ML20149H939
| ML20149H939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07003073 |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1997 |
| From: | Abelquist E, Condra R, Vitkus T OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149H936 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-L-1569, RTR-NUREG-1575 NUDOCS 9707250260 | |
| Download: ML20149H939 (73) | |
Text
.
i FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES AT THE -
CUSHING REFINERY SITE E. W. ABELQUIST Pr: pared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Regulatory Applications
.f(s' W
p N3 6
4 ff M
..i q
p.;
pp x
E e
xdh
%v A
4 (A)
WW.1jI fa,e
,pgjW'"
r.
)
f f
b
?%
n g
10;.
- u,w.. Np% (h uA+ ~g. dLT "
s.
-w,,
.9 o $p 4 "#
di e--
h
.sw,,
pQ ' '
r.. /d am u
59 M
.A n
MMMp@wThpAy f
hk r%
U bQ
/ltgy&MW
$ @n egy%n.y@4,@pm#ljf%g$l5N@,;yu, p,w 4%g? myy%M w
W La34 a.a,a yrsnguyW A,es.gmp e
m t
%mx wy.uw n%s.
cnw y sca n
- m. uVr N i}"E $yn n r,kh, w,1m.; sw.k(.
h h pk,ayy/7]y.y / pa.[%((S).}h:.WA$r$g'hdd ;H w
db M d
M,9
- b.3a?f?hMd
- g., [ jd (
n'y n m p$YN W h&,DNhWD.s%.
t-qppy 4
y a
a&W h$y 9 ; h%n e.
kQ&.%w"M@Q&a UMd vw NWy%mg %*
kl h
3 e %m pW m
m.
w g
L Q Q J, rin & @ j "% y y n y p y $ i M Y h 7 *M F *g; N @ $g @.R'.+?t@2 d,'
- %% M ' ^
0 3
NM
$d/M d
M MMi d
g Q)7 t%g u gg, w y3 4ydM% F4eM' 9707th3M W E d @ fg,ad, N*..
em
.m ag&
g A %@%,g d
C d f 'hph y4'Wegpe 5W$yr c -
97 '/d$dSO
@Affbd '.. 4N@%p 'd,M.m.RL7
- m. O&yM Af M PDR ADOCK 07003073 D9 C
PNt N7,Q psh mt g, eg deQ ;.. gn:ggggrg,&p%y mwyQg&yp:!pywgynn%r V@m.g ;,4Cg.,pgaQy '
,w y@fv5Wyy; Meg 9-43T ca sq.c > Qwgy,Mg:y u--
m%gg.
dg e e.
p spywygg%pa$g$gz s wgq p T qwM nPT u.
gg %y Pq w nw% qJ u
fiQ@g;$hy w g$R ~
h:%w $g w$p. Ogg y
%4 n
, gr p MQ ilTi mwom$
$w@@www% mag $Nhh dWQ?
aj
$s 9fMy g
g+n. h xwwm w
m.
+
- , h hih lk f h hb b
kdNhk%h k EMj $$h h(J
' f.hqQb[db
}h,063C; RfDQE.INSTITt,7Triyfi()R1 SCTE;$cE; #NDT215UChrKOMQM i
i dM
'qf M y 44 i 4
y, MM;; 2 4
m s
4 m og 3 2 mWM.,$w ~ n ' d y%yy
,3. g -
F d
Li
- O Nv3 %.
Y:<
%.1 nwa. a mm m
~ v y tl p
.,...~n a
lb)g ~nvkoc-.
,u,.
sy vn E
onmental.Surve,aq :lpm ~y,and Site Ass,.slg,,.sment Progrhp,..
Ea@(ENGliroin_menta_inhd HidisiSi_leicehisisIdiO'tD_$@5 5%@
dMME %fl '
n
~
t
,Qv FINAL STATUS SURVEY-USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES 1
AT THE -
I CUSHING REFINERY SITE i.
s i
Prepared by E. W. Abelquist t
e Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Environmental and Health Sciences Division l
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117 j
i 4
Prepared for the i-
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
~
Division of Regulatory Applications J
hI FINAL REPORT a
JULY 1997 4
l This report is based on work performed under an Interagency Agreement (NRC Fin. No L-1569) lbetween the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy. Oak Ridge.
- r.
- Institute,for! Science and Education performs complementary work under contract number J DE-AC05-760R00033 with the U.S. Department of Energy.
5
(,
assapveponstushingkus, mar 001
-\\ / -
Cahms Refinery Site (%8b My M.1997 i.
.e-
-C.
i 1
i 3
9 i
4 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, 1
mergy and environmer+ 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.
~
NOTICE.:
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the sponsoring institutions of Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
4 nis report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States Govensnent not 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, apparatu6 product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use wouki not infringe on privately owned rights.
Reference herein' to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwwe, 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. Govemment or any agency thereof.
=
FINAL STATUS SURVEY -
USING MARSSIM SURVEY METHODOLOGIES AT TIIE CUSlilNG REFINERY SITE 4
Date:
Prepared by:
E. W. Abelquist, Assistant Prq[ ram Director e
Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program 7//0/77 f
. Reviewed by:L4 Date-
/
T. J. Vitkt9, survey Projects Manager 2
Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program 2!/4!97 A1s Date:
Reviewed by:
R. D. Condra, Technical Resources Manager Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program 7 / /(o / 9 7 lbM Date:
Reviewed by:
imm A. T. Payne, Quality Assuranc// Safety Manager Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program Date:
M Reviewed by:
WYL. Beck Pr$am Director
. Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program l
- (.
i d
essap\\reportsvushingVus rnar 001 l
' Cushing Rennery Sne (508). My 16,1997 a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1he author would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the following staff members:
?
i 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. /. Herrera K. E. Waters ILLUSTIU. TOR T. d Herrera essapveportskushingsus, mar 001 Custdng Refincy Stu (508) July I6,1997
- n....
I,,
. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE J Li st o f Fi gures.............................................................. ii List o f Tabl as '.............................................................. iii Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................. iv l
In trod uc ti o n -.............................................................. 1 S i t e Descri p tio n............................................................... 2
. Objectives.................................................................3'-
c Doc um ent Revi ew........................................................... 3 Proc ed ure s................................................................. 3 Final Status S urvey Design............................................
4 Integrated Final Status Survey Strategy.................................... 13 Interpretation of S urvey Results............................................. 16
' S u m m ary................................................................,. 2 2 F i gure s............................................................... 2 4 Tables.....................................................................36 Re fer ence s '................................................................. 47
' Appendices:
' Appendix A:
. Major Instrumentation
. Appendix B:
. Survey and Analytical Procedures i Appendix C:
Spreadsheet Results for. Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests 4
Cushmg Refinery S te (506). My 16,1997.l essapWWtushingVus_m001
i I
- t, l
1 LIST OF FIGURES f
C-PAGE 4
FIGURE li ~ Kerr-McGee Corporation, Cushing, Oklahoma-Cushing Site Grid Block Areas........
........................... 25 i
l FIGURE 2: ~ Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma j
? RMA-4-Measurement and Sampling Locations -
.... 26-f FIGURE 3:, Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma
' Survey Block'46 (Class 2)-Measurement and Sampling Locations........ 27
)
. FIGURE 4:
KemMcGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, Survey Block 61 -
(Backgrottnd Reference' Area)-Measurement and Sampling Locations...... 28
?
FIGURE 5: c Kerr-McGe'e Corporation Site, Cu.shing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1)-
E
- Elevated Areas Identified by Scans and Soil Sample Locations........... 29-FIGURE 6:
Kerr-McGee.Comoration Site, Cushing, Oklahoma, RMA-4 (Class 1)-
+
. Posting Plot.................................................... 3 0 U
)
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
{
n
. FIGURE 9: - Histogram-Background Reference Area..........................
33
)
FIGURE 10:. Histogram-Class 1 Area......................................... 34 FIGURE I 1:~ Histogram-Class 2 Area......................................... 35 1
.p.
' ki-essapsreportskushmgsus_ mar.00
- Cdag Refmery siw ($08). My 16.1997 f i P
w --
LIST OF TABLES PAGE I
-TABLE 1:
Values of P, for a Given Shift A/o.................................. 9 TABLE 2:
Percentiles Represented by Selected W. lues of o: and p................
10 TABLE 3:
Outdoor Area Dose Factors
......................................I1 TABLE 4:
S can MD C s '.....................................
.......... 12
. TABLE 5:
Basic Statistical Quantities..................................... 20 TABLE 6:
Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Class 1 Area-RMA-4............ 37 i
TABLE 7:
Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Class 2 Area-Grid Block 46
...... 41 l
.1 TABLE 8:
Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil, Background Reference Area-l G ri d B loc k 61.................................................. 44 I
i kkk essapveportsvushingwus_ mar 001 Cushing Re6 aery sae (508). My 16.1997
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS -
A&A
' Auxier and Associates AEC Atomic Energy Commission ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers cm centimeter
- DCGL-derived conceraration guideline level DOE Department of Energy DQA',
data quality assessment DQOs data quality objectives EMC Elevated Measurement Comparison EML-Environmental Measurements Laboratory EPA Environmental Protection Agency _
ESSAP Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program H;
alternative hypothesis H
null hypothesis o
kg
' kilogram KMC Kerr-McGee Corporation LBGR lower bound of the gray region j
m meter j
m adjusted reference measurement 2
m square meter m
cubic meter 3
survey unit measurement n
MARSSIM Multiagency Radiation Survey and E te utvestigation Manual MDC minimum detectable concentration Nal sodium iodide NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission ORISE Oak Ridge lastitute for Science and Education pCi/g picoeuries per gram RMA radioactive material area UF uranium hexafluoride 6
-UF uranium tetrafluoride j
4 W,
sum of the ranks of the adjusted measurements from the reference area WRS Wilcoxon Rank Sum (statistical test) i
-V essap\\ reports \\ cushing \\cus, mar 001 eushing Refmery Site (508). July le.1997
i FINAL STATUS SURVEY USING MAliSSIM SURVEY METIlODOLOGIES AT TIIE CUSIllNG 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 UF (uranium hexafluoride). Typical products were oxides, carbides, fluorides, 6
nitrates, metal, etc. Thorium material was received in the form of concentrates. Typical products i
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 enric'...nent of uranium in any fccm, excer natal, including scrap recovery, not to exceedj000 kilograms (kg) of uranium-235. The uranium was received in the form of UF and other chemical 6
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 UF (green salt) to uranium 4
metal buttons.
Enriched uranium was processed at Cushing from early 1963 until September 1965 and thorium processing was performed from December 1964 until Febmary 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 bhildings Cushing Refinery site 008). hdy I6,199f essap\\reportskushingkus, mar.001
in which licensed activities had been performed were c! caned and decontaminated. The AEC 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 Assessrnent Program (ESSAP) of the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) using the Multiagency Ramation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) methodology, as a demonstration ofits 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 iminediate 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 (m ). Class I survey areas are those areas with the 2
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 m located in the northern portion of grid block 2
- 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 2
,,,,p.,po,1,,,,,sio,xo, m,, ooi enhtng Reftwry Se ($08). July I6,1997
t a previous NRC visit to the Cushing site. A preliminary assessment pe k 61 was an the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML), indicated that Cushing g appropriate reference area for the selected Class 1 and 2 areas (Figure 1).
OBJECTIVES The objective of the fmal status survey was to demonstrate the fea MARSSIM methodology in a final status survey ofland areas at a site c DOCUMENT REVIEW ESSAP and Auxier and Associates (A&A) reviewed the Cushing Refinery Site. KMC provided characterization data for RMA d i included analytical results for Th-232 concentrations in soil. The standard d The RMA-4 all 115 data points in RMA-4 was 0.31 picoeuries per gram (pCi/g) Th-232.
i i
characterization data was evaluated, and based on the distribution of Th-232 ii d that apparent that contamination was present in two of the samples. Becaus remediation would be perfonned prior to the final status survey, the decision d d deviation these two outliers at the upper end of the distribution and to compute a revised s (0.27 pCi/g Th-232). In a similar manner, the revised standard devi 0.27 pCi/c for Th-232. It was expected that the standard deviation in th (grid block 61) would not be greater than the standard deviations areas. Therefore, a standard deviation of 0.27 pCi/g fbr Th-232 was used to sample size for the nonparametric statistical tests.
PROCEDURES The final status survey design followed the methodology presented i ESSAP performed visual inspections and final status survey Draft (MARSSIM 1996a).
Survey activities were conducted measurements and sampling from October 28 through 30,1996.
3 essapwrertsscushmgscus_rnar 001 Cushmg Rennery Sue (30s). My 16,1997
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 repon 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 known 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 detennined by exposure pathway modeling. Survey techniques, appropriate to develop adequate data, were selected and implemented. Survey instmmentation was selected based on detection 4
sensitivity to the radiations of concem.
A meeting of NRC 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 11 a
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.
4 essap'npomwushinssus.nur oci CuxNng Re6twry siw (sos). My 16.1997
~ -. __
~
Application of Decommissionine 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 j
l levels meet the release criterion. In demonstrating that this objective is met, the null hypothesis, H,-
o tested is that residual' contamination exceeds the release criterioni the alternative hypothesis, H, is 4
i
)
that residual contamination meets the release criterion.
s-NullHypothesis (H,): Residual contam; nation exceeds the release criterion 1
- For contaminants that are present in background-c.c., uranium and thorium-the. Wilcoxon Rank l
L Sum (WRS) test is used. To determine data needs for this test, the acccpable probability of making.
I' Type I and Type II decision errors are established The Type I decision enor occurs when the H o is rejected when it is true-results in concluding that survey units incorrectly satisfy release criterion (regulator's risk). The Type 11 decision error occurs-when the H is accepted when 't 'is o
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 (a) was specified as 0.05 and Type II decision error (p) was set at 0,10.
Derived Concentration GuideHne Levels (DCGLs)
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 j
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) 1 l
e 3
a
.. Cwhing Refinery Se dos). hdy I6.1997 5
,m pwpom w ;o,.._,m,ooi I
u.:
Contaminant Present in Background-Determinine Numbers of Data Points for Statistical i
Tests The following steps detail the procedure for determining the number ofdata 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 Icvel of the contaminant were used to calculate the relative shift, A/o. 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 I 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.
- l. '
b essapWportswushingvus, mar.00!
. Cashag Refmery Sde (505). Je 16.1997
B.
Determine P, I
Table 1 contains a listing of relative shift' values and values for P,(Table 5.1 in MARSSIM 1996b). ' P, is the probability that a measurement at a random location in the survey unit is greater than a measurement perfonned at a random location in the background reference area.
Using the relative shift value calculated previously, the value of P, was obtained from Table 1.
Therefore, for a relative shift value of 0.6, the value of P, was 0.664.
C.
Determine Decision Error Percentiles The nex* step in this process was to determine the percentiles, Zn, and Zng, 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 Zn, equals 1.645, and Zop, 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:
i (2
- 2,.gf N _
' 3 (P,- 0.5)2 Substituting in the values determined above, N was calculated:
N= 0.645 + 1,2829 =106.2 3 (0.664 - 0.5)2 P
7 essapWWgve,,viar cci
\\
embns Retimety she pos). July 16.1997 a.
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 recemmended 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.
l 1
l 8
essapwcrotuushinggmar 001 Cushacs Refmery Siu (504) Jdy 16.1997
-. -... r..
i l
1 Table 1:: Values of P, for a Given Shift 6/o
. No.
' P, A/o P,
I).;l?
2 0.921
-r.
0.0625 0.518.
2.0625 0.928 O.125 0.535 2.125 0.933
- 0.1875' O.553 2.1875 0.939
. 0.25 '
O.570 2.25 0.9M 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 i 0.6875 0.687 2.J875 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 t
1.125 0.787 3.125 0.986 i
1.1875 0.799 3,1875 0.988 1.25 0.812 3.25 0.989 1.3125 0.823 3.3125 0.990 1.375
,,J.835 3.375 0.991 4
1,4375
- 0.845 3.4375 0.992 l.5 0.8$6.
3.5 0.993
.l.5625 0.865 3.5625 0.994
'l.625
-0.875 3.625
- 0.995 1.6875 0.884
- 3.6875 ~
0.995 1,75.
0.892-3.75 0.996 1.8125' O.900 3.8125 0.996 1.875 0.908 3.875 0.997
~
1,9375' O.915 3.9375 0.997
'h essapveportskushmgvus, mar 001
- Cushmg Refinery Saw (ict). July 16,1997 '
s p
s y,
, *=
v-
-l Table 2: Percentiles Represented by Selected Values of a and p.
a (or p)-
Z., (or Z.s) -
i i
0.005 2.576 j
O.0'l 2.326 0.025 1.960 0.05.'
l.645 0.10 1.282 0.20 0.842 0.25 0.674
- J)fitIDtlBing 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 NS test (64 for both reference area and survey units) were positioned, on a scale my of each survey unit, using a random-start triangular pattem (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= h 0.866 n 10-
,,,,,vepo,,,vosni,,,vu,,n, ooi f Cushing Re6nery Siw (508). July K 1997
~.;
L-,
m.
where A is the area of the Class 1 survey unit (2,300 m ) and n is the number of data points in the 2
' survey unit. The spacing equals 6.44 m.' The grid area bounded by these survey locations was 0
(equals 36 m ). This area represented the largest elevated area that E.866* L2 2
icalculated by A could exist and not be sampled by the random-start triangular grid pattern established for the WRS b
test; 2
Next, the magnitude (area factor) by which the concentration in this potential elevated area (36 m )
can exceed the DCGL value while maintaining compliance with the release criterion was determined.
-Table 3 provides outdoor area factors for Th-232.
4 Table 3: Outdoor Area Dose Factors l
e Area Factor 2
8 8
3000 m 10000 m 1 m' 3m2 10 m' 30 m' 100 m' 300 m8 1000 m Th-232 3610 1200 361 120 36.1 5.54-2.32 1,47 1.00 1
The minimum detectable concentration (MDC) of the scan procedure that is required to detect an q
p elevated area at the limit determined by the area factor was determined. That is, the required scan j
MDC for Th-232 was calculated by (area factor logarithmically interpolated for 36 m area equals 2
f 100):
a Scan MDC ' required) = (DCGL) * (Area Factor) = 0.16
- 100 = 16 pCilg The actual MDCs of scanning tecimiques were determined 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 i
i that radionuclide and radionuclide distribution. These values were purposefully determined conservatively for sample size design considerations, v
c enshing Refinery su (50s). My '16. 4997 '
LII
' essapveportsvushingwus. mar.001
]
t n
e
. -, - ~.
Table 4: Scan MDCs i
Radionuclide(s)
Scyn MDC (pCi/g)
Th-232 3.8 The actual MDC of the selectc.i scanning technique was compared to the required scan MDC.
b no additional sampling points (above the 64 calculated previously) were necessary for assessment 2
. of potential elevated areas. That is, the NaI scintillation gamma scan survey exhibited adequate 4
sensitivity to detect any elevated areas of concern.
Determinine Survey Locations i -
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 i
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 r area (RMA 4), u triangular pattern, having dimensions determined by the j
requirements for the WRS test described in the previous section, was installed on the survey uni,.t The starting point for this pattem was selected at random. Beginning at the random starting coordinate, a row'of points was identified,Tarallel to the X axis, at intervals of L (6.44 m). A second a
' 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 7
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 i
on the map. Ifidentified points fell outside of the survey unit or at locations which could not be surveyed,~ additional points were determined using the random prcicess described above, until the je
' desired total number of pomts was identified. Once in the field, it was realized that the RMA-4 map j
[
- contained inaccuracies and modifications to sampling locations were necessary; a total of 69 soil s
45 Sap @ tush 5R$4U3,m4fdl y
t
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 identitied in tne same mamer a 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 i area. Sixty-six sample locations were determined using the triangular pattern (Figure 4); th.: same sampling locations deterndned in the office were =mpled in the background reference area.
INTEGRATED FINAL STATUS SURVEY STRATEGY ficamd RMA-4 is the Class 1 area that was surveyed in this prototype final status survey. It is located in the 2
northwest section of the Cushing site and covers an area of approximately 2,300 m. The Class 2 survey unit co'mprised an area of approximately 2,300 m selected from the northern portion of grid 2
block 46. The background reference area was an area of approximately 2,300 m within KMC grid 2
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.
I3 essapsreportsvushmg'cus_ mat 001 Cuhing Refinery Site (508). July 66.1997
t 4
Survey Plan -
1 A.'
Reference Coordinate System l A 10-meter reference coordinate system was established by ESSAP'in the Class 1, Class 2 l
and background reference areas to reference sampling locations-as determined from the.
triangular sampling pattern.
L B.
Surface Scans
.5xte.or soil surfaces were scanred for gamma radiation using NaI scintillation detectors.
d Surface scans were performed by passing the NaI detectors slowly (about 0.5 m/s) 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 I 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 1
elevated direct radiation, based on increases in the audible signal from the instrument, were marked for further investigation.
C.-
Soil Sampling m
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 Clas.s 2) surface soil samples-at a depth of 0 to 15 cm-were collected from the locations determined in the previous section, using the prepared figures
' as a guide in locating sampling poin'ts. 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 locatio'ns of elevated direct radiation identified by surface scans.
14 essap\\reportsVushingkus. mar.001 Cushing Refhwry Site (508). July 16.1997
Inymligaliqn 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 I 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 investigatior of the positive measurements and basis for reclassifying all or part of the survey unit as Class I should be included in the final status survey report. Surface scans in the Class 2 area did net identify any locations of elevated direct radiation-therefore, there were no indications that investigations should be conducted in this survey unit.
l Eamnle Analysis and Data Interpretation 4
Samples and data were retumed 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 ofinterest 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 15
,,,,,s,,po,,,,,,,nio,so, m.,.ooi Cushing Rennery Sde 008). JvJy 16,1997
d.
j levels for evidence of elevated areas. This Elevated Measurement Comparison (EMC) was j
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 2
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 i
l SURVEY RESUl/IS 1
The interpretation of survey results was performed in accordance with the MARSSIM Draft for Public Com. ment (MARSSIM 1996b).
Surface Scans Surface scans performed within the Class I 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 Figur: 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 i
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.
4 t
i Ib essap'seporutuhangwus,, mar 001 Custung Refmery Site 00s). luly 4,1997 1
,_.E.,
1,r...
e 3,,, -.
r
'n.
... ~.. - -
~
Ih-232 Concentrations in Spil t
Concentrations of Th 232 in soil samples collected in the Class ! smvey unit, Class 2 survey unit, i
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 j
0 89 to 1.54 pCilg 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 y
frorn systematic sampling and those flagged by surface scans. As illustrated on Figure 5, surface scans identified a elatively large (~ 300 m ) area of elevated radiation that ran through the middle 2
ot'RMA-4. Surface scans, confirmed by biased samplinh, identified a particularly significant location of elevated direct radiation (~ 20 m ) near coordinates 25E,40N. The derived concentration 2
guideline level for the EMC-DCGLeye-is obtained by multiplying the DCGL (0.16 pCi/g) by the l
area factor that corresponds to the actual area of the elevated concentration. An elevated area is 1
deemed acceptable provided that the appropriate DCGLeuc is not exceeded. For example, the area 2
factor for the 300 m elevated area is 5.54, resulting in a DCGLeuc of 0.87 pCi/g (not including 2
i background). Further investigation and sampling would be necessary to determine the average Th-232 concentration over this 300 m elevated area in order to make a comparison to the DCGLeuc.
2 An EMC detennination was made for the smaller area (20 m )-the area factor is 208 (based on 2
interpolation of values in Table 3);*vhich resulted in a DCGLouc f 33.3 pCi/g. The average cGhe o
two biased samples in that 20 m area is 40.6 pCi/g, which exceeds the DCGlouc. It should be 2
recognized that any combination of area and radionuclide concentration that exceeds the appropriate DCGL ue hould be sufficient for concluding that the survey unit does not satisfy release criteria.
t s
]
l7 essapVeportsVushing\\cus, mar 004 Cushing Refine,y Siw (508) July 16.1997 4
wn<.
4,,-
.-n,-
DATA QUAUTY 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.
4 Review of the DOOs i
\\
~
' The DQOs were reviewed to ensure that they were still applicable. The survey unit results were i
- reviewed to determine if each survey unit was proper,, classified. Data results indicated that cach l
survey unit was properly classified, however, the background reference area selected may not have l
been appropriate for the Class 2 survey unit (this is explored further in a subsequent data evaluation i'
- section).
e The sampling design and data collection documentation were reviewed for consistency with the l
DQOs. Because all collected samples were analyzed and no data losses occurred, the necessary sample size for the statistical tests was achieved.
i
)
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 I 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-p), and result in unnecessary 4
18 emvww.o poi cies.a-y sieoinair a im n
i
,--w-,
1 g
t e,i e
, +
remediatiois. However, the Class 1 mvised standard deviation-by removing the highest three Th-232 concentration values (outliers)-is 0.25 pCi/g, consistent with that assumed duing survey
' design.
h MllRllll30'.Jhfa Reviety To evaluate the structure of the data-identifying pattems '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 I 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 arra 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 ccmpare the reference area data with the Class 2 survey unit data (overlaying the two histograms) shows that the Class 2 data are shifled to lower Th 232 concentrations, relative to the background reference area. The histogram for the Class I survey unit clearly illustrates two distributions of Th-232 --therefore, it may be possible to consider the background distribution as rhown in this histogram (Figure 10) as a survey mut-specific background reference area for the Class I survey unit. As cautioned in MARSSIM, the interpretation of the data for this purpose should j
only be pursued after consultation with the responsibic regulatory agency.
Basic statistical quantities were calculated for the background reference area, Class 1, and Class 2
' survey units.
\\
l9 essapveportsvushms'cus_ mar 001 cahing Rdrery Sim (50s). My R 19H
^
~
j
' ~
Table 5: Basic Statistical Quantities Th-232 (pCi/g) j Locarlon e
Mean Median
-Standard Deviation a-Background F cference Area 1.29 1.32 0.16 1
Class 1 Area 1.34
-1.22 0.40 l
Class 2 Area 1.11 1.14 0.22 As evidenced in th1 Class I survey unit, large differences betweca rhe mean and the median provide
- an indication of skt wness in the data (as discussed previously, the histogram actually shows that two distributions exist in the Class I survey unit). Also, the bar c statistical parameters (both the mean i
'and the median) :how that the Class 2 survey unit data are 0.18 pCi/g less than the background reference area. '1herefore, if the two' areas were interchanged, it is likely that the background reference area wc aid fail to reject trie null hypothesis (not pass the release criterion of 0.16 pCi/g) as compared to 11 e Th-232 concentration in the Class 2 survey unit.
Seltstion of Sathlical. Test and verificagion of Test Assum_ntians
' The Wilcoxon F ank Sum (WRS) test is used to evaluate the Th 232 concentrations in the Class 1 and Class 2 sutv :y units because the contaminant ofconcem (Th-232) is present in background. The null hypothesis ' ested by the WRS test is that "the median concentration in the survey unit exceeds F
that in the refe* ence area by more than the DCGL." Therefore, rejection of this null hypothesis i
results in a decision that the survey unit passes (satisfies the release criterion). Specifically, the result of the W RS hypothesis test dctermines whether or not the survey unit as a whole is deemed to meet the release criterion.
l The assumptions underlying the WRS test are that 1) the samples from the background reference
- area and the s tuvey 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 froni the background reference area, Class 1, and Class 2 survey units were collected on a 20
,mpw.wo.., noi.
- cahms,anery sie soap My Ia. tm a
n-
e i
random-start triangular grid pattern (biased samples are not included in statistical tests), thut, the assumption ofindependent random samples is valid. Furtner, the posting plots (Figures 6 through 4
- 8) do not suggest that spatial depcadencies exist in any of the sampled areas.
6 Draw Conchisions 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 (Wa+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, W,,
5)
Compare W, with tabulated critical value (MARSSIM Appendix I; based on n, m, and ot):
Reject IT 1f W,> critical value 3
MARSSIM Appendix 1 (page I-30) provides spreadsheet formulas for ranking the data. The analysis for the NRS 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 I
sumnuirize these results, the W,in the Class I survey unit was 5,580 and the critical value was 4,862.
Because W, 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 I 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 determination of whether these locations of elevated activity satisfy the elevated measurement comparison cannot be made.
2I essap'reportsvushmstus,madel Cushmg Refinery kte (MS). )uly 16,1997
-~ -. -.. -
. --.-.~
t I
The W,in the Class 2 survey unit was 5,976 and the critical value was 4,676. Because W, is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis is rejected and the survey unit easily passes the WRS test.
Ilowever, the~concem in this case is that the background reference area is not representative of the L
as 2 survey unit-as discussed previously, Th-232 concentrations in the Class 2 survey unit are significantly less than the concentrations in the backgrourd reference area. Nonetheless, upon 1
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 i
' reference area and the original background reference area (Grid Block 61) was the tested survey un t.
The W,in this case was 4,120 and the critical value was 4,545. Therefore, the null hypothesis vas 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) to 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 4
y' presence of residual radioactivity in addition to background. This result cic=ly shows the importance of having background reference areas that are truly representative of the survey units being evaluated, 4
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 ofimplementing the MARSSIM methodology in Class 1 and Class 2 land area survey b
units at a site contaminated with thorium; Survey activities conducted included document reviews,
~ surface scans, and surface soil sampling and analysis.
y i
.i 11 22
,1, m l
l 1
The results of the final status survey were interpreted using the guidance contained in MARSSIM.
t 110th 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 i
2 area.
i l
)
4 f
I i
3 6
i e
23
,,,,,v,,,,1,wu sio,y, m., ooi Cushtng R,6nry Site (508), July i6.1997
4
.1 i
)
}
FIGURES essapWportsvushingvus_ mar.001 Cushing Rennery Site (508) July 16,1997
508-010 (2) o b
b
'o "o
b o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o m
ro e
oo o
o o
o o
o o
.o o-u 3
-~ l3l.4 T l7 l 12 5
6 8
8 10 11 l
2
-4 I' 19
- +--l ~4-I; 17 18 UNAFFECTED t-20 -
21 22 23 24 15 l 16
'13 14 AREA #1'
....... ].[
.RM....
- j...
N 1002000'
[
26 2
AREA j i
31 x
33 1 34
,25 l
N.......
4,..
.,4
..4..
Il 37 35
}4; 43 44 45 46
,/
L f,.
t 53 Sd 55 56 57 55.,/ j 60
,61
)
..... -.h..
..... d... L... -
N 1001000' t...
i
j 67 68 69
,0 71 72 Z.f'..........
8
...e..;
. 73 l
}S..
I 6f*
83 84 l
72 79 80 76-77
~
i
.p...~....
8
( 88 89 90 l91,,$2
..5KULL g......
... 5 1
l9/
93 iB5 crjEEK e
. ef l f
N 1000000'
,..% t/......!e I
i
.I,.L
...l......
q 97 9
99 100jp j j
i
'..... i j
i l
1 106 107 108
!110 112I 1
1 i
......[
... i.
73 A..........
113 114 115i l
119 120' I
i 124);
N 999000*
l 126 127 128 121 12p l
~
/
f^ I UNAFFECTED
['134
"$35 138 AREA #2 129-l l
......144' i..t r-3 137 142 143 i
i i
e N 998000*
46 [
,. 48 150 151 ;$ '
UNAFFECTED AREA #3
[. j.~ ~..;.../
....L
.... +..
159 160 l
j 54 156 l158 Q
'.. f j
161 162g162 N 997000' is i.. G.
5..
ll165 166 167
- 168, j
g
~**
i
,a t
UNAFFECTED r......-,
170 til 172 AREA #4 g
i,.....
..._..s, I N 996000'
UNAFFECTED AREA BOUNOS N
d O PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS FEET 10.00 h
- ACID SLUDGE PIT 0
300 METERS WATER
~
m N
RAILROAD FIGURE 1: Kerr-McGee Corporation, Cushing. Oklahoma -
Cushing Site Grid Block Areas 25
,,,,, u _,,,,oo, Cut.mg Psfinery Sise (508) July 16. t997
508-011 (1) 90N
-~~,- -
BON
- - +-
+- --
27 28 i
70N 60N 4--
i
.f I.
SON r-4--
+- --
1 I
1 40N
~
?-
- ?--
?t-30N
'3 i
l
.j e
e i
g g ON g-
-g-
-g-
!,i
?
IRMA-4 10N
-t---
l i
j a
I
.l j
i.
0 1gg y -
-10S i
.... I 0
10E 20E 30E 40E SOE 60E N
d J L MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING T
LOCATIONS-E SURFACE Soll g
FEET 0
6,0 0
2'O METERS FIGURE 2: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklottoma, RMA-4
- Measurement and Sampling Locations 26
,mpo,ow,w,w.,,m, ooi Cushms Rennery Site (508) July 16,1997
e 508-013(1) 35 33 34
...AON.
! 47 45 46 i
m m
- m a
e a
e a
a 4
l i
s..... a...,.... s
.lm... a j.... m.,.,a... u...
u
. 4...
.1..... 30N.
~
i
?.
u is a.
m
's e
a e
a j
m f
l i
I
..I I
- i..
_.!... 20N..,..
..,..4.....,
I i
m ja a
a e
a i a
.m a
a m '
s
.m a,
e
's.
.1 DN.
...... _. l.,
_.1...
j.
a e
\\.;.
..-.... 0.0...,
l 0,0 10E 20E 30E 40E SOE 60E i
I f
i t
t I
t I
l l
l i.
p
.p.-
..9.,.
l i
. +...
..4..
..4...
i i
i l
i i
f i
i i
.. i..... -..
j 59
~
57 58 N
h J L, T
MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING LOCATIONS E
SURFACE SOIL f
FEET 0
6 6
i METERS FIGURE 3: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma -
Survey Block 46 (Class 2) - Measurernent and Sampling Locations 27 empWyrts'cushmgvus_ mar.001 Cushmg Pefinery Site (501). luly 16.1997
O 508-012 (1) o 50 48 49
. 62 60 61 j
i 1
~
l t
............ _...f...
_.j.-
7...
.. +.
t 7~
l l
l l
5 l.
...l...
I.$~..----
l
... -...,l i.
I 4
..p.
I i
i i
. !.-.._ EXCLUSION..L,...
. SON.
...t...
j ZONG a
m' s
a e'
s ll i
I I
8
.. SON.
i 3
e a
e e
a e
j
'l l I f
40N.
m...:.... m.... m......m......;.s..
...t..
...L..
l 1
i 8
e a
a a
a m
I i
r
..30N
... -.. j...
..l........
..I 4... -
a ' s e
a a
s I
I I
e a
= l m a
m i
_.. I
.. 4..... 20N.
... {...
a - e e
a a
u i
.. 7. -...1.QN.
".. -"4...
i m
a e
a j u a
l i
.. o. 0...
74 72 73 0,0 10E 20E 30E 40E 4
N d
JL MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING T
LOCATIONS E SURFACE Soll g
FEET g
6 i
b i
METERS FIGURE 4: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site. Cushing, Oklahoma, Survey Block 61 (Background Reference Area) - Measurement and Sampling Locations N
essapeeports'cushmsvus_ mar 00f Cushms F.
wry Site (503) July 16.1997
._~_ _
600-004 (2) o.
e 90H L
3 i
'80N
+----+
-+
27 28 1
.7en.
4
___a.
-t I-
+-
60N-
+ - -
e a
mi e
e a
1.10 1.38 0.95'. 0.97;. 1.14 1.1 d l
4 1
!s 3.66 7 12-1.oe_f;b'.sli=1.za._1.17_ 1.la._p.y l
e a
a m
.a
. SON.
,;.y.
.i 5
1.1j 1.14 1,38 S.44,. 1.15 1.08 14.5 18h'
[1 37 I
l m
se.7 40N-
'"TN~r;j d'"Ti-(., 's.1p 1.t e 1
t.w o
3.23 i
l, I'
i 25 1.15 11.15 / * ~ 2,05) 1.12 1.2 f
- --s e
J j"2f~i"2f~f.55-nit!,1'if~ds" L i.
30N f
I.\\.
.\\ i.
p.
1.07 1.19
) 03. J.ce; 2.25 % 1[45 0.97
.17.4
-d4-3,/-4--
~
I i
' 38.2 20N
[-
,L4-yg b 1.30 32.a 1.06 1 l
l l
bn 1.20 1.33/ 1.58 2.0 i -1 f* m I
l,s.
e l
I ei a
.2af:
. s.18,s4p#. l/m e
1RMA-4 1.se I,
1.22 1.12 10N L-
--t 3
i p
e e
e a
e d
1.22 1.29 1.26 1.18 1.31 1.07 1 42.
I 1
i s.
e ia j
ie 0
- +- l'2A L2L..21E_1aM_4 44 __.g 39 40 l
1
-10S 0
10E 20E 30E 40E SOE 60E N
d LOCATIONS.
MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING
,.......... GENE ~tAL BOUNO OF h
AREAS IDENTIFIED
. SURFACE Soll
BY SCANS-
. GROSS Th-232.
g g BIASED Soll -
CONCENTRATION FROM SCAN RESULTS (pC1/g) 0 60 FEET 6
2'O
. METERS
- FlGURE-5: Kerr-McGee ' Corporation Site, Cushing, Oktohoma, RMA-4 (Class.1) -
Elevated. Areas ' Identified by Scans and Soil Sompte ' Locations a
~ 29 essapveportAcushmgscus, mar 001 Cushms Renury Siw ($0th My 16. 3997 r,-
.u.
h i..
.g q,-
. 600-Odb(4).
r
. U.
- 90fl. 1 -
l-i
_{
3 A
5 BUN
-127
.28 8
1 I
L70N
+-
-~
} ~~- - ~
r
- p
- L -- '-
60N~
--T
--- ~~
..i 1-1,10 1.36 0.95. 0.97 1.14 '1.10 1.ZB. _1.11.. 1.1A..J 6 l
- y--~~~
- ~.1L.11.06.;_.1.S2...
I
-1 4
SON
.4 1.15 - l1.081.1 {
1 14 1,38.1.44
.i 40N
,. y.g y;.ty-Y;nr'T.37 F.TT~Y;M~
i-
'1 25
- 15 1.15 1.o9 2.05 1.12 1.2 l
1
' -(* 'sL"dL's'$'' 'd~N'5~' L
'30N 2
i i
I j.
..l.
+
1.07 - 1.19 l.03 2.06: 2.26 ' 1,45 0.97
. ]-t 20N g --
g-1.20 1.33 1.58 = 2.09 1.30 1.0 t
t DlRMA-4b l.
1.22 1.12 h.18 ~ 3.2a.1.36
' 2e f.
l r
+ - ~ ~ - - " -
10N s'
.~
m 1'
1.22 1.29 1.26 1.18 1.31 1.07 1.42 i
i t.
O L
t.20....L2..
1:...145.
144.... -.
1 39 40
-1os 0
10E 20E 30E 40E 50E SOE j
N n
t J L
' MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING '
T LOCATIONS
- GROSS Th'-232 q
CONCENTRATION M ' SURFACE SOIL -
- (pCi/g) r FEET O
- 60 a
a 4
6-2'o METERS 4
1 1
FIGURE 6 Kerr-McGee. Corporation Site, ' Cushing, Oklahoma,
- RMA-4.(Class 1)
Posting Plot e
(c hme. n ysi oe:Way en
. 30'
,m%.%w.,%yooi.
~
n 5
e6 mi/. e w
w-
600-003 (2) 35 33 34
_.}47
. _.... 4 0N...
45
!"46 l
1.36 1 30 1.53; 1.29 lil7 1.05 l 1.28 1:37 1.02 e
e e
i i
a is aj s
a m
i i
. 0.06 i
i i?3 1.25 l i
1 48 1.47.
1.45 1l.22 1.22 i 1.03
..m. j.. u...;s.... _.. s.]... m
.'...u..
...a... ;.. m..
4...
..j
....._...... 3 0 N. -
s..
1.22 1.28 1.37: 1.00 0.98 0.80 0.95 0'98 1.00 i
e
- n e
a e
a u t.14 e a
8.
i i
... p gg.. 0.8,3-1,.02'.1.,2 4_ 1...,25__.
1 2,5 l 0.,66_. 0.,9 3 __1_.,12. !
.0.,88__
-._I _
l 1.44l 1.16 1;10 0.34 0.64 0.65 1.07 1.29 1.11 m
ja aj s
e a
e a
e I
-l
}..
.._10N 121 - 1.31j.1.17-1!.cs- 0.e2 bo.e2 - c.ea.- 1.35 -c.e4-.-
+
a u ;
e s
e; e a
ei e r
l 1.23 1.04 1,01 l 1.02 0.84 0.86 1.23 li15 1.39 e
is s ~
s
,a a
e a
m
....... !.0,0.
O,0 10E 20E 30E 4d,E 5.E G.E 3
i i
y I
i i
i i
i
.......j...
...j.,
4......
l I
l f.-
..i.........,
... i..
....7..
[
f
.i
..7.....
I t
i
[i l
i..
- + -
i i
l l
l i
..i
..5.
... p..
j..
l 1
I i
i l
1 i
i 59 57 58 N
h l
W'L MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING GROSS 'Th-232 LOCATIONS N
CONCENTRATION E SURFACE Soll (pCi/g) 4 0
6 e
6 i
MEiERS FIGURE 7: Kerr-McGee Corporation Site, Cushing, Oklahoma -
Survey Block 46 (Class 2) - Posting Plot 3I essapseports'cushingvus_rnar 001 Cushing Refinery Site (508) July 16.1997
w -,
a l
o,
. j
.. p 600-002 (2)i
.y i
. 1 50 g
I 48
'49 60 61-. .. _ _. -
'62 I
E l
i
-.4.
.t
- +...
r I
-[
t.
j Q
'i
>.-~.-,l.
1.- -
...~.a..,.
1
.....EXCLUSI.ON.i.,
.)...
SON..
0.99 1.".9 1.09 1.16 1.2 /
1.25 ZON.
j e
e e
a e.
.a
*".1.....'.T" 1.35 1.14 1.20 ~ 1.32 1.38 1.23
- ' l_...,50N.
134 '1.47 120 1.42 1 09 p-1,44 l
1.13 1.30 1.41 1.24 l1.15 '1.14 l
~
...+. 40 N..
. a....
- s.......q.....u..... m... s 4
4 131 1A6 1.04 1.03 0.89 1.36 i
e a
e a
e s
l
.i j
1
.p.
3ON-1.40..d1.45, 1.27....1.39... 41.45 -.1.34. -
[
s je-a e j u a
1.
1.4s l
l
. 47 1.42 1.4a ' 1.4e 1.34 m
.a e-a m-
........ -+.. 20N..........g_ *3....g....g......
..!...g......j.
I.
l j
,a e
i a
!e s
.a 1.39 1.22 1.37 1.32 1.33 1.31
. 2 0N.. ".".4 7
9 1.25 1.54 1.4'1 1.21 1.35 1.14 i'
a
. m e
a a
e 1.48 1.26 0.89 i 1.34 0.95 0.95 I'
- 0,0.;
74 72 73 10E 20E 30E 40E 0,0 N
. 8 T(
J i
- MEASUREMENT / SAMPLING -
GROSS Th-232 LOCATIONS.
CONCENTRATION -
(pCi/g)
SURFACE SOIL FEET O
6 6
i METERS RGURE.;;Bi :Kerr-McGee 1 Corporation Site,. Cushing, Oklahoma - Survey Block 61
-(Background Reference. Area)
Posting Plot s
NL
. essapveporuvuhingwus mar.001 Cusing Re6# ery sin (50s)- July 14.1997 9
..--.,----w ms--
a w.mG.*
44
.aa 6aa6 a J.aw.w h.g
-A si,a
- m..A m e 8 h...
n._4,mem
.h_g....e4 k
l l
Frequency i
M b
O M
O
~
A
.e-pe=n.'----
4 0.4 I
O.8 i
s 1
I t
1.1 t
1.2 1
g 1.3 -
e w
1.4 i
TI EY L
c i
d
'5 l
-o
-7 2
w t
m a
7 M
1.6 g.
j g
D W
t O
i h
j C
C U
O 1.7 i c
B l
o y
{
f C
1.8 '
co n
X m#
i O,
+
9 0
80 c
1.9 3
a o
o.
.e l
T 2
5 i
?
8
- i e
r 3
I 8
2.5
- j R
i a
I W
3 i
1 t
3.5 l-h More i
I
- t 1
l
?
- l i
)
F
)
e t
j
r e
i s
. a s--re,--
m
<-,a
-n--
-,,e s.--...
,,...e,.
,r-.
._....m._
s tuni Amt eosursnavn eu=a w w w umaz e d=>
g l
i Frequency 8
o N
A e
a o
w-a m
- o l
0.4 j
1 l
0.8 J
f 1.1 1.2 1.3 l
i f
'f f
t4 i
+i q
q e
r i
i C
N g
U 1.6 g m
'7 M O
IE 1
3 18l l
e t'
a a
8 O
1.9 5
E
'N l
(D t
Q) 2.5 v
3 I
I, 3.5 g t
4 More I i
t i
r
' ?
I
- f
' i l
I p
9 I'
.m.
.-%.--.-.,~-~,....,_..-,,%,,..
-c,
.v-
__...._.._..m.___...
m.._
.-I (661 '9i A i * (805) WShM**8uM"O tt goomu mmfuiquasuodaAdvssa g
~
l Frequency 8
0 i
o N
a cn cm i
i 0.4 l
0.8
{
1 l
1 r
1.1 1
k 1.2 i
t 1
1.3 l
J.
' )
l i
1.4 I
f
- l
'Sm j
E-.
y i
(a T
3 M
1.6 l
r c
j O
1 c::
1.7 0
. l c
I iT ri e
i l
<0, 1.8 :
9 l
l 3
I k
en e
i O
1.9 l
n>
F M
1 i
(n N
2 Na
+
Q) 2.5
?
e I
3 5
[
3.5 1
I f
More i i
}
.L
- fi a
f f
i i
l l
r F
'f
(
1 f
e r
t e
'1
?
r
..___.-__---nn-,a,---,,-
-. -....~ ~~
,--<,n----,w-.---ve-.-,re,~.-.-_~.n---n....,,,.,...,, - -
.,_,.mn,
-,+,-a
~,
t
- g N
b.
t 4
a TABLES s
i f
4' 4
a 4
a 1
Cushing Refinery Site ($08). July 16,1997 essapweportsvushmstus_ mar 001
L 1
TABLE 6 l
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-IGIA-4 KEPR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING,OKLAIIOMA
\\
Radionuclide Coneenfration (pCi/g)
Location *
- (E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228' 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 2h.18,2.42 508S043 1.21
- 0.11 1.11
- 0.03 35.62,2.42 508S044 i.05 0.08 1.12
- 0.03 2.06,2.42 508S045 1.34 0.11 1.39 0.04 6.64, 8.00 508SO46 1.22
- 0.09 1.22 0.03 J
l3.08,8.00 508SO47 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 1.0'1 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.I8,13.58-508S056 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 508S061 1.88 0.10 1.90
- 0.04 25.96,19.16 -
l 37
..,s,,po,ieto, win,wo,,,,.ooi Ca hing Rennen Site (508). July 16.1,,,
l
TABLE 6 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAIIOMA Location' Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID 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.I9 0.03 22.74,24.74 508S067 1.0310.08 1.08 0.03 29.I8,24.74 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
..I8 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 38 e m, % wussin,mu, m.,coi Cushmg Refinery SHe (5o8). July 16,1997
TABLE 6 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-R5fA-4 KERR-AlcGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAIIO51A Location" Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-2326 Th-228' SYSTESIATIC SOIL SAh!PLES (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, 41.4b 508S086 4.J m 0.11 1.15 0.04 25.96, 41.48 508S087 1.65
- 0.10 1.58
- 0.04 4
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 508SO94 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
' l.14
- 0.09 1.10
- 0.03 13.08,52.64 508SO97 1.17 + 0,10 1.15 t 0.03 19.52, 52.64 508S098 1.06
- 0.08 1.09 0.03 1
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
-J 39 euapWrutushins\\cus_ mat 00)
Cuhtag Refinery Site (508). July l A 1997
..=--
e TABLE 6 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 1 AREA-RMA-4 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAIIOMA Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g) j Location *
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-2326 Th-228' SYSTEMATIC SOIL SAMPLES (Continued) 4 16.30,58.22 508S104 1.10
- 0.08 1.14
- 0.03 22.74,58.22 508S105 1.36
- 0.09 1.31
- 0.04 29.I8,58 52 508S106 0.95 0.08 1.I1
- 0.03 35.62,58.22 508SI07 0.97
- 0.08 1.04 0.03 42.06,58.22 508S108 1.14 0.10 1.05
- 0.03
- 48.50,58.22 508S109 1.14
- 0.09 1.02
- G.04 HIASED SOIL SAMPI.ES FROM SCAN RESULTS near 35 62,13.58 508S110 32.83 0.36 32.88 0.15
?
near 38.84,19.16 508S111 17.42 + 0.26 17.45
- 0.11 near 25.96,19.16 508S112 38.19
- 0.39 38.15
- 0.16 near 35.52,35.90 508S113 3.23
- 0.11 3.50 0.05 near 25.96,41.48 508S114 66.69
- 0.49 66.89
- 0.21 near 25.96, 41.48 508S115 14.45
- 0.22 14.67
- 0.10 1
near 25.96,52.64 508S116 3.66
- 0.14 3.64
- 0.05
- Refer to Figure 2.
%232 cancentration bLsed on gamma emission.' rom Ac 228 (911 kev).
'The Th-228 concentration was based on the gamnu emission from Pb-212 (239 kev),
tncertainties represent the 95% (onfidence level, based oniy on counting statistics.
40 e..gv oon,s ain,sco,
, ooi c
cehing Rennery Siw (508)+ My 16.1997
TABLE 7 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 2 AREA-GRID BLOCK 46
' KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAllOMA
~ Location
- Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
~
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-232
Th-228' 4.54,2.4 508S183 1.23
- 0.09d 1.25
- 0.03 11.12,2.4 508S184 1.04
- 0.08 1.01 0.03 7
17.70,2.4 508S185 1.01 + 0.08 1.01
- 0.03 24.28,2.4 508S186 I.02
- 0.07 1.01
- 0.03 30.86,2.4 508S187 0.84
- 0.08 0.79
- 0.03 37.44,2.4 508S188 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 508S191 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 '
508S193 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 508S198 0.88 0.08 0.86 0.03 47.31,8.10 508S199 1.35 0,10 1.30
- 0.04 53.89,8.10 5085200 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 a m s son. w ris.i m 41 essapsreportscushinswus_mer oor s
coa.n.n
TABLE 7 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL CLASS 2 AREA-CRID BLOCK 46 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAIIOMA Location' Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
(E, N coordina+es)
ORISE Sample ID Th-2326 Th-228' 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 J
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,?5.20 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 37.44,25.20 508S224 0.80 0.06 0.75
- 0.02 44.02,25.20 508S225 0.95
- 0.08 0.86 0.03 42 e.pvepo,1,xo.nm,w
,00, Cushms Renne,y Sne 008)- July 16,1997
TABLE 7 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL 1
CLASS 2 AREA-GRID BLOCK 46 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAIIOMA Location' Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-232b Th-228' 50.60,25.20 508S226 0.98
- 0.08 0.93
- 0.03 57.I8,25.20 508S227 1.00
- 0.07 0.97
- 0.03 1.25,30.90 508S228 1.48 0.09 1.37
- 0.03 7.83,30.90 508S229 1.47 t 0.10 1.48
- 0.04 14.41,30.90 508S230 1.45
- 0.09 1.36 0.03 20.99,30.90 508S231 1.22 0.08 1.26
- 0.03 27.57,30.90 508S232 1.22 0.08-1.16 0.03 34.15,30.90 508S233 1.03
- 0.07 0.98
- 0.03 40.73,30.90 508S234 1.23 0.10 1.13
- 0.03 47.31,30.90 508S235 1.25
- 0.09 1.11
- 0.04 53.89,30.90 508S236 0.96 0.09 0.96 0.03 4.54,36.6 508S237 1.36
- 0.09 1.40
- 0.04 11.12,36.6 508S238 1.30
- 0.10 1.29 0.03 17.70,36.6 508S239 1.53
- 0.10 1.50 0.04 24.28,36.6 508S240 1.29 + 0.10 1.27
- 0.03 30.86,36.6 508S241 1.17 0.09 1.24'* 0.03 37.44,36.6 508S242 1.08
- 0.07 1.06 0.03 l
44.02,36.6 508S243 1.28 0.08 1.20 0.03 i
50.60,36.6 508S244 1.37 0.09 1.33 0.03 j
57.18,36.6 508S245 1.02
- 0.08 0.95 0.03 47.29,23.87 508S246 1.14 0.07 1.17 0.03
' Refer to Figure 3.
%-232 concentration based on gamma emission frem Ac-228 (911 kev).
'The Th-228 concentration was based on the gamma emission from Pb.212 (239 kev).
dUncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.
43
,,,,,v,po,1,vosnio,wo, ooi Cahmg Refmery Site (308). July 16.1997
TABLE 8 RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAHOMA Location"
- Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
(E, N coordinates)
ORISE Sample ID Th-232 Th-228' b
4 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 0.94
- 0.I1 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 i.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
- h4 essapWportsvushingVus mar 001 Cushmg Refinery Site ($08). July 16.1997 l
TABLE 8 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSIIING, OKLAIIOMA Radionuclide Concentration (pCi/g)
Location' (E, N coordinates)
OIUSE S::mple ID Th-2326 Th-228' 39.44,17.29 508S140 1,38
- 0.10d 1.41 0.04 3.25,22.99 508S141 1.42
- 0. I i 1.38 i 0.04
~
9.83,22.99 508S142 1.48
- 9.09 1.17 0.04 4
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 i 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 5?SS154 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 4
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 45 e,,,,w.po,s.v.,aio,,,,, m., ooi Cushing Refinery Site (508). July I6,1997
TABLE 8 (Continued)
RADIONUCLIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA-GRID BLOCK 61 KERR-McGEE CORPORATION CUSHING, OKLAIIOMA Location' Radionuclide Concentration (pCl/g)
(E, N cooi dinates)
ORISE Sarapie ID Tli-2326 Tli-228' 1
32.86,40.09-
'508SI63 1.15 0.09 1.16 0.03 39.44,40.09 508S164 1.14 0.11 1.10
- 0.03 3.25,45.79 508S165 1.44 0.11 1.33
- 0.04 9.83,45.79 508S166 1.14
- 0.10 1.16 0.03 16.41,45.79-508S167 J.47
- 0.12 1.57
- 0.04
' 22.99,45.79-508S168 1.20 0.10 1.22
- 0.03 29.57,45.79 508S169 1.42
- 0.09 1.39 0.04 36.15,45.79 508S170 1.09
- 0.09 1.19
- 0.03 6.54,51.49 508S171 1.35 0.09 1.23
- 0.03 13.12,51.49 508S172 1.14
- 0.11 1.24.t 0.03 19.70,51.49 508SI73 1.20
- 0.10 1.18
- 0.03 26.28,51.49 508S174 1.32
- 0.07 1.17
- 0.03 1
32.86,51.49 508S175 1.38
- 0.10 1.40
- 0.03 39.44,51.49 508S176 1.23
- 0.09 1.24
- 0.03 3.25,57.19 508S177 0.99 + 0.09 1.17 t 0.03 9.83,57.19 508S178 1.29
- 0.09 1.19 0.03 16.41,57.19 508S179 1.09 + 0.11 1.32
- 0.04 22.99,57.19 508S180 1.16 0.10 1.27
- 0.03 29.57,57.I9 508S181 1.27 0.09 1.20
- 0.03
- 36. i'i, 57.19 508S182 1.25
- 0.09 1.31 0.03
' Refer to Figure 4.
4
%232 concentration based on gamma emission from Ac 228 (911 kev).
'The Th 228 concentration was based on the gamma emissicn from Pb-212 (239 kev).
' Uncertainties represent the 95% confidence level, based only on counting statistics.
4b essapveportsvushingtus, mat 001 Cushing Refinery Site ($05)' My 16.1997
' i.-
~
I -
\\
REFERENCES Kerr-McGee Corporatica (KMQ. Final Radiation Survey of Four Unaffected Areas of the Cushing Refinery Site. Apnl 1995.
Multiagency P.adiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Public Review Draft.
October 1996a.
Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual. Draft for Public Cornment.
December 1996b.
. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education ORISE). Survey Procedures M:nual for the
(
Er:ergy/ 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, Environmentat 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.
l l
l i
47 empveportstushingwus, mar 001 Cashmg Re6nery Sne (504). Juiy 16,1997
I
(
i APPENDIX A j
MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION i
1 I
i i
Cushing Refinery Site (508) kly 16,1997 asapwportswahingku mar 001
'g:'
- APPENDIX A MAJOR INSTRUMENTATION The display of a specific product is not to be construd as an endorsement of the product or its
~'
manufacturer by the author or his employer.
i DIRECT RADI ATION MEASUREMENT h
Instruments h
Eberline Pulse Ratemeter Model PRM-6 l
(Eberline, Santa Fe, NM)
I udlum Ratemeter
)
~
Model 12 i
_(Ludlum Measurements, Inc.,
a Sweetwater, TX)
Detectors -
Victoreen Nal Scintillation Detector hiodel 489-55 3.2 cm x 3.8 cm Crystal l
(Victorcen, Cleveland, OH)
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL INSTRUMENTATION Iligh %rity Extended Range Intrinsic De :cte s j
Model No. ERVDS30-25195 (Tennelec, Oak Ridge, TN)
Used in conjunction with:
Lead Shield Model G-11 (Nuclear Lead, Oak Ridge, TN) and c
Multichannel Analyzer 1
3100 Vax Workstation (Canberra, Meriden, CT) -
l 1
l 4
A-1 g.,po,s w.,niosto,m.,ooi cushmg Refinery Sue (MS) My 16,1997
~
d E('
Q._,
- High-Purity'Gemunium 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) 9 i
A-2
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,un,x,, co i
- Cmhing ReAnc,y $m (504). July 141997
3 APPENDI:s B SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES i
I esupvepetsvushmsvus.nur 001 s_,
Cahmg Rafinety Siw ($08) July 16.1997
APPENDIX B SURVEY AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES SURVEY PROCEDURES Surface Scans 1
i l
Surface scans were perfoi * ' passing the detectors slowly over the surface; the distance between the detector and the surface was maintained at a minimum - nominally about 10 cm. Identification of elevated levels was based on increases in the audible signal from the recording and/or indicating i
' instrument. Combinations of detectors and instruments used for the scans were-i Gamma Nal scintillation detector with ratemeter Soil Sampline Aopcoximately I kg of soil was collected at each sample location. Surface soil samples were collected at 0-15 cm depth.' Collected samples were placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and labeled in accordance with "SSAP survey procedures.
ANALYTIC * '. PROCEDURES a
Gamma Spectroscopy Soil samples were dried, mixed, crushed, and/or homogenized as necessary, and a portion sealed in 0.5-liter Marinelli beaker or other appropriate container. The quantity placed in the beaker was chosen to reproduce the calibrated counting geometry. Net material weights were determined and the samples counted using intrinsic germanium detectors coupled to a pulse height analyzer system.
Background and Compton stripping, peak search, peak identification, and concentration calculations b*$
essapvrwetsveshingwus_ mar 001 Cabing Refmery Siie(508) July I6.1997
d
)
2 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 acti tities of radionuclid'es of concerns are:
)
1 Th 228 0.239 MeV from Pb-212*
. Th-232
.0.911.MeV from Ac-228*
.l l
1
- Secular equilibrium assumed.
~
i i
UNCERTAINTIES AND DETECTION LIMITS The uncertaintics associated with the analytical data presented in the tab! s of this report represent the 95% confidence level for that data. These uncertainties were calculated based on both the gioss 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 l
times the str.dard 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 thani MDC. Because of variations in background levels, measurement efficiencies, and contribuCons from other radionuclides in samples, the detection limits differ from sample to sample and instrument to instrument.
i CAtlBRA110N AND QUALITY ASSURANCE L Calibration of all field and laboratory instrumentation was based on standards / sources, traceable to NIST, when such standard /sotutes were available. In cases where they were not available, standards l of an industry recognized organization were used.
E B-2
,,,.pwpo,i,w sio,w., m,, ooi cushing Rermery Siw (50s). July Id.1997
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 ) (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.
I Participation in EPA and EML laboratory Quality Assurance Programs.
Training and certification of all individuals performing procedures.
Periodic internal and external audits.
B-3
,,,,,v,po,1,wo,sio,so, m., ooi Cashms Refinery Site (508). July 16, t 997
4 l
APPENDIX C SPREADSIIEET RESULTS FOR WII.COXON RANK SUM TESTS l
I 1
Cushing Rednen $m(508) hly 16,1997 essap\\reportstushing'cus_ mar 001
4 i
' Spreadsheet for WRS Test Class 1 Area (RMA-4) i Th 232
! Area Adjusted Data 1 Ranks
- Ref Area Ranks I
i l
(pCi/g) 1.48 R
j 1.636i
~~
1201 120.
1.26
!R 1.415i
~
80:
80 1.34
,R 1.498; 96i 96; 0.95 R
1.1093l 15:
15l i
0.95 R
i 1.1149 16!
16i 1.28 R
I 1.442 84.5l 84.5[
}
1.703 126.5I~
126.5 I 1.54 R
1.41
!R j
1.567 109' 1091 1.21 iR j
1.37l 72 72l 1.36
'R 1.521!
100j 100i 1.14
<R 1.297!
59, 59l
~
1.39 lR
~
1.551!
104f 104f 1.22
'R 1.383l 75!
75!
1.581!
112i 112!
1.42 lR 122' 122 1.48
- R 1.64:
~~
97i 97:
1.34 iif~ l 1.504; 1.47 R
1.625!
116:
116i 1
118.5t 118.5:
1.48
!R 1.635!
- 107, 107; 1.40
- R 1.56f~~~
R 1.609 114i 114!
1.45 i
1.27 R
1.428-82:
82 1.39
.R 1.554 105 105i 1.37 iR 1.532!
101!
101:
~
+
92!_.
92!
I 1.479
~___1. 32
[R 1.472i 89l 891 1.31
!R t
1.203 t 40i 40; 1.04 JR 1.52 lR i
1.679:
124!
124' 1.54
!R l
1.703; 126.5!
126.5 1.40 iR
~I 1.559; 106i 106f 1.32 IR l
1.484i 93l 93i 103 103i 1.38 lR 1.543i
~
118.5 118.5l 1.48 jR 1.635 1.34 R
1.496L 95!
95j 1.31
_R.
j 1.473!
90!
90 1.46
- R I
1.621i 115i 115 1.04 75 1.198!
38.5l 38.5 1.03 R
1.1851 35!
35j 0.89 R
I 1.0455f 6!
6l 1.515I 99i 99j 1.36 TR I
1.13 lR i
1.285 56 I 561 1.30 ill l
1.462!
88 88i 1.41 TR 1.5651 108!
108; b~}
essaperts'<ushing'cus_ mar 001 Cushmg Refmery 5n (508) My 16.1997
f (-
1.24
'R 1.395j -
77!
77:
~ 1.15 IR 1.314l 64!
64j 1,14
- R 1.2971 59 59i 1.44 IR 1.5994 113!
113I 1.14
!R 1.2971 59) 59i 1.47 lR 1.626l 117l 117i 1.20 lR 1.362!-
71i 71 A
1.42 IR 1.577i >
110:
110l 1.09 R
i 1.2491 45i~
48(
1.35 R
1.514I 98!
98l 1.14
' R 1.304!
62 62l
~
1.20 lR 1.359' 70 70!
1.32 jR 1.476 91 91l 1.38 IR 1.539I 102 102) 1.3871 76l 76l 1.23 iR 0.99 lR 1.1499 j 26l 26!
1.29-jR 1.449l 86l 86I 49:
49l 1.09 jR 1.2531
~
6 51 65l i.'16 lR 1.3197 83!
83i 1.27 R
1.434i
~
1.25 R
1.408 l 781 781 1.26 S
1.26l 521 01 1.21 S
1.212l 42 0!
1.2111 411 0j 1.21 S
1.05
- S 1.054
8:
0 1
1.336l 67!
Oj 1.34
{S 1.22 lS 1.219:
44!
0; 1.293:
57i O!
1.29
'S 51l 0
1.26 S-1.259)
~
33!
0 1.182!
1.18 S
1.31 S
1.31:
63i O'
S i
1.068l 11 0
1.07 4
1.42 18 1.423' 81 0
1.22 S
1.218; 43!
0 1.12 S
1.12:
171 0
138 5
df7i 31[
0 3.26 S
3.2591 135l 0
1.36 S
1.357l 69i 0
1.28 S
1.278i 55!
0 1.20 S
1.198l 38.5 0
1.33 S
1.326i 66l 0
1.88 S
1.8841 1281 0
2.09:
S 2.085 132l 0
1.30 S
1.299 61l 0
1.06 S
1 1.059f 9j 0
1.07 S
i 1.069I 12 0!
1.186!
36 01 1.19
-lS 1
1.03 iS I
1.027:
4 0!
2.055T 131-0l 2.06 iS b*2 merptuhingtu_rnu 4 Cahing Rennery Siw (508). July 16.1997
.... =..
- 4
- L, 2.26
+S 2.2561 133i Oi iS 1.452' 87I OI~
I 1.45-0.97-
- S.
0.9687 01 1.23 S
11.2 3-45!
0
- 1.27.
S 1.268 53!
0 1.58 lS 1.578 111i
.0 2.68 iS 2.677 j 1341 OI
[
1.41 lS 1.409 [
79!
OI 1.16 IS 1.159) 28i O'
o 1.25 S
1.247 471 0
4 6
1.15 S
1.147 25{
0 3
1.15 S'
1.146 24l 0
1.69 S
1.693 1251 0
130l 0
J --'
2.05 S-2.052 :
_1.12 S
1.124 18 0
1.25-S 1.245!
46 0
~
~
1.04 S
1.0351 5l 0t 1
1.19 T
1.191 37i 0l 1.65 S-1.653 1235 0
1.37-S 1.372 73 0
19 0(
1.13 3
i 1.128 1.18 lS 1.184 34l Oi
~
1.14 iS 1.142 21!
O!
1.37S 74!
0l 1.38 IS i
1.44 S
1.442:
84.5!
Oi I
1.15 S
1.154i 27!
Oi
~
1.08
,S 1.081; 13i
~ 0l
-1.14
~S 1.136:
20I 0l 1.17- -
S 1.171!
29i 0j 1.063; 10i 0j 1.06 S
1.92 S
1.922I 129!
01 1.27Y 543 0
1.28 S
1.17 S
i 1.172 j
_ 30; O
1.18 S
1.179l 32!
01 1.258 l 50 0
1.26 S
4 1.10 S
1.098 14 0
1.36 S
I 1.356 68' 0
O.95 S
0.9461 1
0 0.97-S i
0.966 2
0 1.14 S
1.143 22 0
1.14-S
.I 1.144 23 0
Mean of reference area :
1.29-STD DEV Ref. Area
-i
'O.16 Wr=
5580 Mean of Class 1 area 1 1.34lThe critical value is 4862; since Wr is greater than STO DEV Class 1 O.40l critical value, hypothesis rejected & survey unit passes 1
C,,,v,,o,,,w sio,vo.
,.ooi
- Cmhmg ReAnery Sm ($08). July 16.1997
,w.
i
's
\\
t i
j Spreadsheet for WRS Test -
,l Cirs3 2 Area (Grid block 46)
I i
N 232 Area - iAdjusted Data l Ranks (Ref Area Ranks i I
l (pCi/g) 125i 125i 1.48
.R 1.636 84l.
84[
1.26 JR-1.415.
~
' 27!
.27i 1.0528I O.89-lR r
~
1.34 7R 1.498j 101j 101f ~ ~ ~
0.95
'R-
~j 1.1093 32i 32[
0.95
. R-1.1149 34l 34l
~
1.28 R
1.442 88!
88' 129.5l -
129.5 1.54 R
1.703 1.41 R
1.567 115i 115 1.21' R.
1.37 78 78 l
^
~
"1.36 R
}
1.521 105 105
~ 1.14 R
i
.1.297 65!
65 I
1.551 1101 110!-
Y'R l
1.383l 79
-79i.
1 11.3 9-f 1.22 117l 117i
~
1.42
. R f
1.581' 1.48 iR 1.6391 1261 126
~ 1.48 IR 1.64l
~
127i 1271
~
1.34
}R-1.5041 102!
1021 1.47 IR 1.6251 121!
121l
'1.48 lR 1.635!
123.5:
123.5j 1.40-lR 1.562; 1131 113f i
1.609:
119!
119!
1.45 IR i
1.27~ TR
-i 1.428; 85!
85!
111 111
~ 1.39 R
i 1.554;
~
107i 107 1.37
-lR i
1.5321 96I 961 1.32 TR j-1.479i.
99I 99j 1.33.
'R l
1.493) 1.472i 93!
93 1.31-R
~1.203l 45i 45
~
1.04 R
128' 128j 1.52 R
.1.679!
~ '~
129.5!
129.5 1.54 lR-1.7031.
i 1.40 R
1.559l 112 112 l
1.32 R
1.484 j 98 98 i
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 4
-1.46 R
=}
1.621 120~
120 1.04-R 1.198 44 44 1.03
_R -
1 185 431 43' O.89 lR 1.0455, 26}
26 1.36 R
1.5151-104!
104.
1.13-
, R 1.285}-
61.5!
61.5 1.30-R --
1.462!
91[
91 l
1.41
- R 1.565l 114j 114!
~
C-4 essapwportswushingVus, mar 001 Cushing Refinery sine (Sos). My 16.1997
e 1.24
!R 1.395:
821 82i 1.314]
70!
70T
_ 1.15 R
1.2971 65i 6 51 1.14; iR
, 1.599 118 118l 1.44, iR 1.14 JR 1,297 63 65) 1 47 LR 1.626i 122!
122!
1.20 1R 1.362' 75!
75l 1.42 lR 1.5771 116:
116!
1.09 lR 1.249; 55 55 1,.35 IR-1.514l 103 103
~
1 14 iR 1.3041-68i 681 1.20
[R i
1.359 74l 73 1.32
~IR 1.476 95l 95l 2
[
1.5391 108.l 108!
.. _17. 8'
.R i
1.23
-lR 1.387 {
80[
80l 1.14991 37!
3 71 0.99 lR i
1.449I 90i 901 1.29
]R 1
1.09 lR i
1.253i 58i 58i
~ 1.16 lR i
1.319l 71I 71i 1.4341 86i 86i 1.27 TR
~
1.25
[R i
1.408l 83; 83i
~
1.227i 50!
01 1.23
~[5
[
1.04 IS I
1.038l 25 {
Oi 1.01i 20L O!
1.01
!S 211 O!
1.02
,S 1.01_6; 0 84
- S 0.8406!
9 0:
6.8612l 11!
0 0.86 jS 1.23 iS 1.229; 51, 0;
OI 1.15
{S l
1.1_5J _
38[
1.39 S
1.3911 81; 0:
46:
0<
j 1.21 S
i 1.21!
~
69i 0[
1.31 S
I 1.313:
1.17 S
1.171!
42!
Ot 1.08 S
i 1.081!
301 0l 0.6223!
li 0l
~
0.62
- S 0.82 S
i 0.8207) 7!
0[
'~
/.
0.88
,S 0.88161 13' 01 1.35 S
1.353 72 Oi 0.64 S
l 0.6439 3l 0[
1.29 S
1.287 63j 0{
1.11 S-1.111 33' O
1.44 S
1.436 87 0
1.16 S
1.161 40 0
p 1.16 S-1 1.158 39 0
0.84
[S T
0.8448 10 0
0.64 iS 0.6357 21 0
i 0.65 lS i
0.6549L 4i 01 1.07
!S j
1.068l 29' 01 0.83 iS
'O.8333I 81 Oi C-5
,,,,ps,,,o,,,x sin,sco,_m., ooi Cu.hing Refinery $m (508). July 16. I997
. :s
l I
4 l
1.02
- S 1.019; 23l 0-l 1.24
- S 1.2371 5 37 0
1.25 ls 1.251 57!
01 1.2491 0
1.25
!S 56; 0.66 is 0.66171 5;
0:
_.1 0.93 jS 0.93011 14i 01 1.12 is 1.115" 351 0'
--. s.. 4 0.879:
12 0
i
.- -. O. 8 8
~
1.26 f5 1.2641 59!
O!
~
1.37 iS 1.369l 77j Oi 1.06 IS-~ ~7 1.063i 2%
0!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0.98 IS 0.9832i 17l 0:
0 80
[5 O.8016i 6I 0
0.95 0.9452 15; 0-is 0.98 lS 0.9842 18f O'
~
1.00 IS 0.9992!
19 0;
1.48 iS 1.479 l
^
97!
0' 1.47Y 92-0' 1.47
!S 1.45 is 1.446i 89:
0; 1.22 jS 1.216; 47l Oi 1.22 lS 1.219!
48l O!
l
~
1.03 iS 1.03 24 O!
~~
~
1.23
!S 1.231; 52!
0!
1.25 is 1.245, 54:
0 0.96 IS 0.9621) 16:
0 j
1.36 is 1.355:
73; 0
1.30 IS 1.303l 67j Oi 1.53 S
- E527, 106l O'
i 1.29 S
i 1.285!
61.5' 0) 1.169:
414 0,
1.17 is 1.08 lS i
1.085!~
31!
Oi 1.28 JS I
1.277; 605 0j H
1.37 is 1.367!
76; Oi 1.02 is 1.138l 36 Of 1.018:
22:
0; I
1.14 lS i
{
i i
i I
l l
i l
l Mean of reference area 135I-l l
STD DEV Ref. Area 0.16l Wr=!
5975.5!
Mean of Class 2 area f 1.11 The critical value is 4673; Wr is greater than l
STD DEV of Class 2 0.22 critical value, hypothesis rejected & survey unit passes b*b essaps portsvushmgkus, mar 001 re
. Cushmg Refmery $ste (508). haly 1% 1997
o e
Spreadsheet for WRS Test (for reversed Class 2 and Background Reference Area)!
Clns 2 Area -(AS THE BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA) l l
Th 232 Area IAdjusted Data l Ranks jRef Area Ranks l (pCi/g) i f
l 1.48 S
{
1.476 11%
0l 1.26 IS I
1.255 541 01
~ ' 0l89 __{S-7 0.8928'
~
7I~
0!
1.34 lS l
1.338 75; 0;
0.95 S
.i 0.9493 8
0!
0.95 S
i 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 OI~
1.21 S
T 1.21 45 0j 1.36 lS 1.361 79~
0' 1,14 jS 1.137!
29 Oi
~I.~22
~TS
~I 1.223 '
~
89.5[
01 1.39 iS 1.39Q 47[
0, 1.421 101l' O!
[ 1.42
[ _~}
S 1.479; 1161 0;
_ _1.48
_S 1.48l 117l 0}
1.48 76l 0l 1.34 S
1.344l 110l 01 1.47 S
I' 1.465[
1.48 iS 1.475:
113.5!
0:
1.40 is i
1.402; 94!
0 1.45 iS I
1.449; 107i O'
1.27 iS i
1.2681 55i 0l 1.39
[5' 1.39EE 91l 0l 1.37 lS 1.372l 81l Oi 1.3191 68l 0!
_ 1.32 jS_
l 1.333!
73i 0
1.33 is 1.31 S
l 1.3121 64l 0l 1.04 S
7 1.043l 21i Oi 1.52 S
1.519!
120' 0;
1.54 S_
1.543 123.5 O!
1.40 S
l 1.399 93 Oi 1.32 S
l 1.324 70 0{
1.38 S
1.383 86 0
1.48 S
1 id!
~
74 0
113.5 0
1.34 S
iw6 1.31 S'
1.313 65 0l 1.46 S
1.461 108 0;
1.04 S
1.038 18 Ol 1.03 S
1.025 17 01 0.89 S
0.8855i 6
Ol
~'
1.36
,S 1.355[
78 Oi 1.125I 2'I Oi 1.13_ jS, 1.302i 62 0i 1.30 1
1.41
,S t
1.405I 95.5 01 C-7 empremushmstupr 001 Cwhms Per.ncry Sm 008) h!y 16,1997
o 1.24
!S 1.235i 50; O-1.15 TS
.1.1541 34i 0,
e 1.14 iS 1.137!
29!
O!
~
0:
1.439:
104!
1.44. J' S
,1.14 IS -
1.137;..
29; 0:
1.4661 111:
0' 1.47.
iS t
~~ 1.20 TS 1.202;
~~
44 0
1.42 iS 1.417:
100:
0:
1.09 1S 1.089j 22i 0:
1.35 7S 1.354 I 77j O '.
~
1.144l 32j 0;
1.14 7S f
1.20 lS 1.199i 43i 01
~
1.32
{S 1.316l 661 0;
1.38 iS 1.379 83.5!
0 1.23
- S 1.227 48i Oi 0.99 IS 0.98993 12!
0 1 29-
~i5^~
1.289f 60l 0.
~~~~iT9 IS 1.093!
~
24!
0'
.1.16
!S 1.159!.
'~
35!
0; 1.27
'. S 1.274:
57:
0.
1:
1.25 IS-1.248 l 53i 0;
i 1.387 I 87:
87' 1.23 IR
~ 1.198i 42!
42 1.04 IR 1.01
- R_ _._ _ __
1.17i 37, 37 1.02
- R 1.176i _. _ _ _ _
__.___.a 38:
38-0.86
.R 1.0212 16-16:
1.23
!R
'1.389I 88i 88 1.15
!R 1.311 63:
63 1.39 tR 1.551 125!
125i 1.21
- R 1.37; 80!
80:
1.31 lR 1.4737 112l 112' 1.C 3 lR 1.331 72; 72 1.17
- R 1.241i 51I 51!
-r 0.62
!R 0.7823i il 1'
O.82 IR 0.9807!
11l 1'
0,88 iR i
1.04161 20j
'a 1.35 IR i-1.513!
1181 118!
_ 0 64 ~iR I
0.8039.1 31 3!
1 y
' 1.29 '
>R 1.4471-1061 1061 1.271T 56 56i 1.11
[R
~
1.44
{R 1.596!
126 126; 691 1.16 lR l.
1.321 69 67l
~
1.16' ]R i
1.318 67 0.84 iR- ' i 1.0048T 15 15!
F 0.7957 2l 2!
l 0.64 OJ5 -
lR I
0.8149 4j 4;
1.07 (R
1.228:
49!
49i C*b essapveportsscubingwus_nur 001 Cshing Refinery Sie ($04) Ny 16.1997
. ~
. - _. ~... -. -.
- e:
j 0.83 R
0.9933 13 131-1.02 R-1.179' 40 40l 4
1.24 R
1.397 92.
921 j
1.25 R
1.41 99I~
99 i
1.409 98!
98 1.25 R-4 0.66__
R-0.8217 Si 5
0.93 R
1.0901 231 23 I
1.12 R
1.275 58l 58'
)
^
s
' O.88.
R
- 1.039 19!-
19 1.22 R
1.38 85l 85-
-1.26 R
i 1.424 102i 102 1.37 R
-I 1.529 122 122 4 <
-1,06 R
1.223 46 461 0.98.
R 1.1432 31 31[
0.80, R
0.9616 10 101
- 0.95 R
i 1.1052 25 25I
- n 98 R
i 1.1442 33) 33l
~~
j 1.00 R
i
. 1.1592 36!
'36
'1.48 R
I 1.639 1291 129 l
1.47 R
1.63 128!
128 1.45 R
1.666 127l.
127 4
~
1.376 f82i 82 1.22 R
i 1.22 R
1.379 63.51 83.5
~
1.03 R
1.19 41 41 89.54 89.5l l
_ 1.23 R
r 1.391; 1.25 R
i 1.405i 95.5 95.5l 0.96 R
i 1.12211 26 261
.1.36 R
i 1.515!
119 119I 1.30 R
i 1,463I~
109 109i 1.53-R i
1 687i 130!
1301 1.29 R
i 1.445i 1051 105!
1.17 R
I 1.3291 71 71 i
-1.08 R
i 1.242l 52 52 1.28 R
1.437j 1031 1031 4-1.37-R 1.527 121l 1211 1.02.
R 1.178 39 39 1.14 R
1.298' 61 61 d
Mj.cn of reference area' 1.11 STD DEV Ref. Area 0.22 Wr=
4120.5 Mran of Class 2 area l
1.29 The critical value is 4545; Wr is less than
?
STD DEV of Class 2 -
i
= 0.16 critical value, hypothesis NOT rejected & survey unit fails WRS e
1 Cush5ng flennery Sa ($08) + My 16.1997 ' '
C'h essapVeportsVushingVaspar 001 2
-