Capability Target 4.6: Post-Plume Phase Sampling Plan Development and Analysis

ASSESSMENT – DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION GUIDANCE

By observing the OROs’ capability to address the appropriate bullet points below and while considering the overall capability being assessed, the following key points of review and associated questions should be considered and will support an evaluation of this capability target.

OROs demonstrate the capability to:

  • Periodically conduct radiological assessment of public exposure.
    • What methods were used to assess public exposure and at what frequencies?
  • Estimate projected doses in contaminated areas and identify areas where projected doses exceed relocation PAGs.
    • Did the ORO calculate projected doses based on laboratory analyses of soil samples?
    • Did the ORO calculate a DRL for relocation for each area with a homogeneous radionuclide deposition mixture?
    • Were areas exceeding DRLs identified?
  • Develop and modify sampling plan to assess the radiological consequences of a release on the food and drinking  water supplies.
    • How was the area of interest identified (e.g., depositions footprint)?
    • Did the ORO’s assessment include an evaluation of the radiological analyses of representative samples of drinking water, food, and other ingestible substances of local interest from potentially impacted areas?
    • Did the ORO’s assessment include a characterization of the releases from the facility?
    • Did the ORO’s assessment include the extent of areas potentially impacted by the release?
  • Determine areas to be restricted based on factors such as mix of radionuclides in deposited materials, calculated exposure rates compared to PAGs, and analysis of vegetation and soil samples.
    • How were the boundaries of the deposition determined?
    • If deposition boundaries were determine by projections, how were the projected areas verified (e.g., field measurements, environmental sampling)?
  • Evaluate the radiological analyses of representative samples of drinking water, food, and other ingestible substances of local interest from potentially impacted areas.
    • Were the pre-determined DILs the same as the 1998 FDA DILs? If not what, were the differences? If other than the FDA DILs were used, what rationale was given for other decision criteria?
    • What projected doses were used to recommend protective actions for food, drinking water, and persons being relocated?
  • Compare radiological impacts of analysis on food and water and other representative samples to appropriate  ingestion PAGs.
    • Did the ORO demonstrate the capability to obtain sample results from the specified laboratory?
    • Were results reported in appropriate units? (e.g., were soil sample results reported in units of activity per area—not in units of activity per weight?)
    • Were results decay corrected to the sample collection time or to some other time?