DOE CONTRACTORS

HEALTH PHYSICS INSTRUMENTATION COMMITTEE

# HPIC

November 6, 7, 8, 2000 Meeting Minutes

**ATTENDEES FROM:**

ORNL RFETS TJNL

INEEL LLNL LANL

SRS ORNL WIPP

Y-12 LRRI Pantex

West Valley BNL PNNL

Fernald Mound

Thomas Jefferson National Lab. Battelle-Columbus

**11/06/00**

## Welcome and Introductions by Jim Hallgren, Joel Hoyt, Gary La Bruyere, and Fred Ogden

> The Steering Committee members welcomed meeting attendees and
> presented an overview of the meeting facilities, the following days
> formats, and general meeting decorum. All meeting attendees introduced
> themselves and represented facilities to the group.

## HPIC Charter Revision: Fred Ogden

> Review of proposed changes and Draft was presented to members.
> Comments were opened to the floor for discussions of proposed
> revisions and deletions. Mr. Ogden will make revisions, deletions and
> incorporate comments and recommendations from the floor. The document
> was submitted in final "DRAFT" Charter for review to the Steering
> Committee and the members at large. This "FINAL DRAFT" was approved
> and will be issued on the HPIC Homepage.

**Travel Cost Study: Joel Hoyt**

> The HPIC Committee has typically held meetings at major transportation
> hub sites in an effort to keep costs as low as possible in trying to
> meet the needs of the committee diverse geographic and program
> representation. For several years suggestions for possible alternate
> meeting sites and the use of DOE or other government sites have
> resulted in questions as to what is the lowest cost options for
> meeting locations. Mr. Hoyt championed the cause and conducted a
> Travel Cost Study using accounting data provided by PNL Travel Office.
>
> Cost and parameters included in the study were airfare, per-diem, and
> typical transportation costs. The population of the study included
> typical attendee cross-section and various host locations including
> possible DOE/Government host locations. The resulting overall lowest
> cost meeting sites were Orlando Florida, Las Vegas, Nevada, and
> Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Hoyt accepted requests of members to
> provide this information via e-mail as requested. Contact Mr. Hoyt at
> <joel.hoyt@pnl.gov> or (509) 376-2525.

**ANSI N323A, B, C, & D. ANSI N42.17 A, B,& C, Status and Reports:
Morgan Cox and Pete Chiaro**

> Mr. Cox provided status of approved standards and their revision
> cycles. Mr. Cox and Mr. Chiaro provided status reports for the writing
> committees for standards under development/revision. Update of status
> of Working Group Chairs was provided. Mr. Chiaro informed the HPIC
> that ANSI N323D is undergoing final comment resolution is expected to
> be balloted on at the 2001 Annual Health Physics Society Meeting.
>
> Requests for participation on standards bodies and overall support of
> standards development was preferred. Contact Mr. Cox at
> <morgancx@swcp.com> or phone (505) 473-1468. Or Mr. Chiaro at

<Chiaropjjr@ornl.gov> or phone (865) 476-4598.

**HPIC HOME PAGE: Gary La Bruyere**

> The HPIC Home Page needs a new host site. LLNL and Defense Programs
> have hosted the HPIC site for several years and due to workload and
> funding can no longer provide this service. Several volunteers from
> May 2000 meeting looked at the possibility of hosting the site and the
> INEEL has accepted this responsibility and service to the committee.
>
> Mr. La Bruyere reported that the INEEL had obtained DOE Idaho and
> Contractor support to host the HPIC Home Page at the INEEL. He also
> thanked LLNL (Dave Hickman and Radoslav Radev) for their support,
> service, and efforts over the years to the HPIC in this effort.
>
> Possible changes of content and format were suggested to the members,
> and feedback was provided. The members rejected the proposal to
> provide HPIC meeting minutes summary placed on the page. The working
> goal is to have the Home-page location changed and revisions made in
> January 2001. If you have additional suggestions contact Mr. La
> Bruyere at <xag@inel.gov> or phone (208) 526-5081.

**Report on Air Monitoring Users Group (AMUG) specifications status:
Morgan Cox**

> Report of last AMUG meeting progress and ANSI N323C development was
> provided by Mr. Cox. Request for support of the AMUG and meeting
> attendance was given. If you have questions about the next meeting or
> regarding ANSI N323C development contact Mr. Cox at
> <morgancx@swcp.com>

or phone (505) 473-1468.

**Working Group Presentation: Steering Committee**

> Over the last six months the Steering Committee looked at possible
> ways to ensure that action items, needs, tracking, and re assignment
> of resources for the HPIC Committee provided a report as to the
> suggested following working groups 1) Test & Evaluation, 2) Events and
> 3) Finance.
>
> Presentation of the recommended activities of each Working Group was
> made. Working Group development was then placed before the committee
> for discussion. It was determined that the committee would not pursue
> development of Working Groups at this time.

**Ergonomic Study of RADCON Instruments for PNL: Joel Hoyt**

> Mr. Hoyt provided a summary of a study performed at PNL as a result of
> Cumulative Trauma Disorders observed in RADCON Technicians performing
> repetitive tasks. The preliminary study suggests that CTD's
> experienced by the studies population is a result of poor ergonomic
> design of instruments used to conduct certain long duration repetitive
> tasks.
>
> This information provided by Mr. Hoyt is now even more important to
> instrument users since President Clinton has signed into effect the
> Ergonomic Standard. The meeting attendees expressed interest in having
> a representative of the study group present additional information at
> the next HPIC meeting. Contact Mr. Hoyt for additional information at
> [joel.hoyt@pnl.gov](mailto:jole.hoyt@pnl.gov) or (509) 376-2525.

# Calibration Frequency Study/Report: Elliot Lesses

> Rocky Flats Environmental Test Site conducted a calibration interval
> analysis to justify current intervals or revision if needed. Elements
> to be included in this study were cost effectiveness, data
> requirements, methodology, criteria, and analysis.
>
> Mr. Lesses reported that Dr. Howard Castrup of the National Conference
> of Standards Laboratories (NCSL) International who serves on NCSL's
> Committee for Calibration Intervals was consulted as to proper methods
> and approaches. Based upon these recommendations and review of
> material the use of NCSL' RP-1 "Establishment and Adjustment of
> Calibration Intervals (1996)" Method A3 was utilized.
>
> Assumptions/Facts used in the analysis included 1) increasing the
> calibration interval on an instrument type would not increase
> maintenance, 2) information was based on As-Founds not repairs, 3)
> Confidence Level 95% or k=2 with an 85% reliability target, and 4)
> repair records were not used if the instrument required a
> recalibration within 30 days.
>
> RFETS evaluated 22 models of instruments. Examples of potential cost
> saving were presented. Depending upon the outcome of specific analysis
> significant cost saving could be achieved. Contact Mr. Lesses at
> <elliott.lesses@rfets.gov> or (303) 966-5726 for additional
> information or a copy of his presentation.

Test and Field Evaluations of Alpha/Beta Instruments: Chris Bjork, Paul
Zahra, Pete Chiaro, and Gary La Bruyere

> As a result of not having all evaluations completed for the May 2000
> HPIC meeting additional evaluations and summaries were presented for
> the consideration of the committee. Mr. Bjork reported that Los Alamos
> had no observations to report. Mr. Chiaro reported that testing
> conducted by him at ORNL was already reported and available at his web
> site or by contacting him. Mr. Zahra reported that field evaluations
> conducted by BNL were overall positive. Mr. La Bruyere provided a
> presentation on the Field RADCON Technicians evaluation of E-600 with
> the SHP-380AB at the INEEL.
>
> For additional information contact Pete Chiaro at
> <chiaropjjr@ornl.gov> or (865-576-4598, Chris Bjork at
> <cbjork@lanl.gov> or (505) 667-8001, Mr. Zahra at <zahra@bnl.gov>
> (516) 344-7727, or Mr. La Bruyere at <xag@inel.gov> or (208) 526-5081.

**11/07/00**

## Overview of Bicron's Electra Plus and the Endura Detector -- Fred Ogden

> SRS has finally deployed a 100 cm2 alpha/beta contamination
> instruments. Mr. Ogden waited for the Electra Plus because of the
> computer calibration capability. A survey was sent out for the users,
> with feedback from 36 RCT's with significant time savings from daily
> source checks. A relatively high-active alpha source to check both the
> alpha and beta mode for cross talk. Features like dual alpha/beta,
> data logging, sample pause indicator, and background subtract.
> Drawbacks include a slight reduction in beta efficiency, a perceived
> increase in the beta background, and 25% cross talk from alpha to
> beta. Implementation challenges: Steep RCT learning curve, and changes
> to procedures and training.
>
> A question arose as to the cost effective Endura probe replacement was
> justified by a sufficient reduction in instrument failures, and if
> this was being tracked. Mr. Ogden stated that all SRS failures were
> due to mylar failures. Mr. Pete Chiaro and Mr. Joel Hoyt mentioned
> that ORNL and Fluor Hanford have redesigned covers for the DP6 and
> SHP-380 probes, respectively. Contact Fred Ogden at
> <fred.ogden@srs.gov> or (803) 952-8440.

## Laboratory Intercomparison/MQA Program for Plated Sources -- Gary La Bruyere and Fred Ogden

It was suggested and discussed to set up a laboratory comparison for
sharing the high costs of NIST certified standards between participating
programs. Certified sources would be sent around to reduce the number of
sources that any one site would have to own. It was suggested that each
site would have their own MQA program to reduce the overall formality of
this process. Mr. Ogden advised that if this becomes too formal, it
would lose its cost savings. Mr. Ogden mentioned that costs are not so
great that they are insurmountable, but the costs would be reduced and
you would gain participation in an intercomparison program. The question
was posed as to whether other HPIC sites want to participate at some
level. A program will be developed and trial round robins will be
established during 2001. Contact Gary La Bruyere at <xag@inel.gov> or
(208) 526-5081.

## 

## Discrepancies in the use of Snoopy at PNNL -- Joel Hoyt

> Mr. Joel Hoyt advised of a recent problem identified at PNNL. It
> appears the training of RCTs on the use of Snoopys was discrepant from
> the way they were calibrated. Calibrations were to the center line of
> the detector, while training and use of Snoopys suggested readings
> were taken with distance measured from the outer surface of the
> detector. This will likely be documented in a formal Lessons Learned
> for distribution throughout the DOE Complex Hanford staff may be
> calling for information about calibration and use techniques for these
> instruments. All HPIC attendees indicated that they calibrate to the
> center-line of the detector. Mr. Hoyt mentioned that there was a
> potential to see light discrepancies for shipment neutron readings
> from PNNL and possibly other Hanford contractors. Contact Joel Hoyt at
> <joel.hoyt@pnl.gov> or (509) 376-2525.

## INEEL Calibration Questionnaire -- Gary La Bruyere

> "Does your calibration laboratory 'as found' test every instrument?"
> was an example of why this questionnaire is needed as part of a
> continuous process improvement. INEEL is requesting input from HPIC
> members through the use of a questionnaire. The discussion surrounding
> this question was associated with whether an "as found" check could be
> done on a PIC, if there is effectively no adjustment that could be
> made to bring into the calibration tolerance. Mr. Paul Zahra suggested
> that this would not be termed as an "as found". The question is: After
> finding a returned instrument out of a stated tolerance was the
> information recorded and reported to the user? For copies of the
> questionnaire or summary results contact Gary La Bruyere at
> <xag@inel.gov> or (208) 526-5081.

Technical Basis for use of the Eberline PM-7 for Contamination Control
Program Monitoring and Surveillance at BNL -- Paul Zahra

> BNL was catching contamination events at the PM-7 that was not being
> caught by the PCM-1B. DOE began to ask why the PM-7 was not set to
> monitor at 5000 dpm. Finally, BNL decided to justify its use in the
> technical basis for monitoring the effectiveness of the contamination
> control program. BNL studied their system to determine the MDAs, and
> the optimal statistical settings for the equipment. This investigation
> resulted in an increase in count time from 5s to 15s. Contact Paul
> Zahra at zahra@bnl.gov.

## Canberra Alpha Spectroscopy System for Air Sample/Monitor Filters -- Joel Hoyt

> Mr. Jerry Hensley (PNNL) conducted testing of a method to count air
> filter/monitor samples, without chemistry, and under vacuum. The
> purpose was to identify feasibility for a simple method to evaluate
> the presence of transuranics on filters in the presence of radon and
> thoron, using the advanced analysis capabilities built into the "next
> generation" CAMs now being offered. The software accompanying these
> CAMs use peak search/identification routines rather than the old ROI
> based identification. The software accompanying the Canberra Alpha
> Sentry CAM was used to evaluate spectra from air filters, collected
> using PIPS detectors under vacuum. The filters were used on a pump
> from a non-radiological area, so it contained only radon and dust
> loading. Pu-239 counts (some of degraded energy spectrum -- using a
> sheet of Mylar to alter the energy distribution) were superimposed on
> the background spectra. It was found that the system was able to
> reliably identify Pu-239, in the presence of radon and thoron progeny,
> with approximately 100 counts collected. It was further identified
> that the vacuum-based detection system was not compatible with the
> software used for analysis. Because vacuum affects the shape of energy
> distribution curves, it is likely that the activity from certain
> isotopes will be underestimated. HPIC attendees had many suggestions.
> Mr. Fred Ogden mentioned an instrument from Harwell that performed an
> automated routine to determine non-radon concentrations on filters.
> Contact Joel Hoyt at <joel.hoyt@pnl.gov> or (509) 376-2525.

Establishment of a MQA Program at the INEEL for Plated Radioactive
Sources for Field Calibration of Fixed Health Physics Instruments --
Gary La Bruyere

> INEEL RadCon requested a NIST-traceable, plated-source calibration
> program for their fixed instruments (counting rooms and PCMs). They
> were required to meet a restrictive corrective action date, and in
> doing so, discovered that when entering raw data for historical
> baseline control charts the data was not normalized for radioactive
> decay. Control chars provided the data to identify and correct this
> problem. They have also identified problems with the quality of
> counting gas. INEEL has since gone to High Purity P-10 counting gas to
> fully correct identified problems. For copy of technical paper contact
> Gary La Bruyere at <xag@inel.gov> or (208) 526-5081.

Free release of soil at Battelle-Columbus -- Jim Halgren

> Core samples are being taken to show activity down as deep as 15 feet.
> The core samples are homogenized and counted on an ESP w/44-10 (2"x2")
> NaI probe in Maranelli geometry. Battelle collects pristine background
> samples to characterize their MDAs for release. The counting geometry
> can see down to 5 pCi/g of Cs-137. They are relying heavily on
> releasing based upon the activity of an indicator nuclide (in this
> case Cs-137). This option is much cheaper than sending the samples off
> for gamma spectroscopy. Contact Jim Hallgren at
> <hallgren@battelle.org> or (614) 424-7961.

Trouble with Bicron/NE HFM-7 power supplies/Misconception about RF
Interference/Pancake Probes/Yellow alert on Stemco-Angler timer for
shocks -- Pete Chiaro

> The first detector after the power supply gets noisy as the power
> supply goes. The other detectors do not display this problem. The
> replacement power supplies are \~\$145.00.
>
> There is a substantial difference between near and far field response
> of EPDs for example. It may be worth standardizing the testing RF
> intensity.
>
> ORNL has rejected pancake probes purchased from Bicron/NE. Reasons
> included poorly formed epoxy seals, humidity failures, etc.
>
> ORNL had a shock event when a technician contacted the Stemco-Angler
> timer on an air sampler pump.

SAIC CAMs/Surface Contaminated Objects -- Elliot Lesses

> SAIC has now stated that they are not getting out of the CAM business.
> RFETS has looked into replacement parts for these CAMs since they are
> no longer available from SAIC. RFETS has ordered 9 more CAMs from SAIC
> and had found that the delivered CAMs are not meeting contract
> specifications.
>
> RFETS is looking at ways to measure the contamination at the 400 Mdpm.
> They have been looking into using screens of filters to cut down on
> the count rates. Thoughts include using a NaI or ion chamber.

DOE Order 5400.5 revision discussed

> University of California and SRS are going to provide formal comment.
> SRS says they cannot meet the 100 dpm alpha requirement. They are also
> going to remind DOE that, by law, they must consider all current (or
> most recent) standards applying to them are addressed. In this case,
> it appears that they have not considered ANSI N13.12 (1999).

11/0800

Welcome, opening remarks and review by the Steering Committee

Re-Engineering of BNL Radiation Protection Instrument Calibration QA
Program (Part Deux) Paul

Zahra

> The effort is to organize and standardize program procedures and QA
> policies. In addition, BNL is reducing the total number of
> instrument-specific procedures to nearly zero. There are higher level
> procedures describing, in general, how certain process are completed
> (e.g. calibration of dose rate instruments). OJT training and
> instrument manuals are used to fill in the details not in the
> higher-level procedures. An additional objective is to develop an
> electronic data validation system for most calibration data. For
> procedure changes, they are now able to take advantage of a growing
> number of BNL-wide procedures, including references to standards. For
> electronic calibration data, they are using the Fluke METCAL/METRACK
> Metrology software. Contact Paul Zahra at zahra@bnl.gov.

Comparison of Detection Efficiencies using Filter Deposited vs. Anodized
Beta Sources for Eberline AMS-4 -- Paul Zahra

> It was identified that filter-deposited sources were not rugged, and
> that use of Sr-90 for calibration created operational difficulties
> with the instrument. Common source terms include Tc-99 and C-14, with
> only a few activities that have Sr-90 as a source term. It was found
> that the filter-deposited and anodized sources compared very well. It
> was also found that by setting AMS-4s using Sr-90, there was a \>50%
> over-response in areas where Tc-99 or C-14 where the source term. This
> over-response was actually causing the instrument to fail. Mr. Pete
> Chiaro reminded the group of the noise problems with the AMS-4
> detectors. He stated that while Eberline addressed the problem by
> changing the discriminator setting, the actual problem was based upon
> the wires supplying HV to the Detectors (i.e. the wires are not
> soldered, or of sufficient capacity to carry the 1200 V required).
> Contact Paul Zahra at zahra@bnl.gov.

New Construction at LANL -- Shawna Eisele

> LANL is planning construction of a new instrument calibration
> facility. They initially looked into modifying their existing
> structure, but found that cost was too prohibitive. The building is
> relatively "bare bones", but will serve all of their needs. They will
> have "free in air" neutron and gamma configurations, as well as gamma
> and neutron wells. The facility will have an X-ray lab and a gamma -
> beam irradiator. Contact Shawna Eisele at <seisele@lanl.gov> or (505)
> 665-4010.

New Construction at INEEL

> INEEL is planning construction of a new instrument and dosimetry
> calibration facility. The facility includes a Low Scatter Lab,
> multiple gamma wells, a gamma beam lab, a count rate lab, and an X-ray
> lab. There are also some other rooms, both shielded and unshielded, to
> be used for various purposes. The DOELAP Program is considering the
> transfer of certain irrdations to this new facility. Contact Gary La
> Bruyere at <xag@inel.gov> or (208) 526-5081.

Open Discussion

> Charter: The draft revision to the charter was approved with one
> outstanding clerical comment.
>
> BOAs: The Committee agreed (by consensus) to extend the BOA for an
> additional 5 years, in hopes that the potential for higher visibility
> (with the new INEEL web page), will lead to greater realization of
> benefits (e.g., configuration control enforcement, cost savings,
> etc.).
>
> Eberline SHP-400: Shawna Eisle: Shawna mentioned that they are
> continuing to have problems with the SHP-400 probe. Eberline believes
> that the problem is with the Op Amp, so they hand selected their best
> Op Amps from inventory. This did not correct the temperature shock
> problem. LANL now wants to have Eberline replace these units with
> RO-20s.
>
> BCS-4 Dial-a-Source jigs from The Source: Paul Zahra: BNL has not been
> able to locate any jigs due to the assimilation of The Source into
> IPA. The suggestion was to have the BNL design/fabrication shop make a
> model.
>
> Approval of Alpha/Beta Contamination Instruments: The Committee agreed
> (by consensus) to recommend the Eberline E-600/SHP-380AB (also the
> non-smart configuration); and the Ludlum 2360/4393 (probe) as dual
> alpha/beta contamination survey instruments.
>
> Getting back on track with instrument testing: The Committee agreed
> that it would be best to continue semi-annual meetings, with the
> objective of getting back to placing more emphasis on the testing of
> instruments.
>
> Next Meeting Site: The next meeting will be held at Las Vegas in the
> first full week of May. Mr. Pete Chiaro is willing to develop a
> proposal package to bring a future meeting to ORNL. During the voting
> on the next meeting site, a few members felt all meetings should be
> held at DOE sites.