**Minutes of the DOE Contractor**

**Health Physics Instrumentation Committee Meeting**

**Held on May 20--22, 1997**

**HDS-07-97**

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

HPIC

• 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

programs

• 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 Snowder/LMITCO/INEEL**

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 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.

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
testing.

**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]{.underline}:

• Did not meet the 8 DAC-Hour

• The Manufacturer could no longer support repairing these models and
spare parts were no longer available

• 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]{.underline}:

• 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**

<table>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>ITEM</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>MODEL 441/442 SAAM</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>MODEL 452 CAM</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Electronics</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Analog (1970’s vintage)</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Digital (1990’s vintage)</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Detector</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>1” Surface Barrier</strong></p>
<p><strong>Sensitive to light</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>2” Ion Implanted</strong></p>
<p><strong>Not light sensitive</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Sample Collection</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Directional</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Radial</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Flow Rate Measurement</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Ratemeter</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Mass flow meter</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Alarms</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Based upon ratemeter value</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Based on DAC-hour</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Alpha Measurement</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>2 Single Channel Analyzers</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>512 Channel MCA</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Output</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Analog</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Digital (via serial port)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Sensitivity (Pu-239)</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>&gt; 15 DAC-hours</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>8 DAC-hours (minimum)</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**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 menu.)

• 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, 1997.

**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 question:

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 committee)

• 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 discreetly.

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]{.underline} - 6 months & 1 year

• [TJNAF]{.underline} - 1 year

• [Rocky Flats]{.underline} - 6 months, and some 1 year

• [LBNL]{.underline} - WFO/3 months & all DOE instruments 1 year

• [LMAES]{.underline} - 6 months

• [West Valley]{.underline} - 6 months

• [Mound]{.underline} - 6 months

• [Nevada Test Site]{.underline} - 6 months

• [WIPP]{.underline} - 6 months

• [INEEL]{.underline} - 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]{.underline} - Yes, Annually

• [TJNAF]{.underline} - Yes, Annually

• [Rocky Flats]{.underline} - Yes, No Schedule

• [LBNL]{.underline} - No, N/A

• [West Valley]{.underline} - No, N/A

• [Mound]{.underline} - Yes

• [Nevada Test Site]{.underline} - No, N/A

• [WIPP]{.underline} - No, N/A

• [INEEL]{.underline} - 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]{.underline} and not specifically on
cost alone; thus BOA instrument purchases do not require sole source or
other normal procurement guidelines.

Additionally, the BOAs provide a large cost savings by combining all
[participating]{.underline} 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:]{.underline}

• 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]{.underline}:

• 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]{.underline}**. 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 up-to-date:

  ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
  **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 Results**

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 temperatures from -10 to 50 ^0^C (+14 to 122
^0^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 (^0^C). Results obtained during exposure to the 22 to
50 to 22 (^0^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 ^0^C.

• 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.

• Efficiency tests were performed with four different activity Tc^99^,
two U^238^, and a Sry^90^ 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
Results**

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

• 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 Results**

• 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]{.underline}: 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 22C)

• 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]{.underline}** on the following Count-rate Meters;
**[Ludlum 2241-2 w/44-107]{.underline} [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.]{.underline}**

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

It was unanimously voted by the HPIC members to
**[standardize]{.underline}** 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.
]{.underline}**

**ACTION ITEMS: **

** 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]{.underline} - 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 DOE-HQ.

**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^3^. 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^0^ 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 PCM-1)**

**•** 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.

Sincerely,

H. Dale Snowder

HPIC Chairman

**Distribution**

[The Alpha Group]{.underline}

Billy Smith

Bob Kennard

[Argonne National Lab - West]{.underline}

Vern Peterson

[Argonne National Lab - East]{.underline}

Alan Justus

[Battelle/OH]{.underline}

Jim Hallgren

[Bechtel Hanford]{.underline}

Conan Wade

[Battelle Pantex]{.underline}

Penny Shamblin

[Battelle Northwest]{.underline}

Michelle Johnson

David Brehm

[Bechtel/Nevada]{.underline}

Ed Cox

Carson Riland

[Brookhaven National Lab]{.underline}

Paul Zahra

[DOE Headquarters EH-52]{.underline}

Murari Sharma

Maria Gavrilas-Guinn

[DOE Idaho]{.underline}

Ken Whitham, MS 4160

[DOE-DP-45]{.underline}

Paul Krumpe

[EG&G Kennedy Space Center - FL]{.underline}

Rod Nickell

[EG&G Mound]{.underline}

Ron Daily

[Fluor Daniel Fernald]{.underline}

Riasp Medora

[GJO]{.underline}

Jim Bruner

[LRRI]{.underline}

Mark Hoover

[Lawrence Berkeley National Lab]{.underline}

Michael Sawada

Ted de Castro

[Lawrence Livermore National Lab]{.underline}

Dave Hickman

[LMAES/Pit-9]{.underline}

Dave Elick

Ed Gulbransen

[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]{.underline}

Peter Chiaro

[Oak Ridge National Laboratory/Bechtel]{.underline}

Kenny Fleming

[Lockheed Martin Energy Systems/Y-12]{.underline}

Perry Pruitt

[Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies]{.underline}

Bill Crownover, MS 3521

Gary LaBruyere, MS 4123

Greg Courtney, MS 4138

[Los Alamos National Lab]{.underline}

Dick Olsher

Shawna Eisele

William Martinez

Tom Voss

Chris Bjork

[MACTEC/ERS]{.underline}

Jeffrey Lively

[NISE-East]{.underline}

Lee Hinson

[SafeSites of Colorado, L.L.C]{.underline}.

Elliott Lesses

J. Bruce Powell

[Sandia National Lab]{.underline}

David Sinton

[THI]{.underline}

Jerry Hensley

[TJNAF]{.underline}

Dan Dotson

[West Valley Nuclear]{.underline}

William Schaper

[Westinghouse/Savannah River]{.underline}

Ed Polz

[WIPP]{.underline}

Morgan Cox

Chuan Wu

Marsha Beekman

**GOCO HEALTH PHYSICS (HP) INSTRUMENT COMMITTEE (HPIC) CONTACT LIST**

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

**GOCO HEALTH PHYSICS (HP) INSTRUMENT COMMITTEE (HPIC) CONTACT LIST
(cont.)**

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

**GOCO HEALTH PHYSICS (HP) INSTRUMENT COMMITTEE (HPIC) CONTACT LIST
(cont.)**

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

WIPP/Westinghouse

P.O. Box 2078

Carlsbad, NM 88221

wk: 505-234-8384

fax: 505-885-4562