ML012320349

Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Ltp Section 4: Site Remediation Plan

ML012320349
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	08/13/2001
From:	Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
+sisprbs20060109, -nr, -RFPFR
Download: ML012320349 (52)

Text

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 2

August 13, 2001 MAINE YANKEE LTP SECTION 4 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-i Revision 2 August 13, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.0 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN

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

4-1 4.1 Remediation Actions and ALARA Evaluations

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

4-1 4.2 Remediation Actions

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

4-1 4.2.1 Structures

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

4-1 4.2.2 Soil.....................................................

4-5 4.3 Remediation Activities Impact on the Radiation Protection Program

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

4-6 4.4 ALARA Evaluation

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

4-7 4.4.1 Dose Models

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

4-8 4.4.2 Methods for ALARA Evaluation

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

4-9 4.4.3 Remediation Methods and Cost

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

4-9 4.4.4 Remediation Cost Basis

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

4-10 4.5 Unit Cost Estimates

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

4-14 4.6 Benefit of Averted Dose

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

4-14 4.7 ALARA Calculation Results

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

4-16 4.8 References

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

4-17 ATTACHMENT 4A Calculation of ALARA Residual Radioactivity Levels

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

4-18 ATTACHMENT 4B Unit Cost Values

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

4-37 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-ii Revision 2 August 13, 2001 List of Tables Table 4-1 Unit Cost Estimates

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

4-15 Table 4-2 ALARA Evaluation Conc/DCGL W Results.........................................

4-16 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-1 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 4.0 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN

4.1 Remediation

Actions and ALARA Evaluations This section of the LTP describes various remediation actions which may be used during the decommissioning of MY. In addition, the methods used to reduce residual

contamination to levels that comply with the NRC's annual dose limit of 25 mrem plus

ALARA, as well as the enhanced State of Maine clean-up standard of 10 mrem/year or

less for all pathways and 4 mrem/year or less for groundwater drinking sources, are

described. Finally, the Radiation Protection Program requirements for the remediation

are described.

4.2 Remediation

Actions Remediation actions are performed throughout the decommissioning process. The remediation action taken is dependent on the material contaminated. The principal materials that may be subjected to remediation are structure basements 3-feet below grade

and soils. Attachment 4B of this section describes the equipment, personnel, and waste

costs used to generate a unit cost basis for the remediation actions discussed below.

4.2.1 Structures

Following the removal of equipment and components, structures will be surveyed as necessary and contaminated materials will be remediated or removed and

disposed of as radioactive waste. Contaminated structure surfaces at elevations

less than 3-feet below grade will be remediated to a level that will meet the

established radiological criteria provided in Section 6.0. The remediated building

basements (elevations at and below - 3 foot below grade) will be backfilled.

Remediation techniques that may be used for the structure surfaces include washing, wiping, pressure washing, vacuuming, scabbling, chipping, and sponge

or abrasive blasting. Washing, wiping, abrasive blasting, vacuuming and pressure

washing techniques may be used for both metal and concrete surfaces. Scabbling

and chipping are mechanical surface removal methods that are intended for

concrete surfaces. Activated concrete removal may include using machines with

hydraulic-assisted, remote-operated, articulating tools. These machines have the

ability to exchange scabbling, shear, chisel and other tool heads.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-2 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Scabbling The principal remediation method expected to be used for removing contaminants from concrete surfaces is scabbling. Scabbling is a surface removal process that uses pneumatically-operated air pistons with tungsten-carbide tips that fracture the concrete surface to a nominal depth of 0.25 inches at a rate of about 20 ft 2 per hour. The scabbling pistons (feet) are contained in a close-capture enclosure that is connected by hoses to a sealed vacuum and collector system. The fractured

media and dusts are deposited into a sealed removable container. The exhaust air

passes through both roughing and absolute HEPA (high efficiency particulate air

filter) filtration devices. Dust and generated debris are collected and controlled

during the operation.

Needle Guns A second form of scabbling is accomplished using needle guns. The needle gun is a pneumatic air-operated tool containing a series of tungsten-carbide or hardened

steel rods enclosed in a housing. The rods are connected to an air-driven piston to

abrade and fracture the media surface. The media removal depth is a function of

the residence time of the rods over the surface. Typically, one to two millimeters are removed per pass. Generated debris transport, collection, and dust control are accomplished in the same manner as for scabbling. Needle gun removal and

chipping of media are usually reserved for areas not accessible to normal

scabbling operations. These include, but are not limited to inside corners, cracks, joints and crevices. Needle gunning techniques can also be applied to painted and

oxidized surfaces.

Chipping Chipping includes the use of pneumatically operated chisels and similar tools coupled to vacuum-assisted collection devices. Chipping activities are usually

reserved for cracks and crevices but may also be used in lieu of concrete saws to

remove pedestal bases or similar equipment platforms. This action is also a form

of scabbling.

Sponge and Abrasive Blasting Sponge and abrasive blasting are similar techniques that use media or materials coated with abrasive compounds such as silica sands, garnet, aluminum oxide, and walnut hulls. Sponge blasting is less aggressive incorporating a foam media MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-3 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 that, upon impact and compression, absorbs contaminants. The medium is collected by vacuum and the contaminants washed from the medium for reuse.

Abrasive blasting is more aggressive than sponge blasting but less aggressive than scabbling. Both operations uses intermediate air pressures. Sponge and abrasive blasting are intended for the removal of surface films and paints. Abrasive

blasting is evaluated as a remediation action and the cost is comparable to sponge

blasting with an abrasive media.

Pressure Washing Pressure washing uses a hydrolazer-type nozzle of intermediate water pressure to direct a jet of pressurized water that removes surficial materials from the suspect

surface. A header may be used to minimize over-spray. A wet vacuum system is

used to suction the potentially contaminated water into containers for filtration or

processing.

Washing and Wiping Washing and wiping techniques are actions that are normally performed during the course of remediation activities and will not always be evaluated as a separate ALARA action. When washing and wiping techniques are used as the sole means

to reduce residual contamination below DCGL levels, ALARA evaluations are

performed. Washing and wiping techniques used as a housekeeping or good

practice measure will not be evaluated. Examples of washing and wiping

activities for which ALARA evaluations would be performed include:

a.Decontamination of stairs and rails.

b.Decontamination of structural materials, metals or media for which decontamination reagents may be required.

c.Structure areas that do not provide sufficient access for utilization of other decontamination equipment such as pressure washing.

Washing and wiping is evaluated as a remediation action.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-4 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Grit Blasting As the structures are demolished, contaminated piping will be removed and disposed of as radioactive waste. Any remaining contaminated piping in the below grade concrete may be remediated using methods such as grit blasting. Grit blasting uses grit media such as garnet or sand under intermediate air pressure

directed through a nozzle that is pulled through the closed piping at a fixed rate.

The grit blasting action removes the interior surface media layer of the piping. A

HEPA vacuum system maintains the sections being cleaned under negative

pressure and collects the media for reuse or disposal. The final system pass is

performed with clean grit to remove any residual contamination.

Removal of Activated Concrete Removal of activated concrete is intended to be accomplished using a machine-mounted, remote-operated articulating arm with exchangeable actuated hammer and bucket (sawing, impact hammering and expansion fracturing may also be

employed). As concrete is fractured and rebar exposed, the metal is cut using

flame cutting (oxygen-acetylene) equipment. The media are transferred into

containers for later disposal. Dusts, fumes and generated debris are locally collected and as necessary, controlled using temporary enclosures coupled with close-capture HEPA filtration systems and controlled water misting. Any

remaining loose media are removed by pressure washing or dry vacuuming using

a HEPA filter equipped wet-dry vacuum. The activated concrete surface area to

be remediated is approximately 0.5 percent of the total surface area expected to

require remediation. The unit cost for remediation is high (average cost is

estimated at $6665 per m

2) for removal of a volume of approximately 21 m 3.The current remediation goal is to remove all activated concrete which exceeds a concentration of 1.0 pCi/g. As shown in Section 6.0, 1.0 pCi/g residual radioactivity due to activated concrete results in an annual dose to the critical

group of less than 0.1 mrem (see Section 6.0, Table 6.9). This dose contribution

to the total annual dose is a small fraction of the NRC and enhanced State dose

limits and therefore ALARA evaluations are not deemed necessary. However, additional ALARA evaluations for activated concrete will be performed if the

1 pCi/g remediation goal is increased and the dose contribution to the critical

group for activated concrete exceeds 1.0 mrem per year.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-5 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 4.2.2 Soil Soil contamination above the site specific DCGL will be removed and disposed of as radioactive waste. Operational constraints and dust control will be addressed in site excavation and soil control procedures. In addition, work package instructions for remediation of soil may include additional constraints and

mitigation or control methods. The site characterization process established the

location, depth and extent of soil contamination. As needed, additional

investigations will be performed to ensure that any changing soil contamination

profile during the remediation actions is adequately identified and addressed. A

majority of site soil contamination is associated with three distinct areas (the

PWST, RWST and the Shielded Radioactive Waste Storage Area) within the Radiologically Restricted Area (RRA).

Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 provide ladditional information regarding past and residual contamination associated with lthese areas. The information provided below generalize the anticipated activities lassociated with remediating these areas. For specific regions such as the area lassociated with the past soil contamination adjacent the RWST, remediation is lexpected to require removal and staging of overburden soils below the DCGL and lthe subsequent removal of deeper soils associated with this past contamination levent. It should also be noted that soil remediation volume estimates in the LTP lmay vary from section to section, as appropriate, depending on their use, e.g.,ldecommissioning cost estimates, ALARA evaluations, or dose assessment.

lSection 5.5.1.b discusses soil sampling and survey methods.

The remediation of lthese areas will be performed following the removal of associated or adjacent tanks, components and pad interferences.

The contaminants within the RWST area are primarily due to past spill and heater leak incidents associated with the tank.

With the exception of the area associated lwith clean soil overburden which was placed following remediation of the past lcontamination incident as stated in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, soil remediation is lexpected to require removal of media to an average depth of approximately 1 lmeter immediately adjacent to the tank area. Additional remediation activities are expected to encompass a depth of 30 to 60 centimeters in the area down gradient

from the tank and bounded east and west by local surface contour and the forebay

berm.Soil contamination near the PWST is due to the past storage of radioactively contaminated components and waste storage containers in the area immediately

east and north of the PWST area. Local terrain features were such that associated

contaminants subjected to weathering conditions would be transported toward the MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-6 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 PWST area. The averaged soil remediation depth in this region is less than 60 centimeters.

Contaminated soil associated with the Shielded Radiological Waste Storage area originated, in part, from seasonal weathering conditions and specific tasks associated with components and stored containers. This area was evaluated in the

past. A new bed of asphalt was placed over the region to mitigate the migration of

any residual contaminants. The average soil contamination depth in this region is

less than 60 centimeters.

Soil remediation equipment will include, but not be limited to, back and track hoe excavators. As practical, when the remediation depth approaches the soil interface region for unacceptable and acceptable contamination, a squared edge excavator bucket design or similar technique may be used. This simple

methodology minimizes the mixing of contaminated soils with acceptable lower

soil layers as would occur with a toothed excavator bucket. Remediation of soils

will include the use of established Excavation Safety and Environmental Control

procedures which reference the required aspects of the Maine Erosion and

Sediment Control Handbook for Construction, Best Management Practices

Manual. Additionally, soil handling procedures and work package instructions will augment the above guidance and procedural requirements to ensure adequate erosion, sediment, and air emission controls during soil remediation.

4.3 Remediation

Activities Impact on the Radiation Protection Program The Radiation Protection Program approved for decommissioning is similar to the Program in place during 25 years of commercial power operation. During power operations, contaminated structures, systems and components were decontaminated in

order to perform maintenance or repair actions. The techniques used were the same as those being used for decommissioning. Many components were removed and replaced during operation. The techniques used for component removal were the same as those

planned for use during decommissioning.

The Maine Yankee Radiation Protection Program adequately controlled radiation and radioactive contamination during decontamination and equipment removal processes.

The same controls are being used during decommissioning to reduce personnel exposure

to radiation and contamination and to prevent the spread of contamination from established contaminated areas. Decommissioning does not present any new challenge to the Radiation Protection Program above those encountered during normal plant operation

and refueling. Decommissioning allows radiation protection personnel to focus on each

area of the site and plan each activity well before execution of the remediation technique.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-7 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Low levels of surface contamination are expected to be remediated by washing and wiping. These techniques have been used over the operational history of the facility.

Water washing with detergent has been the method of choice for large area

decontamination. Wiping with detergent soaked or oil-impregnated media has been used on small items, overhead spaces and small hand tools to remove surface contaminants.

These same techniques will be applied to remediation of lightly contaminated structure

surfaces during remediation actions.

Intermediate levels of contamination and contamination on the internal surfaces of piping or components have been subjected to high-pressure washing, hydrolazing or grit blasting

in the past. The refueling cavity has been decontaminated by both pressure washing and

hydrolazing. Pipes, surfaces and drain lines have been cleaned and hot spots removed using hydrolazing, sponge blasting or grit blasting. Small tools, hoses and cables have been pressure washed in a self-contained glove box to remove surface contamination.

These methods will be used to reduce contamination on moderately contaminated exterior

surfaces as well as internal surfaces of pipes or components during decommissioning.

Scabbling or other surface removal techniques will reduce high levels of contamination, including that present on contaminated concrete. Concrete cutting or surface scabbling

has been used at MY in the past during or prior to installation of new equipment or structures both outside and inside the RRA.

Abrasive water jet and mechanical cutting of components will be used to reduce the volume of reactor internals. Mechanical cutting was used at this facility during past

operations. Abrasive water jet cutting uses actions similar to hydrolazing and grit

blasting which have been used at the site in the past. The current radiation protection

program provides adequate controls for these actions.

The decommissioning organization is experienced in and capable of applying these remediation techniques on contaminated systems, structures or components during decommissioning. The Radiation Protection Program is adequate to safely control the

radiological aspects of this work and no changes to the Program are necessary in order to

ensure the health and safety of the workers and the public.

4.4 ALARA

Evaluation As described in Section 6.0, dose assessment scenarios were evaluated for the residual contamination that could remain on basement surfaces and soils. The ALARA analysis is

conservatively based on the resident farmer scenario. The resident farmer critical group

applies to existing open land areas and all site areas where standing buildings have been

removed to three feet below grade. Current decommissioning plans do not call for on site MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-8 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 buildings to remain standing. However, consideration has been given to the potential value of the Staff Building. In view of this possibility, ALARA evaluations are also

provided using the building occupancy scenario.

4.4.1 Dose Models To calculate the cost and benefit of averted dose for the ALARA calculation, certain parameters such as size of contaminated area and population density are

required. This information was developed as a part of the dose models described

in Section 6 and the Final Survey Program in Section 5 and is summarized below.

a.Basement Fill Model (Resident Farmer Scenario) lAs described in Section 6, after buildings and structures are removed to 3 feet below grade, the critical group is the resident farmer. Removal of

residual radioactivity on basement surfaces 3 feet below grade reduces the

dose associated with the resident farmer scenario. Accordingly, the

ALARA evaluation for remediation actions uses the parameters for

population density, evaluation time, monetary discount rate and area that

are applicable to the resident farmer scenario.

b. Standing Building Occupancy Model Although standing buildings are not planned to remain at the site, an ALARA evaluation was performed in the event plans change and a standing building will remain. In this case, the building occupancy

scenario would be used. In accordance with Section 5.3 of the LTP, the

building occupancy survey unit size is 180 m

2. This is based on a survey unit with a 100 m 2 floor area with contaminated walls to a height of 2 meters. ALARA cost analyses are based on an assumption that only the 100 m 2 floor area requires remediation. This is conservative since including the walls would increase remediation cost without increasing the benefit of averted dose.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-9 Revision 2 August 13, 2001

4.4.2 Methods

for ALARA Evaluation NUREG-1727, "Decommissioning Standard Review Plan," Section 7.0, ALARA Analysis, states, "Licensees or responsible parties that remediate building surfaces or soil to the generic screening levels established by the NRC staff do not need to demonstrate that these levels are ALARA." The DCGLs for soil were based on

generic screening levels. In addition, although no standing buildings are planned

to remain, DCGLs were calculated and were also based on generic screening

levels. Notwithstanding the NRC guidance, MY is conservatively providing

ALARA evaluations of the remediation actions for soil and standing buildings.

There are no generic screening levels for the basement fill scenario so ALARA

analyses are required.

The ALARA evaluations were performed in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1727. A spreadsheet format was used to account for the dose

contribution of each radionuclide in the MY mixture. The principal equations

used for the calculations are presented in Attachment 4A. The evaluation

determines if the benefit of the dose averted by the remediation is greater or less

than the cost of the remediaton. When the benefit is greater than the cost, additional remediation is required. Conversely when the benefit is less than the cost, additional remediation is not required.

4.4.3 Remediation

Methods and Cost For the Maine Yankee facility the remediation techniques examined are scabbling, pressure water washing, wet and dry wiping, grit blasting for embedded and

buried piping and grit blasting of surfaces. The principal remediation method

expected to be used is scabbling, which is intended to include needle guns and

chipping. The total cost of each remediation method is provided in B. The cost inputs are defined in Attachment 4A, Section A.2, Calculation of Total Cost. Basement concrete is the principal surface that will

require remediation.

a.Basement Concrete Surfaces The characterization data for concrete surfaces at the Maine Yankee facility indicates that a major fraction of the contamination occurs in the top millimeter of the concrete. Scabbling actions result in the removal of the top 0.125 to 0.25 inches (0.318 to 0.635 cm) of concrete. The ALARA

evaluation was performed by bounding the cost estimate for a scabbled

depth of 0.125 and 0.25 inches. For each evaluation the same manpower MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-10 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 cost is used. However, the manpower and equipment costs for the lower bounding depth do not include compressor and consumable supply costs

which adds some conservatism to the cost estimate, i.e., bias the cost low.

The major variables for the bounding conditions are the costs associated with manpower and waste disposal.

b.Structure Activated Concrete Concrete activation is associated with the containment structure.

Characterization of the reactor bioshield and loop area concrete has

provided information regarding the identification, concentration, and

distribution of the radionuclides. In addition to the observed concrete activation products, the concrete surfaces in the containment structure are radioactively contaminated by the deposition and transport of fluids and

airborne distribution which occurred during plant operation. In order to

meet the 1.0 pCi/g remediation criterion described in Section 4.2.1, it is

anticipated that 22-24 inches of the ICI sump floor and its associated rebar

will be removed. This region comprises approximately 21 m 2 of floor surface that is hampered by accessibility and equipment staging factors.

Removal of generated debris will require polar crane accessibility and additional equipment and waste container transfer and staging. These elements, as well as the manual removal of rebar using oxygen-acetylene

cutting methods, result in high remediation costs.

4.4.4 Remediation

Cost Basis The cost of remediation depends on several factors such as those listed below.

This section describes the attributes of each remediation method that affect cost.

The detailed cost estimates for each method are provided in Attachment 4B.

• Depth of contaminants;

• Surface area(s) of contamination relative to total;

• Types of surfaces: vertical walls, overhead surfaces, media condition;

• Consumable items and equipment parts;

• Cleaning rate and efficiency (decontamination factor);

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-11 Revision 2 August 13, 2001

• Work crew size;

• Support activities such as, waste packaging and transfer, set up time and interfering activities for other tasks; and

• Waste volume.

a.Scabbling It has been estimated that scabbling can be effectively performed on smooth concrete surfaces to a depth of 0.25 to 0.5 inches at a rate of 20 ft 2 per hour. The scabbling pistons (feet) are contained in a close-capture enclosure that is connected by hoses to a sealed vacuum and collector system. The waste media and dust are deposited into a sealed removable

container. The exhaust air passes through both roughing and absolute

HEPA filtration devices. Dust and generated debris are collected and

controlled during the operation.

The operation is conservatively assumed to be performed by one equipment operator and one laborer. In addition, costs for radiation protection support activities and supervision are included.

The unit cost is presented in Table 4-1. Scabbling the room assumes that 100% of the concrete surface contains contamination at levels equal to the

DCGL and that 95% of this residual activity is removed by the remediation

action. The equipment is capable of scabbling 20.0 square feet per hour.

The debris is vacuumed into collectors that are transferred to containers

for rail shipments. For the evaluation, the rail car is assumed to carry

92 m 3 of concrete per shipment.

The assumed contamination reduction rates are very high (95%), but not unreasonable considering that the contamination is very close to the surface. Based on evaluation of concrete core samples, scabbling is

expected to be the principal method used for remediation of concrete

surfaces. The cost elements used to derive the unit costs for the ALARA

evaluation are listed in Attachment B. The methods for calculating total

cost are provided in Attachment A.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-12 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 b.Pressure Water Washing The unit costs provided in Table 4-1 for water washing were established by assuming that 100% of the site structures' surface area is pressure washed. This information was used to provide a cost per meter square factor. Attachment 4B provides the cost details. The equipment consists

of a hydrolazer and when used, a header assembly. The hydrolazer type

nozzle directs the jet of pressurized water that removes surficial materials

from the concrete. The header minimizes over-spray. A wet vacuum

system is used to suction the potentially contaminated water into

containers for filtration or processing. The cleaning speed is

approximately 9.3 square meters(100 ft

2) per hour and the process generates about 5.4 liters of liquid per square meter (NUREG-5884, V2).

The contamination reduction rates are dependent on the media in which

the contaminants are fixed, the composition of the contaminants, cleaning

reagents used and water jet pressure. Mitigation of loose contaminants is

high. Reduction of hard-to-remove surface contamination is

approximately 25% for the jet pressure and cleaning speed used. The use

of reagents and slower speeds can provide better contamination reduction

rates but at proportionally higher costs. The operation is performed using one equipment operator and two laborers. In addition, costs for radiation protection support activities and supervision are included. The formula

associated with the cost elements is provided in Attachment A and the cost

elements are provided in Attachment B.

c.Wet and Dry Wiping The unit costs provided in Table 4-1 for washing and wiping assume 100%

of the site structures' surface area is washed and wiped. The information is used to develop a cost per square meter. Attachment 4B provides the detailed costs. Wet wiping consists of using a cleaning reagent and wipes

on surfaces that cannot be otherwise cleaned or decontaminated. Dry

wiping includes the use of oil-impregnated media to pick up and hold

contaminants. The cleaning rate of these actions is estimated at 2.8 square

meters per hour (~ two minutes per square foot). This action is labor

intensive. The action is effective for the removal of loose contaminants

and reduction of surface contaminants, especially when cleaning reagents are used. Waste generation is about 0.005 m 3 per hour (NUREG-5884, V2). Decontamination factors vary and are dependent on factors such as the reagents that are used, the level of wiping effort and the

chemical and physical composition of the contaminant. The MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-13 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 contamination reduction efficiency used for wet and dry wiping is 20 percent. Removal of loose contaminants, oil and grease is very

effective (100 percent). The operation is performed using two laborers. In

addition, the cost for radiation protection support activities includes an operating engineer and supervision. The formula associated with the cost elements is provided in Attachment A. Attachment B list the cost

elements used for the evaluation.

d.Grit Blasting (Embedded Piping)

The cost for grit blasting was established by assuming that 6,158 linear feet of piping is decontaminated. This length of piping is the total amount of potentially contaminated buried and embedded piping identified by the Maine Yankee engineering group. For the evaluation, the entire interior

surface is assumed to require decontamination and the internal diameter is

assumed at 4 inches (typical drain line dimensions). The grit blasting

system is comprised of a hopper assembly that delivers a grit medium (garnet or sand) at intermediate air pressures through a nozzle that is

pulled at a fixed rate (~1 foot per minute) through the piping. A HEPA

vacuum system maintains the piping system under a negative pressure and collects the grit for reuse (cyclone separator) or disposal. Usually several passes are required to effectively clean the piping to acceptable residual

radioactivity levels. The contamination reduction efficiency used for grit

blasting is 95 percent. This reduction rate can vary depending on radial

bends in piping, reduction and expansion fittings, pipe material

composition, physical condition and the plate-out mechanisms associated

with the contaminants and effluents. The final pass is made with clean grit

to mitigate the possibility of loose residual contaminants associated with

previous cleaning passes. Grit decontamination factors are related to pressure, nozzle size, grit media and the number of passes made. A nominal grit usage rate of one pound per linear foot is used in the

calculation. This cost unit information is provided as cost per linear foot

factor and is also converted to m 2 for the spreadsheet evaluation. B provides the cost details used to derive unit cost. The formula associated with the cost elements is provided in Attachment A

e. Sponge and Abrasive Blasting Sponge and abrasive blasting uses media or materials coated with abrasive compounds such silica sands, garnet, aluminum oxide and walnut hulls.

The operation uses intermediate air pressures as that described for grit MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-14 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 blasting. The operation uses a closed-capture system and air filtration system to mitigate loose and airborne radioactivity. The system includes a

cyclone or similar separation system to collect the generated media. The

operation is intended for removal of surficial films. The removal efficiency and depth are a function of the surface, abrasive mix, air pressure, grit media, and speed or number of passes performed over the

suspect surface. Surface cleaning rates are about 30 square feet per hour.

For the rate given, the removal depth using aluminum oxide grit will range

from less than 1 to as much as 3 millimeters. Abrasive blasting techniques

are often used for film and paint removal and are less aggressive than

scabbling.

f.Soil Excavation The unit costs provided in Table 4-1 for soil excavation were established by assuming 4.96E+04 ft 3 (1403.0 m

3) of soil is excavated from the site.

This information was used to generate a cost per cubic meter for soil remediation. The equipment consists of an excavator that first moves the

soil at the contaminated depth interface into a container or if necessary, a

pile that is scooped into a staged shipping container. When filled, the container is moved from the excavation area with a forklift.

Contamination reduction is assumed at 95%. The operation is performed

using two equipment operators and two laborers. Costs for radiation

protection support activities and supervision are also included. The

formula associated with the cost elements is provided in Attachment A and

the cost elements are provided in Attachment B.

4.5 Unit Cost Estimates In order to effectively perform ALARA evaluations and remediation actions, unit cost values are required. These values are used to perform the NUREG-1727 cost-benefit

analysis. Table 4-1 lists the unit costs of the remediation methods anticipated to be used

at Maine Yankee.

The spreadsheets and information used to calculate values in Table 4-1 are summarized in B.

4.6 Benefit

of Averted Dose The remediation costs listed in Table 4-1 were compared to the benefit of the dose averted through the remediation action. The benefit of averted dose was calculated using MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-15 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Equations D1 and D2 in NUREG-1727 as modified to account for multiple radionuclides.

The parameters used in the equations were taken from NUREG-1727, Table D2.

Table 4-1 Unit Cost Estimate s Remediation Technique Unit Cost a Remarks Pressure Washing and Vacuuming$19.32/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B Wiping/Washing a$48.59/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B Concrete Scabbling b (Upper Bound)

$106.23/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B. Needle gun activities are included with scabbling Concrete Scabbling (Lower Bound)

$91.49/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B. Needle gun activities are included with scabbling Grit Blasting Surfaces (Upper Bound)

$113.18/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B Grit Blasting Surfaces (Upper Bound)

$87.80/m 2 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B Grit Blasting Embedded/Buried Piping

$45.93/linear ft Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B Soil Excavation

$1837/m 3 Unit cost factors provided in Attachment B a The high cost for wiping and washing is due both to the labor intensive time (76% of the total) required and the costs of waste processing and disposal associated with the water used. Because radiation protection practices depict wiping as good practice for removing loose contamination, wiping is performed

and not always as a function of an ALARA evaluation b A contingency of 25% has been added to the person hour total for the activities Combining Equations D1 and D2 results in the following. The method for adjusting this equation to account for multiple radionuclides is described in Attachment 4A, Section A.1.

B x P x A x x F e r AD D r N=-+çø÷-+$2000.()0 025 1 l l Where: B AD is the benefit of averted dose Variables are as described in NUREG-1727, Table D2 . The detailed description of the calculation of the B AD is provided in Attachment 4A, Sections A.3 and A.4.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-16 Revision 2 August 13, 2001

4.7 ALARA

Calculation Results The final ALARA calculations were performed by comparing the total remediation cost to the benefit of averted dose using Equation D8 from NUREG-1727. The calculations

are described in detail in Attachment 4A. The results for each remediation method, for

both the Basement Fill and Building Occupancy scenarios, are provided in Table 4-2.

Since the Conc/DCGL W values are greater than 1 for all remediation methods, no remediation below the NRC 25 mrem/y dose limit is required. As described in A, the results are also valid for the enhanced State criteria since lowering the dose criteria increases the Conc/DCGL W value.Table 4-2 ALARA Evaluation Conc/DCGL W Results Remediation Action Basement Fill Building Occupancy Pressure Washing and Vacuuming 99.4 1.9 Wiping/Washing 312.6 6.00 Concrete Scabbling (Upper Bound) 143.9 2.76 Concrete Scabbling (Lower Bound) 123.9 2.38 Grit Blasting Surfaces (Upper Bound) 153.3 2.94 Grit Blasting Surfaces (Lower Bound) 118.9 2.28 Grit Blasting Embedded/Buried Piping 91.6 a--Soil Excavation 733.9 b--a Grit blasting of embedded piping is not evaluated for Building Occupancy b Soil is evaluated using the Surface Soil values from NUREG-1727 Table C2.3.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-17 Revision 2 August 13, 2001

4.8 References

4.8.1 Maine

Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Construction, Best Practices Manual

4.8.2 NUREG

1727, "Decommissioning Standard Review Plan" 4.8.3 NUREG/CR 5884, "Revised Analyses of Decommissioning for the Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power

Station", Volume 2 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-18 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 ATTACHMENT 4A Calculation of ALARA Residual Radioactivity Levels MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-19 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 This attachment provides the method for calculating residual radioactivity levels that are ALARA. A.1 Residual Radioactivity Level ALARA Calculation For the purposes of addressing multiple radionuclides, Equation D8 of NUREG-1727 as presented below is modified. The equation used for each spreadsheet is provided in

Section A.1.1 (NUREG-1727, eq. D8).

úûé-+=+-N r D T W e r x A F P Cost DCGL Conc)(1))()(025.0)()(2000 (l l Where:=Fraction of DCGL W that is ALARA Conc DCGL W Cost T=Total monetary cost of remediation action in dollars 2000=The dollar value of a person-rem averted ($/person-rem)

P D=Population density for the critical group scenario (persons per m 2)0.025*=Annual dose to an average member of the critical group from residual radioactivity at the DCGL W concentration (rem/yr)

• NOTE: This calculation is performed in compliance with 10 CFR 20, with regard to 25 mrem. If calculated using the 10 mrem annual dose

limit an even wider divergence between cost and benefit would

result.F=Fraction of the residual radioactivity removed by remediation action.A=Area (m 2 ) used to calculate the population density MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-20 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 r=Monetary discount rate (yr

-1)=Radiological decay constant for the radionuclide (yr

-1)N=Number of years over which collective averted dose is calculated (yr)Values for the equation parameters may be found in NUREG-1727. The table below presents some of these generic values.

Table A-1 Equation Parameters Equation Terms NUREG-1727 Table D2 Values Structure Land P D 0.09 0.0004 r 0.07 0.03 N 70 1000 A.1.1 Equation D8 as used in Section 4.0 ALARA Evaluations Equation D8, NUREG-1727 is presented below:

Conc DCGL w Cost P F A r e T D r N=+-éûú-+($2000)()(.)()()()0 025 1 l=+-é

ûúú

ú-+Cost P F A r e T D r N ($2000)()(.)()()()0 025 1 1 l l MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-21 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 The right term of the equation is multiplied by 1 as illustrated in the term below.

=+-é

ûúú

ú-+-+é

ûúú

ú

ú-+-+-+Cost P F A r e e r e r T D r N r N r N ($2000)()(.)()()()()()0 025 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l Equation D8, NUREG-1727 is then expressed as:

Conc DCGL Cost P F A e r w T D r N=-+éûú-+($2000)()(.)()()()0 025 1 l l For multiple radionuclides the denominator must be summed over all radionuclides as shown below:

Conc DCGL Cost P Df F A e r w T i n D i r N i i=-+éûú-+($2000)()(.)()()()()0 025 1 l l Where for :

Basement Fill Scenario:

Df Dose Fraction nf Unitized Dose Factor nf Unitized Dose Factor i basement fill i i i i i n==()()()()

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-22 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Df Dose Fraction nf Screening Value nf Screening Value i building occupancy i i i i i n==or, Building Occupancy; And, n f i= nuclide fraction of the mixture radionuclide Unitized Dose Factor i (basement fill)

=nuclide specific mrem/y per dpm/100 cm 2 (or pCi/g) results from the respective Unitized Dose Tables 6-2 through 6-5, and 6-7

through 6-8 of Section 6.0.

Screening Value i (building occupancy)

=nuclide specific Screening Values from Table 5.19 of NUREG-5512V3

or NUREG-1727 Table C2.2.

A.2 Calculation of Total Cost (NUREG-1727 eq. D3)

In order to evaluate the cost of remediation actions NUREG-1727 provides the elements necessary to derive the costs that are compared to the benefits. The total cost is:

Cost T=Cost R Cost WD Cost ACC C TF C C C WDose PDose other++++++The terms for "Cost" are abbreviated as "C" below (NUREG-1727 eq. D4-D7)

C T=Total costs (all the elements below)

C R=Monetary cost of the remediation action (may include mobilization costs).

C WD=Cost for generation and disposal of the waste generated by the action:

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-23 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 C WD= V A x C V V A Is the volume of waste produced, remediated in units of m 3 and;C V is the cost of waste disposal per unit volume, including transport cost, in units of $/m 3 C ACC=Cost of worker accidents during the remediation action:

C ACC=$3,000,000 x F W x T A$3,000,000 is cost of a fatality equivalent to $2,000/person-rem; FW is the workplace fatality rate in fatalities/hour worked (4.20E-8/h) and;

T A is the worker time required for remediation in units of worker-hours.

C TF=Cost of traffic fatalities during transport of the waste:

C TF = $3,000,000 x VA x [(F T x D T)/V ship] F T is the fatality rate per kilometer traveled in units of fatalities/km (3.80E-8), for truck shipments and 1.70E-9 for hazardous material shipped by rail (Class 1 rail = 9.8E-07). The hazardous material value is conservatively used in the calculations; however, in any case C TF does not significantly impact the evaluation results.

D T is the round trip distance from Maine Yankee to Clive, Utah l(Envirocare), in km; lV SHIP is volume of truck shipment in m 3 ( estimated at 7.93 m 3); for rail the respective volumes used for concrete and soil are 92 and 122 m 3.C WDose=$2,000 x D R x T: C WDose== is the cost of the remediation worker dose MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-24 Revision 2 August 13, 2001

$2000 is the cost of dose received by workers performing the remediation and transporting the waste to the disposal facility.

D R is total effective dose equivalent rate to remediation workers in units of rem/hr and, T is time worked to remediate the area in units of person-hours C PDose=Cost of the dose to the public from excavation, transport, and disposal of the waste.

C other=Other appropriate costs for the particular situation.

A.3 Calculation of Benefits (NUREG-1727 eq. D1)

The benefit from collective averted dose is calculated by determining the present worth of the future collective averted dose and multiplying it by a factor to convert the dose to monetary value:

)]()[2000 ($COLLECTIVE AD AD PW B=Where: B AD=benefit from averted dose for a remediation action, in $

$2,000=value in dollars of a person-rem averted PW(AD COLLECTIVE

)=present worth of future collective averted dose MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-25 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 A.4 Present Worth of Future Collective Averted Dose (NUREG-1727 eq. D2)

The present worth of the future collective averted dose is estimated by:

PW AD Collective P D A F Conc DCGL W e r N r ()()()(.)()()=éûúú--++éûúú0 025 1 l l Where: P D= population density for the critical group scenario in people per m 2 A=Area being evaluated in m 2 and represents the floor area only for the attached ALARA calculations.

0.025*=Annual dose to an average member of the critical group from residual radioactivity at the DCGL W concentration in rem/y

• NOTE: This calculation is performed in compliance with 10 CFR 20, with regard to 25 mrem. If calculated using the 10 mrem annual dose limit an even

wider divergence between cost and benefit would result.

F=Fraction of the residual radioactivity removed by the remediation action.

F may be considered to be the removable fraction for the remediation

action being evaluated.

Conc=Average concentration of residual radioactivity being evaluated in units of activity per unit area for buildings or activity per unit volume for soil.

DCGL W =derived concentration guideline level that represents a dose of 25 mrem/yr to the average member of the critical group, in the same units as "Conc" r=monetary discount rate in units of y

-1=radiological decay constant for the radionuclide in units of y

-1 N=number of years over which the collective dose will be calculated.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-26 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 A.5 ALARA Evaluation Spreadsheets and Development Evaluation spreadsheets incorporate the B AD results for each nuclide in the mixture relative to the remediation action. The spreadsheets, if necessary, may be modified to address changes or additional regulatory guidance. The spreadsheets provide input for

fraction of activity removed, total cost and remediation surface area. Other nuclide

fractions can be input to address changes in mixtures and the dose factors attributing to

the respective scenario can be replaced as necessary.

The spreadsheets utilize the formula provided in Section A.1.1 and are designed to sum the B AD results for each radionuclide in the mixture. To correctly do so requires that the individual dose fraction be multiplied by the annual dose (0.025 rem/y) to an average member of the critical group. The total cost for the remedial action when divided by the

benefit of averted dose results in the Conc/DCGL as per NUREG-1727, Equation D2.

The results determine the cost effectiveness of the remedial action. Values greater than unity are already ALARA.

For scabbling and grit blasting a reduction factor of 0.95 is used. Because a majority of contamination is near the surface of the media the abrasive or scabbling actions are expected to be very efficient. Pressure washing and washing and wiping activities are

designed primarily for removal of loose contaminants - grimes and adhered oils and greases. These remediation actions are intended to remove all the loose contamination and the layers of grease and oils adhered to surfaces. These actions are expected to

remove a minimum of 10.0 percent of the contaminants. The characterization results in

Section 2.0 show that the average loose contamination fraction is less than 10.0 percent.

NUREG-1727 uses a reduction factor of 20.0 percent for washing a building. The use of

decontamination agents with liquid is anticipated to increase the reduction factor for the

pressure washing and washing and wiping. Conservative values of 20.0 percent for

washing and wiping and 25.0 percent for pressure washing are used in the evaluations.

The Basement Fill and Building Occupancy dose models were evaluated for each applicable remediation method. For the basement fill model the occupancy area is 10,000

m 2 since the resident farmer is the critical group. The area remediated is the assumed model area of 4182 m

2. Note that reducing this area size would reduce dose proportionally. For the Building Occupancy model the occupancy area is a 100 m 2 floor in a standing building; the remediation area is also assumed to be 100 m

2.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-27 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 A.5.1 ALARA Spreadsheet Evaluations:

Pressure Washing (Basement Fill Model)

A removal fraction for pressure washing utilizing standard commercial pressure washing techniques is about 0.25. This reduction fraction is associated with

removal of loose contamination as well as greases and oils adhered to surfaces.

The ALARA Evaluation results show that the Conc/DCGL W result is 99.4 and ALARA. Pressure Washing (Building Occupancy Model)

The results indicate that for a removal fraction of 0.25 the action is ALARA without remediation actions. As previously stated, the use of a removal fraction

of 0.25 assumes that the operation will, at a minimum, remove all loose

contamination and adhering grease and oil from suspect surfaces (NUREG-5884, M.27). The ALARA Evaluation shows that the Conc/DCGL W result is 1.9 and ALARA.Washing and Wiping (Basement Fill Model)

The removal fraction used for washing and wiping is 0.20 and shows residual radioactivity being ALARA without taking any remediation actions. The ALARA Evaluation shows the Conc/DCGL W result is 312.6.

Washing and Wiping (Building Occupancy Model)

The building occupancy model as stated is based on a 100 m 2 area. The removal fraction is 0.20. The ALARA Evaluation results shows the Conc/DCGL W result is 6.0. Residual radioactivity is ALARA without taking any remediation actions.

Scabbling (Basement Fill Model)

The Scabbling evaluation is performed using the maximum expected scabble depth and the manpower and equipment cost using a standard contingency of 1.25. The associated total cost when compared to the benefit of averted dose is determined to be ALARA without taking remediation actions. The second MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-28 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 evaluation for scabbling evaluates the activity using one half of the maximum expected depth using the same manpower and equipment hours associated with

the remediation rate. The cost for compressor and consumables at 10% of the

equipment cost is not used (a cost reduction of ~14%). The results of the evaluation again show that the action is still ALARA without remediation actions.

Costs are based on assuming the entire surface area of the three foot below grade

structure is scabbled (this area size assumption is used for all surface remediation

activities). This is a conservative assumption since maximizing remediated area

results in the lowest unit cost. The ALARA Evaluation shows the Conc/DCGL W results are 143.9 and 123.9, respectively.

Scabbling (Building Occupancy Model)

Scabbling conditions for bounding are the same as the basement fill model. The only changes are unit costs and evaluation area are 100 m

2. The results of the evaluation show the action is still ALARA without remediation actions. The ALARA Evaluation shows the Conc/DCGL W results are 2.76 and 2.38 respectively.

Embedded Piping Grit Blasting (Basement Fill Model)

Embedded and buried piping assumes a reduction fraction of 0.95. The total linear feet of piping is used (6,158 feet). The spreadsheet utilizes the same

surface area as do other evaluations for the basement fill scenario. The cost basis

is per linear foot. The ALARA Evaluation result for the Conc/DCGL W is 91.6 and already ALARA.

Surface Grit Blasting (Basement Fill Model)

Evaluation for surface grit blasting utilizes the same area and removal fractions as for scabbling. The results of the evaluation show the action is ALARA without

remediation actions. The ALARA Evaluation shows the Conc/DCGL W results are 153.3 and 118.9 for the upper and lower bound cost contingency evaluations, respectively.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-29 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Surface Grit Blasting (Building Occupancy Model)

Evaluation for surface grit blasting utilizes the same area and removal fractions as for scabbling. The results of the evaluation again show the action is still ALARA

without remediation actions. The ALARA Evaluation results shows the

Conc/DCGL W results are 2.94 and 2.28 for the upper and lower bound cost contingency evaluations, respectively.

Soil Excavation Due to high removal and shipping costs, excavation of significant quantities of soil from the site show that the residual radioactivity is ALARA without additional actions. The reduction fraction used is 0.95. The amount of soil expected to be removed is 1,403.1 m 3 or about 94 percent of what would be removed from an area 10,000 m 2 by 0.15 m deep. The ALARA Evaluation results show the Conc/DCGL W results is 733.9.

For all actions evaluated the conditions utilize 25 mrem per year as the dose to the critical group. If the annual dose criteria is changed to 10 mrem in the evaluation

equation the margin for the action being ALARA without remediation actions is

significantly greater. Tables A-2 through A-15 are the ALARA Evaluation

Spreadsheets for each of the above evaluations.

A.5.2 Examination of Differential Solubility for Specific Decontamination lActions llTo determine if differential solubility for specific nuclides could affect the reduction lof specific radionuclides in the mixture, those nuclides expected to exhibit the most lpreferential solubility (H-3, Sr-90, Cs-134 and Cs-137) were examined. For this lsensitivity analysis both washing and wiping, and pressure washing actions were used lwith the building occupancy scenario. These scenarios provided the lowest lConc/DCGL values. For the specific nuclides the removal rate was doubled. The lanalysis showed that, while the Conc/DCGL value was reduced by approximately 46 lpercent the conclusion is the same as that using the initially assigned values l(Conc/DCGL is >1.0).

l Table A-2 Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Pressure Washing Remediation Activity Condition (removal fraction "F"@ 0.25)

Remediation Cost and Area A =10k m 2 , r = 0.03, N =1000, P D = 0.0004 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.25 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4prwfill.wb3) 4182.0$19.32 4/26/01 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$80,796 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ==========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide4.15E-027.89E-073.35E-052.36E-02 2.410E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+018.607E-025.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-31.48E-042.81E-095.84E-074.81E-03 2.566E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+022.882E-012.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-553.90E-057.43E-102.42E-063.06E-04 2.023E-03 Co-57 1.037E+001.000E+000.000E+009.645E+029.645E-019.345E-017.417E-01 Co-571.84E-013.50E-065.99E-055.84E-02 5.698E+01 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+021.615E-011.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.15E-024.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 2.915E+01 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+013.692E-026.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.02E-021.72E-066.12E-042.80E-03 8.346E+01 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+015.405E-022.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-908.03E-031.53E-073.36E-054.55E-03 1.097E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+023.662E-013.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.54E-011.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 6.177E+02 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+015.297E-022.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$812.56 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 99.43 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-3 Building Occupancy Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Pressure Washing Remediation Activity Condition (removal fraction "F"@ 0.25)

Remediation Cost and Area A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, P D = 0.09 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.25 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4prwbo.wb3) 100.0$19.32 4/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$1,932 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy Scenario SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide6.82E-061.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 6.089E-03 H-3 7.931E+009.999E-011.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-33.72E-051.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 1.275E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-555.07E-051.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 5.683E-03 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+009.345E-017.417E-01 Co-572.86E-018.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 1.597E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-606.86E-031.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 9.990E+00 Ni-63 1.294E+019.954E-014.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-631.12E-023.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 1.338E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+019.986E-011.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-901.25E-023.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 3.449E+00 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.83E-011.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 8.256E+02 Cs-137 1.074E+019.985E-011.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$1,012.13 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 1.91 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-4 Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Washing and Wiping Remediation Activity Condition (removal fraction "F"@ 0.25)

Remediation Cost and Area A =10k m 2 , r = 0.03, N =1000, P D = 0.0004 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.2 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4wwfill.wb3) 4182.0$48.59 4/26/01 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$203,203 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide4.15E-027.89E-073.35E-052.36E-02 1.928E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-31.48E-042.81E-095.84E-074.81E-03 2.053E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-553.90E-057.43E-102.42E-063.06E-04 1.619E-03 Co-57 1.037E+001.000E+000.000E+009.645E+02 9.645E-019.345E-017.417E-01 Co-571.84E-013.50E-065.99E-055.84E-02 4.559E+01 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.15E-024.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 2.332E+01 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.02E-021.72E-066.12E-042.80E-03 6.677E+01 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-908.03E-031.53E-073.36E-054.55E-03 8.775E-01 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.54E-011.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 4.942E+02 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$650.05 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 312.60 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-5 Building Occupancy Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Washing and Wiping Remediation Activity Condition (removal fraction "F"@ 0.25)

Remediation Cost and Area A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, P D = 0.09 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.2 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4wwbo.wb3) 100.0$48.59 04/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$4,859 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy Scenario SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide6.82E-061.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 4.871E-03 H-3 7.931E+009.999E-011.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-33.72E-051.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 1.020E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-555.07E-051.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 4.546E-03 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+009.345E-017.417E-01 Co-572.86E-018.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 1.278E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-606.86E-031.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 7.992E+00 Ni-63 1.294E+019.954E-014.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-631.12E-023.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 1.070E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+019.986E-011.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-901.25E-023.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 2.759E+00 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.83E-011.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 6.605E+02 Cs-137 1.074E+019.985E-011.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$809.70 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 6.00 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-6 Table A-7 Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Scabbling Remediation Activity Bounding Condition (remove 0.25 inches of concrete surface)

Remediation Cost and Area Using upper bound cost contingency Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4scabfil.wb3) 4182.0$106.23 A=10k m 2 , r =0.03, N=1000, Pd = 0.0004 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

4/26/01$444,254 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide4.15E-027.89E-073.35E-052.36E-02 9.158E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-31.48E-042.81E-095.84E-074.81E-03 9.750E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-553.90E-057.43E-102.42E-063.06E-04 7.689E-03 Co-57 1.037E+001.000E+000.000E+009.645E+02 9.645E-019.345E-017.417E-01 Co-571.84E-013.50E-065.99E-055.84E-02 2.165E+02 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.15E-024.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 1.108E+02 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.02E-021.72E-066.12E-042.80E-03 3.171E+02 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-908.03E-031.53E-073.36E-054.55E-03 4.168E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.54E-011.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 2.347E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,087.72 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 143.88 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Scabbling Remediation Activity Bounding Condition (remove 0.125 inches of concrete surface)

Remediation Cost and Area Using lower bound cost (no contingency)

Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4scabfil.wb3) 4182.0$91.49 A=10k m 2 , r =0.03, N=1000, Pd = 0.0004 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

4/26/01$382,611 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide4.15E-027.89E-073.35E-052.36E-02 9.158E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-31.48E-042.81E-095.84E-074.81E-03 9.750E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-553.90E-057.43E-102.42E-063.06E-04 7.689E-03 Co-57 1.037E+001.000E+000.000E+009.645E+02 9.645E-019.345E-017.417E-01 Co-571.84E-013.50E-065.99E-055.84E-02 2.165E+02 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.15E-024.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 1.108E+02 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.02E-021.72E-066.12E-042.80E-03 3.171E+02 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-908.03E-031.53E-073.36E-054.55E-03 4.168E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.54E-011.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 2.347E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,087.72 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 123.91 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-8 Table A-9 Building Occupancy Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Scabbling Remediation Activity Bounding Condition (remove 0.25 inches of concrete surface)

Remediation Cost and Area A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, P D = 0.09 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4scabo.wb3) 100.0$106.23 4/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ============>

$10,623 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy Scenario SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 6.82E-06 1.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 2.314E-02 H-3 7.931E+00 9.999E-01 1.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 3.72E-05 1.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 4.846E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 5.07E-05 1.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 2.159E-02 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+00 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 2.86E-01 8.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 6.069E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 6.86E-03 1.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 Ni-63 1.294E+01 9.954E-01 4.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 1.12E-02 3.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 5.084E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+01 9.986E-01 1.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 1.25E-02 3.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 1.311E+01 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.83E-01 1.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 Cs-137 1.074E+01 9.985E-01 1.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,846.09 Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD =====>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 2.76 Conc/DCGL W =============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Building Occupancy Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Scabbling Remediation Activity Bounding Condition (remove 0.125 inches of concrete surface)

Remediation Cost and Area A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, P D = 0.09 Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

PWAD4scabo.wb3) 100.0$91.49 4/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$9,149 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy Scenario SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 6.82E-06 1.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 2.314E-02 H-3 7.931E+00 9.999E-01 1.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 3.72E-05 1.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 4.846E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 5.07E-05 1.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 2.159E-02 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+00 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 2.86E-01 8.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 6.069E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 6.86E-03 1.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 Ni-63 1.294E+01 9.954E-01 4.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 1.12E-02 3.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 5.084E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+01 9.986E-01 1.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 1.25E-02 3.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 1.311E+01 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.83E-01 1.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 Cs-137 1.074E+01 9.985E-01 1.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,846.09 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD =>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 2.38 Conc/DCGL W =============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-10 Table A-11 Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Surface Grit Blasting Remediation Activity Using upper bound cost contingency Remediation Cost and Area PWAD4surgritfil.wb3)

Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

A=10k m 2 , r =0.03, N=1000, Pd = 0.0004 4182.0$113.18 4/26/01 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$473,319 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 4.15E-02 7.89E-07 3.35E-05 2.36E-02 9.158E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 1.48E-04 2.81E-09 5.84E-07 4.81E-03 9.750E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 3.90E-05 7.43E-10 2.42E-06 3.06E-04 7.689E-03 Co-57 1.037E+00 1.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.645E+02 9.645E-01 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 1.84E-01 3.50E-06 5.99E-05 5.84E-02 2.165E+02 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 2.15E-02 4.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 1.108E+02 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 9.02E-02 1.72E-06 6.12E-04 2.80E-03 3.171E+02 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 8.03E-03 1.53E-07 3.36E-05 4.55E-03 4.168E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.54E-01 1.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 2.347E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,087.72 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 153.29 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Surface Grit Blasting Remediation Activity Using lower bound cost contingency Remediation Cost and Area PWAD4surgritfil.wb3)

Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

A=10k m 2 , r =0.03, N=1000, Pd = 0.0004 4182.0$87.80 4/26/01 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$367,180 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 4.15E-02 7.89E-07 3.35E-05 2.36E-02 9.158E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 1.48E-04 2.81E-09 5.84E-07 4.81E-03 9.750E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 3.90E-05 7.43E-10 2.42E-06 3.06E-04 7.689E-03 Co-57 1.037E+00 1.000E+00 0.000E+00 9.645E+02 9.645E-01 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 1.84E-01 3.50E-06 5.99E-05 5.84E-02 2.165E+02 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 2.15E-02 4.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 1.108E+02 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 9.02E-02 1.72E-06 6.12E-04 2.80E-03 3.171E+02 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 8.03E-03 1.53E-07 3.36E-05 4.55E-03 4.168E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.54E-01 1.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 2.347E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,087.72 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 118.92 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-12 Table A-13 Building Occupancy ALARA EVALUATION Surface Grit Blasting Remediation Activity Using upper bound cost contingency Remediation Cost and Area PWAD4surgritbo.wb3)

Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, Pd = 0.09 100.0$113.18 4/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$11,318 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 6.82E-06 1.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 2.314E-02 H-3 7.931E+00 9.999E-01 1.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 3.72E-05 1.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 4.846E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 5.07E-05 1.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 2.159E-02 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+00 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 2.86E-01 8.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 6.069E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 6.86E-03 1.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 Ni-63 1.294E+01 9.954E-01 4.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 1.12E-02 3.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 5.084E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+01 9.986E-01 1.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 1.25E-02 3.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 1.311E+01 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.83E-01 1.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 Cs-137 1.074E+01 9.985E-01 1.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,846.09 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 2.94 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Building Occupancy ALARA EVALUATION Surface Grit Blasting Remediation Activity Using lower bound cost contingency Remediation Cost and Area PWAD4surgritbo.wb3)

Actual Area M 2 Unit Cost/M 2 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

A=100 m 2 , r =0.07, N=70, Pd = 0.09 100.0$87.80 4/26/01 100 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$8,780 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Screening c Nuclide Nuclide Building Occupancy SC/sum[nf/SC]

n f/SC Value (SC)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+l l)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)N l)N]] e -(r + l l)N](r + l l)N (r + l l)l l (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide 6.82E-06 1.96E-10 1.200E+08 2.36E-02 2.314E-02 H-3 7.931E+00 9.999E-01 1.470E-04 8.825E+00 1.261E-01 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-3 3.72E-05 1.07E-09 4.50E+06 4.81E-03 4.846E-02 Fe-55 3.047E+00 1.000E+00 1.056E-10 2.297E+01 3.282E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-55 5.07E-05 1.46E-09 2.10E+05 3.06E-04 2.159E-02 Co-57 9.955E-01 1.000E+00 2.893E-31 7.032E+01 1.005E+00 9.345E-01 7.417E-01 Co-57 2.86E-01 8.23E-06 7.100E+03 5.84E-02 6.069E+02 Co-60 4.962E+00 1.000E+00 7.472E-07 1.411E+01 2.015E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-60 6.86E-03 1.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 Ni-63 1.294E+01 9.954E-01 4.586E-03 5.385E+00 7.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-63 1.12E-02 3.22E-07 8.700E+03 2.80E-03 5.084E+01 Sr-90 1.062E+01 9.986E-01 1.383E-03 6.584E+00 9.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-90 1.25E-02 3.58E-07 1.270E+04 4.55E-03 1.311E+01 Cs-134 2.462E+00 1.000E+00 4.494E-13 2.843E+01 4.062E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-134 6.83E-01 1.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 Cs-137 1.074E+01 9.985E-01 1.491E-03 6.508E+00 9.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,846.09 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 2.88E-05 Sum Sum Check 2.28 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.2, dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-14 Basement Fill Scenario ALARA EVALUATION Embedded Piping Remediation Activity PWAD4embfill.wb3)

Remediation Cost and Area A=10k m 2 , r =0.03, N=1000, Pd = 0.0004 Actual Area LF Unit Cost/lf 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

Unit cost are in Linear Feet 6158.0$45.93 4/26/01 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

$282,837 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Unitized Dose c Nuclide Nuclide Basement Fill Scenario UDF/ Sum (UDF) n f( UDF)Factor (UDF)

Fraction B AD nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1-e-(r+l)Nl)N]] e -(r + ll)N](r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide4.15E-027.89E-073.35E-052.36E-02 9.158E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-31.48E-042.81E-095.84E-074.81E-03 9.750E-02 Fe-55 3.470E+00 1.000E+00 7.166E-126 2.882E+02 2.882E-01 2.582E-01 2.685E+00 Fe-553.90E-057.43E-102.42E-063.06E-04 7.689E-03 Co-57 1.037E+001.000E+000.000E+009.645E+02 9.645E-019.345E-017.417E-01 Co-571.84E-013.50E-065.99E-055.84E-02 2.165E+02 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.15E-024.10E-07 1.15E-06 3.55E-01 1.108E+02 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.02E-021.72E-066.12E-042.80E-03 3.171E+02 Sr-90 1.850E+01 1.000E+00 3.357E-24 5.405E+01 5.405E-02 2.405E-02 2.882E+01 Sr-908.03E-031.53E-073.36E-054.55E-03 4.168E+00 Cs-134 2.731E+00 1.000E+00 9.577E-160 3.662E+02 3.662E-01 3.362E-01 2.062E+00 Cs-1346.54E-011.24E-05 2.26E-05 5.50E-01 2.347E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,087.72 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 1.90E-05 Sum Sum Check 91.60 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From Table 6-2,unitized annual dose rate for contaminated concrete per dpm/100 centimeters squared Table A-15 Soil Remediation ALARA EVALUATION Soil Excavation where: 1403.1 m 3 ~10,000 m 2 @ 0.15 m deep (94%).

Remediation Cost and Area And, 1403.1 m 3 is the estimated volume for site soil removal Actual Volume M 3 Unit Cost/M 3 0.95 Enter fraction of activity removed by remedial action ==>

A = 10K, P D =.0004, r =.03, N = 1000 1403.1$1,836.58 PWAD4soittl.wb3 10,000 Enter Occupancy Area in m 2 ===========>

4/26/01$2,576,882 Enter total cost (C T , in dollars) of Action(s) ===========>

Enter Mix Screening cNuclideNuclide Surface Soil SC/ Sum (SC) n f( SC)Values (SC)

Fraction PW(ADcollective) nuclide[1-e-(r+ll)N]/(r+l)l)[1 - e -(r + ll)N e -(r + ll)N (r + ll)N (r + ll)ll (yrs-1)b halflife a (yrs)nuclide5.75E-034.82E-04 1.10E+02 5.30E-02 1.27E+01 H-3 1.162E+01 1.000E+00 4.167E-38 8.607E+01 8.607E-02 5.607E-02 1.236E+01 H-32.83E-022.37E-03 3.80E+00 9.00E-03 3.33E+01 Co-60 6.191E+00 1.000E+00 7.071E-71 1.615E+02 1.615E-01 1.315E-01 5.270E+00 Co-602.73E-042.29E-05 2.10E+03 4.80E-02 1.40E+00 Ni-63 2.708E+01 1.000E+00 9.202E-17 3.692E+01 3.692E-02 6.925E-03 1.001E+02 Ni-639.66E-018.09E-02 1.10E+01 8.90E-01 3.46E+03 Cs-137 1.888E+01 1.000E+00 9.878E-24 5.297E+01 5.297E-02 2.297E-02 3.017E+01 Cs-137 1.00E+00$3,511 Mixture Total: Benefit of Averted Dose B AD ===>a: Table of the Isotopes, Seventh Edition, Lederer et al. 1978; b: Lambda = 0.69315/t1/2; 1.00E+00 8.38E-02 Sum Check Sum 733.91 Conc/DCGL W ==============>

c: From NUREG-1727 Table C2.3 pCi/g MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-37 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 ATTACHMENT 4B Unit Cost Values MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-38 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 B.1 General This Attachment provides the unit cost values used to develop the total cost C T as defined in this section.

3 Feet Below Grade Remaining Structure Surfaces The results of Engineering Calculation 01-00 (MY) show that the total structure and buildings surface area planned to remain at 3 feet below grade is 7704 m

2. This value is the surface area assumed to require remediation and is the area used to estimate remediation cost.

This is a conservative approach because increasing the remediated area decreases the cost.

For building occupancy 100 m 2 is used for determining both the cost and remediation action surface area.

Remediation Activity Rates Remediation activity rates were provided based on previous experience, from published literature, or from groups or vendors currently performing these or similar activities. Past operational experience was also used in developing the rates.

Contingency A contingency of 1.25 was added to the manpower hours. Scabbling (the primary activity) was bounded using cost and manpower associated with the volume of concrete (disposal cost) for remediation of 0.125 inches versus using compressor, consumable materials and the volume of concrete (disposal cost) for remediation of 0.25 inches of concrete.

Equipment Equipment costs were developed based on the cost of buying specific equipment and whenever possible prorating the cost over the task activities. Rental rates are also included for specific equipment such as fork lifts and excavators. Consumable supplies and parts were included in the cost for equipment. Shipping containers were included with shipment costs.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-39 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Mobilization and Demobilization Costs Costs were conservatively included for delivery and pick up of equipment. Anticipated costs to stage and move equipment from location to location were also included.

Waste Disposal Cost Disposal costs for generated waste were based on the following rail shipment values:

Concrete Rubble:

$10.00 (disposal) + $6.25 (shipping) per cubic foot

($573.87/m 3)Concrete Scabble:

$55.00 (disposal) + $6.25 (shipping) per cubic foot ($2163.04/m 3)Soil:$41.00 (disposal) + $6.56 (shipping) per cubic foot ($1,679.58/m 3)Round trip rail transportation:

Clive, Utah (Envirocare site) round trip by rail: 7728 km.

Waste volume per shipment:

Dependent primarily on highway hauling weight restrictions and results in the use of a volume of 7.93 m

3. For rail shipments the same conditions apply and result in a single car volume of 92 m 3 for concrete and 120 m 3 for soil. More than one car can be included in a rail shipment; however, costs estimates were based on a single car. The distance and haul volume are used for determining transport accident cost in accordance with NUREG-1727 and Attachment A, Section A2. The impact to total cost of this item is minimal.

Worker Accident Costs To determine worker accident cost in accordance with NUREG-1727 and Attachment A, Section A2, the same hours input for labor cost were used for worker accident cost.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-40 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Worker Dose Costs associated with worker dose are a function of the hours worked and the workers' radiation exposure for the task. General dose rates for each area from the initial facility walk down summary sheets were used to estimate worker doses. The results were summed and the average (7.3 mrem/h) used for all remediation activities. For soil excavation a value of 4.0 mrem/h was used.

The value of 7.3 mrem/hr for worker dose was based on data averaging. It is anticipated lthat, as commodities are removed and the area(s) prepared for final remediation actions, the ldose to the worker will become less. Soil excavation assumes that stored waste remains near lthe excavation area. (This assumption is dependent upon which activities are conducted or lcompleted prior to soil removal.) In the event that soil remediation follows all other lactivities and that waste stored for off-site shipment is removed, the dose to workers can be lless than the above value.

llTo examine the impact of a lower worker dose, a sensitivity analysis was performed. By leliminating the cost factor associated with worker dose, the ALARA evaluation for the most lsensitive (lowest) Conc/DCGL (that is, pressure washing using building occupancy scenario) lres ults in a change in the Conc/DCGL from 1.91 to 1.76. In that the resulting Con/DCGL lis still greater than 1.0, lower actual worker doses will not change the outcome of the lALARA assessment.

lLabor Costs Manpo wer costs assumptions were based on contracts established with the principal site lcontractors.

The individual cost for the applicable disciplines, e.g., laborer, equipment loperator, health physics technicians, were developed into an hourly crew rate for the task and based on guidance provided by NUREG 5884 Volumes 1 and 2. It is important to note that the total work hours for a normal day were used and not adjusted for personnel breaks, ALARA meeting or ingress and egress from an area.

Unit Cost The sum of all the cost elements was divided by the applicable unit (m 2 , m 3 or linear feet) to provide a unit cost for the activity. Other cost units for cost per hour or linear foot were also developed in the same fashion. The tables to follow provide the crew cost per hour but do MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-41 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 not provide the individual hourly rates for individual disciplines. These values are however included in the supporting calculation.

B.2 Pressure Water Washing And Vacuuming Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7704.0 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; and Laborer, 2 Support Personnel:

3.0, Resident, Schedule Engineers, HP Technician Hourly Cost:

$ 99.19 Cleaning Rate:

9.29 m 2//h Hours: 829.3 ( 7704 m 2/9.29 m 2//h)Mobilization Costs

$600 Labor Cost:

$82,256 Equipment Costs:

$8,000 Liquid Processing Costs:

$12,952[($1.00/g)(1.35g/m 2)(7704 m 2)(1.25 liquid contingency)]

Waste Disposal Cost:

$ 33,328 Solids estimated at 0.002 m 3/m 2 = 15.4 m 3 ($ 2163.04)

Worker Accident Cost:

$105 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$7 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$11,610 Per NUREG-1727 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-42 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Total Costs:

$148,858 Cost per m 2:$19.32 B.3 Washing and Wiping Remediation Actions Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7704.0 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

2.0, Laborers Support Personnel:

5.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, Operating Engineer and HP Technician Hourly Cost:

$75.12 Cleaning Rate:

2.8 m 2/h Hours: 3783.2 [( 7704 m 2/2.8 m 2//h) + 4h/40h set up)(1.25 contingency)]

Mobilization Costs

$600 Labor Cost:

$284,195 Equipment Costs:

$21,571 Waste Generation:

25.4 m 3 (3.39E-03 m 3/m 2)Waste Disposal Cost:

$14,550 ($573.87/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$477 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$10 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$52,965 Per NUREG-1727 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-43 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Total Costs:

$374,368 Cost per m 2:$48.59 B.4 Scabbling Remediation Action (Bounding Condition 0.635 cm Concrete)*

Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7704 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

2.0, Operating Engineer, Laborer Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost:

$82.12 Cleaning Rate:

1.86 m 2//h Hours: 4146.4 (7704 m 2/1.858 m 2//h) Mobilization Costs

$7100 Labor Cost:

$340,502 Equipment Costs:

$303,682 ($73.24/hr)*

Waste Generation:

48.9 m 3 = ( 7704 m 2)(6.35E-3 m)

Waste Disposal Cost:

$105,817 ($2,163.04/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$522 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$21 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$60,753 Per NUREG-1727 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-44 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Total Costs:

$818,397 Cost per m 2:$106.23**Bounding condition includes cost for air compressor, consumables at 10% of the base equipment costs and the waste volume of 0.25 inch (0.635 cm) concrete depth.

B.4.a Scabbling Remediation Action (Bounding Condition 0.32 cm Concrete)

• Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7704 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

2.0, Operating Engineer, Laborer Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost:

$82.12 Cleaning Rate:

1.86 m 2//h Hours: 4,146.4 [( 7704 m 2/1.858 m 2//h)Mobilization Costs

$7100 Labor Cost:

$340,502 Equipment Cost:

$243,062 ($58.62/hr)

Waste Generation:

24.5 m 3 = ( 7704 m 2)(3.18E-3 m)

Waste Disposal Cost:

$52,908 ($2163.04/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$522 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$10 Per NUREG-1727 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-45 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Worker Dose:

$60,753 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$704,858 Cost per m 2:$91.49*Bo unding condition uses: (1) base equipment cost , (2) assumes an on-site air compressor,l(3) no added consumables, and (4) the waste volume is relative to 0.125 inches (0.35 cm) ldepth of concrete, i.e., one-half of that assumed in B.4.

lB.5 Grit Blasting (Embedded/Buried Piping) Remediation Action Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

6,158 linear feet (LF)

Primary Crew Size:

3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Technician Hourly Cost:

$117.12 Cleaning Rate:

1 LF/minute Hours: 1026.3 [(49,344 linear ft/60min per hr = (821 h)(1.25)]

Mobilization Costs

$4,000 Labor Cost:

$120,204 Equipment Costs:

$123,311 Waste Generation:

9.6 m 3 = (49,344 linear feet x1.96E-04 m 3/lf at ~ 1.0 lb. per linear foot

)

MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-46 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Waste Disposal Cost:

$20,850 ($ 2163.04/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$129 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$4 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$14,369 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$282,867 Cost per linear foot:

$45.93 B.6 Grit Blasting (Surfaces) Remediation Action (Bounding Condition 1.25 Contingency)

Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7,704 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP

Technician Hourly Cost:

$122.12 Cleaning Rate:

2.79 m 2/hr Hours: 3796.8 {[(7704/2.8 m 2/h) +((7704/2.8 m 2/h)*(0.1 set up)]}* 1.25 contingency Mobilization Costs

$6,500 Labor Cost:

$463,662 Equipment Costs:

$196,977 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-47 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Grit/Consumables

$69,032 Waste Generation:

36.8 m 3 = (7704 x 3.0E-03 m +

13.7m 2 for grit)Waste Disposal Cost:

$79,626 ($2163.04/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$478 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$16 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$55,630 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$871,921 Cost per m 2$113.18 B.6a Grit Blasting (Surfaces) Remediation Action (Bounding Condition, No Contingency

)Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

7,704 m 2 Primary Crew Size:

3.0, Operating Engineer, 1; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP

Technician Hourly Cost:

$122.12 Cleaning Rate:

2.79 m 2/hr Hours: 2761.3 (7704/2.79 m 2)Mobilization Costs

$6,500 MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-48 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Labor Cost:

$337,209 Equipment Costs:

$143,256 Grit/Consumables

$69,032 Waste Generation:

36.8 m 3 = (7704 x 3.0E-03 m +

13.7m 2 for grit)Waste Disposal Cost:

$79,626 ($ 2163.04/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$348 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$16 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$40,458 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$676,445 Cost per m 2:$87.80 B.7 Soil Excavation Remediation Action Area Evaluated For Unit Cost Determination:

1403.1 m 3 ( 49,550 ft 3)Primary Crew Size:

4.0, Operating Engineers, 2; Laborers, 2 Support Personnel:

4.0, Superintendent, Resident and Schedule Engineers, and HP Hourly Cost:

$157.12 Cleaning Rate:

3.06 m 3/h MYAPC License Termination Plan Page 4-49 Revision 2 August 13, 2001 Hours: 917.1 [(1403.1 m 3/3.06m 3/h)(2.0 contingency for restaging and articulation)]

Mobilization Costs

$700 Labor Cost:

$144,172 Equipment Costs:

$71,228 (consumables $9,291)

Waste Generation:

1403.1 m 3 ( 49,550 ft 3/35.315 ft 3/m 3)Waste Disposal Cost:

$2,356,596 ($1,679.58/m 3)Worker Accident Cost:

$58 Per NUREG-1727 Transportation Accident Cost:

$453 Per NUREG-1727 Worker Dose:

$3,670 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$2,576,878 Cost per m 3:$1,836.58 Note: Remediation of an area of 10 4 m 2 to a depth of .15 m results in a total soil volume of 1500 m

3. The above remediation activity represents 94 percent of that volume.