4 Maine Yankee - NRC: Home Page · S038 0.129 0.182 229 323 S039 0.126 0.178 224 316 S040 0.118...

- 4

Maine Yankee321 OLD FERRY RD. * WISCASSET, ME 04578-4922

July 6, 2005MN-05-033 RA-05-036

Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 29

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONAttention: Document Control DeskWashington, DC 20555

References:

Subject:

(1) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)(2) Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-020, dated March 15, 2004,

License Amendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, ProposedChange No. 218

(3) Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-028, dated May 25, 2005,Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 10, ProposedChange No. 218, Supplement 26-

(4) Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-03 1, dated June 20, 2005,Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 10A, ProposedChange No. 218, Supplement 27

(5) USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee, dated June 30, 2005 Request forAdditional Information (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS)Supplement No. 10 and 1 OA

Response to NRC RAI on FSS Final Report Nos. 10 and 10A

On March 15, 2004, Maine Yankee submitted a request for amendment (Reference No. 2) to thefacility operating license (Reference No. 1) pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 and in accordance with theNRC Approved License Termination Plan (LTP) for Maine Yankee, to indicate NRC's approvalof the release of the Non-ISFSI site land from the jurisdiction of the license. In support of thatrequest, Maine Yankee supplied the information required in LTP section 1.4.2 and 5.9.3. Theland area associated with the license amendment request included the entire non-ISFSI portion ofthe site land. The dismantlement and survey information for the survey units is being submitted tothe NRC in FSS Final Reports.

In Reference Nos. 3 and 4, Maine Yankee submitted FSS Final Report Nos. 10 and 1OA,respectively. In Reference No. 4, USNRC requested additional information on technicalinformation submitted in FSS Final Report Nos. 10 and 10A. This additional information isprovided in an attachment to this letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

*9'/a4Michael A. WhitneySr. Licensing Engineer ab5D \

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONAttention: Document Control Desk of 2

Attachment: Maine Yankee Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI)Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report Nos. 10 and I OA

cc: Mr. D. R. Lewis, Esq., Shaw PittmanMr. C. Pray, State of Maine, Nuclear Safety AdvisorMr. P. J. Dostie, State of Maine, Division of Health EngineeringMr. D. Gillen, NRC Director, Division of Waste ManagementMr. M. Rosenstein, USEPA Region IMr. S. J. Collins, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IMr. J. Buckley, NRC NMSS Project Manager, DecommissioningMr. M. Roberts, NRC Region IMr. R. Shadis, Friends of the Coast

ATTACHMENTMaine Yankee Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding

Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report Nos. 10 and 10A

SUPPLEMENT 10

FR-2900 SU 2 Railroad Tracks and Roadways

NRC RAI No. 1 - FSS Final Report No. 10, Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4

FR-2900 Railroad Tracks and Roadways, Section 5.1.4, Attachment I states, "Following the FSSof the survey unit area reported here, standard controls and procedures were implementedincluding the provisionsfor access control, postings, and routine surveys. Subsequently, wastewas relocatedfrom the Restricted Area to a temporary storage location at the Independent SpentFuel Storage Installation ISFSI .. However, as an additional conservatism, a verification surveywill be performed along the vehicle travel path ."

It appears that radioactive material was transported over the survey unit after the final statussurvey (FSS) was completed Performance of the FSSprior to completing decommissioningactivities is inconsistent with License Termination Plan (LTP) Section 5.1.2 (a). Please clarifywhether radioactive waste materials were or will be transported over the area after completionof the FSSs. If waste was transported over previously FSSed survey units, please provide theverification survey data.

Maine Yankee Response:

Contaminated soil which was stored in the Industrial Area was transported to a storage areawithin the ISFSI boundary to facilitate the remediation and survey of the remaining soil surveyunits within the Industrial Area. This transfer required the soil to be transported in trucks overthe roadway that had been FSS surveyed as part of FR-2900 Survey Unit No. 2. This soiltransfer was conducted in a manner which minimized the potential spread of contaminationincluding the loading of each truck such that the soil was well contained in the truck and the freerelease survey of the truck tires. Finally, verification surveys were conducted following thecompletion of transfer activities.

LTP Section 5.1.2 (a) had provision for this kind of contingency which was allowed to beperformed when authorized by the FSS Superintendent. Similarly, LTP Section 5.11.4 allowedfor the evaluation of decommissioning activities which create a potential for the spread ofcontamination to FSS areas. This LTP section called for verification surveys to be conductedbased on the potential for recontamination as determined by the FSS Superintendent.Accordingly, as described in the referenced release record, verification surveys were performedalong the vehicle travel path. Approximately 100% of the vehicle travel path was surveyed withISOCS measurements configured in the same manner as the FSS measurements. The ISOCSresults are provided in Table I for the measurement locations shown in Appendix A. It should benoted that none of these results were above MDA. Thus, the table provides the MDA's. Inaddition, paved areas and adjacent shoulders along the vehicle travel path were scanned withSPA-3. The resulting survey maps are provided in Appendix B.

Page 1


Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report Nos. 10 and 1OA

Table IVerification Survey Summary

FR-2900 SU 2 RoadsLocation Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g Co-60 dpm/lOOcm2 Cs-137 dpm/lO0cm2

Sool 0.100 0.145 178 258S002 0.131 0.180 233 320S003 0.130 0.189 231 336S004 0.129 0.174 229 309S005 0.135 0.185 240 329S006 0.128 0.184 227 327S007 0.126 0.181 224 321S008 0.125 0.188 222 334S009 0.135 0.177 240 314solo 0.130 0.184 231 327Sol 0.122 0.182 217 323S012 0.131 0.184 233 327S013 0.129 0.190 229 337S014 0.120 0.189 213 336S015 0.123 0.179 218 318S016 0.127 0.194 226 345S017 0.128 0.179 227 318S018 0.115 0.184 204 327S019 0.125 0.187 222 332S020 0.135 0.184 240 327S021 0.124 0.177 220 314S022 0.125 0.192 222 341S023 0.127 0.177 226 314S024 0.126 0.185 224 329S025 0.131 0.183 233 325S026 0.131 0.182 233 323S027 0.133 0.176 236 313s028 0.127 0.182 226 323S029 0.139 0.182 247 323S030 0.127 0.180 226 320S031 0.130 0.186 231 330S032 0.131 0.180 233 320s033 0.127 0.179 226 318S034 0.130 0.179 231 318S035 0.122 0.189 217 336s036 0.131 0.181 233 321S037 0.119 0.182 211 323S038 0.129 0.182 229 323S039 0.126 0.178 224 316S040 0.118 0.187 210 332S041 0.125 0.183 222 325S042 0.130 0.184 231 327

Page 2




FR-2900 SU 2 Roads

Location Co-60 pCilg Cs-137 pCilg Co-60 dpm/100cm' Cs-137 dpm/lOOcm2

S043 0.130 0.186 231 330S044 0.122 0.181 217 321S045 0.125 0.176 222 313S046 0.131 0.185 233 329S047 0.134 0.188 238 334S048 0.125 0.176 222 313S049 0.128 0.188 227 334S050 0.123 0.184 218 327S051 0.127 0.182 226 323S052 0.129 0.181 229 321S053 0.119 0.186 211 330S054 0.121 0.180 215 320S055 0.135 0.177 240 314S056 0.120 0.179 213 318S057 0.137 0.178 243 316S058 0.126 0.174 224 309S059 0.129 0.180 229 320S060 0.132 0.181 234 321S061 0.130 0.190 231 337S062 0.122 0.177 217 314S063 0.123 0.192 218 341S064 0.130 0.182 231 323S065 0.122 0.185 217 329S066 0.128 0.178 227 316S067 0.131 0.177 233 314S068 0.127 0.182 226 323S069 0.129 0.182 229 323S070 0.130 0.189 231 336S071 0.122 0.181 217 321S072 0.126 0.179 224 318S073 0.122 0.186 217 330S074 0.119 0.180 211 320S075 0.127 0.183 226 325S076 0.124 0.165 220 293S077 0.138 0.176 245 313S078 0.126 0.184 224 327S079 0.129 0.191 229 339S080 0.133 0.177 236 314SOBI 0.137 0.183 243 325S082 0.127 0.179 226 318S083 0.118 0.189 210 336S084 0.126 0.187 224 332

Page 3




FR-2900 SU 2 Roads

Location Co-60 pCilg Cs-137 pCilg Co-60 dpm/lOOcm | Cs-137 dpmlOOcm2

S085 0.126 0.175 224 311S086 0.126 0.182 224 323S087 0.128 0.171 227 304S088 0.130 0.183 231 325S089 0.122 0.171 217 304S090 0.132 0.177 234 314S091 0.079 0.121 140 215S092 0.116 0.164 206 291S093 0.078 0.114 139 202S094 0.074 0.118 131 210S095 0.066 0.116 117 206S096 0.076 0.112 135 199S097 0.063 0.114 112 202S098 0.072 .0.114 128 202S099 0.075 0.118 133 210S100 0.071 0.118 126 210SIOI 0.073 0.114 130 202S102 0.068 0.120 121 213

S103 0.073 0.110 130 195

S104 0.083 0.109 147 194

S105 0.075 0.116 133 206

S106 0.070 0.117 -_124 208

S107 0.069 0.114 123 202

S108 0.078 0.117 139 208

slog 0.075 0.106 133 188Silo 0.073 0.115 130 204

Sill 0.071 0.118 126 210S112 0.078 0.111 139 197S113 0.070 0.111 124 197S114 0.068 0.113 - 121 201S115 0.076 0.116 135 206S116 0.076 0.120 135 213S117 0.069 0.114 123 202S18 0.083 0.114 147 202S119 0.077 0.114 137 202S120 0.074 0.111 131 197S121 0.073 0.112 130 199S122 0.070 0.119 124 211S123 0.076 0.111 135 197S124 0.077 0.110 137 195Mean .. 0.113 1 0.164 200 290n

Page 4



NRC RAI No. 2

FSS was performed with I m In Situ Object Counting System (ISOCS) measurements (with afieldof view of 78.5 m2) which is inconsistent with the LTP Section 6.7.2 requirement for a DerivedConcentration Guideline Limit expressed as dpm/i OOcm 2 gross beta. Please justify the use ofISOCS in meeting the LTP requirement to perform beta FSSs.


As described in Reference No. 69, the LTP clearly allows the surface DCGL specified in grossdetectable beta to be measured by gamma spectroscopy. The LTP clearly stated in section 5.5.1 .athat volumetric measurements could be used in the place of gross beta measurements."Volumetric concrete samples will be analyzed by gamma spectroscopy" and will be evaluated"by using the radionuclide specific results to derive the surface activity equivalent and determinecompliance using the unity rule." Furthermore, LTP section 5.5.l.d, Pavement-Covered Areasstates that "the DCGL applied to these areas will be equal to the buried piping DCGL" and that"scan and static gamma and beta-gamma surveys are made as determined by the survey unitdesign." Additional justification for the use of gamma measurement and ISOCS, was discussedin Reference No. 69.

The use of the detector in the uncollimated configuration versus the 90 degree collimatedconfiguration increases the likelihood that the detector will be responsive to photons at themargin of its field of view in order to make the scan survey as sensitive as possible. Placing thedetector within I m of the surface decreases the detector MDC. The MDC for the road (FR-2900SU 2) was approximately 1470 dpm/100 cm2.

It is important to note that the FR2900 surveys were Class 3 surveys and as such require I to10% scan coverage. Nonetheless, over 60% of the Survey Unit No. 2 area was scanned withISOCS. As a Class 3 survey, the sensitivity for scanning is not tied to the area between the staticmeasurement locations as they are in a Class 1 area, but rather represents the best reasonableeffort. Nonetheless, while the FR2900 ISOCS measurement field of view was 78.5 m2 as a resultof no collimation, the source to detector distance was 1 m versus the 3m source to detectordistance for the Class I land surveys with the 90 degree collimator. In addition, the measurementarray was designed to provide overlapping field of views (10 meter FOV taken on a 7 metercenter-to-center distance). Finally, the MDC's achieved with this configuration were similar toor better than the MDC's achieved for the Class I land surveys while utilizing the sameinvestigation levels (except that any positive detect for Co-60 would have been investigated).

Page 5


Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report Nos. 10 and I1A

SUPPLEMENT 10A

FR-2900 SU3 Roads/Railroads

NRC RAI No. 1 - FSS Final Report No. 10A, Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4 & Release RecordFR-2900 SU3 Roads/Railroads, Section A

Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4, and Section A of the FSS Report (FSSR), indicate that the railroadwas used to transfer radioactive waste from demolition activities after the FSS activities hadbeen completed, and that verification surveys will be performed. Performance of the FSSpriorto completing decommissioning activities is inconsistent with LTP Section 5.1.2 (a). Pleaseclarify whether radioactive waste materials were or will be transported over the area aftercompletion of the FSSs. If waste was transported over areas that were previouslyfinal statussurveyed, please provide the verification survey data.


During the final stages of the remediation of the remaining soil survey units within the IndustrialArea, contaminated soil was transported to a storage area within the ISFSI boundary fortemporary storage pending disposal at a licensed facility offsite. This transfer required the soilto be transported in rail cars over railways that had been FSS surveyed as part of FR-2900 SurveyUnit No. 3. This soil transfer was conducted in a manner which minimized the potential spreadof contamination including the loading of each railcar such that the soil was well containedwithin the railcar and the railcars surveyed for loose contamination. Finally, verification surveysof the rail travel path were conducted following the completion of transfer activities.

LTP Section 5.1.2 (a) had provision for this kind of contingency which was allowed to beperformed when authorized by the FSS Superintendent. Similarly, LTP Section 5.11.4 allowedfor the evaluation of decommissioning activities which create a potential for the spread ofcontamination to FSS areas. This LTP section called for verification surveys to be conductedbased on the potential for recontamination as determined by the FSS Superintendent.Accordingly, as described in the referenced release record, verifications surveys were performedalong rail travel path. Approximately 100% of the rail travel path from the Industrial Area to theISFSI was surveyed with ISOCS measurements configured in the same manner as the FSSmeasurements. . A significant portion of the rail north of the ISFS1 by the ball field was alsosurveyed with ISOCS measurements. This area was typically used to stage railcars for shipment.The ISOCS results are provided below in Table 2 for the measurement locations shown inAppendix C. It should be noted that only one of these results was above MDA; this indicated bya bold font (S004, Cs-137). Thus, for the remaining results, the table provides the MDA's.These results are consistent with the original FSS results that demonstrated that prior shipping ofcontaminated material had no measurable radiological impact on the rails.

Page 6



Table 2Verification Survey Summary

FR-2900 SU 3 Rails

Location Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g

SOO0 0.072 0.113S002 0.070 0.066S003 0.067 0.078S004 0.069 0.100S005 0.073 0.064S006 0.073 0.115S007 0.125 0.200S008 0.138 0.200S009 0.136 0.203Solo 0.140 0.193SO1l1 0.074 0.111S012 0.071 0.074S013 0.064 0.097S014 0.067 0.099S015 0.068 0.103S016 0.119 0.185S017 0.117 0.165S018 0.126 0.182S019 0.125 0.181S020 0.126 0.174S021 0.121 0.167S022 0.108 0.163S023 0.106 0.170S024 0.111 0.171S025 0.121 0.099S026 0.117 0.163S027 0.111 0.170S028 0.117 0.171S029 0.130 0.168S030 0.111 0.171S031 0.130 0.153S032 0.120 0.165S033 0.114 0.162S034 0.106 0.144S035 0.121 0.161S036 0.111 0.163

S037 0.114 0.155S038 0.121 0.164S039 0.110 0.168

S040 0.113 0.162S041 0.102 0.170

Page 7

ATTACHMENTMaine Yankee Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAT) Regarding


Table 2Verification Survey Summarv

FR-2900 SU 3 Rails

Location Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g

S042 0.112 0.161S043 0.118 0.184S044 0.127 0.178S045 0.115 0.175S046 0.121 0.188S047 0.116 0.178S048 0.126 0.183S049 0.127 0.167S050 0.122 0.180S051 0.129 0.181S052 0.128 0.176S053 0.103 0.158S054 0.106 0.083S055 0.101 0.152S056 0.104 0.154S057 0.098 0.152S058 0.098 0.151S059 0.100 0.145S060 0.100 0.152S061 0.112 0.145S062 0.103 0.150S063 0.096 0.160S064 0.115 0.156S065 0.108 0.152S066 0.098 0.153S067 0.098 0.148S068 0.104 0.154S069 0.108 0.151S070 0.104 0.149S071 0.093 0.144S072 0.100 0.144S073 0.115 0.149S074 0.088 0.145S075 0.106 0.154S076 0.107 0.152S077 0.088 0.155S078 0.100 0.161S079 0.106 0.143S080 0.101 0.156S081 0.112 0.162S082 0.100 0.083

Page 8


Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report Nos. 10 and IOA

Table 2Verification Survey Summary

FR-2900 SU 3 Rails

Location Co-60 pCilg Cs-137 pCi/g

S083 0.117 0.159S084 0.111 0.167SO85 0.105 0.164S086 0.108 0.164S087 0.116 0.161S088 0.105 0.162S089 0.108 0.162S090 0.101 0.080Mean 0.107 0.152

NRC RAI No. 2 - FSS Final Report No. IA, Attachment 1, Section 4.2.4

In Attachment 1, Section 4.2.4, it is stated that a dead man rail device has been installed at thesouthern end of the rail. Will the device be under the administrative (Lock out / Tag out) controlof the ISFSI manager?


While this device is not under that "Lock out / Tag out" procedure, administrative controls havebeen instituted to control the release of equipment and rail cars out of the ISFSI storage pilerestricted area. Equipment exiting the restricted area storage pile will require surveys appropriatefor unconditional release. Railcars will require release surveys as required by the shippingprocedure and will be surveyed for loose contamination prior to exiting the restricted area. Thedebris in the loaded railcars will be covered and/or put into burrito bags prior to exiting eitherend of the restricted area. Routine direct contamination surveys of the storage pile perimeter willbe performed to ensure that contamination has not migrated outside of the restricted area. Thesecontrols have been conveyed to all loading personnel by means of read and sign.

NRC RAI No. 3 - Release Record FR-2900 SU3 Roads/Railroads, Section B

In Section B, it is stated that ISOCS scans were performed with fields of view of 78.5 m2 and anopen collimation configuration with a broaderfield of view (10 m2 ). In the April 19, 2005,meeting, Maine Yankee stated that it had an agreement with the State of Maine not to performJSOCs scans with fields of view greater than 28 m2

. Scans with fields of view greater than 28.5m are inconsistent with Maine Yankee EC-003-04 justification for the detection capabilities onthe scan margins. Please justify using afield of view of 78.5 M 2 given MYEC-003-04 is basedon a maximum field ofview of28 mi2for these soil areas.

Page 9




The use of the detector in the uncollimated configuration versus the 90 degree collimationconfiguration increases the likelihood that the detector will be responsive to photons at themargin of its field of view in order to make the scan survey as sensitive as possible. Placing thedetector within 1 m of the surface decreases the detector MDC. The MDC for the rails (FR-2900SU 3) was approximately 0.42 pCi/g (2200 dpm/100 cm2 equivalent) for Cs-l37 and 0.15 pCi/g(800 dpm/100 cm' equivalent) for Co-60.

It is important to note that the FR2900 surveys were Class 3 surveys and as such require 1 to10% scan coverage. Nonetheless, approximately 100% of the Survey Unit No. 3 area wasscanned with ISOCS. As a Class 3 survey, the sensitivity for scanning is not tied to the areabetween the static measurement locations as they are in a Class I area, but rather represents thebest reasonable effort. Nonetheless, while the FR2900 ISOCS measurement field of view was78.5 mi as a result of no collimation, the source to detector distance was 1 m versus the 3msource to detector distance for the Class 1 land surveys with the 90 degree collimator. Inaddition, the measurement array was designed to provide overlapping field of views (10 meterFOV taken on a 7 meter center-to-center distance). The was more than adequate coverage inview of the fact that the width of the rail survey unit was 6 meters. Finally, the MDC's achievedwith this configuration were similar to or better than the MDC's achieved for the Class 1 landsurveys while utilizing the same investigation levels (except that any positive detect for Co-60would have been investigated).

NRC RAI No. 4

The staff notes that surveys of areas inside the ISFSI land area as described in Maine Yankeeletter of May 16, 2005, will not be approvedfor unrestricted release at this time.


Maine Yankee understands that the surveys of the areas inside the ISFSI land area will not beapproved for unrestricted release at this time. This area was removed from the request for releaseof land by Reference No. 61. The ISOCS measurements which included this land area wereperformed to ensure the survey unit was adequately covered, overlapping ISOCS field of viewsas appropriate.

Page 10



FR-0200 Yard East SU 8

NRC RAI No. 5

Section B, indicates that the survey design criteria is based on a soil DCGL. However, thesurvey unit consists of both soil and buried concrete structures. ISOCs scans were performed onconcrete trenches and soil. This approach appears to be inconsistent with the LTPfor surveyingconcrete structures. Please justi fthe use of a soil DCGL for the buried concrete trenches.

In LTP Section 6. 7.2, the DCGL for buried concrete is given as 9800 dpm/J00 cm2 based ongross beta measurements in dpmnz100 cm. Please justif the use of the ISOCS in meeting theLTP requirement to perform beta FSSs.


A decision to treat concrete remnants like soil for the purposes of scan surveys was made becausethe density of the concrete compared to soil is not very different. Scans are typically performedon the irregular exterior surfaces of structures which have been buried since construction or theinterior portions of the concrete which have never been exposed to sources of contamination.Under these conditions, the only effect of the density is its ability to attenuate photons. Thedifference in mass attenuation coefficients of 1.6 to 1.8 g/cm3 soil and 2.0 to 2.2 g/cm3 concreteis approximately 5% for either Cs-137 or Co-60.

As described above and in Reference No. 69, the LTP clearly allows the surface DCGL specifiedin gross detectable beta to be measured by gamma spectroscopy. The LTP clearly stated insection 5.5.1.a that volumetric measurements could be used in the place of gross betameasurements. "Volumetric concrete samples will be analyzed by gamma spectroscopy" andwill be evaluated "by using the radionuclide specific results to derive the surface activityequivalent and determine compliance using the unity rule." However, in this case the concreteremnants were treated like soil for which gamma spectroscopy is applicable.

Page 11



References

1. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-02-048, dated October 15, 2002, Revision 3,Maine Yankee's License Termination Plan

2. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 28, 2003, "Issuance of Amendment No.168 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-36 - Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station -Approval of the MY License Termination Plan"

3. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-020, dated March 15, 2004, LicenseAmendment Request: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, Proposed Change No. 218

4. USNRC Memorandum from John T. Buckley to Claudia M. Craig dated March 23, 2004,Meeting Report for the March 17, 2004, Meeting with Maine Yankee Atomic PowerCompany (Maine Yankee)

5. USNRC Memorandum from John Buckley to Biweekly Notice Coordinator dated May 5,2004, Request for Publication in Biweekly FR Notice - Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-26, Proposed No SignificantHazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing (TAC No. L52090)

6. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-03 1, dated May 6, 2004, Release of Non-ISFSISite Land - FSS Final Report No. 1A, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 1

7. Federal Register Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility OperatingLicenses Involving No Significant Hazards Consideration - Maine Yankee, 69FR29768,dated May 11, 2004

8. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-042, dated July 6, 2004, Maine Yankee LicenseAmendment Request - Release of Non-ISFSI Site Lands

9. USNRC Letter to State of Maine dated July 30, 2004, Response to State of MaineComments on Maine Yankee License Amendment Request - Release of Non-ISFSI SiteLands

10. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-044, dated August 12,2004, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - Resubmittal of FSS Final Report No. 1, Proposed Change No. 218,Supplement 2

11. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated August 18, 2004, Integrated Inspection No.05000309/2004001

12. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated August 18, 2004, Changes to the Maine YankeeAtomic Power Station License Termination Plan Using the 50.59 Process

13. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-047, dated September 2, 2004, LicenseAmendment Request - Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, Proposed Change No. 218,Supplement 3

14. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-048, dated September 7,2004, Reply to NRCLetters Re: Changes to Maine Yankee LTP Using 50.59 Process

15. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated October 14, 2004, Meeting Report for theSeptember 9,2004, Meeting with Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MaineYankee)

16. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-049, dated September 15,2004, Release ofNon-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 2, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 4

Page 12



17. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated September 24, 2004, Request for AdditionalInformation Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report No. IA.

18. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-052, dated October 12, 2004, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 3, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 5

19. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-053, dated October 14, 2004, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - Addendum to FSS Final Report No. 1, Proposed Change No. 218,Supplement 6

20. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated November 4, 2004, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement Nos. I and 3

21. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-056, dated November 17, 2004, Release ofNon-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 4, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 7

22. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated November 17, 2004, Maine Yankee - NRCInspection Report NO. 05000309/2004001 and NRC Office of Investigations Report No.1-2004-001

23. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated November 22, 2004, Correction to NRC Letter toMaine Yankee, dated November 17, 2004.

24. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated November 30, 2004, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 2

25. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated November 30, 2004, Receipt of Final StatusSurvey (FSS) Supplement No. 4.

26. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-058, dated December 7, 2004, Response toNRC RAI's on FSS Report Nos. I and 3, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 8

27. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-059, dated December 7,2004, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 5, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 9

28. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-060, dated December 22, 2004, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 6, Proposed Change No 218, Supplement 10

29. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-04-061, dated December 23, 2004, Response toNRC RAI's on FSS Report No. 2, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 11

30. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated December 29, 2004, Receipt of Maine YankeeFinal Status Survey Report Supplements 5 and 6

31. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated January 5, 2005, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 4

32. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated January 7, 2005, Receipt of Maine Yankee'sResponse to Request for Information on Final Status Survey Report Supplements 1 and 3

33. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated January 19, 2005, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 2

34. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-001, dated January 20, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 7, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 12

35. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-002, dated January 26,2005, Technical BasisDocument for NRC Review: Exploranium GR-130 Minimum Detectable Concentration(MDC) of Cs-137 and Co-60 in Surface Soil - 30 Day Notice per LTP Requirement

36. Maine Yankee Letter to the NRC, MN-05-003, dated January 26, 2005, AreaClassification Change: Storm Drains (D3500) - Section 7

Page 13



37. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-004, dated January 27,2005, Response to NRCRAI on FSS Report No. 4, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 13

38. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated January 27, 2005, Receipt of Maine Yankee FinalReport Supplement 7

39. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 9, 2005, Response to Area ClassificationChange: Storm Drains (D3500)

40. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-006, dated February 16, 2005, Response toNRC RAI's on FSS Final Report Nos. 1 and 2, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 14

41. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-007, dated February 17, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 8, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 15

42. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-008, dated February 23, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSI Land - FSS Final Report No. 8 - Attachment I, Figure 1 and 2 and Attachment IIHeader Page, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 16

43. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-009, dated February 23, 2005, Response toNRC Comments on Maine Yankee Area Classification Change: Storm Drains (D3500) -Section 7

44. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 23, 2005, Receipt of Maine YankeeResponses to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Supplements 1 and 2 andFinal Status Survey Report Supplement 8

45. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated February 24, 2005, Acceptance of Maine YankeeTechnical Basis Document for the Limited Use of the Exploranium GR-130 Instrument

46. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated March 2, 2005 ', Approval of Final Status SurveySupplement No. 4

47. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated March 13, 2005, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 5

48. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated March 21, 2005, Storm Drain Area Survey UnitClassification Change

49. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated March 28,2005, Review of Maine YankeeResponse to NRC RAI"s on FSS Report Nos. 1 and 2

50. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-015, dated April 7, 2005, Response to NRCRAI on FSS Final Report No. 5, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 17

51. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-016, dated April 7, 2005, Release of Non-JSFSISite Land - FSS Final Report No. 9, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 18

52. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated April 7, 2005, Request for Additional Information(RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 6

53. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-017, dated April 13, 2005, Response to NRCRAI of FSS Final Report Nos. 1 and 2, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 19

54. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated April 15, 2005, Request for AdditionalInformation (RAI) Regarding Final Status Survey (FSS) Supplement No. 7

55. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated May 3, 2005, Meeting Report for the April 19,2005, Meeting with Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee)

1 This letter was erroneously dated "March 2, 2003" and should have been "March 2, 2005"

Page 14



56. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-019, dated May 5, 2005, Response to NRC RAIon FSS Final Report No. 6, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 20

57. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-020, dated May 5, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSISite Land - FSS Final Report No. 9A, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 21

58. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-23, dated May 10, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSISite Land - FSS Final Report Nos. 1 and 2 - Resolution, Proposed Change No. 218,Supplement 22

59. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated May 12, 2005, Approval of Final Status SurveySupplement Nos 8. and 9

60. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-024, dated May 16,2005, Response to NRCRAI on FSS Final Report No. 7, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 23

61. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-025, dated May 16, 2005, License AmendmentRequest: Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 24

62. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-026, dated May 17, 2005, ConditionalAcceptance of FSS Final Reports,-Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 25

63. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-028, dated May 25, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 10, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 26

64. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-031, dated June 20, 2005, Release of Non-ISFSI Site Land - FSS Final Report No. 1 OA, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 27

65. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated June 23, 2005, Request for Additional InformationRegarding Maine Yankee Final Status Survey Report Supplement 9A

66. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-03-051, dated September 3, 2003, Technical BasisDocument for NRC Review: Forebay FSS Survey Measurement Methods (In situ gammaSpectroscopy) - 30 Day Notice per LTP Requirement

67. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated September 30, 2003, Comments on Forebay FSSSurvey Measurement Methods (In Situ Gamma Spectroscopy)

68. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-03-067, dated October 21, 2003, Maine YankeeResponse to NRC and State of Maine Comments on the Technical Basis Document forNRC Review: Forebay FSS Survey Measurement Methods (In situ gamma Spectroscopy)

69. Maine Yankee Letter to USNRC, MN-05-032, dated June 28,2005, Response to NRCRAI on FSS Final Report No. 9A, Proposed Change No. 218, Supplement 28

70. USNRC Letter to Maine Yankee dated June 30, 2005, Request for Additional InformationRegarding Maine Yankee Final Status Survey Report Supplements 10 and 1 OA

Page 15



APPENDIX A

Information Associated with NRC RAI Regarding

SUPPLEMENT 10



Measurement Locations for ISOCS Results Presented in Table 1

DecoMnaissonnge nkTeam Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID# VR2900-SITE

SurveyType: [ Characterization [ Tumover * Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Roads (Verification Survey)

BAILEY COVE

If

GRAPHIC SCALE (ft):o50oo 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Maine Yankee IDecomrmissioning Team | Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Map Map ID# VR2900-SCAN

SurveyType: [] Characterization L Turnover * Final Status Survey SurveyArea Name: Roads (Verification Survey)

S039 03 8

8S0 4 0

5043 k iS 4 2

~0i Sooi° RO 002

S003'A 004

50076O So' 00o

@°S~~~ SB /'BSO

9) S012S0113OG + + 9S S010|t

S +< /S014S015

S017 / 016++ 6 SO018S / 'r &/ S020192

6101> X S020A A/Sob / S021 X

S901i X7S S022>A o / S0230SQ76 X~s S024

S025S077 .k -X S026

-2 /7m 5 027 XS028kI07 7 3.5m S029

x8i / 7m S0310 S082 ; X 0 SQ32

S083~ X sS085 X so 084 S0S03g 34S085 Roadway S035 0

so > (Scan Points approxmately SS036S0o4 centered in each lane) S0 3

5089 x3N SO9p ..

S091 x n0 C LO Io) C M LO o D - c

so o)C DCS093 ( 9I CO CO n co n cO U n Lo CO CO CO cO co (axa E x s x : )¢ )B 3< )E Bt x x )E xE )gO R O ' x x x x E Ex x E: 0 3¢ x .NON 0 ) rn . _ EN Nn A A N N> N^ _ N AA

%.J %14 1 wL %.L C; CN "T C GU %.J ;L 4

ai CD) CD) U) CD) CO Ci) C) CIr C, U C4



APPENDIX B


SUPPLEMENT 10



SPA-3 Gamma Scan Survey Map showing the Results for Paved Areas & AdjacentShoulders of Vehicle Travel Path

Maine Yankee MANYAKEGNRLSRERCODOMRELIA6LE ELECTRICITY SINCE 1972

Map#:MSC-O1 Date: Time: Reactor Pwr % Tech File Number. RWPs Used: Dose Received:Revision#: 00 I (PI i-a S / Y 0 N/A 19.200.40.1 1 N/A mR

Surv9yor Name (Printed) Survyyor N ignature) Location/Job Description:

S.C4 . I **I= 41, RA Soil to ISFSI Travel Path'Required R.P. eview Date 2 Required ALARA Supervisor Review! Date REASON FOR SURVEY•4. L L/,I I N/A El ROUTINE' El JOB-COVERAGE' FSSZ!z3~! 66 - 0El SHIELDING' 2 * OTHER, (Specify): Verfication

INSTR ______ NSTRUMENTS USED CONTAMINATION RESULTS SYMBOL KEYModde S S.id 5 Ca D- | UDA Li." S Sedl N C.I D- MDA SAMPLE N RESU7TS Contact exposure rates -

O6O I 'A /1 2S. /id& = = _ _ 0 Smear Location- (gSSP 2;aS;3 I1- g OS Atoll * Boundary or barrler -X-X-

401' ; Doserate #C-)00 W4.6 - _ __ Large Area Smear- ~5 5A-3 2( _;_ __ -_ 9'_ /_ 0 Air Sample IAS

4'/, /9 _ _ / Sample Continuation Sheet Used? E Yes

_S~jA - SC &.-, _~r foF- ?ocJ

OF- L( 4. S~4.PF -RA1b4- nain

.� //,& Pi)

P~o Areas o~ elev&&{e ac*W(/-> jewn,i ~ed'W.

Maine Yankee I MAINE YANKEE GENERAL SURVEY RECORD FORMMap#:MSC-001 Date: Time: Reactor Pwr %: Tech File Number: I RWPs Used: Dose Received:

Revisiont 00 6/22/05 Day Shift N/A 19.200.40.1 N/A mR

Surveyor Name (Printed) I Surveyor LocationtJob Description:Lee Reid Jack Sprucinski . Soil to ISFSI Travel PathSteve Calinanr'Required R.P. Review I ate / f 7 Required ALARA Supervisor Review! Date REASON FOR SURVEY

N/A El ROUTINE' 0 JOB-COVERAGE' FSSRobert Tozzie I SHIELDING' I OTHER' (Specify): Verrication

INSTRUMENTS USE INSTRUMENTS USED CONTAMINATION RESULTS SYMBOL KEY&o.I 8 SeAM U Cal r, J MOA 3.odl 8 Selils . Cal Dr urDA SAMPLE U RESULS * Conbd exposure rates -

E600 2491 10/7/05 N/A SSPA-3 725329 11/24/05 N/A IL / Smear Location- i)

E600 2490 10/13105 N/A SSPA-3 726557 12/9/05 N/A / Boundary or barrier- -X-X-

E600 1929 11/25/05 N/A SSPA-3 2253 11/9/05 N/A 0 Dose rate _

* Large Area Smear -

GR-130 9955 3/21(06 N/A __\__ 0 Air Sample

NA Sample Continuation Sheet Used? [j Yes

Performed SSPA-3 scan of asphalt androad sides. Background varied acrosssurvey area and increased as theISFSI was approached (as shown onmap).

Several areas appeared to show 1 to 2Kcpm greater than generalbackground. These areas weremarked for further evaluation.

Marked areas were evaluated usingthe GR-130. No plant related nuclideswere identified in the GR-130measurements (only naturally occuringnuclides were identified).



APPENDIX C


SUPPLEMENT 10A

FR-2900 SU 3 Roads/Railroads

NRC RAI No. 1 - FSS Final Report No. 10A, Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4 & Release RecordFR-2900 SU3 Roads/Railroads, Section A

Measurement Locations for ISOCS Results Presented in Table 2

Maine Yankee . I Map ID #: VenrfiDecommissioning Team A iane Yankee Decomnilisslonldig Project Survey Form Reference MapSurvey Type: E Characterization l Turnover 1 Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Roads and Rails

xz

IL-4

Ngl I949,

Maine Yankee Map IDC# VLI=HICrADecommissioning Team M Aaine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Forin I South of ISFS1Survey Type: ElCharacterization El Turnover 9 VERIFICATION Survey Area Name: Rails (FR2900 SU3)

0 00 0 >

00 00 0 0

0o0 0 0 0 0 Ij1 0OoI 00 o0 0

7 10 I0' 4 Is

0 k 03'

0 ~0 0 0I0: N Ok1 I

Maine Yankee Map ID #: VERIFIC

Decommissioning Team Aianie Yankee Decommissioninig Project Survey FortI North of ISFSISurvey Type: OCharacterization E Turnover X VERIFICATION I Survey Area Name: Rails (FR2900 SU3)

II'

4.S m

. I. -

Survey unit width 6meterswide centered on tracks.

IIII

4 Maine Yankee - NRC: Home Page · S038 0.129 0.182 229 323 S039 0.126 0.178 224 316 S040 0.118...

Documents

Transcript of 4 Maine Yankee - NRC: Home Page · S038 0.129 0.182 229 323 S039 0.126 0.178 224 316 S040 0.118...