No abstract

The SRR sampling campaign to obtain residual solids material from the Savannah River Site (SRS) Tank Farm Tank 12 primary vessel resulted in obtaining appreciable material in all 6 planned source 1 samples from the mound strata but only in 5 of the 6 planned source samples from the floor stratum. Consequently, the design of the compositing scheme presented in the Tank 12 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Pavletich (2014a), must be revised. Analytical Development of SRNL statistically evaluated the sampling uncertainty associated with using various compositing arrays and splitting one or more samples for compositing. The variance of the simple mean of composite sample concentrations is a reasonable standard to investigate the impact of the following sampling options. Composite Sample Design Option (a). Assign only 1 source sample from the floor stratum and 1 source sample from each of the mound strata to each of the composite samples. Each source sample contributes material to only 1 composite sample. Two source samples from the floor stratum would not be used. Composite Sample Design Option (b). Assign 2 source samples from the floor stratum and 1 source sample from each of the mound strata to each composite sample. This infers that one source sample from the floor must be used twice, with 2 composite samples sharing material from this particular source sample. All five source samples from the floor would be used. Composite Sample Design Option (c). Assign 3 source samples from the floor stratum and 1 source sample from each of the mound strata to each composite sample. This infers that several of the source samples from the floor stratum must be assigned to more than one composite sample. All 5 source samples from the floor would be used. Using fewer than 12 source samples will increase the sampling variability over that of the Basic Composite Sample Design, Pavletich (2013). Considering the impact to the variance of the simple mean of the composite sample concentrations, the recommendation is to construct each sample composite using four or five source samples. Although the variance using 5 source samples per composite sample (Composite Sample Design Option (c)) was slightly less than the variance using 4 source samples per composite sample (Composite Sample Design Option (b)), there is no practical difference between those variances. This does not consider that the measurement error variance, which is the same for all composite sample design options considered in this report, will further dilute any differences. Composite Sample Design Option (a) had the largest variance for the mean concentration in the three composite samples and should be avoided. These results are consistent with Pavletich (2014b) which utilizes a low elevation and a high elevation mound source sample and two floor source samples for each composite sample. Utilizing the four source samples per composite design, Pavletich (2014b) utilizes aliquots of Floor Sample 4 for two composite samples.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract