NATL INST. OF STAND & TECH

AlllDb fib2Sfll

NJST

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 75-946

The National Measurement

System for Ionizing Radiations

Randall S. Caswell

Center for Radiation Research

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

December 1977

Issue Date April 1978

» \ 7 « z^-

M

at

'•rAu 0* /oo DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

»NAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

y^' IS' ^Hio
r
NBSIR 77-946

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM FOR IONIZING RADIATIONS

Randall S. Caswell

with the collaboration of

John W. Bartlett, Bert T. Coursey, Charles E. Dick,

Margarete Ehrlich, Charles Eisenhauer, Elmer H. Eisenhower,

Everett G. Fuller, J. M. Robin Hutchinson, Robert Loevinger,

William L. McLaughlin, Francis J. Schima, and James M. Wyckoff

Center for Radiation Research

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

December 1977

Issue Date April 1978

U.S. DEPAFtTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

1 . INTRODUCTION , 4

2. STRUCTURE OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 4

2.1 Conceptual System 5 2.2 Basic Technical Infrastructure 6 2.2.1 Documentary Specification System 6 2.2.1.1 Standardization Institutions 6 2.2.1.2 Survey of Documentary Standards 8

2.2.2 Instrumentation System 9 2.2.2.1 Measurement Tools and Techniques 9 2.2.2.2 The Instrumentation Industry 9 2.2.3 Reference Data 10

2.2.4 Reference Materials 11 2.2.5 Science and People 11 2.3 Realized Measurement Capabilities 12 2.4 Dissemination and Enforcement Network 12 2.4.1 Central Standards Authorities 12 2.4.2 State and Local Offices of Weights and Measures 13

2.4.3 Standards and Testing Laboratories and Services 13 2.4.4 Regulatory Agencies 13

2.5 Direct Measurements Transactions Matrix 16

2.5.1 Analysis of Suppliers and Users 16

2.5.2 Highlights re Major Users 16

2.6 Study Method for Ionizing Radiation Measurement System 16

2/3 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM STRUCTURE, IMPACT, STATUS, AND TRENDS BY MAJOR CATEGORIES

OF RADIATION USERS 16

2/3. A Medical 16

2/3. A. 1 Direct Users of Radiation 19

2/3. A. 2 Manufacturers 19

2/3. A. 3 Standards and Calibration Laboratories 20

2/3. A. 4 S:ructure and Problems of the Medical Radiation Measurement System 21

2/3. B Nuclear Pouer 23

2/3. B.l Nuclear Fuel Cycle Operations 25

2/3. B. 1.1 Scope and Status of the Nuclear Power Industry .... 25

2/3. B.l. 2 Measurement Objectives 27

2/3. B.l. 3 Measurement Methods 27

• ' 2/3. B.l. 4 Status of Measurement Technology 28

2/3. B.l. 5 Measurement System Infrastructure 29

2/3. B.l. 6 Summary of Conclusions of the Assessment of the Nuclear

Fuel Materials Measurement System 30

2/3. B. 2 Nuclear Reactor Design Data and Operations 31

2/3. B. 2.1 Design Data for Fission Reactors 31

ii
2/3. B. 2. 2 Design Data for Fusion Reactors (Magneticallyconfined plasmas and laser fusion)

2/3. B. 2. 3 In-Reactor Neutron Measurements 33

2/3. B. 2. 4 Note on the relationship of the NBS Neutron Standards

Program to the Department of Energy Programs 34

2/3. C Industrial Radiation Processing 34

2/3.0 Defense 35

2/3. D.l X-rays, Gamma-rays, and Electron Measurements for Defense .... 37

2/3. D. 2 Radioactivity Measurements for Defense 38

2/3. D. 3 Neutron Measurements for Defense 39

2/3. E Chemical Analysis 39

2/3. F Radiation Measurement System for Science 40

2/3. G Environmental Radioactivity Measurement 42

2/3. H Miscellaneous Radiation Applications 45

2/3.1 Personnel Monitoring 50

2/3.1.1 Nature of Activity and Present Status 50

2/3.1.2 Basic Problems and Needs 50

2/3.1.3 Size and Importance of Personnel Monitoring Activities 51 2/3.1.4 Structure of the Radiation Measurement System for Personnel

Monitoring 53

2/3.1.5 Conclusions 55

3. IMPACT, STATUS AND TRENDS OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 55

3.1 Impact of Measurements 56

3.1.1 Functional, Technological and Scientific Applications 56

3.1.2 Economic Impacts -- Costs and Benefits 56

3.1.3 Social, Human, Person-in-the-Street Impacts 56

3.2 Status and Trends of the System 57

4. SURVEY OF NBS SERVICES 58

4.1 The Past . 58

4.2 The Present 58

4.2.1 Description of NBS Services 58

4.2.2 Users of NBS Services 58

4.2.3 Alternate Sources of Calibration Services 59

4.2.4 Funding Sources for NBS Services 59

4.2.5 Mechanism for Supplying Services 59

4.3 Impact of NBS Services 59

4.3.1 Economic Impact of Major User Classes 59

4.3.2 Technological Impact of Services 59

4.3.3 Pay-Off from Changes in NBS Services 59

4.4 Evaluation of the NBS Program 59

4.5 The Future 61

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 61

iii
APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY A-1 APPENDIX B. ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH RADIATION B-1 APPENDIX C. INFORMATION ON MEDICAL RADIATION INDUSTRY C-1 APPENDIX D. ASSESSMENT OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM D-1 APPENDIX E. RADIATION PROCESSES OF COMMERCIAL INTEREST E-1 APPENDIX F. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM INFORMATION F-1 APPENDIX G. PERSONNEL MONITORING SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES G-1 APPENDIX H. STANDARDIZATION ACTIVITIES H-1 REFERENCES R-1 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Medical radiation measurement system for x and gamma rays 18

Figure 2. Measurement system for radioactivity standards and radiopharmaceuticals

used in nuclear medicine 18

Figure 3. Comparison of radiation therapy machine calibrations by the RPC with

those in use at institutions 20

Figure 4. Comparison of tumor dose delivered (RPC) with that prescribed (institution) 20

Figure 5. Medical dosimetry calibration system 22

Figure 6. Nuclear power reactors in the United States (ERDA, 1975) 24

Figure 7. Outline of nuclear power industry operations . 26

Figure 8. Possible NBS interactions for nuclear industry measurements and standards . 30

Figure 9. Structure of the environmental radioactivity measurement system 43

Figure 10. Environmental radioactivity measurements system in the southeastern

United States 46

Figure 11. Structure of the personnel monitoring measurement system ... 54

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Organization of the CRR radiation measurement system study 5 Table 2. Radiations, quantities, and units 5 Table 3. Examples of radiation detectors 10

Table 4. Some regulations and regulatory guides for ionizing radiations . . 14

Table 5. Direct measurement transactions matrix 17 Table 6. Classification of medical radiation users by activity and specific

interest 18

Table 7. Survey of diagnostic and therapeutic x-ray machines, Suffolk County,

New York, 1972 22

Table 8. Laboratories participating in the interlaboratory LMFBR reaction rate

program (ILRR) 34

Table 9. Large radiation processing operations in the United States 36

Table 10. Measurement quantities involved in a photon- or charged particle-induced

cross section measurement . 41 Table 11. Some NBS contributions to ionizing radiation measurements for science ... 43

Table 12. Industries employing radiation gauging devices 47

Table 13. Applications, of radiation gauging devices in selected industries 47

Table 14. Relationship between voltage and radiographic application 48

Table 15. NRC regulations applicable to industrial use of radioisotopes 49

Table 16. Estimates o1^ workers monitored (1969-70) 52

Table 17. Some standards and guides for personnel monitoring 53

Table 18. Effect of changes in NBS services for ionizing radiations 60

iv
THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR IONIZING RADIATIONS

Randan S. Caswell

Center for Radiation Research

Institute for Basic Standards

December 1977

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this study the structure of the National

Measurement System for Ionizing Radiation^

has been investigated for eight classes of

radiation users: medical, nuclear power,

industrial radiation processing, defense,

environmental, science, chemical analysis,

and miscellaneous radiation applications. In addition two fields of increasing importance

to all radiation users were investigated:

regulatory control of radiation and personnel

monitoring. Needed major actions on the part

of the National Bureau of Standards were

identified particularly for nuclear power and

its related environmental and safety impacts,

medical applications of radiation, assistance

to regulatory control of radiation and

measurement assurance for personnel monitoring. Brief summaries of system structure and

identified needs are given below.

The regulatory control of radiation is a divided responsibility among several groups:

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and

Drug Administration including the Bureau of

Radiological Health, the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration of the Department

of Labor assisted by the National Institute

of Occupational Safety and Health of HEW, the

U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration,^ and the Department of Transportation.

Forty-seven out of 50 states (plus Puerto

Rico) have radiation control laws. The

authority for radiation regulation is normally

given to state health departments. These

departments vary widely in support, staff,

and technical competence. They work together

to help solve radiation regulation problems

through the Conference of Radiation Control

Program Directors, Two apparent needs are:

(1) all regulators of radiation need to use

the same measurement scale -- this can be

Monizing radiation is a convenient (but not

precisely accurate) term used to describe

energetic x rays, electrons, neutrons, gamma

rays, beta rays, alpha particles and other

particulate radiations such as protons and

pi mesons.

attained by establishing traceability to NBS;

and (2) the great majority of state health

departments with responsibility for radiation

control would be benefited by a program of

technical assistance in radiation measurement.

In response to these needs, the NBS Center

for Radiation Research (CRR) has (1) instituted

a program of measurement assurance testing to establish traceability with quality assurance

laboratories of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and other regulatory agencies, and (2) instituted a national radiation measurement

calibration system for the benefit of the

states, regional calibration laboratories,

and regulatory agencies.

The study of personnel monitoring has

found that in the United States about 800,000

persons considered to be radiation workers

wear personnel monitors. The majority of

personnel radiation monitoring services are supplied by fewer than 20 commercial suppliers,

although government laboratories and the

military services largely provide their own service. Two needs are apparent: (1) a reliable measurement assurance testing laboratory is needed to test monitoring services -- this could be NBS or another laboratory

traceable to and in close contact with NBS;

and (2) monoenergetic neutron calibration

fields are needed to test existing neutron

personnel monitors and for use in developing

improved neutron personnel monitors. NBS

actions in response to (1) are under active

discussion with the states and other Federal

Government agencies. NBS has developed a radiation calibration facility for neutron

personnel monitoring with the Energy Research

and Development Administration support.

Four medical radiation user groups have

been identified: radiation therapy, diagnostic

X rays, dental x rays, and nuclear medicine.

About 350,000 patients are treated with

radiation therapy per year, representing

50-60% of cancer cases. In 1970, 129 million

persons received 210 million diagnostic x-ray

examinations. In 1974 there were more than

132,000 diagnostic x-ray machines and 142,000

dental x-ray machines. In 1971 there were

eight million applications of radiopharmaceuticals given for diagnosis. One patient

^Now U.S. Department or Energy.
in four entering the hospital will be administered radioisotopes for diagnostic test(s).

Needs apparent from this study include: (1)

wider dissemination of NBS dosimetry calibrations through further development of a re- gional calibration laboratory system; (2) development of primary absorbed dose standards

where they do not now exist -- for highenergy (linac and betatron) x rays and for

fast neutron radiotherapy; (3) extension of

a system of quality control throughout the

approximately 8,000 institutions doing nuclear medicine; (4) straightening out problems

with radionuclide dose calibrators in collaboration with manufacturers and by provision of appropriate check sources. In each case CRR actions are under way or being

developed with others to meet these needs.

The study of nuclear power is concerned

with two areas: nuclear fuel cycle operations, and design data and reactor operations

In the first area, a special study by John W. Bartlett, Assessment of the Nuclear Fuel Ma - terials Measurement System, confirmed that the

need for accurate accountability of fissionable materials stems not from buyer-seller

equity but rather from the need to safeguard

nuclear material. The importance of the

safeguards problem depends on decisions cur- rently being made -- priority of the breeder

reactor (a producer of plutonium), use of

mixed-oxide fuels (PUO2 and UO^), amount and

methods of recycling of plutonTum, whether

uranium enrichment will be privately owned,

and the ground rules for waste management.

In any case, it seems almost certain that

there will be a need for NBS participation in

and technical assistance for a major measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel materials accountability, and discussions on this

subject are underway between NBS and the Nu- clear Regulatory Commission. At present, NBS

programs are responding to needs for new Standard Reference Materials, improvement of

the technical base for calorimetry, collaboration with the Energy Research and Development Administration New Brunswick Laboratory

in support of the measurement assurance ac- tivities of the Safeguards Analytical Laboratory Evaluation (SALE) program, and analysis

of materials diversion paths and data requirements. These activities, while valuable in

themselves and useful in providing NBS orientation in the safeguards field, by no means constitute a measurement assurance system of

the high accuracy and real-time accountability needed if there is to be widespread circulation of nuclear fuel materials in the

nation.

In the area of design data and reactor

operations , needs are for standards for neutron cross section measurement in support of

LMFBR (liquid metal fast breeder reactor),

HTGR (high temperature gas-cooled reactor),

and thermal neutron power reactor programs;

and for measurement standards for in-reactor

measurements of neutron fluence and spectra

and fission rates in fuel elements. For

fission reactors improved cross sections are needed for shielding, fuels, neutron properties of structural materials, integrity of

reactor components, and reactor control and

safety. For fusion reactors, nuclear cross section data needs are less immediate since

the plasma physics problems have not yet been

solved; but data will be needed for shielding,

heat transfer element design, tritium breeding design, integrity of structural materials, and induced radioactivity problems.

Standards for in-reactor measurements of

neutron fluence and spectra and fuel element

fission rates are important in testing

reactor performance versus calculations,

testing of fuel, temperatures of fuel,

reactor lifetimes, power level, control, and

safety. NBS responsed to these needs in

1971 by proposing a neutron standards program

aimed at greatly improving the accuracy of

standard reference neutron cross sections,

and neutron flux densities used to measure

other cross sections, and providing standard

reference neutron fields for the basis of

in-reactor neutron measurements. This program has been funded by NBS and is now at

full strength using the NBS linac. Van de

Graaff, and reactor.

The field of industrial radiation processing continues to grow, although more slowly

than indicated by some earlier predictions.

The energy crisis may speed development in

this area since radiation processing uses

less energy than do corresponding thermal

processes. NBS does offer calibration ser- vices for the megarad dosimetry range on a limited basis. Establishing measurement

service requirements is somewhat hindered by

the proprietary nature of this field and the

high degree of industrial secrecy. Some

needed calibration services are being developed, but no needs for major new programs

have been identified.

The study of radiation measurement for

national defense has identified needs in the area of high-intensity, pulse x- and gammaradiation measurement. The NBS action in

response has been development of new very

intense calibration sources for those who measure this radiation. In the area of

Defense Department needs in the measurement

of radioactivity, these appear to have been

met by NBS programs for development of radioactivity standards, particularly for the

noble gases.

2
The study of environmental radiation mea- surement confirmed a previously-identified

need for environmental radioactivity standards

and for environmental radioactivity measurement assurance testing. CRR has recently developed a new series of mixed radionuclide

environmental radioactivity standards which

are now available to the environmental mea- surement community, and many measurement

assurance tests are being carried out to help

members of the community and quality assurance

laboratories of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Environmental Protection

Agency test and improve their measurement

performance. State laboratories receive

NBS-traceable standards from NRC and EPA quality assurance laboratories, and participate in measurement assurance testing with

them.

In two areas studied, science and chemical

analysis, existing programs in support of

these fields need to be continued. For science, a data compilation effort on chargedparticle stopping powers, ranges, straggling

and delta-ray production below about 10 MeV

is needed.

Miscellaneous radiation applications utilize

radiographic equipment, gauges, irradiators

oil-well logging apparatus, self luminous

products, smoke detectors, static eliminators,

and heat sources. The annual business in

these devices is in excess of 70 million dollars. The most stringent requirements for

accurate measurement appear to be at the manufacturing, rather than the user, level. A chief problem is the need for adequate safety measures in the use of this equipment. This

problem is being attacked through vigorous

NBS participation in voluntary standards

committees such as American National Standards

Institute (ANSI) Committee N43 which is con- cerned with promulgating recommendations for

safe use of radiation equipment.

Some further support for NBS participation

in this work is needed to ensure that these

documentary standards are available when

needed.

A number of common threads stand out quite

strikingly in the studies of the various

users of radiation: (1) There is often a need for new NBS measurement standards where

they do not exist -- however, where NBS mea- surement standards do exist their accuracy

is generally sufficient for present needs.

(2) There is a great need for measurement

assurance, especially where regulatory re- quirements are involved. Usually priorities

found in this study are much higher for dissemination of standards to users and carrying

out measurement assurance testing than for

development of new measurement standards.

(3) A need exists for help to the poorlyqualified user -- training, convenient laboratory standards, handbooks for guidance.

(4) A single measurement system under NBS

leadership is needed to help both regulators

and users, to avoid duplication and competition among regulators, to simplify the radiation user's problems of measurement and re- porting, and to protect the health and safety

of the public. (5) Needs for NBS to play

its traditional "independent third party"

role are often found.

3
1. INTRODUCTION^

The use of ionizing radiation is very

widespread today, principally through the

rapidly increasing use of nuclear energy for

the production of electric power needed by

the world, and the growing breadth of applications of radiation in medical practice and

in industry. As a consequence, accurate

radiation measurements are of increasing

importance. Measurements of about 1% accuracy

of neutrons, x- and gar.ima-rays, and radioactivity are needed to obtain data for the

efficient design of nuclear power reactors.

Accuracy of about 5% is needed for controlling

radiation dose to tumors in radiation therapy

of cancer, which in turn requires radiation

measurement standards of 1 or 2%. While high

accuracy is needed in some of these radiation

applications, the broadening use of radiation

throughout society requires reliable measurement of somewhat lower accuracy for protection

of workers, the general public, and the

environment. Examples in this area of radiation safety include personnel monitoring for

radiation workers, measurements of radioactive

effluents from nuclear power plants, and

environmental measurements of radioactivity

in water, air, and soil.

The national concern may be summarized

simply -- the public demands the safe and

effective use of radiation. The public wants

the benefits of radiation: cheap, abundant

electricity through nuclear power; better

medical diagnosis through x-rays and radionuclide scans; improved radiation therapy for

the treatment of cancer; improved products

through industrial radiation processing; non- destructive testing of materials and products

with X rays and neutrons; and many others.

Public concern for safety has resulted in

assignment of major regulatory radiation

safety responsibilities to Federal Government

agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency,

the Bureau of Radiological Health and the

Bureau of Drugs of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration; and in 47 out of 50

states (plus Puerto Rico) having passed

radiation safety laws.

If ionizing radiation is to be used effectively and safely, then the many kinds of

radiation must be measured many times, in

many places, under many different circumstances, with widely differing intensities.

^Systematic assembly of information for this

study was completed in June 1975.

by people with very different amounts of training, always with an accuracy sufficient for

the purpose. What is the objective of this

report? We wish to find out in the United

States who makes radiation measurements, how

they are made, what accuracies are needed,

and what accuracies are achieved, how calibrations of instruments are obtained, what

the National Bureau of Standards provides for

this system and what it should provide. That

is, we want to find out as much as we can about the structure of the National Measurement System for Ionizing Radiations and how

it functions. The final question is: what

actions should be taken by NBS management as

a result of the study? Without further ado, we proceed into the content of the study.

2. STRUCTURE OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

First we must say what we mean by the term

ionizing radiation. By ionizing radiation in

this study we mean radiations such as x rays,

gamma rays, electrons, alpha rays, beta rays,

neutrons, pi mesons, protons, deuterons, and

heavier charged particles. These radiations

are often called ionizing radiations or cor- puscular radiations (since they usually produce

ions, and since we usually deal with the

particle, rather than the wave, properties of

the radiations). Neither term is precise.

We exclude from our study such usually non- ionizing radiations as visible light, infrared

radiation, long-wavelength ultra-violet radiation, and microwave radiation, since the

responsibility for the measurement system for

these radiations lies elsewhere in NBS.

The measurement system for ionizing radiation is very complex, there being many different radiations of widely varying energies,

several radiation quantities of interest, and

a number of user groups interested in radiation measurement. To keep the study as simple

as possible while focusing on the users of

radiation and the measurements they need, it was decided to organize the study around the

main groups of users. The user categories

adopted are given in table 1.

For each of the eight main categories of

radiation use, we have separated groups

involved in that category having differing

functions into activity classes (see table 1). As an example, the x-ray department in a hospital is a direct user of radiation for

human benefit; the manufacturer has a different

role of manufacturing and servicing effective

and safe equipment; Federal and State regulatory agencies are involved to see that the

equipment is used properly and safely;

standards and calibration laboratories provide

4
Table 1. Organization of the CRR radiation

measurement system study

Main Categories of Radiation Use

1. Medical

2. Nuclear electric power

3. Industrial radiation processing

4. Defense

5. Chemical analysis

6. Science

7. Environmental radioactivity

8. Miscellaneous radiation applications

Activity Classes

1. Direct users of radiation

2. Manufacturers

3. Regulators

4. Standards and calibration laboratories

5. Other interested groups

the measurement base for safe and effective

use; and other interested groups, such as the

National Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCRP), influence the setting of

permissible radiation exposure limits, and

rules and guides for proper and safe use of

radiation.

2.1 Conceptual System

Radiation Quantities . The quantities of

interest for the radiations v;ith which we are primarily concerned are given in table 2.

The part of the National Measurement System

included in this study concerns those radiations and physical quantities listed in

table 2, plus others which may become of concern in the future, for example, pi mesons

and heavy ions for cancer therapy.

Table 2. Radiations, quantities, and units

Radiation

X and gamma rays

Electron beams

Radioactivity

Neutrons

Quanti ties

Exposure

Absorbed dose

,(b) Energy spectrum^

Energy flux density (beam

power density)

Absorbed dose

Energy spectrum^

Beam current and power

,(b)

Activity (nuclear transformation

rate)

Emission rate (particle or photon)

Power

Emission rate

Fluence

Flux density (fluence rate)

Energy spectrum^^^

Absorbed dose

Kerma Cross sections

Tradi tional

Unit

Roentgen

rad cm MeV

MeV cm'^ s'

rad

cm'^ MeV"'' ampere, watt

curie

-

s

v;att

-

s -2 cm

-2 cm s -2 cm

rad

rad

barn

MeV

(a)

(b)

Unit gray (Gy) adopted for 1 joule/kg. One rad equals one cJ/kg,

Differential distribution of fluence with respect to energy.

^^^Unit becquerel (Bq) adopted for 1 s'

Usual

SI Units

-

coulomb kg

joule kg'^

cm"^ joule ^

watt cm

1 a. joule kg

cm'^ joule"''

ampere, watt

1 c.

watt

-1

s -2 cm

-2 -1 cm s cm"^ joule

^

joule kg

joule kg

1 a.

-1 a.

5
The nature of the standards for ionizing

radiations can easily be understood with a few examples. The primary measurement standard for the unit of exposure below 250 keV

x-ray energy is a paral lei -plate free-air

ionization chamber. At higher energy such as

1.3 MeV (^°Co) such chambers would be physically too large, so cavity ionization chambers

(graphite-wall, air-cavity) are used. For absorbed dose for x rays, gamma rays, and

electrons, the primary measurement standard

is a calorimeter made of graphite. A primary

measurement standard for neutron absorbed

dose would be a calorimeter made of "tissueequivalent" plastic, except that with present

technology such calorimeters are too insensitive, therefore tissue-equivalent ionization

chambers are used. High-energy electron beam

current is measured with a "Faraday cage", an instrument designed so that essentially all

electrons incident are trapped and the charge

they represent is recorded. The standard for

x-ray energy flux density is an ionization

chamber, known as the P-2 chamber, which is

designed so that the current measured is

proportional to both the energy and the number

of x-ray photons.

For radioactivity, the activity is determined with precision instruments such as a 47T3-Y coincidence counting apparatus, or an internal gas counter (the radioactive gas is

admitted to the sensitive volume of a proportional counter). Emission rate, for example

gamma-ray emission rate from a source, is

determined with a detector such as an Nal(Tl)

scintillation crystal or a Ge(Li) solid state

detector which has been carefully calibrated

versus energy. The power emitted by a source

is usually measured with a calorimeter. In radioactivity measurement, and for neutrons,

embodiment of a standard in an instrument

becomes increasingly difficult. We become

increasingly dependent on very careful experimental measurements whose results are captured

in some durable form: a radioactivity

standard source or standard neutron source,

or a constant of nature such as a neutron

cross section (that is, a piece of nuclear

data). For example, neutron flux density

measurements may require very complex

apparatus including background discrimination

by neutron time-of-fl ight. The result must

somehow be kept in permanent form: a cross

section, or stable calibrated source. Neutron

information may also be embodied in a standard reference field , a known flux density

with a well -determined energy spectrum, which

is maintained by NBS or other standards

laboratories and made available to radiation

users for calibrations of user's devices.

In addition to the primary measurement

standards themselves, developed and maintained

by NBS or other standards laboratories, some transfer method or instrument is needed to get the calibration to the user. Examples of

methods for calibration transfer are: direct

calibration (the user sends in his instrument

for direct comparison against the standard),

a transfer ionization chamber (a quality

instrument which is calibrated against the

standard and sent to the radiation user to compare against the user's instrument), and

radioactivity standards (Standard Reference

Materials) which are prepared by NBS or another laboratory and sent to the user to serve as a standard in his measurements.

2.2 Basic Technical Infrastructure

2.2.1 Documentary Specification System

2.2.1.1 Standardization Institutions

The most important international organizations writing standards and recommendations

in the field of ionizing radiations are the

International Organization for Standardization

(ISO), the International Electrotechnical

Commission (lEC), the International Commission

on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU),

the International Commission on Radiological

Protection (ICRP), the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA), and the World Health

Organization (WHO).

The International Organization for Standardization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland

is an independent organization with member

bodies from 56 nations and 13 correspondent

members (as of 1971). It is governed by a General Assembly and Governing Council.

Technical Committee TC 85 has the prime

responsibility in ISO for standardization in

the field of nuclear energy and its peaceful

application. The work of TC 85 in the United

States is conducted through the Secretariat,

formerly held by the American National

Standards Institute, now held by Germany.

Within TC 85 there are five subcommittees:

Terminology, Definitions, Units, and Symbols;

Radiation Protection; Nuclear Reactor Technology; Radioactive Sources; and Nuclear Fuel

Technology. The chief emphasis is on standards

for the safe use of nuclear energy.

The International Electrotechnical Commission is an autonomous technical division of

ISO. In the nuclear field its Technical

Committee 45 considers "Electrical Measuring

Instruments used in Connection with Ionizing

Radiation." Technical Committee 62 covers

"Medical X-Ray Equipment."

6
The ICRU and the ICRP are both sponsored

by the International Society of Radiology, a world organization of "adiologists and radiotherapists which meets every three or four

years. In addition to working closely with

each other, both organizations have official

relationships with the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy

Agency.

The International Commission on Radiation

Units and Measurements ^ with Secretariat in

Washington, D.C., was formed in 1925 under

the sponsorship of the First International

Congress of Radiology with a mission to recommend: (a) quantities and units of radiation and radioactivity; (b) procedures for

measurement of radiation quantities; (c)

physical data related ":o radiation measurement; and (d) in cooperation with ICRP, the

International Commission on Radiological

Protection, it recommends measures for

radiation protection.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection was organized in 1928 to serve radiological and medical groups from all

countries by providing technical guidance and

recommendations in the field of radiation

hazards. It is also sponsored by the International Society of Radiology. The ICRP

policy in preparing its recommendations is to deal with basic principles of radiation

protection, and to leave to the various

national protection committees the responsibility of providing detailed technical regulations, recommendations or codes of practice

best suited to the needs of their individual

countries. The ICRP has the following

committees: Radiation Effects, Internal

Exposure, External Exposure, and Application

of Recommendations. The headquarters is in

Sutton, England.

The International Atomic Energy Agency,

established in 1957 and located in Vienna,

Austria, is an agency of the United Nations

with 102 Member States as of 1972. Th&

IAEA's interests are: (a) nuclear power and

desalting; (b) application of ionizing

radiation in agriculture, hydrology, medicine,

and industry; (c) regulatory activities in

health and safety; (d) technical assistance

to developing countries; and (e) the establishment and administration of safeguards,

particularly in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Pol if eration of Nuclear Weapons. The

agency operates three laboratories; in Vienna

and Seibersdorf, Austria, and in Monaco

(devoted to marine radioactivity). The IAEA publishes a large number of guidebooks,

safety standards, codes of practice, and panel

reports in the field of ionizing radiation.

The World Health Organization was formed

in 1948, and is a directing and coordinating

authority on international health work, dealing

primarily with governments and with their

central health authorities. In the field of

radiation health, it is concerned with protection of workers and the public against undue

radiation exposure from any radiation source,

as well as the promotion and improvement of

the medical uses of radiation and radioisotopes

for the diagnosis and therapy of disease. In addition to preparing standards and technical

reports, in cooperation with IAEA, the WHO is

sponsoring the development of regional

secondary radiation calibration laboratories

to help developing countries. The headquarters

of WHO is in Geneva, Switzerland.

One other organization, the United Nations

Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

Radiation (UNSCEAR) does not promulgate

standards, but is mainly concerned with

obtaining radiation information that other

bodies may use in establishing standards.

Another organization, the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), does not yet

prepare standards in the field of ionizing

radiation, but is planning to do so.

A summary of international nuclear standards

activities is given in Compilation of Nuclear

Standards , Part II, 8th edition, 1971,

ORNL-NSIC-102.

National Standards-Preparing Organizations . In the field of ionizing radiation, a wide

variety of applications in power, industry,

medicine, and science have led to a broad

need for safety regulations. These regulations

are most frequently specific to the type of

hazard associated with a particular application. As a result not only government agencies

such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), the Energy Research and Development

Administration (ERDA, now Department of

Energy), the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

of the Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, the Department of Labor (DOL), and

, the Department of Transportation (DOT) enter

the picture, but also many industrial and

trade organizations. Since the hazards of

ionizing radiation are a matter of concern, a number of interdisciplinary standards setting

organizations have been established. It is

most usual for large portions of government

regulations to be taken directly from such consensus setting organizations as the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI), the

American Nuclear Society (ANS), the Institute

of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE),

the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM), and the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

7
A compendium of all existing nuclear standards is published by the Oak Ridge Nuclear

Safety Information Center. Available for this

study was the 9th edition 1972, identified as ORNL-NSIC-112. Also included in this document

is a brief discussion of the organizations

listed in appendix B, table B-1

A listing of the biomedical societies with

some interest in radiation is given in

appendix B, table B-2. A brief summary of

the mission of these organizations is given

in the pamphlet "Radiological Organizations

1970" published by the American College of

Radiology, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago,

Illinois 60606.

Since the number of organizations which

write standards is very large, we shall discus

here only three of the most important: ANSI,

NCRP, and ANS.

The American National Standards Institute

(ANSI), (previously known successively as American Engineering Standards Committee,

American Standards Association, United States

of America Standards Institute), with headquarters in New York City, is the only

national coordinating organization representing industry, consumer and government which

meets the increasing demand for voluntary

standards. As a federation it provides an orderly framework for initiating standards

setting committee work and reviewing the consensus results which, when adoped, become

voluntary standards. The base operating units

of ANSI are the Standards Management Boards

(SMB). The Nuclear SMB is headed by a fulltime staff member and had developed 402

nuclear application standards by December

1972. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has

referenced 19 ANSI standards in their Nuclear

Safety Guides and planned to reference 40 more as of December 1972.

ANSI Committee N43, organized under NBS

sponsorship, is charged with developing

"standards pertaining to products and equipment for non-medical scientific, industrial,

and educational uses, involving ionizing

radiation sources including radioactive

materials, accelerators, and x-ray equipment

but excluding nuclear reactors."

Reports in November 1973 showed 3,000

people working on nuclear standards under

ANSI. In 1972-73, 176 standards had been

approved, 116 new committees were formed,

10 quality assurance standards were completed,

and 1,074 nuclear application standards were

available. One hundred new standards were

due in 1973-74 out of 1,000 still needed.

The National Council on Radiation Protection

and Measurements (NCRP) is an independent

organization chartered by Congress to prepare

definitive handbooks on radiation protection.

These documents are used in preparation of

regulations by Federal and State governments

in pursuit of safe use of radiation. Each

report is prepared by a broadly representative

group of specialists and reviewed by the

approximately 7C-member council before

publication. A detailed discussion of the

organization and its publications now numbering over 40 can be found in Radiation Protection

Standards by Lauriston S. Taylor, CRC Press,

(a division of Chemical Rubber Company),

18901 Cranwood Parkway, Cleveland, Ohio 44128.

Headquarters of the NCRP are in Washington, D.C.

The American Nuclear Society (ANS), formed

in 1954, had 4,600 members in 1970. Its Standards Committee has a number of subcommittees dealing with units, terminology,

standards and practices related to nuclear

engineering. The committees work closely

with the ANSI Nuclear Standards Management

Board in areas such as Nuclear Critical ity

Safety and Nuclear Design Criteria. The

Ot.fice of ANS is in Hinsdale, Illinois. News

on Standards is published regularly in a separate section of the ANS Journal Nuclear

News .

2.2.1.2 Survey of Documentary Standards

There are two main classes of documentary

standards: voluntary standards or recommendations, and regulatory standards. Here we

will survey briefly the standards and recom- mendations of the organizations discussed

above. Regulatory standards will be discussed

under section 2.4.4, Regulatory Agencies.

As of December 1971, ISO Technical Committee

TC 85 had produced 10 approved standards and

16 others were being actively worked on. They included such subjects as nuclear energy

glossaries, recommendations for personnel

monitors, prestressed concrete pressure

vessels and containment structures, a code

for nuclear reactor steel pressure vessels,

and a number of documents on sealed radioactive sources. lEC Technical Committee 45

had approved 24 standards relative to nuclear

instruments, and 23 were in process of development, including the standard nuclear instrument

module systems known as NIM and CAMAC.

The International Commission on Radiation

Units and Measurements (ICRU) had published

23 reports as of March 1975. Perhaps the most

basic of these is ICRU Report 19 on Radiation

Quantities and Units (with a supplement on

8
Dose Equivalent). Other reports discuss and

make recommendations on various aspects of

x-ray, gamma-ray, neutron, and radioactivity

measurements, radiation protection instrumentation, radiobiological dosimetry, certification of sources, etc.

The International Commission on Radiological Protection has produced at least 23

reports on radiation protection recommendations on such subjects as dose calculations,

radiobiological models, permissible dose

(extremely important), and various radiobiological subjects of importance for

radiation protection.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has

published at least 36 standards, guidebooks,

and codes of practice on a wide variety of

subjects such as safe handling of radioisotopes, radioactive waste disposal, transport

of radioactive materials, methods of personnel

monitoring, safe operation of nuclear power

plants, and radiation protection in the mining

and milling of radioactive ores.

The World Health Organization has published

at least 8 radiation-related reports, mostly

on public health considerations in various

situations where radiation is or may be

involved: medical uses, radiation accidents,

and contamination of food or drinking water.

As discussed earlier, the American National

Standards Institute believes that over 2,000

nuclear standards are needed, especially with

reference to nuclear reactor and fuel technology, with only about 1,200 currently

available. The ANSI standards are particularly important because many of them are adopted verbatim by regulatory agencies such

as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements has published 43 reports

(some of which have been superseded by others)

mostly on radiation protection in various

situations (e.g., educational institutions)

and for various radiations (e.g., medical

X rays), with some reports devoted to radiation measurement standards. Of these, the

most important is Report 39 on Basic Radiation

Protection Criteria, which is very influential

in establishing permissible dose levels in

the United States. Many of these recommendations have been adopted by regulatory

agencies, or written into state radiation

protection laws.

The American Nuclear Society has about 60

committees working on nuclear standards for

all aspects of nuclear power plant design.

siting, and safety considerations. A relatively small number of standards have been

approved, about 10. These ANS standards are

fed into the ANSI standards system and will

provide some of the needed nuclear standards.

2.2.2 Instrumentation System

2.2.2.1 Measurement Tools and Techniques

The discussions in this and succeeding

subsections of section 2 are introductory and

rather brief since the study of the Measurement

System for Ionizing Radiation was carried out

in eight microstudies according to user areas

and a ninth microstudy of personnel monitoring

(which is a common need of nearly all users

of radiation). These nine studies are presented in a special section, section 2/3.

Radiation detectors may be used in both

simple and sophisticated ways: just to detect

the presence of radiation, to count radiation

particles or events, to measure the "radiation

dose" in the field (dosimeters), or to measure

the energy spectrum of the radiation (spectrometers). Radiation detectors may be active

(respond instantly) or passive (record for

later read-out). They may be pulse-type

detectors (for example a Geiger-Mul ler counter)

or average-level detectors (a current-measuring

ionization chamber). In table 3 are listed

some examples of detectors categorized according

to whether they are gas-filled, liquid, or solid (the latter two often being desirable

for high efficiency)

2.2.2.2 The Instrumentation Industry

The radiation instrumentation industry is

a vital part of the total radiation-associated

industry. It includes manufacture of instruments and controls for nuclear power reactors,

equipment for nuclear fuel and material assay,

nuclear medicine equipment including scanners

and dose calibrators, monitors and calibration

instruments for x-ray therapy, industrial

radioisotope gauges and gauging systems,

standard radioactivity sources, radiation

survey and personnel monitoring instruments,

environmental radiation measuring instruments,

instrumentation for industrial radiation

processing, scientific laboratory radiation

measuring instruments, radiographic equipment,

medical x-ray diagnostic equipment, x-ray film

and processing equipment, and fluorescence

equipment. This subject will be discussed

much more fully in section 2/3 on the various

major applications of radiation.

9
Table 3. Examples of radiation detectors

Class

Gas-filled

Detector

Geiger-Miil 1 er counter

Signal Used

electrical pulse

Liquid

Solid

Ionization chamber electrical pulse

Ionization chamber

Proportional

counter

Gas scintillator

Liquid scintillation counter

Ferrous sulfate

solution

Dye dosimeter

Sodium iodide

scinti nation

crystal

Ge(Li) solid

state detector

Photographic film

Gold foil

Thermol uminescent dosimeter

Calorimeter

Dye film

electrical current

electrical pulse

light flash

light flash

optical density

color change or optical density

light flash

electrical pulse

optical density

induced radioactivity

light emission

upon heating

temperature

increase

color change or optical density

Example of Application

radiation survey

counting nuclear

fission events

x-ray dosimetry

measuring radioactivity

of gases

neutron detection

tritium counting

electron dosimetry

(for therapy)

dosimetry for industrial

radiation processing

x-ray spectrometer

gamma-ray spectrometer

personnel monitoring

thermal neutron detector

personnel monitoring

x-ray absorbed dose

standard

industrial radiation

processing

2.2.3 Reference Data

The standard reference data for ionizing

radiations consist of atomic and nuclear data

which may be used directly or processed into

a form useful for applications, usually by

large computer calculations. Examples of

atomic data are x-ray attenuation coefficients

and scattering cross sections, electron interaction cross sections, range, stopping power,

straggling, delta-ray production, average

energy per ion pair data for charged particles,

and spectra of highly-ionized atoms. Nuclear

data include neutron interaction cross sections, photo-nuclear reaction data, radionuclide decay scheme data, electron scattering

at high energies, charged-particle reaction

data, and general nuclear data such as level

schemes, atomic masses, and Q-values.

Examples of processed data include depth-dose

curves (the distribution of absorbed dose with

depth) for radiations used in radiation

therapy, radiation shield penetration data,

electron and charged particle slowing-down

spectra, point-sources dose distributions for

beta-ray sources, absorbed fractions (dose

factors for radionuclides inside the body),

neutron and gamma-ray energy deposition

factors, and microdosimetry parameters and

distributions (energy deposition information

on the scale of the biological cell).

10
The data are measured in scientific laboratories all over the world. Much of the

applied data comes from national nuclear

energy and standards laboratories.

Much of the atomic data is compiled at

data centers under the auspices of the

National Standard Reference Data System

(NSRDS): the X-Ray and Ionizing Radiation

Data Center, the Atomic Energy Levels Data

Center, and the Joint Institute for Laboratory

Astrophysics Information Analysis Center, all

located at NBS. Average energy per ion pair

data are being evaluated by a committee of

the International Commission on Radiation

Units and Measurements, Range, stopping power,

straggling and delta-ray production data are only sporadically compiled.

In the area of nuclear data, neutron cross

section data, compiled and evaluated by a number of data centers, are available from

the National Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven

National Laboratory, which exchanges data

with three other major data centers in the

world (IAEA, Vienna; CCDN, Saclay, France;

and Obninsk, USSR). Tliis data file is known

as ENDF/B (for Evaluated Nuclear Data File

Version B), and is periodically updated.

Much data, including photon cross section

data, is fed to ENDF/B from the Radiation

Shielding Information Center (RSIC) at Oak

Ridge National Laboratory. The Photonuclear

Data Center at NBS (under NSRDS sponsorship)

prepares bibliographies and evaluates photonuclear data which will also appear in the

ENDF/B file. General nuclear data are compiled by the Nuclear Data Project at Oak

Ridge National Laboratory and are available

as Nuclear Data Sheets and Nuclear Data Tables. The Table of Isotopes Project at

the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory prepares the

Table of Isotopes, a major source of radionuclide and decay scheme data.

Processed data for ionizing radiations are not systematically compiled, although a con- siderable amount is available, especially from

theoretical research groups at Oak Ridge

National Laboratory and the National Bureau

of Standards. Some processed data are also

available in reports of the Medical Internal

Radiation Dose (MIRD) Committee of the Society

for Nuclear Medicine. The X-Ray and Ionizing

Radiation Data Center at NBS is planning to include processed data in the future.

The users of these data are everywhere

throughout the ionizing radiation applications

community. Particularly important users with

voracious appetites for data are: nuclear

power reactor designers, radiation shielding

designers, medical radiation physicists,

nuclear medicine physicians, and the Defense

Nuclear Agency of the Department of Defense.

2.2.4 Reference Materials

The most important reference materials for

ionizing radiations are radioactivity standards

(Standard Reference Materials). They may be

gaseous (a radioactive gas in a sealed glass

bottle), liquid (a solution in a sealed glass

ampoule), or solid ( "poinf-source gamma-ray

emitters, alpha particle standards). They

may be at millicurie levels for radiopharmaceutical applications or at relatively low

levels for environmental radioactivity measurements. One recently developed standard is a mixture of gamma-ray emitters of different

gamma-ray energies in solution (for calibration

of the efficiency versus energy of a sodiumiodide scintillator or Ge(Li) solid-state

detector in one measurement). Radioactivity

standards in environmental matrices are becoming important for calibration of environmental radioactivity measuring equipment. For example, a radioactivity standard of homogeneous river sediment has recently been

developed. These standards play the role of

transfer standards -- they transfer the

standardizing laboratory calibration to the

user. While many of these standards are produced by NBS, some are also produced by

several commercial companies, and by large

government-related laboratories in England

and France. Radioactivity standards are used

for calibrating or checking of the user's

radioactivity measuring equipment. They also

make possible a very convenient method of

measurement assurance testing -- they can be

sent to the user as an unknown, and after the

user's measurement is reported, a certificate

can be sent giving the NBS value. The com- parison of these two values gives a measure

of traceabil ity.

Other important standard reference

materials include standard fission foil sets

(known amounts of fissionable material and

known isotopic composition), isotopic com- position standards for fissionable materials

such as uranium and plutonium, and boric acid

and boron glass standards of known isotopic

composition for thermal neutron measurements.

A standard fission foil set is being developed

at NBS, but much more work is needed in this

area. Isotopic composition standards are issued under the SRM program, but this is not sufficient for nuclear fuel needs (see section

2/3. B.l on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle).

2.2.5 Science and People

The study of ionizing radiation is a broad,

interdisciplinary field including both

physical and biological sciences. The participants are nuclear and atomic physicists;

applied mathematicians; radiochemists and

radiation chemists; nuclear, electrical and

mechanical engineers; health physicists;

11
radiation biologists and geneticists; and

physicians with specialties in radiotherapy,

diagnostic radiology, and nuclear medicine.

A few other specialties are occasionally

involved; for example, sanitary engineering,

safety engineering, meteorology. Some of the

major societies concerned with ionizing

radiation are the American Physical Society,

the American Association of Physicists in

Medicine, the American Chemical Society, the

Radiation Research Society, the American

Nuclear Society, the Health Physics Society,

and some medical societies, notably the

American College of Radiology, the Radiological Society of North America, the American

Radium Society, the American Society of

Therapeutic Radiologists, the American Dental

Association, the College of American Pathologists, the Society for Nuclear Medicine, and

the College of Nuclear Medicine Physicians.

Other groups include the American Society for

Nondestructive Testing and the American

Welding Society. Most professional publication is through the journals of these

societies, and a few commercial journals such

as Nuclear Physics and the International

Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes;

proceedings of numerous symposia, conferences,

congresses, and institutional journals.

Further discussion of ionizing radiation and

science may be found in section 2/3. F.

2.3 Realized Measurement Capabilities

Accuracy requirements for radiation

measurement vary widely with the radiation

application as do accuracies achieved. These

will be discussed in the studies arranged by

radiation application of section 2/3. For orientation, accuracy requirements vary from

a fraction of 1% for certain nuclear fuel

measurements, to 1% accuracy in the neutron

cross sections of some of the fissionable

isotopes, to 5% needed for tumor absorbed

dose in radiation therapy, to 10% accuracy

required by FDA for radiopharmaceuticals used

in nuclear medicine, to 20% or poorer

accuracy in radiation protection applications

where the dose is low. As a general statement, the required accuracies of the measuring

instruments can usually be achieved where NBS

standards have been fully developed. However,

measurement assurance testing has demonstrated

that they are frequently not achieved by the user unless he has participated in measurement

assurance testing to straighten out problems

and has high-quality standards available to him for instrument calibration. In addition

are areas where NBS standards do not exist or are just being developed -- for example, in

the neutron-induced fission cross sections

cited above where presently achieved accuracies are 3% rather than 1%.

2.4 Dissemination and Enforcement Network

2.4.1 Central Standards Authorities

(1 ) Standards and Calibration Laboratories . The measurement system with which we are concerned is an international measurement

system coordinated by a small laboratory with

a Consultative Committee structure, the Bureau

International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM, the

International Bureau of Weights and Measures),

located in Sevres, near Paris. This laboratory, with a total staff of about 60, has a staff of about 10 who work in the field of

ionizing radiation measurements (five

physicists and five technicians). For the

ionizing radiation measurement system, the

committees are called sections of the CCEMRI

(Consultative Committee for Measurement

Standards for Ionizing Radiations). The three

sections are: X and Gamma Rays and Electrons;

Radionuclide Measurements; and Neutron

Measurements. NBS is represented on each of

the sections. The chief function of BIPM in

the radiation area is to be the common focal

point for the national standards laboratories

by arranging intercomparisons between standards

laboratories, or making calibrations or comparative measurements itself, to see that

the national laboratories are on a consistent

international measurement scale. In medical

radiation dosimetry, exposure comparisons

were carried out with NBS for 250 kV x rays some years ago, and recently comparisons for

x rays of 50 kV and below and for Co-60

gamma-ray sources have been completed. In past years, a number of radionuclide intercomparisons were carried out, although

recently the emphasis has been on analysis of

measurement procedures. The intercomparisons

are very important because, in addition to keeping the world on a single measurement

system, they serve as an independent check on each national standards laboratory which must

provide calibrations to users in its own country.

(2) National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . NBS has legislative authority for developing

methods and standards of measurement,

including the "investigation of radiation,

radioactive substances, and x-rays, their

uses, and means of protection of persons from

their harmful effects ... as the need may

arise in the operation of government agencies,

scientific institutions and industrial enterprises" (reference: Act of 22 July 1959,

64 Stat. 371, PL 61 9-81 st Congress). The

objectives of the NBS program in radiation

measurement are: to provide the central

basis for measurement of ionizing radiation

in the United States; to ensure compatibility

of U.S. standards and units with those of

12
other countries; and to develop standards,

measurement techniques, and calibration capability appropriate to the needs.

(3) Other National Standards Laboratories . There are a number of national standards

laboratories, such as the National Physical

Laboratory (U.K.), the National Research

Council (Canada), Physikal isch-Technische

Bundesanstal t (West Germany), the ElectroTechnical Laboratory (Japan), and designated

laboratories under the Bureau National de

Metrologie (France), which frequently are larger and better equipped than the international laboratory, BIPM. The Central Bureau

for Nuclear Measurements (BCMN), Geel , Belgium, serves as a nuclear standards laboratory for

the Commission of the European Communities.

These laboratories affect the U.S. national

measurement system in two ways: (a) through

the BIPM where possible or sensible, and

bilaterally where appropriate, international

intercomparisons with other national standards

laboratories provide an independent check of

the validity of NBS standards, and insure a uniform international measurement system; and

(b) foreign-manufactured radiation sources, machines, and instruments in the U.S. marketplace usually will have calibrations traceable

to the national standards laboratory in the

country of orgin. Confidence in the foreign

standards laboratory and measurement system

is necessary -- otherwise such products must

be recalibrated in the United States.

2.4.2 State and Local Offices of Weights and

Measures

These are not directly involved in the

Ionizing Radiation Measurement System. The

corresponding activity is carried out by state

and local radiation control offices, which are regulatory agencies, and thus are covered

under section 2.4.4.

2.4.3 Standards and Testing Laboratories and

Services

A number of these exist, for example,

regional calibration laboratories for the

medical radiation conmunity, measurement

assurance laboratories for personnel monitoring (e.g., the National Sanitation Foundation), and the New Brunswick Laboratory of

AEC (now DOE). These will be discussed in

section 2/3 under the appropriate community

of radiation users.

2.4.4 Regulatory Agencies

Some of the regulations that have been

issued by federal and state regulatory

agencies are summarized in table 4.

(1 ) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an independent regulatory agency established by

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, came

into being on January 19, 1975. The NRC is the successor to the regulatory part of the

AEC which was established by the Atomic

Energy Act of 1946, amended 1954, and amended

again in 1959. The authority of the NRC

includes regulation of the use of reactorproduced radioactive materials. Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 establishes standards for protection against

radiation hazards arising out of activities

under licenses issued by the NRC (which

includes all reactors and nuclear power plants

and users of reactor-produced isotopes above

certain very small levels). This regulation

requires inspection and monitoring to determine compliance. In 1959 the Congress amended

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by adding

section 274 allowing transfer to states of

the AEC's regulatory authority over non-Federal

use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear

material in quantities not sufficient to form

a critical mass. The transfer is effected by

an agreement between the NRC and the governor

of the state after it is established that the

state program is adequate and compatible with

that of the NRC. To date 25 states have

entered into such an agreement with the

Commission.

The NRC encourages standards setting operations under the Nuclear Standards Management

Board of ANSI; under appropriate committees

of the American Nuclear Society; NCRP; IEEE and other organizations.

(2) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . Authority for regulation of radiation in the

environment comes under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-90).

Authority for setting standards and radiation

regulation by EPA is contained in Reorganization Plan #3 (1970), the Water Quality Act of

1972, the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the Ocean

Dumping Act of 1972. EPA has the responsibility for generally applicable environmental

standards outside NRC-licensed facilities

("outside the fence"). Under Reorganization

Plan #3, EPA took over the general guidance

function for federal activities in radiation

formerly the function of the Federal Radiation

Council. The above-quoted authorities,

together with the Public Health Service Act

(42 U.S.C. 241), give EPA responsibility in

technology assessment -- "best practicable

and best available technology" --, radiation

monitoring, and training and assistance to the states.

13
Table 4. Some regulations and regulatoryguides for ionizing radiations

1 . Bureau of Radiological Health. FDA

Television Receivers

Cold-Cathode Gas Discharge Tubes

Diagnostic X-Ray Systems and Their

Major Components

Radiographic Equipment

Fluoroscopic Equipment

Cabinet X-Ray Systems

Recommendations to states re X-Ray

Baggage Inspection Systems

(August 8, 1973)

Model Legislation for Users of

Ionizing Radiation in the Healing

Arts (to states) (October 1970)

2. Occupational Safety and Health Administra - tion, Department of Labor

1910 Subpart G96, 100 Ionizing

Radiation (February 15, 1972)

Draft 3176 revision to (29CFR

1910.96) (July 5, 1973)

3. Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Radiation Council rulings

adopted for standards.

EPA is a regulatory agency which has

little exercised its regulatory powers

in the radiation field. The recommendations of the Federal Radiation Council,

which became part of EPA at the outset,

have been applied directly to the

agencies of the Federal government by

Presidential order. They are: Report #1 Radiation Protection Guidance

for Federal Agencies, May 13,

1960, sets protection principles and guides.

Report #2 Radiation Protection Guidance

for Federal Agencies, September

20, 1961, sets radiation protection guides for radium 226,

iodine 131, strontium 90 and 89.

Report #5 Radiation Protection Guidance

for Federal Agencies, July 31,

1964. Recommendations for

normal production, processing,

distribution and use of food

products for human consumption.

Report #7 Radiation Protection Guidance

for Federal Agencies, May 21,

1965, deals with food contaminated by strontium 89, 90, or cesium 137.

Report #8 Revised Radiation Protection

Guidance for Federal Agencies,

July 27, 1967, on radiation

protection in underground

uranium mines and January 11,

1969 (revision of 7) and

December 15, 1970 (revision

of 7 and 8).

4. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rules and regulations of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission appear as Title 10 - Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations,

and are updated frequently. Some of the

parts relevant to radiation questions are: lOCFRl Statement of Organization and

General Information

10CFR2 Rules of Practice

10CFR20 Standards for Protection

Against Radiation

10CFR30 Rules of General Applicability

to Licensing of Byproduct

Material

10CFR31 General Licenses for Byproduct

Material

10CFR32 Specific Licenses to Manufacture, Distribute, or Import

Certain Items Containing

Byproduct Material

10CFR33 Specific Licenses of Broad

Scope for Byproduct Material

10CFR34 Licenses for Radiography and

Radiation Safety Requirements

for Radiographic Operations

10CFR35 Human Uses of Byproduct Material

10CFR40 Licensing of Source Material

10CFR51 Licensing and Regulatory Policy

and Procedures for Environmental

Protection

10CFR70 Special Nuclear Material

10CFR71 Packaging of Radioactive

Material for Transport and

Transportation of Radioactive

Material Under Certain Conditions

lOCFRlOO Reactor Site Criteria

14
Table 4 (Continued)

10CFR150 Exemptions and Continued

Regulatory Authority in Agreement States Under Section 274

Regulatory Guide Series, updated

lists published by Nuclear Safety

Information Center, ORNL, in

"Nuclear Safety" or obtainable from

USNRC, Washington, D.C. 20545.

Categories are:

(1(2

(3

(4

(5

(6

(7

(8

(9

(10

Power Reactors

Research and Test Reactors

Fuels and Materials Facilities

Environmental and Siting

Materials and Plant Protection

Products

Transportation

Occupational Health

Antitrust Review

General

Sample titles are:

4.1 Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of

Nuclear Power Plants

4.2 Preparation of Environmental

Reports for Nuclear Power

Stations

8.6 Standard Test Procedures for

Geiger-MLil ler Counters

8.7 Occupational Radiation

Exposure Records Systems

8.8 Information Relevant to Maintaining Occupational Radiation

Exposures as Low as Practicable

(Power Reactors)

8.9 Acceptable Concepts, Models,

Equations, and Assumptions for

a Bioassay Program

A total of 33 Safety Guides had been

released by April 1973.

Proposed changes in NRC rules are published in the Federal Register and in

Nuclear Safety .

Department of Transportation

Regulations for containers, labels, and

procedures to be used in shipment of

radioactive materials are established as part of procedures for all hazardous

materials shipment (except special nuclear

materials). See 49CFR170 to 173.389.

Further details may be obtained from:

U. S. Department of Transportation

Office of Hazardous Materials

Operations Division TSA24

400 Sixth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

(3) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . Three organizations within the FDA are con- cerned with radiation: (a) the Bureau of

Radiological Health (BRH) has responsibility

to reduce unnecessary human exposure to man- made radiation in the use of electronic

products, and in the application of radiation

in the healing arts under primarily the

Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act

(PL 90-602). Two of the most important

divisions of BRH concerned with radiation

measurement are the Division of Radioactive

Materials and Nuclear Medicine and the

Division of Electronic Products, the latter

being concerned with x-ray equipment for

hospitals, as well as radiation from consumer

products such as television sets, (b) A second group within FDA is the Physical

Chemistry Research Branch of the Office of

Pharmaceutical Research and Testing of the

Bureau of Drugs which is concerned with

quality control of radiopharmaceuticals -- i.e., do pharmaceuticals meet the standards

of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia? In terms of

radioactivity, a radiopharmaceutical must be

within + 10% of the stated value. To establish non-compliance in court, traceability to NBS is considered necessary by this group and

is now being pursued, (c) The Radiological

Analytical Laboratory (Winchester, Mass.) of

the Executive Director for Regional Operations,

formerly in EPA, did quality control work for

EPA. Its present function seems to be quality

control for the Association of Official

Analytical Chemists, some state laboratories,

for EPA laboratories (Las Vegas and Montgomery), the Physical Chemistry Research

Branch (FDA), and the Nuclear Medical Laboratory of BRH (Cincinnati).

(4) Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) . Located in the Department of Labor, OSHA has the prime responsibilities in carrying out the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (PL 91-596):

determination of priorities, setting standards,

enforcement, operating a national recordkeeping and reporting system, providing

employer-employee education, in approving

15
state plans and awarding grants to states.

Radiation standards and compliance wherever

the health of workers is concerned is primarily the concern of OSHA (but the responsibility of the employer and employee). The

National Institute for Occupational Safety

and Health (NIOSH) is not a regulatory agency,

but has joint responsibility with OSHA under

the Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970. NIOSH is under the Center for Disease

Control, Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare. The HEW responsibilities under the

Act include health and safety research,

industry-wide studies, hazard evaluations and

toxicity determinations, annual compilations

of a list of toxic substances, and training

of personnel to carry out the purposes of

the Act.

(5) DOT Office of Hazardous Materials

(OHM) . Located in the Department of Transportation, the Office of Hazardous Materials,

which was established by the Department of

Transportation Act of 1966 (PL 89-670), has

responsibility for regulation of hazardous

material transportation including radioactive

materials, covered in section 6E, para. 4,

with enforcement of 18 CFR 831 to 835 taken

from the Interstate Commerce Commission.

(6) State and Local Radiation Control

Offices . As of January 1, 1974, 47 out of 50

states (plus Puerto Rico) had passed enabling

acts for ionizing radiation protection

(BRH, 1975).^ Those missing were Iowa, Rhode

Island, and West Virginia. The number of

state enabling acts for ionizing radiation

increased from 10 in 1960 to 68 at the end of

1971. In these areas, 35 pieces of state

legislation were passed in 1971, with an additional 14 pending. In nearly every state,

the State Health Department is designated as the agency responsible for radiation protection with the authority to adopt regulations.

The states discuss common problems in radiation control at the annual "National Conference on Radiation Control." As mentioned

earlier, in 1959 the Congress amended the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by adding section

274 allowing transfer to states of the AEC's

(now NRC's) regulatory authority over nonFederal use of source, byproduct, and special

nuclear material in quantities not sufficient

to form a critical mass. About 25 states are

^A list of references may be found at the

end of the report. Notation of reference

listing is (author, year).

now "NRC-agreement states." The NRC does not

control the use of radium, x rays, or accelerator-produced radionuclides, so these

are, in general, automatically the responsibility of the states. Possession of non-NRC

controlled material and use of radiationproducing machines in some states requires

licensing of the user, in others registration

of the user, and in others no specific

requirements are established.

2.5 Dfrect Measurements Transactions Matrix

2.5.1 Analysis of Suppliers and Users

The direct measurements transactions matrix

is provided as table 5.

2.5.2 Highlights re Major Users

For this information, the reader is

referred to Section 2/3 below.

2.6 Study Method for Ionizing Radiation

Measurement System

Ionizing radiations involve many radiation

quantities for a number of different radiations with many distinct uses. It was decided

that it would be most efficient to organize

the study around different groups of users

and their needs, rather than by type of

radiation or by the particular radiation

quantity. In Section 2/3 we shall consider

nine subsystems of the Ionizing Radiation

Measurement System one at a time: Medical,

Nuclear Power, Industrial Radiation Processing, Defense, Chemical Analysis, Science,

Environmental Radiation, Miscellaneous

Radiation Applications, and Personnel Monitoring. Elements which can logically be

treated in common have already been discussed,

or will be discussed in the sections after

Section 2/3.

2/3 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM STRUCTURE, IMPACT,

STATUS, AND TRENDS BY MAJOR

CATEGORIES OF RADIATION USERS

2/3. A MEDICAL

Users, manufacturers, and standards and

calibration laboratories of the medical

radiation measurement system are given in

table 6. An "interaction" diagram of the

structure of the system is given in figure 1 for gamma and x rays, and in figure 2 for

radioactivity standards and radiopharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine. Following

this classification, we discuss the com- ponents of the medical radiation measurement

system not previously covered.

16
Table 5. Direct measurements transactions matrix

DIRECT WASURENENTS

TRANSACTIONS MATSU FOR

U

S

ER

S

KNOWLEDGE

COWUNITY

^

(Science,

Education,

INTERNATIONAL

~

HETROLOGICAL DOCUMENTARY

STANDARDS

ORGAN

1

/ATI

Otis

INSTRUMENTATION

»

INDUSTRY

1

(SIC

Malar

Go

381

f

g

i

6

ill _l O L

< in a <^ o t

7

STANDARDS

1

TESTING

"

LABORATORIES

ANn

*;frvipf^

REGUUTORY

•»

AGENCIES excl.

OWM'S

DEPARTMENT

OF

S

DEFENSE (excl.

Stds.

Labs) ^ i5 = iS "

> &

11

STATE

>

LOCAL

S

GOVT

AGENCIES

(exc.

OWM'S

S

Reo.

Aa.)

INDUSTRIAL

|

S

TRADE

ASSOCIATIONS

O OCQ

^ uric

14

CONSTRUCTION

S(5IC

Div.

C)

LU _i C

u. o. —

16

g :

|P

17

PRIMARY

S

FAB.

SHETAL

PRODUCTS

(SIC

33-34.

391)

MACHINERY S

EXCEPT

ELECTRICAL

(SIC

Major

Go

35)

ELECTRIC

AND

gELECTRONIC

EQPMT

(SIC

Major

Go

361

TRANSPORTATION

EQUIPMENT

(SIC

Major

Go

371

TRANSPORTATION

S

~PUBLIC

UTILITIES

(SIC

Div.

E)

DC a.

§55. ""23

HEALTH

SERVICES

2

(SIC

Major

Gp

80)

!

25 SUPPLIERS

1 KNOWLEDGE COf«JNITY

(Science, Education,

Prof. Soc. i Publ .

3 4 3 3 3

2

3 3 3 4 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 4

-

2 INTERNATIONAL HETROLOGICAL

ORGAN I ZAT IONS

2 4 3 2 4

4 3 4

3 DOCUMENTARY STANDARDIZATION ORGANIZATIONS

2 4 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 2 4 4 3 2

4 INSTRumenTAYIOn

industry

(SIC Major Gp 38)

3 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 1 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 1

^ NBS 2 1 3

3 2

4

2

3 3 4

3

3 1 4

9

4

4 3 4

4 2

3 3 3 2

3 3 4

3

3 2

3 0

4 3

4

4 3

3 4 2

2 2

3

2 ?

2 2 2

2 2

4

4 3

2

2 2

4

4 3

4

1 4

3

1 3' 4

!

1

6 OTHER U.S. NATIONAL STANDARDS AUTHORITIES

7 STATE i LOCAL OFFICES OF WEIGHTS

t MEASURES (OWM's) 8 STANDARDS t TESTING LABORATORIES

AND SERVICES

2 1

3 3

2

2 R

1 2

3 2

3

2 2 3 1 I 3

3 3

3 1 2

J 3

3

4 4

2

2

k 1

3

9 REGULATORY AGENCIES

(e.cl. OWM's)

1 4 3 L R

4 3

4 3R

4 3 R

4 3

R

3 2

R

4

R

4 3 2 4

R

4 2 4

3 R

3 : 2 R R 10 6EPARfMENT OF DEFENSE

(eic). Stds Labs)

1

1 2 ' 3

1 R

3R

2 2 4 3 1 3 4 R

? R

3 2

R 2

R

2 _ R^

1

? n CIVILIAN FEDERAL GOVT .\GENC1ES (nc'

Stds. Labs & Reg- Aq. j

3

! ^

L

3 4

T ^

1 L R

4 2 4 1 2

R

1 R

1 R4 R

1 R1 R4

R

2

. "-^

4

V 12 'IT/'Tc ! LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

(exc. OWM's i Rea. Aa.

1

1

2

1

... I

1 R

1 R

1

i

2

Rj

2 1 R K 13 INDUSTRIAL

TRADE AswriATidN';

RESTRY

2 1 I 14 AGRICULTURE. FO FISHING; MINING

(SIC Div. A i B

2R

1 R 3 1 3 4 I 1 R 15 CONSTRUCTION

(SIC D1v. C)

16 FOOD/TOB/TEXTILE/ APPAREL/L6R/FURN/PAPER/

LEATHER (SIC 20-26, 31)

1 1 R R

1 1 2 2 — - +- '-

17 CHEM/PETROL/RUBBER

PUASTICS/STONE/CLAY/

GLASS (SIC 28-30. 32)

2 3 3 R

3

f{

2

R

4 3 4 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 R 18 PRIMARY S FAB. METAL PRODUCTS

(SIC 33-34, 391)

3 4 4

R

3 2

R 4 4 4 1

p

I R

4 2 R

2 4 3 'pi

'

19 MACHINERY.

EXCEPT ELECTRICAL

(SIC Major Gp 35)

2 1 2

' 1 20 ELECTRIC AND

ELECTRONIC EOPMT

(SIC Major Sp 36)

2 2 2

R

2

R

2 2 2

1 2 3 1 TiTRANSPORTATION

EQUIPMENT

(SIC Major Gp 37)

1 2 2

R

2

R

2 3 1 2

R

1 R

3 —— 1

22 IkANSPORTATION 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES

(SIC 01». E)

3 4 3

R

3 R

2

R

4 1 4 1 I R

1 R3 R

2 R

1 R4 3 2

23 IRADl/INS/F IN/REAL EST/PERS SVCS/PRINT-PUB

(SIC F-H. bal. 1, 27)

2 3 3 R

2

R

4 3 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 4 3 3 2

24 HEALTH SE'.VICES (SIC Major Gp 80) 3 3 4

R

4 2 4

3 R

3 R3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 R

4 s

25 GENERAL PUBLIC 2

R

1 R

1 R3R

2

R

2

R

2 R

2

R

2 R

1

^

1 R

1 R2 R

1 R

2

R

1

KEY TO MATRIX ERTRIES

C - IMPORTANCE OF TRA.^ISACTIONS

1 - Purely convenience

2 = Strongly desirable

3 = No real alternatives

4 = Essential

B - RATE OF CriAilGE

N = Declining

0 - Stable

2 = Growing

4 = Growing explosively

R = F 1 0'// of requi rements i n f

? = Unknown,

domi nates

X ^ Not studied,

- ( lH)ADEqUACY OF SERVICES

0 = No improvements needed

Could be improved

2 = Marginal

3 = Serious deficiencies

4 = Out of control

A - MAGMITUDE OF TRANSACTIOMS

- Trivial

= Minor

- Moderate

= Important

= Major

Blank = 0

17
Table 6. Classification of medical radiation

users by activity and specific

interest

1 . Direct Users of Radiation

a. Radiotherapists

b. Diagnostic radiologists

c. Dentists

d. Nuclear medicine physicians

1. Manufacturers

a. Instrument makers

b. Radiation source equipment manufacturers

c. Radiopharmaceutical manufacturers

3. Regulatory Agencies

a. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

b. Environmental Protection Agency

c. Food and Drug Administration (Bureau

of Radiological Health, Bureau of

Drugs)

d. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Department

^ of Labor

e. State and local radiation control

offices

4. Standards and Calibration Laboratories

a. National Bureau of Standards

b. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), Sevres, France

G. Foreign national standards laboratories

d. Regional calibration laboratories

(sponsored by American Association

of Physicists in Medicine)

e. Other calibration laboratories or consultants

5. Other Interested Groups

a. Professional societies

b. Standards setting organizations

c. Educational institutions

d. Government agencies

STANDARDS AND CALIBRATION LASS

USERS GOOD ——

FAIR WEAK - REGULATORY FUTURE

Figure 1. Medical radiation measurement

system for x and gamma rays.

STANDARDS AND CALIBRATION LABS

REGULATORY —fl- FUTURE

Figure 2. Measurement system for radioactivity standards and radiopharmaceuticals

used in nuclear medicine.

18
2/3. A.I Direct Users of Radiation :

(1) Radiotherapy . 350,000 patients are treated with radiation therapy per year,

which includes 50-60 percent of cancer cases

(Yarborough, 1970). As of 1970 there were

400 full-time radiotherapists in the United

States. However, radiation therapy is also

done on a part-time basis by a much larger

number of radiologists and other physicians

which we estimate at 5000 (based on the

number of x-ray machines used for radiation

therapy). In December 1969 there were 574

Co-60 and 30 Cs-137 gamma-ray therapy machines

in the United States (IAEA, 1970). Of 138,000

medical x-ray sets in the United States, 5800 were used for radiation therapy (BRH, 1974).

As of 1973 there were an estimated 280 high

energy electron accelerators in the United

States used for radiation therapy, according

to information from manufacturers. Included

in this category are linear accelerators.

Van de Graaffs, and betatrons. The linear

accelerators are extremely popular at present

due to excellent depth dose characteristics,

beam definition, and the flexibility of using

electrons for therapy and are currently

selling at a rate of about 50 per year in the

United States, about 100 per year world-wide.

There has been great progress in radiation

therapy in recent years, spearheaded by the

use of the linear accelerators (linacs),

betatrons, and Co-60 teletherapy units.

Radiotherapists now try for cure in an estimated 20-60% of the cases depending upon the

hospital (Cox, 1976).

Another development, use of the so-called

high-LET (linear energy transfer) radiations,

such as neutrons, pi mesons, and heavy ions,

in radiation therapy is beginning to require

development of dosimetry standards. Radiobiological evidence indicates that the high- LET radiations may be able to cure some tumors

which are resistant to low-LET radiations

such as X rays, gamma rays, and electrons.

At least three cyclotrons in the United States

are now treating patients with fast neutrons

(University of Washington, M. D. Anderson

Hospital using the Texas A&M cyclotron, and a consortium of hospitals led by the Medical

College of Virginia, using the Naval Research

Laboratory cyclotron, see Appendix C). The

proton linac of the Los Alamos Meson Physics

Facility is testing the use of pi mesons in

radiation therapy. Heavy charged particles

such as neon and argon are being used at the

Bevalac facility of the Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory.

(2) Diagnostic x rays (for diagnostic

radiology). In 1970 a National Academy of

Sciences panel estimated that 129 million

persons received 210 million diagnostic radiological examinations. The growth rate in

radiological examinations has been 2 percent

per year since 1964 (NAS, 1972). There were

138,000 medical x-ray sets in fiscal year

1974. In 1971, 91 percent of the sets were

used for diagnostic purposes (BRH, 1972).

Exciting new developments are occurring in

diagnostic radiology equipment using new

imaging methods and computer control and

analysis. One such new apparatus is the EMI scanner developed in England for improved

scanning for brain tumors. It is being

bought widely in the United States despite a purchase price of about $400 k. Other scanners have been developed in the United States.

This field is called computerized axial

tomography (CAT). CAT scanners now number in

the hundreds.

(3) Dental x rays . About 225 million

diagnostic dental x rays are taken per year

(BRH, 1970). There were 143,000 dental x-ray

machines during fiscal year 1974 (BRH, 1974).

(4) Nuclear medicine . There are about

10 million applications of radiopharmaceuticals per year, of which 98 percent are diagnostic and 2 percent therapeutic (AEC,

1974). Radiopharmaceutical sales are increasing at a rate of approximately 25

percent per year, a sevenfold increase being

expected during the 1970's (NAS, 1972). The

number of physicians in the field has doubled

in five years (Wagner, 1973). It was estimated

that in 1974 5,000 U. S. hospitals used radioisotopes and 2,500 physicians used them in

private clinics (AEC, 1974). One patient in

four admitted to hospitals in the United States

has had a radioisotope play some important

role in the diagnostic process. In 1972,

2.9 million patients received technetium-99m

as part of the diagnostic process.

2/3. A. 2 Manufacturers .

(1 ) Instrument makers and source manu - facturers . Medical nuclear equipment had

sales of 50 million dollars in 1971 (AEC,

1971) which increased to 140 million

dollars in 1974 (AEC, 1974). There are

11 principal suppliers of radioisotope

teletherapy units (see appendix C). There

are four principal suppliers of medical

linear accelerators. Eighteen other manufacturers produce medical x-ray equipment (see

appendix C). In addition, there is a large

business in x-ray film and processing equipment, and fluorescence equipment.

19
(2) Radiopharmaceutical manufacturers . Radiopharmaceutical sales are about 70 million dollars annually while other retail

radioisotope sales are about 17 million

dollars annually, 2 million dollars of which

is for cyclotron-produced radioisotopes, and

much of the rest being C-14 and H-3 labeled

compounds (AEC, 1974). There are about 35

manufacturers of radiochemical and radiopharmaceutical compounds (see appendix C).

2/3. A. 3 Standards and Calibration

Laboratories".

Calibrations for the user may be obtained

directly from NBS, through regional calibration laboratories (see Figure 1), or through

other calibration laboratories or radiological physicists who serve as consultants.

(1 ) Regional calibration laboratories . In recognition of the impossibility of NBS

providing direct calibration services to more

than a small fraction of the thousands of

hospitals using x rays and Co-60 for therapy,

the American Association of Physicists in

Medicine (AAPM), in cooperation with NBS, has

established a program for setting up and

certifying regional calibration laboratories.

Thus far, three regional calibration laboratories have been certified (M. D. Anderson

Hospital, Houston; Memorial Hospital, N. Y.,

and Victoreen Instrument Co., Cleveland).

The three calibration laboratories are capable of calibrating about 200 instruments per

year. All three institutions are traceable

to NBS, and are believed to be technically

competent and adequately equipped for the

job. In addition, a Radiological Physics

Center (RPC) has been set up at M. D. Anderson

Hospital, operated by the AAPM, and funded by

the Committee for Radiation Therapy Studies

(CRTS), which is in turn funded by NIH. Their job is to see that the dosimetry of the

approximately 200 hospitals in the United

States participating in clinical trials of

radiation therapy is uniform and correct. In addition to calibrating the x-ray sets and

Co-60 therapy equipment, they also check the

treatment plan. The tumor dose is considered

satisfactory if the institution value and the

RPC value are within + 5%. They visit 30-35

institutions per year and, therefore, require

about six years to complete the cycle of

visiting all institutions. The discrepancies

found in their studies range from -25% to +21%. A statistical study of the Radiological

Physics Center calibrations through October

1971 has been reported by Golden, et al (1972). Some of their results are shown in

figures 3 and 4. Of 71 institutions visited,

80% had machine calibrations within + 5%, but

only 65% had tumor dose within 5% (due to treatment plan and other uncertainties), 18

of the problems leading to differences

exceeding 5% have been resolved but 7 have

not been resolved. One should note that the

set of 200 hospitals represents about half of

the best hospitals in the United States doing

radiation therapy. The National Cancer

Institute has now set up six Centers for

Radiologic Physics to help hospitals in the

NCI Cancer Control Program. In the much

larger number of other hospitals doing radiation therapy, the situation may be worse.

100

BPC/INSriTUTION

Figure 3. Comparison of radiation therapy

machine calibrations by the RPC with those in use at institutions. Frequency refers to number of institutions; an average comparison

is given if an institution had more than one radiation machine. From Golden et al , 1972.

JliUI

S 1.00 105 RPC/iNSTITUTION

Figure 4. Comparison of tumor dose delivered

(RPC) with that prescribed (institution).

Radiation machines and types of treatment are counted separately in determining frequency.

From Golden et al , 1972.

In the fiel<i of nuclear medicine, standardization may be done in several ways. The

problem is to give the correct dose (radioactivity) to the patient. Several methods

of dose determination are: (1) give an aliquot of the material supplied by the

20
radiopharmaceutical manufacturer; (2) check

the material against a standard of the same radionuclide or of another radionuclide with

a similar decay scheme ("mock standard");

(3) measure the activi'cy to be given to the

patient with a "dose calibrator" which is

usually an ionization chamber instrument with

a calibration for each of the common radionuclides used in radiopharmaceuticals.

Method (1) does not work for nuclides such as Technetium-99m which are drawn off a Molybdenum-99-Technetium-99m generator. Commercial

laboratories which sell radioactivity standards (as does NBS) and the manufacturers of

dose calibrators play a role as calibration

laboratories in that the user is dependent on their calibration. A list of producers of

radioactivity standards, and of dose calibrator manufacturers is given in appendix C.

2/3. A. 4. Structure and Problems of the

Medical Radiation Measurement

System

We shall now discuss the structure of the

measurement system for medical radiation,

identifying areas where measurements are demonstrably unsatisfactory and where more

study is needed, and suggesting NBS actions

needed.

(1) Radiation therapy . There are about

1200 high energy accelerators, Co-60 and

Cs-137 machines plus more than 5800 x-ray

sets being used. The total number of instruments calibrated per year by NBS for medical

institutions is not greater than 50, and

regional calibration laboratories and the

Radiological Physics Center, among them,

calibrate instruments for perhaps 150 institutions per year. The instrument companies

provide fewer than 500 calibrations per year

for radiation therapy. It seems unlikely

that there are more than 200 high quality and

500 medium quality calibrations per year of

instruments to be used with more than 7000

machines. In radiation therapy, it is

generally agreed that an accuracy in dose to the tumor of 5% is desirable. (See, for

example, Herring and Compton, 1971.) Since

among the best hospitals about one-third are outside the 5% limit (see figure 4), it is

likely that most of the radiation therapy

done today in the United States is outside

this limit.

If we consider figure 1, which applies to x-rays and gamma-rays of Co-60 and Cs-137

energies, we see that the international

system and the calibrations to the level of

the AAPM regional calibration laboratories

and the instrument makers (such as Victoreen)

are generally satisfactory. However, between

all the calibration laboratories and the

users there are simply not enough calibrations

being performed to assure that every patient

is being treated with satisfactory (5%

accuracy) dosimetry.

A study at NBS by Dr. Robert Loevinger of

the errors in absorbed dose to a tumor under

relatively desirable conditions with an optimum chain of calibrations (through

regional calibration laboratories to NBS)

showed that present uncertainties in NBS

standards do not make a major contribution to the final error in the tumor dose.

In the case of x and gamma rays below

1.25 MeV (Co-60 energy), satisfactory NBS

standards exist. It therefore appears that,

since much radiation therapy equipment is uncalibrated or not in proper calibration,

the NBS program should be aimed at building

the calibration network through creation of more regional calibration laboratories , rather

than at improving existing standards. However,

at least one of the three existing regional

calibration laboratories has economic problems.

It is the author's belief that the solution

lies in the area of establishing codes of

good practice (or possibly regulations) which

require that radiation therapy calibration

instruments shall be calibrated at regular

intervals (for example, every two years) by

qualified laboratories or radiological

physicists, and that therapy beams shall be

calibrated at more frequent intervals. This

possibility is being investigated. Some

recommendations for calibrations at regular

intervals have been made by the International

Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU, 1973). It is important that the

calibration centers be run by medical physics

personnel to be of maximum help to the

medical physics users.

The existing research program for dissemination of standards being carried out at NBS under National Cancer Institute sponsorship will be helpful in establishing a better

calibration system. A schematic diagram of

the X- and gamma-ray calibration system is

given in Figure 5.

In the case of electron therapy, NBS has

developed a calorimeter as a primary standard.

A ferrous sulfate dosimeter calibration

service now exists, which is used by about

25 hospitals and clinics, which is a significant fraction of the institutions now doing

electron therapy.

NBS has developed an improved calibration

service using thermoluminescent dosimeters

(TLD) for calibration of Co-60 teletherapy

units.

21
BIPM

Dosimetry »

Section

Figure 5. Medical dosimetry calibration

system.

The situation is entirely different where

NBS standards do not yet exist, for example,

absorbed dose for high energy x-rays and fast

neutrons. An experimental program on the NBS

linac is planned for development of the

calorimeter as the primary standard for high

energy x-rays (1-50 MeV). At present, the

laboratories working with the high energy

x-rays from linacs and betatrons use a Co-60

calibrated ionization chamber with a correction factor calculated from physical data

rather than based on a standard. The development of the high energy x-ray primary standard

should considerably improve the accuracy of

the dosimetry at these high energies, but

would not be expected to change the values

now in use by more than about 4 percent.

In the case of fast neutrons, each institution develops its own dosimetry (except in

the United States the three cyclotron institutions are using identical instruments).

Since the number of institutions is still

small, they do make intercomparisons with

each other — the problems may not yet be

serious. However, a 10% difference was found

between the Hammersmith Hospital (England)

rad and the M. D. Anderson Hospital (Texas)

rad. Agreement in dosimetry is important so that clinical experience can be transferred

from one hospital to another. A need exists

for NBS to develop primary dosimetry standards

for fast neutron radiation therapy, since the

number of institutions planning to do neutron

therapy is increasing rapidly.

(2) Diagnostic and dental x-rays . Here

the chief measurement need is to assure a safe and as-low-as-practicable dose to the

patient. The fraction of the 280,000 x-ray

sets used for these purposes which are calibrated with instruments calibrated at NBS

must be very small. A general problem not solely measurement, is indicated by a survey

of diagnostic and therapeutic x-ray machines

in Suffolk County, New York, in 1972 (see

table 7).

Table 7. Survey of Diagnostic and Therapeutic

X-ray Machines, Suffolk County,

New York, 1972.

X-ray Machines Inspected 1411

X-ray Machines in Violation (some .^q

Multiple) ^'^ X-ray Machines Corrected 368

Violations

Inadequate Collimation 260

Inadequate Filtration 183

Operator Cannot Stand 6 Feet Away 76

Inadequate Shielding for Operator 45

Inadequate Shutters (Fluoroscope) 32

Inadequate Timer (Fluoroscope) 35

Others 73

From Becker, 1973,

Most x-ray sets are periodically surveyed

(from once each year to once every four years)

by state or local health or radiation control

departments. Such departments tend to use rather simple equipment which will detect

gross errors, and check for scattered x-rays

(protection of medical and technical personnel). Frequently they do not measure the

radiation level in the useful beam (patient

dose) but rely on the radiologist's or dentist's judgment to keep the patient dose

acceptable, or on laws requiring the use of

fast x-ray film. This may lead to higher

dose than necessary being given to the

patient.

(3) Nuclear medicine . Although NBS

provides radioactivity standards for use in

the approximately 8,000 hospitals and

clinics administering radiopharmaceuticals,

the number sold indicates that only a small number of the institutions are using

NBS standards. Many standards are provided

by the radiopharmaceutical supplier -- often the same company furnishes both

radiopharmaceuticals and radioactivity

standards. This practice provides no double

22
check on calibration accuracy. To study and

to help improve the accuracy of measurements

in hospitals and clinics, the NBS has embarked

on a quality assurance program in cooperation

with the College of American Pathologists, and

has found that many institutions lie outside

the accuracy limits (10% of the stated radioactivity) required by the U. S. Pharmacopeia

for radiopharmaceuticals. The measurement

assurance program of NBS for radiopharmaceuticals involves not more than 300, presumably

of the best, of the approximately 8,000

hospitals and private clinics using radionuclides in nuclear medicine. The measurement

accuracy required is less than for radiation

therapy because of the low doses involved.

However, in the measurement assurance tests

conducted so far factors-of-two are common and

factors-of-ten do occur. It therefore appears

that some system of quality control needs to be extended to the rest of the about 8,000

institutions doing nuclear medicine.

An obvious improvement in the accuracy of

radioactivity measurements could be obtained

if every hospital and clinic used a reliable

dose calibrator instrument in proper calibration. These could be used to check every

dose, and some such instrument is absolutely

necessary to check doses where an unknown

amount of radioactivity is drawn from a radionuclide "generator" in the hospital -- in

this case, the amount of activity cannot be

predetermined by the radiopharmaceutical

supplier. The problem is that the calibrations of present-day dose calibrators are

not reliable, as was shown in the NBS-VA study

by Garfinkel and Hine (1973), and has been

shown in later studies of commercial dose cali- brators carried out in the NBS Radioactivity

Section (errors of a factor-of-two are not uncommon). NBS action called for here seems

to be (1) for NBS to work with the dosecalibrator manufacturers to correct the

calibration problems with the instruments,

(2) to provide dose calibrator check source

sets for the hospital user to routinely check

his instrument, and (3) for NBS or an NBStraceable laboratory to distribute medicallyimportant radionuclides for dose calibrator

instrument check-out.

Some of the "future" links in figure 2 which are being developed are: (1) NBS is working with the instrument manufacturers to improve accuracy of dose calibrator instruments; (2) NBS is working with the radiopharmaceutical manufacturers to provide

traceability of the manufacturers to NBS (a

Research Associateship has been established,

sponsored by the Atomic Industrial Forum at NBS); (3) NBS is developing traceability to the laboratory of the FDA which has cogni- zance over radiophamaceuticals, and to the

23

EPA standards laboratory at NERC-Las Vegas;

(4) NBS has established a program to help the

States to obtain satisfactory measurement

competence to carry out their regulatory

responsibilities in medical (and other) uses of radiation. An Office of Radiation Measurement has been established to provide liaison

between NBS and the States and other groups

with radiation measurement problems.

Note the common thread of the above discussion of the medical measurement system:

where a measurement system tied in to NBS

exists, many users are in satisfactory shape

although some need improvement — but where

either no system exists or no measurement

assurance checks are made, the measurement

accuracy upon testing is found to be worse

and frequently outside of acceptable limits.

2/3. B. NUCLEAR POWER

In the first quarter of 1977, 66 commercial

power reactors with a total installed capacity

of 47,200 megawatts were licensed to send

power into grids across the nation; this

represented about 10% of the nation's entire

electricity generation capability (see also

figure 6). Projections indicated that by

1985, uranium will be the fuel for nearly

30% of all electric power generation, and

that by the end of the century it will

supply more than half of our expanded needs

for electricity (AEC, 1974). In addition,

58 units were under construction, and a total

of 111 units were in the design process. The

magnitude of American investment in nuclear

power can be illustrated by the fact that over $102 billion are presently committed to the nuclear power program (AEC, 1974). The

rate of investment in nuclear power has

slowed due to decreased demand for electricity,

lessened availability of capital to the

utilities (AEC, 1974), and due to problems

with licensing and intervention.

The economic advantage of nuclear power

can be seen from the fact that the fuel cost

is approximately half that for a coal -fired

power plant, and total operating costs per

kWh of electricity are roughly 80% of that

of the coal -fired plant, based on a LWR

(lightwater reactor) and a coal plant, each

of 1,000 MW (electrical) capacity (AEC,

1974).

The Measurement System for Ionizing

Radiation plays an important role in the

nuclear power industry in several ways:

(1) Many of the measurements thoughout the

nuclear fuel cycle are ionizing radiation

measurements. (2) Radiation measurements and

nuclear technology play a very large role in

providing design data for reactors, in the

development and testing of new reactor designs,
24
and in the instrumentation, control, and

safety systems of operating power reactors.

(3) Monitoring of radioactive effluents in

the plant and in the environment are necessary

for public safety. This last subject will

primarily be discussed under section 2/3.6

Environmental Radioactivity Measurement. We now proceed to a discussion of the first two topics.

2/3. B.l Nuclear Fuel Cycle Operations

Information contained here was obtained as

a part of a study (Bartlett, 1974, given as appendix D to this study) to assess needs for

NBS services in support of the nuclear power

industry. This one-year study was completed

in July 1974.

The study was aimed at measurements made

on nuclear fuel materials, i.e., uranium- and

plutonium-bearing materials. The industry

also makes many other measurements involving

ionizing radiation. These include dosimetry

for personnel protection (discussed in section

2/3.1), monitoring of effluents for environmental protection (section 2/3. G), and monitoring of power reactor operations (section

2/3.8.2).

2/3. B. 1.1 Scope and Status of the Nuclear

Power Industry

(1 ) Contributions to national energy needs . As noted by John Love (1973), former Director

of the Office for Energy Policy, nuclear

power currently supplies energy for national

needs in an amount comparable to that being

produced by burning of wood. It is projected,

however, to become a key source of future

electrical power: by the turn of the century,

nuclear power plants are projected to constitute more than half of the total U.S. electrical generating capacity. To realize this

forecast, installed nuclear capacity will have

to increase to 1,200,000 MWe by the end of

the year 2000 (AEC, 1972). The projections

require an increase in electricity delivery

to the power grid at about 1000 MW per week

throughout the decade of the 90 's and beyond.

With present economics and technology, each

1000 megawatts corresponds, approximately, to one power station. To achieve this growth,

total capital investments of approximately

$580 billion (current dollars) will be needed

for the reactor plants and supporting

operations.

^Obtained by extrapolating data to 1985 given

in AEC (1971). A capital cost of $500

million per reactor plant was assumed, which

is probably low since plants are currently

running close to $800 million.

(2) Nuclear industry operations . Nuclear

power plants require numerous satellite

operations

(a) a sequence of mining and milling

operations to extract and purify uranium fuel;

(b) conversion operations to get the

uranium into forms suitable for processing;

(c) enrichment, which increases the

isotopic abundance of U-235 to levels needed

for reactors;

(d) fuel element fabrication;

(e) spent fuel reprocessing, to recover

unused uranium and plutonium generated during

reactor operation, and

(f) waste management, to assure that

radioactive wastes are not a hazard to man

and his environment.

These operations constitute the nuclear fuel

cycle. Jt is a cycle because fuel materials

recovered in the reprocessing step are recycled for use in next-generation fuel elements.

The sequence of operations is shown in

figure 7.

Nearly all commercial reactors currently

operating in the United States use uranium as their fuel and ordinary water as the reactor

coolant. Beginning in the 1980's, however,

two other types of reactors are expected to become commercially significant: the Liquid

Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR), which

uses liquid sodium as the coolant and is the

most efficient user and producer of nuclear

fuels, and the High Temperature Gas-Cooled

Reactor (HTGR), which promises superior

thermal efficiencies and uses U-233 and

thorium in its fuel. Each of these reactor

types requires different technology in the

support operations cited above. Thus, diversification as well as rapid growth is expected

for the industry.

(3) Role of measurements . Reliable

measurements are the lifeblood of the nuclear

industry. Accuracy and precision beyond con- ventional industrial measurements are demanded

because:

(a) loss of fuel material could pose a threat to national security and/or public

health, and

(b) an extraordinary level of quality

assurance is necessary to assure safe,

reliable operation in all facets of the

industry because of the complexity and potential hazards of nuclear operations.

Two basic sectors of interest in nuclear

industry measurements must be identified:

(a) regulatory bodies (NRC, agreement

states, and EPA) charged with responsibility

to safeguard national security and public

health (see section 2.4.4); and

25
MINING AND MILLING

Pu

[uTpT)

CONVERSION

UFi

ENRICHMENT

CONVERSION

FUEL ELEMENT FABRICATION

REACTOR OPERATIONS

I

SPENT FUEL ELEMENT STORAGE

I

FUEL REPROCESSING

T

WASTE 1 EZ.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Figure 7. Outline of nuclear power industry operations.

26
(b) the industry companies, charged with

responsibility for reliable, profitable production.

These sectors and their interests are hardly

unique. However, the potential severity of

the adverse consequences of failure to control

nuclear materials makes measurements a focus

of interest for the industry. The level of

accuracy required by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission for nuclear materials control (1% error or less; see Federal Register, 1973)

also forces the industry to use the very best

measurement technology available. This technology is highly sophisticated and costly.

(4) Industry structure . At present, over

60 commercial nuclear power plants are in

operation. Another 160 are in construction

or on order. The various satellite operations

are, or will be, performed by about 15 com- panies at less than 30 sites. Although rapid

growth of installed generating capacity is

expected, extensive proliferation of sites

(and companies) to perform the satellite

operations is not expected. Few electric

companies initially had the expertise and resources required for nuclear power; expansions in capacity will most probably occur at existing sites in order to facilitate materials control

The national laboratories and other Department of Energy prime contractors must be con- sidered a part of the industry since they are

a major source of technology (especially for

measurements) and key participants in measure- ment assurance activities. Another key part

of the industry, from a measurements point of

view, is the Department of Energy laboratory

at New Brunswick, New Jersey, which has been

transferred to Argonne National Laboratory.

The numerous measurements-related functions

of this laboratory are outlined below.

Other key participants in the industry are

the instrument vendors (numerous), the private

laboratories (24 in number) that provide

referee measurement services to the industry,

the eight major (about 24 total) architectengineer firms that build the nuclear facilities, and the four major reactor designers/

manufacturers. Most of the designers/manufacturers are, to varying degrees, vertically

integrated, i.e., they also perform some of

the satellite operations.

2/3. B. 1.2 Measurement Objectives

Nuclear industry measurements have two

basic purposes: quality assurance and compliance with regulations. For the industrial

operation, data obtained for compliance

purpose -- although bounded by stringent

accuracy and precision requirement — are a peripheral part of their measurement objectives.

They are, however, quite costly.

The reactor operator is most interested in

fuel element quality assurance. Indeed, his

interest in nuclear performance (e.g., fissile

content of the fuel) is at least equalled if not exceeded, by this interest in assurance

that the fuel will not fail in service for

mechanical or other reasons. His primary

objective for measurements at the fuel fabrication stage is, therefore, fuel element

integrity. Shipper/receiver equity for

special nuclear material (SNM) is, for present

and anticipated fuel cycle economics, a secondary concern .

When spent fuel is removed from a reactor,

burnup calculations are performed to estimate

the fissile content. These calculations have

an accuracy on the order of 5%; little chance

for significant improvement in accuracy is

foreseen. These calculations provide an estimate of the input to the reprocessor; the

reprocessor ' s measurement of the input (made

in the accountability tank) is much more

accurate and crucial to his objectives.

Significant differences ("significant" yet to

be defined) between burnup calculations and

accountability tank data would be resolved by

referee laboratory assays.

The reprocessor and fuel fabricator also

have quality assurance as their major objective for measurements. Their motive is

profit. Failure to achieve quality will

reduce profit as a result of downtime, need

to repeat operations on out-of-specification

product, etc.

The reprocessor and fuel fabricators bear

the heaviest burden of costs for compliance.

Regulations (Federal Register, 1973) impose

strict materials accountability requirements

on them. Compliance with these requirements

may, but will not necessarily assure product

quality. The regulations require highly

accurate material balance determinations at

specified intervals. Things can go wrong in

the time periods between material balances.

Thus, measurements for compliance supplement

routine measurements for production.

2/3. B. 1.3 Measurement Methods

The nuclear industry routinely uses the

following measurement methods:

(1 ) Process equipment calibration and

control . Volume calibrations, on-line sensors

to measure temperature, specific gravity,

electrical conductivity, etc. are used.

Volumetric calibration of the reprocessor '

27
accountability tank is especially important.

Accuracy of 0.5% is feasible but not often

obtained; 3-4% error is "normal."

(2) Materials assay . Quantitative

analysis (many procedures available), mass spectrometry, gamma-ray and alpha spectroscopy, neutron interrogation, photometry, and

x-ray fluorescence are important materials

assay methods.

Many variations of these basic assay techniques are available. Accuracies attained

depend on the method, the use, and the user. Quantitative assays can achieve accuracies to 0.1%; gamma-ray spectroscopy errors range

from a few percent to about 50%.

A current characteristic of the industry

is that few sites will be doing similar

operations, and no two sites will use the same assay techniques to make similar measurements. Many possible variants to these techniques are in use.

The assay techniques fall into two categories: destructive and nondestructive (NDA).

From industry's point of view NDA is essential

for some measurements (fabricated fuel pellets

and elements) and highly desirable for others

(scrap and waste). Rapid measurements are also needed to avoid production delays. There

is, therefore, strong pressure for use of as much NDA as possible. All measurements are expected in the future, however, to be traceable to NBS (measurement capability demonstrably in agreement with that of NBS), and

the link will be the destructive assay

chemical techniques. A program for periodic

use of such techniques will, therefore, always

be necessary in addition to NDA methods.

2/3. B. 1.4 Status of Measurement Technology

Largely as a result of the Department of

Energy R&D programs, measurement technology

commensurate with most quality assurance (QA)

and compliance requirements is in existence.

A major weakness is in the area of the

measurements on scrap and waste. Development

of methods for these measurements is continuing, and problems (e.g., major material

balance uncertainties) due to scrap and waste

measurement inaccuracies (today, typical

performance is 15%-40% error) can be minimized

by management procedures requiring measurements whenever material leaves a given process

area.

Department of Energy R&D activities in

support of measurement technology are currently focused on developments needed for

Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR)

operations. Programs are conventionally

implemented in the laboratories of the Department of Energy prime contractors. Transfer

of technology to industry from Department of

Energy laboratories is achieved via vendor

initiatives and consultative services provided

by the contractors.

Development of technology is, on the whole,

orderly, timely, and appropriate for industrial

needs. The Department of Energy carefully

controls its programs and uses NBS services

on an ad hoc basis. NBS has in the past and

will in the future contribute extensively to this development work. Mechanisms for identification and use of NBS resources in this role

function wel 1

Companies with sufficient resources and

initiative will develop their own measurement

technology. In-house expertise. Department

of Energy and NRC consultation, are used to extrapolate existing technology and apply it to specific needs. For example, one company

invested a million dollars of its own funds

into development of a fuel rod scanner. It also developed a highly-sophisticated computer

model of process operations. Such initiatives

are rare, however, because of the high cost.

The major measurement-related problem in

the nuclear industry today is proper use of

available technology . The technology is

highly sophisticated, method alternatives are numerous, measurements required are numerous,

accuracy requirements are extraordinary, and

the stakes are high. Many companies are finding it difficult to address and resolve

their problems.

Some of the key problem elements can be

identified:

(1) Industry's capability to translate

the technology assumed in regulatory guides

into routine practice typically is limited.

The high-powered technical expertise is in

the national laboratories.

(2) Instrument vendors are a weak link in

the chain. Although they quickly move new technology from the contractors' laboratories

into the market place, the delivered equipment

frequently has bugs. The typical user must

rely on the vendor for assistance in assuring

that the instruments deliver reliable data,

but vendor expertise is also limited.

(3) Industry will probably incur major

capital and operating costs to achieve com- pliance with new regulations. Some may face

major revisions of current operation procedures; they may also need organizations and

28
staff competence not now on board. Losses

in production and losses on existing contracts

may be foreseen; reluctance to make changes

may result.

(4) The NRC is increasingly demanding NBS

traceability. Much of the industry does not know what this means or how to achieve it.

(5) The major mechanisms for conversion

of technology to practice are the written

consensus standards (e.g., ANSI, see section

2.2.1). These standards take a long time to develop. Those currently available (few in

comparison with what is needed) do not provide

a strong basis for procedures or action.

Professional expertise that can function where

standards are inadequate or unavailable is

necessary.

In summary, industry faces major problems

and costs in achieving compliance-demanded

utilization of measurement technology. Key

factors are the lack of expertise and the lack

of mechanisms to assist in bridging the gap

between the technology and its use.

It is important to note that the major

problem industry faces is, in general, to develop a comprehensive, cost-effective system

of measurements that is responsive to the

already-stringent production quality assurance

requirements and the demands made by the new regulations. Measurement capability may have

to be rescheduled or revised to incorporate

requirements for periodic inventories. And

much more attention to NBS traceability may

be necessary. Each operation in the fuel

cycle has unique problems, and each operator

has unique problems dependent on his current

status. Current performance is very uneven.

2/3. B. 1.5 Measurement System Infrastructure

Because QA and materials security requirements are so stringent, the nuclear power

industry has a comparatively wel 1 -developed

measurement infrastructure with, in general,

high visibility for NBS.

With NRC funding and guidance, the industry

routinely runs extensive measurement assurance

programs. One of these, the General Analytical Evaluation (GAE) program, is restricted

to NRC contractors; spillover and interaction

with industry occur, however, through NRC

consultative services. The Safeguards

Analytical Laboratory Evaluation (SALE) program is highly comprehensive. Thirteen

Department of Energy or Department of Energy

contractor laboratories, 24 domestic licensee

laboratories, and nine laboratories outside

the U.S. participate in SALE. Performance in

analyses of U and Pu in various forms is

routinely monitored via this program.

The NRC discontinued financial support of

licensee participation in SALE in FY 1975.

Consequences of this action are not yet clear;

a new SALE-like service for the licensees may

have to be developed. The preferred alternative is to continue operation on a costrecovery basis.

The GAE and SALE programs operate via

close ties with the Department of Energy New

Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) which in turn is

closely linked to NBS. The New Brunswick

Laboratory also does extensive characterization of uranium standards, which is supplemented by preparation of plutonium standards

at Los Alamos. NBL has primary responsibility

for preparation of "working" standards for

the industry. Such standards are closely

related to NBS standards but they are not

NBS-certif ied. They form the backbone of the

routine measurements, although the industry

also makes extensive use of NBS standard

reference materials.

Contacts with the Department of Energy and

industry revealed extensive uncertainty and

confusion concerning phraseology used to describe materials standards. A "standards

lexicon" on materials standards appears to be

needed

A subject currently receiving widespread

attention in the industry is material standards for NDA. At present, each operator

"does his own thing" with respect to waste

packaging and other operations where NDA is

used. Industry-wide NBA standards have,

therefore, not been developed, and an infrastructure does not exist. General Electric

Co. is pressing for industry-wide NDA standardization. Development of appropriate ANSI consensus standards (estimated to take three

years) seems to be a necessary first step.

Subsequently the development of materials

standards and an infrastructure for their

use will be necessary. NBS may expect a key

role. As 6E personnel expressed it, industry

wants "a place to take their NDA working

standards to have them certified."

A possible structure for NBS interactions

in nuclear industry fuel cycle measurements

is given in Figure 8 (Bartlett, 1974).

Present indications are that ties between NBS

and the instrument vendors and independent

laboratories may tend on the average to be

weak. The leaders in both categories do,

however, participate in the SALE program.

29
BIPM NBS

OTHER

NAT. STDS.

LABS

LOCAL

REGULATORY

FUNCTIONS

FUEL CYCLE

OPERATIONS

Y t

SOURCE,

PROCEDURE

SUPPLIERS

-- NON-PRIVATE

Figure 8. Possible NBS interactions for nuclear industry measurements and standards.

NBS current activities make significant

contributions in this area: (1) NBS furnishes

standard reference materials and a new program

in collaboration with the Department of Energy

(and NRC) is in progress to define needs and

priorities for new standard reference materials; in collaboration with Mound Laboratory,

efforts are being made to improve the technical base for calorimetry; NBS assists the

measurement assurance activities of the SALE

program through collaboration with the New

Brunswick Laboratory; and NBS personnel are assisting the Department of Energy Division

of Nuclear Materials Security in an analysis

of materials diversification and data requirements.

One area where the NBS program is surprisingly small is the area of ties to ANSI on nuclear energy-related standards. Although

NBS had, in 1972 (ORNL, 1972), 22 personnel

working in 14 areas of ANSI standards related

to nuclear energy, none of the personnel was working directly on the two committees developing standards of most concern to the nuclear

materials measurement problem: N-15, Methods

of Nuclear Material Control, and N-46, Nuclear

Reactor Fuel Cycle. Inquiry within NBS

revealed that only one staff member was currently serving in this area. This activity

may be expected to increase with NBS leadership of the ANSI Technical Advisory Group for

ISO TC 85.

2/3. B. 1.6 Summary of Conclusions of the

Assessment of the Nuclear Fuel

Materials Measurement System

The conclusions of the report by Bartlett

(1974), attached as Appendix D, may be

summarized as follows:

(1) Highest accuracy requirements in

nuclear fuel materials measurement are for

nuclear materials safeguards, not for equity

in trade;

(2) the major need is for a nationallybased measurement assurance system for fuel

material measurements for demonstrably viable

measurement capability;

(3) other needs include regulations,

guides, consensus standards; state-of-the-art

performance in the field with sophisticated

measurement technology approaching NBS

capability; and development of real-time

Special Nuclear Materials control replacing

periodic inventory; and

(4) both Institute for Basic Standards

and Institute for Materials Research participation are required for a viable program.

30
2/3. B. 2 Nuclear Reactcr Design Data and

Operations

The previous discussion was concerned with

measurements at various points in the nuclear

fuel cycle. The objective was to determine

with sufficient accuracy the quantities of

the nuclides present in the fuel or waste,

with primary attention paid to the fissionable

nuclides such as U-235 and Pu-239. Another

class of measurements, primarily neutron

measurements, are made to obtain the neutron

cross sections for designing the reactors

(both fission and fusion, in general), and to evaluate quantitatively how well the reactor

is performing and for testing various components. These needs for neutron measurements

for reactor design and performance test led to the present NBS program in Neutron

Standards

How are neutron standards important for

the neutron cross sections needed for reactor

design? Neutron cross sections (except total cross sections which can be measured simply

by transmission) are measured either by a ratio measurement to a known "standard" or "benchmark" neutron cross section, or by

measuring a reaction rate in an absolutelyknown neutron flux density. The ratio

measurement to a standard cross section is by

far the most common method, since it avoids

many problems which occur in an absolute

measurement. The major part of the NBS

Neutron Standards program is directed toward

accurate determination of the standard cross sections and absolutely determined neutron

flux densities needed for neutron cross section data measurement for reactor design.

Some of the important neutron standards cross sections are ^H(n,n), hydrogen elastic scattering; ^^C(n,n), carbon elastic scattering;

^Li(n,a); ^°B(n,a) and ^°B(n,aiY); and

^^^U(n,f), uranium fission. Cross section

needs in the United States are evaluated and

measurement of needed cross sections is en- couraged by the Department of Energy-sponsored

Nuclear Data Committee (DOE-NDC), on which

NBS has representation. The DOE-NDC publishes

Request Lists for cross section measurements

which enable measurers in the cross section

measurement community (national laboratories,

universities, and some industrial companies)

to know specific nuclear cross sections,

energy ranges and accuracies desired. Internationally the International Nuclear Data Committee (INDC), under IAEA sponsorship and

the Nuclear Energy Agency Nuclear Data Committee (NEANDC) are active in this field.

Evaluation of cross sections in the United

States is done under the aegis of the CrossSection Evaluation Working Group (CSEWG) which

supervises the preparation of the ENDF/B

compilation, available from the National

Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) at Brookhaven.

2/3. B. 2.1 Design Data for Fission Reactors

It is clearly more economical to design a reactor if accurate and reliable nuclear data are available. Good data help in several

ways: (1) they permit design with a minimum

of costly integral experiments before con- struction; (2) they permit true optimization

of design with computer codes for calculating

reactor performance; (3) if nuclear data are

known accurately, minimum allowance from the

standpoint of reactor safety, temperatures of

components, etc., needs to be made for

uncertainty in the data. For example, if

uncertainties in nuclear cross sections cause

fuel reaction rates to be uncertain, then the

reactor must be run at a lower power to maintain proper safety margins. This uncertainty could represent a loss of millions of

dollars for a typical nuclear power plant.

(Uncertainties were about 20% before the

successful joint effort of the Department of

Energy Interlaboratory LMFBR Reaction Rate

program and the NBS Neutron Standards program

to improve reaction rate measurements for the

breeder reactor program. They are now better

than 5%.

Another example of the importance of

nuclear data is in the prediction of breeding

ratios for the LMFBR and other breeder reactor

designs. Values of predicted breeding ratios

have recently been lowered due to refinements

in nuclear cross sections, and the present

uncertainty in the breeding ratio is chiefly

due to nuclear cross section uncertainties.

Such cross section information has great

implications for the design parameters and

economic success of the breeder reactor

programs.

As another example of the importance of

accurate nuclear reactor design data, for a typical modern light water reactor, an uncertainty of 1% in neutron multiplication at the

end of life of the fuel requires a compensating enrichment-adjustment of 0.15 weight

percent ^^^U. This extra enrichment costs more than $2 million per fuel loading.

Further, each 1% of uncertainty in power

peaking that limits plant operation to 1%

less than its rated power, can be expected to cost the utility approximately $1 million

annually in replacement power costs (Uotinen,

Robertson, and Tulenko, 1975). Thus there

are very real economic incentives for

improving predictive capability in the light

water reactor industry. Sometimes this can

31
be done by normalizations to operating data,

but often it can only bo improved by a more accurate knowledge of bcisic nuclear data

(neutron cross sections).

Neutron cross sections are needed for

understanding and predicting the performance

of reactor shielding, fuels, neutron properties, behavior of structural materials,

integrity of reactor components, and for

reactor control and saf<Bty. In the following

we briefly consider the effect of neutron

cross sections (nuclear data) in each of the

above areas.

Shielding . For reactor shielding it is

not only the penetration of neutrons in bulk

matter, but also neutron streaming through

ducts, gamma-ray production and penetration,

penetration of radiation from the primary

coolant, and activation of components which

will produce a secondary radiation. As an example, there are dips in the neutron total cross section for iron. As a result one reactor with an iron shield operated with

unsafe radiation levels outside the shield

because neutrons streamed through this

"window" in the iron shield. Cross sections

for neutron energies of up to 15 MeV are important for shielding.

Fuels , It is important for reactor fuel

design to know the neutron cross sections of

the principal fission reactions, U-235,

U-238, and Pu-239 to 1%, as has been determined by reactor design "sensitivity" studies,

(see, for example, Greebler and Hutchins,

1966), and reaffirmed by various nuclear data

committees such as the United States Nuclear

Data Committee (USNDC), the Nuclear Energy

Agency Data Committee (NEANDC), and the

International Nuclear Data committee (INDC)

of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Present accuracy is of the order of 4-8%,

clearly not satisfactory. Part of the problem

is due to large uncertainties in the standard

reference cross sections which the NBS neutron

standards program addresses. In connection

with the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor

(LMFBR) program, the AEC established the

Interlaboratory LMFBR Reaction Rate (ILRR)

program to develop the capability to accu- rately measure neutron-induced reaction rates

for fuels and materials development. The

goal is an accuracy of + 5% at the 95% con- , fidence level. Nuclear data are a major part

of the problem.

Cross section data are needed not only for

the LMFBR program, but also for the High

Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) program

which uses U-233 and Th-232 as fuel; and for

light water reactors as discussed above.

Structural materials, neutronics . The

neutron economy, and therefore the dollar

economy, of a power reactor depends very much

on how much neutron loss there is to materials

such as zirconium and stainless steel which

form the structure of the reactor. Reactor

performance is somewhat less sensitive to these than to the fuel cross sections.

Accuracy requirements are typically a few

percent.

Integrity of reactor components . The

lifetime of a reactor and the power level at which it can be operated depend strongly on the neutron flux and spectrum to which the

components are subjected. For example, the

LMFBR has an unusual environment for com- ponents of which the main features are the

presence of liquid sodium, materials at high

temperatures, and a high flux of fast neutrons.

This has led to a serious problem of "helium

swelling" -- that is neutron-induced void

formation in the stainless steel leading to decreased ductility, dimensional instability,

and swelling of material. This "has become

a critical problem in the development of

liquid metal fast breeder reactors," (Dudey,

Harkness, and Farrar, 1970). This swelling

phenomenon is believed to depend upon the

presence of helium produced by an (n,a)

reaction in the stainless steel -- but the

reactions occuring and their cross sections

are not established. Further cross section

data are needed here.

Control and safety . Accurate cross sections

are needed for control materials (such as boron) to predict the dynamic behavior of a reactor. Where cross sections are uncertain,

correspondingly larger factors of safety must

be introduced, always at a cost in the power

level or the economic efficiency of the

reactor.

2/3. B. 2. 2 Design Data for Fusion Reactors

(magnetically-confined plasmas and

laser fusion)

Although plasma behavior problems are at present the most important problems in fusion

reactor development, when designing of a prototype fusion power plant begins, much

nuclear design data will be needed (early

1980's). Most of the data needed will be

neutron cross sections (at higher energies

and for different nuclides than in the

fission reactor case), but some photonuclear

data will be needed as well. Nuclear design

data will be needed for shielding, heat

transfer elements, tritium breeding, integrity

of structural materials, and studies of

induced activities.

32
Shielding . A fusion reactor utilizing the D-T reaction, ^H(d,n)'*He, is an intense source

of 14 MeV neutrons. Lower energy neutrons of

all energies will be present from neutron

slowing down and various reactions. In addition, high energy gamma rays will be

produced in the lithium coolant and breeding

material which will present a new shielding

problem. Cross sections are not known for

many of these reactions.

Heat transfer elements . Fusion reactor

design is in early development stages, and

rather exotic schemes are envisioned for

heat transfer. Typically the neutrons would

be absorbed in a meter-thick blanket region

surrounding the plasma, consisting of niobium

tubes containing graphite and lithium breeding

material -coolant. The lithium coolant would

exchange heat with liquid potassium causing

it to boil and either operate a potassium

vapor turbine or exchange heat again with a steam system which could run a conventional

turbine. The neutron properties of all heat

transfer elements which are exposed to the

neutron flux will need to be known for system

design.

Tritium breeding . Regeneration of tritium

occurs in the lithium blanket when fast

neutrons from the plasma undergo nuclear

reactions such as ^Li (n,n'aY)^H, and

^Li(n,a)^H which yield tritium as one of the

end products. The cross sections of these

reactions are not accurately known in the

energy regions of interest. The second

reaction is one of the chosen standard refer- ence cross sections which has been characterized by discrepancies in the hundreds of keV

range, and is less well known at higher

energies.

Integrity of structural materials . Radiation damage to structural materials

tends to increase with fast neutron energy.

Materials such as niobium, vanadium, stainless

steel, potassium, and lithium will be used in

fission reactors. Radiation damage problems are very likely to be limiting factors on the

power level for fusion reactors, as they are for breeder reactors. However, the problems

here may be more difficult because of the

higher neutron energies which allow many more

nuclear reactions to take place. And the

intensities are so great that each atom of

the inner wall of the reactor will have been

struck more than ten times by neutrons during

the lifetime of the reactor.

Induced activities . The high intensity

and the higher neutron energies will tend to produce more and different induced radioactivities which will represent a severe

personnel protection problem whenever com- ponents have to be changed, valves turned.

etc. Niobium is subject to large induced

activities. Nuclear data, both cross sections

and decay schemes, will be needed to predict

likely problems, and to control them when

they exist.

2/3. B. 2. 3 In-Reactor Neutron Measurements

It is necessary to make neutron flux and

spectra measurements and fission rate measurements in the very hostile environment in the

reactor. Such measurements are useful to

(1) verify that actual reactor performance is

according to design parameters; (2) test new reactor design concepts; (3) quantitatively

measure fuel element performance in fuelstest reactors such as the FFTF fuel test

reactor; (4) do performance testing and

optimization by the utilities; (5) determine

the radiation fields to which reactor com- ponents are subjected to understand the

radiation damage problems and estimate reactor

lifetimes and operating power levels;

(6) determine fuel element operating temperatures from knowledge of reaction rates.

The most crucial in-reactor measurements

are those of new reactor development programs

(see the ILRR program of the LMFBR development

program below). However, instruments and

controls represent a significant part of the

cost of a nuclear power plant, $8 million out

of $493 million (neglecting cost escalation)

for a typical light water reactor power plant

(AEC, 1974). Furthermore most of the activities of the operating crews, radiation protection personnel, chemistry staff are performing

measurements. Other costs are environmental

monitoring and personnel monitoring (although

these may be contracted out -- see section

2/3. G).

An example of a program with goals for

improvement of in-reactor neutron measurements

is the Interlaboratory LMFBR Reaction Rate

(ILRR) program being managed by Hanford

Engineering Development Laboratory, operated

by Westinghouse Hanford Company for the

Department of Energy. The initial goal is to

be able to measure the principal fission

reaction rates in U-235, U-238, and Pu-239 to within + 5% at the 95% confidence level

(compares to + 20% at the beginning of the

program). Accurate measurement of other

fission and non-fission reactions is required

to a lesser accuracy between + 5% and + 10%

at the same confidence level. A secondary

program objective is improvement in knowledge

of the nuclear parameters involved in fuels

and materials dosimetry; measurement of

neutron flux, spectra, fluence; and burnup.

The laboratories involved in this program are listed in Table 8.

33
Table 8. Laboratories participating in the

interlaboratory LMFBR reaction rate

program (ILRlOAerojet Nuclear Company

Argonne National Laboratory

Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company

Atomics International

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Hanford Engineering Development

Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

University of California at Santa

Barbara

The NBS neutron standards program is aimed

at meeting the needs of improved in-reactor

neutron measurements through: (1) a fission

cross section validation program using broad

spectrum sources, and improved total neutron

cross section measurements on fissionable

elements to improve the knowledge of fission

cross sections; (2) provision of wellcharacterized neutron fields such as the

Intermediate Energy Standard Neutron Field

(ISNF) for calibration of detectors and

insuring uniform measurements in laboratories

throughout the nation; and (3) development of

consistent measurements of fission rates in

reactor fuel elements through participation

in the ILRR program.

A proposed program would provide certified

activation detectors and benchmark calibrations in NBS standard neutron fields for the

neutron spectrum characterizations necessary

for predicting radiation damage in structural

materials.

2/3. B. 2.4 Note on the relationship of the

NBS Neutron Standards Program to the Department of Energy Programs

In considering the neutron standard cross section program at the NBS, it is clearly

necessary to recognize its relationship to the measurements efforts of the Department of

Energy. The AEC (later ERDA, now Department

of Energy) has made very strong statements in

support of the NBS neutron standards program, even though in principle it has the capacity

to undertake and carry out such measurement

itself. However, the Department of Energy

laboratories are strongly programmatical ly

oriented. The history of individual Department of Energy laboratories' concern for

standard neutron cross sections is one of

rapidly rising and falling interest. Periodically a laboratory's management recognizes

the problems in its program caused by

inadequate nuclear data standards and initiates programs to supply the needed standards.

However, the measurements usually turn out to be far more difficult than expected and

furthermore the bench scientists, recognizing

that the main objective of the laboratory is

a clearly stated programmatic one, work with

somewhat less enthusiasm than on other

projects. Over the past 15 years, the

standards have slowly improved owing to their

efforts

The Department of Energy has long believed

that many standards problems can be better

handled at the NBS where the measurement of

high-quality, high-accuracy standards is highly valued, and where the primary programmatic objective of the NBS is the establishment of standards. Through NBS programs the

long-term and dedicated scientific effort can

be brought to bear on the problem. It would

be incorrect to assume that the Department of

Energy efforts will stop because of increased

NBS efforts. It is recognized that corroboration by the Department of Energy and foreign

laboratories will be essential. Nevertheless

the NBS effort provides a base under the whol

standards effort which is not provided by any

other single laboratory or combination of

laboratories of the Department of Energy.

With the present NBS program providing the

needed continuity to the standards efforts, one can now reasonably expect significant

progress during the next five years leading

to the resolution of the standards questions

which have persisted for a long time.

2/3. C INDUSTRIAL RADIATION PROCESSING

The industrial radiation processing industry in the U.S. has become about a halfbillion dollar a year business (1974), with

an overall growth rate in recent years of

about 20% per year. There are many problems

that prevent a more spectacular growth, and

there are many "dropouts," that is, many

companies getting involved early in a new

process and then withdrawing from competition

as one or more successful companies develop

the large market. This results in a highly

proprietary approach to technological methods

R&D, etc., and eventually an almost monopolistic industry for nearly every type of

successful process. Therefore, it is difficult to gauge measurement needs of these

industries, where any failure and shortcoming

whether in program cost, product quality or rate of development, is carefully hidden from

view. In essence, the industry at first

glance does not need or want help or specific

data in carrying out measurements of radiation quantities. With a deeper look, however

most of the companies need it badly, because

34
of the very narrow profit margins that make

or break a successful business venture, profit

margins that could be significantly widened

by a more efficient measurement capability.

There are numerous examples of failures

caused by insufficient market due to excessive

costs and high prices that could have been

lowered significantly by better selection of

radiation parameters (wood-plastics, polymer

synthesis, textiles, etc.).

Overseas competition in a number of successful industrial processes using radiation

(e.g., production of flame-proof fabrics,

vulcanization of rubber, product sterilization,

water purification, graft polymerization, and

waste control) is getting the upper hand,

partly due to more intensive collaboration

between government and industry (Japan, for

instance, has over 500 government-trained

applied radiation chemists and engineers now working in the radiation processing industry,

compared to less than 200 in the United

States). Part of the problem may be due to the limited measurement capabilities of U.S. industrial radiation users.

Industrial radiation processes of commercial interest include medical sterilization

of surgical supplies, vitamins, pharmaceuticals; food sterilization and food shelf! if

extension; pest disinfestation of grains and

crops; seed and bulb stimulation and mutation

breeding for more productive crops and new

types of flowers; sewage and waste treatment

and recycling (sewage sludge decontamination

by heat takes nearly 100 times the energy

required by irradiation). Other processes of

interest are synthesis of detergents; graft

polymerization; polymer cross linking; polymer

and hydrocarbon degradation; vulcanization of

rubber; curing of coatings; polymer impregnation of materials; ion implantation; microelectronic fabrication; electron-beam welding

and machining; research in radiation chemistry, physics, and measurements; curing of

adhesives; and curing of textile fibers. A table summarizing information on the status

of these processes is given in appendix E.

In the United States about 25 major com- panies are using cobalt-60 sources and/or

accelerators for many of these radiation

applications. Information on these operations which represents most of the industrial

radiation processing activity, is given in

Table 9.

Measurement instrumentation and dosimeters

for the industry are provided by Far West

Technology, Inc. (dye film dosimeters),

Teledyne Isotopes (TLD dosimeters), and mostly

British and French companies (liquid- and

solid-phase chemical dosimeters). There are

no commercial industrial processing dosimetry

calibration laboratories in the U.S. Calibration users come directly to NBS. The quantity

measured is nearly always absorbed dose.

The measurement system for Industrial

Radiation Processing is not highly developed,

partly due to the secrecy associated with

proprietary nature of some of the processes.

Some needs of the measurement system (as

distinct from technology enhancement) have

been identified: (1) development of further

suitable radiation measurement systems and

detectors; (2) provision of radiation measurement standards and calibration services;

(3) provision of reliable experimental data

on radiation penetration in materials, and

(4) provision of radiation safety guidelines.

In response to these needs, NBS has prepared

a new high radiation dose calibration service

for industrial radiation users of large gammaray sources and charged particle accelerators.

This should satisfy needs of many on a fee

schedule basis. These calibrations are based

on the thin-film calorimeter system developed

at NBS, with the high-precision dye dosimeter

system serving as a transfer method. Experimental measurements are being made of radiation penetration in materials, in standard

materials and in layers of dissimilar

materials, aimed at providing basic information

on radiation penetration for industrial

processing users. For example, recent measurements of electron penetration in various

plastics and metals and interfaces of these

materials have been made which are applicable

to curing of surface coatings and sterilization

of medical supplies. Provision of radiation

safety guidelines is being made through ANSI

Committee N43, "Equipment for Non-Medical

Radiation Applications", for which NBS serves

as Secretariat, and for which there are increasing demands for activity. In summary,

provision of the high radiation dose calibration service, improved radiation dose measurement systems (better matching between dosimeter

material and substances being processed),

improved radiation penetration data, and

support of ANSI Committee N43 will satisfy

presently-identified needs of the measurement

system for Industrial Radiation Processing.

A modest increase in NBS program support is

needed.

2/3. D DEFENSE

Introduction . Among governmental agencies,

the Department of Defense is a prime user of

radiation technology. With the increasing

utilization of atomic and nuclear energy and

technology for both propulsive and weapons

35
Table 9. Large radiation processing operations in

the United States

Process

Crossl inking of Wire & Cable Insulation

Year of Initial

Commercial Use

Specialty Copolymers

Heat-Shrinkable Film

and Tubing

Soil Release and Soil

Resistant Fabrics

Curing of Surface

Coatings

Polyethylene Foam

Wood-Plastic Composites

Ethyl Bromide Synthesis

Controlled Degradation

of Polyethylene Oxide

Product (X) Synthesis

(lubricants?)

Sterilize Medical

Suppl ies

Curing Lumber and Wood

Products (extending)

Vulcanization of Rubber

Company

Raychem Corporation < 1960

International Telephone & Telegraph

Electronized Chemicals

Corporation

Western Electric Corp.

Radiation Dynamics

RAI Research Corporation < 1960

Radiation Polymer Corp

Raychem Corporation 1960

W. R. Grace Company

(Cryovac Division)

Electronized Chemicals

Corporation

Deering Milliken Company 1966

General Electric Company ? The O'Brien Corporation

Radiation Polymer Corp.

ASHDEE, Div. of George

Koch 7 Sons, Inc. Ford Motor Company

Voltek, Incorporated 1970

American Novawood Corp. 1965

Atlantic-Richfield

Chemical Corp.

Radiation Machinery Corp.

Radiation Technology, Inc.

Dow Chemical Company 1963

Union Carbide Corp. ~ 1968

Confidential ~ 1966

Ethicon, Inc. of 1957

Johnson & Johnson

Upjohn Co.

Weyerhauser Lumber Co. 1969

Firestone Radiation 1968

Research

Radiation Dynamics

Radiation

Source

Accelerator

Accelerator

& Cobalt-60

Accelerator

Accelerator

Ultraviolet'' or Accelerator

Accelerator

Cobalt-60

Cobalt-60

Cobalt-60

Cobalt-60

Cobalt-60 & Accelerator

Accelerator

Accelerator

Non-ionizing radiation

36
systems, DOD has far-flung interests in the

measurement and characterization of radiation

fields and effects. Problems relating to personnel safety and environmental protection

are similar to those encountered by non- military radiation users and are covered in a separate section of this report.

Although the prime users of radiation in

the DOD are the military branches, the Defense

Nuclear Agency (DNA) serves as a coordinator

for radiation information for the Armed

Forces. Other DOD agencies with a stake in

radiation technology and measurements include

the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA),

the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)

which has the responsibility for nuclear

monitoring (of foreign weapons tests), the

Air Force Tactical Applications Center (AFTAC)

which flies aircraft with detection systems

aboard for nuclear monitoring of weapons

tests, the National Security Agency (NSA),

and the U.S. Army Natick Laboratory which

develops radiation processing for military

use.

2/3. D.l X-rays, Gamma-rays, and Electron

Measurements for Defense

DNA Survey of Needs . In 1968 a survey of

the DNA laboratories and contractors was made

by NBS to determine where NBS could best play

a role in assisting members of the defense

community. Although this survey was not a comprehensive one, that is involving all DNA laboratories and contractors, it did provide

a basis for understanding the needs of users involved in nuclear weapons diagnostics.^

This survey indicated the need for assistance

in the calibration of detectors utilized in

high gamma-ray flux radiation environments.

Primarily, laboratories involved in nuclear

weapons testing are interested in the detection of photons with energies between 1 and

100 keV and calibrate their instruments in

steady state beams produced by the K-fluorescence of selected targets excited by the

radiation emitted by low-energy d.c. x-ray

machines. These sources provide low flux

densities and impose the following limitations

on the calibrations: (a) There are various

detectors and detector systems that cannot be

calibrated because their sensitivities are

too low. (b) In most applications, the

detectors are used in pulsed beams having

flux densities that are at least 9 orders of

magnitude higher than those provided by the

steady state conditions. Because of these

differences in the conditions of calibration

and use, there are uncertainties in the

calibration factors for the various detectors

and detection systems.

NBS response to DNA survey of needs . In order to alleviate these difficulties, the

NBS developed a program for DNA to develop

standard monoenergetic x-ray beams in the

energy region from 0.1 to 100 keV. These

beams are both steady-state and pulsed, and

the pulsed beams have an intensity at least

6-8 orders of magnitude larger than those

currently available.

At present, the calibration accuracy within

the system is of the order of 20-30%. The

desired accuracy by the field users is in the

region of 5% for nuclear diagnostics tests. Currently NBS is able to provide d.c. calibration services from 0.1 to 70 keV to an accuracy of 5% and pulsed sources near

1 keV to an accuracy of about 10%.

Contacts are continuously maintained between

NBS and the major weapons diagnostics laboratories and preliminary calibration services

are being done on several typical diagnostic

detectors. It is anticipated that in the

future this service will be offered to users outside the weapons diagnostic community.

Nuclear simulators . Large pulsed radiation

sources are becoming more plentiful. With the

reduction of effort in nuclear testing, large

flash electron and photon sources are being

constructed by DOD as nuclear simulators.

Facilities such as the Aurora facility of the

Harry Diamond Laboratory, the Casino facility

at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Reba at Sandia Laboratory, and others produce nano- second radiation pulses of high intensity.

Detectors that will be utilized for diagnostic

measurements on these machines will need to be

calibrated in known high intensity fields.

Plasma physics . The field of plasma physics

offers another class of users of this calibration service. Intensive efforts are now underway in DOD to understand the properties

of plasmas generated both by high power laser

and electron interactions with materials. The

potential consequences of these experiments

both from a military and civilian standpoint

are enormous. Indeed, laser or electron beaminduced fusion experiments may provide a viable

method for electrical power generation in the

next several decades. In all these experiments, however, copious amounts of x-rays are

^Laboratories surveyed included: Lawrence

Livermore Laboratory (LLL), Los Alamos

Scientific Laboratory (LASL), Sandia Laboratories (SL), Standord Research Institute (SRI),

and the EG&G Laboratories at Santa Barbara

and Las Vegas.

37
generated in the plasmas formed and the

plasma diagnostics depend on the availability

of calibrated detectors. NBS has initiated

contacts with some of the major laboratories

(both military and civilian)^ regarding the

calibration of these diagnostic instruments.

Dye dosimeters for megarad dosimetry . Department of Defense has a need for a simple,

passive dosimeter which functions in the

high-dose (megarad) range. Such a dosimeter

is the radiochromic dye film dosimeter developed by W. L. McLaughlin of NBS and Lyman

Chalkley (and is the same system discussed

above for industrial radiation processing).

Sandia Laboratories uses the dye films to measure the absorbed dose due to both electron

and photon bombardment of various media

exposed to intense radiation pulses. The U.S.

Army Natick Laboratory uses the dye films to measure the absorbed dose in radiation processing. The National Security Agency is

concerned with the effect of electron bombardment on extra-terrestrial enclosures containing sensitive equipment, and uses dye films

for dosimetry in effects studies. The dye

dosimeter, although linear in response (desirable) and capable of recording very large

doses, does require calibration.

Calibration of dye dosimeters . To calibrate dye films, NBS has developed a twin

microcalorimeter which is placed in electron

and photon beams. After calibration of the

twin calorimeter, the front calorimeter is

removed and replaced with the dye film whose

response is normalized to the rear calorimeter. This system is capable of accuracies

of + 10%. In this way the dose rate response

of the dye film dosimeter is being measured

at dose rates from 10^ rad/s to 10^^ rad/s

for total doses in the range of from 0.5 to 10 Mrad. Experiments are currently under way

to examine the transient radiation chemistry

of the dye films.

In response to the need of the dye dosimeter users, NBS planned to offer calibration

service to both military and civilian users

(see also section 2/3. C). The calibration of

these dye films is already being exploited by

the military in a program NBS has undertaken

with the National Security Agency, NSA. In order to investigate in the laboratory the

problem of the effect of electron bombardment

on satellites containing electronic equipment,

NBS has developed in conjunction with NSA a

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory, Sandia Laboratories,

Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Los Alamos

Scientific Laboratory, Cornell University.

38

simulation chamber for use with low energy

electron accelerators. In this device the

accelerator beam is scanned to provide a uniform electron radiation field 30 x 30 cm

in area. A satellite mockup is placed in this

field and rotated so that a uniform irradiation

is provided over the entire surface of the

module. The absorbed dose in the module is

then measured in the enclosure by means of

the radiochromic dye films. Measurements of

the dose distribution in the module are anticipated to within + 10% which is within

the 20% accuracy required. At present, this

program provides the only direct experimental

data for complicated electronic enclosures.

It is anticipated that this program will

provide data so that the electronics engineers

can appropriately shield delicate and vulnerable electronic components. The potential

economic savings are large since each pound

of material lifted into orbit costs about

$10 k. Even more important from a military

standpoint, however, is the fact that each

pound of shielding requires the removal of a pound of active devices from the satellite

since the total payload is fixed by the

available boosters.

In conclusion then, NBS is providing

standard radiation fields and calibration

services to a wide range of military users

(only partially discussed here). Although

the emphasis to date has been on the measure- ment of absorbed dose, it is anticipated that

spectral and temporal measurements are going

to be of interest in the future. In order to keep abreast of the needs in the military and

defense laboratories, these contacts are

being expanded to include the "new" class of

military users, those involved in simulation

devices, plasma generation and plasma fusion,

radiation damage studies, and radiation

processing. This effort has required a rather

extensive reprogramming from the measurements

of the basic interactions of electrons and

photons with matter to the applications of

these processes to detector calibration and

the generation of well characterized radiation

fields.

2/3. D. 2 Radioactivity Measurements for

Defense

Throughout the last several years the

Department of Defense has been involved in

several programs related to the monitoring of

the detonation of nuclear devices on the

international scene. Two agencies, in particular, have coordinated these programs.

They are the Advanced Research Projects

Agency (ARPA) and the Air Force Technical

Applications Center (AFTAC). Historically

the Nuclear Monitoring Office of ARPA was
concerned with the development of the technical capabilities pertinent to the on-site

inspection of underground nuclear device

detonations. These concerns included efforts

directed toward field measurements and laboratory studies. The former dealt with the

assay of radioactivities trapped in or slowly

released from the ground near the detonation,

while the latter dealt with radioactivity

decay data, fission yields and neutron

reaction data. Towards the end of the 1960's

the test ban negotiations indicated that the

probability for a mutual acceptance of sufficient on-site inspection was rapidly decreasing to zero. The Nuclear Monitoring Office

increased its research efforts in other areas, such as seismic sensors, gamma flash detection

from satellites, and atmospheric radioactivity

analysis. The latter area is also of interest

to the AFTAC group, which has been concerned

with similar monitoring, particularly of

airborne debris from atmospheric nuclear

detonations. In the early 1970's, the seismic

detection capability was realized. With the

increase of economic pressures and other

technical problems, ARPA phased out the other

programs. This left AFTAC with the responsibility for the measurement programs related

to atmospheric radioactivity produced by

nuclear detonations. To this end, military

aircraft as well as ground-based stations are

used to collect air samples (dust samples,

also) for analysis of various radioactivities.

Much information can be obtained about the

type of nuclear device from the cloud and its

fall-out. This effort continues primarily

for military reasons, with a small amount of

effort being put into research, mostly in

wind pattern and atmospheric mixing studies.

Standards of radioactive gases (for example,

^^Ar, ^^Kr, tritium (HT), ^"Coz), and other

radioactivity standards continue to be needed

for instrument calibration. No new NBS action

is required at this time.

2/3. D. 3 Neutron Measurements for Defense

Neutron cross sections . One of the chief

needs in the neutron measurements area for

defense is for neutron cross sections (discussed in section 2/3. B. 2 above). Weapons

design information is classified but most

cross section requests are not. Neutron cross sections are also needed for radiation transport through the atmosphere and through thick

concrete shields (e.g. missile silos). At this time the Defense fJuclear Agency is funding only the measurement of neutroninduced gamma-ray production cross sections,

however, the Division of Military Applications

of Department of Energy has requested measure- ment of a large number of neutron cross

sections, and is supporting evaluation of cross sections. The needs for standard

neutron cross sections as a measurement base

for measurement of neutron cross sections for

applications, discussed in section 2/3. B.

above, are equally valid here.

Neutron penetration information . The

threat of biological damage due to neutrons

from nuclear weapons is generally disregarded

relative to the threat due to blast and gamma

radiation. This is probably justified for

weapon yields much greater than about 100 kT

(equivalent tons of TNT explosive). However,

for weapons with yields of a few kT or less,

the relative threat of biological damage due

to neutrons is substantial. One cannot rule

out the possibility of the use in the future,

particularly by terrorist groups, of very

small weapons which have radiation as their

primary hazard. Studies show that for a 40 kT

weapon, lethal doses of neutrons can be

received at distances of about 1400 m, where

the blast overpressure is less than 15 psi

(lO^Pa). Shelter adequate to survive the

blast pressure does not necessarily guarantee

sufficient protection from neutrons. Furthermore, covert explosions could be much smaller.

For nuclear weapons of small yield, the

neutron dose at a fixed overpressure level

increases rapidly with decreasing yield. It

is therefore important to be able to estimate

the protection that ordinary buildings provide

against neutrons. Many measurements producing

this kind of information were made in the

past. However, most reliance is now placed

on theoretical calculations.

Nuclear reactors and weapons . As users of

nuclear reactors (in submarines) and storers

and transporters of nuclear weapons, the

Department of Defense shares many of the same concerns as other radiation users: radiation

protection, personnel monitoring, reactor

instrumentation, environmental impact. These

are covered in the appropriate sections

elsewhere in this report.

2/3. E CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Although other applications of radiation

for chemical analysis, such as electron microprobe analysis are significant, by far the

most important application is activation

analysis. Activation analysis is important

as an analytical chemistry method because:

(a) its ultimate sensitivity is excellent for

nearly every element, and for many elements

its sensitivity is better than by any other

technique; (b) non-destructive analysis is

often possible; (c) several elements in a single sample can be determined; (d) it

avoids problems of contaminated reagents;

39
(e) postirradiation chemical treatment is

facilitated by freedom to use carrier techniques; and (f) it can even distinguish

between different isotopes of the same element

(Schulze, 1969). The growth in the field is

shown by the increase from about 50 papers

per year published in 1949 to about 800 in

1968, and the number has increased since.

Most activation analysis is done using

thermal neutrons from nuclear reactors (80-90%

of the field); sealed -tube or accelerator

neutron generators producing 14 MeV neutrons

account for 5-10%; photon activation analysis

less than 5%; charged-particle activation

analysis less than 5%; and ^"Cf spontaneous

fission neutron sources, small but growing.

The reactor-based thermal neutron activation

analysis is centered around government agencies and national laboratories, with participation by a few commercial companies (Ford,

Dow Chemical, General Telephone and Electronics and the solid-state electronics

industry) and universities. The activation

analysis field is limited in size because,

although accurate, it is expensive. Thermal

neutron activation analysis is usually the

method of choice if available and capable of

doing the job, since reactors run continuously

and can irradiate many samples simultaneously.

Sensitivities of 1 nanogram are not unusual,

and sometimes parts per billion can be

detected. Fourteen MeV neutrons are of

limited use, chiefly for oxygen determinations.

Thermal neutron activation analysis is not

sensitive for elements with atomic number Z equal to 8 or less. Photon activation

analysis (using linacs or betatrons) and

charged-particle activation analysis (using

p, d, ^He, or alpha particle beams from

cyclotrons) are important for C, N, and 0

determinations (sensitivity less than 1 yg).

Oxygen in sodium (important for LMFBR application) has been determined at the few ppm level

(Lutz, 1971). Photon activation analysis is

also important for its great sensitivity for some elements: for example, F, Fe, and Pb

(the latter is most important because of the

environmental concern with lead).

Standards for activation analysis are chiefly Standard Reference Materials with

major, minor, or trace elements accurately

specified depending upon the application.

Most activation analysis measurements are relative to a standard sample of similar

composition to the unknown. Therefore a very

good standard is an SRM of nominally the same composition as the unknown sample. Another

approach is to use an internal standard, for

example, a radioactivity solution standard

which is dispersed throughout the material.

For thermal neutrons, the standard needs

to be similar to the sample in thermal neutron

absorption, epithermal neutron scattering and

gamma-ray attenuation. Standards may also be

needed to evaluate effects due to activation

by fast neutrons present, possible trace

elements in the sample, and radiolysis effects

(Quinn, 1968). Examples of SRM's in unusual

matrices to match samples include orchard

leaves and bovine liver. In environmental

samples it may be important to determine the

natural radioactivity.

For fast neutrons and photon activation

analysis, standards for the elements to be

measured are needed: e.g., C, N, 0, F, Si, P, Cr, Fe, Pb. For charged-particle activation

analysis the sample needs to be almost identical in stopping power: for example, discs

of selected metals containing known levels of

the elements of interest.

Another class of radioactivity standards

needed are point-source and mixed radionuclide

gamma-ray standards, which are important for

calibrating energy response and efficiency of

Ge(Li) solid state detectors used as detectors

for activation analysis because of their high

resolution. Nuclear data on gamma-ray energies

and gamma-ray emission rates are also important, but are probably also in reasonably

satisfactory shape.

In conclusion, most standards needed for

activation analysis are not ionizing radiation

standards per se, but Standard Reference

Materials. The chief ionizing radiation

standards needed are radioactivity standards

for gamma rays including those in solution

and various matrices.

2/3. F RADIATION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR

SCIENCE

"Measurements for science" are considered

here as those undertaken in order to obtain

a better understanding of the physical or biological world; these measurements either

produce new information or serve to prove or disprove the validity of basic theories

relating to the systems on which the measurements are made. The radiations considered

here are photons (energies > 1 keV), leptons

(electrons, neutrinos, etc.), mesons, baryons,

(protons, neutrons, etc.) and heavy ions.

Measurements considered here fall into two categories: (1) fundamental studies of the

radiations themselves and their basic interaction processes (radiation and nuclear

science), and (2) use of radiation as a tool

for solving problems in other sciences (for

example, biology, medicine, geology, chemistry.

40
and archaeology). The measurement needs of

these categories are quite different, and

will be considered separately.

Radiation and nuclear science . As an example of how the measurement system enters

into the determination of radiation properties

and the effect of radiation on matter, con- sider the experimental determination of a nuclear cross section. There are at least

five principal measurement quantities that

must be specified in a direct experimental

determination of a crojs section. These are

listed in Table 10 along with an indication

of the standard reference data and measurements that must be made to determine each

quantity.

In this example, few of the measurements

rely on the existence cf specific radiation

measurement standards. They depend more on the standards associated with the Sl-base unit

system, the fundamental constants of nature,

the existence of critically evaluated standard

reference data, standard reference materials,

and a few precision berchmark measurements .of

the basic physical properties of matter as

well as of the response to radiation of

instruments of specified design and construction. In this and other examples of fundamental measurements in nuclear and radiation

science, dependence is greater on a wide

range of physical measurement standards than

on specifically ionizing radiation standards.

In the case of most neutron measurements,

however, this is not true -- perhaps the most

difficult measurement is the establishment of

the neutron beam fluence -- a major objective

of the NBS Neutron Standards program.

Radiation as a measurement tool in the

sciences . Radiation is widely used as an investigative tool in many sciences: biology,

genetics, medicine, geology, archaeology,

geology, metrology, space, chemistry, and

so forth. The needs of the scientific

investigators in these diverse fields are

very much the same: (1) characterization and

calibration of radiation sources and fields;

(2) characterization and calibration of the

radiation detectors; and (3) description of

the interaction of the radiation with matter

both in terms of fundamental cross sections

and macroscopic properties such as attenuation, energy deposition, etc.

Table 10. Measurement quantities involved in

a photon- or charged particleinduced cross section measurement.

Measurement standards involved are indicated

in parentheses.

A. Energy scales and calibrations

1. Evaluated nuclear data ( atomic mass , excitation energies of benchmark nuclear

level

)

2. Deflection of charged particles in a magnetic field ( atomic mass , proton magnetic

moment , frequency , length )

3. Time-of-f 1 ight of neutrons ( atomic

mass , frequency , length )

B. Characterization of incident beam

1. Primarily from measurements made to describe radiation field

2. Beam fluence

a. Charged particles - charge

collected ( electronic charge , capacitance , vol tage )

b. Photons - calibrated ionization

chamber (P-2 chamber) ( vol tage , current , time )

C. Number of nuclei in beam ( mass , mole , atomic masses )

D. Geometry of the experiment

1. Deflection angle - survey ( length )

2. Solid angle - direct measurement of area and distance ( length ) , indirect measurement ( standard sources of radiation )

E. Response function of detector

1. Measurement with calibrated sources

( standard sources )

2. Theoretical calculations based on standard reference data ( interaction cross sections )

Not all the items listed in table 10 would be

required for every measurement. Some items,

for example the characterization of the

incident beam, could require an even more extensive list of measurements.

41
In the biological sciences and radiation

chemistry, it is normally assumed that effects

observed are to first order dependent only on the energy deposited per unit mass within the

medium with which the radiation interacts

(absorbed dose). In general, the measurement

techniques to determine this quantity directly

in absolute units (joules/kg) do not exist,

and there is a need for instrument calibration

services in well-characterized radiation

fields under carefully controlled and reproducible geometrical conditions. The measure- ment system here is closely allied to that of

other applications of radiation and its interactions with matter.

Sources . Sources are characterized by

type of radiation emitted, emission rate, and

energy spectrum. Radioactive sources may be

characterized by activity, half-life, and

decay scheme. Accelerator and reactor sources may be characterized by energy and spectrum,

beam current or power, beam divergence, flux

density. The radiation field around a source may often serve as a Standard Reference Field.

Fields . Field description is in terms of

the flux density or fluence, kerma rate,

energy spectrum, and/or geometrical properties.

Standard reference fields serve as standards

for field quantities. Standard instruments

are needed to measure radiation quantities in

fields.

Detectors . Detectors need to be characterized in terms of their response ("dial

reading") in a known radiation field, or efficiency, and also some detectors may be

characterized in terms of their pulse height

distribution for a given monoenergetic

radiation source.

Interaction of radiation with matter . The

microscopic or cross section description gives

reaction probabilities, and angular and energy

distributions of emitted particles. The

macroscopic description of radiation interaction with matter yields information on absorbed dose distributions, energy spectra

of radiations throughout the medium, and

probabilities for radiation effects (changes

in physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials)

In table 11 are shown some NBS activities

contributing to the use of ionizing radiation

as a measurement tool in the sciences.

Needs . The needs of the ionizing radiation

measurement system for science are primarily

for continuation of the standards, calibration,

and data services now provided, with appropriate modifications as needs change. One gap

which has become apparent is the need for

systematic compilation and tabulation of

charged-particle stopping power, range, and

straggling and delta-ray production data

particularly at low energies (below about

10 MeV). This should be done systematically

in the sense that x-ray attenuation coefficients are tabulated by the X-Ray and Ionizing

Radiations Data Center of NSRDS. The need

derives from the need for better information

on the interactions of pions, neutrons and

heavier charged particles with biological

materials, and from the need for better data

for the technology of ion implantation in

material s

2/3. G ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENT

Introduction . There has been great public concern over the widespread use of nuclear

power, because of possible consequent radioactive contamination of the environment. A first step in the elimination of the unwanted

radioactivity is its reliable measurement.

In the past, many environmental monitoring

laboratories have had poor control over their

radioactivity measurements. The regulators

of radioactivity at the national level, the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well

as state health departments, have recognized

the need to make environmental radioactivity

measurements traceable to the national radioactivity measurements system for which NBS has

a major responsibility. NBS as an independent

agency without regulatory power but with

standards responsibility and a reputation for

reliable measurements capability, has therefore

been asked by the agencies, to help to develop

the "traceability" of environmental radioactivity measurements to NBS.

The schematic diagram of the low-level

radioactivity "measurements system" is shown

in figure 9. NBS has as its goal the establishment of traceability of the users (bottom

line in figure 9, see appendix F, tables F-1

and F-2) through the quality control laboratories (second line). Occasionally, NBS will

penetrate to the user level by the provision

of standards and test samples.

To use a somewhat oversimplified statement,

traceability may be established when an outside

laboratory correctly measures test samples

provided by NBS or when NBS measures standard

samples of an outside laboratory and agrees

with the assigned calibration.

42
Table 11. Some NBS contributions to ionizing

radiation measurements for science

SOURCES AND FIELDS

Standard Reference Materials

- Over 80 calibrated radioactive sources

Standard Reference Radiation Fields

- Filtered low energy x-rays

- Thermal neutron flux

- Ra-Be (y, n) standard neutron source

- ^^^Cf spontaneous fission neutron source

- Intermediate-energy neutron standard

- ^°Co Y-ray beam

- ^^'Cs y-ray beam

- Filtered neutron beams

Characterization of Radiation Sources

- Spectrum of ^"Co teletherapy sources

- Bremsstrahl ung and photoneutrons from

electron-irradiated thick targets

DETECTORS

Standard Instruments

(Design specifications or prototypes for

intercomparison and/or calibration

measurements)

- Free air ionization chamber

- P-2 ionization chamber

- Absorbed dose calorimeter

- Precision Faraday cup

- Spherical graphite chambers as exposure

standards

Detector Response Data

- Ionization to absorbed dose conversion for

photon and electron beams

- Response function of NaI(T£) detectors to

x- and y-rays

- Response of Si detectors to electrons

INTERACTION OF RADIATION WITH ATOMS,

MOLECULES, NUCLEI

Benchmark Measurements

- Radiation width of 15.10 MeV level in ^^C

- C total neutron cross section

- Form factor of the proton

- Form factor of ^^C

Standard Reference Data

- Evaluated data on "atomic" interaction of

photons

- Evaluated data on nuclear interaction of

photons

- Kerma factors for neutrons

INTERACTION OF RADIATION WITH BULK MATTER

- Development of methods of calculating

penetration, diffusion, slowing down of

high energy radiation (moments, Monte Carlo,

numerical methods)

- Gamma-ray, neutron, and electron transmission

- Energy degradation spectra for electrons,

secondary particles from neutrons

- Critical data tabulations (electron and

charged particle stopping power and range

tables, depth dose distributions)

Figure 9. Structure of the environmental

radioactivity measurement system.

43
Traceability at the international level . At the international level, NBS maintains

traceability to the international radioactivity measurements system through "roundrobin", and other, intercomparisons with

national laboratories in other countries.

International agencies ;uch as BIPM and IAEA sometimes sponsor such efforts which NBS

supports strongly. These efforts not only serve to help evaluate the "state-of-the-art",

but also give more certiinty to NBS values

when these values are given to laboratories

within the U.S. NBS will sometimes invite a foreign laboratory, whi ;h has a particular

measurement expertise, to collaborate in

solving a particular measurements problem.

This has been the case in the development of

the NBS environmental -radioactivity freshwatersediment standard for wnich Dr. Miettinen in

Finland agreed to measure the iron-55 content.

At different times, NBS has been asked, or

has asked laboratories outside the U.S., to serve as referees in cases of dispute.

Recently, NBS was asked to make a survey of

European laboratories engaged in environmental

radioactivity measurements, to explore possible expansion of joint international efforts,

especially as they may relate to the solution

of the energy crisis.

Traceability of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) . The NRC, either directly

or through contracts with a number of state

health laboratories, monitors the discharge

of radioactivity from nuclear power reactors

and fuel reprocessing plants. It, therefore,

has a strong interest in the radioactivity

measurement capabilities of these states, the

nuclear power (and related) industry, and the

NRC quality control laboratory - Department

of Energy's Health Services Laboratory, Idaho

Falls. The NRC requires, as a standard provision of its contract with about 25 states,

that their measurements be "traceable to NBS."^ These states verify results of NRC

^ARTICLE II - SCOPE (of NRC state agreement);

The STATE and the Commission shall engage

in a cooperative program for measuring quantities and concentrations of radioactivity

and radiation levels in the environment of

Commission licensed activities located within

the STATE and selected by the Commission.

The principal objectives of the program are

to 1) provide reasonable assurances that

effluent analyses and environmental measurement made by the licensee under Commission

requirements are valid and 2) achieve and

maintain traceability to the National Bureau

of Standards of the radioactivity measurements made by the licensee, the STATE and

the Commission laboratory involved in this

contract.

licensee measurements related to the discharge

of radioactivity and often impose additional

restrictions of their own. Many state laboratories are not yet expert enough to monitor

measurement accuracies of NRC licensees. Thus,

the NRC (HSL) furnishes necessary services

to contract states (round-robin intercomparisons, etc.) for achievement of some form of

traceability to NBS and to improve their

capability. To facilitate standardization of

these state laboratories, the NRC is distributing intermediate-level standard samples,

which are, or will be, traceable to NBS. In addition, at the request of the NRC, NBS has

provided these states with intermediate-level

gaseous standards of ^^^Xe and ®^Kr.

The major element in the NRC traceability

program is the continuing measurements program

between the Health Services Laboratory in

Idaho and NBS. Each year the HSL is required

to measure a number of NBS test sources and

report results which should fall within predetermined limits of the NBS values.

Traceability of the Environmental Protection

Agency . The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is charged with monitoring and regulating

environmental radioactivity "outside the

fence." The EPA performs round robin intercomparisons with its monitoring laboratories.

The "milk surveillance network" is a well-known

example of a measurements sub-system in this

field. The program is managed from their

Las Vegas laboratory (NERC-LV) with which NBS

is engaged in a traceability study. As does

NRC, EPA is providing intermediate level

standards to user groups. During the past

several years, many secondary standards have

been measured at NBS, many NBS test sources

have been sent to NERC-LV. NERC-LV has also

received a number of standard sources for

instrument calibrations.

The EPA has also asked that NBS make

available to the public, through the SRM

program, a number of solution standards of

alpha-particle emitters (Table F-3). These

standards will be needed for environmental

surveillance programs at fast breeder

reactors, coal-burning power plants, and other

associated processing facilities.

44
NBS interaction with the users . NBS

interacts directly with the users of environmental radioactivity standards (Table F-1 of

appendix F) by providing SRM's and test sources through the SRM program and, to a lesser extent, by providing calibration

services of user standards. Table F-2 lists

operational nuclear-power reactors and many

scheduled for operation which use (or do not

use) NBS standards. In addition standards

are supplied to the 4 major reactor manufacturers, roughly 12 nuclear service corporations, and many universities performing

radioactivity measurerrents. Standards are also required by the other facilities in the

nuclear-fuel cycle, such as: uranium mines,

fuel -fabrication plants, and fuel -reprocessing plants.

The capital investment and operating costs

required to maintain an environmental surveillance program at a reactor are quite high.

One observer estimates that it costs $250,000

to equip an environmental laboratory for a single power reactor (multiple units at the same site normally use a single laboratory)

and that operating costs, including manpower,

are about $150,000 per year. The magnitude

of these operations affects the NBS Standards

program in two ways. First, the laboratories

are asking for NBS Standards for the instrument calibrations. They are increasingly

unwilling to use secondary standards to calibrate gamma-ray spectrometer systems which

cost in excess of $35,000. Secondly, the

utilities are turning to environmental con- sulting groups, whose analytical services are often cheaper and more convenient than maintaining an in-house measurements capability.

Neither the NRC or the EPA has any direct

control over such laboratories at the present

time. However, most of these companies are

using NBS standards to calibrate their instruments (and to increase credibility with their

customers)

The standard reference materials available

include mixed gamma-ray solution standards

(Cavallo, et aj_, 1973), alpha- and betaparticle-emitting solution standards, and

radioactive noble gas standards. NBS has

issued a fresh-water-sediment SRM, which is

certified for a number of alpha- and betaparticle- and gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides. Tables F-2 and F-4 in appendix F indicate the wide use of radioactivity SRM's

by the nuclear industry. Most of the users

listed in Table F-2 are also interested in

gaseous standards for calibration of gammaray spectrometers. In a limited distribution

of '^^Xe gas standards (table F-4), NBS was able to supply standards to representatives

of each type of power reactor in the U.S.:

PWR, BWR, and HTGR.

The second method of NBS interaction with

users is by means of test sources. In 1973

NBS distributed mixed-radionucl ide test

sources containing gamma-ray emitters and in

1974 a mixed test source containing ®^Sr

and '°Sr - ^°Y. A total of 27 laboratories,

with representatives from each user group in

table F-1, participated in these intercomparisons. The results have been published

(Coursey, Noyce and Hutchinson, 1975).

The impact of NBS standards on the measurements system is best illustrated by examining

the environmental -surveil lance network in a small geographic area. Figure 10 shows who

uses the NBS radioactivity standards in four

states in the south. All of the regulators

in this area are using NBS environmental

radioactivity standards as are all the operating reactors and the soon-to-be operating

fuel reprocessing plant. The independent

consultants and universities are also using

NBS standards to calibrate their detectors

for field measurements at the reactor sites

(as shown by the dashed lines on the diagram).

Chemists or health physicists representing

the reactors under construction have talked

with NBS personnel about availability of NBS

standards

It should be noted, however, that the use of NBS standards by these laboratories does

not insure traceability of their measurements

to NBS. Actual measurement competence of

each laboratory must be demonstrated by its

measurement of unknowns (distributed by NBS or laboratories traceable to NBS). Four of the

laboratories shown in the figure participated

in the intercomparisons mentioned previously.

2/3. H MISCELLANEOUS RADIATION APPLICATIONS

Introduction . In addition to the specific

areas of application mentioned in previous

sections of this report, there are a large

number of uses of ionizing radiation that are difficult to group under one simple

classification. Most of the applications

are industrial, although not exclusively of

that type. The nature of the source of

radiation covers a wide range, and the

conditions under which the source is used are often extreme. In some cases, the users

the users are highly regulated

45
^m'iF^rv 1,2,3

o

V

V.C. Summer

Barnwell, S.C.

Hatch I

REGULATORS

@ USNRC REGION H , (HSL)

@ SOUTHEAST REGIONAL LABORATORY USE PA ^ STATE RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH LABORATORIES

CONSULTANTS

A APPLIED PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY

O EMORY UNfcVERSlTY

O GEORGIA TECH

if UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

JNUCLEAR FACILITIES

O OPERATING REACTORS • REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

AGNS FUEL REPROCESSING PLANT

Crystal

River 3

iSt. Lucie I

'Turkey

Point 3,4

Figure 10. Environmental radioactivity measurements system in the southeastern United States,

46
while, in other cases, there is little or no regulation. Safety of personnel is a primary

concern, but a significant number of accidental exposures do occur.

Measurement of the radiation quantities is

often not very critical, although the primary

purpose often is to measure a non-radiation

quantity by means of radiation. In spite of

localized problems asso;iated with companies

founded primarily on spsculation, the radiation applications industry as a whole shows

a significant growth rate.

There are many types of devices that make

use of radiation in miscellaneous applications, but the major types are the following:

(1) radiographic equipment, (2) gauges,

(3) irradiators, (4) oil-well logging

apparatus, (5) self-luminous products,

(6) smoke detectors, (7) static eliminators,

(8) heat sources. Although each of these

devices will not be discussed in detail,

their common characteristics will be presented

general ly.

Users . To present a comprehensive survey

of the users of the devices listed above would

require many pages of material that would

have only secondary relevance to this study.

However, to illustrate the range of uses for

only one of these devices, table 12 lists the

industries that make use of radiation gauges.

As shown in table 13, multiple applications of

these devices are common in many industries.

Table 12. Industries enploying radiation

gauging devices

Chemical & Pharmaceutical

Glass

Cement & Cement Products

Petroleum Refining

Electric Power Products

Steel

Non-Ferrous Metals

Waste Treatment

Food & Beverages

Rubber

Plastics

Tobacco

Paper and Al 1 ied

Aeronautical

Electronics

Laboratory Use

Mining

Paint

Ceramics

Textiles

A similar analysis of uses for each device

could be presented in this manner, and the

conclusion one would ree.ch is that such equipment is used in the majority of industries for

a variety of purposes. In some cases, devices

such as gauges and radicigraphic equipment are

crucial elements in process control and

quality assurance programs. Gauges, for

example, are used to mee-sure properties like

thickness, v/eight, density, moisture content,

level, and sheet profile. Many gauge installations are of custom d€:sign, for specific

applications in specific environments. An excellent example of the wide range of use parameters encountered in radiation applications is the application of radiographic

equipment. This type of equipment is used

widely in nondestructive testing. Selection

of a particular device is based on five

principal factors: radiation quality,

radiation output, source size, range of

operation, and reliability. Table 14 shows

tne relationship between voltage and radiographic application for x rays to achieve

efficient penetration. In special applications, such as inspection of pressure vessels

for nuclear power reactors, energies required

are much higher. One steel company uses a 25 MeV betatron for inspection of flued heads,

and 12 MeV linear accelerators are being

purchased for routine inspection procedures

by another company.

Table 13. Applications of radiation gauging

devices in selected industries

Plastics

Cal endars

Extruders

Blown Film

Lamination

Coating

Casti ng Raw Materials

Rubber

Cal endars

Tread

Tire Inspection

Metals

Cold Rol 1 ing Hot Rolling

CI assifyi ng Pickl ing

Coating

Raw Material

Raw Materials Processing

Paper

Pre-digester

Digester

Post-digester

Paper Machine

Coaters/Lami nators

Mill Roll Inspection

Some companies are in the business of

supplying both field and laboratory inspection

and testing services to all segments of

industry. One such company provides services

by tv/elve divisional and district offices

from Alaska to the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

Foreign operations are carried out through a Canadian subsidiary and also through cooperative ventures in Europe and South America.

The company's in-house capability covers all

forms of nondestructive testing, visual

inspection, and vendor surveillance programs.

Additionally, concrete and physical properties

tests are performed on a field-project, jointventure basis. The area of greatest demand

for service has historically been nondestructive testing of weldments, usually by radiography, performed during field construction

and shop manufacturing operations. To meet

this demand, the company manufactures its own

47
portable x-ray machines and accessory equipment to outfit its own fleet of trucks as mobile field laboratories. This fleet of more than 200 mobile units supplied from an inventory of more than 400 x-ray machines and

100 gamma- ray cameras makes the field operation the largest of its type in the world.

Table 14. Relationship between voltage and

radiographic application

X-ray tube

potential or photon energy Typical Applications

50 kV Wood, plastics, textiles,

leather, grain. Diffraction

and microradiography.

100 kV Light metals and alloys.

Fluoroscopy of food stuffs,

plastic parts and assemblies,

and small light alloy castings.

150 kV Heavy sections of light metals

and alloys, and thin sections

of steel or copper alloys.

Fluoroscopy of light metals.

250 kV Heavier sections of steel or copper. (Fluoroscopy is not generally used at this voltage).

1 to 2 MeV Radiography of heavy ferrous

and nonferrous sections.

Other major users of radiation devices, as

a class, are the military services. In 1922,

radiographic equipment with a Coolidge x-ray

tube that could operate at 200 kV with a current of 5 mA was installed at the Army

Ordnance Arsenal at Watertown, Massachusetts.

With the installation of this equipment,

pioneer efforts were made which led to the

first real accomplishments in industrial

radiography. In 1929 the Naval Research

Laboratory did the first casting radiograph

using radium. Radiography received a great

impetus from World War II, and during those

years it was actually formalized into a science. The advent of complex systems such

as jet-powered aircraft and rocket-powered

ballistic missiles emphasized the need for

innovative radiation technology utilization.

Radiographic inspection of critical structural

elements in military aircraft is required

periodically as standard procedure. This

application, which requires extremely portable

equipment, presents a unique set of design

parameters.

There are many additional users of

radiation devices, including universities,

government agencies, and law enforcement

agencies. Government laboratories such as NASA are not only large users of radiographic

equipment, but have also contributed significant advances in the technology of radiography. Use of X rays for baggage inspection

is becoming more widespread each day in this

country.

Manufacturers . Data on the size of the

radiation source and radiation device industries are difficult to obtain because many

individual companies prevent disclosure of

their figures. For purposes of discussion,

it is convenient to categorize manufacturers

by their products as follows:

1) Isotopic radiation sources

2) Machine radiation sources

3) Devices employing isotopic sources

4) Devices employing machine sources.

There are approximately 30 principal

suppliers of radioactive sources, according

to a 1974 report by the USAEC (AEC, 1974).

In November 1973, the Bureau of the Census

reported total shipments of sealed and other

radiation sources for industrial applications

had a value in 1972 of $15 million. This

represents a growth of about 21% over the

previous year.

Estimates relating to the manufacture of

machine radiation sources are not available

generally. This category would include power

supplies, x-ray tubes, and accelerators. It appears, however, that about half a dozen

companies share most of the business among

themselves

The Bureau of the Census, in the same report mentioned above, presented a total

figure for the sum of 1972 shipments of

radiographic, radiotel etherapy , process

irradiation devices and systems, and nuclear

self-illuminating materials and devices.

That total value, which was $3.5 million,

represented a growth of almost 60% over the

previous year.

The USAEC, in its 1971 report on the

nuclear industry, listed 26 principal suppliers

of industrial radioisotope gauges and gauging

systems. Estimated total sales by these

companies in 1972 was $53 million, with an annual growth rate of 15%. Slightly over

half of this total was sales by only one of

the companies.

48
It is estimated that 20,000 industrial

x-ray sets were in use in 1972, which represents a growth of 30% in 3 years compared to an earlier estimate, "i'hus it appears that a high growth rate is typical in the radiation

device industry as a whole. This conclusion

is supported by an examination of the use of

radiation in industry as reflected by literature references, which shows an almost

exponential growth rate.

Regulators . At the federal level, there

are three regulators of industrial radiation

equipment and its use. The first and foremost

is the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormiission

(see section 2.4.4). NRC regulations applicable to industrial use of radioisotopes are listed in Table 15. The Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA) was set up

as a result of the Wi 1 1 iams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This

act gives the Secretary of Labor the authority

to issue such mandatory standards and enforcement rules and regulations as are necessary

to furnish employees a place of employment

which is free of recognized hazards. The

responsibilities of OSHA for ionizing radiation relate only to those ionizing radiation

sources in the workplace not covered under

NRC regulations, such as natural activity,

;<-rays, and isotopes other than those produced by nuclear reactors. The third regulatory agency is the Bureau of Radiological

Health which, under the Radiation Control for

Health and Safety Act of 1968, has been

delegated responsibility to protect the public

from unnecessary exposure to radiation from

electronic products.

Standards and Calibration Laboratories . At the moment, it appears that the accuracy

required for radiation measurements associated

with manufacture and use of these radiation

devices is relatively low. Requirements for

accuracy in radiation protection measurements

are often greater than those for measurements

associated with radiation application.

Calibration of radiation protection instruments is achieved by returning the instrument

to the manufacturer or by the use of a calibration source purchased from NBS or some other manufacturer of such sources.

Except for radiation protection purposes,

a highly accurate characterization of the

radiation quantities apparently is not necessary for applications considered here. In the use of radiation gauges for measurement

of thickness, for example, calibration of the

device is achieved by 'inserting a piece of

material whose thickness is known to high

accuracy and then making appropriate adjustments in the readout or control system. In

x-ray and radioisotope radiography the

ultimate objective is a good radiograph.

This is achieved by adjusting x-ray tube

voltage and current, by choosing appropriate

exposure times, by selecting the proper film, screen, developer, etc. In radioisotopic

radiography, the most important operational

parameter is time.

Table 15. NRC regulations applicable to industrial use of radioisotopes

10 CFR Part 20 "Standards for Protection

Against Radiation"

10 CFR part 30 "Rules of General Applicability

to Licensing of Byproduct

Material s"

10 CFR Part 31 "General Licenses for Byproduct

Material s"

10 CFR Part 32 "Specific Licenses to Manufacture, Distribute, or Import

Exempted and Generally Licensed

Items Containing Byproduct

Material

10 CFR Part 33 "Specific Licenses of Broad

Scope for Byproduct Material"

10 CFR Part 34 "Licenses for Radiography and

Radiation Safety Requirements

for Radiographic Operations"

10 CFR Part 36 "Export and Import of Byproduct

Material

10 CFR Part 40 "Licensing of Source Material"

10 CFR Part 70 "Special Nuclear Material"

The most stringent accuracy requirements

for measurements appear to be at the manufacturing, rather than user, level. Approximately

25 companies are listed in the 1973 Nuclear

News Buyer's Guide as providers of calibration

services. A number of these also are manufacturers of radiation sources and devices.

Other Interested Groups . Two professional

societies have been active in the field of

radiography for a number of years. They are

the American Society for Non-Destructive

Testing (ASNT) and the American Welding

Society (AWS). Both are involved in the

writing of engineering standards related to various aspects of radiographic equipment and

its use.

The American Nuclear Society (ANS), because

of its general interest in applications of

radiation, must be considered an interested

group. Although this society emphasizes

matters related to nuclear reactors, it is not limited to that area. 49
Needs . The chief measurement need re- lates to radiation safety in the use of the

radiation equipment necessary for the various

applications. This would seem to call for

all regulators to be traceable to NBS;

adequate survey and personnel monitoring

(see next section); and promulgation of

standards and codes of good practice to tell users how to operate their equipment safely.

Documentary Standards in this area are prepared by ANSI Committee N43 (Equipment

for Non-Medical Radiation Applications) and

with the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (see section

2.2.1.1 above). An appropriate NBS response

would be increased support of those two groups.

2/3.1 PERSONNEL MONITORING

2/3.1.1 Nature of Activity and Present Status

The term personnel monitoring as used here means the recording of the radiation response

of devices worn by individuals for the purpose

of inferring the approximate radiation dose

received by them in the course of their

duties. Personnel monitoring for protection

of workers against radiation is a need common

to all users of radiation whether they work

in medicine, industry, nuclear energy, in

universities, or in defense. Personnel

monitoring devices usually are carried on the

body (attached to collar, shirt pocket, belt, or lab coat). In special circumstances they

are worn on the wrist or as finger rings.

They usually consist of photographic film in

a holder (film badge) incorporating certain

personnel -identification data, or of thermoluminescence material in a similar arrangement

(TLD badge). Most industries, hospitals, and

clinics purchase personnel -monitoring services

from at least 14 commercial suppliers.

Government laboratories and military installations usually have their own services.

Personnel -monitoring badges are changed

and read at intervals of typically one month,

with many establishments using three-month

periods for workers unlikely to be exposed

to radiation in the normal course of their

activities. For workers whose normal duties

bring them in contact with radiation, weekly,

biweekly, or more frequent changes may be

made. In the event of an accident or suspected radiation dose, a reading may be

obtained immediately and a new badge issued.

The longer exposure periods bring certain

problems: if a procedure or apparatus is

producing some personnel exposure, considerable doses could be received before a high

reading calls attention to the problem. Also,

particularly with photographic film used for

fast-neutron monitoring, there may be severe latent-image fading especially in the presence

of heat and humidity, with a corresponding

underestimation or even nondetection of the

dose received. Badging intervals are, of

course, normally based on experience and are usually conservative. In addition, warning

devices such as "chirpees" may be carried by

personnel working in potentially hazardous

areas to alert the individuals as to the

existence of a hazard, but, as a rule, they

do not lead to a permanent record of dose

received.

Personnel monitoring differs from survey

or area monitoring (also used in personnel

protection) in which instruments are used to determine the radiation levels in a room and

to warn if the radiation levels are unsafe

for occupancy. In area monitoring, usually

no attempt is made to record the total dose

received by the individual.

2/3.1.2 Basic Problems and Needs

A major problem in personnel monitoring is

that the response of the monitoring devices

as a rule does not parallel the presumed

biological effect of radiation in man. The

extent of the discrepancy depends critically

on the type of dosimeter used, and the kinds

and energies of the radiations. For this

reason, it is important for suppliers of

personnel -monitoring services to have as much

information as possible regarding the nature

of the radiation fields to which the workers

carrying the personnel-monitoring devices may

have access, and to have features incorporated

into the devices which provide for some discrimination between exposure to different

types and energies of radiation. A further

problem in personnel monitoring is that in

many instances the radiation field at the

personnel dosimeter may not be the same as that at the critical organ (or organs), either

because of the orientation of the radiation

field relative to that of the person wearing

the dosimeter, or because of the location of

the critical organ relative to that of the

dosimeter. In some instances, multiple

badging is helpful, but often the sole

solution of these problems is to make estimates

of the errors stemming from each of the

difficulties and to adopt dosimeter geometries

insuring that whenever possible the errors are on the "safe side," i.e., that they lead

to an overestimation of the dose received.

(See, e.g., ICRU Reports 19 and 20, 1971.) A detailed discussion of these basic problems

of personnel dosimetry, touching on the very

philosophy of radiation protection, goes well

beyond the scope of these remarks. It is

true, however, that proper dosimeter calibration, though not sufficient to guarantee

50
satisfactory estimates of the dose received

by radiation workers, Is a necessary prerequisite for such estimates.

Neutron personnel monitoring presents

special difficulties. This is due in part

to the state of the technology of neutron

dosimetry, and in part to the problem that

whenever neutrons are present, gamma-rays are present as well. This necessitates often

difficult mixed-field Josimetry. In filmbadge monitoring for neutrons, nuclear track

emulsions are used. Dose is evaluated by

counting the number of proton recoil tracks

observed in a fixed nu.nber of microscope

fields. In addition to being subject to fading, these personnel monitors are insensitive to neutrons below about 0.5 MeV, an energy range in which much of the neutron dose

from modern nuclear reactors is found. In an attempt to find a better neutron monitor, a number of laboratories are developing and

using so-called "albedo neutron dosimeters"

which have pairs of Li-6 and Li-7 containing

TLD detector elements in a moderating shell

to provide good low-ensrgy neutron response.

For testing whether these monitors do, in

fact, give the proper response, a need

existed for standard reference neutron fields

especially in the energy region below 1 MeV

(but a few higher energies as well). NBS has

responded with a program, initially with

Department of Energy support, to provide monoenergetic calibration fields in the required

energy ranges using reactor beam filters

which give monoenergetic neutron fields of 2,

25, and 144 keV, and Van de Graaff accelerator

neutron fields in the energy range above

30 keV. These fields have been developed at NBS and are now available to the designers of

dosimeters and the suppliers of personnel

monitoring services for checking the neutron

response of their detectors.

Another problem is concerned with the

reliability of commercial companies who supply

personnel-monitoring service to organizations

not connected with the Federal Government.

These organizations are normally under the

regulatory control of State public health

departments, and, in the case of radioisotopes, of the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.

Therefore, the following important question

arises: How does the radiation user or the

regulatory agency know that the measurements

made by the commercial monitoring company

chosen are, in fact, reliable and sufficiently

accurate to furnish a basis for an estimate

of the dose received by radiation workers?

As will be seen later, he frequently cannot

know. As a result, the Nuclear Regulatory

Connission, the Bureau of Radiological Health,

and representatives of the Conference of

Radiation Control Program Directors have

expressed their concern about the performance

(extent of reliability and accuracy) of

commercial personnel -monitoring services, and

have asked NBS for advice and assistance in

solving problems existing in this area. This

led to the initiation by NBS of a "base-line

study" of the current performance of at least

the commercial suppliers and one military

personnel -moni toring service. This study was carried out by Battel le-Northwest under con- tract with NBS, which in turn received some

funds for this work from the Bureau of Radiological Health. The NRC later added a similar

study for NRC contractor laboratories, also

performed at Battel 1 e-Northwest, in parallel

with the NBS-initiated work.

One approach to a permanent solution to this measurement problem would be to have a measurement-assurance service provided by NBS or by a laboratory whose measurement standards

are traceable to those of NBS. The laboratory

furnishing this service would expose personnelmonitoring devices to known doses of radiation

(preferably without the supplier of the devices

being aware of the test), and reported doses

of the personnel -monitors could be compared

to actual doses given. This approach would

establish whether or not the calibration

standards of the supplier of the service are traceable to those of NBS; but to do the job

with a number of badges sufficient for

obtaining statistically valid results would

require a rather expensive operation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission presently

is working on a change in the requirements

for personnel monitoring by its licensees,

based on the above approach. It will result

in the licensees having to select a supplier

of personnel -monitoring services from a list

of suppliers certified on the basis of the

results of tests carried out by a laboratory

(or laboratories) under NBS supervision.

While the NBS function would be subsidized by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is envisaged that the bulk of the cost of the

program would be carried by the commercial

suppliers themselves.

2/3.1.3 Size and Importance of Personnel

Monitoring Activities

Estimate of size . At present, there are

at least 14 companies (probably a few more)

providing either film badge or TLD personnelmonitoring services for others (see appendix

G). Information on the numbers of persons

"badged", i.e., required to wear personnel

monitors, is given in table 16. The total

number was obtained from an estimate in a report of the Environmental Protection Agency

(Klement et al^, 1 972)

51
Table 16. Estimates of workers monitored

(1969-70)

Service Provided By

Commercial personnelmonitoring services

Companies and government

laboratories providing

their own services

Defense Department, Army,

Navy, Airforce

Number of Persons

590,000

100,000

80,000

770,000

These figures are not inconsistent with

figures for 1971 for AEC contractors and

covered licensees who reported monitoring

some 208,000 individuals (Fourth Annual Report

of the Operation of the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission's Central Repository of Individual

Radiation Exposure Information, September 1,

1972), since not all radiation workers are under AEC (now National Regulatory

Commission) surveillance.

Commercial film-badge processing has grown

steadily from around 2.5 million badges in

1963 ($1.25M) to 5.8 million badges in 1970

($4.4M) (AEC, 1971), a growth rate of 13% per

year in badges, with the medical users being

the biggest customers. TLD devices are gradually replacing photographic film for

technical reasons (no need for darkroom and

development procedures, fast, simple readout,

less dependence of response on photon energy,

higher sensitivity to intermediate and lowenergy neutrons, less fading in many

instances). The TLD device's intrinsic cost

is higher than that of film (about 10 cents

per film, $1 per TLD device), but TLD devices

usually can be used many times, while photographic film is used only once. Also, if

radiation hazards are low, it is possible to change TLD devices less frequently because of

less severe problems with fading. About 15%

of the commercial personnel -monitoring

business is carried out with TLD devices at present.

For the sake of completeness it should be

mentioned that the radiation industry needs area survey and radioactivity measuring

instruments as well as personnel -monitoring

systems. The dollar volume of this instrumentation presumably is distributed among the user applications (medical nuclear instrumentation, reactor instrumentation, etc.), and

not readily identifiable. The source and

calibration facilities required are similar

to those for personnel -monitoring, although

often less accuracy is required.

It is expected that all commercial

suppliers of personnel -monitoring services

will continue to grow rapidly due to the

growth of the nuclear industry generally, of

nuclear medicine with the particularly high

growth rate of 25% per year, and of the

nuclear electric power industry, quite small

at present, but with major growth scheduled.

Government laboratories and companies

providing their own services (mostly Government

contractors) predominantly use TLD devices.

The military services are currently using

film badges, but are looking for better

personnel monitors (usually TLD). These

groups, representing about 200,000 persons

monitored, are staying roughly constant due

to lack of real growth in Government organization budgets.

Regulation of personnel -monitoring . The

chief organizations concerned with the regulation of personnel-monitoring are the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration of the Department

of Labor, and the state and local government

radiation control offices. In addition the

Bureau of Radiological Health of the Food and

Drug Administration is generally concerned

with minimizing radiation exposure to the

population, which includes exposure to radiation workers.

In nearly every state, the state health

department is designated as the agency responsible for radiation protection with the

authority to adopt regulations. The states

discuss common problems in radiation control

at the National Conference on Radiation Control

which meets annually, and recently has been

attended by several NBS representatives each

year. This group is particularly concerned

with the question of obtaining demonstrably

reliable personnel monitoring. A workshop

on the progress made in this direction was

held in the spring of 1975.

A list of some of the regulations and guides

for personnel monitoring promulgated by such

organizations as the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI), the National

Council on Radiation Protection and

Measurements (NCRP), and the NRC is given in

table 17. The standard for film-badge

performance is Criteria for Film Badge

Performance, American National Standard

N13. 7-1972. Under review at the present time

is a similar ANSI standard for thermolumin- escence dosimeters (TLD). In addition

standards or recommendations cover performance

specifications for pocket dosimeters, administrative practices in radiation monitoring,

and radiation-exposure record keeping.

52
Table 17. Some standards and guides for personnel monitoring

Sponsoring

Organization ^ Standard or Guide

AEC The Establishment and Utilization of Film Dosimeter Performance Criteria , USAEC Report BNWL-542 (1967) by C. M. Unruh, H. W. Larson, T. M. Beetle, and

A. R. Keene. ANSI Administrative Practices in Radiation Monitoring (A Guide for Management) , American National Standard N13.2-1969.

ANSI Dosimetry for Critical ity Accidents , American National Standard N13. 3-1969.

ANSI Performance Specifications for Direct Reading and Indirect Reading Pocket

Dosimeters for X- and Gamma Radiation , American National Standard N13.6-1966

(R1972)

ANSI Criteria for Film Badge Performance , American National Standard N13. 7-1972

ANSI Practices for Occupational Radiation Exposure Records System , (reaffirmation

and redesignation of N2. 2-1966), American National Standard N13. 6-1966 (R1972).

ICRU Radiation Protection Instrumentation and Its Application , ICRU Report 20 (1971)

NCRP Radiological Monitoring Methods and Instruments , NBS Handbook 51 (1952). This

report is out of date; a new report is in preparation by NCRP, but it is not known when the new report will be available.

PHS Standards of Performance for Film Badge Services , U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-RH-20

(Sept. 1966).

^AEC United States Atomic Energy Commission (no longer in existence)

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ICRU International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

PHS U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

2/3.1.4 Structure of the Radiation Measure - ment System for Personnel Monitoring

A schematic drawing of the radiation

measurement system for personnel -monitoring

is given in figure 11

Direct Users . All users of radiation must

provide personnel monitoring for workers who

might be exposed to radiation doses above the

very low levels permissible for the general

public. The problem of personnel monitoring,

therefore, exists across the board for all

the employers of the estimated 800,000

radiation workers. In figure 11, the users

are separated into two categories: (1) The

larger group of users, medical, industrial,

nuclear power, etc., who buy their personnelmonitoring services from commercial suppliers.

Their chief concern is to have an adequate

service to provide a radiation-exposure

record to their workers which meets the

regulatory requirements placed on them by the

state or local government and/or by the NRC.

(2) In addition most of the government laboratories and the military services provide their

own personnel -monitoring services, or have

certain designated laboratories which provide

the services for the others.

Suppliers of monitoring services . A list

of personnel monitoring service suppliers is

given in appendix G. The sizes of the

businesses vary widely — from as small as 400 personnel badged per month to the order

of 100,000. The larger services computerize

their data handling for efficiency and for

keeping track of the rather large body of

permanent records.

53
NBS

S

E

R

V

I C

E

S

NAT. SAN. FOUNDATION

COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

GOVERNMENT

LABS a SERVICES

N R C

fda/brh

OSHA

STATES/'

LOCAL

R

E

G

U

L

A

T

0

R

S

GOVERNMENT

LABS a

MIL. SERVICES

ALL OTHER

RADIATION USERS

GOOD

FAIR WEAK

REGULATORY

Figure 11. Structure of the personnel monitoring measurement system

In addition to a wide variation in size,

there is also a wide variation in calibration

procedures. Some organizations have NBScalibrated beta-ray, gamma-ray, and neutron

sources. Others use sources calibrated

locally with NBS-cal i brated dosimeters,

usually Victoreen R-meters.' Other organizations use the source strength given by the source manufacturer (which may in some cases

be a nominal strength). Others own sources which have been calibrated against sources in

neighboring institutions whose calibration is

believed to be traceable to NBS calibration

standards. Others own no sources at all but

occasionally make calibration checks against

sources owned by a neighboring institution,

typically a university. Similar variations

exist with respect to the calibrations with

x-ray photons (usually bremsstrahlung) . It

is desirable for any personnel -monitoring

organization to have check sources since

these can be used to provide calibrations of

a particular batch of photographic film

(including development procedure) or a batch

of TLD material. Estimates of accuracy

claimed by the managers of the commercial

services range from about 10% to 30% for x and gamma rays, much worse for neutrons.

(Measurement-assurance testing experience

indicates that such estimates are often much

smaller than the actual errors).

^Mention of particular brand-names of commercial equipment here does not constitute NBS

endorsement (or criticism) of a particular

product.

The organizations which have received the

Seal of Approval (i.e., which "pass" the test)

of the National Sanitation Foundation, which

carries out measurement-assurance tests on a limited scale with radiation type and energy

known to the participants, were within ranges

of about 67% to 150% of the given dose for

X and gamma rays, with somewhat broader ranges

for neutrons.

Standards and calibration laboratories . Two of the chief standards laboratories in

the personnel -monitoring measurement system

are the National Bureau of Standards and the

National Sanitation Foundation (see figure 11).

In addition standards groups in some organizations assist the monitoring services by

providing calibrated sources to establish the

calibration of the personnel monitoring

devices.

The chief function of the National Bureau

of Standards in the system at present is

through calibration of sources and instruments

for source calibration which establish the

measurement scale for the monitoring services.

In this way calibrations are provided for

x-ray, gamma-ray, and neutron sources. For

beta-ray calibrations, the film badge services

use typically Sr^" -Y^" plaques or natural

uranium slabs. Unfortunately, NBS priorities

have been such that no calibration service

has been developed for this type of source.

NBS recently has received funds from BRH for

the development of an extrapolation ion

chamber that could be used for such a service.

54
The first measurement-assurance irradiations of film badges were provided by NBS

about 20 years ago under AEC sponsorship

(Ehrlich, 1973). These tests led to the

recognition by the USAEC that a permanent

personnel-monitoring testing laboratory should

be established. The USAEC also sponsored a measurement-assurance study at Battel leNorthwest Laboratory and a set of final

performance criteria.

Concurrently, the U.S. Public Health

Service sponsored a similar study at a private

testing laboratory, the National Sanitation

Foundation. The National Sanitation Foundation has now been performing tests of

personnel monitoring services on a commercial

basis for over five years. A description of

the NBS measurement assurance service and

related standards is given in Barber,

Standards of Performance for Film Badge

Services , (see table 17). Of the 14 commercial services interviewed, eight had participated and received the NSF Seal of Approval.

Most felt that this testing service, which is performed about once a year, was not particularly helpful to them technically, did not provide a very critical accreditation, and

the smaller services complained about the

high cost (quoted variously as $1100 to $1800) eating into small profits.

The National Sanitation Foundation does

not at present have radiation facilities of

its own, and uses equipment located at and

belonging to the University of Michigan. The

National Sanitation Foundation also does not have radiation-qualified staff of its own, but depends upon consultants and graduate

students from the University of Michigan.

However, it is interested in expanding its

personnel -monitoring testing capabilities.

The Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors of the States has expressed concern

over the adequacy of the present system of

testing personnel-monitoring services:

(1) not all services are tested (shown by a "weak" link in figure 11); (2) the National

Sanitation Foundation does not have radiation

competence and equipment of its own;

(3) quarterly checking of the monitoring

services, including "blind checks", would

give better assurance of competent perform- ance than annual testing; and (4) the calibration of the sources used by the National

Sanitation Foundation is not currently

traceable to NBS standards, no sources or instruments having been calibrated in the

last five years (indicated by no link in

figure 11).

The professional society chiefly concerned

with personnel radiation-monitoring problems

is the Health Physics Society, and its international equivalent, the International

55

Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). In addition NRC-related organizations participate

actively in personnel monitoring workshops.

2/3.1.5 Conclusions

Personnel -moni tori ng services are important

to the health and safety of about 800,000

radiation workers. They represent a commercial business of about $7 million per year

plus perhaps $3 million in-house governmental

services. The personnel -moni tori ng services

verify the safe operations in a much larger

sphere: nuclear medicine, diagnostic and

therapeutic radiology, nuclear electric power,

non-destructive testing, science, chemical

analysis, oil-well logging, etc., which run

to several billion dollars (AEC, 1971).

One of the major problems is that the

individual radiation user does not have assurance at the present time that the

personnel monitoring service provided to him

is satisfactory, although many of the suppliers

of such services probably are competent. Of

the 50 or so suppliers in total, most undergo

no measurement-assurance testing at all, and

those that do are tested by a small organization whose measurements are not traceable

to NBS standards. The Conference of Radiation

Control Program Directors of the States, the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Bureau

of Radiological Health are all aware of these

problems, and are actively cooperating with

NBS to find a scjlution. The solution being

considered is to have one or more personnel

monitoring testing laboratories operate under

NBS oversight, and be required to be traceable

to NBS.

There is a need for improved neutron

personnel monitors which perform satisfactorily

in the low neutron energy range below 1 MeV. The action called for by NBS is the establishment of monoenergetic neutron calibration

facilities in this energy range and at a few

higher energies, so that the developers and users of the new neutron personnel monitors

can adjust their dosimeters to optimum

response, and verify that the monitors are indeed satisfactory for all important neutron

energies

3. IMPACT, STATUS AND TRENDS OF MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM

In view of the rather lengthy discussions

in section 2/3 on the various applications of radiation and the measurement communities

interested in them, the present section will

include only short summaries on the Measurement System for Ionizing Radiations as a whol e.
3.1 Impact of Measurements

3.1.1 Functional, Technological and

Scientific Applications

Ionizing radiation is a very powerful tool

for accomplishing many different objectives.

This powerful force for good, like other

phenomena in nature, is not without some

hazards. It seems clear that the public

wants the benefits, but is insistent that the

radiation hazards be kept to a minimal,

acceptable (or negligible) level. An NBStraceable ionizing radiation measurement

system is important, both for the precise

measurements needed in nuclear power and

medical applications, and also to provide the

standard of measurements which regulatory

agencies, radiation users, and the public can

al 1 agree on.

The goals of ionizing radiation measurement

are: (a) medical -- more successful radiation

therapy of cancer, better medical and dental

diagnosis for less radiation exposure;

(b) nuclear power -- abundant, relatively

cheap supplies of power from primarily

domestic sources using fission now and probably fusion in the future; (c) industrial

radiation processing — improvement of

products and sterilization of products in an energy-efficient, frequently economic way;

(d) defense -- effective defense including

maximum protection of the armed forces and

civil population; (e) chemical analysis ~ a highly sensitive, accurate method for analytical chemistry; (f) science — radiation is

a powerful means for investigating the fundamental properties of particles, atoms, atomic

nuclei, molecules, liquids, and solids, and

for studies across the entire spectrum of

physical and biological sciences; (g) environmental protection -- sensitive detection

methods leading to protection of the public

both from radioactivity and from other

pollutants (such as lead) in the environment;

and (h) miscellaneous radiation applications

-- industrial process control, non-destructive

testing, oil-well logging, heat sources, smoke detectors, and so forth.

3.1.2 Economic Impacts -- Costs and Benefits

A good measurements system for ionizing

radiation results primarily in improved health

and safety benefits for the general population. It is very difficult to quantify the

value of these benefits in standard economic

terms. For example, one patient in four

entering the hospital undergoes nuclear

medicine diagnostic procedures; and 65% of the

civilian non-institutional population of the

United States had one or more x-ray examinations in 1970 (Department of Health, Education

and Welfare, 1973) to help determine the course of the patient's treatment. Thus the

measurement of ionizing radiation impacts a significant and important portion of the

health care delivery industry (around $100

billion per year).

Similarly, a reliable and sufficiently

accurate ionizing radiation measurement system,

both in the plant and in the environment

surrounding the plant, is absolutely necessary

for the viability of nuclear power as a source

of energy for the nation. Here only a small

fraction of the $102 billion committed for

nuclear power by the electric utilities (AEC,

1974) is assignable to radiation, yet adequate

protection of the public from stray radiation

must be demonstrated before the reactor is

allowed to operate. Personnel monitoring of

workers is also important.

Cases where economic analysis is quantifiable are in the areas of industrial

radiation processing ($500 million per year

for the industry), and miscellaneous

radiation applications (about $100 million).

Radiation measurement is a significant part

of these industries.

3.1.3 Social, Human, Person-in-the-Street

Impacts

The benefits of a good system of ionizing

radiation are primarily social. Let us cite

some examples.

Improvement of Cancer Therapy . Based on normal incidence of cancer, one person in

four will get cancer during his lifetime. Of

these, more than half will be treated by

radiation therapy. While radiation therapy

is sometimes palliative only, cure is

frequently attempted. The principal need for

accurate measurements arises in connection

with photon and electron beams being used for

treatment. In addition to the control of the

radiation delivered to individual patients,

dosage must be known if the results of treatments are to be compared between hospitals —

a procedure essential if experience is to be

shared, so that rapid progress can be made.

Evidence now points to the narrow margin

between success and failure in relation to dose delivered, a margin now put at +5% for

curable tumors. Under-dose will lead to

56
recurrence, over-dose to damage to normal

tissue and resulting complications. In order

to achieve the +5% in treatment, it is imperative that the primary standards at the head

of the calibration chain be known to 1 or 2% or better.

Neutrons and other heavy particle radiations offer the hope of improved success in

radiation therapy. But the ability to measure

these "new" radiations is less than for x rays

and electrons. Standards and transfer instruments will be needed if clinical trials are

successful and the use of these radiations

becomes widespread.

Reduction of dose in the use of x rays for

diagnosis . Since medical diagnostic x rays

represent roughly 90% of population exposure

to man-made ionizing radiation, one of the

ways to reduce population dose (and thus the

possibility, however small, of cancer induction) is to systematically measure and control

the dose of x-rays used in taking diagnostic

radiographs to the lowest level giving acceptable radiographs. Cases where x-ray exposure

is unnecessarily high can be corrected. A further enhancement, more in the nature of

technology development than measurement system,

would be to develop diagnostic radiology

systems with better pictures for less dose.

Such developments might permit x-ray examinations on a more routine basis, permitting

discovery of problems before they become

serious, thus greatly improving medical care.

Nuclear power . At the rate that our fossil

fuel sources are drying up, notably gas and

oil, despite vigorous conservation measures,

it is frequently reported that a new source

of energy will be needed towards the end of

the century. Nuclear energy, at present from

fission reactors, is the only major source available to us with present technology.

Nuclear energy from fusion reactors, if the

technology can be developed, would represent

an essentially inexhaustible source of energy.

The nation may decide not to build breeder

reactors due to the large quantities of plutonium, a very dangerous material, involved.

Even so we will be concerned with the environmental impact of breeder reactors, because

other countries are going ahead with them.

It is also important to remember that all

nuclear energy power sources are also intense

sources of radiation, including "clean" fusion

power. Radiation measurements both for design

and operation of the power plants and for

protection of workers and the environment,

will be needed.

Radiation workers . Radiation workers,

mostly in hospitals and clinics, but also in

electric power companies, manufacturing industry, government laboratories, and universities,

have the right to work in a safe workplace.

This requires good radiation protection

discipline, ability to accurately measure

radiation fields continuously, monitoring.

If the worker is to be protected, personnel

monitoring must be demonstrably reliable -- hence must be traceable to NBS.

Environmental pollution -- lead . Lead

from automobile exhausts is one of the chief

contaminants of air, particularly around

superhighways and tunnels, for example

Photon activation analysis is the most sensitive method for determining lead. Proper

calibration is needed so that these measurements provide a basis for action by proper

authorities.

Environmental polution -- coal -fired power

plants . Coal -fired power plants are larger

sources of radioactivity in normal operation

than some nuclear plants, and in addition they

put large quantitites of ash into the air which

contain elements such as fluorine which may

damage vegetation in the neighborhood of the

plant. Both radioactivity and activation

analysis measurements are needed to monitor

the safe operation of these plants.

Non-destructive testing -- air travel . When a commercial airplane undergoes a periodic

overhaul, certain key parts are radiographed

to ensure that no cracks have started to develop. These measurements must be made

under controlled conditions at demonstrably

low radiation levels for the x-ray technicians

and other workers.

3.2 Status and Trends of the System

A strength of the measlirement system for

ionizing radiation is that many wel 1 -developed

standards exist, as do sophisticated conscientious users of radiation. A weakness is that

many users in the field are not achieving the

accuracy of measurements they need. This has

led to a strong trend of transfer of calibrations out to users. In turn this has led to

a very vigorous NBS activity in measurement

assurance, establishment of secondary standards

laboratories (sometimes lead laboratories of

other government agencies), and development

of high-quality transfer instruments.

Another trend is the increased interest of

regulatory agencies to determine compliance

on the basis of NBS-traceable measurements,

and to write NBS-traceabi 1 ity into regulations.

Industry, particularly when it feels regulation

may be approaching, is also showing interest

57
in proving that its measurements are NBStraceable.

A third trend is for outside groups to come to NBS for major standards-related programs. One example was the endorsement by

AEC of the NBS neutron standards program. A second example is the assignment to NBS of

major responsibility for atomic and nuclear

data in the Controlled Thermonuclear Reactor

(CTR) program of the Department of Energy.

External trends forcing changes in the

system include: expansion of nuclear power;

the breeder reactor program including the

Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) now under con- struction, and preparations for and possible

cancellation of the Clinch River breeder

demonstration plant; higher priority for

development of CTR and laser fusion systems;

increasing concern for safeguarding nuclear

fuel material on the part of the public and

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; expanding

needs of regulatory agencies, especially

State radiation control programs; expanding

use of radioactivity in medicine; new radiations being proposed and tried for radiation

therapy of cancer; with the increasing number

of nuclear power reactors and coal-fired

plants producing electricity, concern that

the environment shall stay clean.

4. SURVEY OF NBS SERVICES

4.1 The Past

The Center for Radiation Research grew out

of two activities begun in the 1920's, one in

x-ray standards and the other in radioactivity

standards. These soon developed satisfactory

standards and served the community interested

in medical applications of radiation. With

the developments in atomic energy during the

Manhattan project, NBS activity broadened to include radiation shielding, neutron measurements, and greater emphasis on radioactivity.

Use of higher radiation energies in radiation

therapy created a need for higher energy

sources at NBS, and a betatron and synchrotron were obtained. Strong programs in radiation

transport theory, nuclear theory, and photonuclear research were established. With the move to Gaithersburg in 1965, a 150 MeV

electron linac was obtained as a highintensity source for electron, photon, and

neutron research and standards. Scientifically outstanding programs led to many new high-quality standards, and yielded much

reference data.

The strength was that there were many

standards, and they were of high quality.

The weakness, in hindsight, was that although

calibration services were available to all,

they were used at the initiative of the user, usually the highest level user. Many users with real measurement problems were simply

not reached.

4.2 The Present

4.2.1 Description of NBS Services

In order to avoid unnecessary repetition

of material in section 2/3 we shall only

briefly summarize NBS ionizing radiation

measurement system services: (1) Cal ibrations : x-ray instruments 10-250 kV, ^^^Cs, ''"Co; neutron sources, radioactive sources; gold

foils in a standard thermal neutron field,

instruments in high-intensity monoenergetic

photon fields; (2) Measurement Assurance : radioactivity measurements at radiopharmaceutical, intermediate, and environmental levels;

ferrous sulfate dosimeter for electron therapy

and thermoluminescent dosimeter services for

Co-60 teletherapy; personnel monitoring

measurement assurance tests; ILRR program

for fission rate measurements. (3) National

Standards : free-air and cavity ionization

chambers for x-rays and '^^Cs, ^°Co; graphite

calorimeter for high-energy electrons; thinfilm calorimeter for intense photon fields;

radium-beryllium photoneutron source and

^^^Cf spontaneous fission neutron source;

thermal neutron flux density standard; P-2

ionization chamber for high energy photon

energy fluence; Faraday cage for high energy

electron beam current measurement.

(4) Standard Reference Materials : over 80

radioactivity standards are issued through

the SRM program. (5) Reference Data : two data centers, X-Ray and Ionizing Radiation,

and Photonuclear; measurement of standard

neutron cross sections, total neutron cross

sections, electron scattering cross sections,

photonuclear reaction cross sections, photofission cross sections, radionuclide decay

scheme data (primarily gamma-ray emission).

NBS participation in standardization

activities is described in appendix H.

4.2.2 Users of NBS Services

The subject is discussed at considerable

length in section 2/3 which is organized by

9 user categories. Regulators, who are also

users of NBS services, are discussed in

section 2.4.4.

58
4.2.3 Alternate Sources of Calibration

Services

Two kinds of alternate sources can be

described: (1) the first is where the alternate source serves as central basis for the

measurement system in lieu of NBS, and

(2) where the alternate source plays the role

of a secondary standards laboratory traceable

to NBS, so the customer may go to the alternate source rather than to NBS. In general

the first works very poorly, and the second

very wel 1

As an example of case (1), in 1958 NBS

turned much of its primary radioactivity

standards production to industry. Such chaos

resulted that a National Academy of SciencesNational Research Council Committee was formed

to study the problem, and the committee

recommended that central responsibility for

radioactivity standards be returned to NBS

(NAS, 1970). A second example is neutron

standards which were worked on by both

national laboratories and industry for a period of 20 years with many major problems

never resolved. Major responsibility has now

been given to NBS (with AEC, now Department

of Energy, concurrence). While it is too early to say that the NBS program will resolve

all problems, definite progress has been made.

Examples of alternative (2) working well

include the medical Regional Calibration

Laboratories (except for economic problems),

and in environmental radioactivity measurements the quality control laboratories for

NRC and EPA.

4.2.4 Funding Sources for NBS Services

Calibration services are funded on a reimbursable basis. Measurement assurance

services are funded by the users or by government agencies. Development of standards is

usually direct NBS (SIRS) funding, although

initial funding is often by other government

agencies who need or wish to encourage the

standards development. Standard reference

materials development is through NBS funding

(in part through the Office of Standard

Reference Materials in NBS) while cost of

production determines the price paid by the

buyer of the standards on what is essentially

a reimbursable basis. Data Center activities

are chiefly funded by the National Standard

Reference Data System, while data measurements

are usually NBS funded. Other Government

agencies funding ionizing radiation measurement work at NBS include Department of Defense,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Energy Research

and Development Administration (now Department

of Energy), Bureau of Radiological Health,

National Cancer Institute, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, and Environmental

Protection Agency.

4.2.5 Mechanism for Supplying Services

As indicated in section 4.2.1, NBS services

include calibrations, measurement assurance

programs, radioactivity standards, and compiled

standard reference data. Scientific publications constitute the major research output.

Communication is also through attendance at

scientific meetings and user-oriented meetings.

There is also strong participation in schools

and training programs (for example, workshops

on Radioactivity Standards for Nuclear

Medicine). NBS also participates in the

writing of the documentary standards of the

organizations discussed in section 2.2.1.

4.3 Impact of NBS Services

4.3.1 Economic Impact of Major User Classes

These impacts are discussed in sections

2/3. A through 2/3.1 for the various user

classes of ionizing radiation.

4.3.2 Technological Impact of Services

This also is discussed in section 2/3. Two

technological impacts deserve special mention

which come not directly from measurement

services, but rather from the technical knowhow which had to be developed to provide the

wide variety of radiation services. The first

is the development through NBS leadership of

the Nuclear Instrument Module (NIM) system

now used throughout the world for nuclear

(and other) electronics. The second is the

expertise NBS developed in accelerator technology through development of the needed

intense multi-particle radiation source (the

linac) which now has implications in CTR and

other technology.

4.3.3 Pay-off from Changes in NBS Services

Some illustrative changes in NBS services

with the resulting effects are given in

Table 18.

4.4 Evaluation of NBS Program

The standards developed in the NBS Ionizing

Radiation Measurement program are of high

quality and relevant. A strong scientific

program backs up the standards and makes it

possible to move quickly into new fields.

The program has been a leader in development

of measurement assurance to users. Needed in

the NBS program are: (1) much more measure- ment quality assurance, especially where

59
Table 18. Effect of changes in NBS

Change

Establish Regional Calibration Laboratories

for radiation calibrations for hospitals

(with Am. Assoc. Physicists in Medicine).

Establish measurement assurance service for

high energy electron therapy.

Withdrew from producing many radioactivity

standards in 1958.

Establish monoenergetic x-ray sources of

very high intensity (d.c. and pulsed).

Establish neutron standards program.

Issue series of environmental radioactivity

measurement standards, including mixed

radionuclide standards.

services for ionizing radiations

Effect

Generally good, but not enough laboratories,

and not yet enough business for them.

Discovered hospital with a factor-of-ten

error in their calibration before any patients were treated. Would have been overdose.

Chaos. Decision reversed.

Instrument systems for field tests can be

calibrated in the laboratory, which was impossible before.

Definite progress made in this field. Final

outcome hopeful but not yet certain.

Instant best seller to power reactor operators,

states, regulatory agencies.

regulatory questions are involved; (2) more

reaching out to help measurers with problems

through assistance to the States, training,

development of regional or secondary laboratories; and (3) some new measurement standards

in crucial areas where they do not exist

(examples are neutron standards for therapy

and personnel monitoring, and standards for

the CTR program)

The following are excerpts from recent

National Academy of Sciences - National

Academy of Engineering - National Research

Council Evaluation Panel Reports on the NBS

Center for Radiation Research:

"The Panel unanimously feels that the

CRR is being led by aggressive, competent

management which is trying hard to respond to a national need considerably

greater than that which can be handled

with their present resources ...

"The Panel was also pleased to see staff and management thinking in long

range terms; this is most important for

the future of the country and for the

ability of a broad distribution of NBS

personnel to understand their own objectives, therefore to be able to defend them but even more importantly,

press for increasing the strength of NBS

in the nation's scientific, commercial

and political future ...

"In another area, the Panel wishes to encourage NBS/CRR to continue its efforts

to establish itself as the lead agency

(in today's parlance) for all aspects of

standardization and evaluation ..." [Report of the 1974 NAS-NAE-NRC Evaluation

Panel].

"The primary responsibility of the CRR

unquestionably remains the provision of

basic radiation standards and associated

technologies in response to national

need. This responsibility and the need

is enormous and rapidly growing. The

provision of an authoritative and objective standard basis is an essential

response to rising public and private

concern for the regulation, the safety

and the economic effectiveness of a diversity of radiation technologies.

The CRR is in a unique position to make

that response. With this enormous responsibility and the constraint of

finite resources: the CRR must be very

selective of the most effective and key

programs.

"These should concentrate on the

provision of the fundamental and underlying standards and technologies.

In carrying out its responsibilities

the CRR must strike a balance between

near- and long-term objectives." [Report

of the 1975 NAS-NAE-NRC Evaluation

Panel].

60
4.5 The Future 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It is always difficult to predict the

future. Here is a list of possible events or trends which, if they do happen, will affect

future needs in the ionizing radiation program of NBS:

(1) expansion of the use of nuclear power;

(2) expansion of the use of coal power;

(3) use of mixed-oxide (U and Pu) nuclear

fuels in light-water reactors;

(4) industry-operated nuclear fuel cycle;

(5) development of large numbers of breeder

reactors;

(6) largely as a result of (3), (4), and

(5), greatly increased concern on the part of

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and public

for safeguards of Special Nuclear Materials,

(7) successful demonstration of fusion

power and construction of prototype fusion

power plants;

(8) increased interest of regulatory

agencies at federal, state, and local levels

in traceability of ionizing radiation measurements to NBS;

(9) expanding use of radioactivity in

nuclear medicine;

(10) development of a new generation of

improved x-ray diagnostic equipment;

(11) continuing concern with minimizing

x-ray dose to the population;

(12) linear accelerators replacing conventional x-rays and ^°Co as the preferred

sources for radiation therapy;

(13) verification of the success of neutron cancer therapy leading to the use of new heavy-particle radiations in radiation

therapy;

(14) industrial radiation processing and

miscellaneous radiation applications will

continue a rather steady growth;

(15) use of radiation for non-destructive

testing of components and materials will

become increasingly important.

The future program is thus likely to include: (1) standards and reference data

for new technologies (e.g. fusion power,

breeder reactors, safeguarding nuclear

materials, new radiation therapy modalities,

non-destructive testing, computer-assisted

x-ray diagnostic scanning, nuclear medicine,

industrial radiation processing); (2) development of transfer instruments and methods for

transferring standards to the user, and fostering regional or other secondary calibration

laboratories; and (3) measurement quality assurance programs of some kind, at least in

every field where regulatory requirements

exist.

The National Measurements System for

Ionizing Radiations is large, important, and

of prime importance in the development of

nuclear power and medical applications of

radiation, although there are many other

applications. Many parts of the system do not now provide the accuracy needed for

most efficient radiation application,

or to adequately protect people and the

environment. Some NBS actions shown in this

report as needed to improve this situation

are (note: impetus for these actions also

has come from other sources than this report,

and many of these actions are now underway):

(1) Develop a national radiation measurement calibration system to provide assistance

chiefly to State radiation control agencies,

but also to regional calibration laboratories

and regulatory agencies.

(2) Institute a program of measurement

assurance testing with quality control laboratories of NRC, EPA, and other regulatory

agencies

(3) Further development of the Regional

Calibration Laboratory system for medical

radiation is needed, including measures to make them economically viable.

(4) Primary absorbed dose standards need

to be developed for high-energy (linac and

betatron) X rays and fast neutron radiotherapy.

(5) Some system of quality control of

radioactivity measurements needs to be extended

throughout the approximately 8000 institutions

doing nuclear medicine.

(6) Problems with dose calibrators used

in nuclear medicine need to be straightened

out, and appropriate sets of check sources

provided.

(7) A major measurement assurance system

for nuclear fuel materials accountability

with strong NBS participation will be needed,

barring major changes in U.S. energy policy,

with state-of-the-art accuracy and real-time

accountability.

(8) Standard neutron cross sections and

standard reference neutron fields measurement

programs are needed in support of nuclear

fission power programs, especially the breeder

reactor, and needs will grow with the fusion

reactor program.

(9) Some new calibration services are

needed in support of industrial radiation

processing, but these do not constitute a major new program.

(10) Intense, pulsed and d.c. x-ray

calibration sources need to be made available

for defense measurements.

61
(n) New radioactivity standards, particularly in environmental matrices, and extended

measurement assurance testing throughout the

system is needed for environmental radioactivity measurements.

(12) A program is needed for systematic

compilation of charged-particle stopping

powers, ranges, straggling, and delta-ray

production data below about 10 MeV.

(13) Support is needed for development of consensus standards for safety measures in

the use of radiation equipment for various

(mostly industrial) applications.

(14) A high-quality measurement assurance

testing laboratory traceable to NBS is needed

to provide personnel monitoring quality

assurance.

(15) Monoenergetic neutron calibration

fields are needed to test existing neutron

personnel monitors and for use in developing

improved neutron personnel monitors.

62
APPENDIX A. METH0D0L03Y OF THE STUDY

The study was carried out essentially as ten separate studies, one on Regulators of

Radiation, and nine on different radiation

user groups (except that the ninth was on Personnel Monitoring, which applies to all users of radiation). These will be briefly

discussed below.

Regulation of Radiation . Much documentary

information is available from U.S. Government

regulatory agencies, much of which is listed

in the references. Of the Federal Government

agencies (see section 2.4.4), we have held

joint meetings, frequently laboratory visits,

with all except DOT. An example of this was

a meeting with the Bureau of Radiological

Health attended by about 50 NBS scientists,

including the NBS Director. We have carried

out measurement assurance testing with NRC

and EPA.

In regard to the state and local agencies, our chief contact to date has been attendance

at several annual meetings of the Conference

of Radiation Control Program Directors. In addition, committees of that organization

have met at NBS. Visits were made to the

Department of Radiation Control of the State

of Maryland, and the Division of Radiation

Control of New York City. An IBS staff member

who collaborated in the study spent three

months working with the Radiation Control

Department of the State of California. In addition, we are very active in the consensus standards-setting organizations which provide

a base for state and federal regulations

(see appendix H)

Sources of background material for the main

categories of radiation users

A. Medical

There are about 140,000 medical x-ray sets

in the United States, and a similar number of

dental x-ray sets. It would clearly not be

possible to visit or contact any significant

fraction of these. We have, however, con- tacted the two Regional Calibration Laboratories (at M. D. Anderson Hospital, Houston,

and Memorial Hospital, New York) which provide

calibrations to the hospitals in their regions,

and visited the Memorial Hospital laboratory.

We have also visited the Victoreen Instrument

Co., Cleveland, which is perhaps the major

supplier of radiation measurement instrumentation to x-ray departments and a major

calibrator of such equipment. Representative

hospitals have been visited, such as Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C.,

and M. D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, Texas.

No x-ray equipment manufacturers have been

visited, although the laboratories of the

major tester of such equipment, the Bureau of

Radiological Health (FDA) have been visited.

In the area of nuclear medicine, leading

nuclear medicine departments of the about

8,000 hospitals and clinics doing nuclear

medicine procedures have been visited: Johns

Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore; Washington

Hospital Center, Washington, D.C.; Mayo Clinic,

Rochester, Minnesota. In addition, three

seminars have been held at NBS recently on Radioactivity Measurement in Nuclear Medicine

with representatives of radiopharmaceutical

manufacturers, nuclear medicine physicians and

technicians. NBS is participating actively

with the College of American Pathologists in

measurement assurance testing, and participating in Society for Nuclear Medicine meetings.

We are in active liaison with two committees

of the Atomic Industrial Forum on Radiopharmaceuticals and Standards. Visits have

been made to one radiopharmaceutical manufacturer, Amersham-Searle, Arlington Heights,

Illinois, and to 2 radiopharmaceutical dose

caj ibrator manufacturers , Packard Instruments,

Chicago, and Victoreen Instrument Co., Cleveland.

B. Nuclear Electric Power

1. Nuclear fuel cycle operations . In this area, a most through investigation has been

carried out, including contacts with over 100

persons, attendance at 4 technical symposia

sponsored by AEC in this field, and in-depth

site visits to NRC's Division of Nuclear

Materials Security and Directorate of Regulatory Standards. Discussions were held with

representatives of all 4 major fuel manufacturers, 3 of the utilities with most experience

in nuclear power, and 2 of the 3 fuel

reprocessors

2. Design data and reactor operations . Visits have been made to a number of national

laboratories with programs in this area, including Brookhaven (which has the National

Nuclear Data Center), Argonne, and Oak Ridge. A valuable source of information in this area

has been membership on the Department of

Energy Nuclear Data Committee which has

close liaison with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Physics of the Department of Energy.

A visit was made to the Oyster Creek Nuclear

Power Plant of Jersey Central Power and

Light. Participation in a recent conference

on Nuclear Cross Sections and Technology and

sponsorship of a conference on Neutron

Standards and Applications were also helpful.

A-1
C. Industrial Radiation Processing F. Science

Of the major radiation processing operations in the United States, we have visited

or have close working relations with about

one-third (see table 9). These include

Raychem Corporation, W. R. Grace Company,

Electronized Chemical Corporation, Deering

Milliken Company, Ethicon, Inc., Firestone

Radiation Research Company, Weyerhauser Lumber

Company. An announcement of radiation processing calibration services available from NBS

has been issued and we expect that our involvement with these companies will

i ncrease.

D, Defense

The Defense Department is very large and

contains many groups with differing interests

in radiation. With respect to nuclear weapons

and testing, the key organization is the

Defense Nuclear Agency. Some years back NBS

made a survey of needs for DNA in the area of

radiation calibration which included

visits to more than half of the Defense

organizations and contractors concerned with

weapons testing: Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence

Livermore Laboratory, Sanford Research

Institute, Ballistic Research Laboratories,

and of course DNA Headquarters. In addition,

nearly all the nuclear simulation facilities

such as the Aurora facility of the Harry

Diamond Laboratory, the Casino facility of

Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Gamble I and II at Naval Research Laboratory, and the Reba

facility at Sandia have been visited. In the

rapidly growing field of plasma physics, we are in direct contact with perhaps 20% of the

groups in the field. Other contacts with the

Defense Department included Army food processing laboratory at Natick, Massachusetts (we

have done measurements there); National

Security Agency concerning effects of radiation on electronic components; Advanced

Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and Air Force

Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) (we

furnish standards of radioactive gases to their laboratories and contractors); Defense

Civil Preparedness Agency (an NBS staff

member has been Chairman of the National

Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee on

Civil Defense, and we do radiation studies

for them).

E. Chemical Analysis

This rather brief study used as background

material the professional literature in this

field and the results of discussions with

participants.

The section on the Radiation Measurement

System for Science is based primarily on one

of the collaborating author's over 20 years'

experience working in the field of photonuclear physics on all aspects of the measurement, analysis, compilation, and evaluation

of experimental data. The basic ideas were developed through discussion with professional

colleagues both within as well as outside the

Bureau which took place over a six-month

period. These individuals have had a wide

range of experience in high energy, nuclear,

radiation and medical physics.

To determine needs for specific Standard

Reference Materials, questionnaires are sent

to the list of customers developed from previous sales of radioactivity standard SRM's.

In addition, announcements of available SRM's were made in journals and through publications

of the Office of Standard Reference Materials.

In the other areas, communication is largely

through journals and meetings of the scientific professional societies.

G. Environmental Radioactivity Measurement

In this area we are well-informed of the

needs of users through contacts with federal

and state agencies, and with reactor operators.

These include discussions with and visits to the Health Services Laboratory in Idaho Falls,

the Department of Energy Health and Safety

Laboratory in New York, Argonne National

Laboratory in Illinois, the EPA laboratory in Las Vegas (NERC-LV), Wood's Hole Oceanography

Institute, and an AEC Regional Director's

meeting in Chicago. We have visited two power

reactors. Big Rock Point and Oyster Creek,

and have made a telephone survey of power

reactors. Over two-thirds of them are now referencing their radioactivity measurements

to NBS environmental radioactivity standards.

Contacts with NRC contract states are, at

present, through the Health Services Laboratory.

Contacts with the states are also made through

the Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors.

H. Miscellaneous Radiation Applications

In this area we obtain much of our information through the NBS responsibility of

providing the Chairmanship and Secretariat of

ANSI Committee N43, Equipment for Non-Medical

Radiation Applications, which is largely

concerned with miscellaneous radiation applications. Visits include Ohmart Corporation,

A-2
Cincinnati (producers of radiation gauges),

and Kelly Field, Texas (x-radiography

of airplanes). Other information was obtained

from AEC studies of the nuclear industry.

I . Personnel Monitorin g

Personnel monitoring services are provided

by commercial monitoring service companies,

by a few companies which provide their own services, and by govermient laboratories and

the military services which usually provide

their own services. We attempted to contact

by telephone every commercial personnel

monitoring service company. Fourteen were contacted and interviewed, six listed

companies we were unable to contact. Three

commercial companies providing their own monitoring services were contacted and interviewed, and one was visited (Dow Chemical

Company, Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado). Ten

major government laboratories (the majority

of the government laboratories concerned with

radiation) were contacted and their personnel

interviewed. The four Defense Department

agencies providing their own personnel

monitoring services were contacted. In addition, a visit was made to the National

Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

which provides measurement assurance services

to those personnel monitoring services which

desire to obtain the NSF "Seal of Approval".

Discussions have been held with other federal

agencies and with the states concerning NBS

participation in an improved measurement

assurance service for personnel monitoring.

In summary, during this study NBS contacted

the vast majority of the personnel monitoring

services in the United States. We have also

participated in the AEC (now Department of

Energy) Workshop on Personnel Monitoring.

A-3
APPENDIX B. ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH RADIATION

Table B-1

List of organizations that may prepare nuclear documentary standards^

Initials Organization

APCA Air Pollution Control Association

AACC American Association for Contamination Control

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

AC I American Concrete Institute

AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association

CRR-.* ANSI American National Standards Institute

CRR-.* ANS American Nuclear Society

API American Petroleum Institute

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

* ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

CRR-.* ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AWS American Welding Society

ANIM Association of Nuclear Instrument Manufacturers, Inc. AIF Atomic Industrial Forum

CRR--G* BRH Bureau of Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration

EEI Edison Electric Institute

CRR--G* EPA Environmental Protection Agency

CRR--6 PRC Federal Radiation Council (defunct)

CRR-.* IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

INMM Institute of Nuclear Materials Management

ISA Instrument Society of America

MSSVFI Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fitting

Industry

G NAE National Academy of Engineering

CRR-G NAS National Academy of Sciences

CRR--G* NBS National Bureau of Standards

CRR-.* NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

G NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

CRR-G NRC National Research Council

CRR-G* NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSF National Sanitation Foundation

G* OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

UL Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. G USC6 United States Coast Guard

G USDHEW United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

G DOL United States Department of Labor

G* DOT United States Department of Transportation

G USPO United States Post Office Department

^Key: * = especially important to nuclear and/or radiation standards

G = government

CRR = CRR involvement.

B-1
Table B-2

List of biomedical organizations interested in radiation

* = important for standards

CRR = CRR involvement

Initials Organization

* ACR American College of Radiology

ABR American Board of Radiology

ARRS American Roentgen Ray Society

* RSNA Radiological Society of North America

ARS American Radium Society

AMA Section on Radiology of the American Medical Association

CAR Canadian Association of Radiologists

ADR Association of University Radiologists

SCARD Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments

SPR Society for Pediatric Radiology

ASTR American Society of Therapeutic Radiologists

* ISR International Society of Radiology

lACR Inter-American College of Radiology

CRR-* AAPM American Association of Physicists in Medicine

CRR-* HPS Health Physics Society

CRR-* SNM Society of Nuclear Medicine

ASNR American Society of Neuroradiology

ARRT American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

ASRT American Society of Radiologic Technologists

CSRT Canadian Society of Radiological Technicians

AADR American Academy of Dental Radiology

AAD American Academy of Dermatology

* ADA American Dental Association

APHA American Public Health Association

AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association

AVRS American Veterinary Radiology Society

AUR Association of University Radiologists

CRR-* CAP College of American Pathologists

GSA Genetics Society of America

IMA Industrial Medical Association

CRR-* RRS Radiation Research Society

B-2
APPENDIX C. INFORMATION ON MEDICAL RADIATION INDUSTRY

Principal suppliers of radioisotope teletherapy units and sources

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, Ottawa, Canada

Garrma Industries Div. , Nuclear Systems Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana;

and Port Norris, New Jersey

General Electric Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Pleasanton, California

Keleket/CGR Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts

International Chemical and Nuclear Corporation, Irvine, California

Litton Medical Products Inc., Des Plaines, Illinois

Neutron Products Inc., Dickerson, Maryland

Phillips Medical Systems Inc., New York, New York

Picker X-Ray Company, Cleveland, Ohio

J. L. Shepherd & Associates, Glendale, California

Siemens Medical of American Inc., Union, New Jersey

Principal suppliers of clinical linear accelerators

Varian Associates

611 Hansen Way

Palo Alto, California 94304

Contact: Richard M. Levy, Product Manager, Radiation Therapy

415-493-4000

Applied Radiation (Subsidiary of Siemens, West Germany)

2404 N. Main Street

Walnut Creek, California 94596

415-935-2250

SHM Nuclear Corporation

570 Del Ray

Sunnyvale, California 94086

Contact: Robert C. Bellas, Jr., Corporate Development

408-245-3136

Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited

(affiliated with a French Company, C.G.R. Medical)

Commercial Products

P. 0. Box 6300, Station J Ottawa, Canada

C-1
Principal suppliers of medical x-ray equipment

Applied Radiation, 2404 N. Main, Walnut Creek, California 94596

CGR Medical, 2519 Wilkens Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21223

Capintec, 63 E. Sandford Blvd., Mount Vernon, N. Y. 10550

Cistron, 77 Tarrytown Road, White Plains, N. Y. 10607

Dunn Instruments, 1280 Columbus Avenue, San Francisco, California 94133

Edax International, Box 135, Prairie View, Illinois 60069

Enraf-Nonius , 130 County Courthouse Road, Garden City Park, New York 11040

Ercona, 2121 Bellmore Avenue, Bellmore, New York 11710

Field Emission, Box 58, McMinnville, Oregon 97128

General Electric, Medical Systems, 4855 Electric Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

High Voltage Engineering, S. Bedford St., Burlington, Mass. 01803

Hyperion, Box 600, South Miami, Florida 33143

LogEtronics, 7001 Loisdale Road, Springfield, Va. 22150

Philips Medical Systems, 710 Bridgeport Ave., Shelton, Conn. 06484

Physiologic Interface, Box 211, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

Picker, 595 Miner Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44143

Radiation Dynamics, 1800 Shames Drive, Westbury, New York 11590

SHM Nuclear, 558 San Xavier Ave., Sunnyvale, California 94086

Siemens, 186 Wood Avenue, Iselin, New Jersey 08830

Technical Instruments, 441 Washington Ave., North Haven, Conn. 06473

United States Radium, 1425 37th Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. 11218

Varian Associates, 611 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California 94303

From Science , 28 Nov. 1972.

Principal manufacturers of dose calibrators

Capintec, Inc., 63 East Standford Blvd., Mt. Vernon, N. Y. 10550

Elsint, Inc., P. 0. Box 297, Palisades Park, N. J. 07650

Nuclear Associates, Inc., 35 Urban Ave., Westbury, N. Y. 11590

Picker Corp., 333 State Street, North Haven, Conn. 06473

Rady Corp., P. 0. Box 19161, Houston, Texas 77024

Searle Radiographics, Inc., 2000 Nuclear Drive, Des Plaines, 111. 60018

Victoreen Instrument Division-, VLN Corp., 10101 Woodland Ave., Cleveland, Ohio 44104

C-2
Prncipal standards and reference sources producers

Amersham/Searle Corp.

Atomchem Corp.

Baird-Atomic, Inc. Beckman Instruments, Inc. Bionuclear

Cal atomic

Capintec Nuclear

Eberline Instrument Corp.

General Electric Co. General Nuclear, Inc. High Voltage Engineering Corp.

Industrial Nuclear Co., Inc. International Chemical & Nuclear Corp.

Isolab, Inc. Isotope Products Laboratories

Monsanto Research Corp.

New England Nuclear Corp.

Nuclear Associates, Inc.

Nuclear Equipment Chemical Corp.

Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp.

Nuclear Radiation Developments, Inc. Nuclear Supplies

Nucleonic Corp. of America

The Nucleus, Inc. Ortec, Inc. Packard Instrument Co. , Inc. Parkwell Laboratories, Inc. Radiation Materials Corp., Inc. Reactor Experiments, Inc.

J. L. Shepherd & Associates

E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. Teledyne Isotopes

Tracerlab (Div. of ICN)

U. S. Radium Corp.

Universal Radioisotopes

From Radioisotope Directory, 1971

(Nuclear News)

Principal industrial suppliers of cyclotron radioisotopes

Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Illinois

Amersham-Searle, Arlington Heights, Illinois

Cambridge Nuclear Corporation, Subsidiary of NL Industries, Inc.,

Billerica, Massachusetts

International Chemical and Nuclear Corporation, Irvine, California

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis, Missouri

Medi-Physics Inc., Emeryville, California, and South Plainfield, N. J. New England Nuclear Corporation, North Billerica, Massachusetts

and Miami , Florida

From (AEC, 1974)

Accelerators used in neutron therapy studies

Type

Cyclotron M. D. Anderson Hospital College Station,

Texas A&M Texas

Cyclotron Naval Research Laboratory Wash. , D. C. Cyclotron Univ. of Washington Seattle, Wash.

Physics Dept.

Cyclotron Univ. of Chicago Chicago, 111.

Argonne Cancer Hospital

Cyclotron Meiiorial Hospital New York, N. Y. (8-10 MeV)

250 keV(D,T)n Univ. of Wisconsin Madison, Wise.

Cyclotron Cyclotron Corporation Berkeley, Calif.

25 MeV(D,Be)

P. Almond

R. Bondelid

Peter Wootton

L. Lanzl

J.S. Laughlin

C-3
Principal industrial processors of organic labeled compounds

radiochemicals and radiopharmaceuticals

Radioinmuno- RadioRadio- assay pharmaChemical s Reagents ceutical

Abbott Laboratories, No. Chicago, 111. - X X Aerotest Operations, San Ramon, Calif. X American Radiochemical Corp., Sanford, Fla. X

- Amersham/Searle, Arlington Heights, 111. X X X Ames Co., Division of Miles Laboratories,

Inc. , El khart, Ind. X - X Bio-Chemical & Nuclear Corp., Burbank, Calif. X

- Bio-Rad Laboratories, Richmond, Calif. X

- Calatomic Inc., Los Angeles, Calif. X

- California Radiochemicals, Inc.,

Los Angeles, Calif. X

- Cambridge Nuclear Corp., Billerica, Mass.,

and Princeton, N.J. (Subsidiary of NL Industries, Ind.) X - X Curtis Nuclear Corp., Los Angeles, Calif. X - X Dhom Products Ltd., North Hollywood, Calif. X

- Diagnostic Isotopes Inc., Upper Saddle

River, N. J. - - X Virgo Reagents, Electro Nucleonics Labs.,

Bethesda, Md. - X

- General Electric Co., Pleasanton, Calif. X - Gamma Industries, (Division of Nuclear

Systems, Inc.) Houston, Texas, and

Baton Rouge, La. X - - Imaj International, Inc., (Nuclear Medicine

Division of Allergan Pharmaceuticals)

Irvine, Calif. - - X Industrial Nuclear Company, Inc.,

Overland, Mo. - - X International Chemical & Nuclear Corp.,

Irvine, Calif. X - Isolab Inc., Akron, Ohio X

- Iso-Med Inc., Hawthorne, Calif. (Division

of New England Nuclear) - - X Kallestad Labs, Minneapolis, Minn. - X Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo. X - X Medi-Physics , Emeryville, Calif, and

South Plainfield, N. J. - - X Miles Laboratories, Inc., Elkhart, Indiana X

- New England Nuclear, North Billerica, Mass. X - X Nuclear Associates , Inc., Westbury, N. Y. X Nuclear Dynamics, El Monte, Calif. X

- Nuclear Equipment Chemical Corp.,

Farmingdale, N. Y. X - - Nuclear Medical Labs, Inc., Dallas, Tex. X - Schartz/Mann, Div. of Becton, Dickinson

E.

&

R.Company,Squibb

Orangeburg,

& Sons, New Brunswick,

N. Y.

N. J. XX- X X Teledyne Isotopes, Palo Alto, Calif. X Union Carbide Corp., Tuxedo, N. Y. X

- Worthington Biochemical Corp.,

Freehold, N. J. - X

-

From (AEC, 1974).

C-4
APPENDIX D. ASSESSMENT OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

FINAL REPORT

I ASSESSMENT OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

John W. Bartlett

July, 1974

Center for Radiation Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

FACTORS SIGNIFICANT TO NUCLEAR FUEL MEASUREMENTS

Industry Characteristics and Status

Measurement Technology

Measurement Assurance

Guidance for Measurement Practice

Equity in Trade

ASSESSMENT OF FUEL MEASUREMENT STATUS AND NEEDS

PATHS TO IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

Participants and Responsibilities

Identification of Measurement Assurance Needs

Selection of Measurement Assurance System Structure

Measurement Assurance System Design Project

Related Areas

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

APPENDICES

A. Nuclear Power - Present and Future

B. The Institutional Environment

C. Industry Viewpoints and Concerns

D. Nuclear Industry Measurements and the NBS Role

E. Consensus Standards in the Nuclear Power Industry

F. Study Followon: The Joint NBS/AEC Task Force

D-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The most important finding of this study is that the nuclear industry

needs a comprehensive, nationally-based measurement assurance system for fuel

material measurements.

This need is derived primarily from Federal regulations designed to assure

the tight control of special nuclear materials (SNM) that is required for

protection of public health and safety. Business equity interests in shipper/

receiver transfers involving nuclear materials can be satisfied by a measurement

assurance system adequate for compliance with SNM control requirements.

Other sectors have recognized the need for nuclear fuels measurement

assurance, and action is underway to implement this function. For example:

- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements, relevant

ANSI standards, and the AEC's Division 5 Regulatory Guides all call

for measurement assurance. The AEC is contemplating a measurement assurance regulation .

- The AEC has supported development of measurement technology commen- surate with regulatory requirements.

- Through its Safeguards Analytical Laboratory Evaluation (SALE)

program, the AEC has operated a prototype measurement assurance

system.

These requirements and programs can be viewed as part of the groundwork

for establishing a comprehensive measurement assurance system. To get from

present conditions to a fully operational and effective system, the following

major problems will have to be overcome:

- A complete framework of criteria, requirements and procedures will have

to be established (via regulations, regulatory guides, and consensus

standards).

- At present, state-of-the-art performance with highly sophisticated

measurement technology is needed to meet regulatory requirements, i.e.,

there is very little margin for error. Field performance requirements

approach NBS capability. Even a best-efforts operation may therefore

fail to meet SNM control requirements. To avoid such inadvertent loss

of SNM control, the accuracy capability of measurement systems should

be improved.

- Current practice of periodic inventories followed by after-the-fact

assessment of SNM control performance will have to be converted to real-time data acquisition and analysis.

- Current pressures for licensees to operate in-house measurement assurance systems will have to be converted to viable capabilities

and practices.

This latter problem is the key issue for nuclear fuels measurement

assurance. The measurement assurance function is the way to attain SNM

control and to prove that adequate control has, in fact, been attained. Under

present conditions, even if the industry succeeds in operating the measurement

systems to the limit of capability, they have no resources other than their

own to prove success. Moreover, they -- and the Nation -- run the risk that

failure to attain SNM control will not be proved at all or discovered too late.
Nuclear fuels measurement assurance is therefore essential, and in-house

licensee systems are necessary (they are analogous to redundant, quick-response,

dedicated control systems). But the in-house system must be backed by capability

to independently test and verify their performance. In short, a hierarchy of

nuclear fuels measurement assurance is needed. The top of the hierarchy should

have responsibility and capability to oversee and certify all measurement

assurance functions within the system. Since SNM control is a national need

and Federal Government responsibility, this "Supreme Court of nuclear fuels

measurement assurance" should be affiliated with the Federal Government.

There are options for the structure of the nuclear fuels measurement

assurance system hierarchy. For example, the Federal Government's keystone

operation might deal directly with the licensee's in-house systems. Alternatively,

intermediary functions (e.g., state- or industry-operated) might be preferred.

Our preliminary investigation of this subject indicated numerous options and no clear-cut choice. Thorough evaluation of the alternatives will be necessary.

There also is need for thorough study to determine the scope and type of

services' to be provided by the measurement assurance system. At present,

measurement methods are highly diversified. Standardization, automation, and

new developments may tend to reduce. the scope of service requirements; conversely,

new fuel cycle technologies (mixed oxide, HTGR, LMFBR) will tend to expand them.

In general, three types of functional requirements can be anticipated: service

to existing technology, assistance to development of new technology, and leadership in reduction of new technology to practice. Specific activities and the

level of activity in each area can be expected to change with time.

The needs for evaluation of hierarchy options and assessment of service

•functions can be summarized as a need for a major system design effort. Nearterm initiation of such a project would be timely: the need for nuclear fuels

measurement assurance is clearly recognized, a reasonably good information base

has been established, and the industry is just beginning a surge of growth and

diversification.

With a system design project identified as the next appropriate step

toward nuclear fuels measurement assurance, it is necessary to define who should

do the project and how Federal Government responsibility for the operational

system should be implemented.

Since the Federal Government has ultimate responsibility for nuclear fuel

measurement assurance, it should lead the systems design effort. Two organizations

have relevant expertise and responsibilities: the AEC, with its regulatory and

development responsibilities for nuclear power, and NBS. with its responsibilities

for the national measurement system. These responsibilities are complementary;

the AEC focuses on development of capability, and NBS aims at maintenance of

capability during operations. In an area such as nuclear fuel material measurements where requirements and operational capability are evolving rapidly on broad fronts, the two sectors of responsibility overlap.

Joint interaction between AEC and NBS aimed at implementing a design study

project would, therefore, be appropriate. These interactions should be initiated

at the policy level. They should include the fundamental issues of scoping

and allocation of Federal Government responsibilities.

These AEC/NBS interactions should also consider areas such as effluent

monitoring, dosimetry, radiation medicine, and quality assurance which are also

measurement-oriented functions and share many measurement assurance requirements

and measurement technologies with nuclear fuels. Long-run economies and better

public safety might be obtained if a comprehensive measurement assurance system

embracing all areas were the initial goal.

D-3
ASSESSMENT OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

This document reports the results of a comprehensive survey and evaluation of factors concerned with measurements for nuclear fuel materials.

The study is representative of NBS efforts to establish a rationale for

Federal Government, and NBS in parti clar, involvement in industry's measurement activities. Nuclear fuel materials were selected for study through

recognition that developments in nuclear power technology and regulation

might have major impact on the Government's measurement-related responsibilities.

Nuclear fuel material measurement activities are impacted by many factors.

For example, accuracy of measure for a ton of coal or a barrel of oil is dictated primarily by economic forces associated with trade equity; accuracy of measure for nuclear fuels is additionally affected by stringent health and

safety requirements and the highly sophisticated technology involved in its

use. As a result, this assessment of the measurement system for nuclear materials

had to consider a broad range of regulatory, technical, and business interests.

Extended discussion of these factors is given in the appendices; the report

highlights the key items.

Information summarized by this document was obtained primarily by interaction with representatives of nuclear industry corporations and associations,

the AEC and personnel in its prime contractor laboratories, and NBS personnel

currently engaged in programs related to nuclear fuel material measurements.

Over 200 interpersonal contacts were made. The literature of current events

in nuclear power was also an important source of information.

As the report shows, the need for security and control of special nuclear

materials dominates nuclear fuel measurement activities. The measurements

are part of a comprehensive safeguards system wherein requirements and technology are evolving rapidly as a result of increased interest in and resources

applied to nuclear materials control.

The report therefore does not dwell on technical details; we can expect

that current measurement practices and methodology will rapidly evolve to improved levels of capability. The major thrust of this report is to aid

effective development of measurement- related activities through description

of the in-context role of nuclear fuel material measurements.

FACTORS SIGNIFICANT TO NUCLEAR FUEL MEASUREMENTS

Industry Characteristics and Status

Nuclear power is entering a period of rapid growth and diversification

expected to make it the mainstay of U. S. electrical generating capacity by

the turn of the century. The present status is analogous to the beginnings

of the automotive industry. The challenges faced are analogous to those of the

aircraft industry: develop a high-risk, complex technology into a safe,

reliable capability to serve a large consumer market economically.

D-4
In comparison with fossil-fueled systems, nuclear power is highly complex.

A sequence of fuel preparation operations (mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fuel element fabrication) is necessary. Also, spent nuclear fuel

(the "ashes") contains residual fissile materials economically worthy of recovery

(fuel reprocessing and recycle). Despite these complexities, fuel costs for

nuclear power ere so comparatively low that the overall system is economically

competitive with fossil-fired systems. Comparative environmental impact and

safety characteristics of these energy supply technologies are being debated.

The commercial U. S. nuclear power industry currently uses slightlyenriched uranium dioxide as the reactor fuel. This fuel is used in two basic

types of power plants: pressurized water and boiling water. Both are designated

as light-water cooled reactor (LWR) concepts. In the future, the number of

reactor concepts in commercial use is expected to diversify. High- temperature

gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) and liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs) are expected to come into commercial use before the turn of the century. The

HTGR and LMFBR systems promise more efficient use of fissile fuel resources than

an al 1-LWR economy.

An aspect of this diversification that is of potential significance to

fuel measurements is the fact that the LWR, HTGR, and LMFBR fuel cycles require

different technologies. Measurements and material standards needed for each

may therefore differ. From this point of view, still another fuel cycle requiring

different measurement capabilities and material standards can be identified:

the LWRs will, in the future, probably use mixed-oxide fuels, i.e., mixtures

of uranium and plutonium oxides. The safety and economics of this "recycle Pu"

fuel cycle are currently being evaluated by the AEC.

The U. S. nuclear power industry is currently experiencing growth pains.

In perspective, both key components of the industry (i.e., the AEC and the

industrial licensees) are on steep learning curves. Many licensees and wouldbe licensees are entering the arena for the first time; competence levels of

the participants vary widely. All, however, are facing a drive for upgrading

safety and reliability that is producing instabilities and adversary situations.

License requirements are changing rapidly and escalating ("ratcheting");

retrofitting is being demanded; some basic policy decisions (involving recycle

Pu, private ownership of enrichment plants, and waste management) that will have

strong impact on business decisions have not been made; manpower and quality

assurance are najor problems; a massive effort to develop consensus standards

is underway; proposals to reduce lead times are being debated and the intervenors

clamor ever lojder. The net result is a strong preoccupation with day-to-day

problems.

An actior that impinges strongly on measurement interests is the recent

revision of regulations concerning security and accountability of nuclear fuel

materials. Ir an attempt to prevent theft and subsequent consequences, requirements for nuclear materials control have been tightened to the point where

some licensees may find it difficult or impossible to stay in business. The

consequences cf this regulatory action are not yet fully visible; the AEC

initiated review of licensees' compliance plans early in 1974, and licensees

are in process of developing compliance capability.

Planning and action toward these fuel material control requirements has

been in progress for many years. In recognition of the need for measurement

capability to make compliance feasible, the AEC funded R&D on measurement

technology during past years. They reported and described the products of

these programs at technical symposia held in 1973.

D-5
Mea surement Technology

Measurement technology sufficient to enable current nuclear industry

operations to achieve compliance with regulations exists. Existence does not

necessarily, however, imply practical availability and use. The technology

is highly sophisticated; many licensees simply do not have the skilled man- power needed to use it. Most of such talent is in the national laboratories.

Instrument vendors are expected to commercialize the technology and supply

the industry. They also can be expected to go as far as possible in meeting

industry's desire for rapid, automatic, and fool-proof systems. The business

is highly competitive; new systems can be developed and marketed in a matter

of months. In the near future, however, production capacity may limit the rate

at which industry can obtain the systems they need for compliance.

Delivered measurement systems will have to be backed by technical assistance

and service capabilities. Some industry representatives think the services

available today are not what they should be. If indeed the services do not

keep pace with need, many of the instruments might be used inadequately or

improperly.

Measurement Assurance

Measurement assurance provides methods and services to test the accuracy

of measurements. Calibrations, insertion of "unknowns" into the work load,

and diagnostics to uncover bias are typical measurement assurance functions.

As routine practice, operations in the nuclear industry will maintain an in-house measurement assurance program. At present, however, there are no comprehensive notional guidelines for these functions; each operator does what

he thinks is best. Current practice ranges from minimal instrument calibration

procedures to comprehensive (but still in-house) nuclear fuels measurement

assurance (NFMA] systems. There is no nationally-based, hierarchical NFMA

system.

A nationally-based NFMA system is implictly required by the regulations

and regulatory guides for fuel materials accountability. An NFMA system is

also called for in present and anticipated ANSI standards and the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreement for member states. To date, however,

the structure and functions of an NFMA system have not received much attention.

For example, the IAEA agreement calls for an international system of standards

and measurement control which does not exist.

A prototype of a national NFMA system now exists. It is the Safeguards

Analytical Laboratory Evaluation (SALE) program operated and administered by

the AEC. Under SALE, working standards, unknowns, etc., are issued under

authority of the AEC's New Brunswick Laboratory (in process of moving to Argonne). The working standards and other materials used in SALE, which

embraces all AEC labs but only 24 licensees, are backed by standard reference

materials (SRM's) issued by NBS. The SALE program therefore provides "NBS

traceability," i.e., a chain of measurement assurance based on the best materials

standards available, to some of the industry. However, the AEC was expected

not to fund licensee participation in SALE after FY 1974,

Guidance for Me.isurement Practice

Procedures and methods for nuclear fuel material measurements are guided

by ANSI standanis and the AEC's Division 5 Regulatory Guides. These sources

of guidance are complementary; the regulatory guides reference the ANSI standards and add supplementary recommendations.

D-6
The standards and guides are at present far from complete as a basis for

measurement operations. A massive standards development effort is underway;

present schedules anticipate substantial completion over approximately the next

two years. Similarly, about half of the anticipated Division 5 Regulatory

Guides have been issued.

The Division 5 guides currently available include some on assay methodology

but emphasize physical security of special nuclear materials. Future guides

will place more emphasis on assay techniques, including non-destructive assay.

They also will include a guide entitled "Measurement Control Program for

Materials Accounting in Nuclear Materials Processing Plants." This guide

will focus on measurement assurance. The title implicitly indicates it will

be aimed at the licensees' in-house measurement assurance operations. If so,

a nationally-based hierarchy of nuclear fuels measurement assurance will be

left to be a subject of future action.

The standards and regulatory guides inherently delegate responsibilities

and problems of implementation to the users. This is, of course, conventional

practice. This "policy of non-interference" may not, however, be appropriate

for nuclear material processing plants. For one thing, the regulatory requirements for SNM control are so stringent that the measurement systems must be

routinely operated at or near state-of-the-art capability. This means that

the licensee has very little margin for error; mechanical and human deficiencies

must be essentially non-existent.

The difficulties associated with achieving good measurement performance

are paralleled by the potential difficulties associated with failure to achieve it. Not only is the licensee at risk with respect to compliance, but

until proven otherwise, the Nation is at . risk from escape or theft of nuclear

material. Note also that the proof of materials control must include a high

level of measurement competence. For example, it should in practice be

possible to demonstrate that an acceptable (re compliance) quantity of

material unaccounted for (MUF) is not the result of offsetting bias and

accounting errors.

For the reasons outlined above, it appears that guidance for nuclear fuel

materials measurement practice should extend beyond the norm. The regulatory

guides are a step in this direction, but even they do not provide the proof

of performance that is needed. Nuclear fuel materials measurements must be

accurate in order to preclude adverse consequences. The only way to achieve

real-time testing and verification of accuracy is with an active measurement

assurance system that itself can be proven to be functioning properly.

Equity in Trade

The numerous operations in the nuclear fuel cycle produce several exchange

points where a shipper transfers fuel material to a receiver. Both parties in

a transfer are required to measure the mass and composition of material involved

(see Regulatory Guide 5-28).

In present industry operations, the need to satisfy regulations on fuel

materials accountability is most stringent, i.e., the monetary value of "lost"

material is comparatively negligible. When the reactor operator purchases

fresh fuel, his interest in the dollar value of the fuel material is submerged

in his interest in the in-service integrity and performance of the fabricated

fuel elements. Similarly, his concern for values to be reclaimed from spent

fuels are at least matched by the reprocessor ' s need to demonstrate SNM accountability. In general, equity interests will be adequately served within the total

framework of accountability requirements and contractual agreements.

D-7
Since the U. S. currently has no operational commercial reprocessing

facilities, relatively fevj opportunities for equity in trade problems have

arisen. (A current, critical need is to maintain good data on spent fuel in

storage.) In the future, problems may arise due to pooling of fuel materials.

For example, one reprocessor anticipates operation so that fuel owners do not

"get their own atoms back." The fissile content and dollar value of spent

fuel is dependent on fabrication and exposure history; we can expect no two

batches of spent fuel to be the same. Arrangements will therefore have to be

made to assure that the fuel owner receives values from the mixed-pool re- processor's product appropriate for the values in the spent fuel he supplied.

Various contractual devices are available to achieve this equity, but actual

achievement will depend on capability to make high-accuracy measurements on

the fuel materials involved.

ASSESSMENT OF FUEL MEASUREMENT STATUS AND NEEDS

The most significant items among the factors significant to nuclear fuel

materials measurements can be suimiarized as follows:

- The need for SNM control and accountability dominates nuclear

fuel material measurement activities.

- Current measurement technology must be utilized at or near state-of-the-art limits in order to achieve compliance with

SNM control requirements.

- To avoid after-the-fact evaluation of measurement performance

and to avoid even the possibility of escape or diversion of

nuclear materials, real-time verification of measurement

accuracy is necessary. However, such capability does not now exist.

- Testing and verification of accuracy are functions of measurement

assurance. The need for measurement assurance is widely recognized

in standards and other guides to measurement practice, but only

the first steps toward an adequate measurement assurance system

have been taken.

On this basis, the most important characteristic of the nuclear fuels

measurement system today is the need for a comprehensive, nationally-based

measurement assurance system.

The first step toward adequate nuclear fuels measurement assurance, i.e.,

development of in-house programs, is an important one. Such systems are essential for the real-time control that is needed to fulfill the intent of

the regulations.

The in-house systems cannot, however, stand alone. If they are not backed

with a hierarchy of authority and capability, the operators have no independent

way to demonstrate that the measurement systems under their control are functioning properly. They -- and the Nation -- run the risk that failure to attain SNM control will not be proved at all or will be discovered too late.

The Federal Government has ultimate responsibility for SNM control- Delegation of responsibility for first-line control to licensees is an essential

feature of the Federal responsibility. But responsibility to prove satisfactory

operation of the entire system cannot be delegated. The Federal Government

must therefore maintain a capability dedicated to oversight and independent

proof testing of the SNM control activities in the industry.

0-3
A hierar:hy of nuclear fuels measurement assurance with ultimate re- sponsibility and capability within the Federal Government should therefore

be implemented. The Federal capability should embrace all measurement practice and be highly responsive to, if not in fact lead, new developments in

measurement technology.

The nuclear fuels measurement assurance system hierarchy can evolve by

design from current operations such as the AEC's SALE program and the licensee's

in-house measurement assurance programs. Part of the design development effort

should be aimed at improvement of the data acquisition and data analysis systems.

Current practice of periodic inventories to measure MUF permits at best afterthe-fact discovery of deficiencies rather than the real-time accuracy verification that is essential for positive SNM control.

Improvement of data systems should include attention to improvement of the

dangerously small margin between practical limits of capability and performance

requirements. To assure SNM control by having measurement uncertainties that

fall within the range of regulatory requirements, the accuracy capability of

measurement systems should be improved. Studies aimed at determining requirements for improved accuracy are currently underway at Brookhaven National

Laboratory.

Development of technical and administrative capabilities for SNM control

will have to be accompanied by development of appropriate guides to practice.

Needs for SNM control are current, but the essential standards and guides will

not be available for several years if present schedules are followed. The

problem is complicated by the fact that measurement technology is evolving so rapidly that :he standards and guides may be out of date when issued.

Another critical underpinning for successful operation of a measurement

assurance system is availability of reference standards for instrument calibration. Development of automated, non-destructive assay systems is creating

new needs for these reference standards. Geometry as well as composition is

important for such standards. It is also, of course, essential that the

standards be certified. A licensee may develop his own reference standards,

but there mus; be an independent capability to certify them. This capability

obviously mus-: lie outside and above the licensee in the measurement assurance

hierarchy. This outside capability must also anticipate need for services to certify licensee use of reference standards it develops.

In summai'y, this study's assessment of the current measurement system for

nuclear fuel materials is that a comprehensive measurement assurance system

with keystone operations in the Federal Government is needed. The system

should be aimed at measurement control and verification for real-time data

acquisition and data analysis. Design and operation of the measurement

assurance system must incorporate consideration of requirements for reference

standards and guides for measurement practice.

PATHS TO IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

Participants and Responsibilities

Since the Federal Government has ultimate responsibility for control of

nuclear fuel materials, it should lead development of the measurement assur- ance system.

D-9
Two organizations have relevant expertise and responsibilities: the

Atomic Energy Commission, with its regulatory and developmental responsibilities for nuclear power, and the National Bureau of Standards, which is

responsible for the national measurement system. Development of a national

measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel materials would involve

extension of past activities in both organizations.

AEC and NBS responsibilities and skills are complementary. The AEC

focuses on development of capability, and NBS aims at maintenance of capability during operations and provision of reference standards needed for

practical use of measurement systems. Since functional requirements and

technology for nuclear fuel material measurements are evolving on broad

fronts, the AEC and NBS sectors of responsibility are both needed for

effective development of a measurement assurance system.

Development of the measurement assurance system should include licensee

participation. The licensees will have to maintain comprehensive in-house

measurement assurance capability. Problems in designing these functions and

linking* them to the national hierarchy will be minimized if the licensees

participate throughout the development process. The licensees can also con- tribute expertise on practical in-service considerations such as personnel

capabilities. Ways the users of the measurement system can contribute to its

development are outlined below.

Identification of Measurement Assurance Needs

A major problem to be faced by developers of a national NFMA system is

determination of the scope and type of services to be provided. Four generic

types of services can be anticipated: (1) calibrations; (2) round-robins to check performance; (3) corrective-action assistance; and (4) development of

working standards. Specific service requirements in each category will be

difficult to assess and may be large in scope because the various licensees

each have individual approaches to measurement. In other words, needs for

services approach being as numerous as licensees and operations in the fuel

cycle. Even if standardization significantly reduces the broad spectrum of

measurement methodology currently in use, implementation of the recycle-Pu,

HTGR, and LMFBR fuel cycles will tend to expand the spectrum.

Aside from standardization and diversification effects, two factors will

govern NFMA service needs: longevity of methods in use, and addition of

licensees and their facilities to the industry. With the exception of the

utilities' power plants, proliferation of licensees and facilities is projected

not to be great. For example, two or three additional reprocessing plants can

be expected to meet needs to the turn of the century. Expansion and diversification of fuel fabrication capacity will probably occur largely at existing

sites and with existing licensees. Thus, accrual of new licensees and unique

measurement methods is expected to be minimal.

Standardization and new products from instrument vendors will probably

tend to shrink NFMA service needs from present dimensions. The advantages of

real-time measurement systems will outweigh the capital costs of installing

them. Thus, the longevity of current systems may be brief; basic NFMA

service needs may soon be less than would be estimated for current practice.

In-depth assessment of needs will be essential, however.

D-10
The best way to assess NFMA service needs accurately is to obtain input

from the users. One way to do this is with Delphi-type questionnaires. Another,

which was considered for inclusion in this study's activities, is a workshop.

Use of the workshop concept in this study was abandoned after discussion with

experts on such functions. They pointed out that the only way to get the

information sought is to (a) avoid competition-induced inhibitions by having

only one company present, and (b) include all company interests (e.g.,

management, finance, technology, production) in the discussions. With these

ground rules, numerous workshops would be needed, even if relatively few representative companies were selected.

Whatever the technique selected, assessment of NFMA service needs will be

a major' task. The assessment must be conducted by experts. The assessment

methodology will have to accommodate and reflect the current and dynamic state

of nuclear fuels measurement technology.

Selection of Measurement Assurance System Structure

The national measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel materials will

necessarily have two basic components: the licensees' in-house systems, and

a "Supreme Court of measurement assurance" operated by the Federal Government.

Between these extremes, alternative structures of activities and responsibilities

within the hierarchy are possible. A basic task for development of the national

system is to select the preferred hierarchical structure.

The basic function of the hierarchy is to provide a chain of accuracy

testing and verification that stretches from user measurements to the bestavailable standards. An important constraint is that calibration and other

technical services will usually have to be taken to the user, i.e., the

measurement systems are not portable.

"Best-available standards" may be working standards or NBS-issued SRM's.

Working standards for which physical geometry as well as composition (elemental

and isotopic assay) are important and have a key and growing role in the

nuclear industry. Major responsibility for such standards currently lies with

the AEC's New Brunswick Laboratory, these standards are based on SRM's.

Alternative participants in the national hierarchy include NBS, the AEC

(e.g., via extension of its SALE program), state-operated facilities. Federal

Government-op<?rated regional facilities, and industry-operated facilities

(one or more locations). In each case, the Federal Government would have

responsibility to certify the intermediaries which would in turn certify and

service licensee operations.

State-opfjrated intermediaries would at present suffer the disadvantages

of uneven or non-existent competence. Industry-operated facilities would have

to be developed from scratch but would probably be most responsive to user

needs. Regional Federal facilities could be set up within the national

laboratories but might be ponderous and bureaucratic. In summary, no concept

for delivery of NFMA services at present has a clear-cut advantage.

This study's exploration of the licensees' viewpoints on the structure

of the measurement assurance hierarchy suggested that they would be largely

indifferent to the origins of NFMA authority. They would follow whatever

procedures are necessary to obtain and maintain their licenses. They would

expect, however, that delivered services would be appropriate to their needs.

D-n
Measurement Assurance System Design Project

Development of a national measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel

materials measurements will require a project dedicated to (a) design of the

system, and (b) definition of procedures and resources required for its

impl ementation.

Since AEC and NBS share authorities and expertise for nuclear fuel measurements and measurement assurance, they could share the project effort.

Three major project tasks can be anticipated, details of which could be

developed by AEC/NBS interaction prior to initiation of the program:

1. Definition of measurement assurance service needs. This task

is a med at determining the functional requirements for the

measurement assurance system. Users of the services should

partcipate in the assessment effort.

2. Selection of the measurement assurance system structure.

Activities in this task will be directed at defining and

evaluating alternatives for the structure of the measurement assurance system.

3. Detailed design of the measurement assurance system. This task

will identify facilities, staff, equipment, organization,

activities, costs and cost recovery methods for the measurement

assurance system selected by Task 2. It will also develop a blueprint for implementation.

Our preliminary estimate is that this project will require two years

for completion at an annual cost on the order of $250,000.

This program and related measurement assurance activities should be

implemented through AEC/NBS dialog at the policy level. These policy

discussions should establish a base and framework for continuing policy and

operational interaction in areas such as nuclear fuels measurement assurance

where the AEC and NBS have collaboration responsibilities.

Related Areas

Activities for this study of the nuclear fuel materials measurement

system produced exposure to other measurement operations in the nuclear

industry. For convenience, these may be classified as effluent monitoring,

dosimetry, radiation medicine, and quality assurance.

Although these measurement systems were not studied in depth, we observed

that they ha\e many characteristics in common with fuel material measurements.

For example, measurement technology such as gamma ray spectroscopy is widely

used. The mcst comprehensive elements of commonality are that all areas

(a) depend or good measurement performance for effective fulfillment of

responsibilities; (b) have measurement activities guided by a body of codes,

procedures, end standards; (c) have compliance requirements aimed ultimately

at protectior of human health and safety; and (d) are in one way or another

a national concern

D-12
These commonalities — especially the requirements to protect public

health and safety — indicate that measurements for effluent monitoring,

dosimetry, radiation monitoring, and quality assurance should also be backed

by a national measurement assurance system. Accuracy requirements in these

areas are not as stringent, or in some cases even as feasible, as for nuclear

fuels. However, good measurement performance within the appropriate framework

is just as important as for nuclear fuels. There is substantial evidence

that in conventional practice measurement performance in these areas is not

all it can be or should be. The deficiencies can be eliminated with measure- ment assurance systems.

Although this study has been focused on nuclear fuel materials measurement assurance, we infer that there is across-the-board need for measurement

assurance systems for radiation-oriented measurements. Consideration should

therefore be given to expanding the recommended measurement assurance system

design project to include all measurement categories. This approach could be

expected to effect long-run economies, but it would of course expand the resources required for the near-term design activities. However, because of

commonalities in the measurement categories, the incremental costs of the

expanded effort should be significantly less than the benefits obtained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Opportunity for the author's participation in this study was provided

by his participation in the President's Executive Interchange Program.

The author acknowledges with gratitude and pleasure the guidance and

assistance provided by Dr, James E. Leiss, Director of the Center for

Radiation Research of the National Bureau of Standards.

Many people contributed their time, expertise, and viewpoints to this

effort. The study would not have been possible without their help.

D-13
APPENDIX A

NUCLEAR POWER: PRESENT AND FUTURE

This appendix provides details on the structure and anticipated growth

and diversification of the nuclear power industry under the following headings:

Installed Capacity

Nuclear Fuel Materials

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Waste Management and Transportation

Fuel Element Fabrication

Role of Measurements

Installed Capacity

Nuclear power plants currently supply less than 10% of the Nation's demand

for electrical energy. Rapid expansion of installed capacity is forecasted,

however. Projections differ in detail, but the consensus order~of-magnitude

estimates are that new plants, each with capacity of approximately 1000 MWe, shou come on line at a rate of about one per three weeks through the 1980's and one

per week through the decade of the 1990's. Total installed nuclear capacity

by the year 2000 is estimated (1) to be on the order of 1000 GWe, corresponding

to about 1100 units. Forty-five units are on-line today. Estimates of future

installed capacity are tending downward, in recognition of licensing and

intervenor delays and reduced demand.

Major incentives for nuclear energy as the principal source of future

electrical power are expectations of lower cost and lower pollution in com- parison with fossil-fired plants. Risks are assumed to be acceptable, and

no major new substitution technology (e.g., solar or fusion power) is foreseen

for at least 20 years.

Nuclear Fuel Materials

Present U. S. nuclear power plants operate with uranium dioxide as the

fuel material. Future reactors will, however, probably use a diversity of fuel

materials. The diversity is highly significant to measurement interests

because of differences in fuel assay requirements (elemental and isotopic

combinations) that will exist.

The four major types of nuclear fuels expected to be in use are:

- UO2 (present technology) for water-cooled reactors (LWR's)

- recycle Pu (mixed U, Pu oxides) also for LWR's

- U-Th fuels for gas-cooled reactors (HTGR's)

- Pu fuels for sodium-cooled breeders (LMFBR's)

Estimates of when and how much the advanced concepts will come on line

vary widely. In practice, implementation will depend on economic forces in

the industry. There is consensus, however, that all four types will be in use by the turn of the century.

Of Bartlett (1974).

D-14
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle ^

'

Nuclear power is distinguished from fossil power by the nuclear fuel cycle.

The cycle exists (Figure A-1) because spent fuel removed from the reactor

contains unused and "bred" fuels economically worthy of recovery. These fuel

materials are recovered in reprocessing plants and recycled to either the en- richment plant (uranium) or the fuel fabrication plant (plutonium) for use in

future generations of fuel elements.

The fuel cycle is not in use today; there are no U. S. reprocessing plants

in routine, commercial operation. One is, however, in design, and one that

previously operated is shut down for modifications to increase capacity. Another

that was expected to be in service this year now appears inoperable. Future

viability of the fuel cycle and reprocessing is indicated by the fact that

estimates of need for additional reprocessing capacity (above that which

currently planned plants can provide) by the mid-1980' s are widely accepted.

Each type of reactor (LWR, HTGR, LMFBR) expected to be in commercial use requires its own technology in each fuel cycle operation. Measurements and

material standards will therefore be different for each type of reactor and

its associated fuel cycle.

(3)

Waste Management and Transportation ^

'

At present, radioactive wastes are generated at relatively low levels.

Shipments of spent fuels and waste are relatively infrequent; the spent fuels

are retained in storage basins at the reactor sites pending operation of the

reprocessing plants.

In the future, however, generation of wastes will accelerate at a rate

commensurate with the growth of operational capacity throughout the fuel cycle.

Transport of radioactive materials will accelerate even more rapidly because

each operation generates several types of waste, and handling procedures

differ for each type.

A major area of concern (reflected by rapidly growing R&D budgets) is the

so-called high-level waste produced at reprocessing plants. This waste con- tains the highly radioactive fission products from spent fuel. Present plans

call for solidification and shipment of this waste to central repositories.

These repositories will be few in number (perhaps only one). The frequency

of shipments from the reprocessing plants will be high, and distances to be

traveled will probably be large.

D-15
MINING AND MILLING

CONVERSION

ENRICHMENT

CONVERSION

r

FUEL ELEMENT FABRICATION

t

REACTOR OPERATIONS

J

FUEL REPROCESSING —;=ii—

(WASTE)

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Figure A-1

Operations in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

D-16
An unresolved problem associated with the high-level waste is its actinide

content. With present reprocessing technology, the waste will contain actinide

elements in concentrations sufficient to dominate the potential long-term

biological hazard. They also extend the persistence of hazard from the order

of a thousand years (fission products alone) to millions of years. A decision

to limit the actinide content of high-level waste to extremely low levels could

pose the most challenging technology and measurement problems in the industry.

Low-level wastes will be generated in volumes and masses much larger than

those for high-level waste. They frequently contain low concentrations of

actinides inhomogeneously distributed. Actinide assay is essential, however,

for material balance and accountability purposes. Such measurements are extremely difficult to make with good accuracy; errors are typically on the

order of ± 50%. Development of working standards and improved accuracy is a major challenge for the future.

Fuel Element Fabrication

This operation in the fuel cycle is given special consideration because of

its pivotal role in operational reliability and shipper/receiver equity.

A key action in the nuclear industry is the contract between the utility

and the fuel supplier. From the utilities' point of view, megawatts are purchased; the total is specified in terms of reactor power rating, capacity

factor, and fuel endurance (burnup achieved, in megawatt-days per metric ton,

MWD/T) prior to removal of fuel from the reactor. The fuel fabricator translates these specifications into a core design which is defined in terms of the

spatial distribution of fissile material in the core, fissile concentrations

in the individual fuel pellets, and mechanical integrity of the as-fabricated

fuel elements.

In the absence of external problems such as non-nuclear plant outages,

achievement of specified power outputs depends on how well the fuel fabricator

does his job in core design and fabrication. Theoretical core design is now a highly-sophisticated and highly-accurate process; the major problem is to convert theory into materials and operational hardware.

Modern computer-based core design techniques permit specification of axial

and radial gradients in fuel loadings (fissile concentrations in the fuel

pellets). Construction of a con^ in accordance with such specifications re- quires fabrication of pellets with different fissile assays and location of

these pellets in the right place in the core. This is a complicated and

difficult task.

A BWR-6 core (standard GE design), for example, will contain approximately

14 million fuel pellets with on the order of a dozen different assays. These

pellets are distributed in over 48 thousand fuel rods arrayed in 756 fuel elements.

Each type of fuel pellet must be put in its proper place in this array.

If inventory and accountability procedures necessary to assure proper

placement of the fuel pellets are assumed adequate, the next major problem

is to fabricate the fuel elements with integrity to avoid failure during

design-life service. This is one of the major operational and contractual

problems in the industry today. Fabrication shortcomings are expected,

tolerated, and the linch pin of contractual agreements. The usual "level

of acceptable failure" is 1%. General Electric is seeking assured reliability

of 99.95%; even at this level of quality, the typical BWR-6 core will contain

approximately 70,000 substandard fuel pellets and 240 failed fuel rods.

D-17
Fuel element failure in service in indexed by measurement of fission

product conce.itrations in the reactor coolant. Such measurements are therefore

the basis for potential contract disputes. Accuracy of measurement on a given

coolant samplu may be high, but such samples are of questionable reliability

as an index of core phenomena. Since millions of dollars are at stake in a decision to shut down, remove failed fuel, and seek restitution from the fuel

supplier, these coolant measurements have a key role in the operational

economics and reliability of nuclear power.

Assays of fuel pellets in the as-fabricated core are important not only

to in-service performance but also to subsequent shipper/receiver transactions

in the fuel cycle. The fissile content of spent fuel at discharge (total value

of several mi'^lion dollars per discharged batch) is calculated using the as- loaded assay values as a starting point. These calculated results are the

basis for shipper/receiver equity transactions between the utility and the

reprocessor.

At the 6E reprocessing plant at Morris, Illinois, (which is the one apparently inoperable) these calculated values were expected to be the sole

basis for util ity-reprocessor contracts (the reprocessor usually guarantees

99.5% recovery of fissile values). The basis for this approach was an attitude

that the assays of the as-fabricated core are the most accurate fuel assay

values in the fuel cycle.

Other reprocessors will rely on assay of as-received spent fuel after

dissolution as the basis for their contractual obligations. The problems

with this approach are similar to those for the coolant assays. Although

measurements on the sample can be highly accurate (a factor of ten better

than the burnup-based calculated values), the sample may be unreliable because

of peculiarities of plutonium chemistry. High-accuracy calibration of the

accountability tank volume is also difficult to achieve.

Role of Measurements

The above expositions illustrate the fact that fuel materials measurements

are fundamental to the economics and reliability of nuclear power. They are

also, as discussed below, fundamental to safety as interpreted by safeguards

and accountability requirements. An important present and future concern for

all aspects of the nuclear industry is therefore the capability to make

measurements of requisite reliability.

Present fuel materials measurement technology can, in principle, meet

most existing needs (the major exception is low-fissile-content waste). In other words, when existing measurement methods are used properly in the

existing framework of fuel cycle operations, materials specifications,

regulatory requirements, and standards, they can produce data with accuracy

sufficient for needs.

There are, however, current problems in achieving proper use. Skilled

manpower is in short supply. Opportunities for human error are numerous. Instrument availability is sometimes limited. Costs are high and inimical

to good measurement practice. The net result is that current performance

is very uneven. Some operations consistently produce reliable data; others

rarely do.

D-13
These barriers to good measurement performance will persist in the

future unless improved measurement systems are developed. Industry is

pressing (and being pressed by regulatory requirements) for measurement

systems that are more economical, reliable, and fool-proof. There is need

and desire for increased use of non-destructive assay (NDA) techniques and

real-time data acquisition and analysis. The instrument suppliers are moving to respond to these demands. Their response will, however, have to include development and delivery of capability to meet new demands stemming

from introduction of HTGR and LMFBR fuel cycles, tighter specifications and

regulations, and overall rapid expansion of the industry. This delivery of

in-service measurement capability will have to be preceded or accompanied by

appropriate R&D and preparation of reference materials standards.

REFERENCES

1. Nuclear Power Growth , 1974-2000. USAEC Report WASH-1139 (74), to be

issued. Reported in Science Trends for July 15, 1974.

2. The Nuclear Industry , 1973. USAEC Report WASH-1 174-73, undated.

3. 1973 Annual Report to Congress, USAEC. Volume 1 - Operating and

Developmental Functions.

D-19
APPENDIX B

THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

The nuclear industry is currently far from maturity and stability. All

aspects of industrial operations and the external constraints are on learning

curves. Institutional interactions are therefore highly dynamic. They will

have major impact on future industrial operations and Federal Government

programs.

The basic driving force for actions and reactions that may ultimately

impact programs concerning nuclear fuel material measurements is the current

concern with nuclear materials safeguards and accountability. In the absence

of this pressure, there would be no story to tell; industry would give measurements and measurement assurance no more attention than economically necessary.

The drive for nuclear materials accountability will, however, tnake fuel

materials measurements one of the industry's major concerns and costs.

The pressure for accountability has several sources. To the U. S. nuclear

industry, the most visible are the AEC regulatory requirements. Recently

promulgated regulations set material -unaccounted-for (MUF) and limit of error

on MUF (LEMUF) requirements that are much tighter than previous requirements.

The industry will be able to meet these requirements only if elaborate

inventory and accounting procedures are installed and the best of current

measurement technology is used to the limit of its capability.

The new regulations permitted licensees initially to submit plans for

compliance in lieu of immediate compliance. Most, if not all, licensees

exercised this option. The AEC started review of these plans early in 1974.

Indications are that strict enforcement is intended, to the extent that

operations incapable of achieving compliance will be allowed or forced to shut down.

Consensus standards such as produced by ANSI are another source of

pressure for improved measurements. These standards can be said to represent

reduction of regulatory requirements to practice. A massive effort to develop

consensus standards for all aspects of the nuclear power industry is underway.

Output and progress are slowed, however, by the fact that these standards are

developed primarily as a result of moonlighting activities of the participants.

On a relative basis, development of the consensus standards relevant to fuel

materials accountability and measurements has just begun.

A third force for improved accountability is the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA). In the past, an IAEA role has not been highly visible

in the U. S. Visibility that has existed can be described as negative: U. S. industry views IAEA laxity in comparison with our AEC as a cause for loss of

competitive position on overseas markets.

Present and anticipated accountability requirements from all sources contain a common thread that is potentially of great importance to fuel

material measurements. That is, requirements implicitly or explicitly call

for a measurement assurance system.

The basic function of the measurement assurance system would be to validate fuel materials measurements data and thereby demonstrate compliance

with regulatory requirements. Basic components of such a system are (a) means to test and verify the accuracy of data obtained with each specific

measurement apparatus, and (b) programs and procedures for periodic testing

of measurement performance (e.g., unknowns, round-robins, etc.).

Of Bartlett (1974)

D-20
A licensee can, in principle, operate his own measurement assurance

system. In fact, such systems are a part of the compliance requirements.

These in-house activities should, however, be regarded as secondary systems.

A primary system which is nationally -- or internationally -- based an: of

unquestioned reliability is necessary to fully demonstrate industry-wide

compliance and materials accountability. This "Supereme Court of measure- ment assurance" must be operated or at least backed by authority and competence within the Federal Government. If IAEA regulatory tie-ins are significant, international measurement assurance tie-ins should be equally

significant.

A prototype of a national measurement assurance system now exists. It

is the Safeguar-ds Analytical Laboratory Evaluation (SALE) program operated

and administered by the AEC. Under SALE, working standards, unknowns, etc., are issued under authority of the AEC's New Brunswick Laboratory (in the

process of moving to Argonne). The working standards and other materials

used in SALE, which includes only 24 licensees, are backed by Standard

Reference Materials (SRM's) issued by the National Bureau of Standards. The

SALE program therefore provides "NBS traceabil ity," i.e., a chain of measurement assurance based on the best materials standards available, to some of

the industry.

Since SALE reaches only some of the licensees affected by 10 CFR 70

requirements, it would have to be expanded to serve as the national measure- ment assurance system. Furthermore, it or any similar system will have to be

diversified as recycle Pu, LMFBR, and HTGR fuel cycles come into commercial

use. These fuel cycles will require new, additional SRM's and measurement

technology.

Industry contacts made during this study revealed no opposition to the

concept of a national measurement assurance system. Reactions did, however,

range from "What is it?" to acceptance. Conspicuous by its absence was any

sense of urgency to implement such a system.

Lack of urgency could be the result of several factors. One obvious

possibility is that institution of a measurement assurance system will produce

cost and manpower headaches (for both the industrial and governmental sectors)

that are seen to be avoided as long as possible. For industry, the full impact

of the tighter regulations and the AEC's attitude toward enforcement has not

yet been felt. For the AEC, until recent publicity on nuclear materials

control, the pressures of current business and existing cormiitments impeded a detailed look at measurement assurance. For NBS, application of the concept

to nuclear fuel materials could require new activities and programs.

Many institutional entities have interest in nuclear fuel materials

control and therefore, presumably, nuclear fuels measurement assurance. Major

interests include:

- AEC Regulatory . The Directorate of Regulatory Standards promulgates

regulatory guides (Division 5) that provide the basis for selection and use of

measurement systems.

- AEC Operations and Development . The newly-formed Division of Safeguards

and Security will administer R&D for physical security and nuclear materials

control techniques and equipment. The fact that this Division was formed

despite pending major organizational changes (i.e., formation of ERDA) is

indicative of the importance of nuclear materials control.

- American Nuclear Society (ANS) . Represents the technical interests of

the nuclear industry. Deeply involved in development of nuclear standards.

D-21
- Ajnerican National Standards Institute (ANSH . Work on development of

nuclear industry standards is extensive and expanding. Many of the standards,

especially those promulgated by the N-15 Committee of ANSI, deal with nuclear

materials control and measurements.

- Institute for Nuclear Materials Management (INf^) . This organization

is the focus for technical expertise related to nuclear materials control

and measurements.

- Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) . Represents the comnercial interests of

the nuclear industry. Also maintains in-house technical expertise.

- Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) . Represents the interests of

the utilities (not the fuel suppliers, reprocessors , etc.). Interests are therefore focused on reactor site measurements such as effluent monitoring

and shipper/receiver equity for fuel.

- The states . Twenty-four states are "agreement states," i.e., they have

regulatory responsibilities delegated by the AEC. These states exercise

regulatory control over some 9,100 licensees compared with about 9,000

materials licenses under AEC jurisdiction.

- Federal Legislative Branch . An indication of the expertise and interest

that can come from this sector is provided by the following excerpt from a speech made by Senator Abraham Ribicoff before the U. S. Senate on May 28, 1974:

"It should be noted that while the job of safeguarding

commercial nuclear materials is enormously important, the

job itself is manageable and well within the bounds of

available technology. There are now 568 AEC-licensed

facilities which are authorized to possess a total of

1,041,000 pounds of explosive plutonium and enriched

uranium. But 99.8 percent of the authorized weaponsgrade material is located in 97 facilities. Of these,

27 were fuel facilities where theft is considered a problem, because the nuclear materials are in a form

that can be easily handled. The remaining 68 facilities

are reactor sites where the fuel is highly radioactive,

making theft unlikely. Furthermore, of the 27 fuel

facilities, only 19 are listed by the AEC as major

facilities. Thus, the present commercial safeguards

efforts against theft can be focused on less than 20

major facilities, and this figure is expected to grow

by another 20 by the 21st century."

Not all sectors share Senator Ribicoff's confidence that nuclear fuel

materials control is "manageable and well within the bounds of available

technology." Exhibit B-1 , excerpted from the June 1974 issue of Nuclear

Industry (published by the Atomic Industrial Forum), reflects the AEC's concern

for need to upgrade nuclear fuel material control capability. Of special

interest is the item referring to expedited consideration of a proposed new regulation for a' measurement control program. Such action would, in effect,

mandate a national measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel materials.

In sunmary, it is clear that the institutional environment for nuclear

fuel materials raasurements is in a state of evolution and contains many

constituents. It is equally clear that control of special nuclear materials

is currently a "hot issue." The glare of publicity may diminish, but action

toward development of a national measurement assurance system for nuclear fuel

materials is certain. The AEC has lead responsibility, but other institutional

entities might assist the effort. Within the Federal Government, the National

Bureau of Standards has expertise and responsibilities that complement those of

the AEC.

D-22
EXHIBIT B-1

(from Nuclear Industry , June 1974)

EC Orappies with a Dozen Safeguards Studias, Policy Papers

As thd question of safeguards and handling of special nuclear material continued in the forefront of Senate moves on the bill to create ERDA and a nuclear regulatory commission (see story on p. 3), AEC

was plunging into a massive review of the subject.

As this issue of Nuclear Industry went to press the Commission was grappling with more than a dozen

staff and contractor studies and policy papers on

various aspects of the safeguards problem. One of them, the so-called Rosenbaum Special Safeguards

Study released last month (see NI for May, p. 3), was

the subject of a staff assessment which was itself re- leased tliis month.

On the central recommendation of the Rosenbaum

report, that the adequacy of safeguards systems should

be judged in terms of "design basis incidents" anal- ogous to the design basis accidents for safety analysis, the staff agreed that the concept "can and should be

applied to materials protection." But it said that "applying a risk probability value with the same meaning and significance to materiab and plant protection

as to a reactor accident appears extremely difficult."

Despite that difficulty the staff recommended that a

"family of design basis incidents" should be devel- oped.

"The elements and subsystems of the physical protection systems which are designed to accommodate

the design basis incidents should be evaluated, as a

first step," for vulnerability to a single failure, said the staff. "Alternative or redundant subsysten^j sl^'- be incorporated as appropriate to aFci.j'" lliat failure of any critical component or s. scem will not result in the inability of thi^ security system to successfully respond to a design basis incident."

Still unclear in the staff report, as in the original

study, was the nature of a "design basis incident." Carried to an e.Ktreme, such a concept might involve developing specific hypothetical scenarios in which

diversion or theft of special nuclear material was at- tempted, and demonstrating that safeguards systems

would fnistrate those attempts. Because of the unpredictability and variabilitj' of possible terrorist acti\ities, such a formalistic approach would face considerable opposition.

The staff report was more specific on the question

of developing ""blackhat" scenarios of attempted di- version. Such "gaming analysis" has great utility and

value, and should be encouraged on a continuing

basis, the staff said. But the Rosenbaum recommendation that the resulting "Threat scenarios could form

the basis for a simulated but dynamic testing of a li- censee's SNM [Special Nuclear Materials] safe- guards," was rejected by the staff".

"Threat scenarios should be developed and systems

weaknesses analyzed without using 'blackhat' teams to

actually attempt to steal SNM," the staff assessment

said. "Such tests should not be conducted, for they not only could densensitize the guard force to the point where a real threat would not be recognized,

but also could result in the loss of life." The staff recommended that "vulnerability studies under^vay at present should be expanded to include

Tjlackhat' gaming in the areas of transportation and

fuel processing plant security. In addition, in-house

technical staff should be expanded to perform Tslackhat' analyses of licensee security programs as part of the licensing review process, and to use lalackhat' studies as input to the development of new regulations. . . . Moreover, the results of these 'blackhat' exercises should be used in the development of regulatory inspection strategies."

On the question of a Federal guard force, recom- mended by the Rosenbaum report, the staff temporized. Because of the "increasing terrorist activities in the United States and elsewhere," the staff said, "we believe that a reassessment should be made of whether the level of protection needed is not greater

than that which can reasonably be expected from a

private organization, which must rely upon local law

enforcement authorities to provide assistance in the event of a squad-sized attack."

Tlie stair noted tliat a study of the relative merits

of Federal guaru foi-es and private guards assisted by local authorities wa^ underway at Brookhaven

National Laboratory.

Perhaps the most fur-reaching recommendations

from an industry point of view concern methods of

inventor}- and materials control. The Rosenbaum

study recommended that the current Material Unaccounted For (MUF) method of keeping track of nuclear material be abandoned and a system of ac- countability and double-checking be instituted that woiJd allow daily accounting of material. The staff agreed that changes should be made in the accountability program. "The need for improving

material balance accounting in terms of timeliness and in both an absolute and a relative per cent basis

is recognized," the staff assessment said, "and the staff

is aware of the limitations of requiring periodic in- ventories expressed in terms of MUF and LEMUF

(Limit of Error of MUF) concepts."

Additional staff papers "proposing new regulations

for fundamental material controls, measiuement

quality control and design criteria are being devel-

oped," it added, "and will provide for much of the | upgrading of material conhol recommended" by the ' Rosenbaum study. i

D-23
EXHIBIT B-1 (Continued)

The stafiF made a number of recommendations in the ' accountability area: • Expedited consideradon of a proposed new regulation, "Measurement Control Program for Special

Nuclear Materials Control and Accounting " and de- \ velopment of a computer-based accounting system ' which would operate in "real time" rather than retro- spectively. Development of this Real Time Materials Control (RETIMAC) program "should be initiated immediately," the staff said. • Expedited approval of the proposed new regulations for Fundamental Nuclear Material Controls, i

• A study of an "integrated system of internal controls including the use of tamper-safing techniques,

redundancy measures, counting techniques, and mod- , em methods of data interrogation and analysis " '

• More effort in the analysis at diversion paths for each of the types of plants in the fuel cycle.

The Rosenbaum study and the staff review of it were only two of a large number of studies and activities in the safeguards field now going on. In a let- i ter to JCAE Chairman Melvin Price (D-Ill.), AEC | Chairman Dixy Lee Ray listed 15 categories of on- going activities in safeguards. Among the more sig- nificant: » A safeguards policy paper and a study of regulatory goals and objectives.

• A policy paper being prepared by the staff to define the interface between ERDA and NEC in the safeguards area.

® Revision of the Nuclear Material Information

System (NMIS) to enable more prompt reporting of

lirensee inventory anomalies, and a policy of action

to be taken when a hcensee exceeds the new MUF

limits. • A study of the impact of the Nuclear Material

Security Bureau which is currently a part of the

Senate bill forming ERDA and NEC.

• Development of Safeguards Design Criteria for reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants and nuclear power plants.

Another activity noted by Chairman Ray was the

request for legislation to allow AEC to establish clearance programs for Lcensees with employes handling special nuclear material.

As explained by Regulatory Standards Director

Lester Rogers at a JCAE hearing this month, the legislation, part of an omnibus bill amending the Atomic

Energy Act, would clearly give the Commission authority to set up such a program. Present provisions

of the Act apparently give AEC some authority in

this area, but a recent Supreme Court decision pr^j- hibiting security clearance programs for mercliant

vessel personnel casts a cloud on that authority,

Rogers said.

"If the legislation is enacted," Rogers testified, "we

would establish a clearance program of various levels ranging from no clearance to a full field investigation. . . . We anticipate that the cost of clearance in- vestigations—$7.50 for an *L* clearance and about

$750 for a 'Q* clearance—would be borne by the li- censee."

D-24
APPENDIX C

INDUSTRY VIEWPOINTS AND CONCERNS

Nuclear industry viewpoints concerning fuel material measurements are dominated by two factors: compliance and costs. These subjects are closely

related; at present, for example, the costs of compliance are a major concern. The new 10 CFR 70 regulations will, for most special nuclear materials

(SNM) licensees, require large expenditures for physical security equipment,

measurement systems, personnel, and personnel training.

Problems in any or all of these sectors could inhibit achievement of

compliance. For example, measurement equipment may be in short supply because

of high demand and limited production capability. The highly skilled people

needed to operate the measurement systems and manage the SNM control system

are in short supply. And the capital and operating costs required to implement improved SNM control systems will, at best, haveat least a short-term

effect on profitability (the 10 CFR 70 regulations effective in December

1973 permitted deferred compliance only for installations facing changeover

costs in excess of $500,000).

As suggested above, shipper/receiver equity for nuclear fuel materials

is not a major concern at present. Achievement of SNM control compliance

will assure accuracy as good as or better than business equity requirements.

Reactor operators, for example, appear to be satisfied if the reprocessor's

spent fuel assay is "in the ballpark" with calculated values. The reprocessor

must have a highly accurate assay of incoming material in order to achieve

compliance with SNM accountability requirements.

One area of shipper/receiver equity not now a concern but possibly so in

the future is the isotopic assay of spent fuel. The fissile content of spent

fuel is a function of burnup history during reactor exposure; since economic

worth is a function of fissile content, dollar value of the spent fuel is also

dependent on burnup history.

Experience to date suggests that few, if any, reactors will have the same burnup history (for example, 22 reload cores have been designed; no two are the same). However, the reprocessors will probably run continuous or semi-continuous operations so that no fuel owner gets his own atoms back.

How, then, is equity achieved and the total fuel need of the industry met,

especially if or when plutonium recycle becomes widely used? (Pu isotopic

ratios change narkedly with cycle.)

There are various ways to minimize problems from this source (e.g., cash

payments or cradits; campaigning cores with similar calculated assays in

series). The topic will, however, require management attention and economic

analysis in the future.

As discussed from a slightly different viewpoint in Appendix A, the

reactor operator's primary concern is in-service endurance of the fuel.

Accuracy in assay of the fresh fuel is a part of this concern, but

mechanical integrity is a larger part. Shutdown due to fuel element

failure will cost the reactor operator several hundred thousand dollars

daily in lost revenue and maintenance costs. In contrast, typical

contracts limit the fuel supplier's liability to the cost of the failed

fuel element (about $50,000). The reactor operator therefore has a large

stake in fuel element quality assurance. Most utilities maintain strong

in-house capability or hire consultants to thoroughly check quality

assurance during fuel element manufacture.

Of Bartlett (1974). D-25
On the other side of the fuel supplier/user interface, the supplier's

longevity in business is dependent on his reputation for product quality

(reflected in reload core orders), his achievement of compliance, and process

economies. The fuel supplier therefore also has a large stake in the quality

of his fuel elements. To assure quality and effect economies, the fuel

suppliers employ a comprehensive capability for in-process fuel material

measurements. This measurement capability must also, of course, satisfy

SNM accountability requirements.

The fuel supplier's measurement capability must include non-destructive

assay (NDA) of fuel elements when fabrication is completed. Ideally, for

economic reasons, this NDA capability should be available throughout the

manufacturing process. This desire for rapid, on-line NDA measurement

capability is a major driving force for the evolution of improved measurement sys'tems.

A rarely mentioned but widely prevalent concern in the nuclear industry

is availability of manpower to properly operate the measurement systems. The

sophisticated technology requires sophisticated capabilities somewhere in the

system. Ideally, this sophistication should not be required on the production

line; rather, it should be in a backup system responsible for accurate

calibrations, etc. Such capabilities are inherently a requirement for a measurement assurance system.

A currently-unresolved issue is entry of private industry into the

uranium enrichment business. The private sector is interested in taking on

this function but believes government assistance in covering the risks of

transition will be essential. Some sectors of the government disagree. If

the debate is finally concluded with private sector operation of enrichment

plants, the licensees will have materials control and measurement responsibilities analogous to those the AEC now has for the enrichment plants it

operates. If centrifuge rather than gaseous diffusion separation technology

is used, measurement methodology and practice may differ from current

operations.

D-26
APPENDIX D

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY MEASUREMENTS AND THE NBS ROLE

Measurement Users and Methods

Table D-1 lists the nuclear fuel materials measurers and the key measurements they make. Reactors are not included because they calculate rather than measure fuel burnup (these calculations are, however, the basis for shipper/

receiver comparisons between the reactor and the reprocessor) . AEC prime

contractors (12 in number) are also not shown since they usually have in-house

capabilities sufficient to provide needed measurement assurance services.

Their measurements are similar to those of the fuel fabricators and

reprocessors.

As shown in Table D-1, relatively little proliferation of sites is forecasted. That which is shown primarily reflects addition of LMFBR and HTGR

operations. Expansion of capacity will usually occur at existing sites.

Table D-2 lists the methods used to make the measurements. In practice,

there will probably be as many variations of these methods in use as there are users. There are, for example, several hundred analytical procedures

for U and Pu assays. Rapid, automated systems will be used as much as possible.

All of the fuel materials measurements involve just four basic quantities:*

mass assays of U and Pu, and isotopic distributions for these same two elements.

Waste control measurements may not require isotopic distribution determinations;

safeguards and equity measurements usually will.

Ranges of values for these quantities — particularly the Pu isotope

distributions — are of primary interest to measurement technology. As previously

noted, elemental and isotopic compositions of spent fuels will depend on reactor

exposure and number of recycles.

The data shown in Table D-3 indicate that ranges of values for future LWR

fuels will be quite similar to present values. Anticipated assays for fresh

and spent fuels are all within the ranges for current fuels and primary

standards. The HTGR fuels will also be in the range of current capability.

Data similar to those of Table D-3 are not available for LMFBR fuels, but these

systems are not expected to be in commercial operation until near 1990. Performance capabilities of LMFBR fuels are to be determined in the Fast Flux

Test Facility (FFTF) which is scheduled to begin operation in 1976.

An unresolved question concerns the changes in Pu isotopic distribution

that will occur with repeated cycles and their impact on equity and measurements to assure equity. Proprietary calculations to estimate these changes

* One additional measurement. Thorium, is required for HTGR fuels

Of Bartlett (1974).

D-27
TABLE D-1

MEASURERS OF NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS

Total Number*

Operation

Enrichment

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Reprocessors

Service Labs

To 1985

30

1985-2000

AEC-Owned 3

10 15

30

Key Measurements

I.e.** of Product, Tails

I.e. of Receipts, Blends,

Scrap, Waste, Pellets

NDA of Fuel Rods and

Elements

Mass, I.e. of Receipts

and Product

Actinide Content of

Waste

Same as Fuel Fabrication,

Reprocessing (Referee

Service)

Instrument Vendors 50 50 Calibration of Products

* Estimates based on AEC, industry projections

** I.e. = Isotopic Composition. All measurements

for U and/or Pu compounds, mixtures

D-23
TABLE D-2

NUCLEAR FUEL MATERIALS MEASUREMENT METHODS

Measurement

UFg Enrichment Product

Where

Enrichment

Method(s)

Quant. Anal.*, Mass Spec.

UO2, PuO^, Powders

Powder Blends

Fuel Pellets

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Fabrication

Quant. Anal., Mass Spec.

Quant. Anal., Mass Spec.

Quant. Anal., Mass Spec.

Neutron Interrogation,

Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy,

Calorimetry

Fuel Rods Fuel Fabrication Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy

Neutron Interrogation

Spent Fuel Assay Fuel Reprocessing Quant. Anal., Mass Spec,

X-Ray Fluorescence

Recovered U, Pu

(as nitrates)

High-Density, High-Fissile

Scrap and Waste

Fuel Reprocessing

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Reprocessing

Quant. Anal., Mass Spec.

Calorimetry, Quant. Anal.,

Mass Spec.

Low-Density, Low-Fissile

Waste

Fuel Fabrication

Fuel Reprocessing

Calorimetry, Gamma-Ray

Spectroscopy

* Many methods for quantitative analysis are available. See reference 1.

D-29
TABLE D-3*

TJIERAIAL REACTOR CHARACTERISTICS • BWR

Therfn2l Elriciency (//c) —

Specific Power (M\Vih/MT)

Iniiia! Core (Average)

Irriidiation Level Fresh Fuel Assay

""U)

Speni Fuel Assay

!Wi<ro "JU)

Fissile Pu Recovered

(kg.'MT)^-

Feeii Required

(ST lJ.O,/M\Ve)3__

Separative Work Req. {S\\'U/M'.Ve)2

Thru 1980 Afler IVSO 34 34

26

17000

2.03

,86

4.8

.625

200

28

17000

2.C3

.86

4.8

.580

135

Thru 19R0 33

38

24000

2.63

.85

5.8

.591

224

Afur

33

41

24CC0

2.63

.85

5.8

.54S

203

Replacement Loadincs (Annual rate at steady state and 80% Plant Factor)

Irradi.nion Level (MVvD/MT) 27500 27500 33000 33000

Frsih Fuel Ar^ay

(y<\% :35>j) 2.73 2.73 3.19 3.19 Spc-t Fus! Assay

(V,'tf& :"U) .84 .84 .82 .82

Fissile Pu Recovered (kg/MT)^ 5.9 5.9 6.6 6.6 Feed Required

(ST U,,0,/}sVXep _ .191 .191 .205 .205

Sepj.-ative Work Req. (SV/U/M\Ve)J 89 89 99 99

HTGR

39

82

54500

93.15

(')

(.')

.456

311

95000

93.15

(')

V)

.113

77

ACR

-t C'. :.

J.49

.75

MO

.59

Rip\ic^rr,ir.i Lcadir.gs (Annual rate at steady state, 80% plant factor, and plutoniurxi recycle.)

Fissile Pu Recycled

(V.g.'MWc) .174

Fissile Pu Recovered

(kc/.\!Ti- Feed Recuired

(.ST U.,0,,'M\V-)3,5.

Separative v ork Req. (SWU'.MWe)-

.174

10 3

.153

10.3

.168

70

.167

11.4

.179

80

.167

11.4

.179

80

42

13

I3OO0

ISS

200OO

4.0

.176

73

5.78

1.00

2.54

.87

• %!VvLh ii I'r.trml megawaits, \f\Vs is eiictrical negawatis, MWDt is thennal megawatt days, MTU is rretric tons (ihoi:«.-.d5 of

kuasr^ris) of urariuni. and ST UiOs ii short tons of UjOs yellowcalie from an ore processing mill. One SWU is eqcivaJen: to o.ner o: £c.-ijrai:ve ^^-ork. -Aftrr l05\cs.

" Bi«d cn operation of enriching fsci!;i:es at a tails as.uy of 0.3%. For replacement loadings, the required feed anJ separative « cr".c ret, in thai they allow for the v-ie of uranium recovered from sp:nt fuel. Allowance is made for fabrication 3ti4 rcprocrssirrg lo-.«-c>.

* A;! spent fuel f.i^iie p.'odLic;:on (pri.varily —"U) are recycled on a self generated basis. Only one recycle of is aisunuJ.

' i-'.clLide r.ati;ral ura.nium to be spiked with pluioniusi; 0.0037 ST UjO./MW'c for BWR and 0.0067 for PWR.

Reproduced from WASH-1139 (72), "Nuclear Power, 1973-2000

D-30
may have been made but appear not to have been published; AEC calculations of

this type (but not for this purpose) have been initiated as part of their waste

management studies.

The data cited in Table D-3 and discussed above are confined to the primary

fuel materials (i.e., fresh and spent fuel). The industry will also have to make many measurements on other fuel-bearing materials which can be classified

as process inventory, scrap, and waste. The major impetus for such measurements

is special nuclear material control (see Appendix B).

Measurement methods used for these non-primary fuel-bearing materials will

be as shown in Table D-2. Guidance in selection and use of measurement systems

is provided by the AEC's Division 5 Regulatory Guides.

As indicated by Table D-2, measurement methods for primary and non-primary

fuel materials are essentially the same. However, there is one important difference: impurities and inhomogeniety of the non-primary materials greatly complicate application of the measurement methods. For example, Pu is frequently

present in waste at the ppm level; under these circumstances, the accuracy of

gamma ray spectroscopy and neutron interrogation can be as low as + 50%.

The greatest operational effect of the measurement difficulties associated

with the non-primary fuel materials is that they mandate a proliferation of

reference materials standards. They also lead to other methods to minimize

problems (e.g., scrap volume reduction and densification via incineration).

Current- NBS Services to Nuclear Fuel Measurements

NBS currently provides 16 standard reference materials that are different

mixtures of uranium isotopes and one reference material containing four Pu Isotopes.('^ In view of the projection that spent fuel uranium compositions will

In the future not be significantly different from those of the present, the

currently available uranium reference materials may be sufficient for future

needs.

Additional Pu standards may be needed to accommodate different Pu isotope

distributions in future fresh or spent fuels. Specific needs can be identified

only as a result of in-depth study, and the need is probably at least ten years

away. Needs for standards In support of waste management are similarly proscribed.

NBS is currently participating, with the AEC and the nuclear Industry, In

a study to assess future needs for standard reference materials to support nuclear

fuel materials measurements. This study Is near completion; it is expected to provide a firm base for future NBS activities related to nuclear material SRMs.

The situation for materials standards other than SRM's Is quite different.

Working standards have historically been provided by the AEC's New Brunswick

Laboratory or the users themselves; NBS has not been involved. To date, the

industry has not developed consensus standards that would reduce problems and

minimize needs for working standards (for example, there Is no standardization

of the paint cans commonly used to contain low-density, low-fissile waste).

In general, the problem is to develop consensus written standards and appropriate materials standards for the non-destructive assay (NDA) techniques used

in the nuclear industry. NDA techniques are expected to dominate the industry

in the future because they are essential for real-time m.easurements and data

analysis (see Appendix B).

D-31
The need for standards in support of non-destructive assay was recently ex- pressed by Dennis Bishop of General Electric Company. Bishop was reported''^) to say that industry can produce satisfactory working standards and NBS and NBL provide some primary standards, but there is presently no facility where industry

can confirm values of its working standards.

Current NBS services to the nuclear industry also include provision of

radioactivity standards (e.g., the ^-^''Cs standards used in fuel burnup evaluations). NBS also has, for many years, provided technical expertise to assist AEC

programs. At present, NBS personnel are assisting the AEC's safeguards studies.

Potential NBS Support of Nuclear Fuel Materials Measurements

The infrastructure by which NBS can service a national measurement system

for nuclear fuel materials is illustrated by Figure D-1. NBS services should

have impact at a level involving local regulatory functions (designated "local"

because regulation has been delegated to many states) and suppliers of instruments and other measurement-assisting materials. The national laboratories

are also a primary recipient of NBS services; as shown in Figure D-1, they may

operate or include some of the fuel cycle operations.

Measurement capabilities are supplied to three basic types of operations

in the nuclear industry: the various fuel cycle operations, waste disposal

sites, and service laboratories. The service laboratories are of special interest. Traditionally, they have supplied services such as dosimetry measurements.

In the future they may be called on for materials control measurements either

as a referee or for routine measurements. The possibility of a significant role

for these laboratories exists because equity assurance may require frequent

referee measurements and because facilities for U and Pu measurements are expensive to install and operate (i.e., fuel cycle operators may find it cheaper to buy the service rather than to maintain their own capability). However, most

measurements will have to be done at the fuel cycle facilities because they

have materials control responsibility and the radioactive materials cannot be

transported economically.

Ideally, all measurements for all sites and all functions shown in Figure

D-1 will be traceable to NBS standards. Problems that challenge capability to achieve this goal are outlined below.

D-32
a:

Q CO

LU 1~ CQ

a: t/) <c

1— _j o • I—

CO

D3

z.

•Si Q_1—

CO

1/1 a

c:fO

4-> t/> XJE

rs

t/> +-> c

<u

s.—

l/> faO

>>

V. 1 c o 1—

CD S-G> cn

*^

U

u.

O

Sl/> c:o

+Jo

l.

4-> —1

CO

cn

z:

OJ X)

(/>

Xf> O

Ou

ct:

D-33
If NBS provides measurement services throughout the nuclear industry, the

total demand may be enormous by the turn of the century. As shown in Table D-1

there will be numerous facilities of each basic type in the fuel cycle. The

number and type of primary standards and other NBS services required in support

of these operations may actually be even larger than would be supposed because

of the multiplicity of types of operations (e.g., fabrication of U02> mixed oxide,

HTGR, and LMFBR fuels). Each type of each operation may require its own standards and reference materials, and each has many types of measurements to make.

An indication of the potential scope of requirements' for NBS services is

provided by Figure D-2, D-3, and D-4. Each shows, with differing emphasis, some

of the demands for measurements in the fuel cycle operations. Similar types of

diagrams could be developed for each of the functions defined in Figure D-2.

Figure D-2 summarizes the basic alternatives for fuel materials and reactor

types in the nuclear power industry. The three reactor types shown in dotted

lines are under development but are not expected to be major segments of the

industry. The LWR, LMFBR, and HTGR systems will all be important; each requires

its own type of support operations.

Figure D-3 illustrates the basic types of measurements needed for the four

major fuel cycle operations. As can be seen, each block of measurements requirements is actually a three-dimensional matrix involving measurement type, facility

type, and the number of facilities shown in Table D-1.

Figure D-4 shows details of measurements for fuel reprocessing sites as recommended by the draft of ANSI standard N15.13. This standard breaks the four

basic measurements defined in Figure D-3 into 14 specific types of measurement

for each plant. Similar measurements would be needed for each type of reprocessing plant.

As indicated by these diagrams, a large number of operations will make many

types of measurements that should be traceable to NBS primary standards. Achievement of this performance will require that the NBS services be available and that

the infrastructure be adequate.

REFERENCES

1. Clement J. Rodden, ed. "Selected Measurement Methods for Plutonium and

Uranium in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1972.

2. Nuclear News , August 1973, pp. 68-69.

D-34
LOCAL

REGULATORY

FUNCTIONS

INSTRUMENT

VENDORS

U.S.

NATIONAL

LABS

SOURCE,

PROCEDURE

SUPPLIERS

CONVERSION

FUEL CYCLE

OPERATIONS

SERVICE

LABS

WASTE

SITES

ENRICflMENT FUEL

FABRICATION

UO,

MIXED

OXIDE

THORIUM

HTGR

REACTOR

OPERATIONS

LWR

LMFBR

HTGR

LIJBR

r' 1

I MSR

I I

I GCFR

I

FUEL

REPROCESSING

UO,

MIXED

OXIDE

THORIUM

HTGR

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

HIGH

LEVEL

LOU

LEVEL

SOLID

EQUIP.

Figure D-2

Basic Fuel Cycle Options and Alternatives

D-35
Figure D-3

Major Fuel Cycle Measurement Needs

NBS

D-36
NBS

LOCAL

REGULATORY

FUNCTIONS

INSTRUMENT

VENDORS

T

U.S.

NATIONAL

SOURCE,

PROCEDURE

SUPPLIES

FUEL CYCLE

OPERATIONS

REACTOR

OPERATIONS

WASTE

MGMT.

SERVICE

LABS

WASTE

SITES

FUEL

FABRICATION

FUEL

REPRO

PIECE COUNT ON RECEIPT

PRIOR HISTORY AT RECEIPT

RECEIPT STORAGE LOCATIONS

DISSOLVER SOLUTION ANALYSIS

SNM IN DISCARDED HARDWARE

SNM in DISSOLVER WASTE SOLUTIONS

SNM RETAINED BY CLADDING HULLS

SNM RETAINED IN DISSOLUTION PROCESS. EQUIP.

SNM IN DISSOLVER OFF GASES

FISSION PRODUCTS IN OFF GASES

SNM IN PROCESS WASTES

PRODUCT INVENTORY

PRODUCT SHIPMENTS

END-OF-CAMPAIGN SNM EQUIPMENT INVENTORY

OR

OPERATIONAL PROCESS SNM INVENTORIES ^ Figure D-4

Fuel Reprocessing Measurements Suggested by ANSI N15.13

D-37
APPENDIX E

CONSENSUS STANDARDS IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

A massive effort to develop operating and performance standards for the

nuclear industry is in progress. Many people, representing all interest sectors,

are involved. (^^ The basic objective of the program is to develop consensus

standards to guide the operation and performance of all aspects of the industry.

The way these standards should be developed and applied is illustrated by

Figure E-1. In practice, it is apparent from current literature that the system

does not always function in this manner. There are sometimes differences of

opinions between the AEC and industry concerning the adequacy of proposed

standards

Our survey of the literature suggests that equity interests have had limited

participation in the standards promulgation process to date. When fuel recycle

becomes more of a need or reality, however, increased participation from this

sector will probably be obtained.

The potential operational NBS role in nuclear industry standards is suggested in Figure E-1 by the diamond labeled "measurement assurance". The basic

role envisioned is to assist utilization of measurement methods, when appropriate, and to provide SRM's, etc., needed to assure reliable data (see Appendix

F). NBS also can and does contribute to development of the consensus standards.

Scope and Status of Fuel Measurement Standards

Relatively few of the many standards under development focus on measurement

and control of fuel materials. When those relevant are completed, however, they

will provide at least first-order coverage of all areas of interest.

Standards currently under development may be classified and described as follows:

- Guides to practice, Nuclear Material Control Systems . Provide, for each

operation in the fuel cycle, guides for measurements to be made and suggestions for organization and management to assure materials control.

Developed by ANSI Committee N-15.

- Calibration standards . Provide calibration techniques for mass, volume,

and other specific measurement techniques. Developed by ANSI Committee

N-15.

- Analytical methods . Provide standard procedures for analytical measurements on U- and Pu-bearing materials.

Of Bartlett (1974).

D-33
Figure E-1

Promulgation and Implementation of Nuclear Standards

EQUITY INTERESTS SAFETY ?, SAFEGUARDS INTERESTS

PARTICIPATION IN ANSI, ETC., COMMITTEES

< CONSENSUS STANDARDS

AND GUIDES

EQUITY ACCEPTANCE AEC ACCEPTANCE

IMPLEMENTATION

MEASUREMENTS

NEEDED

ORGANIZATIONS

AND FUNCTIONS

MEASUREMENT

METHODS COMPLIANCE EQUITY

ASSURANCE

DATA

OBTAINED

DATA

UTILIZATION

D-39
The standards being prepared in each of .these categories are at widely

different stages of completion and approval. In general, those on analytical

methods have been approved and are in press; those on calibration techniques are

in the early stages of the preparation/approval chain, and the draft of one(3)

of the material control system guides (ANSI N15.13; for fuel reprocessing plants)

has been submitted for N-committee approval and concurrent ANSI review. The

other guides are in the early stages of development; extensive activity is

scheduled through 1974.

The guides to practice are of most interest for their potential Impact on

fuel cycle operations. If ANSI N15.13 is typical, these guides will not address

questions of measurement method, accuracy, data utilization, etc. Such questions

presumably will be considered in the standards on calibrations and analytical

methods. Even then, however, the link between measurements, methods, data, and

data utilization for compliance and equity assurance (see Figure E-1) is not

complete, A critical need is to identify data needs and accuracies that flow

down from compliance and equity assurance requirements and to compare them with

results that will be obtained from implementation of the consensus standards.

Use of the consensus standards is supplemented by the AEC's Division 5 Regulatory Guides, The guides related to measurement operations reference the

appropriate consensus standards. In some cases, they indicate modifications to the standards considered essential for satisfactory compliance with regulations.

The consensus standards and the regulatory guides together will eventually

provide. a complete catalog of guidance for measurement operations in the nuclear

industry. At present, however, both are incomplete. The rate of development of

the standards and guides is essentially manpower limited, i.e., resources applied

are not sufficient for a high volume of throughput in the preparation, review,

and approval process. Meanwhile, measurement technology and regulatory requirements are changing. If current conditions persist, several years will elapse

before all standards are in place, and many may be obsolete at the time of

completion. The process of developing consensus standards will remain dynamic

for many years.

REFERENCES

1. ORNL-NSIC-108, "Personnel involved in the Development of Nuclear Standards

in the United States, 1972," prepared by the Status and Recommendations

Committee, American National Standards Institute Nuclear Technical Advisory

Board,

2. Nuclear Projects Status Report, NTAB-SR-3, dated August 5, 1973. Issued

by the American National Standards Institute.

3. Nuclear Material Control Systems for Fuel Reprocessing Facilities (A Guide

to Practice), comment draft. American National Standard N15.13- .

D-40
APPENDIX F

STUDY FOLLOWON: THE JOINT NBS/AEC TASK FORCE

This study has determined that a comprehensive, nationally-based measurement assurance system is needed for nuclear fuel material measurements; the next

step is to design an appropriate system.

Expertise, responsibilities, and experience within the AEC and NBS make it

appropriate that these organizations combine resources in order to produce fruitful results most effectively. We therefore recommend a joint AEC/NBS effort on

the system design and development plan outlined below.

It should be noted that similar needs for measurement assurance exist in the

nuclear industry activities of effluent monitoring, dosimetry, radiation medicine,

and quality assurance. Since these activities have many measurement methods and

problems in common with nuclear fuel material measurements, a comprehensive design and development program that embraces all these measurement-oriented functions

should be considered. Such an approach could effect economies in the long run

but would expand the resources applied to near tern design activities. The alternative would be to implement a pilot effort with nuclear fuel materials measurement assurance as the focus. The choice between these alternatives should be a topic of dialog between the AEC and NBS.

Development Program Objectives and Anticipated Outputs

The objectives for the proposed program, which should be performed by a joint NBS/AEC task force, are to (1) develop a design for a nationally-based

nuclear fuel materials measurement assurance system, and (2) define the procedures and resources required for implementation of that system.

Anticipated outputs from the project include (1) a design description of the

measurement assurance system, and (2) a detailed plan of action for implementation,

including description of participants, activities, schedules, milestones, and

budget requirements.

Project Tasks

Three major project tasks can be anticipated, details of which should be

developed by NBS/AEC interaction prior to initiation of the program:

1. Definition of measurement assurance service needs. This task is aimed

at determining the functional requirements for the measurement assurance system.

Users of the services should participate in the assessment effort.

2. Selection of the measurement assurance system structure. Activities in

this task will be directed at defining and evaluating alternatives for the structure of the measurement assurance system.

3. Detailed design of the measurement assurance system. This task will

identify facilities, staff, equipment, organization, activities, costs, and

cost recovery methods for the measurement assurance system selected by Task 2. It will also develop a blueprint for implementation.

Schedule and Milestones

The anticipated schedule and major milestones for this program are shown in

Figure G-1.

Of Bartlett (1974).

D-41
Resources Required for Project

We estimctte that this project can be accomplished with a minimum of three

man-years of highly-skilled effort annually for the two-year period. The project

director and cme other staff member should have a working knowledge of forecasting

and assessment methodologies; all should be familiar with measurement technology

and its use in the nuclear industry.

Our preliminary estimate of the costs of the project are:

Implementation of Project

This project should be implemented as an outgrowth of dialog betv/een the

AEC and NBS. This dialog should be aimed at forming and funding the project

task force. Discussions should cover scope of the project (i.e., focus on nuclear

fuels measurement assurance or inclusion of other areas), allocation of resources

to the project, role of other agencies, project methodology, and project followon.

The AEC/NBS interaction should be initiated at the policy level. These

policy discussions should establish consensus and mutual understanding of the

importance and role of measurement assurance. They should also establish the

basis for subsequent interaction to formulate and implement the project.

Costs $k

(each of two years)

Salaries & O.H. $

Travel

Suppl ies

Services

(consultants, etc.)

$210

10

10

20

$250

D-42
FIGURE G-1

SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES FOR THE MEASUREMENT ASSURANCE

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

a) Service needs

b) System structure

c) System design

WW

W W WW

W W WW

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Elapsed Time, Months

Major Milestones

a. 1. Assessment method selected, use initiated

2. Assessment activities completed

3. Description of service needs completed

b. 1. Alternatives defined

2. Preliminary cut made

3. In-depth analysis of survivors completed

4. Description of preferred structure completed

c. 1. System scope, organization, operating modes defined

2. Facilities, equipment, staff, budget operations defined

3. Implementation procedures, costs, schedules defined

4. Blueprint for implementation completed

D-43
APPENDIX E. RADIATION PROCESSES OF COMMERCIAL INTEREST

PROCESS

Medical sterilization

Food sterilization,

food shelf-life

extension

Pest disinfestation

Seed and bulb

stimulation,

mutation breeding,

soil blight elmination

Sewage and waste

treatment and recycling

Synthesis of detergents

Chain reaction

synthesis of reagents

Polymerization

Graft polymerization

Polymer crosslinking

Polymer and hydrocarbon degradation

PRODUCT

Medical supplies

(animal products,

vitamins, enzymes,

cosmetics, pharmaceuticals)

Preserved food

stuffs

Insect population

control, disinfested

grain, crops, and food

stores

More productive

crops and new types

of flowers

Cleaner environment

Biodegradable

detergents

Ethyl bromide and

other halogenated

organi cs

Polyethylene, con- ductive plastics,

adhesives, rubberplastics, battery

separators

Plastic peroxides,

ion-exchange membranes, various

plastic copolymers,

textiles (permanent

press) , paper,

pi asti c

Better insulators,

cables and wire

heat-shrinkable

plastics, toys,

plastic foams

Plastic foams,

modified plastics,

molecular weight

cQntrol , floculating

agent for ore processing

RADIATION

SOURCE

gamma rays

electrons

ultraviolet

gamma rays, electrons

gamma rays

gamma rays

gamma rays

electrons

gamma rays

electrons

gamma rays

electrons

gamma rays

electrons

electrons

gamma rays

ul traviolet

PROGNOSIS

A, B

el ectrons

gamma rays

ultraviolet

electrons

B, C

B, C

B, C

D

B, C

A, B

B, C

A, B

A, B

A, B

E-1
APPENDIX E. (continued)

PROCESS

Rubber- vulcanization

Curing of coatings

Polymer impregnation

of materials

Ion implantation

Microelectronic

fabrication

Welding and

machining

Non-destructive

testing, surveillance

Radiation chemistry

physics, and

measurement research

Fading of dyes

Curing of adhesives

Curing of textile fibers

Grafting biocompatible

surfaces on plastics

and rubber

RADIATION

PRODUCT SOURCE

Better rubber electrons

products, elastomers,

rocket propel 1 ants,

adhesives

Inks, automobile electrons

parts, paint layers,

cookware, metal

coil coatings

Building materials gamma rays

(wood, concrete, electrons

tiles, pipes, fibrous

materials, sidings)

Electronic components, ion beams

semi-conductors

Faster diodes, electrons

transistors

photoresists

printed circuits

Metal parts and electrons

instruments

Various commodities

Dosimeters all

Fabrics electrons

Bonding systems electrons

Flame-proof rugs, electrons

yarns, clothing

and fabrics

Biocompatible electrons

materials for

transplants

PROGNOSIS

B, C

A, B

B, C

A, B

C

A, B

X and gamma rays C

A, B

D

D

D

"A" means already commercially successful in the U. S. "B" means already commercially successful in other countries

"C" means will probably soon be successful in the U. S. "D" means will be successful perhaps in the future

E-2
APPENDIX F. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM INFORMATION

Table F-1. Examples of users

1 . Hospitals

Mayo Foundation

Emory Medical Center

U.S.C. Medical Center

2. Nuclear power utilities

(see Table F-2)

3. Nuclear reactor manufa^cturers

Westinghouse

Gulf General Atomic

Babcock & Wilcox

Combustion Engineering

4. Environmental service industry

Radiation Management Corporation

Nuclear Environmental Services

NUS Corporation

U. S. Testing Corporation

Applied Physical Technology

of environmental radioactivity standards

5. Environmental research - universities

and institutes

Battel le Northwest

Stanford

Georgia Tech

Penn State

6. Department of Defense

Navy Submarines

Army Power Reactors

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Inst. Ports and Harbors

7. National laboratories

Argonne National Laboratory

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

Table F-2. Status of the use of NBS mixed radionuclide

standards by U. S. nuclear power generating

stations (> 100 MWe)

United States - NORTHEAST (19 Reactors)

Reactors using NBS standards as of December 1, 1974:

In operation

Calvert Cliffs 1 (MD)

Pilgrim 1 (MA)

Haddam Neck (CN)

Oyster Creek (NJ)

Maine Yankee (ME)

Millstone 1 (CN)

Peach Bottom 2 (PA)

Robert E. Ginna (NY)

Vermont Yankee (VT)

Indian Point 1 (NY)

Indian Point 2 (NY)

Nine Mile Point (NY)

Fitz Patrick (NY)

Scheduled for operation (1974-1975)

Calvert Cliffs 2 (MD)

Millstone 2 (CN)

Peach Bottom 3 (PA)

Salem 1 (MA)

Indian Point 3 (NY)

Beaver Valley 1 (PA)

F-1
Table F-2 (Continued)

United States - SOUTH (15 Reactors)

Reactors using NBS standards as of December 1, 1974:

In operation

Nuclear 1 (AR)

Oconee 1 (SC)

Oconee 2 (SC)

Hatch 1 (GA)

Brown's Ferry 1 (AL)

Brown's Ferry 2 (AL)

Turkey Pt. 3 (FL)

Turkey Pt. 4 (FL)

Robinson 2 (SC)

Surry 1 (VA)

Surry 2 (VA)

Scheduled for operation (1974-1975 )

Oconee 3 (SC)

Brown's Ferry 3 (AL)

McGuire 1 (NC)

Virgil C. Summer (SC)

United States - MIDWEST (12 Reactors)

Reactors using NBS standards as of December 1, 1974:

In operation

Dresden 1 (IL)

Dresden 2 (IL)

Dresden 3 (IL)

Zion 1 (IL)

Zion 2 (IL)

Quad-Cities 1 (IL)

Quad-Cities 2 (IL)

Donald C. Cook 1 (MI)

Fort Calhoun 1 (NB)

Kewaunee (WI)

Prairie Isl. 1 (MN)

Scheduled for operation (1974-1975]

Prairie Isl. 2 (MN)

United States - WEST and NORTHWEST (4 Reactors)

Reactors using NBS standards as of December 1, 1974:

In operation Scheduled for operation (1974-1975)

Ft. St. Vrain

Hanford - N (CO)(WA

Rancho Seco (CA)

Diablo Canyon 1 (CA)
Table F-3. Radionuclides for which the USEPA has

requested NBS standardization

(Significant quantities of many of these will be produced in breeder reactor programs

or will be evolved by coal-burning power plants)

SoMion 238p 239p 241 Standards

2^^Am,

242cf,

235,^ 238^j

210pb

210po

228Ra

Ore Uranium

F-3
Table F-4. Distribution of NBS xenon-133

environmental gas standards

SRM 4307

REGULATORS & PWR'S

USNRC, Health Services Laboratory

USEPA, NERC-LV

21 State Radiological Health

Laboratories

Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL)

Oconee Nuclear Power Station

14 cm^

GENERAL ELECTRIC BWR'S

G. E. , Vallecitos, CA

Commonwealth Edison

(Dresden 1 , 2, 3)

(Zion 1, 2)

(Quad-Cities 1, 2)

120 cm^

GULF HTGR'S

Peach Bottom 1 Fort St. Vrain

F-4
APPENDIX G. PERSONNEL MONITORING SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES

Commercial personnel monitoring services contacted . The following Is a list of com- panies offering personnel monitoring services to users outside the company. Companies

which are sales representatives or sales offices representing other companies are not

listed. Only those organizations actually performing the monitoring service are listed.

Services are available for x-rays, gamma^rays, beta-rays, and neutrons unless otherwise

indicated. Alpha-ray monitoring is generally carried out by area monitoring rather than

by personnel monitors.

Applied Health Physics, Inc.

P. 0. Box 197

Bethel Park, Pennsylvania

Contact: Robert Gallagher, President

412-563-2242

Services

Film badge, TLD, pocket chambers

Atomic Energy Industrial Laboratories Film badge, TLD, finger badges

6421 South Main

Houston, Texas

Contact: Sherry Miller, Company Manager

713-526-5950

Atomic Radiation Laboratory Film badge (no neutrons)

P. 0. Box 622, Shenandoah Station

Miami, Florida

Contact: Robert Schwartz, Owner

305-379-3295

Eberline Instrument Corporation Film badge (x and gamma rays)

Department of Nuclear Sciences TLD (beta, neutrons)

P. 0. Box 2108

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Contact: W. S. Johnson (in charge

of nuclear operations)

505-471-3232

International Chemical and Nuclear Corp. Film badge

26201 Miles Road

Cleveland. Ohio 44128

216-662-0212

R. S. Landauer, Jr. and Co. Film badge, TLD

Glenwood Science Park

Glenwood, Illinois 60425

Contact: R. S. Landauer, Jr. 312-755-7000

Medi-Ray, Inc. TLD (x, gamma, beta only)

150 Marbledale Road

Tuckahoe, New York 10707

Contact: James Summers

914-961-8484

Nuclear Services Laboratory Film badge

Knoxville, Tennessee

Contact: D. K. Rector, General Manager

615-947-1400

G-1
Services

Nuclear Sources and Services, Inc. TLD

5711 Ephendge

Houston, Texas 77017

Contact: Robert Gallagher

713-641-0391

Radiation Detection Company

Mountain View, California

Contact: Gene Tochilin, President

408-735-8700

Film badge, TLD

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co. 2501 Wyandotte

Las Vegas, Nevada

Contact: Joseph Wells

702-986-9940

Film badges

Serves Nevada Test Site and off-site

operations

Searle Analytic, Inc. Des Plaines, Illinois

Contact: William Todd, Manager,

Film Badge Service

312-209-6600

Film badge, TLD

(extremities only)

Teledyne-Isotopes

Westwood, New Jersey

Contact: Jack Dauch, in charge

of personnel monitoring

201-664-7070

TLD

United States Testing Company

Richland, Washington

Contact: Norma Nunamaker, Supervisor

Commercial Service

509-946-5157

Film badge, TLD

(finger badges only)

Companies contacted providing personnel monitoring for themselves

but not for the general public .

Dow Chemical Company TLD

Rocky Flats Plant Criticality monitor

Golden, Colorado (S, In, Cu)

Contacts: Clayton Lagerquist

Roger Falk

303-494-3311, x2452

Newport News Ship Building and Dry Dock Co. Film badge

Newport News, Virginia 23606

Contact: B. V. Cooke, Dosimetry

Supervisor

804-247-2308

Wallex, a Division of Halliburton Co. TLD

P. 0. Box 2687

Houston, Texas 77001

Contact: George O'Bannion, Radiation

Safety Officer

713-748-2000
Government laboratories contacted which operate their own personnel

monitoring services .

Services

Argonne National Laboratory

Lemont, Illinois Film badge

Contact: Walter Blyler, in charge

of personnel monitoring

312-739-2847

Battel le Northwest

Richland, Washington

Contact: C. M. Unruh

U. S. Testing Company provides monitoring

service for entire Hanford plant, but

Battel le Northwest does recording and

qual ity control

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Upton, Long Island, New York

Contact: Lee Phillips

516-345-4208

Film badge

TLD (for extremities)

Health Services Laboratory Film badge

AEC Idaho Operations Office Changing to TLD system

Idaho Falls, Idaho

Contact: John P. Cusimano

208-526-2279

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Film badge

University of California TLD supplementary

Berkeley, California

Contact: Lloyd Stephens

415-843-5656

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

Livermore, California

Contact: George Campbell

415-447-3368

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico

Contact: James Lawrence

505-667-4316

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Contacts: James C. Hart

John W. Poston

615-483-1336

TLD

Albedo badge for neutrons

being developed

Film badge

TLD (for extremities)

Film badge

Metaphosphate glass block

S, Au, Au in Cd critical ity

dosimeter

i Savannah River Laboratory, USAEC TLD, including albedo neutron

Aiken, South Carolina dosimeter

Contact: R. M. Hall

Jack Hoy

803-642-7211

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center TLD

Stanford, California

Contact: Donald Busick

415-854-2345

G-3
Defense Department personnel monitoring services (all contacted)

Services

U. S. Army

Lexington-Blue Grass Army Depot Film badge

Lexington, Kentucky 4U507

Contact: A. Edward Abney

606-293-3646

U. S. Army Film badge

Sacramento Army Depot

Sacramento, California 95813

Contact: Fred Toyama

916-449-2000, ask for 388-2427

U. S. Air Force Film badge

USAF Radiological Health Laboratory (AFLC)

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433

518-255-5047

U. S. Navy

Radiation Safety Branch

U. S. Naval Medical Center

Bethesda, Maryland

Contact: Capt. Howard Dowling

301-254-4295

Film badge

Searching for better dosimeter (TLD)

Ships and some navy yards operate

as self-contained units.

Other organizations providing their own personnel monitoring services

Baptist Memorial Hospital

899 Madison Avenue

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Contact: Carl Nurnberger, Ph.D.

Baylor University Medical Center

3500 Gaston Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75246

General Dynamics

Electric Boat Division

Groton, Connecticut

Harvard University

Radiological Services

University Health Services

75 Mount Auburn Street

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Louisiana State University

Nuclear Science Center

Baton Rouge, Lousiana 70803

Michigan Division of Radiological Health

Michigan Department oF Public Health

3500 North Logan Street

Lansing, Michigan

New Hampshire Department of Health and

Welfare

Division of Public Health

61 South Spring Street

Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Puerto Rico Nuclear Center

College Station

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00708

University of California

Los Angeles, California

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, Utah

Vanderbilt University

Radiation Safety Office

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

G-4
APPENDIX H. STANDARDIZATION ACTIVITIES

Table H-1. Some NBS participation in standardization

activities for ionizing radiations

Organization NBS Participation

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N12 Nuclear Terminology, Units, Symbols

N13 Radiation Protection

N15 Methods of Nuclear Material Control

N17 Research Reactors, Reactor Physics,

and Radiation Shielding

N42 Nuclear Instruments

N43 Equipment for Non-Medical Radiation

Appl i cations

N44 Equipment and Materials for Medical

Radiation Applications

Nuclear Standards Management Board

Nuclear Technical Advisory Group

for ISO TC 85

U. S. National Committee for lEC TC 45

American Nuclear Society (ANS)

SC9 Nuclear Terminology, Symbols,

and Units

SC6 Radiation Shielding Standards, WG 1

American Society for Testing and Materials

ASTM

E10.07 Radiation Effects on Electronic

Materials

D19.04 Methods of Radiochemical

Analysis of Water

D20.20 Plastics, Radiation Methods

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures

(BIPM)

(International Bureau of Weights & Measures)

Consultative Comnittee for Measurement

Standards for Ionizing Radiations

(CCEMRI)

Section I: X-Rays

Section II: Radioactivity

Section III: Neutrons

Membership

Members hi p Membershi p Secretary

Chai rmanship

Chairmanship, secretariat,

subcommittee membership

Membership

subcommittee membership

Membership

Chairmanship, 2 memberships

Technical advisor

2 Memberships

1 Membership

Secretary, membership

Membershi p

Membership

Chairmanship, membership

Membership

Membership

Chai rmanshi p

international Cormiission on Radiation Units

and Measurements (ICRU)

Main Commission

International Neutron Dosimetry

Intercomparison Committee

Task Group on Methods of Assessment

of Dose in Tracer Investigations

Stopping Power Com-nittee

Microdosimetry Committee

Membershi p Chai rmanship

Membershi p

Chai rmanshi p Membership

H-1
Organ i;'.ati on

International Electrotechnical Commission

TC 45 Nuclear Ins";rumentation

WG 9 Radiation Detectors

TC 62 Electromedical Equipment

(U. S. Advisory Group)

SC-62C, WG 3 Dosimeters

NBS Participation

Membership

Membership

Membership

International Organization for

Standardization (ISO ) TC 8'5/SC 1 Terminology, Definitions,

Units and Symbols

TC 85/SC 4 Radiation Sources

National Council on Radiation Protection

and Measurements (NCRP ) Main Council

SC-4 Heavy Particles (Neutrons, Protons,

and Heavier)

SC-7 Monitoring Methods and Instruments

SC-12 Electron Protection

Standards and Measurements of

Radioactivity for Radiological

Use--Standards Procedure Sections

Radiation Shielding for Particle

Accelerators

High Energy X-Ray Dosimetry

Dose Calculations

Tritium Measurement Techniques

for Laboratory and Environmental

Use

SC-18A

SC-22

SC-26

SC-33

SC-36

Membershio

Membership

2 Memberships

Members hi p

Membership

Chairmanship

Chai rmanship

Membership

Membership

Membership

Members hi p

Department of Energy Nuclear Data Committee

(DOE-NDC) Membership

Note: Consultantships are not included in this list.

H-2
REFERENCES

American College of Radiology (ACR), 1971.

American College of Radiology Membership

Directory , 6900 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy

Chase, Maryland 20015.

Atomic Energy Commission, (AEC), 1971. The

Nuclear Industry-1971 . USAEC Report WASH

1174-71.

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 1972.

Nuclear Power, 1973-2000 . Forecasting

Branch, Office of Planning and Analysis,

USAEC Report WASH-1139 (72), December 1,

1972.

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 1974. The

Nuclear Industry-1974 . USAEC Report

WASH 1174-74.

Bartlett, John W. 1974. Assessment of the

Nuclear Fuel Materials Measurement System . Center for Radiation Research, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234, July 1974. Included as Appendix D of this study.

Becker,, 1973. "Results of a Survey of

Diagnostic and Therapeutic X-ray Machines,

Suffolk County, New York, 1972."

Radiation Data and Reports , 14 , 397.

Bureau of Radiological Health, 1972. Report

of State and Local Radiological Health

Programs . Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare publication (FDA) 73-8017.

Bureau of Radiological Health, 1973. State

Radiation Control Legislation 1971 . Department of Health, Education and

Welfare publication (FDA) 73-8002,

BRH/OBD 73-2.

Bureau of Radiological Health, 1974. Report

of State and Local Radiological Health

Programs . Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare publication (FDA 76-8017).

Cavallo, L. M. , B. M. Coursey, S. G. Garfinkel, J. M. R. Hutchinson, and W. B. Mann, 1973. "Needs for Radioactivity

Standards and Measurements in Different

Fields." Nuclear Instruments and Methods

112 , 5

Coursey, B. M. , J. R. Noyce, and J. M. R. Hutchinson, 1975. "Inter-laboratory

Intercompari son of Radioactivity Measurements Using National Bureau of Standards

Mixed Radionuclide Test Solutions." NBS

Technical Note 875.

Cox, James, 1976. Personal Communication

from James Cox, M. D. , Radiotherapist,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

1973. Population Exposure to X-Rays, U. S . 1970 . DHEW Publication (FDA) 73-8047.

Dudey, N. D. , S. D. Harkness, and H. Farrar

IV, 1970. Nuclear Applications and Technology 9, 700.

Ehrlich, M. , 1973. "Dosimetry Performance

Tests." Symposium on National and International Radiation Dose Comparisons,

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Federal Register, 1973. Regulation 10 CFR 70,

Paragraph 70.51. Federal Register 38,

No. 213, November 6, pp. 30544-30546.

Garfinkel, S. B., and G. J. Hine, 1973.

Dose Calibrator Pilot Study . NBS Technical

Note 791.

Golden, R. , J. H. Cundiff, W. H. Grant III,

and R. J. Shaiek, 1972. "A Review of the

Activities of the AAPM Radiological Physics

Center in Interinstitutional Trials In- volving Radiation Therapy." Cancer , 29,

1468.

Greebler, P., and B. A. Hutchins, 1966.

"User Requirements for Cross Sections in

the Energy Range from 100 eV to 100 keV."

Proceedings of the Conference on Neutron

Cross Section Technology , Washingtonton

D. C, March 22-24, 1966. U. S. Atomic

Energy Commission Report CONF-660303.

Guinn, Vincent P., 1968. "Standards Needs

for Activation Analysis." Nuclear

Standards for Chemistry and Technology,

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

Standards Special Publication 310.

Herring, D. F. , and D. M. J. Compton, 1971.

"The Degree of Precision Required in the

Radiation Dose Delivered in Cancer Radiotherapy." Computers in Radiotherapy , edited by A. S. Glicksman, M. Cohen, and

J. R. Cunningham. London: The British

Institute of Radiology.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1970.

Directory of High-Energy Radiotherapy

Centers - 1970 Edition. Vienna.

R-1
International Commission on Radiation Units

and Measurements (ICRU), 1971a. Radiation

Quantities and Units . Report 19.

International Commission on Radiation Units

and Measurements (ICRU), 1971b. Radiation

Protection Instrumentation and Its Application. Report 20.

International Commission on Radiation Units

and Measurement (ICRU) 1973. Measurement

of Absorbed Dose in a Phantom Irradiated

by a Single Beam of X or Gamma Rays . Report 23.

Klement, A. W. Jr., C. R. Miller, R. P. Minx,

and B. Shleien, 1972. Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States,

1960-2000 . U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency Report ORP/CSD 72-1.

Love, John, 1973. Discussion with Presidential Interchange Executives on November 29.

Lutz, George J., 1971. "Photon Activation

Analysis--A Review." Analytical Chemistry , 43, 93.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 1970.

National Uses and Needs for Standard

Radioactive Materials . Washington, D. C.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 1972.

The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation . National

Academy of Sciences Report, available from

Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Gov't

Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1971.

Compilation of Nuclear Standards , Part II,

8th edition, 1971. Report ORNL-NSIC-102.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1972.

Personnel Involved in the Development of

Nuclear Standards in the United States

(in) 1972. Report ORNL-NSIC-1 08.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1972.

Compilation of Nuclear Standards, Part I: United States Activities , 9th Edition 1972.

Report ORNL-NSIC-112.

Schulze, W. , 1969. "Activation Analysis:

Some Basic Principles." In Advances in

Activation Analysis, J. M. A. Lenihan and

S. J. Thomson, Editors, London and New

York: Academic Press.

Silverman, J. and A. Van Dyken (Eds) 1976.

Proc. of First International Meeting on Radiation Processing (Puerto Rico, 1976)

Pergamon

Taylor, Lauriston S. , 1971. Radiation

Protection Standards . Cleveland: CRC

Press, a division of Chemical Rubber Co.

Uotinen, V. 0., J. D. Robertson, and J. S. Tulenko, 1975. The Light Water Reactor

Industry--Nuclear Data Needs . Paper AA3

presented at the Conference on Nuclear

Cross Sections and Technology, Washington,

D. C, 3-7 March 1975, Bull. Am. Phys.

Soc. , Series II , 20, 134.

Wagner, Henry, M. D. , 1973. Director of

Radiological Sciences at Johns Hopkins

Hospital, quoted in Radioisotope Report , March, 1973.

Yarborough, Ralph, 1970. Report of the

National Panel of Consultants on the

Conquest of Cancer . Prepared for the

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, 92nd Congress,

Document 92-9, known as the "Yarborough

Report.

R-2
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 2. Gov't Accession BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA , No. SHEET NBSIR75-946

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The National Measurement System for Ionizing Radiations

5. Publication Date April 1978

6« Performing Org3^0 izHtion ^ ode

7. AUTHORjS)

Randall S. Caswell

8. Performing Organ. Report No. NBSIR 75-946

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as No. 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary ol most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

In this study the structure of the National Measurement System for Ionizing

Radiation has been investigated for eight classes of radiation users: medical,

nuclear power, industrial radiation processing, defense, environmental, science,

chemical analysis, and miscellaneous radiation applications. In addition two

fields of increasing importance to all radiation users were investigated:

regulatory control of radiation and personnel monitoring. Needed major actions

on the part of the National Bureau of Standards were identified particularly for

nuclear power and its related environmental and safety impacts, medical applications

of radiation, assistance to regulatory control of radiation and measurement assurance

for personnel monitoring.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Ionizing radiation; national measurement system; users of radiation; standards;

dissemination; measurement assurance.

18. AVAILABILITY [X] Unlimited

1

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washineton. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

[X] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$7.25

USCOMM.DC 29042-P74

4

f

4