Comparison of Laboratory Analytical Methods for Uranium Analysis Superior Steel FUSRAP Site - 16606
The Superior Steel Site processed uranium metal in support of the Atomic Energy Commission's fuel-element development program in the 1950's, and was subsequently classified as a Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Site. Previous investigations at the site identified uranium contamination both inside and outside the buildings associated with historic uranium metalworking activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently engaged in the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. As part of the RI, gamma spectroscopy analysis of environmental samples was performed on-site using a laboratory-grade, high-purity germanium (HPGe) spectrometer. The gamma spectroscopy analysis included isotopes of uranium and their progeny. As a quality assurance measure, a subset of samples already analyzed on-site were sent to a certified, commercial, off-site laboratory for analysis using a suite of analytical methods including gamma spectroscopy, alpha spectroscopy, and mass spectroscopy. As an element of the quality assurance program implemented for the RI, an assessment of the correlations between the various analytical methods employed by both the on-site and off-site laboratory was performed. This assessment revealed inconsistencies between on-site and off-site gamma spectroscopy analytical results, which raised concerns about the appropriateness and suitability of the analytical data. To resolve the data quality concerns and better understand the source(s) of analytical results variability, the Superior Steel RI team (USACE together with its contractor, Amec Foster Wheeler) developed a quality control test whose design objective was to control or practically eliminate sampling and sample preparation variability in order to focus more clearly on analytical variability. This paper discusses the results of this supplemental quality control test, showing the differences in the various analytical methods (both on-site and off-site). It demonstrates in a practical and real world setting how sample preparation and analytical variability, if not controlled and understood can impact data quality and data defensibility. (authors)