Text

603 - Kerr Mcgee Cimarron Final Survey Report Using Marssim - July 1997
	ML19106A234
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	07/29/1997
From:	Abelquist E; Oak Ridge Institute for Science & Education
To:	Powers G; Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Shared Package
ML19106A222	List: ML19106A223; ML19106A224; ML19106A225; ML19106A226; ML19106A227; ML19106A228; ML19106A230; ML19106A232; ML19106A233; ML19106A234; ML19106A235; ML19106A236; ML19106A241; ML19106A242; ML19106A243; ML19106A244; ML19106A246;
References
	Download: ML19106A234 (74)
	v • d • e

C)R._ I SE OAK RIDGE IN S TITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION July 29, 1997 Dr. George E. Powers, Ph.D U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Two White Flint North Mailstop 9C24 Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

FINAL REPORT-FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MARSSilv1 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES AT THE CUSHING REFINERY SITE

Dear Dr. Powers:

Enclosed are ten copies of the subject fina l report. NRC comments on the draft repon have been incorporated.

If you have any questions, please direct them to me at (423) 576-3740 or W. L. (Jack) Beck at (423) 576-503 1.

Sincerely, Eric W. Abelquist Assistant Program Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program EA:tsb Enclosure cc:

S. McGuire, NRC/T9C24 D. Fauver, NRC/T8F37 C. Gogolak, DOE/EML W. Beck, ORISE/ESSAP FileJ'jW...

P. 0. BOX 117, OAK RIDGE. TENNESSEE 37831-0 117 Managed and operored by Oak Ridge Associored Universities for the U.S. Deportment of Energy

FINAL.. *S'TATUS****SURVEY USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ATTHE CUSHING REFINERY SITE E.W. ABELQUIST Prepared forthe U.S.* Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Regulatory Applications

The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) was established by the U.S. Department of Energy to undertake national and international programs in science and engineering education, training and management systems, energy and enviromnent systems, and medical sciences. ORISE and its programs are operated by Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) through a management and operating contract with the U.S. Department of Energy. Established in 1946, ORAU is a consortium of 89 colleges and universities.

NOTICES The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the sponsoring institutions of Oak Ridge Associated Universities.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the U.S. Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation, or favor by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.

FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ATTHE CUSHING REFINERY SITE Prepared by E. W. Abelquist Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Environmental and Health Sciences Division Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Regulatory Applications FINAL REPORT JULY 1997 CRISE 97-1138 This report is based on work performed under an Interagency Agreement (NRC Fin. No. L-1569) between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education performs complementary work under contract number DE-AC05-760R00033 with the U.S. Department of Energy.

Cushing Refine!)' Site (508) - July 16, 1997 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_ mar.00 I

Prepared by:

FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ATTHE CUSHING REFINERY SITE E. W. Abelquist, Assistant Pr am Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Reviewed by:~~-#L ii. vii; \\uvey Projects Manager Date: _7-#-}_11P-1-f_c;_7 __

t' Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Reviewed by: _...;....l~Q~.~~::;;......,.,,. --=~~~~~-=:;;..._ ____ Date: ~7/

___ J....... t+-/_c;....._7 __

7 t

R. D. Condra, Technical Resources Manager Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Reviewed by:

LVYVY> 7 e ~

Date: _:7---'--+/ ____ t __

lo__,J ___ q..__7 __

A. T. Payne, Quality Assurand!safety Manager Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Reviewed by: ~

Date: -'?.-~---0....._~d

...... ~

....... ~---

Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 essap\\rq>orts\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to aclmowledge the significant contributions of the following staff members:

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 FIELD STAFF T. D. Herrera A. L. Mashburn J. R. Morton LABORATORY STAFF R. D. Condra J. S. Cox M. J. Laudeman S. T. Shipley CLERICAL STAFF T. S. Bunch D. K. Herrera K. E. Waters ILLUSTRATOR T. D. Herrera essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.00 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE List of Figures............................................................... 11 List of Tables................................................................ iii Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................... iv Introduction.................................................................. 1 Site Description............................................................... 2 Objectives................................................................... 3 Document Review............................................................. 3 Procedures................................................................... 3 Final Status Survey Design................................................ 4 Integrated Final Status Survey Strategy...................................... 13 Interpretation of Survey Results................................................. 16 Summary................................................................... 22 Figures..................................................................... 24 Tables...................................................................... 36 References.................................................................. 4 7 Appendices:

Appendix A:

Major Instrumentation Appendix B:

Survey and Analytical Procedures Appendix C:

Spreadsheet Results for Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests Cushing Refinery Site (S08) - July 16, 1997 1

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 l

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1:

Kerr-McGee Corporation, Cushing, Oklahoma-Cushing Site Grid Block Areas...................................... 25 FIGURE 2:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma RMA-4-Measurement and Sampling Locations........................ 26 FIGURE 3:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma Survey Block 46 (Class 2)--Measurement and Sampling Locations......... 27 FIGURE 4:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, Survey Block 61 (Background Reference Area)--Measurement and Sampling Locations...... 28 FIGURE 5:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1)-

Elevated Areas Identified by Scans and Soil Sample Locations............ 29 FIGURE 6:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1)-

Posting Plot..................................................... 30 FIGURE 7:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma-Survey Block 46 (Class 2) -

Posting Plot............................. 31 FIGURE 8:

Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma -

Survey Block 61 (Background Reference Area)-Posting Plot............ 32 FIGURE 9:

Histogram-Background Reference Area.............................. 33 FIGURE 10: Histogram-Class 1 Area.......................................... 34 FIGURE 11: ~istogram-Class 2 Area.......................................... 35 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 11 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.00 I

LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1:

Values of Pr for a Given Shift a/a.................................... 9 TABLE 2:

Percentiles Represented by Selected Values of a and p................... 10 TABLE 3:

Outdoor Area Dose Factors......................................... 11 TABLE 4:

Scan MDCs..................................................... 12 TABLES:

Basic Statistical Quantities......................................... 20 TABLE 6:

Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Class 1 Area-RMA-4............... 37 TABLE 7:

Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Class 2 Area-Grid Block 46......... 41 TABLE 8:

Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Background Reference Area-Grid Block 61.................................................... 44 Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 111 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

A&A AEC ASME cm DCGL DOE DQA DQOs EMC EML EPA ESSAP Ha Ho kg KMC LBGR m

m m2 m3 n

MARSSIM MDC Nal NIST NMSS NRC ORISE pCi/g RMA UF6 UF4 Wr WRS Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Auxier and Associates Atomic Energy Commission American Society of Mechanical Engineers centimeter derived concentration guideline level Department of Energy data quality assessment data quality objectives Elevated Measurement Comparison Environmental Measurements Laboratory Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program alternative hypothesis null hypothesis kilogram Kerr-McGee Corporation lower bound of the gray region meter adjusted reference measurement square meter cubic meter survey unit measurement Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual minimum detectable concentration sodium iodide National Institute of Standards and Technology Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education picocuries per gram radioactive material area uranium hexafluoride uranium tetrafluoride sum of the ranks of the adjusted measurements from the reference area Wilcoxon Rank Sum (statistical test)

IV essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES ATTHE CUSHING REFINERY SITE INTRODUCTION The Cushing refinery site is located two miles north of the City of Cushing in Payne County, Oklahoma and was operated from 1915 to 1972. Kerr-McGee Corporation (KMC) purchased the Cushing site from General American Oil Company of Texas in 1956 and operated an oil refinery there from 1956 to 1972. From 1962 to 1966, KMC used part of the Cushing refinery site to process natural thorium and natural, depleted, and enriched uranium under two Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) licenses, SMB-664 and SNM-695.

AEC license SMB-664 was issued to KMC on November 7, 1962 and authorized unlimited quantities in a variety of chemical forms of uranium and thorium. The bulk of uranium material received was UF6 (uranium hexafluoride). Typical products were oxides, carbides, fluorides, nitrates, metal, etc. Thorium material was received in the form of concentrates. Typical products were oxides or carbides or combinations of uranium and thorium compounds at various ratios of thorium to uranium (KMC 1995).

AEC license SNM-695 was issued to KMC on April 23, 1963 and authorized possession of any enrichment of uranium in any form, except metal, including scrap recovery, not to exceed 1000 kilograms (kg) of uranium-235. The uranium was received in the form ofUF6 and other chemical compounds and was converted to other compounds of uranium suitable for nuclear fuels. AEC license SNM-695 was amended to permit reduction of high enriched UF4 (green salt) to uranium metal buttons.

Enriched uranium was processed at Cushing from early 1963 until September 1965 and thorium processing was performed from December 1964 until February 1966. In April 1966 KMC reported to the AEC that as of April 26, 1966, all special nuclear material had been transferred from the Cushing site to KMC's new Cimarron facility in Crescent, Oklahoma and that all Cushing buildings Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)* July 16, 1997 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

in which licensed activities had been performed were cleaned and decontaminated. The ABC conducted a close-out survey of the Cushing facility on July 6, 1966. On the basis of this survey, and in response to KMC's request for authorization to release the facility for unrestricted use, licenses SMB-664 and SNM-695 were terminated on July 25, 1966 (KMC 1995).

KMC has performed characterization surveys and subsequent remediation for a large portion of their site. During cleanup activities, some radioactively contaminated materials were placed in burial trenches, old petroleum storage tanks dike areas, and part of a hydrocarbon waste impoundment (Pit

4) on the site. A final status survey is being planned by KMC to demonstrate compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines. A portion of the site was surveyed by the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) using the Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) methodology, as a demonstration of its applicability. Specifically, land areas slightly contaminated with thorium were selected for this evaluation.

SITE DESCRIPTION The KMC Cushing site is located in Payne County, Oklahoma, two miles north of the City of Cushing. Cushing lies about midway between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. The terrain of the region is rolling, oil-producing pasture land. Several oil fields were developed in the immediate area. The elevation of the refinery site ranges from 250 to 280 meters above sea level. The entire Cushing site encompasses approximately 178 hectares.

The Class 1 area selected for this evaluation is Radioactive Material Area (RMA)-4. RMA-4 has a land area of approximately 2,300 square meters (m2). Class 1 survey areas are those areas with the highest potential for contamination-including the potential for small areas of elevated activity. The Class 2 area was selected from Cushing grid block 46-located on the eastern portion of the site.

The Class 2 area consisted of approximately 2,300 m2 located in the northern portion of grid block

46. Class 2 survey areas exhibit a potential for contamination, but they have little or no potential for small areas of elevated activity. An appropriate background reference area was identified during Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 2

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

a previous NRC visit to the Cushing site. A preliminary assessment performed by NRC's contractor, the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML}, indicated that Cushing grid block 61 was an appropriate reference area for the selected Class 1 and 2 areas (Figure 1 ).

OBJECTIVES The objective of the final status survey was to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the MARSSIM methodology in a final status survey of land areas at a site contaminated with thorium.

DOCUMENT REVIEW ESSAP and Auxier and Associates (A&A) reviewed the historical site assessment data for the Cushing Refinery Site. KMC provided characterization data for RMA-4 and grid block 46 that included analytical results for Th-232 concentrations in soil. The standard deviation calculated using all 115 data points in RMA-4 was 0.31 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) Th-232. The RMA-4 characterization data was evaluated, and based on the distribution ofTh-232 concentrations, it was apparent that contamination was present in two of the samples. Because it was anticipated that remediation would be performed prior to the final status survey, the decision was made to remove these two outliers at the upper end of the distribution and to compute a revised standard deviation (0.27 pCi/g Th-232). In a similar manner, the revised standard deviation in grid block 46 was also 0.27 pCi/g for Th-232. It was expected that the standard deviation in the background reference area (grid block 61) would not be greater than the standard deviations determined in the Class 1 and 2 areas. Therefore, a standard deviation of 0.27 pCi/g for Th-232 was used to determine the necessary sample size for the nonparametric statistical tests.

PROCEDURES The final status survey design followed the methodology presented in the MARSSilvl Public Review Draft (MARSSilvl 1996a).

ESSAP performed visual inspections and final status survey measurements and sampling from October 28 through 30, 1996. Survey activities were conducted Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 3

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

in accordance with a site-specific survey plan dated October 21, 1996 and the ORISE/ESSAP Survey Procedures and Quality Assurance Manuals (ORISE 1996, 1995a and b). This report summarizes the procedures and results of the final status survey activities. Additional information regarding major instrumentation, sampling equipment and procedures, and analytical procedures is provided in Appendices A and B.

FINAL STATUS SURVEY DESIGN The process of designing a final status survey began with development of data quality objectives (DQOs); on the basis of these objectives and the lmown or anticipated radiological conditions of the site, the numbers and locations of measurement and sampling points, required to demonstrate compliance with derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) and conditions, were then determined. DCGLs are radionuclide-specific levels corresponding to the release criterion, as determined by exposure pathway modeling. Survey techniques, appropriate to develop adequate data, were selected and implemented. Survey instrumentation was selected based on detection sensitivity to the radiations of concern.

A meeting ofNRC and contractor personnel was held on June 26 and 27, 1996 for the purpose of designing a limited prototype final status survey at the Kerr-McGee facility in Cushing, Oklahoma.

The seven-step DQO process was followed in this planning meeting. Steps I through V were accomplished without major difficulty; Step VI-Specifying Limits on Decision Errors-introduced problems because of the need to identify actual values of various parameters. Type I and Type II decision errors were specified after some discussion on the anticipated survey difficulty, but DCGLs and area factors were not available at that time. The final DQO step-Optimizing the Survey Design-was accomplished using example values for necessary parameters to determine the number of necessary data points. A conference call between NRC and contractor personnel was held on October 9, 1996 for the purpose of confirming details of the prototype final status survey, including the DCGL and area factors for thorium, decision errors, and locations of Class 1 and 2 areas.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 4

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Agglication of Decommissioning Criteria As part of the DQO process the objective of the survey and the null and alternate hypotheses should be clearly stated. The objective of final status surveys is to demonstrate that residual radioactivity levels meet the release criterion. In demonstrating that this objective is met, the null hypothesis, Ha, tested is that residual contamination exceeds the release criterion; the alternative hypothesis, Ha, is that residual contamination meets the release criterion.

Null Hypothesis (Hj: Residual contamination exceeds the release criterion For contaminants that are present in background-e.g., uranium and thorium-the Wilcoxon Rank Sum (WRS) test is used. To determine data needs for this test, the acceptable probability of making Type I and Type Il decision errors are established. The Type I decision error occurs when the H0 is rejected when it is true-results in concluding that survey units incorrectly satisfy release criterion (regulator's risk).

The Type Il decision error occurs when the H0 is accepted when it is false-results in unnecessary remediation (licensee's risk). The acceptable decision error rates were determined during the DQO process to reflect the anticipated difficulty of measuring residual uranium and thorium radioactivity at near-background levels. The Type I error (ct) was specified as 0.05 and Type Il decision error(~) was set at 0.10.

Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (J)CGLs)

Results from previous surveys indicated the presence of thorium and uranium (including various enrichments of uranium). The thorium chain appeared to be in equilibrium with Th-232. For planning purposes for this prototype survey, the only contaminant of concern considered was thorium, uranium contamination identified was not evaluated in the survey design or subsequent demonstration of compliance. The applicable DCGL for residual thorium concentrations in soil is:

Th-232 (in equilibrium with progeny): 0.16 pCi/g (above background)

Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 5

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Contaminant Present in Background-Determining Numbers of Data Points for Statistical Tests The following steps detail the procedure for determining the number of data points for the WRS test.

A. Calculate the Relative Shift The contaminant DCGL value, lower bound of the gray region, and the standard deviation in the background level of the contaminant were used to calculate the relative shift, Illa. When the estimated standard deviation in the reference area and survey units are different, the larger of these values should be used to calculate the relative shift.

The following information is used in the determination of relative shift:

1)

The DCGL for Th-232-0.16 pCi/g in soil

2)

Standard deviation of Th-232 in reference area and survey units-0.27 pCi/g in the Class 1 area and 0.27 pCi/g in the Class 2 area. It was assumed that the standard deviation in the reference area was not larger than the standard deviation in the Class 1 and 2 areas.

The MARSSIM recommends using the larger value of standard deviation (0.27 pCi/g) when the standard deviation in the survey units and reference area are different.

3)

Selection of the Lower Bound of the Gray Region {LBGR). Because Th-232 has a small DCGL, the LBGR was selected as zero.

The gray region is bounded above by the DCGL and below by the LBGR. The width of the gray region is delta, a. Thus, a = DCGL - LBGR (0.16 minus 0). The relative shift was then calculated directly-0.16/0.27 equals 0.593, rounded to 0.6.

Cushing Refinery Site (S08)-July 16, 1997 6

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

B. Determine Pr Table 1 contains a listing of relative shift values and values for Pr (Table 5.1 in MARSSIM 1996b ). Pr is the probability that a measurement at a random location in the survey unit is greater than a measurement performed at a random location in the background reference area.

Using the relative shift value calculated previously, the value of Pr was obtained from Table 1.

Therefore, for a relative shift value of0.6, the value of P1 was 0.664.

C. Determine Decision Error Percentiles The next step in this process was to determine the percentiles, Z1_<< and Z1_p, represented by the selected decision error levels, a and p, respectively (Table 2). As stated earlier, a was selected at 0.05 and P was selected at 0.10. From Table 2, the percentile Z 1_<< equals 1.645, and Z1_p, equals 1.282 (Table 2 from MARSSIM 1996b ).

D. Calculate Number of Data Points for WRS Test The number of data points, N, to be obtained from each reference area/survey unit pair for the WRS test was calculated using:

(Zt-a + z. _A)2 N-3 (P, - 0.5)2 Substituting in the values determined above, N was calculated:

N- (1.645 + 1.282) 2 =l06.2 3 (0.664- 0.5)2 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 7

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

Of this total number, 53 samples were designated to be collected from the reference area and 53 from each survey unit.

To assure sufficient data points to attain the desired power level with the statistical tests and allow for possible lost or unusable data, it is recommended that the number of calculated data be increased by 20%, and rounded up, for further assurance of sufficient data points. This yielded 64 samples to be collected in both the survey unit and reference area.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 8

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.00 I

Table 1: Values of Pr for a Given Shift Ala I.

Illa Pr Illa Pr I

2 0.921 0.0625 0.518 2.0625 0.928 0.125 0.535 2.125 0.933 0.1875 0.553 2.1875 0.939 0.25 0.570 2.25 0.944 0.3125 0.587 2.3125 0.949 0.375 0.605 2.375 0.953 0.4375 0.621 2.4375 0.958 0.5 0.638 2.5 0.961 0.5625 0.655 2.5625 0.965 0.6 0.664 2.625 0.968 0.6875 0.687 2.6875 0.971 0.75 0.702 2.75 0.974 0.8125 0.717 2.8125 0.977 0.875 0.732 2.875 0.979 0.9375 0.746 2.9375 0.981 1

0.760 3

0.983 1.0625 0.774 3.0625 0.985 1.125 0.787 3.125 0.986 1.1875 0.799 3.1875 0.988 1.25 0.812 3.25 0.989 l.3125 0.823 3.3125 0.990 1.375 0.835 3.375 0.991 l.4375 0.845 3.4375 0.992 1.5 0.856 3.5 0.993 1.5625 0.865 3.5625 0.994 1.625 0.875 3.625 0.995 1.6875 0.884 3.6875 0.995 1.75 0.892 3.75 0.996 l.8125 0.900 3.8125 0.996 1.875 0.908 3.875 0.997 l.9375 0.915 3.9375 0.997 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 9

essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Table 2: Percentiles Represented by Selected Values of a; and p.

I a; (or P)

I Z1_cx ( or Z1_~)

I 0.005 2.576 0.01 2.326 0.025 1.960 0.05 1.645 0.10 1.282 0.20 0.842 0.25 0.674 Determining Data Points for Areas of Elevated Activity For Class 1 areas, the number of data points required by the WRS test for uniform levels of contamination may need to be supplemented to ensure a reasonable level of assurance that any small areas of elevated residual radioactivity are not missed during the final status survey. Soil sampling on a specified grid size, in conjunction with surface scanning, are used to obtain an adequate assurance level that small areas of residual radioactive contamination will still satisfy DCGLs-applicable to small areas.

The number of survey data points needed for the WRS test ( 64 for both reference area and survey units) were positioned, on a scale map of each survey unit, using a random-start triangular pattern (Figures 2 through 4 show scale maps of each survey unit and the reference area). The number of calculated survey locations, 64, was used to determine the grid spacing, L, of the triangular pattern (Figure 2). Specifically, the spacing, L, of the triangular pattern was given by:

L= IA

~~'

Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 10 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

where A is the area of the Class 1 survey unit (2,300 m2) and n is the number of data points in the survey unit. The spacing equals 6.44 m. The grid area bounded by these survey locations was calculated by A= 0.866

L2 (equals 36 m2). This area represented the largest elevated area that could exist and not be sampled by the random-start triangular grid pattern established for the WRS test.

Next, the magnitude ( area factor) by which the concentration in this potential elevated area (36 m2}

can exceed the DCGL value while maintaining compliance with the release criterion was determined.

Table 3 provides outdoor area factors for Th-232.

Table 3: Outdoor Area Dose Factors I

Area Factor I

1 m2 3m1 10m1 30m1 100m1 300m1 1000 m1 3000 m1 10000 m1 Th-232 3610 1200 361 120 36.1 5.54 2.32 1.47 1.00 The minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of the scan procedure that is required to detect an elevated area at the limit determined by the area factor was determined. That is, the required scan MDC for Th-232 was calculated by (area factor logarithmically interpolated for 36 m2 area equals 100):

Scan MDC (required) = (DCGL) * (Area Factor) = 0.16

100 = 16 pCilg The actual :tvIDCs of scanning techniques were detennined for performing gamma scanning with Nal scintillation detectors. The following scan MDCs were determined using current human factors research and modeling of an elevated area and assessing the NaI scintillation detector's response to that radionuclide and radionuclide distribution.

These values were purposefully determined conservatively for sample size design considerations.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 11 essap\\n:ports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Table 4: Scan MDCs Radionuclide(s)

Scan MDC (pCi/g)

Th-232 3.8 The actual MDC of the selected scanning technique was compared to the required scan MDC.

Because the actual scan MDC (3.8 pCi/g for Th-232) is less than the required scan MDC (16 pCi/g),

no additional sampling points (above the 64 calculated previously) were necessary for assessment of potential elevated areas. That is, the Nal scintillation gamma scan survey exhibited adequate sensitivity to detect any elevated areas of concern.

Determining Survey Locations A scale drawing of each of the survey units at the Cushing site was prepared (Figures 2 through 4),

along with the overlying planer reference coordinate system. Any location within the survey area was identifiable by a unique set of coordinates. The maximum length, X, and width, Y, dimensions of the survey unit were then determined.

For the Class 1 area (RMA-4), a triangular pattern, having dimensions determined by the requirements for the WRS test described in the previous section, was installed on the survey unit.

The starting point for this pattern was selected at random. Beginning at the random starting coordinate, a row of points was identified, parallel to the X axis, at intervals ofL (6.44 m). A second row of points was then developed, parallel to the first row, at a distance of 0.866*L (5.58 m) from the first row. Survey points along that second row were located midway (on the X-axis) between the points on the first row. This process was repeated to identify a pattern of survey locations throughout the affected survey unit-following this process 68 sampling locations were positioned on the map. If identified points fell outside of the survey unit or at locations which could not be surveyed, additional points were determined using the random process described above, until the desired total number of points was identified. Once in the field, it was realized that the RMA-4 map contained inaccuracies and modifications to sampling locations were necessary; a total of 69 soil Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 12 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

sample locations were identified in the field (Figure 2). This points out the importance of having accurate, to-scale maps for planning and design purposes.

The Class 2 area was also sampled on a random-start triangular pattern. The number of calculated sample locations was identified in the same manner as for the Class 1 area. Sixty-three sample locations were determined using the triangular pattern described above; an additional sample location was then selected at random (Figure 3). The same sampling locations determined in the office were sampled in the field.

Background reference area samples were collected from a triangular pattern, using the same spacing as in the Class 1 area. Sixty-six sample locations were determined using the triangular pattern (Figure 4); the same sampling locations determined in the office were sampled in the background reference area.

INTEGRATED FINAL STATUS SURVEY STRATEGY General RMA-4 is the Class 1 area that was surveyed in this prototype final status survey. It is located in the northwest section of the Cushing site and covers an area of approximately 2,300 m2* The Class 2 survey unit comprised an area of approximately 2,300 m2 selected from the northern portion of grid block 46. The background reference area was an area of approximately 2,300 m2 within KMC grid block 61. The extent of survey coverage was based on the guidance contained in MARSSIM-as developed in the previous sections of this plan. Contamination potential has been based on a review of site history and the results of previous surveys.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 13 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Survey Plan A.

Reference Coordinate System A 10-meter reference coordinate system was established by ES SAP in the Class 1, Class 2 and background reference areas to reference sampling locations-as determined from the triangular sampling pattern.

B.

Surface Scans Exterior soil surfaces were scanned for gamma radiation using NaI scintillation detectors.

Surface scans were performed by passing the Nal detectors slowly (about 0.5 mis) over the surface; the distance between the detector and the surface was maintained at a minimum -

nominally about 10 cm. A 100 percent scan of the soil within the Class 1 survey units was performed. The scan coverage in the Class 2 area was dependent upon site conditions and results as the survey progressed, but at a minimum, 50% of the Class 2 survey unit was scanned. All detectors were coupled to ratemeters with audible indicators. Locations of elevated direct radiation, based on increases in the audible signal from the instrument, were marked for further investigation.

C.

Soil Sampling Background soil samples were collected from the selected reference area in grid block 61.

The number of background soil samples collected, 66, was determined previously.

Systematic (Class 1 and Class 2) surface soil samples-at a depth of Oto 15 cm-were collected from the locations determined in the previous section, using the prepared figures as a guide in locating sampling points. As discussed previously, 69 samples were collected from the Class 1 area and 64 samples were collected from the Class 2 area. Soil samples were collected from locations of elevated direct radiation identified by surface scans.

Cushing Refinery Site (S08)-July 16, 1997 14 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Investigation Levels Investigation levels for Class 1 areas established action levels for individual measurements that approach or exceed the DCGL level. According to MARSSIM, the results of the investigation and any additional remediation that was performed should be included in the final status survey report.

Data are evaluated; additional data collected, as necessary; and the final complete data set tested for compliance with elevated area criteria and statistical parameters. Surface scans in the Class 1 area identified locations of elevated direct radiation that required the collection of additional (biased) samples.

Investigation levels for Class 2 areas established action levels for individual measurements close to but below the DCGL. The results of the investigation of the positive measurements and basis for reclassifying all or part of the survey unit as Class 1 should be included in the final status survey report. Surface scans in the Class 2 area did not identify any locations of elevated direct radiation-therefore, there were no indications that investigations should be conducted in this survey unit.

Sample Analysis and Data Interpretation Samples and data were returned to ORISE's ESSAP laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for analysis and interpretation. Laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with the ORISE/ESSAP Laboratory Procedures Manual (ORISE 1995c ).

Soil samples were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. The radionuclide of interest was Th-232; however, spectra were also reviewed for other identifiable photopeaks. The MDC for gamma spectroscopy was approximately 0.5 pCi/g for Th-232; count times were selected to maintain relative standard errors of the analysis to less than 10%.

Soil sample results from gamma spectroscopy were reported in pCi/g-the DCGL unit. After data were converted to DCGL units, the process of comparing the results to the DCGLs, conditions, and objectives began. Individual measurements and soil sample concentrations were compared to DCGL Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 15 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

levels for evidence of elevated areas. This Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) was performed to ensure that any areas that may have the potential for significant dose contributions were identified. The need for additional data or additional remediation and resurvey were evaluated. Data were then evaluated using the WRS test to determine if release criteria had been satisfied. If release criteria were not met or if results indicated the need for additional data points, appropriate further actions were determined by the NRC. Finally, the results of the survey were compared with the data quality objectives established during the planning phase of the project. The data generated were compared with the NRC release criterion (via evaluating the null hypothesis).

INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RESULTS SURVEY RESULTS The interpretation of survey results was performed in accordance with the MARSSIM Draft for Public Comment (MARSSIM 1996b).

Surface Scans Surface scans performed within the Class 1 survey unit identified several locations of elevated direct radiation. Additional investigations were performed, including surface scans, to generally bound the areas of elevated direct radiation (refer to Figure 5). Biased soil samples were collected in some of the areas identified by surface scans-these samples provided data on the Th-232 levels within the areas of elevated direct radiation. Additional characterization (sampling) would be necessary to better delineate the extent of contamination and need for additional remediation.

Surface scans performed within the Class 2 survey unit did not identify any locations of elevated direct radiation.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 16 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

Th-232 Concentrations in Soil Concentrations ofTh-232 in soil samples collected in the Class 1 survey unit, Class 2 survey unit, and background reference area are shown in Tables 6 through 8, respectively. Thorium-232 concentrations determined by gamma spectroscopy ranged from 0.95 to 3.26 pCi/g in the Class 1 survey unit (systematic samples only); from 0.62 to 1.53 pCi/g in the Class 2 survey unit; and from 0.89 to 1.54 pCi/g in the background reference area. The range ofTh-232 concentrations from seven biased samples in the Class 1 survey unit ranged from 3.23 to 66.69 pCi/g.

The Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) was performed for both measurements obtained from systematic sampling and those flagged by surface scans. As illustrated on Figure 5, surface scans identified a relatively large ( - 300 m2) area of elevated radiation that ran through the middle of RMA-4. Surface scans, confirmed by biased sampling, identified a particularly significant location of elevated direct radiation (- 20 m2) near coordinates 25E, 40N. The derived concentration guideline level for the EMC-DCG~Mc-is obtained by multiplying the DCGL (0.16 pCi/g) by the area factor that corresponds to the actual area of the elevated concentration. An elevated area is deemed acceptable provided that the appropriate DCGLEMC is not exceeded. For example, the area factor for the 300 m2 elevated area is 5.54, resulting in a DCGLEMc of 0.87 pCi/g (not including background). Further investigation and sampling would be necessary to determine the average Th-232 concentration over this 300 m2 elevated area in order to make a comparison to the DCGLEMc*

An EMC determination was made for the smaller area (20 m2)-the area factor is 208 (based on interpolation of values in Table 3), which resulted in a DCG~Mc of 33.3 pCi/g. The average of the two biased samples in that 20 m2 area is 40.6 pCi/g, which exceeds the DCGLEMc* It should be recognized that any combination of area and radionuclide concentration that exceeds the appropriate DCGLEMc should be sufficient for concluding that the survey unit does not satisfy release criteria.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 17 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

DATA QUALITY AsSESSMENT The MARSSIM manual recommends that a data quality assessment (DQA) be performed to determine if the data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their use (MARSSIM 1996b ). The DQA process is the scientific and statistical evaluation of data and includes 1) review of DQOs, 2) preliminary data review, 3) selection of statistical tests and verification of assumptions of the tests, and 4) drawing conclusions from the data.

Review of the DQOs The DQOs were reviewed to ensure that they were still applicable. The survey unit results were reviewed to determine if each survey unit was properly classified. Data results indicated that each survey unit was properly classified, however, the background reference area selected may not have bee!} appropriate for the Class 2 survey unit (this is explored further in a subsequent data evaluation section).

The sampling design and data collection documentation were reviewed for consistency with the DQOs. Because all collected samples were analyzed and no data losses occurred, the necessary sample size for the statistical tests was achieved.

The accuracy of the prospective power curve depends on the number of samples collected and estimates of the standard deviation for each survey unit and the background reference area. Note that this assessment of the retrospective power curve is only necessary when the null hypothesis is accepted (i.e. survey unit does not pass release criteria). The estimated standard deviation in the Class 1 and Class 2 survey units was 0.27 pCi/g, which represented a revised standard deviation (refer to Document Review). The standard deviations obtained during the final status survey were 0.16, 0.40, and 0.22, respectively, for the reference area, Class 1, and Class 2 survey units. The Class 1 survey unit standard deviation, assumed during the survey design, may be too small relative to the standard deviation obtained during the final status survey. This may indicate an insufficient number of samples were collected to achieve the desired test power (1-~), and result in unnecessary Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 18 cssap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

remediations. However, the Class 1 revised standard deviation-by removing the highest three Th-232 concentration values (outliers)-is 0.25 pCi/g, consistent with that assumed during survey design.

Preliminary Data Review To evaluate the structure of the data-identifying patterns and relationships-graphs of the data were prepared and basic statistical quantities calculated. Figures 6 through 8 provide posting plots that illustrate the Th-232 concentration versus location for the Class 1 and Class 2 survey units, and background reference area, respectively. Inspection of the Class 1 data posting plot (Figure 6) clearly indicates several samples with Th-232 concentrations in excess of the background in this survey unit-particularly running north to south between east coordinates 25 to 35. Posting plots for the Class 2 survey unit and background reference area do not reveal any systematic spatial trends.

Figures 9 through 11 provide frequency plots, or histograms, of the Th-232 concentration in the background reference area, Class 1, and Class 2 survey units, respectively. Again, using the histograms to compare the reference area data with the Class 2 survey unit data ( overlaying the two histograms) shows that the Class 2 data are shifted to lower Th-232 concentrations, relative to the background reference area. The histogram for the Class 1 survey unit clearly illustrates two distributions ofTh-232-therefore, it may be possible to consider the background distribution as shown in this histogram (Figure 10) as a survey unit-specific background reference area for the Class 1 survey unit. As cautioned in MARSSIM, the interpretation of the data for this purpose should only be pursued after consultation with the responsible regulatory agency.

Basic statistical quantities were calculated for the background reference area, Class 1, and Class 2 survey units.

Cushing Refinery Site (S08)-July 16, 1997 19 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.00 I

Table 5: Basic Statistical Quantities Th-232 (pCi/g)

Location Mean Median Standard Deviation Background Reference Area 1.29 1.32 0.16 Class 1 Area 1.34 1.22 0.40 Class 2 Area 1.11 1.14 0.22 As evidenced in the Class 1 survey unit, large differences between the mean and the median provide an indication of skewness in the data ( as discussed previously, the histogram actually shows that two distributions exist in the Class 1 survey unit). Also, the basic statistical parameters (both the mean and the median) show that the Class 2 survey unit data are 0.18 pCi/g less than the background reference area. Therefore, if the two areas were interchanged, it is likely that the background reference area would fail to reject the null hypothesis (not pass the release criterion of 0.16 pCi/g) as compared to the Th-232 concentration in the Class 2 survey unit.

Selection of Statistical Test and Verification of Test Assumptions The Wilcoxon Rank Sum (WRS) test is used to evaluate the Th-232 concentrations in the Class 1 and Class 2 survey units because the contaminant of concern (Th-232) is present in background. The null hypothesis tested by the WRS test is that the median concentration in the survey unit exceeds that in the reference area by more than the DCGL." Therefore, rejection of this null hypothesis results in a decision that the survey unit passes (satisfies the release criterion). Specifically, the result of the WRS hypothesis test determines whether or not the survey unit as a whole is deemed to meet the release criterion.

The assumptions underlying the WRS test are that 1) the samples from the background reference area and the survey unit are independent random samples, and 2) each measurement is independent of every other measurement-regardless of the set of samples from which it came. Each of the samples from the background reference area, Class 1, and Class 2 survey units were collected on a Cushing Refinery Site (S08)- July 16, 1997 20 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

random-start triangular grid pattern (biased samples are not included in statistical tests), thus, the assumption of independent random samples is valid. Further, the posting plots (Figures 6 through

8) do not suggest that spatial dependencies exist in any of the sampled areas.

Draw Conclusions from the Data The specific details for conducting the WRS test are as follows:

1)

Obtain adjusted reference area measurements by adding the DCGL to each background reference area measurement.

2)

Rank the pooled adjusted reference area measurements (m) and survey unit measurements (n) from 1 to N (N=m+n).

3)

If several measurements are tied (have the same value), they are assigned the average rank for that group of tied measurements.

4)

Sum the ranks of the adjusted measurements from the reference area, Wr

5)

Compare Wr with tabulated critical value (MARSSIM Appendix I; based on n, m, and a;):

Reject H0 ifWr > critical value MARSSIM Appendix I (page 1-30) provides spreadsheet formulas for ranking the data. The analysis for the WRS test is well suited for calculation on a spreadsheet. Appendix C ( of this report) provides the results (in spreadsheets) of the WRS test for both the Class 1 and Class 2 survey units. To summarize these results, the Wr in the Class 1 survey unit was 5,580 and the critical value was 4,862.

Because Wr is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected and the survey unit passes the WRS test. However, as mentioned previously, the Class 1 survey unit contains subsurface contamination that must be fully characterized before the survey unit can be determined to have satisfied release criteria. Additionally, because of the difficulty of assessing the surface area associated with each of the hot spots, a detennination of whether these locations of elevated activity satisfy the elevated measurement comparison cannot be made.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 21 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

The Wr in the Class 2 survey unit was 5,976 and the critical value was 4,676. Because Wr is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected and the survey unit easily passes the WRS test.

However, the concern in this case is that the background reference area is not representative of the Class 2 survey unit-as discussed previously, Th-232 concentrations in the Class 2 survey unit are significantly less than the concentrations in the background reference area. Nonetheless, upon review of all the data, the Class 2 survey unit satisfies the release criterion.

To assess whether or not the background reference area is representative of the Class 2 survey unit, the WRS test was conducted assuming that the Class 2 area (Grid Block 46) was the background reference area and the original background reference area (Grid Block 61) was the tested survey unit.

The Wr in this case was 4,120 and the critical value was 4,545. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected and the survey unit fails (refer to Appendix C). The significance of this result is that both Grid Block 46 and 61 likely contain only naturally occurring levels of Th-232-yet at different enough levels (relative to the DCGL) io fail the WRS test. This occurs because it is assumed that any difference between the reference area and survey unit concentration distributions is due to the presence of residual radioactivity in addition to background. This result clearly shows the importance of having background reference areas that are truly representative of the survey units being evaluated.

SUMMARY

During the period October 28 through 30, 1996, the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program of ORISE performed final status survey activities at the Cushing Refinery Site in Cushing, Oklahoma.

The objective of the final status survey activities was to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the MARSSIM methodology in Class 1 and Class 2 land area survey units at a site contaminated with thorium. Survey activities conducted included document reviews, surface scans, and surface soil sampling and analysis.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 22 cssap\\rcports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

The results of the final status survey were interpreted using the guidance contained in MARS SIM.

Both survey units passed the WRS statistical test, but the Class 1 survey unit did not pass the Elevated Measurement Comparison. Additionally, while the Class 2 survey unit did pass the release criterion, it was evident that the background reference area did not sufficiently represent the Class 2 area.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 23 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

FIGURES Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

508-010 (2) b 0 0 0

0 0 -

b 0

0 -

0 0 -

3 UNAFFECTED AREA #2

5 b

0 0 N 0

0 -

w UNAFFECTED AREA #4

UNAFFECTED AREA BOUNDS e PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS

~

I/ ACID SLUDGE PIT EJwATER I I I I I I I I I I I I RAILROAD b

b 0

0 0

0

~

v 0

0 0

0 N 1002000' N 1001000' N 1000000' N 999000' N 998000' N 997000' N 996000' N

FEET 1 000.J L I

360 'lr METERS FIGURE 1: Kerr-McGee Corporation, Cushing, Oklahoma -

Cushing Site Grid Block Areas UNAFFECTED AREA #3 Cushing Refinery Site (S08)-July 16, 1997 25 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.00 I

508-011 (1) 90N BON I I

! I I

l 21 l 28 l l

I l

70N I I I I I I I

60N 50N i

i i

i

!********************i********************<******

................. y ****************************************

1 1

1 *

1

l. *

.i i

l i

i *

~

i.

j l*

j.....................;.................. i********............. j.....................;.....................;................... j I

1

1 *

l 1 *

I 1

1 l

1 I

l I

l 40N i

i

ai i

i

~

i

~

i

~

i

~

I

.i l

i

~

[

i

~

30N t................. L................ ~.................... 1-................ J,................ =.................... J

~

i

~

20N I

I

I * *I

i

I I i"'"*"u ********t*""ii"'"""ri"""""**.*uuui""ii.. ""ii't**n*n**ii*.. *u* i,.,...,....,.,..,.,.!

~

i

~

i i

~

i 1

/

I *

.\\

I

1 10N i

I i

l i

l RMA-4 l i

~

i *

i 1

i

~

-10S 0

i *

\\

I

I I

.::::::::::::J:~~~::::J::~:::......... :.:::::::::::::1::::::~::::::::::i::::::::::]

0 10E 20E 30E 40E 50E 60E N

MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING LOCATIONS SURFACE SOIL 0

FEET I

I I 0

METERS 60 I I 20 FIGURE 2: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 Measurement and Sampling Locations Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 26 essap\\rcports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

508-013 (1) 33 45 57 34 35

..................... -uuu.,40.N..,,-------------------.******

............,.-o*******************

1 46 I

1 *

I

r

I

r

4 7 i.................... 1........ 30.N............. 1.... ~........,........ ~1............... i....... 1.......... ja........... *... l..... *................................ L...................

1

................... 1........ :

... : J

...

J

... r

... ~... *

........................ 1...................

l l

1

1.

1 a

1.

1 I

................... L

... o.o....

1..1 * ~

I * ~ *.................... L i

0~

1tE

~E 3rE 4tE 5tE siE i

i I i i i I

I i i

.................... 1....................1................... J

.................... t...................l................... J.................... l.................... L................. J I I I I I I I I

................... t....,.............. +................... }.................... t.................... !***................. ?.................... ;....................,.................... ?....................

I I I I I i I I I f

i i

i

~

i i

- - - - = ******************** = ******************** = ******************** = ******************** =..................... : ******************** : ****************** -= ******.***.*.*.***** = ********************

.................... I....................l.................... 1.................... 1....................l.................... 1.................... 1....................l.................... 1....................

58 59 N

ll MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING

~ b.

"l (""

LOCATIONS SURFACE SOIL J,

0 FEEf 6

I I I I

~

0 METERS FIGURE 3: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma -

Survey Block 46 (Class 2) -

Measurement and Sampling Locations Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997.

27 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

508-012 (1) 48 60 49 50 I

I

~

I I

f.;

I I

................ L

... ooJ I

I 1.................i..... acl.s~N.

..11.................. !

i i

Ii i

i ZON~

I i i

I I

I!

- I I i

i

- - i*

i i

1 1 i

i 20N i

i l

.l.l_

a! a, a!*

I i

!********* *********!........ slON....... *.. *... ]**** *... *... j** * ******** i****..... ******:.................... [****************l********************t********************i L................ L....... 0.,0....

~

j *

~

.................... L................... L..................l....................i 72 73 0,0 1 OE 20E 30E 40E 74 MEASUREMENT/SAMPLING LOCATIONS SURFACE SOIL N

...lL

'lr' FEET I I METERS FIGURE 4: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, Survey Block 61 (Background Reference Area) -

Measurement and Sampling Locations Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 28 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

600-004 (2) 90N BON !

I i

I l 27 i 28 1

1 1

1 70N I I I I I I I 60N j.................... ;.................... (......

.................,1,....................,1................... j i

l i *

i i *

i i

j j

1.10 j 1,36 0.9:5 0.97 j 1, 14 1.1 t j

66.7 3.23 38.2 50N 40N 30N 20N I

I *

,II!, i *

.1 i

l i.................... J.... 11...... 1.Qa.... l.s.2;;.. i.1,za...... 1 *.11........1.. 111.... ~. a............. i 1

i

i * *,. ~:,,..

i *

i 1

j i

1.14 j 1,38 1::4i4 : 1.15 i 1.08

1. 1 f j

.i 1.6~,.... ! ~.37

l l

i

,,.... ~ -

l l 1.04 1, 19 1.1 ~

1.18 l

l i *

.,,.. * -;1

'::,,. i

l 1.2p 1.15 ! 1.15 ~c 1.$

2.05~ j1.12 1.

1 2:

!................... t.. 1 ~J..... 1 ~h.... ~ :'Aa.. **! 2~8 *.l' 1~4:~..... 1~ 6... 1 I

1 1

.,,_ i

\\

I I

I

: *.. *=

i 1.0f 1.19 j.03 ~OBj 2.26 ~ 1~45 0.97 i i

.................. J.................... i........,... '......... i..............,,J..............,... t.................... i l

! 1 ~o, l~,.. *,.ae i 2.o~T.Jb 1 i,s i l

i

~

3.66 14.5 17.4 I

32.8 10N 0

l

.1 i....,

i.,..,,,,i1"*

l 1.2~

1.12

~.18,;,,}iffi 1.36 i RMA-4l

~ i *

~

"' j

j 1.22~29,1s 1.18 /1.31,.or 1.42 l

................... L

... ~

.2;......21L...,.. os...... i.;4............1...................

I 39 140 i

I

-105

..................... 1.................... 1..................... *.................... *.................... i.....................

0 10E 20E JOE 40E 50E 60E LOCATIONS MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING SURFACE SOIL A BIASED SOIL FROM SCAN RESULTS I 11111111 I GENERAL BOUND OF AREAS IDENTIFIED BY SCANS GROSS Th-232 CONCENTRATION (pCi/g) 0 I

0 N

..JL "Jr' FEET I I METERS 60 I I 20 FIGURE 5: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1)

Elevated Areas Identified by Scans and Soil Sample Locations Cushing Refinery Site (S08)- July 16, 1997 29 essap\\rcports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

600-001 (4) 90N BON I I I I I I I i

i 21

\\ 2a I

I i

I 70N I I i I i i i

~

60N SON I

I I

l I

r

.................. l.......................... of ""~i;'""i~~~""";*~t..................

i

i.

II:

i*

1.................... +..... 11...... 1.~a...... 1.s.2.... j.1.* 2.a...... 1.. 1.~.......1..111.....p.. a............. !

i i *

.i i

I I

1.1411.38 1-t 1.15 11.08 1.1t I

40N l

l.

l l

l i

! 1.04

1. i 9 1.65 i 1.37 1.1 ~ 1.18 i 1

i i

i *

.i

i

i 30N 20N 10N J...............

1 l 1 ~; :.'..~ ~:-~~~ ~.:r2~:.~~r,:.:~ ;:ir.................. j i

i

.i

,

i I 1

i 1.07 1.19 1.03 2.06!

2.26 1f45 0.97 j i

,.................. ~.................... (.....................,.................... ~..............,

a

=*

=

i,.20

,.~3 1.88 i2.09

,.3p,.W06 i

i I *

.i 1

i i

1 1.2~

1.12

~.1e 3.2~

1.36 1.2e i RMA-4i i "'i.

~

i **

1 i

i i

1.22~29 116 1.18 11.31 1.or 1.42 i i

L.................. L.. ~.2*1...... 21i..... 1

.. 05... J.j4............ l................... J I

1 39 1

40 I

I 0

-10S

~..................... ~...................... I.............................................................. ~.................... ~

0 10E 20E 30E 40E 50E 60E MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING LOCATIONS SURFACE SOIL II GROSS Th-232 CONCENTRATION (pCi/g) 0 6

N FEET I I METERS FIGURE 6: Kerr-McGee Coreoration Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1 J -

Posting Plot Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 30 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

600-003 (2) 33 45 34 35

..................... -..... 40N.....

j 46 j

11"ie Ji° 1i3j 1;:g 1r7 1~e1 1;:9 1r7 1.~2 i

i 1 48 1.47/

1.45 11.22 1.22 i 1.03 1~23 1.25 i 0.96 j.................... ;..... 30.N..................... ;................,i................ i...................;l................ i,...................................... ~....................

/

1.22 i.2e 1.37l 1.oe oisa o.eo ! o.95 oise 1.00 JI

114" i

i i

i ii i i

~.................... ~..... 20.N... o :........ 1.02~.... 1.;4...... ~s..... 1.is.~.... o.~e..... ~J..... 1.~2.~.. o.:e............................. ~....................

I 1.29 L, 1.44! 1.1e 111e o.a4! o.64 o16s 1.01 I

i i

i*

i II

i II i

j.................. )......10.N... 1 21 ********1.31 !**.. *1.17*..... {oe.... o.62)... o.a2...... ~.e&*****1.3S. i.. o.64-............................ (..................

i i

i i*

i

II

i i

I i 1.~3 1~4 1~11 1~2 0=4 o.:e j 1~3 1~5 1.~s I

.................... ;..... a.a.......

=

.................... J....................

i i

o,b 1rE 2iE 3?E iE 5r sil,E i

I I I I I i I I I

- - - - ¥**************************************************************"'********************1*********************)********************

~

E E

~

E 1

....................1................... L............... L................. !.................. J................... L

................1....................1....................L.................

' I I I I I I I I I

..................... 1.................... 1 ----***-******* I-*******----*** i

.................... 1

.................... I.................... 1.................... 1

.................... l....................

57 58 N

MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING LOCATIONS GROSS Th-232 CONCENTRATION (pCi/g)

SURFACE SOIL 1,

0 FEET I I METERS l

FIGURE 7: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma Survey Block 46 (Class 2) -

Posting Plot 6

I I 2 47 59 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 31 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

600-002 (2) 48 60 49 50 61 0.99 1.29 - *1.09 l 1.16 1.i1 1.25 ZONB I :

- *=*..

................... !........ 50N........... 1i5... l1* ~...... 1t..... 1~.... 11*:....... 1~.................... !.................. ! !.............. ;.!.................... !

1.44 1.14 1.47 l 1.20 1.42 1.09 l

i

- *=*..

i l

Ii 1.13 i1.30 1.4;1 1.24 !1.15 1.14 I l AQt..1

1 : : : :

'"*******+*********,c......... ~. I~......................................... *":l°*********************I*................... ***********.. *******<-*************.. ***ul*................ t*->*......... **********I I

1.31,Js 1.0411.03 o.J9 1.36 I

1 I l

- *=*..

- - - - t********30N........... l~**t1*~******1t******1~***-f1*:******1

~*********-****+******************-i--***************t+******************i 1.42 1.48 1.48 j 1.34 1,47 1.48]

I !

(

................... !........ 2DN....... *.........,........... *..... !... *..........,........... *.......................... !.................. --1................. L._._ !

1.04 j1.52 1.5.4 1.40 !1.32 1.l i

i l

i.,

l l

I 1J9 1r 1J7 ! 1i2 1~3,i, 1

I I

..................,,c.......... 1 QN...................... *.................... <..............................................................,....................,..................... ).................... 1 I

1.2s h.s4 1.~1 1.21 11.Ja 1.14 I

I I

I l

l

II!

i

l l

1 1 :3 1 ~s 0:9 /

1 i4 ois o:s

/

l

/

l OD

1*:s**r.. *.. ***-********., *~.O 1 OE 20E JOE 4~~............... -......................................... -..................... 7 4 72 MEASUREMENT /SAMPLING LOCATIONS SURFACE SOIL II GROSS Th-232 CONCENTRATION (pCi/g)

FIGURE 8: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma (Background Reference Area) -

Posting Plot Cushing Refinery Site (SOB)* July 16, 1997 32 0

I 0

N

~

T FEET I I METERS 6

I

~

Survey Block 61 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_ mar.001

Ill (1)...

<(

(1)

CJ C:

(1)...

(1) -

(1) 0::

"C C:

0...

Cl

..ll:::

CJ Ill cc 0 N co Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 (0

N 0

co (D

,buanba1:1 33 I

a10~

9'£

£ Cll Q)

L..

<{

s*z Q)

(.)

C Q)

L..

2 l

Q) a:::

'O 6' ~

C

i 0

L..

0)

~

g* ~

(.)

Cll co E

n

.!:)

Cll L..

0

0)

C.

0 n

N

]2 M

I

~

.r::

I-

0)

Q)

L..

i

0) u::::

g*o N

0 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Cl)

Ill u 0 N co Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997

<O N

0 co

<O

,'i:>uanbaJ::J 34 amv,.i s*£ q£ I s*z t

ro Q)

L..

D z

<{

t en en D fl ro 0

E ro g*~

L..

Ol 0

~

n I

~

u 0

a.

g*~

N Q)

M L..

t s*~

~

Ol

..c:

u:::

I-l In t n t n t I n t I ~

e*o j;*Q N

0 cssap\\repons\\cushing\\cus _mar. 00 I

aJOV'J g*c

£ g*z ro Q)

<(

z N

(J)

(J) ro fl 0

E ro s* ~

CJ) 0 ti n

I

~

0 5**

C.

N Q)

(")

~

J CJ)

.r:.

u::::

I-g* ~

t v*~

t n t In

~

I n t I s*o v*o

<D N

0

<X)

<D N

0

,buanbaJ:l Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 35 essap\\rcports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.00 I

TABLES Cushing Refmery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 essap\\Ieports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

TABLE6 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLES 16.30, 2.42 508S041 1.26 +/- 0.12d 1.28 +/- 0.04 22.74, 2.42 508S042 1.21 +/- 0.11 1.07 +/- 0.03 29.18, 2.42 508S043 1.21 +/- 0.11 1.11 +/- 0.03 35.62, 2.42 508S044 1.05 +/- 0.08 1.12 +/- 0.03 42.06, 2.42 508S045 1.34 +/- 0.11 1.39 +/- 0.04 6.64, 8.00 508S046 1.22 +/- 0.09 1.22 +/- 0.03 13.08, 8.00 508S047 1.29 +/- 0.08 1.22 +/- 0.03 19.52, 8.00 508S048 1.26 +/- 0.09 1.31 +/- 0.03 25.96, 8.00 508S049 1.18 +/- 0.09 1.17 +/- 0.03 32.40, 8.00 508S050 1.31 +/- 0.11 1.38 +/- 0.04 38.84, 8.00 508S051 1.07 +/- 0.08 1.14 +/- 0.03 45.28, 8.00 508S052 1.42 +/- 0.09 1.28 +/- 0.04 9.86, 13.58 508S053 1.22 +/- 0.09 1.21 +/- 0.03 16.30, 13.58 508S054 1.12 +/- 0.08 1.22 +/- 0.03 22.74, 13.58 508S055 1.18 +/- 0.10 1.24 +/- 0.03 29.18, 13.58 508S056 3.26 +/- 0.14 3.31 +/- 0.05' 35.62, 13.58 508S057 1.36 +/- 0.09 1.40 +/- 0.03 42.06, 13.58 508S058 1.28 +/- 0.09 1.13 +/- 0.03 13.08, 19.16 508S059 1.20 +/- 0.09 1.22 +/- 0.03 19.52, 19.16 508S060 1.33 +/- 0.08 1.32 +/- 0.03 25.96, 19.16 508S061 1.88 +/- 0.10 1.90+/- 0.04 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 37 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

TABLE 6 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLES (Continued) 32.40, 19.16 508S062 2.09+/- 0.10 2.15 +/- 0.04 38.84, 19.16 508S063 1.30 +/- 0.10 1.25 +/- 0.03 45.28, 19.16 508S064 1.06 +/- 0.09 1.09 +/- 0.03 9.86, 24.74 508S065 1.07 +/- 0.08 0.96+/- 0.03 16.30, 24.74 508S066 1.19 +/- 0.09 1.19 +/- 0.03 22.74, 24.74 508S067 1.03 +/- 0.08 1.08 +/- 0.03 29.18, 24.74 508S068 2.06 +/- 0.10 1.78 +/- 0.05 35.62, 24.74 508S069 2.26 +/- 0.12 2.03 +/- 0.04 42.06, 24.74 508S070 1.45 +/- 0.08 1.33 +/- 0.03 48.50, 24.74 508S071 0.97 +/- 0.08 0.96+/- 0.03 13.08, 30.32 508S072 1.23 +/- 0.09 1.18 +/- 0.04 19.52, 30.32 508S073 1.27 +/- 0.09 1.08 +/- 0.03 25.96, 30.32 508S074 1.58 +/- 0.09 1.42 +/- 0.03 32.40, 30.32 508S075 2.68 +/- 0.13 2.72 +/- 0.04 38.84, 30.32 508S076 1.41 +/- 0.11 1.35 +/- 0.04 45.28, 30.32 508S077 1.16 +/- 0.09 1.08 +/- 0.03 9.86, 35.90 508S078 1.25 +/- 0.10 1.03 +/- 0.04 16.30, 35.90 508S079 1.15 +/- 0.10 1.05 +/- 0.03 22.74, 35.90 508S080 1.15 +/- 0.10 1.11 +/- 0.03 29.18, 35.90 508S081 1.69 +/- 0.11 1.54+/- 0.04 35.62, 35.90 508S082 2.05 +/- 0.10 1.99 +/- 0.04 Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 38 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

TABLE 6 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Location8 Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLES (Continued) 42.06, 35.90 508S083 1.12 +/- 0.10 1.01 +/- 0.03 48.50, 35.90 508S084 1.25 +/- 0.08 1.08 +/- 0.03 13.08, 41.48 508S085 1.04+/- 0.08 1.06 +/- 0.03 19.52, 41.48 508S086 1.19 +/- 0.11 1.15 +/- 0.04 25.96, 41.48 508S087 1.65 +/- 0.10 1.58 +/- 0.04 32.40, 41.48 508S088 1.37 +/- 0.08 1.36 +/- 0.03 38.84, 41.48 508S089 1.13 +/- 0.08 1.08 +/- 0.03 45.28, 41.48 508S090 1.18 +/- 0.08 1.12 +/- 0.04 16.30, 47.06 508S091 1.14 +/- 0.08 1.05 +/- 0.03 22.74, 47.06 508S092 1.38 +/- 0.11 1.29 +/- 0.04 29.18, 47.06 508S093 1.44+/- 0.09 1.42 +/- 0.03 35.62, 47.06 508S094 1.15 +/- 0.10 1.15 +/- 0.03 42.06, 47.06 508S095 1.08 +/- 0.07 1.07 +/- 0.03 48.50, 47.06 508S096 1.14+/- 0.09 1.10 +/- 0.03 13.08, 52.64 508S097 1.17 +/- 0.10 1.15 +/- 0.03 19.52, 52.64 508S098 1.06 +/- 0.08 1.09 +/- 0.03 25.96, 52.64 508S099 1.92 +/- 0.12 1.81 +/- 0.05 32.40, 52.64 508S100 1.28 +/- 0.09 1.31 +/- 0.03 38.84, 52.64 508S101 1.17 +/- 0.07 1.12 +/- 0.03 45.28, 52.64 508S102 1.18 +/- 0.09 1.10 +/- 0.03

51. 72, 52.64 508S103 1.26 +/- 0.09 1.23 +/- 0.04 Cushing Refinery Site (S08)-July 16, 1997 39 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

TABLE 6 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLES (Continued) 16.30, 58.22 508S104 1.10 +/- 0.08 22.74, 58.22 508S105 1.36 +/- 0.09 29.18, 58.22 508S106 0.95 +/- 0.08 35.62, 58.22 508S107 0.97 +/- 0.08 42.06, 58.22 508S108 1.14 +/- 0.10 48.50, 58.22 508S109 1.14 +/- 0.09 BIASED SOIL SAMPLES FROM SCAN RESULTS near 35.62, 13.58 508S110 32.83 +/- 0.36 near 38.84, 19.16 508Slll 17.42 +/- 0.26 near 25.96, 19.16 508S112 38.19 +/- 0.39 near 35.62, 35.90 508S113 3.23 +/- 0.11 near 25.96, 41.48 508S114 66.69 +/- 0.49 near 25.96, 41.48 508S115 14.45 +/- 0.22 near 25.96, 52.64 508S116 3.66 +/- 0.14 8Refer to Figure 2.

%-232 concentration based on gamma emission from Ac-228 (911 keV).

'The Th-228 concentration was based on the gamma emission from Pb-212 (239 keV).

CUncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.

Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 40 Th-228c 1.14 +/- 0.03 1.31 +/- 0.04 1.11 +/- 0.03 1.04 +/- 0.03 1.05 +/- 0.03 1.02 +/- 0.04 32.88 +/- 0.15 17.45 +/- 0.11 38.15 +/- 0.16 3.50+/- 0.05 66.89 +/- 0.21 14.67 +/- 0.10 3.64 +/- 0.05 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

TABLE7 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 2 AREA-GRID BLOCK 46 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Location a Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c 4.54, 2.4 508$183 1.23 +/- 0.09d 1.25 +/- 0.03 11.12, 2.4 508$184 1.04+/- 0.08 1.01 +/- 0.03 17.70, 2.4 508S185 1.01 +/- 0.08 1.01 +/- 0.03 24.28, 2.4 508$186 1.02 +/- 0.07 1.01 +/- 0.03 30.86, 2.4 508S187 0.84+/- 0.08 0.79 +/- 0.03 37.44, 2.4 508$188 0.86+/- 0.08 0.77+/-0.04 44.02, 2.4 508S189 1.23 +/- 0.09 1.18 +/- 0.03 50.60, 2.4 508S190 1.15 +/- 0.08 1.08 +/- 0.03 57.18, 2.4 508$191 1.39 +/- 0.09 1.29+/- 0.03 1.25, 8.10 508S192 1.21 +/- 0.08 1.33 +/- 0.03 7.83, 8.10 508$193 1.31 +/- 0.08 1.21 +/- 0.03 14.41, 8.10 508S194 1.17 +/- 0.08 1.19 +/- 0.03 20.99, 8.10 508S195 1.08 +/- 0.08 1.01 +/- 0.03 27.57, 8.10 508S196 0.62+/- 0.06 0.57 +/- 0.02 34.15, 8.10 508S197 0.82+/- 0.06 0.75 +/- 0.03 40.73, 8.10 508$198 0.88 +/- 0.08 0.86 +/- 0.03 47.31, 8.10 508$199 1.35 +/- 0.10 1.30+/- 0.04 53.89, 8.10 508S200 0.64+/- 0.06 0.60+/- 0.02 4.54, 13.8 508S201 1.29 +/- 0.10 1.06 +/-.0.03 11.12, 13.8 508S202 1.11 +/- 0.08 1.21 +/- 0.03 17.70, 13.8 508S203 1.44+/- 0.10 1.35 +/- 0.03 24.28, 13.8 508S204 1.16 +/- 0.07 1.12 +/- 0.03 Cushing Refinery Site (SOB) - July 16, 1997 41 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

TABLE 7 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 2 AREA-GRID BLOCK 46 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c 30.86, 13.8 508S205 1.16 +/- 0.08 1.08 +/- 0.03 37.44, 13.8 508S206 0.84+/- 0.07 0.85 +/- 0.03 44.02, 13.8 508S207 0.64+/- 0.06 0.73 +/- 0.02 50.60, 13.8 508S208 0.65 +/- 0.06 0.66+/- 0.03 57.18, 13.8 508S209 1.07 +/- 0.08 1.19 +/- 0.03 1.25, 19.5 508S210 0.83 +/- 0.06 0.87 +/- 0.03 7.83, 19.5 508S211 1.02+/-.0.08 0.96+/- 0.03 14.41, 19.5 508S212 1.24+/- 0.09 1.32 +/- 0.03 20.99, 19.5 508S213 1.25 +/- 0.10 1.13 +/- 0.03 27.57, 19.5 508S214 1.25 +/- 0.08 1.17 +/- 0.03 34.15, 19.5 508S215 0.66+/- 0.06 0.76 +/- 0.02 40.73, 19.5 508S216 0.93 +/- 0.07 0.79 +/- 0.03 47.31, 19.5 508S217 1.12 +/- 0.08 1.03 +/- 0.03 53.89, 19.5 508S218 0.88 +/- 0.07 0.93 +/- 0.03 4.54, 25.20 508S219 1.22 +/- 0.09 1.28 +/- 0.03 11.12, 25.20 508S220 1.26 +/- 0.08 1.23 +/- 0.03 17.70, 25.20 508S221 1.37 +/- 0.08 1.31 +/- 0.03 24.28, 25.20 508S222 1.06 +/- 0.08 1.06+/- 0.03 30.86, 25.20 508S223 0.98 +/- 0.09 1.01 +/- 0.03 3 7.44, 25.20 508S224 0.80+/- 0.06 0.75 +/- 0.02 44.02, 25.20 508S225 0.95 +/- 0.08 0.86 +/- 0.03 Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 42 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

TABLE 7 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 2 AREA-GRID BLOCK 46 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b 50.60, 25.20 508S226 0.98 +/- 0.08 57.18, 25.20 508S227 1.00 +/- 0.07 1.25, 30.90 508S228 1.48 +/- 0.09 7.83, 30.90 508S229 1.47 +/- 0.10 14.41, 30.90 508S230 1.45 +/- 0.09 20.99, 30.90 508S231 1.22 +/- 0.08 27.57, 30.90 508S232 1.22 +/- 0.08*

34.15, 30.90 508S233 1.03 +/- 0.07

40. 73, 30.90 508S234 1.23 +/- 0.10 47.31, 30.90 508S235 1.25 +/- 0.09 53.89, 30.90 508S236 0.96+/- 0.09 4.54, 36.6 508S237 1.36 +/- 0.09 11.12, 36.6 508S238 1.30 +/- 0.10 17.70, 36.6 508S239 1.53 +/- 0.10 24.28, 36.6 508S240 1.29 +/- 0.10 30.86, 36.6 508S241 1.17 +/- 0.09 37.44, 36.6 508S242 1.08 +/- 0.07 44.02, 36.6 508S243 1.28 +/- 0.08 50.60, 36.6 508S244 1.37 +/- 0.09 57.18, 36.6 508S245 1.02 +/- 0.08 47.29, 23.87 508S246 1.14+/- 0.07 0Refer to Figure 3.

IYfh-232 concentration based on gamma emission from Ac-228 (911 keV).

Cfhe Th-228 concentration was based on the gamma emission from Pb-212 (239 keV).

'Vncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.

Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 43 Th-228c 0.93 +/- 0.03 0.97 +/- 0.03 1.37 +/- 0.03 1.48 +/- 0.04 1.36 +/- 0.03 1.26 +/- 0.03 1.16 +/- 0.03 0.98+/- 0.03 1.13 +/- 0.03 1.11 +/- 0.04 0.96+/-0.03 1.40 +/- 0.04 1.29 +/- 0.03 1.50 +/- 0.04 1.27 +/- 0.03 1.24 +/- 0.03 1.06 +/- 0.03 1.20+/- 0.03 1.33 +/- 0.03 0.95 +/- 0.03 1.17 +/- 0.03 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

TABLES RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Location8 Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c 3.25, 0.19 508S117 1.48 +/- 0.12d 1.49 +/- 0.04 9.83, 0.19 508S118 1.26 +/- 0.08 1.34 +/- 0.03 16.41, 0.19 508S119 0.89 +/- 0.09 0.92+/- 0.03 22.99, 0.19 508S120 1.34+/- 0.10 1.27 +/- 0.03 29.57, 0.19 508S121 0.95 +/- 0.10 1.07 +/- 0.03 36.15, 0.19 508S122 0.95 +/- 0.11 0.92 +/- 0.03 6.54, 5.89 508S123 1.28 +/- 0.10 1.27 +/- 0.04 13.12, 5.89 508S124 1.54+/- 0.09 1.38 +/- 0.03 19.70, 5.89 508S125 1.41 +/- 0.10 1.23 +/- 0.04 26.28, 5.89 508S126 1.21 +/- 0.10 1.39 +/- 0.04 32.86, 5.89 508S127 1.36 +/- 0.10 1.50 +/- 0.04 39.44, 5.89 508S128 1.14+/- 0.09 1.12 +/- 0.04 3.25, 11.59 508S129 1.39 +/- 0.09 1.30+/- 0.03 9.83, 11.59 508S130 1.22 +/- 0.09 1.34 +/- 0.03 16.41, 11.59 508S131 1.37 +/- 0.09 1.40 +/- 0.03 22.99, 11.59 508S132 1.32 +/- 0.11 1.30 +/- 0.04 29.57, 11.59 508S133 1.33 +/- 0.09 1.35 +/- 0.04 36.15, 11.59 508S134 1.31 +/- 0.11 1.39+/- 0.04 6.54, 17.29 508S135 1.04 +/- 0.10 1.22 +/- 0.04 13.12, 17.29 508S136 1.52 +/- 0.10 1.31 +/- 0.04 19.70, 17.29 508S137 1.54 +/- 0.09 1.31 +/- 0.03 26.28, 17.29 508S138 1.40 +/- 0.10 1.39 +/- 0.04 32.86, 17.29 508S139 1.32 +/- 0.09 1.48 +/- 0.04 Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 44 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _mar.001

TABLE 8 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Locationa Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228c 39.44, 17.29 508S140 1.38 +/- 0.10d 1.41 +/- 0.04 3.25, 22.99 508S141 1.42 +/- 0.11 1.38 +/- 0.04 9.83, 22.99 508S142 1.48 +/- 0.09 1.17 +/- 0.04 16.41, 22.99 508S143 1.48 +/- 0.09 1.33 +/- 0.04 22.99, 22.99 508S144 1.34+/- 0.12 1.34+/- 0.04 29.57, 22.99 508S145 1.47 +/- 0.10 1.41 +/- 0.04 36.15, 22.99 508S146 1.48 +/- 0.09 1.58 +/- 0.04 6.54, 28.69 508S147 1.40+/- 0.10 1.33 +/- 0.04 13.12, 28.69 508S148 1.45 +/- 0.10 1.39 +/- 0.04

19. 70, 28.69 508S149 1.27 +/- 0.08 1.30+/- 0.03 26.28, 28.69 508S150 1.39 +/- 0.10 1.44 +/- 0.04 32.86, 28.69 508S151 1.48 +/- 0.09 1.39 +/- 0.04 39.44, 28.69 508S152 1.34+/- 0.09 1.35 +/- 0.04 3.25, 34.39 508S153 1.31 +/- 0.10 1.28 +/- 0.04 9.83, 34.39 508Sl54 1.46 +/- 0.09 1.27 +/- 0.03 16.41, 34.39 508S155 1.04+/- 0.07 0.91 +/- 0.02 22.99, 34.39 508S156 1.03 +/- 0.08 0.98 +/- 0.03 29.57, 34.39 508S157 0.89 +/- 0.08 0.88 +/- 0.03 36.15, 34.39 508S158 1.36 +/- 0.09 1.34 +/- 0.03 6.54, 40.09 508S159 1.13 +/- 0.08 1.11 +/- 0.03 13.12, 40.09 508S160 1.30+/- 0.08 1.23 +/- 0.03 19.70, 40.09 508S161 1.41 +/- 0.10 1.41 +/- 0.04 26.28, 40.09 508S162 1.24+/- 0.09 1.13 +/- 0.04 Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 45 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

TABLE 8 (Continued)

RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAHOMA Location a Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)

(E, N coordinates)

ORISE Sample ID Th-232b 32.86, 40.09 508S163 1.15 +/- 0.09 39.44, 40.09 508S164 1.14+/- 0.11 3.25, 45.79 508S165 1.44 +/- 0.11 9.83, 45.79 508S166 1.14 +/- 0.10 16.41, 45.79 508S167 1.47 +/- 0.12 22.99, 45. 79 508S168 1.20 +/- 0.10 29.57, 45.79 508S169 1.42 +/- 0.09 36.15, 45.79 508S170 1.09 +/- 0.09 6.54, 51.49 508S171 1.35 +/- 0.09 13.12, 51.49 508S172 1.14 +/- 0.11 19.70, 51.49 508S173 1.20 +/- 0.10 26.28, 51.49 508S174 1.32 +/- 0.07 32.86, 51.49 508S175 1.38 +/- 0.10 39.44, 51.49 508S176 1.23 +/- 0.09 3.25, 57.19 508S177 0.99 +/- 0.09 9.83, 57.19 508S178 1.29 +/- 0.09 16.41, 57.19 508S179 1.09 +/- 0.11 22.99, 57.19 508S180 1.16 +/- 0.10 29.57, 57.19 508S181 1.27 +/- 0.09 36.15, 57.19 508S182 1.25 +/- 0.09 8Refer to Figure 4.

IYfh-232 concentration based on gamma emission from Ac-228 (911 keV).

C'fhe Th-228 concentration was based on the gamma emission from Pb-212 (239 keV).

ctoncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.

Cushing Refine,y Site (508)-July 16, 1997 46 Th-228c 1.16 +/- 0.03 1.10 +/- 0.03 1.33 +/- 0.04 1.16 +/- 0.03 1.57 +/- 0.04 1.22 +/- 0.03 1.39 +/- 0.04 1.19+/-0.03 1.23 +/- 0.03 1.24+/- 0.03 1.18 +/- 0.03 1.17 +/- 0.03 1.40 +/- 0.03 1.24 +/- 0.03 1.17 +/- 0.03 1.19 +/- 0.03 1.32 +/- 0.04 1.27 +/- 0.03 1.20+/- 0.03 1.31 +/- 0.03 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

REFERENCES Kerr-McGee Corporation (KMC). Final Radiation SUIVey of Four Unaffected Areas of the Cushing Refinery Site. April 1995.

Multiagency Radiation SUIVey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Public Review Draft.

October 1996a.

Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual.

Draft for Public Comment.

December 1996b.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). SUIVey Procedures Manual for the Energy/Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 9. Oak Ridge, TN; April 30, 1995a.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Quality Assurance Manual for the Energy/Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 9. Oak Ridge, TN; January 31, 1995b.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Energy/Environment Systems Division, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, Revision 9. Oak Ridge, TN; January 31, 1995c.

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Revised Draft-Final Status Survey Plan Using MARSSIM Survey Methodologies for the Cushing Refinery site, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Cushing, Oklahoma. Oak Ridge, TN; October 21, 1996.

Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 47 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Cushing Refinery Site (S08)- July 16, 1997 APPENDIXA MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION essap\\rq,orts\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

APPENDIXA MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION The display of a specific product is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or its manufacturer by the author or his employer.

DIRECT RADIATION MEASUREMENT Instruments Eberline Pulse Ratemeter ModelPRM-6 (Eberline, Santa Fe, NM)

Ludlum Ratemeter Model 12

{Ludlum Measurements, Inc.,

Sweetwater, TX)

Detectors Victoreen Nal Scintillation Detector Model 489-55 3.2 cm x 3.8 cm Crystal (Victoreen, Cleveland, OH)

LABO RA TORY ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION High Purity Extended Range Intrinsic Detectors Model No. ERVDS30-25195 (Tennelec, Oak Ridge, TN)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, TN) and Multichannel Analyzer 3100 Vax Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, CT)

Cushing Refineiy Site (508)- July 16, 1997 A-1 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

High-Purity Germanium Detector Model GMX-23195-S, 23% Eff.

(EG&G ORTEC, Oak Ridge, TN)

Used in conjunction with:

Lead Shield Model G-16

( Gamma Products, Palos Hills, IL) and Multichannel Analyzer 3100 Vax Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, CT)

Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 A-2 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_ mar.001

APPENDIXB SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

APPENDIXB SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES SURVEY PROCEDURES Surface Scans Surface scans were performed by passing the detectors slowly over the surface; the distance between the detector and the surface was maintained at a minimum - nominally about 10 cm. Identification of elevated levels was based on increases in the audible signal from the recording and/or indicating instrument. Combinations of detectors and instruments used for the scans were:

Gamma Nal scintillation detector with ratemeter Soil Sampling Approximately 1 kg of soil was collected at each sample location. Surface soil samples were collected at 0-15 cm depth. Collected samples were placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and labeled in accordance with ESSAP survey procedures.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES.

Gamma Spectroscopy Soil samples were dried, mixed, crushed, and/or homogenized as necessary, and a portion sealed in 0.5-liter Marinelli beaker or other appropriate container. The quantity placed in the beaker was chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geometry. Net material weights were determined and the samples counted using intrinsic germanium detectors coupled to a pulse height analyzer system.

Background and Compton stripping, peak search, peak identification, and concentration calculations Cushing Refinery Site (SOS) - July 16, 1997 B-1 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

were performed using the computer capabilities inherent in the analyzer system. All photopeaks associated with the radionuclides of concern were reviewed for consistency of activity. Energy peaks used for determining the activities of radionuclides of concerns are:

Th-228 Th-232 0.239 MeV from Pb-212*

0.911 MeV from Ac-228*

Secular equilibrium assumed.

UNCERTAINTIES AND DETECTION LIMITS The uncertainties associated with the analytical data presented in the tables of this report represent the 95% confidence level for that data. These uncertainties were calculated based on both the gross sample count levels and the associated background count levels. Additional uncertainties, associated with sampling and measurement procedures, have not been propagated into the data presented in this report.

Detection limits, referred to as minimum detectable concentration (MDC), were based on 3 plus 4.65 times the standard deviation of the background count [3 + 4.65./BKG]. When the activity was determined to be less than the MDC of the measurement procedure, the result was reported as less than MDC. Because of variations in background levels, measurement efficiencies, and contributions from other radionuclides in samples, the detection limits differ from sample to sample and instrument to instrument.

CALIBRATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Calibration of all field and laboratory instrumentation was based on standards/sources, traceable to NIST, when such standard/sources were available. In cases where they were not available, standards of an industry recognized organization were used.

Cushing Refinery Site (508) - July 16, 1997 B-2 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Analytical and field survey activities were conducted in accordance with procedures from the following documents of the Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program:

Survey Procedures Manual, Revision 9 (April 1995)

Laboratory Procedures Manual, Revision 9 (January 1995)

Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 7 (January 1995)

The procedures contained in these manuals were developed to meet the requirements of DOE Order 5700.6C and ASME NQA-1 for Quality Assurance and contain measures to assess processes during their performance.

Quality control procedures include:

Daily instrument background and check-source measurements to confirm that equipment operation is within acceptable statistical fluctuations.

Participation in EPA and EML laboratory Quality Assurance Programs.

Training and certification of all individuals performing procedures.

Periodic internal and external audits.

Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 B-3 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

APPENDIXC SPREADSHEET RESULTS FOR WILCOXON RANK SUM TESTS Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Spreadsheet for WRS Test Class 1 Area (RMA-4)

Th-232 Area Adjusted Data Ranks Ref Area Ranks (pCi/g) 1.48 R

1.636 120 120 1.26 R

1.415 80 80 0.89 R

1.0528 7

7 1.34 R

1.498 96 96 0.95 R

1.1093 15 15 0.95 R

1.1149 16 16 1.28 R

1.442 84.5 84.5 1.54 R

1.703 126.5 126.5 1.41 R

1.567 109 109 1.21 R

1.37 72 72 1.36 R

1.521 100 100 1.14 R

1.297 59 59 1.39 R

1.551 104 104 1.22 R

1.383 75 75 1.42 R

1.581 112 112 1.48 R

1.639 121 121 1.48 R

1.64 122 122 1.34 R

1.504 97 97 1.47 R

1.625 116 116 1.48 R

1.635 118.5 118.5 1.40 R

1.562 107 107 1.45 R

1.609 114 114 1.27 R

1.428 82 82 1.39 R

1.554 105 105 1.37 R

1.532 101 101 1.32 R

1.479 92 92 1.33 R

1.493 94 94 1.31 R

1.472 89 89 1.04 R

1.203 40 40 1.52 R

1.679 124 124 1.54 R

1.703 126.5 126.5 1.40 R

1.559 106 106 1.32 R

1.484 93 93 1.38 R

1.543 103 103 1.48 R

1.635 118.5 118.5 1.34 R

1.496 95 95 1.31 R

1.473 90 90 1.46 R

1.621 115 115 1.04 R

1.198 38.5 38.5 1.03 R

1.185 35 35 0.89 R

1.0455 6

6 1.36 R

1.515 99 99 1.13 R

1.285 56 56 1.30 R

1.462 88 88 1.41 R

1.565 108 108 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 C-1 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

1.24 R

1.395 77 77 1.15 R

1.314 64 64 1.14 R

1.297 59 59 1.44 R

1.599 113 113 1.14 R

1.297 59 59 1.47 R

1.626 117 117 1.20 R

1.362 71 71 1.42 R

1.577 110 110 1.09 R

1.249 48 48 1.35 R

1.514 98 98 1.14 R

1.304 62 62 1.20 R

1.359 70 70 1.32 R

1.476 91 91 1.38 R

1.539 102 102 1.23 R

1.387 76 76 0.99 R

1.1499 26 26 1.29 R

1.449 86 86 1.09 R

1.253 49 49 1.16 R

1.319 65 65 1.27 R

1.434 83 83 1.25 R

1.408 78 78 1.26 s

1.26 52 0

1.21 s

1.212 42 0

1.21 s

1.211 41 0

1.05 s

1.054 8

0 1.34 s

1.336 67 0

1.22 s

1.219 44 0

1.29 s

1.293 57 0

1.26 s

1.259 51 0

1.18 s

1.182 33 0

1.31 s

1.31 63 0

1.07 s

1.068 11 0

1.42 s

1.423

81 0

1.22 s

1.218 43 0

1.12 s

I 1.12 17 0

1.18 s

1.177 31 0

3.26 s

3.259 135 0

1.36 s

1.357 69 0

1.28 s

1.278 55 0

1.20 s

1.198 38.5 0

1.33 s

1.326 66 0

1.88 s

1.884 128 0

2.09*

s 2.085 132 0

1.30 s

1.299 61 0

1.06 s

1.059 9

0 1.07 s

1.069 12 0

1.19 s

1.186 36 0

1.03 s

1.027 4

0 2.06 s

2.055 131 0

Cushing Refinety Site (508)- July 16, 1997 C-2 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

2.26 s

2.256 133 0

1.45 s

1.452 87 0

0.97 s

0.9687 3

0 1.23 s

1.23 45 0

1.27 s

1.268 53 0

1.58 s

1.578 111 0

2.68 s

2.677 134 0

1.41 s

1.409 79 0

1.16 s

1.159 28 0

1.25 s

1.247 47 0

1.15 s

1.147 25 0

1.15 s

1.146 24 0

1.69 s

1.693 125 0

2.05 s

2.052 130 0

1.12 s

1.124 18 0

1.25 s

1.245 46 0

1.04 s

1.035 5

0 1.19 s

1.191 37 0

1.65 s

1.653 123 0

1.37 s

1.372 73 0

1.13 s

1.128 19 0

1.18 s

1.184 34 0

1.14 s

1.142 21 0

1.38 s

1.376 74 0

1.44 s

1.442 84.5 0

1.15 s

1.154 27 0

1.08 s

1.081 13 0

1.14 s

1.136 20 0

1.17 s

1.171 29 0

1.06 s

1.063 10 0

1.92 s

1.922 129 0

1.28 s

1.275 54 0

1.17 s

1.172 30 0

1.18 s

1.179 32 0

1.26 s

1.258 50 0

1.10 s

1.098 14 0

1.36 s

1.356 68 0

0.95 s

0.9461 1

0 0.97 s

0.966 2

0 1.14 s

1.143 22 0

1.14 s

1.144 23 0

Mean of reference area 1.29 STD DEV Ref. Area 0.16 Wr=

5580 Mean of Class 1 area 1.34 The critical value is 4862; since Wr is greater than STD DEV Class 1 0.40 critical value, hypothesis rejected & survey unit passes Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 C-3 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.00 I

Spreadsheet for WRS Test Class 2 Area (Grid block 46)

Th-232 Area Adjusted Data Ranks Ref Area Ranks (pCi/g) 1.48 R

1.636 125 125 1.26 R

1.415 84 84 0.89 R

1.0528 27 27 1.34 R

1.498 101 101 0.95 R

1.1093 32 32 0.95 R

1.1149 34 34 1.28 R

1.442 88 88 1.54 R

1.703 129.5 129.5 1.41 R

1.567 115 115 1.21 R

1.37 78 78 1.36 R

1.521 105 105 1.14 R

1.297 65 65 1.39 R

1.551 110 110 1.22 R

1.383 79 79 1.42 R

1.581 117 117 1.48 R

1.639 126 126 1.48 R

1.64 127 127 1.34 R

1.504 102 102 1.47 R

1.625 121 121 1.48 R

1.635 123.5 123.5 1.40 R

1.562 113 113 1.45 R

1.609 119 119 1.27 R

1.428 85 85 1.39 R

1.554 111 111 1.37 R

1.532 107 107 1.32 R

1.479 96 96 1.33 R

1.493 99 99 1.31 R

1.472 93 93 1.04 R

1.203 45 45 1.52 R

1.679 128 128 1.54 R

1.703 129.5 129.5 1.40 R

1.559 112 112 1.32 R

1.484 98 98 1.38 R

1.543 109 109 1.48 R

1.635 123.5 123.5 1.34 R

1.496 100 100 1.31 R

1.473 94 94 1.46 R

1.621 120 120 1.04 R

1.198 44 44 1.03 R

1.185 43 43 0.89 R

1.0455 26 26 1.36 R

1.515 104 104 1.13 R

1.285 61.5 61.5 1.30 R

1.462 91 91 1.41 R

1.565 114 114 Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 C-4 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

1.24 R

1.395 82 82 1.15 R

1.314 70 70 1.14 R

1.297 65 65 1.44 R

1.599 118 118 1.14 R

1.297 65 65 1.47 R

1.626 122 122 1.20 R

1.362 75 75 1.42 R

1.577 116 116 1.09 R

1.249 55 55 1.35 R

1.514 103 103 1.14 R

1.304 68 68 1.20 R

1.359 74 74 1.32 R

1.476 95 95 1.38 R

1.539 108 108 1.23 R

1.387 80 80 0.99 R

1.1499 37 37 1.29 R

1.449 90 90 1.09 R

1.253 58 58 1.16 R

1.319 71 71 1.27 R

1.434 86 86 1.25 R

1.408 83 83 1.23 s

1.227 50 0

1.04 s

1.038 25 0

1.01 s

1.01 20 0

1.02 s

1.016 21 0

0.84 s

0.8406 9

0 0.86 s

0.8612 11 0

1.23 s

1.229 51 0

1.15 s

1.151 38 0

1.39 s

1.391 81 0

1.21 s

1.21 46 0

1.31 s

1.313 69 0

1.17 s

1.171 42 0

1.08 s

1.081 30 0

0.62 s

0.6223 1

0 0.82 s

0.8207 7

0 0.88 s

0.8816 13 0

1.35 s

1.353 72 0

0.64 s

0.6439 3

0 1.29 s

1.287 63 0

1.11 s

1.111 33 0

1.44 s

1.436 87 0

1.16 s

1.161 40 0

1.16 s

1.158 39 0

0.84 s

0.8448 10 0

0.64 s

0.6357 2

0 0.65 s

0.6549 4

0 1.07 s

1.068 29 0

0.83 s

0.8333 8

0 Cushing Refinety Site (508)- July 16, 1997 C-5 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus _ mar.001

1.02 s

1.019 23 0

1.24 s

1.237 53 0

1.25 s

1.25 57 0

1.25 s

1.249 56 0

0.66 s

0.6617 5

0 0.93 s

0.9301 14 0

1.12 s

1.115 35 0

0.88 s

0.879 12 0

1.22 s

1.22 49 0

1.26 s

1.264 59 0

1.37 s

1.369 77 0

1.06 s

1.063 28 0

0.98 s

0.9832 17 0

0.80 s

0.8016 6

0 0.95 s

0.9452 15 0

0.98 s

0.9842 18 0

1.00 s

0.9992 19 0

1.48 s

1.479 97 0

1.47 s

1.47 92 0

1.45 s

1.446 89 0

1.22 s

1.216 47 0

1.22 s

1.219 48 0

1.03 s

1.03 24 0

1.23 s

1.231 52 0

1.25 s

1.245 54 0

0.96 s

0.9621 16 0

1.36 s

1.355 73 0

1.30 s

1.303 67 0

1.53 s

1.527 106 0

1.29 s

1.285 61.5 0

1.17 s

1.169 41 0

1.08 s

1.082 31 0

1.28 s

1.277 60 0

1.37 s

1.367 76 0

1.02 s

1.018 22 0

1.14 s

1.138 36 0

Mean of reference area 1.29 STD DEV Ref. Area 0.16 Wr=

5975.5 Mean of Class 2 area 1.11 The critical value is 4676; Wr is greater than STD DEV of Class 2 0.22 critical value, hypothesis rejected & survey unit passes Cushing Refinery Site (508)-July 16, 1997 C-6 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

Spreadsheet for WRS Test (for reversed Class 2 and Background Reference Area)

Class 2 Area - (AS THE BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA)

Th-232 Area Adjusted Data Ranks Ref Area Ranks (pCi/g) 1.48 s

1.476 115 0

1.26 s

1.255 54 0

0.89 s

0.8928 7

0 1.34 s

1.338 75 0

0.95 s

0.9493 8

0 0.95 s

0.9549 9

0 1.28 s

1.282 59 0

1.54 s

1.543 123.5 0

1.41 s

1.407 97 0

1.21 s

1.21 45 0

1.36 s

1.361 79 0

1.14 s

1.137 29 0

1.39 s

1.391 89.5 0

1.22 s

1.223 47 0

1.42 s

1.421 101 0

1.48 s

1.479 116 0

1.48 s

1.48 117 0

1.34 s

1.344 76 0

1.47 s

1.465 110 0

1.48 s

1.475 113.5 0

1.40 s

1.402 94 0

1.45 s

1.449 107 0

1.27 s

1.268 55 0

1.39 s

1.394 91 0

1.37 s

1.372 81 0

1.32 s

1.319 68 0

1.33 s

1.333 73 0

1.31 s

1.312 64 0

1.04 s

1.043 21 0

1.52 s

1.519 120 0

1.54 s

1.543 123.5 0

1.40 s

1.399 93 0

1.32 s

1.324 70 0

1.38 s*

1.383 86 0

1.48 s

1.475 113.5 0

1.34 s

1.336 74 0

1.31 s

1.313 65 0

1.46 s

1.461 108 0

1.04 s

1.038 18 0

1.03 s

1.025 17 0

0.89 s

0.8855 6

0 1.36 s

1.355 78 0

1.13 s

1.125 27 0

1.30 s

1.302 62 0

1.41 s

1.405 95.5 0

Cushing Refinery Site (S08) - July 16, 1997 C-7 essap\\reports\\cusbing\\cus_mar.00 I

1.24 s

1.235 50 0

1.15 s

1.154 34 0

1.14 s

1.137 29 0

1.44 s

1.439 104 0

1.14 s

1.137 29 0

1.47 s

1.466 111 0

1.20 s

1.202 44 0

1.42 s

1.417 100 0

1.09 s

1.089 22 0

1.35 s

1.354 77 0

1.14 s

1.144 32 0

1.20 s

1.199 43 0

1.32 s

1.316 66 0

1.38 s

1.379 83.5 0

1.23 s

1.227 48 0

0.99 s

0.9899 12 0

1.29 s

1.289 60 0

1.09 s

1.093 24 0

1.16 s

1.159 35 0

1.27 s

1.274 57 0

1.25 s

1.248 53 0

1.23 R

1.387 87 87 1.04 R

1.198 42 42 1.01 R

1.17 37 37 1.02 R

1.176 38 38 0.84 R

1.0006 14 14 0.86 R

1.0212 16 16 1.23 R

1.389 88 88 1.15 R

1.311 63 63 1.39 R

1.551 125 125 1.21 R

1.37 80 80 1.31 R

1.473 112 112 1.17 R

1.331 72 72 1.08 R

1.241 51 51 0.62 R

0.7823 1

1 0.82 R

0.9807 11 11 0.88 R

1.0416 20 20 1.35 R

1.513 118 118 0.64 R

0.8039 3

3 1.29 R

1.447 106 106 1.11 R

1.271 56 56 1.44 R

1.596 126 126 1.16 R

1.321 69 69 1.16 R

1.318 67 67 0.84 R

1.0048 15 15 0.64 R

0.7957 2

2 0.65 R

0.8149 4

4 1.07 R

1.228 49 49 Cushing Refinery Site (508)- July 16, 1997 C-8 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.001

0.83 R

0.9933 13 13 1.02 R

1.179 40 40 1.24 R

1.397 92 92 1.25 R

1.41 99 99 1.25 R

1.409 98 98 0.66 R

0.8217 5

5 0.93 R

1.0901 23 23 1.12 R

1.275 58 58 0.88 R

1.039 19 19 1.22 R

1.38 85 85 1.26 R

1.424 102 102 1.37 R

1.529 122 122 1.06 R

1.223 46 46 0.98 R

1.1432 31 31 0.80 R

0.9616 10 10 0.95 R

1.1052 25 25 0.98 R

1.1442 33 33 1.00 R

1.1592 36 36 1.48 R

1.639 129 129 1.47 R

1.63 128 128 1.45 R

1.606 127 127 1.22 R

1.376 82 82 1.22 R

1.379 83.5 83.5 1.03 R

1.19 41 41 1.23 R

1.391 89.5 89.5 1.25 R

1.405 95.5 95.5 0.96 R

1.1221 26 26 1.36 R

1.515 119 119 1.30 R

1.463 109 109 1.53 R

1.687 130 130 1.29 R

1.445 105 105 1.17 R

1.329 71 71 1.08 R

1.242 52 52 1.28 R

1.437 103 103 1.37 R

1.527 121 121 1.02 R

1.178 39 39 1.14 R

1.298 61 61 Mean of reference area 1.11 STD DEV Ref. Area 0.22 Wr=

4120.5 Mean of Class 2 area 1.29 The critical value is 4545; Wr is less than STD DEV of Class 2 0.16 critical value, hypothesis NOT rejected & survey unit fails WRS Cushing Refinery Site (SOS)- July 16, 1997 C-9 essap\\reports\\cushing\\cus_mar.00 I

ML19106A234

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Dr. Powers:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML19106A234

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Dr. Powers:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search