-
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
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No. 1\Report
No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No. 1\Report
No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No. 1\Report
No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
3H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
4H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
5H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
6H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
7H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
8H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
9H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
10H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
11H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
12H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
13H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
14H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
15H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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:
-
16H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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=
-
17H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
18H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
19H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
-
20H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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)
-
21H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
22H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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%).
-
23H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
24H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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,
-
25H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
26H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
27H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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.
-
28H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
Table 6-3. Unit 2-4/ 2-20/2-21 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-42-202-21
11-41,2
Floor and lower walls U Pass NA
2-42-202-21
11-41,2
Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.4 Unit 2-5 and 2-6 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,
these units should be released for
unrestricted use.
Table 6-4. Unit 2-5/2-6 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data SetStatistical
Analysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-52-6
1,21,2
Floor and lower walls U Pass NA
2-52-6
1,21,2
Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.5 Unit 2-7 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 6-5. Unit 2-7 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-7 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-7 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
-
29H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
6.1.6 Unit 2-8 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 6-6. Unit 2-8 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-8 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-8 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.7 Unit 2-9 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 6-7. Unit 2-9 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-9 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-9 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.8 Unit 2-10 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.
-
30H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
Table 6-8. Unit 2-10 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-10 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-10 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.9 Unit 2-11 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. 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.
Table 6-9. Unit 2-11 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-11 1-4 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-11 1-4 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.10 Unit 2-12 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.
-
31H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
Table 6-10. Unit 2-12 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-12 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-12 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.11 Unit 2-13 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 6-11. Unit 2-13 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-13 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-13 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.12 Unit 2-14 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 6-12. Unit 2-14 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-14 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-14 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.13 Unit 2-15 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
-
32H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
the analysis are summarized below. Based on this analysis, this
unit should be released for
unrestricted use.
Table 6-13. Unit 2-15 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-15 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-15 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.14 Unit 2-16 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 6-14. Unit 2-16 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-16 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-16 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.15 Unit 2-17 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 6-15. Unit 2-17 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-17 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-17 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
-
33H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
6.1.16 Unit 2-18 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 6-16. Unit 2-18 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-18 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-18 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.17 Unit 2-19 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 6-17. Unit 2-19 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
2-19 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA2-19 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.1.18 Unit 2-22 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.
-
34H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
Table 6-18. Unit 2-22 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
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
6.1.19 Unit 2-24 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-19. Unit 2-24 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
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.
-
35H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
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
6.2.1 Unit 5-1 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-20. Unit 5-1 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-1 1,2 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-1 1,2 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.2 Unit 5-2 and 5-3 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-21. Unit 5-2/5-3 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-25-3
11
Floor and lower walls U Pass NA
5-25-3
11
Upper walls and ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.3 Unit 5-4 Release Status Determination
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.
-
36H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this
analysis, this unit should be
released for unrestricted use.
Table 6-22. Unit 5-4 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-4 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-4 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.4 Unit 5-5 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-23. Unit 5-5 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-5 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-5 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.5 Unit 5-6 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-24. Unit 5-6 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-6 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-6 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
-
37H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
6.2.6 Unit 5-7 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-25. Unit 5-7 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-7 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-7 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.7 Unit 5-8 and 5-9 Release Status Determination
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, these units
should be released for unrestricted use.
Table 6-26. Unit 5-8/5-9 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
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
6.2.8 Unit 5-10 Release Status Determination
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.
-
38H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
Table 6-27. Unit 5-10 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-10 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-10 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.9 Unit 5-11 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-28. Unit 5-11 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-11 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-11 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.10 Unit 5-12 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-29. Unit 5-12 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-12 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-12 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.11 Unit 5-13 Release Status Determination
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.
-
39H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
The results of the analysis are summarized below. Based on this
analysis, this unit should be
released for unrestricted use.
Table 6-30. Unit 5-13 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-13 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-13 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.12 Unit 5-14 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-31. Unit 5-14 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-14 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-14 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
6.2.13 Unit 5-15 Release Status Determination
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.
Table 6-32. Unit 5-15 Statistical Analysis Summary
Unit Sub-units Description Data Settype
(U/A)
Data Set StatisticalAnalysis Result
Reason for Failure
5-15 1 Floor and lower walls U Pass NA5-15 1 Upper walls and
ceiling U Pass NA
-
40H:\PROJECT 04\Curtiss Wright Decommissioning\Report No.
1\Report No.1 Final.doc
Decommissioning ReportFor Curtiss-Wright Electro-Mechanical
Corporation
Survey Sections 2, 5, and 7(Buildings 4, 5, 5D and 5F)
6.2.14 Unit 5-16 Release Status Determination
For stati