WACC-WTG Review Comment Sheets Page: 3 of 10

WSRC-TR-91-155

Finally, I suspect that the laboratories will not be able to maintain the 40 day reporting re-
quirement especially if one considers the number of laboratories, people, and data valida-
tion review cycles involved. I recommend that DOE change the requirement. I suggest that
DOE require the WTPP project groups to average less than 40 days for sample reporting.
DOE should require that a non-conformance report be generated for analyses taking longer
than 120 days or some other agreed upon time. The Plan should call for a summary of
problems in making measurements early in the program to adjust for problems. In this way
DOE will be able to focus on the real problems as opposed to problems such as key people
on vacation or having extended medical care. DOE should impose maximum holding times
for analyses of samples based on the suspected stability of the sample but not a 40 day
reporting period.
My specific comments are attached. Most of my comments concern the primary document
which appeared to be written with several key documents planned for but not completed.
Key documents are missing references implying they do not exist. The two appendices
were in excellent agreement with the requirements in the DOE plan.
I am forwarding my copy of the project plans to Jessie Donnan, the WSRC Waste
Analyses Manager, and to Moheb Khalil, the QA/QC Manager for the WSRC
Environmental Monitoring group. They will contact you directly with any comments they
might have. My review comments are being sent to you immediately before completing
the other WSRC reviews. Pleast contact me directly if you have questions. My number is
(803) 725-5256 or FTS 239-5251
Sincerely,
William A. Spencer, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow Scientist
cc: C.E. Coffey, Manager WSRC Analytical Development Section
J.D. Heffner, Manager WSRC Environmental Monitoring Section
M. Khalil, Manager WSRC Environmental Monitoring QA/QC Group
J.G. Donnan, Manager WSRC Waste Analyses Group
K. Wiersbicki, Manager WSRC Waste Management Technology group
M.G. O'Rear, Branch Chief, Waste Technology, DOE-SR
C.D. Morissette, Manager Waste Technology, Westinghouse WIPP
D. Standiford, Westinghouse WIPP
SRL Records (4)
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government, Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi-
bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer-
ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views
and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.

Upcoming Pages

Here’s what’s next.

upcoming item: 4 4 of 10
upcoming item: 5 5 of 10
upcoming item: 6 6 of 10
upcoming item: 7 7 of 10

Show all pages in this report.

This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.

Tools / Downloads

Get a copy of this page .

Citing and Sharing

Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.

Reference the current page of this Report.

Spencer, W.A. WACC-WTG Review Comment Sheets, report, April 2, 1991; Aiken, South Carolina. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1059830/m1/3/ocr/: accessed April 25, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.

International Image Interoperability Framework (This Page)