RE: Detection of HEU, etc

["Smith, Douglas B." <DOUGLAS.B.SMITH@saic.com>]

Dear Gerry:



I am interested in a presentation on the detectability of HEU, how might I

review this information?



Douglas Smith

SAIC

Douglas.B.Smith@saic.com



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

To: Brian Rees; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Cc: Dude

Sent: 1/29/2005 9:15 AM

Subject: Re: Detection of HEU, etc



First my main drive on this issue is detection of HEU without tags

potentially loaded in TEUs or sea containers. It's still a big problem

trying to detect HEU especially with containerized freight at seaports.

The problems are, 1. Cost... Radiation detectors that are big enough to

be successful are often costly. 2. Rate. To work at seaports  without

creating a major economic bottlenecks, the systems have to inspect the

container in a matter of seconds. This is hard. 3. Environmental

effects. 4. Container rotations. Many many containers enter the US and

once unloaded are sent to a container storage facility with many never

returning back in service. 5. Knowing when a container enters the system

and who is responsible for entry. 6. Knowing that the cargo is secured

during transit. and 6. knowing when the shipment is complete and the

container is deleted from service. 7. Adequate training and SUPERVISION

by shipowners and port authorities by ! qualified HPs.......

 

There are some 200 million container moves worldwide every year with 94

million entering the United States.

 

No current devise can achieve this with HEU and this may have to be done

with portable devises attached to containers. We will probably end up

using a system that starts at foreign seaports when the cargo departs.

There are fairly low-cost radiation detection systems that can be

attached to cargo containers. The signal here is small, but such a

system would have a very long time to operate (the length of the ship's

voyage) and it could transmit it's signal quickly to inspectors using

RFID (radio-frequency identification) technology. Such a system might

spot suspicious containers which could then be examined with more

sophisticated and more intrusive detectors when the container reaches

port.  

 

I am told that there are some interesting applications coming from the

Idaho Accelerator Center, but they are irradiating material with lots of

photons which is dangerous for humans. It seems clear that a single

'layer' of detection will never work in many cases. 

 

If anyone is interested in a presentation on the subject of detection of

HEU please contact me off list.

 





Brian Rees <brees@lanl.gov> wrote:



Folks,



Many instruments can detect HEU, the problem is that the signal may be 

small enough that it's difficult to discern from other sources, and that

to 

avoid nuisance alarms many organizations turn the sensitivity on 

instruments down (make them less sensitive). Of course, if you shield

it, 

the problem is more complex.

OK, here's my soapbox...

That is why it is VITAL that appropriate training be provided to ANYBODY



who gets an instrument. People understand that their jobs are important,



and everybody with a uniform or badge takes their responsibilities 

seriously, they WANT too do a good job, but they have to know "what's 

what". An understanding of radiation, and radiation detection is not 

intuitive, and the debate over the potential hazard(s) of single mrems 

makes it difficult for someone who has plenty of other issues to !

consider 

during their "regular jobs" to do exactly what "we'd" like them to do

when 

they encounter something radioactive. Training them for 100% of what

they 

may encounter, and exactly what to do 100% of the time is not 

realistic. 70%, 80%, 90% is debatable.



There are solutions. While I'm not a big fan of DOE itself, the RAP 

program is an excellent avenue for responders to get help when they 

encounter radiation related issues. The proper resources can be called 

upon, and assistance will be obtained. Many States have excellent 

radiation programs, and provide response assistance as well. Any

response 

must consider the entire situation, and be graded for the situation. As 

more people get and use radiation detectors, the response will get

better, 

but we must ensure that people don't become dismissive or complacent.

So, 

if you are involved with responders and instruments, ensure they are 

appropriately trained so they will do the ! right things, 10 minutes

isn't 

enough, 8 hours may be too much.



The risk from an RDD or the potential for a mushroom cloud can be

debated, 

but these things will happen, and we must do the best we can as a

community 

to help the public when it does. As we've seen from Boston this month,

the 

public (and the media) will be disproportionately concerned when the

word 

"radioactive" is used.



(obviously) my own opinions, not those of my management or employment

chain



Brian Rees



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/