HBL-20-007, Final Status Survey Report for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Reactor Caisson Survey Units

Final Status Survey Report for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Reactor Caisson Survey Units

ML20092M643
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	04/01/2020
From:	Welsch J Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC/OCM
References
HBL-20-007
Download: ML20092M643 (120)

Text

Pacific Gas and Electric Company"'

April 1, 2020 James M. Welsch Senior Vice President Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.3242 E-Mail: James.Welsch@pge.com PG&E Letter HBL-20-007 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-133, License No. DPR-7 Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 Final Status Survey Report for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Reactor Caisson Survey Units

References:

1. PG&E Letter HBL-20-004, "Revision 13 to the Defueled Safety Analysis Report, Revision 3 of the License Termination Plan, and Revisions 37, 38, and 39 to the Humboldt Bay Quality Assurance Plan," dated February 24, 2020.

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

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

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

L53153)," dated January 5, 2018.

Dear Commissioners and Staff:

On February 24, 2020, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) submitted PG&E Letter HBL-20-004 (Reference 1 ), which included Revision 3 of the License Termination Plan (LTP). Section 1.2 of the LTP describes a phased decommissioning approach to accomplish site release for unrestricted use and license termination.

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

a

Document Control Desk April 1, 2020 Page 2 PG&E Letter HBL-20-007 In the subsequent phases, PG&E will submit FSS reports for the remaining survey units as they are completed. Upon completion of FSS reports, PG&E will request the site be released from the 10 CFR Part 50 license.

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

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

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

If you have any questions or require additional supporting documentation for this submittal, please contact Mr. William Barley at (707) 444-0856.

Sincerely, James M. Welsch Senior Vice President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Enclosure cc:

HBPP Humboldt Distribution cc/enc: John B. Hickman, NRC Project Manager Scott A. Morris, NRC Region IV Administrator

/Maureen Zawalick for James Welsch

Enclosure PG&E Letter HBL-20-007 Humboldt Bay Power Plant Final Status Survey Report Reactor Caisson

Pacific -Gas and

-Electric Co111pany~

HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT FIN:Al ST.ATUS SURVEY REPORT Reactor Caisson Final Status Survey Report for Survey Units:

~:'..

~-

!*~*

ti >

a t:* =*"'

~.'.

,..~

t~. '

{,.,. '

~..-*,

1i: *.(

~-c-.

{~5*,

,; !('

~'i:,,

~-t Report P1 4epared by:

~ :/~:,.,'.

HBPP-FSSP-NOL01--09 HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-.FSR Gordo11 Madison) CHP - F s1Er1gineer 1Vlarsl1,1ll Blake - FSS Er1gi*neer Kris Ro,vberry, i\\11-IP~ Al-IP - ~r

• Sjl~--- *. re Specialist

\\\\lil1ia111 13a,.. fey~ CHP... Site Clostire Mar1age1~

Date:

RC~P FSS-17 Attacl1rnent 7.2

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

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

Rev. 2 (Ref. 1), Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR were Final Status Surveyed (FSS) for phased release from the sites 10CFR50 license. This report was prepared to demonstrate that the designated survey units satisfy the radiological release criteria.

The areas under consideration consist of the open land area inside the restricted area Caisson Removal Excavation footprint, and the Final Site Restoration (FSR) of the Caisson Removal footprint, which includes the area covering the Cutter Soil Mix (CSM) Wall with at least two feet of backfilled onsite-approved reuse soil. Additional discussion regarding the CSM Wall is provided in NRC Inspection Report 050-00133/16-001 (Ref. 21). The Caisson Removal Excavation footprint formerly contained below grade sections of the Refuel Building and included the dry well and liner, activated concrete around the core region, embedded piping systems and associated drains, suppression chamber and remaining downcomer piping, spent fuel pool (SFP) walls, sheet piles around the SFP, timber piles, access shaft, radwaste and off-gas tunnels, emergency escape hatch, valve gallery and associated piping system, sumps and concrete tremie seal. The Caisson Removal Excavation footprint included only the excavated bottom surface area excluding the dewatering wells.

The Caisson FSR area includes backfilled reuse material consisting of rubblized concrete surveyed via the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) process from various locations on site and soils certified in accordance with the Technical Basis Document (TBD) for the Gamma Radiation Detection and In-Container Analysis (GARDIAN) bulk assay system. It should be noted that the Caisson FSR survey unit is larger than the Caisson FSS survey unit due to inclusion of the CSM wall footprint in the survey area design. The total footprint areas of the two open land survey units are approximately 884 square meters (m2) and 1,351 m2 for NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR respectively. NOL01-09 is bounded on all sides by the CSM wall with the exception of the West side which is bounded by OOL03-02. NOL01-09-FSR is bounded by survey unit NOL01-05 to the north, on the west by Survey Unit OOL03-02, on the east by Survey Unit NOL01-04, and on the south by NOL01-07. It should be noted that NOL01-09-FSR overlaps with Survey Unit OOL03-02 on the west side. See Executive Summary Tables for details of each survey unit.

The survey unit areas are designated as Class 1 land areas in the LTP, indicating that the areas are impacted areas expected to have, or have had prior to remediation, a potential for radioactive contamination in excess of the Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs).

Extensive radiological remediation within the Caisson Removal Excavation footprint was necessary during decommissioning to satisfy the radiological release criteria. Additionally, as described later in this report, one of four dewatering wells required radiological remediation to satisfy the radiological release criteria.

The surveys performed included a total of fifty-five (55) samples. Each of the statistical sample locations was selected based on a random start, systematic grid placement using the Visual Sample Plan (VSP) software program. Sample locations were confirmed by a high precision Total Position Station (TPS) or Global Positioning System (GPS) for survey units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR/CSM Wall respectively. The sampling effort FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson ii RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

included thirty (30) statistical samples, four (4) split-samples, fifteen (15) biased samples, three (3) investigation samples, and three (3) Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) split samples in NOL01-09.

Additionally, four sample recounts were taken for quality assurance purposes. No Quality Assurance (QA) related discrepancies were noted that could impact the overall confidence in the results or conclusions of the FSS.

Accessible survey areas were also 100% scanned with a gamma-sensitive Sodium-Iodide (NaI) detector system. There were three instances where scan investigation criteria were exceeded as noted in Survey Unit NOL01-09, each requiring an investigation sample.

There were no investigation samples collected for survey unit NOL01-09-FSR.

The maximum hypothetical dose, from all sources, including groundwater, to a future resident farmer was determined to be less than 8.0 millirem per year (mrem/yr) and less than 0.9 mrem/yr for survey units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR respectively. It should be noted that the total dose calculated for NOL01-09 includes overestimates from the CSM Wall and Dewatering Well Characterization Plans as described later in this report. The report concludes that the survey units have met the FSS data quality objectives and each meet the regulatory release criteria of less than 25 mrem/yr to the average member of the critical group plus ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable).

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson iii RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table ES.1 - Synopsis of NOL01-09 Feature Design Criteria Comment Survey Unit Land Area 884 m2 (1)

Footprint area based on AutoCAD Classification Class 1 Based on the HBPP LTP Rev. 2 Final Status Survey Plan No.

HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-01 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2.1 Grid Spacing 8.25 m HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2.2 DCGLs 23.6 pCi/g(2)Am-241 5.94 pCi/g C-14 3.58 pCi/g Co-60 7.45 pCi/g Cs-137 9.43 pCi/g Eu-152 8.87 pCi/g Eu-154 1.41 pCi/g Sr-90 Scaled to reflect 23.58 mrem/yr TEDE(3) due to resultant dose of 1.42 mrem/yr from Cs-137 dose contribution from CSM(4) wall as listed in HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-00.

Scan Survey Area Coverage Approximately 100%

Table 5-4 of the HBPP LTP requires 100% of area coverage for Class 1 survey units Number of Measurements 15 Soil Samples (non-parametric test) 15 required per LTP Section 5.3.3.3.1 using Table 5-5 of MARSSIM for relative shift of 2 Min. Value 3.75E-02 Based on Unity Max. Value 1.63E-01 Based on Unity Mean 1.08E-01 Based on Unity Median 1.14E-01 Based on Unity Std. Dev.

3.31E-02 Based on Unity No. of Split Measurements 2 Soil Samples 1 required per HBAP C-202 No. of Bias Measurements 5 Biased Samples Soil Collected Judgmental locations selected by FSS Engineer (4 of 5 located near each of 4 dewatering wells)

No. of Recount Measurements 2 Soil Samples 1 required per HBAP C-202 Maximum Hypothetical Dose 7.88E+00 mrem/yr (2.69E+00 mrem/yr Survey unit dose plus 2.21E+00 mrem/yr CSM wall dose plus 2.97E+00 mrem/yr NE(5) Dewatering Well dose)

Meets FSS data quality objectives and regulatory release criteria of 25 mrem/yr TEDE Note (1): meters Squared Note (2): pico-curies per gram Note (3): Total Effective Dose Equivalent Note (4): Cutter Soil Mix Note (5): Northeast FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson iv RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table ES.2 - Synopsis of NOL01-09-FSR Feature Design Criteria Comment Survey Unit Land Area 1,351 m2 (1)

Footprint area based on AutoCAD Classification Class 1 Based on the HBPP LTP Rev. 2 Final Status Survey Plan No(s).

HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-FSR-00 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2.1 Grid Spacing 10 m HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2.1 DCGL 7.65 pCi/g(2) Cs-137 Scaled to reflect 24.21 mrem/yr TEDE(3) due to resultant dose of 0.79 mrem/yr TEDE from deselected HTD radionuclides listed in HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-FSR-00.

Scan Survey Area Coverage Approximately 100%

Table 5-4 of the HBPP LTP requires 100% of area coverage for Class 1 survey units Number of Measurements 15 Soil Samples (non-parametric test) 15 required per LTP Section 5.3.3.3.1 using Table 5-5 of MARSSIM for relative shift of 2 Min. Value

-1.34E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Max. Value 6.97E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Mean 2.62E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Median 3.33E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 Std. Dev.

2.39E-02 pCi/g Cs-137 No. of Split Measurements 2 Soil Samples 1 required per HBAP C-202 No. of Bias Measurements None N/A No. of Recount Measurements 2 Soil Samples 1 required per HBAP C-202 Maximum Hypothetical Dose 8.80E-01 mrem/yr Meets FSS data quality objective and regulatory release criteria of 25 mrem/yr TEDE Note (1): meters Squared Note (2): pico-curies per gram Note (3): Total Effective Dose Equivalent FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson v

RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................ II

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 PHASED RELEASE AREA DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 9 1.2 SURVEY UNIT DESIGNATION................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 SURVEY UNIT DESCRIPTIONS.................................................................................................................. 12 1.3.1 Historical Site Assessment (HSA) Events..................................................................................... 14 1.3.2 Scoping Surveys............................................................................................................................ 14 1.3.3 Characterization........................................................................................................................... 14 1.3.4 Remedial Action Surveys and Activities........................................................................................ 16 1.3.5 Area Surveillance Survey Plan..................................................................................................... 20 1.3.6 Final Site Restoration FSS............................................................................................................ 21 2.0 SURVEY UNIT DESIGN INFORMATION...................................................................................... 22 2.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOS)..................................................................................................... 22 2.2 DQOS REGARDING NUCLIDE SELECTION AND DCGLS.......................................................................... 22 2.2.1 Survey Approach/Methods............................................................................................................ 24 2.2.2 Number of Samples and Measurements........................................................................................ 25 2.2.3 Synopsis of Survey Unit Design & Deselection............................................................................ 29 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 33 3.1 SAMPLE MEASUREMENTS RESULTS........................................................................................................ 34 3.1.1 Survey Unit NOL01-09 Statistical Soil Sample Activity Results........................................................ 35 3.1.2 Survey Unit NOL01-09 Biased and Investigation Soil Sample Activity Results................................. 37 3.1.3 Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR Statistical Soil Sample Activity Results................................................ 37 3.2 SCAN

SUMMARY

..................................................................................................................................... 38 4.0 SURVEY UNIT DATA ASSESSMENT............................................................................................. 39 4.1 STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 GRAPHICAL EVALUATIONS..................................................................................................................... 41 4.3 SURVEY UNIT INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS....................................................................................... 41 4.4 CHANGES IN INITIAL SURVEY UNIT ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................. 41 5.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE....................................................................................................... 41 5.1 LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS.................................................................................................................. 42 5.2 LAB INSTRUMENTS QUALITY CONTROL.................................................................................................. 42 5.3 LABORATORY INSTRUMENT DATA QUALITY INDICATORS...................................................................... 43 5.4 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS............................................................................................................................ 44 5.5 QUALITY VERIFICATION......................................................................................................................... 45 6.0 ALARA STATEMENT...................................................................................................................... 45 7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 45

8.0 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................................... 47 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................... 48 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson vi RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 - OVERVIEW OF SURVEYED AREA EXTENTS......................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 1.2 - CURRENT PHASE RELEASE AREA....................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 1.3 - AERIAL PHOTO OF SURVEY UNITS NOL01-09 AND CSM-RC EXTENTS.......................................... 10 FIGURE 1.4 - AERIAL PHOTO OF SURVEY UNIT NOL01-09-FSR EXTENTS........................................................... 11 FIGURE 1.5 - MAP VIEW OF THE FSS AREA LOCATION RELATIVE TO SURROUNDING SURVEY UNITS.................. 13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES.1 - SYNOPSIS OF NOL01-09................................................................................................................. IV TABLE ES.2 - SYNOPSIS OF NOL01-09-FSR.......................................................................................................... V TABLE 1.1 -

SUMMARY

OF SOIL BORING SAMPLE RESULTS FOR THE CSM WALL................................................ 15 TABLE 1.2 -

SUMMARY

OF CAISSON BOTTOM CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLES...................................................... 15 TABLE 1.3 - REMEDIATION TURNOVER SURVEY BIASED SAMPLE RESULTS.......................................................... 17 TABLE 1.4 - NE WELL CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLE RESULTS............................................................................. 19 TABLE 1.5 - NE WELL SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS............................................................................................. 19 TABLE 2.1 - SOIL DCGLS AND ANALYSIS LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION (LLDS)............................................... 24 TABLE 2.2 - CSM-RC PUSH-PROBE SOIL BORING GPS COORDINATES................................................................. 26 TABLE 2.3 - SAMPLE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS WITH GPS COORDINATES NOL01-09..................................... 27 TABLE 2.4 - SAMPLE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS WITH GPS COORDINATES NOL01-09-FSR............................. 28 TABLE 2.5 - SYNOPSIS OF THE SURVEY DESIGN NOL01-09.................................................................................. 29 TABLE 2.6 - SYNOPSIS OF THE SURVEY DESIGN NOL01-09-FSR.......................................................................... 31 TABLE 2.7 - DOSE FOR DESELECTED NUCLIDES.................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 2.8 - DCGLS SCALED TO 24.21 MREM/Y FOR NOL01-09-FSR.................................................................. 33 TABLE 3.1 -

SUMMARY

OF NONPARAMETRIC SOIL SAMPLE DATA FOR NOL01-09............................................... 36 TABLE 3.2 -

SUMMARY

OF BIASED AND INVESTIGATIVE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS FOR NOL01-09......................... 37 TABLE 3.3 -

SUMMARY

OF SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS FOR NOL01-09-FSR......................................... 38 TABLE 4.1 - STATISTICAL SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS

SUMMARY

FOR NOL01-09...................................................... 39 TABLE 4.2 - STATISTICAL SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS

SUMMARY

FOR NOL01-09-FSR.............................................. 40 TABLE 5.1 - LIST OF RECOUNT SAMPLES............................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 5.2 - LIST OF SPLIT SAMPLES..................................................................................................................... 44 TABLE 7.1 - MAXIMUM HYPOTHETICAL DOSE PER AREA..................................................................................... 46 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Data Assessment ALARA Statement FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson vii RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

DPR-7 (Ref. 4). The long-term objective of the licensee, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), is to decommission the Site such that it will meet the criteria for unrestricted use as specified in the License Termination Rule at 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E and to terminate NRC Facility Operating License No. DRP-7. This FSS Report documents the final condition of the following FSS Areas: NOL01-09 -NOL Open Land Area Inside the RA (Caisson), and NOL01-09-FSR Caisson (Final Site Restoration) in preparation for license termination. This report documents the final radiological status of the outlined area in Figure 1.1, along with other report submittals, serves collectively to demonstrate that the criteria for unrestricted use have been met, and serves to support the regulatory decision to terminate the license.

Figure 1.1 - Overview of Surveyed Area Extents May 2016 Image FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 8 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

1.1 PHASED RELEASE AREA DESCRIPTION As described in the LTP, PG&E has performed a partial site release of the site south of King Salmon Avenue to the Humboldt Bay Harbor District. The remaining site land areas are to the north (site east) of King Salmon Avenue. Figure 1.2 depicts an aerial overview that indicates the current extents remaining to be released. The most recent version of the LTP stipulates that if an additional phased release is done the Phased Release Area map will be updated.

Figure 1.2 - Current Phase Release Area Photo taken June 2011 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 9 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

The following figures, Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4, are aerial photographs of Survey Units NOL01-09 Caisson Removal Excavation area and Caisson FSR area respectively.

Figure 1.3 - Aerial Photo of Survey Units NOL01-09 and CSM-RC Extents Undated Aerial Photo taken from Google Earth FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 10 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Figure 1.4 - Aerial Photo of Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR Extents Undated Aerial Photo taken from Google Earth FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 11 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

1.2 SURVEY UNIT DESIGNATION In accordance with Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) RCP FSS-1, Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR are designated as Class 1 Survey Units per the HBPP Historical Site Assessment (HSA) (Ref. 2) and were confirmed by subsequent reviews.

1.3 SURVEY UNIT DESCRIPTIONS Both of the Survey Units described in this report are part of Survey Area NOL01. A summary of each specific survey unit is provided below.

Survey Unit NOL01-09 Survey Unit NOL01-09 is approximately 884 m2 of surface area. The survey unit is an excavation of the Caisson to remove below grade sections of the Refuel Building and included the dry well and liner, activated concrete around the core region, embedded piping systems and associated drains, suppression chamber and remaining downcomer piping, spent fuel pool (SFP) walls, sheet piles around the SFP, timber piles, access shaft, emergency escape hatch, valve gallery and associated piping system, sumps and concrete tremie seal. The unit is bounded by the CSM Wall on all sides with the exception of the West side which is bounded by OOL03-02. (See Figure 1.5). It should be noted that NOL01-09-FSR overlaps with Survey Unit OOL03-02 on the west side. As part of the Caisson Removal project, there were four dewatering wells installed to facilitate decommissioning activities. Survey Unit NOL01-09 also includes the following support structure characterization survey units needed for Caisson demolition:

CHAR-CSM-RC Survey Unit CHAR-CSM-RC consists of eleven 80 soil borings collected prior to construction of the CSM Wall. During the construction of the CSM wall, soils within the wall footprint were used as part of the wall construction. The CSM Wall contains a footprint of approximately 467 m2 with NOL01-09 bounding on the inside of the wall, and on the outside wall by Survey Units NOL01-05 to the north, on the west by Survey Unit OOL03-02, on the east by Survey Unit NOL01-04, and on the south by NOL01-07.

CHAR-CAISSON-DW Survey Unit CHAR-CAISSON-DW consists of the Caisson Dewatering Wells, all located within the footprint of NOL01-09. Each well casing was estimated to be 31 long with a diameter of 12, for a total casing inside surface area of 36 m2.

Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR (the Caisson Final Site Restoration area) is approximately 1,351 m2 of surface area. The survey unit contains backfilled materials consisting of rubblized concrete and remediated soil from various locations on-site. The Survey Unit is bounded by survey unit NOL01-05-FSR to the north, on the west by Survey Unit OOL03-02-FSR, on the east by Survey Unit NOL01-04-FSR, and on the south by NOL01-07-FSR. (See Figure 1.5).

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 12 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Figure 1.5 - Map View of the FSS Area Location Relative to Surrounding Survey Units FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 13 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 NOL0l-05

1.3.1 HISTORICAL SITE ASSESSMENT (HSA) EVENTS Within the HSA, there was a history of fuel cladding failures associated with the use of stainless-steel clad fuel in its initial core loadings. The history of fuel failure, along with more than 13 years of commercial operation, led to the accumulation of fission, activation, and transuranic (TRU) products in the piping, in nuclear plant system components, the SFP and on concrete surfaces (Ref. 2). In 1965, the stainless steel-clad fuel was replaced with zircaloy-clad fuel. In 1975, a fuel assembly was dropped into the SFP cask loading pit, separating several fuel rods from the assembly. Additionally, the reference mentions that in March 1966, it was discovered that a leak in the spent fuel storage pool liner had developed. At the time there was no evidence of contamination from this event in the Reactor Caisson sump. However, one test well drilled north of the spent fuel storage pool (between the pool and the bay) revealed evidence of contamination, a factor of 100 below the allowable drinking water limits.

The LTP mentions that in July 2005, the resin transfer line from the SFP demineralizer (through the offgas tunnel) to the resin disposal tank was found to be blocked, leading to resin fines in the offgas tunnel in the sump near the offgas filter. Additionally, the reference states that there was a history of the Liquid Radwaste concentrator overflow and steam condensate leakage to the Concentrated Waste Tank Vault and the radwaste tankage sump.

1.3.2 SCOPING SURVEYS According to the 2008 Characterization report, (Ref. 5) Scoping Surveys of buildings and structures residing above the Caisson footprint were not performed due to spent fuel movement operations and availability of data collected by the Radiation Protection (RP) Department.

1.3.3 CHARACTERIZATION During the construction of the CSM wall, soils within the wall footprint were used as part of the wall construction. Subsequently, the HBPP Site Closure Group was tasked with the characterization of the soils that would be contained in the wall. A characterization survey plan was developed (Humboldt Bay Power Plant CSM Wall Characterization

Plan, December 17, 2014) utilizing a semiparametric logistic regression sampling model with a graded methodological progression. The survey methodology used an in situ geotechnical push-probe approach designed to assess horizontal stratigraphically stationed activity concentrations. The constraint of penetration for the sample, as well as the gradient of ingress was relayed to the probe operator prior to performing the sampling to ensure that the focal intention of the characterization plan was followed correctly and safely. The mechanical penetrometer samples were homogenized, composited individually and assayed by the HBPP onsite laboratory personnel for plant-related radionuclides. The data acquired from the sampling regime were used to determine the radiological sub-surface strata status of the CSM wall. It should be noted at the time of the Caisson FSS, the FSS Plan only considered the CSM Wall Characterization dose contribution from Cesium-137 (Cs-137), as the nuclide was the only nuclide identified during sample analysis. Of eleven boring samples collected from the CSM Wall, only one sample was analyzed for Hard to Detect (HTD) radionuclides, with the exception of Tritium (H-3) and Strontium-90 (Sr-90). Table 1.1 below provides a summary of boring samples from the CSM Wall analyzed at the HBPP Laboratory.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 14 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 1.1 - Summary of Soil Boring Sample Results for the CSM Wall Boring Number Sample Number Description Cs-137 pCi/g H-3 pCi/g Sr-90 pCi/g Sample Purpose CSM-RC-01 2015-2055 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

1.45E+00 N/A N/A CHAR CSM-RC-01S 2015-2056 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

1.75E+00 N/A N/A CHAR CSM-RC-02 2015-3337 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

1.20E-02 N/A N/A CHAR CSM-RC-03R 2015-3701 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

2.35E-02 N/A N/A CHAR CSM-RC-04 2015-1643 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

1.25E-02

-1.00E-02

-7.90E-02 CHAR CSM-RC-05 2015-1839 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

-2.58E-03

-3.00E-02 7.20E-02 CHAR CSM-RC-05S 2015-1840 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

5.58E-02 N/A N/A CHAR CSM-RC-06 2015-1441 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

2.54E-02 5.00E-02 1.47E-01 CHAR CSM-RC-07 2015-1519 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

-8.27E-03 3.00E-02 1.56E-01 CHAR CSM-RC-08 2015-1763 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

1.58E+00 1.00E-02

-1.24E-01 CHAR CSM-RC-09 2015-1679 Soil at 0 to 80 ft.

3.00E-02 1.00E-02 8.60E-02 CHAR Average 4.48E-01 1.00E-02 4.30E-02 Standard Deviation 7.39E-01 2.83E-02 1.18E-01 Note: Cs-137 activity values listed in bold were positively identified greater than a-posteriori minimum detectable concentration calculated for the analysis.

N/A-Not Analyzed CHAR-Characterization It should be noted that the above sample data for the CSM wall is considered an overestimate, since approximately half of the soil volume used to construct the CSM wall was displaced by the concrete and bentonite slurry used to homogenize the mixture. The soil that was displaced within the CSM Wall footprint was sent thru the GARDIAN for characterization as reuse material and transferred to the discharge canal for use as backfill. Additionally, since not all CSM boring composite samples were analyzed for HTDs, insignificant radionuclide dose from the CSM that was not fully addressed in the characterization plan was considered and addressed as discussed later in this report. There were no surrogate ratios calculated or applied in this characterization survey plan as none were warranted.

The statistical sample data for the North Yard FSS Survey area (NOL01-05) was used to support the survey design planning for FSS Survey Unit NOL01-09 as there was no specific characterization data available at the time of plan development. The first series of Characterization surveys on the Caisson excavation bottom were performed on 12/20/17, with three locations of samples taken at depths of 0-6, 6-12, and 12-18. All three locations where the samples were collected contained at least one sample which exceeded the Cobalt-60 (Co-60) DCGL, likely because the samples were collected at locations where there were concrete remnants of tremie.

Table 1.2 - Summary of Caisson Bottom Characterization Samples Sample 1A 2A 3A 1B 2B 3B 1C 2C 3C Depth 0"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 0"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 0"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" CO-60 pCi/g 8.0 4.2 1.3 2.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.3 3.1 Cs-137 pCi/g 2.24 1.1 3.7 0.73 0.36 0.42 0.13 0.13 0.85 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 15 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

On 1/4/18, two sediment characterization samples were collected inside the inoperable northeast (NE) dewatering well. Both sediment samples contained fission and activation radionuclides (Cs-137, Sr-90, Carbon-14 (C-14), Co-60, Europium-152 (Eu-152), and Europium-154 (Eu-154)),

collectively exceeding the derived concentration guideline level elevated measurement comparison (DCGLEMC) by a factor of up to 3 for a 1 m2 area. Since both samples exceeded the DCGLEMC, the NE Well, along with the three other operational dewatering wells were excluded from FSS unit NOL01-09 for HBPP Site Closure FSS Survey and concurrent verification survey by the ORAU Survey Team.

Further details regarding the corrective actions taken for the NE Well remediation are summarized later in this report. No other characterization samples were collected inside the three active dewatering wells as there was no residual material available for collection.

On 1/5/18 in order to characterize the soil and gravel pack surrounding the four dewatering wells, a total of forty-eight (48) samples were collected at depths 0-6 and 18-24. One of the samples, collected from the 0-6 depth at the Southwest 1 (SW 1) Well Location, exceeded the Co-60 DCGL at 4.0 pCi/g.

1.3.4 REMEDIAL ACTION SURVEYS AND ACTIVITIES As mentioned in the previous section, characterization samples were collected to determine the extent of contamination near each of the four dewatering wells. On 1/6/18, the entire excavation was scanned, and twenty-two (22) biased samples were collected. During the scan it was noted that the NE well had readings ~2 times above background. The reason the soils surrounding the NE well exhibited elevated scan readings was due to source term residing in the well (which was later remediated) and source term residing in the gravel pack surrounding the well as described later in this report.

On 1/8/18 an additional five biased samples were collected in the area near the SW Well.

According to the remediation turnover survey conducted on 1/8/18, elevated areas on the southern portion of the Caisson near the SW Well were remediated using hand shovels. Approximately 60 large bags of soil were removed from the area and the area was re-scanned. Four additional samples were collected at a depth of 24 - 36 to characterize the potential source term at depth around the NE and SW dewatering wells. The following table shows the Remediation Turnover Survey results of the soil samples collected from this effort.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 16 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 1.3 - Remediation Turnover Survey Biased Sample Results Sample Number Date Collected Depth Eu-152 pCi/g Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g Comments 2018-0103 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.34E-01 2.05E-01

<9.41E-02 Near NW Well 2018-0104 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.84E-02 5.35E-02

<6.01E-02 Near tremie area 2018-0105 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.06E-02 1.70E-01

<6.53E-02 Near tremie area 2018-0106 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.21E-01 1.34E-01 6.88E-02 Near tremie area 2018-0107 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.07E-01

<1.13E-01

<6.18E-02 North of SW Well 2018-0108 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.14E-01 7.74E-01 2.37E-01 North of SW Well 2018-0109 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.31E-01 4.58E-01 1.65E-01 North of SW Well 2018-0110 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.33E-01 8.37E-01 4.16E-01 North of SW Well 2018-0111 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.26E-01 1.11E+00 2.04E-01 North of SW Well 2018-0112 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.43E-01 2.64E-01 6.47E-01 Near SW-6 Well 2018-0113 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.11E-01 7.69E-01 1.80E-01 Near SW-1 Well 2018-0114 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.74E-02

<1.06E-01

<7.07E-02 Near SW-3/4 Well 2018-0115 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.33E-01 7.18E-01 2.65E-01 Near SW-3/4 Well 2018-0116 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.18E-01 4.35E-01 1.20E-01 Near SW-3/4 Well 2018-0117 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.50E-02

<5.39E-02

<5.76E-02 Near tremie area 2018-0118 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.13E-01 3.14E-01 1.18E-01 Between SE/SW Wells 2018-0119 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<8.89E-02

<7.92E-02

<5.17E-02 Between SE/SW Wells 2018-0120 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.82E-02 3.33E-01

<8.56E-02 Between SE/SW Wells 2018-0121 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.19E-01 1.48E-01

<9.11E-02 North of SE Well 2018-0122 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<9.85E-02

<5.90E-02

<5.85E-02 South of NE Well 2018-0123 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.03E-01 2.29E-01

<8.40E-02 Near tremie area 2018-0124 1/6/2018 0"-6"

<1.09E-01 3.82E-01 8.50E-02 Between NE/NW Wells 2018-0125 1/8/2018 0"-6"

<1.21E-01 7.71E-01 2.80E-01 Near SW-1 Well 2018-0126 1/8/2018 0"-6"

<1.06E-01

<9.10E-02

<6.64E-02 Near SW-2 Well 2018-0127 1/8/2018 0"-6"

<1.18E-01 4.86E-01 2.05E-01 Near SW-3/4 Well 2018-0128 1/8/2018 0"-6"

<1.35E-01 1.60E+00 5.78E-01 Near SW-3/4 Well 2018-0129 1/8/2018 0"-6"

<1.13E-01 2.80E-01

<8.71E-02 Between NE/NW Wells 2018-0133 1/9/2018 24"-36"

<1.35E-01

<6.71E-02 2.58E-01 NE-2 2018-0134 1/9/2018 24"-36" 1.32E+00 7.08E-02 1.66E+00 NE-4 2018-0135 1/9/2018 24"-36"

<9.34E-02

<7.90E-02

<5.61E-02 SW-4 2018-0136 1/9/2018 24"-36"

<1.02E-01

<5.13E-02

<6.48E-02 Near SW-3/4 Well As mentioned previously in this report, there were various corrective actions warranted during or resulting from the decommissioning effort of the Caisson. The Systems Application and Products Notifications (SAPNs) are summarized below:

SAPN 1434048 Failure of GARDIAN System to Identify Discrete Commodities up to and exceeding the DCGLEMC On 8/30/17, a tracking SAPN was generated to document and evaluate the impact of repeated discoveries of failures of the GARDIAN system to detect discrete commodities in material intended for reuse, including a neutron-activated piece of concrete of approximately 3 in diameter from the core region of the Caisson.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 17 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

The concrete commodity was evaluated by survey and laboratory analysis on-site and determined to exceed the DCGLEMC (based on 1 m2 area factors) collectively by almost a factor of 3. While this event appeared to be an outlier compared to collection of commodities identified during a 9/15/17 case study survey campaign where thirty-five (35) ten (10) cubic yard (yd3) truckloads of Class 1 spoils materials from the Caisson decommissioning were placed in six-inch lifts and gamma walkover scanned with no commodities collectively identified greater than DCGLEMC.

However, it was still possible that other outliers of this magnitude may have been deposited in completed FSS areas backfilled with spoils reuse material from the Caisson, which include Northeast Laydown Area and the Discharge Canal. Later FSR surveys where reuse soil was used did not indicate the presence of residual activated concrete.

It should be noted that the root cause of this SAPN was poor remediation and material segregation work practices. As part of the evaluation corrective actions taken, the work process for the Caisson excavation was modified so that there was better segregation between source term and reuse spoils materials. Additionally, a quality control monitoring campaign was instituted whereby trucks containing Caisson spoils soil that had cleared the GARDIAN were dumped at an area and spread out in six-inch lifts for NaI detector walkover scanning to identify commodities. While there were still instances where commodities were identified in truckloads of spoils material spread out in this fashion, it is evident that the new work controls instituted in the Caisson have been more effective in segregating source term material from reuse material. Once enhanced work and compensatory controls were instituted the number of commodities discovered in trucks that had cleared the GARDIAN averaged one in every thirty-nine (39) truckloads, compared with an average of one commodity in every other load before instituting control measures.

SAPN 1439210 Caisson NE Dewatering Well Remediation During performance of the Caisson Remediation Turnover Survey two sediment samples collected inside the pump casing of the NE Dewatering Well on January 4, 2018 indicated elevated activity exceeding the Unity DCGLEMC fraction (based on 1 m2 area factors) collectively by a factor of three for a 1 m2 area. Discussion with personnel indicated that the well pump had become inoperable after water containing concrete fines/slurry had been pumped to the well on four separate occasions from February 2017 to May 2017 from the Suppression Chamber. The inoperable well contained an estimated fifteen foot column of sediment material above the pump which was later remediated on 2/1/18. Table 1.4 provides the summary of the two sediment samples collected. It should be noted that the Total EMC fractions calculated below does not adjust for the survey unit mean activity levels as applied when multiple radionuclides are present as described in Equation 5-7 of Section 5.3.6.3.1 of the LTP. The Total EMC Fraction listed in the table below conservatively estimated the entire source term to exist in a 1 m2 contamination zone to a depth of 15 cm (from an original source term estimated mass of 5.15E+05 g), for an adjustment factor of 2.22. For reference, the Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) fractions for the samples in the following table was calculated using the following equation:

[

[60]

[ 6060] +

[137]

[ 137137] +

[152]

[ 152152] +

[154]

[ 154154))*2.22=EMC Fraction Where AF=1 m2 Area factor FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 18 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 1.4 - NE Well Characterization Sample Results Sample No.

Description Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g Eu-152 pCi/g Eu-154 pCi/g Total EMC Fraction 2018-0044 NE Well Sediment Sample A 3.16E+00 1.12E+01 7.73E+01 2.28E+00 2.36 2018-0045 NE Well Sediment Sample B 5.00E+00 1.15E+01 1.36E+02 4.29E+00 3.95 Since the sample results presented above indicated that remediation was required, the three other active dewatering wells were also excluded from FSS unit NOL01-09.

SAPN 1439681 Caisson NE Dewatering Well Gravel Pack Assessment Additional characterization samples were collected during the NE Well remediation effort to provide nuclide ratios for two response scenario MicroShield runs used for the estimate of residual source term remaining in the gravel pack. The remediated sediment sample results are shown in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5 - NE Well Sediment Sample Results Sample No.

Description Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g Eu-152 pCi/g 2018-0369 NE Well-Sediment Sample from top of pump ND 1.87E+00 ND 2018-0370 Sediment composited from dewatering box 1.53E+00 2.06E+01 3.47E+01 2018-0373 Sediment at +1 from well bottom 1.31E+00 9.34E+01 7.19E-01 2018-0375 Sediment from bottom of well 7.00E-02 4.33E+00 ND ND-Nuclide not detected above method detection levels For the two MicroShield case runs, samples 2018-0370 and 2018-0373 were selected to best represent the residual activity assumed for the gravel pack from Europium and Cesium dominated source term respectively. To determine the extent of condition for the gravel pack surrounding the well casing after the source term had been removed from inside the well, a characterization survey was performed inside the well using a Ludlum Model 44-162 3 by 3 Sodium Iodide (NaI) gamma pipe detector coupled to a Ludlum Model 2350-1 Data logger. Down-hole gamma measurements were collected at 6 increments, each for one-minute duration to collect an activity profile of the residual source term residing in the gravel pack surrounding the well casing. A total of 46 measurements were collected, excluding the 4 recounts performed at locations 11, 13, 31, and 40, which corresponded to elevations of -17.5, -16.5, -7.5, and -2.5 respectively relative to the well bottom. Humboldt Bay Power Plant Engineering Calculation NX-503 NE Caisson Dewatering Well Assessment, February 14, 2018 (Ref. 7) was generated to provide the results and conclusions of the data assessment for the gravel pack.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 19 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

In summary the following conclusions were noted:

Detector response from a Cesium dominated source term was similar to the Europium dominated source term for the comparison of the two cases modeled (80-81 micro-Roentgens per hour (µR/hr)).

The detector response indicated that the source term was deposited in a 2 vertical column of gravel pack, with the bottom of the response corresponding to the top of the well pump housing where the material was deposited. Additionally, the data suggests that the deposited source term in the gravel pack did move vertically within the gravel pack.

The MicroShield predicted dose rates (80 µR/hr) assumed the removed sediments sample represent the residual source term in the gravel pack but was nominally 5 times the actual measured residual activity (i.e., 15-18 µR/hr vs. 80 µR/hr).

The overall conclusion is that residual contamination in the gravel pack around the well casing is less than 31% of the DCGLEMC and is acceptable to remain without further remediation effort.

1.3.5 AREA SURVEILLANCE SURVEY PLAN As per HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-13 Area Surveillance Following Final Status Survey, Rev 03, May 5th, 2017 (Ref. 8) there were two Area Surveillance Survey Plans (ASSPs) written to assure that the conditions verified by the FSS have not changed.

The primary functions of periodic surveillances are to determine the adequacy of isolation and control measures in areas where FSS activities are complete and to assure that the conditions verified by the FSS are unchanged and to detect the potential migration of contaminants from decommissioning activities taking place in adjacent areas. Due to decommissioning project work activities two ASSPs were written.

NOL01-09 is a Class 1 Area that is located inside the CSM Wall. There was a resurvey ASSP written for the area because of additional remediation and decommissioning activities occurring in the four dewatering wells. The second ASSP was an investigation survey warranted from the evaluation of the ASSP resurvey results.

1) ASSP-18-02-001 for NOL01-09 An ASSP was warranted because Caisson Dewatering Well pumps were removed which could result in the survey area or unit being compromised from HBPP plant-related radioactive material that was introduced into well casings during decommissioning activities. The ASSP required biased samples around each well casing and walkover scans of the area in the immediate vicinity. The results indicated only one area exceeding the investigation level of no audible indications discernable above the background range of 4.5 kilo-counts per minute (kcpm) to 6.4 kcpm.

It should be noted that the ASSP survey unit data evaluation required an ASSP Investigation survey because the Cs-137 results were greater than two standard deviations from the FSS Unit statistical sample mean requiring a survey per Section 2.5 of RCP FSS-13.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 20 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

2) ASSP-18-02-004 for NOL01-09 An ASSP Investigation Survey was warranted because the mean of the Cs-137 results from ASSP Resurvey of NOL01-09 when compared to the original FSS resulted in >2 standard deviations. A total of six biased samples were collected within the two areas where Cs-137 results were identified from the resurvey and a walkover scan of the area. The two areas were selected based on the highest biased result and the investigation sample result.

The gamma walkover survey results indicated no audible indications of elevated readings discernable above the background range. However, both the survey means for both Co-60 and Cs-137 resulted in >2 standard deviations when compared to the original FSS requiring additional evaluation in accordance with Section 2.6 of RCP FSS-13 to determine if a full FSS re-survey was warranted. The evaluation is captured in SAPN 1439992, with the evaluation from review of the investigation survey results concluding that there was no evidence that suggests the remediation, characterization, and deactivation activities performed since the original FSS was completed had adversely impacted the area, challenging the original decision that the survey unit met the release criteria. Therefore, an FSS resurvey was not warranted. It should be noted that the original FSS statistical data set did not identify any plant-derived gamma-emitting radionuclides with the exception of a single sample that indicated Co-60, with a result of less than 8% of the scaled DCGL.

While it is recognized that biased and investigation sample results are of limited value as data sets when evaluating against FSS statistical results from plant-derived radionuclides that are less than method detection levels as the ASSP data sets are not collected in a random start/systematic grid fashion, FSS-13 was enhanced to clarify requirements pertaining to the data evaluation method used to compare ASSP results to FSS results.

All biased and investigation samples collected during the performance of ASSP 18-02-001 and ASSP 18-02-004 were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy at the on-site laboratory. Samples obtained during the ASSPs were collected using Procedure FSS-8, Collection of Site Characterization and Final Status Survey Samples (Ref. 9).

No other periodic surveys were performed as both survey units were exempted from periodic surveillance surveys by the Site Closure Manager as both Survey Unit areas had an engineered surface or barrier in place.

1.3.6 FINAL SITE RESTORATION FSS To determine the level of residual activity remaining after decommissioning activities were completed for the Caisson, a formal Final Site Restoration (FSR) survey was conducted on Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR on 11/19/18, 11/20/18 and 12/8/18. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Caisson excavation was backfilled with concrete rubble originating from onsite demolition activities, and soil approved for reuse after GARDIAN analysis. Survey Unit NOL01-09 FSR, in addition to the backfilled Caisson excavation, also covered the area of the CSM wall that was covered by several feet of reuse material. Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR met the clearance requirements as set forth for Class 1 open land areas.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 21 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

2.0 SURVEY UNIT DESIGN INFORMATION The survey units were classified in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-1, Survey Unit Classification (Ref. 10). NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR were classified as Class 1 survey units based on the potential to contain residual radioactive material exceeding the DCGLs.

Guidance for preparing FSS plans is provided in Procedure RCP FSS-2, Preparation of Final Status Survey Plans (Ref. 11). The FSS plans developed used an integrated sample design that combines scanning surveys with a random start systematic grid sampling. A map of each respective area Survey Area is provided in Figures 1.3-1.4 above.

2.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQOS)

FSS design and planning used the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process as described by the LTP, Procedure RCP FSS-2 and the NUREG 1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (Ref. 12).

The primary objective of the FSS plan was to demonstrate that the level of residual radioactivity in the Survey Units described in this report did not exceed the release criteria specified in the LTP and that the potential dose from residual radioactivity is ALARA.

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

The regulatory limit specified in the LTP is 25 mrem/yr Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) from all of the potentially present plant derived nuclides.

2.2 DQOS REGARDING NUCLIDE SELECTION AND DCGLS The DQO process is used for designing and conducting all final status surveys at HBPP. Each survey package contains the appropriate information, statistical parameters, and contingencies to support the DQO process. The appropriate design for a given survey area is developed using the DQO process as outlined in MARSSIM, Appendix D.

The FSS data used to support the survey design of NOL01-09 included a complete screening for all HTD radionuclides that were potentially present on the NOL01-05 North Yard FSS statistical sample data set. The FSS data indicated that Co-60 and Cs-137, both Easy to Detect (ETD) radionuclides are the most prevalently detected radionuclides inside the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA).

Additionally, the CSM Wall Characterization core soil boring results were used for NOL01-09 FSS Plan design to scale the soil Table 5-1 DCGLs presented in the LTP. The only plant-derived radionuclide that was identified in the CSM soil samples was Cs-137.

Since there was insufficient characterization data to confirm the assumption that HTD nuclides were not present at significant (i.e. >10% of the release criteria) levels in survey unit NOL01-09, all statistical samples were selected to receive analyses for the full FSS HTD suite of nuclides at an off-site laboratory with the exception of Sr-90 and H-3, which were analyzed by the HBPP laboratory. To confirm the assumption that HTD nuclides are not present in survey unit NOL01-FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 22 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

09-FSR, two (2) split samples were randomly selected to receive analyses for the full FSS suite of nuclides with the exception of Sr-90 and H-3 analysis at an off-site laboratory.

Instrument DQOs included a verification of the ability of the survey instrument to detect the radiation(s) of interest relative to the DCGL. Survey instrument response checks were required prior to use and after the instrument had been used. Control and accountability of survey instruments was required to assure the quality and prevent the loss of data.

As part of the DQOs applied to laboratory processes, analysis results were reported as actual calculated results. Therefore, results reported as less than Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC) were not used for FSS. Sample report summaries included unique sample identification, analytical method, radionuclide, result, uncertainty, laboratory data qualifiers, units, and the Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) and MDC. Also, two recount samples and two split samples were taken to verify data quality for each survey unit.

Another important facet of the DQO process is to identify the radionuclides of concern and determine the concentration and variability. The surveys performed in Survey Units:

CHAR-CSM-RC, NOL01-09, NOL01-09-FSR, and CHAR-CAISSON-DW spanned the time period of 2015-2018. Table 2.1 presents the Soil DCGLs respectively per the HBPP LTP Table 5-1. For survey unit NOL01-09, Am-241, C-14, Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152, Eu-154, and Sr-90 were the nuclides that could potentially be present based on characterization and remediation survey data.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 23 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 2.1 - Soil DCGLs and Analysis Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs)

Radionuclide (1)

Soil DCGL (pCi/g) (2)

LLD (pCi/g) (3) 10% to 50%

H-3 6.8E+02 6.8E+01 3.4E+02 C-14 6.3E+00 6.3E-01 3.1E+00 Co-60 3.8E+00 3.8E-01 1.9E+00 Ni-59 1.9E+03 1.9E+02 9.8E+02 Ni-63 7.2E+02 7.2E+01 3.6E+02 Sr-90 1.5E+00 1.5E-01 7.5E-01 Nb-94 7.1E+00 7.1E-01 3.5E+00 Tc-99 1.2E+01 1.2E+00 6.2E+00 Cs-137 7.9E+00 7.9E-01 3.9E+00 Eu-152 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 5.0E+00 Eu-154 9.4E+00 9.4E-01 4.7E+00 Np-237 1.1E+00 1.1E-01 5.5E-01 Pu-238 2.9E+01 2.9E+00 1.4E+01 Pu-239/240 (5) 2.6E+01 2.6E+00 1.3E+01 Am-241 (4) 2.5E+01 2.8E+00 1.2E+01 Pu-241 8.6E+02 8.6E+01 4.3E+02 Cm-243/244(5) 2.9E+01 2.9E+00 1.4E+01 Cm-245/246(5) 1.7E+01 1.7E+00 8.9E+00 (1) Bold text indicates radionuclides that are considered Hard to Detect (HTD)

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

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

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

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

2.2.1 SURVEY APPROACH/METHODS Prior to mobilizing the radiological survey team to the survey site, the survey team was briefed on the FSS package requirements associated with each individual survey unit which referenced the appropriate field sampling equipment and procedures to be used. A set of maps created using Visual Sample Plan of Survey Unit NOL01-09 and Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR were created.

These maps were then used in laying out the sampling and survey locations.

The prescribed survey approach for Class 1 land areas consisted of soil collection of statistically random start in a systematically gridded fashion and 100% walk-over scanning of all accessible areas with a 2 x 2 Thallium-activated Sodium Iodide (NaI (Tl)) scintillation detector.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 24 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Additionally, all direct non-parametric and biased soil sample locations were accessed. One CSM soil sample boring location was sent to an off-site laboratory for HTD analysis with the exception of H-3 and Sr-90.

2.2.2 NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND MEASUREMENTS The DQO process determined that Co-60 and/or Cs-137 are the radionuclide of concern in the survey units. Other radionuclides (if present) that were positively identified during the performance of this FSS would be evaluated to ensure adequate survey designs. Except for small trace amounts of Co-60 and Cs-137 found in samples NOL01-09-003 and NOL01-09-009-FSR respectively analyzed onsite, and Cs-137 in split sample NOL01-09-013-FSR-S analyzed off-site, no other plant-derived radionuclides were identified in the survey units direct soil samples analyzed by the onsite and off-site laboratories, indicating that the survey design was adequate.

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

The minimum number of soil samples for FSS was determined in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of the Number and Location of FSS Samples (Ref. 13). The Lower Bound of the Gray Region (LBGR) was set in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7 to achieve a relative shift (/) in the range of 1 and 3. The resulting relative shift for each survey unit is specified in their respective survey plans.

A Prospective Power Curve was generated with these settings using MARSSIM Power 2000 (Ref. 14) and is provided in the Data Quality Assessment (Attachment 1). MARSSIM Power 2000 is a software package developed under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Measurement Laboratory. The results of the A Posteriori (retrospective) computer run showed adequate power for the survey design. This indicates that the survey area had a high probability of rejecting the null hypothesis, assuming the characterization data are representative of the FSS results. The retrospective power curve is provided in Attachment 1.

The grid pattern and locations of the soil samples were determined using Visual Sample Plan (VSP) in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-18, Computer Determination of Number and Locations of FSS Samples (Ref. 15) Visual Sample Plan was created by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the DOE (Ref. 16). A systematic triangular grid sampling pattern with a random starting point was selected for sample design for NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR, which is appropriate for Class 1 survey areas.

Sample locations were identified using AutoCAD, a commercially available plotting software package with coordinates consistent with the California State Plane System. These coordinates were integrated with a GPS to locate sample locations in the field. Sample Measurement Locations for the design are listed with the GPS coordinates in Tables 2.2 thru 2.4 as displayed in the Survey Plans for survey units CSM-RC, NOL01-09, NOL01-09-FSR respectively.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 25 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 2.2 - CSM-RC Push-probe Soil Boring GPS Coordinates Sample Easting Northing CHAR-CSM-RC-01 5949384.51 2161179.68 CHAR-CSM-RC-01S 5949384.51 2161179.68 CHAR-CSM-RC-02 5949363.93 2161168.43 CHAR-CSM -RC-03R*

5949353.04 2161157.35 CHAR-CSM-RC-04 5949343.27 2161136.89 CHAR-CSM-RC-05 5949347.19 2161092.10 CHAR-CSM-RC-05S 5949347.19 2161092.10 CHAR-CSM-RC-06 5949386.74 2161058.92 CHAR-CSM-RC-07 5949440.97 2161068.48 CHAR-CSM-RC-08 5949465.20 2161104.22 CHAR-CSM-RC-09 5949434.90 2161174.68

• To facilitate sampling, the above sample was relocated 5.3 north of original location due to drilling crew encountering rock at 63 depth on original bore hole.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 26 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 2.3 - Sample Measurement Locations with GPS Coordinates NOL01-09 Sample Easting Northing NOL01-09-001-F 5949397.72 2161066.45 NOL01-09-002-F 5949384.19 2161089.89 NOL01-09-003-F 5949411.26 2161089.89 NOL01-09-004-F 5949438.32 2161089.89 NOL01-09-005-F 5949370.66 2161113.33 NOL01-09-006-F 5949397.72 2161113.33 NOL01-09-007-F 5949424.79 2161113.33 NOL01-09-008-F 5949451.86 2161113.33 NOL01-09-009-F 5949357.12 2161136.77 NOL01-09-010-F 5949384.19 2161136.77 NOL01-09-011-F 5949411.26 2161136.77 NOL01-09-012-F 5949438.32 2161136.77 NOL01-09-013-F 5949370.66 2161160.21 NOL01-09-014-F 5949397.72 2161160.21 NOL01-09-015-F 5949424.79 2161160.21 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 27 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 2.4 - Sample Measurement Locations with GPS Coordinates NOL01-09-FSR Sample Easting Northing NOL01-09-001-FSR 5949445.73 2161066.92 NOL01-09-002-FSR 5949413.41 2161075.58 NOL01-09-003-FSR 5949437.07 2161099.23 NOL01-09-004-FSR 5949460.72 2161122.89 NOL01-09-005-FSR 5949381.10 2161084.24 NOL01-09-006-FSR 5949404.76 2161107.89 NOL01-09-007-FSR 5949428.41 2161131.55 NOL01-09-008-FSR 5949452.07 2161155.20 NOL01-09-009-FSR 5949348.79 2161092.89 NOL01-09-010-FSR 5949372.44 2161116.55 NOL01-09-011-FSR 5949396.10 2161140.20 NOL01-09-012-FSR 5949419.75 2161163.86 NOL01-09-013-FSR 5949340.13 2161125.21 NOL01-09-014-FSR 5949363.78 2161148.86 NOL01-09-015-FSR 5949387.44 2161172.52 Procedure RCP FSS-2 specifies that 5% of the samples are required to be selected for HTD radionuclide analysis. The number and location of samples and measurements may be determined using RCP FSS-7 or RCP FSS-18. For Survey Unit NOL01-09 all fifteen (15) statistical or greater than 5% of the number of samples that would be used for non-parametric statistical testing were selected for HTD radionuclide analyses. For Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR two (2) soil samples or greater than 5% of the number of samples that would be used for non-parametric statistical testing were randomly selected for HTD radionuclide analyses using the Microsoft Excel RAND function. For survey unit CSM-RC, one sample was selected which meets the 5% of the number of samples required for HTD radionuclide analyses. Each of the selected samples were sent off-site for a full suite analysis of the HTD radionuclides as specified.

The LTP requires a minimum of 5% of the samples taken for non-parametric statistical testing be selected for split sample analyses with the off-site laboratory. The implementation of quality control measures as referenced by Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey, (Ref. 17) included the collection of two (2) soil samples for split sample analysis by the off-site laboratory for survey units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR. These locations were selected randomly using the Microsoft Excel RAND function.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 28 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

2.2.3 SYNOPSIS OF SURVEY UNIT DESIGN & DESELECTION The design of each survey unit incorporates the MARSSIM approach to FSS. The DQO process as described in Procedure, Final Status Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Ref. 18) was used to develop each survey plan. It should also be noted that the area covered by scan measurement is based on the survey unit classification as described in MARSSIM. Table 5-4 of the LTP specifies scanning percentage of Class 1 survey units is 100%. There were no reported deviations from this requirement.

Table 2.5 - Synopsis of the Survey Design NOL01-09 Feature Design Criteria Basis Survey Unit Land Area 884 m2 Based on AutoCAD Number of Measurements 15 required(1)

(Random start, systematic triangular grid)

Type 1 and Type 2 errors were 0.05, sigma was 0.02 (of unity),

the LBGR was set at 0.96 (of unity) to achieve a Relative Shift in the range of 1 and 3 (/=2.0)

Grid Spacing 8.25 m LTP Equation 5-5 for triangular grid pattern Design DCGLOP(2) 3.58 pCi/g Co-60 7.45 pCi/g Cs-137 Per Table 3 of the Scaled DCGLs from FSSP to achieve 23.58 mrem/yr TEDE Soil Investigation Level

>DCGLEMC for Co-60 or Cs-137, Sum of DCGLEMC fractions >1.0, or

>DCGL and a statistical parameter-based value (i.e., >3 standard deviations)

Table 5-5 of the LTP for a Class 1 survey unit.

Scan Survey Area Coverage 100%

Table 5-4 of the LTP requires 100% coverage of all accessible areas for Class 1 survey units Scan Investigation Level

>DCGLEMC Table 5-5 of the LTP for Class 1 Survey Units (1) The number of soil samples for FSS was determined in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of Number and Location of FSS Samples (Ref. 13).

(2) DCGLOP Operational DCGL is the LTP Table 5-1 DCGL scaled to a dose of 23.58 mrem/yr based on a Cs-137 dose contribution from the CSM Wall of 1.42 mrem/yr.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 29 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Surrogate/Deselection Discussion for NOL01-09 It should be noted that for Survey Unit NOL01-09, surrogate ratios were not used and there were no deselected radionuclides which were determined to be insignificant. Since there were no deselected radionuclides that were deemed to be insignificant, all statistical samples collected from the survey unit were sent to an off-site laboratory for HTD analysis, with the exception of H-3 and Sr-90, which were analyzed by the HBPP on-site laboratory. The decision to not deselect any of the HBPP radionuclides potentially present is reasonable and appropriate given that there was no characterization information available at the time of FSS plan development.

However, the deselected dose for the CSM Wall was considered in the final estimate of Survey Unit NOL01-09 TEDE for comparison to the release criteria.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 30 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 2.6 - Synopsis of the Survey Design NOL01-09-FSR Feature Design Criteria Basis Survey Unit Land Area 1,351 m2 Based on AutoCAD Number of Measurements 15 required(1)

(Random start, systematic triangular grid)

Type 1 and Type 2 errors were 0.05, sigma was 1.91 pCi/g, the LBGR was set at 3.82 pCi/g to achieve a Relative Shift in the range of 1 and 3 (/=2.0)

Grid Spacing 10 m LTP Equation 5-5 for triangular grid pattern Design DCGLOP(2) 7.65 pCi/g Cs-137 Per Table 3 of the Scaled DCGLs from FSSP based on deselected HTD nuclides to achieve 24.21 mrem/yr TEDE Soil Investigation Level

>DCGLEMC for Cs-137, Sum of DCGLEMC fractions >1.0, or

>DCGL and a statistical parameter-based value (i.e., >3 standard deviations)

Table 5-5 of the LTP for a Class 1 survey unit.

Scan Survey Area Coverage 100%

Table 5-4 of the LTP requires 100% coverage of all accessible areas for Class 1 survey units Scan Investigation Level

>DCGLEMC Table 5-5 of the LTP for Class 1 Survey Units (1) The number of soil samples for FSS was determined in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of Number and Location of FSS Samples (Ref. 13).

(2) DCGLOP - Operational DCGL is the LTP Table 5-1 DCGL scaled to a dose of 24.21 mrem/yr based on deselected HTD nuclide dose from nuclides determined to have a minimal dose contribution (i.e., contribute less than 10% collectively to the dose).

Surrogate/Deselection Discussion for NOL01-09-FSR It should be noted that for Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR, surrogate ratios were not used. However, there were deselected HTD radionuclides which were determined to be insignificant (i.e.,

contribute less than 10% collectively to the dose). The deselected dose was considered in the final estimate of Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR TEDE for comparison to the release criteria.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 31 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-FSR Applied DCGLs Previous characterization has shown that not all the site-specific radionuclides would be present in this survey unit. The following nuclides were deselected from the analysis, with the exception of the QC off-site samples. Carbon-14 (C-14) was left off as there was no potential for it to be present in this area due to lack of production mechanism (neutron activated concrete).

Cm-243/244 Ni-59 Pu-241 Cm-245/246 Ni-63 Tc-99 Cm-245 Pu-238 Sr-90 H-3 Pu-239/240 The dose contribution from the deselected HTD nuclides will be bounded by directly adding the dose contribution of a sample contaminated to approximately 3 times the DCGL (~22 pCi/g) for Cs-137. The resultant dose from HTD nuclides was 0.794 mrem/yr. Table 2.7 depicts the total dose calculated for deselected nuclides for Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR.

Table 2.7 - Dose for Deselected Nuclides Composite Soils - RDT Vault of the Liquid Radwaste Building Nuclide Building (dpm/100 cm2)

Soil DCGL (pCi/g)

Results (pCi/g)

Results/DCGL Unity Fraction Am-241 3.00E+03 2.50E+01 0.00E+00 0.0E+00 C-14 7.00E+06 6.30E+00 0.00E+00 0.0E+00 Cm-243/244 4.30E+03 2.90E+01

-9.27E-03

-3.2E-04 Cm-245/246 2.20E+03 1.70E+01 8.05E-02 4.7E-03 Co-60 1.30E+04 3.80E+00 0.0E+00 Cs-137 4.60E+04 7.90E+00 0.0E+00 Eu-152 2.70E+04 1.00E+01 0.0E+00 Eu-154 2.50E+04 9.40E+00 0.0E+00 H-3 1.80E+08 6.80E+02 1.03E+00 1.5E-03 Nb-94 1.90E+04 7.10E+00 0.0E+00 Ni-59 6.30E+07 1.90E+03

-3.22E+00

-1.7E-03 Ni-63 2.40E+07 7.20E+02

-5.91E-02

-8.2E-05 Np-237 2.40E+03 1.10E+00 0.0E+00 Pu-238 3.40E+03 2.90E+01 2.16E-02 7.4E-04 Pu-239/240 3.10E+03 2.60E+01 1.40E-02 5.4E-04 Pu-241 1.40E+05 8.60E+02

-3.31E+00

-3.8E-03 Sr-90 9.70E+04 1.50E+00 4.46E-02 3.0E-02 Tc-99 9.60E+06 1.20E+01 5.15E-03 4.3E-04 Total 3.2E-02 Total (mrem/y) 7.94E-01 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 32 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 I

I I

The table below depicts the DCGLs for analysis scaled to 24.21 mrem/yr that was used to apply the unity rule:

Table 2.8 - DCGLs Scaled to 24.21 mrem/y for NOL01-09-FSR Nuclide DCGL (pCi/g) 25 mrem DCGL (pCi/g)

Nuclide DCGL (pCi/g) 25 mrem DCGL (pCi/g)

Co-60 3.8 3.68E+00 Eu-152 10 9.68E+00 Nb-94 7.1 6.87E+00 Eu-154 9.4 9.10E+00 Am-241 25 2.42E+01 Np-237 1.1 1.07E+00 Cs-137 7.9 7.65E+00 The presence of all radionuclides listed in this plan (gamma emitters, HTD beta-emitters, and TRUs) in the soil was evaluated under the survey plan. The HBPP Site Closure Department analyzed each soil sample for all listed gamma-emitting nuclides. Additionally, two QC splits were also analyzed for gamma-emitting nuclides, Sr-90 and H-3 by an off-site laboratory. The QC splits analyzed by the independent laboratory were assessed to verify the absence of the HTD radionuclides deselected by the survey plan.

CSM-RC The characterization survey was developed due to concerns with contamination at depth from previous spent fuel pool leakage. Although it was known that all underground commodities would need to be removed prior to CSM wall installation, no information existed on expected potential contamination below the commodities elevations. The sampling was developed to provide information if deeper excavation of the CSM wall path would be required since in situ soils would be incorporated into the CSM wall. The results of this characterization resulted in limiting the depth of excavation to commodities removal and the data supported incorporated soil in the CSM wall meeting the surface soil DCGL.

CHAR-CAISSON-DW Detailed discussion regarding the characterization survey plan is presented earlier in this report in SAPN 1439681 Caisson NE Dewatering Well Gravel Pack Assessment.

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS Final Status Survey field activities were conducted under FSS Plans HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-01 and HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-FSR-00. The preparations for work included a detailed review of each FSS Plan, job safety analysis, job planning checklist, and related procedures for reference. Daily briefings were conducted to discuss the expectations for job performance and the safety aspects of the survey. The Daily Survey Journal was used to document field activities and other information pertaining to the FSS. All field survey activities were performed on various dates within the guidelines as set forth in the governing procedures. Sample measurement locations using GPS coordinates were identified in the 1983 North American Datum (NAD) coordinate system.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 33 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

3.1 SAMPLE MEASUREMENTS RESULTS Each of the forty-one (41) statistical samples collected were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy at the HBPP laboratory. All samples obtained during the FSS of Survey Units: NOL01-09, and NOL01-09-FSR were collected using Procedure FSS-8, Collection of Site Characterization and Final Status Survey Samples (Ref. 9). In addition, four (4) of the samples were sent to an off-site laboratory and analyzed for each of the nuclides in the FSS nuclide suite, with the exception of H-3 and Sr-90, which were analyzed by the on-site laboratory. For survey unit NOL01-09, all statistical samples were sent to an off-site laboratory and analyzed for each of the nuclides in the FSS HTD nuclide suite, with the exception of H-3 and Sr-90, which were analyzed by the on-site laboratory. The off-site laboratory employed for the radiological analyses of samples was General Engineering Laboratories (GEL), located in Charleston, South Carolina. The corresponding split sample comparison results between the GEL and HBPP laboratories is located in Attachment 1 Data Assessment.

During the NOL01-09 survey, NRC Inspectors and ORISE personnel concurrently surveyed the Caisson excavation with PG&E FSS personnel. Three (3) samples from locations selected by ORISE within Survey Unit NOL01-09 were collected by PG&E as splits for comparison with the ORISE laboratory. The samples split with ORISE were NOL01-09-020-F-I (ORISE No. S0021),

NOL01-09-022-F-I (ORISE No. S0023), and NOL01-09-023-F-B (ORISE No. S0022). The corresponding split sample comparison results between the ORISE and HBPP laboratories is located in Attachment 1 Data Assessment.

On-site gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed to the required MDC. Gamma spectroscopy results positively identified Co-60 and Cs-137 in two separate statistical samples collected for survey unit NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR respectively. Similarly, Cs-137 was found to be present in three of eleven boring characterization samples collected for the CSM Wall. The two split samples from survey unit NOL01-09-FSR analyzed by GEL were >MDC but <LLD for Cs-137. Additionally, the three investigation samples collected as a result from the scan survey of survey unit NOL01-09 analyzed by GEL were >MDC but <LLD for Cs-137 and/or Co-60.

Statistical sample results did not exceed the Investigation Level for soil samples. Therefore, gamma spectroscopy sample results did not require further investigation.

A summary of the statistical soil sample results for each specific area is provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.3 for survey units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR respectively. CSM Wall characterization composite soil boring sample results were previously presented in Table 1.1. Additionally, while not considered in the non-parametric statistical evaluation of compliance with the release criteria, there were five (5) biased and three (3) investigation samples that were collected in Survey Unit NOL01-09 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy at the on-site laboratory. A summary of these eight samples is provided in Table 3.2.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 34 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

3.1.1 SURVEY UNIT NOL01-09 STATISTICAL SOIL SAMPLE ACTIVITY RESULTS Each of the fifteen (15) random-start, systematically-placed soil samples obtained during FSS in Survey Unit NOL01-09 were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy, H-3 and Sr-90 on-site. Since there was no characterization information available at the time of FSS Plan design, the FSS data from an adjacent survey area, NOL01-05 (The North Yard) was used to support the planning of Survey Unit NOL01-09. The FSS Plan stated that the radionuclides of concern include all plant-related nuclides with emphasis on Cs-137 and Co-60. However, Americium-241 (Am-241),

Eu-152, Eu-154, C-14, and Sr-90 were identified in a commodity removed from an FSS investigation sample or the characterization samples collected in the NE Dewatering Well.

Therefore, all statistical samples were sent to the off-site laboratory for HTD analysis with the exception of H-3 and Sr-90. The analytical results show that the maximum fraction is less than 17% of Unity. Data quality assessments indicated that the results meet the data quality requirements and are acceptable for use. Table 3.1 presents the FSS results for the fifteen (15) nonparametric samples collected for Survey unit NOL01-09.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 35 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 3.1 - Summary of Nonparametric Soil Sample Data for NOL01-09 FSS Direct Soil Samples Radionuclides of Concern Results (pCi/g)

Sample Number Am-241 Co-60 Cs-137 Eu-152 Eu-154 C-14 Sr-90 SOF(1)

NOL01-09-001-F 4.74E-02

-3.51E-02 1.40E-02

-1.50E-02 4.43E-02 1.91E-01 1.78E-01 14.7%

NOL01-09-002-F

-1.49E-02 2.09E-02 3.13E-02

-1.77E-01 2.07E-02 1.51E-01 1.45E-01 11.4%

NOL01-09-003-F 8.32E-02 2.76E-01 2.85E-03

-1.55E-01

-5.12E-02 3.90E-02 1.52E-01 16.3%

NOL01-09-004-F

-2.25E-01

-9.92E-02

-3.89E-02

-8.76E-02

-6.34E-02

-4.15E-03 1.88E-01 6.9%

NOL01-09-005-F

-3.29E-02

-5.45E-02 3.36E-03 1.26E-01

-3.18E-02

-5.72E-02 1.26E-01 6.9%

NOL01-09-006-F

-1.41E-01

-1.31E-02 1.98E-02

-7.13E-02 1.59E-02 5.64E-02 1.48E-01 9.6%

NOL01-09-007-F

-7.71E-02

-1.16E-03

-1.02E-02

-5.33E-02 4.30E-02

-2.23E-03 6.50E-02 3.8%

NOL01-09-008-F 1.66E-02 4.85E-03 7.58E-03

-1.29E-02

-9.37E-02

-1.21E-02 1.37E-01 8.1%

NOL01-09-009-F 3.05E-02 1.55E-02

-2.17E-02 1.64E-02 1.90E-03

-1.12E-01 2.06E-01 12.4%

NOL01-09-010-F

-2.17E-02 3.87E-03

-1.36E-02

-2.18E-02

-3.49E-02 9.58E-02 1.75E-01 12.4%

NOL01-09-011-F 1.30E-02

-2.15E-02 6.35E-04 6.31E-02 5.15E-03 2.25E-02 1.75E-01 12.2%

NOL01-09-012-F

-7.39E-02 7.80E-03

-1.05E-03

-6.76E-02

-5.54E-02 1.40E-01 1.96E-01 13.9%

NOL01-09-013-F

-8.92E-02 1.16E-02

-4.93E-03 7.43E-03

-1.08E-02 8.02E-02 1.39E-01 10.4%

NOL01-09-014-F

-3.95E-02

-1.82E-02 2.54E-02 6.88E-03

-4.19E-02

-5.34E-03 1.95E-01 12.2%

NOL01-09-015-F

-6.77E-03 1.80E-02 4.32E-03 6.95E-03

-3.35E-02 5.05E-02 1.42E-01 10.5%

• Result in bold indicates a positive result for Co-60 Note (1) The SOF (sum of fractions) presented in the table is calculated relative to the DCGLs presented in LTP Table 5-1 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 36 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

3.1.2 SURVEY UNIT NOL01-09 BIASED AND INVESTIGATION SOIL SAMPLE ACTIVITY RESULTS As mentioned earlier in this report, there were five (5) biased and three (3) investigation samples that were collected in Survey Unit NOL01-09 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy at the on-site laboratory. Additionally, two investigation and one biased sample collected were requested to be split during the independent verification survey performed by the ORISE Team. The FSS Engineer selected four of five biased sample locations near each of the four dewatering wells.

Three one-liter investigation soil samples were collected per the survey plan as walkover scans indicated elevated activity readings present in these locations. Gamma results from the on-site laboratory indicated plant-derived activity (Co-60 and/or Cs-137) in two of the three investigation samples collected. Since all investigation soil samples indicated less than the direct investigation levels specified for Class 1 areas as listed in Table 5-5 of the LTP, an investigation survey was not warranted. It should be noted that a discrete anomaly totaling approximately 0.03 µCi was removed from sample NOL01-09-020-F-I during preparation. Table 3.2 presents the gamma analysis results for the biased and investigative samples collected for Survey unit NOL01-09.

Table 3.2 - Summary of Biased and Investigative Soil Sample Results for NOL01-09 Biased/Investigative FSS Soil /Sediment Samples Analyzed using the On-Site Laboratory HPGe Gamma System Sample Number Co-60 pCi/g Cs-137 pCi/g ORISE Split Sample #

Location NOL01-09-016-F-B

-2.02E-02 2.61E-02 Near SE Dewatering Well NOL01-09-017-F-B

-5.09E-02

-1.65E-02 Near NE Dewatering Well NOL01-09-018-F-B

-7.16E-02

-1.23E-02 Near SW Dewatering Well NOL01-09-019-F-B 3.40E-03 2.43E-02 Near NW Dewatering Well NOL01-09-020-F-I 1.10E-01 2.48E-02 S0021 Near South Wall NOL01-09-021-F-I 3.58E-01 1.15E-01

~29' W of the SE Dewatering Well NOL01-09-022-F-I

-3.66E-03 5.32E-02 S0023 Near NE Dewatering Well NOL01-09-023-F-B 5.23E-01 2.88E-01 S0022 23' NW of the SW Dewatering Well

• Results in bold indicates a positive result for the associated radionuclide 3.1.3 SURVEY UNIT NOL01-09-FSR STATISTICAL SOIL SAMPLE ACTIVITY RESULTS Each of the fifteen (15) random-start, systematically-placed soil samples obtained during FSS in Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy at the HBPP on-site laboratory. The FSS Plan stated that the radionuclide of concern was Cs-137 for Class 1 reuse materials cleared through the GARDIAN system. The analytical results show that the maximum fraction is less than 1% of Unity. Data quality assessments indicated that the results meet the data quality requirements and are acceptable for use. Table 3.3 presents the FSS results for the fifteen (15) nonparametric samples collected for Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 37 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 3.3 - Summary of Systematic Soil Sample Results for NOL01-09-FSR Cs-137 Results for FSS Direct Soil /Sediment Samples Analyzed using the On-Site Laboratory HPGe Gamma System Sample Number Cs-137 (pCi/g)

Fraction of the DCGL(1)

NOL01-09-001-FSR 2.05E-02 2.59E-03 NOL01-09-002-FSR

-1.34E-02

-1.70E-03 NOL01-09-003-FSR 3.33E-02 4.22E-03 NOL01-09-004-FSR 2.64E-02 3.34E-03 NOL01-09-005-FSR

-6.19E-03

-7.84E-04 NOL01-09-006-FSR 3.65E-02 4.62E-03 NOL01-09-007-FSR

-3.08E-03

-3.90E-04 NOL01-09-008-FSR 2.57E-02 3.25E-03 NOL01-09-009-FSR 4.81E-02 6.09E-03 NOL01-09-010-FSR 3.78E-02 4.78E-03 NOL01-09-011-FSR 3.87E-02 4.90E-03 NOL01-09-012-FSR

-6.05E-03

-7.66E-04 NOL01-09-013-FSR 6.97E-02 8.82E-03 NOL01-09-014-FSR 4.88E-02 6.18E-03 NOL01-09-015-FSR 3.58E-02 4.53E-03

• Result in bold indicates a positive result Note (1) The calculated fractions presented above are the activity values relative to the Cs-137 DCGL from LTP Table 5-1 (7.9 pCi/g) 3.2 SCAN

SUMMARY

Survey Unit NOL01-09 Approximately 100% of the accessible surface area (884 m2) of Survey Unit NOL01-09 was surveyed on January 11, 2018 by walking transects across the area, moving the detector in a serpentine fashion. Instrument readings ranging from 4.8 kcpm to 6.3 kcpm were recorded during the walkover survey for the 2 by 2 NaI detector systems. As previously mentioned earlier in this report, FSS Technicians identified three areas exceeded the scan investigation criteria specified in Table 5-5 of the LTP of >DCGLEMC. Since all investigation soil samples indicated less than the direct investigation levels specified for Class 1 areas as listed in Table 5-5 of the LTP, an investigation survey was not warranted. The 100% scanned area percentage meets the LTP requirements stipulated for Class 1 areas.

Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR Approximately 100% of the accessible surface area (1,351 m2) of Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR was walkover scan surveyed by FSS Technicians from a period of November 20th, 2018 to December 8th, 2018. Instrument readings ranging from 4.0 kcpm to 6.5 kcpm were recorded during FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 38 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

the gamma walkover survey for the 2 by 2 NaI detector systems. There were no areas which exceeded the scan investigation criteria. Therefore, an investigation survey was not warranted.

The 100% scanned area percentage meets the LTP requirements stipulated for Class 1 areas.

4.0 SURVEY UNIT DATA ASSESSMENT 4.1 STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS The DQO sample design and data were reviewed in accordance with Procedure RCP FSS-14, Data Quality Assessment (Ref. 19) for completeness and consistency. The sampling design had adequate power for the Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR as indicated by their Retrospective Power Curves. The Sign Test was performed on the data and compared to the original assumptions of the DQOs. The evaluation of the Sign Test results demonstrates that the survey unit passes the unrestricted release criteria, thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Survey documentation was complete and legible. Surveys and sample collection were consistent with the DQOs and were adequate enough to ensure that the survey units were properly designated as Class 1.

The final data review consisted of calculating basic statistical quantities (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation). The mean and median values are well below the beta gross activity DCGLs.

Also, the retrospective power curves show that a sufficient number of samples were collected to achieve the desired power. Therefore, the survey unit meets the unrestricted release criteria with adequate power as required by the DQOs. The basic statistical quantities for the statistical sample population for Survey Units: NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR are provided below respectively in Tables 4.1 and Table 4.2.

Table 4.1 - Statistical Soil Sample Results Summary for NOL01-09 Statistic Sum of Fractions Minimum Value:

3.75E-02 18.7%

Difference between mean and median Maximum Value:

1.63E-01

-0.48 Skew Mean:

1.08E-01 3.79 Range of Data Median:

1.14E-01 9.26 Max Dose contribution (mrem/yr)

Standard Deviation:

3.31E-02 7.88 Hypothetical dose contribution (mrem/yr)

The range of the data for survey unit NOL01-09 is approximately 4 standard deviations. The difference between the mean and median was about -19% of the standard deviation which indicates moderate skewness in the data. The data was represented graphically through posting plots, a frequency plot, and a quantile plot. The frequency plot indicates a negative skewness as confirmed by the calculated skew of -0.48, indicating a moderate skewness in the data. The data contained no abnormalities and supported all the key assumptions of the statistical test.

All statistical soil samples were below the Investigation Levels of greater than 100% of the DCGLEMC for Cs-137 or Co-60, greater than unity for the sum of DCGLEMC fractions, or greater than DCGL and greater than a statistical parameter-based value, as provided in the Final Status FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 39 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Survey Plan (FSSP) for the associated area. Since the Sign Test is passed if none of the data values exceed the DCGL, performing the test is unnecessary as it is passed by inspection.

The maximum hypothetical dose of 7.88 mrem/yr (from all sources, including groundwater) to a future resident farmer is less than a third of the release criteria. It should be noted that the dose estimate is a large overestimate given that the source term is covered by over 80 of backfill reuse soil and concrete. Therefore, there was no effort to refine the estimated doses presented in this report by performing additional RESRAD modeling of the FSS and characterization results for NOL01-09, the CSM Wall, and the NE Dewatering Well using a more realistic but unlikely critical exposure group scenario (i.e., an Intruder drilling a well approximately 100 in depth). This dose is compiled from the statistical data evaluated from Survey Unit NOL01-09 (2.69 mrem/yr), the CSM Wall Characterization Survey Unit dose (2.21 mrem/yr), and the NE Well dose (2.97 mrem/yr). It should be noted that the NE Well dose estimate provides a revised estimate of the residual Gravel Pack dose evaluated using Engineering Calculation NX-503 (Ref. 7) of 2.96 mrem/yr and the Embedded Pipe casing dose of 0.01 mrem/yr evaluated per TBD-403 (Ref. 6).

The results included in this report conclude that Survey Unit NOL01-09 has met the FSS data quality objectives and the regulatory release criteria of less than 25 mrem/yr to the average member of the critical group plus ALARA.

Table 4.2 - Statistical Soil Sample Results Summary for NOL01-09-FSR Statistic pCi/g Fraction of the DCGL Minimum Value:

-1.34E-02

-1.70E-03 29.7%

Difference between mean and median Maximum Value:

6.97E-02 8.82E-03

-0.27 Skew Mean:

2.62E-02 3.32E-03 3.48 Range of Data Median:

3.33E-02 4.22E-03 1.02 Max Dose contribution (mrem/yr)

Standard Deviation:

2.39E-02 3.03E-03 0.88 Hypothetical dose contribution (mrem/yr)

The range of the data for survey unit NOL01-09-FSR is approximately 3 standard deviations. The difference between the mean and median was about 30% of the standard deviation which is indicative of background variability in the data, which is expected since there was no Cs-137 identified from review of the on-site laboratory gamma spectroscopy reports. The data was represented graphically through posting plots, a frequency plot, and a quantile plot. The frequency plot indicates a negative skewness as confirmed by the calculated skew of -0.27, indicating fair symmetry and a normal distribution with no multimodal distribution noted. The data contained no abnormalities and supported all the key assumptions of the statistical test.

All soil samples were below the Investigation Levels of greater than 100% of the scaled DCGLEMC (13 pCi/g Cs-137), greater than unity for the sum of DCGLEMC fractions, or greater than DCGL (7.65 pCi/g Cs-137) and greater than a statistical parameter-based value, as provided in the FSSP for the associated area. Since the Sign Test is passed if none of the data values exceed the DCGL, performing the test is unnecessary as it is passed by inspection.

The maximum hypothetical dose of 0.88 mrem/yr (from all sources, including groundwater) to a future resident farmer was determined to be a small fraction of the release criteria. This dose is compiled from the statistical data evaluated from Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR (0.08 mrem/yr) and the deselected dose (0.794 mrem/yr).

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 40 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

The results included in this report conclude that Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR has met the FSS data quality objectives and the regulatory release criteria of less than 25 mrem/yr to the average member of the critical group plus ALARA.

4.2 GRAPHICAL EVALUATIONS The data assessments and graphical representations for all survey units are provided in, Data Quality Assessment (DQA).

4.3 SURVEY UNIT INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS As discussed previously in Section 3.1.2 of this report, since all investigative soil samples indicated less than the direct investigation levels specified for Class 1 areas as listed in Table 5-5 of the LTP, an investigation survey was not warranted for Survey Unit NOL01-09. There were no investigations performed for Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR.

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

5.0 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE An important aspect of any survey or sampling evolution is the effort made to assure the quality of data collected. It is critical to assure the quality of the data through quality checks and controls, calibrations, and training. The purpose of the DQA is to evaluate the data collected from the field considering its intended use in decision making. Decision makers should obtain an understanding of the verity of the data used in the FSS from reading this section.

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

Direct soil measurement results are subjected to a focused DQA prior to using the data in FSS activities. The results are evaluated for apparent precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability; and appropriate data qualifiers are applied to the data set.

Since several naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) nuclides are routinely identified during analysis of the FSS volumetric soil samples, a good test of accuracy and precision for a particular analytical program is to compare the detected radionuclide results for the samples homogenized and split from a single sample location, laboratory recounts of the same sample, and third-party analysis of split samples. This comparison method provides a more realistic view of the detection capability of the analytical method. Since there is much less uncertainty with a detected result that may be more than several times its detection threshold than a result near or less FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 41 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

than its detection level, it is reasonable and appropriate to evaluate the accuracy and precision data quality indicators using quantifiable radionuclide concentrations.

5.1 LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS The prescribed QC for laboratory instruments consists of instrument source response checks, energy calibration checks, efficiency calibration checks, background checks, and replicate volumetric measurements performed on a percentage of the samples collected using an off-site system.

The on-site HPGe system used in the analysis of volumetric soil media during FSS was controlled by Canberras Genie System software. The software was used to perform the energy and efficiency calibration checks. A QA check of the on-site gamma spectroscopy systems for both energy and efficiency parameters was performed daily, prior to counting operations. This was achieved by using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable multi-line standard calibration source in a comparable geometry (with a volumetric equivalent density) as the samples to be counted. The QA checks performed on the gamma spectroscopy system verify that the system parameters have not changed such that the energy and efficiency calibrations are still valid.

This was accomplished by tracking peak location from a low-energy peak (59 kilo-electron volts

[keV]) and a high-energy peak (1,332 keV) from a calibration source (to indicate a problem relative to the energy calibration), peak energy resolution (full width at half maximum [FWHM])

(indicate a problem relative to the energy shape calibration), and decay corrected activity (indicate a problem relative to the efficiency calibration).

Examination of data concludes that the gamma spectroscopy system was functioning correctly during FSS. A check of the gamma spectroscopy system QA Background measurements (in units of cps) covering the significant time periods when FSS sample analysis occurred showed no issues related to instrument background prior to FSS sample analysis. Coupled with the gamma spectroscopy systems source check QA measurements, the measured background data presents additional evidence of the gamma spectroscopy systems stability.

5.2 LAB INSTRUMENTS QUALITY CONTROL The prescribed QC for laboratory instruments consists of instrument source response checks, energy calibration checks, efficiency calibration checks, background checks, and replicate volumetric measurements performed on a percentage of the samples collected using an off-site system.

The on-site HPGe system used in the analysis of volumetric soil media during FSS was controlled by Canberras Genie System software. The software was used to perform the energy and efficiency calibration checks. A QA check of the on-site gamma spectroscopy system for both energy and efficiency parameters was performed daily, prior to counting operations. This was achieved by using a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable multi-line standard calibration source in a comparable geometry (with a volumetric equivalent density) as the samples to be counted.

Examination of the data concluded that the gamma spectroscopy system was functioning correctly during FSS. A check of the gamma spectroscopy system QA Background measurements covering FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 42 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

the time periods when FSS sample analysis occurred showed no issues related to instrument background prior to FSS sample analysis.

5.3 LABORATORY INSTRUMENT DATA QUALITY INDICATORS To provide an assessment of precision, a measurement of the repeatability of a measurement or measurement technique was performed by the on-site analytical laboratory by performing a recount gamma analysis on samples and performing a comparison to the original count using the split sample assessment method described in HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey (Ref. 17). The Recount sample numbers for Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR are listed in Table 6.1 below.

Table 5.1 - List of Recount Samples Survey Unit Sample Number NOL01-09 NOL01-09-003-F-RC NOL01-09 NOL01-09-006-F-RC NOL01-09-FSR NOL01-09-010-FSR-RC NOL01-09-FSR NOL01-09-014-FSR-RC No DQA issues were noted during the comparison evaluation. The recount sample results were within the expected tolerance for the analysis, providing additional evidence that the sample preparation and measurement processes were precise (Attachment 1).

To provide an assessment of accuracy, the degree to which a measurement technique or method can reflect a known value or be compared to a known value or standard, a QC metric for split samples collected by the FSS Field Team were generated for Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR as shown in Table 6.2 below. The samples were analyzed by the on-site gamma laboratory and the corresponding split samples were analyzed by the off-site analytical laboratory.

As mentioned earlier in this report, the ORISE requested that PG&E provide three split samples from the FSS of Survey Unit NOL01-09. Therefore, those sample results were also evaluated via inter-laboratory comparison. The inter-laboratory comparison was evaluated using the split sample assessment method previously described. No DQA issues were noted during the split sample comparison evaluation. The split sample results were within the expected tolerance for the analysis, providing additional evidence that the sample preparation and measurement processes were accurate (Attachment 1).

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 43 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Table 5.2 - List of Split Samples Survey Unit Survey Plan Sample Number Off-Site Split Sample Number NOL01-09 NOL01-09-007-F NOL01-09-007-F-S NOL01-09-014-F NOL01-09-014-F-S NOL01-09-020-F-I 5272S0021*

NOL01-09-022-F-I 5272S0023*

NOL01-09-023-F-B 5272S0022*

NOL01-09-FSR NOL01-09-005-FSR NOL01-09-005-FSR-S NOL01-09-013-FSR NOL01-09-013-FSR-S

• These samples analyzed by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) Laboratory under the ORISE contract.

To provide an assessment of representativeness, the degree to which a data set is actually a sample of a population (e.g., information presented by the data set can be extrapolated to describe the overall site or system), the survey was designed to produce a random start systematic triangular grid sample allocation distribution that ensured DQOs were met. The sample locations identified using VSP meet the survey design DQOs and are considered representative of the conditions for Site soils in the survey area. No DQA issues regarding analytical or measurement effects (e.g.,

holding times or compositing effects) were noted during the data evaluation process that suggest that representativeness was affected.

To provide an assessment of completeness, the ability of the data set to encompass the entirety of the target system, a minimum of fifteen (15) volumetric soil samples from each survey unit were calculated, as classified according to area contamination potential.

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

5.4 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS As mentioned earlier in this report, an ASSP Investigation survey was warranted because the resurvey results evaluated from NOL01-09 indicated Cs-137 results greater than two standard deviations from the original FSS mean. The resurvey was required because the three active Caisson Dewatering Pumps were deactivated and removed, and remediation had been performed within the NE Dewatering Well casing to remove source term sediment >DCGLEMC. The evaluation of the ASSP Investigation Survey as captured in SAPN 1439992 concluded that there was no evidence that activities performed since the original FSS was completed had adversely impacted the area. No other corrective actions were warranted during the performance and subsequent evaluation of FSS Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 44 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

5.5 QUALITY VERIFICATION There were no quality verification assessments that were performed on Survey Units FSS Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR.

6.0 ALARA STATEMENT The cost benefit analysis indicates that residual radioactivity in soils at the Site has been reduced to concentrations that are ALARA. A Generic ALARA Statement has been prepared to demonstrate that it is not ALARA to further remediate soil at levels below the DCGL. The analysis shows that shipping affected soil to a low-level waste disposal facility is not cost effective for unrestricted release.

Therefore, by demonstrating that the rest of the decision criteria have been met, also demonstrates that the level of residual radioactivity is ALARA without taking additional remedial action. The decision rules, having been derived from the dose-based radiological criteria for unrestricted release, ensure that residual radioactivity in soils on the site will not pose an unacceptable radiological risk to humans under any reasonable and foreseeable future use or occupancy (Ref.

17). The Generic ALARA Review for Final Status Survey of Soil at HBPP, along with each Survey Unit ALARA Evaluation Comparison is provided in Attachment 2.

7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS This report demonstrates that FSS Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR have met the release requirements associated with the DCGLs listed in the HBPP LTP.

All identified radionuclides of concern were used for statistical testing to determine the adequacy of the survey unit for FSS. Although it is not required to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria, the sample data passed the Sign Test and the null hypothesis was rejected. All survey units were properly designated as Class 1.

Additionally, the data shows that the ALARA criteria for soils as specified in Chapter 4 of the HBPP LTP were achieved. This value is the TEDE based on the average concentration of the samples used for non-parametric statistical sampling. To uphold the commitments in License Amendment No. 40 to DPR-7, periodic surveillance surveys are performed for survey units that have undergone FSS to ensure adequate isolation controls are being maintained to preclude recontamination from Unit 3 decommissioning activities in accordance with HBPP Procedure RCP C-220, Cross Contamination Prevention Plan (Ref.20). As discussed in Section 1.3.5 of this report, Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR were exempted from the periodic surveillance surveys by the Site Closure Manager as these areas had an engineered surface or barrier in place.

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

No unexpected results or trends are evident in the data.

The sampling and survey results demonstrate that soil residual radioactivity in the potentially impacted areas is very minimal, and essentially indistinguishable from background.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 45 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

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

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

The retrospective power of the Sign Test, used to judge compliance, was almost 100%.

Survey Units: Survey Units NOL01-09 and NOL01-09-FSR have met the final DQOs of the FSS process based on the following criteria:

The ALARA criteria for soils as specified in Chapter 4 of the LTP were achieved.

The sample data passed the Sign Test.

The null hypothesis was rejected.

Graphical representation of data indicates some limited skewness.

The Retrospective Power Curves generated show adequate power was achieved.

The survey units were properly designated as Class 1.

The maximum hypothetical dose (from all sources, including groundwater) to a future resident farmer was determined to be a fraction of the DCGL. The maximum hypothetical dose for each Survey Unit is provided in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1 - Maximum Hypothetical Dose Per Area Survey Unit Max Hypothetical Dose (mrem/yr)

NOL01-09 7.88 NOL01-09-FSR 0.88 Thus, the null hypothesis, that residual radioactivity in the survey units exists in concentrations above the applicable DCGLs, should be rejected for each of the survey units in the potentially impacted area. The area surveyed and sampled during FSS (the survey unit identified in this report) should be released from further radiological controls. Therefore, this FSS Report submittal supports the regulatory decision to terminate the license following completion of all FSS report submittals for the site.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 46 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

8.0 REFERENCES

1 Humboldt Bay Power Plant License Termination Plan, Rev. 02, January, 2018.

2 Humboldt Bay Power Plant Historical Site Assessment 2011 Update, July, 2011.

3 Humboldt Bay Power Plant CSM Wall Characterization Plan, December 17, 2014 4

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

5 Humboldt Bay Power Plant Radiological Characterization Report, HBPP-RPT-001, Rev.

01, ENERCON Services, Inc., November 21, 2008 6

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Technical Basis Document-403 DCGLs for Embedded and Buried Piping in Support of Final Status Survey at HBPP, Rev. 01, September 8, 2017 7

Humboldt Bay Power Plant Calculation NX-503 NE Caisson Dewatering Well Assessment, February 14, 2018 8

HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-13 Area Surveillance Following Final Status Survey, Rev 03, May 5th, 2017 9

HBPP Procedure FSS-8, Collection of Site Characterization and Final Status Survey Samples Rev 2, June 30, 2016.

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

11 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-2, Preparation of FSS Plans, Rev. 2B, August 15, 2016.

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

13 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-7, Determination of the Number and Location of FSS Samples Rev. 1, June 30, 2016.

14 MARSSIM Power 2000 Software Program, Environmental Measurements Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Version 1.0.0, December 2000 15 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-18, Computer Determination of Number and Locations of FSS Samples, Rev. 1, June 30, 2016.

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

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

17 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-11, Split Sample Assessment for Final Status Survey Rev. 1, June 30, 2016.

18 HBPP Procedure C-202, Final Status Survey Quality Assurance Project Plan Rev 4A, July 28, 2017.

19 HBPP Procedure RCP FSS-14, Data Quality Assessment Rev. 1, June 30, 2016.

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

21 USNRC, Inspection Report 050-00133/16-001, March 3, 2016 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 47 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable Am-241 Americium-241 ASSP Area Surveillance Survey Plan C-14 Carbon-14 CHAR Characterization Cs-137 Cesium-137 Co-60 Cobalt-60 CPS Counts per second CSM Cutter Soil Mix DCGL Derived concentration guideline level, the radionuclide specific activity concentration that corresponds to the release criterion (25 mrem/y) within a survey unit DCGLEMC Derived Concentration Guideline Level Elevated Measurement Comparison DCGLop Operational DCGL DOE United States Department of Energy DPM Disintegrations per minute DQA Data Quality Assurance DQO Data Quality Objectives EMC elevated measurement comparison ETD easy to detect Eu-152 Europium-152 Eu-154 Europium-154 FSS Final Status Survey FSSP Final Status Survey Plan FSR Final Site Restoration FWHM Full Width at Half Maximum GARDIAN Gamma Radiation Detection and In-Container Analysis GEL General Engineering Laboratories, LLC GPS global positioning system H-3 Tritium HBPP Humboldt Bay Power Plant FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 48 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

HBAP Humboldt Bay Administrative Procedure HSA Historical Site Assessment HTD hard to detect (for this purpose, nuclides that are not detectable by gamma analysis) kcpm kilo-counts per minute keV kilo-electron volts LBGR lower bound of the gray region LLD lower limit of detection LTP License Termination Plan m2 meter(s) squared MARSAME Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MDC minimum detectable concentration MicroShield Comprehensive photon/gamma ray shielding and dose assessment Radiation Software, Version 9.05, Grove Engineering mrem/yr Millirem per year NAD North American Datum NaI Sodium-Iodide Detector NaI (Tl)

Thallium-activated sodium iodide gamma scintillation detector NE Northeast NW Northwest NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NORM naturally occurring radioactive material NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NW Northwest ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education pCi/g picocuries per gram PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC quality control RCA Radiologically Controlled Area RCP Radiation Control Procedure FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 49 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

RESRAD Residual Radioactivity (model)

RP Radiation Protection SAPN Systems Application and Products Notification SE Southeast SFP Spent Fuel Pool SOF Sum of Fractions Sr-90 Strontium-90 SW Southwest TBD Technical Basis Document TEDE total effective dose equivalent TPS Total Position Station TRU transuranic

µR/hr micro-Roentgens per hour VSP Visual Sample Plan computer program yd3 cubic yard FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 50 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Data Assessment FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 51 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Data Quality Assessment of NOL01-09; 1.

The HBPP LTP and Historical Site Assessment were reviewed and compared to the DQOs of HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09. The classification history satisfies the DQOs in the survey plan.

2.

The survey unit description as well as the design, measurement locations, analytical methods and detection limits, variability (a-priori ), QC requirements and survey and sampling accuracy were adequately discussed in the FSSP.

3.

All field documents, instrument issue, measurement results and maps were complete and legible.

4.

A preliminary data review was performed of the 15 statistical samples gathered. The survey had more than sufficient power.

Statistical quantities (Reported in Fraction of Unity):

Number of statistical samples 15 Minimum value 3.75E-02 Maximum Value 1.63E-01 Mean 1.08E-01 Median 1.14E-01 a-posteriori 3.31E-02 5.

The mean is approximately equal to the median indicating a common central tendency.

6.

The range of the data varies within ~3.8 standard deviations about the arithmetic mean.

7.

The Scatter Plot exhibits that there were no outlier sample results.

8.

The Quantile Plot exhibits relatively normal symmetry.

9.

The Frequency Plot demonstrates a normal distribution with no multimodal distribution.

10.

The data posting plot does not clearly reveal any systematic spatial trends.

11.

No sample data exceeded the DCGL, therefore a statistical test was not required.

12.

The data was of sufficient quantity and quality to be used as FSS data.

13.

The data verified all the key assumptions of the statistical test.

14.

The survey possessed sufficient power to pass the survey unit.

Summary:

The survey was performed as stated in the survey package, the data contained no abnormalities and supported all the key assumptions of the statistical test, and no sample exceeded the DCGL.

Survey Unit NOL01-09 meets the HBPP release criteria thus the null hypothesis is rejected for NOL01-09.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 52 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

Radionuclides of Concern Results(2) for FSS Direct Soil /Sediment Samples pCi/g Sample Number Am-241 Co-60 Cs-137 Eu-152 Eu-154 C-14 Sr-90 SOF(1)

NOL01-09-001-F 4.74E-02

-3.51E-02 1.40E-02

-1.50E-02 4.43E-02 1.91E-01 1.78E-01 14.7%

NOL01-09-002-F

-1.49E-02 2.09E-02 3.13E-02

-1.77E-01 2.07E-02 1.51E-01 1.45E-01 11.4%

NOL01-09-003-F 8.32E-02 2.76E-01 2.85E-03

-1.55E-01

-5.12E-02 3.90E-02 1.52E-01 16.3%

NOL01-09-004-F

-2.25E-01

-9.92E-02

-3.89E-02

-8.76E-02

-6.34E-02

-4.15E-03 1.88E-01 6.9%

NOL01-09-005-F

-3.29E-02

-5.45E-02 3.36E-03 1.26E-01

-3.18E-02

-5.72E-02 1.26E-01 6.9%

NOL01-09-006-F

-1.41E-01

-1.31E-02 1.98E-02

-7.13E-02 1.59E-02 5.64E-02 1.48E-01 9.6%

NOL01-09-007-F

-7.71E-02

-1.16E-03

-1.02E-02

-5.33E-02 4.30E-02

-2.23E-03 6.50E-02 3.8%

NOL01-09-008-F 1.66E-02 4.85E-03 7.58E-03

-1.29E-02

-9.37E-02

-1.21E-02 1.37E-01 8.1%

NOL01-09-009-F 3.05E-02 1.55E-02

-2.17E-02 1.64E-02 1.90E-03

-1.12E-01 2.06E-01 12.4%

NOL01-09-010-F

-2.17E-02 3.87E-03

-1.36E-02

-2.18E-02

-3.49E-02 9.58E-02 1.75E-01 12.4%

NOL01-09-011-F 1.30E-02

-2.15E-02 6.35E-04 6.31E-02 5.15E-03 2.25E-02 1.75E-01 12.2%

NOL01-09-012-F

-7.39E-02 7.80E-03

-1.05E-03

-6.76E-02

-5.54E-02 1.40E-01 1.96E-01 13.9%

NOL01-09-013-F

-8.92E-02 1.16E-02

-4.93E-03 7.43E-03

-1.08E-02 8.02E-02 1.39E-01 10.4%

NOL01-09-014-F

-3.95E-02

-1.82E-02 2.54E-02 6.88E-03

-4.19E-02

-5.34E-03 1.95E-01 12.2%

NOL01-09-015-F

-6.77E-03 1.80E-02 4.32E-03 6.95E-03

-3.35E-02 5.05E-02 1.42E-01 10.5%

• Result in bold indicates a positive result for Co-60 Note (1) The SOF (sum of fractions) presented in the table is calculated relative to the DCGLs presented in LTP Table 5-1 Note (2) The table results shown for all radionuclides except C-14 were analyzed at the on-site laboratory. Carbon-14 analysis was performed at the off-site laboratory FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 53 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 54 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 2.SOE-01 2.00E-01 1.SOE-01 1.00E-01 S.OOE-02

-S.OOE-02 NOL0l-09 Sample Results Scatter Plot DCGLga = 1 SOF Activity Average

"+3StDev"

"-3StDev" 0.214 0.107 0

0.114 0

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Activity (SOF)

Percentile NOL01-09 Sample Results Quantile Plot Direct Measurements median 75th Percentile 50th Percentile FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 55 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 0

II 0

II I

II

,--------------------~--~--e..

0 I

I II I

I I

I I

I I

I 0

0 I

I I

I 0

I I

I I

I I

I

!n I

I I

• ~----------------------------~

R 0

_J

~

0

0 2

4 6

8 10 12 14 16 18 0.038 0.058 0.079 0.100 0.121 0.142 0.163 Number of Observations Bin Upper End Value (SOF)

NOL01-09 Frequency Plot FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 56 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 1*

l

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 57 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Posting Plot SUtwy lmit: NOL01-09-FSS

SU,wy Area: 884 m2

Reported Values: Co-60

Reported Units: pCi/g

1-::--7::

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' *1--~--..;. _____.....,,

o NOL0 1-09 -xxx-F

,>---+-----------<

NOL0 1-09 Boundary NOL0 1-09 Area Positive for Co-6 0 010

• 3.87c:03 005 *

-5.46E-02 006 *

~

TE'02 002

• 1'.-09E-02 003

• 2':76 E-01 01 2

• i"eOE-03

Prospective Power Curve FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 58 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

~

MARSSIM Power 2000 Frie He,p Survey Unit ID:

I Decision Errors Required Sample Size Alpha:

B.eta:

SUJVey Unit 15 Radionuclide: lt,;nity Rule Statistical Test r

Sign Test r WRSTest 1 lo.as _::]

lo.os 4J.....

I ---~~J__,

];2CGL 11

~igma 1.02

..:J

..:J Critical Value:

11 JJ L LBGR 10.96 Probability that tbe Sun1ey u nit Passes Ala= 2 1.0 - ---------------~-------

0.8 -----+--------------1++-----+---+-----

0.6 -----+---------------------+-----

0.4 -----+---------------------+-----

0.2 ---------------------------

True Survey {;nit Concentration (percent of DCCL)

[ *~

Click anywhere on thtt graph to update the powerCW'Ve using newly entered parameter values E~Program I

Retrospective Power Curve FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 59 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

~

MARSSIM Power 2000 File Helo Swvey Unit ID:

Radionuclide: jUnity Rule DCGL jl

- Statistical Test 7 r-Sign Test

- Decision Errors--~ l Required Sample Size]

Alpha:

B.eta:

Swvey Unit: 14 lo 05..:J lo 05..:J r WRS Test S.igma j.0331 Critical Value:

10 0 C I LBGR j0.114 Mcr = 26.77 Probability that the Survey Unit Passes 1.0~--------------~--------~

0.8 +---++---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+-+-+--+--+---+--+------<

0.6 +---++---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+--++--+--+---+--+------l 0.4 +---++---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+----H---+--+---+--+------l 0.2 +---++---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+----ll---+--+---+--+------l 0.0 +---++---+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+---+--+------l 1 3/4 3J3/4 503/4 703/4 9J3/4 1 J03/4 1103/4 1- 03/4 b03/4 True Survey Unit Concentration (percent of DCGL)

Click anywhere on the graph to update the power curve using newly entered parameter values Exit Program I

Split Sample #007 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 60 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOLOJ Survey Unit No.:

9 urvey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Arca inside the RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBPl>-FSSP-NOLO 1-09-0 I Sample Measurement Location: 11007 Sample

Description:

Comparison of split sample; collected from sample measurement location #007 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard count and the oiT-site is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard I cr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Acti~ity Uncerlainty Activity (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)=(l)/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 4.58 0.48 10 0.6 1.66 4.17 0.18 0.91 y

Pb-212 0.21 0.03 7

0.5 2

0.24 O.Ql l.13 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Tnblc 1 is provided to show ncccptnncc critcrin to nsscss split ~nmplcs.

NIA Resolution (cl)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaptison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 l.18 Performed By:

Gordon Madison Date:

11/25/2019 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake 1l/25/2019 Signature: ~

a5(/

Signaiure:

All L '4~

• v

/ffN/.,,OV/ '

Split Sample #014 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 61 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 S11lit Sample Assessment Form Survey Arca No.: NOL0 I Survey Unit No.:

9 Survey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Are.1 inside the RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBPl'-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-0 I Sample Measurement Location: #014 Sample

Description:

Comparison of split samples collected fr:im ;ample measurement location #014 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard coum and the off-site is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard

!cr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Activity Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity Uncertainty (a)

(b) c_c)

( d)=(b )/( c)

(e)

(I)

(g)

(h)=(f)/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 4.1 1

<>.39 11 0.6 1.66 4.86 0.19 1.18 y

Pb-2 12 0.22 0.02 10 0.6 J.66 0.27 0.01 1.21 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table I is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

NIA Resolution Cdl Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Gordon Madis:)n Date:

11/25/2019 Concurrence by: Marshal! Blake Date:

11/25/2019 Signature: C'--~

Signature: !-'1/1,1;:/ ~

l I/JI/NV

Recount Sample #003 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 62 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Recount Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOL0 I Survey Unit No.:

9 urvey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Area inside the RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-01 Sample Measurement Location: #003 Sample

Description:

Duplicate count comparison from sample 111easure111en1 location #003 and am1lyzed using gamma spectroscopy by 1he on-site laboratory. The original count result is the standard count and the recount is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON I

Radionuclide Standard lcr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity Uncerfainly Activity (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(e)

(t)

(g)

Oi)=(f)/(b) f'{IN)

K-40 4.12 0.98 4

0.5 2

3.72 0.43 0.90 y

Co-60 0.28 O.o3 11 0.6 1.66 0.28 0,03 1.00 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table I is provided to show acceptance criteria for sample recounts.

NIA Resolution (d)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Gordon Madison Date:

11/25/2019 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake Date:

11/25/2019 Signature: ~

Signature: l~,1,///L

/}'//Y/,;?fu '----

Recount Sample #006 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 63 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Recount Sample Assessment Form Survey Arca No.: NOL0 I Survey Unit No.:

9 Survey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Area inside the RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-0 I Sample Measurement Location: 11006 Sample

Description:

Recount comparison of sample collected from measurement location #006 analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by the on-site laboratory. The on-site resuln is the standard count and the recount is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard lcr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity U11cer1ai111y Activity (a)

(b)

(,;:)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(e)

(()

(g)

(h)~(()/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 4.65 0.51 9

0.6 1.66 5.05 0.53 1.09 y

Pb-212 0.26 0.03 8

0.6 1.66 0.22 0,03 0.84 y

Comments/Corrective Acl-ions:

Table I i$ provided lo sho\\v acceptance criteria to asseSs sample recounts.

NIA Resolution (d}

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Perfonned By:

Gordon :'>1adison Date:

l 1/25/2019 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake Date:

11/25/2019 Signature: ~

Signature: 1111.W~

r__,,

~

ORISE Split Sample #020I FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 64 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Arca No.: NOL0I jsurvey Unit No.:

9 Survey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Area inside the RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBf'P-FSSP-NOL0l-09-01 Sample Measurcmcm Location: ~0201 Sample

Description:

ComparisCln of split samples collected from invcsLigation :1/4tmple mcasu,*cment loc;ition #201 and analyzed using liquid scintillation spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory.

The on-site rcsull is the standard count and the ORlSE resull from Split S0021 is the comparison. No 01hcr plant-derived radionuclidcs were idcnlificd in the on-site gamma analysis results for comparison. ORISE result provided from Appendix B: Data Tables ofDCN 5272-SR-03-0 I-lumboldt Bay Confimiatory Survey Report April 2018 STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard lG Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Activity Comparison Error Comparison Ra.titl Acceptable chosen Activity Uncer1ainly (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(e)

(I)

(g)

(h)=(l)(b)

(YIN)

Co-60 0, 11 0.02 6

0.5 2

0,13 0.Ql l.1 8 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

NIA Resolution (d)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Ma.--:

Min Ma.--:

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 l.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Gordon Madison _

Date:

11/25/20 19 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake Dale:

11/25/2019 Signature: ~Oji Signature: JJt!l/1/-z r,,,,..__

(,P?~

ORISE Split Sample #022I FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 65 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOLO I Jsurvey Unit No.:

9 Survey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Arca inside 1he RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-0 I Sample Measurement Location: 110221 Sample

Description:

Comparison ofsplil samples collected from investigation sample measuremcn1 location 1/221 and analyzed using gamma spce1roscopy by an olf-s i1e vendor laboratory. The on*si1e result is the standard count and the ORISE rcsull from Split S0023 is the comparison. CRISE results provided from Appendix 13: Data Tables of DCN 5272-SR-03-0 Humboldt Bay Confirmatory Survey Repon April 2018. No plant-derived radionuclides were identified in the on-site gamma analysis results for comparison.

STANDARD COMPARJSON Radionuclide Standard lcr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Activity Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Acti"ity Uncertainty (a)

(b)

(e)

(d)=(b)/(e)

(e)

(t)

(g)

(h)=(f)/(b)

(YIN)

H-3 11.24 0.06 200 0.8 1.25 10.30 0.77 0.92 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

NIA Resolution Id)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Perfonned By:

Gordon Madison Date:

11/25/2019 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake Date:

I 1/25/2019 Signature: C"r afnl

~

Signature: "JP/11-#£.c?

ORISE Split Sample #023B FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 66 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey i\\rca No.: NOL0I

~ urvey Unit No.:

9 Survey Unit Name: NOL Open Land Area inside lhe RA (Caisson)

Sample Plan No.: 1-1 OPP-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-0 I Sample Measurement Location: #0238 Sample

Description:

Comparison or split samples collected li*om biased sample measurement location #23B and analyzed using liquid scintillation spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard count and the ORISE result from Split S0022 is the comparison. No other plant-derived radionuclides were identified in the on-site gamma analysis results for comparison. ORISE result provided rrom Appendix B: Data Tables ofDCN 5272-SR-03-0 Humboldt Bay Confiimatory Survey Report April 2018 STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard lo Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Activity Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity U11ccrtainty (a)

(b)

(c)

( d)=(b )/( c)

(e)

(I)

(g)

(h )=( 1)/(b)

(YIN)

Co-60 0.52 0.04 15 0.6 1.66 0.56 0.02 1.07 y

Cs-137 0.29 0.03 9

0.6 l.66 0.19 0.0 1 0.66 y

Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria to assess split samples.

NIA Resolution (d)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Ma'<

Min Ma'<

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 5 1 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Gordon Madison Date:

11/25/20 19 Concurrence by: Marshall Blake Dale:

J 1/25/20 19 Signature:

Signature: 17J!£~

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 67 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

\\1fl. OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR

~I SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

,\\pcil 4, 2018 Mr. John Htclun,,n U.S. Nuclc:u* Rcgulacory Commission Office oif Nuclear ~hrcml Safcry and Safrguanls Di11ision of Decommissioning. L'1-:inium Recovery, and Waste Programs Rcnctor Decommissjoning Br:,nch Mnil Stop: TSFS I 1545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT:

INDEPENDENT CONFlRMATORY SURVEY

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS FOR SURVEY UNITS OOLl0-14 AND NOL0l-09 AT THE HUl\\lIBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT, EUREKA, CALIFORNIA (RFTA NO.18-005); DCN 5272-SR-03-0

Dear Mr. Hickm.111:

The Oak Ridge [1lStiru1e for Science and Education (ORJSE) is pleased co provide the cndo~cd ftn:il rcporr dccailing cbc independent confirmatory survci* activities of survey units OOLI0-14, remainder of bnd area (parking lot.A). :111d NOLOl -09. open bnd area inside the resrricrcd area (caisson), ac chc Humboldt Bay Power Plane in Eureka, Catifornb. This rcporc provides che summary and rcsulcs of act.i,*itics pccformcd by ORJSE dunng the period ofJanu:iry 9-11, 2018.

You may com:icr me at 865.576.6659 if rou ha,*c :1ni* questions.

Sincerely,

{!f!.!73~

Survey a.nd Tc~hnical Projcc~ G roup t\\l:inagcr OR.AU ASO:Kt\\[I;:'.: lw decu-onic distcibucion:

L. Gerscy, 1 RC T. C:irrcr, NRC File/5272 S. Robcris, OR,\\ U D. 11:igcmcycr, ORAU

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 68 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Table B.1. ORISE Soil Sample Results (pCi/g)

ROC 5272S0021 5272S0022 5272S002.3 Concentration MDC Concentration MDC C-0ncentration MDC Am-241 0.0081 +/- 0.0080 0.0060 0.016

+/-

0.011 0.006 0.0019 +/- 0.0037 0.0057 C-14 0.35

+/-

0.83 1.41 0.76

+/-

085 1.42

-0.53

+

0.86*

1.51 Cm-243/244 0.0020 + 0.0040 0.0060

-0.0019 +/- 0.0038 0.0186

-0.0019 +/- 0.0037 0.0182 Cm-245 0.023 +/- 0.068 0.164 O.OOL

+/- 0.0-14 0.138 0.027

+/-

0.079 0.188 Co-60 0.130

+

0.028 0.039 0.562

+

0.047 0.024 O.OLO

+

0.011 0.028 Cs-137 0.048 +/- 0.016 0029 0.190

+/- 0.024 0.029 0.051

+/-

0.013 0.022 Eu-152 0.000

+/- 0.035 0.076 0.008

+/-

0.027 0.064

-0.009 +/-

0.029 0.067 E.u-154

-0.091 +/- 0.077 0.144 0.013

+/-

0.045 0.129

-0.007

+/-

0.033 0.103 H-3 088

+/-

0 98 1.64 0.3 1

+

0.96 1.65 10.3

+/-

1.5 1.8 Nb-94

-0.007 +/-

O.Q15 0.031 0.003

+/-

0.014 0.029

-0.002

+

0.010 0.022 Ni-59

-9.93

+/-

7.21 1 I. I 1.51

+/-

6.31 12.7 0.00

+/-

4.12 3.28 Ni-63 0.37

+

0.42 0.7 1 0.89

+

0.42 0.68 0.58

+

0.43 0.71 No-237 0.0078 + 0.0076 0.0058 0.000

+ 0.0040 0.0061 0.0041

+ 0.0030 00196 Pu-238 0.0 17 +/-

0.011 0.006 0.027

+

0.015 0.006 0.016

+/- 0.011 0.006 Pu-239/240 0.0058 +/- 0.0066 0.0058 0.014

+/-

0.01 I 0.006 0.006 1 +/- 0.0090 0.0196 Pu-24'1 0.8

+

1.9 3.2

-0.6

+

1.9 3.4 1.7

+

2.1 3.5 Sr-90

-0.06

+/-

0.16 0.3 1 0.07

+/-

0.17 0.30

-0.06

+/-

0.17 0.32 Tc-99 0.05

+

0.47 0.$3

-0.07

+

0.48 0.85

-0.09

+

0.47 0.83 SOF*

0.12 0.3(,

0.03

• The SOf's wecc calculated using the most conserv:iovc DCGL for Cm-243/244 :ind Pu-239/ 24().

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 69 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900003 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13l l, NOL0l-09-001-F ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Cti*nt ~latril::

Soil R.ttein Datt: January 18, :018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January ! 4, :018 Sample De-;cription:

HTD.,

2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

l.91E-0l 2.30E.Ol 3.79E.Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.31E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

l.16E->-Ol l.45E->-01 2.35E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol l.46E->-01 pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-l.09E-0l 4.32E.(ll 7.27E.Ol l.16E->-OO 4.3 lE-01 pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.13E->-Ol 2.62E->-Ol 4.49E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.62E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

2.09E-02 l.04E.Ol l.95E.Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.04E-0l pCi/g Pu-239n4o 01/22/18 u

2.09E-02 l.04E.Ol l.95E.Ol 2.51E->-OO l.04E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

l.13E-0l l.33E.Ol l.44E.Ol 2.41E->-OO l.34E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/IS u

-7.ME-03 6.IIE.02 l.42E.ol 2.S0E->-00 6.12E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/20/18 u

l.63E-0l l.66E.(ll l.64E.Ol l.64E->-OO l.67E-0l pCi/g G:uxuna Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

5.llE->-00 6.81E->-OO l.45E->-Ol l.SJE->-02 7.21E->-OO pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

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

~- Air somple,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL connris the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the ?\\!DC and LLD.

UI Unu*rtain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your pl'Oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 70 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL S:unpJe ID:

441900004 Client: Pad6<' Cas and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13Z3: NOL0l-09-00l-f ColJe<'t Date: January 11, : 018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January !4, !018 Sample De-;<'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

l.51E-0l 2.29E--Ol 3.lSE--01 6.07E-Ol 2.29E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

1.?;E->-O0 7.32E->-OO l.22E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 7.32E->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-6.64E-0l 4.16E--Ol 7.lSE--01 l.16E->-OO 4.16E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.58E->-Ol 3.04E->-Ol 5.23E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.04E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-238 01/20/18 u

l.12E-02 l.17E--Ol 2.44E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.1 7E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-7.68E-02 9.66E--02 3.23E--Ol 2.51E->-OO 9.67E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

2.82E-02 U ?E--01 3.00E--01 2.41E->-OO l.57E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

6.84E-02 l.SSE--01 3.26E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.89E-0l pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/20/18 u

6.20E-02 l.74E--Ol l.86E--Ol l.64E->-OO l.?;E-01 pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 UI 2.57E->-Ol 2.51E->-Ol 2.57E->-Ol l.SJE->-02 2.52E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the ?\\!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your proje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is le.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 71 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road Cha~eston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

44190000$

Client: Padfi<' C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13!4: NOLOl-09-003-f ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Recein Date: January 1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

3.90E-02 2.72E--Ol 4.56E--Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.72E-Ol pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

-3.51E-Ol l.13E+Ol l.90E+Ol 6.94E+Ol l.13E+Ol pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

5.12E-Ol 3:)SE--01 6.52E--Ol l.16E+OO 4.03E-Ol pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

l.26E+Ol 2:)?E+Ol 4.87E+Ol 8.29E+Ol 2.9SE;-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

2.70E-02 U lE--01 l.lOE--01 2.SOE;-OO l.OlE-01 pCi/g Pu-239n4o 01/22/18 u

-S.51E-03 7.l4E--02 l.lOE--01 2.51E;-OO 7.35E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

6.89E-02 l.lOE--01 l.52E--Ol 2.41E;-OO l.lOE-01 pCi/g Cm-243n 44 01/22/18 u

7.56E-03 7:)0E--02 l.65E--Ol 2.SOE;-OO 7.91E-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/22/18 u

5.51E-02 U SE--01 l.50E--Ol l.64E;-OO l.09E-Ol pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 UI 3.63E;-Ol 659E+Ol 3.63E+Ol l.83E;-02 6.60E;-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~Wes are cakulated a-posteriori YaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arge-t isotope-was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please-see case nan-atin, data summary pack..'lgt or contact your project muage-r for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 72 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900006 Client: Padfi<' C :\\$ and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13!5: NOL0l-09-004-f ColJe<'t Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Re<'ein Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January ! 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs

? Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-4.UE-03 2.26E--Ol 3.79E--Ol 6.O7E-Ol 2.26E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

-2.17E->-OO 6.72E->-OO l.14E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 6.72E->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-3.89E-0l 4.19E--Ol 7.14E--Ol l.16E->-OO 4.19E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-7.26E->-OO 3.64E->-Ol 6.17E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.64E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

3.6SE-03 l.69E--Ol 3.72E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.69E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

l.47E-02 l.6SE--Ol 3.57E--Ol 2.SlE->-00 l.6SE-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

-4.l0E-02 9.49E--02 2.SlE--01 2.41E->-OO 9.51E-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

S.SSE-02 l.71E--Ol 2.77E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 1.71E-0l pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/20/18 u

7.42E-02 l.71E--Ol 2.70E--Ol l.64E->-OO 1.71E-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-6.00E->-00 l.19E->-Ol l.S5E->-Ol l.SJE->-02 l.23E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: l. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

....--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: 1lJ Target isotope-was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

11.JI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

l\\f Reported result is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 73 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900007 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13!6: NOL0l-09-001,.f ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ?l.b.trix:

Soil Recein Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January !4, !018 Sample De$criution:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity U1uertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-5.72E-02 2.23E--Ol 3.76E--Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.23E-0l pCi/g Ni~ 3 01/23/18 u

2.60E-02 7.72E+OO l.30E+Ol 6.94E+Ol 7.72E+OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-l.52E-0l 4.39E--Ol 7.42E--Ol l.16E+OO 4.39E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

7.51E+O0 2.76E+Ol 4.57E+Ol 8.29E+Ol 2.76E+Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

5.75E-02 l.30E--Ol 2.24E--Ol 2.S0E+OO l.31E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-6.00E-02 l.04E--Ol 2.94E--Ol 2.51E+OO l.04E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

4.2SE-02 9.84E--02 l.56E--Ol 2.41E+OO 9.85E-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

-2.00E-02 6.04E--02 l.l0E--01 2.S0E+OO 6.05E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/20/18 u

S.90E-02 l.2SE--Ol l.55E--Ol l.64E+OO l.29E-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

9.46E+O0 l.64E+Ol 3.05E+Ol l.83E+02 1.70E+Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\.ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spettroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your project manager for derails.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 74 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL S:unpJe ID:

441900008 Client: Pa<'i6<' C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13Z7: NOL0l-09-006-f ColJect Date: January 11, :018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Rectin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Recefred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De-;cription:

HTD.,

2 Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

5.64E-02 2.26E--Ol 3.lSE--01 6.07E-Ol 2.26E-0l pCi/g Ni-63 01/23/18 u

2.llE->-00 l.lOE->-01 l.SJE->-01 6.94E->-Ol l.l0E->-01 pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-3.39E-0l 4.l4E--Ol 7.05E--Ol l.16E->-OO 4.14E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

3.67E->-O0 2.67E->-Ol 4.46E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.67E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

3.63E-02 l.24E--Ol 2.J0E--01 2.S0E->-00 1.24E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

2.79E-03 l.2SE--Ol 2.82E--Ol 2.51E->-OO l.2SE-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

-S.6SE-02 l.09E--Ol 3.65E--Ol 2.41E->-OO l.09E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

l.32E-0l 2.&0E--01 5.0lE--01 2.SOE->-00 2.81E-0l pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/22/18 u

1.43E-0l 2.06E--Ol 2.4SE--Ol l.64E->-OO 2.07E-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-6.41E->-OO l.22E->-Ol l.51E->-Ol l.83E->-02 l.25E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs an* a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arge-t isotope-was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 75 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL Sample ID:

441900001 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Ctient Sample ID: FSS-13!8: NOLOl 007-F-S ColJect Date: January 11, ! 0 18 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Recein Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January l 4, ! 0 18 Sample De$cription:

gauuna Isotope G:uxuna Spec Be-7 Na-22 K-40 Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-56 Co-57 Co-58 Co~ 0 Zn-65 Y-88 Zt*-95 Nb-94 Nb-95 Ru-106 Ag-II Om Sn-113 Sb-124 Sb-125 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-133 Ba-140 Ce-139 Ce-141 Ce-144 Nd-147 Pm-144 Pm-146 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 h*-192

? Sigma Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 u

UI u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u UI u

u l.14E-03 l.20E-02 4.17E->-O0

-7.43E-02 2.32E-03 S.20E-0:1 5.25E-03

-l.45E-03 2.63E-03 7.7SE-03 l.42E-03 S.43E-0:1

-3.20E-03 3.lSE-03

-5.92E-O:I 4.75E-02

-2.82E-03 4.17E-03 6.9SE-03 S.9JE-0:1 7.92E-03

-6.13E-03 5.5JE-03

-1.3 JE-03 3.70E-03

-1.76E-03

-J.47E-O:I

-J.0JE-02 3.42E-02

-J.9JE-03 5.77E-03

-J.69E-02 3.73E-02 3.49E-03 6.57E-03 5.14E-02 J.95E.(12 3.53E-Ol 6.27E.(12 7.29E-03 J.3SE-02 6.4SE-03 6.72E.(13 6.47E.(13 6.93E-03 l.52E.(12 5.SSE-03 l.2IE-02 6.07E-03 S.60E-03 5.67E.(12 9.06E-03 7.43E-03 7.I0E-03 J.69E-02 l.3 IE-02 I.ISE-02 6.S7E-03 9.05E.(13 3.43E-02 6.54E-03 J.33E-02 5.S6E-02 6.50E-02 6.07E-03 S.09E-03 J.S9E-02 5.53E-02 3.37E.(12 6.0IE-03 Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are-cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

MDC S.69E-02 l.20E-02 6.S3E-02 9.67E-02 l.25E-02 2.26E-02 l.20E-02 l.16E-02 l.13E-02 1.4IE-02 2.50E-02 I.O:IE-02 l.92E-02 J.0SE-02 1.4IE-02 J.05E-Ol 1.4IE-02 l.34E-02 J.69E-02 2.SSE-02 l.57E-02 U0E-02 l.26E-02 J.36E-02 5.24E-02 l.12E-02 2.32E-02 9.16E-02 l.07E-Ol 9.59E-03 l.47E-02 2.97E-02 3.B E-02 5.40E-02 l.12E-02 LLD 3.4SE-0I 6.51E-0I 7.24E-0I 9.l7E-0I 8.62E-0I 2 Sigma TPU 5.14E-02 J.95E-02 5.13E-0I 7.13E-02 7.37E-03 J.3SE-02 6.9JE-03 6.76E-03 6.5SE-03 7.79E-03 l.52E-02 5.89E-03 l.22E-02 6.24E-03 S.60E-03 6.09E-02 9.15E-03 7.6SE-03 7.79E-03 J.69E-02 J.36E-02 l.21E-02 7.33E-03 9.07E-03 3.43E-02 6.59E-03 J.33E-02 5.8SE-02 6.69E-02 6.13E-03 S.52E-03 2.04E-02 6.17E-02 3.3SE-02 6.72E-03 Units pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg pCilg

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

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

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

M Reported result is t,.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 76 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL Sample ID:

441900001 Client: Padfi<' C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13!8: NOLOl-09-007-f-S ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ?l.fa.trix:

Soil Rec~n Date: January 1S, !018

\\mount oif Sample Re.refred:

Rep,ort Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

gauuna 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 01/19/18 u

3.39E-03 7.0lE--03 l.24E--02 7.lSE-03 pCi/g Tl-208 01/19/18 7.17E-02 l.SlE--02 l.20E--02 l.96E-02 pCi/g Pl,.210 01/19/18 UI 2.07E->-OO l.lOE+OO 2.0?E->-00 l.61E+OO pCi/g Pl,.212 01/19/18 2.39E-Ol 2.59E--02 2.15E--02 3.lSE-02 pCi/g Pb-214 01/19/18 2.27E-Ol 3.40E--02 2.JOE--02 3.83E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 01/19/18 UI 2.60E-Ol l.79E--Ol 2.60E--Ol 2.JSE-01 pCi/g Bi-214 01/19/18 l.71E-Ol 3.90E--02 2.5SE--02 4.32E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 01/19/18 3.JOE-01 6.35E--02 3.93E--02 6.87E-02 pCi/g Ac-228 01/19/18 3.JOE-01 6.35E--02 3.93E--02 6.87E-02 pCi/g Th-234 01/19/18 u

3.l3E-Ol S.S2E--Ol 7.60E--Ol S.86E-Ol pCi/g U-235 01/19/18 u

-3.24E-02 4.95E--02 S.39E--02 5.17E-02 pCi/g U-238 01/19/18 u

3.l3E-Ol S.S2E--Ol 7.60E--Ol S.86E-Ol pCi/g Np-237 01/19/18 u

2.61E-03 l.lSE--02 2.05E--02 l.OlE-01 l.lSE-02 pCi/g Ni,-239 01/19/18 u

2.15E-02 7.69E--02 l.24E--Ol 7.76E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/19/18 u

-4.0JE-02 6.47E--02 9.12E--02 2.40E->-OO 6.76E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated ifrom a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted ab.on the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('kage or ('Oota('t your proje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is t,.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 77 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-$171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900009 Client: Pa<'i6c Cns and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13Z8: NOL0l-09-007-f ColJe<'t Date: January 11, : 018 Client ?l.b.trix:

Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018 Amount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January ! 4, !018 Sample De*miption:

HTD.,

2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-2.23E-03 2.24E--Ol 3.76E--Ol 6.0?E-01 2.24E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

l.54E-0l 8.79E+OO l.47E+Ol 6.94E+Ol 8.79E+OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-3.76E-0l 4.44E--Ol 7.57E--Ol l.16E+OO 4.44E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.54E+Ol 2.51E+Ol 4.34E+Ol 8.29E+Ol 2.51E+Ol pCi/g Alpha Sp,e<

Pu-238 01/20/18 u

3.08E-02 l.05E--Ol l.95E--Ol 2.SOE->-00 l.05E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-3.43E-02 9.30E--02 2.4SE--Ol 2.51E+OO 9.3 lE-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

5.59E-02 l.28E--Ol 2.03E--Ol 2.41E+OO l.29E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

0.O0E+O0 7.30E--02 l.09E--Ol 2.80E+OO 7.32E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/20/18 u

8.41E-02 l.44E--Ol l.26E--Ol l.64E->-OO l.45E-0l pCi/g C :iD!llna Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-l.49E+Ol 4.60E+Ol 7.26E+Ol l.83E+02 4.65E+Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\.ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your project manager for d,rails.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 78 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556.S171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900010 Client: Pacific G:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13!9: NOLOl-09-008-f ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Recein Date: January 1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs

? Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-1.21E-02 2.231!-01 3.751!-0l 6.071!-0l 2.231!-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

6.97E->-OO S.l4E+OO l.31E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol S.24E+OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-4.97E-Ol 4.57E-0l 7.SlE-01 l.l6E->-OO 4.57E-Ol pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-S.3SE->-OO 2.72E->-Ol 4.64E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.72E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

l.60E-02 l.91E-0l 3.99E-0l 2.SOE->-00 l.91E-Ol pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-S.34E-02 l.5SE-0l 4.l7E-0l 2.51E->-OO l.SSE-01 pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

-2.llE-02 6.36E-02 l.79E-0l 2.41E->-OO 6.37E-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

O.OOE->-00 5.S2E-02 S.66E-02 2.SOE->-00 5.83E-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/20/18 u

5.90E-02 l.l6E-0l l.6lE-0l l.64E->-OO l.l6E-Ol pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-9.20E->-OO l.3SE->-Ol l.91E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 l.44E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arge-t isotope-was analyzed for but not detected abon the ?\\!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

M Reported result is l,ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 79 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900011 Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1330, NOL0l-09-009-F ColJe<'t Date: January 11, :018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January !4, :018 Sample De-;<'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-l.12E-0l 2.22E-Ol 3.78E-Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.22E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

9.17E->-OO 7.89E->-OO l.26E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 8.07E->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-4.77E-01 4.J0E-01 7.36E-Ol l.16E->-OO 4.J0E-01 pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

l.12E->-Ol 3.38E->-Ol 5.59E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.39E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-238 01/20/18 u

-2.0lE-02 8.90E-02 2.32E-Ol 2.S0E->-00 8.92E-02 pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

2.ISE-02 l.21E-Ol 2.32E-Ol 2.51E->-OO l.21E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

5.73E-02 l.27E-Ol 2.23E-Ol 2.41E->-OO l.27E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

-6.52E-03 5.63E-02 l.J0E-01 2.S0E->-00 5.63E-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/20/18 u

l.19E-0l l.40E-Ol U lE-01 l.64E->-OO l.41E-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

l.84E->-OO l.76E->-Ol 3.lSE->-01 l.83E->-02 l.77E->-01 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('ertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spe('ifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pt'oje('t manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 80 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

4419000ll Client: Pacific C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1331, NOD0l-09-010-F ColJect Date: Jauu:u1c-11, !018 Client ~b.trix; Soil Recein Date: Jauua~-

1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: Jauu:u1c-l4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTD.s 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/23/18 u

9.58E-02 2.25E.()l 3.74E.Ol 6.0?E-01 2.2;E.0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

-2.99E->-OO l.04E->-Ol l.77E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol l.04E->-Ol pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-4.20E-0l 4.32E.()l 7.JSE.01 l.16E->-OO 4.32E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.19E->-Ol 3.05E->-Ol 5.22E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.0;E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

-2.56E-02 l.74E.Ol 4.12E.Ol 2.SOE->-00 l.74E-0l pCi/g Pu-2391240 01/22/18 u

l.OlE-01 l.S9E.Ol 2.97E.Ol 2.51E->-OO l.90E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

-6.2;E-03 9.JSE.02 2.19E.Ol 2.4-lE->-OO 9.39E-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

-6.16E-03 9.25E.()2 2.16E.Ol 2.SOE->-00 9.26E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/22/18 u

9.0lE-02 l.43E.Ol l.9SE.Ol l.64E->-OO l.44E-0l pCi/g Cau:um Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

4.60E->-OO 5.J0E->-00 l.26E->-Ol l.SJE->-02

.?lE->-00 pCi/g Notes

1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori,*alues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated fl'Om a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\.ir sample,*olume.'So are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('ertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spe('ifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pt'oje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is l ess than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 81 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900013 Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-133l, NOL0l-09-011-F ColJe<'t Date: January 11, : 018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January !4, : 018 Sample De-;<'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/23/18 u

2.2;E-02 2.23E-Ol 3.73E-Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.23E-0l pCi/g Ni-63 01/23/18 u

6.02E->-OO 9.34E->-OO U 2E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 9.41E->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-2.74E-0l 4.49E-Ol 7.62E-Ol l.16E->-OO 4.49E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

7.8SE->-OO 3.lOE->-01 5.15E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.llE->-01 pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

7.79E-02 U 5E-Ol 2.;2E-Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.5;E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

.;J;E-02 l.21E-Ol 3.31E-Ol 2.51E->-OO l.22E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

7.43E-02 l.07E-Ol l.29E-Ol 2.41E->-OO l.07E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

2.02E-02 757E-02 l.27E-Ol 2.S0E->-00 7.5SE-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/22/18 u

l.09E-0l l.37E-Ol l.llE-01 l.64E->-OO l.3SE-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/23/18 u

-l.92E->-Ol 2.53E->-Ol 3.77E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 2.6SE->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

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

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the ?\\!DC and LLD.

UI Uo('ertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spe('ifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pl'Oje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is le.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 82 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900014 Client: Patifi<' C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1333, NOL0l-09-0ll-F ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix; Soil Rectin Date: January 1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/23/18 u

l.40E-0l 2.23E.()l 3.69E.()l 6.0?E-01 2.24E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

6.8;E->-00 S.89E->-OO l.44E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol S.9SE->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-2.44E-0l 4.l4E.()l 7.0lE.()l l.16E->-OO 4.14E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-9.87E->-OO 2.29E->-Ol 3.93E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.29E->-Ol pCi/g Alpha Sp,e<

Pu-238 01/22/18 u

6.03E-02 l.33E.()l 2.05E.()l 2.SOE->-00 l.33E-0l pCi/g Pu-239n4o 01/22/18 u

6.84E-02 l.32E.()l l.79E.()l 2.51E->-OO l.32E-0l pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

-5.20E-02 9.84E.()2 2.60E.()l 2.41E->-OO 9.84E-02 pCi/g Cm-243n 44 01/20/18 u

l.2SE-02 7.12E.()2 l.36E.()l 2.SOE->-00 7.13E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/20/18 u

S.OlE-03 S.37E.()2 l.75E.()l l.64E->-OO S.3SE-02 pCi/g C :ilXIUla Spec Ni-59 01/23/18 u

6.24E->-OO l.65E->-Ol 2.96E->-Ol l.SJE->-02 l.6SE->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

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

.t..--\\.ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 83 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChM eston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900015 Client: Patifi<' C:u and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-133<, NOL0l-09-013-F ColJe<'t Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, : 018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January N, !018 Sample De$t'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthi ty Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 Ol/23/l8 u

8.02E-02 2.26E.(ll 3.76E.Ol 6.0?E-01 2.26E-0l pCilg Ni~ 3 Ol/23/l8 u

6.49E->-OO S.33E+OO l.35E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 8.42E+OO pCilg Tc-99 Ol/23/l8 u

-3.51E-0l 4.55E.(ll 7.73E.Ol l.16E+-OO 4.55E-0l pCilg Pu-241 Ol/23/l8 u

.J.47E->-01 2.59E->-Ol 4.63E->-Ol 8.29E+-Ol 2.59E->-Ol pCilg Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S Ol/20/l8 u

-5.83E-02 S.22E.02 2.69E.Ol 2.SOE+-00 8.23E-02 pCilg Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-l.94E-02 l.69E.Ol 3.75E.Ol 2.51E+-OO l.69E-0l pCilg Am-241 01/20/18 u

9.23E-02 l.63E.Ol 2.n E.Ol 2.41E+-OO l.64E-0l pCilg Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

4.62E-02 7.44E.02 2.37E.Ol 2.SOE+-00 7.45E-02 pCilg Cm.245/246 Ol/20/l8 u

6.55E-02 l.29E.Ol l.7SE.Ol l.64E+-OO l.29E-0l pCilg Gamma Spec Ni-59 Ol/23/l8 u

-3.70E-0l 6.57E+OO l.06E->-Ol l.S3E+-02 6.57E+OO pCilg Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are calculated a-posteriori yaJues.

j, Gamma spec,t1*oscopy analysis results are calculated ft'om a measurement using only one gamma energy tine.

.t..--\\ir sample n>lumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lgt or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

M Reported re;ult is less than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 84 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.ge l.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S*mplt ID:

44190000l Client: Pa<'i6c C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client S*mpl, ID: FSS-1335: NOLOl 014-F-S ColJect Date: January 11, :018 Client ?l.b.trix:

Soil Rectin Date: January 18, !018 Amount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De*m i ption:

gru:iuna Isotope Gamma Spec B,-7 Na-22 K-40 Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-56 Co-57 Co-58 Co~ O Zn-65 Y-88 Zt*-95 Nb-94 Nb-95 Ru-106 Ag-llOm Sn-113 Sb-124 Sb-125 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-133 Ba-140 Ce-139 Ce-141 Ce-144 Nd-147 Pm-144 Pm-146 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 h*-192 2 Sigma Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 0 1119/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

u u u u UI u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

-3.06E-02

-5.0SE-03 4.86E->-O0

-5.7SE-02 2.90E-03

-J.00E-02

-2.8SE-03

-2.93E-03 2.17E-03

-7.8SE-05 2.03E-02 5.4SE-03

-4.56E-03

-I.I0E-03

-1.14E-02

-4.40E-03 9.S6E-03 4.66E-03

-2.65E-03

-1.17E-02 l.62E-02

-6.57E-03

-J.67E-03

-2.03E-03 9.63E-03

-7.4SE-03

-6.84E-03

-2.42E-03

-J.97E-02 4.l0E-03 J.86E-03 3.87E-04

-J.33E-02 S.8SE-03 2.4SE-03 5.30E--02 7.62E--03 3.75E--01 5.50E--02 7.97E--03 J.46E--02 6.45E--03 5.J?..E--03 6.24E--03 7.6SE--03 I.S0E--02 5.41E--03 J.35E--02 5.69E--03 S.53E--03 5.59E--02 1.301:.--0l S.0IE--03 l.02E--02 U IE--02 U SE--02 l.34E--02 6.34E--03 l.09E--02 3.07E--02 6.51E--03 l.23E--02 4.S7E--02 5.S6E--02 5.84E--03 7.02E--03 J.S0E--02 2.19E--02 2.66E--02 6.14E--03 Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are-cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

MDC S.42E--02 l.13E--02 7.35E--02 S.74E--02 l.23E--02 2.23E--02 9.62E--03 9.31E--03 J.07E--02 l.2SE--02 3.23E--02 l.17E--02 2.IIE--02 9.IIE--03 l.16E--02 9.21E--02 l.C>tiE-02 1.45E--02 U0E--02 2.35E--02 l.62E--02 2.13E--02 I.0IE--02 J.32E--02 5.37E--02 9.92E--03 J.9SE--02 7.51E--02 9.43E--02 J.05E--02 l.23E--02 3.14E--02 3.2SE--02 4.59E--02 l.1 IE--02 LLD 3.4SE-01 6.51E-0I 7.24E-0I 9.l?E-01 8.62E-0I 2 Sigma TPU 5.4SE-02 7.97E-03 6.16E-0I 6.l0E-02 S.0SE-03 J.53E-02 6.5SE-03 5.87E-03 6.32E-03 7.6SE-03 2.03E-02 5.96E-03 1.37E-02 5.7JE-03 J.00E-02 5.60E-02 U SE-02 S.29E-03 J.03E-02 J.60E-02 J.87E-02 J.3SE-02 6.3SE-03 I.I0E-02 3.l0E-02 7.49E-03 l.27E-02 4.87E-02 5.92E-02 6.13E-03 7.07E-03 J.80E-02 2.27E-02 2.69E-02 6.25E-03 Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCifg pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 85 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

44190000l Client: Pa<'i6c C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1335: NOL0l-09-014-F-S ColJect Date: January 11, :018 Client ?l.b.trix:

Soil Rectin Date: January 18, !018 Amount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De*miption:

gru:iuna 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 01/19/18 u

2.86E-03 7.77E-03 I.ISE-02 7.8SE-03 pCi/g Tl-208 01/19/18 7.59E-02 l.7SE-02 I.I0E-02 l.89E-02 pCi/g Pl,.210 01/19/18 u

-6.42E-0I l.82E+OO 2.91E+O0 1.s;E+OO pCi/g Pl,.212 01/19/18 2.69E-0I 2.65E-02 l.9SE-02 3.54E-02 pCi/g Pb-214 01/19/18 2.S0E-01 3.73E-02 2.29E-02 4.27E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 01/19/18 3.72E-01 l.55E-01 l.33E-01 l.59E-0I pCi/g Bi-214 01/19/18 2.UE-01 3.63E-02 l.91E-02 4.0;E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 01/19/18 3.19E-0I 6.J0E-02 4.36E-02 6.96E-02 pCi/g Ac-228 01/19/18 3.19E-0I 6.J0E-02 4.36E-02 6.96E-02 pCi/g Th-234 01/19/18 u

4.59E-0I 6.45E-01 6.&0E-01 6.54E-0I pCi/g U-235 01/19/18 u

-9.19E-03 4.85E-02 7.99E-02 4.8;E-02 pCi/g U-238 01/19/18 u

4.59E-01 6.45E-01 6.S0E-01 6.54E-0I pCi/g Np-237 01/19/18 u

l.8;E-03 1.19E-02 2.IIE-02 I.0lE-01 1.19E-02 pCi/g Ni,-239 01/19/18 u

-2.9SE-02 6.24E-02 l.02E-01 6.39E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/19/18 u

.1.2; E-02 4.S?E-02 S.35E-02 2.40E..O0 4.90E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 86 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis GEL S:unpJe ID:

441900016 Client: Pa<'i6<' C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1335: NOL0l-09-014-f ColJect Date: January 11, :018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Rectin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Recefred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De-;cription:

HTD.,

2 Sigma 2 Sigma Lsotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/23/18 u

-5.34E-03 2.19E--Ol 3.6SE--Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.19E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

6.23E->-O0 9.06E->-OO l.4SE->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 9.13E->-OO pCi/g Tc-99 01/24/18 u

-4.16E-0l 4.lOE--01 7.00E--01 l.16E->-OO 4.l0E-01 pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.llE->-01 2.31E->-Ol 3.97E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.3 lE->-01 pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

7.90E-02 l.26E--Ol l.74E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 l.26E-0l pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-6.27E-03 9.41E--02 2.20E--Ol 2.51E->-OO 9.42E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/20/18 u

S.20E-03 S.57E--02 l.79E--Ol 2.41E->-OO S.5SE-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/20/18 u

-2.0SE-02 6.2SE--02 l.76E--Ol 2.SOE->-00 6.29E-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/20/18 u

l.26E-0l l.49E--Ol l.61E--Ol l.64E->-OO l.49E-0l pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/23/18 u

l.20E->-Ol 2.45E->-Ol 4.49E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 2.51E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs an* a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 87 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900017 Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1336, NOL0l-09-0lS-F ColJe<'t Date: January 11, :018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January ! 4, :018 Sample De-;<'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/23/18 u

5.05E-02 2.26E-Ol 3.77E-Ol 6.07E-Ol 2.26E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/23/18 u

l.22E->-OO l.02E->-Ol l.l0E->-01 6.94E->-Ol l.02E->-Ol pCi/g Tc-99 01/24/18 u

-3.29E-0l 4.41E-Ol 7.50E-Ol l.16E->-OO 4.41E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-4.84E->-OO 3.llE->-01 5.26E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 3.llE->-01 pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/20/18 u

-2.62E-02 7.91E-02 2.22E-Ol 2.S0E->-00 7.93E-02 pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/20/18 u

-6.llE-02 S.62E-02 2.S2E-Ol 2.51E->-OO S.63E-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

-4.85E-02 6.SJE-02 2.23E-Ol 2.41E->-OO 6.84E-02 pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

7.97E-03 S.33E-02 l.74E-Ol 2.S0E->-00 S.33E-02 pCi/g Cm.245/246 01/22/18 u

2.51E-02 9.41E-02 U SE-01 l.64E->-OO 9.42E-02 pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/23/18 u

-7.99E->-OO 2.94E->-Ol 4.95E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 2.96E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('ertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spe('ifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pt'oje('t manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 88 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChM eston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com CEL S:unpJe ID:

Client Sample ID:

Cti*nt ~latril::

441900011 FSS-1.H l, NOL0l-09-010-F-I Soil Certificate of Analysis Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledrit' Cor:np,i.ny C.:,IJe<'t Date: January 11, :018 Rt<'ein Datt: January 18, 1018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*-d:

R1tp,ort Date: January l4, !018 Sample De$t'ription:

gnuunn

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU G:uxuna Spec Be-7 01/19/18 u

-4.76E-02 6.57E-02 l.OOE-01 6.92E-02 Na-22 01/19/18 u

-6.05E-03 9.2SE-03 l.37E-02 9.69E-03 K-40 01/19/18 5.32E->-O0 3.97E-Ol 9.13E-02 6.67E-0l Cr-51 01/19/18 u

-4.34E-03 6.60E-02 l.12E-Ol 6.61E-02 Mn-54 01/19/18 u

l.17E-02 S.15E-03 l.59E-02 9.76E-03 Fe-59 01/19/18 u

-3.3 lE-03 l.85E-02 3.02E-02 l.86E-02 Co-56 01/19/18 u

-7.0JE-03 S.21E-03 l.26E-02 S.82E-03 Co-57 01/19/18 u

5.0lE-03 7.40E-03 l.24E-02 7.75E-03 Co-58 01119/18 u

2.21E-03 6.99E-03 l.24E-02 7.06E-03 Co~ 0 01/19/18 M

l.23E-0l 2.44E-02 l.55E-02 3.48E-01 2.72E-02 Zn-65 01/19/18 u

1.44E-02 l.87E-02 3.13E-02 l.9SE-02 Y-88 01/19/18 u

7.50E-04 4.60E-03 S.23E-03 4.61E-03 Z,*-95 01/19/18 u

l.05E-02 l.45E-02 2.45E-02 l.53E-02 Nb-94 01/19/18 u

3.40E-04 6.36E-03 l.l lE-02 6.51E-0l 6.3 7E-03 Nb-95 01/19/18 u

3.27E-03 l.05E-02 l.27E-02 l.06E-02 Ru-106 01/19/18 u

-2.02E-02 7.53E-02 l.lSE-01 7.59E-02 Ag-llOm 01/19/18 u

7.83E-03 l.04E-02 l.92E-02 l.l0E-02 Sn-113 01/19/18 u

l.76E-03 9.16E-03 l.56E-02 9.20E-03 Sb-124 01/19/18 u

-l.56E-03 9.64E-03 l.54E-02 9.67E-03 Sb-125 01/19/18 u

-l.J0E-02 l.91E-02 2.95E-02 2.00E-02 Cs-134 01/19/18 u

l.46E-02 9.2SE-03 l.83E-02 l.14E-02 Cs-136 01/19/18 u

-4.26E-03 l.64E-02 2.65E-02 l.65E-02 Cs-137 01/19/18 M

4.52E-02 l.6SE-02 l.34E-02 7.24E-0l l.72E-02 Ba-133 01/19/18 u

2.20E-04 l.03E-02 l.56E-02 l.0JE-02 Ba-140 01/19/18 u

5.79E-03 3.6SE-02 6.14E-02 3.69E-02 Ce-139 01/19/18 u

-2.69E-03 S.14E-03 l.27E-02 S.25E-03 Ce-141 01/19/18 u

l.23E-02 l.62E-02 2.72E-02 1.71E-02 Ce-144 01/19/18 u

-6.74E-03 5.69E-02 9.l0E-02 5.70E-02 Nd-147 01/19/18 u

2.20E-02 6.39E-02 l.l0E-01 6.47E-02 Pm-144 01/19/18 u

3.44E-03 6.46E-03 l.lSE-02 6.65E-03 Pm-146 01/19/18 u

l.07E-02 9.47E-03 l.74E-02 l.07E-02 Eu-152 01/19/18 u

9.24E-03 2.12E-02 3.71E-02 9.l?E-01 2.16E-02 Eu-154 01/19/18 u

-l.80E-02 2.63E-02 3.84E-02 8.62E-0l 2.76E-02 Eu-155 01/19/18 u

l.00E-02 3.lSE-02 5.2SE-02 3.22E-02 h*-192 01/19/18 u

-l.JSE-03 7.52E-03 l.26E-02 7.55E-03 Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gilmma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample *,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them a.s m3.

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

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

M Reported t'esult is l,.ss than the LLD and greater tihan the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 89 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900011 Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1341, NOL0l-09-010-F-I ColJe<'t Date: January 11, :018 Client ?l.b.trix; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018 Amount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January !4, :018 Sample De*miption:

grunma 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 01/19/18 u

-3.59E-03 S.06E.03 l.34E.02 S.23E-03 pCilg Tl-208 01/19/18 S.23E-02 l.83E.02 l.31E.02 l.96E-02 pCilg Pb-210 01/19/18 u

l.lSE->-00 2.42E->-OO 4.ISE->-00 2.49E->-OO pCi/g Pb-212 01/19/18 2.74E-0l 3.07E.02 2.49E.02 3.94E-02 pCi/g Pb-214 01/19/18 250E-0l 3.lSE-02 2.79E.02 4.30E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 01/19/18 UI 2.60E-0l l.26E.Ol 2.60E.Ol l.92E-0I pCi/g Bi-214 01/19/18 2.27E-0l 3.56E.02 2.IIE-02 4.03E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 01/19/18 3.04E-0l 7.83E.02 S.33E.02 S.34E-02 pCi/g Ac-228 01/19/18 3.04E-0l 7.83E.02 S.33E.02 S.34E-02 pCi/g Th-234 01/19/18 u

5.96E-0l S.60E.Ol S.S0E-01 S.72E-0I pCi/g U-235 01/19/18 u

5.72E-02 6.22E.02 l.OSE-01 6.24E-02 pCi/g U-238 01/19/18 u

5.96E-0l S.60E.Ol S.S0E-01 S.72E-0I pCi/g Ni,-237 01/19/18 u

2.66E-03 l.4SE.02 2.50E.02 l.OlE-01 1.45E-02 pCi/g Np-239 01/19/18 u

l.49E-02 7.9SE.02 l.21E.Ol S.OIE-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/19/18 u

-2.32E-02 7.00E-02 l.lSE-01 2.40E->-OO 7.0SE-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-post,eriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analys is resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\.ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U Target isotope-was aualyze-d for but not de-tt('ttd abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('trtain identification for gamma spt('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spt('ifi(' qualifier-please-see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lgt or ('Onta('t your pt'oje-ct manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 90 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900018 Client: Pa<'i6c C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1341: NOL0l-09-0:0-F-I ColJect Date: January 11, :018 Client ?l.b.trix:

Soil Rectin Date: January 18, !018 Amount of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l4, !018 Sample De*miption:

HTD.,

2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-l.60E-02 2.66E--Ol 4.47E--Ol 6.07E-0l 2.66E-0l pCi/g Ni-63 01/23/18 u

-l.36E->-O0 l.13E->-Ol l.91E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol l.13E->-Ol pCi/g Tc-99 01/23/18 u

-6.46E-02 3.57E--Ol 6.02E--Ol l.16E->-O0 3.57E-0l pCi/g Pu-241 01/23/18 u

-l.22E->-Ol 2.41E->-Ol 4.16E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.41E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

-5.92E-02 S.34E--02 2.73E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 S.35E-02 pCi/g Pu-239/240 01/22/18 u

-2.39E-02 l.0SE--01 2.73E--Ol 2.51E->-O0 l.0SE-01 pCi/g Am-241 01/22/18 u

2.3SE-03 l.09E--Ol 2.40E--Ol 2.41E->-O0 l.09E-0l pCi/g Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

-7.03E-03 6.06E--02 l.40E--Ol 2.S0E->-00 6.07E-02 pCi/g Cm-245/246 01/22/18 u

2.SSE-02 9.69E--02 l.63E--Ol l.64E->-O0 9.70E-02 pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-l.24E->-Ol 3.04E->-Ol 4.5SE->-Ol l.S3E->-02 3.09E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

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

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 91 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

4419000!2 Client Sample ID: FSS-13.Jl : NOL0l 0! 1-f-I Client: Padfi<' C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix:

Soil Recein Date: January 1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Recefred:

Report Date: January l4, !018 Sample De$cription:

gnuunn Lsotope G:uxuna Spec Be-7 Na-22 K-40 Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-56 Co-57 Co-58 Co~O Zn-65 Y-88 Z,*-95 Nb-94 Nb-95 Ru-106 Ag-llOm Sn-113 Sb-124 Sb-125 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-133 Ba-140 Ce-139 Ce-141 Ce-144 Nd-147 Pm-144 Pm-146 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 h*-192

? Sigma Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

u u u u u u

M u u u u u u u u u u u u

3.96E-02 l.97E-03 4.42E->-OO 3.3SE-02

-1.63E-03 l.96E-03

-7.92E-03

-1.57E-03

-4.lOE-03 3.89E-01 2.41E-02 l.99E-03

-3.33E-03 S.6SE-03

-6.44E-03 2.81E-02

-S.OOE-03 l.22E-02 4.04E-03 l.67E-02 1.49E-02

-4.20E-03 l.47E-01 9.33E-03 2.97E-02

-3.84E-04

-9.66E-03

-3.03E-02 2.50E-02 3.3SE-03 S.55E-03

-3.65E-03 5.60E-03 3.33E-02

-3.2SE-03 6.19E--02 S.06E--03 3.27E.(11 6.72E.(12 S.25E--03 l.96E.(12 7.85E.(13 6.73E--03 7.SOE--03 3.13E--02 2.25E.(12 4.45E.(13 l.3SE--02 6.69E--03 S.15E--03 5.75E.(12 1.15E.(12 9.5SE--03 l.20E--02 2.05E.(12 l.40E--02 l.79E--02 2.06E.(12 9.67E.(13 3.70E--02 7.2SE--03 l.29E--02 4.94E--02 7.62E.(12 6.69E--03 9.50E--03 2.19E--02 2.29E--02 3.6SE--02 7.32E.(13 Notes: 1. LLDs a:l'e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

MDC l.OSE--01 l.23E--02 7.22E--02 l.17E--01 l.37E--02 3.33E--02 l.21E--02 l.17E--02 l.27E--02 l.29E--02 3.75E--02 S.53E--03 2.32E--02 l.27E--02 l.31E--02 9.S3E--02 l.84E--02 l.74E--02 2.22E--02 3.60E--02 l.76E--02 2.95E--02 l.40E--02 l.5SE--02 6.50E--02 l.26E--02 2.17E--02 S.41E--02 l.2SE--01 l.09E--02 l.54E--02 3.45E--02 3.50E--02 4.43E--02 l.20E--02 LLD 3.4SE-01 6.51E-01 7.24E-01 9.17E-01 8.62E-01 2 Sigma TPU 6.45E-02 S.llE-03 5.49E-01 6.90E-02 S.2SE-03 l.97E-02 S.66E-03 6.77E-03 S.02E-03 4.89E-02 2.50E-02 4.55E-03 l.39E-02 7.7SE-03 S.67E-03 5.90E-02 l.21E-02 l.1 lE-02 l.22E-02 2.19E-02 l.56E-02 l.80E-02 2.3SE-02 l.06E-02 3.94E-02 7.2SE-03 l.36E-02 5.13E-02 7.71E-02 6.87E-03 l.03E-02 2.19E-02 2.3 lE-02 3.70E-02 7.47E-03 Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line.

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your project manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 92 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

4419000!2 Client: Pacific Cas and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Clieu t Sample ID: FSS-134l : NOLOl-09-011-F-I ColJe<'t Date: Jauu:u1* 11, :018 Ctieot ~latru:,

Soil Re(ein Date; January 18, :018

\\mou nt of Sample Re.refred:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$t'ription:

gauuna

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acith-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-2()3 01/19/18 u

-4.2;E-03 S.llE--03 l.33E--02 S.34E-03 pCilg Tl-208 01/19/18 6.7;E-02 l.67E--02 l.21E--02 l.76E-02 pCilg Pb-210 01/19/18 u

7.46E-Ol l.30E+OO 2.19E+OO l.34E+OO pCilg Pb-212 01/19/18 2.39E-Ol 252E--02 2.21E--02 3.20E-02 pCilg Pb-214 01/19/18 2.57E-Ol 3.36E--02 6.0SE--02 3.92E-02 pCilg Bi-2ll2 01/19/18 UI 2.44E-Ol 2.14E--Ol 2.44E--Ol 2.1;E-Ol pCilg Bi-2ll4 01/19/18 2.0;E-01 3.33E--02 2.35E--02 3.73E-02 pCilg Ra-228 01/19/18 2.7SE-Ol 7.26E--02 4.99E--02 7.74E-02 pCilg Ac-228 01/19/18 2.?SE-01 7.26E--02 4.99E--02 7.74E-02 pCilg Th-234 01/19/18 u

2.33E-Ol 4.95E--Ol 6.16E--Ol 4.9SE-Ol pCilg U-23.5 01/19/18 u

3.SOE-03 4.92E--02 854E--02 4.92E-02 pCilg U-23:S 01/19/18 u

2.33E-Ol 4.95E--Ol 6.16E--Ol 4.9SE-Ol pCilg Np-217 01/19/18 u

-3.33E-03 l.46E--02 2.42E--02 l.OlE-01 l.47E-02 pCilg Ni,-219 01/19/18 u

-2.s;E-02 654E--02 l.13E--Ol 6.67E-02 pCilg Am-241 01/19/18 u

l.IlE-02 5.14E--02 7.lSE--02 2.~0E+OO H6E-02 pCilg Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma enel'gy line..

.,,.--\\ir sample,*olumes an receh-ed in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack.1ge or contact your project manager for details.

M Reported result is 1,ss than th e LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 93 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

141900019 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-134l, NOL0l-09-0, 1-F-I ColJect Date: January 11, !018 C:ti*nt h htrh*:

nil R"""'~* D

1t*!.l

-,nu:-,ry* lS, '!ll11l

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

-9.30E-02 2.65E.()l 4.48E.()l 6.0?E-01 2.6;E.0l pCilg Ni~3 01/23/18 u

-B2E->-OO 9.93E->-OO l.71E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol 9.93E->-OO pCilg Tc-99 01/23/18 u

S.50E-02 4.05E.()l 6.77E.()l l.16E->-OO 4.0;E.0l pCilg Pu-241 01/23/18 u

l.9;E->-Ol 2.74E->-Ol 4.43E->-Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.77E->-01 pCilg Alpha Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

-S.l0E-03 6.99E.()2 l.62E.()l 2.SOE->-00 7.00E-02 pCilg Pu-239/240 01/22/18 u

-H ?E-02 7.99E.()2 2.61E.()l 2.51E->-OO S.OlE-02 pCilg Am-241 01/22/18 u

9.61E-02 l.94E.()l 3.42E.()l 2.41E->-OO l.94E-0l pCilg Cm-243/244 0 1/22/ 18 u

-156& 02 6.89E--02 l.S0E--01 2.SOE *OO 6.91E-02 pCilE Cm-245/246 01/22/18 u

l.06E-02 l.lOE.()l 2.30E.()l l.64E->-OO l.l0E-01 pCilg Cau:um Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

9.20E->-OO 3.77E->-Ol 6.94E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 3.79E->-Ol pCilg Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculattd from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack..'lge or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 94 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL Sample ID:

441900013 Client: Patifi<' G:\\$ and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1343: NOL0l-09-012--F-I ColJe<'t Date: January 11, ! 0 18 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: January 18, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January l 4, ! 0 18 Sample De$t'ription:

gauun a Isotope Gamma Spec B,-7 Na-22 K-40 Cr-51 Mn-54 f,.59 Co-56 Co-57 Co-58 Co~ O Zn-65 Y-88 Z,*-95 Nb-94 Nb-95 Ru-106 Ag-II Om Sn-113 Si,.124 Si,.125 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-133 Ba-140 c,.139 c,.J4J c,.J44 Nd-147 Pm-144 Pm-146 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 h*-192 2 Sigma Run Date Qualifier Acthity Uncertainty 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 01/19/18 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

u u u u

M u u u u u u u u u u u u

3.14E-02 4.4SE-03 4.8JE->-OO

-6.74E-03 7.35E-03

-5.0JE-03

-2.15E-03 2.7SE-03

-S.46E-03 4.50E-03 l.04E-02 l.34E-03

-S.25E-03 6.66E-03

-3.99E-04

-7.69E-02 l.29E-03 2.65E-03 3.02E-03 2.23E-02 3.IOE-03

-4.03E-04 3.02E-02

-J.09E-02

-J.57E-03

-2.40E-03

-9.09E-03

-5.5JE-04 2.66E-02 4.42E-03

-4.05E-03 l.72E-02 l.21E-02 7.4SE-03

-l.34E-04 7.52E.()2 J.03E.02 4.64E.Ol S.76E.02 9.55E.()3 J.9SE.02 7.63E.03 I.OOE.02 9.97E.()3 S.7SE.03 2.2SE.02 5.50E.03 J.6JE.02 S.66E.03 J.06E.()2 S.15E.02 l.47E.()2 J.03E.02 J.J JE.02 2.13E.02 J.06E.()2 J.6SE.02 l.94E.02 l.09E.02 4.06E.()2 7.2JE.03 J.56E.()2 5.29E.02 S.75E.02 S.37E.03 9.S5E.03 2.1'..E.02 2.92E.()2 3.J5E.()2 S.5SE.03 Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-pl'iori *rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

MDC J.36E.Ol l.90E.02 9.60E.02 J.39E.Ol J.77E.02 3.27E.02 1.17E.02 l.20E.02 l.09E.02 l.66E.02 3.83E.02 J.03E.02 2.39E.02 J.6JE.02 J.75E.02 1.17E.Ol 2.43E.02 J.S5E.02 2.IIE.02 3.57E.02 J.76E.02 2.90E.02 J.53E.02 l.4SE.02 6.9JE.02 1.17E.02 2.52E.02 S.95E.02 J.55E.Ol J.5JE.02 J.6JE.02 4.63E.02 5.37E.02 5.4SE.02 J.37E.02 LLD 3.4SE-OJ 6.5 IE-01 7.24E-OJ 9.J?E-01 8.62E-OJ 2 Sigma TPU 7.66E-02 J.05E-02 6.32E-OJ S.76E-02 I.OIE-02 2.00E-02 7.70E-03 J.OOE-02 J.07E-02 9.02E-03 2.33E-02 5.53E-03 J.65E-02 9.19E-03 J.06E-02 S.89E-02 l.47E-02 l.04E-02 I.I IE-02 2.14E-02 J.07E-02 J.6SE-02 J.97E-02 l.20E-02 4.06E-02 7.3 IE-03 l.61E-02 5.29E-02 S.83E-02 S.62E-03 J.OOE-02 2.83E-02 2.9SE-02 3.17E-02 S.5SE-03 Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis results are calculated ft'om a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL connrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pack.'lige or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 95 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900013 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13-13, NOL01-09-01l-F-I ColJect Date: January 11, !018 Client ~b.trix; Soil Recein Date: January 18, : 018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January l 4, !018 Sam ple De$cription:

gnuunn

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 01/19/18 u

-6.2IDOJ S.5JE.Q3 l.26E.02 9.0IE-03 pCi/g Tl-208 01/19/18 7.70E-02 2.24E.02 l.lSE.02 2.36E-02 pCi/g Pl,.210 01/19/18 u

9.16E-Ol l.67E+OO l.61E+OO l.67E+OO pCi/g Pl,.212 01/19/18 2.SOE-01 3.12E.02 2.52E.02 3.76E-02 pCi/g Pb-214 01/19/18 2.44E-Ol S.14E.02 7.91E.02 5.53E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 01/19/18 u

2.85E-Ol l.44E.Ol 3.02E.Ol l.95E-OI pCi/g Bi-214 01/19/18 2.47E-Ol 4.77E.02 2.70E.02 5.35E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 01/19/18 l.96E-Ol S.82E.02 S.87E.02 8.97E-02 pCi/g Ac-228 01/19/18 l.96E-Ol S.82E.02 S.87E.02 8.97E-02 pCi/g Th-234 01/19/18 u

3.61E-Ol 4.64E.Ol S.5SE.Ol 5.00E-01 pCi/g U-235 01/19/18 u

6.32E-03 S.84E.02 9.93E.02 5.85E-02 pCi/g U-238 01/19/18 u

3.61E-Ol 4.64E.Ol S.5SE.Ol 5.00E-01 pCi/g Np-237 01/19/18 u

l.12E-02 l.64E.02 2.83E.02 l.OIE-01 l.72E-02 pCi/g Ni,-239 01/19/18 u

-6.l ?E-02 7.59E.02 l.22E.Ol 8.IIE-02 pCi/g Am-241 01/19/18 u

-2.0IE-02 S.IIE.02 S.79E.02 2.40E+OO 5.20E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

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

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arge-t isotop e-was analyzed for but not de-tt('ttd abon the ?\\!DC and LLD.

UI Uo('t rtain identification for gamma spt('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spt('ifi(' qualifier-please-see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lgt or ('Onta('t your pl'Ojt('t manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 96 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

441900010 Client: Pacific C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-13-13, NOLOl-09-012-F-I ColJect Date: Jauu:u1c-11, !018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Recein Date: Jauua~-

1S, !018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: Jauu:u1c-l 4, !018 Sample De$cription:

HTDs

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 01/22/18 u

3.76E-02 2.72E.()l 4.56E.()l 6.0?E-01 2.72E-Ol pCilg Ni~3 01/23/18 u

-2.58E-Ol l.05E+Ol l.76E+Ol 6.94E->-Ol 1.o;E+Ol pCilg Tc-99 01/23/18 u

2.27E-Ol 4.S4E.()l S.06E.()l l.16E->-OO 4.8;E-Ol pCilg Pu-241 01/23/18 u

9.30E-Ol 2.; 5E+Ol 4.26E+Ol 8.29E->-Ol 2.s;E+Ol pCilg Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 01/22/18 u

-S.60E-03 7.42E.()2 l.72E.()l 2.SOE->-00 7.43E-02 pCilg Pu-239/240 01/22/18 u

-l.72E-02 7.61E.()2 l.9SE.()l 2.5 lE->-00 7.62E-02 pCilg Am-241 01/22/18 u

.;.29E-03 l.22E.()l 2.77E.()l 2.4-lE->-OO l.22E-Ol pCilg Cm-243/244 01/22/18 u

-l.43E-02 9.90E.()2 2.41E.()l 2.SOE->-00 9.91E-02 pCilg Cm-245/246 01/22/18 u

6.6;E.02 l.31E.()l l.SlE.()l 1.64E->-OO l.31E-Ol pCilg G:uxuna Spec Ni-59 01/22/18 u

-1.lOE+Ol U 5E+Ol l.26E+Ol l.S3E->-02 l.63E+Ol pCilg Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arge-t isotope-was analyzed for but not de-tt('ttd abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('trtain identification for gamma spt('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spt('ifi(' qualifier-please-see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lgt or ('Onta('t your pt'ojt('t manager for details.

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

Data Quality Assessment of NOL01-09-FSR; 1.

The HBPP LTP and Historical Site Assessment were reviewed and compared to the DQOs of HBPP-FSSP-NOL01-09-FSR. The classification history satisfies the DQOs in the survey plan.

2.

The survey unit description as well as the design, measurement locations, analytical methods and detection limits, variability (a-priori ), QC requirements and survey and sampling accuracy were adequately discussed in the FSSP.

3.

All field documents, instrument issue, measurement results and maps were complete and legible.

4.

A preliminary data review was performed of the 15 statistical samples gathered. The survey had more than sufficient power.

Statistical quantities (Cs-137 reported in pCi/g):

Number of statistical samples 15 Minimum value

-1.34E-02 Maximum Value 6.97E-02 Mean 2.62E-02 Median 3.33E-02 a-posteriori 2.39E-02 5.

The mean is approximately equal to the median indicating a common central tendency.

6.

The range of the data varies within ~3.5 standard deviations about the arithmetic mean.

7.

The Quantile Plot exhibits relatively normal symmetry.

8.

The Frequency Plot demonstrates a normal distribution with a positive skewness distribution.

9.

The data posting plot does not clearly reveal any systematic spatial trends.

10.

No sample data exceeded the DCGL, therefore a statistical test was not required.

11.

The data verified all the key assumptions of the statistical test.

12.

The survey possessed sufficient power to pass the survey unit.

Summary:

The survey was performed as stated in the survey package, the data contained no abnormalities and supported all the key assumptions of the statistical test, and no sample exceeded the DCGL.

Survey Unit NOL01-09-FSR meets the HBPP release criteria thus the null hypothesis is rejected for NOL01-09-FSR.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 97 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

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

Fraction of the DCGL NOL01-09-001-FSR 2.05E-02 2.59E-03 NOL01-09-002-FSR

-1.34E-02

-1.70E-03 NOL01-09-003-FSR 3.33E-02 4.22E-03 NOL01-09-004-FSR 2.64E-02 3.34E-03 NOL01-09-005-FSR

-6.19E-03

-7.84E-04 NOL01-09-006-FSR 3.65E-02 4.62E-03 NOL01-09-007-FSR

-3.08E-03

-3.90E-04 NOL01-09-008-FSR 2.57E-02 3.25E-03 NOL01-09-009-FSR 4.81E-02 6.09E-03 NOL01-09-010-FSR 3.78E-02 4.78E-03 NOL01-09-011-FSR 3.87E-02 4.90E-03 NOL01-09-012-FSR

-6.05E-03

-7.66E-04 NOL01-09-013-FSR 6.97E-02 8.82E-03 NOL01-09-014-FSR 4.88E-02 6.18E-03 NOL01-09-015-FSR 3.58E-02 4.53E-03

• Result in bold indicates a positive result for Cs-137 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 98 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 99 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 1.20E-01 1.00E-01 8.00E-02 6.00E-02 4.00E-02 2.00E-02 0.00E+o0

-2.00E-02

-4.00E-02

-6.00E-02 NOL0l-09-FSR Sample Results Scatter Plot DCGLga = 7.9 pCi/gm Cs-137

" 3StD

"-3StDev"

..,, Activity Average

+

ev 0.098 0.026

-0.045

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 100 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 NOL01-09-FSR Sample Results Quantile Plot 0.08

• 0.07

--.i 0.06 0.05 1*-*- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*~

0.04 I

r---------------------------u---e, I.)

I I

~

0 I

0.033 E

I I

Cl 0.03 I

I u

I I

0 0

I I

0..

I I

0.02 I

I I

I

~

I I

I I

I I

u 0.01 c{

I I

I I

II I

I I

I 0

I b

LO--------------------------------J

_J

--0....-- - -

.0.01 0

.0.02 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentile 0

Direct Measurements median

• 75th Percentile

- - -

• 50th Percentile r,

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 101 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 NOL0l-09-FSR Frequency Plot 18 16 14 C

12 0.....,,

10 QI

..0 0

8 0...

QI

..0 6

E z

4 2

l 0

I

~

I I

-0.013 0.007 0.028 0.049 0.070 Bin Upper End Value (pCi/gm)

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 102 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Posting Plot Survey Unit: NOLOJ-09-FSR Survey Area: J,351 m2 Reported Value$: C$*l37 Reported Unit$: pCi/g 0

NOL01-09-xxx-FSR NOL01-09 Boundary NOL01-09 Area Q Positive for Cs-137

~!-------=====,.,,..,,..,_- ---,~============================~

Prospective Power Curve FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 103 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

~

MARSSIM Power 2000 File Help Survey Unit ID:

Radionuclide: lcs-137 DCGL 17.651

- Statistical Test 1 r-Sign Test

-Decision Errors

[ Required Sample Size l Alpha:

);!_eta:

Survey Unit: 15 10.05 3 10.05 3 r WRSTest 0..!.l 17.65

~igma 11.912

~

.:J Critical Value: I 11

_I

!.BGR j3.825

/Ycr = 2

~

=

Probability that the Survey Unit Passes 1.0 r--r-r---.--,-,------,;:;;:,:--r-r--r~r---.--,-.-~--,

\\

0.8 !--f--f---f..--l-+---f--f->o-f.-

\\

--1-1-..f--f---f..--+--I 0.6 i--t---t--t---t--+-+--+--\\--t--+--t--+--t--+--1

\\

0.4 +---+--+-1---+--+----<I---+--+-+-+

\\

+--+--+-+--+--<

0.2 i--t--+--t--+--+-+--+-+--+-

+--t--+--t--+--1 0.0 -l--...l,.--l-....,b--l-...,,l,--l-...,,b--l-...,.l,-::i,,,..-J.~ -4~ --l 1 %

30%

5 %

0%

9 % 100% 110%

1 0%

1 0%

True Survey Unit Concentration (percent of DCGL)

- I Click anywhere on the graph to update the power curve using newly entered parameter values E15,it Program I

Retrospective Power Curve FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 104 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

~

MARSSIM Power 2000 GJOOl11tal File Help

~ Decision Errors

[ Reqwred Sampl, strel Swvey Unit ID:

Alpha:

Beta:

Radionuclide: jcs-13 ~

~ Statistical Test 7 joos

~ joos

~

Swvey Unit 14 r-Sign Test DCGL j7.9 r WRS Test o I I I 1.9

~ Critical Value:

S.igma j.0239 10 L.BGR j0.0333 Mcr = 329.22

~

Probability that the Survey Unit Passes Click 1.0 anywhere on the graph to 0.8 update the power curve using newly 0.6 entered parameter values 0.4 0.2 0.0

~

1b3/4 3)3/4 Sb3/4 7J3/4 9b3/4 1 b03/4 1103/4 1303/4 1 03/4 E~t Program I True Survey Unit Concentration (percent of DCGL)

Split Sample #005 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 105 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Solit Samole Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOL0l Survey Unit No.:

09 Survey Unit Name: Caisson Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOL0 1-09-FSR-O0 Sample Measurement Location: 005 Sample

Description:

Comparison of split samples collected from sample measurement location #005 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an off-site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard count and the off-site is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard lcr Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity Uncertainty Activity (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(e)

(t)

(g)

(h)=(f)/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 8.28 0.74 11 0.6 1.66 7.66 0.22 0.93 y

Pb-212 0.39 0.04 9

0.6 1.66 0.45 0.02 1.14 y

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table 1 is provided to show acceptance criteria for sample recounts.

NIA Ri;:;glution (d}

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25 **-

>200 0.85 1.18 Perfonned By:

Paul Sirois I

Date:I 2/25/2019 Concurrence by: Gordon Madison Date:

12/2/2019 Signature: Q\\

C3.>.: _,,

Signature: ~

Split Sample #013 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 106 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Split Sample Assessment Form Survey Arca No.: NOLOI Survey Unit No.:

09 Survey Unit Name: Caisson Sample Plan No.: I IBPP-FSS l>-NOL0 1-09-FSR-00 Sample Measurement Location: 0 I 3 Sample

Description:

Comparison or split samples collected from sample measurement location #013 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by an ofl:site vendor laboratory. The on-site result is the standard counl and the off:sitc is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide chosen Standard la Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Activity Comparison En-or Comparison Ratio Acceptable Activit)'

!J11cer/ai111y (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(c)

(I)

(g)

(h )=( 1) /( b)

(YIN)

K-40 6.94 0.55 13 0.6 1.66 7.62 0.22 1.10 y

Pb-212 0.45 0.03 14 0.6 1.66 0.41 0.02 0.90 y

Cs-137 O.Q7 Note I 0.05 0.01 0.69 N

0.00 0.00 Comments/Corrective Actions:

Table I is provided m show acceptance criteria for sample recounts.

Note 1: The Cs-137 reported result for the on-site analysis was less than the method Resolution (d}

Agreement Ra11ge (c) minimum detectable activity of 9.92E-02 pCi/g. It should be noted that no resolution Min M,LX Min Ma.x could be calculated against the off-site lab rcs.1lt as the reported value listed above was

<4 1

No Comaprison NoComapr~n not identified by the software. and there was ro uncertianty calculmed for the analysis.

4 7

0.5 2

No further con*ectivc actions are wam1n1ed.SCM notilicd.

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 50 0.75 T 1.33 5 1 I

200 o.s

~

s _ _

>200 I

0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Paul Sirois Date:

2/25/2019 Concurrence by: Gordon Madison Date:

1/16/2020 Signature: *Q\\1.

Q,.,...

~

Signature: ~~

Recount Sample #010 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 107 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Recount Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOL0I Survey Unit No.:

09 Survey Unit Name: Caisson Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOL0l-09-FSR-OO Sample Measurement Location: 010 Sample

Description:

Duplicate count comparison from sample measurement location #010 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by the on-site laboratory. The original count result is the standard count and the recount is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard lo Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity Uncertainty Activity (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)=(b)/(c)

(c)

(I)

(g)

(hf"(l)/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 8.10 0.51 16 0.6 1.66 7.72 0.50 0.95 y

Pb-212 0.37 0.04 9

0.6 1.66 0.42 0.04 1.15 y

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Comments/Corrective, Actions:

Table I is provided to show acceptance criteria ror sample recounts.

Resolu&iQD (I!)

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 0.5 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 so 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 0.85 1.18 Performed By:

Paul Sirois I

Date:

2/25/2019 Concurrence by: Gordon Madison I

Date:

12/2/2019 Signature: -~\\

Q,..J _,,

Signature: C'--~

Recount Sample #014 FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 108 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Recount Sample Assessment Form Survey Area No.: NOLOI Survey Unit No.:

09 Survey Unit Name: Caisson Sample Plan No.: HBPP-FSSP-NOLOI-09-FSR--OO Sample Measurement Location: 014 Sample

Description:

Duplicate count comparison from sample measurement location #014 and analyzed using gamma spectroscopy by the on-site laboratory. The original count result is the standard count and the recount is the comparison.

STANDARD COMPARISON Radionuclide Standard la Resolution Agreement Range Comparison Comparison Error Comparison Ratio Acceptable chosen Activity Uncertainty Activity (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)-(b)/(c)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)-(f)/(b)

(YIN)

K-40 6.43 0.44 IS 0.6 1.66 7.04 0.47 1.09 y

Pb-212 0.32 0.04 8

0.6 1.66 0.36 0.04 1.13 y

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Comments/Corrective. Actions:

Table I Is provided to show acceptance criteria for sample n:count.s.

Rs::12luti2n (d}

Agreement Range (e)

Min Max Min Max

<4 No Comaprison No Comaprison 4

7 o.s 2

8 15 0.6 1.66 16 so 0.75 1.33 51 200 0.8 1.25

>200 o.ss 1.18 Performed Bv:

Paul Sirois Datc:I 2/25/2019 Concurrence by: Gordon Madison -

Date:

12/2/2019 Signature: \\~\\

s*

(

...........___ dY Q...: __,

1gnature...

~

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 109 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChM eston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com CEL S*mpl, ID:

467:16011 Client S*mpl, ID: FSS-,118: l\\OL0l-09-005-FSR-S Client ?l.b.trix; Soil Amount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity C :ilXIUla Spec B,-7 12/22/18 UI l.14E-0l Na-22 12/22/18 u

S.96E-03 K-40 12/22/18 7.66E->-OO Cr-51 12/22/18 u

3.84E-02 Mn-54 12/22/18 u

9.00E-03 Fe-59 12/22/18 u

.J.2JE-02 Co-56 12/22/18 u

3.02E-03 Co-57 12/22/18 u

2.63E-03 Co-58 12/22/18 u

2.57E-03 Co~ O 12/22/18 u

l.25E-03 Zn-65 12/22/18 u

7.37E-03 Y-88 12/22/18 u

-3.92E-03 Zt*-95 12/22/18 u

9.97E-03 Ni>-94 12/22/18 u

-1.0JE-04 Ni>-95 12/22/18 u

-4.56E-03 Ru-106 12/22/18 u

-3.79E-02 Ag-II Om 12/22/18 u

-7.60E-03 Sn-113 12/22/18 u

-6.9JE-03 Sb-124 12/22/18 u

l.12E-02 Sb-125 12/22/18 u

J.50E-03 Cs-134 12/22/18 UI 2.00E-02 Cs-136 12/22/18 u

l.3SE-02 Cs-137 12/22/18 u

9.95E-03 Ba-133 12/22/18 u

4.36E-03 Ba-140 12/22/18 u

1.7SE-02 Ce-139 12/22/18 u

l.82E-04 Ce-141 12/22/18 u

-5.80E-03 Ce-144 12/22/18 u

-4.30E-02 Nd-147 12/22/18 u

J.59E-02 Pm-144 12/22/18 u

3.llE-04 Pm-146 12/22/18 u

2.26E-03 Eu-152 12/22/18 u

-3.23E-03 Eu-154 12/22/18 u

1.75E-02 Eu-155 12/22/18 u

5.25E-03 h*-192 12/22/18 u

-1.8SE-03 Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

Certificate of Analysis

? Sigma Client: Pad6<' C:ts and Eledri<' Cor:npa.ny ColJe<'t Date: December 08, :018 Re<'tin Date: December 19, 1018 Report Date: January 0*7, :019 2 Sigma Uncertainty MDC LLD JPU l.46E-Ol l.14E-Ol l.47E-0I l.05E-02 l.75E-02 J.:3E-02 4.35E-Ol 9.77E-02 S.60E-0I S.36E-02 l.4SE-Ol S54E-02 7.50E-03 l.43E-02 S56E-03 l.95E-02 3.06E-02 2.02E-02 7.96E-03 1.42E-02 S.0SE-03 7.9SE-03 l.33E-02 S.07E-03 S.17E-03 l.45E-02 S.15E-03 7.4SE-03 l.27E-02 3.42E-OI 751E-03 2.14E-02 3.35E-02 2.: 7E-02 5.6IE-03 7.l0E-03 5.l9E-03 l.53E-02 2.SIE-02 J.60E-02 7.33E-03 l.19E-02 6.39E-OI 7.33E-03 l.07E-02 l.55E-02 l.09E-02 7.03E-02 l.09E-Ol 7.15E-02 l.03E-02 l.62E-02 I.0SE-02 l.09E-02 l.56E-02 J.:4E-02 1.37E-02 2.74E-02 l.46E-02 l.9SE-02 3.36E-02 l.9SE-02 l.70E-02 2.00E-02 2.07E-02 2.13E-02 3.S6E-02 2.13E-02 7.03E-03 l.29E-02

7. I lE-01 7.0SE-03 9.76E-03 l.56E-02 9.96E-03 5.96E-02 I.0IE-01 6.0IE-02 S.6SE-03 l.40E-02 S.69E-03 l.9IE-02 3.06E-02 l.93E-02 5.99E-02 9.45E-02 6.J JE-02 I.0SE-01 I.S2E-Ol I.0SE-01 7.13E-03 l.17E-02 7.:4E-03 9.llE-03 l.66E-02 9.17E-03 2.30E-02 3.72E-02 9.00E-01 2.JIE-02 3.05E-02 4.S5E-02 8.46E-OI 3.:5E-02 3.22E-02 5.36E-02 3.13E-02 S.06E-03 l.37E-02 S.: JE-03

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\.ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ttd abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('ertain identification for gamma spt('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spt('lft(' qualltter-ple-ase see case narr-artn, dara summary pa('k.'lge or ('ODtact your pt'oJen manager for details.

M Reported resuH is le.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 110 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

467116011 Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1118, NOL0l-09-005-FSR-S ColJect Date: December 08, 1018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Recein Date: December 19, :018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January 0*7, 1019

? Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope R un Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 12/22/18 u

I.I0E-03 9.33E.03 l.63E.02 9.J;E.03 pCilg Tl-20S 12/22/18 l.39E-0l I.SSE.02 l.36E.02 2.21E-02 pCilg Pb-210 12/22/18 u

2.0JE->-00 2.6SE->-OO 2.S6E->-OO 2.69E->-OO pCilg Pb-212 12/22/18 4.4SE-0l 3.22E.(12 2.46E.02 4.?;E.02 pCilg Pb-214 12/22/18 H 6E-0l 5.50E.02 S.S4E.02 7.0SE-02 pCilg Bi-212 12/22/18 H 2E-0l 2.S3E.Ol U SE.01 2.8SE-01 pCilg Bi-214 12/22/18

.OJE-01 4.35E.(12 2.5SE.02 6.06E-02 pCilg Ra-22S 12/22/18 3.9SE-0l 7.21E.02 5.40E.02 S.UE-02 pCi/,

Ac-228 12/22/18 3.9SE-0l 7.21E.02 5.40E.02 S.UE-02 pCilg Th-234 12/22/18 u

6.5SE-0l S.99E.Ol S.51E.Ol 9.12E-01 pCilg U-235 12/22/18 u

3.22E-03 6.2SE.02 l.02E.Ol 6.2SE-02 pCilg U-23S 12/22/18 u

6.5SE-0l S.99E.Ol s.; lE.01 9.12E-01 pCilg Np-237 12/22/18 u

l.6SE-02 l.40E.02 2.;9E.02 9.90E-01 l.60E-02 pCilg Np-239 12/22/18 u

2.3 7E-02 S.20E.02 l.37E.Ol S.27E-02 pCilg Am-241 12/22/18 u

-9.3 lE-03 6.45E.(12 I.0lE.01 2.27E->-OO 6.46E-02 pCilg Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are-cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spe('tl'oscopy.

X Lab-specifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pt'oje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is 1,.ss than the LLD and greater th an th e MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 111 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• wwwgel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

4671160ll Client: Patifi<' C:u and Eledtit-Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1118, l\\OL0l-09-005-FSR ColJe<'t Date: December 08, : 018 Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Rectin Date: December 19, 1018

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: January 0*7, 1019 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acthi ty Uncertainty MDC LLD IPU Units H-3 12/21/18 u

-1.09E->-Ol S.93E->-OO l.65E->-01 6.16E->-Ol S.93E->-OO pCi/g C-14 01/02/19 u

-5.40E-02 2.29E.Ol 3.S6E.Ol 5.00E-01 2.29E-0l pCi/g Ni~3 01/03/19 u

-2.5SE->-OO l.2SE->-01 2.16E->-01 6.94E->-Ol U SE->-01 pCi/g Sr-90 12/31/18 u

7.45E-02 S.lOE.02 l.13E.Ol l.36E-01 S.21E-02 pCi/g Tc-99 01/02/19 u

-6.49E-02 3.lSE.01 5.41E.Ol l.16E->-OO 3.ISE-01 pCi/g Pu-241 12/27/18 u

• l.1 7E->-OO 2.74E->-OI 4.60E->-OI 8.29E->-Ol 2.14E->-OI pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 12/26118 u

3.75E-02 l.45E.01 2.S0E.01 2.SOE->-00 l.?5E-0I pCi/g Pu-239n4o 12/26118 u

-7.49E-02 S.53E.02 2.91E.Ol 2.51E->-OO S.l5E-02 pCi/g Am-241 12/27/18 u

-2.33E-02 l.J0E.01 3.29E.Ol 2.28E->-OO 1.:-IE-01 pCi/g Cm-243n44 12/27/18 u

-7.66E-03 l.27E.Ol 2.6SE.Ol 2.SOE->-00 U 7E-0I pCi/g Cm.245/246 12/27/18 u

l.4SE-0l 2.52E.Ol 2.22E.Ol l.64E->-OO 2.l3E-0I pCi/g G:uxuna Spec Ni-59 01/03/19 u

9.45E-0l 9.67E->-OO I.SIE->-01 I.S3E->-02 9.6SE->-OO pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori rnlues.

2. ~mes are-caku!ated a-posteriori yaJues.

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

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qu.1lifier-ple-ase see case narr-atin, data summary package or contact your pl'Oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 112 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com CEL S*mpl, ID:

465691003 Client S*mpl, ID: FSS-, 037: NOLOl-09-013-FSR-S Client ?l.b.trix; Soil Amount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Sample De*m i ption:

grunma Certificate of Analysis Client: Pacific C:\\$ and Eled ric Cor:npa.ny ColJe<'t Date: ~ on*mber 19, :018 Re<'tin Date: ~on*mber !9, !018 Report Date: December 14, 1018 Isotope 2 Sigma Run Date Qualifier Acthi ty Uncertainty MDC LLD 2 Sigma TPU Cau:um Spec B,-7 Na-22 K-40 Cr-51 Mn-54 Fe-59 Co-56 Co-57 Co-56 Co~ O Zn-65 Y-88 Zt*-95 Ni>-94 Ni>-95 Ru-106 Ag-II Om Sn-113 Sb-124 Sb-125 Cs-134 Cs-136 Cs-137 Ba-133 Ba-140 Ce-139 Ce-141 Ce-144 Nd-147 Pm-144 Pm-146 Eu-152 Eu-154 Eu-155 h*-192 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12/l l/l S 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 12111/18 u u u u u u u

u u u u u u u u u u u u UI u

M u u u u u u u u u u u u

Notes: 1. LLDs ue a-pl'iori rnlues.

-4.8JE.02

-5.2SE-03 7.62E->-OO 4.53E-03 6.l0E-03

-l.74E-02

-6.8JE-03

-2.15E-03

-4.12& 03

-3.19E-03 S.3SE-03 4.75E-03 S.19E-03

-J.20E-03 7.37E-03

-l.42E-02

-5.IIE-03

-4.8JE.04

-5.7JE.03

-J.32E-03 1.7SE-02

-S.82E-03 4.7SE-02

.J.l JE-03

-9.02E-03 4.40E-03

-2.05E-02

-S.16E-03 4.63E-02

-l.43E-04 2.49E-03

-2.69E-03

-l.46E-02 2.06E-02 l.34E-03 7.S9E.02 S.39E.03 4.33E.Ol 9.9SE.02 S.05E.03 2.J6E.()2 9.J2E.()3 S.45E.03 7.4o°L.03 S.07E.03 J.6SE.02 6.7SE.03 1.57E.()2 6.73E.03 I.ISE.02 6.59E.02 l.09E.02 l.02E.()2 l.77E.()2 l.99E.02 l.50E.02 2.S9E.02 2.26E.()2 9.66E.03 7.69E.02 9.0IE.03 2.33E.02 6.ISE.02 l.9IE.Ol 6.67E.()3 S.7SE.03 2.3IE.02 2.37E.()2 3.5IE.02 7.97E.()3

2. ~mes are-cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

l.27E.Ol l.3 IE.02 l.16E.Ol l.74E.Ol l.43E.02 3.40E.02 J.35E.02 J.3SE.02 l.12E-02 l.29E.02 2.7SE.02 l.3 IE.02 2.75E.02 l.09E.02 J.S7E.02 J.0SE.01 J.67E.02 l.75E.02 2.73E.02 3.39E.02 l.7SE.02 4.S2E.02 J.36E.02 l.4SE.02 l.2SE.Ol l.50E.02 3.66E.02 I.0IE.01 3.30E.Ol I.IOE.02 l.47E.02 3.96E.02 3.71E.02 5.97E.02 l.40E.02 3.42E-OI 6.39E-OI 7.IIE-01 9.00E-01 8.46E-0I S.20E-02 S.73E-03 S.42E-0I 9.9SE-02 S.53E-03 2.3 IE-02 9.64E-03 S.5JE-03 7.70E-03 S.20E-03 1.73E-02 7.12E-03 l.61E-02 6.75E-03 l.23E-02 6.62E-02 l.l lE-02 l.02E-02 1.79E-02 J.99E-02 J.86E-02 2.92E-02 2.30E-02 9.67E-03 7.70E-02 9.27E-03 2.51E-02 6.19E-02 J.93E-0I 6.67E-03 S.85E-03 2.3 IE-02 2.47E-02 3.63E-02 S.O0E-03 Units pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g pCi/g

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

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes an receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

Qualifiers: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not detected abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.

X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary package or contact your pt'oject manager for details.

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

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 113 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407. (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

165691003 Client: Patifi<' C:u and Eledric Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-1037, NOLOl-09-013-FSR-S ColJec t Date: ~on*mber 19, !018 Clilll'ul ~b.trU.;

Sva R,,.,:fl\\,.. D:11"': iSv l l:'W.l., 111'1* : 9, :018 Amount of Sam ple Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: December 14, 1018 Sample De*m i ption:

g:unma 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertaint:*

MDC LLD TPU Units Hg-203 12111/18 u

6.97E-03 l.59E.02 l.75E.02 l.61E-02 pCi/g Tl-208 12111/18 l.34E-Ol 2.03E.02 l.34E.02 2.3 lE-02 pCi/g Pl,.210 12111/18 u

l.57E->-OO 2.SSE->-00 5.04E->-OO 2.97E->-OO pCi/g Pl,.212 12111/18 4.06E-Ol 3.77E.02 3.12E.02 5.0lE-02 pCi/g Pb-214 12111/18 5.37E-Ol 4.94E.02 2.66E.02 6.52E-02 pCi/g Bi-212 12111/18 6.ISE-01 2.45E.01 l.69E.Ol 2.51E-01 pCi/g Bi-214 12111/18 5.43E-Ol 4.79E.02 2.45E.02 6.57E-02 pCi/g Ra-228 12111/18 3.89E-Ol 7.75E.02 4.SOE.02 S.53E-02 pCi/g Ac-228 12111/18 3.89E-Ol 7.75E.02 4.SOE.02 S.53E-02 pCi/g Th-234 12111/18 u

2.87E-Ol 9.2SE.Ol 9.99E.Ol 9.JOE-01 pCi/g U-235 12111/18 u

l.09E-02 6.31E.02 l.05E.Ol 6.31E-02 pCi/g U-238 12111/18 u

2.87E-Ol 9.2SE.Ol 9.99E.Ol 9.JOE-01 pCi/g Ni,-237 12111/18 u

6.59E-03 l.49E.02 2.66E.02 9.90E-01 l.52E-02 pCi/g Np-239 12111/18 u

-1.12E-02 S.60E.02 1.41E.Ol S.61E-02 pCi/g Am-241 12111/18 u

2.67E-02 7.77E.02 l.34E.Ol 2.27E->-OO 7.86E-02 pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

2. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U I arget isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the }.!DC and LLD.

UI Uncertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-specifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary package or ('Ontact your pt'oje('t manager for details.

M Reported result is 1,.ss than the LLD and greater than the MDC.

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 114 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 GEL LABORATORIES LLC 2040 Savage Road ChMeston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171

• www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis CEL S:unpJe ID:

465691004 Client: Pad6<' Cas and Eledrit' Cor:npa.ny Client Sample ID: FSS-)037, NOL-01-09-013-FSR ColJe<'t Date: ~on*mber 19, !01S Client ~b.tri.x; Soil Re<'tin Date: ~on*mber ! 9, !01S

\\mount of Sample Re.rei-n*d:

Report Date: December 14, !018 Sample De-;<'ription:

HTDs 2 Sigma 2 Sigma Isotope Run Date Qualifier Acth-ity Uncertainty MDC LLD TPU Units C-14 12110/18 u

4.0lE-02 2.39E-Ol 4.00E-01 5.00E-01 2.39E-Ol pCi/g Ni~3 12113/18 u

3.13E->-Ol 2.52E->-Ol 4.0lE->-01 6.SSE->-01 2.59E->-Ol pCi/g Tc-99 12111/18 u

-2.00E-03 3.SSE-01 6.51E-Ol l.15E->-OO 3.8SE-Ol pCi/g Pu-241 12107/18 u

-l.8SE->-Ol 2.S7E->-Ol 4.9SE->-Ol 7.94E->-Ol 2.87E->-Ol pCi/g Alpba Sp,e<

Pu-23S 12104/18 u

l.3 lE-01 2.64E-Ol 4.66E-Ol 2.SOE->-00 2.65E-Ol pCi/g Pu-239n 4o 12104/18 u

4.30E-02 2.52E-Ol 5.03E-Ol 2.51E->-OO 2.53E-Ol pCi/g Am-241 12104/18 u

O.OOE->-00 2.S6E-Ol 6.30E-Ol 2.28E->-OO 2.86E-Ol pCi/g Cm-243n 44 12104/18 u

6.89E-02 l.92E-Ol 2.0?E-01 2.SOE->-00 l.92E-Ol pCi/g Cm.245/246 12104/18 u

l.3 lE-01 2.74E-Ol 4.0?E-01 l.64E->-OO 2.75E-Ol pCi/g Gamma Spec Ni-59 12113/18 u

S.29E-Ol l.07E->-Ol l.99E->-Ol l.S3E->-02 l.07E->-Ol pCi/g Notes: 1. LLDs u e a-priori rnlues.

?. ~mes are cakulated a-posteriori yaJues.

3. Gamma spectl'oscopy analysis resuhs are calculated from a measurement using only one gamma energy line.

.t..--\\ir sample,*olumes are receind in units of ft3. GEL counrts the units and reports them as m3.

QualifiE'l's: U Target isotope was analyzed for but not dete('ted abon the MDC and LLD.

UI Un('ertain identification for gamma spe('tl'OS('opy.

X Lab-spe('ifi(' qualifier-please see case narr-atin, data summary pa('k..'lge or ('Onta('t your pt'oje('t manager for details.

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

ALARA Statement FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 115 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 116 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Generic ALARA Evaluation Comparison Worksheet Sun'cy Arca:

NOLOJ Survey Unit:

09 Reference Generic ALARA Evaluation No.:

13 Applicable Generic ALARA AL:

144 Average DCGL Radionuclide Concentration

(%)

Fraction DCGL

(% )

I.

Unitv 3.16E+0I 100 3.16E-01

2.

NIA NIA NIA NIA

3.

NIA NIA NIA NIA

4.

NIA NIA NIA N/A If the [ (fraction DCGL) <the generic ALARAAL, then the genericALARA evaluation is applicable to the survey unit.

Check one:

X Generic A LARA AL IS satisfied Generic A LARA AL IS NOT satisfied Prepared by: 0* /TJodudJJ ";:_~

FSS Engineer (Print/Sign)

"'"" by~J/'£ --;r~ ~

F SEngineer (Print/Sign)

Approved by: (i ;Ht34RLEY / ~

Sit~ Closure Man~ger od)esignee(Print/Sig)

Date:

Date: /-JI* a'C>

Date: ). -/../ - l-bZ.O

FSS Report NOL01-09 Caisson 117 of 117 RCP FSS-17.2 Rev.1 Generic ALARA Evaluation Comparison Worksheet Survey Area:

NOLO l Survey Unit:

09-FSR Reference Generic ALARA Evaluation No.:

14 Applicable Generic ALARA AL:

144 Average DCGL Radionuclide Conce.n Lration Fraction DCGL r nCi/!()

{pCi/g)

I.

Cs-137 2.62E-02 7.90 3.32E-03

2.

NIA NIA NIA NIA

3.

NIA NIA NIA NIA

4.

NIA NIA NIA NIA If the i (traction DCGL) <the generic ALARA AL, then !he generic ALARA evaluation is applicable to the survey unit.

Check one:

____ x _____ Generic A LARA AL IS satisfied Generic A LARA AL IS NOT satisfied Prepared by:

Date:

/-3/-'1...0 FSS Engineer (Print/Sign)

Re*ewed by ~

~

FSS Engineer {Print!Sign)'---

Date

/- 3/*cJc}

Approved by:

UL Site Closure Manager or Designee {Print/S"