ML20352A272

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Request for Additional Information Re Revised Final Status Survey Final Reports, LC-FS-TSD-003, Assessment of the LACBWR Circulating Water Discharge Pipe Final Status Survey Data for Detection Efficiency and
ML20352A272
Person / Time
Site: La Crosse  File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date: 11/02/2020
From:
La CrosseSolutions
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20356A041 List:
References
LC-2020-0023
Download: ML20352A272 (32)
v • d • e


Text

11/20/2019 J.U----.<1nl*11*11.u LACBWR Site Restoration Project Work Control Procedure Asaeument of the LACBWR Circulating Water Dilcharge Pipe Final Statu Survey Data for Detection Efficiency and Detedor Bae~un.d Proeedun No. LC-F'S-TSIM03 Revldon No. 0

~

{Prlntname/Sign)

Eric L. Darois 6 ~-

Dam:

Nov 19, 2019 Sec:cedary ~

{PrintName/Sip) ~.,,.,*_......... ~,/---~

J:>me:

,, ht lt1.

p

/'

hgulltory Affairawiaood propm&n,galaloryravicnn(._.,~: mitia1all)u; 4,;'.JJ1 JJ-S-1¥ lttplatarJ bflllredllmeM (attadlcompleCN Lc-llA-Pa-OOt mtl QTllfmnl.u cpplkule)

Part 50 I.bme: 10 CPR. S0.59 ancl S0.90 l&I YES NO Firo Pl'UWlitwa: 10 CFR. 50.48(£)

0YBS l&I NO Conditiona ofLl<<mac: PSP: 10 CFR. 50.54(p)

On.,

9NO Ccmditiom ofl..iceme: E-Plan: 10 CPR. SO.S4(q)

YES

~NO Termination. ofLio.:mlw IO CFll. S0.82(a)(6) md S0.82(a)(7)

YES fm NO Part 72 Iicemc: 10 CFR. 72.48 YES 181 NO RP: ~ YBS o NO s1ONA'.n-JJlilt;;;;;::::::~~44w.~---=-__jDATB= 11 wd1 QA: 0 YES l&I NO SIGNATURE DATE: ___

QtR: 0 YES l&I NO SIGNATIJRE. _____________

DATE: ___

PROJECT MANAGBR:

Effective Date; ____ (assigned Control or Project Manager)

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 2 of 27 Summary of Changes in this Revision:

Rev. 0 - Initial issuance.

Administrative Note:

Some of the authors and reviewers of this document were responsible for different portions of this document as listed in the following table.

Author/Reviewer Primary Responsible Sections Eric Darois All Sections and Appendices Andrew Hodgdon Sections 2.2, 3.1, 4.1 and Appendix A Pete Hollenbeck Main Body, Appendix B &C Nasser Rashidifard All Sections and Appendices Robert Yetter All Sections and Appendices Scott Zoller All Sections and Appendices

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 3 of 27 Table of Contents Section Page

1.

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6

2.

METHODOLOGIES...........................................................................................................6 2.1.

Detector Measured Efficiency.................................................................................6 2.2.

Modeled Detector Efficiency...................................................................................8 2.3.

Determination of an Appropriate Background........................................................9

3.

RESULTS..........................................................................................................................10 3.1.

Detector Efficiency................................................................................................10 3.2.

Determination of an Appropriate Background......................................................11

4.

CONCLUSIONS A1ND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................14 4.1.

Detection Efficiency..............................................................................................14 4.2.

Detector Background Adjustment..........................................................................14 4.3.

FSS Data Assessment Documentation...................................................................14

5.

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................14 APPENDIX A MCNP MODELING LACROSSE PIPE CALIBRATION FACTOR..................15 APPENDIX B CWD PIPE SURVEY DATA...............................................................................22 APPENDIX C AMBIENT SURVEY NEAR START OF CWD PIPE.........................................26

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 4 of 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Calibration Efficiencies for the NIST-Traceable Source.................................................. 8 Table 2: Listing of Recorded Average Background Measurements............................................... 9 Table 3:Summary of CWD Pipe Measurements............................................................................. 9 Table 4: Tabulated Results of MCNP Analysis of Detection Efficiency1.................................... 10 Table 5: Statistical Analysis of CWD Data and Lognormal Fit................................................... 13 Table 6: Adjusted Background Count Rates................................................................................. 13 Table A - 1 Input Parameter Table............................................................................................... 16 Table A - 2 Variable Name Table................................................................................................. 16 Table A - 3 Additional Variable Names....................................................................................... 17 Table A - 4 Variable Parameters................................................................................................... 17 Table A - 5 Simulaton Results...................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Image of Detector Positioned to Calibration Source (White)......................................... 7 Figure 2: Illustration of the MCNP Pipe/Detector Model.............................................................. 8 Figure 3: Graphical Results of MCNP Ratio................................................................................ 10 Figure 4: CWD Survey Results..................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Expanded View of CWD Survey data........................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Frequency Distribution of All CWD Survey Data........................................................ 12 Figure 7: Frequency Distribution and Lognormal Fit of CWD Data Through 407 Feet.............. 13 Figure A - 1 Geometry Calculations............................................................................................. 18 Figure A - 2 Geometry During Calibration................................................................................... 18 Figure A - 3 Source Geometry in the MCNP Model.................................................................... 19 Figure A - 4 3D View of Pipe and Detector................................................................................. 19 Figure A - 5 Simulation Results................................................................................................... 20

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 5 of 27 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Ci Curie CWD Circulating Water Discharge DCGL Derived Concentration Guideline Level FSS Final Status Survey IR Inside Radius LACBWR La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration MCNP Monte Carlo Neutral Particle NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology OR Outside Radius

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 6 of 27

1. INTRODUCTION During April 2018, the FSS staff at the LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Solutions conducted a final status survey of the Circulating Water Discharge (CWD) Pipe and documented the results under the FSS data package for survey unit S1-011-102 CWD. In the initial review of the data package, two conditions were identified for resolution prior to finalizing the data assessment as follows:
  • The detection efficiency was determined by using a 3050 cm2 NIST-traceable calibration source that covered approximately 20% of the pipes internal circumference (the pipe has an inside diameter of 5 feet). This calibration geometry does not accurately depict the actual measurement conditions in the pipe.
  • The background measurements generally showed a detector response that was higher than the measurements taken within the CWD pipe. The location of the background measurements was a similar pipe that had been free-released (no residual plant-related radioactivity above background) but located at-grade. This condition shows that the background levels were not appropriate for the CWD pipe since most of the measurements would show a negative response once background was subtracted as required by LACBWR procedure [1].

This TSD provides for a resolution to these two conditions without the need for re-surveying the pipe, a substantial effort since the pipe has been filled/grouted.

The resolution for the first condition is to calculate the response to the detector from the 3050 cm2 source and to a source uniformly distributed along the pipes circumference for various pipe lengths using Monte-Carlo radiation transport calculational methods. This results in a correction factor to be applied to the NIST-traceable calibration factor (i.e. detector efficiency) to account for 100% coverage.

The resolution for the second condition is to perform a statistical evaluation of the entire population of the 510 measurements to evaluate whether an alternate background would be able to be subtracted from the measurements to perform a dose assignment and the Sign Test as prescribed by MARSSIM [2].

This TSD fully describes the analysis for each condition and provides recommendation for resolution.

2. METHODOLOGIES 2.1.

Detector Measured Efficiency The calibration of the Ludlum Model 44-10 NaI (2 X 2) detector was performed using a Cs-137 NIST-traceable planar source manufactured by Eckert & Zielger (Model No. CS7-LDS-CUS, SRS No. 108414) with an activity of 1.62E5 Bq on January 25, 2018. This source is a rectangular and flexible with dimensions of 32.5 cm X 102 cm with an active area of 3050 cm2.

The calibration involved placing the source on the bottom of a pipe containing no residual radioactivity with the long dimension along the partial circumference of the pipe and the short dimension along the pipe length as illustrated in Figure 1. The distance from the detector center to the bottom of the pipe for both the calibration and the FSS of the pipe was 5.5 inches. During calibration, the detector was positioned at various intervals along the short dimension of the

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 7 of 27 source and the average net count rate determined, Rnet(cpm). From this, the detection efficiency from the calibration source can be expressed as counts per disintegration, EffS (c/d), or, as counts per disintegration per 100 cm2 EffS,100 [c/(d/100cm2)] where the latter can be directly compared to the DCGL for final status survey purposes since the DCGL units are expressed as dpm/100cm2. The mathematical representations for these efficiencies are shown in Equation 1 and Equation 2 where the active area of the calibration is Areas (cm2).

[

] = ()

()

Equation 1

,100 [

(

100 2

)

] = [

] (2) 100 Equation 2 Figure 1: Image of Detector Positioned to Calibration Source (White)

Using the approach described above, the calibration efficiencies for each representation are provided in

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 8 of 27 Table 1 for Detector No. PR357783 calibrated on 2/28/2018.

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 9 of 27 Table 1: Calibration Efficiencies for the NIST-Traceable Source Efficiency Representation Value

[

]

2.89E-3 c/d

,100 [

(

100 2

)

]

8.84E-2 c/(d/100 cm2) 2.2.

Modeled Detector Efficiency Appendix A represents the details of the modeled detector response as summarized in this section. A pipe source and detector response was modeled by MCNP (Monte-Carlo Neutral Particle) radiation transport code. This model placed the NaI detector in the same configuration as the calibration and surveyed geometry with a uniform contamination level 100 dpm/cm2. The model considered various lengths of 5 foot diameter contaminated pipe ranging from 1 to 100 feet where the detector was positioned longitudinally in the center of each section while radially position 5.5 inches from the bottom of the pipe.

Figure 2 represents an illustration of the modelled geometry.

Figure 2: Illustration of the MCNP Pipe/Detector Model The MCNP simulation results will be used to establish a ratio, R, of the detector response (or efficiency, EMCNP) from the full pipe circumference to that of the calibration source. This ratio is the used to calculate the detector efficiency from the total pipe of length L, ET,L, using the efficiency from the calibration source efficiency provided in Equation 2 as shown in Equation 3 Cl 1: C:\\OneDrive\\._HP _WORK\\RSCS\\_RSCS-L1Crosse\\run\\ mc-PipeC1iib.in

~~lo

~~~: ~

~Cca By c~

r-r-

..r,-

~

...r,oo-

_r,oo-P Rt.lrull rs..1fio r~

rc.. fii" r=

PF-a

~F

~F

~F 1~-.:J Ruf>>o" r,._

l-42am 199.1~

[vz..:Jlo 11.IXO:I lo Uvotj"io"3r ro---ro---~

air Nal c:::,

~

~

E:J 2: C:\\OneDrive\\._HP_WORK\\RSCS\\_RSCS-L1Crosse\\ run\\mc-PipeC1lib.in

-~~-r1Glol:>,,I..:J Imm lo j!19.I~

lxz..:]~~~

~

~ lJitlol* ~

...... =f,o..:Jr ro---ro--- ~

~CcaBy* ~

r-r-

..r,-

~

...r,oo-

_r,oo-P R*flffl rs..1fio r~

rc.afia r=

PFIOIII r:w~

r=

r~-

~F

~F

~F 1~-.:J Ruf3oo" r,....

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 10 of 27

,(

(

100 2

)

) =,100

,1

=,100 Equation 3 This total efficiency assumes that the residual radioactivity is uniformly distributed along the interior circumference of the pipe and when applied, will account for 100% of the surface area for a given and assumed pipe length, L. Once an appropriate pipe length is selected to represent a section of pipe containing residual radioactivity, the total efficiency can be applied to calculate the appropriate MDC and activity for this geometry as part of the FSS data assessment.

2.3.

Determination of an Appropriate Background As discussed above, the background count rates in support of the pipe survey were performed in an area where the detector response was generally higher than the pipe survey data. Specifically, the recorded average background count rates from a series of 1-minute counts on each day are provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Listing of Recorded Average Background Measurements Date Recorded Average

Background

Count Rate, cpm 4/22/18 3707 4/23/18 3577 4/24/18 3965 4/25/18 3715 The full set of pipe measurements are provided in Appendix B for each foot of measurement representing 1-minute counts. This data set represents 510 discrete values and include all QC and judgmental measurement locations. A summary of this data is provided in Table 3.

Table 3:Summary of CWD Pipe Measurements Parameter Value, cpm Average 3329 Standard Deviation 450 Maximum 6270 Minimum 2836 From the data provided in Table 2 and Table 3 it is clear that average pipe measurement data set (including all data) is lower than the recorded background by nearly 400 cpm and if the recorded backgrounds were applied, (i.e. subtracted), then an excessive number of negative net count rates would result.

This analysis evaluates the distribution of the measurement data to determine whether a substantial fraction of the data follows a normal distribution. If this is the case, it would be reasonable to assume that this portion of the data is from background radiation where the mean could be applied as a background value provided that there is no apparent spatial correlation of the survey data.

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 11 of 27

3. RESULTS 3.1.

Detector Efficiency The results of the MCNP simulation are provided in Table 4 and Figure 3.

Table 4: Tabulated Results of MCNP Analysis of Detection Efficiency1 Pipe

Length, L(ft)

MCNP Ratio MCNP ET,L, c/(d/100cm2) 1 1.27 1.12E-01 2

2.23 1.97E-01 3

2.89 2.55E-01 5

3.39 3.00E-01 10 4.30 3.80E-01 20 4.96 4.38E-01 30 5.44 4.81E-01 50 5.28 4.67E-01 70 5.21 4.60E-01 100 5.38 4.75E-01 1

The measured efficiency for detector serial number PR357783 is 2.898E-3 c/d or 8.84E-2 c/(d/100cm2) for Source No. SRS No. 108414 Figure 3: Graphical Results of MCNP Ratio This data shows that if the assumed length of pipe that contains residual activity is 1 foot, then the measured efficiency from the NIST-traceable calibration source would be increased by a factor of 1.27 to account for activity distributed around the entire circumference of the pipe.

Conversely, if the residual activity was distributed in 20 feet of pipe, the increase would be by a factor of 4.96.

MCNP Ratio, R 6

5 4

+

+

3

+

+

2 1

+

0 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Pipe Length, ft

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 12 of 27 3.2.

Determination of an Appropriate Background The survey data, as contained in Appendix B, is shown graphically in Figure 4 for each measurement location including QC and judgmental measurements for a total of 510 measurements. The data show a clear increase in the detector count rate between approximately 400 feet and the end of the pipe on the plant side (as opposed to the river side). An expanded view of this region is shown in Figure 5 indicating that the increase between 408 feet and 421 feet or the last 13 feet of the pipe where the maximum count rate observed was approximately 6000 cpm, nearly a doubling over the detector response through the remainder of the pipe. This increase appears to be from contribution from ambient radiation levels from the RCA and is corroborated by a radiation survey (Survey No. 2018-0869 Appendix C) conducted on May 1, 2018 near the beginning of the CWD pipe where a similar detector measured count rates between 5000 and 6000 cpm. Regardless of this correlation, we will conservatively assume that the increase is from residual radioactivity in the pipe for FSS purposes.

Figure 4: CWD Survey Results Figure 5: Expanded View of CWD Survey data 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Distance to Discharge Point at River, ft Detector Count Rate Along the 421 Feet of CWD Pipe in 1 Foot Increments, cpm 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 404 406 408 410 412 414 416 418 420 422 Distance to Discharge Point at River, ft Detector Response for the Last 18 feet of CWD Pipe, cpm

+

+

+

+

+-

+

+

+-

r f

r l

+

+

I I

l I

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 13 of 27 Figure 6 shows the frequency distribution of all CWD data. This clearly shows that 2 populations are present where the higher data set is from the last 13 feet of pipe. Figure 7 represents the data without including the last 13 feet of pipe overlaid on a lognormal fit to this data set. This graphical representation appears to show an excellent fit and this type of distribution (lognormal) is generally expected for variability in background radiation levels [2].

Table 5 provides various statistical parameters comparing the CWD Data through 407 feet to the lognormal fit. As this shows, there is excellent agreement between them which strongly suggests that this data set is from background variability and not from residual radioactivity within the pipe.

Figure 6: Frequency Distribution of All CWD Survey Data 0,19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13

,_ 0.12 ii 0,11

, I 0.10

~ 0.09 16

&! 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.041 0.03 _

0.02 0,01 0.00

_J J 3,000.00 3,500.00 4,000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 5,500.00 6,000.00 6,500.00 values

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 14 of 27 Figure 7: Frequency Distribution and Lognormal Fit of CWD Data Through 407 Feet Table 5: Statistical Analysis of CWD Data and Lognormal Fit Parameter Data Set Fitted Lognormal Distribution Minimum 2836 0

Maximum 3838

+Infinity Mean 3258 3258 St. Dev 209 207 Variance 43748 42853 Skewness 0.451 0.191 Kurtosis 2.659 3.065 Given the observation that the CWD data set through 407 feet represent background, the actual background value within the pipe can be taken to be the mean of 3258 cpm which is 483 cpm less than the mean background count rate from Table 2. Therefore, an adjusted background count rate is provided for each of the measurement days in Table 6.

Table 6: Adjusted Background Count Rates Date Recorded Average

Background

Count Rate, cpm Adjusted

Background

Count Rate, cpm 4/22/18 3707 3224 4/23/18 3577 3094 4/24/18 3965 3482 4/25/18 3715 3232 0.0 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 Values

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 15 of 27

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1.

Detection Efficiency From the discussion in Section 2.2 and 3.1, the length of pipe needs to be selected to represent a hypothetical portion containing residual radioactivity. Given that measurements were made in 1-foot increments and that the surveyor was positioned 1 to 2 feet from the detector for each measurement, it is reasonable to assume a pipe length between 1 and 2 feet. Since the MCNP ratio is lower for 1 foot, then this selection would result in a lower efficiency thereby increasing the MDC and any inferred radioactivity in d/100cm2. In other words, choosing a 1-foot section would provide more conservatism compared to 2 feet.

From the above, it is recommended that a detection efficiency of 0.112 c/(d/100cm2) (using an MCNP ratio of 1.27) be applied to the survey results performed with detector no. PR357783 during April 2018. This will result in 100% survey coverage of the CDW pipe where each 1-foot measurement is assumed to measure the contribution from 14,590 cm2.

4.2.

Detector Background Adjustment From the discussion in Section 3.2, it is clear that the recorded background values are higher than the majority of the measurements within the CWD pipe and it has been estimated that 483 cpm should be subtracted from the daily background measurements. These corrected background values are provided in Table 6 and should be applied to the pipe measurements prior to performing the FSS statistical analysis and dose assessment.

4.3.

FSS Data Assessment Documentation It is recognized that applying the above recommendations may require procedure changes to allow for these adjustments and considerations. Therefore, it is recommended that the FSS procedure [1] be adjusted to allow for this type of deviation.

5. REFERENCES

[1] "Radiation Surveys of Pipe Interiors Using Sodium/Cesium Iodide Detectors, Procedure No.

LC-FS-PR-018 Revision No. 1," LACBWR Site Restoration Project.

[2] "NUREG-1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), Revision 1," 2000.

[3] "Investigations of Natural Variations of Cesium137 Concentrations In Residential Soils," in Health Physics Society 39th Annual Meeting, Student III - Environmental and Radon Session1994, 1994.

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 16 of 27 Appendix A MCNP Modeling LaCrosse Pipe Calibration Factor A-1 INTRODUCTION This concerns Cs-137 on the inside of a long pipe of 60 inch internal diameter. Measurements were to be made using a Ludlum 44-10 NaI detector placed near the bottom of the inside of the pipe. A calibration source measuring 1 ft x 1 m was placed on the bottom of the pipe and a calibration factor estimated from detector response.

The purpose of the present work was to estimate, by Monte Carlo simulation, the calibration factor assuming that the Cs-137 was uniformly distributed over the entire internal surface of the pipe, instead of in just the 1ft x 1m rectangle. A correction factor is required.

A-2 METHODOLOGY An MCNP [1] model was built in two versions. One was for the original calibration source. The other assumed that the source was uniformly distributed over the inside of the pipe surface for various pipe lengths. In both cases, the concentration of cesium 137 was post processed to be equivalent to 100 disintegrations per square centimeter. The correction factor is the ratio of the uniform response to the measured calibration source response. The material definitions are from report PNNL-15870 Rev1 [2].

The runs were managed using a proprietary MCNP model builder that was built in Excel and customized for these particular runs. The model builder software requires that the user develop several tables, of constants, of variable names and a case table. The case table allowed this user to run a series of cases assuming different parameters for each. The case table is shown below.

A-2.1 ASSUMPTIONS

1. The detector is 2x2in NaI, Ludlum 44-10 cylinder.
2. The centerline of the detector is parallel to pipe centered 5.5 inches from bottom of pipe.
3. The detector has aluminum flange as shown in photo.
4. There are electronics partly covered by an aluminum shield.
5. The NaI detector is positioned 3 inches out of the shield.
6. The electronics portion of the detector cylinder is assumed, for the purposes of the simulation, to be concrete at half the density of water. This serves as a shield.
7. The calibration source is flexible (see shiny plastic in the photo). It is 1 foot wide by 1 m long. It was laid on the inner radius of the pipe and perpendicular to the long axis of the detector.

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 17 of 27

8. The source is Cs-137.
9. Any covering or debris on the bottom of the pipe was not included in the model.
10. In the model the pipe is assumed to be steel with a thickness of 3/8 inch.
11. The pipe internal diameter is 60 inches.
12. The individuals doing the surveys were 2 feet or more from the detector.
13. It is assumed that the calibration factor is proportional to the average flux inside the NaI volume.
14. The pipe wall thickness is modeled as 4 inches. The real pipe thickness is much less, but because the pipe acts as back scatter and not shielding, this approximation makes no difference to the results.

A-2.2 MODEL INPUTS The following constants were input to the MCNP model. Yellow values are user values. The right two columns indicated values converted to CGS units.

Table A - 1 Input Parameter Table USER INPUT value unit Conversion model value units detector OR 1

in 2.54 2.54 cm calibration source IR 29.9 in 2.54 75.946 cm calibration source deltaR (thickness) 0.1 in 2.54 0.254 cm Pipe IR 30 in 2.54 76.2 cm Pipe deltaR 4

in 2.54 10.16 cm Outer Body IR 36 in 2.54 91.44 cm NaI deltaZ above pipe IR 5.5 in NaI deltaZ below pipe centerline

-24.5 in 2.54

-62.23 cm Calib source circumferential length 1

m cm electronics length 4

in 2.54 10.16 cm detector length 2

in 2.54 5.08 cm DeltaX pipe to model 100 cm 1

100 cm deltaX source to pipe 300 cm 1

300 cm Calibration source area 3048 cm2 0.01 30.48 100 cm2 These are the model Variable Names as programmed into the MCNP Excel Model Builder as shown in Table A - 2 through Table A - 4.

Table A - 2 Variable Name Table MODEL Variable Names Value Units Excel Names Pipe IR 76.2 cm

\\pipeIR Pipe OR 86.36 cm

\\pipeOR ModelOR 91.44 cm

\\modelOR NaI axis Z

-62.23 cm

\\detectorZ NaI R 2.54 cm

\\detectorR electronics lower plane

-12.7 cm

\\electronicsL detector lower plane

-2.54 cm

\\detectorL detector upper plane 2.54 cm

\\detectorU source IR 75.946 cm

\\sourceIR source OR 76.2 cm

\\sourceOR CCC YL

-86.36 cm

\\yL CCC YU 86.36 cm

\\yU

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 18 of 27 MODEL Variable Names Value Units Excel Names CCC ZL

-86.36 cm

\\zL CCC ZU full 86.36 cm

\\zUHigh CCC ZU calib

-60.3759957 cm

\\zULow These are the model Variable Names that are affected by the case table.

Table A - 3 Additional Variable Names MODEL VARIABLES affected by Case Table Value Unit Excel Names Model lower plane

-1924 cm

\\modelL pipe lower plane

-1824 Cm

\\pipeL pipe upper plane 1824 Cm

\\pipeU model upper plane 1924 Cm

\\modelU CCC XL

-1824 Cm

\\xL CCC XU 1824 Cm

\\xU The Excel Model Builder generates cases, 1, 2, 3 etc., for various combinations of variables.

These variables are chosen by the user for each case (shaded cells) and the program calculates the model inputs. The case table for this study is as follows:

Table A - 4 Variable Parameters case Run Time (min.)

Source Length (ft)

Source Type 0=calib, 1=full pipe Source Top Elevation source half length in cm source area (100 cm2) file name 1

0.1 1

0

-60.38 15.24 30 mc0-1.in 2

0.1 1

1 86.36 15.24 146 mc1-1.in 3

0.1 2

1 86.36 30.48 292 mc1-2.in 4

0.1 3

1 86.36 45.72 438 mc1-3.in 5

1.0 5

1 86.36 76.20 730 mc1-5.in 6

1.0 10 1

86.36 152.40 1,459 mc1-10.in 7

1.0 20 1

86.36 304.80 2,919 mc1-20.in 8

2.0 30 1

86.36 457.20 4,378 mc1-30.in 9

2.0 50 1

86.36 762.00 7,297 mc1-50.in 10 2.0 70 1

86.36 1066.80 10,215 mc1-70.in 11 2.0 100 1

86.36 1524.00 14,593 mc1-100.in I

I

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 19 of 27 The radial length of the calibration source had to be programmed into the MCNP model. The geometry is shown in the figure. This geometry was programmed into MCNP by including the half-angle subtended,, and the elevation of the top edges of the source, Z. Where: = 360 x source half-length / 2R. The value of Z = h-R where R = radius (30 inches) and h = R(1-cos()). The calculation table from Model Builder is shown below. A similar calculation for the full radius source was carried out and resulted in Z=86.36 as can be seen in the case table.

A-2.3 MODEL DESCRIPTION The detector response was simulated as the particle flux averaged over the NaI volume. This is not a measure of the number of interactions but is assumed to be proportional to it.

In Figure A - 3, the left figure is a cut through the pipe at right angles to the length. The cut is through the center of the NaI pipe, which is always at the center of the length of the pipe. The right figure is centered on the middle of the length of the pipe and shows a source that measures three feet. Note, the pipe is always longer than the source.

Figure A - 1 Geometry Calculations Figure A - 2 Geometry During Calibration Z' fo r Calibration Source I

Source Half Lena th 50.0 cm Radius 30.0 in Radius 76.2 cm I

ohi 37.6 R-30 in I

h 15.8 cm I

Z' Z' = \\ zULow

-60.4

~

h

/ --

,t\\ll~ t h~lt ~ll@.th I

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 20 of 27 Figure A - 3 Source Geometry in the MCNP Model Figure A - 4 3D View of Pipe and Detector cJ 1: C:\\OneOrive\\_HP_WORK\\RSCS\\_RSCS-LaCrone\\run\\mc*PipeCahb,in

~~lo l-12.am 199.12!ool Jvz.:J o

~~

l.abllc ~

1.-..1:f1o".:)r ro--ro--~

~

Cdol Bye~

r-r-

_r,---

~

..r,oo-

..r,oo-P"R.1-'>

rs..if,e r-rc..fu r=

P' *-

~F

~F

~F 1~-.c1

.... r,;,

r-o El fil E;! 2: C:\\ OneOrive\\_HP_WORK\\RSCS\\_RSCS*LaCrone\\run\\ mc*P1peCahb.in

~~

l~-m1 lo j99.12So1 lxz.:J,oxo o

~~

l.abll: fca"".:J i.-..1:f1o".:)r ro--ro--~

~Cdo! By* fiw"""".:J r-r-

_r,---

..,,----,------0'1:T':l?:'v~;ID"J"J~TI!');\\1).Ll[7~~..,;-

.. ------I

~.

..r,oo-

..r,oo-p R*f-'>

rs..if,e r-rc.afu r=

P"F-

~F

~F

~F 1~-.c1

.... r,;,

r-

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 21 of 27 A-3 RESULTS The ratio of the response from a uniform source to that of a small (1ft x 1m) source in the 60 inch ID pipe is given in the table and figure below.

Table A - 5 Simulaton Results MCNP Simulation of Response of an in-pipe NaI Detector from Cs-137 coating the inside of an iron 60 inch ID pipe vs axial source length. NaI is at mid-pipe length.

Source Length along Pipe Axis (ft)

Source Length as a ring around the Pipe ID MCNP Calculated Flux in NaI per 100cm2 MCNP RE (Relative Error)

R, Ratio Uniform Source of given length to Original Calibration Source 1

1m 6.45E-03 2.60E-02 1.00 1

360 deg 8.19E-03 0.0489 1.27 2

360 deg 1.44E-02 0.0532 2.23 3

360 deg 1.86E-02 0.059 2.89 5

360 deg 2.19E-02 0.0218 3.39 10 360 deg 2.77E-02 0.0277 4.30 20 360 deg 3.20E-02 0.0369 4.96 30 360 deg 3.51E-02 0.0302 5.44 50 360 deg 3.40E-02 0.039 5.28 70 360 deg 3.36E-02 0.0468 5.21 100 360 deg 3.47E-02 0.0565 5.38

  • original calibration (1ftx1m source)

Figure A - 5 Simulation Results 10 C

.bl) i§ 0..

~

t'o C

QI

.!! l:!

C =

QI 0

, <I)

.bl)

C 0 0 QI

.....0

==

0 '"

<I) u E

6 -

  • 2
)

0 a:

1 MCNP Simulation of Response of an in-pipe Nal Detector from Cs-137 coating the inside of an iron 60 inch ID pipe vs axial source length. Nal is at mid-pipe length.

~

~

,,,,,~

~~

) /

--~'--"

10 Source Length along Pipe Axis (ft)

~

~

100

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 22 of 27 A-4 CONCLUSION The MCNP simulation seems to show that the ratio of detector response varies as a function of the axial and azimuthal length of the calibration source. The ratio reaches a maximum value of 5.44 for pipes 30 feet or longer.

A-5 REFERENCES

[1] Los Alamos National Laboratory, "MCNP6 Version 1.0 Los Alamos Users Manual LA-CP-13-00634, Rev. 0".

[2] "Compendium of Material Composition Data for Radiation Transport Modeling, Report number PNNL-15870 Rev1," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 2011.

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 23 of 27 Appendix B CWD Pipe Survey Data Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm G01 0

3592 H01 0

3152 I01 0

3264 J01 0

3188 G02 20 2900 H02 20 2976 I02 20 2891 J02 20 2911 G03 40 3003 H03 40 3063 I03 40 2952 J03 40 2987 G04 60 3147 H04 60 3122 I04 60 3124 J04 60 3029 G05 80 3509 H05 80 3365 I05 80 3435 J05 80 3641 G06 100 3353 H06 100 3375 I06 100 3341 J06 100 3296 G07 120 3165 H07 120 3034 I07 120 3100 J07 120 3068 G08 140 3211 H08 140 3230 I08 140 3282 J08 140 3210 G09 160 3164 H09 160 3199 I09 160 3178 J09 160 3180 G10 180 3004 H10 180 2986 I10 180 2950 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm J10 180 3017 G11 200 3036 H11 200 3150 I11 200 3041 J11 200 3133 G12 220 3128 H12 220 3157 I12 220 3104 J12 220 3000 G13 240 3360 H13 240 3197 I13 240 3291 J13 240 3251 G14 260 3212 H14 260 3268 I14 260 3262 J14 260 3299 G15 280 3338 H15 280 3171 I15 280 3266 J15 280 3157 G16 300 3491 H16 300 3295 I16 300 3379 J16 300 3355 G17 320 3630 H17 320 3651 I17 320 3746 J17 320 3619 G18 340 3543 H18 340 3570 I18 340 3527 J18 340 3562 G19 360 3502 H19 360 3385 I19 360 3434 J19 360 3376 G20 380 3327 H20 380 3378 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm I20 380 3329 J20 380 3426 G21 400 3281 H21 400 3229 I21 400 3230 J21 400 3251 G22 420 5507 H22 420 6270 I22 420 6221 J22 420 5803 A00 0

3784 A01 1

3477 A02 2

3055 A03 3

2996 A04 4

3040 A05 5

3127 A06 6

3223 A07 7

3043 A08 8

3123 A09 9

3059 A10 10 2991 A11 11 2939 A12 12 2927 A13 13 2939 A14 14 2915 A15 15 3021 A16 16 3039 A17 17 2987 A18 18 2971 A19 19 3093 A20 20 3025 A21 21 3049 A22 22 2991 A23 23 2988 A24 24 2977 A25 25 3001 A26 26 2910 A27 27 2836 A28 28 2930

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 24 of 27 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm A29 29 2981 A30 30 2876 A31 31 2974 A32 32 2928 A33 33 2922 A34 34 2931 A35 35 2838 A36 36 2964 A37 37 3033 A38 38 3078 A39 39 3023 A40 40 3043 A41 41 3005 A42 42 3061 A43 43 3063 A44 44 3077 A45 45 2934 A46 46 2953 A47 47 3042 A48 48 3038 A49 49 2958 A50 50 3098 A51 51 3165 A52 52 3151 A53 53 3151 A54 54 3140 A55 55 3172 A56 56 3123 A57 57 3092 A58 58 3141 A59 59 2915 A60 60 3003 A61 61 3018 A62 62 3034 A63 63 3085 A64 64 3232 A65 65 3297 A66 66 3346 A67 67 3234 A68 68 3307 A69 69 3187 A70 70 3236 A71 71 3370 A72 72 3589 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm A73 73 3546 A74 74 3514 A75 75 3583 A76 76 3446 A77 77 3486 A78 78 3550 A79 79 3471 A80 80 3440 A81 81 3496 A82 82 3459 A83 83 3355 A84 84 3413 A85 85 3500 A86 86 3471 A87 87 3397 A88 88 3556 A89 89 3497 A90 90 3455 A91 91 3526 A92 92 3397 A93 93 3378 A94 94 3413 A95 95 3582 A96 96 3479 A97 97 3361 A98 98 3425 A99 99 3341 B01 100 3344 B02 101 3460 B03 102 3436 B04 103 3289 B05 104 3244 B06 105 3353 B07 106 3275 B08 107 3550 B09 108 3329 B10 109 3358 B11 110 3339 B12 111 3401 B13 112 3293 B14 113 3407 B15 114 3308 B16 115 3355 B17 116 3024 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm B18 117 3078 B19 118 3103 B20 119 3090 B21 120 3169 B22 121 3011 B23 122 2987 B24 123 3106 B25 124 3023 B26 125 3099 B27 126 3006 B28 127 3010 B29 128 3077 B30 129 3045 B31 130 3159 B32 131 3173 B33 132 3053 B34 133 3208 B35 134 3198 B36 135 3137 B37 136 3154 B38 137 3028 B39 138 3077 B40 139 3098 B41 140 3129 B42 141 3152 B43 142 3087 B44 143 3088 B45 144 3262 B46 145 3175 B47 146 3152 B48 147 3094 B49 148 3144 B50 149 3208 B51 150 3225 B52 151 3214 B53 152 3206 B54 153 3224 B55 154 3261 B56 155 3287 B57 156 3422 B58 157 3291 B59 158 3333 B60 159 3276 B61 160 3189

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 25 of 27 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm B62 161 3284 B63 162 3257 B64 163 3276 B65 164 3278 B66 165 3250 B68 166 3292 B69 168 3289 B67 169 3174 B70 167 3283 B71 170 3305 B72 171 3305 B73 172 3325 B74 173 3278 B75 174 3179 B76 175 3182 B77 176 3191 B78 177 3206 B79 178 3266 B80 179 3235 B81 180 3282 B82 181 3200 B83 182 2941 B84 183 2995 B85 184 3015 B86 185 2961 B87 186 2918 B88 187 2922 B89 188 2934 B90 189 3028 B91 190 3040 B92 191 3004 B93 192 3027 B94 193 2974 B95 194 2973 B96 195 2921 B97 196 2983 B98 197 3108 B99 198 3053 C01 199 3121 C02 200 2945 C03 201 3069 C04 202 3147 C05 203 3086 C06 204 3081 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm C07 205 3089 C08 206 3062 C09 207 3184 C10 208 3088 C11 209 3144 C12 210 3073 C13 211 3014 C14 212 3007 C15 213 2979 C16 214 2993 C17 215 3135 C18 216 3073 C19 217 3142 C20 218 3190 C21 219 3197 C22 220 3118 C23 221 3118 C24 222 3069 C25 223 3164 C26 224 3246 C27 225 3068 C28 226 3002 C29 227 3054 C30 228 3210 C31 229 3086 C32 230 3066 C33 231 3074 C34 232 3113 C35 233 3210 C36 234 3096 C37 235 3218 C38 236 3134 C39 237 3113 C40 238 3320 C41 239 3200 C42 240 3199 C43 241 3203 C44 242 3154 C45 243 3144 C46 244 3175 C47 245 3190 C48 246 3171 C49 247 3142 C50 248 3290 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm C51 249 3278 C52 250 3342 C53 251 3249 C54 252 3282 C55 253 3222 C56 254 3284 C57 255 3239 C58 256 3293 C59 257 3391 C60 258 3303 C61 259 3375 C62 260 3304 C63 261 3249 C64 262 3334 C65 263 3275 C66 264 3311 C67 265 3254 C68 266 3254 C69 267 3275 C70 268 3314 C71 269 3385 C72 270 3396 C73 271 3502 C74 272 3453 C75 273 3501 C76 274 3333 C77 275 3046 C78 276 3261 C79 277 3199 C80 278 3244 C81 279 3335 C82 280 3163 C83 281 3187 C84 282 3096 C85 283 3226 C86 284 3223 C87 285 3285 C88 286 3176 C89 287 3193 C90 288 3117 C91 289 3332 C92 290 3176 C93 291 3221 C94 292 3172

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 26 of 27 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm C95 293 3171 C96 294 3131 C97 295 3172 C98 296 3091 C99 297 3116 D01 298 3264 D02 299 3234 D03 300 3385 D04 301 3294 D05 302 3334 D06 303 3324 D07 304 3371 D08 305 3416 D09 306 3470 D10 307 3452 D11 308 3525 D12 309 3448 D13 310 3473 D14 311 3489 D15 312 3624 D16 313 3599 D17 314 3548 D18 315 3505 D19 316 3593 D20 317 3585 D21 318 3652 D22 319 3658 D23 320 3838 D24 321 3775 D25 322 3709 D26 323 3753 D27 324 3582 D28 325 3631 D29 326 3596 D30 327 3669 D31 328 3598 D32 329 3833 D33 330 3709 D34 331 3730 D35 332 3572 D36 333 3705 D37 334 3771 D38 335 3646 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm D39 336 3829 D40 337 3711 D41 338 3634 D42 339 3434 D43 340 3542 D44 341 3532 D45 342 3569 D46 343 3500 D47 344 3559 D48 345 3452 D49 346 3419 D50 347 3299 D51 348 3369 D52 349 3337 D53 350 3324 D54 351 3363 D55 352 3339 D56 353 3389 D57 354 3360 D58 355 3275 D59 356 3267 D60 357 3330 D61 358 3309 D62 359 3304 D63 360 3347 D64 361 3385 D65 362 3391 D66 363 3430 D67 364 3340 D68 365 3426 D69 366 3305 D70 367 3392 D71 368 3303 D72 369 3241 D73 370 3431 D74 371 3358 D75 372 3367 D76 373 3282 D77 374 3254 D78 375 3240 D79 376 3329 D80 377 3474 D81 378 3561 Position #

Feet from plate closest to River Net cpm D82 379 3531 D83 380 3603 D84 381 3603 D85 382 3521 D86 383 3551 D87 384 3487 D88 385 3423 D89 386 3686 D90 387 3665 D91 388 3742 D92 389 3756 D93 390 3680 D94 391 3707 D95 392 3579 D96 393 3393 D97 394 3617 D98 395 3606 D99 396 3299 E01 397 3291 E02 398 3239 E03 399 3334 E04 400 3231 E05 401 3236 E06 402 3226 E07 403 3320 E08 404 3245 E09 405 3459 E10 406 3460 E11 407 3501 E12 408 3768 E13 409 3823 E14 410 3869 E15 411 3885 E16 412 3898 E17 413 4546 E18 414 5483 E19 415 5856 E20 416 5884 E21 417 5786 E22 418 5729 E23 419 5821 E24 420 5899 E25 421 5877

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision 0 Page 27 of 27 Appendix C Ambient Survey Near Start of CWD Pipe Su,vey *: 2018*0869 BLOG: N/A ELEV: 631' Surveyor Nam, (st: (Print/Sign)

William Childers LAOt~ESOUJTIOl'\\5 RWP~ 18.01 Commc-nts: 83'ckgrovnds oot1ectcd around the drop down strucrure openl"g and O'tlet U!e cent~ of the op!l'ling to,u?port the t-------------------~cwosul'\\lev. Please see below image to, COilected rcsull$. AH,cwfts rcportc<:I In cpm, 1ns1rument Model Col, 0..e Set\\:81 #

ZlS0-1 2/21/2019 126195 44-10 2/22/2019 PR16?398 N/A N/A N/A NA NA NA O!l~n,t-s lfl Mffl!Wll# lll'ld-..r\\/ltlftd/Ol lilrt,, NOIS~ <1£1)0 Ccmllooo>>) (11n1omno1c:d lllllo.,,.

Description 4

  • 4 *
  • flA-v Trench box

ATTACHMENT B-2 50.59 Review Coversheet Form LC-RA-PR-001 Revision4 Activity/Document Number:

LC-FS-TSD-003 Revision Number: Q

Title:

Assessment of the LACBWR Water Final Status Data for Detection and Detector NOTE: For 50.59 Evaluations, information on this form will provide the basis for preparing the biennial summary report submitted to the NRC in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2).

Description of Activity:

(Provide a brief, concise description of what the proposed activity involves.)

Provide clarification of activity measurements inside the circulating water discharge piping.

Reason for Activity:

(Discuss why the proposed activity is being performed.)

The original measurements did not provide a complete assessment of the activity on the piping.

Effect of Activity:

(Discuss how the activity impacts plant operations, design bases, or safety analyses described in the UFSAR.)

The TSD is an enhancement to the assessment of the piping and has no adverse impact on LTP compliance.

Summary of Conclusion for the Activity's 50.59 Review:

(Provide justification for the conclusion, including sufficient detail to recognize and understand the essential arguments leading to the conclusion. Provide more than a simple statement that a 50.59 Screening, 50.59 Evaluation, or a License Amendment Request, as applicable, is not required.)

Revisions Oof this TSD provides clarification regarding measurements of the activity in the circ water piping. Compliance with the LTP and D-Plan/PSDAR (SAR equivalent) are maintained.

Attachments:

Attach all 50.59 Review forms completed, as appropriate.

(NOTE: if both a Screening and Evaluation are completed, no Screening No. is required.)

Forms Attached: (Check all that apply.)

Applicability Review x

50.59 Screening 50.59 Evaluation 50.59 Screening No.

50.59 Evaluation No.

2019-016 Rev.

__Q Rev.

Station:

LACBWR Circulating Discharge Pipe Survey Efficiency

Background

Fl

LC-FS-TSD-005 Rev 0 KMartinson via J Ashley email 11/13/2019 ATTACHMENT B-4 50.59 Screening Form 50.59 Screening No. ____ 2 __ 0 __ 1 __

9-0

......... 16 _______ Rev. No. __ o __

LC-RA-PR-001 Revision4 Activity/Document Number: Assessment of the LACBWR Circulating Water Discharge Pipe Final Status Survey Data for Detection Efficiency and Detector Background / LC-FS-TSD-005 Revision Number:!

I.

50.59 Screening Questions (Check correct response and provide separate written response providing the basis for the answer to each question):

1.

Does the proposed Activity involve a change to an SSC that adversely affects

_YES

_ll_NO an UFSAR described design function?

This activity is the issuance of a procedure for determining detector efficiency. Compliance with the LTP and D-Plan/PSDAR is maintained. This procedure does not adversely affect the decommissioning activities discussed in the D-Plan/PSDAR.

2.

Does the proposed Activity involve a change to a procedure that adversely affects how UFSAR described SSC design functions are performed or controlled?

During April 2018, the FSS staff at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Solutions conducted a final status survey of the Circulating Water Discharge (CWD) Pipe and documented the results under the FSS data package for survey unit Sl-011-102 CWD. In the initial review of the data package, two conditions were identified for resolution prior to finalizing the data assessment as follows:

  • The detection efficiency was determined by using a 3050 cm2 NIST-traceable calibration source that covered approximately 20% of the pipe's internal circumference (the pipe has an inside diameter of 5 feet). This calibration geometry does not accurately depict the actual measurement conditions in the pipe.
  • The background measurements generally showed a detector response that was higher than the measurements taken within the CWD pipe. The location of the background measurements was a similar pipe that had been free-released (no residual plant-related radioactivity above background) but located at-grade. This condition shows that the background levels were not appropriate for the CWD pipe since most of the measurements would show a negative response once background was subtracted as required by LACBWR procedure [I].

This TSD provides for a resolution to these two conditions without the need for re-surveying the pipe, a substantial effort since the pipe has been filled/grouted. Compliance with the LTP and D-Plan/PSDAR is maintained.

This procedure revision does not adversely affect the decommissioning activities discussed in the D-Plan/PSDAR.

3.

Does the proposed Activity involve an adverse change to an element of a UFSAR described evaluation methodology, or use of an alternative evaluation methodology, that is used in establishing the design bases or used in the safety analyses?

No adverse changes to evaluation methodology discussed in the D-Page 21 of 58

_YES

__x__NO YES

__x__NO

KMartinson via email A Adams 11/13/2019 Plan/PSDAR or the LTP resulted from Revision 1 of this TSD. The change provides clarification regarding piping material impact on the dose correction factor.

4.

Does the proposed Activity involve a test or experiment not described in the UFSAR, where an SSC is utilized or controlled in a manner that is outside the reference bounds of the design for that SSC or is inconsistent with analyses or descriptions in the UFSAR?

No tests or experiments are associated with this TSD.

5.

Does the proposed Activity require a change in the Technical Specifications or Operating License?

Neither the PDTS nor the associated licenses are impacted by this revision.

LC-RA-PR-001 Revision 4 YES

__x_NO YES

__x_NO II. List the documents (e.g., UFSAR, Technical Specifications, other licensing basis, technical, commitments, etc.)

reviewed, including sections numbers where relevant information was found ( if not identified in the response to each question).

D-Plan/PSDAR (November 2017)

LACBWRLTP III. Select the appropriate conditions:

X Hall questions are answered NO, then complete the 50.59 Screening and implement the Activity per the applicable governing procedure.

H question 1, 2, 3, or 4 is answered YES and question 5 is answered NO, then a 50.59 Evaluation shall be performed.

H questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are answered NO and question 5 is answered YES, then a License Amendment is required prior to implementation of the Activity.

H question 5 is answered YES for any portion of an Activity, then a License Amendment is required prior to implementation of that portion of the Activity. In addition, if question 1, 2, 3, or4 is answered YES for the remaining portions of the Activity, then a 50.59 Evaluation shall be performed for the remaining portions of the Activity.

IV. Screening Signoffs:

50.59 Screener: -~Arth

==ur~ R=. A~ dams

= ~ ---Sign: ____________

Date: 10/30/2019 (Print name)

(Signature) 50.59Reviewer: _J_~

.............. m ____

ar....._) _A_;h_l....._e

__,Sign:~~~

7 (Print name)

/

~

(Signature) //

Date: /j_j.£j J!i Page 22 of58

From:

James C. Ashley To:

Kimberly Martinson; Arthur Adams Cc:

Jason Q. Spaide; Scott G. Zoller; Robert F. Yetter

Subject:

RE: TSD 003 50.59 etc Date:

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:16:45 AM Good morning Kim,

The error is in the title block for the screening form for TSD-003. The Title is correct but the TSD number needs to be changed to LC-FS-TSD-003. The rest of the screening form is correct for TSD

-003. Can you make that change?

Also I noticed that the 50.59 cover sheet has LaCrosse spelled wrong in the title block. Can you make that change also. These two changes are considered typos and do not require rerouting for signature.

Based on your email, it appears that these have not been approved and issued yet when do you anticipate them being issued?

From: Kimberly Martinson Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:43 AM To: James C. Ashley; Arthur Adams Cc: Jason Q. Spaide; Scott G. Zoller

Subject:

FW: TSD 003 50.59 etc

Good morning, Maybe with all of the back and forth I am losing it, but shouldnt one of the screenings have TSD 003 listed? Both screenings state they are for LC-FS-TSD-005.

I was looking at these close to send out with the actual documents for final signatures and finally saw it. **The screening for TSD 003 has LC-FS-TSD-005 listed in the Activity Document Number section. PLEASE Re-look at this.

The covers look right.

(TSD 003 should have 2019-016 for 50.59 number which it does)

(TSD 005 should have 2019-015 for 50.59 number which it does)

From: Arthur Adams Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:14 PM To: James C. Ashley Cc: Scott G. Zoller; Robert F. Yetter; Jason Q. Spaide; Kimberly Martinson; Gerard P. Van Noordennen

Subject:

RE: TSD 003 50.59 etc

Jim,

See my added comments to the 50.59 for TSD-005. Also here is the 50.59 for TSD-003 rev 0

Arthur R. (Bob) Adams Project Engineer EnergySolutions 698 Spartina Ct Sanibel, FL 33957 (239) 472-2243

From:

Arthur Adams To:

Kimberly Martinson Cc:

Scott G. Zoller; Jason Q. Spaide; Robert F. Yetter

Subject:

RE: TSD 003 Signature Date:

Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:04:30 AM This email documents my signature as preparer for LCBWR 50.59 Screening 2019-016 dated 10/30/2019 Arthur R. (Bob) Adams Project Engineer EnergySolutions 698 Spartina Ct Sanibel, FL 33957 (239) 472-2243 (847) 219-2483 From: Kimberly Martinson Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 4:13 PM To: Arthur Adams Cc: Scott G. Zoller; Jason Q. Spaide; Robert F. Yetter

Subject:

TSD 003 Signature

Arthur, I sent a previous email requesting this on 11/5/19. Can I get an email from you stating it is ok to place your signature on this dated 10/30/19 the day you did it please. They need to send this to the NRC. I received your email for TSD 005 but not for this one. Thank you.

Kimberly Martinson Administrative Assistant 2 EnergySolutions LaCrosseSolutions LACBWR Site Restoration Project Reactor D & D Projects 4601 State Highway 35 Genoa, WI. 54632 khmartinson@energysolutions.com Cell: 608-225-1852

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20352A272&oldid=3826373"