Radiochemistry and Analytical Laboratory
The ATL Radioanalytical laboratory is available to support your project needs. Our services can be provided at our facility in Richland, WA or at your project site. ATL can also integrate our analytical services with our other corporate capabilities, including environmental and waste management, occupational health and safety, communications and public outreach, and information technology.
ATL Radioanalytical Capabilities
Gross alpha and gross beta determination. - Gamma spectroscopy.
- Alpha spectroscopy.
- Low-energy beta-emitter determination (via liquid scintillation).
- Bioassay.
- Storage Photostimulable Phosphor (SPP) analysis.
- In-the-field measurement techniques and services
Related Services
- Evaluation of radioanalytical results.
- Audits of analytical laboratories.
- Development of specifications for analytical facilities and equipment.
- Development and implementation of analytical procedures and quality assurance and control programs for laboratories.
Quality
ATL is committed to quality. This commitment is reflected in our staff and services. All professional laboratory staff members have advanced degrees in radiochemistry or health physics. Many staff members have supported the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The ATL Radioanalytical Laboratory is currently participating in the DOE Environmental Measurements Laboratory Quality Assurance Program. If you would like to evaluate our performance in this program, our Laboratory Code is AT.
Environmental Measurement Laboratory (EML) administered the Quality Assessment Program (QAP) for environmental radiological analysis for DOE site cleanup and regulatory compliance. QAP is administrated for the Department of Energy and is for the laboratory meeting the requirements of DOE Order 414.1A to substantiate by an external assessment the quality of radio-analytical measurements by their contracted laboratories. The program provides DOE with complex-wide comparability of environmental radiological analyses.
There are typically 150 or more DOE laboratories and commercial laboratories participating in QAP. Participants' analytical performance is evaluated based on the historical analytical capabilities for individual analyte/matrix pairs. A frequency distribution is calculated from all reported measurements relative to the EML value over the previous 10 years of the program for each analyte/matrix pair. The criteria for acceptance are chosen on a statistical basis to be within a certain percentile of the cumulative normalized distribution, not absolute accuracy values. It is recommended by EML that data and reviews of persistent "not acceptance" analyte/matrix be conducted by the participants to further determine whether the procedures and analytical methods are technically accurate and appropriate for the sample. It is emphasized by DOE that the EML QAP is established as a performance-based evaluation program, in contract to performance programs with prescribed analytical methods. The quality assurance program of QAP does not provide absolute results.
ATL used the latest comprehensive report published by Department of Energy (QAP 58) for assessment conducted in June 2003. ATL identified its peers and cohort laboratories for proper comparison. ATL participated in 44 different analyses. To fairly reflect the comprehensive nature of the participation, ATL selected 39 additional laboratories with a similar level of participation. ATL identified those participants who participated in more than 30 analyses. Among the 40 laboratories, ATL's performance as a quality leader is self-explanatory. Other than a Korea institution and DOE Grand Junction Office Analytical Laboratory, ATL has the highest acceptable percentage of all 44 analyses.
No. of Analyses |
% |
||||||
Acceptable |
Warning |
Not Acceptable |
Total |
Acceptable |
Warning |
Not Acceptable |
|
1. DOE Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, Argonne, IL |
28 |
10 |
4 |
42 |
67% |
24% |
10% |
2. Nuclear Technology Services, Inc., Roswell, GA |
32 |
9 |
8 |
49 |
65% |
18% |
16% |
3. American Radiation Services, Inc. Baton Rouges |
24 |
12 |
5 |
41 |
59% |
29% |
12% |
4. ATL International, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD |
41 |
3 |
0 |
44 |
93% |
7% |
0% |
5. DOE ORISE RSAT/ESSAP, Oak Ridge |
37 |
5 |
0 |
42 |
88% |
12% |
0% |
6. DOE Grand Junction Office Analytical Laboratory |
43 |
2 |
0 |
45 |
96% |
4% |
0% |
7. Autoridad Regulatoria, Buenos Aires, Argentina |
34 |
6 |
0 |
40 |
85% |
15% |
0% |
8. BWX Technologies, Inc., Lynchburg, VA |
35 |
6 |
2 |
43 |
81% |
14% |
5% |
9. California State Dept. Health Serv. Sanitation & Radiation Laboratory |
34 |
10 |
3 |
47 |
72% |
21% |
6% |
10. Envirocare of Utah |
67 |
27 |
1 |
95 |
71% |
28% |
1% |
11. Lockheed Martin, Pikton, OH |
34 |
4 |
5 |
43 |
79% |
9% |
12% |
12. Georgia Power Company Environmental Lab |
30 |
6 |
0 |
36 |
83% |
17% |
0% |
13. General Engineering Labs., Charleston, SC |
39 |
5 |
2 |
46 |
85% |
11% |
4% |
14. General Engineering Laboratory ER/RFI Mobile Laboratory |
42 |
12 |
2 |
56 |
75% |
21% |
4% |
15. Georgia Institute of Technology |
29 |
5 |
0 |
34 |
85% |
15% |
0% |
16. Environmental Protection Inspectorate, Lower Danube Valley, Laboratory |
28 |
3 |
15 |
46 |
61% |
7% |
33% |
17. Severn Trent Laboratories - St. Louis |
35 |
8 |
5 |
48 |
73% |
17% |
10% |
18. STL Inc. Richland, WA |
33 |
10 |
3 |
46 |
72% |
22% |
7% |
19. STL Denver, CO |
41 |
4 |
2 |
47 |
87% |
9% |
4% |
20. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety |
48 |
1 |
0 |
49 |
98% |
2% |
0% |
21. Korea Radiation Technology Institute Co. |
23 |
8 |
4 |
35 |
66% |
23% |
11% |
22. DOE Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM |
68 |
10 |
0 |
78 |
87% |
13% |
0% |
23. Radiation Control Program, Jamaica Plain, MA |
44 |
16 |
6 |
66 |
67% |
24% |
9% |
24. US EPA NAREL, Montgomery, AL |
29 |
6 |
0 |
35 |
83% |
17% |
0% |
25. NJ Department of Health & Senior Services |
104 |
19 |
4 |
127 |
82% |
15% |
3% |
26. PA State Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection, Harrisburg, PA |
28 |
4 |
4 |
36 |
78% |
11% |
11% |
27. DOE Savannah River Plant |
29 |
3 |
1 |
33 |
88% |
9% |
3% |
28. Sanford Cohen Associates, Inc., Montgomery, AL |
29 |
7 |
2 |
38 |
76% |
18% |
5% |
29. DOE Savannah River Environmental Laboratory |
28 |
13 |
2 |
43 |
65% |
30% |
5% |
30. Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services, Knowville, TN |
21 |
10 |
3 |
34 |
62% |
29% |
9% |
31. Eberline Services Albuquerque Lab., NM |
29 |
10 |
5 |
44 |
66% |
23% |
11% |
32. Eberline Services, Richmond, CA |
34 |
7 |
5 |
46 |
74% |
15% |
11% |
33. Eberline Services, Oak Ridge Laboratory |
29 |
10 |
5 |
44 |
66% |
23% |
11% |
34. Texas State Department of Health/Laboratories, Austin, TX |
31 |
10 |
0 |
41 |
76% |
24% |
0% |
35. United States Enrichment Corp., Paducah, KY |
28 |
1 |
2 |
31 |
90% |
3% |
6% |
36. DOE BWXT Y-12 LLC Analytical Chemistry Organization, Oak Ridge, TN |
36 |
5 |
2 |
43 |
84% |
12% |
5% |
37. Environmental Radiation Lab. Off. Of Public Health Labs., Seattle, WA |
37 |
6 |
3 |
46 |
80% |
13% |
7% |
38. Antech Ltd., Waltz Mill Site, PA |
40 |
3 |
1 |
44 |
91% |
7% |
2% |
39. DOE WIPP Site, Westinghouse Electric Corp. |
84 |
13 |
1 |
98 |
86% |
13% |
1% |
40. Wisconsin State Health Radiation Protection Section, Madison, WI |
41 |
10 |
0 |
51 |
80% |
20% |
0% |
| Note: The complete list of participants' performance can be found in Exhibit 4, Semi-Annual Report of the DOE Office of Environmental Management, Quality Assessment Program. | |||||||
