All, great discussion, next, get involved in EPRI working group for remote monitoring! All issues that need to be resolved. One I haven't come to terms with...if it's a dosimeter, calibrated as a dosimeter, when does it turn into a calibrated rate meter? Installed, portable or otherwise. If one duct tapes an ED / transmitter to a wall does it then turn into a "installed monitor?" 323A or D, to be an area radiation (rate) monitor, wouldn't the device have to be calibrated as such to the criteria listed in either standard? Dosimeter type test shows +/-20% of CTV for 10 mr/h to 1K R/h, 323D has +/-15% of CTV for lower, and +/- 10% of CVT for upper range. Has anyone calibrated an electronic dosimeter as a rate meter to this criteria? I know the solution....let's have a meeting! ; )
Benjy Bertossi Fermi2 - RP Supervisor 734-586-4935 [email protected] <seth.kan...@aps. com> Sent by: To owner-power...@hp <[email protected]> s1.org cc Subject 10/18/2010 03:30 RE: Powernet: RE: Use Telemetric PM Electronic Dosimeters to Document Survey Data Please respond to [email protected] Jim, This is really a big part of the problem that needs to be addressed. We are using electronic dosimeters (secondary dosimetry devices) in lieu of either a portable survey instrument or an installed piece of instrumentation. Clearly if we define electronic dosimeters used as area radiation monitors the latter standard that you cited is more applicable. Seth. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rolph, James T Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Powernet: RE: Use Telemetric Electronic Dosimeters to Document Survey Data Guidance from ANSI N323D-2002, American National Standard for Installed Radiation Protection Instrumentation may be more appropriate versus using the standard for portable survey instruments for area monitors. This standard permits the use of background measurements or routine source checks that isn't as stringent to ensure instruments are operating properly. As pointed out technology has greatly improved monitoring capabilities and taking advantage of these advancements should be encouraged and adopted and not delayed because applicable standards are lagging behind with technology advancements. Although not a power plant environment, I was involved in the installation of remote monitoring systems for monitoring waste transfers waste using this technology. The systems are typically source response checked monthly after system batteries are replaced (AC power is not available) and batteries in the dosimeters are replaced when they are calibrated annually. The built-in self checking capabilities of the dosimeter and monitoring of background are relied on to monitor system operability. Monitoring plans (procedures) direct surveys when trending indicates increases in background, or exposure rates are greater than calculated, or the computer detects failures or problems. The helps lower exposures, and provides "real time" information to support the radiation protection staff in achieving radiation protection goals. It's great to see that Seth and others are making progress to raise the standards of excellence in this area. I only wanted to share this because we are using this system for more than information only. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 7:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Powernet: RE: Use Telemetric Electronic Dosimeters to Document Survey Data Jerry, As of yet, we have not established a mechanism for using in field electronic dosimeters as area radiation monitors for other than “Information use only usage. This topic was discussed at the EPRI remote monitoring meeting last month and continues to be a topic that needs further debate. I know that others have tried to use the guidance in ANSI N323A-1997 American National Standard Radiation Protection Instrumentation Test and Calibration, Portable Survey Instruments to go beyond the information only aspects; however, I think that most folks have backed off since then because they are still committed to the “daily response checks” for portable instruments. This is reinforced in section 4.8 of ANSI N323A-1997, Source response check, to ensure proper operation of the instrument between calibrations; each instrument shall be checked with a source during operation at least daily. Hence the information only aspects of what we currently use. I think that a logical way around this would be to employ the concept described in the standard as a “functional check” which can be qualitative but is used to determine that an instrument is operational and capable of performing its intended function. If you can determine a process of valid checks I believe that you could proceed on this basis. However, I think that instead of doing this in a piece meal, individual fashion, this should be an industry initiative sponsored by EPRI or maybe the PRS Board of Directors. Based on the reliability and long-term track record of the electronic dosimeters used in the field for this function, the need to enhance older and in some cases obsolete in-plant radiation monitoring systems, this is something that is really needed. Since most of us have fairly sophisticated monitoring software, having a computer alert us to changing radiological conditions and then taking appropriate actions is to me what excellence looks like. As a member of the standing EPRI remote monitoring committee and PRS Board member I am committed to us moving in this direction. Maybe 2011 will be the year we can get some traction on this. Seth. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barber, Jerry Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:02 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Powernet: Use Telemetric Electronic Dosimeters to Document Survey Data Our Robinson ALARA personnel would like to know if there are any sites that have established a mechanism for using dose rate data provided by telemetric electronic dosimeters placed in the plant as area radiation monitors, for other than “Information use only” (e.g., trending)? Thanks Jerry Barber Lead RC Specialist H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant 843-857-1496 [email protected] Email Firewall made the following annotations --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- NOTICE --- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: pic27718.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
