ML20055H179
| ML20055H179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1990 |
| From: | Madera J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| 388629, NUDOCS 9007250282 | |
| Download: ML20055H179 (22) | |
Text
{ '* a.
.g
\\ l\\
VOID SHEET TO:
License fee fianagement Branen FRots:
$.LU
SUBJECT:
VOIDED APPLICATION Control, Number:
m p, Applicant:
7 76 d.9 Date Voided:
/6 @O Reason for Void:
- (N fw h.
/
4
)
h Signature cate 9
Attachment:
i Official Recoro Copy of Voided Action l
.FOR LFf18 USE OfiLY e
Final Review of VOID Completed:
O Refund Authorized and processed No~Retuno Lus --
O Fee Exempt or Fee i40t Requireo Comments:
kl
)tt m J - T) [k Log completed 9
I
- k. %
Processeo by:
/
h
.n g
9007250282 900416 a
ryl.
2 REG 3 LIC70 MATLSLICENSING PDR
. a.
u
'e
,1 e,t :- - -, ' '<
~ mv.-
V-m.
w e,. gg u r
,=1 N,,,
m, ki'm m,.,
r N, #e~t 2 s
t i u y
m ~m y
r 1'
- y [.
E f % m.. y, hh n.
,m w.
- -A'il a !
s..,. d /
O
'I "M C'
I/
4 3 x<-
p ['
h[N
/4 "
'A-Y O
8 i
-r,,
t b; M:
y+
Jb'jI m
8
'N'.',
Y4 4i
,r 1
1 71 ir M ",
- 4,5
~
- ; s @:. M,g ', >J]w-1 N
P-Q' l
- Q rh 2
y c
+r a,
ea qp
+
w;p nam,e,s, ; x a~
y yJ V[: ', -Mau C
y i
, = g e, -
us.
~1 < 4
. - on.. - zm qe 3'
w
) ff id
,7
,i
,m.-
p g
..;;g
.g e
.d-
.g' 1
Qi V h.. :
i}
~
"ye 3,y
& l; M,.*
~l id N}NMNaW,,[N T*
M(&["iO-d t
t!
+'
1 i N. s[ ' N. D *
-1. :
LI N F. O R. ~M A T I O N i F R O M s L,T Su y " ' ' '
+
. !(F,0M d. M' SUS 5):-.-
$$ u N
s' 6
< n a
w f.s SWQM.' d.
s N; a M N L:'
W,l n.
w
~'
W w n w.SETWEEN:?,
n
- 1 o
umnah a, -
1 i :: ' PR OG R A M : C005 :j 2.1215!
, M]
S t _ E r.
Qw(
_ 1: <.
....:=
is L.
p u tj Q L fLICENSC FE.ETMANAGEMENT.3RANC.hi/ ARM; bdML iANDT f STATUSJC00E:l07 f
j N'
W M.EG10NAlitICENSING,f5ECTIONS:
- t FIE(CATEGORY:11 A:
Wi._M 7 ?% ',
s W@,4.
& ti X P,.
D AT EP1991.0 6 30.;
J
- F ~"~ - C O M F N T S : 1 -- -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.e W
s.
J:;:
+
?
a v ;g,..n.
ww
- y*"
og**eeejel e<*
eo eoeeeeeeeeeeoee$
eee 4e-
-D_6 u
( m:
+
'segeo
%";micw" J 'a'
- ou**
t-*
r*
g %w ; m, y.dGO,.
m
- p n,
l
$g W.LICENSEM EELTRANSMITTAL-s - - -
1
. e s
__y x (;
9 g
w
( f.
- t J IQ jy%..._ ?..;
y Ly% h MakJ EGION-e MM..
?c-M 1
un:
'R 3
1
=s k4@nd@#%, $f pP PLIC ANT / LI CE NS EE :,
.. : w W
flyf s:A P PLIC A T I O N e A T;T A C H E D :,
y' q
o q.
ky
_ y
'W,[;4 7" f
CINARRON:CORRORATION! ~
W RECEIVEDTDATE:
100205:
U q
$g g %
(;00CKEThNO:
'7000925 y
g#,pW (CONTROLMNo~.t
__386629;.
i !
1
- LICEd$EiNO.:
=SNM-928 Y
' 7, Q b[g h gp 4 4ACIIONiT{PELit
. AMENDMENT-d @L Ei
]
r
- y m;
a g
n-. %
M G b2h iFE FATTACHE0 h '
- M
^1
= ~ -
a 4.md Y ---
N w"p,h u AMOIJNT:,'
- ed u
U A CHECK 1" 0** c-"
mQ ny
-~~--
, o; 4
s r 1
w #y9p s.,.@o.C,OM. M. E.N T $ t.
' ', x.,, y]
i
, 1 i
%qF., D_
c, oc m
- l 2
,3
.,. ;i$Ct.A wp v>
DTE f
.J h LWhN YA
~
J.S 5 g ng o < - h-- d
'@--gS-..
m,
&n W
- i
s-~~--~~:
k WD. $b..4L:ICENSELFEETMANAGEMEN : B R A NC h :(CH EC KiWH EN M IL E S TON E403 DI S! (E h
m.
,.r
.,, =,, ;..,.,..
t L moon
,m --,
QUNT:.
., J w
o,,
m&.w; wc,
p; v9
.G W{ ? cs.EEUC,AT"E".-G O R:Y m A, N O, T:
V 3
m Iw 4,
F
-~~------------------------
, i, yql
(:' ';
h. h * ;'
q' L,
i,.
a T M2
- s. -3.6..
'I-
.,..,i..
P 7 TQ_ '4 ! C U R R EATc F E E ; F A !O ~. M A P P L I C A T I O RM A Y~ BEEPROCESS50
' ' ^
P M.M. E N DM E N T o, g:
Q,. [ w]liw ] { h C y g {i' t~
T dl;i 5
i
~
=
m 4WE i 7LICEN *-.,4 N
m u w% :c I -
e
/
p(
r
/
(
& ;; 4-. '.7a'3. 9 g :-.13
- J^.
}'
l'.
w.
2 y>
e.-----------.
q @w 9
1 4
i, d-
'n 1-V h.
g, M.i; t
w
-.~------
a wwa qmw:
w-J a
w wQMC.,T
[,. -
m
- 5I4Nt0
^
dh$y$ mM P.
Wis f- -
.gg{-r i
/ '
s
- 1 M;g mo i,
a-U j
~p,i
,5 4
QI R
Tk f
l 1.d y
$ ;ig 'w:- ' n
.j'
- 9-
'! j Nfis t
-\\
6 yt t
+
V,W M fA.J.' l Q~
- '! =
q _ r i; r-
- ^ -..
~r.
1
-j k',A Q--
d
,lL h '
{'
r
[
ll, g p g 1
db Y.w" ' ?N
%. ifl.i
~o
& ~. L t
- If 4
2 s
i r r 4
a }..
w, %,
4
,im k
m w w ;ov
%y ;.}
5, p 8 r
~s fy g g,
-bh?
$E
,y, g
lb l [ + I'.M k
T 3
l
(
Q/
W.r t
l l:*., 5 )3,.. g r'f f, ; j k:h hJ Ji OED M-:3 s ' '[ i w,..
u._.;w___..___,._,_..,_...__;,..,.__,__a_,,,;..,
luf
- '
- ; t.
+
[.
sQw KERR Mcoggcogpoggjoy Kinn Mcott CENTER e OKL AMOWA City, ORL A**0W A fMS February 1, 1990 M
090-00955 CERTIFIED MAIL 4
g gf RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
/$
Mr. Glen L. Sjoblom, Deputy Director Division of Fuel Cycle, Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
License SNM-928; Docket 70-925 2
'd 9 Amendment Request:
On-site Disposition of Uranium;Conta
.in'g Soils Meeting NRC Branch Techni al Position Option =2;Cri ria
Dear Mr. Sjoblom:
'd 5 h u
A Cimarron Corporation has completed the special sampling program protocol that-was transmitted to you on December 12, 1
- The results of the. program, which was designed for evalua ng the correlation between borehole gamma logging data and correspondi~ng 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 appropriate for estimating definitively the volume of soil. around the facility that prientially Eontains 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 below 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 f orward quickly with its proposal to relocate to the designated disposal area identified Option 2 materials excavated from the top four feet of the site and respectively requests early approval of the amendment application.
Iar.CF.IVED WAFuMme FEB 0 51990 "kT REGION III m _ r, a CONEOLNO 8 8 6 2 9
We are 'available.at your convenience to discuss any additional information require'd.
Sincerely, C
J.C. Stauter, Director Environmental Affairs JCS:gw
'- cc: l James Berger, ORAU Don Stenjawski, NRC Region III u.....
t yo -
+-
..t
' h ^".1i....
p... : CT 3.
','! d U n, JA 1
Q
..-.....p......
hu v"A.....
.... p:..l..g.y.
j JE.... -
R t 'A.:
e f' i
1 t.. ' r.,
Da te Ci.ac.t : ej..., *).
p.
D:b Cat:.pt.L' 4
..a................__.
0188s t
CONTROL NO. 88639
}
CIMARRON FACIL11Y SPECIAL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING DECEMBER 1989
' INTRODUCTION Kerr-McGee Corporation and Cimarron Facility representatives met e
December 1, 1989 with Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;taff to discuss the Facility's amendment application f or on-site burial of soil under NRC's Branch Technical Position Option 2 criteria.
NRC staff were concerned that the borehole gamma
'ogging 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 provide further definition as to the corre lation 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 f rom-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 3
report when completed.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS One area of the Facility plant yard was selected for systematic sampling (excavation area) and the entire facility area was sampled on a random basis (random site area).
Soil samples were collected
-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 2-1-90 SNM-928;70-925 CONTROL NO. SPG29 m
a ma r mm:
spoon to the first interval, then boring to that interval, driving the spoon again, boring again, until the final depth was reached.
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 a r.
shown in Figure 1.
Random Site Area The facility 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 progtam, twenty locat':atas selected for sampling the excavation area.
The random site area and locations of the boreholes are shown in Figure 2.
Sample Analyses 1
All soil samples were analyzed for uranium activity (0-238 plus U-234) using the Cimarron Facility gamma tpec analysis system.
Approximately 10% of the samples were radiochemically analyzed at the Kerr-McGee Technical Center.
The gana spec analysis results are included in Table 1 for the excavation area samples and in Table 2 for the random site area samples.
Table 3 contains the radiochemical anslyses for the excavation area samples and Table 4 shows these analyses for the random site area' samples.
o t
2-1-90 SNM-928;70-925 CONTROL NO. 8809O R
I s
r,,
L i
EVALUATION OF SAMPLING RESULTS Excavation Area The special sampling program generated 177 sampics from the excavation area of which 48 were above the four foot depth and j
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 from 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, flowe ve r,
the radiochemical analyses of these samples by the Kerr-McGee j
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 results between the surface and four foot depths exceeded 30 pCi/g.
None of the samples collected below four feet exceeded 30 pC1/g.
Gamma Logging vs. Radiochemical Analysis 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 concentration results at that interval.
An X-Y scatter plot
-Of the data is included as Figure 3.
A regression analysis 2'-1-90 SNM-928;70-925 00MTEM W. 8hGC r
i was performed and an R-squared (R )
value of 0.1 obtained.
l This low value indicates there is basically no correlation between the gamma logging results and the uranium 2
concentrations.
The R value approaches 1 when there is a good correlation.
Radiochemical vs. Gamma Spec Analyses I
Ten percent of the samp1..,
taken were submitted to the 1
Kerr-McGee Technical Center for radiochemical analysis (alpha j
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 1 concentrations.
)
The data have been plotted
(>-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 (fable 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 1
(See Attachment 1 letter from Mr. James D.
- Berger,
- Dircctor, Environmental Survey and Site Assessment
- Program, ORAU to Mr. Davis Hurt, NRC-NMSS dated August 31, 1989.)
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 CONMOLNO. 8 8 6 2 9
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 i
and uranium concentration data do not correlate to a high degree, j
The radiochemical analysis results obtcined in the special sampling i
program ' indicate that the Cimarron facility gamma spec analyses do provide accurate definition of urarsium in. the soil and indicate the volume to be left in-situ under Option 2 of the Branch Technical Position is small.
The Option I concentration of 30 pCi/g can be-imputed to be generally met below the four foot level.
l c
\\
e P
i t
0159s 2-1-90 SNM-928;70-925 coNMOL NO. 88629-
c "M
W o-
~.
,{
s e.
a i
M N
M N
N N
M N
~, ~
.M.
e.
~
1 N
\\
W M
M f
en N
o=
en W
W M
M in N
b j
N M
i N
N M
W Pt en M
M P
- = en M
N
- - ~ - - - - -
N
.n 4
N
.. ~.. - ~
N
~
M
.A N
N N
s=
.t e-
?
N
'i m.4
~
M e
9 9
M.
M N
M M
e N
9 N
N N
N m.,
)
c.
.C{
U w=
4 sn.
.n.
. 4 sn wu N
M en M
e l
6, A s=
N a=
e.
N e=
=
c c
p.
o N
N e=
Wm.-
,8 s= - I.
C N
W o=
W
.e.,-
. - - e N
M e ~
M e,
~
gg e=
e-s=
e=
s=
,=
e=
.N o=
e=
,=
H w
85E c 9 ~g -
N.
e
. ~
M
~
>w
)..
M N
N M
N
,t M.
U.
M en M
M
- =
e=
w 40 N
to M
W N
N
~ ~ ~
M M
~.. ~. ~... -
.n M
N
- - ~
N o
.n e -.., e a u. ~.
-. - s t;
N N
EO N
w M
N N
~
N
- en N
1 e
l M
?
i 8
w w.
w w ww w w w w w w w w w w N
o M
M M
.- - - - - ~
N
.N N
.M.
l.
e.
L 5 E E E E E E E E E
.E E
E E
.E
,E N,
a ~ e.. ~ e a e ~ e n
~ e n
=
3 ll' K
,....... e e.
e.
W s
s N
s N
N
==
N e=
M N
- =
N M
+#
>=
M N
Pt Pt N
M
.M.
a s-s s s s s s s s s s s s s N
N N-N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
3 nas C
a N
M W
nn
.n.
... ~..
N.
M.
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w CONTTt0L NO. S 8 6,St@ 1928;70-925 2-1-90.a
TABLE 2 7
w RANDOM 5 AMPLE RESULTS E
CIMARNON FACILITY - GAreth SPEC. ANALYSIS O
URANIUM ACTIVITY *, pC1/g SAMPLE NUPSER DATE GRID LOCATION 3-l*
L2' ha' 1-it' 2-3' hlR' 11-12' 13-14*
15-16' 17-18*
19-28' R-1 12/14/89 273N. 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 12/18/99 46N. 112E 60 15 11 8.4 12 9.3 9.8 8.1 14 R-4 12/19/89 17N. 81E 21 13 14 11 8.6 4
20 13 12 11 11 l
R-5 12/14/89 215N. 123E 23 15 12 15 13 13 14 16 15 9.2 10.4 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. 119E 9.9 33 to 11 17 13 12 12 15 15 13 e
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
!6 4.4 20 12 9.3 R-10 12/14/89 65N.
33E 13 15 12 15 24 10 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 164N. 280E 16 16 11 11 13 11 9.8 20 19 11 6.7 R-14 12/19/89 6M. 136E 21 12 16 9.1 20 7.5 13 7.5 7.7 6.4 13 R-15 12/19/89 10N.
60E 7.5 14 13 7.2 10 13 16 14 8.3 10 15 R-16 12/14/89 221N. 135E 24 15 17 22 12 12 22 16 18 13 15 R-17 12/14/89 186N. 144E 18 37 8
14 12 22 12 12 19 18 15 R-18 12/13/89 162N. 175E 30 42 12 13 29 ya 18 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 SN. 158E 25 14 11 8.9 6.3 10 7.7 5.2 6.3 9.0 13 (n
e M
E w
[
1123E
j
-4 TABLE 3 i
EXCAVATION AREA SAMPLE RESULTS CIMARRON FACILITY - RADI0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 4
Sample U-238 U-235 U-234 Number Depth, Ft.
DC1/3 0C1/0 DCl/g E-1 1-2 4.22 1 0.39 0.29 1 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 i 1.3 8.1 1 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 1 1.08 E-8 1-2 22.1 ! 1.5 2.1 1 0.47 148 2 3.9 E-8 13-14 2.33 1 0.23 0.21 1 0.07 S.7 i 0.45 E-9 17-18 0.78 1 0.05 0.029 1 0.010 0.93 1 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 v.63 1 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 i 0.05 0.014 i'O.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 2-1-90 SNM-928;70-925 88 6 2 W '
CONTROL NO.
F TABLE 4 RANDOM SAMPLE RESULTS CIMARRON FACILITY - RADI0 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Sample U-238 U-235 U-234 Number Depth, Ft.
pC1/g DCl/g DC1/g R-1 5-6 2.21 1 0.13 0.22 1 0.04 4.33 1 0.18 R-2 0-1 63 i 6 2.5 2 1 262 1 11 R-2 1-2 27 1 2 3.4 1 0.7 118 1 4 R-3 0-1 12 1 1 1.2 i 0.3 G1 1 2 R-4 5-6 4.1 1 0.2 0.2 i_0.04 7.0 1 0.3 R-5 7-8 1.01 1 0.08 0.02 1 0.01 1.2 1 0.08 R-6 0-1 13 1 0.8 0.23 1 0.4 56 1 4 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 i'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 2 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 1 0.01 0.90 2 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 1 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 i 0.07 0.038 1 0.015 0.71 1 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 2 0.08 0.10 ! 0.05 1.60 1 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 2 0.09 1131E 2-1-90 CONTROL NO. 8 6 6 2 9 SNM-928;70-925 3
r TABLE 5 AEL:.
Comparison of Radiochemical vs. Gamma Spec Analysis Results Radiochemical Gamma Spec.
Sample U234+U238 U234+U238 R-1, 5-6 ft 6.5 23 R-2, 0-1 ft 325 332 R-2,.1-2 ft 145 120 R-3, 0-1 ft 73 60 R-4, 5-6 ft 11 11 R-5, 7-8 ft 2.2 13 R-6, 0-1 ft 69 53 R-7,.1-2 ft 4.7 33 R-8, 13-14 ft 2
13 R-9, 0-1 ft 141 134 R-9, 1-2 ft 43 36 R-10, 3-4 ft 1.6 12 R-11, 1-2 ft 2
'2 R-12, 3-4 ft 2.9 J3 R-13, 5-6.ft 1.9 11
-R-13, 13-14 ft 0.9 20 R-14, 3-4 ft 0.9 16 R-15, 13-14-ft 3.6 14 R-16, 11-12 ft 1.6 22 R-17, 1-2 ft 31 37 R-18, 1-2 ft 3
42 R-18, 7-8 ft 1.2 29 R-19, 7-8 ft 2.5 13 R-20,.0-1 ft 2.9 25 E-1, 1-2 ft 17 51 E-2, 0-1 ft 30 29
-E-3, 0-1 ft~
86 81 E-4, 0-1 ft 444 444 E-4,17-18 ft 6.7 16-E-5, 13-14 ft 1.5 25 l
E-6, 15-16 ft 3.5 73 E-7, 0-1 ft 32 39 E-8, 1-2 ft 170 120 E-8, 13-14 ft 11 25 E-9, 17-18 ft 1.7 26 E-10, 13-14 ft 4
87 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 E-15, 9-10 ft 1.9 26 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 X Coefficient (s)'O.880689
-Std Err of Coef.
0.039669 2-1-90
FIGWEE 1
~%
~
N N.
-N CDuntDN FACILITY g
s XCAVATIOtt AREA SAMLDIG LOCATIONS
\\
s N,1989 N
1 I
i SANITARY LAGOON El ES E9 E13 I.
i.
e eo e g
t E2 E6 ElO E14 e ee e 7,
E3 E7 Ell EIS i
l OOAL R & D e eee PLANT
_l E4 ES E12 E16 l
e ee e 1
i I
5~
^
-. _1 n
[
o I
i 1
i SUB l
l 1
r C
l co co
}
8 o
a w
t c
t
+
I i
l E
O 9
r N
9.75 7-
=
.w I
0
- e 4
(.
I I
I
,g
/
c
,a g
n
/ [ll i
/
I,,
5 RA e
g
,g
/
ei 2
i g
~
g 1
en i
[
i
-i ge Ie
'1 e}
e 2
g
_e I'
'j I
i
~
~
g
- g l-e 8
ei m
k k
I$
?,
u~~
i.-.
,a e
~
~
,.1.,o
-12 soi-m, 20,,s
e i
c,
-o no no pet 1
07
\\
c
.9 o
5 r-o o_
.u c
r
(,)
c og o
n 3o N
i s t.
l t.2
+
c8
..~:.
a es
.,..n.
~
s g' b
..y.::s.;3f$':s-
- /M'fe.t.0"*.)',it?.),-
o-g.
.,r.... r J
o cn
,_ 4 o'
s
,8 t<)
m o
l E
g o
O V
g i
l i
i i
l i
l i
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o tn
<t n
N r-LU C O
'9SUOC S9b OC OJ c D N 2-1-90 SNM-9?8;70-925 CONTROL NO. 8 8 (j 2 g
riaums 4 -
Radiochemical vs. Gamma Spec Analysis-
'?
Y Cimarron Facility - Dec 1989 Sampling-O 450 400 -
9 NU 350 -
O dnN 300 -
1 3
4
+
250 -
?
~t n
N I
200 -
a v
6 150 -
O m
O O
o E
j oo _
E o
O O
S 3aa O
50 J O yu O
E O
100 200
'300 400 Y
Radiochemical (U-234 + U-238, pCi/g)
?
oa3
ATTACHPENT 1 Oak Ridge Associated Post Offce Box 117 Unwersrtes Oak Rcge. Tennessee 378310117 1
August 31, 1989 I
Mr. David Hurt Division of Industrial and Medical i
Nuclear Safety Mail Stop 6H3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 tubject: CROSS CHECK URANIUM ANALYSES KERR MCCEE SAMPLES isar Mr. Hurt:
The attached tables summarise the results of analyses, performed to evaluate the Kerr McCu 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 3.06 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 Kerr McGee. Total uranium l
is determined for these samples by ORAU and Kerr McGee are in good agru s, it, with exception of the background level samples (COR 20), for which the Kerr McGee analysis indicates almost three times as much total uranium activity as ORAU. ORAU analyses on samples 00R 2 j
are about 616 higher than the Kerr McGee value. The other four samples from this group are in agreement to within ratios of 0.93 to 1.28, with an average of 1.08.
Table 2 presents the determination of total uranium, based on gamma analysis for U 235 and U 238 and the activity ratio of U 234/U 235, established by alpha spectrometry (Table 1). The ratio of ORAU to Kerr McGee results range fron 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 values.
On the basis of these results, it is ORAU's opinion that the Kerr McGee 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
I
?-1-90 SNM-9?8;70-925
-l CONTROL NO. 23 8 (j 2 g
^
r l
Mr. Hurt 2
August 31, 1989 i
be noted that these samples did not contain any other radionuclides at other l
than typical background levels; if other gassa emitting nuclides such as
-thorium, are present at levels above background, the accuracy of this procedure may be compromised.
sincerely, i
t James D. Serger, Director Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program 1
JDB:j rw cc:
L. Rouse, (NRC/NMSS, 6H3)
C.1.aRoche, (NRC/NMSS, 6H3)
D. Tiktinsky, (NRC/NMSS, 6A4)
C. France, (NRC, Region III) l 1
i i
e 1
o-1.
SNM-928;70-925 99 CONTROL NO. 88(329
N
'Iw e
to O
TABLE 1 I
RESULTS OF ALPHA SPECT840 METRY AfeALYSES (NI SELECTED Soft SaprLES i
KEfut-tec0EE OtESCENT, OKLAMEMA ORAU Anelvels (sci /a)
Eere-*ecese vetoe (act/s)
Ret to Sample' U-234 U-235' U-238 Total U Tetel U ORAU/Iterr-*etese 12.4 1 2.1 29.0 1 2.7 300.4 i S.7 195.9 1 7.0 1.61
[
COR - 2 200 i SC
+
ww a
COR - 0 27.9 1 1.4 2.2 1 0.4 8.3 1 0.9 -
30.4 1 1.9 29.9 i 4.0 1.29 00R - 13 871 1 34 55 1 12 237 i le 1143 1 40 1107.8 1 45.4 1.05 T7 t
b COR - 17 215 1 7 11.4 1 1.9 30.8 1 3.3 277.6 1 7.7 264.2 1 9.1 1.05 1
3 l
COR - 19 22.7 1 1.3 0.0 1 0.4 5.0 1 0.7 26.1 1 1.8 29.2 1 3.4 0.93 z
.O COR - 20 2.3 1 0.3 0.2 1 0.1 1.4 1 0.3 3.9 1 0.4 10.4 1 3.3 c.3e co M
j Q
akerr-secese Identif feetion.
l l
to Ib erese U-234/U-235 activity retto = 21.713.0.
ct.s Cuncertaintice represent the SR confidence intervel beoed on counting etetistice.
i t
v.n x
C i
M i
.T 5
i 4,
4 m
t w
I
~T TABLE 2 N
4'sAse8#e d
RESULT 5 0F A W9ET SPECTROMETRY ANN.YSES 4
ON SELECTED SOIL 5889tES-O KEfut-4ee0EE CRESCENT. OKlafett Kece-saccee vo be (sci /a}
nette ORAu Analyste (sci /a)
Sample 8 U-235 U-239 Total Ub Total U ORAU/nece-saceae COR - 1 4.8 i O.8C 17.3 1 0.8 109 1 20 74.4 1 -5.0 1.47 COR - 3 5.0 1 0.5 15.8 1 0.8 114 1 19 98.8 1 7.2 1.15 1
COR - 4 5.4 1 0.3 26.9 1 1.2 123 1 25 145.9 1 7.3 0.04 COR - 5 2.5 1 0.3 10.0 i c.S 57 1 15 54.1 1 4.0 1.0S
?
COR - e 0.2 1 0.1 2.1 1 0.3 4.5 1 6.9 7.2 1 3.6 0.43 o
COR - 7 2.0 1 0.3 7.6 1 0.8 45 1 13 49.4 1 4.4 0.91 ET Z
COR - 9 4.5 1 0.2 19.7 1 0.6 102 1 21 74.2 1 3.8 I.37 COR - 10 2.2 1 0.3 8.8 1 0.7 50 1 14 64.8 1 4.0 0.77 7
CDR - 11 9.4 1 0.1 60.4 1 0.6 213 1 37 100.0 i s.3 1.16 COR - 12 3.1 1 0.3 11.9 1 0.6 TO 1 16 76.9 i 4.4 0.91 C0 7:
COR - le 2.4 1 0.2 9.9 1 0.4 55 1 15 27.3 1 3.7 2.01 G.*
COR - 18 2.0 1 0.2 8.1 i O.5 45 1 14 29.6 1 4.0 1.52
$T aKerr-McGee Identificotion.
%esed on sworage ratio of U-234/D-235 of 21.713.0.
cUncertainties represent the 964 confidence intervel beood on comenting etetistice.
w C
S
~
Ut
. _ _ _ _ _