ML20244B937
Text
.. a I
eg DISTRIBUTIDII:
pntral File ETSB Reading File AUG 16122 ETSB Subject File 12.7 l DEisenhut (w/c enc 1)
K909ANDitt FOR: Regional Administrators F R&': D. G. Eisenhut, Director '
Division of Licensino, WER
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED GU10ANCE FOR CAL 1RRAT10N AND $UPVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR E001PMNT PROY1DED TO MEET ITEF !!.F.1, ATTACMENTS 1, 2, ED 3. WUREG4737
Reference:
Menorande, G. D. Brown, Chief. Technical Progran Branch, Peaton IV, to R. J. Mattson, Director 01 vision of Systes Integration, HRP, April 20, 1992,
Subject:
Implementing Procedures for NLREG-0737, Itee 11.F.1 The referenced memrandun noted a nu9ber of difficulties with licensees' pro-cedures for calibrating noble gas efflueet monitors and contaiment hich-rance radiation nonitors described in NUP.E*.4737, Itee II.F.1. AttacWnts 1 and 3, and sunqested that representatives from NRR and the Rectons convene to estab- 3 1156 qu1& lines for an acceptable progree. Dr. Mattson responded by menorande j to J. T. Collins, Proton IV, dated .Sune IP.,14R2, in which he. comitted his '
staf f to the preparation of WPD recovended e idelines en this subject for tranvittal to the Reoional Administrators. This tast has now been cepleted, coordinated with DOL and O!E, and the proposed cuide11nes are providad as an enclosure to this memorande, ts noted in Dr. Mattson's June 15t nenoraMum, if af ter reviewinn this inforna-tina the Recional Administrators still feel the need for a meetinti, we will 5+ harry to rake the arranaenents.
Original aigned byg Sob (ft A. rurpIt for Darrell C. Eisenhut, i1 rector 1 9270140 820816 OI'I SI'" Of liC'"5I"O e SUBJ nf fice of Huclear Reactor Peoulation
. Fri: 4 . /f
Enclosures:
- 1. Proposed Guidelines
,,f ,
- 2. Collins to Mattson Memo 4y did 4/20/62 a 9 ,,f,
- 3. Mattson to Collins Memo 7- 8 ~!
dtd 6/18/82 y f cc: See next page
- SEE PREVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURREKE gl 4 08/C /82 08/M /82 i
E D51; RP.;.RAB ,,.. IOQ h.. . , ,
,_ [P5todda rt:dj *RLB a nga rt WPGa I TJCongel ,, fQ n ,t t so n. ,, 5. ,ple,,, ,
on p 07/30/8? , 07/30/8?,,,,,p/ , /82 08/0?/8.? , (0/,vf ./82,, ,J/ ,j,81,, , ,,C 81/f/82 J. -.
u . - 3 . . . . . . .. a 2 2 .
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY vs +-m
7
.N *
.. \* DISTRIBUTION:,
N Central Filt ETSB Reedtog File E"jB Subject File 12.7 TMOPAMDtM FOR: J. T. Collins, Regional A&sinistrator, Region bRattson R
FRON:
R. J. Mattson, Director ,
Division of Systees Integration WRR l 1
SURJECT: PROPOSED GUIDANCE FOR Call
- RATION AWD SURYt!LLANCE REOUIREMNTS FDP EOUIPMEWT PROVIDED TO MEET 'ITE" !!.F.1 ATTACW1ENTS 1, 2, AND 3 NUREG4737
Reference:
Meecrandum, G. D. Brown, Chief, Technkal Program Branch, X Pegion IV 49t, to R. J. Mattson, DVectzr, Division of Systems Integration NP.P. April 70, 1982,
Subject:
Implementing Procedures for WlREE4737, Item !!.F.1 The referenced nenorandtri noted a number cf difficulties with licensees' pro- Y cedures for calibrating noble gas ef fluer.t monitors and containment hich-ranne radiation monitnes descrit'ed in MtIDEG4737, Iter 11.F.1, Attachmnts 1 and 3, an't sugoested thet representatives fren W9R and the Recions corwene to estah-lish ouidelines for an acceptable progran. I resporwied by memorandum to you dated June 18,198?, in which I comitted ry staf f to the preparation of NRk recerevnded ouldelines on this subject for transmittal to the Recional A& tin-t strators. This task has now bee, completed, coordinated with DOL and CIE, and the proposed ou16elines are provided as an enclosure to this memorandum.
As noted in my June IP menoredun, if af ter reviewing this information you l still feel the need for a neetim, we will be happy to make the arrangements. )
l i
i Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Integratr of fice of Wuclear Reactor 7equlation cc: tl. Denton E. Ca se D. Ei senhut P.. Carra W. Houston F. torv3el b W. Gacetil L. CunninPem et . Murray, PP G. Drown U ep. IV)
C. V11115
- e. Fancart D. Collins DSI S. Eloct RJMa ttson P. Smrt , 08/ /82
% - s '%
on'.c , DSI;RPdi$ DS QP;]T5B DS1: RP:ETSB j 4 - RP:RAB DSI:RP j DL ! 1:DEQA
%,glP5toddart dj Rgangart WPGamill . - Congel RWHouston ; RPurple ; EJordan c.. , , , I 07/30/8R .D6/ '; /82j 08/ /82 , 08/!/8? De' /82[ 08/ /82 ! 08/ /82
- - - . - . - . - - . . . ----_.x. .. - . . . . - -
- s
- Regional Abinistrators ?- AUG 1 g g cc: w/o teclosure M. Denton E. Case V. Stello R. Mattson E. Jordan R. Purple T. Mirley W. Houston 3
W. Gamt11 '
C. V11115 P. Pancart w/ enclosure J. Funches F. Concel L. Cunntmhan L. 01 Sha n 8 Murray (Rec. !V) l G. Prown (Reg. !V)
D. Collins
- 5. El och P. Stoddart t
l o ..r e 6 :
mpa 's)i) i 8
i ,
...... .v .
Of f ICIAL RECCRD COPY
.s '
PROP 014.C GUIDANCE FOR CALDRATION AND $URVEILUultt RE00!REMENTS FOR 4 EQUIPENT PRov!DED TO MET ITEM !!.F.1 The radioactive noble gas effluent monitors, the particulate and radiotodine samplers, and the in-containment radiation monitors described in NEES 0737, Itam II.F.1 Attachments 1, 2 and 3. represent substantial departures from J conventional designs and operating concepts in the detection and measurement.
of plant radiological conditions. The nature and purpose of these monitors and samplers dictate an approach to calibration and surveillance requirements which will dif fer widely from existing requirements and procedures established for conventional monitors. The impracticality of ar* 'N existing calibra-tion standards to these monitors was recognized in the memorandum from G. D.
i . Brosn to R. J. Mattson, dated April 20, 1982. The proposed guidance addresses tk principal concerns noted relative to the review of licensee implementing procedures and provides guidance on certain matters pertaining to calibration.
- 1. i l~ The attachn.*sts provide a more thorough discussion of the purpose and function j j
of these monitors and samplers and should provide the necessary guidance to permit development of review and inspection procedures. )
- 1. Application of ANSI N323-1978 The application of AMS! W323-1978 recommendations as requirements for the review of fixed area monitors and ef fluent monitors does not appear to be appropriate for either nomal range monitors or for NWEG 0737 moni tors. While N323-1978 contains nuch worth-while guidance of a general nature, it should be recognized that this standard is speci-fically addressed to hand-portable survey instrumentation and was never i
.A a l
l s ',
.t.
intended to be wholly applicable to either flued area monitors or of fluent monitors. While some form ef. te-place calibration is necessary ,
and proper, the inrocation of 5323-1978 as the basis for requiring in-place calibration of area raGistion monitors and noble gas effluent monitors is not seen as a valid use of the standard.
- 2. It 2515, Inspection Procedure M710 MC 2515. Inspection Procedure M710, was written specifically for monitors designed to operate at very low concentrations of radioactive materials.
I ble bel.ieve this procedure is not appropriate for use in conjunction with the NtREG4737 noble gas ef fluent monitors. The principal reasons for this are:
o ALARA considerations may Itait the handling of concentrations of j gamma-emitting noble gases, such as Xe-133, in concentrations sufficient to perfors on-site calibration of the upper ranges of these monitors. Calibration of the upper ranges of some models l cf these monitors will require tk handling of curie quantities' of radioactive gas while other models will recuire the handling of multi-curie quantities. The handling of such quantities of radioactive material will result in unnecessary estremity expo -
sures and say rtsult in the uncontrolled release of radioactive gases into occupied spaces.
o trypton-85 (Kr-M ) gas, reconnended for calibration use by Inspection Procedure 8471C, is not a satisfactory calibration source for the f
I e
1 q e -
3
! majority of N'JtEG4737 effluent annitors shich use gamma-sensitive detectors. For those NUREG4737 monitors using t> eta detectors, Kr-85.
[ is not readily available la concentrations of sufficient strength ,
i to be useful in calibrattee of the upper ranges.
E i
o The only prKticable means of in-place calibration of NutEG4737
. ef flueet monitors it the apper ranges witt the necessary radia-tion energies is through the use of ' solid' sources, which is net l :
consistent with 8471C.
.j e The release of calit atior gases to the eerirownt following i
completion of calibration could ressit ir a vfolation of plant-I technical specifications. For example, calibration of a noble
$4s effluent monitor with te-133 gas at a concentration of 10" uCi/c'c e could involve a tota' of acre than 100 Cl of calibration gas. The 1 instantaneous release of such a geantity of gas could well esceed Tuhaical Specification limits.
- 3. NRt Staff Recommendatites for Calibration o' toble Gas Eff'leent Monitors The utR recommendations for calibration of uJtEG 0737 noble gas effluent monitors sould require liceesees to obtain certais calibration services
} fras instrument vendors or alternative sourms. An acceptable approach calls for a one ttee " toe" calibration of a Itaited nueer of production-mode' witors using reticactive gases; we consider this te be en acceptable alternative to in-place testing etb radioactive gases, h
l
(- , . -
[
i t
principally due to ALARA considerations. Such calibration would be at either the manufacturer's facility or a suitable contractor facility and-t ,
I would provide for the use of ISS-traceable radioactive gaseous sources of !
appropriate emissive characteristics (e.g., Xe-133 for gamme-detecting I systems er tr-85 for beta-detecting systems) at a miniac of three on-scale i values separated by not less than two decades of scale (e.g.,10-5 uti/cc, i k 10' sti/cc, and 10'I uC1/cc; gases with higher concentrations of radioactive material should be used if reasonably ava11able). Fron the obsetved sy5tes j readouts and using the transfer procedures of ANSI W323-1978 (Section 5.1),
- one or scre Laboratory Standard sources could be established using solid I ,
radioactive source material having emissive radiation characteristics similar I i to those of the calibration gas. The Laboratory Standa_rd sources could then be used to develop Secondary Calibration sources, ditch'was1d be used for on-J site in1 ace 1 calibration.
4 j Ideally, gamma-detecting NtREG4737 ef fluent monitoring systans should be
[ type-calibrated against a sinimum of three different gaseous radforuclides s m ranging in energy fras Xe-133 (0.081 MeV) to Xe-138 (1.78/1.02 MeV), and i
J varying in concentration frca 10 uti/cc to apaut 10 5uti/cc; however, other I
than Xe-133, there appear to be no readily available calibration gases tdth j the required energy range or with sufficiently long half-life to permit use, i and none are available in suf ficient concentration to perwit upper range I calibration. The only practicable alternative is. the use of solid sources y vy ,
{ such as ts 13', Co-60, or 54133, pieced in a (reproducible geometry avvl
,. 2 , o -
] ,
5-
}
t
! utilizing the transfer procedures of ANSI N323-1978 to relate the resultant i
i values to the gaseous calibration. The curie content of such sources could h be determined by at of several analytical methods by reference to SS standard sources. While it can be argued that such a procedure would not j provide direct traceability to 25 standard gaseous sources other than Xe-133, L
T there appears to be no other practicable alternative.
k As emisioned by the WRR staff, calibration of NUREG4737 effluent monitors
{
would then be based on a one-time " type" calibration using a radioactive gas traceable to 25. Subsequently, all production units would be calibrated
(_
4 against Laboratory Standard solid sources, with traceability to 2S.
(_
h Secondary Calibration Sources would be furnished by the vendor to the
@ licensee, do would then conduct, or contract others to conduct, all subse-E
- quent in-place calibration tests with the'se solid sources. These in-place l calibration tests would be performed after system installation and at i
designated intervals in accordance with Plant Technical Specifications. It j is suggested that some form of periodic confirmation or verification of cali-a h bration source values be made a part of surveillance procedures (e.g., re-i r.aiibration of souhes every two or three years).
t
& It should be noted that the sse of solid sources in sufficient strengths to s
permit 'ctlibratiori of the upper ranges of these monitors may pose ALARA c
% problems in the handling and use of the sources during calibration. While a
the level at which calibration poses these problees is design specific, any l
- v i
i 5
k-b
'r .
fq
- . i 3 .
l l
l discussion of acceptable surveillance procedures should permit calibration of the affected ranges by appropriate electronic signal substitution if occupational exposures are unacceptably high.
- 4. In-Containment High-Range Radiation Monitors While NRR recognizes the desirability of periodically demonstrating that a de tector will properly respond to a radiation source mer the full designated range, the program outlined in N'JREG-0737 for testing and calibration of the -
monitors should prmide adequate assurance that the monitor is functioning !
accurately for its intended purpose while maintaining doses to worters ALARA.
NUREG 4737 specifies in-place calibration using a radioactive source at one ;
point on the decade below 10 R/hr. This should assure proper fimetioning of !
the detector. To require ,in-place . testing at over 10 R/hr is not consistent
~
with ALARA considerations. MRR rectamends, as an acceptable alternative, th j the licensees require type-testing at sufficient points to demonstrate linearity through all scales up to 106 R/hr to verify the monitor design characteristics. NRR further recommends that licensees specify that each production detector be tested at levels of approximately 10 R/hr to assure satisfactory response to high levels of radiation. Testing of each producti
- detector at over 10 R/hr is viewed as unwarranted den the costs, time, and probability of damage to the instrument frcs handling are considered.
NUREG-0737 reconmends electronic calibration by signal substitution for all decades above 10 R/hr. Such $dstitution involves the injection of DC signe
. _ _ . . . . __..__________m_ _ _ _ _ _ __.__ -
7 v7 ,
h , . .
r . 7 4 ;
I
/[
/
/
s (simulatinidetector response to radiation) into the systmo for the purpose c '
)-
system calibration. Calibrated DC current generators should be specified by the monitor vendor aM should be available from commercial suppliers. See Attachment th for hther discussion of electronic calibration. .,
- 5. Particulate and Radiciodine Sampling from Efflueet Gps Stre.as
collectfcn stations.
/ , I e
_Q.L .
)i in a recent Waf t.of- a p Uposed revision to N13.1-1969, the appendices have been deleted and determination of sampling line losses is suggested to be accomplished by actmal tests of sntees or full-scale noctwss rather than by calculational methods. While NRR does not normally endorse a preliminary dre of a standard undegoing 'rev[sion, MAR would accept egirical data on samplir r
lline 1osses besed oc actual tests of eitNr the installed s/ stem or a full-
, scale mockup of the 45 tee in lieu of calculations based on ANSI M13.1-1969 m
) ,.
, appendices.
i A more Comp'eete discussion of sampling line 1osses &nd loss evaluation appea' in Attachment II. -
- y. <
Q
. .. (
i x /~
1 e , ,
, k e
< c
3
- 6. Deviations 'ron ICREG-0737 Criteria NRR is revirwing requests for deviations from the criteria in NSEE4737..
Ites !!.F.1. Attachment 1. 2 and 3, and documenting its findings in SUts.
Recent discussions by the staff with vendor representatives, licensee representatives and resident inspectors, however, indicate that previcesly undocumented deviations to WWEG4737 requirements may exist at some plants.
Exasgles of deviations include excessive sensitivity of response to variatic in photon energy of the noble gas ef fluent nonitors produced by at Ieast two vendors and the use of protective shielding by licensees to cover in-
[ containment radiation monitors, which effectively blocks the required res-ponse ta low-energy gamma radiation.
Shury Recommendations IRR recommends that DIE either substantially revise MC 2515, Inspection Procedur<
, 84710, or consider preparation of a separate inspection procedure or temporary instruction for ElREG4737 items. The suggested guidance in WlREG4737., coupled with this memorandum and attachments, should provide the needed bases to initiate action. NRR staf f util be available for any needed consultation or additional input. As noted in the Jure 18 memorandum from R. J. Mattson to J. T. Collins, IRR plans no -ost-implementation review. The nature of the equipment and plant-specific installations is such that an audit type review by HRR of licensee desic proposals is not an ap;ropriate fom of review. It was the NRR position at the time cf NtRE5-0737 ist,sance that tN most effective fom of review is an onsite '
4 inspection, conducted ty personnel experienced in the field of radiation monitori instrnentation aM well-briefed oc the design of systees provided by individual vendors.
ATTACWENT I PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF GGE005 EFFLUENT MONITORS FOR ACCIDENT CONDITIONS i
Effluent monitors provided for normal reactor operating conditions have histori-cally been required to detect and measure trace concentrations of fission product noble gases which have undergone substantial dilution and radioactive decay in traversing a tortuous path from their point of origin in the fuel of the reactor core to the final point of release. The radiation detectors (sensors) in normal-range effluent monitors are usually beta-radiation detecting devices desiped to function in the range of radioactive effluent concentrations from 10 vCi/cc to 10-2 vCi/cc. The 1mer end of the useful range is determined by natural radio-activity background considerations and radiation from non-effluent sources within the plant which limit the sensitivity to those concentrations of radioactive
,' noble gases which are statistically differentiable from background contributions ;
(Beta radiation detection is utilized to minimize the effects of varying back-ground lesels of gamma radiations produced by reactor operation).
Recent developments in camputer-based monitors permit background subtraction and car. extend the range of sensitivity to approximately 10~I UC1/cc, however, rela-tively few of these monitors are in service. The principal radioactive noble gas
. radionuclides present in normal plant effluents are Xe-133 and Xe-135, with traces of Kr-85 also present. With each of these radionuclides esitting a beta particle in the energy range from 0.2-1 MeV, each nuclide is readily detected and the use of a beta detector perarits a direct correlation between observed count rate and gross radionuclides con:entration.
(
e m.
2 i
The noble gas effluent mont brs described in NtFIG 0737, Itse !!.F.1, Attachment 1 are sprreiGeally designed to operate at much higher concentrations of noble gases, They are intended to fumetton under severe credible accident conditions and to detect and peasure noble gas concentrations which my have undergone essentially zero decay in escaping from their point of origin in the fuel of the reactor core; however, a plant's monitoring systes must also be able to function ender a variety of accident conditions. For example, the monitoring system should be capable of detecting and measuring the six of radionuclides which could be encountered from
)
a release at zero decay and also that which would be present several days later or at any intermediate point in the accident sequence. The fundamental technical 3:
probles in this requirement lies in the change of energy spectrum with time and 1 l
the unavoidable variations in energy response of the available detectors. Designs should incorporate detectors with minimum sensitivity to energy variation. l Beginning twediately after reactor scram the principal noble gases in accident-related releases--on the basis of relative concentration and energy- will be Kr-86 and Xe-12, which have high emissive energies between 1.0 and 2.5 MeV. The high energy gamma radiations of these short-lived nuclides dominate gaseous releases until about 8 to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> after shutdown, den the principal nuclide becomes re-135, with a half-life of about 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and an emissive energy of about 0.25 Mev.
At 2 to 3 days following the accident, the dominant nuclide becomes Xe-133, with a half-life of 5.3 days and an emissive energy of 0.081 Mev.
Noble gas ef fluent monitors should be capable of maintaining on-scale readings and providing data on effluent concentrations through the entire accioemt sequence.
O
3-
, The simplest and probably most accurate means of providing information on effluent concentrations os a non-energy-sensitive basis would be the detsetton and measure-ment of the beta activity of the ef fluent gas. With the apper range capability of 10 sct/cc specified in litREG-0737 for certain release patkeys, existing beta detectors (circa 1979) did not have sufficient dynamic range capacity and so most vendors went to Samma radiation detection as the only viele alternative.
a The detectice of the gasuna radiation from the several nuclides dich comprise the most significant portion of the noble gas release is cat'icated by the variables of emissive ewrsy and short half-life of some of the nuclides. The practicalities of developias a gamma-detecting monitor dich would read-out er be interpreted in terms of sci /cc of specific nuclides were such as to lead the IrJEG-0578 writing group to put forth another concept - the so-called Ie-133 equivalent.
~
, A given volume of a radioe:tive noble gas produces a certain absorted radiation
- dose in space dich is defined by several factors, rang dich are the mass energy absorption coefficients, the concentration in vC1/cc, the ganus energy, the rela-tive frequency of gamma emission, the volee of space occupied by the gas, density of the gas, etc. The principal differences in radiation dose between a given
, concentration of te-133 and the same concentration of Xe-135, for exaople, lie in I, the relative abundances of the characteristic gamma emissions and their emissive energies. With le-133 havirg a 0.081 MeV gamma in 37t of the disintegrations end te-135 having a 0.25 MeV gamma 91t of the time, and ignoring the slight difference I,
l l
i *
.d.
I i
t-l in tk mass energy-absorption coefficient, Xe-135 should produce tk higher radia-4 l
E tion dese, by a factor of i,
l (0.25 MeV) (0.91) 0.2275 !
j (0.051 MeV) (0.37)
- O'T5T *
- Kre, on the other hand, would produce a still higher dose by a factor of (2.4)(0.35) + (0.18)(2.19) + (0.14)(1.55) , 1.45 = 48 '
0.0299 0.0299 !
p For a gamma detector having an essentially linear dose rate response in either' R/hr i or rad /hr, there is a potential "sismatch" varying fra about unity (for Xe-133m)
-[ to a factor of about 80 (for Xe-138). This was recognized early in the discussions l
,. leading to the NUREG-0737 requirements.
?
The projected source ters ratios at any given point in tier can be calculated and r
a table can be derived relating detector reading to an equivalent in Xe-133 activity ;
g in terns of dose (Xe-133 equivalent).
I An alternative which is consistent with the needs of 15tC in determining the effects I
of effluents on the population is the acasurement of noble gases with readout in L
tents of MeV per secorvj, or some equivalent unit. Such a parameter could be used in determining offsite doses in a more direct manner than is nw possible.
I
?
A L
k
= -
I 4
4
Attachment I TABLE I-1 CALCULATIONS
' -- RELATIVE ENERGY RELEASE RATE FOR :
A TYPICAL CORE INTENTORT s
i DATA SoutCES:
}
- Curie values from AIB/18tt Accident Source Tern. Abundance and Energy values are 1 I
from the Radiological Health Handbook (HDI,1970 edition).
- j Reactor Power
- 3800 96l i Time State Reactor Shutdown: Zero j iluclide Ci d/sec Abundance MeV Mey/sec l I Ie-133 2.14x10 8
7.9x10 IO 0.37 0.081 2.4x10 lI 8 18 f Ie-135 2.04x10 - 7.5x10 0.91 0.25 1.7x10 8 IO IO f Ie-138 1.8x10 6.7x10 0.66 1.78 1.6x10 0.58 2.02 i 8 10 Kr-88 1.22x10 4.5x10 0.35 2.4 IO 4
Q.18 2.19 6.6x10
( 0.14 1.55 10 18 Kr-87 8.9x10 3.3x10 0.35 2.57 l,) -
1e-135e 5.9x10 7
2.2x10 18 0.80 0.527 2.9x10 9.2x10 lI 3 6 17 15 Ie-133m 5.26x10 1.9x10 0.14 0.233 6.2x10 1 4
- j ATTO#ENT !!
DRAFT STAFF PC$1 TION 04 DETERMINATION OF j 5AMPLING LINE LOSSE5 RELATIE TO REQUIRDENT5 DF NUREG-Ol37. ITEM II.F.1 l
!. INTEDir. Tim
, Abseet a representative sample and analysis of the radiciodine contest of I plant gaseous ef flut9ts, the operator of a nuclear power plant in which a nuclear accident has < ccurred is faced with the alternative of calculating !
projected offsite dost 5 to the population, dich may be based on extranely-conservative assumpti>ns, or rapidly obtaining radiation measurements in th-fielt The requirements of Attachment 2. Ites ll.F.1, of IUtEG-0737, were prossigated to assure that a plant operator would have the capability, unde' accident conditions, to obtain and analyze samples of his gaseous plant ef-flue-ts which would be sufficiently representative of the actual dis:harge
\'
I
\
conditions to permit a realistic assessment of projected offsite doses to t' l 4 popula tion.
The staff recognizes that the collection of a " representative" mapie of g radioactive particulate and radiofodine from a pleit gaseous effluent strer is subject to a number of problems or difficulties, not the least of which is the tendency for both radioactive particulate and radiolodines to depos' 1 I
or " plate-out" in traversing long sample collection tubes or pipes. Also of l
concern is that while radiciodine is typically discussed and treated as thot 1; is a gas or vapor, it actually exists in the plant atmosphere as both a '
gas er vapor and as a particulate aerosol. The relative proportions of the l
g- O 2-L 1
. particulate and gaseous forius of todine vary with seca factors as age and aetent temperature and are not readily predictable, especially under accident conditions.
!!. DISCUSSION y 1. Licensee's Proposed Systems The Istt staff has reviewed submittals from several licensees concerned j with samp11pg capabilities of proposed designs for particulate and radio-e t iodine sampling systems to meet the criteria of ites II.F.1, Attachment 2, i
F of IrJEG-0737. The licensees are concerned that the proposed designs, 1
f which typically incorporate long horizontal sample runs in order to meet f the dose criteria of Attachment 2, may have inherent problems of sample h
deposition and plateout which could. affect the validity of arty samples
!4 obtained through use of the Sas91tng system.
?
e-Installation detail drawings indicate horizontal runs as long as 50 to 100 feet and vertical drops of approximately 50 feet with a total length
} of approximately 100 to 150 feet. The sample lines in each case are i
thermally-insulated and are heat-traced. Recommended standard installa-I1 tion practices are specified, such as requiring bends in sample tubing y( to be cf as large a bend radius as practicable, avoiding sharp bends, j the use of smooth-wall stainless-steel tubing, and provision for heat-
{ w tracio;.
4 t
.y
3
- 2. Staff Galdance la !!.F.1, Attachment 2 Table II.F.1-2 of Ites II.F.1, Attachment 2, cites MS! N13.1-1969 for guidance on representative sampling. The aspect of representative sampling of principal concern to licensees is the N13.1 guidance for quantification or determination of samplial line losses or deposition occurring ore, long runs of sample system tubing. Long runs are used la the sample system to deliver the sample to a remote location, dere shielding and distance provide the requisite control over radiation exposare to sampling personnel.
The gnidance on sampling line loss calculations in M51 N13.1-1969 appears in Appendix B. dich addresses three forms of sampling line loss er deposition:'(1) Gravity Deposition; (2) Brownian Diffusion; and j (3) Ts6ulent Deposition.
g- Of the three forms of sampling line loss, Turt>ulent Deposition is the
, mechanism most likely to be of importance in dettruining sample line losses in the proposed sampling systems. Powever, due to the complexity r
of the mecharism of turbulent deposition, it is probably the least under-stood and least quantifiable mechanism of deposition and, therefore, the most difficult to predict by calculational methods een designing a sampling system.
g Table 53 of MSI 1813.1-1969, dile providing limited data for vertical samplisg 11nes, can be considered to be ap:licable to a turbulent-flow 9
4 l
sasoling line with both horizontal and vertical components. Table 83 l 1
would seem to indicate that long sampling lines are est practicable wher particles over about 6 microns are imolved.
Gaseous effluents from most nuclear plant effluent pattways can be des-cribed as compa;atively free of particulate, dilt such particulate as may be present are usually of small size (i.e., less than 5 microns diameter) as the result of upstream filtration. In some plants, almost all potentia! sources which could contribute radioactive particulate tc the plant's gasews effluent streas are filtered through one or more stages of HEPA flitration. Such particulate as might be present is sach a stream would tend to be very small. In dat is perhaps the more typical case, a single plant main vent discharge may consist of a " sized ;
beg
- of HEPA-charcoal filtered air from potentially radioactive areas,
, roughly filtered air (i.e., as through a fiberglass ' furnace" filter) '
from non-radioactive wort areas, and unfiltered air from sources such I as a PWR turt>ine building. What happens in the sixing of such sources is that small radioactive particulate from the radiation areas--pertaps starting as sub-alcron or even molecular-sized particles--tend to agglomerate with each other and with the larger particles from the unfiltered " clean" areas, thus forming relatively large (i.e., greater than 10-20 microns) radioactive particles which then become subject to deposition in sample lines.
4
't 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b
p
)
.c . . .
b ' l j
.s.
t
=
i 3. Considerations in De arirination of Line losses By Deposition
~
Application of the guidance in Table 83 of ANSI, N13.1-1969 to sampling l I
- j. of a nuclear plant gaseous eff1 mat stream, would lead one to the con- l
~
l clusion that long sampling lines are not practicable because calculated s
losses might well approach 100t. That this is not strictly true is indicated in recent discussions with persons having extensive fleid j s
} experience in nuclear plant sampling wort. In several undocumented I cases, samples of various types of plant atmospheres and plant effluents were then through sampling lines ranging in length from about 50 feet g to abort 300 feet. In each case, particulate samples adequate to sene
] the purpose at hand were drawn through these sample lines. While some sample losses were observed at the time, the results being sought were l i I largely qualitative in nature (e.g., isotopic identification) rather i
than osantitative, and no efforts were made to determine the precise extent of these losses.
y s
j The foregWng leads us to the tentative conclusion that the guidance of f Appendix B of ANSI N13.1-1969 may not be wholly valid. We note a clue h to this in Section 84 of Appendix B, idiich points out that the data is for dry, clean tubes and does not consider such factors as re-entrairunent.
y The staf f is of the opinion that re-entrainment or re-suspension may well
{ be a significant factor in determining actual sample eine losses. In
?
s 9
}
~
b hn '
s..
[
particular, such behavior may be more likely to occur in a continuously operating system dere equilit'rfum conditions have been established, ,
rather than in a system which is used infrequently or intermittently.
A sampling system could be designed to stilize enhanced entrainment by increastag system flow. If only a limited volumetric flow is desired at the sample collection petn'., the sampling flow could be split, with one portion going through the sample collection device and the other portion being bypassed around the sampler, thus maintaining the flow conditions enhancing the entrainment characteristic.
- 4. Current Status of Staff Guidance The staff is mare that a revision to MSI N131-1969 is being prepared by a currently active MSI working group. However, the expected dates of ccupletion and publication are not known. The staff has seen a pre-1*sinary draft which deletes the guidance on sampling from stacks and -
on sas. lf ag line losses (Appendices A, g, and C of MSI N13.1-1%9).
In lieu of the deleted guidance the draft revisicn of MSI N13.1 recommends that either the the actual sample delivery system or a full-scale mockup be tested experimentally to determine the extent of sample loss.
The staff endorses the proposed approach of making actual system tests l to sete. wine line losses. At the same time, the staff is not prepared i
! to either recommend a specific test method or endorse any give'. test i
l
i nethod as being acceptable to the staff. Therefore, the staff will be receptive to proposals for technically sound test procedures for deter . l sining sample line losses for both particulate and iodine vapors.
1 It should be emphasized that the staff's principal concern in establish-ing the criteria of Ites II.F.1, Attachment 2, was the quantitative determination of the rate at dich radiciodines can be released from the plant in gaseous effluents under accident conditions. Radiciodine is usually considered to be in a gaseous or vapor fom; while this is partially true, it also appears in significant fractions in particulate foms under certain conditions and, therefore, any discussion of sampling
]
must consider the collection, transport, and retention of both the gaseous (elemental and organic) and particulate foms.
Under normal reactor operating conditions, the forms of radiciodine ob-served in plant atmospheres and plant gaseous effluents art: (1) the eleestal fors of iodine, dich appears as the two-atos molecule',1 '
2 j and dich can exist at normal ambient temperatures (!KfF to 100T) as either a gas or adsorbed on a solid (particle); (2) possibly the i hypoiodous acid fors, H01, as a vapor or gas; and (3) the organic form, ;
i usually assumed to be CH 1. HisWically, for & sign basis acddent 3
- , analyses, the staff has assumed todine species distribution to be 51 j particulate, 4*, organic, and 91* elemental.
I l
l 1
i l
I
-a- !
i in the initial release of iodine from irradiated fel, in either nond ledage or in the accident case, the staff is considerlag postulating , !
that most of the iodine released is in the form of cesis lodide (CsI).
Cests iodide, dile being nominally a solid havisp a melting point of ;
about 620*C, is very soluble in either hot or cold eter and,as a result, most of the iodine released from fuel as cestus lodide tends to ste in I
solution; however, aerosols could be generated fra stes leds such as !
a high pressure primary coolant leak to atmosphere.
III. PCSITION In view of all of the variables which can be introdoted in the sampling of particulate and radiciodines, especially in long runs of sample collection tubig, a definition of " representative sampling" acceptable to the staff for Its 11.F.1, Attachoent 2, only, is proposed as follows: *ltEPitESENTATIVE M*PLING: The obtaining of the best practicable sample, accompanied by the application to analytical procedures of such empirically 4terstned line loss or line deposition correction factors as may be needed to obtain results which can be considered conservative " order-of-sagnitude* approximations of the actual concentrations of particulate and radiciodines in plant I gaseous effluents under accident conditions." !
1
.g.
The design of systems for the sampling and analysis of radiotodine should tde isto consideration the multi-faceted nature of iodine. Both filtra-tion (for particulate) and adsorption (for gases and vapors) sampling l media should be used for the collection of iodine. Sampling lines should be Osiped to minimize losses due to deposition of particulate and should be heat-traced to einimize plate-ouc or deposition of iodine vapers on wall surfaces by sinimizing temperature changes and eliminating ,
i
" cold" spot 5.
l Samplio; lines should be as short as practicable, considering such I limitin5 factors as aelent radiation from ducting er pipes leading to the discharge potat and radiation from other items of plast equipment i in the vicinity. The point of sample collection should be chosen with l l l
consideration befel given to routes of access by sampling personnel, !
such that a sample can be retrieved and analyzed without incurring personnel j radiation doses in excess of 5 rem dele-body exposure and 75 ren to the extremities.
When sampling line losses calculated in accordance with the appendices of M57 E13.1-1%9 show deposition approaching 100%, an alternative determination of sampling line losses for particulate can be obtained
. by test of samplin; lines using the actual aerosols encoetered in normal plant operation, or, preferably, by usittg test aerosols such as sodium chloride with particle sizes in the range espected to be present under '
\
accident conditions. In situ or full-scale acckup test results will be acceptele to the staff in lieu of data or values determined by ANSI N13.1-1969 l methodology.
I l
l I
1 I
e i
e
, s. .
ATTACWENT III '
CORRECTION FOR SA@LE CONDITIONS (AIR AND GAS SAMLING)
I In the cellection of gaseous radioactive efflueet samples, dwther for use-in noble gas effluent monitors, is particulate or lodine samples, or in " grab" l
samples for analysis, there are certain correction factors to be considered' .
1 A monitoring er sampling system extracts a continuous or discrete sample of air from a esct, vent, or statt by esing a series - connected " string" consisting of a sample intee probe or nozzle, a sample delivery or transport tube, a particulate I filtration asseely, an todine adsorter assedly, a noble get detection chaeer, a flow measurement device, and a pump or aireer. Each component, from the entry point of the sample nozzle down to the entry port of the air mover, contributes a degree of resistance to the flow of air through the " string"; this resisti :e te flow appears as a series of pressure drops across each component, !
I with the total systen pressure drop being the sum of the component pressure i drops. At the noble gas detection chaeer and at the flow measurement device, the difference in pressure between the gas space and the external atmosphere may be from 1 to 15 inches of mercury (partial vacuum).
The measureneet of the radioactivity of the gas flowing through the detection l
chaeer must be compensated to reflect the reduced pressure of the chaeer relative to the pressure at the point of sample intde. For example, if the internal pressure of the detection chaeer is 18 inches of mercury (12 inches below standart atmospheric pressure of 30 inches of mercury), there is a reduction of 40s density below that found at STP and a corresponding reduction in the ouantity of radioactive gas in the chaser. Since calibration of normal range l
l
o i
.c l
2- l l
I I
noble gas detaction (sensors) is usually done at atmospheric pressure using Kr-85 pas, it is essential that licensees eitser provide means for automatically . j i
correcting both calibration and operational readouts for the reduced pressure conditions encountered in system operation or establish procedures by dich the application of appropriate correction factors can be assured. Current models of effluent air nonitoring systems provided by major vendors are known to i incorporate such correction factors and some models also f aclede automatic temperature compensation features. !
l The measureneet of sample flow rate in systems such as described above is of no consequence for noble gas determinations but can be the source W errors on the !
order of 10% to 50% in the caleviation of releases of articulates and todines if i .
i no compensation is provided for the measar of actual gas flow at reduced pressure.
One of the simplest and most commonly used 9ss flow measureneet_ devices is the variable area flow meter, conmonly known as tk rotameter. )Attle the rotameter is quite accurate when used at atmospheric pressure, a rotameter calibrated at i atmospheric pressure will not read correctly at either higher er lower pressure, unless properly compensated. It is often incorrectly assumed that since the the rotameter functions on the basis of mass flow per unit time, the observed reading under either pressure or vacuts will be correct in terms of standard volume flow-rate. This assumption has been skwn to be irwalid (D. K. Craig)". g "Craig, 0.K. , The Interpretation of Rotameter Air Flow Readings, Health Physics. l Pergamon Press 1971. Vol. 21 ( August) pp. 325-332. .
> .. . l 3..
Pressure correction facters for specific rotameters are available from the various manufacturers as part of the instruction manuals . supplied with equipment.
Data for one typical rotameter shows a 35t deviation between indicated scale readings at a AP of -12 inches of mercury and corresponding measurements made at standard atmospheric pressure. Such a deviation -- if uncorrected -- would rescit in calculation of effluent air contaminants that would be low by' a corresponding value.
It is not enough to calibrate a sampling systes rotameter at some specific-operating pressure (e.g., -10 in. Ng) because this does not consider such operating variables as the length of sample run, variations in AP caused by variations in filter media manufacture, and operational variations in AP across a particulate filter resulting from dust loading. Variations in the length of sample run can make a difference of about 1 to 3 in. Hg in total sample line {
pressure drop. Given a fixed design flow rate, variations in pressure drop across filters from different production batches any vary slightly but this is usually .
1 a minor factor. Of potentially greater significance is the increase in pressure drop across a particulate filter caused by hst loading.
In entrene cases, increases in pressure drop across a filter of 5 inches Hg, or more, have been observed. Some media, such as metranes, are more susceptible to dust loading than others; glass fiber media, for example, accomodate relatively large dust loadings with comparatively small increases in pressure drop. Such i
changes in pressure drop produce changes in the indicated flowrate, as measured by a rotaneter, which are act reflected on the retameter scale.
/.
. ~ > .
Craig cites an example involving dust buildup on a filter dere AP tacreased from 5.9 in. Hg to 10.7 in. Ng dile the rotameter float readine was kept constant. The initial flow rate was measured at 5.061/ mis and the end flow rate uns 4.021/ urin. ,
i Asseing the change la flow' rate was constant, the true mean value would have been 4.551/ min. A determination of total volume flow made on the assuur.lon that the 5.081/ min initial value prevailed over the entire sampling period would have been 11.7% too high, while air contaminant concentrations obtaleed using the initial flow rate would have been too low by the same percentage.
t inufacturers of sampling / monitoring systees are aware of the flow <urasurement
]
discrepancies just discussed. Current systems provide built-in compensation of air flowrate indication for operation at less-than-atmospheric pressure )
through the use of pressure and temperature transducers and computer sof tmare algorithms. Older analog systems 24y require application of manual correction facters for given conditions of AP and flow. Instruction manuals prorided to licensees by the vendors of older sampling /monitrring systees describe the procedures for making the necessary corrections.
Independent verification of calibration of a flos rate measurement system can be accomplished by placing a calibrated rotameter le series at the sample inthe end of the system and comparing readings of the systes rotameter under various system pressure conditions with those of the calfbrated rotmoeter. Since the verification rotameter operates at essentially setent pressure, the only corrections needed for the calibration procedure are the conection for altitude
,r :. .
l 5
and ambient pressure (relative to standard) t:x! a small correct $ee for temperature (the latter is only necessary for high precision wort -- the error in assaing a standard condition of 70*F is less than $1 for the temperature range 2fF to 116*F, which encompasses most plant effluent strees).
i l
l t
1
~~
e .
ATTAC K WT IV CAL! BRAT 10N OF CONTA1MNT HIGH RANGE MONITORS
Licensees have stated that it is difficul't to obtain pulse generators with the necessary range to perform full scale electronic response tests of the electrical 4
circuits of the containment high range monitors.
Tables 1, 2 and 3 show sensitivity of monitors from three vendors as follows:
General Atomic = 1.07x10~II amps /R/hr*
Kaman Science = 1x10*II amps /R/hr Victoreen Instrument Co. = 7x10'II mps/R/hr 0
For an exposure rate range of from 10 to 10 R/hr, the range of a current source required to perform full scale electronic . response would be:
General Atomic: 1.07x10-11 amps to 1.07x10-4 amps l
Kaman Science: 1x10"II amps to.1x10'" amps Victoreen Instrument Co.: 7x10"II amps to.7x10~4 amps The Keithley Model 261, as described in Figure 1, has an output of from 10'II amps to 1.1x10 amps, which should cover the range for the General Atomic and Kaman Science instruments. Although Victoreen is developing a current source to encom-pass the range of their instrument, we note the Keithley Model 225, Figure 2, as well as the Keithley Model 261, could be used to satisfy the range of sensitivity of the Victoreen system. Kaman states that they have a current source-in the range of interest built into their system.
I
' Based on the average response to the x and gamma rays source used for the analysis.
i
. J 2
From the above, it appears that there are electronic devices available to perform full scale response tests of the high range radiation monitors' electrical circuit For example, the General Atomic catalogue for this instrument specifically states I l
that the aforementioned Keithly current sources provide a source for instrument sensitivity check.
A concern of the Region IV memorandum was: "Is it necessary to periodically demon-strate that the detector will properly respond to a radiation source over the designated range (10 R/hr)?".
It is our position that electronic checks by signal substitution using a cali-brated current source would be a satisfactory method of demonstrating that the ;
syste electronics would respond to rx!iation fields over the range of 10 R/hr to 10 R/hr. Using a radiation source tc show that the ionization chant >er is responding commensurate 1y over the entire range is not justifiable because of practical considerations in radioactive source size requirements and the radiation dose that would be received by personnel handling such sources. ' Since the low- j 1
ranges (< 10 R/hr) are required to be checked with a radiation source in accor-dance with Table II.F.1-3, the integrity and operability of the ionization chast>er will be satisfactorily as ured.
l The final concern was: "Should procedures include calculations for converting monitor readings (R/hr) into concentrations (uCi/cc) for dose assessments?".
l TMI Action Plan item II.F.1 does not require a licensee to convert monitor dose rate. readings into concentrations of radioactive materiti.
I e .
, 3 1 i With respect to the approach for the regional review of Item II.F.1 instruments-tion, we suggest that inspections to verify that licensees meet the criteria of Attachment 3 of !!.F.1 take the same approach as used in routine preoperational inspections of FSAR commitments regarding area radiation monitors. We suggest that the inspections audit the basic elements of !!.F.1 Attachment 3, including:
(1) Determination that the detectors are located in containment so that they i are capable of measuring a " representative" dose rate inside containment.
(2) Verification that the instruments have been calibrated prior to installa-l tion in accordance with Table !!.F.1-3, (WUREG4737). '
1 (3) Verification that they are capable of being calibrated in situ, in accordance with Table !!.F.1-3, (NUREG4737) at low ranges (<10 R/hr). !
(4) Verification that they will be electronically checked on ranges >10 R/hr to assure calibration integrity at the high ranges.
{
Inspection and acceptance by the Regions of each of the abwe items and the :
criteria of !!.F.1 would be compatible with our position on how !!.F.1 should '
be reviewed for acceptability.
a s. 3 a
, , s
. at i .\a f >
- r r.~. v ? s.: *w . v = . . . : :-::. :. . : :. - .:: .:. .: . ::. :-
ja..: . ma x ,~r.:. ~ .-vv. ')
GEM (Sal ATCWC CCW7ANY PO Ma e Mt SAN D(!C C480R*..A st 38 p,9 m u,a HIGH PA:GE Rt.3:ATIC: :CilTC?.
TYPE CA'.!! RAT:Cri REFSRT S'.:~~.MY ABSTPJ.CT FTC4 E-115-339 (FFEL::.::2Y) 0;ERGY' DOSE RATE RESP 0iSE SOURCE (R/HR) (A/R/HR)
.66 1.05 x 10-11j Co-60 (RADCAL) 1.17 +1. 33'4EV 102 1.16 x 10-11 Co-60(R-5) 4 x 103 1.1 x-10-Il Co-60 (SALK) 1.03 x 10-Il 3 x 10 4-662 KEY 1 l'.13 x 10-11 Cs-137 1.03 x 10-11 2
5 1.07.x 10-II I 1.01 x.10-11 2x10 1 RAY 70 KEY (ETF) 3.7 <9.14 x1 0 Il5s,12 1.5 11.39 1.019xx 10 10-I1 117 1:E7 (EFT)
- ~
167 r..- (EF / ) 1.9 j 210 KE'.' (EFF) 1.4 1.013 x IC-Il 't
{
Lit; EAR 4.5 IIIV (AV) 5 x 10 6 1.13 x 10-Il !
ACCELEUTCR -
4 hg.n /.c 7 I w /0, "
I w
') (j s
l
. , _ . . . . _ _ . -. w .- - .. -l RCVl010?tG . ;
, ,i P F L I C A TIC N _ . . _ . -
+ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .
or. e r . .. .... n v i n l oso.: m vio-7m, -
ui.n 6 mev .
, ]
n --y ,-- l
- '\
o' j i
)
j CAtlNG CHARACTER! SIT I__C_ .
\
Grrna fluz 100 to 10 R/hr 7
i Operating Range '
8 9 2 kV and 801. Saturation 10 R/hr 1 x 10"II amp /R/hr Grea sensitivity ,
I
.400 to 1,000 Volts Minirnum
. Voltage Range
IM 2 x 10~II amp +20%, -60%
t.ive Zero, U Source 120% for the range of 100 Kcv to j Energy Respanse 1) 3 tieV
\
l l
ilRON"!!.TAL C0 tid 1T10NS '
t Yibration i Curve A, figure 1 Horizont al Vert ic al figure 2 I
l l
t a
1 ,
s
~
t u .a. r is T CRI AL-t ;,.,9 7,y;:11 SCIC.,HCE..G c. . . .. . s..CORPO.R
, , c ... 3 Tl3.1 a:,o l e-.< . o. c ~. . . . . . . e . .
I 'SH -
j
' n. c. =
- iu a HMH E M/CL' A2fA MDUWD2 l
M
.- - ...~.- - - - - .
/..Q/ //Fi. 7*/DN l%'A,:%?:F2 j , e . . .-, - , . , o r iso
,, ,, .f,- p - 3 . , , .o, ,, f
((.*. ' Y' .5 e . ,,,,,,
A 624578-00/_- l A
.f.'" . . . . ;, o
- l m m... . . . . .,.
1, . . s . 3
[.' _
'f ' C M 1 DETECTOR - MODEL 877 TEST FUNCTIONS: ECS test is pushbutton and auto matically initiated. Checks electrode configuration er i
RADIATION DETECTED: Photons above 60 kev. ,
electrical operation of dete: tor, cable, polarizing volta.
i FsANGE: 10 R/h to 10' R/h. Corresponds to over 108 application and detector output measurement functio Reds /h of surface tissue dose from mixed radiation. Each successful check lights green light until next chec Unsucce:sful test extinguishes green light and initist ENERGY RESPONSE: Within 207. from 80 kev thru failure relay closure.
2MeV.
. . Channel test pushbutton allows user to inject a sign
- ' SENSITIVITY:~. NorrMal ggis ,mp, pag. greater than full scale into the meter / alarm circuit. Te:
alarm acteation including relays, panet lights and met CAtlBRATION: Co at approx. 300 R/h,35 R/h and circuit.
12 R/h.
RECORDER OUTPUT: 0-SV, standard. Other outp DESIGN CRITERIA: Fulfills NRC Reg Guide 1.97. Levels available up to 10 V.
Meets NRC Reg Guide 1.89 and IEEE 323 (1974).
Request latest test report. COMPUTER OUTPUT: Additional and same as recore 4'
er output.
CONSTRUCTION: Hermeticat'y seated, stainless steel, outer surfaces. Contains no active electronics. lon POWER REQUIREMENTS: 120 V, 60 Hr. 0.2 am chamber type with 1 atm. of air. 240 V,50 Hi '
available on special order. 22 to 32 DC auxiliary power, O ti w.sp. max. can be optional DIMENSIONS: 31.75 cm (12.5")H x 22 86 cm (9")W connected to the unit and wi" N utilized when A x 25.4 cm (10"lD. power is not present.
WEIGHT: 6 Kg (18 tbs.). Shipping wt. 16 Kg (~15 lbs.) DIMENSIONS: 13.4 cm (5.25")H x 21.6 cm (8.5*')
x 39.4 cm (15.5"10.
~
WElGHT: 9 Kg (20 lbs.) Shipping Wt.: 16 Kg (35 lb METEA: Six decade, logarithmic, panel mounted. 10 cm (4") span,90* arc.
RANGE MAGNIFICATION: Function switch allows choice of any two consecutive decades of operational range to be put across full scale. AVAILABLE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA: NRC Reg Guides 1.29/1.100 and MODEL 879 OPTICAL ISOLATOR: Isolates Class t IE EE 323 (1971). Request latest test report. equipment from associated ancillaries.
CONNECTORS: All back panel mounted. Signalinput RECORDER: Various types can be fumished to reco
/.[
l ' om detector, type BNC. High vottrje output to o-tector, type BNC. Alarm output. 26 pin MS type rates of change of radiation level with time as a pari meter. Recorder operation can be initiated by "i Fecorder output. computer output, battery input,10 scate" radiation level.
p.n MS type. AC power input. 3 pin MS type.
ALARM FUNCTIDNS: Two separate rasation alarms MODEL 87815 TERMINATED RADIATION PROC CABLE: Tested as terminated and connected to plus a failure alarm, each with an associated front panel consistent with detector test criteria.
I.ght and closure output itom a Form C.5 amp normatly energired refay. Radiation afarms offer choice of MODEL 876155 DUAL COMPARTMENT CHASSI mar'ual or auto reset. Each radiation alarm is set Accommodates 2 Model 676 Readouts or a Model 8
', behind front panel, at any point on the range. De- Readout /Model 879 Isolator combination. Tested
- pressing radiati:n s'a'm indicator t.ght causes meter to treet Reg Guide 1.29/1.100 seismic qualification. tr indicate set point. cludes flame barrier.
2 VI CTO E2 P F N . I N C. ""'.%A9%CMg;&n?,,'CT&"** t .. ., o , ,.
M Rodels 260 and 261 Sources nd ana cassi,ipo c hnel Curreni ouwi is 20 i A io u a Nodel 260 Nanovolt Source m ad"* = "'ed'"en"* 2 "^ ^<~ ~ia =
10.25% 11 digit on 10-' and binding posts, which may be con.
nected by a *1 ink". Thus, the entire higher rings. to 1.6% 11 digit
,00utput from 10 'V to 1.11V on the 10-" range. Long-term 0 Accuracy from 10.25". to circuit may be contweted to ground at the rnost appropriate stabihty is twtter than 10.15% per l 1 0.75 %
- p. int fee any given situation. month flyricaDy 20.05 to 10.1% l Olew than 10nV absolute thermal i per month 1 on th .wst sensitive
" I' Calibration cntificate is furnished rangn, kymd 3 months af ter The htodel 260 Nanocolt Source a includms temonature and date of cabra6m a secondary standard for calibration. Certification traceable to the National Bureau of Stan. Cal ration maintains stated ac-r anovoltmeter and microvoltmeter curacy for 3 months.
calibration. It can also k used as dards is also available, en accurate voltage source for The instrurnent may also be used potefithmetnc rncawrrments as a decade resistance standard. ,
having 20 02% 4 uracy ai 20s.
and or rue wrr'aa Model 261
- 2 ' ""'r '" ' ad 2 "-
Picoampere Source e
.f
/ ,,, . . . . . - - - . . . . . . .
cc gg _ _ __
and 10.5% a. curacy at 10' through 10D.
Y*a M i
E '8
- The characterization of the hi meg e
hhQ
- 10.25*, accuracy at 10 'A, 10.7". at 10 x 10 "A resistors is beed on a 10-year b'c:'hley pro 6 ram of co!!ccting data os l'. cw uponents, and on in-eDesigned for use in caliber * $
feedbxk ammeten and dbidual time stability l
- 3Ibb'bb
- ehtrometen. ,
measuren.cnts of each resistor.
A cabbraten cretificate including I st3 - ~. . ' tut The Model 2e1 Pusumpere source rs a secondary standard for calibra- range resistoe vabies, temperature tion of picoammeten and elec- coefficients. and temperature and ,
Three 'ront panel dels determine date of calibration is furnished l tremeten it is a " passive" source, l
tbc output voltag, from InV to with each Model 261. Certification j (m$istmg of a se',cctable o to 10V
! 111V Separate low thnmal bmd- traceable to the Natior51 Bureau of ;
voltap in senn with a specially ing posts provide outputs of selected and tested hi meg resistor. Standards and recalibration are l runovohs. microvolts, or als optimany as ailable.
mdhvolts The binding posts are This circuit is omgned for use m lo:ated inside a compartment cahbratmg feedbxL piccammeters
-e- -
g whuh may be ench-cd so tha: and electrometen in the FAST f \
thermal emi varutions de: & ;.r enode Since there is no (mfback / .
bwn air currents may be loop controlhng the output N 'g - "- g " -" g*, 4 voltage. thne will be no interac- 6 .
mirumired.
Thermal emis are im than 10nY t'on between the scura anil the ar m ier.
h Q
- ,h after 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> stabilization. the out- IT ~
put chanres less than 2nV for a 1*C Step change. This estremely stJb!c perfernance n ad.cacJ by 4 h- '
..p, W
El3 using only copper (omponents m l the eutput tirsuitry Circuit l
l
. s
Models 225 and 227 Constant Current Sources l
4iighionihee,onipaneiinaicaie. using th, convenient I,oni.panei Model 225 operation m the voltage iimiting meter as a guide. This meter also e 3<fial wettability from 100nA to mode. ind, cates current and voltage out-100mA, plus trem adjustment P"' ' ""d
When necessary. the 225 can be 0 Voltage complierra from floated up to 500V off ground. Other features include excellent 10Y to 100V
- 500V floating capability Change in output current is only 5 output current regulation, low out-9 AC modulation input ppm of full range per volt. put noise, Iow output capacitance (with correspondingly high outpu'.
The Keithley h1odel 225 is a true A modulation input may be uwd impedance at high frequencies).
to modulate the current supphed current source with full scale fast programming ability and a ranges of 10 to 10 ' A, capable by the 225 with a signal from 50Hz buffered rear panel voltage of culputting currents from 100pA to 500Hz.
""*"'P"'-
o 100mA. Rew!ution and stabihty The outrat current may be deter-are both withm 0 02%. For ranges mined by the vohage apphed to of 10-' through 10" A. the output \ llNC the VOLTAGE PROGRAh!.
is regulated to within 0.05% on the 10 'A range. This regulation Model 227 input,10V corrnponds to full o Up to 1 A. 50W regulatrd output ratige output.
can be maintamtd over the i10V to t 100V comphantc brmts. hse eCursent output is witage is le s than 0 Olr of f ull range programmable
- O P 'I""
- U
- 8 "E' # * *# "' ' '"E' Outrut current is adjusted usmg an compnance hmh MNWW l
' three cabbrated m line switchn A '
fourth m hne dial provides con. The programmaNe hhwiel 227 cur-
% "7 7 l rent source dehrers mutate. ; *j ^). ') )
- tmuous athustment with 0 02".
rewh. tion on i h s urrent range , stab!c high pimer currrnt wnstant "
,. , - [I T ' e -'
l l
escept 10-' A oser fullmaic ranges of I to I
1000mA. with adtuvahic com- _
r-~ ~ pliance voltage. The 3 digit in hne -
/-
E- m - -
_ .. s readout of the h1odel 227 enables 32M IA
- r. #
" ;"' . e I the current output to be set to within 0 005% of range, with a o n O b. ~- full range accuracy of 0.62%.
Using the 2271 programming op-l The 227 has a wntinuously ad- tion. range and compliance limit 0 $
justable un'phance voltage hmit- may also be programmed, and cur-
- which can ba casily set f rom ap- rent output may be programmed proximately 3V to 300Y on the by a resistance r*r a voltage level, i
" 100mA and lower ranges Tbc The option also includes a com-3 1000mA range comp'.ance is phance limit' flag.
sir-darly adiustabh from arrton-
- The ot.trut m!! age is determined The 227 has a true bipolar current by the sohage required to forse imately 3V to 50V This wm- output that can be mislulated.
the selnted current through the phance w!tage hmit ian 14 preet allowing operation as a true AC device under test. The masimum constant current source. The out-culput voltage is set by a front put can be floaird t.p to 1500V panel mntrol As this wmphan,e OII tha' sis ground. with less than !
mlter is e < ceded, automatn ppm of full range change in ou'out cacerr f rom s urrent mode to current per volt off ground.
m't.gr hmemg protn ts the deue sonrnied to the mpvt i
l i
e S
. - - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _