ML073330402

EP-RPHD-2, Nasa, Survey Unit Release Record

ML073330402
Person / Time
Site:	Plum Brook
Issue date:	11/05/2007
From:	US National Aeronautics & Space Admin (NASA)
To:	NRC/RGN-III/DNMS/DB
References
EP-RPHD-2
Download: ML073330402 (12)

Text

Survey Unit Release Record Design # Survey Unit

1. (s) Description Approval Signatures FSSICharacterization Engineer FSSiCharacterization Manager CS09/1 EP-RPHD-2 RPHD-2 1) Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-2 meets the definition of embedded pipe for Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF). 2) EP RPHD-2 is a Class 1, Group 1 survey unit as per the PBRF Fi Status Survey Plan (FSSP) and Technical Basis Document (TBD)-O6-004. 3) Surveys in EP RPHD-2 were performed using a scintillation detector optimized to measure gamma energies representative of C0-60. Sample #EP3- 7 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 (BSQLVS-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.

5) Instrument

&ciency determinations are developed in accordance with the BSIILVS-002, WEP 05-006, these detenninations are appropriate for the types of radiation involved and the media beiig surveyed.

Revision # Original Page 1 of 3

- FSS Design # EP RPHD-2 Survey Unit:

RE'HD-2 1.0 HistorylDescription 1.1 The subject pipe system is the 2" drain line running hm the Resin Pit -8' el. 1.2 EP RPHD-2 consists of 2" diameter piping that is approximately 8 feet in length. 2.0 Survey Design Information 2.1 EP RPHD-2 was surveyed IAW Procedure

1. BSI/LVS-002.

2.2 100% of the 2" ID pipe was accessible for survey. The accessible 2" ID pipe was surveyed by static measurement at one foot increments, for a total of 8 survey measurements.

2.3 Surface area for the 2" ID piping is 486 cm2 for each foot of pi in tg corresponding to a total 2" ID piping swface area of 3,892 cm (0.4 mZ) for the entire length of (approximately 8') of 2" piping.. 3.0 Survey Unit Measurement Locations/Data 3 1 Pipe interior radiological survey forms are provided in Attachment 2 of this release record.

4.0 Survey Unit InvestigationdResults 4.1 None 5.0 Data Assessment Results 5.1 Data assessment results are provided in the EPBuried Pipe (BP) Survey Report provided in Attachment

1. 5.2 All measurement results are less than the Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL) for radionuctide specific EP that corresponds to the 1 mredyr dose goal established in Table 3-3 of the FSSP. 5.3 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 RPHD-2 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. Revision # Original Page 2 of 3

- FSS Design # EP RPHD-2 Survey Unit: RPMD-2 5.5 Statistical Summary Table 6.0 Documentation of evaluations pertaining to compliance with the unrestricted use limit of 25 mredyr and dose contributions 6om Embedded Pipe and radionuclides contributing 1% in aggregate of the total dose for both structural scenarios and soils.

6.1 A review of the survey results has shown that the dose contribution for EP RPHD-2 to be less than 1 mredyr. The dose contribution is estimated to be 0.030 mremlyr based on the average of the actual gross counts measured.

7.0 Attachments Attachment 1 - BSI EPBP Survey Report Attachment 2 - Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Attachment 3 - DQA Worksheet Attachment 4 -Disc containing RR for EP RPHD-2 & Spreadsheet Revision # Original Page 3 of 3 SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 1 z PAGE(S)

BSl EPlBP SURVEY REPORT Detector-Sled

1. 238369 /no sled

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 2 2 PAGE(S) r- - -- Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Date: 6 /IS/& L Time: 033a Pipe ID#: n-2 Pipe Diameter:

It Access Point Area: PE~~~ 8 Building:

QP& Elevation:

-61 System: & Type of Survey Investigation Characterization Final Survey ,A Other - Gross C06O Cs Detector ID# I Sled ID# 238369 I No SLF- D Detector Cal Date: 316 /06 Detector Cal Due Date: 3./6,/ o 7 Instrument:

23 92-1 Instrument ID #: 2034SO Instrument Cal Date: 11/17 /or Instrument Cal Due Date: 11/17 /OG From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value I ,3 cpm MDCRS* /+a( cpm Efficiency Factor for Pipe Diameter 0. WO~ (from detector efficiency determination)

MDCstatic 277 4 dpml \OD cmZ Is the MDC&* acceptable?

@ NO (if no, adjust sample count time and recalculate MDCK,,,) Comments: ,TI & cr>~~~f FdP> - 7 L~v/LL;/~F Technician Signature Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Package Page 1 of 2 REFERENCE COPY Attachment 3, Page 1

SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 3 1 PAGE(S)

DQA Check Sheet 1 3. Is the instrumentation MDC for embeddedlburied piping static measurements below the DCGb ? 1 X 1 I 1 Preliminary Data Review' 4. Was the instrumentation MDC for structure scan measurements, soil scan measurements, and I embeddedlbuned p.p!ng scan measurements below the DCGLwor, if not, was the need for addmonal I I 1x1 Original Design # Answers to the following questions should be fully documented in the Survey Unit Release Record

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

2. Is the instrumentation MDC for structure static measurements below the DCGh for Class 1 and 2 survev units. w below 0.5 DCGLw for Class 3 survev units? EP RPHD-2 Yes X static measurements oisoil samples addressed in the survey design? 9 Is the data set compnsed of qualified measurement results collected in accordance wrth the survey I desian. whlch acurratelv reflects the rad~oloa~cal status of the fac~lii 1.1 I I Revision # 5. Was the Instrumentation MDC for volumetric measurements and smear analvsis c 10% DCGLW ? 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 media being surveyed?

8. Were "S~ecial Methods' for data collection

~ro~erlv ao~lied for the survev unit under review?

I Graphical Data Review I No 1 X I 1. Has a posting plot been created? I I 1x1 I\UA X X X 1 2. Has a histogram (or other frequency plot) been created? I I 1x1 - 1 3. Have other graphical data tools been created to assist in analyzing the data? I I 1x1 I Data Analysis I 1 1. Are all sarn~le measurements below the DCGLw (Class 1 &2). or 0.5 DCGLw (Class 3)? 1x1 I I 1 2. Is the mean ofthe sam~le data c DCGLw? 1x1 I I Comments:

3. If elevated areas have been identified by scans andlor sampling, is the average activity in each elevated area c DCGLEMC (Class 1). Z DCGLw (Class 2). or C0.5 DCGLW (Class 3)? 4. Is the result of the Elevated Measurements Test c 1.0? 5. Is the result of the statistical test (S+ for Sign Test or W, for WRS Test) ? the critical value?

X X X Page 1 of 1 FSSlCharacterization Engineer (printlsign)

I Date 1 /P-/&-o FSSl Characterization Manager (prinusign) 1 D~~~ l///fh7 SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 4 1 DISC