EML for comparison of the final results with the values provided by the From some of the discussion that we heard this morning and ORERP teams. our observations, problems. that the site selection subtask has been done no observable The soil sampling I think has been done very well. I've seen In well. quite I think spectrometry, in situ the had have we the people collect soil samples and I hope we can do as well in the future. The sample preparation is different from the kind of preparation that EML has done in the past; however, I believe that the REECo method is quite We've set certain criteria that this method should satisfy and adequate. 10 from some of the data that I have seen today and yesterday, it appears that 11 it is adequately satisfying these criteria. A few more analyses will be 12 13 14 cesium-137 analysis. 15 no 16 obviously. 17 counted 18 contaminating rigors of sample preparation. 19 of 20 counting statistics which is on the order of 2-3%. 21 six samples, there appears to be a slight positive bias of REECo over EML, 22 about 5%. 23 24 25 26 helpful, but I am quite optimistic that that is quite adequate. The next viewgraph the test results for the REECo summarizes We submitted one blank sample which indeed reflected However, activity. detectable on (B) one sample does not make a case I should also point out that this particular sample was simply a duplicate gamma spectrometer aliquots, the and was precision of not subjected to the possible From the analysis of two sets the analysis was within the From the analysis of We intend in the future to continue making compar isons to firm up that bias if it exists, which it looks like it does, and if it does to make the appropriate correction in the future. We don't feel exist, that this is a serious problem, however. The next viewgraph (C) summarizes the test results from the REECo plu- 27 tonium analysis. 28 no detectable activity. From the analysis of three blank samples, they reported However, on the analysis of one blind Utah sample, 180