Guidance from the SAC

2023 Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting

 

Comments

1. We appreciate the installation of the new hoods and restart of the production of sample analysis. We are also pleased that funding for additional infrastructure and instrumentation has been obtained for the future and that additional hoods and instrumentation are purchased and scheduled for installation.
2. We are glad to see a plan for QA [quality assurance] of the data entry into the database. Please see follow-up recommendation below.
3. We recognize the significant number of publications and presentations that have been made in the past year and the ones scheduled to be published soon.
4. We are pleased with the finalization of the DQO [data quality objectives] document and its technical basis. We appreciate the hard work that went into its development.
5. We are glad to see the involvement of staff in the CPPS proposed new Bachelor Program. We still encourage working on further increased opportunities for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows’ involvement in USTUR research projects and undergraduate opportunities as well.
6. We are pleased with the acquisition of funding for adding staff and infrastructure. We encourage continued training for backup and replacement of staff to keep long term continuity.
7. We are pleased with efforts toward adding KPA [kinetic phosphorescence analysis is a technique that provides determination of uranium] capabilities.

Observations

1. Because of the lab’s isolation from the main campus, it seems that attention to, and review of, laboratory safety standards and housekeeping may not be sufficient. See recommendation below.
2. In 2019, Joey Zhou proposed obtaining services of the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory to prepare PT [proficiency testing] samples for the USTUR laboratory, evaluate the laboratory’s performance on analyzing them, and to perform an audit on the lab to evaluate the laboratory’s capability to obtain accurate and precise data. We don’t know what happened to that proposal, but we think it would be a good idea to procure such services. See recommendation below.
3. We appreciate the good communication and cooperativeness among the USTUR staff and the openness that is shared toward improvements that can be made.
4. We support the effort to search for the status of inactive cases, including the Social Security Administration.
5. We appreciate the research efforts that are using the USTUR data. We encourage the evaluation and use of other statistical methods, such as Hierarchical Bayesian Statistical methods.

Recommendations

1. We recommend that the plan for QA of data entry of Health Physics records in addition to the radiochemistry be implemented through software updates and be incorporated into the QA Plan. We believe QA of data entry of radiochemistry primary information also needs to be addressed in the plan.
2. We recommend that the use of Access as a database or as a front-end interface be replaced with newer, more robust, programing language that will not be overwhelmed by data size.
3. We recommend that the quality control equations in the DQO document be fully implemented for use in quality control.
4. We recommend that all radiochemistry procedures be reviewed and updated as necessary in accordance with the QA plan. Method validation records may also need to be updated.
5. We recommend that the USTUR participate in some form of analytical Proficiency Testing (PT) program and obtain an independent audit.
6. We recommend that a safety review be performed for the laboratory.
7. We recommend considering the training and use of additional laboratory personnel for increased productivity and long-term continuity.
8. We recommend an evaluation of the scheduled plan for completion of the radionuclide backlog, including completion of sample analysis from any new cases from active or potentially active living cases, and the continued vision of the purpose for the USTUR, including the laboratory, after completion of those analyses.