Publications

Shanks, Sonoya T.; Cerefice, Gary C.; Fournier, Sean D.; Hart, Kevin G.; Jaussi, Lynn J.; Rolfe, Kevin D.

In March 2021, a functional area drill was held at the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis that focused on using CBRNResponder and the Digital Field Monitoring (DFM) tablets for sample hotline operations and the new paper Sample Control Forms (SCFs) for sample collection. Participants included staff trained and billeted as sample control specialists and Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) field monitoring personnel. Teams were able to successfully gather and transfer samples to the sample control hotline staff through the manual process, though there were several noted areas for improvement. In July and October 2021, two additional functional area drills were held at Sandia National Laboratories that focused on field sample collection and custody transfer at the sample control hotline for the Consequence Management (CM) Radiological Assistance Program (RAP) program. The overarching goal of the drills was to evaluate the current CM process for sample collection, sample drop off, and sample control using the CBRNResponder mobile and web-based applications. The July 2021 drill had an additional focus to have a subset of samples analyzed by the local analytical laboratory, Radiation Protection Sample Diagnostics (RPSD) laboratory, to evaluate the Laboratory Access portal on CBRNResponder. All three drills were able to accomplish their objectives however, there were several issues noted (Observations: 25 Urgent, 29 Important, and 22 Improvement Opportunities). The observations were prioritized according to their impact on the mission as well as categorized to align with the programmatic functional area required to address the issue. This report provides additional detail on each observation for skillset/program leads and software developers to consider for future improvement or mandatory efforts.

Cochran, Lainy D.; Hart, Kevin G.

This report documents the analysis conducted by Sandia National Laboratories on the effect of various alterations to published methodologies to calculate Derived Response Levels for Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Protective Action Guides. Specifically, this study sought to assess and provide recommendations on calculation of the Derived Response Level accounting for decay during the consumption period, assess the impact of decay on laboratory Minimal Detectable Concentration in water samples as compared to the Derived Response Level, make a recommendation on the calculation of Derived Response Level consistent with existing Public Protection Methods, and make a recommendation on the use of six age groups versus eight age groups based on available dose coefficients for calculation of the Derived Response Level. The authors analyzed these various factors using nominal radionuclide mixes from four scenarios and compared calculation of the Derived Response Level accounting for decay and no decay and then compared those results to the laboratory Minimal Detectable Concentrations. The authors concluded that decay should be included in the calculation of the Derived Response Level, existing Public Protection Methods should be employed to calculate the Derived Response Level, six age groups should be used versus eight, and the use of both decay and Public Protection Methods result in little to no concern for water samples meeting the Minimum Detectable Concentration requirements. The results of this study may be used in further developing and implementing a method for the Environmental Protection Agency Water Derived Response Level calculation in the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center Assessment Manual.