Minutes of the DOE Contractor
Health Physics Instrumentation Committee Meeting
May 3-6, 1999

Meeting of the Department of Energy (DOE) contractor Health Physics Instrumentation Committee (HPIC) was held on May 3-6, 1999 at the Flamingo Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada. Discussion was on issues related to performance and standardization of HP instruments and practices at the DOE calibration facilities. The topics included were:

• An introduction and review of the HPIC Agenda and review of last HPIC minutes
• An update on ANSI N323 Sections A, B, C and D
• Update on Buy-on-Agreements status
• Final M&TE Position paper discussion
• HPS Topical Session papers discussion
• Std. Technical Basis Document (TBD's) template
• De-selection/standardization of instruments
• An open forum discussion -- HPIC goals/future direction
• Review of HPIC Agenda
• Update/discussion on Technical Standards Programs Office
• NAVLAP accreditation
• Update on NACLA
• DOE Metrology Committee issues/perspectives
• INPO issues on HP instruments presentation
• MARSSIMS issues/criteria related to HP instrument capabilities
• Recent AMUG Committee meeting update
• Ion Chamber test/evaluation at LANL
• Floor Monitor testing/evaluation
  • Ludum Model
  • Shonka & Associates Model
  • NE/Bicron Model
  • NNC Model
• Tritium issues and review of draft standard for Tritium Monitors
• Neutron Instrument testing at LANL/LBNL
• Radioactive Source Manufacturers presentations. Manufacturers represented were:
  • The Source
  • AEA Technology (formerly Amersham)
  • Isotope Products
  • North American Scientific
  • Thermo-Nutech
  • Other Source vendor -- Thermo-Retec
• Harwell Instruments presentation
• MGP (formerly Merlin-Gerin) presentation
• Inovision Products (formerly Victoreen) presentation
• BNFL instruments presentation
• Berkley Nucleonics on new Smart Area Monitor (SAM 905, SAM925) presentation
• SAIC presentation on enhanced MFR meter technology
• Eberline presentation on ASP-2e technology
• NE/Bicron presentation on new Electra instrument
• An Open Forum HPIC issues not covered
• Planning session for next HPIC

Attendance of Committee members and visiting observers were as follows:

A summary of the meeting minutes is provided herein for your information.

TOPIC: Opening HPIC remarks

There have been some problems with some of the members not receiving their HPIC e-mail, Dale Snowder has been correcting these problems. Many have been due to wrong addresses. Everyone was asked to check their addresses and made appropriate changes to list at the meeting. Dale Snowder hired a secretary for the Las Vegas meeting on short notice. There wasn't time to bring this before the committee. Gary Labreyere and Pete Chiaro were aware of this action. Pete Chiaro noted for the record that he was not in favor of hiring a secretary. This is duly noted.

TOPIC: An update on the ANSI N323 A,B,C & D given by Morgan Cox/LRRI

Status of ANSI Standard N323

ANSI N323A Portable Instrumentation
Published in late1997 and headed by Jack Selby. An Errata sheet was issued in 1999. Dale has talked to Jack Selby a number of times, but when new drafts come out, the changes are not there. Morgan Cox sent a copy of the changes to Lou Costrell, the head of N42 . He agreed to incorporate the changes. A one-page errata sheet will be inserted on 323A. Dale Snowder and Morgan Cox submitted an errata sheet on section A of ANSI N324 and there were five sets of comments. Three of these corrections were gross errors. The errata sheet is as follows:

• Suggested Errata Sheet for ANSI Standard N323A
  • On page 6, Table 1 -- Standard Conditions. Background ambient photon radiaton (external), should read …0.5 microGray/h or 50 microrad/h, NOT 0.5 Gray/h (50 rad/h)…
  • accuracy for ranges should read,.. from 0-100 microSv (0-50 mrem/h or 0-10 mrem),...and from 100 microSv/h or 100 microSv (10mrem/h or 10 mrem), instead of the way it is written.
  • On page 12, section 4.7 Facility documentation, item e) should read, "…the results of periodic and at least monthly performance testing.."
  • On page 15, section 6, Table 3 -- Calibration field accuracies…..., the bottom note should read "Accuracies are for dose rates greater than 100 micro Gy/h, 100 microSv/h or 10_ Bq/ cm_ (10 mrad/h, 10mrem/h or 6 x 10_dpm.100 cm_).
  • On page 15, Section 6, In table 3 -- Calibration field accuracies…, the accuracy for gamma and x-rays should read 10% to ensure values which are reasonable and achievable.. The standard currently reads 5%.

There was a discussion of whether 10% accuracy was a far more reasonable valuable or if 5% was doable. This was brought up to two meetings ago. It was the consensus of the committee that we needed to retain the previous (ANSI N323-1978) 10% accuracy requirement.

Question: Due to new information do we need to recommend retaining the previous accuracy requirement of 10% remembering that the ANSI N323 standard is not just for DOE labs?
Answer: Group comments indicated that it was agreed it should be somewhere between 5% and 10%.

Dale asked for a vote. All HPIC voting members in favor of recommending to the ANSI Committee that they leave it at the previous 10%/ Results -- For: 16, Opposed: 0, Abstain: 1.

ANSI N323A is up for revision in 2002. The HPIC should be a prime mover with revisions that need to be made. The ANSI N323A -- Portable instrument standard is a very important standard that the HPIC should be involved in.

ANSI N323 B Near Background Measuring Instrumentation (environmental low level instrumentation)
The Subcommittee is chaired by Ed Walker. Morgan Cox is on the committee as an "ex-officio". They are scheduled to meet at the HPS meeting in June,1999 (tentatively). They expect to have an outline of the first draft ready for discussion at this time. The draft for section B contains "Free Release Issues" to calibrate AC/DC instruments, daily and source (or pulse) checks before use. HPIC members were made aware of the need to participate or (as a minimum) review draft of ANSI N323B. This section draft is the farthest from being completed.

ANSI N323C Air Monitors
The subcommittee is co-chaired by Mark Hoover and Michelle Johnson. They are scheduled to meet at the annual HPS Meeting in June, 1999. They are working on their third draft.

ANSI 323D Fixed Monitoring Instrumentation
Pete Chiaro is the chairperson for the subcommittee. He assumed the chair position at Jim Hesh's request because of his heavy workload at Eberline. They will meet at the annual HPS Meeting. Members on the committee are Robert Ford/Hanford, Jim Hesh/Eberline, Cindy Jones/NRC, Gary LaBruyere/Lockheed Martin, Tim Martinson/?? ,Rick Tomblinson/Bicron and Ron Schwartz/ ANO (Arkansas Nuclear One).

The draft scope was developed in September, 1998. This committee is using ANSI N323 A as a model. They are using pre-working drafts to take care of major issues. They started with monthly conference calls but have now increased them to two per month. This seems to be working out nicely. They are now working on pre-working draft I. They are 75% complete. A draft dealing with Quantification and Qualification of Measurements for Contamination Instruments should be ready to issue shortly after the HPS meeting. You are welcome to set in on any subcommittee meetings in an advisory capacity.

Of the HPIC members Jim Halgren. Perry Pruitt and Pete Chiaro expressed that their companies at their DOE Facilities were not contractually tied to ANSI N323-1997. Marsha Beekman, Joel Hoyt and Grant Ceffalo were not sure.

TOPIC: An update on Buy-on Agreements status -- TBD given by Dale Snowder

Bill Crownover was to make this presentaion, but has retired. Gary Le Bruyere couldn't find who has replaced him. Dale Snowder presented the update. BOAs are purely voluntary. Bill got BOAs passed so we could use them as a tool. The BOAs expired for Eberline on April 1st and will expire for Bicron the first of June. Both will want to renew them. The fact that we have no one to reinstate these BOAs is not only a price issue, but QA and a whole series of issues.

Pete Chiaro suggested after the fact, that this might be a business sensitive matter (who BOAs are issued to) and wanted to call a vote of members, if vendors should be involved during this discussion. It was decided by the consensus of the group to table the question and the correct way to handle this issue was to wait until the end of the day where it could be discussed more in depth and voted on. Dale asked Canberra to excuse themselves from this portion of the meeting. In the past Vendors have been welcome to set in on presentations that do not involve proprietary information. Most of the vendor that sat in are concerned about ANSI N323 status. It was suggested that the vendors should know what is open and what is closed to vendors on the agenda. For a vendor to set in on another vendors presentation they must receive permission from the vendor giving the presentation. Pete questioned if the committee should define or clarify what/who classifies as a vendor.

TOPIC: M&TE Position Paper discussion (Final) given by Murari Sharma and Dale Snowder

If anyone needs a copy of the memo on M&TE Classification of HP Instruments that Dale that sent to Murari, please contact Dale Snowder if you did not receive it as an e-mail. This began with an inquiry by Gary LeBruyere to DOE-HQ which evolved into assumptions that all HP instruments should or were going to be classified as M&TE and fall under the requirements of ANSI Z540. There were a number of phone calls and E-mails generated to Dale Snowder and DOE-HQ on this matter. Murari Sharma decided to get this clarified at DOE-HQ and get a position from the HPIC on classification of HPIC instruments as M&TE. Dale Snowder compared six applicable standards that apply to M&TE and wrote a brief summary of them. These six standards were; ANSI Z540.1-1994" Calibration Laboratories and Measuring & Test equipment"; DOE Order 414.1" Quality Assurance"; DOE G 414.1-1: Implementation Guide for use with Independent & Management Assesment Requirements of 10 CFR 830.20 and DOE 5700.6C "Quality Assurance", 10CFR 830.20, ANSI N323-1997, and DOE G 441.7.1" Implementation Guide for use with 10 CFR 835".

The overview sent to DOE-HQ contains Dale's perspective of what those standards contain and how conflicting and contradictory they were and the problems that would be incurred by an HP instrument program adopting a label of M&TE for their HP instruments. One problem being that ANSI Z540 is one of the guidance documents for M&TE and it contains some requirements that can be very expensive and require significant resources to implement. As he went through the other standards he found weaknesses in them that were not addressed (i.e. modifications to instruments, accuracy of measurements, etc. were not addressed as in ANSI N323). He talked to some technical experts with varied opinions on whether or not HP Instruments should be classified as M&TE. One of the most drastic results of using the classification of M&TE is the vast amount of standards we would have to comply with besides ANSI N323. He found a vast amount of standards with different degrees of details and interpretation.

There was no tie of ANSI Z540 to DOE orders on quality assurance at that time. But at the recent Metrology Committee meeting the new ANSI Z540 will be referenced as a guide for metrology. In the introductory section of ANSI Z540 it is described as specifically applicable to calibration laboratories. It implies it is applicable only to calibration laboratories and not to field instrumentation. Morgan Cox brought to the HPICs attention that when you look at the ANSI Z540 committee, the members on that committee have no HP Instrumentation. DOE Contractors have all been required to comply to the old DOE Order 5700.6C, which has now been changed to DOE Order 414.1. DOE Contractors said that they were in compliance with ANSI N323 and with all the other QA documents known as Quality Assurance Plans (QAPs) or Quality Assurance Management (QAMs) Programs. Dale pointed out that DOE Contractors said in their contractual agreements with DOE that they abide by DOE Order 5700 to have QAPs and QAMs in place that sufficiently meet all the necessary QA requirements. These QAPs/QAMs refer to ANSI N323 not Z540 forHP insttuments, so why add another QA document to the pile.

The official position of HPIC is that portable HP field equipments are not M&TE, and that the associated requirements for quality assurance, control, calibration and processing of such instruments are adequately dictated, described and implemented in ANSI N323, and compliance to this standard, in association with other applicable DOE and contractor QA program requirements, is sufficient. Dales letter was reviewed, approved, and forwarded by Murari Sharma to the appropriate personnel at DOE-HQ.

Murari commented that after the last HPIC meeting he thought the HPIC decision was not to get involved with M&TE, but after several phone calls addressing this issue, Murari spoke with members of the ANSI Z540 standards committee. Their position started out being that any equipment related to safety should be M&TE. After Dale did all of his work and came up with the M&TE memo sent to DOE-HQ they reviewed it and the HPIC position was accepted by the ANSI Z540 standards committee.

Question: To Murari Sharma -- Are you going to come out with a statement from DOE-HQ on classification of HP instruments as non-M&TE for DOE Contractor facilities?
Answer: Do you need that? If so, YES.

Question: What about Portable Contamination Monitors being classified as M&TE?
Answer: They were not addressed, Grant Ceffalo suggested taking out the word "portables" in the M&TE position statement so it would be non-specific.

Dale commented that he chose not to address fixed instrumentation in the M&TE statement already issued.

Question: Is this the official position of the HPIC Committee or of Dale?
Answer: The M&TE statement issued to DOE-HQ in Dales Memo was the exact statement that the HPIC developed and voted on at the last HPIC meeting and that Pete Chiaro sent to Dale after Pete made some agreed upon minor modifications to.

TOPIC: Discussion on HPS Topical Session Papers given by Morgan Cox and Dale Snowder

Dale reminded the HPIC that in the last meeting it was announced that some papers would be presented on HP instrumentation issues at the HPS meeting to be held the last week of June in Philadelphia. Eight papers will be representative of the HPIC and members of the HPIC. The session will be from 2:30-4:30 on the 30th of June.

First paper -- "Effective Testing and Standardization Program for Health Physics Instruments", by Dale Snowder/Alpha-Idaho and HPIC Chairperson.

Second paper -- "Recent Developments in Neutron Detectors", by Dick Olsher/LANL He will speak on Wendi1, Wendi2 and Precilla.

Third paper -- "The Performance of the Eberline 300 at High Altitudes", by Morgan Cox/LRRI Morgan took the DD300 on many flights on United. His information will represent performance from sea level to 40,000'. There have been twenty flights as of today, 17 within the U.S. and 3 long flight over the ocean. It will include some background studies and some overall performance. The DD300 is a GM based alarming dosimeter.

Fourth paper -- "ANSI N323 and ANSI N42.17 Testing on Eberline E600", by Dale Snowder /Alpha-Idaho and HPIC Chairperson.

Fifth paper -- "ANSI N42.17A & C Testing capabilities at INEEL", by Gary LaBruyere /LMITO-INEEL

Sixth paper -- "Tests of sourceless efficiency calibration of Ge detectors with ISOCS at LLNL", by Radoslav Radev and Dave Hickman /LLNL

Seventh paper -- "The Health Physics Instrumentation Committee (HPIC) home page", by David Hickman/LLNL; Dale Snowder/Alpha Group-Idaho; and Paul Krumpe/USDOE-Headquarters

Eighth paper -- "The instrument testing and evaluation program at the Environmental Effects Laboratory at ORNL", by Pete Chiaro Jr/ORNL

Question: Is there a way we can get copies of those presentations?
Answer: Dale will see about putting them on the HPIC Web site.

TOPIC: Std. Technical Basis Document (TBD)'s) template given by Pete Chiaro/ORNL

Information was sent out to elicit some comments from the group to incorporate into this document, but none were received.

Comments: Some members sent comments, but Pete apparently didn't receive some of them.

Pete presented ORNL's template for a TBD, some of which was based on Perry Pruitts previous presentation. The format for the TBD's included; the Scope section which includes a description of the document and what it provides; the Application section which describes what the document applies to, (i.e. radiation instruments used for personal protection) and typical boiler plate type of information; Interfering Ionization Radiation -- What types you have or expect to have A lot of this is what is expected, not carved in stone.; Expected Environmental Conditions -- Temperature, Humidity and Barometric Pressure, Indoor/outdoor conditions; Shock and Vibration -- taking road conditions and how you expect to handle the equipment; Exposure to Moisture -- What elements will it be exposed to? ; Electromagnetic Radiation -- Radio Frequency (some facilities may be able to put this in a document others can't); Magnetic Fields (are they present and at what level); Radiological Requirements -- dose rates, contamination (MDC's, Contamination limits) Alpha, Beta and Neutron; Instrument Information -- Where you can find the User Guide (to Provide instrument-specific information for fields); and Reference Material and Attachments.

Question: When you are talking about MDC limits in the Radiological Section are you referencing to the MDC's of the specific instrument?
Answer: No, I am referencing to what your DOE site's required MDC limits are (plutonium/uranium etc).

This is primarily for establishing the level that is required for that site, not specific instruments yet. The user guide description is for providing instrument-specific information for the field user. What it is typically used for, operational information -- (Manufacturer and Test stated), temperature, Humidity, RF Fields, Magnetic Fields, Shock and vibration, Energy response, Interfering Ionizing radiation and other limitations (the limitations of its functions it relates to its susceptibilities) It should also be stated as to where the availability of this information is (Web sites, File location, Test performance etc.).

Comment: MDC's/MDA's (a lot of people live by them) -- should be within either the TBD's or the User Guide. Should put something in the TBD to reference to them. I think if we're going to state some type of guidance we need to know what the guidance is and also need to know what the capability of the instrument is.

Comment: The TBD's original function was to justify the selection of the recommended models that the HPIC put in place and also as a secondary function -- a field guide for the end user.

Question: Does this TBD format meet that criteria? Does it contain what we are looking for? We may need to say something in the scope such as "This document (TBD) was generated to justify the selection by the HPIC committee of this particular model based on the following criteria...."
Answer: Gary LaBruyere -- Those items would be better addressed in the test protocol results than in the Technical Basis Document.

Comments: My impression on what the TBD's are now being proposed to be is far more specific than necessary. This is wonderful, but it is more specific than what was called for several meetings ago.

Question : To the HPIC Committee -- If Pete develops this standard format for TBD's, Is the intent that we adopt this and re-format our TBD's in our facilities or do we just enter it on the HPIC Web page as an access to another resource?
Answer: From the HPIC -- General consensus was to place and use the TBDs on the HPIC Web Page as a resource.

Fred Ogden moved to accept this document as is for the HPIC Web Page and we can continue to improve upon it as needed down the road. Ted de Castro -- seconded it (Vote -- For:16, Against:0, Abstain:1).

TOPIC: De selection/standardization of instruments given by Dale Snowder/HPIC Chairperson

When the HPIC was re-organized it was decided that every five years instruments recommended for standardization would be re-evaluated. Their performance and any other associated issues would be revisited for us to make decisions, recommendations, actions or what else we need to do. The five year window is upon us the end of this year. Since this is a lengthy process we need to start gathering documentation to make our decisions. Dale presented the following summary:

• De-selection Criteria
  • 5 year re-evaluation by year end on current performance
  
  
• Current Instruments -- evaluation process
  • Look for current performance history
  • Identify problems, resolutions, and anticipated performance and service issues
  • Create a history file on specific instrument model issues
  • Address issues/problems with Manufacturers for possible resolution
  • Vote to retain or drop instrument model from list of HPIC recommended instruments notify Manufacturers
  
  
• New Instrument Models
  • Select Instrument type to be evaluated
  • Re-evaluate HPIC std. Specifications
  • Research models of that type which may meet specifications
  • Select instrument type to be evaluated
  • Mfgr. Demo to HPIC (if reqd.)
  • HPIC performance evaluations
  • HPIC vote on addition of new model to HPIC recommended list.

A question was brought before the committee based on what is known of the instruments selected; their performance history and good tracking training history. Is there sufficient need based on any specific model to go back and evoke the five year re-evaluation?

Comment: My understanding is that re-evaluation was in part to help keep up with the market, not so much to de-select an instrument model although that was a possibility. In five years it would be the first time for re-evaluation which would give us an opportunity to look at what's new on the market.

After an in-depth discussion it was the consensus of the committee to do re-evaluations on current and new instruments and that all categories will open up beginning with Alpha detection instruments. (HPIC vote For this approach -- unanimous). There is no problem with gathering information at this time, but the committee does have a problem with evaluating the information before submission. Manufacturer's testing completed at independent labs is acceptable with submissions. It was agreed to send specifications to all vendors, with time constraints for return of submissions.

TOPIC: HPIC QA enforcement on mfgrs -- scope and methods

There was a brief discussion of problems with QA compliance with Mfgrs.and how to solve them.

• Major Problems
  • Compliance to ANSI N323
  • Configuration -- control of modification and parts replacement
  • Performance of testing
  • Documentation of test results
  • Consistency in production
  • Quality & specifications
  • Inconsistency in product lots (ie RO-20)
  • Other

Some of the changes we're seeing are many of the manufacturers are attempting to enhance or implement compliance. The HPIC has influenced manufacturers to comply with things they previously didn't do. They have improved configuration control by implementing better record keeping, tracking, and notifications of mods. Many manufacturers are paying in part for their own testing. HPIC has seen an increase in how manufacturers provide information in the last four or five years.

• QA Occurring problems
  • SAIC -- CAMS -- after producing 476 units between $5000-$6000 in the last 4-5 years they are no longer manufacturing or supplying parts -- Finally agreed to do a special run, but over $15,300 cost per unit.
  • SAIC -- AP-2 -- Trying to purchase pre-amp boards. They want to charge $700 per board/min.10 boards/ Haven't been produced as yet.

• Eberline -- The are problems with the level of production output/ missed solder connections and missed proper electrical wiring harnesses.
• Eberline - Alpha 6-A1 cam has several large QA generic mistakes.

HPIC only has contractual power over companies that have signed BOAs. It was agreed upon that problems with manufacturers can be addressed as a HPIC body.

• What HPIC can do to improve QA with manufacturers.
  1. Investigate document and identify weakness with manufacturers.
  2. Require compliance in BOA specifications
  3. Implement a HPIC vendor qualifications initiative
  4. Other actions
  5. Send letter to procurement

• To Verify a problem has been solved
  It was suggested to not put the BOA in effect till the particular problem is solved. HPIC is an organized group of professionals, which are potential customers of the manufacturers sharing information. HPIC cannot bring action against a manufacturer, but as an organization we have a lot of power, if it is handled correctly. We can make manufacturers aware of these problems by using HPIC as a medium.

It was proposed to form a committee or that someone takes action to assimilate problem comments and indicate them to the vendor.

• Some ideas of what we hope to achieve by enhancing compliance of QA
  • Improve instrumentation quality
  • More consistent products
  • Product performance
  • Test documentation from manufacturers

Dale commented that we (HPIC) need to be careful in our demands, because the demands we make on the manufacturers, we may end up paying for the end results if they are not valid demands.

Comment: Morgan Cox suggested having a 1 or 2 hour open forum one evening of the HPIC meeting, inviting the vendors to discuss generic problems such as the best way to handle complaints, services.

Comment: If we do that we need to advertise that to the manufacturers up front.

It was proposed that we set aside a portion of the HPIC meeting for advertising, communicating and discussing instrument generic content issues with each manufacturer. To invite one or two to each HPIC meeting. To do this, all issues will need to be gathered in advance concerning each particular manufacturer and given to the manufacturer involved. Manufacturers will be informed in advance that we will be discussing technical and service based issues. It will be up to them who they send to represent their company.

TOPIC: Open Forum discussion - HPIC goals/future direction

• Dale Snowder presented the history
  There were four primary goals for the original HPIC in 1994 -- [1] establish communication on instrument issues; [2] develop common resolution of instrument issues; [3] establish common policies, procedures, practices, and technical positions as feasible and [4] identify suitable instrument models for standard use at DOE Facilities. The secondary goals -- were to enhance cooperation and compliance of the manufacturers to DOE contractor standards and specifications; provide technical information resources to HPIC members and establish significant cost savings to instrument labs where possible.

• Original Goals that need to be completed
  • Selection of suitable models
    • Beta/gamma contamination meter
    • Neutron meter
    • Testing evaluation of personal contamination monitors

• HPIC needed improvement goals
  • Web page
  • Updating HPIC Lab capabilities list
  • Communication and timely assimilation of information
    • Email problems, communicating on issues (the strategic planning of Jeff Lively getting out specifications and Morgan Cox gathering and assimilation of instrument issues may help)
  • Maximum utilization of BOAs
  • Funding for HPIC members to attend HPIC meetings to participate on agenda
  • Ethical issues
    • Sharing of information
    • Clarification of what is a vendor/contractor.

The last two issues above brought up a debated discussion with the majority consensus of the HPIC being that the information shared by the HPIC members among themselves was rarely, if ever, of a sensitive enough nature to preclude the HPIC from meeting its intended goals of information sharing and common resolution to issues. If sensitive issues do come up it is assumed the presenter(s) should be knowledgeable enough to present such issues in a compatible manner as demonstrated several times in the past.

The clarification issue of who is a vendor or what constitutes a vendor was discussed. Specifically concerns were raised by Pete Chiaro and Grant Ceffalo as to whether the Chair of the HPIC or others on the HPIC are "vendors". It was pointed out that all of the HPIC members are employed by competing contractors, selling their services in the DOE sector, and some are on active bid lists to take over contracts at DOE facilities (i.e. INEEL, Rocky Flats, etc.). The definition of "vendor" as proposed by one individual on the HPIC would eliminate several of the current members. The majority consensus from comments of HPIC members was that this issue has not, and further pursuance of the issue should not, be allowed to alter the membership and impede the progress of the HPICs historical goals.

TOPIC: The Technical Standard Office presented by Gary La Bruyere /LMITCO-INEEL

The Technical Standards Committee on Laboratory Accreditation will meet in Idaho Falls September 22 & 23, 1999 in Idaho Falls, ID at the Engineering Research Office Building (EROB). HPIC members are invited to participate on the Technical Standards Committee on Laboratory Accreditation. Additional representation from the Health Physics community is needed.

TOPIC: NVLAP Accreditation given by guest speaker Jim Cigler/Chief of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)

NVLAP is a NIST accreditation of laboratories for both testing capabilities and their ability to perform calibrations. A NVLAP accreditation for a lab is determined by the competency of a laboratory to provide the services to their customers that it advertises. The US Federal Code of Regulations (Part 285, Title 215) constrains what NIST can and cannot do. They are prohibited from starting an accreditation program where they already exist either in other government agencies or the private sector. They are fee supported so no tax dollars are used for this program. NVLAP is NIST sponsored and linked to NIST technical expertise. Accreditation programs are administered from the Gaithersburg, MD. campus. What they do is based on the ISO and IEC standards and guides. NVLAP operational basis is consistent with ISO Guides. ( ISO Guide 25,"General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories." ISO Guide 58,"Calibration and testing laboratory accreditation systems -- General requirements for operation and recognition").

• Reasons for accreditation
  • A NVLAP-accredited lab undergoes a thorough quality management review and technical evaluation
  • May experience fewer second-party audits -- exception is commercial and some DOE nuclear facilities who mandate their own QA audits of calibration facilities
  • Lab capabilities are listed in NVLAP directory and Web site to be used by potential customers
  • Foreign and domestic accrediting bodies accept NVLAP test reports and calibration certificates.

NVLAP established their own NIST Handbook 150. The first half contains the Code of Federal Regulations Procedure explaining how they can operate and do business. The second half contains the ISO guide 25 (soon to become ISO 17025) augmented with the ANSI NCSL Z540-1 for calibration laboratories. Every lab that expects to be accredited will encounter this book for it drives their requirements and the development of their quality system. It is a general document. Program Specific Handbooks have been written for each of their programs incorporating Handbook 150 or ISO Guide 25 and matches them to the specific laboratory being accredited. The numbering of these Handbooks begins with 150 and a dash number. At this time there are eighteen in the series that covers all testing and calibration programs. Current fields of testing includes Acoustics, Asbestos Fiber, Commercial Products, Computer Applications, Construction Materials, Electromagnetic compatibility, Energy Efficiency Products (light bulbs etc), Dosimetry (processing laboratory badges) and Fasteners and Metals (nuts bolts screws). Fields of Calibration started in 1994 in Chemical, Dimensional, Electromagnetic -- DC/Low frequency and RF/Microwave, Ionizing Radiation, Mechanical, Optical Radiation, Thermodynamic, Time and Frequency.

• Accreditation process
  • Receive application from laboratory explaining what they want accredited for. Identify themselves as a testing or calibration laboratory.
  • Send QA along with application
  • Review application for compliance of quality manual and any supporting documentation. Send feed back to lab if deficient for correction and re-submission.
  • On-site assessment is performed by a single person or a team of experts. This may take two days to a week depending on the size of the lab. < LI>Proficiency testing
  • Panel Review
  • Reports back to lab all of their findings
  • The lab has thirty days to respond to NVLAP on any deficient findings. If a lab fails an initial proficiency test accreditation it is not refused/revoked. Two failures in a row the laboratory is suspended until positive steps have been made to correct the situation.
  • Accreditation Action
    • If findings are in compliance a certificate and scope of accreditation is issued

How to reach NVLAP
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive Stop 2140
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140
(301) 875-4016
(302) 926-2884 fax
http://ts.nist.gov/nvlap
nvlap@nist.gov

Question: How long is NVLAP accreditation for?
Answer: One year

A renewal process is done one year after accreditation. They check for any changes as far as quality systems, new people, new capabilities etc., then another round of efficiency testing is completed. The cost for renewal is considerably less. The third year, a full-blown re-assessment is performed.

Question: Can you give us a generic idea what accreditation costs?
Answer: Dependant on size of laboratory
$500 1st yr application fee (one time fee)
$3,000 per yr Administrative/Technical support
$5,400 per yr On Site Assessment Fee (this is based on two assessors in the lab for two days)
$2,000 Proficiency Tests/Yr (Estimate for two efficiency tests for two fields of calibration)
$10,900 approx. Total for Accreditation/ 1st Year

$3000 Admin/tech
$2000 Proficiency Test fee
$5000 Renewal fee/Year

Question: Do your European counterparts participate in intercomparisons with NIST?
Answer: Yes, in the last year and a half we have participated in five of these. We are now involved in five more.

Question: Can an Inter-Laboratory Comparison count as a proficiency test for that year?
Answer: It can if you can get your hands on the data in a reasonable time period.

Question: Has anyone ever questioned how a QA Manager and a Business Manager can be the same individual?
Answer: No, they just have to have access to the highest level of management. At NIST it works well with these offices being the same person.

Question: How does this program fit in with the secondary federal laboratory accreditation program?
Answer: NVLAP accredits calibration laboratories for ionizing radiation. We don't call them secondary laboratories nor do we recognize secondary laboratories as such.

Question: We all know that PNL is advertised as a secondary calibration laboratory, why?
Answer: What we (NIST) know them is, is as a calibration laboratory for ionizing radiation despite what they may call themselves.

Question: Several facilities don't have free air sources or sufficient activity to do much NVLAP certification. Is there any way that you can try to convince the Bay 12 people that as long as we meet the uncertainty band that they can accredit wells. I've have had others confirm, that if you can meet the uncertainty ban required you should be able to certify any irradiation system, yet NVLAP requirements restricts you to free air.
Answer: We'll be glad to work with you if that request comes to us but it will require some study.

Question: Does this need to come from the HPIC?
Answer: If the HPIC wants to come as a group it doesn't really matter, but I can talk to Doug Frazen at NIST to determine his perspective.

TOPIC: Update on NACLA given by Jim Cigler

NACLA (National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation) was formed to evaluate all current laboratory accreditation in the U.S. An interim board of di rectors was formed to do the developmental work that needed to be done so NACLA could be called an operating entity. It consisted of a cross section of government representatives ( DOD, DOE, FCC,FDA and FHA). Industry representatives were from Ford, Lucent and Caterpillar. Laboratories have been represented by NCSL, NSF Int'l., ACIL and Entela laboratories. From the accreditation bodies representatives from AIHA, ICBO, A2LA and PRI were represented. There is a quality manual for NACLA developed. There is a recognition document that describes in great detail how things are going to be formed out, how applications are going to be received and how accredited bodies are going to be evaluated. Currently NACLA is a 501( c)(6) non-profit private sector organization incorporated in the District of Columbia. The NACLA Recognition process is to recognize competent Accreditation Bodies. The recognition is based on ISO Guide 58 -- Accreditation Bodies Guidelines and ISO Guide 25 -- Testing/Calibration Laboratories. The thing that really sets NACLA apart is that they have involved the whole accreditation body community. The teams that will go out will be made up of not only accreditation body people but also representatives from some of the regulatory agencies. The laboratories can donate evaluators as industry has a right to be on the team. NACLA would like to expand to Canada and Mexico.

The evaluation process

• Form a NACLA Assessment team (w/observers)
• Start with a Quality Documentation review
• Schedule an on site visit (Guide 58)
• Interview Assessors
• Review Traceability of Measurements
• Observe Laboratory Assessment (Guide 25)

Fred Gunder from AIHA, is NACLA president. Belinda Collins chairs a Federal Liaison group that meets regularly and tries to bring the federal perspective back to the private sector organization. The NACLA Home page is http://ts.nist.gov/oss. To join NACLA you will pay a membership fee based on the amount of business you do. It is a corporate level membership not an individual membership

• $1000 for Org. w/Revenue/Budget >$10 M
• $200 for Org. w/Revenue/Budget <$10 M

There was an Evaluator training held @ NIST March 22-24, 1999. There were twenty-four people there . They reviewed ISO Guides 58 & 25 and the NACLA Recognition Process. There was a general annual meeting following this training on March 25, 1999 @ NIST. It was confirmed that the Interim Board of Directors would stay on for the next year as the permanent board. There were solicitations for volunteers to work on some of these committees on the organizational chart. If any of the HPIC members are interested in getting more involved with NACLA, please let it be known on the Web site. It is suggested that NACLA should be promoted within all DOE Programs, encourage organizations to join, join NACLA Committees. Four committees that are really active at this time are [1] Recognition, [2] Proficiency Testing, [3] Technical requirements and [3] Membership. You can volunteer as a technical Expert or Observer. They are accepting applications from anybody that wants to be accredited. Today there are no recognized accreditation bodies, but by the end of the year there may be.

TOPIC: DOE Metrology Committee Perspectives on HP Instruments presented by a representative from the Metrology Committee/ Harry Moody

In 1995 Sandia organizations talked to the Technical Standards groups. They wanted to develop a workshop on Metrology. What they first defined as Metrology goes to the science of measurement. In August, 1996 a group of Metrologists across DOE and NIST met in Albuquerque. The chemical groups, environmental groups, safeguard security, etc that were making measurements were involved. NIST agreed to work with the DOE Metrology group. A member of NIST holds a non-voting position on the steering committee. The first meeting was in March, 1997. A second annual meeting was held in Richland, WA. The third annual meeting was just held March 24-26,1999 in Las Vegas NV.

Our purposes were to be a topical committee of the Technical Standards Program, identify and resolve Metrology issues for DOE by spear heading DOE Metrology efforts, share our resources with them and also promote and enhance awareness of Metrology and all DOE programs. Membership is open to all DOE and DOE contractors and their subcontractors involved with measurements, standards and calibrations. Our objectives were to minimize multiple standards and redundant auditing efforts and function as a DOE focal point for metrology issues and standards.

What we have done so far

• Canvassed DOE labs to determine the need for uniform standards across DOE complex
• Sent out questionaires to all DOE laboratories that we could find that had any thing to do with metrology and we received back all the different requirements that they used and came up with a formal position paper that promotes DOE adoption option of ISO guide 25 and ANSI Z540. ANSI Z540 will be influenced by ISO guide 25 changing.
• Web site -- that explains all about the committee, a contact for all members, position papers and the capabilities of all of the individual laboratories. The Web address is: http://www.doe.gov/metrology/mch ome.html.

Comment: Measurements made in the field cannot be M&TE because the parameters are not always well known

Comment: What was said at the meeting in Nevada was that the INEEL's position is that they don't care if other DOE labs HP instruments are not classified as M&TE. They (INEEL) believe to do a proper calibration you need to do it to ANSI Z540 QA requirements. There are HPIC position papers written by Dale Snowder and Pete Chiaro that the position of the HPIC committee is that Health Physics instruments are not M&TE.

Comment: I think that the fear is having a policy dictated by some group (Metrology) not closely associated with HP instruments. If this is put to bed by the HPIC (via the HPICs M&TE position statement) then the issue is done.

Comment: The Metrology committee holds an advisory position only and has no regulatory power.

There was a poll put out by the Metrology Committee to determine what standards DOE labs followed and which DOE labs classified HP instruments as M&TE. Dale pointed out that almost none of the HPIC members had seen the poll (raised hand indication) since they were sent to the wrong individuals or managers who had no authority over HP instrument calibrations. The poll was presented at the last Metrology Committee Meeting initially as representative of the DOE calibration labs positions but then discredited as not representative based on the limited distribution to the proper individuals. Harry Moody stated that they tried to the best of their ability to come up with a result. Dale has handouts on the poll questionaire if you would like one.

Question: If you (Metrology Committee) feel we shouldn't be concerned about the classification of HP field instruments as M&TE because you have no authority, and if you have no authority in making these determinations, why are you doing it?
Answer: Because we are a group that gets together and saw a need among the metrologists there.

Question: What is the impact at the INEEL on such things as labor cost to implement it and cost per calibration to implement it?
Answer: We've spent about $2000 on procedures to date. We have no dollar figures on plantinstalled instrument procedures. We were required to meet 45562A prior to ANSI Z540 so procedures may be OK.

Question: You spent $2000 on procedures so far, Are your field instruments this year making any better field measurements than they did last year?
Answer: No

Question: Does it affect the repairs of your radiation equipment in accordance with the manufacturers QA requirements?
Answer: As long as we have like for like replacements we do not have to have QA at all.

The consensus of HPIC comments and perspectives on classification of HP instruments as M&TE is that hopefully, it is now a dead issue.

TOPIC: MARSSIMS issues/criteria related to HP instrument capabilities presented by Elliot Lesses/RMRS

MARSSIMS stands for Multi-Agency Remediation Site and Survey Implementation Plan The recent issuance of the MARSSIMS criteria for D&D and other similar activities created special challenges for HP Instrument capabilities. Elliot Lesses issued a perspective on these issues and the criteria necessary to resolve them. The Criteria we are all working to is 10 CFR 835. They are also looking at DOE Order 5400.5 with the 10 CFR 834 upcoming. When you look at MARSSIMS from an alpha contamination approach they are talking about the probability of getting a first detection and low backgrounds with this methodology. They also have an expanded equation for backgrounds that are higher than 3 dpm. The equations are found in chapter six of MARSSIMS and were given as a handout to the members of the HPIC that were present. MARSSIMS talks about setting a goal of 50% of the release limit of the MDC.

There was a show of hands as to how many at the meeting were using MARSSIMS. The results were -- Yes: 2 (Hanford and Mound), No: 14, and Unknown: 7.

Elliot also asked what types of instruments were being used in trying to comply to MARSSIMS limits -- answers were the Eberline E-600 and many others (i.e. Bechtel- Hanford). and NE Electra (Mound). Generally the MARSSIM methodology should result in less survey time. If you buy the right equipment you will save a lot more time. A comparison was also handed out for the NE Electra MDC per MARSIMM probability. Some things you might want to consider or take into account is the source-to-detector distance for calibration, and it making consistent with your source to detector distances for your field surveys. You should also calibrate your instruments with the same source distribution in the field and with sources of same energy. A wide area source is recommended by Elliot in contrast to a point source. The methodology and which instrumentation you use will impact the time frame it will take to be completed.

TOPIC: Update on recent AMUGCommittee meeting presented by Morgan Cox/LRRI

The Air Monitoring Users group meets once a year. They just held their annual meeting in Santa Fee February 22-25, 1999. It was hosted by Los Alamos National Laboratory. There were handouts given to HPIC members present. There were thirty-eight members/speakers plus eleven vendors attended. There were twenty technical presentations and seven vendor presentations. The next meeting will be held at Hanford. The host is Bechtel-Hanford being organized by Grant Ceffalo. It will be held in March of 2000.

Technical issues discussed were status of standards. They have a lot of interest in ANSI N323 (Performance testing and Calibration). Other standards considered were ANSI N42 (Tritium Monitors). A major international standard that is under revision is document IEC 761 which in five parts covers basically anything on air monitoring instruments. If anyone would like a copy of this or like to make comments of the drafts of any of these standards please contact Morgan Cox. Some of the other standards that they are working on are the IEC 60710 (Tritium Monitoring revision), IEC 61581 (Transuranics in the workplace which is important to you in theDOE community), IEC 61134 (Aerial Surveillance of Nuclear Facilities) currently only encompasses proton measurements. The IEAE has asked them to develop standards that would cover Neutron monitoring. The IEC 60XXX (Noble Gas Monitoring in the workplace) is early in its evolution. The major standard revision that will be published very shortly is the ANSI N13.1 (Stack Monitoring). The Planco 57 (Workplace Aerosol Monitoring) is also being developed. Before inviting the commercial people to their meeting they set down some ground rules. The rules being the presentation is to be of technical exchange; explain how their instrumentation complied with standards or how they intended to have them comply; what their approach to testing protocol was -- how did they have their instrumentation tested, where and under what conditions. Each was a private presentation.

TOPIC: Ion Chamber test/evaluation at LANL presented by William Martinez/LANL

William reported that they are still testing on the SHP Ion Chambers. Problems should be resolved within the next month. The test and evaluation results will be ready for the next HPIC meeting.

TOPIC: Presentation on INPO issues on HP instruments presented by Dale Snowder/Alpha-Idaho and HPIC Chairperson

The institute for Power Operations is funded by commercial Nuclear Power plants in the U.S. INPO works as an independent assessor to the programs and processes at commercial nuclear power plants (CNPP). They work as an assistant, aide, facilitator, assessor etc. For the money and support they receive they address and resolve issues with the NRC for commercial nuclear power plants. They address issues on renewal of licenses, licence amendments, NRC audit findings etc. INPO seemed to be the ones most likely to know instrumentation issues in the commercial nuclear world. They have a wide selection of models they are currently using at the commercial plant (about 200 models). There has been some standardization at a few facilities (less than one in five) that have made recommendations on what instruments their companies will utilize. Their standardization is different than our perspective, they may have fifty or sixty models they are using versus ten or twelve we have come up with. They do some sharing of information on limited basis usually only among the companies they own and operate. Their selection of instruments follows the NRC generic requirements found in 10 CFR 20. There isn't consistent documentation of problems. Currently at CNPPs, there are over 100,00 instruments in use at over 100 plants. Technical advances are slow to be accepted or justified. Some plants are using instruments that are over twenty years old. They do have good accountability systems. If a tech signs something out he is responsible for that instrument and has to write a report if the instrument is damaged. Some of the problems they have are the wide variety of ways they do things in these facilities and unadvertised modifications of instruments.

The main guidance documents used are the 1978 version of ANSI N323 and the NCRP 112. The calibration labs at CNPPs are audited by INPO and NRC. Procedure compliance is looked at rather than process. Some plants work closely with manufacturers. INPO felt that if they were to implement a HPIC initiative that they would naturally be the ones to do that, and not the NRC. They do not feel that a joint effort with DOE contractors is very likely, but they would like some assistance in sitting up a HPIC. They do not have the same drivers as we do. Their perception of DOE facilities is that we have plenty of funding and that we have resources that the government has paid for. They have limited funding. They don't have resources or money for new initiatives. They would like to send a representative to the HPIC for the discovery phase basically to find out if it is worth their time to implement what we have done here. Dale Snowder has sent some information to INPO basically talking about what HPIC does. There was a precautionary response from them. We will wait for further information from INPO.

Comment: Before deregulation took place there was unlimited funding for instrumentation in the CNPPs, this is why there were so many types of instruments.

Floor Monitor Testing/Evaluations

TOPIC: Ludlum model 222143 with a 43-37 by Pete Chiaro /ORNL

• Tests were performed in December of 1995
• RF microwave -- we did some response to interfering ionizing radiation
• Temperature testing -- was susceptible to temperature changes
• Temperate shock same thing
• Lower humidity -- no problems

Pete Chiaro has copies of the testing, please contact him if you want information.

TOPIC: Ludlum model 239-1F which is a combination of the 22221/// with a 43-37 probe by Perry Pruitt/LMES

The evaluation is as follows:

• Perry was asked to provide some sensitivities for Ludlum floor monitor by their Operations group. He also used MARSSIMS as a criteria. He is from the Y-12 facility and was looking for uranium. He was looking at using the monitor at 2 to 4 inches/sec.and somehow determining if it would actually see 1000 dpm. He used the MARSSIMS formula for Alpha detection with the probability of finding two or more counts. With those formulas he had no problems with finding that activity. He used a fixed height of 1/4 inch or less. We marked the detectors at the height they needed to be at. He used a fixed speed and minimum efficiency that he had calibrated the units at over a range of alpha floor monitors. He calibrated the unit on the Alpha plateau. It will find 1000 dpm/cm_, but we quote everybody 100 cm_, but there is one problem. The detector is 100 cm_. So I can say I can see 1000 dpm /100 cm_ but I don't know where it is at, its just somewhere in that probe area. The residence time was 1 1/2 seconds, 2-4 sec. scanning speed. The results being, you are making a statement you can't really qualify.

• He was also asked to find 5000dpm/100_ cm.
  The evaluation is as follows:
  • We can only us the instrument for detection not for qualifying
  • He used MARSSIMS formula, took different types of sources and did some tests, used seven technicians, They used the monitor 2-4 in./sec. He used Uranium & Thorium for the Alpha. Test. He used Strontium, Uranium and Tech 99 for the Beta test. These instruments are real good for detection, but you don't want to use them for qualifying. The background was 1400 counts/min. in a controlled environment. You can't see 600 dpm with a 1400 count background. Obvious negatives that need to be improved are that this instrument only does what you calibrate it to do. It will do alpha on the alpha plateau or it will do alpha, beta, gamma on the beta-gamma plateau and you have no way to electronically determine the setting for this instrument. You have to do one or the other, you can't do both at the same time. The efficiencies fell in line with what Ludlum quoted.

TOPIC: Shonka & Associates Model by Ted de Castro/LBNL and Gary LaBruyere /LMITCO-INEEL

The INEEL contracted Shonka Research Associates to survey ASB-II and C&S buildings using the SRA Surface Contamination Monitor, SCM_2. The SRA Survey Information Management System was used to provide visual imaging and analysis of the survey data and to generate a report. Gary has this thirty two page report with a ten page executive summary that he will make available by e-mail. The e-mail address being www.fetc.doe.gov/ddtechdep.

Shonka Long line detector
Gary presented the following presentation: Shonka quoted the INEEL $60,000 to bring their equipment out, do the survey and the report. This was not a final free release survey. It was a RCRA closure survey. This means although there is the data in a lot of areas to do a free release survey not all of the data was used for free release. The detector is a ultra-thin window long line detector. Some interesting things that we ran into is we would have to recalibrate the instrument every hour due to temperature change and would have to do efficiency checks in between. A 4 x 4 plutonium and Cs-137 source is used to calibrate and determine efficiency over the surface area. Due to the short time frame we had to survey the building twice. We did a 1 meter wide swath with an alpha detector and a recount with an alpha detector. The data was recorded in 25 cm_ blocks. So we used results of the alpha recount and the 1600 measurements recorded for every square meter and that resulted in 18 million data points. We took multiple backgrounds through out suspected clean areas within the building and used those as the average background. They took 9 measurements in the larger building and five or six in the smaller building over one meter grids. We found some unusual findings, in one area prior to the mid eighties they used to stack the drums on the floor as many as six high. The weight of the drums left impressions on the floor in that one area which was approximately a 8 meter x 8 meter grid. Shonka couldn't tell whether there was activity there or if it was the increased surface area that the detector was seeing.

Ted DeCastro's task was to show proof of technology, but he wasn't able to complete it satisfactorily. He contacted Joe Shonka -- basically Joe was highly resistant to go through the details not because of proprietary issues, but because he wanted compensated. Ted contacted Dr. Shonka a week ago and he is no longer using those statistics anymore. He has been beaten soundly by DOE. He believes he can validate his claims using standard statistics. However, what Shonka was using before, some how the pieces makes sense. Ted is just not sure how it all fits together yet. Ted believes there is something there no matter how he mathematically calculates it. The detector is not just a large area detector. It is numerous small areas making a large area. The recount is really important to improve his statistics and the fact that it is a small area Shonka comes under the assumption, that whatever contamination there is, it is not going to be uniform. There is a consensus that there are questions in proving or proof of the technology.

TOPIC: Bicron NE 600 cm_ Probe and the NNC Floor Monitor by Grant Ceffalo

The evaluations follow:

• Bicron NE 600 cm_ probe -- The FLP-3A and 3B and in a AB model
• Pros --
  • Reasonably durable, two layers of mylar of .24 milligrams/cm² thickness
  • Replacement for NNC floor monitor
  • Light, 6.61 lbs.
  • Can be handheld or floor probe
  • Can be used on walls
  • Can use any instrument to run it, a very configurable system
  • Little training reqd.
• Cons --
  • It's just as bad as most detectors that are scanning for distributed Alpha sources
• Determination in TBD
  • Not good for scanning alpha sources,
  • Sequential static counts -- no way to beat it



• NNC Floor Monitor --
  • Assembly extremely fragile. It is a very large paper weight
  • Large, heavy, complex
  • Requires training

Comment: Gary LaBruyere -- announced that the Department of Defense is giving out Cold War recognition certificates. It isn't only for military people. You are also eligible if you served in Department of Defense or the DOE as a civilian employee. It's a lot easier of course if you're an ex-military member of the DD214. Following is the address and contact information: Robertcseal@exchange,http//coldwar.mil/

Comment: Fred Ogden -- Bill Wilkie and Fred were in charge of improving operations at the Savannah River site. They came up with some ideas, but before changes could be implemented the manager asked him to benchmark the other DOE calibration labs. He has a survey that he has asked the HPIC members to fill out. The information will only go to Fred, he will summarize the information and there will be no names attached to it.

Comment: Perry Pruitt -- Asked for comments on how they are dealing the DOE monitoring of Y2K. Most were identifying instruments that are not Y2K compliant and then writing out a contingency plan. Others had to check with the manufacturer then prove or disprove what they said.

TOPIC: Tritium issues and review of draft standard for Tritium Monitors presented by Dan Dotson/TJNAF and Pete Chiaro/ORNL

Dan Dotson and Pete Chiaro discussed recent issues and needs in the world of tritium processors. Pete talked about the tritium monitor standardization effort. The tritium standard was initiated by SRS. You can contact Pete for a copy of his presentation.

• Tritium Focus Group Standardization Effort
  • To establish a Technical Basis for Procurement of new Tritium monitors
  • Ensure new monitors operate as expected
  • Provide input towards the development of A National (US) and international (IEC) standard for Tritium monitors
  • Issued a working draft issued in December of 1998 with comments due by March 1, 1999

• Relevant Background Information
  • Used information from ANSI N42.17B although it specifically excludes tritium monitors there are some tests in there that can be used for tritium monitors
  • International standards -IEC 710 and 761-5

• Objective
  • Provide operational requirements for tritium monitors -- DOE specific
  • Establish mandatory requirements and provide test methods
  • Specify general, radiation, electrical, mechanical and environmental characteristics and test procedures

• Criteria
  • The classification was originally based on effective range of measurement
  • No specific measurement principle
  • Power supply -- standard for AC voltage; Line noise test the IEEE standard was used
  • Ambient radiation -- shielding (weight considerations and access requirements); electronics (use of additional detectors and compensation circuitry)
  • Air circuitry -- (sampling lines, filters, flow control)

• Results of first review
  • There are twenty members in sub committee (14 replied: 7 U.S. DOE, 1 AECL and 4 industry)

• Ambient radiation
  • Removed specific dose rate requirements
  • Made radon compensation a separate sub section
  • A test was added for ambient Gamma compensation. The compensation technique is considered operational up to a level where the response remains ±15%. The test will be performed in two orientations relative to the incident radiation.

• Current Status
  • Revised Draft issued 4-1-1999 with comments due by 5-1-1999
  • Draft standard will be completed by next Focus Group meeting -- June, 99

Comment: Ted DeCastro -- A couple things would be useful to be addressed to the Standards that would help with some controversies; one of these being ANSI N323 as well as this is with non gas calibration techniques where you post the bios on the chamber to quantify the ion chamber response and then you just use an external gamma source to show that it does respond to radiation. Some comments on the efficacy of that would be useful and that would be useful in the ANSI N323 as well since that is a very useful way to calibrate ion chambers. Since at least one manufacturer is using the term intrinsic calibration for ion chambers.

Question: Do you consider current frequency as pulse counting?
Answer: I don't know why you couldn't.

Question: We have tritium monitors that are in glove boxes and different atmospheres, Is that being looked at in regards to interfering gases and things like that?
Answer: Pete hasn't had any comments regarding that. In the initial standard there is wording in the document about that, but it is weasel words. It would be very difficult to specifically address each one of those things.

TOPIC: Update on Neutron Instrument Testing @ LANL/LBNL by Shawna Eisele/LANL and Ted de Castro/LBNL

Shawna Eisele presented information on the Neutron meters development at Los Alamos

• WENDI 2 (Wide Energy Neutron Detector Instrument)
  • Neutron REM meter
  • Improved version WENDI 1
  • Increased sensitivity
  • Use it for environmental level measurements
  • Improved high energy response
  • Easier to manufacture
  • In production by Eberline as of May, 99
  • Compatible with Eberline E600 with SMART Electronics
  • 23 cm across and 17 cm high
  • Tungsten sleeve
  • Helium detector (that is how you get your extra sensitivity)
  • Polyethylene still active as the moderator with a boron patch on top.
  • Good for low level measurements hundreds of counts/minute/mR/hr
  • Relative response not over responding
  • Will be going to PTB in July to test this particular neutron rem meter

• PRESCILA (sp?)
  • Light weight neutron rem meter (less than 5 lbs)
  • Less sensitivity than Hankins NRV
  • Uses dual phosphorus scintillitor plates and boron moderator radiators
  • Useful response for wide energy range, all the way up to 20 MeV going down to thermal.
  • Work in progress

Question: Do you have some exact sensitivity numbers for this and the WENDI 2?
Answer: 100-200 count/minute/mR/hr

Ted de Castro presented information on SNOOPY. He was tired of existing SNOOPIES not being responsive so he encouraged Health Physics Instrument to come up with a SNOOPY instrument.

• SNOOPY
  • Working instrument will be ready by Philadelphia Health Physics Society meeting
  • Uses bullet nose w/o leaded sleeve
  • Sensitivity of 40 to 45 thousand counts/millirem
  • Simple LCD display with a computer interface where you can get the graphical outputs

Radioactive Source Manufacturers Presentations

TOPIC: Introduction to what is intended at the session of Radioactive Source Manufacturers by Morgan Cox/LRRI and Dale Snowder/Alpha Group-Idaho

Morgan Cox and Dale Snowder made presentation on what was intended with this session of the HPIC committee on radioactive source manufacturers. What information the committee should be looking for and what they wanted to accomplish from these presentations was discussed. The presentations were meant to be a technical exchange.

• Want to know types of sources they have
• Ranges of activity
• Manufacturing processes with regard to the stability and reliability of that source
• Compliance to standards
• How they comply with NIST traceability
• Information on their testing, QA etc.
• Availability of literature
• Uncertainties and how they are included in the measurements
• The types and reasons for construction materials and processes at their production facilities
• Why they use particular types of materials and why they electroplate them or use anodized processes
• Disposal issues

TOPIC: Presentation by The Source by Mike Ortiz

A presentation was made regarding the products manufactured by them and the QA processes used for intercomparison and conformity. Unfortunately the tape of this presentation was not intelligible for processing in the HPIC minutes.

TOPIC: Presentation by AEA Technology (formerly Amersham) OSA

A presentation was given by Ross Jones (x257) and Uwe Beinlich (x256). Amersham QSA sold to AEA Technology in February 1998. Headquarters is in Harwell, U.K. Their main markets are processing and manufacturing, the nuclear industry, oil, gas, rail and defense. They have ten businesses -- Batteries, Consulting, Energy, Engineering software, Environment, Product & Systems, Rail, Nuclear engineering and Nuclear science and energy. They have one of the widest ranges of sources available, including point sources, wide area sources, and geometry reference sources. Their growth is through acquisition. QSA sub-businesses are Sentinel, Sources, Stat-Attack, Isotrak and Environmental sciences (only with in Germany). The ISOtral brand was launched in 1994 to help improve their service to people involved in measuring radioactivity, for applications as environmental monitoring and health physics. A summary follows:

• Product range: instrument calibration, education & training, dosimetry and nuclear medicine
• Traceability:
  • ANSI N42.22(1995) Writing Committee participant
  • ANSI N42.22 -- Key elements
  • QA program
  • Facilities & Equipment
  • Participation in NIST M.A.P.
  • Certificates

• QA Program:
  • Germany: Manufacturing/Measurement
    • ISO9001/DKD accreditation
  • UK: Manufacturing/Measurement
    • ISO9001 /UKAS (NAMAS) accreditation
  • USA: Distribution
    • ISO9001/10 CFR50 App.B

• Wide area reference sources
  • Controlling standards
    • ISO8769 construction o Alpha & Beta sources
    • ISO7503-1 evaluation of surface contamination
    • Anodized construction:
      • Robust, durable, sealed sources
      • Thin active layer: little distortion of energy distribution
    • New ANSI 42. Writing committee participant

• Heavy Element tracer solutions
  • ISO9001 Manufacturing, Harwell Labs, UK
    • Radioisotope range includes:
      • Pu-236,238,239,240,241,242
      • Th-228,229,230
      • U-232,233,234,235,236
  • Range of dilutions; others possible

• New product development
  • Dosimetry products
    • Curently-DaseGUARD (60-3000keV)
    • Next Genertion (15-6000 keV)
      • Beta sensitive
  • Beta Secondary Standard 2
    • Meets ISO6980 requirements
    • PTB, Germany calibrated sources/filters
    • Complete irradiation facility
      • Sensors for pressure, temperature & humidity
      • Short irradiation times -- increased activities
      • Individual shielded sources
      • Kr-85 replaces TI-204
      • PC/Software controlled
      • Individual shielded sources

TOPIC: Presentation by Isotope Products

A presentation was given by Daniel Jones Van Dalsem, Ph.D. Their slogan is SSOCC, which stands for superior product, safely constructed, on time delivery, customer satisfaction and continued improvements. They are ISO 9002 certified. The stong point of company is customization. We think good is never good enough so we have mandatory continual training and testing. Their parent company is EZOG in Berlin. Contact information: http://dvandalsem@isotopeproducts. com/. Summary as follows:

Product Line

• Solid sources
• Point sources (large / small area)
• Solutions
  • Vial (1-10 ml more if you want)
  • Ampules (1-50)
• Custom work
• 100 standard isotopes available
• Alpha / Beta / Gamma
• Marinelli Beakers
• Multi-line mixes etc.

TOPIC: Presentation by North American Scientific

A presentation was given by Al Mandelblatt. Mike Cutrer is the President. They have a Web site that describes their products. Their Web site is www:nasi.net. They follow NQA-1-1994 because they believe it is the most rigorous. They are NIST certified in Calibration or reference date and time; physical and/or chemical description of thesource; radionuclide impurities; manufacturer; radionuclides calibrated; serial number; calibration method and activities or emission rates with associated uncertainties and the confidence limits. They perform yearly audits and have been successfully audited by DOE, Nuclear power plants and industrial companies. A summary follows:

Qualifications

• Diverse company with experience in many area of the nuclear market place
• Provide wide area assortment of nuclides, activities, and configurations
• Large domestic/foreign customer base
• Experienced chemists, physicists, and QA/QC personnel
• NIST participant
• Follow ANSI N42.22-1995 and NQA-1994
• Dedicated to provide a quality product in a timely manner to customer

TOPIC: Presentation by Thermo Retech (formerly known as Thermo Nutech

Thermo-Nutech began in 1962. They have a limited number of source types available due to production being limited to instrument sources only. They have the basic product lines that most customers want. Electroplated sources in their opinion have a good record of stability and integrity if properly cared for. They do not participate in intercomparison activities with NIST.

Vendor Presentations

TOPIC: Presentation by Harwell Instruments (recently acquired by Canberra)

The presentation was made by Tom Perkins, Alex Reid and Brian Syme. Their product Areas are Radiological Protection Instrumentation, Nuclear material assay equipment, and reactor protection systems . QA systems are certified to ISO 9001. The warranty on products is one year with an extended warranty available. Thomas Perkins can be reached at 203-639-2372. His Web address is tperkins@canberra.com. The summary is as follows:

• Particulate in air monitors
  • AB96 (pg 29 AA Catalog)
• Stack monitors
  • A31 & B31
• Tritium monitors
• Laboratory equipment (counting systems)
  • SC105 Scaler (alpha / Beta draw unit with a variety of adapters)
  • UC106 high volt output (400 to 2000 v for PMT)
  • AB12 Alpha Beta Filter
    • Desk top, accepts wide selection of filter paper and card mounted filters
  • AB14
  • Portable instruments
    • Portable Neutron monitor (N91R and N92)
  • Environmental monitoring systems
    • PCMS
    • EM90

TOPIC: Presentation by MGP formerly (Merlin-Gerin)

The presentation was given by Mike Wilson. He talked mainly about electronic dosimetry. Their newest client is the military with NATO ground forces being their largest client. They are recognized world wide as a specialist in advanced operational measurements in the area of nuclear instrumentation and physio chemical analysis. They offer a wide variety of products they are renowned in the nuclear, industry, research, environment and defense technical areas. There products meet ISO 9001 and RAQ standards. There concerns are detection, state-of-the-art operational measurement and protecting people and places. Their newest dosimeter was funded by the military. They decided to develop a family of dosimeters. The base product is the DMC 2000. A summary follows:

New Products

• DMC 2000S (single diode)
  • Has flat energy response to x-rays and gamma fields from 60 KeV to 6MeV. Linear response to dose rate fields of one mR/hr to 1000 R/hr. the top mounted LCD clearly displays accumulated dose or current dose rate. It is compact, rugged and accurate. It has audible and visual alarms.
• DMC 2000X (x-ray and low energy gamma)
  • Has two-diode design. It measures x-rays and gamma fields from 20KeV to 6MeV. Can be used independently or integrated into large-scale systems.
• DMC 2000XB (three diode)
  • Measures deep dose Hp(10) and shallow dose Hp(0.07) , wide energy 20KeV to 6 Mev and Beta 0.22 Mev to 2.3 MeV. It is in compliance with ANSI 13.27 draft B and IEC 1526. It is well suited for nuclear sites, hospitals and fuel processing.

Dosimetry Testing

• Complies with ANSI and IEC standards
• Formed a committee to recommend expanded testing
• Standardized list of all models
• Informal testing at sites

TOPIC: Presentation by Inovision Products (formerly Victoreen/Keithly)

The new Inovision team has a combined 150 years experience. They do any type of medical physics testing. They use various alpha, beta and neutron sources. NRC License was just received and they're rolling as of last week. They reported that they not only have application engineers but they have a U.S.Sales force of dedicated people in the field to handle your requirements. Jack Owens will be handling Pentax, Los Alamos and Sandia. The lab setup is customized to be one for efficiency and to handle the volume of products combining both product lines. A summary follows:

Quality

• Meet all NRC Standards
• Meet ANSI Standards
• In the process of meeting new ANSI Standards that has been discussed here
• Will be ISO 9000 certified very soon

Calibration Facility

• Can calibrate your radiation survey meters and area monitors.
  • 3-5 working days
  • Area monitors 7-14 working days

Product Lineup

• 450 P Survey meter -- pressurized ion chamber reads backgrounds has an automatic back light so in dark light conditions it automatically lights up
• 450 B -- Alpha, Beta and gamma detection
• 190 -- hand held survey meter probe that will accept a lot of individual probes
• 290 -- five decade dynamic range
• All accessory probes

TOPIC: Presentation by BNFL

The presentation was made by Tony Marlow. The BNFL Instruments radiometric team has 30 years operational experience at international nuclear sites. They specialize in the measurement and characterization of radioactive materials. They offer the services of instrumentation site management (services & operations), technical support/consulting, leasing and full service packages. The products they provide are standard (off the shelf), customized and plant integrated. The Web site is bnfl-instruments.com. A summary follows:

Typical Applications/Product Examples

• Drum/crate/package monitors ( for waste in containers)
  • Drum (combined neutron and gamma techniques) IPAN/GEA, SGS, LRGS and TGS)
  • Crate Monitors (combined neutron and gamma techniques) IPAN/GEA, ANM, PNC
  • Package Monitors (TRU-D 400, TRU piece monitor)
  • Large Item Monitors (Large Item Neutron Counter
  • IonSens (IonSens/IonSens 208 for long range alpha detection)
• Conveyor monitors (for loose waste)
  • Metal Scrap and Modular muti-purpose
• Survey Instruments (for D&D gloveboxes, ducts, vessels, tanks, walls, floors and large external ground area surveys)
  • RADSCAN 700 (Gamma Scanner)
  • Gamma Camera (Pin hole Gamma Camera)
  • DISPIM (3D Imaging decommissioning in-site plutonium inventory monitor)
  • Large area survey Monitor (2 or 3D imaging neutron survey monitor)
  • LARCH
• Facility Monitoring instruments (Pu Inventory, Hold up, criticality, CAM's)
  • CIDAS (Criticality Incident Detection and Alarm System)
  • HUM (Pu Hold up Monitor)
  • FissTrack (Pu Inventory Measurement System)

TOPIC: SAIC presentation on enhanced MFR meter technology presented by Dana Emmons and Tony Wilson

SAIC made presentation on the MFR. SAIC has developed the MFR, which combines the performance of a "Smart Probe" with a rugged MIL-qualified design. It interfaces to any of SAIC's probe family that covers all of your radiation measurement requirements. It has digital, microprocessor controlled, circuitry and the probes eliminates all adjustment potentiometers and provides a dataserial communication link to a Personal Computer based calibration and diagnostic system. Four or five units have been made up to date. A summary follows:

Features

• Seven MFR compatible probes (in process of or have completed these)
• Built-in fault isolation diagnostics
• Computer interface for auto-calibration
• Modular, rugged design that can withstand a 40-inch drop
• Single GM tube
• Alpha, Beta, Gamma x-ray, neutron detection
• Background to 1000 R/hr Gamma detection range
• Over-range to 10,000 R/hr
• Boards are easily interchangeable
• No manual adjustments
• Regular D-cell batteries

They have also developed a Portable Gamma Spectroscopy System.

TOPIC: Eberline on New Technology/Scott Lamb and George Espinosa

Scott Lamb -- scottlamb@compuserve.com, www.eberline.com

Eberline made presentation regarding the ASP-2/2e -- Portable Survey Meter. A summary follows:

Features and Specifications

• Microprocessor based
• Dual analog digital display
• Windows based computer set-up and calibration
• Selectable measurement units
• Wide range High voltage(HvH range 450-2500 V DC)
  • Permits operation with GM, Scintillator and proportional type detectors
• Dead time correction (up to 255 _seconds)
• Built in speaker (on/off push button)
• Alarm annunciation
• Check & Ratemeter, Scaler & Integration modes
• PHA channel
• Alarm set points (for integrated & rate alarms)
• Choice of digital readout or range multiplier display modes
• Light weight (2.4 lbs)
• External battery access (three C-cell batteries)
• Large variety of probes available
• Easy maintenance (through PC program -- Y2k compliant)
• Software is well proven

TOPIC: Update on Recent Testing by Pete Chiaro/ORNL

They have recently tested a LUDLUM 2224-1 with a 43-89 Alpha probe and a 43-2-2 Alpha probe. They are on the Web site. They have also done some testing on the new RSO 50E for Bicron and some magnetic field testing (because they have some places with high magnetic fields) 300, 950 and 1150 gauss. The instruments were the RO-7, Telescan and the Ludlum Stress Scope 77-3, which is a GM tube based Ludlum type instrument. Most of them worked well except the Telescan, which had some real problems with magnetic fields. These are not on the Web site yet.

Question: Did you find that the PM2 Personnel Monitor had a bad reaction to magnetic field?
Answer: Yes, most do unless they are shielded.

TOPIC: New SMART Area Monitor (SAM 905 & SAM 925)/Berkley Nucleonics presented by Jason Wellar

Berkley Nucleonics made presentation to a new concept in spectroscopy. The new SMART Area Monitor (SAM 905 & SAM 925).

The SMART area 905 monitor allows the identification of multiple nuclides with the lowest MDL of an instrument of this type. It has standard 1.5" x 2.0" detector, its own high voltage power supply and preamplifier. It accommodates larger detectors for greater sensitivity and has battery powered option for field applications. There is no need an external computer for analysis and operation although a PC is included to allow storage of multiple libraries etc. It has true spectroscopic performance, monitors gross counts, specific isotopes or unknown peak. It uses a full 16K ADC. The data channel size is 16,384 pre-compression and reduces to 256,512, or 1024 post-compression channels. It will identify mixed isotopes. The SAM 905 will strip background from data, display markers for individual isotopic lines, perform a peak search, compare to library values and generate reports. This provides for real time acquisition and processing. A QCC technique is utilized to optimize peak widths. This method provides a nonlinear channel/energy fit to enhance peak detection and sensitivity. The unit has both RS-232 and RS-485 communication ports. Three modes of operation is provided. They are monitor, review and detail. Using soft keys and an easy menu selection, users select the isotopes of interest and set the threshold peak-to-background ratio. It is unparalleled in sensitivity against unshielded known emitters, against a shielded emitter and identification of known and unknown emitters. It has the fastest and most accurate detection of nuclides at any distance. Trigger Hysteresis on/off selection provides control for a variety of conditions. The SAM 905 performance data is available from the factory. A summary of applications and features follow:

Application

• Radionuclide identification
• Quality control
• Radiation safety
• Survey meter
• Real-time reporting
• Safeguards

Features

• First area monitor to identify isotopes
• Superior price/performance
• New graphic equalizer display mode
• Superior resolution
• Exceptional sensitivity with modular detector
• Live internet SM demo
• Easy to use, little training
• Password protected
• Use a single point source

TOPIC: NE/BICRON on New Electra Instrument presented by Roland Hanson

Roland Hansen from NE/Bicron made presentation on the new Electra model instrument. A summary of the new Electra GM Plus follows:

Features

• Logs up to 1000 data points(standard) before download (it will not record when you reach 100
  • With dual phosphor probe (DP-6), logs both channels
• Rate modes
• Standard rate meter
  • Rolling average with fast reset for rapid transients
  • Reset display by depressing the down arrow
• Peak hold
• Integrated modes
  • Preset time
  • Preset % precision
  • Auto sampling
• Setup from key pad or PC
  • With PlusLink software, calibration and survey setup can be done from a PC -- auto plateau
• I Button & barcode compatible
• Internal GM (a "G" flashes on the display and read out in units of exposure.
  • Effective range 1.8 counts/sec/micro sieverts)

Auto sampling explanation

• A counting cycle consists of preset count time followed by a pause then repeated a defined number of times
• Used when doing repetitive surveying: Decommissioning survey scalar counts and field counting of smear samples
• Greatly increases technician productivity for this type of survey

Ibutton uses

• To correlate survey data -- can be affixed to each grid or used as "bookmark" to denote the end of a room or surface or rows of grids.
• To identify radioactive material or shipping containers
• To identify surveyor
• They do not decrease battery life
• Each I button comes with a 64 digit identifier

Advantages

• A light, compact multipurpose instrument designed for routine and decommissioning survey work
• Flexibility in counting modes and logging options
• 1000 data point (two channel) storage capability standard
• Two year warrantee

This is in production and is available with minimum lead times. Roland also passed out information on other instruments available

Comment: When are you going to have software available to take Gamma reponse out of the Beta channel. You might want take a look at that.

TOPIC: Open Forum Discussion

No discussions were ensued because there wasn't a quorum (15 members) present.

TOPIC: Agenda Topics for the Next HPIC Meeting

• Alpha/Beta Detection Meters -STD Specifications -- Jeff Lively
• Calibration in use at your facility of PCMs, with the end goal being to provide a consensus to HPIC on best methodology -- Pete Chiaro to chair
• Micro processor based
• Update on ANSI Standard -- Morgan Cox
• Summary of HPS Meeting -- Morgan Cox
• CAM Specifications -- Morgan Cox (Maybe)
• Alpha 6A-1 Modification -- Ron Daily
• WENDI/PRECILLA update -- Los Alamos
• Ion Chambers -- William Martinez
• Neutron Detector/ HP1 -- Ted de Castro

TOPIC: HPIC Assigned Actions

• Assimilate the comments on the HPIC recommended instruments -- Morgan Cox
• Coordinate Comments Alpha and Beta Specifications -- Jeff Lively
• Complete Bench marking sheets that Fred Ogden passed out (optional) and return to him.
• Update on the HPIC Web page status -- Dale Snowder to check with Dave Hickman
• Provide HPIC with DOE -- HQ signature on M&TE Position Paper -- Murari Sharma
• Gary LaBruyere -- Find out mechanics of re-instating BOAs; discuss findings with Dale and Pete and take back to HPIC meeting; if possible to immediately implement BOAs (Timeframe: June 1, 1999)
• Abstract, Name and affiliation to Morgan Cox for Philadelphia Meeting -- HPIC members
• Get comments, in writing, for changes to ANSI 323A to Morgan Cox -- Ted de Castro
• Talk to procurement about getting BOAs re-instated for the vendors that now need them - Fred Ogden
• Settle Business sensitive issues and clarify vendor description at next HPIC meeting
• Check on getting HPS Topical Session Papers on Web site -- Dale Snowder
• Provide Pete Chiaro with a standard format for determining NBAs/NBCs -- HPIC Members
• Feed comments/recommendations to Pete Chiaro on TBD s (in writing) -- HPIC members
• Check with Livermore about a HPIC List Server -- Dale Snowder
• Report about on-going Ion Chamber tests/evaluations at next HPIC meeting -- William Martinez
• Solicit and coordinate technical and service based issues -- distribute issues to each manufacturer involved -- Morgan Cox

TOPIC: Proposed date and location for next HPIC Meeting

DATE:

1st choice -- November 8-11, 1999
2nd choice -- Week of November 1st ,1999
3rd choice -- Week of November 15th, 1999

PLACE:

1st choice -- Cocoa Beach, FL
2nd choice -- New Orleans. LA

H. Dale Snowder, HPIC Chairperson, closed the meeting. If you have questions or comments concerning the May 1999 meeting or need attachments, please contact him at 208-523-5777 or E-mail at dsnowder@aol.com.

Sincerely,
H. Dale Snowder
HPIC Chairperson

tdk

Return to HPIC home page

For additional information regarding HPIC, contact HPIC (Steering Committee).
For information about this page, contact (P. D. Pruitt).