then we will proceed with these other analyses, the more expensive analyses of plutonium and plutonium isotopic composition. The next Committee met viewgraph to (LRA-48). select the On sites Wednesday for the our Site laboratory cesium-137, and those were the members of the Committee. Selection analysis of I think Harold Beckafd Phil Krey with their experience from doing this already in Utah probably “ provided the most valuable Hawthorne was involved in the soil input and questions meeting. the ll provided 12 cesium-137, and then thefolks from NV. 13 all 14 reached agreement in a rather amazing fashion, as it turned out. day, did runthrough The next viewgraph 15 verifications in —S¥€u Measurements, and we Howard Frosty, in the inital selection of 10 the about this sampling and was responsible for that program; also.:a’very important input. site at of the age, field and so forth. spectrometry That was the Committee. several of We the We met hundred prospective sites and (LRA-43) basically looks at the soil -- the site 16 selection criteria. 17 before we even went into the field.In-essence we are looking for large 18 areas of open, which have a consistent ground cover of lawn as our first 19 priority and away from obstructions, such as—buildings and trees, and so 20 forth. 21 is 22 certainly have a fundamental reason for wanting to look at the total cesium 23 that has been deposited on that site. 24 criterion. Other criteria, subject erosion, "25 Now the first four’ here were the criteria that we had An absolute requirement, as much as it can be positively verified, that the to sample has and been undisturbed three it's and not since the testing began. We So that that is a very strong four, subject aréthat_the to site accumulation. is We not want 26 definitely a site that retained the fallout that fell “on it and did not 27 lose 28 waterborne material, or by windborne. it by erosion and did not accumulate 193 it by sedimentation, from