Reference, Questions and Help > MARSSIM
ISOCS
Rennhack:
--- Quote from: Laning on May 19, 2008, 06:27 ---Answer 1. ISOCS does not replace scanning applications. Its designed for fixed point measurements.
Answer 2. Acceptance of the ISOCS technology depends on the regulatory agency you're dealing with. There's definitely some modeling voodoo that will need to be accepted by whomever has the responsibility for approving the data. I've found quite a few State Regulators unwilling to accept the ISOCS data alone in lieu of samples. My recommendation is to ask the question up front to whatever regulating agency you're dealing with.
--- End quote ---
If I remember correctly, NJ was one of those states that does not like ISOCS. -- As Mr Laning stated, you DO need to get your regulators buy-off on any technique you decide to use.
atomicarcheologist:
A couple of questions
Rennhack what statisical protocol was used to determine the soil sampling frequency in accordance with the ISOCS technology?
Lanning Why can't ISOCS data be used in lieu of scan data since it can look at many square meters simultaneously?
Rennhack:
The soil samples were taken in a tradilional triangular patern, based on the standard MARSSIM approach of using the sigma of the historical data, etc. The soil sample techniqui was right out of the manual, nothing changed.
As I said, they used it just to replace scanning in some locations. (They took static measurement with the isocs at overlaping locations).
Llama:
I guess I had better weigh in. Mike is right we used soil sampling techniques IAW MARSSIM. We elected to use ISOCS however in lieu of scanning. We presented a Technical Based Document to the regulators defining the process prior to performing the surveys. The process was based on performing a series of fixed-point measurements in an overlapping pattern. We used 90 and 180 degree columination in the measurements depending on the proximety to the ISFSI. The modeling was developed for a 15cm soil depth with the premise that all the activity existed at the edge of the field-of-view to determine the EMC for Class 1 units. We used this methodology since it would present the least efficient situation and would be the most conservative. Additionally we surrogated the nuclide-specific measurements for the Hard-to-Detect radionuclides, where applicable. For Class 2 units we set the investigation levels at any plant-related activity identified. Investigations were performed with a combination of hand-held instrumentation (SPA-3) and soil sampling. We used the ISOCS software provided, however, one of our Engineers developed a script that took the measurement data from the local laptop and generated a report. The script then sent the report to our server which allowed the Engineers access to "real-time" scan data. Measurements could either be initiated locally in a peer-to-peer configuration or remotely using our wireless system. The regulators and the State agreed with our methodology and allowed us to use ISOCS. We did perform SPA-3 scans in areas where ISOCS was inaccessable (i.e. woods and hilly terrains). Did I miss anything Mike?
Llama:
As a footnote to my last post. We used ISOCS in lieu of scanning, however, I believe that ISOCS could also be used in lieu of sampling. Since the methodology of using ISOCS instead of sampling is unique, a Technical Basis Document would have to be developed, backed by empirical data, much the same as when we proposed using it for scanning.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version