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