ML081330385

From kanterella
Revision as of 12:21, 12 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Survey Unit Release Record - EP-PPH 106 (Pph 106)
ML081330385
Person / Time
Site: Plum Brook
Issue date: 05/06/2008
From: Case R, Wojtkowiak D, Wood G
US National Aeronautics & Space Admin (NASA), John H. Glenn Research Ctr at Lewis Field
To:
NRC/RGN-III
References
EP-PPH 106
Download: ML081330385 (13)
v • d • e


Text

Survey Unit Release Record Design # Survey Unit #(s) Description EP-PPH 106 1 Revision # Original Page 1 of 3 PPH 1) Portions of Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit PPH 106 that remain embedded in the building foundation walls (PPH) meet the definition of embedded pipe for Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF). The portion of piping which transits in soil under the PPH does not meet the criteria for embedded piping. Upon demonstration of compliance with the release criteria, the piping under the PPH will be grouted, including the portions embedded in the building structure that will remain embedded for any future reuse and those portions in the ground that can be released for unrestricted use. 2) EP PPH 106 is a Class 1, Group 1 survey unit as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) and Technical Basis Document (TBD)-06-004.

3) Surveys in EP PPH 106 were performed using a scintillation detector optimized to measure gamma energies representative of Co 60. Sample #EP 3-7 from Survey Request (SR)-13 was referenced for this decision.
5) Survey Instructions for this survey unit are incorporated into and performed in accordance with (lAW) the Babcock Services Incorporated (BSI)/L VS-002, Work Execution Package (WEP)05-006. Survey instructions described in this document constitute "Special Methods" and the survey design used in the acquisition of survey measurements.
6) Instrument efficiency determinations are developed in accordance with the BSIIL VS-002, WEP 05-006, these determinations are appropriate for the types FS S/Characterization Engineer Technical Reviewer (FSS/Characterization Engineer)

FSS/Characterization Manager of radiation involved and the media being surveyed.

Approval Signatures D Wojtkowiak Date:

1-'2-1-R "

FSS Design # EP PPH 106 I Revision #

Page 2 of3 l Survey Unit: PPH 106 HistorylDescription The subject pipe system consists of a section of the Reactor Off-Gas system that ran from the PPH to the HPT. This section of pipe was accessed from an excavation outside of the PPH foundation. EP PPH 106 consists of a section of 2" diameter piping that is approximately 33 feet in total length. Survey Design Information EP PPH 106 was surveyed lAW Procedure

  1. BSIfL VS-002. 100% of the 2" pipe section was accessible for survey. The accessible 2" pipe was surveyed by static measurement at one foot increments, for a total of 33 survey measurements. Surface area for the 2" pi ping is 486 cm 2 for each foot of piping, corresponding to a total 2" piping surface area of 16,038 cm 2 (1.60 m 2) for the entire length of (approximately 33') of2" piping. Survey Unit Measurement LocationslData Pipe interior radiological survey forms are provided in Attachment 2 of this release record. Survey Unit Investigations/Results None Data Assessment Results Data assessment results are provided in the EPlBuried Pipe (BP) Survey Report provided in Attachment I. This survey unit was assessed as a building re-use scenario with all activity derived dose as a 100% C0 60 nuclide distribution.

This is the most conservative DCGL for the facility (11,000 dprn/I OOcm\ No individual measurement observed in EP PPH 106 exceeded the Unity Rule as provided in Section 3.6.3 of the FSSP. No Elevated Measurement Comparisons (EMC) was required or performed.

The survey unit that is constituted by EP PPH 106 passes FSS. Mean unity for this survey unit was 0.365 of unity. DCGL's for the building reuse scenario are used to demonstrate compliance with the release criterion for this release record. The DCGL's for embedded pipe are not applied. No area factors were used for this survey unit. Background was not subtracted from the survey measurements.

FSS Design # EP PPH 106 I Revision # Original Page 3 of3 Survey Unit: PPH 106 5.7 Statistical Surrunary Table Statistical Parameter 4" Pipe Total Number of Survey Measurements 33 Number of Measurements

>MDC 13 Number of Measurements Above 50% ofDCGL 3 Number of Measurements Above DCGL 0 Mean 0.365 Median 0.374 Standard Deviation 0.121 Maximum 0.673 Minimum 0.150 Documentation of evaluations pertaining to compliance with the unrestricted use limit of 25 mremlyr 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 PPH 106 to be less than 25 mremlyr. The dose contribution is estimated to be 9.125 mremlyr based on the average of the actual gross counts measured. Attachments -BSI EP/BP Survey Attachment 2 -Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Attachment 3 -DQA -EP PPH 106 Spreadsheet SECTION ATTACHMENT 2

  • liJDlt BSI EP/BP SURVEY Pipe 10 PPH 106 Survey Location Outside PPH Survey Date 8/10/06 2350-1 # 189094 Survey Time 09:04 Detector-Sled
  1. 44-159 #238369 & no sled Pipe Size 2" Detector Efficiency 0.0005 DCGL (dpm/100cm2) 1.10E+04 Pipe Area Incorporated by Detector Efficiency (In cm2) 486 Pipe Area Incorporated by Survev Data 1m" 1.6 Field BKG (cpm) 13 Routine Survey X Field MDCR (cpm) 15.4 QA Survey I Nominal MDC (dpm/10Ocm2) 4,410 Survey Measurement Results Total Number of Survey Measurements 33 Number of Measurements

>MDC 13 Number of Measurements Above 50% DCGL 3 Number of Measurements Above DCGL 0 Mean 0.365 Median 0.374 Standard Deviation 0.121 Maximum 0.673 Minimum 0.150 Russell Phelps Survey Technician(s)

Survey Unit Classification 1 TBD 06-004 Piping Group 1 SR-13 Radionuclide Distribution Sample EP 3-7 Measured Nuclide Co-60 Area Factor/EMC Used No Pass/Fail FSS Pass <25 MREMIYR Contribution COMMENTS:

ACTIVITY VALUES NOT BACKGROUND CORRECTED RP Engineer I Date D. Wojtkowiak

-4/9/2008 5/6/2008 I

  • EP PPH 106 2" Pipe 'l:I:-c: Q) E Q)... ;:, III lU Q) :!: gcpm ncpm Co-GO activity (total dpm) Co-GO activity (dpm/100cm2)

Unity 1 6 6 12,000 2,469 0.224 2 8 8 16,000 3,292 0.299 3 11 11 22,000 4,527 0.412 4 9 9 18,000 3,704 0.337 5 6 6 12,000 2,469 0.224 6 4 4 8,000 1,646 0.150 7 10 10 20,000 4,115 0.374 8 11 11 22,000 4,527 0.412 9 7 7 14,000 2,881 0.262 10 12 12 24,000 4,938 0.449 11 12 12 24,000 4,938 0.449 12 10 10 20,000 4,115 0.374 13 9 9 18,000 3,704 0.337 14 9 9 18,000 3,704 0.337 15 18 18 36,000 7,407 0.673 16 10 10 20,000 4,115 0.374 17 10 10 20,000 4,115 0.374 18 15 15 30,000 6,173 0.561 19 7 7 14,000 2,881 0.262 20 10 10 20,000 4,115 0.374 21 5 5 10,000 2,058 0.187 22 6 6 12,000 2,469 0.224 23 12 12 24,000 4,938 0.449 24 8 8 16,000 3,292 0.299 25 16 16 32,000 6,584 0.599 26 7 7 14,000 2,881 0.262 27 11 11 22,000 4,527 0.412 28 9 9 18,000 3,704 0.337 29 12 12 24,000 4,938 0.449 30 11 11 22,000 4,527 0.412 31 13 13 26,000 5,350 0.486 32 13 13 26,000 5,350 0.486 33 5 5 10,000 2,058 0.187 MEAN 0.365 MEDIAN 0.374 STANDARD DEVEIATION 0.121 MAXIMUM 0.673 MINIMUM 0150 1 of 1

  • SECTION ATTACHMENT 3
  • * -----BSVL VSPipeCrawler-002

_ Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Date:

Time: Pipe ID#:

Pipe Diameter:

__=2.=-,-=-0-:-1( _ Access Point Area: BIb D/ g Building:

N 114 . Elevation:

-Co I System: oFF-gAS I Type of Survey Investigation Characterization . Final Survey f. Gross Co60 v Cs Detector ID# / Sled ID# 44-/sq "t. 4If /__---LN.>L.=O

__S.=....,;L.'--'=c..=-p"---_

Detector Cal Date: ib Detector Cal Due Date:

Instrument:

2 3 C'V-/ Instrument ID #: f fLq 0 '1 <f-Instrument Cal Date: 1)-/()6 Instrument Cal Due Date: 3/':>If) 7 r

  • I From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value (S. 0 cpm MDCRstatic r,1-cpm Efficiency Factor for Pipe Diameter 0, 1) 00.6 (from detector efficiency determination) 2 MDCstatic L./4! 0 l 0-0 cm Is the MDCstatic acceptable? No (if no, adjust sample count time and recalculate MDCR.,atic)

Comments:

COU'LINU It--UorU Technician Signature Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Position # Feet into Pipe from Opening Count Time (min) Gross Counts Gross cpm Net cpm dpm/lOOcm 2 1 ( b YlltL 2 "3" <r 3 3 { I ; I { 4 'f Cf 5 c: c: to 6 rn 7 7 / 0 10 8 ¥ ( I (( 9 q I 7 10 10 V ...

  • REFERENCE-COpy Package Page 1 of 3 Attachment 3, Page 1
  • BSIJLVSPipeCrawler-002 Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form (Continuation Form) Date: Pipe ID#: Building: -s1/oltJh, I N)J4 I Pipe Diameter:

Elevation: (I

__ -(0 I Access Point Area: System: BI9 O/C.7 OFF GJrI5 Position # Feet into Pipe from Opening Count Time (min) Gross Counts Gross cpm Net cpm dpmllOOcm 2 If If t n/ (,L l'l /1. 10 10 /1 13 q q a Cj r I') J< l?f If( Ih I 0 10 r 1 17 /0 to IS IS Iq 1C1 7 ---; 11) 2j) /b /0 <../ 2 1 5 S 2'2 2-3 2.4 15 '6 "L.(' zS-I fn I;:, 7 7 '27 "'2.) L l L ozs:f Cf 9 '2.'1 7-1 {'-. 30 3D l l I r I "3 1 l 3 32. 13 I 3 3?>' 'II 5" S ,I; ----' I ...--(\ ) ( r .----.___v -------

REFERENCE COpy Package Page 2.-of 2 Attaclunent 3, Page 2 c t. o tl rr I.

," I l r I I l \:) I --....l REFERENCE COpy 3 fABE of 3

ATTACHMENT 1 DQA Check Sheet Design # EP PPH-106 I Revision # OriginalII Survey Unit # PPH-106 Preliminary Data Answers to the following questions should be fully documented in the Survey Yes No N/A Release Record Have surveys been performed in accordance with survey instructions in the Survey Design? X Is the instrumentation MDC for structure static measurements below the DCGLw for Class 1 and 2 X survey units, or below 0.5 DCGL w for Class 3 survey units? Is the instrumentation MDC for embedded/buried piping static measurements below the DCGLw ? X Was the instrumentation MDC for structure scan measurements, soil scan measurements, and embedded/buried piping scan measurements below the DCGL w , or, if not, was the need for additional X static measurements or soil samples addressed in the survey design? XWas the instrumentation MDC for volumetric measurements and smear analysis < 10% DCGL w ? Were the MDCs and assumptions used to develop them appropriate for the instruments and techniques X used to perform the survey? Were the survey methods used to collect data proper for the types of radiation involved and for the X media being surveyed?

XWere "Special Methods" for data collection properly applied for the survey unit under review? 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 Graphical Data XHas a posting plot been created? XHas a histogram (or other frequency plot) been created? XHave other graphical data tools been created to assist in analyzing the data? Data Analysis XAre all sample measurements below the DCGLw (Class 1 & 2), or 0.5 DCGL w (Class 3)? XIs the mean of the sample data < DCGLw? If elevated areas have been identified by scans and/or sampling, is the average activity in each X elevated area < DCGLEMC (Class 1), < DCGL w (Class 2), or <05 DCGLw (Class 3)? XIs the result of the Elevated Measurements Test < 1.0? XIs the result of the statistical test (5+ for Sign Test or W r for WRS Test) ::: the critical value? Comments:

See Section 5 of this Survey Unit Release Record Date 04/09/08 FSS/Characterization Engineer (prinUsign) o Wojtkowiak / .,. -/ /J., Date FSS/ Characterization Manager (prinUsign)

R. Cas!' Form CS-09/2 Rev 0 Page 1 of 1

  • SECTION ATTACHMENT 1
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081330385&oldid=1813834"