ML20126G923

Forwards Comments Per Review of Rev 0 to Decommissioning Project Termination Survey Plan,Submitted Via . Addl Info Needed to Complete Review of Proposal to Exclude Fe-55 from Consideration W/Surface Contamination Limits

ML20126G923
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/16/1992
From:	Pittiglio C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Leslie Hill LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY
References
NUDOCS 9301050001
Download: ML20126G923 (6)

Text

,

• Docket No. 50-322

• Mr. L. M. Hill, Resident Manager DEC 161992 Long Island Power Authority Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 628 North Country Road Wading River, NY 11792

Dear Mr. Hill:

SUBJLCT: REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON TERMIllATION SURVEY PLAN The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its review of the Shoreham Decommissioning Project Termination Survey Plan (Survey Plan), Revision 0, submitted with your December 2, 1992, letter, LSNRC-2014. Please respond to the enclosed comments before implementing the Survey Plan.

There are three issues identified in the comments that are of particular concern. First, NRC needs additional information to complete its review of your proposal to exclude re-55 from consideration when determining compliance with the surface contamination limits. Second, the Survey Plan proposes to use only exposure rate measurements to demonstrate that residual soil tcntamination is below acceptable levels. However, NRC soil contamination limits include both exposure rate in uR/hr, and soil concentration in pCi/g. The current NRC unrestricted release criterion for Co-60 contamination in soil is 8 pC1/g. The Survey Plan should address the 8 pCi/g Co-60 limit. Third, the "75% of limit" criteria for reclassifying an area from unaf fected to af fected is high relative to NUREG/CR-5849, which recommends a threshold level of 25X of the limit for investigation and reclassification. LIPA should adopt the threshold level recommended in NUREG/CR-5849 or provide a justification for an alternative.

David N. Fauver has responsibility for the review of the Shoreham Termination Survey Progrem.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Fauver at 301-504-2554.

/.s/

Clayton L. Pittiglio, Project Manager Facilities Section Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch Division of low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

As stated cc: " Attached list DISTRIBUTION: Central file NMSS r/f RBangart WBrach JAustin JSurmeier SBahadur TCJohnson LBell MWeber LPittiglio DFauver Mark Small Boxes in Conctirrence Block to Define Distribution Copy Preference In small Box on "OfC:" line place a: ~C'= Cover E = Cover & Enclosure N = No Copy g _

OFC : LL g L@ LLW [ LLWh f

~@ NAME: Drauver ftiglio hb JAtdtin g

gg DATE: &/ /f[92 _=m

/ --

92

_ g //((92 [ P / g 92 oo Path & File Name: G:/SNPSLTR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY f In small Box on "DATE:" line place a: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H Hard Copy h" PDR :

ACNW:

YES YES K NO NO X

Category: Proprietary or CF Only Delete file after distribution Yes $ No ,_

0 / u_t o_ 911G: YES NO y ,

e l.w dMr. mJ f

9

, l l

[fl!MENTS ON SHOREHAM DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT TERMINATION SURVEY PLAN.

fE111LQ!LQ l Page 3-1, Table 3.2 The Termination Survey Plan indicates that the calculated Fe-55/Co-60 ratio in activated components is about 2,5 while the piping system '

analysis indicates a ratio of 0.2. What is the most representative Fe-55/Co-60 ratio for contamination at SNPS? Provide the basis for 1

your estimate of the representative ratio.  !

Page 4-5, Equation 4.1 The MDA equation does not match the statement that the MDA is calculated at approximately the 98% confidence level (assuming Type 1 and Type 2 errors to be equal). Please clarify. -

Page 4-7, Section 4.3.6 Scanning surveys should be capable of detecting 75% of the average surface contamination limit, and are intended to identify contamination in-excess of the averaae limit, not areas exceeding 3 times the' average limit. Please acknowledge that scan surveys will be 'used to identify contamination in excess of the average limit, and that appropriate followup measurements and investigations will be conducted when.

contamination in excess of the average limit is.

identified.

Page 4-8, Section 4.4 Equation 8-22 in NUREG/CR-5849 should be used to ensure that the variability of background measurements is acceptable.

Provide the method for calculating the background value to be used in the termination survey.

How will you ensure _that the selected background values are not too high? 0ne possible approach is to select a value from the background distribution that has a reasonable probability of-being conservative,.i.e.,. low. -for example, the .

background value selected could be the average background minus'l standard deviation.

Page 5-2, Footnote 2~ Clarify whether the confidence " interval" will be calculated using a one-tailed or two-tailed test.

Page 5-2, Section 5.2.1 The acceptance criteria for biased measurements-should be based on the same statistical tests as the systematic measurements. The biased sample results can'either comprise their own population or.be included in the survey unit population.

Enclosure

+ p .g--,a y D e-

9 Page 5-3, Section 5.2.2 Over what building surface area will . exposure rate measurements be averaged? Per NUREG/CR-5849I the weighted average exposure rate over any 10 m building surface area should not exceed 5 uR/hr, above background, at 1 meter from the surface.

Page 5-3, Section 7.2 The current NRC criterion for Co-60 contamination ,

in soil is 8 pC1/g. Soil samples should be '

collected at each of the 30 random locations, in addition to exposure rate measurements. Also, any soll sample containing measurable concentrations of Co-60 (> MDA), or other non-naturally occurring radioisotopes, should be investigated to determine the source of the contamination, as well as the areal extent and depth of the contamination.

Page 6-1, Section 6-1 The Final report should include, as an appendix, copies of QA audits and QC results. Also, copies of the release records should be submitted with the report.

The report should also include a section describing all areas that required remediation and/or reclassification, the investigation and actions taken, and the followup survey results..

Page A-5, Section 4.3.1 The criterion for- reclassification of -a survey-unit, i.e., 75% of the limit, is high relative to NUREG/CR-5849, which recommends a reclassification / investigation threshold of_25%

of the limit. It is not necessary to reclassify the entire survey unit if an individual sample or limited area exceeds 25% of the average limit.

However, an investigation is needed to determine the source of the contamination and the need to reclassify a part of the - survey unit-'as an affected subunit. This also applies to the "not-suspect" Jesignation. LIPA should adopt the'.25%. .

i of limit threshold recommended in NUREG/CR-5849, or provide justification for.an alternative.

Page A-12, Section 7.2.4 Provide additional information .to justify not sampling above 2 meters from the ground : on.

building exteriors, and not sampling the roofs of-'

non-power block buildings. The information should be sufficient to demonstrate. that 'the-probability of contamination existing. in the-areas LIPA proposes to exclude from the survey is very low.

i_.

Shoreham Huclear' Power Station letter dated:

- Long Island Power Authority Docket No. 50-322 cc:

Mr. Carl Giacomazzo ,

President of the Shoreham '

Decommissioning Project

'Long Island Power Authority 200 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 1 Mr. Stanley B. Klimberg President of Shoreham ,

Gas Conversion-Project and Special Counsel to the Chairman Long Island Power Authority 200 Garden City ("aza Garden City, NY 21530 Mr. Richard Bonnifield I General Counsel I

Long Island Power Authority 200 Garden City' Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Herbert M. Leiman, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old County Road Hicksville, NY 11801 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams i Riverfront Plaza, East' Tower '

951 East Byrd Street-t Richmond.-VA 23219-4074 Mr. Stephen Schoenwiesner Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station P. O. Box 628 Wading River, NY- 11792 Mr. John D. Leonard, Jr.--

Vice President Office of Nuclear

, Long-Island Lighting Company

'. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station L P. O. Box 628 Wading River, NY 11792

^

^

l w _

___ = _'--

^

g y y. w- - -4.. - ,- - - . - p .y. ._. y , _ . .m e e.g. sg9.p. . m.m' ,

2 .

Mr. James H. Joyner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Regional Administrator, Region i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. John C. Brons, President New York Power Authority 123 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 -

Mr. Richard M. Kessel Chairman & Executive Director New York State Consumer Protection Board 250 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Ms. Donna Ross New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

David A. Repka, Esq.

Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005 Commissioner James T. McFarland New York Public Service Commission 814 Ellicott Building 295 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14203 Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq.

Office of General Counsel New York Power Authority 1633 Broadway

-New York, NY 10019 Carl.R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.

0'Melveny & Myers 555,13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

_u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

3 Mr. Ronald L. flimitz Senior Radiation Specialist U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq.

Dow, Lohner. & Albertson Suite 600 1255 23rd Steet, fl. W.

Washington, DC 20037 uI - - u - -

. . . . . . u ._ ._.mm...-muum.