&EPA
        United States
        Environmental Protection
        Agency
        Office of Radiation Programs
Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility
1890 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36109
EPA 520/5-89-008
August 1989
        Radiation
        The Eastern Environmental
        Radiation Facility's
        Participation in Interlaboratory
        and Intralaboratory
        Comparisons of Environmental
        Sample Analyses

-------
      The Eastern Environmental  Radiation  Facility's
   Participation in Interlaboratory and Intralaboratory
Comparisons of Environmental  Sample Analyses:   1981 -  1986
            J.  Moore, J.  Broadway, R. Blanchard
                           1989
           U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Radiation Programs
         Eastern Environmental  Radiation  Facility
                    1890 Federal  Drive
                 Montgomery. Alabama 36109

-------
                             TABLE  OF CONTENTS
                                                                    Page
LIST OF FIGURES	     v
LIST OF TABLES	vij
PREFACE	   ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 	   xi
1.   INTRODUCTION	1-1
2.   INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAMS	2-1
     2.1 EMSL-LV Intercomparison Program	2-1
     2.2 WHO and Mound Facility Intercomparison Programs	2-15
3.   INTRALABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAMS	3-1
     3.1 Blind Analyses	3-1
     3.2 Replicate Analyses	3-8
4.   SUMMARY	4-1
5.   REFERENCES	5-1
APPENDIXES
     A.  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples	A-  1
     B.  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples 	  B-  1
     C.  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Food Samples 	  C-  1
     D.  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Air Filter Samples 	  D-  1
     E.  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Soil Samples 	  E-  1
     F.  WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison
         Sample Analyses	F-  1
     G.  Interlaboratory Collaborative  Study-Mound Facility  ....  G-  1
     H.  Results of Intralaboratory Blind Analyses of Water
         Samples	H-  1
     I.  Results of Intralaboratory Blind Analyses of Milk Samples.  I-  1
     J.  Results of Intralaboratory Blind Analyses of Soil Samples.  J-  1
                                    iii

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES
2-1. The mean value of R, with standard deviation,  for each  radio-
     nuclide measured in EMSL-LV water samples	2-9

2-2. The mean value of R, with standard deviation,  for radio-
     nuclides measured in EMSL-LV milk (•)  and food (°)  samples       2-10

3-1. The mean value of R, with standard deviation,  for each  radio-
     nuclide measured in the intralaboratory cross-check water
     samples	     3-4

3-2. The mean value of R, with standard deviation,  for radio-
     nuclides measured in intralaboratory milk (•)  and soil  (°)
     samples	     3-6

3-3. The percent of the results of the duplicate analyses within
     one, two, and three standard deviations of the mean range.
     The number of samples in each group are given  in  parentheses
     and the theoretical distribution is presented  as  a  dashed line   3-13

4-1. The cumulative probability vs. the percent sample measurement
     error	    4-4

4-2. The cumulative probability vs. the sample coefficient of
     variation	    4-5

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES
                                                                     Page
2-1. EMSL-LV Intercomparison Reference Samples 	    2-1
2-2. Summary of EMSL-LV cross-check water sample analyses	    2-5
2-3. Summary of EMSL-LV cross-check milk sample analyses  	    2-6
2-4. Summary of EMSL-LV cross-check food sample analyses  	    2-7
2-5. Summary of EMSL-LV cross-check analyses of miscellaneous
     sample media	    2-8
2-6. The minimum detectable concentrations for routine cross-check
     sample analyses 	    2-14
2-7. Summary of WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison
     sample analyses 	    2-17
3-1. Summary of intralaboratory blind water sample analyses.  ...    3-3
3-2. Summary of intralaboratory blind milk sample analyses  ....    3-7
3-3. Summary of intralaboratory blind soil sample analyses  ....    3-7
3-4. Values used for calculating the mean range control  limits  .  .    3-9
3-5. Analytical precision for various analyses 	    3-10
3-6. Summary of replicate analyses results 	    3-12
4-1. A summary of the results of all quality assurance samples
     analyzed during 1981-1986 	    4-3
                                     VII

-------
                                  PREFACE
     The Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF)  helps solve
problems defined by the Office of Radiation Programs.   The facility
provides analytical capability for evaluating and assessing radiation
sources through environmental studies and surveillance and analysis.  The
EERF provides special analytical support for Environmental Protection
Agency Regional Offices and other federal  government agencies as requested
as well as technical assistance to the radiological  health programs of
state and local health departments.
     Readers of this report are encouraged to comment freely.  Comments
may be directed to the EERF directly or to the Office of Radiation
Programs in Washington, DC.
                                          Charles R. Porter
                                              Director
                               Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     The authors express their appreciation to the staffs of the
Monitoring and Analytical Services Branch and the Counting Section of the
Technical Support Branch of the Eastern Environmental  Radiation Facility.
We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the Computer Section
of the Technical Support Branch for handling and treating many of the data
that appear in this report.  The work performed by these many staff
members was fundamental in producing this document.   Finally, a special
note of thanks is expressed to Ms. Charlotte Andress for typing this
report which contains so many tabulations.
                                    XI

-------
                              1.   INTRODUCTION
      The  Eastern  Environmental  Radiation Facility  (EERF), which is a
 part  of the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency's Office of Radiation
 Programs  (ORP),  has  compared  its  results of analyses of radionuclides in
 environmental  and biological  samples with those of other agencies, since
 EPA's inception  in 1970.   In  fact, the comparison of results began back
 in  1964 when the  EERF was  known as the Southeastern Radiological Health
 Laboratory and was operated by  the U.S. Public Health Service.  Such
 intercomparisons  are sponsored  by several agencies and the results are
 routinely published  by  the quality assurance reference center of the
 respective sponsoring agency.  All samples in these intercomparisons are
 treated anonymously, identified by a code known only by the originating
 laboratory and appropriate reference center.
      The  EERF  is  committed to making its results of inter!aboratory
 comparison studies a matter of public record.  This provides a basis for
 judging the  validity of routinely reported results.  The Environmental
 Measurements Laboratory (EML), formerly the Health and Safety Laboratory
 (HASL), was  first to publish the results of their participation in an
 intercomparison program (We77).  In 1979, and again in 1982, the EERF
 published all  results of intercomparison programs prior to 1981 that were
 sponsored by the  EPA National Quality Assurance Program at the
 Environmental  Monitoring and Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas (EMSL-LV), the
World Health Organization  (WHO), and the International  Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)  (B179, B182).

-------
     This report presents  our  results for  1981  through  1986 of
intercomparison  studies  sponsored by EMSL-LV, WHO, and  the DOE Mound
Facility at Miamisburg,  Ohio,  as well as our intralaboratory analyses
results.  The latter  includes  the results  for replicate, blind, and spiked
sample analyses.   We  plan  to publish similar reports periodically that
provide updated  performances of our Quality Assurance programs.
                                  1-2

-------
                  2.   INTERLABORATORY  COMPARISON  PROGRAMS
2.1. EMSL-LV Intercomparison Program
     The most comprehensive intercomparison program with respect to
numbers of samples, sample types, and radionuclides has been conducted
with the EMSL-LV Reference Center.  Routine sample types and the
radionuclides that were included in each are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 EMSL-LV Intercomparison Reference Samples

Sample Type                Radionuclides  Included in  Sample


Water               3H(26), 51Cr(17), 60Co(23), 65Zn(15),
                    89Sr(29), 90Sr(25), 106Ru(15), 131I(17),
                    134Cs(24), 137Cs(25), 226Ra(38),  228Ra(28),
                    234'238U(17), 239Pu(12), Gross Alpha (32),  Gross
                    Beta (30)
Milk                6°Co(l), 89Sr(15), 90Sr(13), 131I(16),
                    137Cs(13), 140Ba(8), K(9)
Food                6°Co(2), 89Sr(12), 90Sr(12), 131I(12),
                    137Cs(12), K(12)
Air Filters         9°Sr(5), 137Cs(5), Gross Alpha (5), Gross Beta (5)
Soil                210Pb(l), 226Ra(l), 230Th(l), 238U(1)
     Note:--The number of samples is given in parentheses.
                                      2-1

-------
     Each analysis was made in triplicate.   The results of these analyses
with the known concentrations are presented in Appendixes A through E.   In
the appendixes, the values reported by EERF are compared in two different
ways to the known values supplied by the reference center.   For the first
comparison, the average of the triplicate analyses (column 3) was divided
                                     •^
by the known concentration (column 4) resulting in a ratio (R) shown in
the fifth column.  The value of R is a measure of agreement between the
measured and known concentrations.   The closer the value of R approaches
one, the better the agreement between measured and known concentrations.
However, for low concentration measurements, large values of R are often
acceptable, since the uncertainties of measurement and known concentration
are frequently large at low concentrations.   That is,  as the concentration
decreases the standard deviation (the uncertainty) increases relative to
the measured concentration.   As the concentrations become smaller and the
uncertainties relatively larger, a point is reached at which the size of
the combined uncertainties equal or exceed  the small  absolute difference
between measured and known concentrations.   When this  occurs, the result
of the analysis is considered to be satisfactory, even though, for these
cases, the value of R often  differs considerably from  unity.
     A second method of comparison  is a semi-quantitative statistic known
as the coefficient of variation (CV)  (Mo51).  The coefficient of variation
is particularly useful  in  comparing dispersion of two  or more sets of
positive variates measured in the same  or different units.   For a sample
                                   2-2

-------
with a true mean (w), a sample mean(Y), and a sample  standard deviation
(Sx), the coefficient of variation (CV) 1s usually  defined as
CV
                    . 100 percent
2-1
where
S  =
 x
                                 1/2
                                                                   2-2
When the true mean (u) 1s not known, the coefficient of variation Is
defined as
CV
where
               J[x . 100 percent
                7
                           1/2
                   n-l
2-3
                                                                   2-4
     There 1s normally a wide range of values over which radioactivity Inter-
comparisons are made, therefore, CV 1s particularly useful for these
applications.  Equations 2-3 and 2-4 were used to compute the coefficient of
variation as a percentage of the mean value, and the results are listed In the
sixth column of Appendixes A through E.
     A comparison of the EERF results with the reference center supplied
concentrations, as Indicated by the ratio R, 1s summarized for the various
sample media 1n Tables 2-2 to 2-5.  The radlonucllde Is Identified 1n the
first column with the number of samples analyzed shown 1n parentheses;
analyses that resulted 1n less-than values or samples containing concen-
trations below the MDL are not Included 1n these tables.  The ranges In the
                                      2-3

-------
values of R and the mean value of R are listed in the second and third
columns, respectively, followed by the percent of the analyses differing by
+ 10 percent, + 20 percent, and by more than 20 percent of the known reference
center value.  Agreement within 10 percent is considered very gooa; those
within 20 percent of the known value are considered satisfactory.13
     Approximately 86 percent of all EMSL-LV cross-check results (416 of 486
analyses) were within 20 percent of the known value.   However, 49 (70 percent)
of the 70 EMSL-LV cross-check samples for which our results differed from the
known value by more than 20 percent are judged satisfactory because of the low
sample concentrations, the uncertainty in the measurements and known values,
and the small absolute difference between the results.   These results have
asterisks by them in Appendixes A through E.   Thus, over 95 percent of the
EMSL-LV cross-check analyses are acceptable by this test.   In addition,  of 48
samples that contained concentrations below the minimum detectable level
(MDL), 43 (90 percent) were correctly identified as containing less than the
minimum detectable concentration.
     The data listed in Tables 2-2 to 2-4 are presented graphically in Figures
2-1 and 2-2.   Although we noted above that over 95  percent of the EMSL-LV
cross-check analyses were in agreement,  these graphs  indicate that the results
of these analyses,  particularly for radionuclides measured in water, are
biased downwards.   That is,  although a result of an analysis may have been
within 20 percent  of the concentration supplied by  EMSL-LV, it was generally
less  than the  EMSL-LV value.   However, a similar bias is not apparent for
(a)  This is  an arbitrary judgment first used  in  1977  by  Welford and Harley
(We77)  and continued  in the two reports that followed  (B179,  B182).
                                     2-4

-------
Table 2-2

Summary of EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Sample Analyses(a)
Nuclide
H-3(26)(c)
Cr-51(9)
Co-60(21)
Zn-65(13)
Sr-89(26)
Sr-90(25)
Ru-106(5)
1-131(17)
Cs-134(21)
Cs-137(23)
Ra-226(38)
Ra-228(25)
U-238/234(17)
Pu-239(12)
Gross alpha(32)
Gross beta(30)
Range in R
0.83 -
0.77 -
0.70 -
0.58 -
0.57 -
0.81 -
0.81 -
0.71 -
0.77 -
0.81 -
0.82 -
0.68 -
0.82 -
0.77 -
0.66 -
0.70 -
1.19
2.35
1.23
1.09
1.36
1.21
1.32
1.08
1.18
1.63
1.22
1.48
1.13
1.01
1.3
1.26
Mean Value
of R(B'
0.97 ±_
1.12 j^
1.01 _+
0.96 _+
0.98j^
0.99 j*
0.95 _+
0.90 j*
1.01 _+_
1.09 +_
0.96 _+
0.97 _+
0.95 +_
0.91 ^_
0.96 +
0.88 +_
0.07
0.47
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.09
0.21
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.09
0.20
0.08
0.08
0.18
0.12
Percent of
di f f eri ng
R = 1.00
<10%
81
78
52
92
62
80
20
53
57
57
76
44
71
58
34
33
<20%
100
78
90
92
85
96
80
76
95
87
97
72
100
92
78
70
Values
from
by:
>20%
0
22
10
8
15
4
20
24
5
13
3
28
0
8
22
30
Coefficient of
Variation (CV),
percent
Range
0
3
2
3
3
2
15
2
1
5
0
4
0
1
1
0
.45 -
.8 -
.9 -
.5
.0 -
.9 -

.1
.7 -
.9 -
.0 -
.5 -
.0 -
.5 -
.7 -
.0 -
17
149
32
43
45
32
38
29
32
64
23
42
18
23
34
31
Mean
7
34
14
14
15
9
23
12
14
19
9
17
8
10
16
15
(a)  Individual results are listed in Appendix A.
(b)  + values are the standard deviation of individual analyses.
(c)  ITumber of analyses are given in parentheses.  Analyses of samples containing
     quantities below MDL or measured to be below MDL are not included in the table.
                                          2-5

-------
Table 2-3

Summary of EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Sample Analyses2C%
11
0
17
8
15
31
0
Coefficient of
Variation (CV),
percent
Range
2.7
-
3.8
3.7
6.1
6.6
3.2
- 23
- -
- 38
- 30
- 58
- 66
- 3.5
Mean
7.4
7.2
14
11
16
18
3.4
(a)  Individual  results  are  listed  in Appendix B.
(b)  ^ values  are the  standard deviation of individual analyses.
(c)  Number of analyses  are  given in parentheses.  Analyses of  samples  containing
     quantities  below  MDL  or measured to be below MDL are not included  in  the  table.
                                          2-6

-------
Table 2-4

Summary of EMSL-LV Cross-Check Food Sample Analyses^
Nuclide
K(12)(c)
Co-60(2)
Sr-89(ll)
Sr-90(12)
1-131(11)
Cs-137(12)
Range i
0
0
0
0
0
0
.86 -
.99 -
.51 -
.95 -
.73 -
.90 -
n R
1.10
1.33
1.32
1.17
1.61
1.18
Mean Value
of Rib)
0.99^
1.16 +_
0.95 +
1.05 _^
1.04 _+
1.05 _+
0.06
0.24
0.23
0.07
0.22
0.10
Percent of
differing
R = 1.00
<10%
92
50
36
75
64
67
<20%
100
50
73
100
82
100
Values
from
by:
>20%
0
50
27
0
18
0
Coefficient of
Variation (CV),
percent
Range
1.9 -
6.3 -
6.6 -
1.9 -
3.5 -
6.9 -
14
34
50
18
67
20
Mean
4.9
20
20
10
17
13
(a)   Individual results are listed in Appendix C.
(b)  ±_ values are the  standard deviation of individual analyses.
(c)   Number of analyses are given in parentheses.  Analyses of samples  containing
      quantities below  MDL or measured to be below MDL are not included  in  the  table.
                                           2-7

-------
Table 2-5

Summary of EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Analyses  of Miscellaneous Sample Media
Nucl ide Range in R


Gross Alpha(5)(c) 0.76 - 1.04
Gross Beta(5) 1.03 - 2.01
Sr-90(5) 0.73 - 1.00
Cs-137(5) 1.09 - 1.77

Pb-210(l) 	
Ra-226(l) 	
Th-230(l) 	
U-238(l) 	
Percent of Values
Mean Value differing from
of R(a) R = 1.00 by:
<10% <2Q% >20%
Air Filters(b)
0.93^0.11 60 80 20
1.31^0.41 40 60 40
0.85^0.11 40 60 40
1.38^0.25 20 20 80
son(d)
0.79 0 0 100
1.12 0 100 0
1.00 100 0 0
0.88 0 100 0
Coefficient of
Variation (CV),
percent
Range Mea 	

5-24 10
4 - 156 43
8-27 17
9-77 37

	 23
	 12
	 5
	 13
(a)   + values  are  the standard deviation of individual analyses.
(b)   Individual  results are listed in Appendix D.
(c)   Number of analyses are given in parentheses.
(d)   Individual  results are listed in Appendix E.
                                          2-8

-------
           1.30
          1.20--
    DC   1.10
    H-
     o

     0)
ro
i
     c
     0)   0.90
         0.80--
         0.70
3H   6°Co
-\	\	\	r-
H	h
                                              9°
                                               Sr
H	1	1	h-
U   239Pu    Alpha   Beta
                                                Radionuclides Measured
                        Figure 2-1. The mean value of R, with standard deviation, (or each radlonucllde measured in  EMSL-LV water samples.

-------
ro
i
                o

                0)
                c
                CD
                0)
                    1.40--
                    1.20--
                    1.00
                   0.80
                  ••
 O
                         t^
                    0.60
J	1	1	1	1	1
                              60 Co   a9Sr  90Sr
                  137 r+~ 140
Cs  140Ba    K
              Figure 2-2. The mean value of R. with standard deviation, for radlonuclides measured in EMSL-LV Milk (• ) and food (o) samples.

-------
radionuclides measured in milk and food samples (Figure  2-2).   The
graphical results also show a broad distribution in R about  the desired
value of 1.00 for some radionuclides.  This is reflected by  a  large
                                                            89
standard deviation which, for example, appears excessive for   Sr,
137        228
   Cs, and    Ra measured in water.
     Similarly, using the coefficient of variation  as a  measure of
consistency with the EMSL-LV cross-check samples (see values in the sixth
column of Appendixes A-E), 46 percent had coefficients of variation within
10 percent of the known value; 82 percent were within 20 percent; and less
than 2 percent had coefficients of variation greater than 50 percent.
These coefficients show a slight improvement in accuracy over  the results
reported for 1979 and 1980 (B182).  A more detailed examination of those
samples having high coefficients of variation showed that serious
analytical difficulty was not indicated in most cases.   For  example, the
89
  Sr water cross-check of April 1986 (see Appendix  A) contained 7 pCi/L
but was measured to contain 4 pCi/L, resulting in a coefficient of
variation of 45 percent.  Since the error in the known value of this
sample is about 6 pCi/L at the 95 percent confidence level,  the measured
value of 4 pCi/L is not significantly different from the known value of
7 pCi'/L.  Thus, when using the coefficient of variation  to determine
whether a specific analytical problem exists, one must consider the
magnitude of the associated analytical errors.
     The mean coefficients of variation for each nuclide analyzed in the
EMSL-LV water, milk, food, and air-filter samples are listed in the last
                                   2-11

-------
column of Tables 2-2 to 2-5.  This provides a quick method for comparing
the relative accuracy of the analytical  procedures for different radio-
nuclides.  For example, the mean coefficient of variation of the  H in
water analyses, 7 percent, indicates a relatively accurate procedure
compared to that for 51Cr, for which the mean coefficient of variation
was 34 percent, indicating a relatively inaccurate procedure.  However,
this comparison does not consider the concentrations involved and the
associated analytical errors.
                                           ??fi
     The mean coefficient of variation for    Ra of 9 percent compares
favorably with the 12 percent value previously determined by Williams
(Wi81).  Also, the mean coefficients of variation of 16 percent and
15 percent for gross alpha and beta measurements, respectively, compare
favorably with the 20-40 percent range reported by Jarvis (Ja76).
                                        3   90        226
Considering water as the sample medium,   H,   Sr, and    Ra were
                               51
analyzed most accurately while   Cr was analyzed with the least success,
due primarily to its very low intensity gamma-ray (9 percent).  The
                           131
results also indicate that    I and   yPu analyses may be biased
somewhat low.  It seems apparent that air filters are the most difficult
medium to satisfactorily analyze.
     Table 2-6 lists the minimum detectable concentrations for the
radionuclides commonly measured by the procedures used at the EERF
(Li82).  These concentrations correspond roughly to one-half the detection
limit as defined by Currie (Cu68), in that they are a priori concen-
trations that should lead to detection at a confidence level of
                                   2-12

-------
a = 0.05 and B = 0.05.  Although results presented in this  report are  not
sufficient to corroborate the tabulated minimum detectable  concentrations,
general consistency with those values is demonstrated.  l Of  the  48 analyses
of EMSL-LV cross-check samples that EERF reported as being  below  their
respective detection limits, 43 contained less than minimum detectable
concentrations.  Of the 5 analyses misidentified by EERF, all were the
result of reporting less-than-values for samples containing measurable
quantities of the radionuclide; two cases each for    Ru and   Cr in
                        131
water and one sample of     I in milk.
                                   2-13

-------
Table 2-6
The Minimum Detectable Concentrations  for Routine Cross-Check Sample
Analyses
                          Water Samples (pCi/L)
 3H  - 300                      9°Sr -   1                228Ra        -1
51cr -  30                     106Ru - 30                239Pu        -0.015
60c0 -  10                     134Cs - 10                Gross alpha  -2
        20                     137Cs - 10                Gross beta   -1
         5                     226Ra _   o.l

                  Milk (pCi/L)  and Food  (pCi/kg) Samples
                        -   5                    137Cs - 10
                        -   1                    140Ba _ 10
                 1311    -  10

                           Soil  Samples  (pCi/g)
                  60Co -   0.010                 137cs -  0.010
                 106Ru -   0.030                 239Pu _  0.015
                       -   0.010
                                  2-14

-------
2-2  WHO and Mound Facility Intercomparison Programs
     In addition to participating in the EMSL-LV intercomparison  program,
the EERF also participated in similar programs conducted by the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the Mound Facility (Department of Energy),
Miamisburg, Ohio, although on a much more limited basis.   The individual
intercomparison results for each sample provided by these two
organizations are listed in Appendixes F and G.   The two programs
consisted of 16 samples on which a total of 71 specific  radionuclide
analyses were done.
     A summary of the WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison
sample analyses is given in Table 2-7.  The total diet sample (No. G660)
has been omitted from the summary because the presence of such very low
concentrations of radionuclides resulted in large analytical
uncertainties.  Agreement between our results and the concentrations
supplied by the WHO was similar to or better than that attained in the
EMSL-LV program.  Sixty percent of the analyses agreed within 10  percent
of the reference center value, while 98 percent of the analyses agreed
within 20 percent.  Only one of 48 analyses differed by  more than
20 percent of the known concentration, and it was judged acceptable
because of the small concentration present (Sr-90 in WHO fish sample,
No. H264 -- see Appendix F).  Thus, overall agreement is quite good.
     Using the coefficient of variation as a measure of consistency with
the WHO cross-check samples (see values in the fifth column of
Appendix F), 49 percent were within 10 percent of the known value,
                                   2-15

-------
96 percent were within 20 percent,  and only  2  analyses  had coefficients  of
variation greater than 20 percent.   The mean coefficient  of  variation  for
the 48 positive analyses of WHO samples is 10  percent,  again showing very
good agreement.
     The results of the collaborative  study  of drinking water analyses
with the Mound Facility, listed in  Appendix  G,  show good  analytical
agreement between the two laboratories.  The study  included  10 analyses  of
four radionuclides:  Co-60, Ru-106,  Cs-134,  and Cs-137.   The values  of
R ranged from 0.93 - 1.12 with  a mean  of 1.01 ^ 0.06, while  the
coefficient of variation ranged from 2.5 percent  to 16  percent with  a mean
of only 6.2 percent.  Thus, very good  agreement for radionuclide
measurements in water was realized  between the  Mound and  EPA analytical
laboratories.
                                  2-16

-------
Table 2-7

Summary of WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison Sample  Analyses^
Percent of Values Mean Coeff. of
Sample Total No. Mean Value differing from Variation,
Type Analyses (b> Range in R of Rlc' R = 1.00 by: percent

Milk 9
Water 8
Soi 1 / 9
Sediment
Fish 13
Aquatic 9
Plants
<10% <20% >20%
0.83-1.15 1.04^0.11 44 100 0 11
0.87-1.11 0.98^0.06 75 100 0 11
0.85- 1.05 0.93^0.06 78 100 0 9
0.79-1.15 0.96^0.12 54 92 8 10
0.83-1.20 1.04^0.14 56 100 0 13
(a)  Analyses of total diet are omitted from the summary due to  the  very  low concentra-
     tions (see Appendix F).
(b)  Radionuclides included in these analyses are H-3, K-40, Mn-54,  Co-58,  Co-60, Sr-90,
     Ru-103, Ru-106, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ra-226, U-235, U-234/238, and stable Ca, Sr, and K.
(c)  + values are the standard deviation of individual analyses.
                                          2-17

-------
                  3. INTRALABORATORY COMPARISON  PROGRAMS
3.1  Blind Analyses
     A routine program of submitting water samples  of known  concentration
to the EERF analytical laboratory was instituted by the EERF quality
assurance officer in 1980.  Milk and soil  samples containing known
concentrations have been included in this  program since 1981,  but on  a
much less frequent basis.  These samples were submitted "blind"  to  the
analytical staff with a request to perform specific analyses.    The
results of the "blind" water, milk, and soil  sample analyses are reported
in Appendixes H, I, and J and summarized in Tables  3-1 through 3-3.   The
known value given in the third column of Appendixes H, I,  and  J  is  either
the concentration determined from previous repetitive analyses or the
concentration made by "spiking" the sample with  an  aliquot of  a  standard
solution.
     A total  of 416 "blind" water sample analyses were performed for  21
radioisotopes and gross alpha and beta measurements.   Of  these analyses,
51 percent of the results were within 10 percent and 75 percent  of  the
results were within 20 percent of the known concentration.  Of the  106
analyses that differed from the known concentration by more  than 20
percent, 62 were judged acceptable because of low sample  concentration,
the uncertainty in the measurement and known values,  and  the small
absolute difference (indicated by asterisks in the  appendixes).  Thus,  of
the total of 416 "blind" water sample analyses,  372 (89 percent) were
considered to have an acceptable accuracy.
                                    3-1

-------
     The blind water sample  analyses are presented  graphically  in Figure
3-1.  Evidence of a negative bias  in these  results  is  nqt  as  clear  as  was
observed with the EMSL-LV water analyses (see Figure 2-1).  These results
are more evenly distributed  about  R = 1.00.   The  very  large standard
deviation associated with the Ra-226 analyses, R  =  1.2 ±_ 0.5» is  somewhat
                                    v
surprising considering the recognized accuracy and  reliability  of this
method, and suggests there may be  a problem associated with this analysis.
     There is some indication that the accuracy of  some  analyses  has
improved with time.  For example,  most inaccurate Sr-89  and Ra-226
analyses occurred in 1981.  The improvements may  be the  result of
procedural modifications or  improved techniques.  The  results indicate
continued difficulties associated  with the  Po-210 analyses.   The  results
of the Rn-222 in water, although small in number, reflect  very  good
precision but may be biased  somewhat high.
     A total  of 19 "blind" milk sample analyses were performed  for  five
radionuclides (see Appendix  I). The results,  summarized in Table 3.2,
indicate that milk is a more difficult medium to  analyze than water.  Of
the 19 samples analyzed, 42  percent of the  results  were  within  10 percent
and 74 percent of the results were within 20 percent of  the known
concentration.  In general,  too few analyses of milk were  performed to
judge definitively the reliability of these measurements.
                                   3-2

-------
Table 3-1

Summary of Intralaboratory Blind Water Sample  Analyses^9'
Radio-
nuclide
H-3 (23) (c)
K-40 (2)
Co-60 (2)
Zn-65 (1)
Sr-89 (23)
Sr-90 (27)
1-131 (23)
Cs-137 (4)
Pb-210 (19)
Po-210 (20)
Rn-222 (5)
Ra-226 (30)
Ra-228 (18)
Th-228 (1)
Th-230 (22)
Th-232 (7)
U-234 (32)
U-235 (31)
U-238 (32)
Pu-238 (15)
Pu-239 (30)
Gross Alpha (22)
Gross Beta (27)
Range
Values
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.78 -
.90 -
.09 -
- -
.81 -
.59 -
.63 -
.93 -
.78 -
.23 -
.05 -
.39 -
.72 -
- -
.63 -
.90 -
.73 -
.23 -
.43 -
.76 -
.43 -
.31 -
.61 -
in
of
1.
1.
1.
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
R
28
07
12

40
30
20
29
35
43
14
75
32

38
28
21
86
21
35
32
36
34
Mean Valu
of R 20%
13
0
0
0
22
19
9
25
42
30
0
30
28
0
55
29
12
55
16
13
27
23
26
     Individual  results are listed in  Appendix  H.
     + values are the standard deviation of  individual  analyses.
     ₯umber of analyses are given in parentheses.
                                     3-3

-------
     1.80
     1.60
     1.20--
 0)
 D
75
c
CO
0)
     1.00
     0.80--
     0.60--
     0.40-
H	1	h
1	1	h
H	1	1	1	1	h
                                              228Ra 230 ^ 232^ 284(|   238 y  238^239^ Alpha  Beta
               3H   89Sr  90Sr  131,  137CS  210pb 210po  222^


                                           Radionuclides  Measured

            Figure 3-1. The mean value of R, with standard deviation, for each radionuclide measured in the Intralaboratory cross-check water samples.

-------
     A summary of the results of analyzing 62 "blind"  soil  samples  for  ten
radionuclides is given in Table 3-3.   Individual  results of these analyses
are listed in Appendix J.  Of the 62  analyses,  56 percent were  within
10 percent and 87 percent were within 20 percent  of the known concen-
tration.  Also, of the eight results  that differed from the known
concentration by more than 20 percent, five were  juaged acceptable  (see
Appendix J).  Thus, 95 percent of the soil analyses yielded satisfactory
results.  Although this is quite good, as soil  is often considered  the
more difficult medium to analyze, the results suggest  a rather  strong
negative bias, which will be investigated by laboratory personnel.
     The graphical representation of  the blind  milk and soil sample
analyses in Figure 3-2 shows general  agreement, although it provides
further evidence, as recognized earlier in Figure 2-1,  of a negative bias
in some analytical results.
     These intracomparison results generally show analyses  to have  an
acceptable accuracy and precision, but the degree of accuracy and
precision achieved on the EMSL-LV samples was not experienced with  the
"blind" sample analyses.  That is, for most of  the "blind"  samples, the
mean value of R differs more from unity and has a significantly greater
standard deviation than for the EMSL-LV samples.   This  may  be due to a
greater uncertainty associated with the known value and possibly a  general
tendency to exercise less care when analyzing what is  believed  to be a
routine sample.
                                   3-5

-------
         1.20 —
cc  1-00"
*4-
o

-------
Table 3-2

Summary of Intralaboratory Blind Milk Sample Analyses*9)
Radio-
nuclide
Co-60 (1) {c)
Sr-89 (3)
Sr-90 (4)
1-131 (8)
Cs-137 (3)
Range
Values
_ _
0.67 -
0.71 -
0.49 -
0.89 -
in
of R
_
1.11
1.18
1.18
1.08
Mean Value
of R(b)
1.00
0.86 +
1.01 +
0.84 +
1.01 +_

0.22
0.21
0.26
0.10
Percent of Values Differing
from R = 1.00 by:
< 10%
100
0
50
38
67
< 20%
100
67
75
63
100
> 20%
0
33
25
37
0
(a)  Individual results are listed in Appendix I.
(b)  + values are the standard deviation of individual  analyses.
(c)  TJumber of analyses are given in parentheses.
Table 3-3

Summary of Intralaboratory Blind Soil Sample Analyses(
Radio-
nuclide
Range
Values
in
of R
K-40 (1) (c) 	
Cs-137
Pb-210
Po-210
Th-228
Th-230
Th-232
U-234
U-238
Pu-239
(1)
(11)
(11)
(6)
(6)
(5)
(7)
(7)
(7)

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
- -
56 -
65 -
74 -
84 -
83 -
68 -
72 -
80 -
-
1.18
1.15
1.06
0.99
0.96
1.08
1.07
1.24
Mean Ve
of R<
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97
12
98^
96 +_
87 1
89 +_
90 +
94^
91 +_
94 ^
111


0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
e


15
18
12
06
05
14
11
14
Percent of Values Differing
from R = 1.00 by:
< 10%
100
0
82
45
33
33
60
71
57
57
< 20%
100
100
91
82
67
100
100
86
86
86
> 20%
0
0
9
18
33
0
0
14
14
14
     Individual results are listed in Appendix J.
     + values are the standard deviation of individual  analyses.
     Tlumber of analyses are given in parentheses.

                                      3-7
-------
 3.2  Replicate  Analyses
      Replicate  analyses  are performed on  every tenth sample  analyzed at the
 EERF and on each interlaboratory  cross-check  sample.  Usually,  there were
 two or three replicate analyses on  each cross-check  sample,  but some
 samples were analyzed as many as  six^ times.   To analyze the  precision of
 these analyses, we calculated the mean range  (R")  between duplicate
 analyses from the standard deviation  of the analyses.   The mean range
 (Ro64; Ka77) is defined  by the equation

              "R = d2a,                                                  3-1

 where d£ is a function of the number  of replicates involved  (see Table
 3-4) and a is the standard deviation  (see Table 3-5).   The control  limits
 are computed as follows:

              R + 3 aR =  D4₯ = D4d2a                                     3-2

 where aRis  the  standard  deviation of  the  range  and 04  is a function of
 the number  of replicates  involved (see Table  3-4).   Therefore,
               OR =4-l/.                                            3-3
     The range limits were computed for each type analysis  by  the  procedure
described above.  The observed  ranges between  replicates were  classified as

l(R" + aR), £(R" + 2aR), <_(1T + 3aR), and >fR~ + 3aR).  The number of  replicate
analyses that  fall into each category is a measure of the laboratory's     *
performance.
                                    3-8
-------
Table 3-4

Values Used for Calculating the Mean Range Control  Limits^9)
No. of
Observations
2
3
4
5
6
Central line
factor (d£)
1.128
1.693
2.059
2.326
2.534
Control limit
factor (04)
3.267
2.575
2.282
2.115
2.004
Source:  Rosenstein, M., and Goldin, A. S., 1964, "Statistical  Technique  for
Quality Control of Environmental Radioassay," AQCS Report Stat - 1,  U.  S.
Public Health Service, Winchester, MA.
                                      3-9
-------
Table 3-5

Analytical Precision for Various  Analyses
                                 Concentration          Standard Deviation, a
  Nuclide                        (pCi/L  or kg)          (single determination)
     j 131I§ 137CSj 140Ba            5_ioo                      5 pCi/L
                                    >  100                      5%


90$r                                2-30                      1.5 pCi/L
                                    >  30                      5%


K                                   >  0.1(a)                   5%
                                   < 4000                      5%
                                  ~ 4000                     10%
     i                               >_ 0.1 pCi/L               15%


239pu                               > Q.i(b)                  10%
Gross Alpha                        _<_  20                      5 pCi/L
                                   >  20                     25%
Gross Beta                         < 100                      5 pCi/L
                                   > 100                      5%


(a)   Units are  g/L  or  g/kg.
(b)   Units are  pCi/L,  pCi/g, or pCi/sample.
                                    3-10
-------
     Table 3-6 summarizes the results of the replicate analyses performed
by the analytical laboratory at the EERF for the years 1981 through 1986.
The total number of replicate analyses performed each year is listed in
the second column.  Because large uncertainties in replicate measurements
obscure the analysis of precision, any replicate analysis for which
the 2-a uncertainty exceeded 60 percent of the result was omitted from
the table.  The percent of the analyses within each range is given
with the number of analyses Delow in parentheses.  The distribution
of the precision attained is consistent over the six year period
and indicates no degradation in our laboratory's precision.  The
highest precision was realized in 1983 followed by 1986,  the lowest in
1981.  The distribution of precision for all replicate analyses (2,523),
given near the bottom of Table 3-6, is similar to but somewhat less than
the theoretical distribution listed on the last line.   For example, while
essentially all results should be within the £ fR~ + 3 OR) range, 7
percent exceeded this range.  This departure from the theoretical
distribution is shown clearly in Figure 3-3.  The somewhat less than
expected precision may be due to a failure to include all uncertainties in
deriving the analytical precisions listed in Table 3-5.   Although not
many, some large deviations can be expected due to human  (analyst) error
when hundreds of samples are being analyzed.  Quality control  checks will
minimize but not totally eliminate the latter.
                                   3-11
-------
Table 3-6
Summary of Replicate Analyses  Results
Range
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
All
years
No. of
Analyses £
395
559
229
274
571
495
2,523
(2
Theoretical Distribution
nr * .„)
84%
(332)
84%
(467)
88%
(201)
83%
(227)
84%
(482)
84%
(418)
84%
,127)
84%
< ("R" + 2 aR)
88%
(348)
88%
(492)
91%
(209)
88%
(242)
90%
(516)
92%
(457)
90%
(2,264)
97.5%
£ (1? + 3 aR)
91%
(360)
93%
(519)
95%
(218)
93%
(254)
93%
(530)
94%
(467)
93%
(2,348)
99.9%
> (TT + 3 aR)
9%
(35)
7%
(40)
5%
(11)
7%
(20)
7%
(41)
6%
(28)
7%
(175)
0.1%
Note:  Numbers of analyses in each range are given  in  parentheses.
                                      3-12
-------
               100
                  80
            CO
            CD
            co    60
            ^\
            CO
            c
                  40
I
I—•
CO
                  20
                     0
                                                                                                      >
-------
                               4.  Summary
     This report compiles the results of the inter! aboratory and
intralaboratory quality assurance programs for the EERF's  analytical
chemistry laboratory during 1981  through 1986.  The interlaboratory
program, which consisted of participating in cross-check analyses  with  the
EPA's EMSL-LV laboratory, the World Health Organization, and the Mound
Facility, resulted in 544 analyses.  The intralaboratory program consisted
of 486 blind sample analyses and  2,523 replicate sample analyses.
Cross-check and blind sample analyses were considered  acceptable when the
result of the analysis was within 20 percent of the known  concentration.
Some results that differed by more than 20 percent were judged  to  be
acceptable because of low sample  concentrations, the uncertainty in the
measurement and known value, and  the small absolute difference.  The
distribution of the analytical precision, determined by performing 2,523
replicate analyses (every tenth sample), was similar to but  somewhat less,
about 7 percent, than the expected theoretical distribution  (see Table
3-6).
     A summary of the results of  all  cross-check and blind sample  analyses
is presented in Table 4-1.  A total of 1,030 analyses  were performed  in
all programs.  Overall, the results of 957 analyses, 93 percent, were
within the acceptable range of error.  This includes 119 analyses  that
differed from the known concentration by more than 20  percent but  were
judged acceptable according to the above criteria.  This  is  a somewhat
better performance than that observed during 1977-1980 (B179, B182), which
reflects a dedicated effort to improve laboratory quality.   The number  of
acceptable results was somewhat higher for the cross-check sample
                                   4-1
-------
 analyses  (96 percent) than for the blind sample analyses (89 percent).
 This  is particularly evident for the milk sample analyses.  The reason for
 this  is uncertain, but may be because the analysts exercised more care
 when  the  sample was known to be a cross-check sample.  Of the different
 sample media analyzed, air filters appear to have been the most difficult
 medium to analyze accurately (see Table 2-5).  In general, these results
 reflect a satisfactory performance by the laboratory, although a negative
 bias  appears to exist for some analyses and will be investigated.
      The  results of the EMSL-LV cross-check sample program are presented
 graphically in Figure 4-1, where the cumulative probability is plotted
 with  the  observed percent error in increments of 5 percent.  The
 probability that the result of an analysis will be within a selected error
 of the true concentration during the six-year reporting period can be
 easily ascertained from the graph.  For example, the probability that an
 analysis  will yield a result within 25 percent of the correct
 concentration is seen to be 94 percent.  About one percent of the analyses
 were  in error by more than 50 percent.  However, this graph does not
 consider  those results judged acceptable because of low sample
 concentrations and the larger uncertainties in the results of those
 analyses.
      In Figure 4-2,  the percent coefficient of variation is plotted with
 the cumulative percent of samples.   This figure gives an effective
 standard  deviation for all  sample types as calculated from the normalized
variances  measured with respect to each known value.   Similar to the
results shown in  Figure 4-1,  this figure shows coefficients  of variation *
less than  20 percent for 80 percent of the samples.   Approximately  1.5
                                   4-2
-------
Table 4-1

A Summary of the Results of All  Quality Assurance  Samples Analyzed During  1981 -
1986
Sample
EMSL-LV
Water
EMSL-LV
Milk
EMSL-LV
Food
EMSL-LV
Other(b)
WHO
Misc.(c)
Mound
Water
Blind
Water
Blind
Milk
Blind
Soil
Total
Total
Analyses
340
62
60
24
48
10
416
19
51
1,030
Number of
analyses
differed
expected
< 10%
198
42
40
9
29
9
211
8
30
576
that
from the Number of Results
value by: Judged to be
< 20% Acceptable(a)
295 35
51 7
54 4
14 5
47 1
10 0
310 62
14 0
43 5
838 119
Total
Acceptable
Results (%)
97
94
97
79
100
100
89
74
94
93
(a)   These are samples,  denoted  in  Appendixes A  - J by asterisks, whose
     results differed from the known  values  by more than 20 percent but were
     judged acceptable because of low concentration, the uncertainty in the
     measurement and known values,  and the small absolute difference.
(b)   Samples include air filters (20)  and soil (4).
(c)   Samples include sediment/soil  (9),  water  (8), milk  (9),  fish/total diet  (13),
     and plants (9).

                                       4-3
-------
       100
 as
 o
 V.
Q_
 0)

"5

O
10
                               20        30
                             Percent  Error
40
50
          Figure 4-1. The cumulative probability vs. the percent sample measurement error.
-------
                     100
                  CO
                  V
                  o.
                  E
                  co
                 CO
80 —
                 :   60-
tn
                  c
                  CD
                  o
                  k.
                  0)
                  Q.

                  CD
40
                  3
                  O
                      20 -
                                   10       20      30       40

                               Percent Coefficient of  Variation
                                                  50
                           Figure 4-2. The cumulative probability vs. the sample coefficient of variation.
-------
percent of the sample results  had coefficients  of variation  greater than
50 percent.
     The most important function  of the  quality assurance  program
described in this report is  to identify  problem areas  in our analytical
laboratory.  If a problem exists,  immediate  remedial action  is  initiated.
As is apparent in some of our  reported results,  errors  can occur  for many
reasons -- improperly following a  tested procedure, arithmetical  errors in
the calculations, permitting contamination to enter the sample  during
analysis, fluctuations in counting efficiencies and backgrounds,  and using
incorrect weights, absorption  factors, and abundances.  It requires
continual alertness and expedient action to  recognize and  correct these
problems when they arise.
     This is the third report  describing the performance of  the EERF's
quality assurance programs for the analytical chemistry laboratory.   These
reports describe the laboratory's  performance over a period  of  ten years,
1977 through 1986.  In accord  with our belief that laboratory quality
results should be public record,  the EERF plans  to issue similar  brief
reports in the future.
                                   4-6
-------
                              5.  REFERENCES
B179 Blanchard, R. L., Strong, A. B., Lieberman, R. and Porter, C.  R.,
     1979, "The Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility's Participation In
     Inter!aboratory Comparisons of Environmental  Sample Analyses,' Office
     of Radiation Programs, EPA, Technical Note, ORP/EERF-79-1.

B182 Blanchard, R. L., Broadway, J. A., and Moore, J.  B., 1982, "The
     Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility's Participation in
     Interlaboratory and Intralaboratory Comparisons of Environmental
     Sample Analyses: 1979 and 1980," U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency Report, EPA 520/5-82-012.

Cu68 Currie, L. A., 1968, "Limits for Qualitative Detection and
     Quantitative Determination," Anal. Chem. 40,  586-593.

Ja76 Jarvis, A. N., Smiecinsky, R. F. and Easterly, D.  G., 1976, "The
     Status and Quality of Radiation Measurements  in Water,"  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency Rept., EPA-600/4-76-017.

Ka77 Kanipe, L. G., 1977, "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control  in
     Radioanalytical Laboratories," U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency
     Report, EPA-600/7-77-088.

Li82 Lieberman, R., 1982, "Radiochemical Analytical Procedures
     Manual-EERF," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA
     520/5-82-012.

Mo51 Mode, E. B., 1951, "Elements of Statistics,"  2nd Edition,
     Prentice-Hall, New York.

Ro64 Rosenstein, M., and Goldin, A. S., 1964, "Statistical Technique for
     Quality Control of Environmental Radioassay," AQCS Report Stat -  1,
     U. S. Public Health Service, Winchester, MA.

We77 Welford, G. A. and Harley, J. H.f 1977, "HASL Participation in IAEA
     Intercomparisons," Energy Research and Development Administration
     Report, HASL-322.

Wi81 Williams,  A. R., 1981, "An International Comparison of 226Ra
     Analysis by the Emanation Method," Health Phys. 41, 179-183.
                                    5-1
-------
               Appendix A
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCI/L)
Date

2/81
4/81
6/81
8/81
12/81
2/82
4/82
6/82
8/82
10/82
12/82
EERF
Values

1840
1780
1850
2260
2220
2300
1810
1940
1850
2510
2510
2510
2780
2780
2950
1890
1860
1860
2560
2560
2560
1850
1950
1940
2820
2810
2810
2250
2280
2320
1940
1880
1880
EERF
Average

1823
2260
1867
2510
2837
1870
2560
1880
2813
2283
1900
\
Known
Value R
3H
1760^341 1.04
2710^355 0.83
1950 j^ 386 0.96
2630 + 350 0.95
2700 +_ 355 1.05
1820^342 1.03
2860^360 0.90
1830^590 1.03
2890 + 380 0.97
2560 +_ 350 0.89
1990 + 345 0.95
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)

4.0
17
5.1
4.6
5.9
2.9
11
5.2
2.7
11
4.7
                   A-l
-------
         Appendix A  (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
2/83
4/83
6/83
8/63
10/83
12/83
2/84
10/84
12/84
2/85
6/85
EERF
Values
2570
2570
2590
3090
3090
3070
1480
1480
1520
1970
1950
1970
1330
1330
1300
2240
2170
2260
2370
2380
2370
2860
2840
2840
3210
3190
3180
3840
3830
3840
2530
2570
2560
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
3H
2577 2560 ^ 350 1.01 0.75
3083 3330 _+ 360 0.93 7.4
1493 1529^336 0.98 2.6
1963 1836^342 0.93 7 = 0
1320 1210^329 0.92 9.2
2223 2389^351 0.93 7.1
2373 2383^350 0.99 0.45
2847 2810^356 1.01 1.3
3193 3182 _+ 360 1.00 0.53
3837 3796^360 1.01 1.1
2533 2416 ^338 1.05 5.7 *
                 A-2
-------
                            Appendix A (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCI/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
10/85
 2/86
10/86
11/86
2210
2210
2240

5250
5180
5210

5220
5190
5190

4700
4700
4680
                        2220
                        5213
                        5220
                        4693
                1974 + 340       1.19
                5227 + 574       1.00
                5973 + 687       0.87
                5257 + 605       0.89
                               13
                                0.61
                               13
                               11
                                      A-3
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
2/81


6/81


2/82


6/82


10/82


2/83


6/83


10/83


2/84


6/84


10/84
EERF EERF
Values Average
< 10
< 10 < 10
< 10
< 10
< 10 < 10
< 10
< 10
< 10 < 10
< 10
< 10
< 10 < 10
< 10
52
56 53
50
50
52 50
48
91
151 141
181
49
51 50
51
19
37 31
36
49
74 66
76
< 30 < 30
Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
sic.
0 	


0 	


0 	


23 +_ 5 < 0.43


51^5 1.03 5.9


51 +_ 5 0.98 3.8


60^6 2.35 149


51 ^ 5 0.99 2.3


40 _+_ 5 0.77* 31


66 _+ 5 1.0 19
*
40+5 < 0.75
                  A-4
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
2/85
6/85
10/85
2/86
6/86
10/86
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
30
66 45 48+5 0.94 33
38
34
73 47 44+5 1.06 42
34
< 30
< 30 - 21+5 	
< 30
< 30
< 30 - 38+6 < 0.79*
< 30
< 30
< 30 0.0 	
< 30
38
71 58 59+6 0.98 24
65
                   A-5
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

2/81
4/81 (A)
6/81
2/82
4/82 (A)
6/82
10/82
2/83
6/83
10/83
11/83
EERF
Values

23
21
20
< 10
< 10
< 10
15
16
16
12
13
17
< 20
< 20
< 20
24
27
26
20
19
20
28
24
22
14
15
12
19
18
21
10
12
12
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
60Co
21 - 25 _+ 5 0.85 16
< 10 0 	
16 17^6 0.92 8.3
14 20 +_ 5 0.70* 32
< 20 0 	
26 29 +_ 5 0.89 12
20 20^5 0.98 2.9
25 22^5 1.12 17
14 13^6 1.05 11
19 19^5 1.02 6.8
*
11 11^5 1.03 9.1
                  A-6
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCI/L)
Date

2/84


6/84


10/84


10/84(A)


2/85


4/85


10/85


2/86


4/86


6/86


EERF
Values

12
14
11
31
30
31
15
22
19
19
15
16
19
21
22
17
19
15
18
20
19
19
17
24
11
13
10
57
61
58
EERF Known
Average Value
60Co

12 10 ^_ 5


31 31 ^ 5


19 20 +_ 5


17 14 *_ 5


21 20 +_ 5


17 15 +_ 5


19 18 +_ 5


20 18+5


11 10 _+_ 5


59 66+6

Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)


1.23* 27


0.99 3.1


0.93 16


1.19 23


1.03 6.9


1.13 17


1.06 7.1


1.11 20


1.13 17


0.89 11

                   A-7
-------
                            Appendix A (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
10/86
11/86
   19
   27
   25

   32
   27
   27
                          24
                          29
             60C0


                24 _+ 6



                31 + 6
               0.99
               0.92
   14
   11
                                    A-8
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date

2/81


6/81


2/82


6/82


10/82


2/83


10/83


2/84


6/84


10/84


2/85


EERF
Values

96
90
93
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
17
15
13
20
26
19
24
22
17
44
38
44
47
38
54
57
58
65
134
136
136
54
62
51
EERF Known
Average Value R
65Zn

93 85 +_ 5 1.09


< 10 0 	


< 10 15 +_ 5 < 0.67*


15 26 +_ 5 0.58


22 24^5 0.90


21 21^5 1.00


42 40+5 1.05


46 50 +_ 5 0.93


60 63 +_ 5 0.95


135 147 +_ 5 0.92


56 55^5 1.01

Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)


9.9


-


-


43


16


14


8.7


15


7.4


8.0


8.5

                   A-9
-------
                            Appendix A (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
 6/85
10/85
 2/86
10/86
   51
   53
   45

   26
   15
   15

   41
   42
   39

   87
   87
   69
                           50
                           19
                           41
                          81
             65Zn


                47 +_ 5



                19 +_ 5



                40 +_ 6



                85 + 6
               1.06
               0.98
               1.02
               0.95
    9.2
   27
    3.5
   11
                                    A-10
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
EERF
Date Values
1/81


4/81 (A)


5/81


1/82


4/82 (A)


5/82


9/82


10/82 (A)


1/83


6/83


9/83


17
17
17
41
40
39
33
30
36
21
26
24
26
26
27
26
24
26
26
26
24
< 3
< 3
< 3
34
33
35
59
58
59
19
21
21
EERF
Average

17


40


33


24


26


25


25


0


34


59


20

Known
Value R
3S,
16^5 1.06


38 j^ 6 1.05


36 *_ 6 0.92


21^5 1.13


24^5 1.10


22^6 1.15


25 +_ 5 1.01


0 	


29^5 1.17


57^6 1.03


15^5 1.36*

Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)

6.3


5.7


11


16


9.9


16


5.1


-


17


3.0


36

                   A-ll
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
11/83


1/84


4/84


5/84


6/84


7/84


9/84


10/84


1/85


1/85

EERF
Values
15
17
15
34
37
26
25
26
28
26
24
23
20
19
20
25
22
25
34
35
32
7
12
11
< 3
< 3
< 3
7
6
4
EERF Known
Average Value
-sr
16 17 +_ 5


32 34 +_ 5


26 23+5


24 25 +_ 6


20 25 +_ 5


24 25 +_ 5


34 34 ^ 6


10 11 -i- 5


	 3^3


6 10 + 6
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)

0.92 9.6


0.95 15


1.14 16


0.97 5.6


0.79* 21


0.96 7.7


0.99 3.8


0.91 20





0.57* 44
                 A-12
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
5/85
9/85
10/85
1/86
4/86
5/86
6/86
10/86
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
35
40 40 39+5 1.02 9.1
44
17
17 18 20+6 0.88 13
19
28
25 27 27+5 1.01 6.4
29
27
29 28 31+6 0.91 9.1
29
5
3 4 7+6 0.57* 45
4
7
4 5 5+5 1.07 24
5
< 3
< 3 < 3 0 	
< 3
9
8 8.0 10+6 0.80 21
7
                  A-13
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
2/81


4/81


5/81


1/82


4/82


5/82


9/82


10/82


1/83


5/83


9/83


EERF
Values
32
33
32
31
33
31
28
26
26
13
11
13
13
12
13
13
14
13
14
14
13
16
16
16
17
16
15
39
41
41
9
9
9
EERF
Average

32


32


27


12


13


13


14


16


16


40


9

Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
*osr
34^1.8 0.95 5.1


28^3 1.13 14


22^3 1.21* 22


12^1.5 1.03 8.3


12^1 1.06 6.8


13^3 1.03 4.4


14.5^1.5 0.94 7.0


17.2^1.5 0.93 6.1


17. 2 _+ 1.5 0.93 7.7


38^2.2 1.06 6.6


10 + 1.5 0.90 10

                 A-14
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

11/83


1/84


4/84


5/84


9/84


10/84


1/85


4/85


5/85


9/85


Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
90Sr
9
8 8 8.3 + 1.5 1.00 5.6
8
24
25 24 27 + 3.0 0.89 12
23
24
21 22 23 + 2.5 0.94 9.4
20
5.0
5.3 5.2 5.0 + 1.7 1.04 4.9
5.3
16.6
16.5 17.4 19+2 0.92 8.6
19.2
13.3
13.3 12.9 12.0 + 1.7 1.08 7.9
12.1
28.8
31.5 29.6 30+3 0.99 4.6
28.6
16.1
15.0 15.6 15+3 1.04 4.8
15.6
11.4
13.0 12.8 15+3 0.85 16
14.0
7.9
7.5 7.5 7 + 1.7 1.07 8.5
7.0
                  A-15
-------
                            Appendix A  (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pd'/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
R
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
10/85
 1/86
 4/86
10/86
    7.6
    8.1
    6.1

   15.8
   14.7
   15.9

    9.0
    4.0
    8.5

    4.0
    4.0
    4.2
    7.3
                           15.5
                           7.2
    4.1
                                        9.0 +  1.4
                                       4.0 + 1.6
               0.81
                                 1.03
                                 1.02
               1.02
              21
                                4.8
                               32
               2.9
                                    A-16
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

2/81
6/81
2/82
6/82
10/82
2/83
6/83
10/83
2/84
6/84
EERF
Values

< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 15
< 15
< 15
< 25
< 25
< 25
32
47
40
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
33
48
55
52
53
51
< 30
< 30
< 30
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
106Ru
< 10 0 	
< 10 15 ^ 10 	
< 10 20 ^ 10 	
< 10 0 	
40 30^5 1.32 38
< 25 48 ^ 5 < 0.52
< 25 40 +_ 6 < 0.62
45 52 +_ 5 0.87 22
52 61+5 0.85 15
< 30 29 +_ 5 	
                  A-17
-------
         Appendix A  (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L.)
Date

10/84


2/85


10/85
2/86
10/86


EERF
Values

42
32
55
< 30
< 30
< 30
< 30
< 30
60
55
65
EERF
Average


43


< 30

< 30
< 30

60

Known
Value
106Ru

47 +_ 5


25 +_ 5

20 + 5
0.0

74 + 6

Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)


0.91 22


- — -- _

- - -
- - -

0.81 20

                 A-18
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
4/81


8/81


12/81


4/82


6/82


8/82


12/82


4/83


9/83


12/83


EERF
Values
25
23
25
68
69
69
59
57
57
60
62
63
4.9
4.7
4.6
70
66
69
38
36
36
24
25
25
11
11
13
20
21
21
EERF
Average

24


69


58


62


4.7


68


37


25


12


21

Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
i
30 ^ 6 0.81 19


74 +_ 7 0.93 6.0


76 +_ 15 0.76 24


62 +_ 6 0.99 2.1


4.4^0.7 1.08 8.1


87+9 0.79 22


37 +_ 6 0.99 2.7


27 +_ 6 0.91 8.8


14 _+ 6 0.83 18


20+6 1.03 4.1

                  A-19
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water  Samples  (pCi/U
Date

4/84


4/85


8/85


12/85


2/86


4/86


8/86


EERF EERF Known
Val ues Average Val ue
131 1
5
4 5 6 + 8
5
6.4
6.6 6.7 7.5 + 6
7.1
28
29 29 30 + 6
29
40
46 42 45 + 6
41
9.3
8.4 8.5 9 + 6
7.7
6.9
6.4 6.4 9+6
6.0
39
40 40 45 + 7
40
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)


0.78* 24


0.89 11


0.96 4.7


0.94 8.2


0.94 9.4


0.71* 29


0.88 12

                 A-20
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
2/81


4/81 (A)


6/81


2/82


4/82 (A)


6/82


10/82


10/82(A)


2/83


6/83


EERF
Values
31
32
33
10
12
11
21
22
18
23
25
20
16
16
20
33
34
33
17
14
18
< 10
< 10
< 10
16
15
15
55
52
51
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
134CS
32 36 +_ 5 0.89 11


11 10 ^ 10 .1.10 13


20 21 _+ 10 0.97 8.7


23 22 _+ 10 1.03 9.8


17 15^ 3 1.16 20


33 35 +_ 10 0.95 5.0


16 19 +_ 5 0.86 17


< 10 1.8 _+ 10 	


15 20+5 0.77* 24


53 47 +_ 6 1.12 13

                  A-21
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
10/83


11/83


6/84


10/84


10/84 (A)
10/84


2/85


4/85


10/85


10/85


2/86

EERF EERF Known
Values Average Value
14
12 13 15+5
14
11
13 12 15 + 5
13
48
47 48 47+5
48
37
32 34 31+5
32
< 10 < 10 2+5
32
32 34 31+6
37
38
36 36 35+6
33
14.0
17.7 16.5 15+5
17.8
17.4
19.1 19.1 20+5
20.8
19.1
24.1 20.4 18+5
18.0
31.6
34.9 32.5 30+6
31.0
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)

0.89 13


0.82 19


1.01 1.7


1.09 12

— — - _

1.09 12


1.02 6.7


1.10 17


0.96 9.6


1.13 20


1.08 11
                 A-22
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date

4/86


10/86


10/86


EERF
Values

< 10
< 10
< 10
34
21
34
13.6
18.3
10.4
EERF Known
Average Value
134Cs

< 10 5 +_ 5


30 28 ^ 6


14.1 12^6

Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)


_ _ _


1.06 23


1.18 32

                   A-23
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
2/81
4/81 (A)
6/81
2/82
4/82 (A)
6/82
10/82
10/82 (A)
2/83
6/83
EERF
Values
< 10
< 10
< 10
18
18
15
34
36
40
36
29
32
14
13
12
27
30
28
19
18
22
33
34
31
27
23
17
33
27
28
EERF Known
Average Value
< 10 4*_* 5
17 15 _+ 10
37 31 _* 10
32 23 +_ 10
13 16 _+ 3
28 25 +_ 10
20 20 ^ 5
33 20 j^ 5
22 19 +_ 5
29 26 ^ 6
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)
- - -
1.13 16
1.18 20
1.41* 43
0.81 19
1.13 14
0.98 8.7
1.63 64
1.18 27
1.13 16
                 A-24
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
10/83


11/83


2/84


10/84


10/84{A)


2/85


4/85


6/85


10/85


10/85


EERF
Values
24
25
23
16
17
16
16
18
17
22
23
23
19
17
17
26
26
25
14
12
12
23
20
15
19
19
16
17
17
19
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
\
»C.
24 22^5 1.09 9.8


16 15 +_ 5 1.09 9.4


17 16 j^ 6 1.06 8.1


23 24+6 0.94 5.9


18 14^6 1.26* 27


26 25+5 1.03 33


13 12.5^5 1.01 7.7


19 20 ^_ 5 0.97 16


18 20 +_ 5 0.90 11


18 18^5 0.98 7.0

                  A-25
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

2/86


4/86


6/86


10/86


10/86


EERF EERF Known
Values Average Value
137Cs
23
22 21 22+6
19
< 5.0
< 5.0 < 5.0 5+5
< 5.0
12
11 12 10+5
12
44
50 45 44 + 6
42
12.0
8.3 8.3 8+6
4.6
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)


0.97 8.1


— — — -


1.17 17


1.03 8.2


1.04 38

                 A-26
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
EERF EERF Known
Date Values Average Value R
3/81


4/81 (A)


12/81


3/82


4/82 (A)


6/82


9/82


10/82 (A)


12/82


3/83


3.8
4.1 3.7 3.4 + 0.5 1.10
3.3
16
15 15 15+5 1.02
15
12
12 12 10+2 1.22*
13
14
14 14 12+2 1.17
14
11
11 11 11+1 1.00
11
14
14 14 13+2 1.05
13
11
11 11 11+2 1.00
11
13
13 13 13+4 1.00
13
11
11 11 11+2 1.00
11
12
12 12 13+2 0.92
12
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)

14


2.1


23


19


2.4


4.0


4.2


1.6


0.0


6.9

                  A-27
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water  Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
6/83
9/83
11/83
12/83
3/84
6/84
10/84(A)
12/84
3/85
4/85
EERF EERF
Values Average
4.3
4.1 4.2
4.2
3.1
2.8 3.0
3.1
4.6
4.6 4.6
4.6
6.6
6.1 6.4
6.5
4.0
4.0 4.0
3.9
3.2
3.2 3.1
3.0
3.2
3.2 3.2
3.1
6.7
7.3 7.1
7.2
4.9
5.1 4.9
4.8
3.5
4.2 3.8
3.7
Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
4.8^0.7 0.88 13
3.1^0.5 0.97 5.6
5.1^0.8 0.90 9.8
7.4^1.1 0.86 14
4.1 ^ 0.6 0.98 9.8
3. 5 j* 0.5 0.90 11
3.0^5.0 1.06 5.8
8.6^1.3 0.82 18
5.0^0.8 0.99 2.8
4.1^0.5 0.93 10
                 A-28
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
6/85


9/85


10/85


3/84


4/84


6/84


9/84


10/84

i
12/84


3/85


Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
2.7
2.9 2.8 3.1 + 0.8 0.91 9.1
2.9
8.7
8.9 8.9 8.9 + 1.3 1.00 1.5
9.0
5.3
5.4 5.2 6.3 + 0.9 0.83 18
4.9
4.0
4.0 4.0 4.1 + 0.7 0.97 3.4
3.9
4.0
3.8 3.8 4.0 + 0.7 0.96 5.2
3.7
3.2
3.2 3.1 3.5 + 0.6 0.90 11
3.0
4.7
4.5 4.6 4.9 + 1 0.95 5.8
4.7
3.1
3.1 3.1 3.0 + 0.5 1.04 4.7
3.2
6.7
7.3 7.1 8.6 + 0.6 0.82 18
7.2
4.9
5.1 4.9 5.0 + 0.8 0.99 2.8
4.8
                  A-29
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

4/85
6/85
9/85
10/85
12/85
3/86
4/86
6/86
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
226Ra
3.5
4,2 3.8 4.1 + 1 0.93 10
3.7
2.7
2.9 2.8 3.1 + 0.8 0.91 9.1
2.9
8.7
8.9 8.9 8.9 + 1 1.0 15
9.0
5.3
5.4 5.2 6.3 + 0.9 0.83 18
4.9
6.2
6.4 6.4 7.3 + 1.3 0.87 13
6.5
3.7
4.0 3.9 4.1 + 0.7 0.95 6.0
4.0
2.9
2.9 2.7 2.9 + 0.9 0.94 10
2.4
8.1
8.1 8.2 8.6 + 1.4 0.95 5.8
8.4
                 A-30
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
3/81


4/8KA)


12/81


3/82


4/82 (A)


6/82


9/82


10/82(A)


12/82


3/83


6/83


EERF EERF
Values Average
6.4
5.4 5.2
3.9
17
17 17
17
11
11 11
11
11
11 11
11
11
10 10
9
9.0
9.6 9.1
8.8
11
12 11
11
3.8
3.6 3.6
3.4
< 1
< 1 < 1
< 1
< 1
< 1 < 1
< 1
< 1
< 1 < 1
< 1
Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value \ R (percent)
228»>
7 +_ 1 0.75* 32


12 +_ 4 1.42* 42


9^1 1.22* 22


10^2 1.10 9.1


11 +_ 1 0.91 12


9+1 1.01 6.3


11+2 1.03 5.3


3.6 + 1.0 1.00 4.5


0 	


0 	


0 	

                  A-31
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

9/83


11/83


12/83


3/84


4/84


6/84


9/84


10/84


12/84


3/85


EERF EERF Known
Values Average Value
228Ra
2.6
3.2 3.0 2.0 + 0.3
3.1
2.1
1.9 2.1 2.8 + 0.4
2.3
3.1
3.7 3.6 3.9 + 0.6
4.0
1.8
1.7 1.7 2.0 + 0.3
1.5
7.3
7.1 7.4 8.3 + 1.2
7.8
1.9
1.7 1.8 2.0 + 0.3
1.7
3.3
2.1 2.7 2.3 + 0.3
2.8
1.9
2.7 2.3 2.1 + 0.3
2.2
3.6
2.4 2.8 4.1 + 0.6
2.4
7.4
8.2 7.4 9.0 + 1.3
6.7
R


1.48*


0.75*


0.92


0.83


0.89


0.88


1.19


1.08


0.68


0.83

Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)


5.0


26


12


18


11


13


29


17


35


19

                 A-32
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
6/85
9/85
10/85
12/85
3/86
6/86
10/86
EERF EERF
Values Average
3.9
3.2 3.4
3.2
4.6
3.6 4.2
4.5
9.2
9.2 9.5
10.0
5.5
7.2 7.5
9.7
13
12 12
12
11
14 13
13
4.6
4.5 4.3
3.7
Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
4.2 +_ 0.6 0.82 20
4.6 +_ 0.7 0.91 13
10^2 0.95 7.3
7.3 +_ 1 1.02 24
12^2 1.03 5.0
17 +_ 3 0.75* 26
5^0.9 0.85 17
                   A-33
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date

4/8KA)


8/81


2/82


4/82 (A)


8/82


10/82(A)


2/83


8/83


11/83


2/84


Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
238/234u
12
12 12 12 + 12 1.03 4.8
13
22
22 22 23+6 0.94 6.2
21
29
29 29 35+6 0.82 18
28
14
14 14 16+4 0.88 15
14
30
27 28 30+6 0.93 8.1
27
14
14 14 16 + 12 0.90 11
15 ~
29
29 30 31+6 0.96 5.3
31 -
27
26 26 26+6 1.00 3.4
25
9
10 10 11+6 0.91 12
11 -
15
15 15 15+6 1.00 0.0
15 -
                 A-34
-------
          Appendix A(Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

8/84
10/84(A)
2/85
4/85
8/85
2/86
8/86
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
238/234u
21
19 20 20+6 1.02 5.0
21
6
6 6 5.0 1.13 16
5
11
11 11 12+7 0.92 8.3
11
6
6 6 7+6 0.86 14
6
8
8 8 8+6 1.00 0
8
8
8 8 9+6 0.89 11
8
4
444 1.00 0
4
                   A-35
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
1/81


7/81


1/82


7/82


1/83


7/83


1/84


7/84


1/85


7/85


EERF EERF
Values Average
3.0
3.0 3.0
3.0
5.3
5.2 5.2
5.0
5.5
5.3 5.4
5.4
7.0
7.0 7.0
7.0
7.4
7.7 7.6
7.8
9.3
8.2 8.8
9.0
16
18 16
15
11
13 12
12
15
16 16
17
10
9.2 9.5
9.3
Coeff. of
Known Var.
Value R (percent)
a*
3.9 _+ 0.6 0.77* 23


5.8^0.6 0.89 11


6.7^0.7 0.81 19


6.9^0.7 1.01 1.5


8.6^0.9 0.89 11


8.9^0.9 0.99 5.3


19 ^2 0.86 15


12.5 j^ 1.3 0.96 5.7


16 ^2 1.00 7.3


10.6 + 0.9 0.90 3.4
"^
                 A-36
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date

1/86


8/86


\
EERF EERF Known
Values Average Value R
239Pu
6.7
6.2 6.4 7+1 0.91
6.2
11
9.2 9.8 10.1 + 0.9 0.97
9.3
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)


11


7.1

                   A-37
-------
                         Appendix A (Continued)
                EMSL-LV  Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
EERF
Date Values
5/81
3/81
4/81 (A)
9/81
1/82
5/82
4/82 (A)
7/82
9/82
11/82
22
22
21
21
22
21
64
59
58
27
26
25
19
19
20
26
26
25
57+
58
59
19
19
19
27-
36
25
18
19
19
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
Gross Alpha
22 21 ^ 5 1.03 3.9
21 25+6 0.85 15
60 91 + 22 0.66* 34
26 33 ^ 8 0.79* 21
19 24 +_ 6 0.81 20
26 28^ 4 0.92 6.9
58 85 +_ 12 0.68 32
19 16 ^ 5 1.19 19
29 29 +_ 7 1.01 17
19 19 1 5 0.98 3.0
High solids.
                                  A-38
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date

10/82(A)


1/83


3/83


5/83


7/83


9/83


11/83


11/83


4/84


9/84


11/84

EERF
Values

39
39
37
26
26
27
31
31
32
10
10
10
8
7
8
5
5
7
12
10
13
19
17
18
4
4
4
7
7
6
6
6
6
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
Gross Alpha

38 55^27 0.70* 30


26 29 +_ 7 0.91 9.4


31 31 ^ 8 1.01 1.7


10 11+5 0.91 9.1


8 7+5 1.10 12


6 5^ 5 1.13 23


12 14 ^ 5 0.83 19


18 22 +_ 6 0.82 19


4 3^6 1.3* 33


7 5^ 5 1.3* 3.5

6 7+5 0.86 14

                   A-39
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
Date
10/84(A)
11/84
1/85
5/85
9/85
11/85
1/86
4/86
5/86
9/86
EERF EERF Known
Values Average Value
Gross Alpha
12
12 11 14+5
10
17
15 16 20+5
16
5.6
5.6 5.7 5 + 6
5.9
11
12 12 12+6
12
8.0
8.2 8.0 8+6
7.8
12
11 11 10+6
11
3.9
3.8 3.9 3+6
3.9
15
13 14 17+6
15
8.6
8.5 8.8 8+6
9.4 -
17
17 17 15+6
16
R
0.81
0.80
1.14
0.97
1.00
1.13
1.29*
0.84
1.10
1.11
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
20
20
14
5.4
2.0
12
29
17
12
10
                 A-40
-------
                           Appendix A  (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples (pCi/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
10/86
   34
   33
   33
                           33
                                 Gross Alpha
                40 + 12
               0.83
   17
                                     A-41
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
EERF EERF Known
Date Values Average Value R

5/81


3/81


4/81 (A)


9/81


1/82


5/82


4/82 (A)


7/82


9/82


LI/82


Gross Beta
11
11 11 14+5 0.79*
11
27
25 27 25 * 5 1.07
28
126
127 125 141 + 14 0.89
123
26
26 26 28+5 0.92
25
33
32 32 32+5 1.01
32
29
29 29 29+3 1.00
29
111
104 106 106+3 1.00
102
18
20 18 23+5 0.78*
16
46
51 50 40+5 1.26
54 -
22
23 23 24+5 0.94
23
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)


21


8.3


11


8.5


1.8


0.0


3.7


23


27


5.9

                 A-42
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Water Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
10/82(A)
1/83
3/83
5/83
7/83
9/83
11/83
4/84
5/84
9/84
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Yar.
Values Average Value R (percent)
Gross Beta
57
65 63 81 + 10 0.78 23
67
26
27 27 31+5 0.87 13
28
21
20 21 28+5 0.76* 24
23
52
46 50 57+5 0.88 13
52
14
16 15 22+5 0.70* 31
16
8
8 8 9+5 0.89 11
8
14
14 14 16+5 0.85 15
13
63
61 60 67+5 0.89 12
55
6
6 6 6+6 0.94 5.6
5
13
13 13 16+5 0.81 19
13
                  A-43
-------
         Appendix A (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Water Samples  (pCi/L)


Date

10/84(A)

11/84


11/85


5/85


9/85


10/85


1/86


4/86


5/86


11/86


Notes:








Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
Gross Beta
56
56 56 64+5 0.88 13
56
17
15 16 20+5 0.80 20
16
17
15 16 20+6 0.80 20
16
8
8 8 11+6 0.70* 31
7
9
8 8.0 8+5 1.0 10
7
71
69 69 75+5 0.92 7.7
68
10
9 9 13+6 0.72* 28
9
36
35 35 35 + 5 1.01 17
35
13
13 12 15+6 0.82 16
11
39
39 39 51+6 0.76 24
39
(1) R - The ratio of the average EERF value divided by the known
value.
(2) Coeff. of var. (percent) - The percent of the coefficient of
variation.
(3) Date (A) - Blind performance evaluation study for radionuclides
in water.
(4) Asterisks (*) indicate results which differed from the EMSL-LV
values by more than 20 percent but were judged acceptable
because of low sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
measurement and known values, and the small absolute difference.
                  A-44
-------
               Appendix B
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi'/L)
Date

1/81
7/81
10/81
4/82
10/82
2/83
6/83
6/84
6/85
4/82
EERF
Values

1420
1450
1430
1450
1570
1530
1432
1375
1363
1290
1360
1380
1910
1900
1930
1560
1560
1530
1530
1540
1530
1523
1521
1604
1558
1590
1529
32
31
33
EERF Known
Average Value
K (mg/L)
1433 1550 +_ 134
1517 1600 _+ 153
1390 1530 +_ 154
1343 1410 _+_ 137
1913 1560 ^ 155
1550 1512 +_ 151
1533 1486 +_ 148
1549 1496 _+ 149
1559 1525 +_ 137
32 30 ^ 10
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)

0.93 7.6
0.95 6.1
0.91 9.4
0.95 5.4
1.23 23
1.03 2.7
1.05 3.2
1.04 6.2
1.02 2.8
1.07 7.2
                   B-l
-------
         Appendix B (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples  (pCi/L)
Date
1/81
7/81
10/81
4/82
10/82
2/83
6/83
10/83
3/84
6/84
10/84

Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
< 5
<5 <5 0 	 	
< 5
22
25 23 25+5 0.92 9.8
22
15
15 14 23+5 0.62 38
13
23
25 25 25+5 0.99 5.2
26
< 5
<5 <5 0 	 	
< 5
38
39 38 37+5 1.04 3.8
38 ~
24
24 25 25^5 1.00 5.7
15
17 16 14+2 1.14 15
16
7
6 6 6+1 1.00 14
5
20
19 20 25+5 0.79* 21
20 ~
19
19 18 22+5 0.82 19
16
B-2
-------
                            Appendix  B  (Continued)

                   EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Milk  Samples  (pCi/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
 6/85
10/85
 6/86
10/86
    9
   11
    8

   50
   50
   48

 <  5
 <  5
 <  5

    9
    8
    7
                           49
                         <  5
                                        11  +  6
                48 + 9
                                         9 +  6
                                 0.85
               1.03
                                 0.89
                               22
    3.8
                               15
                                     B-3
-------
         Appendix B (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCI/L)
Date
1/81


7/81


10/81


4/82


10/82


2/83


6/83


10/83

••
6/84


10/84

EERF
Values
19
19
19
17
18
19
18
21
20
17
18
16
19
18
20
17
18
17
16
17
18
11
9
12
15
16
15
14
13
14
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
90$r
19 20^3 0.95 5.0


18 17 +_ 2 1.06 7.6


20 18^2 1.09 12


17 16^2 1.06 8.1


19 19^2 1.00 3.7


17 18^2 0.96 4.5


17 16^2 1.06 8.1


11 15 _+ 5 0.71* 30


15 17 _+ 2 0.90 10


14 16^2 0.85 15
                  B-4
-------
                           Appendix B  (Continued)

                   EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Milk Samples  (pCi/L)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
 6/85
 1/86
10/86
   11
    9
   10

   24
   22
   22

  < 1
  < 1
  < 1
                           10
                           23
                          < 1
                11 + 2
                19 + 2
                 0+2
               0.91
               1.19
   13
   20
                                     B-5
-------
         Appendix B (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi/L)
Date
1/81
7/81
10/81
7/82
10/82
2/83
6/83
10/83
3/84
6/84
10/84

EERF
Values
29
31
31
< 10
< 10
< 10
51
44
48
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 15
< 15
< 15
52
52
50
29
30
27
45
33
32
7
6
5
46
41
46
36
41
37

Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
30 26 +_ 10 1.17 17
< 10 0 	
48 52 _+ 11 0.92 10
<10 5+1 	
< 15 42 _+ 6 < 0.36
51 55 ^ 6 0.93 6.9
29 30 +_ 6 0.96 6.1
37 40 +_ 8 0.93 17
6 6 +_ 1 1.00 14
44 43 _+ 6 1.02 6.3
38 42 +_ 6 0.90 11
B-6
-------
         Appendix B (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi/L)
Date
1/85


6/85


2/86


6/86


10/86


EERF EERF
Values Average
3.2
6.3 6
7.8
20
17 16
10
9
8 8
8
44
46 45
44
51
57 55
58
Known
Value
m,
9^2


11 ^ 6


9^6


41 +_ 7


49 +_ 7

Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)

0.64* 31


1.42* 58


0.93 9.4


1.09 8.6


1.13 15

                   B-7
-------
         Appendix B (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi/L)
Date
1/81


7/81


10/81


4/82


10/82


2/83


6/83


10/83


6/84


10/84


6/85


EERF
Values
41
41
39
27
27
30
28
29
34
34
37
35
37
41
37
26
27
29
48
52
49
28
33
30
37
35
31
33
30
37
12
9
13
EERF Known
Average Value
-OS
40 43 +_ 9


28 31 _+ 5


30 25 +_ 5


35 28 +_ 5


38 34 +_ 5


27 26 ^ 5


50 47 +_ 5


30 33 +_ 5


34 35 +_ 5


33 32 _+ 5


11 11^5

Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)

0.94 6.6


0.90 11


1.21* 24


1.26* 27


1.13 14


1.05 7.0


1.06 6.7


0.92 10


0.98 7.4


1.04 9.9


1.03 16

                  B-8
-------
                            Appendix B (Continued)

                   EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi/L)


Date

EERF
Values

EERF
Average

Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)
 6/86          38
              38            40           31+6           1.28*           30
              43

10/86          59
              63            64           39+6           1.65             66
              71
 1/81       <  10
            <  10         < 10            0
            <  10

 7/81       <  10
            <  10         < 10            0
            <  10

10/81       <  10
            <  10          < 10           0
            <  10

 4/82       <  10
            <  10         < 10            0
            <  10

10/82       <  10
            <  10         < 10            0
            <  10

 2/83       <  10
            <  10         < 10            0
            <  10
                                      B-9
-------
                           Appendix B (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Milk Samples (pCi/L)

EERF
Date Values

EERF Known
Average Val ue


R
Coeff . ol
Var.
(percent)
 6/83      1530
           1540          1533            1486^74        1.03             3.2
           1530

10/84      1391                         1517 ^ 76        0.96             3.5
           1443          1450
           1515
Notes:    (1)   R -  The  ratio of the average EERF value divided by the known
              value.
         (2)   Coeff. of  var.  (percent) - The percent of the coefficient of
              variation.
         (3)   Asterisks(*) indicate results which differed from the EMSL-LV
              values by  more  than 20 percent but were judged acceptable
              because  of low  sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
              measurement and known values, and the small absolute difference.
                                     B-10
-------
               Appendix C
EMSL-LV Cross-Check Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
Date

3/81
7/81
11/81
7/82
11/82
3/83
1/84
6/84
11/85
7/85
EERF
Values

2550
2530
2540
2570
2550
2600
2300
2440
2330
2290
2270
2350
2930
2890
2820
2640
2510
2600
3010
2970
3010
2624
2690
2499
1339
1393
1388
1443
1420
1494
EERF
Average

2540
2570
2360
2302
2880
2580
2997
2604
1373
1452
Known
Value R
K (mg/kg)
2640 +_ 132 0.96
2640 j* 132 0.97
2730 _+ 464 0.86
2400 ^ 120 0.96
2780 j^ 140 1.04
2592 +_ 130 1.00
2730 +_ 136 1.10
2605^170 1.00
1382 j* 138 0.99
1514 + 151 0.96
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)

3.8
2.6
14
4.3
4.0
2.1
9.8
3.0
1.9
4.6
                   C-l
-------
                            Appendix C (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
 Date
EERF
Values
EERF
Average
Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
 1/86       920
            990
            990

 8/86      1111
           1068
           1159
                       K  (mg/kg)


              967             950 + 80
             1113
                1150 + 67
                                 1.02
               0.97
                                3.9
    4.6
11/81
 4/82
  39
  39
  42

  31
  31
  27
                          40
                          30
                  30
                  30+7
               1.33*
               0.99
   34
   6.3
                                     C-2
-------
         Appendix C (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
Date

3/81
7/81
11/81
7/82
11/82
3/83
11/84
6/84
1/85
7/85
EERF
Values

53
52
51
48
51
51
35
39
35
35
34
34
< 5
< 5
< 5
38
42
36
26
34
38
25
22
28
14
22
16
26
26
27
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
89Sr
52 47^5 1.11 11
50 44^5 1.14 14
36 38^5 0.96 6.6
34 26^5 1.32* 32
< 5 0 	
39 35+5 1.10 13
33 34^5 0.96 15
25 25^5 1.00 9.8
17 34 +_ 5 0.51 50
26 33 +_ 5 0.80 21
                   C-3
-------
         Appendix C (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
Date
1/86


7/86



3/81


7/81


11/81


7/82


11/82


3/83


1/84


Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
89$r
23
19 21 25+6 0.83 19
20
20
22 21 30+6 0.70* 30
21
90Sr
34
31 32 29+2 1.10 11
31
32
31 31 31+2 1.01 1.9
31
23
23 24 23+2 1.03 5.0
25
22
23 22 20+2 1.12 12
22
26
25 26 27 + 2 0.95 7.7
26
31
29 30 28+2 1.07 7.7
30
24
24 23 20+2 1.17 17
22
                  C-4
-------
         Appendix C (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
Date
6/84


1/85


7/85


1/86


7/86


3/81


7/81


11/81


7/82


Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
20
19 20 20+2 1.00 4.1
21
26
24 25 26+3 0.95 6.3
24
28
29 28 26+3 1.09 9.2
28
13
9 10 10+2 1.03 18
9
2.4
1.9 2.1 1.9 + 0.2 1.11 16
2.0
130
120 126 119 + 12 1.06 6.9
128
78
84 82 82+8 1.00 3.5
84
< 10
< 10 < 10 0.0 	
< 10
83
82 84.0 94+9 0.89 11
87
                   C-5
-------
         Appendix C (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples (pCi/kg)
Date
11/82
3/83
1/84
6/84
1/85
7/85
1/86
7/86
3/81
7/81

EERF
Values
24
27
21
29
35
41
15
17
12
41-
46
45
36
36
43
36
30
38
23
18
22
37
54
54
46
55
50
42
41
43

EERF Known
Average Value
24 25 +_ 6
35 37 +_ 7
15 20 +_ 6
44 39 +_ 6
38 35+6
35 35 j^ 6
21 20 +_ 6
48 30+6
50 53 +_ 5
42 45 +_ 5
C-6
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)
0.96 11
0.95 14
0.73* 29
1.13 14
1.10 13
0.99 9.8
1.05 12
1.61 67
0.95 8.6
0.93 ff.9

-------
         Appendix C (Continued)
EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples  (pCi/kg)
Date

11/81
7/82
11/82
3/83
1/84
6/84
1/85
7/85
EERF
Values

27
29
33
24
22
21
29
30
30
36
34
40
21
19
15
26
23
28
35
34
31
32
30
31
Coeff. of
EERF Known Var.
Average Value R (percent)
137Cs
30 33 +_ 5 0.90 13
22 20^5 1.12 13
30 27^5 1.10 10
37 31 +_ 5 1.18 20
18 20 +_ 5 0.92 15
26 25 +_ 5 1.03 8.6
33 29+5 1.15 16
31 29^5 1.07 7.4
                   C-7
-------
                           Appendix C (Continued)

                  EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Food Samples (pCi/kg)


Date

EERF
Values

EERF
Average

Known
Value


R
Coeff. of
Var.
(percent)
 1/86         18
              13          16           15+6           1.04            14
              16

 7/86         23
              24          24           20+6           1.18            19
              24
Notes:   (1)    R -  The  ratio of the average EERF value divided by the known
              value.
        (2)    Coeff. of var.  (percent) - The percent of the coefficient of
              variation.
        (3)    Asterisks}*) indicate results which differed from the EMSL-LV
              values by more  than 20 percent but were judged acceptable
              because  of low  sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
              measurement and known values, and the small absolute difference.
                                     C-8
-------
                    Appendix D
EMSL-LY Cross-Check Air Filter Samples  (pCi/filter)
Date
9/81
3/82
9/82
11/82
3/83
9/81
3/82
9/82
11/82
3/83
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
Gross Alpha
25
26 25 25+3 0.99 5.2
23
24
25 24 27+4 0.89 12
23
24
24 24 32+8 0.76* 24
25
25
26 26 27+7 0.96 4.8
27
26
27 27 26+7 1.04 5
28
Gross Beta
126
140 130 65+5 2.01 156
125
56
56 58 55+5 1.05 6.5
61
84
96 92 67+5 1.37 38
95
64
67 66 59+6 1.11 12
66
70
72 70 68+5 1.03 3.8
68
                        D-l
-------
              Appendix D (Continued)



EMSL-LV Cross-Check  Air  Filter  Samples  (pCi/filter)
Date
9/81
3/82
9/82
11/82
3/83
9/81
3/82
9/82
Coeff. of
EERF EERF Known Var.
Values Average Value R (percent)
90$r
14
17 16 16+2 1.00 8.8
17
12
11 12 16+2 0.73* 27
11
17
17 16 20+2 0.82 19
15
14
15 15 16+2 0.94 8.1
16
15
15 15 20+2 0.77* 24
16
33
33 34 19+5 1.77 77
35
28
29 29 23 + 5 1.25* 25
29
30
29 29 27^5 1.09 8.8
                       D-2
-------
                           Appendix D  (Continued)

             EMSL-LV Cross-Check Air Filter Samples (pCi/filter)
                                                                     Coeff. of
           EERF          EERF              Known                       Var.
 Date       Values        Average           Value            R          (percent)
                                    137C
s
11/82          38
              37            38            26+5           1.45            40
              38

 3/83          35
              37            37            27+5           1.36            36
              38
Notes:    (1)   R  -  The  ratio  of the  average EERF value divided by the known
              value.
         (2)   Coeff. of var.  (percent)  - The percent of the coefficient of
              variation.
         (3)   Asterisks (*)  indicate  results which differed from the EMSL-LV
              values by more than 20  percent but were judged acceptable
              because  of low sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
              measurement and known values, and the small absolute difference.
                                     D-3
-------
 9/82
                                 Appendix  E

                   EMSL-LV  Cross-Check Soil Samples  (pCi/g)


Date

EERF
Values

EERF
Average

Known
Value
Coeff. of
Var.
R (percent)
4.7
3.8
3.8
                            4.1
                                    210Pb
 5.2 + 1.3
0.79*
23
 9/82
5.8
5.7
5.9
                            5.8
 5.2 + 1.8
1.12
12
 9/82
5.5
5.6
6.1
                            5.7
                                    230Th
5.7 + 0.9
1.00
 4.6
 9/82
2.1
2.1
2.1
                            2.1
                                     238u
2.4 + 0.3
0.88
13
Notes:   (1)    R -  The ratio of the average  EERF  value divided by the known
              value.
        (2)    Coeff.  of var.  (percent)  -  The  percent of the coefficient of
              variation.
        (3)    Asterisks (*) indicate results  which differed from the EMSL-LV
              values  by more than 20 percent  but were judged acceptable
              because of low sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
              measurement and unknown values, and the small absolute
              difference.
                                     E-l
-------
                            Appendix F
WHO International Reference Center Inter-comparison Sample Analyses
Nuclide
EERF
Values
Coeff of
Reference Var.
Value R (percent)
Liquid Milk (No. G041) February 1981 (pCi or g per L)
90Sr
134Cs
Ca
K
3H
90Sr
106Ru.106Rh
90Sr
5+4
5^3
5 T 2
35 + 14
36^ 14
31 T 14
324 + 35
307 T 32
300 T 32
1.3 + 0.1
1.3 T 0.1
1.3 ^ 0.1
1.6 + 0.2
1.6 + 0.2
1.6+; 0.2
Drinking
5015 + 450
5586 "+ 450
5322 T 450
8.1 + 0.1
8.2 T o.l
8.4 +; o.l
< 100
< 100
< 100
Soil Sample
< 1000
< 1000
< 1000
330 + 75
330 T 65
330 T 65
6.0 _+_ 0^.4 0.83 17
36 _+ 4 0.94 8.1
280 ^ 10 1.11 11
1.25+_ 0.03 1.04 4.0
1.49_+ 0.04 1.07 7.4
Water (No. G336) June 1981 (pCI/L)
5670 j^ 230 0.94 7.6
7.4 ^0.5 1.11 11
110 ^ 15 	 	
(No. G477) November 1981 (pCi/kg dry)
146 ^ 16 	 	
349 + 35 0.95 5.4
                                F-l
-------
                     Appendix F  (Continued)



WHO International  Reference Center  Intercomparison Sample Analyses


Nuclide

40K


U (Total)


228-Th


230Th


232Th



H>sr

13/cs
99fi
"bRa

Natural U

Ca (g/kg)
K (g/kg)



EERF
Values
(Continued) Soil
27000 + 2000
26000 + 2000
27000 _+ 2000
1299 + 603
1268 +• 520
1176 +_ 533
941 + 258
921 T 275
893 T 245
852 + 235
830 + 250
667 +_ 200
874 + 240
949 T 260
912 +_ 228
Total Diet
< 14

19 +_ 16

9^3

2.7^ 1.3

2.1 +_ 0.2
5.4^ 0.5


\
Reference
Value R
Sample (No. 6477) November 1981 (pCi/kg

28,400 + 2700 0.94


Not Reported 	


Not reported - - -


Not reported - - -


Not reported - - -

(No. 6660) February 1, 1982 (pCi/kg)
11 +_ 1 	

15 j^ 1 1.27*

3^1 3.0

1.8_+0.5 1.50*

2.1^0.1 1.00
6.3 +_ 0.2 0.86


Coeff of
Var.
(percent)
dry)

6.3


_ _ _


_ _ _


_ _ _


_ _ _


	 V
E
27 R
Y
200
L
50 0
U
0.00
C
14 0
" N
C
                               F-2
-------
                      Appendix F (Continued)
WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison Sample Analyses
Nuclide
40K
90Sr
134Cs
137CS
Ca
K
Sr
^
234U
235U
U (mg/L)

EERF
Values
Dried Seafish
11.5
11.6
11.5
0.094
0.094
0.110
0.41
0.40
0.42
4.4
4.4
4.3
50
49
49
15
15
15
0.32
0.31
0.31
Mineral Water
0.326
0.363
0.366
1.99
2.03
1.98
0.04
0.04
0.05
84.0

Reference
Value R
(No. H264) June 1983 (Bq/g or g/kg)
11.1 ^0.7 1.04
0.12 +_ 0.01 0.83
0.49 ^0.03 0.84
4.2 +_ 0.02 1.04
52 +_ 2 0.95
13 j* i i.is
0.34 ^_ 0.03 0.92
(No. G972 and G973) March 1983 (Bq/L)
0.350^0.03 1.00
2.23 + 0.03 0.90
0.05 *_ 0.02 0.87
86+10 0.98
F-3
Coeff of
Var.
(percent)
3.9
20
17
4.4
5.8
10
8.6
1.9
10
20
_ _ _

-------
                      Appendix F  (Continued)
UHO International  Reference Center  Intercompan'son Sample Analyses


Nuclide

90$r


134^5


137Cs


Sr (g/kg)


Ca (g/kg)


K (g/kg)



40K


54Mn


58Co


60Co




EERF Reference
Values Value R
Sea Fish (No. H264) December 1983 (Bq/kg or g/kg)
3.9
3.5 4.6 + 0.2 0.79*
3.5
15
15 18+1 0.85
16
163
162 155 +9 1.04
160
0.32
0.31 0.34 + .03 0.92
0.31
50
49 52+2 0.95
49
15
15 13.3 + 0.9 1.13
15
River Sediment (No. H519) February 1984 (Bq/kg)
518
518 549 +25 0.95
529
22
22 21+2 1.05
22 ~
6.4
7.7 8.3 + 1.3 0.85
7.0
6.1
6.9 7.0 + 1 0.93
6.5
F-4
Coeff of
Var.
(percent)


21


15


4.4


8.0


5.9


10



5.1


2.5


17


8*5


-------
                      Appendix F (Continued)
WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison  Sample Analyses
Nuclide
90Sr
106Ru
134Cs
137Cs
3H
3H
3H
90Sr
EERF Reference
Values Value R
(Continued) River Sediment (No. H519) February 1984 (Bq/kg)
< 37
< 37 24.0 +1 	
< 37
205
200 229 + 20 0.89
205
40
40 45+3 0.90
41
303
303 318 +18 0.95
303
Tritium in Rainwater (No. 40 PM300) June 1984 (Bq/L)
163 + 7
163 +7 165+5 0.99
163 +; 7
Tritium in Ground Water (No. 41 P300) June 1984 (Bq/L)
33,152
33,115 32,700 + 700 1.01
33,004
Liquid Milk (No. 42L300) February 1985 (Bq/L)
102
102 89+3 1.15
103
0.27
0.31 0.31 + 0.02 0.92
0.28
Coeff of
Var.
(percent)
11
10
4.7
12
12
15
9.3
                               F-5
-------
                             Appendix F (Continued)
        UHO  International Reference Center Intercompan'son Sample Analyses
                                                                      Coeff of
                EERF           Reference                              Var.
Nuclide         Values           Value               _R	             (percent)

            (Continued) Liquid Milk  (No. 42L300)  February 1985  (Bq/L)
137Cs          0.70
               0.78            0.68   +  0.04          1.11                 12
               0.78
     (g/L)     1.8
               1.8             1.6   +  0.1           1.15                 15
               1.9
       Intercomparison on Aquatic Plants (No. 45V300) November 1986 (Bq/kg)
               881
               907             770   +46            1.18                 18
               933
 54Mn           54
                54              51+4            1.07                 7.4
                56
 58Co           15
                15              14+2            1.17                 21
                19
 60Co           10
                10              12+2            0.83                 17
                10
                39
                33              42+2            0.90                 13
                41
103Ru          110
               101              87   +8            1.20                 20
               102
106Ru          401
               393             426   +  34            0.93                 7 4
               390
                                      F-6
-------
                             Appendix F (Continued)

       WHO International Reference Center Intercomparison Sample Analyses

                                                                     Coeff of
                EERF            Reference                              Var.
Nuclide         Values            Value               JR	            (percent)
                                   (Continued)
      Intercomparison on Aquatic Plants (No. 45V300)  November 1986 (Bq/kg)
                99
               100              103  +   7              0.97                 3.0
               101

               412
               425              390  +  25              1.08                 8.5
               430
Notes:(T)R  -  The  ratio  of  the  average  EERF value divided by the reference
               value.
         (2)    Coeff. of  var.  (percent)  - The percent of the coefficient of
               variation.
         (3)    Asterisks  (*)  indicate  results which differed from the reference
               values by  more than 20  percent but were judged acceptable because
               of low sample  concentration,  the uncertainty in the measurement
               and  known  values,  and the small absolute difference.

                                      F-7
-------
                               Appendix G

          Interlaboratory  Collaborative  Study - Mound Facility*
Results, pCi/L Water
Nuclide
-CO
106Ru
134Cs
137CS
eoco
137CS
60co
137CS
134Cs
137Cs
EERF
Values
93 +
92 T
57 +
74 I
158 +
155 T
202 +
210 T
93 +
92 T
390 +
378 ^
11 _+
21
20
83 +
79 I
100 +
111 ^
5
5
21
21
7
7
6
7
5
5
7
7
4
1 4
5
5
5
5
Reference
Value
Sample No. 1
99 ^2
61 _+ 1
161 +_ 4
203 +_ 5
Sample No. 2
99 ^2
394 +_ 9
Sample No. 3
9.8 +_ 0.2
19.9 +_ 0.5
Sample No. 4
80 ^2
100 j^ 2
Coeff of
Var.
R (percent)
0.93 6.4
1.07 16
0.97 3.0
1.01 2.5
0.93 6.4
0.97 2.9
1.12 10
1.03 3.9
1.01 3.1
1.06 8.2
See:  Casella, V.  R.  and Bishop,  C.  T.,  "Determination of Radionuclides in
      Drinking Water  by Gamma Spectrometry: An  Interlaboratory
      Collaborative Study,"  Mound Facility, Miamisburg, OH, MLM-2948, UC-4
      (August 12,  1982).

                                  G-l
-------
                        Appendix H






RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY  BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

1/22/81
1/22/81
4/16/81
4/23/81
4/28/81
7/ 7/82
7/ 7/82
7/ 7/82
12/ 8/82
3/ 1/83
6/29/83
9/12/83
10/19/83
3/15/84
7/17/84
8/23/84
1/29/85
4/12/85


4.2
2.3
824.3
1.9
1.3
2.1
5.1
5.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
9.2
5.2
9.1
3.5
10.5
25.6
1.5
EERF
Value
3H
± 0.3
± 0.2
± 28.0
± 0.2
± 0.2
+ 0.2
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.2
± 0.2
± 0.2
± 0.4
± 0.3
± 0.4
± 0.2
+ 0.5
± 1.0
± 0.2
Known
Value

4.1
2.5
851.0
2.1
1.1
2.7
5.4
5.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.2
5.2
9.7
3.3
10.8
26.0
1.1
R

1.04
0.94
0.97
0.91
1.23 *
0.78 *
0.94
0.92
1.12
1.06
0.98
0.90
1.00
0.93
1.05
0.97
0.99
1.28
                              H-l
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
    Date
      EERF
      Value
                    Known
                    Value
   4/14/85

   8/26/85

   4/21/86

   8/15/86

  10/20/86
           H


   1.5  ±  0.2

   1.4  ±  0.2

  25.2  ±  1.0

  12.4  +  0.5

  12.2  +  0.5
                                  (Continued)
                       1.4

                       1.4

                      25.8

                      12.2

                      12.5
1.06

1.03

0.98

1.02

0.98
   4/ 6/81

   9/26/83
                            40
                              K
1076.0  ± 98.0

 403.3  + 48.4
                    1200.0

                     377.0
0.90

1.07
   9/26/83

   3/11/86
         60CO


  54.7  ±  5.5

  47.0  +  9.3
                      50.0

                      42.0
1.09

1.12
   9/26/83
                            65
                              ZN
  39.0   ±  7.4
                      33.0
                                                      1.18
   2/17/82
25.8  ±  1.9

        H-2
                        21.5
                                                      1.20
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER  SAMPLES
Date

5/ 7/82
6/29/82
9/ 3/82
3/ 4/83
3/ 4/83
5/ 6/83
9/ 1/83
4/10/84
5/16/84
6/26/84
8/29/84
10/30/84
5/10/85
2/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86


15.4
79.3
25.0
104.2
122.3
66.8
19.2
38.1
37.7
25.8
26.5
< 5.0
40.5
32.2
13.3
12.7
14.6
13.1
EERF
Value
89SR
± 1.8
± 9.2
± 7.8
± 4.1
± 4.0
± 5.0
± 1-4
± 1.9
± 5.7
± 3.1
± 4.4

± 2.4
± 3.0
± 3.5
± 2.4
± 1-4
± 1.8
Known
Value
( Continued )
11.0
59.0
24.5
97.5
98.0
57.0
15.0
36.0
49.0
28.0
23.0
0.0
39.0
39.7
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
R

1.40 *
1.34
1.02
1.07
1.25
1.17
1.28 *
1.06
0.77 *
0.92
1.15
	
1.04
0.81
1.03
0.98
1.13
1.02
                             H-3
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86

2/17/82
4/16/82
5/ 7/82
6/29/82
8/11/82
9/ 3/82
3/ 4/83
3/ 4/83
5/ 6/83
9/ 1/83
4/10/84


12.1
13.9
13.8
13.0
13.7

69.4
34.3
5.9
34.9
38.1
16.6
72.9
65.7
35.0
9.6
13.7
EERF
Value
89SR
± 1.8
± 2.4
± 1.0
± 2.6
± 1-9
9°SR
± 5.0
± 4.0
± 0-7
± 6.8
± 5.5
± 3.5
± 3.3
± 3.4
± 2.7
± 0.8
± 1.3
Known
Value
( Continued)
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.0

67.0
32.5
6.9
33.5
65.0
14.5
62.0
62.0
38.0
10.0
18.0
R

0.94
1.08
1.07
1.01
1.06

1.04
1.05
0.86
1.04
0.59
1.15
1.18
1.06
0.92
0.96
0.76 *
                            H-4
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Value
R
90gR (Continued)
5/16/84
6/26/84
8/29/84
10/30/84
5/10/85
2/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
3/19/86
42
16
14
18
13
33
5
5
3
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
.7
.0
.5
.9
.0
.5
.2
.8
.6
.9
.1
.8
.8
.1
.5
.2
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
+
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
.9
.9
.7
.6
.6
.3
.0
.5
.1
.3
.8
,7
.8
.3
.5
.7
45
17
17
17
15
34
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.0
.7
.6
.5
.0
.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
•5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
.95
.90
.82
.08
,87
.98
.15
.30 *
.81
.08
.91
.29 *
.07
,14
.78 *
.16
                           131.
   2/18/81
124.5  +  4.5
                                          138.0
0.90
                             H-5
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

4/14/81
2/ 2/82
4/ 6/82
6/ 7/82
8/ 4/82
9/10/82
10/12/82
ll/ 2/82
4/22/83
5/20/83
6/ 3/83
10/13/83
4/ 9/84
7/30/84
10/22/84
2/ 6/85
5/13/85
6/24/85


69.0
32.7
35.7
32.2
39.9
64.1
88.4
58.4
32.7
60.9
105.7
54.0
72.4
146.4
76.6
55.6
81.7
59.1
EERF
Value
131,
± 1-4
± 5.8
± 5.6
± 0.5
± 0.6
± 3.3
± 1.5
± 0.7
± 2.8
± 1.6
± 77.3
± 0.8
± 5.4
± 7.8
± 5.7
± 1.1
± 13.2
± 0.0
Known
Value
(Continued)
75.0
31.0
36.5
37.1
46.5
74.0
95.5
60.0
37.0
97-0
160.0
61.5
82.0
146.0
86.0
67-0
68.0
59.0
R

0.92
1.05
0.98
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.93
0.97
0.88
0.63
0.66 *
0.88
0.88
1.00
0.89
0.83
1.20
1.00
                            H-6
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Value
R
131 (Continued)
9/12/85
3/11/86
3/11/86
10/20/86

4/ 6/81
9/26/83
5/13/85
3/11/86

9/18/81
5/14/82
7/ 9/82
9/20/83
ll/ 1/83
80
50
65
49

29
24
45
49

40
17
22
2
8
.9
.2
.9
.4

.7
.3
.1
.2

.1
.8
.7
.7
.6
± 8.7
± 0-7
± 14.3
+ 0.9
137CS
± 8.6
± 3.6
± 8.3
± 9.4
210PB
± 6.3
± 7.4
± 7.1
± 3.1
+ 2.6
96.
57.
58.
46.

32.
23.
38.
38.

43.
22.
22.
3.
6.
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

3
0
6
4
8
0
0
1
1

0
1
1
1

0
0
1
0
1
.84
.88
.14
.07

.93
.06
.19
.29 *

.93
.81
.00
.78 *
.26 *
                             H-7
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES

Date


EERF
Value
Known
Value
21°PB
12/ 1/83
12/ 1/83









1/15/84
1/15/84
1/25/84
3/ 2/84
3/ 2/84
6/22/84
6/22/84
7/30/84
7/30/84
ll/ 1/84
11/29/84




1
5/14/85

5/14/82
7/ 9/82
O/ 1/82
27.
46.
4.
4.
32.
44.
38.
26.
32.
8.
25.
42.
44.
44.

8.
12.
10.
7
0
3
5
6
2
7
2
1
4
0
0
5
1

4
5
3
± 3.
± 3.
± o.
± o.
± 2.
± 4.
± 3.
± 3.
± 3.
± 1-
± 3.
± 4.
± 7.
± 5.
210PO
± 1-
± 2.
± 1.
1
8
5
5
9
2
5
6
6
6
2
7
1
4

4
0
7
( Continued)
27
40
3
3
27
36
28
21
24
8
26
41
46
40

22
22
10

.0
.0
.4
.5
.8
.3
.7
.0
.0
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0

.6
.6
.4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1

0
0
0
R

.02
.15
.26 *
.29 *
.17
.22 *
.35
.25 *
.34
.98
.96
.02
.97
.10

.37
.55
.99 «
                            H-8
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

9/20/83
ll/ 1/83
12/ 1/83
12/ 1/83
1/15/84
1/15/84
1/25/84
2/ 9/84
3/ 2/84
3/ 2/84
6/22/84
6/22/84
7/30/84
7/30/84
ll/ 1/84
11/29/84
5/14/85
EERF
Value
21
1.8 ±
6.4 ±
24.0 ±
42.5 +
3.5 ±
3.0 +
24.4 ±
1066.0 ±1
36.9 ±
29.3 ±
23.6 ±
27.3 ±
24.6 ±
7.3 ±
53.9 ±
10.5 ±
57.1 ±
°PO
0.4
1.0
2.0
2.9
0.3
0.2
1.7
06.0
2.7
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.7
0.6
3.9
0.9
4.9
Known
Value
(Continued)
3.4
6.8
27.0
40.0
3.4
3.5
27.8
915.0
36-3
28.7
21.0
24.0
26.0
8.6
41.0
46.0
40.0
R

0.54
0.95
0.89
1.06
1.03
0.86
0.88
1.17
1.02
1.02
1.12
1.14
0.95
0.85
1.32
0.23
1.43
  11/20/84
                           222
                              RN
248.8  ± 24.9



         H-9
                                          237.0
1.05
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
11/20/84
2/ 1/85
2/27/86
4/ 8/86
EERF
Value
505.
282.
235.
164.
9
0
1
1
Known
Value
222RN (Continued)
± 30.4 474.0
± 28.2 264.0
±
±
48
47
.4
.6
206
154
.0
.0
1
1
1
1
R
.07
.07
.14
.07
226RA
7/20/81
7/20/81
7/20/81
7/20/81
7/20/81
7/20/81
9/18/81
10/ 1/81
12/18/81
3/ 2/82
3/12/82
4/22/82
50.
26.
29.
4.
7.
14.
53.
9.
3.
14.
11.
23.
5
6
2
0
4
7
9
2
5
1
4
5
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
21
10
21
2
2
10
50
8
9
12
11
19
.5
.8
.5
.7
.7
.8
.1
.3
.0
.0
.6
.1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
.35
.47
.36
.48 *
.75
.37
.08
.11
.39
.18
.98
.23 *
                            H-10
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

5/17/82
6/16/82
9/10/82
9/10/82
6/17/83
9/10/83
5/ 4/84
12/21/84
7/30/85
9/13/85
9/17/85
3/ 3/86
3/ 4/86
3/ 4/86
3/ 5/86
3/17/86
9/ 8/86
10/30/86
EERF
Value
226
25.4 ±
25.3 ±
7.4 +
10.2 ±
5.3 ±
2.8 ±
6.7 ±
8.5 ±
3.3 ±
9.4 ±
4.2 ±
0.5 ±
0.5 ±
0.5 ±
0.5 ±
4.0 ±
9.7 ±
4.4 ±

RA
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Known
Value
( Continued)
23.9
25.7
8.0
10.5
4.8
2.0
7.4
8.6
3.0
8.9
4.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
4.1
8.6
4.5
R

1.06
0.98
0.93
0.97
1.10
1.40 *
0.91
0.99
1.10
1.06
1.02
1.04
1.07
1.20
1.11
0.98
1.13
0.97
                              H-ll
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)






RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Valufe
R
228RA
10/ 1/81
12/18/81
3/ 2/82
3/12/82
4/22/82
5/17/82
6/16/82
9/10/82
6/17/83
9/10/83
11/16/83
12/13/83
12/13/83
12/21/84
9/13/85
9/17/85
3/11/86
9/ 8/86
15
10
35
9
19
37
27
11
< 1
3
22
39
10
3
4
7
16
11
.1
.4
.6
.6
.3
.2
.4
.2
.0
.1
.0
.1
.7
.3
.4
.8
.1
.8
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
±

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.

0.
1.
2.
1.
0.
0.
i.
i.
i.
7
4
9
8
4
2
9
2

7
3
0
1
7
9
0
8
2
11
10
27
10
18
51
23
11
0
3
22
37
9
4
4
7
13
16
.7
.1
.0
.2
.0
.9
.9
.0
.0
.1
.0
.0
.2
.1
.6
.9
.0
.3
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
—
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
29 *
02
32
94
07
72
14
02
—
00
00
06
16
80
97
99
24 *
72 *
                            H-12
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)






RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

3/15/85

2/13/81
9/18/81
6/17/82
8/11/82
10/13/82
12/ 1/82
2/ 8/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
11/16/83
5/14/84
EERF
Value

3

50
26
9
9
9
6
14
13
13
16
8
8
6
4
8

.7

.5
.2
.2
.1
.1
.4
.5
.8
.8
.9
.8
.3
.8
.7
.1
228TH
± o.
23°TH
± 3.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± I-
± o.
± 1.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.

3

5
8
7
5
5
4
6
2
6
0
3
4
4
3
3
Known
Value

4

65
31
7
7
7
6
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
6
6

.0

.3
.1
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.2
.2
.2
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
R

0

0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1

.92

.77
.84
.23
.21
.21
.99
.11
.05
.05
.28
.33
.25
.03
.71
.23





*
A
*




*
*
*

*
*
                             H-13
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Value
R
230_u (Continued)
In
5/14/84
5/14/84
6/25/84
6/25/84
6/25/84
12/10/84
5/24/85

2/ 1/82
8/28/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
3/15/85
1/21/86
2/24/86
6.9
8.0
7.5
7.6
9.1
7.0
8.2

35.7
4.1
3.2
3.6
3.9
1.0
1.5
± 0.4
± 0.4
± 0.4
± 0.4
± 0.6
± 0.5
± 0.6
? 3?
Z^TH
± 2.9
± 0.4
± 0.3
± 0.2
± 0.3
± 0.1
± 0.1
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
13.0

36.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.0
0.9
1.2
1.05
1.22 *
1.13
1.15
1.38 *
1.06
0.63

0.98
1.14 *
0.90
0.99
1.28 *
1.10
1.26
  6/ 1/81
                          234
                             U
17.8  ±  1.7





        H-14
                                          21.8
0.81
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES


1





1
Date

1/13/81
2/ 1/82
4/21/82
5/ 4/82
6/17/82
8/11/82
0/13/82
12/ 1/82







2/ 8/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
11/16/83
11/16/83
1
1/16/83


25
24
4
9
1
3
7
5
10
10
10
11
3
3
3
10
11
10


.2
.4
.6
.2
.3
.1
.6
.9
.8
.0
.9
.7
.9
.4
.7
.1
.4
.8
EERF
Value
234U
± 3.
± 3.
± o.
± 1.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± 1.
± 1.
± 1.
± 1.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± 1.
± 1.
± 1.
Known
Value

3
0
6
2
2
5
9
9
3
1
2
6
4
5
4
2
3
3
(Continued)
27
27
5
10
1
3
7
8
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
10
10
10

.2
.3
.1
.9
.3
.1
.8
.1
.5
.9
.9
.9
.4
.4
.4
.9
.9
.9

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
R

.93
.89
.90
.84
.98
.00
.98
.73 *
.03
.92
.00
.08
.88
.77 *
.83
.93
.05
-99
                             H-15
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

5/14/84
5/14/84
5/14/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
10/29/84
12/10/84
3/15/85
5/24/85
12/ 6/85
1/21/86
2/24/86

6/ 1/81
11/13/81
2/ 1/82


27.3
25.3
26.7
5.1
5.1
3.8
2.3
4.3
2.4
5.3
2.7
3.1
1.9

1.0
1.4
1.3
EERF
Value
234U
± 3.0
± 3.0
± 3.2
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 0.5
± 0.2
± 0.6
± 0.3
± 0.7
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.2
235U
± 0.1
± 0.2
± 0.2
Known
Value
(Continued)
27.2
27.2
27.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
2.2
4.4
3.0
4.4
3.0
3.1
2.0

1.1
1.3
1.3
R

1.01
0.93
0.98
1.16
1.15
0.86
1.04
0.98
0.78 *
1.21 *
0.88
1.00
0.96

0.89
1.10
1.03
                            H-16
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES

Date
EERF
Value
235u




4/21/82
5/ 4/82
6/17/82
8/11/82
10/13/82
1







2/ 1/82
2/ 8/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
11/16/83
11/16/83
11/16/83


5/14/84
5/14/84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.2 +
•4 ±
•1 ±
•1 ±
.3 +
.5 +
•4 ±
•4 ±
.5 ±
.5 ±
•1 ±
•1 ±
.1 ±
.5 ±
.5 ±
.5 ±
.0 ±
.8 ±
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Known
Value
R

( Continued)
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
.2
.5
.1
.1
.4
.4
.5
.5
.5
.5
.2
.2
.2
.5
.5
.5
.3
.3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
.79
.76
.86
.96
.75
.36
.74
.87
.98
.92
.67
.50
.37
.03
.09
.91
.77
.62
*
*
*

*
*
*



*
*
*





                             H-17
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Value
R
235U (Continued)
5/14/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
10/29/84
12/10/84
5/24/85
12/ 6/85
1/21/86
2/24/86

6/ 1/81
11/13/81
2/ 1/82
4/21/82
5/ 4/82
6/17/82
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

18.1
26.2
24.7
4.5
9.2
1.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
238u
± 1-7
± 3.4
± 3.1
± 0.6
± 1.2
± 0.2
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1

22.5
28.2
28.1
5.0
11.3
1.3
0.66
0.74 *
0.82
0.48 *
0.70 *
1.03
0.84
0.72 *
0.63 *
0.93

0.80
0.93
0.88
0.90
0.81
0.88
                            H-18
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

8/11/82
10/13/82
12/ 1/82
2/ 8/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
11/16/83
11/16/83
11/16/83
5/14/84
5/14/84
5/14/84
8/28/84
8/28/84


2.
7.
3.
11.
11.
10.
10.
2.
4.
3.
10.
11.
10.
26.
26-
25.
3.
4.
EERF
Value
238
8 ±
9 ±
6 ±
o ±
4 ±
6 ±
9 ±
9 ±
3 ±
8 ±
7 ±
1 +
6 ±
2 ±
5 ±
2 ±
6 ±
9 ±

U
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
3
2
0
0


.5
.9
.6
.3
.6
.2
.2
.4
.4
.4
.2
.3
.2
.9
.2
.9
.5
.7
Known
Value
(Continued)
3.
8.
8.
10.
11.
11.
11.
4.
4.
4.
11.
11.
11.
28.
28.
28.
4.
4.


2
0
4
9
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5


0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
R

.89
.99
.43
.01
.01
.94
.97
.65 *
.96
.83
.95
.98
.94
.93
.94
.89
.79 *
.09
                             H-19
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

8/28/84
10/29/84
12/10/84
3/15/85
5/24/85
12/ 6/85
1/21/86
2/24/86

6/24/81
12/ 1/82
2/ 8/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
8/ 1/83
11/16/83
11/16/83


4.5
2.3
4.6
2.5
5.4
2.6
3.0
1.9

EERF
Value
238U
± 0.6
± 0.2
± 0.6
± 0.3
± 0.7
± 0.3
± 0.3
± 0.2
238PU
< 0.02
7.9
9.8
8.9
9.3
7.3
9.3
9.7
± 0.9
± 1.3
± 1.0
± 1.2
± 0.9
± 1.2
± 1.2
Known
Value
( Continued )
4.5
2.3
4.5
3.0
4.5
4.8
3.2
2.1

0.0
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
R

1.00
0.99
1.02
0.84
1.21 *
0.54
0.92
0.88

	
0.84
1.03
0.94
0.98
0.76 *
0.98
1.02
                            H-20
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

11/16/83
11/20/84
12/10/84
5/24/85
10/ 7/85
10/ 7/85
12/ 6/85

3/17/81
3/17/81
3/17/81
3/17/81
3/17/81
3/17/81
6/ 1/81
6/24/81
7/ 7/81
EERF
Value
238
8.5 ±
5.2 ±
8.2 +
8.8 ±
0.2 ±
< 0.02
4.9 ±
239
8.3 ±
3.8 ±
15.9 ±
4.2 ±
4.0 ±
18.9 ±
11.2 ±
20.0 ±
4.7 ±

PU
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.0
0.1

0.6
PU
0.8
0.4
1.7
0.5
0.5
2.2
1.0
2.5
0.5
Known
Value
( Continued)
9.5
5.0
9.5
9.5
0.1
0.0
4.8

19.6
3.9
19.6
3.9
3.9
19.6
13.5
22.9
5.7
R

0.90
1.03
0.86
0.93
1.35 *
	
1.02

0.43
0.97
0.81
1.07
1.03
0.96
0.83
0.87
0.83
                             H-21
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

7/ 7/81
7/ 7/81
7/ 7/81
6/17/82
8/11/82
10/13/82
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/ 5/83
5/14/84
5/14/84
5/14/84
6/25/84
6/25/84
6/25/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
8/28/84
3/15/85


4.0
4.4
5.0
7.0
6.0
6.5
11.3
12.9
11.7
7.3
12.8
11.1
4.5
4.2
4.8
5.1
4.3
5.1
8.2
EERF
Value
239PU
± 0.4
± 0.4
± 0.5
± 0.9
± 0-7
± 0.8
+ 3.1
± 1.5
± 1.3
± 0.8
± 1.6
± 1.3
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 0.7
± 0.6
± 1.1
Known
Value
(Continued)
5.7
5.7
5.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
11.0
R

0.69
0.77 *
0.88
1.08
0.93
0.99
0.99
1.13
1.02
0.64
1.13
0.97
1.11
1.05
1.18
1.28 *
1.07
1.28 *
0.74 *
                             H-22
-------
                        Appendix H  (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date

1/21/86
2/24/86
EERF
Value
239
2.6 ±
2.7 ±

PU *
0.4
0.3
Known
Value
Continued )
2.0
2.7
R

1.32 *
1.01
GROSS ALPHA
8/18/81
8/18/81
8/18/81
11/20/81
4/26/82
5/21/82
7/ 9/82
7/16/82
9/17/82
11/19/82
11/22/82
1/21/83
3/18/83
7/15/83
19.5 ±
9.3 ±
11.4 ±
18.0 ±
9.9 ±
31.1 ±
20.2 ±
17.6 ±
23.9 ±
18.0 ±
53.7 ±
24.4 ±
24.2 ±
7.3 ±
2.7
1.9
1.7
2.8
1.4
2.7
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.0
3.1
2.3
2.3
1.4
22.8
11.4
11.4
21.0
11.4
44.0
19.1
16.0
29.0
19.0
56.7
29.0
31.0
7.0
0.85
0.82
1.00
0.86
0.87
0.71
1.06
1.10
0.82
0.95
0.95
0.84
0.78
1.04
                             H-23
-------
                        Appendix H (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
Date
9/ 2/83
10/29/84
3/25/85
5/14/85
7/26/85
8/27/85
11/22/85
8/25/86
8/18/81
8/18/81
8/18/81
11/20/81
4/26/82
5/21/82
7/ 9/82
7/16/82
EERF
Value
GROSS
6.8 ±
61.0 ±
39.2 +
60.4 ±
7.6 ±
5.9 ±
9.7 ±
69.7 +
GROSS
65.7 ±
61.7 +
131.8 ±
21.9 ±
53.4 +
41.6 +
30.4 +
30.9 +
ALPHA
1.3
3.3
2.7
3.3
1.2
1.1
1.5
3.6
BETA
4.7
6.0
6.5
2.5
4.1
3.3
3.3
3.1
Known
Value
(Continued)
5.0
59.0
38.0
59.0
11.5
4.8
10.0
59.0
68.0
68.0
136.0
23.0
54.5
46.4
27.0
23.0
R
1.36
1.03
1.03
1.02
0.66
1.22 *
0.97
1.18
0.97
0.91
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.90
1.13
1.34
                             H-24
-------
                        Appendix H  (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER  SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value

GROSS BETA
9/17/82
11/19/82
11/22/82
1/21/83
3/15/83
3/15/83
3/15/83
3/15/83
3/18/83
7/15/83
9/ 2/83
ll/ 3/83
10/29/84
3/25/85
5/14/85
7/26/85
8/27/85
11/22/85
8/25/86
52.9 ±
17.5 ±
52.5 ±
22.7 ±
9.5 ±
87.0 ±
22.3 ±
41.4 ±
17.1 ±
20.9 ±
18.2 ±
7.9 ±
31.3 ±
48.9 ±
74.6 ±
27.6 ±
19.8 +
11.9 +
60.1 ±
4.0
2.2
3.4
2.4
0.9
2.6
1.3
1.7
2.0
2.7
2.6
2.0
2.3
3.5
4.3
3.1
2.6
2.0
3.5
Known
Value
( Continued)
40.0
24.0
53.0
31.0
8.3
83.0
21.0
42.0
28.0
22.0
17.5
7.0
39.0
38.0
77.0
38.0
19-0
13.0
75.0
R
1.32
0.73
0.99
0.73
1.14
1.05
1.06
0.99
0.61
0.95
1.04
1.13
0.80
1.29
0.97
0.73
1.04
0.92
0.80
                             H-25
-------
                           Appendix H (Continued)



   RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF WATER SAMPLES
NOTES


(1) Units are nCi/L for H-3 and pCi/L for all other radionuclides,

(2) R - The ratio of the average EERF value divided by the known
    value.  Small inconsistencies in the R value are due to round-
    ing .

(3) Asterisks (*) indicate results which differed from the Known
    value by more than 20 percent but were judged acceptable
    because of low sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
    measurement and Known values, and the small absolute differ-
    ence .
                               H-26
-------
                         Appendix I






RESULTS OF  INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF MILK  SAMPLES
Date

2/11/81

1/21/81
5/ 8/86
7/17/86

1/21/81
9/16/85
5/ 8/86
7/17/86
2/11/81
6/16/81
6/16/81
EERF
Value
60co
18.0 ± 3.4
89SR
36.6 ± 1.3
10.0 ± 2.9
23.4 ± 1.4
90SR
23.8 ± 0.8
30.6 ± 2.4
35.4 ± 2.3
30.9 ± 1.1
61.8 ± 8.0
14.6 ± 4.2
9.7 ± 0.1
Known R
Value

18.0 1.00

32.9 1.11
15.0 0.67
29.0 0.81

22.5 1.06
43.0 0.71
30.0 1.18
28.0 1.10
63.0 0.98
18.0 0.81
18.0 0.54
                              1-1
-------
                           Appendix I (Continued)
   RESULTS OF INTRALABORAfORY BLIND ANALYSES OF MILK  SAMPLES
Date

6/16/81
7/17/81
9/16/85
5/ 8/86
8/14/86


9/16/85
5/ 8/86
8/14/86
EERF Known R
Value Value
131T (Continued)
8.8 + 0.1 18.0 0.49
15.0 ± 0.2 23.0 0.65
81.6 ± 6.9 69.0 1.18
53.4 ± 11.5 55.0 0.97
108.7 ± 12,9 100.0 1.09
137_0
cs
49.6 ± 8.1 47.0 1.06
81.3 ± 11.1 75.0 1.08
66.2 ± 8.3 74.0 0.89
NOTES
(1) Units are pCi/L.


(2) R - The ratio of  the average EERF value divided by the known
    value-  Small inconsistencies in the R value are due to round-
    ing.
                                1-2
-------
                        Appendix  J






RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY  BLIND  ANALYSES OF SOIL  SAMPLES
Date

12/15/80


12/15/80


I/ 1/81
I/ 6/84
I/ 6/84
1/19/84
1/19/84
2/ 7/84
2/ 7/84
2/21/84
2/21/84
3/15/84
3/15/84
EERF
Value

19.0


0.5


19.5
442.2
435.9
417.4
241.9
437.0
510.7
397.5
445.6
450.4
420.2
40K
± 1.7
137,,0
CS
± 0.1
210^
PB
+ 3.1
± 32.7
± 60.2
± 40.5
± 19.6
± 55.5
± 40.3
± 38.2
± 42.8
± 40.5
± 38.2
Known
Value

19.5


0.5


18.6
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
433.0
R

0.97


1.12


1.05
1.02
1.01
0.96
0.56
1.01
1.18
0.92
1.03
1.04
0.97
                              J-l
-------
                        Appendix J (Continued)






RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF SOIL  SAMPLES
Date
EERF
Value
Known
Value
R
210PO
I/ 1/81
I/ 1/81
I/ 6/84
1/19/84
1/19/84
2/ 7/84
2/ 7/84
2/21/84
2/21/84
3/15/84
3/15/84

9/ 1/83
9/ 1/83
10/21/83
10/21/83
3/14/84
15.
23.
442.
495.
286.
435.
489.
486.
419.
408.
449.

1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
4
9
9
8
4
3
5
8
7
8
9

7
8
7
0
8
± 2.
± 3.
± 46.
± 40.
± 20.
± 29.
± 41.
± 42.
± 37.
± 29.
± 36.
228TH
± 0.
± o.
± o.
± o.
± 0.
0
0
9
2
9
6
1
8
8
8
0

1
2
1
1
1
18.
36.
•433.
433.
433.
433.
433.
433.
433.
433.
433.

1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

9
9
9
9
9
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
1
0
.83
.65
.02
.15
.66
.01
.13
.12
.97
.94
.04

.89
.92
.76 *
.06
.86
                             J-2
-------
                        Appendix J (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF SOIL  SAMPLES
    Date
   EERF

   Value
Known

Value
   3/14/84
                           228mn  (Continued)
                              In
0.7  +  0.1
   0.9
0.74 *
                           230
                              TH
   9/ 1/83



   9/ 1/83



  10/21/83



  10/21/83



   3/14/84



   3/14/84
  12/15/80



  10/21/83



  10/21/83



   3/14/84



   3/14/84
1.0  ±  0.1



1.0  ±  0.1



0.7  ±  0.1



0.7  ±  0.1



0.8  ±  0.1



0-7  +  0.1
                           232
                              TH
1.8  +  0.3



0.8  ±  0.1



0.8  ±  0.1



0.7  ±  0.1



0.8  +  0.1
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.86
0.87
0.91
0.84
0.99
0.86
0.96
0.90
0.89
0.83
0.93
   9/ 1/83
                           234
                              U
1.1  ±  0.2



       J-3
   1.1
1.00
-------
                        Appendix J (Continued)
RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES OF SOIL  SAMPLES
Date

9/ 1/83
10/21/83
10/21/83
3/14/84
3/14/84
2/ 7/85

9/ 1/83
9/ 1/83
10/21/83
10/21/83
3/14/84
3/14/84
2/ 7/85


1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9

1.0
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.0
EERF
Value
234u
± 0.2
± 0.1
± 0.2
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
238u
+ 0.2
± 0.2
± 0.1
± 0.2
± 0.1
± 0.1
± 0.1
Known
Value
( Continued)
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
R

1.08
0.98
1.04
0.93
0.68 *
0.85

0.94
1.02
0.85
1.07
0.72 *
0.88
0.91
  10/22/81
     239PU





2.2  +  0.2
2.6
                                                      0.83
-------
                           Appendix J  (Continued)
   RESULTS OF INTRALABORATORY BLIND ANALYSES  OF  SOIL   SAMPLES
       Date
     EERF
     Value
Known
Value
                              239    (Continued)
      9/ 1/83

      9/ 1/83

     12/14/84

      2/ 7/85

      7/26/85

     10/ 1/85

     10/31/85
  0.2  ±  0.1

  0.2  ±  0.1

  2.4  ±  0.3

  0.3  ±  0.1

  2.4  +  0.3

< 0.02

  2.3  +  0.3
0.2
0.2
2.6
0.2
2.6
0.0
2.6
0.95
0.80
0.91
1.24 *
0.93
	
0.90
NOTES
(1) Units are pCi/g of dried soil.

(2) R - The ratio of the average EERF value divided by the known
    value.   Small inconsistencies in the R value are due to round-
    ing.

(3) Asterisks (*) indicate results  which differed from the known
    value by more than 20 percent but were judged acceptable
    because of low sample concentration, the uncertainty in the
    measurement and Known values, and the small absolute differ-
    ence .
                                J-5
-------