Author Topic: Use of drones inside NPPs? (to get radiation maps) (Read 26318 times)

EugenioGarnica · « **on:** Dec 17, 2012, 10:36 »

Does anyone have any experience in drones (as quad rotor, see picture below) being used inside NPPs to map radiation levels without needing human worker to receive dose?

What do you think about it?

Thanks!!!!

PD: A very interesting video on the topic:

Marlin · « **Reply #1 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 11:54 »

If the rooms it's used in have loose surface contamination the down draft could cause airborne contamination, that may not be an issue as the need for human presence is excluded by use of the drone. There may also be a safety basis issue introduced, that would have to be looked at for each area of use.

An indoor drone brings the AR Parrot to mind about 12 minutes of battery life and about $300 at Brookstone. Can't play music like the robots in the other video but probably much cheaper.

HydroDave63 · « **Reply #2 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 01:14 »

wastefully expensive toy and can't carry instruments suitable for legitimate surveys.

RDTroja · « **Reply #3 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 01:47 »

Quote from: HydroDave63 on Dec 17, 2012, 01:14

wastefully expensive toy and can't carry instruments suitable for legitimate surveys.

But think of the ways you could use it for job coverage if it had some minor weaponry installed...

HydroDave63 · « **Reply #4 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 01:56 »

Quote from: RDTroja on Dec 17, 2012, 01:47

But think of the ways you could use it for job coverage if it had some minor weaponry installed...

Hmmm...maybe cockroach nanobots with Wi-Fi connection, with tiny microphones and cams to record personnel hiding out in cafeterias and commodes, and an onboard RFID reader (ain't RealID badges grand?

) to report personnel locations for ~~disciplinary action for slacking~~ "Search and Rescue" capability. Lookalike cockroach nanobots that perform legit general area surface contamination detection. Therefore, you never know if it is a SniffBot^TM or a RIFbot^TM...

Marlin · « **Reply #5 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 02:21 »

Quote from: RDTroja on Dec 17, 2012, 01:47

But think of the ways you could use it for job coverage if it had some minor weaponry installed...

Are we talking stun guns here or tear gas.

Marlin · « **Reply #6 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 02:34 »

Quote from: HydroDave63 on Dec 17, 2012, 01:14

wastefully expensive toy and can't carry instruments suitable for legitimate surveys.

Emergency response kits for NPPs, DOE, or Homeland Security

Cost benefit could be justified in some specific cases for ALARA. The internals of a minirad style detector, a transmitter, and a GPS may small enough to be carried and effective. The high tech robots in the video may be above the cost benefit of the capital and maintenance costs but a hybrid of the AR parrot or (equivalent) may not.

I would think it would be worth exploring

HydroDave63 · « **Reply #7 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 02:46 »

Quote from: Marlin on Dec 17, 2012, 02:34

Emergency response kits for NPPs, DOE, or Homeland Security Cost benefit could be justified in some specific cases for ALARA. The internals of a minirad style detector, a transmitter, and a GPS may small enough to be carried and effective. The high tech robots in the video may be above the cost benefit of the capital and maintenance costs but a hybrid of the AR parrot or (equivalent) may not.

I would think it would be worth exploring

For actual emergencies, tracked/wheeled robots with extension arms for cameras and probes have proved themselves worthy. Since the OP context was inside of NPPs, the Parrot AR comparison and IH implication of flying drone parts vs. people seems to make this an expensive non-starter.

Marlin · « **Reply #8 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 04:58 »

Quote from: HydroDave63 on Dec 17, 2012, 02:46

For actual emergencies, tracked/wheeled robots with extension arms for cameras and probes have proved themselves worthy. Since the OP context was inside of NPPs, the Parrot AR comparison and IH implication of flying drone parts vs. people seems to make this an expensive non-starter.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Cost of new technology drops as engineers and entrepreneurs (EugenioGarnica) explore new applications. Even if it does not exist in a cost effective configuration now, I suspect if there is a market it will find a way. Drones in the military have found many applications from the Predator drones to the small reconnaissance drones used by foot soldiers in the field. Like the GPS in your car this technology will filter down to a commercial market. Those amazing drones in EugenioGarnica's video I suspect probably would not be cost effective but I suspect that there are a number of HP's looking at a possible new toy and potential applications and how to achieve it as we speak.

retired nuke · « **Reply #9 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 06:09 »

I was at Ginna many years ago and they used a small blimp to take measurements of the Ctmt dome for their SGRP. I think it used a laser. Similar to the beer blimps you can get for you rec room, but a bit bigger. It was pretty cool to watch, and may have some use.
A little helicopter would be nice in the heater bay at power, with a small wifi camera. Not sure a meter would work on it, but my instrument knowledge is old school...
My big concern (and I'm sure OPS) would be how do you keep it from bumping into critical equipment. I know the ones I play with at home leave marks on the walls, ceilings, and dogs....

RDTroja · « **Reply #10 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 07:18 »

Quote from: Marlin on Dec 17, 2012, 02:21

Are we talking stun guns here or tear gas.

Stun guns, tasers, .22 short... nothing serious.

drayer54 · « **Reply #11 on:** Dec 17, 2012, 07:26 »

How do I justify buying one of these to the wife?

I told her it would enhance my security system. I also told her it would allow me to keep an eye on the boy from the other side of the house.

No luck yet.....

Nukeworker secret Santa? I'll buy you one, you buy me one?

EugenioGarnica · « **Reply #12 on:** Dec 18, 2012, 10:58 »

Dear all,

Many thanks for all your comments (including the stun guns and .22 option, we will explore... ;-) )

Very interesting the use of the blimp, clearly more stable than a quad rotor. We are using some quad rotors in our labs and we have also some marks in walls and ceilings.

I am a little bit confused about cost problem when we talk about this kind of equipment... I have worked many years performing services in NPPs, mainly for big component inspections (SG ECTs, Reactor Vessel UT, etc.), and the equipment we used was VERY expensive. Do you think that a blimp, or a robot that could map radiation in Rx building areas without needing personnel to receive dose would not be worth some thousand U$?

I will appreciate any more comment on this issue. Thanks!

Eugenio

GLW · « **Reply #13 on:** Dec 18, 2012, 12:08 »

Quote from: EugenioGarnica on Dec 18, 2012, 10:58

...I have worked many years performing services in NPPs, mainly for big component inspections (SG ECTs, Reactor Vessel UT, etc.), and the equipment we used was VERY expensive.....

S/G's, Reactor Vessels, et al, keep the plant on line and making money,....

Quote from: EugenioGarnica on Dec 18, 2012, 10:58

...Do you think that a blimp, or a robot that could map radiation in Rx building areas....

Survey maps do not keep the plant on-line, do not make money,....

Marlin · « **Reply #14 on:** Dec 18, 2012, 01:01 »

Quote from: EugenioGarnica on Dec 18, 2012, 10:58

I am a little bit confused about cost problem when we talk about this kind of equipment... I have worked many years performing services in NPPs, mainly for big component inspections (SG ECTs, Reactor Vessel UT, etc.), and the equipment we used was VERY expensive. Do you think that a blimp, or a robot that could map radiation in Rx building areas without needing personnel to receive dose would not be worth some thousand U$?

Larger firms have much better sales engineers who can make the value of shiny stainless steel complex tools and equipment's value exceed the cost.

Item's that reduce critical path work are much easier to justify than survey equipment.

Radwraith · « **Reply #15 on:** Dec 19, 2012, 12:05 »

I was recently at a plant that was considering the use of the AR drone to check for steam leaks in containment. The Idea was scrapped for 2 reasons. One the cross drafts and air currents in the area would likely have destabilized the drone's flight dynamics. Secondly, Controlling the device meant an unevaluated EM transmitter in containment which is apparently a big no-no! I don't think we'll be seeing the "survey drone" just yet.

Marlin · « **Reply #16 on:** Dec 19, 2012, 08:04 »

Quote from: Radwraith on Dec 19, 2012, 12:05

I was recently at a plant that was considering the use of the AR drone to check for steam leaks in containment. The Idea was scrapped for 2 reasons. One the cross drafts and air currents in the area would likely have destabilized the drone's flight dynamics. Secondly, Controlling the device meant an unevaluated EM transmitter in containment which is apparently a big no-no! I don't think we'll be seeing the "survey drone" just yet.

That may be overcome by changing the frequency. I worked one job where the frequency worked fine to control a robot forklift but failed in the facility. Excellent point but just one more obstacle to overcome or only use it in shutdown modes of operation.

EugenioGarnica · « **Reply #17 on:** Dec 20, 2012, 03:08 »

Dear Radwraith and Marlin, many thanks for your comments.

It seems today we don't have enough technical capabilities so drones are a viable alternative for inspection in NPPs. We assume EM interferences is a big deal (I have already heard 2 problems related to that in Spanish and brazilian NPPs: a turbine trip and an spurious signal to run the containment spray system... fortunately while it was discharged!). It may be overcome by building an autonomous robot that needs no external EM signal while being "on duty", but that's clearly not an easy task. The air currents seems still more problematic, but still it may perhaps be possible to have a so-smart robot that can compensate them (today it's quite impressive how this kind of devices increase capability at a so high speed).

But, agreeing that today it seems not viable, the big question we have is... is it worth the effort to overcome all present technical limitations the possible gain we will have with an autonomous drone that can take measurements without the need of a worker getting dose? (taking into account the risks of not being able to succeed!!!) What do you think?

Do you have any other idea about where it may be useful the use of this kind of robots/drones (out of the radiation surveys mapping) in NPPs? Some kind of other inspections (besides the personnel location for ~~disciplinary action for slacking~~ "Search and Rescue" capability

)?

Many thanks for your very interesting comments!

Eugenio

GLW · « **Reply #18 on:** Dec 20, 2012, 04:09 »

Can they carry CsI or CdTe with an electronics package through sewer piping in a reproducible pattern?

EugenioGarnica · « **Reply #19 on:** Dec 21, 2012, 03:27 »

Dear GLW,

I assume that for sewer piping, or any kind of piping, it's better to use some of the typical robots that are usually used in many places (in horizontal pipes, normal or belt wheels may be enough, in vertical pipes, some kind of magnets may be added; some examples below). Don't you think so? or I am missing something?

GLW · « **Reply #20 on:** Dec 21, 2012, 05:48 »

Well, you opened the door to thinking outside the box,...

So I'm thinking less decon time, if any, ergo less T&M,...

Much faster ability to move through the piping to view/survey areas of interest, ergo less T&M,...

Fewer access points required, ergo less T&M,...

The trick in rad services is equivalent or better results for equivalent or less money, OR,...

Reacting early and aggressively to evolving regulations which change the playing field (e.g. NEI 07-07, NEI 09-14),...

And that's off the top of my head at 5:32AM EST without my coffee yet,...

With the scads of documentation available for those projects which have been done it should be easy to mock-up, extrapolate and then perform a CBA,...

With a positive CBA coming in with anything better than a 20% margin over conventional means and methods while retaining comparable conformance with industry DQA/DQO then a marketing campaign targeted at the appropriate clients should result in some trailbreaker contracts,...

With successful projects validated by regulatory approval of the results followed up by a demand for the services and products you have growth,....

etc,...etc.,....

check your PM's,...

SloGlo · « **Reply #21 on:** Dec 28, 2012, 12:26 »

are these toys gonna be free, oar at a grately reduced cost, on initial usage? if knot, then their had better be a grate big insurance policy in effect.

EugenioGarnica · « **Reply #22 on:** Jan 03, 2013, 06:50 »

Dear SloGlo,

You mean you see them dangerous for damaging things or for damaging themselves?

SloGlo · « **Reply #23 on:** Jan 03, 2013, 04:21 »

things. especially when using the airborne drones, their's a lot of fairly delicate instrumentation, wiring, etc. that may not take kindly to bean crashed upon. one of the scenarios that aye sea these been used would be during ops or immediately upon shut down. if yore seismic restraint program is still in effect, it might be a bad time for flying around inside the can.

EugenioGarnica · « **Reply #24 on:** Jan 07, 2013, 09:50 »

OK, I understand a drone will need to be VERY well protected (both physically and by control systems) to avoid that it harms any other equipment.
Related to scenarios, I think it would be definitively easier/safer during refuelings, but... perharps the more interest one would be during operation?

Author Topic: Use of drones inside NPPs? (to get radiation maps) (Read 26318 times)

drayer54