Fred Ogden of Savannah River Site (SRS) opened the meeting. Bill Schaper and Jim Halgren (steering committee members) recently had to cancel. He emphasized comments from other attendees make the meeting work.

Introductions from attendees followed. Note – Attendee list attached.

N323 consists of 4 standards.

"A" addresses portable instrumentation and has been out since 1997. An errata sheet has been issued.

• Morgan presented a list of the working group members. There are also a number of volunteers that helped in the development of the standard.
• The original version went through 9 or 10 drafts.
• Due for revision next year (2002). The chair (Selby) has named members of the new committee.

N323B addresses instruments that are used for near background measurements. Morgan stated that the HPIC should have a strong involvement with the development of "B."

• Chaired by Ed Walker who has issued a committee draft.
• Morgan stated that HPIC will get a society peer review opportunity.

N323C is for air samplers and monitors. The Air Monitor Users Group (AMUG) is heavily involved.

• Writing committee is co-chaired by Mark Hoover and Michele Johnson
• Draft 8 reviewed at last HPS meeting in June 2001 and at the AMUG meeting at Oak Ridge in March 2001.
• Tom Voss stated that there are two big areas that require work – radon monitor calibration and air flow meters. He expects that there will be something to look at next March or April.

N323D, Stationary radiation instrumentation

• Chaired by Pete Chiaro
• Out for society peer review after 2 drafts.
• Morgan is checking the status of the peer review with ANSI.

Perry presented information off line. It was noted that a phone connection out of the meeting room cost $100 per day (even when using a previously active line and an 800 number). Perry mentioned that some of the links do not work. There was considerable discussion over the format with a majority of attendees stating that we should simplify the page to include facilities, contacts, and inventory (voluntary). Perry and Pete will make a form for others to complete through e-mail. Some suggestions to allow members to update their information through the use of a web form. The page will also include the minutes from each meeting, and links to DOE, NRC, ANS, and the HPS. Test data links should include ORNL and PNNL information. Radoslav will try to have the LLNL site shut down.

Robert provided an overview of what PRESCILA is (neutron probe that has a thermal and fast neutron element). LANL has done much testing with most of the radiation response testing being performed at PTB in Germany. Ludlum, who is farther along, and Eberline are commercializing the unit. This past summer, LANL took two units to PTB in Germany. A patent application was submitted last March. Ludlum is expecting to ship probes in December at about $1700 to $1800 each. Original target date was during October, but problems over availability of Lithium-6 caused a delay. Robert stated that this has been worked out. Eberline expects to have a unit next year.

LANL will use the detector with an Eberline E-600. LANL is not sure of the instrument that Ludlum will use as the counter. Robert stated that an instrument with a discriminator is needed to reduce gamma response. Gamma response may be problematic for reactor facilities.

The latest PTB tests went well. Sensitivity and energy response was good. LANL has also procured a bonner-sphere system to characterize their reference calibration fields. PTB tested the spheres against their (PTBs’) system, including response verification. LANL is waiting for the unfolding code from PTB to evaluate the data.

LANL has recently evaluated an assortment of instruments and have discovered that some instruments responded differently than expected. They are still working this issue, which they consider to be a calibration issue. The unfolding code that is needed to evaluate bonner sphere data is needed to completely understand the field.

Most of the attendees thought that a follow-up presentation is needed. Comments were made regarding various neutron EPDs, including results from Siemens and Aloka units that are designed for neutron. Primary concerns are over energy dependence.

A paper on PRESCILA is expected by the end of the year. Requests for copies can be made to Robert or Dick Ulsher (author).

Fred commented about a recent ROSPEC calibration. There apparently were changes in the unfolding codes that made differences in the field measurements at SRS. Robert mentioned that LANL is hiring a person from Bubble Technologies as a neutron expert who may be able to make a presentation at the next meeting.
Decided to attempt to coordinate a HPIC review of the PRESCILA when it is issued.

This is an issue for next meeting agenda.

Fred presented background information that included standards and regulations that SRS used during the design of their interlock systems. They included: ANSI N43.3, NCRP 88, 10 CFR 835, DOE 441.5-1, and the DOE Rad Con Standard. Fred went through the "classes of installations" (shielded, unattended, and open). Engineered safety controls were listed that included shielding, interlocks, warning devices, etc. A listing of irradiator systems available at SRS was also provided. The gamma and neutron wells are password protected and include various other types of interlock systems. One of the features is an electronic eye between the operator and irradiator that will place a source in safe shutdown if beam is broken by the operator during use. Interlock requirements are increased based on the hazards involved.

Fred presented interlock information including devices and protocol for each system in the SRS facility. One of the recent additions has been the installation of an independent rotating beacon that will activate independently of an irradiation system. This came as a result of a stuck source incident. The interlock systems are verified quarterly. They went to this time interval based on successful more frequent checks.

The source transport systems were designed into the facility. Included in that is a BSB (big shielded box) that contains shielding material.

Comments were made regarding interlock isolation – software/hardware. Paul Zahra commented that BNL had to remove various software-based interlock controls and make them hardware based. Some other comments were made regarding computer access and firewalls. Question over computer lock up problems – At SRS there have been less than what occurred previously, which was one or two/week to much less now. Some are network related. Much discussion over the need to be connected to the site’s intranet as opposed to a facility-specific LAN.

Morgan provided background as to the development of, and organizations responsible for national and international standards. He described the purposes for HP instrument standards. Morgan stated that in the past standards were based on specifications. They have since become more related to performance.

ANSI is the standardizing body in the US for HP instruments. The international committees include IEC and ISO with ANSI acting as the coordinating body for US efforts to them.

Morgan described the IEEE stating that most of the members are from the US. Their first nuclear science symposium was held last year. The Health Physics Society and its relation to ANSI was also described. HE also provided a background of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Most of the information provided was in regards to TC 45, which addresses radiation instrumentation.

Another standards organization is the ISO, International Organization for Standardization. ISO TC85 works closely with IEC TC45 with some overlap of personnel. Included in the presentation was the criteria or sequence in developing instrumentation standards.

Elliot provided a list of Technical Basis Documents that were developed at Rocky Flats. Not every facility has a formalized process for technical basis documents. Fred stated that if someone has a particular interest, they should contact Elliot directly.

Morgan presented a list of presenters/presentations made at the last HPS meeting. They included:

Bill Shaper who did presentations on instrument activities at West Valley. Tom Voss presented an overview of health physics instrument training. (There was discussion from Hanford that they configured their training to address personnel that get trained and then leave.) Paul Steinmeyer did a presentation on the application of high speed digital electronics/signal processing and software with portable instrumentation. Morgan Cox presented an update on the measurements of radiation levels at high altitude. They also had a presentation about the Health Physics Injury Reduction Program at Hanford, and radiation instrumentation performance standards.

Discussion over of the field acceptance of instruments with increased digital capabilities, including comments over attempting to drive the radiation instrument manufacturers to incorporate simpler, computer-based units.

Presentation went well. Much discussion. Comments from LANL with regards to ORNL providing help with finding problems in the operating programming.

Tom Voss opened the presentation with a review of the LANL alpha CAM specification. They received 7 CAMs for the official evaluation. He also showed a photo of the new Alpha 7L. Other CAMs that were evaluated included the Aptec-NRC CAM, Canberra ASM1000/AS1700, Aquila NetCAM/AS1700, MGP CAM, RADOS CAM-03, and the Lab Impex CMS2000.

Tom went through how they rated different features and requirements. Some of the more highly rated features included "Sampler placed at monitor locations", "weight", "complete, bug-free, software", "Sensitivity: DAC-h and false alarm rate", and "flexible sampling configuration."

Tom also provided a summary of how the evaluation was performed. Discussion followed regarding sharing the information or results of LANL’s evaluation.

BNL has over 400 units consisting of MK1s and MK2s. Most of the MK2s were acquired during 2000. From April 2001 to the end of August units began failing. Failures were indicated by locked displays, shorted batteries, alarm state activation. In one instance, three units failed during a high-rad entry. Environmental factors were investigated with no conclusive result. The only common action was that the batteries on the units were recently changed (alkaline batteries).

BNL contacted Siemens and units were sent for evaluation in September. Most of the failed units would not power up. Siemens also began noticing a 10-15% failure rate on the units they serviced for power plants. The causes were identified and isolated to "Version 7" units (estimated serial #s up to 6000). Problems were seen with the power circuit and "bugs" in the power converter. Siemens uses software to step up voltage when using alkaline batteries. BNL found out that manufacturing in the UK knew about it, but it was not known in the Atlanta office. According to Seimens, problems have been corrected in versions 8, 9, and 10. The version number is indicated on the EPD reader.

Paul asked the question as to whether EPDs should be included as a recommended device for the HPIC. Hanford just did an analysis of Siemens EPDs. Fred mentioned that there is a multi-year warranty that has helped SRS.

Brian brought a few instruments and holders that are used at Hanford for field work. Fred donned various equipment to demonstrate. The equipment included a pancake probe/count rate meter holder. Brian mentioned that there is a web site that provides additional information. He also showed a frisking probe that is being designed to work with a palm pilot. The equipment is manufactured by Industrial Hygiene Solution LLC.

Tom Voss commented that according to some of the recent information issued by DOE, there may be an increased need to evaluate data in the field while surveying. This would or could be done using a palm pilot connected either through hardwire or wirelessly to an E-600. LANL is looking into this.

Fred related to the group what the source check requirements are at SRS. Source checks are performed on sign-out with a 20% tolerance of the initial reading (determined upon receipt by the field). They had a finding this past January that included why they didn’t use 10% and no label on the check source. As a result of the finding, Fred did a review of instrument records. SRS’s response was that it’s not required by N323A, that there is no benefit, cost would be significant, and supervisors now review initial readings.

The term non-detectable (ND) is used on surveys. They needed to document a Minimum Detectable Dose Rate value for a series of instruments. Fred had to come up with values for a series of instruments. (This initiated discussion over the use of "microrem" when there is an energy cut-off due to equipment design.)

Fred also presented information about NRD use. They procedurally require that the 0-1 mrem/hr scale is integrate only.

Discussion over instruments and techniques used to perform a field analysis of contamination to determine isotopes. The instrument discussed the most for alpha was the AP-2. It has limited resolution making it difficult for use for Pu. It works fairly well for Uranium.

Fred talked about why a simple instrument may be better for a specific task. The first thing to do is to evaluate the task and what is required. At SRS there is a specific group of employees that are called "Advanced Rad Workers" that consist mostly of lab technicians and scientists who receive specialized training. The measurements they make are primarily for health protection. They make measurements for alpha and beta contamination, and whole body gamma. If the measurements indicate that radiological conditions exceed some limit, they contact the Rad Con Organization.

Currently, each person is issued an alpha contamination, beta contamination, and dose rate instrument. SRS found an instrument that contained all three capabilities that they believe can be used if the use is limited to "for indication only."

Fred presented information as to the instrument’s capabilities and passed a unit around. He also broke down costs based on purchase and calibration. The instrument has a self-contained smear counter tray. Fred stated that they won’t buy off on the alpha capabilities, but it will be acceptable for beta and gamma dose.

Hanford commented that they are looking into the use of compensated GM tubes for dose rate measurements. There was some discussion over dose rate measurement and energy compensation. Some discussion followed over actual financial savings without reduction in personnel.

Robert provided background as to how LANL calibrates their neutron well. Their approach is to first calibrate their working standards free in air. The measurements are corrected for scatter and room return. Robert laid out the process in a procedural format. The process "calibrates" the well source, which is based on measurements from different source positions in the well. This process transfers the working standard well calibrations to its free in air equivalent.

Discussion followed regarding the basis for free in air corrections. Comments were made over the reasons for using a curve-fitting technique, as opposed to making the well calibration instrument-specific. The curve fit allows half-life corrections.

Additional comments were made regarding the use of the NIST. Some facilities do send instruments.

Does the HPIC want to sponsor an intercomparison with WIPP for neutron? gamma? Discussion followed regarding the logistics of doing an intercomparison. Would a WIPP instrument be passed around? Suggestions were made to meet at WIPP, bring instruments, and measure their check source(s).

Discussion began over a more complex-wide intercomparison effort. This was discussed at previous meetings and needs to start again. Kevin Reaves brought up possible methods and goals, including field grade and reference grade instruments. Funding is an underlying concern. Murari will look into why there is no money.

Incidents at sites and how they relate to instruments – Elliott Lesses presented by Fred Ogden. There were some concerns at Rocky Flats – no details.

LANL commented over use of smart detectors and the use of operating parameters that were not appropriate for the connected probe. Comments were also made that Eberline has an upgrade that requires the entry of a password to clear an alarm on a PCM-2.

Other comments over AMS-3 and Alpha 5 CAMs – when the alarm is set, a load is placed on the meter that causes the indicated setting to be low.

Hanford has seen a problem with the RO-7 mid range probe in that the internal components may degrade after continuous exposure. There were comments over electrostatic discharge problems with electronic dosimeters (PD3As).

Riasp mentioned that the newer Fluke multimeter has a correction factor for the high voltage probe. According to Riasp, this is not well known. They have seen problems with AP-2 and loss of facility-specific parameters. He recommended that you have SAIC burn the EPROM. Perry mentioned that the problem has to do with the on/off switch.

Morgan reported on the results of a survey that was performed a few years ago to identify commercially available instruments and their associated MDA values. The evaluation team provided guidelines for the survey for radiochemistry laboratories and instrument vendors. His presentation included a list of chemistry labs that existed at the time of the evaluation, and a list of detection techniques and instrumentation that were used to count samples. A slide was presented that contained a summary of the information provided by the labs.

For the instrument manufacturers, they were requested to provide a much more limited amount of information. The list of vendors has changed substantially since the work was performed. Morgan stated that the determined lower limits of detection were between 0.1 and 1.0 pCi/g. He stated that it was not economically feasible to go lower. Morgan finished by stating that the MDA equation by Currie is the best available.

Fred stated that acceptance has been very slow, which was expected. There have been some improvements in the physical design of the probe holder that is attached to the Electra. Fred stated that the manufacturer has also made improvements to the calibration software.

Determination of MDAs has involved several assumptions to validate the data obtained. Active survey MDAs involve operator recognition factors. Fred listed what are the calculable variables (efficiency, background, etc.) and real-world variables (isotope, surface conditions, human factors, etc.). He stated that NUREG 1507 is a great reference for real world variables. One of the slides included a spreadsheet of MDA equations from NUREG 1507. For the information used to determine beta values, SRS uses Cs-137 for efficiency determination. The information was based on the use of an NE DP-6 probe.

Presentation was developed as a result of a DOE assessment of the BNL instrument program. BNL performed a series of tests to develop a basis for an exception to the ANSI standard. He noted that the audit stated that it was a good practice for them to be involved with the DOE-HPIC. Paul presented the results of the tests that were performed.

Overview of a class that Morgan gave at the last HPS meeting. His presentation included slides describing detector voltage plateaus (ion chamber, proportional, GM). Most of the presentation was spent describing the technical design of ion chambers.

Tom brought a sample instrument that contained a detector, MCA, and palm computer. He provided some background that went from a Ludlum 139 to the Eberline E-600. One of the slides included the new Ludlum 3030 that Y-12 has for evaluation. It is currently not operational.

Presented information about the pilot testing program and detection system.

Radoslav went through the experiment set up and process. He presented information on the average change in sensitivity of the bubble dosimeters over time. He also presented data as to the relative change in numbers of bubbles after an exposure. The data indicated an increase of approximately 10% in some situations. His summary stated that dosimeters under responded to a moderated neutron spectra, which was expected. He also stated that the dosimeters should be read and recompressed on a bi-weekly or preferably daily schedule. Bubble dosimeters should have their calibration checked on a quarterly basis.

The background for their effort is 10 CFR 835 that specifies the posting of dpm/100 cm2. Robert stated that all sources are calibrated in surface emission rate. To address inconsistencies they multiply the surface emission rate by 2 to get "effective dpm." The issues that they are facing include: pure gamma emitters, multiple emissions per transformation, surface roughness or dirt on surface, and that Thomas Jefferson received contamination exemption based on ALI (true dpm), which apparently confused the issue.

Fred commented that he had reviewed the requirements for implementation of the Electra at SRS. He looked at various standards including N323D (draft) (addresses 2pi and 4pi) and 42.25. SRS sent a group of sources to NIST to have them determine emission values.

Some discussion over the re-certification of sources.

Much of the topic was discussed previously by Paul.

Fred told the group about problems encountered at SRS with differences between manufacturer-stated activities and site-measured activities. They found that "overzealous" smear checks may have been the cause of reduced activities. They are recalling all similar sources at SRS. They expect that an annual source verification/calibration in the future for SRS.

Supply of tritium is going away. Fred stated that initial checks of a new gas standard showed substantial differences between the vendor-stated values and the SRS-measured values. Chiaro mentioned the use of a close loop system instead of the pressurized volume method.

Discussion and vote over how we would want to handle funds. A vote was taken to gauge opinion of how to handle funds. The options included use a DOE-facility account, personal signature account, or no opinion. The majority vote was no opinion leaving the ultimate decision up to the steering committee.

Morgan solicited help from the members and stated that he needed abstracts by the end of the calendar year. There appeared to be enough interest to support a session.

The group came up with the following topics for the next meeting:

EPD Issues (cal, testing), Neutron reference field measurements, neutron field measurements, Regulatory guidance for release of material, RO-7 use issues, PRESCILA update, Alpha 7 report, Standards update, HPS Special session, Lessoned learned, Calibration facility at LANL, Intercomparison report, air monitoring, instrument calibration topical discussions, Recommendation from the group in the form of official reports or position papers (include those on the web page – use of standards, 2 pi/4 pi, etc.), web page update, programmatic changes, operational information, in-depth discussion of specific standard (topical session), uncertainty analysis, recall systems (possible presentation from vendor), automated calibration software.

Another topic was how to address vendor presence. No vendors were present at this meeting. It was decided to request that vendors be present at the next meeting to present information on neutron instrumentation and EPDs (Morgan will handle).

There was additional discussion over the meeting’s duration – possible extension of a full Wednesday or last day. This should be decided prior to the next meeting when the agenda is worked out.

Next meeting location and tentative date

The meeting is tentatively scheduled for either the second or third week of November. It will be held in Las Vegas and Morgan will look into a facility. Pete will look into accessing a local DOE meeting room.

Attendee List

Fred Ogden SRS fred.ogden@srs.gov

Pete Chiaro ORNL chiaropjjr@ornl.gov

Perry Pruitt Y-12 PP2@y12.doe.gov

Morgan Cox LRRI morgancx@swcp.com

Tom Voss LANL tvoss@lanl.gov

Robert Murphy LANL rom@lanl.gov

Kevin Reaves ORNL reaveskl@ornl.gov

Radoslav Radev LLNL radev1@llnl.gov

Paul Zahra BNL zahra@bnl.gov

David Hamlette Jefferson Lab hamlette@jlab.org

Riasp Medora Flour Fernald riasp.medora@fernald.gov

Brian Baumann Flour Hanford brian_l_baumann@rl.gov

Byron Christiansen BBWI/INEEL chribh@inel.gov

Murari Sharma DOE-EH murari.sharma@eh.doe.gov