View
220
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
PHILOTECHNICS
Decommissioning Radiological Laboratories in
California
CCRSO ConferenceOctober 5, 2007
Presented by:Jon Dillon, M.S.
PHILOTECHNICS
Decommissioning Planning
• Management commitment
• Key stakeholders
• Project team
• Establish reasonable timelines
• Development of RFP and project scope
• Early contact with CDPH
PHILOTECHNICS
Estimated Timelines
• Will vary depending on scope• Typical overall timeline
– Prepare Decommissioning Plan (15-30 days)– Submittal and approval to CDPH (~60 days)– Perform site survey (2-30 days)– Prepare Final Status Survey Report (15 days)– Submission and approval of report by CDPH
(Variable?)
• Terminating a facility typically takes from 3-6 months on average post FSS
• Make management aware early!!!
PHILOTECHNICS
Decommissioning Planning
• Perform Historical Site Assessment (HSA)– Review facility license and all amendments
– Employee interviews
– Monthly inventory logs
– Source leak test records
– History of releases or spills
• Performing a complete HSA is critical to maintaining the timeline and terminating the license
PHILOTECHNICS
Decommissioning Planning (cont.)
• Federal limit of 25 mrem/yr does not apply to CA • Currently no dose based release criteria in CA• Regulations specified in CCR Title 17, 30256• Case by case evaluation by CDPH• Select your facility's criteria
– ALARA– RAM License Conditions – Corporate Culture – Risk– Overall Timing for Decommissioning
PHILOTECHNICS
Decommissioning Criteria
• Contamination levels on building surfaces– Removable– Total
• Criteria Specified by – NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86– Facility RAM License Limits– NUREG-1757 – NUREG-1575 (MARSSIM )
PHILOTECHNICS
Regulatory Guide 1.86
PHILOTECHNICS
Facility RAM License Criteria
• Most conservative limits for Specific Licensees
• Not recommended– Increased radioactive wastes– Problematic for instrument detection limits– Usually only specifies a removable
contamination limit
PHILOTECHNICS
NUREG-1757
• Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance
• Three volumes addressing following topics:– “Decommissioning Process for Materials
Licensees”– “Characterization, Survey, and Determination
of Radiological Criteria”; and– “Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and
Timeliness”
PHILOTECHNICS
NUREG 1757 (cont.)
• Volume 2 of the NUREG provides guidance on compliance with radiological criteria for license termination
• Many sections of 1757 will reference to MARSSIM
• MARSSIM does not cover DCGL determination, subsurface contamination or materials and equipment, where 1757 does provide guidance
PHILOTECHNICS
NUREG-1575 (MARSSIM)
• Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)
• Most up to date and statistically valid method for decommissioning
• Recognized by NRC, DOE, DOD, and EPA• Advantages
– True dose based assessment– Allows higher limits of contamination– Produces less radioactive wastes– Fewer sample locations required– Based on statistical certainties
PHILOTECHNICS
MARSSIM Process(Data Life Cycle)
• Plan (DQO Process)
• Implement (conduct surveys)– Scanning, direct measurements and sampling
• Assess (data quality assessment)– Statistical Tests and EMC
• Decide (compliance with release criteria)
• Evaluate (DQA)
PHILOTECHNICS
Example MARSSIM Based Criteria
• Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) Based on a 1 mrem/yr Dose Criteria
• Significant difference from historic guidelines
Isotope DCGLw’s
(DPM/100 cm2)
Removable DCGLw’s
(DPM/100 cm2)
H-3 5.0 x 106 1,000
C-14 1.5 x 105 1,000
P-32 3.8 x 105 1,000
P-33 1.7 x 106 1,000
S-35 5.0 x 105 1,000
I-125 2.7 x 104 1,000
PHILOTECHNICS
Determination of DCGL
• Outside scope of MARSSIM, however NUREG 1757 (NUREG-1727) provides guidance
• Consider scenarios– Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Recreational, etc.
• Consider pathways– External, Ingestion (water, meat, soils, etc.)– Drinking water– Inhalation
• DandD or RESRAD
PHILOTECHNICS
Types of DCGLs
• DCGLW
– DCGL for residual radioactivity evenly distributed over a large area
– Use with WRS or Sign test
• DCGLEMC
– DCGL for small areas of elevated activity
– Elevated measurement comparison to identify areas that require further investigation
– Different assumptions that DCGLW
PHILOTECHNICS
DQO Process
1. State the problem2. Identify the decision3. Identify inputs to the decision4. Define the study boundaries5. Develop a decision rule6. Specify limits on decision errors7. Optimize the survey design
DQO Process is a series of planning steps for establishing criteria for data quality and developing survey designs
PHILOTECHNICS
Example Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
• Default Screening Values (DSVs)– Typically set at 20 to 50% of DCGLs
• Instrument Detection Limits (ideally)– Recommendation is the Static MDC is 10 – 50% of the
DCGL
• Must be known prior to selecting survey instrumentation
• Dose modeling analysis• Decision Errors
PHILOTECHNICS
Instrument Selection
• Research isotopes require sensitive instruments capable of detecting low energy beta emitters
• Separate instruments must be used to detect gamma emitters like I-125
• Instruments need to be calibrated at energies similar to isotopes of concern
• Calculate efficiencies correctly (2 vs. 4)
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical Instrument Specs
DetectorModel
Detector TypeDetector
AreaMeter Model
Window Thickness
Typical TotalEfficiency
Ludlum43-68
Gas FlowProportional
126 cm2 Ludlum 2350-10.4
mg/cm2 7% (14C)
Ludlum 43-37Floor Monitor
Gas FlowProportional
582 cm2 Ludlum 2350-10.8
mg/cm2 6% (14C)
EberlineSPA-3
2” x 2” NaI
20.4 cm2 Ludlum 2350-1 N/A900 cpm/R/hr
(137Cs)
BeckmanLS6000
Liquid Scintillation N/A Beckman N/A40% (3H)80% (14C)
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical Instrument MDCs
TypeDetectorModel
MeterModel
ScanRate
CountTime
Bkg(cpm)
MDC(dpm/100cm2)
SurfaceScans
Ludlum43-68
Ludlum2350-1
5cm/sec
N/A 458 2,594 (14C)
SurfaceScans
Ludlum 43-37
Ludlum2350-1
5cm/sec
N/A 1,480 959 (14C)
SurfaceScansSoils
EberlineSPA-3
Ludlum2350-1
0.5m/sec
NA 10,0002.03 pCi/g
(137Cs)
TotalSurfaceActivity
Ludlum 43-68
Ludlum2350-1
N/A 1 min. 458 1,163 (14C)
RemovableActivity
LiquidScintillation
Beckman N/A 1 min.8 (3H)
12 (14C)41 (3H)24 (14C)
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical Instruments
PHILOTECHNICS
MDC Comparison
• Large Area probe– ~6% total efficiency for C-14– Probe area 100 cm2
– Bkg ~350 cpm, 1 min counts
• G-M probe– ~3% total efficiency for C-14– Probe area 19.6 cm2
– Bkg ~50 cpm, 1 min counts
2
2 2
3 3.29 1( /100 )
. 100
b s b s b b
s b
R T T TMDC dpm cm
Eff T probearea cm cm
NUREG-1507
PHILOTECHNICS
MDC Comparison
• Large area probe– Static MDC is 1,500 dpm/100 cm2
– Scan MDC is 3,333 dpm/100 cm2
• G-M probe– Static MDC is 6,105 dpm/100 cm2
– Scan MDC is 18,179 dpm/100 cm2
• If you have restrictive DCGL you can see how instrument selection is critical
PHILOTECHNICS
Historical Site Assessment (HSA)
• Identify potential sources of contamination• Differentiate areas of different contamination
potential – Impacted vs. Non-Impacted• Provide input to scoping and characterization
survey design• Provide assessment for potential of contaminant
migration• Classification of Areas (Class 1, 2, 3)
PHILOTECHNICS
Characterization Surveys
• Biased based on history, material use and storage • Scan percentages based upon area classification• Be consistent with planned FSS to potentially use
as FSS data• Combination of scans, static and removable
measurements• Removable contamination measurements obtained
in areas of highest activity • Identifies areas of contamination which require
remediation
PHILOTECHNICS
Final Status Surveys
• Demonstrate that residual radioactivity in each survey unit satisfies release criteria
• Builds on data from HSA and results from scoping and/or characterization surveys
• Goal is to be able to reject null hypothesis meaning area meets release criteria
• Background reference areas very important• Sample size calculated that can statistically
demonstrate compliance with the derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs)
PHILOTECHNICS
Does your lab look like this?
PHILOTECHNICS
Or this?
PHILOTECHNICS
Example Systematic Lab Design
11
1 2 3
456
7 8 9
12 10
2019
212223
18
242526
14 15 16 171327
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3536
TYPICAL SPACING= 1.18m or 3' 10 14"
SYSTEMATIC SAMPLE LOCATION
RANDOM START
JUDGMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATION
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical FSS Report Contents
• Final Report will be prepared using the guidance of NUREG 1757 Volume 2, Section 4.5. The Final Report will include, at a minimum:
• An overview of the results of the FSS• A summary of the screening values (if used)• A discussion of any changes that were made in the FSS from
what were proposed in this plan• A description of the method by which the number of samples
was determined for each survey unit• A summary of the values used to determine the number of
samples and a justification for these values• A description of the data quality objectives used in the
design and performance of the Final Status Survey
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical FSS Report Contents (cont.)
• The survey results for each survey unit including the following:
• The number of samples taken for the survey unit;– A description of the survey unit, including (a) a map or drawing
showing the reference system and random start systematic sample locations for Class 1 and Class 2 survey units and reference area, as applicable, and the random locations shown for Class 3 survey units and reference areas; (b) discussion of remedial actions and unique features; and (c) areas scanned for Class 3 survey units and reference areas
– The measured sample concentrations in units comparable to the screening values
– The statistical evaluation of the measured concentrations
PHILOTECHNICS
Typical FSS Report Contents (cont.)
– Judgmental and miscellaneous sample data sets reported separately from those samples collected for performing the statistical calculations
– A discussion of anomalous data, including any areas of elevated activity detected during scan surveys that exceeded the investigation levels or any measurement locations in excess of the screening values
– A statement that a given survey unit satisfies the screening values and the elevated measurement comparison if any sample points exceeded the screening values
• A description of any changes in initial survey unit assumptions relative to the extent of residual activity (e.g., material not accounted for during site characterization)
• A description of how As Low As Reasonably Achievable practices were employed to achieve final activity levels.
• A final RESRAD or D&D run confirming dose
PHILOTECHNICS
FSS Key Considerations• Accurate HSA & consider decay when appropriate• Static MDC should be <50% of DCGL• Scan MDC comparison to DCGL for
determination of additional measurements• Proper classification of areas• Planning to minimize duplication• Equipment (Free Release)• Keep systems separate (e.g. vacuum, drain,
ventilation)• Licensing
PHILOTECHNICS
FSS Potential Pitfalls
• Poor instrument selection• Release limits not clearly defined• Scope of work not clearly defined• Selecting a DCGL that is too restrictive• MDCs of Instruments (Static, Scan)• Gross DCGL• Incorrect number of samples• Not addressing systems
PHILOTECHNICS
Summary
• Plan early & commit resources• Negotiations with CDPH• Internal staff vs. external support• FSS Report is key element for release• Time spent in planning and managing can reduce
overall timeline• Documentation, documentation, documenation• Success will be measured more by meeting
deadlines than meeting release limits
PHILOTECHNICS
Questions
Recommended