ML043500354

Maine Yankee Final Status Survey Release Record FR-0110-05, Rev 0, Pab Alleyway Survey Unit 5.

ML043500354
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	12/07/2004
From:	Cooper W J, Pillsbury G Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co
To:	NRC/FSME
References
FR-0110-05, Rev 0
Download: ML043500354 (28)

Text

I MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-O11O PAB ALLEYWAY SURVEY UNIT 5 Prepared By: A h Date: />/g7 FSS Engineer -Signature PrinteaName Reviewed By: 1 L V. L i A., Date: bee Dv FSS Sbecialist

-Signature/rinte Nambe Reviewed By: 1,A J A Date: Z/lffig~endent Relr0e ig iurc ,rintd Na~, Approved By: /2 1 /, I Date: ______Brey~2. //z572 Printed Name Approved By: _ Date: IVg7/o?SS, MiOP -Signature Printed Name Revision 0 MAINE YANKEE FINAL STATUS SURVEY RELEASE RECORD FR-0110 PAB ALLEYWAY SURVEY UNIT 5 A. SURVEY UNIT DESCRIPTION Survey Unit 5 is located in Survey Area FROI 10, the PAB Alleyway.

The survey unit consists of concrete surfaces within the Alleyway excavation.

The excavation was made to remove buried pipes running between the PAB and Containment Spray Building.

The PAB Alleyway is located within the Restricted Area, bordered on the west by the Personnel Hatch, Main Steam Valve House, Reactor Motor Control Center, and the Emergency Feedwvater Pump Room, on the east by the Service Building, and by the PAB on the north. It is located near grid coordinates 407,500 N and 623,800 E using the Maine State Coordinate System (West Zone) NAD 1927.The PAB Alleyway is shown in relation to other major site structures in map FR 0110-00.All maps referenced in this release record are provided in Attachment I unless othenvise noted. The survey unit is approximately 240 m 2.B. SURVEY UNIT DESIGN INFORMATION The area was designated a Class 1 land survey unit per the LTP (Table 5-4C, ROIOO, RCA Yard West). The Alleyway excavation was begun in late 2002 and the removed soil was spread and surveyed for possible reuse. Nearly all of the removed soil was found to be acceptable for reuse. The soil survey effort was suspended when the ground froze, and upon returning to soil surveying in the spring of 2003, it was determined that radioactivity had migrated into the remaining soil from the open, abandoned pipes in the excavation.

Consequently, significant soil remediation had to be performed in the excavation pit. There was no remediation of the concrete surfaces performed prior to the Final Status Survey.Since the survey unit was already Class 1, no reassessment of classification was required.The survey unit design parameters are shown in Table 1. Given an adjusted relative shift of 3, it was determined that 14 direct measurements were required for the Sign Test; however, the number of samples was increased because two additional sample points fell within the area when the locations were laid out. Sixteen direct measurements were actually performed.

Measurement locations were determined using a fixed grid with a randomly determined start point and are illustrated on the maps FR 01 10-DPC-05 and FR 01 10-DPC-05a through FR 011 0-DPC-05d.

Once the direct measurement readings were completed, removable contamination samples were obtained at each measurement location.The survey was also designed to include 238 scan grids for flat surfaces, each of approximately 1 m 2 area (see map FR 0110-05).

Instrument scan setpoints were conservatively set below the DCGLENIC, as shown in Table 2-2 (Attachment 2).FR-0 I 10-05, Revision 0 Page 2 of 28 In addition, there were two junctures scanned as shown on map FR 01 1 O-JT-REF.

It should be noted that penetrations through the PAB wall were surveyed in survey area FA-0600 Survey Unit 6. Also, embedded pipes in the Main Steam Valve House slab wvill be removed with the slab.To accommodate measurement geometry requirements for surfaces of non-uniform smoothness, the SHP-360 probe was used to augment the 43-68 scan survey. First, a 43-68 scan was performed on all surfaces, including those that were unlikely to meet geometry requirements for that model of probe'. Then a repeat scan, using the SHP-360, was performed on areas with surface irregularities that required a smaller probe size. Ninety-degree surface junctures (i.e., wall-floor and wall-wall) were scanned using the 43-68 probe with a reduced efficiency.

Background values were established, for each particular instrument probe application based on ambient background values in the survey unit and previously established material backgrounds.

These background values, listed in Table 1, were used to establish net activity for direct measurements, scan alarm setpoints, and to confirm the scan MDCs used were appropriate.

The instruments used in this survey are listed by model and serial number in Attachment 2 (Table 2-1). Scan MDCs are also listed in Attachment 2 (Table 2-2) and are compared to the DCGL, the investigation level, and the DCGLEMC. As shown in this table, the scan MDC is less than the scan investigation level in all cases, thus providing high confidence (95% or higher) that an elevated area would be detected in the scanning process. Further, since the investigation level at the alarm setpoint was always less than the design DCGLENIC, no EMC sample size adjustment was necessary.

FR-O 10-05, Revision 0 Page 3 of 28 TABLE 1 SURVEY UNIT DESIGN PARAMETERS Survey Unit Design Criteria Basis Area 240 m__Based on an adjusted LBGR of e o15,564 dpm/I00cm 2 , sigma' of 812 Number of Derect 14 dpml100 cm 2 and a relative shift of Measurements Required 3.0.Type I = Type II = 0.05 Sample Area 17 ma 240 m / 14 samples'Sample Grid Spacing 4 m (17)/2 Scan Grid Area I ml Area Factor 2.9 50 M'/l 7 me per LTP, Rev. 3 lScan Survey Area 240 m 1 Class 1 -100%Background (I -e 43-68 Direct and Scan 3,083 dpm/100 cm 2 Ambient and Material (flat surfaces)__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _43-68 Scans 6,219 dpml100 cm 2 Ambient and Material (junctures)

SHP-360 Scans 4 386 dpm/100 cm 2 Ambient Only (surface irregularities) 4 Scan Investigation Level DCGL plus background' See Table 2-2 (Attachment 2)DCGL 18,000 dpmil00 cm' LTP, Rev. 3 Design DCGLEMC 52,200 dpm/100 cm' Area Factor x DCGL C. SURVEY RESULTS Sixteen direct measurements were made in Survey Unit 5. All direct measurements were less than the DCGL. The resulting data are presented in Table 2 belowv.No verified alarms were received during the surface scans. Therefore, no investigations were required.Design sigma is based on characterization data, listed in LTP Table 5-1 B. Mechanical Penetrations, A1500, (LTP, Rev. 3).2 This survey unit was initially designed for N=14 samples. The N=14 design led to a survey unit map with 16 locations on the systematic grid. The Area Factor used reflects the design grid size." LTP, Rev. 3" refers to the LTP submitted in October 2002 (Reference I) as amended by the MY's addenda of November 2002 (Reference 2). LTP, Rev. 3 was approved by the NRC in February 2003 (Reference 3).As discussed earlier in the Release Record, a limited portion of the survey unit's surfaces were scanned with the SHP-360, which had an investigation level equivalent to approximately 63% of the design DCGLENIC.FR-01 10-05, Revision 0 Page 4 of 28

-- -TABLE 2 DIRECT MEASUREMENTS pGross Aivity I Net Activity Sampe Loatio Act(Tabe IBackground Subtracted) l dpmnlOO cm dpm/100 cm 2 FROIIO-05-COOI 3162 79 FROI 10-05-C002 3584 501 FROI 10-05-CO03 2796 -287 lFROI 10-05-C004 2961 -122 FROI 10-05-CO05 2735 -348 FROI 10-05-C006 3071 -12 FRO I10-05-CO07 2796 -287 FROI 10-05-CO08 2698 -385 FRO I10-05-CO09 3669 586 FRO110-05-CO10 3407 324 FRO1I10-05-CO 1 3602 519 FROI 10-05-CO12 2589 -495 FROI10-05-C013 2576 -507 FR0110-05-CO14 2143 -940 FRO1IO-05-C015 2686 -397 FROI 10-05-C016 2662 -421 Mean 2946 137 Median 2796 -287 Standard Deviation.

435 435 Sample Range 2143 to 3669 -940 to 586 D. SURVEY UNIT INVESTIGATIONS PERFORMED AND RESULTS No investigations were required as there were no verified scan alarms.E. SURVEY UNIT DATA ASSESSMENT An analysis of the direct sample measurement results, including the mean, median, standard deviation, and sample result range, are provided in Table 2. Without subtracting background, all direct measurement results were below the DCGL. The maximum direct sample result with background subtracted was equivalent to 586 dpm/100 cm When adjusted for background, the mean residual contamination level is -137 dpm/100 cm 2.This is equivalent to an annual dose of 0.0 mrem.There were no verified alarms, and therefore there were no investigations and no Elevated Measurement Comparison test was required.FR-0I 1 0-05, Revision 0 Page 5 of 28 F. ADDITIONAL DATA EVALUATION Attachment 4 provides additional data evaluation associated with Survey Unit 5, including relevant statistical information.

Based on survey unit direct measurement data, this attachment provides the Sign Test Summary, Quantile Plot, Histogram, and Retrospective Power Curve.1. The Sign Test Summary provides an overall summary of design input (Table I) and resulting calculated values used to determine the required number (N) of direct measurements (per LTP Section 5.4.2). The Sign Test Summary is a separate statistical analysis that also calculates the mean, median, and standard deviation of the direct measurements.

The Sign Test Summary table calculated the total standard deviation by propagating the individual standard deviation values used in the subtracted background survey design (using the square root of the sum of the squares method). Therefore, median, mean, and standard deviation values listed in the Sign Test Summary table are slightly different from those listed in Table 2. These differences, however, are minor and have no impact on the statistical analysis or conclusions.

The critical value and the result of the Sign Test are provided in the Sign Test Summary table, as well as a listing of the key release criteria.

As is shown in the table, all of the key release criteria were clearly satisfied for the FSS of this survey unit.2. The Quantile Plot was generated from direct measurement data listed in Table 2 and indicates general symmetry about the median. The data set and plot are consistent with expectations for a Class 1 survey unit. There is no reason to conclude that the data set represents other than random variations in a Class I concrete surface survey unit. It also should be noted that the maximum net activity (586 dpm/I00 cm 2 at location C009) is well below the DCGL of 18,000 dpmi/100 cm .3. A Histogram Plot was also developed based on the direct measurement values. This plot shows that the direct data were essentially a normal distribution.

4. A Retrospective Power Curve was constructed, based on FSS results. The curve shows that this survey unit having a mean residual activity at a small fraction of the DCGL, has a high probability

("power")

of meeting the release criteria.

Thus, it can be concluded that the direct measurement data support rejection of the null hypothesis, providing high confidence that the survey unit satisfied the release criteria and that the data quality objectives were met.As mentioned in Section B, removable contamination samples were obtained at each (direct)measurement location.

In that this survey unit involved a (backfilled) foundation area and not a standing building, the removable contamination measurements were not applicable to release decisions for the survey unit. However, the samples were obtained and evaluated, indicating alpha activity less than the MDA values (i.e., < 13.3 dpm/100 cm 2) and the beta activity also less than the MDA values (i.e., < 12.6 dpm/I00 cm ). Thus, in comparison with the mean survey unit net activity (Table 2), the removable contamination sampling effort indicated that the majority of activity is fixed.FR-0 I 10-05, Revision 0 Pane 6 of 28 G. CHANGES IN INITIAL SURVEY UNIT ASSUMPTIONS ON EXTENT OF RESIDUAL ACTIVITY The survey was designed as a Class I area; the FSS results were consistent with that classification.

The direct measurement sample standard deviation was less than the design sigma. Thus, a sufficient number of sample measurements were taken.H. LTP CHANGES SUBSEQUENT TO SURVEY UNIT FSS The FSS of Survey Unit 5 was designed and performed using the criteria of the approved LTP (Revision 3 Addenda).

The only subsequent LTP changes (with potential impact to this FSS) were provided in the proposed license amendment related to modifications of the activated concrete remediation plan submitted September 11, 2003 (Reference 4). Changes represented in this later proposed license amendment have been evaluated and have no impact on the design, conduct, or assessment of the final status survey of Survey Unit 5.1. CONCLUSION The FSS of this survey unit was designed based on the LTP designation as a Class I area.The survey design parameters are presented in Table 1. The required number of direct measurements was determined for the Sign Test in accordance with the LTP. As presented in Table 2, all beta direct measurements wvere less than the DCGL of 18,000 dpm/100 cm 2..A Sign Test Summary analysis demonstrated that the Sign Test criteria were satisfied.

The direct measurement sigma was determined to be less than that used for design, thus indicating that a sufficient number of samples was taken.The Retrospective Power Curve shown in Attachment 4 confirmed that sufficient samples were taken to support rejection of the null hypothesis, providing high confidence that the survey unit satisfied the release criteria and the data quality objectives were met. Attachment 4 also revealed that direct measurement data represented essentially a normal distribution, with variance consistent with expectations for a Class I survey unit.The scan survey design for this survey unit was developed in accordance with the LTP with significant aspects of the design discussed in Section B and Table 1. Scanning resulted in a no verified alarms (Section C). Since there were no alarms, the survey unit was determined to satisfy the elevated measurement comparison unity rule per LTP methodology.

In addition, while not part of the release decision criteria, removable contamination sampling confirmed that the majority of remaining activity in this basement survey unit was fixed.It is concluded that FROI 10 Survey Unit 5 meets the release criteria of IOCFR20.1402 and the State of Maine enhanced criteria.FR-0 I 10-05, Revision 0 Page 7 of 28 J. REFERENCES

1. Maine Yankee License Termination Plan, Revision 3, October 15, 2002 2. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-02-061, dated November 26, 2002 3. NRC letter to Maine Yankee, dated February 28, 2003 4. Maine Yankee letter to the NRC, MN-03-049, dated September 11, 2003 FR-OI 10-05, Revision 0 Page 8 of 28 Attachment 1 SurvCy Unit Maps FR-Oi 10-05, Revision 0 Page 9 of 28 MI Ma ID #: FR 0110-00 Maine Yankee Maite Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Form Decommissioning Team Main -Survey Type: El Characterization 0 Turnover 0 Final Status Survey FSurvey Area Name: Alleyway Excavation IDate: 6-25-03 623.000 E 623,500 E 624,000 E 624.500 E 625,000 E A --- a .9 ID a a Ca a3 0 o a A a a 0 o) a a a3 a3 0 a 2 2 Z C 2 SCALE (Ft)MN I 7;~ N 0 400 800 1200 FR-OI 10-05, Revision 0 Page IOof28 Final Status Suve Unit Reference Map C.Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit o -C-C C LU Personi Cotiment Iv C Sla ITE .1f C 0.0Sel~n15 0 rr 0>1~a )U-0 a.(U#Q a..5a C^tG~i (D 0 g.2 w U)>C M*0 C 0 E c-z M 0)C)2 a)U)0 I-3..W C)~0 O , O c_6_.8 2 iM 0 2: co FR-01 1 0-DPC-05, Direct Point Survey, Concrete Survey Unit 05 Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit 0 C 0 4)O 1~ 0 ,o -L Ca= a.91 c 01 CD 02.. 03 0 04 0 05 W lu 0 08 C 07 0. 06-r*: 1 1... 12 0* 13 ON 14:0 1 5.: 16 a)C C M._o 2 E a)I -0)C.c 0 U)E E 0 C.)a, L=4, N=14 This survey unit area is approximately 240 square meters.

Cu 3 If)D Cu 4.E cos 41)Cq WC>-.U)GXc C.m C~)0 C"'co a;m 0 C 0 0 E z.o 0 U)0 U)U)0 C2 C U-0 Q7 0 E I-a 0 Co co 0 C.)0 1-0 W FR-01 1 0-DPC-05a, Direct Point Survey, Concrete Survey Unit 05 Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit 0 C 0 n 00> o.o O 0 m o, MSVH & PHN Wall L=4, N=14 0 0 4Co 2 E CU c..0.E E 0 m 0 76 C)iu Q]2 w E z I-4:)C)U).)E.2 L: X C, 0 a Q)iZ 2 X 0 O1 FR-01 1 0-DPC-05b, Direct Point Survey, Concrete Survey Unit 05 Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit 0 C 0 0 U-w-2.57m 5.20m+2.14m 412 0.co Vent Stack Wall L=4, N=14 TT u-u o (D r° E E a)a X.O C.-.i)8t a)M 9 to (0 m*O C 0 (U z..0 E (0 IV U, U, FC m_.-m a)0 2E I-E C c.o 0!2.)0 ,a E*C0 0.-o 0 1)FR-01 1 0-DPC-05c, Direct Point Survey, Concrete Survey Unit 05 Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit b 0.46m 5.66m.5.66m , l_2.63m --t 1* .4.2.14m I* 13 0 14 1 1::r. ._ I 0:-a: 00.5 Cq 0 " 0 0?C O o CL)a.-I 0.24m_ T 1.06m t PAB Wall L=4, N=14-J-J LnL a0 a:2 ci)x X CL Q 4C 8 W 0)0 m 9 W)C', C 0 (2 zD.)E Q)*D g m z m a)I (A a)..2 V)0>s E 0 0 , C, 0 m:g o Oa 2'D 0 0 FR-01 1 O-DPC-05d, Direct Point Survey, Concrete Survey Unit 05 Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit 0.81m 0.12m 0.40m Q 0 Co W."- 0 C) (6 o rC CL.0s.P.C)a)L=4, N=14 Concrete Pad and Wall LO 0 W_U.0 0.M (a*S.C .C 2 gC ,c e 8 k)Q C 9 0 0 Lb 0>M 0..U)E 2 (c 0 (0 E (0 0 0 o E.-z 0 Cl C.(U 0'a-2: 0 CO FR 0110 -05: Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit Concrete Survey Scans 001-238 El. 1 PAB WALL 17 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 136 135 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126 125 124 123 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 164 16 1 61 160 159 15 157 156 155 154 153 152 151 890 0 18 167 166 165 Pipe Penetrations Surveyed with FSS Package FA0600 SU6 Grids 109-122 Not Surveyed ((Above El. 17T)Partial Grid (184)_Approx. Dirt Pile Line Grids 196&197 Not Surveyed (Inaccessible)

CONCRETE PAD VENT STACK WALL 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 183 182 181 180 179 178 177 185 186 187 188 189 190 i d 9 196 95* .: I: .- 195' 194 .193 192 191 Parta Grd (191 195)198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 213 212 211 210 209 208 207 206 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 229 228 227 226 225 224 223 222 EAST CONCRETE WALL, LOWER TRENCH 0 23 238 235 C*~00 231 232 233 234 ' 4 Cdo 0 O e4 6 o oved W.Pipe Penetrations Rem(F with MSVH Slab MSVH WALL Grids82-108 Not Surveyed (>El. 17)T 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 081 080 079 078 077 076 075 074 073 072 028 029 030 031 032 033 034 035 036 037 027 026 025 024 023 022 021 020 I019 018 092 093 094 095 096 0971098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 071 070 069 068 067 065 064 063 062 061 060 059 058 057 056 055 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 045 046 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 017 016 015 014 013 012 011 010 009 008 007 006 005 004 003 002 001 El. 17'2 5m 10m 15m LI This survey unit area is approximately 240 square meters 0 00 Concrete Juncture Reference Map Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit U 101 LI.Persore Containment E ~Ha-tch Ar z e ;Sab iki FR 01 I -JT-01 iaS 088 2L~J C 0 5ml0i e5 20.2SrieE IEET~ ImI U1w.n Maine Yankee .Map ID #: FR 01IJT-1 Decommissioning Team iMaine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey FormM I Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover M Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Alleyway Excavation Date: 6-25-03 FR 011 O-JT-01, Concrete Juncture Emergency Feed Water & Primary Auxiliary Building Walls Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit Emer. Feed Water Pump Room Wall Primary Auxiliary Building Wall FR-0l 10-05, Revision 0 Page 19 of 28 Maine Yankee Decommissioning Team Maine Yankee Decommissioning Project Survey Form IMap ID#: FR 011 OJT-02 Survey Type: 0 Characterization 0 Turnover l Final Status Survey Survey Area Name: Alleyway Excavation IDate: 6-25-03 FR 01 10-JT-02, Concrete Juncture Concrete Pad & Personnel Hatch Wall Alleyway Piping Excavation Pit Personnel Hatch Wall Concrete Pad FR-O 10-05, Revision 0 Page 20 of 28 Attachment 2 Survey Unit Instrumentation FR-O 10-05, Revision 0 Page 21 of 28 TABLE 2-1 INSTRUMENT INFORMATION I E-600 SIN I Probe S/N (type)1622 148937 (43-68)2491 J 148938 (43-68)2489 1 454 (SHP-360)

II TABLE 2-2 INSTRUMENT SCAN MDC, DCGL, INVESTIGATION LEVEL, AND DESIGN DCGLENIC 1l 43-68 43-68 SHP-360 Detector I Flat Junctures Surface Irregularities Scan MDC 1,832 4,330 10,484 (dpm/I00 cm 2) LTP Table 5-6 (Note 1) LTP Table 5-6 (dpm/100 cm 2) 18,000 18,000 18,000 Investigation Level 21,062 24,098 32,895 (Alarm setpoint)

DCGL plus (- DCGL plus (D 63e oGl (dpm/I00 cm2) background) background) (Note 2)Design DCGLENIc (dpm/100 cm2) 52,200 52,200 52,200 (from Release Record Table 1)NOTE: 1. Separate scan MDC developed for the 43-68 when applied to juncture geometry by adjusting the LTP Table 5-6 value for the change in efficiency.

2. SHP-360 surveys were performed with an alarm setpoint of 500 cpm. All data was evaluated with the lower investigation levels in this table.FR-OI 10-05, Revision 0 Page 22 of 28 Attachment 3 Investigation Table (None Required)FR-O 10-05, Revision 0 Paue 23 of 28 Attachment 4 Statistical Data FR-OI 10-05, Revision 0 Page 24 of 28 Survey Package FROIIO Unit 5 Surface Sign Test Summary'A .rf-aljs. , ..6 ...Survey Package: FROI 10 PAB Alleyway Survey Unit: 05 Evaluator:

WJC DCGL,: 18,000 DCGL,.: 52,200 LBGR: 9,000 Sigma: 812 l Type I error: 0.05 Type If error: 0.05 Total Instrument Efficiency:

13.0%Detector Area (cm 2): 126 Concrete Choosing 'N/A' sets material Material Type: Unpainted background to "0" Z 1 ,: 1:645 Z1.1.645 Sign p: 0.99865 Calculated Relative Shift: 11.0 Relative Shift Used: 3.0 Uses 3.0 if Relative Shift >3 N-Value: 11 N-Value+20%:

14 Number of Samples: 16 Median: -290 Mean: --140 Net Static Data Standard Deviation:

435 Total Standard Deviation:

512 Sum of samples and all background Maximum: 583 e c ~-< -,r*stg'i Re'su ts v -~'~*- V<--;;/onrnmeiatnts Adjusted N Value: 16 S+ Value: 16 Critical Value: 1i Sufficient samples collected:

Pass Maximum value <DCGLw: Pass Median value <DCGLy: Pass Mean value <DCGLw: Pass Maximum value <DCGL,,,:

Pass Total Standard Deviation

<=Sigma: Pass Sign test results: Pass The survey unit passes all conditions:

Pass SU 5 Passes FROI 10-SI.5-SurfaceSigna.xls FR-0I 10-05, Revision 0 Page 25 of 28 1217/04 3:13 PM FR-011O SU-5 Quantile Plot I I I 0 C o., -*-; e CN E To E'-.._._800 600 400 200 0-200-400-600-800-1000-1200..* *4.-.., , 4* 4 4* Activity (dpm/100 cm2)-Median (dpm/100 cm2)0 25 50 Percent 75 100 Page/Date/Time Database Variable One-Sample T-Test Report 2 11/29104 3:22:51 PM C:\Program Files\NCSS97\FROI I OSU5.SO C2 Plots Section Histogram of FR-011 0. SU-5 4JU)C3, E C,,.0 E z Activity (dpm/100 cm2)FR-Ol 10-05, Revision 0 Page 27 of 28 One-Sample T-Test Power Analysis Page/Date/Time 2 11/29/04 3:24:04 PM Chart Section a)0~Retrospective Power Curve.0. ------- ---.....--0 --8----_-0 .------0.- ---------------- -0.2- ',B ioo 5000 10000 15000 20 00 Survey Unit Mean (dpm/100 cm2)-5(FR-01 10-05, Revision 0 Page 28 of 28