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