REFERENCES Information relative to comparisons of methods for sampling of soils would be desirable, A statistical treatment of data indicating the applicability of sampling methods for various matrices or forms of a matrix could serve as a guide in the development of sampling programs. However, of the applicable literature reviewed, in only one case was there a reference to a comparison of methods for sampling, and in that case no data wete presented. The importance of the sampling methods has not received due consideration: in fact, not only data but also methods of sampling are open to legal scrutiny. Aarkrog, A., and J, Lippert. 1974. “Environmental Radioactivity in Denmark in 1973." Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Rist Research Establishment. RISO-305. Aarkrog, A., and J. Lippert. 1975. "Environmental Radioactivity in Denmark in 1974." Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Ris& Research Establishment, RISO-323. A comparison of sampling methods 1s complicated by factors other than those associated with matrix and/or technique. Sample preparation, aliquoting, and analysis all contribute various levels of variability to the final result and must be sorted out in comparing sampling methods. Ome way to evaluate the variability at each step is to prepare and analyze a number of replicates; the number of replicates would depend on the degree of precision needed to make the evaluations. Analyses are expensive; hence, a number of replications on a large number of samples necessary to test sampling methods becomes cost prohibitive. Such factors as the particle problem and low radioactivitiles introduce large errors which, in turn, pose questions relating to interpretarion of apparent differences in sampling methods. The specific difference necessary to conclude that sampling methods produce the same or different results is thus dependent on the variables associated with matrix and sampling, preparation, aliquoting, and analyses. With present state of the art, it follows that only large differences among sampling methods can be interpreted as such and that small differences should not be considered as absolute. Alexander, L. T., E. P. Hardy, Jr., and H. L. Hollister, 1960. Caldecott and L. A. Snyder (Fds.). Minnesota, 1959, pp. 3-22. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Bernhardt, D. E. 1976. “Evaluation of Sample Collection and Analysis Techniques for Environmental Plutonium." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada. ORP/LV-76—5. Carrigan, P. H., Jr., and R. J. Pickering. 1967. "Radioactive Materials in Bottom Sediments of Clinch River: Part B, Inventory and Vertical Distribution of Radlonuciides in Undisturbed Cores." Laboratory. Oak Ridge National ORNL-3721 Suppl. 2B. Cline, M. G. SUMMARY 1944, "Principles of Soil Sampling." Sotl Sei., 53(4):275-288. Eberline Instrument Corporation, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1974, Radiation Monitoring for Project Wagon Wheel, 1971-1973."" Fillinger, G. A. The literature for sampling of transuranic nuclides in terrestrial environments Although many reports are available on various aspects of was reviewed. transuranics in the environment, very Little ts said about specific sampling methods and the adequacy of sampling procedures to fulfill a specified or implied mission. In most cases, the mission was not discussed, Two general methods are used for soil sampling: one is based on coring and the other is based on use of a template. Secause of the potential for smearing associated with coring, resulting in cross-contamination, the coring method appears to be applicable only where total radioactivity to a defined depth is to be determined. Coring may not be applicable to sampling for vertical distributions of transuranic nuclides in soils unless precautions are taken to prevent cross-contaminat ion. 36 1931. Prog. Am. Soe. Hort. Set. “Environmental PNE-WW-36. "Sampling Orchard Soils for Nitrate Determination." 28:515-518. Fix, J. J. 1975. “Environmental Status of the Hanford Reservation for Calendar Year 1974." Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington. 10. Procedure." ll. BNWL-B~429. Fowler, E. B., J. R. Buchholz, C. W. Christenson, W, H. Adams, E. R. Rodriquez, M. Celma, E. Ivanso, and C. A. Ramis. 1968. “Soils and Plants as indicators of the Effectiveness of a Gross Decontamination Disaster. Comparisons of sampling procedures for transuranic nuclides in terrestrial environments were not found. At present there is no assurance that cross— contamination or other problems with the sampling methods used did not exist. The presence of radionuclides in the environment has become a sensitive issue. Each worker in the field should assure that the sampling procedure used is that which will result in interpretive data consistent with a well-defined mission. Sampling procedures should be detailed or referenced. "Radio- isotopes in Soils: Particularly With Reference to Strontium-90." In: Proceedings of a Sympoaetwn on Radtotsotopes in the Biosphere. R. 5. In: Radiological Proteetion of the Public in a Nuclear Mass Interlaken, Switzerland, May 26 to June 1, 1968. pp. 456-459, Fowler, E. B., R. 0. Gilbert, and E. H. Essington. 1974. "Sampling of Soils for Radioactivity: Philosophy Experience and Results." In; Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants. Symposium series 38, CONF-740921. 12. Hardy, E. P., Jz. 1974. Through Sept. 1, 1974." Laboratory. HASL-286. pp. 709-727. ERDA "Fallout Quarterly Summary Report, June 1, 1974 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Health and Safety 37