The results of the QC analyses used to evaluate the data are presented as follows. (1) Summaries of the acceptable data by laboratory, environmental matrix are shown in Tables 9-16. presented in Tables 17-20. nuclide, and DCD for each The unacceptable data are similarly (2) Shown in Figs. Al-A37 are the duplicate pairs plotted against each other for acceptable DCDs. In these figures, the broken line represents duplicates that are in perfect agreement. Solid symbols depict duplicates that overlap at 203 open symbols depict duplicates that do not overlap at 20. Figures A38-A45 present duplicate pairs from unacceptable DCDs. (3) Finally, the actual data for all the duplicates and standards from acceptable DCDsare given in the attached microfiche. When sample activity is at or near background, the resultant concentration that would be calculated may be positive or negative. Situations such as this account for the negative concentrations referred to in the figures and raw data here. SOIL ANALYSES Results for acceptable soil analyses are summarized in Table 9 (EAL), Table 14 (EIC), and Table 16 (LRE). The graphic representation of soil duplicate comparisons appear in Figs. Al-All (EAL), Figs. A24-A29 (EIC), and Figs. A33-A37 (LRE). The range of activities measured was large: 905, ranged from 0.01 to 1000 pCi/g, 1376, ranged from 0.01 to 100 pCi/g, and 23942405, and 241 Ary ranged from 0.0001 to 1000 pCi/g. It was expected that the lowest activity duplicates would show the greatest differences and this can be seen in the scatter at the lower left of Figs. A5, All, and A27. Because these samples were low in activity, they have less stringent error requirements, as shown in Table 1. Consequently, the acceptable analyses for low-activity samples deviate further from the ideal line than for high-activity samples. When dose calculations must rely in part on soil activity,” this is advantageous because those samples that have the greatest effect on dose are those in which there is the least analytical uncertainity. Taken as a group, the acceptable soil analyses have a high degree of compliance with the QC criteria, and thus we are confident that these measurements accurately reflect the radionuclide concentrations of the localities sampled. Results of unacceptable soil analyses are summarized in Table 17 (EAL) and Table 19 (EIC) and displayed graphically in Fig. A38 (EAL) and Figs. A40-A44 (EIC). Tables 14 and 19 show DCDs that are simultaneously acceptable and unacceptable: specifically ?°Sr and 2"! am for DCD-28 and 7?7*7#9py and 74) Am for DCD-2. This apparent discrepancy arose because someinitial analyses by EIC did not satisfy the oc criteria and were judged unacceptable. To rectify the problem, several reanalyses were 13