National Analytical Management Program (NAMP)
Savannah River National Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
National Analytical Management
Program
Analytical Services Program (ASP) Workshop
September 15, 2015
Cecilia DiPrete, Savannah River National Laboratory
Berta Oates, CBFO Technical Assistance Contractor,
Portage, Inc.
2
Outline of Talking Points
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
History and Mission
Organizational Structure
Integrated Consortium of Laboratory
Networks (ICLN)
Environmental Response Laboratory
Network (ERLN) Coordination Office
Radiological Response Laboratory
Network (RRLN)
NAMP Initiatives within Subcommittees
Collaborations and Strategic Partnerships
• Questions and Answers
3
Background and NAMP Today
Charged with
creating a DOE
Environmental
Response Laboratory
Network
Coordination Office
to establish an
effective integrated
response in a
national emergency
4
NAMP Mission
• Work to serve as a focal point to coordinate
analytical resources within the DOE complex
• Help other agencies and organizations gain
access to analytical capabilities and expertise
within participating laboratories
– Create DOE Environmental Response
Laboratory Network Coordination Office
– Support the need to maintain and expand
analytical capabilities
• Promote training and education
5
NAMP Scope
• Identify sources of analytical capability
• Help coordinate internal ICLN activities
• Provide a focal point for collaboration across
laboratories
• Establish reimbursement mechanisms for services
• Help standardize methods and procedures
• Assist in developing academic or training
opportunities in radiological sciences and
radiochemistry
• Address needs for radiological reference materials
• Pursue funding for scope
6
NAMP Evolution: 2010-2014
7
Today: NAMP Organizational Structure
8
Integrated Consortium of Laboratory
Networks (ICLN)
• Established 2005
• Signed MOA between 10 federal
agencies, including EPA and DOE
• Renewed 2012
• Provides a nation-wide integrated
system of laboratory networks
9
ICLN Organization
Technical Working
Groups:
•
•
•
Environmental
Anthrax Sampling
Radiological Lab
Response
Sample Prioritization
10
Anatomy of a Response
11
Why is the ICLN Important?
Provides efficient coordination of
analytical laboratory services for
Chemical/Biological/Radiological
incidents
• inter-network strategic and
operational planning
• identification of accountabilities
• communication and information
sharing
• resource optimization
• response coordination
12
Environmental Response Laboratory
Network (ERLN)
• All hazards-all environmental media laboratory
network
• Addresses preparedness, response, remediation,
and recovery activities
• EPA and DOE jointly share the responsibility to
ensure capability of response to a radiological
incident
13
NAMP Laboratories in ERLN
SNL
INL
Y-12
ORISE
WIPP Labs
SRS
14
DOE Network Missing in ICLN
The Need for a Radiological Response
Laboratory Network (RRLN)
15
• Difficulty reaching to DOE Laboratories for support
(independent entities)
• Current ICLN laboratory capacity is not sufficient
• Flexibility in directing resources for emergency response
• PREPARE DOE National Laboratories to respond and assist
in a nuclear incident
• Capability to accept and analyze high activity radiological
samples (unique DOE infrastructure)
• DOE National Laboratories bring:
– Largest analytical capacity
– Technical expertise
– Unique capabilities (R&D mission)
– Largest laboratory infrastructure
16
Radiological Response Laboratory Network
(RRLN)
• Merges NAMP activities with
Federal Radiological Monitoring
and Assessment Center (FRMAC)
responsibilities to provide
consolidated response
• Provides valuable assets to
Nation during an emergency
• Reduces costs across DOE
analytical laboratory complex
17
Population Monitoring
Following an environmental release of
radioactive material, large numbers of
people may require external and/or
internal monitoring and, if indicated,
decontamination.
18
Clinical Laboratory Improvement
Amendments (CLIA) Subcommittee
• Significant gap between the Nation’s radiobioassay
capabilities and capacity and those that would be
needed to respond to a potential radiological terrorist
attack or nuclear incident
• NAMP CLIA subcommittee established to provide surge
capacity
• CLIA Compliance within NAMP laboratories will allow
for expansion of services to CDC and State Public
Health Laboratories
• Goal is to have signed interagency (i.e. DOE / CDC)
Memorandum of Understanding
19
2007 Congressional Hearing
The House Committee on
Science and Technology’s
Subcommittee on
Investigations and
Oversight revealed a
significant gap between
the Nation’s radiobioassay
capabilities and capacity
and those that would be
needed to respond to a
potential radiological
terrorist attack or nuclear
incident.
20
2007 Congressional Hearing
21
What is CLIA?
• Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988
are United States federal regulatory standards that apply to all
clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United
States, except clinical trials and basic research.
• Regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS)
• The CLIA regulations establish quality standards for laboratory
testing performed on materials derived from the human body,
such as blood, body fluid and tissue, for the purpose of
providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or
treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of
the health of, human beings. Laboratory testing includes
procedures to determine, measure, or otherwise describe the
presence or absence of various substances or organisms in the
body.
22
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)
Subcommittee
 Laboratory must have a quality assurance program
 Written procedure manual for all tests, assays, and examinations











Establishment and verification of performance specifications
Maintenance and function checks
Calibration and calibration verification procedures
Control procedures
Comparison of test results
Corrective actions
Test records
Analytic systems assessment
Postanalytic systems
Test reports
Postanalytic systems assessment
 Laboratory Director


Hold an earned doctoral degree in a chemical, physical,
biological or clinical laboratory science
Certified by a board approved by HHS
 Approved proficiency testing (PT) program
twice per year
 State requirements, if applicable
23
Quality Assurance Programs
• Laboratory must have a quality
assurance program
 Establishment and verification of
performance specifications
 Maintenance and function checks
 Calibration verification procedures
 Control procedures
 Comparison of test results
 Corrective actions
 Test records
 Analytic systems assessment
 Test reports
 Postanalytic systems assessment
24
On-going Strategy to Meet Goal
• Four DOE labs voluntarily pursued CLIA
Certification in accordance with 42 CFR
requirements
–CMS CLIA Registration forms completed.
–On-site Assessments completed at 3 of the 4
–Challenge in meeting CLIA Lab Director
requirements
• Draft DOE/CDC MOU is awaiting approval and
signatures
–Assumes DOE labs attain CLIA certification
–DOE signatory level needs to be determined
• The CLIA Subcommittee provides an effective
forum for constructive DOE/CDC dialogue on
resource coordination during a radiological
event
• DOE and CDC will continue to partner to
ensure effective response preparedness in event
of radiological incident
25
High Dose Laboratories
Subcommittee
• Develop an integrated
structure for moderate, highlevel, and hot cell radiological
laboratories
• Capacity needed for highly
radioactive samples
– “ground zero” of an RDD
– nuclear accident
• Shielded cells and remote
analytical capabilities must be
available and coordinated
26
New Radiological Reference Materials
• Lack of reference materials with
activity levels and diverse matrices to
support consequence management and
recovery
• Everyone agrees we need reference
materials
– Method development
– Method verification
– Method validation
– PT testing
– Exercises
• Focus on getting the message heard in
high places
26
27
PT Studies: Multi-agency Benefits
• Provides a measure of
laboratory performance
• Encourages laboratories
to improve performance
• Provides an opportunity
for laboratories to
compare methods
• Allows an opportunity to
practice processes
2
8
Increasing Uncertainty
Increased Urgency for Results
Overall Objectives
# of
Samples
Decreasing Detection Limit
Increasing Requirements for Defensible Results
29
Education and Training Subcommittee
• Promote training and
education in radiochemistry
• Avert catastrophic loss of
expertise
• Partnering of federal
agencies and universities
• Highly successful webinar
series
• Archived webinar
presentations
29
30
Partnerships
31
Declining Radiochemistry Workforce
• In May 2012, the National
Academy of Sciences issued a
report on the demand for and
supply of nuclear and
radiochemistry experts
• Current workforce
approaching retirement age
• Number of students opting for
careers in nuclear and
radiochemistry has decreased
US granted PhD degrees in
Nuclear Chemistry from 1970 to
2004, ranging from 35 to 4
National Research Council, “Assuring a Future U.S.-Based Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise, May 2012,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13308
32
Faculty Base Concerns
• 2008: 46 active faculty identified
– Across 20 universities
– Producing 114 PhD’s
– 7 universities were “singlets”
– 5 universities were “doublets”
– Largest program was Washington State
University, with 6 faculty in nuclear
chemistry program
2012 Findings
– Faculty base was extremely vulnerable
– Little or no undergraduate curricula
– Programs with only one faculty were
unsustainable
– Funding was limited and unpredictable
– Data sources for tracking the academic
health of the field are poor or missing
– Specific programs were helping, but not
fast enough
National Research Council, “Assuring a Future U.S.-Based Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise, May 2012,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13308
Ensuring Future Workforce via NAMP
Webinars
Issues and
Challenges
Radiochemistry
Webinars
• Aging facilities
within the DOE
complex
• Declining
workforce
• Few universities
teaching
radiochemistry
• Lack of
professors
• Lack of facilities
for training
• Promote
radiochemistry
education
• Introduce
radiochemistry
to a new
audience
• Advance the
knowledge of
personnel in the
discipline
Audience
•
•
•
•
•
Managers
Technicians
Students
Regulators
Health
Physicists
• Quality
Assurance
Officers
• Chemists
33
34
Webinar Series Participation
Series 1-Actinide Chemistry
April 2012 to April 2013
Webinar Topic
Attendance
Series 2-Environmental Radiochemistry / Bioassay
May 2013 to May 2014
Archived
Viewings
Webinar Topic
Attendance
Archived
Viewings
An Overview of Actinide Chemistry
165
763
Radiological Data Validation and Verification
205
155
Uranium Chemistry
183
279
Traceability and Uncertainty
260
78
Plutonium Chemistry – General
Properties of Plutonium
142
198
Bioassay
182
92
Environmental Behavior of Plutonium
136
182
Gamma Spectrometry (Part 1)
273
264
Environmental Behavior of Uranium
164
96
Gamma Spectrometry (Part 2)
184
81
210
82
Overview of EPA Incident Response Guides and
Rapid Methods
182
46
153
232
Detection Decisions and Detection Limits
234
70
Sample Dissolution
186
98
Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement
226
69
Neptunium Chemistry
157
59
Mass Spectrometry
235
53
Trivalent Actinides
151
54
Alpha Spectroscopy
237
120
Transplutonium Actinides
115
36
Applications in Liquid Scintillation Counting
236
117
Radium Chemistry
235
167
269
135
Analytical Chemistry of Plutonium and
Uranium
Source Preparation for Alpha
Spectroscopy
Unconventional Drilling/Hydraulic Fracturing
and Natural Radioactivity
35
Series 3 Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Webinar Title
Introduction to the Fuel Cycle
Presenter
Date
Attendance
Stephanie Cornet, NEA/OECD
June 26, 2014
Mikael Nilsson, UC-Irvine
July 24, 2014
Kenya de Almeida, UNM
August 21, 2014
Nuclear Fuels and Fuel Fabrication
Thomas Hartmann, UNLV
September 25, 2014
Overview of Nuclear Reactors
Roger Blomquist, ANL
October 23, 2014
Chemistry and radiochemistry of the reactor coolant system
Dr. Robert Litman, EMS
November 20, 2014
137/65
The PUREX Process
Dr. Jimmy Bell, Bell Consultants
December 11, 2014
166/65
Advanced Partitioning Technologies in the U.S.
Jennifer Braley, Colorado School of
Mines
January 22, 2015
155/9
Advanced Partitioning Technologies in Europe
Dr. Dominique Warin, Commissariat a
l’Energie Atomique (CEA)
February 26, 2015
80/5
March 26, 2015
128
Front End--Uranium Mining,
Milling, Enrichment and UO2 production
Environmental and human contamination in the Front End of the Fuel
Cycle for Uranium Mining and Milling
Radiation Chemistry at the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Pyroprocessing Technology
Bruce Mincher, INL
Steve Mezyk, California State University
Long Beach
Supathorn Phongikaroon
Virginia Common-Wealth University
April 30, 2015
151/189
211/120
133/66
146/78
214
42
Nuclear Waste Management-Application to Technetium
Edward Mausolf, PNNL
June 4, 2015
109
Nuclear Repository Science and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Lindsay Shuller-Nickles, Clemson
University
July 16, 2015
109
High Level Waste
Rick Demmer, INL
August 27, 2015
129
Average 174/webinar
Total Attendance 6610
Total Archived Viewings 4123
36
Mini-Series
Webinar Title
Presenter
Tentative Date
High Resolution Gamma-Ray Spectrometry
Analyses for Normal Operation and Radiological
Incident Response
Dr. Robert Litman, Environmental
Management Services
September 24, 2015
Radiation Safety
Dr. Dave Roelant, Florida International
University
October 22, 2015
The Diverse Geologic Environments of Natural
Uranium Resources
Dr. Phil Goodell, University of Texas El Paso
November 19, 2015
37
Upcoming Series 5—Nuclear Forensics
Webinar Title
Introduction
Presenter
Dr. Walter Loveland, Oregon State University
Tentative Date
December 2015
January 2016
Nuclear Fission/Nuclear Devices
Dr. John McCLory, US Air Force Institute of Technology
Thorium and Uranium Resources and Enrichment
Dr. Lindsay Shuller-Nickles, Clemson University
Chronometry
Dr. Michael Schultz, University of Iowa
Sample Matrices and Collection, Sample
Preparation
Dr. Amy Hixon, University of Notre Dame
Nuclear Materials Analysis — Physical and
Spectroscopic Methods
Dr. Jeff Terry, Illinois Institute of Technology
Nuclear Materials Analysis — Chemical Methods
Dr. Brian Powell, Clemson University
June 2016
Nuclear Materials Analysis — Non-Destructive Analysis
Dr. Azaree T. Lintereur, University of Utah
July 2016
Nuclear Materials Analysis — Radioanalytical Methods
Dr. Alena Paulenova, Oregon State University
August 2016
Nuclear Materials Analysis — Mass Spectroscopy
Dr. Ken Marcus, Clemson University
September 2016
Development of Signatures
Dr. Kiel Holliday and Dr. Leonard Grey, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory
October 2016
Statistics in Nuclear Forensics
Dr. Luther McDonald, University of Utah
November 2016
Source and Route Attribution
Dr. Jenifer Braley, Colorado School of Mines
December 2016
Case Studies Part 1
Dr. Lindsay Shuller-Nickles, Clemson University
January 2017
Case Studies Part 2
Dr. Timothy A. DeVol, Clemson University
January 2017
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
38
Webinar Attendee Comments
“I appreciate if you can send
copy of the presentations as
attached to the desired
participants emails. It is
good initiative to gather
scientists from
radiochemistry community
world-wide to refresh their
knowledge in such ease and
advanced way.”
“Only criticism - too
much info too fast!
providing a copy of
the presentation
was the cure.”
“This is the
most
applicable
talk to my
work that I
have heard so
far, and I can
really use the
information
they are
providing.”
“Thank you for providing
another great webinars!
I've been getting
caught up on some of the
older ones and they are
proving to be very useful.”
“I thought it was very interesting.
The material is not often presented
in other than a graduate school
setting so many of us don't have
access to it; other than from books.
Thank you for making it possible.”
39
International Programs
• Promote radiochemistry and nuclear chemistry
curriculum development
• Committed to foster an international
environment for nuclear science and education
• International education opportunities in
radiochemistry and nuclear chemistry through
student and staff exchanges
40
NAMP’s Outreach
•
•
Since 2010, the
NAMP organization
has significantly
increased its
influence, initiatives,
and membership
NAMP has
established proof of
concept and serves
with NNSA as DOE’s
liaison with DHS,
EPA, CDC and other
agencies
41
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
42
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
43
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
44
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
45
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
46
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
47
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
48
• Participation in National
Academy of Science
Meetings
• Presentations in both
national and
international
conferences
• Peer reviewed
publications
• DOE EM Press Releases
• Advertising in
Environmental
Laboratory Newsletters
• Articles in APHL Bridges
Publications
• Brochures
• Website
www.wipp.energy.gov/namp
49
NAMP – In Summary
• Fills need for a central point of
contact for Federal agencies to
access DOE capabilities
• Serves as focal point for labs
joining ERLN
• Supports coordination between
laboratories and other federal
agencies
• Promotes education and training
• Jointly with the FRMAC functions
as the DOE RRLN
49
50
NAMP Initiatives to Address Ongoing Needs
• Expand network
laboratories
– SRNL, ORNL,
Hanford, LANL,
LLNL, PNNL,
Pantex
• Laboratory level
funding needed
• Method
development
• Method validation
for emergency
response
• PT participation
• Exercise
participation
51
The Future of NAMP
• Continue to work with the roadmap
that currently exists, with a focused
effort on
– Funding
– Strategic partnerships
– Productive communication
51
52
Questions
Cecilia DiPrete
NAMP Director
803-725-5314
c.diprete@srnl.doe.gov
Berta Oates
Technical Coordinator
801-782-5179
boates@portageinc.com
Visit the NAMP website at: www.wipp.energy.gov/namp