ML011560273

Section 4: Ltp Site Remediation Plan

ML011560273
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	06/01/2001
From:	Williamson T Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co
To:	Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME
References
+sisprbs20060109, -nr, -RFPFR
Download: ML011560273 (53)

Text

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 MAINE YANKEE LTP SECTION 4 SITE REMEDIATION PLAN MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-i 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

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

4-7 4.4.2 Methods for ALARA Evaluation

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

4-8 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-ii 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-1 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-2 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 that, upon impact and MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-3 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-4 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-5 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). The remediation of these 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. Soil remediation will require removal of media to an average depth of approximately 1 meter 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

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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-6 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.

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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-7 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-8 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 As 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.

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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-9 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 Attachment 4B. 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-10 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);

• Work crew size;

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

• Waste volume.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-11 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.

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. B 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-12 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

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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-13 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. Attachment 4B 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-14 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 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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-15 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-16 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 Attachment 4A, 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-17 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-18 ATTACHMENT 4A Calculation of ALARA Residual Radioactivity Levels MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-19 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-20 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-21 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-22 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).

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-23 C WD=Cost for generation and disposal of the waste generated by the action:

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.

DT is distance traveled in km; V 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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-24 C WDose=$2,000 x D R x T: C WDose== is the cost of the remediation worker dose

$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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-25 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-26 N=number of years over which the collective dose will be calculated.

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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-27 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.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.

MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-28 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 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001 Page 4-29 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.

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+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 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+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 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+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 2.314E-02 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 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-555.07E-051.46E-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+009.345E-017.417E-01 Co-572.86E-018.23E-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-606.86E-031.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 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 5.084E+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 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-1346.83E-011.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 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$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+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 2.314E-02 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 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-555.07E-051.46E-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+009.345E-017.417E-01 Co-572.86E-018.23E-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-606.86E-031.97E-07 1.800E+06 3.55E-01 3.796E+01 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 5.084E+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 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-1346.83E-011.97E-05 2.800E+04 5.50E-01 3.137E+03 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$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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-37 ATTACHMENT 4B Unit Cost Values MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-38 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-39 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-40 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.

Labor Costs Manpower costs were acquired from the Stone and Webster Labor and Service Agreement Document 10/21/00 to 12/31/01 and the RSI Billing Rates Schedule 8/23/00 (revised). The

individual cost for the applicable disciplines, e.g., laborer, equipment operator, health physics

technicians, were developed into an hourly crew rate for the task and based on guidance

provided by NUREG 5884 Volumes 1 and 2. It 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-41 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-42 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 Total Costs:

$374,368 Cost per m 2:$48.59 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-43 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 Total Costs:

$818,397 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-44 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 Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-45 Worker Dose:

$60,753 Per NUREG-1727 Total Costs:

$704,858 Cost per m 2:$91.49*Bounding condition uses base equipment costm assumes a on-site air compressor, no added consumables and the waste volume is relative to 0.125 inches (0.35 cm) depth of concrete.

B.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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-46 Waste Generation:

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

)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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-47 Mobilization Costs

$6,500 Labor Cost:

$463,662 Equipment Costs:

$196,977 Grit/Consumables

$69,032 Waste Generation:

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

13.7m 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-48 Hourly Cost:

$122.12 Cleaning Rate:

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

$6,500 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-49 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 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 MYAPC License Termination Plan Revision 1

June 1, 2001Page 4-50 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.