they reflected a contamination level of about ten times the value that you would normally expect from these kinds of samples. that contamination has never been identified. thoroughly cleaned their rectirred. The actual source of After this incident, REECo laboratory and that situation has not since Hopefully it was a freak occurrence and the quality assurance plan’that we intend to follow, that DRI intends to follow, will address this question very carefully. The analysis. of three sets of replicate samples indicated that the precision of ‘plutonium was an unacceptable 20% and this must be improved 10 before routine analyses of Phase II samples can begin and, as Or. Miller ll indicated, DRI and REECO have a plan to address this question. From the analysis of,twelve samples, there does not appear to be a 12 13 demonstrable bias betweenREECo_and EML. 14 .03 seems pretty adequate and iscéertainly not demonstrable to be a bias at 15 all. 16 The weighted average of 1.05 + — — The next viewgraph (D) identifies the 13 sites at which EML has We i? recently recovered the soi} samples where. REECO had sampled earlier. 18 will process and analyze these samples at EML for ultimate comparison with 19 the results from the ORERP teams. 20 sent locations where EML collected a duplicate sample. 21 has also collected a sample at Touelle -- and I'mnot sure that I can see 22 Touelle but somewhere up around here, I can't see but somewhere up around 23 here -- I know that next year they are planning te. revisit a number, 24 perhaps six or seven additional EML sites that were—sampled in Utah in 25 1979. - So by the time that Phase II is over, we should; have. something on 26 the order of 20 or so sites where EML and REECo have sampled identical 27 locations. 28 on a geograpical basis such that two EML teams could adequately reach these The sites-with the blue circles repreI know that REECo These particular sites were selected for several reasons: 181 one