ML081330268
| ML081330268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Plum Brook |
| Issue date: | 05/07/2008 |
| From: | Case R, Wood G US National Aeronautics & Space Admin (NASA), John H. Glenn Research Ctr at Lewis Field |
| To: | NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| EP RPHD-1, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML081330268 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* Survey Unit Release Record Design # EP-RPHD-l Revision # I 1 Page 1 of 3 Survey Unit #(s) RPHD-l I) Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-I was remediated and surveyed in December of 2007 as Embedded Pipe, at that time meeting the definition of embedded pipe as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP). All measurement results were less than the Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL) for radionuclide specific EP that corresponds to the I mrem/yr dose goal established in Table 3-3 of the FSSP. This survey was documented in Revision 0 of this Release Record.
- 2) Since December of 2007, the envisioned end-state configuration of the Primary Pump House (PPH) was revised. Subsequently, the portions of Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-I which transits in soil under and between the buildings no longer meets the criteria for embedded piping. The portions of Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-l that are embedded in the building foundation walls (PPH and Hot Pipe Tunnel) remain classified as embedded pipe.
- 3) This FSS survey documented in Revision I of this release record was performed after the performance of additional remediation to this system. Upon demonstration of compliance with the release criteria, the complete piping system will be grouted, including the portions embedded in the building structure that will remain embedded for any future reuse and those Description portions in the ground that can be released for unrestricted use.
- 4) EP RPHD-l is a Class I, Group I survey unit as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) and Technical Basis Document (TBD)-06-004.
- 5) Surveys in EP RPHD-I were performed using a scintillation detector optimized to measure gamma energies representative of Co-60. Sample #EP 3-7 from Survey Request (SR)-13 was referenced for this decision.
- 6) Survey Instructions for this survey unit are incorporated into and performed in accordance with (lAW) the Babcock Services Incorporated (BSI)/LVS-002, Work Execution Package (WEP) 05-006. Survey instructions described in this document constitute "Special Methods" and the survey design used in the acquisition of survey measurements.
- 7) Instrument efficiency determinations are developed in accordance with the BSIILVS-002, WEP 05-006, these determinations are appropriate for the types of radiation involved and the media being surveyed.
Approval Signatures Date: FSS/Characterization Engineer FSS/Characterization Manager Form CS-09/1 RevO
a~~ FSS Design # EP RPHD-l I Revision # 1 -I Page 2 of3 Survey Unit: RPHD-l 1.0 HistorylDescription 1.1 The subject pipe system is the 4" line running from the Resin Pit -10'. 1.2 EP RPHD-l consists of 4" diameter piping that is approximately 17 feet in length. 2.0 Survey Design Infonnation 2.1 EP RPHD-l was surveyed lAW Procedure #BSIILVS-002. 2.2 100% of the 4" ID pipe was accessible for survey. The accessible 4" ID pipe was surveyed by static measurement at one foot increments, for a total of 17 survey measurements. 2.3 Surface area for the 4" ID piping is 973 cm2 for each foot of piping, corresponding to a total 4" ID piping surface area of 16,539 cm2 (1.7 m2) for the entire length of (approximately 17') of 4" piping.. 3.0 Survey Unit Measurement LocationslData 3.1 Pipe interior radiological survey fonns are provided in Attachment 2 of this release record. 4.0 Survey Unit InvestigationslResults 4.1 None 5.0 Data Assessment Results 5.1 Data assessment results are provided in the EPlBuried Pipe (BP) Survey Report provided in Attachment 1. 5.2 This survey unit was assessed as a building re-use scenario with all activity derived dose as a 100% C060 nuclide distribution. This is the 2 most conservative DCGL for the facility (11 ,000dpmllOOcm ). 5.3 When implementing the Unity Rule, provided in Section 3.6.3 of the FSSP, two survey measurements exceeded unity. The survey unit that is constituted by EP RPHD-l passes FSS after application of Elevated Measurement Comparisons (EMC) and Elevated Measurement Tests (EMT). The EMC Unity sum was 0.058 of unity, and the EMT Unity sum was 0.556 of unity. 5.4 DCGL's for the building reuse scenario are used to demonstrate compliance with the release criterion for this release record. The DCGL's for embedded pipe are not applied, therefore the Structural Area Factors listed in Table 3-5 of the FSS are the appropriate area factors for EMC and EMT evaluations. 5.5 The area factor of 40.2 was utilized for this survey unit, this is the appropriate area factor listed in Table 3-5 of the PBRF FSSP. 5.6 Background was not subtracted from the survey measurements.
~-.-------,
FSS Design # EP RPHD-l I Revision # 1 ~I Page 3 of 3 Survey Unit: RPHD-l 5.7 Statistical Swnmary Table 4" Statistical Parameter Pipe Total Number of Survey Measurements Number of Measurements >MDC 17 Number of Measurements Above 50% of DCGL 9 Number of Measurements Above DCGL 2 Mean 0.598 Median 0.527 Standard Deviation 0.293 Maximum 1.198 Minimum 0.264 6.0 Documentation of evaluations pertaining to compliance with the unrestricted use limit of 25 mremJyr and dose contributions from Embedded Pipe and radionuclides contributing 10% in aggregate of the total dose for both structural scenarios and soils. 6.1 A review of the survey results has shown that the dose contribution for EP RPHD-l to be less than 25 mremJyr. The dose contribution is estimated to be 13.1 mremJyr based on the average of the actual gross counts measured. 7.0 Attachments Attachment 1 - BSI EP/BP Survey Report Attachment 2 - Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Attachment 3 - DQA Worksheet Attachment 4 -Disc containing RR for EP RPHD-l & Spreadsheet
SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 1 2 PAGES
'-J'" * .
BSI EP/BP SURVEY REPORT Pipe 10 RPHD-1 Survey Location Resin Drain Sump Survey Date 09-Apr-08 2350-1 # 203438 Survey Time 1600 Detector-5led # LVS1-101 Pipe Size 4" Detector Efficiency 000039 DCGL (dpml100cm2) 1.10E+04 Plp@ Area Incorporated by o.tKtor Efficiency (in cm2) 973 Pipe Area Incorpor8ted by Survey Oa18 (m t ) 1.7 Field BKG (epm) 2.8 Routine Survey X Field MDCR (epm) 9.0 QA Survey Nominal MDC (dpmMOOcm21 2,366 Survey Measurement Results Total Number of Survey Measurements 17 Number of Measurements >MDC 17 Number of Measurements Above 50% DCGL 9 Number of Measurements Above DCGL 2 Mean 0.598 Median 0.527 Standard Deviation 0.293 Maximum 1.198 Minimum 0.264 PHELPS Survey Technician(s) Survey Unit Classification 1 TBD 06-004 Piping Group 1 SR-13 Radionuclide Distribution Sample EP 3-7 Measured Nuclide Co-60 Area Factor/EMC Used Yes Pass/Fail FSS Pass MREMIYR Contribution <25 COMMENTS: ACTIVITY VALUES NOT BACKGROUND CORRECTED RP Engineer I Date lJi~/ 6 D<g
- EP RPHD-1 4" Pipe TSD 06-004 Group 1
- tt t:
Q) Co-50
.E Q)
I/) gcpm ncpm Co-50 activity (total dpm) activity (dpm/100cm Unity EMC Unity EMT Unity ns 2) Q)
- !E 1 16 16 41,026 4,216 0.383 0.383 2 30 30 76,923 7,906 0.719 0.719 I
3 22 - 22 56,410 5,7~~_ 0.527 0.527 4 50 50 128,205 13,176 1.198 0.030 0.018 5 28
--- 28 71,795 7,37~_ 0.671 0.671 6 32 32 82,051 8,433 0.767 0.767 1---- -
7 36 36 92,308 9,487 0.862 0.862 - - - - r------ - _. 8 37 37 94,872 j 9,750 0.886 0.886 9 48 48 123,077 12,649 1.150 0.029 0.017 10 22 22 - -56,410 5,798 0.527 0.527 1 - -I- 14 11 14 35,897 3,689 0.335 0.335 12 14 14 35,897 3,689 0.335 0.335 . r------
-~--~f-13 20 20
- ' - - -51,282 5,271 0.479 0.479 r---~::~~
14 13 13 33,333 0.311 0.311 1~ 17 17 43,590 0.407 0.407 - 16 11 11 28,205 2,899 0_264 0.264 f-17 14 14 35,897 3,689 0.335 0.335 1-- 5,053 I 0.058 0.556 EMC EMT MEAN 0.598 Unity Unity MEDIAN 0.527 STD DEV 0.293 MAX 1.198 f- - - - f-- - -- - .. - MIN 0.264 1 of 1
SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 2 3 PAGES
*Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form
- BSI/LVSPipeCrawler-002 Revision 6 Date: J-f*q*Or Time: /(Ot)
Pipe ID#: -4ngmi::-'~~H.-:-O_-_I~.------_ Pipe Diameter: d,-::::-(( Access Point Area: :-es,'n !Jr.,,'/1 S"~fl Building: _~..:......:..-. _--,f,-"P....:..ff.:......-_ Elevation: - J System: . J-&.>...LI...:;.Q _ Type of Survey . Investigation
--/
Characterization
- Final Survey )5 Other Gross Co60 ,/ Cs - - -
Detector ID# / Sled ID# )... US~ ( / ----'---=--'---------'- Detector Cal Date: 1- J. 5* 0 8' Detector Cal Due Date: I . . J-s.. . . . . . (J If Instrument: ~ ~S()-I Instrument ID #: d.- 03 '-/s ~ Instrument Cal Date: 10 - r(. 0 7 Instrument Cal Due Date: I ()- ( { '() r From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value :2. r cpm MDCRstatic 4' cpm Efficiency Factor for Pipe Diameter o. fJOO3'j (from detector efficiency determination)
"Z3l.a ~ ~
2 MDCstatic dprn/ I cm Is the MDCstatic acceptable? ~ No (if no, adjust sample count time and recalculate MDCRstatic ) Comments: StCtr1rJ Svt tv ey ,. v'\ Rej{'A. S Ct W1p f! l'r::? \AJ 'CI\ + +0 S,-" V'1,o /n t M
~,
Technician Signature ~ A,~ Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Position Feet into Pipe Count Time Gross Net 2 Gross Counts dprn/100cm
# from Opening (min) cpm cpm I1 I I I If., I f; /
2 ~ I 30 ~O / 3 5 / ;):1 ).)... /
.4 '1 I $0 ,SO /
5 C; :ll? ~O AI /A 6 b 3.2 3.,;L / 7 "/ \ "3 b 36 / 8 '0 \ 31 37 / 9 c; \ 21<< Hr / 10 (0 if cid... J.~ V Package Page 1 of 6. REFERENCE COpy Attaclunent 3" Page 1
Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form (Continuation Form)
- BSIILVSPipeCrawler-002 Revision 6 Date: J-{. q- 0 '0 BU'../?J 19-I If Pipe ID#: Pipe Diameter: -_-:--_--J-/ Access Point Area:
Building: Elevation: -1 System: Position Feet into Pipe Count Time Gross Net Gross Counts *,*dpm/l OOcm2
# from Opening (min) cpm cpm I( II ( J~ nlo tl 'fl., 7 1.2. 1:( ( )~ /
l3 13 ( 20 /
,<< ILf I \ 3 7 is iJ( \ 1/ -7 10 /b / \t /v I 7 11 I 1J.f .. "II /
/
/
/
1/
/
/
/
/
/
A! 1/ A-v/
/
/
/
1/
/
/
/
/
f-- . T
/
V
/
/
/
/
/
/
Package Page ~ of ~ REFERENCE COpy Attachment 3, Page 2 3E!=/VtCSS. INC,
e.-. ~ I'
./1"4V":\..~Il,.a¥
. ~ j!IJ
~,
H17 6i.lMP* pf{" i:,.... ~ 17VJ4- .c!.f 114-(;4.1
. I I .
~*cl>C.O.
1"""P17 IHO-B . I
~j
."_!KE.'---=-~~LO'
.~
J lNY.Ekl'*G".J U-"L.'c.{'CJS'd:hP~=
'"0 Z -, . - - .
";f 4"~ c.U----J
~.
"'ft'
+- (;JOTT"01"1 OF" " " I T . . .
~,v,
. I . GRCUT m V~!ONIZE:~ *1 RO+M N'!./c' ,"
....- . . ,*0 .....
"'--1 ... . "" ,':." .
- D ----p['OOR. EL.* ,O;':.J :I ' f?~~"
.."_ . i& I m
/'-'1 ~ ~r f'1~5H SC~=-EN.
Z n
.,'!!1
('). o
. 1...
~--~
i'
., J 4-"~ :>UMP PIT Vii-NT 1: li:L. ':r:O""!'Y:W
.!.'6" . '
.;- , ~-
WAL2 1JIrE
~ L- .- .--.. .- - - -:-
EL. THRU WALL
-S~4-",
~ .. --
I I i [11'T-1 WIgs. 4;FLQO~D
~
." . ""-;~NV:-G:L.-3f!'* I jl\;'~i\'ij~;~-; .- j 49w.I.?rpE'.7'REt;li--Jj:1 G:'</' W. r.PIPE: I-~~<¥J 'Il:t:
I '
- 14-' ..
-0 G INTeRNAL VALVE.. (JO:
I I' . m I t---- __ -'"? I
.E..L.J2..:.o.
4fVol-/.£Xiel I U; - ..' ~ .
'J I . *r* -.;.< ~ . ' . -".
"4-"1> ~~!EP"~
-Ii 1YPtCAL VbNT ~15b..l7, ('L~ ~ThIL . (JO<:iAI'1 <J1. I~I.
~ ~T~u;.)?bl~,- P'U VJ;NI 6Y6tt:M I. 6AA;.~ : 'I~ ~fto ~
.~
I i j) ~\
..l..
'~
t- C:==-"'--:l
.. , I i
~,~ ~ " RcO\.l~al:t.. \'Ii co.... WA."t~ *
- e.o"t. cl... +\,'-t
(\1>
- .-"'-'-"---'1" ,'.ORol>
"I~WT 'To"",-,,"\'
,I
~
"1 11)1 r":
- t. \ 6'4> Hat OIUJN-I'H ,I Lr
........ ._.. L
\\ .... FOR.: CONTINU ...*T!O:v* IY4-~W""Tl!:.
\ ~E.E. 'Owe,. PFoOo'777
\.. .
'~4 4> WROUGHT IRON PIPE
~
C"J
~
..Y
SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 3 1 PAGE
DQA Check Sheet Design # EP RPHD-1 I Revision # 1 I I Survey Unit # EP RPHD-1 Preliminary Data Review' Answers to the following questions should be fUlly documented in the Survey Unit Yes No N/A Release Record
- 1. Have surveys been performed in accordance with survey instructions in the Survey Design? X
- 2. Is the instrumentation MDC for structure static measurements below the DCGLw for Class 1 and 2 X
survey units, or below 0.5 DCGLw for Class 3 survey units?
- 3. Is the instrumentation MDC for embedded/buried piping static measurements below the DCGLw ? X
- 4. Was the instrumentation MDC for structure scan measurements, soil scan measurements, and embedded/buried piping scan measurements below the DCGLw. or, if not, was the need for additional X static measurements or soil samples addressed in the survey design?
- 5. Was the instrumentation MDC for volumetric measurements and smear analysis < 10% DCGLw ? X
- 6. Were the MDCs and assumptions used to develop them appropriate for the instruments and techniques X
used to perform the survey?
- 7. Were the survey methods used to collect data proper for the types of radiation involved and for the X
media being surveyed?
- 8. Were "Special Methods" for data collection property applied for the survey unit under review? X
- 9. Is the data set comprised of qualified measurement results collected in accordance with the survey X
design, which accurately reflects the radiological status of the facility? Graphical Data Review
- 1. Has a posting plot been created? X
- 2. Has a histogram (or other frequency plot) been created? X
- 3. Have other graphical data tools been created to assist in analyzing the data? X Data Analysis
- 1. Are all sample measurements below the DCGLw (Class 1 & 2), or 0.5 DCGLw (Class 3)? X
- 2. Is the mean of the sample data < DCGLw? X
- 3. If elevated areas have been identified by scans and/or sampling, is the average activity in each X
elevated area < DCGLEMc (Class 1), < DCGLw (Class 2), or <0.5 DCGLw (Class 3)?
- 4. Is the result of the Elevated Measurements Test < 1.0? X
- 5. Is the result of the statistical test (5+ for Sign Test or W, for WRS Test)::: the critical value? X See. ~~f)f' .s ,p~l~ ~ R~
Comments: FSS/Characterization Engineer (prinUsign)
&L IN\)~(h~ Date 6/6 /1>a FSS/ Characterization Manager (prinUsign)
RCaso tit(~ Date 5/1/00 Form CS-09/2 Page 1 of 1 Rev 0
SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 4 1 DISC}}