ML20006B661
| ML20006B661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Stauter J KERR-MCGEE CORP. |
| To: | Sjoblom G NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002050207 | |
| Download: ML20006B661 (20) | |
Text
-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
k' YO" f
[
1 FA
@ KEM9c0EECORPORMN n u wois et ma.oxta oua env. oxt. oui n e February 1, 1990 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECE1PT REQUESTED Mr. Glen L. Sjoblom, Deputy Director Division of Fuel Cycle, Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
License SNM-928; Docket 70-925 Amendment Request:
On-site Disposition of Uranium Containing Soils Meeting NRC Branch Technical Position Option 2 Criteria
Dear Mr. Sjoblom:
Cimarron Corporation has completed the special sampling program protocol that was transmitted to you on December 12, 1989.
The results of the
- program, which was designed for evaluating the correlation between borehole gamma logging data and corresponding uranium concentrations, are contained in the attached report.
The results show the gamma counts Cimarron previously obtained do not
-correlate' with the uranium content measured at the corresponding count locations.
The gamma data, therefore, are not ap)topriate for
- estimating definitively the volume of soil around the Cacility that potentially contains uranium at levels greater than the Branch Technical Position Option 1 criteria.
In light of the uranium concentration data, the volume of soil to be left in place under 0) tion 2 of the Branch Technical Position is probably very small.
n fact, the Option 1 criteria likely are met selow a depth of four feet if an averaging technique is applied similar to that permitted under the Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR 192 (averaging of soil concentrations over an area of 100 square meters for each 15 cm soil interval).
We appreciate the input and assistance of you and your staff and believe with this study that any remaining concerns relating to the amendment request can be quickly resolved.
Cimarron would like to move forward quickly with its proposal to relocate to the designated disposal area identified Option 2 materials excavated from the top 7
four feet of the site and respectively requests early approval of the
/
amendment application.
o667n50707 900201
{DR ADOCK0700{ggd
()f c/t/ck: D?hb
Mt
- ,m
- 3. <
s p'
We are available at~ your convenience to discuss any additional information required.
t.
U Sincerely, i
\\[:,,
P J.C. Stauter, Director Environmental Affairs J
JCS:gw
' cc:
James Berger, ORAU Don Stenjawski, NRC Region III p
i i
.l l ',
e E
-l
=;
?
4 i
., t y
L i-t
.g
-t i
I
-r
-i i
i e
L F
i i
y L
0188s i
2-E
.h m '
g{
4 e
,-+.,y..,
--.m
- + - - - ~ - <
- ~ + " - -
=
I 4
h CIMARR0N FACILITY SPECIAL SUBSURFACE S0lt SAMPLING DECEMBER 1989 INTRODUCTION Kerr-McGee Corporation and Cimarron Facility representatives met on December 1, 1989 with Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to discuss-the Facility's amendment application for on-site burial of soil under NRC's Branch Technical Position Option 2 criteria.
NRC staff were concerned that the borehole gamma logging data submitted by the Facility were inadequate for characterizing the concentration of uranium below the surface and thus did not provide a basis for necessary pathway evaluations.
Cimarron agreed to conduct a special sampling program to p; ovide further definition as to the correlation between the logging results and the concentration of uranium at the corresponding locations.
The sampling program has been completed and included gamma logging of 36 boreholes, gamma spec analysis for uranium content of 397 samples from various depths in each hole and radiochemical analysis (alpha pulse height) for uranium content of 10% of the samples.
The program and uranium results are presented below.
Analyses for Th-232, K-40, Ra-226 and Ra-228 are underway and will be incorporated into this report when completed.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS One area of the Facility plant yard was selected for systematic sampling (excavation area) and the entire f acility area was sampled on a random basis (random site area).
Soil samples were collected L
from the 0-l',
1-2',
3-4',
5-6',
7 8',
9-10',
11-12', 13-14', 15-16',
17-18' and 19-20' intervals from each borehole by driving a split l
n-
[.s r
spoon to the first interval, then boring to that interval, driving the spoon again, boring again, until the final depth was reached.
i Excavation Area A 30m X 30m area just north of the east end of the uranium plant was gridded at 10m intervals for placement of sixteen boreholes at the grid intersections.
The locations are shown in Figure 1.
Random Site Area The f acility area for random sampling was defined to include all the area within the uranium plant boundary extending to the previously used evaporation ponds and sanitary lagoons.
This area was gridded and through a random number generator program, twenty locations selected for sampling the excavation area.
The random site area and locations of the boreholes are L
shown in Figure 2.
Sample Analyses t
All soil samples were analyzed for uranium activity (U-238 l
plus U-234) using the Cimarron Facility gamma spec analysis system.
Approximately 10% of the samples were radiochemically l
analyzed at the Kerr-McGee Technical Center.
The gamma spec analysis results are included in Table 1 for the excavation l
area sampics and in Table 2 for the random site area samples.
Table 3 contains the radiochemical analyses for the excavation area samples and Table 4 shows these analyses for the random site area samples.
1 l
.1 EVALUATION OF SAMPLING RESULTS Excavation Area The special sampling program generated 177 samples from the excavation area of which 48 were above the four foot depth and 129 were below the four foot depth.
Twelve sample results between the surface and two foot depths exceeded 30 pCi/g; all of the sample results between the 2 and 4 foot depths were 30 pCi/g or less; and three samples f rom deeper than 4 feet were greater than 30 pCi/g (Cimarron Facility gamma spec analysis).
These three deep sample results were 63, 87 and 73 pCi/g, all less than the Option 2 levels of 100 pCi/g for soluble uranium and 250 pCi/g for insoluble uranium.
- However, the radiochemical analyses of these samples by the Kerr-McGee Technical Center were all less than 30 pCi/g, i.e.,
1.4, 4.0 and 3.5 pCi/g, respectively.
Random Area Samples The random site area sampling generated 220 samples from random sample locations of which 60 were above the four foot depth and 160 were below the four foot depth.
Ten sample l
results between the surface and four foot depths exceeded 30 pCi/g.
None of the samples collected below four feet exceeded 30 pCi/g.
Gamma Logging vs. Radiochemical Analysis l
Each study area borehole was gamma logged at the two foot intervals corresponding to soil sample locations.
The count
-rate data obtained were evaluated relative to the uranium i
concentration results at that interval.
An X-Y scatter plot l
of the data is included as Figure 3.
A regression analysis j
p L
i was performed and an R-squared (R ) value of 0.1 obtained.
This low value indicates there is basically no correlation l
between the gamma logging results and the uranium 2
concentrations.
The R value approaches I when there is a l
good correlation.
Radiochemical vs. Gamma Spec Analyses Ten percent of the samples taken were submitted to the Kerr-McGee Technical Center for radiochemical analysis (alpha i
pulse height) for the purpose of comparison to the gamma spec
+
results.
The results show that at lower uranium concentrations, indicated in the data reported in Table 5, the Cimarron Facility gamma spec analysis results are biased high for less than Option I concentrations.
The data have been plotted (X-Y scatter plot of Radiochemical vs.
Gamma Spec Results) and are included as Figure 4
Regression analysis of the data indicates an R-squared value of 0.92 (Table 5) meaning there is good correlation.
Concerning the bias at the lower concentrations, Oak Ridge Associated Universities also reported that "the Kerr-McGee analytical procedure (gamma spec system) can provide an acceptably accurate measurement of enriched uranium in soil within the range of Option 1 and Option 2 concentrations l
(See Attachment 1 letter from Mr. James D.
- Berger,
- Director, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program, l
ORAU to Mr. Davis Hurt, NRC-NMSS dated August 31, 1989.)
l-CONCLUSION Cimarron Corporation has based previous volume estimates for soil containing greater than the Option 1 concentration (30 pCi/g) for enriched uranium on borehole gamma logging results.
The sampling 2-1-90 SNM-928;70-925
3 7.-
l',
L.
results obtained from the December 1989 special sampling program do not support the use of the logging method alone as providing an acceptably accurate volume estimate.
The gamma logging count rate and. uranium concentration data do not correlate to a high degree.
.l
.i The' radiochemical analysis results obtained in the special sampling i
program indicate that the Cimarron facility gamma spec analyses do
[
provide accurate definition of uranium in the ' soil and indicate the t.
volume to be left i n-s i t.u under Option 2 of the Branch Technical-
' Position is small.
The Option 1 concentration of 50 pCi/g can be imputed to be generally met below the four foot level.
i i
i A
h i
i I
l l
l 0159s I
e
'i
TAeLE 1 Y
EXCav4TI0es AREA SAMPLE WESULTS
'O SAMPLE N_1LMBER DATE GRID LOCATION 0-l*
l-Z' 1-1'
' it-ft' Z-A' 1-19' 11-12' 13-14' 15-16' 17-18' 19-29' E-1 12/13/89 170N. 110E 25 51 13 18 20 22 7.4 16 12 13 13 E-2 12/12/89 16CN. 110E
-29 13 11 13 11 9
13 8
13 13
'12 E-3 12/13/89 150N. 110E 81 13 11 8.2 11 10 14 12 14 E-4 12/13/89 140N. 110E 410 37 13 27 16 13 4
15 12-16 13 E-5 12/12/89 170N. 120E 28 20 20 9.4 12 15 14 25 12 5.2 11 E-6 12/11/89 160N. 120E 46 110 13 23 13 23 23 22 73 12 12 E-7 12/13/89 150N. 120E 39 17 11 5.6 9.1
'11 12 16 14 11 12 y3 E-8 12/13/89 140N. 120E 180 120 11 8.1 7.4 16 20 25 13 15 12 l
E-9 12/12/89 170N. 130E 12 17 14 10 13 11 13 11 15 26 13 E-10 12/11/89 160N. 130E 20 15 18 30 19 15 11 87 13 14 11 E-11 12/11/89 ISDN. 130E 27 18 12-5.6 8.0 16 21 13 14 12 E-12 12/13/89 140N. 130E 79 51 20 17 17 15 13 14 9.8 13 13 (10-11')
(16-17')
( 8-9' )
- E-13 12/12/89 170N. 140E' 21 61 5.3 18 21 16_
14 12 11 11 17 13 E-14 12/11/89 1604.,140E 15 27 16 21 14 28 63 7.1 15 13 14 E-15 12/12/89 150N. 140E 51 7.1 13 14 16 26 22 13 13 11 6.4 E-16 12/13/89 140N. 140E 29 17 14 16 14 15 14 5.0 22 15 14
=
?
is J,
C' 1123E-
~__
TASLE 2
?
RANDOM SAMPLE RESULTS 4
CIMARRON FACILITY - GMeu SPEC. ANALYSIS o
URANIUM ACTIVITY *, pC1/g SAMPLE 16UPSER DATE GRID LOCATION 9-l' 1;.Z' 2-l' 1:;&'
Z-3' 2.::19' 11-12*
13 14' 15-16' 17-18' 19-29' R-1 12/14/89 273W. 188E 11 17 15 23 12 7.4 12 18 11 8.3 7.1 R-2 12/18/89 133N. 123E 332 120 7.3 12 14 6.7 18 9.4 11 13 13 R-3 12/18/89 46N. 112E 60 15 11 8.4 12 9.3 9.8 8.1 14 R-4 12/19/89 17W. 81E 21 13 14 11 8.6 4
20 -
13 12 11 11 R-5 12/14/89 2154 123E 23 15 12 15 13 13 14 16 15 9.2 19.4 R-6 12/19/89 23N. 123E 53 16 10 8.1 3.3 5.7 9.1 6.9 5.8 8.5 11 R-7 12/14/89 212N i.19E 9.9 33 10 11 17 13 12 12 15 15 13 s
R-8 12/14/89 176N. 207E 15 17 9.9 13 12 12 9.7 13 15 12 11 w
R-9 12/18/89 58N. 172E 134 36 19 16 12 14 16 4.4 20 12 9.3 R-10 12/14/89 65N.
33E 13 15 12 15 24 to 10 15 16 13 8.6 '
R-11 12/14/89 291N. 111E 24 22 16 15 6.8 9.2 3.1 6.9 9.2 9.2 13 R-12 12/19/89 32N. 151E 11 22 33 14 22 6.3 5.2 14 6.4 6.9 9.6 R-13 12/18-19/89 364N. 280E 16 16 11 11 13 11 9.8 20 19 11 6.7 R-14 12/19/89 6N. 136E 21 12 16 9.1 20 7.5 13 7.5 7.7 6.4 13 R-15 12/19/89 104, 60E 7.5 14 13 7.2 10 13 16 14 8.3 19 15 R-16 12/14/89 2214 135E 24 15 17 22
'12 12 22 16 18 13 15 R-17 12/14/89 106N. 144E 18 37 8
14 12 22 12 12 19 18 15 R-18 12/13/89 162N. 175E 30 42 12 13 29 24 14 16 20 8.7 14 R-19 12/18/89 121N. 135E 15 23 12 15 13 12 13 13 7.5 8.9 9.8 R-20 12/19/89 54, 158E 25 14 11 8.9 6.3 10 7.7 5.2 6.3 9.0 13 en
N&
~
1123E -
-}
TABLE 3 EXCAVATION AREA SAMPLE RESULTS CIMARRON FACILITY - RADIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS Sample U-238 U-235 U-234 Number Depth. Ft.
pCi/o DCi/o DCi/c E-1 1-2 4.22 1 0.39 0.29 i 0.10 1.2 1 0.68 E-2 0-1 6.02 1 0.43 0.97 1 0.05 2.4 1 0.87 E-3 0-1 16.7 1 1.2 2.57 1 0.12 69.1 1 2.4 E-4 0-1 72.5 1 1.3 8.1 i 1.6 371 1 11 E-4 17-18 1.78 1 0.17 0.11 1 0.04 4.89 1 2.8 E-5 13-14 0.80 1 0.05 0.018 1 0.008 0.72 1 0.05 E-6 15-16 0.31 1 0.03 0.052 1 0.014 3.14 1 0.24 E-7 0-1 5.77 1 0.51 1.08 1 0.22 25.9 i 1.08 E-8 1-2 22.1 1 1.5 2.1 1 0.47 148 2 3.9 E-B 13-14 2.33 1 0.23 0.21 1 0.07 8.7 1 0.45 E-9 17-18 0.78 i 0.05 0.029 1 0.010 0.93 2 0.05 E-10 13-14 0.71 1 0.05 0.070 1 0.015 3.24 1 0.10 E-11 11-12 0.63 2 0.04 0.023 1 0.009 0.84 1 0.05 E-12 0-1 20.8 1 0.34 2.3 1 0.11 87.8 1 2.8 E-13 1-2 2.25 1 0.13 0.14 1 0.03 6.11 i 0.21 E-14 11-12 0.64 1 0.05 0.014 1 0.007 0.77 1 0.05 E-15 9-10 0.72 1 0.05 0.043 1 0.05 1.17 1 0.06 E-16 0-1 5.88 1 0.45 0.48 1 0.02 24.1 1 0.91 i
ll31E
l TABLE 4 RANDOM SAMPLE RESULTS i
CIMARR0N FACILITY - RADIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS Sample U-238 U-235 U-234 Number Depth. Ft.
pCi/Q DCi/0 DC1/o R-1 5-6 2.21 2 0.13 0.22 1 0.04 4.33 1 0.18 R-2 0-1 63 1 6 2.5 1 1 262 1 11 R-2 1-2 27 2
3.4 1 0.7 118 1 4 R-3 0-1 12 1 1 1.2 1 0.3 61 2 2 9
R-4 5-6 4.1 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.04 7.0 1 0.3 R-5 7-8 1.01 1 0.08 0.02 2 0.01 1.2 1 0.08 I
R-6 0-1 13 1 0.8 0.23 1 0.4 56 2 4 F
R-7 1-2 1.21 1 0.09 0.07 1 0.02 3.5 1 0.16 R-8 13-14 1.02 1 0.07 0.05 1 0.02 1.00 1 0.07 R-9 0-1 26 1 1.4 4.5 1 0.6 115 1 3 R-9 1-2 8.1 1 0.5 1.1 1 0.2 34.5 1 1 R-10 3-4 0.81 1 0.05 0.023 1 0.009 0.81 1 0.05 R-11 1-2 0.89 1 0.05 0.05 1 0.01 1.12 1 0.06 R-12 3-4 0.96 1 0.06 0.06 1 0.01 1.96 1 0.08 R-13 5-6 1.01 2 0.07 0.02 2 0.01 0.90 1 0.06 R-13 13-14 0.45 1 0.04 0.028 1 0.010 0.47 1 0.04 R-14 3-4 0.41 1 0.04 0.020 i 0.008 0.45 1 0.04 R-15 13-14 1,79 1 0.11 0.10 1 0.027 1,82 1 0.11 R-16
' 11-12 0.86 1 0.07 0.038 1 0.015 0.71 2 0.07 R-17 1-2 6.22 1 0.43 0.66 1 0.14 24.7 1 0.86 R-18 1-2 1.37 1 0.08 0.10 1 0.05 1.60 2 0.19 R-18 7-8 0.37 1 0.034 0.037 1 0.011 0.80 1 0.050 R-19 7-8 1.27 1 0.07 0.04 1 0.012 1.21 1 0.07 R-20 0-1 0.74 1 0.05 0.088 1 0.017 2.18 1 0.09 1131E 2-1 SNM-928;70-925
4 -
3 e4 '
?
' z.;
TABLE 5 1+,
CAEL: i
~ Comparison of Radiochemical vs. Gamma Spec Analysis Results Radiochemical Gamma-Spec.
/'
_ Sample U234+U238 U234+U238 E
[
R-1, 5-6 ft 6.5 23
,R-2,'0-l'ft.
325 332 D FL t
'R-2, 1-2 ft_
145 120 t
Ri3, 0-1-ft 73 60 R-4,;5-6 ft 11 11 R-5',
7-8 ft 2.2 13 i
L
- R-6, 0-1-ft
69 53 4.7 33 R-7,_1-2 ft~ _
2 13 R-8',
13-14 ft R-9,.0-1 ft 141 134 i
f R-9,-1-2 ft' 43 36 l
1, R-10, 3-4 ft 1.6 12 E
R-11, 1-2fft 2
22 R-12, 3-4'ft 2.9 33 R-13, 5-6:ft 1.9 11 j
H R-13, 13-14'ft 0.9 20 p,
1R-14, 3-4.ft' O.9 16 l
L
. R-15, ~'13-14 of t -
3.6 14 R-16,'11-12 Eft.
1.6 22 h
R-17, 1-2 ft 31 37 R-18, 1-2Rft 3'
42
.R-18,e7-8 ft-
-1.2-29 R-19, 7-8 ft'
_2.5-13 R-20,_0-1 ft 2.9 25' L
E-1,jl-2'ft 17 51
~
H JE-2,LO-1 ft 30 29 L
-E-3,.0-1?ft' e5 81 E-4, 0-inftf 444
.444 E-4,17-18 ft 6.7 16 E-5, 13-14 ft:
1.5 25 E-6,;15-16~ft 3.5 73 n t-l E-7 g0-1 ft~
32 39' i
E-8, 1-2 ft 170 120 E-8, 13-14 ft-11 25 l
E-9, 17-18 ft 1.7 26 l
L E-10,.13-14 ft-4 87 l
E-11,' 11-12 ft 1.5 21 E-12, 0-1.ft 109 79 E-13, 1-2.ft 8.4 61
.E-14,;11-12 ft 1.4 63
)
L E-15 ', 9-10.ft
.1. 9 26
-t
-E-16, 0-1 ft'
'30 29
{
' Regression Output:
-Constant 19.05460 No. of Observations 42 Std. Err of Y-Est 22.71762 Degrees of Freedom 40
[;
R' Squared.
0.924935 p
-X Coefficient (s) 0.880689 l-
.Std' Err of'Coef.
0.039669 L
u u uu f
l-
/
i m
l
~
' (ll
/
/
\\
/
I
/
l l
[
2,3,G,0, a.B.E.B.
i-s e g e g e g o '-
deU+9e3*
'~'
'l -
g
- g i
l g
g u
i_
i ai s
M 111 5
-s (aoon - loos)
(300m-15cs) '
O a-11 3
~
rIaoRa 2
[
g cmAnnaN rr.ILrrr -
\\
N i
RAtEXM SAMPLING WCATINS N
i A
osc essR,, 1989 N (22an - aoos) t l
1-i sAnrraar (180N - 308)
S R-17 LAGOON
,l R-8
~
(180n - 100E) g d
I l
'?
e G
-13 COAL R & D R-18 PLAlff
]
9"~
_. __ d t
j l
n g R-19 l(130N - 200E)
.(130N - 300E) l SUB STA.
.i l
{
T I
J O
I n-10 e R-9 l
9 norm y,
E I
R-3 e
-g R-12 g
M eR-6 e R-4
~
U R-15 $
R-14 R-20 l
e e
~
(ON - 308)
(ON - 200E)
~
. ~ ~..
~
.-~
v
FIGEEtE 13 w
J.
Cimarron Facility Gamma Logging vs. Uranium Concentration 50000 -
E o_40000 -
O a) c*.
t g
30000 -
c
- l$*. -
s s O
m.
Q-s w
.: T.s a)
.*.r* A (Y 20000 -
.. s.V f.j,*$***t.
- . s.sr., : *.,
a)
.D
- ~s
- $ " M**
O f
u 10000 -
,,.. s <.*...
n N/
~
0 i
i i
iiiii i
r i
1 i i i ri r
i i
i i i iii 2
C 1
. 1' O 10;2 10 U-23L p us LU-238, pCi g
.__._.z1.
.._...____;._.m
.1.,
9
py-FIGlNtB 4
~.
.. Radiochemical vs. Gamma: Spec : Analysis Nc.
te
'Cimarron FacEity - Dec 1989 Sampling C
450 D
400 -
n ci NU 350 -
c.
~
O dn j
N 300 -
1 i
i 3
l 3
l e
250 -
[
+n i
N Ia 200' -
v d
1 150 -
(n O
o O
O E
300 _
E o
o O
O o
]It O
50
-_O
% Ba b
O i
i e
i i
i wg O
100 200 300
-400
.e
.s..
Radiochemical (U-234 + U-238, pCi/g) i l
o t
M 1
m I
..c,.,.-
A,.
,~_....,...;.a....
)
c.)4 a
4 K.
ATTAC19erf 1 a..
..,m,,"
Oak Ridge -
b Associated Post Offee Box 117 Universities Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37831-0117
[-
August-31, 1989-t
~
L Mr. David Hurt Division of Industrial end Medical Nuclear Safety Mail Stop 6H3 i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l-
[;
Subject:
- CROSS CHECK URANIUM ANALYSES - KERR MCCEE SAMPLES
Dear Mr. Hurt:
'The attached tables summarize the results of analyses, performed to evaluate-
-the Kerr McGee-technique for measuring total uranium in soil samples from the Crescent site. ~ Table 1 presents alpha spectrometry analyses for isotopic-uranium in six samples. Results indicate an average U-235 enrichment of 2.5 to 4
-3.04 and a U 234/U 235 activity ratio of 21.7 1 3.0;- these_ findings are.
{
l consistent with the site history and the earlier -information provided'by -
L Kerr-McGee. Total uranium levels determined for these samples by ORAU and j
l-Kerr McGee are in good agreement, with exception of the background level
-l
-samples (COR 20), for which the Kerr McGee-analysis ~ indicates: almost three 1
times'as much. total uranium activity as ORAU. ORAU analyses on samples COR 2 are about 616 higher than the Kerr McGee value. The other four samples from j
1 c
L this group are in agreement to within ratios of 0.93 to 1.28 -with an average I
of 1.08.-
,q Table 2 presents the determination of total uranium, based on gamma analysis i
for U-235 and U-238 and the activity ratio of U 234/U-235, established by alpha
~
i spectrometry-(Table 1). The ratio of ORAU to.Kerr-McGee results range from 0.63 to 2.01 with an average of 1.15.
Eight of the twelve ~ data pairs agree within these associated 954 confidence intervals. and eleven of the twelve data -
= pairs are in agreement within their 994 confidence intervals. Sample COR-16 is the only one for'which the paired data do not agree within their 3a uncertainty L
L values.
1
'l 1
On the basis of these results, it is ORAU's opinion that the Kerr-McGee i
analytical procedure can provide an acceptably accurate measure.of enriched uranium in soil, within the range of Option 1 and Option 2 concentrations, as identified in NRC's Branch Technical Position of October 23, 1981.
It should i
J. :-
- /
2-August 31, 1989
-Mr. Hurt-be noted that these, samples did not contain any other radionuclides at other--
1 than typical background levels; if-other gamma emitting nuclides such as -
thorium, are present at levels above background, the accuracy of thisLprocedure may be compromised..
Sincerely, James D. Berger, Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program-
-JDB:jrw cc:-
L. Rouse.-(NRC/NMSS, 6H3)
C 'LaRoche, (NRC/NMSS, 6H3)
'D. Tiktinsky, (NRC/NMSS, 6A4)
C. France, (NRC, Region III) l 1
l 1
1
'I~I'00 Syy-923; 70 9g5
, _,..;,j
'^ -' '
._ y a
d N
,'e 3
m C
TABLE 1 RESULTS OF ALPHA SPECTROMETRY ANALYSES -
OM SELECTE0 SOIL SAMPLES KERR-Mc0EE
~
CRESCEftT. OKLAMOMA ORAU Anelvete (pCi/s)
Kerr-McGee Velve [pci/a)
Retle Semple
- U-234 U-235' U-238 Total U Total U ORAU/Kerr-McGee COR - 2 260 i Sc 12.4 1 2.1 28.0 1 2.7 3C3.4 i 8.7 185.8 1 7.0 1.61 w
e COR - 8 27.9 1 1.6 2.2 1 0.6
'8.3 1 0.9 38.4 i 1.9 29.9 i 4.0 1.28 COR - 13 871 1 34 55 i 12 237 1 18 1163 1 40 1107.8 1 45.4 1.05 COR - it 215 1 7 11.4 1 1.9 50.8 1 3.3 277.6 1 7.7 264.2 1 9.1 1.05 COR - 19 22.7 i 1.3 0.8 1 0.4 5.0 i 0.7 26.1 1 1.8 28.2 1 3.4 0.93 COR - 20 2.3 i 0.3 0.2 1 0.1 1.4 1 0.3 3.9 i 0.4 10.4 1 3.3 0.38 aKerr-McGee Identificetion.
bAverage U-234/U-235 octivity ratio = 21.7 i 3.0.
CUncertainties represent the 95% confidence intervel beoed on countin8 etetistice.
m O
N
.C.2 O
t to N
- J'
.e,
~.m m
m.
.m
,. e :;.( \\
L :=,
i N
m TABLE 2 ~
g
.ggg RESULTS OF AA.PfetSPECTROMETRY ANALYSES 4
ON SELECTED SOIL 54frLES o
' KERR-14e0EE 1
' CRESCENT. OKLAHOMA Kerr-44cose Velve (pCi/e)
.' Ret le -
ORAU Analysis (pCi/a)
ORAU/Kerr-sec0ee b
.Totel U Sample 8 U-235 U-238.
Totel U 1.47 COR - 1 4.8 1 0.Ge 17.3 1 0.8 109 1 20 74.4 i 5.0 COR - 3 5.0 1 0.5 15.8 1 0.8 114 1 19 98.8 1 7.2 1.15 d
COR - 4 5.4 1 0.3 26.9 i 1.2 123 1 25
~145.9 1 7.3 0.84 COR - 5 2.5 1 0.3 10.0 1 0.6 57 i 15 54.1 1 4.0 1.05 T
COR - 6 0.2 1 0.1
-2.1 1 0.3 4.5 1 6.9 7.2 1 3.6 0.63 COR - 7 2.0 1 0.3 7.61 0.8 A5 1 13 49.4 1 4.4 0.91 COR - 9 4.5 1 0.2 18.7 2 0.6 102 1 21 74.2 1 3.8 1.37 COR - 10 2.2 1 0.3 8.8 i 0.7 50 i 14 64.8 1 4.0 0.77 COR - 11 9.4 1 0.1 60,4 1 0.6 213 i 37 180.0 1 6.3 1.18 COR - 12 3.1 1 0.3 11.9 1 0.6 70 1 16 76.9 i 4.4
'O.91 COR - 16 2.4 1 0.2 9.9 1 0.4 55 i 15 27.3 1 3.7 2.01 COR - 18 2.0 1 0.2 8.1 i 'O.5 45 i 14 29.6 i.4.0 1.52 M
s, eKerr-McGee Identificatlon.
E
%esed on overage ratio of U-234/U-235 of 21.713.0
]
cUncertainties represent the 964 confidence interval beoed on countine statistice.
l y
I 1
_ _ _ _.