April 29, 1997

Document Sample
April 29, 1997 Powered By Docstoc
					                             Minutes of the DOE Contractor
                    Health Physics Instrumentation Committee Meeting
                                 Held on May 20–22, 1997

Meeting of the Department of Energy (DOE) Contractor Health Physics Instrumentation Committee
(HPIC) was held on May 20 - 22, 1997, at the Hotel Santa Fe, Santa Fe, NM. 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 previous HPIC meeting minutes

•   A review of recommended amendments to the HPIC Charter

•   A review of the new 10 CFR 835 Implementation Guide

• An update on the DOE Metrology Committee Meeting and its anticipated relationship to the

•   A discussion on implementing Industrial Hygiene instrumentation into the HPIC

•   An update and status on the AMUG Committee Meeting

•   An update on the HPIC Home Page enhancements

•   A discussion on the potential for Year 2000 date field problems on HP instruments/software

•   A discussion and presentation of Bench Marking Surveys

• A discussion on the recent progress on ANSI N323 issuance and the approval of the
 forthcoming revision

•   A discussion on the excess HP instruments survey of the HPIC member labs

• A review of the purchase activity on the Buy-On-Agreements (BOAs), it’s cost savings, and the
 new BOAs that will be issued

• Reports and voting on Count-rate meters (portable and stationary) that are
 recommended for standardization at the DOE Laboratories and facilities

• A discussion on the Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) formats, content, and development for
 the newly selected count-rate meters

•   Reports on LRAD Pipe Monitors and AIL GAMMA-CAMs

•   A discussion on HP instrumentation used for soil monitoring at the DOE facilities

• A discussion on HP calibration Lab audits and standardizing an audit plan for HP instrument

•   An open forum discussion on the current/anticipated HP instrument issues at the DOE facilities

Attendance of Committee members and visiting observers were as follows:

Dick Olsher                      LANL                         505-667-3364         505-665-6071
Gary LaBruyere                   LMITCO/INEEL                 208-526-5081         208-526-7020
Murari Sharma                    DOE/EH-52                    301-903-4359         301-903-7773
Elliott Lesses                   SSOC/RFETS                   303-966-5726         303-966-8459
Perry Pruitt                     LMES/Y-12                    423-576-4084         423-574-1770
Pete Chiaro                      ORNL                         423-576-4598         423-574-1249
Chris Bjork                      LANL                         505-667-8001         505-665-6071
Marsha Beekman                   WIPP/Westinghouse            505-234-8495         505-234-6040
Shawna Eisele                    LANL                         505-665-4010         505-665-6071
Vern Peterson                    ANL/West                     208-533-7972         208-533-7344
Bill Schaper                     WVNS                         716-942-4470         716-942-4490
Morgan Cox                       WIPP/Consultant              505-471-1370         505-473-1468
Mark Hoover                      LRRI                         505-845-1040         505-845-1180
Paul Krumpe                      DOE/DP-45                    301-903-2356         301-903-6623
David Hickman                    LLNL                         510-422-8958         510-422-5176
Penny Shamblin                   Battelle Pantex              806-477-5557         806-477-4686
Michael Sawada                   LBNL                         510-486-7617         510-486-5007
Paul Zahra                       BNL                          516-344-7727         516-344-7497
Jim Bruner                       GJO                          970-248-6686         970-248-6040
Dan Dotson                       TJNAF                        296-693-7296         296-693-5048
Kenny Fleming                    ORNL/Bechtel                 423-241-5666         423-241-6030
Jerry Hensley                    THI                          509-373-2581         509-372-2079
Jim Hallgren                     Battelle/Columbus            614-424-7961         614-424-3538
Dave Elick                       LMAES                        208-526-5953         208-526-8751
David Sinton                     SNL                          505-844-8703         505-844-1551
Jeff Lively                      MACTEC/ERS                   970-248-7780         970-248-6040
William Martinez                 LANL                         505-667-7248         505-665-7686
Tom Voss                         LANL                         505-667-8930         505-665-6678
Chuan Wu                         WIPP/Westinghouse            505-234-8384         505-885-4562
Dale Snowder                     LMITCO/INEEL                 208-526-4088         208-526-7020
Danise Gilsdorf                  LMITCO/INEEL                 208-526-2026         208-526-7020

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

TOPIC:       A discussion on the recommended amendments to the revised HPIC Charter -
             “Objectives” Section, given by Murari Sharma/DOE/EH-52 and Dale

Dale Snowder communicated with Murari Sharma of DOE-HQ, to inquire about the level of support that
the HPIC will continue to receive from DOE and its contractors. Dale defined several objectives which
will need to be provided for the continuation of the HPIC as long as it remains productive. Murari
Sharma talked with DOE/HQ, asking them to review the following draft set of objectives for the HPIC,
which will be a proposed addition to the HPIC Charter. These objectives will clarify the HPIC’s functions
as a continuing resource to DOE and its contractors which are listed below:

1.   Function as the DOE focal point for national and international issues and standards in the area of
     Health Physics instrumentation;

2.    Function as a preparing activity in the area of Health Physics instrumentation for the DOE Technical
      Standards Program Office;

3.    Serve as an advisory group for the development and review of DOE Health Physics instrumentation

4.    Partner and interface with non-DOE standards bodies;

5.    Maintain a partnership with the National Institute of Standards & Technology;

6.    Promote DOE-wide “best practices” in Health Physics Instrumentation that are responsive to
      programmatic needs and objectives.

DOE/EH-52 Management expressed complimentary remarks for the HPIC’s outstanding achievements to
date and only had a few minor changes to be made on the proposed objectives. The proposed objectives,
that were suggested as an addition to the HPIC Charter, “Objective” from DOE/EH-52 are:

1.)     Function as a technical resource to DOE on national and international issues and standards in the
area of Health Physics instrumentation;

2.)    Serve as a technical resource for the review and development of DOE Health Physics
Instrumentation directives and technical standards;

3.)    Serve as an advisory group for the development and review of DOE Health Physics
instrumentation directives;

4.)       Partner and interface with non-DOE standards bodies;

5.)       Maintain a partnership with the National institute of Standards & Technology;

6.)    Promote DOE-wide “best practices” in Health Physics Instrumentation that are responsive to
programmatic needs and objectives.

      ACTION ITEM: Murari - Submit a letter to DOE-HQ’s with the HPIC changes no later than
      August 1997.

TOPIC:        A review of the new 10 CFR 835 Implementation Guide, comments and it’s perspectives

The DOE Interim Implementation Guide, 10 CFR 835 dated January 1997, entitled, “Instrument
Calibration for Portable Survey Instruments”, was reviewed and discussed by the HPIC. Based on the
committee’s review of this guide, there are substantial issues which need to be addressed prior to the
final issuance. The language used in the Implementation Guide closely replicates that contained in ANSI
N323, but also contains some new and significant requirements.

Dale Snowder commented that his research with the INEEL QA Manager on how and whether the IG
would be used as an audit tool received a response that auditors would likely use it as a reference tool
even though it is not formally used in the INEEL program but replaced by their RPP. Verification of this
potential use of the IG was also obtained in discussions with QA auditors at three other DOE facilities. As
a result of this information it was agreed by the HPIC that the contents of the IG should be reviewed and

comments sent in to DOE-HQ to ensure some measure of acceptable guidance was implemented in the IG
to replace current problem statements.

Dale Snowder will assimilate all comments from the HPIC and submit them to DOE-HQ (Murari Sharma)
by June 30, 1997. A discussion of the IG by the HPIC then followed. Copies of the comments will be sent
to the HPIC members when submitted to DOE-HQ.

TOPIC:      An update on the DOE Metrology Committee Meeting and its anticipated relationship to
            the HPIC

The purpose of the Metrology Committee is to be a Topical Committee of the Technical Standards
Program that ensures integrity of measurements for DOE Programs. The Metrology Committee is used as
an advisory group. Their goals are:

1.   Function as the DOE focal point for metrology issues and metrology standards.
2.   Function as a Preparing Activity in metrology for the DOE Technical Standards Program Office.
3.   Serve as an advisory group for the development and review of DOE Metrology directives.
4.   Partner and interface with non-DOE standards bodies.
5.   Maintain a partnership with the “National Institute of Standards and Technology.
6.   Promote DOE-“best” metrology practices that are responsive to programmatic needs and objectives.
7.   Promote that metrology issues are included early in program development and in design reviews.

At issue is the fact that the Metrology Committee sees the Health Physics Instrument Committee as a part
of Metrology. Most HPIC members disagreed with that interpretation and were surprised at that
assumption. A question was asked by the HPIC as to; “Would the Metrology Committee and/or the
HPIC benefit if someone from the HPIC served on the Metrology Committee?” The HPIC’s answer was;
“The HPIC will offer support on setting-up their WEB page and give advice on writing their Charter, etc.
If you want to be a part of the Metrology Committee let Dale Snowder or Mark Hoover know.

TOPIC:      A discussion on implementing Industrial Hygiene Instrumentation into the HPIC

DOE-HQ’s asked Murari Sharma whether the HPIC could/should support the Industrial Hygiene
Program, in standardizing instruments and processes based on the successful evaluation of
instrumentation that the HPIC uses and its standardization of procedures and practices. It was asked by
Dale Snowder, “Would the HPIC want to do this, and if the HPIC did, how would we perform it, and
does the HPIC understand all the implications and levels of effort required to support this? Who would
be represented on it, etc.?” Dale Snowder sent out a short Industrial Hygiene Survey to the HPIC
members earlier and has received several back. If you have not handed in your survey sheets please send
them to Dale Snowder/LMITCO or Danise Gilsdorf/LMITCO. Some of the questions asked on that
survey were:

Does your facility/lab have a formal organized Industrial Hygiene program?

Some labs did and some didn’t. It depended on the size of the facility.

Does your IH program utilize monitoring instrumentation? If so, approximately how many
monitoring instruments in total does the IH program use?

•    Savannah River has a formal program with approx. 800 instruments.
•    Rocky Flats has approx. 100 instruments.

•   Argonne West has approx. 70 instruments.
•   Sandia has approx. 800 instruments.
•   TJNAF has approx. 400 instruments.
•   WASTREN has approx. 50 instruments.
•   LMAES has approx. 25 instruments.

Who calibrates the Industrial Hygiene instruments?

Usually the Industrial Hygienist calibrates the Industrial Hygiene instruments. Some IG’s use procedures
and some do not. It is suspected that calibrations are not always consistent and the monitoring
instruments could be modified without the user being aware of it. There is a real need at the various DOE
sites for acceptance testing. At Dan Dotson’s facility/TJNAF, they ask Dan for his input on acceptance

Are there any company requirements, standards, and/or policies which restrict, control, or direct the
procurement of IH monitoring instruments to standard models?

The HPIC should take a lesser look at this, perhaps providing only a guideline for requirements and
standards. The HPIC BOAs should provide a good example of the procurement tool that’s needed to
enforce for the requirements and policies. The HPIC is generally against assisting in standardizing IH
instruments. There is a concensus that too many politics and diversified instruments are involved and the
Industrial Hygienist wants the flexibility to use what IH instrument they need.

The HPIC voted unanimously not to promote the IH instrument/practices standardization in the HPIC
and instead, will serve as an advisory to the IH coordinating meeting when needed.

TOPIC:      An update and status on the Air Monitoring users Group (AMUG) Committee meeting
            given by Mark Hoover/LRRI

On May 2, 1997, the AMUG met in Mound, at which there were approximately 15 facilities that were
represented. The AMUG is looking at the specifications for CAM’s, HPIC’s qualification program, and
how they can interface with the HPIC.

The AMUG has been looking at standards and are in the process of putting a CAM Technical Handbook
together which will describe several categories of Air Monitors (Workplace, Environmental (dust) , In-site
(D&D, PPE) and describing the needs (sources, algorithms, etc.))

The AMUG will be giving a Professional Enrichment Program Course at the next HPS meeting, held in
San Antonio, Texas. It will be a four hour class, taught in modules.

The AMUG will be giving a presentation in Avignon, France, in September 1997. A presentation on
Aerosols will be given at Mark Hoover’s facility/LRRI and the LMES/Y-12 facility. An overview of the
AMUG CAM initiatives will be discussed also.

If you want to visit the AMUG’s home page their address is: http://Lrri.org/AMUG.htm

TOPIC:      A presentation given by Morgan Cox on the Current Revision of IEC Document 761,
            “Equipment for Continuously Monitoring Radioactivity in Gaseous Effuents.”

Mark Hoover/LRRI and Morgan Cox/WIPP Consultant, are involved in revising international standards.
The Current Revision of IEC Document 761, “Equipment for Continuously Monitoring Radioactivity in
Gaseous Effuents” , was supposed to be reviewed and revised every 5 - 10 yrs. This standard should be
ready for revision in another year. Mark is responsible for the Tritium upgrade, and Mark Hoover, Jack
Selby, and Morgan Cox are responsible for Part 6. If anyone of the HPIC members would like to
volunteer, they would certainly appreciate it. If you would like a copy of who’s who on revising the
above mentioned document, please contact Morgan Cox (505) 471-1370.They will be having an Aerosol
Measurements Session at the Annual HPS meeting on Wednesday evening from 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
They will have seven invitational papers at this session including papers on extensive testing of the
Alpha-6 CAM.

TOPIC:        A presentation on SAIC RADECO Continuous Air Monitor (CAM) Implementation
              Program at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Rocky Flats has been using the SAIC Model 441/442 SAAM and the SAIC Model 452 Alpha CAM units in
7 facilities at their site for 5 years now. The following contains highlights of the more significant
evaluation and test results:

SAIC Model 441/442 SAAM features and testing:

•   Did not meet the 8 DAC-Hour
•   The Manufacturer could no longer support repairing these models and spare parts were no longer
•   These instruments are Analog instruments (not digital)
•   They are Functional but have outdated technology
•   The Single alarm is based on count rate (variable)
•   The Sensitivity was only fair

SAIC Model 452 Alpha CAM features:

•   Has Improved sensitivity and safety
•   It has new Technology (all digital instrument)
    —      has data storage/retrievable
    —      has repair parts available
•   It has Spectral data output (false vs. true alarms)
•   Has the ability to measure 8 DAC-hours (RadCon Manual)
•   Has Improved Radon Separation
•   Can calculate DAC-hour (real-time)

SAAM versus CAM Comparison Summary

ITEM                            MODEL 441/442 SAAM              MODEL 452 CAM
Electronics                     Analog (1970’s vintage)         Digital (1990’s vintage)
Detector                        1” Surface Barrier              2” Ion Implanted
                                Sensitive to light              Not light sensitive
Sample Collection               Directional                     Radial
Flow Rate Measurement           Ratemeter                       Mass flow meter
Alarms                          Based upon ratemeter value      Based on DAC-hour
Alpha Measurement               2 Single Channel Analyzers      512 Channel MCA
Output                          Analog                          Digital (via serial port)

Sensitivity (Pu-239)   > 15 DAC-hours       8 DAC-hours (minimum)

Model 452 Alpha CAM Experience Summary on Typical Work Place Sensitivities

•   3 DAC-hr., 95% confidence, 1 false alarm/year, for 12 min. ave.

•   30 DAC-hr., 95% confidence, 1 false alarm/year, for 6 sec. ave.

•   8 DAC-hr., 95% confidence, 1 false alarm/year, within 120 sec.

•   0.1 DAC CONTROL limit can be resolved within a 2-day sample interval

•   Has Spectral analysis capabilities with progressive reliance being accepted by Radiological Control
    Organizations (including swipe samples).

•   The remote Telemetry function is under implementation (one alarm confirmed to date through
    radio-frequency spread spectrum communications: identifying approximately 30 dpm U 234
    cumulative activity).

•   Other Pu239 aerosol tests produced confirmed alarms near maximum instrument sensitivity.

Model 452 CAM Problems (Corrective Actions)

•   The original switch/circuit breaker assembly spontaneously disconnects. (This switch was replaced
    with a locking toggle switch and fuse holder.)

•   Flow Sensor Error - following filter loading. (The sensor was remounted within the center of the flow
    cross section.)

•   Power Supply Instability/Failure (A key component was upgraded for sufficient rating) (Crimp
    terminals on interconnect cables are in the process of being solder reinforced).

•   Calibration menu access required for radiation alarm reset. (Reset function duplicated in maintenance

•   Signal ground isolation compromised by filter retainer release mechanism. (Installed insulation ring
    on front of detector housing.)

TOPIC:      A presentation on the new LRAD Pipe Monitor given by Jeff Sawyer/Eberline

Jeff Saywer from Eberline, gave a presentation on the new LRAD Pipe Monitor. The LRAD Pipe Monitor
development is ongoing and in a few months Eberline should have a complete test report on the Monitor.
The new product name is “IonSens” and it facilitates the monitoring of cut-up scaffolding poles for alpha
contamination, permitting the classification of the material as either low level waste or free release. This
will enable the operator to reuse, or dispose of the material in an efficient and cost effective way. The
modular design allows for; ease of maintenance, replacement of components, ease of decontamination,
transportability, accessibility, and for future system upgrades. The system configuration comprises the
following main modules:

•   An Air Inlet module
•   A Measurement module which can accommodate a wide range of pipe lengths and diameters
•   A Detection Head module which contains the ion detector, HEPA filter, the data processing
    electronics, Iris seal, and a control PC

The following data is measured and displayed in the System Operation and stored on the PC hard disk:

•    The Total Activity: Bq
•    The External Activity: Bq
•    The Internal Activity: Bq
•    The Pipe Classification

At regular intervals the operator is prompted to perform a background measurement. The instrument
also prompts the operator to perform a standardization measurement at regular intervals. The software is
under Microsoft Windows NT. Jeff did not know the purchase cost yet. All measurement and control
functions are controlled by the operator from the PC based control system. The Measurement times are:

-        For Background/Standardization: 300 secs.
-        For Measurement: 180 secs.
-        For Limit of detection: 15 Bq
-        For Accuracy: at 120 Bq the false negative rate is better than 1 in 10,000

Eberline is interested in the current methods used at the DOE facilities to monitor lengths of pipe for
disposal classification or free-release. Please fill out the questionnaire that Jeff passed out at the HPIC
meeting. You can fax it to: 505-473-9221. If you have any questions regarding the LRAD Pipe Monitor or
the survey, please call Jeff Sawyer, Product Manager for Installed Contamination Products, at
505-471-3232 ext. 237.

TOPIC:       A Discussion on the status, content, and approval of the forthcoming revision of the ANSI
             N323 given by Dale Snowder/LMITCO and Jim Hesh/DOE

Jim Hesh/DOE has just been assigned to chair the ANSI N323, Part D, “Fixed Instrumentation” Standard.
Dale previously talked to Jack Selby and requested him to provide the answers as to why or why not the
HPIC comments were or were not incorporated, before the final issuance of ANSI N323, in March 1996.
Curtis Graham telephoned Dale in February 1997, asking if he was aware that the ANSI N323 was going
to press in a few weeks. Dale and Curtis were not aware of it as well as some other ANSI N323 members.
Other members on the ANSI N323 Committee have not seen Jack’s response on the HPIC’s comments to
date. Some ANSI N323 committee members requested that their names be withdrawn as voting members
on the most recent version of the standard because they did not have the opportunity to review this
“final” revision. it was stated that this “final” version is temporarily delayed in an appeal process to the
N42 committee by the IEEE. The latest revision to ANSI N323 is now separated into four sections with the
various committee chairmen as follows:

A.   Portables (Jack Selby) Final Form? Through ANSI and IEEE 1.86 (possible process of an appeal)
B.   Low Levels (Ed Walker)
C.   Air Monitors (Mark Hoover will be taking Michelle Johnson’s place)
D.   Fixed Instrumentation (Jim Hesh)

It was suggested by the HPIC that ANSI N323 should be provided to the HPIC members for their review
before the final review by the ANSI Committee. It would save the ANSI Committee time and effort, and
target the real end users of the standard versus HP professionals who rarely deal with instruments on a
day-to-day basis. Issues regarding pre-calibration or “as-founds”, Micro-processors, and computer
calibrations need to still be addressed in the “final” draft. It was suggested also that the HPIC get
comments from the commercial plants as well. Several of the HPIC members have volunteered to
participate on the ANSI Committee. If you want to volunteer to participate on the ANSI N323 Committee,

Section D, please contact Jim Hesh. Morgan Cox has been asked by Jack Selby to act as deputy on the
ANSI committee and you can also contact Morgan. The volunteer may not be a voting member but can
participate in the ANSI Committee. Shawna Eisele/LANL has a current version of the ANSI N323 if
needed. If the IEEE appeal fails, the final version of ANSI N323 could be published as early as mid-July,

TOPIC:      A discussion on the HPIC Home Page Enhancements given by Dave Hickman/LLNL

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) has been providing a HPIC database for the past two years
which consists of a HPIC Home Page. The purpose of the home page is to share information and new
data with ease and without duplication. The HPIC database is the HPIC’s legal record that shows the
HPIC has made a reasonable effort to identify those instruments that are “suitable” according to 10 CFR
835. The usage of the HPIC Home Page has almost doubled since it has been up and running.

The HPIC Home Page currently lists the upcoming HPIC meetings, the HPIC Charter, and a list of DOE
contacts. There is a great deal of information available consisting of the ANSI N42.17 testing. The HPIC
Home Page will be taking on a new look, it will soon include the Buy-on-Agreements (BOAs), the HPIC
minutes, as well as more HPIC test data. The sub-contract number will also be listed on the BOAs for
easier instrument purchasing, along with a listing of HPIC approved instruments. It was suggested by
the HPIC to add the HPIC’s activities on the Home Page. The HPIC committee appreciates the support,
time, and effort to Dave Hickman and Paul Krumpe for getting the National HPIC database up and
running. If you have test data or other information pertaining to standardizing of instruments please
send to Dave Hickman on electronic form and he can input it onto the HPIC Home Page. To get to the
National HPIC Home Page use: http://www.llnl.gov/HPIC/.

    ACTION ITEM: Danise - Please get the following information to Dave Hickman on electronic
    form the HPIC minutes, the next meeting date and place, the BOAs (including the upcoming
    BOAs, the TBD’s from Rocky Flats, and test data from the various DOE sites.

The DP Focus Group has a Home Page also. The DP Focus Group lists the instruments that require type
testing. Dave has taken every DP instrument and has listed where the testing was completed (laboratory).
Also, you can look at the different types and number of instruments that can be excessed or where a
facility could find an instrument that they can use.

TOPIC:       A discussion of potential for Year 2000 date field problems on HP instruments and
            software given by Dale Snowder/LMITCO

A congressional letter was sent from Washington DC, to the Department of Energy/HQ, asking questions
on assisting the subcommittees in their oversight responsibilities on the risks and potential consequences
connected with the Year 2000 technology problem on electronic devices containing embedded
microchips. Many of these devices, performing data-based computations, may malfunction in the year
2000 due to the change in century and misread “00” or the year 2000 as 1900.

The questions that were asked from Congress are numbered 1 - 4, DOE’s response is listed below each

1.   “Does your agency have a plan for accessing the Year 2000 vulnerability of microchips in electronic
     devices subject to regulation by your agency, in use by your agency, or that might be purchased by
     your agency?”

     DOE’s Response:

     DOE does not have a plan to assess the impact of year 2000 vulnerability of embedded micro
     controllers of health physics and industrial hygiene instruments. However, the Health Physics
     Instrument Committee (HPIC) will undertake an assessment of both health physics and industrial
     hygiene instruments relative to the Year 2000 vulnerability, starting in May 1997.

2.   “If a plan exists, provide a copy to the subcommittees. If no plan exists, is such an assessment under
     way, and when do you expect it to be completed?”

     DOE’s Response:

     The HPIC should be able to complete their assessment by November 1997. Determination of the need
     for a plan will be addressed once the assessment is complete.

3.   “Have officials of your agency communicated with private industry about the potential consequences
     of the Year 2000 technology problem associated with electronic devices containing embedded
     microchips? If not, why not?“

     DOE’s Response:

     Informal communications have been conducted with a sizable portion of health physics and a
     number of industrial hygiene instrument manufacturers. The communications so far reveal that all
     vulnerabilities can be resolved either by simple software solutions or by the replacement of one chip
     plus a software upgrade.

4.   “Who within your agency has designated responsibility for addressing the risks associated with
     possible malfunctions of electronic devices containing embedded microchips?”

     DOE’s Response:

     This should be a question for DOE-HQ to answer.

HPIC’s Year 2000 Date Field Point of Contacts

•    Oxford/Tennelec LB-5100’s - Bill Schaper/West Valley Nuclear (80 total of LB5100’s with the HPIC
•    PCM’s        - INEEL
•    CAMs - Mark Hoover/LRRI
•    Portables - Dale Snowder/INEEL
•    EPD’s - Gary LaBruyere/INEEL

     ACTION ITEM: Point of Contacts listed above - Please report at the next HPIC meeting your
     compiled reports. Murari will create a chart and send it out to the HPIC members to review for

     any comments or changes to be made. Murari - For instance, listing the; Manufacturer, Model #,
     Categories of Fixed, and Temporary Memory Limitations.

TOPIC:      A discussion on the development of bench marking surveys of HP instrument calibration
            labs given by Dale Snowder/LMITCO

The HPIC generated a document about four years ago when it consisted of only four EG&G operated
DOE facilities. The previous benchmarking document proved to be very useful in comparing resources,
capabilities, and funding characteristics among each lab. It was used in many cases as a support
document to justify future or current resources and as a measuring stick for each calibration lab to
compare its elements to.

To facilitate this survey, Dale Snowder/LMITCO, has developed a list of questions to do accurate
comparisons. Dale sent the surveys out to the HPIC members and received about twelve back. On that
survey, some questions were optional such as, your total dollar amount of your annual operating budget
and what is the cost at your lab for specific job tasks. If you could not supply that information it’s
understandable. This Bench Marking Survey can be beneficial to you and/or your facility. Please use

Dale Snowder will generate a graph of the following survey benchmarks and provide them to the HPIC
members in the near future.

The questions asked on the bench marking survey were:

1.   How many portable HP instruments do you calibrate for your DOE owned facility?

     See question #3

2.   How many portable HP instruments do you calibrate for Work-For-Others (WFO) outside of your
     DOE owned facility?

     See question #3

3.   How many total (DOE plus WFO) calibrations does your lab perform annually on portable HP
     instrument? (The number of instruments and number of calibrations could be different based on
     calibration intervals)

     •    Westinghouse PNL- 832 total
     •    TJNAF - 110 total for DOE Portables, 300 total for instruments calibrated per year
     •    Rocky Flats - 2400 total for DOE Portables, 4000 total for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    LBNL - 430 total DOE Portables, 42 total for WFO , 600 total for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    LMAES - 272 total DOE Portables, 514 total for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    West Valley - 400 total DOE Portables, 800 total for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    Mound - 964 total DOE Portables, 1800 for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    Nevada Test Site - 530 total DOE Portables, 552 total for WFO, 1612 total for instruments
          calibrated per yr.
     •    WIPP - 60 total DOE Portables, 100 total for instruments calibrated per yr.
     •    INEEL - 2200 total DOE Portables, 200 WFO, 3850 total for instruments calibrated per yr.

4.   What calibration intervals does your lab require on portable HP instruments? (i.e. annually, every 6
     months, etc.)

     •     Westinghouse PNL - 6 months & 1 year
     •     TJNAF - 1 year
     •     Rocky Flats - 6 months, and some 1 year
     •     LBNL - WFO/3 months & all DOE instruments 1 year
     •     LMAES - 6 months
     •     West Valley - 6 months
     •     Mound - 6 months
     •     Nevada Test Site - 6 months
     •     WIPP - 6 months
     •     INEEL - 6 months

5.   What is the calibration interval for your radiation generating devices (sources)?

     •     Westinghouse PNL - Unknown
     •     TJNAF - 5 years
     •     Rocky Flats - Unknown
     •     LBNL - 3 years
     •     LMAES - TBD
     •     West Valley - 1 year
     •     Mound - 3 years Gamma/3 months Neutron
     •     Nevada Test Site - 6 months - H.R. Gamma/3 months - L.R. Gamma
     •     WIPP - 3 years
     •     INEEL - 1 year

6.   Do you participate in intercomparison measurements with other DOE calibration labs and/or NIST?
     If so, how often?

     •     Westinghouse PNL - Yes, Annually
     •     TJNAF - Yes, Annually
     •     Rocky Flats - Yes, No Schedule
     •     LBNL - No, N/A
     •     West Valley - No, N/A
     •     Mound - Yes
     •     Nevada Test Site - No, N/A
     •     WIPP - No, N/A
     •     INEEL - Yes, 2 Years

7.   How many total personnel does your calibration facility employ? Of these, how many are in each of
     the following categories? (Dale’s survey graphs will illustrate the answers to this question)

     •     Total number of personnel employed
     •     Managers/Supervisors
     •     Rad Engineers/CHPs
     •     Calibration Technicians
     •     Instrument Repair Technicians
     •     Administrators
     •     Others (describe)

8.   What is the assigned Quality Level of your calibration lab operations? (i.e. Levels 1, 2, or 3). Is your
     lab classified as a Nuclear Facility?

     •     Berkley National Lab - Quality Level 3
     •     GJO - Quality Level 3
     •     Mound - Quality Level 3
     •     INEEL - Quality Level 3
     •     No one at the HPIC was a Quality Level 1 or 2

9.   Is your operating budget based on a direct recovery system, overhead (indirect), or some other
     system or combination of the above systems? (In other words, where does your operating budget
     come from?)

10. Does your budget include funding to purchase new portable HP instruments for replacements? Or
    does this funding come from another budget source?

If you have not sent in your Bench Marking Survey or if you have found any mistakes on the graph
please send or fax to Danise Gilsdorf/LMITCO.

     ACTION ITEM: Dale - Please update the graphs with late arrival surveys and report at the next
     HPIC meeting the results.

TOPIC:       A discussion on the survey of HPIC member labs excess HP instrumentation - availability,
             condition, and data entry on the HPIC home page

Dale Snowder/LMITCO, developed an Excess Instrument Inventory Form that has been sent to the HPIC
members to fill out. On that survey, it lists the type, model, probe (if applicable), quantity, and condition
of the instruments at the various DOE facilities. The reason for an Instrument Survey list is to see what
and how many instruments are out there. Some instruments are listed on the excess list through the WEB
page. If you have not filled out one of these excess instrument inventory forms yet, please do so and send
back to Danise Gilsdorf or Dale Snowder/LMITCO. If you need more forms, you can call Danise
Gilsdorf/LMITCO at 208-526-2026. Dale will compile a list with the excess instruments off of these
surveys and will report back to the HPIC.

TOPIC:       A Report on Buy-on-Agreements (BOA) cost savings and new BOAs being issued given by
             Dale Snowder/LMITCO

The HPIC has been working for 2 years on purchase contracts with manufacturers of selected Health
Physics Instruments which will allow participating DOE facilities to purchase them as needed. The
agreements are called “Buy-on-Agreements” or BOAs. They were designed to meet all the guidelines for
fair and competitive bidding based on verified and documented performance testing and not specifically
on cost alone; thus BOA instrument purchases do not require sole source or other normal procurement

Additionally, the BOAs provide a large cost savings by combining all participating DOE facilities’ HP
instrument purchases into a single annual volume purchase with progressive discounts as the number of
purchased instruments increases. Bill Crownover and others of the Procurement Branch of
Lockheed-Martin Idaho Technologies (LMITCO) have been instrumental in processing these agreements

with the various HP manufacturers and have successfully obtained all necessary signatures to implement
the BOAs as of June 16, 1995. The BOAs, which are actually subcontracts, will be available to those HPIC
members who advertised their desire to participate in the BOAs at the past HPIC meetings.

The HPIC has BOA’s on the following instruments:

•   NE Electra Survey Rate Meter w/CP6BD Dual Phosphor Probe

•   NRC ADM-300 w/AP-100 Probe

•   Bicron RSO-50E Ion Chamber

•   Eberline RS-20 Ion Chamber

•   Bicron Micro-Rem

•   Eberline Xetex Telescan 330A

The BOA’s to be completed in the near future are listed below:

•   Bicron Surveyor 2000

•   W.B. Johnson 2000W

•   W.B. Johnson GSM-160

•   NRC ADM300S w/BP-100 Probe

•   NRC ADM300 w/BGP-100 Probe

•   Eberline RM-25 w/HP-360 & HP-380 Probes

•   Ludlum 177L w/44-107 & 44-9 Probes

•   Ludlum 2241-2 w/44-107 & 44-9 Probes

•   Eberline E600 w/HP-360 & HP-380 Probes

•   Bicron/NE Bicron BP-19 and PGM Probes

Only participating DOE and other Federal agencies listed in the BOA will be allowed to participate in
these BOAs at the present time. If you want to be added to this list please contact Dale Snowder or Bill
Crownover. Phone numbers can be found on the attached contact list. All participation on the BOA is
strictly voluntary. If a Vendor tells you, you have to order from the BOA, that’s not true and if that
happens please contact Dale Snowder or Bill Crownover. You may purchase HP instruments on your
own or use the BOA for the discounts and performance documentation it provides. The instruments for
which BOAs have been issued are those that are highly recommended by the HPIC for standardization.
In using the BOA you are also assured that the manufacturer will not modify the instrument without
authorization and review by the HPIC first.

When purchasing one of the selected HP instruments, the purchaser will fill out a normal purchase
requisition describing the instrument and probes desired. The purchaser then should write on the

requisition the appropriate subcontract # listed on the front of the BOA agreement. It is possible that a
procurement agent may choose not to use the subcontract for some reason and you, as the purchaser,
may have to communicate the purpose and benefits of the BOA to the Purchasing Agent. Processing of
the BOA by your procurement agent should be significantly simplified since no sole source justifications,
low bidder investigations, price negotiations, etc. should have to be initiated. It is possible that
labs/facilities can combine or coordinate their purchases to coincide with the beginning of the calendar
year to get the discounts started. The more instruments purchased on the BOA, the higher the discounts.
Each HP instrument instrument manufacturer has been contracted to keep a detailed listing of how many
instruments have been purchased on their BOA on an annual basis and report these numbers to Bill
Crownover on a quarterly basis. Below is the BOA contracts as well as the total discounted savings

Manufacturer/Instruments                      Total Discounted Savings Jan. 1 - April 1, 1997
Eberline/RO-20                                                 $ 34,664.00
Eberline Telescan                                               $ 3,740.00
Bicron NE DP6BD Probe                                           $ 1,900.00

There is a clause in the BOA that requires each manufacturer to provide in writing to the HPIC a
description of any modifications/changes to the instrument components which will/could affect that
instruments performance. Such notification must be provided within 45 days of the design modification,
and drawings of the modifications provided to the customers within 90 days.

ORNL and Sandia National Lab have been having problems with their RSO-50E’s. There were a series of
manufacturer changes on the RSO-50E’s on which the HPIC had not been notified. NE/Bicron did not
believe ORNL that they were having problems with the RSO-50E’s and ORNL took a video and showed
NE/Bicron the problems. Unfortunately, the RSO-50E’s do not fail all of the time. NE/Bicron is now
working on those problems. ORNL will probably replace the RSO-50E;s with the new models.

A question was asked by the HPIC as to, “Did NE/Bicron modify something from the first time the HPIC
did the initial evaluation?” There are four facilities that are using the RSO-50E’s (Sandia National Lab,
ORNL, INEEL, and LBNL). INEEL is using the original RSO-50E’s that were standardized on and have
not had any problems with them yet. LBNL still has the RSO-50E’s which were ordered about 1 year ago
and have not had any problems with them yet either. If any of you do have problems with them please
notify Dale Snowder. NE/Bicron may have violated their BOA contract by not notifying the HPIC in
writing, etc. The alternative is to take NE/Bicron off the standardized list pending a study on this. Bill
Crownover and Dale Snowder will work on the RSO-50E problem/BOA contract and will attempt to get
ORNL and Sandia’s RSO-50E’s replaced.

Also, NE/Bicron’s cables on the Electras have been separating. The new cables from NE/Bicron are
$35.00, if called direct, also a mounted frame for $10.00. Call Gary Labruyere/LMITCO for the model
numbers if needed.

Bill and Dale are working on a manual of HPIC recommended instruments with the price list and the
BOAs all included, as well as on the HPIC Home Page. Please contact Dale Snowder, Bill Crownover, or
Gary LaBruyere for any problems regarding the BOAs.

TOPIC:      Discussion on Test/evaluation results for proposed Count-rate Meters recommended for
            standardization at the DOE Laboratories and facilities

Ludlum Model 2241-2 CountRate Meter w/44-9 and 44-107 Probes Test/Evaluation

The Ludlum Model 2241-2 is a portable ratemeter that can be used with a G-M or scintillation probe. This
summary describes evaluations performed on the Ludlum Model 2241-2 using a 44-9 pancake G-M probe
and a 44-107 Beta-Scintillation Probe at assigned DOE HPIC member labs.

•   The RCT’s liked the 2-position switch on the Model 2241-2.

•   This instrument does not have an analog display and it was difficult to access operating parameters.

•   It has a simple design and is inexpensive.

•   The weight is 1 1/2 lbs.

•   The ANSI testing found no significant problems.

•   There were no cable vibrations.

•   The 2241-2 did not have any problems out in the field, no failure.

•   Radio Frequency/Microwave - When exposed to 140, 915, and 2450 Mhz fields at 20 (+10, -0)
    volts/meter, no susceptibilities were observed. Susceptibilities were indicated at various frequencies
    during the scan from 100 kHz to 1000 Mhz at 20 (+10, -0) volts/meter. Observations included reduced
    count rates and erratic/unreadable display. The first Model displayed erratic from 61.1 Mhz - 1000.0
    Mhz. The second Model displayed erratic from 170.5 Mhz - 171.5 Mhz, out of range low from 172.0
    Mhz - 197.5 Mhz. The third Model had no response abnormalities in the frequency scan. Specific
    frequencies are available upon request.

•   All instruments and probes had acceptable results after exposure to 15 Hz and 28 Hz, each at an
    amplitude of 2 G, in three orientations relative to the vibration surface.

•   Radio Frequency/Microwave - When exposed to 915 and 2450 Mhz fields at 20 (+10, -0) volts/meter,
    no susceptibilities were observed. The instrument/probe combination was susceptible to the 140 Mhz
    field at 20 (+10, -0) volts/meter. Susceptibilities were indicated at various frequencies during the scan
    from 100 kHz to 1000 Mhz at 20 (+10,-0) volts/meter. Observations included reduced count rates and
    erratic display.

•   All instruments and probes evaluated for temperature had acceptable results when exposed to
                               0              0
    temperatures from -10 to 50 C (+14 to 122 F).

•   All instruments and probes evaluated for temperature shock had acceptable results when exposed to
    rapid temperature changes from 22 to -10 and -10 to 22 ( C). Results obtained during exposure to the
    22 to 50 to 22 ( C) temperature changes indicated that some susceptibility exists.

•   All instruments and probes evaluated for humidity had acceptable results when exposed to a relative
    humidity level of 95% (non-condensing) for eight hours, and upon return to 40% for 4 hours at 22 to 2

•   When tested for vibration, all instruments and probes evaluated had acceptable results after exposure
    to 15 Hz and 28 Hz, each at an amplitude of 2 G, in three orientations relative to the vibration surface.

                                                                      99        238    90
•   Efficiency tests were performed with four different activity Tc , two U , and a Sry sources. The
    deficiencies on the pin jumped around, higher deficiencies on a lower source (107 probe). There are
    some issues on the probe that needs to be looked into.

•   The comments on the Ludlum Model 2241-2 were fairly high. Model 2241-2 was out in the field for 7 -
    8 weeks and did not return with any problems. The scales didn’t need to be changed.

•   The scaler mode was useful in areas where background counts fluctuate and it was easier to tell when
    the count levels were out for an accurate final count.

•   The RCT’s especially liked the auto-ranging and availability of the scaler mode. The calibration was
    simple to perform once the user had defined certain parameters.

•   Overall scoring was high.

•   Other comments were: the battery condition indication needs work. This instrument had a slower
    visual response and you must rely on the audible for detection of higher counts.

Ludlum Model 177L Fixed Instrument w/44-9 Probe Test/Evaluation Results

•   The Model 177L met all requirements except moisture, because it did not have seals around the rim.

•   Battery failure indication was after 128 hours using gel cell batteries.

•   It passed the latching alarm test, and the coefficient of variation test.

•   The average surface sensitivity for the 44-107 probe was better than 44-9 probe.

•   Overall scoring of the Ludlum Model 177L was high, the facilities that tested this model found no
    problems, it’s a rugged instrument, and the price is reasonable.

Eberline Model E-600 Count-Rate Meter w/SHP-380 probe and the SHP-360 probe
Test/Evaluation Results

•   The SHP-380AB Probe passed the environmental testing and optimized to alpha             response.

•   The SHP-380AB Probe has minimum alpha to beta cross-talk, which is in the center of probe approx.
    10%. The Beta to alpha was < 1%. The Maximum efficiency was found in the center of probe approx.
    22% for both alpha and beta. Minimum efficiency was found on the toe approx. 18% for alpha and
    17% for beta.

•   The users liked the Model E-600 due to the lightweightness, it had good display back lighting, and
    they liked the one-handed operation. They also liked the background subtraction feature, the
    peak-hold mode, the fast response time, and the dual counting channels.

•   It is easier to use than the ESP-2.

•   The probe characteristics that the users liked were; the large area probes decrease the times required
    to survey large areas, the dual channel probes allow faster survey times, and the probes appeared to
    be fairly rugged.

•   The users thought the range channel switch was awkwardly positioned.

•   There is no automatic ranging of the display and the users did not like the “pretend” analog scale.

•   The probe characteristics that the users didn’t like were; the large area probe could be damaged
    easily, is difficult to use for surveying small items, and the large area probe tends to have higher
    background counts and may restrict its use for release surveys.

•   The HP-380 probe was sensitive to sunlight. When used in direct sunlight the probe tends to have
    light leaks in the very thin Mylar and causes the E-600 to overrange. The Mylar may be too thin and
    could tear in the field under regular use. The Mylar is the same Mylar used in the SHP-340 and some
    have had problems with that Mylar. It seems that the problems with the SHP-340’s will continue with
    the SHP-380 probe. Other problems noted with the E-600 is the cable and the cable connections at the
    probe appeared suspect by the field tech’s on durabililty.

The NRC Model ADM-300 Count-Rate Meter w/BP-100 Probe Test/Evaluation

•   Several facilities have already tested the ADM-300 and have testing information on the HPIC Home

•   Overall score was high, other than it’s a large relatively heavy instrument.

•   It has a digital display. By selecting the mode you can count beta or gamma.

•   NRC is attempting to construct a plastic case instead of a metal case, but is expensive for the vendor
    to change.

•   Temperature test; had linear response for all temperature ranges.

•   The ADM-300 had a gamma subtraction feature (25 - 30 counts) which is an advantage.

•   Scored high in performance due to extensive documentation of test results to ANSI N42.17.

The Bicron/NE Model Electra Count-Rate Meter w/BP-19RD Probe Test/Evaluation

•   During initial start-up, the warm up periods increased, for each Electra being tested, with decreasing
    temperature (as long as 30 minutes at 22 degrees centigrade).

•   The units that experienced problems with temperature testing have the new keypad. INEEL has
    communicated with Mark Deacon/NE/Bicron on this problem. (See the response from them attached
    to these minutes)

•   The changes within the instrument that support the new keypad are as follows:

    —     Component R4 has been increased from 18 k to 1k;
    —     Component RN3 has been increased from 100k to R24 10k;
    —     and C-4 from 0.1 micro F to 4.7 micro F

    Note: These changes will need to be checked individually to clear or identify the fault. The INEEL
    will conduct additional testing to locate and determine the fix with the support of NE/Bicron. The
    instruments with the new keypads can be identified by ridges around the buttons.

•   On the plastic scintillators, the alpha and beta distribution overlap somewhat, and have a continuous
    distribution for gamma background. The beta plateaus can be obtained (by increasing the gain
    through high voltage).

•   On the GM Pancake Probe the plateau is specified by the tube characteristics, and all the response
    distributions generally overlap.

•   The display was liked more than the display on the 2241-2 and the analog feature was a plus.

•   CRM was too big.

•   Mound has approx. 50 of the Electras at their facility and have had no problems yet.

Eberline Model RM-25 Fixed Instrument w/HP-360 Probes Test/Evaluation Results

•   The RM-25 is one of the better instruments out in the market based on previous evaluation and
    experience and is easy to use.

•   On Temperature Shocks, the mean was slightly out-of-tolerance (15% of the nominal mean taken at

•   The Relative Humidity tested at 15% of the nominal mean determined at 40% when exposed to 95%
    then back to 40%.

•   The RM-25 indicated high response abnormalities at frequencies from 40.1 Mhz to 42.5 Mhz, and 90.2
    Mhz to 92.0 Mhz.

•   The Unit is battery powered.

•   This instrument scored fairly high due to its historical operation and HPIC test data.

Bicron/NE Model Delta 5B Fixed Instrument Test/Evaluation Results

•   The tests that the Nevada Test Site performed on the Bicron/NE Model Delta 5B had not seen any
    problems. Ed Cox was the only HPIC member to perform an evaluation on the Delta 5B and could
    not attend this meeting. The HPIC will need to look at the Delta 5B at the next HPIC meeting.

Additional information and extensive test results on all the above Count-rate Meters and Fixed
(Table-Top) Instruments is available upon request.

    ACTION ITEM: Those HPIC members that performed testing on the above instruments, please
    send your testing data on electronic form to Dave Hickman for the HPIC Home Page.

TOPIC:      Voting on the Portable Count-rate Meters and Fixed (Table-top) Instruments to be
            recommended for standardization by the HPIC

The following Count-Rate Meters and Fixed (Table-Top) Instruments were voted on by the HPIC
Committee members for standardization, elimination or extending the testing.

It was unanimously voted by the HPIC members to standardize on the following Count-rate Meters;
Ludlum 2241-2 w/44-107 probe and 44-9 probe, the Eberline E-600 w/HP-360 probe and HP-380 probe,
and the Bicron/NE Electra w/BP-19 probe and PGM probe.

It was unanimously voted by the HPIC members to suspend vote without sufficient data/experience on
the following instruments/probes; Bicron/NE DP6 Probe and the Bicron/NE Delta 5B Fixed Instrument.

It was unanimously voted by the HPIC members to standardize on the following Fixed Instruments;
Ludlum 177L Fixed Instrument w/44-107 probe and the 44-9 probe and the Eberline RM-25 Fixed
Instrument w/HP-360 probe and the HP-380 probe.


     1.) Gary LaBruyere - Remediate problems w/keyboard on NE Electras
     2.) Shawna Eisele, William Martinez, Tom Voss - Stabilize/resolve software versions
    w/Eberline on E-600
     3.) Pete Chiaro - Remediate efficiency issues w/Ludlum on 44-107 probe
     4.) Dan Dotson - Remediate sealed switch problems on Ludlum Model 177L
     5.) Ed Cox - Provide test data on the NE Delta 5B
     6.) Jerry Hensley and Jim Bruner - Look into the problems with the DP-6 probe and the
    HP-380 Probes

Announcement - Bob Halliburton/The Calibration Metrology Group from Knoxville, Tennessee, is
having a Radiological Calibration Workshop for Portable Survey Instruments. It is being held in Boulder,
Colorado on July 21 - 25, 1997. If any of you are interested in attending and/or you need a flyer you can
contact Danise Gilsdorf or call Bob Halliburton at 423-966-5443.

TOPIC:      A discussion on Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) formats, content, and development for
            the newly selected count-rate and fixed (Table-Top) Instruments given by Dale Snowder

The HPIC reviewed the Technical Basis Document’s (TBDs) formats and its contents. The TBD’s
regulatory drivers are 10 CFR 835 and the Price-Anderson Act. There are three basic approaches that exist
within DOE contractors for TBD’s. They are:

•   Single generic document with appendices for each instrument (Y-12 use)
•   TBD for each instrument with all test data included (Rocky Flats use)
•   TBD for each instrument with references to test data (INEEL use)

Gary LaBruyere/INEEL, ran a comparison study on the contents of the three types of documents listed
above. The Y-12 facility starts out with a Scope, the Requirements, and the Applications,
Radiation/Media. Rocky Flats starts out with a Scope, the Summary and breaks down requirements in
more detail. The INEEL starts out with a Purpose, a Description, Operational Capabilities and
Specifications, and a Selection Criteria (which is more generic).

The HPIC tried to move forward a standard format for all the DOE facilities, but there were too many
facilities that were required to be site specific. It was recommended by the HPIC to have the TBDs at a
one point reference, for instance; the HPIC Home Page. The HPIC needs to address centralizing the TBD’s
hard copies. The HPIC suggested to list the front page of the TBD on the Home Page and reference
appendices and remaining TBD’s to Dale Snowder. Murari Sharma and Dale Snowder will write-up a
policy for standardizing TBD’s and will cover that policy at the next HPIC meeting to submit to

    ACTION ITEM: Dale Snowder and Murari Sharma - Write-up a draft policy for standardizing
    TBD’s for the next HPIC meeting. Murari will then submit to the DOE-HQ for approval.

TOPIC:      A discussion on the Aptec Model PMW-3, “Two-Step” Whole body Surface
            Contamination Monitor given by Jeff Lively/MACTEC-ERS

Jeff Lively from MACTEC-ERS, has several of the Aptec Model PMW-3, “Two-Step” Whole Body Surface
Contamination Monitors at his facility. This Monitor has performed well except for lower than expected
efficiencies.The users have been pushing to get the monitor efficiencies up to acceptable levels again. The
PMW-3 is well liked at their facility and its characteristics are as follows;

•   This Monitor is completely PC used.

•   It uses an array of 27 - 29 gas proportional tubes and comes with a titanium window

•   You can eliminate RADON interference by not measuring Alpha on this monitor.

•   The recommended calibration time is about 1/2 day, but can be done in about 2 hours.

•   You can perform a voltage plateau, other than that everything is downloaded into the PC

•   The alarm setting is user friendly.

•   It tested ambient background at 5,000 dpm activity over the tube surface.

•   It’s incredibly efficient at ambient background, does not have RADON background.

•   It has a bar code reader and is a hip and arm monitor. You can use your badge to read your name & S
    number, which can save on check-ins. However, MACTEC-ERS is not using the Badge Reader,
    everyone would need to have bar codes on their badges (too expensive)

•   The price is $44,000.00

•   The turn around time is long, due to the tubes. This monitor usually is shipped ground transport but
    can be shipped by air, which would need a pressurized box to be shipped in.

•   The Performance testing is reestablished on each tube once a month. Once a day, Jeff performs an
    alarm check, which uses a large area source for testing.

•   Using a plastic scintillator versus the O-M tubes would not be advised because the user would not
    adequately detect the beta count.

•   The leaking tubes are the only problem with this monitor. Jeff is checking on this and will report to
    the HPIC at the next meeting.

•   Los Alamos has been looking at this hand and foot monitor for their facility also.

    ACTION ITEM: Contamination Monitors should be a topic for the next HPIC meeting.

TOPIC:      A presentation on AIL Gamma-CAMs given by Alfred Henneborn/AIL Systems, Inc.

Alfred Henneborn/AIL Systems, Inc., gave a presentation on the Aptec GAMMA-CAM Model M31,
which has been on the market since September 1996. The GAMMA-CAM is a portable gamma ray

imaging system. This system is portable, easy to set-up, has a high spatial resolution, has high sensitivity,
and is user friendly. The system can be tailored to several applications. The spectral range is <80 keV to
>1.3 MeV. The detector has high density terbium-activated scintillating glass in it. The detection head
weighs 55 lbs., the size is 19” in length, 10” wide, and 15” in height and is tripod mountable. A portable
IBM PC, 150 Mhz Pentium and a Matrix LCD Color Display is used. The standard software to use with
this CAM is called GammaSoft. The price is $195,000.00 or has an option to be leased.

TOPIC:      A discussion on HP instrumentation used for monitoring soil in-situ at DOE facilities
            given by Dale Snowder

Dale sent out a questionnaire to the HPIC members regarding soil monitoring. The question was asked
by Dale as to; “What do you use to detect activity vs no activity”?

•   At TJNAF, their RCT’s use BTI microspecs

•   There are only three DOE facilities that use mobile systems

•   Several DOE facilities are using portables

•   Some facilities use the fiddlers/violists

•   MACTEC-ERS is going to be using the E-600’s for soil monitoring

If you have not sent the survey in yet, please send or fax to Danise Gilsdorf/LMITCO.

TOPIC:      HP calibration Lab audit findings/issues of concern

Health Physics Instrument Lab at INEEL, was audited recently by the Public Service Utilities/Colorado.
The purpose of the audit was to show to the Public Service Utilities that HPIL was qualified of calibrating
their instruments. There were only a few findings, (1) on the issue of 10% Out-of-Tolerance notices, the
RCT’s were not documenting any actions that were being taken and the finding was issued against the
end user. (2) 10 CFR 830 states that all calibration labs should be audited every 36 months. INEEL’s QA
Auditors have been limited on funding and were not aware of the 36 month audit requirement. If your
facility has not been audited in the last 36 months, you might check into it. NRC has an audit plan to go
by, which Public Service Utilities/Colorado had used.

•   There was a follow-up discussion on the % of accuracy that out-of-tolerance notices are issued for. Of
    22 DOE Labs represented at the meeting, all but two use a  10% accuracy as the trigger level for
    issuing these notices. The other two labs use a  20% accuracy.

•   Elliott Lesses at SSOC/RFETS has been having problems with shipments. This will be discussed at a
    later HPIC meeting.

•   Out-of-Service Tags has been an audit finding at Jim Bruner/GJO.

TOPIC:      Open forum discussion

Perry Pruitt/Y-12 requested a quick survey on Recall Systems to the HPIC Members. “What do you use
for tracking?”

•   INEEL - use Fluke Metrack System, but are still fine-tuning
•   Los Alamos - use Oracle DataBase and is written in-house (customized for Los Alamos) and is
    hooked into a barcode system
•   LBNL - use FileMaker
•   TJNAF - use FileMaker
•   LRRI - use Champs, commercially available
•   GJO - use FoxPro, but is going over to MetTrack/Fluke (MetTrack costs $10,000.00)
•   BNL - use MetTrack/Fluke System
•   WVNS - use an in-house system
•   WIPP - use an in-house DataBase
•   Battelle - use an in-house system
•   ORNL - use an in-house system
•   Y-12 - use IMS (IMS is very expensive and is looking into something else)
•   Rocky Flats - use Recall System
•   Battelle/Columbus - use an in-house system

A copy of the draft Calibration Procedure for the E-600, with the 380 probe and the 340 probe will be
attached to the minutes.

Chris Bjork/LANL has tritium hydrogen available with a .1% hydrogen buffer which is less than 1 ci/M .
Chris has several small vessels of the 300 dp model, that he is willing to send around the country. Chris’s
proposal program is that; Anyone who is interested in doing an intercomparison measurement off this
model and passing it on to the next person is eligible. If you need to calibrate tritium and air monitors this
is a chance to compare yourselves to everyone else. Chris’s E-mail at Los Alamos is cbjork@lanl.gov. If
you are interested, please send Chris a letter between now and the end of 1997. List the kind of calibration
or process you use now and what kind of instrument you have. Everyone must agree up front what kind
of schedule they will have at their facility, when they receive/ship the gas, how much time needed for
sampling, and how much gas they might need. At the end, Chris will send out a compiled list of results.
Your results will be the only one you can read on the list (codes will be provided) therefore, the other
facilities will not see what your results were. This mostly will be used as a benchmarking tool. This is not
used to judge your facility.

Elliott Lesses will be receiving new information on the Siemens EPD since their recent buy out regarding
availability of batteries and parts. If anyone needs this new information please call Elliott.

TOPIC:      Agenda Topics for the Next HPIC Meeting

•   N Instrument/test Evaluation, and damage to equipment
•   TBD format/content guide
•   PCMs/HFM evaluation (Action: Dale contact Shawna E./Pete Chiaro for the test data on the
•   Evaluation NE Delta - Ed Cox
•   EPD evaluations (Define a list of specifications 42.20 ANSI Standard)
•   PNL report on Alpha Detectors
•   Dual Phosphor Detectors
•   Portable Scalers
•   MDA calculations on portables
•   New instruments/Tech.
•   Standards development/status

TOPIC:        The date proposed for the next HPIC Meeting

1st choice:      Week of November 10, 1997
2nd choice:      Week of December 1, 1997
3rd choice:      Week of December 8, 1997

TOPIC:        Location of the Next HPIC Meeting

1st choice:      Cocoa Beach, FL
2nd choice:      Las Vegas, NV
3rd choice:      Augusta, GA, or Washington DC

H. Dale Snowder, HPIC Chairman, closed the meeting. If you have questions or comments concerning
the May 1997 meeting minutes or need attachments, please contact me at 208-526-4088 or Danise Gilsdorf,
HPIC Secretary, at 208-526-2026.


H. Dale Snowder
HPIC Chairman

Distribution                     Jim Bruner

The Alpha Group                  LRRI
Billy Smith                      Mark Hoover
Bob Kennard
                                 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Argonne National Lab - West      Michael Sawada
Vern Peterson                    Ted de Castro

Argonne National Lab - East      Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Alan Justus                      Dave Hickman

Battelle/OH                      LMAES/Pit-9
Jim Hallgren                     Dave Elick
                                 Ed Gulbransen
Bechtel Hanford
Conan Wade                       Oak Ridge National Laboratory
                                 Peter Chiaro
Battelle Pantex
Penny Shamblin                   Oak Ridge National Laboratory/Bechtel
                                 Kenny Fleming
Battelle Northwest
Michelle Johnson                 Lockheed Martin Energy Systems/Y-12
David Brehm                      Perry Pruitt

Bechtel/Nevada                   Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
Ed Cox                           Bill Crownover, MS 3521
Carson Riland                    Gary LaBruyere, MS 4123
                                 Greg Courtney, MS 4138
Brookhaven National Lab
Paul Zahra                       Los Alamos National Lab
                                 Dick Olsher
DOE Headquarters EH-52           Shawna Eisele
Murari Sharma                    William Martinez
Maria Gavrilas-Guinn             Tom Voss
                                 Chris Bjork
DOE Idaho
Ken Whitham, MS 4160             MACTEC/ERS
                                 Jeffrey Lively
Paul Krumpe                      NISE-East
                                 Lee Hinson
EG&G Kennedy Space Center - FL
Rod Nickell                      SafeSites of Colorado, L.L.C.
                                 Elliott Lesses
EG&G Mound                       J. Bruce Powell
Ron Daily
                                 Sandia National Lab
Fluor Daniel Fernald             David Sinton
Riasp Medora
GJO                              Jerry Hensley
Dan Dotson

West Valley Nuclear
William Schaper

Westinghouse/Savannah River
Ed Polz

Morgan Cox
Chuan Wu
Marsha Beekman


H. Dale Snowder, MS 4123                 Dan Dotson
Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies       TJNAF
P.O. Box 1625                            12000 Jefferson Ave.
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4123               Newport News, VA 23606
wk: 208-526-4088                         wk: 296-693-7296
fax: 208-526-7020                        fax: 296-693-5048

William V. Schaper                       Vern Peterson, MS 6000
West Valley Nuclear Services Co., Inc.   Argonne National Lab - West
P.O. Box 191, MS-TSB                     P.O. Box 2528
West Valley, NY 14171-0191               Idaho Falls, ID 83403-2528
wk: 716-942-4470                         wk: 208-533-7972
fax: 716-942-4490                        fax: 208-533-7344

Ron Daily                                Elliott Lesses
EG&G Mound Applied Technologies          SafeSites of Colordo, L.L.C.
P.O. Box 3000                            RFETS, P.O. Box 464
Mound Road, Bldg. 61                     Golden, CO 80402-0464
Miamisburg, OH 45343-3000                wk: 303-966-5726
wk: 513-865-4872                         fax: 303-966-8459
fax: 513-865-3608

Marsha Beekman                           Dave Hickman
Westinghouse/WIPP, MS-265                Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab
P.O. Box 2078                            P.O. Box 808, Bldg. L-379
Carlsbad, NM 88221                       Livermore, CA 94550
wk: 505-234-8495                         wk: 510-422-8958
fax: 505-234-6040                        fax: 510-422-5176

Ed Cox                                   Chris Bjork
Betchel-Nevada Test Site                 Los Alamos National Lab
P.O. Box 9852, MS-NTS 454                MS/G761
Las Vegas, NV 89195                      Los Alamos, NM 87545
wk: 702-295-6817                         wk: 505-667-8001
fax: 702-295-3662                        fax: 505-665-6071

Ed Polz                                  Morgan Cox
Westinghouse/Savannah River              WIPP/Consultant
Building 736A                            2501 West Zia, Suite 3-102
Aiken, SC 29808                          Santa Fe, NM 87505
wk: 803-952-8435                         wk: 505-471-1370
fax: 803-952-8425                        fax: 505-473-1468

Shawna Eisele                            Ted de Castro
Los Alamos Nat Lab                       Lawrence Berkeley Nat Lab
P.O. Box 1663, G-761                     1 Cyclotron Rd, B90-0026, UCLBL
Los Alamos, NM 87545                     Berkeley, CA 94720
wk: 505-665-4010                         wk: 510-486-5256
fax: 505-665-6071                        fax: 510-486-6939

Michael Sawada                            David Sinton
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab            Sandia National Lab, MS 0651
1 Cyclotron Road, MS 71-259, UCLBL        P.O. Box 5800, Dept. 7578
Berkeley, CA 94720                        Albuqurque, NM 87185-0651
wk: 510-486-7617                          wk: 505-844-8703
fax: 510-486-5007                         fax: 505-844-1551

Paul Krumpe                               Rod Nickell
Department of Energy, DP-45               EG&G Florida
19901 Germantown Rd.                      BOC-022
Germantown, MD 20874                      Kennedy Space Cntr, FL 32899
wk: 301-903-2356                          wk: 407-867-3540
fax: 301-903-6623                         fax: 407-867-3694

Alan Justus                               Perry Pruitt
Argonne National Lab - East               Lockheed Martin Energy Systems
ESH-360                                   Y-12, Bldg. 9711-1, MS 8105
Argonne, IL 60439                         Oak Ridge, TN 37831
wk: 708-252-3319                          wk: 423-576-4084
fax: 708-252-3437                         fax: 423-574-1770

Murari Sharma                             Danise A. Gilsdorf
Department of Energy HQ                   Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
EH-411/270-CC                             P.O. Box 1625, MS 4123
Germantown, MD 20545                      Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4123
wk: 301-903-4359                          wk: 208-526-2026
fax: 301-903-7773                         fax: 208-526-7020

Dick Olsher                               Gary A. LaBruyere
Los Alamos National Laboratory            Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
P.O. Box 1663, MS-G761                    P.O. Box 1625, MS 4123
Los Alamos, NM 87545                      Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4123
wk: 505-667-3364                          wk: 208-526-5081
fax: 505-665-6071                         fax: 208-526-7020

Michelle Johnson, P7-01                   Penny Shamblin
Battelle NW-MS1N P7-01                    Battelle Pantex, RSD-12-42
Battelle Blvd.                            P.O. Box 30020
Richland, WA 99352                        Amarillo, TX 79177
wk: 509-376-5624                          wk: 806-477-5557
fax: 509-376-2498                         fax: 806-477-4686

Peter Chiaro, Jr.                         Mark Hoover
Oak Ridge National Lab                    Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
P.O. Box 2008, Bldg. 3500, MS 6004        P.O. Box 5890
Oak Ridge, TN 37716-6004                  Alburquerque, NM 87185-5890
wk: 423-576-4598                          wk: 505-845-1040
fax: 423-574-1249                         fax: 845-845-1180


Jerry Hensley                             Bill Crownover
Thermo Hanford Inc.                       Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies
MSIN T7-15                                P.O. Box 1625, MS 3521
3350 George Washington                    Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3521
Richland, WA 99352                        wk: 208-526-1857
wk: 509-373-2581                          fax: 208-526-7744
fax: 509-372-2079

Paul Zahra                                Jim Bruner
Brookhaven National Lab                   GJO
Bldg. 129                                 2597 B 3/4 Rd.
Upton, NY 11973                           Grand Junction, CO 81503
wk: 516-344-7727                          wk: 970-248-6686
fax: 516-344-7497                         fax: 970-248-6040

Kenny Fleming                             James R. Hallgren
Oak Ridge National Lab/Bechtel            Radiological Field Operations Manager
P.O. Box 350                              Battelle Memorial Institute
151 LaFayette Drive                       505 King Avenue
Oak Ridge, TN 37830-0350                  Columbus, OH 43235
wk: 423-241-5666                          wk: 614-424-7961
fax: 423-241-6030                         fax: 614-424-3538

Dave Elick                                Jeff Lively
LMAES/Pit-9                               MACTEC/ERS
151 North 3rd Ave., Suite 500             2597 B 3/4 Rd.
Pocatello, ID 83201                       Grand Junction, CO 81503
wk: 208-526-5953                          wk: 970-248-7780
fax: 208-526-8751                         fax: 970-248-6040

William Martinez                          Tom Voss
Los Alamos National Lab                   Los Alamos National Lab
P.O. Box 1663, MS -D444                   P.O. Box 1663, MS-D444
Los Alamos, NM 87545                      Los Alamos, NM 87545
wk: 505-667-7248                          wk: 505-667-8930
fax: 505-665-7686                         fax: 505-665-6678

Chaun Wu
P.O. Box 2078
Carlsbad, NM 88221
wk: 505-234-8384
fax: 505-885-4562


Shared By: