AW: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity

Tue Apr 10 18:44:00 CDT 2007

Dear Jack, Neil, Gary, Wes, Harold.....

To be honest (and I always am) I suspected in the beginning that this
message was a hoax.... Thanks to everybody who convinced me with his message
that this was not the case and that it was based on obviously real
situations. Unfortunately it seems that there is no real answer to the
question, because no research seems to have been done on that topic. My only
hint - a very serious one - is, that people from aerosol science should know
more. 

Personally I would like to thank all of you for your friendly comments,
something which had become rare on RADSAFE..... 

Gary, believe me, when you spend a year in a country where German is spoken,
you will end up with perfect German skills but beware of Austria, because
our everyday spoken language might be different from the written one
depending on the region and the kind of people you have contact with. Sorry
that my joke "air line" (correctly "Luftschlauch") vs. "airline" was not
understood - I know the difference!

Best regards and best wishes,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Earley, Jack N
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 00:41
An: neilkeeney at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity

Thanks Neil--

I did ask our ALARA center earlier if they could do some controlled testing
since that's within their purview. But even if they can provide some
empirical information, there would still be that nasty little issue of
"control" that doesn't necessarily apply to the real world. That's why I'm
hoping someone is storing some anecdotal data that they're willing to share.

For anyone's information, my process engineering contact tells me that for
air sparging in a pit, 0.1-0.5 percent of the radioactivity in the water may
become airborne, using the entire volume of the pit for the calculation
(I've seen a mockup of the pit during sparging, and since it looks like a
Jacuzzi, the entire volume is appropriate). Interestingly, I remember that
that's a close correlation to the thumb rule that some commercial plants use
for a cold spill on a floor becoming airborne.

Unfortunately, that still leaves me a little "high and dry" re. arc welding
in a basin. 

Jack Earley
Health Physicist
509.372.9532

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of neilkeeney at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:31 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity

Jack et al: 
As any former Refuel floor RP Tech or Refuel Operator could also say...
While working around various fuel pools and vessels during refuel outages
I've observed ion chamber deflections from bubbles (xenon, krypton, etc.) as
they break the surface. Such occurences would typically be monitored by
local RP technicians, especially if there were any fuel pin integrity
compromises during the previous fuel cycle. I've also observed migration
(creeping) of contaminants as a function of heated fuel-pool water when
chillers were taken out of service for extended periods of time, and so
forth.  So.  There's nothing so extraordinary about what Jack is indicating.
Without knowing the source, I suppose the problem I would be trying to
resolve is "what is the worst-case scenario" for the work activity.  Since
there does not appear to be a reliable formula for predicting "cause and
effect" with respect to work activity variables, (rate of material ablation
or release of activity, water-depth, surface area, ventilation turnover,
temp, etc.) versus predictions of activity (whatever the source material
is...) concentrations at the surface (effect) then a logical course of
action would seem to be to conduct empirical field trials under positive
controlled conditions using minimal quantities to observe and plot "cause -
effect" using condtions that would be similar to those during work
execution.  Who knows, you might even be able to write for a grant to do it!

Neil Keeney 

-----Original Message-----
From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca
To: Jack_N_Earley at RL.gov; hacrad at comcast.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity

Jack 

Was the radioactivity in the ANL situation from the water, or from Th-Nat in
the welding rods? 

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 
Vancouver, B. C. 
Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca 

----- Original Message ----- From: "Earley, Jack N" <Jack_N_Earley at RL.gov>
To: "Harold Careway" <hacrad at comcast.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity 

Thanks for the clarification, Hal. Another scenario would be arc welding
under water in a radioactive basin/fuel pool. ANL had some uptakes a few
years back from this activity that was unanticipated from initial air
samples. 

Jack Earley
Health Physicist
509.372.9532 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Harold Careway
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:04 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airborne radioactivity 

Franz,
I'm guessing I may know what is going on here but can't really help. Given a
line carrying a radioactive gas, if that line breaks under water the gases
can be released to the water and depending upon flow rate, gas content,
temperature of the gas and water, and water depth; the resultant bubbles can
be scrubbed in the water resulting in various levels of contamination in the
air above the water as well as in the water. Up to the point of entrainment
in the water, the process is strictly physical and non-chemical. Once the
material is in the water, chemical variations compound the analysis. The
solution is non-trivial (you need elliptic integrals) and though the NRC has
done significant work in this area, the only really accurate and valid work
I've ever seen was done by GE Nuclear and is strictly proprietary. 

To find what is available you can start with NUREG/CR-5901, "A Simplified
Model of Aerosol Scrubbing by a Water Pool Overlying Core Debris Interacting
With Concrete", then go onto Google and look for "pool scrubbing" and
"DECON". 

Frankly, trying to do a realistic calculation or model is extremely really,
really hard to do. I know of no rules and thumb and would be interested if
anyone else does. 

Hal Careway
San Jose, CA
GE Retired. 

-----Original Message----- 
>From Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:38 PM 

Dear Health Physicist, 

This is the first of two messages today, which request from RADSAFErs some
information without giving even the slightest details. As a Health Physicist
you should know, that there are thousands of different radionuclides, which
behave differently, coming in different chemical forms, have different
solubility etc. etc. Do you want to know the radon level to be
expected...... bla, bla, bla. 

Not being a native speaker I regard "air line" being rather in the context
of "DELTA", "Austrian Airlines", "Lufthansa", "Iberia" etc. 

I hope you can explain, what you really want. 

Franz 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R. 
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA 

>From Earley, Jack N

Does anyone have any calculations or guidelines for determining the
resulting airborne radioactivity levels from an air line breaking under
water, relative to the air flow rate (or from performing an air sparge in
radioactive water)? 

Jack Earley
Health Physicist
509.372.9532 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/