ML071310204
| ML071310204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000139 |
| Issue date: | 01/04/2007 |
| From: | Steven Roberts Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education |
| To: | Bassett C NRC/NSIR/DPR |
| References | |
| UW-MCP-OP-13, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML071310204 (2) | |
Text
C) IF002 S OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION January 4, 2007 Mr. Craig Bassett Mail Stop 12G-13 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Policy and Rulemaking U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmnission Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
DOCUMENT REVIEW-COMMENTS ON THE FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MORE HALL ANNEX DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (DOCKET NO. 50-139)
Dear Mr. Bassett:
The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) has reviewed the following document prepared by ENERCON Services, Inc.:
FinalStatus Survey Reportfor the University of Washington More HallAnnex Decontamination and DecommissioningProject, UW-MCP-OP-13, Rev. 1, December6, 2006.
Comments identified are enclosed for your consideration. Should you have any questions please contact me at 865.241.8893 or Scott Kirk at 865.574.0685.
Sincerely, Sarah Roberts Project Leader Survey Program SJR:ar Enclosure cc: A. Adams, NRC/NRR E. Abelquist, ORISE E. Cunningham, NRC/NRR S. KIirk, ORISE P. Isaac, NRC/NRR File/0456 Distribution approval and concurrence: Initials Technical Management Team Member I k Voice: 865.241.8893 Fax: 865-241-3497 E-mail: RobertsS@orau.org
- 0. Box11 akR de _N373
Comments on the Final Status Survey Report for the University of Washington More Hall Annex Decontamination and Decommissioning Project Seattle, Washington General Comment Overall, the report provides a clear description of the final status survey (FSS) and results.. The FSS followed the guidance provided in draft NUREG/CR-5849 and demonstrated that the University of Washington Nuclear Reactor (U'.WNR) has satisfied the requirements needed for release without radiological restrictions. However, ORISE has identified several issues deserving attention. Specific comments are summarized below.
Specific Comments
- 1. The cited nominal efficiency values for Alpha Gas Proportional detectors in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 and the text in Section 5.3.1.1 are inconsistent. The nominal efficiency values should be consistent in the document, and the associated M1inimum Detectable Activities (and Probabilities of Detection) should be calculated using the same efficiency value for a given instrument combination/measurement type.
- 2. ORISE recommends that Section 5.3.2, Instrument Calibration, include a discussion of calibration sources (isotope, material, and geometry) and source-to-detector distance for each type of radiation measurement (alpha, beta, gamma).
- 3. Section 7.1.3.3 describes the use of a 50 cm2 air proportional detector for assessing total alpha activity inside the fuel storage tubes (10 cm diameter). Table 7-2 describes three elevated alpha activity results and the associated weighted average. ORISE recommends including additional information in the report that describes 1) the source-to-detector distance and 2) the method of determining the net results in dpm/100 cm 2 (e.g., was the measurement result doubled since the detector is 50 cm 2 in area?). The additional information should support the premise that the source-to-detector distance did not result in an overestimation in the efficiency, and therefore underestimation of the result.
University of Washington Moore Hall Annex projects/0456/2007-01-04 FSS Report Review Letter