one.
I would remind you of Bruce's request that documents that you have
there in the preprint state be reviewed in relation to your areas of expert
knowledge and that the authors be communicated with about any comments that
you might have about it, so that it gets some additional peer review before
it goes for publication.
— John.Dr. Auxier.
OR. AUXIER:
now.
I have no substantive technical comments or suggestions
It sti1tappears to me, as we have observed before, that the ORERP
has been positively responsive to the DAAG suggestions, and I think the
10 work is progressingi in a very professional manner.
11
The things we've heard
at this meeting that-we've received have helped clarify several long-term
12 problems including that 1d. bug-a-boo of the hotspots; but I would be sur13 prised if when al] is said—and_done if there are not areas found wherein
14
the
15
inmediately adjacent areas, and-I std have a slight nagging concern con-
16
cerning
17
sprinkling and soaking.
18
having looked at it that long in how I would interpret the data.
19
in a general sense how nuclides progress through soil, depending on their
20
solubility and other factors, but I worry .about this.
21
lawn with sprinklers going.
22
right now.
exposures
soil
are
somewhat higher
sampling
in
areas
in
that. are
surrounding
subject
to
areas,
extensive
than
use
the
of
I think it Ys’ perhaps just a problem I have in not
We know
Like we picture a
I wouldn't personally know how to handle that
~
23
CHAIRMAN MOSELEY:
24
OR. CAROTHERS:
25
no recommendations.
26
being done on the NURE data.
27
Friday.
28
as
an
than
Or. Carothers.
—=
With regard to the items presented on Thursday, I have
As an observation,
I am pleased to. see the analysis
This ties in with commentswith respect to
I have no recommendations for the items on Friday either; however,
observation,
I
believe
the
287
Phase II
soil
sampling
program
is