final status survey report for cushing refinery site, ua-2 ... · %0 final status survey report for...

KERR-MCGEE CORPORATIONCUSHING REFINERY SITE

FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT FORCUSHING REFINERY SITE

UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

JANUARY 2001Revision 02

SUBMITTED BY:KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION

ah KERR-MCGEE CORPORATIONRT. 4 * BOX 2323 . CUSHING. OKLAHOMA 74023

January 19, 2001

Mr. Stewart BrownLow-Level Waste & Decommissioning Projects BranchDivision of Waste ManagementOffice of Nuclear Materials Safety & SafeguardsU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D. C. 20555

Re: Docket No. 70-3073License No. SNM-1999

Dear Mr. Brown:Kerr-McGee Corporation (KM submits herein Revision 2 of Final Status Survey Report for CushingRefinery Site UA-2 Sediment Pond (FSSR). KM has addressed issues identified by NRC in telephoneconversations subsequent to KM's November submittal of Revision 1.

Revisions include reorganization of Section 7 to clarify the planning of sampling activities and samplecollection, correcting figure numbers, clarifying the evaluation of QA/QC sample results, revisions offigures, and minor editorial changes.

It is apparent that the pond sediments are essentially at background levels, and are releasable for unrestricteduse. Those portions of blocks 116, 117, 124, and 125 that are south of Skull Creek were surveyed forrelease and reported in previous submittals. NRC did not release these areas from license due to concernsregarding the placement of Skull Creek sediment in the sediment pond. KM has demonstrated that thesediment pond contains no licensed material exceeding decommissioning criteria. KM therefore submits thisreport as a license amendment request, and requests release of those areas from license SNM-1999. Theattached map shows the area that will remain under license as a result of this action.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (405) 270-2694.

Sincerely,

Jeff LuxProject Manager

xc: C. L. Cain, NRC Region IVCushing Public RepositoryMichael Broderick, ODEQ



UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

JANUARY 2001Revision 02




UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

May 2, 2000


FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT FORCUSHING REFINERY SITE UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

Table of Contents

1.0 PURPOSE ............................................................. 22.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................. 23.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................. 34.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING HISTORY ........................................................... 35.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS ............................................................. 3

5.1 SITE BACKGROUND LEVELS ............................................................. 35.1.1 Back-round Exposure Rates ............................................ 35.1.2 Background Soil Samplin- and Analyses ........................................... 4

6.0 GUIDELINE VALUES FOR UA-2 SEDIMENT POND ......................................... 46.1 EXPOSURE RATE GUIDELINE VALUE ............................................................. 46.2 SURFACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE VALUES .................................... 4

7.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY OVERVIEW ............................................................ 57.1 SEDIMENT POND FINAL STATUS SURVEY GRID AREA ............................................................ 57.2 EXPOSURE RATE SURVEY....................................................................................................................57.3 SOIL SAMPLING ............................................................. 5

7.3.1 Samling Plan Develonment .57.3.2 Sam~le Collection.67.3.3 Sample Segrezation and Preparation .7

7.4 INSTRUMENTATION..77.4.1 Micro-R Survey Meter.87.4.2 Pressurized Ion Chamber (PlC).87.4.3 Cushing- Gamma Spectroscopv Sytem.8

8.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY RESULTS ................ 98.1 EXPOSURE RATE SURVEY RESULTS ................. 108.2 SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS ................. 10

9.0 ADMINISTR ATION ..................................... 109.1 ORGANIZATION ............................... 119.2 TRAINING ............................... 119.3 RADIATION SAF ET Y PROGRAM ............................... 119.4 QU ALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM ........................... ... 11

10.0 D ATA VALIDATION ................................ 1210.1 FIELD SURVEY DATA (PORTABLE INSTRUMENTATION) . . . 1210.2 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA (GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY SYSTEM) ... 13

11.0 SIJMMARY..1312.0 CONCLUSION..14

9 qXi~rgo ot

Revision 02/January, 2001 Page 1 of 14

%0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY REPORT FORCUSHING REFINERY SITE UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

1.0 PURPOSE

This Final Status Survey Report (FSSR) is being submitted by Kerr-McGee Corporation (KMC) tothe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an area on the Cushing Refinery site designated asthe Unaffected Area 2 (UA-2) Sediment Pond. This area is shown on Figure 1. The unrestrictedrelease criteria are defined as the Option #1 limit in the 1981 Branch Technical Position (BTP).This Final Status Survey (FSS) provides the data necessary to demonstrate that the sediment meetsthe criteria for the unrestricted release of the UA-2 Sediment Pond. The Cushing Refinery SiteDecommissioning Plan (Revision 2, August, 2000) contains information regarding the Final StatusSurvey Report. As stated therein, the report format and content will generally follow therecommendations contained in Draft NUREG/CR-5849, "Manual for Conducting RadiologicalSurveys in Support of License Termination". The survey and sample analysis results presentedherein demonstrate that all criteria (guideline values) have been met and thus this area can bereleased for unrestricted use.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Kerr-McGee Corporation (KMC), whose principal address is 123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue,Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73102, holds License SNM-1999. The NRC issued License SNM-1999 to KMC on April 6, 1993 for the purpose of decommissioning the site for release forunrestricted use. The license is assigned NRC docket number 70-3073. The facility licenseestablishes the requirements for possession and decommissioning of uranium and thorium materialsresulting from past nuclear activities formerly conducted under AEC licenses.

The Cushing refinery site operated from approximately 1915 until 1972, when the refinery wasclosed and dismantled. KMC operated the oil refinery at this site from 1956 to 1972. KMC usedpart of the site during 1962 through 1966 to process natural thorium and natural, depleted, andenriched uranium under two Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) licenses, SNM-695 and SMB-664. The site was decommissioned and the licenses terminated in 1966.

KMC has been remediating the former refinery site under a consent order with thd o teDepartment of Health, now the Oklahoma Department of Environmentaluality (DEQ). Aradiological characterization survey of the Cushing site was co cte Jun 1990 through theissuance of the Cushing Characterization Report in May, I I (KMC, 19 1). e 1991 CushingCharacterization Report identified areas previously conta acessing and wastemanagement activities.

The Cushing site includes four large areas that were utilized only for oil refining and storageduring the years when nuclear processing occurred. These four areas (i.e. UA- 1, UA-2, UA-3 andUA-4) are designated as unaffected areas and represent approximately 200 acres. KMC performed


preliminary site characterization surveys of the Four Unaffected Areas in 1991, using exposure ratemeasurements to identify areas of concern on the property. KMC later improved this survey,performing gamma scans over the entire area and collecting soil samples in accordance withunaffected area survey requirements as per Draft NUREG/CR-5849. These Four Unaffected Areas(with a few small areas deleted) were released for unrestricted use by the NRC in December, 1995.

A Sediment Pond located in UA-2 is normally used as a collection area for sediments generatedduring the treatment of water removed from Pit 5. A routine discharge of treated wastewater toSkull Creek in June 1998 resulted in the inadvertent release of some of pond sediment notreleasable under KMC's discharge permit. Although Skull Creek was radiologicallydecontaminated in 1991, it is located within a radiologically affected area. Therefore, sedimentsremoved from Skull Creek and placed into the UA-2 Sediment Pond may have contained licensedmaterial (i.e. Uranium and/or Thorium). Previous characterization data for Skull Creek indicatedthat this area did not contain material exceeding BTP Option #1 concentrations.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The city of Cushing lies midway between Tulsa and Oklahoma City on State Highway 33.Neighboring communities include Yale (7 miles NNE), Ripley (8 miles WNW), Agra (10 milesSW), Oilton (11 miles ENE), Quay (10 miles NNE), Jennings (14 miles NE) and Drumright (8miles E). The Cushing refinery site comprises 440 acres in Payne County, Oklahoma, 2 milesnorth of the City of Cushing. The terrain at the Cushing refinery site is rolling pastureland. Theelevation of the site ranges from 820 to 920 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Skull Creek runsthrough the Cushing site before joining the Cimarron River four miles east-northeast at anelevation of 760 feet MSL.

4.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATING HISTORY

A description and operating history of the facility is presented in detail in the Cushing SiteDecommissioning Plan that was approved by NRC in August, 1999.

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS

As stated in the Cushing Site Decommissioning Plan, the radiological contaminants on the Cushingsite consist of natural thorium and isotopes of uranium (i.e. Th-228, Th-232, U-234, U-235 andU-238).

5.1 SITE BACKGROUND LEVELS

5.1.1 Background Exposure RatesTable 6.2 of the Site Decommissioning Plan presents background exposure rates for the Cushingsite. The average background exposure rate has been established as 8.5 pR/hr using a Reuter


Stokes Model RSS 112 PIC. Table 5.1 presents background exposure rates as defined in th SiteDecommissionix4 Plan. Because the average background exposure rate using a Ludlum 19 micro-R meter was 7.3 pR/hr, exposure rates measured with the Ludlum are corrected to PIC-equivalentreadings by multiplying by a conversion factor of 1.16 (8.5/7.3). 1

5.1.2 Background Soil Sampling and AnalysesAs described in the NRC-approved FSSR for Four Unaffected Areas (April 17, 1995), 54background soil samples were collected from 18 off-site locations (three samples per location) toestimate natural background radionuclide concentrations in topsoil. Most of the samples werecollected within 100 meters of the western boundary of the Cushing site; all were collected within1/2 mile of the Cushing site.

U-238, U-235, Th-232 and Ra-226 ~yre analyzed by gamma spectroscopy in the Cushing on-sitelaboratory. As described in Table 5.2, the average background for total uranium and total thoriumis assumed to be 2.7 pCi/g and 1.2 pCi/g, respectively.

6.0 GUIDELINE VALUES FOR UA-2 SEDIMENT POND

6.1 EXPOSURE RATE GUIDELINE VALUE

For either affected or unaffected areas, the average exposure rate may not exceed 10 pR/h abovebackground, at 1 meter above the ground. Exposure rates may be averaged over a 100 m2 grid areaas described in Draft NUREG/CR-5849. The maximum exposure rate at any discrete locationwithin a 100 square meter area cannot exceed 20 pR/h above background.

6.2 SURFACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION GUIDELINE VALUES

The guideline value for residual concentrations of uranium, thorium, or any combination thereofwhich may remain in soil or sediments is the Option #y limit and is specified in the 1981 NRCBranch Technical Position as provided in Table 6.1. \d

For radionuclides of interest at the Cushing site, the Option #1 limit can be expressed as a fractionof the maximum permissible concentration (FMPC) by using the following:

[U-238 + U-235 + U-2341 + ITh-232 + Th-2281 < 130 10

Brackets around the radionuclide indicate a concentration, or radionuclide activity. Allconcentrations in the above equation are net values; they represent concentrations abovebackground, expressed in picocuries per gram (pCi/g). The Option #1 limit is the Guideline Valuefor soil concentrations for the purposes of this final status survey report.


7.0 FINAL STATUS SURVEY OVERVIEW

KMC performed final status survey activities in accordance with Section 6, "Final Status SurveyPlan", of the Site Decommissioning Plan. This final status survey plan was prepared in generalconformance to Draft NUREGR-5849, "Manual for Cond cting Radiological Surveys in Supportof License Termination". ediment sampling was pe ormed to the maximum depth of theimpoundment on a 5-me gid, at approximately 1-iter depth intervals. In addition to sedimentsampling, exposure rate measurements were taken at each 51;eter grid node at the surface and onemeter above the surface.

7.1 SEDIMENT POND FINAL STATUS SURVEY GRD AREA

The approximate location of the UA-2 Sediment Pond is shown on Figure 1. The UA-2 SedimentPond Area is located on the intersection of four 100-meter "blocks" established site-wide. Thesediment pond area was sub-divided into 5-meter grids, with one of the node at the intersection ofthe four site blocks, for sediment sampling and survey measurements. Figule 2 shows the locationsand station names of all sampling points. A Global Positioning Survey (GPS) unit was pre-programmed with sample locations to accurately locate sample collection and survey positions inthe field. The GPS unit is accurate to within + 0.1 meter. Several sequential sample numbers areskipped (e.g., PSED- is not shown) because these pre-programmed locations were on the bermoutside the pond.\t/

7.2 EXPOSURE RATE SURVEY

Exposure rate measurements were taken at the surface and at one meter above the surface at eachof the 5-meter grid nodes, using a Ludlum Model 19 pR meter. There was no water on the surfaceof the sediment at the time final status survey measurements were recorded; however, the sedimentwas saturated. The saturated conditions of the sediment pond will result in a general lowering ofthe measured exposure rates due to the attenuating effect of the water. However, the exposure ratemeasurements should reflect worst-case exposures, because when these very soft sediments are vexcavated from the impoundment, they will either be mixed with other waste and placed in a (k Lu'-disposal cell for on site burial, or disked into site soils. In either case, direct exposure rates from 4i Adpotential licensed material in the sediment will be reduced. It was therefore appropriate to recordmeasurements reflecting in situ saturated conditions. ltia-

7.3 SOIL SAMPLING

7.3.1 Sampling Plan DevelopmentHad the pond sediment been dry, solid material, samples would have been collected at one meterintervals. Because pond sediment consists primarily of metal hydroxides precipitating out ofsolution, the moisture content of the sediment in this pond is very high, and the solids content is


very low. The samples were to be dried prior to analysis, and individuals planning the samplingeffort recognized that the volume of the dried sample could be significantly less than thecorresponding "wet" volume removed from the sample tube. A sampling plan was thereforedeveloped as described in the following paragraphs.

The sampling crew tested several different methods to develop a method that would produce themost representative samples. Where the depth of the pond was slightly over one meter (or two)meters, the team decided it would not be practical to sample the excess of material that exceededthe meter interval of sediment as a separate sample. For instance, where the pond is slightly over ameter deep, the thickness of "wet" sample that could be obtained beneath the top one-meterinterval would be very small.

The team suspected that, after drying, such "short" samples may not yield sufficient solid materialXto fill a sample vial. Even if it did, it would certainly not represent a meter of sediment. To ensure | C/adequate dry sample volume, and to maximize "representativeness", the team decided to dividelretained material into samples based on the depth of the pond as follows.

Where the pond depth was less than 60 inches, all retained material would be used to form onesample. Where the pond depth was between 60 and 91 inches, retained material would be dividedinto two equal samples. When the pond depth exceeded 91 inches, retained material would bedivided into three equal samples. These samples would be considered to represent "0-1 meter", "I-2 meter", and "2-3 meter" intervals. The sampling crew implemented this concept as they sampledthe sediment pond.

7.3.2 Sample CollectionThe sediment in the pond was saturated during sampling, and had a consistency similar to pudding.However, there was no standing water on the surface of the impoundment. The samplingprocedure utilized for the UA-2 Sediment Pond Area is specified in the "Sampling and AnalysisPlan for the Unaffec ed Area-2 Sediment Pond". Because the sediment could not support aperson's weight, s ets plywood were ced on the surface of the sediment to form a"sidewalk" to enling crew member to access sample locations. Sediment samples werecollected on a 5m x 5m grid by pushing ten foot long clear PVC tubing by hand through the soft,saturated sediment. Sampling personnel pushed the tube until resistance was encountered,indicating the bottom of the sediment pond. The sampling tube was then pushed and/or hammereda minimum of 2 inches, as practical, into the clay to force a soil plug into the bottom of the sampletube. The sediment sample was thereby retained within the tube while the tube was withdrawnfrom the pond. The consistency of the sediment was such that materials entrained in the samplingtube during the sampling process would remain in the same position relative to other sedimentwithin the sample tube (i.e., settling of tube contents in the tube during the sampling process wasnegligible).

The depth of the pond sediments ranged from 0 to slightly over 9 feet (approximately 0 to 3meters). The pond does not have a "flat" bottom, and the depth was not consistent over the area.The sampling tube was pushed to the bottom of the pond at every location. Because the sediment


was soft, it compressed as the tube was pushed into the sediment. The thickness of sediment in thesampling tubes was not equal to the depth of the pond, averaging approximately 60% of thethickness of the pond. Because a clay plug was forced into the bottom of the tube, no sedimentwas lost from the bottom of retube when it was lifted from the impoundment, and percentrecovery was 100%. Table presents the station name given each location, the depth of thepond, and the sample ID for each sample collected.

7.3.3 Sample Segregation and PreparationThe sampling tubes were cut into sections as described above, and the saturated sedimentrepresenting each sample was transferred into a container, in which it was thoroughly mixed,labeled, and dried. Dry solids were then packaged in 20-ml sample vials and analyzed for uraniumand thorium tilizing the Cushing on-site gamma spectrum lyzer.

Five duph ate samples were collected as shown in Table 7.1. In addition, five samples were splitas indicated in the table. A total of ten QC samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in the |same manner as the systematic samples.

7.4 INSTRUMENTATION

Survey instruments were calibrated and maintained in accordance with the Cushing RadiationSafety Plan and Procedures and the Health Physics Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan.Specific requirements for instrumentation include traceability of calibrations to NIST standards orequivalent, field checks for operability, background radioactivity checks, operation of instrumentswithin established environmental bounds (i.e. temperature and pressure), training of individuals,scheduled performance checks, calibration with isotopes of energies similar to those to bemeasured, quality assurance tests, data review, and record keeping.

Portable survey instruments (micro-R survey meters, a/l survey meters, dose rate instruments,scalers/ratemeters, etc.,) are calibrated on a quarterly basis. Where applicable, activities of sourcesutilized for calibration are corrected for decay. In addition to the quarterly calibrationrequirements, source checks are required on a daily basis for all instruments being utilized forcharacterization and Final Status Surveys. A calibrated electronic pulse generator is utilized forinstrument scale linearity checks. All calibration and source check records are completed,reviewed, approved and retained in accordance with Cushing Health Physics Laboratory QualityAssurance Project Plan.

As required by the "Cushing Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Unaffected Area-2 SedimentPond", Special Work Permit (SWP) #98019 was approved and in place prior to and duringperformance of field work performed under the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the UnaffectedArea-2 Sediment Pond. The instrumentation utilized by Cushing site personnel are describedbelow.


7.4.1 Micro-R Survey MeterThe Ludlum Model 19 micro-R survey meter utilizes a 1" x 1" Nal(TI) crystal gamma detector thatmeasures between 0 and 5,000 pR/hr. Daily checks, including background readings at a definedlocation and response to a check source, are performed in accordance with defined RadiationSafety Procedures prior to placing each instrument into service. This instrumnt was utilized fordetermination of exposure rates at systematic locations shown on Figure 3. v

The micro-R survey meter is calibrated quarterly, by the manufacturer, with NIST traceablestandards. The typical MDA of this instrument is I pR/hr static and 2 - 5 pR/hr while scanning.

7.4.2 Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC)Cushing utilizes a Reuter Stokes model RS-1 12 PIC for the precise determination of exposurerates. This instrument is generally used to validate measurements made with the Nal-based micro-R survey instruments. Daily checks, including background readings at a defined location andresponse to a check source, are performed in accordance with defined Radiation Safety Proceduresprior to placing each instrument into service.

The PIC is calibrated annually, by the manufacturer, with NIST traceable standards. The typicalMDA of this instrument is 1 uR/hr. The PIC was not used to record exposure rates during this finalstatus survey. Exposure rate measurements recorded with a micro-R meter were converted to PIC-equivalent values for comparison with limits.

7.4.3 Cushing Gamma Spectroscopy SystemThe Cushing Spectroscopy System uses calibration spectra of NIST traceable standards withknown amounts of U-238, U-235, Th-232 and Ra-226. These calibration spectra are compared tothe spectrum from an unknown soil sample using a least-squares 'best-fit' algorithm, whichincorporates a linear combination of the NIST traceable standards. The software utilizes the resultsof the U-235 and U-238 analyses to calculate the U-234 activity in the sample, thus allowing forsummation of the uranium isotopes for comparison with the total U release criteria. The algorithmused for this calculation considers the U-235 enrichment as well as the relative activity of U-235and U-238 in the sample. The final output of the algorithm is a quantified analysis of the unknownsoil sample, in terms of the U-238, U-235, Th-232 and Ra-226 standards. This resulting quantifiedanalysis (in pCi/g) for each isotope is then used to calculate the Fraction Maximum PermissibleConcentration (FMPC) in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Site Decommissioning Plan. TheMinimum Detectable Activity (MDA) is determined for each Nal soil counter followingcalibration. The MDA for each isotope, counting for 7.5 minutes, is: 3.3 pCi/g U-238, 0.4 pCi/gU-235, 0.3 pCi/g Th-232 and 0.4 pCi/g Ra-226. MDAs were calculated using three separatemethods (Intercept, Parse, and Average), as documented and inspected by the NRC in InspectionReport 70-3073/00-01.

QA/QC measures include the initial verification and validation of the least-squares 'best-fit'algorithm by the author of that algorithm, Dr. Richard Luecke, University of Missouri, inDecember 1999. Additionally, the Health Physics Laboratory is audited on a semi-annual basis byKerr-McGee and Burns & McDonnell/Nextep Environmental (BMNX). These audits are


performed in accordance with the site's NRC license, Decommissioning Plan, Radiation SafetyPlan and the site-specific- Quality Assurance Project Plan. The most recent audits were conductedby BMNX in December 2000, and Kerr-McGee in June 2000.

Regular inspections of the HP Laboratory are also performed by the NRC. The most recentinspection was performed in May, 2000 and is documented in Inspection Report 70-3073/00-01.This inspection report did not identify any violations or deviations of regulatory requirements andsummarized the inspection of Cushing Laboratory operations as follows:* "The soil counting laboratory procedures were adequate in scope and detail.* The documented MDAs were adequate to ensure the detection of concentrations below the

release criteria.* The laboratory quality assurance and quality control requirenr being met.

Each workday, the sensitivity of the soil counters is checked gainn Am-241 and Cs-137 7source. This check documents changes to the zero and gain 6f the soil counters' multi-channelanalyzers and allows for adjustments to be made as needed. In addition, the resolution of the Nalcrystal is calculated and the background of the soil counter is determined. Once these initialsensitivity checks are completed, Daily Response Checks (DRC) are performed on each soilcounter. These checks use a Th-232 and Ra-226 source to check the calculations of the 'best-fit'software for each soil counter. These daily results are tracked with control charts showing themean, 95%, and 99% confidence levels for each DRC source. Each soil counter also has a specificIn-Process Check (IPC) source, which is used to periodically check the 'best-fit' softwarethroughout the day's production. These results are also tracked with control charts showing themean, 95%, and 99% confidence levels for each IPC source. The IPC source is used after every20" soil sample and at the end of each soil lot. Thus, while an IPC rate of 5% is required, the actualIPC rate is closer to 10%, due to the small size of most soil lots. Finally, back-ups of the soilcounter spectra and database are made at the end of each workday and written to CD-ROM eachweek.

Duplicate soil samples are analyzed at a rate of 10%. These samples are included in the normalsample flow to the Cushing Health Physics Laboratory.

8.0 FINAL STATUS SURV7Y EULTS

The final status survey results are presented on Figures 3, 4, . and 6 Figure 3 shows the pR/hrreadings at the surface and one meter above the surface. Figure 4 shows the total uranium and totalthorium concentrations in sediment samples taken from 0 to 1 meters in depth. Figure 5 shows thetotal uranium and total thorium concentrations in sediment samples taken from 1 to 2 meters indepth. Figure 6 shows the total uranium and total thorium concentrations in sediment samplestaken from 2 to 3 meters in depth. The actual data sheets, chain-of-custody records, and all otherQA/QC records are on file at the Cushing site.


8.1 URE RATE SURVEY RESULTS

exposure rate rea ere at each five-mter grid node in the sediment pond. Threeexposure ratetingslwre inadvertently missed: h measurement at one meter above the surfaceat location P ED-O33jnd both readings at PSED-047. A total of 41 measurements were recordedat the surface measurements were recorded at one meter above the surface. The averagePIC-equivalent gamma exposure rate, including background, at one meter above the ground surface

as 6.8 pR/hr and the highest gamma exposure rate detected at any of the grid intersect locationsN/was 10.4 pR/hr. The average PIC-equivalent gamma exposure rate, including background, at the

ground surface was 6.6 pR/hr, while the maximum gamma exposure rate detected at any of the gridintersect locations was 10.4 pR/hr. No gamma exposure rates exceeded the exposure rate guidelinevalue as defined in Section 6.1 above. All measurements collected are shown on Figure 3; L/measurements collected at one meter above grade are tabulated in Table 8.1. Only thosemeasurements taken at one meter above grade are tabulated and statistically defined, because theseare the measurements which are compared with decommissioning criteria.

8.2 SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS

All UA-2 Sediment Pond sample results were well below the BTP Option #1 leve5 i/.e. < 1FMPC). Results are shown on Figures 4, 5, and 6, and tabulated in Appendix A. Table 8.2presents a summary of the data. The data clearly demonstrate that the release criteria in Section 6.2are met.

Ten paired (split or duplicate) sets of samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis. TheHP laboratory did not know which systematic samples were paired with these QC samples; theywere labeled "DUP-01, DUP-02, SPLIT-01, SPLIT-02 ... ". The differences between the analysesof the soil samples were evaluated. Significant relative percent differences (RPDs) were notedbetween the results of individual pairs of samples. However, the "mean ± 2 standard deviation"ranges of all individual data pairs overlap. RPDs were high because the activity of the samples isso low (often below the MDA of the soil counter) that the standard deviation of the analysis islarge relative to the reported activity. T-tests were run on the two sample populations, and theoverlap of analytical results was evaluated for each of individual pairs of samples. All QC sampleresults were within expected parameters. No differences between the analyses of duplicate or splitsamples were found at the 95 percent confidence level. Additional QA/QC measures related tosediment sample analysis are addressed in Sections 7.4.3 and 10.2.

9.0 ADMINISTRATION

The current organizational structure is expected to remain in place throughout the duration of thedecommissioning process at the Cushing facility. The Activity Leader for this project was theRadiation Safety Officer (RSO). The Cushing site RSO, QA/QC Coordinator, Health & SafetyOfficer, and other Cushing site supervisory and support personnel report directly to the CushingSite Manager.


9.1 ORGANIZATION

The Final Status Survey of the UA-2 Sediment Pond Area was performed by a team consisting ofqualified personnel from the Cushing Site, NEXTEP Environmental and Kerr-McGee CorporateHydrologic Services. The Final Status Survey team operated under the general direction of theActivity Leader, who reported directly to the Cushing Site Manager. Cushing site laboratoryactivities for this project were also under the direction of the RSO. All activities performed underthe Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Unaffected Area-2 Sediment Pond were performed inaccordance with the Cushing Radiation Safety Plan and Procedures.

9.2 TRAINING

Kerr-McGee Corporation provides continuing training for Cushing personnel and any otherpersonnel (i.e., contractors, visitors, etc.) who may be exposed to radioactive materials. Trainingvaries according to the potential for exposure and nature of the job duties. All members of theFinal Status Survey team attended in-house training sessions prior to commencement of workunder the Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Unaffected Area-2 Sediment Pond. Radiationprotection, survey procedures, SWPs, and quality assurance requirements were reviewed duringthese training sessions. Special training was also provided on equipment, special techniques, andpractices relative to sampling and survey activities for those employees involved in takingradiological measurements and samples and performing laboratory analysis.

9.3 RADIATION SAFETY PROGRAM

The Cushing facility maintains a radiation safety program that meets and/or exceeds all of theapplicable regulatory requirements associated with activities conducted under Special NuclearMaterials License SNM-1999.

It is the policy of the Kerr-McGee Corporation to perform all work in strict compliance with allapplicable regulatory and internal requirements. The goal of the Cushing decommissioning effort isto meet or exceed all regulatory requirements. Cushing staff continues to exercise appropriateradiation protection precautions throughout all decommissioning work and Final Status Surveys.

Independent Kerr-McGee Corporate audits for regulatory and internal requirements are conductedon a periodic basis and include the review of the Cushing Radiation Safety Program and associatedelements. Additionally, the program is inspected for compliance with applicable rules andregulations by NRC Region IV, ORISE (or other confirmatory survey contractors retained byNRC), and NRC Headquarters staff.

9.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

Cushing site quality system documentation includes a Quality System Manual, Quality AssuranceProcedures, and the Health Physics Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan. A principal


component of this quality system is the affirmation of the quality of project work performed duringdecommissioning by assuring that qualified personnel perform all tasks in a quality manner. Thequality system ensures that all characterization and Final Status Survey samples are collected,controlled and analyzed in accordance with all applicable quality assurance requirements such thatthe resulting data accuracy and validity are both repeatable and verifiable. Such quality controlsalso allow for independent, third party review of analytical results.

This Program is administered under the direction of the Cushing Site Quality AssuranceCoordinator. Periodic audits and reviews are conducted to ensure that all aspects of the Programare addressed.

Written procedures and SWPs are prepared, reviewed and approved for activities involved incarrying out the decommissioning process. -A SWP is a document or series of documents preparedto inform individuals of the conditions that exist in the work area and the radiological and non-radiological job safety requirements. Additionally, work plans or sampling plans are preparedwhen necessary to provide procedural guidance to workers. These plans designate the type ofsurveys to be performed, samples to be collected, frequency of sample collection, number ofsamples to be split with an off-site independent laboratory and the type of field instrumentationrequired.

10.0 DATA VALIDATION

The documented survey data and sample activity results obtained diy4ng this final status surveyhave been reviewed and compared to the criteria listed in Section 6.0. Items reviewed during thedata validation process to ensure consistency and acceptability of the data are described below:

10.1 FIELD SURVEY DATA (PORTABLE INSTRUMENTATION)

Instrument calibration, data entry records, and data calculations were verified by the ActivityLeader or designee to ensure that:

* Field survey results were recorded, signed and dated. Changes were crossed out with asingle line and initialed by the individual making the change. ;

* Background and source check readings were obtained, and recorded each day on whichsurveys were performed.

* Calibration sources are traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)standards or equivalent.

* MDA's for appropriate instruments were determined and documented.* The individuals who participated in the final status surveys were trained in accordance with

the UA-2 Sediment Pond Sampling and Analysis Plan.* Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with Draft NUREG/CR-5849 or some

other approved method to demonstrate that the data for the survey unit (i.e. group ofcontiguous grids or regions with the same classification of contamination potential) satisfythe guideline values addressed in Section 6.0.


* Required conversions/calculations were verified.* All required signatures and dates were in place.* Instrumentation calibration records were current.

10.2 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA (GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY SYSTEM)

Instrument calibration, data entry records, and data calculations were verified by the ActivityLeader or designee to ensure that:

* Instrumentation calibration records were current.* Calibration sources are traceable to NIST standards or equivalent.* Sample tracking documentation was complete and records were filed.

Labo-ratory resuxt were accurt el core oaoryt i axa entry records, and whererequired, correctly converted to the appropriate units.

* Individuals operating the laboratory equipment were trained under the Cushing HealthPhysics Laboratory Quality Assurance Project Plan.

* Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with Draft NUREG/CR-5849 or someother approved method to demonstrate that the data for the survey unit (i.e. group ofcontiguous grids or regions with the same classification of contamination potential) satisfythe guideline values addressed in Section 6.0.

* Required conversions/calculations were verified.* All required signatures and dates were in place.* Chain of Custody forms were reviewed for completeness and proper utilization.

Any discrepancies discovered during the data validation process described above were resolved andthe disposition noted in the affected record(s). All records generated as a result of the datavalidation processes will be retained in accordance with Cushing Quality Assurance requirements.Data validation was administered under the direction of the Cushing site RSO.

11.0 SUM1NARY

A total of 71 samples and 10 quality assurance samples (splits and duplicates) were collected todepth and systematic s ey readings were collected on 5m x 5m grid intersects for the UA-2Sediment Pond. Soil or sediment sample analytical results for this area were all well below the

'uideline value (i.e. B Option #1). Ilhe mean gross activities for all 81 samples were 5.07 pCi/gtall ium. The uranium activity was

Ci/g at station PSED-029, located atON x WOE (Figure , 1epth of 0-1 r~eters) and the highestoss total thorium activity was 2.72 pCi/g at station PSE, )-007 located at ON x 40E (Figure 4,

depth of 0-1 meters). The highest FMPC value was 0.27 at station PSED-029, located at 20N xIOE (Figure 4, depth of 0-1 meters).


Gross PlC-equivalent ex rates at the surface o t se ent pond ranged frompR/h, with a meal? o 6 Gross PIC-equiv ienth osure rates at one meter above the ^Q

surface ranged fry S.8 to 4 piR/h, with a mean 91 6.8 jR/h. Net PIC-equivalent exposure rates 3ranged from -2.7 to 1.9 pR/br, with a mean of- :7 pR/hr. The result below normal backgroundcould be due to the attenuating characteristics from water in the saturated sediments as compared tonormal site soils.

12.0 CONCLUSION

A Final Status Survey was performed in accordance with the Final Status Survey Plan for the UA-2Sediment Pond. This Report presents a comparison of the survey results of the Final Status Surveyto the guideline values for areas contained within the UA-2 Sediment Pond boundaries at theCushinsitege As described-ii Section I., the survey reslts presented herein demonstrate thatanlcriteria (guideline values) have been met and thus the UA-2 Sediment Pond can be released fromLicense SNM-1999 for unrestricted use.

&A,3 v ,* -


Table 5.1Background Exposure Rate

Ludlum 19 (pR/hr) PIC (glR/hr)Maximum value 9.0 9.4Minimum value 6.0 7.6Average 7.3 8.5Number of Measurements 33 33Standard Deviation 0.6 0.4Note: Exposure rate was measured at 33 locations using both a Ludlum model 19 and a ReuterStokes Model RSS 112 pressurized ion chamber. Source of data is Table B2 of "FinalRadiation Survey of Four Unaffected Areas of the Cushing Refinery Site - April, 1995".

Table 5.2Background Soil Volumetric Activity

(dry weight)

U-235 pCilg U-238 pCi/g U-234 pCi/g Th-232 pCi/gMaximum value 0.22 3.74 5.54 1.34Minimum value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36Average 0.05 1.26 1.46 0.96Number of Samples 54 54 54 54Notes: U-234 is calculated based on the measured ratio of U-238 to U-235. Source of data is"Determination of Background Soil Concentrations for the Kerr-McGee Cushing Site in Viewof the Recent Reanalysis of Background Soil Samples', Enercon Services, Inc., May, 2000.Chain of custody was maintained for these samples from April, 1995 through May, 2000.

Revision 02/January, 2001

Table 6.11981 BTP Option 1 Concentrations

Type of Radionuclide Maximum Concentration (pCilg)

Thorium (e2T1 + 2Th) if all daughters are present 10Natural and/or Depleted Uranium 35*Enriched Uranium 30

* The Cushing site has committed to utilizing 30 pCi/g for both enriched and depleted uranium


Table 7.1Sediment Pond Sample Information

Pond Sample Pond SampleStation Location Depth ID Station /ocation Depth ID

_ (in.) _ _ (in.)PSED-004 40N - 25E 46 CU6-01-001 PSE -027 25N - 40E 59 CU6-07-004PSED-005 40N - 30E 55 CU6-01-002 PSED 20N - IOE 34 CU6-04-005PSED-006 40N - 35E 102 CU6-01-003 PSED-030 20N - 15E 52 CU6-07-005

CU6-01-004CU6-01-005

PSED-007 40N - 40E 60 CU6-02-001 PSED-031 20N - 20E 91 CU6-07-006._ CU6-07-007

PSED-009 35N - 20E 50 CU6-02-002 PSED-032 20N - 25E 8 CU6-08-001/_ CU6-08-002

PSED-010 35N - 25E 86 CU6-02-003 PSED-033 20N - 30 114 CU6-08-003CU6-02-004 CU6-08-004

_____ CU6-08-005PSED-011 35N - 30E 105 CU6-02-005 PSED-034 20N - 35E' CU6-08-006

CU6-02-006 CU6-09-001CU6-02-007

PSED-012 35N - 35E 102 CU6-03-001 PSED-035 20N - 40E 44 CU6-09-002U6-03-002

/CU6-03-003PSED-013 35N - 40E 44 CU6-03-004 PSED-036 I5N - 10E 32 CU6-04-004

(dupOl) CU6-03-005PSED-015 30N - 15E 45 CU6-04-001 PSED-037 15N - 15E 42 CU6-09-003PSED-016 30N - 20E 43 CU6-04-005 PSED-038 15N - 20E 99 CU6-09-004

CU6-09-005CU6-09-006

PSED-017 30N - 25E 85 CU6-04-006 PSED-039 15N - 25E 101 CU6-10-001CU6-05-001 CU6-10-002

CU6-10-003(dupO3) CU6-10-004

PSED-018 30N - 30E 106 CU6-05-002 PSED-040 15N - 30E 102 CU6-10-005CU6-05-003 CU6-10-006

_ CU6-05-004 _ CU6-1 1-001PSED-019 30N - 35E 108 CU6-05-005 PSED-041 15N - 35E 56 CU6-11-002

CU6-05-006 (dupO4) CU6-11-003CU6-05-007

PSED-020 30N - 40E 47 CU6-06-001 PSED-042 15N - 40E 50 CU6-11-004(splitOl) CU6-11-005

PSED-021 25N - 1OE 32 CU6-06-002 PSED-044 ION - 25E 56 CU6-12-001I___ I(splitO2) CU6-127002

+


Table 7.1Sediment Pond Sample Information

(continued)

Pond Sample Pond SampleStation Location Depth ID Station Location Depth ID

M (n.) (in.)PSED-022 25N - 15E 50 CU6-06-003 PSED-045 ION - 30E I11 CU6-12-003

ICU6-12-004(splitO3)/ CU6-12-005

_ CU6-12-006PSED-023 25N - 20E 56 CU6-004 PSED-046 ION - 35E 111 CU6-13-001

CU6-13-002CU6-13-003

(splitO4) CU6-13-004PSED-024 25N - 25E 87 , 'CU6-06-005 PSED-047 ION - 40E 38 / CU6-13-005

CU60 006 (dupO5)VI CU6-13-006(dupO2) CU6-06-007

PSED-025 25N - 30E 78 CU6-07-001 PSED-049 5N - 35E 58 CU6-14-001CU6-07-002 (splitO5) CU6-14-002

PSED-026 25N - 35E 60 CU6-07-003 PSED-050 SN - 40E 42 CU6-14-003


Table 8.1Exposure Rate Readings One Meter Above Surface

,ocation Station plR/hr gR/hr Net tLR/hr

(jill meter) (PIC equivalent) (PIC Equivalet-854nNSF- Py.cFnv 60 7 f -1

40N30E PSED-005 6.0 7.0 -1.540N35E PSED-006 6.0 7.0 -1.5

40N40E PSED-007 7.0 8.1 -0.4

35N20E PSED-009 6.0 7.0 -1.5

35N25E PSED-O10 5.0 5.8 -2.735N30E PSED-ol 1 5.0 5.8 -2.735N35E PSED-012 7.0 8.1 -0.435N40E PSED-013 7.0 8.1 -0.430N15E PSED-015 7.0 8-L) -0.430N20E PSED-016 5.0 < 5.8 / -2.730N25E PSED-017 5.0 -2.730N30E PSED-018 5.0 5.8 -2.730N35E PSED-019 5.0 5.8 / -2.7

30N40E PSED-020 5.0 5.8 /- -2.725N1OE PSED-021 9.0 10.4 ' 1.925N15E PSED-022 5.0 5.8 -2.725N20E PSED-023 5.0 5.8 -2.725N25E PSED-024 5.0 5.8 -2.725N30E PSED-025 5.0 5.8 -2.725N35E PSED-026 5.0 5.8 -2.725N40E PSED-027 5.0 5.8 -2.72ON1OE PSED-029 7.0 8.1 -0.42ON15E PSED-030 6.0 7.0 -1.520N20E PSED-031 6.0 7.0 1 -1.520N25E PSED-032 6.0 7.0-1 -i.s20N35E PSED-034 5.0 5.8 1 -2.720N40E PSED-035 5.0 5.8 -2.715NlOE PSED-036 9.0 10.4' 1.915N15E PSED-037 7.0 8.1 -0.415N20E PSED-038 5.0 5.8 -2.71SN25E PSED-039 5.0 5.8 -2.7l5N30E PSED-040 5.0 5.8 -2.715N35E PSED-041 5.0 5.8 -2.715N40E PSED-042 7.0 8.1 -0.4ION25E PSED-044 6.0 7.0 -1.51ON30E PSED-045 5.0 5.8 -2.7ION35E PSED-046 5.0 5.8 -2.75N35E PSED-049 7.0 8.1 -0.45N40E PSED-050 8.0 9.3 0.8

High 1.9Low / -2.7Average 5.9 6.8 V/ -1.7Std Dev 1.1 1.3 1.3 /a

Note: No measurements were recorded for locations PSE -04 and PSED- 7. 44

Revision 02/Januazy, 2001

Table 8.2Summary of Sample Analysis Results

Results are Net Values w/ Site Background Subtracted(pCi/g - dry weight basis) \-

Depth Nuclide No. of Min. Max. Avg. Std. FMPC FMPC(m) Data Dev. Avg. )^0 -I Total Th 42 0.00 0.80 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.27

Total U 42 0.00 8.05 3.26 2.331 - 2 Total Th 18 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.13

Total U 18 0.00 3.89 0.99 1.522 - 3 Total Th 11 0.00 0.38 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.17

Total U 11 0.00 5.17 2.23 1.74 _

All Total Th 71 0.00 0.80 0.07 0.17 0.09 0.27Total U 71 0.00 8.08 2.53 2.27 \_/

1

/_ tk

NOTES:1. All negative values set to 0.2. FMPC values from Appendix A.3. Data Summary does not include splits/duplicates.


116 Site. 1xk"snr t117 Site "Bok kMnt.124 Site Sokdk Numb er125 Site lBku mnbar

N

i ew-Mce Cishing Facility

RGURE 2

Rnal Status Sunvey Report U4-2 Sediment PondSediment Pond Sanrple Station NAmes

---- A4plrmate liUnt of Sedment Pond at Surface

I I - I

I

116 Ste"ock" H Mm t117 Site 19okx Astner124 Site 1bkx " AtberA125 Site NBockw MuitweAiar-R fwedngs at 1 nubWmabove suw ceAfcMu-R rwlngs at coo tat mMf swfaceAR - Ab Reaclng TakenNS - Ab Reading Taken (on or outside f pond berm)-.--- AWmwinate infts of Seorumwt Pond at Sufaceln)RreW bru fx

KItr-McGee Cushing Facility

RGLRE 3Rnal Status Survey Report U4-2 Sedament Pnrd

Seimert Pod AcroR Results

II I0. _ fia7sm I

C0327

I

116 Site "Mock"Mmtwber117 Site Bock" uatw A124 Site "Bock" mber125 Site "Bok" AkonbTotW Thoriun Vaues injpCkpg*TOW Lhwom Values in pClIg*AUS - Ab Sanple Taken (on o outxide of pond benon---- Alodimate fints of Secmnwt Pond at 0-1 metes

i3 KW7r-MGee Cushing Facility

RGUXE4

Rnal Status Survey Report (14-2 Sediment PondSecimert Pond Sople Rewsuts 0-1 Me-

II I HFAWW 1

COLf

MMM�I

I

116 NI45N

40N

35N

30N

IIk I

/i N"4

* 4

NS* .

us u--S

I

I

~117

SNS NS / 1 ......74,_ _ _ _ ' 501

S 1.40 1.66 1.39, .

II z2X 1.91 Z*'

pI S i 1.16 1.;!9I 1.51 Z04 r&09

0 S. 1.83 1.85 X

I

_ _s . . . -. w _-.^. , I , . . _ r4UI '

20N

15N

1ON

5N

112975 N

'.1I,1

< NS I 1.;

124

/ 66 2w

4

-A

2.J 1 ..80 1.12LII 9 2.45

1.65 1.88 S2.87 428 1

- INS\ 1.80* \

N ,S NS

N.

S0

4,111�

N II

125712280 E 5E 10E 15E 20E 25E 30E 35E 40E

N

116 Site '3ockf Mubtw117 Site 'Wh Aknber124 Site Msock Muber125 Site NabW AitwTota ThodLn VhWues in pCihgToW (km Va a Vues in pCtlNS -Nb SaaWie Taken (outsrde o ponco---- APPniruMte ifnt oaf Secrnnwt Pond at 1-2 meers

Kefr-Mccee Cushing Facilify

RGLU 5

Final Status Survey Rqpot UA-2 Sediment Pond

I

I

I

ISedment Pond Sayple Results 1 2 Meter

I R~ifn1Ia

I

L- - C-o5

I

116 SiWel "ck"NlmUber N117 She I N K~ l~be124 Site 'Bock" ber125 Sit. lwko NumbruTotof Thjn W ues in pCqf gTOMa Lewgin Vuas in pCJ/g*NS - Ab SarhIe Taken (outside d ponco---- ApProxinate linmts of Sexlmmt Pond at 2-3 meters-raw n wid Thramn, VYes Induad Bdrjawd

3KenrMbGee Cushing Faciliy

RGURE 6Rnal Status Survey Report UA-2 Sedlnert Pond

SeclMent Pond Swiype Results 2- 3 Meter

I A.I

a CoC,

( APPIX A AUA-2 SEDIMENT POND

SEDIMENT S:7LE VOLUMETRIC ACTiVITY (dry weight basis)

C

Gross Actity (pCI/g, site bkg not subtracted) . Uncertainty (pCi/g -2 standard deviations)Station Depth U-235 U-2381 U-234 Th232 Ra-226 K40 U-235 U-238 U-234 Th4232 Ra-226 K-40 FMPC

DUP-0O1 O- IM 0.13 2.46 2.90 0.96 0.35 -6.49 0.13 1.91 0.00 0.25 0.31 10.02 0.09DUP-002 1- 2M 0.01 1.55 0.00 0.86 0.34 -7.67 0.15 2.18 0.00 0.30 0.38 11.65 0.01DUP-003 2 - 3M 0.12 3.08 2.47 0.66 0.60 -13.89 0.18 2.52 0.00 0.32 0.43 13.24 0.10DUP-004 o- IM 0.18 2.51 4.29 0.71 0.42 -5.40 0.17 2.44 0.00 0.31 0.42 12.98 0.14DUP-005 0 - iM 0.11 0.39 3.03 0.66 0.30 1.37 0.13 1.66 0.00 0.23 0.30 9.25 0.05PSED-004 o- IM 0.17 1.57 4.18 0.77 0.48 0.22 0.16 2.16 0.00 0.29 0.37 11.87 0.10PSED-005 o- iM 0.10 3.45 1.91 0.70 0.51 -7.70 0.19 2.63 0.00 0.33 0.43 13.81 0.09PSED-006 o- iM -0.05 4.66 0.00 1.15 -0.02 -2.06 0.16 2.59 0.00 0.34 0.41 13.66 0.15PSED-006 1 - 2M -0.04 2.51 0.00 0.87 0.67 7.63 0.13 1.97 0.00 0.26 0.34 10.71 0.04PSED-006 2 - 3M 0.18 3.41 4.16 0.77 0.39 -8.74 0.18 2.59 0.00 0.34 0.43 13.65 0.17PSED-007 0 - iM 0.12 2.42 2.56 1.36 0.01, 4.35 0.18 2.63 0.00 0.36 0.43 14.10 O. 16PSED-009 0 - iM 0.22 4.93 4.70 0.93 0.13 -12.01 0.18 2.68 0.00 0.33 0.41 13.79 0.24PSED-O10 0- IM 0.04 2.87 0.44 0.84 0.20 -4.03 0.16 2.43 0.00 0.32 0.41 13.08 0.05PSED-O10 I - 2M 0.03 1.51 0.54 0.70 0.51 -0.49 0.21 2.96 0.00 0.39 0.52 16.44 0.01PSED-Oll o- IM 0.18 6.00 3.53 1.07 0.35 -23.41 0.18 2.64 0.00 0.33 0.41 13.36 0.25PSED-oll 1 - 2M -0.02 1.91 0.00 0.83 0.27 -5.92 0.13 1.96 0.00 0.26 0.33 10.65 0.02PSED-Ol l 2- 3M 0.09 2.46 1.82 0.74 0.83 2.85 0.14 2.03 0.00 0.27 0.35 10.94 0.05PSED-012 0 - IM 0.22 4.99 4.83 0.93 0.46 -19.80 0.14 2.12 0.00 0.28 0.34 10.74 0.24PSED-012 1 - 2M -0.02 2.79 0.00 0.70 0.53 -2.24 0.17 2.58 0.00 0.34 0.45 13.80 0.05PSED-012 2 - 3M 0.03 0.46 0.70 0.87 0.75 -3.41 0.12 1.74 0.00 0.24 0.32 9.62 0.00PSED-013 0- iM 0.15 2.22 3.64 0.60 0.96 -5.53 0.17 2.31 0.00 0.30 0.42 12.58 0.11PSED-OlS 0 - iM 0.14 3.33 3.10 1.07 0.69 -10.97 0.12 1.84 0.00 0.25 0.32 9.51 0.PSED-016 0- IM 0.09 1.66 1.96 0.76 0.10 -2.99 0.14 1.95 0.00 0.26 0.32 10.33 0.03PSED-017 o- iM 0.12 4.26 2.19 0.97 0.28 -11.55 0.14 2.08 0.00 0.26 0.33 10.53 0.13PSED-017 1 - 2M -0.05 1.52 0.001 1.04 0.16 4.98 0.11 1.69 0.00 0.22 0.27 8.99 0.03PSED-018 o- iM 0.03 2.81 0.05 0.82 0.17 -6.66 0.16 2.27 0.00 0.30 0.38 12.25 0.05PSED-018 1 -2M 0.04 1.09 0.91 0.58 0.50 5.62 0.13 1.86 0.00 0.23 0.31 9.82 0.00PSED-018 2 - 3M 0.11 0.52 2.88 0.84 0.42 2.14 0.15 2.04 0.00 0.27 0.35 11.06 0.05PSED-019 o- IM 0.17 2.46 4.13 1.00 0.05 1.13 0.16 2.20 0.00 0.29 0.34 11.64 0.14PSED-019 1 -2M 0.13 1.85 3.12 0.65 0.36 2.84 0.17 2.32 0.00 0.29 0.38 12.12 0.08PSED-019 2 - 3M 0.19, 3.24 4.5 0.50s 0.46 1.77 -0.11 1 .54 0.00 0.18 0.25 8.00 0.17

V clA

/ 't

/ II // PSED5/< PSD-(pI

I 0-1M 0.10 3.211 2.04 1.101 0.051 -9.88 0.141 2.06 0.00 0.28 0.331 10.63l l l - -l 4 _ - -- - --- m *| O-IM L 0.16 4.431 3.27 0.951 0.361 -11.11 0.171 2.58 0.001 0.33 0.421 13.22-J .51 .1 I I .5. b � �.

( 0-0� 146 [.4.6 o,16Revision 2

January, 2001Page 1 of 3

( APX4tX A c'/UA-2 SEDIMET PONDN

SEDIMENT SAMPLE VOLUMETRIC ACTIVITY (dry weight basis)

Kl

I Gross Activity (pCIg, site bkg not subtracted) | Uncertainty (pCi/g - 2 standard deviations) 'Stat (Depth U-235 U-238I U-234 Th-232| Ra-226 K-40 r U-235 U-238 U-234 Th-232| Ra-226 K 40 FMPC

FSE- ,D 0- IM 0.17 4.50 3.46 0.96 0.12 -7.27 0.21 2.92 0.00 0.38 0.46 15.22 0.18SED-023 0- IM 0.01 3.34 0.00 0.62 0.29 -1.34 0.15 2.39 0.00 0.30 0.39 12.39 0.07

PSED-024 0- IM 0.08 2.77 1.62 0.90 -0.10 5.71 0.15 2.23 0.00 0.28 0.34 11.72 0.06PSED-024 1 - 2M 0.14 3.44 3.08 0.92 0.46 -14.13 0.18 2.55 0.00 0.33 0.42 13.02 0.13PSED-025 0- IM 0.01 2.66 0.00 0.68 0.07 4.95 0.14 2.14 0.00 0.27 0.35 11.54 0.05PSED-025 I - 2M 0.08 0.26 2.02 0.93 0.37 0.55 0.13 1.88 0.00 0.25 0.32 10.30 0.02PSED-026 0- IM 0.08 -0.43 2.36 0.93 0.23 0.02 0.17 2.35 0.00 0.34 0.42 13.10 0.03

__________ O - iM 0.10 4.22 1.82 0.79 0.26 -5.16 0.17 2.62 0.00 0.32 0.41 13.0 -______ PED-029 j O- 1M 0.25 5.07 5.53 0.82 -0.06 0.04 0.17 2.54 0.00 0.31 0.38 13.1 0.27

0 O- IM 0.12 2.55 2.63 1.02 -0.14 -2.21 0.19 2.85 0.00 0.35 0.42 14.44 -. 10PSED-031 0- iM 0.18 3.44 3.97 0.49 0.40 2.37 0.17 2.36 0.00 0.28 0.38 12.48 0.16PSED-031 I - 2M 0.07 0.96 1.56 0.80 0.25 4.03 0.13 1.90 0.00 0.25 0.32 10.18 0.00PSED-032 0- IM 0.22 5.71 4.65 0.80 0.12 -15.08 0.18 2.74 0.00 0.33 0.42 13.68 0.26PSED-032 I - 2M 0.12 3.75 2.25 1.01 0.39 -15.65 0.17 2.43 0.00 0.32 0.40 12.18 0.12PSED-033 0- iM 0.21 3.65 4.75 0.70 0.17 -14.15 0.19 2.68 0.00 0.33 0.43 14.00 0.19PSED-033 I - 2M -0.02 3.40 0.00 0.90 0.33 -9.85 0.18 2.62 0.00 0.33 0.44 13.33 0.07PSED-033 2 - 3M 0.16 1.67 3.82 0.76 0.82 -13.78 0.16 2.10 0.00 0.28 0.38 11.36 0.10PSED-034 0- iM 0.15 1.70 3.72 0.98 0.19 -9.00 0.13 1.79 0.00 0.24 0.31 9.60 0.10PSED-034 I - 2M 0.08 0.08 2.29 0.56 0.53 2.82 0.17 2.22 0.00 0.30 0.41 12.63 0.03PSED-035 0- iM 0.20 4.23 4.42 0.93 0.43 -19.08 0.17 2.32 0.00 0.30 0.39 11.87 0.20PSED-036 0- iM 0.18 4.18 3.78 1.25 0.11 -11.70 0.19 2.96 0. OWO 0.37 0.45 14.62 0.24PSED-037 0- iM 0.05 2.92 0.73 1.09 0.04 -4.99 0.18 2.57 0.00 0.33 0.42 13.67 0.08PSED-038 0- iM 0.11 3.54 2.21 0.76 0.46 -13.71 0.19 2.68 0.00 0.35 0.47 14.22 0.10PSED-038 I -2M 0.09 0.78 2.23 0.69 0.34 2.31 0.17 2.36 0.00 0.31 0.41 12.95 0.03PSED-038 2- 3M -0.03 2.27 0.00 0.80 0.71 -12.69 0.12 1.69 0.00 0.23 0.31 9.03 0.03PSED-039 0- IM 0.10 2.78 2.03 1.17 -0.42 -11.44 0.19 2.65 0.00 0.35 0.42 14.26 0.11PSED-039 I - 2M -0.11 2.87 0.00 0.83 0.45 -8.36 0.18 2.69 0.00 0.35 0.46 14.21 0.05PSED-039 2 - 3M 0.18 1.00 4.63 1.13 0.48 -3.85 0.13 1.80 0.00 0.25 0.32 9.85 0.14PSED-040 0- iM 0.21 3.76 4.88 0.92 0.12 -17.27 0.20 2.77 0.00 0.35 0.45 14.05 0.20PSED-040 1 -2M 0.14 -1.15 4.14 0.94 0.04 5.53 0.14 1.89 0.00 0.26 0.34 10.90 0.09PSED-040 2-3M 0.12 1.08 3.12 1.15 0.21 -3.53 0.13 1.84 0.00C 0.25 0.32 10.06 0.10PSED-041 0- iM 0.19 1.41 4.92 0.73 0.50 -2.34 0.15 1.99 0.00 0.25 0.34 10.59 0.13PSED-042 0- iM 0.021 1.57 0.06 0.89 0.57 -0.69 0.14 1.98 0.00 0.27 0.36 10.62 0.01

A,

Revision 2 20ary, 2001

0,,E)l l 2 ~6~01

P a g e 2 o f 3 a nR

Page 2 of 3

( APP1IJIX AUA-2 SEDIMENT POND

SEDIMET SAMPLE VOLUMETRIC ACIIVITY (dry weight basis)I --

(

Gross Activity (pCi/g, site bkg not subtracted) Uncertainty (pCI/g - 2 standard deviations)Station Depth U-235 U-238 U-234 Th-232 Rs-226 K4O U-235 U-238 U-234 Th-232 Ra-226 K-40 FMPC

PSED-044 O- IM -0.03 1.46 0.00 0.56 0.02 10.59 0.18 2.74 0.00 0.35 0.45 14.97 0.01PSED-045 O- iM -0.03 4.44 0.00 0.75 0.10 -6.02 0.18 2.73 0.00 0.34 0.44 14.29 0.11PSED-045 1 - 2M 0.08 5.46 0.84 0.90 0.13 -3.38 0.16 2.44 0.00 0.30 0.37 12.29 0.14PSED-045 2 - 3M 0.11 2.97 2.14 0.58 0.45 -5.70 0.13 1.88 0.00 0.24 0.32 10.04 0.08PSED-046 0 - iM 0.04 5.16 0.00 0.89 0.03 -6.94 0.15 2.33 0.00 0.29 0.37 11.97 0.13PSED-046 I - 2M 0.13 3.47 2.59 0.75 0.64 -9.58 0.14 1.99 0.00 0.25 0.33 10.25 0.11PSED-046 2 - 3M 0.09 3.07 1.68 1.04 0.37 -6.96 0.17 2.41 0.00 0.31 0.40 12.65 0.09PSED-047 0 - IM 0.15 3.41 3.34 0.78 0.04 -0.72 0.16 2.37 0.00 0.29 0.37 12.55 0.14PSED-049 O- iM 0.07 3.07 1.09 0.75 0.31 -8.06 0.14 2.02 0.00 0.26 0.34 10.70 0.06PSED-OSO 0 - iM 0.08 2.63 1.51 1.35 0.39 -13.50 0.15 2.21 0.00 0.30 0.38 11.51 0.13SPLIT-O01 0 - iM 0.14 0.62 3.62 0.81 0.44 6.11 0.13 1.75 0.00 0.24 0.31 9.82 0.07SPLIT-002 O- iM 0.09 1.49 2.06 0.71 0.27 -0.37 0.14 1.91 0.00 0.26 0.33 10.48 0.03SPLIT-03 I - 2M 0.13 3.68 2.70 0.98 -0.14 -8.43 0.21 2.91 0.00 0.37 0.45 15.31 0.13SPLIT-004 2 - 3M 0.03 0.30 0.77 0.89 0.53 2.77 0.17 2.44 0.00 0.35 0.46 14.17 0.00SPLIT-005 0 - I 0.11 4.23 1.93 0.65 0.04 -11.02 0.14 2.09 0.00 0.25 0.32 10.42 0.12_ _ _ _ _ __ ,/ f

t IStatistical Summary ( d 71 ldiment Samples _

High 0.25 6.00 5.53 1.36 0.96Low -0.11 -1.15 0.00 0.4 -0.42Average 8Std Dev .08 1.49 1.67 T.19 0.25

Statistical Summary of pi8 aples (including splits and duplicates)High 0.25 6.00 5.53 1.36 0.96Low -0.11 -1.15 0.00 0. -0.42Average , 2.2 0.31Std Dev 0.08 1.49 1.62 0.18 0.25

NOTES: FMPC calcu ted using net (gross - site backgroun values with negative net values set to 0U-234 activi is calculated; see text for detail.

P aS 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3

/ii'

0.10-~~0.07,,-

0.

0. 10-0.07 -

Revision 2January, 2001

1�

final status survey report for cushing refinery site, ua-2 ... · %0 final status survey report for...

Documents