[ RadSafe ] ANSI Standards for Portals, Meters and Dosimetry.

[DSnowder at aol.com]

Tony, 
 
Perhaps I can contribute some "lessons learned" on the subject of  the ODP's 
mandate for the purchase of standardized instruments that  meet ANSI 
performance standards.  .  
 
My background consists of being a Co-founder and Chair (for 6  years) of the 
National Dept. Of Energy Health Physics Instrument Committee which  was formed 
of a committee of approx. 24 DOE facilities. We formed the  committee in 1991 
when it was noted that the 24 DOE facilities were at that  time using over 
120 models of radiation detection instruments. Our charter  was to investigate, 
test, and recommend a suite of 10-12 manufacturer  instrument models that all 
DOE facilities could standardize on and thus see  significant savings in costs 
from reduction of procedures, spare parts,  inventory, etc. 
 
Our process for accomplishing this was much the same as that  used for the 
Office Of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). We  developed new ANSI performance 
standards, beefed up existing ANSI  Standards, and wrote formal test procedures. We 
performed testing  on over 100 instrument models among  6 DOE facilities. We 
formally approved  12 models for use.
 
Here are the "lessons learned" that may answer some of your  questions;
 
1.    Almost all ( i.e. 95%) of the instrument  models tested failed initial 
testing. Those few models that did  pass had previously been manufactured to 
Military Standards (Mil-Stds) by 1  or two manufacturers, usually for a one 
time large contract and most of  whose development costs (usually in the hundreds 
of thousands$) had  been subsidized by the DOD.  The cost of such instruments 
were  3-4 times (or more) higher than traditionally  acceptable instruments. 
The small additional performance benefits  that were gained were not anywhere 
worth the excessive cost.  Additionally, these instruments were deemed too  
complex and/or impractical for many end users because of their  enhanced 
"robustness"  to meet ANSI standards. Consequently, many end  users did not accept, 
nor procure, the higher cost recommended standard  instruments. 
 
2.   Many field professionals ( i.e. Health Physics  technicians ) did not 
like nor desire these additional enhancements (i.e. added  robustness, digital 
readouts, background subtraction, integrated readout, etc.)  because they 
usually came with side effects that made their  job more difficult and time 
consuming for most of the routine duties that  required more simplified and easily 
interpreted responses.  It was noted that in emergency response situations where 
rapid  detection & evaluation was required, many HP technicians would often  
revert to the less complex, and less costly, instrument models which  did not 
pass the performance tests, but which were none-the-less adequate  for 
measurements and had been used for many years at DOE  sites.  IF MANY TRAINED, 
FULL-TIME CAREER PROFESSIONALS who use  these instruments every day, take this 
action, imagine why an  Emergency responder who only uses these instruments once or 
twice on an  annual basis would respond similarly.       
 
AS a note, when our company recently conducted a regional response drill  
involving 6 Emergency Response organizations ( Natl. Guard, State Police, Fire  
Depts., etc.) and using real radioactive material here in Idaho, supposedly  
professionally trained responders were discovered using count rate meters  to 
measure dose rates. They had no clue of the difference between a count  rate 
meter and a dose rate meter. Recently we have heard of several  Emergency 
responder organizations in the U.S. rejecting large  numbers of equipment and 
instruments bought on  Homeland Security grants until they received adequate training 
on  them.  
 
3.  The ANSI Standards are great in defining desired  performance 
requirements. However, they leave out defining or including the most  important 
components for an end user which is that of  user friendliness (i.e. less complex 
operation), human ergonomics,  & affordability. The end user who uses these 
instruments only  occasionally, does not usually care about an instrument's lower 
limit of  detection (LLD), robustness, and/or precision if they  cannot 
understand how to use it in an emergency.  
 
4.   The development of many ANSI instrument  Standards too often involve 
politics and bias, both from manufacturers  and the committee members and Chairs. 
Too many times I have seen  some instrument manufacturers influence ANSI 
committee members to  develop or "slant" standards that favor their instrument 
models, or committee  members may be overly influenced by instrument models a
lready in use at their  workplace for which they had either direct or indirect 
procurement authority  for.  A revision of a manufacturer's model to meet the  
ANSI Standards may cost a significant sum of money with the  manufacturers 
getting no guarantee that the "new & improved" model will give  them a decent ROI. 
This frequently excludes numerous smaller instrument  manufacturers who 
produce high quality, excellent instruments that  meet traditionally acceptable 
performance standards. 
 
Hope my personal observations and "lessons learned" help. Call me  if you 
would like more details.
 
 
Dale Snowder 
President/CEO
Qal-Tek Associates
3998 Commerce Circle
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
(208) 523-5557
_Qal-Tek Associates | Nuclear &  Radiological  Services_ 
(http://www.qaltek.com/)