HBL-18-008, Final Status Survey Report for Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station Area (Survey Unit Ool 10-04)

Final Status Survey Report for Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station Area (Survey Unit Ool 10-04)

ML18200A248
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	07/19/2018
From:	Franke J Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
CAC L53153, HBL-18-008
Download: ML18200A248 (114)

Text

Pacific Gas and Efectrfc Company"'

Jon A. Franke P.O. Box 56 Vice President Avila Beach, CA 93424 Power Generation 805.545.4888 E-Mail: Jon.Franke@pge.com July 19, 2018 PG&E Letter HBL-18-008 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-133, License No. DPR-7 Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 Final Status Survey Report for Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station Area (Survey Unit OOL 10-04)

References:

1. PG&E Letter HBL-18-001 , Revision 12 to the Defueled Safety Analysis Report, Revision 2 of the License Termination Plan, and Revisions 34, 35, and 36 to the Humboldt Bay Quality Assurance Plan, dated February 23, 2018 .

2. PG&E Letter HBL-16-008, Request for Partial Release of Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Property from the Part 50 Site, dated November 9, 2016.

3. NRC Letter to PG&E, Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 -

Request for Partial Site Release from Part 50 License (CAC No.

L53153), dated January 5, 2018.

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

On February 23, 2018, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) submitted PG&E Letter HBL-18-001 (Reference 1), which included Revision 2 of the License Termination Plan (LTP). Section 1.2 of the LTP describes a phased decommissioning approach to accomplish site release for unrestricted use and license termination .

The first phase consisted of a partial site release of an area south of King Salmon Avenue. In Reference 2, PG&E submitted a request for the partial site release of this area. Reference 2 included a Final Status Survey (FSS) Report for the survey units within the area proposed to be released. The release was approved by the NRC in Reference 3.

Document Control Desk PG&E Letter HBL-18-008 July 19, 2018 Page 2 In the subsequent phases, PG&E will submit FSS Reports for the remaining survey units as they are completed. Upon completion of FSS reports for all survey units, PG&E will request that the remainder of the site be released from the 10 CFR Part 50 license.

The Enclosure to this letter contains the FSS Report for the Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station (MEPPS) area. The FSS Report demonstrates that the aggregate of the radiological data provides sufficient confidence to ensure that the MEPPS area meets the release criteria in accordance with the HBPP Unit 3 LTP. This is based on a review of the design methodology, surveys, and sample results in reference to the site-specific derived concentration guideline level. The FSS Report concludes that the survey units surveyed and sampled during the FSS should be released from further radiological controls. Therefore, the FSS Report supports the regulatory decision to terminate the 10 CFR Part 50 license for the MEPPS area.

PG&E requests that the NRC review the enclosed information and concur that the area meets the LTP release criteria.

There are no new or revised regulatory commitments (as defined in NEI 99-04) made in this letter.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. William Barley at (707) 444-0856.

on A. Franke Vice President, Power Generation cc: Kriss M. Kennedy, NRC Region IV Administrator John 8. Hickman, NRC Project Manager HBPP Humboldt Distribution

Enclosure PG&E Letter HBL-18-008 Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Final Status Survey Report Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station Area Survey Unit: OOL10-04

RCP FSS- 17 Allac hmcm 7 .2 Rev. 1 Pacific Gas and HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT Electric Company' FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT HBPP-FSS-OOL 10-04 Final Status Survey Report for Survey Unit:

OOL10-04 Report Prepared by: Date: .5/.z-,1/P

~~' CHP - r:S S Enginee r Tech ni cal Review : Date : ~4'f j£ I

Marshall Blake - FSS Engineer Date: 5"fa v/;g--

1 Final Report Approval: Date: 5/2.'!/J

. . P FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL 10-04

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

In accordance with the provisions of the Humboldt Bay License Termination Plan (LTP),

Rev. 0 (Ref. 1), Survey Unit OOL10-04 was Final Status Surveyed (FSS) for phased release from the sites 10CFR50 license. This report was prepared as a stand-alone document to demonstrate that the designated survey unit satisfies the radiological release criteria.

The area under consideration consists of an open land area northeast of King Salmon Avenue (southwest of the New Generation Footprint). The area is approximately 2,244 square meters (m2) in total and is industrialized. Survey Unit OOL10-04 can be described in general as the footprint of the former Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station (MEPPS) and is bordered on the south by survey unit OOL10-15, on the west by Survey Unit OOL10-06, and on the north and east by Survey Unit NFGA-WST. The survey unit was designated as a Class 3 land area per Table 2-3 of the LTP, indicating that the areas were determined to have a low likelihood of having radiological contaminants in excess of the Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs).

The surveys performed included a total of fifteen (15) soil samples. Each of the sample locations selected were based on an approved randomized methodology and the locations were confirmed by a high precision Global Positioning System (GPS). The sampling included two (2) split-samples and one (1) sample recount that were taken for quality assurance purposes. The land area (Survey Unit OOL10-04) was also partially walkover scanned with a gamma sensitive instrument probe. No Quality Assurance (QA) related discrepancies were noted that could impact the overall confidence in the results or conclusions of the FSS.

The survey unit walkover scans results found no elevated locations. The sample analysis results indicated that only naturally-occurring isotopes from the Uranium and Thorium decay series were detected. The maximum hypothetical dose, from all sources, including groundwater, to a future resident farmer was determined to be less than 0.20 mrem/yr.

The report concludes that this survey unit has met the FSS data quality objectives and meets the regulatory release criteria of less than 25 mrem/yr to the average member of the critical group plus ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable).

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 ii

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Executive Summary Table Feature Design Criteria Comment Synopsis of OOL10-04 Survey Unit Land 2,244 m2 Based on AutoCAD Area Based on the HBPP LTP, Classification Class 3 Rev. 0.

Final Status Survey Plan No. HBPP-FSS-OOL10-HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2 04-00 Grid Spacing NA NA for Class 3 areas Per Table 5-1 of the LTP for 7.93 pCi/g(1) Cs-137 soils to achieve 25 mrem/yr DCGL Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)

The LTP requires 1-10% of Scan Survey Area Approximately 25% area coverage for Class 3 Coverage survey units Number of 15 soil samples 14 required per LTP Section Measurements (non-parametric test) 5.3.3.3.1 using Table 5-5 of MARSSIM for relative shift of >3, selected randomly with random start point Min. Value -3.80E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Max. Value 6.01E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Mean 1.03E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Median 1.22E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Std. Dev. 3.27E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 No. of Bias 2 Judgmental locations selected Measurements by FSS Engineer in drainage ditch along south side of access road Note (1)-pico-curies per gram FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 iii

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.............................................................................................. ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Phase 2 Release Area Description ........................................................................ 6 1.2 Survey Unit Designation ...................................................................................... 8 1.3 Survey Unit Description ....................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 HSA Events ................................................................................................. 10 1.3.2 Scoping Surveys.......................................................................................... 10 1.3.3 Characterization .......................................................................................... 10 1.3.4 Remedial Action Surveys and Activities .................................................... 10 2.0 SURVEY UNIT DESIGN INFORMATION ..................................................... 10 2.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) ....................................................................... 10 2.2 DQOs Regarding Nuclide Selection And DCGLs ............................................. 11 2.2.1 Survey Approach/Methods ......................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Number of Samples and Measurements ..................................................... 13 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................ 16 3.1 Sample Measurements Results ........................................................................... 16 3.2 Scan Summary.................................................................................................... 17 4.0 SURVEY UNIT DATA ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 19 4.1 Statistical Evaluations ........................................................................................ 19 4.2 Graphical Evaluations ........................................................................................ 20 4.3 Survey Unit Investigations and Results ............................................................. 20 4.4 Changes in Initial Survey Unit Assumptions ..................................................... 20 5.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE ....................................................................... 20 5.1 Corrective Actions.............................................................................................. 22 5.2 Quality Verification............................................................................................ 23 6.0 ALARA STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 23 7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 23

8.0 REFERENCES

..................................................................................................... 25 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... 26 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 IV

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Overview of Site Phased Release Area Extents............................................ 6 Figure 2 - Aerial Photo of Survey Area HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 .................................. 7 Figure 3 - Photo of backfilled survey unit property facing northwest ........................ 8 Figure 4 - Map of the Phase 2 Release Area .................................................................. 9 Figure 5 - Survey Unit OOL10-04 Footprint Survey Scanned Area ......................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Executive Summary Table .............................................................................................. iii Table 1 - Soil DCGLs and Analysis Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs) ................... 12 Table 2 - Sample Measurement Locations with Associated GPS Coordinates ........ 14 Table 3 - Synopsis of the Survey Design ....................................................................... 15 Table 4 - Summary of Randomly Selected Soil Sample Results ................................ 17 Table 5 - Summary of Biased Soil Sample Results ...................................................... 17 Table 6 - Basic Statistical Quantities ............................................................................ 19 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Survey Plan Attachment 2 Off-Site Laboratory Data Attachment 3 Survey and On Site Laboratory Data Attachment 4 Data Assessment Attachment 5 ALARA Statement Attachment 6 Gamma Spectroscopy Instrumentation Documentation FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 v

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This radiological FSS Report documents the radiological status of a portion of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (i.e., the Site) in Eureka, CA. Presently, the 1000 King Salmon Ave, Eureka, CA site is subject to U.S. NRC Radioactive Materials License No.

DPR-7 (Ref. 2) due to its historical use of licensable quantities of radioactive materials.

The long-term objective of the licensee, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), is to decommission the Site such that it will meet the criteria for unrestricted use as specified in the License Termination Rule at 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E and to terminate NRC Facility Operating License No. DRP-7. The Site has been undergoing phased decommissioning, and this FSS Report documents the final condition of OOL10-04 in preparation for license termination. This report documents the final radiological status of the former MEPPS area of the site, along with other report submittals, serves collectively to demonstrate that the criteria for unrestricted use have been met, and serves to support the regulatory decision to terminate the license.

1.1 PHASED RELEASE AREA DESCRIPTION As described in the LTP, the Phase 2 Area for release consists of all remainder of site land areas that are to the north (site east) of King Salmon Avenue. Figure 1 depicts an aerial overview that indicates the extent of the current Phase 1 and Phase 2 Release Areas of the site. This will be changed in a revision to the LTP to stipulate that when an additional phased release is done the Phased Release Area map will be updated.

Figure 1 - Overview of Site Phased Release Area Extents Photo taken June 2011 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 6 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 The Area includes Survey Unit OOL10-04. In the following figures, Figure 2 is an orthogonal aerial photograph of the area. Figure 3 is a ground level picture of the area after backfill facing to the northwest near the south access road. Figure 4 is a map of the Phase 2 Release area.

Figure 2 - Aerial Photo of Survey Unit HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 OOL10-04 Former MEPPS Area Photo taken 6/26/2012 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 7 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Figure 3 - Photo of backfilled survey unit property facing northwest Photo taken 11/23/2013 1.2 SURVEY UNIT DESIGNATION In accordance with Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) RCP Procedure FSS-1, Survey Unit OOL10-04 is designated as a Class 3 Survey Unit per the HBPP LTP (Ref. 1) and was confirmed by subsequent reviews.

1.3 SURVEY UNIT DESCRIPTION Survey Unit OOL10-04 (former MEPPS area footprint) is approximately 2,244 m2 of surface area. The survey units boundary abuts Survey Units OOL10-06, OOL10-15 and NGFA-WST (See Figure 4). As mentioned in the FSS plan (Attachment 1), the energized transformer yard was deemed inaccessible due to safety concerns. There were no other areas within or beneath the survey unit that were considered inaccessible, such as process piping or building footers.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 8 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Figure 4 - Map of the Phase 2 Release Area FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 9 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 1.3.1 HISTORICAL SITE ASSESSMENT (HSA) EVENTS Within the HSA, there is no mention of plant-related activities occurring within the boundaries of this Survey Unit.

1.3.2 SCOPING SURVEYS Scoping Surveys were not performed in this area based on its assessment as a non-industrialized area.

1.3.3 CHARACTERIZATION Based on a review of the general plant characterization data of the HBPP environs, Cs-137 was the only plant-related radionuclide that was identified consistently in the characterization samples analyzed. Seventy-one (71) samples from previous characterization data were used to provide the characterization data for Survey Area OOL10. The following data was sufficient to support the planning of Survey Unit OOL10-04:

Cs-137 was present in 72% (51 detects) of the characterization samples.

No other Easy to Detect (ETD) nuclides were identified > Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA).

No Hard to Detect (HTD) nuclides were identified in the four samples analyzed.

A more recent (2013) continuing characterization effort collected forty-six (46) randomly located soil samples which were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. All characterization samples tested less than minimum detection levels for Cs-137. No other plant related isotopes were detected.

As a conservative measure the characterization data for OOL10 soils were used to formulate the survey design. An HTD analysis for samples reporting the highest values for plant-related ETD radionuclides (e.g., Cs-137) was not performed as no HTD radionuclides were identified in the four characterization samples analyzed. Based on the low levels of residual radioactivity expected to be present, it is unlikely that any HTD radionuclides, if present, would collectively be identified at levels that were considered significant contributors to dose (i.e., >10% of the release limit).

1.3.4 REMEDIAL ACTION SURVEYS AND ACTIVITIES No remedial actions or surveys are known to have been performed in this Survey Unit.

2.0 SURVEY UNIT DESIGN INFORMATION The survey unit was classified in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-1, Survey Unit Classification (Ref. 3). OOL10-04 was classified as a Class 3 survey unit based on the potential to contain residual radioactive material relative to the DCGLs.

Guidance for preparing FSS plans is provided in Procedure RCP FSS-2, Preparation of Final Status Survey Plans (Ref. 4). The FSS plan uses an integrated sample design that combines scanning surveys with either random or biased sampling.

2.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOS)

FSS design and planning used the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process as described by the LTP, Procedure RCP FSS-2 and the NUREG 1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 10 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (Ref. 5). A summary of the main features of the DQO process are provided herein.

The DQO process incorporated hypothesis testing and probabilistic sampling distributions to control decision errors during data analysis. In designing the survey plan, the underlying assumption, or null hypothesis was that residual activity in the survey unit exceeded the release criteria. Rejection of the null hypothesis would indicate that residual activity within the survey unit does not exceed the release criteria.

The primary objective of the FSS plan was to demonstrate that the level of residual radioactivity in Survey Unit OOL10-04 did not exceed the release criteria specified in the LTP and that the potential dose from residual radioactivity is ALARA.

A fundamental precursor to survey design is to establish a relationship between the release criteria and some measurable quantity. This is done through the development of DCGLs. The DCGLs represent average levels of radioactivity above background levels and are presented in terms of surface or mass activity concentrations. Chapter 6 of the LTP describes in detail the modeling used to develop the DCGLs for soil.

The total dose under the LTP criteria is 25 mrem/yr Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) from all of the potentially present plant-derived nuclides.

2.2 DQOS REGARDING NUCLIDE SELECTION AND DCGLS Four characterization samples were analyzed by a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certified off-site laboratory for the HTD nuclides that could be present. There were no HTD nuclides that were positively identified greater than method detection levels in the four samples analyzed. Additionally, during FSS, two soil samples were split and analyzed for the HTD nuclides that are listed in bold in Table 1. It should be noted that the HTD nuclide results for the two FSS soil split samples were all less than their associated a-posteriori Minimum Detectable Concentrations (MDC) (Attachment 2). Table 1 presents the Soil DCGLs per the HBPP LTP. Cs-137, the only nuclide that could potentially be present based on characterization data, was not scaled to account for any HTD nuclides that might be present.

However, it has been shown that even for Class 1 areas, the low potential for HTD nuclide dose was considered to be an insignificant contributor to TEDE for the critical exposure group evaluated (i.e., resident farmer). As mentioned previously and evaluated during the FSS planning process, there were no HTD or ETD radionuclides identified. Therefore, the Cs-137 DCGL was not adjusted as an additional conservatism to account for potential dose from HTD radionuclides, as these were not identified.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 11 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Table 1 - Soil DCGLs and Analysis Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs)

(1) (2)

LLD (pCi/g) (3)

Radionuclide Soil DCGL (pCi/g) 10% to 50%

H-3 6.80E+02 6.80E+01 3.40E+02 C-14 6.30E+00 6.30E-01 3.15E+00 Co-60 3.82E+00 3.82E-01 1.91E+00 Ni-59 1.97E+03 1.97E+02 9.85E+02 Ni-63 7.24E+02 7.24E+01 3.62E+02 Sr-90 1.51E+00 1.51E-01 7.55E-01 Nb-94 7.13E+00 7.13E-01 3.57E+00 Tc-99 1.24E+01 1.24E+00 6.20E+00 Cs-137 7.93E+00 7.93E-01 3.97E+00 Eu-152 1.01E+01 1.01E+00 5.05E+00 Eu-154 9.40E+00 9.40E-01 4.70E+00 Np-237 1.11E+00 1.11E-01 5.55E-01 Pu-238 2.97E+01 2.97E+00 1.49E+01 (5)

Pu-239/240 2.67E+01 2.67E+00 1.34E+01 (4)

Am-241 2.58E+01 2.58E+00 1.29E+01 Pu-241 8.61E+02 8.61E+01 4.31E+02 (5)

Cm-243/244 2.90E+01 2.90E+00 1.45E+01 (5)

Cm-245/246 1.78E+01 1.78E+00 8.90E+00 (1) Bold text indicates radionuclides that are considered Hard to Detect (HTD)

(2) The Soil DCGL(s) are specified by the LTP in Chapter 6 and are equivalent to twenty-five (25) mrem/yr TEDE.

(3) The required LLD is between 10% to 50% of the Soil DCGL.

(4) Americium-241 can be analyzed by gamma and alpha spectroscopy and is considered to be Easy to Detect (ETD). The preferred result is the alpha spectroscopys when both analyses are performed.

(5) For radiochemical analyses whose results cannot discern between two isotopes, i.e. Pu-239/240, Cm-243/244 and Cm-245/246, the lower of the two DCGLs was selected from the LTP.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 12 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Another important facet of the DQO process is to identify the radionuclides of concern and determine the concentration and variability.

As part of the DQOs applied to laboratory processes, analysis results were reported as actual calculated results. Sample report summaries included unique sample identification, analytical method, radionuclide, result, and uncertainty to two (2) standard deviations, laboratory data qualifiers, units, and the required and observed MDC.

2.2.1 SURVEY APPROACH/METHODS The prescribed survey approach for Class 3 land areas consisted of soil collection of statistically random locations and walk-over scanning of biasedly selected areas with a 2 x 2 Thallium-activated Sodium Iodide (NaI(Tl)) scintillation detector. Additionally, all direct non-parametric and biased soil sample locations were accessed.

2.2.2 NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND MEASUREMENTS The DQO process determined that Cs-137 is the radionuclide of concern in the survey unit.

Other radionuclides (if present) that were positively identified in concentrations greater than the screening criteria during the performance of this FSS would be evaluated to ensure adequate survey design. With the exception of Cs-137, no other plant-derived radionuclides were identified in the survey unit direct soil samples analyzed in the onsite and offsite laboratories, indicating that the survey design was adequate.

The Sign Test was selected as the non-parametric statistical test. The use of the Sign Test did not require the selection or use of a background reference area, which simplified survey design and implementation. This approach was conservative since it included background Cs-137 as part of the sample set.

The minimum number of soil samples for FSS was determined in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of the Number and Location of FSS Samples (Ref. 6). The Lower Bound of the Gray Region (LBGR) was set in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7 to achieve a relative shift (/) in the range of 1 and 3. The resulting relative shift corresponded to an LBGR of 7.57 pCi/g Cs-137.

A Prospective Power Curve was generated with these settings using MARSSIM Power 2000 (Ref. 7) and is provided in the survey plan (Attachment 1). MARSSIM Power 2000 is a software package developed under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Energy (DOE)

Environmental Measurement Laboratory. The results of the a posteriori (retrospective) computer run showed adequate power for the survey design. This indicates that the survey area had a high probability of rejecting the null hypothesis, assuming that the characterization data are representative of the FSS results. The retrospective power curve is provided in Attachment 4.

The grid pattern and locations of the soil samples were determined using Visual Sample Plan (VSP) in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-18, Computer Determination of Number and Locations of FSS Samples (Ref. 8) Visual Sample Plan was created by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the DOE (Ref. 9). A random sampling pattern with a random starting point was selected for sample design, which is appropriate for a Class 3 area.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 13 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Sample locations were identified using AutoCAD, a commercially available plotting software package with coordinates consistent with the California State Plane System. These coordinates were integrated with a GPS to locate sample locations in the field. Sample Measurement Locations for the design are listed with the GPS coordinates in Table 2.

Table 2 - Sample Measurement Locations with Associated GPS Coordinates Designation Easting Northing OOL10-04-001-F 5949680.79 2160777.96 OOL10-04-002-F 5949738.95 2160752.13 OOL10-04-003-F 5949629.10 2160749.78 OOL10-04-004-F 5949704.49 2160742.73 OOL10-04-005-F 5949626.95 2160730.99 OOL10-04-006-F 5949652.79 2160721.60 OOL10-04-007-F 5949749.72 2160714.55 OOL10-04-008-F 5949594.64 2160707.51 OOL10-04-009-F 5949756.18 2160700.46 OOL10-04-010-F 5949646.33 2160693.41 OOL10-04-011-F 5949601.10 2160688.72 OOL10-04-012-F 5949566.64 2160679.32 OOL10-04-013-F 5949695.87 2160667.58 OOL10-04-014-F 5949663.56 2160665.23 OOL10-04-015-F 5949721.72 2160658.19 OOL10-04-016-F-B 5949709.13 2160632.21 OOL10-04-017-F-B 5949732.62 2160640.95 NOTE: See Posting Plot in Attachment 4 for corresponding map of these sample locations.

Procedure RCP FSS-2 specifies that 5% of the samples are required to be selected for HTD analysis. Two (2) soil samples or greater than 5% (i.e., 13%) of the number of samples that would be used for non-parametric statistical testing were randomly selected for HTD radionuclide analyses using the Microsoft Excel RAND function. Each of the selected samples were sent off-site for a full suite analysis of the HTD radionuclides specified in Table 1.

The LTP requires a minimum of 5% of the samples taken for non-parametric statistical testing be selected for split sample analyses with the off-site laboratory. The implementation of quality control measures as referenced by Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey, (Ref. 10) included the collection of two (2) soil samples for split sample analysis by the off-site laboratory. These locations were selected randomly using the Microsoft FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 14 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Excel RAND function. Additionally, Procedure HBAP C-202, Final Status Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan (Ref. 11) requires that 5% of the samples taken for non-parametric statistical testing be selected for QC Replicate analyses.

Table 5-4 of the LTP specifies scanning coverage of Judgmental 1-10% for Class 3 areas. A variance from this requirement was taken as noted. Table 3 provides a synopsis of the survey design.

Table 3 - Synopsis of the Survey Design Feature Design Criteria Basis Survey Unit Land Area 2,244 m2 Based on AutoCAD Type 1 and Type 2 errors were 15 required 0.05, sigma was 0.18 pCi/g, the Number of Measurements (15 Randomly LBGR was set at 7.57 pCi/g to selected) achieve a Relative Shift in the range of 1 and 3 (/=2.0)

Grid Spacing NA NA for Class 3 areas Design DCGL 7.93 pCi/g Cs-137 To achieve 25 mrem/yr TEDE

>50% of the Cs-137 DCGL 3.97 pCi/g Cs-137 from investigation criteria Soil Investigation Level provided from Table 5-5 of the LTP for a Class 3 survey unit.

Table 5-4 of the LTP requires Scan Survey Area Coverage Approximately 25% judgmental 1- 10% coverage area for Class 3 survey units Discernable and Detectable above background, reproducible audible Scan Investigation Level Per Table 5-5 of the LTP for indication of activity Class 3 Survey Units.

above background FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 15 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS Final Status Survey field activities were conducted under FSS Plan HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04-00.

The preparations for work included a detailed review of the FSS Plan, job safety analysis, job planning checklist and related procedures for reference. Daily briefings were conducted to discuss the expectations for job performance and the safety aspects of the survey. The Daily Survey Journal was used to document field activities and other information pertaining to the FSS. All field survey activities were performed on November 6, 2013. Sample measurement locations using GPS coordinates were identified in the 1983 North American Datum (NAD) coordinate system.

3.1 SAMPLE MEASUREMENTS RESULTS Each of the fifteen (15) samples collected for non-parametric statistical testing were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy at the on-site laboratory. All samples obtained during the FSS of OOL10-04 were collected using Procedure FSS-8, Collection of Site Characterization and Final Status Survey Samples (Ref. 12). In addition, two of the samples were split in the field and analyzed for each of the nuclides in the FSS nuclide suite. The off-site laboratory employed for the radiological analyses of samples was General Engineering Laboratories, LLC (GEL), located in Charleston, South Carolina. GEL processed two (2) samples for HTD analyses as required by the sample plan. The requested analyses included alpha spectroscopy, gas proportional counting, and liquid scintillation depending on the radionuclide and the measurement method. All analyses performed met the required minimum MDC. Neither of these two split samples tested positive for Cs-137 or other plant-derived nuclides (Attachment 2).

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed to the required MDCs. A results summary for samples collected for non-parametric statistical testing is provided in Table 4. Additionally, while not considered in the non-parametric statistical evaluation of compliance with the release criteria, two biased samples were collected as mentioned earlier in this report and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy. A summary of these two samples is provided in Table 5. As described in the LTP, biased measurements are performed at locations selected using professional judgment based on unusual appearance, location relative to known contaminated areas, high potential for residual radioactivity, general supplemental information, etc. Judgmental measurements are not included in the statistical evaluation of the survey unit data because they are not randomly selected, independent measurements. Instead, judgmental measurement results are individually compared to the DCGL. No plant-derived isotopes were positively detected in the randomly selected non-parametric samples or the two biased samples analyzed by the on-site laboratory.

The on-site laboratory gamma results summary is provided in Attachment 3.

As none of the non-parametric or the biased samples contained activity levels exceeding the investigation levels for soil samples (i.e., 50% of the DGCL), no soil investigations were warranted for Survey Unit OOL10-04.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 16 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Table 4 - Summary of Randomly Selected Soil Sample Results Sample Number Cs-137 pCi/g(1) Fraction of DCGL OOL10-04-001-F 4.77E-02 6.02E-03 OOL10-04-002-F -7.70E-03 -9.71E-04 OOL10-04-003-F 1.22E-02 1.54E-03 OOL10-04-004-F -3.62E-02 -4.56E-03 OOL10-04-005-F 4.13E-02 5.21E-03 OOL10-04-006-F -2.56E-02 -3.23E-03 OOL10-04-007-F -3.80E-02 -4.79E-03 OOL10-04-008-F 4.36E-02 5.50E-03 OOL10-04-009-F 1.84E-02 2.32E-03 OOL10-04-010-F 5.39E-03 6.80E-04 OOL10-04-011-F 4.75E-02 5.99E-03 OOL10-04-012-F 6.01E-02 7.58E-03 OOL10-04-013-F -2.08E-02 -2.62E-03 OOL10-04-014-F -1.03E-02 -1.30E-03 OOL10-04-015-F 1.71E-02 2.16E-03 Table 5 - Summary of Biased Soil Sample Results Sample Number Cs-137 pCi/g(1) Fraction of DCGL OOL10-04-016-F-B 5.06E-02 6.38E-03 OOL10-04-017-F-B 1.06E-01 1.34E-02 Note (1) - All Cs-137 results listed were less than MDA.

3.2 SCAN

SUMMARY

Approximately 25% of the open land surfaces of survey unit OOL10-04 were scanned during the FSS. No scanned locations were noted that exceeded the LTP investigation criteria of detectable over background. Therefore no scan investigations were performed. A map of the OOL10-04 Footprint Survey Scanned Area is provided in Figure 5. The completed scan survey can be reviewed in Attachment 3.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 17 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Figure 5 - Survey Unit OOL10-04 Footprint Survey Scanned Area FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 18 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 4.0 SURVEY UNIT DATA ASSESSMENT 4.1 STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS The DQO sample design and data were reviewed in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-14, Data Quality Assessment (Ref. 13) for completeness and consistency. The sampling design had adequate power as indicated by the Retrospective Power Curve. The Sign Test was performed (by inspection) on the data and compared to the original assumptions of the DQOs.

The evaluation of the Sign Test results demonstrates that the survey unit passes the unrestricted release criteria, thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Survey documentation was complete and legible. Surveys and sample collection were consistent with the DQOs and were sufficient to ensure that the survey unit was properly designated as Class 3.

The final data review consisted of calculating basic statistical quantities (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation). The mean and median values are well below the Operational DCGL. Also, the retrospective power curve shows that a sufficient number of samples were collected to achieve the desired power. Therefore, the survey unit meets the unrestricted release criteria with adequate power as required by the DQOs. The basic statistical quantities for the statistical sample population are provided below in Table 6.

Table 6 - Basic Statistical Quantities Statistic Cs-137 pCi/g Fraction of the DCGL Minimum Value: -3.80E-02 -4.79E-03 Maximum Value: 6.01E-02 7.58E-03 Mean: 1.03E-02 1.30E-03 Median: 1.22E-02 1.54E-03 Standard Deviation: 3.27E-02 4.12E-03 The range of the data is approximately 3 standard deviations. The difference between the mean and median was about 5.78% of the standard deviation which indicates limited skewness in the data. The data was represented graphically through posting plots, a frequency plot, and a quantile plot. The frequency plot indicates a slight negative skewness as confirmed by the calculated skew of -0.02, indicating a nearly normal distribution.

All measurements were non-detects (i.e., no plant-derived radionuclides indicated above MDA).

The sign test was not needed to formerly evaluate the data regarding the conclusion that the survey unit meets the release criteria as all direct measurement result values were less than the Cs-137 DCGL. Since the sign test is passed if none of the data values exceed the DCGL, performing the test is unnecessary as it is passed by inspection.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 19 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 4.2 GRAPHICAL EVALUATIONS The data, assessments, and graphical representations are provided in Attachment 4.

4.3 SURVEY UNIT INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS As noted previously, no investigations were performed for Survey Unit OOL10-04.

4.4 CHANGES IN INITIAL SURVEY UNIT ASSUMPTIONS None of the initial assumptions were changed or challenged as a result of information gained in the performance of the FSS survey or in reviewing its results.

The calculation of the number of samples required for the sign test is given by Equation 1 below.

2 (1 +1 )

= (Equation 1) 4( 0.5)2 Where, N is the number of samples required to perform the sign test. The number of samples is determined for a given and error at a specified value for the relative shift. The relative shift determines the value of Sign p.

The MARSSIM guidance recommends that this number be increased by at least 20% to ensure sufficient power of the test and to allow for possible data losses.

5.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE An important aspect of any survey or sampling evolution is the effort made to assure the quality of data collected. It is critical to assure the quality of the data through quality checks and controls, calibrations, and training. The purpose of data quality assurance (DQA) is to evaluate the data collected from the field in light of its intended use in decision making.

Quality checks and controls were designed into the FSS to ensure adequate data quality. Quality Control (QC) measurements were designed to provide a means of assessing the quality of the data set as a whole and demonstrate that measurement results had the required precision and were sufficiently free of errors to accurately represent the residual radiological conditions in the soils of the various survey units within the potentially impacted areas. The DQA uses guidance from MARSSIM and professional judgment.

The calibration and efficiency curves, calibration source certificates, as well as other documentation relating to the calibration of the on-site gamma spectroscopy system are presented in Attachment 6. A QA check of the on-site gamma spectroscopy system for both energy and efficiency parameters was performed daily, prior to counting operations. This was achieved by using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable multi-line standard calibration source in a comparable geometry (with a volumetric equivalent density) as the samples to be counted. The QA checks performed on the gamma spectroscopy system verify that the system parameters have not changed such that the energy and efficiency calibrations are FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 20 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 still valid. This was accomplished by tracking peak location from a low-energy peak (59 kilo-electron volts [keV]) and a high-energy peak (1,332 keV) from a calibration source (to indicate a problem relative to the energy calibration), peak energy resolution (full width at half maximum

[FWHM]) (indicate a problem relative to the energy shape calibration), and decay corrected activity (indicate a problem relative to the efficiency calibration). Examination of this data concludes that the gamma spectroscopy system was functioning correctly during FSS. A check of the gamma spectroscopy system QA Background measurements (in units of cps) covering the significant time periods when FSS sample analysis occurred showed no issues related to instrument background prior to FSS sample analysis. Coupled with the gamma spectroscopy systems source check QA measurements, the measured background data presents additional evidence of the gamma spectroscopy systems stability. The Background and Source Check QA Last Results Reports are provided in Attachment 6.

An internal QC method used to assess the accuracy and precision with laboratory measurements of volumetric soil media is to perform split sample and laboratory replicate (recount) measurement comparisons analyzed with the onsite gamma spectroscopy system, using the naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) activity levels which are present in every soil sample. The split sample and laboratory recount measurement Cs-137 results are very low compared to its corresponding DCGL, either at or below the detection capability of the instrument in all instances. MARSSIM states that Determining precision by replicating measurements with results at or near the detection limit of the measurement system is not recommended because the measurement uncertainty is usually greater than the desired level of precision. Since several NORM nuclides are routinely identified during analysis of the FSS volumetric soil samples, a good test of accuracy and precision for a particular analytical program is to compare the detected radionuclide results for the samples homogenized and split from a single sample location, laboratory recounts of the same sample, and third party analysis of split samples. This comparison method provides a more realistic view of the detection capability of the analytical method. Since there is much less uncertainty with a detected result that may be more than several times its detection threshold than a result near or less than its detection level, it is reasonable and appropriate to evaluate the accuracy and precision data quality indicators using quantifiable radionuclide concentrations.

Direct soil measurement results are subjected to a focused DQA prior to using the data in FSS activities. The results are evaluated for precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability; the appropriate data qualifiers are applied to the data set. QC checks and measurements performed are described in the FSS Plan for Survey Unit OOL10-04 in Attachment 1.

To provide an assessment of precision, a measurement of the repeatability of a measurement or measurement technique was performed by the on-site analytical laboratory by performing a recount gamma analysis on sample OOL10-04-011-F (as OOL10-04-011-F-RC) and performing a comparison to the original count using the split sample assessment method described in HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey (Ref. 10). No DQA issues were noted during the comparison evaluation. The recount sample results were within the expected tolerance for the analysis, providing additional evidence that the sample preparation and measurement processes were precise (Attachment 4).

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 21 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 To provide an assessment of accuracy, the degree to which a measurement technique or method can reflect a known value or be compared to a known value or standard, QC measurements in the form of split sample analysis (in the form of duplicate sampling) were performed. As a QC metric for split samples, two samples (OOL10-04-001-F and OOL10-04-015-F) were collected and analyzed by the on-site gamma laboratory and the corresponding split samples were analyzed by the off-site analytical laboratory (as OOL10-04-001-F-S and OOL10-04-015-F-S).

The inter-laboratory comparison was evaluated using the split sample assessment method previously described. No DQA issues were noted during the split sample comparison evaluation.

The split sample results were within the expected tolerance for the analysis, providing additional evidence that the sample preparation and measurement processes were accurate (Attachment 4).

To provide an assessment of representativeness, the degree to which a data set is actually a sample of a population the survey was designed to produce a random sample allocation distribution that ensured DQOs were met. The sample locations identified using VSP meet the survey design DQOs and are considered to be representative of the conditions for Site soils in the survey area. No DQA issues regarding analytical or measurement effects (e.g., holding times or compositing effects) were noted during the data evaluation process that suggest that representativeness was affected.

To provide an assessment of completeness, the ability of the data set to encompass the entirety of the target system, a minimum of 12 volumetric soil samples from the survey unit were planned, as classified according to area contamination potential. Using guidance provided in Section 5 of the MARSSIM, as a contingency, the minimum sample size specified was increased by 20% to accommodate the possibility that some data might be lost, unusable, or otherwise incomplete. A total of 15 (not including QC split samples) volumetric soil samples were actually collected from the survey unit. There were no DQA issues regarding completeness as greater than the minimum number of samples were collected for the survey unit.

To provide an assessment of comparability, the degree to which a data set, or single datum, can be compared to another measurement for purposes of assessing change over time, or other dynamic conditions, sampling procedures and protocols were used throughout the FSS process for the impacted Site area described in this report. There were no DQA issues regarding comparability as no critical deviation from procedures and protocols was encountered.

5.1 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS No corrective actions were warranted during the performance and subsequent evaluation of FSS Survey Unit OOL-10-04. It should be noted that a review of the periodic surveillance survey process was performed for the Humboldt Bay Generating Station (HBGS) areas that had undergone FSS. As a result of the review, an improvement item (documented in Systems Application and Products Notification (SAPN) 1303139) was identified to the periodic surveillance survey program to designate exempt survey units that have undergone successful FSS which are covered by an engineered surface or protective barrier (e.g., asphalt, concrete, or compacted backfill). Since OOL10-04 has been backfilled and covered by an engineered surface it has been designated as an exempt area by the Site Closure Manager. Therefore, area periodic surveillance is not required for OOL10-04. Additionally, an FSS was not conducted over the backfilled survey unit as it exists in the final site restoration condition which supports the HBGS as all materials used to restore this area originated from off site and did not contain any HBPP-FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 22 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 derived radionuclides. It should also be noted that there were no remedial actions performed in or proximal to any adjacent survey units which could compromise the isolation and control measures established for the area which includes a fence that separates the HBGS portion from the HBPP side.

5.2 QUALITY VERIFICATION There were no quality verification assessments that were performed on survey unit OOL10-04.

6.0 ALARA STATEMENT The cost benefit analysis indicates that residual radioactivity in soils at the Site has been reduced to concentrations that are ALARA. A Generic ALARA Statement has been prepared to demonstrate that it is not ALARA to further remediate soil at levels below the DCGL. The analysis shows that shipping affected soil to a low-level waste disposal facility is not cost effective for unrestricted release. Therefore by demonstrating that the rest of the decision criteria have been met, also demonstrates that the level of residual radioactivity is ALARA without taking additional remedial action. The decision rules, having been derived from the dose-based radiological criteria for unrestricted release, ensure that residual radioactivity in soils on the site will not pose an unacceptable radiological risk to humans under any reasonable and foreseeable future use or occupancy (Attachment 5).

7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This report demonstrates that FSS Survey Unit OOL10-04 has met the release requirements associated with the DCGLs listed in the HBPP LTP. Additionally, the data show that the ALARA criteria for soils as specified in Chapter 4 of the HBPP LTP were achieved.

All identified radionuclides of concern were used for statistical testing to determine the adequacy of the survey unit for FSS. Although it is not required to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria, the sample data passed the Sign Test and the null hypothesis was rejected. The survey unit was properly designated as Class 3.

The hypothetical dose contribution from soil for Survey Unit OOL10-04 was determined to be less than 0.04 mrem/yr. This value is the TEDE based on the average concentration of the samples used for non-parametric statistical sampling. To uphold the commitments in License Amendment No. 40 to DPR 7, periodic surveillance surveys are performed for survey units that have undergone FSS to ensure adequate isolation controls are being maintained to preclude recontamination from Unit 3 decommissioning activities in accordance with HBPP Procedure RCP C-220, Cross Contamination Prevention Plan (Ref. 14). As discussed earlier in Section 5.1 of this report, OOL10-04 is exempt from periodic surveillance surveys since an engineered surface barrier has been applied. However, in the event that isolation and control measures established for this area are compromised, a survey on the backfilled area may be warranted as a supplement of a documented evaluation to confirm that no HBPP plant-derived radioactive material has been introduced in the area that could jeopardize FSS results, or change conclusions.

On the basis of the analysis presented in this report, FSS data demonstrates that the subject area associated with potentially impacted areas has met the decision criteria, specifically:

No unexpected results or trends are evident in the data.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 23 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 The sampling and survey results demonstrate that soil residual radioactivity in the potentially impacted areas is very minimal, and essentially indistinguishable from background.

The data quality is judged to be adequate for its intended purpose.

The amount of data collected from each survey unit is adequate to provide the required statistical confidence needed to decide that the DCGLs were met.

The retrospective power of the sign test, used to judge compliance, was almost 100%.

Thus, the null hypothesis that residual radioactivity in the survey unit exits in concentrations above the applicable DCGLs should be rejected for the survey unit in the potentially impacted area. The area surveyed and sampled for OOL10-04 should be released from further radiological controls. Therefore, this FSS Report submittal supports the regulatory decision to terminate the license following completion of all FSS report submittals for the site.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 24 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1

8.0 REFERENCES

1 Humboldt Bay Power Plant License Termination Plan, Rev. 0 Submitted, May, 2013.

2 NRC Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3 Facility License DPR-7, As Amended.

3 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-1, Survey Unit Classification, Rev 0C, September 11, 2013.

4 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2, Preparation of FSS Plans, Rev. 0D, September 11, 2013.

5 NUREG 1575 Multi Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual, (MARSSIM), USNRC Rev. 1 August 2000.

6 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of the Number and Location of FSS Samples Rev. 0C, September 11, 2013.

7 MARSSIM Power 2000 software, V. 1.0.0 Environmental Measurements Laboratory, US Department of Energy, December 2000.

8 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-18, Computer Determination of Number and Locations of FSS Samples, Rev. 0C, September 11, 2013.

9 VSP Development Team (2014). Visual Sample Plan: A Tool for Design and Analysis of Environmental Sampling, Version 6.2d, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Richland, WA. http://vsp.pnnl.gov.

10 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey Rev. 0C, September 11, 2013.

11 HBPP Procedure HBAP C-202, Final Status Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan Rev. 1, December 7, 2012.

12 HBPP Procedure FSS-8, Collection of Site Characterization and Final Status Survey Samples Rev 1D, September 11, 2013.

13 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-14, Data Quality Assessment Rev. 0C, September 11, 2013.

14 HBPP Procedure C-220, Cross Contamination Prevention and Monitoring Plan Rev 1B, February 11, 2016.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 25 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable DCGL Derived concentration guideline level, the radionuclide specific activity concentration that corresponds to the release criterion (25 mrem/y) within a survey unit DOE United States Department of Energy DQA Data Quality Assurance DQO Data Quality Objectives ETD easy to detect FSS Final Status Survey GEL General Engineering Laboratories, LLC GPS global positioning system HBGS Humboldt Bay Generating Station HBPP Humboldt Bay Power Plant HSA Historical Site Assessment HTD hard to detect (for this purpose, nuclides that are not detectable by gamma analysis) keV kilo-electron volts LBGR lower bound of the gray region LTP License Termination Plan m2 meter(s) squared MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MEPPS Mobile Emergency Power Plant Station MDA minimum detectable activity MDC minimum detectable concentration FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 26 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 NAD North American Datum NaI (Tl) Thallium-activated sodium iodide gamma scintillation detector NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NORM naturally occurring radioactive material NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission pCi/g picocuries per gram PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company QA quality assurance QC quality control SAPN Systems Application and Products Notification TEDE total effective dose equivalent TRU transuranic VSP Visual Sample Plan computer program FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 27 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 1 Survey Plan FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 28 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Workshee t Page 1 of 14 GENERAL SECTION Survey Area No: OOL 10 I Survey Unit No: 04 Survey Unit Name: Mobile Electric Power Plant Area Final Status Survey Number: HBPP-FSS-OOL 10-04-00 PREPARA TION FOR FINAL STATUS SURVEY ACTIVITIE S Check marks in the boxes below signify affirmative responses and completion of the action.

1.1 Files have been established for survey unit FSS records. Yes 0 No D N/A D 1.2 ALARA review has been completed for the survey unit. Yes 0 No D N/A D 1.3 The survey unit has been turned over for final status survey. Yes 0 No D N/A D 1.4 An initial walkdown has been performed 0 1.5 Activities conducted within area since turnover has been reviewed. 0 Based on reviewed information, subsequent walkdown: 0 not warranted D warranted If warranted, subsequent walkdown has been performed and documented f**fm,*B<l 1-,~* /l, OR The basis has been provided to and accepted for not performing a subsequent walkdown. D 1.6 A final classification has been performed. 0 Classification: CLASS 1 D CLASS 2 D CLASS 3 0 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIV ES (DQO)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 29 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 2 of 14 1.0 State the problem:

Survey Area OOL-10 consists of the surface area of the remainder of the HBPP land area. The open land area is comprised of soil. Survey Unit OOL 10-04 is a sub unit of survey area OOL 10 and is bordered by the New Generation Footprint to the North. The balance of survey unit's boundary abuts OOL 10. It is approximately 2,244 square meters of surface area. A small portion of the area lies inside an energized transformer yard which will is deemed to be inaccessible due to safety concerns.

The problem as defined by this survey plan is to demonstrate that the years of plant operation did not result in an accumulation of plant-related radioactivity that exceeds the release criteria.

The planning team for this effort consists of the Site Closure Manager, FSS Engineers, FSS Lead Technician and FSS Technicians. The FSS Engineers will make primary decisions with the concurrence of the Site Closure Manager.

2.0 Identify the decision:

Does residual plant-related radioactivity, if present in the survey unit, exceed the release criteria?

Alternative actions may include no action, investigation, resurvey, remediation and reclassification.

3.0. Identify the inputs to the decision:

Sample media: Soil Types of measurements: Soil samples and 44-10 gamma scans Radionuclides-of-concern: Cs-137 Applicable DCGL: The DCGLs applied under this survey plan are for soil media as determined in Table 5-1 of the LTP, Rev.O.

Nuclide DCGL Nuclide DCGL Nuclide DCGL (oCi/g) (oCi/g) (pCi/g)

H-3 6.86E+02 1-129 4.83E+OO Pu-241 8.61E+02 C-14 6.30E+OO Cs-137 7.93E+OO Am-241 2.58E+01 Ni-59 1.97E+03 Eu-152 1.01E+01 Cm-243 2.90E+01 Co-60 3.82E+OO Eu-154 9.40E+OO Cm-244 4.81 E+01 Ni-63 7.24E+02 Np-237 1.11E+OO Cm-245 1.78E+01 Sr-90 1.51E+OO Pu-238 2.97E+01 Cm-246 2.58E+01 Nb-94 7.13E+OO Pu-239 2.67E+01 Tc-99 1.24E+01 Pu-240 2.67E+01 Seventy one (71) samples from previous characterization data were used to provide the characterization data for survey area OOL 10. The data is sufficient to support the planning of Survey Unit OOL 10-04.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 30 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 3 of 14 Based on a review of the characterization data, Cs-137 was the only plant-related radionuclide that was identified consistently in the characterization samples analyzed. The results from the characterization data are summarized below:

• Cs-137 (51 detects) Cs-137 is present in 72 % of the characterization samples.

• Other HBPP ETD There were no other easy to detect nuclides identified >MDA.

• HBPP HTD There were no hard to detect nuclides identified in the four samples analyzed.

The presence of all radionuclides listed in this plan (gamma-emitters, HTD beta-emitters, and TRUs) in the soil will be evaluated under this survey plan. The HBPP Site Closure Laboratory will analyze each soil sample for all listed gamma-emitting nuclides. In addition, 2 FSS soil samples will be sent to an independent laboratory for analyses of gamma-emitters and HTD radionuclides.

Survey Design /Release Criteria Classification: Class 3 Average Cs-137 concentration: 0.38 pCi/g Standard deviation Cs- 137 ((J): 0.18 pCi/g Surrogate DCGL: N/A (a surrogate DCGL will not be used)

LBGR: = =

Initial 0.5xDCGL 3.9 pCi/g Cs-137 Adjusted LBGR( set !J,.fcr = 2.0) = 7.57 pCi/g Cs-137 Number of Samples: Calculated = 15 2

Survey Unit Area: 2,244 m Grid Area (AIN): N/A Class 3 DCGLemc Cs-137: N/A Class 3 Investigation Level for soil samples: > 50% DCGL for Cs-137 = 3.97 pCi/g Cs-137 Gamma scanning Coverage: Approximately 25% of Survey Unit (Note: The area within the energized switchyard may not be accessible due to safety concerns)

Investigation Level for SPA-3 Scans: Reproducible indication above background using 44-10 and audible discrimination. The expected background range for 44-10 scans is between 3200 cpm and 5400 cpm.

Radionuclides for analysis: All listed nuclides with the focus on Cs-137 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 31 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 4 of 14 MDCs for gamma analysis of soil samples: Nuclide 10% to %50 of the DCGL (pCi/g)

Co-60 3.82E-01 to 1.91E+OO Nb-94 7.13E-01 to 3.57E+OO 1-129 4.83E-01 to 2.42E+OO Cs-137 7.93E-01 to 3.97E+OO Eu-152 1.01E+OO to 5.05E+OO Eu-154 9.40E-01 to 4.70E+OO Np-237 1.11E-01 to 5.55E-01 The desired MDCs in the laboratory analyses of FSS soil samples will be the 10% DCGL values. If it is impractical to achieve those, the 50% DCGL values must be achieved in the laboratory analyses of the soil samples.

MDC's for HTD nuclide:

Nuclide 10% to 50% of the DCGL (pCi/g)

H-3 6.86E+01 3.43E+02 C-14 6.30E-01 3.15E+OO Ni-59 1.97E+02 9.85E+02 Ni-63 7.24E+01 3.62E+02 Sr-90 1.51 E-01 7.55E-01 Tc-99 1.24E+OO 6.20E+OO Pu-238 2.97E+OO 1.49E+01 Pu-239/240 2.67E+OO 1.34E+01 Pu-241 8.61E+01 4.31E+02 Am-241 2.58E+OO 1.29E+01 Cm-243 2.90E+OO 1.45E+01 Cm-244 4.81E+OO 2.41 E+01 Cm-245 1.78E+OO 8.90E+OO Cm-246 2.58E+OO 1.29E+01 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 32 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 5 of 14 The MDC values for difficult to detect nuclides will be conveyed to the outside laboratory via the sample Chain-Of-Custody form which will accompany the soil samples.

QC checks and measurements: QC checks for the 44-10 will be performed in accordance with RCP-7U2 Two QC split samples will be collected One QC recount for soil samples will be performed by the HBPP Site Closure Lab 4.0 Define the boundaries of the survey:

• Boundaries of Survey Unit OOL 10-04 are as shown on the attached map. This area is bordered by the Survey Area OOL 10 on all sides.

• The survey will be performed under appropriate weather conditions (as defined by instrumentation limitations and human factors). Surveys may be performed on any shift of work.

5.0 Develop a decision rule:

Upon review of the FSS data collected under this survey plan:

(a) If all the sample data show that the soil concentrations of plant related nuclides are below the DCGLs and the sum of fractions of nuclides are below unity, then reject the null hypothesis (i.e., Survey Unit OOL 10-04 meets the release criteria).

(b) If the investigation levels are exceeded, then perform an investigation survey.

(c) If the average concentration of any listed nuclide exceeds its respective DCGL or the average sum of fractions for any listed nuclide exceeds one, then accept the null hypothesis (i.e., Survey Unit OOL 10-04 fails to meet the release criteria).

Note: Alternate actions beyond investigations include, remediation, reclassification and resurvey 6.0 Specify tolerable limits on decision errors:

Null hypothesis: Residual plant-related radioactivity in Survey Unit OOL 10-04 exceeds the release criteria.

Probability of type I error: 0.05 Probability of type II error: 0.05 LBGR: Adjusted to 7.57 pCi/g Cs-137 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 33 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 6 of 14 7.0 Optimize Design:

Type of statistical test: WRS Test D Sign Test 0 (background will not be subtracted)

Number and Location of Samples: Fifteen (15) soil samples will be collected at locations based on a random selection Biased samples: A minimum of two (2) biased sample locations will be selected before, or at the time of sample collection and their locations will be added to the map, with the letter "B" added to the sample number. The addition of these samples and the relocation of any samples may be added to the map without requiring a revision. The coordinates of the bias sample locations will be determined and added to the record.

Biased sample locations: The two (2) (or more) biased sample locations will be determined in field by the Lead Technician and/or the FSS Engineer based on historical data and process knowledge of the area.

IGENERAL INSTRUCTIONS I be

1. Where possible, measurement locations will be identified using GPS. Each location will marked to assist in identifying the location. Any locations that are not suitable for soil sampling will be relocated to the nearest suitable location and documented on the survey map.

2. Chain of Custody form/process will be used for all samples being shipped to the offsite laboratory.

3. All soil samples will be received and prepared as directed by the FSS Engineer.

Note: The split sample aliquot to be sent to an off-site lab for HTD analysis will not be dried prior to counting on site or shipping. '

4. Survey instrument: Operation of the 2350-1 w/44-10 will be in accordance with RCP-7U3 with QC checks performed in accordance with RCP-7U2. The instrument response checks shall be performed before issue and after use.

will

5. All 44-10 scans will be performed with the audible feature activated. FSS Technicians listen for upscale readings to which they will respond by slowing down or stopping the probe to distinguish between random fluctuations in the background and greater than backgrou nd readings.

6. The job hazards associated with the Survey described in this package will be addressed in the pre-iob brief.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 34 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 7 of 14

7. All personnel participating in this survey shall be trained in the operation of the instrumentation.

ISPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1. All designated measurement locations will be identified by GPS or by use of reference points and tape measure as necessary. If a designated sample location is obstructed for any reason, the FSS Engineer or the Lead FSS Technician will select an alternate location within one meter of the original location. A detailed description of the alternate location will be recorded on the survey form, the survey unit map will be annotated appropriately, and the alternate location will be conspicuously marked to facilitate re-visiting to identify and record the coordinates with GPS or by measurement from a known reference point when GPS is not available.

2. Sample Requirements:

• Collect fifteen (15) random 1-liter soil samples in accordance with RCP FSS-8. Two (2) of the 15 random soil samples will be analyzed as QC split samples and one (1) will be a sample recount to fulfill the QC requirement. The QC split samples will also be analyzed for Hard-to-Detect nuclides.

• Collect two (2) (or more) biased I-liter soil samples. The FSS engineer assigned to this survey unit or the FSS Lead Technician will determine the locations of the biased samples.

• If a sample location falls on an engineered surface, collect a sample of the engineered material and a sample of the soil below. The soil sample will be used as the statistical sample and not the engineered material sample. The engineered material sample will have the designation OOL 10-04-xxx-EM where the "xxx" is the sample number corresponding to the soil sample location.

• Soil samples will be collected as follows:

o At the sample location, using a clean implement, dig a hole in the soil approximately 4 inches in diameter to a depth of 15 cm placing the soil in a plastic bag.

o Enlarge the hole as necessary radially until the desired amount of soils is collected.

Do not dig deeper than 15 cm.

o Label the plastic bag with the sample location identifier.

o Transfer the bag of soils to the sample preparation area.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 35 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 8 of 14

3. Soil Sample Designation:

Statistical soil samples: OOL 10-04-001-F through OOL 10-04-015-F corresponding to sample locations 001 through 015.

Biased soil samples: OOL 10-04-016-F-B through OOL 10-04-017-F-B corresponding to the biased sample locations 016 through 017.

QC split samples: OOL 10-04-001-F-S and OOL 10-04-015-F-S are to be designated as QC split samples.

These samples will be sent to the off-site laboratory.

Recount samples: OOL 10-04-011-F-RC is to be counted twice on site. The results will be compared as directed by the FSS Engineer.

4. Sample Analysis:

• Gamma analysis will be performed on all soil samples. If any of the gamma analyses show that an investigation level has been exceeded an investigation survey will be conducted at that sample location as directed in specific instruction # 6.

• HBPP will analyze OOL 10-04-001-F through OOL 10-04-015-F and OOL 10-04-016-FB through OOL 10-04-017-F-B for gamma-emitting nuclides.

• HBPP will analyze OOL 10-04-011-F as a sample recount. The recounted sample will possess the naming convention OOL 10-04-011-F-RC.

• HBPP will analyze OOL 10-04-001-F-S and OOL 10-04-015-F-S for gamma-emitting nuclides prior to being sent to the off-site laboratory. These samples will be analyzed for gamma emitting nuclides and HTD at the off-site laboratory.

• On-site gamma analysis of the samples shall achieve the MDC values stated in the DQO section of this plan. The MDC's for off-site analysis will be communicated to the laboratory using an attachment to the Chain-of-Custody form or previous direction that meets specified MDC's of this characterization survey plan.

5. Gamma scans:

• Scan 25% of the accessible survey area with a 44-10 in rate-meter mode moving the detector at a speed of 0.2 m or less per second, keeping the probe at a distance of a proximately 3" from the surface and following a ser entine ath that includes at least 3 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 36 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 9 of 14 passes across each square meter.

• Note the area scanned on the survey map

• If an indication of greater than background is discovered:

o Rescan the area to determine if the indication was due to background fluctuation o If the indication was due to background fluctuation continue to scan the remainder of the area o If the indication was due to an elevated area then slowly scan the elevated area to determine the elevated activity boundaries and note on the map o Obtain a 1 liter biased soil sample at the point of the highest reading in the elevated area. Denote the sample using the naming methodology described in step 6.

6. If the results of any sample (statistical and/or biased points) analysis exceed an investigation level, perform a first level investigation as follows:

• Scan a 1 m radius footprint around the sample location with a 44-10 in rate-meter mode moving the detector at a speed of 0.2 m or less per second, keeping the probe at a distance of approximately 3" from the surface and following a serpentine path that includes at least 3 passes across each square meter. The area of scan should be increased as necessary to bound any areas of elevated activity identified.

• Mark the boundaries around any detected elevated areas in the soil and identify the boundaries on a survey map. Measure the total area of each outlined area in square centimeters.

• Mark the location of the highest identified activity for each of the elevated areas in the soil and on the survey map.

• At each of the highest identified activity area:

o Perform and record a 1-minute scaler mode 44-10 measurement. Designate the reading as "OOL 10-04-xxx-F-SC-I" where "xxx" continues sequentially from the last number assigned to a investigation measurement.

o Obtain a soil sample at the location. Designate the sample as "OOL 10-04 -xxx-F-1" where "xxx" continues sequentially from the last number assigned to an investigative sample. ,

o Perform and record a post sample 1-minute 44-10 measurement. Designate the reading as described above.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 37 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 10 of 14 Prepared by: _ _,_~-=J/=<->..---

-~f)~1,,_../

FSS Engineer Date: _'?_-_1_1_-_I~>__

Reviewed by:'*W C .. ~'= ~ Date: ~;{"4& :3 SS ngineer (

Date: Cf/13 ft,3 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 38 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 11 of14 OOLI0-04 VSP Sample Locations Sample Easting* Northing*

01 5949680.79 2160777.96 nc snlit 02 5949738.95 2160752.13 03 5949629.10 2160749.78 04 5949704.49 2160742.73 05 5949626.95 2160730.99 06 5949652.79 2160721.60 07 5949749.72 2160714.55 08 5949594.64 2160707.51 09 5949756.18 2160700.46 IO 5949646.33 2160693.41 II 5949601.10 2160688.72 Recount 12 5949566.64 2160679.32 13 5949695.87 2160667.58 14 5949663.56 2160665.23 15 5949721.72 2160658.19 nc Snlit

• CA Zone l NAD83/NA VD88 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 39 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 12 of 14 OOL 10-04 Prospective Power Curve

£ile !ielp rDecisionErrors .. I ~RequiredSampleSize-i Survey Unit ID:

Alpha: Beta: I Survey Unitl5 Radionuclide: !Unity Rule ~ Statistical Test1 ,~~ 3 l_l).~31 r.: Sign Test 1 DCGL17.9 C WRSTest 0 ~I ril7.9 Critical Value:

.S.igma l,BGR 17.5366 Ycr=2.02 l~~-*-******:B 11 I' Probability that the Smvey UnitPasses Click 1:0

. . anywhr on

. thgraphto 0,8 . update th

. powercurv I . . . . using new~

O.S . ..

. .. ' ntrd

.. . paramtr 0.4 I

values 0.2

• I*

i I

0.0 '

1)% 3% 5)% 7% 9% 100%110% 1 0% 1b0%

Ezit Program T111e.smveyUnit Concentra:tion (perce11t ofDCGL)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 40 of 111

Final Status Survey Plannin g Worksh eet Page 13 of 14 PG&E Pacific Gas & Elettric HUMBOLDT BAY L. Dockins MEPPS AREA\>.>>> >I AA:A P,,..,..::11;-{

OOL 10 ,,,,= 4.3. 12 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 41 of 111

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 14 of 14

)

/

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electr!c HUMBOLDT BAY Untt3 License Termlnatlon NsEA. rc,i:,;y-c,jet L. Dockins m OOL 10-04 VSP Sample Locations MEPPS ,.,,w, 4.4.12 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 42 of 111

RCP FSS-1 Attachment 9.1 Rev. OB Page tor I CLASSIFICATION BASIS

SUMMARY

Pagel_ ofj_

SURVEY AREA NUMBER ool lo SURVEY UNIT NUMBER O 1 TYPE OF CLASSIFICATION Initial 0 Verification 0 Change 0 Final~

1 a;('" Spill history reviewed

~ Historical Site Assessmen/and Characterization sununaiy reviewed ll2!" Current survey records reviewed ,:

if Personnel interviews performed If.

5

~ Visual inspection and Walkdown completed Comments:

re v,',w ,\, j/e/J f:,o/:O/o 9 1c9/ ~i;~(;-~, r;jf eKCAVq (,1)1,$, V*~l,u{ CoM.'.,,J,t:95 ~~ .$~,U,w Go"C~tH f t t, " ' i,, Co..St'>-vMr*H* f'.-*c*ff

$*Hoe,/:dr,$ 4rr t, ,, r*vwo-,J (,-Qw, tilt A,-4'\ ,4$ f* ... t

• Q

/;h/6 w,s olu1.c 't-10-/J (P tv'lpM, FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 43 of 111

RCP FSS-1 Attachment 9.2 Rev. OB Page 1 of2 CLASSIFI CATION WORKSHE ET SURVEY AREA NUMBER OO~ /Q SURVEY UNIT NUMBER O tf SECTION I Previously subjected to remedial actions D C Leaks or spills are known to have occurred 0 L D A Formal burial or disposal site D

s Waste storage site s

Discrete solid pieces of material with high specific activity 0 1

Considering the potential for all impacted areas to exceed the DCGL, docs existing data provide a high degree of confidence that no individual measurement will exceed the applicable DCGL in the survey unit?

Yes ~ o D I M

IF NO OR UNKNOWN, THEN AREA IS A CLASS I. p IF YES, CONTINUE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS BELOW. A C

SECTION2 Radioactive materials present in unsealed form 0 T D C E Potentially contaminated transport route L D Area downwind from stack release point D A

Upper walls or ceiling of building subjected to airborne radioactivity D s Area where low levels of radioactive materials were handled D s Perimeter of former contamination control area D A 2 R Does existing data provide a high degree of confidence that no individual measurement E will exceed 5% of the applicable DCGL?

Yes ef No D A

IF NO OR UNKNOWN, THEN THE AREA IS A CLASS 2.

IF YES, CONTINUE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS BELOW.

SECTION3 Buffer zone around a Class 1 or a Class 2 area D C Low potential for residual activity D L A

Does existing data provide a high degree of confidence that no reasonable potential for s residual contamination exists in this area?

Yes D No 6' s 3

IF NO OR UNKNOWN, lllEN THE AREA IS A CLASS 3.

IF YES, CONTINUE WITH CLASSIFICATION PROCESS IN SECTION 4 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 44 of 111

RCP FSS-1 Attachme nt 9.2 Rev. OB Page 2 of2 CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET SURVEY UNIT NUMBE R {) Cf SURVEY AREA NUMBE R Q Q L I 0 SECTION 4

?

Sufficient process knowledge and/or historical data to warrant a non-impacted designation Yes D No D IF NO OR UNKNOWN, THEN THE AREA IS A CLASS 3.

IF YES, THE AREA IS NON-IMPACTED.

Submitted: tJ~t-/}./) Reviewed:

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 45 of 111

RCP FSS-7 Attachment 8.1 Rev. OB Page I of I Attachment 8.1 Sample Number Calculation Sheet - Single Radionuclide Reference FSSP Worksheet Number:HBPP-FSS-OOLI0-04 Survey Area Number:OOLl 0 Survey Unit Number: 04 Classification: 3 Total Area (A): 2.244 rn2 Maximum Length: NIA ft or m Maximum Width: NIA ft or m INPUT PARAMETE RS FROM DQOs VALUE 0.05 Type I error (u) 0.05 Type II error (13)

Cs-137 Radionuclide Radioactive concentration variability (Standard Deviation (o)) 0.18 Source Document: HBPP-LTP Table 5-2 RESULTS VALUE 7.93 DCGL 3.97 LBGR 3.96 Shift (i'.)

22.05 Calculated Relative Shift (Afo) 2.0 Adjusted Relative Shift when required, otherwise nla 7.57 Adjusted LBGR when required, otherwise nla 15 Number of samoles (N from Annendix 9.1 or Nl2 from Annendix 9.2)

Grid Pattern: X Not Applicable Square Triangular Calculate grid spacing, L, for square grid pattern: 11/a L=~A/N 11/a Calculate grid spacing, L, for triangular pattern:

L = ~{A/0.866NJ

/)..-c-~J=__,_&,--=~*"~d==--~--

Performed by: _ ..... Date: /3-/

J FSS Engineer Independent Review by:':z'.V\,_-;::;k;: C. -~- ~CZ-or Date: ~tJ+h-L.-,q'-;lhc..L..>..,3,____~

designee ' 7 Site Ctosure :tvfunager FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 46 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 2 Off Site Laboratory Data FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 47 of 111

Case Narrative for Pacific Gas and Electric Company SDG: 337645 December 04, 2013 Laboratory Identification:

GEL Laboratories LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston, South Carolina 29407 (843) 556-8171 Summary Sample Receipt The samples arrived at GEL Laboratories LLC, Charleston, South Carolina on November 15, 2013 for analysis.

Sample Identification The laboratory received the following samples:

Laboratory ID Client ID 337645001 FSS-2013-0245 337645002 FSS-2013-0259 Case Narrative Sample analyses were conducted using methodology as outlined in GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL)

Standard Operating Procedures. Any technical or administrative problems during analysis, data review, and reduction are contained in the analytical case narratives in the enclosed data package.

Data Package The enclosed data package contains the following sections: General Narrative, Chain of Custody and Supporting Documentation, and data from the following fractions: Radiochemistry.

PM_SIGN_HERE Erin Trent Project Manager FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 48 of 111

Sample Data Summary FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 49 of 111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL Sample ID: 337645001 Client: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Client Sample ID: FSS-2013-0245 Collect Date: November 06, 2013 Client Matrix: Soil Receive Date: November 15, 2013 Amount of Sample Received: Report Date: December 04, 2013 Sample

Description:

OOL10-04-001-F-S 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Activity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units H-3 11/22/13 U -1.39E+00 2.44E+00 4.21E+00 5.50E+00 2.44E+00 pCi/g C-14 11/26/13 U -5.44E-02 2.84E-01 4.78E-01 6.30E-01 2.84E-01 pCi/g Ni-63 11/21/13 U -1.43E-01 1.89E+01 3.18E+01 7.24E+01 1.89E+01 pCi/g Sr-90 11/26/13 U 3.46E-02 4.97E-02 7.33E-02 1.51E-01 5.01E-02 pCi/g Tc-99 11/24/13 U -1.29E-01 4.94E-01 8.45E-01 1.24E+00 4.94E-01 pCi/g Pu-241 11/22/13 U -5.85E+00 2.03E+01 3.47E+01 8.61E+01 2.03E+01 pCi/g Alpha Spec Pu-238 11/19/13 U -1.65E-02 7.30E-02 1.91E-01 2.97E+00 7.32E-02 pCi/g Pu-239/240 11/19/13 U 6.88E-02 1.18E-01 1.03E-01 2.67E+00 1.18E-01 pCi/g Am-241 11/19/13 U 3.30E-02 1.83E-01 3.51E-01 2.58E+00 1.84E-01 pCi/g Cm-243/244 11/19/13 U 3.26E-02 1.81E-01 3.47E-01 2.90E+00 1.81E-01 pCi/g Cm-245/246 11/19/13 U 7.26E-02 2.04E-01 2.18E-01 1.78E+00 2.05E-01 pCi/g Gamma Spec Be-7 11/18/13 U 8.80E-03 1.53E-01 2.68E-01 1.53E-01 pCi/g Na-22 11/18/13 U 8.36E-04 1.78E-02 2.93E-02 1.78E-02 pCi/g K-40 11/18/13 8.00E+00 6.46E-01 2.42E-01 9.84E-01 pCi/g Cr-51 11/18/13 U 1.12E-01 1.60E-01 3.02E-01 1.68E-01 pCi/g Mn-54 11/18/13 U 3.03E-03 1.77E-02 3.07E-02 1.77E-02 pCi/g Fe-59 11/18/13 U 3.84E-02 4.22E-02 7.83E-02 4.64E-02 pCi/g Co-56 11/18/13 U -8.48E-03 1.81E-02 2.96E-02 1.85E-02 pCi/g Co-57 11/18/13 U 4.32E-03 1.24E-02 2.34E-02 1.26E-02 pCi/g Co-58 11/18/13 U -6.39E-04 2.00E-02 2.93E-02 2.00E-02 pCi/g Co-60 11/18/13 U -1.03E-02 1.86E-02 2.51E-02 3.82E-01 1.92E-02 pCi/g Ni-59 11/20/13 U -4.02E+01 1.48E+01 2.01E+01 1.97E+02 2.37E+01 pCi/g Zn-65 11/18/13 U 1.75E-02 4.44E-02 6.89E-02 4.53E-02 pCi/g Y-88 11/18/13 U 6.26E-03 1.70E-02 3.03E-02 1.73E-02 pCi/g Zr-95 11/18/13 U -1.30E-02 3.03E-02 5.05E-02 3.09E-02 pCi/g Nb-94 11/18/13 U 8.09E-03 1.60E-02 2.90E-02 7.13E-01 1.64E-02 pCi/g Nb-95 11/18/13 U 8.85E-04 2.22E-02 3.27E-02 2.22E-02 pCi/g Ru-106 11/18/13 U -1.61E-01 1.47E-01 2.39E-01 1.65E-01 pCi/g Ag-110m 11/18/13 U 6.43E-03 2.28E-02 3.99E-02 2.30E-02 pCi/g Sn-113 11/18/13 U 3.36E-03 2.05E-02 3.67E-02 2.05E-02 pCi/g Sb-124 11/18/13 U -2.31E-02 2.99E-02 4.30E-02 3.17E-02 pCi/g Sb-125 11/18/13 U -1.76E-02 4.98E-02 7.29E-02 5.04E-02 pCi/g I-129 11/19/13 U 5.40E-03 1.02E-01 1.80E-01 5.00E-01 1.02E-01 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs are a-priori values.

2. MDCs are calculated a-posteriori values.

3. Gamma spectroscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

4. Air sample volumes are received in units of ft3. GEL converts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected above the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.

M Reported result is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 50 of 111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL Sample ID: 337645001 Client: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Client Sample ID: FSS-2013-0245 Collect Date: November 06, 2013 Client Matrix: Soil Receive Date: November 15, 2013 Amount of Sample Received: Report Date: December 04, 2013 Sample

Description:

OOL10-04-001-F-S 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Activity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Cs-134 11/18/13 U 8.22E-03 1.87E-02 3.35E-02 1.91E-02 pCi/g Cs-136 11/18/13 U -7.78E-03 3.98E-02 6.79E-02 4.00E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 11/18/13 U -8.59E-03 1.73E-02 2.92E-02 7.93E-01 1.77E-02 pCi/g Ba-133 11/18/13 U 1.70E-02 2.17E-02 3.61E-02 2.31E-02 pCi/g Ba-140 11/18/13 U -4.00E-02 9.31E-02 1.62E-01 9.48E-02 pCi/g Ce-139 11/18/13 U 1.51E-02 1.51E-02 2.86E-02 1.69E-02 pCi/g Ce-141 11/18/13 U 1.41E-02 3.13E-02 5.74E-02 3.20E-02 pCi/g Ce-144 11/18/13 U 3.73E-02 9.96E-02 1.87E-01 1.01E-01 pCi/g Nd-147 11/18/13 U 5.35E-02 2.01E-01 3.68E-01 2.02E-01 pCi/g Pm-144 11/18/13 U 1.50E-02 1.63E-02 3.05E-02 1.77E-02 pCi/g Pm-146 11/18/13 U 4.07E-03 2.04E-02 3.62E-02 2.05E-02 pCi/g Eu-152 11/18/13 U -1.99E-02 6.22E-02 8.15E-02 1.01E+00 6.29E-02 pCi/g Eu-154 11/18/13 U 4.61E-03 5.08E-02 8.39E-02 9.40E-01 5.09E-02 pCi/g Eu-155 11/18/13 U 5.10E-02 5.23E-02 1.02E-01 5.73E-02 pCi/g Ir-192 11/18/13 U -4.95E-03 1.59E-02 2.82E-02 1.60E-02 pCi/g Hg-203 11/18/13 U 1.78E-02 2.71E-02 3.18E-02 2.72E-02 pCi/g Tl-208 11/18/13 1.39E-01 3.52E-02 2.59E-02 3.71E-02 pCi/g Pb-210 11/18/13 U 8.74E-01 2.00E+00 3.67E+00 2.04E+00 pCi/g Pb-212 11/18/13 5.15E-01 6.32E-02 4.87E-02 7.68E-02 pCi/g Pb-214 11/18/13 4.51E-01 9.10E-02 6.26E-02 9.80E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 11/18/13 U 3.38E-01 4.25E-01 5.04E-01 4.53E-01 pCi/g Bi-214 11/18/13 3.56E-01 8.51E-02 6.14E-02 9.02E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 11/18/13 6.80E-01 1.37E-01 1.03E-01 1.77E-01 pCi/g Ac-228 11/18/13 6.80E-01 1.37E-01 1.03E-01 1.77E-01 pCi/g Th-234 11/18/13 UI 1.28E+00 1.63E+00 1.28E+00 1.66E+00 pCi/g U-235 11/18/13 U 6.41E-02 1.07E-01 1.98E-01 1.07E-01 pCi/g U-238 11/18/13 UI 1.28E+00 1.63E+00 1.28E+00 1.66E+00 pCi/g Np-237 11/18/13 U 9.51E-03 2.93E-02 5.42E-02 1.11E-01 2.96E-02 pCi/g Np-239 11/18/13 U -9.21E-02 2.02E-01 3.67E-01 2.06E-01 pCi/g Am-241 11/18/13 U 6.09E-02 8.93E-02 1.51E-01 9.35E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs are a-priori values.

2. MDCs are calculated a-posteriori values.

3. Gamma spectroscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

4. Air sample volumes are received in units of ft3. GEL converts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected above the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.

M Reported result is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 51 of 111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL Sample ID: 337645002 Client: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Client Sample ID: FSS-2013-0259 Collect Date: November 06, 2013 Client Matrix: Soil Receive Date: November 15, 2013 Amount of Sample Received: Report Date: December 04, 2013 Sample

Description:

OOL10-04-015-F-S 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Activity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units H-3 11/22/13 U 8.28E-01 2.59E+00 4.27E+00 5.50E+00 2.59E+00 pCi/g C-14 11/22/13 U -2.01E-01 2.89E-01 4.91E-01 6.30E-01 2.89E-01 pCi/g Ni-63 11/21/13 U -3.07E+00 2.36E+01 3.98E+01 7.24E+01 2.36E+01 pCi/g Sr-90 11/27/13 U -3.49E-02 3.42E-02 6.74E-02 1.51E-01 3.42E-02 pCi/g Tc-99 11/24/13 U 2.41E-01 4.88E-01 7.92E-01 1.24E+00 4.89E-01 pCi/g Pu-241 11/22/13 U 3.19E+00 2.06E+01 3.43E+01 8.61E+01 2.06E+01 pCi/g Alpha Spec Pu-238 11/19/13 U 0.00E+00 6.79E-02 1.01E-01 2.97E+00 6.80E-02 pCi/g Pu-239/240 11/19/13 U 6.73E-02 1.15E-01 1.01E-01 2.67E+00 1.16E-01 pCi/g Am-241 11/19/13 U 0.00E+00 1.46E-01 2.18E-01 2.58E+00 1.47E-01 pCi/g Cm-243/244 11/19/13 U -1.72E-02 1.48E-01 3.43E-01 2.90E+00 1.49E-01 pCi/g Cm-245/246 11/19/13 U 0.00E+00 1.67E-01 2.49E-01 1.78E+00 1.68E-01 pCi/g Gamma Spec Be-7 11/18/13 U -1.94E-02 2.14E-01 3.63E-01 2.14E-01 pCi/g Na-22 11/18/13 U 3.05E-02 3.49E-02 6.63E-02 3.76E-02 pCi/g K-40 11/18/13 7.75E+00 9.47E-01 3.94E-01 1.17E+00 pCi/g Cr-51 11/18/13 U 1.29E-02 2.22E-01 3.52E-01 2.22E-01 pCi/g Mn-54 11/18/13 U -4.85E-03 2.78E-02 4.60E-02 2.79E-02 pCi/g Fe-59 11/18/13 U -5.83E-02 5.96E-02 8.49E-02 6.59E-02 pCi/g Co-56 11/18/13 U -1.25E-02 2.56E-02 3.97E-02 2.62E-02 pCi/g Co-57 11/18/13 U 4.56E-03 1.05E-02 1.99E-02 1.07E-02 pCi/g Co-58 11/18/13 U -4.81E-03 2.73E-02 4.53E-02 2.74E-02 pCi/g Co-60 11/18/13 U 8.81E-03 3.10E-02 5.69E-02 3.82E-01 3.12E-02 pCi/g Ni-59 11/21/13 U 1.69E+01 4.46E+01 8.02E+01 1.97E+02 4.53E+01 pCi/g Zn-65 11/18/13 U 1.52E-02 7.22E-02 1.11E-01 7.26E-02 pCi/g Y-88 11/18/13 U 1.73E-03 2.96E-02 5.00E-02 2.96E-02 pCi/g Zr-95 11/18/13 U 5.86E-02 5.37E-02 1.04E-01 6.01E-02 pCi/g Nb-94 11/18/13 U 1.63E-02 2.25E-02 4.16E-02 7.13E-01 2.37E-02 pCi/g Nb-95 11/18/13 U 2.02E-02 3.26E-02 5.35E-02 3.39E-02 pCi/g Ru-106 11/18/13 U -4.77E-02 2.10E-01 3.60E-01 2.11E-01 pCi/g Ag-110m 11/18/13 U 2.54E-02 4.07E-02 7.10E-02 4.24E-02 pCi/g Sn-113 11/18/13 U 1.71E-02 2.39E-02 4.51E-02 2.51E-02 pCi/g Sb-124 11/18/13 U 9.90E-03 6.08E-02 1.07E-01 6.10E-02 pCi/g Sb-125 11/18/13 U 1.87E-02 5.51E-02 9.93E-02 5.58E-02 pCi/g I-129 11/19/13 U -1.46E-01 2.88E-01 4.31E-01 5.00E-01 2.96E-01 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs are a-priori values.

2. MDCs are calculated a-posteriori values.

3. Gamma spectroscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

4. Air sample volumes are received in units of ft3. GEL converts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected above the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.

M Reported result is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 52 of 111

GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL Sample ID: 337645002 Client: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Client Sample ID: FSS-2013-0259 Collect Date: November 06, 2013 Client Matrix: Soil Receive Date: November 15, 2013 Amount of Sample Received: Report Date: December 04, 2013 Sample

Description:

OOL10-04-015-F-S 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Activity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Cs-134 11/18/13 U 3.51E-02 3.18E-02 6.13E-02 3.57E-02 pCi/g Cs-136 11/18/13 U -2.57E-02 6.88E-02 1.12E-01 6.99E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 11/18/13 U 1.93E-02 2.67E-02 5.04E-02 7.93E-01 2.81E-02 pCi/g Ba-133 11/18/13 U 5.83E-03 2.31E-02 3.74E-02 2.33E-02 pCi/g Ba-140 11/18/13 U 9.74E-02 1.45E-01 2.78E-01 1.52E-01 pCi/g Ce-139 11/18/13 U 9.98E-03 1.42E-02 2.66E-02 1.50E-02 pCi/g Ce-141 11/18/13 U -4.86E-03 2.68E-02 4.80E-02 2.69E-02 pCi/g Ce-144 11/18/13 U -1.44E-02 9.29E-02 1.60E-01 9.31E-02 pCi/g Nd-147 11/18/13 U 1.53E-01 2.84E-01 5.38E-01 2.92E-01 pCi/g Pm-144 11/18/13 U 2.63E-02 2.68E-02 4.17E-02 2.93E-02 pCi/g Pm-146 11/18/13 U 1.23E-02 2.57E-02 4.68E-02 2.64E-02 pCi/g Eu-152 11/18/13 U 2.15E-02 6.22E-02 1.01E-01 1.01E+00 6.30E-02 pCi/g Eu-154 11/18/13 U 8.65E-02 9.91E-02 1.88E-01 9.40E-01 1.07E-01 pCi/g Eu-155 11/18/13 U 4.18E-02 4.03E-02 7.99E-02 4.47E-02 pCi/g Ir-192 11/18/13 U 5.65E-03 1.85E-02 3.42E-02 1.87E-02 pCi/g Hg-203 11/18/13 U -1.08E-02 1.95E-02 3.39E-02 2.01E-02 pCi/g Tl-208 11/18/13 1.64E-01 6.20E-02 3.55E-02 6.36E-02 pCi/g Pb-210 11/18/13 U 2.30E-01 4.57E-01 4.07E-01 4.57E-01 pCi/g Pb-212 11/18/13 3.95E-01 8.83E-02 5.99E-02 9.58E-02 pCi/g Pb-214 11/18/13 5.16E-01 1.01E-01 7.03E-02 1.10E-01 pCi/g Bi-212 11/18/13 U 6.82E-01 3.82E-01 7.85E-01 4.94E-01 pCi/g Bi-214 11/18/13 4.44E-01 1.01E-01 8.55E-02 1.08E-01 pCi/g Ra-228 11/18/13 UI 3.08E-01 1.91E-01 3.08E-01 3.21E-01 pCi/g Ac-228 11/18/13 UI 3.08E-01 1.91E-01 3.08E-01 3.21E-01 pCi/g Th-234 11/18/13 6.91E-01 5.04E-01 4.38E-01 5.28E-01 pCi/g U-235 11/18/13 U 7.61E-02 9.18E-02 1.72E-01 9.22E-02 pCi/g U-238 11/18/13 6.91E-01 5.04E-01 4.38E-01 5.28E-01 pCi/g Np-237 11/18/13 U -3.77E-03 3.59E-02 6.40E-02 1.11E-01 3.59E-02 pCi/g Np-239 11/18/13 U -1.04E-02 1.62E-01 2.99E-01 1.62E-01 pCi/g Am-241 11/18/13 U 9.41E-03 2.69E-02 4.88E-02 2.73E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs are a-priori values.

2. MDCs are calculated a-posteriori values.

3. Gamma spectroscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

4. Air sample volumes are received in units of ft3. GEL converts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected above the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.

M Reported result is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 53 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 3 Survey and On Site Laboratory Data FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 54 of 111

I I

/

/

I I

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 55 of 111

Cs-137 Results for FSS Direct Soil Samples Analyzed using the On-Site Laboratory HPGe Gamma System Cs-137 MDA Sample Number (pCi/g) (pCi/g)

OOL10-04-001-F 4.77E-02 9.38E-02 OOL10-04-002-F -7.70E-03 5.86E-02 OOL10-04-003-F 1.22E-02 8.39E-02 OOL10-04-004-F -3.62E-02 7.00E-02 OOL10-04-005-F 4.13E-02 8.17E-02 OOL10-04-006-F -2.56E-02 7.84E-02 OOL10-04-007-F -3.80E-02 8.64E-02 OOL10-04-008-F 4.36E-02 8.65E-02 OOL10-04-009-F 1.84E-02 6.94E-02 OOL10-04-010-F 5.39E-03 7.00E-02 OOL10-04-011-F 4.75E-02 1.04E-01 OOL10-04-011-F-RC* 3.59E-02 7.96E-02 OOL10-04-012-F 6.01E-02 1.09E-01 OOL10-04-013-F -2.08E-02 9.99E-02 OOL10-04-014-F -1.03E-02 8.03E-02 OOL10-04-015-F 1.71E-02 7.35E-02 Note: Statistical Summary not presented of above data as all FSS direct measurement values were non-detects for Cs-137 (i.e., <MDA)

• Recount Cs-137 Results for Biased Soil Samples Cs-137 MDA Sample Number (pCi/g) (pCi/g)

OOL10-04-016-F-B 5.06E-02 1.29E-01 OOL10-04-017-F-B 1.06E-01 1.25E-01 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 56 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 4 Data Assessment FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 57 of 111

OOL1004 Frequency Plot 3.5 3

2.5 Number of Observations 2

1.5 1

0.5 0

0.038 0.02165 0.0053 0.01105 0.0274 0.04375 0.0601 Bin Upper End Value (pCi/gm)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 58 of 111

OOL10-04 Sample Results Quantile Plot 0.07 0.05 0.03 Activity (pCi/gm) 0.01 0.012

-0.01

-0.03

-0.05 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentile Direct Measurements median 75th Percentile 50th Percentile FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 59 of 111

1.50E01 OOL1004 Sample Results Scatter Plot DCGLga = 7.93 pCi/gm Cs137

• 0.108 1.00E01 5.00E02

• 0.01 0.00E+00 5.00E02

• 0.088 1.00E01 Activity Average "+3StDev" "3StDev" FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 60 of 111

Retrospective Power Curve

~ MARSSIM Power 2000 OOL10-04 Cs-137 GJOOOO File Help Swvey Unit ID:

~ Decision Alpha:

Errors B.eta:

[Reqwred Sampl, Siu]

Swvey Unit 14 Radionuclide: jcs-13 7 ~ Statistical Test 1 joos ..:.I joos ..:.I re Sign Test I2CGL j7.93 r WRS Test 0 4 J r

• J7.93 Critical Value:

S.igma jo.0321 ~ L.BGR j7.57 Mcr = 10.91

~

10 Probability that the Survey Unit P asses Click 1.0 anywhere on the graph to 0.8 update the power curve using newly 0.6 entered parameter values 0.4 0.2 0.0 lb% 3)% 50% 7)% 90% 100% 110% 1)0% 1 ,0%

True Survey Unit Concentration (percent of DC GL)

Exit Program I FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 61 of 111

Sample ID DDLl0-04 (MEPPS AREA) 002 004 005 006 007 009 010 013

@ 015

~ 00110-04 Survey Boundary XXX=OOL10-04-XXX VSP Sample ID #

XXX =OOLl0-04-XXX Biased Sample #

00110-04 VSP Sample Locations Q =Sample Point Location FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 62 of 111

Posting Plot DDLl0-04 4.77E-02

{MEPPS AREA)

-3.62E-02

.13E-02

@ -2.56E-02

-3.80E-02 1.84E-02 5.39E-03 4.75E-02

-1.0 3 E-o 2 -2.08E-02

~ @ 1.71E-02

~ 00110-04 Survey Boundary X.XX E-XX =Result (pCi/g CS-137)

All values are in pCi/g Cs-137 Q =Sample Point Location FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 63 of 111

RCP FSS-11 Attachment 8.1 Rev.DC Page 1 of 1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: OOL-10 !survey Unit No.: 04 Survey Unit Name: MEPPS Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSS- OOLl0-04-0 0 Sample Measuremen t Location: #01 Sample

Description:

Comparison of split samples collected from sample measuremen t location #01 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard count and the off-site is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radio-nuclid e Agreement Comparison Standard Comparison Comparison Ratio Acceptable Range Error Activity 1CT chosen Resolution (e) Activity (g) (h)=(f)/(b) (YIN)

(b) Uncertainty (a) (c) (d)=(b)/(c) (f)

K-40 7.09E+OO 6.30E-01 l.13E+Ol 0.6-1.66 8.00E+OO 3.23E-01 1.13E+OO y Pb-214 3.35E-01 3.44E-02 9.75E+OO 0.6-1.66 4.51E-01 4.55E-02 I.35E+OO y Comments/C orrective Actions: None. Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

Resolution (d) Agreement Range (e)

<4 No Comparison 4-7 0.5-2.0 8-15 0.6-1.66 16-50 0.75 -1.33 51 -200 0.80-1.25

>200 0.85 -1.18 Performed By: {3 ~ L f2. L,d' loate: rz -tr -I3 Concurrence :7r1 .....I..-- 'f'. - / / loate: ,..., h/ ,IL 2.

'- (

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 64 of 111

RCP FSS-11 Attachment 8.1 Rev. OC Page 1 of 1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: OOL-10 !survey Unit No.: 04 Survey Unit Name: MEPPS Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSS-OOLI0-04-00 Sample Measurement Location: ii /I Sample

Description:

Comparison of a recounted sample collected from sample measurement location #11 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy at the on-site laboratory.

STANDARD COMPARJSON Agreement Comparison Radio-nuclide Standard Comparison Comparison Ratio Acceptable Range Error Activity la chosen Resolution (e) Activity (g) (h)=(f)/(b) (YIN)

(b) Uncertainty (a) (c) 1 d)=(b)/(C) (t)

K-40 6.81E+OO 6.50£-01 1.05E+O l 0.6-1.66 9.05E+OO 7.55£-01 1.33E+OO y Pb-212 2.78£-01 3.88£-02 7.17E+OO 0.5-2.0 2.99£-01 3.83£-02 l .08E+OO y Comments/Corrective Actions: None. Table I is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

Resolution (d) Agreement Range (e)

<4 No Comparison 4-7 0.5 - 2.0 8-15 0.6-1.66 16-50 0.75 - 1.33 51 -200 0.80 -1 .25

>200

- 0.85 -1.18

/Jl)/n Performed By

8(!/ A - /, ,;J' lnate: /2 -// -13 Concurrence~ lnate:

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 65 of 111

RCP FSS-11 Attachment 8.1 Rev. OC Page 1 of 1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: OOL-10 Isurvey Unit No.: 04 Survey Unit Name: MEPPS Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSS-OOLl0-04-00 Sample Measurement Location: #015 Sample

Description:

Comparison of split samples collected from sample measurement location #015 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard count and the off-site is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Agreement Comparison Radio-nuclide Standard Comparison Comparison Ratio Acceptable Range Error Activity lcr chosen Resolution (e) Activity (g) (h)=(f)/(b) (YIN)

(b) Uncertainty (a) (c) (d)=(b)/(c) (f)

K-40 6.38E+OO 5.30E-Ol 1.20E+Ol 0.6-1 .66 7.75E+OO 4.74E-01 1.21E+OO y Pb-212 2.94E-Ol 3.03E-Ol 9.72E-O l 0.6-1.66 3.95E-01 4.42E-02 l.34E+OO y Comments/Corrective Actions: None. Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

Resolution (d} Agreement Range (e}

<4 No Comparison 4-7 0.5-2.0 8 - 15 0.6- 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80-1.25

>200 -A 0.85 - 1.18 Performed By: J3J ft_ _ ~~ 1Date: /Z. -/I..,/> Concurrence~ 1Date: 1/;()~7 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 66 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 5 ALARA Statement FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 67 of 111

Generic ALARA Evaluation Comparison Worksheet Survey Area: OOLIO Survey Unit: 04 Reference Generic ALARA Evaluation No.: 2 Applicable Generic ALARA AL: 144 Average DCGL Radionuclide Concentration (pCj/g) (pCi/g) Fraction DCG L I. Cs-1 37 l.03E-02 7.93 l.30E-03

?

3.

4.

If the E (fraction DCGL) <the generic ALARA AL, then the generic ALARA evaluation is applicable to the survey unit.

Check one:

X

- - -- -- - - - - Generic ALARA AL IS satisfied

- -- -- - - - - - Generic A LARA AL IS NOT satisfied Prepared by: Date:

Reviewed by:

FSS Engineer (PrinUSign)

Approved by: Date: S - J. lf -/8 Site Closure Manager or Designee (Prin Sign)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 68 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement Pacific Gas a11d Electric Con,panyf')

Generic ALARA Review for Final Status Survey of Soil at HBPP July, 08, 2013 Martin C. Erickson Reviewed B y , ~ ~ Date: *7 /IO/ 2-D1"3 Approved By: 'A,~~ Date: ----"g-'-/-'1'--+-/_t.:.....3_ __

I Pagc _ _i___of ___Cf. ---*-*

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 69 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................2 2.0 Discussion ..............................................................................................................2 2.1 Cost of perlorming remediation work (CostR): ..................................................... 2 2.2 Cost of waste disposal (Cos1w ): ........................... ........................... .................. 3 0

2.3 Cost of workplace accident (CostAcc): ................................................................ 3 2.4 Cost of traffic fatality (CostTF): ............................................................................. 3 2.5 Cost of worker dose (Cost ): ........................................................................ 3 WDose 2.6 Cost of Dose to the Public (Cost ): .............................................................. .4 POose 2.7 Other costs associated with this situation (Cost01her) ........................... ............... .4 3.0 Calculation ............................................................................................................ .4 4.0 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................5 5.0 References .............................................................................................................5 ii FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 70 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement Executive Summary In addition to the requirement to limit the dose from residual, plant-related radioactivity in soil to members of the critical group to 25 mrem in any year, the License Termination Plan (LTP) requires an evaluation demonstrating that these levels are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). If compliance with the ALARA criterion cannot be demonstrated, remediation of the soil is required, even though this would further reduce the otherwise acceptable exposure to the critical group to levels below those required.

This report is intended to provide a generic ALARA review to bound the conditions under which no further remediation is necessary for soils. Calculations were performed using LTP equations and conservative assumptions. The conclusion is that it is not cost-beneficial to remediate soil in which the levels of residual, plant-related radioactivity are below LTP release criteria.

1 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 71 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement 1.0 Introduction Section 4.4 of the LTP [1] states that a generic ALARA evaluation for soils may be developed to determine if the clean up of soils beyond the DCGLs will be cost-beneficial for HBPP. Section 4.5 of the LTP provides equations and default values for this calculation. This process will be followed, assuming that the soil is at the DCGL and using conservative estimates of costs, distances and other inputs that the worksheet requires. The equation will calculate an action level (AL) that represents the ratio of concentration to the DCGL that would be cost-beneficial to remediate. If that ratio is greater than 1, remediation is not cost-beneficial.

This calculation is meant to apply to areas of any MARSSIM class and any size. In a Class 1 area, where values of residual contamination may exceed the DCGLw in limited areas, the mean concentration may never exceed the DCGLw. Since it is assumed that the entire volume of soil removed is at DCGL , the assumed mean will be at DCGL .

w w Therefore, the assumed case will be bounding.

2.0 Discussion The total cost (Cost ) will be calculated using LTP equation in Section 4.4.1):

T Cost = Cost + Cost + Cost + Cost + Coslwoose+ Costpo0 se + Costother T R WD ACC TF These terms are defined and their values calculated as follows:

2.1 Cost of performing remediation work {Cost ):

• R

• Initially it will be assumed that the job is big enough to require earthmoving equipment. At a minimum, this would be either an excavator or a loader and truck. This turns out not to be a constraint, as explained later.

• To come up with a conservative scenario, the cost of remediating one square meter from a larger project is calculated. Any smaller job by, itself, would have planning and administration costs that would be dominant. Factors contributing to Cost are identified in Attachment 1. The initial estimate for Cost is based R R on a job to remediate 2000 square meters of soil, but to make it comparable to the other costs, that value is adjusted to reflect the cost of 1 square meter.

• The adjusted value of Cost is $7.32 to remediate 1 square meter of soil.

R

• Rounding down to the dollar, Cost = $7 R

Note: The value of CostR calculated above bounds the cost of a smaller excavation, e.g., one that doesn't require earthmoving equipment. For example, two workers who take an hour to dig up some soil and bring it back 2 Page_+/-~ of .. _ _c/_

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 72 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement in wheelbarrow, with no work order or other formal planning, would cost the project about $100 in labor costs (assuming the cost to the project is $50/hr).

So, the constraint that this only applies to jobs big enough to require earthmoving equipment can be removed.

2.2 Cost of waste disposal (Cost ):

WO

• As above, it will be assumed that one square meter of surface soil is to be remediated. Surface soil is considered to be the top 15 cm. The estimated 2

waste volume will therefore be 15 cm times the area of 1 m . This comes to 3

0.15 m.

• The current cost of waste disposal for radiologically contaminated soil is $100 per cubic meter. This includes burial fees and shipping.

• Rounding down to the dollar, Cost . = $15 WO 2.3 Cost of workplace accident (Cost ):

ACC

• CostAcc = ($3,000,000)x(4.2E-8/h)x(Time to perform remediation) .

• $3,000,000 is the monetary value of a fatality equivalent to $2000 per person-rem.

• 4.2E-8 is the workplace fatality rate, in fatalities per hour worked.

• For a 1 square meter excavation, this would not be more than a few person-hours. (Assume Time = 1.62 hr)

• ($3,000,000) X (4.2E-8/h) X (1.62 h) = $0.20

• Rounding down to the dollar, CostAcc = $0 2.4 Cost of traffic fatality (Cost F):

1

• Cost = ($3,000,000)x(3.8E-8/km)x(Volume)x(Distance)/(Volume/shipment) .

TF

• Round trip distance from HBPP to Grand View, ID: 2292 km/shipment ... (from Google Maps) 3

• Waste volume per shipment: 13.6 m /shpmt ... (default in LTP, Section 4.5.1.7.

. 3 3

• ($3,000,000)x(3.8E-8/km)x(0.15 m )(2292 km/shpmt)/(13.6 m /shpmt) = $2.88

• Rounding down to the dollar, Cost = $2 TF 2.5 Cost of worker dose (Cost ):

WDose

• Costwoase = ($2000/person-rem)x(Worker dose rate)x(Time) .

• Dose rates would be insignificant. (Assume dose rate =0.1 mrem/h = 1E-4 rem/h) 3 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 73 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement

• ($2000/person-rem) x (1 E-4 rem/h) x (1.62 h) = $0.32

• Rounding down to the dollar, Costwoose = $0 2.6 Cost of Dose to the Public (Cost ):

PDose

• Cost is assumed to be no more than the Cost .

DP WO

• Assumed Cost = $0 PDose 2.7 Other costs associated with this situation (Cost01her)

There are no other costs associated with this remediation.

3.0 Calculation ALARA Action Level (AL):

Al=---

Cone Costr r + ?c

---

X ----

DCGLw $2,000 X P0 X 0.025 X F X A 1 - e-(rH)N where:

• Cost has been calculated above T

• $2000 is the monetary value of one person-rem (Table 4-1, LTP)

• F = removable fraction = 1 ... (most conservative possible)

• 0.025 is the annual dose in rem to an average member of critical group from residual radioactivity.

• r = monetary discount rate= 0.03/y ... (Table 4-1, LTP)

• N = Number of years over which the collective dose is calculated = 1000 y ...

(Table 4-1, LTP) 2

• PD= Population density for the critical group= 0.0001 people/m . (Table 4-1, LTP) 2

• A = Area being evaluated = 1 m

• Most conservative nuclide of concern is that with the longest half-life, Tc-99, with a half-life of 2.13E5 years (Table 6-1, LTP) and a decay constant (A) of

-1 3.254E-6 y (Note: With the values for other variables used for this calculation, the 1-e ... term equals 1 for any value of A. Therefore, the smallest AL, which is the most conservative, will occur when A, in the top of the equation, is smallest.)

Applying these values to the equation:

Al=

24 0.03 + 3.254£ - 06 X --~---~--

2000 X 0.0001 X 0.025 X 1 X 1 1 - e-(0.03+3.254E-6)*10 00 AL= 144 4

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 74 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement If Tc-99 were at DCGL:

• Sum of DCGL Fractions= 1 Since AL is greater than the Sum of DCGL Fractions, remediation is not cost-beneficial.

In fact, remediation would not be cost-beneficial unless the concentration of any LTP nuclide in soil were at least 144 times the DCGL.

4.0 Conclusions Based upon the results of this ALARA evaluation, it is not cost-beneficial to remediate soil in which the levels of residual, plant-related radioactivity are below LTP release criteria.

5.0 References

1. HBPP License Termination Plan

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1530, "Reassessment of NRC's Dollar per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy," December 1995 5

Page __ :f ___ of ____ 9 ___

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 75 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement Attachment 1 Cost estimate basis 6

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 76 of 111

Attachment 5: ALARA Statement Cost estimate for remediation work (CoslR)

Assume larger project, to dilute fixed costs: 2000 m 2, removing the top 15 cm of soil Time (hr) Rate ($/hr) Cost Const. Planner, Rad Engineer 50 $100 $5000 Supervision/management 1 $200 $200 Resurvey 50 $50 $2500 Additional off-site analysis $2400 Additional on-site analysis $1500 Equip + Operators 10 $250 $2500 RP Coverage 10 $50 $500 Total for 2000 m' $14,640 Cost perm, $7.32 7 Page _9_ ___of__ _ q_

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 77 of 111

RCP FSS-17 Attachment 7.2 Rev. 1 Attachment 6 Gamma Spectroscopy Instrumentation Documentation FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 78 of 111

A CANBERRA lE}COPY Rev. 6/lS/99 DETECTOR SPECIFICATION AND PERFORMANCE DATA Specifications DETECTOR MODEL GC3020 SERIAL NUMBER 05069128 CRYOSTAT MODEL 7915-GA PREAMPLIFIER MODEL 2002C The purchase specifications, and therefore the warranted performance, of this detector are as follows:

(Electric cooling may degrade performance by as much as I0%.)

Active Volume _ _ __ cc Relative Efficiency _ _. .:;3..:.0_ _ %

Resolution 2.0 keV (FWHM)at 1.33 MeV

_ __ _ keV (FWTM) at 1.33 MeV

_ _ _ _ keV (FWHM) at _ _ __

- - - - keV {FWTM) at _ __ _

Peak/Compton _ _5_4_ _ : I Cryostat well diameter

- - -- mm Cryostat well depth

- - -- - mm Cryostat description (if special) 3"0 Endca Physical Characteristics Geometry Closed-end coaxial Diameter 62.5 mm Active Volume

--- - - - mm Well Depth

- - - -- - - cc

_______ mm Length 40.5

---

Well Diameter _ _ _ _ _ __ mm Distance from window 5 JUJU Electrical Characteristics Depletion voltage (+)2500 V de Recommended bias voltage (+)3500 V de Test point voltage at recommended bias (-)0.05 V de (RC preamp only)

Reset interval at recommended bias sec. (Reset preamp only)

Capacitance at recommended bias ~16 pF Resolution and Efficiency With amp time constant of _ _ _6_ _ _ microseconds Isotope 51Co 6oCo Energy (keV) 122 1332 FWHM(keV) 1.04 1.78 FWTM(keV) l.92 3.31 Peak/Compton 57.6:l Rel. Efficiency % 31.4

_ _<-=lc:..:.6=---- Liters per Day.

05/26/06 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 79 of 111

MCA: Type: DSA-2 000 Seria l No.406 1 393 Stab. : Type: DSA-20 0 0 Seria l No.0 Zero centro id : 512 ch Zero window : 8 chs Zero spacin g: 64 chs Zero rate div: 1 Zero range: Ge Zero mode : Off Zero corre ct: 0 Zero overra nge: clear Gain centro id: 7680 ch Gain window : 8 chs Gain s pacin g: 64 chs I.E\ COP Y Gain rate div: 1 Corre ction rng: Ge Gain mode: Off Gain corre ct: 4096 Gain overra nge: clear Zero ratio: 1.000 Gain ratio: 1.000 Chnge r: Type: GChan ger Seria l No.O sampl e chang er status : r eady PLC hard error regis ter: 0 PLC soft error regis ter : 0 PLC out-o f-serv ice reason : 0 HVPS: Type: DSA-2 000 Seria l No.0 Voltag e: 3500.6 v Inh. signa l: 5V Polar ity: positi ve Statu s: o n Range : 500 0 Fault: clear Gain: Type: DSA-2 000 Seria l No.0 Coarse gain: 40 Fine gain: 0 . 4884 S-fine gain: 0.0146 45 Conv . gain: 8192 Range : 8192 Offse t: 0 LLD: 1.001%

Zero: 0.000%

FDisc Mode: Auto FDis c Settin g : 1.0%

Inp. Polar it y: positi ve Inh. polar ity: positi ve LTC mode: On Coinc . mode: anti.

PUR Guard : 1.lOx Inhib it Mode : manua l LT Trim: 250 ICR: 6 r, Type: DSA- 2000 Seria l No . O Rise Time : 5.6 Flat Top: 0.8 DLR mode: Auto Preamp type: RC Pole zero : 3 064 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 80 of 111

GENIE-2000 Cal ibra tion Rec ord s Dete ctor 6, Sn 05069128

@C O P Y

• Energy Re-Ca libratio n Pcrforme dby .~~ Date ,2-#;l- i:J--

Reviewed by QJ. ~ Date $b./J 'J..

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 81 of 111

2/22/2012 4:52:09PM Page I of2 Analysis Report for Energy Calibration Sample ffi]COP t ENERGY CAL/BRA TION REPORT Detector Name  : DET06 ENERGY CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS Energy Calibrate Performed on  : 2/22/2012 4:51 :55PM

. by  : Administrator Energy Calibrate Type  : POLY Energy (keV) = -0.006 + 0.5oo*ch + -1. 22E-07*ch"2 + 3.27E-11*ch'3 SHAPE CALIBRATION COEFFICIENTS Shape Calibrate Performed on  : 2/22/2012 4:51:55PM by  : Administrator FWHM 1.114+ 2.61E-02 'E" 1/2 LOW TAIL = 1.05E+OO + 1.01 E-oJ*E ENERGY CALIBRATION RESULTS TABLE Centroid Centroid Energy Channel error (keV) ll~ .18 0 .01 59.54 176.08 0.00 88 .03 244. 07 0.00 122 . 06 331. 65 0.01 165.85 783.09 0.01 391 . 69 1323.39 0 . 01 661. 65 1796. 25 0.01 898.02 2346.37 0.01 1173.22 2664 . 91 0.01 1332.49 3671 . 34 0.02 1836.01 SHAPE CALIBRATION RESULTS TABLE Energy FWHM FWHM TAIL TAIL (keV) channels error channels error 59.54 2. 71 0 . 03 1. 72 0.09 88.03 2.75 0.01 2.39 0.07 122.06 2 . 80 0.01 2 .90 0 .1 3 165.85 2 . 88 0.02 2 .91 1.00 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 82 of 111

2/22/2012 4:52:09PM Page 2 of2 Analysis Report for Energy Calibration Sample Energy FWHM FWHM TAIL TAIL (keV) channefs error channels error 391. 69 3.14 0.02 4 . 71 1. 00 661, 65 3.43 0.01 3.69 0.27 898.02 3.68 0.02 4.29 1. 47 1173.22 4.03 0.01 4.75 0.54 1332.49 4.19 0.01 5.59 1. 00 1836.01 4. 72 0.03 4.76 0.48

.[E)CO PY FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 83 of 111

DbT 06 1/26/2 012 10:48 :34 AM 2000 - -

1750 - -

1500 ----

>© 1250 - --

~

0) 5-1000 - ---

Q)

C LU 750 - - /"

500 - -

250 _ : /

/

I 1

J I

t I

I t

I I

I I t I I 1 I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I t I J I I I 1 : I ! I I t I I t I I 1 r I I I J I 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Chan nel FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 84 of 111

Db' T06 1/26/ 2012 10:48 :34 AM I* I I* I FWH M Low Tail 4.0 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .

3.5 - -

3.0 - - .

~

> 2.5 - -:

-- T

! 2*0 - \ T

-= I l--------==--::.~

T 1.5 - ~ ~

,- I 1.0 ---- I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I J I I I I I 1 I I l I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I t I : I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I '

I 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Ener gy (keV)

• FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 85 of 111

Certific ate File Listing Report 4/27/2011 4:41 :0 7 PM Page 1

• • • • • • • • • ********* *******~ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

• • • • • CERT IF :r CATE FILE REPOR T *****

j******** ******** *******~ ******** ******** ******** ******** ******** *******

Filename : C: \GENIE2K\ CAMFI;LE S\HB8- 572 11 LD. CTF Certifi cate Descripti on:

Certific ate

Title:

HBS-5.72 11 LD Quantity 1.0,0 units ffiJCO py Assay date 1/1/2/011 9 : 0 0 : 0 0 AM Original Certific ate:

Nuclide Half-Life Energy Emission Rate Emission Rate Name (Days) (keV) DPS/Unit  % Un c ert. ( +-)

Am-241

• l.579E+00 5 59.540* 649.9 3.50 CD-109 4.640E+00 2 88.030* 949.5 4.90 C0- 57 2.709E+00 2 122.060* 487.4 4.10 CE- 139 1.377E+00 2 165.850* 697. 7 3.90 HG-203 4.660E+00 1 279.190 1540.0 3.90 SN-113 1.151E+00 2 391.690* 989.8 3.90

-~s-137 l.102E+00 4 661.650* 620.5 4 . 00 I -88 l.066E+00 2 898.020* 2363.0 3.90 C0-60 1 . 925E+003 1173.220

• 1198. 0 4 .00 C0-60 1. 925E+003 1 1332.490

• 1199. 0 4.00 Y-88 l.066E+00 2 1836.010* 2502.0 3.90

• = Used for Calib/INI T FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 86 of 111

4/27/2011 4:03:00PM l'age I of]

Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample ffi]COPY EFFICIENCY CALIBRATION REPORT Detector Name DET06 Geometrv Description 1L Marinelli LO Efficiency Calibration Performed on 4/27/2011 4:02:31 PM by Administrator Efficiency Type Used DUAL1 ,,vo .>< - e>V£~

Efficiency Triplets Energy  % Efficiency Error Computed Error  % Differnnce 59 .54 1.40E+OO 5 .lOE-02 l.40E+OO 5 . 15E- 02 - 1. 72E-03

88. 0 3 3 . 25E+OO 1.60E-01 3.20E+OO 1 .21E- 01 4 .60E-02 1 22.06 3.79E+OO 1. 50E-01 3.87E+OO 1.07E- 01 - 8. 49E-02 165.85 3. 72E+OO 1. 47E-01 3.66E+OO l.OlE- 01 6.08E-02 279 . 19 2.59E+OO 1 . 04E- 01 2 . 60E+OO 7 .03E-02 -9.79E-03 391.69 1 . 95E+OO 7.73E-02 1. 96E+OO 5.14E-02 -7 . 70E*-03

) 661. 65 1. 26E+OO 5. 14E-02 1. 25E+OO 3 .49E- 02 1.28E- 02 890 . 02 9 . 48E- 01 3.75E-02 9.57E-Ol 2. 21E- 02 -8.40E- 03 1173.22 7. 58E- 01 3 .08E-02 7.59E-01 1.92E-02 - 1.0SE-03 133?. . 49 6.84E- 01 2 . 77E-02 6.81E-01 1. 83E- 02 3.35E-03 1836 .01 5.25E- 01 2 .09E-02 5.26E-01 2.06E-02 -'1.23 E-04 DUAL Efficiency Calibration Equation Sin_qle Equation Terms Offset: -2. 88E+02 Slope : 2. 23E+02 Quadratic: -6. 91E+01 Cubic : 1. 07E+01 4th Order : -8 . 23E-01 5th Order : 2. 54E-02 6th Order : 0. OOE+OO 7th Order : 0 . OOE+OO 8th Order : 0. OOE+OO 9th Order: 0. OOE+OO EMPIRICAL Efficiency Calibration Equation *

)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 87 of 111

4/27/2011 4:03:0UPM Page 2 of3 Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample

)

Empirical Equation Terms Scalin!l  : 9 . 48E+0 2 Offset  : - 4. 7 0E+O O Slope  : 8 . 67E- 0 1 Quadratic Cubic

2 . 18E- 0 3

-2 . 91E- 0 2

[~COPY 4th Order  : 4 . 69E-0 2 5th Order  : - 2 . 54E- 0 2 LINEAR Efficiency Calibration Equation Linear Equaiion Terms Offset : -1. 45E-04 Slope : -2 . 16E+OO Quadratic: 2. 75E+ 02 Cubic : - 3. 52E+ 04 4th Order : 1. 9 4E+0 6 5th Order : - 4 ..4 9E+0 7 6th Order: 0. OOE+OO 7th Order : o. OOE+oo*

8th Order :* 0. OOE+O O 9th Order : 0 . OOE+OO

)

PEAK LOCATE REPORT Peak Locate Perfonned on  : 4/27/2011 3:58:0ZPM Peak Locate From Channer  : 1 Peak Locate To Channel  : 65535 Peak Search Sensitivity  : 5.00 Peak No. Energy (keV) Centroid Cf1an11el Centroid Uncettainty Peak Significance 1 41. 78 8 4 .06 0.1753 l(l . 00 2 59 . 64 119 . 76 0 . 0795 75 . 06 3 73 . 04 1116 . 55 0.3014 5. 72 4 88 .11 17 6 . 69 0 . 059 7 132 . 72 5 122 . 10 244 .65 0 .0665 101. 21 6 136 .4 6 273.38 0.1271 27. 63 7 1 65 . 83 332 .1 2 0.0628 113. 75 8 255. 0 8 51 0. 59 0 . 1852 1 2. 26 9 279 . 1 5 5 5 8. 72 0.0727 78 . 63 10 391. 6 0 78 3 . 62 0. 0640 9:~ . 3 8 11 661 . 68 1323 . 83 0.0 651 8~ . 30 12 814 . 38 1629.23 0.2004 ~.37 1,3 8 98 . 07 17 96.63 0 . 0585 9~.22 14 1173 . 15 2 346.73 0 . 0591 92. 04 15 1324 . 96 2 65 0 .11 0. 2076 &.31 16 . 1332 . 47 2665 . 29 0.0602 84 . 63 17 1836.03 3671 . 56 0 . 061 9 72 . 52 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 88 of 111

4/27/2011 4:03:0BPM l',1ge 3 of3 Analysis Reporl for Efficiency Calibration Sample l

? "' Adjacent peak noted Errors quoted at 1.000 sigma

---~---------- ----------------------~*

copy

( )

)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 89 of 111

DE'-f06 lL Marinelli LD

'~

i I

I I

j

/

2*1 QO ********* /

/

I t

I I '"-,

i 100 ****r I I~\

8*10- 1 '* ~

~.

6*10- 1 ****1*****

I 102 103 Energy (keV)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 90 of 111

DE-f06 lL Marinelli LD

'\**--

~::~~ /~\,

. \

3.5 . ..: :::[ ***_: *\

....1: \

• • -f

.;;L-

\\

3.0 ...) \

• • • t

• • +

i__

'cf2. 2. 5 ... :-*1*: 0

--\-

~ .. /.. \

U I \

C . *r- \\

,,, *t**

w 2.0 ****+* -\.;-

~

(.) +*-1-* ~\

---\

w -!-- \

J... "'

1.5 **.k.. "'- ~ EB 1---

,:_-:-~-* n 1.0

-~

~ -~-:,...

~~ -

,,0 I <

~:*~~~-t-~~~'

1  :  ;

i  :  : . .

0.5 '  :  !  :  ; '

250 500 750 1000 1?50 1500 1750 ?000 Energy (keV )

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 91 of 111

4/27/2011 4:47:37PM EFFICIENCY CO/\JFIRJV!A T/Of\J CHECK REPORT Date  : 4/27/2011 Time  : 4:47:37PM Facility  : Default User  : Administrator Detector  : DET06 Geometry  : 1L Marinelli LO Certificate Name  : HBS-572_ 1L_LD Certificate Date  : 1/1/2011 9:00:00AM Nuclide Energy Nuclide Name Correcte d Measure d  % Difference Certificate Activity Activity 59 . 54 Am- 241 4.893E - 02 5.042E -02 -3.06 88.03 CD-109 6 .8 98E- 01 6.912E -01 - 0.20 122.06 C0-57 l.541E - 02 l . 518E-0 2 165. 85

1. 44 CE-139 2 . 347E-0 2 2.412E -02 - 2.77 279.19 HG- 203 5.384E - 02 5.488E -02 -1. 93 391. 69 SN-113 4.122E - 02 4.141E - 02 661. 65 - 0 . 46 CS-137 1. 970E - 02 l.953E -02 0 . 86 898.02 Y- 88 6.838E - 02 6.763E -02 1173 . 22 1.10 C0- 60 3.238E - 02 3.233E - 02 0 . 16 1332.4 9 C0- 60 3.241E -02 3.248E -02 1836 . 01 - 0 . 22 Y-88 6.804E -02 6 . 780E-0 2 0.36 Averag e Differ ence 0.4 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 92 of 111

~

9> Eckert & Zieg~er ffiJC OP 'f 1380 Seaboard Industrial Blvd.

Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Tel 404*352* 8677 Fax 404* 352* 2837

)

Analytics www.ana lytlcsinc. com CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION Standard Radionuclide Source HBS -  !;" 7t>-

83963 -33 1.0 Liter Simula ted Vegeta tion in 130G GA-MA Beaker Custom er: PG&E/H umboldt Bay P.O. No.: 3500886 495, Item 9 Referen ce Date: 01-Jan-2 011 12:00 PM EST Grams of Master Source: 0.00559 52 This standar d radionu clide source was prepare d using aliquots measur ed gravime trlcally from master radionu clide solution s. Calibrat ion and purity were checked using a german ium gamma spectro me ter system. At the time of calibrat ion no interferi ng ganuna- ray emitting impurit ies we re detected . The gamma ray emissio n rates for the most intense gamma- ray lines are given.

Eckert & Ziegler Analytic s (EZA) maintai ns traceabi lity to !he Nationa l Institute of Standar ds and Techno logy through a Measur ements Assuran ce Program as describ ed in USNRC Regulat ory Guide 4.15, Revisio n 1, Februar y, 1979, and complia nce with ANSI N42.22- I995, "Tracea bility of Radioac tive Sources to NIST." EZA is accredi ted by the Health Physics Society (HPS) for the product ion of NIST-traceable sources

, and this source was produce d in accorda nce with the RPS accredi tation requirem ents. Custom ers may report any concern s with the accredi tation program to the HPS Secreta riat, 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd.,

Ste. 402, McLean , VA 22101.

Master Uncertainty , %

Gamma-Ray Half-Life,

( ) Nuclide Energy (keV) Days Source*

yps/gram

'l'his Source Type Calibration

'YPS UA u>> u Method Am-241 69.5 l.S80E+ 05 6.499E+D2 0.1 1.7 3.6 4rrLS Cd-109 88.0 4.626E+ 02 l.697E+OS 9.496E+ 02 0.8 2.3 4.9 HPGe Co-57 122.1 2.718E+ 02 8.71IE+ 04 4.874E+ 02 0.5 2.0 4.1 HPGe Ce-139 165.9 l.376E+ 02 l.247E+ 05 6.977E+ 02 0.5 1.9 ~.9 HPGe Hg-203 279.2 4.661E+ Ol 2.763E+ 05 l.540E+ 03 0.4 1.9 3.9 HPGe Sn-113 391.7 I.l51E+ 02 l.769E+ 05 9.898E+0.2 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Cs-137 661.7 l.098E+ 04 1.109E+D8 6.205E+ 02 0.7 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 898.0 l.066E+ 02 4.224E+ 06 2.363E+ 03 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Co-60 1173.2 l.926E+ 03 2.142E+ 05 l.198E+ 03 0.6 1.9 4.0 HPGe Co-60 1332.6 l.925E+ 03 2.143E+ 05 l.199E+ 03 0.6 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 1836.1 1.066E+0.2 4.472E+ 05 2.502E+ 03 0.6 1.9 3.9 HPGe

• Master Source refers to Analytics' 8-isotope mixture which is calibrated quarterly.

Calibration Methods: 4rr LS - 4 pi Liquid Scintillation Counting, HPGe - High Purity Germanium Ganuna-Ray Spectrometer, IC-Ionization Chamber. Uncertainty: U - Relative expande d uncertainty, k = 2. See NJST Technical Note 1297, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results."

(Certificate continued on reverse side)

MGS Certificate, Rev 2 09-28-2009 Page 1 of 2 Corporate Office Laboratory 24937 Ave nu e Tibbitts Valencia, Californla 91355 1380 Seaboard Industrial lllvd. Atlant;,. t,pnrni:. ~m,61 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 93 of 111

4/27/2011 11:02:09AM Page I of3

) .

Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1 L Marinelli MD Efficiency Calib. !BCOP'~/

EFFICIENCY CAL/BRA TION REPORT Detector Name DET06 Geometrv Description 1L Ma.rinelli MD Efficiency Calibration Perrormed on 4/27/2011 10:59:25AM by Administrator Efficiencv Type Used DUAL J Nf> )t-ove. R Efficiency Triplets Energy  % Efficiency Error Computed Error  % Difference 59.54 1 . 23E+00 4.62E- 02 1.23E+OO 4.60E- 0 2 - 2.67E-03 88 . 03 2.84E+OO 1.10E- Ol 2.78E+OO 1. OSE-01 5.82E-02 122.06 3.28E+OO 1. 37E- 01 3.37E+OO 9.35E-02 - 8.94E-02 165.85 3 . 26E+OO 1.30E- 01 3.21E+OO 8.88E- 02 5 .09E-02 279 . 19 2.31E+OO 9.39E-02 2. 3QMOO 6.34E- 02 -4 .56E-03 391.69 l.76E+OO 7.07E-02 1, 77E*I 00 4.69E-02 -3. 30E-03 6 61.65 1. 15F.+00 4.74E-02 l.14 E+OO 3 . 22E- 0?. 8.43E-03 898 . 02 8.73E-Ol 3. 4 6E- 02 8.83E-Ol 2.0SE-0?. - 1 .0SE-02 1173.22 7 . 09E-01 2.88E- 02 7.0SE-01 1.79E- 02 3.91E-03 1332 . 49 6.36E-Ol 2.58E-02 6.35E- 01 l.71E- 02 1 .30E-03 1836.01 4 . 94E-01 1.97E- 02 4.95E-01 1. 94E- 02 -7.61E- 04 DUAL Efficiency Calibration Equation Sini:ile Equation Terms Offset: - 2. 86E+02 Slope : 2. 21E+02 Quadratic: -6. 88E+Ol Cubic : 1. 07E+Ol 4th Order : -8. 25E- 01 5th *o rder : 2 . 55E-02 6th Order : 0. OOE+OO 7th Order: 0. OOE+OO 8th Order : 0. OOE+OO 91h Order : 0. OOE+OO EMPIRICAL Efficiency Calibration Equation FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 94 of 111

4/27/20*11 11 :02:09AM l'rigc 2 of 3 Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1 L Marinelli MD Efficiency Calib.

Empirical Equation Terms Scalin~  : 9 . 4 BE+02 Offset : -4 . 78E+OO Slope  : 8. 44E-Ol Quadratic  : 2. 82E-03 Cubic  : - 3. 69E-02 4th Order  : 5. 02E-0 2 5th Order  : - 2. 55E-02 LINEAR Efficiency Calibration Equation Linear Equation Terms Offset : - 1 . 36E- 04 Slope : -2. 20E+OO Quadratic : 2. 7 5E+02 Cubic : -3. 65E+OIJ 4th Order : 2. 09E+06 5th Order : -4. 97E+07 6th Order : 0. OOE+OO 7th Order : 0 . OOE+O O 8th Order: O. OOE+OO 9th Order : 0. OOE+OO PEAK LOCATE REPORT Peak Locate Perfonned on  : 4/27/2011 10:58:33AM Peak Locate From Channel  : 1 Peak Locate To Channel  : 65535 Peak Search Sensitivity  : 5.00 Peal< No. Energy (l<<JV) Centroid Channel Centroid Uncertainty Peak Significance l 41. 79 84 .07 0 . 1711 16 . 60 2 59.64 119. 76 0.0852 65*. 25 3 88 .10 176 . 67 0.0631 117 . 3 5 4 122 . 09 244.65 0 . 0700 90 . 31 5 136 . 45 273.35 0 .1355 24 . 11 6 165 . 84 332 .1 2 0.0659 102 . 88 7 255.02 510.48 0 .1 966 10.15 8 279.15 558.73 0.0756 71. 81 9 391. 60 783.62 0 . 0663 86 . 26 10 661. 67 1323.81 0 . 0671 83 . 5 9 11 814.18 1628.85 0 . 2168 8.02 12 898 . 07 1796. 62 0 . 0597 95 . 22 J3 1173 . 17 2346.77 0. 0603 87 . 70 14 1324.78 2649.68 0.2076 5 . 51 15 1332.47 2665.27 0 . 0615 SJ . . 87 16 1836 ,0 6 3671. 62 0.0632 69. 49 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 95 of 111

4/27/2011 11:02:09AM l'nge 3 of3 Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1 L Marinelli MD Efficiency Calib.

? = Adjacent peak noted Errors quoted at 1.000 sigma

@CO PY FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 96 of 111

DE- f06 IL Marin elli MD 2*1 o0 ....._..

~

0

>i

(..)

C:

• -uCl)

~ 1 QO w

8*10- 1 i....~

~

()

6*1 Q-1 102 103 C:nergy (keV)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 97 of 111

DE--r0 6 1L Marinel li MD

"\:* -

,~\

' \

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 l=nergy (keV)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 98 of 111

1380 Seaboard Industrial Blvd.

Eckert & Ziegler Atlanta, Georgia 30318

• Co py Tel 404*352*8677 Fax 404*352*2837 Analytics www.analytics lnc.com

)

CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION HBS~ Sb'1 Standard Radionuclide Source 83950-33 1.0 Liter Solid in 130G GA-MA Beaker Customer: PG&E/Humb oldt Day P.O. No.: 3500886495, Item 6 Reference Date: 01-Jan-2011 12:00 PM EST Grams of Master Source: 0.0056271 This standard radionuclide source was prepared using aliquots measured gravimetrica lly from master radionuclide solutions. Calibration and purity were checked using a germanium gamma spectromete r system. At the time of calibration no interfering gamma-ray emitting impurities were detected. The.gamma ray emission rates for the most intense gamma-ray lines are given. Eckert & Ziegler Analytics (EZA) maintains traceability to the National Institute of Standards and Technology through a Measuremen ts Assurance Program as described in USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, February, 1979, and compliance with ANSI N42.22-199S , "Traceability of Radioactive Sources to NIST." EZA is accredited by the Health Physics Society (HPS) for the production of NIST-traceab le sources, and this source was produced in accordance with the HPS accreditation requirement s. Customers may report any concerns with the accreditatio n program to the HPS Secretariat, 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Ste. 402, McLean, VA 22101.

Density of solid matrix 1.15 g/cc.

Master Uncertainty , %

Ganuna-Ray Half-Life, Source* This Source Type Calibration Nuqlide Energy (keV) Days 'YPs/grarn 'YPS UA U5 u Method Am-241 59.5 l.580E+05 6.537E+02 0.1 1.7 3.5 4nLS Cd-109 88.0 4.626E+02 l.697E+05 9.649E+02 0.8 2.3 4.9 HPGe Co-57 122.l 2.718E+02 8.711E+04 4.902E+02 0.5 2.0 4.1 HPGe Ce-139 165.9 1.376E+02 1.247E+06 7.017E+02 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Hg-203 279.2 4.661E+Ol 2.753E+05 l.549E+03 0.4 1.9 3.9 HPGe Sn-113 391.7 l.151E+02 l.769E+05 9.954E+02 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Cs-137 661.7 l.098E+04 l.109E+05 6.240E+02 0.7 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 898.0 1.066E+02 4.224E+05 2.377E+03 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Co-60 1173.2 l.925E+03 2.142E+06 l.205E+03 0.6 1.9 4 .0 HPGe Co-60 1332.5 l.925E+03 2.143E+05 l.206E+03 0.6 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 1836.l l.066E+02 4.472E+05 2.516E+03 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe

• Master Source refers to Analytics' 8-isolope mixture which is calibrated quarterly.

Calibralion Methods: 4n LS- 4 pi Liquid Scintillation Counting, HPGe - High Purity Germanium Gamma-Ray Spectrometer, IC -

Ionization Chamber. Uncertainty: U -Relative expanded uncertainty, k::: 2. See NIST Teclmical Note 1297, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainly ofNJST Measurement Results."

(Certificate continued on reverse side)

MGS Certificate, Rev 2 09-28-2009 Page 1 of 2 Corporate Office laboratory 24937 Avenue Tibbitts Valencia, California 91355 1380 Seaboa rd lndustrlal Blvd. Atlanta, Georgia, 30318 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 99 of 111

Certific ate File Listing Report 4/27/2011 4:40:43 PM Page 1

• • • • • • • • • ********* *******~* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

• • • • • CERT IF 11 CATE FILE REPOR T *****

~******** ********* ******~** ********* ********* ********* ********* *********

Filename : . C:\GENIE2 K\CAMFI)L ES\HBS-56 9 11 MD.CTF Certific ate Descripti on:

Certific ate

Title:

HBS-569 lL MD Q~antity 1. op units Assay date 1/1/2;011 9: 00: 00 AM Original Certifica te:

Nuclide Half-Life Energy Emission Rate Emission Rate Name (Days) (keV) DPS/Unit  % Uncert. ( +-)

Am-241 1.579E+00 5 59.540* 653.7 3.50 CD-109 4.610E+00 2 88.030* 954.9 4.90 C0-57 2 .709E+002 122.060* 490.2 4.10 CE-139

• 1.377E+00 2 165.850* 701.7 3.90 HG-203 4.660t;+00 1 279 .190 1549 .0 3.90 SN-113 l.151E+00 2 391.690* 995.4 3 .90 CS-137 1.102E+00 4 661.650* 624.0 4.00

• Y-88 1.066E+00 2 898.020* 2377.0 3 .90 C0-60 1.925E+00 3 1173.220*- 1205.0 4.00 C0-60 1. 925E+003 1332.490* 1206.0 4.00 Y-88 1. 066E+002 1836.010* 2516.0 3.90

• = Used for Calib/INI T FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 100 of 111

4/2712011 2:21 :54PM Pngo I of3 l Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1L Marinelli HD Calib,atlon EFFICIENCY CAL/BRA TION REPORT Detector Name DET06 Geometrv Description 1L Marinelli HD Efficiency Calibration Performed on 4/27/2011 2:20:43PM by Administrator Efficiency Type Used DUAL1 ;vo x-c,V&TZ Efficiency Triplets Energy  % Efficiency Error Computed Error  % Difference 59.54 8. 71E-01 3.42E-02 8.75E-01 3. 41E-02 - 4.00E- 03 88.03 2.34E+OO l.16E-01 2.26E+OO 8.61E- 02 7. 96E- 02 122.06 2.83E+OO l.19E- 01 2.92E+OO 8.13E-02 - 8.96E-02 165.85 2.89E+OO l.16E- 01 2.88E+OO 8.02E-02 9.58E- 03 279.19 2.18E+OO 9. 07E-02 2.14E+OO 5 .92E-02 4. 2 1E-02 391. 69 l.62E+OO 6.49E-02 1.65E+OO 4.38E-02 -2.1 2E-02 661.65 1. 08E+OO 4.43E-02 1. 07E+OO 3.oor.;-02 l.49E-02 898.02 8.09E-01 3.22E-02 8.26E-01 l. 92E-02 -1. 70E-02 1173. 22 6.58E-01 2.68E-02 6.61E-01 1. 68E- 02 -2. 62E-03 1332.49 6.07E-01 2.47E-02 5.96E-01 1. 61E-02 l.17E-02 1836.01 4.67E - 01 1. 86E-02 4.69E - 01 l.84E-02 -2.42E-03 DUAL Efficiency Calibration Equation Sinole EQuation Terms Offset : -3. 09E+02 Slope : 2. 39E+02 Quadratic : -7. 42E+Ol Cubic : 1.15E+Ol 4th Order : -8 .90E-Ol 5th0rder: 2.76E-02 6th Order : 0. OOE+OO 7th Order : 0. OOE+OO 8th Order : 0. OOE+OO 9th Order : 0. OOE+OO EMPIRICAL Efficiency Calibration Equation

)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 101 of 111

4/27/2011 2:21:54PM Pugc 2 of3 Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1L Marinelli HD Calibration Ernpiriccll Equation Terrns Scalin~ : 9. 48E+02 Offset : -4. 84E+OO Slope: 8. 40E-Ol Quadratic : 1. 22E-0 2 Cubic : - s. 32E-02 4th Order: 5. 62E-02 5th Order: -2. 76E-02 LINEAR Efficiency Calibration Equation Linear Equation Terms . Offset: - 1. 20E-04 Slope: -2 . 26E+OO Quadratic: 2. 99E+02 Cubic : - 4. 2 6E+04 4th Order : 2. 59E+06 5th Order : -6. 40E+07 6th Order : 0. OOE+OO 7th Order : 0. OOE+OO 8th Order : 0 . OOE+OO 9th Order : 0. OO E+OO

(

PEAK LOCATE REPORT Peak locate Performed on  : 4/27/2011 2: 19:05PM Peak locale From Channel  : 1 Peak locate To Channel  : 65535 Peak Search SensUivily  : 5.00 Peak No. Energy (l<eV) Centroid Channel Centroid Uncertainiy Peale Significance 1 41. 72 83 . 92 0.1716 18.57 2 59.63 11 9.75 0.0949 52. 24 3 88 . 11 176. 68 0.0668 105.27 4 122 .0 9 244.64 0.0733 81. . 16 5 136.47 2 73 .41 0.1467 19 . 60 6 165 . 83 332.12 0.0684 95.84 7 255.00 510. 43 0. 2139 8 . 14 8 279.1 4 558.70 0.0771 69 . 38 9 391. 60 783.62

• 0. 0 67 6 83 . 64 10 661. 66 1323.7 9 0 .0680 80. 41 11 814.36 162 9 . 20 0.2121 8,26 12 898 .0 7 1796. 63 0 .0610 91.. 56 13 1173.15 234 6.72 0.0616 83.98 14 1324.99 2650.36 0.2117 6 . 41 1S 1 332 . 47 2665. 26 0. 0623 *19 . 11 16 18 36 .08 3671. 68 0.0641 68 . 56 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 102 of 111

4/27/2011 2:21:54PM Page 3 of 3 Analysis Report for Efficiency Calibration Sample 1L Marinelli HD Calibration

? = Adj.icent peak noted Errors quoted at 1.000 sigma ffi]COPY

(

)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 103 of 111

• - DE-1~06 1L Marinel li HD

' /

(S.'

.,../

2*1 o0 .........

/

/'

I I

I I

I

~

I 0

~

(.)

C Q) j

(.) 10° i b= *-** -~*

I w ¢ jL 8*10- 1 .... ***** i I

.... /

I I

6*10-1 .... .i...

/

102 103 Energy (keV)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 104 of 111

D~f06 1L Marinelli HD 3.0 ****r-- ___ _-.... - - - - : - - - - - - - - - - - -- -------------,

t~.-*:\

J *,

..... -r - \\

• • • • i \

I \

2.5 *-::~}- \

$ \

1

r -

• \1**

'e

....J __1,....

'#- 2.0 -j \

G' C

• • l

• • f I \.,.

\"I_..

-~

• j* . ~\ .

u 1.s * * *r \\

~

w tt '"'

r*

-i--* '"'" '-ti 1 .0 . . *11... - ***-'-"'

f: "--,"-

r*.. -~ .

....~

0.5 '. ! ! ' , : * : : :  :- **! * ~ ~

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Fnergy (keV)

FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 105 of 111

4/27/2011 3:01:17PM Pagc--..-of i EFFICIENCY CO/\JFIRMA TION CHECK REPORT Date  : 4/27/2011 Time  : 3:01:17PM Facility  : Default User  : Administrator Detector  : DET06 Geometry  : 1L Marinelli HD Certificate Name  : HBS-571_1l_HD Certificate Date  : 1/1/2011 9:00:00AM Nuclide Energy Nuclide Name Corrected Measured  % Difference Certificate Activity Activity 59.54 Am- 241 4.906E- 02 4.943E- 02 - 0.76 88.03 CD- 109 6.915E- 01 7 .2 09E-0 1 -4.25 122.06 C0-57 l.544E- 02 1. 473E -02 4. 62 165. 85 CE-139 2.353E-02 2.312E-02 1. 71 279.19 HG-203 5.398E-02 5.353E-02 0.85 -2~

391. 69 661. 65 SN-113 CS-137 4 . 132E-02

1. 975E-02 3.992E-02 l .957E-02 3.40 0.91 f) 898.02 1173.22 Y-88 C0-60 6.855E- 02 3.246E- 02 6.682E- 02 3.221E- 02 2.53 (_)

0.78 e: ~

1332.49 C0-60 3 . 249E- 02 . 3.205E-02 1.34 1836.01 Y-88 6 . 821E- 02 6.662E-02 2 .32 ,;

Average Difference 1.22 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 106 of 111

[lllii""il 1380 Seaboard Jndustr/a! Blvd.

~ ~

Eckertt & Z~eo~err '::I Atlanta, Georgia 30318.

Tel 404*352*8677 Fax 404*352*2837 Analytics www.analyticslnc.com CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION Standard Radionuclide Source 83962-33 1.0 Liter High Density Solid in 130G GA-MA Beaker Customer; PG&E/Humbold t Bay P.O. No.: 3500886496, Item 8 Reference Date: 01-Jan-2011 12:00 PM EST Grams of Master Source: 0.0056090 This standard radionuclide source was prepared using aliquots measured gravimetrically from master r adionuclide solutions. Calibration and purity were checked using a germanium gamma spectromel.er system. At the time of calibration no interfering gamma-ray emitting impurities were detected. The gauuna ray emission rates for the most intense gamma-ray lines are given. Eckert & Ziegler Analytics (EZA) maintains traceability to the Nationa l Institute of Standards and Technology through a Measu.rements Assurance Program as described in USNRC Regulatory Guide 4.16, Revision 1, February, 1979, and compliance with ANSI N42.22-1995, "Traceability of Radioac tive Sources to NIST." EZA is accredited by the Health Physics Society (HPS) for the production of NIST-traceable sources, and this source was produced in accordance with the HPS accreditation require ments. Customers may report any concerns with the accreditation program to the HPS Secreta riat, 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Ste . 402, McLean, VA 22101.

Master Uncertainty , %

( ) Gamma-Ray Half-Life, Source* 'flus Source Type Calibration Nuclide Energy (keV) Days ws/gram yps Uti UB u Me thod Ain-241 59.5 l.580E+05 6.516E+02 0.1 1.7 3.5 4nLS Cd-109 88.0 4.626E+02 1.697E+05 9.618E+02 0.8 2.3 4.9 HPGe Co-57 122.l 2.718E+02 8.711E+04 4.886E+02 0.5 2.0 4.1 HPGe Ce-139 165.9 l.376E+02 l.247E+0S 6.994E+02 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Hg-203 279.2 4.661E+Ol 2.763E+05 l.644E+03 0.4 1.9 3.9 HPGe Sn-113 391.7 l.161E+02 1.769E+05 9.922E+02 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Cs-137 661.7 l .098E+04 1.109E+05 6.220E+02 0.7 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 898.0 l.066E+02 4.224E+D5 2 .369E+03 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe Co-60 1173.2 l.925E+03 2.142E+05 l. 201E+03 0.6 1.9 4.0 HPGe Co-60 1332.6 l.926E+,03 2 .143E+05 l.202E+03 0.6 1.9 4.0 HPGe Y-88 1836.1 l.066E+02 4.472E+05 2.508E+03 0.5 1.9 3.9 HPGe

• Master Source refers to Analytics' 8-isotope mixture which is calibrated quarterly.

Calibration Methods: 4rr LS - 4 pi Liquid Scintillation Counting, HPGe - High Purity Germanium Gamma-Ray Spectrometer, IC -

Ionization Chamber. Uncertainty: U - Relative expanded uncertainty, k = 2. See NIST Technical Noto 1297, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results."

(Certificate continued on reverse side)

MGS Certificate, Rev 2 09-28-2009 Page1 of 2 Corporate Office Laboratory 7 4()~7 Au.ont1.c. Tihhlttc: \l::tf t)nrb r-:.>lrfnrrd-:1 01 "Joi:;C '\".>C"ln -- -- L. - - - -' , _J ,,-* ,, I ~I I * ,I FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 107 of 111

Certificate File Listing Re9ort 4/27/2011 4:40:56 PM Page 1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ***********~** ************** ************** ************** ***

• • • • • CERTIFIC ATE FILE REPORT *****

~*i*********** **********~*** *********fa*** ************** ************** ***

Filename: C:\GENIE2K\CAM FI'LES\HBS-571 lL HD.CTF Certificate Descriptioni Certificate

Title:

HBS-5'.71 11 HD Quantity 1. o;o units

@COP Assay date 1/1/2011 9:00:00 AM Original Certificate:

Nuclide Half-Life Energy Emission Rate Emission Rate Name (Days) (keV) DPS/Onit  % Uncert. ( +-)

Am-241 1.579E+005 59.540* 651. 6 3 . 50 CD-109 4.640E+002 88.030* 951. 8 4.90 C0-57 2.709E+002 122.060* 488.6 4.10 CE-139 1. 377E+002 165.850* 699.4 3.90 HG-203 4.660E+001 279.190 1544.0 3.90 SN-113 1.151E+002 391.690* 992 . 2 3.90

' CS-137 1.102E+004 661.650* 622 .. 0 4.00 i' 1

'Y- 88 1.066E+002 898.020* 2369.0 3.90 C0- 60 1.925E+003 1173. 220* 1201. 0 4.00 C0-60 1.925E+003 1332.490* 1202.0 4.00 Y-88 1.066E+002 1836.010* 2508.0 3.90

• =Used for Calib/INI T

\*

I FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 108 of 111

Background and Source Check Measurement Quality Assurance Last Results Reports FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 109 of 111

Last Measurement Q.A. Report 11/13/13 6:39:58 AM Page 1

• '* *'* * *** * *'* ** * '* * * * 'K'*'*'* *'* *'* * * * * *'* * * * ?' * * *** * * * * * * * * * *'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *"* * * * * *"* *

• • • • • G E N I E Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E - . *****

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ************** ************** ************** ***** ~ C ** *** **

Last Results Report . 01:)\_.

11/13 / 13 6:39:58 AM T" QA File: C: \Canberra\Apex\R oot\Default\QA\D OOOOOOOOOlB .QCK

~ Detector: DET06 Sample Quantity: l.OOOOE+OOO Sample Date; 11/13/13 &:25:57 AM Measurement Date: 11/13/13 6': 29: 34 AM Elapsed Live Time: 600.0 seconds

.... E

lapsed Real Time: - - -- 600.0 5econd~

t.. *- Parameter Description- - - , Value *pe.y.ia-tion/:flags - -*

[Mean +/ - Std . Dev.] < tu : .SD: OD: BS>

BCR l.3100E+OOO Boundary Limits: 1.000E+OOOi 1.488E+OOOJ < >

Flags Key: LU - . Lower/Upper Bounds Test (Ab Above, Be= Below}

SD Sample. Driven N-Sigma T-est (In = Investigate, Ac Action}

UD Use*r Driven N-Sigma Test (In ~

Investigate, Ac Action)

BS Mea~uJ;"ement *Bias Test Jin Investigate, Ac - Action)

Performed by  ;;i;;._ ~ Date /)--/3-J.3

.~'""""'*- *--* ** . r:t-=- -. ., r

~

• "T"" * -  :,.. ..:c ~..;

..,.._ . _ , * .....,. --*~ * *_. . . - . . . . . . ~ , .. -~ ,.,._ - . : . . , . . . . . _ ~ . . , . .,... * ~

• e7""1 ...-~ * ., ..

.c .* ...~ ~~ ---5. 4 - C*

• o:;**~c , . * * ... - ~ ~ ~ -- --~ - - ~ - - -~ - ,

,,c,,- ,1, - ... _ -

. . -,-:- . .*..:.* ..--.-L FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 110 of 111

Last Measurement Q.A. Report 11/13/13 7:07:58 AM Page 1

• * *** ***** ** * *** * ** * * * * *.* ****'* ** *.*

• _* ****'* * ** * * * * ** * ** ** * * **!i:;i__* *** ****** * ** * * *

• • • • • G E N I E Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N "?~'o ** * **

• • • • • • • • • • • • • ~****************~****************************** *J:).J;*****

Last Results Report 11/13/13 7:07:58 AM QA File: C: \Canberra\Apex\Root\Default\QA\DOOOOOOOOOlHBS-571 lL~HD Oetector : DET06 Certificate: HBS-571 lL HD Sample Quantity: 1.0000E+OOO

$ample Date : 1/1/11 9 ; 00:00 AM Measurem~nt Date: 11/13/13 6:57:33 AM Elapsed Live Time : 600.0 seconds Elapsed Real Time: 600.8 seconds Parameter Description Valµe Deviation/ Flags

[Me!'ln +/- Std. Dev. J < LU : SD : UD : BS >

Peak e nergy 59.54 keV 5.9528E+001 -4. 4156E-0.02 (UD: 5.9540E+001+/- 0.26600] < >

Peak energy 1332.49 .1 . 3326E+003 2.69 84E-001

[UD: 1. 3325E+003+/- 0.26600] < >

Decay corr.act.Cs-137 2.0220E-002 l . 0792E+OOO

_ __ UJQ: J: 980Q_E~Op2+/.- _ 0. OJW3..cil~ - . ~*-*-- ~-,..------ -* _.,:: __~-*--=--=--.-------;~ >--~-*~-~-

Peak FWHM 1332. 4 9 keV _ 2 .. 0456E+OOO Boundary Limits: [ O.OOOE+OOO, .2.400E+OOO] < >

Decay corrected activity 3 . 2070E- 002 -1. 0540E+OOO (UD: 3.2600E-002+/- 0.00050] < >

Flags Key: LU= Lower/Upper Bounds Test (Ab= Above, Be= Below)

-:._____- ~*=-~- -_-~Q_.,...::=~ S.,c;l.mpJ~~~-Qr:j._y_~n~ll.:;$J.grn~'.!'.-§.2t~ ~(.I.n ==_ ;r:n.;v:es.tigat_e-,..:..Ac-~_ Act'.ioh.):.,.~

. _--. UD = User-: Driven N-Sigma Test +r-n = - Investigate-," Ac = Act i on) -=*

BS Measurement . Bias Test _( In Inve_s_t _i _g_a_t_e,,_Ac-=---Ac:tio n.)_ __

• _ ..,. I Performed by Da,te)/,J 3-13 FSS Report HBPP-FSS-OOL10-04 111 of 111