INTERAMERICAN METROLOGY SYSTEM
SIM TC Meeting at MSC, Anaheim, CA, USA
January 19, 2000

List of Attendees
INTI-Argentina: Moisés Tischler
INMETRO-Brazil: Léa Contier de Freitas, Marco Nabuco
NRC-Canada: Gary Hysert , Janusz Lusztyk, Jim Pekelsky, Alan Robertson
CENAM-Mexico: Luis Omar Becerra, Ismael Castelazo, Alfredo Elías, Carlos Matamoros, José Luis Rosas
NIST-USA: Sally Bruce, Steve Carpenter, Pedro Espina, Bruce F. Field, Albert Lee, Michael Lombardi, Willie E. May, Gregory Rosasco, Hratch Semerjian, Robert Watters

Agenda
1) Introduction of the participants
2) Welcoming message from the President of SIM
3) Status report and activity plans for 2000 from metrology working groups
4) Discussion on the SIM procedure for review of CMCs
5) Presentation of proposed format for chemical CMC entries
6) Discussion on SIM's MRA Appendix C entries
7) Discussion on SIM's MRA Appendix B entries
8) Review of 1999 expenditures and 2000 budget
9) Next meeting
10) Other Business

1. Introduction of the participants
The Chair of SIM TC Steve Carpenter opened the meeting at 9:00 am. This was followed by the introduction of each participant. A list of the attendees is provided above.

2. Welcoming message from the President of SIM
Léa Contier de Freitas provided a welcoming message in behalf of the president of SIM, Marco Antônio Araújo Lima

3. Status report and activity plans for 2000 from metrology working groups
The chairs of the 10 SIM Metrology Working Groups (or their representatives) provided status reports on 1999 activities, reported on expenditures of their allocations, and briefly discussed their plans for 2000. Individual reports are enclosed at the end of this report. What follows are highlights of discussions which took place during the TC meeting and that are not covered by the MWG reports.

During the MWG-Length presentation, Jim Pekelsky briefly explained their efforts towards the development of guidelines for CMC submissions. These Guidelines were translated to Spanish by Emilio Pito (CEM-Spain). Hratch Semerjian asked that the document be made available to other MWG in electronic archival form. Alan Robertson seconded Semerjian's suggestions and commended Pekelsky for his extensive efforts towards the development of the guidelines. Semerjian further suggested that the guideline document be maintained at a central location like a web site. Bob Watters explained that the document will be available as part of the SIM database. Greg Rosasco inquired regarding the manpower effort required for the development of the guidelines. Pekelsky explained that writing the guidelines required a large portion of the last CCL meeting (group effort) plus three additional weeks of Pekelsky's time to finalize it.

Bruce Field suggested that guidelines for MWG-Electricity should be easier to develop given the widespread use of common terminology among all the SIM labs. Pekelsky explained that the guidelines are useful for more that developing common terminology; they help group common standards and provide means by which to code CMC entries. He further explained that this is important given the wide range of technological capabilities among the various laboratories in SIM. Pekelsky added that the guide provides a traceability chain that point at the "main services" and how the rest are supported by quality systems.

During the presentation of the MWG-Ionizing Radiation, Alan Robertson explained that most SIM countries provide services at institutions other than their NMIs. Various participants pointed out that this is supported by rule 6.1 of the MRA. It was also mentioned that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is a signatory of the MRA that their members could participate in Key Comparisons through them. Léa Contier de Freitas, who has been in contact with the IAEA, explained that IAEA have a well-established program of standard intercomparisons. Robertson added that Kent Shortt (NRC-Canada) is working with Pedro Andreo of the IAEA to make use of the IAEA comparison structure. Léa Contier de Freitas mentioned that Brazil would like to expand the current program of intercomparisons to cover test of additional radiation standards currently not considered

The subject of non-NMI participation in SIM activities was discussed as part of the MWG-Flow presentation. Pedro Espina highlighted the current situation of many SIM NMIs who have limited calibration measurement capabilities in the areas of flow metrology. In some cases, a number of the missing calibration capabilities can be founded in non-NMI laboratories within each country. Espina asked for clarification on the inclusion criteria for non-NMI laboratories. Following some discussion, Ismael Castelazo summarized the SIM-TC position by stating "the inclusion criteria for non-NMI laboratories is an internal matter state that should be deal with by each country independently". It was agreed that once the selection the non-NMI laboratory has been made, the NMI is responsible for informing the SIM-TC of its selection. Bob Watters explained that the CIPM database provides for such inclusions and that in such cases, the name non-NMI laboratory is accompanied by the name of the NMI (in parenthesis) to explicitly indicate the association. Janusz Lusztyk remained the committee SIM-TC that the NMIs retain final responsibility for the performance of their non-NMI laboratories as far as the MRA is concerned.

4. Discussion on the SIM procedure for review of CMCs
Alan Robertson initiated the discussion by providing some historical perspective on the development of the procedure. Robertson explained how initially, Steve Carpenter suggested the development of declaration of measurement capabilities as documents that could reinforce the position of some member NMIs. Subsequently, Robertson developed a generic format for such declarations and termed it DMRs for short.

Robertson indicated that Luis Mussio (LATU) had suggested some minor changes (editorial in nature), but NIST offered extensive modifications just prior to the start of the SIM-TC meeting. Robertson proceeded to discuss each modification to the document offered by NIST, while trying to build consensus among the various NMI's represented at the meeting. In the end, Robertson was publicly commended by the SIM-TC chair for its extensive efforts towards the development of a general procedure and the attendees concurred with Carpenter by providing Robertson with a round of applause. It was agreed that Hratch Semerjian will help Robertson wordsmith the final procedure based on the suggestions provided by the attendees to the meeting. Electronic versions of the revised document will be circulated for final comments prior to adoption.

5. Presentation of proposed format for chemical CMC entries
Willie May presented two formats under consideration for the inclusion of Chemical CMCs in the CIPM database. The first document was developed by the BIPM while the other is a modification sponsored by NIST. May explained the added benefits of the NIST format and suggested that it be adopted by SIM. The SIM-TC accepted with May's recommendation and adopted the NIST proposed format. Furthermore, May was asked to indicate the SIM preference of the NIST document on future conversations at the CIPM level.

6. Discussion on SIM's MRA Appendix C entries
Alan Robertson initiated the discussion on the available CMC submissions. It was clear that if SIM is going to satisfied the JCRB imposed schedule, NIST will need to submit its own capabilities and provide comments on the submissions of other NMIs, by COB on Friday, January 28, 2000. Once all SIM submissions are available on the 28th of January, the MWG chairs will have 3 working days to respond to them. The CMCs will then be sent to the SIM-TC Chair for immediate distribution to the other members of the SIM-TC. The SIM-TC will then have one week to respond back to the Chair prior to the CMCs been send to the JCRB.

It was agreed, that during this process, inconsistencies will be broad to the attention of the particular NMI privately, and only in cases where disputes can not be settle within the time available, the CMCs will be flagged by the MWGs. These flags should be accompanied by suggestion, which could help the flagged NMI to expediently solve the inconsistencies.

It was requested that each MWG submits two documents to the SIM-TC: a Microsoft Excel Workbook (one Worksheet per NMI), and a Microsoft Word document stating the justifications for the CMC claims. The Chairs of the MWG are asked to make use of the format provided by the MWG-Length. This format makes use of filenames and creation dates as means of tracking down changes made to each document. NMIs are encouraged to send correction and/or comments only to the MWG chairs to avoid large email traffic among the members; the Chairs of the MWG will redistribute documents as deemed appropriate. Those countries that had previously submitted DMRs can continue to use them as justifications for their claims.

7. Discussion on SIM's MRA Appendix B entries
Bob Watters announced that the electronic CIPM database is available at the BIPM web site (http//www.bipm.fr) and it is also mirrored at the NIST web site (http://icdb.nist.gov/).

Participants agreed that the MWGs will submit their supporting evidence to the SIM-TC, who after reviewing it, will forward the, to the JCRB. There were question on how the Consultative Committees will voice their opinions in the matter. Bob Watters was charted with developing a document for the registration of supporting evidence in Appendix B.

There was a discussion regarding the numbering structure use to label the CIPM and RMO Key Comparisons. After some debate, it was agreed that the numbering for all types of comparisons (i.e., key, supplementary, and pilot) should be consistent with the database, but its final format need not to be determine by consensus. Bob Watters was asked to develop a numbering scheme that is consistent with the database.

Bob Watters explained the format for results of comparisons (see enclosures). Watters emphasis that at this time it is more important to submit the data to him in any format than spending much time in satisfying the proposed format.

Watters discussed some of the peculiar problems that are resulting from the use of reference values. In particular he alluded to some examples in which the inclusion of additional laboratories in the Key Comparison is leading to misleading reference values.

8. Review of 1999 expenditures and 2000 budget
Steve Carpenter reminded members of NMIs (NRC, CENAM, NIST, and INMETRO) that they needed to prepare end?of?year expenditure reports for the OAS. Alan Robertson announced that he had copies of NRC's report. Carpenter requested that the report be rewritten using the electronic format provided by the OAS.

Carpenter proceeded to read the proposed SIM year 2000 budget (see enclosed document). Carpenter announced that OAS had approved $180k for year 2000 budget. He also explained that the USA mission to the OAS may provide additional funds later in the year.

As in 1999, the funds will be divided between four NMIs (NRC, CENAM, NIST, and INMETRO) who will see the distribution of the funds. These countries are required to submit end?of?year expenditure reports to the OAS.

9. Next meeting
Steve Carpenter proposed that the next meeting SIM-TC be held on July 2000 in Toronto, Canada, as to coincide with the next NCSL meeting. Léa Contier de Freitas suggested that the meeting be held outside of the USA. After some discussion, it was agreed that the SIM Council in their next meeting in Caracas, Venezuela would settle the matter.

10. Other Business
Alan Robertson mentioned the submissions of SADCMET. Pedro Espina reflected on his visit to the South African NMI (CSIR-NML) as part of an international peer review team, and spoke highly of the South African efforts to maintain and improve their metrology program.

The meeting was closed at 5:30 p.m.