performed. After reanalysis, a partial approval could occur because only part of the DCD was reanalyzed either by EIC or, in some cases, by EAL. When the reanalyses were successful, approval was given only to the part reanalyzed. The part of the DCD for . whichinsufficient samples remained for reanalysis wasstill unacceptable. VEGETATION ANALYSES Table 10 (EAL) and Tables 15 and 20 (EIC) summarize the results of the vegetation analyses, and the graphic comparisons of duplicates are shown in Figs. Al2-A15 (EAL) and Figs. A30-A32 and A45 (EIC). More than other matrices, vegetation samples approach the limits of detection of the contracting laboratories with a resultant larger discrepancy in the results of duplicate pairs. For several vegetation samples, only the limits of detectability imposed by the radiochemical methods were reported. Although these data were not plotted on the graphs, they are included in the attached microfiche. Despite some scatter that arose from the low levels of radioactivity, the radiochemical analyses of vegetation yielded an acceptable data base especially for 795, and 13"Cs, which contribute the most radiation dose, and also for 239+240,,,, and 24 A. TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL ANALYSES Results of the analyses of terrestrial animals, all performed by EAL, are presented in Table 11 and Figs. Al6é and Al7. Most samples contained only small amounts of radioactivity and the analyses met the QC criteria. MARINE SAMPLE ANALYSES All samples of marine organisms and sediment were analyzed by EAL and summaries of their QC performance appear in Tables 12, 13, and 18 and in Figs. Al&8-A23 and A39. Departures from the ideal line in Figs. Al9-A2l result both from low levels of radioactivity and, in some cases, small samples of marine organisms that yield low activity per sample. As can be seen in Table 1, counting error restrictions are less stringent in such cases. Overall, the marine samples had a high level of compliance with the QC criteria. 14