DOE OSTI2020
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is often faced with the need to evaluate radionuclides at low concentrations. When site sample data are likely to be close to threshold activity concentrations of interest, then the means by which the radiochemical analysis is performed and reported is critical. This situation can occur when differentiating from zero (presence/absence) for radionuclides that do not occur naturally, close comparison with environmental background for naturally occurring radionuclides, close comparison with a risk- or dose-based threshold concentrations of interest, or even comparisons across studies. There are several analytical issues that are of concern, but the two that appear to cause incorrect decisions to be made most often involve establishing detection limits and subtracting ambient background conditions in the laboratory. These issues are not critical when radionuclide activity concentrations are large relative to thresholds of concern, but they seem to be poorly understood when it matters. When the comparisons are important and are likely to be close to a threshold of interest, then the general contract with the analytical laboratories needs to be changed so that the right or appropriate data are obtained. The concern is that important decisions are made incorrectly more often as greater scrutiny is placed on DoE's radionuclide cleanup or monitoring decisions by the public and other stakeholders. Examples are presented of problems that have been observed for different projects, both within and outside the realm of DOE and NRC remediation and radioactive waste disposal problems, and solutions are offered that should lead to better data from which important decisions need to be made. The first example is from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and involves radionuclide concentrations in soil and rock beneath LANL's Material Disposal Area (MDA) G. An initial review of the data led to a conclusion that americium and plutonium are a long way present beneath MDA G. A more thorough review of the data that accounted properly for ambient background and the detection limits that had been established led to the opposite conclusion. Another example is from the Nevada National Security Site where tritium results from one of the wells were unexpectedly high. Proper understanding and analysis of ambient background led to the conclusion that the increased concentrations were not so obvious, and that a different contract with the analytical laboratory was needed to provide more appropriate data to support a better determination. Other examples are used from regulatory review of projects in Nevada, where background levels and secular equilibrium for naturally occurring radionuclides are not established correctly because of analytical issues. The same basic issues have also been found to create difficulties analyzing historical data from the West Valley Demonstration Project. There is evidence in the data that the apparent lack of secular equilibrium where it is expected to exist is related to ambient background subtraction or other analytical issues. A final example is presented for analysis of Tc-99 in samples of depleted uranium. In this case, two different studies that were performed only three months apart provide quite different results. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the data quality objectives (DQO) process in the mid-1980's to establish decision performance criteria for data collection. EPA guidance (EPA G-4, for example) clearly distinguishes between DQOs and measurement performance objectives (MQOs) that should be addressed for laboratory analysis of samples. The language of DQOs and MQOs has become confused over time it seems, and the subsequent effects seem to include a lack of attention to decision performance and a routine approach to measurement quality. In order to better address radionuclide sample analysis when the concentrations are close to thresholds of concern, which might be zero for some radionuclides, background for others, and risk-based thresholds for yet others, it is important that routine laboratory analysis methods are adjusted, and that the project team and the laboratory work closely together to ensure that the data meets the MQO requirements of laboratory analysis and reporting of results, and that the MQOs effectively support project-specific DQOs. This basic approach will be applied in Los Alamos in the coming year to the collection of moisture data from underneath MDA T that will be analyzed for americium and neptunium isotopes. Proper understanding of the radiochemistry methods and reporting, and of appropriate statistical methods is critical to the success of such projects, ensuring that the right decisions are made. (authors)
07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗