ML081330245

From kanterella
Revision as of 17:48, 14 November 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
EP RPHD-2, Rev 1
ML081330245
Person / Time
Site: Plum Brook
Issue date: 05/03/2008
From: Case R, Wood G
US National Aeronautics & Space Admin (NASA), John H. Glenn Research Ctr at Lewis Field
To:
NRC/RGN-III
References
EP RPHD-2, Rev 1
Download: ML081330245 (11)
v • d • e


Text

  • Survey Unit Release Record
  • Design # EP-RPHD-2 Revision # Page 1 of 3 Survey Unit #(s) RPHD-2 I) Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-2 was remediated and surveyed in December of 2007 as Embedded Pipe, at that time meeting the definition of embedded pipe as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP). All measurement results were less than the Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL) for radionuclide specific EP that corresponds to the I mrem/yr dose goal established in Table 3-3 of the FSSP. This survey was documented in Revision 0 of this Release Record.
2) Since December of2007, the envisioned end-state configuration of the Primary Pump House (PPH) was revised. Subsequently, the portions of Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-2 which transits in soil under and between the buildings no longer meets the criteria for embedded piping. The portions of Embedded Pipe (EP) Survey Unit RPHD-2 that are embedded in the building foundation walls (PPH and Hot Pipe Tunnel) remain classified as embedded pipe.
3) This FSS survey documented in Revision I of this release record was submitted as EP RPHD-2. Upon demonstrating the original FSS survey complies with the release criteria for the building re-use scenario, the complete piping system will be grouted, including the portions embedded in the building structure that will remain embedded for any future reuse Description and those portions in the ground that can be released for unrestricted use.
4) EP RPHD-2 is a Class I, Group I survey unit as per the PBRF Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) and Technical Basis Document (TBD)-06-004.
5) Surveys in EP RPHD-2 were performed using a scintillation detector optimized to measure gamma energies representative ofCo-60. Sample #EP 3-7 from Survey Request (SR)-l3 was referenced for this decision.
6) Survey Instructions for this survey unit are incorporated into and performed in accordance with (lAW) the Babcock Services Incorporated (BS1)/LVS-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.
7) Instrument efficiency determinations are developed in accordance with the BSl/LVS-002, WEP 05-006, these determinations are appropriate for the types of radiation involved and the media being surveyed.

Approval Signatures Date:

FSS/Characterization Engineer

/~ /fJ/!7.

FSS/Characterization Manager R.Case

,

~~~~

Form CS-09/1 Rev 0

FSS Design # EP RPHD-2 r Revision # 1 Page 2 of 3 Survey Unit: RPHD-2 1.0 HistoryfDescription 1.1 The subject pipe system is the 2" drain line running from 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 lAW Procedure #BSI/LYS-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 cm 2 for each foot of piping, 2

corresponding to a total 2" ID piping surface area of 3,892 cm (0.4 m )

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 Investigations/Results 4.1 None 5.0 Data Assessment Results 5.1 Data assessment results are provided in the EPlBuried Pipe (BP) Survey Report provided in Attachment 1.

5.2 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 2

conservative DCGL for the facility (11,000 dpm/100cm ).

5.3 No individual measurement observed in EP RPHD-2 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 RPHD-2 passes FSS.

5.4 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.

5.5 No area factors were used for this survey unit.

5.6 Background was not subtracted from the survey measurements.

FSS Design # EP RPHD-2 I Revision # 1 Page 3 of3 I

Survey Unit: RPHD-2 5.7 Statistical Summary Table 2"

Statistical Parameter Pipe Total Number of Survey Measurements 8 Number of Measurements >MDC 8 Number of Measurements Above 50% of DCGL 2 Number of Measurements Above DCGL o Mean 0.463 Median 0.486 Standard Deviation 0.109 Maximum 0.599 Minimum 0.299 6.0 Docwnentation of evaluations pertaining to compliance with the unrestricted use limit of 25 mrem/yr and dose contributions from Embedded Pipe and radionuclides contributing 10% 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 25 rnrem/yr. The dose contribution is estimated to be 11.6 rnrern/yr based on the average of the actual gross counts measured.

7.0 Attachments Attachment 1 - BSI EP/BP Survey Report Attachment 2 - Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Attachment 3 - DQA Worksheet Attachment 4 -Disc containing RR for EP RPHD-2 & Spreadsheet

  • *

-. BSI EP/BP SURVEY REPORT Pipe 10 RPHD-2 Survey Location RESIN PIT Survey Date 15-Jun-06 2350-1 # 203488 Survey Time 0830 Detector-5led # 238369-NO SLED Pipe Size 2" Detector Efficiency 0.0005 DCGL (dpm/l00cm2) 1.10E+04 Pipe Area IncorpotatE!d by Detector Efficiency (in cm2) 486 Pipe AJea Incorporaled by Survey Data Im 1) 0.4 Field BKG I<pm) 113 Routine Survey X Field MDCR<<pm) 14.5 QA Survey Nominal MDC Idpml100cm2) 4,410 Survey Measurement Results Total Number of Survey Measurements 8 Number of Measurements >MDC 8 Number of Measurements Above 50% DCGL 2 Number of Measurements Above DCGL 0 Mean 0.463 Median 0.486 Standard Deviation 0109 Maximum 0.599 Minimum 0299 STOCK Survey Technician(s)

Survey Unit Classification 1 TBD 06-004 Piping Group 1 SR-13 Radionuclide Distribution Sample EP 3-7 Measured Nuclide Co-50 Area Factor/EMC Used No Pass/Fail FSS Pass MREMIYR Contribution <25 COMMENTS:

ACTIVITY VALUES NOT BACKGROUND CORRECTED

/3~3 ,-1) g RP Engineer I Date

£JlA)t£t9

  • EP RPHD-2 2" Pipe
  • TBD 06-004 Group 1

-

'*t:

cQ)

E I

\

Co-GO Co-GO EMC EMT activity

...

Q)

,

gcpm ncpm activity (dpm/100cm Unity Unity Unity III (total dpm)

III 2)

Q)

!: ,

, I I I 1 9- [ 9 I 18,000 l 3,704 0.337 2 13 13 26'000r 5,350 0.486

---

3 ---- -

8 8 _1~QQO 3-,.?9? 0.299 4

_. - 11

._. 11

-- ~?~O_Q9 ~.,527 0.412

-

5 16. 16 32,000

- 1 6.,58~_ 0.599 6

-

13 13 26,000 r _~~50_ 0.486 7 13 13 26,000 5,350 0.486 8

-- ..

16 16 32,000 6,584 .. 0.599

.-- - - ._. I---~-._-_

.'. . - - -_.-.. -

EMC EMT MEAN 0.463 Unity Unity

-- ~

- _*-0 __ .. -- -

MEDIAN

. .

0.486

,

STD DEV 0.109 - -

+ - - - - ... -. .-

MAX 0.599

  • T - _._--.

MIN 0.299 I 1 of 1

  • SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 2 2 PAGES

e,-----e BSIILVSPipeCrawler-002 Revision 4 Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Form Date: (p/lS@b Time: O~)O 2 II AJ Pipe ID#: ~ EliJ)-2. Pipe Diameter: Access Point Area: RSSI Jt)

Building: ' PPH: Elevation: __ &-7 System: Dt2¢l rtJ Instrument: Instrument ill #:

Instrument Cal Date: (Jll7/0)

---'--'~-L-f---""'-~---

r I u!J,/oC:.

{ ,

Instrument Cal Due Date: --.J.....L.,f--L--L....f--""'-!lI2-----

From the Daily Pipe Survey Detector Control Form for the Selected Detector Background Value MDCRstatic I + ':>

Efficiency Factor for Pipe Diameter I -

({ , '3 cpm cpm

~

C.

1 (from detector efficiency determination)

.MDCstatic 4 lifO ,... d pm! \ 0-0 cm 2

Is the MDCstatic acceptable? (i;) No (if no, adjust sample count time and recalculate MDCR..tatic)

Comments: -:r:IJ rr / rtt... ~(,)(2.1/ e-( f-.P3-7 Technician Signature Pipe Interior Radiological Survey Position Feet into Pipe Count Time Gross Net 2 Gross Counts dpmJlOOcm

  1. from Opening (min) cpm cpm 1 7 :1 q q ()l~ Yll/J 2 "2 1:5 I "3 3 7, q <jf 4 1

{ , I /

"...

5 ':> /{p 6 L I ?> "

13 7 -; I :2. /3 8 '7f l-~ /(/

9 Cf

,V tJl wI 10 fO 7/'r /~ -.J ,

  • I Package Page 1 of "Z..-

REFERE CE COpy Attachment 3, Page 1

'I!k

.....

8EFlVICfI!S INC.

~

. -~ ",," .. - ,,'

, ;-: , '-.J ..,yMi-.'

  • _ J I' I \.

, I \.

. \9" '."-..

D 1ft

..."

!~L c I~~{ -\ -

  • I

... ~ ...

I

\ , \ S-<P ~ Ii I  !

  • fi,- 3 G u - . ...

.......... .. '" ¢ E L. - S - .. I to \. \ \ ~o I '. ?12. t-..' 1 / FOR CoN"'. SEE '\~4" ~~ _.L_D:~._C.F_~~:4-SZ5 " IRa I'J --1-----.. -_.-.'--_.- ~ SEE DW~. PF<:>.~4-~Z.

  • 6 L4" e? BA::<CO 6VVI~q. l..lo\NT FOR "'HI~ SECTION OF PIPE.

C3

SSE Y'b..T/~L @?; " . 90° ELBOW

~ ,1"0 R£.5\N PUMP PIT fJ (Pf-. 5 v e vl~ ~ £-. v O~(+f-RDHb2-.

  • SECTION?

ATTACHMENT 3 1 PAGE DQA Check Sheet Design # EP RPHD-2 I Revision # I 1 I Survey Unit # EP RPHD-2 Preliminary Data Review' Answers to the following questions should be fully documented in the Survey Unit Yes No N/A Release Record

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

...

2. Is the instrumentation MOC for structure static measurements below the DCGL w for Class 1 and 2 X

survey units, or below 0.5 DCGL w for Class 3 survey units?

3. Is the instrumentation MOC for embedded/buried piping static measurements below the DCGL w ? X
4. Was the instrumentation MOC 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% OCGLw ? X
6. Were the MDCs and assumptions used to develop them appropriate for the instruments and techniques X

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 facility? 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 Data Analysis
1. Are all sample measurements below the DCGLw (Class 1 & 2), or 0.5 OCGLw (Class 3)? X
2. Is the mean of the sample data < DCGLw? X
3. If elevated areas have been identified by scans and/or sampling, is the average activity in each X

elevated area < DCGLEMC (Class 1), < DCGLw (Class 2), or <0.5 DCGLw (Class 3)?

4. Is the result of the Elevated Measurements Test < 1.0? X
5. Is the result of the statistical test (5+ for Sign Test or W r for WRS Test) .::: the critical value? X Comments:

I FSS/Characterization Engineer (prinUsign) B,L Woo:D / -.diI.J .1L. ~_ !I .... Date .6/3 ot FSS/ Characterization Manager (prinUsign) R. Case r //1/1Yf/fA- Date S-)7/r))r Form CS-09/2 Rev a Page 1 of 1

  • SECTION 7 ATTACHMENT 4 1 DISC
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML081330245&oldid=2157296"