ML073111404

EP-1.61, Nasa, Survey Unit Release Record

ML073111404
Person / Time
Site:	Plum Brook
Issue date:	10/31/2007
From:	US National Aeronautics & Space Admin (NASA)
To:	NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB
References
EP-1.61
Download: ML073111404 (16)

Text

Survey Unit Release Record Design # EP-1.61 Revision # Original Page 1 of 3 Survey Unit #(s) 1.61

1) Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit 1.61meets the definition of embedded pipe for Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF).

2) EP 1.61 is a Class 1, Group 2 survey unit as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) and Technical Basis Document (Tl3D)-06-004.

3) Surveys in EP 1.61 were performed using a scintillation detector optimized to measure gamma energies representative of Cs-137. Sample #EP2-5 fiom Survey Request (SR)-13 was referenced for this decision.

4) Survey Instructions for this survey unit are incorporated into and performed in accordance with (IAW) the Babcock Services Incorporated (BSI)/LVS-002, Work Execution Package (WEP)05-006. Survey instructions described in this Description document constitute "Special Methodsyy and the survey design used in the acquisition of survey measurements.

5) Instrument efficiency determinations are developed in accordance with the BSULVS-002, WEP 05-006, these determinations are appropriate for the types of radiation involved and the media being surveyed.

aractmzation CS-0911

-

FSS Design # EP 1.61 Revision # Original Page 2 of 3 Survey Unit: 1.61 The subject pipe system is the 6" drain line for canal " K . The piping is located on the Rx building -25ft.

1.2 EP 1.61 consists of 6" diameter piping that is approximately 52 feet in length.

Survey Design Information 2.1 EP 1.61 was surveyed IAW Procedure #BSI/LVS-002.

2.2 100% of the 6" ID pipe was accessible for survey. The accessible 6" ID pipe was surveyed by static measurement at one foot increments, for a total of 52 survey measurements.

2.3 Surface area for the 6" ID piping is 1,459 cm2for each foot of piping, corresponding to a total 6" ID piping surface area of 75,855 cm2(7.6 m2) for the entire length of (approximately 52') of 6" piping.

Survey Unit Measurement LocationsIData 3.1 Pipe interior radiological survey forms are provided in Attachment 2 of this release record.

4.0 Survey Unit Investigations/Results 4.1 None 5.0 Data Assessment Results Data assessment results are provided in the EPIBuried Pipe (BP) Survey Report provided in Attachment 1.

All measurement results are less than the Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL) for radionuclide specific EP that corresponds to the 1 mrernlyr dose goal established in Table 3-3 of the FSSP.

When implementing the Unity Rule, provided in Section 3.6.3 of the FSSP, and applying the Nuclide Fraction (NF), provided in TBD-06-004.

the survey unit that is constituted by EP 1.61 passes FSS.

5.4 Background was not subtracted from the survey measurements and the Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) was not employed for this survey unit.

Co-60 is designated as the primary nuclide of concern for Piping Group 2 per Technical Basis Document TBD-06-004, which would typically lead to a survey design based on the direct measurement of Co-60. The field measurements were acquired using a detector windowed for Cs-137 versus Co-60. The survey results documented in this release record are valid as Cs-137 was present in the nuclide distributionfor this pipe group in sufficient abundance and the correct nuclide distribution was used to calculate total activity.

L-FSS Design # EP 1.61 Revision # Original Page 3 of 3 Survey Unit: 1.61 5.6 Statistical Summary Table Number of MeasurementsAbove DCGL Maximum 6.0 Documentation of evaluations pertaining to compliance with the unrestricted use limit of 25 mredyr and dose contributions from Embedded Pipe and radionuclides contributing 10% in aggregate of the total dose for both structural scenarios and soils.

A review of the survey results has shown that the dose contribution for EP 1.61 to be less than 1 mredyr. The dose contribution is estimated to be 0.155 mrernlyr based on the average of the actual gross counts measured.

Attachments Attachment 1 - BSI EPfBP Survey Report Attachment 2 - Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Attachment 3 - DQA Worksheet Attachment 4 -Disc containing RR for EP 1.61 & Spreadsheet

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 1 3 PAGE(S)

BSI EPIBP SURVEY REPORT LUES NOT BACKGROUND CORRECTED

EP 1.61 6" Pipe TBD 06-004 Group 2

EP 1.61 6" Pipe TBD 06-004 Group 2

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 2 3 PAGE(S)

BSIlLVSPipeCrawler-002 Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Date: 1( 5 G Time: 14 Gz -,

If Pipe ID#: 1 61 8 Pipe Diameter: o Access Point Area: [ m /(

Building: LAK Elevation: -2s ' System: I$ 12 & / A /

Type of Survey Investigation Characterization Final Survey _$L Other Gross C06O a -d Detector ID# 1 Sled ID#

Detector Cal Date: -

I yvl4 l L v s I KL/ZO/O s 2350- /

- ' l Detector Cal Due Date:

o

~Z/ZO/OG 7

Instrument: Instrument ID #: 203%

Instrument Cal Date:  ?/>-/OG Instrument Cal Due Date: 7 /\C/O 7 From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value 7, < cpm MDCktatic 13.5. CPm Efficiency Factor for Pipe Diameter 0 . 0 0 0 7 (fiom detector efficiency determination) 354'3 mcstatic Is the MDCstaticacceptable? Gr(ifna, dpm/ 1- cm2 adjust sample count time and recalculate MDCkutic) comments: f vIZ  ?ST HYD~ZO SL)GVE~/

Technician Signature Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Package Page 1 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 1

- BSYLVSPipeCrawler-002 .-

Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form

,

Date: I ! / / 6 /k~ Time:

Pipe ID#: /',dl Pipe Diameter:

1/

Access Point Area: <-

Building: k &4-E Elevation: d 25' System: FLR OR0 Type of Survey Investigation Characterization Final Survey Other v Cross C06O cs /'

Detector ID# / Sled ID# (w16 1 I 107 Detector Cal Date: /2/z0/0 r Detector Cal Due Date: l2/20/0 6 Instrument: 2 3 SU-/ Instrument ID #: 203+SP Instrument Cal Date: 7/5/0 6 Instrument Cal Due Date: 7 / ~ -7 b From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value . (/, 6 cpm MDCKtatic /+, 7 CPm Efficiency Factor for Pipe'Diameter 0.I D a r > X (fiom detector efficiency determination)

MDCshti, 3'3 Is the MDCShticacceptable?

Comments:

43 osr H a:;

Y D ~/ ! ~ Z o n /

cm2 (if no, adjust sample count time and recalculate MDC&&)

% / z v ~ t f: EPz - 5 Ccmv='L~-z/l-F

?as,-t-!nd

• 30 - E L R a d Technician Signature Pipe ~nteriorRadiological Survey Package Page 1 of 3 REFERENCE COPY Attachment 3, Page 1 t i i SEQVfCEEi INC.

.

-- BSI/LVSPipeCrawler-002 , --

Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form (Continuation Form)

Date: I / / / 6 /o 6 Pipe ID#: 1 . 6 / Pipe Diameter: d'l Access Point Area: < ~ K w

~

Building: [&T LA Elevation: - 25.1 System: FL rZ DflU Package Page 5 of 3 REFERENCE COPY Attachment 3, Page 2

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 3 r PAGE(S)

DQA Check Sheet Design # EP 1.61 Revision # Original Survey Unit # EP 1.61 Preliminary Data Review' Answers to the following questions should be fully documented in the Survey Unit Yes No NIA Release Record

1. Have surveys been performed in accordance with survey instructions in the Survey Design? X

2. Is the instrumentation MDC for structure static measurements below the DCGLw for Class 1 and 2 X

survey units, or below 0.5 DCGLWfor Class 3 survey units?

3. Is the instrumentation MDC for embeddedlburied piping static measurements below the DCGLw ? X

4. Was the instrumentation MDC for structure scan measurements, soil scan measurements, and embeddedlburied piping scan measurements below the DCGLw,or, if not, was the need for additional X static measurements or soil samples addressed in the survey design?

5. Was the instrumentation MDC for volumetric measurements and smear analysis < 10% DCGLw ? X

6. Were the MDCs and assumptions used to develop them appropriate for the instruments and techniques used to perform the survey?

7. Were the survey methods used to collect data proper for the types of radiation involved and for the X

media being surveyed?

8. Were "Special Methods" for data collection properly applied for the survey unit under review? X

9. Is the data set comprised of qualified measurement results collected in accordance with the survey X

design, which accurately reflects the radiological status of the facility3 Graphical Data Review

1. Has a posting plot been created? X

2. Has a histogram (or other frequency plot) been created? X

3. Have other graphical data tools been created to assist in analyzing the data? X Page 1 of 1

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 4 1 DISC