ML18131A160
| ML18131A160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Erwin |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2018 |
| From: | Freudenberger R Nuclear Fuel Services |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| 21G-18-0050, ACF-18-0099, GOV-01-55-06 | |
| Download: ML18131A160 (53) | |
Text
.... *.-. -:
- __ --::-:-
~ > ;-
. Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099 April 23, 2018 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
/
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Wa~hington, DC 20555-0001
References:
- 2) Letter from NRG to Richard J. Freudenberger, dated September 16, 2016, NFS Interim Approval of Decommissioning Cost Estimate Amount (Cost Activity Code Number L33400)
Subject:
Final Report for the Former Blended Low Enriched Uranium (BLEU)
Facility at NFS Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) hereby_ submits the Final Status Survey (FSS) Final Report for the former Blended Low Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Facility (see Enclosure).
The FSS was conducted in accordance with methods specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. The radiological survey data demonstrates that the former BLEU Facility meets the established Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs). While NFS does not intend to request a site release of this area at this time, we request confirmation that the former BLEU Facility will be suitable for unrestricted release in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E.
On page 9, NFS' Decommissioning Funding Plan states the following:
With regard to the JV [Joint Venture] (or the BLEU Complex), sampling was performed to confirm and document that no contaminated soil existed prior to the start of facility construction. The estimate assumes that the equipment will be removed, the buildings will be demolished to ground level, and no excavation is planned. Therefore, no liability was included in the estimate for soils related to the JV.
All equipment has been removed and all buildings have been demolished to ground level at the former BLEU Facility (see Attachment 1, Former BLEU Facility Photo, and, Current View of Former BLEU Facility Photo).
The cost estimates for regulatory assurances were last adjusted and approved by the NRG on September 16, 2016, and have remained in place. Those decommissioning financial instruments related to the former BLEU Facility are the following:
AJM _5 5 lb 1205 Banner Hill Rd, Erwin, TN 37650 t: +1.423.743.9141 f: +1.423.743.0140 www.nuclearfuelservices.com People Strong INNDVATIDN DRIVEN >
Credit !ndustriel et Commercial Letter of Credit No. SB22.401 (AREVA)
Credit lndustriel et Commercial Letter of Credit No. SB22.493 (AREVA)
-:, Bank of America, N.A. Letter of Credit No. 68133845 (AREVA)
- TD Bank, N.A. Letter of Credit No. 20007970 (NFS)
Total Fill"!ancial Ass1mraB1ce related to the former BLEU Facmty 21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099
$ 3,133,975 11,345,345 3,785,680 60,000
$18,325,000 If you or your staff have any questions, require additional information, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me, or Mr. Ron Rice, Radiation Protection Unit Manager, at (423) 735-5405. Please reference our unique document identification number (218 0050) in any correspondence concerning this letter.
TAK/pj Attachments and
Enclosure:
Sincerely, NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES, INC.
Richard J. Freudenberger, Director Safety and Safeguards :
Former BLEU Facmty Photo :
Current View of Former BLEU Facility Photo
Enclosure:
Radiological Survey Report for the Land Area of the Former Blended low Enriched Uirani1Um Facility at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site
.QQ.QY:
Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Leonard Pitts Senior Fuel Facility Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Omar Lopez Chief, Project Branch I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mr. Kevin Ramsey Senior Project Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards and Environmental Review Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Ms. Leira Cuadrado Project Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards and Environmental Review Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Mr. Larry Harris Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Peter Newby Vice President, Sales & Marketing - North America Fuel Commercial & Customer Center AREVA Inc.
3315 Old Forest Road; OF-11 Lynchburg, VA 24501 21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099 Former BLEU Facility Photo 21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099
Current View of Former BLEU Facility Photo 21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099
Enclosure 21 G-18-0050 GOV-01-55-06 ACF-18-0099 Radiological Survey Report for the Land Area of the Former Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facility at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site
Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc.
Radiological Survey Report for the Land Area of the Former Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facility at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site
~
....................... Ille.
555 Quince Orchard Road Suite 500 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 301.972.4430 www.atlintl.com A TL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Revision 2
Radiological Survey Report for the Land Area of the Former Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facility at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site ATL Policy Number: ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Revision: Revision 2 Issue Date: March 05, 2018 Effective Date: March 05, 2018 Reviewed and Approved:
NFS RADIATION SAFETY UNIT MANAGER Ron Rice Date I Date Date ~
7
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 3 of 35 CONTENTS ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................................ 6
- 2.0 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY.................................................................................................... 6
3.0 REFERENCES
................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 8 6.0 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS AND SITE CRITERIA..................................................... 12 7.0 SURVEY APPROACH...................................................................................................... 13 7.1 Classification and Survey Unit Identification............................................................. 13 7.2 Site Preparation....................................................................................................... 14 7.3 Integrated Survey Strategy............................................................ ~......................... 20 7.4 Survey Instrumentation............................................................................................ 21 7.5 Survey Techniques.................................................................................................. 22 7.5.1 Scan Soil Surfaces for Contamination.......................................................... 22 7.5.2 Measure Direct Radiation Levels.................................................................. 22 7.5.3 Sample Surface Soil..................................................................................... 22 7.5.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control................................................................ 22 8.0 DATA EVALUATION........................................................................................................ 22 9.0 SURVEY RES UL TS......................................................................................................... 23 9.1 Walkover Gamma Scans......................................................................................... 23 9.2 Gamma Radiation Levels......................................................................................... 27 9.3 Soil Sample Concentrations..................................................................................... 28 9.4 Data Validation........................................................................................................ 35
10.0 CONCLUSION
................................................................................................................. 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Nuclear Fuel Services Site, Indicating Location of the BLEU Facility........................... 8 Figure 2. BLEU Facility Layout Before Demolition Activities...................................................... 10 Figure 3. BLEU Facility Site After Demolition, Showing Reference Grid System....................... 11 Figure 4. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit A................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit B................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit C.................................................................. 18 Figure 7. Post-Remediation Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit C..................................... 19 Figure 8. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit A..................................................... 24 Figure 9. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit B..................................................... 25 Figure 10. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit C................................................... 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Default Screening Concentrations of Uranium Isotopes in Surface Soil....................... 12 Table 2. Survey Unit Land Areas by Classification.................................................................... 14 Table 3. List of Survey Units for Site Land Area........................................................................ 14 Table 4. Survey Rigor for Each Radiological Survey Unit.......................................................... 21 Table 5. Instrumentation for Final Site Surveys......................................................................... 21 Table 6. Gamma Radiation Levels at Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit A....................... 27 Table 7. Gamma Radiation Levels at Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit B....................... 28 Table 8. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit A......................... 29 Table 9. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit B......................... 30
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 4 of 35 Table 10. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit C....................... 31 Table 11. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit A with Default
-=screening 'valt1es (DS-\\ls)---:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.. =-:-:-:-:..................................... -:-:-:-:............................ 32 Table 12. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from_Survey Unit B with Default Screening Values (DSVs)......................................................................................... 33 Table 13. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit C with Default Screening Values (DSVs) 1....................................................................................... 34 Table 14. Comparison of Analyses of Field Duplicate Samples................................................. 35 APPENDICES Appendix A - DeNuke Procedures Applicable to the Final Surv~y of the BLEU Site Appendix B - Detection Sensitivities of Gamma Scanning Appendix C - Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 5 of 35 ACRONYMS ATL..................... Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc.
BKGD................. background count rate BLEU.................. Blended Low Enriched Uranium cm....................... centimeter cm2..................... square centimeter cpm..................... counts per minute DQO................... Data Quality Objective DSV.................... Default Screening Values g......................... gram m......................... meter m2....................... square meter MARSAME.......... Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment MARSSIM........... Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MDCR................. minimum detectable count rate mV...................... millivolt NFS.................... Nuclear Fuel Services pCi/g................... picocuries per gram RER.................... replicate error ratio sec...................... second SOF.................... Sum of Fractions Tc-99.................. technetium 99 U-232.................. uranium 232 U-233.................. uranium 233 U-234.................. uranium 234 U-235.................. uranium 235 U-236.................. uranium 236 U-238.................. uranium 238 U30a.................... triuranium octoxide U02..................... uranium dioxide
µrem/h................ microrem per hour
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 6 of 35
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Blended Low Enriched Uranium (BLEU) facility on the Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant site in Erwin, TN received low-enriched(< 5% U-235) uranyl nitrate liquid from the on-site NFS facilities and from the Savannah River Site and converted the liquid to uranium oxide powder. This powder was then shipped to off-site facilities for processing into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. The BLEU facility operated as a Category Ill facility under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Nuclear Material License SNM-124, beginning in 2003. The facility ceased operation in 2013.
NFS is deactivating the BLEU facility and has contracted with the DeNuke Services Division of Advanced Technologies and Laboratories (ATL) International, Inc. to provide radiological protection services during deactivation and demolition and to perform monitoring for unrestricted radiological release of equipment, materials, structures, and the site land area.
2.0 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY This report describes the approach for performing and evaluating the final survey of the land area of the former BLEU site and the results of that survey. The survey approach was based on guidance and recommendations of the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) to provide a graded approach, based on contamination potential, while instilling a high level of confidence that significant concentrations of residual uranium contamination, if any, were identified and evaluated.
3.0 REFERENCES
A TL-BLEU-RP-134.4, Rev 2, "Release Survey Plan for the Land Area of the Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facility at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site," Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc., June 2017 ATL-BLEU-RP-134.1, Rev 0, "Release Survey Plan for Materials and Equipment from the Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facilities at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site,"
Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc., April 2016 ATL-BLEU-RP-100, "Radiation Protection Plan for the Blended Low Enrichment Uranium Facility Restoration Project at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site," Advanced Technologies and Laboratories International, Inc., April 2016 DeNuke procedures for specific instrumentation use and activities associated with release surveys NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey.
Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions," June 1998 NUREG-1575, Rev 1, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2002 NUREG-1575, Supplement 1, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME}," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 7 of 35 NUREG-1757, Vol 2, Rev 1, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance:
Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2006 NUREG/CR-5512, Vol 3, "Residual Radioactive Contamination from Decommissioning," SAND99-2148, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2002 Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-124 issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for activities at Nuclear Fuel Services, November 21, 2016 4.0 DEFINITIONS The definitions of terms used in this plan that may not be commonly understood are presented in procedure DENUKE RP-110.1, "Definitions."
Additional definitions are as follows:
Class 1: Impacted surfaces that have or had (1) the highest potential for or known radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity above the action (guideline) levels, (2) the highest potential for small areas of elevated radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity, and (3) insufficient evidence to support reclassification as Class 2 or Class
- 3. Such potential may be based on historical information and process knowledge, while known radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity may be based on preliminary surveys. Surfaces that have undergone decontamination to remove residual radioactivity above the release limits were considered Class 1.
Class 2: Impacted surfaces that have or had (1) low potential for radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity above the release criteria levels and (2) little or no potential for small areas of elevated radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity. Such potential may be based on historical information, process knowledge, or preliminary surveys. This class might consist of surfaces that may have come in contact with radioactive materials but were not directly related to process operations. Radioactive concentrations above the criteria levels were not expected in Class 2.
Class 3: Impacted surfaces that have or had (1) little or no potential radionuclide concentration(s) or radioactivity above background and (2) insufficient evidence to support categorization as non-impacted. Radionuclide concentration(s) and radioactivity above a specified small fraction (approximately 10%) of the guideline levels were not expected on Class 3 surfaces.
Classification: The act of separating surfaces into classes based on contamination potential.
Graded Approach: The process of basing the level of survey rigor on the contamination potential and the level of confidence needed for the final decision.
Impacted: Having known contamination or a reasonable possibility of contamination based on history of use and previous surveys.
Inaccessible Areas: Areas that cannot be surveyed due to location or obstruction.
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 8 of 35 Non-impacted: Having no reasonable possibility of residual contamination (see Impacted).
Survey Unit: A defined geographical area of specified size and shape, established to facilitate the survey and data evaluation processes, and for which a separate decision will be made as to whether the established release criteria have been attained. A survey unit is a contiguous area with a similar use history and classification of contamination potential.
Unrestricted Release: Release of equipment, materials, structures, and land areas from future radiological controls after confirming that any residual radioactive material satisfies established criteria.
5.0 SITE DESCRIPTION General Figure 1 is a layout of the NFS Site showing the location of the BLEU facility relative to major landmarks. Figure 2 is a drawing of the BLEU facility, indicating the locations of the former five major buildings-Buildings 510, 520, 530, 540, and 550. Uranyl nitrate liquid was received and transferred into storage tanks in Building 510. The liquid feed material was then transferred from Building 510 to Building 520, where it was converted into uranium oxide powder, dried, blended, and packaged for shipment. Process operations were performed in radiologically controlled areas of those two buildings.
Effluents from the conversion operations in Building 520 were processed in Building 530.
Access to the BLEU facility was through Building 540. Building Figure 1. Nuclear Fuel Services Site, Indicating Location of the BLEU Facility 550 was a warehouse area used to store uncontaminated materials and supplies-many of which were new and unused.
Facility Grounds The BLEU Facility occupies approximately 5.16 acres (2.09 hectares) of the Nuclear Fuel Services site on Banner Hill Road in Erwin, TN. There were five major structures on
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 9 of 35 the site, three of which (Buildings 510, 520, and 530) were impacted by the facility operations. The remaining two structures (Buildings 540 and 550) had no history of radiological activities and were not impacted.
Contaminated systems, components, equipment, and material have been removed and disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. Non-contaminated furnishings, equipment, and materials have been surveyed and released for unrestricted future use. Remaining structures, foundations, paved surfaces, and underground drains/piping have been surveyed and either released for future use or disposed of as contaminated waste, as appropriate. What remains is a cleared soil area, similar to the site prior to construction of the BLEU facility and the storm drain system (refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3). A survey of this remaining soil area was performed to characterize the as-left conditions.
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 10 of 35
.I I
I I
1111 a
WDQ' -- **- **-*--**-
- I wa liS "'1 0
ii al.L[('IOJ CIU.W.
- Cl>JS<IQI--
=--
~ ll>lttW.11t MMe IFMe IIQ ---
Sal - - -
u, lfflWll fflOCl:llillO -
116 Ill IIU Figure 2. BLEU Facility Layout Before Demolition Activities
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 11 of 35 n
~
N lP c:5
- 0) co 0
0 - - -,s:,_ - -
.c:,_ -
-<<!:)-
/
I 2
', ~
20
' \\
I \\
I I
40 I
510, 5; 0, and 530 I \\
\\
PROC :ss BUILC ING FOO' PRINT
\\
60 l
\\ \\
I
\\
80 I
\\ \\
I
\\
100
\\.,
- - \\~
I I
120 DD D
I Figure 3. BLEU Facility Site After Demolition, Showing Reference Grid System
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 12 of 35 6.0 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS AND SITE CRITERIA The BLEU facility received low enriched(< 5% U-235) uranyl nitrate from the adjacent NFS plant site and from the Savannah River Site and converted the liquid to uranium oxide powder(s)-primarily U02 with some reaching U30 8. These powders were blended to achieve homogeneity and then shipped to an off-site fuel fabrication facility.
Radiological material in the BLEU facility is processed uranium up to an enrichment level of approximately 5% U-235. Because some of the feed material included recycled uranium, small quantities of U-232 and U-236 were also present, along with immediate, short half-life progeny of the uranium parent radionuclides. Analyses provided by NFS indicated the following average isotopic uranium activity fractions: U-232, 0.0044; U-233/234, 0.7962; U-235, 0.0147; U-236, 0.1431; and U-238, 0.0437. Uranium-233 and 234 essentially emit only alpha radiation and have no short half-life progeny, while other uranium isotopes emit alpha particles and have short half-life progeny that emit beta and gamma radiations.
Although NFS analyses identified the presence of low concentrations of additional radiological contaminants (e.g., plutonium, americium, Tc-99, and various other fission products) in some BLEU facility feed materials, the average activity fractions of these other radionuclides were less than 0.0001 and therefore negligible in comparison with the uranium levels.
As-left concentrations of uranium isotopes at this site were compared with Default Screening Values (DSVs) developed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for decommissioning actions. These DSVs and their application to decommissioning actions are presented in Table H-2 and Section 5.1.2 of NUREG-1757, Vol. 2. DSVs for U-232, U-233, and U-236 are not provided in Table H-2 of NUREG-1757; therefore, values for these isotopes were obtained from Table 6.9.1 of NUREG/CR-5512, Vol. 3.
These DSVs (refer to Table 1) represent concentrations of the longer half-life uranium isotopes, which, if present in surface soil over an area of 10,000 m2,could be expected to result in maximum radiation doses of 25 millirem/year to site occupants, based on conservative land use conditions and parameters. The DSVs therefore represent radiological conditions that are typically considered acceptable for unrestricted future use of surface soil. Due to the brief in-growth time available for accumulation of longer half-life progeny during the operating life-time of the facility, entire decay chains of these uranium isotopes would not be present.
Table 1. Default Screening Concentrations of Uranium Isotopes in Surface Soil Uranium Isotope Concentration Source Document Document Table (pCi/g)
U-232 1.96 NUREG/CR-5512 Table 6.9.1 U-233 9.11 NUREG/CR-5512 Table 6.9.1 U-234 13 NUREG-1757 Table H-2 U-235 8
NUREG-1757 Table H-2 U-236 14.0 NUREG/CR-5512 Table 6.9.1 U-238 14 NUREG-1757 Table H-2
'ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 13 of 35 7.0 SURVEY APPROACH The survey approach was prepared in accordance with guidelines and recommendations presented in MARSSIM. This approach emphasizes and incorporates the use of Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Data Quality Assessment along with a quality assurance/quality control program. The graded approach concept is followed to ensure that survey efforts are maximized in those areas having the greatest potential for residual contamination or the highest potential for adverse impacts of residual contamination.
Senior radiological technicians, certified in DOE Fundamental Core competency and experienced in final status and release survey implementation, conducted field measurements and sampling, following standard procedures and using calibrated instruments sensitive to the potential contaminants. Professional health physics personnel assessed and evaluated the survey data and prepared a report of the findings. Appendix A contains a list of procedures applicable to this survey.
7.1 Classification and Survey Unit Identification A comprehensive radiation protection program was implemented by NFS throughout the entire operating lifetime of the BLEU site. During the deactivation, decontamination, and demolition operation, potentially impacted equipment, materials, and construction media were evaluated in accordance with MARSSIM and MARSAME protocols and, if determined to satisfy project criteria of 500 dpm/100 cm2 direct alpha, 5000 dpm/100 cm2 direct beta, 100 dpm/100 cm2 removable alpha, and 200 dpm/100 cm2 removable beta, were released without restrictions. Otherwise, materials were disposed of as low-level contaminated waste.
Prior to construction of the BLEU facility, the land area was used as a softball field and was not subject to radiological restrictions. NFS contracted with MACTEC to perform a pre-construction survey of the property in 2003 to confirm it was not radiologically impacted. That survey identified the presence of naturally occurring radionuclides (uranium, thorium, and K-40) at levels typical of background soils in the area. Because only isotopes of uranium were present in the materials processed at the BLEU facility, thorium and K-40 background levels were not of concern. Gamma spectrometry of 15 preconstruction samples of surface soil indicated the following average uranium concentrations: U-238, 2.04 +/- 0.48 pCi/g and U-235, 0.144 +/- 0.157 pCi/g. The analytical method was not able to determine levels of U-234, but at naturally occurring isotopic abundances, the U-234 concentration can be assumed to be the same as the U-238 value. It was initially intended that these results would serve as a reference area for adjusting final survey results for uranium background contributions. However, in view of the very low concentrations observed in the final status survey samples, adjusting the final survey samples for preconstruction background levels was unnecessary. Therefore, uranium concentrations in the survey samples were compared directly with the DSVs, without adjusting for background contributions.
No significant spills or releases that impacted soil occurred during operations. There was one minor spill during capping of the feed line from adjacent NFS facilities to Building 510 after operations were discontinued but prior to the start of this site restoration project. Remediation of the spill was performed at that time by NFS. Complete removal
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 14 of 35 of the feed line was performed in January 2017 as part of the cleanup and release of Building 510.
Feed Line post-removal surveys identified a small(< 1 m2) area of uranium-contaminated soil at a depth of approximately 0.5 m at the location of the minor spill.
Further excavation of this contaminated area was performed, and follow-up sampling demonstrated that all locations satisfied the DSV criterion and no further action was warranted. The Feed Line and locations of post-remediation sampling are illustrated on Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively.
Operational history and surveys performed during removal and decontamination operations were used to determine the contamination potential (i.e., classification) of the remaining site soils. Impacted areas were divided into survey units in accordance with the area limits in Table 2.
Table 2. Survey Unit Land Areas by Classification Classification Maximum Area (m2)
Class 1 2000 Class 2 10,000 Class 3 No limit Three land area survey units were established, based on use history and radiological monitoring records. These survey units are identified in Table 3.
Table 3. List of Survey Units for Site Land Area Area Use/Function Area (m 2
)
MARSSIM Number of Class Survey Units A
Process Buildings footprint 4,500 2
1 B
Remainder of site 16,400 3
1 C
Feed Line Trench 30 1
1 7.2 Site Preparation The site survey plan was initially intended to be applicable to the site that remained following removal of structures, systems, components, materials, equipment, and paved surfaces. The storm drain system was determined to be necessary for future site drainage. Therefore, it was surveyed, demonstrated to satisfy the project criteria for unrestricted release, and left in place. The results of the surveys of the storm drain system can be found in Appendix C, Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System.
Sanitary drain piping was removed. Impacted Process Building floor slabs were surveyed as part of the structure evaluations, decontaminated and resurveyed where necessary, and determined to satisfy project criteria for unrestricted release. These floor slabs were demolished and removed to expose underlying soil.
Other paved roadways, sidewalks, and pads were surveyed and determined to satisfy project release criteria. Resurfacing was not performed during the operational period
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 15 of 35 because (1) site history indicated paved surfaces were in place before feed materials were introduced to the site and (2) no spills occurred during the production phase, so there was no significant potential for contamination of the soil beneath the paving.
Where selected sampling locations were beneath paved surfaces, cores were removed from the paving to access the underlying soil.
Impacted surfaces were gridded at 20-m intervals within Survey Unit A and Survey Unit B to provide a means for referencing survey locations. Grid origins were in the southwest corner of the survey unit. Measurement and sampling locations were identified by grid coordinate. The reference grid system is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Sampling locations within Survey Unit C were distributed approximately uniformly throughout the survey unit to ensure representative coverage, but were not calculated in consideration of the small size of the survey unit.
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 16 of 35 I
120 +.-~~-+~~-+~~-+~~-+---.-~-+~~---,1~~--~1---4 I
~---
a D
Figure 4. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit A
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 17 of 35 N
© ______...,
PR ESS BU LDING F OTPRIN 60 ~~~-11-~~-4-~~---4-~~---4-~~--4~~---,1--1----1-~~~
I I
~
a D
Figure 5. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit B
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 18 of 35
~
-z C)
(~772...
1"6 7- [/'CeA.,+ of 1-fl!U..li 5<~ w;ft. t.w:Jf-. '/'I-ID :,uio/ #IN3~ ~ f: 'f:7.;"""
No elevr:..Jr::J l f;'M1°nz;1S dc..-lecied. (.._,,)("'YI :i.2.J-I.5<<ro't.}# I 'f7 ?'f)S 8 -2.{,, -17 V) l,ff T"":;~
- ---
- ;
- ----:::::---::---- ----~
)
11!"
,-1 o"'
Figure 6. Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit C
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 19 of 35 RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP Project/Site: BLEU FACILITY/ NFS Survey Location : OUTSIDE UNB Survey Number: BLEU-SY1082 Survey Class Type: VERIFICATION Time: 0900 RWP Number:
Smear ID Number & Location: 8 Dose Rate and Location:
Boundary:
Figure 7. Post-Remediation Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit C
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 20 of 35 7.3 Integrated Survey Strategy The null hypothesis for the data evaluation to demonstrate compliance with project criteria is "Residual radiological contamination levels exceed project criteria." The objective of the final release survey was to reject this null hypotheses by demonstrating at a Type I (a) decision error level of 0.05 (i.e., 95% confidence level) that residual activity does not exceed criteria. The Type II (13) decision error level was also 0.05. To establish the number of data points needed to demonstrate that residual contamination criteria have been satisfied, a parameter known as the relative shift, which effectively describes the distribution of final sample data, was calculated as follows:
(1)tJo = (DCGL-LBGR)/ o where:
l'::,./o=
DCGL =
LBGR 0
=
relative shift cleanup criteria
=
lower bound of the gray region and is defined in the DQOs as 50 percent of the DCGL. Where final sample data were not yet available, MARSSIM guidance (Section 5.5.2.2) assigns a value of one-half of the DCGL for the LBGR.
standard deviation of the sample concentrations in the survey unit.
Where final sample data were not yet available, MARSSIM guidance (Section 5.5.2.2) is to use a value of 30 percent of the DCGL.
Using the equation for relative shift and MARSSIM guidance for situations where final sample data are not yet available, the relative shift for design purposes is (1 - 0.5)/0.3 for a value of 1.67. Based on the relative shift of 1.67 and Type I and Type II decision errors of 0.05, the number of required data points from each survey unit, as obtained from MARSSIM guidance (Table 5.5), is 17.
Sampling locations on Class 2 soil surfaces [Survey Unit A (see Figure 4)], a random start point (41 meters north, 53 meters east) was identified and additional measurement locations were systematically selected by triangular spacing from that start point.
Spacing distance, L, was determined to be 18 meters as follows:
L= [(Survey Unit Area)/0.866 x number of data points]05 Sampling locations on Class 3 [Survey Unit B (see Figure 5)] soil surfaces were determined randomly.
Sampling locations on Class 1 [Survey Unit C (see Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7)]
soil surfaces were distributed approximately uniformly to ensure representative coverage, but were not calculated in consideration of the small size of the survey unit.
Additional sampling locations in each survey unit were selected based on professional judgment to achieve uniform coverage, provide evaluation of locations with high potential for contamination, and address locations of elevated walkover gamma scan results.
Field duplicate samples were obtained at two locations for data quality evaluation.
I
.ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 21 of 35 Class 1
2 3
Radiological surveys consisted of:
surface scans for elevated gross gamma levels, direct measurement of gamma radiation levels at surface and 1 m above the surface, and sampling and analysis of surface soil for uranium concentrations.
Survey activities were in the order indicated above. The rigor of survey activities followed the graded approach, based on the likelihood of contamination. Table 4 indicates the survey rigor for various contamination classifications.
Table 4. Survey Rigor for Each Radiological Survey Unit Gamma Scan Direct Gamma Levels Sampling Uniformly distributed soil samples at a minimum of 17 At each 100%
locations and at additional locations based on measurement professional judgment and/or elevated scan results location Systematic soil samples at a minimum of 17 locations At each 50%
coupled with and 1-m gamma radiation measurement measurements, and at additional locations based on location professional judgment and/or elevated scan results Randomly selected soil samples at a minimum of 17 At each 10%
locations coupled with and 1-m gamma radiation measurement measurements, and at additional locations based on location professional judgment and/or elevated scan results 7.4 Survey Instrumentation Table 5 lists radiological survey instrumentation used to implement the BLEU facility final release survey. These instruments were maintained, calibrated, and operated in accordance with written procedures.
Table 5. Instrumentation for Final Site Surveys Detector Readout Application Ludlum 44-10 Ludlum 2221 Gamma scans Trimble GeoExplorer Model GeoXH NIA Logging of scan levels and GPS coordinates Bicron microrem meter NIA Gamma radiation levels Detection sensitivities (refer to Appendix B) were estimated using the guidance in MARSSIM and NUREG-1507. Instrumentation and survey techniques were chosen with the objective of achieving detection sensitivities that enabled jdentification of significant concentrations of residual uranium activity in small volumes of surface soil.
Instrument operational and background checks were performed at the beginning and end of each day of release survey activity and whenever there was reason to question instrument performance.
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 22 of 35 7.5 Survey Techniques 7.5.1 Scan Soi/ Surfaces for Contamination Radiological technicians scanned surfaces with a Model 44-10, 2-in diameter sodium iodide gamma scintillation detector by passing the detector over the soil in a serpentine pattern while advancing at a rate of 0.5 m/sec and maintaining a distance of~ 5 cm between the detector and surface.
Radiological technicians monitored the audible instrument signal for an indication of detectable increases in count rate and noted/marked locations of elevated count rate for further evaluation.
Count rate and GPS coordinates were automatically recorded every 2 seconds, and results were displayed graphically on a site map.
7.5.2 Measure Direct Radiation Levels Using a Bicron (ThermoFisher-Scientific) micrC>rem meter, radiological technicians performed measurements of radiation levels at 1 m above the surface at each sampling point. This instrument provides a nearly flat tissue-equivalent response for low photon energies associated with most isotopes of uranium, assuring accurate measurements of gamma dose rate.
7.5.3 Sample Surface Soil Radiological technicians collected soil samples (minimum 200 g of soil) from the surface (0-15 cm) at each data point. Sampling locations are indicated in Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6. Isotopic uranium analyses for uranium isotopes of concern were performed by Eberline Services in Oak Ridge, TN (National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and ISO 17025 certified). Field duplicate samples were obtained at two locations (minimum of 5% of locations) and provided to a separate contractor for independent analyses as part of the quality assurance program.
7.5.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control A written quality assurance and quality control procedure for survey activities was implemented. Quality assurance/quality control activities include instrument checks, calibration, documented procedures, training, standard methods, sample chain of custody, field duplicate sampling/measurements, and use of qualified laboratories.
8.0 DAT A EVALUATION Survey results (i.e., scans, direct measurements, and samples) were documented.
Sample analysis results were compared with DSV levels and the SOF calculated for each sample. Because DSVs were used for this evaluation, all SOF values were required to be less than Unity and statistical testing of findings were not applicable.
- ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 23 of 35 9.0 SURVEY RES UL TS 9.1 Walkover Gamma Scans Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the results of the gamma walkover scans of Survey Units A, B, and C (Feed Line Trench), respectively. It should be noted that count rates displayed for Survey Units A and B are in units of "counts per 2 minutes", while those for Survey Unit Care in "counts per minute". Also note that geospatial instrumentation was used to record the gamma scan data in Survey Units A and B, however the data were manually recorded for Survey Unit C.
Gamma count rates ranged up to 19, 760 counts/2 minutes {9,880 counts/minute) with a median of 14,020 counts/2 minutes {7,010 counts/minute) in the process buildings footprint {Survey Unit A). Over the remainder of the site
{Survey Unit B), gamma count rates ranged up to 24, 760 counts/2 minutes
{12,380 counts/minute) with a median of 13,960 counts/2 minutes {6,980 counts/minute). Note that levels were higher along the south perimeter due to the proximity of radioactive waste processing operations in the area outside of the southern boundary of the Site. In the west and northwest portions of the Site, levels were higher due to other NFS process operations in the general vicinity of those locations. Gamma count rates did not exceed the background count rate within Survey Unit C.
For comparison purposes, the average site background level for the gamma scintillation instrument used for these surveys was approximately 8,000 counts/minute. No specific locations presented elevated surface count rates, which would indicate potential uranium residues in surface soil, were identified.
, ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 24 of 35 NORTHING i
205100 N
205080 205060 205040 205020 205000 204980 COUNTSPER2 MINUTES
/
EEO LINE TRENC (Figure 8) 30000 29000 28000 27000 26000 25000 24000 23000 22000 21000 20000 19000 18000 17000 16000 15000 14000 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 204960 --------~---------------~--
920780 920800 920820 920840 920860 920880 920900 920920 EASTING Figure 8. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit A
' ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 25 of 35 NORTHING 205100 205080 205060 205040 205020 205000 204980 COUNTS PER 2 I
SITE NORTH 920780 920800 920820 920840 920860 920880 920900 920920 EASTING Figure 9. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit B MINUTES 30000 29000 28000 27000 26000 25000 24000 23000 22000 21000 20000 19000 18000 17000 16000 15000 14000 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000
~
-.z
- )
()
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report V\\ hftT""-::~
- ---=
- -----
- :::---=--
T I
Page 26 of 35
/~77;2._
'it;
~
X
'I.
~
\\... ~f"\\-,, ?-.(V\\
~
~
X Figure 10. Walkover Gamma Scan Results for Survey Unit C l
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 27 of 35 9.2 Gamma Radiation Levels Gamma radiation levels were obtained using a Bicron microrem meter at soil sampling locations are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7. Gamma radiation levels were not obtained at soil sampling locations within Survey Unit C (Feed Line Trench). The levels in Survey Unit A ranged from 6 to 11 µrem/h at 1 m above the surface. In Survey Unit B, levels ranged from 5 to 17 µrem/h at 1 m above the surface. The highest level was in Survey Unit B near the south perimeter fenceline. Levels were generally higher in that area due to waste processing operations being conducted to the south of the site. For comparison, the average site background level determined during the execution of this project ranged from 7 to 1 O µrem/h.
Table 6. Gamma Radiation Levels at Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit A Location ID*
Grid Coordinates Dose Rate @ 1 Meter North East Above Surface (µrem/h) 1 26 26 9
2 26 44 8
3 26 62 7
4 26 80 7
5 41 17 8
6 41 35 8
7 41 53 7
8 41 71 7
9 56 26 10 10 56 44 9
11 56 62 7
12 56 80 7
13 71 35 10 14 71 53 8
15 71 71 6
16 86 44 11 17 86 62 7
18 86 80 8
19 101 35 7
20 101 53 10 21 101 71 7
22 37 61 7
- Refer to Figure 4
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 28 of 35 Table 7. Gamma Radiation Levels at Soil Sampling Locations in Survey Unit B Location ID*
Grid Coordinates Dose Rate @ 1 Meter North East Above Surface (µrem/h) 1 2
101 17 2
4 59 9
3 11 90 6
4 12 69 8
5 13 119 7
6 14 11 7
7 24 85 7
8 32 113 6
9 35 2
9 10 36 106 7
11 58 110 8
12 65 85 9
13 70
-2 8
14 71 17 10 15 72 106 6
16 80 112 7
17 90 17 6
18 90 90 7
19 102 25 5
20 106 10 7
21 107 81 8
22 110 55 8
23 115 110 5
- Refer to Figure 5 9.3 Soil Sample Concentrations Uranium concentrations in surface soil, obtained from the surface of Survey Units A and B, and Care presented in Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10, respectively.
Samples 1 through 21 were collected systematically from Survey Unit A. Sample 22 was judgmental, collected from the soil beneath Building 520, where there were frequent transfers of blended uranium product. Field duplicates were also collected from locations 1 and 9 in Survey Unit A. Maximum concentrations in the final status samples from Survey Unit A were <0.14 pCi/g of U-232, 1.77 +/- 0.35 pCi/g of U-233 plus U-234, 0.361 0.16 pCi/g of U-235 plus U-236, and 1.431 0.32 pCi/g of U-238. It should be noted that alpha spectroscopy analyses do not distinguish between U-233 and U-234 or between U-235 and U-236; the totals for U-233 plus U-234 and for U-235 plus U-236 are therefore reported together.
Samples 1 through 17 were collected from randomly determined locations in Survey Unit B. Samples 18 through 23 were collected at judgmentally determined locations to provide coverage of this entire Survey Unit. Maximum concentrations in the final status samples from Survey Unit B were 0.14 +/- 0.15 pCi/ of U-232, 1. 78 +/- 0.38 pCi/g of U-233 plus U-234, <0.27 pCi/g of U-235 plus U-236, and 1.43 +/- 0.32 pCi/g of U-238.
Samples 1 through 18 were collected at locations in Survey Unit C to ensure representative coverage throughout the survey unit. Sample 1A Duplicate was collected
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 29 of 35 in close proximity to Sample 1, and showed concentrations in excess of the DSV.
Remediation was performed and Post-Remediation Samples REM1 - REM4 were collected to confirm residual concentrations were less than the DSV. Maximum concentrations in final status samples from Survey Unit C were 0.09 +/- 0.07 pCi/ of U-232, 4.72 +/- 0.69 pCi/g of U-233 plus U-234, 0.48 +/- 0.18 pCi/g of U-235 plus U-236, and 1.74 +/- 0.33 pCi/g of U-238.
Table 8. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit A Grid Location Coordinates Uranium Concentration (pCi/g)
Comments ID North East U-232 U-233&234 U-235&236 U-238 1
26 26 0.05*
0.71 +/- 0.22 0.10 +/- 0.09 0.45 +/- 0.17 1
26 26 0.04*
0.52 +/- 0.18 0.11*
0.55 +/- 0.19 QC duplicate 2
26 44 0.06*
1.46 +/- 0.37 0.23 +/- 0.15 0.96 +/- 0.28 3
26 62 0.04*
0.64 +/- 0.20 0.16+/-0.11 0.58 +/- 0.19 4
26 80 0.05*
0.93 +/- 0.28 0.10*
1.04 +/- 0.30 5
41 17 0.14*
1.72 +/- 0.53 0.24*
0.50 +/- 0.32 6
41 35 0.09*
0.89 +/- 0.33 0.30 +/- 0.21 0.74 +/- 0.30 7
41 53 0.05*
1.17+/-0.30 0.30 +/- 0.16 1.25 +/- 0.31 8
41 71 0.06*
1.26 +/- 0.35 0.26 +/- 0.17 0.94 +/- 0.29 9
56 26 0.10+/-0.13 1.62 +/- 0.35 0.21 +/- 0.12 1.15 +/- 0.28 9
56 26 0.04*
0.95 +/- 0.24 0.07*
0.62 +/- 0.19 QC duplicate 10 56 44 0.05 +/- 0.08 1.77 +/- 0.35 0.20 +/- 0.12 1.18+/-0.27 11 56 62 0.05*
1.19+/-0.30 0.14 +/- 0.11 1.01 +/- 0.27 12 56 80 0.04*
1.66 +/- 0.35 0.36 +/- 0.16 1.43 +/- 0.32 13 71 35 0.04*
0.79 +/- 0.23 0.10 +/- 0.09 0.99 +/- 0.26 14 71 53 0.09 +/- 0.08 1.13+/-0.29 0.10 +/- 0.09 0.83 +/- 0.24 15 71 71 0.05 +/- 0.06 0.78 +/- 0.24 0.13 +/- 0.11 0.88 +/- 0.27 16 86 44 0.05 +/- 0.06 1.24 +/- 0.30 0.07*
1.10 +/- 0.27 17 86 62 0.10 +/- 0.11 0.70 +/- 0.21 0.11
- 0.74 +/- 0.21 18 86 80 0.06*
1.00 +/- 0.32 0.15+/-0.13 0.87 +/- 0.29 19 101 35 0.06 +/- 0.07 0.43+/-0.18 0.11*
0.46 +/- 0.19 20 101 53 0.05 +/- 0.06 1.11 +/- 0.26 0.10*
0.78 +/- 0.21 21 101 71 0.06*
1.33 +/- 0.35 0.22 +/- 0.14 0.54 +/- 0.21 22 37 61 0.05*
0.62 +/- 0.21 0.08*
0.52 +/- 0.18 Waste handling exit
- Indicates result less than the minimum detectable activity of the analytical procedure.
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 30 of 35 Table 9. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit B Location Grid Coordinates Uranium Concentration (pCi/g)
Comments ID North East U-232 U-233&234 U-235&236 U-238 1
2 101 0.05*
1.29 +/- 0.33 0.12*
1.22 +/- 0.31 2
4 59 0.04 +/- 0.05 1.35 +/- 0.27 0.13 +/- 0.08 1.04 +/- 0.23 3
11 90 0.04*
1.49 +/- 0.31 0.08 +/- 0.07 1.02 +/- 0.25 4
12 69 0.05*
1.18+/-0.30 0.1 7*
0.76 +/- 0.23 5
13 119 0.11 +/- 0.09 1.63 +/- 0.32 0.18 +/- 0.21 1.07 +/- 0.25 6
14 11 0.09*
0.96 +/- 0.38 0.17*
0.86 +/- 0.36 7
24 85 0.04*
1.41 +/-0.31 0.17*
1.05 +/- 0.26 8
32 113 0.05 +/- 0.05 1.27 +/- 0.30 0.17 +/- 0.11 1.32 +/- 0.31 9
35 2
0.04*
1.54 +/- 0.32 0.11 +/- 0.08 1.15 +/- 0.27 10 36 106 0.05*
1.44 +/- 0.34 0.1 7 +/- 0.11 1.08 +/- 0.28 11 58 110 0.06 +/- 0.07 1.53 +/- 0.33 0.25 +/- 0.13 1.43 +/- 0.31 12 65 85 0.06 +/- 0.07 1.70 +/- 0.42 0.14*
1.14 +/- 0.33 13 70
-2 0.04*
1.37 +/- 0.31 0.08 +/- 0.08 1.27 +/- 0.30 14 71 17 0.03*
1.22 +/- 0.26 0.17 +/- 0.10 0.97 +/- 0.23 15 72 106 0.06 +/- 0.07 1.56 +/- 0.35 0.12 +/- 0.09 1.14 +/- 0.29 16 80 112 0.14 +/- 0.15 1.78 +/- 0.38 0.22 +/- 0.13 1.43 +/- 0.32 17 90 17 0.07*
1.20 +/- 0.38 0.16*
0.86 +/- 0.30 18 90 90 0.05*
1.19+/-0.31 0.22 +/- 0.13 1.29 +/- 0.33 19 102 25 0.05 +/- 0.07 0.62 +/- 0.21 0.09*
0.61 +/- 0.20 20 106 10 0.08 +/- 0.10 1.21 +/- 0.32 0.14 +/- 0.11 0.92 +/- 0.27 21 107 81 0.14*
1.49 +/- 0.60 0.24*
1.06 +/- 0.49 22 110 10 0.07 +/- 0.07 1.49 +/- 0.30 0.08*
1.07 +/- 0.25 23 115 110 0.14*
0.81 +/- 0.41 0.27*
0.22*
- Indicates result less than the minimum detectable activity of the analytical procedure.
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 31 of 35 Table 10. Uranium Concentrations in Surface Soil Samples from Survey Unit C Location Grid Coordinates Uranium Concentration (pCi/g)
ID North East U-232 U-233&234 U-235&236 U-238 Comments 1
NIA N/A N/A 2.60 +/- 0.45 0.29 +/- 0.14 1.68 +/- 0.34 2
N/A NIA NIA 2.24 +/- 0.43 0.29 +/- 0.15 1.68 +/-0.36 3
NIA NIA NIA 1.20 +/- 0.27 0.17+/-0.10 1.01 +/- 0.24 4
NIA NIA NIA 1.98 +/- 0.40 0.08 +/- 0.08 1.17 +/- 0.29 5
NIA NIA NIA 1.10 +/- 0.27 0.04*
0.96 +/- 0.24 6
NIA NIA NIA 1.09 +/- 0.26 0.18 +/- 0.11 1.06 +/- 0.25 7
NIA NIA NIA 0.96 +/- 0.24 0.04*
0.95 +/- 0.24 8
NIA NIA NIA 1.40 +/- 0.41 0.06*
1.15 +/- 0.37 9
NIA NIA NIA 1.54 +/- 0.33 0.09*
1.03 +/- 0.26 10 NIA NIA NIA 1.42 +/- 0.29 0.17+/-0.01 1.17 +/- 0.26 11 NIA NIA NIA 1.47 +/- 0.31
.014 +/- 0.09 1.12+/-0.26 12 NIA N/A NIA 1.27 +/- 0.32 0.15 +/- 0.11 1.14 +/-0.30 13 NIA NIA NIA 1.28 +/- 0.28 0.12 +/- 0.09 1.37 +/- 0.30 14 NIA NIA NIA 1.08 +/- 0.26 0.18 +/- 0.11 1.00 +/- 0.25 15 NIA NIA NIA 0.84 +/- 0.24 0.04*
0.78 +/- 0.23 16 NIA NIA NIA 1.71 +/- 0.37 0.16*
1.58 +/- 0.35 17 NIA NIA NIA 1.50 +/- 0.31 0.12 +/- 0.09 1.10 +/- 0.26 18 NIA NIA NIA 2.09 +/- 0.38 0.27 +/- 0.13 1.74 +/- 0.33 1A Dup NIA NIA NIA 15.00 +/- 2.0 1.12+/-0.32 3.17 +/- 0.58 Pre-Remediation REM1 NIA NIA 0.04 +/- 0.05 4.72 +/- 0.69 0.48 +/- 0.18 1.63 +/- 0.33 Post-Remediation REM2 NIA NIA 0.05 +/- 0.07 0.93 +/- 0.25 0.21 +/-0.13 0.94 +/- 0.26 Post-Remediation REM3 NIA NIA 0.09 +/- 0.07 2.27 +/- 0.42 0.37 +/- 0.16 1.30 +/- 0.29 Post-Remediation REM4 NIA N/A 0.01 +/- 0.03 1.59 +/- 0.33 0.25 +/-0.13 0.84 +/- 0.22 Post-Remediation
- Indicates result less than the minimum detectable activity of the analytical procedure.
Uranium concentrations in the survey samples were compared directly with the DSVs, without adjusting for background contributions. For this comparison, the lower of the values for U-233 and U-234 (i.e., 9.11 pCi/g) and for U-235 and U-236 (i.e., 8 pCi/g) were used. Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13 summarize the results of the comparisons.
The maximum resulting SOF for Survey Unit A was 0.349; the maximum for Survey Unit B was 0.394; the maximum for Survey Unit C was 0.69.
All SOF values are well below the criterion of Unity (1.0), even considering (1) sample concentrations were not adjusted for reference background levels and (2) sample concentrations of U-233 plus U-234 and U-235 plus U-236 were compared to conservatively low DSV values.
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 32 of 35 0
C:
0 cu
(.)
0
...I 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Table 11. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit A with Default Screening Values (DSVs)
Grid U-232 U-233 plus U-234 U-235 plus U-236 U-238 Coordinates C'l C'l
.E>
C'l 0
0 0
~-
C.
en
~ci 0 en ~-
C.
u, ~-
C.
u,
.c C'l -
0 C.
e C'l -
0 C'l -
0 t:: -
.~::::
VI
-o
- c3
- c3
- c3 0
cu
(.) C.
u,
(.)
(.) C.
u,
(.)
(.) C.
u,
(.)
(.) C.
u,
(.)
z w
ct-0 ct ct-0 ct ct-0 ct ct-0 ct 26 26 0.05 1.96 0.026 0.71 9.11 0.078 0.10 8
0.013 0.45 14 0.032 26 44 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.46 9.11 0.160 0.23 8
0.029 0.96 14 0.069 26 62 0.04 1.96 0.020 0.64 9.11 0.070 0.16 8
0.020 0.58 14 0.041 26 80 0.05 1.96 0.026 0.93 9.11 0.102 0.10 8
0.013 1.04 14 0.074 41 17 0.14 1.96 0.071 1.72 9.11 0.189 0.24 8
0.030 0.50 14 0.036 41 35 0.09 1.96 0.046 0.89 9.11 0.098 0.30 8
0.038 0.74 14 0.053 41 53 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.17 9.11 0.128 0.30 8
0.038 1.25 14 0.089 41 71 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.26 9.11 0.138 0.26 8
0.033 0.94 14 0.067 56 26 0.10 1.96 0.051 1.62 9.11 0.178 0.21 8
0.026 1.15 14 0.082 56 44 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.77 9.11 0.194 0.20 8
0.025 1.18 14 0.084 56 62 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.19 9.11 0.131 0.14 8
0.018 1.01 14 0.072 56 80 0.04 1.96 0.020 1.66 9.11 0.182 0.36 8
0.045 1.43 14 0.102 71 35 0.04 1.96 0,020 0.77 9.11 0.087 0.10 8
0.013 0.99 14 0.071 71 53 0.09 1.96 0.046 1.13 9.11 0.124 0.10 8
0.013 0.83 14 0.059 71 71 0.05 1.96 0.026 0.78 9.11 0,086 0.13 8
0.016 0.88 14 0.063 86 44 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.24 9.11 0.136 0.07 8
0.009 1.10 14 0.079 86 62 0.10 1.96 0.051 0.70 9.11 0.077 0.11 8
0.014 0.74 14 0.053 86 80 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.00 9.11 0.110 0.15 8
0.019 0.87 14 0.062 101 35 0.06 1.96 0.031 0.43 9.11 0.047 0.11 8
0.014 0.46 14 0.033 101 53 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.11 9.11 0.122 0.10 8
0.013 0.78 14 0.056 101 71 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.33 9.11 0.146 0.22 8
0.028 0.54 14 0.039 37 61 0.05 1.96 0.026 0.62 9.11 0.075 0.08 8
0.010 0.52 14 0.037 Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation VI C:
0 CJ cu...
u......
0 E
u, 0.149 0.289 0.151 0.215 0.326 0.235 0.281 0.269 0.337 0.329 0.247 0.349 0.191 0.242 0.191 0.250 0.195 0.222 0.125 0.217 0.244 0.148 0.13 0.35 0.24 0.06
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 33 of 35 C
C:
0 ;;
I'll
(,)
0
..J 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Table 12. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit B with Default Screening Values (DSVs)
Grid Coordinates U-232 U-233 plus U-234 U-235 plus U-236 U-238 ci ci
.E>
.E>
0 0
0 0
~-
C.
en ~-
C.
en ~-
C.
en ~-
C.
en
.c:
C) -
C C) -
e C) -
C C) -
e
~
Ill
- c3
- c3
... 0
- c3 0
I'll
(,) C.
cn
(,)
(,) C.
en
(,)
(,) C.
en
(,)
(,) C.
en
(,)
z w
<C-C
<C
<C-C
<C
<C -
C
<C
<C-C
<C 2
101 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.29 9.11 0.142 0.12 8
0.015 1.22 14 0.087 4
59 0.04 1.96 0.020 1.35 9.11 0.148 0.13 8
0.016 1.04 14 0.074 11 90 0.04 1.96 0.020 1.49 9.11 0.164 0.08 8
0.010 1.02 14 0.073 12 69 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.18 9.11 0.130 0.17 8
0.021 0.76 14 0.054 13 119 0.11 1.96 0.056 1.63 9.11 0.179 0.18 8
0.023 1.07 14 0.076 14 11 0.09 1.96 0.046 0.96 9.11 0.105 0.17 8
0.021 0.86 14 0.061 24 85 0.04 1.96 0.020 1.41 9.11 0.155 0.17 8
0.021 1.05 14 0.075 32 113 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.27 9.11 0.139 0.17 8
0.021 1.32 14 0.094 35 2
0.04 1.96 0.020 1.54 9.11 0.169 0.11 8
0.014 1.15 14 0.082 36 106 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.44 9.11 0.158 0.17 8
0.021 1.08 14 0.077 58 110 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.53 9.11 0.168 0.25 8
0.031 1.43 14 0.100 65 85 0.06 1.96 0.031 1.70 9.11 0.187 0.14 8
0.018 1.14 14 0.081 70
-2 0.04 1.96 0.020 1.37 9.11 0.150 0.08 8
0.010 1.27 14 0.091 71 17 0.03 1.96 0.015 1.22 9.11 0.134 0.17 8
0.021 0.97 14 0.069 72 106 0.06 1.96 0.032 1.56 9.11 0.171 0.12 8
0.015 1.14 14 0.081 80 112 0.14 1.96 0.071 1.78 9.11 0.195 0.22 8
0.028 1.43 14 0.100 90 17 0.07 1.96 0.036 1.20 9.11 0.132 0.16 8
0.020 0.86 14 0.061 90 90 0.05 1.96 0.026 1.19 9.11 0.131 0.22 8
0.028 1.29 14 0.092 102 25 0.05 1.96 0.026 0.62 9.11 0.068 0.09 8
0.011 0.61 14 0.044 106 10 0.08 1.96 0.041 1.21 9.11 0.133 0.14 8
0.018 0.92 14 0.066 107 81 0.14 1.96 0.071 1.49 9.11 0.164 0.24 8
0.030 1.06 14 0.076 110 55 0.07 1.96 0.036 1.49 9.11 0.164 0.08 8
0.010 1.07 14 0.076 115 110 0.14 1.96 0.071 0.81 9.11 0.089 0.27 8
0.034 0.22 14 0.016 Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Ill C
0 ;:
u E
LL -
0 E
en 0.248 0.258 0.267 0.236 0.334 0.233 0.271 0.280 0.285 0.282 0.330 0.317 0.271 0.239 0.297 0.394 0.245 0.277 0.144 0.258 0.341 0.286 0.210 0.14 0.39 0.27 0.05
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report
' Page 34 of 35 Table 13. Comparison of Uranium Concentrations in Soil from Survey Unit C with Default Screening Values (DSVs) 1 Comments U-232 U-233 + U-234 U-235 + U-U-238 236 C
.E>
C)
.E>
C)
C:
N u >
u >
u >
0
~-
C.
(/) ~- u
(/) ~-
C.
(/) ~a S:
(/)
C) -
C C)
C.
C C) -
C C
ca c.,
- .; u
... :.; u
... :.; u
..... c3 ts 0
c., C.
(/)
c.,
c., C.
(/)
c.,
c., C. (/)
c., ~s
(/)
...J C
C
< <- C C
1 NIA 1.96 NIA 2.60 9.11 0.29 0.29 8 0.04 1.68 14 0.12 2
NIA 1.96 NIA 2.24 9.11 0.25 0.29 8 0.04 1.68 14 0.12 3
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.20 9.11 0.13 0.17 8 0.02 1.01 14 0.07 4
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.98 9.11 0.22 0.08 8 0.01 1.17 14 0.08 5
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.10 9.11 0.12 0.04* 8 0.01 0.96 14 0.07 6
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.09 9.11 0.12 0.18 8 0.02 1.06 14 0.08 7
NIA 1.96 NIA 0.96 9.11 0.11 0.04* 8 0.01 0.95 14 0.07 8
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.40 9.11 0.15 0.06* 8 0.01 1.15 14 0.08 9
NIA 1.96 NIA 1.54 9.11 0.17 0.09* 8 0.01 1.03 14 0.07 10 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.42 9.11 0.16 0.17 8 0.02 1.17 14 0.08 11 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.47 9.11 0.16.014 8 0.00 1.12 14 0.08 12 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.27 9.11 0.14 0.15 8 0.02 1.14 14 0.08 13 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.28 9.11 0.14 0.12 8 0.02 1.37 14 0.10 14 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.08 9.11 0.12 0.18 8 0.02 1.00 14 0.07 15 NIA 1.96 NIA 0.84 9.11 0.09 0.04* 8 0.01 0.78 14 0.06 16 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.71 9.11 0.19 0.16* 8 0.02 1.58 14 0.11 17 NIA 1.96 NIA 1.50 9.11 0.16 0.12 8 0.02 1.10 14 0.08 18 NIA 1.96 NIA 2.09 9.11 0.23 0.27 8 0.03 1.74 14 0.12 1A Dup 2 Pre-Remediation NIA 1.96 NIA 15.00 9.11 1.65 1.12 8 0.14 3.17 14 0.23 REM1 Post-Remediation 0.038 1.96 0.02 4.72 9.11 0.52 0.48 8 0.06 1.63 14 0.12 REM2 Post-Remediation 0.054 1.96 0.03 0.93 9.11 0.10 0.21 8 0.03 0.94 14 0.07 REM3 Post-Remediation 0.085 1.96 0.04 2.27 9.11 0.25 0.37 8 0.05 1.30 14 0.09 REM4 Post-Remediation 0.013 1.96 0.01 1.59 9.11 0.17 0.25 8 0.03 0.84 14 0.06 Minimum Maximum Mean NOTES:
Std Deviation
- 1. Soil samples initially obtained from Survey Unit C were not analyzed for U-232.
- 2. Sample 1A Duplicate excluded from the statistical summary.
1/j C:
0 c.,
ca..
- u....
0 E
(/)
0.44 0.40 0.23 0.31 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.32 0.26 0.39 2.01 0.69 0.20 0.39 0.27 0.15 0.69 0.29 0.12
ATL-BLEU-RP-135.3 Radiological Survey Report Page 35 of 35 9.4 Data Validation Standard survey procedures were implemented by qualified radiation technicians in accordance with an approved plan to meet MARSSIM guidance. The number of samples obtained for the soil evaluation exceeded that recommended by MARSSIM. Two samples were duplicated and similar analyses were performed on each sample by Eberline Services. Results of these analyses were compared by the replicate error ratio (RER) as follows and are summarized in Table 14.
Where:
Csmp = activity of the original sample Cdup = activity of duplicate sample.
Usmp = 1 CJ uncertainty of the original sample Udup = 1 CJ uncertainty of the duplicate sample Table 14. Comparison of Analyses of Field Duplicate Samples Survey Unit Sample Concentration (pCi/g + 1 O')
A Location Coordinates U-232 U-233 plus U-235 plus U-238 ID 234 236 1
26N, 26E
<0.05 0.71+/- 0.11 0.10 +/- 0.05 0.45 +/- 0.09 1
26N, 26Edup
<0.04 0.52 +/- 0.09
<0.11 0.55 +/- 0.09 RER N/A*
1.3 N/A*
0.8 9
56N, 26E 0.10+/-0.13 1.62 +/- 0.18 0.21 +/- 0.06 1.15+/-0.14 9
56N, 26Edup
<0.04 0.95 +/- 0.12
<0.07 0.62 +/- 0.09 RER NIA*
3.1 N/A*
3.2
- Not applicable due to levels less than minimal detectable level of procedure.
A resulting value of 3 (or less) is considered acceptable for analyses of field duplicate samples. The results of this comparison are slightly higher than 3 for U-233 plus 234 and U-238 analyses on the sample from coordinate 56N, 26E; for both of these analyses, the level in the original sample was greater than that reported for the duplicate. Because all analyses indicated concentrations well below the acceptable criteria and the associated uncertainties are relatively large, the elevated RER values are not sufficient reason to not accept the analytical results for the original samples. Data therefore satisfy the project representativeness, completeness, and comparability requirements.
10.0 CONCLUSION
A final survey of the former BLEU site was performed following removal of contaminated facilities and demolition of structures. This survey included walkover gamma scans, direct measurements of gamma radiation levels, and sampling and analysis of surface soil. No locations of potential residual surface soil contamination were identified by the scans. Because all samples satisfy the Unity criterion, residual uranium in site soil is negligible and the site meets the requirements for unrestricted release for future uses.
APPENDIX A - DENUKE PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE FINAL SURVEY OF THE BLEU SITE DENUKE-QA-100.100 DENUKE-RP-105 DENUKE-RP-105.100 DENUKE-RP-105.200 DENUKE-RP-105.300 DENUKE-RP-105.304 DENUKE-RP-105.308 DENUKE-RP-105.302 DENUKE-RP-105.318 DENUKE-RP-105.320 DENUKE-RP-105.328 DENUKE-RP-105.346 DENUKE-RP-105.355 DENUKE-RP-105.400 DENUKE-RP-105.500 Quality Assurance for Radiological Survey Activities Instrumentation and Measurement: General Instrumentation: Calibration Instrumentation: Setup and Performance Checks Instrument Selection and Use Operation of Ludlum Model 2221 Ratemeter/Scaler Page 1 of 1 Operation of Ludlum Model 44-10 Gamma Scintillation Detector Operation of Bicron Micro Rem Meter Operation of Gamma Scintillation Detectors: General Checking Satellite Availability for GPS Work Data Processing for G PS Data Perform QC Check of the Trimble GeoExplorer 2005 Series Model GeoXH Field Operation of the Trimble GeoExplorer 2008 Series Model GeoXH Calculating Detection Sensitivity Radiological Survey Activities
APPENDIX B - DETECTION SENSITIVITIES OF GAMMA SCANNING Page 1 of 2 The methods for calculating scanning detection sensitivities are presented in MARSSI M (Ref 1) and NUREG-1507 (Ref 2). Detector parameters used in these calculations are typical background count rate, instrument field of view, and instrument response to the potential contaminants of concern. A Ludlum Model 44-10, 2-in diameter x 2-in thick sodium iodide (Nal) detector, coupled with a Ludlum Model 2221 scaler/ratemeter, are used for the scans. An open window is used to accept all photon energies above the input threshold of 1 O mV. The detector is suspended within 5 cm of the soil surface and passed in a 0. 75-to 1-m wide serpentine pattern over the surface while advancing at a rate of approximately 0.5 m/second. The audible signal from the instrument is monitored by the surveyor, and detectable changes in count rate are noted. If an increase in count rate is detected, the immediate area is resurveyed at a reduced speed to confirm the change and, if applicable, to identify the boundary of the impacted area.
Equation 6-6 of NUREG-1507 provides the following relationship for estimating scan sensitivity:
MDCR = d' [BKGD*i/60)1/2
- 60/i]
The minimum detectable count rate (MDCR) is a function of the background rate (BKGD) and the time in seconds (i) that the detector is within close proximity to the source of the gamma photons; for the selected survey technique, that time interval is approximately 2 seconds. A high probability (95%) of true detection is the objective, and the survey is willing to accept a high probability of false-positive detections (60%) with resulting investigations. The value of d' (1.38) is thus selected from Table 6.1 in NUREG-1507. The nominal site background is 8,000 cpm.
The resulting MDCR value is 676 cpm.
The detectable count rate is converted to a radionuclide concentration by use of exposure rate factors (µR/h/pCi/g) from the Microshield computer code for a uniform concentration in a 50 cm x 50 cm x 15 cm thick slab of soil (density of 1.5 g/cm3) and detector response factors (cpm/µR/h). To account for less than ideal survey performance, a surveyor efficiency factor (p) of (0.5)1/2 is also incorporated into the final calculation as follows:
MDCR Scan Sensitivity =
(0.5) 112 *(µR/h/pCi/g) ( cpm/µR/h)
The resulting scan sensitivity values are as follows:
U-232 U-233 U-234 U-235 U-236 U-238 1.7 pCi/g Not detectable; negligible photon emissions Not detectable; negligible photon emissions 7.2 pCi/g Not detectable; negligible photon emissions 26 pCi/g
Appendix B - Detection Sensitivities of Gamma Scanning Page 2 of 2 References
- 1. NUREG-1575, Rev 1, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2000
- 2. NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1998
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System Page 2 of 7 July 14, 2017 Results of-SUNeys of the BLEU Fadlity Storm Drain System The storm drain system for the BLEU site was surveyed to determine residual activity levels and to compare those levels with the following Project criteria:
Direct alpha Direct beta Removable alpha Removable beta 500 dpm/100 cm 2 5000 dpm/100 cm 2 100 dpm/100 cm2 200 dpm/100 cm2 The BLEU site storm drain system collected precipitation runoff from the site and directed it offsite, where it was combined with storm drainage from other NFS facilities. The locations of the system components, including catch basins, manholes, and piping, are shown on the attached drawing. There were no access points to the system from inside BLEU process facilities, and an effective contamination control program was implemented by NFS during the BLEU Facility operations. Records do not indicate any accidental or intentional releases of potentially contaminated liquids to the storm drainage system. Although the BLEU site drainage itself was not monitored before leaving the site, NFS sampled and analyzed the combined facility storm drainage to assure concentrations were well within the NRC limits prior to releasing it to the environment. Based on this information, the potential for residual uranium activity in the system is considered very low.
Current plans are to leave this drain system in place to provide future control of storm runoff.
The system components must therefore be demonstrated to satisfy the Project Surveys were performed in accordance with the BLEU Project "Release Survey Plan for Materials and Equipment from the Blended Low Enriched Uranium Facilities at the Nuclear Fuel Services Site" (ATL-BLEU-RP-134.1, Rev 0). Manholes and catch basins were accessed. Alpha scans were performed; direct alpha and removable alpha and beta measurements were obtained on the internal surfaces. Due to the limited space within the survey locations, access with a dual scintillator was not possible; beta scans and direct beta measurements were therefore not performed.
A Ludlum Model 43-65 scintillation detector with handheld Model 2221 scaler/ratemeter was used for scanning and direct measurements.. Smears were counted on a Ludlum Model 2929 scaler with an alpha/beta scintillation detector.
Survey Results The field survey map and record forms are provided as an attachment to this report. No elevated locations of alpha activity were identified by the scans. With few exceptions, direct alpha and removable alpha and beta activity measurements were less than the detection
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System Page 3 of 7 July 14, 2017 sensitivities of the survey techniques and, consequently, well below the Project release criteria.
Because all measurements indicated no residual contamination in excess of the Project criteria, the storm drain system can remain in place for future use without radiological restrictions.
Jim Berger, CHP ATL Radiation Programs Manager Attachments
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System
..............,1
£ORM Page 4 of 7 Pro)tcl/Slte:
BLEU FACllli't'/NFS Survey loullon: _,ST=OR=Mc.:1:;.lRAW=:,S::_ _____ _
SUIV9Y NumbGr:
8LEU-SY1006 Survey Clas* Type:
INVESTl(M!M; lnstrunwntOata Al ha Beta ICalOue,__
Modal 2221 Model Meter
- Sor1a1, 183997 Matar Serial.
4--, \\ -2..Cl*
Oeta<:tor Model 43°'!
De1ector Modol S.rta1, PR165982 Setlalf 2,pl Efficiency 4043%
2-pl Efflcloncy Surfau co.,.ctlon Factor 25%
Surfac:o l:ffl'rtc:11on Factor Total Efflele"""'
,o 1oali.*
Total Efficiency De1ec:tor AIU lcm')
)0 Ootacior Alu lc:m1l DaCADlOUnd tcmn1 I
0
-*nround rcevftl Musurtmanta
~-ft *-ub
...-oo -
Location O..crl"'inn Grid ID Alpl\\o llog c.-
..., !Cllml c.......
Numw)
FLOOR ND NIA 1
1 198 WAl.l ND NIA 2'
2 396 WAl.l NO NIA 2
2 396 PIPE NO NIA 1
I 198 FlOOII NO NIA 4
0 00 1/S P1Pf NO NIA 0
0 0.0 WAI.L ND NIA 4
79.1 WALL ND NIA 6
6 118,7 WALL NO NIA 1
6 118 7 NO NIA 11$ PIPE NIA NO N/A 1
I 19.8 11$ PIPE, NO NIA 0
0 00 FLOOR NO NTA 2
2 396 WALL NO NIA 4
78.1 l'lOOR ND N/A 3
118 FLOOR Hflo NO NIA 3
3 5fU WALL ND NIA 1
19 8 WAU NO NIA 3
3 594 1/S PIPE NO NIA 0
0 o_o
TORIIOIIAININf!IONT0,5' HO NIA I
1/SPtPE NO NIA 0
0 0.0 J
fl""° I
NO NIA 1
I 19&
I FLOOR./ -,,.
NO NIA 3
3 5114 I
WAL.l
'~
NO NIA 3
3 514 7
ilSP1P£ I
HO NIA 2
5 98 g 7
!/
MtMV'lfDIQl Hocea,
- V*- tndlcat~ In Bold **CMd 500 c1pnv1C>Clcm" alpha and/Of 110* De~ No iac--4 acti
.!tllllnasqn I;
- 0.n<M*!I an Ete,,~ Scan,.adl11 NIA-Non su,...y0<1*1tPr111t 1S'9n): G, C 6~ ~
--.........., ~~
l7
,.,.,,... o PIIQe ol s I
DIiie I -
I 11, 0/2011 I 1300
.._c-..,--*I 1
.... ~,_,,,..,,
1 SI.A
... MO&, __
fdpw/100 -*
c.*'>
1.a I
I I
7 I
I I
810 I
I I
7 I
56 I
I 7,
I 7
7 13 14 I
1 A
5000 dl)ml100cffi. beta
.Ille 0918:
]-/L/-(7 Dale:
z/t~//
I I
I I
I I
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System Page 5 of 7 SURFACE ACTMTY MEASUREMENT FORM ProjK1/Sit,,: _ -
~E~l.J
.... F_,C.
~ ll~ITY
~ IN
.... F~S-------
Swvey Location: _,,S1c==f.::.::UW=N:::S:._. _____ _
Surny Number:------
8LE1J-SY10!!6=-------
Survey ClaSa Type: _ ____
INVE......aa.as...
T_IGA
'-"T... IVE=----
tnstNmeflt D11a I
o.,,.
I,._
I
"'~"*
Beta I 5110/2111 I 1300 J ICalDue:---.
Meter Model 2221,-
Meter Model S.rtllf 183997 Serial'
'1-II -2.' 7 Detector Model 4~
De cto, lloclel Serial' PRtfl5982 lerlll 1
..... c:..n. TIMt._.,
1 I
2-91 Effle,.ncy 40.43%
2..pl Efficiency
... c-,r.,,_,-,l 1
I Sutfaee Correct.Ion Factor 25%
Sunaca i;orrec;uun l'K10f Total !fflclency 10 10!!"&
TOlaJ Efflcienc:y 0 000" o.tactor AIN fcm'I 50 Detector Ana cm'l 58.4 I
111c1Laroune1,c~*
0
-*aro*~ ftnn.*
.. ilMOA--."lt I
Manurementa scan........
a...
a.-
~IO Gt-Locatlan ONc.....,""n Grid ID - -
C:00..
Nol tq,,at c,,.')
c- -*-*
NU111llef2 H!A NIA NIA N
34 1/S PIPE NO NIA 0
0 0.0 I
IIS Pl!'E NO NIA s
s 989 I
FlOOR Nn NIA 1
,u
/
WAU ND NIA 0
0 o.o I
WAl.l NO NIA *-
1 111.8
/
TOf' NO NIA 4
4 791 I
NIA NIA
/
0 00
/
1/S P1PC NO NIA 2
2 39.8
/
FLOOR NO NIA 2
2 39.6
/
WAU NO NIA I
1 198
/
WAU NO NIA I
I 198 I
TOf' NO 3
3 594 I
0 00
/
l'LOOA ND NIA 0
0 00
/
FtOOft NO NIA 2
2 396
/
WAI.L NO NIA 5
s 98 9
/
WAil
"'A NO NIA o_
0 00 I
IOP Nl NIA 8
6 118.7 A
N
~
~ -
A
- Vaiues lndicAltied in Bold Hceed 500 dpm/100cm' alphe and/or NO*
No lnc-.ctac Date:
7-/\\j Q 0
...., 0 Page 2 ol 5>
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System Page 6 of 7 SMEAR I FILTER ANALYSIS RECORD FORM Proj<!cl/611<1* _____
B....
LE
.... U F_A...
C_IL_IT_Y_IN_ FS"'----
Survey Loce1 on: ______ S.,.IOf
__ m Oni
,n __
Survey Num~ _ ___
__,B-"LE=U...a,$... Y,.,1....
0"c..c._.-
Survey CIUa Type: ___....:.:;ln:.:.,,..='=::.:""'c:----
ln11rumen1 D*~
Alpha kt.I Melff Model 2929
... let..,...,
LVntl S.rlal.
160026 S.nal t 100021>
De1K10t MOMI 43-10-1 o.tector Model 43 10-1 ser1a11 PR164051 Serial t PR164051 4-pl Eff'lcieney 2915%
- -Pl Efflclencv 2A 62%
llac:l<around (cDml Q
8e<kaN>ulld (cpm)
S7 Measurementa Sn.ar/
.&ftllA a.ca Filler/
Loc:a11on I
{mlnl Couma Net (CDffll Net (dam)'
(min)
COIi-Net,,..... 1 Neild-I>
1 1
1 3.4 1
IIO
-1
-28..4 2
0 Q
0.0 1
57 10
-406 3
I 0
0 0.0 54
- 13 sz.a 1
0 0
o_o 1
68 1
5 1
0 0
OD 65
-2 81 6
0 0
0.0 72 5
203 7
1 2
2 69 1
a5 2
-8.1 a
1 0
0 0.0 1
85 2
-8 1 9
I 1
1 H
1 59
-8
-32.5 10 1
1 3.4 1
82
-6
- 20.3 11 1
0 Q
o_o 1
54
-13
-52.8 12 I
1 3.4 1
70 3
12.2 13 1
0 0
0.4 I
as 1
14 1
2 2
6.9 1
55
-12
-487 N
./
./
./
./
/
./
./
./
./
./
./
/
./
./
./
./
./
V
./
./
./
A
~
- 1/alUK Indicated In BOid OXCffd All *.._" tepf9ffl\\l
- 100 Cffl2 alll1aee..-..
Surveyor (Print/ Slgn): _3i.........-,:'"'"'-~~~7=--"";....,,i*. ~~-=:::;;;...~
Reviewer (Priftt/Slgn): _-r-~-~~-..,..-~c...;;;;,.""==-
~ af 5 Al11/llt1IIOA t*,..., 100...,.,
10 J
-lotDAt-100....,..,
116.8 Comments NIA-Non Applic:lllle Data: __._Z_-~/_L/_-_/_7 ___ _
Oat.:~Z.rY:~/~~-0_/_,> __ _
I
'°'-
!310,U
~
Appendix C -Results of Surveys of the BLEU Facility Storm Drain System Figure 1 Storm Drainage System Showing lnvest'8ative Survey locations Page 7 of 7
- \\ll ----