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