NUCLEAR STANDARDS

for Chemistry and Technology

United States Department of Commerce

C. R. Smith, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards • A. V. Astin, Director

NUCLEAR STANDARDS for

CHEMISTRY and TECHNOLOGY

NUCLEAR STANDARDS FOR

INDUSTRY, SCIENCE,

GOVERNMENT and CONSUMER

H. F. Beeghly, J. P. Cali and W. W. Meinke, Editors

Proceedings of a Symposium on Standards

in Nuclear Chemistry and Technology

held at the 156th National Meeting of the American Chemical

Society, Atlantic City, New Jersey

September 8-9, 1968

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 310

Issued December 1968

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 .25
ABSTRACT

Many diverse organizations are engaged in

developing the nuclear standards needed by science,

industry, and government for the rapidly growing

field of nuclear technology. Often there has been

inadequate communication between these groups and

insufficient opportunity to get an overall picture

of the needs of the country for the many different

kinds of standards necessary for this new industry.

The Symposium sponsored by the American Chemical

Society Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology in cooperation with the Committee on Standardization Relations brought together most of the

groups with interests in standards for nuclear

chemistry and technology to identify the problems,

to discuss present programs, and to outline future

needs for standards in this broad field. Standards for purposes of the symposium were defined

very broadly to include standard materials, standard procedures, standard specifications, standard

data, and engineering standards. The mechanisms

available for standardization, the "state of the

art" in standardization in many areas of the nuclear field, some indications of unmet needs, and

estimates of future needs were discussed in a series of papers and panel discussions which are presented here in either complete or summary form.

KEY WORDS: activation analysis standards, isotope

reference standards, nuclear fuel burn-up standards, radiation effect standards, radioactivity

standards, standards for nuclear chemistry,

standards for nuclear technology,

ii
Contents

PAGE

Introduction

W. W. Meinke and H. F. Beeghly 1 The Nuclear Standards Board of the U. S. A. Standards Institute (USASI) — An Overview

J. W. Landis 5 The International Standards Organization (ISO)

Activities of TC85 Committees

D. C. Pleckenstein . 19

The International Commission on Radiological

Units and Measurements (ICRU): An Overview with

Special Emphasis on Radioactivity Measurements

W. B. Mann 29

Activities of the Subcommittee on Use of

Radioactivity Standards, NAS-NRC

B. Kahn . • 49

Standards Program of the American Nuclear

Society

R. G. Chalker 57

The Position of ASTM in Nuclear Technology

J. W. Caum 71

ASTM C-21, Subcommittee V, Nuclear Applications

H. J. Anderson 77

A Review of the Work of ASTM Subcommittee II,

D9/D20, Effects of High Energy Radiation on Plastics and Electrical Insulation

0. Sisman 87

ASTM, Committee D19 3 Methods for Radiochemical

Analysis of Water

D. L . Reid .* 93

ASTM Committee E-10 on Radioisotopes and

Radiation Effects

D. N. Sunderman 101

Activities of ASTM: E-10; Subcommittee I on Nuclear Fuel Burnup

R. C. Shank 10 5 iii
iv CONTENTS

Government Assistance in Developing

Voluntary Standards

D. R. Mackay 109

The Standard Reference Material Program of

the National Bureau of Standards

J. P. Call 115

Programs and Services of the Radioactivity

Standards Group at the National Bureau of

Standards

S. B. Garfinkel 123

Present and Future Needs of the AEC for

Standards for Reactor Development and

Technology

J. W. Crawford 127

Standards for Nuclear Safeguards National

and International

S. C. T. McDowell, R. J. Jones and

L. R. Norderhaug 133

Standards in Radioisotope Development

W. E. Mott, W. K. Eister 139

Standards Needs for the Division of Biology

and Medicine Programs

W. F. Marlow 1^9

Radioactivity Source Standards for Public

Health Service Needs

H. E. Kolde, P. A. Cliggett 157

Standards for Nuclear Instruments

L. E. Packard 167

Standards Needs for Activation Analysis

V. P. Guinn 175

Standards Needs of the Nuclear Power Industry

J. C. R. Kelly 185

Nuclear Industry Responsibility in the

Standards Area

E. A. Wiggin 191

The National Standard Reference Data System

E. L. Brady, M. B. Wallenstein 199

Standards Needs of a Major National AEC

Laboratory

A. F . Rupp 223
CONTENTS v Nuclear Standards and the AEC New Brunswick

Laboratory

C. J. Rodden 227

The Need for Standards in Environmental

Analysis

J. H. Harley . . 237

Panel Discussions

J. P. Cali, H. F. Beeghly 239

Appendix, Author Affiliations and Addresses . . 251

Introduction

W. Wayne Meinke and Hugh F. Beeghly

The continuing rapid development of uses for nuclear

energy in research, in medicine, in science and for generating

power is making the development of standards imperative in the

diverse areas of safety, health, quality assurance, and specific engineering standards. This is a significant sign of the

growing maturity of the applications of nuclear energy in

chemistry and industrial technology.

There are many diverse organizations and groups involved

in developing nuclear standards in response to the recognized

needs of science, industry and government. Often, however,

there has been little communication between these groups and

very little opportunity to get an overall picture of the needs

of the nation for standards, or to obtain authoritative knowledge of the mechanisms available for standardization.

The very rapid development and expansion of the nuclear

power industry has highlighted especially the need for specific engineering and materials standards, and for reliable methods for making meaningful measurements of burn-up, fall out,

atmospheric contamination, and radiation effects on materials,

in order to maintain the outstanding safety record which has

been established. Equally important are standards for monitoring and for accurately measuring radiation in chemical processing, medicine, and research.

The Symposium on Standards for Nuclear Chemistry and

Technology, sponsored by the American Chemical Society Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology in cooperation with

the ACS Committee on Standardization Relations was planned to bring together the many groups having interests in standards

for nuclear chemistry and technology, and to discuss present

programs and future needs for such standards. Standards, for

purposes of the Symposium, were defined very broadly to include standard procedures, standard specifications, standard

materials, standard data, and engineering standards.

1
2 Introduction

The ACS, unlike a number of societies, does not have a formal program for considering and approving standards. Recognizing this, the Council Policy Committee voted in 1955 to establish a Committee on Standardization Relations, reporting

to the Council, "which will consider and make recommendations

on all proposals that the Society engage in standardization

activities or cooperate in such projects and which also will

attempt to obtain comments on chemical standards submitted to the ACS for review." Furthermore, this Committee was to be,

and is, separate from ACS activities on atomic weights, nomenclature, analytical reagents and air pollution.

The Committee has served the two-fold purpose of keeping the ACS, as an organization, out of direct involvement in

standardization, and of assuring that needs of ACS members for

standards are adequately cared for through appropriatelyestablished standardization bodies. It serves as a clearinghouse and information center for standards problems of the

Society's members and has referred to it standards matters

that are submitted to the Society.

The ACS has official representation on many standardizing organizations. For example, the ACS is represented on USASI Standards Boards and also has official representatives

on a number of the individual committees within these Boards

These representatives, who report to the Council, function to keep the Society informed on standards efforts in these areas

and to alert the ACS membership to potential standards problems and needs as they arise. They report, at least annually,

to the ACS Council and their reports are published periodically in Chemical and Engineering News

The ACS representation, as a Society, on ASTM Committees, is less formal, but the Society is well represented

through individual membership of ACS members on Committees,

Task Forces, District Councils and Advisory Committees. Exchange of information with ASTM groups is on a less formal

basis, than is the case with USASI, and awareness of programs

of the many ASTM standards groups depends more upon individual

contacts
Meinke, Beeghly 3 Perhaps no other area of science and technology covers

such a wide scope as the relatively new and rapidly growing

field of Nuclear Technology.

This Symposium provided a forum for learning of the many

organizations, both national and international, which meet and

interact, and whose standardization activities are within the area of nuclear chemistry and technology. This is an area which has been the scene of major scientific and technical

research and engineering accomplishment, and one which promises to provide a major source of our energy requirements.

In planning the Symposium and reproducing, on an informal basis, many of the talks which were given, it is our sincere hope that participants and audience alike will view

the meeting and this report as an opportunity to tell others

about their own involvement in nuclear standards problems,

also, to learn of the many avenues for standardization being

explored in the field of nuclear chemistry and technology, and

finally, to learn of the unfulfilled needs and future demands

for standards in this area. The Symposium made it clear that many important activities are in progress in this field and that additional and

continuing communication and effort is needed.

THE NUCLEAR STANDARDS BOARD OF THE

USA STANDARDS INSTITUTE (USASI) — AN OVERVIEW

J. W. Landis

The generosity of your chairman, Dr. Wayne Meinke, in

granting me 20 minutes of prime time at this symposium to talk about my favorite subject — the USASI Nuclear Standards

Board — is very much appreciated. I shall endeavor to give

you the comprehensive overview that he requested without

exceeding my time allotment.

First, a few words about USASI — the United States of

America Standards Institute. USASI is a private non-profit

federation composed of more than 100 technical, professional

and trade organizations and approximately 1,000 companies. An outgrowth of the old American Standards Association, it was established in 1965 to act as the national coordinating institution through which Interested organizations, including

Government agencies, may cooperate in establishing, recognizing and improving voluntary technical standards in the United

States . Before launching Into the organization and operation of

Nuclear Standards Board, a brief summary of the organization

and operation of standards boards in general might be helpful.

USASI sets up standards boards in all areas where specialization or the number of existing or scheduled standards

on one subject or a group of related subjects justifies such

action. Boards can be created only by a two-thirds vote of

the Member Body Council.

The Executive Standards Board recommends the initial

membership (both organizations and individuals) of each board

for approval by the Member Body Council. Individual board

members must either represent Member Bodies or other organizations having a substantial interest in the scope of the

board or possess special competence in the area of the

board's activities. c
6 USASI - Overview

According to the r USASI Operating Procedures," a standards board shall:

(1) Foster, maintain and coordinate standardization

projects within its scope; assure that adequate

progress is maintained at all times and act to harmonize any conflicts in the standards-making

activities under its jurisdiction.

(2) Review the standards needs of society and initiate new USA standards activity as required to round

out the USA standards coverage in the operational

field encompassed by the scope assigned to the

standards board in conformance with established

procedure

(3) Make any appropriate recommendations to the Executive Standards Board for the aporoval of the latter and the Member Body Council on the scope of

the board's responsibilities and on any other subject to improve the effectiveness of the board in

its standardization work.

(4) Reorganize the program of work and disband USA

Standards Committees operating under the board's

jurisdiction and report these actions to the Executive Standards Board.

(5) Approve the scope of each project to be handled by

a USA Standards Committee or other group operating

within the jurisdiction of the board to assure clarity of purpose and to avoid duplication of effort. Each scope statement shall be reDorted to the Executive Standards Board.

(6) Act upon each standard submitted for approval as a USA Standard within its jurisdiction.

(7) Review, on behalf of the Institute, recommendations for coordinating international standardization activities on subjects falling within the

jurisdiction of the board, making appropriate re-
Landis 7 commendations for United States of America participation in the International Activities Committee . (8) Conduct conferences or symposia to discuss standardization matters within its scope as required.

(9) Review periodically all standards under its jurisdiction. Those standards which have not been re- affirmed or revised within a five (5) year period

shall be called to the attention of the sponsors

with a request that such bodies take necessary

steps for bringing these standards to a current

status

The Nuclear Standards Board consists of 65 members and

alternates, representing 33 organizations. These organizations are: American Chemical Society

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations

American Industrial Hygiene Association

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

American Insurance Association

American Mutual Insurance Alliance

American Nuclear Society

American Public Health Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society of Safety Engineers

American Society for Testing and Materials

Atomic Industrial Forum

Bureau of Explosives

Electric Light & Power Group

Electronic Industries Association

Health Physics Society

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

International Association of Governmental Labor Officials
8 USASI - Overview

Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and

Fittings Industry

Manufacturing Chemists' Association

National Bureau of Standards

National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Fire Protection Association

National Safety Council

Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

Society of Automotive Engineers

Underwriters' Laboratories

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards

U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous

Materials

The Nuclear Standards Board meets as often as required

each year — usually twice — and conducts much business by

correspondence and letter ballot. Its primary responsibilities are: (1) to insure that nuclear standards are prepared

where and when they are required, (2) to insure that nuclear

standards are written by knowledgeable people, and (3) to organize all nuclear standards work so that approved standards represent a consensus of all interested parties.

Continuity of administration and policy-making is provided by the Executive Committee of the Board, consisting of seven regula'r members and one ex officio member (chairman of

COINS — Committee on International Nuclear Standards):

J. W. Landis — Gulf General Atomic Incorporated

R. E. Kettner — Nuclear Assurance Corporation

R. G. Chalker — North American Rockwell Corporation

W. F. Witzig — Pennsylvania State University

E. C. Barnes — Westinghouse Electric Corporation

D. C. Fleckenstein — General Electric Corporation
Landis 9 G. M. Kavanagh — U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

Alternate — C. K. Beck

J. H. Bach — Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Ex

officio)

The Executive Committee meets from 10 to 12 times a year. Among many other duties each member is responsible for

maintaining liaison with one or two of the 12 standards com- mittees operating under the aegis of the Board. Normally,

contacts with the Executive Committee by the various standards committees are made through these channels.

The main work of the Board is performed by the standards committees to which I have referred. These committees

are presently developing 135 subjects, most of which should

culminate in specific standards. Each committee is sponsored

by one of the organizations active in the nuclear field,

which organization often has committees of its own actually

writing standards.

The best way to give you a clear picture of the activities of the Board is to summarize the activities of these

committees. This may prove to be a rather boring exposition

for some of you. With your indulgence, however, I shall proceed because this discussion is essential to your understanding of the current status of nuclear standards work.

Standards Committee Nil, Basic Materials and Testing

of Materials Involved in Nuclear Applications, was organized

in May 1967 under the sponsorship of the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

The scope of this Committee is as follows:

Standards for the specification of chemical composition and physical and mechanical properties of materials used in or resulting from nuclear applications

and methods of testing and analyses of these materials,

but not to include the specification and testing of

components made from materials.

The chairman is W. R. Smith, Sr., of General Electric.
10 USASI - Overview

The Committee is composed of approximately 25 members

with representation from producers, consumers , general inter

est and government agencies. In addition to the regular

membership there are approximately 20 consulting members who

maintain liaison with the various ASTM committees.

Seven standards are being developed by the Committee

specifically for the nuclear field. In addition, hundreds

of other standards are being developed and/or modified in

cooperation with ASTM which will be used by the nuclear industry .The approved scope of Standards Committee N12, Nuclear

Terminology, Units, Symbols, Identification and Signals, is:

Standards for nomenclature, definitions and units

identification means such as symbols, signs, labels or color codes; and warning means or devices for all nu- clear and radiation activities.

This Committee has completed three standards — "Glossary of Terms in Nuclear Science and Technology," "Immediate Evacuation Signal" and "American Standard Radiation Symbol" — and is developing four additional standards. One of

the latter — "Administrative Practices in Radiation Monitor

ing" — is in the final stage of preparation.

The chairman of N12 is E. C. Barnes of Westinghouse

the sponsor is the Atomic Industrial Forum.

N13, Radiation Protection, is one of the most active

committees in the nuclear field. It is working on 16 standards, six of which have been assigned an "urgent" priority

and should be completed this year:

(1) Uranium Mines and Mills — Atmospheric Sampling

(2) Uranium Mines and Mills — Sampling Patterns

(3) Uranium Mines and Mills — Record Keeping

(4) Uranium Mines and Mills — Atmosphere Control

(5) Uranium Mines and Mills — Direct Measure of Exposure

(6) Photographic Dosimeters
Landis 11 The scope- of N13 is quite broad and will keep this com- mittee in a frenzy of activity, I'm afraid, for many years:

Standards that have general applicability or are related to the protection of individuals and to environmental contamination from radiation or radioactive

material

The chairman of N13 is J. W. Healy of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the sponsor is the Atomic Industrial

Forum

Standards Committee Nl4, Transportation and Packaging

of Fissile and Radioactive Materials, comprising about 40 members, is divided into seven subcommittees dealing with the

following subjects:

(1) Small source fissile materials not calling for

special shielding.

(2) Large sources (fissile and non-fissile materials

and irradiated fuel) in Type B packages.

(3) Waste and other low specific activity materials,

including bulk materials.

(4) Small source radioactive materials, excluding fissile materials, neutron sources and radioisotope

devices

(5) Transport of radioactive materials through tunnels

and over bridges and turnpikes.

(6) Radioisotope devices.

(7) Compendium of tests.

The scope of this Committee, which I should have given

prior to the subcommittee breakdown, is:

Standards for the packaging and transportation of

fissile and radioactive materials but not including

movement or handling during processing and manufacturing operations.

The chairman is R. T. Waite of the American Insurance

Association

This Committee is developing eleven standards at present, six on an urgent, or as-soon-as-possib le , basis. It is
12 USASI - Overview

operating under the sponsorship of the American Insurance

Association

Twenty-three people, representing 15 different organizations, are serving on Standards Committee N15, Methods of

Nuclear Material Control, which is headed by R. L. Delnay of

Dow Chemical. Just recently organized, this Committee has

identified twenty areas in which standards activity should be

initiated, but has not had time to carry the work to the

point of actual writing.

Seven subcommittees have been formed to handle this

activity, chairmen have been selected and liaison has been

established with ASTM , the organization to which the Committee's scope is most closely related — except of course for

the sponsor, the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management.

The scope of the Committee is:

Standards for the accountability of fissionable

materials in all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, including analytical procedures where necessary and special to this purpose.

Standards Committee Nl6, Nuclear Criticality Safety,

is sponsored by the American Nuclear Society. There are nine

organization and two individual members; the Committee roster

and the scope are being voted on right now by the Nuclear

Standards Board.

An organization meeting was held on January 22, 1968,

at which the following scope was proposed:

Standards for determining the potential for nu- clear criticality of fissile materials outside reactors, for the prevention of accidental criticality, and

for coping with accidents should they occur. Since Subcommittee 8 of the ANS Standards Committee has

essentially the same scope, Nl6 intends to depend on the work

of this Subcommittee for its input rather than establish its own standards-writing subcommittees, at least for the immediate future. This Subcommittee has referred three proposed

standards to Nl6 for consideration:
Landis 13 "Nuclear Criticality Safety Standard for Operations

with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors,"

Revision of N6. 1-1964

"Standard for Safety in Conducting Subcritical NeutronMultiplication Measurements in Situ," ANS 8.4

"Criticality Accident Alarm System," ANS 8.3

Copies of these standards are being sent to the members of Nl6 for information and they will be voted on at the

Committee's next meeting.

The chairman of Nl6 is A. D. Callihan of Oak Ridge

National Laboratory.

The current work of Nl8, Nuclear Design Criteria, one

of the most important Standards Committees in the nuclear

area, is concentrated on five high-priority projects:

(1) Guide to Application of Single Failure Criterion

(2) Safety Criteria for the Design of Station PWR

Plants

(3) Class I Electrical Power Systems

(4) Proposed Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Protection Systems for Trial Use

(5) Testing of Containment Vessels

Seven other standards are being developed and the Committee is maintaining a close relationship with N42 and N45.

The approved scope is simply:

Nuclear aspects of design criteria for nuclear

facilities

The chairman is W. A. Chittenden of Sargent & Lundy and

the sponsor is the American Nuclear Society.

N42, Nuclear Instruments, is concerned with standards

for instrumentation in the nuclear field. This covers a broad spectrum from laboratory instrumentation for radiation

research to health physics and prospecting instruments to monitoring and control systems for nuclear reactors. The

Committee also serves as the U. S. advisory group in connection with the work of Committee TC45 of the International

Electrotechnical Commission and its subcommittees. In this
14 USASI - Overview

connection, N42 personnel review the numerous international

standards proposals of TC45 and provide comments on the basis

of which a U. S. position is formulated.

Standards have been issued on bases for GM counter

tubes and quartz-fiber electrometer type chargers, and definitions for the scintillation counter field were approved and

included in the USASI nuclear glossary recently published. A standard on connectors for nuclear instruments has recently

been approved and referred to the Nuclear Standards Board.

N42 is also involved in a number of standards on nuclear re- actor control systems generated by IEEE committees (IEEE is

the sponsor of N42). IEEE Detector Committee drafts on test

procedures for semiconductor radiation detectors and for am- plifiers and preamplifiers for semiconductor radiation detectors have been reviewed by N42 and the Committee is therefore in a position to take rapid action on these standards

when they are referred to the Nuclear Standards Board.

The membership of N42 is essentially the same as that

of N3, which it supersedes, though its scope has been broadened somewhat to include mechanical, hydraulic and pneumatic

instrumentation, in addition to the electrical and electronics instrumentation with which N3 was concerned. Twenty

organizations are represented on N42. The representatives,

including six alternates and four members-at-large , total 30. The chairman of N42 is Louis Costrell of the National

Bureau of Standards.

Standards Committee N43, Equipment for Non-Medical

Radiation Applications, is making exceptionally good progress. It has 48 members and alternates, from 28 different

organizations. It has already produced a standard entitled

"Sealed Sources Classification Guide" and is well along with

the preparation of five other standards.

Its sponsor is the National Bureau of Standards and it

is chaired by L. H. Horn of Underwriters r Laboratories. The

approved scope reads as follows:
Landis 15

Standards for the preparation and use of radioactive materials and radiation sources for scientific,

industrial and educational purposes.

Subcommittees have been formed to handle the bulk of

the Committee's work. These subcommittees operate in the

following areas:

(1) Diffraction and fluoroscopic analysis equipment.

(2) Self-luminous products.

(3) Sealed sources and devices.

(4) Particle accelerators.

(5) Review of NBS Handbook #93.

(6) Review of NBS Handbook #66.

Standards Committee N44, Equipment and Materials for

Medical Radiation Applications, is just being organized by

its chairman, R. T. Moore, and its secretary, L. R. Setter,

both associated with the National Center of Radiological

Health of the U. S. Public Health Service, the sponsor. The

first official organizational meeting will be held on September 24, 1968. There is nothing else to report at this time

except that the scope established by the Nuclear Standards

Board reads as follows:

Standards for the preparation and use of radioactive materials and radiation sources in medical applications . N45, Reactor Plants and Their Maintenance, under the

leadership of W. M. Joslin of Commonwealth Edison, probably

has more ground to cover than any other Standards Committee.

The fifteen standards being developed range from "Requirements and Rules for Examination and Inspection of Pressure

Retaining Equipment of Nuclear Power Reactors" to "Standard

Guide for Cleaning Nuclear Reactor System Components." One

standard, "Safety Standards for Design, Fabrication, and

Maintenance of Steel Containment Structures for Stationary

Nuclear Power Reactors," has already been published. Excellent progress is being made and the Committee has pioneered
16 USASI - Overview

the formation of unofficial "steering groups" with other Committees so that overlap, wasted effort, etc., are held to a minimum

Three technical societies have demonstrated active

interest in this Committee. They are the American Nuclear

Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME

is the official sponsor.

The scope of the Committee is:

Standards for the location, design, construction

and maintenance of nuclear reactors and plants embodying nuclear reactors, including equipment, methods and

components special for this purpose.

Three task forces have been set up to tackle the highpriority problems that have arisen in the N45 area of responsibility : In-Service Inspection Task Force

Chairman — W. P. Johnson

Construction-Phase Quality Assurance Task Force

Chairman — B. F. Langer

Reactor Containment Task Force

Chairman — R. N. Bergstrom

The final Standards Committee — N101, Nuclear Fuel

Cycle Facility, Location, Design, Construction and Operating Criteria — is not quite a catch-all, but almost. Its responsibilities, as indicated by its scope, "Standards for

the location, design, construction and operation of atomic

facilities except nuclear reactor facilities," are variegated and somewhat indefinite in certain areas. The Nuclear

Standards Board is attempting to ameliorate this situation.

Sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and chaired by M. M. Braidech (retired), this Committee is in the process of reorganization, but has pinpointed 17 standards that should be written and has started work

on nine of these.
Landis 17 As I have indicated, these committees carry most of the

nuclear standards workload. This means that chairmen, to

be successful, must be talented, knowledgeable and hardworking. They are — and I salute them for their leadership,

dedication, determination and patience. I cannot pass up this opportunity, however, to remind them once again that

they have six important duties:

CH To formulate comprehensive lists of the standards

that should be prepared.

(2) To assign priorities and schedules to these

standards

(.3) To set up task forces to tackle the urgently

needed standards.

(4) To set up subcommittees to prepare all other

standards

(5) To see that satisfactory progress is made on all

fronts

(6) To report the status of their work to the Executive Committee as required.

The message I want to leave you with — and I hope that

the information I have given you today substantiates this —

is that the Nuclear Standards Board is fully aware of the

extreme importance of a comprehensive and well-thought-out

system of standards to the success of the nuclear industry

and is moving aggressively to provide such a system. Pressure has been put on each chairman to accelerate his committee's activities and arrangements are being made with many

industrial companies, government agencies and other organizations to provide top-flight personnel to do the massive

amount of work involved. We are receiving splendid cooperation from everyone — particularly from the U. S. Atomic

Energy Commission and the U. S. Public Health Service. With

help like that being provided by these two key agencies, we believe that we shall meet all of our objectives.

THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION (ISO)

ACTIVITIES OF TC85 COMMITTEES

D. C. Fleckenstein

Earlier speakers have described national programs for

standardization in the nuclear field. While subsequent

papers will also discuss international activities, this

paper is to extend the previous discussion of the United

States of America Standards Institute to the international

level. The other papers will describe international organizations which are essentially independent of USASI

Although this paper is concerned with the ISO and, in

particular, activities of the TC85 committee of that organization, a few general remarks about international standardization will be useful background for the "hows", "whys" and

"whats" of this activity.

At the risk of being repetitious, standards are based

on the consolidated results of science, technology and ex- perience. The evolution of any standard requires a scientific approach, an advanced level of technology and a breadth

of knowledge and experience. Clearly it is all to the good

if these can be gathered together in a world forum.

The necessity for international standardization is becoming increasingly urgent in the light of the rapid advancement of technology and the growth of world trade. It has

been said that it is always too soon to fix a standard and

always too late: too soon because subsequent experience or technique may supersede a decision made now: too late be- cause existing practice has diverged from the standard about

to be set up. International standardization is particularly desirable

before different countries adopt irreconcilable solutions.

It is much more difficult to correct the chaos of the past

than to keep standards abreast or even ahead of current practice. Failure to reach international agreement at the right

19
20 ISO-TC85

time may mean that some opportunity has been lost for a long

time. An internationally recommended standard must be capable of wide application and it is more capable of this if

many countries are able to conform to it.

With this brief statement regarding "why'', I'll turn to the "how" of international nuclear standardization through

USASI. USASI has membership in two international organizations: the ISO which is the International Organization for

Standardization and the IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission. The latter organization is deserving of

mention at this time because some of the work of ISO TC85 is

related to activities within the IEC.

The International Electrotechnical Commission was founded in 1906, its first president being Lord Kelvin. The

Commission's work embraces almost every sphere of electrotechnology, from power, which was its earliest concern, to telecommunications, electronics and electro-domestic appliances. In addition to promoting the standardization of ma- terials and equipment, the commission aims to improve understanding between electrical engineers of all countries by

drawing up common means of expression.

The International Organization for Standardization to which the IEC is affiliated, is a younger body. It was founded in 19^7 to carry on the work of the International

Federation of National Standardizing Associations which had

been set up in 1926 but whose work was interrupted by the

second world war. The object of ISO is "to promote the development of standards in the world with a view to facilitating the international exchange of goods and services and to developing mutual cooperation in intellectual, scientific,

technological and economic activity."

The ISO with 55 member bodies and the IEC, with 40,

represent countries having four-fifths of the world's population. Between them the two organizations have published

nearly 1,000 recommended standards and there are about 1,000

recommendations currently in draft.
Fleckenstein 21 It must be recognized that the ISO and IEC cannot impose international standards. That is why their publications

are termed Recommendations. The results of their work must

be acceptable for their inherent value without resort to authoritarian or compulsory measures. The member organizations have, however, a moral obligation to use the Recommendations as the basis for their own national standards so far

as local conditions will permit.

To meet its previously stated objective the ISO may:

a) Take action to facilitate coordination and unification of national standards and issue necessary

Recommendations to member bodies for this purpose;

b) Set up international standards provided, in each

case, no member body dissents;

c) Encourage and facilitate, as occasion demands, the

development of new standards having common requirements for use in the national or international

sphere

d) Arrange for exchange of information regarding work

of its member bodies and of its technical committees; and

e) Cooperate with other international organizations

interested in related matters, particularly by

undertaking at their request, studies relating to standardization projects.

The 55 ISO members are the national bodies most representative of standardization (one for each country) who have

agreed to abide by the organization's constitution and rules

of procedures. Organizations in developing countries which

do not have a standards body may become correspondent members. Countries represented by correspondent members cannot

be accepted as member bodies until they have established

their own national standards body.

Technical work of the ISO is carried out by its technical committees. These committees are composed of a delegation from each of the member bodies wishing to take part in
22 ISO-TC85

the work. Each technical committee has a secretariat, which

is undertaken by a member body designated by the Council, the

administrative organ of the ISO. In its capacity as secretariat the member body acts impartially: it has its own delegation with exactly the same status as other participating

members of the technical committee. The secretariat Is re- sponsible for the satisfactory conduct of the work of the

technical committee and has to report annually to the Council

on the results achieved.

Technical committees may agree to establish subcommittees and/or working groups as necessitated by the work program. Subcommittees must comprise at least five member

bodies and one of the member bodies is elected to serve as the secretariat.

The 1967 ISO Memento lists 116 technical committees and

149 subcommittees. As a point of interest, the United States

holds the secretariat for 10 of the technical committees including Technical Committee 85, "Nuclear Energy 1 '. TC85 with a scope of "Standardization in the Field of

Nuclear Energy and its Peaceful Applications", first met in

1957. At its first meeting the 23 participating member

bodies established three subcommittees:

Subcommittee 1, "Terminology, Definitions, Units and

Symbols", with the USA as secretariat, is concerned with the

development of Recommendations for technical units, terminology, definitions and symbols in all fields of nuclear energy- Subcommittee 2, "Radiation Protection", with the secre- tariat in France, is to prepare Recommendations relating to radiation protection and the associated methods of measurements, both for workers and the general public.

Subcommittee 3, "Reactor Safety", with the secretariat

assigned to the United Kingdom, was established to prepare

Recommendations on those aspects of the administration, design and construction and operation of reactors which have a bearing on safety.
Fleckenstein 23 At its second meeting in 1958 TC85 established Subcommittee 4, "Radioisotopes", with Poland as the secretariat.

SC4 is to consider all aspects concerned with the production,

measurement, handling and all forms of use of radioisotopes,

natural and artificial.

TC85 met next in i960 and most recently in November of

1967. At the time of the November meeting the secretariat

reported that although TC85 had not met since i960 there had

been more than 25 meetings of subcommittees and working

groups held in the interim period. So far, continued the

secretariat's report, TC85 had published just one ISO Recommendation. Such a production rate leaves something to be

desired so that a main item of discussion at the November

meeting was the exploration of methods to speed up the work.

Some of these methods are being tried now. There is a lot of work underway and a number of working groups were established by each of the subcommittees.

Because working groups are responsible only for the study of

a particular question, some have come and gone while still

others persist. For the purpose of this review it's unnecessary to detail the work of the various subgroups of the subcommittees of TC85. The listing of the 4 subcommittees and

their respective fields of interest reveal the current direction and activity in nuclear energy standardization at the ISO level.

As noted earlier the USASI is a member of ISO and holds

the secretariat for TC85. Participants in the USASI nuclear

energy standardizing programs have, therefore a direct con- nection with like international programs. The secretariat of

TC85 resides in the Nuclear Standards Board of USASI. Further, TC85 subcommittee actions are of interest to specific

standards committees of the Nuclear Standards Board. For

example, TC85/SC2, "Radiation Protection" is closely allied

with the USASI N13, "Radiation Protection". Although an ability to use the word "identical" when comparing SC2 with

N13 would make the matter of coordination a great deal sim-
24 ISO-TC85

pier, such a relationship is not the case. For instance, the

broad scope statement of SC2 enabled it to initiate, last

November, a fourth working group to consider apparatus for

gamma radiography. Under the reorganized Nuclear Standards

Board, such equipment falls outside the scope of N13 and into

the interest sphere of N43. Therefore, this SC2 activity

will be followed by a representative of N43.

Lacking a one-to-one correspondence in organization and

a need to provide some direction and motivation to TC85, a responsibility of a secretariat, the Nuclear Standards Board,

established in November, 1965 its committee on International

Nuclear Standards known as COINS. COINS was charged with the

responsibility to act for the Nuclear Standards Board in all

ISO nuclear standards activities and was designated as the

U.S. agency to advise on United States action in ISO TC85

matters

With these and other charges COINS is the focal point

in USASI for international nuclear standardizing activities.

These activities include some 15 TC85 subcommittees and subgroups and eight IEC subcommittees and subgroups which in

turn involve eight of the standards committees of the Nuclear

Standards Board.

A few examples will illustrate these relationships.

Turning first to the IEC, TCI is entitled "Terminology". Within TCI there are two publications of interest,

the first "Nuclear Power Plants for Electric Energy Generation" and the second "Detection and Measurement of Ionizing

Radiation by Electric Means." These activities of IEC TCI,

therefore, are of specific interest to N12, "Terminology,

Units, Symbols, Identification and Warning".

IEC TC45, "Electrical Measuring Instruments Used in

Connection With Ionizing Radiation", SC45A, "Reactor Instrumentation" and SC45B "Health Physics Instrumentation" are

of interest to:N13, "Radiation Protection"

Nl8, "Nuclear Design Criteria"
Pleckenstein 25

N42, "Nuclear Instruments

N^3, "Equipment for Non-Medical Radiation

Applications

N45, "Reactor Plants and Their Maintenance"

Finally from the IEC listing is TC62, "X-Ray Medical

Equipment" which, of course, is of interest to N^4, "Equipment and Materials for Medical Radiation Applications". It seems quite possible that because one of the subjects to be

dealt with by TC62 is X-ray protection in X-ray medical

equipment, N13 will also have an interest. TC62 is relatively new, having had its first meeting in the spring of this

year, so that programs for it are not as clearly defined as they are for the other committees.

Turning briefly to ISO TC85 the same USASI committees

are involved with work of the subcommittees and subgroups of

ISO TC85. Additionally, within Subcommittee 4, that SC con- cerned with all aspects of the production, measurement and

handling of radioisotopes, a working group on the packaging

and transport of isotopes is within the scope of Nl4, "Transportation of Fissile and Radioactive Materials".

Despite the fact that only one Recommendation had been

approved, TC85 committees have been very active. Again by

way of illustration, a brief summary of the report that was made at the conclusion of the meeting last November, will

support this view. Some things have changed in the 10 months

since that meeting however, those details won't affect this

particular discussion.

Subcommittee 1 Subcommittee 1 approved the "Nuclear Energy Glossary"

(Second Edition) and forwarded it for balloting.

Subcommittee 2 Subcommittee Z considered a draft document on air

sampling, one on personal photographic dosimeters and

two drafts on direct and Indirect reading pocket dosimeters. Moreover, SC2 noted that its first draft

proposal of "The Fundamental Principles for Protection
26 ISO-TC85

in the Design and Construction of Installations for

Work on Unsealed Radioactive Materials" had been balloted by TC85 and it was ready for balloting by the

member bodies.

Further, SC2 decided to pursue test methods for ex- posure and rate meters and had established Working

Group 4 on Equipment for Gamma Radiography. In the

future WG1 would study filter sizes for air sampling,

WG2 would attempt to establish reference rays for X-ray

and gamma radiation for calibration of photographic

dosimeters and WG3 would work on portable dosimeters

and rate meters.

Subcommittee 3 Subcommittee 3 reported that the work of WG2, "Meterorological Aspects", was to be held in abeyance pending

the outcome of work by the IAEA; established a study

group to survey future work in the field of steel con- tainment structures; WG4 on Irradiation of Steels was disbanded; WG5 on Criticality Safety was disbanded;

established a study group in the area of prestressed

concrete pressure vessels and prestressed containment

structures; and established a study group to consider

the possibility of collecting and statistically analyzing information concerning faults relating to reactors

and their equipment.

Subcommittee 4 Subcommittee 4 reported that at its meeting the SC dealt with the revision of the draft proposal on the

contents leakage test and radiation leakage test, the

program of future work on sealed sources and the results of the inquiry on the possibility of standardization of transport packaging of radioactive sources. Hopefully this summary provides a better understanding

of the "why" "how" and "what" USASI is involved in ISO nu- clear standardization. The "why" and "how" are fairly well
Fleckenstein 27 established, the "what", however, is subject to change and

depends in large part on the interest of those who are willing to participate in satisfying their understanding of the

"why"

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL UNITS

AND MEASUREMENTS (ICRU): AN OVERVIEW WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS

ON RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENTS

W. B. Mann

I note from the title of my paper that I am to give an overview of the activities of the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements. The word "overview"

bothers me a little because I feel that it must be the opposite of "worms-eye view", but I shall try to rise to the

occasion

The International Commission on Radiological Units and

Measurements (ICRU) and the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) both report to the International

Congresses Radiology.

The ICRU was formed in 1925 under the auspices of the

first International Congress of Radiology in London, and

started then as the International X-Ray Unit Committee.

At the Second International Congress of Radiology in

1928, held in Stockholm, the roentgen was defined and certain

recommendations adopted relating to X-radiation protection.

The International Congresses of Radiology were later adopted

by the International Society of Radiology which thereby became the parent, or grand-parent, organization of both ICRU

and ICRP.

There have been, through the years, only slight changes

in the name of the ICRU. In 1931, the International X-Ray

Committee became the International Committee for Radiological

Units and then, at the 1950 International Congress of Radiology in London, became a Commission. In 1953 it became the

International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements and that year, in Copenhagen, defined the rad as the

unit of absorbed dose.

29
30 ICRU - Overview

Through all these years, since 1928, the chief architect of the ICRU has been Lauriston S. Taylor in his capacity

as member, secretary and chairman.

The ICRU is composed of some 10 to 12 members from

various countries together with a Chairman, Vice-Chairman and

Secretary (see last section of the Appendix to this paper).

The ICRU has consultative status with a wide variety of

international organizations which are enumerated in the fifth

section of the Appendix to this paper. In particular it is

recognized by the World Health Organization as its body of

technical advisors in the field of radiological units and

measurements. The ICRU also has consultative status with the

United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and

in 1959 co-sponsored with the IAEA the first Symposium on Radioactive Metrology, held in Vienna in 1959, in connection

with which I had the honor of representing ICRU and collaborating with Professor A. Sanielevici in its organization.

The functions of the ICRU may perhaps best be described

by reading the headings from its position plan given in the

1959 ICRU Report in NBS Handbook 78 (page 83). These are:

I. Continued study and development of definitions and

basic concepts in the general field of units and

measurements of ionizing radiation

II. At some international focal point, to keep informed

on and evaluate the measurement standards and the

intercomparison of such standards required in the

radiation field

III. To study and make recommendations relative to the

practical measurements of radiation

IV. To continue the development of the principles and

practices of radiation dosimetry

V. Primarily for medical radiology, to establish some guidance and international agreement on the methods

of testing the basic characteristics of certain es- sential component radiological equipment.
Mann 31 VI. To provide a collaborative and working relationship

at some central focal point between various international organizations having special needs or interests in the field of radiation units, standards,

and measurements.

Currently the ICRU attempts to achieve these functions

through a system of Planning Boards and Task Groups that are enumerated in the third section of the Appendix to this paper. Of most immediate interest to the members of the American Chemical Society here today is the program of Planning

Board 1A and its three Task Groups which work under the re- spective chairmanships of Dr. R. Dudley, Mr. S. B. Garfinkel

and Dr. R. G. Wood. Task Group No. 2 has recently issued its

report, ICRU Report 12 on the Certification of Standardized

Radioactive Sources by S. B. Garfinkel and G. R. Newbery.

The ICRU has long sponsored international comparative

measurements of samples of radionuclides. Some intercomparative measurements in radioactivity had already been undertaken independently of ICRU in the late 19^0' s, by the laboratories of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

These measurements were greatly widened in scope, however, in

the 1950 's, under the aegis of the ICRU, and they are now sponsored by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures

(B.I.P.M.). In 1953 the ICRU had set up a Subcommittee on Standards of Radioactivity to extend the intercomparisons to countries other than the initial three. This Subcommittee was

in subsequent years replaced first by its Committee I on Standards and Measurements of Radioactivity for Radiological

Use and now by its Planning Boards IA and IB. The results of the ICRU sponsored intercomparisons are summarized in fair detail in the 1959 and 1962 ICRU Reports

(NBS Handbooks 78 and 86). As an example of such intercomparisons organized internationally by the ICRU, I might briefly quote that of radium

as a sort of case history. As an introduction I would, how-
32 ICRU - Overview

ever, like to show two historic documents (figure 1), namely

the certificates of the United States 1913 and 1936 Primary

Radium Standards. The earlier standard had been brought to this country by Mme . Marie Curie and the later one was one of

the twenty standards prepared by Professor 0. Hftnigschmid fro

material used in his determination of the atomic weight of

radium, and sealed by him on the afternoon of June 2, 193*1. There is a striking permanence of the International

Radium Commission in the persons whose signatures appear on the certificates over a period of nearly a quarter of a century. Stefan Meyer is the same; Mme, Curie has been suc- ceeded by her daughter Irene Curie; and Ernest Rutherford

is the same, apart from age, but has lost in the meantime

his first name, which is one of the disadvantages associated

with becoming a peer of the British realm!

The first int ercomparisons of HiJnigschmid radium standards were directly arranged between the U.K. National Physica

Laboratory (NPL) and the U.S. National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) in 195*1. These were followed by many others, the inter

comparisons being stimulated to some extent by the construction at the NBS of a precision microcalorimeter with dimensions specially chosen to accommodate the HGnigschmid standards. Prior to this all intercomparisons of these standards

had been based on gamma-ray measurements, many by means of

gold-leaf electroscopes, and many of them were relative to the Paris and Vienna International Radium Standards.

The great wealth of data that began to be accumulated

on the Hftnigschmid standards needed some forum for international discussion, coordination and analysis. This forum was provided by the ICRU Subcommittee on Radioactivity Standards

and Committee I, and the results obtained prior to that date were discussed in the 1959 ICRU Report (NBS Handbook 78). In this report there is a statistical analysis of the data,

carried out by W. S. Connor and W. J. Youden who also derived

"best estimates" for the values of the standards, using both

HiJnigschmid ' s weighings and the more recent experimental data
Mann

COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DES ETALONS DE RADIUM.

CERTIFICATE

Das als Chlorid dargestellte Radiumpraparat Nr. 6) entstammt

St. Joachimstaler Uranpechblende und

ist demnach praktisch frei von

Mesothor. Es enthalt Zl SO Milligramm

Salz. Es wurde am

schlossen in ein Glasrohrchen (Thurin- ger Glas) von 0'27 mm Wandstarke, auBerem Durchmesser 3'2 mm, Lange

2?r. mm, an dessen Ende ein feiner Platindraht eingeschmolzen ist. Dasselbe wurde als Secnndfirer Standard an den Wiener Etalons und

an dem internationalen Standard in Paris nach mehreren T-Strahlungs- methoden unabheingig voneinander

geeicht.Der T-Strahlung nach ist es im

Jahre l^li Equivalent mg

RaCl,. (Die jahrliche Abnahme betragt etwa 0 4 Promille.) UnterZugrundelegung der Atomgewichte von

226 fur Radium

35-457 fur Chlor

79-916 fur Brom

entspricht dies If H H mg Ra-Element,

Vi.'.i.L. mg RaBr,. Die Genauigkeit dieser Angabe

wird auf O'S % f"1

" gesichert gehalten.

La Preparation de Chlorure de Radium contenue dans l'ampoule

Nr. 6 provient de la pechblende de St. Joachimsthal. EUe est done

pratiquement exempte de Mesothorium.

Elle contient &...'Jjl>..... Milli- grammes de sel. Le sel a ete enferme le '/W 'ftf dans un tube de verre (Verre de

Thuringe.) Epaisseurdu verre 0'27 mm;

Diametre exterieur 3"2 mm ; Longueur

ZZ, mm. Un fil de platine fin a 6ti soud6 a l'extr6mit£ du tube. En qualite d'Etaion tecondalre l'ampoule a fite" comparee a l'Etalon de Vienne et a l'Etalon International de Paris, au moyen de methodes de

mesures basees sur le rayonnement T. La comparaison a et£ faite indepen- damment a Vienne et a Paris. D'apres son rayonnement T, la Preparation equivaut en l'annee /f/3

a 2bt2f mg. RaCl,. (La diminution par annee est de 0'4 pour mille.) En adoptant les poids atomiques

suivants

Radium . . 226

Chlore . . . 35 457 Brome . . 79-916 on deduit la teneur correspondante en Radium element et en Bromure de Radium:

R. IS VV mg, RaCl, 1fi'0.t mg.

RaBr, mg. La precision de ces resultats est considered comme assuree a une

approximation de »VJtfu

/oSpecimen No. 6 of Radium

is prepared as chloride from pitch- blende of St. Joachimstal and is consequently practically free from

Mesothorium.

It contains ?S~S~Q Milligram- mes of salt

It was enclosed the <JfT icjf3 j n a

glass tube (Thuringian glass) of 0 27 mm

thickness, exterior diameter 3'2 mm,

length mm, a thin platinum wire being fused into the end of the tube.

It is calibrated as Secondary

Standard by comparison with the Vienna-Standard and with the Inter- national Standard at Paris, several independent T-raymethods being used. Measured by the v-radiation,

it is in the year /f/J equivalent to 10'ii mg. RaCl,. (The yearly decay

is about 0"4 per mille.) Taking the atomic weights

226 for Radmm

35 457 for Chlorine

79-916 for Bromine

this corresponds to

/ «T VV mg Ra-element, Xb'XS nig RaCl,, Z6 3& mg RaBr,.

These statements are considered

correct to 7

Jit

Figure 1. Certificate United States - 1913
3^ ICRU - Overview

COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DES ETALONS DE RADIUM.

CERTIFICATE

Das als Chlorid dargestellte Radiumpraparat Nr. TW entstammt

Uranerzen von Katanga, belgisch Kongo, und ist demnach praktisch

frei von Mesothor. Es wurde am 2. Juni 1934 von

Prof. Honigschmid in Miinchen aus- gewogen und in ein Glasrohrchen von 3 mm lichter Weite und 0'27 mm

Wandstarke und einer Lange von 36 mm eingebracht, an dessen Ende

ein feiner Platindraht eingeschmolzen ist. Es ist gekennzeichnet durch die Nr..df.yj. desSchutzrohres, so wie durch

sein Bruttogewicht von#?'M mg una

enthielt dam als '^2mgreines, wasser- freiesSalz,gewichtsmaBigentsprechend

3$ 23 mg Radiumelement. Der Reinheitsgrad des verwendeten Radiumchlorids ist sichergestellt durch die von Prof. Honigschmid

ausgefuhrteAtomgewichtsbestimmung,

die fur Ra zu dem Werte 226 05 fiihrte, sowie durch die von Prof. W. Gerlach durchgef iihrte spektroskopische Unter- suchung, welche einen Bariumg-ehalt von maximal 0002 — 0 003 Atomprozent Barium ergab. Das Radiumpraparat wurde 7.um letztenmal am 25. Mai 1934 durch

eine Fallung mit Schwefelwasserstoff von RaD befreit. Das Praparat wurde mit den

primaren Etalons von 1911 in Wien

und Paris nach mehreren Y-Strahlungs- methoden unabhangig von einander

geeicht.

a Der r-Strahlung nach ist es Equivalent ^''O mg Ra_ Element. Fur eine mittlere Lebensdauer

des Radiums von 2295 Jahren betragt der jahrliche Abgang 0'436 Promille. Unter Zugrundelegung der Atomgewichte

22605 fur Radium

35-457 fQr Chlor

79 916 fur Brom

entspricht d ies bezogert auf die primaren

Etalons von 1911 f***. ^-M-A^a^ — 38 fO mg Ra-Element, SQ: OS~ mg RaCI,, ». RaRr. Die Genauigkeit dieser Angaben

wird auf ° •? °/0 furgesichert gehalten. Fur die Wiener Messungen

La preparation de Radium

No. .m... est un chlorure qui provient de la pechblende du Katanga, Congo

Beige, et est, par consequent, pratique- ment exempt de Mesjthorium.

Cette preparation a ete pesee

le 2 Juin 1934 par le Pr. Honigschmid

a Munich et a ete introduite dans un

tube en verre de 3 mm de diametre

interieur, de 0'27 mm d'epaisseur des

parois et de 3 b mm de longueur,' sur I'extremite duquel un fil fin de

platine a ete scelle. Elle est identifiee par le No./V'/

du tube protecteur, de meme que par

son poids brut de ?.?.?'Xi mg et elle contenait alors ^.'12 mg de sel pur anhydre correspondant au poids de 38 zi mg de Radium element. Le degre de purete du chlorure de Radium est mis en evidence par

les mesures du poids atomique faites par le Pr. Honigschmid, qui conduisent pour le Radium au nombre 226 05,

ainsi que par les essais spectrosco- piques faits par le Pr. W. Gerlach, qui donnent une teneur en Baryum au maximum de 0"002 — 0 003 pour cent d'atomes de Baryum. La preparation de Radium a

ete purifiee pour la derniere fois du RaD le 25 Mai 1934 par une precipi- tation par I'hydrogene sulfure. La preparation a ete comparee

en rayons v aux etalons primaires de 1911 par diverses methodes, independamment a Vienne et a Paris. Par son, ravonnement r elle est equivalente j*n If)to a 38: IO mg

de Radium elemeit. Pour une vie moyenne du Radium

de 2295 ans, la dicroissance annuelle

est de 0 436 pour mille. Prenant pour $ase le poids atomique

de 2?6'05 pour le radium de 35 457 pour le chlore de 79 916 pour le brpme

il vient peux. ^ /f36,cCeoi<f~I<f3j par rapport aux etalons primaires de 1911 : 3$ '° Ra-element, RaC, 2 . 4for :ng RaBr2 . La precision de ces donndes est exacte a d'$ °/

0

. Pour les mesures faites a Paris

TheRadium-preparationNr. Af.Y... has been prepared as chloride from

uranium ores from Katanga, Belgian Kongo, and is therefore practically

free from Mesothorium.

It was weighed on June 2nd, 1934

by Prof. Honigschmid in Munich and

transfered to a glass tube of 3 mm

inner diameter. 027 mm thickness

of wall and 3o mm length, with a

thin platinum wire sealed in at one end.

It is characterised by the Nr.-4~ y?7

on the protection tube, as well as

the gross weight of $.H2:Y? mg and

contained at the date given above

S0'?J-mg of pure salt free from water

corresponding in weight to .?8.'.?3 mg

radium-element. The degree of purity of the

radium-chloride used is warranted by

the determination of the atomic weight

carried out by Prof. Honigschmid,

which gave for radium the value 226- 05, and the spectroscopic investigation by Prof. W. Gerlach, which showed

that the barium-content was 0'002 —

0 003 per cent atoms at most. RadiumD was separated from

the radium-preparation for the last time on May 25th, 1934, by precipi- tation with hydrogen sulphide. The preparation has been compared with the primary standards

of 1911 in Vienna and Paris inde- pendently by several Y-ray-methods. According to its V-ravs it was &lotvta6 toytipk equivalent to M:M.. mg

Radium-element. For an average life of radium of 2295 years the loss per year is 0'436 per mille. Taking the atomic weights:

226*05 for radium

35'457 for chlorine as a basis

79-916 this corresponds

for bromine a # ftX. T**i compared with the primary standards

of 1911 to: mg Ra-element, Sh'»S" mg RaCI2 . if'tofr mg RaBr2

. These statements are considered

correct to 0 »J °/

0

. The President:

Figure 1 Certificate United States - 1936
Mann 35 A summary of the results that had been obtained in

various laboratories is shown in Table 1 in which A and D are the U . S. standards, B the British, C the Canadian, G the German, P the Paris and V the Vienna standard. A leastsquares treatment of the ratios shown in column 4 of Table 1 gave experimental ratios which are compared with the weight

ratios of Htfnigschmid in Table 2. Giving equal weight to both the HiJnigschmid and the new experimental ratios of Table

2 and using the method of Connor and Youden (Journal of Research NBS 53, 273, 195*0, a set of "best estimates" was obtained for the weights of seven Hftnigschmid radium standards.

These weights, in milligrams, are shown in Table 3. In 1959 A. V. Astin, the Chairman of the BIPM Consultative Committee on Standards of Measurement for Ionizing Radiations, invited me to act as chairman of an ad hoc Study

Group to make recommendations "concerning the future status

of the International Radium Standard (Htfnigschmid - 193*0 ". Reviewing the results given in the 1959 ICRU Report the ad

hoc Study Group concluded that the normalized system of "best

estimates" given in this report could be the basis for a normalized system of international radium standards against

any of which relative measurement of radium samples could be

made with equal validity. Meeting on July 17, 1959, on the

occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Radiology in

the city of Munich, where 25 years earlier Hftnigschmid had

prepared the twenty radium standards that bear his name, the

ad hoc Study Group recommended that:

"a normalized system of HSnigschmid 193^ radium

standards be considered as the basis of reference for

all relative radium standardization and calibration.

For all practical purposes at the present time this

would be achieved by taking Htfnigschmid ' s masses for

those standards currently in use as national or international standards.
36 ICRU - Overview

Table 1. Summary of results of measurements on Honigschmid standards.

HonigStand- schmid

Place Method ards Ratios Ratios

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NPL

NPL

NPL

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NBS

NRC

NRC

PTB

Institut fur

Radiumfors chung

Union Miniere . . NPL,

NPL,

NPL

Electros cope

Calorimeter . Electros cope

Calorimeter . Electroscope

Calorimeter . Electros cope

Calorimeter . Calorimeter . Electros cope

Calorimeter . GM counter

Electrometer

Electros cope

GM counter

Electroscope

Calorimeter . Electroscope

Calorimeter . Electroscope

Calorimeter . Electros cope

Calorimeter . Ionization chamber

Ionization chamber

Electroscope. . . Electroscope. . . Radon ionization.

chamber

Electroscope . . . Electrometer. . . Scintillation

counter

A/B 2 441 2 4^0

A/B 2 4S"0 *-t J w 2 4S0 ~ j w A/D 1 870 ]_ 870

A/D ]_ t 87? u 1 _> 1 870

A/D ]_ t 870 1 870

A/D 1 869 1 870

A/D 1 870 1 870

A/D 1. 875 1 870

A/D 1 874 1 870

D/B 1 305 1 310

D/B 1 308 1 310

D /B 1 306 1 310

D /B 1 30 4 1 310

D/B 1 306 1 310

D/B 1 304 1 310

A/G 2 608 2 617

A/G 2 612 2 617

D/G 1 395 1 400

D/G 1 398 1 400

A/C 1 578 1 583

A/C 1 583 1 583

C/D 1 185 1 181

C/D 1 184 1 181

C/D 1 185s 1 181

C/G 1 652 7 1 653s

C/G 1 651 6 1 653 5 C/V 1 030 6 1 03I9

C/P 1 425 7 1 427^

C/B 1 546 1 547 8 C/B 1 545 1 547 8 C/B 1 547 1 547s
Mann 37

Table 2. Comparison of weighed and measured values.

Standards Experimental

ratios

Honigs chmid

ratios

Percentage

difference

A/B 2 . 4^44 2 .450 0.24

A/D 1. 872 I.87O .11 D/B 1.306 1.310 • 31

A/G 2.612 2 .617 .19 D/G 1.395 1.400 .36

A/C 1.581 1.583 .13 C/D 1.184 1.181 .25 C/G 1.652 1.654 .12 C/V 1.030 1 .032 .19 C/P 1.425 1.427 .14 C/B 1 . 5^6 1.548 .13

TABLE 3

Hflnigschmid mass Standard Best estimate of radium Difference

in milligrams (June, 1934) in milligrams

in milligrams

A 38 208 38.227 -0 .019 B 15 615 15.605 (15.604

6

) .010

C 24 159 24.153 .006

D 20 425 20 .447 -.022

G 14 614 14 .607 .007

P 16 935 16.921 .014

V 23 428 23 .407 .021

All national secondary standards have been calibrated in terms of the 1911 or 1934 Paris and Vienna

Radium Standards. The 1934 Paris and Vienna Standards

have also been most carefully compared with their 1911
38 ICRU - Overview

predecessors. Thus the 193^ international standards,

while being part of the normalized system referred to

above, do, however, occupy a special place in the international system by the virtue of the many measurements

in which these standards have been involved. Many international secondary standards would in fact only be

related to the proposed normalized system through the

193^ Paris and Vienna Standards.

The ad hoc Study Group therefore recommends that

the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures should be

entrusted with the custody of the 193^ Paris International Radium Standard. It is interesting to note

In this connection that the same recommendation was made concerning the 1911 Paris Standard by the Commission Internationale des Etalons de Radium in its meeting

in Paris in March 1912.

With regard to the 1911 Paris International Radium Standard it is recommended, in view of its great

historical and technical value, that it could also be

placed in the custody of the Bureau International des

Poids et Mesures. In this connection it is believed

that the appropriate authority to be approached would

be the International Council of Scientific Unions, to which the past Joint Commission on Radioactivity, the

erstwhile owner of the standard, was responsible through

IUPAC and IUPAP . It may be necessary however, to seek

legal advice as to the ownership of the 1911 Paris In- ternational Radium Standard."

The members of the ad hoc Study Group making these recommendations were G. H. Aston (U.K.), H. Franz (Germany), M. Frilley (France), B. Karlik (Austria), W. B. Mann (U.S.A.)

and J. L . Wolfson (Canada). G. Bourdoun (U.S.S.R.) wrote later to signify the agreement of himself, K. K. Aglintzev and

their colleagues of the Radiometric Laboratory of the D. I. Mendeleev Institute of Metrology, provided that the normalized system of standards should include the U.S.S.R. National
Mann 39

Radium Standard that had been acquired by the Soviet Union

too recently to be included in the many international com- parisons of Hfinigschmid standards.

This case history will, I hope, have served to demonstrate the role of the ICRU in the field of international

radioactivity standardization, and its close cooperation

with the BIPM whose present activities in this field were built very largely on prior ICRU foundation as well as upon

its own competence in the field of International Standards

Lastly, through its wide-ranging system of Planning Boards

the ICRU will continue to fulfill its mission in the developing field of radiation units and measurements
40 ICRU - Overview

APPENDIX 1 W. B. Mann

Scope of ICRU Activities

The International Commission on Radiation Units and

Measurements (ICRU), since its inception in 1925, has had

as its principal objective the development of internationally

acceptable recommendations regarding:

1. Quantities and units of radiation and radioactivity,

2. Procedures suitable for the measurement and application of these quantities in clinical radiology

and radiobiology

3. Physical data needed in the application of these

procedures, the use of which tends to assure uniformity in reporting.

The Commission also considers and makes recommendations

in the field of radiation protection. In this connection,

Its work is carried out in close cooperation with the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

Policy

The ICRU endeavors to collect and evaluate the latest

data and information pertinent to the problems of radiation

measurement and dosimetry and to recommend the most acceptable values for current use. The Commission's recommendations are kept under con- tinual review in order to keep abreast of the rapidly ex- panding uses of radiation.

The ICRU feels it is the responsibility of national

organizations to introduce their own detailed technical procedures for the development and maintenance of standards.

However, it urges that all countries adhere as closely as possible to the internationally recommended basic concepts of

radiation quantities and units.

"'"Reproduced with permission from the Prefaces of ICRU Report 11 "Radiation Quantities and Units" and Report 12, "Certification

of Standardized Radioactive Samples".
Mann 41

The Commission feels its responsibility lies in developing a system of quantities and units having the widest possible range of applicability.

Situations may arise from time to time when an expedient

solution of a current problem may seem advisable. Generally

speaking, however, the Commission feels that action based on expediency is inadvisable from a long-term view-point; it en- deavors to base its decisions on the long-range advantages to

be expected.

The ICRU invites and welcomes constructive comments and

suggestions regarding its recommendations and reports. These

may be transmitted to the Chairman.

Current Program

In 1962 the Commission laid the basis for the development of the ICRU program over the next several years. At that

time it defined three broad areas of concern to the Commission : I. The Measurement of Radioactivity

II. The Measurement of Radiation

III. Problems of Joint Interest to the ICRU and the In- ternational Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP)

The Commission divided these three areas into nine sub- areas with which it expected to be primarily concerned during

the next decade. The division of work agreed upon is as follows

I. Radioactivity

A. Fundamental Physical Parameters and Measurement Techniques

B. Medical and Biological Applications

II. Radiation

A. Fundamental Physical Parameters

B. X Rays, Gamma Rays and Electrons

C. Heavy Particles

D. Medical and Biological Applications (Therapy)

E. Medical and Biological Applications (Diagnosis)

F. Neutron Fluence and Kerma
ICRU - Overview

III. Problems of Joint Interest to the ICRU and the ICRP

A. Radiation Protection Instrumentation and its

Application

The Commission established a separate planning board to guide ICRU activities in each of the subareas. The planning

boards after examining the needs of their respective technical areas with some care recommended, and the Commission subsequently approved, the constitution of task groups to initiate the preparation of reports. The substructure which

resulted from these actions is given below.

Planning Board I. A. Radioactivity —Fundamental Physical Parameters and Measurement

Techniques

Task Group 1. Measurement of Low-Level Radioactivity

Task Group 2. Specification of Accuracy in Certificates of Activity of Sources

for Calibration Purposes

Task Group 3- Specification of High Activity

Gamma-Ray Sources (Joint with P.B.

II. B)

Planning Board I.B. Radioactivity —Medical and Biological Applications

Task Group 1. In Vivo Measurements of Radioactivity

Task Group 2. Scanning

Task Group 3- Tracer Kinetics

Task Group 4. Methods of Assessment of Dose in

Tracer Investigations

Planning Board II. A. Radiation—Fundamental Physical

Parameters

Planning Board II. B. Radiation-X Rays, Gamma Rays and

Electrons

Task Group 1. Radiation Dosimetry; X Rays from 5 to 150 kV
Mann 43

Task Group 2. Task Group 3- Planning Board II. C. Task Group 1. Task Group 2. Planning Board II. D. Task Group 1.

Task Group 2.

Task Group 3.

Task Group 4. Planning Board II. E.

Task Group 1. Task Group 2. Task Group 3. Planning Board II. P.

Task Group 1. Planning Board III. A. Task Group 1. Task Group 2.

Radiation Dosimetry; X and Gamma

R-ys from 0.6 to 100 MV

Electron Beam Dosimetry

Radiation—Heavy Particles

Dose As a Function of LET

High Energy and Space Radiation

Dosimetry

Radiation—Medical and Biological

Applications (Therapy

Measurement of Absorbed Dose at a Point in a Standard Phantom (Absorbed Dose Determination)

Methods of Arriving at the

Absorbed Dose at any Point in a Patient (In Vivo Dosimetry)

Methods of Compensating for Body

Shape and Inhomogeneity and of

Beam Modification for Special Purposes (Beam Modification)

Statement of the Dose Achieved

(Dosage Specification)

Radiation —Medical and Biological

Applications (Diagnosis)

Photographic Materials and Screens

Image Intensifier Radiography

TV Systems

Radiation —Neutron Fluence and

Kerma

Neutron Fluence, Energy Fluence,

Neutron Spectra and Kerma

Radiation Protection Instrumentation and its Application

Radiation Protection Instrumentation Handbook—Part I Neutron Instrumentation and its

Application to Radiation Protection
ICRU - Overview

Because the Commission's basic recommendations on radiation quantities and units relate to the work of all of the

planning boards, the Commission decided to establish a separate committee with membership drawn largely from the Commission itself to initiate the revision of ICRU Report 10a,

Radiation Quantities and Units . Thus, the Committee on Fundamental Quantities and Units was added to the above substructure . In 1962 the Commission decided to abandon its past

practice of holding a meeting together with all of its subunits every three years. Instead, it was decided that the

Commission would receive reports from the subgroups at the

time of their completion rather than at fixed deadlines.

Meetings of the Commission and of the subgroups are held as needed

The adoption of the new substructure and mode of operation was intended to alleviate some of the problems associated with the expanded program required in recent years. In the past, the Commission's attempt to administer and review

the work of each of the working groups imposed a very considerable burden on the Commission itself. The need to concern

itself with each detail, which was inherent in such a scheme

of operation, when coupled with the procedure of completing

all reports at one time, subjected the Commission members

to an intolerable work load if rigorous standards were to be

maintained. The new substructure and mode of operation is now beginning to produce results in the form of reports draft

ed by the task groups and reviewed by the planning boards.

Present evidence indicates that the substructure and mode of

operation, while not perfect, has to a substantial extent

succeeded in alleviating the problems previously experienced.

ICRU Reports

In 1962 the ICRU, in recognition of the fact that its

triennial reports were becoming too extensive and in some cases too specialized to justify single-volume publication,

initiated the publication of a series of reports, each deal-
Mann 45

ing with a limited range of topics. This series was initiated with the publication of six reports:

ICRU Report 10a, Radiation Quantities and Units

ICRU Report 10b, Physical Aspects of Radiation

ICRU Report 10c, Radioactivity

ICRU Report lOd, Clinical Dosimetry

ICRU Report lOe, Radiobiological Dosimetry

ICRU Report lOf, Methods of Evaluating Radiological

Equipment and Materials

These reports were published, as had been many of the previous reports of the Commission, by the United States Government Printing Office as Handbooks of the National Bureau of

Standards

In 1967 the Commission determined that in the future

the recommendations formulated by the ICRU would be published by the Commission itself. This is the second report

to be published under this new policy. With the exception

of ICRU Report 10a, which was superseded by ICRU Report 11,

the other reports of the "10" series have continuing validity

and, since none of the reports now in preparation are designed to specifically supersede them, will remain available

until the material is essentially obsolete. All future re- ports of the Commission, however, will be published under the

ICRU's own auspices: ICRU Reports, P. 0. Box 4869, Washington,

D. C. 20008.

ICRU Relationships With Other Organizations

One of the features of ICRU activity during the last

few years has been the development of relationships with other

organizations interested in the problems of radiation quantities, units, and measurements. In addition to its close re- lationship with the International Commission on Radiological

Protection and its financial relationships with the International Society of Radiology, the World Health Organization,

and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the ICRU has also

developed relationships of varying intensity with several

other organizations. Since 1955, the ICRU has had an offi-
ICRU - Overview

cial relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO)

whereby the ICRU is looked to for primary guidance in matters

of radiation units and measurements, and in turn, the WHO

assists in the world wide dissemination of the Commission's

recommendations. In I960 the ICRU entered into consultative

status with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The

Commission has a formal relationship with the United Nations

Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

(UNSCEAR) , whereby ICRU observers are invited to attend

UNSCEAR meetings. The Commission and the International

Standards Organization (ISO) informally exchange notifications of meetings and the ICRU is formally designated for

liaison with two of the ISO Technical Committees. The ICRU

also corresponds and exchanges final reports with the following organizations:

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures

Council for International Organizations of Medical

Sciences

Food and Agriculture Organization

International Council of Scientific Unions

International Electrotechnical Commission

International Labor Organization

International Union of Pure & Applied Physics

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

Relations with these other international bodies do not affect the basic affiliation of the ICRU with the International Society of Radiology. The Commission has found its

relationship with all of these organizations fruitful and of

substantial benefit to the ICRU program.

Operating Funds

Throughout most of its existence, the ICRU has operated essentially on a voluntary basis, with the travel and

operating costs being borne by the parent organizations of

the participants. (Only token assistance was originally

available from the International Society of Radiology.)
Mann

Recognizing the impracticability of continuing this mode of

operation on an indefinite basis, operating funds were sought

from various sources in addition to those supplied by the

International Society of Radiology.

Prior to 1959, the principal financial assistance to the ICRU had been provided by the Rockefeller Foundation

which supplied some $11,000 to make possible various meetings.

In 1959 the International Society of Radiology increased its

contribution to the Commission providing $3,000 for the period

1959-1962. For the period 1962-1965 this was again increased,

the Society providing $5,000. In i960 the Rockefeller

Foundation supplied an additional sum of some $4,000 making

possible a meeting of the Quantity and Units Committee in

I960. In i960 and 1961 the World Health Organization made

available the sum of $3,000 each year. This was increased to $4,000 in 1962 and this amount has been made available annually since then. It is expected that this sum will be allocated annually, at least for the next several years.

In connection with the Commission's Joint Studies with

the ICRP, the United Nations allocated the sum of $10,000 for

the joint use of the two Commissions.

The most substantial contribution to the work of the

ICRU has come from the Ford Foundation. In December I960,

the Ford Foundation made available to the Commission the sum

of $37,000 per year for a period of five years. This grant

was to provide for such items as travel expenses to meetings,

for secretarial services and other operating expenses. In 1965 the Foundation agreed to a time extension of this grant

making available for the period 1966-1970 the unused portion

of the original grant. To a large extent, it is because of

this grant that the Commission has been able to move forward

actively with its program.

In 1963 International Atomic Energy Agency allocated

the sum of $6,000 per year for use by the ICRU. This was increased to $9,000 in 1967. It is expected that this sum
48 ICRU - Overview

will be allocated annually at least for the next several

years

From 1934 through 1964 valuable indirect contributions

were made by the U. S. National Bureau of Standards where the

Secretariat resided. The Bureau provided substantial secre- tarial services, publication services and travel costs in the

amount of several thousands of dollars.

The Commission wishes to express its deep appreciation

to all of these and other organizations that have contributed

so importantly to its work.

Composition of the ICRU

It is of interest to note that the membership of the

Commission and its subgroups totals 140 persons drawn from

16 countries. This gives some indication of the extent to which the ICRU has achieved international breadth of membership within its basic selection requirement of high technical competence of individual participants.

The membership of the Commission during the preparation of this report was as follows:

Lauriston S. Taylor, Chairman

M. Tubiana, Vice Chairman

H. 0. Wyckoff, Secretary

A. Allisy

J. W. Boag (1965-1966)

R. H. Chamberlain

P. P. Cowan

P. Ellis (1965)

J. F. Fowler

H. Franz (1965)

F. Gauwerky

J. R. Greening

H. E. Johns (1965-1966)

K. Liden

R. H. Morgan

V. A. Petrov (1965)

H. H. Rossi
ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON USE OF

RADIOACTIVITY STANDARDS, NAS-NRC

Bernd Kahn

The activities of the subcommittee and some of its ex- periences with radioactivity standards are discussed. The

subcommittee consists of individuals active in preparing or using such standards. It was formed to improve the availability of radioactivity standards by discussing the need for

specific radionuclides, and the degree of accuracy and extent

of information required for each standard. These needs are communicated to suppliers, round-robins have been performed

to test and improve accuracy, and a standard certificate was distributed to commercial suppliers . To guide the appropriate

use of radioactivity standards, the subcommittee has prepared

short reviews of chemical and counting problems, and encouraged the preparation of simple "best" decay schemes for frequently used standards. Suggestions for additional activities

are welcomed.

Twenty years ago, most radioactivity standards were used

by nuclear physicists and radiochemis ts in elucidating nuclear

decay characteristics; today, these standards are applied in

fields as diverse as nuclear reactor technology, nuclear medicine, and public health. The National Bureau of Standards

continues to supply several radioactivity standards, and also

calibrates certain radioactivity sources submitted to it.[l]

Most radioactivity standards in the United States, however,

are supplied by commercial producers . As an indication of

the magnitude of the supply, eight commercial suppliers offered standards in 1967,[2] and 70 radionuclides were listed as available standards in a review published that year. [3] The

availability of numerous standards, and their use by many with

limited pertinent experience, led the Committee on Nuclear

Science of the NAS-NRC in 1962 to appoint the Subcommittee on
50 NAS-NRC

Use of Radioactivity Standards as successor to the Subcommittee on Measurements and Standards of Radioactivity. The

change in names indicates the shift in emphasis.

Improvement in standardization techniques during the

past twenty years is evident from reports published in proceedings of three topical symposia [4,5,6] and in NBS Handbook

86 [7]. Briefly, absolute standardization through 4 tt beta and

X-ray counting and beta-gamma and gamma-gamma coincidence

counting has been extended to radionuclides that decay only

by K-capture, through emission of low-erergy beta spectra, and

via complex beta- and gamma-branching. Absolute standardization, moreover, is now applied with greater confidence in re- producibility. Relative ratings — frequently by scintillation spectrometry or high-pressure ionization chamber — are also believed to be more reliable because of accumulated ex- perience, availability of standards over a wide range of energies and stable detection devices. The 2-sigma error for many

radionuclides is now considered to be 0.1 to 0.5 percent by

meticulous and highly skilled absolute calibration, and near

2 percent by competent routine measurements

The extent of problems concerning radioactivity standards is difficult to evaluate, since such information is mostly by hearsay. On the basis of two reports [8,9] and individual complaints over a period of years, the major problem is

a lack of interest by a few commercial suppliers in preparing,

rating, and certifying standards with the met iculousness re- quired for use of that term. Other common problems are typified by the following situation: two standards obtained from

different suppliers at an interval of several months to calibrate a detector for radiopharmaceuticals differ by 15 percent, although each is rated + 3 percent. Was the supplier

at fault through bad measurement, wrong error term, or inclusion of impurities? Or was the user at fault through inappropriate handling of the standard or poor instrument maintenance?
Kahn 51

The Subcommittee was formed to survey existing problems

and to formulate remedies. By appointing to membership professionals who prepare commercial standards, representatives

of national standardization laboratories, and frequent users,

the Subcommittee has obtained information, evaluated improvements, and developed aids to users from both the supplier's

and the user's point of view. The program evolved from this

cooperation is summarized in Table 1. As its first activity, the Subcommittee surveyed users'

needs to obtain information for planning its program. Questionnaires were distributed to purchasers of radionuclide so- lutions from AEC contractors, users of radioactivity standards

known to Subcommittee members, and state health departments.

The response was disappointing in that no concensus existed

concerning needs, and no needs unknown to the Subcommittee

were uncovered. It was apparent that a major difficulty in

procuring satisfactory radioactivity standards was the individual requirements set by many of the users . The other five

activities listed in Table 1 were planned in response to indicated problems.

A standard certificate [10] was prepared by three members of the Subcommittee to remind commercial suppliers of the

type and extent of information required by various users of

radioactivity standards. The certificate makes available

detailed information concerning the preparation,

TABLE I Subcommittee Activities

1. Survey of Users' needs

2. Preparation of recommended certificate of radioactivity

standards

3. Proposal to evaluate accuracy of radioactivity standards

4. Recommendation to compile "best" decay schemes

5. Preparation of guides for using radioactivity standards

6. Sponsoring interlaboratory comparisons of radionuclide

concentration measurements
52 NAS-NRC

composition, and standardization of solutions, and of the magnitude, composition, and change with time of the error in

rating. The primary purposes of the certificate are transmission of information and reduction of misunderstandings between

supplier and user. It is also intended to lead to a clearer

distinction than now exists between a carefully prepared ra- dioactivity standard and a routinely calibrated solution,

since the latter would not be accompanied by a detailed certificate. The standard certificate has been distributed to the

known commercial suppliers of radioactivity standards in the

U. S., and five suppliers have indicated their intention to follow its pattern. Copies of the certificate can be obtained

from the Subcommittee.

At the request of the Subcommittee, a program for evaluating the accuracy of commercially available solution of

radioactivity standards was prepared .[ 11 ] An independent

laboratory would purchase replicate standards and carefully

determine their radionuclide concentration by absolute measurement. Comparison of measured values and standard deviations among replicates with the supplier's rated values and error terms would indicate the degree of reliability of the

standards . The proposal estimates the number of replicates

needed for stated degrees of confidence, and the cost of the

evaluation. If the project is to receive financial support,

it will undoubtedly be necessary to demonstrate that the cost

of the project is less than the expense incurred in independent calibration by users who distrust purchased standards.

A compilation of best decay characteristics was recom- mended by the Subcommittee to provide consistent values for

calibrating and using radioactivity standards. The Nuclear

Data Group under the direction of K. Way accepted this suggestion in 1967, and is preparing a publication that should

be available within a year. [12] It will have the same general format as the earlier publication by Slack and Way. [13]

It is to contain what have been evaluated by its authors to be the best half lives, energies, intensities, and conversion
Kahn 53

coefficients for approximately 100 radionuclides in relatively

common use. Dosimetry information will also be included.

Summaries of the more important chemical and counting

problems in utilizing radioactivity standards were prepared

by Subcommittee members as aids to the memories of users. [14]

Potential losses during dilution and evaporation, interference

from isotopic impurities, effects of genetic relation between

radionuclides, the influence on counting rates of low-energy

beta groups, internal conversion, and branching, etc., are briefly mentioned. Each of 40 elements is discussed on a single page, and references to more detailed information are provided. Copies of the users' guides have been distributed

to commercial suppliers and are available from the author.

Finally, subcommittee members have participated in distributing radionuclide solutions to several laboratories (including commercial producers) and comparing measured concen- tration values. Results of the first three sets of measurements sponsored by the Subcommittee are summarized in Table

2. Note the close agreement of absolute values, the agreement between the means of absolute and relative values, and

the much wider range for relative values than would be predicted for the usually accepted 2-sigma value of approximately 2 percent. The range of values in this type of comparison

indicates the state of the art. Agreement among several

absolute values confirms the individual values, and enables

participants who determine activity relatively to improve

their counter calibration. Subcommittee members will

continue to participate in comparisons for less common radionuclides as they become of interest as standards, or when serious inconsistencies arise in available standards

Future activities depend on the needs of users, and

users are urged to make these known to the Subcommittee.

Among categories of needs that should be considered are stimulation of new developments in standardization techniques,

availability of more radionuclides as standards, preparation

of more accurate standards, and dissemination of additional

information to users of radioactivity standards.
54 NAS-NRC

TABLE 2 Interlaboratory Comparisons

No. of

Participants 57 Co 99 Mo 99mTc Absolute values (4tt3 -y),

range/mean 2 0.9$ 0.6% 0.2%

Relative values (y),

range/mean 10 21. % 23. % 21. % Ratio of mean values

relative/absolute 1.03 1 .00 0.98

Note: Standard deviation of mean is approximately 0.6l of

range for 2 values and 0.31 of range for 10 values.

Bibliography

[1] H. W. Koch, et_ al . , "Nuclear and Radiation Standards of

Importance to the National Atomic Energy Program", NBS

Technical Note 183 (U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C, 1966).

[2] J. L. Sommerville, ed., "The Isotope Index", Vol. 8 (Scientific Equipment Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 1967)

[3] S. A. Reynolds, "Availability of Standards for Common

Radionuclides", Isotop. Radiat . Technol. 5_, 118 (1967).

[4] G. G. Manov and W. C. Peacock, eds . , "Measurements and

Standards of Radioactivity, Proceedings of an Informal

Conference, Easton, Md . " , NAS-NRC publication #573

(1958)

[5] "Metrology of Radionuclides, Proceedings of a Symposium

organized by the IAEA, Vienna, 14-16 Oct., 1959" (IAEA,

Vienna, i960).

[6] "Standardization of Radionuclides, Proceedings of a Symposium held by the IAEA in Vienna, 10-14 Oct., 1966"

(IAEA, Vienna, 1966) .
Kahn 55 [7] "Radioactivity Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements (1962)

(ICRU) Report 10c", NBS Handbook 86 (U. S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C).

[8] H. E. Kolde and G. J. Karches, "Some Limitations of

Available Radioactivity Standards", Health Phys . 10, 635

(1964).

[9] H. E. Kolde and P. A. Cliggett, "Radioactivity Source

Standards for Public Health Service Needs", 156th ACS

National Meeting (1968).

[10] S. B. Garfinkel, A. P. Baerg, and P. F. Zigman, "Certificates of Radioactivity Standards", (National Academy

of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D. C. 1966) . [11] H. E. Kolde, "Evaluation of Standardized Radioactivity

Solutions", unpublished (1967).

[12] M. J. Martin and P. H. Blichert-Toft , "Radioactive Atoms

Auger Electrons, a-, B-, y- and X-ray Data for Dose Calculations", to be published.

[13] L. Slack and K. Way, "Radiations from Radioactive Atoms

in Frequent Use" (U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. , 1959) • [14] B. Kahn, G. R. Choppin, and J. G. V. Taylor, "Users'

Guides for Radioactivity Standards" (National Academy of

Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D. C. 1967) .

STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY

R. G. Chalker

The American Nuclear Society is a nuclear oriented

interdisciplinary society organized into 10 professional

divisions. Many nuclear chemistry and technology division

members of the audience are members of the American Nuclear

Society along with fellow professionals in other technical

disciplines. Thus, because of the natural make-up of the

American Nuclear Society it has become a focal point for

nuclear standards.

I will discuss some of the problems experienced in ANS over the past 12 years in generating nuclear standards with the

intent that they may be of some help to others engaged in

similar activity.
58 ANS

Interest in nuclear standardization is currently very

intent in all segments of the industry. One of the principal

reasons for this high interest is the potential threat that , government regulations may preempt industry standards. This

and other elements caused the Executives and Board of Directoi

of the American Nuclear Society to reevaluate standards

activities within the Society.

Government Preemption?
Chalker 59

Careful analysis of industry and governmental criticism

Df the nuclear standards program revealed that there were three

principal problems with the nuclear standards program. These

problems indicated in Chart 3 will be discussed in detail

subsequently

ANS

NUCLEAR STANDARDS

PROBLEMS

TIMELINESS

QUALITY

USEFULLNESS

As a result of the analysis, the ANS Board of Directors

approved a new policy rededicating itself to a more vigorous

program for the development of nuclear standards. The policy

contains four principal elements as noted.
60 ANS

Element I declares the desirability of standards being

generated by industry specialists who are actively working in

the field. These men are best qualified to indicate practical

procedures, guides and practices ready for meaningful standard

ization and are best qualified to write such standards.

Element II recognizes the delays inherent with using the consensus principle for adopting standards but believes that

within these constraints streamlining is possible.

Element III reflects personal competence and interest not only by the Standards Committee but also by members at large,

the Society President, and Board of Directors in nuclear

standards and offers this talent to others to assist in relate

endeavors

Element IV recognizes the desirability of maintaining an independent society activity in standards generation along wit an awareness that cooperation with other societies and the

government is necessary.

ANS STANDARDS

1. WE REAFFIRM THE DESIRABILITY OF THE CONSENSUS APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR STANDARDS, BUT ALSO RECOGNIZE THE

DIFFICULTY IN THIS METHOD OF MEETING SHORT-TERM REQUIREMENTS

ON NEW ISSUES.

2. WE PROPOSE TO CONTINUE THE CONSENSUS APPROACH IN COOPERATION

WITH USASI AND WITH OTHER PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND WILL VIGOROUSLY EXPLORE MEANS OF STREAMLINING PROCEDURES.

3. WE BELIEVE THAT THE TALENTS REPRESENTED IN THE ANS AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN OUR STANDARDS COMMITTEE AND ITS SUBCOMMITTEES CAN BE EMPLOYED USEFULLY TO ASSIST THE AEC AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN MEETING URGENT PROBLEMS.

4. WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANS HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT BUT COOPERATIVE ROLE IN THE GENERATION AND ADOPTION

OF NUCLEAR STANDARDS.
Chalker 61

The reason for lengthy in-process time is inherent with

the theory of involvement of all principal interests in

Agreeing to a standard so that it will have maximum chance for

voluntary acceptance when issued. The process for adopting a J.S.A. Standard involves review and judgment of various

organizations each representing a larger segment of the

^industry until finally within USASI the entire country has a representative voice.
62 ANS

Basic to the streamlining of the consensus gathering

procedure has been the problem of intermixing the standards

writing and adoption process. The ANS Standards Committee

procedures have now been revised to separate these two

processes. This allows the writers to concentrate on producin.

useful, adequate standards and leaves the complex interfaces

and judgments of the adopting process to others.

USA SC ANS

• BLENDS RECOMMENDATIONS

INTO SATISFACTORY

% SOLUTIONS

•AIRS VIEWS OF ALL MEMBERS

• SPONSORING BODY

• RECOMMENDS TO USASI

• ENSURES EFFECTIVE W0RK,«i- •SELECTS CHAIRMAN •APPROVES FOR SOCIETY. V:

• ASSURES SINGLE CONSISTENT SET

OF NATIONAL

• DECLARES U.S.A. STANDARDS

STANDARDS

USASI

• JUDGES CONSENSUS

• DETERMINE PRIORITY •APPROVES COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

NSB

STANDARDS fH

SUBCOMMITTEE

.WRITES STANDARDS

• REVISES STANDARDS

i
Chalker 63

One method of streamlining the consensus gathering

procedures without destroying the basic desirability of the

principle was to eliminate some reviews. Fundamental to the

subsequent review deletions was the recent selection of the

American Nuclear Society to become sponsor of the N-16 and N-l8

U.S.A. Standards Committee. The importance of this development

is that the scopes of these two committees embrace the majority

of standardization work within the Society, thus making it

possible to reorganize the committee as will be shown.

N-16-NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY

SCOPE

STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR NUCIEAR CRITICALITY OF FISSILE MATERIALS OUTSIDE REACTORS, FOR THE PREVENTION

OF ACCIDENTAL CRITICALITY, AND FOR COPING WITH ACCIDENTS

SHOULD THEY OCCUR.

N-18-NUCLEAR DESIGN CRITERIA

SCOPE

NUCLEAR ASPECTS OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES
64 ANS

The new procedures now in effect take advantage of this

organization structure so that any standard written by

subcommittees of the American Nuclear Society intended to be

processed eventually as a U.S.A. Standard will be processed

directly from the American Nuclear Society into the appropriat

sectional USASI standards committee, thus eliminating the

internal American Nuclear Society reviews and reducing the

standards adoption process to a minimum.

SPONSOR

ans r

• ENSURES EFFECTIVE WORK

• SELECTS CHAIRMAN NBj • REVIEWS AND COMMENTS > • APPROVES FOR SOCIETY M

• RECOMMENDS TO USASI /M
Chalker 65

The Standards Committee was reorganized into three sections

Section 1 is composed of existing American Nuclear Society

subcommittees whose individual scopes of nuclear standardization

fall within the general scope of N-16 — Nuclear Criticality

Safety. Similarly, Section 2 has those subcommittees whose

activities fall within the scope of N-l8 — Nuclear Design

Criteria. Section 3 is composed of subcommittees with scopes

falling outside these two U.S.A. Standards Committee scopes.

ANS STANDARDS COMMITTEE

SECTION 2 W. A. CHITTENDEN* ANS-2 SITE CRITERIA

J. M. SMITH ANS-4 REACTOR DYNAMICS AND CONTROL

R. H. BRYAN

ANS-5 ENERGY AND FISSION-PRODUCT RELEASE

M. E. REM LEY ANS-7 REACTOR COMPONENTS

S. S. BACHARACH

ANS-13 FUEL ELEMENTS CRITERIA

J. F. MUMM

SECTION 1 A. D. CALLIHAN*

ANS-1 PERFORMANCE OF CRITICAL EXPERIMENTS

A. D. CALLIHAN

ANS-3 REACTOR OPERATIONS**

G. A. REED

ANS-8 FISSIONABLE MATERIALS OUTSIDE REACTORS

J. D. McLENDEN

ANS-14 OPERATIONS OF PULSE NUCLEAR REACTORS ARMANDO DE LA PAZ

SECTION 3

j. e. Mclaughlin*

ANS-6 SHIELDING**

N. SCHAEFFER

ANS-9 NUCLEAR TERMINOLOGY AND UNITS

D. GOLDMAN

ANS-10 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTATION**

R. A. BLAINE ANS-11 RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS HANDLING FACILITY AND SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT**

R. V. STEELE

ANS-12 MATERIALS**

S. CHRISTOPHER

ANS-15 PROTECTIVE COATINGS CLYDE WATSON

CHAIRMAN* SECRETARY* R. G. CHALKER

A. W. SAVOLAINEN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING*

J. S. MOORE, CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN*

j. e. Mclaughlin

*£XECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER SUBCOMMITTEE SPONSORED BY AN ANS DIVISION
66 ANS

An important element in speeding the standardization

process is to establish priorities on those standards urgently

needed and assure that complementing standards are processed

approximately simultaneously. Once priorities are established

and interfacing standardization organizations are properly

identified, work can proceed systematically. Standards have

been categorized into four levels. The writing of standards

will progress more rapidly if priorities are given to level I so they will set requirements for Group II. Subsequently,

Group II sets requirements for Group III, etc.

LEVELS OF STANDARDS

BROAD

OBJECTIVES

27 SAFETY CRITERIA FEDERAL REGULATIONS

RADIATION ALLOWABLES

OPERATING CRITERIA ABSOLUTE CROSS SECTIONS

DESIGN TO

CRITERIA

BASIC TECHNOLOGY

DESIGN PRACTICES MATH CODES

HEAT TRANSFER MODELS

ANALYTICAL METHODS

TEST REQUIREMENTS

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

UNITS AND TERMINOLOGY

SHIELDING DESIGN

000

BUILD TO STANDARDS

| PRODUCT ORIENTED

' INSTRUMENTATION

' PRESSURE VESSELS

VALVES

' PUMPS

> PIPING

i CONTAINMENT

' MATERIAL

| FABRICATION

i CONSTRUCTION TEST PROCEDURE

MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

i REPAIR PROCEDURES

> OPERATING PROCEDURES

INSPECTION PROCEDURES

PROCUREMENT

SPECIFICATIONS

PUMPS

• VALVES MOTORS

• INSTRUMENTS

• STEAM GENERATORS

FILTERS

ETC.

FACILITIES MATERIALS
Chalker 67

Improved quality can be achieved in nuclear standards by

assuring that those professionals capable in the field are being

selected to write the standards. Within the American Nuclear

Society's professional divisions, five are sponsors of standards

writing subcommittees within the scope of their expertise.

Thus, the organizational structure of the Society naturally

provides a reservoir of qualified professionals from whom a select few may be chosen for a writing assignment. The product

of the writing subcommittee then represents the best information

continuously being developed through normal professional

activities. Subsequent to the concurrence of the subcommittee,

the standard is reviewed by a 3-man ad hoc committee chosen

from professional experts at large.
68 ANS

This organization chart of the ANS Standards Committee

graphically shows the importance of the subcommittee writers

in producing quality standards. The writers are on top and

all others are part of the adoption process.

Useful standards then are dependent on good standards

process via the consensus process in the most expeditious manner

I^-zr =>~Write Standards

WORKING GROUP 1 LEADER

1 I I 1 J I I I I I J I I

1 1 1 SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN

SECT ON 1 C HAIRMAN

1 1 1 1 1

SECTION II CHAIRMAN

LLLU

SECTION III C HAIRMAN

STANDARDS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN-EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE-SECRETARY
Chalker

Indicative of the Society's policy to cooperate with

government agencies is a proposal offered by the President

of the American Nuclar Society to the Chairman of the U. S Atomic Energy Commission.

PROPOSED ANS INTERFACE WITH AEC

1. EXCHANGE OF PLANNING AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION IN THE FORMATIVE

STAGES OF NUCLEAR STANDARDS DRAFTING AND CONTINUING DURING THE

ENTIRE STANDARDIZATION PROCESS

2. AD HOC TECHNICAL REVIEW SERVICE FOR LICENSING CRITERIA

3. SENIOR REVIEW PANEL TO CONSIDER SOME OF THE BROADER OBJECTIVES AND TRENDS OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
70 ANS

The American Nuclear Society has more than 150 members

working on 29 nuclear standards drafts in addition to 10

standards already written and approved. The following list

shows some of the standards which may be of interest to the

American Chemical Society members.

SELECTED ANS STANDARDS

STANDARD

ANS APPROVED

STANDARD

USASI APPROVED

STANDARD

STANDARD

SUBMITTED TO

USASI FOR APPROVAL

SURVEY BEING CONDUCTED

FOR NEED DRAFT NUCLEAR

ENGINEERING BULLETIN

1. CODE OF GOOD PRACTICES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CRITICAL EXPERIMENTS

2. STANDARD VALUES FOR ENERGY RELEASE FOLLOWING SHUTDOWN OF URANIUM- FUELED THERMAL REACTORSX

3. SUMMARY OF FISSION YIELDS FOR 235U, AND 239

Pu AT THERMAL FISSION SPECTRUM, AND 14-Mev NEUTRON ENERGIES STANDARD HALF-LIVES FOR FISSION PRODUCTS

5. STANDARD FOR FISSION PRODUCT YIELDS

6. POST-SHUTDOWN HEAT GENERATION AND TEMPERATURE INCREASE RATES IN U0

2 FUELED CORES

7. STANDARD TEST PROGRAM FOR BIOLOGICAL SHIELDING IN NUCLEAR REACTOR

PLANTS

X

8. RECOMMENDED DATA FOR SHIELDING CALCULATIONS X

9. SPECIAL MATERIALS FOR USE IN REACTOR SHIELDS

10. STANDARD FOR PLATE-TYPE URANIUH -ALUMINUM FUEL ELEMENTS

STANDARD GUIDE FOR SPECIFYING CLEANLINESS IN NUCLEAR REACTOR SYSTEM COMPONENTS

X

12. STANDARD FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND INSPECTION FOR PLATE-TYPE URANIUM- ALUMINUM FUEL ELEMENTS

13. STANDARD FOR NUCLEAR FUEL ELEMENTS FOR POWER REACTORS

14. A SAFETY STANDARD FOR OPERATIONS WITH FISSIONABLE MATERIALS OUTSIDE REACTORS

15. STANDARD FOR USE OF BOROSILICATE -GLASS RASCHIG RINGS AS A FIXED NEUTRON ABSORBER IN SOLUTIONS OF FISSILE MATERIAL

X

16. STANDARD ON THE USE OF BORON STEEL AS A FIXED NEUTRON ABSORBER X

17. STANDARD ON THE SOLUBLE NEUTRON ABSORBERS IN PROCESS SOLUTIONS

18. SHIPPING CONTAINERS FOR URANIUM HEXAFLOURIDE

19. STANDARD NUCLEAR REACTOR CLASSIFICATION X

20. STANDARD TERMS AND UNITS FOR IONIZING RADIATION

21. RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FLOW SCHEMES

OVERALL TOTAL STANDARDS 5 2 3 3 24 6
THE POSITION OF ASTM IN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

J. W. Caum

The American Society for Testing Materials actually had

its beginning in 1898 when an American section of the International Association for Testing Materials was organized.

The IATM was dedicated to "the development of standard methods of testing for the determination of the properties of the

materials of construction and of other materials, and also

the perfection of apparatus for that purpose." All European

nations except Turkey participated, with Germany and Russia

the big wheels. In 1898 the total membership was about 1500

with about 70 U.S.A. members. A noteworthy feature regarding membership (one that has carried through to the present

in ASTM) was that it could be assumed by a corporation or so- ciety as well as a person. The first list of American members included the Franklin Institute, the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers, the American Foundrymen's Association,

local engineering clubs, several steel companies, engineering

journals, and firms engaged in inspection and testing. In Europe such governmental bureaus were members as the public

works of several cities, provinces, and states, police bureaus, and war departments. ASTM now includes many federal,

state, and local agencies on its membership rolls as well as governmental agencies of many other nations around the world.

The IATM early stated that such an arrangement makes it possible for both manufacturers and consumers to make their

wishes more directly known and thus differences in regard to methods of inspection and testing can be more quickly harmonized than under the usual plan of strict individual membership . After several years of operation as an American Section, it was decided to incorporate as an independent self

directing but closely related Society. Thus in 1902 ASTM was formally incorporated for "the promotion of the knowledge of

71
72 ASTM-Overview

the materials of engineering and the standardization of specifications and methods of test." This step was taken for

two reasons. First our independent democratic nature created

a fundamental difference of opinion with the Europeans. We

disagreed with the premise that the IATM Council could itself

appoint the American member of the Council. We felt that we Should appoint our own representative. Second the American

Section early recognized the primary importance of establishing the specifications which the materials tested must endure

(purchase specifications) and this was shrugged off by the

IATM. Although incorporated as ASTM we continued to be re- cognized as the American section of IATM until its dissolution in 1925- We have maintained our international aspects

with 2000 of our total 15,000 members being located outside

the U.S.A. and with many of our technical committees furnishing guidance to USASI in international standards activities.

In response to requests from our European members we have

sponsored ASTM meetings in Europe.

Early in our history our standardization program was aimed primarily at railroad needs (the prime consuming industry). This continued until the late 19^0 's when the requirements of the power industry replaced railroads as the primary

need. Then nuclear power came into the picture in the

1950 T s. Let me hasten to add that many other industries T needs for standards have been fulfilled over the years. I am merely pointing out the largest portion of ASTM activities in

mentioning railroads and electric power.

During the term of office of C . H. Fellows, Detroit

Edison Company, as ASTM President, both ASTM and ASA (the

predecessor of USASI) held conferences late in 1955 on nuclear energy. At that time it was established that ASTM should

be the central focus for material standards. In January 1956

the ASTM formed a Special Administrative Committee on Nuclear

Standards to promote standardization work in the nuclear

energy area within the ASTM technical committees and to coor-
Caum 73

dinate nuclear energy matters within ASTM and with other or- ganizations. The members of this group were specialists appointed by the ASTM Board of Directors, and its function was administrative in character rather than the actual writing of

standards. During the succeeding years this group did interest numerous existing ASTM technical committees in expanding

their activities into the nuclear field and also brought to light numerous existing ASTM test methods and specifications

that were adaptable to the nuclear energy field. Close relations were maintained with the American Nuclear Society, ASA,

and ASME, particularly in code work for pressure vessels and

pressure piping for nuclear reactors. Slowly industrial

personnel involved in nuclear energy became involved in ASTM

technical committee work.

By the early part of 1965 a decision was reached that

this Special Committee of the Board of Directors had served

its purpose. Therefore in May, 1965, the ASTM Board of Directors dissolved the Special Committee and authorized a Coordinating Committee on Materials Specifications for Nuclear

Service. This coordinating committee comprises the chairmen

or key representatives of all ASTM technical committees or subcommittees having specific interests in the nuclear field

with a specially selected number of individuals to act in an advisory capacity. To match the industrial maturity attained in the nuclear field the primary functions were to (1)

coordinate specification activities in ASTM; (2) act as ASTM

clearing house for information on nuclear materials technology and specifications to industry, and (3) serve as ASTM

liaison to Section III on Nuclear Vessels of the ASME Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Committee. Currently there are 18 ASTM

technical committees represented on this coordinating com- mittee, and you will hear about the work of some of these

committees in detail in other presentations.

In 1966 the USASI Nuclear Standards Board undertook the

reorganization of the N series of USA Standards Committees.

During the reorganization ASTM was asked and agreed to spon-
74 ASTM-Overview

sor USA Standards Committee N 11 on Basic Materials and Materials Testing Involved in Nuclear Applications. The scope

of this committee is "Standards for the specification of

chemical composition and physical and mechanical properties

of materials used in or resulting from nuclear applications,

and methods of testing and analysis of these materials but

not to include the specification and testing of components

made from materials." All of the members of the previously

mentioned ASTM coordinating committee are either voting or consulting members of N 11. Fifteen other organizations are members of N 11 as well as 6 individual persons. It is generally believed that N 11 could serve the assigned functions

of the ASTM Coordinating Committee as well as many others,

Therefore the ASTM Coordinating Committee may be dissolved in

the next few years. As sponsor we regard N 11 as not primarily a standards writing body but one which would be an excellent judge as to the suitability of standards developed by

existing standards-writing organizations for adoption as USA

standards. Of course if no existing standards writing organization is capable or willing to undertake a specific task,

N 11 could develop a U.S.A. standard itself. This procedure

is In accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the USA

Standards Institute.

While we are on the subject of USA Standards Boards and

USA standards in general, I should point out that ASTM is the

major contributor to the list of USA standards. It is the

official policy of ASTM to refer its standards to USASI for

consideration as USA standards under the Existing Standards

Procedure currently 1400 of 3300 ASTM standards are USA

standards or are under consideration as such. I do not have

an accurate count at present of the total number of USA

standards, but ASTM contributes at least one-third the total

number. Becoming more specific, many ASTM standards are es- sential references in Section III on Nuclear Vessels of the

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as well as the relatively new AEC-RDT Standards issued by the Division of Reactor

Development and Technology from Oak Ridge.
Caum 75 The Society since 1898 has continued to expand and con- solidate its ideals, philosophies and procedures as early

enumerated by our founders. Whenever the demand for standardization in a new area arises, and the Society can identify

sufficient support among producers, consumers and general

interest groups, a new project either in existing committees

or new committees is created to write the needed standards.

In the process of forming a new project, and indeed in the

process of sustaining the vigor of existing committees, ASTM

uses every facility at its command to seek out and bring into

the work every individual and every organization that has an interest. Often identified as the largest private standardization effort in the world, our procedures require a consensus of all concerned and have been thoroughly tested by time,

usage, and the courts. To ensure that its standards are un- biased, ASTM requires that the membership of any specifications writing committee be balanced between the producers on

one hand and the consumers and general interest groups on the

other. In order to achieve the broad consensus required for

the adoption of an ASTM standard, all negative votes are thoroughly explored and, if possible, resolved. It is on these provisions of fair play in ASTM committees that the

world-renowned integrity of ASTM standards is built.

Drafting a standard in a committee of many interests is not an easy task, as many of you know. The time required for

the development of a standard is directly related to the time

contributed by the committee members. And, as all of us know, the time made available for committee work is directly

proportional to the relative importance of the work to a man's company. There is also the matter of priority of work

within one's own company and the fact that each day is com- posed of a fixed number of hours. The dedicated engineers

and scientists who have taken upon themselves the responsibility for the continuing growth, validity and usefulness of

ASTM standards have my utmost respect, particularly those who

handle the secretarial chores.
76 ASTM-Overview

For quite a few years the ASTM Board of Directors has

realized that the chores facing the secretary of an ASTM

technical committee are becoming too much for any one company

to absorb in relation to amount of time and cost. Therefore

plans are now underway for ASTM Headquarters to assume the

jobs of maintaining committee mailing lists, preparing, duplicating and mailing minutes and ballots; counting and re- porting results of letter ballots, and in general maintaining

committee records and files. These functions would be absorbed only for the main technical committee. The secretarial chores for subcommittees would remain a contributed effort . For some 70 years ASTM technical committees and joint

committees with other associations have proliferated on an average of about two per year on a completely horizontal basis. With the advancement and overlapping of technologies

such a growth has created quite a coordination problem for the

Board of Directors to whom all technical committees are subservient in their scope of activities. The Society is seriously considering a total restructuring of its committees into technological areas of mutual interest. Each technological

area might have a technical board of its own to furnish the

needed executive direction for activities in this area. One area under active consideration is that of plastics and rubber

with all the pertinent composite materials, old and new, that

have come into the industrial picture.

In conclusion I want to emphasize that ASTM has served

any industry that feels the needs for test methods and specifications for materials and is willing to contribute the time

of appropriate industry personnel for the task. The pace of

the development of standards and the acceptability of the

standards depends entirely on the time that the companies make

available for individuals in this effort and the quality of

the individuals. ASTM furnishes the structure and the guidance for the development of acceptable standards but the nu- clear industry itself must accept the responsibility for the

extent of the effort.
ASTM C-21, SUBCOMMITTEE V, NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS

Harlan J. Anderson

INTRODUCTION

Subcommittee V was organized in 1962 with a scope as shown in Table I, to study ceramics for nuclear applications.

The parent committee is ASTM C-21, "Ceramic Whitewares and

Related Products." Since 1962, the group has been active

especially in the study of ceramics used in nuclear fuel applications. When the American Standards Association (ASA) was reorganized, Subcommittee V was expanded to include nuclear

fuel specifications work, and many of the former ASA N5 . 1 members are now included in the present membership. It now has

24 active members, excluding the BeO Task Group membership.

TABLE I ASTM SUBCOMMITTEE V (C-21)

TITLE : Nuclear Applications.

SCOPE : The study of ceramic materials for nuclear applications;

to develop standards to apply to all areas of nuclear

ceramics; to promote and encourage mutual cooperation

with government agencies, industrial firms, and

testing laboratories.

BACKGROUND

Initially, the Subcommittee studied and reviewed private and governmental specifications of ceramic materials

that were being used or proposed for use as nuclear fuels in

thermal reactors . The study indicated that the use of uranium oxide (urania) as a fuel was becoming well developed and

established. It was apparent that minimum specifications for

uranium and uranium oxides should be developed.

77
78 ASTM-Nuclear Fuels

PRESENT STANDARDS

Pour basic specifications or standard procedures were developed and proposed for standards. Table II shows these

standards for uranium, uranium dioxide(s) and related tests.

These are

(1) Specification for Nuclear Grade Uranium Metal Melt

Stock

(2) Specification for Nuclear Grade Uranium Dioxide,

Sinterable

(3) Specification for Nuclear Grade Uranium Dioxide,

Compactible

(4) Referee Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Nuclear Fuels (Uranium)

These were approved and issued in September 1965- These

standards are now also approved by the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI).

CURRENT STANDARD ACTIVITIES

Recently, the Subcommittee recognized that while ceramic

fuel materials have been studied primarily for thermal reactors, recent expanding nuclear technology as related especially to fast reactor concepts are focusing attention on additional ceramic fuel materials, such as plutonium and plutonium

oxides. In addition, interest in ceramic materials such as carbides and nitrides for use as fast reactor nuclear fuels is

rapidly expanding. To meet these needs of industry and government, the Subcommittee has been working on several proposed

standards. These are shown in Table III. In particular,

activities for standards of Nuclear Grade Plutonium Metal;

Nuclear Grade Plutonium Dioxide, Sinterable; Referee Methods

for the Chemical Analysis of Plutonium-Bearing Fuels; and two

referee tests for density and organic impurity in nuclear fuel

are in active work status. The Nuclear BeO is also in active

status and is undergoing ballot by the Task Group BeO, which

is sponsored by Subcommittee V.
Anderson 79

Ph CD CD CD CD cd6 CO CQ CO CO 0 CO CO CQ CO CO cr; 1—

1—

(—1 1—

2;oi—

Cm

Eh o Ph <j cti LT\ LPv LT\ LO. o CD vo VO VO VO

f—P C 1 | 1 i_q cd cd o> CT\ C7\ CT\ Ph Q P

Ph CO <

T) < CQ CD CD CD CD > > > > p o o o o o cd M

p> a Oh co o a < <n < „ TJ LTi LO. rH u Ph VO VO VO VO

cd CD CT\ OA ON OA | rH i—

rH 6 1 | | | cd jg- LT\ vo [

P 2 > CO LP\ LfS £5 w

Eh rH Eh CD (D CD cd i—i o

cd cd cd •H M Ph CD £ o C3 CD O rH CD o i—

o

CQ CO Ph O Ph tH O CQ g CD cd ^ cd cd cd p> rH

00 •H CD O CD Ph CD O CD CD -P rH O rH CD rH Cd S •H O P O P o a P Ph

Eh > 3 co 3 c 3 S

CO •H 2 n 2 o Ph Sh < P p CO o o cd O Ph rH Ph Ph Cm CD < O CD O •> O « rH <M S <m CD Oh CD CO O

CQ C rH C tH C -H O 2 U O cd O X O X G

cti •H P •H O •H O P Cm d P CD P -H P -H CD O c cd S cd Q cd Q 5

cti o o o co -p •H g •H S •H S CD -H

CO Cm 3 <M 3 Cm 3 CD CQ iH •H -H •H iH Ph >> O C o c o C CD rH

CD cd cd cd CD cd <m Cd a Ph a Ph O, Ph CD C

CO !o CO !=> CO tD PS < o o o o
ASTM-Nuclear Fuels

c

O

•H

P>

cdu

cda,

CD CO Ma

M

cd m

6 CD

cd p P P

Cm Cm •3 Cm a Cm cd cd M cd ?H >> M

m T3 rH CO -P s x: c T3 -P o p ,c CD C O

M p O ?H O i—

EH X o M o i—

o •H CD (D cd Ph CO co O CO PQ

1—

m!

Pm<

CO CD CD CD CD CD CD w > > > > > > P •H •H •H •H •H •H o Cd P P P P P P

-P O O O O O O

—

co < < < < < <C

1—

1 o 1 c

•H co CD co rH bO CD P

w •> C rH |—1 =s w CD •H CD cd bO CO Eh TJ C 3 o C rH EH rH •H •H fc •H hO •H cd

1—

CO Cd X 6 £ C C -H

CD -P O U M CD -H •H M

•H CD •H CD cd S CD o -P S Q P CD O cd in -P o •H CD rH CD 0 cd

(X] > E S Q o CD CQ P S

•H x: i CD CO -P •H •H M S p s Q rH O C c O CD < o O Cm C M -H M 3

EH p P •H O C O (Jh CO CO Cm O Cm

t3 ,—

1—

O i—

m P-, P-I x: cd CO 3 CO -H

Cd P vH rH Xi rH

T> CD CD CD ?h O O O C S CD .c x: co a Cd cd P P Cn p o

p M U rH Cd CD O CD Cm

CO o cd S S O pq o CO M CD •H O CD -H CD >> fn cd cd H P >H CD CO CD P cd

CD CD t» c M >> M tH CD i—

rH cd rH Cd CD rH CD CO rH O o u cd hO Cm Cd Cm. C O

CD CD C CD CD P < O £C < P=I Q

o o o o o o
Anderson 81

Due to increased Interest by industry and government,

these standards are being reviewed extensively by the Subcommittee members as shown in Table IV. It was evident from

Table III that some standards have been issued as drafts and

reviewed as many as four or six times within the Subcommittee.

This action stems from new technology and new interests about

these standards. One particular problem is to overcome the

issue and approval of an "ideal" standard. By this I mean

a standard that covers all interests of industry and government as well as the criteria of a perfect specification. For

example, often not everything is completely known about a ceramic material! However, by using a minimum specification

approach and by holding at least two meetings a year preceded

by committee letters and drafts, progress is being made.

Additionally, specific industrial specifications can be made

from these minimum standards

Hopefully, several of these specifications should be

completed and recommended for ballot late this year. Later

on in this text, a discussion is given about a proposed activity that will speed up this process of developing standards

to meet industrial and governmental needs

LIAISON ACTIVITIES

Additional activities of the Chairman included liaison

with the ASTM C-21 Task Group on Beryllia and with other re- lated standardization committees. In particular, liaison

activities were conducted with the former ASA N5.1 Committee,

and with the ASTM Coordinating Committee on Materials Specifications for Nuclear Service. As the representative of ASTM

C-21 Committee, the Chairman of Subcommittee V attended

meetings of the United States of America Standards Institute,

especially Committee Nil, "Basic Materials and Materials

Testing for Nuclear Service"; a new committee sponsored by

ASTM. At an organizational meeting, the Chairman of Subcommittee V was elected a Vice-Chairman of Nil. Other activities
ASTM-Nuclear Fuels

CO

• -p H CO

1—1 CD cd co H Eh £ rH u a; •H

cd £

CD o

Eh Q J M S J Q

CD D.-H o o

G -H

CO 3

Cd «H

Eh C

O

-P

• 3 H rH M Oh

a

Q.-P 3 CD O S

o

s

CO -H

cd C

Eh Op

• rH M Ph

rHCD C

cd O c rH Cd H

CO cd o rH P> CD H P

U C -p rH cd CD CD CD CD CO o U hO C rH CD Cm

CD •H tH C in d cd o o

C U U CD cd CD Sh CD O •H o

<t; CQ CQ Q J S S 00

1-3 Q s s < Q

•-3 ha o >"3

c:cd CO E rH

CD •H X>

cd e

x:o s

rHrH rH

CD o CD p> X) >5 rH T3 CO -P CD o CD rH •H O rH o cd G

cd •H cd cd CD •H cd o CQ Q o s o Q CC < 1-3

i-3 :s
Anderson 83

include correspondence, telephone contacts and review of minutes from related ASTM Committees, including E-10, and Subcommittee 20.20, D-9/D-20.

These studies and liaison activities with other related

committees have indicated that ceramic materials that are used

in nuclear applications have expanded rapidly. Many of these

materials have developed to the point where meaningful standards can be more fully developed and proposed to industry and

government

PROPOSED STANDARDS

As mentioned, there is great interest by both government

and industry for new and additional standards. For example,

Table V shows several standards that are proposed, or were proposed or active in the former ASA N5 • 1 Committee. As you

will notice these standards cover a broad area of nuclear

ceramics. The need has been expressed by industry or government for these standards. There is not enough time and man- power to complete work on these standards in the present or- ganization . PROPOSED ASTM C-26 COMMITTEE

In 1967, the Nuclear Standard Board of the USA Standards Institute assigned ASTM as sponsor of the NBS project

Nil on Basic Materials and Materials Testing involved in Nuclear Service. To better implement their responsibility in

the areas of Nuclear Fuel Materials, the ASTM Board of Directors authorized an expansion of scope and full committee status for the ASTM connected work on fuel materials.

As part of this expansion Subcommittee V (C-21) solicited and now includes members of the former ASA N5 . 1 Committee

and several new members of industry. Thus, Subcommittee V is now a nucleus for the new proposed full Committee to be known

as ASTM C-26.

A Steering Group was formed and a meeting was held re- cently to outline a proposed scope, bylaws, slate of officers,

and to set an organization meeting for the new ASTM C-26 Committee .
ASTM-Nuc lear Fuels >H

CQ H <

EH 1 o

T3

CD >3 >

rHO

CD CDG <m «CO g m o S3o a p « o w

S3 cti CD < P < -P >>CO -H 3 G

CD O G ^

cti P,rH

CD I G lp\ g3

CQ

CD CD CD P > > >

Cti •H •H •H P P P P

CO O O O < < < G

cti CD rHosG rH o 0

Cm G

Pc

CQ CQ CQ

CD rH P S

•H cti CD G P •H rH G

•H G rH •H > CD CD S

•H P CM P cti rH O s rH < < CD 1 G s O Ph

Fh •H •H

Cti P CD G O T3 Cti G CD •H G

cti co X! G> p O

CO CQ •H CD

CQ hO Q o C >s G •H S -P o G 1 O •H CD G CO G P

hO-H cti cti •H O G rH

tU Ph G> Pc o o O 3

CDG

cti CDGap

Cm

cti GGP

X! •H G

•HGOG

Eh

CD

cti GO

CD G rH

Cti .Q

CD iH

rH P o o G 05 s a

CQ rH rH

Cti CD o G

•H Pc e

CD hO

-G G O -HG

CD cti ,G CD P CQI G & O G

Cm -HG

CQ O

T3 G O Eh GP Cm

CD O S

CQ

CD iH

CD CQ G >>

CD rH

Cm Cti CD G

CG <

CD S CQ

CQOG CQ P 3

CD G S Go

cd a

CD S G O

CD O

Cm

<!> S

CG G

•H G G O O

Cm -PG

T3 rH G P-.

Cti X) G G O

Cti <M P

CO CQ •H B CQ G >s

•H rH G cti O G P < G

rH <M

P-. o I CD CD G

T) G

•H P> X X O -H H S Q

rH S CD G G

•H fx. G

Cti CD g n

G> -HX 0 o

"H

cti Q G SG G -H

cti G

CD O H P o G G rH 3 Ph Go P

•H o P CD

Cti G o

Cti G a a

CDGa CDCQ G O

CD a

T3 o G G

G> P-,0>

CD •H > P

•H O P Cti O GH3 3 G CD

Cti CD Pc

hOG rH •H CD rH G

rH•HS G

cti CD CD Xi rH P OG G S

•H

Cm G O O GO

•HP

Cti CQ G rH P Cti G -H

CD G O CD G P O cti O S
Anderson 85 The title is:

Fuel, Control, and Moderator Materials for Nuclear Reactor Applications

The scope is:

The promotion of knowledge and the development of methods of test, definitions of terms, classifications, and specifications for fissionable and fertile materials and solid control and moderator materials, excluding graphite, intended for

use in nuclear core components. The activities will be coor- dinated with those of other ASTM Committees and other organizations . Recommended Organization and Slate of Officers:

The steering group proposed that the officers consist of

a chairman, a vice-chairman for fuels, a vice-chairman for

control materials and a secretary. It is proposed that initially the committee would support five subcommittees.

I. Executive

II. Fuel and Fertile Materials

III. Control Materials

IV. Moderator Materials

V. Methods of Test

It is proposed that the Executive Subcommittee would

consist of the officers, the chairman of the other subcommittees and two members-at-large representing the utilities interest .Candidates were proposed for the following offices (subject to the approval of their participation by their organizations ) . Chairman: H. J. Anderson (BNW)

Vice-Chairman: (fuels) C. Caldwell (NUMEC)

Vice-Chairman : (control)

L. T. Corbin (ORNL) is proposed as Chairman of Sub V on Methods of Test, and C. Caldwell as Chairman of Sub II on Fuel

and Fertile Materials. D. Rhodes, F. Forscher, and H. Anderson are designated to propose candidates who could serve as
86 ASTM-Nuclear Fuels

(1) Secretary of the new committee, (2) Chairman of Sub III Control Materials, and (3) Chairman of Sub IV Moderator Materials . Time and Place for Organization Meeting of New Committee:

The organization meeting of the proposed C26 Committee

is scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 1968 as part of the

meeting of the American Nuclear Society in Washington, D. C. at 7:30 p.m. in the Franklin Room of the Sheraton Park Hotel.

Invitees will be asked to ratify the scope, organization, and by-laws of the new committee, and indicate their

probable areas of participation. For further information,

contact me or telephone Jim A. Dwyer, ASTM Headquarters (215-

569-^200), Philadelphia, Pa. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Subcommittee V is active, but there is

much work to be done. With the formation of a full ASTM Committee, the manpower will become available to complete and

issue the standards required by industry and government.
A REVIEW OP THE WORK OF ASTM SUBCOMMITTEE II, D9/D20,

EFFECTS OF HIGH ENERGY RADIATION ON PLASTICS AND

ELECTRICAL INSULATION

0. Sisman

This subcommittee (recently renamed 20.20) is sponsored

jointly by ASTM Committee D-9 on Electrical Insulating Materials, and ASTM Committee D-20 on Plastics. It is one of the

older of the committees dealing with radiation effects. For

several years after its conception, under Dr. D. S. Ballantine, much of the activities of the subcommittee were educational (symposia) and involved trying to determine just what

was needed. We now participate in symposia essentially only

in cooperation with ASTM Committee E-10 . Our present organization is shown in Figure 1. The scopes of the sections are shown in Figure 2

An exposure method -- D1672-66, Exposure of Polymeric

Materials to High-Energy Radiation — was approved as an ASTM

tentative in 1961 and advanced to standard in 1966.

Section A, which developed this standard, is now becoming

very active in determining the need for and developing methods for specifications for plastics and electrical insulating

materials to be used in a radiation field. Along with this,

and perhaps even before the specifications, we will study

methods of testing for radiation damage.

CHAIRMAN: Oscar Sisman SECRETARY: W. W. Parkinson

Oak Ridge Nat ' 1 .Lab . Oak Ridge Nat [ 1 .Lab . LIAISON OFFICER WITH E-10: Kent C. Humpherys

E. G. and G. Corporation

SECTION A - EXPOSURE METHOD

Acting Chairman: W. W. Parkinson

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

87
88 ASTM-High Energy Radiation

SECTION B - GAMMA RAY DOSIMETRY

Chairman: Francis X. Rizzo

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Co-Chairman: Robert D. Jarrett, Sr. U.S.A. Natick Laboratories

SECTION C - BETA PARTICLES AND ACCELERATED ELECTRONS

Chairman: Donald E. Smith

High Voltage Engineering Corporation

SECTION D - NEUTRON DOSIMETRY

Chairman: Kent C. Humpherys

E. G. and G. Corporation

SECTION E - GAMMA RAY DOSIMETRY IN REACTOR IRRADIATIONS

Chairman: Kent C. Humpherys

E. G. and G. Corporation

Co-Chairman: E. D. McGarry

Harry Diamond Laboratory

SECTION F - CORRELATION OF ABSORBED AND EXPOSURE DOSES

Chairman: Jerome Weiss

Brookhaven National Laboratory

SECTION G - ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS DURING IRRADIATION

Chairman: Robert S. Shane

General Electric Company

Figure 1. Organization of ASTM Joint Subcommittee II,

D-9 and D-20 Effects of Nuclear and High-Energy Radiation.

D-20.20 (II) Effects of Nuclear High Energy Radiation

SCOPE: Test methods for measuring the effects of

exposure to nuclear high energy radiation,

and specifications for plastics and electrical insulating materials to be used in

a radiation field.
Sisman 89 Section A on Exposure Methods

Procedures for irradiating plastics and electrical insulating materials and specifications for plastics and electrical insulating materials to be used in a radiation field.

Section B on Gamma Ray Dosimetry

Procedures for determining the energy absorbed by a specimen from a field of gamma radiation.

Section C on Beta Particle and Accelerated Electron Dosimetry

Procedures for determining the energy absorbed by a specimen from a beam of accelerated electrons or beta particles . Section D on Neutron Dosimetry

Procedures for determining the energy absorbed by a specimen from a flux of neutrons

Section E on Gamma Ray Dosimetry in Reactor Irradiations

Procedures for discriminating neutron dose from gamma

ray dose in reactor irradiations.

Section F on Correlation of Absorbed and Exposure Doses

Procedures for converting the dose absorbed in a standard dosimeter to the dose absorbed by a specimen.

Section G on Electrical Measurements During Irradiation

Procedures for determining the electrical properties

of a specimen during and after exposure to a field of radiation . Figure 2. Scopes of Subcommittee D-20.20 and its Sections . It became obvious very soon after this subcommittee was organized that we could do very little until we had some standard dosimetry procedures. Sections B, C, D, E, and F are concerned with this problem. As it turns out, we are the only

active committee currently working on gamma-ray and chargedparticle dosimetry, and for that reason it has become a major

portion of our work. We have also, for that reason, attracted

members from fields not closely related to plastics or insulating materials; e.g., food irradiation, sterilization, irradiation services, etc.
90 ASTM-High Energy Radiation

A standard procedure for the Pricke dosimeter — D1671-

63, Test for Absorbed Gamma Radiation Dose in the Pricke Dosimeter — was approved in 1963. At present Sections B and C are working on a large number of dosimetry systems to see which are adaptable to standard procedures. These are all

widely used systems, and are listed in Table 1. Each dosimetry system has been assigned to a task group chairman (also

listed in Table 1), and we hope that many of these methods

will be ready for round-robin testing quite soon.

In Section D we have written a procedure for determining;;

the energy absorbed in a specimen from fast neutrons . This

is — D2365-65T, Method of Calculation of Neutron Dose to Polymeric Materials and Application of Threshold-Poil Measurements. It has recently been advanced to standard. The methods of measuring the fast neutron flux by the use of threshold foils are being developed in ASTM Committee E-10 . We will now devote more effort to methods for measuring the gamma dose in mixed neutron and gamma fields. This will be done

in Section E. Table 1. Assignment of Responsibilities for ASTM Dosimetry

Test Methods and Recommended Practices

Dosimeter System Task Group Chairman

Ferrous-Cupric Sulfate Robert Jarrett

U.S.A. Natick Laboratories

Ari Brynjolfsson

U.S.A. Natick Laboratories

Perspex, Lucite Francis X. Rizzo

Ceric Sulfate

Brookhaven Nat f 1 Laboratory

S. I. Taimuty

Stanford Research Institute

Oxalic Acid Neils Holm

RISO, Danish A.E.C.

Poly vinyl chloride Robert Jarrett

U.S.A. Natick Laboratories
Sisman 91

William McLaughlin

National Bureau of Standards

Robert B. Oswald

Harry Diamond Labs

James Sutherland

Brookhaven Nat 'T Laboratory

Francis X. Rizzo

Brookhaven Nat ' 1 Laboratory

Neils Holm

RISO, Danish A.E.C.

Jeff Webb

Isotopes, Inc.

Cal Rainbolt

E.G. and G. Klaus Becker

Oak Ridge Nat ' 1 Laboratory

Francis X. Rizzo

Brookhaven Nat 1 1 Laboratory

A method for converting the radiation dose in a dosineter to that in the material of interest has been developed

Ln Section F. This tentative method — D2568-66T, Correlation

bf Absorbed and Exposure Dose — has recently been advanced

to standard. This method has been rather oversimplified be2ause it was written to apply to plastics. It is limited to 3lements with mass up to that of chlorine, and to gamma-ray

energies between .5 and 3 MeV. With caution one can use this

procedure for x-rays and electrons, and a little outside these

limits. However, a more complicated procedure will be required for broader coverage.

Our last section, G, is an important one, but not an

5asy area in which to produce standard methods . Much work has

Deen done here in determining just what is needed. The meetings are being held in conjunction with meetings of E-10,

3ub.VI, Sections E and F. Much of the interest here is presently for space application.

Film Dye

Calorimetry

Gas Phase

De-aerated Ferrous Sulfate

derated Ferrous Sulfate

Thermoluminescent

Lithium Fluoride

Calcium Fluoride

Lithium Borate

jlass

Dosimeter Selection

Criteria

ASTM, COMMITTEE D19, METHODS

FOR RADIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

D. L. Reid

Formal organization of a Task Group in Committee D19

to sponsor analytical radiochemical methods for the field

of Tracer technology was started early in 1956 with the first

scoping meeting in June of that year. Word of this new ASTM

activity spread quite rapidly and prior to publication of the

first Measurement method suggestions from industry quickly

broadened the scope of the group to the all inclusive radiochemical analysis of industrial water and industrial waste

water. Growth in the membership and the quantity of work

created a subcommittee in 1959 comprised of four basic Task

Groups. The scope of the task groups, unlike other ASTM

Task Groups, covered broad categories of radioactive elements

rather than a single element and encompassed all radionuclides according to production or origin namely, Fission

Products, Reactor Cooling Water Contamination, Naturally

Occurring Radionuclides and Measurement of Radioactivity.

Task Groups on Uranium, Heavy Water, Tritium, and Evaluation

of Methods were added as required. This organization broadened the participation of each member since most were members

of all task groups and allowed processing of several methods

concurrently with a small number of members. It also created

a full three-day schedule of meetings for most members

The one disadvantage to this universal participation

type organization is in the quantity of work to be sandwiched

into each member's business schedule. However, this one disadvantage is apparently offset by the gain from the cross- pollination of ideas and comments which adds uniformity to the methods and has a tendency to reduce the total time re- quired to prepare a method for publication. We now vacillate

between a 3 and 4 day meeting, dependent upon the projected

agenda, twice a year.

: 93
94 ASTM-Water

A recent Committee reorganization elevated the Task

Groups to Sections since the Task Group title was reserved

for groups working on a single method. At the same time,

some name changes were in order to broaden the scope of two

sections. The subcommittee now has five sections - as shown

in Table I. The scope of the subcommittee is the preparation

of standards for physical and chemical testing of water and

water formed deposits where radioactivity or radiochemical

properties are controlling.

TABLE I ASTM COMMITTEE D19

SUBCOMMITTEE 19.4

METHODS OP RADIOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

Chairman - D. L. Reid

Vice Chairman - S. A. Reynolds

Sections Chairmen

Measurement of Radioactivity B'. Kahn

Fission Products J. A. Corbett

Heavy Radionuclides G. A. Welford

Activation Products J. A. Martucci

Evaluation of Methods S. L. Williams

The twenty-three members represent laboratories of the

AEC, AEC Contractors, National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Public Health, Power Reactor Manufacturers, and Power Reactor

Owners. This complement gives us an excellent experience

cross section ranging from low level to high level analytical

radiochemistry . Their personal experience in the field

ranges from 5 to 20 years.

Nineteen methods have been published of which eight are standards, four are in the process of being advanced to standards and seven are tentatives . Ten additional methods

are in various stages of development. The methods are written for use by trained technicians, not chemists, which adds

considerably to the detail of a method, but releases the

radiochemist for development work and trouble shooting.
Reid 95

Since most industrial water returns to the environs

and disposal of radioactive pollutants must be closely con- trolled, priorities for producing methods were assigned on the combined factors of biological significance, maximum

permissible concentrations and probability of occurrence in

water. With most of the methods for the major biologically

significant isotopes completed, the predominant nuclides in

various categories now dictates the order. Of course, the

concise lucid document - unless, Of course, you make it a full-time job for those involved.

Two major problems most frequently encountered, other

| than keeping our testing of the methods abreast of publication, are meeting the deadlines we establish and lack of a detailed review for each draft produced. The reason for the

first is quite obvious - we are basically optimists or can't

predict what the boss has in store for us. The other is

apparently related to familiarity, with the thoroughness of

the review decreasing with each successive issue. We too

readily assume that if it was once correct, it will ever re- main so in subsequent drafts and the tendency is to concentrate our thoughts on the sections which were revised. For

example, sometime between the first draft and the published

jdocument a decimal point was omitted from a 2.0 milliliter

iri reagent volume and as you might suspect, the procedure fell

apart at this point. Fortunately, testing of the method

'Ijcaught the error and the necessary correction was made.

Other errors not affecting the outcome of the analysis are best caught by detailed reviews of galley proofs. This

'e requires 2 or better 3 dedicated members bent on producing

'letter-perfect documents.

In the early part of the program, the variation in

counting instruments between laboratories throughout the

> country, each with its own characteristics and peculiarities,

forced a generalization of the measurement sections for a particular radionuclude rather than limiting the procedure

to the best counting method. For example, if the isotope
96 ASTM-Water

could be more accurately determined by gamma counting, but

could also be measured by beta counters, both methods were suggested in an effort not to exclude even one laboratory

from using the method. Similar considerations had to be

applied for the types of counters in a specific category such

as end-window, 2 tt gas flow and 2 tt internal beta counters.

This had a tendency to dilute the positives and eliminate

the implied negatives used as guides in analytical methods.

Fortunately, the rapid improvement in all aspects of

analytical radiochemistry and more specifically the advancements in instrumentation are responsible for increasing

first methods attacked were those for measurement of the

radioactivity of the samples

The procedure leading to publication of a method is

rather simple when reduced to writing, but the labor and

time involved is something else. Favorite methods for the

radionuclide of interest are submitted by the members for

study and discussion at the next meeting. After agreement

is reached on the best test method, a "volunteer" prepares

the first draft which is circulated for review and comments

prior to and discussion at the next meeting. Successive

drafts are processed in the same manner until the method is

approved by the subcommittee.

The method is then tested for clarity and precision by

a trained technician from a lab other than the major author

of the method. Regardless of the experience of the technician, they are given instructions to follow the method as written not as they think it should be run based on their

experience. It didn't take too long to find out that the

written word is not interpreted the same by all and that

extreme care is required to accurately convey to each prospective user exactly what was intended. If no questions are posed by the technicians and precision and accuracy are as expected, the method is recommended for publication in the

Preprinted Report
Reid 97 All methods or revision to methods appearing in this

publication are subject to letter ballot approval of the

entire Committee. Attempts made to resolve all supported

'negative votes are documented. A 10% negative vote forestalls publication of the method in the Book of Standards.

If approved, round-robin testing of the method is in order

and again if successful, the method can be advanced to standard status - a very simple statement for a complex problem.

The length of time and the number of drafts from con- ception to publication is related to the complexity of the

nethod and has varied from 1-1/2 to 3 years and 2 to 5 drafts. This may seem excessive to those not familiar with

the process of writing a standard method or specification

acceptable to all, but is probably average or better than

average and apparently is required to produce an errorless

;he nationwide uniformity in counting equipment and the methods can be made more specific. Just one round-robin test

vill readily convince you that this is an essential requirenent of a standard radiochemical analytical method. Consequently, the problem is diminishing with increasing age and

nethods can be more specific and are somewhat easier to produce as well as to interpret.

The length of time required to hammer out a method

seems interminable and it is a great relief when the method

is finally advanced to standard. But the changing technology

and instrumentation of radiochemistry will not allow you to rest on your laurels . If your goal is to provide the best

standards for the existing state-of-the-art, then a periodic

review of each method is essential.

This is built into the ASTM system which requires a review of all standard methods at least every five years. In radiochemistry we found this to be too infrequent for some methods and changes in the procedures were and are made as

nthe technology dictates. The yearly ASTM publication of the

Book of Standards provides a procedure for altering the

method each year if substance changes are required to keep

abreast of the advancing technology.
98 ASTM-Water

There is much time, effort, and expense accrued in producing a Standard Method of analysis and duplication by two

or more societies or organizations creates a flagrant waste

of time, manpower, and money. Money we may have enough of,

but from our experience we have very little time we can afford to waste in replowing the ground. Although there may be

too many established barriers, prejudices and jealousies for

societies or organizations to unite their "Standards" efforts

in most fields, it is not too late for radiochemist s of all

Societies and Standards Organizations to initiate a cooperative effort. Some duplication of effort in sponsoring radiochemical methods has already occurred and a united effort for

the good of Society is past due. Analytical radiochemistry

has two built-in characteristics which provide a common ground on which all organizations can meet. Except for direct counting of a solid, liquid or gaseous sample, all sam- ples at some time are in a liquid state and all must be

counted by a particular type of instrument having specific

characteristics. Consequently, the basic analytical radiochemical method, even for direct counting of the sample, can

be applied by all physical sciences. If in fact this common ground does exist and is not just a mirage, is there any

sound legitimate reason against uniting all analytical radiochemists regardless of their Society heritage to eliminate

the waste compounded by replication of analytical standards?

Such a united organization would also increase the impact of

the U. S. standard methods on the international scene.

It is true that pretreatment of the sample may differ

widely but this is no deterrent to producing a basic method.

Once that basic method is established, the Society or organization can insert specialized pretreatment s dictated by the

type of sample to obtain the chemical or physical state detailed in the first step of the basic method. How this

united effort can be accomplished is beyond the scope of

this discussion and my knowledge of the machinations of the

various standards - writing bodies. Those of you more fa-
Reid 99

miliar with this protocol can probably find a simple solution. Possibly USASI is a good starting point since its role

is that of a clearing house and coordinator for national

standards activities. Any suggestions or comments favorable

or otherwise, either written or oral would be welcome. Possibly the subject is suitable for discussion during tomorrow's sessions if time permits.

Subcommittee IX of Committee D19 has just scratched the

surface. A much larger committee would accelerate the process immeasurably and possibly the issue of approved Standard Methods for analytical radiochemistry might catch up with

the need.

ASTM COMMITTEE E-10 ON RADIOISOTOPES

AND RADIATION EFFECTS

Duane N . Sunderman

ASTM Committee E-10 was organized in 1951 in the early

days of industrial involvement in atomic energy. As an "E" committee, its primary mission was to provide an advisory

service to other ASTM committees in the radioisotope applications and radiation effects areas. It has also evolved

areas of standards development where Committee E-10 has taken

the initiative and has had principal concern.

The committee's mode of operation is characteristic of

ASTM groups, that of voluntary standardization based upon the consensus principle, involving all interested and affected

parties. Total membership, including the main and subcommitees, is about 200. Two or three meetings of 2 or 3 days

duration are held each year and, since its organization, some

25 standard procedures and recommended practices have been

developed. A second activity of the committee concerns the

dissemination of information on radioisotope applications and

radiation effects within the ASTM setting. Symposia have

been conducted in all areas of the committee's interest. For

the past 6 or 8 years, such symposia have been conducted at a rate somewhat higher than one per year. Liaison is also an important activity of Committee E-10 since It is not only

concerned that its efforts not duplicate or be duplicated by

other standards groups, but also that all areas of its interest be covered either within or outside the ASTM framework.

Current liaison activities include about one-half of the

USASI "N" committees; related ASTM groups such as D9/D20,

D-19, and E-21; goverment agencies including USAEC , DASA,

NACA, and NBS ; and standards groups within professional societies such as ANS and ASME . These liaison activities include

cross-membership and formal reports of the activities of the

other groups at subcommittee and E-10 main committee meet-
102 ASTM-Radioisotopes and Radiation

The organizational structure of ASTM Committee E-10 is

presented in Table 1. Our two Vice Chairmen assist the

Chairman by each working closely with a group of subcommittees in planning and carrying out their programs . The Liaison Officer coordinates all liaison activities, assuring that

these positions are properly staffed and that the individual

liaison responsibilities are properly carried out. TABLE 1. ASTM COMMITTEE E-10 ON RADIOISOTOPES AND

RADIATION EFFECTS

CHAIRMAN - D. N. SUNDERMAN

VICE CHAIRMAN - L. E. STEELE, M. M. TURKANIS

SECRETARY - R. L. STUART

LIAISON - A. L. BEMENT

SUBCOMMITTEES

1. NUCLEAR FUEL BURNUP - R.C. SHANK

2. RADIATION INDUCED CHANGES IN METALS - J. MOTEFF

3. TRACER APPLICATIONS - E.E. WICKER

4. MEASUREMENT USING EXTERNAL RADIATION SOURCES - W. GUNDERMAN

5. DOSIMETRY - R. H. LEWIS

6. SPACE RADIATION EFFECTS - J. ROMANKO

The standards development activities are conducted in

six subcommittees, each operating within a well defined

scope. Subcommittee I on Nuclear Fuel Burnup is chaired by

Ralph Shank of Idaho Nuclear, who is present and will describe its activities in a later paper.

Subcommittee II on Radiation Induced Changes in Metals,

chaired by John Moteff of General Electric Company, will be

described by Arden Bement who was until recently its Chairman . Subcommittee III on Tracer Applications is chaired by

E. E. Wicker of United States Steel. Early in the activities

of this group, they were concerned with the development of
Sunderman 103

standard procedures for determining the radiochemical purity

of pure radioisotope preparations. Two standards developed

at that time are E-l8l, a General Analysis of Radioisotopes,

and E-182, the Analysis of Phosphorus-32 . They are currently

busy in the activation analysis area, just completing a procedure for the measurement of oxygen by 14 Mev neutron activation. They will be expanding these activities in the next

few months and would welcome the addition of interested parties to their membership roles.

Subcommittee IV on Measurement Using External Radiation

Sources is chaired by Bill Gunderman of the Highway Research

Board. They are heavily involved with other ASTM groups in

the preparation of standard procedures for the measurement

of moisture and density by radiation techniques . This group

is also preparing a procedure for the calibration of such

instruments

Subcommittee V on Dosimetry is chaired by Bob Lewis of

Babcock and Wilcox. Early efforts of this group concerned

nomenclature involving close coordination with ISO in the

preparation of glossaries of nuclear terms. Dosimetry of

beta and gamma radiation, while also an early activity of

this group, was discontinued when it was picked up by the

ASTM joint D-9/D-20 committee in the late 1950' s. Neutron

dosimetry continues to be the major activity of Subcommittee

V. From this work has come a series of six standard procedures (E-261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 266) covering thermal

and fast neutron dosimetry by activation techniques using

cobalt, nickel, iron, sulfur, and aluminum. These procedures are currently undergoing evaluation by round robin

analyses. Procedures are in preparation for the use of fission foils. This group is also studying the use of advanced

computational techniques for developing neutron spectra and

dose from activation data.

Subcommittee VI on Space Radiation is chaired by John

Romanko of General Dynamics —Fort Worth. Liaison with ASTM

Committee E-21 on Space Simulation is particularly important
104 ASTM-Radioisotopes and Radiation

to this group because of their closely related missions.

For standards development, this subcommittee is further divided into sections on space radiation environment, indigeneous space radiation effects, vacuum-radiation effects,

temperature-radiation effects, electronic components and

modules, and pulsed radiation effects. Standard procedures

and recommended practices are being prepared in a number of

these areas.

In conclusion, an effort has been made in Committee

E-10 to establish a framework of organization and operational procedures sensitive and responsive to the needs of ASTM,

industry, and government in the nuclear areas. This includes the conduct of liaison, informational, and standardization activities in a variety of areas within the limits of our competence.
ACTIVITIES OF ASTM: E-10; SUBCOMMITTEE I ON NUCLEAR FUEL BURNUP

R. C. Shank

The ASTM E-10 Subcommittee I on Nuclear Fuel Burnup is

composed of the following members

Interest Members Observers

Reactor Designers & Fuel 12 6 Fabricators

Power Reactor Operators 1 0 Fuel Reprocessors 4 0 General Interest 10 5 Total 27 11

It is difficult to categorize many of the members because some of them have interest in more than one field, but

I have tried to put them in the field of their major interest.

Many of them are either partially or wholly supported by AEC - but not all. As you can see, there is a shortage of members

from the Power Reactor Industry. This is unfortunate because

the Reactor Operators have a big stake in this work. This

is one of the few times that considerable work has been done

toward developing standard methods to solve a problem before

it arises, rather than after, and they should be participating

in it. I anticipate a greater interest will be taken by these

people after there has been a disagreement someplace in the

fuel cycle. I think AEC should be congratulated in encouraging this work before the fact.

The burnup work was started in 1956 as a Group in the

Dosimetry Task Force of the Radiation Effects Subcommittee II. To have any meaning, the effect of radiation must be evaluated

against a known amount of radiation, hence the Dosimetry Task

Force. It also seemed reasonable that while the irradiation

dose was being measured, it would be well to know the amount

of burnup that had occurred in the case of fuel material, so the Burnup Group was organized. At that time the job was sim105
106 ASTM-Fuel Burnup

pie. The only requirements were a method to analyze for ura- nium and one for cesium-137, from which burnup could be easily,

calculated. That was during the time of relatively short

burnups and at low temperatures. That is still all that is

needed at those conditions. But the real need is no longer

at those conditions. Power reactors are being operated for

many thousands of megawatt days and at temperatures so high

that cesium becomes mobile in the fuel rods. The burnup group

is attempting to standardize methods that will give accurate

results under the new conditions. This is not an easy task.

Our efforts are restricted to power reactor problems and no attempt is being made to solve all burnup problems, especially

those of strictly a development nature. As a result of the

increased work, the group became a full subcommittee during

the reorganization of Committee E-10 in 1966.

The following scope of the Subcommittee was developed at that time

"The Nuclear Fuel Burnup Subcommittee shall provide advice and counsel to other ASTM Committees concerning all

matters of determining burnup of nuclear fuel. It shall also

write ASTM standard methods for the measurement of burnup."

The following methods have been prepared by the subcommittee : E-217-63T Tentative Method for Determination of UraSCOPE

nium by Controlled-Potent ial Coulometry.

E-267 65T Tentative Method for Determination of Uranium and Plutonium in Aqueous Solutions.

E-318 67T Tentative Method for Colorimetric Determina

tion of Uranium in Aqueous Solutions.

E-320 67T Tentative Methods for Radiochemical Determi

nation of Cesium-137 in Nuclear Fuel Solutions . E-219 63T Tentative Method of Test for Atom Per Cent

Fission in Uranium Fuel (Radiochemical Method) .
Shank 107

E-244-65T Tentative Method of Test for Atom Per Cent

Fission in Uranium and Plutonium Fuel (Mass

Spectrometric Method)

E-321-67T Tentative Method for Determination of Atom

Per Cent Fission in Uranium and Plutonium

Fuel (Stable Fission Product Nd-l48 Method).

All of the methods except the U-Pu Concentration and

Isotopic Abundances (E-267) and the Cs-137 Methods (E-320)

have cleared the Subcommittee to become standards . They are waiting to be balloted by Committee E-10 . Method E-267 is

cleared as far as uranium is concerned but the plutonium portion has not been round-robin tested. The cesium method

covers two procedures, (1) one by cesium perchlorate 3 and (2)

the other by chloroplatinate . The chloroplatinate method is

satisfactory but efforts are being made to improve the precision of the perchloric acid method.

Although each method describes how to make the necessary

standards, the precision of the methods could be improved if

standard materials were available commercially. The materials needed and the form of standardization are: Material Form of Standardization Availability

Cs-137 Atoms/ampoule Nuclear Chicago

Cs-137-ASTM

Nd-150 Atoms/ampoule Not available

U-233 Atoms/ampoule Not available

Pur-,242 Atoms/ampoule Not available

U-235/U-238 Series of Known Ratios NBS

U-235/U-236 Series of Known Ratios Not available

Pu-239/Pu-2^0 Series of Known Ratios Not available

This discussion has covered the work that has been com- pleted to date in useable form by the Subcommittee on Nuclear

Fuel Burnup . Work is in progress on methods for some other

fission products which can be used as burnup monitors. All

the work, so far, has been for thermal reactors. Work on fast

reactor burnup will be started as information becomes available .

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING VOLUNTARY STANDARDS

D. R. Mackay

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to you today about the Commerce Department's voluntary Product

Standards program. The Office of Engineering Standards Services of the National Bureau of Standards is responsible for

this program.

This morning and so far this afternoon we have heard

representatives of a number of private standards groups describe and explain their activities. You may be wondering why,

with all these private groups, a government program exists and

where it fits in the national standards structure. In addition to answering these questions, I would like to give you an idea of our function and how we assist in the formation of

standards

Let me begin by mentioning the requirements which must

be met before the Department participates in the development

of a standard. First, the proposed standard must not be con- trary to the public interest. In this requirement are two

essential words which are the key to the purpose of our program—the words are "public interest." The government's

program is first and foremost a service to the public, to the

producers of the product standardized, as well as to the distributors and users of the product.

Secondly, a proposed standard, to be considered, must

have national effect or implication. Our program is not con- cerned with local or regional problems. Thirdly, a standard

must have apparent industry-wide interest or endorsement;

otherwise, it might be foolish to initiate the development of

a standard. And finally, the standard must be such that it

cannot be processed according to the needs or desires of the

industry by a nationally recognized private standardizing

body. In other words, we are not in competition with private

groups, instead we exist to complement their activities, and

serve the public interest.

109
110 Government-NBS Voluntary Standards

The government's voluntary standards activities began

during World War 1. At that time industry-government coopera-: || tion was essential to the war effort. The Conservation Division of the War Industries Board was created to see that the

largest possible amounts of labor, capital, materials and

equipment were released for the war effort. The governmentindustry program was established to conserve materials and

eliminate waste through standardization and simplification of

varieties and sizes of commonly used mass-produced items.

But when the war ended so did compulsory standardization

and many manufacturers quickly returned to the old uneconomic i conditions of over-variety. The situation was aggravated in

1921 when a delayed post-war depression struck and manufacturers felt they must offer variety to obtain more sales.

Herbert Hoover, as a prominent engineer and later as Secretary of Commerce, was one individual who was so concerned that

he sought to rid industry of waste through the establishment

of standardization programs.

In 1921, while he was President of the American Engineering Societies, Hoover appointed a committee to study the

then existing conditions of waste in industry and to make suggestions as to possible remedies. The committee studied six

typical industries and found that preventable waste of labor

and materials averaged almost 50 percent in those industries

The committee's report entitled "Waste in Industry" estimated

that 10 billion dollars a year—1921 dollars —could be saved

through standardization and simplification alone.

The report suggested that the government should play an active part in the formation of industry standardization com- mittees. When he became Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover

had the opportunity to implement this recommendation. He established within the Department of Commerce a Division of

Simplified Practice. This Division played a major role in

promoting the development of voluntary industry standards.

Its publications entitled "Simplified Practice Recommendations" provided for the voluntary reduction in the number of
Mackay 111

sizes and varieties of many products. For a time it led a massive national drive for standardization. In 1927, the

scope of the government's activities was broadened to include

a Commercial Standards Unit which developed, cooperatively

with industry groups, standards establishing quality requirements for specific products. Through the years the program

has been assigned to different offices within the Department

of Commerce, it has changed names several times, and it has

experienced consolidation—the Simplified Practice Division

and the Commercial Standards Division were united in one Commodity Standards Division within the Department of Com- merce . In 1963* a reorganization resulted in the work being

transferred to the National Bureau of Standards . At this

time it was decided that instead of two publications, Commercial Standards and Simplified Practice Recommendations,

only one publication series would be issued to be called

"Product Standards." These standards could include quality

requirements as well as simplification practices . The one thing that has not changed with time is the goal of the program: to aid industry in the development of standards which

are deemed to be in the public interest.

Our procedures, revised in December of 1965 and amended

May of 1968, reflect the emphasis on this goal. I would like

to summarize those procedures for you. The process begins

when an interested group, whether made up of producers, distributors, consumers, users, testing laboratories, or a government agency asks the Bureau to participate in the development of a voluntary standard. The Bureau then determines

if the request is feasible and if it conforms to the requirements I mentioned previously, including—is it in the public

interest?

When the request is approved, a specific proposal is

developed in consultation with interested trade groups and

interested government agencies. This proposal is then subjected to an impartial technical review by an appropriate
112 Government-NBS Voluntary Standards

Government agency or agencies interested in the standard. If

it is appropriate, the technical review may be accomplished by an unbiased group outside of the Federal government. A draft

of the proposal is then circulated for consideration and com- ment to interested groups including consumers and users.

At this point, a Standard Review Committee is established to review the amended draft which incorporates the

suggestions received from any segment of the industry. The

procedures specify that the Standard Review Committee must

be representative of all groups interested in the product for

which the standard is sought. It is also our policy to see that small business as well as big business is represented on the committee. Once the committee approves the proposal, it

is distributed to all known producers and a representative

sampling of distributors, users, consumers and general interest groups for final consideration and acceptance. Any objections received from these groups are carefully considered

by NBS . If there are no significant objections and if the

proposal is supported by a "consensus," the NBS announces the

approval of the proposal as a Product Standard.

Finally, prior to the printing of a Product Standard,

a Standing Committee is named to review the standard within

five years of its issuance, to consider any proposals to re- vise or amend the standard and to provide such interpretation

as may be required. This committee is essentially identical

in composition to the Standard Review Committee as to membership and procedures

A standard, then, is submitted twice to the general industry for consideration, once to a special committee made up of representatives from the interested groups and once to an impartial group for technical review. It should be noted tha

any individual or company is at liberty to comment during

either distribution. Generally, a press release is issued

when the recommended standard is distributed for acceptance,

and in many instances, a release is issued when the proposed

standard is distributed for initial comments.
Mackay 113

At this point, let me explain what is meant by "consensus." The latest amendment to our procedures established a specific definition of consensus in terms of the numerical

percentages. It is now required that a standard be supported

by at least 70 percent of those responding to the distribution

of the recommended standard in the production segment, in the

distributor segment, and in the user or consumer segment of

the industry. Furthermore, the procedures require that the

average percentage of acceptance for each of the three segments be not less than 75 percent. The amended procedures

also provide a second definition for consensus which involves

lower percentages. This alternative definition is implemented for standards which are considered to be in the public

interest but which did not receive the percentages of acceptance previously mentioned. Under this second procedure, the

minimum acceptability in any segment of the industry must be not less than 60 percent and the average of the three segments must be not less than 66-2/3 percent. This procedure

also involves the holding of a public hearing to allow the

Department to substantiate the importance of the standard to the public.

I would now like to enumerate the specific responsibilities of the National Bureau of Standards and of the group

proposing the standard. The Department assists in the formation of a voluntary standard through the following: It acts

as an unbiased coordinator in the development of the standard; it provides editorial assistance in the preparation of

the standard; it supplies such assistance and review as is

required to assure the technical soundness of the standard; it sees that the standard is representative of the views of producers, distributors, users and consumers; it seeks satisfactory adjustment of valid points of disagreement; and finally,

it publishes the standard.

The group proposing the standard and the industry which

is affected by it have the responsibility of: Initiating and

participating in the development of a standard; providing
114 Government-NBS Voluntary Standards

technical counsel on a standard; and promoting the use of, and

support for the standard.

Our voluntary standards may cover definitions, classes,

sizes, dimensions, capacities, quality levels, performance

criteria, testing equipment, and test procedures. They may

vary in scope from the most complex requirements for precision

instruments to size standards for the simplest of items such

as 2 x 4 lumber. At present, we do not have any Product

Standards in the field of nuclear chemistry and technology;

however, if a group came to us with special problems that

could be solved through the development of voluntary standards, we could call on the vast resources of the NBS ' s Center

for Radiation Research for assistance in developing such

standards. The Center's personnel have been doing extremely

important work in the nuclear field, particularly in the

measurement and calibration area. The Center could provide

excellent technical assistance in the development of standards. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Public Health

Service could also assist in the process.

In closing, let me suggest that our procedures, our facilities, and our services are available to those groups

which have problems which could be alleviated if not eliminated through the development of voluntary standards which are in the public interest.
THE STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL PROGRAM OP

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

J. Paul Call

The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has been involved in the nuclear field from its inception in the early

19^0's. Through the Standard Reference Materials (SRM) program, the Bureau has played a leading role in the issuance

of SRM's directed toward the quality control of ores, metals,

and fissile material used in many areas of nuclear applications, as well as the certification of a wide variety of ra- dioisotopes used in the calibration and standardization of

nuclear instrumentation.

It is the purpose of this paper to set forth the operations of the Office of Standard Reference Materials (OSRM),

and to show the variety of SRM's now available for use in

this field of science and technology.

A SRM is "a well-characterized material, produced in

quanity, which calibrates a measurement system or produces

meaningful scientific data". Several implications are inherent in this definition. "Well-characterized" at NBS implies

that any certified value or property is determined by two or more independent methods of analysis, or possibly in wellestablished systems, by a method whose accuracy has been

carefully assessed and whose systematic errors are small relative to the degree of accuracy required. SRM's are "materials" not methods nor specifications, although NBS-SRM's are often an integral part of a standard method. In general,

they are homogeneous solids, although liquid and gas SRM's

are issued where solids are not suitable, convenient, or available. For SRM's, issued as gases or liquids, particular

attention is given to stability considerations. "Produced in

quantity" is a necessary criterion so that all potential

users may be assured of an adequate supply over a reasonable

period of time. In general, a 10-year supply of stable SRM's

is produced and certified at one time. This obviously cannot

115
116 Government-NBS SRM's

be the case of radioactive SRM's of short to medium half-life

nor for materials, such as cholesterol, whose shelf-life stability over a fairly long period is not known or wellestablished . SRM's are produced and used for four basic purposes;

1) to facilitate the exchange of goods - e.g., the Sucrose

SRM is used to calibrate polarimeters at Customs laboratories

for levying duty on imported sugar; 2) to permit quality con- trol - e.g., the quality of most of the steel produced in the

U. S. is controlled through the use of emission or x-ray

spectrometers which have been calibrated using NBS-SRM's; 3) to determine performance characteristics - e.g., metalloorganics in oil SRM's are used by the Department of Defense

and the transportation industry to program maintenance schedules and to predict failure rates of engines; 4) and, to characterize at scientific frontiers - e.g., high-purity and

doped platinum SRM's are used to calibrate spark-source mass spectrographs at the sub-ppm level.

The OSRM is responsible for both the technical and administrative functions of this program. Table 1 shows the

functional organization of the OSRM. It should be pointed

out that the actual measurement and certification process is

carried out in the Technical Divisions of NBS

Requests for new and renewal SRM's are, in general,

received from many sources: other government agencies (ESSA,

NIH , AEC , etc.); industry (steel, rubber, etc.); standardizing bodies (USASI, ASTM, ISO, etc.); and, often from individual scientists and engineers who recognize a specific

need. However, because the resources allocated to this program are insufficient to produce all requested SRM's, the

OSRM rates each request in order to establish a priority

listing of all the requests received, or remaining from previous years . Some of the factors considered in this rating

are: the availability of non-NBS-SRM ' s which could be used

as an alternate source; whether NBS Technical Division re- sources are available, and if so, the status of the support-
Call 117

Table 1. Functional organization of OSRM.

1. Gather requests for new and renewal SRM's

2. Formal justification (7 points)

3. Establishes priorities on annual basis; establish projects for current SRM production

4. Allocates funds to operating divisions for current projects

5. Locates sources of supply for SRM's; procure test lots; evaluate for homogeneity and compliance with specifications. (Internal NBS

testing by operating divisions through OSRM)

6. Coordinate technical measurements and certification. Coordinate

cooperative analyses.

7. Prepare certificate of analysis; announcements of new and renewal SRM's; technical publicity; customer liaison

8. Establish prices and marketing policy

9. Inventory control, cost accounting, sales, distribution

ing research; the number of requests, the sales potential,

and cost of production (this is a cost-recoverable program

and some consideration therefore must be given to these factors); whether non-NBS support is available or likely in

terms of direct financial support, gifts of materials, or cooperative analytical time; whether SRM's are widely accepted and used in the particular area or industry requesting an

SRM; the availability and ease of procuring the basic material; and finally, the risk involved in terms of technically

difficult measurement or materials problems.

Having established the priority list, the OSRM then

sub-contracts to the supporting Technical Divisions of NBS

those SRM projects which can be funded from the dollar re- sources made available to the program by the Director. The

materials for these authorized projects are specified and

procured by the technical coordinators of the OSRM. As the

materials are received they are tested in the various Divisions of NBS for compliance with specifications and carefully measured for homogeneity of the entire lot.
118 Government-NBS SRM's

At the present time thirteen Technical Divisions of NBS

are measuring and certifying over 150 materials for such properties as chemical composition, radioactivity, viscosity,

thermodynamic properties, color, metal coating thickness, and

a host of other chemical and physical properties. This technical diversity is illustrated in the listing of table 2

Table 2. Resources available for measurement and

certification of Standard Reference Materials.

Technical division Metrology

Mechanics Heat

Radio Standards Engineering

Cryogenics

Analytical Chemistry

Polymers

Metallurgy

Inorganic Materials Physical Chemistry

Product Evaluation

Building Research

Nuclear Radiation

Applied Mathematics

Examples of

technical competences

Thermal expansion; phase

transitions; colorimetry; photogrammetry

Pressure measurements;

humidity; vacuum techniques

Thermodynamic properties measurements; calorimetry —

heat of combustion, fusion,

solution, etc. Dielectric properties,

permittivity

Residual resistivity ratio; low-temperature measurements

Trace element analysis;

electrochemistry; microchemistry

Molecular weight determination;

dielectric properties

Electrolysis; metal deposition;

x-ray diffraction; quantitative

metallography

Crystallography; solid-state physics

NMR; thermochemistry; mass

spectrometry; radiation chemistry

Physical properties of rubbers

(viscosity, stress-strain) Fire research; materials

durability and analysis

Radioisotopes; nuclear properties

Statistics; experimental design
Cali 119

showing the Technical Divisions now involved in the SRM pro- gram and an example of some of the competences used in each

Division

Well over 450 SRM's are on the request list and would

require over $15,000,000 to complete. The present level of

support is $1,700,000 per year. This backlog is shown in

table 3 broken down by national concern area, a categorization used within the Federal structure for planning and budgeting purposes

Table 3. Standard Reference Materials backlog.

National concern

area Defense and Aero- Space

Economic Growth

Education and

Technology

Consumer Interests,

Safety, Government

Operations

Conservation, Resources Development

Health, Pollution

Control

Typical

example

Titanium alloys

Plutonium

Polyethylene

Test Charts,

Document Control

Fertilizer SRM's

SO2 in Air

Bilirubin

Typical

requestor

DOD, Aero-Space

Ind. Assoc. AEC, AISI, General Motors ASTM, ACS,

Plastics Industry

Ford, FBI, Navy

Cost ($K)

4,631

3,756

3,548

1,388

USDA, Bureau Mines, 905

Customs

NIH, NCAPC, AACC 860

Total funds needed for 251 new SRM's $15,088
120 Government-NBS SRM's

The present SRM inventory contains 665 items in 70 categories. Of these, there are now available to users in

the nuclear field well over 75 SRM's of direct interest and

application. Table 4 lists these, but does not include the

wide variety of both ferrous and non-ferrous metals SRM's,

except as shown, which have utility for the metals applications in this area of technology.

Table 4. SRM's in inventory of interest to nuclear field.

Examples

Number items

General class available Radioactivity SRM's: Alpha-Ray 2

Beta; Gamma; E.C. 21 Radium/Radon 14

Special Nuclear Materials 18

Isotopic Reference SRM's 9 Refractories/Ceramics 8 Ores 1 Metals a

4 Mossbauer 1

polonium-210; americium-241

carbon-14; sodium-22; krypton-85

radium solution (radon analysis)

plutonium metal; uranium-235

(graded series) chlorine; copper; lead (set of 3) glass; low boron; aluminum oxide

uranium ore zircaloy-2F

sodium nitroprusside crystal

a

not including wide range of high temperature corrosion resistant steels

useful as reactor vessels, piping, etc.
Call 121

Finally, In table 5 are shown those SRM's now in pro- cess which will benefit users in the field of nuclear

science and technology.

Table 5. SRM's in process of interest to nuclear field.

1. Uranium isotopic series

2. Boric acid — neutron absorber

3. Neutron flux beads

4. Neutron flux wires

5. Uranium metal — assay

6. Boron glass — neutron absorber

7. Plutonium sulfate — intermediate purity assay

8. Plutonium metal — isotopic composition

9. Radioactive isotopes

Point source series;

1-129; Kr^85; Th-228 - others

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES OF THE RADIOACTIVITY STANDARDS GROUP

AT THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

S. B. Garfinkel

The radioactivity standards group at NBS has the mission of developing, preparing, and maintaining radioactivity

istandards . These are standard reference materials, as con- trasted to written standards. In addition to the distribution of these standards, we also provide a calibration ser- vice for almost all of the radionuclides which we have worked

jwith, and in particular, for those radionuclides which we have standardized in the past, but no longer distribute.

jThis service is available on a cost basis to individuals,

Iprivate companies, government agencies, research laboratories, etc. Some of the standard reference materials have been

idropped from distribution either due to lack of demand, or

[because they are available from commercial distributors who

lhave demonstrated their willingness and competence to maintain their calibration facilities in a good enough order to meet the requirements and demands of the public.

The following table illustrates those standards which

are currently available, and/or are being developed as new

istandards, and which should be available by the end of 1968.

The alpha-particle sources, polonium-210 , americium-

|24l, and plutonium-238 are practically weightless deposits on 1-inch-diameter monel disks. The electron capturers, betaray emitters, and some of the gamma-ray emitters are available in solution form, generally in 5-milliliter flame-sealed

glass ampoules. Inasmuch as the gamma-ray sources can be

used without opening the ampoule, these standards are certijfied both as to total activity, and also in terms of activity per gram of solution, should the user wish to open the

ampoule to make weaker sources. This is, however, an uneco- nomic practice for the user. He would do better to place

some stock solution, of similar radioactive concentration of

123
124 Government-NBS Radioactivity

to d

$4

cd -dC

cd P

co

>a P

•H>

•H

CO y Q

co c

•H

co ca *

* Cd Q

>s tH cd co H co Cd g

cd <u hO 54 cd 1 d OO Eh o C e CO •H n. 1 P >- 54 oo CO LP Q\ H <c S B a a p P-, CQ CO CM vo OO CO

EH- Cd cd S4 <D •H o O LP 1 Q 1 1 g 54 hO CO o PO c oo G S d) W e B

1-3 O bO hO g H H vd O 1 ctj O B O rH >> > 1 -H C P •H 54 •H •H

CO cd oo a\ i—g a p o W i—1 P O CO H •H P P

cr; 1 I a u g -P Q cd d P O O d G G s o o o H i •H ^ i—

CX co P CO G o O & rH rH CQ ?- H K o o >s cd 1 O cd 54 54 H O O W •H CO S4 hO iH 8 O o p P

Q 54 rH O P Pm CO CO co CO < o 1—

PC Q

LP coG

OP

a

5h

vo

on

co

ONO t~— OA

r-\ m m

LP

iH VO

CM

• cd o x: W rH

i on co

on cm C •> CD 54 hO CD O P

Cd d 5

>>^-

T3•H 0) o C

cd cdo o 0) H d

o cd N X

G CD

CD ,G O

CD

•> c

54 CD

CD 3 p I—

cd o

£ p
Garfinkel 125

the same radionuclide, in a similar ampoule and compare it to the standard, with any kind of detector, and then prepare his sources from the now calibrated stock solution. The

electron-capturer and beta-ray standard solutions, on the

other hand, are calibrated only in terms of activity per gram

of solution, as it is almost always necessary to open these

ampoules in order to use these radionuclides

The gamma-ray point-sources consist of aluminum annul!

5.5-centimeter outer diameter, 3.9-centimeter inner diameter,

over which are stretched a layer of adhesive polyester tape,

about 0.008-centimeter thick. The radioactive material is

deposited in solution form onto the center of this mount, and

after drying, is covered by another layer of the same kind of

tape. These standards are certified in terms of the number

of gamma rays of a given energy, emitted per unit time. The

range covered by this series extends from 88 keV to 2.62 MeV.

Almost all of the gamma-ray emitters are calibrated by

8-Yj X-y , or y-Y coincidence counting techniques. In those

cases such as cesium-137-barium-137m, tin-113-indium-113m,

and cadmium-109-silver-109m, where the long isomeric states

preclude coincidence-counting techniques, it is necessary to

use calibrated detectors which have been standardized by

other calibrated radionuclide sources

During the past several years, we have been able to do

a better job of impurity analysis, as a result of the availability of the high-resolution lithium-drifted germanium detectors. We have thus been able to detect (and remove) small

amounts of contaminants, which if long-lived, could "devalue"

the standard in more ways than one.' There is one type of impurity, that is, an isotopic one

of long half-life, that we could not consider removing until

the very recent past. Consider the case of 20,000 year niobium-94, which is prepared by neutron irradiation of the 100%

abundant niobium-93. In this process, there is also produced

a considerable amount of 30 keV, 10 year niobium-93m. With

the newly installed NBS isotope separator, we hope to be able
126 Government-NBS Radioactivity

to produce carrier-free niobium-9^ from which pure standards

will be made. The present niobium-94 standards contain

niobium-93m, and the content is so noted on the certificates.

When the pure material becomes available, we will then be

able to use 4ttS-y coincidence counting as an independent

check on the y-y coincidence counting which we used on the

current batch of niobium-9^ standards.

We have also been paying more attention to the statement of errors on our certificates. Specifically, we are giving values for both the standard (statistical) error at a given confidence level (usually 99%) 9 and also for an estimated maximum uncertainty due to systematic errors. From time-to-time, we get complaints from persons who

have purchased a standard from us and who can not reconcile

their measurement results with ours. In almost all cases, there has been a misunderstanding on the part of the purchaser of either the decay scheme or the half-life (we are now including a recommended value of T^- on all new certificates),

and we have been able to resolve these difficulties quite

easily. However, we also get complaints of customers of some commercial firms who claim "NBS traceability " of their standards, but whose products leave something to be desired. NBS

is neither like the Federal Trade Commission nor the Food

and Drug Administration. We have no "police powers", and

there is not much we can do vis-a-vis these firms. What we can do is to suggest to their customers that they ask these

firms how they maintain their calibrations in order, how often they do so, and so on. I understand that in a subsequent

talk, some data will be shown that indicate "standards" purchased from one firm, actually had deviations of up to 50% of

their stated values, when they were supposed to ±5% sources.
PRESENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OP THE AEC FOR

STANDARDS FOR REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

J. W. Crawford

I want to thank the officers and members of the American Chemical Society for the opportunity to discuss the Commission's needs for standards for reactor development and

technology. It is encouraging to see the keen interest in

nuclear standards evidenced by your having organized a Symposium on Standards for Nuclear Chemistry and Technology, and

especially one of such comprehensive scope. As you may know,

J AEC Commissioner James T. Ramey, Milton Shaw, Director of the

Commission's Division of Reactor Development and Technology,

; and others in the Commission have been forcefully emphasizing

to the nuclear industry - in all its segments - the need for

| development and application of proven engineering standards

and other quality assurance practices. It is a pleasure,

therefore, to address you, who appreciate the value of nuclear standards and who are in a position to exert a strong influence upon the quality of the materials, the processes, and

the components used in our reactor development programs.

My remarks will be concerned with the programs that we

in the Division of Reactor Development and Technology are pursuing. I shall point out the areas in which we are strengthening our standards and quality assurance practices

to better assure the success of these programs and to better

assure the availability for safe and reliable operation of

the test and demonstration facilities associated with them.

The need for strengthening action of this kind has re- sulted from a number of interrelated circumstances which have

underscored the importance of technical standards. A rash of

; problems, failures and delays had been encountered in the

Commission's reactor development programs; and, I may add,

in industry reactor programs also. These difficulties were

: proving costly, not only in dollars, but in terms of program

delays as well. Such problems have even contributed to can127
128 AEC-Reactor Development

cellation of some Commission programs with consequent loss

of expected technology advances for which these programs

were undertaken.

The cause of the problems referred to was in large

degree the lack of sufficient engineering attention. Many

involved essentially conventional or non-developmental ma- terials, processes, components, and systems. Most could have

been prevented by application of proven engineering methods

and practices.

Engineering standards provide the means by which the

customer can define technical requirements to reactor plant

suppliers, component vendors, architect-engineers, and plant

constructors, and then exact compliance with these requirements. Engineering standards are also an important means of

defining the existing base of technology upon which to build

advanced reactor development programs

We in the Commission are taking positive steps to use and develop standards for such programs. Where recognized

codes and standards for design, fabrication, construction,

operation and maintenance exist, we are insisting that they

be used. Where existing standards are inadequate, we are supplementing or modifying them. Where standards are lacking, we are causing them to be developed.

Unfortunately, many available standards are incomplete

in their scope of coverage and inadequate in stringency of

requirements for application to reactor programs. New and

upgraded standards are needed to establish more exacting

requirements throughout all segments of reactor development

programs. Standards are needed for nuclear and structural

materials; for major reactor components, such as pumps,

valves, heat exchangers; for fuel elements, and for instruments and controls. Standards are needed for fabricating,

processing, installing and protecting materials and components. Standards are needed for long term operation and

maintenance of reactor test facilities and nuclear power

plants. Quality assurance program standards are needed to
Crawford 129 assure design adequacy and conformance to engineering re- quirements. Detailed technical standards are needed for

cleaning, welding, calibrating, nondestructive testing and

acceptance testing.

Now it is appropriate to describe what the Division

of Reactor Development and Technology (RDT) has been doing

to help meet these needs . A broad RDT standards program

has been established and given the high priority and the means for developing acceptable engineering standards and

quality assurance practices for application to the Commission's reactor development programs. This program is being

carried forward to varying degrees on all RDT programs by our national laboratories and contractors. In addition,

we are participating in the work of the many nuclear standards committees and organizations including the United States

of America Standards Institute, the ASME, the ASTM and others. We are coordinating our activities with the Commision's regulatory organization. Key areas of cooperative

efforts include pressure vessels, piping, pumps and valves,

quality assurance system requirements, in-service inspection,

and reactor protection systems.

Lead responsibilities for the preparation of RDT standards have been assigned to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

(ORNL) and the AEC ' s Liquid Metals Engineering Center (LMEC)

at Santa Susana, California. The Oak Ridge standards effort

is drawing together and consolidating current proven technology, engineering standards, and quality assurance practices, and will develop, validate and maintain current, basic

uniform RDT standards for water-cooled reactors. Such RDT

standards are intended for direct application to priority

AEC water reactor projects such as the Loss-of-Pluid-Test

(LOFT) and Power Burst Facility (PBF) projects. These two

projects, as you may know, are important elements in our re- actor safety research program.

Earlier it was indicated that the existing base of

technology for water-cooled and other types of reactors pro-
130 AEC-Reactor Development

vides the foundation upon which to build advanced reactor

programs. To bring this experience together for the Commission's high priority Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor

(LMFBR) program, LMEC is drawing together and consolidating

the different or modified basic standards applicable to the

LMFBR program. Such RDT standards are intended for direct

application to AEC priority LMFBR programs and projects such

as the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II), Sodium Pump

Test Facility (SPTF) , and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF),

These standards efforts embrace areas of design, materials, equipment, processes, fabrication, construction, quality assurance, testing, maintenance, repair, and operation of

reactor systems. In the materials areas, for example, material standards being prepared are of two general types: (1)

those prepared to supplement the requirements of existing

material standards, e.g., ASTM; and (2) new standards based

on current technology. These RDT standards encompass alloys

based on iron, nickel, aluminum and zirconium in a wide variety of cast and wrought forms. The documents are patterned

after existing standards, such as those of ASTM. Some of

these material standards provide options which extend their

applicability to both water-cooled and liquid-metal-cooled

reactor systems. Of primary interest to the LMFBR program

is the development of those material standards which are applicable to pressurized components, such as valves, flanges

and fittings, which must contain liquid metal at high temperatures . As one might expect, the fields of chemistry and chemical engineering are intimately and widely associated with the

RDT standards for reactor components and facilities. Standares are being developed, for example, for establishing and

determining the chemical composition of a variety of materials for nuclear service. Methods of surveillance are being

developed for the investigation of corrosion, erosion,

radiation-induced distortion and irradiation embritt lement of

materials such as those used on pressure vessels. Cleaning
Crawford 131

and cleanliness requirements are covered in detail and as a part of practically every reactor component standard. Contamination control is covered in several standards dealing

with subjects such as activated charcoal filters and decontamination practices

Insofar as the LMFBR program is concerned, one of the

most important efforts is directed toward the development of

standards related to sodium technology for application to the

components and systems in the fast reactor environment, For

example, sodium quality requirements in terms of significant

impurities, tolerance limits and analytical methods are being

established. Standard procedures are being developed to

! verify that sodium purity is attained and maintained in oper-

! ating nuclear systems.

Recently, significant strengthening 'steps have been

I taken in the nuclear industry toward the development of ma-

| terial, equipment, process and plant standards for reactor

! applications . However, when one compares the relatively

j small number of acceptable standards that are presently

I available with the very large number that are needed for a typical reactor power plant, it is evident that considerable

(work remains to be done. The task is one that requires

! strong efforts by the nuclear industry through the standards

programs of professional societies and trade associations,

j The results of such efforts should prove useful to the Commission's regulatory organization which has the responsibility for establishing and enforcing requirements to protect

public safety.

For all these standards efforts to succeed, strong

management attention is needed both in their development and

in their application. The urgent need for upgraded standards

must be understood, apathy toward their application overcome,

and a systematic disciplined engineering approach adopted.

"Business as usual" and "that's the way we've always done it"

attitudes must give way to the practices which have been

proven effective in successfully carrying out large and com- plex nuclear power plant projects in the past.
132 AEC-Reactor Development

In the Commission's reactor development and technology

programs we are insisting on this kind of strong management

attention and a systematic ordered engineering approach.

Such emphasis, including requirements for developing, adopting and enforcing engineering standards and practices, has

resulted in delays and increased costs to projects already

underway. However, experience in reactor development programs demonstrates conclusively that application of a systematic approach will better insure success. It will result in more realistic and predictable cost and time estimates of as- sociated reactor plant and test facility projects. It will

correspondingly reduce the likelihood and magnitude of un- planned and recurring engineering problems, cost over-runs,

and delays, or even substantial loss of the investments made.

Actions that place adequate emphasis on effective engineering

standards and quality assurance practices are and will con- tinue to be essential to assure safety, maximum benefit from

an extremely large national investment, and technical and

economic success of the Commission's reactor development programs .
STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

Samuel C. T. McDowell, Ralph J. Jones

LeRoy R. Norderhaug

ABSTRACT

One of the major factors in an effective nuclear safeguards system is the accurate quantitative knowledge of the

special nuclear material In the nuclear fuel cycle. Laboratories and analysts can refine techniques and attain high

precision but without an appropriate standard reference

material there can be no measure of the deviation from the

"correct" or "true" value. The AEC has long recognized the

need for such standard reference materials and since 1957

has conducted a joint program with the National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) to develop and distribute the standard refer

ence materials needed for accurate measurements of uranium

and plutonium in the nuclear fuel cycle. This paper discusses that program, the standards that have been made

available and international acceptance of these standards.

The paper also will consider the future of the nuclear Indus

try, for example, the advent of high flux breeder reactors,

and needs for standard reference materials dictated by such

developments

INTRODUCTION

An effective safeguards program is dependent on three

elements of material control:

Physical security such as locks, seals, and guards,

Surveillance or monitoring by either inspectors or automatic instrumentation, and

Accountability which involves measurements of material

and audits of records

Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so no safeguards system can be more precise than the material

standards on which that system is based. The United States

Atomic Energy Commission has long recognized that a sound

133
134 AEC-Safeguards

standard reference material program is essential to proper

control of nuclear material. In September of 1948 the Commission formed the Fissionable Standards Committee. This

Committee was asked to recommend and coordinate preparation

of fissionable material standards for use in the Commission's

laboratories

The Committee recommended that pure uranium-235 and

uranium-238 be obtained for use as "primary generative materials". These materials were prepared by electromagnetic

separation at Oak Ridge and were then used to develop a series of internal standards with various isotopic enrichments . The primary generative materials and the series of

uranium isotopic standards represented the AEC's first attempt

to provide the analytical bench marks so necessary for accurate chemical and isotopic analysis.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

As the number of private nuclear companies conducting

research increased, the AEC expanded the scope of its standards program. In 1957 the Commission established the Advisory

Committee for Standard Reference Material and Methods of

Measurement. This Committee reflected the many varied disciplines of a growing nuclear industry. Its members represented academic and industrial interests as well as other

government agencies

Until 1967, the Advisory Committee provided liaison between the AEC and private industry. The Committee brought

to the AEC a unique awareness of the measurement problems and

reference material requirements confronting the private nuclear industry.

In 1967 the Advisory Committee was replaced by the

broader based Advisory Committee for Nuclear Materials Safeguards .The Advisory Committee for Standard Reference Materials

and Methods of Measurement was charged with a two fold task:
McDowell, Jones, Norderhaug 135

1. Prepare a comprehensive handbook of analytical

methods for measuring nuclear material.

2. Recommend additional standards necessary to assure accurate analysis of nuclear material.

To implement the recommendations of the Committee, the AEC

I enlisted the aid of the National Bureau of Standards . The

I Bureau's unique experience with chemical standards as well as

: an impeccable reputation for exactness made that organization

most desirable for certification and distribution of nuclear

material standards. Funded by the AEC until 1963, this certification program is now supported solely by NBS

SELECTED MEASUREMENT METHODS

In 1963 the handbook "Selected Measurement Methods for

Plutonium and Uranium in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" was published. This book, edited by Ralph J. Jones of the Atomic

Energy Commission, incorporated the collective experience of

the Committee as well as of a great many other consultants

"Selected Measurement Methods" was issued as a Technical In- formation Division Report No. 7029. It has proven to be a valuable reference tool and can be found in analytical laboratories throughout the world.

At the Committee's recommendation, the AEC ' s New Brunswick Laboratory evaluated the measurement methods listed in

the above handbook. A New Brunswick Laboratory publication,

NBL-231, reports the practical precision and possible biases

associated with these methods.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Uranium oxide, U^Og was the first chemical standard for

uranium distributed by the National Bureau of Standards. At

the Advisory Committee's recommendation, AEC laboratories

undertook a program to determine the stoichiometry of this

compound. The stoichiometry was found to be unpredictable

except when prepared under carefully controlled conditions.

Although suitable for a working standard, this oxide did not

meet the NBS requirements for a primary standard.
136 AEC-Safeguards

Today uranium oxide is prepared by the New Brunswick

Laboratory and is distributed as a working standard for uranium . The Committee recommended that pure uranium metal be

distributed as a primary chemical standard in lieu of the

oxide. At present, the AEC has on hand an 80 kg block of

high purity uranium metal. This block must be subdivided

into units suitable for distribution as a primary standard.

A pilot run on a similar block of uranium metal has been con- ducted at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant . A report of

the resulting impurity levels is being prepared.

At present the National Bureau of Standards also distributes ultra-pure plutonium metal as a chemical standard.

This expensive metal, prepared for the AEC by Los Alamos

Scientific Laboratories, contains less than 100 ppm "impurities" . To reduce the overall cost of plutonium standards, the

Advisory Committee recommended that a working standard be

developed for plutonium as well as uranium. Three compounds

were analyzed under various aging and laboratory conditions.

Samples of the three compounds, PuCSO^)^- ^H^O, anhydrous

PuCSO^)^ and Cs^PuClg, were sent to a number of laboratories

for analysis. As a result of this round-robin analysis the

Bureau will soon be distributing plutonium sulfate tetrahydrate as a plutonium working standard.

In addition to the primary and working chemical standards a series of 16 uranium isotopic standards is available

from NBS . These standards range in enrichment from 0.5 to 93%

uranium-235. The National Bureau of Standards also offers a plutonium isotopic standard containing approximately 90%

plutonium-239 and 8% plutonium-240 . The Atomic Energy Commission and the National Bureau of Standards are now con- sidering the need for two additional plutonium standards.

These, with plutonium 240 concentrations of 12 and 20$ will

be characteristic of the plutonium being recovered from the

high burnup fuel of pressurized water and boiling water re-
McDowell, Jones, Norderhaug 137

actors. In the future, as plutonlum recycle and breeder

reactors come on line, the AEC will assess the need for plutonlum standards having still other isotopic ratios.

INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCE

At the 1965 Euratom meeting to discuss high precision

mass spectroscopy , [1] the participants generally agreed to use

the NBS series of uranium isotopic standards for calibration

of their instruments. Of the total nuclear material standards currently distributed by the National Bureau of Standards, 2k% are to foreign recipients.

SPECIAL PURPOSE STANDARDS

In addition to those standards planned for distribution

by the Bureau, the AEC recognizes the need for others. Special purpose calibration standards will be needed in conjunction with the Commission's safeguards research and development activities.

Research projects are currently underway to develop

non-destructive assay techniques for uranium and plutonium.

Pulsed neutron and gamma interrogation techniques will re- quire a variety of new standards. Standard mockups of fuel

elements and barrels containing uranium and plutonium scrap

will be needed to calibrate future instruments. High reso- lution gamma spectroscopy promises to be a useful tool for

identifying fuel material and for verifying the reported irradiation history of spent fuel. To analyze complicated

spectra, gamma spectros copists need pure samples of individual isotopes of plutonium, uranium and selected fission products

The latest designs for chemical reprocessing plants

emphasize instrumented processing. As new plants are built

new special purpose standards will be needed for calibrating

automatic control devices.

[1] EANDC - 53"S", "Round Table on High Precision Mass Spectrometry and Alpha Counting", November 29 - December 2,

1965.
138 AEC-Safeguards

SUMMARY

Each year the National Bureau of Standards distributes over a thousand standard reference samples of nuclear material. As new fuel forms and analytical techniques

are developed, new isotopic standards will supplement the

present series. Uranium metal as well as plutonium metal

will soon be distributed as a primary chemical standard.

Economical working standards will afford chemists an added

degree of flexibility in their analytical procedures.

The success of the AEC's Standard Reference Material

Program depends on the continued support of the National

Bureau of Standards and of analytical laboratories such as New Brunswick Laboratory. In the final analysis, the Commission's safeguards system is dependent on the availability

of a wide range of standards. To be effective, a safeguards

system requires chemical and isotopic reference materials

of the very highest precision and accuracy.
STANDARDS IN RADIOISOTOPE DEVELOPMENT

William E. Mott and Warren K. Eister

In the Division of Isotopes Development, we are acutely

aware of the needs for standards as defined by the organizers

of this Symposium. In many respects the progress we make is

strongly dependent on the availability of standards: standard data, standard materials, standard specifications, and

standard procedures. Without standards it is as difficult to imagine an effective research and development program on ra- dioisotopes and radioisotope applications as it is to imagine

the effective utilization of the resulting technology. The

objective of this paper is to call attention to the needs for

standards in the development and utilization of radiation and

radioisotope applications.

RADIOISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND MATERIALS

Our radioisotope production and materials program would

be fraught with difficulties were it not for existing standards. On the other hand, our lives would no doubt be much

easier at times if we had more and better standards . A case

in point is that of the production of sealed sources for process radiation applications. Design and manufacturing standards have helped to reduce product (and hence irradiator)

costs while increasing product safety and flexibility of product use. But even so, there can be problems. To exemplify,

trace amounts of moisture in sealed sources have caused

swelling and rupture in some cases . Standard manufacturing

procedures have been revised and new procedures added to eliminate these problems.

Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of an activity

requiring standards is the production and processing of radioisotopes for medical diagnosis. The questions of quantity,

purity, and chemical form are of vital interest so that control over all the production and processing factors back to the introduction of the basic raw materials is mandatory. In

139
mo AEC-Radioisotope Development

short, the problem is Intractable in the absence of a carefully thought-out standardization program.

In our radioisotope production program, activities of by no-means minor importance relates to the preparation of pure

radionuclides for evaluations including the determination of

half-lives and decay schemes, in short, the accumulation of

standard data. The continuing work is largely concerned with

radionuclides not yet in general use (e.g., iodine-123,

gallium-68, iridium-113m) , although, as new radiation detection systems become available, it is always instructive to

relook at the old favorites in order to obtain more precise

data. In the preparation of pure nuclides for these studies

there is a very definite requirement for standard procedures

Standard data emerges when materials prepared by standard

procedures are dealt with in a standard fashion.

ANALYSIS, EVALUATION AND CONTROL

Broadly speaking, the most important applications of

radioisotopes today probably fall under the analysis, evaluation and control heading. Activities include radiography,

tracing, gauging, activation, Mossbauer, and radioisotope Xray . To be sure, the timely adoption of standards and standardization methods and procedures, in this area has always

had a lasting impact.

To give an understanding of the part that standards

play in radiation analysis, evaluation and control applications, we have selected a relatively new analytical technique that is not in widespread, routine use; namely, radioisotope X-ray spectrometry. Although the needs for standards and standardization here are only just arising and are certainly not well defined, there is, nevertheless, much room for discussion.

As a starter, there is the question of terminology . We all know that it is seldom too soon at the beginning of a new endeavor to standardize on terms. Those in this field must

develop a common understanding of such terms as "radioisotope

X-ray spectrometry" and "central source geometry."
Mott, Eister 141

As with any analytical tool, good calibration standards

can often be the key to success. Physical and chemical stability, homogeneity, and chemical composition are of course

important. Also, the overall composition must be as similar

as possible to the materials being analyzed in order to reduce errors due to matrix effects. Carefully analyzed samples of the material to be tested are best, but sufficient

ranges of concentration of each element in question are often

impossible to obtain especially for ore and mineral analysis.

In alloy analysis, less than a dozen suitable steel samples

are available from the combined sources of the National Bureau

of Standards and its British counterpart, the Bureau of

Analyzed Samples. Few samples of other alloys are available.

A great need may be rapidly building in this area. X-ray filters, an important part of nondispersive X-ray

spectrometry, must be uniform, of precise mass per unit area, physically and chemically stable, strong, and of controlled

chemical composition. Many methods of making filters exist.

The best filters will probably evolve by natural selection.

Filters currently used include: metal foils; powdered elements of chemicals encapsulated in epoxy , polyethylene, or polystyrene; metals electroplated on beryllium foil; and films

deposited on Mylar or polypropylene foil.

Along with the calibration standards, and the filters

when required, comes the need for standard operating procedures to be followed both during standardization and calibration and during routine laboratory and field use. The best

instruments and standards yield little of value if incorrectly employed.

And what has been said about X-ray spectrometry applies

equally well to such more-developed applications as nuclear

moisture and density gauging. There are currently over 500

neutron moisture and gamma-ray density gauges being used by

state highway departments in highway construction in the USA.

These are in about 25 different models and come from six instrument companies. Some of these gages employ transmission,

some backscatter techniques. And even when the same techni-
142 AEC-Radioisotope Development

que is used, sources detectors, and source-detector geometries are likely to differ. The purpose of all is to give

information from which soil compaction - an important factor

in constructing highways that will stand up under specified

loads - can be determined. As we learned long ago, in nuclear well logging, where the principles and problems are very

similar, the ability to produce interpretable results, as well as results that can be intercompared , is a strong function of the materials and procedures adopted for instrument

calibration and field operation.

PROCESS RADIATION

In process radiation applications (food, medical supplies, chemical and physical systems) it is extremely important to know how much radiation is being absorbed per unit

time in a unit volume of the material being irradiated. At present there are literally dozens of dosimetry systems in use and under investigation, and unquestionably there is a need for standardization. Standardization is complicated,

however, because many factors enter into the selection of a dosimeter for a given application. Some of these are:

a. dosimeter size in relation to target size;

b. dosimeter range, energy response and linearity;

c. dosimeter compatibility with the environment in

which it is used, such as the ability to withstand

high corrosive or erosive environments and ex- tremes in temperature and humidity;

d. effect of target size and thickness on distribution

and mean energy of radiation;

e. the form of the target material, i.e., whether liquid, gas, or solid;

f. the purpose of the dosimeter, e.g., the dosimeter

for initial source calibration requiring a high degree of accuracy would probably not be pertinent

for process control;

g. the type of radiation, i.e., whether alpha, beta,

electron, gamma, or neutron; and
Mott, Eister 143

h. the source-target configuration.

All of this means that it is unrealistic to speak about

a universal dosimeter in process radiation applications. The

need is more for an expanded series of standard systems that

can be applied in well-defined cases. Another process radiation need is for source, facility,

: and operational standards that will assure safe and reliable

operation of the facility. Generally, federal and state re- quirements such as in Parts 10, 20 and 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations set the standards to be met . They do not

; always assure, however, that the material being irradiated

remains stable under all radiation-imposed conditions. As an example, consider the radiation polymerization of methylmethacrylate in a wood substrate - to produce a wood-polymer material. The synergistic effect of heat and radiation during

polymerization can produce in some circumstances a high exo- therm which, if not properly controlled, can cause an explosion in the material. This actually happened in impregnated

wood samples irradiated at very high electron dose rates.

Fortunately, the samples were quite small and no damage to the facility or equipment occurred. Thus, it is not only the

obvious safety aspects that must be anticipated by standard

operation procedures in radiation processing, as further evidenced by the accident which occurred at BNL a few weeks ago.

In this case, following the impregnation of concrete with

acrylonitrile , the excess monomer was drained off and stored

in a 55-gallon drum in an outside building. Apparently some constituent in the concrete reacted with the catalyst inhibitor in the monomer breaking it down. The drum exploded causing damage but no personal injuries. But again, had this

event occurred within the irradiator a serious safety problem

could have arisen. Needless to say, it would have been prudent to periodically monitor the inhibitor content.

The point is, safety standards must be considered not only in light of radiation safety, but in the context of the

entire facility operation. When there is a myriad of pro-
144 AEC-Radioisotope Development

ducts being irradiated, each separate application in itself

must undergo an in-depth evaluation of possible accident potential, and hopefully, careful chemical and radiation engineering practices will enable continued accident-free operation of radiation processing systems

THERMAL APPLICATIONS

Next to be touched upon is thermal applications. In such applications the energy of decay from the radioactive

material being used is converted into heat either in the source material itself or in a surrounding medium. The thermal energy so-produced is then utilized directly for heating

or is subsequently converted into mechanical or electrical

energy. The Division of Isotopes Development has the responsibility for Commission programs in which the end objective

is either direct heating or the production of mechanical en- ergy . Thinking particularly of the future as broader applications requiring a multiplicity of units and devices expand,

I see a very great need for standards: for standard materials, standard specifications, and standard procedures. Heat source capsules must be fabricated, loaded with fuel, welded,

tested, and qualified. The very nature of the problem will

make standardization the order of the day and the beginning

will certainly be with the radiation-emitting fuel because

of the restraints it puts on the total system.

To illustrate, let us consider the fuel for one of the

possible applications of the future - the artificial heart.

As many of you may know, any totally implantable artificial

heart regardless of how powered will have the following components: a blood pump, a power source, a means of transmitting power to the pump from the power source, and possibly

some controls. In a radioisotopically-powered artificial

heart, the power source would consist of a radioisotope heat

source, a thermal energy storage unit-, and a thermodynamic

converter. The most likely heat source fuel is plutonium238. But not any plutonium-2 38 will do if the radiation out-
Mott, Eister 145

put of a heat source is to be minimized. For one thing,

there are low Z impurities present in as-produced plutonium

which give rise to neutrons by (a, n) reactions. And there

is the isotopic impurity plutonium-236 , the decay products of

which emit some rather hard photons. Our objective is a standard plutonium and a standard plutonium fuel form (metal,

oxide, or nitride). About all we know at the moment is that

the standard plutonium of the future will most likely be

electrorefined . During recent work at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory on the electrorefining of plutonium-238

fuel, we have in routine operations obtained material having

the highest elemental purity of any ever produced, (better

than 99.98%), with excellent reproducibility from batch to batch. In contrast, the bomb reduction process even with the

best quality control seldom gives better than 99.8% material.

Following standardization on fuel, the next steps will

include the selection of the standard fuel form (or forms),

the fuel form shape, the containment material, the encapsulation procedure, and finally the qualification procedure.

What might not be immediately associated with the artificial heart program is a need for standard dosimetry practices. Much that happens could depend on the results of ra- diation measurements made by different people under different

conditions with sources having different emission characteristics. Neutron and photon spectra and dose rates will be

measured in air from bare and shielded sources and in and

around animal phantoms, animals, human phantoms, and perhaps

someday even humans. Two plutonium sources, one of 16 watts

and one of 24 watts, have been implanted in dogs since October 1967 and April 1968, respectively. External spectra and

neutron and photon doses are being measured. Sources simulating the radiation from these two sources, but without the

accompanying heat, have been implanted in several dogs.

Spectra and dose rates are being measured. In the next few

years many simulated radiation as well as actual heat sources

will be implanted in additional animal phantoms, in animals,
146 AEC-Radioisotope Development

and in human phantoms. Spectra and dose rates will be measured. It is difficult for me to imagine the effective util

ization of the results of these many experiments and measurements without standardization.

SAFETY

Safety is a general ingredient in all standard procedures involving radioisotopes; however, it is so vital to ra- dioisotope production and utilization operations that it de- serves highlighting.

Except in tracer-type applications, containment is, of

course, a prime consideration. An important activity is the

development of standard testing and qualification procedures

for sealed sources along with the establishment of guides for

the application and transportation of such sources in a manner to insure source integrity under all foreseeable circumstances. That there is a need for constant vigilance is oc- casionally brought home to us . During our initial shipment

of cobalt-60 encapsulated sources for the Hawaiian irradiator, corrosion of the sources occurred in the shipping cask

during shipment and may be attributed to a lack of adequate

standards for large-scale shipments by sea. With radiographic cameras there have been no serious

containment problems, but there have been several operator

exposures resulting from an apparent failure of source re- traction mechanisms . A study by Underwriter Laboratories was inconclusive, and the AEC Regulatory Division is now assessing the problem with the cooperation of manufacturers and

users. While there have been no significant problems with

industrial gauges, they are in such widespread use that a study has been undertaken to evaluate experimentally their

characteristics under fire and other accidents

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that our present

needs include:

1. The development of more effective reporting of

methods and procedures for processing, calibrating,
Mott, Eister 147

and using radioisotope standards. This may involve

the cooperative efforts of the supplier and user of

these standards, along with the instrument manufacturer . 2. Standard materials and procedures for radioisotopes

analysis, evaluation and control applications.

3. An expanded series of standard systems for measuring the energy absorbed by products in radiation

processing

4. Standard practices for measuring neutron and photon

doses in air and in tissue.

5. Standards for encapsulation materials and for welding methods to assure containment of sealed sources

of radioisotopes. This is particularly important

for thermal energy applications at temperatures

above 1000°C.

The Division of Isotopes Development plans to continue to support the development of effective standards. These are essential to the productive use of radioisotopes in our na- tional economy.

STANDARDS NEEDS FOR THE DIVISION OF

BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE PROGRAMS

William F. Marlow

In order to have an idea of the need for standards in

the programs of the Division of Biology and Medicine, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, it is necessary to know something

of the organization of the Division and of the research programs conducted and sponsored by it. Within the Division are

the Medical Research Branch, Biology Branch, Environmental

Sciences Branch, Fallout Studies Branch, Radiological Physics

and Instrumentation Branch, Civil Effects Branch and Technical Analysis Branch, as well as the Administrative and Program

Coordination Branches. The research programs of the technical

branches are broad and varied. The goal of DBM's biological,

medical, and environmental research program is to develop the

scientific knowledge needed for the full comprehension of

possible short- and long-term consequences of the interaction

of radiation with biological systems, from molecules of biological interest, to ecological, meteorological and oceanographic systems, including the radiation biology of space ex- plorations . The Division's programs are grouped in the following

categories: Molecular and cellular level studies; Radiation

Genetics; Somatic effects-general; Toxicity of radioelement s

Environmental radiation studies; Radiological physics; Health

physics, Radiation instruments; Combating detrimental effects

of radiation; Chemical toxicity; Nuclear energy civil effects;

Atmospheric radioactivity and fallout; Cancer research; and

Selected beneficial effects (of radioisotopes and radiation).

Projects under these categories are carried out in the AEC '

laboratories, and, under contract, in the AEC ' s national laboratories, universities, research institutes, hospitals, private laboratories and other government agencies' laboratories.

149
150 AEC-Biology and Medicine

Much of this research is basic in nature, while the re- mainder is more applied research directly oriented to AEC '

prime mission. It is impossible because of time limitations,

and unnecessary, to go into details of these programs here

to see the application and need in them for standards in all

five categories that are being considered at this symposium.

I shall try to give a broad picture of these needs, with some outstanding specific examples of the needs and, also, some examples of what work is being done to meet specific needs

As can be readily appreciated, work in many of the

above categories requires the analysis of a wide variety of

sample media for many radionuclides, both natural and manmade, and for stable trace elements. These media include

airborne dust, atmospheric gases, precipitation, surface

water, sea water, soils, rocks, sediments and biological materials. The biological samples may range from the simplest

of plants and animals to and including man. In the great

majority of cases, the concentrations of the radionuclides

are extremely low, and the trace elements of interest may be

in the parts per million or parts per billion range. In order to assure accurate and reproducible analyses, both ac- curate standards and reliable standard analytical procedures

are necessary. In many cases, a special procedure is needed

for a specific radionuclide in a particular medium.

The analysis of many of these environmental samples are carried out by or under contract to the AEC's Health and

Safety Laboratory in New York City. HASL 1 s Director, Dr. John H. Harley, will give a talk in the next session on "Standard Requirements for Environmental Analyses." Therefore, I will not go further into that program, other than to give an idea of the radionuclides for which standards are re- quired in this field. Figure 1 lists the radionuclides for

which HASL purchases standards and for which it can not perform primary standardization.
Marlow 151

Figure 1 HASL PRIMARY STANDARD PROGRAM

A. Standards Purchased (HASL cannot perform primary standardization)

Nuclide Source

H-3 NBS

C-14 NBS

S-35 RCC, IAEA

Fe-55 IAEA

Pm-147 NBS, IAEA

Ra-226 NBS

Figure 2 shows the radionuclides for which HASL purchases

standards on which they must make further check.

Figure 2 HASL PRIMARY STANDARD PROGRAM

B. Standards Purchased and Checked at HASL

Nuclide Source

Na-22 IAEA

Sc-46 IAEA

Mn-5^ RCC, IAEA

Co-57 IAEA

Co-60 NBS, IAEA

Zn-65 NBS, IAEA

Y-88 RCC

Sr-90 NBS (old)

1-125 NBS, RCC

Sb-125 RCC

Pb-210 Nuclear Chicago, RCC

Am-24l IAEA

Figure 3 gives the longest list - those radionuclides which

HASL purchases, from which it makes its own standards.
152 AEC-Biology and Medicine

Figure 3 HASL PRIMARY STANDARD PROGRAM

C. Radionuclides Purchases Unstandardized and Standardized

at HASL

Nuclide Source Nuclide Source

Na-24 ORNL Ce-l44 NSEC

Ca-45 RCC W-185 RCC

Cr-51 RCC Tl-204 ORNL

Fe-59 NSEC Po-208 RCC

Sr-89 ORNL, RCC Ra-228 RCC

Zr-95 ORNL Th-228 RCC

Nb-95 RCC Po-210 RCC

Ru-103 NSEC Pu-238 ORNL

Ru-106 RCC Pu-239 LASL

Cd-109 LASL Transplutonium ORNL

Cs-137 ORNL* Short-lived ORNL

Ce-l4l NSEC

* IAEA Standard also compared.

Figure 4 shows the radionuclides HASL purchases for use as tracers in determining chemical yields in analytical procedures . Figure 4 HASL PRIMARY STANDARD PROGRAM

D. Tracers

Nuclide Source

Be-7 NSEC

Sr-85 NSEC

Ba-133 ORNL

Pu-236 UCRL

These tracers do not need to be standardized, but must

be checked for purity before use. I realize that I am takin

substance from Dr. Harley's field of discussion in giving

these figures, for which I thank him, but they demonstrate

very well the gamut of radionuclides involved throughout the

DBM programs

For the stable trace elements, many of which are deter

mined by activation analysis, special standards, often invol
Marlow 153

ving the medium In which the element is to be studied, are needed, as well as standard analytical procedures. Again,

another speaker, Dr. Vincent Guinn, is scheduled to go into

detail on this subject in a later session, so I will not pur-

|Sue it further here.

Much work to develop standards and standard procedures

is carried out by researchers in the course of their work involving the radionuclides and samples in question. A considerable amount of work, especially for the development of

analytical procedures, is sponsored directly by DBM. A few

outstanding cases are the work at HASL on both standards and

analytical procedures; at the Health and Safety Division of

National Reactor Test Station, Idaho; at Battelle-Pacific

Northwest Laboratory, and at the National Bureau of Standards. Part of the work at HASL, and the work at NRTS, PNL

and NBS are particularly directed toward rapid radiochemical

separation schemes, especially as applicable to Activation

Analysis samples. Under a contract to DBM, a group at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology is carrying out studies

to make a systematic assessment of the application of activation analysis to forensic and clinical medicine. Work

includes instrument development; testing and calibration;

development of suitable procedures for tissue sampling and

chemical separations; compilation of a reference library of

standard spectra; establishment of a tissue bank; and analysis of a number of human tissues for a variety of elements.

I would like to add an interesting note here. At PNL, during

their study of a cellulose air filter medium, commercially

known as IPC-1478, the investigators have found that this

material has a uniform very low content of the elements antimony, cesium, cobalt, iron, scandium, silver, sodium and

zinc. They therefore propose that the IPC-l^S be considered

as a biological standard for activation analysis for the

above elements. Since this work will be reported in detail

by the investigators at The 1968 International Conference:

Modern Trends in Activation Analysis at the National Bureau

of Standards this October, I will not discuss it further.
15 H AEC-Biology and Medicine

Another DBM sponsored work that is of interest here was

the compilation several years ago by an Ad Hoc Committee of

procedures for the determination of very low concentrations

of radionuclides in a variety of media. The object was to

provide laboratories and regulatory groups with reliable procedures to determine that facilities handling radioactive

materials were being operated within applicable safety standards and regulations. These procedures were tested for their

accuracy and reproducibility in several cooperating laboratories. In case anyone is interested in this compilation,

which does not have a formal document number, a few copies

are still available at DBM.

In the field of whole body counting, standard reference

samples are necessary, including absolute reference standards

and "working standards," both the point-source type and the

"phantom" type. The fulfillment of these needs has not always been easy. The following case points this up rather

remarkably. In the Autumn of 1961, when heavy nuclear testing was suddenly resumed by the USSR, DBM instituted a program to measure the amounts and times of increases of cesium137 in humans in different locations in the United States

About ten laboratories located in various geographical areas

of the U. S. which had whole body counting facilities began

counting groups of individuals on a weekly basis. We wanted

to see if the arrival of waves of nuclear debris could be

determined at the various locations across the country.

After about nine months of this program, it became very obvious that only a few of the laboratories could do these

measurements on a quantitative basis. Some could not quantify

their data at all, and most experienced very erratic results.

We therefore undertook, in collaboration with a group of ex- perts, to set up a standardization program and obtain the

necessary standards. For absolute measurements, the Radioactivity Section of NBS undertook to prepare for us sets of

essentially mass-less, absorption-less standards of cesium137 of the conventional one inch disc-and ring type, at count-
Marlow 155

'ing levels appropriate to our needs. This proved much more

difficult and time-consuming than anticipated, but the sources

;were produced. In addition, we desired essentially "pointsource" standards in lucite rods which could be handled routinely and repeatedly without adverse effects, and which had a (fixed known geometry. The active source was to be no larger

than one-eighth inch in diameter in a rod one-half inch in diamieter. After consideration of the problem, NBS declined to try

to produce them. The standards were then solicited from private laboratories. One laboratory spent many months and con- siderable funds on the project, but failed to come up with sa- tisfactory sources. A second laboratory never got through the

planning stage. Finally, a third laboratory, New England Nuclear, after truly many months of work and not a few failures,

produced about twenty sets of a series of three sources, nominally 10,100 and 1000 nanocuries of cesium-137 each. These

were used by the laboratories to calibrate their whole body

counting systems, mainly for stability of performance, and

response to a known absorptionless source of cesium-137. For

actual quantification of levels measured in humans, "human

sources" with known, or carefully-measured amounts of cesium137, or cesium-13^, were counted in different facilities.

While some laboratories have developed phantom-type standards

for their own use, I know of no individual one which is universally or even widely accepted throughout the community.

There is a very pressing need for standard radiation

measuring instruments and standard procedures for their use, especially when used in peculiar environments. This need was

very evident when DBM had to respond to the present urgent

concern over the levels of air-borne radioactive contaminants

in uranium mines. The instruments had to be designed to measure radon daughters, and then calibrated against radon daughters under levels and conditions existing in the mines. This

was no easy task, but a three channel, portable gamma analyzer

developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is now being used quite successfully in these measurements
156 AEC-Biology and Medicine

In the field of instrumentation standardization, DBM's

Standard Nuclear Instrument Modules program should be mentioned. With the advent of solid state electronics, the mechanical and electrical configurations of various instrument packages became numerous and incompatible. An AEC committee on Nuclear Instrument Modules was formed in 1964 and formulated

designs and specifications to assure mechanical and electrical

interchangeability . These specifications were first put out

in AEC publication TID-20983 in July 1964, and have been updated in Revision 2, January 1968. These specifications have

been widely and enthusiastically accepted. Copies of this

publication may be obtained at the U. S. Government Printing

Office

The need for accurate standard reference data in the DBN programs is too obvious to require more attention here than it mention. Without such data, little could be done to calculate

and determine the effects of ionizing radiation, particularly

on biological tissues and systems, or calculate dose rates frc

atmospheric and ground-level concentrations of radionuclides,

both to exposed subjects and those in various types of shelter

These data are also necessary for the dating of nuclear debris

and the calculating of yields of nuclear devices from the con- centrations of radionuclides in the atmosphere.

While this talk has only been a sketchy description of

the biological, medical and environmental research program of

the AEC's Division of Biology and Medicine, and the part that

standards of various types play in that program, I hope that i has given you some overall insight into these matters, as well

as an indication of what we are trying to do to solve our prob

lems .
RADIOACTIVITY SOURCE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC

HEALTH SERVICE NEEDS

Harry E. Kolde and Patricia A. Cliggett

ABSTRACT

U. S. Public Health Service uses and requirements of

radioactivity standards, that is, materials with accurately

defined radionuclide concentration are described. Major applications are studies of specific radionuclide contents in

[environmental media, experimental animals, and man, including

radionuclides administered to humans for diagnostic purposes

land physiological studies . The common primary use of standards is calibration of a variety of nuclear counting systems

for efficiency determinations, spectra, and other performance

'measures. The user normally wishes to obtain these values

with the highest possible accuracy. Standards are usually

[obtained from commercial suppliers. Examples of problems

incurred with incorrect or inconsistent activity ratings,

absence of certificate information, decay schemes, and other

'faults are described. Also noted is the unavailability of

.standardized forms of many radionuclides from domestic producers. Currently desirable types and forms of standard

materials, such as gases and tagged media, are listed.

INTRODUCTION

Within the Public Health Service, the two major groups

concerned with radioactivity are the National Center for

[Radiological Health (NCRH) and the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) . The NCRH functions to evaluate long-term

health effects of radiation and to prevent or control potential radiation hazards from nuclear device testing, nuclear

[reactors and facilities, industrial radioisotope users, and

:other man-made or natural sources of radiation .[ 1 ] These re- sponsibilities require large scale sampling of all aspects

of the environment, including man, for the measurement of

radioactive contents.

157
158 AEC-Public Health

At the NIH", as part of the rapidly growing field of nu- clear medicine, radioactive substances are administered to many individuals for diagnosis of disease or study of physiological processes .[ 2 ] Prior to administration, the activity

and purity of all radioactive preparations are checked at the NIH.[3] This assures that the proper dose of the proper

radionuclide is given so that the subject's radiation exposure is minimized.

Many types of nuclear counting systems are employed in

PHS laboratories to identify and measure an abundance of ra- dionuclides. These include such instruments as gamma spectrometers with Nal(Tl) or Ge(Li) detectors of many sizes and

types, whole-body monitors, in-vivo organ or whole-body scanners, coincidence/anti-coincidence counters, and liquid scintillation counters

A large variety of standardized radionuclides are used

for calibrating these systems. Calibration standards are prepared to determine counting efficiency as a function of

disintegration energy as well as sample or organ geometry,

density, or depth in a body. In the case of whole-body monitors, calibration standards are administered to human volunteers or inserted in mannequins to relate counting efficiency

to a body-size parameter such as subject weight or height.

Standards of high radionuclide purity are necessary for spectral analyses . These spectra serve either as a reference for

checking the purity of non-standardized forms of a radionuclide or as part of a library for resolving the components of

complex mixtures of radionuclides.

DESIRABLE PROPERTIES OF STANDARDS

For most instrument calibrations, we prefer to work

with absolutely standardized solutions because they provide a high degree of accuracy, purity, stability, and reliability.

Their liquid form is convenient for standardization and preparation of simulated samples for calibrations. The radioactivity concentration of such standards is known absolutely

since the disintegration rate is measured directly, i.e.,
Kolde, Cliggett 159

without reference to any other standard of activity. Production methods are chosen to avoid or minimize radionuclidic

impurities. Unavoidable impurities are identified and measured to determine their effect on the rating of the principal

^radionuclide . The chemical composition is chosen to assure homogeneity and minimum activity losses in preparation and

^storage. Each standard is processed carefully to maintain

^uniformity and purity. The random and systematic errors introduced by the measurement technique, impurities , and preparation are quantified so that the activity of the principal radionuclide can be stated within a given amount of cer- tainty . PROBLEMS

We prefer to purchase our standards rather than perform

absolute standardizations. Since 1962, the Radiation Safety

jSection of the NIH has obtained 180 standards of 32 radionuclides. During the same interval, the NCRH group in Cincinnati alone purchased over 150 standards of 55 radionuclides.

Most standards were found to agree with advertised specifications, but problems in their use occur occasionally .[ M

The most common fault observed by us is poor agreement

of calibration results from standards obtained from different

57 suppliers. A recent intercomparison with Co standards may

be of interest. This radionuclide with a 270-d half-life and

photon energies of 122 and 136 keV is used as a calibration

reference standard for measuring the important radiopharmaceutical nuclide, 6-h ^m

Tc , Which emits l^O-keV photons.

During 1967, the NIH purchased Co standards from

three U. S. suppliers. Two to six samples of each standard

were analyzed with a counting precision of +1 to +1.5 percent

at the 95 percent confidence level. A variation of 25 percent in the calibration results was observed (Table 1)

Since the results exceeded the suppliers' quoted error, a sample of supplier C's material was sent to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) for calibration. All results have

been normalized to the NBS value. Conversation with supplier
160 AEC-Public Health

Table 1 Variability of Cobalt-57 Standards

Quoted Discrepancy ,

Supplier Accuracy, % % A ± 5 3 B (Std. #1) + 6 11

B (Std. #2) ± 6 -2

C ± 3 -14

NBS calibration + 2

*Percent variation from result given by NBS calibration of

supplier C standard.

B revealed that erratic malfunction of his instrumentation

occurred in the time interval when his standard was prepared.

This supplier shipped, at no charge, a replacement (B No. 2)

which gave results within 2% of the NBS value.

A similar situation occurred when the NIHexamined a 57^ Co reference solution supplied by a radiopharmaceutical

company. The company intended the recipient to use the solution for calibration of counting instruments for the assay of

99m J Tc eluates. The activity of an accurately measure sample

57 of the preparation was compared to the NBS calibrated v Co

standard. The NIH assay was 42 yCi/ml, compared to the supplier's labeled value of "55-78 yCi/ml" . Use of the supplier's rating would have resulted in an administration of only

99m

67 percent of the desired amount Tc to a subject. In some cases, the dosage would have been insufficient to provide the

necessary diagnostic information.

The problem of selecting the best standard is also illustrated by the experience of the NCRH group in Cincinnati

with l2|0 Bali40 La . During a two-year period, four absolutely

standardized solutions were obtained from two suppliers. In this case, duplicate dilutions of each standard were prepared

and duplicate samples of each were taken. When the difference between sample results was greater than the counting
Kolde, Cliggett 161

iprecision of +1 percent at the 95 percent confidence level,

"additional samples were prepared. A variation of 33 percent

was observed (Table 2). Shortly after receipt, the activity

jrating of solution No. la from supplier A was announced to

be in error since the 15 percent greater activity of the

Il40 La daughter when in transient equilibrium was not considered. The value for solution No. lb represents the corrected result. A standard (No. 2) obtained later from supplier

B showed 7 percent greater activity in comparison to standard No. lb. Another standard (No. 3) was subsequently purchased from the second supplier and this revealed a gross

difference in activity. Considerable re-evaluation by the

supplier and NCRH did not resolve the discrepancy. The supplier issued a replacement (No. 4) which was adopted as the

optimum standard after its activity rating was confirmed by

4 7T 6 counting at Cincinnati.

Table 2 Variability of Barium-l40 Standards

Std. Quoted Discrepancy ,

Supplier No. Accuracy

% % A - la + 1 -10

lb + 1 -3 . 2 + 8, -4 + 4

3 + 7, -2 -29

4 + 3, -2 0

*Percent variation from result given by std. No. 4 from supplier B.One supplier was found to provide very inaccurate

standards . A set of eight gamma-ray point sources was obtained by one NCRH laboratory to determine counting efficiency as a function of gamma energy. The sources appeared

to yield unsatisfactory values and the Cincinnati NCRH group

was requested to confirm the activity ratings. Our analysis
162 AEC-Public Health

was made by gamma spectroscopy, using calibration values obtained with absolute standards of the same radionuclides.

Counting precision was maintained at less than +1 percent

at the 95 percent confidence level. Table 3 shows the deviation of the supplier's ratings from the NCRH values. Only

109 137 two, Cd and J 'Cs, showed agreement. Three deviated by

11 to 15 percent and the other three were grossly erroneous. Although the supplier did not advertise the sources as standardized material, he did indicate that they were calibrated

individually within an accuracy of +5 percent for an additional charge.

Table 3 Discrepancy of Set of Gamma-Ray Point Sources*

Radionuclide Rating Deviation, %**

22 Na + 15

5l|

Mn -64

60 Co + 13

6 5

Z n + 141

109 Cd -4

133Ba -69

137 Cs + 4 l44Ce + 11

*Supplier accuracy quoted at + 5% • **% deviation = suPP ller mating X 100

lo deviation NCRH rating

Resolving discrepancies in these types of intercomparisons causes much lost time on our part. We also consider

difficulties with activity ratings to be serious because the

average nuclear medical or health department laboratory would

ordinarily buy a standard from only one supplier, and inadvertent analytical errors could result. Most of these laboratories do not have the equipment, capability or time to perform absolute standardizations or sometimes even the means to verify the accuracy of purchased standards.
Kolde, Cliggett 163

For state and local health departments, the problem has

been partially corrected by the Analytical Quality Control

Service (AQCS) of the NCRH . AQCS conducts large-scale methods cross-checks and intercomparison studies with he participation of many health departments. As an outgrowth of these

efforts, dilutions of absolutely standardized solutions are provided upon request for instrument calibrations . This

group purchases absolute standards from various suppliers and

tests the original solution and its dilutions for accuracy of

the radionuclide content and purity before issuance. The

total radioactivity of each AQCS diluted standard is usually

in the range of 10 to 500 nanocuries . Over 225 of these so- lutions were distributed during 1967 to 30 state and local

health departments

NEEDS

The lack of standardized forms of many radionuclides

still exists. In 1967, Reynolds[5] reported that of 93 radionuclides commonly used, only 35 could be obtained as standards from domestic suppliers. A recent review of the catalogs indicates no improvement in the supply. Purchase of

standards from domestic producers is preferred since delivery

is usually faster and communications are easier should questions arise. Transportation and customs clearance delays

makes it undesirable to import short-lived nuclides as 12.8-

hr.

6i|

Cu, 35-hr. 82 Br, or 6-hr. "mTc. Suppliers should also be alert to the need for standards of radionuclides beginning to be more frequently used.

For example, applications of radiopharmaceuticals labeled

with 123I, 43K, 67 Cu,

176m

Lu, 177 Lu, and l69 Yb, were discussed at the June 1968 meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine . [6-10]

The only gamma-emitting gas available as a standard is

^Kr. Provision of a standardized 5. 3-day 133 Xe gas with its

8l-keV photon would be desirable. Use of 133 Xe in conjunction with 510-keV ^Kr could provide an efficiency y_s_. energy

calibration curve for gamma analysis of gas samples obtained,
164 AEC-Public Health

for example, in studies of nuclear reactor effluents. Xenon133 has also become an important radionuclide in nuclear medicine . In environmental studies, a need exists for standardized forms of environmentally-tagged media with low-level

90 137 radioactivity contents such as Sr in bone ash or Cs in

muscle ash. These can facilitate the calibration of counting

systems for samples with densities other than water. In addition, they can permit verification of accuracy in methods

development work and could serve quality control purposes in

batch analyses of samples.

Regarding certificates, we note that at least three

U. S. commercial suppliers have adopted to some extent the

model format recommended by the NAS-NRC Subcommittee on the

Use of Radioactivity Standards .[ 11 ] One of the three, however, only provides a general precision error term. Other

suppliers still provide only such rudimentary information, as concentration, date, and lot number. Besides fulfilling regular needs, the data given in a comprehensive certificate often

assists in diagnoses of apparent discrepancies. For example,

because the supplier of the first barium-140 standard referred to in Table 2 indicated the assumption of the equal acti140 140 vities of the La daughter in equilibrium with Ba, the

discrepancy was detected and brought to the supplier's attention . Differences in decay scheme assumptions often explain

inconsistencies between results given by standards from se- veral producers. Agreement between suppliers on decay scheme

data may be a solution. For example, the difficulties en197 countered with Hg were partially solved by the suppliers

meeting to select a decay scheme during the 1965 symposium

on radioactive pharmaceuticals at Oak Ridge.

As an additional solution to some problems, we recom- mend the establishment of an independent technically-competent group that will undertake two prime tasks. First, determine the best available decay scheme data; communicate
Kolde, Cliggett 165

these readily in an understandable form to all isotope producers, suppliers, and users; update the information as new

facts come to light; and enlist the cooperation of all suppliers to adopt the recommended decay schemes. Secondly,

this group should evaluate standards either submitted to it

voluntarily by interested suppliers or by random market

purchase. We believe that this would help to assure users

that the materials advertised directly or indirectly as standards are accurately represented.

REFERENCES

[1] U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Highlights of Public Health Service

activities in radiological health. U. S. Government

Printing Office (1965).

[2] National Advisory Committee on Radiation. Report to the

Surgeon General, U . S. Public Health Service, on protecting and improving health through the radiologica l sciences . U. S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, Public Health Service, April 1966. p. 9. [3] Cliggett, P. A., and J. M. Brown, Jr. Assays of radioactive materials for use in patients - a five year study.

J. Nucl. Med . 9: 236-240 (June 1968).

[4] Kolde, H. E., and G. J. Karches . Some limitations of

available radioactivity standards. Health Physics 10:

634-641 (1964).

[5] Reynolds, S. A. Availability of standards for common radionuclides. Isotop. Radiat . Technology 5: 118-121

(Winter 1967-1968)

[6] Sodd, V. J. and J. Blue. Cyclotron generator of high

purity 123

I. Abstract, J. Nucl. Med . 9: 349, 1968.

[7] Wellman, H. N. et__al. Study of preliminary experience

12 3 with the use I for thyroid function and scanning com- pared to 131

I. Abstract, ibid., p. 359.

[8] O'Brien, H. A. and H. B. Hupf. ^ 3 K and 67 Cu for medical

applications. Abstract, ibid.., p. 340
166 AEC-Public Health

[9] O'Mara, R . E. et al. 177 Lu and 176m

Lu as potential agents

for skeletal imaging. Abstract, ibid

[10] Hosain, F. e_fc al. 1 ^^Yb - diethy lenetriaminepentaacet ic

l69 acid ( Yb-DTPA) : a new radiopharmaceutical for brain.

Abstract, ibid., p. 325.

[11] Certificates of Radioactivity Standards, National Academy

of Science-National Research Council, Washington, D. C. 20418, 1966.
STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS

L . E. Packard

If you wouldn't mind a facetious approach to this presentation, I could make this really very brief by saying

everything has been said here before. For example, we are another group working in the nuclear field who feel the need

for standardization. We identify ourselves by some letters - A.N.I.M. We are organized and working. We are not very old,

and yet we have had a fair personnel turnover. We all have

full-time work other than standards. Our people who are doin

the work deserve a lot of credit, but we wish we could get

them to move more rapidly. And, finally, we are rather appalled at the amount of time and effort required to reach

agreement on standards. I think we heard this whole story

here yesterday.

But, seriously, I would like to go ahead and tell you

in somewhat more detail our particular version of the story.

First of all, I should define just who we are the Associa

tion of Nuclear Instrument Manufacturers . Let me start by

saying who we are not . We are not the Atomic Industrial Forum. We are not concerned with nuclear power per se . We are

not concerned with radiation sources or accelerators per se

We are not producers of radiochemicals per se — even though

many of our members are also in this field.

The Association of Nuclear Instrument Manufacturers,

Inc. is an independent and nonprofit organization. Its purpose is to represent the interests of its member companies

which are engaged in the development and manufacture of scien

tific instruments for the measurement of nuclear radiation.

A.N.I.M. presents a member-derived viewpoint to federal,

state and local government agencies on issues affecting the

growth, welfare and profitability of its member companies.

In addition, it provides a vehicle for the development of

industry-wide standards, guidelines for uniform quality,

167
168 ANIM- Instruments

warranties for service, improved marketing and exhibiting

media, business statistics and industry public relations.

How do we define nuclear instrument industry? Let me just take a moment and read officially how we do that from

our bylaws. The term "Nuclear Instruments Industry" includes

but is not limited to any company engaged in developing and

manufacturing and marketing commercial, i.e. catalog type,

nuclear instruments in any of the following categories:

1. Multichannel analyzers

2. Nuclear power supplies, scalers, amplifiers, count

rate meters, single channel analyzers

3. Monitoring instruments

4. Detecting heads sold separately

5. Solid state detectors

6. Sample flow counting systems, manual and automatic

7. Medical and biological counting systems, for in-vivo

counting

These, incidentally, are essentially the categories that are used by McGraw-Hill in their industry survey of nuclear

instruments

Now I indicated we are not very old. We started this

organization in 1965. It was based on an effort by McGrawHill to get the major companies in the field at that time together for a bookings project that they were undertaking as part of their overall reporting of the economy of the country.

The initial companies that participated were those companies

which had reported a sales volume in excess of $1 million in

this field in 1964. There were twelve companies. You might

be interested just to hear who they were. This dates back to 1964 — those companies which did more than $1 million volume

in this field: Baird-At omic , Beckman, Eberline, Hamner,

Nuclear-Chicago, Nuclear Data, Ortec, Packard, Picker-Nuclear,

TMC, Tracerlab and Victoreen.

The formal incorporation of A.N.I.M. was set up in

January of 1967- There are now twenty company members which

among them represent approximately 75 to 80 percent of the
Packard 169

sales volume of commercial catalog-type nuclear radiation

detecting and monitoring instruments. This is exclusive of

industrial process control equipment, reactor instruments and

radiation sources. And it is that percentage — 75 to 80% —

of those instruments manufactured in the U.S.A. The total

amount is approaching $100 million annually.

The following is the full current membership — again

as part of identifying who we are before we start to talk

about what we do.

A.N.I.M. 1968 MEMBERSHIP

Baird-Atomic , Inc. Beckman Instrument Company

Canberra Industries, Inc. Eberline Instrument Corp.

E. G. & G .

Eon Corporation

Hamner/Harshaw

Kaman Nuclear

LeCroy Research Systems Corp

Nuclear Associates, Inc. Nuclear-Chicago Corporation

Nuclear Data, Incorporated

Nuclear Diodes, Incorporated

Cambridge, Massachusetts

La Jolla, California

Middletown, Connecticut

Santa Fe , New Mexico

Salem, Massachusetts

Brooklyn, New York

Cleveland, Ohio

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Elmsford, New York

Westbury, New York

Des Plaines, Illinois

Palatine, Illinois

Prairie View, Illinois

Nucleonic Corporation of America Brooklyn, New York

ORTEC, Incorporated*

Packard Instrument Company, Inc Picker Nuclear

Princeton Gamma Tech

Technical Measurement Corp.**

Tennelec Instrument Company

Tracerlab Division of LFE

Victoreen Instrument Company

*E.G.&G. acquired Ortec in September 1967

**Assets of company sold January 1968

AFFILIATE

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, New York

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Downers Grove, Illinois

White Plains, New York

Princeton, New Jersey

North Haven, Connecticut

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Waltham, Massachusetts

Cleveland, Ohio
170 ANIM-Instruments

The following are the current officers and directors

of the Association. The companies are represented by senior

officers or division managers to ensure that firm positions

can be taken at our meetings

OFFICERS

Frank H. Low

Lyle E. Packard

Rodman A . Sharp

John M. Dempsey, Jr. DIRECTORS

Richard J. Sandberg

*Rodman A. Sharp

William J . Lepeska

*Duane M. Mayhew

*Lyle E. Packard

Thomas L. Yount

*Frank H. Low

Lee Dressner

John M. Dempsey, Jr. Donald G. Lowell

*Fred W. Hannula

Edward A. DeCrosta

*Member of the Executive Committee

We have directors' meetings approximately quarterly and

all of the work is done through committees . The committees

that we have are STATISTICS, which give us the billings, book

ings, profitability, etc., all on a concealed basis so no one knows the identity of these figures. They are all reported

in, summarized, averaged in lump figures and fed back to us. The EXHIBITS committee which helps to set some standards both

in the way our industry people conduct themselves at exhibits

and the way participation is handled with the sponsoring or- ganizations of exhibits, etc. The third committee is the

STANDARDS committee which I'll go into in detail, of course.

The fourth is LEGISLATIVE ACTION. The fifth is INTERNATIONAL

TRADE PROMOTION which is a very important phase of our work.

President

Vice President

Treasurer

Secretary

Through 1968:

Through 1969

Through 1970:

Picker Nuclear

Packard Instrument

Beckman Instruments

Baird-Atomic

Nuclear Data

Beckman Instruments

Nuclear-Chicago

Victoreen Instrument

Packard Instrument

E.G.&G./Ortec

Picker Nuclear

Tennelec Instrument

Baird-Atomic

Eberline Instrument

Tracerlab/LFE

Hamner/Harshaw
Packard 171

We are contributing a substantial margin to the nation's

; favorable trade balance .... something on the order of $20 million a year. The last committee is MEMBERSHIP.

Now for the STANDARDS committee. Here I'd like to read

| from an annual report of the Association, actually paraphrase,

I think would be a better way to put it, because this was originally written for general consumption and not for an audi-

| ence of people concerned with standards and technical terminI ology of what a standard is. During the past two years, the

I STANDARDS committee has been developing design guidelines in

I several very important areas. These are being adopted as standards by A.N.I.M. They are to be used by the A.N.I.M.

companies and are available to any others on request. In addition to the formal subcommittees, there were several ad hoc

committees active. Reports on the activities of the subcommittees follow this introduction section. Here's one example

of an item that we considered working on and dropped. The AEC

|had contacted us to determine our interest in film badge

j standardization . This is a little afield from nuclear instrumentation; but nevertheless the matter was considered and we

; decided to have nothing to do with that and I understand it is

being handled by the National Sanitation Foundation at this

point. Another thing that you might not think of as a standards activity — we have developed a suggested form of standj ard instrument warranty. This document includes recognition

of the various ancillary equipment that goes along with our

J instruments — that seems to be a problem with the sale of

commercial instruments — and it also takes special consideration of items such as Geiger tubes, photomultiplier tubes,

I batteries , etc

In another area closely related to standards, A.N.I.M.

i has been participating actively in a dialogue with several

Governmental agencies and the offices of certain congressmen

in the evolution of controls and/or standards for medical deI vices, which of course includes many nuclear instruments.

Starting with the Williams Bill in August of 1965, A.N.I.M.
172 ANIM-Instruments

has had representation at hearings in Washington to state its

position and to report back to membership the status and

situation. At present, there are two bills.... and this was written in the spring of 1968. One is sponsored by the Administration and the FDA and is known as the Staggers Bill. The

other is sponsored by Representative Reinecke of California.

The former would impose Governmental control over medical

instruments. The latter relies principally on the development through existing organizations of better standards to be generated and policed to a considerable extent by industry

itself. A.N.I.M. has rather complete documentation on the

medical devices legislation matter and it's all distributed

to member companies

Another small activity of the STANDARDS committee is to circulate standardized and appropriate patent clauses for use

by the member companies in their personnel work with technical people of the companies.

The first of the STANDARDS subcommittees is on HEALTH

PHYSICS INSTRUMENTS. Typically the subcommittees consist of

a representative from each of the companies that manufacture

the particular class of goods concerned. In this particular

case Victoreen, Eberline, LFE/Tracerlab , and Texas Nuclear,

part of Nuclear-Chicago, are represented. This subcommittee

embraces one of the most active areas in nuclear standards

work, since it concerns the physical protection and well being

of those who work with radiation sources. It is imperative

that all commercially available instruments be accurate and

be interpreted identically by all users. Through A.N.I.M.

efforts, advertisement and manufacturers' literature have begun to state energy response ranges for instruments measuring

radiation dosage.

A.N.I.M. works in close cooperation with the AEC and in

particular its Division of Biology and Medicine. It monitors

efforts of individuals and groups in Government labs, who fron- tline to time initiate action on portable instruments for

health physics monitoring, and tries to extract the most meri-;
Packard 173

torious aspects of these projects. A.N.I.M. also endeavors to

j keep in touch with and supply its members with information on 'United States and international standards.

The next subcommittee is MULTICHANNEL ANALYZERS . This

one has representatives from Nuclear Data, Nuclear-Chicago,

; Baird-Atomic , Packard, Victoreen and Picker-Nuclear. The

multichannel analyzer, being a basic system for nuclear

measurement, it is important that not only the instruments

themselves be standardized insofar as practical but that advertising literature and test procedures be based on commonly

understood definitions and terminology. Therefore, standards

are being developed in areas such as integral and differential

linearity and related testing procedures. Other matters for

which standards are being developed are in test procedures for

stability, count rate dependence, live time accuracy, dead

time and gain stability. The type of pulse used for test and

the test instrumentation itself are being included in this

work

The next subcommittee is on LIQUID SCINTILLATION COUNTING. This has representatives from Packard, Picker-Nuclear,

LFE/Tracerlab , Beckman and Nuclear-Chicago. The basic problem

they have been working on to date is the establishment of uniform standard samples that can be used in any instrument for

. checking its performance from day to day and for making com- parisons with other instruments. This is not a primary standard or even what you'd call a secondary standard, I think, in

radiochemical terminology. We start with National Bureau of

Standards radioisotopes, or we use them as a reference for

, other material. Our interest is in the preparation of the

material in sample vials of more or less idealized form with

standard scintillator solutions, sealed and flushed with an

: inert gas to obtain the highest possible efficiency with no quenching. We are also concerned with the preparation of

quenched series of standard samples because quenching is an important factor in liquid scintillation counting.
174 ANIM-Instruments

There is one more subcommittee - MODULAR CONSTRUCTION.

This has representatives from nine A.N.I.M. member companies

plus seven non-A.N.I.M. member companies, because the number

of organizations involved in the production of NIM Bins and

modules is now so large and we want complete representation to present the industry point of view accurately. The work of

this group at the present time is essentially keeping in touch:

with the AEC program

That pretty well concludes our work and plans to date.

I would like to solicit contact with other groups interested

in standards to avoid duplication of efforts. We don't wish

to attempt to become a real standards producing group. Big

formal programs are not presently considered to be within the

scope of activities pertinent to our work in A.N.I.M. We currently have only certain limited interests in standards

for safety, precision, reliability, and some interchangeability without unduly limiting the designer's freedom to innovate and create new and better nuclear instruments. We further want uniformity in stating specifications and performance, or sort of a truth-in-selling program.

There is just one further item - regarding the use of

the metric system. We, of course, can't begin to switch over

to metric unilaterally in this country for the entire construe

tion of our instruments. However, we are endeavoring to standardize on the use of the metric system wherever possible

for dimensions directly affecting the instrument users such

as sample sizes, chart speeds, etc.
STANDARDS NEEDS FOR ACTIVATION ANALYSIS

Vincent P. Guinn

The particular requirements of the activation analysis

method, in the area of standards, depend upon many factors —

one of which is the type of activation analysis. Most of the

discussion below will be with reference to the most widely

used, and generally most powerful and most applicable type of

activation analysis: high-flux thermal-neutron activation anialysis (NAA) . Lesser attention will be devoted to the other

types of activation analysis: NAA with fast neutrons, photonuclear activation analysis, and charged-particle activation

ljanalysis . THERMAL-NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS

In this method of elemental analysis, a sample is ex- posed to a flux of thermal neutrons for an appropriate period

of time, then — in most instances — counted on a gamma-ray

spectrometer after some appropriate decay period. The technique normally employed is a comparator technique, i.e., a Itechnique in which the counting rate of a particular induced

radionuclide activity of interest (or the rates of several

activities of interest) is compared with that of a standard

sample of the element (or elements) of interest, usually under

'identical irradiation and counting conditions.

Matrix Effects

Compared with some methods of elemental analysis,

thermal-neutron activation analysis, if done properly, is

relatively free from matrix effects — at least for a rather

wide variety of kinds of samples. However, it is by no means

completely free of matrix effects. Especially where large

samples ( >1 gram in most cases, >10-100 mg in some cases) are employed, one must consider whether the sample and standard

are sufficiently similar in their (1) thermal-neutron absorption (2) epithermal-neutron moderation, and (3) gamma-ray

attenuation (absorption and scattering) properties so that no

|; corrections for these factors are necessary. In many instan175
176 Activation Analysis

ces, simple aqueous standard solutions are quite satisfactory.

In other instances, however, there is a sufficient mis-match

in one or more of these three properties — between sample anc standard — that some action must be taken. In many cases,

the difficulty can be made negligible by simply employing a smaller sample size (and a correspondingly smaller volume of

aqueous standard solution). If this is done, however, some sacrifice is made in concentration sensitivity. In other

cases, one may choose to match matrices by spiking a portion

of the sample with a small volume of the aqueous standard

solution — this standard sample then being compared with the

unspiked sample. A third approach — applicable where the

corrections necessary are fairly small — involves a mathematical correction that is based upon the known or measured properties of the sample, relative to its thermal-neutron absorption, and/or its epithermal-neutron moderation, and/or its

gamma-ray attenuation characteristics, compared with the properties of the aqueous standard solution.

In order for various laboratories to establish to their

own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of others, that their

thermal-neutron activation analysis techniques can properly

handle samples that pose problems of the above natures, there

is a need for standards that exhibit a range of thermalneutron absorption, epithermal-neutron moderation, and gammaray attenuation properties. If the techniques used are inadequate, somewhat erroneous results will be obtained — thus

drawing attention to the need for improved techniques . If

quite good agreement is obtained with the "best" values for

one or more elements in such special standards, one can be

reasonably confident that the techniques employed are proper

for handling even such difficult samples. In such standards,

the one or more elements present that are readily determinable by activation analysis with thermal neutrons can be at major, minor, or trace-constituent levels — since these ma- trix effects apply to all constituent levels. One has a wide

choice of matrices that cover a considerable range in each of
Guinn 177

[these three properties.

Fast-Neutron Interferences:

Another type of standard that can be of real use in NAA

work with thermal neutrons is the type that poses special

I problems in fast-neutron interferences. In most NAA work with

thermal neutrons, an appreciable flux of fast neutrons is also

| present. There are a number of instances, of practical interjest, in which fast-neutron activation of one element (one or

two units greater in atomic number, Z) produces the same ra- dionuclide that is produced by thermal-neutron activation of

the element of interest. Unless this situation is recognized,

and either corrected for or virtually eliminated, one can obtain an erroneously high result. A good example is that of

determining a trace level of manganese in iron, or in a matrix

that is rich in iron. One normally would determine manganese

56

| via its thermal-neutron product, 2.576-hour Mn, formed by

55 56 the Mn(n,y) Mn reaction. However, with fast neutrons,

iron can also form -^Mn: via the -^Fe (n,p ) "^Mn reaction.

In the reactor sample-irradiation position normally used in

I the author's laboratory, for example, completely manganesefree iron produces a *^Mn photopeak counting rate of about

1.2 x 10' cpm/g of Fe (in a 1-hour irradiation), whereas,

W 56 under the same conditions, manganese produces a Mn photopeak counting rate of about 2.7 x 10 11 cpm/g of Mn. Thus,

i uncorrected, really manganese-free iron would appear to contain about 45 ppm manganese. There are quite a few examples

'of fast-neutron (n,p) and (n,a) interferences of Z + 1 and

Z + 2 elements respectively, with the thermal-neutron (n,y)

determination of the element of interest. There are standard

ways (using cadmium shielding of the sample and simultaneous

equations) to correct for fast-neutron interferences — but

one must always be on guard to note the possibility of such

interferences — so that one does not fail to make the

measurements and corrections that are necessary to avoid an erroneous result. Representative standards that pose such

special fast-neutron interference problems can be very help-
178 Activation Analysis

ful 3 as they can allow a laboratory to determine whether or not it is recognizing such cases of interference, and whether

or not their means of correcting for such interferences are sufficiently accurate.

Trace Concentrations

A third general type of standard that is useful in NAA

work is the type that contains one or more trace elements at very low concentration levels: for example, in the ppb to ppm

range. High-flux thermal-NAA is frequently employed as an analytical technique because of its extreme sensitivity for

the detection and quantitative determination of a large number

of elements. For example, under the rather typical conditions

of a 1-hour nuclear reactor irradiation at a thermal-neutron

13 2 flux of 10 n/cm -sec, the defined limits of detection for

75 of the elements of the periodic system range from as low

as 10 yg(for a few ultra-sensitive elements), to a median

-3 1 of about 10 ug, to as high as lOyg (for a few rather insensitive elements). At very low concentration levels, some sources of error that are negligible at higher concentration

levels become significant. Container impurities and container

recoil effects may be mentioned in this connection. In much

NAA work, small vials of rather pure polyethylene are used as irradiation containers for the samples to be analyzed. Although relatively quite pure, the polyethylene does contain

'vppm and higher concentrations of a number of impurity elements (e.g., 0, Na, CI, Ti, Al, Mn, Ag, Au) . If the activated

sample is not transferred to a fresh container prior to count-; ing, and a low level of one of the elements that is present

as an impurity in the polyethylene is to be determined in the

sample, an erroneously high result is obviously possible.

Normally in such cases, of course, one does transfer the activated sample to a fresh container before counting. In general, this eliminates errors arising from container impurity

elements — for sample levels of ^1 ppm and higher. However, f when sample constituents present at the ppb level are being

measured, even transfer to a fresh container may not eliminate
Guinn 179

the error completely — because of recoil effects . If the

I element of interest is present in the container material at

'vppm levels, (n,y ) recoils will drive a small fraction of

| the activity induced in the container material into the sample. This can in some cases produce an apparent ^ppb level of

the element in the sample. This container recoil blank can be

measured, and applied as a correction. Suitable trace-level

I standard samples can provide a good means for a laboratory

to ascertain whether its procedures are capable of giving

| accurate values for element concentrations in the sub-ppm

region

[Radiolysis Effects:

A fourth type of standard that is useful in NAA work is

the type that exhibits pronounced radiolysis effects during

jexposure to neutron, or neutron-plus-gamma, radiation. In

I thermal-neutron work, this means standards that contain accurately known levels of one or more elements that can readily

'form, under irradiation conditions, an induced activity of

that element appreciably in a volatile form. Elements of particular concern in this connection are the halogens, selenium,

and mercury. Due to hot-atom chemical reactions, following

(n,Y) recoil, an appreciable fraction of the induced activity

can end up in the gas phase of the sample container, rather

ithan in the sample itself, and can be lost (unless special

I precautions are taken) if the activated sample is transferred

to a fresh container. Some of these (particularly mercury)

can also diffuse into the polytheylene of the container, and

thus again be lost in the transfer process. Such radiolysis

effects depend, in their magnitude, not only upon the particular element and the irradiation conditions, but also upon the

'matrix. In prolonged irradiations at high neutron fluxes, an appreciable amount of some evolved gaseous induced species

I can diffuse all the way through the polytheylene wall of the

container, and hence be lost completely. In such cases, one normally turns to a more impervious, more radiation-resistant,

'container material, such as aluminum or quartz of very high
180 Activation Analysis

purity

The above general types of special standards, of particular importance in thermal-neutron activation analysis work,

represent the principal ones of value in this field of work.

Needless to say, any such standards must be available in a very homogeneous form, since even the very small samples some- times used in such work must agree rather closely in composition with the gross composition of the material.

ACTIVATION ANALYSIS WITH FAST NEUTRONS

NAA with fast neutrons is usually conducted with more modest fluxes of neutrons, in the energy range of about 1 - 15 Mev. Because of the somewhat lower available fluxes, and

the generally much lower cross sections of fast-neutron reactions — compared with those of most thermal-neutron reactions — this form of NAA provides, with only a few exceptions, less

sensitivity than does high-flux thermal-neutron activation

analysis. Thus, in this type of NAA work, there is less need

for sub-ppm standards. In practice, because of the generally

lower fluxes and generally shorter irradiation times (due to tritium target lifetime limitations, if accelerator-produced

14 Mev neutrons are employed) , radiolysis effects are also of

less importance. Also, of course, the problem Of thermalneutron self shielding is not involved. The usual kinds of

fast-neutron reactions of interest and use, in this neutron

energy range, are the (n,n f ), (n,p), (n,a), and (n,2n)

reactions. The most common sources of appreciable fluxes

of fast neutrons are the nuclear reactor (fission spectrum),

the deuteron accelerator (14 Mev neutrons from the (d,t)

252 reaction) , and — soon to be readily available — Cf

(fission spectrum, from spontaneous fission)

Because of the generally poorer sensitivities attainable with fast neutrons, one frequently endeavors to improve

concentration sensitivity by employing larger samples (sometimes even as large as 100 grams). Matrix effects, due to fast-neutron moderation and gamma-ray attenuation, can then
Guinn 181

be appreciable. Standards containing known concentrations of

one or more of the elements frequently determined by activation with fast neutrons (e.g., N, 0, Si, P, Cr, Fe), in matrices that cover a range of values in their fast-neutron scattering and gamma-ray attenuation properties, can thus be of

value

One very important application of NAA with fast neutrons

is the rapid, nondestructive determination of oxygen, using

14 Mev neutrons. Oxygen produces 7.1^-second ~^N, via the

1 ^0(n,p) 1 ^N reaction, this reaction having an energy threshold of 10.2 Mev. The only directly interfering element is

fluorine, which forms the same product, via the "^F(n,a)

reaction. This reaction has a lower threshold: 1.56 Mev. Standards containing known amounts of 0 and F would be of use,

to ascertain whether — via measurement of the product of

either the 1 ^F(n,2n) 1 ^F reaction or the 1 ^F(n,p) 19

0 reaction — suitably accurate corrections can be made to the observed

"^N activity level (in samples containing both 0 and F) to obtain accurate oxygen values. Boron can also interfere with

the I

1

! Mev-neutron determination of oxygen, since it produces

a product (13.6-second 1]"Be, via the i:L B(n,p) i:L Be reaction)

that emits gamma rays in the same energy range as those of

(6.13 Mev and 7.11 Mev). Thus, standards containing known

amounts of both B and 0 could be of value in checking the reliability of fast neutron oxygen determinations in the presence

of a considerable amount of boron (in this case, a resolution

of the gamma-ray counting rates obtained at various decay

times, in the 4.5 - 7.5 Mev energy range, into the 7.l4-second

and 13.6-second components, is usually carried out).

Another standard of practical interest could be one containing known levels of nitrogen and copper, since, with

14 Mev neutrons, both elements form a pure positron emitter,

with very similar half lives: 9-96-minute 13 N(via the

lZ| N

(n, 2n) 13 N reaction), and 9-76-minute 62 Cu(via the 63 Cu(n,

6 2 2n) Cu reaction) . Activation analysis with 14 Mev neutrons

is a very promising method for the determination of nitrogen
182 Activation Analysis

in foodstuffs (at levels above about 0.1%) > but copper, in

particular, can in some instances cause results that are appreciably high — unless a correction is applied.

PHOTONUCLEAR ACTIVATION ANALYSIS

As yet, this type of activation analysis is not very

widely used, nor as extensively developed as NAA, but it

should gradually find increasing use. In the photon energy

range up to about 25 Mev, the most prominent nuclear reaction, with most elements, is the (y 9 n) reaction. Cross

sections are generally much lower than thermal-neutron (n,y)

reaction cross sections, with some exceptions. However, in

spite of the generally lower cross sections, fairly good sen- sitivities are attainable for many elements — if a high

photon flux, such as the bremsstrahlung flux produced by a high electron-beam power linear accelerator, is employed.

Of particular interest is the possibility of sensitively

determining the elements, C, N, and 0, via (y,n) reaction.

These three elements form, respectively, 20.3-minute C,

9.96-minute ^N, and 2.05-minute 150 . Unfortunately, in

many kinds of samples (e.g., metals), these three elements occur together — and each of these induced activities is a pure positron emitter. If a purely-instrumental analysis is to be performed, one must therefore resolve the 0.511 Mev

positron-annihilation photopeak counting rates, observed at various decay times, into the contributions from these three

principal species of different half lives . Standards con- taining known levels of these three elements could thus be

of real value. As mentioned earlier, in connection with

fast-neutron reactions, copper can also be a contributor to b< considered, since it forms the same pure positron emitter,

6 2 9.76-minute Cu, by (y,n) reaction as it does by (n,2n)

reaction
Guinn 183

CHARGED-PARTICLE ACTIVATION ANALYSIS

This form of activation analysis is even less developed,

less used, and less generally useful than either NAA or photonuclear activation analysis. However, it does have some applications that are of definite potential importance — predominantly in the area of determining some of the low atomic

number elements (e.g., C, N, 0) in medium- to high- Z matrices. Elements in a sample are usually made radioactive by

bombarding the sample with energetic (usually 10 - 30 Mev)

protons, deuterons, ^He ions, or alpha particles), employing

a cyclotron.

A major problem in standards exists with this type of

activation analysis — one arising from the very limited

range of such heavy charged particles in solid or liquid ma- trices, the rapid slowing down of these incident particles

in such matrices, and the energy-dependeces of the various

nuclear reactions produced. When such particles enter a sample, the cross section for a particular nuclear reaction

of interest may first rise, then decline, and then fall to

zero. The excitation function for that reaction depicts the

cross section — versus — particle energy relationship. The

range of the particle will depend upon the type of particle,

its initial energy, and the stopping power of the matrix

material. However, the range of significant activation can

be appreciably less than the actual particle range in any

given matrix — because of the Q value for the reaction (if

it is an endoergic reaction), and the Coulomb barrier energy.

The effective activation range of the same particle, at the

same initial energy, in the same matrix, will be different

for a different nuclear reaction — because it will exhibit a different Q value and/or Coulomb barrier value. At present

approximate methods for allowing for differences in stopping

power between sample and standard have been developed, but —

for really quantitative analysis — one really needs a standard that is almost identical in stopping power (i.e., in major
184 Activation Analysis

composition) with the sample. In some applications of interest, it is possible to use standards that meet this quantitative criterion: discs of selected metals (Fe, Cu, Ti, Al, Be certain alloys, etc.) that contain known levels of the elements of interest (e.g., C, N, 0). In most charged-particle

activation analysis work, it is either necessary or at least

desirable to have the sample in the form of a thin disc —

since one must cool the sample on the back side (to dissipate

the heat absorbed in the sample from the beam) and expose

the front side to the beam in the high vacuum. Standards

should be prepared with this restriction in mind.

SUMMARY

Some of the special standards problems, particularly

characteristic of the activiation analysis method, in its

various forms (thermal-neutron, fast-neutron, photonuclear

and charged-particle), have been reviewed. Particular

attention has been devoted to the types of standards useful

in high-flux thermal-neutron activation analysis, since

this is the most widely used, most fully developed, and

most generally useful form of the method. General types of

useful standards have been described — from which various

specific ones could be itemized and prepared. Without

special standards, activation analysis can still give results

of good precision and accuracy, in many instances. However,

in many other instances, errors can be made unless suitable

precautions are taken and suitable corrections made. Standards that provide good examples of these sources avoiding or correcting for such errors , can be of real value in the

field of activation analysis.
STANDARDS NEEDS OF THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

J. C. R. Kelly

The nuclear power industry has been growing at an ex- tremely rapid pace. The number of plants is increasing very

rapidly. The unit component size of each currently committed

plant is eight times the size of the first. The rate of

growth will continue. Figure 1 shows the domestic nuclear

generating capacity ordered by year.

The output per plant has been increased. The Yankee

Rowe plant has four loops with an output of 98 Mwt per loop.

A single loop in current plants has twice the capacity of all

four Yankee Rowe Loops combined. Units are now offered at 1100 MWe and plants of 1500-2000 MWe are being considered.

25,000

DOMESTIC NUCLEAR

GENERATING

CAPACITY ORDERED

27.525

21,580

20.000 n

15.000

CAPACITY

MWe NET

10,000

5700

5000

1700 560 '£u 640

1000 £3 U a

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

DATE OF ORDER

FIGURE 1 185
186 Power Industry

This very rapid increase in both the size and number of plant

is significant with respect to demands for component and fuel

performance and to developing sound and definitive design,

production and quality standards

There are many channels through which the nuclear indus

participates in standard preparation. Figure 2 lists a numbe

of them. ORNL-NSIC-43 identifies areas for which standards a needed. These are tabulated in Figure 3 and the status of th

in progress is shown by Figure 4. It will be noted that of t 108 in preparation, only 28 have been approved. Work on stands

ards is not proceeding at a pace compatible with the rate of

industry growth. Some ANS standards have been in preparation

for 7 or 8 years. The needs of the industry have been identified by industry surveys. Dr. McKune , then vice president of

General Electric and now head of USASI, made a survey of indus-'

try needs which is summarized in Figure 5 and USASI has reorgan

ized from the old ASA to better identify, set priorities, and

get sponsors for standards development.

The industry needs are well known at major standards

committee levels and at the engineer and scientest level.

What are these needs?

CHANNELS FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

STANDARDS PARTICIPATION

ANS AWS

AIF ASTM

ASME ISA

IEEE USASI

ASCE ACI FIGURE 2
Kelly

STANDARDS IDENTIFICATION

ORNL - NSIC - 43 COMPILATION OF

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STANDARDS

IMPORTANT EXAMPLES

SAFETY CRITERIA INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL

ELECTRICAL

MECHANICAL DESIGN CODES

FIGURE 3 STANDARDS STATUS

ORNL - NSIC - 43 COMPILATION OF

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STANDARDS

TECHNICAL

ORGANIZATION

ANS ASME IEEE AIF USASI

STANDARDS LISTED FOR PREPARATION

63 9 14 19 108

APPROVED 5 2 3 0 28

ACTIVE 29 9 11 19 58

INACTIVE 29 0 0 0 22 18% HAVE APPROVED STATUS

FIGURE 4
188 Power Industry

NUCLEAR POWER'S

STANDARD NEEDS

1. STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ON SHORTER SCHEDULES

2. RECOGNITION AND UTILIZATION OF PRESENTLY

APPROVED STANDARDS

3. MAJOR INDUSTRY EFFORT TO EXPEDITE STANDARDS

BASED ON REALISTIC CRITERIA

4. CONFORMANCE TO EXISTING STANDARDS

WHEN THEY ARE SPECIFIED

FIGURE 5

The nuclear power industry needs:

(1) Standards developed on much shorter schedules com- patible with the pace of development of the industry.

(2) Recognition and utilization of existing standards

in plants, equipment and processes to give the standards re- cognition and to give users the opportunity to identify weaknesses and correct them.

(3) To consider use of draft standards before they are final while they are going through the concensus process in

USASI and other organizations. As an example, the ANS "has prepared, after several years of work, a standard for Containment Testing Methods. To the best of my knowledge, this has

not been referenced by industry in their test plans or by the

government in containment test criteria. This document was prepared and reviewed by industry and government and has been

available in substantive form for at least three years.
Kelly 189

(4) A major industry effort to prepare standards on the

basis of realistic criteria recognized and utilized by competent people in the field.

(5) To insist on comformance to existing standards.

There are many excellent design, material, and process standards that can be and are referenced by industry. Failure to insist on strict conformance to them leads to problems which

tend to reflect on the quality of the standards.

There are a number of standards needed which fall in the

specific area of the capabilities of chemists. These include

both materials and procedures. Figure 6 gives examples.

STANDARDS NEEDS IN

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

A. MATERIALS

1. PLUTONIUM ISOTOPIC STANDARDS

2. BURNUP MEASUREMENT STANDARDS OF URANIUM

PLUTONIUM - NEODYMIUM

3. VANADIUM ALLOY STANDARDS

4. ULTRA HIGH PURITY SODIUM STANDARDS

B. PROCEDURES

1. BURNUP MEASUREMENT METHODS

2. ANALYSIS OF SODIUM FOR OXYGEN, CARBON AND

HYDROGEN

3. REVIEW AND UPDATE TID-7029 - "SELECTED

MEASUREMENT METHODS FOR PLUTONIUM AND

URANIUM IN THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE"

FIGURE 6

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY RESPONSIBILITY IN THE STANDARDS AREA

Edwin A. Wiggin

First, I would like to commend the Division of Nuclear

Chemistry and Technology and more particularly our chairman,

Dr. Meinke, and his associate, Mr. Beeghly, for conceiving of

the idea for these sessions and for the comprehensive job

they have done in organizing them.

I could not agree more with our chairman when he points

out that heretofore there appears to have been little effective communication between the comparatively large number of

organizations and groups engaged in the development of nuclear standards. In my opinion, the situation has improved con- siderably during the past year, largely through the efforts

of people like John Landis who is currently serving as chairman of the Nuclear Standards Board of USASI, but I think John

would be the first to agree that there is ample room for further improvement

The Atomic Industrial Forum has been active in the nu- clear standards area from the outset, having served as the

sponsor of the original ASA N2 and N7 sectional committees.

It continues to serve as the sponsor of the successor USASI

committees, N12 and N13> respectively. As those of you who

attended yesterday's panel sessions may be aware, the N12

committee and its predecessor, N2, have long been engaged in

the development of standard terminology and also have taken

a leadership role in the ISO work in this area. This admittedly may not be the most exciting type of assignment, but

I can think of few other aspects of the nuclear standards

program that are more fundamental or important.

The N13 committee and its predecessor, N7, are perhaps

best known for their work in developing a standard for the

protection of underground uranium miners against radon

daughters. The fact that this group had developed a standard,

191
192 AIF-Industry Responsibilities

approved as an American standard in I960, stood the industry

in good stead a year ago when the question of the protection

of underground uranium miners was publicly raised by the

Secretary of Labor and the matter aired at length in public

hearings of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The com- mittee is now in the process of developing supplemental standards on air sampling and record keeping to meet priority needs,

in the aftermath of the hearings.

One additional point that I might make concerning the

work of the N13 committee is that it has been appreciably

enhanced by the fact that the forum has an active committee

of uranium mine and mill operators with which the standards

committee has been in continuing contact.

At this point, I would like to turn my attention to a more general discussion of standards activities. It may

appear anomalous to be raising philosophical questions about

standards development this late in the program. However, on the premise that it is never too late, I take the position

that there must be a philosophical rationale for any agreement on which the nuclear industry's responsibilities should

be in standards development.

Let me make clear that most of my remarks are directed

to those standards relating to the design, construction and

operation of nuclear power reactors and especially to those

standards bearing on the safety of nuclear power reactors.

They might, however, apply to other areas as for example to the safety design and operation of fuel reprocessing facilities. The development of nuclear standards is for a variety

of reasons different from the development of other industrial

standards. But the development of nuclear power reactor

standards is also different from the development of other nu- clear standards, as for example those described earlier in

this session which relate to isotopes, nuclear instruments,

activation analysis and other analytical techniques and measurements. To put it another way, the development of standards

for a comparatively small number of multi-million dollar
Wiggin 193

j machines that are to be designed and built on the basis of

still emerging technologies and are to be operated under

strict licensing restrictions just has to be different from

the development of standards for a line of what by comparison

are almost consumer products, the mass production or manufacture of which is based on well established technologies.

Another problem contributing to the complexity of the

[situation is the problem of semantics. What do we mean by the

jword, "standard"? Is it the same and interchangeable with the

jwords, "code" and "criteria"? I guess I don't think so. It would also be my guess that any reactor applicant who has been

(through the AEC licensing review process and has been required

to explain how the pressure vessel for his unit will conform

to the AEC's supplemental criteria would agree. Although I am

not prepared to come up with a rigorous definition of each, I iwould submit that this is perhaps a problem that should be

(referred to N12.

There is still another facet of nuclear standards development which at least historically sets it apart from the development of other industrial standards. The development of

most industrial standards has been based on the identification

and resolution of an existing problem. To reach back into

jhistory for a simple example, I am told that when electrical

appliances first came on the market, there was no uniformity

.between the appliance plug and the wall outlet into which it was supposed to fit. A more current case is the non-

[ interchangeability of cassettes for cartridge tape players.

|The need for a standard in both instances is obvious. Generally speaking, once a problem has been solved and the solution proved valid by experience, whether the solution is a modified design or a new analytical technique or an improved

fabrication practice, it is codified as a standard. Its

: acceptance by industry, and for that matter by government,

lis usually pro forma since the need for the usefulness of

'the standard has already been well documented by experience.
194 AIF-Industry Responsibilities

The situation in the nuclear standards area has been

and still is quite different, primarily because the need in

most instances is far less obvious. Also, comparatively

speaking, the technology is changing much more rapidly. When

the ASA first set up the Nuclear Standards Board in 1956, it was difficult to determine what the real problems would be,

much less identify those which would lend themselves to so- lution by the development of a standard. There was little

experience in designing and constructing power reactors and

no operating experience. Indeed, a nuclear industry, as such,

had hardly come into existence. Apparently, those who were instrumental in establishing the Nuclear Standards Board

believed that nuclear standards could be developed as prophylactic measures - a concept to which I personally do not subscribe. The fact that the USASI catalog lists only 15 nuclear

standards approved during the first 12 years of the program

despite countless man hours of meetings and drafting effort

appears to add credence to my argument. I might also note

that only one of the 15 relates directly to the design, con- struction and operation of nuclear power reactors.

In rebuttal to those who might be prone to point out

that this is ancient history and therefore not germane to the

question of where do we go from here, I would say that like it or not it tends to dictate as well as circumscribe industry's

nuclear standards efforts for the immediate future.

I think it fair to say that up until a year or so ago

the nuclear standards program had achieved a record of much

activity and limited accomplishment. Let me hasten to add

that I am not critical of such a record of accomplishment in

an area in which there has been little need and little desirability for standards. But the past level of non-productive

activity has been unfortunate inasmuch as it has prompted the

AEC to take a position that in absence of any evidence of an industrial capability to develop standards it had little alternative other than to take the initiative and do the job

itself. By way of example, I cite AEC's "Tentative Regulatory
Wiggin 195

;Supplementary Criteria for ASME Code-Constructed Nuclear Pres- sure Vessels" and its preliminary unpublished efforts to develop standards or criteria for in-service inspection of the

primary systems of nuclear power reactors and quality control

istandards for field fabrication and construction work.

Without intending to belabor the inadequacy of such a [unilateral government approach, suffice it to say that in the

iopinion of an ad hoc committee of pressure vessel suppliers

and users convened by the Forum to review the supplementary

'(pressure vessel criteria, only seven of some 62 sections set forth safety criteria requirements of a type which would apIpear appropriate to include in AEC licensing criteria. Of the

balance, 52 referred to code type requirements which the com- mittee suggested should be referred to the appropriate industrial code writing group, two referred to engineering procurement and design specification type requirements and one was considered to be an owner-purchaser responsibility. The comjmittee further found that some or all of the requirements set forth in five of the sections could not be met on the basis of

;current technology.

Since the first of this year, a number of changes have

;taken place which would lead me to hope that we will not see a repeat of this type of unilateral effort. The Nuclear Standards Board has been successful in soliciting AEC participation

in a number of its working committees and AEC representation

on its Executive Committee. Also, the NSB Executive Committee

has apparently recognized that it must take a much more positive approach in recommending what standards work needs priority attention by what working group.

Hence at long last, it would appear that industry has a chance of regaining the initiative and this is as it should

be.
196 AIF-Industry Responsibilities

Earlier this morning, you heard Mr. Crawford describe

the AEC's future needs for standards in reactor development

and technology. Some of those needs are undoubtedly the same

as the future needs of the commercial nuclear power industry.

However, as we have told the AEC , it would be ill advised to assume that the requirements which the AEC may find reason to write into its procurement specifications should necessarily

turn up in the regulatory criteria to be used by the AEC in

reviewing license applications. When this does happen, the

industry for all intents and purposes is faced with a fait

accompli requirement to come up with some kind of a standard,

not because it is necessary or even desirable but simply to satisfy an arbitrary licensing requirement which may have

little or no relevancy to health and safety.

To sum up, my remarks are intended as a warning flag.

The industry must maintain the initiative in standards writing. It must continue to seek the active participation and concurrence of the AEC and other involved government agencies

because reactor construction and operation will by necessity

of sound public policy as stated in the law remain a strictly

licensed activity. I don't think any responsible representative of the nuclear industry questions either the need or the

desirability of this prerequisite.

But the industry must also be satisfied that there is a need for a particular standard and that it will serve to ad- vance nuclear power technology rather than retard it, or even worse set it back. Further, it must agree to abide by the

standard once approved and assure itself that the AEC and such

other licensing authorities as may be involved are willing to accept the standard as satisfying or being compatible with a license requirement.

These may not prove easy objectives to attain. I submit,

however, that three steps industry can take in an effort to seek attainment are: CD to develop, where possible, "performance" standards in contrast to "specification" standards,

(2) to seek the increased active participation of user repre-
Wiggin 197

sentatives, particularly the utility people, in the development of standards, and (3) to carefully document its operating experience in order that appropriate modification of

initially established standards can be made in a timely

fashion

THE NATIONAL STANDARD REFERENCE

DATA SYSTEM * Edward L. Brady and Merrill B. Wallenstein

Improvement in the effectiveness of the nation's system

for scientific and technical information is a matter of great

popular concern these days. Much is being said and written

about the flow of information from the generator to the user,

and much is being done to try to speed the process . Taking

the broadest possible approach, the President's Office of

Science and Technology is examining all aspects of the problem [1].

The Chemical Abstracts Service of the American Chemical

Society is in the midst of a long-range program designed to increase the retrievability of information within its concern

||]. Similarly, the American Institute of Physics had em- barked on a comprehensive study of means to make the world's

output of information in physics more readily available to individual users [3]; the Engineers Joint Council has a similar program [4]. The Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other major federal technical agencies are all

increasing their efforts to improve the use of information

generated within their programs

These government activities are coordinated through

the Federal Council for Science and Technology by means of

its Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSA

TI) , consisting of representatives of all government departments and independent agencies that have major technicalinformation programs . It was the initiative of COSATI and

its parent council that led to establishment in 1963 of the

National Standard Reference Data System, a federal interagency activity concerned with one aspect of the broad problem of scientific and technical information—improvement of

* Reproduced from SCIENCE, May 12, 1967, Vol. 156 , 3776 , p. 754.

199
200 Reference Data

access by the American technical community to compilations

of critically evaluated data on the properties of substances

Such compilations have been among the basic tools of

scientists and engineers throughout the history of technology; each owns at least one handbook containing, among

other useful information, table after table of data on the

properties of the substances and systems that he deals -with

daily. Systematic compilations of data also contribute in

a fundamental way to progress at the forefront of science.

Samuel Goudsmit [5] recently emphasized this importance with

the following words

Experimental results in measurements are the backbone

of physics. No theory is acceptable unless it agrees with

the experimental data. Conversely, a systematic study of

experimental results can suggest new theoretical approaches.

Tables and graphs of numerical data therefore play an important role in the progress of physics. . . .It is thus

obvious that specialized data compilations are of great importance and should have the full cooperation of those producing the data. It is also clear that modern computer tech

niques can handle such data more efficiently than old tabulations could, especially since their number and variety are growing so rapidly.

Since the numerical data that result from measurements

of properties normally appear somewhere in the world's liter

ature, why not let the individual scientist or engineer look

them up whenever he needs a value? There are two major

reasons why this procedure is not efficient: First, it is

often very difficult to locate a desired value among the mil

lions of papers stored in a technical library; searching indexes, abstracts, and papers can consume many hours. Second

conflicting values for the same property are often reported;

unless the user is a specialist in the field, he will have

difficulty in deciding which value he should use. These inefficiencies translate directly into money. If the average
Brady, Wallenstein 201

scientist or engineer were to save only 10 minutes a week

that he now spends finding and evaluating data, the annual

saving to the nation's research and development program

would be of the order of $100 million. This estimate takes

no account of the benefits of having better data, evaluated

by an expert in the field, at hand when needed. Obviously,

very significant economic benefits can be readily gained by

organizing a coordinated, comprehensive program for reviewing

the literature, extracting and evaluating the property data

contained therein, and disseminating them in convenient form.

Because of their usefulness and economic benefits, many

compilations of data [6] have been produced throughout the

world, largely in response to urgent needs of the technical

community. However, existing mechanisms have not been able

to keep pace with the flood of new data appearing in the literature, except in a few specialized areas. Some compilations were "one shot" projects, resulting in products that

were never updated; others have been continuing activities

lasting many years. Some have been sponsored by missionoriented agencies of the United States government; others,

by private organizations. However, many newly recognized

properties are not covered at all, and the time lag between

the appearance of data in original literature and their evaluation for inclusion in a critical compilation has been rapidly increasing. Moreover, even in the areas covered by active

projects there was little coordination or standardization of

format or quality, and in some technical areas there was ex- tensive duplication. The National Academy of Sciences, which

in earlier years had been responsible for production of the

widely used International Critical Tables, made an important

contribution to coordination and stimulation through its Office of Critical Tables, but this office has neither directive

nor resources to manage an operational program.

Recognizing the deficiencies of the existing situation

and the stake of the U. S. government in the financial support
202 Reference Data

of the nation's research and development activity, COSATI decided that a government-wide coordinated effort was needed;

thereupon it recommended that a proposed plan of action for

increasing the level of effort of the National Bureau of

Standards in this field be expanded to encompass the total

federal effort within all agencies, with administrative re- sponsibility assigned to the Bureau. Adopting this recommendation, the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the President's Office of Science and Technology, then headed by

Jerome Wiesner, promulgated a federal policy establishing the

National Standard Reference Data System (NSRDS)

The NSRDS is regarded as a sub-system within the concept of the "National Measurement System" [7]. The "National

Measurement System" is envisioned as comprising a central

core of national standards of measurement, a set of consistent instruments (calibrated through appropriate application

of the national standards), a body of reference data that

provides users with ready-made answers to questions on the

properties of substances, and finally the entire set of

meaningful measurements made throughout science, technology,

and the economy. From this viewpoint, NSRDS is regarded as

a portion of the activities leading to dissemination of

ready-made data for use by the technical community of the

United States

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

In accepting the charge from the Federal Council for

Science and Technology, the Bureau has taken responsibility

for (i) promoting the general objective by sponsoring

critical-evaluation and data-compilation projects as needed,

(ii) coordinating related work under the auspices of all government agencies, (iii) establishing standards of quality for

products of the system, (iv) operating a national center for

standard reference data, and (v) establishing standards of

methodology and such other functions as are required to ensure}
Brady, Wallenstein 203

the compatibility of all operational components of NSRDS . The

goals of NSRDS are to be achieved through operation of an integrated network of data-evaluation centers and related projects located wherever special technical competence for a particular project may exist.

Since data can be adequately evaluated only by specialists whose judgments are respected by their peers, each data

center is to be concerned with a carefully delimited technical scope; normally it will be established as an adjunct to the work of an individual or group having an established

reputation for competence and vigor. This principle of operation was strongly recommended in the report of the Weinberg

committee [8], and its importance- has been fully demonstrated

in NSRDS operations.

As described so far, the technical scope of the standard reference data system undoubtedly appears limitless. However, the Bureau, with the concurrence of the interested

federal agencies involved in NSRDS, has endeavored to avoid

being cast into the infinite sea of data that exist for scientific and technical properties and substances of all types.

Guidelines have been established to limit the boundaries

of NSRDS which, hopefully, restrict its program to a manageable size. The program is to be concerned with (i) the data

of physical science only (data relating to biologic phenomena

will be excluded); (ii) well-defined substances only (substances whose composition, structure, and energy content are

so precisely known that measurements of the property under

consideration do not wander erratically); and (iii) only

well-defined properties that are intrinsic to the substance

or system being studied (properties that must be defined in

terms of the system used for measurement —such as Brinell

hardness and Charpy breaking strength —are excluded). With

these constraints, the task of NSRDS is probably feasible.

Because of limitations of manpower and funding resources

since the establishment of NSRDS, the task has not yet been
204 Reference Data

determined to be practical. Although we who are connected

with the program sometimes feel overwhelmed by the magnitude

of what we are trying to do, wherever we look we see exciting

and challenging opportunities to make important contributions

to science and technology.

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL STANDARD

REFERENCE DATA SYSTEM

Within the National Bureau of Standards the responsibility for administering NSRDS has been assigned to the Office of Standard Reference Data, created for that purpose

within the Institute of Basic Standards. Three major groups

of activities within the Office of Standard Reference Data

have been initiated: these are concerned with (i) the planning and implementation of projects for compiling data, or- ganized into several broad technical areas; (ii) an information-systems design and research activity; and (iii)

various specialized information services to be provided to the technical community.

For program management the data-compilation projects

of the Office of Standard Reference Data have been subdivided into seven broad subprograms: (i) nuclear properties, (ii) atomic and molecular properties, (iii) solidstate properties, (iv) thermodynamic and transport properties, (v) chemical kinetics, (vi) colloid and surface properties, and (vii) mechanical properties. In each, responsibility for developing a comprehensive, coordinated program

has been assigned to a program manager.

Existing projects of other governmental and nongovernmental agencies are taken into account, and project priorities

are determined by consultation with groups of specialists

from the academic world, government, and industry. Some of

the projects are conducted within the experimental divisions

of the Bureau; others, in university laboratories or in

other government laboratories; and a few, by industry. None

is under the direct operational supervision of the Office of
Brady, Wallenstein 205

Standard Reference Data, which is exclusively for program

management

The level of effort in each project supported by the

Office of Standard Reference Data is determined by a practical compromise involving three considerations: (i) the degree

of comprehensiveness of the literature review (ii) the procedure for critical evaluation applied to the data, and (iii)

the need for continuity in updating the compilations . These

three considerations require further discussion.

The raw material for any data-compilation project is

the results of measurements by the whole world. Normally,

these results are reported in the literature, some in journals which, however, may be obscure or difficult to obtain.

Moreover, an increasing fraction of results worth saving for

posterity is now appearing in government reports . Furthermore, in some areas (data on neutron cross sections are one example) many of the data generated in the laboratory never

appear in any report or publication; in such instances the

compiler personally may have to pry the data from the measurer. For a specific case, the degree of comprehensiveness

that can be achieved must be a practical compromise between

the desired 100 percent and the cost in time, money, and

effort of achieving that goal. For most existing projects

the comprehensiveness probably attains 90 to 99.8 percent.

The procedure for "critical evaluation" varies widely

from project to project. In present practice in some data

centers, the experimental technique is reviewed, calculations

are spot-checked, values of the fundamental constants are checked to ensure that the latest values are used, the temperature scale is checked (if appropriate), and limits of experimental uncertainty are independently assessed. In other

centers, the data evaluator may decide, for intangible reasons

that he may find difficult to formulate, that one particular

value in the literature is "better" than another value. Such

a judgment by a specialist of broad experience should not be
206 Reference Data

underrated; the value obtained is much more likely to be

accurate than the result of unweighted averaging. Most

people agree that the first procedure provides a better

"critical evaluation" than the second. However, for the

practical purposes to which many compilations are applied,

such a review is not justified, and the second procedure, or

an intermediate one, is employed.

The question immediately arises, then, of what degree

of critical evaluation is required for a compilation to be

considered "standard" reference data. It is probably desirable to use the word "standard" sparingly; it has connotations that apply to few existing compilations . For the present, when measurement results for most properties are un- certain and many are in dispute, the shorter term "reference

data" would avoid the implications aroused by use of the word

standard. "Standard reference data," the ultimate goal of

NSRDS, are to be striven for constantly, but perhaps not

reached in many fields for years. Because of the variation

in procedures for critical evaluation, all publications of

NSRDS are to describe the criteria used for judgment and the

argumentation used to derive the recommended values

For each individual compilation project, requirements

for continuity must be examined. The overall program of

NSRDS is designed to ensure continuity of effort in production of data compilations needed by scientists and engineers. In some areas a revised and updated compilation may

be needed every 6 months; in others, only every 4 or 5 years.

In almost all areas, continuing literature review and indexing operations are required to maintain a current awareness

of the state of development of the field. Therefore most new projects undertaken by NSRDS are expected to be longterm, continuing activities, maintained as one component of

the normal range of professional activity of the leader of

the program.
Brady, Wallenstein 207

The types of activities and products of these data

centers will now be examined in some detail. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the broad types of activities and products that are normally associated with a data center. The

I left-hand column represents activities, while the righthand column indicates a product that may result from the

corresponding activity on the left. Following the initial

selection of relevant papers from the literature (an activity

basic to all evaluation and compilation projects), a bibliography may be prepared, in which the literature to be evaluated is classified into several relatively broad categories

After the initial selection, the papers are indexed; this

process consists of assigning a number of key words or symbols to each paper to indicate the data content of the reference. The indexed bibliography resulting from this activity

is very useful to many groups of specialists.

Figure 2 shows a page from one of the most comprehensive and successful of these indexed bibliographies, called

CINDA [91 (Computer Index Neutron Data); it is concerned

with sources of data on neutron cross sections . The first

several columns contain symbols and numbers representing the

target nucleus, the range of incident neutron energy, identification of the reference in a list following the table, and

identification of the laboratory at which the measurements

LITERATURE REVIEW BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEXING INDEXED BIBLIOGRAPHY

DATA EXTRACTION UNCRITICAL DATA COMPILATION

CRITICAL EVALUATION CRITICAL REVIEW

CRITICAL DATA COMPILATION

Figure 1. Activities and products of data-evaluation

centers
8 Reference Data

J- in oo

CD DO _D

LTI Lfl 00 in lt> m un LnmLnLnLnLnLnin

ru ru ru

in in m in in

O O n- njnjrurunjnjnjrunjnjnjnjru ooooooocjooooo LnLnLnLninmLnLnLnLnLnLnm

ru ru ru ru ru ru ru ru ru inLninmLnLnininmminLnm

ru ru ru ru ru ru ru ru cr cr cr

ru ru ru ru ru

<_> o o o

ru ru ru ru ru ru ru

cr cr cr cr cr cr

z> o- 3 M

O

u

bD

m in m in

< =>

00 Q O

00 or or

ru —i oo

cO a- oo M *H 00 X =r ru

in z in lti ~h

S -h -i

in a- do- ui in

10 in i/) m i/i in i/> H £ S H H S S ujocacccecccrcrz
Brady, Wallenstein 209 were carried out. Next come additional remarks characterizing the measurement more fully, the date of addition of

the item to the computer file, identification of the person

who prepared the entry, and an accession number for the entry. CINDA is particularly noteworthy because it represents

the combined efforts of scientists in the United States, the

United Kingdom, France, Germany, the U.S.S.R., and other

countries

In consultations to determine the needs of the technical community of the United States for data compilations of

all kinds, the staff of the Office of Standard Reference Data

has been told often that an indexed bibliography of this

type would satisfy most of the needs of the specialists,

since many of them would prefer to evaluate the data themselves and wish only to avoid the labor of locating sources

of the information. However, this attitude does not prevail

among those who need a particular value for a calculation of some kind and are not themselves involved in research in the

field.

The next step in the production of a critical compilation is the extraction of data from the literature that has

been selected. At this stage an uncritical compilation could

be issued, if determined to be useful to the technical com- munity. Figure 3 is an example of this kind of product: a print-out of data on the ionization and appearance potential

of cyanogen ion, retrieved from the files of the Mass Spectrometric Data Center at the National Bureau of Standards in

Washington. This material is retrieved as required to satisfy the requests of individual inquirers. A similar product

is now being considered by the Nuclear Data Project at Oak

Ridge National Laboratory, in response to requests by members

of the U. S. nuclear-physics community; it would consist of

a reproduction of the raw data extracted from the papers published in the field of nuclear structure. The normal product

of the Nuclear Data Project consists of carefully evaluated
210 Reference Data

MASS SPECTROMETRY DATA INFORMATION CENTER-NBS

Listed below is the requested information as obtained from

the literature since 1955.

OTHER

ION REACTANT PRODUCTS IP or AP METHOD YEAR DOC NO

CN+ CNI I 18 1+0 .

SP 60 00073

CN+ CNBr Br 18 3+0 . 1 SP 60 00073

CN+ CNC1 CI 18 3+0 . 2 SP 60 00073

CN+ CH 3 N0 2 ? 19 15+0.09 IB 55 00090

CN+ CH 3 N0 2 ? 33 6 + 1.0 IB 55 00090

CN+ CN 14 5 + 0.2 SP 61 00154

CN+ CN 14 5 + 0.5 SP 61 00154

CN+ C„N 2 C 3 N 19 2 + 0.3 SP 61 00154

CN+ HC=C-CN C 2 N 19 8+0.2 SP 61 00154

CN+ C 6 N 2 C 5 N 20 0 + 1.0 SP 61 00154

CN+ (CN) 2 CN 21 5+0.3 SP 61 00154

CN+ cyclo-C 3 H 5 CN C 3 H 5 19 5 + 0 . 4 EVD 62 00202

TERM DESIGNATION

SP=SEMILOG PLOT

IB=INITIAL BREAK

EVD=EXTRAPOLATED VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE

REFERENCES

00073 Herron, J.T. and Dibeler, V.H., "ELECTRON IMPACT

00073 STUDY OF THE CYANOGEN HALIDES , J.Am. Chem. Soc.

00073 82,1555(1960)

00090 Kandel,R.J., "APPEARANCE POTENTIAL STUDIES. II. 00090 NITROMETHANE", J. Chem. Phys. 23, 84(1955)

00154 Dibeler ,V.H. , Reese, R.M. and Franklin , J . L .

00154 "MASS SPECTROMETRIC STUDY OF CYANOGEN AND CYANOACETYLENE£

00154 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 83, 1813(1961)

00202 Kiser, R.W. and Hobrock, B.G., "THE IONIZATION

00202 POTENTIALS OF CYCLOPROPYL RADICAL AND CYCLOPROPLY CYANIDE

00202 J. Phys. Chem. 66, 957(1962)

Please note that we make no claim that the above information

has been critically evaluated by NBS personnel nor do we make

any claim that there is a preferred value.

We hope that we may be of further assistance to you in the future

Georgia L. Apostolou

Mass Spectrometry Section

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

Figure 3. Print-out of data from NBS Mass Spec trometric Data

Center, typical of uncritical-data compilation with

bib liography
Brady, Wallenstein 211

energy-level diagrams and other quantitative data, and will

continue to appear regularly.

The preliminary activities of literature selection,

indexing, and extraction of data lead finally to critical

evaluation of the data. The product of this work is a critical view of the state of quantitative knowledge in some limited area of a field, or a compilation of critically evaluated data. For NSRDS, a published product must contain sufficient argumentation for the user of the data to know how

the results were obtained, as well as appropriate reference

to the sources of the data used in the final evaluation.

Figure 4 shows a page from a typical product of this type,

with data expressed in the form of a table of numbers; data

may also be expressed graphically (Fig. 5). In accordance with the directives of NSRDS, only activities leading to the production of a critical review, or compilation of critical data, are considered appropriate for

support by the Bureau's Office of Standard Reference Data.

However, because the intermediate products are often very

useful, NSRDS data centers may issue them also, along with

other publications.

The physical form of the products of NSRDS activities

may be anything considered convenient by the users to whom

the product is directed; that is, the product may be a monograph, loose-leaf data sheets, a journal article, microfiche

cards, IBM punch cards, punched paper tape, magnetic tape, or

any other physical form in which information may be stored.

The information-systems design and research activity of

the Bureau's Office of Standard Reference Data is concerned

with the problems of handling data throughout the entire flow

process; that is, from the time measurements are first made

in the laboratory, through disclosure in some form to other

persons who may use the results (as a journal article, a laboratory report, or perhaps a magnetic tape), through the review, selection, and evaluation procedures in the data cen-
212 Reference Data

CII

Ground State ls

r 2s22p 2 P°I/2

Ionization Potential 24.376 eV = 196659.0 cm"1 Allowed Transitions

List of tabulated lines:

Wavelength [A] No. ww <1 VClCilgLH Lil

No. ww avcicugiii L-iiJ No.

687.059 10 3360.9 27 4413.2 24

687.35 10 3361.09 27 4618.9 26

687.355 10 3361.75 27 4628.1 26

858.092 9 3581.80 18 5132.% 14 858.559 9 3584.98 18 5133.29 14 903.624 3 3585.83 18 5137.26 14 903.962 3 3587.68 18 5139.21 14 904.142 3 3588.92 18 5143.49 14 904.480 3 3589.67 18 5145.16 14 1009.85 4 3590.87 18 5151.08 14 1010.07 4 3876.05 22 5640.50 13 1010.37 4 3876.19 22 5648.08 13 1036.34 2 3876.41 22 5662.51 13 1037.02 2 3876.67 22 5889*4 20

1065.88 6 3878.22 22 5889.97 20

1065.9 6 3879.60 22 5891.65 20

1066.12 6 3880.59 22 6578.03 11 1323.9 5 3881.2 22 6582.85 11 1334.53 1 3883.8 22 6779.74 12 1335.66 1 3918.98 17 6780.27 12 1335.71 1 3920.68 17 6783.75 12 2173.8 15 4074.53 23 6787.09 12 2174.1 15 4076.00 23 6791.30 12 2509.11 7 4267.02 21 6798.04 12 2511.71 7 4267.2 21 6800.50 12 2512.03 7 4267.27 21 6812.19 12 2746.50 19 4371.59 25 7231.12 16

2747.3 19 4372.49 25 7236.19 16 2747.31 19 4374.28 25 7236.2 16 2836.71 8 4411.20 24 18895 29

2837.60 8 4411.52 24 18916 29

2992.6 28

Self-consistent field calculations by Weiss [1], and Biermann and Liibeck [3], and a high current

arc experiment by Maecker [2] are utihzed for the tabulation. The results for the lower and moderately excited transitions should be quite uncertain because in the calculations the strong effects of configuration interaction are essentially neglected, and the experimental work is subject to large systematic uncertainties. References

[1] Weiss, A. W., private communication (1964).

[2] Maecker, H., Z. Physik 135, 13-22 (1953).

[3] Biermann, L. and Liibeck, K., Z. Astrophys. 25, 325-^39 (1»48)- Figure 4. Illustrative page from "Atomic Transition Probabilities" [11], a critically evaluated compilation
Brady, Wallenstein 213

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TEMPERATURE, K

Figure 5. Illustrative page from "Thermal Conductivity of

Selected Materials" [12].
Reference Data

ter, and finally to dissemination among members of the technical community who have use for the evaluated product. The

use of computers for all practical operations is emphasized;

such applications to speed the flow of data from the measurer

to the user have only just begun.

Several user services are being planned, utilizing the

storehouse of data to be contained in the Bureau's Standard

Reference Data Center. This storehouse will eventually con- tain a complete collection of compilations of critically

evaluated data produced throughout the world.

The following list indicates the services that are available or definitely planned as part of the office program:

1) Referral: referral of a request for data on a specific subject to a center specializing in that subject.

2) Reference: provision of literature references in

response to a request for information, with an indication of

where the requester may locate relevant data.

3) Documentation: provision of copies of documents

in response to inquiries (perhaps ranging from a Xerox copy

of a page to a complete bound volume).

H) Data: provision of detailed data as required to respond fully to a request for information; the service

might range from a reply to a question such as "What is the

value of property P for substance S at temperature T?" to replies to questions such as "What substances have values for

property P in the range c to d, and for property Q in the

range f to g, but not for property R in the range j to k?"

5) Current-awareness: periodical or aperiodical an- nouncement of new products and services of NSRDS, describing

in some detail the properties, substances, and ranges of

parameters covered by compilations, and explaining the means

of access to the items described.

At present, services 1 and 5 are active. The Bureau

hopes that it will not be swamped with requests for data as
Brady, Wallenstein 215

a result of this announcement, because it is not equipped to process many inquiries. The current-awareness service consists of a monthly newsletter sent to persons requesting it;

it is now free but soon there may be a small charge.

Products and services still under consideration include : 1) Special handbooks: preparation of handbooks con- taining selected portions of data compilations needed by

individuals or mission-oriented segments of the community

(such as data needed by oceanographers , upper-atmosphere

physicists, or desalination engineers).

2) Format conversion: conversion of data compilations

from one physical form to another; for special purposes, a customer may wish to have data on a magnetic tape rather than

on a printed page, or on punched cards rather than punched

paper tape, or, in general, in some form other than that of

the original product.

3) Property computation: computation to special order

of experimental properties that may be stored as mathematical

relations, or that must be calculated from theoretical or approximation equations.

4) Remote access: making the central bank of stored

data accessible to a remote console anywhere in the United

States (or conceivably anywhere in the world by way of microwave relay or a communications satellite).

The program decisions of the Bureau's Office of Standard Reference Data have relied heavily on the advice of a representative cross section of the American technical community. As overall program-review committee for the work of

the office, the executive committee of the Office of Critical

Tables of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research

Council provides policy recommendations and is an important

channel of communication with many segments of the technical

community. Program officers in other government agencies

have been consulted to determine the needs of their mission-
216 Reference Data

oriented programs for the products and services that the

standard reference data system is intended to provide. Considerable reliance has been placed on the recommendations of

panels of specialists in each of the technical categories in

which a program is being operated; one or more meetings of ad

hoc panels have been held in each area. Some of these panels

were existing committees of the NAS-NRC, established primarily

for other purposes; others have been assembled for the purpose

directly by the Bureau. These advisory panels are now being

organized on a continuing basis under the auspices of the

National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering.

The NAS-NRC Office of Critical Tables has provided frequent

advice on needs, priorities, and other operational details,

and has also served as a channel of communication to segments

of the technical community in the United States and abroad

that would be difficult to reach in other ways. In all, more than 200 leaders of American science and technology have given

generously of their time and experience in helping to make

NSRDS most responsive to the needs of the technical community.

GENERAL STATUS OF PROGRAM

As a result of the recommendations of advisory panels,

greatest emphasis has been placed on initiation of new projects for evaluation and compilation and on expansion of old

ones, leaving to a future of greater affluence the implementation of extensive and sophisticated information services.

Significant progress has been made, especially in the areas

of thermodynamic and transport properties and of atomic and

molecular properties; these two categories have been judged

to be of highest priority for additional effort. In the

field of nuclear data, existing activities sponsored by the

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission provide nearly adequate coverage of the technical scope required, although the level of

effort needs to be increased to meet the rapid rate of appearance of new data. For solid-state properties, existing

projects provide good coverage of the more classical areas
Brady, Wallenstein 217

• (such as structural data) , but greatly increased effort on

the newer kinds of data (such as energy levels, band structure, and interaction with radiations) has been recommended

by the advisory panel. For chemical kinetics, the advisory

panel recommended that the first step be preparation of a series of critical reviews on the state of quantitative

knowledge in certain selected aspects of the field, since the

panel members were not at all certain that any quantitative

data in the literature were worth a systematic compilation

proj ect

For colloid and surface properties, the Bureau's Office

of Standard Reference Data has established a cooperative

relation with the NAS-NRC Committee on Colloid and Surface

Chemistry, which had been planning an extensive program of

data evaluation before NSRDS was established. For mechanical

properties, from a preliminary critical examination, by a panel of Bureau staff members, it was concluded that most

results of mechanical-property measurements are unlikely to satisfy criteria for "standard" reference data; this tentative conclusion is to be examined soon by a panel representing a broader selection of specialists from outside the

Bureau

More detail on the activities of the Office of Standard Reference Data and on the status of specific projects

under the cognizance of this office are described in a recent

report by the Office of Standard Reference Data [10].

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

During the 3 years of the Bureau's administration of

NSRDS, a start has been made toward satisfying the general

obligation of supplying reference data to the American technical community. These years have, however, revealed the

desirability of additional authority from Congress for increased efficacy. Seeking such authority, the Department of

Commerce submitted draft legislation to the 89th Congress.

After public hearings before. the Daddario Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development (House Committee on
218 Reference Data

Science and Astronautics), a revised bill was reported favorably by the full Committee; it was passed by the House of

Representatives in mid-August 1966. However, the Senate

Commerce Committee, which oversees the program of the Bureau,

did not hold hearings or report the bill to the Senate. The

bill has been resubmitted for consideration by the 90th

Congress

The legislation, as revised after the hearings of the

Daddario subcommittee, contained the following provisions:

(i) a declaration that it is the policy of the Congress to

make critically evaluated reference data readily available

to scientists, engineers, and the general public; (ii) a directive to the Secretary of Commerce to provide or arrange

for the collection, compilation, critical evaluation, publication, and dissemination of standard reference data; (iii)

a directive to the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe standard criteria and procedures for the preparation and publication of standard reference data, as may be necessary; (iv)

authority for the Secretary, or a person or agency designated by him, to sell standard reference data and to allow

the proceeds to be used by the Bureau; (v) authority for

the Secretary to obtain copyright, on behalf of the United

States as author or proprietor, in standard reference data

prepared or made available under the Act; and (vi) an authorization for appropriations in such amounts as may be needed

for the purpose of the Act.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Evaluation and compilation of data on the properties of

substances has been a joint activity of the world's scientists for many years. The International Critical Tables,

produced mainly between 1920 and 1930, contained contributions from scientists all over the world, coordinated through

the efforts of the National Academy of Sciences. The tables

of Landolt-Bornstein, originally German, now contain contributions by scientists from many countries. Compilation and

evaluation of neutron cross-section data have become a broad
Brady, Wallenstein 219

international effort, with participation by centers in the

United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet

Union, and other countries.

The establishment of NSRDS in the United States has

stimulated additional interest among scientists in other

countries in the possibility of developing cooperative programs with scientists in the United States. Possible co- operation has been discussed with scientists from the United

Kingdom, France, Germany, the U.S.S.R., and Japan. Such

widespread interest leads immediately to the concept of a multilateral international program, incorporating activities

from all countries wishing to participate. Indeed, multinational cooperation through several of the international

scientific unions has been under way for many years . The

International Unions of Pure and Applied Chemistry and Pure

and Applied Physics and the International Astronomical Union

have been especially active. In June 1966 the International

Council of Scientific Unions created a Committee on Data for

Science and Technology (now called CODATA) whose function is

to coordinate projects for data compilation and stimulate the

formation of new ones on an international basis. This com- mittee is served by a small professional staff, headed on a part-time basis by the present director of the Office of Critical Tables of the National Academy of Sciences. For 1 or 2 years the office will be located in Washington, D. C., and

then will probably be moved to Europe.

Competence and interest in an international cooperative program for compiling reference data are found in most

of the technically developed countries. The products of

such a program would benefit any nation that conducts a research and development effort of any size, not merely the

most highly developed countries. International cooperation

in this area has been a tradition of the world's scientists

for at least half a century, but until recently no mechanisms for overall coordination and support have existed. In short, many arguments now favor the vigorous development of
220 Reference Data

an international cooperative program.

There can be no doubt that the computer will ultimately

change all practices in obtaining, collecting, evaluating,

and transmitting data. On-line computers, coupled with new instrumentation, will increase enormously the rate of meas- urement of properties and of analysis of experimental data,

raising immediate questions of what and how much should be

printed in a publication. The processing of data and literature in an evaluation center will be handled largely by com- puters. Journal articles, monographs, and other printed re- cords will be composed by computer-controlled photocomposition devices. Data and other information will be stored

magnetically and will be available to scientists and engineers by way of remote-access consoles. All these developments now exist; they will undoubtedly transform the working

habits of scientists and engineers everywhere. However, improvements in the mechanics of processing data can only serve

as an aid to the evaluation process, which can be done only by

well-trained human brains. For this reason we consider that

the basic concept of NSRDS — establishment of a comprehensive

network of centers in which experts evaluate data in their

fields of specialty — has validity for many years to come.

CONCLUSION: A WORD TO THE

TECHNICAL READER

An essential element in the control of any system is

feedback. Successful control of NSRDS is impossible without

feedback from the members of the technical community, which

includes the readers of this article. We need feedback from

you in order to determine the priorities of compilation projects, to determine the kinds of services that you need the

most, and to judge how successfully the system operates.

Right now you, the reader, could let us know, for example,

what properties, of what substances, you need to have in the

form of a critically evaluated compilation. Let us know if
Brady, Wallenstein 221

you yourself are working on a critically evaluated compilation and need help to finish or publish it. Give us any advice you think we need. We seek the cooperation and assisI tance of the entire technical community in achieving our

; common goal of promoting the technical advancement of the

United States

SUMMARY

The National Standard Reference Data System is a

I government-wide effort to give to the technical community of

the United States optimum access to the quantitative data of

physical science, critically evaluated and compiled for convenience. This program was established in 1963 through acI tion of the President's Office of Science and Technology and

I the Federal Council for Science and Technology, acting upon

; the recommendation of the Council's Committee on Scientific

; and Technical Information. The National Bureau of Standards

' has been assigned responsibility for administering the effort . The general object of the system is to coordinate and

1 integrate existing activities in data evaluation and compilation into a systematic comprehensive program, supplementing

and expanding technical coverage when necessary, establishing

and maintaining standards for the output of the participating

groups, and providing mechanisms for dissemination of the

, output as required.

The NSRDS is a decentralized operation of nationwide

J scope, with central coordination by the Bureau; it comprises

a complex of data centers and other activities carried on in

government agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental laboratories. The independent operational status of

existing data projects is maintained and encouraged. Data

! centers that are components of NSRDS produce compilations of

critically evaluated data, critical reviews of the state of

quantitative knowledge in specialized areas, and computations

of useful functions derived from standard reference data.

I;
222 Reference Data

REFERENCES AND NOTES

[1] W. T. Knox, Phys. Today 19(1), 39 (1966).

[2] F. Tate Chem. Eng. News 45, 78 (1967).

[3] V. Z. Williams, E. Hutchisson, H. C. Wolfe, Phys. Today

19(1) , 45 (1966) . [4] F. Y. Speight and N. E. Cottrell, The EJC Engineering

Information Program—1966-67 (Engineers Joint Council,

New York )

[5] S. A. Goudsmit, Phys. Today 19(9), 52 (1966).

[6] Throughout we shall use "data" to mean the numerical

results of measurement of the properties of substances.

[7] R. D. Huntoon (director of the Institute of Basic Stand

ards , NBS), address to the Standards Laboratory Conference, NBS, May 1966 (Office of Technical Information,

NBS, Washington, D. C. 20234).

[8] President's Science Advisory Committee, Science, Govern

ment, and Information, January 1963 (Superintendent of

Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C 20402) . [9] H. Goldstein and D. W. Colvin, Eds., CINDA, An Index to the Literature on Nuclear Data (ENEA Nuclear-Data Compi

lation Center, Saclay, France, 1965)

[10] National Bureau of Standards, Nat. Bur. Std. Tech. Note

289 (Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing

Office, Washington, D. C. 20402).

[11] W. L. Wiese, M . W. Smith, B. M. Glennon, Atomic Transition Probabilities, vol. 1, Hydrogen Through Neon.

NSRDS-NBS-4 (Superintendent of Documents, Government

Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402).

[12] C. Y. Ho, R. W. Powell, P. E. Liley, Thermal Conductivi

ty of Selected Materials. NSRDS-NBS-8 (Superintendent

of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

D. C . 20402, 1966)
STANDARDS NEEDS OF A MAJOR NATIONAL AEC LABORATORY

A. F. Rupp

At ORNL our need for standards is quite general. Being

one of the largest nuclear research laboratories, our interest

extends over the entire range of nuclear and radioactivity

standards and includes, in addition, many other standards.

ORNL has a long history of not only making use of nuclear standards, but also of developing them. In the early days

of operation of the Clinton Laboratories (which later became

ORNL) there were very few generally accepted nuclear standards

and knowledge of the characteristics of the many recently discovered radionuclides was very sketchy. Some of the earliest

work was directed to the urgent problem of standards for radiation dose measurements in health physics work. Half-lives

and radiation characteristics of many radioisotopes were measured and methods of measuring neutron fluxes for reactor control were among the first areas for concentration.

One of my own principal fields was radioisotope production and distribution in which the need for radioisotope assay

standards was immediately apparent. For a number of years,

ORNL served as an unofficial source of standards for the assay

of most of the radioisotopes we distributed, even though at no time was an explicit or even implied certification furnished

with radioisotope shipments. Intra-lab standards were developed to bring harmony to the comparison of results within the

Laboratory and as absolute counting improved, and better means

of measuring photon energies became available, new and better

decay schemes were issued. Many other laboratories in the

U. S.j including the National Bureau of Standards, were doing

similar work and samples were interchanged to get comparative

measurements. The National Bureau of Standards issued its

first calibrated standard, for other than radium, 1 ^ 1 I, in

1948. Active cooperation has been maintained between ORNL and

NBS, in which we engage in cross-checks on round-robin samples

and furnish ultra-pure radioisotopes for the preparation of

223
224 ORNL-National Laboratory

samples and standards. Similar cooperative efforts between

ORNL , the NBS, and many other government, university, and com- mercial laboratories has continued in all other phases of ra- diation and nuclear standards, including participation with

the IAEA in establishing international standards.

Management, as a rule, has little direct contact with

the technical aspects of the establishment and use of standards, but has come to regard standardization as an accomplished fact. For example, in reading a report giving the

statistics on radiation exposure to workers in the various nu- clear plants and laboratories around the world, no need is

felt to have the figures checked and the results normalized.

Radioactive materials being sold to other laboratories will

be measured against the same standards in the purchaser's laboratory as those used at ORNL. Safety information on the

control of reactors can be translated from one reactor installation to another with reasonable surety. These are the kinds

of things that management is primarily concerned with - the

smooth interaction of an establishment within itself and with

other institutions throughout the world.

At ORNL we make great use of standards of all kinds and

indeed, nuclear standards are only a part of the many standards in daily use - ranging from standard electric potentials

to accurate weights for cable-testing. Among direct nuclear

standards, those used for assay of radioisotopes and calibration of radiation detection instruments are probably the most

important. We purchase standards from a number of organizations: NBS, IAEA, U.K. Radiochemical Centre, U.S. commercial

laboratories (secondary standards checked against NBS, and

used for assay calibration by many of our radioisotope customers). We have found agreement among all these various standards to be quite close (^2$, 1% from the mean), with the ex- ception of occasional discrepancies we have noted in some commercially available standards.

Procedures for radioisotope analysis and assay have

been collected in the ORNL Master Analytical Manual (TID-7015,

1957) which is constantly kept up-to-date by supplements.
Rupp 225

Standard materials, methods, and data are important in

[work with neutrons, x-ray and gamma radiations. We follow

ASTM, USASI or IAEA recommendations whenever applicable, and

many of our people work with the groups developing these

standards

Standards for fast neutron measurement in evaluation of

damage to materials by fast neutrons are needed. The development of large isotopic power sources has brought about a need for accurate calorimetry standards, and reliable data on

the relationship between the heat-power output of radioisotopes and the output as calculated from the decay scheme. The

90 large isotopic power sources such as Sr titanate generate

heat by the internal absorption of beta radiation and some new information on the integrated beta spectrum has been noted in

making comparisons between the radioisotope assay and the heat

output. Quite possibly standard calibrated isotopic power

sources may be developed eventually that would be quite useful if the calorimetric method is used for assay of kilocurie

or megacurie quantities (and it is quite likely that the

calorimetric method will be the only good method available).

Speaking of beta sources, there is need for developing

calibrated, high-intensity, relatively long-lived NBS certi90 fied beta sources of 10 - 1000 r/hr . Probably Sr would be

the principle radioisotope to be used for such sources, but

147 171

Pm, and Tm would also be useful for lower energy standards . Accurate compilations of nuclear data are essential for

reference in a big nuclear research laboratory. Examples are

the Table of Isotopes by the Berkeley group, the journal

Nuclear Data now being put out at ORNL and the "Barn" book put

out by Brookhaven. These essential data collections are "standards" of a sort and need only to be improved by faster

means of keeping data current.

ORNL has a large project for evaluation of reactor

materials, quality assurance, operational testing and engineered safeguards which utilizes many standards in addition
226 ORNL-National Laboratory

to those commonly referred to as nuclear standards. These

include the metals, both ferrous and non-ferrous, the primary

chemical standards, ceramics, etc. Progress in nuclear

science and technology depends on good standards. Those who

request them and those who prepare them have a great response

bility. Preparation requires exacting work and a great deal

of money. The only thing worse than no standard at all is a poor or unreliable standard.
NUCLEAR STANDARDS AND THE AEC NEW BRUNSWICK LABORATORY

C. J. Rodden

Of the many meanings of the word standard that one finds in the dictionary the one that in my opinion more

clearly defines its use by the chemist is "something that is set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure

of quantity, weight, extent, value or quality." Under this

definition there are two possibilities that one should consider. First is that we are going to have a material which

is well documented as to the value in question and the second

is we have an accepted method of determining a certain con- stitutent. In the first category we have what is referred to

as primary standard materials and also analyzed samples. In

lithe second category we have standard methods of analysis such

as one would find in the ASTM Methods for the Chemical AnalyI sis of Metals, in the USA Standards Institute standards, or

in other publications.

Let us now consider what is desirable in standards for

chemical analysis.

It should be a metal, alloy, compound or ore which is

homogeneous and is stable under all normal atmospheric con- ditions. Since we are dealing with materials which do not

i always follow this criterion, it is desirable that, if any

change does occur—such as the absorption of water—the material can be brought to a certain composition by a standard

[jheat treatment (the usual condition is to heat to constant

weight at 105°C). In the case of the very reactive metals

with which one deals in the nuclear energy field, one may be

forced to use a chemical treatment, such as the pickling of

uranium with nitric acid or the electropolishing of plutonium

to remove an oxide coating. This is not ideal, but it may be

: the best that can be done. In certain other instances, materials of a hygroscopic or oxidizable nature are packaged

f; into bottles in a dry box and sealed. Needless to say, this

type of sample is not the most reliable. Human fallibility

227
228 New Brunswick-Materials Laboratory

must also be considered in the preparation of standards.

There is always the possibility of mislabeling, of mixing

samples or using unclean containers in the handling of the

materials. All these must be guarded against. The amount

of work that goes into the preparation of a reliable standard does not make this a very promising business venture.

In many respects the nuclear energy field is at a disadvantage since there are not enough nationally certified

standards available. This has resulted in many companies

setting up their own standards. This works very well in run- ning a plant but may cause problems when inter-company or international transfers occur. It is highly desirable that

certified standards acceptable to all parties concerned be

available

The New Brunswick Laboratory had its roots in the National Bureau of Standards and it is not surprising that from

the first years of its operation standards have been considered at one time or another. We started to assist an embryonic industry. Volume was too small to interest the usual

standard suppliers. These standards were broken into two

types of materials. (1) Series of impurities contained in

various matrices such as uranium oxide, beryllium oxide and

thorium oxide for the use in spectrographic analysis of impurities in nuclear materials. (2) Another group was what

would I presume would be called analyzed samples. One of

these was U^Og that had been analyzed under certain conditions by a considerable number of highly competent laboratories in the United States and which was distributed by the

New Brunswick Laboratory for use in the analysis of uranium.

I believe that in the analysis of any material it is much to be preferred to have a standard that is similiar in nature to what is being analyzed. In the determination of uranium I believe it is much better to standardize with uranium. In addition to these chemical standards certain analyzed samples

have been distributed for use in radiochemical work. Most of

these are used or have been used in the determination of ura-
Rodden 229

nium in ores and such materials. In addition to these there

were samples of analyzed materials such as pitchblende and

carnotite which were used for the determination of their ura- nium content and monazite for both thorium and uranium content . Table I lists the chemical standard materials with

which the New Brunswick Laboratory has been engaged. All

uranium is of normal isotopic composition.

TABLE I CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS

Sample No. Purity Analysis for

950a NBS U 99-94$ U

3 0

g U 99.97 U

17b UF^ 100.09 U } U

+4

, U0

2

, metallic

impurities

18 UO^ 98.67 U, H~ 2

0 impurities

948 NBS Pu(S0 lj ) 2

i| H

2

0 Isotopic composition

Pu(S0

4

) 2

'

i| H

2

0 Pu Early on in the uranium project U^Og was obtained and

analyzed at the National Bureau of Standards and distributed

by the Uranium Section. When we moved to New Brunswick this

material was taken with us and distributed for quite a number

of years from the New Brunswick Laboratory. New material was obtained when the first batch ran out. Several years ago

this material was transferred to the National Bureau of

Standards who now distribute the material under the No. 950a.

It is the most widely used standard for the determination of

uranium. Incidentally when the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. at Weldon Springs went out of operation there were several hundred pounds of this material still in drums at that installation. I decided it would be better to save this material

than to have it dumped into the regular scrap so this material is now at the New Brunswick Laboratory.

However, the fact that this U^Og is only 99-94% pure

does have some disadvantages; U^Og is not easily obtained in

stoichiometric concentrations . Quite a number of years ago
230 New Brunswick-Materials Laboratory

we obtained at the New Brunswick Laboratory some dingot material from Mallinckrodt . This material is uranium that has never been remelted in graphite so the purity is considerably

higher than the remelted material. For many years I have

been a proponent of uranium metal as a standard for uranium

rather than U-^Og because of this difficulty of the stoichiometry of U^Og. This dingot uranium metal which has been

fairly widely distributed and analyzed throughout the world

has a value of 99 .97% for the uranium content. It is expected that before long this will be available for distribution

by the National Bureau of Standards . The UF^ is a material

which is used for assay purposes. It is still available from

the New Brunswick Laboratory. The UO^ (98.7%) is not a stable compound and it is only sold in sealed containers. As a primary standard it is not satisfactory, in fact it can only

be used when initially opened since it will change in moisture content. This compound however has been fairly widely

used as a base to make spectrographic working standards since

it is quite readily ignited to U^Og.

Two preparations of plutonium sulfate tetrahydrate have

been made at the New Brunswick Laboratory. One of these was

for isotopic composition the other was for use as a chemical

standard, since the only other standard available for plutonium is one in which a weighed portion of metal has to be

used in its entirety. These materials have been made for

distribution by the National Bureau of Standards. In addition to this type of material other samples have been prepared at the New Brunswick Laboratory for use in various operations. In the early uranium rush in the United States a lot of people were interested in obtaining samples of ores of

known uranium concentration to be used for chemical analysis

We obtained samples of carnotite, pitchblende, monazite sand

and phosphate rock as is shown in Table II.
Rodden 231

TABLE II ANALYZED SAMPLES

Sample No.

1 Phosphate Rock

Material U>,0q Content ThO n Content

T± 3A

4 PitchblendeCarnotite

5

6 Pitchblende Ore 5 3-5%

Monazite Sand 0.4$

Carnotite

7A 9.7%

These materials were analyzed by a group of laboratories

around the United States and values were placed upon them.

These are still distributed by the New Brunswick Laboratory.

All of these materials are natural products with the exception

of 3A pitchblende which was made by taking high grade pitchblende and grinding and mixing and blending it with dunite.

This material is then analyzed before distribution.

While we were at the National Bureau of Standards re- quests were received for a series of graded samples containing uranium and thorium that were at equilibrium with their

daughter products. In order to do this a sample of pitchblende was obtained, and analyzed for uranium and radium. It was shown to be at equilibrium. It was then ground and mixed

with dunite which was radioactively inert. These materials,

Table III, could then be used by people for calibrating

counting equipment to be used in the field. A series was

also made for thorium under the same method of manufacturing

by diluting monazite with dunite. These have been used not

only for counting purposes but have been used to a fairly

large extent in chemical analysis. These samples were made

however for use as counting standards and a fairly large sample was expected to be used. Of course occassionally somebody decides to use a ten milligram sample and in that case

the values assigned to them may be considerably in error. In

the past year or so due to the revised interest in uranium

mining there has been an increase in the sales of the counting

standards
232 New Brunswick-Materials Laboratory

TABLE III COUNTING STANDARDS FOR COUNTING WORK

Sample No. Material U Content Th Content

42-1 to 42-4 Pitchblende-dunite 4.0 to 0.5%

73 to 77 Pitchblende-dunite 1.0 to 0.001%

79 to 84A Monazite-dunite 0.04 to 0.00004% 1.00 to

0 .001%

From the very beginning of the uranium program back in

the early forties the question of the impurities in nuclear

materials was of the greatest importance. Since it was found

out early that most of the impurities could be analyzed by

spectrographic means series of graded samples containing a considerable number of elements was prepared. The three

which were prepared and which are still available are uranium

oxide, beryllium oxide and thorium oxide. These contain a varying amount of impurities which can be determined by spectrographic analysis. These graded series enable one to prepare curves for spectrographic analysis . They have been

widely distributed throughout the world and are still distributed on a fairly regular basis. These materials , Table IV, were made synthetically.

TABLE IV SAMPLES FOR SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Sample No. Material

66-1 to 7 Th0

2 Graded series for 22 elements

72-1 to 5 BeO " " " 17 96-1 to 6 BeO " " " 21 95-1 to 7 U

3 0g " " " 22 In addition to the spectrographic samples, we have distributed, at one time or another, metallic samples of uranium,

thorium, and beryllium. The uranium and the thorium were generally in the form of machined chips while the beryllium

metal was in the form of powder.

At the present time the beryllium is the only material

that is available since the uranium has been depleted and we have not renewed this up to the present. We do have dingots
Rodden 233

which can be turned down however for this purpose. The thorium metal chips were not very successful. The material oxidized quite rapidly and it was not satisfactory for use as an analyzed sample. These metal samples were blended in a mill

and then analyzed to see if noticeable segregation was present in the material.

There is another service that the New Brunswick Laboratory performs but whether it comes under the heading of

standards is a little uncertain. It is known as the General

Analytical Evaluation Program. Figure I shows diagrammatrically the uranium-plutonium cycle. I believe it is selfexplanatory. The General Analytical Evaluation Programs are concerned with material at various stages of the cycle. The

New Brunswick Laboratory distributes batch production and

analyzed or synthetic materials on a regular basis to a number of cooperating laboratories who determine various elements or impurities as is indicated in Table V. Results are accumulated and statistically analyzed at certain periods.

TABLE V

GAE PROGRAMS

Material Analysis

U Concentrates

UO

3

4

U, Fe, Ni, Cr

U, U

+i4

, Fe, Ni, Cr

Density, N, C, H, Fe , Si, UFU

Ni, Cr, Mn, B

U, U-235, impurities

Enriched U Scrap U, U-235

Dissolver Solution

Uranyl Nitrate Enriched

Plutonium Nitrate Solution

U, U-235, impurities

Pu, Pu-239, Pu-24l

Plutonium-Uranium Pu

Molybdenum Solutions

Pu0

2 -U0

2 Pu, U
234 New Brunswick-Materials Laboratory

Mi Hint Refining

Conversion

and

Fabrication

Scrap

Recovery

Spent Fuel

Processing

Wa

Reactors and

Research Facilities

FIGURE I. URANIUM PLUTONIUM FUEL CYCLE
Rodden 235

It will be noted that certain portions of the entire

cycle have been considered. In certain operations solutions

are the material analyzed such as plutonium nitrate solution

from the spent fuel process or dissolver solutions from en- riched uranium cold scrap. In the scrap recovery program

many types of solutions are obtained and synthetic solutions

of a considerable number of these fuel materials have been

distributed such as U-Al, U-Zr, U-SS , U-Mo, U-Mo-Zr, U-Ni

and U-Be or oxides of the elements. In conjunction with this

same type of work several of the manufacturing companies have

asked us to make synthetic solutions for them that they can

use in their analytical control work. So in a sense you can

call these custom analyzed materials or what you wish. We anticipate that with the increase in the safeguards program

that this type of work will increase over a large portion of

the entire uranium-plutonium processing cycle. It may be of

interest that just as I was writing the last sentence a re- quest came in from one of the fuel manufacturing companies

asking whether we knew where they could get an aluminumuranium standard for use in their plant. Since we did not

know where such was available they proposed that we would make

such a standard with them supplying the material. This is

just an indication as to where we feel that the standards of

this type are going. Little has been said about the spent

fuel processing and in fact little has been done on actually

checking of this type of material.

We are hoping that within a few months work will start

at the New Brunswick Laboratory on the construction of a facility to handle irradiated dissolver solutions.

There is one other subject that I would like to touch

on briefly, which I mentioned at the start when I talked

about standards. It is the question of standard methods of

analysis. If we refer to the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle

you will see that we should have standard methods of analysis

for many types of material in case of disagreement. It is

preferable if such methods would come out under the aegis of
236 New Brunswick-Materials Laboratory

some United States standard group. However, at the present

time the New Brunswick Laboratory has the job of revising the

"Selected Measurement Methods for Plutonium and Uranium in

Nuclear Fuel Cycle". This revision, which will follow the

ASTM format, is definitely a change over from the old one and is going to be tied to a very large extent to the cycle

of the fuel element as it goes through the uranium and plutonium reactor cycle. This work is being done in cooperation

with many of the laboratories in the United States who have

had a long experience in the analysis of this type of material. It is hoped also that in the not too distant future that

these methods of analysis can be taken by one of standards

group and made official US methods.
THE NEED FOR STANDARDS IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

John H. Harley

The radiochemical analysis of environmental samples

covers a broad spectrum of sample types and an even larger

number of radionuclides. This is true whether the analyses

are conducted for surveillance or for research and whether

the radionuclides involved are from weapons test fallout,

from industrial releases, or are naturally occurring.

As you are all aware, very few samples can be counted

on an absolute basis, therefore it is necessary to have

instrument standards for calibration. Bill Marlow has shown

some tables indicating the nuclides that are presently re- quired as standards for the Health and Safety Laboratory and

I am sure that other groups such as the National Center for

Radiological Health would have very comparable lists . These

standards should normally be known to a few percent , even though the required precision or accuracy of the analyses

may not be that high for surveillance. Many of the research

or development studies require better data for direct scientific purposes

While the need for extreme accuracy in the standards

is not high there is a need for reliability. There are very

few fields of analytical chemistry where individual results

may be subject to such public scrutiny, including even con- gressional investigation. It would be desirable to have an objective government body stand behind these standards. The

few nuclides now available from the Bureau of Standards are satisfactory but then we have also had good results from the

International Atomic Energy Agency and the Radiochemical

Center at Amersham. With these latter two groups we do

checks on their accuracy and with few exceptions they have

met specifications. There are a number of nuclides that are

not available as standards from any of these groups and it

is therefore necessary for us to maintain our own capability

for standardization.

237
238 Standards-Environmental Analysis

Up until now I have been speaking specifically of relatively high activity standards needed for instrument calibration. There is another type of standard material which

is also needed. Our laboratory attempts to maintain a quality control program in which about 15% of the analyses are split samples, standards or blanks. Thus we need bulk samples containing the nuclides in question in a matrix which

is directly comparable to the samples being analyzed. In our case the samples are analyzed blind and therefore the

quality control samples must resemble the working samples

very closely. This is only possible by having the chemist

receive ashed material rather than the original samples.

This type of standard must be prepared in our laboratory. The starting materials may be several bags of grain,

several hundred pounds of dried milk, or hundreds of pounds

of bone. In all cases these must be ashed and blended to prepare homogeneous materials which can be used for quality

control over a period of time. For standardization we use

the technique of the National Bureau of Standards, that is

asking competent laboratories in the field to analyze the

material and then setting up a standard value from the data

received. This operation is probably not a fruitful one for a central standards organization since the need is limited to relatively few laboratories.

In conclusion I would hope that we will have available

reliable standards for at least our instrument calibration.

It seems to me that preparing these standards Is a difficult

way to make money and that it would have to be subsidized by

the government
PANEL DISCUSSIONS

J. P. Cali and H. P. Beeghly

Four distinct and separate panel discussions were held

during the course of the Symposium. They were: 1) ACS Representations on USASI "N" Committees; 2) NBS Standard Reference Materials for the Nuclear Field; 3) Present and Future

Needs of the AEC for Standards for Nuclear Chemistry and Tech

nology; 4) Unfulfilled Present Needs and Future Demands for

Standards for Nuclear Chemistry and Technology. Unfortunately, because the decision to publish the proceedings had not

been made prior to the Symposium taped remarks were not made

of these discussions and only notes were available from which

this section is compiled.

FIRST PANEL DISCUSSION

The first panel on ACS Representatives on USASI "N" Com

mittees heard various members of eight USASI "N" Committees

describe briefly the role of each committee in the nuclear

field. Representative of the presentations made are two following short summaries prepared by B. M. Robinson and A. Glassner

SUMMARY OF USASI N-l4 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

B. M. Robinson

N-14 "Packaging & Transportation of Fissile & Radioactive Materials" evolved from the former ASA N 5.5 committee

The new group held an organization meeting in December, 1957

followed by sessions in March and July.

The scope of the N-14 committee may be summarized as: "Standards" for the packaging and transportation of fissile

and radioactive materials but not including movement or handling during processing and manufacturing operations.

At the recent San Francisco meeting in July, Committee

Chairman, Roger Waite of the American Insurance Association,

cited the following objectives for the Committee:

(1) Comment on DOT Regulations.

(2) Develop Guides to the Regulations.

239
240 Panel Discussions

(3) Explain the Regulations.

(4) Develop requirements and recommendation going

beyond the Regulations that will be of help to industry

The Committee includes personnel from the nuclear industry, both government and private, the regulatory agencies,

the insurance field, and the carriers. It is a blue ribbon

group since the people involved are experts in the field.

The N-14 Committee furnishes representatives for the International Standards Committees.

The N-14 Committee has been divided into the following

sub-committees

N14.1 - Fissile Materials (small sources) not calling

for special shielding, and "type B" packages

for plutonium. Chairman: W. A. Smith, Jr.,

National Lead Co. N14.2 - "Type B" packages (moderate to large sources - non-fissile isotopes and irradiated fuel (divided into five additional sub-committees as listed below). Chairman: John W. Langhaar,

duPont Co. N14.2.1- Develop a guide to help explain and clarify

existing regulations. Chairman: C. W. Smith,

General Electric Co. N14.2.2- Develop a guide to design features and fabrication methods which are suggested to comply

with the regulations and methods of demonstrating compliance with the regulations.

Chairman: R. W. Peterson, National Lead Co. N14.2.3- Develop standards for design and performance

features of containers that are in addition

to those required by regulations, either for

safety or for uniformity of handling and operation. Chairman: E. C. Lusk, Battelle Memorial Institute.
Cali, Beeghly 24l

N14.2.4- Cask tiedown committee. Chairman: J. W. Langharr, duPont Co. N14.2.5- Guide for administration and handling including special permit procedures, contamination control, insurance, placarding, etc. Chairman: W. R. Romine, Dow Chemical Co.,

Rocky Flats.

N14.3 - Low specific activity non-fissile materials,

including bulk materials. Chairman: Alexander Aikens , Jr., Capintec, Inc. N14.4 - Small sources of non-fissile materials, including "Type A" packages. Chairman: Leonard

Horn, Underwriters r Laboratories.

N14.5 - Transport through tunnels, bridges, and toll

roads. Chairman: Frank Sweeney, Associated

Transport , Inc

Ad hoc Subcommittee - Compendium of container tests . Chairman: E. C. Lusk, Battelle Memorial In- stitute . Even though only recently created, the N-14 Committee

promises to fill a very important niche in the nuclear industry which in a relatively few years will be one of the

largest in the world. The amounts of material to be moved

will be steadily increasing and many shipments are involved.

We are in a transitory stage with respect to both domestic and international shipping regulations. In the U. S.,

the Department of Transportation is now the centralized au- thority on shipments with existing permits expiring and DOT

taking over the responsibilities previously centered in other

agencies

Accordingly, N-14 can serve as a very effective com- munication medium since it brings together individuals from

all facets of the nuclear industry involved with transportation. In addition, it will perform a task for both industry

and the government in augmenting mechanics which otherwise

probably would be decentralized and now can be directed to common goals
242 Panel Discussions

I am sure the N-14 committee was an important factor

in the notice filed in the Federal Register three weeks ago

by the DOT which expresses a difference in philosophy from

previous concepts on regulations.

The Hazardous Materials Regulations Board (under DOT)

plans to revise the regulations governing transportation

casting them in general terms and eliminating much of the

detail

Performance standards are emphasized in contrast to

manufacturing specifications.

Many of the N-14 committee members will be appearing

on the program at the 2nd International Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials being

held in Gatlinburg October 14-18, 1968.

SUMMARY OF USASI N-12 COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

A. Glassner

In 1966, the USA Standards Institute (USASI) became the successor to the American Standards Association (ASA) . In the reorganization that ensued, the ASA Sectional Committee

was replaced by the N12 Committee, entitled "Terminology,

Units, Symbols, Identification and Warning." The scope of

the committee's work includes: (i) standards for nomenclature, definitions, and units; (ii) identification means such

as symbols, signs, labels, or color codes; and (iii) warning

means or devices, all involving nuclear and radiation activities. Membership of the committee consists of representatives appointed by many of the professional societies and a few industrial participants

The principal work carried on by the new American Chemical Society representative, who has replaced Dr. W. Wayne

Meinke on N12, has been with the subcommittee charged with

revision of the ASA Nl.l Glossary of Terms in Nuclear Science

and Technology , published in 1957. This has now been re- placed by a new edition: USASI Nl.1-1967, with the same title
Call, Beeghly 243

Terms in the new edition that were assigned to the

American Chemical Society for proposed definitions were prepared with the help of a number of chemists throughout the

country who are expert in the relevant fields. Inasmuch as the subcommittee has worked very closely with the corresponding group in the International Standards Organization (in

fact, the USA delegation serves as the Secretariat of that

; group), some minor modifications of the proposed definitions

: occurred, principally of a semantic nature, in order that

international agreement on definitions could be obtained.

This work is still being carried on, and it is hoped that a much larger, internationally accepted glossary can be issued.

At this time it appears that new work of the N12 Committee will emphasize the preparation of standards for units

and symbols.

SECOND PANEL DISCUSSION

The second NBS panel discussed various Standard Refer-

; ence Materials now in process which will further standards

\ work in nuclear technology. Much of the discussion centered

around radioactivity standards issued both by NBS and industry.

The NBS panel discussed various Standard Reference Materials now in process which will further standards work in

nuclear technology. Much of the discussion centered around

radioactivity standards issued both by NBS and industry.

There was considerable comment by the audience that a fair

percentage of commercially available radioactivity standards

were not sufficiently accurate for many applications. NBS

was urged to expand its inventory to include many more SRM's

than are now presently available, but it was pointed out by

the NBS representatives that resources were exceedingly tight,

and that without additional support such a course was presently unlikely.

THIRD & FOURTH PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Many of the questions raised during the third panel discussion were reiterated and further amplified in the fourth

and final panel which was by far the most comprehensive and in
244 Panel Discussions

essence summarized the entire symposium. For this reason, we will use the remaining space to discuss the final session in more detail.

In starting the last panel discussion, Dr. Meinke placed

before the audience the following problems which were then

discussed serially by the panel.

(1) The need for standards; their relative importance

the quantity — are there enough? These questions

were disucssed from four aspects: legal, safety,

technical, and administrative.

(2) The speed (or lack thereof) with which standards

needs are identified and then produced; time schedules; timeliness.

(3) The problem of proliferation of standards and

standards committees and organizations; overlapping.

(4) Liaison with international standards organizations.

(5) Realistic criteria; responsible standards.

(6) Private sector-government interactions.

Dr. Meinke in his opening remarks also pointed out that

the panel members had been chosen so that representatives of

the following interested groups would be present: standards

organizations (USASI, ASTM) ; government (AEC, NBS )

; associations CAIF, ANIM); industry (Westinghouse , Nuclear Chicago,

etc.}; and, the laboratories (ORNL, Battelle).

In the discussion of item 1, above, the point was strongly made that safety and technical considerations very

often cannot be separated or discussed in the context of one

or the other alone. In some cases in the past it was felt

that safety may have been overemphasized to the extent that

technical goals were not realized. A further point made was

that reliability and safety are not usually synonomous and

should not be confused.

An NBS representative discussing the question of the

number of standards pointed out that the availability of a
Cali, Beeghly 245

wide range of SRM's could be met only when there was widespread demand and support ( including financial) from outside

groups. Very often in the past this has not been the case. During the sessions there was general agreement that

the total number of standards of all kinds, SRM's, standard

methods, standard procedures, etc. were too few. Only in the area where legal requirements are set forth were there nearly

adequate standards . It is obvious that a legal requirement

almost automatically sets mechanisms in motion that produce

standards

In the field of safety standards, the situation is often

very confused. There are at present several designs for pressure containment vessels and 70-80 vessels under construction.

While there are no legal requirements for standards, from the

stand point of safety these are required, but in fact do not now presently exist.

In the field of safety standards, the situation is often

very confused. There are at present several designs for pressure containment vessels and 70-80 under construction. While

there are no legal requirements for standards, from the stand

point of safety these are required, but in fact do not now presently exist.

The question was raised as to the extent government

should be in the standards business. Two points were in general agreed on: where legal requirements exist, then the re- gulatory bodies (AEC, e.g.) have no choice in the matter and

standards become an important aspect of their activities. The

AEC representative did emphasize, however, that the AEC is

very happy when standards are developed voluntarily by industry, or standards bodies, but he also said that there always

comes that point in time when it is essential that a standard

be on the books, and if industry or a standards group has not

met a schedule, then the government must step in by default.

The second point was that for the U. S. the present system of

largely voluntary standardization was much to be preferred and,
246 Panel Discussions

indeed, encouraged as opposed to legally imposed and non- voluntary standards.

There was a consensus that both the timeliness and spee

with which standards were produced left a great deal to be de

sired. Each group responded affirmatively to the query put

by the moderator on the question of the desirability of speed

ing up the standards process. On the point of whether the

industrial and government groups would be willing to help fi- nance steps which would speed up the process, there was some feeling that additional dollars might be forthcoming, but, of

course, no definite commitments were asked for, only more or

less personal expressions of possibility and feasibility.

Mr. Caum, ASTM, stated that because of the large paperwork load placed on the ASTM Committees' secretaries, that th

ASTM was starting to employ full-time personnel for these

tasks. With the reorganization of ASA into USASI, Mr. Chalker

pointed out that the base of support had been broadened to include government agencies and other groups so that some of

the more time-consuming procedures hopefully could be shortened . J. W. Crawford of the Reactor Technology Division, AEC

said that his Division was highly involved in support of

standards work. He felt he had to be quite careful in choosing his words as to the additional support his Division could

make, but said that if there were additional standards problems in areas of pertinence, he would be interested in hearing

about them.

A. R. Van Dyken from the Research Division (AEC) next

pointed out that work has been sponsored in standardization of

very low levels of radioactivity in contamination of materials

as well as in certain other areas. However, standardization

becomes most pertinent and important once problems have progressed from the research stage to the development or production stage. Much of the standardization of pertinence to the

AEC is done in some of the other Divisions such as Safeguards,

Isotopes Development, Biology and Medicine.
Cali, Beeghly 247

Leroy Nauderhaug, speaking for Safeguards, (AEC) reviewed work going on in standardization in a number of areas and

remarked that if there were additional problems in these or related areas that his Division would be interested in discussions regarding them. Bill Marlow from Biology and Medicine

(AEC) also concurred and said his Division would be amenable

to discussions for support for standardization work. During

the two days of sessions it had become apparent that one of

the major problems was the production of standardized radioisotopes for health and safety types of measurements. In a

i number of cases there was overlapping work being done in different AEC Laboratories , because there was no centralized

place where standards could be obtained. Finally, Warren Eister from Isotopes Development (AEC) discussed the support they were already giving to standardization and expressed interest

in continuing support in other problem areas. From the National Bureau of Standards point of view W. W. Meinke said that at the present time, while the Bureau did

: have the personnel, equipment, and facilities to broaden their

program in radioactive materials, that because the program was

not at present on a self-sustaining basis, any expansion would

have to be covered by outside support. It was pointed out that during last fiscal year the Bureau invested twice as much suoport in the radioisotope standard materials program

as was returned through sales. On the other hand, should outside support be forthcoming then NBS is presently in a position to expand considerably its radioisotope standard materials program. Wilfred Mann and Sam Garfinkel (NBS) agreed with

this presentation and analysis.

Finally, as a spokesman from the national laboratories,

Art Rupp agreed that if no one else did the standardization

work and a standard became essential for a particular laboratory program, that individual laboratories had to put forth

the effort. He did point out, however, that the laboratories

have funding problems also and must gain support for such efforts .
248 Panel Discussions

After this long discussion of further and/or additional

financial support, the remaining time was spent in a discussion of the remaining items on the agenda.

On the question of the speed of production of standards,

D. Sunderman stressed the point that in standards work very

often a certain induction period is required and therefore in some cases it will not be possible to reduce the time t-o a few months. In contrast to this view, several others gave ex- amples, where, when the lack of a standard was seriously holding up progress, a group working very intensively did in fact

produce a standard ready for the consensus' opinion in a few

months. There was a general feeling that the consensus operation was the time lengthening factor in many cases, but most

agreed that the consensus principle was too important to tinker with seriously.

On the question of the proliferation and overlapping of

standards, J. Caum, ASTM, reported that the present horizontal

structure of the ASTM is a recognized weakness leading to the

duplication and overlapping of standards. Reorganization is now underway and will be along the lines of products/industry

groupings. R. Chalker, ANS , believes that the close involvement of his society with USASI is the best means of ensuring

good, pertinent standards, and the best means of avoiding duplication. Mr. Chalker recommended that compilations, similar

to the ORNL publication on nuclear standards groups, be made

to show which group, committee, or organization is working on

a particular standard or group of standards. He also stressed

that a small concentrated group is best for actually writing

the standard, then a large group is brought into the picture

for the consensus process

It was apparent from the lack of discussion that liaison

with international organizations is not strong, although cer- tainly not completely absent. W. Mann, NBS , stressed the importance in his field of supporting and continuing the work

of international comparisons. This work is certainly in the
Call, Beeghly 249

strong interests of the United States. Also from NBS , Dr. Meinke told the symposium that his organization is to become

more heavily involved in the international aspects of standard reference materials. This objective has been laid down by

the Director, but plans for implementing this goal are not yet

firm.

J. Kelly, Westinghouse Electric, was of the opinion that

the most realistic criterion to use as a basis for standards

was economic in nature, that standards so based were often the

optimum standards. J. Crawford, AEC , said that many of the

most realistic standards of recent years were those which

relied heavily on past history and practice.

Finally, the discussion ended with a few brief remarks

on the private sector-government interaction. The AEC, re- ported J. Crawford, cooperates with industry primarily through

its membership on the Nuclear Standards Board of USASI . One

AEC representative is always on the executive committee. In addition, the AEC is well represented on ANS , AIME, and ASTM

standards committees. Mr. Chalker, ANS, asked that standards

be formulated by workers and users in the field. These need

to be more pragmatically oriented, less analytical, and only

after the standards are well-established and agreed on that

the legal regulations be established.

The discussion ended on this remark by E. Wiggin of the

Atomic Industrial Forum, that there has been more government

regulation recently, because, in his opinion, industry has

neglected its role of providing standards.

251

APPENDIX

Author Affiliations and Addresses

W. W. Me ink

Chairman, Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology,

American Chemical Society

* Chief, Analytical Chemistry Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D. C. 2023^, and

* Chief, Office of Standard Reference Materials

H. F. Beeghly

Chairman, Committee on Standardization Relations, American

Chemical Society

* Assistant for Technical Liaison, Office of Standard Reference Materials, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D. C. 20234

J. W. Landis

Chairman, Nuclear Standards Board, United States of America Standards Institute

* Vice President, Gulf General Atomic, Inc., 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036

D. C. Fleckenstein

Member, International Standards Organization Technical

Committee 85

* Consultant, Codes and Standards, General Electric Company,

One River Road, Schenectady, N. Y. 12305

W. B. Mann

The International Commission on Radiological Units and

Measurements

* Chief, Radioactivity Section, Nuclear Radiation Division,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 2023^

* Denotes Professional Affilliation as opposed to Society

Chairman, Committee Chairmen, etc.
252

B. Kahn

* Chief, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Environmental

Control Administration, National Center for Radiological

Health, United States Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, 222 East Central Parkway, Cincinnatti, Ohio 45202

R. G. Chalker

Chairman, Standards Committee, American Nuclear Society

* Director, Engineering Systems Management, Atomics International, A Division of North American Rockwell Corporation,

P. 0. Box 309, Canoga Park, California 91304

J. W. Caum

* Director, Technical Operations, American Society for

Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103

H. J. Anderson

Chairman, Subcommittee V, on Nuclear Applications, of ASTM

Committee C-21, on Ceramic Whitewares and Related Products

* Manager, Analytical Planning and Coordination Section,

Chemistry Research Department, Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, P. 0. Box 899, Richland, Washington 99352

0. Sisman

Chairman, Subcommittee II, on Effects of High Energy

Radiation on Plastics and Electrical Insulation, of ASTM

Committees D9 - on Electrical Insulating Materials/D20 - on Plastics

* Reactor Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

P. 0. Box X, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

D. L. Reid

Chairman, Subcommittee IX, on Methods for Radiochemical

Analysis of Water, of ASTM Committee D19 on Industrial Water
253

* Chemist, 221-T 200 Area, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, P. 0. Box 999, Richland, Washington 99352

D. N. Sunderman

Chairman, ASTM Committee E-10 on Radioisotopes and Radiation Effects

* Associate Manager, Physics Department, Battelle Memorial

Institute, Columbus Laboratories, 505 King Avenue, Columbus,

Ohio 43201

R. C. Shank

Chairman, Subcommittee I, on Nuclear Fuel Burnup , of ASTM

Committee E-10 on Radioisotopes and Radiation Effects

* Head, Analytical Chemistry Section, Idaho Nuclear Corporation, P. 0. Box 1845, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401

D. R. Mackay

* Chief, Office for Engineering Standards Services, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

J. P. Cali

* Deputy Chief, Office of Standard Reference Materials,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

S. B. Garfinkel

* Physics and Radioactivity Section, Nuclear Radiation

Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

J. W. Crawford

* Assistant Director for Engineering Standards for Reactor

Development and Technology, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

S. C. T. McDowell

* Assistant Director for Research and Development, Office
254

of Safeguards and Material Management , United States Atomic

Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

R. C. Jones

* Office of Safeguards and Materials Management, United

States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

L. R, Nauderhaug

* Office of Safeguards and Materials Management, United

States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

W. E. Mott

* Division of Isotopes Development, United States Atomic

Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

W. K. Eister

* Production and Materials Staff, Division of Isotopes

Development, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

W. F. Marlow

* Fallout Studies Branch, Division of Biology and Medicine

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D. C. 20545

H. E. Kolde

* Physicist, Nuclear Engineering Laboratory, Environmental

Surveillance and National Center for Radiological Health,

Control Program, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnatti, Ohio

45226

P. A. Cliggett

* Health Physicist, National Insitutes of Health, Clinical

Center, Radiation Safety Section, Bethesda, Maryland 20014
255

L . E. Packard

Association of Nuclear Instrument Manufacturers

* President, Packard Instrument Company, 2200 Warrenville

Road, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

V. P. Guinn

* Technical Director, Activation Analysis Program, Gulf

General Atomic Inc., P. 0. Box 608, San Diego, California

92112

J. C. R. Kelly

* Manager, Advanced Reactor Division, Atomic Power Division's, Waltz Mill Site, Westinghouse Electric Corporation,

P. 0. Box 158, Madison, Pennsylvania 15663

E. A. Wiggin

* Technical Projects Manager, Atomic Industrial Forum,

Inc., 850 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022

E. L. Brady

* Chief, Office of Standard Reference Data, United States

Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234

M. B. Wallenstein, (deceased)

* Manager of Data Programs, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D. C. 20234

A. F. Rupp

* Director, Isotope Development Center, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, P. 0. Box X, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

C. J. Rodden

* Director, New Brunswick Laboratory, United States Atomic

Energy Commission, P. 0. Box 150, New Brunswick, New Jersey

08903
256

J. H. Harley

* Director, Health and Safety Laboratory, United States

Atomic Energy Commission, 376 Hudson Street, New York, New

York 10014

A. Glassner

ACS Representative to USASI N12, Nuclear Terminology,

Symbols, Identifications and Signals.

* Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue,

Argonne, Illinois 60439

B. M. Robinson

ACS Representative to USASI Nl4, Transportation of Fissile

and Radioactive Materials.

* Assistant Director for Operations, Production Division,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. 0. Box E, United States

Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O - 329-4=