Text

Yankee Nuclear Power Station Final Status Survey Reports, YNPS-FSS-OMB06-00 & YNS-FSS-OOL15-00, for Survey Areas OMB-06 & OOL-15
	ML070160273
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	08/09/2006
From:	Jeffery Lynch; Yankee Atomic Electric Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME
References
	BYR 2006-066 YNPS-FSS-OMB06-00, YNS-FSS-OOL15-00
	Download: ML070160273 (88)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Telephone (413) 424-5261 49 Yankee Road, Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Ags ,20

 ýA*_uK E E                                                                   BYR 2006-066 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-001

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29) (b) BYR 2004-133, Submittal of Revision 1 to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station's License Termination Plan (c) Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Issuance of Amendment 158 Re: License Termination Plan

Subject:

Submittal of YNPS-FSS-OMB06-00 and YNS-FSS-OOL15-00, the Final Status Survey Reports for Survey Areas OMB-06 and OOL-15, Respectively

Dear Madam/Sir:

This letter submits YNPS-FSS-OMB06-00, Final Status Survey Report for OMB-06, and YNPS-FSS-OOL15-00, Final Status Survey Report for OOL-15. These reports were written in accordance with Section 5 of the YNPS License Termination Plan, "Final Status Survey Plan," and are consistent with the guidance provided in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). We trust that this information is satisfactory; however if you should have any questions or require any additional information, please contact Alice Carson at (301) 916-3995 or the undersigned at (413)-424-2261. Sincerely, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Joseph Lynch Regulatory Affairs Manager

Enclosure:

2 hard copies of YNPS-FSS-OMB06-00 and YNPS-FSS-OOL15-00 plus CDs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BYR 2006-066, Page 2 cc (w/o encl): S. Collins, NRC Region I Administrator Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, NRC Region I J. Kottan, Region I D. Everhart, Region I J. Hickman, NRC Project Manager M. Rosenstein, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region I R. Walker, Director, MA DPH W. Perlman, Executive Committee Chair, FRCOG T.W. Hutcheson, Chair, Franklin Regional Planning Board L. Dunlavy, Executive Director, FRCOG P. Sloan, Directory of Planning & Development, FRCOG cc (w/ encl) D. Howland, Regional Engineer, MA DEP M. Whalen, MA DPH D. Katz, CAN Jonathan Block, CAN

Yankee Nuclear Plant Station Final Status Survey Report For OMB-06 Yankee Atomic Electric Company

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT REPORT NO.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 Prepared by: . 6'-W e .Rena*,IS* Radiological Engineer Date: 7?-*7-6 6 Reviewed by:/Chrnistopher'*C.UA!ýie-r, FSS Radiological Engineer Date: 17*OQ* Approved by: Date: l/9 Martin Erickson, FSSManager-

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 Section Table of Contents Page 1.0 EX EC UT IV E SU M M A RY ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF SURVEY A REA AND UNITS ......................................................................................... 1.2 DATES(S) OF SURVEY ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 NUMBER AND TYPES OF MEASUREMENTS COLLECTED ...................... ................. 1 1.4 SUM M ARY OF SURVEY R ESULTS ............................................................................................................... 2 1.5 C ONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 FSS PRO G RA M O V ERV IEW .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 SURVEY PLA NNING .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 SURVEY D ESIGN ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 SURVEY IM PLEM ENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 SURVEY DATA ASSESSM ENT ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES .............................................................. 3 3.0 SU RV EY A R EA IN FOR M A T IO N ...................................................................................................... 4 3.1 SURVEY A REA D ESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 H ISTORY OF SURVEY A REA ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 D IVISION OF SURVEY A REA INTO SURVEY UNITS .................................................................................... 5 4.0 SU RV EY UN IT IN FO RM A T IO N ............................................................................................................... 5 4.1

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL DATA SINCE HISTORICAL SITE ASSESSMENT (HSA) ........................ 5 4.1.1 Chronology and Description of Surveys Since H SA ....................................................................... 5 4.1.2 RadionuclideSelection and Basis ................................................................................................. 5 4.1.3 Scoping & Characterization................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 BASIS FOR C LASSIFICATION ...................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 R EM EDIAL ACTIONS AND FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................... 6 4.4 UNIQUE FEATURES OF SURVEY U NIT ................................................................................................ 6 4.5 A LA RA PRACTICES AND EVALUATIONS .............................................................................................. 6 5.0 SU RV EY UN IT FINA L STA T US SU RV EY ......................................................................................... 6 5.1 SURVEY PLANNING .................................................................................................................................... 6 5.1.1 FinalStatus Survey Plan and Associated DQOs .......................................... 6 5.1.2 Deviationsfrom the FSS Plan as Written in the L TP .................................................................... 7 5.1.3 D CGL Selection and Use ...................................................................................................................... 8 5.1.4 Measurements ....................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 SURVEY IM PLEM ENTATION A CTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 9 5.3 SURVEILLANCE SURVEYS .................................................................... 9 5.3.1 PeriodicSurveillance Surveys ..................................................................................................... 9 5.3 .2 R esu r v ey s ............................................................ :.................................................................................. 9 5.3.3 Investigations..................................................................................................................................... 10 5.4 SURVEY R ESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 10 5.5 DATA Q UALITY A SSESSM ENT .................................................................................................................. 11 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ..................................................................... 11 6.1 INSTRUM ENT Q C C HECKS ...................................................................................................................... 11 6.2 SPLIT SAM PLES AND R ECOUNTS ............................................................................................................. 12 6.3 SELF-A SSESSM ENTS ................................................................................................................................. 12 7.0 C O N C LU SION ............................................................................................................................................ 13 i

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 Table List of Tables Page TABLE I SURVEY AREA OM B-06 DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 7 TABLE 2 FSS ACTIVITY

SUMMARY

FOR OM B-06 SURVEY UNITS ............................................................................ 9 TABLE 3 SYSTEMATIC DIRECT MEASUREMENT ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION

SUMMARY

........................................ 10 TABLE 4   BIASED DIRECT MEASUREMENT ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION

SUMMARY

...................................................... 1I1 List of Appendices Appendix A - YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06, "FinalStatus Survey Planning Worksheets Appendix B - YA-REPT-00-0 15-04, "Instrument Efficiency Determinationfor Use in Minimum Detectable ConcentrationCalculationsin Support of the Final Status Survey at Yankee Rowe" Appendix C - ALARA Evaluations, OMB-06 List of Attachments Attachment A - Maps and Posting Plots Attachment B - Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Attachment C - Instrument QC Records (In the electronic version, every Table of Contents, Figures,Appendices and Attachments, as well as every mention of a Table, Figure,Appendix or Attachment is a hyperlink to the actual location or document.)

ii

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms AL Action Level ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable c/d ------------ Counts per Disintegration DCGL -------- Derived Concentration Guideline Level DCGLEMC ............ DCGL for small areas of elevated activity DCGLw ------- DCGL for average concentration over a wide area, used with statistical tests DQO ---------- Data Quality Objectives EMC--------- Elevated Measurement Comparison ETD ---------- Easy-to-Detect FSS---------- Final Status Survey FSSP .................... Final Status Survey Plan GPS---------- Global Positioning System Ho ........................ N ull Hypothesis HSA Historical Site Assessment HTD Hard-to-Detect ISOCS ----------------- In-situ Object Counting System LBGR Lower Bound of the Grey Region LTP License Termination Plan MARSSIM .......... Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MDA Minimum Detectable Activity MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration PAB ..................... Primary Auxiliary Building QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control RCA ..................... Radiological Controlled Area RP Radiation Protection RSS ...................... Reactor Support Structure SFP---------- Spent Fuel Pool VC ----------- Vapor Container VCC Vertical Concrete Cask VSP ..................... Visual Sample Plan YNPS Yankee Nuclear Power Station iii

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

A Final Status Survey (FSS) was performed of Survey Area OMB-06, a Class I area, in accordance with Yankee Nuclear Power Station's (YNPS) License Termination Plan (LTP). This FSS was conducted as a structure surface FSS with building occupancy Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) even though the OMB-06 structure will be subsurface at license termination. This practice conservatively implements LTP criteria that subsurface structure surfaces be evaluated for the presence of contamination. 1.1 Identification of Survey Area and Units Survey Area OMB-06 consists of the remains of the concrete structure located at the discharge end of the circulating water system known as the Seal Pit. OMB-06 has an area of 140 M 2 , including walls (floor area: 60 mi2 ). Survey area OMB-06 is bounded, on the north, by survey area OOL-01, a land survey area (the reservoir). On the south by TBN-01-08, and east and west sides are bounded by OOL-03, a land survey area. The Seal Pit has been extensively characterized with a combination of sediment samples, concrete core samples, gamma scans, beta scans and beta fixed measurements. OMB-06 consists of a single Survey Unit, OMB-06-01 1.2 Dates(s) of Survey The FSS of the OMB-06 Survey Area was performed between June 1 3 th, 2005, and June 30h, 2005. The DQA of OMB-06 was performed on November 7 th 2005. 1.3 Number and Types of Measurements Collected Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) was developed for this Survey Unit in accordance with YNPS LTP and FSS procedures using the MARSSIM protocol. The planning and design of the survey plan employed the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process, ensuring that the type, quantity and quality of data gathered was appropriate for the decision-making process and that the resultant decisions were technically sound and defensible. A total of 15 systematic fixed-point measurements were taken, providing data for the non-parametric testing of the Survey Area. In addition to the 15 systematic fixed-point samples, 3 biased samples were taken. Hand-held survey instrument scans were performed to provide 100 percent coverage of the Survey Area. I

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 1.4 Summary of Survey Results Following the survey, the data were reviewed against the survey design to confirm completeness and consistency, to verify that the results were valid, to ensure that the survey plan objectives were met and to verify Survey Unit classification. Fixed point surveys indicated none of the measurements exceeded the DCGLw, depicted in Attachment B. A retrospective power curve was generated and demonstrated that an adequate number of samples were collected to support the Data Quality Objectives. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) (that the Survey Unit exceeds the release criteria) is rejected. 1.5 Conclusions Based upon the evaluation of the data acquired for the FSS, OMB-06 meets the release requirements set forth in the YNPS LTP. The Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to the average member of the critical group does not exceed 25 mrem/yr. I OCFR20 Subpart E ALARA requirements have been met as well as the site release criteria for the administrative level DCGLs that ensure that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's 10 mrem/yr limit will also be met. 2.0 FSS PROGRAM OVERVIEW 2.1 Survey Planning The YNPS FSS Program employs a strategic planning approach for conducting final status surveys with the ultimate objective to demonstrate compliance with the DCGLs, in accordance with the YNPS LTP. The DQO process is used as a planning technique to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of data gathered is appropriate for the decision-making process and that the resultant decisions are technically sound and defensible. Other key planning measures are the review of historical data for the Survey Unit and the use of peer review for plan development. 2.2 Survey Design In designing the FSS, the questions to be answered are: "Does the residual radioactivity, if present in the Survey Unit, exceed the LTP release criteria?" and "Is the potential dose from this radioactivity ALARA?" In order to answer these questions, the radionuclides present in the Survey Units must be identified, and the Survey Units classified. Survey Units are classified with respect to the potential for contamination: the greater the potential for contamination, the more stringent the classification and the more rigorous the survey. The survey design additionally includes the number, type and locations of fixed measurements/samples (as well as any judgmental assessments required), scanning requirements, and instrumentation selection with the required sensitivities or 2

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 detection levels. DCGLs are developed relative to the surface/material of the Survey Unit and are used to determine the minimum sensitivity required for the survey. Determining the acceptable decision error rates, the lower bound of the gray region (LBGR), statistical test selection and the calculation of the standard deviation and relative shift allows for the development of a prospective power curve plotting the probability of the Survey Unit passing FSS. 2.3 Survey Implementation Once the planning and development has been completed, the implementation phase of the FSS program begins. Upon completion of remediation and final characterization activities, a final walk down of the Survey Unit is performed. If the unit is determined to be acceptable (i.e. physical condition of the unit is suitable for FSS), it is turned over to the FSS team, and FSS isolation and control measures are established. After the Survey Unit isolation and controls are in place, grid points are identified for the fixed measurements/samples, using Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates whenever possible, consistent with the Massachusetts State Plane System, and the area scan grid is identified. Data is collected and any required investigations are performed. 2.4 Survey Data Assessment The final stage of the FSS program involves assessment of the data collected to ensure the validity of the results, to demonstrate achievement of the survey plan objectives, and to validate Survey Unit classification. During this phase, the DQOs and survey design are reviewed for consistency between DQO output, sampling design and other data collection documents. A preliminary data review is conducted to include: checking for problems or anomalies, calculation of statistical quantities and preparation of graphical representations for data comparison. Statistical tests are performed, if required, and the assumptions for the tests are verified. Conclusions are then drawn from the data, and any deficiencies or recommendations for improvement are documented. 2.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures YNPS FSS activities are implemented and performed under approved procedures, and the YNPS Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) assures plans, procedures and instructions have been followed during the course of FSS, as well as providing guidance for implementing quality control measures specified in the YNPS LTP. 3

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 3.0 SURVEY AREA INFORMATION 3.1 Survey Area Description Survey Area OMB-06 consists of the reinforced concrete structure located at the discharge end of the circulating water system known as the Seal Pit. The footprint of OMB-06 is approximately 140 m2. Survey area OMB-06 is bounded, on the north, by survey area OOL-01, a land survey area, on the south by TBN-01-08 and OMB-06 is bounded on the east and west by OOL-3, a land survey area. A map is included in Attachment A. This structure is partly underground, partly underwater and partly above the ground and water. The aboveground structure was removed to a line that is three feet below grade and then was backfilled with riprap, providing a hard, artificial shoreline facing to reduce erosion. OMB-06-01 includes the portion of the Seal Pit that remains after the above ground structure was removed to a line that is three feet below grade. It has an area of 140 m2, including walls (floor area: 60 m2). The concrete that was removed was subjected to a free release survey, using the truck monitor. 3.2 History of Survey Area The interior of Survey Unit 01 received water that was being discharged from the Circulating Water System. The FSS has been completed on the adjacent Circ Water Discharge line. That line carried low-level radioactivity during plant operations that came from the Service Water Discharge line as part of the licensed release path for liquid effluents. After plant operations ceased, an alternate licensed release pathway was established that discharged directly into the Seal Pit. That pathway has been terminated and the line has been removed. The Seal Pit has been extensively characterized with a combination of sediment samples, concrete core samples, gamma scans, beta scans and beta fixed measurements. The demolition of the above-grade portion of the Seal Pit occurred after the FSS of OMB-06-01 because the process of demolition would allow most of OMB-06-01 to flood, since it is below the water level of Sherman Pond. A small portion of this unit was completed after the demolition of the upper part began. There is a large gate valve in the second chamber, which was removed after the concrete deck above that chamber was removed. As soon as the gate valve was removed, the surfaces that were newly exposed were scanned, and fixed measurements were taken. The question of possibly compromising the FSS of OMB-06-01 by having debris from the concrete that was removed fall into it was considered. This was not a problem because 100 percent of the debris from the concrete that was removed was assayed to 4

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 ODCM environmental and DCGL-based MDCs, thus validating the decision on potential debris contamination. Upon completion of the demolition, an area surveillance resurvey of OMB-06-01 was performed in accordance with DPF-8860. 3.3 Division of Survey Area into Survey Units Survey Area OMB-06 consists of a single Survey Unit, OMB-06-01. 4.0 SURVEY UNIT INFORMATION 4.1 Summary of Radiological Data Since Historical Site Assessment (HSA) 4.1.1 Chronology and Description of Surveys Since HSA Isolation and control measures were implemented for the FSS. The condition of OMB-06 Survey Units at the time of FSS was smooth to heavily remediated steel reinforced concrete. 4.1.2 Radionuclide Selection and Basis During the initial DQO process, Co-60 was identified as the radiological nuclide of concern due to its more restrictive DCGL value when compared to Cs-137 (sampling of soil adjacent to the concrete indicated a relationship of approximately 80% Co-60 to 20% Cs-137). Adjacent soil characterization and survey data indicate no other LTP-specified radionuclides warrant consideration in the OMB-06 Survey Units. 4.1.3 Scoping & Characterization The Seal Pit has been extensively characterized with a combination of sediment samples, concrete core samples, gamma scans, beta scans and beta fixed measurements. This is based upon the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Sample Plan for the Seal Pit (APF-0831.1), approved 6/1/05. Taking Co-60 as the sole radionuclide of concern is conservative, based upon that data. The sediment that was in the pit was dominated by Co-60, but the only plant-related nuclide in the concrete core samples was Cs-137. Using Cs-137 as the radionuclide-of-concern or using a mix of Co-60 and Cs-137 would have permitted the use of a higher DCGL and a higher calculated source efficiency for the beta measurements. 5

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 4.2 Basis for Classification Based upon the radiological condition of this Survey Area identified in the operating history and as a result of the decommissioning activities performed to date, Survey Area OMB-06 is identified as a Class I Area. 4.3 Remedial Actions and Further Investigations No further investigations or remediation were required for Survey Area OMB-06. 4.4 Unique Features of Survey Unit Survey Unit OMB-06-01 exhibited surface characteristics ranging from smooth surfaces to heavily remediated irregular surfaces. Most of the pits and irregularities increased the source-to-detector distance by approximately I/4 - 1/2 inch, although some increase it as much as I - 2 inches. These types of irregularities in the concrete surfaces were taken into account through the efficiency factor applied to the measurements collected with the HP-100. Technical report YA-REPT-00-015-04 (Appendix B) provides instrument efficiency factors (Fi) for various source-to-detector distances. The j value for a source-to-detector distance of 1 inch was selected as a representative efficiency for data collected with the HP-100 from the irregular surfaces because it accounts for the V2 inch stand-off and the most common depth of pits and surface irregularities (/ - V2 inch). In contrast to the irregular surfaces, the vertical walls of the structures are relatively smooth. Table 4.2 of the YA-REPT-00-015-04 (Appendix B) provides instrument efficiency factors (Ei) for various source-to-detector distances. Detector efficiencies (HP-100C) were applied as follows: smooth surface 0.0603 c/d, irregular surface 0.0373 c/d. 4.5 ALARA Practices and Evaluations An ALARA evaluation was developed for OMB-06 Survey Area which concluded that additional remediation was not warranted. These evaluations are found in Appendix C. 5.0 SURVEY UNIT FINAL STATUS SURVEY 5.1 Survey Planning 5.1.1 Final Status Survey Plan and Associated DQOs The FSS for OMB-06 was planned and developed in accordance with the LTP using the DQO process. Form DPF-8856.1, found in YNPS Procedure 8856, "Preparationof Survey Plans," was used to provide guidance and consistency during development of the FSS Plan. The FSS Plan can be found in Appendix A. The DQO process allows for 6

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 systematic planning and is specifically designed to address problems that require a decision to be made in a complex survey design and, in turn, provides alternative actions. The DQO process was used to develop an integrated survey plan providing the Survey Unit identification, sample size, selected analytical techniques, survey instrumentation, and scan coverage. The Sign Test was specified for non-parametric statistical testing for this Survey Unit, if required. The design parameters developed are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Survey Area OMB-06 Design Parameters Survey Unit Design Parameter Value Basisi OMB-06-01 Area 140 m2 Class 1, <100 m2 Number of Direct Measurements 15 (calculated) ca (Type 1) = 0.05

                                                  + 0 (added)          P (Type II) = 0.05 Total: 15 calculated  7: 505 3 Biased             Relative Shift: 2 Adjusted LBGR: 6190 Sample Area                           9.33m2               Area / Sample #

Sample Grid Spacing, triangular pitch 3.3m Square Root (Area/(0.866*Sample #)) Scan area 140 m2 Class I Area- 100% _Scan Investigation Level > Background Audible SPA-3 & HP-100 Scan 5.1.2 Deviations from the FSS Plan as Written in the LTP The FSSP design was performed to the criteria of the LTP; therefore, no LTP deviations with potential impact to this Survey Area need to be evaluated. 7

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 5.1.3 DCGL Selection and Use It must be noted that for the final evaluation of OMB-06 and throughout this report, the acceptance criteria of Building Surface LTP-listed DCGL values has been applied. However, given that all of the remaining slab and foundation structure will be at least a few feet subsurface before site grading is complete and will be in such a state at license termination, the LTP, section 5.6.3.1.2, "Exterior Surfaces of Building Foundations," establishes the applicable guidance, as it addresses methods that may be applied to determine if subsurface structure surfaces will be acceptable by meeting LTP-required concrete volumetric DCGLs. With the established LTP guidance, given that Co-60 and Cs-137 have been found to be the only radionuclides of significance in the area of concern, and conventional hand-held instrument survey criteria techniques being conservatively based on Co-60 beta emissions, performing a Class 1 survey applying Building Surface DCGLs has led to a very conservative approach in determining the final status of the Survey Unit. DCGLw: 7,200 dpm/100 cm 2 2 DCGLEMC: 10,000 dpm/100 cm 5.1.4 Measurements Error tolerances and characterization sample population statistics drove the selection of the number of fixed point measurements. The fixed-point sampling grid was developed as a systematic grid with spacing consisting of a triangular pitch pattern with a random starting point. Sample measurement locations are provided in Attachment A. 8

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 5.2 Survey Implementation Activities Table 2 provides a summary of daily activities performed during the Final Status Survey of Survey Units in OMB-06. Table 2 FSS Activity Summary for OMB-06 Survey Units Suy NUit Date Actvit OMB-06-01 06-13-05 Performed walk-down of Survey Unit, established Isolation and Controls 06-14-05 Performed Job Hazard Analysis, and Unit Classification 06-15-05 Performed Sample Quantity Calculations, established DQOs 06-15-05 Generated FFS Sample Plans 06-15-05 to Initiated Scans, and Static measurements. 06-17-05 11-07-05 DQA Complete, FSS Complete 5.3 Surveillance Surveys 5.3.1 Periodic Surveillance Surveys Upon completion of the FSS of Survey Area OMB-06, the Survey Unit was placed into the program for periodic surveillance surveys on a quarterly basis in accordance with YNPS procedure DP-8860, "Area Surveillance Following Final Status Survey." These surveys provide assurance that areas with successful FSS remain unchanged until license termination. 5.3.2 Resurveys The demolition of the above-grade portion of the Seal Pit occurred after the FSS of OMB-06-01 because the process of demolition would allow most of OMB-06-01 to flood, since it is below the water level of Sherman Pond. Upon completion of the demolition, an area surveillance resurvey of OMB-06-01 was performed in accordance with DPF-8860 because the Survey Unit was potentially compromised during the retrieval of concrete debris from the reservoir. The debris and bottom sediments were piled near the FSS survey unit on the east side. A concern was that some. incidental amount of the sediment might have fallen within the footprint of the seal pit structure. Steel plating covered by approximately 3 feet of concrete rubble was used as reinforcement for staging a backhoe to facilitate the ongoing retrieval of the concrete debris from the reservoir. 9

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 The proof that the interior of the structure was not contaminated is based upon surveys performed on the steel plates and concrete rubble that were placed over the seal pit footprint immediately following FSS activities. Six biased fixed measurements were taken with the HP-1OGC directly (half inch standoff) on the steel plating. Three of the six fixed measurements were taken along the east side of the Seal Pit and the remaining three-fixed measurements were taken along the southern side of the Seal Pit. The truck monitor was utilized to analyze the concrete debris following its removal from above the steel plating. Soil /pulverized concrete samples were also taken at several biased locations within the excavated area in and around the seal pit footprint. The samples were analyzed on-site for gamma emitting LTP nuclides of concern (Co-60 and Cs-137). The results from the truck monitor analyses and the soil samples served as an indicator as to whether the FSS of the survey unit had been compromised. The results indicated that the radiological condition of the survey unit had remained unchanged. 5.3.3 Investigations No additional investigations were required for this Survey Unit due to surveillance surveys. 5.4 Survey Results Direct measurement surveys indicated that OMB-06-01 had no measurement that exceeded the DCGLw, depicted in Attachment B. A retrospective power curve was generated and demonstrated that an adequate number of samples were collected to support the Data Quality Objectives. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) (that the Survey Unit exceeds the release criteria) is rejected. Table 3 Systematic Direct Measurement Activity Concentration Summary F_ ý dpm/00, cm2) OMB-06-01-001-F-FM 1602 OMB-06-01-002-F-FM 1768 OMB-06-01-003-F-FM 1668 OMB-06-01-004-F-FM 1884 OMB-06-01-005-F-FM 1072 OMB-06-01-006-F-FM 2282 OMB-06-01-007-F-FM 1884 OMB-06-01-008-F-FM -288 OMB-06-01-009-F-FM 1635 OMB-06-01-010-F-FM 2315 OMB-06-01-01 1-F-FM 2348 OMB-06-01-012-F-FM 1718 OMB-06-01-013-F-FM 1420 10

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 OMB-06-01-014-F-FM 2215 OMB-06-01-015-F-FM 1453 Average 1665 Standard Deviation 652 Table 4 Biased Direct Measurement Activity Concentration Summary Sampwle ID NetI1Activity 1 OMB-06-01-016-F-FM-B 1503 OMB-06-01-017-F-FM-B -1199 OMB-06-01-018-F-FM-B -685 5.5 Data Quality Assessment The Data Quality Assessment phase is the part of the FSS where survey design and data are reviewed for completeness and consistency, ensuring the validity of the results, verifying that the survey plan objectives were met, and validating the classification of the Survey Unit. The sample design and the data acquired were reviewed and found to be in accordance with applicable YNPS procedures DP-8861, "Data Quality Assessment"; DP-8856, "Preparationof Survey Plans"; DP-8853, "Determination of the Number and Locations of FSS Samples and Measurements"; DP-8857, "Statistical Tests"; DP-8865, and DP-8852, "FinalStatus Survey Quality Assurance ProjectPlan". The Data Quality Assessment power curves, frequency, quantile, and scatter plots are found in Attachment B. There are no data points above DCGLw, so the sign test was not performed. An assessment of the frequency plot exhibits minor bimodality however, upon reviewing the posting plot, there are no clearly revealed systematic spatial trends as shown in Attachment A (posting plot).. The scatter plot indicates a normal dispersion of the data set whose range is within three standard deviations. The Quantile plot displays a slight asymmetry in the lower quartile attributed to a low measurement, however, the value does not question the verification of the statistical test assumptions. 6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL 6.1 Instrument QC Checks Operation of the E-600 w/SPA-3 was in accordance with DP-8535,"Setup and Operation of the Eberline E-600 Digital Survey Instrument," with QC checks preformed in accordance with DP-8540, "Operation and Source Checks of Portable Friskers." Instrument response checks were performed prior to and after use for the E-600 w/SPA-3. All instrumentation involved with the FSS of OMB-06 satisfied the above criteria for the survey. QC records are found in Attachment C. 1I

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 6.2 Split Samples and Recounts DP-8864,"Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey" deals strictly with soil samples and provides no criteria for fixed-point measurements therefore no measurement comparison were made. 6.3 Self-Assessments No self-assessments were performed during the FSS of OMB-06. 12

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00

7.0 CONCLUSION

The FSS of OMB-06 has been performed in accordance with YNPS LTP and applicable FSS procedures. Evaluation of the fixed-point data has shown that none of the fixed-point measurements exceeded the DCGLw, depicted in Attachment B. A retrospective power curve was generated and demonstrated that an adequate number of samples were collected to support the Data Quality Objectives. Therefore, the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. OMB-06 meets the objectives of the Final Status Survey. Based upon the evaluation of the data acquired for the FSS, OMB-06 meets the release requirements set forth in the YNPS LTP. The Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) to the average member of the critical group does not exceed 25 mrem/yr. IOCFR20 Subpart E ALARA requirements have been met as well as the site release criteria for the administrative level DCGLs that ensure that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's 10 mrem/yr limit will also be met. 13

Report No.: YNPS-FSS-OMB-06-00 List of Appendices Appendix A - YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06, "FinalStatus Survey PlanningWorksheets Appendix B - YA-REPT-00-0 15-04, "Instrument Efficiency Determinationfor Use in Minimum Detectable ConcentrationCalculationsin Support of the Final Status Survey at Yankee Rowe" Appendix C - ALARA Evaluations, OMB-06 List of Attachments Attachment A - Maps and Posting Plots Attachment B - Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Attachment C - Instrument QC Records (In the electronic version, every Table of Contents, Figures, Appendices and Attachments, as well as every mention of a Table, Figure,Appendix or Attachment is a hyperlink to the actual location or document.) 14

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet Page 1 of 6 GENERAL SECTION Survey Area #: OMB-06 Surve Unit #: 01 Survey Unit Name: Seal Pit - Below Grade Structure FSSP Number: YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 (Rev.1 changes in bold) PREPARATION FOR FSS ACTIVITIES 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. [] 1.2 ALARA review has been completed for the survey unit. l] 1.3 The survey unit has been turned over for final status survey. WI 1.4 An initial DP-8854 walkdown has been performed and a copy of the completed Survey Unit Walkdown Evaluation is in the survey area file. WI 1.5 Activities conducted within area since turnover for FSS have been reviewed. 21 Based on reviewed information, subsequent walkdown: R1 not warranted [] warranted If warranted, subsequent walkdown has been performed and documented per DP-8854. El OR The basis has been provided to and accepted by the FSS Project Manager for not performing a subsequent walkdown. 0l 1.6 A final classification has been performed. WI Classification: CLASS 1 WI CLASS 2 El CLASS 3 El DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO) 1.0 Statement of problem: Survey Area OMB-06 is the Seal Pit. Thisstructure is partly underground, partly underwater and partly above the ground and water. The plan is to remove the above-ground structure to a line that is three feet below grade and then backfill with riprap. This survey unit includes the part of the structure that will remain. It has an area of 140 mn 2 , including walls (floor area: 60 in). The concrete that is removed will either be shipped off site, or subjected to a final status survey (FSS) as a separate unit (OMB 02), using the truck monitor. The adjacent Survey Area on the pond side is OOL-01, which will get its FSS later, but before backfilling into the pond. The demolition of the above-grade portion of the Seal Pit is planned to occur after the FSS of Survey Unit 01. It has to be done this way, because the process of demolition will allow most of Survey Unit 01 to flood, since it is below the water level in Sherman Pond. A small portion of this unit will have to be completed after the demolition of the upper part has begun. There is a large gate valve in the second chamber which will be removed after the concrete deck above that chamber has been removed. As soon as the gate valve is removed, the surfaces that are newly exposed will be scanned, and at least one fixed measurement will be taken. The question of possibly compromising the FSS of Survey Unit 01 by having debris from Survey Unit 02 fall into it has been considered. This is not expected to be a problem because Survey Unit 02 has had much less opportunity to be contaminated than Survey Unit 01. Also, it should be noted that 100 percent of the demolished debris from Unit 02 will be assayed to ODCM environmental and DCGL-based MIDCs, thus validating the decision on potential debris contamination. DPF-8856.1 YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 1 of 6

Upon completion of the demolition, an area surveillance resurvey of Unit 01 will be performed in accordance with DPF-8860. This resurvey will be based upon a study of the debris from Unit 02. The interior of Survey Unit 01 received water that was being discharged from the Circulating Water System. The FSS has been completed on the adjacent Circ Water Discharge line. That line carried low-level radioactivity during plant operations that came from the Service Water Discharge line as part of the licensed release path for liquid effluents. After plant operations ceased, an alternate licensed release pathway was established that discharged directly into the Seal Pit. That pathway has been terminated and the line has been removed. The Seal Pit has been extensively characterized with a combination of sediment samples, concrete core samples, ganmma scans, beta scans and beta fixed measurements. The problem at hand is to demonstrate that the years of plant operation did not result in an accumulation of plant-related radioactivity, in the structure, that exceeds the release criterion. The planning team for this effort consists of the Radiation Protection Manager, Seal Pit Project Manager, FSS Project Manager, FSS Radiological Engineer, FSS Field Supervisor, and FSS Technicians, The FSS Radiological Engineer will make primary decisions with the concurrence of the FSS Project Manager. 2.0 Identify the decision: Does residual plant-related radioactivity, if present in the survey unit, exceed the release criterion? Alternative actions that may be implemented in this effort are investigation, remediation, or removal as radioactive waste. 3.0 Identify the inputs to the decision: Sample media: Concrete, if needed for investigation. Types of measurements: 100% beta scan, biased gamma scans, fixed beta measurements on a grid with a random start point. Radionuclide-of-concern:Co-60 This is based upon the Yankee Atomic Electric Company Sample Plan for the Seal Pit (APF-083 1.1), approved 6/1/05. Taking Co-60 as the sole radionuclide of concern is conservative, based upon that data. The sediment that was in the pit was dominated by Co-60, but the only plant-related nuclide in the concrete core samples was Cs-137. Using Cs-137 as the radionuclide-of-concern or using a mix of Co-60 and Cs-137 would have permitted the use of a higher DCGL and a higher calculated source efficiency for the beta measurements. Applicable DCGL: 7200 dpm/100 cm2 (Co structure surface) (434 cpm, HP-100) If concrete samples are necessary, the Subsurface Partial Structures DCGLs will apply. These are: H-3: 1.35E2; C-14: 2.34E3; Co-60: 3.45E3; Ni-63: 6.16E4; Sr-90: 1.39E1; Cs-137: 1.45E3; all in pCi/g. DCGLemc: Area Factor: AFC°-60 = 1.4 DCGL,,,C = AFxDCGL DCGLemc = 10,000 dpm/100 cm 2 (Co-60) (603 cpm, HP-100) Average

Background:

3500 dpm (211 cpm, HP-100) Standarddeviation: 149 dpm (9.0 cpm, HP-100) SurrogateDCGL: No surrogate DCGL will be used. DPF-8856.1 YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 2 of 6

InvestigationLevelforfixed-point measurements: 10,000 dpm/100 cm 2 (603 cpm, HP-100) -or- any result that is 7200 dpm/100 cm 2 (434 cpm, HP-100) and differs from the mean of the other results by greater than three standard deviations. This is based on 100% Co-60 InvestigationLevel for SPA-3 scan: Increase above background using an audible signal and earphones. The initial investigation shall be to resurvey the point(s) of concern to validate the increased meter response. If there is no response above 13,000 cpm, then the investigation results are satisfactory and there is no need for further action. It there is a reproducible response greater than 13,000 cpm, then further investigation is required at the direction of the FSS Rad Engineer. InvestigationLevel for HP-100scan: 10,000 dpm/100 cm 2 (603 cpm above established background, HP-100) Expected background rangefor HP-100scan: 180 cpm to 240 cpm Radionuclidesforanalysis: Any concrete samples collected will be analyzed for all seven nuclides for which the LTP lists Subsurface Partial Structures DCGLs. MDCs for analysis of any concrete samples: Nuclide MDC H-3: 13.5 pCi/g C-14: 234 pCi/g Co-60 345 pCi/g Ni-63: 6160 pCi/g Sr-90: 1.39 pCi/g Cs-137: 145 pCi/g Gross Activity DCGL: The DCGL for the HP-100 is based on the assumption that all of the activity is Co-60. DCGLGA = 7200 dpm/100 cm2 to achieve less than 10 mrem/y. Using a total efficiency (c,x c,) of 0.0603 for the HP-100, and its probe area of 100 cm 2, this comes to 434 cpm.

Background:

Based upon characterization data collected using Yankee Atomic Electric Company Sample Plan, Survey Location: Seal Pit, prepared by J. Hummer, dated 6/1/05. HP-100 background: 211 cpm, with a standard deviation of 9 cpm SPA-3: 9000 - 12,000cpm Efficiencies and MDCfor HP-I00 Fixed Point Measurements:The efficiencies come from YA-REPT-00-015-04. ci = 0.2413 (This is the 2irbeta efficiency established for this detector at 0.5 inch) c, = 0.25 (for beta emitters <-0.400MeVmx, e.g., Co-60) MDCfixnd (HP-100): = 1169 dpm/100 cm 2 (70 cpm, HP-100) Scan coverage: HP- 100 scans will be performed over the entire inside surface of the Seal Pit below the cut line. SPA-3 scans will be biased as described in the General Instructions section. Scan MDCR (HP-I00) : 110.6 cpm Scan MDC (HP-IO0)(IDCGLEMc):0.225 Note: MDCR/MDC values for the SPA-3 are not required when it is used as an investigation tool because this is over and above LTP requirements. Gamma scanning will be done only to find any possible elevated areas for further investigation. Scan MDCR (SPA-3): N/A Scan MDC (fDCGL): N/A Background Determination:Background will be determined in the accordance with DP-8866, using the DPF-8856.1 YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 3 of 6

guidance for "Ambient Background Measurements." QC checks and measurements: QC checks for the E-600/HP-l00 will be performed in accordance with DP-8504. QC checks for the E-600/SPA-3 will be performed in accordance with DP-8540. No split samples will be collected because samples are not the basis for the FSS. 4.0 Define the boundaries of the survey: Boundaries of Survey Unit 01 are the interior surface of the Seal Pit, up to the cut line. The concrete above the cut line (Unit 02) is expected to go through the truck monitor under a different FSS plan. The attached map shows the surfaces to be surveyed with the walls folded down. There is a shelf, called the Energy Dissipation Basin under the water that is shown on the construction prints for the Seal Pit. This goes along the bottom of Sherman Pond, and will be considered part of Survey Area OOL-01, to be surveyed later, 5.0 Develop a decision rule:

1. If all the fixed measurements, including any investigation measurements resulting from scanning, show that the surface concentrations of radionuclides are below the average background plus the DCGL, reject the null hypothesis (i.e., the Survey Unit meets the release criterion).

2. If any fixed measurements exceed the DCGL, apply the sign test to determine if the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected.

3. If the investigation level is exceeded on any fixed measurement, perform an investigation.

4. If the average of the fixed measurements exceeds the DCGL, then accept the null hypothesis (i.e.,

the Survey Unit fails to meet the release criterion). 6.0 Specify tolerable limits on decision errors: Null hypothesis: Residual plant-related radioactivity in the Survey Unit exceeds the release criterion. Probabilityof type I error: 0.05 Probabilityof type II error: 0.05 LBGR: 3600 dpm 7.0 Optimize Design: Type of statistical test: WRS Test 0] Sign Test 0] Basis including background reference location: The average, ambient background, determined in accordance with DP-8866, may be subtracted from the fixed-point measurements. Number of samples : 15 measurements on the grid established with a random start point. At least one biased measurement will be taken in the area exposed by the removal of the gate valve in the second chamber. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Final Status Survey

1. Notify QA of date and time of the pre-survey briefing, commencement of background measurements, fixed-point measurements, scanning and any other scheduled activities subject to QA notification.

2. Mark the grid locations as described in Specific Instructions.

3. Scan the following locations with an E-600/SPA-3, moving the probe at 0.25 m/s in a line at a distance no greater than 3 inches from either surface:

a. Horizontally along the comer between the floor and all four walls in both chambers.

b. Vertically along the four comers of each chamber, from the floor to approximately six feet above the floor.

DPF-8856.1 YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 4 of 6

c. Along any visible cracks.

4. Take 15 fixed-point measurements with the E-600/HP-100 at the grid locations indicated on the map, in addition to any biased measurements that may be requested by the FSS Rad Engineer.

5. Fixed point measurement location designation:

a. Grid point locations: OMB-06-01-001-F-FM through OMB-06-01-015-F-FM.

b. Biased fixed measurement locations: Continuing the pattern OMB-06-01-XXX-F-FM-B, with the next sequential number in place of the XXX.

6. Scan 100% of the interior surface below the cut lines and including the floor with an E-600 wIHP-100 at no greater than 2 inches/second. Detector should be within 1/2inch of the surface.

a. Leave the bermed area in the outer chamber until the rest of the floor in that chamber has been scanned and had fixed point measurements taken. Then create a new berm, just outside the old one and deflect the water that is leaking out of the gate valve to the area outside the berm. Dry vacuum clean the area inside the new berm and scan. After the bermed area is scanned, the deflecting curtain may be removed and the sump pump may be operated as before.

7. Survey instrument operation and source checking of the E-600 w/HP-100 will be in accordance with DP-8504. The instrument response checks shall be performed before issue and after use. Mid-day response checking is recommended to minimize the amount of data that may have to be discarded in case of an instrument failure.

8. The job hazards associated with this survey are addressed in the accompanying JHA for Seal Pit Characterization and FSS.

9. All personnel participating in this survey shall be trained in accordance with DP-8868.

Specific Instructions

1. Collect the ambient background readings in accordance with DP-8866 at the following locations:

a. The northeast, northwest and southwest comers of the second chamber, one meter from each wall and one meter above the floor.

b. The northwest comer of the first chamber, one meter from each wall and one meter above the floor.

c. The approximate center of the first chamber, one meter above the floor.

d. Record these values on the survey map attached to DPF-8866. 1.

2. Mark the grid locations for the fixed-point measurements as shown on the attached map. Marks should be small but distinct. Any grid point that falls at a location that is unsuitable for a fixed measurement because of localized surface roughness that is not representative of the surface should be relocated in accordance with DP-8856 to the nearest suitable location within one meter.

3. Perform the fixed-point measurements with the E-600/HP-100 in the scalar mode, collecting 1-minute readings within /2 inch of the surface. Even if the data is logged in the instrument, manually record each reading. At each grid location, set the probe against the surface just off the mark so that the material used to make the mark (e.g., paint) does not provide any shielding. To do this consistently, turn the probe so that the area counted is south of the mark for all floor locations and just below the mark on the walls. For any wall locations that are too close to the floor, place the probe just to the right of the mark.

4. Scan 100% of the surface with the HP-1 00 detector /2" from the surface at a rate no greater than 2" per second, listening for an increased count rate using earphones. Pause at any upscale reading and allow the detector to stabilize. If the reading is more than 603 cpm above the established background, mark the location for investigation and log the finding.

5. Investigate any locations marked during scanning by taking a one-minute fixed measurement, in the scalar mode, and logging the results, using the next consecutive sample location number and appending DPF-8856.1 YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 5 of 6

the letter "I" to the end.

6. The FSS Rad Engineer will investigate any fixed measurements that exceed the investigation level.

NOTIFICATION POINTS QA notification point(s)* (y/n) y Specify: QA Signature/Date:

1. Date/time of initial pre-survey briefing 2 Date/time of commencement of hackmound readingg

     ..  ..  .......  .......     ........... o"f      ...

background re d . nL DKý_Tý_ý d, 11-L

3. Date/time of commencement of SPA-3 scan

4. Date/time of commencement of fixed measurements PS

5. Date/time of first scan measurements - E600/HP- 100 '5 E-mail notification to trudeau(dvankee.com with a copy to calsyn(@yankee.com satisfies this step*

FSI point(s) (y/n) n Specify: Field Supervisor Signature/Date:. 1. 2. Prepared by , ý__4UMAWW",> FS§ Radiological Engineer Date &/'r/- Reviewed by_ _ __ _

                              /FS R diological Engineer                         Date-Approved by /'                                         ,

FSS Project Manager DPF-8856.1 "N PS-FSSP-OMB-06-01-01 Rev. Original Page 6 of 6

Final Status Survey Planning Worksheet

Page 1 of 8 GENERAL SECTION Surve Area #: OMB-06 Survey Unit #: 02 Survey Unit Name: Seal Pit above waterline FSSP Number: YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 PREPARATION FOR FSS ACTIVITIES 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. 1.2 ALARA review has been completed for the survey unit. 1,3 The survey unit has been turned over for final status survey. 1A4 An initial DP-8854 walkdown has been performed and a copy of the completed Survey Unit Walkdown Evaluation is in the survey area file. 0 1.5 Activities conducted within area since turnover for FSS have been reviewed. Z Based on reviewed information, subsequent walkdown: M not warranted El warranted If warranted, subsequent walkdown has been performed and documented per DP-8854. [ OR The basis has been provided to and accepted by the FSS Project Manager for not performing a subsequent walkdown. M] 1.6 A final classification has been performed. Z Classification: CLASS 1 [D CLASS 2 Z CLASS33 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO) 1.0 State the problem: Survey area OMB-06 consists of two areas, OMB-06-01 and OMB 02. This survey plan addresses OMB-06-02, the upper concrete portion of the Seal Pit. Survey Unit OMB-06-02 is located outside of the security fence at the edge of Sherman Reservoir and lies adjacent to the Screenwell Pump House. During plant operations the Seal Pit received the discharge of the circulating water system. The circwater system received the discharge from the service water system, which was a pathway for monitored plant releases of radioactive liquid. A sediment sample was collected from within the lower portion of the structure for an initial historical assessment. The sediment sample yielded levels of residual plant related radioactivity. Subsequently characterization surveys were performed for survey unit OMB-06-02 consisting of fixed-point readings and core sampling. The results of these surveys indicated no levels of plant related residual activity present on the structure above the LLDs. During the demolition process of the concrete walls it is anticipated that some of the demolition debris will fall into Survey Unit OMB-06-01 (the lower portion of the Seal Pit). This concrete will be retrieved and passed through the Truck Monitor. Characterization sampling/surveys of the lower portion indicate that levels of residual radioactivity are well . DPF-8856. Rev. 2 below the LLD values and therefore would pose no danger of cross-contamination of the YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Page 1 of 8

concrete. The FSS Report for this survey unit will be comprised of survey data from truck monitoring and other associated sampling/surveying of OMB-06-02. The estimated total volume of concrete debris from OMB-06-02 is 90 cubic yards equating to about 10 truckloads of concrete. Final Status Survey of the OMB-06-02 concrete debris will be performed utilizing a multiple intrinsic germanium gamma spectroscopy system (Bulk Material Assay System), as outlined in section 5.6.3.1.4 of the Yankee Rowe License Termination Plan, and concrete sampling to evaluate the survey unit relative to the applicable release criteria. The problem, therefore, is to demonstrate that the concrete from Survey Unit OMB-06-02 meets the release criterion. The selected alternative action is disposal of the concrete debris. The planning team for this effort consists of the FSS Project Manager, FSS Radiological Engineer, FSS Field Supervisor, and FSS Technicians. The FSS Radiological Engineer will make primary decisions with concurrence of the FSS Project Manager. 2.0 Identify the decision: Now that the characterization survey of OMB-06-02 has been completed, the determination must be made, has the site-specific release guideline been met allowing the concrete debris to be used as fill material? Therefore, the decision to be made can be stated: "Does OMB-06-02 concrete debris meet the site specific acceptance criteria"? The null hypothesis (H0,), as required by the LTP, is stated and tested in the negative form: "The concrete debris does not meet the site specific release criteria". The selected alternative action for the concrete debris if residual plant related activity exceeds the release criteria is disposal. 3.0 Identify the inputs to the decision: Sample media: concrete debris Types of measurements: Concrete sampling and Bulk Material assaying DCGL determination: DCGL values were determined for all of the LTP hard-to-detect isotopes and all of the easy-to-detect isotopes that we might ascertain through ISOCS bulk material assaying. The modeling was performed utilizing RESRAD to a dose of 23.73 mremryr. These values were then scaled to an 8.73 mrem/yr value for the DCGLs. The DCGL values for the nuclides of concern for the Seal Pit concrete debris are found in Table 1. DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 2 of 8

Table 1 DCGL Values for Use with Seal Pit Debris Radionuclide [Concrete DCGL (pCi/gm). H3 103 Co06 1.6 Nb 94 2.6 Ag10 8m 2.6 Sb'25 11.4 CsL34 1.8 Cs' 37 2.5 Eul'z 3.5 Eul5 4 3.3 Eu'l5 139.8 C-14 2.6 Fe-55 51.5 Ni-63 36.8 Sr-90 0.3 Tc-99 22.4 Pu-238 3.5 Pu-239, 240 3.2 Pu-241 51.5 Am-241 1.5 Cm-243, 244 1.7 Radionuclidesforanalysis: All LTP nuclides with the focus on Cs-137 Datasensitivity: Sensitivity refers to the ability to detect a minimal amount of a substance, and is typically expressed as the method detection limit, practical quantization limit, or reporting limit. The Cs-134 and Cs-137 LLDs selected for this survey plan designate the smallest concentration of radioactive material that will yield a net count above system background that will be detected with 95 percent probability (environmental LLDs). The target LLDs selected for this survey plan reflects the environmental levels for Cs- 137 and Cs- 134 with the remainder of the radionuclides having an equivalently low LLD thus, meeting or improving upon the environmental LLDs. LLDsfor gamma analysis of concrete: DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 3 of 8

Table 2 Easy-to-detect LLDs Nuclide LLD (Pci/gm) Nb-94 1.3 Ag-108m 1.3 Sb-125 5.7 Cs-134 .15* Cs-137 .18* Eu-152 1.8 Eu-154 1.7 Eu-155 70 Co-60 0.16

LLD values are the environmental LLDs in the ODCM Note: Cm-243 was removed from the truck monitor library since the half life is so long (as to yield immeasurably low activities unless it was present as a weight percent of the sample), its potential formation pathway is low and other methods of analysis (i.e., alpha spectroscopy) are more appropriate for analysis. Therefore Cm-243 will be analyzed via laboratory analysis and will be included in the list of hard-to-detect nuclides.

LLDsfor HTD nuclides: In addition to the LLD values listed in Table 2, the following table lists the LLD values that will be transmitted to the off-site laboratory via the chain-of-custody form accompanying the FSS concrete samples. Table 3 Hard-to-detect LLDs Nuclide LLD (i/gr) H-3 L.ob ]IR!M*vA C-14 0.26 Fe-55 5.15 Ni-63 3.68 Sr-90 0.03 Tc-99 2.24 Pu-238 0.35 Pu-239, 240 0.32 Pu-241 5.15 Am-241 0.15 DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 4 of 8

I Cm-243,244 I 0.17 ISOCS Measurements : As referenced in YNPS LTP, a Bulk Spectroscopy Monitor may be employed to assay materials as a component of the final status survey program. It is the intent of YNPS to utilize the ISOCS gamma spectrum assay system to analyze, via in-situ gamma spectroscopy, Seal Pit debris for the decision-making process in accordance with DP-8870. The ISOCS system is technically capable of evaluating bulk materials in large containers with respect to concentration-based radioactivity (pCi/gm) as outlined in Technical Basis Document YA-REPT-01-022-04. The ISOCS receives inputs such as:

Material weight
Container used (i.e. intermodal, rolloff, articulated dump truck)

The Canberra software then renders a total gamma activity value for each of the easy-to-detect radionuclides.Only previously modeled containers with concrete will be assayed under this Final Status Survey Plan. Each container will be assayed and the results compared with the LLDs. Should an individual load of material result in values less than the LLDs then the load of material will be considered to be acceptable and the null hypothesis will be rejected resulting in the material being acceptable for use as fill material. If the load of material is greater than the LLDs then the null hypothesis will be accepted and the material will not be designated for on-site fill material. The respective LLDs are, in effect, the release criterion. In order to effectively evaluate the presence of plant related radioactivity at or above the very low LLDs, the background subtract feature should be enabled for this application. If an environmental background is used, an environmental background appropriate to the condition will be used. QC checks and measurements: The FSS activities under this survey plan are implemented and performed under approved YNPS procedures. Review and validation of results ensure laboratory-sampling accuracy. Quality Assurance and Quality Control of the Truck Monitor is maintained and governed by DP-8870, DP-8869 and Technical Basis Document (YA-REPT-01-022-04). One sample will be designated as QC recount sample and a QC split sample. 4.0 Define the boundaries of the survey: This survey is limited to the concrete debris from Survey Unit OMB-06-02. The survey is scheduled for early summer; therefore weather conditions should not cause delays in the surveying process. As scheduled, concrete debris assaying will be performed on a two shift per day timeline. Adequate lighting should be maintained in the area of the Truck Monitor to allow for safe and timely ingress and egress of the monitor. Once assayed, the debris suitable for use as fill material will be deposited into an area where FSS isolation and controls are in effect. Debris that is rejected will be placed in a separate pile awaiting final disposition. Individual dump trucks will bear a FSS posting. 5.0 Develop a decision rule: DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 5 of 8

The null hypothesis (Ho) is: The survey unit exceeds the release criteria. This hypothesis may be either accepted or rejected based upon the data collected. During the course of data assessment, decision-making rests on the premise that the null hypothesis is true and that sufficient evidence must be provided for rejection. Therefore: If an individual truckload of material assays below the respective LLDs then the null hypothesis (Ho) will be rejected and the concrete debris may be retained on-site and utilized as fill material. If an individual truckload of material exceeds an LLD for any LTP-listed radionuclide, then the null hypothesis (H0 ) is accepted and concrete debris will not be used as fill material. 6.0 Specify tolerable limits on decision errors: Probabilityof type I (a) error: 0.05 Probabilityof type H (fl) error: 0.05 7.0 Optimize Design: Type of statistical test: WRS Test El Sign Test L] Basis including background reference location if WRS test is specified: No statistical testing of the data in this survey plan is required. Any material that exceeds the acceptance criteria will be rejected. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Notify QA of date and time of the pre-survey briefing, commencement of RSS concrete assaying/sampling and any other scheduled activities subject to QA notification that are currently known.

2. The ISOCS Truck Monitor will assay all concrete considered for use as on-site grading material.

a. Containers of concrete assayed by the Truck Monitor will bear a unique FSS numbering system (e.g. OMB-06-02-xxx (sequential number)-TM(for Truck Monitor assays).

b. Truck Monitor assay numbers will be recorded on DPF-8870.6

c. The tuckload through the monitor will require a recount and will be performed acirkince with DP-8864, and will bear the numbering designation of: OMB 02-001 -TM-RC(for recount).

d. Only containers that have been previously modeled and approved for counting concrete will be utilized for the Truck Monitor assaying process.

3. Collect 1 sample for off-site hard-to-detect analyses.

a. Prepare the concrete sample in accordance with DP-8813. Concrete samples will be analyzed "as received" (i.e. no sample drying is required).

b. The concrete sample will be taken either off the truck or when dumped (whichever method is the safest) and placed into a plastic bag with the sample number written on the bag. The bag will be delivered to the sample prep. trailer for preparing.

DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 6 of 8 ii

Enough concrete will be taken to fill the 1-liter marinelli and 60 gms for the lab analysis after crushing. Once crushed, the sample will be passed through a #8 sieve prior to placing in the glass jar.

c. Chain-of-Custody form will be used in accordance with DP-8123

d. A miniimum of 60 grams of sample should be prepared and packaged in a glass container for shipment to the off-site laboratory and analysis for hard-to-detect nuclides.

e. Split samples will be prepared in a one-liter marinelli beaker for gamma spec analysis.

f. The sample will be numbered OMB-_-0_.-0 01-F-CR. Additional samples, if required, will be numbered OMB ?..O62-XZXX-F-CR with "XXX" being the sequential number of the sample. e

g. All samples taken will be designated as recount samples and will bear a "RC" designation after the "CR".

h. Presently truckload number*jisdgsignated to be sampled. Additional samples, if required, will be designated by'te FSS Engineer.

i. If a load, designated to be sampled, fails, then the next load that is accepted will be sampled in its place. Failed loads will not be sampled.

j. The number of samples is based on an estimated total of 10 truckloads. If more truckloads are monitored the sample number will be adjusted accordingly.

The job hazards associated with the FSS in Survey Unit 02 are addressed in the accompanying JHA for OMB-06-02. All samples taken will be split samples and will be indicated with the designation "S" after the "CR" The splits will be sent to the off-site and onsite laboratory for gamma analysis to: 1.) Compare with the off-site laboratory results in accordance with DP-8864. 2.) Evaluate the performance of the Bulk Assay Monitor Operation of the Truck Monitor, QC Source Counts, and QC Background Counts will be performed in accordance with DP-8870. All personnel participating in this survey shall be trained in accordance with DP-8868 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1. Any flags encountered during either the QC Source Count or the QC Background Count must be corrected/resolved prior to assaying concrete for disposition. If anomalies cannot be corrected or resolved, contact the Cognizant FSS Engineer for assistance.

2. Should a significant shift in the QC background Count be encountered, a Cognizant FSS Engineer will evaluate the need for a new Environmental Background Count.

3. All unidentified peaks indicated on an assay report must be resolved prior to assigning disposition to the load of concrete.

4. All sample analysis will achieve the LLD values stated in the DQO section of this plan.

If a load fails and the Cs-137 and Co-60 concentrations are <0.2 pCi/gm then the failure will be DPF-8856. YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-00 Rev. 2 Page 7 of 8 i

notated on the report and in the truck monitor logbook. If a load fails and either Cs-137 or Co-60 concentration is >0.2 pCi/gm or any other table 2 nuclide is identified then the failure will be notated on the report, notated in the logbook and the FSS Project Manager, or his designee, will be notified. If a truckload of material is rejected, the truck will be assayed empty prior to reloading. T

                              ~~-Dr  7ii-    77lýacL    AQ~z LoiA-b vz    iS NOTIFICATION POINTS QA notification point(s) (y/n)      !y                                            QA Signature/Date:
                                                                                                    /
     -(1) Date/time of initial pre-survey briefing
                                                                                                    /

(2) Date/time of commencement of Bulk Material monitoring / (3) / (4) /

Email notification to trudeau@yankee.com with a copy to calsyngyankee.com satisfies this step FSI point(s) (y/n) _ n FSS Radiological Engineer Signature/Date:

(I) (2'] / Prepared by/ . Q -* () *

i*

Ar7J'-

                                                     *A        wJ Date        /,52

( FSS Radi6gical Engineer Reviewed by A. Date /Y/05

                               ,FS~ Radiological Engineer Approved by                                                           Date FSS Project Manager DPF-8856.                                                                                       YNPS-FSSP-OMB-06-02-O0 Rev. 2 Page 8 of 8 I

TECHNICAL REPORT TITLE PAGE Copy Instrument Efficiency Determination for Use in Minimum Detectable Concentration Calculations in Support of the Final Status Survey at Yankee Rowe Title YA-REPT-00-015-04 REV. 0 Technical Report Number Approvalq , (Print & Sign NaLine) Preparer: [EtVL 0 V J~ Date: 1o-i--q Review :k 0,&a Date: (0 4-Approver (Co nizant Manager): (7/*. --- Date: 16 /7/0

YA-REPT-O0-015-04 Rev. 0

Page 1 of 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Executive Sum mary: .......................................................................................... 4 2.0

Introduction:

.................................................................................................. 4 3.0     Calibration Sources: ......................        ..............                     ........................... 4 4.0     Efficiency Determination: .......................                          ...................................... 6 4.1      Alpha and Beta Instrument Efficiency (Gi): ........................................................ 6 4.2      Source to Detector Distance Considerations: ...................................................... 7 4.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................... 7 4.3      Source (or Surface) Efficiency (*s) Determination: ............................................ 8 5.0    Instrument Conversion, Factor (E) (Instrument Efficiency for Scanning): ........................... 9 6.0    Applying Efficiency Corrections Based on the Effects of Field Conditions for Total Efficiency:... 9 7.0    C onclusion: ..................................................................................................      10 8.0    R eferences: .................................................................................................... 11 Tables Table 3.1       Nuclides and Major Radiations: Approximate Energies ....................................... 5 Table 4.1       Instrument Efficiencies (ai) .......................................................................         7 Table 4.2       Source to Detector Distance Effects on Instrument Efficiencies for a- 0 Emitters ........... 8 Table 4.3       Source Efficiencies as listed in ISO 1703-1: ....................................................            8 Table 5.1       Energy Response and Efficiency for Photon Emitting Isotopes: ............................ 9 Appendix APPENDIX A              MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Co-60 ..................... 12 APPENDIX B              Microsoft Excel Co-60 Calculation Sheet ...............................................             13 APPENDIX C              MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Nb-94 ...................... 14 APPENDIX D              Microsoft Excel Nb-94 Calculation Sheet ............................................. 15 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0                                                                                                        Page 2 of 26

APPENDIX E MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan- 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Ag-108m ................. 16 APPENDIX F Microsoft Excel Ag-I 08m Calculation Sheet ............................................. 17 APPENDIX G MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius 1pCi/cm3 Sb- 125 .................... 18 APPENDIX H Microsoft Excel Sb- 125 Calculation Sheet ............................................. 19 APPENDIX I MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan -28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Cs-134 ................... 20 APPENDIX J Microsoft Excel Cs-134 Calculation Sheet ............................................. 21 APPENDIX K MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan- 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Cs-137 ................... 22 APPENDIX L Microsoft Excel Cs- 137 Calculation Sheet ............................................. 23 APPENDIX M MicroShield, SPA-3 Soil scan- 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Cs-137 ........... 24 APPENDIX N Microsoft Excel Cs- 137 Calculation Sheet ............................................. 25 APPENDIX 0 Calculated Energy Response .............................................................. 26 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 3 of 26

1.0 Executive Summary: The minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of the field survey instrumentation is an important factor affecting the quality of the final status survey (FSS). The efficiency of an instrument inversely impacts the MDC value. The objective of this report is to determine the instrument and source efficiency values used to calculate MDC. Several factors were considered when determining these efficiencies and are discussed in the body of this report. Instrument efficiencies (ei), and source efficiencies (Ps), for alpha beta detection equipment under various field conditions, and instrument conversion factors (Ei), for gamma scanning detectors were determined and the results are provided herein. 2.0

Introduction:

Before performing Final Status Surveys of building surfaces and land areas, the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) must be calculated to establish the instrument sensitivity. Table 5.4 of the License Termination Plan (LTP) [8.6] lists the available instrumentation and nominal detection sensitivities; however for the purposes of this basis document, efficiencies for the 100cm 2 gas proportional and the 2"x2" Nal (TI) detectors will be determined. Efficiencies for the other instrunmentation listed in the LTP shall be determined on an as needed basis. The 100 cm 2 gas propoitional probe will be used to perform surveys (i.e. fixed point measurements). A 2" x2" NaI (TI) detector will be used to perform gamma surveys (i.e., surface scans) of portions of land areas and possibly supplemental structural scans at the Yankee Rowe site. Although surface scans and fixed point measurements can be performed using the same instrumentation, the calculated MDCs will be quite different. MDC is dependent on many factors and may include but is not limited to:

instrument efficiency "background

" integration time
" surface type
" source to detector geometry
" source efficiency A significant factor in determining an instrument MDC is the total efficiency, which is dependent on the instrument efficiency, the source efficiency and the type and energy of the radiation. MDC values are inversely affected by efficiency, as efficiencies increase, MDC values will decrease. Accounting for both the instrument and source components of the total efficiency provides for a more accurate assessment of surface activity.

3.0 Calibration Sources: For accurate measurement of surface activity it is desirable that the field instrumentation be calibrated with source standards similar to the type and energy of the anticipated contamination. The nuclides listed in Table 3.1 illustrate the nuclides found in soil and building surface area DCGL results that are listed in the LTP. Instrument response varies with incident radiations and energies; therefore, instrumentation selection for field surveys must be modeled on the expected surface activity. For the purposes of this report, isotopes with max beta energies less than that of C-14 (0.158 MeV) will be considered difficult to detect (reference table 3.1). The detectability of radionuclides with max beta energies less than 0.1.58 MeV, utilizing gas proportional detectors, will be negligible at typical source to detector distances of approximately 0.5 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 4 of 26

inches. The source to detector distance of 1.27 cm (0.5 inches) is the distance to the detector with the attached standoff (DP-8534 "Operation and Source Checks of Proportional Friskers")[8.5]. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the LTP radionuclides and their detectability using Radiological Health Handbook [8.4] data. Table 3.1 Nuclides and Major Radiations: Approximate Energies (Reference 8.4 Nuclide a Energy E,.. (MeV) Average Photon Energy (MeV) a Detectable-. 0 Detectable y (MeV) E, wl Gas w/ Gas Detectable (MeV) Proportional Proportional wI Nal 2x2" H-3 0.018 0.005 C-14 0.158 0.049 Fe-55 0.23 (0.004%) bremsstrahlung Co-60 0.314 0.094 1.173 (100%), 1.332 (100%) Ni-63 0.066 0.017 Sr-90 0.544 0.200 2.245 (Y-90) 0.931 Nb-94 0.50 0.156 0.702 (100%),0.871 , / _______ _______ (100%) _ ____ 0.295 0.085 (100%) Tc-99 Ag- 1.65 (Ag- 0.624 0.434 (0.45%), 0.511 108m 108) (Ag- (0.56%) 108) 0.615 (0.18%), 0.632 (1.7%) Sb-125 0.612 0.084 0.6, 0.25, 0.41, 0.46, 0.68, 0.77, 0.92, 1.10, 1.34 Cs-1 34 1.453 0.152 0.57 (23%), 0.605 (98%) 0.796 (99%), 1.038 (1.0%) 1.168 (1.9%), 1.365 (3.4%) Cs-137 1.167 0.195 0.662 (85%) Ba-137m X- % rays Eu-152 1.840 0.288 0.122 (37%), 0.245 (8%) % 0.344 (27%), 0.779 (14%) 0.965 (15%), 1.087 (12%) 1.113 (14%), 1.408 (22%) Eu-154 1.850 (10%) 0.228 Eu-155 0.247 0.044 0.087 (32%), 0.105 (20%) _ Pu-238 5.50 (72%) 0.099 (8E-3%) 5.46(28%) 0.150 (1 E-3%) 0.77 (5E-5%) Pu-239 5.16 (88%) 0.039 (0.007%), 0.052 5.11 (11%) (0.20%),0.129 (0.005%)... Pu-241 4.90 0.021 0.005 0.145 (1.6E-4%) (0.0019%) 4.85 (0.0003%) Am-241 5.49 (85%) 0.060 (36%), 0.101 5.44.(13%) (0.04%)... Cm-243 6.06 (6%) 0.209 (4%), 0.228 (12%), % 5.99 (6%) 0.278 (14%) 5.79 (73%) 5.74 (11.5%) YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 5 of 26

NUREG-1507 and ISO 7503-1 provide guidance for selecting calibration sources and their use in determining total efficiency. It is common practice to calibrate instrument efficiency for a single beta energy; however the energy of this reference source should not be significantly greater than the beta energy of the lowest energy to be measured. Tc-99 (0.295 MeV max) and Th-230 (4.68 MeV at 76% and 4.62 MeV at 24%) have been selected as the beta and alpha calibration standards respectively, because their energies conservatively approximate the beta and alpha energies of the plant specific radionuclides. 4.0 Efficiency Determination: Typically, using the instrument 4zr efficiency exclusively provides a good approximation of surface activity. Using these means for calculating the efficiency often results in an under estimate of activity levels in the field. Applying both the instrument 2nr efficiency and the surface efficiency components to determine the total efficiency allows for a more accurate measurement due to consideration of the actual characteristics of the source surfaces. ISO 7503-1 [8.2] recommends that the total surface activity be calculated using: RB Rs÷B - where: As is the total surface activity in dpmn/cm 2, Rs+B is the gross count rate of the measurement in cpm, RB is the background count rate in cpm, ci is the instrument or detector 271 efficiency F"is the efficiency of the source W is the area of the detector window (cm2 ) 4.1 Alpha and Beta Instrument Efficiency (qk): Instrument efficiency (qi) reflects instrument characteristics and counting geometry, such as source construction, activity distribution, source area, particles incident on the detector per unit time and therefore source to detector geometry. Theoretically the maximum value of q is 1.0, assuming all the emissions from the source are 2nr and that all emissions from the source are detected. The ISO 7503-1 methodology for determining the instrument efficiency is similar to the historical 4r approach; however the detector response, in cpm, is divided by the 2z surface emission rate of the calibration source. The instrument efficiency is calculated by dividing the net count rate by the 27t surface emission rate (q 2,,) (includes absorption in detector window, source detector geometry). The instrument efficiency is expressed in ISO 7503-1 by: YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 6 of 26

RSB - RB q2m where: Rs+B is the gross count rate of the measurement in cpm, RB is the background count rate in cpm, q 2,is the 21 surface emission rate in reciprocal seconds Note that both the 27r surface emission rate and the source activity are usually stated on the certification sheet provided by the calibration source manufacturer and certified as National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable. Table 4.1 depicts instrument efficiencies that have been determined during calibration using the 27r surface emission rate of the source. Table 4.1 Instrument Efficiencies (q) Source Emission Active Area of Effective Area 100 cm 2 Gas Proportional Source (cm )2 of Detector HP-100 Instrument Efficiency (as) (Contact) Tc-99 15.2 100 cm2 0.4148 Th-230 a 15.2 100 cm2 0.5545 4.2 Source to Detector Distance Considerations: -1 A major factor affecting instrument efficiency is source to detector distance. Consideration must be given to this distance when selecting accurate instrument efficiency. The distance from the source to the detector shall to be as close as practicable to geometric conditions that exist in the field. A range of source to detector distances has been chosen, taking into account site specific survey conditions. In an effort to minimize the error associated with geometry, instrument efficiencies have been determined for source to detector distances representative of those survey distances expected in the field. The results shown in Table 4.2 illustrate the imposing reduction in detector response with increased distance from the source. Typically this source to detector distance will be 0.5 inches for fixed point measurements and 0.5 inches for scan surveys on flat surfaces, however they may differ for other surfaces. Table 4.2 makes provisions for the selection of source to detector distances for field survey conditions of up to 2 inches. If surface conditions dictate the placement of the detector at distances greater than 2 inches instrument efficiencies will be determined on an as needed basis.

4.2.1 Methodology

The practical application of choosing the proper instrument efficiency may be determined by averaging the surface variation (peaks and valleys narrower than the length of the detector) and adding 0.5 inches, the spacing that should be maintained between the detector and the highest peaks of the surface. Select the source to detector distance from Table 4.2 that best reflects this pre-determined geometry. YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 7 of 26

Table 4.2 Source to Detector Distance Effects on Instrument Efficiencies for a- (3Emitters Source to Detector Instrument Efficiency (q) Distance (cm) Tc-99 Th-230 Distributed Distributed Contact 0.4148 0.5545 1.27 (0.5 in) 0.2413 0.1764 2.54 (1 in) 0.1490 0.0265 5.08 (2 in) 0.0784 0.0002 4.3 Source (or Surface) Efficiency (es) Determination: Source efficiency (Fs), reflects the physical characteristics of the surface and any surface coatings. The source efficiency is the ratio between the number of particles emerging from surface and the total number of particles released within the source. The source efficiency accounts for attenuation and backscatter. es is nominally 0.5 (no self-absorption/attenuation, no backscatter)-backscatter increases the value, self-absorption decreases the value. Source efficiencies may either be derived experimentally or simply selected from the guidance contained in ISO 7503-1. ISO 7503-1 takes a conservative approach by recommending the use of factors to correct for alpha and beta self-absorption/attenuation when determining surface activity. However, this approach may prove to be too conservative for radionuclides with max beta energies that are marginally lower than 0.400 MeV, such as Co-60 with a P3max of 0.314 MeV. In this situation, it may be more appropriate to determine the source efficiency by considering the energies of other beta emitting radionuclides. Using this approach it is possible to determine weighted average source efficiency. For example, a source efficiency of 0.375 may be calculated based on a 50/50 mix of Co-60 and Cs-137. The source efficiencies for Co-60 and Cs-137 are 0.25 and 0.5 respectively, since the radionuclide fraction for Co-60 and Cs- 137 is 50% for each, the weighted average source efficiency for the mix may be calculated in the following manner: (0.25X0.5)+ (0.5Xo.5) = 0.375 Table 4.3 lists guidance on source efficiencies from ISO 7503-1. Table 4.3 Source Efficiencies as listed in ISO 7503-1

                                               > 0.400 MeVma        < 0.400 MeVma Beta emitters      e,= 0.5              es = 0.25 Alpha emitters      s,= 0.25            c, = 0.25 It should be noted that source efficiency is not typically addressed for gamma detectors as the value is effectively unity.

YA-REPT-00-0 15-04 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 26

5.0 Instrument Conversion Factor (E) ( Instrument Efficiency for Scanning): Separate modeling analysis (Microshield TM ) was conducted using the common gamma emitters with a concentration of 1 pCi/g of uniformly distributed contamination throughout the volume. MicroShield is a comprehensive photon/gamma ray shielding and dose assessment program, which is widely used throughout the radiological safety community. An activity concentration of I pCi/gfor the nuclides was entered as the source term. The radial dimension of the cylindrical source was 28 cm, the depth was 15 cm, and the dose point above the surface was 10 cm with a soil density of 1.6 g/cm 3. The instrument efficiency when scanning, El, is the product of the modeled exposure rate (MicroShieldTM) in mRhf-/pCi/g for and the energy response factor in cpm/mRA/r as derived from the energy response curve provided by Eberline Instruments (Appendix 0). Table 5.1 demonstrates the derived efficiencies for the major gamma emitting isotopes listed in Table 3.1. TABLE 5.1 Energy Response and Efficiency for Photon Emitting Isotopes Isotope Calculations for Ei Ei See appendix A through L (cpm/pCi/g) Co-60 See Appendix Aand B 379 Nb-94 See Appendix C and D 416 Ag-108m. See Appendix E and F 637 Sb-125 See Appendix G and H 210 Cs-134 See Appendix I and J 506 Cs-137 See Appendix.K and L 188 Eu-152 See Appendix M and N 344 When performing gamma scan measurements on soil surfaces the effective source to detector geometry is as close as is reasonably possible (less than 3 inches). 6.0 Applying Efficiency Corrections Based on the Effects of Field Conditions for Total Efficiency: The total efficiency for any given condition can now be calculated from the product of the instrument efficiency 8i and the source efficiency 8 s. stot = ,i X Es The following example illustrates the process of determining total efficiency. For this example we will assume the following:

Surface activity readings need to be made in the Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB) on the concrete wall surfaces using the E-600 and C-100 gas proportional detector.

       *Data obtained from characterization results from the PAB indicate the presence of beta emitters with energies greater than 0.400 Mev.
       *The source (activity on wall) to detector distance is 1.27 cm (0.5 in detector stand off). To calculate the total efficiency, Etsot, refer to Table 4.2 "Source to Detector Distance Effects on Instrument Efficiencies for a- 03Emitters" to obtain the appropriate qi value.
       *Contamination on all surfaces is distributed relative to the effective detector area.

YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 9 of 26

          - When performing fixed point measurements with gas proportional instrumentation the effective source to detector geometry is representative of the calibrated geometries listed in Table 4.2 "Source to Detector Distance Effectson Instrument Efficiencies for a- 13Emitters".
          - Corrections for temperature and pressure are not substantial.

In this example, the value for 8i is 0.2413 as depicted in Table 4.2 "Source to Detector Distance Effects on Instrument Efficiencies for a- 03Emitters". The ss value of 0.5 is chosen refer to Table 4.3 "Source Efficiencies as listed in ISO 7503-1". Therefore the total efficiency for this condition becomes 8 tot = si x F, = 0.2413 x 0.5 = 0.121 or 12.1%. 7.0

Conclusion:

Field conditions may significantly influence the usefulness of a survey instrument. When applying the instrument and source efficiencies in MDC calculations, field conditions must be considered. Tables have been constructed to assist in the selection of appropriate instrument and source efficiencies. Table 4.2 "Source to Detector Distance Effects on Instrument Efficiencies for a-[3 Emitters" lists instrument efficiencies (si) at various source to detector distances for alpha and beta emitters. The appropriate si value should be applied, accounting for the field condition, i.e. the relation between the detector and the surface to be measured. Source efficiencies shall be selected from Table 4.3 "Source Efficiencies as listed in ISO 7503-1". This table lists conservative s, values that correct for self-absorption and attenuation of surface activity. Table 5.1 "Energy Response and Efficiency for Photon Emitting Isotopes" lists Ei values that apply to scanning MDC calculations. The MicroshieldTM model code was used to determine instrument efficiency assuming contamination conditions and detector geometry cited in section 5.6.2.4.4 "MDCs for Gamma Scans of Land Areas" of the License Termination Plan [8.6]. Detector and source conditions equivalent to those modeled herein may directly apply to the results of this report. . YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 10 of 26

.8.0 References 8.1 NUREG- 1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions," 1998 8.2 ISO 7503-1, "Evaluation of Surface Contamination - Part I: Beta Emitters and Alpha Emitters," 1988-08-01. 8.3 ISO 8769, "Reference Sources for the Calibration of Surface Contamination Monitors-Beta-emitters (maximum beta energy greater 0.15MeV) and Alpha-emitters," 1988-06-15. 8.4 "Radiological Health Handbook," Revised Edition 1970. 8.5 DP-8534, "Operation and source Checks of Portable Friskers". 8.6 Yankee Nuclear Plant Site License Termination Plan, Rev.0, November 2003. O YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 11 of 26

APPENDIX A MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 File Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Co-60.ms6 Date Run Date September 10, 2004 By Run Time 8:56:50 AM Checked Duration 00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA3-EFF-Co-60

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Co-60 Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 in) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Dose Points A X Y z

                                                             #1             0 cm              25 cm              0 cm 0.0 in             9.8 in            0.0 in Shields Shield N        Dimension            Material         Density Source        3.69e+04 cm 3         Concrete             1.6 Air Gap                                Air           0.00122 Source Input : Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies 3

Nuclide curies becquerels izCi/cm 3 Bq/cm Co-60 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.00OOe-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Energy Activity Fluence Rate Fluence 2Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate MeV Photons/sec MeV/cm 2/sec MeV/cm /sec mR/hr mR/hr No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.6938 2.230e-01 9.055e-06 1.590e-05 1.748e-08 3.070e-08 1.1732 1.367e+03 1.098e-01 1.669e-01 1.962e-04 2.982e-04 1.3325 1.367e+03 1.293e-01 1.904e-01 2.244e-04 3.303e-04 Totals 2.734e+03 2.391e-01 3.573e-01 4.205e-04 6.286e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 12 of 26

APPENDIX B YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 13 of 26

APPENDIX C MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 File Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Nb-94.ms6 Date Run Date September 16, 2004 BY Run Time 3:22:38 PM Checked Duration 00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA3-EFF-Nb-94

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Nb-94 Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 in) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Dose Points V A X Y z

                                                           #1             0 cm             25 cm               0 cm 0.0 in            9.8 in             0.0 in Shields Shield N        Dimension           Material          Density 3

Source 3.69e+04 cm Concrete 1.6 Air Gap Air 0.00122 Source Input: Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies Nuclide curies becquerels PCl/cm3 Sq/cm3 Nb-94 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.0000e-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Fluence Rate Fluence Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate Energy Activity MeV/cmz/sec MeV/cm 2 /sec mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photons/sec No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.0023 9.067e-02 1.391e-10 1.430e-10 1.861e-10 1.913e-10 0.0174 4.834e-01 8.762e-09 9.129e-09 4.729e-10 4.927e-10 0.0175 9.260e-01 1.719e-08 1.792e-08 9.104e-10 9.491e-10 0.0196 2.720e-01 7.924e-09 8.356e-09 2.925e-10 3.085e-10 0.7026 1.367e+03 5.643e-02 9.872e-02 1.088e-04 1.904e-04 0.8711 1.367e+03 7.464e-02 1.228e-01 1.405e-04 2.312e-04 Totals 2.736e+03 1.31le-01 2.216e-01 2.493e-04 4.216e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 14 of 26

APPENDIX D YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 15 of 26

APPENDIX E MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 File Ref DOS File *SPA3-EFF-Ag- 108m.ms6 Date Run Date September 16, 2004 By Run Time 3:30:40 PM Checked Duration 00:00:00 Case Title, SPA3-EFF-Ag- 108m

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius 1pCi/cm3 Ag-108m Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 1S.0 cm (5.9 in) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Dose Points A X y z V

                                                               #1           0 cm             25 cm              0 cm 0.0 in             9.8 in            0.0 in

( Shields Shield N Dimension Material Density Source 3.69e+04 cm 3 Concrete .1.6 Air Gap Air 0.00122 Source Input: Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies 3 Nuclide curies becquerels pCi/cm Bq/CM 3 Ag-108m 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.00OOe-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Fluence 2Rate Fluence Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate Energy Activity MeV/cm /sec MeV/cm2/sec mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photons/sec No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.0028 6.580e+01 1.252e-07 1.287e-07 1.351e-07 1.388e-07 0.003 7.853e+00 1.568e-08 1.612e-08 1.612e-08 1.657e-08 0.021 2.491e+02 9.534e-06 1.015e-05 2.824e-07 3.007e-07 0.0212 4.727e+02 1.862e-05 1.985e-05 5.389e-07 5.744e-07 0.022 7.024e+00 3.202e-07 3.434e-07 8.233e-09 8.831e-09 0.0222 1.330e+01 6.251e-07 6.714e-07 1.568e-08 1.685e-08 0.0238 1.501e+02 9.273e-06 1.010e-05 1.863e-07 2.029e-07 0.0249 4.289e+00 3.145e-07 3.464e-07 5.492e-09 6.050e-09 0.0304 2.902e-04 4.431e-11 5.248e-11 4.230e-13 5.010e-13 0.0792 9.687e+01 2.008e-04 4.802e-04 3.190e-07 7.629e-07 0.4339 1.229e+03 2.705e-02 5.514e-02 5.294e-05 1.079e-04 0.6144 1.236e+03 4.282e-02 7.808e-02 8.347e-05 1.522e-04 0.7229 1.237e+03 5.300e-02 9.194e-02 1.019e-04 1.768e-04 Totals 4.768e+03 1.231e-01 2.257e-01 2.398e-04 4.389e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 16 of 26

APPENDIX F YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 17 of 26

APPENDIX G MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 File Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Sb- 125.ms6 Date Run Date : September 16. 2004 By Run Time :3:34:07 PM Checked Duration : 00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA3-EFF-Sb-125

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Sb-125 Geometry: 8--Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 in) Rndius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Y Dose Points A X Y z 0l Ocm 25c in 0cm 0.0 in 9.0 in 0.0 in Shields Shield N Dimension Material Density Source 3.60e+04 cW Coecrele 1.6 Air COp Air 0.00122 Source Input : Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies Nuclide curie Becquerels pCi/cm' Sq/ens 7 3 Sb- 125 3.6941e.008 1.36 0e+003 I .0000e-006 .7000e-002 Buildup :The material reference is - Source Integration Paramnelces Radial 20 Circumferential tO Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Fluence Rate Fluence Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate Energy Activity MeV/cml/sec MeV/cm,1scc mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photonuslsec No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.0038 6.762e+O I I .70ge-07 1.756e-07 1.388e-07 1.427c-07 0.0272 1.748e+02 1785e-05 2.020e-05 2.376e-07 2.689e-07 0,0275 3.262e+02 3.453e-05 3.922e-05 4 A61e-07 5.067e-07 9 0.03 I 1.132e+02 1.857e-05 2.22 1e-05 1.670e-07 1. 97c-07 0.0355 5.693e+01 1.492e-05 1.91 8e-05 9.090e-08 I, 169e-07 0.117 3.568e+00 I1.380e-05 3.71 5e-05 2.146e-08 5.778e-08 0.159 9.531ce-01 5.634e-06 1.499e-05 9.416e-09 2.5o5e-08 7 0,1726 2.478e+00 ).634e-05 4.295e-05 2.787e-08 .326e-08 0.1763 9,422e+Oi 6.392t-04 1.674e-03 1.096e-06 2.870e-06 0.2041 4.41 Oe+O0 3.630e-05 9.230e-05 6.435e-08 1.636e-07 0.2081 3.324e+00 2.805~e-05 7.103e-05 4.994e-08 1.264e-07 0.2279 1,796e+00 1.708e-05 4.229c.05 3.098e-08 7.670e-08 0.321 5.701 e+00 8.4 74e-05 I. 899e-04 1.620e-07 3.632e-07 0.3804 2,045e+01I 3.792e-04 8.052e-04 7.364e-07 1.564c-06 0.408 2.486e+00 5.05 1Ic-05 1.049e-04 9.853e-08 2.047e-07 0.4279 4.009e+02 8.668e-03 1.774e-02 1.695e-05 3.470e-05 0.4435 4. 130c+00 9..356e-05 t. 894e-04 1.832e-07 3.709e-07 0.4634 1.415Se+02 3.395e-03 6.78 le-03 6.658e-06 1.330e-05 0.6006 2.430e+02 8.174e-03 1.501 e-02 1.595e-05 2.930e-05 0.6066 6.864e4O I 2.340e-03 4.283e-03 4.564e-06 8.355e-06 0.6359 I1.548e+02 5.609e-03 1.012e-02 1.091e-05 1.967e-05 0.6714 2.478e+O1 9.640e-04 1.710e-03 1.867e-06 3.311 e.06 Totals 1.9 l6e+l03 3.060e-02 S.901-e02 6.046e-"5 1.1.43e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 18 of 26

APPENDIX H YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 19 of 26

APPENDIX I MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 0ile Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Cs- 134.ms6 Date Run Date September 16, 2004 By Run Time 3:39:09 PM Checked Duration 00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA3-EFF-Cs-134

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Cs-134 Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 in) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Dose Points Y A X Y z

                                                               #I             0 cm              25 cm              0 cm 0.0 in             9.8 in            0.0 in Shields Shield N          Dimension            Material          Density Source         3.69e+04 cm 3         Concrete             1.6 Air Gap                                  Air           0.00122 Source Input: Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies 3

Nuclide curies becquerels pCi/cm Sq/cm3 Cs- 134 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.OOOe-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Energy Activity Fluence Rate Fluence Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate MeV/cm2/sec MeV/cm 2 /sec mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photons/sec No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup 0.0045 1.222e+00 3.658e-09 3.760e-09 2.507e-09 2.577e-09 0.0318 2.931e+00 5.271e-07 6.386e-07 4.391e-09 5.320e-09 0.0322 5.407e+00 1.014e-06 1.236e-06 8.157e-09 9.943e-09 0.0364 1.968e+00 5.611e-07 7.321e-07 3.188e-09 4.160e-09 0.2769 4.839e-01 5.931e-06 1.391e-05 1.113e-08 2.610e-08 0.4753 1.996e+01 4.950e-04 9.808e-04 9.712e-07 1.924e-06 0.5632 1.146e+02 3.545e-03 6.648e-03 6.940e-06 1.302e-05 0.5693 2.109e+02 6.619e-03 1.237e-02 1.295e-05 2.421e-05 0.6047 1.334e+03 4.529e-02 8.300e-02 8.836e-05 1.619e-04 0.7958 1.167e+03 5.668e-02 9.564e-02 1.079e-04 1.820e-04 0.8019 1.193e+02 5.852e-03 9.853e-03 1.113e-05 1.874e-05 1.0386 1.367e+01 9.377e-04 1.472e-03 1.717e-06 2.696e-06 1.1679 2.461e+01 1.964e-03 2.990e-03 3.514e-06 5.349e-06 1.3652 4.156e+01 4.055e-03 5.936e-03 6.993e-06 1.024e-05 Totals 3.058e+03 1.254e-01 2.189e-01 2.405e-04 4.202e-04 YA-REPT-00-0 15-04 Rev. 0 Page 20 of 26

A PPFNDIX I 04 . YA-REPT-00-0 15-04 Rev. 0 Page 21 of 26

APPENDIX K MicroShierd V6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 File Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Cs-137.ms6 Date Run Date September 10, 2004 By Run Time 8:52:18 AM Checked Duration 00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA3-EFF-Cs-137

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28 cm radius lpCi/cm3 Cs-137 and Daughters Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 in) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in) Dose Points A X Y z

                                                            #1              0cm               25 cm              0 cm 0.0 in             9.8 in            0.0 in Shields Shield N         Dimension            Material          Density Source        3.69e+04 cm 3         Concrete             1.6 Air Gap                                Air            0.00122 Source Input: Grouping Method - Actual Photon Energies 3

Nuclide curies becquerels pCi/cm Bq/cm 3 Ba-137m 3.4950e-008 1.2932e+003 9.4600e-007 3.5002e-002 Cs-137 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.00OOe-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 Y Direction (axial) 10 Results Fluence Rate Fluence Rate Exposure Rate Exposure Rate Energy Activity MeV/cmz/sec 2 MeV/cm /sec mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photons/sec With Buildup No Buildup With Buildup No Buildup 0.0045 1.342e+01 4.020e-08 4.133e-08 2.755e-08 2.833e-08 0.0318 2.677e+01 4.815e-06 5.834e-06 4.011e-08 4.860e-08 0.0322 4.939e+01 9.260e-06 1. 129e-05 7.452e-08 9.084e-08 0.0364 1.797e+01 5.126e-06 6.688e-06 2.912e-08 3.800e-08 0.6616 1.164e+03 4.442e-02 7.913e-02 8.611e-05 1.534e-04 Totals 1.271e+03 4.444e-02 7.915e-02 8.628e-05 1.536e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 22 of 26

APPENDIX L YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 23 of 26

APPENDIX M MicroShield v6.02 (6.02-00253) Page :1 .File Ref DOS File :SPA3-EFF-Eu-152.ms6

                                                                           ýDate Run Date                 October 7, 2004                              .:By Run Time                  11:25:11 AM
                                                                           ýChecked Duration                  00:00:00 Case

Title:

SPA-3-EFF-Eu-152

Description:

SPA-3 Soil scan - 28cm radius 1 pCI/cm3 Eu-152 Geometry: 8 - Cylinder Volume - End Shields Source Dimensions: Height 15.0 cm (5.9 In) Radius 28.0 cm (11.0 in)

                                                                                ......... ......              e.......

P*

oin...............

Y A X Y z

                                                                                    #1                0 cm                25 cm             0 cm 0.0 In               9.8 in           0.0 In Shields Shield N           Dimension              Material         Density 3

Source 3.69e+04 cm Concrete 1.6 Air Gap Air 0.00122 Source Input: Grouping Method - Standard Indices Number of Groups :,25 Lower Energy Cutoff: 0.015 Photons < 0.015 : Included Library : Grove 3 Nuclide curies becquerels pCi/cm Bq/cm! Eu-152 3.6945e-008 1.3670e+003 1.00OOe-006 3.7000e-002 Buildup : The material reference is - Source Integration Parameters Radial 20 Circumferential 10 YDirection (axiaal) 10 Results Exposure Fluence Rate Fluence Rate Rate Exposure Rate Energy Activity MeV/cmZ/sec MeV/cm /sec 2 mR/hr mR/hr MeV Photons/sec No Buildup With Buildup No With Buildup Buildup 0.015 2.077e+02 2.087e-06 2.146e-06 1.790e-07 1.841e-07 0.04 8.088e+02 3. 131e-04 4.33le-04 1.385e-06 1.916e-06 0.05 2.022e+02 1.507e-04 2.467e-04 4.014e-07 6.572e-07 0.1 3.887e+02 1.189e-03 3.118e-03 1.819e-06 4.770e-06 0.2 1.024e+02 8.207e-04 2.097e-03 1.448e-06 3.700e-06 0.3 3.696e+02 5.029e-03 1.151e-02 9.540e-06 2.184e-05 0.4 8.590e+01 1.70le-03 3.555e-03 3.314e-06 6.926e-06 0.5 7.711e+00 2.043e-04 3.984e-04 4.010e-07 7.819e-07 0.6 5.797e+01 1.948e-03 3.57ge-03 3.802e-06 6.985e-06 0.8 2.434e+02 1. 190e-02 2.005e-02 2.263e-05 3.813e-05 1.0 5.849e+02 3.820e-02 6.058e-02 7.042e-05 1.117e-04 1.5 3.171le+02 3.490e-02 4.999e-02 5.871e-05 8.41le-05 Totals 3.376e+03 9.635e-02 1.556e-01 1.740e-04 2.817e-04 YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 24 of 26

APPENDIX N YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 25 of 26

APPENDIX 0 Calculated Energy Response (Eberline Instruments)

                                                         'CPM/mR/h 100000000:                                                                                  .

i

                                                                             - 1.Y       -   -

I **44.4.-4-b. I

                                                                                                                   - I    I ~'3 ~~I~O-4-O-9.4 A

I I -I -- IA~ , , , I aT A T~ aaI IF - t t i001K I t-t-t I (If f-+-+-4 I I ~.JJ 4-~-5--L~.L~L.LL I

                  '1ttt1t-t1-t9--t-t-4-I                                                        I      I I II        4-4-I-I.-L~I.4-&J 1

10000000: V.

                   *   -         I -     I. - I. - U -            -WI-.,-.

E v L ..A-I I I I

                                         -             i                                       I IIH                 .    ...-
                                                                                -                             i      %                 II 100000 10                                          00                                         1000                           10000 ENERGY (key)

YA-REPT-00-015-04 Rev. 0 Page 26 of 26

ALARA Analysis Worksheet Survey Area: 0 IA (? - Co _O Survey Unit: 0 1 A. Estimation of Total Cost (CostT)

1. Cost of performing remediation work (CostR) $ A a0 a

2. Cost of waste disposal (CostwD) = (2.a) * (2.b) $ l _ _ (o

a. estimated waste volume ,-_M3 3

b. cost of waste disposal (o 'j S/

3. Cost of workplace accident (CostAcc) ='$3,000,000 person-' 4.2x10"I hO's(3.a) S j -

a. time to perform remediation action I *- C person-hours.

4. Cost of traffic fatality (CostTr) -

{$3,000,000 *3.8x10"s km"'. (2.a) (4.a)}/(4.b)

a. total distance traveled per shipment 1 00 d) km

b. waste volume per shipment . G i 3

                                                              , if unknown, use 13.6mm' as a default value

5. Cost of worker dose (Costwoo,) = $2,000 per person-rem *(5.a) * (5.b) $

a. worker TEDE D rem/h b.remediation exposure time

person-hour costT S B. Survey Unit Radiological Information Radionuclide Averame Concentration Relative Fraction' Half-Life (y) Decay Constantb ('fi) a._.... b. I c._ _ d.0

2. a. b. c. d.

3. a. b. C. d.

4. a. b. c. d.

5. a. b. c. d.

6. a. b. c. d.

7. a. b. C. d.

8. a. b. c. d.

Total Concentration: * ' C) aRelative fraction = average concentration divided by the total concentration. b Decay constant - 0.693 divided by half-life. DPF-8867.2 Rev. 2 Page 1 of 3

C. Calculation of ALARA Action Level (AL)

1. Removable fraction for remediation action being evaluated 2.Monetary discount rate . -0 1 y'1

3. Number of years over which the collective dose is calculated

0 y 2

4. Population density for the critical group ) s b) 90 4- people/m

5. Area being evaluated I 4" 0) m2

6. AL for each radionuclide-of-interest:

a. AL = {CostT/($2 00 0 - C.4" 0.025. C.I. C.5)) * {(C.2 + B.l.d)/(1-e"-C'2+B'.'d)'C. 3} {B.L.b) = co 2 2

b. AL = {CostT/($2000

C.4- 0.025" C. I - C.5)) * {(C.2 + B.2.d)/(l -e"c' +. ..d)>'c.3 {B.2.b} =

c. AL = (CostT/($2000

C.4 0.025" C.1
C.5)}. {(C.2 + B.3.d)/(1-e"-C' 2+' 3 ' }C.)(B.3.b} =

d. AL = {CostT/($2000

C.4- 0.025. C.I . C.5)} *{(C.2 + B.4.d)/(lI-e"¢c-2+B.4.d) -} {B.4.b} =

e. AL = {CostTr/($2000

C.4- 0.025- C.I
C.5)} {((C.2 + B.5.d)/(l -c.c'2+B' ad)c3} {B.5.b) =

f. AL = {CostT/(S 2 0 00 *C.4" 0.025 C. I

C.5)) * {(C.2 + B.6.d)/( 1-e"(C.2+B.6..d) C. }

3 (B.6.b} = 7

g. AL = {CostT/($ 20 0 0 -C.4A 0.025. C. I

C.5)}) {(C.2 + B.7.d)/(CIe-(C 2+B." d)" C.1) {B.7.b} =

2

h. AL = {CostT/($2000

C.4 0.025 -C.1 . C.5)} * {(C.2 + B.8,d)/(l-e"*c' +B 'cJ)}I {B.8,b} =

7.............................................................................. Sum of ALs (= ALARA AL) = ! . o D. ALARA Evaluation Radionuclide DCGL DCGL Fractiona Ia. ________a b.(B.l.a)/(D.I.a)=

2. a. b. (B.2.a)/(D.3.a) =

3. a. b. (B.3.a)/(D.4.a) =

4. a. b. (B.4.a)/(D.5.a) =

5. a. b. (B.5.a)/(D.6.a) =

6. a. b. (B.7.a)/(D.7.a) =

7. a. b. (B.8.a)/(D.8.a) =

8. a. b. (B.9.a)/(D.9.a) =

9 ........................................................................... Sum of DCGL Fractions =

' DCGL fraction = average residual concentration in survey unit (from Section B) divided by the DCGL.

10. Comparison of the sum of the DCGL fractions (D.9) to ALARA AL (C.7):

Check one: Sum of the DCGL Fractions < ALARA AL " Sum of the DCGL Fractions > ALARA AL DPF-8867.2 Rev. 2 Page 2 of 3

11. Decision Criteria: If the sum of the DCGL fractions < AL, then additional remediation is not cost beneficial. If the sum of the DCGL fractions > AL, then additional remediation is cost beneficial.

Check one: Additional remediation IS NOT cost beneficial. V/ Additional remediation IS cost beneficial __ Prepared by Date& 7 Reviewed by W.-, /4ýýSIIAA I1--ff Date 11/15-FSS Project Manager/kadiation Protection Manager . Rev. 2 IDPF-8867.2 Page 3 of 3

Bases for ALARA Analysis of Survey Area OMB-06, Unit 01 General: OMB-06, Unit 01 consists of the below-grade portion of the Seal Pit. It is a structure, and therefore will use the DCGL associated with a building that could be occupied by non-radiation workers. In fact, it will backfilled with rip rap and most of it will be under water, which will prevent such occupancy. The following facts and assumptions underlie the bases used for this ALARA Evaluation.

1. Sediment has been removed and surfaces have been pressure-washed.

2. The characterization surveys show very little residual activity (<DCGL) on the inside surfaces

3. Concrete core bores have shown only Cs-1 37 at levels that are a small fraction of the DCGL and only in the one inch closest to the surface.

4. It will be assumed that the outer two centimeters contain Cs-1 37 at DCGL for the purpose of this calculation.

5. Further remediation would require mechanical removal of the outer two centimeters of surface, e.g., scabbling, because washing will have already been done.

6. Assume that scabbling would take 40 machine-hours.

7. Assume that the operating equipment requires three men.

8. Assume that the cost to the project is $50 per man-hour.

9. Assume that equipment rental would cost $1000.

10. Assume that this process would remove 100% of the remaining activity.

11. Since no people will actually be able to occupy the structure, assume that the population density for open land applies, instead of that for buildings.

12.The volume of solid waste removed would be 140 m 2 times 0.02 meter, or 2.8 M 3 . Bases:

1. Cost of remediation (Item A. 1. on worksheet) 3 men x 40 hours x $50/man-hour = $6,000

2. Cost of waste disposal (A.2.b.)

        $19/cubic foot, from Generic ALARA Review, YA-REPT-00-003-05
        $19/cubic foot x (35.3 cubic feet/cubic meter) = $671/cubic meter

3. Shipping distance (A.4.a)

        -4100 round-trip from Rowe, MA to Memphis, TN, which is the nearest place that such waste is likely to be shipped. (Data from Yahoo! Maps)

4. Worker Dose (A.5.a.)

No measurable worker dose will be picked up because this is not in a radiation area.

5. Default population density for open land areas is 0.0004 person/m2, from procedure DP-8867. (C.4.)

6. All other values used in the calculation will be the default values provided in DP-8867.

ALARA Analysis Worksheet Survey Area: rraM -- 41, Survey Unit: O(01. A. Estimation of Total Cost (CostT)

1. Cost of performing remediation work (CostR) $

2. Cost of waste disposal (CostwD) = (2.a) - (2.b) $

a. estimated waste volume m3 n

                                                        $/m-,

b. cost of waste disposal

3. Cost of workplace accident (CostAcc) = $3,000,000 person-' - 4.2x10-" h-' * (3.a) $

a. time to perform remediation action person-hours

4. Cost of traffic fatality (COStTF)= A 8

{$3,000,000 3.8x10" km' *(2.a). (4.a)}/(4.b)

a. total distance traveled per shipment __ km_____k

b. waste volume per shipment m-', if unknons 13.6m" as a default value

5. Cost of worker dose (Costwto) = $2,000 per person-rem * (5.a) * (5.b) $

a. worker TEDE rem/h

b. remediation exposure time __ pej -hour i i COStT S B. Survey Unit Radiological Inf ation Radionuclide Average Concentration Relative Fractiona Half-Life (y) Decay Constantb (yv)

1. a. / b. c. d.,

2. a. b. c. d.

3. a. b. c. d.

4. a. b. c. d.

5. a. b. c. d.

6. a. b. c. d.

7. a. b. c. d.

8. a. b. c. d.

Total Concentration: Relative fraction = average concentration divided by the total concentration. b Decay constant = 0.693 divided by half-life. DPF-8867.2 Rev. 2 Page 1 of3

C. Calculation of ALARA Action Level (AL)

1. Removable fraction for remediation action being evaluated

2. Monetary discount rate y'_

3. Number of years over which the collective dose is calculated y 2

4. Population density for the critical group people/mr

5. Area being evaluated m_2

6. AL for each radionuclide-of-interest:

a. AL = {CostT/($2000

C.4 0.025 C.I
C.5)) {(C.2 + B.I.d)/(l-e(C.2÷Bd)C -){B.l.b} =

2

b. AL = {CostT/($b.2 0AL {B

{(C.2 + B.2I)/(l-(C. 00 Costr/$2000C.4 0.25 C.I"CiCS)) +B.2..d) C) _________

                               - C.4 -0.025           C.5)) .{(C.2+       B.2.d)/(1-e"(C-+/-+ad)              {1C3}b.

d. AL = {CostT/($2000 C.4 0.025 C.I - C.5)}) {(C.2 + B.'.d)/(1l-e'(C2+Bad)' b 4. =

.b}

0

d. AL = {CostT/($2 00 C.4" 0.025- C.I" C.5)}- {(C.2 + B.4.d)/(] -e"(C.2+SB I ""d) {B.4.b} =

e. AL = {CostT/($2000 CA C.- 0.025- C.]I* C.5)) {(C.2 + B.5.d)/(l -eT(* 'd'f } {B.5.b} =

f. AL = (COStT/($2000 *C.4

0.025 *C.1 ' C.5)) -{(C.2 + B3.6.d/ ý--"2+B'6"'d)'C.3} {B.6.b}

g. AL = {CostT/($ 2 0 00 ' C.4 0.025" C.I

C.5)} - {(C.2 + B.)I(l-e"c2+S~d)CS} . {B.7.b} =

h. AL = {CostT/($2000 C.4 0.025 *C.1

C.5)} * *( B. 8 .d)/(l<-eC 2+.8d) C3 ) * {B.8.b} =

7 ..................................................... .... ............ Sum of ALs (= ALARA AL) D. ALARA Evaluation Radionuclide A CGL DCGL Fraction' I_ a b. (B. I.a)/(D.La) =

2. // a. b. (B.2.a)/(D.3.a) =

3./_ a. b. (B.3.a)/(D.4.a) =

4. a. b. (B.4.a)/(D.5.a) =

5. a. b. (B.5.a)/(D.6.a) =

6. a. b. (B.7.a)/(D.7.a) =

7. a. b. (B.8.a)/(D.8.a) =

8. a. b. (B.9.a)/(D.9.a) =

9 ............ ............................................. Sum of DCGL Fractions =

'DCGL fraction = average residual concentration in survey unit (from Section B) divided by the DCGL.

10. Comparison of the sum of the DCGL fractions (D.9) to ALARA AL (C.7):

Check one: Sum of the DCGL Fractions < ALARA AL Sum of the DCGL Fractions > ALARA AL DPF-8867.2 Rev. 2 Page 2 of 3

11. Decision Criteria: If the sum of the DCGL fractions < AL, then additional remediation is not cost beneficial. If the sum of the DCGL fractions > AL, then additional remediation is cost beneficial.

Check one: Additional remediation IS NOT cost beneficial v-" Additional remediation IS cost beneficial __ 6 5-1-u~i djvti-S- /--/ riVA Preparedb Date FAS Radiologic( Engineer Reviewed by Date "/l*l0 o-c

               /TSS Project c

Managerladiation nga Protection Manager Z,--- DPF-8867.2 Rev. 2 Page 3 of 3

ALARA Justification FSS of the Seal Pit will be performed utilizing the Bulk Material Assay System (Truck Monitor). Each container of concrete from the Seal Pit will be monitored to a predetermined lower level of detection (LLD). Any load of concrete found to have levels of activity greater than the respective LLDs for the individual LTP radionuclides (i.e. detectable) will be rejected and deemed not suitable for use as fill material. This release criterion is in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts DPH. Since the acceptance criteria is no activity above the LLD no amount of remediation can be warranted for the concrete of the Seal Pit.

OMB-06 Attachment A Maps Attachment A - Maps and Posting Plots List of Figures Figure Paee FIGURE 1 OMB-06 RELATIVE TO STRUCTURES .............................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2 OMB 01 SURVEY U NIT ............................................................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 4O MB 01 POSTING PLOT ............................................................................................................................ 4 I

OMB-06 Attachment A Maps Figure 1 OMB-06 Relative to Structures 2

0 e~I Dhetd Misawasoment: OMB-06.O1-- -- F-FM I __ 10 uuw~i ~ a uuu ~iaw-iu-ui Yw*.g Atumlc P cmiiputy I~..mwo 15N @1~W Legend Mqoawrwtss 1 uysPtU~~n~ Yarkw AMMI PMW surey

                                                                                                'mWj   chss by LDwkMw n Lambm  MW . 2M   INO. odSemPle: 16 Dkw"t              Otrot Manwoenien Loodon   00:       Mey , 20 0                                                                                                                      0

S U 52 0 012 Lm __ 10 Direct Measuremnents: OMB-06-01-_ _-F-FM 1axvo Am &Unt OMdBO-ow Fte4n1d fto ad"i maprb oaw, asim of Swrs aneeAwf .1 L dM ckw Md

       >~~~- ~~~~ May 9. 2=1                hk* 15 No.e of samples. 140Dkwecumn~int m2M                 Paef      na D        a kM

OMB-06 Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves List of Figures Figure Page FIGURE 1 OM B-06-01 PROSPECTIVE POWER CURVE .......................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 OMj-06-01 RETROSPECrIVE POWER CURVE .................................................................................. 3 FIGURE 3 OMB 01 DATA REVIEW ................................ . ..................................................................... 4 FIGURE 4 OM B-06-01 FREQUENCY PLOT ................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 5 OMB-06-01 SAMPLE RESULTS SCATTER PLOT ............................................................................... 5 FIGURE 6 OMB 01 QUANTILE PLOT ..................................................................................................... 6 I

OMB-06 Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Figure 10MB-06-O1 Prospective Power Curve - Enter Values Test ISigon r I DCGL: 172oo i0.8 - LBGR: 16190 0.7 Sig.m: 0 Alpha: Io.oM . or Bet: 10.050 :j - - Urit Fdpm/100cm2 0.4 - Calculations A/C: ] 2 ~0.3 02 - 0.01 20_00 SignP: 0.97725 N: i16 6400 O600 6800 7000 7MO 7400 7600 a4UL409-* Calculate~ Sample Size/Update Pfospec ile Powet Culve - proqe Powe - OC.O

                                                        -    LM                a l-beta COMPASS vi.0.0 2

OMB-06 Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Figure 2 OMB-06-01 Retrospective Power Curve -EnterVeJues I .. I I- -" - -"% - - Test FSig, Wj 0.8 .. V

                                          ~0.6                              --              V Beta: FOL050           z Unk dm/0=                          ~04       - -     -        -      -            --                         -         -
                                           *06      -        - ,D   -       -             -                       -           -

0.- - - . -. . . -Cocauladons Ala/ 2 SigrP. 0.97725 N:j 15 .ro Uv640 oif 5800 6 s 2000 660l- , 580I 700 720 7400 760 Calculate Sample Size/Update Pro-ective Pov,ýer Cufre COMPASS 0.0.0 3

OMB-06 Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Figure 3 0MB-06-01 Data Review Survey Unit: OMB-0S-O Survey Unit Name: Seal Pit - Below Grade Structure Classification: 1 Survey Media: Building Surface Type of Survey: Final Status Survey Type of Measurement: Fixed Point Number of Measurements: 15 Operational DCGL (dpm): 7200 DCGL, (dpm): 10,000 BASIC STATISTICAL QUANTITIES Gr Count Rate Niel Activity (cpm) (dpm) Minimum Value: 228 -288 Maximum Value: 387 2348 Mean: 345.8 1665 Median: 349 1718 Standard Deviation: 39.3 652 Mean Ambient

Background:

245.4 Total Efficiency (cld): 0.0603 ACTIVITY CONCENTRATION Gross Net Count Rate Net Activity NUMBER (cpm/100 cm2) (opm(1O0 cm2) (dpmfl00 cm2) f0CGL OMB-06-01-001-F-FM 342 96.7 1602 0,22 OMB-06-01-002-F-FM 352 106.7 1768 0.25 OMB.06-01-003-F-FM 346 100.7 1668 0.23 OMB-06-01-004-F-FM 359 113.7 1884 0.26 OMB-06-01-005-F-FM 310 64.7 1072 0.15 OMB-06-01-006-F-FM 383 137.7 2282 0.32 OMB-06-01-007.F-FM 359 113.7 1884 0.26 OMB-06-01-008-F-FM 228 -17.4 -288 -0.04 OMB-06-01-009-F-FM 344 98.7 1635 0.23 OMB-06-01-010-F-FM 385 139.7 2315 0,32 OMB-06-01-011-F-FM 387 141.7 2348 0.33 OMB-06-01-012-F-FM 349 103.7 1718 0,24 OMB-06-01-013-F-FM 331 85.7 1420 0.20 OMB-06-01-014-F-FM 379 133.7 2215 0.31 OMB-06-01-015-F-FM 333 87.7 1453 0.20 4

OMB-06 Attachment B Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Figure 4 OMB-06-01 Frequency Plot CIBOG-O Frequency Plot 4.5 4 F 3.5 3 25 I5 2 1.5

                                                                                                                               'I, 1

0.5 0 I I I C4 f tl e 4P Upper End Value Figure 5 OMEB-06-01 Sample Results Scatter Plot OMB-06-01 Sample Results Scatter Plot DCGLw = 7,200 dpm/100cm2 4000 3,622 3500 3000 2500 0 0 00 2000 0 0 1,665 1500 0 0 1000* 500 0-

        -------------------------------------------------------------------                                                               -292
-500 I           2           3           4        A               6        7   a        9     10     11     12      13     14     1s 0      Activty -              Average - -+3StDev"     ---    3StDev' 5

OMB-06 A~tachmcntB Data Quality Assessment Plots and Curves Figure 6 OMB-06-O1 Quantile Plot CZA3601 Sartie FNbUts QnIle Rat 71E I* Eired~sa~murfts- rrdai - - - 75hP - --- S aet I 6

CONTROL POINT PORTABLE INSTRr~UMNT ACCOtINTABILITY FORM RF Supervisor Review____ DPF-8504.-. 1 Rev. 16 COPY

                 'I
                                                                                     )                                                         )

PORT.ABLE i GAfr1MA -.

S~

gý600Oz 45"A -, Meter Detectzr~ '23910 33 1&5qcj Detector Source Type Type t M,,e get Ntumber Acceptance Acceptance Cri~teria Cri teriLa

                                                                                                           -  20%-                2 0%-

P2R. USE =CKcs POST USE CHECKS Dae Time IAmd --b1 e Check Al ar-,1 Check K outCounts SRC Net Tnt: Date Time ~Aulble Pier.-m Count's BKG- QRC Net t _,kCekConsCut_ Cczin - 1 320 Z7~oD 901OO I S -0o m-7,6l-o5SS t 7Az~ ~c21

                     !STý
                    ~<     -              'IRC0      L-)    w   12mi9oolJ L-2re-o~s            Sqr I         tJ A     1 73ol12B0oeO2782-7o
                  -FqoJ           a         -qo IL                  Ik.~I4: IIfL -,a 1O6I~L.                                                     I)AI A        I     2-7loo Z720 I.        i pooTIAJ                   LoW I7                       1-7'fi0 IZ-7o-,

0,0561's !59J 1~o o 4zý4Sl-I---__ _______ Oa* 6866 781&A177 ____ 216Wi~ 0 78 1o Ztcx 277, (9oI0 ZZ4ýs IZID JA RP Supervisor Review. M*4 -~. S1 'T), Rc ;LD OPF-8504 .5 R~ev. 16

0

')

P CR*T-A.3L E/GAIb..MA - ZS'K "UTRCE C-.ECK. iOR 2ooL4L E ý--* 2-1 0-* Meter- Detector Detector Source T~ype Type Number ID Acceptance Acceptance Cri.teria Criteria

                                                                                                                    -    20%-              + 20' a      T         Ad      PRE USE CIIECIS POST USE CHECKS A2.nt Auil     Alarm           X         S RC          Net    7.t Check  Check 145-O.         I             Counts qq I C_

01-A !_6-6-o5i ncZ Counts

                                                                                      "-o!

Che c e Chib ckCcnt 2-72-. Couains 2C 0 Z 6-i4-.1-oS 0,q i SAT. I1" A jI 72_Z sio S"_0- zqe218 .- o 2 g _ 1-_5_-,_ I

  ,II,-e.,,,1s                 ,           ,o.-          2S*- oo7                  i -...- ,o    IW                   /.       2T
                                                                                                                                -7      P-14o ! ,13 'E)AI

__25' 4'1~o (OVAo \ 2-LI~7 -Zq 8co ?q58_3J 4j

    ~4Uoo      *~l ý4rJ        W 12A?8T 1                   6-               D14o 1.o*I Spr        4 fj 7,zi1~ zI1               o                     A(tA2Y-f-          A q000               Ab

( -1&0 5 0( .5i'01C '3A 7q0 1o ~Z&*'I(02qqAI kfI Zb7S Z _ ___ ___0_,3 eIAI1 q 5-0r g2z0 61C) Sq-_ af 3k1 i____ 0f 1__0/4 2,Y7 '12.33oo

                                                 -_1;0                   9 312-3*9-3~ID         ý,      ,_ (p ~       4 07A__       2       1___

_07_ 22aI_23(oo !ZZ876 c zc93 __" __X 116 1Sar&r I OA 269 I~A~-o*Oc~z Z7 ZS50o 2S Z31 1 D) 2~olZ4a-I~' -4~*I(5 6, D2_3Z4(0 ____ ___*___ 2 -LIZ-73 ISb D\l RP Supervisor Review: 42 0 DPF-8504.5 Rev. 16

                      )
                                                             ?PCRTA8LZ/ GA~NMA F: SiF         MTJRCE CHECK FO~M Zooq Detecto=                   Detector.
                                                                                ?1j87                                                           Iz-z                           0 Source Type                     Type                     Number                         ID            Acceptance            Acceptance Criteria               Criteria
                                                                                                                         -    20                   20-'

PRE USE ~~ClITCS POST USE CHECKS R Me It at Tie Adbl_4_ ar SRC Nt li Dte Time lAudibl. A! a rmf BKG .SC nt Date1 inI~ ui ~ A I Nt n Ir ____ ___ICheck Ch-eck Counts ICaumnts Coun Ceck check Counts Cour~ t-ICount i~~ 1W.S0 0 [ . 2 1qO Zt 1 1)41~ -O~~(~Ž T57Zi ne 4 l/ 27 C1 Z48 Z6 5j~Lf 72 -0 12462-8 8JD+/- k--7-04 I6oS'- IY'7 -3~z*o S___A12-3-S3 ____ 5 kAO _, 0- 1~ 2t87 &PA-110 2q 13 EX( ____L 21 -7J -z~w a DAP-ite-10-05i /, Z< ISAK Irlj /A KZ-e Zq.1g~ I I S44 ý,A ?q7Z ? 53 o&:*-O f'5JIA 1 ?,goI 92_G q4 q-31 1.DV o* 12OCO bir &IA ?(ZA4)--?- iDC 3S TA/ I ___oPIA2, zla1,o2 __0 _238_361 46q5L- *týi21 ~o13 z-ý*z-(9-~f1 pLO I__ 1_ 07A Z07 fa-3 3 Go Zsc3 NJI

             )qJfO{         So-i         J4        2b-7 23 300 Z7-93        0 -         4LgI1eol SA-f W               I              2-22-2300 IazZ7~ D___

I6-1 ig-o*j 062,2* 3jSon I A .Z7392,- 061o24s Z-1I tW 14-11,055 I(56 1 t.106-?'-6' j ..- 5- JZgz.31 OiJ 1150-o &h-r 1L I OA n9L 2s 570ojsZ 31 1DI 4'?.C N,2)1:ý P/A Z-723 2-4 2_1-7D _.00 RP Supervisor Review: 6ý?L, , , 4= DPF-8504.5 Rev. 16 (

                                                                          )                                                                        )
                                                                                 )TUROCE  "CH1ECK FOP*

Cý . Meter i4pt ~OOC Detector Detector Souce Net 3o 888 Net Type Type Number ID Acceptance Accept ance Criteria Criteria

                                                                                                             -   2 0               +  20*k PRE USE C-ECKS                                                                  POST USE        CHECKSi_

teime Audible Alar KG SRC Net !nt 7aEi Dae e Ci cku Check Couxts CounS Cnt I e Check i check i K tsC Conts s Check CCcc ourits Co'unts Cxi

   - 14(

j;o 0 Sb S A-Ao 2.9 0 I Z ~~, 7 L) I J -Z a _ _ _ UZ~ 2 93_ 7 -11 0 01 1 7-6 47 >~n

                      ~     )Al/___   253      z-3 (oO   2,     n   IA 1             11-3                      1__

P._2S 2_A_ I2-39 coii VL4qoo 2-At. L--L32 j233f~ -9 ?-q 2-41W It" 8... t ____ 3( R_ Supervisor Review: *t ___ DPF-8504.5 Rev. 16

AXQ)IP\a CONTR~OL P0114T POATABLE rNSMhUMN~T ACCOUN4TABILITY FO1~ RP Supervisor Reiw-----ý DPF-8504. 1 Rev. 16

0 0 I PGR.TAQLF,/GAk1,1A Fz-RSK )!JRCE CHECK _J;RV-('500 Meter 5i*ý37 Z-ooqq Detectozr Detector Source Type Net 4et Type Num~ber ID Acceptance Acceptance Criteria Criteria

                                                                                                      - 20.                 + 2 0'-

PRE USE CHECKS POST USE CHECKS Date Time Audible Alarm BKG1 SRC Net It Date Time Audible Alarm BKG SRC Net Int Check Check Counts Counts Courts Check Check Counts Coufts C*t~nts

                      ~   MIA              ZKM1L
                                             ~        2     13- !J                                 t-            2-2-3    2~33,0     -o --

P-P Supervisor Review::* 0 DPF-8504.5 Pv 16 C,

                                                                     )                                                                    ))

CONTROL POINT PORTABLE INSTRUN4ENT ACCOUNTABILITY FORM RP Supervisor Review________________ . DPF-8504.- 1 Rev. 16

PCT~.~~ ALZ/rAJ-2fa GR -TR IS I )UP.CE !ýORM PŽ Meter Detector Z.o 8B8 Detector Source Net N*et T-ye Type Number ID Acceptance Acceptanace Criteria Cr-lte-ria

                                                                                                                                              -   20%-              + 20%

PRE USE C3-IECICS POCST USE CHECKS Laeim Adil IA-arr BKG SRC Check Counts~ Cont lBNGt Net: I-Int Date T-Jm~ ~Audible BG SC z~ IR Checet _______________________~ecj ________1~____ Check_____ Counts Cou nts ~--6!*'AL35 5A' j 2$- 24-70o 1r IJ lk '1 I-Zt4NL{ ýDEW-2-051 0 Son-r 010, ZI-3 -n9oot'q'O7 IJ

                                            ~~~2Ao~~~~-                                                                                               25--3 Z_0_1_        b-     C,               I    1 A        29-39 17a'o N~oo.32-7-8 Z31           z1~-f 72L~  >21~
                                                                          ?,q,)'7 DAI'                         VZ      aC :SW,~~of~i.                  Z5 2,Z- 6        1 a-c51o          5*9                      Z5-    Z-3ccoo 22.8                                  -.        co 3~      5ýz    r9,___ A                                         2

____5A'r~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~b ~ ~1~L~2l LA j~~ _6AI z-131A 2gloo 2256 I(.?CI 2-0_ P,-r_ A,___5 __ oq8 - i z t HI ___ ____ _____ __ _ 2-___ _____ ___" 8 _ (000 _ 1 < ___ ____A 't__ Z1. 12-7 (boo__ _ _ _ _ _ 201 _ _2-1 _ _ _ ___- ____ A _ _ _ _ I _? RP Supervisor Review: DPF-8504.5 Rev. 16

)}}

ML070160273

Text

References:

Subject:

Dear Madam/Sir:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

7.0 CONCLUSION

Background:

Background:

Introduction:

Introduction:

4.2.1 Methodology

Conclusion:

Title:

Description:

Title:

Description:

Description:

Title:

Description:

Title:

Description:

Title:

Description:

Title:

Description:

Background:

Navigation menu

Search