rev 3 DCGL 8,554 dpmll 00 cm' LTP, Rev 3, Table 6-13
;____ (for Standing Buildings)-
Surface removable DCGL. 855 dprn/l 00 cm 10% of the static DCGL Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Survey Unit : C. Survey Results .. :- A total of 14 direct measurements were taken; the results are presented in Table 2. The scan setpoint was raised from the initial designi level of 785 cpm (which was at approximately 50% of the DCGL) to 1350 cpm, which is slightly below the DCGL in order to address the EMF encountered. No verified alarms occurred within the survey unit scan locations; thus, no investigations were required. ' LTP, Rev. 3, Table 5-1. 2" 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). F1B-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 3 of 20
I I D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results No investigations were required. E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample range results are provided in Table 2. Direct measurements presented in this table were converted to equivalent dpm/l 00cm 2 values without subtracting material or ambient background. Both median and mean activities were less than the DCGL. The final sigma was less than the design sigma; therefore, no additional samples were required. Table 2 Direct Measurements, FB2500 Survey Unit 1 Sample Number Counts dpm/lOOcmL l_ (No background subtraction) FB2500-1-SOOI 562 3,431 FB2500-1-S002 547 3,339 FB2500-1-S003 560 3,419 FB2500-1-S004 584 3,565 FB2500-1 -S005 554 3,382 FB2500-1-S006 526 3,211 FB2500-1 -S007 558 3,407 FB2500-1-S008 551 3,364 FB2500-1-SO09 550 3,358 FB2500-1-S0O0 549 3,352 FB2500-1-S011 526 3,211 FB2500-1-S012 504 3,077 FB2500-1-S013 541 3,303 FB2500-1-S014 504 3,077 Sample Mean 3,321 _Median 3,355 Std. Dev. 136.0 Sample Range 3,077 - 3,565 FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
Table 3 indicates that all smears results show contamination levels that are less than the minimum detectable activity, which is less than 2% of the removable DCGL of 855.4 dpm/l 00 cm2 . Table 3 Removable Contamination, FB2500 Survey Unit I Sample Number :. Alpha Counts Beta Counts dpm/lOOcm 2 dpm/1OOcm 2 FB2500-1-COO] <17 <14.3 FB2500-1-C002 <17 <14.3; FB2500-1-C003 <17 . <14.3 FB2500-1-C004 " <17 * <14.3v FB2500-1-C005 <17. <14.3 FB2500-1-C006 - <17 <14.3-FB2500-1-C007 <17 <14.3 FB2500-1-C008 <17 <14.3 FB2500-1-C009 <17 <14.3 FB2500-1-C010 <17 <14.3 FB2500-1-COII -<17 <14.3 FB2500-1-C012 <17' <14.3 FB2500-1-C013 <17 '<14.3 FB2500-1-C014 <17 <14.3 Sample Mean 17 14.3 Std. Dev. N/A N/A Sample Range N/A N/A The material background value for thi s'urvey ufnit was 746 dpm/I 00 cm 2 (Reference 4). The mean ambient background was 376 cpm, which is equivalent to 2,295 dpm/1 00 cm 2 . These two components added together become the "Representative Background," which is equal to 3041 dpm/1 00 cm2 . When the background is subtracted from the survey unit
'2)2 sample mean (3321 dpm/I OOcM), the result is a net value of 280 dpm/l 00 cm2 . This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.327 mrem/y. 3 F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, power curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4.
3 Based on LTP Table 6-13 (Rev. 3). Residual contamination at the level of the DCGL for a standing building is equivalent to an annual dose of 10 mrem. FB-2500-0l, Revision 0 Page 5 of 20
II G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. LI. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 1 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 5). 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 DCGL of 8,554 dpM/cm 2 . All measurements of removable activity were below the MDA, which was approximately 2%
of the removable DCGL of 855.4 dpmlcm2 . No verified scan alarms were encountered, thus no investigations were required. FB2500 Survey Unit I 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 Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003.
- 4. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.
FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
Attachment I Survey Unit Maps I I
.. .I I .
FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 7 of 20
II Maine Yankee Yaptkee DecomissititgProjectSurvey ForI l MAaaipe: Decommissioning Team I Y Survey Type: L Characterization O Turnover
- Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: 345kV Yard Relay House 623.000 E FOXBIRD ISLAND
'3O0 X _X_lTR~l.\rsNl3 AM(i-9L61( O1M
M !- o 1 345kV Yard Relay House Floor Plan (Surface Beta Scans) .IRe 0
. L 13.8m K 0
-t KMn"+k C 5 (D
a Sump 1 1 i - D El 9 s3 Q 4- c000 (NS) 0 m 2 _b _ CD0.b I (f Q3 0003 I (0 o~ (as) 0 o C cooY (bs) 7.3m 0 CD C, co0I (bs) wCD P 4 0 1< K S 0 Sump 2 Ck I Xb 5OUth Oi 0 sn 0CD 0O L______ ai
Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 11 of 20
I l Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N 43-68 S/N Design Scan MDC (dpmll00 cm2 ) 2490 149071 1832 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL Detector 43-68 Scan MIDC 1832 (dpmi/100 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 DCGLW 8,554 (dpm/100 cm 2) Investigation Level Approximately 96% of the DCGLw (Alarm setpoint) FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20
; i:
Attachment 3 Investigation Table (not Used) FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page'13 of 20
II Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
Survey Package FB2500 Unit 1 Surface Sign Test Summary
,_ _ CM Survey Package: FB2500 Relay House Floor Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 8,554 DCGL,: 8,554 LBGR: 4,277 Sigma: 257 Type I error: 0.05
. Type II error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0%
Detector Area (cm2): 126 __ Choosing N/A' sets material Material Type: N/A background to "0"
.. 1 Ar,
. -Zt1.645 ZI.P: I645 Sign p: 0.99865. .
Calculated Relative Shift: : 16:6 Relative Shift Used: :3:b Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: . -_ _ _ _ N-Value+20%: 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 3,355 Mean: 3,321 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: :1i36 Total Standard Deviation: 136 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 3,565 Adjusted N Value: .14
; ~~S+ Value: - .:i14 Critical Value:
Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL.: - Pass Median value <DCGL, -,: Pass Mean value <DCGL: - Pass Maximum value <DCGLm: - Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: -^ ' Pass Sign test results: ; Pass . The survey unit passes all conditions:l Pass FB2500-SU I-SurfaoeSign FB2500-01, Revision 0 5/28/03 1:55 PM Page 15 of 20
Quantile Plot of FB2500-01 Static Data 3,600 3,500 Clq E 3,400 0 w 3,300 I+ Percent , 0G0g no E 3,200 0a V0 0 3,100 3,000 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 3,355 dpm/100 cmA2
.. -One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/lTime 1 4/8/04 2:06:16 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU1.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 3321.143 136.0022 36.34811 3242.617 3399.668 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%)
Skewness Normality -0.8706 0.383999 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.3878 0.698140 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 0.9083 0.634996 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 -403.8410 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<1 8000 -403.8410 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>18000 -403.8410 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 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92168 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 3.2974 0.000976 Reject Ho 3.2660 0.001091 Reject Ho Median<18000 -3.2974 0.000488 Reject Ho -3.2660 0.000545 Reject Ho Median>18000 -3.2974 0.999512 Accept Ho -3.3288 0.999564 Accept Ho FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 17 of 20
I'I One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 4/8/04 2:06:16 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU 1.SO Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 80 6( 0 a('J 0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 33600 o 0 3330-0 0 a) 0 cy 0 a) 3300.0 3270.0 0 3240.0 - 375.0 50O 0.0 125.0 250.0 Difference FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 18 of 20
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 4/8/04 2:09:05 PM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl. Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 8554.000 3321.000 136.000 38.478 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 8554.000 7783.000 136.000 5.669 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 8554.000 8554.000 136.000 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-Mean1 l/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 5233.000 between the null hypothesis mean of 8554.000 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 3321.000 with a known standard deviation of 136.000 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 19of20 :-
I -I-One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 4/8/04 2:09:06 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve n
- 1. U- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 0. .8- ; - - - -- - - .. - -v
\
. I a) o -.6 -- - - - - - - - - - -
0. 0~ o. 2- - - O.:2-. 1 II ! : 0.I 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90oo Meanl FB-2500-01, Revision 0 Page 20 of 20
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT 2 Prepared By: Dt:Z -a- Q FSS Eng'ineer Reviewed By:. , Date: 2-i-4 Reviewed By: Dt:
'Approved By: Date: V4X7 FSS, MOP
II FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT 2 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 2 is located in Survey Area FB2500, the 345 kV Relay House, and consists of the painted, exterior cinderblock walls of the structure.] The Relay House structure is located to the south of the 345 kV switchyard and to the east of the former fire pond. The area is a freestanding cinderblock structure on a concrete foundation slab. The survey unit is approximately 190 in2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information The Relay House contained electrical relay equipment that supported operations of the 345kV switchyard. Although the building is located on the Maine Yankee site, Central Maine Power Company owns and controls access to the building; therefore, it is very unlikely that radioactive material was ever used or stored in the structure. Given the low probability of contamination, the area was designated a Class 3 survey unit per the LTP. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Each sample measurement location was randomly determined. These locations are presented on the survey maps of FB-2500-03, FB-2500-04, FB-2500-05 and FB-2500-06 (Attachment 1). Once the direct readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location, consistent with LTP commitments applicable to this structure.2 The design included 14 scan grids each of 2-m2 area that were located at randomly generated positions on the walls3 . Scan grid locations are shown on survey maps of FB-2500-07, FB-2500-08, FB-2500-09 and FB-2500-10 (Attachment 1). Unusually high Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF) in the vicinity of the building were anticipated to also affect survey measurements. The scan investigation level was adjusted appropriately due the EMF presence, as discussed later. The paint thickness on masonry block surfaces was examined to assess whether any adjustment to measurement efficiencies was warranted; no adjustment was required based on discussions within section 5 of the LTP. 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, and the investigation level. As shown in this table, X See the release record for Survey Unit I for the Relay House Interior and Survey Unit 3 for the structure's roof. 2 The Relay House is expected to be the only standing building remaining on-site based on current decommissioning plans. Removable contamination surveys for this structure are discussed in LTP Section 5.5. la (Rev. 3). 3This meets the LTP requirement to scan 10% of total surface area within class 3 survey units. FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 2 of 26
the scan MDC is less than the investigation level, thus providing a high confidence (95% or higher) that the scanning process would detect an elevated area. Tablel Survey Unit Design Summary: FB-2500, Survey Unit 2 SURVEY UNIT 2 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 190.1 m'_ _ _ Number of Direct 14 Based on an LBGR of 7,783 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm*, sigma4 of 257 dp/100 cm 2' and a'relative shift of 3.0.
;__ ¢
- Typel=TypeII=0.05 '
Sample Area - N/A Class 3 Survey.Unit Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Survey Unit Scan Grid Spacing Random spacing Class 3 Survey Unit Area Factor N/A - Class 3 Survey Unit Scan Survey Area Approx. 28 m', which Square areas of approximately 2 exceeds 10% of the m were randomly generated as is area. indicated on Survey unit maps. Scan Investigation Level <DCGLw LTP, Rev 35 DCGL 8,554 dpm/100 cm' LTP, Rev 3, Table 6-13 Design DCGLEMc N/A -' Class 3 Survey Unit C. Survey Results A total of 14 direct measurements were taken; the results are presented in Table 2. The results of the 14 removable contamination samples are presented in Table 3. The scan setpoint was raised from the initial design level of 785 cpm (which corresponds to approximately 50% of the DCGLw) to-1350 cpm, slightly below the DCGLw, to compensate for the EMF encountered., No alarms occurred within the survey unit scan locations; thus, no investigations were required. D. Sunrey Unit Investigations Performed and Results: No investigations were required. 4 LTP, Rev. 3, Table 5-1. 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). FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 3 of 26
-- I I E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample range results are provided in Table 2. Direct measurements presented in this table were converted to equivalent dpm/l 00cm 2 values without subtracting material or ambient background. Both median and mean activities were less than the DCGLw.
Table 2 Direct Measurements, FB2500 Survey Unit 2 Sample Number Counts dpmIVO~cm' (No Background Subtracted) FB2500-2-K001 463 2,827 FB2500-2-K002 487 2,973 FB2500-2-K003 470 2,869 FB2500-2-K004 485 2,961 FB2500-2-K005 455 2,778 FB2500-2-K006 444 2,711 FB2500-2-K007 452 2,759 FB2500-2-K008 470 2,869 FB2500-2-K009 491 2,998 FB2500-2-KOIO 684 4,176 FB2500-2-KOI 1 464 2,833 FB2500-2-K012 502 3,065 FB2500-2-K013 474 2,894 FB2500-2-K014 472 2,882 Sample Mean 2,971 Sample Median 2,875 Std. Dev. 360 Sample Range 2,711 - 4,176 Table 3 indicates that all smear results show contamination levels that are less than the minimum detectable activity, which is less than 2% of the removable DCGL of 855.4 dpm/l00 cm 2 . FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 4 of 26
Table 3 Removable Contamination, FB2500 Survey.Unit 2 Sample Number Alpha Counts Beta Counts dpm/lOOcm 2 dpm/lOOcm 2 FB2500-2-COOI -<19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C002 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C003 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C004 - <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C005 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C006 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C007 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C008 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C009 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C010 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C011 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C012 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C013 <19.7 <14.3 FB2500-2-C014 <19.7 <14.3 Sample Mean 19.7 14.3 Sample Median N/A N/A Std. Dcv. N/A N/A Sample Range N/A N/A The material background value for this survey unit is 691 dpm./I 00 cm2 (Reference 4). The mean ambient background was 322 cpm, which is equivalent to 1,968 dpm/lO0 cm 2 . These two components added together become the "Representative background", which is equal to 2,658 dpm/100 cm . When22the background is subtracted from tile survey unit's sample mean, the result is a net value of314 dpm/100 cm 2. This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.366 mrem/y 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. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey wvas designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results wvere consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was greater than the design sigma. However, if the LBGR is adjusted to the sample mean, the resultant relative shift exceeds the design value of 3.0, thus no additional measurements were required. 6 6 Based on LTP Table 6-13 (Rev. 3). Residual contamination at the level of the DCGL for a standing building is equivalent to an annual dose of 10 mrem. FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 5 of 26
I V II. 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 5). 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. Conclusions All beta direct measurements were less than the DCGL of 8,554 dpm/cm 2 . All measurements of removable activity were below the MDA, which was approximately 2% of the removable DCGL of 855.4 dpm/cm 2 . No verified scan alarms were encountered, thus no investigations were required. FB2500 Survey Unit 2 meets the release criteria of 10CFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee License Ternination 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. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.
FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 6 of 26
Attachment 1 Survey Unit Alaps IB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 7 of 26
II Maine Yankee jMpI I HMaize Yankee DecommissioningProjectSurveyFor Decommissioning Team TF t vrYdI ou SurVeY TYPO: LII Characterization [El Turnover U Final Status SreSuvey Area Name: 345kV Yard Relay House 623,000 E 623,500 E 624.000 E 624,500 E 625,000 E MN l i l I 0 400 800 1200 L- A= N FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 8 of 26
345kV Yard Relay House Exterior South Wall 4 13.8m >I. I Top of Wall __1 iI I IA . KOOI $2 (5.74, 4.06)"f K003 IL AK006- . 0 O a
- '0 Nj (8.89, 3.63)
+ (10.27, 3.28)
-t' < 0 K007,1 Y 4.5m (3.00, 1.81+)' K002 * (12.03, 1.25+) I K004 8 0 -_ s K005 (9.94, 0.04)1 I M
'(0.03, 0.05) Bottom of Wall Y E 2.
a :0 0'4C 0 Surface Beta Direct Point (BD) 0 CA 0
345kV Yard Relay House Exterior North Wall 4 13 .8m 11 Tnn of WLII I A, K01 0,i 0: a 0 L (4.15, 3.69)' KO 1L (9-41, 3,35* o x C. 0o 0 K00971 4.5m (12.73, 1.97)Y K008,L (9.10, 0.91)> 'E
,_i..
0 Bottom of Wall 0
+ = Surface Beta Direct Point (BD)
CI Ih 0a 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior East Wall 8 R ! 3Z EJ I Mg 0%0CD~ 0 N
" a Nj v .
0 . 4.6mn enA To l
.z 0 3 w
0S.Q ri a
- 0 CZ a
+ = Surface Beta Direct Point (BD) 0 oa a.
0 T.
0 0 36 0. V) 3 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior West Wall O
-1 K
El 2 9 4O.. - 7.32m . D _. v) z A, K0144 IL (3.31, 3.65) 0 0 0 V I0) C
! O I, 4.6m v~
5. E 0 v; Io 0) 0 2 O 0 0 M 7 11 C L.- I 2 I ii2:.
+ = Surface Beta Direct Point (BD)
-1 ElI 0
0 Surface Beta Scans (BS) a S 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior South Wall 0 I 13.8m -_ __ 1 wJ 0 0 Top of Wall a A -I~;SQ
- -* t;
..... I + 1, K003,-71---
t'Jn ChVC 1 K001 4
-;- (5.74, 4.06). 8.89, 3.63), X I- - - - -I - t19' 27, 3.28)1 I.
I K007 I-I . I.s 4.5m
--- -( 1<002.
e(3.O0, II 81)i r
- 1) ( .00 , -, ) 8 K005 I,,
'(9 94 :(12.03, 1,252 z a
(0.03, 0.05 P . 04 0 - - r Bottom of Wall to 2.9 Q
.. II =
O' I I . I : I I 0 I I
- -. - = 2m 2 Scan Gridl: 0
, 0 0
C a:
D if Surface Beta Scans 2a 3Qg 9 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior North Wall 09 C] CD CD 13.8m.-... U, CD 0 T.1 rI tl \A/n 3 _v ,v v lra L[L. -X - la 0 KOlO A rQ K01 1 i C3 0
- .C OMC' ,(4.15, 3.69): + ; 9 ON OA
_ D o I - .- - - - :(9.41. 3.35): 1- -- -- I- I 0:
- --------I I 1<009 4_
4.5m (O
,12.7+3, 212.73, .71.9)
, K008: 0 -a C',
(D 0 0 Bottom of Wall
' (9.10, 091):
I _ I
. *_ MI 8
E R W
°,
cm 0 I I I I I I
= 2 O
z
= 2m2 Scan Grid "C.
0 Q I- - - - -- I 0 F, O Z§ zR Ip 0 w Cn
- 0 6co ml
I 9Q e) Surface Beta Sa-ns (BS) Sa. s I 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior East Wall Cl I. I (b 0 0 Usw jCD8 (o
.1 t.J:.
, 0': !o 4.6m (n 0 I.. 0 8 I C,' Lr C, I I lSw I : = 2m 2 Scan Grids 0 o II 0m 0 0
f-l j C) 0 0 L( Surface Beta Scans (BS) z A0. 345kV Yard Relay House Exterior West Wall A CL U E 7.32 m 0 En 0 ToO U I.. O4 0 0 O v kn C4 Ct4 a) C 0 = 2m2 Scan Grids iiI p.Ifl A)
Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FB 2500-02, Revision 0
. Page 17 of 26
II Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 S/N 43-68 S/N Design Scan MDC (dpm/100 cm 2) 1643 149071 1,832 2490 149071 1,832 1645 149071 1,832 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL Detector 43-68 Scan MDC 1832 (dpmn/100 cm2) LTP Table 5-6 DCGLW 8,554 (dpm/100 cm2) Investigation Level Approximately 96% of DCGLw (Alarm setpoint) FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 18 of 26
Attachment 3 Investigation Table (No investigations required) FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 19 of 26
---- J-IL Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 20 of 26
Survey Package FB2500 Unit 2 Surface Sign Test Summary Survey Package: : FB2500 Survey Unit: 02 Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 8,554 DCGL,: 8,554 LBGR: 4,277 Sigma: 257 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error. 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency: 13.0% 2 126 Detector Area (cm ):
. Choosing 'NIX sets material' Material Type: N/A background to O"
- -Zap: 1.64,5 Zr i:1.,64,5
- Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: '_'16.6 .-
Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: __1 '__ N-Value+20%: .14
-a '4l.,
Number of Samples: ' . i1. Median: Mean: 1j003 Net Static Data Standard Deviation: :360 Total Standard Deviation: - .,385 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: - ;208 Adjusted N Value: '_ '______ S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: ' o Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL Pa.s Mean value <DCGL.: Pass
'Maximum value <DCGL,,: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Investigate - T4e
. 5 .h CIe
- 5 X 1 c h C. h Sign test results: Pass V ',
The survey unit passes all conditions: Investigate FB2500SIU2-SurfaceSign FB 2500-02, Revision 0 5/21)03 10:55 AM Page 21 of 26.
Quantile Plot of FB2500-02 Static Data 2,500 2,000 CNq E 1,500 0 1I..._...........Percentl 0 V 1,000 0. 500 0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 910 dpm/100 cmA2
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 2/17/04 7:48:25 AM Database C:XProgram Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU2.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 1005.286 360.0315 96.22247 797.4097 1213.162 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 4.2745 '0.000019 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 3.8428 0.000122 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 33.0386 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<>8554 -78.4506 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<8554 -78.4506 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>8554 -78.4506 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 8554 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92561 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<>8554 3.2966 0.000979 Reject Ho 3.2652 0.001094 Reject Ho Median<8554 -3.2966 0.000489 Reject Ho -3.2652 0.000547 Reject Ho Median>8554 -3.2966 0.999511 Accept Ho -3.3280 0.999563 Accept Ho FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 23 of 26
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DateMme 2 2/17/04 7:48:25 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU2.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 2500.0, 2000. D 0 " 1500. 0 V 1000. 0--
=
SVO.1 _ -2.0 1.0 2.0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 1500.0 0 1350.0-a) a,u a 1200.0-1050.0. 0 ° 900.0 . . .. 0.0 3785.0 . 750.0 i 15.0 1500.0 Difference FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 24 of 26
-. - One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 2/18/04 11:47:03 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 Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 8554.000 1005.000 360.000 20.969 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 8554.000 4277.000 360.000 11.881 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 8554.000 8554.000 360.000 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 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 7549.000 between the null hypothesis mean of 8554.000 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 1005.000 with a known standard deviation of 360.000 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 25 of 26
II One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 2/18/04 11:47:04 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.01 0.8-I~~ a) 0.6-0- I 0.4- - -- - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - -- 1- I \-- 0.2-0.0 10(00 3d00 5000 7000 9doo Meanl FB 2500-02, Revision 0 Page 26 of 26
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT 3 Prepared By:__ /- Date: ? _/S -of, FSS Engineer Reviewed By: Date: q-2o-0o~ Reviewed By: Date: Approved By: & J . IBM) Date: FSS, MOP
II FB-2500 RELAY HOUSE SURVEY UNIT 3 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 3 is located in Survey Area FB2500, the 345 kV Relay House, and consists of the gravel over asphalt roof of the structure. The Relay House structure is located to the south of the 345 kV switchyard and to the east of the former fire pond. The area is a freestanding cinderblock structure on a concrete foundation slab. The survey unit is approximately 100.7 mi2 B. Survey Unit Design Information The Relay House contains electrical relay equipment that supported operations of the 345kV switchyard. Although the building is located on the Maine Yankee Plant site, Central Maine Power Co. owns and controls access to the building; therefore, it is very unlikely that radioactive material was ever used or stored in the structure. Given the low probability of contamination, the area was designated a Class 3 survey unit per the LTP. Due to the proximity of live overhead power lines, direct access to the roof was considered a safety hazard for the surveyor. Therefore, survey design for both direct measurements and scanning focused on that portion of the roof providing safe access by man-lift (along three sides of the roof). The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table I below. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. The direct sample location selections were based on a non-random, systematic grid along three sides of the roof. Survey locations are presented on survey map FB-2500-1 1 (Attachment 1). Given the nature of the roof media, volumetric sampling was used for the direct measurements. The LTP's surface DCGL for standing buildings was converted to a volumetric DCGL by assuming that the volumetric activity is homogeneously dispersed in 2 cm of gravel on the roof (Table 1). No smear samples were collected in this survey unit since the roof media (gravel over asphalt) was not amenable to smear collection. As discussed above, due to personnel safety concerns and limited roof access, the survey was designed to include 14 scan locations each of approximately 3-4 m each. Scan locations were positioned as shown on survey maps FB-2500-12 (Attachment 1). FB-2500-03. Revision 0 Page 2 of 19
Table I Survey Unit Design Summary: FB-2500, Survey Unit 3 SURVEY UNIT 3 DESIGN CRITERIA BASIS Area 100.7 m'2 Number of Direct 14 Based on an LBGR of 7,783 dpm/ Measurements Required 100cm2 , sigmat of 257 dpm/100
. cm2 and a relative shift of 3.0.
Type I= Type II= 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Spacing 1.5 m Class 3 Area, systematic due to safety concerns. Scan Grid Spacing Approximately 2m Safety guided limitations on scan areas. Grids are indicted on map FB-2500-12'(Attachment 1) Area Factor N/A Class 3 Scan Survey Area 49 m' Exceeds the 10% requirement for Class 3 areas.' Scan Investigation Level Less than DCGLw + LTP Rev. 3'. See Table 2-2 of Background' ' Attachment 2. DCGL 12.02 pCi/g in roof Based on conversion of LTP media standing building DCGL (8554
.__ __ -dpm/ 00 cm2, Table 6-13)
Design DCGLEMc ' N/A . Class 3 Survey Unit C. Survey Results - A total of 14 direct, volumetric measurements were taken; the results are presented in Table 2. No alarms occurred within the survey unit scan locations; thus, no investigations were required. Due to the nature of the roof media, no smear samples were taken. ' 'LTP, Rev. 3, Table 5-1. 2" LP, 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). 3A conversion to a volumetric DCGL was the approach adopted since only volumetric samples of roofing materials were practical. Tle DCGL wvas arrived at by assuming that the depth of sample collection is 2 cm and that the density of the gravel roofing material is 1.6 g/cm 3 . Consequently, 8554 dpmrl 06cm 2 = 85.54 dpmncm2 = 12.02 pCilg. FB-2500-03, Revision 0 Page3 of 9
II D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results No investigations were required. Table 2 Direct (Volumetric) IMeasurements, FB2500 Survey Unit 3 Sample Number Co- 60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g (MIDA) (MIDA) FB250033A001 <0.131 <0.138 FB250033A002 <0.127 <0.141 FB250033A003 <0.128 <0.138 FB250033A004 <0.126 <0.141 FB250033A005 <0.134. <0.141 FB250033A006 <0.150 <0.147 FB250033A007 <0.129 <0.137 FB250033A008 <0.136 <0.139 FB250033A009 <0.128 <0.139 FB250033A010 <0.137 <0.148 FB250033A01 1 <0.078 <0.083 FB250033A012 <0.083 <0.087 FB250033A013 <0.134 <0.137 FB250033A014 <0.120 <O.137 Sample Mean 0.124 0.132 Median 0.129 0.139 Standard Deviation 0.02 0.020 Sample Range 0.078 - 0.150 0.083 - 0.148 E. Survey Unit Data Assessment An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample range, are provided in Table 2. All sample measurement results (presented in pCi/g due to the volumetric technique) were less than the MDA. Both median and mean direct sample activities were less than the DCGL. The maximum sample result was 0.61 % of the DCGL. This is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.061 mrem/y. No additional measures to determine the extent of loose contamination are warranted since the direct samples are measures of loose contamination and were all less than 10% of the DCGLw. F. Additional Data Evaluation The results of the Sign Test, quantile plot, powver curve and one-sample T-test are provided in Attachment 4. IFB-2500-03. Revision 0 Page 4 of 19
G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results wvere consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was equivalent to 15 dpm/l 00 cm2 , which is 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 wvas 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) and a minor change in the scan setpoint calculation method for the SSPA 3 instrument. The latter change produced setpoints that are negligibly larger than current method. In general, the impact of the change represents a small fraction (1%) of the Investigation setpoint. Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the results or conclusions for the final status survey of Survey Unit 3. I. Conclusion All roof media samples were less than the DCGL equivalent of 8,554 dpm/l 00 cm2 (12.02 pCi/g). FB2500 Survey Unit 3 meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 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-02-06 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.
- 5. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation EC-009-0l.
F1B-2500-03, Revision 0 Page 5 of 19,
I I Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FB-2500-03, Revision 0 Page 6 of 19
Maine Yankee Map ID# comm De'ommis'sioning TeamI Maine Yankee DecommissioningProjectSurvey Form I FB2500-01 Survey Type: 0 Characterization C Turnover X Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: 345kV Yard Relay House FOXBIRD - 623.000OE ISLAND
.o FOOBXYliR PD
., . 623,500 E MO 1 ~ WEAG624.000 E4K BNY' P0I NT 624.5D0 E
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 6 2 5 .0 00E
/z PC r
- I -Survey Area Cat-AI
- 1. iIL. I -t .- .,-FB2500 MN I
0 400 800 1200 L-1N FB 2500-03, Revision 0 Page7ofl9 c. .
C,, C 345kV Yard Relay House Roof I Li i-l a ar (D A - - 13.8m 0 _ ___ ilorth_ ___ o U 0
.. ,......... A I (D I A014 CD 0
cow I FIc 0Q (1.0,5.5) 0 (1 2.55) I OV 0 A013 3 ! n0-<.
'° I.
0 (1,0,4.0 7.3m 5. (a (12. .0) 1i W
-l0.
0)2 0'A r-I ! I LA -4. (1.0, 2.5) L-_____ ---- 2 meter line - - - - - - - J (12.8, 2.5) a o_, I ( . ., _._, _ . . _ _ cn AO 04 A O 5 AO 06 AOT8 AOp9 I I 04 ,F (4.0, 10)- (7.0, 1.0) (8;,11.0) (1 bo, 3Si C K v E (5.5,1.0) South (11.5; 1.0)
-Al' 0 a a.
+ = Other Miscellaneous Samples (MS)
C 0 C CD
Ii Gamma Scans (C 3 345kV Yard Relay How1-3-e Roof 0 13.8m C a 57. CD NJ AOI A0I 9 (w 0 U -O n MUUI :A0143 (0 0 3 7.3m I I (a CD 4i1 A003 A0 12 I- _0
- ---- 2 metqr line ---,---------- z 01 0I A004 A005 :A006 A007 A008 A009 AOIO AOI I a -n I
- 0. a%. N3 01 South -
C" 0 0 (n
----- = Gamma Scan Grids CD
I I Attachment 2 Survey Instrumentation FB-2500-03, Revision 0 Page IO of 19
Table 2-1 Instrument Information E-600 SIN SSPA-3 SIN Design Scan MDC (pCi/g) 1643 725331 5.9 LTP Table 5-6 2490 725330 5.9 LTP Table 5-6 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MIDC and Comparison with DCGL Detector SSPA-3 Scan IVIDC (pCi/g) 5.9 pCi/g (See Note) DCGLw 8,554 (dpmi/100 cm2) (12.02 pCi/g) Investigation Level Less Than (Alarm setpoint) DCGLw + Background Note: It may be conservatively demonstrated that had the instrument scan setpoint been determined using the lowest survey unit daily background (9.77k CPM) and the current method, the highest peak hold value from scanning would correspond to a level of activity below the DCGLw. The survey unit daily background (9.77k CPM) corresponds to an instrument setpoint, using the updated procedural method, of 12,067 CPM. Since the difference between the highest grid scan value (13,760 CPM) and this hypothetical, lowered setpoint (in pCi/g equivalent) 4 is lower than the DCGLw (12.02 pCi/g), no scan grids require investigation. Maximum soil activity concentration is: (13,760 CPM - 12,067 CPM) / 472 (CPM/pCi/g) +5.9 pCi/g = 9.48 pCi/g. (<12.02 pCi/g) 4 The 472 CPNI per pCilg conversion is documented in EC-009-01 (Reference 5) FB-2500-03, Revision 0 Page I I of 19
_I_ Attachment 3 Investigation Table (No investigations required) FB-2500-03. Revision 0 Page 12 of 19
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FB-2500-03, Revision 0 Page 13 of 19
____I I Survey Package FB2500 Unit 3 Soil Sign Test Summary W <g'--'tEval tormputVaiue s . S9.. t o metHX~ Survey Package: FB2500 Survey Unit: 03 Evaluator: DR DCGL,: 1.20E+01 Converted from 8554 dpm/100 cmA2 DCGLemc: 2.41 E+01 LBGR: 1.50E+00 Sigma: 3.62E-01 Converted from 257 dpm/100 cmA2 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: NA Z.<,: - 1.645 Zt-0: 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 29. Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: II N-Value+20%: 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 1.39E-01 Mean: 1.32E-01 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 2.04E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 2.04E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 1.48E-01 Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass
- ';><tac"c zto f Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value 'DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLemc: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass FB2500-SU3-SoilSign- 1 4119/04 3:36 PM FB 2500-03, Revision 0 Page 14 of 19
Quantile Plot of FB2500-03 Static Data 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1-0.08.-
- Percent 0 0
u 0.06 - L. To oO~ acJ) 0.04- vo X as ; c 0.02 - 0 I 11 0.0 25.0 - 50.0 75.0 100.0 Percent Median = 0.139 pCi/g
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DateMme 1 4/19/04 3:47:52 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU3.SO Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 0.1323571 2.036818E-02 5.443624E-03 0.1205969 0.1441174 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality -3.2030 0.001360 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 2.1887 0.028617 Reject normality. Omnibus Normality 15.0495 0.000540 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<>12 -2180.0995 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<12 -2180.0995 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>12 -2180.0995 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 12 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.89025 0 4 60 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<> 12 3.3039 0.000953 Reject Ho 3.2724 0.001066 Reject Ho Median<12 -3.3039 0.000477 Reject Ho -3.2724 0.000533 Reject Ho Median>12 -3.3039 0.999523 Accept Ho -3.3354 0.999574 Accept Ho FB 2500-03, Revision 0 Page 16 of 19
*; I - One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 4/19/04 3:47:52 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FB2500SU3.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2
.. 0.2 C
0.1
*:, 01 0
0 I.. 0.1 0 0 V.1 I .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-2.0 ' 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1. ! :
o0 0.1 0 E 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Difference 113 2500-03, Revision 0 Pagel7ofl 9
I I One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 4119104 3:46:16 PM-Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 12.000 0.132 0.020 581.765 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 12.000 6.010 0.020 293.627 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 12.000 12.000 0.020 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 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 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 11.868 between the null hypothesis mean of 12.000 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.132 with a known standard deviation of 0.020 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. F13 2500-03, Revision 0 Page 18 of 19
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/DatelTime 2 4/19/04 3:46:17 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0- ------------ 0.8-L_- a) 0.6- - - - - - -- - - 0
£1-0.4 -----------------
0.4- -- -- -- -- ---- t - - - - - - - - - - -X- --------- 0.2--. 0.0 111 0 t 10 15 Meanl EB 2500-03, Revision 0 Page 19 of 19
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-0210 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING SURVEY UNIT I Prepared B y lte: -VX FSS X reer0 Reviewed By: a Reviewed By: Da Approved By: ac-r ,ean) Dat FSS, MOP __, ,--
I I FR-0210 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description The FR-0210 Survey Area was primarily a gravel-based fill area of the Secondary Side, located between the Turbine Building and the Circulating Water Pump House. (See map FRO210-01, ). Portions of the area were covered with an asphalt or concrete travel surface. While the survey area was located inside the Industrial Area of the site, it was outside of the plant's radiologically restricted area (RA). The survey area was divided into three survey units. Survey Unit I consisted of the surface land area, approximately 2200 m2in size. The surface and subsurface materials were later excavated to facilitate removal of Circulating Water and Service Water system piping. (FR-0210 Survey Units 2 and 3 address the survey of latter stages of excavation.) B. Survey Unit Design Information FR-0210 Survey Unit I was designated a Class 3 survey unit consistent with the LTP classification of survey area R-0200, of which FR-0210 is a portion. (See LTP Table 5-IC.) The survey unit design parameters are summarized in Table I. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was detemrined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated, and are shown on map FRO210-02 (Attachment 1). These locations were then adjusted to avoid asphalt or concrete areas, which were subsequently removed as waste. A I % to 10% scan coverage of the area was required.' Scan grids were typically 16 square meter areas each, surrounding the 14 soil sample locations as indicated on the attached survey map FRO210-04 (Attachment 1). The total scan area was approximately 220 M2 , thus meeting the upper scan coverage requirement of 10%. The survey instruments used and their MIDC values are provided in Attachment 2. LTP Table 5-3 FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Paste 2 of 21
C. Survey Results Fourteen direct soil samples were obtained in Survey Unit 1. The resulting soil sample measurement data are presented in Table 2. Scan surveys resulted in eight verified instrument alarms. The investigation of these alarms is discussed in Section D. Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary: FR-0210, Survey Unit 1 Survey Unit I Design Criteria ' Basis Area Approx. 2200 m2 No limit for Class 3 area Number of Direct 14 Based on adjusted LBGR of Measurements' 3.59 pCi/g, sigma? of 0.17 Required and relative shift of 3.0. Type l=Type 11=0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3'Area' Scan Grid Area 4 m x4 m or 16m2 Class 3 Area' ; Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area Approx. 220 i 2 Class 3 Area: 1%-I 0% Scan Investigation 3 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference I) Level background DCGL 4.1 pCi/g DRAFT Rev. 12 of the LTP 3 Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Area D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The eight verified instrument alarms are listed in Table 3-1 (Attachment 3). As part of the investigation, each alarm location wvas scanned to determine the highest elevated location, and an in situ gamma spectrum analysis was performed at the location with highest scan value. Soil samples were also collected from each sample location. In situ gamma spectroscopy identified only naturally occurring radionuclides associated with soils. No plant-derived radionuclides above the MDA were detected (Attachment 3) in the investigation soil samples. During the time of the FR-0210 survey, thle'scan method6logy changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. One of the key program changes resulting from the E660invvestigation involved the use of local scaler 1.*. . 2 LTP Table 5-IC 3 The design DCGL for this survey unit was based on a draft version of LTP Revision 2. The DCGL was later increased to 4.2 pCi'g as submitted the final version of LTP Revision 2 (Reference 2). FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page3 o320
I I background measurements to establish background and, from that, the investigation level. As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit I background and scan data was conducted. A revised alarm setpoint was calculated based on the latest scan methodology. This review indicated that one additional scan grid (FRO2I0-1-S002) may have alarmed had the revised setpoint been used. No further investigation was considered warranted for the following reasons.
- 1. The scan grids for this Class 3 area are relatively small (16 m2 ).
- 2. The direct soil sample from scan grid S002 indicated < MDA values, and all other direct samples were at or below MDA.
- 3. All investigation soil samples elsewhere in the survey unit indicated < MDA values (Table 3-1, Attachment 3).
Therefore, additional investigation of scan grid FRO210-1-S002 would not likely reveal the presence of plant-derived activity above background. Table 2 FR-0210 Survey Unit 1, Soil Sample Results Soil Sample ID Nos. Cs-137 pCi/g FRO210-1-SOO1 0.1+0.04 FRO210-1-S002 < 0.073 FRO210-1-S003 <0.068 FRO210-I-S004 <0.078 FRO210-I-S005 <0.066 FRO210-I-S006 <0.082 FRO210-1-S007 <0.088 FRO210-1-S008 < 0.061 FRO2I0-1-S009 <0.055 FRO210-1-SOI0 <0.065 FRO210-1-SOI 1 <0.075 FRO210-1-S012 0.053+0.03 FRO210-1-S013 <0.070 FRO210-1-S014 <0.071 Sample Alean 0.072 Sample Median 0.071 Sample Std. Dev. 0.013 Range 0.053-0.100 Note: All samples were evaluated to be < MDA for Co-60 (i.e., < 0.1 pCi/g) FR-0210-0l. Revision 0 PIL'e -1 of21
E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Co-60 and Cs-137. The maximum soil result for Cs-1 37 was approximately 2 % of the DCGL. The direct measurements were all less than the MDA except for two positive Cs-137 results (Table 2). The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value4 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.12 pCi/g. This is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mrem/y. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are presented in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus,'no additional measurements were required. 1I. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit I was designed, performed, and evaluated in the third quarter of 2001. The survey was designed to the criteria of the Draft LTP, Revision 2. As discussed and reviewed - in Section D of ihis 'Release Record, scan methodology changes were made during this time frame, relating to the use of the E600 instrument. LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey wvere evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows.
- 1. Increase in DCGL from 4.1 pCi/g (Draft LTP Revision 2) to 4.2 pCi/g (LTP, Revision 2, Reference 2), applicable to open land areas outside the RA.
- 2. Requirement to check background + 1000 cpm prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP Section 5.5.2.f, LTP Revision 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6).
- 3. Increased Scan MDC to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6).
- 4. Change in alarm setpoint methodology during the evolution of the use of E600 (use of scaler vs. peak values to establish the investigation level).
- 5. LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (References 7 and 8).
- 6. The procedural commitment to the State of Maine of limiting grid size to 10 m2 (Reference 9).
4 See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 3) FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page5of2l
II These LTP changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of the FSS of FR-0210 Survey Unit 1.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil sample measurements were less than the soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. Investigations showed no evidence of plant-derived radionuclides above background. FR-0210, Survey Unit 1, met the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References I. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01
- 2. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
- 3. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 4. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-048, dated October 15, 2002.
- 5. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 6. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003, Approval of LTP Revision 3 and Addenda.
- 7. MY letter to the NRC, WIN-03-049, dated September H1, 2003, Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling.
- 8. NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004, Approval of Activated Concrete Amendment.
- 9. MY Letter to the NRC, MN-03-009, February 26, 2003.
FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 21
Attachment 1 ISurvey Unit Maps FR-0210-bI, Revision 0 Page 7 of 21
II Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID - FRO2IO-O1 nl,.,,,-n jnilnp Team urvey Type:EjCharacterization ElTurnover WFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Circulating Water Piping Area GRAPHIC SCALE 0 0 z z0 MAhIJ[ STAHE GEOLCGICAL COORDINAEI SYSTEM Survey Area FR0210 FR-0210-0]. Revision 0 Page 3 of 21
Ii 0 FR021 0 Survey Unit 1 (Pre Excavation) -Ii4 Soil Sample L ocat ions :-.0 t1. IO n Survey Unit measures 248.5 x 95 Feet 0
-*0 N -41 0 0 0 <1
_______ ______ C °___ _.407.750 N
- J 0
i e 0I
.4
?b :C2 0 0
!_- N00 -
a 0 0 0 S005' O__so________ __________.. _____.___ ___.._____.__ _________________________4770 0 'i
-o 90.L A U' rD O I I OG I0061 I I I I I II -1.
- T F -r - -i- F -T -, T7 I(A 70 , - ,- T!- _ -I- +7 .c 0 - 1
'c
.4n 01)< . 7JJ 50 I I~ 5)8' . - 1 1I !00 I , Id~ I I I *I~ I I I I IT
'.4 CP
-I i l F I I t_
c '1 0
- 20 50 13j! , i I i I I l -I- 4I -*1 C
00 0 00 00 00 0 ID2 e
! Q r 10 I -r . -I - ; 1 I , 1+1 47, N i
-e
_ * ., , I I I
--- r'.1)
- I 0° I
W f -----NXNNN% I I
- I I I I I I 5 I z 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 00 0 - NJ C, .6 U' E -J OX 1 0 - Nv L.. .6 tSl ~ ~ l ~ oxaxs (feet) l 'z an 30 0
"m1
.. 0 0,
.. . }407.550 N 0 0
N I 0 0 0 N
c 0n FR021 0 Survey Un i t 1 ( Pre Excavat i on ) -83 Scan Locations Survey Un i t measures 248.5 x 95 feet N 35 o' o - 407. 75Q N LuJ Lui LO 4(')7.70 N LU LUJ
- ,,1 0 C C 0 C C 0 C _.
;,-I C C LU s
N~ 'N In rN I. N; N LU 10 LU LD a~ 0 z 0) 1 F
- I 407.700 N r r.
7 0 (iS
- 7) _ 1I _
0 0-xa C D.---i--I-- I III 0 0.:
-I
_(D I 0I
,jC 0 E
0
.008 s00s -s D 1L II r
I 1L II 407.650 N
.4
.A I
_:_- US I _ solo - -I - A- - I- -I - 4 - H-C (I i0 S S08 S0Z I I I I I: P 8 i I _ _ I I I _ I_ _ I _ I _ _ I:
- 0 wL- A I I I 1`1'
_-1 407.600 N n' i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Z 7 x axis (4 meter grid) IC1 CS < N
.... ~~~~" __ .. _407r,50 I. - - -
M
,N
- 0O (5
_ 4 a
Attachment 2 Survey Unit instrumentation FR-02I0-.., Revision 0 Page IIof 21
II Table 2-1 FR-021 0 INSTRUMENTATION E-600 SIN SPA-3 S/N IIDC (pCi/g) 1622 725331,725332 See Table 2-2 1647 725328 See Table 2-2 IIPGe Detectors Detector No. lIDC (pCi/g) FSS-I 0.05 to 0.11I FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Det. #3 0.10 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan AIDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGL 4.2 DCGL for land areas outside the Restricted pCi/g Area applied (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 5) Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6, Design Scan MIDC (LTP pCi/g Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 5) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 1) (Alarm selpoint) Background FR-021 0-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 21
Attachment 3 Investigation Table
. I I .i FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page 13 of 21
II Table 3-1 FR-0210 Survey Unit I Land Area Between Circulating 'Water Pump House and Turbine Building Investigation Results Survey FSS Investigated As Cs-137 Location 5 Survey pCilg Date FRO210-1-S003 8/20/01 XR02I0-1-SOO to S004 <0.074 FRO210-1-S003 8/20/01 XR0210-1-S005 to S008 <0.048 FRO210-1-S005 8/20/01 XR0210-1-S009 to S012 <0.058 FRO210-1-S005 8/20/01 XR0210-1-S013 to S016 <0.060 FRO210-1-S006 8/20/01 XR0210-1-S017 to S020 <0.062 FRO210-1-S006 8/20/01 XR02I0-1 -S021 to S024 <0.076 FRO210-1-S008 8/20/01 XR0210-1-S025 to S028 <0.058 FRO210-1-S008 8/20101 XR0210-1-S029 to S032 <0.060 Note: All samples evaluated to be < MDA for Co-60 (i.e., < 0.1 pCi/g) 5 Each of tle listed FR-0210 scan locations had two verified alarms. Eacl alarm within lhe scan location was treated as a separate investigation and tracked under the unique package numbers provided in this table. FR-0210-01. Revision 0 Page 14 of 21
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-021 0-OI1, Revision 0 Page5of2, ,
Il Survey Package FRO210 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary _____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _C i m&mitns : Survey Package: FR0210 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: GP DCGLs,: 4.10E+00 DCGLemc: 4.10E+00 LBGR: 2.05E+00 Sigma: 1-70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: N/A Z.<: 1.645 Z.-: i 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 12.0 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value+20%: 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 7.05E-02 Mean: 7.18E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 1.26E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 1.26E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 1.OOE-01
*Xign_________________________ - ....- Cgnents n;- :..A A Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass
>I. rlvterlaSattsfa v ton ; - * .a Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLelc: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass Thescmtents . .ta The survey unit passes allconditions.I Passi FRO210-SMU-SoilSign 514104 1:53 Pea FR-0210-01. Revision 0 Pat e J1 of 2I
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 5/4/04 1:09:15PAM Database C:IProgram Files\NCSS97\FRO210SU 1.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 7.178571 E-02 1.259535E-02 3.366249E-03 6.451338E-02 7.905805E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 1.1537 0.248623 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.8058 0.420341 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 1.9804 0.371505 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<>4.2 -1226.3544 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.2 -1226.3544 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.2 -1226.3544 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 4.2 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.92953 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<>4.2 3.2958 0.000982 Reject Ho 3.2644 0.001097 Reject Ho Median<4.2 0.000061 Reject Ho -3.2958 0.000491 Reject Ho -3.2644 0.000549 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.2958 0.999509 Accept Ho -3.3272 0.999561 Accept Ho FR-0210-01, Revision 0 P)ageJ1 of 21
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 5/4/04 1:09:15 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FRO21 0SU1 .- 0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 N 0 U 0.1 0.1 0.1 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1 0 0.1 a) 0) 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0. 0 0.1 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.1 Difference FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page _ of 21
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 5/4/04 1:09:54 PM 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 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.072 0.013 317.538 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 2.100 0.013 161.538 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.013 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 Ihe 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-Mean1 I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.128 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.072 with a known standard deviation of 0.013 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FR-0210-01, Revision 0 Page Iq of 21
II One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 514104 1:09:55 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve
-, - X - - -- - -
L..
- \ I.
0 a_ * !I I! II \:
- I *I \
Meanl FR-02 10-01, Revision 0 Page 2CL of 21
FRO210 SU-1 Quantile Plot 0.12 0.1 I-U o on 0 0.08 0 0 0.06
- Cs-137 (pCi/g) 7 0
Nw
-Median Cs-1 37 (pCi/g)j .0 I. 0.04 CD) m 0.02 0
0.00 50.00 100.00 Per Cent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-02 10 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING S. UN 2 SURVEY UNIT 2 Prepared By: Date: 411/3/A4 T FSS El neer . Reviewed Reviewed Date: _____3 Approved By:60 . ).J Date:_ -_____ FSS, MOP
I FR-0210 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 2 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description FR-0210 Survey Area was primarily a gravel-based fill area of the Secondary Side, located between the Turbine Building and the Circulating Water Pump House (CW-PH). (See map FRO2I0-01, Attachment 1.) While the survey area was located inside the Industrial Area of the site, it was outside the plant's radiologically restricted area (RA). The survey area was divided into three survey units. Survey Unit I consisted of the surface land area at grade elevation prior to excavation. Survey Unit 2 is the surface area (approximately 1400 m 2) exposed after the excavation and removal of the subsurface Circulating Water system piping that ran between the Turbine Building and CWPH. Survey Unit 3 addresses the FSS of the exposed area following the final excavation work and removal of the underground service water piping. B. Survey Unit Design Information FR-0210 Survey Unit 2 was designated a Class 3 survey unit consistent with the LTP classification of survey area R-0200, of which FR-0210 is a portion. (See LTP Table 5-1 C.) The survey unit design parameters are summarized in Table I. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was initially determined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated for SU2 and are shown on map FRO210-06 (Attachment 1). A 1% to 10% scan coverage of the area was required.' Scan grids were typically 10 m2 areas each, surrounding the soil sample locations as indicated on the attached survey map (FRO210-05, ). The total scan area was approximately 170 in2 , thus meeting the upper scan coverage requirement of 1O%. The survey instruments used and their MDC values are provided in Attachment 2. LTP Table 5-3 FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page 2 of 20
Table I . Survey Unit Design Summary: FR-0210, Survey Unit 2 Survey Unit 2 Design Criteria Basis Area M2 No limit for Class 3 area Ap~prox. 1400m Number of Direct 14 2 Based 'on adjusted LBGR of 3.59 Measurements pCi/g, sigma 3 of 0.17 and Required relative shift of 3.0. i_ Type ]=Type 11=0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area Approx. 10 mr. Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A - Class 3 Area 2 Scan Survey Area Class 3 Area: 1%-10% Approx. 170 m Scan Investigation 3 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference I) Level background : DCGL 4.1 pCi/g Draft LTP Revision 24 Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Area C. Survey Unit Results Seventeen direct measurements were obtained in Survey Unit 2. The resulting soil sample measurement data are presented in Table 2. No alarms wvere received during soil scanning; iherefore,'no investigations wvere required. During the time of the FR-0210 survey, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. One of the key program changes resulting from the E600 investigation involved the use of local scaler background measurements to establish background and, from that, the investigation level. 2 Fourteen samples were required; seventeen were actually taken. 3 LTP Table 5- IC 4 The design DCGL for this sun'ey unit was based on a draft version of the LTP Revision 2. The DCGL was later increased to 4.2 pCi/g as submitted in the final version of LTP Revision 2 (Reference 2). FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page 3 of 20.,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I I As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit 2 background and scan data was conducted using the latest methodology. This review indicated that no additional scan grids would have alanned, therefore no additional investigation was required. Table 2 FR 0210 Survey Unit 2, Soil Sample Results Soil Sample Nos. Cs-137 (pCi/g) FR-0210-2-SOOI <0.064 FR-0210-2-S002 <0.058 FR-0210-2-S003 <0.063 FR-0210-2-S004 <0.064 FR-0210-2-SO05 <0.047 FR-0210-2-S006 <0.048 FR-0210-2-S007 <0.066 FR-0210-2-SO08 <0.058 FR-0210-2-S009 <0.024 FR-0210-2-S010 <0.023 FR-0210-2-S0l 1 <0.025 FR-0210-2-S012 <0.023 FR-0210-2-S013 <0.023 FR-0210-2-S014 <0.021 FR-0210-2-S022 <0.020 FR-0210-2-S023 <0.020 FR-0210-2-S024 <0.021 Mean 0.039 Median 0.025 Std. Dev. 0.019 Range 0.020 to 0.066 Note: All samples were evaluated to be < MDA for Co-60 (i.e., <0.1 pCi/g) D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results No investigations were required. FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Cs- 137 and Co-60. The maximum soil result for Cs-137 wvas less than 2 % of the DCGL. The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value 5 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.15 pCi/g. This is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mrem/y. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are presented in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The 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 2 was designed, performed and evaluated in the time frame spanning from the third quarter 2001 to early 2002. The design was performed to the criteria of the Draft LTP, Revision 2. As discussed and reviewed in Section D of this Release Record, scan methodology changes were made during this time frame, relating to the use of the E600 instrument. LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows. I. Increase in DCGL from 4.1 pCi/g (Draft LTP Revision 2) to 4.2 pCi/g (LTP, Rev 2, Reference
- 2) - applicable to open land areas outside the RA.
- 2. Requirement to check background + 1000 cpm prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP Section 5.5.2.f; LTP Revision. 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6).
- 3. Increased Scan MDC to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6)
- 4. Change in alarm setpoint methodology during the evolution of the use of E600 (use of scaler vs. peak values to establish the investigation level).
- 5. LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (Reference 7 and 8).
- 6. The procedural commitment to the State of Maine of limiting grid size to 10 m2 (Reference 9).
5 See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 3) FR-0210-02 Revision 0 PageS of 20....! I
i~I I These LTP changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of the FSS of FR-02 10 Survey Unit 2.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil sample measurements were less than the soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. FR-02 10, Survey Unit 2, met the release criteria of I OCFR20. 1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01
- 2. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
- 3. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 4. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN 048, dated October 15, 2002.
- 5. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 6. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003, Approval of LTP Rev. 3 and Addenda.
- 7. MY letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September I1, 2003, Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling.
- 8. NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004, Approval of Activated Concrete Amendment.
- 9. MY Letter to the NRC, MN-03-009, February 26, 2003.
FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
Attachment I Survey Map Locations FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page 7 of 20
II MMaine Yankee Decommissioning Team INan aieYneeDcm akeDc m isinn-roetSrey iso igPoetS r Map IMap ID I FRO21O-01
- urvey Type~fljCharacterization ElTurnover UWinal Sta'tus Survey ISurvey Area Namne
- Circulating Water Piping Area GRAPHIC SCALE MAINE STAIE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYiS1E0.I Survey Area FRO210 FR-0210-02. Revision 0 Page &3 of 20
0 0. I, 0 0 FRO210 Survey Unit 2 Post Excavation IA
-Cc Scan Locations 0 Survey Unit Measures 248.5 x 61 feet - i n,
0 0 i0i g 0c° CD 0 407.750n
- V. . N C El C C CD C.. CD U
-Ad CD CD 4 0 UX r'
C
.07 rJl rJ, NJ £'ro Rmod'.y
-o Under 0
C II I I - - I . I 01 ox F C t -sou t - I- t- I (D c; E I
.1 -I-I L I I 1 -I- L I C-0 w1
.4 3.
0 W i I1 I I I I I I I 407.650 N 0 Z-
-I 0
I-. CD 3 C t _ I-M -I1 30 0 C CD3 I - - I -I - -I- I - I- 6 O C,
-4
_o n nA _- -C1 e x axis (3.2 meter gridi S14 I 5 1 6 17 16 I 9 20 21 22 23 2 T6 ' 407.600 N 0 _.1 CD _O Z -Z 0t 0 0 C, (D **1 0b 0
*0 C
a 0 407.55O N 0 0 0 U' 0
-4
C) FRO210 Survey Unit 2 Post Excavat i on Soil Sample L ocat ions Cr Survey Unit measures 248.5 x 61 feet C, C) 407,750 H U. IL C CD 0 0 LI, Iq C) C.- C\ o1 N LL C) n
-A 0D 0 0 0
407.700 N 0 '1 _A Area Under Roadway 0 14 0 n C) I I I I I '4 0 50 _) _ C))
.L . I. . 4 1 .. oo.
40 407,650e N 4 x C) C,
$002 w
_O E
*(/C, X
-4.
30 20 sb_
-S -- -- .o.o Lr-GE ,I , S,
-------- --- --- ^- 0 0
'4 0 a4
'11 10 DS024 Qg 6 C,r W
o,: T ' 0
-. N b. Ul a) -I Co LO I - - - - N N N N1 Ca 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 - 0 N) 0 U (I C' -J C 0 0 - N) U. - 407,*600 N CD
-e x axIs (feet)
Z Z Ca t C) 0(D' nO n1 rO _o r-' u z2 ,re 9 0 c 0 D;, (D 407,550 C)
.. i .
Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrllmcntation f ..
, *- .; A.: . . .
. . {W- _
l , , .
. z , .
., *, - I
-l j t; '9 8 ' ' -
FR-0210-02 Revision 0 Page II of 20
II Table 2-1 FR-0210, Survey Unit 2, Instrumentation E-600 SIN SPA-3 S/N MDC (pCi/g) 1606 725332 See Table 2-2 1647 725328 See Table 2-2 HPGe Detectors Detector No. MIDC (pCi/g) FSS-I 0.05 to 0.11 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Det. #3 0.10 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan NiDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGL 4.2 DCGL for land areas outside the Restricted Area pCi/g applied (Table 5-4a, LTP Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 5) Scan MlDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6, Design Scan MADC (LTP Revision 3 pCi/g Addenda, Reference 5) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 1) (Alarm selpoint) Background FR-02 10-02, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20
Attachment 3 Investigation Table (Not Required) FR-0210-02, Revision 0 Page 13 of 20.
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-0210-02, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
Survey Package FRO210 Unit 2 Soil Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FRO210 Survey Unit: 02 Evaluator: DR DCGLw: 4.1 OE+O0 DCGLer: -4.1 OE+00 LBGR: 3.59E+00 Sigma: 1.70E-01 Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: .0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 _ Soil Type: NIA
-.- iicGtd,;> S a' m~qrnmen.4 I60s. ,hi n /
Z.<: 1.645 Z1-.O 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 3.0 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 e:N-Value+20%: ;14
!^,'~"'>-S-;npk{JDatav- i -ts ;ornmen~t Number of Samples: 17 Median: 2.50E-02 Mean: 3.93E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 1.93E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 1.93E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 6.60E-02 r-2H~ig.4@Slgne6st Results -*C 2 '-W rneEt Adjusted N Value: 17
-' S. Value: :17 Critical Value:'. 1 Sign test results: Pass t* criterla Sfitio6Xi CAornden.s; Sufficient samples collected: . Pass -.
Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGLw: -Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLemc: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass T u^Flni *lstath'uCommentsa oitions:I Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass __________________ FR-0210-02, Revision 0 FRO210-SU2-SoilSign Page 15 of 20 516104 9:34 AM
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 5/4/04 3:09:43 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR0210SU2.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 17 3.935294E-02 1.927415E-02 4.674667E-03 2.944309E-02 4.926279E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1199 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 0.5795 0.562272 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality -3.7458 0.000180 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 14.3669 0.000759 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<>4.2 -890.0414 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.2 -890.0414 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.2 -890.0414 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 4.2 0.5 17 0 1.000000 0.000008 0.000015 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 76.5 21.10391 0 4 42 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<>4.2 3.6249 0.000289 Reject Ho 3.6012 0.000317 Reject Ho Median<4.2 -3.6249 0.000145 Reject Ho -3.6012 0.000158 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.6249 0.999855 Accept Ho -3.6486 0.999868 Accept Ho FR-0210-02. Revision 0 Page J- of 20
.. IOne-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 5/4104 3:09:43 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FRO2 10SU2 .S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 0.1.
i 0 ii C) Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.01 0 00 0 0.0 0 a, 0.0 coo 0.0 0 0 v DO~~~~ - .- . ... ........ 0.0 0.0 D 0e0 0.0 0.1 Difference F-R-02 10-02, Revision .0 PageIZ of 20
I~I I One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 5/4/04 3:10:21 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 17 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.039 0.019 219.000 1.00000 17 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 2.100 0.019 110.526 0.05000 17 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.019 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 MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, jMeanO-Mean1 I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 17 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.161 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.039 with a known standard deviation of 0.019 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FR-0210-02, Revision 0 Page aS of 20
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 514/04 3:10:21 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0-0.8-_ a
. \ , .
0. a,0 .46 - - - - - - - - -;- - - - ... 0IL 0.4-0.2-,.
- I .'.
0.0 t 42A1 Meanl FR-0210-02, Revision 0 Page jc of 20 I
Fr-0210 Survey Unit 2 Quantile Plot 0.07 0.06 U 0.05 0.04
-60 IQ, i. Seriesli m
._- 0.03 - Series2 U 0.02 0.01 0 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Per Cent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-021 0 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 3 Prepared Date: 4//s/4k4
-/ - - - 1
. I' I ' I, ' . I !
Reviewed By.i, l Fa Date:_ 4/(4/14= SFSS :: ,, Approved By: (Gus All Date:e:
- FSS,MOP-, i
. 1 .
II FR-0210 LAND AREA BETWEEN CIRCULATING WATER PUMP HOUSE AND TURBINE BUILDING SURVEY UNIT 3 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description FR-0210 Survey Area was primarily a gravel-based fill area of the Secondary Side, located between the Turbine Building and the Circulating Water Pump House (CWPH). (See map FRO210-01, Attachment 1.) While the survey area was located inside the Industrial Area of the site, it was outside the plant's radiologically restricted area (RA). The survey area was divided into three survey units. Survey Unit I consisted of the surface land area at grade elevation prior to excavation. Survey Unit 2 consisted of the surface area exposed after the removal of the subsurface Circulating Water system piping which ran between the Turbine Building and CWPH. Survey Unit 3 addresses the FSS of the exposed area following the final excavation work; the excavation for the two Service Water pipes running between the CWPH and the Turbine Building. The survey unit size is approximately 303 m2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information FR-0210 Survey Unit 3 was designated a Class 3 survey unit consistent with the LTP classification of survey area R-0200, of which FR-0210 is a portion. (See LTP Table 5-I C.) The survey unit design parameters are summarized in Table I. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated for SU3 and are shown on map FRO210-07 (Attachment 1). A I % to 10% scan coverage of the area was required.' Scan grids were typically 4 square meter areas surrounding the soil sample locations as indicated on the attached survey map (FR0210-07, ). The total scan area was approximately 56 in2, thus exceeding the upper scan coverage requirement of 10%. The survey instruments used and their MDC values are provided in Attachment 2. LIP Table 5-3 FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Pagie 2 of 20
Table I : , Survey Unit Design Summary: FR-0210, Survey Unit 3 Survey Unit 3 Design Criteria ' Basis Area Approx. 303 M2 No limit for Class 3 area Number of Direct 14 Based on adjusted LBGR of Measurements 3.59 pCi/g, sigma 2 of 0. 17 Required and relative shift of 3.0. __ Type 1=Type 11=0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area Approx. 4 m2 Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area Approx. 56 m2 Class 3 Area-1%-10% Scan Investigation 3 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference 1) Level background _ DCGL 4.1 pCi/g Draft LTP Rev. 2 3 Design DCGLemc N/A Class 3 Area C. Survey Results Fourteen direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 3. The resulting soil sample data are presented in Table 2. One confirmed alarm wvas received in the southeast portion of Survey Unit 3 (FRO2 10-3-S007). The investigation of the alarm is discussed in Section D. 2 LTP Table 5-IC . The design DCGL for this survey unit w'as based on a draft version of the LTP Revision 2. The DCGL was later increased to 4.2 pCi/g as submitted in the final version of LTP Revision 2 (Reference 2). FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 3,of 20
I I Table 2 FR-0210 Survey Unit 3, Soil Sample Results Soil Sample Nos. Cs-137 (pCi/g) FR-0210-3-SOO1 <0.050 FR-0210-3-S002 <0.049 FR-0210-3-S003 <0.047 FR-0210-3-S004 <0.050 FR-0210-3-SO05 <0.060 FR-0210-3-S006 <0.048 FR-0210-3-S007 <0.057 FR-0210-3-S008 <0.050 FR-0210-3-S009 <0.024 FR-0210-3-SO10 <0.025 FR-0210-3-S01 1 <0.022 FR-0210-3-S012 <0.026 FR-0210-3-S013 <0.025 FR-0210-3-5014 <0.021 Mean 0.040 Median 0.048 Std. Dcv. 0.015 Range 0.021 to 0.060 Note: All samples were evaluated to be < MDA for Co-60 (i.e., < 0.1 pCi/g) D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results The 2 by 2 meter FRO210-3-S007 grid was scanned and an in-situ gamma analysis performed at the highest scan location. A soil sample was also collected from the location. The alarm location is adjacent to a large block of concrete that appears to be the source of the high count rate. In situ gamma spectroscopy identified only naturally occurring radionuclides associated with soils. No plant-derived radionuclides above the MDA were detected (Attachment 3) in the investigation soil sample. During the time of the FR-0210 survey, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. One of the key FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
program changes resulting from the E600 investigation involved the use of local scaler background measurements to establish background and, from that, the investigation level. As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit 3 background and scan data was conducted. Where applicable, a revised alarm setpoint was calculated based on the latest scan methodology. This review indicated that three additional scan grids (FRO210-3-S009, S010, SOl1) may have alarned had the revised setpoint been used. No further investigation was considered warranted for th6 following 'reasons.
- 1. The scan grids for this Class 3 area are relatively'small (4 m2 ).
- 2. The direct soil samples from these scan grids indicated < MDA values, and all other direct samples were at or below MDA.
- 3. The investigation soil sample for S007 indicated < MDA values (Table 3-1, Attachment 3).
Therefore, additional investigation of scan grids FRO210-3-S009, Sol0, and SO.I would not likely reveal the presence of plant-derived activity above background. E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Cs-I 37 and Co-60. The maximum soil result for Cs-137 was less than 2 % of the DCGL. The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value 4 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.15 pCi/g. This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mrem*y. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are presented in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity. The survey was designed as'a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistcnt with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements wvere required. Il. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 3 was designed, perfornmed and evaluated in late 2001 and mid 2002. The design was performed to the criteria of the Draft LRP, Revision 2. As discussed in Section D of this record, scan methodology changes' weie made'during this time frame, relating to the use See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 3) FR-02 10-03, Revision 0. Page 5 of 20
II of the E600 instrument. LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows. I. Increase in DCGL from 4.1 pCi/g (DRAFT LTP Rev. 2) to 4.2 pCi/g (LTP, Rev 2, Reference
- 2) - applicable to open land areas outside the RA.
- 2. Requirement to check background + 1000 cpm prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP 5.5.2.f; LTP Revision 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6)
- 3. Increased Scan MDC to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, References 4, 5 and 6)
- 4. Change in alarm setpoint methodology during the evolution of the use of E600 (use of scaler vs. peak values to establish the investigation level.)
- 5. LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (Reference 7 and 8).
- 6. The procedural commitment to the State of Maine of limiting grid size to 10 m2 (Reference 9).
These LTP changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of the FSS of FR-0210 Survey Unit 3.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil sample measurements were less than the soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. Investigations showed no evidence of plant-derived radionuclides above background. FR-0210, Survey Unit 3, met the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01
- 2. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01 -032, August 13, 2001.
- 3. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMIP 6.7.8
- 4. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, NIN-02-048, dated October 15, 2002.
- 5. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 6. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003, Approval of LTP Rev. 3 and Addenda
- 7. MY letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003, "Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling."
- 8. NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004, Approval of Activated Concrete Amendment
- 9. MY Letter to the NRC, NIN-03-009, February 26, 2003 FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
Attachment 1 Sunrey Unit Maps FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 7 of 20
I I Maine Yankee Prjc ID F020 )ecommissionig Tea Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID FROZIO-01 0 urvey Type:jCharacterization QTurnover 1IFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Circulating Water Piping Area GRAPHIC SCALE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSYCE Survey Area FRO210 FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page A of 20
FRO210 Survey Unit 3 a t SoilUnder Service Water Piping oE. Soil and Scan Sample Locations Each Zone is 248.5' x 6.56'(2 m) o Soil Sample Location O Scan Location (2m x 2m) 0 _ __ __ w __ 407,750 N't c 0n 0 0
< N .VN Cl N CD I I \ SOO6407,700S _N SOl Solo S009 so 5 S004 S003 S002 SOO NOrth Zone
' oO o 0 0 0 0-0 S01 3 SO12 SC 4 sooa S007 outh Zone 2 .1 I~~~~ l 1 0.550 NI I~~ _oBC l > N
- 1. .- 1
I I Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FR-02 10-03, Revision 0 Page lOof20
Table 2-1 FR-021 0 INSTRUMENTATION E-600 SIN SPA-3 S/N MDC (pCi/g) 1606 725332 See Table 2-2 1622 725332 See Table 2-2 1647 725328 See Table 2-2 HPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC (pCi/g) FSS-l 0.05 to 0.1 1 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Det. #3 0.10
- 4. . . .
Table 2-2 Instrumnent Scan lNlDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Commcnts DCGI, 4.2 DCGL for land areas outside the Restricted pCi/g Area applied (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 5) Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6, Design Scan MDC (LTP pCi/g Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 5) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 1) (Alarm setpoint) Background FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page I I of 20 :.
I Attachment 3 Investigation Table FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20
Table 3-1 FR-0210 Survey Unit 3 Land Area Between Circulating Water Pump House and Turbine Building Investigation Results Survey Description FSS Investigation Investigated Cs-137 Location Survey Location As pCi/g Date FRO210 Service Water 9127/01 Grid 7 XR0210-3-S001 <0.054 S007 Pipe to S004 Note: Co-60 value was < ADA (i.e., 0.1 pCilg). FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 13 of 20 .
II Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
Survey Package FRO210 Unit 3 Soil Sign Test Summary
-w<Se -,<W-va uatiowa n uuk..,;Comnset at -
Survey Package: FR0210 Survey Unit: 03 Evaluator: DR DCGL,,: - 4.10E+00 DCGLe,: 4.10E+00 LBGR: 3.59E+O0 ___ Sigma: 1.70E-01 __: Type I error: 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: - CS-137 Soil Type: , t NJA . A,
^ Clua'ai 6ue' U
. .-t ,_mmoont
;"f- S!: 7 H Zte: 1.645 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: .. 3.0 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: - 11 N-Value+20%: 1_4
;'a loD a" availues ... ommen i " .
Number of Samples: 14 Median: 4.75E-02 Mean: .. 3.96E-02
,Net Sample Standard Deviation: 1.46E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 1.46E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 6.00E-02 A Refl,u2.
. ,+x.M-Rosults* % *. Comment Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 .,, i l . '.
Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass
,'.iC .r-te"r-at-sfacct: '-,-"Co'rnon.ts Sufficient samples collected: . Pa~s Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL : ... Pass Maximum value <DCGLn,: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass Tsu-r-'ey unit pa Fieslnditatios: Pas The survey unit passes all conditions: Pass FR-0210-03, Revision 0 FR02 10-SU3-SoilSign Page 15 of 20 516104 9:02 ALI
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 5/5/04 8:07:43 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FRO210SU3.SO Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 3.957143E-02 1.459038E-02 3.899442E-03 0.0311472 4.799566E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality -0.2664 0.789929 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality -2.9162 0.003543 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 8.5755 0.013736 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<>4.2 -1066.9291 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.2 -1066.9291 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.2 -1066.9291 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 4.2 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.9099 0 2 30 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<>4.2 3.2998 0.000967 Reject Ho 3.2684 0.001082 Reject Ho Median<4.2 -3.2998 0.000484 Reject Ho -3.2684 0.000541 Reject Ho Median>4.2 -3.2998 0.999516 Accept Ho -3.3313 0.999568 Accept Ho FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page JG of 20
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 5/5/04 8:07:43 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FRO210SU3.SO Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 z (-) 0 U Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.0)0 0.0. Dm a, C) w 0.0-
-Z 0
O.o0 0 0 0 no. - .. . .. - .. I .. I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Difference FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page r of2o
II One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 5/5/04 8:08:18 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Mean1 Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Mean 1 Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 0.040 0.015 277.333 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.200 2.100 0.015 140.000 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.200 4.200 0.015 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, JMeanO-Mean1 I/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.160 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.200 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.040 with a known standard deviation of 0.015 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FR-0210-03, Revision 0 Page I$ of 20
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 5/5104 8:08:19 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0- - - - - - -- 0.8- --- *- * . \ . -I - -- ---
- 0. 8 -- . . -- \ -
I I 0.4-I I I\I 0Pae I I I I I l\I
.2 0.01 Io4g
- Meani FR01-3 , Reiso 0 FR01-3 Reiso 0 Pagefof20
FRO210 SU-3 Quantile Plot 0.07 0.06 0 0.05 a_ (it , 495 0.04
- Cs-1 37 (pCi/g)
Is 0
.~_ 0.03 I.
-Median Cs-1 37 (pCi/g)~
c x A, vO 0 0.02 D TU 0.01 0 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.0 0 Per Cent
MAINE YANKEE ; FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-0810 COLLECTION SITE'FOUNDATION FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT 1
. .. I -.
- A) ,,
te:Ufjco LO 01 SFSS / Ms0 0 I 7
.i Approved By: x°*j) Date: el-1z /S:5I FSS, MOP : 7 /7'1
, I - z .
I2 FR-0810 COLLECTION SITE FOUNDATION FOOTPRINT SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description FR-08 10, the Collection Site Foundation Footprint, is a single Survey Unit which consists of the sub-slab soil beneath the foundation slab of the former Collection Site. This area is located outside the Industrial Area, north of the Administrative Office Building and west of the Information Center. The area consists of a 9.1 m by 9.1 m (83.6 a 2 ) rectangle of soil beneath the previous concrete foundation. The building was a small, one story brick structure which housed at various time the security gate house and the Fitness-For-Duty Collection Site. The Collection Site was constructed with concrete floors and ceiling and was surrounded by an asphalt parking lot. B. Survey Unit Design Information The Collection Site Foundation Footprint was classified as a Class 3 survey unit per the LTP (Table 5-1 C) . The potential for soil contamination was considered to be very low and there was no history of the use or storage of radioactive material within the structure. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 3.0, it was determined that 14 direct soil sample points were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly generated and are shown on map FR-0810-02 (Attachment 1). A 1% to 10% scan coverage of the area was required.' Fourteen I m2 scan grid areas were located around the sample locations (equaling 14 M2 , which is conservatively greater than 10%). The location of the scan areas is shown on map FR-0810-01 (Attachment 1). The survey instruments used and their MIDC values are provided in Attachment 2. C. Survey Unit Results Fourteen direct measurements were made in Survey Unit I. The resulting soil sample data are presented in Table 2. Scans of the fourteen I M2 grids were performed in August of 2001 with an alarm setpoint of 18,100 cpm. No verified alarms occurred during the soil scans. Hence, no investigations were required. LTP Table 5-3 FR-08 10-01 Revision 0 Page 2 of 19
Table 1 Survey Unit Design Parametcrs: FR-0810-01 Survey Unit I ' Design Criteria l Basis Area 83.6 m2 - No limit for Class 3 area Number of Direct 14 m2 _ Based on an adjusted Measurements LBGR of 3.71 pCi/g, sigma2 of 0.13 pCi/g and a relative shift of 3.0. Type _=Type 11= 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area Im x Im Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 14 m2 Class 3 Area- I% to 10% Scan Investigation 3 sigma of EC-009-01 (Reference 1) Level background DCGL 4.1 pCi/g Cs-137 (Draft) Rev. 2 of the LTP, Section 6.7 and Table6-1 1 Design DCGL,- N/A lass 3 Area During the time of the FR-08 10 survey, the scan'methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanisinofthb E-600 data logger. The key program changes resulting from the E600 investigation were:'(1) using scaler local background measurements to establish background and (2) setting the investigation level at 3 sigma of established background (excluding the DCGL term). As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit I scan data was conducted. 'Using the latest scan methodology and the previously established background,-a new alarm selpoint was calculated and compared with each grid's peak scan value. The comparison indicated that one grid (#7) would have alarmed had the newv (lower) alarm setpoint been used during the original survey.' ; .
- t-. e . ;. ,
2 LTP Table 5-IC FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page 3 of19
I V Table 2 FR-0810 Survey Unit 1, Soil Direct Measurement Results Soil Sample Nos. Co-60 Cs-137 (pCi/g) (pCi/g) FR-0810-1-SOOI <0.060 <0.058 FR-0810-1 -S002 <0.064 <0.061 FR-0810-1 -S003 <0.060 <0.068 FR-0810- 1-S004 <0.061 <0.058 FR-0810-1 -S005 <0.070 <0.056 FR-0810-1 -SO6 <0.058 <0.057 FR-0810-1 -S007 <0.060 <0.056 FR-0810-1-S008 <0.064 <0.063 FR-0810-1-SO09 <0.062 <0.059 FR-0810-1-SOIO <0.057 <0.060 FR-0810-1 -SO I 1 <0.060 <0.062 FR-0810-1-SO12 <0.063 <0.057 FR-0810-1-S013 <0.069 <0.057 FR-0810-1-S014 <0.068 <0.055 Sample Mean 0.063 0.059 Sample Median 0.062 0.058 Std. Dev. 0.004 0.003 Sample Range 0.057-0.070 0.055-0.068 In evaluating Grid #7, it was noted that the size of the actual scan grid was relatively small (i.e., I M2 ). In addition, by design, the scan was performed immediately around the corresponding direct soil sample measurement location. Thus, the direct soil measurement effectively provided an investigation-type soil sample for Grid #7. As shown in Table 2, all direct soil measurements were less than the MDA. Based on the sample results, and the fact that the building was part of the original site construction, it is highly unlikely that additional investigations would have identified plant derived activity in the scan grid. Therefore, additional investigations were not considered necessary. FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page 4 of 19
D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results No investigations were required. E. 'Survey Unit Data Assessment Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Co-60 and Cs-137. The maximum soil result was less than 2 percent of the Cs-137 surrogate DCGL. Because all sample results were "less than" values, no error term was presented. The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value3 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net Value of -0.131 pCi/g. This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mrem/y. i F. Additional Data Evaluiation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are provided in Attachment 4. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification'. The 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 I was designed and performed in late 2001. Evaluations and reviews of the data were completed in 2002. The design was performed to the criteria of the (Draft) LTP, Revision 2. Subsequent LTP changes with potential impact to this survey unit were evaluated: I. Increase in DCGL from 4.1 pCi/g (in DRAFT LTP Rev. 2) to 4.2 pCi/g (in LTP, Rev. 2) - applicable to open land areas outside the RA;
- 2. Requirement to check background + 1000 cpm prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP 5.5.2.f; LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4, 5 and 6);
- 3. Increased Scan MDC to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4, 5 and 6);
- 4. Change in alarm setpoint methodology during the evolution of the use of E600 (use of scaler vs. peak values to establish the investigation level); and
- 5. LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (Reference 7 and 8).
These LTP changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the Final Status Survey results 3 See Attachment E lo Maine Yank-ee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 3) FR-081 0-0l Revision 0 Page 5 ofl 9
I~I I and conclusions for FR-08 10 Survey Unit I.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil samples were less than the approved soil DGCLW of 4.2 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 5). No investigations were required. FR-08O10, Survey Unit 1, met the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 2. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
- 3. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 4. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN 048, dated October 15, 2002.
- 5. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 6. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003, Approval of LTP Rev. 3 and Addenda
- 7. MY letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003, "Proposed Change: Revised Activated Concrete DCGL and More Realistic Activated Concrete Dose Modeling."
- 8. NRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 18, 2004, Approval of Activated Concrete Amendment.
FR-08 10-01 Revision 0 Page 6 of 19
Attachment I Survey Unit Alaps FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page 7 of 19 -
I X I U Maine Yankee Maine M Yang. e Decommissioning ,-ommissioning -- O Team
,,.,-,.................................... Project Su- ey Map 1Map ID - FR 0810-01 Y~ey Typ.: E]Char~ct~riz.1ion OT-~n-vr mrin~j st~tu. Sur~ey CBaokground As-ssment ISurvey Area Name:
/ -1J is? ,
0 XFR-08 0-01 Revision 0 o9 e o---- 624, 3220 r010 n - I Reision
- - ^ z s s^ l I Maine Yankee ommissioninp Team I Maine Yank.ee Decommissioning Project Su '.ey Map I-ap ID
- FR 0810-02 rsey type: OCharacterizatior OTurno-er NFInal Status Sursey OP[ckground Assessment ISurvey Area Name:
I I I 01 C.0 U7~7~i /> 7 1R-0810-01 Revision 0
-2 (6241 320 rage of 19 ConI lee or' Si-e F oundo iori F totpr- in-I
_ _ _ _ _I I Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page IOof 19
Table 2-1 FR-0810 Instrumentation (Survey Unit 1) FR-08O10 INSTRUMENTATION E-600 S/N SPA-3 S/N Design Scan MDC (pCi/g) 1619 726554 See Table 2-2 1647 725328 See Table 2-2 HPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC (pCi/g) FSS-I 0.05 to 0.11 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan NIDC and Comparison with DCGL and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGL 4.2 DCGL for land areas outside the Restricted pCi/g Area applied (per the approved LTP, Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 5). Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Design Scan MDC (Reference 5) pci/g Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of Background EC-009-0] (Reference 1) (Alarm setpoint) I FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page II of 19 .
I I U Attachment 3 Investigation Table (None Required) FR-0810-01 Revision 0 Page 12 of 19
Attachment 4 .. . .
- Statistical Data i, !
- i '
i . .:
. -. : I And FR-08 10-01 Revision 0 Page 13 of 19
IM Survey Package FRO810 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary P .,zf,
- _t~ig~;.-Ei~af~%6 vir f6 P .w
----- -wF--
- z Or-
- b-Survey Package: FRO810 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: GP DCGL,: 4.15E+00 DCGLerc: 4.15E+00 LBGR: 3.70E+00 Sigma: 1.30E-01 Type I error: ; 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: N/A Za - 1.645 Z1.1,:;1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 3.4 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value+20%:. 14 Number of Samples: 14 Median: 5.80E-02 Mean: 5.91 E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 3.50E-03 Total Standard Deviation: 3.50E-03 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 6.80E-02 Adjusted N Value: 14 S+ Value: 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: Pass Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGLw: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLemc: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass .
Criteria comparison results: - Pass The surve <uni -,p aktasse s al l onst1P assi- -cd The survey unit passes all conditions:l Pass FR0810-SU1-SoilSign FI8-08-I/0-00 Revision 0 : 4141404 10:50AM Page P+ of 19
;One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 4/14/04 10:54:05AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FrO810.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 5.907143E-02 3.496466E-03 9.344699E-04 5.705263E-02 6.109023E-02 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%)
Skewness Normality 2.2168 0.026633 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 1.5946 0.110798 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 7.4572 0.024026 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<>4.15 -4377.8069 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.15 -4377.8069 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.15 -4377.8069 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 4.15 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.90597 0 3 36 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<>4.15 3.3006 0.000965 Reject Ho 3.2692 0.001078 Reject Ho Median<4.15 -3.3006 0.000482 Reject Ho -3.2692 0.000539 Reject Ho Median>4.1 5 -3.3006 0.999518 Accept Ho -3.3321 0.999569 Accept Ho FR-oSlO- 0 1 Revision,0. Page 151 of 19
II One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DateMme 2 4/14/04 10:54:05 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FrO810.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2
.4 0
0 C2 Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1- 0 0.1-0) 0.1- 0 0 0 01 0 0 U. I _- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Difference FR-08 10-01 Revision 0 Page I (a of 19
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 4/14/04 10:55:21 AM 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 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.150 0.059 0.003 1363.667 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.150 3.710 0.003 146.667 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.150 4.150 0.003 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 MeanO. Sigma is the standard deviation of the population. It measures the variability in the population. Effect Size, IMeanO-Mean1il/Sigma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.091 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.150 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.059 with a known standard deviation of 0.003 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. FR-08 10-01 Revision 0 Page Z7 of 19
I I I One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 4/14/04 10:55:22 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0W 1 0.8- _ I.l 0. a) 06 _'T 0.4-0 - I - I - ! - I I I11 0.2 -- - - --- - - -- - - - ----
- - --- --- -t 0.2 ----
I ~ I X I
- Meanl FR-08 I0-01 Revision 0 Page ff of 19
FR-0810 Quantile Plot 0.08 0.06 l Cs-1 37 (pCi/g) - 2! 0~ O. 0.04 I;. To To
---Median (0.058 I
0.02 pCi/g) 0 0 0 50 100 Percent
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-1800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY UNIT I Date: 4 Lo _
>_-~
Date:
,. i Approved By:
FSSMOP z z I<
. , tI .
I ..-, . e
..I. . I.
f.
I I FR-1800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY UNIT I RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Package FR- 1800 is a combination of all or part of six survey areas originally defined and described in the Initial Site Characterization Report' as R-600, R-700, R-800, R-900, R- 1800, and R-2100 (as discussed in LTP Section 5.2.6). The areas were wholly or partially combined for FSS purposes because they were all open land areas with very low probability of residual contamination. These survey areas consisted of the land outside the Industrial Area, located between the Staff Building and the Old Ferry Road. Survey Package FR-1800 encompasses approximately 367,000 n2 . The area around the Bailey House is a mix of open grassland and woodland. The area between Old Ferry road and the railroad tracks (near the ball field) is exposed bedrock with some thin veneered soil cover (most of the area was difficult to access because of dense brush cover). The ball field is an open, level grass-covered field. South of the ball field is the construction debris landfill, once used for the disposal of dredging spoils and other construction debris. The surface dimensions and depth of the fill and cover of the landfill are not known. The landfill area is mostly covered with wild grasses. South of the landfill is the 345 kV electrical switchyard. The switchyard soil is compacted, engineered fill and gravel. The area around the switchyard is mostly wetland and wild grasses. The area between the access roads and north of the ISFSI is a mix of open grassland and wetland with a small pond and some trees. The area south of the ISFSI is woodland with thin soil cover over bedrock. Survey Unit I was defined as the portion of FR-I 800 bounded by Old Ferry Road on the north, the railroad tracks on the west, the shoreline on the east, and the administration parking lot and the southern limit of parking lot B in the southerly direction. (See map FRI800-01 in Attachment 1.) The ISFSI area was excluded since it will be surveyed and released as survey area FR-1300. As discussed in this report, one verified area of elevated activity was detected just north of the ISFSI, on the wvest side the access road. This area was investigated and was designated a Class 1 area per the LTP. This 100 m2 area (within the initial boundaries of Survey Unit 1) was surveyed as Survey Unit 3. The approximate location of Survey Unit 3 is shown on map FRI 800-02 (Attachment 1). A more detailed illustration of the survey unit is provided in the Release Record for Survey Unit 3. The surface area of Survey Unit I is approximately 133,000 mi2 . Because packaged radioactive waste materials will be transported by rail and truck following completion of this survey (to support site decommissioning), the roads and tracks will be re-surveyed upon completion of waste shipments and released as part of FR-2900. l The Initial Site Characterization Report was summarized in the LTP and provided to the NRC in the Maine Yankee letter dated October 1, 2001 (Reference ]). FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 38
B. Survey Unit Design Information Survey Unit I was designated as a Class 3 survey per the LTP. The Bailey House itself was used for preparing and analyzing environmental samples. Sealed sources were used in the laboratory; however, there is no history of radionuclide'contamination in or around the Bailey House. Snow was removed from the Protected Area of the site and placed in the survey area. Vehicles used to transport radioactive waste materials sometimes parked on the road adjacent to the area. Co-60 particles were found in the ISFSI area in what had been a graded gravel parking area. The area containing the particles 'wasremediated. The closest shared boundary of FR-I 800 and FR-1300 is approximately 50 meters from the location where the particles were found. Soil samples taken from Bailey House related land areas during Initial Site Characterization contained only Cs-]37 in levels consistent with radioactive fallout from weapons testing. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 2.59, it was determined that 15 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations wer' randomly determined and are illustrated'on'the map FR1800-22 (Attachment 1). The initial design anticipated that it may not be possible or practical to obtain a direct sample from all of the (15) selected locations due to presence surface water or exposed rock. Therefore, consistent with the applicable site FSS procedure, a number of randomly generated "alternate" direct measurement locations wxere also identified, using the same process as that forbthe selection of the first 15 locations. The locations of these alternates are shown on map FRI 800-22. Scans of ]0 per cent of the land area (13,300 m2 ) were located in those areas determined to be the most likely to show contamination if it were present. Scan grids were typically 2 to 5 meters wide, depending on thernature and characteristics of the scan area. The areas chosen were the' - areas next to the roadways, the railroad tracks, and the low lands or drainage areas for the wetlands. Some large open land areas were also scanned. Scan locations related to Survey Unit I are indicated on the survey maps FRI800-02 through 04, FRI800-11 through 13, FRI800-18, FRI 800-20 and FR 1800-23 (Survey Unit I and 2):' Instruments used for performing survey measuremients'in Survey Unit I are listed in Attachment 2 along with the instrument MDCs. ' FR-1800-0,, Revision Page 3 of 38
II Table I Survey Unit Design Summary: FR-1800, Survey Unit 1 Survey Unit I Design Criteria Basis Area 133,000 m2 No limit for Class 3 area Number of Direct 15 Based on LBGR of 2.08 pCi/g, sigma of Measurements 0.82 and relative shift of 2.59. Required Type I = Type 11 = 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 13,300 m2 Class 3 Area-l 0% Scan Investigation 3.6 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference 2) Level background 3 DCGL 4.15 pCi/g Cs-137 Based on Rev. 0 of the LTP (Reference 3) Design DCGLEMC N/A Class 3 Area C. Survey Results Fifteen direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 1. The resulting soil sample data are presented in Table 2. Scan alarm setpoints were initially based on a background of 11,400 cpm. However, background was found to fluctuate significantly within the survey unit (e.g., 8100 cpm to 20,000 cpm) due to the varying soil and rock constituents. Background values were determined for specific areas within Survey Unit I by verifying the absence of plant-derived radioactivity and collecting long background counts. Instrument alarms for these specific areas were adjusted, based on the local background data. The alarm set point was then taken as 2.5 to 3.5 sigma of the background in cpm. At each alarm location, an attempt was made to verify the alarm by repeating the last I or 2 meter scan. If the alarm was repeated, a flag was placed at the location for further evaluation. Survey unit investigation results are provided in Attachment 3. 2 Based on the maximum Cs-137 characterization value for the Bailey Land Area (LTP Revision I, Table 5-1C, Reference 5). 3 Based on a retrospective review of scan results, it was determined that the investigation level was set at background plus 3.6 sigma. As discussed under Survey Results, alarm setpoints were adjusted, during the survey to account for varying background levels. FR- 1800-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 38
Table 2 FR- 800 Survey Unit 1,' Soil Sample Results Sample No. Cs-137 pCilg Co-60 pCi/g FRI800-1-S601 0.064 + 0.037 <0.059 FR1800-1-S602 0.220 + 0.051 <0.068 FR1800-1-S603 <0.054 <0.049 FR1800-1-S604 <0.062 <0.060 FR1800-1 -S605 0.330 0.061 <0.068 FRI800-1-S606 0.054 + 0.040 <0.077 FRI 800-1 -S607 0.058 + 0.040 <0.068 FRI800-1-S608 <0.062 <0.060 FR1800-1-S609 <0.079 . <0.071 . II -1 FRI800-1-S610 0.150+0.060 '<0.084 FR1800-i-S611 0.083+0.046 <0.075 FR1800-1-S612 0.096+0.040 <0.082 FR1800-1-S613 <0.068 <0.068 FR1800-1-S614 No sample taken. See Note (2) FR1800-1-S615 0.074+0.0.46 <0.082 FR1800-1-S616(Alt.I) 0.170+'0.056 I<0.090 p n1R ' 071 Std. De~'. 0.078- - . 0.011 Median 0.074 '-`' 0.068 .. ;:i - Ranize <0.054-0.33 <0.049-<0.090 I.I.., Notes: t1J) Results in bold indicate positive detects. (2) Since the locationwas'a rock ledge, a soil sample could 'not be taken. An alternate iocaioi6n was used for the sample. D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results There werie 25 areas id6ritified for investigation in Su'rvey Unit '1. One of these areas investigated (i.e., FR1800-]-S068) vas determiied to have'plant-derived radioactivity, as described below. This area was remediated,'redesigned as FR-l 800, Survey' Unit 3, and was resurveyed. The results of the remaining 24 investigatioris are'pre'sented in Attachment 3. Each alarmn location was noted, verified and inv'estigated. Investigations included: (1) additional scan measurements to determine the highest reading in the scan grid, (2) a I0 minute count with the Exploranium gamma' spectrum analyzer (GR-i 30) at the location of the highest measurement, and (3) collection of a soil sample. FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page'5of38
I~I I For each investigation, the following information is provided in Table 3-1 (Attachment 3): (1) the FSS scan survey location in Survey Unit I (and FSS survey date); (2) a brief description of the investigation area; (3) the specific investigation location and package numbers associated with each scan survey location. Table 3-2 (Attachment 3) provides the investigation's soil gamma spectroscopy results, listed by specific investigation package location number. With the exception of FR-1800-l-S068 (reclassified as Survey Unit 3), the remaining investigation soil sample results indicated low Cs- 137 levels and, in general, were well below the DCGL of 4.15 pCi/g. As noted in Attachment 3, one investigation soil sample associated with scan survey location FR-1800-1-S016 (i.e., investigation soil sample XR1800-1-S031) showed a Cs-137 level of 3.49 pCi/g with no other potential plant derived nuclides indicating positive. This result is somewhat high but is less than the DCGL. Further, in consideration of the physical location (proximity to the barn roof drainage area) and the potential for concentration effects, this Cs- 137 soil result is believed to be within the upper bound of background for the region's undisturbed soil. For these reasons, this particular soil result was not considered to be plant derived activity. Reclassification or other actions listed in LTP Table 5-8 were considered unnecessary. One verified area of elevated activity (FR-I 800-1 -S068) was detected just north of the ISFSI and on the west side of the access road. Field gamma spectrum analysis identified the presence of Cs-137, and soil samples showed Cs-137 as high as 44 pCi/g. The immediate area of investigation was determined to be a highly localized, elevated area with an approximate size of much less than I M2 . The investigation sampling and very limited soil removal in the immediate area addressed remediation ofthe area. lnsitu gamma spec measurements using an Exploranium GR-130 following sampling/remediation indicated no presence of plant derived nuclides. Survey Unit I scanning in this area showed only this immediate location with potential elevated activity. Based on this information, it was decided that a relatively large defined Class I area around the FRI 800-I -S068 location, i. e., 100 in2 , provided reasonable assurance that the potential extent of additional elevated areas, if any, would be detected in the FSS of Survey Unit 3. And, therefore, no Class 2 "buffer" area was considered warranted in this case. See the FR- 1800, Survey Unit 3 Release Record for the reporting of that survey. In addition, during the survey of FR- 1800, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. To determine the impact of the change in methodology, a detailed review of FR-1 800 Survey Unit I scan data was performed. Revised setpoints were calculated based on a retrospective review of scan MDCs for FR-1800 scan data, documented in Maine Yankee calculation EC-009-01 (Reference 2). Background values used in determining revised setpoints were based on the best available information for the scaler background levels for a given scan grid. All scan grids for Survey Unit I (approximately 270) were included in this review. The revised alarm setpoint was compared with the maximum scan value for each grid to determine if an alarm FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 38
would have occurred had the revised alarm setpoint been used during the FSS. Such conditions, not othenvise investigated, were designated as "non-alarm" scan grids and required further evaluation. As a result of the evaluation, each of the non-alarm scan grids were dispositioned into one of the following categories: I. No further investigation was considered necessary based on a comparison of the scan results or investigation results of adjacent or nearby grids; or
- 2. The scan grids would be rescanned as part of FR-2900 (road and railroad track areas following the majority of demolition and waste transportation activities); or
- 3. Additional soil investigation samples were taken.
A total of 14 "non-alarm" scan grids (i.e., approximately 10 % of total survey unit area scanned or 1% of the survey unit's total area) were identified to be re-scanned as part of FR-2900. These scan grids are listed in Table 3-3 (Attachment 3). Eleven scan grids in Survey Unit I required additional soil investigations per the above review results. The grids are located in a 20 m by 40 m area, cast of the plant access road, opposite the ISFSI. (See map FR1800-04 in Attachment 1.) This area represents approximately 6 % of the total survey unit area scanned or less than 1% of the survey unit's total area. Eighteen soil samples, distributed within the 20 m by 40 m area, were taken and determined to have no indication of plant derived activity. These results are shown in Table 3-4 (Attachment 3). Thus, the vast majority of the Survey Unit I scan grids were found to require no further investigation. Furthermnore, the additional soil investigation samples were consistent with prior survey unit data indicating no plant-derived activity. With the exception of the single area that was later reclassified as a Class I area, the detailed review of survey unit scan data concluded that the scan results were largely indicative of background values in a large Class 3 land area. 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. Both the mean and median activities werelesstthantheDCGLforbotl Cs-137 andCo-60. Themaximumsoil result forCs-137was less than 8% of the DCGL. The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value 4 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.08 pCi/g. This would be'equivalent to an annual dose rate of zero mrem/y. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are presenited in . 4 See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 4). FR-I 800-01, Revision 0 Page7 of 3$.
II Based on the scan data review and the application of the current E600 scan methodology (as discussed in Section D), a small number of Survey Unit I scan grids (listed in Table 3-3) will be rescanned as part of FR-2900 to provide a final confirmation regarding the absence of plant-derived activity. FR-2900 will survey roads and rail tracks, including right-of-ways. These areas will be released as part of FR-2900. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were, in general, consistent with that classification. As discussed in Section D, one area of verified elevated activity was detected (FR-1800-1-S068); however, the investigation concluded that this was a highly localized contamination. Given it's small size, location, and likely cause (parking of radioactive waste vehicles in the area), the presence of this contamination did not impact the overall classification of Survey Unit I as Class 3. (See the Release Record for Survey Unit 3 for additional detail.) The same conclusion was reached regarding one other area of interest, that is, the investigation soil sample result of 3.49 pCi/g at scan location FR-1800-1-S016. While this level of Cs-137 was higher than might normally be expected, it was concluded (as discussed in Section D) that this contamination was not plant derived and, thus, did not impact the original, overall classification of Survey Unit 1. Furthermore, the 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 I was designed in late 2000 and 2001. The survey, including investigations, was conducted in 2001. Evaluations and reviews of the data were completed in 2002. The design was performed primarily to the criteria of the original LTP, Revision 0 (Reference 3) with some aspects of LTP Revision I (Reference 5) considered and incorporated into the FSS. As discussed and reviewed in Section D of this Release Record, scan methodology changes were made during this time frame, relating to the use of the E600 instrument.
LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows. (1) The requirement to check background to be within + 1000 cpm of established background prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7). For this survey unit, the subject background check was made on a daily basis and not necessarily at the beginning of a scan area. (2) The increased Scan MDC from 3.0 to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7). (3) LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (proposed in MY letter to the NRC, 9/11/03, Reference 8; NRC letter approval letter to MY, dated 2/18/04, Reference 9). (4) Increased soil DCGL for open land areas outside the plant's radiological Restricted Area (RA), from 4.15 pCi/g to 4.2 pCi/g (LTP Revision 2, Reference 6). FR-I 800-01, Revision 0 Page 8 of 38
(5) Procedural commitment to limit the maximum scan grid size to 10 m2 (Reference 10). Overall, based on the evaluation conducted, these LTP changes were found to have no impact on the results and conclusions of the FSS of Survey Unit 1.
l. Conclusion
Investigations identified one area of plant-derived activity that was subsequently remediated and resurveyed as a Class I survey area (Survey Unit 3). All of the remaining soil samples were less than the approved DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7). There was no evidence of plant-derived contamination within 100 m of the site terminus of either the plant access road or the on-site railroad tracks. The road and railroad track areas will be re-surveyed and released as part of FR-2900. FR- 1800, Survey Unit I meets the release criteria of I OCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced ctteria." J. References
- 1. Initial Characterization Survey and Historical Site Assessment, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-0 1-038, dated October 1, 2001.
- 2. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 3. Maine Yankee LTP (later referred to as "Revision 0"), Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-00-004, dated January 13, 2000.
- 4. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision 1, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01 -023, June 1, 2001.
- 6. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01 -032, August 13, 2001.
- 7. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 8. Proposed License Amendment Related to Changes in the Activated Concrete Remediation Plans, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.
- 9. Issuance of License Amendment No. 170, NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated Febniary 18, 2004.
- 10. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-009, dated February 26, 2003.
FR-I 800-01, Revision 0 Page 9.of 38
I~I I Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FR-18OO-O1, Revision 0 Page lO of 38
-3 0
C) I-SFSI Construction I
-JSFSI Soil -So il from 345 - kV Staging Area Yard Expnsion 0 0
-11
- c co tv 0
0 0 _0, 0 0 D co (A o0 0 C (D tj I-0 j
'E.
CD CD MAINE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM 11 11 (A %J-0 c 0 00 0 0 00 0 o 000 16 j A-.'-
FR1800 Bariley House Land Scan Areas YOUN 623000 Pb SURVEYUNIT 0l 624,000 E C GRAPHICSCALE M N no 00 C)
)daine Yankee I Maine Yankt. Decommissioning Project Sui y Map I u11ap ID I FRI OO Decommissioning Team DsD
- urvey Type
- OCharacterization OTurnover Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey House Land MA FR1800 Survey Unit 1 - North z
= Scan Areas GRAPHIC SCALE FR-1800-01, Revision 0 0 190 200 490 Page I S' of 38 (IN FEET)
LI) LLI LIi L U L W LAi LI 0 0 o 0 o o o 0 o O C> o a 0 0 o 0 O r O CC O a 'O aO 0 N O r o 0 i LN N 'I LA LO LAn LAn Ln In in o N N N N N N N I N N ND \\ (0 O to to to (0 U0 S0 LO Lq '0 U JU IIF 1 417iUJUuu I1SrIT.IIIII{<iiK- -- i 1 i 410200 N 410100 N II- zjj{-11 - Hi taF~1- k A 410000 N I -- tT -j e- 4 tI~
-- I>i-+ 409900 N 409800 N
-L -S" LuK+/- 41'i 409700 N WX~~L X XXXX 409600 NM i ' 409600 .- NuiI>n z
.0 409400 ., No 0
409300 NY I0 0w 409200 No 4
.4 409100 N
. 4 I
I I I I .1I F i ! ,, I 409000 N
I E Maine 'Yankee l Maine Yankt "Decommissioning Project Sm .y Map I Map 1D
- FR1800-04
- commissioning Team rvey Type: ECharacteri: 2ation []Turnover IFinal Status Survey Survey Area Narne: Bailey House Land FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 14 of 38 FRI 800 Survey Un i t 1 - South GRAPHIC SCALE
= Scan Are asz t10200 4F0 (IN FEET)
LO LO to LiO L LO U) Li Li L.) LJ o 0 0 0D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0> 0 0 0 0 0 o>
- C') rl) rA LA Cc CD 0D
'T `'I~ LA) Ln CrJ C'J (' N (J (J N ' (\J r'4 LA D kA IA L t AI LA ID ID LO ID LA 409400 N 409300 N 409200 N 409100 N I 1 l! I I I'/ -1 409000 N 408900 N 408800 N J rl"i A!
. . . .. . . , . . _ z _. .
lx I:
,. i I , . -U . 400 N
.- T FN i
6r 'ki .: 13 ---
-s 408600 N v>
LO 408500 N z I ,V1 408400 N I....-- o I -_ _L - 405300 N o
. r ! 1 : 11 liff 7/ 2i iw 12 F-I ..
It! iiW.7.
! i i I AI7 -li-I1 ------
1 El
. . i
! - .-- I
'G 408200 N H
__ I! 408100 N Z
-i: IL LLILj r- ---- ---
- r. 405000 N
.aii
-_1 - EJ1
Maine Yankee M e Yankk Decommissioning Project SuI .;y Map 'Map ID * . FRIBOO-I1 I Decommissioning Team M I - - - Survey Type:flCharacterization EiTurnover WFinal Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page IS. of 38 N/I I Ldi Uj Ui Uii Ul w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 tO ,- C,7 c14 e'T
..Tm7r, I 11
.. I I
.I
'IO tO tD I
O I i . I sr 0D 4008800 Nl
. -' i ,' I--1---*'k*-------',---t
----I---1----i
_1I ;: a_ x 1_-L_ I I N I I---' I '- * ', I i -, A___ 1M I I . -{ i I, - I , ; I xi 14: '. !f. 1 I', ',i'N i L iI , i; I408700 N I ;1: I{-lWi__i__,_l~ ----- 4_4-II\Nl1
.... )"Ili !----f II LS It i\I I
- 4- 'I0
/
_ :-l - ; 1-f : it \J1I 1117 I _I__ y ! ! . . . ; r-1 Ii t I, i Y,i 408600 N I l t I I ___ +l I tI2 I I -_ 1. A.1 A i -x'aPYr, I-1 ,~lt tI 1 -
-j *0 I.
ci) !/ "ILV _tII " Q) zxI I!, ! 1%,) t,-(11__ iU-)
-- -r- I !
- __.14 t-I1'
;, 1,408500 K4_ltl -- T--,
I D
./
j
'I / AI 1.417'
\
I s.-- 01
-(D 1-1----,i---t----IVYI-fl-,Wi-'!--l-" i 0:7' t)-
- 0) II I-
! I- a,. ! 1 1 Cj
, : 1 Hf 408400 N ii a fI n, i Y21 li i- Nz I 0 / . X ....
, 1=
M C___ I
-I OCD L v _i___ 3--
U) I_ 32 III7 Li
-or-
-I-I L, .
I U) I . H 12 1N Ur- J i -
. I T
__ I
- . I . l I1- II . I:X I i I ;
' -: I An
! I 408300 N i
-I--I iI Io I fI:
+7 ~~~~-_ 408200 N i
- __ i i II id l .
oo~xw ,lI II !_1_ 1 K--'I P7
)V I
t Xl~-~lHt-Il A t I I a_ t W g.
-1l ,t 1_ : l l " l l l .}
-L 13: 1.
-lq , - .j I Il. I_
0-1 ;
! t1 408100 N
- ; I ; If 1. HA, t ~ i i IL _ l I11---- z'if --i- ! li:.
tI II1 f I-IUV v T77T -H-H14! : _ _I 1/I
-1 ~ ~
4: I I !
/1 I I 'C- I I
I _i
. . UUUU 122 i AIAP FRI 800-11 10 Survey Unit 1 I!
It LZ Zoom in on south Scan
- Areas/Redefine Scan Boxes
I II Maine Yankee I Maine Yankt Decommissioning Project Sur y Map I Map ID
- FRI800-12 Decommissioning Team P Survey Type: ECharacterization ElTurnover AFinal Status Survey lSurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR-1.800-01, Revision 0 Page EL- of 38 FR1800 Survey Unit I - Bailey House and Barn
>< 7\= Scan Areas La w 409600 409500 409400 i 409300 409200 GRAPHI C SCALE 0 25 50 100 200 I
L ( IN E E E T I II
-Maine Yankee
)ecommissioning Team 1Maine Yankee Decommissioning . _ ProjecL Survey Map I Miap ID . FRI3DO-13 urvey Type:DCharacterlzation OTurnover AIzinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Dailey House Land
- -- -- I_
FR1800 Survey Unit 1 Road to Boat Dock / Manafort Spoi Is Pi le
=FZ J= Scan Areas FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 1, of 38 0o w w 0 0 O 0 0 0 . . , O.
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul to co ,7 0 nCO
.4 to ND tDj U7 .to to tD U) 31I ~j.JI -- __
_ + n N
/
-1 I I Y1X-jI, A I-I I-r
^. I 11- - L'
',' 1/ /1/1/1 . V/ ! i'.. I I-- f/ 1 i -- ~ .- :4i1890OA I
/ IA I ./ / 71 I -f1&o7-F I
I IIV VXVZA-~~ 4 I/ A/ 7 1. "S ! t A! W s w r W I : 1 i 1 I I : --
- I 'IT erI
- - A I
- El i N m-X-408800 N IN, n orapr AS 6 /1
-t 1= t7%Or- --& B7j
/ AA I 4-1-- 4 '----- '- W-,?.'--,' ----- - - I -, - I -f-----i -t - t - t* -t--I - I 408700 N
<1N I/ / J Ylo,, '-- W 1 3 X . i, r-I-F-w z
0 A, C v < IJ\2+I _ RA j*j5i 55 ~ I` IT0 21 0 s_408600
-S500 N 0 a
U z
-~ N IN E T ) EI48- 0
-1 II
[ l 1Maine Yanke Decommissioning Project Sur% I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team I Map a- ap ID
- FRI800-18
- urvey Type
- JCharacterization ElTurnover *Final Status Survey lSurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land - Scan Areas FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page IS of 38 MAP FR1800-18 Survey Unit.1 Scan Area North of ISFSI Berm
- - 624.300 E I --- I-1 I
I I II
. I - _I_ - I- - L - - I - - I r -
I I I I I I
-I - - t _ _I-I I
t I
- -I _ -Z j624.400 E I I I I
_I_ I _I I I I I I I I Hz
-I - - - - - I- - - 4- - 4 - - 624.500 E
- I_I II I I I I I I I I _ _ I 1 1
-I I
- -T I
I I X / I I - - I
.I_ _ I __-I___/ - / _I - -
- - I1624.500 E
- I I -- 1 r - -t - - - I IL- I I ~~1
-I- '1 I
- - 624.t00 E I I
-- -I I/ _ I I I
- - I49 I I I~~
-I - - 1- - r _ I I
I I 1
-_ -- I1624.000 E I I I I II/- '- - II-I I I I - - - - -1 I I I I I I_ 1 I_ I I I I I _ -_i 10 Meters Wide -!- I - -!- - -J - - L
_ . X Z. O O
-FR1 800, SUl 1, Inst. #7 Scan Areas
-nr - - I s-- r . I I - 1 - 1-I - r1 TT r - -1 r I .1 - 1 624100 E 10 F T-- i.
7 0 1 i1 I L Ir LUL J L -1I_
-I-T-I 1- -- I- i-T - I I- 1-tI-I-T I r-,-1tr 1 t - X I I55q.'m1 1 - s' te I I I I IJ I. I I- I I I I I i 2 imeters w idie i I I1 I I I ;
-- T T 4L L.A.4....LXJ-1 1 4 .- -LIL I- J1 .L-4 I.- I 4.-
r~I -~--rVrI- T ~T'1TI- F- 0
- ?-It--+/-I I-ih--- t 1-s- -I7 -I 7h1--I -I- 7-I
- - . I I - L- I1 L -I I _ IL 1 4 L- L- 1- I I C, 17.- L- 1 4. I. 2 LJ L- J L J L . L iL. -r -. 624500
-1..LJ..4I...r. E F - i F - 7 i T i ' -J T co 0 W z z
U1 ei (d FR1800 Bailey House Land Survey Unit 1 Soil Sample Locations (b N 0 C 0 (b s1 oU "S D1 02 XI 02 0
'4 (a
N
*0 0e
-0 -I WX Lob
= ;L 0
A:-c 0C 625. 64 0 0 X r--1 r--1 ( IN FEET) a
a E7 0 0
.4 0 0 FR1 800 West Access Road (Survey Unit 1 and 2 ) 1.4
-l 1.4 9 !.
-C ta
= Scan Areas 0
0 E. DP 0 0 -XI 9 3 Note: West side of road is Survey Unit 2. East side is Survey Unit 1 0 0
-l0
-3 .
N 0 0 to 0 MN 0 z 9 2 Retor w1ie oath 0 I CD
.0 0:
0 8 0 I 8 Z 0 00 8 Z 0 8 Z g Z 0 0 S z20 o S o Z z 0
°0 o
Z I 0 o Z aso o Z S Z . 0 S Z z8 I la z 8 O0 z0 0 (Di 0 M
- 624000 E 0 I
- I I I I I I I I I I I I tn I I I 0 i- I - i TI I I I I I I
-I- -4 --I -I- I-
-I- _ I -I-i- + -I- -t - I, 624100 E I- I-1;~ 1 I _ _ _ I _ I _ I_ 0 0
I I I i' I I I l_- r. 162t200 E I-I I- T -I- i, _1 - W
.4 0 I-I- L J _L 1 J M 0
I I I I. . E . . II I I _ _ _ - 624300 E
.4-I-F-I -I- 0
+ -I- I L JI - I-I 4I 4 0 L_ _ _ _ tF
_ _-- _ I-_ -I_
- 624400 C 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I C E 11 r- 1 -I- 1r -I- - I- t -1 1 1I - t 0
ux. L I _I_ I -I- _/1 _II -L L I _I I_1_ . L I - -j 624500 E U9 0 S 2 reter wide Path 'I GRAPHIC SCALE C, 9 190 290 490 O co 10 Ito
! ,o r-3
( IN FEET) 0 0 DP 0 la, 0; _w co 0. FO 0
I I Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 22 of 38
Table 2-1. FR-1800 Instrumentation (Survey Units 1,2, and 3) E-600 S/N SPA-3 SIN MDC (pCi/g) 1606 725331, 726554 See Table 2-2 1619 725328, 726554,726557 See Table 2-2 1622 725332 See Table 2-2
- See Table 2-2 1625 725330,726554,726557 1631 725329, 726561 See Table 2-2 1641 725332,726557,726561, See Table 2-2 725331, 725330,726554 1643 726561,726560 See Table 2-2 1647 725328, 725330, 726557 See Table 2-2 1648 725328,725329,725331, See Table 2-2 725332,726557, HPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC (pCi/g)
FSS-1 0.05 to 0.11 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Sean MDC and Comparison with DCGL and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGLW 4.2 LTP Section 6.7 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, pCi/g Reference 7) Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, pCi/g Reference 7) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of Background EC-009-01 (Reference 2) (Alarm setpoint) I FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 23 of 38
II Attachment 3 Investigation Tables FR-i 800-01, Revision 0 Page 24 of 38
Table 3-1. FR1800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 1, Investigations FSS Ivsiain Ivsiae Survey Location Description Survey Invesation Invetigated Comments _ __ __ _ _ ___ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ DateL c t on- s XR1800 FR1800-1-S100 End of Boat Access Road 4/11/0 1 .13 S 1_- to S026 FW0--08 FR800-1-S68 \est side of East Access 41/1 4/10/01 22 XR I800 Elevated activity surveyed verified; as FRI800 Surveyreclassified Unit 3. as Class I: FRI800-1-S016 Front comerBarnof Bailey 12/27/00 __ _ 3 _ _ XR S 21800[, - o S 3O_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FR1800-1-S052 Nof Lot C by 345 tower 4/9/01 4036 XR1800 S032 to FR1800-1-S053 NofLotCby345tower 4/9/01 S037toS041
.FR800XR1800-1--
FR1800-1-S079 Back of Bailey House- 4/10/01 6 S042 to S046 _ FR1800-1-S109 ByentrytoManafort spoils pile
- 4/17/01 7 XR1800 __ 047 S__ to S051 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
FRI800-1-SI I0 By entry to Manafort 4/17/01 8 S052 to S056 FRI800-1-SI 11 EsideofManafortSpoils 4/17/01 9 S057 to S061 N side of Well Water XR1800-1-, FRI1800-1-S124 House 4/26/01 10 - S062 to S066 N of ISFSlbenn by E 4/00 1 XR1800 FR1800-1-S132 Access Road 4130101 S067 to S071 FRI800-1-S144 Nof ISFSI benn grid 1 5/8/01 20 S072 to S076 FR- 1800-01, Revision 0
-,"Page 25 of 38
Survey Location Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As Comments Date Location vsiae sCmet FR1800-1-S145 Nof lSFSI benn grid I 5/8/01 21 XR1800 FR1800-1-S143 N of ISFSI benn grid 2 5/8/01 22 XR1800 F R 800 N fI;I FS14ben grd 4 6/2eo L23 S087 to S086 FR 1800-1-S149 5/8/01 XR1800 FR1800-1-S237 N of ISFSI benn grid 4 23 S087 to S091 FR180-1-2356/20/01 FRI 800-1-S 150 N flFlbn rd5 5/8/01 24 XR1800 FR1800-1 -S237 N of ISFSI bem g o 6/20/0 1 24 S092 to S0961 FR 1800- 1-S 140XR801 FRS-1S4NofSFlbnWo 1112XR1800-1-14tre FRI800-1-S 142 No re[sF bemWf 510 5 S097 to Sl0l FR1800-1-S206 Crushed rock @ Manafort 6/15101 26 XR1800 F10--26trailer in lot B S102 to S106 FR1800-1-S171 Rail tracks on "S" curve 6/813/01 27 S1000 FR1800-1-S17 NE of Staff Bldg. 6/13/01 27 S107 to Si;16 FRI800-1-S173 F~ 0--13NE Rail tracks on "S"curve of Staff Bldg. 6/13/01 6/3012 28 XR1800 112 to S1 16 ___________ F 80--77 Rail tracks on "5" curve 6/30 9 XR1800 Fi01517NE of Staff Bldg. 6/30 9 SI17 to S121 FR1800-1-S181 Rail tracks N end of "S" curve. 6/13/01 30 XR1800 S 122 to S 126 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FRI800-1-S 189 Rail tracks by WAccess 6/13/0 1 31 XR1800 Road S 127 to S 131 FRRail 1 tracks by Access 6/I13/01 32 XR1800 FR 1800-1-S263 Rad 7/2/0V7 S132 to S1364 FR 1800-1-S263 Rail tracks by Staff 7/25/0 1 74 XR1800 ________________________S137_toS141 _____________ FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 26 of 38
Table 3-2. FrR800, Survey Unit 1, lnvestigation Soil Rcsults Investigation Cs-137 pCilg Investigation Sample Cs-137 pCiJg Samplei #f# XR-1800-1-S003A 17.3 + 1.2 XR-1800-1-S046 0.47 + 0.09 XR-1800-1-SO03B 43.6 +2.9 ' XR-1800-1-S051 <0.08 XR-1800-1-SO03C 14.2+ 1.0 XR-1800-1-SO56 <0.08 XR-1800-1-SO03D 18.2+ 1.3 XR-1800-1-S061 0.22 + 0.06 XR-1800-1-S003E 2.94 + 0.27- XR-1800-1-S066 <0.07 XR-1800-1-S003F 2.74 + 0.26 XR-1800-1-S071 0.27 +0.07 XR-1800-1-SO03G 24.1 + 1.6 XR-1800-1-S076 <0.08 XR-1800-1-SO08A 1.17+0.15' XR-1800-1-S081 <0.08 XR-1800-1-SOO8B 0.97 + 0.13 XR-1800-1-S086 <0.10 XR-1800-1-SO08C 1.16 + 0.14 XR-1800-1-SO91 0.07 + 0.05 XR-1800-1-SO08D 1.17 + 0.14 XR-1800-1-S096 <0.07 XR-1800-1-SOI5A <0.11 XR-1800-1-S1O1 0.08 + 0.05 XR-1800-1-SO15B <0.13 XR-1800-1-S106 0.12 + 0.04 XR-1800-1-SOI5C <0.11 XR-1800-1-SI II 0.04 + 0.04 XR-1800-1-SOI5D 0.068 + 0.04 XR-1800-1-S116 <0.05 XR-1800-1-SOI5E 0.069 + 0.06 XR-1800-1-S121 <0.07 XR-1800-1-S023 <0.07 . XR-1800-1-S126 0.07 + 0.04 XR-1800-1-S02'V <0.06 XR-1800-1-S131 <0.07 XR-1800-1-S031 3.49 + 0.26 'XR-1800-1-S136 <0.08 XR-1800-l'S036 <0.06 i;XR-1800-1-S141 ' <0.06 XR-1800-1-S041 <0.06 ____________ Notes. .
- 1. Samples S003A through G and S008A through D were associated with the soil investigation at Location 2, FRI 800- 1-S068. 'The immediate area was reclassified as a Class I area and surveyed as FR-1800, Survey Unit 3.
- 2. Sample S003A through G were taken at O" to 3" depth. Samples S008A through D were taken at 3" to 6" depth.
- 3. Cs' 137 values in BOLD are positive detects.'
- 4. For investigations samples I-S023 through 1-S141 above, Co-60 values are not listed since they were all < MDC (i.e., all <0.1 pCi/g)
-!I ..
FR-I 800-O1, Revision 0 Pagc,27 of 38
II Table 3-3. FRI 800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 1 Scan Data Review: Scan Grids to be Resurveyed as Part of FR2900 Survey Location Survey Location FR1800-1-S054 FR1800-1-S184 FR1800-1 -S064 FR1800-1-S214 FR1800-1-S066 FR1800-1-S215 FR1800-1-S070 FR1800-1-S216 FR1800-l-S168 FRI800-1-S217 FR1800-1-S180 FRI800-1-S218 FRI800-1-S183 FR1800-1-S219 Table 3-4. FR1800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 1 Scan Data Review: Additional Soil Investigations Survey Location Investigation No. Cs-137 (Note 1) FR1800-1-S037 XR-1800-1-S142 0.042 + 0.017 FR1800-1-S038 XR-1800-1-S143 0.046 + 0.013 FR1800-I-S039 XR- 1800-1 -S 144 0.022 + 0.013 FR 1800-1 -S040 XR-1 800-1 -S 145 <0.029 FR1800-1 -S041 XR-1800-1-S146 <0.030 FRI 800-1-S042 XR-1800-1-S 147 <0.030 FRI800-1-S043 XR-1800-1-S148 0.139 + 0.024 FRI800-1-S046 XR-1800-1-S149 0.152 + 0.029 FRI 800-1 -S047 XR-1800-1-S 150 0.162 + 0.023 FRI800-1-S049 XR-1800-1-S151 0.164 + 0.025 FRI800-1-S050 XR-1800-1-S152 0.116 + 0.018 (See Note 2) XR-1800-1-S153 0.162 + 0.024 XR- 1800-1 -S 154 0.169 + 0.022 XR- 1800-1 -S 155 0.140 + 0.023 XR- 1800-1 -S 156 0.075 + 0.017 XR- 1800-1 -S 157 <0.038 XR-1800-1 -S 158 0.166 + 0.029 XR-1800-1-S 159 0.254 + 0.031 Average 0.108 Notes
- 1. Cs- 137 values in BOLD are positive detects. Co-60 values all < MDA (i.e., <0.1 pCi/g) and were not specifically listed.
- 2. FRI 800 Survey Unit I scan grid locations FRI 800-1-037 through S050 were all within an area 20 m by 40 m. Eighteen samples (XR- 1800-1 -S 142 through S 159) were taken from locations distributed throughout this area to support the additional investigations of the subject scan grids.
FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 28 of 38
- s f : l F P
F Attachment 4 Statistical Data . .
, . At: .
to FR-1800-Ol,'Rcvision 0 Page 29 of 38
I~I I FR-1800-01, Revision 0 Page 30 of 38 Survey Package FR1800 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary P'y &Ve Survey Package: FRI 800 Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: GP DCGL,: 4.20E+00 DCGLemc: 4.20E+00 LBGR: 2.08E+00 Sigma: 8.OOE-01 Type I error: - 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 Soil Type: N/A Z.0: . 1.645 Sign p: . 0.99379 Calculated Relative Shift: 2.6 Relative Shift Used:e- 2.6 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: < 12 N-Value+20%: 15 Number of Samples: 15 Median: 7.40E-02 Mean: 1.08E-01 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 7.85E-02 Total Standard Deviation: 7.85E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 3.30E-01 Adjusted N Value: 15 S+ Value:. 15 Critical Value:- 11 Sign test results: Pass Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL.: Pass Mean value <DCGLw: Pass Maximum value <DCGLm: i Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: >- Pass Criteria comparison results: - Pass The survey unit passes all conditions: l- Pass FR1800-SUW-SoilSign I1 1113103 3:09 PM
-1 FR 1800 SU-I Quantile Plot 0.35 0.3 I
0.25
- Cs-137 pCi/g (U) 0.2
- 0.15 -Median Cs-137 mU 0.1 a-f pCi/g 0.05 I0 0 50 100 Percent
Data Report Page/Date/Time 1 11/1/01 4:16:25 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\frl800-1 .SO Data List Section RowCs1 37_pCi_g 1 0.06 2 0.22 3 0.05 4 0.06 5 0.33 6 0.05 7 0.06 8 0.06 9 0.08 10 0.15 11 0.08 12 0.10 13 0.07 14 0.07 15 0.17
.L o6;o
(.3< 0
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 1/14/04 12:54:41 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR1800SU1.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 15 0.1082667 7.851339E-02 2.027207E-02 0.0647874 0.1517459 T for Confidence Limits = 2.144E Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Declslon(5%) Skewness Normality 3.0764 0.002095 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 2.3451 0.019023 Reject normality Omnibus Normality 14.9635 0.000563 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<>4.1 5 -199.3745 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.15 -199.3745 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.15 -199.3745 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 4.15 0.5 15 0 1.000000 0.000031 0.000061 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 I . I .
,0 60 . 17.59972 - 0 2 12'-
C -- _ - !
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<>4.15 3.4091 0.000652 Reject Ho 3.3807 0.000723 Reject Ho Median<4.15 -3.4091 0.000326 Reject Ho -3.3807 0.000361 Reject Ho Median>4.15 -3.4091 0.999674 Accept Ho -3.4376 0.999707 Accept Ho w
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 1/14/04 12:54:41 PM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR1800SU1.S0 Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 14 N-0.1 O'.1 ' 0.2 0.33 04
,. : . , , . C, A, -
i . - , Average-Difference Plot 0.2i 0
.; ..I .
0.2 CA 0 I- 0.1
, .. 0 .
0.1 0 00 0.1 I __.0D 0.1 0.2 02' 0'3 Difference
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 1/14/04 12:55:31 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 15 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 0.11 0.08 51.821 1.00000 15 0.05000 0.00000 4,15 2.08 0.08 26.538 0.05000 15 0.05000 0.95000 4.15 4.15 0.08 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 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 15 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.04 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.15 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.11 with a known standard deviation of 0.08 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0,05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. 1
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 1/14/04 12:55:31 PM Chart Section Power vs Meanl with MeanO=4.15 S=0.08 Alpha=0.05 N=15 T Test 0.8 -- I - ------ 1. a) 0.6-I I ,I I 0I I I \ I I II I \ I I I I I \ I I
-0.2 - _ I I I
, , , , I
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 3 11/29/01 12:00:06 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 0.4
- 0. -----
-- --- ---- --- , o 2.080 I I ,
0.0 6-.220 pCi/g Cs-1 37 I I Ico In 0
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-1800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY UNIT 2 Prepared By Date: 7/1/4
'I Approved By: Ce. 'cz-j X Date: qz^/o' Approved B: FSSMOP .
.I : , ! . ...... . ., . . .
.. . I
I I FR-1800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY UNIT 2 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Package FR- 1800 is a combination of all or part of six survey areas originally defined and described in the Initial Site Characterization Report' as R-600, R-700, R-800, R-900, R-1800, and R-2100 (as discussed in LTP Section 5.2.6). The areas were wholly or partially combined for FSS purposes because they were all open land areas with very low probability of residual contamination. These survey areas consisted of the land outside the Industrial Area, located between the Staff Building and the Old Ferry Road. Survey Package FR- 1800 encompasses approximately 367,000 m2 . The area around the Bailey House is a mix of open grassland and woodland. The area between Old Ferry road and the railroad tracks (near the ball field) is exposed bedrock with some thin veneered soil cover (most of the area was difficult to access because of dense brush cover). The ball field is an open, level grass-covered field. South of the ball field is the construction debris landfill, once used for the disposal of dredging spoils and other construction debris. The surface dimensions and depth of the fill and cover of the landfill are not known. The landfill area is mostly covered with wild grasses. South of the landfill is the 345 kV electrical switchyard. The switchyard soil is compacted, engineered fill and gravel. The area around the switchyard is mostly wetland and wild grasses. The area between the access roads and north of the ISFSI is a mix of open grassland and wetland with a small pond and some trees. The area south of the ISFSI is woodland with thin soil cover over bedrock. Survey Unit 2 was defined as the portion of FR-1800 bounded by Old Ferry Road on the north, the railroad tracks on the east, the shoreline on the wvest, and the fire pond in the southerly direction. The 345 kV switchyard was included. The surface area of Survey Unit 2 is approximately 234,000 m2 . Because packaged radioactive waste materials will be transported by rail and truck following completion of this survey, the roads and tracks will be re-surveyed upon completion of waste shipments. This additional survey will be performed under survey package FR-2900. B. Survey Unit Design Information Survey Unit 2 was designed as a Class 3 survey. Vehicles used to transport radioactive waste materials sometimes parked on the road adjacent to the area. Dredge spoils, which contained small amounts of plant-derived nuclides, were placed under the 345 kV power lines between the switchyard and the ball field. Snow was removed from the site's protected area and ' The Initial Site Characterization Report was summarized in the LTP and provided to the NRC in the Maine Yankee letter dated October 1, 2001 (Reference 1). FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 2 of 52
dumped in the ball field area. Measurements taken during Site Characterization indicated trace levels of Co-60 in the ball field dug outs.2 Soil samples taken during Site Characterization contained only Cs-137 in levels consistent with radioactive fallout from weapons testing. The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given a relative shift of 2.59, it was determined that 15 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were randomly determined and are illustrated on the map FRI 800-14 (Attachment I) .- .
\Table I Survey Unit Design Summiary: FR-1800, Survey Unit 2 Survey Unit 2 Design Criteria J'Basis Area 234,000 n2 - No limit for Class 3 area Number of Direct 15 -- Based on LBGR of 2.08 pCi/g, Measurements sigma of 0.83 and relative shift Required _ of 2.59. Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing, N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 23,400 m2 Class 3 Area-I 0%
Scan Investigation 3.6 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference 2) Level background' DCGL 4.15 pCi/g Cs-137' Based on Rev. 0 of the Li?
,_ , (Reference 3)
Design DCGLErjc N/A Class 3 Area The initial design anticipated that it may not be possible or practical to obtain a direct sample from all of the (15) selected locations due to preseice of surface water or exposed rock. Therefore, consistent with the applicable site FSS procedure, a number of randomly generated "alternate" direct measurement locations wvere also identified, using the same process as that 2 The dugouts were constructed of concret'e blocks that had been free released from the plant RCA. Random and biased characterization demonstrated that any contamination in the ball field or dugouts would be a small fraction of the DCGL; Dugout materials were later disposed of as radioactive waste. 3 Based on the maximum Cs-137 characterization value for the Bailey Land Area (LTP Revision 1, Table 5-1 C). Based on a retrospective review of scan results it was determined that' the investigation level was set at background plus 3.6 sigma. Asdiscussed under Survey Results, alarm setpoints were adjusted, during the survey to account for varying background levels. FR-1800-,02, Revision 0 Page 3 of 52
I I used for the selection of the first 15 locations. The locations of these alternates are shown oin map FRI 800-14. Scans of 10 per cent of the total land area (234,000 mi2 ) were designed for those areas determined to be the most likely to show contamination if it were present. The areas chosen were the areas next to the roadways, the railroad tracks, the dredge spoils area, ball field, and the low lands or drainage areas for the wetlands. Table 2 FR-1800 Survey Unit 2 Soil Sample Results Sample No. Cs-137 pCilg Co-60 pCilg Note (]) FR1800-2-S501 0.26 + 0.061 <0.077 FRI 800-2-S502 0.14 + 0.056 <0.070 FRI800-2-S503 0.65 +/- 0.099 <0.090 FRI800-2-S504 0.60 + 0.099 <0.080 FR 1800-2-S505 0.24 + 0.068 <0.070 FRI800-2-S506 <0.08 <0.070 FRI 800-2-S507 0.67 + 0.11 <0.084 FRI800-2-S508 <0.09 <0.080 FRI800-2-S509 0.06 + 0.033 <0.061 FRI800-2-S510 <0.11 <0.084 FR 1800-2-S51 1 <0.10 <0.080 FR I800-2-S512 <0.07 <0.066 FR I800-2-S513 <0.08 <0.090 FRI800-2-S514 0.23 + 0.058 <0.070 FR I800-2-S515 <0.08 <0.089 Mean 0.23 0.077 Std. Dev. 0.222 0.009 Median 0.11 0.08 Range 0.060-0.67 <0.061-0.090 Note: (1) Results in bold indicate positive detects. Scan grids were typically 2 to 5 meters wide and followed roads or tracks. Some large open land areas were also scanned. An overview of the FR-1800 Bailey Land survey area is provided in maps FRI 800-01 and 02. Scan locations are indicated on the attached maps FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 4 of 52
FRI800-05 through 10, 15 throughl 17, FR1 800-19, FR1800-21, and FR1800-23 through 25. Maps are provided in Attachment 1. Instruments used for performing survey 'reasurements in Survey Unit 2 are listed in 'Attachment 2 along with the instrument MDCs. C. Survey Results -
-j Fifteen direct measurements wvere made in Survey Unit 2. The resulting soil sample data are' presented in Table 2.
Scan alarm setpoints were initially based on a background of 11,400 cpm. However, background was found to fluctuate significantly within the survey unit (e.g., 8100 cpm to 20,000 cp'm) due to the varying soil and rock constitdents. Background values were determined for specific' areas within Survey Unit 2 by verifying the absence of plant-derived radioactivity'and collecting long background counts. Instrument'alarms for thesespecific' areas xveie adjusted, based on the local background data. The alarm set point was then taken as 2.5 to 3.5 sigma of the background in cpm. 'At each alarm location, an attempt was made to verify the alarm by repeating the lasts1 or 2 meter'scan. 'If the alarm Bias repeated, a flag was placed at the location for further evaluatioji.` Survey unit investigation results are provided in and discussed in Section D. D. Survey Unit'Investigations Perform'e'd and Results There were 78 v6rified alarms' initially identified for investigation in Survey Unit 2. These' were combined into a total of 49 individual areas for investigation. Invcstigation§ included additional scan measurements to determine the highest reading in the scan grid, a 10 'minute' count with the Exploranium gamma spectrum (GR-130) analyzer at the location of the highest measurement, and collection of a soil sample." Of the 49 areas investigated, 'none showed plant-derived radioactivity above background. Investigation related information for the 49 investigation 'area's is provided in Table'3-1 -(Attachirient 3). Soil investigations produced a total of 60 soil samples. The soil sample results are provided in Table 3-2 (Attachment 3). For each investigation, the following infdrmation is provided in Table 3-1 (Attachrment 3): (I) the FSS scan survey location in Survey' Unit 2 (and scan'survey date);' (2) a brief description of the investigation area; (3) the specific investigation location and package numbers associated with'each scan survey'l6cation' ' Table 3-2 (Attachment 3) provides tlie iniestigation's soil gamma spectroscopy results, listed by specific investigation package location number. None of these soil investigation samples indicated the presence of plant-deiived activity. 5 A later review of investigation data revealed two minor discrepancies in the treatment of verified alarms. One scan location with a verified alarm (FRI 800-2-S372) was not investigated (but was later rescanned). One scan location (FR1800-2-S303) was treated as an investigation but in fact did not have a verified alarm. These are discussed in Table 3-1 of Attachment 3 and have no overall impact on conclusions regarding the FSS of this surv6y unit. FR-I 800-02, Revisi6n 0 1Rage 5'of 52'
I I Following the completion of initial scans in Survey Unit 2, the immediate assessment of scan data taken along the fitness path and railroad tracks concluded that the scans should be repeated, primarily due to wide variations in background and documentation issues. The repeated scans were performed as an investigation under XR 1800-2. During these repeat scans, 91 areas were identified for further investigation. At each investigation, a scaler count, GR-130 and soil sample were taken. Scan results, etc. for the additional areas identified for investigation are provided in Table 3-3 (railroad tracks) and Table 3-4 (fitness path), . Of the 91 areas re-scanned, none showed plant-derived activity above background. Soil investigation results for these areas are provided in Table 3-5 (Attachment 3). In addition, during the survey of FR-1800, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. To determine the impact of the change in methodology, a detailed review of FR-1 800 Survey Unit 2 scan data was performed. Revised setpoints were calculated based on a retrospective review of scan MDCs for FR-I 800 scan data, documented in Maine Yankee calculation EC-009-01 (Reference 2). Background values used in determining revised setpoints were based on the best available information for the scaler background levels for a given scan grid. All scan grid areas in the initial scan of Survey Unit 2 (approximately 450) were included in this review. The revised alarm setpoint was compared with the maximum scan value for each grid to determine if an alarm would have occurred had the revised alarm setpoint been used during the FSS. If a scan location would likely have alarmed (using the revised alarm setpoint) and was not otherwise investigated, it was designated as a "non-alarm" location and was evaluated further. As a result of the evaluation, each of the non-alarm scan grids were dispositioned into one of the following categories: I. No further investigation was considered necessary based on a comparison of the scan results or investigation results of adjacent or nearby grids; or
- 2. The scan grids would be rescanned as part of FR-2900 (road and railroad track areas following the majority of demolition and waste transportation activities); or
- 3. Additional soil investigation samples were taken.
A total of 18 "non-alarm" scan locations (i.e., approximately 13 per cent of the total scan areas ) were identified to be re-scanned as part of FR-2900. These scan locations are listed in Table 3-6 (Attachment 3). (As noted earlier, scan location FRI 800-2-S372 will also be rescanned as part of FR-2900, thus bringing the total to 19 scan locations to be rescanned.) Three scan locations in Survey Unit 2 required additional soil investigations per the above reviewv results. These areas represent less than 3 per cent of the total scan areas evaluated. The soil samples were taken and determined to have no indication of plant-derived activity above background. These scan locations are further described and listed with soil sample investigation results in Table 3-7 (Attachment 3). Thus, the majority of the Survey Unit 2 scan locations were found to require no further investigation. Furthermore, the additional soil investigation results were consistent with prior FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 6 of 52
survey unit investigation data indicating no plant-derived activity above background. Overall, the detailed review of survey unit scan data concluded that the scan results were largely indicative of background values in a large Class 3 land area. 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. Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Cs-137. and Co-60. The maximum soil result for Cs-137 was less than 16% of the DCGL. The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value 6 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of 0.04 pCi/g. This would be equivalent to an annual dose rate of approximately 0.1 mrem.y.7 F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and the Retrospective Power Curve are presented in . ' ' Based on the scan'data review and the application of the current E600 scan methodology (as'. discussed in Section D)', a small number of Survey Unit 2 scan grids (listed in Table 3-6, ) will be rescanned as part of FR-2900 to provide a final confirmation regarding the absence of plant-derived activity. FR-2900 will survey roads and rail tracks, including right-of-ways. These areas will be released as part of FR-2900. G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The 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 in late 2000 and into 2001. The survey, including' investigations were conducted in 2001. Evaluations and reviews of the data .were completed in 2002. The design was performed primarily to the criteria of the original LTP, Revision 0 (Reference 3) with some aspects of LTP Rev'isi6ne I (Reference 5) considered and incorporated into the FSS. As discussed and reviewed in Section D of this Release Record, scan methodology changes were made during this mime frme, related tothe use of the E600 instrument.
6See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 4). 7Based on the DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g and its equivalence to an annual exposure of 10 mrem/year, per Section 6.7 of LTP Rev. 3 Addenda (Reference 7). FR' 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 7 of 52'
I~I I LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with the potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows.
- 1. Requirement to check background to be within + 1000 cpm of established background prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7). For this survey unit, the subject background check was made on a daily basis and not necessarily at the beginning of a scan area.
- 2. Increased Scan MDC from 3.0 to 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7).
- 3. LTP changes in the activated concrete license amendment (proposed in MY letter to the NRC, Reference 8 and approved by the NRC in Reference 9.
- 4. Increased soil DCGL for open land areas outside the plant radiological Restricted Area (RA), from 4.15 pCi/g to 4.2 pCi/g (LTP Revision 2, Reference 6).
- 5. Procedural commitment to limit the maximum scan grid size to 10 m2 (Reference 10).
Overall, based on the evaluation conducted, these LTP changes were found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of Survey Unit 2.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil samples were less than the approved DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 7). There was no evidence of plant-derived contamination above background within 100 m of the site terminus of either the plant access road or the on-site railroad tracks.
The road and railroad track areas will be re-surveyed and released as part of FR-2900. FR-1800, Survey Unit 2 met the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References I. Initial Characterization Survey and Historical Site Assessment, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-038, dated October 1, 2001.
- 2. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 3. Maine Yankee LTP (later referred to as "Revision 0"), Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-00-004, dated January 13, 2000.
- 4. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 5. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision I, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01 -023, June 1, 2001.
- 6. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision 2, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
- 7. Maine Yankee, LTP, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 8. Proposed License Amendment Related to Changes in the Activated Concrete Remediation Plans, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003.
- 9. Issuance of License Amendment No. 170, NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 18, 2004.
- 10. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-009, dated February 26, 2003.
FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 8 of 52
Attachment I Survey Unit Maps
. I
. t F7R- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 9 of 52. - ,
l A I_ 0 C) 0 H C; IDC ISFSI Soi I Soil from 345 kV El ISFSI Construction C) Yard Expansion Mo Staging Area DC C) DC H C) C) sr. N DC C C. D El H C 1 C, C C) IXI D 0 cn CC) U :ICt
-C) 0 -C DC co CA DC 0 w C CD 'A 0 CA C 0 UZ, rc C)
CD
'A v.
C CD C) CD -r. I-- (n C) 0 DC z DC C) N) VI DC C) K ;n C ~o C) Z) 0 C _° N C) r. 0 01o0 2 DC MAINE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM C- -C) _ .D 0 _F C) . o 00 1
'1
;0 C) 0 IC ') 0)
l [ i; Ct n~ 0 b FR1800 Bailey House Land Scan Areas E so D 3'
-4 0,
0 0 0 0 0 cn C, 0 0 en c/2 D_. v: 0 0 0 N 0 0 (D i i 0 z 0 MAINE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM 626,000 E U.1 LA. N)O 0
II Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map l Map ID
- FR1800-05 Decommissioning Team urvey Type:EjCharacterization E]Turnover *Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR-1800-02, Revision 0 FR1800 Survey Unit 2 North Page 12, of 52 Road and Ba I I F i e I d
= Scan Areas GRAPHIC SCALE 5M N 9 190 290 490 (IN FEET) N 623200 623300 623400 623500 623600 623700 623800 623900 624000 624100 624200 624300 624400 624500 624600 624700 624800 624900 625000 a O 0 0 O 0 0 0 -a - - -
La b Ln O -4 0 LO 0 - Ili CA M O 0 0Q 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 z z Z z z z z z z z z z Z
n 0 FR1800 Survey Unit 2 -South Access Road. Landf II and Switchyard I Scan Areas MAINE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM s -b s , b. 2, . tl Ns . t. t.N -5 N _tz b _N ts Xs b. _t, 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o 0o _ _ _ _. CO' c co Co Co CCO Co LO L W LO LO LO LO LOD LO 0 0 0 0 0 LA - U1 ) 4_D C( LO 0O W N -h tlU O -J co W 0 N W LA-o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 'z 623700 E 20 623800 E ~ 1 _623900 E
'D y 0
--- 624000E A0 I , ,I F I I llllll4ll§lIS 624100 E 0
2 twrers 624200 E 3. 0 0 624300 E EtI A II I I624400 E
/-II /I2g 1-1 " fZ,/wIct~rgA 624500 E All t I //Y211 °+
9 190/ 290 9 ol~ N/ N) Do o - 00 _. 0 0 0
II l Maine Yankee Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID
- FRI1OO-07 Decommissioning DeomsinnI~re a a Survey Tvpe:flCharacterization OTurnover Urinal Status SurveyiSurvey Area Name: Dailey [louse Land Survey Jni t 2 Scan Area (Between Branches of West Access Road cnd 0 Id Ferry Road)
CD GRAPH i }C SrALE in ri Feet ) C I 0 I 25 50 I 75 i 00 200 Effil a)0 i co a) EEL---RIMERMN-C) 2)
- ...... - 0 I
625700 E0 i I Grid Lies idic re Vain Sl--~- Geoogi I I i Co~rdinacte S,,,s~e- i 'n25 I~- :cremants
r Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team _ r maine Yank- - __ __ _ Decommissioning
- - ProjecL Su; .y Map Map
_ I) FRI800-08 I Survey Type-ECharactcrization L[Turnover , Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR 1800 Sur\vey Unit 2 - 345 kV SW I TCHYARD 409000 N _______ 0 I j I C
.. ...-.A vo toC'J
.rn a0 °
.4GRAFHJC £AL..A.1h Fe1L. -
0 25 50 7 10 0 j 1 - I 1 I __ __ -. 0 408900 N--
°o a) i 0)
______ I 408800 N
- r--- - . I --
0) [L i 1EL N I I 408700 Ii I I I t I i..........-.t.........- I I I a) 408600 (DJ a) iV!7zi. 408500 N V I
. I I E
-V--f 1 KM 408400 I I i -
-I -f--- --I-408300 0U.
0 _ IizLui o K 0 0 7 0 w. 0-0 0 w 0 r- ko 0*' 0 0
-a;' Q' n in. c'J LO
.0 .0o %D
I~I I FR-1 800-02, Revision 0 Page & of 52 I Maine Yankee l Decommissioning Team Maine M Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID, FRIBOO-09 Survey Type:Eljcharacterization []Turnover EFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey House Land i I FR1800 Survey Unit 2 North - Bal I Field Scan Grids 50 10 _ .I 2. 0 50 1 QC 290 623800 623900 621000 621100 Scan Grid 10 m inte
- I Grid #
624200 E--_ -- _--L----- ------- -__- _---_-.-_.~~L~-~ -_-X-__ __ --~ ~ ~-I- A t dx 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 7' z z z
4 00 o O 0 0 A . I Om xl6m, gr i (-
.- I -I I N 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l- _-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - - - - L-
,__ - - - - - - -_. - - - - - - 63 0 IEn r--J--- . . I ------ 640
@ -i : -- / - -. ----- - ----. - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - 1.- - - -
.0
/ /L//W CD
*0;
. 1C)
. I I r- - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -L~ - - - -l - -- ~~~~~~-
-- 1-4 0 E tv' GRAPH IC SCL I .
0 50 100 150 <\ 70x40 meters N)' ,co (IN FEET)
T wA l
*1 t~
00
'4 D
-a 3.,
'4 MXI E
1< M 0 FR1 800 Bailey House Land Survey Unit 2 Soil Sample Locations N N 0 0 0 5 N5 0 4 Z.- - )"N 1 U t= (D 0 cJ 0 N 3 3350 0 CO (A CD 0 (n 300 4 tA
'4 0
0 4
'4 O'Q N
z N U) c: N
'4 0
0 (b (D I 50 100 150 200 250 .300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 M8 N x meters 0. N 0 624.975 E: 40S.305N SQ . _ (D 0 Cen£!. :CD GRAPHIC SCALE h\)0 C-0
~3050 0 N
9 0
.A 0
( IN fEET) 0 N U
Maine Yankee Decommissionine Team I Maine Yankee. Decommissioning Project- Survey Map I Map ID
- FRIOOO-15
_urvey Type:OCharacterization OTurnover E=inal Status Survey Survey Area Name' Bailey House Land FR-1800-02, Revision 0 I Page i(? of 52 623800 E 623900 E 624000 E 624100 E 624200 E 624300 E 624400 E 15x15m area behind backstop 624500 E D9 -1 ' O CA. Z; thU Z; 0' O-C0 -C O 0 0 a 0 Oz z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 20x20m area by 2Ox20m area by Y in road left lield pole
II Maine Yankee I M Vaine Yankeet D mmiss-ioIIning Pr i-0(n t ql l.M uD I .
*Flnn- aD Decommissioning Team I L1'-'" - 6*- S J J "- - 1I '.- * """ -
Survey Type: ECharacterization CTurnover *Final Status SurveyISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land I FR1800 Survey Unit 2 North 15x15 meter & 3x85 meter Scan Areas by Ball Fiel FR-l 8 00.02,Revisian0
= = Scan Areas Page 2. of 52 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 623600 E 623700 E 623800 E 623900 E 624000 E z z z
cMaisjne YanTeameieDcm" Maine YaMnkeienYankee Dcissioning *nn re Project uv"M-Survey, ap I Map ID
- FRIBOO-17
[rvey Type:[]Characterization [:Turnover EFinal Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Dailey House Land FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page ?- of 52 FR1 800 Survey Unit 2 North Road and Tracks by Ball Field I 7= Scan Areas GRAPHIC SCALE 0 100 200' :-' 400 I I .. . I I I ! . ., I
- i ( IN FEET) .:
I' I , : 623900 E 624000 E 624100 E 624200 E 624300 E 624400 E 624500 E a.0 .60 co 0 0 0 0 0 0) 12 0 .0 0 0 0 NDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0
I II l l Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID FR1800-19 Survey Type:-[3(haracterization [Turnover UFinal Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR1800 Survey Unit 2 North - Ball Field Scan Grids FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Area Previously Surveyed (Map vs. Actual Measured Area in Oisagreemrent) Page I2 of 52 Re-Grid and Re-Survey ° 25 50 100 623800E--------------I--- 623800 E t ~~~~~~- -- - - - I-- - t-- --¢-l - -1 II /1I1II I I I Area N I I I I I _ Preo Surv un~~~~ Grd_ =.._ S-i
\trJV IN I N Grid~~~~~4 F n4 : I - - _/- -- i I----I E0 02390
,ee ' t/53 lo 5 A I I 2- V I Sc0 10 00 4 01 z z z NM Y . A z z z
' PA l C
0
.4 le ft F -<
-4 E~0
%4 0 C,A V = Xj 0IAb 0
-4 UD 0
FR1 800 Survey Unit 2 - Fitness Path 0 D C
- -- = Scan Areas 0
o 0 t 0 I 0 0
%0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0
- N CA b. V C co O 04 - N W o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 U V Cn Z Z Z z Z Z Z z z z Ab 9 E CD7 0 0 I 3 to, C, 02 0 UC D 0 U 9 E *e zI IC^ 0 U 1.n 0 0 U e cJn
'.4 C1 n
E (4 m U C,w 3: E 0. GRAPHIC SCALE U 0) 400 a) ;o 0 190 220 a o -I Dl co la (IN FEET) 0too, :3 _L r. 0 0_ N
r a C)
.-6 0 FR1 800 West Access Rood (Survey Unit 1 cnd 2 ) 4a to
_~ = Scan Areas M a 0 a
-4 C) a 0
Note: West side of road is Survey Unit 2. East side is Survey Unit 1 a ie rwN a 0 (0 MN
-4 2 rrotor W;io pDth 4-- N 0 H
W a 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Io a 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 8 0 8 8 a 8 8 8 o o o o o 0 z0 z0 0I z0 Z9 (0 z Z Z Z 2 Z . Z Z 2 z z
' 624000 E U a
C) 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-_ 0) I II I I I I I r _I _ _ _, _ 1- -I-I-.e -I - r I- t.-I- I -t - I-X, 62400 E w
~i., I _I _ I -_
AiI _kI 0 0 I I I I 1- IL I~- I I I I I I- 1
.9 T- 7 m S215 I S T -I 624200 E
- L I I_ L I W
_ _- I I I I I I ce Roth I
'-I
- - - 624300 E 0
_ _1 0 (0 1--4--- I - + -I- F -i - I- 4 0 _ I I I I_ _I_ I
-II z C12 I I I I I I I I I I 0
- I- T 1- r - 7 - i- T--1i-r-L -- -r I L I _.
.I 1 -I- L I _ I1/Z -I- I -I- L Il I -I 1I L I - 62A4500 J 2 n44tor -;cO Palm GRAPHIC SCALE
° 1,0 290 490 -0 - V
- z (IN FEET) CDCO 0
*0 0 0 O 0 0 o.
"CD 0. 0
(.n (n. 0 C-,
Maine Yankee I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID
- FRIBOO-24 Surrey Type:jJktd Asa..,ment OCherocterization O Turno~er 1 Fin.I sUatus Surv.y ISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land Rail Tracks by Ball Field FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page 2:5 of 52 623500 E-7-1I I I I I I 7K1 - U -I - .-F -I-
-I. J- L JI- .- - 1.
1 I I i I I I I I* II I 623600 E T I- I- -r r -I- I -T -
- I- J L _I_ L _I. 15 Imeter wvidi sFcfn ppt) 1
- I-
- r-17
- T 1- y r- -1 623700 E-t m- - I.- - .- I -t-
- -I- I- I _ _ _ _ _ I I_ __ _ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F F T11 - F1
-- >- - -I - -/ - - - -
623800 E4 H - F--I_ 4- I }_ I-I I _L IJ I1 II_ T1 1 II_ 1 _I1
.1 -/
L J
- I-I- I . I I I I -I I I~ i I i I I}
T- I _ i I _ _ _ _ _-W 623900 E- - 1 I i I I I- - _-I- 4 - L _ U-I 4- - - 4- -I- 4 - -i I I _J - L J. I. IF 1 F 1 1F T - -T-- F- -I - i- -I-+ 1
-I-1 H-1 I -
_ F_ i- r-I - I -_1 J _L -L 1 L -I L J L J 624000 E - -r [X I I I I / I I I I I I I I _ I- J _ L _I_ L1
- tT- - r -I- r T -I- - r 1
- I I I_ I I I I I I I I I If 624100 E - -I - 1- 1- -[
I / I I I I I I\ 1 I - II-
-I iI Tf I
-i-I TI -1I II -FI - I
-I I I I I 624200 E - I I I I I' III I I1
_I_
- - I- 4 - I -I-I f-I---I-I I i I - I -- I 4I
_ I- _-F -I-t I )II 624400 ET 624300 E- - LE_l - L _I- -I L - L I T- I-61 I I I
- F1--r 1- T -I1 1 - r -I I~I 7 -I- -1 I I_ I -Il- I _ _ _I _I _I_ I _I_ I _ I _I
,MM 1..-T I I I . /@I I I I I *I I I I I I 624500 E- *4-N I- i- -I- t - I- I- -I - t--I- t - I- -I -H-I- -- -I-t -t-I--
o2 0 0 0 - - a 0 t 0 0 - 0 ^ o a 0 0 a 0 2 oa a o a 0 0 o - 0 z0 o o 0 z z 2 2 z z z z z z z Trap Rock on Rail Tracks I I
iII Maine Yankee . Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID
- FRI800-25 Decommissioning Team _
Survey Type:C]Characterization E]Turnover Einal Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page 2; of 52 FRI 800 20m x 20m Scan Box (West Side of West Access Road, Across from ISFSI ) 0 10 0 (0 NJ tD MN 0 0 0 0I DN z_ z
- - - - - - - -1624200 E F- _
I (I I I I I
- -1 I
I I_ I I I
-I 624300 E
Attachment 2 Sn - Survey Unit In~str'umentation
. . z
. . .I FR-18ob-'02, Revision 0 Page 27 of 52,
_ ____I I Table 2-1. FR-1800 Instrumentation (Survey Units 1, 2, andl 3) E-600 S/N SPA-3 SIN MDC (pCi/g) 1606 725331, 726554 See Table 2-2 1619 725328, 726554, 726557 See Table 2-2 1622 725332 See Table 2-2 1625 725330, 726554, 726557 See Table 2-2 1631 725329, 726561 See Table 2-2 1641 725332, 726557, 726561, See Table 2-2 725331, 725330, 726554 1643 726561,726560 SeeTable 2-2 1647 725328, 725330, 726557 See Table 2-2 1648 725328, 725329, 725331, See Table 2-2 725332,726557, IlPGe Detectors Detector No. MDC (pCilg) FSS-l 0.05 to 0.11 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MIDC and Comparison with DCGL and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGL 4.2 LTP Section 6.7 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, pCi/g Reference 7) Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, pCilg Reference 7) Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of Background EC-001-09 (Reference 2) (Alarm setpoint) FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page 28 of 52
Attachment 3 Investigation Tables FR-1 800-02, Revision 0 Page 29 of 52
Table 3-1. FR-1800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 2 Investigations Survey Location Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As SurveyLocatin__________nDate Location FR1800-2-S247 Silt Spread Area grid 3 6/14/01 12 XR1800-2-SOOI to S005 FRI800-2-S236 Silt Spread Area grid 6 6/14/01 13 XR1800-2-S006 to S010 FRI800-2-S241 Silt Spread Area grid 7 6/14/01 14 XR1800-2-SO IIto SO15 FR1800-2-S245 Silt Spread Area grid 7 6/14/01 15 XR1800-2-S016 to S020 FR1800-2-S234 Silt Spread Area grid 10 6/14/01 16 XR1800-2-S021 to S025 FR1800-2-S239 Silt Spread Area grid I1 6/14/01 17 XR1800-2-S026 to S030 FRI800-2-S243 Silt Spread Area grid I1 6/14/01 18 XR1800-2-S031 to S035 FR1800-2-S279 Silt Spread Area grid 25 6/19/01 19 XR1800-2-S036 to S040 FRI800-2-S170 Ball field grid 40 5/7/01 33 XRl800-2-S041 to S045 FRl800-2-S171 Ball field grid 58 5/7/01 34 XR1800-2-S046 to S050 FRI800-2-S174 Ball field grid 57 5/7/01 35 XR1800-2-S051 to S055 FRI800-2-S178 Ball field grid 56 5/7/01 36 XR1800-2-S056 to S060 FR1800-2-5160 Ball field grid 35 5/7/01 37 XR1800-2-S061 to S065 FR1800-2-S097 Ball field grid 12 4/24/01 38 XR1800-2-S066 to S070 FR1800-2-S096 Ball field grid 13 4/24/01 39 XR1800-2-S071 to S075 FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 30 of 52
Survey Location Description FSS Survey netation Investigated As __ _ __ _ __ _ Date Location FR1800-2-S158 S159, S161, S163, S165, S166, S167, Ball field grid 30. 5/7/01 40. XR1800-2-S076 to S080 S168, 5169 .. FR1800-2-S192 Behind backstop and up ROW 5/8/01 41 XR1800-2-S 156 to S160 FR1800-2-S186 ISxl5m box behind backstop 5/8/01 42 XR1800-2-S161 to Sf65 FRI800-2-S189 - 15xlSm box behind backstop 5/8/01 43 XRI800-2-S081 to S085 FRI800-2-S190 15xlSm box behind backstop 5/8/01 44 XR1800-2-S086 to S090 FRI800-2-S185 l5x 15m box behind backstop 5/8/01 45 XR1800-2-S091 to S095 FRI800-2-S184- 15x 15m box behind backstop 5/8/01 46 XR1800-2-S096 to S00N FRI800-2-S3184-- - Ix~ o eidbcso //1-4 R802S9 oS0 FR1800-2-S318 -- -sideofroadtoballfield- 6/27/01 47 -- XR1800-2-S1I1 to S105 FR 1800-2-S3 19 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FRI800-2-S 129 - -20x20m box by ball field - 5/2/01 48- XR1800-2-S 106 to S110 FR1800-2-S128 2Ox2Om box by ball field 5/2/01 49 XR1800-2-S1I to S115 FRI800-2-S134 20x20m box by ball field 5/2/01 52 XR I800-2-S 126 to S 130 FRI800-2-S196 Road by ball field 5/9/01 53 XR1800-2-S131 to S135 FRI800-2-S 133 20x20m box by ball field 5/2/01 50 XR1800-2-S 116 to S 120 FRI800-2-S132 - 20x20m box by ball field 5/2/01 51 XR1800-2-S121 to S125 FRI800-2-S200 Road by ball field 5/9/01 54 XRI800-2-S 136 to S 140 FRI800-2-S137 20x20m box by "Y" in road 5/2/01 55 XRI800-2-S 141 to S145 FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 31 of 52 i -t I
Survey Location Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As Date Location FRI800-2-S138 20x20m box by "Y" in road 5/2/01 56 XR1800-2-S146 to S150 FRI800-2-5141 2Sx2tm box by "Y" in road 5/2/01 57 XR1 800-2-S 151 to S170 FR1800-2-S253 Silt Spread Area grid 7 6/14/01 58 XRI800-2-S 166 to S170 FR1800-2-S250 Silt Spread Area grid 7 6/14/01 59 XR1800-2-S 171 to S175 FR1800-2-S256 Silt Spread Area grid 8 6/14/01 60 XR1800-2-S176 to S180 FR1_800-2-S283 Silt Spread Area grid 26 6/19/0.1 61 XR1800-2-S 181 to SLSS FR1800-2-S292 Silt Spread Area grid 26 6/19/01 62 XR1800-2-S 186 to S190 FR1800-2-S285 Silt Spread Area grid 28 6/19/01 63 XR1800-2-S191 to S195 FRI800-2-S071 By rock in area at end of W Access 4/23/01 64 XR1800-2-S196 to S200 ______ ___ Roads FR1800-2-S396 Fitness Path 8/3/01 67 XR1800-2-S211 to S215 FRI800-2-S 149 West Access Road off near Old Ferry 5/3/01 65 XR1800-2-S201 to S205 Road FRI800-2-S144 N side of Old Ferry Road across from 5/2/01 66 XR1800-2-S206 to S210 FR1800-2-S144____________ ball field (boulder) 66X1802S26toS1 FR 1800-2-S401 S403, S407, S409, S411 Fitness Path 8/3/01 68 XR1800-2-S216 to S235 FR1800-2-S415 S417, S421, S425, S427, S432 S434, S435 S439, Fitness Path 8/3/01 69 XR1800-2-S236 to S255 S441 FR 1800-2-S412 S414, S449, S451, S455, Fitness Path 8/3/01 70 XR1800-2-S256 to S270 S459 S461 FR 1800-2-S299 FR1800-2-S300 Fitness Path 6/21/01 71 XR1800-2-S271 to S275 FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page 32 of 52
Survey Location Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __D ate L ocation FRI800-2-S383 Fitness Path 7/3/01 72 XR1800-2-S276 to S295 Upon further review, it was determined that this scan location FRI800-2-S303 Fitness Path 6/21/01 73 did not have a verified alarm; however, a complete investigation was performed under XR1 800 S296 to S300. This scan location was not investigated; however, the area was subjected to a repeat scan during FR1800-2-S372 Railroad Track 7/2/01 NA this survey. Furthermore, the area will be re-surveyed as part of FR-2900, following the completion of waste shipments. FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 33 of 52
I I Table 3-2. FR1800, Survey Unit 2, Investigation Soil Results Investigation Sample # Cs- 137 pCi/g Investigation Sample # Cs-137 pCilg XR-1800-2-S005 <0.070 XR-1800-2-S155 <0.071 XR-1800-2-SOIO <0.076 XR-1800-2-S160 <0.077 XR- 1800-2-SO15 <0.077 XR- 1800-2-S 165 <0.066 XR-1800-2-S020 <0.080 XR-1800-2-S170 <0.066 XR-1800-2-S025 <0.074 XR-1800-2-S175 <0.068 XR-1800-2-S030 <0.082 XR-1800-2-S180 <0.083 XR-1800-2-S035 <0.077 XR-1800-2-S185 <0.073 XR-1800-2-S040 <0.071 XR-1800-2-S 190 <0.073 XR- 1800-2-S045 <0.075 XR- 1800-2-S 195 <0.062 XR-1800-2-S050 <0.074 XR-1800-2-S200 <0.040 XR- 1800-2-S055 <0.085 XR-1800-2-S205 <0.080 XR- 1800-2-S060 <0.071 XR-1800-2-S210 <0.096 XR- 1800-2-S065 <0.082 XR-1800-2-S215 <0.063 XR-1800-2-S235 <0.087 XR-1800-2-S220 <0.096 XR-1800-2-S255 <0.088 XR-1800-2-S225 <0.083 XR- I 800-2-S080 <0.076 XR- 1800-2-S230 <0.094 XR- 1800-2-S085 <0.074 XR-1800-2-S235 <0.087 XR-1800-2-S090 <0.057 XR-1800-2-S240 <0.088 XR- 1800-2-S095 <0.073 XR- 1800-2-S245 <0.075 XR- 1800-2-S 100 <0.072 XR-1800-2-S250 <0.086 XR- 1800-2-S 105 <0.104 XR- 1800-2-S255 <0.088 XR- 1800-2-S 110 <0.079 XR-1800-2-S260 <0.079 XR- 1800-2-S 115 <0.076 XR- 1800-2-S265 <0.078 XR-1800-2-S120 <0.077 XR-1800-2-S270 <0.088 XR- 1800-2-S 125 <0.068 XR- 1800-2-S275 <0.082 XR- 1800-2-SI 30 <0.071 XR- 1800-2-S280 <0.089 XR-1800-2-S135 <0.070 XR- 1800-2-S285 <0.073 XR- 1800-2-S 140 <0.083 XR- 1800-2-S290 <0.082 XR- 1800-2-S 145 <0.078 XR- 1800-2-S295 <0.074 XR- 1800-2-SI 50 _ <0.087 XR- 1800-2-S300 <0.078 Note. 1. Co-60 values are not listed since they were all < MDA (i.e., all <0.1 pCi/g) FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 34 of 52
Table 3-3. XR1800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 2 Investigations (Repeated Scans) RAILROAD TRACKS BY BALL FIELD Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As Location (Note 1) (Railroad Tracks) Date Location _____________As XR1800-2-S338 Rd. South of track, 11/7/01 75 XR1800-2-S600 to S602 ____ ____ ____ Section_1,_G rid_5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S308 Between rails, Section 11/6/01 76 XR1800-2-S603 too S605 XR1800-2-S309_______ 2, Grid_8 1/07 8-26 0 XR1800-2-S309 Between rails, Section 2, Grid 1191980- 11/6/01 77 XR1800-2-S6062tS to S608 XR1800-2-S364 Between rails, Section 11/9/01 78 XR1800-2-S609 to S611 3,Grid 13 I/08X 0-S8o6 XRI800-2-S345 Tracks border North, 11/9/01 79 XRI800-2-S612 to S614 _______ ______ Section_3,_G rid_14 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S365 Between rails, Section 11/9/01 80 XRI800-2-S615 to S617 I1, 3, Grid 13 1/08X 0-S7o6 XR1800-2-S366 Between rails, Section 11/9/01 81 XR1800-2-S618 to S620 XRI800-2-S343_ _ Secion3, Grid 13 I/08X 8-S3t 6 XR1800-2-S412 Rd. South of tracks, 11/13/01 82 XRI800-2-S621 to S623 ____ _____ ____ Section_3,_G rid _15 > _ __ _ __ XR1800-2-S381 B SectionGnd r 11/6/01 83 XR1800-2-S624 to S626 XR1800-2-S310 B 3eGtwenrild, Sei 11/6/01 84 XR1800-2-S627 to S629 XR1800-2-S307, Betwen r, Scion 3, Grid_13' _ 11/6/01 85 XR1800-2-S630 to S632 XR1800-2-S343 Tracks border North, 11/9/01 86 XR1800-2-S633 to S635 Section 4, Grid 19 XR1800-2-S383 Tckbodrot, 11/9/01 87 XR1800-2-S636 to 5638 Section 4; Grid_17 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1 800-2-S387. Tracks border South, 11/13/01 88 XR1800-2-S639 to S641 Section 5 Grid 22 _______ XR1800-2-S4 10, Rd. South of tracks!, 11/9/01 89 XR1800-2-;S642 to S644 Section 5,_Grid_25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S3351 Tracks border South, 11/7/01 90 XR1800-2-S645 to S647 ______ ____ I Section_5,_G rid_22 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* .FR-1 800-02; Revision 0 Page 35 of 52
Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigationted As Location (Railroad Tracks) Date LocationInetgedA (Note 1) _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S334 Tracks Sectionborder South, 5, Grid 22 11/7/01 11/7/01 91 92XR1800-2-SXR1800-2-S648 to to __S650 S65 XR1800-2-S333 Rd. South5,of tracks, 11/7/01 92 XR1800-2-S651 to S653 Section Grid 25 XR1800-2-S332 Rd. South of tracks, 11/7/01 93 XR1800-2-S654 to S656 Section 5, Grid 25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S328 Rd. South of tracks, 11/7/01 94 XRI800-2-S657 to S659 Section 6, Grid 30 _______ XR1800-2-S326 Rd. South of tracks, Section 6, Grid 30 11/7/01 95 XR18O0-2-S660 to S662 XR1800-2-S325 Rd. South of tracks, 11/7/01 96 XR1800-2-S663 to S665 Section 6, grid 30 XR1800-2-S324 Rd. South6,ofgrid tracks, 11/7/01 97 XR1800-2-S666 to S668 Section 30 XR1800-2-S302 Between rails, Section 9 11/6/01 98 XR1800-2-S669 to S671 Note_1.Ti olm rvdehoatodntfe 43 uiniieGrid scans whreinesiatonwr_ prfrmd Note 1. This column provides the location identified during limited repeated scans where investigations were performed. FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 36 of 52 U
Table 3-4. XRI800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 2 Investigations (Repeated Scans) FITNESS PATH Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As Location (Fitness Path) Date Location (Note 1) XR1800-2-S416 Section 1, Grid 1 11/15/01 99 XR1800-2-S672 to S674 .. 1800-2-S415 Section 1, Grid 2 1115/01 100 XR1800-2.-S675 to S677 XR1800-2-S417 Section 1, Grid 1 11/15/01 101 XR1800-2-S678 to S680 XR1800-2-S418 Section 1, Grid 2 11/15/01 102 XR1800-2-S681 to S683 XR1800-2-S421 Section 2, Grid 3 11/15/01 103 XR1800-2-S684 to S686 XR180-2-S422 Section 2, Grid 3 11/15/01 104 XR1800-2-S687 to S689 XR1800-2-S425 Section 2, Grid 3 11/15/01 105 XR1800-2-S690 to S692 X802-26Section 2, Grd 11/15/01 106 R1 800'2-563toS9 XR1800-2-S428' Section 3 GridS' 11/15/01 107 XR1800-2-S696 to S698 XRi800-2-S424 Section3, Grid 6 11/15/01 108 XR1800-2-S699 to S701 XR1SOO-2-S430 Section 3, Grid 5 11/15/01 109 XR1800-2-S701 to S704 XR1800-2-S429 Section3, Grid 6 11/15/01 110 XR18OO-2-S705 to S707 XR1800-2-S433 Section 3, Grid 5 11/15/01 111 XR1800-2-S708 to S710 XRi800-2-S43i Section 3, Grid 6 11/15/01 112 XRI800-2-S70 to S713 XR1800-2-S435 Section 3, Grid 5 11/15/01 113 XR1800.2-S714 to S716 XR1800-2-S432 Section 3, Grid 6 11/15/01 114 XR1800-2-S717 to S719 XRi800-2-S436 Section 3, Grid 5 11/15/01 11i XR1800-2-S720 to S722 XR1800-2-S438' Section 3, Grid 5 11/15/01 116 Xkl800-2-S723 to S725 FR-I 800-02, Revision 0 Page 37 of 52 -
Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigation Investigated As Location (Fitness Path) Date Location (Note 1) XR1800-2-S434 Section 3, Grid 6 11/15/01 117 XR1800-2-S726 to S728 XR1800-2-S437 Section 3, Grid 6 11/15/01 118 XR1800-2-S729 to S731 XR1800-2-S518 Section 3, Grid 5 11/21/01 119 XR1800-2-S732 to S734 XR1800-2-S519 Section 3, Grid 5 11/21/01 120 XR1800-2-S735 to S737 XR1800-2-S527 Section 3, Grid 6 11/21/01 121 XR1800-2-S738 to S740 XR1800-2-5520 Section 3, Grid 5 11/21/01 122 XR1800-2-S741 to S743 XR1800-2-S526 Section 3, Grid 6 11/21/01 123 XR1800-2-S744 to S746 XR1800-2-S521 Section 3, Grid 5 11/21/01 124 XR1800-2-S747 to S749 XR1800-2-S525 Section 3, Grid 6 11/21/01 125 XR1800-2-S750 to S752 XR1800-2-S522 Section 3, Grid 5 11/21/01 126 XR1800-2-S753 to S755 XR1800-2-S524 Section 3, Grid 6 11/21/01 127 XR1800-2-S756 to S758 XR1800-2-S439 Section 4, Grid 7 11/15101 128 XR1800-2-S759 to S761 XR1800-2-S496 Section 5, Grid 10 11/19/01 129 XR1800-2-S762 to S764 XR1800-2-S497 Section 5,Grid 10 11/19/01 130 XR1800-2-S765 to S767 XR1800-2-S499 Section 5, Grid 9 11/19/01 131 XR1800-2-S768 to S770 XR1800-2-S455 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15101 132 XR1800-2-S771 to S773 XR1800-2-S456 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 133 XR1800-2-S774 to S776 XR1800-2-S458 Section 9, Grid 17 11115101 134 XR1800-2-S777 to S779 FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 38 of 52
Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigation Location (Fitness Path) Date Location Investigated As (N ote _1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ XR1800-2-S459 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 135 XR1800-2-S780 to S782 XR1800-2-S462 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 136 XR1800-2-S783 to S785 XR1800-2-S463 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 137 XR1800-2-S786 to S788 XR1800-2-S464 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 138 XR1800-2-S789 to S791 XR1800-2-S465 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 139 XR1800-2-S792 to S794 XR1800-2-S466 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 140 XR1800-2-S795 to S797 XR1800-2-S467 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 141 XR1800-2-S798 to S800 XR10oo-2-S467 Section 9, Grid 18 11/15/01. 1421 XR1800-2-S80l to S803 XR1800-2-S460 5 Section 9, Grid 18 11/15/01. 143- XR1800-2-S804 to S806 XR1800--S468 __ Section'9, Grid 17 11/ 15/OF1' 144' XR1800-2-S807 to S809 XR1800--2-S461 Section 9, Grid 18 11/15/01 145 . .XRi800-2-S804 to S812 XR;1800-2-S469 Section 9, Grid 17 11/15/01 1464 XR1800-2-S813 to S815 XR1800-2-S510 Section 9, Grid 20 11/21/01 147 XR1800-2-S816 to S818 XR1800-2-S49I Section 9, Grid 20 11/21/01 148 XR1800-2-S819 to S821 XRI80-2-5516 Section"9, Grid 19 11/21101 149 XR19OO-2-S822to S824 XR1800-2-S512 Section 9, Grid 20 11/21/01 150 XR1800-2-S825 to S827 XR1800-2-S513 Section 9, Grid 20 11/21/01 151 XR1800-2-58218to S830
. . i . I. . . . . '
I . . *. FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page39of 50
Repeat Scan Survey Description FSS Survey Investigation Location (Fitness Path) Date LocationAs (Note 1) XR1800-2-S514 Section 9, Grid 20 11/21/01 152 XR1800-2-S831 to S833 XR1800-2-S501 Section 6, Grid 12 11/19/01 153 XR1800-2-S834 to S836 XR1800-2-S502 Section 6, Grid 12 11/19/01 154 XR1800-2-S837 to S839 XR1800-2-S503 Section 6, Grid 12 11/19/01 155 XR1800-2-S840 to S842 XR1800-2-S504 Section 6, Grid 12 11/19/01 156 XR1800-2-S843 to S845 XR1800-2-S505 Section 6, Grid 12 11/19/01 157 XR1800-2-S846 to S848 XR1800-2-S442 Section 7, Grid 14 11/15/01 158 XR1800-2-S849 to S851 XR1800-2-S444 Section 7, Grid 14 11/15/01 159 XR1800-2-S852 to S854 XR1800-2-S443 Section 7, Grid 13 11/15/01 160 XR1800-2-S855 to S857 XR1800-2-S445 Section 7, Grid 14 11/15/01 161 XR1800-2-S858 to S860 XRI800-2-S447 Section 7, Grid 14 11/15/01 162 XR1800-2-5861 to S863 XR1800-2-S446 Section 7, Grid 13 11/15/01 163 XR1800-2-S864 to S866 XR1800-2-S448 Section 7, grid 13 11/15/01 164 XR1800-2-S866 to S869 XRI800-2-S507 Section 8, Grid 16 11/20/01 165 XR1800-2-S870 to S872 Note 1. This column provides the location identified during limited repeated scans where investigations were performed. FR- 1800-02, Revision 0 Page 40 of 52
Table 3-5. XR1800, Survey Unit 2 Investigation Soil lResults (From Repeated Scans) Investigation Cs-137 pCi'g Investigation Cs-137 pCilg Sample l#SmpeI XR-1800-2-S602 <0.084': XR-1800-2-S743 <0.071 XR-1800-2-S605 0.077 + 5.08E-2 XR-1800-2-S746 <0.076 XR-1800-2-S608 <0.085 ' XR-1800-2-S749 <0.074 XR-1800-2-S611 0.053 + 3.17E-2 XR-1800-2-S752 <0.078 YR-1800-2-S614 <0.077 XR-1800-2-S755 <0.078 XR-1800-2-S617 0.051 + 3.80E-2 ' XR-1800-2-S758 <0.081 XR-1800-2-S620 0.0384 3.02E-2 . XR-1800-2-S761 <0.072 XR- I 800-2-S623 <0.070 XR-1800-2-S764 <0.071 XR-1800-2-S626 <0.067 XR-1800-2-S767 <0.069 XR-1800-2-S629 <0.099 XR-1800-2-S770 <0.071 XR-1800-2-S632 <0.075 XR-1800-2-S773 <0.070 XR-1800-2-S635 <0.055 XR-1800-2-S776 <0.064 XR-1800-2-S638 ' <0.060 XR-1 800-2-S779 <0.081 XR-1 800-2-S641 - <0.069 - . XR-1800-2-S782 - <0.068 XR-1800-2-S644 <0.066. .XR-1800-2-S785 <0.072 XR-1800-2-S647 <0.065 - XR-1800-2-S788 <0.070 XR-1800-2-S650 <0.062 - XR-1800-2-S791 <0.080 XR-1800-2-S653 <0.077' XR-1800-2-S794 <0.096 XR-1800-2-S656 <0.071 - XR-1800-2-S797 <0.101 XR-1800-2-S659 <0.076' XR-1 800-2-S800 <0.076 XR-1 800-2-S662 - - <0.076,' XR-1800-2-S803 <0.080 XR-1800-2-S665 <0.084 - XR-1800-2-S806 <0.080 XR-1800-2-S668 <0.086 .,XR-1800-2-S809 <0.075 XR-1800-2-S671 <0.061 XR-1800-2-S812 <0.076 XR-1800-2-S674 <0.061- XR-1800-2-S815 <0.077 XR-1800-2-S677 <0.083 -' XR-1800-2-S818 <0.074 XR-1800-2-S680 <0.076 XR- I 800-2-S821 <0.072 XR-1800-2-S683 <0.076 _ - XR-1800-2-S824 <0.083 XR-1800-2-S686 <0.063 XR-1800-2-S827 <0.068 XR-1800-2-S689 <0.083 -'XR-1800-2-S830 <0.079 XR-1800-2-S692 <0.081 XR-1800-2-S833 <0.093 XR-1800-2-S695 <0.076 -'XR-1800-2-S836 <0.077 XR-1800-2-S698 <0.076 'Y XR-1800-2-S839 <0.082 XR-1800-2-S701 <0.088 ' :XR-1800-2-S842 <0.071 XR- I 800-2-S704 <0.082 , XR-:1800-2-S845 <0.076 XR-1800-2-S707 <0.080 . XR-1800-2-S848 <0.070 XR- I 800-2-S710 <0.070 - XR-1800-2-S851 <0.068 XR- I 800-2-S713 <0.073 XR- I 800-2-S854 <0.063 XR- 1800-2-S716 ,, <0.078 . XR-1800-2-S857 <0.068 XR- I 800-2-S719 <0.069 XR-1800-2-S860 ,<0.064 XR-1 800-2-S722 <0.067 XR-1800-2-S863 : <0.074 XR-1800-2-S725 <0.075 - . XR-1800-2-S866 <0.069 XR-1 800-2-S728 <0.075 . XR-1800-2-S869 <0.070 XR-1800-2-S731 <0.075, - XR-1800-2-S872 <0.064 XR-1 800-2-S734 <0.079 .:: , ' XR-1800-2-S737 <0.076 , - - . , _-':: XR-1800-2-S740 <0.081 Note. 1. Cs-137 values in BOLD are positive detects. Co-60 values are not listed since they were all < MDA (i.e., all <0.1 pCi/g) FR- 1800-02, Revision 0. Page 4l of 52.
Ia Table 3-6. FRI800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 2 Scan Data Review: Scan Grids to be Resurveyed as Part of FR-2900 Survey Location Survey Location Survey Location FR 1800-2-Si 05 FRI800-2-S313 FR] 800-2-S368 FR1800-2-SI 06 FRI800-2-S315 FRI800-2-S370 FRI800-2-S308 FRI 800-2-S322 FRI800-2-S371 FRI800-2-S309 FRI800-2-S323 FRI800-2-S372 (Note1 FR 1800-2-S310 FR 1800-2-S365 FR 1800-2-S374 FRI800-2-S311 FRl800-2-S366 = _ _ _ _ FR 1800-2-S312 FR 1800-2-S367 Note 1: Scan location S372 was not a "non-alarmn" location but rather one in which the full investigation was not performed. It will be resurveyed under FR-2900. Table 3-7. FRI800 Bailey Land Survey Unit 2 Scan Data Review: Additional Soil Investigations Survey Location Investigation No. Cs-137 (Note 1) FR1800-2-S359 XR-1800-2-S881 0.015 + 0.021 (Note 2) XR-1800-2-S882 0.089 + 0.018 XR-1800-2-S883 0.030 + 0.014 XR-1800-2-S884 0.032 + 0.014 XR-1800-2-S885 <0.028 XR-1800-2-S886 0.041 + 0.012 XR-1800-2-S887 0.050 + 0.031 XR-1800-2-S888 0.027 + 0.014 XR-1800-2-S889 0.053 + 0.017 XR-1800-2-S890 0.032 + 0.014 Average 0.053 FR1800-2-S378 XR-1800-2-S873 0.024 + 0.019 FR1800-2-S381 XR-1 800-2-S874 <0.027 (Note 3) XR-1800-2-S875 <0.028 XR-1800-2-S876 0.034 + 0.019 XR-1800-2-S877 <0.031 XR-1800-2-S878 <0.023 XR-1800-2-S879 0.171 + 0.025 XR-1800-2-S880 <0.023 Average 0.045 Notes:
- 1. Cs-137 values in BOLD are positive detects. Co-60 values all < MDA (i.e., <0.1 pCilg) and were not specifically listed.
- 2. Scan location FR1800-2-S359 is in the southern half of the 345 kV switchyard which is illustrated in map FR1800-08 (Attachment 1). Additional investigations XR-1800-2-S881 through S890 were obtained from the switchyard area.
- 3. Scan locations FRI800-2-S378 and S381 are located in a 20 m by 20 m area on the west side of the west access road, across from the ISFSI (map FR1 800-25, Attachment 1).
Investigation samples XR-1800-2-S873 through S880 was obtained from the 20 m by 20 m area. FR-1800-02, Revision 0 Page 42 of 52
Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-I 800-02, Revision 0 Page 43 of 52
I I F R-1800- -02, Revision 0 Page -f of 52 Survey Package FR1800 Unit 2 Soil Sign Test Summary on 1npit7aIlues. u tGmi.^ Survey Package: FR1800 Survey Unit: 02 Evaluator: GP DCGL,: 4.20E+00 DCGLe,,c: 4.20E+00 LBGR: 2,08E+00 Sigma: 8.OOE-01 Type I error: . 0.05 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS- 137 Soil Type: N/A A, fi .7v . Z.<: 1.645 Z. D: 1.645 Sign p: 0.99379 Calculated Relative Shift: 2.6 Relative Shift Used: 2.6 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 12 N-Value+20%:. 15 Number of Samples: 15 Median: 1.1OE-01 Mean: 2.31 E-01 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 2.22E-01 Total Standard Deviation: 2.22E-01 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: 6.70E-01 Adjusted N Value: 15 S+ Value: 15 Critical Value: 11 Sign test results: Pass
.. .tl A Sufficient samples collected: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,: Pass Median value <DCGL,: Pass Mean value <DCGL,: Pass Maximum value <DCGLec: Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions:l Pass FRI800SU2-SoilSign I1/113/03 3:06 PM
FR-1800 SU-2 Quantile Plot 0.75 a cm U 0.5
- Cs-1 37 pCi/g
- Median I 0.25 n
-0 0 50 100 Percent
11/29/01 FR-1800-2 S-501 0.26 S-502 0.14 S-503 0.65 S-504 0.6 S-505 0.24 S-506 0.08 S-507 0.67 S-508 0.09 S-509 0.06 S-510 0.11 S-511 0.1 S-512 0.07 S-513 0.08 S-514 0.23 S-515 0.08 Page 1 U
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 1/21/04 7:53:12 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR1800SU2.S0 Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 15 0.2306667 0.2218258 5.727516E-02 0.1078237 0.3535097 T for Confidence Limits = 2.144E Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decislon(5%) Skewness Normality 2.2816 0.022515 Reject normality Kurtosis Normality 0.5423 0.587580 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 5.4996 0.063939 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<>4.15 -68.4299 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.15 -68.4299 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.15 -68.4299 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 4.15 0.5 15 0 1.000000 0.000031 0.000061 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 60 17.59261 0 1 24
.. 1 .. ..
Approximation Withou t 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<>4.15 3.4105 0.000648 Reject Ho 3.3821 0.000719 Reject Ho Median<4.15 -3.4105 0.000324 Reject Ho -3.3821 0.000360 Reject Ho Median>4.15 -3.4105 0.999676 Accept Ho -3.4389 0.999708 Accept Ho a
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 2 1/21/04 7:53:12 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR1800SU2.SO Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 12.0~ a 0 9.0: a N
- 6.0 u 3.0-tdt I'..
0.0. *,. 0.2.. .0.4 0.6 0.8 C2 Average-Difference Plot 0.4` .e -, I.0." 0 4 0.3 CD a) 0.3 a) 0.2 co0 0
-, '.o' 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 Difference
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 1/21/04 7:56:41 AM 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 15 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 0.23 0.22 17.658 1.00000 15 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 2.08 0.22 9.324 0.05000 15 0.05000 0.95000 4.15 4.15 0.22 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 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 15 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 3.92 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.15 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.23 with a known standard deviation of 0.22 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test. a
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 1/21/04 7:56:41 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0- - - ------- 0.8 . I \ I . c). 6-. . . . a.,..,..\ ..... I I I \ Ia 0.
, ,a a a 0 .
CD (7c M c
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 3 11/29/01 12:09:41 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve
.0.8- - - - - -- - -
0.8-- -- ', 2I0 0 I I 0 -0a C.2.080 0.4- ,, I a 4
, l I I, I I , I" pCi/g Cs- 137 a
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-I 800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY-UNIT 3 i~~ I Prepared By>- Reviewed By: . . ': !,wR . Reviewecd By:. :
,; , SFSS t a, .. . ; . .
Approved By: i Pi. 3 Dae ,9z- - /-!
/ I E'i -
FSS, MOP
- .. ,' t~~~
- , - ?':' ....
! - I . . . .
I I- - j - . . - I . . . I .. I ... 7 . i, . - I . ;
. . , I:
I I FR-1800 BAILEY HOUSE LAND SURVEY UNIT 3 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description Survey Unit 3 was defined as the area investigated as a result of measurements taken in Survey Unit I next to the access road (FRI 800-1 -068). (See also, the release record for FR-I 800, Survey Unit 1.) The area was just off the asphalt in a location previously used by radwaste transport vehicles waiting for entrance to, or release from, the facility. The surface area of the survey unit was established to be l 00m 2 and extended 10 meters west and 5 meters to the north and south of the elevated area. The area of investigation (in Survey Unit 1), following the verified alarm at scan location FRI 800-1-068, was determined to be a highly localized, elevated area with an approximate size of much less than I m2 . The investigation sampling and very limited soil removal in the immediate area accomplished any necessary remediation. The effectiveness of this remediation was confirmed in the investigation activities performed under Survey Unit I of FRI 800. (Post sampling insitu gamma spec measurements revealed no indication of plant derived nuclides.) Survey Unit I scanning in this area showed only this immediate location with potential elevated activity. Based on this information, it was decided that a relatively large defined Class I area around the FRI800-1 -068 location, i.e., 100 m2 , provided reasonable assurance that the potential extent of additional elevated areas, if any, would be detected in the FSS of Survey Unit 3. And, therefore, no Class 2 "buffer" area was considered warranted in this case. Survey map FR-1 800-01 (Attachment I) provides an overall view of the Bailey House land. Survey map FR-1 800-26 (Attachment I) illustrates the specific location of Survey Unit 3 within FR- 1800. B. Survey Unit Design Information Survey Unit 3 was designed as a Class I survey. Survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Based on these parameters, it was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Measurement locations were determined by a random start on a 2.7 meter grid spacing and are presented on the survey map FR- 1800-27 (Attachment 1). The sample density was determined to be 1/7 m2 which satisfied the LTP requirement of 1/50 m 2 . L for grid space was 2.7, and the area factor was 2.98. FR-1800-03, Revision 0 Page 2 of 20
Scans of I 00 per cent of the land area wvere specified by' design.' Scan grids were 25 mn. Scan locations are indicated on the survey map FRi800-26'(Attachmenti]):' Instnriefts used for performing survey measurements and their MDCs' are listed in Attachment 2.
- i. . ,
1! , . Table 1 Survey Unit Design Summary:' FR-1800, Survcy Unit 3 Survey Unit 3 l Design Criteria l Basis Area lOOm 2 -Class I Area Number of Direct 14 Based on an adjusted LBGR of 3.5 Measurements pCi/g, sigma of 0.20' and relative shift Required of 3. Type 1= Type 11 =0.05 Sample Area 7.1 m Class I Area 2 ]' for L. Sample Grid Spacing 2.7 m x.2.7 m Based on [7.1 Scan Grid Spacing 5mx 5m ScanMDC is less than EMC; no _adjustment in N is required. Area Factor 2.98 . LTP Rev. I (Reference 3), Table 6-12 2. Scan Survey Area 100 lo o 2 Class I Area--00% Scan' Investigation 3 sigma' of EC 009-01 (Reference 1) Level background DCGL 4.15 pCi/g Cs-] 37 Based on LTP, Rev. 0 (Reference 2) Design DCGLEMC 12 pCiIg AF x DCGL= 2.98 x 4.15 pCi/g (rounded down) C. Survey Unit Measurement Locations and Data As noted above, the survey unit design required 14 direct measurenmnt samples for the Sign Test. Sixteen samples were taken. The resulting soil sample data are presented in Table 2. Following remediation of Survey Unit 3, the scans identified no areas within the survey unit that required investigation. During the time of the FR1800 survey, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data-processing mechanism-ofithe E-600 data logger. The key program changes resulting from the E600 investigation' were:'(1) using scaler local background measurements to establish background and (2) setting the investigation level at 3 sigma of established background (excluding the DCGL term). ^' LTP Rev. I, (Reference 3), Table 5-1C for survey package RI 80O. FR-I 80003, Re"vision 0' Page 3 of20
I I As a result of the evaluation of the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit 3 scan data was conducted. Using the latest scan methodology and local background values, a new alarn setpoint was calculated and compared with each grid's peak scan value. This review indicated that one additional scan grid (FR 1800-1-S001) would likely have alarmed using the revised setpoint. The peak value for grid S001 was slightly greater (i.e., 1%) than the revised alarm setpoint of approximately 12,400 cpm. As shown in Table 2, all direct soil measurements showed very low Cs-137 levels and Co-60 activities less than MDA. Given the soil sample results, the relatively small soil sample area (approximately 7 M2 ), and the fact that four of the samples were taken directly from scan grid SOOI, it is unlikely that additional investigations in this area would have identified plant-derived activity. Table 2 FR1800, Survey Unit 3 Soil Sample Results Sample No. Cs-137 pCi/g Co-60 pCilg Appl. of Unity Note (1) Rule S-020 <0.088 <0.074 0.07 S-021 0.150 + 0.049 <0.074 0.08 S-022 <0.084 <0.066 0.06 S-023 0.066 + 0.039 <0.071 0.06 S-024 0.084 + 0.046 <0.067 0.06 S-025 0.150 + 0.056 <0.092 0.10 S-026 <0.086 <0.078 0.07 S-027 0.120 + 0.041 <0.068 0.07 S-028 <0.094 <0.081 0.08 S-029 0.170 + 0.053 <0.058 0.08 S-030 0.099 + 0.048 <0.076 0.07 S-031 0.148+ 0.059 <0.071 0.08 S-032 0.183 + 0.051 <0.074 0.09 S-033 0.129 + 0.051 <0.077 0.08 S-034 0.138 + 0.051 <0.068 0.08 S-035 0.096 + 0.049 <0.064 0.06 Mean 0.118 0.072 0.08 Std. Dev. 0.035 0.008 0.01 Median 0.109 0.073 0.07 Range 0.066-0.183 <0.058-<0.092 0.06-0.10 Note: (I) Results in bold indicate positive detects. FR- 1800-03, Revision 0 Page 4 of 20
D. Survey Unit Investigations rcrformed ind Results No investigations were required. E. Survey Unit Data Assessment Both the mean and median activities were less ihan the DCGL for both Cs-137 and Co-60. The maximum soil result for Cs-137 was less than 4.5% of the DCGL. The "Representative Background" valuie for this survey init is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value2 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.07 pCi"g. This isequivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mremfy. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot, and Retrospective Power Curve are presented in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity This particular survey unit was created and defined as the result of an investigation in the Class 3 Survey Unit I of FR-1800. The new Survey Unit 3 was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. iThe'direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, n6 additional measurements were required.
- 11. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS for this survey unit was designed in 2001 based primarily on the criteria of the original LTP Rev. 0 submitted to the NRC (Reference 2). The LTP changes with potential for impact on this FSS were identified as follows:
- 1. Increased soil DCGL. The soil DCGL used in design (LTP Rev. 0) was established at 4.15 pCi/g for land areas. The soil DCGL was increased to 4.2 pCi/g in later LTP changes (LTP Rev. 2, Reference 8). This is the current, NRC approved value for land areas outside the plant's radiological Restricted Area (RA).-
- 2. Increased Scan MDC. As discussed earlier in this release record, the surveys of FR-I 800 were conducted during a time of investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. As part of the resolution of E-600 related issues, the design scan MDC wvas established at 5.9 pCi/g (iLe., increased from 3.0 pCi/g). This is the current NRC approved value in LTP Rev. 3 Addenda (Reference4).
- 3. Maximum scan grid size. Also related to resolution of E600 issues, Maine Yankee committed to the State of Maine that scan grid size would be limited to IO m2 (Reference 7). This wvas intended to provide added assurance that the scan MDC would not exceed 2 See Altachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 6).
FR- 800-03, Revision 0 Page 5'of 20
II the DCGLemc even in the event that background varied by as much as +/- 2000 cpm from the established value. As shown in Table 1, the scan grid size spacing for this survey was 5 m by 5 m, giving a maximum size of 25 m2.
- 4. Background check. T'He requirement to confirm background within +/- 1000 cpm of the established value prior to each scan grid was incorporated into the LTP in Rev. 3 addenda. Background checks for this survey were required to be daily but not necessarily prior to the entry into each scan grid.
- 5. Alarm Setpoint Methodology. As a result of changes in methodology related to the E600 instrument (as mentioned in Item 2 above), procedures for establishing the investigation level were revised. This included the use of scaler (vs. peak) readings for establishing background.
- 6. Survey Unit Design Sigma. Tle sigma applicable to Survey Unit 3, esiablished for survey package RI800, increased from 0.20 to 0.23 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4).
These LTP changes, made subsequent to the survey, were evaluated and found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of the final status survey of Survey Unit 3.
- 1. Conclusion All of the soil samples were less than the DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. FR-I 800, Survey Unit 3 met the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.
J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-01.
- 2. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (LTP), (later referred to a "Revision 0"), Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-00-004, dated January 13, 2000.
- 3. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 1, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-0l-023, dated June 1, 2001.
- 4. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 3 Addenda, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 5. Proposed License Amendment (Activated Concrete Remediation), Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, September 11, 2003.
- 6. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 7. Revised Report on Eberline Model E600 Field Testing, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-009, dated February 26, 2003.
- 8. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
FR-1800-03, Revision 0 Page 6 of 20
w X E . r l
- z. 'I i-Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps t
,; t '. '
6 t4,2
. , ^ . -
An. ', f ' ' .';
* * ' t b , .
#9 o ;
- -- ' HE , ;
- 8 -; ;,
FR-1800-03, Revision 0 - ^ Page 7 of 20 - . . :;
. e
1.9
'9 c
'9 ISFSI Construction ISfSI Soil Soil from 345 kV Ycrd ExPans.ion 0
Staging Area C) vr 2. N 0 0 0 O a 3' I 0CA 1C aM o 0D C n a co T 0 r 0 a 0 (A CD 'C C. C Cn
'9 v
.9 00 T
co
'9 0
z rQ II N
'9 oo 3
CD(..J )' '9 C~r 0 CD,0 o cc MAINE STATE GEOLOGICAL COORDINATE SYSTEM ccc co 11 11 M.z OO o0 0
-C
' 00 '9 0 SC Z o
_ I a
Te. rm I Maine' Yankee Decommissioning. Project Survey Map I D o p r- TmjKCharacterization OTurnover I3Final Status Survey Survey Area Ilime 1ailey ouse Land-IF-__ I___Dailey_)lus__Land FR-1800-03, Revision 0 Survey Un;i1 3 Page 9 of 20 s: i\; 1'/ ! I , I 1_
;~ , ,;
F -I- T S / - . .1 d _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I i I I i i I ! i I I Li L J V I I 1. FR1800 Survey Unit 3 ( 1Om x 1Om C Iass 1 Area)
'I
-- J 625.000 E 0
0C)
~z
I Maaine Yanke e inepankeD rojctRurve0-27 1 Decommissioning Team Maine Yankee Decommissioning Projecl Survey ap FR800-27 Survey Type:ElCharacterization OTurnover WFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey House Land FR-1800-03, Revision 0 Page Jl of 20 FR1800 Survey Unit 3 Soi I Sample Locations 10- I I I I I i I S032 I 5033 I 1 S03% IS035 9- I I I I I I _ I I _ I 8- - -I- - -i _ _ F - -I- - - .- -I- - -] I I -I I I I I 7-IS028I oI l- oS?291 I
- 10. 1 S03b I 1 S03
- - - - I_ - A I I I I x I I
- - L - 1- - T I I
- - Lr- F1--
(n5- - -I- - - I I E34- ---- 50; 25- - - - o502 - - - 502 - - S_02-4 1 011 '0 'I I C) I i I 3- - -I- - -- _ _ F- - -I- - -V - -I- -- I I I I __I _ _ I I I 2- F I I F L l 1 S020 I LS023 1- I I I I - - 2 - l-~ I I I I I i n" III I I II i I I i b 1 2 3 9 x axis (m) 5 6 t 8 10 PLANT ACCESS ROAD c: -To P lant
Attachment 2 . . . ... . I'. Survey Unit Instrumentation
-. 1 i . . . .
i - i, ': i.
- - f
- r' , a. . . .: ; ' :
- . 81 - - .
.. ) , ,, ... ;
FR-I 800-03, Revision 0 Page I I'of'20
IX Table 2-1. FR-1800 Instrumentation (Survey Units 1, 2, and 3) E-600 SIN SPA-3 S/N IDC (pCi/g) 1606 725331, 726554 See Table 2-2 1619 725328, 726554, 726557 See Table 2-2 1622 725332 See Table 2-2 1625 725330, 726554, 726557 See Table 2-2 1631 725329, 726561 See Table 2-2 1641 725332, 726557, 726561, See Table 2-2 725331, 725330, 726554 1643 726561, 726560 See Table 2-2 1647 725328, 725330, 726557 See Table 2-2 1648 725328, 725329, 725331, See Table 2-2 725332, 726557, IIPGe Detectors Detector No- MDC (pCi/g) FSS-1 0.05 to 0.1] FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MIDC and Comparison with DCGL, and Design DCGLemc Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGLW 4.2 LTP Section 6.7 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4) pCi/g Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Table 5-6 (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4) pCi/g Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of EC 009-01 (Reference I) (Alann setpoint)Background Design DCGLC,,,C 12.5 AF x (approved) DCGL (or 2.98 x 4.2) pCi/g FR-1 800-03, Revision 0 Page 12 of 20
Attachment 3 Investigation Tables (No investigations required.) FR-I 800-03, Rcvision 0 Page 13 of 20
I I Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-1800-03, Revision 0 Page 14 of 20
F-C-181 JOU-u, Revision 0 Page i5 of 20 Survey Package FR1800 Unit 3 Soil Sign Test Summary l -'t_ Survey Package: FR1800 Survey Unit: 03 Evaluator: GP DCGLw: , 4.20E+00 DCGLyn: 4.20E+00 LBGR: 3.50E+00 Sigma: 2.10E-01 Type I error: ,: gg - 0e0 Type II error: 0.05 Nuclide: CS-137 _ _- _. - Soil Type: - ;NIA _ZL ZI.p:,45 Sign p: ,f 0'99865 Calculated Relative Shift :d_ __3____. Relative Shift Used: - 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-ValN-Value: ______ _ 11
.iSrnreatra N-Value+20%: _ ::1 __ __ i onmp Number of Samples: - '
- _
Median: 1.1OE-01 Mean: 1.18E-0.1 Net Sample Standard Deviation: :.! a;3.54E-02 Total Standard Deviation: ' 3.54E-02 Sum of samples and reference Maximum: ,;A,..1.83E-01 Adjusted N Value. S+ Value: fWI'.K : 6 _ _ Critical Value: 11 fJ Sign test results: , ; Pas Sufficient samples collected: 1 P. Maximum value <DCGLt,: , ss - Median value <DCGL,,4: jw.71'? p~is Mean value <DCGL,,: s~- Maximum value <DCGL.:IY __ Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: J >as Criteria comparison results: 42. The survey unit passes all conditions: .;- _ ___ ___ _ __A_ _ FR1800-SU-SoilSign II 1D45 9:46 AM
FR-1_ 80U--<evisiorru-l Page _l of 20 One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 1/15/04 9:24:11 AM Database C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FR1800SU3.S0 Variable C2 (Q5 137 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 16 0.1178125 3.536706E-02 8.841766E-03 9.896673E-02 0.1366583 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1314 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 0.6964 0.486152 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality -1.2480 0.212024 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 2.0426 0.360130 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<>4.15 -456.0387 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.15 -456.0387 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.15 -456.0387 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 4.15 0.5 16 0 1.000000 0.000015 0.000031 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 68 19.33261 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<>4.15 3.5174 0.000436 Reject Ho 3.4915 0.000480 Reject Ho Median<4.15 -3.5174 0.000218 Reject Ho -3.4915 0.000240 Reject Ho Median>4.15 -3.5174 0.999782 Accept Ho -3.5432 0.999802 Accept Ho
FR-1800-03, Revision U Page iL7of 20 One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Dale/Time 2 1/15/04 9:2411 AM Database C:AProgram FilesXNCSS971FR1800SU3.SO Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 r o 3.0 0 t- - t) 0v1 1.5 0.1_ 0 i.0.1 0.0 0 0. D.2 ,X.
- Expected Norm3ls Average-Difference Plot 0.1 0
0 0.1 t 0.1. 00 0 0 0 0.1. In
.0 0.0 . . . 01 0.1 0.1 Difference
-IXIX q v j~ J T ,NU I\ -~ .- .................
Page 19 of 20 One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis PagelDate/Time 1 1/15/04 9:26:47 AM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Mean1 Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meani S Size 1.00000 16 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 0.12 0.04 115.200 1.00000 16 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 3.50 0.04 18.571 0.05000 16 0.05000 0.95000 4.15 4.15 0.04 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 probabilityof accepting a false null hypothesis. It should be small. MeanO is the value of the population mean under the null hypothesis. It is arbitrary. Mean 1 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-Mean1 llSig ma, is the relative magnitude of the effect under the alternative. Summary Statements A sample size of 16 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.03 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.15 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0. 12 with a known standard deviation of 0.04 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test.
Page Iq of 20 One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 1/15/04 9:26:47 AM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0-
- I I . \ ..
0.8 - - _ --- .
. I ;, -.
0.6- ------- _-- - 0.4--- - - I
--- - ------ _7
. I .,' I
, Io I - t. I I, S
; - 4. -I 1 '
- Mean1
. _ ^ .. .
- . Z .. ... ...
., . { r F.
/
QUANTILE PLOT FR- 1800 SU-3 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0) 0.12 0. 0.1
- pCi/g Cs-1 37 (I,-
0.08 - Linear (Median) 0 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent ADC COC
-0 c
C~
MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR- 1810 BAILEY LAND MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES SURVEY UNIT I
- 3/31/1-f 3/3( 104 i /
Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _
^oFSS ; -- - ..
' Approved By: ^£ 1?;e )' Date ____
I. FSS, MOP;si;i.
, I - I .', . , . r... ,t. *, , .. .
II FR-1810 BAILEY LAND MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES SURVEY UNIT 1 RELEASE RECORD A. Survey Unit Description The Bailey Land "Miscellaneous Structures" consists of the soil footprints of three basic areas: (1) the Meteorological Tower Area, located on the east side of the East Access Road across from the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), (2) the 345 kV Tower Base located in the grassy area at the North end of"C" parking lot, and (3) the Well Water House located on the west side of the East Access Road approximately 25 meters south of the southeast comer of the ISFSI berm. The soil footprints were released for survey following the removal of small concrete foundations, which supported the referenced structures. The total, combined survey area comprises approximately 43.4 M2 . B. Survey Unit Design Information The area is classified as a single Class 3 survey unit. The potential for soil contamination is very low, and there is no history of radiological contamination associated with these areas. The survey unit design parameters are summarized in Table 1. It was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test. Soil measurement locations were randomly determined and are illustrated in survey map FR- 1810-02 through FR-I 810-04 (Attachment 1). As a Class 3 area, this survey unit required a minimum of 1% to 10% surface scan (i. e., 0.5 to 4.3 m2 ). The design called for a scan of approximately 16 M2 . In general, as illustrated in maps provided in Attachment 1, the various footprints are relatively small (i.e., the majority of the footprints were 2 m x 2 m or smaller). Scans were designed to be I m2 in the immediate location about the direct measurement locations. Two additional scans were planned for the meteorological tower base and the tower cable base #1 (since these footprints had no direct measurements designated in those areas). Therefore, the scanning survey consisted of sixteen I M2 scan grids. The survey instruments used and their MDC values are provided in Attachment 2. C. Survey Results Fourteen direct measurements (soil samples) were made in Survey Unit 1. The resulting data are FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 34
presented in Table 2. Of the 14 'sample results, only two showed activity slightly greater than the MDA. Scan surveys resulted in five'6'erified alarms. The investigation results for the elevated areas are discussed in the following section.
'Table I Sunrey Unit Design Summary: FR-1810, Survey Unit 1 Survey Unit I Design Criteria JBasis Area 43.4 m2 No limit for Class 3 Area Number of Direct 14.. Based on an adjusted LBGR of 2.37 Measurements . pCi/g, sigma of 0.21 pCi/g' and relative Required - - shift of 3.O. Type I Type II= 0.05..
Sample Area N/A Class 3 Area Sample Grid Spacing N/A Class 3 Area Scan Grid Area 1 m2 Class 3 Area Area Factor N/A Class 3 Area Scan Survey Area 16 m2 -' Class 3 Area-10% scan ; Scan Investigation 3 sigma of.;: EC 009-01 (Reference 2) Level background ;_;,_, DCGL 3.0 pCi/g Based on LTP, Rev. I (Reference 3) Design DCGLEic N/A Class 3 Area' D. Survey Unit Investigations Performed and Results Five locations (FRI810-1-S002, FR1810-I- S005; FRI810-1'-S006, FR1810-1-S024 and FRI810-1-S025) had verified alarms and were investigated 'as'a result of the initial soil surface scan measurements.' Investigation instructions'were provided in package XRI810. A 1-meter grid wxas scanned around the elevated'ar&a'and ani in-situ gamma'analysis performed at the highest scan location. In'su gamma spectroscopy identified only naturally occurring radionuclides associated with soils. Soil samples were also collected from the region of the highest scan measurement in the grids identified by the alarm. One investigation soil sample (XR1810-1-S012) fromFR-18101-024, produced a positive result for Cs-137 at a concentration of 0.132 pCi/g. No other potentially plant-derived radionuclides above the gamma spectroscopy MDA wvere detected during the'investigations.- From these results, it was concluded 'LTP, Rev. 0 (Reference 1), Table IA. FR- 1810-01; Revision 0 Page 3Yof 34
I I that plant-derived radionuclides above background levels were not present in the investigated areas. Investigation results are included in Table 3-1 (Attachment 3). During the survey of FR-18 10, the scan methodology changed as a result of detailed investigation into the data processing mechanism of the E-600 data logger. The key program changes resulting from the E600 investigation were: (1) setting the investigation level at 3 sigma of established background (excluding the DCGL term) and (2) using scaler local background measurements to establish background. As a result of the above-mentioned work with the E600 instrument, a review of Survey Unit 1 scan data was conducted. The scan alarm setpoints wvere re-evaluated using the revised methodology for establishing alarm setpoints. Revised alarm setpoints were determined and compared with each area's peak scan value. Table 3-2 (Attachment 3) summarizes the results of the scan data review for those scan areas not already investigated. This table provides the background used for the revised alarm setpoint, the resultant setpoint, and the maximum scan value for the grid location. For ten of the eleven scan grids with no original investigation, the use of the revised (i.e., reduced) alarm setpoint would have been expected to result in a verified alarm. In evaluating these ten scan areas, it was noted that, the actual scan grids were relatively small (that is, 1 m2 ). The scans were performed, by design, immediately around the direct soil measurement location. Thus, the direct soil measurement effectively provided an investigation-type soil sample for each of these scan grids. As already discussed in Section C, all direct soil measurements reported at or near the MDA values. In addition, investigations were performed for five scan locations (other than those listed in Table 3-2). The investigation soil samples also yielded soil activity levels at or near the MDA values. Thus, while use of the later methods for treatment of background and alarm setpoint calculation would have resulted in additional verified alarms, it is highly unlikely that additional investigations would have identified plant-derived activity in the survey unit. Furthermore, in reviewing the relationship of the maximum scan values in Table 3-2 with the revised alarm setpoint, an approximation for the maximum actual scan MDC was made. Scan grid FR-1810-S007 represents the greatest difference between the maximum scan value and the revised setpoint (i.e., 1,750 cpm or 3.7 pCi/g)2 . Adding this soil activity to the LTP design scan MDC of 5.9 pCi/g (LTP Section 5.5.2d), maximum effective scan MDC would be approximately 9.6 pCi/g. This value is well below the design DCLGemc of 28.6 pCi/g3 and therefore considered acceptable. 2 Based on the conversion factor of 472 cpm per pCi/g empirically established in Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation EC-009-01 (Reference 2). The design DCGLmc is based on an Area Factor of 6.8 (LTP Table 6-12), and the survey planning "design basis elevated area" of 2 m2 , and the current soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g for land areas outside the radiologically Restricted Area. (See LTP 5.5.2.d for additional discussion.) FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 34
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. Both the mean and median activities were less than the DCGL for both Co-60 and Cs-137. Error terms were provided for positively detected results. The maximum soil result for Cs' 137 was less than 3.0 percent of the design soil DCGL of 3.0 pCi/g. Table 2 FR-1810 Survey Unit 1, Direct Measurement Results Soil Sample Nos. t Co-60 Cs-137 (pCi/g) (pCi/g) 1810-1-SO01 <0.045 0.047+0.027 1810-1-S002 <0.061 0.086+0.034 1810-1-S003 ; .<0.061 .<0.065 1810-1-S004 : <0.058 <0.064 1810-1 -SO05 <0.058 <0.068 1810-1-S006 <0.064 <0.070 1810-1-S007 l <0.065 <0.062 1810-1-S008 <0.059 <0.065.
'1810-1-S009 <0.061 <0.058 I .. I ;
. I. _ I 1810-1-SOlO <0.060 <0.061 1810-1-SOl . , <0.062 <0.070 1810-1-S012 <0.071 <0.074 1810-1-S013 <0.079 <0.077
.1810-1-S014 ;' <0.077I. .<0.065 , 1:' : ; '_ I I .
. I . I . , 1 _.
Sample Mean ' 0.063 0.066 . . . I Sample Median 0.061 0.065, Std. Deviation 0.008 0.009 Sample Range 0.045-0.079 - 0.047-0.086 FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 34
iI I The "Representative Background" value for this survey unit is 0.19 pCi/g (disturbed soil mean value4 ). When the background value is subtracted from the mean activity for the survey unit, the result is a net value of -0.124 pCi/g. This is equivalent to an annual dose rate of 0.0 mrem/y. Survey unit scans produced five verified alarns. Only one investigation sample reported positive activity; that value was significantly below the DCGL. An additional review of scan data (due to revised setpoint methodology) determined that it was unlikely that the survey unit contained plant-derived radionuclides above background levels. F. Additional Data Evaluation Results of the Sign Test, Quantile Plot and Retrospective Power Curve are provided in . G. Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions on Extent of Residual Activity The survey was designed as a Class 3 area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification. The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, no additional measurements were required. H1. LTP Changes Subsequent to Survey Unit FSS The FSS of this survey unit was designed and performed in 2001 using, primarily, the criteria of the LTP Rev. I (Reference 3). Data reviews and evaluation were completed in second quarter, 2002. LTP changes have been made subsequent to the completion of this survey. Those LTP changes with potential for impact to this survey were evaluated. The evaluated changes included the items listed as follows.
- 1. Increase in the soil DCGL from 3.0 to 4.2 pCi/g for open land areas outside the plant's radiological Restricted Area (LTP Rev. 2, Reference 6).
- 2. Increase in the sigma established for this survey unit from 0.21 to 0.23 (LTP Revision 3 Addenda, Reference 4).
- 3. Increased scan MDC from 3.0 to 5.9 pCilg (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4).
- 4. Requirement to check background to be within + 1000 cpm of established background prior to the scan of each grid. (LTP Rev. 3 Addenda, Reference 4). For this survey unit, the subject background check was made on a daily basis and not necessarily at the beginning of a scan area.
These LTP changes were evaluated and found to have no impact on the results or conclusions of 4 See Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure PMP 6.7.8 (Reference 5). FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 6 of 34
the FSS of this survey unit. I. Conclusion All of the soil samples were less than the soil DCGL of 4.2 pCi/g. Investigations showed no evidence of plant-derived radionuclides at levels above a small fraction of the DCGL. FR-1810, Survey Unit 1, met the release criteria of 10CFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria. J. References
- 1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan (LTP) (later referred to as "Revision 0"), Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-00-004, January 13, 2000.
- 2. Maine Yankee Engineering Calculation, EC 009-O1.
- 3. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 1, Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-01-023, June 1, 2001.
- 4. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3,-October 15, 2002 and Addenda, provided by Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002.
- 5. Approach for Dealing with Background Radioactivity for Maine Yankee Final Status Surveys, Attachment E to Maine Yankee Procedure, FSS Data Processing and Reporting, PMP 6.7.8.
- 6. Maine Yankee LTP, Revision 2, MN-01-032, August 13, 2001.
FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 7 of 34
I l Attachment 1 Survey Unit Maps FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 8 of 34
IDecommissioning Maine Yankee eam Te I i. maine Yankee Decommissioning ProjecL Survey Map I Map ID I FRI810-O0 4 Survey TypeQDCharactcrization OTurnover 9Final'Status 'Survey Survey Area Name' Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures E 0
. .0 0 o , 0 0 000 0 2 7: 7 z IMN Instrument Blog. 'u'por Co B and Fence Area-- .y.2m x--2m --
2.5m x 2.Sm FR1i810 Met:' er Ar Met Yower Base SUPDori Co Im x~m: 2m x 625,000 E 0 0 Support Cable 2m x 2m 7FR- 1810-01, Revision O z Page C1 o- f 34
II Maine Yankee I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Decommissioning Team Map ID
- FR1810-02 Survey Type:OCharacterization OTurnover *Final Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Dailey Land Miscellaneous Structures FR-l 810 Ba I I ey Land Miscel laneous Structures Met Tower Area f- - - r - - -T - - -1624.7OO E I-Instrue nt Bldg.
2.5mk 2.5m I Instrument Bldg. 2.5m x 2.5m Met Tower Base 1m x 1m G211925-E-
- - - 24-i 80- E (P A
1T
- f S upport Cable Base 1 Support Cable Base 2 Support Cable Base 3 2m x 2m 2m x 2m 2m x 2m
-- - - F24 .-8O0-E I I 925 E 0
3D -I 0 q, I S 0 I f z-;I FR-1 810-01, Revision 0 Page 10 of 34
- - X -
w
^ e Z Maine Yankee
^ - -
Decommissionine Team I Mlaine Yankee Decorin'miss'io'n'ing Project 'Survey' lap I Map ID
- FRI1IO-02A Survey type:OCharacterization OTuriovr Final Status;Surrey Survey Area Name Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures FR1 81 0 Ba i I ey L'and' 1Mi scd I I aneous Structures r- - -- - 1 624.700 f I I \ss It ,-I Supporft Cota a
- _O_ b- .2m 24. - - -- -624.800 E lnstrurnt Id2. d I I L _ _ E w tTew sSupport e Cob ose2 L __L _ _1 _J8,/ 625.000 E 0 C pCrt CBose 3 z
' 2m x Zm Met Tower Instrument EBlIdg .
2.5m x 2. 5m CD 00 I I
<3 (4]
1 1 1 I, 6 ) A1 I, LI_ 9- 8P-E6 8.0-a-I I~ ~ ~ ~~;
; I ., - _, _ -
I . .I
. I FR-1810-Oi, Revision O -
Page II of 34
I- I I r maine Yankee Decomnmissioning Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID
- FR1810-02B Survey Type:LlCharacterization OTurnover IFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures FR1810 Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures r- -- - -624.700 E r r-II IS1, Support CoU o 1 t- -2 C. +- - °- - - -1624.800 t I Ns trurrnt. 5m1dg 2.5.t 2.5m \
I I I I C L- _ _ L _-_-4--- I - -) .90goE mit Tower 9se SupporJ Co s 2 L _ L I _625.000 E 0 0 Support Cob 9e 3 z 2m x 2m
Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning ProjecL Survey Map I Map ID
- FRIoIO-02C Survey Type:Ocharacterization QTurnover Urinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Dailey Land Miscellaneous Structures
_I i FR1810 Batiley Land Miscel laneous Structures I
- - 624.700 £ I\ l l Support CobI Ba 1
- O- k, 2a A24 -\- ^ - - 4624.800 E InstruInt.8ta0t.i \ \
2.5m I 1 I I \ I 2 s . vm v L _ _ L _ 1 _ - '- s o ue.t y,,e; Oase Suppart Covb/ )s2 I . Z:)iS I L -- L. - - J625.000 E a a Ca a o o z z Sspo
?m x 2m Support Cable Base 1 2m x 2m
--:- - - - - - - - --8 6-2-4-B-8OO0E0 E I~ /
Q FR-1810-01, Revision 0 I Page 13 of 34 . ..
I' Maine Yankee Decnmmissinninp Tem l Maine Yankee Decommissioning ProjectL Survey Map I Map ID
- FRI810-02D 3urvey Type:EjCharacterization ElTurnover *Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures FR1810 Bailey Land Miscel laneous Structures T - -I - - 624.700 E I I \ I, I~
Suppor1 C Aco t- -_ - -2n x-2 -2 - - -1624.800 E Instru tntBIdg . I I I I \ \ L - - .900 E M~t TooierjCobpase)2 M mtex mBise 2e¶ x L__L _ _1__ ,_ 62S.000 E 0 C Support CobAese 3 Zz 2m x 2m Support Cable Base 2 2m x 2m I I I I 624 9 9-2-1-X-l t MN N FR- 1810-01, RevisionO -- Page L4 of 34
Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team l lMaine Yankee Decommissioning ProjecL Survey Map IMap ID FR18tO-OZE 3urvey Type:OCharacterization JTurnover IFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures FR1810 Bailey Land Miscel laneous Structures
-1624.700 E -
Support Ca> 6. I 4- .m xc -\- - - -1624.800 E Instrut ntHdg. Bl 2.5 S2.m V I I I I I\
-00 E i t t owe; Cose pp J cob I m x 1m. \ /
L __L _ _8/ 625.000 E 0 C0 0 K / 5JT;por tCofe6s z z 2m x 2m Support Cable Base 3 2m x 2m
-625/OO E
- 625. 070 E 0
co
-aj 0
MN Z FR- 1810-01, Revision 0 Pagc _i of 34
--- N
'U Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning ProjecL Survey Map I Map ID I FRI810-03 3urvey Type:OCharacterization jjTurnover EFinal Status Survey jSurvey Area Name- Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures MN L--l r ed I
-6 2-4 2 -E--
I 345 k II BASE II 345 kv II BASE 2 I -/-\ 345 kVy I I BASE I' 2-4 5LOI I \>1 I (3 -&I 0 90 WI
-_i 0I 3 45 kV BASE 3 I - E rig - I-
- 4 -
FR-1810-0-1, Revision 0 Page 16 of 34
Maine YankeeMan YakeroeLSre Ma I Decommissioning leam lMaine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Map ID I FRIOlO003A Survey Type:OCharacterization OTurnover EFinal Status Survey[Survey Area Name: Dailey Land Miscellaneous Structures I l-T I 29 I, I I 29 T-I IP f' I- I 34b5kV I I I I I 29 1 RI. E I_ IB L ___, N___ _17 _ 3___ K_____1- -L J - I _ +_ - - - 4 I I I dAS MN
.N N l
I
,-. .FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 17 of 34
I Ill Maine Yankee ecnm mmissinninv Tem l Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I gap ID
- FRI810-03B Survey Type:[jCharacterization C Turnover EFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Bailey Land Miscellaneous Structures I I I I
_ ARK ZINC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 29I I I 101I9 L - L -I L - - - I- - I- -6 _ 00
- F - v -T F I R I III I I 29 I I IN I-BASE 11 1 I I - I- - -' I I I I I I
__ - .fS i~fO&Jzoo -- I I_ I - -I-- - r I I I MN Cy I-I- ------ -- - - - --6~4Of Z___, F~i N l I I_ 345 kv FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page ja of 34 BASE 2 2m X 2m
maine Yankee Team I Decommissioning Maine Yankee Decommnissioning' Project Survey Suve Map aI Map ID v PRI8O-03Cl 3urvey Type:OCharacterization OTurnover UFinal Status Survey Survey Area Nlame'. Dailey Land Uiscellaneous Structures
- _ _ . I_
OAR ' I I2I
- IftI I I I L t J. - --. -- LJ6kL44MOIE- '-
I I I -- 7 F~ ~3 4 5.kV'j _I 1I - - Pr 1I AS 1 I I I I I I I 'I II F 5 kI MN
-- A .1N I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I,
.I I
I I I 345 kv I I BASE 3 I 2m X 2m I I FR-1810-01, Revision 0 I
- Page ja of 34 I I - - - - - - .- - - - -
. . . ~~~t. __-
_ I I I I
'U maine YankTe Team Decommissioning Maine ISurvey Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Lap I Map ID
- FRI810-03D Survey Type:CLiCharacterization QTurnover' Einal Status Survey ISurvey Area Name: Dailey Land M~iscellaneous Structures MN
<- AN I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I kV I I E 4 I I 1 2m I i FR- 1810-01, Revision 0 Page so of 34
Uaine Yankee Decommissioning Team I Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map I Uap ID I FRIB1004 3urvey Type:O3Characterization QTurnover UFinal Status Survey Survey Area Name: Dailey Land Miscellaneous Structures tt -t t I -t 6 2 4.100 E T T 7t -t r6 24 080
. E t - -t -t 0 1624.060 T t t t 7 7624.0 E T
-r T t7
- r -T z.
1 7624.0 E2
-7 c oCD,0 0a co W CD CD A 1W C'U MN O.
624.060E- ->0 f S01 31 2.85m X 2.85m 9'4" X 9'4"\
.el I Water Pump House Foundalion Footprint
____I FR- I 810-01, Revision 0
- agcLof 34
IN Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 22 of 34
Table 2-1 FR-1810 Instrumentation (Survey Unit 1) E-600 SIN SPA-3 SIN Design Scan MDC (pCi/g) 1619 726554 See Table 2-2 1622 725332 See Table 2-2 1647 725328 See Table 2-2. HPGe Detectors
- t-.i , .
Detector No. NIDC (pCilg) FSS-1 005to 0.11 FSS-2 0.05 to 0.11 Table 2-2 Instrument Scan MDC and Comparison with DCGL,,, and Investigation Level Detector SPA-3 Comments DCGLw 4.2 pCi/g Scan MDC 5.9 LTP Design Scan MDC pci/g Investigation Level 3.0 sigma of The maximum scan MDC for FRI 810, Survey (Alarm setpoint) Background Unit I was determined to be 9.6 pCi/g. (See Table 3-2, Attachment 3.) FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page'23 of 34 I
I U Attachment 3 Investigation Tables FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 24 of 34
Table 3-1 FR-1810, Survey Unit 1, Scan Investigation Data Scan Survey Location Investigation No. Scan Max Scan Investigation Result Location Alarm Value Setpoint (cpm) < Indicates not detected I
._ . .(cpm)
FR- 1810- 1-S002. Cable XR1810-1-S004 13,700 13,900 <0.065 pCi/g Cs-137
. Base 3 . -
.FR-1810-1-S005- Cable XR1810-1-S008 13,700 16,940 <0.081 pCi/g Cs-137 Base 2 ; FR-1810-1-S006 345kV XR1810-1-S020 16,200 16,400 ' <0.076 pCi/g Cs-137. Tower Base I-FR-1810-1-S024. Met XR1810-1-S012 13,700 18,120 0.132 + 0.089 pCi/g Cs-137 I Tower-...
.Base -- -.. .. .
FR-1810-1 -S025 Cable XR1810-1-S016 13,700 19,800 <0.068 pCi/g Cs-137 Base I .. FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 25 of 34
Table 3-2 FR-1810, Survey Unit 1, Scan Data Review Scan Survey Location Original Bkg Used For Revised Max Scan Actual Scan Re-evaluation Comment Location Scan Revised Alarm Alarm Value NIDC 5 Alarm Setpoint Setpoint (cpm) (pCi/g) Setpoint (Scalar; cpm) (cpmll) (cpm) FR-1810 Instr. 13,700 10,160 12,500 13,470 8.0 Direct soil sample 0.047 pCi/g S001 Bldg + 0.027 Cs-137 FR-1810 Cable 13,700 10,160 12,500 13,030 7.0 Direct soil sample <MDA S003 Base 3 FR-1810 Cable 13,700 10,160 12,500 12,420 5.9 No new alarm expected. S004 Base 3 (Direct soil sample <MDA, as well) FR-1810 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 16,150 9.6 Direct soil sample <MDA S007 Tower Base 2 FR-1810 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 15,850 9.0 Direct soil sample <MDA S008 Tower Base 2 5 Based on the difference between the scan grid maximum scan value and the revised setpoint, converted using 472 cpm per pCi/g per Engineering Calculation EC-009-01 (Reference 2) and the design scan MDC of 5.9 pCi/g. FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 26 of 34
- I Scan Survey Location Original Bkg Used For Revised Max Scan Actual Scan Re-evaluation Comment Location Scan Revised Alarm Alarm Value MIDC 5 Alarm Setpoint Setpoint (cpm)
Setpoint (Scalar; cpm) (cpm) (pCilg) (cpm) FR-1810 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 15,760 8.8 Direct soil sample <MDA S009 Tower Base 3 FR-1810 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 15,700 8.7 Direct soil sample <MDA Solo Tower Base 3 FR-1810 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 14,590 6.3 Direct soil sample <MDA S011 Tower Base 4 FR-1810-l- 345kV 16,200 11,910 14,400 15,010 7.2 Direct soil sml <MDA S012 Tower sampe Base 4 FR-1810 Well 16,200 11,370 13,800 14,350 7.1 Direct soil sample <MDA as S013 Water well House FR-1810 Well 16,200 11,370 13,800 14,870 8.2 Direct soil sample <MDA S014 Water House FR- 1810-01, Revision 0 Page 27 of 34
IU Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 28 of 34
Survey Package FR1810 Unit 1 Soil Sign Test Summary Survey Package: FR18IO Survey Unit: 01 Evaluator: GP
, DCGL,: ,4.20E+00 DCGLec: 4.20EC00 LBGR: 3.47E+00 Sigma: 2.10E-01 Type I error: , , 0.05 Type II error: -.. 0.05 Nuclide: - CS-137 Soil Type: : NIA 1.645 Z1 p: " 1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: .*3.4 _______________
Relative Shift Used: .; 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift is >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value-20%: 14 w .. -. Number of Samples: 14 Median: 6.50E-02 Mean: ,6.66E-02 Net Sample Standard Deviation: 9.15E-03 Total Standard Deviation: 9.1 5E-03 Sum of samples and reference Maximum 8.60E-02 . I Adjusted N Value: - 14 S+ Value: : 14 Critical Value: 10 Sign test results: . Pass
,Sufficient samples collected: . Pas .
Maximum value <DCGL;: -Pass Median value <DCGL-: .Pass Mean value <DCGL,: i: -Pass Maximum value <DCGLeri.: "Pass Total Standard Deviation <=Sigma: . Pass Criteria comparison results: Pass The survey unitaeall co n.dition..Pas The survey unit passes all conditions:l Pass __________________ FRI8IO-SU1 -SOiRSign
- 1/19104 2:05 Phi FRR-1810-01, Revision 0 Page 1j of 34
One-Sample T-Test Report Page/Date/Time 1 1119/04 2:00:08 PM Database Variable C2 Descriptive Statistics Section Standard Standard 95% LCL 95% UCIL Variable Count Mean Deviation Error of Mean of Mean C2 14 6.657143E-02 9.154354E-03 2.446604E-03 6.128586E-02 0.071857 T for Confidence Limits = 2.1604 Tests of Assumptions Section Assumption Value Probability Decision(5%) Skewness Normality 0.1111 0.911508 Cannot reject normality Kurtosis Normality 1.3532 0.175998 Cannot reject normality Omnibus Normality 1.8434 0.397832 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<>4.15 -1669.0190 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2<4.15 -1669.0190 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 1.000000 C2>4.1 5 -1669.0190 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 4.15 0.5 14 0 1.000000 0.000061 0.000122 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 52.5 15.9099 0 2 30 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<>4.15 3.2998 0.000967 Reject Ho 3.2684 0.001082 Reject Ho Median<4.15 -3.2998 0.000484 Reject Ho -3.2684 0.000541 Reject Ho Median>4.15 -3.2998 0.999516 Accept Ho -3.3313 0.999568 Accept Ho FR-1810-01;Revision0 Page 30 of 34
I . One-Sample T-Test Report Page/DatefTime 2 1119104 2:00:08 PM Database Variable C2 Plots Section Histogram of C2 Normal Probability Plot of C2 z 0 C-0 .1 t~~~~.1 .; I -2.0 ~~ Expected Normals Average-Difference Plot 0.1. 0 a 0.1. 0 0 I
- 0) 0.1- 0 . .. .L . I. .
<t: 0 0.1 V. _0-0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Difference
't.: , ;" . 1 FR- 18 10-0 1, Revision 0 Page IL of 34
One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 1 1/19/04 2:01:23 PM Numeric Results for One-Sample T-Test Null Hypothesis: MeanO=Meanl Alternative Hypothesis: MeanO>Meanl Known standard deviation. Effect Power N Alpha Beta MeanO Meanl S Size 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 0.07 0.01 453.778 1.00000 14 0.05000 0.00000 4.15 3.50 0.01 72.222 0.05000 14 0.05000 0.95000 4.15 4.15 0.01 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. Mean 1 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 14 achieves 100% power to detect a difference of 4.08 between the null hypothesis mean of 4.15 and the alternative hypothesis mean of 0.07 with a known standard deviation of 0.01 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05000 using a one-sided one-sample t-test FR-1810-01, Revision - Page32-of 34
One-Samp!e T-Test Power Analysis PagelDate/Time 2 1/19/04 2:01:24 PM Chart Section Retrospective Power Curve 1.0k 0.84 _ ------- 0.6 - , - - -- - - - - - I I I ,1 0 I
- a . I I I I I a a * \ I
* ' . I I I I I
i Meani I
. I 7
. .. 1 FRA 8180-01, Revision 0 Page,,3of 34 ,..<...
FR-1810 Survey Unit 1 Quantile Plot 1.OOE-01 9.OOE-02 m 8.OOE-02 U 7.OOE-02 6.OOE-02
- Cs-137 (pCi/g)
.0-5.OOE-02 U 4.OOE-02 -Median __1 .. ...... Cs-I 37 (pCi/g) 3.OOE-02 IT 2.OOE-02 U 1.OOE-02 O.OOE+00 -Ia 1 7 - 1 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.0 0 Per Cent I}}