Medical Isotope Production Facilities

Aerosols deposition qualification of Stack Monitors for Research Reactors (RR) & Medical Isotope Production Facilities (MIPF)

Eduardo Nassif – INVAP S.E. – Bariloche - Argentina Fabian Rossi - ANSTO - Australia

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Context: Relevance of Aerosols Deposition (& Iodine Plate Out ) on Sampling lines of Stack Monitors On measuring stack effluents in nuclear facilities, aerosols deposition and iodine plate out on sampling lines should drive relevant attention in order to optimize design of sampling lines, minimize sample losses and improve accuracy. A number of considerations on sampling lines geometry, analysis of suitable materials and flow rate ranges shall be taken into account. Design recommendations and guidance are defined on Standards – like, for instanceANSI 13.1 and M11 (see References below on this presentation). This lead designers to often focus their attention on monitor´s location and disposition inside the plant, and reactor´s stack sampling lines design. While this a rather common practice to be considered when designing sampling lines connecting air effluent monitors to process (stack), less attention is driven regarding design and qualification of monitor´s internal sampling lines, related to aerosol deposition and iodine plate out effects.

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Scope : Main goals..

To determine actual penetration factors inside monitor´s sampling lines. This is relevant, since may affect measurement accuracy when estimating stack emissions.

In addition to review calculations on deposition effects expected for specific connections of stack monitors to process, an experimental method to quantify relevance of deposition effects inside monitoring equipment – in comparison with the effects observed on main connection to process- is described.

Previous analysis is complemented with a review of Iodine Plate-Out effects on stack monitor´s sampling lines is presented.

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Stack Monitors Installation Requirements Many RMS suppliers produce and install Stack Eflluent monitors on (new or upgraded) nuclear facilities. Different facilities do have specific air sampling requirements. Due to quite diverse lay-out arrangements, installation requirements for sampling lines may be quite different. Installation in already existing upgraded plants usually do present more complex restrictions for sampling line connections from monitoring units up to the stack. Specific customer´s requirements does impose also additional restrictions on monitoring units themselves. (Example: closed structures may be required as prevention for shower spreads being installed in the vicinity of the equipment as part of fire systems.., while in other cases “open” racks can be used, thus giving other internal sampling lines design opportunities). In the following slides, some remarks on these design options, considered for several equipment installed by our company at different facilities are presented... ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Installation & Monitoring Requirements Real Time – Off-Line Automatic Stack Effluents Surveillance (some examples)

RPF/ETRR-2 Radioisotope Production Facility (Egypt) OPAL Nuclear Research Reactor (Australia)

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Stack Effluent Monitors (common and specific Features)

ISOKINETIC SAMPLING

To measure STACK EMISSIONS IN RR – not the same- to measure STACK EMISSIONS IN MIPF * (MIPF: NG High Activity in Pulsed «batch» emissions...follow-up!)

PARTICULATE –IODINE – NOBLE GAS independent channels

NG CHANNEL: GROSS β - GROSS γ DETECTION and γ SPECTROMETRIC CAPABILITIES (41Ar – 133Xe and other specific measurement channels)

GROSS β - GROSS γ DETECTION FOR AEROSOLS (currently α/β measurement requirements)

131I

DETECTORS: Use of plastic scintillators

DETECTION ON IODINE CHANNEL

last generation Lanthanum halide scintillators +CdTe Solid State detectors – Si PIPS

4 User´s Interface Communication Levels (Local x 2 – Remote x 2)

* CUSTOMIZED – PROCESS ORIENTED SOFTWARE INTERFACE STRUCTURE & SAMPLING SYSTEM

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Typical Internal Architecture (possible Options) Structural Requirements (examples)

OPEN GEOMETRY SAMPLING RACK

STANDARD 19in. RACK WITH TOUCH SCREEN LOCAL INTERFACE

OR..

SEISMIC QUALIFIED CUSTOM STRUCTURE – after IEEE 1E 344 IP 65 COMPLAINING - WATER TIGHT -

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition 2 Main Tracks to be considered.. Stack to Monitor

Monitor´s internal sampling lines

Adjustment of Penetration Factors should be available within Monitor´s Software User Interface capabilities

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Determining Aerosols Deposition….Stack to Monitor From Stack to Monitor ...(by calculations) INPUT DATA Vertical section (stack level +37 to llevel +16) 21 m Horizontal section 3.7 m Elbows 4 x 90° Pressure 101.325 Kpa Temperature 300 K Diameter of the aerosol particle to be considered 10 µm* * according to ANSI 13.1, pages 29 and 39

Shorter sampling lengths between Stack and Monitor is achievable when installing the monitor at higher reactor building levels….but… ..this implies higher seismic requirements impact on structure and internal sampling lines design ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions..determining Aerosols Deposition Stack to monitor sampling line - Aerosols Deposition mechanisms Gravitational settling: Significantly only on horizontal sections or on an angle above 30 degrees with respect to the vertical Brownian diffusional deposition: Generally quite low for velocities above 1m/s Turbulent inertial deposition: Quite significant and rising with velocity at an exponent close to 2.6, depending on the correlation Electrostatic deposition: It depends on the electrostatic load accumulating on the piping Thermophoretic gradients

deposition:

between

walls

Registered and

flow,

when or

there

between

are flows

temperature at

different

temperatures Diffusiophoretic deposition: Due to aerosol concentration gradients in the same fluid, it is negligible in turbulent rates and in those of low deposition by other mechanisms

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Stack to monitor sampling line - Aerosols Deposition mechanisms Calculations being considered/performed on all straight sections after the specific

mechanisms Mechanism Gravitational settling Turbulent inertial deposition Brownian diffusional deposition Electrostatic deposition

Thermophoretic deposition

Diffusiophoretic deposition

Calculation being performed Yes, for all non-vertical sections -main mechanismYes Yes, for verification purposes No: as metallic pipelines grounded through anchors are considered and fluid is air with 50% +/- 10% controlled humidity. No: as it is considered that there are no relevant temperature gradients on the pipeline (effects are negligible: < 0.1%) . No: only one gas (air) -perfectly mixed and uniform - is present in the sampling line

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions..determining Aerosols Deposition Stack to monitor sampling line - Aerosols Deposition mechanisms Penetration of the Piping System as the result of the individual penetrations of each fitting and straight section for each mechanism.

ηtotal = ∏ηi , j i, j

Where

ηi , j

is the penetration of fitting i for deposition mechanism j

Correlations are used for the entire sampling piping that calculate separately each mechanism and distinguish elbows, contractions and expansions as global deposition. Deposition on bends may be calculated through the following equation when the curvature radius – inner diameter ratio is equal to or above 5.

ηbend = e−2.823 Stk α

where,

α is the elbow angle. Stk = Stokes Number ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Stack to Monitor sampling lines Different sampling line design alternatives being analyzed Item

1

φi = 0.0221m (25.4mm, BWG16, e=1.65 mm) Q = 75 l/min U = 3.26 m/s

φi = 0.0221m (25.4mm, BWG16, e=1.65mm) 2

Q = 65 l/min U = 2.85 m/s

φi = 0.0316m (34.9 mm, BWG16, e=1.65mm) 3 Q = 94 l/min U = 2 m/s φi = 0.0348m (38.1mm, BWG16, e=1.65mm) 4

Vertical section

Horizontal section

Elbows

Reynolds fluid (Ref)

4608

4608

4608

Gravitational penetration

1

0.82

-

Diffusional penetration

0.999

0.9999

-

Turbulent penetration

0.854

0.972

-

Alternative

Q = 105.6 l/min U = 1.85 m/s

φi = 0.03339m (38.1mm, BWG14, e=2.11mm) 5 Q = 100 l/min U = 1.85 m/s

Total (Π Π ηi )

0.853

0.797

0.448


4029

4029

4029


1

0.798

-


0.999

0.9999

-


0.904

0.982

-

Total (Π Π ηi )

0.903

0.783

0.49


4042

4042

4042


1

0.799

-


0.999

0.9999

-


0.983

0.997

-

Total (Π Π ηi )

0.982

0.796

0.70


4118

4118

4118


1

0.802

-


0.999

0.9999

-


0.988

0.998

-

Total (Π Π ηi )

0.987

0.800

0.74


4011

4011

4011


1

0.797

-


0.999

0.9999

-


0.988

0.998

-

Total (Π Π ηi )

0.987

0.795

0.743

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Total Penetration

0.305

0.346

0.547

0.580

0.583

The Real Emissions..determining Aerosols Deposition (Aerosols) Stack to Monitor sampling: Conclusions Case Item 5 was adopted : A tube of a 38 mm diameter and BWG 14 (ID 33.88mm) at a nominal flow of 100 l/min. Global penetration of 58.3% -reached with previous adoption-, is above the 50% deemed as sufficient design value for the transfer of aerosols with a 10µ µm diameter.

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Stack To Monitor Sampling Lines: Iodine Plate Out..? The following equation given by ANSI N13.1-1999, Annex C (C-1) is Vd: Deposition speed in [m/s] interpolated used to calculate iodine penetration:

ηiodine = e

Species I2 HOI CH3I

V L −4 d U dt

to 50% rel. humidity L: Total Length [m] U: Air Flow speed [m/s] dt: Piping diameter [m]

The calculation considers fixed length L= 25m Inner diameter 0.0221 0.0221 0.0316 0.03388 [m] Velocity 3.26 2.85 2.00 1.85 [m/s] Vd (50 % Penetration ηiodo humidity) 1.43E-03 0.1374 0.1033 0.1041 0.1085 m/s 3.85E-05 0.9914 0.9870 0.9817 0.9810 m/s 7.50E-08 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 0.9999 m/s ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Stack To Monitor Sampling Lines.. Iodine Plate Out..? (Iodine) Stack to Monitor sampling lines: Conclusions All penetrations are above 50%, except for chemical species I2, in which values are quite low, mainly as a result of the small Vd (Deposition Speed)* for this species.

Case Item 5 adopted before, i.e. a tube of a 38 mm diameter and BWG 14 (ID 33.88mm) at a nominal flow of 100 l/min, showed acceptable conditions for Iodine Plate-Out also (for HOI and CH3I species).

* Deposition speed (Vd) being considered is that reported by M.J. Kabat, “Deposition of Airborne Radioiodine Species on surfaces of metals and plastic”, Ontario Hydro, mentioned as reference in standard ANSI 13.1-1999, and corresponding to stainless steel.

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Now.. a look to internal monitor´s sampling lines (Iodine – Plate Out) Comparison among Penetrations for each Iodine Species

Note here for I2 (Plastic): Much LOWER Vd than SS! Smaller L than external Smaller d than external

Much efficient Penetration! ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Comparison between stack monitor´s External & Internal sampling lines: the I2 Case Vd: Iodine Deposition Speed [m/s] interpolated considering 50% de humidity L: Total Length [m] U: Air Flow rate [m/s] dt: Piping diameter [m]

Note here for I2 (Plastic): Smaller L Smaller d Much higher Vd!

Calculations for I2

Vd(I2) L U d L/( U x d) ηd

Stack to Monitor SS 304L

Monitor internal lines SS304L

1,43E-03 25 3,26 0,0221 347,0005274 13,74%

1,43E-03 1,42 4,46 0,0195 16,3274692 91,08%

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Stack to Monitor Monitor internal Poliethylene Poliethylene 9,50E-05 25 3,26 0,0221 347,000527 87,65%

9,50E-05 1,42 4,46 0,0195 16,32746924 99,38%

Monitor´s internal Iodine Plate Out : (some) Lessons learned Using Plastic - instead of SS – dramatic improvements may be reached when focusing on I2 species…(I2 is «more anomalous» in terms of deposition on SS..) Iodine depositions are extraordinary sensitive to geometrical parameters. If I2 were the predominant species,…Plastic should be used instead of SS...but (because of chemical stability and relative abundance in air), as I2 as not the most common species for radioactive Iodine, therefore..

…SS is –still- a good relative solution in terms of Iodine penetration.

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Monitor´s internal sampling line: Why Experimental Determination….? ..since Monitor´s sampling circuit do present non-regular geometrical arrays, such as..

Non perfectly cylindrical sections (namely ¾” ID Poliethylene pipes). Valves of different types and sections Curves Fittings (7) Elbows T – reductions Adapters

…..theoretical calculations & modelling do not bring fully reliable data.. (as may be developed in case of for regular piping sections for stack to monitor sampling lines).

..Experimental Validation Tool is required for Aerosols Deposition factors determinations (Similar criteria as in case of calculation of Hydraulic losses in complex equipment/sampling circuits where experimental validation is current used tool, beyond finite elements calculations). ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

Now..how Does Behave Aerosols Deposition inside Monitor´s Internal Sampling Lines? …Experimental Determination needed!!

Ideal representation…..but Complex real Geometry

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Experimental Determinations: Main Facts To quantify aerosols deposition from monitor´s flange connection to process (stack sampling lines), up to the aerosols measurement chamber. Calibrated Spherical Particles - 5.4* µm mean diameter (standard deviation 0.5 µm) were injected at monitor´s inlet. Particle generation is performed using a high speed N2 jet Jet-driven depression sucks and atomizes the particulate suspension More than 30 filter collection measurements were performed. Each measurement comprises collection on filter at monitor´s entrance, and collection on filter inside aerosols measurement chamber. Simultaneous measurement of particle concentration with an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) at monitor´s inlet. Quantification performed by weighing of collection filters and relationship to APS measurements. Measurements

were

performed

environmental conditions.

at

INVAP´s

Testing

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

facilities,

under

controlled

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Aerosols sampling depositions: Experimental Array Measurement Array does include: A particle spray generator A Heat Exchanger (for water evaporation on water drops attached to the particle) A Dryer for absorption of water steam A Flow compensation device (between particulate injection flow and monitor´s air flow) An APS (Aerodynamic Particle Sizer) Glass Fiber filters for Aerosols collection Injection system components (i.e., N2 cylinder, flowrate meters, valves, etc.) Micro-balance (Accuracy 10 E -7 gr)

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Aerosols sampling depositions: Experimental Set-Up (schematic)

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Experimental Set-Up : Filter Removal at Aerosols Measurement Chamber location

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Experimental Set-Up

APS

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Results Several statistical methods were applied to handle experimental data. Selected for final Data processing: Adjustment by minimum squares (linear relationship between weighed mass on the filters and APS mass determination for filter collection at inlet and outlet position, respectively) Pairing Data Analysis The results obtained for Aerosols relative deposition, namely the ratio between Mass Deposition (Md) to the mass at the entrance of the equipment (Me), as the “envelope” of the more conservative result brought with different statistical analysis lead to:

(Mdep/Me) ~ (14 +/- 5) % η: (1 –Mdep/Me) < ~ 90%

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Conclusions Aerosols deposition inside internal sampling lines on Stack Monitors –though relatively lowis NOT NEGLIGIBLE, and should be taken into account for proper estimation of aerosols actual stack emissions. Type, Size and materials of internal piping, are indeed a relevant issue on designing Stack Monitor´s. Plastic is still an option to be considered on specific cases (with some remarks on Electrostatic issue and exceptive life if installed outdoors..) Characterization of sample losses inside monitor´s internal circuits - combined together with external sampling lines deposition estimations may bring an integral picture in order to get a more accurate adjustment of sample losses by Aerosols Deposition –and Iodine Plate Out. (Calculated & Measured) Penetration factors may be integrated into equipment user interface in order to facilitate estimations of real emissions of aerosols coming out through the stack and to acknowledge of sampling lines modifications during monitor´s lifecycle. “In situ” adjustments of monitor´s sampling system during life cycle operation can be done, in order to optimize equipment performance and accuracy

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Conclusions (Cont.) To include strategic sampling points in the system to do predictive maintenance and calibrations in order to take into account the variations of sampling line performance along time.

Optimize the instrumentation to monitor and control the flow performance.

Finite element is a very useful calculation tool to predict: best point to install sampling point –main isokinetic nozzle and test point-, minimum mixing length required, flow pattern changes under different conditions at the stack (wind, temperature, etc.)

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition REFERENCES “Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications” by Pramod Kulkarni, Paul A. Baron, Klaus Willeke, Paul A. Baron, Wiley Third Edition - 2011 (2nd. Edition – 2004) “Gaseous Radioiodine Deposition Losses in Nuclear Reactor Sample Lines”, Byung Soo Lee, William A. Jester, Pennsylvania State University, Nuclear Engineering Department “Deposition of Airborne Radioiodine Species on surfaces of metals and plastic”, M.J. Kabat , Ontario Hydro “Monitoring of Radioactive releases to Atmosphere from Nuclear Facilities, Tech. Ref. M-11 (UK)”. “Sampling and Monitoring Releases of airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities”. Standard ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Aknowledgements

Marcelo Caputo Marcelo Gimenez,

from Centro Atómico Bariloche (CNEA-Argentine National Atomic Energy Commission), for technical support on implementation of the experimental technique Mariana Di Tada Román Pino, from INVAP, for valuable technical discussions and support with this presentation

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition

Thank you! …… Questions..?

ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition Measurement Steps A previously weighed filter, is set at the entrance of the monitor to collect aerosols during a defined time interval. After collection and remotion of this filter, another weighed filter is set inside the monitor at the regular particulate measurement location (without interrupting particulate generation), so that particulates are collected for a similar (time) interval. Both filters are weighed again,after collection, in order to get by difference the deposited net mass inside monitor´s internal sampling lines. Using APS measurements, the sampling flow rate and the collection time interval, the total mass being injected is calculated. Four measurements were performed: two for mass (monitor´s input and output), corresponding to filter weighing, and two for concentration (direct measurements performed with APS at monitor´s inlet). ARMUG 2014 – NPL – 11/19/2014

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition El cambio de la posición del filtro insume del orden de 20 s para cada caso. Por lo tanto el APS, que medía en intervalos secuenciales e ininterrumpidos, de 3600 o 1800 s, iniciaba 20 s antes la medición. Por este motivo, para estimar el error de la masa calculada a partir de la concentración medida por el APS se considera un error en el tiempo de colección de 20 s. Durante el experimento, esto es con el filtro colocado adelante o en el interior del equipo, se mantuvieron los caudales de aspiración del equipo AEMI-4531-RCMS (90 l/min ajustado con una válvula a la salida del equipo), generación de partículas (11.30 l/min) y de aspiración del APS (5.00 l/min) constantes dentro del error del instrumento de medición, que era de ~ 1 l/min para el caudalímetro del equipo, ~ 0.01 l/min para el caudal de generación y ~ 0.01 l/min para el caudalímetro del APS. Entonces el error de la masa entrante, calculada a partir del APS, estará dado por la siguiente expresión:

∆M APS ∆TC ∆Qg ∆C p = + + M APS TC Qg Cp

2

donde es el error de la masa medida por el APS, es el error en el tiempo de colección, Qg es el error en el caudal de aspiración y Cp es el error de la concentración medida por el APS. Los valores extremos de cada una de estas variables alcanzados en al menos una medición se muestran en la Tabla 1. Valor máximo

Valor mínimo Error de medición

Tc [s] Qg [l/m] Cp [mg/m3]

3600 1800 91

89

20 1

0.1370 0.0547 0.0001

Tabla 1: Valores máximos y mínimos medidos de las variables utilizadas para el cálculo de MAPS. Evaluando la ecuación 2 para la situación más desfavorable, esto es para los errores relativos más altos, se tiene que: ∆M APS = 0.02 → 2% M APS

INTERNAL ARCHITECTURE (Options) Seismic resistant structure (Racks, including Sampling Systems qualification) Processing & Control Unit inside IP65 Cabinet Sampling system distributed in custom designed cabinet for ease of maintenance Local Synoptic diagram accesible through Touch-screen panel for local user interface commands Remote communication and Data Transmission through: # Modbus RS-485 RTU # Ethernet SEISMIC QUALIFIED 1E after IEEE 344

STANDARD RACK WITH TOUCH SCREEN LOCAL INTERFACE

The Real Emissions…determining Aerosols Deposition El cambio de la posición del filtro insume del orden de 20 s para cada caso. Por lo tanto el APS, que medía en intervalos secuenciales e ininterrumpidos, de 3600 o 1800 s, iniciaba 20 s antes la medición. Por este motivo, para estimar el error de la masa calculada a partir de la concentración medida por el APS se considera un error en el tiempo de colección de 20 s. Durante el experimento, esto es con el filtro colocado adelante o en el interior del equipo, se mantuvieron los caudales de aspiración del equipo AEMI-4531-RCMS (90 l/min ajustado con una válvula a la salida del equipo), generación de partículas (11.30 l/min) y de aspiración del APS (5.00 l/min) constantes dentro del error del instrumento de medición, que era de ~ 1 l/min para el caudalímetro del equipo, ~ 0.01 l/min para el caudal de generación y ~ 0.01 l/min para el caudalímetro del APS. Entonces el error de la masa entrante, calculada a partir del APS, estará dado por la siguiente expresión:

∆M APS ∆TC ∆Qg ∆C p = + + M APS TC Qg Cp

2

donde es el error de la masa medida por el APS, es el error en el tiempo de colección, Qg es el error en el caudal de aspiración y Cp es el error de la concentración medida por el APS. Los valores extremos de cada una de estas variables alcanzados en al menos una medición se muestran en la Tabla 1. Valor máximo

Valor mínimo Error de medición

Tc [s] Qg [l/m] Cp [mg/m3]

3600 1800 91

89

20 1

0.1370 0.0547 0.0001

Tabla 1: Valores máximos y mínimos medidos de las variables utilizadas para el cálculo de MAPS. Evaluando la ecuación 2 para la situación más desfavorable, esto es para los errores relativos más altos, se tiene que: ∆M APS = 0.02 → 2% M APS

USER INTERFACE – Spectrometric screens

USER INTERFACE – Spectrometric screens

USER INTERFACE – Main measurement variables Display

Pulsed Batch Emissions Operational Mode (Medical Isotope Production Facilities – MIPF) DISCONTINUOUS REGIME PULSED BATCH EMISSIONS SHORT INTEGRATION PERIODS COMPLEX – CUSTOMIZED SAMPLING SYSTEMS HIGH ACTIVITY NOBLE GAS CONCENTRATIONS FOLLOW UP OF SPECIFIC ISOTOPES (Xe´s – Kr´s) NOBEL GAS BATCH EMISSIONS (MIPF) – PAM EMISSIONS (RR) # 108 Bq/m3 up to ~ 1013 Bq/m3 (γ´s) - using Solid State detectors # 108 Bq/m3 up to ~ 1014 Bq/m3 (β´s) – using Flow-through Ionization chambers

INVAP RMS PROCESS MONITORS: STACK EFFLUENTS & AIR VENTILATION SYSTEMS IEEE – 1 E QUALIFICATION (344,323)

ANSI 13.1 & M11 STANDARDS DESIGN ORIENTED Integration of INVAP´s electronic modules

with COTS products Structure & sampling system 3 Levels of Communication & User´s Interface Custom & Process oriented designed software Interface

Regular - continuous - Operational Mode (RR – NPP´s) CONTINUOUS MODE (REGULAR OPERATION) ACCOUNTABILITY ON LONGER INTEGRATION PERIODS GROSS MEASUREMENTS (daily – weekly integration) # Aerosols:

# Iodine:

3 up to ~ 105

Bq/m3 (γ´s)

1 up to ~ 5 x 104

Bq/m3 (β´s)

1 up to ~ 3 x 105

Bq/m3 (131 I)

# Nobles Gases: 2 x 104 Bq/m³ up to ~ 8 x 109 Bq/m³ (β´s) 1 x 104 Bq/m3 up to ~ 109 Bq/m3 (γ´s)

Vibración

Termovacío

Scanner de Campo cercano

Acústico