ML20210V522
| ML20210V522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1999 |
| From: | Abelquist E OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES |
| To: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908230144 | |
| Download: ML20210V522 (100) | |
Text
,
l lf
- " ~~%
oue RISE i~smuu ,oe som .~o r ouc.no~ j April 8,1999 l
John Greeves Division of Waste Management - NMSS q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop TWFN 7-J8 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 SUILIECT: OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION (ORISE) l TECHNICAL SURVEY ASSISTANCE TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) AT CONNECTICUT YANKEE
Dear Mr. Greeves:
As you are aware, the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak .
Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has provided technical survey assistance to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for nearly 20 years. Over the last three years, this technical survey assistance has become more cost effective through implementation of the NRC's streamlining
)
initiative. Streamlining in the NRC's confirmatory process shifts the emphasis of verification activities from the confirmatory survey that was formerly conducted at the conclusion of the licensee's final status survey to additional QA/QC activities and inspections performed throughout the entire decommissioning process. ESSAP's assistance to the NRC generally includes review and evaluation ~ of the licensee's final survey plan. and provides feedhack on specific survey procedures, instrument selection, data reduction and demonstration of compliance with release criteria. ESSAP also maintains laboratory capabilities comphant with NRC audit requirements to perform all types of radiological analyses required by the NRC, and stays abreast of the latest survey procedures (e.g.,
MARSSIM) and survey instrumentation technological developments-including in situ gamma spectrometry and uses of conventional instrumentation under field conditions (e.g., NUREG-1507). i 90MM While the NRC's stTeamlining initiative has proven to be very cost effective (e.g., refer to substantial 1
l confirmatory cost savings at the Fon St. Vrain Nuclear Station Decommissioning). one impact on ESSAP was a significant reduction in the overall level of NRC financial support. To maintain the , l staff and resources required to perform technical assistance activities for the NRC and to further leverage Program costs across a larger customer base, it was necessary for ESSAP to identify additional independent verification work opportunities outside traditional DOE and NRC funding
/
sources. One such. opportunity was identified in the Fall of 1997 with the independent technical support of the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC), to provide oversight [Np :
of decommissioning-related activities at Connecticut Yankee (CY). The ESSAP support of the CDAC has included the independent review of CY survey procedures and protocols, including verification surveys in select land areas outside the security fences at CY, and reporting the results of these independent assessment activities directly to CDAC via written reports and presentations 9908230144 990408
. OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE 37831-0117 Managed and operated by Ook Ridge Associated Un versmes for the U S Department of Energy
r.
i - g ,.
\
, at CDAC meetings. ESSAP has also provided independent technical assistance by way of CY procedure reviews and remedial activities implemented at off-site properties identified as potentially
. receiving contaminated materials (e.g., concrete blocks) from CY.
During the course of ESSAP's activities for CDAC, NRC staff were kept informed of ESSAP's independent ' oversight activities conducted at CY, including distribution of all correspondence generated from the performance of this work to the NRC's resident inspector. ESSAP also recognized that potential conflict ofinterest (COI) issues may arise as a result of this work at CY, but believed that these potential COI concerns were " apparent" conflicts of interest, not "true" COls.
That is, ESSAP was prepared to justify that the technical support provided to CDAC in their oversight of CY's decommissioning activities would further enhance NRC's own confidence in CY's performance of decommissioning activities. Therefore, ESSAP could continue to provide technical assistance to NRC during their streamlined confirmatory activities at CY with the same enhancement goal.
Most recently, CY management has decided to subcontract their on-site plant cleanup ard Anal survey activities. The CY decommissioning group, previously the subject of CDAC's on. ,ht activities, will now take on the oversight role of the new subcontractor. In this new conti-. mg paradigm at CY, there is a substantially reduced need for ESSAP's independent assessmer;:s. In
- view of these recent events, ESSAP is planning to terminate its agreement with CY for independent assessments in support of CDAC. We are requesting that NRC review the potential COI issues as they relate to NRC's use of ESSAP technical survey assistance at CY. Again, ESSAP believes that these potential COls are only " apparent"in nature due to funding support received by CY for the support of CDAC's oversight. The actual independent assessment activities at CY in no way provided information or data that CY could use to demonstrate compliance with NRC's release criteria, rather, ESSAP provided the very same independent verification activities for CDAC that would be provided for the NRC.
We look forward to the continued performance of technical assistance activities for the NRC and in particular, discussing the potential for ESS AP's survey assistance at CY. Please contact me at (423) 576-3740 or W. L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031, should you have any questions concerning our evaluation of material released off-site at CY.
l Sincercly,
~)
Eric W. Abelquist v k
- Assistant Prograta Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA
- dmc j l
J. Halvorsen, NRC/NMSS J. Foutch, ORISE/ General Counsel I
cc: )
R. Uleck, NRC/NMSS T. Vitkus, ORISE/ESS AP J L. Pittiglio, NRC/NMSS File /600 W. Beck, ORISE/ESS AP
TI y *
'e ,
i M
! ORISE OAK ItIDGE INSTituf E Foa SCIE NCE AND E DUCATioN September 26,1997
- Russell A. Mellor, Director .
Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, CT 06424-3099
Dear Mr. Mellor:
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) is preparing a proposal to provide health physics technical assistance to Connecticut Yankee in interfacing with the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) during the decommissioning and decontamination of the Connecticut Yankee power facility. We are committed to working out the details for pmviding this assistance to Connecticut Yankee as soon as possible. The most expedient way to handle this transaction is through our Work for Others program which involves obtaining the permission of DOE to do this work un' der our DOE Contract. If approved by DOE, this will minimize the paperwork required considerably. ESSAP stands ready to assist you in this worthwhile tasking.
ORISE also has internal expertise that can be made available in several other areas that may be of interest to the CDAC including:
Health Physics Training Risk Communication Transportation of Hazardous Materials Coordination of Public Meetings on EnvironmentalIssues Radiation Epidemiology Internal Radiation Dosimetry -
Response to Radiation Emergencies Enclosed is a table listing our health and safety staff showing their degrees, certifications and years of professional experience and brochures describing our organization.
. We look fonvard to getting this work started and working with you, your staff, and the CDAC group.
Sincerely, William L. Beck, Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program WLB:cds Enclosures P O. BOX 117. CAK R DGE. TENNESSEE 37831 0117 Monoged and operand by Ook Ridge Associated Uniersities for the U.s. Department of Energy
s.
, ORISE PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PHYSICS STAFF DEGREE / PROFESSIONAL '
NAME CERTIFICATION EXPERIENCE (YRS)
Abelquist, Eric W.- MS/CHP 8 Adams, Wade C. MS 10 Beck, W. L. (Jack) MS/CHP 32 Frame, Paul W. PhD/CHP 16 Goans, Ronald PhD/MD 22 Quayle, Duane R. MS/NRRPT 8
)
Scott, Charles W. (Chuck) MS/Part 1 CHP 13 Simpson, David R. PhD/CHP 20 Stabin, Michael G. MS/CHP 15
)
Thomas, Elyse M. MS/CHP 16 Toohey, Richard (Dick) PhD/CHP 24 Vitkus, Timothy J. (Tim) MS 13 West, Charles M. (Hap) BS/CHP 48 Worthington, Marsha AS/NRRPT 10 ORISE PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE STAFF Gray, Freddy E. MPH 5 Kapolka, Robert James (Bob) MPH, MBA/C1H, CSP, 26 CHMM Smith, Peggy L MS (Safety) 11
)
Tankersley, William d. (Bill) MS/ CHI 22 Wantland. T. D. (Tom) MS 18 !
l 1
l september 26,1997 Misc /hYndbuil
e i l
- l i
N !
ORISE OAK ReOGE IN5T TUTE foe SCIENCE AND EDUCATION l
l October 13,1997
. I Russell A. Mellor, Director l Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company i 362 Injun Hollow Road '
East Hampton, CT 06424-3099 I
SUBJECT:
VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION PLAN FOR SCOPLNG AND !
CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AT THE l CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE IN HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Mellor:
1 Enclosed is the subject verification survey and inspection plan for the scoping and characterization activities to be performed at the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Your comments on the draft plan have been incorporated.
If you have any questions, please direct them to me at (423) 576-3740 or to W. L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031.
Sincerely, N '
Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program I
EA:ma l
Enclosure cc: D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP T. Vitkus, ORISE/ESSAP J. Payne, ORISE/ESSAP i D. Toohey, ORISE/ESSAP
- l. File /558 P. O. BOX 117. CAX RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37831,0117 Managed and operoved by Ook Ridge Anociated UnWerones for *e U S. Department of Energy
Y
VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION PLAN FOR THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT Provided is the verification survey and inspection plan for the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. The major elements of this site-specific verification survey inspection plan include the following five areas:
1.0 GENERAL 2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION AND RESULTS 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES The following NRC Inspection Procedures may be used for guidance, in part, during this inspection:
MC 2605 Decommissioning Procedures for Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees -
MC 2602 Decommissioning Inspection Program for Fuel Cycle Facilities and Materials Licensees IP 88104 Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Fuel Cycle Facilities Portions of the following documents will be used for guidance during this inspection:
NUREG/CR-5849 Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination (draft)
Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM, draft) l l
r Venfication survey CY, Haddam Neck. CT, October 13,1997 1 essap\ reports \versurveabl
1 c \
. 1 I
1.0 GENERAL l i
1.1 Review the results of the historical site assessment performed at the Connecticut Yankee site. What records did the licensee review? Are there any records of spills or other 1 releases of radioactive material? Are site areas appropriately classified according to contamination potential?
1.2 Review the procedures that are being used,and under development for scoping and characterization at the Connecticut Yankee site.
2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION AND RESULTS l
2.1 Review the licensee's procedures for performing surface scans of the asphalt parking lots i and roadways. Were the instruments sufficiently sensitive for the contaminants of concern? Review the surface scan documentation.
2.2 Evaluate the licensee's plans for determining background levels and its variability, particularly for Cs-137.
2.3 Review documentation pertaming to detection sensitivity of scanning instmmentation for land areas. What is the scanning minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for contaminants of concem (e.g. Co-60 and Cs-137)? What soil concentrations relate to the scanning action levels used during the scoping survey (i.e.,2 times background)? Is this !
an appropriate action level for a scoping survey? !
1 2.4 Determine the use ofinvestigation levels for scanning ofland areas. Did the licensee perform appropriate follow-up actions based on scan results exceeding the action levels?
2.5 Review the procedure for the collection of soil samples, including chain-of-custody !
procedures. How were soil sample locations determined during the scoping survey?
2.6 When data from scoping or characterization surveys may be used as final status survey i data in an area, what procedures are in place to ensure that the radiolcgical conditions i have not changed?
3.0 ANAL'YTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES 3.1 Review the licensee's contract laboratory analytical procedures for radiological analyses--particularly the analysis ofsoil samples by gamma spectrometry for Co-60 and Cs-137. Speci6cally:
Evaluate the lab's sample preparation techniques-geometries used for gamma spectrometry on soil samples, etc.
- Review the protocol the lab uses to interpret the gamma spectrometry results, particularly the radionuclide photopeaks used to identify various contaminants.
verification survey cY. Haddam Neck.CT, october 13,1997 2 e 3.psreportisveriurve..di
c 1 I
e.
l i '
\
Review the laboratory QA/QC procedures, including duplicates, blanks, and matrix l spikes. Da'~mine the frequency of analysis for each of the QC checks. Determine whether the lab participates in some sort of cross-check or perfonnance evaluation ,
program, such as those offered by EML and EPA.
4.0 MISCELLANEOUS 4.1 ' Identify any decommissioning program-speci6c observations concerning the overall performance of the licensee's decominissioning and scoping survey program.
4.2 Review the qualifications and training for survey technicians and other project personnel.
Qualifications should include, in part, specific training on performing the survey tasks described in the charactenzation survey procedures, data reduction procedures, and training on QA/QC procedures related to the scoping survey._
4.3 Collect several archived samples from the licensee and perform confirmatory analyses on these samples for Co-60 and Cs-137.
5.0 - INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 5.1 Verification Survey Procedures e
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) will visit the Connecticut Yankee site and perform visual inspections and independent measurements and sampling.
Survey activities will be conducted in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE 1995a and,1996). Specific survey procedures applicable to this survey are listed on page 5 of this survey plan. Deviations to the survey plan or procedures will be documented in the site logbook. :
k ESSAP will randomly select portions of the following survey areas for verification survey j activitiest l
. Survey Area 9504 Bypass Road / Secondary Parking Lot
- - Survey Area 9506 North Site Grounds (Non-Protected Area) .
Survey Area 9512 -
Northwest Site Grounds (Non-Protected Area)
Survey Area 9535 Southeast Landfill Area i 5.2 ' Reference Grid V
l ESSAP will use the reference system established by the licensee for referencing measurement l and sampling locations. It is anticipated that the licensee will assist in identifying the position l- of each measurement and sampling location selected by ESSAP.
5.3 ' Surface Scans Camma surface scans will be conducted over selected portions of each survey area listed in 5.1.
Surface scans in land areas will be performed using NaI scintillation detectors, while floor monitors will be used to scan paved surfaces. Locations of elevated direct radiation, suggesting the presence of residual contamination, will be marked for further investigation.
- Direct measurements of surface activity using a GM detector will be performed on paved Verification survey . CY, Haddam Neck. CT, october 13,1997 3 e psr.porinsveriurve.abi r1
c surfaces at locations of elevated direct radiation detected by surface scans. All detectors will
' be coupled to ratemeters with' audible indicators.
5.4 Exposure Rate Measurements
. A minimum of five (5) exposure rate measurements will be performed within each selected survey area. Exposure rate measurements will be performed at 1 m above the surface using a pressurized ionization chamber (PIC).
5.5- Soil Sampling.
.A minimum of five (5) background soil samples will be collected from off-site locations within a'O.5 to 10 km radius of the site. Surface (0-15 cm) soil samples will be collected for radiological analysis from a minimum of Sve (5) locations fmm each of the selected survey areas. Additional samples will be collected from any locations of elevated direct radiation detected by surface scans and from the surrounding area. Subsurface soil samples (greater than 15 cm in depth) will be collected from surface sampling locations in the event that field measurements indicate possible subsurface contamination, particularly in the Southeast Landfill Area.
c 5.6 Sample Analysis and Data Interpretation - ,
Samples and data will be returned to ORISE's ESSAP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis and interpretation. Laboratory activities will be performed in accordance with the !
ORISE/ESSAP Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1995b). Soil samples will be analyzed !
by 'solid state gamma spectrometry. The radionuclides ofinterest are Co-60 and Cs-137; I however, spectra also will be reviewed for any other-identifiable photopeaks. Analytical results'for soil samples will be reponed in units of picoeuries per gram (pCi/g). The data generated will be compared with the licensee's characterization documentation and NRC guidelines established for release for unrestricted use. Results will be presented in a report and
- provided to the licensee, Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC), and
- other interested parties.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ,
1 Measurement and Sampling October 15 and 16,1997 Sample Analysis October 1997 j Draft Report November 1997 I L
i L 4 l
1 l' !
l Verification survey. CY, Haddam &ck.CT october 13,1997 4 essapWports\versurve.abi I
u
.6.
. LIST OF APPLICABLE PROCEDURES Applicable procedures from ORISE ESSAP Survey Procedures Manual (Revision 9, April 30,1995) -
' include:
Section ' 5.0 Instrument Calibration and Operational Check-Out .
. 5.1 GeneralInformation.
- 5.2 Electronic Calibration ofRatemeters 5.3 Gamma Scmtillation Detector Check-Out and Cross Calibration 5.5 GM Detector Calibration and Check-Out
' 5.8 Pressunzed Ionization Chamber Calibration and Check-Out 5.10 Floor Monitor Check-Out 5.13 Field Measuring Tape Calibration Section . 6.0. Site Preparation
' 6.2 Reference Grid System
~ Section 7.0 Scanning and Measurement Techniques '
7.1 . Surface Scanning- >
7.5 ' Gamma Radiation (Exposure Rate) Measurement Section 8.0. Sampling Procedures 8.1 Surface Soil Sampling 8.2 Subsurface Soil Sampling 8.9 Sample Identification and Labeling Section 9,0 Integrated Survey Procedures 9.2 General Survey Approaches and Strategies Section 10.0 Health and Safety and Control of Cross Contamination
.Section :11.0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
.l Applicable procedures from ORISE ESSAP Quality Assurance Manual (Revision 8, September 27, 1996) include:
Section 5 Training and Certification Section 6 Equipment and Instrumentation Section 7 Quality Control Section 8 - Sample Chain-of-Custody Section 9 Data Management Section 10 Data Review and Validation !
' Section 11 Records Handling and Storage l
l VenAcanon Swvey . CY, Haddam Neck, CT, october 13,1997 5 empwpomwmurv.wi !
9' e
4-l
-7+7 7 1 7 7 7 7 T 1 1
! h il 1 il AF -
rg ! Hit i
- I $ lNIj{j l il s i M}j ; f "4 n o,g j o.g
. I I
3 i
N!lI l
%uq o l sh 'Jl11jt o a gj d s ; _
l I5 b' 4 b j- ja !,ii Dj 3' j
1 $
iM =m is l o o o 1 I
1 l o i' I; 3 !
I ff 3 ];
f lo l! of lil ol o I 1 fl P
j i i ? i:i d, a
0 Y jos ,$< . /)> oj }i .I
!L i
I l g eA dj h; = il r i i 3 a!! !.!!p
! e
?j 19 sp it { r 2 -
a !. 3 -
.i si ia > :! t jjg:j !
i .i f ! Ijji ii l Ejl Bo 69 b' El! Ei}r32- ::
&g p!!.
mid g[gj s
ifi!l e, ibi3 413 l]li! E
- 3 N &
- .2 !
' I i
.E l } s
-lo til o ms
! e t;n; Uh" ~
- ' gg;)I.!, ;
- s a
~l r m 9$, .
t
.:8 R 3
! O lru 4 ; h 1,
=Il=r;cf j .d i % i
- h $ }6 lm ?! i L 7 83iH I } if y
]( w R 4 34 R jr = i i o j i
"$w @d@h wi l[lh ad ji ll $ :
3-I o te 'w i e, 91 W. I ie l D q ; >: -6, g 91 1 10 ,j .e I a > si L w 3 into tw I jgg!"! i =e
- 3 g$*$.e1 "]
I.liIS
- w S
- 0 %
6 ll J1 t 9 e--5 3a 6' 1 j_
u 1
,1 ~ g = -Oi, o < : i S i:r g
-D. *
- s u is . : A m! o v6jj s
=
g R d a' 51 8 9 l1 l b 'O xE*o- E!!
xm
.sem;di+$j nu,,j i
ajb;ifc]ia h e g
I 17I: tu !l sijl 1 !gu na,h la o ,1 _g,:,
[ ,
B I fi
,. ,, J @$_ sm El! ] $! s III!! 3 E E ; L% s i
mas
,ts 4 -- s s: u. ; -
l.
l l
~
r
+ l re tt i ji rig h jj;g q i u o 3i EE !Il 'd !jl '
o II i Il IIln.
.Ydl 0il lU I l! 13 0i f 3 E
.se N'1 ljlll gi 0
j . 8 I i 1* m Es s,i ao sa a. o dli 1 2 1 R; lo I f bi I o
c .
1 i i lj pi 11 ol -
3 11
< 1,31
? ! -
joa 3 i p! .Lg !
']},[
J .]i 3 ! ;r I I f '
a s]c,ai.l c.i .o. n u ,Io%m ,
Si ;i li ! 3 2 A1ji 2 91 '1 2jII i * !
Bo) o so 5 slo} 3 2, ih! 3 91 3 iiil s3
.7 :o- '
kJ !#I s h ,
'# I b 1 g ili ;
~
m 1
- g. Jl.,
s 1
-=
av
$ e-i.
E
~
, S-
,i ^2 a
l
. h!
e@,f e ;! 2 +R o
4
! lll li9 g .
Q* S l44 c et 4 ea I,l!!d:::
1 3 i 5 ! $ dn !!!!
e= }gs % e!o '2 4 < 4
=$
~d
' 1l a
yknlq,]a-r3p t d.,
h e }s t w < =A$$
a j! O; 6 81 8 9 l l
_e i
w = -l e e q %.m3o i i wi h
$.g=
! i W.2 b, $
=
=i-f to f Y$ k 5 l 1
- 5.= t4 c.- a si;i'j , 1 ,>:$ 9 0 . A. v 4.ygit!a@hll!
t ij ~4 i
.s N o 3- !
E i . $5 5 5 E}} j l! s
.llij d
,. e-TRIP REPORT '
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY AND DATE(S) OF TRIP SITE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 10/21-23/97 TRAVELER (S) Dick Toohey (ORISE/RIDIC) TRIP TO/ PURPOSE Connecticut Yankee (CY)/ Northeast Utilities (NU)-Middletown, CT and vicinity Attend meetings of CDAC and NEAC meet with Dr. Leo Millette ofNU PERSON (S) CONTACTED Dick Sexton, CY. . Tony Nericcio, CY Gary Bouchard, CY
- Hugh Curley, CDAC Douglas Farber, CDAC Gary Libow, Hartford Courant Terry Concannon, NEAC Leo Millette, M.D., NU. Darrell Lankford, ORISE/ETD/EML RESULTS (USE ADDITIONAL PAGE IF NECESSARY) 10/21/97 Due to a flight cancellation from CVG to BDL, I arrived in Hartford at 1630, with a CDAC meeting in Middletown at 1800; consequently I was unable to meet with Dick Sexton at CY before the CDAC meeting as planned. By coincidence, I met Darrel Lankford at BDL, and learned that ETD/EML has a contract with New England Nuclear Energy Co. to provide their public education program, and Darrell was also going to the CDAC meeting. Had we not met, it would have been embarrassing, but not unusual, to have two different parts of ORISE working close together without knowing it. The CDAC meeting went well; Sexton gave an update on the scoping survey, which was essentially identical to what he presented at the CY site on 10/7/97. I then introduced ORISE and showed the comparison of our measurements and CY's (slides attached.) This caused 3 problems, which may have been avoidable ifI had been able to work with Sexton before the meeting: 1) units of pR/hr confused CDAC and the public-they're used to mrem /yr; 2) the difference in numbers between ORISE PIC measurements and CY HP-300 measurements also took some explaining: (cont. on next page.)
FOLLOW-UP ACTION NEEDED (COMMITMENTS)
- 1. Write letter to Gary Libow re confusion over release criteria
- 2. Write draft physician letter for Dr. Millette (coordinate with Ron Goans)
- 3. Contact CDAC chair about training subjects (completed 10/27)
PREPARED BY (NAME) SIGNATURE DATE R. E. Toohey ~ / 10/29/97
. DISTRIBUTION Beck, Abelquist, Crawford, Lankford, Goans, file
n 1 1 L
+ . ;.; i TRIP REPORT L- -R. E. Toohey Ct Yankee 10/21-23/97-
- Page RESULTS (cont.)'
' 3) after the meeting I talked to Gary Libow, the Hartford Courant reporter. In
. convening the pR/hr numbers to mrem /yr at his request, I got something like 36
{ mrem /yr above background for the hot spot in the landfill; he asked if that
- exceeded the release criteria (25 mrem /yr) and without thinking, I said it did. This appeared in the paper 10/22/97 (see attached), and Tony Nericcio, public affairs for CY was bent out of shape, since he thought it made it look like CY had been
' lying when they said the landfill did not exceed release criteria. I told Tony I !
' would write to the reporter, clarifying the situation.
10/22/97 . I met with Dr. Leo Millette, who is head of occupational medicine for Northeast l Utilities, to discuss the issue of children playing in contaminated dirt at the day-care center. Dr. Millette had previously attended a meeting with Dr. Mary Lou Fleissner of the State of Connecticut Public Health Department, who had _ previously been in contact with Dr. Goans at REAC/TS. We discussed the whole issue, and I learned that the State is convinced that there is no risk, and wants to minimize effortsc Dr. Fleissner (with Dr. Goans' assistance) will draft and send a letter to the parents of the potentially exposed children, and offer a visit to a j personal physician if desired. Dr. Millette (with my assistance) will draft a letter to ; the physicians who may be consulted by patients on this issue. Needless to say, Dr. Goans and I will have to coordinate on these letters. That evening I attended the NEAC meeting and made the same presentation; the !
' only significant question was about our independence since CY is paying us. I replied that our independence was our stock in trade that we could not jeopardize, and it would be up to the NRC to decide if they would use us as the final !
verification survey contractor, but that was at least S years down the road. Most of the meeting consisted of Dr. Ed Wilds, RSO at UConn, doing his ABC's of radiation for the committee members. Afterwards it was suggested that tritium would be a good topic for future training. 10/23/97 Return travel; I emailed Hugh Curley, chair of CDAC with an offer to do training on tritium next month (11/18/97), which he accepted; it looks like some training on risk perception / acceptance is also in order, which I or EML can do.
l ) l ac a U d ni o n A n at i hc S. s R O a h nt e U. ei ( n c r a tyhh
, ,e c n
s e i o e e ot r sfi e g i i t s t e r s afa t oa r t e a l ad c us t n e v v ucu nd me i c n o g i t a e te m U n t i rh e c s r u a ns ye i d d ct t l a et v e r - s C e ei o t a o. - E d c n g i nI ih v e s e r o ,me c o w w S I d n r rc t s eh pongt s s w I e ga d f e a o A e
/
/:
p nk r mnd R d e a os pwe s ma a n d g t t h Oi Rne c l o ei n sd s at e g y r i R k e g a v ae a e s el a i c n O p ki di t t n oE y e ac ol t i i e sf s o b m OSr i s ba ma t d e H o n a pnd n o ci one t r a a r f o i sl s a ngr v ,t m e p ine n a o mo i
,i ne p s tyid i
r t u ai r r r a E Oe pc ut S I oe s R O
e C i t R S N d . n d a nmoD aa E e - yrg r o c n e o f a v r r r o m r P t c o uP f - a r A S St t r n o e p S l n c d n . a e y a y C I t n mr s e s e v u s i d n g s e t s n i l i b t a p i w e v e n e me nss i t o a c y e v r m s s e a c y r d r n a u s o o i l i rA f i r e v t s e l s a a t a r o i a s a v i s t b r t n a p n p n d l e n e l a d a m a C I n y n i c m e p i t o r t y a r l e i l g d i c v a n o n a n r I F E A P
S l t d E u s n n a C t e c o l a n R i S r g f o i o U i ne n t a p u O:K i ni c ai r c c S Te rd e o EL /r e m t nl e a R B t n Ci c n o n de E A ei Cti a i o m S L I ed c nr a t a r mfo I a n r R A t si f ot n se - i sd ne r V e smu s e I O A Anye c s s o o e p s - ci s x R ne r Ds a le e p l E Se gx r e a e a n r o s t n _ I e I TmsEa n t d In d e m T / Coi nc i Cnl e n o O Aiyah t s Ii oi ai t t ae r v C I i da P DiDe I d a n RR RR
- P I
X I C - I . B ) A h I L I P I P . I ) A C y I V k P P h e MST A cA e S P S A oC oI )
/
C F BS I I S TID I A CE E F )E
" , )R h R P r A r r t o r ,
ko st ko , st o T ct c ae r i ur c e ie ct c nc S Ji qi ) r are c " (D D " l i oi D i S .ma l b et n (D .ma Gl a a I Lr g Atss K r g Hi d c R mor . i s d o e O i l aP WA r aP a r d l a M l i i c c n r i o W K R R
E E r K f o SN E A i e s - V I Y y t r e e p _ TT m v r x CU a r u s e EC JI g o g t n e r n d BT p i p n OC y e o c e p E E v s e SN r u Y d nt i y I N s C i n R O t c y d e u O C e p f i v m omo i s r e T I n V P r c A 1 2 3
S t t s y E n ef l u s e vr I T mo e s e r u s g e e Y. n _ I r v n i C V gi i t a c t s e _ ht e _ I ijn e t n m T i b w e mo s m r e C 7 ht e r o e e r i s y e v b A9/ d n o f y r g a l a n p o r m e v e a o E1 ut oc y s i t y m N S 2 f a e s r o i r t I / ;f s s v n t e a 0 r o a ht R1 ei r t us a s u d e r o r u d t e OF d ed c nio n m r b l a f r o n e s FO o r at s a z f o r f r o f s e r p OS pdi ya r r e e p d e id n oe b e Y A ed t s t t v r n a c t n c e a a l l d n m i ua r e l R s ts a h m l o c e e t w A Yd c Ct pn ed e r u s mlb r o e mi l p M d e e c g a s a e l p ows c e r wc m m e rd d e M i e a in vh p d a s e o mh l i a U ei Rws t o c l i e l i o o e t t e S F S S m D 1 2 3 4 5
e e k n - a Y T - s C t n e
+ - a e
r m d e A n r u s ;
' 4 2 i c
n o r u - a e ' c g e i k M ' 1 P c a E S
~
2 WB N I u . = R ' 7 = 4 O 1 4 1 2-d ' 0 n a 3 8 2 1 n Y i o C y t a f c s o ' 9 o d - n L n i o s r b ' u o r g l l i f a ' 5 d p ht n a _ m r L o o C - 1 N = 6 2 8 4 0 = 9 1 1 1 7 -
- 5
_ 1 1 _ g Ig 8gO%d
CONNECTICUT ' Test Shows Contamination At Landfill By GARY UBOW Courant Staff Wnter sioning issues with Connecticut shooting range threequaner Yankee ofncials and with keeping mile away, the publicinformed MIDDLETOWN - Independent Oak Ridge joined the investiga-Aided by a calculator, Toohey clear power plant landfill found mulirem during a break in thete s month at contamination in spots exceeding meeting. A chart he presented to the request of Nonheast Utilities federalenvironmentalstandards,a committee p' lotted exposurekee, rates which operates Connecticut radiation health expert from Ten- at the landfill and other on-site 10-
' nessee said Tuesday, As ofTuesday, Oak Ridge person-RichardToohey.of the Oak Ridge different measurement. cations in microrem per h Institute for Science and Educa- oratory analysis and compared on-tion, reponed that his staff record- TheRidge chait used showed different that whne radiation Oak site field measurem test.
ed radiation of about 38 millirems Connecticut Yankee's results. Too-per yearabove normalbackground ing apparatus than Connecticut hey said levels at the nuclear plant's on-site Yankee, the two sets of readings " Generally we agree with the landfill in Haddam Neck. Any area were basicaHy in agreement. Con- [CY) results," Toohey told the c with excess radiation of over g5 necticut Yankee, which used a Gei. mittee, adding that soil sampics ger counter, actuany had slightly have been sent back to the home-minirems annuaDy is considered in need of remediation, he said higher counts across the board based laboratory for analysis. than the Tennessee crew, Toohey Although Toohey was appeanng before the said. Gov. John G. Rowland last Toohey stated that Community Decommissioning Ad- month ordered a batteryproving visory Committee, a group of area of air,survey wa- some recommendat methods will be citizens, politicians and business ter and soiltests that disclosed afteraradioactive consultant made to Connecticut Yankee, he particles people. Theoversee committee is charged were found in several areas did not elaborate. at the A detailed report with helping decommis- wiH be presented at the commit-plant complex and even at the tee's November meeting, he said Noted Convicts NowCellmates ty DAN MANGAN Stamford Advocate Ep ~ 'T when he fled the country'to avoid V trialin 1987 and again following the STAMFORD - Convicted rapist 9-dj [ - ~- end ofhis fugitive daysin Europein Alex Keny is not the only high-pro- ~ D - t . 1991 As with Lapointe, an interview t file enminal in his new home at a with Kelly was featured on a nation-al television news show, ABC's Sufneld prison. In fact, he's not the ; only prominent convict in his cell.
- i. "Turmng Point."
Keny is sharing his small, two- , Keny's lawyers say the firestorm' ; man ceH wM Richard Lapointe, . of what they call overwhelmingly whose conviction in the rape and negative media coverage precluded murder ofhis wife s grandmotheris LAPOINTE KELLY the 34 year old's chance ofgettira an being challenged by supporters who-Vogt would not comment further, usMwphtbtate claim the mentally handicapped La saying,"I don't know that that's ap-pointe was famed by police-coerced propriate to talk about." But Kelly and Lapointe have confessions. somethingin common beyondmere-Kelly's attorney, Hope Seeley of ly a cell and toilet. Lapointe,5L was featured in a "60 Hartford, said "I'm not confirming
' Minutes" segment, a Northeast that's his roommate " Both men proclaim their inno-maganne piece and other media ac. cence and are trying to get their KeDy anived at the maximum se convictions thrown out.
counts that cast doubt on his 1992 curity McDougall Correctional insti- ; Kelly, serving a 16 year term, is ! conviction. Wnters Arthur Miner tution on Sept.10 after spending six takinghis case to the state and William Styron are among the weeks at another Sufneld prison be- Court, arguing that a slew supporters of theformer dishwasher ing evaluated by correction ofncials was made at tnal by state Su frvm Manchester, who is serving a The positive media attention La-term oflife without parole, plus 60 pointe has received contrasts with Court Judge Kevin Tierney. years. Lapointe last year saw the state the attention generated by Kelly, the Supreme Coun deny his appeal 4in Darien man convicted this summer 5 2 ruling that the Connecticut Law Askedhowthe twocellmates were getting along, Impointe's attorney, of raping a 16 year old neighbor in Tribune called one of the " Worst 198& Henry "Ted" Vogt of Hartford said, Opinions" of1996. Then, the U.S. Su-
,e _ _ m - Kelly, who still faces chum M rremre Meu-~" '-
r
- -T+ 7 1 7 7 7 7 7 T 1 '
>t l gg srg;t
> '!I h: ! j{j, rg7ll,[ O 1 l
g l $l 1 1 ijj
!j is O]'le 3 O .g g I~
f 3 .,!
,i
!E!lI g
et 0 d2 gjl D il 23
}'
w 'g i -
'Es co h 41J ' f.i d;}o ^ D i .I I.'
- yO a i O 3 Il I R
]lIaa' s
I Oi' it I J l o, i.1 }" til o ] , i Ol. 3
,i ti l 01 1, .} a j 1 f g sl i>{
3
- 1 l E *
.3 0 ! '. " fl .I p,
r 1 I 55 24 n[a.) I f :a . { Ji U - l 3,!! ! {l! r a i.!! at n. j E lI i l.}}a E M+E d; T I I m[f]a$U i ss a r se !
- ~
I 9 0 d . B 'O 3 ,51d I n ill!a t a y! $ 3 T 3 :n
.I d l rn @
i g4 3;,
.g ! Il ~
m ; jaO *
.l Nr +
tl4 ,1 lm n-
*I*
? -
eg
,A$
.o
- y'T v- ,
D
- q. 3 p!!,hj +
~
im ?! E p b" y 6 15 $! j j t Q jN' 5 Yi 430g I'!Lfj 4~
- t T
l i 11 0 >: ; z: 3 No iEElb
' d *! W 11 ie i E !
"!N
-he B:M ll !!O((j:eb I= 1 +i 0:5i l ig d ". c ]
j *n= g$ ei lo 1 l :.is e 3 l m : m; i
'l s
} a.e 3$41,l e e> S
- i Iit?!g @{I lill i h
*s e, e $<
f $ a *he & F g i= 5 o is l m j,i
- i W l_j .9 i ! H ;:.j ..sa $r F2 u4, !
i l wu= eu2 l '"'. e
$! '" I $1 & ,5 ., t E
=
x >a na c I' l +L I,] pE d h g a-30 yM i mitung ,I l1 12 0 Lm-i a g I u s .t! I %i sm al! ;ds e .- '" lij 3 , 4 e us
~
1 W.}' N .) x .. .J l
+, $ w . .
l
f . \ 1
-6+$ r it3 rig, ri 7 .7 le 7 1 q
1 7 7 7 n,a 3
]
O f.jj g j ! 15 8 pl a L! I il b l l flip
$a pfl Il j! j'l,l is oj e ,g o fs inl, M o l9 f
}
o;, si 3 gg ru g g co si a no i l l CO is u.l3 i R l
,# gj o
R i " o O.
' 3 Il j I" I -
L I: [f j l o m a gi I fil ' ol 3 ,
.H g 8 i a j i
.g o i of 1
l'il
. .!i
,5 ja q !L i i }'r
!M I l
l Fa n
$1; I s 1 ,
{,NJi
'3
. lI I$+
1
!! h.! c' l
;ill
?j !I!li zl h ii! !,ll3 2 I I 5 D i m il Aijf 2 & GI 8 3if! $h % I B o o[hB 'o 5 1o}' E r, illi l W 5 h! N$
i 5 I l
!c o k !
e l j % l 4 dr { l ,j -
!a 3 hl ;
31 e a ir M,1e k4: - 44s, '%m_ : i, lO I
; ru
- in i ;r o
oo s 15
.Ji plic :
g aatj i : 4%
- t. I.
l
.I e-; E I ~
$ jlI II l tr a2
$'?; is r 8 y .
]5 _
u ?;. ; ; 8 ai t --- 1
? ! s$
ma y s4@= =j19{ !!' I ie j R S
;; 8 4
fe I 4 S p(igb I!.ig{.t!E, 9 ; i o j i2 l .. n
$l s I
,$ !.W 2
j 8 5 !N1 j@ jl flig it I
': 2 a I i us'>?hp 3. hi1xl i a
; x ! E s$ s 9 a I e
e js, li e a m m il q og s i ,il a t- ; D x , s 8 vg' R Jo , 5 e Je J!. .E c TC o 1.4Ho {!, i*E I i t I M h .3 3 u iLt y e j e$ E ti
$ S ,r! l$ ' D I < $1I E { d.
l ml w 18 t Ic b - ck. a d 14 F 1 o jo ,- 49..!9].Jly ]j,h" pl u, z l l l [ E i }} d3 5 5 E}} .I 5! a } td} d l
.c
** - - . M
F 1
'7+
r--- 1 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 3 1 a j,58 l h fi ri lt gg tria l Nj g 58 !I !!- 0 / O lI !IE'I ! is o]g l %= IlIl Il
!!?. Pi I 3 ; I
= 0 82 gjjl' O il 28
.ag 1 l
EE a 40 in ;lo ds Oj j , j g l l co j m ' O 3 II } I I - l l0 I Os' I; - p j e j. -
- }', 'ifl Ol i 3 =
r ,t i 1,ci -
, -i 1
((r Di l o I y [3 } j E 50a I fi ! I.!! .I ! l
$ s:f,l l"i 5 i a o '
!,}I d'ld-a 1
J g !j 3 P! i a}! l
!}f ilt -
I (19 . 4 i;]la : I - El m
;!! mi t t -
i p.-
-sp- ca t3b > ..s i f ;f,1 ti a il I
a u s,l illi a ,91
~
Bo O B o' a mid m i ds:Rl;
' I s o i .
>f IFi!! p s
s 2 dy.
> e '
,: ], . cijd gl ji O l
I b Y
'ekl m o 3.5 k llI I ~*if 5y l ng nj i y .4 l k7
~
- b i $ , j .
O ' 5 k$ ik j g i 530 !l f $Nbl I II y mt
. ep%i dbi h
! n!! el::e i
o z;
~is i c5 !
b ), ,, I ' Ji 5 l l l
'% .M % - l, I ( !!A l l I It S l $ '
3 6i Ada 19}<}ill4lg kf p ~u I ! m l es g: a; i i. i
~s ya I
3s j 21 2 E m j! $4D1y'llfj}l"Io j i. i ir i
- II j !
i
- 5 ce *l e l 1 g Hj s30 n 5 !
i$ h e g it s q i j d o! ei g ; igI i . y M @I '; 2 9 ; c ._
- t. g rt 1% F 1 ~ m :
2 ::.
< u .:
eo l ,L sm a,ll 1 . I s i 11 J ~il . - I il s li.!il! 23 - j l ! $2t i
+ ; s: ; a -. _. . - s .
l .__ L . 3
1 I- 7 + 7 ) 7 7 7 7 7 3 1 T I !!:d fli il IF N-]i,g 1 !Ffit
] 3 caS i gj ji
,a l _
O 3j y] l : fjjI'i I p$l s j!j La ]k
$3 Og I- 3, {
I',_gg O is " ggj g ] ,0 O Il El I E ' i Es co hi- 401 ja d5 Ci El
.I a: 1 I -
m j8 0 a I O Oe 3 l M I ' J; l3 ]I;jj [ j j 01 {. _ j id g ji
.; l .
Or f i Jg ! I e g
.e 0 3 q i .-
g3 3 I * {-{t , 51byi kl g!g!
',3
!:lh) l I'- 35 K 1.
in Ij; 35 ) ?r e3 - ; i[ 4
! ib A$j{ il > 0 : };I}i : [. ! E ,! .
D' If$ !!! ! $ Ni$!j I G2l E I 3 !Il l $ !g $ l j SO O 9O E EJO E h i '}!$ 3 93E t illt s _ 5 lm m o I 1,. E $& 3 ao 2 e
! ,1 a
t o a- im;l ~
, I-)
>ni D
N
- 4 k lj,: I t
;Ii i g',. y dag g 3 +% '
l u) p1 it , a
~
d e . e! e v l, epi 1
.3.. !; !f .s~
is ij! !
- Pn q9 i 420 l<n, i =
i ie l ?. ze N wlW v.Mw 9 9til! :lis i Il e :. ,. q s% .e a - E cb Q(s. I iiptm
- .4 ; i+ ! . .
I ~~ v e m.
%, o W~;i l gg a
;? I = o ,s dxq -,ts .
lI y i _e u c, o = m, if 'wJ q p i I :y ? ! ;} .]1 $m
.l 5 d
}AE i N*
E b
! ;l M 2 d '$f -I El ,30 gr liE f5 m
i .I lM ;N
-4 Lg 's Si 4
g< g gt i Si 4L bsi 5 .3 i jcl ;h i l Iu iY le x i ei x! D aq 5' '"A ;e t u= ss j e - li ] ~a g s w oil gs.3 no :! g i ! .
- - e: em30 e i N5 e 7j l..
E I }} . . . J d SE E A $t 3 m l I $ -, ; a i %+J
; .- v , .. J l
f *
. 1 h3+7~ 7 7 7 3 7 3 7 7 7 Rb il3 !! It O
1j}g y } , !!igt M {!e !I- 31 O l !I!lI j!!Q)
.vg jfh I j!lli 13 Oj f 3
[I pg O !s gj} O lOs Il # 8[3 I E
.I Eo a4 40 $2 li Dj .j j *oo g Yl0 i~ s O 3 Il I }I -
t h] 'i Oi I; ] {l i I o m
} j 3
l,} fil
-s
~'
1 ; Ol 3 a' I t il l I 2 8 1
.s 1 Og gj ; .1 {
fij },j }( l 1 ni0'
!"n .1 "P 3' !iiij 2J -t r i
i
.y:
, oJ i ,3 J i, tI J '
ss = J i ;j d_ l 2f5 .E 3 f F e j , l] j:l :! d' I lij [I Jlt I i! c~E j [ }!! j e n] inrlim[i e .nii z wi
=! Mi g
90 0 B 'O 3 510 E . il!3Il3 > ! s !! it! 3 _ u >
- j m !O j ,
.g k lf Ie 1m ! 1 3g ..
h
~
$ ]4, j3 ; W B3
%f]bj!ls l
)!j 0i i < w f ct .f;Alj ie t - # ! =: S -
o g le ~ in ;gi
.r i h
i y : ege: e gh !
!d >i iips,:
1 -
- io . : : 4 3 1
i
! 0 51 8l'1 %0, 41 5
; ..,J g. m$ g 1
i~~ X y *zi 4 j~9 i, ta Si %
~
E;s
! 'IL1fr3p j l 5 i .5- 0 o
= l . gd 'e :i"J,l git gi !i-a v l =
'i
_a m 5 ad .) I g 0 f1llt pahlI I d. }21. ? $I i E 9 ? $ g! tsl80 l l J IR U "! "!Ii ! <l =e li ]dp{p6 I i;
-g5 I % siao 5,Q ! N N.ON$ .;.i.4, g i 3
E 3- h3 3 SE E 3 se fj 3 . L _ ; i 3s p+- s: s a a >:. .
r 1 s = M e. ORISE e,oo. ,~,.... ,. ,ee ,c., ~c. .~ e ,,ec.,,e~ l Jj November 6,1997 Russell A. Mellor, Director - Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, CT 06424-3099
SUBJECT:
DRAFT REPORT-VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION OF SCOPING AND CHARACTERIZATION ACTIVITIES PERFORMED AT THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE IN HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT , i
Dear Mr. Mellor:
l 1 Enclosed is the draft verification survey and inspection report of scoping and characterization activities performed at the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Independent verification survey activities were performed on October 15 and 16,1997. Please provide any comments that you may have on the draft report to me. If you have any questions, please direct them to me at (423) 576-3740 or W. L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031. Sincerely, Y.
- Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA:dkh l
Enclosure cc: H. Curley, CDAC . D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee Representative T. Concannon, NEAC W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP E. Woolacott, NEAC T. Vitkus, ORISE/ESSAP K. McCarthy, DEP D. Toohey, ORISE/ESSAP W. Raymond, NRC File /558 R O. BOX 117. OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37831 0117 Managed and o,wored by Ook Ridge Anocioved Univernihen for the U.S. Department d Energy
s VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT Provided is the verification survey and inspection report for the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. The report addresses the verification survey and inspection activities that the Environmental Survey and Site Assessrnent Program (ESS AP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) performed at the site during the iI eriod October 15 and 16,1997. The major elements of this site-specific verification survey inspection plan included the following five areas: 1.0 GENERAL 2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION, AND RESULTS 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES DECOMMISSIONING INSPECTION PARTICIPANTS P. Hollenbeck CY D. Sexton CY
- k. Mellor CY D. McCurdy Yankee Atomic Electric Company E. Moreno Yankee Atomic Environmental Lab (via telecon)
E. Abelquist ORISE/ESSAP The following Connecticut Yankee procedures and reports were reviewed during this inspection: Draft SPL 10.6-12 Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys Draft SPL 10.6-14 Control and Accountability of Portable Survey Instruments Draft SPL 10.6-15 Chain-of-Custody Draft SPL 10.6-18 . Survey Design for Scoping and Characterization Surveys Connecticut Yankee Site Characterization (from Community Meeting on October 7,1997) Portions of the following documents were used for guidance during this inspection: a NUREG/CR-5849 Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Tennination (draft)
. Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM, draft)
Carmecticut Yankee Site (558) . Novernber 6,1997 1 essap\reporstonnyank\cy_insp.rpt
F )
. l
)
l i l 1.0 GENERAL l 1.1 Review the results of the historical site assessment (HSA) performed at the Connecticut Yankee (CY) site. What records did the licensee review? Are there any records of spills or other releases ofradioactive matenal? Are site areas appropriately classified according to contamination potential? e The historical site assessment results reported by CY at the October 7,1997 Community l Meeting (CY 1997) were reviewed. CY has initiated a detailed assessment of historical l operations through the review of site operational records and reports, facility design, and by conducting interviews of past and present CY employees. The HSA approach is consistent with the recommendations in MARSSIM. The illustration of the HSA results provides a clear classification of site areas based on contamination potential. 1.2 Review the procedures that are being used and are under development for scoping and characterization at the Connecticut Yankee site.
- The survey design discussed in draft SPL 10.6-12, " Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys" is consistent with NUREG/CR-5849 and MARSSIM recommendations for performing scoping and characterization surveys. The procedure addresses collection of survey data from structures, systems, and land areas-including surface l scans, surface activity measurements, exposure rate measurements, soil samples, and miscellaneous samples. These types of survey data are sufficient and complete for the !
performance of scoping and characterization surveys.- The types of survey instrumentation used to perform survey activities were reviewed and determined to be sufficient to collect the appropriate data. Draft SPL 10.6-14," Control and ' Accountability of Portable Survey Instruments" was reviewed and determined to be consistent with accepted industry standards. This procedure assures data quality through the routine evaluation ofinstrument operability using both source response checks and background level checks. ' The draft CY SPL 10.6-18, " Survey Design for Scoping and Characterization Surveys," references NUREG/CR-5849 and describes in sufficient detail the information necessary to complete a survey work form, such as the number, type, and location of measurements and samples. However, the document does not provide guidance on how the number, type and' location of survey measurements are determined-it appears to be based exclusively on professionaljudgment. While the design for scoping and characterization surveys need not be as prescriptive as the final status survey, it is recommended that some minimum frequency of measurements be stated in the procedure. Connecticut Yankec Site (558)- Novemb,r 6,1997 2 ,,,,pwpo,,to, y. uwy_in,p.rpi
- 2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION, AND RESULTS 2.1 Review the licensee's procedures for performing surface scans of the asphalt parking lots and roadways. Were the instmments sufficiently sensitive for the contaminants of concem? Review the surface scan documentation.
- e. The scan procedure discussed in draft SPL 10.6-12, " Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys" was reviewed. The scan rate for structure surfaces, for both hand-held detectors and floor monitors, is consistent with NUREG/CR-5849. The procedure states that when the scan results in the identification of elevated areas, then the l
, surveyor should trace the outline of the detector in the highest area. It is recommended that l in addition to the detector-trace stated in the procedure, the entire area of elevated direct radiation should be marked for further investigation.
l 2.2 Evaluate the licensee's plans for determining background levels and its variability, ! particularly for Cs-137. e This area was not fully addressed during the inspection. CY has routinely collected and analyzed background samples as part of their operational environmental monitoring program. Thus, CY has a~ general understanding of the Cs-137 background levels and the associated j variability. It is recommended that CY more fully develop and formalize their approach for assessing local background levels and associated variability. 2.3 Review documentation pertaining to detection sensitivity ofscanning instrumentation for land areas. What is the scanning minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for contaminants of concern (e.g. Co-60 and Cs-137)? What soil concentrations relate to the i scanning action levels used during the scoping survey (i.e.,2 times background)? Is this an appropriate action level for a scoping survey?
- e. The scan procedure for land areas recommends a scan rate of 0.5 to 1 meter per second. .It is recommended that most scans be performed at the lower scan rate provided, unless evaluation of the radionuclide(s) and site conditions indicate that sufficient scan sensitivity can be achieved at the faster scan rate. CY has not specifically determined the scanning MDCs for Co-60 and Cs-137, but has obtained empirical estimates based on the scan and sample analysis :
results in the southeast landfill. 2.4 Determine the use ofinvestigation levels for scanning ofland areas. Did the licensee perfonn appropriate follow-up actions based on scan results exceeding the action levels?
- The scan procedure provides two mechanisms for evaluating and documenting scan results.
- First, the survey instnanents are operated in the " peak hold mode", which allows the instrument to store and retrieve the highest scan result (in counts per minute) for a defmed survey area. Second, an alarm setting on the instrument provides an indication of all scan readings that exceed a pre-determined level. Therefore, investigation levels can be set by using Connecacut Yankee site (558) . November 6, 997 3 ps,,po,, woo.y.. ivy _i, p.,pi
the instrument's alarm setting function. Finally, the scan data is reviewed for anomalies. It is recommended that the procedure describe how specific scanning action levels relate to residual radioactivity levels. 2.5 Review the procedure for the collection of soil samples, including chain-of-custody procedures. How were soil sample locations determined during the scoping survey? Soil sample collection techniques were discussed with C'Y. CY uses a separate hand trowel for each soil sampling location in order to minimize the potential for cross-contammation. CY does plan to composite samples prior to analysis, particularly for sediment samples. CY recognizes the concern that composite samples may " mask" the residual radioactivity levels from individual samples. The procedure for maintaining the integrity of samples described in Draft SPL 10.6-15,
" Chain-of-Custody" was reviewed. In general, the chain-of-custody procedure is consistent with both industry-accepted practices and the draft MARSSIM. Several completed C-o-C forms were reviewed and found to be satisfactorily completed. However,it appears that the procedure is only implemented for samples that are being sent off-site for analysis. It is recommended that this procedure be more general in scope, covering all samples collected, regardless of their disposition. [ Note: Followup discussions with CY indicated that while their draft chain-of-custody procedure may state that it is only implemented for samples sent off-site, their practice has been to use the procedure for all samples.]
2.6 When data from scoping or characterization surveys may be used as final status survey data in an area, what procedures are in place to ensure that the radiological conditions have not changed?
- While there were no procedures in place at the time of this inspection, CY plans to evaluate and implement procedures to provide control of access to areas for which final status surveys have been completed.
3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES 3.1 Review the licensee's contract laboratory analytical procedures for radiological analyses-particularly the analysis ofsoil samples by gamma spectrometry for Co-60 and Cs-137. Specifically: (a) Evaluate the lab's sample preparation techniques-geometries used for gamma spectrometry on soil samples, etc.
- While some samples are requested to be analyzed "as is", the standard procedure for processing samples includes weighing, drying, and homogenizing the sample in a paint shaker. The sample is then placed in a 1-liter Marinelli container, or a smaller plastic container depending on sample quantity available. These preparation techniques are consistent with industry standards.
Connecticut Yankee Site (558) November 6. t997 4 essap\reporziconnyankky_insp.rpt
1 1 1 l
\
i (b) Review 'he t protocol the lab uses to interpret the gamma spectrometry results, particularly the radionuclide photopeaks used to identify various contaminants. I e The lab uses a high-purity germanium detector for the analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides (e.g., Co-60 and Cs-137). The analysis software uses a weighted l combination of the gamma energy lines to calculate the radioactivity-for example, the system would weight the 1173 kev and 1332 kev gamma lines of Co-60 in the determination of sample activity. These analysis techniques are consistent with the industry practice. (c) Review the laboratory QA/QC procedures, including duplicates, blanks, and matrix spikes. Determine the frequency of analysis for each of the QC checks. Determine whether the lab participates in some sort of cross-check or performance evaluation program, such as those offered by EML ar.d EPA.
- The lab participates in several performance evaluation (PE) programs, including the EPA drinking water program, EML's QAP, DOE's MAPEP, and NIST's Measurement l Assurance Program. Sample matrices included in these PE programs are soil, water, vegetation, milk, and air filters. The analytical results from this lab are more than satisfactory for the scoping and characterization survey data quality needs.
l 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS 4.1 Identify any decommissioning program-specific' observations conceming the overall performance of the licensee's decommissioning and scoping survey program.
- Most of the procedures reviewed are still in the draft version, and it is expected that some of the observations made during the inspection will result in procedural improvements. Some of the procedures being implemented at CY were written for the Yankee Rowe decommissioning project (e.g.," Final Status Survey for Open Land Areas", OP-8805). This is simply to note an administrative concern and to clarify that it does not impact the performance of scoping / characterization survey activities at CY. It is recommended that CY finalize their procedures for scoping and characterization surveys.
4.2 Review the qualifications and training for survey technicians and other project personnel. Qualifications should include, in part, specific training on performing the survey tasks described in the characterization survey procedures, data reduction procedures, and training on QA/QC procedures related to the scoping survey. e CY's " Final Status Survey On The Job Trammg and Certification Guide" was reviewed. This guide provides a check on the practical factors necessary for individuals performing smvey tasks. The topics evaluated are comprehensive in scope and include: 1) collecting soil samples,
- 2) collecting asphalt samples, 3) C-o-C documentation,4) operation of survey instrumentation,
- 5) total contamination surveys, 6) exposure rate surveys, 7) scanning of land areas and structures, and 8) removable contamination surveys.
Connecticut Yankee She (558) . Novemhet 6,1997 5 ,, ps, po,,sconny.nuscy_insp ,pi
l I Completed quizzes on the final status survey instrumentation were reviewed. The questions were appropriate for assessing whether project personnel possessed a sufficient proficiency level for operating the survey instrumentation. However, there is concern that the particular batch of quizzes audited was not carefully reviewed prior to assigning grades. l 4.3 Collect several archived samples from the licensee and perform confirmatory analyses on these samples for Co-60 and Cs-137. e This inspection item will be addressed in the final report, following receipt and independent l analyses of the soil samples from the southeast landfill. 5.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 5.1 Introduction ESSAP performed a verification survey ofportions of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Company site on October 15 and 16,1997. The areas included in the survey were Area 9504 (bypass road / secondary parking lot), Area 9506 (north site grounds), Area 9512 (northwest site grounds / picnic areas), and Area 9535 (southeast landfill area) which is located adjacent to the sites firing range. Figure 1 shows the on-site portions included in the survey Figure 3 shows the layout of the southeast landfill. The survey performed was in accordance with a site-specific plan dated October 13,1997 (ORISE 1997a). Survey activities were performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals j (ORISE 1995a and b). Activities included gamma surface scans, exposure rate measurements, ' and surface soil sampling. In addition, Connecticut Yankee personnel performed side-by-side survey activities with ESSAP for the purpose ofcomparing field instrumentation and analytical procedures. 5.2 Reference Grid ESSAP used the reference system established by the licensee for referencing measurement and sampling locations together with the assistance of the licensee in identifying the position of each measurement and sampling location selected by ESSAP. 5.3 Surface Scans l Surface scans for gamma radiation were performed over approximately 75 % of the surveyed I areas. Scans were performed using NaI scintillation detectors coupled to ratemeters with audible indicators. Gamma scans identified one location of elevated direct gamma radiation within the southeast landfill area. Surface scans of the remaining areas were within the range of expected background levels. 5.4 Exposure Rate Measurements Background exposure rate measurements were performed at five locations within 0.5 to 10 km of the site. Site exposure rate measurements were performed at 19 locations within the Connecticut Yankee Site (558) . November 6,1997 b essap\reporsiconnyankky_insp.rpt
1 l surveyed areas (Figures 2 and 3). Measurements were performed at one meter above the surface using a pressurized ionization chamber (PIC). Background exposure rates ranged from 7.7 to 9.6 R/h. Site exposure rates ranged from 7.7 to 13.4 R/h, the highest measurement corresponded to the location of elevated gamma activity detected in the landfill area. On-site l exposure rates performed by ESSAP and comparison exposure rates performed by Connecticut Yankee are summarized in Table 1. 5.5 Soil Sampling, Analysis, and Results - 1 Surface soil samples were collected at each background and site exposure rate measurement location (Figures 2 and 3). Five soil samples collected within the southeast landfill area were relinquished to Connecticut Yankee personnel for screening and analysis and will be sent to l ESSAP for comparative analysis. All remaining samples were retumed to the ORISE/ESSAP l laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis. Sample analysis was performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1997b). Soil I samples were analyzed by solid-state gamma spectroscopy for the radionuclides ofinterest for I this site-Co-60 and Cs-137. Radionuclide concentrations in soil samples collected from _ l background locations and within the on-site areas are summarized in Table 1. Background i
' concentrations were all less than 0.06 pCi/g for Co-60, and ranged from 0.07 to 0.43 pCi/g for Cs-137. On-site concentrations were all less than 0.06 pCi/g for Co-60, and ranged from less than 0.03 to 0.21 pCi/g for Cs-137.
SUMMARY
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) performed independent verification survey activities of portions of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Company site on October 15 and 16,1997. Survey activities performed included gamma surface scans, exposure rate measurements, and soil sampling. On-site exposure rates and radionuclide concentrations in soil samples were comparable to background levels. Additionally, ESSAP exposure rates, averaging 8.7 R/h, were comparable to Connecticut Yankee exposure rates performed at the same locations, which averaged 10.7 R/h. Soil samples collected within the southeast landfill area will be analyzed upon receipt and compared to the l licensee's results. Verification results indicate that Areas 9504,9506, and 9512 are consistent with 1 background radiation levels. I i An inspection of the major areas of the scoping and characterization survey program at CY was performed by ESSAP on October 15, 1997. The CY scoping and characterization program is I consistent with the recommendations ofboth NUREG/CR-5849 and MARSSIM, as well as pertinent industry standards. ESSAP made several recommendations for improving the scoping and characterization program. Overall, CY's program for scoping and characterization surveys is completely satisfactory for generating survey data for characterizing the Connecticut Yankee site. i Connancut Yankee Site ($58)- November 6.1997 7 emWgorhonnyanWng$
r iC' e e.
~.-
.. .558-001 (1).
l fF 1
-).
( .
.l..
.. t
- c- .. .
mesurl hmoeuerl
....y..:.
9
,,,a
. g -
., POND l i PARKING LOT y ...
0 omcc g I .:. fl ), ._.,0
.:,.......:l..
... : : .: . G. :
2
.. 9..: :. ..:.3
.. . .. .g
= CONNECTICUT RIVER =
N h JL
~~
E SURVEYED AREA W N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1: Connecticut Yankee ' Atomic Power Company - _On-Site. Areas included Jn Verification Survey
. conosciiew Yankee Siw (558). November 6.1997 8 essapwporshyankky.insp.rpt
c
, -558-002 (1):
9 a 1 f
-- .. muna=l lummmmmej al m2% i
- l -
h . POND ' PARKING LOT E I: 7- g 6 omCE 314 J f_
=
- p. ,2 ""$# r , j CONNECTICUT RlVER =
N MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING h LOCATIONS E # _ SURFACE Soll h h NOT TO SCALE l
- FIGURE 2: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company -
l On-Site Measurement and Sampling Locations i
- i. 1 9.
Connececut Yankee Sim (538) . Noveniber 6, IM . esupt _ __y@y_inspy
r
, 558-003 (x)
" ~ '
47' l # r-- - - m l 65' r 's l .
/ \ .g_
l i E
\ '
163' J-a 16 (\
\ 's FENCE UNE Q 15 \
( , ash I .E ',
.a ( --
a-
' s,-,
te ji - CONChETE 18 k ! l D -_- a 268 s e A l h i 172' E SAND MOU DS l 8 7 w * - w
-l s
l I' 8
, 7 8 i
' MouNo N 19 e
E S l #
/
38p/2' 12' 59'
- 74 t4 MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING LOCATIONS l- E f SURFACE Soll
( . i NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company - Southeast Landfill Area Measurement and Sampling Locations ( cen anewvia si= c55:3.Novembae,im 10- ps,.po,,wo, y.oiwy_i.,p.,pt
l . TABLE 1 l EXPOSURE RATES AND RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CONNECTICUT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER COMPANY SITE HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT l Exposure Rates Radionuclide Concentration Location at 1 m (pR/h) (pCi/g) ESSAP/CY Co-60 Cs-137 BACKGROUND LOCATIONS Rock Landing Road at Quarry Hill Road 8.8/10.3 <0.05 0.03
- 0.04' Entrance to Hurd Park 8.7 / 9.4 <0.03 0.16
- 0.02 Highway 151 at Haddam Neck Road 9.6/11.0 <0.06 0.07
- 0.03 End of Rock Landing Road at River 7.7 / 9.4 <0.04 0.12 i 0.03 Haddam Neck Old Rock Landing Cemetery 7.7 / 11.8 <0.03 0.43
- 0.04 AREA 9506 Location6 1 9.1 /11/7 <0.04 0.09
- 0.03 Location6 2 9.0/10/9 <0.04 0.09 A 0.03 Location6 3 8.3 / 11.4 <0.06 0.03 0.03 Location 6 4 8.7 /11.2 <0.03 0.04 0.01 Location6 5 8.8/11 <0.06 <0.06 .
l Location 6 6 8.8/10.7 <0.04 0.10 0.01 Location 6 7 8.3 / 10.2 <0.04 . 0.12 0.03 AREA 9512 Location 6 8 8.0 / 9.6 <0.04 0.12
- 0.01 Location6 9 8.2 /11.7 <0.06 0.21 0.04 Location6 10 7.7 / 9.5 0.02
- 0.04 0.10
- 0.03 Location6 11 8.3 / 10.6 <0.03 <0.03 Location 6 12 8.1/ 9.5 <0.03 0.07 0.01 Location 6 13 8.3 / 9.4 <0.04 0.18
- 0.04 Location 6 14 9.2 /10 <0.06 0.18 0.05
' Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.
6 Refer to Figure 2. Connecticut Yankee Sim (558) November 6,1997 $ essap\reporskonnyankicy insp.fpt
n ) REFERENCES i ( Connecticut Yankee (CY). Connecticut Yankee Site Charactenzation. Presented at the Community ! Meeting. October 7,1997. I Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Draft for Public l Comment. December 1996. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Survey Procedures Manual for the
~
Energy / Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 9. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 30,1995a. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Quality Assurance Manual for the Energy / Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, ; Revision 7. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; January 31,1995b. 1 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey and Inspection Plan for Scoping and Characterization Activities Performed at the Connecticut Yankee Site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; October 13,1997a. l Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Energy / Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 11. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 30,1997b. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination (Draft). NUREG/CR-5849. Washington, DC; June 1992. I l l Connecocut Yankee Sier (558) . November 6,1997 12 e ,,,s,,,o,, woo,y.nuscy_io,,.,pi
7 ( l i e. M-ORISE i OAK miDOE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION 1 l l I December 26,1997 j l l Russell A. Mellor, Director Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 362 Injun Hollow Road
)
East Hampton, CT 06424-3099 SUHJECT: FINAL REPORT-VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE IN HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Mellor:
Enclosed is the final verification survey and inspection report of scoping and characterization activities performed at the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Independent verification survey activities were performed on October 15 and 16,1997. Soil sample results from the southeast landfill ; have been added. If you have any questions, please direct them to me at (423) 576-3740 or W. L (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031. Sincerely, s ( , Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA:dkh Enclosure l cc: H. Curley, CDAC D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee Representative T. Concannon, NEAC W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP } E. Woolacott, NEAC T. Vitkus, ORISE/ESSAP K. McCarthy, DEP D. Toohey, ORISE/ESSAP W. Raymond, NRC File /558 P. O. BCX 117, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 378310117 Monoged and operored by Ook Ridge Assocaried Unwersities for 6e U.s. Depomnent of Energy
= j l.
I VERIFICATION SURVEY AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE SITE l HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT Provided is the verification survey and inspection report for the Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam l Neck, Connecticut. The report addresses the verification survey and inspection activities that the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) performed at the site during the period October 15 and 16,1997. The major' i elements of this site-specific verification survey inspection plan included the following five areas: ! 1.0 GENERAL 2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION, AND RESULTS 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS 5.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 4 DECOMMISSIONING INSPECTION PA.RTICIPANTS l P. Hollenbeck CY D. Sexton CY R. Mellor CY D. McCurdy Yankee Atomic Electric Company E. Moreno Yankee Atomic Environmental Lab (via telecon) E. Abelquist ORISE/ESSAP The following Connecticut Yankee procedures and reports were reviewed during this inspection: Draft SPL 10.6-12 Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys Draft SPL 10.6-14 Control and Accountability of Portable Survey Instmments Draft SPL 10.6-15 Chain-of-Custody Draft SPL 10.6-18 Survey Design for Scoping and Characterization Surveys Connecticut Yankee Site Characterization (from Community Meeting on October 7,1997) Final Status Survey On The Job Training and Certification Guide Portions of the following documents were used for guidance during this inspection: l
=
NUREG/CR-5849 Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination (draft) Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM, draft) f Coner:cacut Yankee Site (358) Decenter 26,1997 l essaphporskonnymokky.insp rpt
1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Review the results of the historical site assessment (HSA) performed at the Connecticut Yankee (CY) site. What records did the licensee review? Are there any records of spills or other releases of radioactive material? Are site areas appropriately classified according to contamination potential? e The historical site assessment results reported by CY at the October 7,1997 Community Meeting (CY 1997) were reviewed. CY has initiated a detailed assessment of historical l operations through the review of site operational records and repons, facility design, and by conducting interviews of past and present CY employees. The HSA approach is consistent with the recommendations in MARSSIM. The illustration of the HSA results provides a clear classification of site areas based on contamination potential. l 1.2 Review the procedures that are being used and are under development for scoping and characterization at the Connecticut Yankee site. The survey design discussed in draft SPL 10.6-12, " Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys"is consistent with NUREG/CR-5849 and MARSSIM recommendations for performing scoping and characterization surveys. The procedure addresses collection of survey data from structures, systems, and land areas-including surface scans, surface activity measurements, exposure rate measurements, soil samples, and miscellaneous samples. These types of survey data are sufficient and complete for the performance of scoping and characterization surveys.- The types of survey instrumentation used to perform survey activities were reviewed and determined to be sufficient to collect the appropriate data. Draft SPL 10.6-14, " Control and Accountability of Portable Survey Instruments" was reviewed and determined to be consistent with accepted industry standards. This procedure assures data quality through the routine evaluation ofinstrument operability using both source response checks and background level checks. - The draft CY SPL 10.6-18, " Survey Design for Scoping and Characterization Surveys," references NUREG/CR-5849 and describes in sufficient detail the information necessary to complete a survey work form, such as the number, type, and location of measurements and samples. However, the document does not provide guidance on how the number, type and location of survey measurements are determined-it appears to be based exclusively on professionaljudgment. While the design for scoping and characterization surveys need not be as prescriptive as the final status survey, it is recommended that some minimum frequency of
- measurements be stated in the procedure.
2.0 SCOPING SURVEY PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION, AND RESULTS 2.1 Review the licensee's procedums for performing smface scans of the asphalt parking lots and roadways. Were the instruments sufficiently sensitive for the contaminants of L concern? Review the surface scan documentation. Connecacut Yankee Sue ($58) . Decenter 26,1997 2 essapvepur:Vonnyar.kVy.inspqr
7 e The scan.proce' dure discussed in draft SPL 10.6-12, " Decommissioning Scoping and Characterization Radiological Surveys" was reviewed. The scan rate for stmeture surfaces, for both hand-held detectors and floor monitors, is consistent with NUREG/CR-5849. The i procedure states that when the scan results in the identification of elevated areas, then the l surveyor should trace the outline of the detector in the highest area. It is recommended that l in addition to the detector-trace stated in the procedure, the entire area of elevated direct I radiation should be marked for further investigation. Completed scan documentation was not reviewed during this inspection-it will be performed as part of a future inspection. 2.2 Evaluate the licensee's plans for determining background levels and its variability, particularly for Cs-137. e This area was not fully addressed during the inspection. CY has routinely collected and analyzed background samples as part of their operational environmental monitoring program. Thus, CY has a general understanding of the Cs-137 background levels and the associated variability. It is recommended that CY more fully develop and fomialize their approach for assessing local background levels and associated variability. 2.3 Review documentation pertaining to detection sensitivity of scanning instrumentation for l land areas. What is the scanning minimum detectable concentration (MDC) for ' contaminants of concem (e.g. Co-60 and Cs-137)? What soil concentrations relate to the scanning action levels u, sed during the scoping survey (i.e.,2 times background)? Is this an appropriate action level for a scoping survey? e The scan procedure for land areas recommends a scan rate of 0.5 to 1 meter per second. It is recommended that most scans be performed at the lower scan rate provided, unless evaluation l of the radionuclide(s) and site conditions indicate that sufficient scan sensitivity can be i achieved at the faster scan rate. CY has not specifically determined the scanning MDCs for Co-60 and Cs-137, but has obtained empirical estimates based on the scan and sample analysis , results in the southeast landfill. l 2.4 Determine the use of investigation levels for scanning of land areas. Did the licensee perform appropriate follow-up actions based on scan results exceeding the action levels? e The scan procedure provides two mechanisms for evaluating and documenting scan results. First, the survey instruments are operated in the " peak hold mode", which allows the instmment to store and retrieve the highest scan result (in counts per minute) for a defined survey area. Second, an alarm setting on the instrument provides an indication of all scan readings that exceed a pre-determined level. Therefore, investigation levels can be set by using the instrument's alarm setting function. Finally, the scan data is reviewed for anomalies. It is recommended that the procedure describe how specific scanning action levels relate to residual radioactivity levels. 2.5 Review the procedure for the collection of soil samples, including chain-of-custody procedures. - How were soil sample locations determined during the scoping survey?
/ Connscacut Yankee sim 058) . Decernba 26,1997 3 e...pw.po,,wo y uvy;o,p.rpi
i e Soil sample collection techniques were discussed with CY. CY uses a separate hand trowel for each soil sampling location in order to minimize the potential for cross-contamination. CY does plan to composite samples prior to analysis, particularly for sediment samples. CY recognizes the concem that composite samples may " mask" the residual radioactivity levels from individual samples. The procedure for maintaining the integrity of samples described in Draft SPL 10.6-15,
" Chain-of-Custody" was reviewed. In general, the chain-of-custody (C-o-C) procedure is consistent with both industry-accepted practices and the draft MARSSIM. Several completed C-o-C forms were reviewed and found to be satisfactorily completed. However, it appears that the procedure is only implemented for samples that are being sent off-site for analysis. It is recommended that this procedure be more general in scope, covering all samples collected, regardless of their disposition. [ Note: Followup discussions with CY indicated that while their draft chain-of-custody procedure may state that it is only implemented for samples sent off-site, their practice has been to use the procedure for all samples.]
As mentioned in 1.2, draft CY SPL 10.6-18 does not provide guidance on how the number and location of soil samples are determined. It is recommended that a minimum frequency for soil sampling be stated in the procedures. 2.6 When data from scoping or characterization surveys may be.used as final status survey data in an area, what procedures are in place to ensure that the radiological conditions have not changed? e While there were no procedures in place at the time of this inspection, CY plans to evaluate and implement procedures to provide control of access to areas for which final status surveys have been completed. 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR SOIL SAMPLES I 3.1 Review the licensee's contract laboratory analytical procedures for radiological analyses-particularly the analysis of soil samples by gamma spectrometry for Co-60 and Cs-137. Specifically: (a) Evaluate the lab's sample preparation techniques-geometries used for gamma spectrometry on soil samples, etc. e While some samples are requested to be analyzed "as is", the standard procedere for processing samples includes weighing, drying, and homogenizing the sample ir. a paint ; shaker. The sample is then placed in a 1-liter Marinelli container, or a smaller plastic container depending on sample quantity available. These preparation techniques are consistent with industry standards.
~
(b) Review the protocol the lab uses to interpret the gamma spectrometry results, l particularly the radionuclide photopeaks used to identify various contaminants. Cunnscucut Yankee Sne (558). Decernbar 26.1997 4 enapVeporstonnyankkyjnsp.rpt
The lab uses a high-purity germanium detector for the analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides (e.g., Co-60 and Cs-137). The analysis software uses a weighted combination of the gamma energy lines to calculate the radioactivity-for example, the system would weight the 1173 kev and 1332 kev gamma lines of Co-60 in the determination of sample activity. These analysis techniques are consistent with the ' industry practice. (c) Review the laboratory QA/QC procedures, including duplicates, blanks, and matrix spikes. Determine the frequency of analysis for each of the QC checks. Determine ] whether the lab panicipates in some sort of cross-check or performance evaluation program, such as those offered by EML and EPA. j l
- The lab participates in several performance evaluation (PE) programs, including the EPA drinking water program, EML's QAP, DOE's MAPEP, and NIST's Measurement I Assurance Program. Sample matrices included in these PE programs are soil, water, vegetation, milk, and air filters. The analytical results from this lab are more than satisfactory for the scoping and characterization survey data quality needs. )
I 4.0 MISCELLANEOUS l 4.1 Identify any decommissioning program-specific observations conceming the overall l performance of the licensee's decommissioning and scoping survey program.
- Most of the procedures reviewed are still in the draft version, and it is expected that some of the observations made during the inspection will result in procedural improvements. Some of the procedures being implemented at CY were written for the Yankee Rowe decommissioning project (e.g., " Final Status Survey for Open Land Areas", OP-8805). This is simply to note an administrative concern and to clarify that it does not impact the performance of scoping / characterization survey activities at CY. It is recommended that CY finalize their t procedures for scoping and characterization surveys. !
I 4.2 Review the qualifications and training for survey techniciens and other project personnel. l Qualifications should include, in part, specific training on performing the survey tasks described in the characterization survey procedures, data reduction procedures, and training on_ QA/QC procedures related to the scoping survey.
- CY's " Final Status Survey On The Job Training and Cenification Guide" was reviewed. This guide provides a check on the practical factors necessary for individuals performing survey ;
tasks. The topics evaluated are comprehensive in scope and include: i) collecting soil samples,
- 2) collecting asphalt samples,3) C-o-C documentation,4) operation of survey instrumentation,
- 5) total contamination surveys, 6) exposure rate surveys, 7) scanning of land areas and d l structures, and 8) removable contamination surveys.
Connecticut Yankee: Site (558) . December 26,1997 5 e. ,vepor,wo y.ouvy;o,p.,pi
r L o 1 j Completed quizzes on the final status survey instrumentation were reviewed. The questions L
.were appropriate for assessing whether project personnel possessed a sufficient proficiency level for operating the survey instrumentation. However, there is concem that the particular batch of quizzes audited was not carefully reviewed prior to assigning grades.
4.3 Collect several archived samples from the licensee and perfonn confirmatory analyses on these samples for Co-60 and Cs-137.
~
e- ESSAP performed independent analyses of five soil samples from the southeast landfill. Specifically, CY analyzed the five samples collected by ESSAP and forwarded their results to ESSAP. Table 1 provides the comparison of soil sample results, which indicates good agreement between ESSAP and CY results. 5.0 INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES 5.1 Introduction ESS AP performed a verification survey of portions of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Company site.on October 15 and 16,1997. The areas included in the survey were Area 9504 (bypass road / secondary parking lot), Area 9506 (north site grounds), Area 9512 (northwest site grounds / picnic areas), and Area 9535 (southeast landfill area) which is located adjacent to the sites firing range. Figure I shows the on-site portions included in the survey and Figure 2
~
identifies the on-site measurement and sampling locations. Figure 3 shows the layout of the southeast landfill. The survey performed was in accordance with a site-specific plan dated October 13,1997 (ORISE 1997a). Survey activities were performed in accordance with the ORISF1ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE 1995a and b). Activities included gamma surface scans, exposure rate measurements, and surface soil sampling. In addition, Connecticut Yankee personnel performed side-by-side survey activities with ESSAP for the purpose of comparing field instmmentation and analytical procedures. 5.2 Reference Grid - ESSAP used the reference system established by the licensee for referencing measurement and sampling locations. The licensee assisted in identifying the position of each measurement and sampling location selected by ESSAP. 5.3 Surface Scans Surface scans for gamma radiation were performed over approximately 75 % of the surveyed areas. Scans were performed using NaI scintillation detectors coupled to ratemeters with audible indicators. Gamma scans identified one location of elevated direct gamma radiation within the southeast landfill area. Surface scans of the remaining areas were within the range of expected background levels. l Connecticut Yankee Sam (558) . Decenter 26. IM b essapWkonnyankkyjospqt
p l
- 5.4 Exposure Rate Measun:ments Background exposure rate measurements were performed at five locations within 0.5 to 10 km of the site. Site exposure rate measurements were performed at 19 locations within the surveyed areas (Figures 2 and 3). Measurements were performed at one meter above the surface using a pressurized ionization chamber (PIC). Background exposure rates ranged from 7.7 to 9.6 R/h. Site exposure rates, including the landfill area, ranged from 7.7 to 13.4 R/h, the highest measurement corresponded to the location of elevated gamma activity detected in the landfill area. On-site exposure rates performedby ESSAP and comparison exposure rates performed by Connecticut Yankee are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
5.5 Soil Sampling, Analysis, and Results Surface soil samples were collected at each background and site exposure rate measurement location (Figures 2 and 3). Five soil samples collected within the southeast landfill area were relinquished to Connecticut Yankee personnel for screening and analysis and were later sent to ESSAP for comparative analysis. All remaining samples were returned to the ORISE/ESSAP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis. Sample analysis was performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1997b). Soil samples were analyzed by solid-state gamma spectroscopy for the radionuclides of interest for this site--Co-60 and Cs-137. Radionuclide concentrations in soil samples collected from background locations and within the on-site areas are summarized in Table 2. Background concentrations were all less than 0.06 pCi/g for Co-60, and ranged from 0.07 to 0.43 pCi/g for Cs-137. On-site concentrations in survey areas outside the landfill were all less than 0.06 pCi/g for Co-60, and ranged from less than 0.03 to 0.21 pCi/g for Cs-137 (Table 2). The soil concentrations in the landfill ranged from less than 0.02 to 3.27 pCi/g for Co-60, and ranged from less than 0.02 to 39.8 pCi/g for Cs-137 (Table 1).
SUMMARY
l The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) performed independent verification survey activities of portions of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Company site on October 15 and 16,1997. Survey activities performed included gamma surface scans, exposure rate measurements, and soil sampling. Exposure rates and radionuclide concentrations in soil samples in Areas 9504, 9506, and 9512 were comparable to background levels. Additionally, ESSAP exposure rates, averaging 8.7 pR/h, were comparable to Connecticut Yankee exposure rates performed at the same locations, which averaged 10.7 pR/h. Soil samples collected within the southeast landfill area (Area 9535) were compared to the licensee's results and indicated good agreement. Verification results indicate that Areas 9504, 9506, and 9512 are consistent with background radiation levels. An inspection of the major areas of the scoping and characterization survey program at CY was performed by ESSAP on October 15, 1997. The CY scoping and characterization program is consistent with the recommendations of both NUREG/CR-5849 and MARSSIM, as well as pertinent l industry standards. ESSAP made several recommendations for improving the scoping and ! j characterization program. Overall, CY's program for scoping and characterization surveys is j completely satisfactory for generating survey data for characterizing the Connecticut Yankee site. ; i con,metics Yankee Site (558). December 26. Im 7 empWpahonnyankvy_insp.rpt ,
, s 1 i
. 558 -001 (1).
i-l l l 1 l l I 4 t l
~ .... *
- 'i,:.
- ~- ..
y .. . .
. .. .,:y
-; n;
,., q.. ,.. . .
. c
-= ,
l POND O
': PARKING LOT
):
y OmCE
. .a. y f h- ,
. . i L 11 i %Q
..*,,. :!.I' : -:- u-
. d :, . ; .
. .: .:' j 2
- g,
~
CONNECTICUT RNER = l l 1 i N ; 4 h JL 5:1! SURVEYED AREA 7F h i NOT TO SCALE l l i FIGURE 1: Connecticut Yonkee Atomic Power Company - ! On-Site Areas included in Verification Survey j Comascacut Yankas See (558). m 26,1997 8 essapWpor:VonnyankkyM.rpt { i
t s* 558-002 (1)
~
1
/ m1 m2%
a . B<\f. E POND _ / PARKING LOT o - I 7 6 0 cmCE
. 314 ), g
- 513 E 12
.- 8
=
' CONNECTICUT RNER = l N \
MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING g LOCATIONS E f SURFACE Soll h h NOT TO SCALE FIGURE ' 2: Cannecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company - On-Site Measurement and Sampling Locations Connscuca Yankee Sim (554 December 26. im 9 ,,,,pwpo,,wo.,y. evy_i ,.,,, ;
558-003 (x) I r --[M 47' l 65' r , E
\ '
163' 16 u O PN
\ '
. . .s FENCE UNE Q s 15 \
ASP E ,
,, A N' l V CONCRETE J
18 e 8 I I 268
- i e L .A l h 172' E SAND MOUb DS 8 n
I 8 B I I
. , p 3 e 1 g 19 MOUND I
I p * , - 7 l
/
388/2' 12' 59' #
-- , + -- - J 74 t4 MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING LOCATIONS E f SURFACE Soll .
NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company - Southeast Landfill Area Measurement and Sampling Locations Connecdcut Yankee site (5$8)- Decernber 26. IM 10 ..pvepor,wmoy.ouwy;o.p.rpe
2 3 8 0 4 0 8 2 8 0 Y 1 0 1 0 C 0 0 0 3 7
< < < 5 0 6 4
7 0
) 3 1
S /g s E i C T Cp
- 2 1 7
A ( P 0 0 2 2 1 R E s n A 0 0 0 0 E T S 1 o S 0 0 8 R I S i t E 9 4 0 < < 9 a 0 U Y r 0 0 3 S t O N ne P) A c X35 P n o E5M 9 C 2 O e 1 DE N ACT U d 9 0 2 1 1 0 0 i
"Y 1 1 1
A R RC l c u C 0 0 0 0 SA EI < < < < 4 E( LL WTC n o 3 5 _ PL OE P N i d a 0 6- s MF RN I R C o i c t 1 E AD AO i s t L S LAL N EC ' P 0 1 k s c
. t a
B I A 2 2 3 3 0 e g A O STUC LCK S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- b n nt e n i
T F SNE S E < < < < 7 l loo u 2 O E A EN I c 3 I
.n SI EM Po y I I KA ml on ST N D YU r o LO A D f
d 7 e AS Y TI A I 3 4 2 9 9 1 s b a _ N Y 5 6 A MU ,l, . OC s e)h C 8 9 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 e v Y R FT RI t a/ r e el O C RRp b e mc n E e e e _ T r( cd N um ei A s Df n M N o1 no _ R O pt oc I C xa P x a% F E A 4 6 2 9 4 f 5 S a 9 N S 8 8 9 7 3 1 ivhe O E d t C i et n v e e c s e e r r p e 5 6 7 8 9 ts r l s e D' 1 1 1 1 1 u e l I #
/
/
/
/
/
si et n p 3 P 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 ee. r ia mA a S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S rl t upr e gmc S S ian C C C C C Fs u YE 5 5 5 5 5 ol io P C/D 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 t r e sA I f S 9 9 9 9 9 eY S RCE Ef yg? t.Bj C ikriFF $
. i l
- l l
TABLE 2 EXPOSURE RATES AND RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CONNECTICUT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER COPANY SITE HADDAM NECK, CONNECTICUT Exposure Rates Radionuclide Concentrations Location at I m (pR/h) (pCi/g) ESSAP/CY Co-60 Cs-137 BACKGROUND LOCATIONS Rock Landing Road at Quarry Hill Road 8.8 /10.3 <0.05 0.03 0.04' Entrance to Hurd Park 8.7 / 9.4 <0.03 0.16 0.02 l Highway 151 at Haddam Neck Road 9.6/11 <0.06 0.07 0.03 End of Rock Landing Road at River 7.7 / 9.4 <0.04 0.12 0.03 Haddam Neck Old Rock Landing Cemetery 7.7 / 11.8 <0.03 0.43 0.04 6 AREA 9506 Location 1 , 9.1 / 1.1.7 <0.04 0.09 0.03 Location 2 9.0 /10.9 <0.04 0.09 0.03 Location 3 8.3 / 11.4 <0.06 0.03 0.03 Location 4 8.7 /11.2 <0.03 0.04 0.01 Location 5 8.8/11 <0.06 <0.06 Location 6 8.8 /10.7 <0.04 0.10 0.01 Location '7 8.3/10.2 <0.04 ' O.12 0.03 AREA 9512 6 Location 8 8.0 / 9.6 <0.04 0.12 0.01 Location 9 8.2 / 11.7 <0.06 0.21 0.04 Location 10 7.7 / 9.5 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.03 Location 11 8.3/10.6 <0.03 <0.03 Location -12 8.1/ 9.5 <0.03 0.07 0.01 Location 13 8.3 / 9.4 <0.04 0.1820.04 Location 14 9.2/10 <0.06 0.18 0.05
. Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.
' Refer to Figure 2.
Connecneut Yankee Sise (558) . Decenter 26.1997 }2 essapveporsk:onnyankky.insp.rpt
1 o l l REFERENCES Connecticut Yankee (CY). Connecticut Yankee Site Characterization. Presented at the Community Meeting. October 7, .1997. Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Draft for Public Comment. December 1996. , Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Survey Procedures Manual for the Energy / Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 9. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 30,1995a. Oak Ridge' Institute for Science and Education. Quality Assurance Manual for the Energy / Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 7. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; January 31,1995b. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey and Inspection Plan for Scoping and Characterization Activities Performed at the Connecticut Yankee Site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; October 13,1997a. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Environmental and Health Sciences Division, Env.ironmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 11. Oak Ridge, Tennessee; April 30,1997b. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC). Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination (Draft). NUREG/CR-5849. Washington, DC; June 1992. 4 l l I 1 1 Connecnew Yankee Siw (558) . Decen6er 26.1997 }3 essapWporstonnyankky.insp.rpt i
.n..-
n ORISE CAK SEDGE INSTITUTE Poa $CIENCE AND EDUCATION i I l l I April 28,1998 Russell A. Mellor, Director Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 362 Injun Hollow Road l East Hampton, CT 06424-3099 l
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY LETTER STATUS REPORT FOR PROJECT #100629 i
Dear Mr. Mellor:
Enclosed is the monthly letter status report for the period October 1997 to March 1998. This report summarizes the Independent Scoping Study ofthe D&D Work at the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor ORISE Project #100629. If you have questions regarding this information, please contact me at (423) 576-3740. : i Sincerely, N y Eric W. Abelquist l Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA:dkh Enclosure cc: ' D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP File /558 i P. O. BOX 117, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 378310117 , Managed and operoemd by Ook Ridge Associated Universities for the U.s. Department of Energy
1 MONTHLY LETTER STATUS REPORT OCTOBER 1997 THROUGH MARCH 1998 i Independent Scoping Study of the D&D Work at the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor
)
ORISE Project #100629 4 ORISE Project Management: E. Abelquist (423)576-3740 W. Beck (423) 576-5031 CY Task Manager: R.'Mellor (860)267 - 3690 l
- 1. Obiective:
l The objective of the independent verification activities is to provide independent survey { activities to validate site radiological conditions as well as independent health physics technical reviews of the licensee's characterization survey approach and data during the ! decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor station. Verification data will be provided to several groups or agencies interested in these independent reviews-including 'he Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee ) (CDAC) , the Nuclear Energy Advmory Council, the State Department of Environmental l Protection, the NRC, and the licensee. I
- 2. Proeress Durine Renottine Period (October throuch March 1998h e Talked to Russ Mellor (CY) on 10/6/97 - he requested ORISE to attend Neighborhood Meeting on 10/7/97. CY (Dick Sexton) will present CY characterization program and results to date. Traveled to CY on 10/7 to visit staff at CY and participated in Neighborhood Meeting. Worked on travel plans for next week's survey trip - ORISE independent verification survey team will include J.
Payne, L. Mashburn, and D. Herrera. Prepared CY inspection and verification survey plan on 10/9. Revisions to plan made on 10/10 and faxed to R. Mellor on 10/10. Internal QA review of document performed on 10/10. Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 10/10 - he received plan and will comment on it. e incorporated ORISE QA and P. Hollenbeck's (CY) comments on verification survey plan on 10/13. Reviewed instrument checkout data prepared by J. Payne. Participated in CY planning meeting on 10/14 with ORISE survey team. Survey team travels to CY on 10/14; E. Abelquist (ORISE) performs decommissioning inspection activities on 10/15, survey team performs independent verification survey activities on 10/15 and 10/16. Prepared briefsurvey report for Dick Toohey (ORISE) on 10/17 (preparation for presentation at CDAC). Prepared trip report on 10/17/97. e Talked briefly with P. Hollenbeck - mentioned an over-the-phone closeout with CY. Talk to Dick Toohey on 10/23 - he provides update ofhis participation at CDAC and NEAC meetings. Both meetings went well-Ed Wilds (UConn) presented radiation basics at NEAC meeting. ORISE initiated preparation ofletter report for survey
activities at CY on 10/24. Discussed soil sampling techniques with P. Hollenbeck on 10/24/97. Reviewed status of CY inspection items on 10/24. Talked to Ed , Moreno (Yankee Environmental Lab) on 10/24 - he provided clarification on how l CY samples are analyzed. l e Jack Beck (ORISE) attends NRC's PSDAR comment session at CY on October 27, l 1997. - e Continued work on CY inspection report ~on 10/28 and 10/29. Talked to Dick Sexton , and P. Hollenbeck on 10/29 - conducted close-out inspection and discussed draft l inspection report. e Talked to D. Lankford (ORISE) on 10/31 - he stated that there was an immediate need to disburse public information on tritium to address issue of tritium in wells. ' Called Ed Kaplan at BNL on 10/31 to see what they had prepared on the tritium issue. Prepared the tritium fact sheet and sent to Lankford - also got input from Dr. i Brown (he faxed copy of BNL's tritium facts) and Paul Frame (ORISE), who l provided results of EPA water sampling around nuclear reactors. i e Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 11/4 - he will provide the landfill soil sample analysis ! results after ORISE issues the draft inspection report. Worked on inspection report i on 11/5-requested internal review and to merge in J. Payne's section on survey results. Incorporated QA comments on inspection report on 11/5/97. Revised CY inspection report is sent out (Fed Ex) to R. Mellor, CDAC and other copied individuals. e Prepared outline for presentation of ORISE inspection and verification survey at CY on 11/11/97. Plan to present material on November 18,1997 at CDAC meeting. Continued preparation of CY presentation for CDAC meeting on 11/13. Completed CDAC presentation on 11/14 and requested internal review; incorporated comments on CDAC presentation on 11/16/97. Traveled to CT on 11/18 and presented results : of ESSAP scoping survey inspection at CDAC meeting. Returned to Oak Ridge on 11/19. Prepared trip report for CDAC meeting on 11/21. e Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 12/5 - CY planning to survey, remediate and perform ! final release surveys for properties that contain some of the roughly 5000 concrete ; blocks released to community in 1970s. Hollenbeck anticipates that ORISE should ' receive the landfill samples by 12/8 and CY's results by end of that week. e Revised the CY report on 12/23/97; included results of soil sampling in landfill. Requested internal review of revised CY report on 12/24, incorporated comments, and issued final inspection report on 12/26/97.
1
\
1 I e Talked to Dick Sexton on 1/7/98 - discussed the concrete block (16"x 6"x4") problem at CY. No detectable rad is the limit-identified at 40 different sites so far. Expect this project to take at least 6 months. NRC has asked CY to provide a dose estimate for each homeowner exposed to these blocks. ORISE may provide independent i assessment of CY remedial action and survey plans, and their implementation. e Sent email to Dick Sexton on 1/13 - AIHA "Should I be worried about ionizing radiation?" Requested additional informa, tion concerning trip to CY to evaluate their surveys /RA of properties containing concrete blocks. Informed CY that Toohey is off the project. e Talked to Dick Sexton on 3/19 - CY is still performing on-site and off-site i characterization; he will send remediation plan and we will perform independent assessment of that plan. They are having to clean up to "no detectable"- detection limit for Co-60 is 0.02 pCi/g; [how to get MARSSIM sample size given this DCGL?] ORISE suggested in situ for negative data and MARSSIM training or seminar for appropriate parties involved with CY (seminar would help to clarify and get consensus on the issues).
- 3. Travel:
- ORISE's J. Beck, D. Toohey, and E. Abelquist travel to CY on October 7,1997 to visit staff at CY and participate in Neighborhood Meeting.
e ORISE performs independent survey and decommissioning inspection activities October 14 to 17,1997. e D. Toohey (ORISE) attends CDAC and NEAC meetings on October 21 and 22, 1997. e Jack Beck (ORISE) attends NRC's PSDAR comment session at CY on October 27, 1997. e Abelquist presents results of ORISE scoping survey inspection at CDAC meeting on November 18,1997.
- 4. Anticioated and Encountered Problem Areas:
None.
- 5. Plan for the Next Reportine Period:
Planning independent assessment activities for CY's remedial action and surveys at properties affected by contaminated concrete blocks.
- 6. Financial Status:
Detailed financial status for this project is provided on the attachment to this report.
c 7_ ,
.. l l
)
7.' i Plan Uodate: Soend'ne ! No update for the current month.
- 8. Summary of Progress to Date/ Milestones.
' Participation at various CDAC and NEAC meetings. ' Independent field survey and ,
- decommissioning inspection activities, and presentation of survey results and inspection I findings at November 18,1997 CDAC meeting.~
i I i i j a l i 1 l L-I l l
l
" l OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION !
Project Name: ESSAP Connecticut Yankee Project Number: 100629 MARCH 1998 l Task Number Task Name Costs thru Feb 1998 March 1998 Costs Year-to-Date Costs 0001 Program Management $ 20,787.13 $ 147.26 $ 20,934.39 0558.01 Pre-Survey $ 3,435.64 $ 3,435.64 4 0558.02 Survey $ 19,853.85 $ 19,853.85 0558.03 Laboratory $ 2,354.18 $ 2,354.18 I ' 0558.04 Report $ 8,848.92 $- 8,848.92 Total Costs $ 55,279.72 5 147.26 $ 55,426.98 i Task 001: Program Manage. ment Hours of Effort Employee Hours thru Feb 1998 March 1998 Hours Year-to-Date Hours ' Abelquist, Mr. Eric W. 2.00 1.00 3.00 Beck, Mr. William Lester (Jack) 55.00 55.00 Deltoro, Mr. Michael J. 0.75 0.75 Herrera, Ms. Debora Kay 2.75 2.75 Lance, Ms. Brenda L 0.50 0.50 Payne, Ms. Ann Templon 1.75 1.75 Singletary, Ms. Carol D. 3.00 3.00 Toohey, Dr. Richard E. 40.30 40.30 Waters, Ms. Karen Elaine 6.25 6.25 Total Hours 112.30 1.00 113.30 100629 report:4/9/98
s
= l l . i a 1 ORISE OAK RBDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCAftON i
May 11,1998 Russell A. Mellor, Vice President Operations and Decommissioning i Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company l 362 Injun Hollow Road . East Hampton, CT 06424-3099 i l
SUBJECT:
PLANNED ORISE INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY 1998 AT THE HADDAM NECK PLANT, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC ! POWER COMPANY (CYAPCO), EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Mellor:
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORIS E) has reviewed the decommissioning work planned for the remainder of the fiscal year at the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and proposes to perform the following independent technical assistance activities. ESSAP plans to verify the implementation of CYAPCO's
, Material Recovery Plan (MRP) at certain off-site properties during the period June through September 1998.
Specifically, ESSAP proposes to make site visits on three (3) separate occasions to evaluate implementation of the MRP through visual inspections and performance of field survey measurements and sampling. A number of soil samples (8 to 10) will be collected and analyzed for each site visit, and a report will be prepared documenting the results ofour independent activities. The results ofour independent assessments , will be presented at three (3) meetings of the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC). l Attachment A of this document contains the spending plan for performing the above described independent ! activitie Please direct any questions you may have to me at (423) 576-3740 or William L. (Jack) Beck at ; (423) 576-5031. i l Sincerely, l Eric W. Abelquist I Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EWA:dkh Attachment ec: D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP File /558 i P. O. BOX 117, OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE 378310117 Managed and operated by Cok Ridge Associated Universtes for the U.s. Department of Energy
. ATTACHMENT A ll PERFORMANCE PERIOD l FY 98 SPENDING PLAN ll From To l lN:me of Laboratory: lJun-98 Sep-98 l lOIk Ridge Institute for Science and Education ll l l ll Est. Project Cost l l Title of Project: #0558 $56,910.00 l l Connecticut Yankee, Hartford, Connecticut lll l l l l ORISE Number l )
l II ll 100629.0000 0 l lCOST ELEMENTS Q Oct-97 ll Nov-97 0 Dec-97 ll Jan-98 ) l Direct Costs l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Indirect Costs-(G&A, DOE Factor) l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Total Estimate Costs l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Project Completion l 0.00%l 0.00%l 0.00%l 0.00%l l COST ELEMENTS l Feb-98 l Mar-98 l Apr-98 l May-98 l lDir ct Costs l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Indirect Costs-(G&A, DOE Factor) l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Wot:1 Estimate Costs. l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l $0.00 l l Project Completion l 0.00%l 0.00%l 0.00%l 0.00%l l COST ELEMENTS l Jun-98 l Jul-98 l Aug-98 l Sep-98 l l Direct Costs l $10,779.00 l $10,779.00 l $10,779.00 l $10,777.00 l l Indirect Costs-(G&A, DOE Factor) l $3,449.00 l $3,449.00 l $3,449.00 l $3,449.00 l l Total Estimate Costs l $14,228.00 l $14,228.00 l $14,228.00 l $14,226.00 l l l Project Completion l 25.00%l 50.00%ll . 75.00%l 100.00%l hCTIVITY INFORMATION Hours b Estimated Cost h l Site Visit l 0.00 l $0.00 ll lCDAC Preparation l 18.00 l $2,630.00 l lCDAC Meetings, etc. l 69.00 l $8,770.00 l l Travel. Labor l 72.00 l $9,350.00 l l Travel-Other Expenses l l $15,610.00 l l Survey Activities l 72.00 l $9,350.00 $ lR: port Preparation l 71.00 l 39,150.00 l lSunple Analysis l 18.00 l $2,050.00 l lOth:r l 0.00 l $0.00 l otal 320.00 $56,910.00 Cy sp 5/8/98- bil
r
. l n
l ORISE CAsc aioot INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATlON May 18,1998 Mr. Hugh Curley, CDAC 715 Haddam Quarter Road Durham, CT 06422 I
SUBJECT:
. DOCUMENT REVIEW-MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN, HADDAM NECK PLANT, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (CYAPCO), EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT i
Dear Mr. Curley:
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has reviewed the subject document and offers the attached comments { for your consideration. It is anticipated that ESSAP personnel will be available to verify the ! implementation of the Material Recovery Plan (MRP) at certain off-site properties in the near future. 1 The results of our independent assessment will be presented at an upcoming Community l Decomrnissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) meeting. Please direct any questions you may have to me at (423) 576-3740 or William L. (Jack) Beck at (423)576-5031. Sincerely, Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EWA:dkh Attachment cc: Representative T. Concannon, NEAC E. Woolacott, NEAC K. McCarthy, DEP W. Raymond, NRC L. Pittiglio, NRC/NMSS R. Mellor, Connecticut Yankee D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W Beck,ORISE/ESSAP File /558 l P. O. BOX 117. OAK ROGE. TENNESSEE 37 B310117 Managed and operated by Cok Ridge Associated Universihes for the U.s. Deponment of Energy [
p; ll . _' * . . . V> l: A
- ' Comments Material Recovery Plan Haddam Neck Plant Connecticut Yankee Atomie Power Company East Hampton, Connecticut .
General Comments The subject Material Recovery Plan (MRP) provides a technically justifiable approach for identifying and recovering the radioactive materials previously released from the Haddam Neck
; Plant (HNP), and demonstrating compliance with the project-specine release criteria at each property. The plan adequately describes the methodology used to identify the potentially affected off-site properties and provides an "Off Site Survey Area Questionnaire" to better delineate time frames when these materials were present and more specific material locations within the property. j
..The field survey instrumentation and laboratory analyses planned for implementation of the MRP are appropriate for the contaminants ofconcern-Co-60 and Cs-137. The release criteria for surface contamination (on concrete blocks), radionuclide concentrations in soil, and exposure rates have been clearly stated and require the residual radioactivity to be cleaned up to background radiation I levels. The methodology used to determine the background concentration of Cs-137 appears to be complete, and the delineation of Cs-137 background into disturbed and undisturbed soil areas will help to assure that the appropriate background levels are applied to each off-site property. Finally, the_ final status survey approach summarized in Table 1 is generally consistent with the industry-standard guidance provided in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) NUREG/CR-5849, " Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination."
. Three different types of surveys are discussed in the MRP-scoping, charactedzation, and final status surveys-each with a necessary and specific purpose in the Material Recovery Process, but a detailed survey approach appears to be only provided for the final status survey (in Table 1). [The i reviewer assumes that Table 1 provides the details for the final status survey that will be perfonned i following the removal of radioactive matedals and.any necessary remediation at an off-site ;
ywgdy]. Section 5.3.2 of the MRP appropriately references Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power l Company (CYAPCO), procedure, RPM 5.1-2, " Instructions for Scoping and Characterization i Surveys" for the development of Survey / Sampling Work Plans. However, it is not clear what types ofsurvey measurements, and their frequency, will be performed during scoping and characterization surveys. For example, while the MRP (p. 5) states that initial area scans and dose rate surveys will be performed during the scoping survey, it would be even more helpful to provide the typical scan area coverage and number of measurements and samples to be performed during these surveys. The scoping survey,section states (p. 5) that radioactive materials exceeding the initial screenmg criteria will be removed or public access controlled. For materials identified at an off-site property
- that are less than the screening criteria (i.e., detectable, but less than screening criteria), the MRP
- cYArcb(ossa).May is.190s . . ennap" ws,1_9s.wpd
II ~ x .,
'9 1(Fi gure 1) maintains that a characterization / restoration plan be developed. However, this is not
. stated in the text-it can only be determined from the MRP illustrated in Figure 1.
It is not clear what activities are included in the "closcout investigation" (Figure 1) ifmaterials are not detected during the scoping survey. ; For example, if no radioactive materials are identified during the scoping survey (by definition, the scoping survey is a biased survey), will the closcout
. investigation include some manner of an unbiased, statistically'-based final status survey? . The reviewer recommends ~that a final status survey--based on either an affected or unaffected area classi5 cation-be performed at each off-site property that progresses as far as " Perform Scoping Survey" in the Material Recovery Process (Figure 1). '
Specific Commana
. 1. Page 9 - How will the count time be determined for the in situ gamma spectrometer to
. provide an MDA of 0.15 pCi/g for Co-607 Is this count time determination provided in the referenced DE&S Procedure No. 5107
- 2. Page 11, Table 1 - The " survey type" provided in the third and fourth rows for affected paved
- areas and soil surveys appears to be " systematic" rather than " biased". The purpose of this comment is to clarify the survey type, it will not affect the final status survey design.
- 3. Figure 3 - An additional question for the Off Site Survey Area Questionnaire that may bc l considered is as follows: "Have any materials been removed from this site?"
j 1 i
)
\
l l i l CYAPCO (0558)- May 18.1,,, 2 _
,*n w.i ys_ii_9 .-pa
e e Ff ORISE CAK elDGE aNSTITUTE Poe SCIENCE AND EDUCATION May 29,1998 Mr. Hugh Curley, CDAC 715 Haddam Quuter Road Durham, CT 06422 -
SUBJECT:
VERIFICATION SURVEY PLAN FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE'S ! IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN AT OFF-SITE PROPERTIES, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (CYAPCO), EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Curley:
The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has prepared the subject verification survey plan to verify the implementation of the Material Recovery Plan (MRP) at certain off-site properties. Our initial independent assessment of the implementation of the MRP at off-site properties will be on June 2 and 3,1998. It is anticipated that the results of our independent assessment will be presented at the June 16,1998, Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) meeting. < Please direct any questions you may have to me at (423) 576-3740 or William L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031. Sincerely, { kW.@jhM Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EWA:kew Enclosure cc: Representative T. Concannon, NEAC j E. Woolacott, NEAC i K. McCarthy, DEP W. Raymond, NRC l L. Pittiglio, NRC/NMSS ! R. Mellor, Connecticut Yankee - l D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP File /558 i P O. Box 117, OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE 3783 t.0117 Monoged and operosed by Ook Ridge Associoved Universities for the U S Department of Energy
l l VERIFICATION SURVEY PLAN FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT INTRODUCTION During the historical site assessment of the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) of the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), it was determined that a concrete block shield wall from the resin processing area had been removed from the plant in 1975. This discovery indicated that low I level radioactive concrete shield blocks, soil, and other miscellaneous materials were released from the site without appropriate records to provide adequate information regarding whether or not the materials had been surveyed prior to their unconditional release. On November 26,1997, initial surveys were performed at two fo:mer employees' properties who had acquired some of the concrete shield blocks. The results of these surveys detected low levels oflicensed material at each of the properties. Therefore, effons have been'made to recover all HNP licensed material and concrete shield blocks that had been released to the 92 currently identified off-site locations where licensed material may be present. These efforts are being conducted by CYAPCO following their Material Recovery Plan (MRP).~ As of April 28,1998, activities at 22 of the sites have been completed (CYAPCO 1998). Sixteen areas need initial scoping surveys and sixteen need further investigations. These initial scoping surveys and investigations are being performed concurrently with remediation efforts at the remaining 38 locations. 1 The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for l Science and Education (ORISE) has been tasked to perform verification surveys of selected off-site locations where clean-up effons are currently taking place. i i Prepared by the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Oak Ridge Institute for l Science and Education, under contract number DE-AC05-760R-00033 with the U.S. Department of Energy. Connechcut Yankee. East Haddam. CT (558) May 29,1998 esrap\planstonnyankt-yankee 001 4 l
r I OBJECTIVE i The objective of the verification survey is to provide reviews of CYAPCO's implementation of their Material Recovery Plan and independent data to evaluate the radiological condition of the off-site locations relative to background levels. INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES l ESSAP will visit the Connecticut Yankee site to perform visual inspections of the identified off-site properties and an assessment ' of CYAPCO's implementation of the MRP. Survey activities-including independent measurements and sampling-will be conducted in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures'and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE 1998a and 1996). Specific survey procedures applicable to this survey are listed on pages 3 and 4 of this survey
- plan. Deviations to the survey plan or procedures will be documented in the site logbook.
Surface Scans an_d Direct Measurements Gamma surface scans will be conducted over portions of each selected survey area. Surface scans in land areas will be performed using Nal scintillation detectors. Beta surface scans and direct measurements of surface activity will be performed using a GM detector. Locations of elevated direct radiation, suggesting the presence of residual contamination, will be marked for further investigation. All detectors will be coupled to ratemeters or ratemeter-scalers with audible indicators. Exposure Rate Measurements A minimum of five (5) exposure rate measurements will be performed within each selected survey l 1 area. Measurements will be performed at 1 m above the surface using a microrem meter. i i l cT(s33.u.,2,.i . 2 wo v..=w.,..i l co .cii..iv..x e in.oo . .1,i. .oo i i ! L .1
E Soil Samnling Surface (0-15 cm) soil samples will be collected for radiological analysis from a minimum of five (5) locations from each of the selected survey areas. Additional samples will be collected from an locations' of elevated direct radiation detected by surface scans. Subsurface soil samples (greater than 15 cm in depth) will be collected from surface sampling locations in the event that field 4 measurements indicate possible subsurface contamination. Background soil samples were performed during a previous site survey (ORISE 1997). Sample Analysis and Data Interpretation Samples and data will be returned to ORISE's ESSAP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis and interpretation. Laboratory activities will be performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1998b). Soil samples will be analyzed by solid state gamma spectroscopy. The radionuclides ofinterest are Co-60 and Cs-137; however, spectra will also be reviewed for any other identifiable photopeaks. Analytical results for soil samples will be reported in units of picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The data generated will be compared to CYAPCO results, as well as background levels. Results will be presented in a report and provided to the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC), CYAPCO, and other interested parties. LIST OF APPLICABLE PROCEDURES Applicable procedures from ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures Manual (Revision 10, Janitary 7, 1998) include: Section 5.0 Instrument Calibration and Operational Check-Out
- 5.1 General Infonnation 5.2 - Electronic Calibration of Ratemeters 5.3 Gamma Scintillation Detector Check-Out and Cross Calibration Connecticut Yankes. East Haddam, CT ($58) . May 29.1998 3
,,,apspi. sco y..usc.y. u .ooi !
L
n -- 5.5 GM Detector Calibration and Check-Out I 5.9 Bicron Micro-Rem Meter Check-Out 5.14 Field Measuring Tape Calibration Section 7.0 - Scanning and Measurement Techniques 7.1 Surface Scanning .
-7.4 Beta Radiation Measurement < l 7.5 . Gamma Radiation (Exposure Rate) Measurement
! Section 8.0 Sampling Procedures . l 8.1 Surface Soil Sampling 8.2 : Subsurface Soil Sampling 8.15 Sample Identification and Labeling 8.16 Sample Chain-of-Custody ,
Section 9.0 Integrated Survey Procedures 9.2 General Survey Approaches and Strategies Section 10.0 Safety and Contamination Control i 4 4 Connecticut Yankee. East Haddam. CT (558) . May 29.1998 essapiplanstonnyankV yankee.00i
i l . 4 REFERENCES Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO). Haddam Neck Plant Material Recovery Plan, East Hampton, CT; April 1998. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Quality Assurance Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 8. Oak Ridge, TN; September 27,
~
1996. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey and Inspection Report for the Connecticut Yankee Site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; December 26,1997. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Survey Procedures Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 10. Oak Ridge, TN; January 7,1998a. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Environmental Smvey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 11. Oak Ridge, TN; February 17, 1998b. r l Connecucut Yankee. East Haddam. CT (558) May 29,199: 5 ,,,,,s,i. ,monoy,nn.,,,t,, o
l .- : 1 . ORISE QABC RIDGE INSTITUTE FCWt SCIENCE AND EDUCATION June 12,1998 Mr. Hugh Curley, CDAC 715 Haddam Quarter Road , l Durham, CT 06422
SUBJECT:
DRAFT REPORT-VERIFICATION SURVEY FOR CONNECTICUT . YANKEE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (CYAPCO), ' EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Curley:
i Enclosed is the subject document for your review and comment. Comments you may have will be incorporated into the final report. Please direct any questions you may have to me at (423) 576-3740 or William L. (Jack) Beck at I (423)576 5031. Sincerely, f Y.
~
Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EWA:dkh 1 Enclosure cc: Representative T. Concannon, NEAC E. Woolacott, NEAC K. McCarthy, DEP W. Raymond, NRC/ Region I i L. Pittiglio, NRC/NMSS R. Mellor, Connecticut Yankee D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee i W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP I R. Monon, ORISE/ESSAP File /558 l
?' 40X 1 d7, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 378310117 Managed and ope, v. .y Ook Ridge Associend Universites for the U.S. Department c4 Energy
1
- I
. l l
VERIFICATION SURVEY FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN CONNECTICUT. YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT INTRODUCTION During the historical site assessment of the Haddam Neik Plant (HNP) of the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), it wa determined that a concrete block shield wall from the resin processing area had been removed from the plant in 1975. This discovery indicated that low level radioactive concrete shield blocks, soil, and other miscellaneous materials were released from the site without appropriate records to provide adequate infomiation regarding whether or not the j materials had been smveyed prior to their unconditional release. On November 26,1997, initial ! l surveys were performed at two former employees' properties who had acquired some of the concrete ' shield blocks. The results of these surveys detected low levels oflicensed material at each of the properties. Therefore, efforts have been made to identify and recover any HNP licensed material and I concretc shield blocks that had been released to 92 currently identified off-site locations. These i efforts are being conducted by CYAPCO in accordance with the Material Recovery Plan (MRP) prepared for these off-site asses =ments (CYAPCO 1998). As of April 28,1998, activities at 22 of the sites have been completed (CYAPCO 1998). Sixteen i areas need initial scoping surveys and sixteen need further investigations. These initial scoping surveys and investigations are being performed concurrently with remediation efforts at the , remaining 38 locations. The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has been tasked to perform verification surveys of selected off-site locations where clean-up efforts are currently taking place. Connecticut Yankse. East Haddent CT (558). hair 12,1998 essap4 hyankesArepwpd L
SITE DESCRIPTION The Haddam Neck plant is located, at 362 Injun Hollow Road in East Hampton, Connecticut in central Middlesex County approximately ten miles from the city ofMiddletow 1. The two properties investigated during this survey were residences within Middlesex County and designated by CYAPCO as Properties 9624 and,9642. The homeowners had used the concrete blocks for building footers, garden borders, equipment bases, and other assorted uses. Other areas ofinterest on the properties were locations where the blocks had been stored prior to their use by the owners. OBJECTIVE The objective of the verification survey was to provide reviews of CYAPCO's implementation of their Material Recovery Plan and independent data to evaluate the radiological condition of the off-site locations relative to background levels. I DOCUMENT REVIEW ESSAP reviewed the Material Recovery Plan for adequacy and appropriateness of proce'dures and methods used by CYAPCO. ESSAP also reviewed the Survey / Sampling Work Plan for off-site Property 9624, as well as survey data collected during characterization and final status survey activities at this property. PROCEDURES I On June 3,1998, ESSAP performed verification survey activities of two off-site properties (9624 I and 9642) of the Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck Plant in accordance with a survey plan dated May 29,1998 (ORISE 1998a). Verification activities included the performance of visual mspections, independent measurements and sampling of the identified off-site properties, and an I ( i rharut Yankaa, East Haddam. CT (558). June 12.199s 2 ,.., u w .y.on e ,,, ,,a L
i assessment of CYAPCO's implementation of the MRP. Survey activities were conducted in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE ' 1998b and 1996). This report summarizes the procedures and results of the survey. ; I l SURFACE SCANS Gamma surface scans were conducted over portions of each off-site property, including 100% of remediated areas. Surface scans were performed using NaI scintillation detectors which were j coupled to ratemeters with audible indicators. SOIL SAMPLING
~
Six surface (0-15 cm) soil samples were collected from five excavated areas on Property 9642 (CYAPCO had performed final status surveys at these locations and considered them to meet the release criteria]. Background soil samples were performed during a previous site survey in the Hartford, Connecticut area (ORISE 1997). SAMPLE ANALYSIS AND DATA INTERPRETATION Samples and data were retumed to ORISE's ESSAP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis ! and interpretation. Laboratory activities were performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP ; Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1998c). Soil samples were analyzed by solid state gamma spectroscopy. The radionuclides ofinterest were Co-60 and Cs-137; however, spectra was also reviewed for any other identifiable photopeaks. Analytical results for soil samples were reported in units of picocuries per gram (pCi/g). Additional information regarding majcr instrumentation, sampling equipment, and analytical procedures is provided in Appendices A and B. The data generated were compared to background levels. l Comascticut Yankac East Haddsm, CT ($58). Jew 12,1993 3 essapwportsmyankWruftrep wpd i
y ' g- .
. FINDING AND RESULTS DOCUMENT REVIEW
- ESSAP reviewed the MRP and comments were presented to the Community Decommissioning j
- Advisory Committee (CDAC) and other interested parties (ORISE 1998d). In general, the MRP provided a technicallyjustifiable approach for identifying and recovering the radioactive materials
- previously released from the HNP.
. ESSAP's review of the raw data from Property 9624 indicated that the soil samples were counted for a period of time to yield a minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of approximately 0.045
- pCi/g-not 0.02 pCi/g, as had been verbally reported Jo ESSAP. When questioned concerning this d' iscrepancy, CYAPCO stated they were reporting the critical (evel (L ) [a critical level of 0.02 pCi/g corresponds to an MDC of approximately 0.045]. The L, is not the standard parameter used for reporting analytical detection capabilities-the MDC is typically reported.
ESSAP also reviewed the Chain-of-Custody (C-o-C) forms for the samples collected from Property 9624. Many of the C-o-C forms had not been fully completed-some missing signatures of the sampler or did not have signatures indicating that the samples had been properly received by the
. laboratory.
l i VISUALINSPECTIONS/ SURFACE SCANS Visual inspections of Property %24 identified a partial concrete block in the lightly-forested,
- western portion of the ywysty. This block was believed to belong to CYAPCO, but did not exhibit any radiation levels above background levels. Surface scans of the property did not identify any
~ areas of elevated direct gamma activity.
r- Yamhms. East Haddma, Cr ($ 58) . Jos 12.1996 4 sesapWyormbummynskWraftrop.wpd
U RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL Concentrations of radionuclides in soil samples collected from Property 9642 are summarized in Table 1. Radionulclide concentrations were as follows: less than 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60 and 9.07 to 0.40 pCi/g for Cs-137. Radionuclide concentrations in background samples are also summarized in Table 1 and were less than 0.06 for Co-60 and from 0.03 to 0.43 pCi/g for Cs-137. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH BACKGROUND The primary contaminants of concern for the off-site properties are Cs-137 and Co-60. t Site-specific soil criteria for this project were the appropriate background concentration for Cs-137 and 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60 (considered to be an appropriately low detection level). Any activity detected within aoils in excess of these levels was considered to be elevated and would, therefore, require additionalim 'iation efforts. Concentrations ofradionuclides in soil samples collected by ESSAP were comparable to concentrations measured in background samples and CYAPCO soil level remediation goals. I
SUMMARY
l l On June 3,1998, the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program of ORISE performed verification surveys of two off-site properties, designated by CYAPCO as 9624 and 9642, located in Middlesex County, Connecticut. Survey activities included document and data package reviews, surface scans, and soil sampling. Camusemcw Yambas. East Haddum. CT (558) June 12. Im 5 w % y a w .. ,4
[T
.j
- l. Document and data package reviews indicated that CYAPCO was reporting the critical level as an indication of the analytical detection capability, rather than the industry-accepted practice of reporting the MDC. _ Also, many Chain-of-Custody forms had not been fully completed.
During on-site' survey acivities at Property %24, a partial concrete block was identified. No locations of elevated direct radiation were detected dudng scans. Result of all soil analyses from
- Property 9642 soil samples were consistent with background levels of Cs-137 and less than 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60, and in ESSAP's opinion, demonstrate compliance with project-specific criteria.
I t l r- Yambes, East Haddam. CT (558) . June 12,199 6 senept _. -, Masarop $
I TABLE 1 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL ' CONNECTICUT, YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY ' EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT . Radionuclide Concentrations (pCi/g) i Co-60 Cs-137 PROPERTY 9642 1 Survey Unit E <0.02 0.24
- 0.03' l Survey Unit F <0.02 0.29
- 0.03 L
Stuvey Unit H <0.02 0.40
- 0.03 '
Survey Unit I '
<0.02 0.26
- 0.03 Survey Unit I <0.02 0.17 0.02 Survey Unit R <0.02 0.07
- 0.02 !
BACKGROUND LOCATIONS ' Rock Landing Road at Quarry Hill Road <0.05 0.03
- 0.04 Entrance to Hurd Park <0.03 0.16 0.02 Highway 151 at Haddam Neck Road <0.06 0.07 0.03 End of Rock Landing Road at River <0.04 0.12 0.03 l Haddam Neck Old Rock Landing Cemetery <0.03 0.43
- 0.04 l
' Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based on the total propagated uncertainty.
l l cen ym s.m n.m.m. cr p5:>. s= u. im 7 ww= var **=W I l
p j
~*
REFERENCES ! Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO). Haddam Neck Plant Material Recovery Plan; East Hampton, CT; April 199,8.- i Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Quality Assurance Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 8. Oak Ridge, TN; September 27, 19%.
)
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey and Inspection Report for the Connecticut Yankee Site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; December 26,1997;
. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey Plan for Connecticut Yankee's Implementation of the Material Recovery Plan at Off-Site Properties, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, East Haddam, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; May 29,1998a.
. Oak Ridge Institute for Science.and Education. Survey Procedures Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 10. Oak Ridge, TN; January 7,1998b.
1 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 11. Oak Ridge, TN; February 17,
~1998c.
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Document Review-Material Recovery Plan, . Haddam Neck Plant, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company.(CYAPCO), East Haddam, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; May 18,1998d. l l 1-L cm Yh, Eam W Cr 059.Jos 12. Im 0 WWWW
9 e e e e APPENDIX A MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION C"a'cW YA Ea* W CT(558) June 12,1993
- map %hyarAWrafbep wpd l
j
4 APPENDIX A MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION The display of a specific product is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or its manufacturer by the authors or their employers. DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT Instruments - Eberline Pulse Ratemeter Model PRM-6 (Eberline, Santa Fe, NM) Detectors Victoreen NaI Scintillation Detector , Model 489-55, . 3.2 cm x 3.8 cm Crystal (Victoreen, Cleveland, OH) LABORATORY ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION High Purity Extended Range Intrinsic Detectors Model No: ERVDS30-25195 (Tennelec, Oak Ridge, TN) Used in conjunction with: Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, TN) and Multichannel Analyzer 3100 Vax Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, CT) High Purity Extended Range Intrinsic Detector Model No. GMX-45200-5 (ORTEC) used in conjunction with: Lead Shield Model SPG-1648 (Nuclear Data) Multichannel Analyzer 3100 Vax Workstation
. (Canberra, Meriden, CT)
' Connecoca Yankee, Eau Haddesa CT (55e). June 12. I,..
A-1 e pvepo,=wo ny =mn,cp -pa
p r . l .
' High-Purity Germanium Detector
-Model GMX-23195-S,23% Eff.
(EG&G ORTEC, Oak Ridge, TN) Used in conjunction with: . Lead Shield Model C-16 (Gamma Products, Palos Hills, IL) and Multichannel Analyzer. 3100 Vax Workstation
. (Canberra, Meriden, CT)
)
i l m I c ==ym z u.44 n. cross >.s== n me A-2 -w%y twr.rir.p .p4
Il _'i s . . . ,
's
- 1. 8 f *
',b, l'
l t-9
/
6 APPENDIX B a ) SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES e (- V
,,t e
Communeset Yashes. Fw h CT (558) Jos 12.1998 esempwpormwamyonkwafbmwpd
E APPENDIX B SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES SURVEY PROCEDURES Surface Senns Surface scans were performed by passing the detectors slowly over the surface; the distance between the detector and the surface was maintained at a minimum-nominally about 10 cm. Identification of elevated levels was based on increases in the audible signal from the recording and/or indicating instrument. Combinations of detectors and instruments used for the scans were: GarrAa - NaI scintillation detector with ratemeter Soil hmniin. Approximately 1 kg of soil was collected at each sample locadon. Collected samples were placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and labeled in accordance with ESSAP survey procedures. i ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Gamma Sr=ctroscopy Samples of soil were dried, mixed, crushed, and/or homogenized as necessary, and a portion sealed in a 0.5-liter Marinelli beaker or other appropriate container. The quantity placed in the beaker'was chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geometry. Net material weights were determined and the samples counted using intrinsic germanium detectors coupled to a pulse height analyzer system. Background and Compton stripping, peak search, peak identification, and concentration calculations were performed using the computer capabilities inherent in the analyzer c v ru n.u er csse).w. n. ms B-1 pw- --y..twririre, .pa
n , l ..-
)
[.
.- j
- system. 'All photopeaks associated with the radionuclides of concern were reviewed for consistency of activity. Energy peaks used for determining the activities of radionuclides of
- concern were:
~
Co-60 '1.173 MeV - Cs-137 0.662 MeV W l i Spectra were also reviewed for other identifiable photopeaks. j UNCERTAINTIES AND DETECTION LIMITS i i
.The uncertainties an.sociated with the analytical data presented in the tables of this report represcat the 95% confidence level for that data. These uncertainties were calculated based on both the gross sample count levels and the associated background count levels.
Detection limits, referred to as minimum detectable concentration (MDC), were based on 3 plus ; 4.65 tunes the standard deviation of the background count (3 + (4.65(BKG)]. When the activity l
. was determined to be less than the MDC of the measurement procedure, the result was' reported !
as less than MDC. Because of variations in background levels, measurement efficiencies,'and (. ' contributions from other radionuclide in samples, the detection limits differ from sample to sample l and instrument to instrument. I CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Calibration of all field and laboratory instrumentation was based on standards / sources, traceable to NIST, when such standards / sources were available. In cases where they were not available, standards of an industry-recognized organization were used. l Analytical and field survey activities were conducted in accordance with procedures from the following deimanta of the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program: c mm Yh, Eau W CT04-h.e n,im B-2 --mm + I
g.
^
; Survey Procedures Manual, (January 1998) -
Laboratory Procedures Manual, (February 1998)
- _ Quality Assurance Manual, (September 1996)
- The' procedures contained in these manuals were developed to meet the requirements of DOE Order 5700.6C and ASME NQA-1 for Quality Assurance and contain measures to' assess processes during their performance.
. Quality control procedures include:
Daily instrument background and check-source measurements to confirm that equipment operation is within acceptable statistical fluctuations.
'e Participation in EPA and EML laboratory Quality Assurance Programs.
Training and certification of all individuals performing procedures,
'e ' Periodic, internal and external audits.
e- v s.n = cr <55n.s u, im B-3 , w e y.,4 % +
[ l -* 1
- 1
. .s y.
O R I- S E OAIC RIDGE INSTITL.JTF FOR SCIENCE AND E DUCATION ,
~
- September 9,1998 Mr. Hugh Curley, CDAC 715 Haddam Quarter Road ,
Durham, CT 06422 SUBJECTi DRAFT REPORT-PHASE 2 VERIFICATION SURVEY FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL ! RECOVERY PLAN, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER
- COMPANY (CYAPCO), EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT
Dear Mr. Curley:
Enclosed is the subject document for your review and comment. Comments you may have will be
. incorporated into the final report.
Please direct any questions you may have to me at (423) 576-3740 or William L. (Jack') Beck at (423) 576-5031. .. Sincerely, k ' Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EWA:dkh Enclosure cc: Representative T. Concannon, NEAC E. Woolacott, NEAC K. McCarthy, DEP W. Raymond, NRC/ Region I L:Pitdglio, NRCMMSS:;;_ ;;f;;i.5 d. u-----i ;; _- .u . ,,_ . _ . , f R. Mellor, Connecticut Yankee D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee
- _.. W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP R. Morton, ORISF/ESSAP File /558 P. O. BOX 117, O,JC ROGE. TENNES!EE 37831 0117 Monoged and operoW by ook R.dge Assoceed Universet.es for the U 5. Deporrment of Energy
PHASE 2 VERIFICATION SURVEY FOR CONNECTICUT YANKEE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATERIAL RECOVERY PLAN I CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT INTRODUCTION Daring the historical site assessment of the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) of the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), it was determined that a concrete block shield wall from the resin processing area had been removed from the plant in 1975. This discovery indicated that low level radioactive concrete shield blocks, soil, and other miscellaneous materials were released from the site without appropriate records to provide adequate information regarding whether or not the materials had been surveyed prior to their unconditional release. On November 26,1997, initial surveys were perfonned at two former employees' prop'erties who had acquired some of the concrete shield blocks. The results of these surveys detected low levels oflicensed material at cach of the properties. Therefore, efforts have been made to identify and recover any HNP licensed material and concrete shield blocks that had been released to 114 currently identified off-site locations. These efforts are being conducted by CYAPCO in accordance with the Material Recovery Plan (MRP) prepared for these off-site assessments (CYAPCO 1998). As of September 3,1998, activities at 54 of the sites have been completed while six sites still need initial scoping surveys. These initial scoping surveys and investigations are being performed concurrently with remediation efforts at the remaining 54 locations. The Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has been tasked to perform verification surveys of selected off-site locations where cleanup efforts are currently taking place.
~Y,il5.i- -.i.-d: ~~~" ~ KQ : f3--T ;i.=, ..*f#:: ;'? l=~- ti; ; Efkk= b %?d:-f d d ; Fihnt=: '~']
~ ..- . .
Conneencut Yankee. East Haddam. Cr (558) . September 9,199s essqVeponskowyank\ phase 2 wpd
SITE DESCRIPTION ! The Haddam Neck plant is located at 362 Injun Hollow Road in East Hampton, Connecticut in ! central Middlesex County approximately ten miles from the city of Middletown. The three propenies investigated during the Phase 2 verification survey were residences within Middlesex and New London Counties and designated by CYAPCO as Properties 9620,9621, and 9629. The homeowners had used the concrete blocks to erect walls, garden borders, walkways, equipment bases and other assorted uses. Other areas ofinterest on the properties were locations where the blocks had been stored prior to their use by the owners. OBJECTIVE The objective of the verification survey was to provide reviews ofCYAPCO's implementation of their Material Recovery Plan and independent data to evaluate the radiological condition of the off-site locations relative to background levels. DOCUMENT REVIEW ESSAP reviewed the Material Recovery Plan for adequacy and appropriateness of procedures and methods used by CYAPCO. ESSAP also reviewed the Survey / Sampling Work Plans for the three off-site properties, as well as survey data collected during characterization and final status survey activities of Properties 9632,.9642,9644, and 9657. PROCEDURES On August 25 and 26,1998, ESSAP performed verification survey activities of three off-site properties (9620,9621 and 9629) of the Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck Plant in accordance with-
==.a.- -
_; __y= ---
.=.:
-- -- _ :.== .= :=
..-.-.=.==.-
a survey plan dated _Maf 29,1998 (ORISE 1998a). Verification activities mcluded visual
- 5 . ..= --3..==.._.2
_ y inspections and the performance of surface scans, independent meascemer.ts and sampling of the identified off-site properties, and an assessment of CYAPCO's implem:ntation of the MRP.
- c.=n=eu v na r.m m er (55:n sep=m8= 9. i99: 2 p non onny.nwn 2..pa l
u
s . u However, since final status surveys had not been completed at Propeny 9629, verifications activities were limited to visual inspections ~and surface scans at this property. Survey activities were Tconducted in accordance' with the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE 1998b and 1996). This report summarizes the procedures and results of the survey, SURFACE SCANS '
. Gamma surface scans were conducted over portions of each off-site property including 100% of
; remediated areas (with the exception of Property 9629, where scans were limited to areas outside of remediated areas). Surface scans were performed using NaI scintillation detectors coupled to ratemeters with audible indicators.
EXPOSURE RATE MEASUREMENTS Exposure rate measurements were performed at one meter above the surface at each soil sampling location. Background exposure rate measurements were performed during a previous site survey in the Hartford,~ Connecticut area (ORISE 1997). Sott SAMPLING
~ Eight surface (0-15 cm) soil samples were collected from five locations on Property 9621 and from three locations on Property 9620. Of the eight samples, six were collected from excavated ereae
~ 1
~ - [CYAPCO had jierforined final status surveys at these locations and considered them to meu the '
i'
. release criteria]. Background soil samples were performed during a previous site survey in the Hartford, Connecticut area (ORISE 1997) '
, , SAMPLE _ ANALYSIS AND. DATA INTERPRETATION , .
_ _ _ , ..-._.u_... . . . _ . . . . ,_ . . . m
- m. _a ;
3 Samples and data were returned to ORISE's ESS AP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis and interpretation. Laboratory activities were performed in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Connecticut Yankee, East Hadeva, CT (55s) Sepermber 9,1,,, '3 c ,wpon.wy.navn 2.,4
a j Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1998c). Soil samples were analyzed by solid state gamma spectroscopy. The radionuclides ofinterest were Co-60 and Cs-137; however, spectra was also reviewed for any other identifiable photopeaks. Analytical results for soil samples were reported in units of picocuries per gram (pCi/g). Additional information regarding major instrumentation, sampling equipment, and analytical procedures is provided in Appendices A and B. The data generated were compared to background levels. FINDING AND RESULTS DOCUMENT REVIEW ESSAP reviewed the MRP and comments were provided to the Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) and other interested parties (ORISE 1998d). In general, the MRP provided a technicallyjustifiable approach for identifying and recovering the radioactive materials previously released from the HNP. VISUAL INSPECTIONS / SURFACE SCANS Visual inspections of Properties 9620 and 9621 did not identify any remaining CYAPCO blocks and surface scans of the properties did not identify any areas of elevated direct gamma activity. No areas of elevated gamma activity were detected during scans of Property 9629. EXPOSURE RATES Exposure rate measurements are summarized in Table 1. Exposure rates ranged from 6 to 7 R/h and 10 to 11 pR/h for Properties 9620 and 9621, respectively. Background exposure rates ranged 1.; == g m to 10_ Mand,averagedS R/h._ ,_ Connecticut Yankoa. East Haddam. CT (558) . September 9,1998 4 essapveportsvannyanMphase2.wpd
m 4 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTR/.TIONS IN SOIL
' Concentrations of radionuclides in soil samples collected from Property 9620 and 9621 are summarized in Table 1. Radionuclide concentrations were as follows: less than 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60 and 0.01 to 0.75 pCi/g for Cs-137.
Radionuclide concentrations in background samples are also summarized in Table 1 and were less than 0.06 pCi/g for Co-60 and from 0.03 to 0.43 pCi/g for Cs-137. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH BACKGROUND The primary contaminants of concem for the off-site properties are Cs-137 and Co-60. Site-specific soil criteria for this project were the appropriate background concentration for Cs-137
- and 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60 (considered to be an appropriately low detection level). Any activity detected within soils in excess of these levels was considered to be elevated and would, therefore, require additional remediation efforts. Concentrations of radionuclides in soil samples collected by
~
ESSAP were comparable to concentrations measured in background samples and CYAPCO soil level remediation goals.
SUMMARY
l. f
~
On August 25 and 26,1998, the Environmental Servey and Site Assessment Program of ORISE l performed verification surveys of three off-site properties, designated by CYAPCO as 9620,9621 and 9629, located in Middlesex and New London Counties, Connecticut. Survey activities included document and data package reviews, surface scans, and soil sampling.
~
~
Results ois~urface scans, v'isual inspections and all so'il analyses from Properties' 9620 and 9621 soil samples were consistent with background levels of Cs-137 and less than 0.02 pCi/g for Co-60, and in ESSAP's opinion, demonstrate compliance with project. pecific criteria. Connecocut Yankee, Eat Haddam, Cr (558) September 9,1998 5 em m,%.w a+
r TABLE 1 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY EAST HADDAM, CONNECTICUT Radionuclide Exposure Rate at Location Concentrations (pCi/g) 1 m (pR/h) Co-60 Cs-137. PROPERTY 9620 Survey Unit A 6 <0.01 0.75
- 0.01" Survey Unit B 7 <0.01 0.01
- 0.01 Survey Unit C 6 <0.01 0.19
- 0.01 PROPERTY 9621 Survey Unit A 11 <0.02 0.22 0.01 Survey Unit B 10 <0.01 0.32
- 0.02 Survey Unit C 10 <0.01 0.06 0.01 Survey Unit E 11 <0.01 0.09 0.01 Survey Unit M 10 <0.02 0.25
- 0.03 BACKGROUND LOCATIONS Rock Landing Road at Quarry Hill Road 9 <0.05 0.03
- 0.04 Entrance to Hurd Park ,. 9 <0.03 0.16 0.02 Highway 151 at Haddam Neck Road 10 .<0.06 0.07 0.03 End of Rock Landing Road at River 8 <0.04 0.12 0.03 Haddam Neck Old Rock Landing Cemetery 8 <0.03 0.43 0.04
' Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based on the total propagated uncertainty.
Connecacut Yankee, East Haddam, Cr (558) September 9.199: 6 esupnportswonsyank\ phase 2.wpd
p l Hue , 2 REFERENCES ! Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO). Haddam Neck Plant Material Recovery Plan, East Hampton, CT; April 1998. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Qashty Assurance Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 8. Oak Ridge, TN; September 27, ! 1996. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verification Survey and Inspeedon Report for the Connecticut Yankee, Site in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; December 26,1997. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Verificatio . Survey Plan for Connecticut Yankee's Implementation of the Material Recovery Plan at Off-Site Properties, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, East Haddam, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; May 29,1998a. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Survey Procedures Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 10. Oak Ridge, TN; January 7,1998b. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 11. Oak Ridge, TN; February 17, 1998c. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Document Review-Material Recovery Plan, Haddam Neck Plant, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), East Haddam, Connecticut. Oak Ridge, TN; May 18,1998d. i P co=== ve rui m er <55:>. s.,=*r e: i99:~ 7 ==pwpor m y e c + L
r.. _ C
+
O I i APPENDIX A MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION I l
-- - - , . - , - .,~ _ . . . . , , _ , , _ _ , . _ , , _ _ _ *** +w-. g. ._
Conneencut Yankes, East hktam, CT (558). September 9,1998 ,,
E. f i
)
i l l APPENDIX A ; l MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION The display of a specific product is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or its manufacturer by the authors or their employers. DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT Instruments . Eberline Pulse Ratemeter Model PRM-6 (Eberline, Santa Fe, NM) Detectors Bieron Micro-Rem Meter Bicron Corporation, Newberg, OH
~ Victoreen NaI Scintillation Detector Model 489-55 3.2 cm x 3.8 cm Crystal (Victoreen, Cleveland, OH)
^
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION High Purity Extended Range Intrinsic Detectors Model No: ERVDS30-25195 (Tennelec, Oak Ridge, TN) Used in conjunction with: Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, TN).and Multichannel Analyzer - 3100 Vax Workstation (Canbena, Meriden, CT) High Purity Extended Range Intrinsic Detector Model No. GMX-45200-5 (ORTEC)
- used in conjunction with: .
; Lead Shield Model SPG-16-K8. .
~~ '~ ~ ~ - -
, ~m~~
'(Nuclear Data)
Multichannel Analyzer 3100 Vax Workstation
' (Canberra, Meriden, CT) .
Connecacut Yankee, East Haddam, CT (558) . $epismber 9. Ih'8 A-1 e pwpo,i woo y.nu,h se2.-pd O
y n -- t : . i L..
- L - High-Purity' Germanium Detector
- Model GMX-23195-S,23% Eff.
. (EG&G ORTEC, Oak Ridge, TN)
- Used in conjunction with:
Lead Shield Model G-16 (Gamma Products, Palos Hills, IL) and Multichannel Analyzer . 3100 Vax Workstation-l (Canberra, Meriden, CT) . - t l [ t i
\
c l
)
i 4 1 i f l c.,, == v m s.a n.m.m. cr me) s.,=ie- 9. m. A-2 , w . w ey.nk w .-pa
, - .- - . ~ .- .
,e s ~ .
- M
= 1
- i i
a 1 I i i i 1 i I l j j I l l l APPENDIX B ! 4 SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 1
)
i l e Camectics Yankee, East Fladdam, CT (558)e September 9,1998 .m r.my, so... yank \pbase2.wpd
r l l APPENDIX B ' SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDUR.ES SURVEY PROCEDURES ' Surface Scans l l l 1 Surface scans were perfonned by passing the detectors slowly over the surface; the distance between the detector and the surface was maintained at a minimum-nominally about 10 cm. Identification of elevated levels was based on increases in the audible signal from the recording and/or indicating i 1 instrument. Combinations of detectors and instruments used for the scans were: Gamma - Nal scintillation detector with ratemeter Exposure Rate Measurements Measurements of dose equivalent rates ( rem /h) were performed at 1 meter above the surface using a Bicron microrem meter. Although the instrument displays data in rem /h, the rem /h to R/h conversion is essentially unity. Soil Sampling Approximately 1 kg of soil was sollected at each sample location. Collected samples were placed in a plastic bag, sealed, artil labeled in accordance with ESSAP survey procedures.
~
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Gamma Specttpscopy
- .z., . .r x .. r - u. v . . . , , - r
- Samples of soil were dried, mixed, crushed, and/or homogenized as necessary, and a portion sealed i in a 0.5-liter Marinelli beaker or other appropriate container. The quantity placed in the beaker was Connecucut Y nkec, East H.ddam, Cr(558). September 9. I998 B-1 e>>.pw poriswonny.ravh 2.-pd
- ,.- m . ,. .
L__
r chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geometry. Net material weights were detemiined and I the samples counted using intrinsic gennanium detectors coupled to a pulse height analyzer system. I Background and Compton stripping, peak search, peak identification, and concentration calculations ! i were perfonned using the computer capabilities inherent in the analyzer system. All photopeaks associated with the radionuclides of concern were reviewed for consistency of activity. Energy peaks used for determining the activities of radionuclid,es of concem were: Co-60 1.173 MeV Cs-137 0.662 MeV Spectra were also reviewed for other identifiable photopeaks. UNCERTAINTIES AND DETECTION LIMITS The uncertainties associated with the analytical data presented in the tables of this report represent the 95% confidence level for that data. These uncertainties were calculated based on both the gross sample count levels and the associated background count levels. Detection limits, referred to as minimum detectable concentration (MDC), were based on 3 plus 4.65 times the standard deviation of the background count [3 + (4.65(BKG)] When the activity was determmed to be less than the MDC of the measurement procedure, the result was reported as less than MDC. Because of variatidns in background levels, measuremem efficiencies, and contributions from other radionuclide in samples, the detection limits differ from sample to sample and instrument to instrument. CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Calibration of all field and laboratory instrumentation was based on standards / sources, traceable to NIST, when such standards / sources were available. In cases where they were not available, standards of an industry-recognized organization were used. Connecticut Yankee. East Haddam, CT (558)- September 9. I998 b-2 emp\reportstonnyanksphase2 wpd
W Analytical and field survey activities were conducted in accordance with procedures from the following documents of the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program: 1 i Survey Procedures Manuai, (January 1998) l
- l Laboratory Procedures Manual, (February 1998)
Quality Assurance Manual, (September 1996) The procedures contained in these manuals were developed to meet the requiremeats of DOE Order 5700.6C and ASME NQA-1 for Quality Assurance and contain measures to assess processes during their performance. I 1 Quality control procedures include: Daily instrument background and check-source measurements to confum that equipment operation is within acceptable statistical fluctuations. Participation in EPA and EML laboratory Quality Assurance Programs. Training and certification of all individuals performing procedures. Periodic intemal and extemal audits. l l l Connecucut Yankee. East Haddam, CT (558) . September 9.199: B-3 essapWportsu:onnyankiphase2 wpd
.- l
e s
- O M
ORISE OAK #1DGE IN5flTUTE FOR $OLNCf AND EDUCATION December 17,1998 Russell A. Mellor, Director Site Operations and Decommissioning Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, CT 06424-3099
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY LETTER STATUS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1,1998 TO SEPTEMBER 30,1998
Dear Mr. Mellor:
Enclosed is the monthly letter status report for the period April 1,1998 to September 30,1998. This report summarizes the Independent Scoping Study of the D&D Work at the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor ORISE project #100629. Ifyou have questions regarding this information, please contact me at (423) 576-3740 or W.L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-5031. 1 Sincerely, k k). Eric W. Abelquist
')
Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA:dkh Enclosure ! cc: B. DeRosa, Connecticut Yankee D. Sexton, Connecticut Yankee W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP File /558 l l P. O. BOX 117. CAK RIDGE TENNESSEE 37831-0117 Monosec and sposed b Ook Redm Associated Universit.es Icn the U.S Demrtment of Eneraf
MONTHLY LETTER STATUS REPORT APRIL 1998 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1998 Independent Scoping Study of the D&D Work at the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor
'ORISE Project #100629 ORISE Project Management: E. Abc!quist (423) 576-3740 W. Beck (423)576-5031 CY Task Manager: R. Mellor (860)267-3690
- 1. ' Objective:
The c.bjective of the independent verification activities is to provide independent survey' i activities to validate site radiological conditions as well as independent health physics I technical reviews of the licensee's characterization survey approach and data during the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the Connecticut Yankee Power Reactor station. Verification data will be provided to several groups or agencies interested in these independent reviews-including the-Community Decommissioning Advisory Committee (CDAC) , the Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, the State Department of Environmental Protection, the NRC, and the licensee.
- 2. Progress During Reporting Period (April through September 1998h Discussion with Dick Sexton on 4/22/98 con ~cerning status of work at Connecticut Yankee (CY). CY is cunently planning to implement their Material Recovery Plan i (MRP) at off-site properties with concrete blocks. D. Sexton will send the MRP for )
ORISE review. I l I Reviewed the CY MRP for off-site properties with concrete blocks and other radioactive materials on 5/5/98. I2ft message with P. Hollenbeck on 5/5/98---ORISE plans to conduct a field assessment sometime in May or early June and to present results at June 16,1998, CDAC meeting. Work on MRP comment letter 5/6/98. Talked to D. Sexton on 5/6/98-he requests letter stating what activities we are proposing to accomplish in FY-98, along with a cost estimate. Plan three trips to CY to assess off-site MRP and a few CDAC meetings. Also discussed our comment letter to CDAC on MRP. Complete comment letter on MRP on 5S/98 and submit for internal review. Incorporate review comments on MRP comment letter on 5/8;98. Prepare cost estimate and transmittal letter for CY work this FY on 5/8/98; it is submitted on 5/11/98. l . Talked to Dick Sexton on 5/15/98--CY is working on a technical basis document for ! how to establish Cs-137 background. The State suggested that a specific background I should be established for each off-site propeny. D. Sexton added that it's difficult to determine whether disturbed or undisturbed Cs-137 backgrounds apply to specific areas on a propeny. Discussed the possibility of performing an indistinguishable
r MLSR #100629 (continued) Page 2 from background test-using the WRS test. D. Sexton also mentioned a workshop that will be called a Decommissioning and FSS Seminar-to provide clearer communications between State of CT, CY, Maine, SEG, and ORISE. Also made tentative plans for an off-site assessment during week of June 1,1998; and then attend CDAC meeting on June 16,1998.- The MRP comment letter is sent out to CDAC and distribution list on 5/18/98. Prepared travel request on 5/19/98 for off-site assessments in June. Meeting with R. Morton (ORISE) on 5/27/98 to discuss off-site assessments survey plan. Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 5/27/98-CY has just completed three off-site assessments. He stated that prior to each propeny that is assessed, the work plan is reviewed by the State. He stated that there are two propenies for ORISE to evaluate: 96-24 and 96-
- 42. Reviewed survey plan for ORISE activities-it is submitted to CDAC and distribution list on 5/29/98.
Left message with P. Hollenbeck on 6/1/98 conceming ORISE trip to CY. Talk to R. Morton on 6/1/98 to discuss packing list. Travel to CY to perform off-site assessments with R. Morton on 6/2/98. Meeting with Hollenbeck on 6/2/98 to discuss our independent activities and perform off-site assessment review of two properties on 6/3/98. Tumed in travel request for CDAC meeting on 6/8/98. Work on CDAC report based on CY.off-site assessment on 6/9/98-prepared estimate that shows 0.02 pCi/g equates to 3 cpm on Nal. Talk to D. Sexton on 6/11/98-CDAC meeting has been canceled. Plans to send revised technical basis document for dealing with Cs-137 backgrounds. Talked to T. Nerrichio on 6/11/98-asked him for Hugh Curley's number; he mentioned R. Mellor's concem with missed block at one off-site property. Talked to H. Curley on 6/11/98---discussed posMbility of meeting with him to discuss CDAC's needs and oversight activities perfornied by ORISE. He will propose time when we can have conference call with him and more vocal members H of group. He mentioned the wet / dry storage of spent fuel issue. Worked on CY letter report on 6/11/98. Reviewed the Survey / Sampling Work plan for property i 9624 on 6/12/98 and revised our repon. Review CY draft report on 6/12/98 for off- l site assessments. l Worked on review of CY technical basis document on 8/5/98 for assessment of Cs- l 137 in background. Completed review of the technical basis document (TBD) on Cs-137 in background 1 and how to demonstrate compliance at off-site propenies on 8/5/98. ORISE I recommends that WRS test as written be revised, as it is not used to generate sample ) size, nor are random samples collected.
E MLSR #100629 (continued) Page 3 Received message fr6m R. Mellor's secretary on 8/6/98-the August CDAC meeting has been canceled. Talked to D. Sexton on 8/6/98-the off-site assessment program has reached 11 sites! He mentioned that the press identified one of the sites and have many pictures-much interest remains. He recommends that ORISE speak to Hugh Curley (CDAC Chair) on a regular basis and that we plan another off-site assessment. He also added that CY has considerable alpha contamination at its facility due to past fuel failures.
=
Discussed possible survey trip dates to CY, on 8/17/98, with T. Vitkus. Expect off-site assessments to be performed by ESSAP staff R. Morton, T. Bauer, and T. Bright. Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 8/17/98-discussed CY's technical basis document on Cs-137 in background and the statistical approach to demonstrate indistinguishability from background. Recommended that each site be divided into 2 survey units-an affected survey unit, and an unaffected survey unit. This would facilitate selection of unbiased samples for statistical test, and not mix biased and unbiased samples. Talked to D. Sexton on 8/17/98-he discussed ORISE comments on the Cs-137 report-no technical basis for the statistics, need unbiased samples. Planned meeting l for Tuesday, 8/25 to discuss issue-later changed to Wednesday, 8/26/98. Initial preparations made on 8/19/98 for off-site assessments at CY-provided materials to T. Bauer and R. Morton. Participated in meeting on 8/20/98 with R. Morton, T. Bauer, and T. Bright on 8/20 to discuss nature of ORISE inspection at CY's assessment of off-site propenies. Copied MRP and property 9624 results for T. Bauer. Prepared for CY meeting on 8/25/98 concerning Cs-137 statistical design. P" icipated in meeting on 8/26/98 to discuss statistical design approach for off-site l properties. CY intends to modify their Material Release Plan. Return travel to Knoxville. Survey team performs off-site propeny assessments on 8/25 and 26/98. l
=
1 Werked on notes for CY off-site assessment sm vey design on 8/31/98-i.e. statistical approach for Cs-137 ~ sample size. Completed preparation of notes on statistical . design on 9/1/98 for Cs-137 at CY-emailed to D. Sexton and P. Hollenbeck. ' Talked to P. Hollenbeck on 9/3/98-CY is still evaluating the statistical approach for Cs-137.
MLSR #100629 (continued) Page 4 a Reviewed draft verif'ication survey report on 9/3 for phase U visit, prepared by R. Morton. Responded to R. Morton's questions on the CY draft report. Reviewed R. Monon's second cut at verification report on 9/8 for Phase II off-site propeny assessment at CY. R. Morton completed final revisions on 9/9 to draft verification report and it is submitted to CDAC and others on distribution list. Talked to Bob DeRosa (CY Financial Control Group)-discusaed funding for our activities in FY-99. He asked to be copied on our end of year financial repon for CY. He will modify purchase order for our services-anticipate -$130K funding per year.
- 3. Travel:
ORISE's R. Morton and E. Abelquist perform independent survey and decommissioning inspection activities at off-site properties on June 2 and 3,1998. ORISE survey team (R. Morton, T. Bright, and D. Herrera) performs independent survey and decommissioning inspection activities at off-site properties on August 25 and 26,1998. E. Abelquist panicipates in meeting to discuss statistical desig. pproach for Cs-137 in soil at off-site properties on August 26,1998.
- 4. Anticipated and Encountered Problem Areas:
None.
)
- 5. Plan for the Next Reporting Period:
Planning independent assessment activities for CY's off-site properties.
- 6. Einancial status: l I:ttailed financial status for this project is provided on the attachment to this report.
- 7. Spending Plan Update:
No update for the current month.
- 8. Sumrnary of Procress to Date/ Milestones:
Participation at various CDAC and NEAC meetings. Independent field survey and decommissioning inspection activities, and presentation of survey results and inspection fm' dings at November 18,1997 CDAC meeting. Independent survey and decommissioning inspection activities at off-site properties on June 2 and 3,1998 and August 25 and 26,1998.
h t l a t 5 9 o 1 3 6 1 8 8 h c 6 2 0 6 2 T 8 3 0 3 ' 9 r 0 0 0 l 2 2 3 8 a 7 0 0 0 0 7 a 7 6 5 8, 4 0 0 0 0 4 u 2, 4, 6, !, 7 M 1 1 n n 3 8 8 6 4 5 1 1 A $ r 6 e 5 7 2 9 b 9 8 9 y 7 8 m 6 9 8 ' 4 r 2 2 e 0 8 5 8 a 0 9 t 8, 4 8 0, u 3 0 0 0 p 6, 6, 9, r 7 0 0 0 6 7 1 0 ' 5 0 e 1 1 1 4 b 8 0 0 0 9 S 2 e 4 1 4 $ F $ t 7 1 1 s 1 8 3 5 u g 8 7 5 0 2 6 0 7 6 0 7 y 0 3 0 0 3 8 u 7, 0, 8 0 5, r 5 1 9 1 2 6 A 2 1 7 4 a 6 5 2 $ u 5 1 7 1 7 8 4 2 3 n 6, 1, 7, 1, 5, a 2 J 1 1 5 1 2 1 5 0 2 5 y 5 0 3 6 5 l 3 u 7 0 0 6 9 7 J 5 0 2 0 6 1 1 4 r 2 4 e 8 2 7 3 5 b 5 0 6 0 9 2 6 7 m 4 8 9 9 4 6, e 4, 1 3 4, 8 c 7 - 8, 3, 8 e 1 5 1 2 1 D - -
- 8 9 7 1
6 4 7 e 4 8 n 9 0 5 7 u 8 1 6 2 9 J 0, 9 7, 5 3, 6 4 ' 8 1 4 ' r 9 6 e 3 4 3 3 7 3 b 1 6 5 6 9 2 9 m 5 8 6 3 5 3 e 7 4 9 6, 4 8 v 3, 1, 7, 0, 2, y 0 6 6 1 7 o 6 2 0 7 5 4 2 8 a 7 I. N 2 1 1 5 1 1 8 2
~
M 1 9 6, 7 7 5 1 7, 1
~
2 r 4 0 0 7 3 6 e 8 1 8 5 1 3 b 2 1 0 8 0 6 2 6 o 4 9 5 2 6 0 2 l i r 9 0 0 0 1 t c 0, 0, 9 0 8, p 0 0 4 4, 4 3 2 - O 3 1 2 8 I 5 7 3 A 4, 0 0 0 1 5, 1
$ 1 t
e n e t n m e e a m m a m N
/
e g N
/
e g r a r a b e n e n a , b a m u M , m u M y N m y o a
, t N t r ,
t k r r k e s a g o l a s , o o t a o p a b p T p e t o T r a e t o g R T P p R T}}