decommissioning report for curtiss-wright electro-mechanical … · 2020. 1. 7. · 2 h:\project...

Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation

Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)

Prepared For:

Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation1000 Cheswick Road

Cheswick, PA

Prepared By:

ENERCON Services, Inc.4499 Old William Penn Highway

Murrysville, PA 15668

January 17, 2006

H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No. 1\Report No.1 Final.doc



Table of Contents

Page

1.0 Background Information 1

1.1 Facility Description 11.2 Ownership 11.3 Current Operations and Licensing 11.4 Objective and Scope of this Report 2

2.0 Site History (1953 to 1996) 3

2.1 Westinghouse Operations (1953 to 1972) 32.1.1 Government Contracts 4

2.1.1.1 Buildings 4 and 5 (Navy Nuclear Activities) 42.1.1.2 Buildings 4 and 5 (Astro-Nuclear Activities) 52.1.1.3 Building 5A (excluding the East Mezzanine) 52.1.1.4 Building 5C 5

2.1.2 Commercial Nuclear Fuel Operations Under NRC License SNM-338 52.1.2.1 Building 5A (East Mezzanine) 62.1.2.2 Building 5B 62.1.2.3 Building 5D 72.1.2.4 Building 5E 7

2.1.3 Plutonium Fuels Development Under NRC License SNM-1120 72.2 Remediation Activities – 1972 and 1973 82.3 Unrestricted Use Operations (1973 – 1990’s) 92.4 Remediation Activities – 1980’s and 1990’s 92.5 Building 5F Construction - 1988 92.6 Resumption of Remedial Activities (1996) 9

3.0 Decommissioning Activities (1996 to Present) 10

3.1 Site Area Identification 103.2 Decommissioning Summary 11

4.0 Final Status Survey Overview 12

4.1 Identity of Potential Contaminants and Release Guidelines 124.2 Unrestricted Release Criteria 124.3 FSS Objectives 134.4 Management Approach 134.5 Instrumentation 14

4.5.1 Instrument Calibration 154.5.2 Pre-Operational Checks 154.5.3 Minimum Detectable Activity Calculation 154.5.4 Instrument Efficiency 16




4.5.5 Instrument Models 164.5.5.1 Eberline ESP-2 Gas Proportional Detector 164.5.5.2 Tennelec Model LB5100 164.5.5.3 Ludlum Model 19 µR Meter 164.5.5.4 Eberline E-520 174.5.5.5 Eberline E-140 174.5.5.6 Eberline PRM-7 174.5.5.7 Ludlum 2221 Floor Monitor 174.5.5.8 Bicron Micro-rem 174.5.5.9 Other Instrumentation 17

4.5.6 Repairs and Maintenance 184.5.7 Operational Documentation 18

4.6 Survey Procedures 184.6.1 Area Classification 184.6.2 Survey Requirements 20

4.6.2.1 Class 1 Areas (unaffected) 204.6.2.2 Class 4 Areas (unaffected) 20

4.6.3 Reference Grids 214.6.3.1 Inside Buildings 21

4.6.4 Measurement and Sampling 224.7 Background Level Determination 224.8 FSS Data Collection 224.9 Data Interpretation 224.10 Records 234.11 Quality Assurance 23

5.0 Final Status Survey Evaluation 24

6.0 Final Status Survey Results 26

6.1 Section 2 (Buildings 4 and 5) 266.1.1 Unit 2-1 and 2-2 Release Status Determination 266.1.2 Unit 2-3 Release Status Determination 276.1.3 Unit 2-4, 2-20, and 2-21 Release Status Determination 276.1.4 Unit 2-5 and 2-6 Release Status Determination 286.1.5 Unit 2-7 Release Status Determination 286.1.6 Unit 2-8 Release Status Determination 296.1.7 Unit 2-9 Release Status Determination 296.1.8 Unit 2-10 Release Status Determination 296.1.9 Unit 2-11 Release Status Determination 306.1.10 Unit 2-12 Release Status Determination 306.1.11 Unit 2-13 Release Status Determination 316.1.12 Unit 2-14 Release Status Determination 316.1.13 Unit 2-15 Release Status Determination 316.1.14 Unit 2-16 Release Status Determination 326.1.15 Unit 2-17 Release Status Determination 326.1.16 Unit 2-18 Release Status Determination 336.1.17 Unit 2-19 Release Status Determination 33




6.1.18 Unit 2-22 Release Status Determination 336.1.19 Unit 2-24 Release Status Determination 34

6.2 Section 5 (Building 5D) 346.2.1 Unit 5-1 Release Status Determination 356.2.2 Unit 5-2 and 5-3 Release Status Determination 356.2.3 Unit 5-4 Release Status Determination 356.2.4 Unit 5-5 Release Status Determination 366.2.5 Unit 5-6 Release Status Determination 366.2.6 Unit 5-7 Release Status Determination 376.2.7 Unit 5-8 and 5-9 Release Status Determination 376.2.8 Unit 5-10 Release Status Determination 376.2.9 Unit 5-11 Release Status Determination 386.2.10 Unit 5-12 Release Status Determination 386.2.11 Unit 5-13 Release Status Determination 386.2.12 Unit 5-14 Release Status Determination 396.2.13 Unit 5-15 Release Status Determination 396.2.14 Unit 5-16 Release Status Determination 406.2.15 Unit 5-17 Release Status Determination 406.2.16 Unit 5-18 Release Status Determination 406.2.17 Unit 5-19 and 5-20 Release Status Determination 41

6.3 Section 7 (Building 5F) 41

7.0 References 43

Figures

Figure 1 – Site MapFigure 2 – First Level Survey Unit Identification MapFigure 3 - Second Level Survey Unit Identification MapFigure 4 – Unit 3-4 DetailsFigure 5 – Unit 5-9 and Unit 5-19 DetailsFigure 6 – Unit 3-9 DetailsFigure 7 – Unit 3-10 Details

Appendices

Appendix A – Decommissioning Summary Table, Sections 2, 5 and 7Appendix B – PhotographsAppendix C – Section 2 Statistical Analysis and Survey DataAppendix D – Section 5 Statistical Analysis and Survey DataAppendix E – Section 7 Statistical Analysis and Survey Data

1




1.0 Background Information

1.1 Facility Description

The Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical Corporation (CW-EMD) is engaged in radiological

decommissioning activities at their Cheswick site (the site) to address legacy issues associated

with past manufacturing processes. This multi-building complex (Figure 1) is situated on a tract

of approximately 110 acres located in Harmar Township on a plateau one mile northwest of the

Borough of Cheswick, Pennsylvania. The site is one mile from the Allegheny River at an

elevation 200 feet above river level. The site, originally owned and operated by Westinghouse

Electric Corporation (Westinghouse), was acquired by CW-EMD in 2002 after a series of

ownership changes that began in 1995.

1.2 Ownership

Westinghouse owned and operated the site from 1953 until 1995 when they acquired and changed

their name to CBS. Viacom, Inc. (Viacom) acquired CBS in 1999 and became the owner of the

site. Viacom retained site ownership until March 22, 1999 when Viacom sold the site to BNFL

Nuclear Services Inc. (BNFL) and Morrison Knudsen, which later changed its name to

Washington Group International, Inc. (WGI). WGI/BNFL retained ownership as a division of

their Westinghouse Government Services Company subsidiary until October 28, 2002 when

Curtiss-Wright Corporation acquired the site from WGI/BNFL. CW-EMD, a subsidiary of the

Curtiss-Wright Corporation, currently owns and operates the site.

1.3 Current Operations and Licensing

CW-EMD develops, designs and supplies advanced electro-mechanical solutions for the Navy,

including motors, generators and secondary propulsors. CW-EMD also manufactures reactor

coolant pumps, seals, motors, control rod drive mechanisms, subsea pumping systems, and

hazardous waste pumping systems for the nuclear utility industry. To support these activities, the

site currently maintains two production-oriented Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

licenses. NRC License 37-05809-01 pertains to motor remanufacture activities conducted in

Buildings 10, 11, and 12, and portions of Buildings 4 (Disassembly & Reassembly) and 7, and

NRC License 37-05809-02 pertains to radiography operations conducted primarily in the

exposure cubicle located in the eastern portion of Building 2.

2H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No. 1\Report No.1 Final.doc



In addition to manufacturing operations, CW-EMD has implemented in past years, and continues

to pursue, a site decommissioning program to address legacy issues associated with past fuel

fabrication operations. To support these activities, CW-EMD maintains a third NRC license,

SNM-1120. Although originally established for Plutonium Fuel Development Lab (PFDL)

operations that ceased in the early 1980’s, SNM-1120 now serves as a possession only license for

residual contamination from historic uranium fuel fabrication operations conducted in

Buildings 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D and 5E. Potential contamination that may be present on

accessible site grounds or those located beneath building structures would also be managed under

SNM-1120.

1.4 Objective and Scope of this Report

Some of the manufacturing activities conducted from the early 1950’s to the 1970’s involved the

use of enriched U-235 in specific areas of the site. Throughout the various ownership transitions,

significant time and expense has been expended to clearly delineate the historic manufacturing

activities conducted at the site. These activities included, but may not have been limited to:

• fuel fabrication for the U.S Navy,• fuel fabrication for the Department of Defense (DOD),• commercial fuel operations, and• radiography operations (various locations throughout the site used over time).

To address residual legacy issues associated with these and potentially other past activities,

radiological decommissioning activities have occurred on site intermittently since the early

1970’s. This has facilitated reuse and renovation of the facility. This is the first of a series of

reports that will be generated to present the results of the decommissioning activities that have

occurred on site since the last progress report was submitted on December 10, 1993. This report

presents the results of decommissioning surveys in Buildings 4, 5, 5D, and 5F. These areas were

classified as unaffected building areas. The information in this report provides justification for

release of these areas for unrestricted use. It is anticipated that these areas can be removed from

NRC License SNM-1120 upon review and approval by the NRC.




2.0 Site History (1953 to 1996)

A historical description of the site has been developed based on radiological survey findings,

review of historical documents and drawings and interviews with employees. The historical

information presented is not all-inclusive. However, it provides the best available reconstruction

of activities from the data available.

2.1 Westinghouse Operations (1953 to 1972)

From 1953 through 1972, Westinghouse conducted both radiological and non-radiological

activities on site to support nuclear power development for both government and commercial

entities. Two main Westinghouse divisions occupied the facility during this time period. The

Atomic Equipment Division (AED) was involved in new equipment manufacturing, and the

Atomic Fuel Division (AFD) was involved in nuclear fuel fabrication using various enrichments

of U-235. AED operations were separate and distinct from AFD operations. AED operations

were conducted in Buildings 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, and 3. AFD operations occupied

Buildings 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 6, and 8. Buildings 6 and 8 were successfully

decommissioned and razed in 1982 and 1983, respectively. In addition, the existing Building 5F

was constructed on the site of the former waste treatment area, known as the monitor pit, used by

AFD. Existing operational areas previously associated with the AFD are the subject of this

report.

AFD conducted nuclear fuel fabrication operations under the authority of United States

Government contracts, NRC License SNM-338, and NRC License SNM-1120. Government

contracts with the Navy authorized Navy fuel fabrication, and government contracts with the

DOD subsequently authorized Astro-nuclear fuel fabrication for the Nuclear Engine for Rocket

Vehicle Application (NERVA) project. SNM-338 authorized commercial nuclear fuel

operations, and SNM-1120 authorized the operation of the PFDL (former Building 8).

Operational activities conducted by Westinghouse under government contracts, SNM-338 and

SNM-1120 are described in the following subsections.




2.1.1 Government Contracts

Navy fuel fabrication using high-enriched uranium began in 1957 with initial fabrication of naval

reactor cores and components and continued until 1966/67 when naval reactor core fabrication

activities ceased. Areas occupied by naval reactor core fabrication activities were subsequently

utilized for Astro-nuclear operations as space became available. Astro-nuclear operations, also

using high-enriched uranium, began in 1963 and were ultimately terminated in 1972.

Buildings 4, 5, 5A (excluding the East Mezzanine), and 5C were the primary locations for these

government contract fuel activities with the bulk of the non-encapsulated fuel activities conducted

in Building 5C. Astro-nuclear activities, including core fabrication, also occurred in Building 6

from 1963 to 1972. Building 6 was ultimately razed in 1982. Although technically different

operations, residual contamination associated with Navy fuel fabrication and Astro-nuclear

operations are similar. Both utilized highly enriched U-235.

2.1.1.1 Buildings 4 and 5 (Navy Nuclear Activities)

The nature of the activities conducted in Building 4 is unclear, particularly with respect to the

piping system. Through scoping surveys, it was established that Building 4 activities did not

result in general contamination of the building. However, residual radioactivity was detected in

the piping system in this area. The lack of general contamination may have been due to the form

of the fuel at that stage of the process or the absence of radioactive material at that stage of the

process. A metallurgical lab was located in the low bay portion of Building 4 south of the large

high bay manufacturing area. Whether or not radioactive materials were utilized in this portion of

Building 4 is uncertain. A change room was also located in this low bay portion of Building 4.

Employees utilizing this area presumably worked on clad fuel thus suggesting that no

contamination was expected to be found.

Building 5 activities included the fabrication of fuel. This included sintering processes, grinding,

and cutting, which generated uranium-containing residues that ultimately entered the drainage

systems. The majority of operations may have been conducted on clad fuel as deduced from the

lack of dispersible contamination found on surface structures.




2.1.1.2 Buildings 4 and 5 (Astro-Nuclear Activities)

Astro-nuclear operations involved the design, fabrication, and assembly of nuclear reactors

intended for space nuclear propulsion applications. The fuel elements for the NERVA nuclear

rocket engine were designed, fabricated, and assembled at the Cheswick site. The fuel elements

were then shipped to the Westinghouse facility in Large, PA where they were assembled into a

core. The core was then tested at yet another site. Fuel elements for the NERVA reactor, made

of graphite and uranium, were produced at the site using highly enriched uranium in the form of

oxides and metals. The exact distribution of operations among existing site structures and the

former Building 6, a separate and distinct structure razed in 1982, is unknown.

2.1.1.3 Building 5A (excluding the East Mezzanine)

Over the years, both naval fuel operations and Astro-nuclear operations occupied Building 5A

excluding the East Mezzanine, which housed a chemistry laboratory associated with commercial

AFD activities. Both Navy and Astro-nuclear fuel operations required the possession of highly

enriched U-235. Distinction between the two different operations in this area is not readily

available. The types of equipment and processes that formerly occupied Building 5A during the

fuel fabrication time period included fuel storage, presses, blenders, mills, and engraving tables.

Bathroom facilities and locker rooms were also housed in Building 5A. Both clean and

contaminated change room facilities were situated in this area. Operational support equipment,

including heating, ventilation and air conditioning and transformers, were most likely positioned

on the west mezzanine of Building 5A.

2.1.1.4 Building 5C

Building 5C was added on as an extension to the exterior of Building 5A. Building 5C was the

predominant location for the fabrication of a prototype-designed fuel called “new fuel for long

life”. This was a special Knolls Atomic Power Lab design prototype for Navy cores. The bulk of

this activity involved non-encapsulated highly enriched uranium. The bulk of the non-

encapsulated work at the facility was conducted in this area.

2.1.2 Commercial Nuclear Fuel Operations Under NRC License SNM-338

NRC License SNM-338 permitted the fabrication of enriched Uranium fuel for commercial

nuclear power plants in the form of oxides. The uranium used in commercial nuclear fuel




fabrication was received in the form of oxide powders, then processed and fabricated into fuel

assemblies for the nuclear power industry. This license was terminated 1972 and the operation

was relocated to Columbia, South Carolina.

Commercial nuclear fuel operations conducted under this license were associated with

Building 5A (East Mezzanine), Building 5B, and Building 5E, which were all built specifically

for commercial low enriched nuclear fuel fabrication. Building 5D was also associated with

commercial operations; however, Building 5D was devoid of loose contamination issues, because

it was used for fuel rod loading operations. Residual contaminants associated with commercial

operations include surface building contamination as well as internal deposition in drain lines.

2.1.2.1 Building 5A (East Mezzanine)

The East Mezzanine of Building 5A housed the chemistry lab associated with commercial AFD

activities. Indications suggest that low enriched uranium was the primary isotope processed in

this laboratory.

2.1.2.2 Building 5B

Commercial nuclear fuel operations began with the arrival of Uranium oxide powder. This

material was then processed and pelletized. The uranium may have had an isotopic composition

varying from depleted to low enriched (3-5%). Building 5B was the main location for

commercial nuclear fuel operations and contained a variety of equipment and processes to

support commercial nuclear fuel fabrication including two pellet lines and a metal fuel line.

Table 2-1 lists the types of operations previously conducted in this area as described on facility

drawings.

Table 2-1. Historical Operations Conducted in Building 5B

Pellet Lines Metal Fuel Line

Powder storage Cleaning and pickling

Green pellet storage Welder

Pre-sinter pellet storage Press brace

Sinter Furnaces Heat roll furnace




Pellet Lines Metal Fuel Line

Presses Milling machine

Grinders Powder press

Plugging Hot roll mill

Loading Roller level

Desiccators Blending and mixing

Eight Ovens Shear

Pellet line areas were sectioned off atthe south end for the rod loading area.

Melt area

Stamping press

2.1.2.3 Building 5D

Building 5D was constructed for commercial fuel operations using encapsulated fuel. Upon

arrival in Building 5D, the fuel pellets had already been loaded into the fuel rods and the rods

were cleaned and released. No processing of powder or pellets was conducted in this area of the

facility. Load lines were located adjacent to the Building 5B pellet lines to permit transfer of

encapsulated fuel rods to Building 5D. Specific areas of Building 5D were segregated for

annealing, pickling and corrosion testing activities. Assembly line areas were also identified on

original plant layout drawings. The two-story eastern portion of the facility was utilized as office

space for AFD.

2.1.2.4 Building 5E

Only minimal information has been recovered regarding the activities conducted in Building 5E.

This area is noted as containing a storage and scrap recovery section, birdcage storage, and

solvent extraction processes. No further details regarding these processes were available.

2.1.3 Plutonium Fuels Development Under NRC License SNM-1120

Operation of the PFDL began in 1969 under NRC License SNM-1120 and ceased in the early

1980’s. SNM-1120 authorized possession of plutonium in Building 8, which was successfully

decontaminated and razed in 1983. Although the building is gone in every sense, SNM-1120 was

not terminated. Rather, the license was modified to reflect the possession-only of U-235 that was




determined to be residual from government contract activities and terminated License SNM-338

activities.

2.2 Remediation Activities – 1972 and 1973

Decontamination activities occurred on site in 1972 and 1973 as described in two reports

prepared by Applied Health Physics, Inc. (AHP). The first report, issued on August 16, 1972

indicated that Buildings 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 6A, and 6B were acceptable for unrestricted occupancy.

Decontamination and subsequent survey work described in this report was completed between

April 27, 1972 and August 16, 1972 under Westinghouse Purchase Order No. 59-FZM-24077.

Radiological Safety Certificate No. 7208-008 was issued to attest to the successful completion of

this contract.

The second AHP report submitted April 11, 1973 under Purchase Order No. 54-DC-154799,

described additional activities completed in Building 5B associated with the Monitor Pit and the

Chemistry Lab. This work was completed under Purchase Order No. 548-B-165038 between

November 8, 1972 and February 8, 1973. Radiological Safety Certificate No. 7305-012 was

issued to attest to the successful completion of this contract.

As indicated in the AHP reports, the contracts involved decontamination of the Astro-Nuclear

Core Operations Facility, which at the time included Buildings 5 and 5A, and the Commercial

Operations Facility, Building 5B. Decontamination began with the use of high power vacuum

cleaning units with absolute filters for both wet and dry pick-up. Residual surface contamination

was then removed using several decontamination techniques, including, special hot detergent

foam, steam-detergent rinse, scrub or other manual techniques followed by rinse and by vacuum

removal of contaminated liquids.

The April 11, 1973 report noted that some areas were not included in the decontamination

process. These excluded areas consisted of drain lines, surfaces under paint and surfaces under

tile. The decontamination reports submitted by contractors detailed the cleaning of the facilities

in question and provided survey data and unconditional releases. No exterior soils were involved

in the work completed in 1972 and 1973.




2.3 Unrestricted Use Operations (1973 – 1990’s)

From 1973 forward, the site facilities were deemed to be available for unrestricted use. Site

management utilized the various building areas without restriction in a number of different

operational aspects until approximately 1996 when additional radiological surveys uncovered low

levels of radiological contamination.

2.4 Remediation Activities – 1980’s and 1990’s

Decontamination efforts also occurred in the 1980’s. This work involved site grounds exterior

and west of Buildings 5B, 5E and 5D. This project was completed in the early 1990’s. The

decontamination and decommissioning report to the NRC delineating the activities taken and

final survey status was submitted by A.J. Nardi on December 10, 1993 (Document No. RS-93-

056).

No further remediation efforts exterior and adjacent to the existing manufacturing facility were

planned at the site after the conclusion of this exterior site grounds work. The extent of the

interior areas that exceeded the criteria was not evident until renovation of the facility interiors

began in 1996.

2.5 Building 5F Construction - 1988

Building 5F was constructed in 1988 after all remediation activities in the area were concluded.

Building 5F was included in this Decommissioning Report because of its proximity to areas that

had been remediated.

2.6 Resumption of Remedial Activities (1996)

Renovation of building interiors began in 1996. As a result of an equipment relocation task, floor

space in Building 5A that had been occupied for years was now accessible. Radiation surveys

were conducted at the proposed relocation area based solely on the known history of the facility.

On Monday, July 8, 1996, low levels of radioactive contamination were discovered under the

floor tiles in the Maintenance Storage Area at this location. The resulting positive indications

resulted in the initiation of the ongoing remediation activities.




3.0 Decommissioning Activities (1996 to Present)

Beginning in 1996, the site initiated a program of site decommissioning activities based on the

unexpected survey findings in Building 5A. Under this program, site areas associated with past

fuel manufacturing activities were designated for investigation and decontamination (if

necessary). Necessary decontamination work was accomplished in a piecemeal fashion as space

became available. Space became available when process lines became obsolete and were

dismantled. Final Status Surveys (FSS) for both affected and unaffected areas of the site

followed on the heels of decommissioning activities. Proceeding in this manner, significant

progress has been made since 1996 in decontaminating areas affected by past manufacturing

activities. This work has been accomplished while maintaining an active manufacturing facility.

3.1 Site Area Identification

Figures 2 through 7 show all site areas involved in the decommissioning process since 1996.

Figure 2 shows lower level areas, Figure 3 shows second level areas, and Figures 4 through 7

provide additional details for specific areas. Plant areas involved in the decommissioning process

are identified on the figures according to section, survey unit, and sub-unit. For example, a plant

area identified as 5-11-1 would refer to Section 5, Unit 11, Sub-unit 1.

Section numbers were assigned to various areas based on distinguishing features such as

operational history, types of fuel, and type of remediation activity; and survey unit and sub-unit

designations are associated with the FSS phase of the Decommissioning Process. Section

numbers are summarized in Table 3–1.




Table 3-1. Section Numbers Assigned to Plant Areas

SurveySection Location/Description Distinguishing Features

1 Outside Areas Soil remediation

2 Building 4 & 5 Navy and Astro-nuclear fuel fabrication areas. Usedhighly enriched U-235.

3 Building 5A and 5C Navy and Astro-nuclear fuel fabrication areas. Usedhighly enriched U-235. Non-encapsulated fuel activities.

4 Building 5B and 5E Commercial fuel fabrication areas. Low enriched U-235.

5 Building 5D Commercial fuel fabrication areas. Low enriched U-235.Encapsulated fuel.

6 All Drain Lines Residual contamination from various sections.

7 Building 5F Newer building constructed after AFD activities hadceased. Built on former wastewater treatment area.

Only Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7 are addressed in this report.

3.2 Decommissioning Summary

Appendix A presents a Decommissioning Summary Table for Sections 2, 5, and 7 that provides

an overview of each unaffected building area involved in the decommissioning process since

1996. Data includes descriptions of original building construction; past uses; conditions at the

time of FSS; reconstruction/remodeling activities since FSS; current use; and outstanding issues

associated with each area. Photographs referenced in the table are included in Appendix B.




4.0 Final Status Survey Overview

4.1 Identity of Potential Contaminants and Release Guidelines

Table 4-1 defines the typical U-235 enrichments associated with each unaffected building.

Table 4-1. Typical U-235 Enrichment Associated With Unaffected Buildings

Building U-235 Enrichment

Buildings 4/5 High

Building 5D Low

Building 5F Not Applicable

4.2 Unrestricted Release Criteria

This report verifies that unrestricted release criteria have been met for certain areas of the facility

and summarizes the unrestricted release status for specific areas of the facility that are known to

require FSS. Building surfaces have been evaluated against the following unrestricted release

criteria:

• Fixed alpha activity does not exceed an average of 5,000 disintegrations per minute per 100square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2) above background when averaged over 1 square meter(m2) (Reference 3).

• Fixed beta/gamma activity does not exceed an average of 5,000 dpm/100 cm2 abovebackground when averaged over 1 m2. (Reference 3).

• Removable alpha activity does not exceed 1,000 dpm/100 cm2 above background at anylocation. (Reference 3).

• Removable beta/gamma activity does not exceed 1,000 dpm/100 cm2 above background atany location. (Reference 3).

• Gamma exposure rate of 5 microrem per hour (µR/hr) above background at 1 meter from asurface averaged over a 10 m2 for inside lower surfaces. (Walls and ceilings were notsurveyed for gamma exposure in accordance with Westinghouse environmental cleanupprocedures.) (Reference 4).

• In unaffected areas, fixed and removable activity must not exceed 25% of the guideline value.These limits are 1,250 dpm/100 cm2 above background for both fixed alpha and beta-gamma




activity and 250 dpm/100 cm2 above background for removable alpha and beta-gammaactivity. (Reference 5).

4.3 FSS Objectives

The purpose of the FSS activities is to demonstrate that the radiological conditions at the site

satisfy the NRC guidelines and that certain areas of the site can, therefore, be released from

licensing restrictions to allow future use without radiological controls. For the purpose of this

demonstration, each survey unit was independently evaluated. The objective of the survey was to

demonstrate at a 95% minimum level of confidence that the license release conditions have been

met.

4.4 Management Approach

The present day management at the site has fully supported efforts by the Health Physics (HP)

Staff to remediate and/or survey known areas of uranium contamination. Throughout a variety of

plant renovation projects, access has been granted and funding provided towards a variety of

remediation projects since 1996. The presence of uranium contamination on, in, or under active

commercial manufacturing areas limited the ability to conduct one massive decontamination

effort. Cooperation between manufacturing and the HP staff has resulted in the completion of

significant remediation tasks with minimal impact on the daily operations of the current facility's

product lines.

The HP staff at the site maintains overall responsibility and authority for the remediation

activities. Qualified remediation workers and HP technicians work under the direction of the site

HP staff. The site staff presents the overall plan for remediation. Cooperative discussions

between the associated parties result in a cost efficient approach to decommissioning while

adhering to all applicable health, safety and radiation protection guidelines. Guidance

documentation issued by the NRC has been utilized as a basis for development of the final survey

methodology and associated documentation. All survey methods and quality assurance/quality

control activities are subject to review by the CW-EMD staff that maintains final approval,

authority and responsibility for work conducted under NRC licenses.




4.5 Instrumentation

Instruments were selected that would provide an adequate response to radiation and demonstrate

compliance with the accepted release criteria. Minimum detectable activity (MDA) values were

calculated for each model. The MDA was calculated using formulae contained within

NUREG/CR-5849 and shown in Section 4.5.3. The background rate and detector efficiency used

in the MDA were calculated during the calibration of each instrument. Table 4-2 shows the

instrument models selected and summarizes the typical background counts in counts per minute

(cpm), typical detector efficiency, and a typical MDA for each instrument model. Other

objectives in selecting instruments include special features such as digital displays to provide a

more accurate reading than conventional analog displays.

Table 4-2. Summary of Instrumentation Used for Decommissioning

Instrument Model Typical BackgroundRateTypical Efficiency

%Average MDA

(above background)Tennelec LB5100Alpha (Scaler) 0.4 cpm 29.8% 8 dpm/100 cm

2

Tennelec LB5100Beta (Scaler) 2.0 cpm 23.5% 20 dpm/100 cm

2

Eberline ESP-2 Alpha(Scaler) 3 cpm 22.6% 48 dpm/100 cm

2

Eberline ESP-2 Beta(Scaler) 260 cpm 33.3 % 233 dpm/100 cm

2

Eberline ESP-2 Beta(Scan) 260 cpm 33.3 % 2,339 dpm/100 cm

2

Ludlum 2221 FloorMonitor (Scan) 1,369 cpm 28.1% 3,368 dpm/100 cm

2

Eberline E-520(Ratemeter) 11.3 µR/hr N/A Background

Eberline E-140(Ratemeter) 16.3 µR/hr N/A Background

Eberline ESP-2Beta/Gamma(Ratemeter)

12.8 µR/hr N/A Background

Ludlum Model 19(Ratemeter) 10.1 µR/hr N/A Background




100A

*E*t

t*B65.4+71.2=MDA r

Instrument Model Typical BackgroundRateTypical Efficiency

%Average MDA

(above background)Eberline PRM-7(ratemeter) 5.7 µR/hr N/A Background

Bicron Microrem(ratemeter) 4.1 µR/hr N/A Background

4.5.1 Instrument Calibration

All survey instrumentation used to collect FSS data was calibrated according to established

calibration procedures maintained on site. Calibration certificates for all meters are maintained at

the CW-EMD facility.

4.5.2 Pre-Operational Checks

Background readings for counting instruments were determined daily prior to use. Each day that

an instrument was used, it received an operational check that consisted of a background reading

(observed cpm for ratemeters or a 10-minute static count for scalers) and a count of a known

check source (observed cpm for ratemeters and a 1-minute static count for scalers). The source

check was performed to ensure that a meter was operating within 20% of the calibrated

efficiency. An instrument that approached its calibration due date or failed the source check was

re-calibrated. Any instrument that used a direct current battery also received a daily battery check

before operation. If a battery check failed, an equivalent battery was installed and the instrument

rechecked before operation. Any inappropriate response resulted in the instrument being taken

out of service and sent to the qualified vendor for calibration and/or maintenance.

4.5.3 Minimum Detectable Activity Calculation

Background readings and calibration efficiencies were used to evaluate the MDA for each

instrument model. The formulae and/or functions used in the spreadsheet are detailed as follows:

MDA

Scaler instruments:




Scanning instruments:

Where:

MDA = minimum detectable activity level in disintegrations/minute/detector area

Br = Background rate in counts per unit time (cpm)

t = Count time (scaler)

E = Detector efficiency in counts per disintegration

A = Effective detector area in cm2

4.5.4 Instrument Efficiency

The efficiency of the detection capabilities for each instrument group was calculated by dividing

the source count rate by the calibrated dpm value of an appropriate calibration source.

4.5.5 Instrument Models

4.5.5.1 Eberline ESP-2 Gas Proportional Detector

This is a scaler/ratemeter instrument coupled with a gas proportional detector with a 100 cm2

probe area used for all types of surveys. This instrument type was mainly used to collect alpha

and beta measurements. One meter was modified to record beta/gamma contact radiation levels.

4.5.5.2 Tennelec Model LB5100

This is a scaler instrument used for counting alpha and beta wipe samples.

4.5.5.3 Ludlum Model 19 µR Meter

This is a ratemeter instrument with a built-in 1” x 1” NaI gamma scintillator that was used for

exposure rate surveys of work areas, waste materials, and containers. It was generally accepted

that the MDA of this instrument is equivalent to its background readings.

100*

*3AE

BMDA r=




4.5.5.4 Eberline E-520

This is a ratemeter instrument with a scintillation probe used for beta/gamma detection. It was

also used to pinpoint the source of high gamma readings to assist in the remediation process. It

was generally accepted that the MDA of this instrument is equivalent to its background readings.

4.5.5.5 Eberline E-140

This is a ratemeter instrument with a scintillation probe used for beta/gamma detection. It was

also used to pinpoint the source of high gamma readings to assist in the remediation process. It

was generally accepted that the MDA of this instrument is equivalent to its background readings.

4.5.5.6 Eberline PRM-7

The Eberline PRM-7 is a gamma dose rate meter that was used for exposure rate surveys of work

areas, waste materials, and containers. It was generally accepted that the MDA of this instrument

is equivalent to its background readings.

4.5.5.7 Ludlum 2221 Floor Monitor

This is a scaler/ratemeter gas proportional instrument used to perform large area measurements.

It was used to perform beta floor scans at the facility.

4.5.5.8 Bicron Micro-rem

The Bicron micro-rem meter is a tissue-equivalent organic scintillator that responds to incident

gamma radiation and reads out directly in dose equivalent units. This instrument was used for

exposure rate surveys of work areas, waste materials, and containers. It was generally accepted

that the MDA of this instrument is equivalent to its background readings.

4.5.5.9 Other Instrumentation

Other instrumentation have been used for scoping and characterization purposes at the Cheswick

facility. Complete inventory lists and calibration records for all facility instrumentation are

maintained at the facility.




4.5.6 Repairs and Maintenance

Periodic maintenance was performed by the instrumentation calibration and repair technicians as

recommended by the manufacturer. Instruments were stored in a secure location away from

radioactive contamination.

4.5.7 Operational Documentation

Instrument performance, calibration, and maintenance records are maintained at the CW-EMD

facility.

4.6 Survey Procedures

Survey planning and procedures were in accordance with the environmental clean-up procedures

and guidelines maintained on site, which are based on the “Manual for Conducting Radiological

Surveys in Support of License Termination”, NUREG/CR-5849. Procedures are briefly

described in this section.

4.6.1 Area Classification

Area classification was performed considering that all areas of the site did not have the same

potential for residual contamination and did not need the same level of survey coverage to

achieve the established release criteria. Classification allowed areas with higher potential for

contamination to receive a higher degree of survey effort. For purposes of establishing the

sampling and measurement frequency and pattern, NUREG/CR-5849 uses two classifications,

affected and unaffected.

Affected areas are areas with potential or known radioactive contamination based on plant

operating history or preliminary radiological surveys. This includes areas where radioactive

materials were used and/or stored, where spills or unusual occurrences may have resulted in the

spread of contamination and areas immediately surrounding or adjacent to these locations.

Unaffected areas are areas not classified as affected. Based on the site historical information and

scoping survey data, unaffected areas were not expected to contain residual radioactivity.




The CW-EMD classification system is based on NUREG/CR 5849. However, additional care

was taken to ensure that areas identified as unaffected were not actually affected areas. The CW-

EMD classification system is summarized in Table 4-3:

Table 4-3. CW-EMD Area Classification System

CW-EMDClassification CW-EMD Description

CorrespondingNUREG 5849Classification

1 Office, administrative, and plant operational areas wherehistorical information indicates that no radioactivematerial (RAM) had ever been used or stored.

Unaffected

2 Office, administrative, and plant areas where historicalinformation indicates that no RAM had ever been usedor stored, but is uncertain.

Unaffected

3 Office, administrative, and plant areas where historicalinformation indicates that only sealed RAM may havebeen used or stored.

Unaffected

4 Office, administrative, and plant areas where historicalinformation indicates that unsealed RAM may havebeen used or stored.

Unaffected

5 Areas where measurements indicate the presence ofcontamination

Affected

As the final survey progressed, an area’s classification could change based on accumulated

survey data. Table 4-4 lists the classifications pertaining to each unaffected site section.

Table 4-4. Section Classifications

SurveySection Location/Description CW-EMD Classification

2 Buildings 4 and 5 1 and 4

5 Buildings 5D 1 and 4

7 Building 5F 1




4.6.2 Survey Requirements

Only Class 1 and 4 areas are addressed in this report. Measurement and sampling requirements

for these classifications were developed with reference to NUREG/CR-5849 and the release

criteria described in Section 4.2. Survey requirements are summarized in the following

subsections.

4.6.2.1 Class 1 Areas (unaffected)

Class 1 areas were surveyed according to the following procedure:

A. Maximum unit size is usually one floor or any part thereof

B. At a minimum of 30 identifiable points, collect the following data:• Alpha 1 minute count• Beta 1 minute count• Beta scan 1 m2 around survey point• 1 – 100 cm2 smear (count for alpha and beta)• Gamma at 1 meter in µR/hr (floor only)

C. Additional surveys as required based upon results of initial 30 point survey

D. Additional surveys as requested by supervision

4.6.2.2 Class 4 Areas (unaffected)

Class 4 areas were surveyed according to the following procedure:

A. Maximum unit size is 300 m2 (floor area)

B. At a minimum of 30 identifiable lower surface points and 30 upper surface points,collect the following data:• Alpha 1 minute count• Beta 1 minute count• Beta scan 1 m2 around survey point• 1 – 100 cm2 smear (count for alpha and beta)

C. At a minimum of 30 identifiable lower surface points• Gamma at 1 meter in µR/hr (floor only)




D. A floor scan of 50% is required

E. Additional surveys as required based upon results of initial 30 point survey

F. Additional surveys as requested by supervision

4.6.3 Reference Grids

Grid systems were established at the site to facilitate systematic selection of measuring/sampling

locations, to provide a mechanism for referencing a measurement/sample back to a specific

location so that the same survey point can be relocated, and to provide a convenient means for

determining average activity levels. A grid consists of a system of intersecting lines, referenced

to a fixed site location or benchmark. Typically, the grid lines are arranged in a perpendicular

pattern, dividing the survey location into squares of equal area.

4.6.3.1 Inside Buildings

Inside the buildings at the site, grid patterns are identified using a Cartesian coordinate system

(x,y) where 0,0 is the northwest-most corner of the floor for each unit or sub-unit and the lower

left-hand corner of any wall in a unit or sub-unit. On floors, the x-axis runs east-west and the y-

axis runs north-south. On walls, the x-axis runs left and right, and the y-axis runs up and down.

Normally, the x coordinate will be positive and the y coordinate will be negative for floors while

the x and y coordinates will typically be positive for walls. All measurements are in meters. The

0,0 floor-coordinate was typically a vertical support column or a room corner. Ceiling surfaces

utilized a superimposition of the floor grid system to readily identify survey locations. For

example, grid location 1, -2 on the ceiling was directly above grid location 1, –2 on the floor.

To facilitate survey design and assure that the number of survey data points from an area is

sufficient to enable statistical evaluation, areas are divided into survey units that have common

history, other common characteristics, or are naturally distinguishable from other portions of the

site. Survey units could combine adjacent rooms or areas that have the same contamination

potential. To account for the possibility of combining adjacent rooms or areas into a unit, sub-

unit designations were used. A sub-unit is the smallest unique area of a unit having the same

potential for contamination. Typically, a sub-unit was a room within a survey unit that had a

distinct grid system.




The location of any grid can be located by identifying the Section number, Unit number, and Sub-

unit number for that grid. Typical nomenclature is as follows:

Section # - Survey Unit # - Sub-unit #

Where:Section Number = 1 through 7 as identified aboveSurvey Unit Number = 1 through x (where x varies by section)Sub-unit Number = 1 through y (where y varies by unit)

For example, Sub-unit 3-13-2 is in Section 3, Unit 13, Sub-unit 2.

4.6.4 Measurement and Sampling

Scans, contact surveys, and removable contamination surveys were performed according to

environmental clean-up guidelines maintained at the CW-EMD site. Gamma exposure rate

measurements were taken at a distance of approximately one meter from floor surfaces.

4.7 Background Level Determination

Instrument background readings were taken each day and were used to adjust the FSS data.

Background measurements were taken in an unaffected area similar to or adjacent to the area to

be surveyed. This method was used to most accurately account for the background radiological

condition of each survey unit.

4.8 FSS Data Collection

Data collection for FSS of the facility was compiled from June 1996 through the date of report

issuance. Surveys were completed by qualified HP technicians in accordance with environmental

cleanup procedures maintained on site. The procedures were issued to the HP technicians to

assist in performing FSS.

4.9 Data Interpretation

Data conversions and evaluations were performed following the guidance in NUREG/CR-5849.

Measurement data were converted to units of dpm/100 cm2 (surface activity), and mR/hr or µR/hr

(exposure rates) for comparison with guidelines. Data for each survey unit were tested against

the confidence level objective (95%).




4.10 Records

All sample and original survey data have been archived at the site.

4.11 Quality Assurance

Data entry of information from the completed survey forms was performed at ENERCON

Services, Inc.'s office. A spreadsheet was created in Microsoft Excel 97 for use as a master

database of survey locations. Data from survey forms previously entered into Excel was pasted

directly into the master database. A data entry specialist entered the information recorded on the

hand-written forms into the spreadsheet. During the process of data entry, the specialist verified

the completeness of each form and identified any surveys requiring clarification or additional

information. Any surveys identified during this process were reviewed with the HP staff and

corrected. These surveys were then placed back into the review and data entry process for

completion. A separate accuracy review of the entered data was conducted by an independent

reviewer. All handwritten surveys were reviewed, any discrepancies found were investigated,

and the entry was corrected.

The spreadsheets were reviewed for calculation errors by an independent reviewer familiar with

the necessary calculations and formulae utilized in the data analysis process. When the

calculations were verified as accurate, the spreadsheets were considered accurate and only

reviewed if calculations or formulae changed. These spreadsheets were then used as templates

for the data analysis, thus reducing the possibility of human error in the performance of

calculations.




5.0 Final Status Survey Evaluation

FSS data from Sections 2, 5, and 7 was evaluated relative to the release criteria described in

Section 4.2. This included organization of collected data into data sets, and analysis of each data

set using methods described in NUREG/CR-5849.

FSS data was first grouped by unit, sub-unit, and surface type (i.e. floor, ceiling and walls). Sub-

units are rooms within survey units that have distinct grid systems. For comparison with

guideline values, FSS data was further organized into data sets that met size criteria described in

NUREG/CR-5849. Each data set includes fixed alpha activity, fixed beta activity, removable

alpha activity, removable beta activity, and gamma exposure measurements (floor only). Each

data set from each unit was evaluated using three statistical tests. An area that passed the three

statistical tests was considered to have met the unrestricted release criteria for the facility.

In the first test, individual measurements were directly compared to the guideline value of 5,000

dpm/100 cm2 using a Microsoft Excel 97© (or later) spreadsheet. If the elevated activity of an

area was between 5,000 and 15,000 dpm/100 cm2 (the hot-spot limit), additional testing would be

required to assure that the average surface activity level within the contiguous 1 m2 area

containing the elevated area is less than the guideline value. Residual activity exceeding the

15,000 dpm/100 cm2 limit would require remediation and follow-up surveys.

The second test was confirmation that the data met the guidelines at the 95% confidence level.

For this test the means and standard deviations of each data set were determined for each

radiological parameter. These values were used along with the actual number of individual

measurements, a false positive probability of 5%, and a false negative value of 10%, to determine

a value of µα according to the appropriate formula in NUREG/CR-5849. This value was then

compared to the guideline value. If the value of µα was less than the guideline, the area being

tested met the guideline at a 95% confidence level.

Finally, the size of the data set was checked to determine if it was of sufficient size to

demonstrate compliance. The number of data points required was determined using the

appropriate formula in NUREG/CR-5849 along with the guideline value, the data set mean value,




and the standard deviation. If the number of data points were less than required, then additional

measurements would be required to demonstrate compliance.

An additional test was performed for unaffected areas. For these areas, all individual

measurements were checked to determine if the values were less than 25% of the guideline.

When the data sets for a unit were determined to pass each of these statistical tests, the unit met

the release criteria. When the data sets failed to pass the statistical tests, the cause of the data set

failure was noted.




6.0 Final Status Survey Results

This section provides detailed descriptions of the results of the FSS activities for Site Sections 2,

5, and 7, and provides a release status determination for each survey unit. A release status

determination was made for each survey unit based on a review of available data and the results

of statistical analyses when appropriate. Statistical analyses were performed in accordance with

guidelines provided in NUREG/CR-5849 in the evaluation of Sections 2, 5, and 7. Appendices C

through E contain supporting information such as FSS data and statistical analyses.

6.1 Section 2 (Buildings 4 and 5)

All surfaces in Section 2 were considered Class 4 unaffected areas except Unit 2-24. Unit 2-24

was identified as Class 1, because no historical information suggests that activity would be

present in this area. Section 2 includes 23 survey units identified as Units 2-1 through 2-22, and

Unit 2-24. The designation 2-23 was not used. For release status determination, surfaces within

units were organized into data sets. Each data set was statistically analyzed to verify that it met

the release criteria and survey requirements for Class 4 (or Class 1 for Sub-unit 2-24) unaffected

areas. Each unit was evaluated independently to determine release status. If a unit did not possess

the minimum number of required measurements, it was combined with an adjacent unit with

similar operational history for evaluation. Release status for each survey unit in Section 2 is

described in the following sections.

Appendix C provides the following:

• Statistical analysis of each data set as required by NUREG/CR-5849• Detailed presentation of all final status survey data as required by NUREG/CR-5849

6.1.1 Unit 2-1 and 2-2 Release Status Determination

For release status determination and statistical analysis, surfaces within these units were

organized into two data sets. Each data set was analyzed to verify that it met unaffected area

release criteria. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, these

units should be released for unrestricted use.




Table 6-1. Unit 2-1/2-2 Statistical Analysis Summary

Unit Sub-units Description Data SetClassification

(U/A)*

Data Set AnalysisResult

Reason for Failure

2-12-2

1-51

Floor and lower walls U Pass NA

2-12-2

1-51

Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA

*Unaffected/Affected

6.1.2 Unit 2-3 Release Status Determination

For statistical analysis, surfaces within this unit were organized into two data sets. Each data set

was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release criteria. The results of

the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit should be released for

unrestricted use.

Table 6-2. Unit 2-3 Statistical Analysis Summary

Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype

(U/A)

Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result

Reason for Failure

2-3 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-3 1 Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA

6.1.3 Unit 2-4, 2-20, and 2-21 Release Status Determination

For statistical analysis, surfaces within these units were organized into two data sets. Each data

set was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release criteria. The results

of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit should be released for

unrestricted use.




Table 6-3. Unit 2-4/ 2-20/2-21 Statistical Analysis Summary


(U/A)


Reason for Failure

2-42-202-21

11-41,2


2-42-202-21

11-41,2



For statistical analysis, surfaces within these units were organized into two data sets. Each data

set was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release criteria. The results

of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, these units should be released for

unrestricted use.



(U/A)

Data SetStatistical

Analysis Result

Reason for Failure

2-52-6

1,21,2


2-52-6

1,21,2






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure









unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.






(U/A)


Reason for Failure




was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release criteria. Three points in

Sub-unit 2-11-3 have been identified that slightly exceed 25% of the release guidelines. Two of

these exceed 25% of the fixed beta/gamma guideline and one point exceeds 25% of the fixed

alpha guideline. The three subject locations are in one contiguous area of the concrete floor that

is inaccessible for additional surveys. Considering the impracticality of additional survey

activities and the high likelihood that guideline values established for the Site are much more

stringent than derived concentration guideline values that could be developed using the

RESRAD-Build code, these three data points were removed from the statistical analysis for the

unit. The results of the statistical analysis (absent the three high values) are summarized below.

Based on this analysis, this unit should be released for unrestricted use. Lower surfaces would

fail if the three high values were included in the analysis.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure

2-11 1-4 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-11 1-4 Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA





unrestricted use.






(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure









unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure









unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure






unrestricted use.






(U/A)


Reason for Failure

2-22 1,2,3 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-22 1,2,3 Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA


For statistical analysis, surfaces within this unit were organized into one data set. The data set

was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the Class 1 unaffected area release criteria. The

results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit should be released

for unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure

2-24 1-4 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA

6.2 Section 5 (Building 5D)

All surfaces in Section 5 were classified and surveyed as Class 4 unaffected areas, except

Units 5-19 and 5-20. Units 5-19 and 5-20 were identified as Class 1, because no historical

information suggests that activity would be present in these areas. A total of 20 survey units were

identified. Units 5-1 through 5-18 data sets were statistically analyzed to verify that they met the

license release conditions and complied with survey requirements for Class 4 unaffected areas.

Units 5-19 and 5-20 were statistically analyzed to verify that they met the license release

conditions and complied with survey requirements for Class 1 unaffected areas. Each unit was

evaluated independently to determine release status. If a unit did not possess the minimum

number of required measurements, it was combined with an adjacent unit with similar operational

history for evaluation. Release status for each survey unit in Section 5 is described in the

following sections.




Appendix D provides the following:

• Statistical analysis of each data set as required by NUREG/CR-5849• Detailed presentation of all final status survey data as required by NUREG/CR-5849


For statistical analysis, surfaces within this unit were organized into two unaffected area data sets.

Each data set was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release criteria.

The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit should be

released for unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure

5-1 1,2 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-1 1,2 Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA


For statistical analysis, surfaces within these units were organized into two unaffected area data

sets. Each data set was statistically analyzed to verify that it met the unaffected area release

criteria. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit

should be released for unrestricted use.



(U/A)


Reason for Failure

5-25-3

11


5-25-3

11












(U/A)


Reason for Failure









(U/A)


Reason for Failure









(U/A)


Reason for Failure












(U/A)


Reason for Failure





criteria. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, these units




(U/A)


Reason for Failure

5-8 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-9 1-45-8 1 Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA5-9 1-4




criteria. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this unit







(U/A)


Reason for Failure









(U/A)


Reason for Failure









(U/A)


Reason for Failure









For stati

decommissioning report for curtiss-wright electro-mechanical … · 2020. 1. 7. · 2 h:\project...

Documents